The Templars 9781138650626, 9780367756765, 9781003163510

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
List of maps
List of figures
Acknowledgments
List of contributors
Introduction
Part I Rise
1 Andrew de Baudement and the early years of the Templars in Champagne
2 The Templars’ land acquisition policy in the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem, c. 1130–1187
3 The Templars and the rulers of the Christian East: collaboration or conflict of interest?
4 The Templars as Milites Christi and martyrs in God’s army (1180–1307): Byzantine saints as devotional, artistic, and military models in Southwestern France
5 Collata beneficio filii Dei militibus suis: Templar spirituality at the fortress of ‘Atlit in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
6 The Templar castles of Barberà, Gardeny, and Miravet: status quaestionis
Part II Fall
7 The “lost boys” of the Templars: some remarks on the life of the Templar corsair Roger de Flor
8 The Templars’ banking activities and their potential connections to the Order’s demise
9 Fugitives during the Templar Trial
10 The Trial of the Templars in Britain and Ireland
11 The Trial of the Templars in Germany
Part III Legacy
12 The Templar Trial and the Teutonic Order
13 The image of the Templars in modern Castilian nobiliary treatises: a note on Juan Benito Guardiola (1530–1600)
14 Colliding perceptions: Italian views of the Templar Trial from contemporary authors to Angelo Fumagalli’s Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi (1792)
15 From legend to reality: recent historiography on the Templar Order
Suggested readings
Index

Citation preview

THE TEMPLARS

As the oldest of the military religious orders and the one with an unexpected and dramatic downfall, the knighthood of the Templars continues to fascinate academics and students as well as the public at large. A collection of fifteen chapters accompanied by a historical introduction, The Templars: The Rise, Fall, and Legacy of a Military Religious Order recounts and analyzes this community’s rise and establishment in both the crusader states of the Eastern Mediterranean and the countries of Western Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, reflects on the proceedings launched against it and its subsequent fall (1307– 1314), and explores its medieval and post-medieval legacy, including an assessment of current research pertaining to the Templars and suggestions for future explorations. Showcasing a wide range of methodological approaches and primary source materials, this volume unites historical, art-historical, theological, archaeological, and historiographical perspectives, and it features the work and voices of scholars from various academic generations who reside in eight different countries (Israel, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and the United States of America). Jochen Burgtorf is Professor of Medieval World History at California State University, Fullerton (USA). His work encompasses the crusades, military orders, papacy, refugees, law, and the Vikings. His publications include The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars (2008), The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314) (2010, with Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson), The Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Crusades (2020, with Helen J. Nicholson), as well as articles in Ordines Militares, Fourteenth Century England, and Crusades Subsidia. Shlomo Lotan is Lecturer at Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (Israel). His research focuses on urban planning theory, crusades, and military orders. His publications include The Teutonic Order in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (2012, in Hebrew), as well as articles in Ordines Militares, Analecta Theutonica I (2014), Fear and Loathing in the North: Jews and Muslims in Medieval Scandinavia and the Baltic Region (2015), and The Military Orders VII (2019). Enric Mallorquí-Ruscalleda (Ph.D., Princeton University) works at Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis (USA). An internationally acclaimed scholar and author, he is the editor-in-chief of Studia Iberica et Americana, the editorial codirector of the Centro de Estudos Medievais: Oriente & Ocidente (University of São Paulo), a member of numerous editorial boards as well as international and interdisciplinary research groups, and a member of the Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española.

THE MILITARY RELIGIOUS ORDERS: HISTORY, SOURCES, AND MEMORY Edited by Jochen Burgtorf and Nicholas Morton

The military religious orders were initially established in the twelfth century to care for and protect western pilgrims in the Holy Land. They later helped to defend the crusader states, participated in the Iberian Reconquista, and eventually played a significant role in warfare, charity, commerce, colonization, and cross-cultural encounters in Europe, the Mediterranean World, and even the New World. The Military Religious Orders: History, Sources, and Memory stimulates research on this fascinating phenomenon.

General Editors • •

Jochen Burgtorf (California State University, Fullerton, USA): jburgtorf@ fullerton.edu Nicholas Morton (Nottingham Trent University, England, UK): nicholas. [email protected]

Editorial board • • • • • • • • •

Adrian Boas (University of Haifa, Israel) Emanuel Buttigieg (University of Malta, Malta) Paul Crawford (California University of Pennsylvania, USA) Daniel Gullo (Hill Museum & Manuscript Library, Collegeville, Minnesota, USA) Philippe Josserand (Université de Nantes, France) Juhan Kreem (Tallinna Linnarchiiv, Tallinn, Estonia) Helen Nicholson (Cardiff University, Wales, UK) Jürgen Sarnowsky (Universität Hamburg, Germany) Kristjan Toomaspoeg (Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy)

THE TEMPLARS The Rise, Fall, and Legacy of a Military Religious Order

Edited by Jochen Burgtorf, Shlomo Lotan and Enric Mallorquí-Ruscalleda

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Jochen Burgtorf, Shlomo Lotan and Enric Mallorquí-Ruscalleda; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Jochen Burgtorf, Shlomo Lotan and Enric MallorquíRuscalleda to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. 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. Trademark 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 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-65062-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-75676-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-16351-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

CONTENTS

List of maps List of figures Acknowledgments List of contributors

viii ix xi xii

Introduction

1

JO C H E N BU R GTO RF, SHLO MO LOTAN, AND E N R I C M A LLO RQUÍ - RUSCALLE DA

PART I

Rise

13

1 Andrew de Baudement and the early years of the Templars in Champagne

15

K A RO L P O L E JOWSK I

2 The Templars’ land acquisition policy in the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem, c. 1130–1187

38

M I C H AE L E H R LI CH

3 The Templars and the rulers of the Christian East: collaboration or conflict of interest?

50

M ARI E -A N N A CHE VALI E R

4 The Templars as Milites Christi and martyrs in God’s army (1180–1307): Byzantine saints as devotional, artistic, and military models in Southwestern France SO N I A K I RC H

v

81

CONTENTS

5 Collata beneficio filii Dei militibus suis: Templar spirituality at the fortress of ‘Atlit in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem

103

S H L O M O L OTAN AND JOACHI M ROTHE R

6 The Templar castles of Barberà, Gardeny, and Miravet: status quaestionis

126

J OA N F U GU E T SANS

PART II

Fall

159

7 The “lost boys” of the Templars: some remarks on the life of the Templar corsair Roger de Flor

161

C H R I STI AN VO GE L

8 The Templars’ banking activities and their potential connections to the Order’s demise

179

I G N AC I O D E LA TO RRE

9 Fugitives during the Templar Trial

188

A LAN F O R E Y

10 The Trial of the Templars in Britain and Ireland

209

H E L E N J. N ICHO LSO N

11 The Trial of the Templars in Germany

234

J O C H E N BURGTO RF

PART III

Legacy

249

12 The Templar Trial and the Teutonic Order

251

K LAU S M I LI TZE R

13 The image of the Templars in modern Castilian nobiliary treatises: a note on Juan Benito Guardiola (1530–1600) J O S É AN TO NI O GUI LLÉ N B E RRE ND E RO

vi

263

CONTENTS

14 Colliding perceptions: Italian views of the Templar Trial from contemporary authors to Angelo Fumagalli’s Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi (1792)

274

E LE N A B E LLO M O

15 From legend to reality: recent historiography on the Templar Order

299

K R I STJA N TO O MASPO E G

Suggested readings Index

326 329

vii

MAPS

1 2 3

Eastern Mediterranean Western Europe Central Europe

xvi xvii xviii

viii

FIGURES

1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5

4.6 4.7

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3

Genealogy 1: Baudement Genealogy 2: Montlhéry, Dampierre-sur-Aube, Broyes, and Plancy (simplified) Genealogy 3: Montlhéry in Outremer (Latin East) (until the 1130s, simplified) Le Dognon at Cressac-Saint-Genis, placement of the wall paintings Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunès, western portal, capitals of the northern pillars, martyrdom of St. Paul (top) and St. Peter and St. Stephen (bottom) Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunès, southern vault, second bay, St. Martin, bishop of Tours, giving a blessing Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunes, fourth bay from the west, above the liturgical space with the main altar, triumphal arch Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunes, second and first bay, in front of the western façade’s oculus, processional cross with two candle holders Église de la Décollation de Saint Jean-Baptiste de Paulhac, iconography of the liturgical space Église de la Décollation de Saint Jean-Baptiste de Paulhac, eastern wall of the choir, Crucifixion, Sedes Sapientiae, and martyrdom of St. Catherine of Alexandria ‘Atlit Castle, general view, looking southwest ‘Atlit Castle, cemetery, looking northeast ‘Atlit Castle, cemetery, looking west ‘Atlit Castle, cemetery, detail Templar commanderies in the Crown of Aragon Barberà Castle, general plan Barberà Castle, chapel, plan and sections

ix

35 36 37 97 98 99 99 100 101 102 124 124 125 125 146 147 147

FIGURES

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19

Barberà Castle, seen from the east Barberà Castle, chapel, interior Barberà Castle, main east façade Gardeny Castle, general plan Gardeny Castle, buildings, plan and section Gardeny Castle, view from the south Gardeny Castle, palace, seen from the northeast Gardeny Castle, palace, interior Gardeny Castle, church, seen from the southwest Gardeny Castle, church, interior Miravet Castle, aerial view Miravet Castle, plan and section Miravet Castle, general view of the western wall Miravet Castle, conventual church, interior Miravet Castle, refectory, section and plan, showing the 2011 excavations Miravet Castle, refectory, after the 2011 excavations

x

148 149 149 150 150 151 151 152 152 153 154 155 156 156 157 157

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editors are immensely grateful to Kelly Donovan (California State University, Fullerton) who created the maps and prepared the genealogies, drawings, and photos for publication. They also wish to thank Michael Greenwood (Routledge/Taylor & Francis) for patiently guiding this volume to completion. All errors that remain are our own.

xi

CONTRIBUTORS

Elena Bellomo is an honorary research associate at Cardiff University (Wales). Her publications include articles on the crusades and the military orders, as well as the monographs 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). Jochen Burgtorf is Professor of Medieval World History at California State University, Fullerton (USA). His work encompasses the crusades, military orders, papacy, refugees, law, and the Vikings. His publications include The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars (2008), The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314) (2010, with Paul F. Crawford and Helen J. Nicholson), The Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Crusades (2020, with Helen J. Nicholson), as well as articles in Ordines Militares, Fourteenth Century England, and Crusades Subsidia. Marie-Anna Chevalier is Associate Professor of Medieval History at Université Paul-Valéry-Montpellier 3 (France). Her research focuses on the military orders, the Eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Armenia, and the crusader states), and Eastern Christians. Her publications include Les ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne (2009), La fin de l’ordre du Temple (2012), Élites chrétiennes et formes du pouvoir en Méditerranée centrale et orientale (2017, with Isabelle Ortega), and Ordres militaires et territorialité au Moyen Âge (2020). Michael Ehrlich is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (Israel). He has published numerous articles on Islamization, crusaders, urbanization and de-urbanization, emigration and immigration, pilgrimage, the reconstruction of medieval battlefields, medieval Jerusalem and Galilee, and the Palestinian community in Chile. Alan J. Forey, who has long been retired, taught in the Universities of Oxford, St. Andrews, and Durham (UK). His publications have been mainly on the

xii

CONTRIBUTORS

military orders and include The Military Orders from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries (1992) and The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (2001). He has also published articles on other aspects of crusading history and is now working on the papacy’s involvement in the Spanish reconquest. Joan Fuguet Sans holds a doctorate in art history from the Universidad de Barcelona (Catalonia). His doctoral thesis, “L’arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya,” was awarded the City of Barcelona’s History Prize (1989). He has been a professor at the Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Barcelona, is a correspondent of the Real Academia Catalana de Bellas Artes de Sant Jordi, and has published, alone or in coauthorship with Carme Plaza Arqué, various books and articles on Templar and Hospitaller history and architecture. José Antonio Guillén Berrendero is Associate Professor of Early Modern History at Rey Juan Carlos University (Spain). His research areas include heraldry and the military orders in early modern history. He has published extensively on nobiliary treatises in early modern Europe as well as comparative history. His publications include books, book chapters, and journal articles, most notably La edad de la nobleza: Identidad nobiliria en Castilla y Portugal, 1556–1621 (2012) and Nobilitas: Estudios sobre lo nobiliario en la edad Moderna (2014, with Juan Hernández Franco and Santiago Martínez Hernández). Sonia Kirch received her M.A. in Art History from the Université de Rennes II Haute-Bretagne and her Ph.D. in Art History from the Université Michel de Montaigne de Bordeaux III (France) (dissertation: “Milites Christi: Les programmes peints et sculptés en France dans les églises des hospitaliers de SaintJean et des templiers (fin 12e siècle à 1312): Étude iconographique”). She is an independent researcher, and her work encompasses the papal theocracy, crusades, military orders, Byzantium, and the various exchanges between East and West during the Middle Ages. Shlomo Lotan is Lecturer at Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (Israel). His research focuses on urban planning theory, crusades, and military orders. His publications include The Teutonic Order in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (2012, in Hebrew), as well as articles in Ordines Militares, Analecta Theutonica I (2014), Fear and Loathing in the North: Jews and Muslims in Medieval Scandinavia and the Baltic Region (2015), and The Military Orders VII (2019). Enric Mallorquí-Ruscalleda (Ph.D., Princeton University) works at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (USA). An internationally acclaimed scholar and author, he is the editor-in-chief of Studia Iberica et Americana, the editorial codirector of the Centro de Estudos Medievais: Oriente & Ocidente (University of São Paulo), a member of numerous editorial

xiii

CONTRIBUTORS

boards as well as international and interdisciplinary research groups, and a member of the Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española. Klaus Militzer was Professor for Medieval History at Universität Bochum as well as “wissenschaftlicher Referent” at the Historisches Archiv of the city of Cologne (Germany) until his retirement in 2005. His research primarily pertains to the medieval history of the Teutonic Order and the city of Cologne. Helen J. Nicholson is Professor of Medieval History at Cardiff University (Wales). She has published extensively on the military orders, crusades, and various related subjects, including an edition of the Templar Trial proceedings in Britain and Ireland (2011). She is currently studying the inventory and estate accounts from the Templars’ estates in England and Wales during the years 1308–1313 and is also writing a history of Queen Sybil of Jerusalem (1186–1190) for Routledge’s “Rulers of the Latin East” series. Karol Polejowski is Professor of History at Ateneum University and Deputy Head of the Scientific Department of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk (Poland). His work in the field of medieval history encompasses the crusades, the Mediterranean, and the Latin aristocracy of the Frankish states (twelfth to thirteenth centuries). Joachim Rother received his Ph.D. from Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg (Germany), and a monograph based on his dissertation (“Martyrdom in the Order of the Temple: A Study of the Historical-Theological Relevance of Sacrificial Death in the Religious Military Order of the Templars”) was published in German in 2017. His publications also include articles in Ordines Militares and Berichte des Historischen Vereins Bamberg für die Pflege der Geschichte des Ehemaligen Fürstbistums. Kristjan Toomaspoeg is Professor of Medieval History at the Università del Salento, Lecce (Italy). His research focuses on the military orders, medieval Southern Italy, and frontier history. His publications include Les Teutoniques en Sicile (1197–1492) (2003), Decimae: Il sostegno economico dei sovrani alla Chiesa del Mezzogiorno nel XIII secolo (2009), À travers le regard de l’Autre: Réflexions sur la société médiévale européenne (2018, with José Albuquerque Carreiras and Giulia Rossi Vairo). Ignacio de la Torre is Professor of Finance and Economics at IE University in Madrid (Spain) and Chief Economist of Arcano. His research in history focuses on the Templars’ financial activities, and his publications include Los Templarios y el Origen de la Banca (2004), as well as articles in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314) (2010), Military Orders IV (2008), and Espacio, Tiempo y Forma (2005).

xiv

CONTRIBUTORS

Christian Vogel is Lecturer in Medieval History at the Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken (Germany). His main research interests are the crusades, the military orders (especially the Templars), and the history of political ideas. His publications include a work on testamentary charters in early medieval Spain (Individuelle und universelle Kontinuitäten, 2019), a study of the statutes of the Templars (Das Recht der Templer, 2007), and several articles on the Templars.  

xv

Map 1 Eastern Mediterranean

Map 2 Western Europe

Map 3 Central Europe

INTRODUCTION Jochen Burgtorf, Shlomo Lotan, and Enric Mallorquí-Ruscalleda

“May the incomparable efforts of the knights – alas too few – touch the depths of your heart.” It was probably in the year 1120 that Warmund of Picquigny, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, and Gerard, the prior of the Holy Sepulcher, addressed these words to Diego Gelmírez, the newly elevated archbishop of Santiago de Compostela. Their letter painted a grim picture of the situation in the Holy Land: drought, locusts, and Muslim enemies on all sides were tormenting the Christian inhabitants of the crusader states, and “nobody dare[d] to venture a mile or even less from the walls of Jerusalem or the other places without an armed escort of knights and foot-soldiers.”1 While we cannot be absolutely certain that the “knights” (milites) mentioned here were the Templars, there is good reason to believe that their early members were in fact involved in these protective efforts. Let us set the stage. The “knighthood” (militia) of the Templars stood in the ninth year of its existence when its Latin Rule was promulgated at the Council of Troyes (Champagne) on 13 January 1129,2 which implies that the community must have been formally established sometime in 1120, likely at the so-called “Council” of Nablus in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem on 16 January 1120.3 Hugh of Payns – the community’s first leader – had visited the Holy Land well before 1120,4 and the idea to form an association of knights to protect

1 Historia Compostellana, ed. Emma Falque Rey (Turnhout 1988), 270–2: descendat at intima cordis incomparabilis labor militum, heu paucorum. . . . Nemo enim a muris Hierusalem aut a ceteris locis audet exire, nisi cum armata manu militum, aut peditum, spatium unius miliarii et eo minus. For the English translation and the dating of this letter to approximately 1120, see Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims, and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries, trans. Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate (Farnham 2013), 42–4. 2 Die ursprüngliche Templerregel, ed. Gustav Schnürer (Freiburg 1903), 130: anno . . . predicte militie nono. For the date of the Council of Troyes, see Rudolf Hiestand, “Kardinalbischof Matthäus von Albano, das Konzil von Troyes und die Entstehung des Templerordens,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 99, no. 3 (1988): 295–325. 3 See Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer (texts by Jean Richard), 4 vols. (Hanover 2010), 1: 223. 4 See Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militiae Templi Hierosolymitani magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/19–1314 (Göttingen 1974), 20.

1

B U R G T O R F, L O T A N , A N D M A L L O R Q U Í - RU S C A L L E D A

the pilgrims and the Christian inhabitants of the Holy Land may have been on his mind for some time, but he does not appear with the formal title of “master of the knights of the Temple” (magister militum Templi) until 2 May 1125, when we find him in a charter issued by King Baldwin II of Jerusalem.5 Hugh’s appearance in this document is noteworthy for two reasons: his title indicates that the “Temple” (in reality the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem) had by then become the permanent residence of this knightly community; and Hugh’s position in the witness list, namely, as the very last of twentythree distinguished witnesses and not among the ecclesiastical witnesses, suggests that even in the mid-1120s the Templars’ exact status was yet to be determined.6 So then, what had happened in 1120? While the twelfth-century chronicler William of Tyre harbored an undeniable bias against the religious military orders,7 we can perhaps largely trust his statement with regard to the origins of the Templars that “some noblemen of knightly rank, devoted to God, pious and God-fearing, placed themselves in the hands of the lord patriarch for the service of Christ, professing the wish to live perpetually in the manner of regular canons in chastity, and obedience, without personal belongings.”8 Yet even here a few doubts are in order: the Templars’ Latin Rule draws primarily from the Rule of St. Benedict,9 so the reference to the “regular canons” tells us more about William of Tyre’s preferences than that of the Templars; and the community, according to both its Latin and Old French Rules, permitted temporary members among its ranks,10 so not all Templars wished “to live perpetually” in the aforesaid manner. The “lord patriarch” in question would have been Warmund of Picquigny, which further strengthens the notion that the knights in his 1120 letter to the archbishop of Santiago de Compostela were indeed the Templars who, after all, may not yet have been referred to by that name. William then informs us that the king (namely, Baldwin II) gave to the new community “a temporary home in his palace [i.e., the Aqsa Mosque] which was on the

5 Urkunden der lateinischen Könige, ed. Mayer, 1: 241–7 no. 93. 6 See Christian Vogel, Das Recht der Templer: Ausgewählte Aspekte des Templerrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Statutenhandschriften aus Paris, Rom, Baltimore und Barcelona (Münster 2007), 28. 7 Peter Edbury and John Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East (Cambridge 1988), 125–6. 8 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon / Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens (identification of historical sources and determination of dates by Hans Eberhard Mayer and Gerhard Rösch), Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A (Turnhout 1986), 553 (XII.7): quidam nobiles viri de equestri ordine, deo devoti, religiosi et timentes deum, in manu domini patriarche Christi servicio se mancipantes, more canonicorum regularium in castitate et obedientia et sine proprio perpetuo vivere professi sunt. English translation: The Templars: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated, trans. Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate (Manchester 2002), 25. 9 Vogel, Recht der Templer, 231. 10 Ursprüngliche Templerregel, ed. Schnürer, 136 § 5; La règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris 1886), 21 § 9.

2

I N T RO D U C T I O N

south side of the Temple of the Lord [i.e., the Dome of the Rock].”11 Whether this arrangement was in fact intended to be “temporary” (ad tempus) or not, the title used by Hugh of Payns in the 1125 royal charter suggests that it was either made permanent within a matter of years or had been intended as a permanent arrangement all along (of which William of Tyre may not have approved). At any rate, the epithet “of the Temple” stuck, hence the community’s collective name – the Templars. William’s next statement concerning the community’s initial establishment explains that the Templars received “temporarily or in perpetuity certain benefices” from both the kingdom’s secular and ecclesiastical lords to sustain their efforts.12 And finally, William informs us about the task set for this new community, namely, to “maintain the safety of the roads and the highways to the best of their ability, for the benefit of pilgrims in particular, against the attacks of bandits and marauders.”13 The following picture emerges: by 1120 and even earlier, public safety had become an issue for both permanent residents and visiting pilgrims outside of the fortified places in the crusader states, and something needed to be done. There was a group of “alas too few” European knights, among them Hugh of Payns, who were willing to rise to the challenge. In early 1120, these knights took vows of obedience, chastity, and personal poverty before the Latin patriarch to formally establish a community with a decidedly spiritual orientation. The king of Jerusalem assigned them the Aqsa Mosque – labeled the Templum Salomonis (“Temple of Solomon”) by contemporaries14 – as their residence, which would prove to be of paramount importance for the community’s selfperception. Baldwin II and the Latin kingdom’s secular and ecclesiastical lords also provided for them by means of donations, thereby setting an example for future donors throughout Latin Christendom. Thus the (soon to be known as) “Templars” began their service as a pilgrim escort in the Holy Land, an activity that was both charitable and military in nature. Until early 1129, when they received their Rule at the Council of Troyes, they were – strictly speaking – not an Order; they were a lay community of Brothers-in-arms. To become a “regulated” establishment of professed religious, the Templars needed a Rule.15 It is possible – but by no means certain – that some time 11 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 553 (XII.7): in palatio suo, quod secus Templum Domini ad australem habet partem, eis ad tempus concessit habitaculum. English translation: Templars, trans. Barber and Bate, 25. 12 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 554 (XII.7): beneficia, quedam ad tempus, quedam in perpetuum. English translation: Templars, trans. Barber and Bate, 25. 13 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 554 (XII.7): ut vias et itinera maxime ad salutem peregrinorum contra latronum et incursantium insidias pro viribus conservarent. English translation: Templars, trans. Barber and Bate, 26. 14 See Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden 2008), 27–8. 15 Ursprüngliche Templerregel, ed. Schnürer; Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon. See also Simonetta Cerrini, “Une expérience neuve au sein de la spiritualité médiévale: L’ordre du Temple (1120–1314):

3

B U R G T O R F, L O T A N , A N D M A L L O R Q U Í - RU S C A L L E D A

before October 1126 Baldwin II asked the famous Cistercian abbot Bernard of Clairvaux to provide the Templar community with such a document.16 While Bernard attended the 1129 Council of Troyes,17 the extent of his involvement in crafting the actual Rule is unclear. However, he did provide the new Order with something infinitely more valuable, namely, the Liber ad milites Templi de laude novae militiae (“Book for the Knights of the Temple in Praise of the New Knighthood”),18 written sometime in the 1130s at Hugh of Payns’s request, a celebratory treatise on the characteristics of this “new knighthood” and a spiritual interpretation of the various pilgrimage destinations in the Holy Land. Bernard’s support must have meant a great deal to Hugh, especially since the new Order and some of its latest recruits had just suffered their first severe losses in the context of a military campaign against Damascus – an event Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele has referred to as a “baptism by blood.”19 According to the chronicle of the contemporary Norman Benedictine author Robert of Torigni, “those who Hugh of Payns had brought with him to Jerusalem [from his visit to the West] fared poorly. On the eve of St. Nicholas [5 December 1129], many of the Christians were defeated by a few of the Pagans, which previously tended to happen the opposite way. For, during the Damascene siege, while the great part of the Christians had gone out to search for food, the Pagans surprised the many Christians and, with the strongest ones fleeing like women, the pursuers killed innumerable [of them].”20 Considering, firstly, that the Templars would acquire a reputation for standing their ground and suffering martyrdom in imitation of Christ rather than desert the battlefield;21 and, secondly, that the Templars’ normative texts considered such flight a crime punishable by expulsion from the Order,22 it seems relatively safe to assume that, in 1129, Hugh of Payns’s Templars had met their end while facing their enemies head-on. Once the Templars had become a regulated community, albeit an unheardof hybrid between the two social orders of oratores (“those who pray”) and pugnatores (“those who fight”), the support they received in incomes and real

16 17 18 19 20

21 22

Étude et édition des règles latines et françaises” (Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris IVSorbonne 1998). See Urkunden der lateinischen Könige, ed. Mayer, 1: 77, 234. Ursprüngliche Templerregel, ed. Schnürer, 131 § III; Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 15–18 § 5–6. Bernard de Clairvaux, Éloge de la nouvelle chevalerie, ed. Pierre-Yves Émery, Sources chrétiennes 367 (Paris 1990). See, for example, Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militiae Templi Hierosolymitani magistri, 28. Chronique de Robert de Torigni, abbé du Mont-Saint-Michel, ed. Léopold Delisle (Rouen 1872), 178–9: Illis quos Hugo de Paiens . . . secum duxerat ad Jerusalem, male contigit. . . . In vigilia sancti Nicholai a paucis Paganorum multi Christianorum devicti sunt, cum antea soleret e contrario contingere. In obsidione igitur Damascena, cum magna pars Christianorum progressa esset ad victualia perquirenda, mirati sunt Pagani Christianos plures et fortissimos se muliebriter fugientes, et persequentes innumeros occiderunt. Joachim Rother, Das Martyrium im Templerorden: Eine Studie zur historisch-theologischen Relevanz des Opfertodes im geistlichen Ritterorden der Templer, Bamberger Historische Studien 16 (Bamberg 2017). Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 154 § 232; 229 § 419; 298–300 § 574–7.

4

I N T RO D U C T I O N

estate from donors in both East and West increased exponentially.23 The Order was already enjoying the patronage of the authorities in the crusader states, and its accomplishments were being extolled by the great Bernard of Clairvaux, yet there was another level of endorsement that would prove to be crucial to the Order’s long-term success, namely, that of the pope. Granted, Cardinal Bishop Matthew of Albano had attended the 1129 Council of Troyes on behalf of Pope Honorius II – evidence that the community’s activities had come to the attention of the Holy See. By the middle of the 1130s (the exact date is unclear), Pope Innocent II was exhorting prelates to admonish their subordinates to take up collections on behalf of the Templars in an early version of the mandate Milites Templi (“Knights of the Temple”) to which we will return shortly.24 On 29 March 1139, Innocent II issued the famous general privilege Omne datum optimum (“Every good gift”), urging the Templars to defend the Catholic Church and liberate her wherever she found herself under the “tyranny of the Pagans;” allowing the Templars to keep the spoils of their campaigns; granting them the protection of the Apostolic See; instructing the Brothers to live a religious life in chastity, without personal property, and in obedience to their master in all things; declaring their House (i.e., the “Temple” in Jerusalem) the head of all their other establishments; ordering the free election of their master and the inviolability of their customs (which should henceforth only be changed by the master with the consent of the Order’s chapter); prohibiting any and all secular and ecclesiastical authorities from demanding fealty, homage, or oaths from them; instructing both their knights and sergeants to adhere to their stations; exempting the Templars from the obligation to pay tithes; granting them the tithes that had already been donated to them; permitting them to have their own priests who would owe obedience only to the master; ordering new initiates to promise (in the form of a written document to be placed on the altar) to adhere to their stations, change their lives, and fight for the Lord; stating that the episcopal rights with regard to tithes, offerings, and burials would be safeguarded; giving the Templars permission to construct their own oratories for divine service and the burial of their Brothers; and allowing them, their households, and their servants to receive penance and sacraments from honest Catholic priests as needed.25 In contrast to the papacy’s early maior libertas documents for the Hospitallers, Cistercians, Premonstratensians, Carthusians, the Order of Santiago, and the Teutonic Knights, which all contain

23 See Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple 1119?–1150: Recueil des Chartes et des Bulles relatives à l’Ordre du Temple formé par le Marquis d’Albon, ed. Guigues Alexis Marie Joseph André d’Albon (Paris 1913). 24 Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter: Archivberichte und Texte, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius I (Göttingen 1972), 203–4 no. 2. 25 Hiestand, Papsturkunden: Archivberichte, 204–10 no. 3. See also the critical edition and extensive commentary in Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter: Neue Folge, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius II (Göttingen 1984), 67–103.

5

B U R G T O R F, L O T A N , A N D M A L L O R Q U Í - RU S C A L L E D A

wording that these communities had, in fact, requested their respective privileges, there is no evidence that the Templars had asked Innocent II for Omne datum optimum.26 To the Templars, this document must have appeared like its preamble’s characterization of their “new knighthood,” namely, as “every good gift” (James 1:17), as a truly divine favor. The immense scope of this general privilege established the Templars as an exempt Order of the Church, accountable directly to the pope as God’s lieutenant on Earth. Yet as the Templars began to take full advantage of their new status, stretching it to (and perhaps beyond) its limits, critical voices would never be far behind.27 The addressees of Omne datum optimum had been the Templars themselves, but it was clear to the papacy that the Church needed to enlist her own to help the Templars in their work on behalf of the pilgrims and in defense of the Christian inhabitants of the Holy Land. Thus, on 9 January 1144, Pope Celestine II directed the (subsequently often repeated and originally devised by Innocent II) mandate Milites Templi (“Knights of the Temple”) to all archbishops, bishops, abbots, and all other prelates, confirming to the Templars the remission of the seventh part of penances imposed on their benefactors and the free right of burial, and instructing the document’s ecclesiastical recipients to publicize these liberties in their dioceses and grant the Templars their protection.28 Of course, such an explicit spiritual benefit made donating to the Templars even more attractive. Just over a year later, on 7 April 1145, Pope Eugenius III (a good friend of Bernard of Clairvaux) issued the mandate Militia Dei (“Knighthood of God”) and addressed it to the same audience as Milites Templi, augmented by “the faithful laypeople of God.” This document basically informed all Christendom that the Templars were allowed to receive their own priests into their Order, albeit without diminishing parochial rights, and that they could build their own chapels and cemeteries which prelates were instructed to consecrate at the Order’s request.29 These papal privileges, in the words of Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate, “laid the jurisdictional foundation of the Order’s independence.”30 It was a strong foundation that helped ensure the Order’s survival after the crusaders’ loss of Jerusalem to the army of the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187, when the Templars had to relocate their headquarters – perhaps first to Tyre (until 1191) but eventually (in 1191) to Acre. In Acre, the Templars built a splendid castle which served as their headquarters until that city’s conquest by the forces of the Mamluk sultan Al-Ashraf Khalil in 1291, whereupon they moved their center of operations one

26 See Jochen Burgtorf, “Gab es Reformen im Templerorden?” Ordines Militares, Colloquia Torunensia Historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 22 (2017): 7–29, here 25. 27 Helen J. Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128– 1291 (Leicester 1993), 41–3. 28 Hiestand, Papsturkunden: Archivberichte, 214–15 no. 8. 29 Hiestand, Papsturkunden: Archivberichte, 216–17 no. 10. 30 Templars, trans. Barber and Bate, 8.

6

I N T RO D U C T I O N

last time, namely, to Cyprus and probably to that kingdom’s capital – Nicosia. The Templars argued passionately and forcefully against suggestions to merge the existing religious military orders into one single Order, pointing to the various communities’ complementary strengths, foci, and traditions. Over the course of the thirteenth century, the Templars had expanded their already considerable geographical reach to include Frankish Greece and Eastern Europe, but their identity and impetus remained inextricably linked to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. In this they were not alone, which is evidenced by the fact that both Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights joined the Templars in the latter’s final, albeit ill-fated, military campaign, namely, the conquest and occupation of Ruad (1300–1302), a small island off the Eastern Mediterranean coast, considered by contemporaries as a suitable bridgehead for the reconquest of the Holy Land.31 Alain Demurger has appropriately described the Templars as “a great hierarchicalized family.”32 The functioning of this family was based on several principles, including “obedience” (oboedientia), “care” (cura), and “love” (dilectio). The Templars took vows of obedience, chastity, and personal poverty, but obedience ranked highest: it was the first vow new recruits had to take when they were received into the Order,33 and it was due to the master or anyone who had received delegated power from the master,34 which encompassed all of the Order’s officials as well as its priests. In return for this obedience, the Order’s officials had to show their care or leadership responsibility both with regard to their subordinates as well as with regard to anything material entrusted to them.35 Next to these somewhat more “vertical” principles of obedience and care, the third, somewhat more “horizontal” principle, namely, love, derived from Christ’s proclamation – which we have already encountered – that “greater love than this has no man, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). As Joachim Rother has shown, this idea of representative martyrdom in imitation of Christ permeated the Templars’ normative texts and papal privileges, as well as Bernard of Clairvaux’s De laude novae militiae.36 It was no coincidence that the liturgy for the installation of the newly elected Templar master included the hymn Te Deum laudamus (“Thee, O God, we praise”)37 which

31 Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Templer auf Ruad (1300–1302),” in Die Ritterorden in Umbruchs- und Krisenzeiten, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines Militares Colloquia Torunensia Historica 16 (Toruń 2011), 63–92. 32 Alain Demurger, Vie et mort de l’ordre du Temple (Paris 1985; new ed. 1993), 89: “une grande famille hiérarchisée.” 33 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 344 § 675. 34 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 44–5 § 39. 35 See, for example, Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 302 § 581. See also Jochen Burgtorf, “Wind Beneath the Wings: Subordinate Headquarters Officials in the Hospital and the Temple from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries,” in The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen J. Nicholson (Aldershot 1998), 217–24. 36 Rother, Martyrium. 37 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 150–1 § 221.

7

B U R G T O R F, L O T A N , A N D M A L L O R Q U Í - RU S C A L L E D A

features the line, “The resplendent army of Martyrs praise Thee.” However, while the Order of the Temple was hierarchical, the master was expected to act in agreement with his Order’s chapter,38 and he was surrounded by a group of officers in the central convent who resembled those of a princely court and could (if need be) act as his lieutenants whenever he was absent, namely, a seneschal (until the end of the twelfth century), a grand commander, a marshal, a treasurer, and a draper.39 The same principles that governed the Order’s headquarters applied to its provincial administration in both East and West, as well as its local castles and commanderies. According to Lauren Hablot, “medieval mentalities and sensitivities were familiar with the potential for signa to replace what they expressed.”40 The Templars were recognizable by such signa which included their characteristic white habit with the red cross (for knightly members only; sergeants wore a black mantle), a specific banner, and a much-discussed seal. The cross, apart from its obvious allusion to Christianity, signified membership in good standing in the community, meaning that Brothers on penance wore a cope without a cross.41 In military engagements, the Templars’ black-and-white banner, known as the confanon bauçan, was carried by the Order’s marshal, surrounded by up to ten Brothers to protect the banner.42 While the Templar statutes stipulate that “two brothers should not ride on one horse,” the Templar seal featuring two knights (seemingly) riding on one horse may be the best known sigillographic motif in the history of the religious military orders, and the English chronicler Matthew Paris claimed that it symbolized the Brothers’ initial poverty.43 However, two knights on one horse are neither practical in case of combat nor a prudent use of an animal as valuable as a horse.44 There may be a more straightforward explanation: one armed man on a horse represents a miles (a “knight”), but two armed man on a horse represent a militia (a “knighthood”), namely, the Templar community. Including multiple horses that are clearly discernible 38 Hiestand, Papsturkunden: Neue Folge, 97: consentiente tamen saniori parte capituli (“with the consent of the more reasonable part of the chapter”). 39 See Burgtorf, Central Convent. 40 Laurent Hablot, “Ubi armae ibi princeps: Medieval Emblematics as the Real Presence of the Prince,” in Absentee Authority across Medieval Europe, ed. Frédérique Lachaud and Michael Penman (Woodbridge 2017), 37–55, here 37. 41 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 112–13 § 141; 250–1 § 469–70; 259 § 489; 335 § 654. See also Alain Demurger, “Croix,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand (Paris 2009), 282–3. 42 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 125 § 164; see also 86–7 § 99. 43 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 212 § 379: Et II freres ne doivent chevauchier en une beste. See Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, sive, ut vulgo dicitur, Historia minor, ed. Frederic Madden, 3 vols. (London 1866–1869), 1: 223: Qui primo adeo pauperes licet strenui fuerunt, quod unum solum dextrarium illi duo habuerunt; unde propter primitivae paupertatis memoriam, et ad humilitatis observantiam, in sigillo eorum insculpti sunt duo unum equum equitantes. 44 For horses in the religious military orders, see Ann Hyland, The Medieval Warhorse from Byzantium to the Crusades (Stroud 1994), 149–55.

8

I N T RO D U C T I O N

on one seal requires either a larger seal, or one runs the risk, when depicting the horses in two-dimensional profile, of featuring a multi-headed and multilegged fable creature. The Templars are well known for their involvement in battles and sieges – such as those of Ascalon (1153), Hattin (1187), Forbie (1244), and Acre (1291);45 their often spectacularly situated castles and fortifications – such as Safed and ‘Atlit in Israel, Tartus and Safita in Syria, as well as Miravet and Peñíscola in Spain; and their beautiful churches and chapels – such as those in London (England), Tomar (Portugal), Perugia (Italy), Metz (France), and Chwarszczany (Poland). Yet the Brothers’ daily life in many of their commanderies all across Latin Christendom – apart from fulfilling their obligations with regard to divine services (based on the liturgy of the Holy Sepulcher), canonical hours (adapted from the Rule of St. Benedict), religious holidays, and so forth – was primarily devoted to land and livestock management to generate income that could be used to support the Order’s efforts in the Holy Land and other frontier regions.46 In the Order’s central convent, larger commanderies, and castles, the Brothers moved in and out of several particular spaces on a daily basis, including the church, the refectory, the chapter hall (or whatever space was used to conduct chapter meetings), the work stations, stables, armories, and recreational areas, and the dormitory. Ringing the bells reminded the Brothers to move from one activity to the next,47 and only those whose activities were difficult to interrupt were excused for tardiness in church or elsewhere, namely, Brothers kneading dough, forging hot iron, shoeing a horse, or washing their heads.48 While the Templars were taking their meals, they were expected to listen to the reading of Scripture or holy lessons. Yet the Order’s statutes contain several admonitions reminding the Brothers to be quiet during these readings49 or to ask quietly if they were unfamiliar with sign language,50 suggesting that remaining silent was, at times, a challenge. Chapter meetings, since they involved disciplinary procedures and initiation ceremonies, were highly ritualized,51 and the manuscripts containing the respective instructions show traces of heavy use.52 According to the Templar Rule, silence was preferable even to good conversations,53 but Brothers were encouraged to ask questions if anything was unclear to them.54 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

It should be noted that a scholarly military history of the Templars has yet to be written. See Helen J. Nicholson, The Everyday Life of the Templars: The Knights Templar at Home (Stroud 2017). See, for example, Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 347 § 681. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 115 § 146; see also 178 § 300. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 34 § 24; 137 § 187; 173–4 § 288. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 33–4 § 23. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 216–84 § 386–543. See also Vogel, Recht der Templer, 301–4. See The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Cartas Reales, MS 3344, ed. Judith M. Upton-Ward (Woodbridge 2003), xi–xii. 53 Ursprüngliche Templerregel, ed. Schnürer, 145 § 43; Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 52 § 49. 54 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 350 § 686.

9

B U R G T O R F, L O T A N , A N D M A L L O R Q U Í - RU S C A L L E D A

The astonishing rise and life of the Templars that we have sketched here came to a crushing halt on Friday, 13 October 1307, when all members of the Order were arrested in the kingdom of France by orders of King Philip IV on charges of heresy and other crimes. The drama of the subsequent proceedings, trial, or affair – all three rather sanitized terms for the Templars’ incarceration, interrogations, tortures, relocation, confessions, retractions, executions, and so forth – has attracted so much scholarly attention that there is no need to relitigate it here.55 While Pope Clement V temporarily tried to take charge of things, the issue was eventually agendized at the Council of Vienne where the Order of the Temple was dissolved (22 March 1312) – not because it had been found guilty, but because the proceedings had tarnished its reputation beyond repair – and where its assets were assigned to the Hospitallers. In mid-March 1314,56 the last master of the Templars, James of Molay, and the Order’s commander of Normandy, Geoffrey of Charney, were burned at the stake in the heart of Paris as relapsed heretics. Clement V died within a few weeks (20 April 1314), and Philip IV died later that same year (29 November 1314). The Order’s fall was unexpected – at least for its fourteenth-century contemporaries; it was rapid; and it was final. Subsequent efforts to explain the inexplicable generated a plethora of stories and ultimately devolved into a slew of myths also known as “Templarism.” The latter is not a topic of this present volume per se and has, generally speaking, rather little to do with the legacy of the historical Templars. The following fifteen chapters recount the history of the Templars’ rise, fall, and legacy from a wide range of methodological perspectives and on the basis of a fascinating array of sources. In the opening chapter of Part I (Rise), Karol Polejowski takes us back to the early years of the Templars in Champagne, the home of several of the Templar community’s founding members, and presents Andrew de Baudement’s kinship network as an example for Templar recruitment and the gathering of donations. On the basis of charter evidence pertaining to the lordship of Caesarea in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, Michael Ehrlich suggests in Chapter 2 that the Templars pursued a land acquisition policy that mirrored that of the Hospitallers to create contiguous territories under the Order’s control to maximize systematic land exploitation. In Chapter 3, Marie-Anna Chevalier guides us through the copious narrative sources for the Templars’ interaction with the respective rulers of the Christian states in the Eastern Mediterranean, which featured both collaboration and confrontation, grounded in the Order’s sense of duty and honor. The next three chapters provide insights into art historical, theological, and archaeological interpretations 55 See, for example, Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006); The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010); A Extinção da Ordem do Templo: Edição comemorativa dos 700 anos da extinção da Ordem do Templo (1312–2012), ed. José Albuquerque Carreiras (Tomar 2012); Alain Demurger, La persécution des Templiers: Journal (1307–1314) (Paris 2015). 56 The exact date is unclear; see Demurger, Persécution des Templiers, 280–1.

10

I N T RO D U C T I O N

of Templar monuments. Sonia Kirch, in Chapter 4, analyzes the decorative elements and paintings in three of the Order’s churches in southwestern France to establish their connection to Byzantine military saints. Shlomo Lotan and Joachim Rother, in Chapter 5, showcase ‘Atlit (Château Pèlerin) as a remarkable site of Templar spirituality on the pilgrim road between Acre and Jerusalem. Joan Fuguet Sans, in Chapter 6, places the Order’s Catalonian castles of Barberà, Gardeny, and Miravet into the wider context of contemporary castle architecture in the Iberian Peninsula and the Holy Land. With Christian Vogel’s Chapter 7 on the Italian Templar corsair Roger de Flor, which demonstrates – on the basis of this enigmatic individual’s personal biography – a certain lack of social control with regard to the Templars’ operations at sea, the curtain rises on Part II (Fall). In Chapter 8, Ignacio de la Torre proposes a connection between the Order’s banking activities and its demise, arguing that, particularly for Philip IV of France, seizing the Templars’ assets and deposits presented a solution to the realm’s monetary fluctuations and debts. To what extent Templars were able to avoid arrest at the beginning of the proceedings against the Order depended, as Alan Forey shows in Chapter 9, at least in part on how rulers in the respective territories were implementing arrest orders, and while some of these Templar fugitives managed to escape permanently, others later surrendered themselves voluntarily. In Chapter 10, Helen J. Nicholson analyzes the Trial of the Templars in Britain and Ireland, arguing that neither King Edward II nor the Church in his realms (much like the pope himself) were ultimately inclined to resist the French king’s demand to investigate the Templars on the charges brought against them, which – after all  – also gave Edward II the opportunity to appropriate the Order’s assets. Jochen Burgtorf, in Chapter 11, considers the Trial in Germany where the Templars themselves (much like their colleagues in Cyprus and certain locations on the Iberian Peninsula), as well as many of the secular and ecclesiastical princes, resisted the investigation against the Order. Part III (Legacy) presents four examples of the Templars’ long-term impact on history and historiography. In Chapter 12, Klaus Militzer suggests that the Trial of the Templars may well have been one of the determining factors in the Teutonic Knights’ decision to move their headquarters from Venice to Marienburg but that it needs to be viewed in the context of other perceived and real threats to that Order’s autonomy that had to be averted. José Antonio Guillén Berrendero discusses the image of the Templars in modern Castilian nobiliary treatises in Chapter 13, focusing particularly on the writings of the Benedictine monk and archivist Juan Benito Guardiola (1530–1600) who recounted the history of the Templars in an effort to “aristocratize” the past and emphasize the heroic solidarity of nobles over individualism. In Chapter 14, Elena Bellomo takes us through four centuries of Italian historiography on the Templar Trial, namely, from the contemporary perspectives of the early fourteenth century, including that of Dante Alighieri, to the writings of Angelo Fumagalli in the late eighteenth century, illustrating how a subject matter that seemingly demanded 11

B U R G T O R F, L O T A N , A N D M A L L O R Q U Í - RU S C A L L E D A

the taking of sides eventually became one to which the new historical-critical method could be applied. To conclude this collection, Kristjan Toomaspoeg’s Chapter 15 offers a close examination of the recent historiography on the Templars that reaches back to the foundations of this field of study in the late nineteenth century by the Marquis André d’Albon (1866–1912) and his contemporaries, discusses the current areas of research, and outlines the scholarly work that remains to be done. As editors, we echo his statement that the Templars must be studied in their respective contexts (as the contributors to this volume have endeavored to do); that projects to edit and publish (or re-edit and re-publish) Templar primary sources need to be intensified; and that research on a wide range of topics will continue to require more individual and collaborative work, including spirituality, warfare, local history, and prosopography. Returning to this introduction’s opening quote, it is our hope that this volume will provide its readers with new and stimulating scholarly perspectives on the “efforts of the knights” – their rise, their fall, and their legacy.

12

Part I RISE

1 ANDREW DE BAUDEMENT AND THE EARLY YEARS OF THE TEMPLARS IN CHAMPAGNE Karol Polejowski

And of the others who have not been listed it seems profitable to furnish guarantees in this matter, that they are lovers of truth: they are Count Theobald; the count of Nevers; [and] André de Baudement. These were at the Council and acted in such a manner that by perfect, studious care they sought out that which was fine and disapproved that which did not seem right.1

This quote from the prologue to the Rule of the Knights Templar describes the circumstances under which the Council of Troyes was held in January 1129, and it lists some of the individuals who attended the event. The vast majority of those gathered at Troyes were ecclesiastics, but, as this quote shows, several secular dignitaries participated as well, among them Count Thibaut II of Champagne, Count William II of Nevers, and Andrew de Baudement, who would all play a leading role in the establishment of the new Order. In his monograph, Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120–1307 (2012), Jochen Schenk draws attention to the connections between the Baudement family and the Templars, as well as their contacts with other religious orders, such as the Cistercians.2 Due to the scope of his work, Schenk does not dwell extensively on this particular case; however, I believe that it is so significant and interesting that it deserves a separate study. The evidence indicates that members of the Baudement family, particularly the aforementioned Andrew and his son William, belonged to the group of the founders 1 Judith M. Upton Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar (Woodbridge 1992), 21. The quote’s capitalization and spelling has been adjusted to match the remainder of this chapter. 2 Jochen Schenk, Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120– 1307 (Cambridge-New York 2012), 128–32, 171.

15

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

of this new military religious order and played a leading role in the development of the Templars in Champagne until the middle of the twelfth century. The connections between the Baudement family and the Knights Templar can be observed primarily through the activities of Andrew de Baudement because, as the seneschal of the county of Champagne, he was the most prominent representative of his family in the period under examination (namely, the 1120s and 1130s). It is no coincidence that we find his name in the prologue to the Order’s Rule that was composed at the Council of Troyes. To illustrate the arguments presented in this chapter, two appendices of sources and three genealogical tables are supplied at the end.

*** While Andrew de Baudement’s life is well documented, we know nothing definite about the origins of his family. Since the Baudement family was strongly connected to the court of the counts of Champagne and Blois, it may be that Andrew’s first mention dates from 1099: in a document issued by Count Stephen (or Stephen-Henry) of Blois, a man named Andreas, filius Leteri,3 appears as a witness. This was at the time when Count Stephen had returned from the First Crusade, but before his wife Adelaide sent him back to the Holy Land, and we do not know whether Andrew took part in Stephen’s expedition to the East. It is worth noting that Andrew’s father is called Letheric in this charter – a name that also appears in Baudement in the first half of the twelfth century (1133).4 The 1099 document pertains to Count Stephen’s rights to land and revenues in Brie, which is the region where Baudement is located (département de la Marne, canton Anglure, on the banks of the Aube River). Count Stephen died in the East in 1102,5 and his land and power in Blois were taken over by his widow, Adelaide of Normandy, acting as regent for their son (Thibaut II) who was still a minor. Meanwhile, since 1093, power in Champagne was in the hands of Count Hugh of Troyes, Stephen’s half-brother. In documents issued by Adelaide between 1102 and 1109, Andrew de Baudement’s name does not appear anymore. However, since 1103, Andrew is present as a witness in charters issued by Count Hugh of Troyes: thus, we find him in Hugh’s entourage in documents from the years 1103, 1104, and 1108.6 In 1109, 3 Michel Bur, “Chartes Comtales pour la Champagne et la Brie (963–1151)” [pré-édition 1988], 2 vols., 2011, available online, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00638840/, doc. ETHo (p. 3), dated [1099]. 4 Appendix 1. 5 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon / Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens (identification of historical sources and determination of dates by Hans Eberhard Mayer and Gerhard Rösch), Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A (Turnhout 1986), 477 (X 19 (20)). 6 Bur, “Chartes Comtales,” doc. HOgg (p. 3), dated [1103]; doc. HOhh (p. 3), dated Troyes, April 2, 1104; doc. HOii (p. 3), dated Troyes, April 2, 1104; and doc. HOqq (p. 7), dated Châtillon-sur-Seine, 1108.

16

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

Count Thibaut II of Blois issued a document for the abbey of Molesme and stated that, among the witnesses, were his milites et homines, including his vassals Andreas de Baldimento, Rocelinus de Vendoperio et multi alii.7 If my supposition is correct, Andrew, the son of Letheric, took over the lordship of Baudement sometime before 1103 and became a direct vassal of the counts of Champagne and Blois; Thibaut II’s 1109 document appears to confirm this. The lord of Baudement’s crusading activities during this time period are also noteworthy. While we do not know whether Andrew of Baudement took part in Count Stephen’s expeditions (the sources available to us are silent on this topic), he was involved in the crusading activities of his feudal overlord, Count Hugh of Troyes/Champagne. Hugh organized his first expedition to the Holy Land in 1104, when he went to Jerusalem and stayed there until at least the end of 1107 or the beginning of 1108; Hugh made a second pilgrimage to the East in the years 1114–1116, and there are strong reasons to believe that Andrew of Baudement took part in both of these expeditions. A document issued by King Baldwin I of Jerusalem – and dated by Reinhold Röhricht and Hans Eberhard Mayer to the year 1108 – features a witness by the name of Andreas de Valdement, and Mayer identifies him as Andrew de Baudement.8 This identification relates to another document, also issued by Baldwin I and dated to 1115, which names as one of its witnesses as Andreas de Baldement who, without a doubt, should be identified with Andrew de Baudement.9 It is significant that another one of Count Hugh of Champagne’s vassals, namely, Hugh de Payns (the future cofounder and first master of the Templars), also participated in both expeditions to the Holy Land. The witness lists of the aforementioned documents issued by King Baldwin I of Jerusalem also contain the name of another Champenois: Guy de Milly. It is evident that, between 1104 and 1116, crusaders from Champagne under the leadership of their count constituted a significant group of pilgrims visiting the Holy Land. Some of them, including Guy de Milly and Hugh de Payns, eventually decided to settle in the East permanently; however, they did not sever their ties with France and Champagne. Andrew de Baudement’s career at the court of Count Hugh of Champagne, where he acted as the seneschal of Champagne, is well known. Andrew even kept this title after 1125, when Hugh resigned, passed the power to his cousin, Count Thibaut II of Blois, and joined the ranks of the Knights Templar: in a document issued in 1128, he is mentioned (in the genitive form) as domini 7 Henri d’Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne, vol. 3 (Paris 1861), 414 no. LXXXI. Vendoperio is Vendeuvre-sur-Barse. 8 Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII–MCCXCI) with Additamentum, ed. Reinhold Röhricht (Innsbruck 1893–1904), no. 52; Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer (Old French texts by Jean Richard) (Hannover 2010), 149–51 no. 32. 9 Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani, ed. Röhricht, no. 80; Urkunden der lateinischen Könige, ed. Mayer, 195–8 no. 64.

17

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

Andreae, dapiferi sui, of Count Thibaut.10 In twelfth-century France, the title and responsibilities of the steward (dapifer) were incorporated into the duties of the seneschal of the court. Thus, at the beginning of the twelfth century, Andrew de Baudement and his family were members of the nobility of the county of Champagne with strong ties to the Latin East. Andrew’s career certainly benefitted from his marriage to Agnes, the heiress of the lordship of Braine (département de l’Aisne), whose name also appears in documents issued during the first half of the twelfth century.11 We do not know when exactly their marriage was arranged, but it must have been at the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, because their numerous children were already adults in the years 1128–1133. The precise origins of the lordship of Braine are uncertain, but in the year 1049 there was a lord named Hugh who was excommunicated because of his political and ecclesiastical activities. The son of this Hugh was probably Guy de Braine who, from the 1070s on, can be found in the entourage of Count Thibaut I of BloisChampagne (d. 1089). Agnes de Braine appears to have been Guy’s daughter and the heiress of the lordship which, even then, was a fief of the counts of Champagne.12 There is, however, no convincing evidence that, at this time, the lordship of Braine enjoyed “comital” status. The marriage between Agnes de Braine and Andrew de Baudement probably took place with the consent of their feudal overlord, in this case the Count of Champagne: this would have been either Thibaut I, his older son Stephen (or Stephen-Henry), or his younger son Hugh (Stephen’s half-brother). Andrew de Baudement had at least one brother, named Engenoul (Ingenulfus, Ingenurfus), which is clearly stated in an 1133 document detailing a donation to the Templars.13 Apart from this, nothing else is known about Engenoul. We can only guess that he may have been a priest, possibly a canon at the Cathedral of Saints Gervasius and Protasius in Soissons: I base this latter supposition on the foundation charter of the Cistercian abbey at Longpont (département de l’Aisne, about 15 kilometers southwest of Soissons), issued by the bishop of Soissons, Josselin de Vierzy, in 1132; the following year, Bishop Josselin also

10 Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, Tomus Decimus: De provincia Remensi (Paris 1751), Instrumenta Ecclesiae Remensis, col. 39 no. XXXVII. The donation is referenced in a document issued by Archbishop Rainaldus of Reims. 11 Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Remensis, cols. 39–41 no. XXXVIII, dated 1130: domnus Andreas de Baldimento & uxor ipsius Agnes; Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Suessionensis, col. 118 no. XXXI, dated 1145; Le chartrier de l’abbaye prémontrée de Saint-Yved de Braine, ed. Les élèves de l’École nationale des chartes sous la direction d’Olivier Guyotjeannin (Paris 2000), no. 19. 12 Michel Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne, v. 950–v. 1150 (Nancy 1977), 431–2; Chartrier de l’abbaye prémontrée de Saint-Yved de Braine, ed. Guyotjeannin, 13–16. 13 Félix Bourquelot, “Notice sur le cartulaire des Templiers de Provins (XIIe et XIIIe siècle),” Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 19 (1858): 171–90, here 185–6 no. I. See also Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple 1119?–1150: Recueil des Chartes et des Bulles relatives à l’Ordre du Temple formé par le Marquis d’Albon, ed. Guigues Alexis Marie Joseph André d’Albon (Paris 1913), 43 no. LX.

18

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

granted ecclesiastical privileges to the Templars.14 The foundation of the abbey at Longpont took place on the initiative of Bernard de Clairvaux, but the respective charter was issued by Bishop Josselin who gave many ecclesiastical privileges to the new establishment, including independence from the supremacy of the local rector. Meanwhile, Longpont’s temporal endowment (land and income) came from Gerard de Chirisiaco (perhaps Chérisy, département du Pas-de-Calais), but it was Andrew de Baudement who, as a secular feudal overlord, confirmed the act, indicating that Gerard was probably Andrew’s vassal. The document’s witness list contains, among the other subdeacons, the signature of a certain Ingenulfus. This name is not very common, and the fact that it appears in a document featuring Andrew de Baudement suggests that this Ingenulfus may have been Andrew’s brother Engenoul.15 If this supposition is correct, Engenoul de Baudement had indeed chosen an ecclesiastical career – a decision which perfectly aligns with the Baudement family’s policy regarding the Church and the new religious orders, such as the Premonstratensians, the Cistercians, and also the Knights Templar. However, these Orders were new establishments, founded in the late eleventh and early twelfth century and reflecting a profound change in the existing structures of ecclesiastical institutions – a phenomenon we know as the Gregorian Reform. It is clear from the preserved documents that the Baudement family played an active role in reforming the Church in Champagne during this period. Yet, even before this happened, Andrew de Baudement, as one of the highest officials of the Count of Champagne, had already been one of the main actors on the political and religious scene, and his influence can certainly be seen in the emergence of the Knights Templar and their installation in Champagne, the native land of Hugh de Payns. Historians largely concur that the community (and future Order) of the Knights Templar was formed during the first weeks of the year 1120 by a group of knights from French-speaking countries, with Hugh de Payns (Champagne), Godfrey de Saint-Omer (Flanders), and Andrew de Montbard (Burgundy), who was Bernard de Clairvaux’s uncle, playing the leading parts.16 During their early years, the Templars focused their activities on the Holy Land, but they also maintained contact with their respective native regions in Western Europe. One of the most important events in this new community’s early history was Hugh of Champagne’s decision to join them: this probably occurred during the second half of 1125. One consequence of Hugh’s decision was that power in Troyes transferred to his nephew, Count Thibaut II of Blois and Chartres.17 We are not aware of 14 Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Suessionensis, cols. 111–12 no. XXII, dated 1132; Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 42–3 no. LIX, dated 1133 (26 mars 1133–14 avril 1134). 15 Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Suessionensis, cols. 111–12 no. XXII. 16 Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994), 9. 17 “Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium a monacho Novi Monasterii Hoiensis interpolata,” ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 23 (Hanover 1874), 631–950, here 826; Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 3 no. V.

19

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

any donations that Hugh may have made to the Templars in his Champenois domains prior to his decision to leave France and go to Jerusalem, but we do know that, two years later, in October 1127, while Hugh de Payns was in France, Thibaut II made his first donation to the Templars, giving them land and privileges in the vicinity of Provins and Sézanne in northern Champagne (Brie).18 There can be no doubt that Andrew de Baudement must have witnessed this act – both because of his high rank and in his capacity as the seneschal of Champagne, an office he had held during the reign of Hugh of Troyes (until 1125) and was still holding under Thibaut II (since 1125). If we believe William of Tyre, the Templars were rather poor during the first nine years of their existence, sustained by donations and gifts bestowed on them by the king of Jerusalem, the patriarch of the Holy City, and other nobles in Outremer, and by the time of the Council of Troyes still only consisted of nine members.19 If this is true, we can probably identify these nine Templars: in addition to those mentioned in the prologue of their new Rule, namely, Hugh de Payns, Roland, Godfrey (de Saint-Omer), Godfrey Bisol, Payen de Montdidier, and Archambaud de Saint-Amand,20 there were Andrew de Montbard, Gondemar and, of course, Hugh of Troyes.21 We know, however, of additional Templars traveling in Europe during the mid-1120s, including a certain Henry and a certain Robert.22 In 1127, many of the Templar Brothers came from the Holy Land to Europe to recruit new members and obtain more donations for their community to strengthen its forces in the East. According to the prologue of the Rule, Hugh of Troyes was not among the six Templars present at the Council of Troyes; he remained in the Holy Land where he is mentioned in documents issued in 1129–1130.23 It is well established how Hugh de Payns and other Templars used their time between October 1127, when they arrived in France, and January 1129, when the Council of Troyes took place. During this period, they mounted a successful propaganda campaign, which resulted in more donations for their 18 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 6 no. IX. Provins in northern Champagne became one of the most important Templar commanderies in Northeastern France. For more details, see Victor Carrière, Histoire et cartulaire des Templiers de Provins, avec une introduction sur les débuts du Temple en France (Paris 1919). See also Bourquelot, “Notice sur le cartulaire des Templiers de Provins,” which features an analysis of the Templar cartulary of Provins, including documents from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (until 1243), but there are additional documents relating to the Templars of Provins. See, for example, Paris, Archives Nationales de France (ANF), J 206, no. 2, a document issued in May 1268 by Amaury de La Roche, commandeuir des mesons de la chevallerie dou Temple an France, which confirms a donation of 40 barrels of wine made by Thibaut II (V), king of Navarre (and count of Champagne). 19 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 553–5 (XII, 7). 20 La Règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris 1886), 19 § 7. 21 For Andrew de Montbard, Gondemar, and Hugh of Troyes, see Barber, New Knighthood, 11–13. 22 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 2–3 no. 4. 23 Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani, ed. Röhricht, nos. 130, 133.

20

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

community and in attracting new people who decided to join the Templars.24 A certain pattern in the behavior of the local nobility is noteworthy: they made both donations to and personal connections with this new organization. This pattern can be observed particularly well in Flanders and Champagne. In both cases, the first donations to the Templars came from the local counts. In 1127, the Templars received their first land and rights from Count William of Flanders and Count Thibaut II of Champagne,25 which harmonizes well with the activities of the Templars who had traveled from the Holy Land to Europe that year. The year 1128 brought additional donations in Flanders, among which those made by William, the Castellan of Saint-Omer, are especially noteworthy.26 While we have no direct confirmation that Count William of Flanders and Godfrey de Saint-Omer, one of the Templars’ cofounders, were related, it seems very likely that they were, and it is interesting that in the respective documents detailing the donations to the Templars, both by the Count of Flanders and the Castellan of Saint-Omer, Hosto de Saint-Omer appears as a witness.27 Hosto de Saint-Omer was the son of Castellan William de Saint-Omer and Melisande de Picquigny (in whose veins flowed the blood of Charlemagne – if we believe one of the chroniclers), and he was the brother of the two subsequent castellans, Walter and William III. In addition, the Saint-Omers had close family ties to the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.28 Hosto joined the Templars sometime before 1137,29 but I believe he may have appeared in their ranks a few years earlier, probably immediately before or after the Council of Troyes. In William de Saint-Omer’s documents, his son Hosto is always mentioned in first place, before his brother William, so we have good reason to believe that he was the Castellan’s older son. If my assumption is correct that the Castellan of Saint-Omer was planning a career in the new Templar community for his older son, his donation issued in 1128 was probably related to this. In later years, Hosto repeatedly appears in documents as a Templar Brother: in the 1140s, we can find him in Flanders, England, Catalonia, and Palestine.30 24 Barber, New Knighthood, 12–14. 25 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 5 no. VII; 6 no. IX. 26 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 11–12 no. XVII. For the castellans of Saint-Omer, see Arthur Giry, Histoire de la ville de Saint-Omer et de ses institutions jusqu’au XIVe siècle, Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études 31 (Paris 1877); Arthur Giry, “Les châtelains de Saint-Omer, 1042– 1386,” part 1, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 35 (1874): 325–55; part 2, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 36 (1875): 91–117. 27 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 5 no. VII; 11–12 no. XVII. 28 “Lamberti Ardensis historia comitum Ghisnesium,” ed. Johannes Heller, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 24 (Hanover 1879), 550–642, here 584; Giry, “Châtelains de Saint-Omer,” part 1, 340–1; Schenk, Templar Families, 126–7. 29 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 99 no. CXLI. 30 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 143 no. CCV; 172 no. CCLX; 204–5 no. CCCXIV; 227 no. CCCLIII; 239 no. CCCLXXV; Giry, “Châtelains de Saint-Omer,” part 1, 345–6.

21

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

It is astonishing that an almost identical relationship between the Baudement family and the Templars was forged after 1129, and in this case Andrew de Baudement, the seneschal of Champagne, played a leading role. Andrew’s presence at the Council of Troyes is not surprising, particularly if we consider his crusading activities (1108, 1115), his place in the entourage of the counts of Champagne, and his strong connections with Bernard, the abbot of Clairvaux, with whom he shared the opinion that the Church needed to be reformed. These latter connections are confirmed by several documents dating to the years between 1128 and 1132. In 1128, Archbishop Reynald of Reims issued a document which informs us that Galeran de Baudement, the former abbot of the monastery of St. Martin in Epernay and Andrew de Baudement’s son, had resigned his office. This had occurred on the advice of Bernard de Clairvaux, Count Thibaut II of Champagne, and the archbishop himself, who had decided to establish regular canons at Epernay. The document indicates that Thibaut II had been instrumental in Galeran’s original appointment as abbot in Epernay, which would have happened before 1128.31 Galeran de Baudement now became a monk at Clairvaux, and from there – in 1129, according to Jochen Schenk,32 – Bernard sent him to the newly founded monastery of Ourscamp, where Galeran was serving as abbot by the 1130s.33 In 1130, Andrew de Baudement, his wife Agnes de Braine, and their sons William and Guy played an active role in the foundation of another Cistercian monastery, namely, Notre-Dame d’Igny in the diocese of Reims.34 Two years later, in 1132, Andrew was also among the founders of the Cistercian monastery of Longpont.35 In both cases, there is no doubt as to Bernard de Clairvaux’s decisive involvement in establishing these two new monasteries. Andrew de Baudement also saw to the ecclesiastical careers of his other children. His son, also named Andrew, became a monk at the Cistercian monastery in Pontigny and later served as the first abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Chaalis, newly founded by King Louis VI of France in 1136.36 Another one of Andrew’s sons,

31 Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Remensis, col. 39 no. XXXVII. 32 Schenk, Templar Families, 130. 33 André Du Chesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Dreux et de quelques autres familles illustres qui en sont descendues par femmes (Paris 1631), Preuves, 233–4; “Ex historia coenobii Mortui-maris ab anno MCXXX usque ad annum circiter MCC,” in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol. 14, ed. Michel-Jean-Joseph Brial (Paris 1877), 509–14, here 510; Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Notre-Dame d’Ourscamp de l’ordre de Cîteaux, fondée en 1129 au diocèse de Noyon, ed. Achille Peigné-Delacourt (Amiens 1865), 82 no. CXXI. 34 Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Remensis, cols. 39–41 XXXVIII; L’Abbé J. Chardron, “Monographie de l’abbaye d’Igny,” Revue de Champagne et de Brie: Histoire, biographie, archéologie, documents inédits, bibliographie, beaux-arts 7 (1879): 25–9, 100–8, 215–17, 356–67, here 101. 35 Gallia Christiana, Instrumenta Ecclesiae Suessionensis, cols. 111–12 no. XXII. 36 Eugène Lefèvre-Pontalis, L’église abbatiale de Chaalis (Oise) (Caen 1903), 3–4; Schenk, Templar Families, 130.

22

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

Thibaut de Baudement, became a monk in Prémontré.37 Sometime later (after 1142), two of Andrew’s daughters, Mathilde and Helvide, entered the convent of Jully-les-Nonnains. The abbey of Jully-les-Nonnains was a branch of the abbey of Molesme in the diocese of Langres and had been founded around 1113/1115 by Milo II of Brienne, the Count of Bar-sur-Seine. Milo’s wife Agnes was the daughter of Guy of Baudement (another one of Andrew de Baudement’s sons) who was Mathilde’s and Helvide’s brother.38 Andrew de Baudement’s only son to remain in secular life and continue the Baudement family lineage was the aforementioned Guy de Baudement. Guy was married to Alix (Alice) about whose parentage nothing is known at the moment. Two of Andrew’s daughters, namely, the aforementioned Helvide (who later became a nun at Jully-les-Nonnains) and Humbeline, were married to sons of noble Champenois families. In the 1130s, Helvide’s husband was Guy de Dampierre-sur-Aube, the Viscount of Troyes, who also appears in documents detailing donations to the Templars.39 Humbeline, meanwhile, had married Walter II, the Count of Brienne, and we encounter them both in a document issued in 1133, when they approved a donation to the Templars made by Andrew de Baudement.40 Considering the “religious” activities of Andrew de Baudement and his children in the early 1130s, their policy toward the Knights Templar was a natural complement. Andrew’s son William joined the Order, probably before the end of 1132.41 This step was accompanied by a considerable number of donations  – not just by Andrew himself, but also by other donors who were responding to the Order’s growing popularity in the early 1130s. Around the years 1132–1133, we observe related activities in northern Champagne, particularly in the vicinity of the villages of Barbonne, Sézanne, Chantemerle, Baudement, and Pleurs. All these places are close to each other, the distance between them averaging between 7 and 15 kilometers. What is more, we also see family ties between the people who made these donations to the Templars. Particularly interesting in this regard is a document issued by Bishop Hato of Troyes, dating to the years between 1129 and 1143 and published by the Marquis d’Albon.42 This document lists donations made to the Templars in northern Champagne, and although the charter’s closing date is the year 1143, there is reason to believe that several of the listed donations were made much earlier: for example, the donation made by Simon, lord

37 Du Chesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Dreux, Preuves, 233–4. 38 Ernest Petit, Cartulaire du prieuré de Jully-les-Nonnains (Auxerre 1881), 13–14; first published in Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de l’Yonne 34, no. 1 (1880): 249–302, here 261–2; Genealogy 1. 39 For more on him, see later in this chapter. 40 Du Chesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Dreux, Preuves, 233–4; Genealogy 1. 41 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 19 no. XXVII. 42 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 20–3 no. XXVIII.

23

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

of Broyes, must be dated before January 1137, the month and year of Simon’s death. Bishop Hato’s document should be read alongside another document, partially published by the Marquis d’Albon and edited in its entirety by Félix Bourquelot.43 In this document, dated to 1133, one Letheric de Baudement (not to be confused with Andrew de Baudement’s eponymous father) gives to the Templar Order everything he possesses between Baudement and Chantemerle.44 If we consider the geographical range of the donations detailed in these two documents, they complement each other perfectly, and the link that holds them both together is Andrew de Baudement, the seneschal of Champagne.45 Our starting point here is Letheric de Baudement’s 1133 donation which has been discussed by Jochen Schenk.46 Schenk suggests that Letheric may be a relative of Agnes of Baudement (i.e., Guy de Baudement’s daughter and Andrew de Baudement’s granddaughter) and that he may be identical with Letheric of Aulnoy, but there is no conclusive evidence for this. It is, however, obvious that Letheric of Baudement was Andrew’s vassal, and his decision to make this donation to the Templars in 1133 was probably the result of a similar decision taken by the seneschal of Champagne himself: the feudal (albeit not familial) relations between Letheric and Andrew are clearly stated in the document, because Andrew had to approve Letheric’s donation as one made from his fief (de feodo domini Andree Senescalci). According to the same document (as edited by Bourquelot), Andrew de Baudement made a donation, too, for the salvation of the souls of his ancestors and especially on behalf of his son William “who was a Knight of God and the Temple of Solomon” (qui miles Dei Templique Salomonis tunc fuerat). In Andrew’s case, his donation was approved by the count of Champagne, Andrew’s feudal overlord, and by all those of Andrew’s children who were not monks or nuns at this time. Thus, we find here his son and heir, Guy de Baudement, and his wife (Alix); the count of Brienne (Walter II), his wife (Andrew’s daughter Humbeline), and their sons Guy and Eustace; as well as Helvide de Baudement, alongside her husband, Guy de Dampierre-surAube, and their sons Anseric de Montréal (from Helvide’s first marriage to Hugh de Chacenay) and William de Dampierre-sur-Aube.47 One should look more closely at Letheric de Baudement’s 1133 document because it actually consists of three parts. The first part is Letheric’s donation, confirmed by his sons Leon and Eustace, and witnessed by eight individuals, of which Johannes Rufus and Viters hailed from Baudement, Mark and Philip

43 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 43 no. LX; Bourquelot, “Notice sur le cartulaire des Templiers de Provins,” 185–6 no. I. 44 Appendix 1. 45 Genealogy 1, Genealogy 2. 46 Schenk, Templar Families, 131. 47 Appendix 1; Genealogy 1, Genealogy 2; Karol Polejowski, “The Counts of Brienne and the Military Orders in the Thirteenth Century,” in The Military Orders, Volume 5: Politics and Power, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Farnham 2012), 285–95, here 286.

24

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

from Pleurs, and Escelin from Connantre. We can be sure that these people were Letheric de Baudement’s closest associates, and a few of them also appear in the aforementioned 1129–1143 document issued by Bishop Hato of Troyes. The document’s second part concerns the donation made by Andrew de Baudement. Andrew gave to the Templars everything he had in the domain of Baudement: serfs and maidservants, cultivated and uncultivated land, bodies of water, meadows, bridges (namely, income from bridges), and the income of the entire castle, except the castle of Baudement itself and a servant by the name of Guy de Corbosum. All this, as discussed earlier, was confirmed by Andrew’s family members, alongside eleven additional witnesses, including two people from Letheric de Baudement’s list, namely, Johannes Rufus and Escelin de Connantre. As to the remaining nine witnesses, we should emphasize the presence of Dreux de Pierrefonds, Andrew’s kinsman,48 who gave the Order a plow “by which the donation was made” (per quem donum factum fuit); Andrew’s aforementioned brother Engenoul (Ingenurfus);49 as well as Giselbert and Andrew from La FertéGaucher where a Templar commandery would later be established (the chapel of which is still standing). The document’s third and final part is the donation’s confirmation by Count Thibaut II of Champagne and three of his associates: Hugh, Nicholas, and Walter.50 Our particular attention to the witnesses of this 1133 document is justified by the fact that some of them also appear, either as witnesses or donors, in the aforementioned 1129–1143 document, issued by Bishop Hato of Troyes,51 to which we now turn. In fact, the two documents have many points in common. Hato’s charter can be divided into thirty-five paragraphs, and nine of these paragraphs, which confirm various donations, are directly related to Andrew de Baudement and the donations to the Templars made in 1133.52 Four of these nine paragraphs pertain to Andrew de Baudement’s relatives or kinsmen, and five of these nine paragraphs pertain to the decisions of some of the people who witnessed the 1133 document. These nine paragraphs, which concern a limited number of donations made to the Templars, should be dated to “between 1132 and 1137.” I will analyze these paragraphs, taking into consideration Andrew de Baudement’s respective role. Firstly, I will analyze the paragraphs that confirm the donations of nobles (identifiable in the document by being referred to as dominus). With perhaps only one exception, these nobles were either Baudement family members or their kinfolk by marriage. Andrew de Baudement’s closest relative in Hato’s document is Guy de Dampierre-sur-Aube, his son-in-law, who donated to the Templars land he

48 49 50 51 52

Genealogy 3. Genealogy 1. Bourquelot, “Notice sur le cartulaire des Templiers de Provins,” 185–6 no. I. Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 20–3 no. XXVII. Appendix 2.

25

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

had previously received from his father-in-law.53 Guy was the son of Thibaut de Dampierre and Elisabeth de Montlhéry,54 and he had been to the Holy Land with his cousin, Guy of Le Puiset, in 1127. The strong ties between the Latin nobility of Outremer and the Montlhéry family should be emphasized.55 Guy’s donation was confirmed by his wife, Helvide (Arvis) de Baudement, and two of their sons, namely, their older son, William, and one of their younger sons, Guy, who later became bishop of Châlons.56 The witness list includes Bishop Hato of Troyes, the Archdeacon Manasses from Romilly-sur-Seine, Andrew de Baudement himself, as well as three Templars: William Falco, Regimund, and Adam de Noers (possibly Noyers).57 Another nobleman from northern Champagne, who also made a donation to the Templars at the same time, was Simon, lord of Broyes. Simon gave to the Order a rent of 100 solidi taken from Sézanne.58 This donation had been confirmed by Count Thibaut II of Champagne, Dreux de Lacheio (i.e., Lachy, north of Sézanne), and Erard, the provost of Sézanne. Simon de Broyes was the son of Hugh “Bardoul” de Broyes and Emeline de Montlhéry, whose sister Elisabeth is already known to us. Simon’s wife was Felicité de Brienne, the sister of Count Walter II (who had witnessed Andrew de Baudement’s aforementioned 1133 donation and was his son-in-law).59 Simon de Broyes’s donation may be connected to another donation,60 according to which a certain Losbertus de Vico Forti had given himself, his household, and all his properties to the Templars. Losbertus’s decision was accepted by Frederick de Broyes de cujus casamento iste tenebat and Frederick’s brother Simon who may be identical with the lord of Broyes. The last of the nobles from Champagne whom we encounter as a donor to the Templars and who appears in two paragraphs of Bishop Hato’s document is Hugh de Plancy(-l’Abbaye).61 According to the first of these paragraphs, he gave to the Order what he had received earlier from Agnes de Braine, Andrew de Baudement’s wife. From the second of these paragraphs, we learn that Hugh 53 54 55 56 57

58 59

60 61

Appendix 2 § 27. Genealogy 2, Genealogy 3. Genealogy 3; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades. A History, 2nd ed. (London 2005), 95–8. “Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium,” ed. Scheffer-Boichorst, 846. It is possible that Adam de Noers (referring to Noyers in northern Burgundy) was a son of Hugh, lord of Noyers. Adam is mentioned in an undated charter issued by his father in which the latter makes a donation to the abbey of Molesme; see Cartulaire général de l’Yonne: Recueil de documents authentiques pour servir à l’histoire des pays qui forment ce département, ed. Maximilien Quantin, vol. 2 (Auxerre 1860), 26 no. 24. Appendix 2 § 11. Genealogy 1, Genealogy 2. For the familial connections between Broyes and Brienne, see “Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium,” ed. Scheffer-Boichorst, 818; “Genealogiae Scriptoris Fusniacensis,” ed. Georg Waitz, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 13 (Hanover 1881), 251–6, here 254. See also Schenk, Templar Families, 98–9. Appendix 2 § 34. Appendix 2 § 28 and 29.

26

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

donated to the Order a rent of 20 solidi from the area of Plancy. Hugh was the son of Philippe de Plancy, who was married to a daughter (whose name is unknown) of Milo de Montlhéry.62 The territorial connection between Hugh de Plancy’s and Guy de Dampierre’s respective donations should be noted:63 both of them gave to the Templars land holdings they had previously received from Andrew de Baudement and his wife. Hugh de Plancy’s donation64 was confirmed by three Templars: a certain Willer, (William) Falco, and Regimund. In each of these donations, the common denominators are not just family relations between the noble donors and Andrew de Baudement, but also the various donors’ strong family ties to the house of Montlhéry.65 Thus, by extension, the activities of Andrew de Baudement and those of his relatives with regard to the Templars at this time are connected to the respective activities of King Baldwin II of Jerusalem and (later) his daughter, Queen Melisende (descendants of the house of Montlhéry), and those of the count of Jaffa and the lord of Birejk (descendants of both the Montlhéry and Le Puiset families).66 In addition, there is a close connection between these donations and the donations made by John de Pleurs, Guarnerus de Crécy(-la-Chapelle, formerly Crécy-en-Brie), and Escelin de Connantre.67 While the latter were not members of Champagne’s higher nobility, they represent a significant group of local landowners; they were influential enough to act as witnesses in the documents of the nobility; Escelin de Connantre and the others had enough land and income to make donations to the Templars; and the impetus for their actions were probably the respective decisions of such nobles as the Baudements, Dampierres, Broyes, and Plancy. According to the thirteenth paragraph of the 1129–1143 document issued by Bishop Hato of Troyes, a certain Dominus Guarnerus de Creciaco gave to the Templars the smaller tithe (minuta decima) he was collecting de Laceio. The latter is, without a doubt, modern-day Lachy, located a few kilometers to the north of Sézanne. The donor’s title of dominus suggests that he may have been a lord of Creciaco (i.e., today’s Crécy-la-Chapelle). This brings us back to family connections with the house of Montlhéry. Crécy-la-Chapelle was a lordship which, in the eleventh century, was ruled de iure uxoris by Guy de Montlhéry, lord of Rochefort, whose first wife’s name was Elisabeth.68 After Elisabeth’s death, Guy married Isabelle (Adelais) de Crécy, the heiress of the lordship of Crécy. From his first marriage, Guy de Montlhéry 62 Genealogy 2; Du Chesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Dreux, Maison de Broyes et de Chasteauvillain, Preuves, 11. 63 Appendix 2 § 27 and 28. 64 Appendix 2 § 28. 65 See Genealogy 2, Genealogy 3. 66 Genealogy 3. 67 Appendix 2 § 1, 13, 30, and 33. 68 Jean Mesqui, “Les enceintes de Crécy-en-Brie et la fortification dans l’Ouest du Comté de Champagne et de Brie au XIIIe siècle,” in Paris et Ile-de-France: Mémoires publiés par la Fédération des Sociétés

27

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

had children, including a son by the name of Guy who inherited the lordship of Rochefort. From his second marriage with Isabelle (Adelais) de Crécy, Guy had at least two children, namely, a son, Hugh, and a daughter, Beatrice. As a result of political events associated with a rebellion against the king of France, Hugh de Crécy was forced to enter a monastery, probably Cluny. He was unmarried and left no children, thus the lordship of Crécy passed to his sister Beatrice. We know that the latter married twice. Her first husband was Manasses de Tournan-enBrie, and her second husband was Dreux de Pierrefonds whom we have already encountered in Andrew de Baudement’s 1133 document. Dreux and Beatrice left a daughter, Alix, as heiress to the lordships of Crécy and Pierrefonds. Alix’s husband was Gaucher II de Châtillon-sur-Marne who, de iure uxoris, took over the lordships of Pierrefonds and Crécy, and these remained in the possession of this family until the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.69 Is it possible that the aforementioned Dominus Guarnerus de Creciaco of Bishop Hato’s 1129–1143 document is identical with Gaucher II de Châtillon, the husband of Alix de Crécy? The name Guarnerus, as it appears in the document, is usually modernized as “Garnier,” but its sound resembles that of the Latin form of the name “Gaucher,” namely, Gualcherus. It is in this latter form that we can find it, for example, in a charter issued in 1130 by Archbishop Reynald of Reims, the founder of the abbey in Igny-en-Tardenois, confirming a donation to that abbey by Gaucher’s father Henry de Châtillon (d. shortly after 1130).70 As we cannot rule out the possibility of a simple scribal or copyist’s error in the writing of the name, I am inclined to identify Guarnerus as Gaucher. If one were to reject this interpretation, Dominus Guarnerus de Creciaco would have to remain unidentified (at least for the time being). Among the witnesses of his donation, William Falco (the Templar) appears yet again. Both the dominus of Crécy’s donation to the Templars, as well as Andrew de Baudement’s 1133 respective donation, may have been connected to the donation of a certain John de Pleurs [Johannes de Plaitro].71 The latter gave to the Order an annual rent of 100 solidi that was to be collected from his income in Pleurs. The witnesses to John’s donation include the Templar Brothers William de Baudement (i.e., Andrew de Baudement’s son) and John de Crécy [Johannes de Creceio]. We know nothing else about the Templar John de Crécy, but it is conceivable that he entered the Order during the early wave of enthusiasm for this new institution that swept the Champagne region after 1129. That there is a connection between the donation made to the Templars by the lord of Crécy Historiques et Archéologiques de Paris et de l’Ile-de-France 30 (1979): 7–86 (reprinted Paris 1981), here 9–10; Jacques-Amédée Le Paire, Le Comté de Crécy-en-Brie (Lagny 1910), 7–8. 69 Le Paire, Comté de Crécy-en-Brie, 8. 70 André Du Chesne, Histoire de la maison de Chastillon-sur-Marne, avec les généalogies et armes des illustres familles de France et des Pays-Bas, lesquelles y ont été alliée (Paris 1621), Preuves, 23. 71 Appendix 2 § 1.

28

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

and John de Crécy’s decision to the Order seems likely, but the specifics remain unknown to us. The document detailing Letheric de Baudement’s 1133 donation to the Templars lists among the witnesses a certain Hecelinus de Cantarana.72 I identify Cantarana with Connantre, a village situated about 15 kilometers east of Sézanne and approximately 20 kilometers northeast of Baudement, right in the neighborhood of Pleurs. The same Escelin also appears in two paragraphs of the 1129–1143 document issued by Bishop Hato of Troyes.73 According to the first of these paragraphs,74 Escelin sold his land and forests in the vicinity of the village Carme to the Templars for 60 solidi and one horse; this was confirmed by a number of people, including some we already know from the 1133 document,75 namely, Johannes Rufus de Baudement and Guy de Corbesum (or Corbosum) who was Andrew de Baudement’s famulus, and Andrew himself also features prominently in this transaction. From the second of these two paragraphs in Bishop Hato’s document,76 we learn that Escelin was receiving 3 solidi and 3 denarii annually in terra Evardi from a certain Thierry, a servant of the Templar Order. This terra Evardi could perhaps be the same place as the prata Emenardi mentioned in the aforementioned donations to the Templars made by Guy de Dampierre and Hugh de Plancy.77 The second paragraph78 also provides additional information about the conditions of this contract, including Thierry’s obligation to provide assistance of up to 20 solidi to Escelin should the latter be imprisoned, his son be knighted, his daughter get married, or he decide to buy back his land. The witness list is very similar to the list from Escelin’s first document, including (once again) Johannes Rufus de Baudement and Guy de Corbesum.

*** The document analysis presented earlier – taken together with the related process of the Templars’ establishment in northern Champagne after the Council of Troyes (1129) – underscores the very close family ties between the groups of nobles from Champagne who made the first donations to the Order in the 1130s. The most central individual to take part in all these developments was Andrew de Baudement, the early twelfth-century crusader and seneschal of the counts of Champagne during the reigns of both Hugh of Troyes and Thibaut II. Andrew de Baudement’s family ties with the noble houses of Dampierre-sur-Aube, Broyes, and Plancy resulted in a series of donations 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Appendix 1 (part I, part II). Appendix 2 § 30 and 33. Appendix 2 § 30. Appendix 1. Appendix 2 § 33. Appendix 2 § 27 and 28. Appendix 2 § 33.

29

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

which laid the foundation for the Templars’ future history in Champagne. No less important were the familial connections between these Champenois families and the house of Montlhéry which furnished many of the early rulers and nobles of the Latin East; naturally, it was the “crusading duty” of the members of this family, who remained in France, to help the Knights Templar and provide them with land, funds, and protection. The Baudement family’s involvement in establishing the Templars in northern Champagne served as an example and led to a series of donations to the Order by individuals and families who were less wealthy, but were connected to the seneschal of Champagne by feudal ties, such as Letheric de Baudement, Escelin de Connantre, and John de Pleurs. This, in turn, facilitated intensive recruitment for the new Order in the region. In the documents analyzed earlier, we can identify a whole group of new Templar Brothers, including William de Baudement (Andrew de Baudement’s son), John de Crécy-en-Brie, William Falco, Willer, and Regimund – and it is very probable that Adam de Noyers and Johannes Rufus de Baudement should be added to this group as well; the latter was probably identical with the Templar Brother Johannes Rufus who appears in contemporary documents.79 The following sequence of events emerges: in 1126, King Baldwin II of Jerusalem sent a letter to Bernard de Clairvaux, asking him to support Hugh de Payns, the leader of the Templar community, in his efforts to obtain help for the fight against the enemies of the Christian faith in Outremer; in 1127, Count Thibaut II of Champagne made his first donation to the Knights Templar; and in January 1129, together with his seneschal, Andrew de Baudement, Thibaut attended the Council of Troyes which addressed the question of how to help the Templar community. The best way to ensure this help was to establish the new Order in the kingdom of France and thus provide it with a constant stream of recruits, land, and funds, as well as protection. Andrew de Baudement’s activities of the early 1130s are a perfect example of how these objectives were achieved. At the Council of Troyes, only theoretical arrangements were made; the actions subsequently taken by Andrew de Baudement gave a practical dimension to these arrangements.

79 See, for example, Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 39 no. L; 142 no. CCIV.

30

Appendix 1 1133 DOCUMENT

Ed. Bourquelot, “Notice sur le cartulaire des Templiers de Provins,” 185–6 no. I. Ed. (part I) Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 43 no. LX. [part I] In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen. Notum sit omnibus hominibus tam futuris quam presentibus quod dom[i]nus Lethericus de Baudimento, Dei amore et pro anime sue salute et pro animabus suorum antecessorum omnium, Deo et militibus Templi dedit quicquid habebat apud Baldimentum et quicquid habebat a Cantumerula usque ad Baldimentum de feodo domini Andree Senescalci; dedit etiam quandam mulierem quam habebat apud Alnetum villam; hoc donum laudavit et concessit Leonius, filius ejus, et Eustachius, alter filius. Hujus rei testes sunt: Marco et Philippus de Plarro, Johannes Rufus de Baldimento et Hecelinus de Cantarana, Robertus Dorivol, Viters de Baldimento et Gonterius et Vivianus de Virtutibus. Hoc donum iterum laudavit dom[i]nus Andreas a quo tenebat; [part II] postea vero ipse Andreas, pro anima sua et pro animabus omnium antecessorum suorum et maxime pro filio suo nomine Willelmo, qui miles Dei Templique Salomonis tunc fuerat, eisdem militibus dedit quicquid in dominio apud Baldimentum habebat in servis et in ancillis; dedit etiam quicquid habebat in agris cultis et incultis, in aquis et in pratis et in pontibus, videlicet redditus pontium, dedit et redditus tocius castri, nichil que retinuit preter firmitatem et preter casamentum suorum militum et preter unum famulum, scilicet Guidonem de Corbosum. Hoc donum laudavit Theobaldus comes, a quo totum movebat. Guido, filius domini Andree, iterum laudavit atque uxor ejus; comes Brinie laudavit et uxor ejus et filii eorum Guido et Eustachius; Guido de Dampetra iterum laudavit, et uxor ejus nomine Elvidis, et filii Ansericus et Guillelmus. Hujus rei testes sunt: Drogo de Petrafonte, qui cultrum dedit per quem donum factum fuit; Ingenurfus, frater domini Andree, Odo de Campinius, Gislebertus de Firmitate, Andreas de Firmitate, Matheus Lothorigensis, Robertus de Cultato

31

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

Monte, Furco de Jotro, Johannes Rufus de Baldimento et Ecelinus de Cantarana, Ecelinus de Anglaura. [part III] De familia comitis Theobaldi, testes sunt: Hugo de Lisiaco, Nicholaus de Sezania, Galterius de Bernum. Facta sunt hec anno ab incarnatione Domini Mo Co XXXo IIIo, Ludovico rege regnante, Athone Trecis episcopante.

32

Appendix 2 1129–1143 DOCUMENT

Ed. Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple, ed. d’Albon, 20–3 no. XXVIII (excerpts). [§ 1] In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis. Ego Hato, Dei gratia Trecorum episcopus, notum facio tam presentibus, quam posteritati sequentium, quod Johannes de Plaitro dedit militibus Templi centum solidos singulis annis, in foro Plaiotri, laudante filio suo Manasse. Hujus rei Johannis testes: Galterus de Cohairardo, Marcus de Plaiotro, Berengerus de Baldimento. Testes vero militum Dei: Johannes de Creceio, Guillelmus de Baldimento. [§ 11] Dominus autem Symon Brecensis dedit militibus Templi centum solidos in perpetuum habendos in suo censu Sezanne. Hujus rei testes sunt: comes Theobaldus et Drago de Lacheio et Erardus, Sezanne prepositus. [§ 13] Dominus Guarnerus de Creciaco dedit militibus Templi quicquid in minuta decima de Laceio habebat. Hujus rei testes sunt: Manasses de Rumiliaco, archidia[co]nus et Tegrinus canonicus, Guillermus Falco. [§ 27] Guido de Dampe[t]ra dedit Deo et militibus Templi prata que Andreas dedit ad censum, et prata Emenardi et omnia que in Emenardo habebat et querebat, concedentibus hoc uxore Arvis et filius suis W. et G.; testibus: Hatone episcopo Trecensium, et Manasse archidiacono, et A(ndrea) de Baldimento et Adam de Noers et W(illelmo) Falc(one) et Regimundo, militibus Templi. [§ 28] Dominus Hugo Planceii concessit in eodem dono dominis Templi quicquid habebat in Emenardo et in pratis domine Agnes, uxoris A(ndree) de Baldimento. Hoc donum factum est Willer et Falc(oni) et Regimundo, militibus Templi; testes: Hugo, filius Roberti, Airardus, p(re)tor Sezannie, Albuinus, villicus Sancti Justi. [§29] Prefatus Hugo dederat dominis Templi XX solidos de censu pratorum Planceii, quod ipse volens retinere, dedit eis supradictum donum in cambio.

33

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

[§ 30] Hecelinus de Canturane dedit Deo et militibus Templi id quod habebat in terra Carme et in orto et en la forest, pro LX solidis et uno equo. Hujus rei testes: Johannes Rufus de Baldimento, Robertus de Magno Prato, Bernerus, Gunterus, Guido de Corbesu(m), ea conditione quod uxor sua, ejus precepto, laudaret hoc. Et hoc factum tali pacto fuit, ante A(ndream) de Baldimento, quod si milites Templi de hac re, vel Hecelinus, se ipsos retraherent, sine jurejurando, sicut supradicti testes sub fidei interpositione dicerent, ita concederetur. [§ 33] Hecelinus de Canturane recipiet in unoquoque anno III solidos et III denarios in terra Evardi, de Theoderico quondam rustico militum Templi. Theodericus autem, si aliquid forisfecerit, eidem Hecelino rectum faciet; et si H(ecelinus) incarceratus fuerit, vel de filio suo militem fecerit, vel filiam suam viro dederit, vel terram propriam redemerit, tot nummos quot de censu reddit, ei in adjutorium dederit, scilicet XX denarios et nichil amplius. Testes: Johannes Rufus de Baldimento, Robertus de Magno Prato, Guido p(re)tor, Guido de Corbesu(m). [§ 34] Losbertus autem de Vico Forti reddidit se ipsum Deo et militibus Templi, et omnia que habebat, scilicet medietatem magne decima de Straheles et medietatem furni et medietatem molendini et dimidium atrii et hospites suos et prata sua et terram suam et terragium et viros et feminas, ubicumque sint, excepto uno quem concessit Petro Beez de Sezannia, laudante Frederico Brecensi, de cujus casamento iste tenebat; et hoc concessit Simon, frater Frederici. Testes sunt: comes Theobaldus, Nicholaus Brecensis, Angelbertus magnus, Hermannus medicus, Airardus, preses Sezannie, Albuinus Rufus, Malenturitus, Petrus Beez.

34

Figure 1.1 Genealogy 1: Baudement

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

35

Figure 1.2 Genealogy 2: Montlhéry, Dampierre-sur-Aube, Broyes, and Plancy (simplified)

K A RO L P O L E J O W S K I

36

Figure 1.3 Genealogy 3: Montlhéry in Outremer (Latin East) (until the 1130s, simplified)

A N D R E W D E B A U D E M E N T A N D T H E E A R LY Y E A R S

37

2 THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY IN THE CRUSADER KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM, C. 1130–1187 Michael Ehrlich

Introduction When I came through your land and asked who owned the castles that were there, some told me, “That one belongs to the Temple;” others, “It belongs to the Hospital.” So I found no castle or city that was yours, except only three: all belonged to the Orders.1

These remarks by Thoros II, king of Armenia, addressed to the Frankish King Amalric (1163–1174) during the former’s visit to the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem in the second half of the 1160s, clearly reflect the Armenian ruler’s candid impression, but the reality was different. By the 1160s, there was a considerable number of castles, cities, and towns in the kingdom that belonged either to the king or to the feudal nobility. Yet, the Armenian king’s exaggerated impression notwithstanding, by the 1160s, the military orders were – next to the king – the predominant landowners in the kingdom. How did they achieve this status? The military orders received massive land donations in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem and all over the Christian world. Since the respective donors were not necessarily connected to each other, these properties were scattered throughout Christendom. In this chapter, I focus on the acquisitions made by the Templar Order in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. I suggest that – unlike the land donations received by the Order – acquisitions were made in accordance with a well-defined economic policy. Yet, since the Templar Order’s central archive 1 Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Louis de Mas Latrie (Paris 1871), 27–8; English translation: Peter W. Edbury, “Thoros of Armenia and the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in Crusading and Warfare in the Middle Ages, Realities and Representations: Essays in Honour of John France, ed. Simon John and Nicholas Morton, Crusades Subsidia 7 (Farnham 2014), 181–90, here 184.

38

THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY

has not survived, the evidence for its acquisition policy must be deduced from other data, such as the corresponding policy of other, contemporary Orders.2 For the sake of comparison, the land acquisitions made by other Orders will be described in detail, assuming that Templar acquisitions followed a similar pattern. Although each Order had its own particular policy and implemented different economic methods to maximize gains and to minimize risks, they had several practices in common. I maintain that, from the 1120s, when the first military orders were established, up until the fall of the kingdom in 1291, two basic principles apply to the three major Orders (i.e., the Templars, the Hospitallers, and later the Teutonic Knights): 1 2

The military orders strove to establish contiguous territories. They operated as a cartel: although everyday relations between these communities may not always have been friendly, and were indeed sometimes hostile, they cooperated to defend their economic interests and to maximize gains.

The Orders made acquisitions almost everywhere in the kingdom. However, for the lordship of Caesarea both written documentation and archaeological findings enable us to establish a detailed outline of the military orders’ policy and its implementation. Unfortunately, for Caesarea, too, the data are incomplete, and a single case study might not be representative of the military orders’ policy. Therefore, a comparison between the military orders’ activities in the lordship of Caesarea and elsewhere in the kingdom should clarify whether the military orders’ acquisition policy may have applied throughout the kingdom. To better understand the lordship of Caesarea’s economic history, the subsequently discussed scholarship is both edifying and helpful. Although Gustav Beyer’s extensive and detailed study on the history of the territory of Caesarea during the crusader period was written over eighty years ago, it is still considered a major reference work.3 Denys Pringle has published a significant report about the excavations at the Red Tower (Grid Reference 691.795), located to the southeast of Caesarea. In addition to presenting the results of the excavations, Pringle has also conducted a field survey of sites in the southern district of Caesarea that are mentioned in crusader period documents.4 This survey adds much information about Frankish activities in the lordship of Caesarea’s southern region. In his valuable book about the archaeology of the military orders, Adrian Boas meticulously surveys these Orders’ properties in the kingdom’s 2 Adrian J. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlements and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120–1291) (London 2006), 86. 3 Gustav Beyer, “Das Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea in Palästina siedlungs- und territorialgeschichtlich untersucht,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 59, nos. 1–2 (1936): 1–91. 4 Denys Pringle, The Red Tower (al-Burj al-ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the time of the Crusaders and the Mamluks A.D. 1099–1516, Jerusalem Monograph Series 1 (London 1986), 5–82.

39

MICHAEL EHRLICH

countryside.5 He also refers to the military orders’ economic activities in the lordship of Caesarea.6 Steven Tibble’s work contains a long chapter about the lordship of Caesarea. Tibble describes in detail the various transactions in the area from the lordship’s formation in 1101 to its fall to the Mamluks in 1265.7 He indicates that, from the 1120s on, the military orders became increasingly involved in the lordship’s economic life. Tibble also observes that, while the Templars focused their efforts on the northern part of the lordship, the Hospitallers were active in its southern part.8 He attributes the military orders’ land acquisitions in the territory of Caesarea to the local lords’ economic problems during the period. However, these economic woes do not provide a holistic explanation for the land acquisition phenomenon. First of all, while the basic rule of supply and demand requires two sides, namely, sellers and buyers, Tibble deals exclusively with the sellers’ motivation. Secondly, the Orders did not just purchase properties: they also received vast donations, sometimes from the same, allegedly impoverished, lords. In such cases, which includes important sites such as Calansua, the lords obtained no fiscal benefit. In her study of the Hospitaller Order’s economic history, Judith Bronstein primarily focuses on the Hospitallers’ activities after the Frankish defeat at Hattin (4 July 1187) and barely refers to the lordship’s early years.9 Nonetheless, some of her observations are relevant for this study. I am not convinced that the lords’ sole or primary motivation in selling property was their economic situation. Therefore, the military orders’ land acquisition policy in the entire kingdom must be studied further. I believe that such an investigation may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Orders’ activities, both locally and in general, and particularly with regard to the Templar Order.

Caesarea Caesarea was the largest city in Roman-Byzantine Palestine.10 During the early Muslim period, its population and residential area diminished significantly.11 When the crusaders conquered Caesarea in 1101, they were either 5 Boas, Archaeology, 71–92. 6 Boas, Archaeology, 79–82. 7 Steven Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1291 (Oxford 1989), 103–35. 8 Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 111. 9 Judith Bronstein, The Hospitallers and the Holy Land: Financing the Latin East, 1187–1274 (Woodbridge 2005), 47–61. 10 Joseph Patrich, Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinaea, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 77 (Leiden 2011), 92–9. 11 Kenneth G. Holum and Robert L. Hohlfelder, King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea (New York 1988), 201–14; Kenneth G. Holum, “Caesarea in Palestine: Shaping the early-Islamic Town,” in Le

40

THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY

unable or unwilling to restore the city to its former glory.12 The lord of Caesarea had to contribute twenty-five knights to the royal army; meanwhile, the city of Caesarea and the local archbishop each had to furnish fifty sergeants.13 These obligations clearly indicate that Caesarea was a medium-value fief in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem and that the size of its Frankish population was limited. Nonetheless, despite the fief ’s moderate value, the territory of the Frankish lordship of Caesarea was similar in size to the territory of prosperous Roman-Byzantine Caesarea.14 This suggests that the Franks preserved the Roman-Byzantine city’s territory regardless of its actual status or value. The lordship of Caesarea included six administrative centers: the city of Caesarea itself, Districtum (734.366) and Merle (724.832) in the north, Castellum Arearum (712.311) in the east, and Caco (696.103) and Calansua (687.844) in the south. The lordship’s central region, i.e., south of Merle, west of Castellum Arearum and north of Caco, was administered by the city of Caesarea. Four of the secondary centers (Districtum, Merle, Caco, and Calansua) were located on the kingdom’s main artery between Acre and Jerusalem.15 This was not just a commercial and administrative road, but also a principal pilgrimage route. Most pilgrims who disembarked at Acre either used this road to travel to Jerusalem or to return from the Holy City to Acre.16 This constituted an economic factor that attracted Franks to settle near the road. In these four secondary centers, there were courts of burgesses, which suggest that their Frankish population must have been considerable.17 Three of these centers (Districtum, Merle, and Calansua) belonged to the Templars and the Hospitallers before 1187. By the mid-thirteenth century, the Hospitallers acquired most of the property in Caco, but they did not control it. I suggest that the military orders’ eventual control in particular areas of the lordship of Caesarea was the result of systematic property acquisitions in specific areas, leading to the establishment of semi-independent contiguous territories. I further suggest that the Hospitallers’ unsuccessful attempt to take over Caco was in consequence of the policy of the

12 13 14

15 16

17

Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides: Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, Actes du colloque “Continuités de l’occupation entre les périodes byzantine et abbasside au Proche-Orient, VIIe–IXe siècles,” Paris, 18–20 octobre 2007, ed. Antoine Borrut, Muriel Debié, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Dominique Pieri, and Jean-Pierre Sodini, Bibliothèque d’Antiquité Tardive 19 (Turnhout 2011), 169–86. Holum and Hohlfelder, King Herod’s Dream, 217–35. Peter W. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Woodbridge 1997), 118, 125. Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 5–15; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 99–152; Michael Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest, 536 B.C. to A.D. 640, ed. Anson F. Rainey (Jerusalem 2002), 143–5. Michael Ehrlich, “L’organisation de l’espace et la hiérarchie des villes dans le royaume latin de Jérusalem,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 51, no. 203 (2008): 213–22, here 216–17. Michael Ehrlich, “The Route of the First Crusade and the Frankish Roads to Jerusalem during the 12th Century,” Revue Biblique 113, no. 2 (2006): 263–83, here 282–3; Ehrlich, “Organisation,” 216–19. Denys Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological Gazetteer (Cambridge 1997), 3.

41

MICHAEL EHRLICH

lords of Caesarea who engaged in considerable efforts and manipulation to deny the Hospitallers full control of the site.

The Hospitaller area in the territory of Caesarea Before 1110, the Hospitallers received an unnamed village in the territory of Caesarea.18 Yet, the first significant Hospitaller foothold in the lordship of Caesarea was the castle of Calansua.19 Although Calansua was received as a donation in 1128, subsequent Hospitaller acquisitions in the area of Caesarea were made primarily in the region of Calansua. The document describing the donation of Calansua has not survived, and the Hospitaller cartulary includes only a brief eighteenth-century summary in which Calansua is referred to as a castle. Pringle asserts that, since Calansua is not referred to as a castle in other documents, perhaps the eighteenth-century description mistakes a village (casale) for a castle,20 and Boas concurs with Pringle’s view.21 However, I suggest that in 1128 Calansua was indeed a castle. Since Districtum, the northern administrative center of the lordship of Caesarea, was built as a castle, Calansua, the lordship’s southern administrative center, was likely also initially a castle. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the Principality of Galilee where the local lords built castles during the first decade of the twelfth century in Safed, Tibnin, al-‘Al, and Hunin.22 These castles were built near the borders of the principality and functioned as administrative centers. The lordship of Caesarea probably followed the same policy. Pringle further suggests that Calansua became the site of a Hospitaller commandery which administered the Order’s properties in the southern district of the territory of Caesarea.23 He furthermore proposes that Calansua also included a civilian settlement.24 Although Calansua does not appear in the list of settlements with a court of burgesses, there is a reference to a viscount in Calansua, which implies that there was a court in Calansua.25 This, in turn, suggests that Calansua must have had a substantial Frankish population. In 1135, the Hospitallers acquired the village of Arthabec, northwest of Calansua (692.235).26 In 1151–1152, they acquired the village of Teira 18 Joseph M. A. Delaville Le Roulx, ed., Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem (1100–1300), 4 vols. (Paris 1894–1905), 1: 20–1 no. 20. 19 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 78 no. 83; Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 41; Pringle, Red Tower, 42; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 107–8. 20 Pringle, Red Tower, 42. 21 Boas, Archaeology, 80. 22 Hugh Kennedy, Crusader Castles (Cambridge 1994), 40. 23 Pringle, Red Tower, 42. 24 Pringle, Red Tower, 42–3. 25 Jean Richard, Le royaume latin de Jérusalem (Paris 1953), 119 n. 2; Marwan Nader, Burgesses and Burgess Law in the Latin Kingdoms of Jerusalem and Cyprus (1099–1325) (Aldershot 2006), 131. 26 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 97 no. 115; Pringle, Red Tower, 39.

42

THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY

(680.355), south of Calansua.27 By 1153, the Hospitallers owned Calosia (693.376), southwest of Calansua, but it is unclear whether they acquired this village or received it as a donation.28 In 1176, the Hospitallers acquired Casal Moyen (683.102), southeast of Calansua, from John of Arsur.29 This acquisition seems to indicate that Casal Moyen and Teira belonged to the lordship of Arsur and not to Caesarea.30 Casal Moyen is located northeast of Teira, and the road between Casal Moyen and Arsur passed through Teira. Therefore, if Casal Moyen belonged to the lordship of Arsur, so did Teira, supporting Pringle’s opinion that both Casal Moyen and Teira belonged to Arsur. However, Beyer and Tibble suggest that Casal Moyen and Teira were situated within the area of Caesarea.31 In the written documentation, Casal Moyen and Teira are explicitly described as villages in the vicinity (près and juxta) of Calansua which belonged to the lordship of Caesarea. In fact, they are not very close to Calansua. Casal Moyen (assuming that Pringle’s identification is correct) is located about 7 kilometers from Calansua, and Teira is located about 8 kilometers from Calansua. Therefore, linking these settlements to Calansua suggests that there must have been strong administrative ties between them. In other words, since these settlements were probably administered from Calansua, both of them must have belonged to Caesarea. However, there is no evidence that the lordship of Arsur existed in 1151–1152, namely, when Teira was acquired by the Hospitallers.32 Therefore, in 1151–1152, Teira may have been in the territory of Caesarea, even if it was later transferred to Arsur. This case supports Ellenblum’s argument concerning the complex nature of medieval borders.33 Initially, the lord of Caesarea held the entire territory of Caesarea. Later, Calansua was granted to the Hospitallers who subsequently began to acquire adjacent properties. As a result of this Hospitaller action, the area south of Calansua was separated from the lordship’s contiguous land mass. Before the Hospitaller land acquisition, Casal Moyen and Teira were administered from Calansua; when the area became Hospitaller property, the region south of Calansua, which did not belong to the Order, remained isolated. As Casal Moyen and Teira were peripheral properties, their value was probably low, and when they became either too difficult or too 27 28 29 30 31

Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 155–7 no. 202; Pringle, Red Tower, 72. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 167 no. 217; Pringle, Red Tower, 36. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 342 no. 497; Pringle, Red Tower, 39. Pringle, Red Tower, 39. Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 14; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 102, 109, 117. 32 Israel Roll, “Introduction: History of the Site, Its Research and Excavations,” in Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations, Volume 1: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods, ed. Israel Roll and Oren Tal, Monograph Series 16 (Tel Aviv 1999), 1–62, here 13–14. 33 Ronnie Ellenblum, “Were There Borders and Borderlines in the Middle Ages? The Example of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices, ed. David Abulafia and Nora Berend (Aldershot 2002), 105–20, here 108–10.

43

MICHAEL EHRLICH

expensive to administer, the lord of Caesarea preferred to sell them. Therefore, Casal Moyen perhaps belonged to the lord of Arsur either as part of his lordship, or he held it from the lord of Caesarea. In either case, since Teira belonged to the Hospitallers, Casal Moyen was separated from the lordship of Arsur. Thus, Casal Moyen became an isolated and unattractive enclave which the lord of Arsur then sold to the Hospitallers. The Hospitallers also made substantial efforts to acquire properties in the Red Tower area and at Caco. Yet, although they succeeded in acquiring many properties in both of these places, they were not able to take control of them. The Red Tower was initially granted to the Abbey of Saint Mary Latin in Jerusalem.34 Before 1189, the Hospitallers leased the site, along with Montdidier and lands at Caco.35 By 1236, the lease was renewed under the condition that the Templars leave the site.36 This agreement was renewed in 1248 and in 1267, when the Red Tower was already in Muslim hands.37 The Hospitallers had received property in Caco before 1110,38 when they were still a charitable community and only minor participants in the kingdom’s economic and political affairs. They also received some houses and lands in Caco in 1131.39 In 1146, the Hospitallers acquired lands, a house, and a space near the communal cistern.40 In 1154, they received another parcel of land.41 They also leased the properties of the Abbey of Saint Mary Latin in Caco.42 Yet, despite all these activities, Caco never became a Hospitaller administrative center. In 1207–1208, the Hospitallers received the adjacent villages of Pharaon (Far-‘un 687.441) and Seingibis (kh. Nisf Jubail 687.200) from Juliana, the Lady of Caesarea.43 These villages were so near each other that the document describes them as a single administrative unit. Juliana asked the Order to bury her in the Hospitaller cemetery. In other words, this acquisition was not a donation but, rather, a transaction according to which the Lady gave the Order material goods and received spiritual benefits in return. This transaction indicates that economic difficulties were certainly not the sole motivation for the lords of Caesarea to sell their land. Cafarlet (727.027) constitutes an interesting example of the military orders’ economic policy with regard to the lords of Caesarea. Cafarlet was a Frankish 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Pringle, Red Tower, 85. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 559 no. 879. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 2: 501 no. 2141. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 2: 673–5 no. 2482; 678 no. 2491; 3: 166 no. 3283. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 20–1 no. 20. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 83–4 no. 94. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 133 no. 168. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 171, no. 223. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 559 no. 879; 2: 501 no. 2141; 673–5 no. 2482; 678 no. 2491; 3: 166 no. 3283. 43 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 2: 65 no. 1251.

44

THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY

village about 7 kilometers south of Districtum, and it used the remains of an early Muslim castle. A Frankish church has been excavated just outside the castle, suggesting that the village did not have any military importance during the crusader period.44 In 1213, the lord of Caesarea gave Cafarlet to the Hospitallers as a security for a debt.45 Cafarlet was located between two important Templar sites: ‘Atlit in the north and Merle in the south. The lord of Caesarea did not want the Templars to establish a contiguous territory in his lordship, therefore he had kept Cafarlet as a buffer between the two Templar centers. Since he needed to borrow money and wanted to secure the debt by offering Cafarlet, he took the loan from the Hospitallers and not from the Templars. Clearly, the Hospitallers did not purchase Cafarlet; they initially received it as a security and – presumably when the loan was not returned – eventually took it over. In 1262, the Hospitallers transferred Cafarlet to the Templars in exchange for properties in the lordship of Sidon.46 The Hospitallers probably made the exchange because Cafarlet was difficult to administer, and there was no prospect for future Hospitaller development in this area. The document which describes this exchange also includes many other transactions between the Orders, suggesting that such exchanges were rather common.

The Templar area in the territory of Caesarea Information about Templar properties is more limited than information about Hospitaller properties. Yet, while the Hospitallers concentrated their efforts in the south of the lordship of Caesarea, the Templars were more active in its northern district.47 Sometime during the twelfth century, the Templars became owners of the castles at Districtum and Merle.48 Although there is no information when the Templars received these castles, nor how they became Templar property, two important points must be mentioned: when the Hospitallers received a castle in the southern district of Caesarea, the Templars probably received a parallel donation in the lordship’s northern region. Although the first reference to Districtum as a Templar castle dates from 1220, the fact that the castle was dismantled by the Templars themselves on the approach of the Muslims suggests that Districtum must have become a Templar property a while back.49 Moreover, I suggest that, during the twelfth century, Districtum was not just a castle but also a civilian settlement. The list of the courts of burgesses 44 Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus. 4 vols. (Cambridge 1993–2009), 4: 242. 45 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 2: 159 no. 1414. 46 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 3: 31–3 no. 3029. 47 Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 111. 48 Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 19–28; Cedric Norman Johns, Guide to ‘Atlit: The Crusader Castle Town and Surroundings with the Prehistoric Caves at Wadi el Maghara (Jerusalem 1947), 94–8; Kennedy, Crusader Castles, 55–7; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 143–4, 146–7. 49 Johns, Guide to ‘Atlit, 94; Kennedy, Crusader Castles, 56–7, 124; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 146.

45

MICHAEL EHRLICH

also refers to a court at Chastiau Pelerin [sic].50 Courts of burgesses were civic institutions which did not exist in castles, especially not in castles that were as small as the castle of Districtum. Although it is unclear when exactly this list of the courts of burgesses was composed, it includes many important estates that were never recovered by the Franks after 1187. The original list was presumably composed before 1187.51 Yet, since the name Chastiau Pelerin (the Frankish name of ‘Atlit) was unknown before the Fifth Crusade, this list was presumably compiled after 1218. In my opinion, this list was perhaps amended in the thirteenth century, but during the twelfth century there were many civilian settlements near the military orders’ castles (e.g., at Gaza, Bethgibelin, Safed, etc.). Hence, I cautiously suggest that, while the original list was composed before 1187, its subsequent compiler or copyist used the name Chastiau Pelerin because this was the name of the site when the list was incorporated into the book of Jean of Ibelin in the mid-thirteenth century. Another central settlement acquired by the Templars was Merle.52 Perhaps the Templar Order received Merle as a donation, but this seems unlikely. As previously suggested, the lords of Caesarea did not remain idle when the military orders acquired properties in their territory. Instead, they may have perceived the military orders’ actions as something akin to an attempt at a “hostile takeover” of their lordship. Therefore, in 1213, when Merle and Districtum already belonged to the Templars, the lord of Caesarea preferred to transfer Cafarlet to the Hospitallers. This suggests that the lords of Caesarea understood that contiguous areas owned by the military orders eventually resulted in the formation of independent entities in which the lords of Caesarea became merely titular lords. Therefore, the Templar Order had probably acquired Merle during the twelfth century. An enigmatic reference to a Templar garrison in Caco appears in thirteenthcentury Frankish chronicles. According to these sources, Templar forces from Caco participated in the Battle of Cresson (1 May 1187).53 Since Caco is situated relatively far from the battlefield, scholars have doubted the reliability of these references.54 The potential existence of a substantial Templar garrison at Caco in 1187 would suggest that the Templars could have held the castle as

50 51 52 53

Edbury, John of Ibelin, 116. Edbury, John of Ibelin, 155–62. Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, 143–4; Boas, Archaeology, 247. Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 38; “L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Occidentaux, vol. 2 (Paris 1859), 1–481, here 39. 54 Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 41; Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, trans. Gérard Nahon, 2 vols., Le monde byzantin (Paris 1969–1970), 1: 645; Pringle, Red Tower, 60; Denys Pringle, “The Spring of the Cresson in Crusading History,” in Dei gesta per Francos: Études sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard / Crusade Studies in Honour of Jean Richard, ed. Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, and Jonathan Riley-Smith (Aldershot 2001), 231–40, here 232.

46

THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY

early as the 1180s.55 This seems unlikely, though, because there is no evidence that the Hospitallers had left Caco. Since the Hospitallers were major landowners at Caco, both before and after 1187, it is unlikely that they were subject to Templar administration. Therefore, the Templar presence at the Red Tower and at Caco must be understood as analogous to the Hospitaller presence in Cafarlet. The lords of Caesarea were trying to prevent the Hospitallers from expanding their territory. Therefore, the Templars also received property in this area. The Templars later understood that these properties were of minor importance for their Order and therefore either sold or exchanged them.

The military orders’ land acquisitions in other regions of the kingdom The military orders held substantial properties in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. The Templars owned a large area in the southwestern region of the Principality of Galilee.56 In 1168, they received Safed57 in the northeast of the Principality of Galilee, and they subsequently initiated the building of Vadum Jacob58 which was in a twilight zone between the Frankish and Ayyubid realms.59 In 1168, the Hospitaller Order acquired the area around Belvoir in the southeast of the Principality of Galilee.60 This transaction was the result of the Hospitallers exploiting the economic constraints that small fief holders were experiencing after the kingdom’s unsuccessful campaigns in Egypt during the 1160s.61 By 1182, the Hospitaller Order was also the owner of the adjacent castle of Forbelet.62 In 1168, the Hospitallers were the only potential buyers on the scene. In other words, Hospitallers and Templars probably divided the areas of the principality among themselves. The Templars acquired properties 55 Boas, Archaeology, 231. 56 Paul Deschamps, “Étude sur un texte latin énumérant les possessions musulmanes dans le royaume de Jérusalem vers l’année 1239,” Syria: Revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie 23, nos. 1–2 (1942–1943): 86–104, here 88, 90. 57 Ernst Strehlke, ed., Tabulae ordinis Theutonici ex tabularii regii Berolinensis codice potissimum (Berlin 1869), 5–6 no. 4. 58 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon / Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, identification des sources historiques et détermination des dates par Hans Eberhard Mayer et Gerhard Rösch, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A (Turnhout 1986), 997 (XXI, 25 (26)); Malcolm Barber, “Frontier Warfare in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: The Campaign of Jacob’s Ford, 1178–79,” in The Crusaders and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot 1998), 9–22, here 10; Boas, Archaeology, 258–9. 59 Ronnie Ellenblum, “Frontier Activities: The Transformation of a Muslim Sacred Site into the Frankish Castle of Vadum Iacob,” Crusades 2 (2003): 83–98, here 88–91. 60 Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général, 1: 271–2 no. 398. 61 Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin, 1: 432–45. 62 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 1030 (XXII 17 (16)); Boas, Archaeology, 242.

47

MICHAEL EHRLICH

in the northeast and southwest, whereas the Hospitallers acquired properties in the southeast. This cooperative effort enabled them to regulate property sales prices and establish contiguous territories. The Hospitallers also acquired the area that was situated between the lordship of Ramla and the outskirts of Jerusalem.63 Here, again, the area was acquired by the Hospitallers in a gradual process from 1141 on. The Templars probably had a contiguous area in the vicinity of Jerusalem, but due to the lack of credible documentation this premise cannot be substantiated.64 The Teutonic Order acquired a substantial part of the area around Castellum Regis (770.214),65 northeast of Acre. In this case, there is abundant documentation for the Order’s acquisition.66 Clearly, during the thirteenth century the Teutonic Order almost became the sole landowner in the region of the western Galilean mountains.

Conclusion During the 1120s and the 1130s, lords in the kingdom of Jerusalem transferred properties to the Templars and Hospitallers. They preferred to give remote estates to the military orders because such properties were economically unattractive, difficult to administer, and sometimes located in dangerous areas. In the early stages, they perhaps believed that the military orders’ properties would remain integral parts of their lordships. As time passed, though, the lords realized that the military orders were establishing independent entities, and thus donations became less common. Since attractive locations were rarely sold, the military orders preferred acquiring large estates. Such estates were primarily available in peripheral regions where the owners lacked the financial means to compete against the rich military orders. Moreover, it appears that the military orders did not compete against each other when it came to these acquisitions; therefore, they could regulate the sales prices of these properties. These acquisitions were either made via a single transaction (as in the Belvoir region) or as the result of a gradual

63 Ehrlich, “Route of the First Crusade,” 275–9. 64 Ehrlich, “Route of the First Crusade,” 279–80. 65 Boas, Archaeology, 89–90; Ronnie Ellenblum, “Colonization Activities in the Frankish East: The Example of Castellum Regis (Mi’ilya),” English Historical Review 111, no. 440 (1996): 104–22, here 115–16; Rabei G. Khamisy, “The History and Architectural Design of Castellum Regis and Some Other Finds in the Village of Mi’ilya,” Crusades 12 (2013): 13–52, here 15; Shlomo Lotan, “Empowering and Struggling in an Era of Uncertainty and Crisis: The Teutonic Military Order in the Latin East, 1250–1291,” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 16 (2011): 19–28, here 21–2; Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Die Seigneurie de Joscelin und der Deutsche Orden,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, ed. Josef Fleckenstein and Manfred Hellmann, Vorträge und Forschungen 26 (Sigmaringen 1980), 171–216, here 210–13. 66 Strehlke, Tabulae, 25–6 no. 29; 30–1 nos. 38–9; 43–5 nos. 53–4; 47–9 nos. 58–60; 51–3 no. 63; 53–4 no. 65; 56–8 nos. 72–3; 69 no. 87; 75–6 no. 98; 111–13 no. 121; 120–2 no. 128.

48

THE TEMPLARS’ LAND ACQUISITION POLICY

process (as in the Calansua area). As the kingdom’s geopolitical and economic situation deteriorated, the military orders acquired more lucrative properties that were located nearer to the centers of lordships. When the military orders received land donations outside their territories they were likely to sell or exchange them. The relative paucity of Templar documents from the Holy Land means that we have insufficient data to substantiate a definitive “Templar” land acquisition policy. However, since the outcomes of this policy appear to be similar to those of the other military orders whose archives have survived, the Templars presumably employed the same policy as the Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights. Accordingly, the Templars established contiguous territories, often in the peripheries of lordships, created independent areas they administered, and strove to expand them to the best of their abilities.

49

3 THE TEMPLARS AND THE RULERS OF THE CHRISTIAN EAST Collaboration or conflict of interest? Marie-Anna Chevalier

Introduction Involved in the affairs of the Christian East since their earliest days, the Templars came to interact closely with the rulers of the newly formed crusader states and Cilician Armenia, located on previously Byzantine territory.1 They owed their name to King Baldwin II of Jerusalem who had given them their first home next to the Templum Domini. During the almost two centuries of their existence, the Templars enjoyed the generosity of rulers in both the East and the West – a generosity that was often mutually beneficial. It was their main objective to pursue the mission they had taken on in the East: firstly, the defense of the holy sites, pilgrims, and roads; and secondly the fight against Muslims and the protection of the borders of the Christian states by guarding fortresses in strategic locations. Beyond these essentially military tasks, the Templars utilized their refined diplomacy to protect these areas, usually at the request of the respective rulers. To this end, they cultivated privileged relationships with certain Muslim rulers – something that was met with incomprehension by multiple generations of newly arriving crusaders. Yet, their dedication and skill in service to the Christian East notwithstanding, the Templars sometimes also participated in the infighting between the rulers of these states. By analyzing the most significant episodes in the interaction between the Templars and the Christian rulers of the Middle East, we will try to establish whether the particularly tense context, namely, the threat and constant pressure exerted by the great Muslim dynasties who, starting with the reign of Nūr al-Dīn, had relaunched the jihad, helped to strengthen the ties between the Templars and the Christian rulers, and whether solidarity between Christians and a sense of duty prevailed over particular interests. Furthermore, we will consider the position of 1 I would like to thank Jochen Burgtorf for his remarkable translation of my chapter.

50

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

the Templars during the succession crises of these different states. What choices did the Brothers have, and what motivated their decisions? In order to attempt to answer these questions, we will examine the Templars’ relationship toward Christian rulers in the Middle East with regard to several particularly revealing or symptomatic cases. We will focus on several situations of tension and/or partisan choices on the part of the Templars in the kingdoms of Jerusalem and Armenia, the principality of Antioch, and the county of Tripoli, some of which had an impact on both the fall of the last Latin states on the Asian continent as well as the fate of the last Brothers of the Order in the East. Due to the space constraints of this chapter, we will disregard here the equally interesting and revealing relationship between the Templars and the rulers of Cyprus, the Morea, and Romania. Up front, it should be noted that the religious military orders maintained their reputation as moderators, a necessary role they played in most of the conflicts that arose between Christians. However, the Templars and, to a lesser extent, the Hospitallers, occasionally made decisions contrary to the will of the rulers of the Christian states of the East and committed themselves fully to certain rulers whose authority was in dispute.

Tensions and controversial choices in Jerusalem and Tripoli (twelfth to early thirteenth centuries) The Templars participated in the councils of the kings of Jerusalem and benefitted from attending to the rulers who succeeded one another on this throne. Yet, while they often advised caution, their high degree of involvement in the kingdom’s affairs sometimes forced them to take sides without really wishing to do so. This was the case in the aftermath of the Second Crusade, when the young Baldwin III (1143–1163) tried to wield full royal powers, as was his right, in opposition to his mother Melisende who had served as regent since 1143 (and as queen since 1131). The Templar Seneschal André de Montbard, who was close to Melisende, would have been the logical choice to succeed Evrard des Barres as his Order’s master in 1152, but because of his political choices and because, that same year, after an actual civil war Baldwin III prevailed over his mother, the Brothers bypassed him in favor of Bernard de Trémelay. On this occasion, no crisis arose between the Templars and the king, for, the following year, as Baldwin sought to win over Melisende’s former supporters, André de Montbard succeeded Bernard de Trémelay as head of the Order. The king also made important donations to the Templars during his reign, thus showing his confidence in their ability to defend the kingdom: for example, he gave them the citadel of Gaza, which he had built in 1150 to control the Muslims’ movements between Egypt and Ascalon.2 2 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon / Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, identification des sources historiques et détermination des dates par Hans Eberhard Mayer et Gerhard Rösch, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A (Turnhout 1986), 775–7, 937–9;

51

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

During the reign of Baldwin III’s younger brother Amaury (1163–1174), the royal attitude changed considerably and became much less conciliatory toward the Order. Amaury had benefitted from the Templars’ favors ever since he, together with his mother, had opposed his older brother’s effective seizing of power in the kingdom. Yet, his attitude toward the Order was based on his personal ideas concerning power and authority, which he considered his own, rather than any particular animosity toward the institution. On several occasions, the Templars had to endure the king’s wrath and lack of consideration for their advice in the field of military strategy. The first case which, according to William of Tyre, enraged the king was the Templars’ surrender of a fortress situated beyond the Jordan, referred to as a “cave” (spelunca) or “castle” (castrum), to Shīrkūh, a lieutenant of Nūr al-Dīn, in 1165–1166. Paul Deschamps has proposed two possible identifications for this “cave fortress,” namely, either Raqim al-Khaf (south of Amman) or one of the caves near Mount Galaad (at Allan, northwest of Amman) which had been held by the Muslims before Thierry d’Alsace laid siege to it in 1139. What caused Amaury’s wrath was that he had actually been en route with a considerable relief force when the news reached him that the allegedly impenetrable site had surrendered. According to the archbishop of Tyre, the king was so perturbed and angry that he ordered the hanging of about twelve Templars from among those who had given up the fortress.3 While the king made several land grants to the Order, other events suggest that tensions remained. Between 1163 and 1169, Amaury’s reign saw quasiannual campaigns against Egypt (namely, in five out of six years).4 The Templar Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Louis de Mas Latrie (Paris 1871), 14; Abū Shamā, “Le Livre des Deux Jardins: Histoire des deux règnes, celui de Nour ed-Dîn et celui de Salah ed-Dîn,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, 5 vols. (Paris 1872–1906), 4: 3–522 and 5: 3–149, here 4: 76–9; Paul Deschamps, Les châteaux des Croisés en Terre-Sainte, II: La défense du royaume de Jérusalem: Étude historique, geographique et monumentale (Paris 1939), 1–5; Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, trans. Gérard Nahon, 2 vols. (Paris 1969–1970; reprint 2007), 1: 406; Alain Demurger, Les Templiers: Une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Âge (Paris 2005; reprint 2008), 208; Malcom Barber, “The Career of Philip of Nablus in the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in The Experience of Crusading, Volume 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. Peter Edbury and Jonathan Phillips (Cambridge 2003), 60–75. 3 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 879; Paul Deschamps, “Deux positions stratégiques des croisés à l’est du Jourdain: Ahamant et El-Habis,” Revue historique 172 (1933): 42–56, here 47, 48–9 n. 2. William of Tyre’s account has been called into question by Jochen Burgtorf, “The Templars and the Kings of Jerusalem,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson (London 2017), 25–37, here 31–4. 4 Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, vol. 1 (Paris 1872), 1–165, here 34–8, 40; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, 5 vols. (Paris 1872–1906), 1: 189–744 and 2.1: 3–180, here 1: 527–9, 532–7, 546–51, 553–61, 569–70, 584; Ibn al-Athīr, “Histoire des atabecs de Mossoul,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, vol. 2.2 (Paris 1876), 5–375, here 213–20, 225–6, 236–41, 246–60; Ibn Khallikān, “Extraits de la vie du sultan Salâh al-Dîn,” in Recueil des

52

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

Master Bertrand de Blanquefort firmly opposed the penultimate expedition, launched in October 1168, since it directly violated an agreement reached shortly before with the Egyptian Vizier Shāwar. This agreement had been negotiated by Hugues de Caesarea and Geoffroy Foucher, a Templar dignitary. Both had gone to Cairo and, thanks to the endeavors of the vizier who was eager to secure the king of Jerusalem’s support against Nūr al-Dīn, personally been received by Caliph al-‘Adīd (1160–1171) in his splendid palace. All of Amaury’s conditions were accepted, and it seems, according to the Arab historians, that the caliph granted the Franks even more than had originally been anticipated. Since the Templars had participated in this diplomatic effort, the master considered it his and his Order’s honor to abide by the respective commitments. According to the Order’s opponents, the Templars had another reason for their position, namely, the fact that the Hospitaller Master Gilbert d’Assailly had been the driving force behind Amaury’s decision to conquer Egypt, from which the Hospitallers were hoping to derive considerable advantages (such as the city of Bilbeis and its province, corresponding to an annual income of 150,000 bezants).5 Pointing to the heavy Frankish losses suffered against Nūr al-Dīn during the defeat at Hārim in 1164, Malcolm Barber has suggested yet another possible explanation: the Templar master was concerned about the implications of the removal of the king and his army for the security of the Latin states of the North.6 Disregarding the Templar master’s serious reservations and advice, Amaury launched his campaign against Egypt. There were a few Frankish victories but due to the slowness of their army and the evasive maneuvers of the king to whom Shāwar continually promised new compensations in return for his withdrawal from Egypt – while biding his time and awaiting reinforcements from Shīrkūh, the Franks were forced to retreat and leave all their conquests behind when the arrival of Nūr al-Dīn’s lieutenant was announced at the beginning of January. The campaign resulted in a financial disaster for the Hospitallers who had heavily invested in the Frankish army and now found themselves massively in debt.7 Considering this episode, one may wonder whether the Templars had Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, vol. 3 (Paris 1884), 399–430, here 403–8; Abū Shamā, “Livre,” 4: 106–57; Prawer, Histoire, 1: 428–59; Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Latin States under Baldwin III and Amalric I, 1143–1174,” in A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Hundred Years, ed. Marshall W. Baldwin, 2nd ed. (Madison 1969), 528–61, here 549–56; Jean Richard, Histoire des croisades (Paris 1996), 193–201. 5 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 887–9, 917–18; Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād, The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin or al-Nawādir al-Sulṭāniyya wa’l-Maḥāsin al-Yūsufiyya by Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād, trans. Donald S. Richards (Aldershot 2002), 43–4; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 35–6; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 1: 549–50, 553–4; Ibn al-Athīr, “Histoire des atabecs de Mossoul,” 240–1, 246–50; Abū Shamā, “Livre,” 4: 111–12, 135. 6 Barber, “Career of Philip of Nablus,” 73, 74. 7 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 917–23; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, c. 1050–1310 (London 1967), 60–1.

53

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

indeed lost their credit with the king of Jerusalem or whether it was not merely Amaury’s uncontrollable desire to conquer Egypt, rather than a rejection of the Order and its position, that caused the king to ignore Bertrand de Blanquefort’s concerns. As Alain Demurger has remarked, this disagreement between the master and the king represents the first time the Templars refused to help the king of Jerusalem.8 Amaury expended all his influence in the attempt to get a grip on this Order which he could not control and whose decisions repeatedly went against his own. The death of Bertrand de Blanquefort on 2 January 1169 presented him with a welcome opportunity. Exerting pressure on the Templar chapter, Amaury succeeded – between 13 and 20 August 1169 – in having one of his relatives, Philippe de Naplouse, elected master. Philippe, who had joined the Order in January 1166, had been one of the most powerful and long-lasting supporters of Amaury’s mother Melisende – even after her disgrace. The logical outcome of this election, it seems, was the Templars’ participation in the king’s and the Byzantines’ final campaign in Egypt in the fall of 1169, which was no more successful than the previous ones.9 The following year, the Templars of Gaza joined Amaury’s army in providing assistance to the nearby town of Daron which was under attack by Saladin; yet, while the Christian troops were gathering, the population of Gaza was massacred, and the Turks left without engaging in battle.10 After the final campaign against Egypt, Philippe de Naplouse agreed to serve as the king’s envoy to Constantinople in order to try to improve the relationship between Amaury and Manuel Comnenus, which had been damaged by the Franks’ abandonment of the attack jointly planned with the Greeks after the failed siege of Damietta. He was also expected to prepare for Amaury’s arrival in the capital of the Byzantine empire. While Philippe’s mission seems to have succeeded, he had to relinquish his control of the Templar Order at the beginning of the year 1171 to bring this about; his faithfulness to the king apparently trumped his other commitments. It seems that the former master did not return from his journey; he may have died in Constantinople in April.11 Philippe de Naplouse’s comparatively brief tenure at the head of his Order did not put an end to the serious disagreements between the Templars and Amaury. In 1173, when an envoy of Rāshid al-Dīn Sinān, known by the Franks as the “Old Man of the Mountain,” offered to the king the conversion of all NeoIsmā‘īli Assassins to Christianity, Amaury welcomed the offer with enthusiasm. The Assassins’ sole condition was the waiving of the annual tribute of 2,000 8 Demurger, Templiers, 217–18. 9 Barber, “Career of Philip of Nablus,” 71, 73–4. 10 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 936–40; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 41–2; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 1: 577–8. 11 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 942; Barber, “Career of Philip of Nablus,” 74–5.

54

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

bezants which they had been paying to the Templars of Tortosa since 1152. The king assured them that this would not be an obstacle and that, if necessary, he himself would pay this sum to the Brothers. When the Assassin delegation returned from Jerusalem and passed Tripoli, it was ambushed by some Templars, and their envoy, Abu ‘Abdallāh, was killed. As a result, the whole enterprise failed, which infuriated the king. After consulting with his barons, Amaury demanded justice from the Templar master concerning Gautier du Mesnil, the Brother responsible for the attack which was considered as a lese maiestatis crimen, since the Assassin envoy had traveled under the king’s protection. The Templar Master Eudes de Saint-Amand thereupon informed the king that he had imposed a penance on the Templar in question and would send him to Pope Alexander III to receive the appropriate penalty. Eudes also pointed out that, since the Order answered directly to papal authority, he was not allowed to inflict any violence against this Brother. The king was not satisfied by this response. He went to the house of the Temple at Sidon, found the master and his Brothers and – among them – the culprit, seized the latter by force, and imprisoned him at Tyre. Amaury also assured the leader of the Assassins of his own innocence.12 Despite the Frankish king’s disappointed hopes with regard to the alleged Assassin conversion project thwarted by the Templars’ intervention, it must be noted that Bernard Lewis, an expert on the sect’s history, considers the whole story as “curious” and unreliable since Rāshid al-Dīn Sinān’s proposal to convert to Christianity is not mentioned by any Arab author.13 This incident constitutes another example of the Templars’ resolve to pursue an agenda independent of the king’s power; it even suggests the Brothers’ distrust of the latter. Their action, which does not seem to have been particularly reprimanded by their master, perhaps meant that they did not want Amaury to interfere in their local politics. What is more, the Templars had serious doubts about the king’s future payment of the Assassins’ annual tribute. The attitude of the Order’s members amounted to an actual insult of the king’s authority which – in and of itself – was not in dispute at the time. It certainly illustrates the Order’s growing power in the Christian Near East. Moreover, unlike in the case of the events of 1166 mentioned earlier, Amaury showed comparative restraint here, even securing the support of his vassals. According to the archbishop of Tyre, Amaury sought the counsel of his barons at each stage of his interaction with the master of the Temple and intervened only after obtaining their approval, even when it came to removing Gautier du Mesnil from the Templar house in Sidon. On the other hand, Amaury does not seem to have

12 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 953–5; Walter Map’s account of this incident is translated in Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated (Manchester 2002), 76–7. 13 Bernard Lewis, “The Ismā‘īlites and the Assassins,” in A History of the Crusades I, ed. Baldwin, 99–132, here 123.

55

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

punished the Templars beyond measure for a crime which, it appears, they had committed in full conscience. Throughout his reign, Amaury sought to impose his will on the Templars, punished their transgressions to a greater or lesser extent, did not consider their position and concerns pertaining to the agreement with the Fatimid caliph, and even interfered in their magisterial election. He seems to have believed that the Brothers had to follow his orders, be faithful to him, even submissive, and were not entitled to make their own political and diplomatic choices. Amaury assumed that they had to obey him even at the expense of their own material interests, for example when it came to their agreement with the Assassins, or, more seriously, if need be compromise their own values, for example in the case of the attack against Egypt. In all this, he was less flexible than his brother Baldwin III who, even though he had not been favored by the Templars, had sought to rally them to his cause. Under Amaury, there was therefore an actual balance of power between an increasingly influential military order and a royal warrior who accepted neither opposing points of view nor attempts at exercising power independent of his own. This balance between the power of the Order and that of the king was not always maintained, as Amaury’s successors on the throne of Jerusalem did not all possess the same means or the same ability to respond to the military orders. Toward the end of the twelfth century, when it came to choosing a successor to the young King Baldwin IV (1174–1185) and his nephew Baldwin V (1183–1186), the Templars pledged their support to the party of Guy de Lusignan, the second husband of Amaury’s daughter Sibylla. During the life of the “leper king” (Baldwin IV), the Templars and Hospitallers had tried in vain to reconcile the king with Guy against whom he had “great hatred” (grant haine).14 However, the Templars’ engagement on behalf of the count of Jaffa (Guy) was not motivated by concerns for the interests of the kingdom or the last wishes of Baldwin IV who had wanted his uncle, Raymond III of Tripoli, to assume the regency, which Raymond had already held on several other occasions (1174– 1176, 1183–1186), should the young Baldwin V die before reaching the age of 10. Count Raymond had urged that the kingdom’s fortresses be entrusted to the Templars and Hospitallers. Baldwin IV had intended that the choice of his heiress (namely, one of his sisters, Sibylla or Isabella) would be made by a commission composed of the pope, the German emperor, and the kings of France and England.15

14 La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197), ed. Margaret Ruth Morgan (Paris 1982), 16–17; “L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Occidentaux, vol. 2 (Paris 1859), 1–481, here 1–2. See also Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 1063. 15 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 1064: Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 115–17; Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 19, 20; “Estoire de Eracles,” 3–4, 6–7; ‘Imād ad-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin (al-Fatḥ al-qussī fī l-fatḥ al-qudsī),

56

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

Rather, the Templars’ attitude was based on an old dispute between their master, Gerard de Ridefort (1185–1189), and the count of Tripoli. For, when Gerard had been seeking his fortune in the East as a young Flemish knight, Raymond had promised him the hand of the heiress of the fief of Boutron (Batrūn) but had then, for financial reasons, married her off to someone else.16 Ridefort never forgave Raymond this insult and, as soon as he entered the Temple and became master in 1185, did everything he could to harm the count of Tripoli. Thus, at Raymond’s expense, Ridefort became Sibylla’s and Guy de Lusignan’s most ardent supporter. By a true “coup de force,” namely, by closing the gates of the city of Jerusalem and by forcing the master of the Hospital to hand over his key to the treasury, Ridefort succeeded in having Baldwin IV’s sister and her husband crowned by the patriarch of Jerusalem on “a Friday” in mid-September 1186 (according to one of the continuators of William of Tyre) after the death of Baldwin V.17 The Templar master seems to have enjoyed a certain hold over the Poitevin king (Guy) and used his influence to bring about strategic choices that proved disastrous against Saladin. In particular, Renaud de Châtillon and – above all – Gerard de Ridefort convinced Guy to come to the rescue of the besieged city of Tiberias. On this occasion, Raymond III, who had advised against this move and had tried to reason with the king by explaining the difficult conditions of such a campaign – namely, the Franks’ numerical inferiority as well as problems of water and food supply during that time of the year, was accused of colluding with the enemy while his own wife was, in fact, defending the city against the sultan. And it was again Gerard de Ridefort who persuaded Guy to lead the Frankish army to meet the Ayyūbid host near Hattīn on 3 and 4 July 1187, which is why Gerard was called “Guy’s evil genius” by Steven Runciman – a phrase reworded into “the Temple’s evil genius” by Alain Demurger. Gerard de Ridefort lost his life during the siege of Acre on 4 October 1189. Referring to the occasion with a certain sense of

trans. Henri Massé (Paris 1972), 19–20; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 1: 674; Abū Shamā, “Livre,” 4: 257; René Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume franc de Jérusalem, 3 vols. (Paris 1934–1936; reprint 2006), 2: 702–4; Richard, Histoire des croisades, 209–16. 16 Namely, to a certain Plivanus from Pisa, who – very elegantly – offered the young lady’s weight in gold to obtain her hand; see Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 114; Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 45–6; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. René de Mas Latrie, vol. 1 (Paris 1891), 60–1. 17 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 129–35; Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 29–34, 45–6; “Estoire de Eracles,” 8–9, 25–9; “Les Gestes des Chiprois,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens, vol. 2 (Paris 1906), 651–872, here 658–9 (and Charles Kohler’s introduction in the same volume, ccxix–cclxiv); “Annales de Terre sainte,” ed. Reinhold Röhricht and Gaston Raynaud, in Archives de l’Orient Latin, vol. 2, Documents (Paris 1884), 427–61, here 433 (A-B); ‘Imād ad-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, trans. Massé, 19; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 1: 674–5. According to contemporary historians, the date of the coronation varies between 20 July and September– October; see Richard, Histoire des croisades, 215; Prawer, Histoire, 1: 635; Demurger, Templiers, 221–6.

57

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

poetry, ‘Imād al-Dīn al-Isfahānī exclaimed: “his [Gerard’s] burning ardor for honor did not save him from death.”18 The Templars remained loyal to Guy de Lusignan and fought at his side for several more years, even after he had lost all credibility as the kingdom’s ruler. Conrad de Montferrat, who forced Isabella, Amaury’s second daughter and heiress to the crown, to marry him (even though she was already married to Onfroi IV de Toron), claimed the throne of Jerusalem because of this marriage and because he had saved Tyre; he also benefitted from the Hospitallers’ support. Despite their long-standing support for the Poitevin (Guy), the Templars changed sides once the kings of France and England had landed at Acre and Philip Augustus had decided to take Conrad de Montferrat’s side. Finally, on 28 July 1191, a compromise was reached: Guy would continue to rule for the rest of his life, and Conrad was designated as his successor. The crown, however, was entrusted to the latter by an assembly convened by the king of England at Ascalon in April 1192, but Conrad was killed on 28 April by the Assassins – according to the continuators of William of Tyre, Matthew Paris, Bar Hebraeus, and several Arab historians, including Ibn al-Athīr, the king of England was suspected of having hired them, and Guy was placed on the Cypriot throne by Richard the Lionheart.19 18 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 157–71; Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 43–5, 46–8, 51–6; “Estoire de Eracles,” 49–54, 62–8, 129–30; Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād, Rare and Excellent History, 72–5; ‘Imād ad-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, trans. Massé, 24–7, 183; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 56–7; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 1: 678–87; Abū Shamā, “Livre,” 4: 260–93 (on the death of Gerard de Ridefort, 425); Al-Makrīzī, “Histoire d’Égypte de Makrîzî, traduction française accompagnée de notes historiques et géographiques,” trans. Edgar Blochet, Revue de l’Orient Latin 6 (1898): 435–89; 8 (1900–1901): 165–212, 501–53; 9 (1902): 6–163, 465–530; 10 (1903–1904): 248–371; 11 (1905–1908): 192–239, here 9 (1902): 22–3; Joshua Prawer, “La bataille de Ḥaṭṭîn,” Israel Exploration Journal 14, no. 3 (1964): 160–79; Prawer, Histoire, 1: 641–80; Malcolm Lyons and David Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge 1982; reprint 1997), 255–66; Benjamin Kedar, “The Battle of Hattīn revisited,” in The Horns of Hattīn: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, Jerusalem and Haifa, 2–6 July 1987, ed. Benjamin Kedar (Jerusalem 1992), 190–207; Malcolm Barber, “The Reputation of Gerard de Ridefort,” in The Military Orders, Volume 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judith M. Upton-Ward (Aldershot 2008), 111–19; Peter Edbury, “Propaganda and Faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem: The Background to Hattin,” in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Leiden 1993), 173–89; Peter Edbury, “Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 May 1187): The Developing Narrative Tradition,” in On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy, and the Christian World, ed. Helen J. Nicholson, Crusades Subsidia 4 (Farnham 2011), 45–60; Demurger, Templiers, 210, 224–6; 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), 386–7. 19 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 267–8, 288–91; Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 105–7, 137–43, 145; “Estoire de Eracles,” 151–4, 192–5; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 661; Matthieu Paris, La grande chronique d’Angleterre, trans. Jean-Louis-Alphonse Huillard-Bréholles, 13 vols. (Paris 1840; reprint Clermont-Ferrand 2001–2005), 3: 72–4; The Chronography of Gregory Abū’l Faradj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus, Being the First Part of His Political History of the World, trans. Ernest A. T. Wallis Budge (London 1932), 339; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil

58

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

This succession of events connected to Gerard de Ridefort’s mastership had a dramatic impact on the kingdom of Jerusalem. It reveals that the Order of the Temple’s respective policies can be explained, first and foremost, by the personal history of its master, inspired by vengeance. Gerard was able to exert a strong influence on Guy, and he was Guy’s primary supporter. However, the Templars’ faithfulness, which this contested king had earned over many years, did not resist the will of the king of France to whom the Brothers showed obedience – yet without completely relinquishing their freedom of choice. Following Conrad’s assassination, the military orders gave their counsel to find both wealthy and competent spouses for the heiresses of the crown, since the royal lineage was now exclusively continued through women. The Templars and Hospitallers were consulted after the death of Henri de Champagne to select a fourth husband for Isabella, queen of Jerusalem. When Hugues de Tiberias suggested his brother Raoul as a potential candidate, the masters of both Orders formally objected – in the kingdom’s interest – to what they regarded a “mismatch” and did not hesitate to point to the already difficult situation that the former ruler had had to contend with, even though he had benefitted from military and financial support: But the Templars and the Hospitallers were against it and said that, by their counsel, they would by no means give it [to Raoul]: “Since from all the aid that came to the count [Henri] from his land of Champagne he could not govern the land; hence, he was often in great poverty and need. And how do we give the land to a man who has nothing, when he, with all the aid he has, cannot govern the land? We take counsel, and we give it, if it pleases God, to that man who will govern the land.”20 All then agreed on Aimery de Lusignan, the king of Cyprus, who thus became king of Jerusalem as well.21 After the latter’s death, it was quite the same: a

al-Tawārikh,” 2.1: 58–9; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 66; forged letter from Rashid al-Dīn, the leader of the Assassins, to Duke Leopold V of Austria, in Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate, Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims, and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries (Farnham 2010), 92–3 doc. 52 (this letter, issued by the English administration, was also copied by Matthew Paris); ‘Imād ad-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, trans. Massé, 404–5; Abū Shamā, “Livre,” 5: 52–4; Prawer, Histoire, 2: 74–6, 91–2; Lewis, “Ismā‘īlites,” 122, 125–7; Richard, Histoire des croisades, 236–41; Demurger, Templiers, 351. 20 Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 199: Mais li Temples et li Hospitaus en furent encontre, et distrent que par lor conseill ne li donroient il mie. “Car de toute l’aide qui venoit au conte [Henri] de sa terre de Champaigne ne pooit il la terre governer, ainz fu sovent en grant povreté et enbesoigniez. Et coment donrons nos la terre a home qui riens n’a, quant cil o toute l’aide qu’il avoit ne pooit la terre governer ? Nous prendrons conseill et la donrons, se Deu plaist, a tel home qui la terre governera.” 21 Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ed. Morgan, 199; “Estoire de Eracles,” 222–3. See also Demurger, Templiers, 351–2.

59

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

council of the patriarch, the archbishop, the prelates, the barons, the Templars, and the Hospitallers, selected John of Brienne, “a knight in France who had no wife,” and proposed that he marry the heiress to the throne, Maria de Montferrat, and become king of Jerusalem.22

The troubled relationship with the Armenian rulers of Cilicia The Armenian state was being governed by powerful rulers who appreciated the military and diplomatic support of the military orders when it was offered to them but were unyielding whenever the Orders’ masters made decisions that did not suit them. In this regard, we can see some similarities between the attitude of the rulers of Armenia and that of the twelfth-century kings of Jerusalem toward the Templars. The Order of the Temple was the first of the three main religious military orders to establish itself in Cilician Armenia, and it did so rather early – in the mid-twelfth century – when Cilicia was still a mere Armenian principality both claimed and threatened by the Byzantine emperors. Unlike the other two Orders, the Templars did not acquire their first holdings in accordance with the will of the Armenian ruler. In fact, the circumstances under which they obtained their fortresses determined their teeth-on-edge relationship with the Armenian rulers for the duration of their presence in the land. The establishment of the Brothers of the first religious military order in Cilician Armenia occurred in 1155–1156, following a battle between the prince of Antioch, Renaud de Châtillon, and the Templars on the one hand and the Roupenid Prince T‘oros II on the other hand. Renaud had been ordered by the Basileus Manuel I Comnenus, in exchange for the promise of considerable riches, to undermine T‘oros’s power which had been spreading in Cilicia to the detriment of the Byzantine empire.23 The prince of Antioch won the battle at the “Gate of Sunkrātōn” (probably “La Portella”) and demanded that the Roupenid surrender several castles in the Amanus region to the Templars. Based on their respective ethnic-confessional background, the Eastern Christian chroniclers provide various versions how this transfer took place. Without holding back, the Syriac authors Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus relate the prince of Antioch’s military successes against the Armenians and the

22 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 407–9; “Estoire de Eracles,” 305–7. 23 T‘oros II took the fortress of Vahka in 1148, followed by T‘il Hamtun and Mamistra in 1151; see Sirarpie Der Nersessian, “The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia,” in A History of the Crusades, Volume II: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, ed. Robert Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard, 2nd ed. (Madison 1969), 630–59, here 630; Thomas S. R. Boase, “The History of the Kingdom,” in The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, ed. Thomas S. R. Boase (Edinburgh 1978), 1–33, here 12; Marie-Anna Chevalier, Les ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne: Templiers, hospitaliers, teutoniques et Arméniens à l’époque des croisades (Paris 2009), 56–68.

60

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

subsequent surrendering of the fortresses to the Templars.24 However, there is also an Armenian version of Michael the Syrian’s account, which distorts part of the original text and suggests – unlike the other chronicles – that T‘oros was victorious over Renaud. The Armenian translator, who wanted to defend his former ruler’s cause but could not change the fact that the Templars subsequently occupied the Amanus March, tries to make us believe in the Armenian ruler’s good will in welcoming the Order. What follows is a translation of the respective passage: At that time, Renaud, who was called prince of Antioch, quarreled with Baron T‘oros because of the fortresses he had taken from the Greeks, and he said: “These [i.e., the Templars] are at war on behalf of all Christians, [so] give them what belongs to them.” And they fought at Skendron and many fell on both sides, and Renaud returned to his own shamefully. And after this, of his own will, he [i.e., T‘oros] gave the strongholds to the Brothers [i.e., the Templars] who were on the borders of Antioch. And they swore to him that they would help the Armenians and share all their struggles, until death, under all circumstances.25 The respective fortresses were most probably Baghrās and Darbsāk and perhaps also La Roche Guillaume and La Roche Roissol. Such difficult beginnings notwithstanding, the initial adversaries grew closer and were soon fighting side by side. The Antiochene prince, who did not receive any of the riches promised to him by the emperor, allied himself with the Roupenid against the Greek interests. Meanwhile, in 1155–1156, the Templars provided significant military support to the Armenians during the attack on the Amanus by the Turks under the command of Yā’kūb, an officer of Mas‘ūd, the sultan of Iconium.26 To launch their respective offensive, the Templars probably relied on their new fortresses. Up until the mid-1160s, the Templars and Armenian rulers engaged in joint offensives with the other lords of the neighboring Latin states, in particular Renaud de Châtillon and then Bohemond III of Antioch, Raymond III of 24 Chronography of Gregory Abū’l Faradj [Bar Hebraeus], trans. Budge, 283; Michel le Syrien, “Chronique,” ed. and trans. Édouard Dulaurier, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens, vol. 1 (Paris 1869), 311–409, here 314. 25 I have translated this passage from the Armenian original. The chronicle’s text can be found on the first 184 folios of Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ancien fonds arménien, Manuscript 96, and has been published in the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens, vol. 1 (Paris 1869), 349, where Édouard Dulaurier’s French translation distorts the original text with numerous questionable interpretations; see Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 62. 26 Grigor Yérêts, in Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. Ara Edmond Dostourian (Lanham 1993), 260–4; Michel le Syrien, “Chronique,” 310–11.

61

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

Tripoli, and Baldwin III of Jerusalem. In late 1157/early 1158, they attacked certain positions held by Nūr al-Dīn and seized Hārim. They reprised this campaign in 1161 and in 1164 after offensives launched by the Zengids.27 These joined efforts brought the Franks – among them the Templars – and the Armenians closer together. Therefore, in 1158, when the Basileus Manuel Comnenus led a new campaign against Cilicia and reconquered all the territories previously taken by T‘oros, the king of Jerusalem and the Brothers of the military orders interceded with the basileus to obtain clemency for T‘oros and vouched for the Roupenid, and their endeavors eventually succeeded.28 Yet, T‘oros’s death in 1169 ended the good relationship between the military orders and the rulers of Cilicia. Despite the Templars’ military engagement alongside the Armenian rulers, their presence on the border was not always accepted and sometimes even considered a kind of foreign interference in the Armenian territory. That was at least the position taken by Prince Meleh when he decided to expel the Templars from their holdings in the Amanus, just as he expelled all Latins and Greeks who represented any form of authority from Armenian Cilicia. According to William of Tyre, Meleh enjoyed the distinction of being a member ( frater) of the Order of the Temple but left their ranks after a few years for no apparent reason.29 Whatever it was – be it voluntary departure or expulsion because of his connection to Nūr al-Dīn, the prince henceforth displayed a certain resentment toward the Templars. Having seized control of the Armenian principality by having Roupen II, the legitimate heir, executed, Meleh sought to establish his power to the detriment of all who had embarrassed him or whom he considered a threat. Consequently, when he took power in 1169, Meleh banished all Templars from his territory, thus cutting off their Cilician fortresses.30 Giacomo Bosio (1544–1627), a historian of the Order of the Hospital, goes beyond William of Tyre and, without naming his sources – which makes his account on the subject unreliable, mentions the Templars’ imprisonment and subsequent sale to the Muslims:

27 Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 97–105. 28 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 844–5, 846–7; Grigor Yérêts, in Chronique de Matthieu d’Edesse (962–1136) avec la Continuation de Grégoire le Prêtre jusqu’en 1162, ed. Édouard Dulaurier (Paris 1858), 353; also in Matthew of Edessa, trans. Dostourian, 272; Michel le Syrien, “Chronique,” 316; Chronography of Gregory Abū’l Faradj [Bar Hebraeus], trans. Budge, 285; Abū Shamā, “Livre,” 4: 102–3; Ibn al-Qalānisī, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades: Extracted and Translated from the Chronicle of Ibn al-Qalānisī, trans. Hamilton A. R. Gibb (London 1932), 349; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 99–100. 29 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 949; Giacomo Bosio, Dell’istoria della sacra religione et illustrissima militia di San Giovani gierrosolimitano, 3 parts in 2 vols. (Rome 1594–1604), cited here from the French translation, Histoire des chevaliers de Saint-Jean, 2 vols. (Paris 1629), 1: 11–12. 30 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 949; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 108–10.

62

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

Meleh . . . entered Armenia with the aid of Nūr al-Din, drove out Thomas [a Frankish lord], declared himself an enemy of Christians and Templars, seized their [i.e., the latter’s] goods throughout Armenia, took them as prisoners, and sold them to their enemies.31 The seizing of the Templars’ castles and holdings caused the rulers of the Latin states of the East to react, first diplomatically, then militarily. In 1173, Prince Bohemond III of Antioch, threatened directly by the dissolution of this safety buffer, and King Amaury of Jerusalem, accompanied by the Brothers of the Hospital, launched an expedition against Meleh but had to turn back after Nūr al-Dīn started a counter-offensive to protect the Roupenid by attacking the Krak.32 The Armenian ruler was assassinated in 1175 and replaced by his nephew Roupen III who restored the Amanus fortresses to the Templars. For twenty years, this return to the normal state of affairs kept the relationship between the Brothers and the Armenian rulers peaceful. The reoccupation of the fortress of Baghrās by the future King Lewon I, after it had been abandoned by Saladin’s troops – who had taken it from the Templars in 1188, relaunched the hostilities. The Order demanded its return and appealed to the pope to have it restored. Lewon argued that he had reconquered Baghrās from the Muslims, that it had, however briefly, belonged to Meleh, and therefore refused to hand it over despite repeated requests by the Brothers and Pope Innocent III himself. Baghrās became the stumbling block in the relationship between the Order and Lewon, which subsequently deteriorated considerably. In retaliation, the Templars firmly supported Count Bohemond of Tripoli’s claim to the principality of Antioch, while Lewon supported that of his grandnephew Raymond-Roupen, the legitimate heir to the Antiochene throne. Consequently, the king of Armenia seized all the Brothers’ goods in his territory, confiscating several of their castles, casalia, and lands, and even attacked the Templars physically by wounding several and killing one of them. For their part, the Templars resorted to armed resistance when the Roupenid tried to seize the city of Antioch. Lewon’s violence reached its climax between 1211 and 1213 and was not merely directed against the Templars but against the entire Latin clergy, since the king of Armenia felt that the papal legates were unfavorable to him. Enraged by this news, the pope eventually excommunicated Lewon 31 Bosio, Histoire, 1: 11–12: “Melier . . . à l’aide de Norandin estoit entré en Armenie, en avoit chassé Thomas, s’estoit déclaré ennemy des Chrestiens et des Templiers, avoit saisy leurs biens par toute l’Armenie, les prenoit prisonniers, et les vendoient à leurs ennemis.” 32 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. Huygens, 949–50; Bosio, Histoire, 1: 11–12. Michel le Syrien, “Chronique,” 337, offers us another version of the events. According to him, Meleh was defeated by the king, whereupon he begged for forgiveness and offered his submission. The same account can be found in Chronography of Gregory Abū’l Faradj [Bar Hebraeus], trans. Budge, 295. See also Léonce Alichan, Sissouan ou l’Arméno-Cilicie: Description géographique et historique (Venice-San Lazzaro 1885), 56; Léonce Alichan, Léon le Magnifique, premier roi de Sisouan ou de l’Arméno-Cilicie (Venice-San Lazzaro 1888), 54.

63

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

and threatened to excommunicate his grand-nephew and his entourage, which caused the king to respond to the pope in a very contrite letter. In light of such repentance, Innocent III lifted his excommunication, and the conflict with the Templars began to subside, but Lewon’s complete reconciliation with the Brothers and the Latin Church was not achieved until 1216, when the city of Antioch surrendered to Raymond-Roupen. Lewon took this opportunity to restore the fortress of Baghrās, which he had claimed for twenty-five years, to the Templars. The pontifical correspondence concerning the differences between the Templars and the king of Armenia is quite revealing for this whole period of intense tension and with regard to the various stages that marked the crisis. And the reconciliation between the two sides was not just pretense for – in 1219 – the Templars warned Lewon that his grand-nephew was conspiring against him and thus probably saved the king’s life.33 New tensions arose during the regency of Constantine de Paperon, the effective ruler of Cilician Armenia during both the youth of Zapel, Lewon I’s daughter, and the early days of his own son Het‘um I (1226–1269). Once again, the conflict between the Templars and the Armenian ruler had to do with Antioch. Before being forced to marry Het‘um, Zapel, in the early 1220s, had married Philip, a younger son of Prince Bohemond IV of Antioch. Ever since then, Constantine had tried to discredit Philip in any way possible with the nobility and the people, accusing him of robbing the kingdom’s treasury and appointing Franks to the highest offices. In 1225, he succeeded in imprisoning the new king (Philip) and poisoned him at the time of his release, which resulted in Philip’s death a few days later. In this whole affair, the regent accused the Templars of influencing Philip to pursue his evil designs on Bohemond’s behalf. Yet, when the prince of Antioch asked the Brothers to take sides and help him to attack the kingdom of Armenia – first to liberate and later to avenge his son, the Templars did not dare to get openly involved and did not intervene militarily.34 Another conflict between Constantine and the Templars arose in the mid1230s, when he accused them, according to the Estoire de Eracles, of participating

33 On this lengthy conflict, see Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 136–68; and Claude Mutafian, L’Arménie du Levant: XIe–XIVe siècle (Paris 2012), 103–5. 34 Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 2.1: 168; Chronography of Gregory Abū’l Faradj [Bar Hebraeus], trans. Budge, 380–1; Michel le Syrien, “Chronique,” 407–8 (Armenian text); Kirakos de Gandzak, Histoire d’Arménie, ed. Karapet A. Mélik‘-Ohandjanyan (Erevan 1961), 188–9; Sembat, “Chronique,” ed. and trans. Édouard Dulaurier, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens, vol. 1 (Paris 1869), 610–73, here 647–8; La chronique attribuée au Connétable Smbat, trans. Gérard Dédéyan (Paris 1980), 95–6; Hét‘oum l’Historien, “Chronique,” ed. Vladik Ashoti Hakobyan, in Chroniques Mineures, vol. 2 (Erevan 1956), 33–93, here 64; Hét‘oum II, “Annales,” ed. Vladik Ashoti Hakobyan, in Chroniques Mineures, vol. 1 (Erevan 1956), 74–101 (in Armenian), here 80 (French translation of this work in Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 727–47); “Estoire de Eracles,” 348.

64

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

in a conspiracy “to lure people into his territory to damage him.”35 It is unknown whether his accusations were well founded or not, but they resulted in great cruelty against the Templars: some were even hanged and skinned. The Templar Master Armand de Périgord reacted immediately and left with his army to attack Cilicia, alongside Prince Bohemond V of Antioch who wanted to avenge his brother Philip. At that point, Constantine and King Het‘um offered significant compensation to the master who eventually agreed to leave, much to the dismay of the prince of Antioch.36

Before the fall of Acre: challenging the last Latin rulers of the Near East (1220–1291) After the reign of John of Brienne (1210–1225), the husband of the heiress to the crown, Maria of Montferrat, and last “real” ruler of Jerusalem, the relationship between the Templars and the kingdom’s titular, not-in-residence rulers became increasingly complex. From the time of his 1225 marriage to Yolanda, the daughter of King John, organized by the papacy to encourage him to take the cross and come to the aid of the Holy Land, Frederick II Hohenstaufen referred to himself as king of Jerusalem and had himself crowned at Foggia – against the originally envisioned stipulations according to which John of Brienne should have retained his title. Frederick ruled his kingdom in the Holy Land only by proxy. Early on, he appointed Thomas d’Acerra as bailli, and Thomas managed to offend both Templars and Hospitallers, particularly by taking 1,000 silver marks from the Brothers of the Temple and giving them back to the Muslims from which they had been seized as booty.37 After his arrival in the East, the emperor selected Balian de Sidon and Garnier l’Aleman to administer his new state. During the entire period of Hohenstaufen rule over Jerusalem (1225–1268), the Templars do not seem to have respected Hohenstaufen authority, even if they had to deal with them occasionally. Their opposition against Frederick II began with his excommunication by Pope Honorius III shortly before his departure for the Holy Land. Thus, despite their participation in his crusade, the Brothers kept their distance from the emperor. During his stay in the Near East, Frederick II was rejected by the Templars of Château-Pèlerin (‘Athlīt), a stronghold where the Order had established itself: There was a castle of the Temple which was named Château-Pèlerin; so he went there. When he was there, he found the castle well guarded 35 “Estoire de Eracles,” 405. 36 “Estoire de Eracles,” 405–6; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 187. 37 On the persecutions allegedly suffered by the Templars and the Hospitallers at the hands of Thomas d’Acerra, see Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 5: 180–2; Linda Ross, “Frederick II: Tyrant or Benefactor of the Latin East,” Al-Masāq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean 15, no. 2 (2003): 149–59.

65

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

and very strong. He said that he wanted to have the castle, and that they should leave it to him, and [he] sent his men to guard it. The Templars ran to the gates and closed them, and [they] said that if he did not go they would send him to such a place from which he would never exit.38 In retaliation, the emperor assembled the crowd of pilgrims and the religious of Acre to convince them of the Templar master’s evil intentions. Together with them, he attacked the Order’s headquarters in Acre, and he also posted crossbowmen in front of the palace of the Latin patriarch, Géraud de Lausanne, who – like the Templars – had opposed some of his decisions concerning Jerusalem, particularly the stipulations of the treaty of Jaffa. In the peace treaty that he concluded with the sultan, Frederick ensured that the Templars would not recover their old properties in Jerusalem, relinquishing the Order’s old house, the Temple of Solomon, and the Dome of the Rock (Templum Domini) to the Muslims; but he did include some of the Order’s villages located between Jerusalem and Jaffa.39 Matthew Paris, who was very supportive of the emperor, claims that the ruler’s hatred toward the Templars and Hospitallers was based on the fact that the latter had made an attempt on his life by informing the sultan of Egypt that Frederick was planning to visit the banks of the Jordan with a small delegation, so that the sultan might seize or kill him. Their plans failed because of Sultan al-Malik al-Kāmil’s loyalty toward the emperor. Forewarned by the Ayyubid of the Brothers’ fatal designs, the Hohenstaufen felt hatred toward both Orders ever since then.40 The Arab chronicler and preacher Sibt ibn al-Jawzi appears to corroborate these statements as he mentions the emperor’s fear for his life –

38 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 462: Il i a .i. castiel del Temple qui a à non Castiaus Pelerins; si entra ens. Quant il fu dedens, si trouva le castel bien garni et moult fort. Il dist qu’il voloit avoir le castel, et que il le vuidaissent, et manda ses homes por garnir. Li Templier coururent as portes et les fermerent, et disent que s’il ne s’en aloit, il le meteroient en tel liu dont il n’isteroit jamais. 39 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 462–3, 464–5; “Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de Rothelin,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Occidentaux, vol. 2 (Paris 1859), 483–639, here 525–6; Filippo da Novara, Guerra di Federico II in Oriente (1223– 1242), ed. Silvio Melani (Naples 1994), Novara 102, 104; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 682–4; Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 5: 213, 217; 7: 103; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 134–5; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 71–2; letter from Gerold of Lausanne, patriarch of Jerusalem, to Pope Gregory IX, in Barber and Bate, Letters from the East, 127–33 doc. 63; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 103–5; Ibn al-Athīr, “Kāmil al-Tawārikh,” 2.1: 171, 174–6; Al-‘Ayni, “Le collier de perles,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, vol. 2.1 (Paris 1887), 181–250, here 184–94; Prawer, Histoire, 2: 195–6, 199–200, 203. 40 Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Maiora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 7 vols., Rolls Series 57.1–7 (London 1872–1884), 3: 177–9; Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 5: 208– 9. This rumor is relayed in Ernst Kantorowicz, L’empereur Frédéric II. (first published 1931; reprint Paris 2000), 177, whose author is an ardent advocate for Frederick II.

66

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

should he stay in Jerusalem for too long. Yet, Francesco Gabrieli, who has translated the respective passage, is not sure that the threat really came from the Templars and has pointed out that the term used by the author is “al-Duna” and not “al-Dāwiyya” (which designates the Brothers of the Order). Despite this variation – and since he did not know the meaning of the former expression, Gabrieli decided to interpret it this way.41 His hypothesis thus blames the Templars, even though Matthew Paris – unless he distorted the facts – had claimed that the Hospitallers, too, were involved in this attempted regicide. One would think, though, that if such a plan had really been known, all Frankish, Muslim, and Eastern Christian chroniclers of the period would have mentioned it in their accounts, much like they had with regard to the king of England and his suspected involvement in the assassination of Conrad de Montferrat. Rumors were also circulating about the emperor’s intentions to attack the Templar fortress of ‘Athlīt or to capture the Order’s master, Pierre de Montaigu, to either have him imprisoned in Apulia or killed. This is revealed to us by Philippe de Novare: Soon the emperor was in discord with all the people of Acre. Especially with the Temple, he was in much discord. And at that time there were very valiant Brothers in the Temple, [such as] Brother Pierre de Montaigu who was very valiant and noble. . . . And many of the people said that he [i.e., the emperor] wanted to take the lord of Beirut and his children, and Lord Anceau de Bries and others of their friends, and the master of the Temple and other people, and [that] he wanted to send them [off] to Apulia. And another [time], one said that he wanted to have them murdered at a council to which he would have sent and summoned them; and they had an inkling and they came so [strongly] equipped that he did not dare to do it.42 The emperor was unable to realize the plans against his political opponents, since he had to hurry back at the news of the invasion of his Italian territories by an army of Pope Gregory IX, led by John of Brienne, his ousted father-in-law.43 The Hohenstaufen also periodically deprived the Templars and

41 Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Mir’āt az-Zamān: Chroniques arabes des Croisades, trans. Francesco Gabrieli (Arles 1996), 302. 42 Filippo da Novara, ed. Melani, 102: L’empereor fu maintenant mau de toute la gent d’Acre. Especiaument dou Temple fu trop mau. Et au jor avoit mout vaillans freres au Temple, frere Piere de Montagu, quy mout estoit vaillant et noble. . . . Et mout de gens disoyent que il [l’empereur] voloit prendre le seignor de Baruth et ses enfans et sire Anceau de Bries et autres de ses amis et le maistre dou Temple et autres gens, et les voloit mander en Puille. Et autre [fois] disoit l’on que il les voloit faire ocirre á .i. conseil ou il les avoit mandés et semons; et il s’en apersurent et il y alerent si esforceement que il ne l’osa faire. 43 Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 5: 191–5; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 131.

67

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

Hospitallers of their rights and goods in Sicily.44 Frederick’s departure for the West highlighted the divisions among the barons of the Holy Land, especially between his representatives and his opponents – among them the supporters of Alix of Champagne (also known as Alix of Armenia), who claimed the crown of Jerusalem, or those of John of Ibelin who took Cyprus from the emperor’s men. Frederick’s opponents could count on the support of the Templars; meanwhile, the Hospitallers had finally reconciled with him.45 In 1241, the Templars did not join the truce between Richard of Cornwall and the sultan of Egypt, al-Sālih Ayyūb. Count Richard was not just the son of King Henry III of England; he was also the Emperor Frederick’s brotherin-law, was very close to him, and had been encouraged by him in his crusade. The agreement with al-Sālih Ayyūb had been reached with the approval of the master of the Hospital, extended to this Order’s lands, and facilitated the freeing of many Christian captives – including both Templars and Hospitallers. The Templars, however, chose to remain faithful to the Frankish alliance with Damascus, which had been forged shortly before the count’s arrival in the East and had proven reliable. They even openly violated Richard’s truce by attacking Hebron in the spring of 1242 and then Nablus on 30 September – both cities then held by the Egyptian sultan. At the Templars’ behest, negotiations recommenced with the sultan of Damascus, al-Sālih Ismā‘īl, and directed against al-Sālih Ayyūb. Both rival Muslim rulers were seeking an alliance with the Franks and offered to restore to the Christians the Templars’ old headquarters in Jerusalem, namely, the esplanade of the mosques with the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsā mosque. Once again, the Templars preferred to trust the Damascenes: All the land in the vicinity of the Jordan, with the exception of St. Abraham, Nablus, and Bossan, was immediately returned to Christian worship. Thus, it is necessary to rejoice with the angels and with men that the holy city of Jerusalem is only inhabited by Christians, all the Saracens having been driven from it, and that in all the holy places, where for fifty-six years the name of God had not been called upon, and that are now reconciled and purified by the prelates of the churches, the divine mysteries are celebrated every day: therefore, may God be praised.46

44 Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. Mas Latrie, 466–7; Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 7: 62–3; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Le patrimoine des grands ordres militaires en Sicile, 1145–1492,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Moyen Âge 113 (2001): 313–41, here 330–1; Hubert Houben, “Frédéric II,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 367–8. 45 Richard, Histoire des croisades, 318–19, 321–3; Demurger, Templiers, 354–6. 46 Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 8: 179.

68

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

This diplomatic success was the accomplishment of the Templar Master Armand de Périgord who informed the West of the news via the Order’s commander in England, Robert de Sandford, and announced the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s fortifications at his Order’s initiative.47 The Templars’ independent attitude toward his authority and his – or his relatives’ – diplomatic choices greatly displeased Frederick II who complained about them in his letters. He went so far as to calling them responsible for the defeat at La Forbie (1244) by accusing them of forcing the sultan of Egypt to seek the assistance of the Khwārizmians. In truth, within the framework of the Damascene alliance, the Templars had suggested the assistance of the Franks when al-Sālih Ismā‘īl, together with al-Nasir Dā‘ūd, the ruler of Kerak, and Prince al-Mansūr Ibrāhīm of Homs, had gone to war against al-Sālih Ayyūb. An agreement was reached which stipulated that a portion of Egypt would be restored to the Franks should the sultan be defeated. However, al-Sālih Ayyūb appealed to the Khwārizmian Turks to invade the lands of his enemies, and in July 1244 their troops reached Jerusalem. The Franks only received very sparse military support from Damascus, and the Khwārizmians managed to seize Jerusalem on 23 August and – the following October at La Forbie – inflicted a terrible defeat on the Christian army, al-Nasir Dā‘ūd, and al-Mansūr Ibrāhīm. The Templars who – like the Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights – had sent their entire forces into the battle paid a heavy human toll.48 In 1268, the death of Conradin forced the High Court of the kingdom of Jerusalem to choose a new ruler. After investigating the rights of the potential claimants to the throne, the jurists nominated Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan, king of Cyprus since 1267, to receive the crown. His rival in this was Maria, 47 “Estoire de Eracles,” 421–2; “Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de Rothelin,” 555–6; Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Maiora, ed. Luard, 4: 289–98; Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 7: 215–16; 8: 24–30, 53, 178–80 (also published in an English translation in Barber and Bate, Letters from the East, 140–2, doc. 67); Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 185–6; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 115–17, 120–2; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Blochet, 10 (1903–1904): 355–7; Al-‘Ayni, “Collier de perles,” 197; Joshua Prawer, “Military Orders and Crusader Politics in the Second Half of the XIIIth Century,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, ed. Josef Fleckenstein and Manfred Hellmann, Vorträge und Forschungen 26 (Sigmaringen 1980), 217–29, here 223, 225. 48 Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Maiora, ed. Luard, 4: IV 301, 307–11, 338–40; Matthieu Paris, Grande chronique d’Angleterre, 8: 190–201; “Estoire de Eracles,” 427–31; “Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de Rothelin,” 562–6; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 740; Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314): La caduta degli Stati Crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples 2000), 56; “Annales de Terre sainte,” ed. Röhricht and Raynaud, 441 (A-B); Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 122; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Blochet, 10 (1903–1904): 358–60; Al-‘Ayni, “Collier de perles,” 198; Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII–MCCXCI) with Additamentum, ed. Reinhold Röhricht (Innsbruck 1893–1904), 297 no. 1115; Richard, Histoire des croisades, 337–8, 340–1; Marion Melville, La vie des Templiers (first published 1951; reprint Paris 1974), 192–4; Ilya Berkovich, “Templars, Franks, Syrians, and the Double Pact of 1244,” in The Military Orders, Volume 5: Politics and Power, ed. Peter Edbury (Farnham 2012), 83–93; Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay: Le crépuscule des Templiers (Paris 2002), 331–2.

69

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

the granddaughter of King Aimery, and she had the Templars’ support against Hugh.49 Nevertheless, Hugh was crowned king of Jerusalem on 24 September 1269; he wanted to rule effectively by trying to calm the general climate via reconciling with the kingdom’s main vassals and by attempting to satisfy the Italian cities. The Templars, however, appear to have disregarded his authority, for example by dispensing with his approval for the purchase of the casale of the Falconry, south of Acre, from Thomas de Saint-Bertin in October 1276. Despite his best efforts, Hugh III had his hands full with the military orders, but also with the commune of Acre, the Italians, and several barons of the Holy Land and Cyprus who prevented him from fulfilling his role, so much so that he eventually left Acre in 1276. He had, however, been appreciated by the citizens of Acre who came to him at Tyre and – in their name and in that of various prelates, knights, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights, but without the support of the Templar Master Guillaume de Beaujeu and the Venetians – asked him to return. Before embarking for Cyprus, Hugh III appointed Balian d’Ibelin as bailli. In June 1277, Charles of Anjou, whose ambitions encompassed the entire Mediterranean, acquired Maria’s claims to the throne and speedily granted himself the prestigious title of king of Jerusalem. He dispatched his representative Roger of San Severino to Acre where he was well received by the Templars and Venetians who helped him to enter the capital at the expense of the previous bailli. However, Tyre and Beirut resisted the Angevins. At the beginning of 1279, Hugh III landed at Tyre with a Cypriot army to try to recover Acre but failed to rally the barons to his cause; they had already had to pay homage to Charles of Anjou. The king of Sicily was also able to count on the unwavering support of his relative, Guillaume de Beaujeu, who had served as Templar commander of Apulia prior to becoming his Order’s master. In retaliation for their attitude and despite the pope’s intervention in their favor, Hugh III confiscated the Templars’ goods on the island of Cyprus. After the Sicilian Vespers (1282), Roger of San Severino was recalled to Italy, and Eudes Poilechien, his former seneschal, replaced him as bailli. In June 1283, Eudes succeeded in renewing the peace with Qalāwūn’s Mamluks for a period of ten years in the name of the commune of Acre and the Templars of ‘Athlīt and Sidon; the cities of Tyre and Beirut, Hugh’s supporters, were not included in this agreement. That same year, the king of Cyprus made another attempt to reconquer the kingdom of Acre, yet without success, since Eudes had the support of both the Templars and the commune of Acre. The king died at Tyre on 4 March 1284.50

49 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 126; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 771–3, 777; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 210–11; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 113–14; “Annales de Terre sainte,” ed. Röhricht and Raynaud, 454 (A-B); Peter Edbury, “The Disputed Regency of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1264/6 and 1268,” Camden Miscellany 27, Camden Fourth Series 22 (1979): 1–47. 50 “Estoire de Eracles,” 461–4, 474–6, 478–9; Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 128, 136, 148, 150, 160, 162; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 778–9, 783–4, 789–91; “Annales de Terre sainte,” ed.

70

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

Bohemond VII (1275–1287), the last Latin ruler of Tripoli and, at least on paper, of Antioch, also had to deal with the Templars who took sides – at his expense and thus threatening his throne – in favor of Guy II, lord of Gibelet (Djubayl) and a member of the Genoese Embriaci family. Before this, as we have seen, the Brothers of the Order had essentially always supported the princes of Antioch against the Armenians.51 Guy’s opposition to the count of Tripoli had been caused by the interference of the bishop of Tortosa, Barthelemy Mansel, in Gibelet’s marriage affairs. This bishop had governed the county during Bohemond VII’s minority, at the request of the latter’s mother, Sibylla of Armenia, and it was tradition that the rulers of Tripoli exercised the right to choose spouses for the heirs of their fiefs. In our case, Guy de Gibelet’s brother, Jean, was to marry Hugues de Saraman’s daughter, but in 1277, the bishop – with Bohemond’s consent – decided to cancel the plans for this union because he wanted to marry the young woman to his own nephew. Having joined the Templars as a confrater and therefore enjoying the support of the Order’s master, Guillaume de Beaujeu, Guy nevertheless proceeded and celebrated his brother’s marriage. The master was doubly opposed to the bishop of Tortosa, since he also supported the bishop of Tripoli against him, namely, Paul de Segni (also a Templar confrater), who had arrived in the county in the 1230s with his sister Lucienne, the great-niece of Pope Innocent III, who was to marry Bohemond V. Guy’s rebellion against the princely decision plunged Tripoli into an actual civil war. The Templar master sent thirty Brothers to help Guy protect his castle, and the lord of Gibelet subsequently took refuge in the Templar house. Bohemond reacted by first besieging and then plundering the Templar buildings in Tripoli, as well as their manor at Mount Cocu (Abū Halqa), and also had the Order’s forest in the vicinity cut down. Guillaume de Beaujeu subsequently went before the walls of Tripoli with his troops to lay siege to it, and then, accompanied by those from Gibelet, went to the south of Röhricht and Raynaud, 455 (A-B), 457 (A), 458 (A-B); Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 214–15; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 115–16; Marinus Sanutus, Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis, ed. Jacques Bongars (Jerusalem 1972), 226–8; Al-Makrīzī, Histoire des sultans mamlouks, de l’Égypte, écrite en Arabe par Taki-eddin-Ahmed-Ṃakrizi, trans. Étienne Quatremère, 2 vols. (Paris 1845), 2.1: 60; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 3: 659–72; George Hill, A History of Cyprus, Volume 2: The Frankish Period, 1192–1432 (Cambridge 1948), 161–5, 168– 70, 172, 176, 178, 190; Peter Holt, “Qālawūn’s Treaty with Acre in 1283,” The English Historical Review 91 (1976): 802–12; Peter Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290): Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian Rulers (Leiden 1995), 69–91; Richard, Histoire des croisades, 390–1, 460–3; Peter Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 (Cambridge 1991), 92–6; Peter Edbury, “The Templars in Cyprus,” in The Military Orders, Volume 1: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. Malcolm Barber (Aldershot 1994), 189–95, here 192–3; Nicholas Coureas, The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195–1312 (Aldershot 1997), 127–9; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 69–70. 51 Jean Richard, Le comté de Tripoli sous la dynastie toulousaine (1102–1187) (Paris 1945), 62–70; Jean Richard, “Templiers et hospitaliers dans le comté de Tripoli,” in La fin de l’ordre du Temple, ed. Marie-Anna Chevalier (Paris 2012), 173–80; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 146–65, 172–4, 229–31.

71

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

the capital where they destroyed Bohemond’s castle at Boutron before besieging Nephin (Enfé). The count succeeded in countering them, and a dozen Templar knights were captured. Another battle followed in which Bohemond VII attacked Gibelet. In 1278, aided by a Templar contingent, Guy managed to win a bloody victory north of Boutron. A one-year truce was concluded but shortly afterwards violated when Guy and the Templars attempted to seize Tripoli. Twelve galleys sent by the Order to take the city’s port were scattered by a storm. Meanwhile, Bohemond sent fifteen galleys to attack the Templar castle at Sidon. Thanks to the intervention of the Hospitaller Master Nicolas Lorgne, another truce was reached. In January 1283, Guy again tried to take Tripoli and enter the Templars’ quarter. However, the swift departure of the Templar commander, Rui de Cuer (sometimes translated as “Reddecoeur”), who was to provide him with about thirty knights and six hundred foot soldiers, caused him to fear treason. The lord of Gibelet then decided to retreat to a tower owned by the Hospitallers. Soon, he and his followers were encircled by Bohemond’s troops. The Hospitaller Brothers negotiated the surrender of the besieged to whom life was promised; yet the count, tired of these successive betrayals, had Guy, his brothers, and his cousin who had accompanied him, killed under cruel circumstances.52 Bohemond’s death on 19 October 1287 rekindled Gibelet’s aspirations: a commune was formed and appealed to the Genoese to prevent the return from Apulia of the count’s heiress, namely, his sister Lucy, wife of Narjot II de Toucy, Charles of Anjou’s former admiral. Despite this opposition, the princess, supported by the three military orders at the request of Pope Nicholas IV, arrived in early 1288 to claim her inheritance. The commune – which had initially opposed her – eventually called her to rule because it feared the attempts of its mayor, Barthélémy Embriaco, to establish the Genoese at Tripoli and because of the latter’s requests for aid to Qalāwūn. Lucy accepted the commune’s conditions and was even accommodating toward the Genoese. Two Franks, either sent by the Venetians or – more probably – by Barthélémy de Gibelet, went to Cairo to ask the sultan to intervene. The Templar master, informed by Emir Badr al-Dīn Baktāsh al-Fakhri of Qalāwūn’s intention to attack Tripoli, hurried to warn the city’s inhabitants to be prepared for the attack, but they did not believe him until the sultan’s army had already reached the gates of the city. The marshals of the Temple and the Hospital, Geoffroy de Vendac and Matthieu de 52 “Estoire de Eracles,” 468–9, 481; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 781–4, 787–8; Marinus Sanutus, ed. Bongars, 228; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 3: 672–81; Richard, Histoire des croisades, 391–2, 404, 464, 474–5; Jean Richard, “Les comtes de Tripoli et leurs vassaux sous la dynastie antiochénienne,” in Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Confernce of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail, ed. Peter Edbury (Cardiff 1985), 213–24, here 213–14, 218, 223; Jean Richard, “Les familles féodales franques dans le Comté de Tripoli,” in Le Comté de Tripoli: État multiculturel et multiconfessionnel (1102–1289), ed. Gérard Dédéyan and Karam Rizk (Paris 2010), 7–30, here 21, 26–8; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 70–2; Pierre-Vincent Claverie, L’ordre du Temple en Terre sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 3 vols. (Nicosia 2005), 1: 80–6; 3: 329–30 no. 392.

72

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

Clermont, participated in the defense of Tripoli, but the Franks’ efforts were insufficient. In late April 1289, Qalāwūn won an overwhelming victory, massacred Tripoli’s population, and razed the city to the ground.53 By offering military support to the lords of Gibelet and thus enabling them to resist Bohemond VII, the Templars probably caused this conflict in the county of Tripoli to last much longer than it should have. In the medium term, this had serious consequences for this state, namely, by weakening its forces at a time when the Mamluks were becoming more and more of a threat; on the other hand, it also indirectly allowed another member of the Embriaci to establish a commune in Tripoli, be elected mayor, and – presumably and to Guillaume de Beaujeu’s great consternation – appeal to the sultan of Egypt when his power was threatened. Yet again, the Templars played a role in the accession of the young ruler of Cyprus, Henry II (1285–1324), the son of Hugh III, to the throne of Jerusalem. Following Charles of Anjou’s death, Henry II sought to have his claims in the Near East recognized, but Eudes Poilechien did not wish to renounce his position as bailli and, in this, was able to count on the support of the king of France’s local contingent. When he arrived at Acre on 24 June 1286, Henry was well received by the commune, yet the masters of the Orders chose to stay away from the festivities so as to “not displease any of the parties.” Together with the French troops, Eudes shut himself up in the city’s castle and refused Henry’s proposal to let them depart – safe and sound and with their goods. The people had to revolt against the bailli and attack the castle for the military orders to enter into negotiations. They eventually persuaded Eudes to surrender the castle to them. Thus, Henry II was officially able to take possession of the place on 29 June. He was crowned in Tyre on 15 August and returned to Cyprus a few weeks later – after entrusting the kingdom of Acre to his uncle, Baldwin of Ibelin. Based on his father’s experience, Henry was well aware that a good relationship with the Templars was necessary to rule; therefore, with the Hospitallers serving as intermediaries, he came to an agreement with Guillaume de Beaujeu.54 In the spring of 1287, during the king’s absence, Templars

53 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 146, 148, 150, 156, 158, 188–98; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 780, 800–4; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 217–18; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 117–18; “Annales de Terre sainte,” ed. Röhricht and Raynaud, 460 (A-B); Marinus Sanutus, ed. Bongars, 229; Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 162; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: 101–3; Al-Mufaddal, “Histoire des sultans mamlouks,” ed. and trans. Edgar Blochet, in Patrologia orientalis, vols. 12, 14, and 20 (Turnhout 1912–1928), 12: 407–550; 14: 375–672; 20: 17–267; here 14: 530–1; Robert Irwin, “The Mamlūk Conquest of the County of Tripoli,” in Crusade and Settlement, ed. Edbury, 246–50; Richard, “Comtes de Tripoli et leurs vassaux,” 219–20; Richard, “Familles féodales franques,” 28–30; Steven Runciman, Histoire des Croisades (first published Cambridge 1951–1954; French reprint Paris 2006), 993–5. 54 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 170, 172; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 792–3; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 216–17; Marinus Sanutus, ed. Bongars, 229; Leontios Makhairas, Recital Concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus Entitled “Chronicle”, ed. Richard Dawkins

73

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

and Hospitallers worked to preserve the port of Acre from the dangers of the conflict between the Pisans and Venetians, on the one side, and the Genoese.55 As in the case of Tripoli – and even alerted by the same informant, the Templar Master Guillaume de Beaujeu tried to warn the town of Acre of Qalāwūn’s warlike intentions. Once again, his voice was ignored, but this time he sought to negotiate directly with the sultan to spare the city. Qalāwūn proposed to abandon his plans in exchange for as many Venetian sequins (gold coins) as there were inhabitants in Acre. The Templar master communicated this offer to the High Court where it was rejected and Beaujeu even labeled a traitor.56 After Qalāwūn’s death, his son al-Ashraf Khalīl launched the Mamluk offensive for the conquest of Acre in April 1291. The Orders fought with all their might alongside the representatives and troops sent by King Henry II – but ultimately in vain.57

In Armenia: the years leading up to the Trial While things for Cyprus are comparatively well documented, the last period of the Templars’ presence in Armenia is rather neglected by the sources.58 Arab writers are often more precise than Frankish chroniclers when relating the circumstances under which the Order’s remaining fortresses in Armenia fell, which occurred in two stages: initially in 1268 and ultimately in 1298–1299. Led by Baybars, the Mamluks first attacked the south of the Templar March, a border region which enabled them to enter the Armenian kingdom from Antioch which they had just conquered (May 1268). A long narrative in the Templars’ Catalan Rule relates the conditions for the departure of the Order’s garrison from Baghrās. The latter, despite its calls for help, had received no assistance from the Order’s master or from the Frankish and Armenian authorities who were all underestimating the threat.59 During this first stage of the

55 56 57

58

59

(Oxford 1932), 42; Richard, Histoire des croisades, 472–3; Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus, 98–100; Coureas, Latin Church, 129–30. “Gestes des Chiprois,” 798–9; Runciman, Histoire des Croisades, 991–2. “Gestes des Chiprois,” 807; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: 109; Prawer, Histoire, 2: 542; Runciman, Histoire des Croisades, 997–8. Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 213–26; “Gestes des Chiprois,” 808–17; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 220–6; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 119–26; Ludolf de Sudheim, “Descriptio Terrae Sanctae,” ed. Guillaume A. Neumann, in Archives de l’Orient Latin, vol. 2, Documents (Paris 1884), 305–77, here 339–41; “Annales de Terre sainte,” ed. Röhricht and Raynaud, 460–1 (A); Abū l-Fida, “Résumé de l’Histoire des Annales,” 163–4; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: 120–6; Al-Mufaddal, ed. Blochet, 14: 542–5. Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 554–608; Marie-Anna Chevalier, “De la prise d’Acre au procès chypriote: Les conditions de la survie et déclin des templiers en Orient,” in Fin de l’ordre du Temple, ed. Chevalier, 181–220. The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Cartas Reales, MS 3344, ed. Judith M. Upton-Ward (Woodbridge 2003), 81–7 no. 180; Al-Mufaddal, ed. Blochet, 12: 514; Ibn al Furāt, Ayyubids, Mamlukes, and Crusaders: Selections

74

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

conquest, the Order also lost the castle of La Roche Roissol as well as PortBonnel and its territory.60 Despite this lack of military support, the Templars undertook a diplomatic mission on behalf of the king of Armenia, namely, a peace overture to the Mamluk Sultan Qalāwūn who was attacking Armenia in 1283, destroying everything in his path, and committing massacres all the way to T‘il Hamtun and Ayas.61 Lewon II’s attempts to obtain a truce had proven altogether unsuccessful until he made the decision to seek the help of the Templars as intermediaries. Al-Makrīzī gives us the account of this embassy: While our lord the sultan was besieging the fortress of Markab, the commander of the Templars of the country of Armenia arrived. He had been entrusted with negotiations by the ruler of Sis, and they offered, in the name of that prince, a present, together with a letter written by the Takafour62 and another composed by the grand master of the Templars. In this latter dispatch, the sultan’s mercy was implored on behalf of the ruler of Sis.63 This time, the Armenian king’s overtures received the sultan’s full attention, namely, because of the esteem in which he held the Templar Master Guillaume de Beaujeu: “The grand master of the Templars had the credentials before our lord the sultan to have his request received and shown consideration by accepting his mediation.”64 A truce, scheduled to last ten years, ten months, and ten hours, was signed on 6 June 1285.65 The Templar commander of Armenia, perhaps Simon of Farabell,66 together with Vahram, a dignitary of the Armenian kingdom, was charged with enforcing its conditions.67

60

61

62 63 64 65 66 67

from the Tārīkh al-Duwal wa’l-Mulūk of Ibn al Furāt, ed. Ursula and Malcolm Cameron Lyons, historical introduction and notes by Jonathan Riley-Smith, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1971), 2:127; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 1.2: 56. “Gestes des Chiprois,” 772; Hét‘oum l’Historien, “Chronique,” 74; “Estoire de Eracles,” 457; Marinus Sanutus, ed. Bongars, 223; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 210; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 113. See also Claude Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’époque des croisades et la principauté franque d’Antioche (Paris 1940), 717. Al-Mufaddal, ed. Blochet, 12: 390–1; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: 63; Chronography of Gregory Abū’l Faradj [Bar Hebraeus], trans. Budge, 465–8; Marius Canard, “Le royaume d’ArménieCilicie et les Mamelouks jusqu’au traité de 1285,” Revue des Études Arméniennes, nouvelle série 4 (1967): 217–59, here 246; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 424–5, 542–3. Takavor is the Armenian word for “king.” Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: appendix, 201. See also Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 92–105. Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: appendix, 201. Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: appendix, 203–11. On this truce, see also Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 76; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 424–7. He is mentioned in this capacity around 1288. Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.3: appendix, 211–12; Canard, “Royaume d’Arménie-Cilicie,” 258; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 426.

75

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

If Het‘um I did not assist the Templars in 1268, the relationship between the Order and the ruler of Armenia appears to have been even worse thirty years later, when it was the king himself who surrendered a Templar fortress to the Mamluks, namely, the Order’s most important Armenian fortress, La Roche Guillaume (Hadjār Shughlān). The Mamluk Sultan Lādjīn (1296–1298), who was aware of the incessant struggle for power among Lewon II’s sons, took advantage of these circumstances and, in 1298, launched several attacks against Cilicia. Upon their return to the land, the Mamluks took the Teutonic Knights’ and the Templars’ Marches before committing massacres and plunder in the Cilician plain. Their army seized T‘il Hamtun on 18 June and – by 20 June – was besieging the castle of Hamus. In this context, Constantine, who was the ruler of the Armenian state for a few months in 1298–1299, agreed to hand eleven fortresses, including La Roche Guillaume which had been the most important location in the Templar province of Armenia since 1268, over to the Mamluks.68 The sources do not inform us about the identity of the owners of this site in 1298. It is therefore possible – although unlikely – that the location had reverted to the king of Armenia after its hypothetical abandonment by the Templars or – and this is the most probable hypothesis – that Constantine agreed to surrender all places claimed by the Muslims, regardless of who was holding them at the time. This theory is underscored by Abū l-Fidā’s account of the forced surrender of the geographical area, both large and precisely described, in which these fortresses were located: “Constantine . . . surrendered to the Muslims the entire territory south of the River Jayhān, including Hamūs, Tall Hamdūn, Kuwayrā, al-Naqīr, Hajar Shaghlān, Sarfandkār, and Mar‘ash.”69 Despite the loss of the remnants of their Armenian province in July–August 1298, the Templars continued to participate in large-scale military operations in the Near East alongside King Het‘um II, particularly during the Mongolian Ilkhan Ghāzān’s expeditions of 1299–1303.70 The crusade treatise submitted by the last Templar Master, Jacques de Molay, which advocates forcefully against a “special passage” to Armenia by criticizing both the country’s geographical conditions (deemed “unhealthy” due to

68 “Gestes des Chiprois,” 839–41; Abū l-Fida, “Autobiographie, extraite de sa chronique,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Orientaux, vol. 1 (Paris 1872), 166–86, here 169–70; Abū l-Fida, The Memoirs of a Syrian Prince, trans. Peter Holt (Wiesbaden 1983), 27–30; Al-Yūnīnī, Early Mamluk Syrian Historiography: Al-Yūnīnī’s Dhayl Mirʼāt al-zamān, trans. Li Guo, 2 vols. (Leiden 1998), 101–3; La chronique de Damas d’Al-Jazari (années 689–698 H.), trans. Jean Sauvaget (Paris 1949), 69 no. 436, 441; Al-Mufaddal, ed. Blochet, 14: 601–3; Al-Makrīzī, trans. Quatremère, 2.4: 60–5; Angus Donal Stewart, The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks: War and Diplomacy during the Reigns of Hét‘um II (1289–1307) (Leiden 2001), 106–28; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 554–9; Marie-Anna Chevalier, “Roche Guillaume,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 799; Mutafian, Arménie du Levant, 177–8. 69 Abū l-Fida, Memoirs, 29. 70 Hét‘oum l’Historien, “Flos Historianum Terre Orientis,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Arméniens, vol. 2 (Paris 1906), 255–363, here 330; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 140–4, 276–7, 281–2; Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 559–69.

76

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

outbreaks of malaria) and the attitude of its inhabitants whom he considered unreliable and even cowardly, speaks volumes about the deterioration of the already complicated relationship between his Order and the Armenian authorities. According to the Templar master, such a passage would surely lead to the defeat of the Christian army.71 The reason for such bitterness must probably be sought in the circumstances of the loss of the Templar fortress of La Roche Guillaume, since it is unknown whether it still had a Templar garrison when Constantine yielded it to the Mamluks and – if it did – what this garrison’s fate might have been. Moreover, in 1299, when Het‘um II and Ghāzān’s Mongols reconquered the entire territory that the Egyptian Mamluks had seized the previous year, La Roche Guillaume was the only fortress not to be retaken. For their part, the Templars seem to have supported one of King Het‘um II’s brotherly rivals, the ichkhan Sembat, who had had himself crowned king in 1297, and had eliminated his opponents by murdering his brother T‘oros and blinding Het‘um. When the latter recovered his sight and regained power, he had Sembat sent into exile to the Emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus. After Het‘um II’s death, Sembat was freed and, in April 1308, went to Cyprus. That he initially resided at the Templar casale of Gastrie on the eastern coast of the island where he had left his galleys, rather than staying at one of Cyprus’s great and more easily accessible ports, shows his confidence in the Order of the Temple. It might also suggest that the Templars had supported him during his seizing of power in Armenia – to the detriment of his brothers – and explain why the Armenian rulers had surrendered La Roche Guillaume to the Mamluks and not recovered it during their reconquest at the Mongols’ side. Moreover, it would help us understand the origins of Jacques de Molay’s animosity toward the Armenians, which was mainly directed against Het‘um who was still serving as regent when the Templar master composed his crusade treatise in 1306–1307.72 The final aspect of this relationship, which had deteriorated considerably at the end of the thirteenth and in the early fourteenth centuries, was the role played by the Armenian historian and prince Het‘um of Korykos with regard to the Templars’ arrest on Cyprus in the context of the Trial launched against the Order throughout Christendom. It was during his mission to the papal curia on behalf of the governor of Cyprus, Amaury of Tyre, that Pope Clement V entrusted Het‘um of Korykos with the arrest orders for the Templar Brothers,

71 According to Jacques de Molay’s treatise, published in its original Latin version in Étienne Baluze, Vitae paparum Avenionensium, ed. Guillaume Mollat, 4 vols. (first published 1693; reprint Paris 1914– 1922), 3: 145–9; and in Joseph Kervyn de Lettenhove, “Deux lettres inédites de Jacques de Molay,” Bulletins de l’Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique 38 (1874): 226–55. For an in-depth analysis of how Jacques de Molay viewed Armenia and the Armenians in his treatise, see Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 575–80. 72 Chevalier, Ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne, 575–80.

77

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

the bull Pastoralis praeeminentiae, published on 22 November 1307.73 Less than a week after Het‘um’s return to Cyprus (6 May 1308), Amaury carried out the pope’s orders and sent Balian of Ibelin to arrest the Templars of the island.74

Conclusion The study of these very diverse situations over the period of a century and a half suggests that the Templars were an integral part of the Christian Near East’s political landscape. They derived their strength from the permanence of their presence but also from the personality of some of their masters who did not hesitate to confront royal power, even when it was at its most powerful and least contested. When facing strong rulers, the Brothers occasionally had to suffer the consequences of their independent actions, which some chroniclers considered arrogant, by incurring imprisonment or even execution (under King Amaury, the Armenian bailli Constantine, or Count Bohemond VII), or by being driven from their estates and deprived of their fortresses (under the Roupenids Meleh and Lewon I as well as King Hugh III). The later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries constituted a turning point in the relationship between the Templars and the kings of Jerusalem. Since the latter now held their titles only through marriage or distant ancestry, they found themselves weakened and their legitimacy less recognized than if they had been kings by direct inheritance. Thus, they needed strong support, were more inclined to try to satisfy the Order, and, in rare cases – such as that of King Guy and the Templar Master Gerard de Ridefort – even submitted to the master’s will. Throughout the thirteenth century, the Templars – like the Hospitallers and then the Teutonic Knights – influenced all areas of the political and military life of the Frankish states of Western Asia: the space left vacant by absent rulers was filled by the Orders, but also by barons and prelates, which increasingly destabilized these states both politically and socially. The Order of the Temple appears to have been the institution that was the most rebellious 73 Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 278–80; Leontios Makhairas, Chronique de Chypre, ed. and trans. Emmanuel Miller and Kōnstantinos N. Sathas (Paris 1882), 12–13; Leontios Machairas, Une Histoire du doux pays de Chypre, trans. Isabelle Cervellin-Chevalier (Besançon 2002), 23–4; Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens mit urkundlichen und kritischen Beiträgen, 2 vols. (Berlin 1887), 1: 461–2; Alichan, Sissouan, 402–6; Hill, History of Cyprus, 227–8, 233; Malcolm Barber, Le procès des Templiers, trans. Sylvie Deshayes (first published Cambridge 1978; French reprint Rennes 2002), 90–1; Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus, 121; Annetta Iliéva, “The Suppression of the Templars in Cyprus according to the Chronicle of Leontios Makhairas,” in The Military Orders, Volume 1, ed. Barber, 212–19, here 214–15; Coureas, Latin Church, 139; Chevalier, Ordres religieuxmilitaires en Arménie cilicienne, 597–603. 74 Baluze, Vitae paparum Avenionensium, 3: 84–6; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 283; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 165; Peter Edbury, “The Arrest of the Templars in Cyprus,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 249–58; Chevalier, Ordres religieuxmilitaires en Arménie cilicienne, 598–608; Chevalier, “De la prise d’Acre,” 202–18.

78

T E M P L A R S A N D RU L E R S O F T H E C H R I S T I A N E A S T

against royal authority in the East. It conducted its own diplomacy, even if it contradicted that of the ruler, as we have seen for the reign of Frederick II. In Armenia, the Templars’ relationship toward the Roupenid and Hetoumid rulers rested on a complex foundation. The fact that the Order ultimately owed its presence in Armenia to the prince of Antioch permeated the common history of the Armenian Brothers and rulers. Whenever the rulers of Armenia were on good terms with those of Antioch, the Templars supported them without hesitation, both militarily and diplomatically. On the other hand, during times of crisis between the two states, the Templars always took the Antiochenes’ side, often abandoning the restraint they should have shown in conflicts between two Christian rulers. For their part, the Armenian rulers always considered the Templar presence on their state’s border an Antiochene satellite and therefore maintained a certain mistrust toward the Brothers whom they opposed or even attacked in several cases. Nevertheless, the Templars defended their March with great effort during Saladin’s conquests and found themselves all alone when facing the Mamluks. Despite the defeats they suffered against their adversaries, the Templars constituted a bulwark for the Armenian state and slowed down the incursions of the Muslim armies. The complex relationship with Armenia came to an end during the Order’s final hours. In addition to pursuing their primary objective, namely, defending and protecting the Christian territories, the Templars were able to take care of their own interests and stood firm when rulers contravened their decisions. In the internal politics of these states, the Brothers often made explicit choices and took part in the quarrels of succession that shook the Christian East. This study has identified several types of motivation which led the Order to act in agreement with or in opposition to the rulers of the Christian states of the Levant. If we set aside the case of Gerard de Ridefort who may have been obsessed by his desire for vengeance, but perhaps also his notion of courage, it should be emphasized that – generally speaking – the Templar masters’ decisions were most often guided by their sense of duty and honor, and by what they thought was most just or timely for the Christians or the Holy Land. This was their rationale when they stood against Amaury to avoid breaking an existing truce with the caliph of Egypt, or against Richard of Cornwall – who was acting with Frederick II’s blessing – to maintain their alliance with Damascus. Apart from these considerations, the Templars sometimes defended their own interests, such as when they used violence to end the negotiations between King Amaury and the Assassins to preserve the annual tribute they were receiving from the latter. Some of the Order’s partisan choices can be explained by a fierce desire for independence. Thus, the Templars’ often unconditional support for controversial figures – such as Prince Bohemond IV of Antioch, the baillis of Charles of Anjou, the lords of Gibelet, or Prince Sembat – illustrates the institution’s freedom of action. Varying motives led to the offering of military protection and assistance for these figures – such as having been robbed by an opponent, the 79

M A R I E - A N N A C H E VA L I E R

master’s personal and/or family connections, or affiliation with the Order – and, by the same token, persistent and recurring opposition against often legitimate parties, such as the kings Lewon I, Hugh III, and Het‘um II, as well as Count Bohemond VII. To some, the Templars’ somewhat rigid positions spelled disaster for the future of the Latin states of the East, such as in Tripoli or in Acre where the order, after some fifty years of independence and political anarchy, was no longer willing to accept the permanent presence of a king. Despite some illadvised political choices, the Templar Master Guillaume de Beaujeu – who was apparently more appreciated and heard by the Mamluks than by the Franks – sought to protect Tripoli and Acre during the final months of their existence, but by then it was already too late. Translated from the French by Jochen Burgtorf

80

4 THE TEMPLARS AS MILITES CHRISTI AND MARTYRS IN GOD’S ARMY (1180–1307) Byzantine saints as devotional, artistic, and military models in Southwestern France Sonia Kirch

Introduction This chapter highlights the Gregorian and Byzantine influences on Templar ideology as evidenced by the Order’s military organization, devotion to the Cross, commitment to military and martyr saints, and particularly the powerful use of icon art in the Byzantine tradition in some of its churches. The three churches studied here, namely, Cressac,1 Montsaunès,2 and Paulhac,3 are located in present-day southwestern France and have been selected on the basis of several distinct criteria: they reflect the Byzantine style; their paintings and sculptures are well preserved; their Templar origin has been clearly established; and they served as churches for Templar commanderies (two of them – Montsaunès and Paulhac – also functioned as parish churches ever since their consecration in the later twelfth century). The medieval admiration, imitation, envy, and eventual desecration of Constantinople by plundering its Christian relics and liturgical objects and distributing 1 Le Dognon at Cressac-Saint-Genis (département Charente, ancient diocese of Angoulême). Le Dognon belonged to the commandery of Beauvais-sur-Matha. See Anne-Marie Legras, Les commanderies des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem en Saintonge et en Aunis (Paris 1983), 62–9 with n. 100; Laurent D’Agostino, “Cressac (France, Charente),” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand (Paris 2009), 270–1. 2 Notre-Dame de Montsaunès, nowadays Saint-Christophe de Montsaunès (département HauteGaronne, ancient diocese of Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges). See Damien Carraz, “Montsaunès (France, Haute-Garonne),” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 630–2. 3 Église de la Décollation de Saint Jean-Baptiste de Paulhac (département Creuse, ancient diocese of Limoges, commune of Saint-Etienne-de-Fursac). On Paulhac, see Antonio Cadei, “Architecture religieuse,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 110–15, here 111.

81

SONIA KIRCH

them all over Latin Christendom resembled an obsessive attraction turned violent. Princes and prelates loyal to the Capetian kings, Plantagenet rulers, and German emperors ensured that these relics and objects were brought to the West during the existence of the Latin empire of Byzantium (1204–1261). This coincided with the triumph of the papal theocracy that had begun under Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085), as well as the religious and political supremacy of the Capetian monarchy over much of Europe. The latter’s premier representative was King Louis IX of France who built the Sainte Chapelle (consecrated 1248) to house the holy relic of the Crown of Thorns. Jerusalem fell (again) in 1244, and Constantinople lost its status as a holy city when the Latin empire came to its end in 1261. Thus, what remained was Rome, the sole heiress of Christ, and her faithful daughter, the Capetian kingdom of France. This study of the Templar churches of Cressac, Montsaunès, and Paulhac argues that the Order played a significant role in the assimilation and distribution of Byzantine art and Orthodox iconography, and thereby helped to create the particular style of the 1200s. Between 1180 and 1307, Templars in the most remote regions of France exhibited a remarkable desire to stay as connected as possible to the East in order to recruit new members for their commanderies, collect the responsiones needed to finance their endeavors in the Levant, promote the supremacy and teachings of the Latin Church, and – ultimately – seek the spiritual triumph of martyrs rather than a bodily victory.4

Byzantium’s spiritual supremacy Western rulers in the early Middle Ages – both Catholics and Arians (such as the Visigoths and Lombards) – were fascinated by the Byzantine emperors’ spiritual and religious leadership and by Byzantine art. In their respective realms, they followed the example of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, and used Christianization to standardize and control how their people thought and behaved.5 As early as the fifth century, Constantinople was regarded as the New Jerusalem, thanks to its splendid religious monuments which contained many relics pertaining to the life of Christ and his saints.6 By building the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Church of the 4 On the significance of martyrdom in the Order of the Temple, see Joachim Rother, “Embracing Death, Celebrating Life: Reflections on the Concept of Martyrdom in the Order of the Knights Templar,” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 19 (2014): 169–92; Joachim Rother, Das Martyrium im Templerorden: Eine Studie zur historisch-theologischen Relevanz des Opfertodes im geistlichen Ritterorden der Templer, Bamberger Historische Studien 16 (Bamberg 2017). 5 Ramsay Macmullen, Christianisme et paganisme du IVe au VIIIe siècle (first published in English 1981; Paris 2004), 142–5. 6 Pierre Maraval, “The Earliest Phase of Christian Pilgrimage in the Near East (before the 7th Century),” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56 (2002): 63–74, here 67; Bernard Flusin, La civilisation byzantine (Paris 2012), 16.

82

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

Nativity in Bethlehem, Constantine created the primary destinations of Christian pilgrimage. He was considered the perfect model for Christendom, the Savior’s sovereign lieutenant on Earth, and subsequent generations of rulers – both in the East and in the West – imitated him, even after the so-called schism of 1054. As evidence of the devotion to the first Christian emperor, the name “Constantine” gained popularity in Western Europe, for example in Aquitaine, between the tenth and twelfth centuries.7 The first accounts of the translation of relics, including the Book of Miracles, were composed and reproduced on a large scale in the Byzantine world. They were subsequently copied and translated throughout Latin Christendom. The Byzantines venerated military saints as early as the eighth century. In 1063, the Normans (i.e., Vikings who, since 1035, had been serving the Byzantine emperors as mercenaries, much like similar contingents from England) viewed St. George as their providential helper when they defeated the Saracens in Sicily.8 Their devotion to St. George – prior to their betrayal of the Byzantines9 – can probably be attributed to the personal devotion of their victorious general, Georges Maniakes, who was Basileus Michael V’s most capable military official, to his patron saint.10

From illuminated manuscripts to the menologion: a private obsession publicly manifested by the Templars Two illuminated manuscripts from around 1200 contain a number of formal and thematic similarities with the famous scene painted on the north wall of the church at Cressac that depicts crusaders pursuing Saracens (Figure 4.1). The first of these is Ms. 76 F 5 in The Hague’s Koninklijke Bibliotheek, a Picture Bible from northwestern France, possibly the monastery of Saint-Bertin.11 Both at Cressac and on folio 1r of Ms. 76 F 5, a crusader on horseback leads a victorious charge against the Saracens, and in both cases the Saracens are portrayed in a similar manner. However, on folio 1r of Ms. 76 F 5, the individual leading the charge is not a mere knight: it is St. George, followed by St. Demetrius. In the manuscript illumination, the saints are unequivocally identifiable by their respective tituli (labels), and they are painted under a circular map of Jerusalem that is full of geographical and monumental details regarding the holy places. 7 Hubert Le Roux, “Figures équestres et personnages du nom de Constantin aux XIe et XIIe siècles,” Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest, 4th series, 12 (1974): 379–94. 8 Jean Flori, La guerre sainte: La formation de l’idée de croisade dans l’Occident chrétien (Paris 2001), 130. 9 Jean-Claude Cheynet, Byzance: L’Empire romain d’Orient, 3rd ed. (Paris 2012), 133–4. See also Alain Ducellier and Michel Kaplan, Byzance IVe–XVe siècle (Paris 2004), 55–60, here 57. 10 On the devotion to St. George and St. Michael in Byzantine families, see Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Par saint Georges, par saint Michel,” in Mélanges Gilbert Dagron, Travaux et Mémoires 14 (Paris 2002), 115–34. 11 The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Ms. 76 F 5 (Picture Bible, ms. s. XII–XIII), partially available online, accessed 25 September 2020, https://manuscripts.kb.nl/show/images/76+F+5.

83

SONIA KIRCH

St. George wears white garments, protects himself with a triangular shield, and rides a white horse. His shield bears a red cross, the emblem of the French crusaders, and his banner features the same red cross. In Byzantine art, these two military saints and martyrs appear rather frequently (alongside St. Theodore and, of course, St. Michael the Archangel) on icons, encolpia (medallions worn on the chest), or cameos (carved gems); one example of this is a cameo featuring St. George and St. Demetrius, dated to the eleventh/twelfth centuries, that is kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris (Cabinet des Médailles, Babelon 342).12 A church at Horvath Hesheq (Israel, Upper Galilee) was dedicated to St. Sergius and St. George as early as April 519.13 In 515, a Greek inscription was added to the church of St. George at Zorava (i.e., the late Roman province of Arabia, nowadays Ezraa/Izra in Syria), the latter reflecting the devotion of one John Diomedes, a local Byzantine councilman.14 In sixth-century France, Gregory of Tours wrote in his Glory of Martyrs of miracles worked by St. George.15 In the Latin West, devotion to the military saint and martyr – for his courage in the face of death, his chivalrous virtues, his curing of diseases, and his other miracles – increased during the time of the Reconquista and the crusades. At Cressac, the leader of the crusaders appears without a halo and carries a triangular shield that features a bird (an alerion or avalerion in the terminology of heraldry); otherwise, he is painted in the same posture and with the same attributes as the St. George of the Picture Bible manuscript at The Hague, except for the form of his helmet and coat of arms. A watercolor of Cressac, painted in 1871 by Eugène Sadoux, depicts a group of crusaders following their leader and his banner.16 It is impossible to identify St. George or even St. Demetrius, yet the reference to St. George is nonetheless obvious. In the crusader world, 12 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Cabinet des Médailles, Babelon 342 (cameo, s. XI–XII), available online, accessed 25 September 2020, http://medaillesetantiques.bnf.fr/ws/catalogue/app/ report/index.html (s.v., “Babelon 342”). 13 See Mordechai Aviam, “Horvath Hesheq, a Unique Church in Upper Galilee: Preliminary Report,” in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land, New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, ed. Giovanni-Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni, and Eugenio Alliata, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36 (Jerusalem 1990), 351–77. 14 See Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris 1909), 48; Ross Burns, Monuments of Syria: An Historical Guide, revised edition (London 1999), 122–3. 15 Gregory of Tours, “Liber in gloria martyrum,” in Gregorii episcopi Turonensis miracula et opera minora, ed. Bruno Krusch, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, vol. 1.2 (Hanover 1885; new edition 1969), 34–111, here 104–5. 16 Eugène Sadoux’s watercolor (Musée d’Angoulême), available online, accessed 25 September 2020, www.alienor.org/collections-des-musees/fiche-objet-9161-releves-des-fresques-du-temple-decressac. By 1901, important parts of the Cressac paintings had been lost; see Émile Biais, “Les fresques du Temple, près de Blanzac,” Réunion des sociétés des Beaux-Arts des départements à la Sorbonne, 25th session (1901): 346–53, here 350. In 1942, a monumental copy of the Cressac paintings was

84

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

St. George (as Saint Jorge) and St. Demetrius (as Saint Domistre) were revered as leaders of the First Crusade for their miraculous appearance with their arms and horses – for example during the crusaders’ attack against Antioch in 1098.17 The second manuscript illumination to be considered here can be found on folio 76r of the Great Psalter of Canterbury which is kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris as Ms. Latin 8846 and has been dated to c. 1200.18 Louis Grodecki has established its Byzantine influence, and we know that it played a major role in spreading the particular style of the 1200s in England.19 Folio 76r depicts a battle between Jews and Pagans during the reign of King David. Like the crusaders at Cressac, the Jews carry a triangular shield which, together with the straight sword (blessed by the priests), was considered the most noble weapon at the time of the crusades. In contrast to this – but just like the Saracens at Cressac – the pagan invaders of Jerusalem protect themselves with the rondache (a Saracen round shield). When compared – both stylistically and iconographically – to the manuscript illuminations from The Hague (Ms. 76 F 5) and Paris (Ms. Latin 8846), the painting on the north wall of the church at Cressac can be dated to after 1163, the year of the battle of al-Buqaia in which the Franks defeated Nur ad-Din, but not after 1200.20 The Koninklijke Bibliotheek’s manuscript notice for the image in Ms. 76 F 5, as well as the stylistic analysis, leave no doubt that the manuscript illumination on folio 1r dates to around 1200. As for the wall painting at Cressac and the manuscript illuminations from both The Hague (Picture Bible) and Paris (Great Psalter of Canterbury), the stylistic influence is the same: these three depictions are intimately connected. Thus, they considerably predate the text of the Complaint of Jerusalem against the Court of Rome, which experts on medieval manuscripts and literature usually date to between 1290 and 1300.21 At that time, King Philip IV (the Fair) of France intended to reconquer the Holy Land; his relative Charles of Anjou was king of Sicily, the sole remaining military, political, and religious outpost of Latin Christendom in the Mediterranean Sea (east

17

18

19 20

21

made for the Musée National des Monuments Français in Paris. However, it differs from the originals at Cressac which, between 1950 and 1966, were restored by Irène Mezdrikoff. La Chanson d’Antioche, ed. Suzanne Duparc-Quioc, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 11 (Paris 1976), lines 2179, 2784, 5118–19, 9063–5. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ms. Latin 8846 (Great Psalter of Canterbury, ms. s. XII), available online, accessed 25 September 2020, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c. image. Louis Grodecki, “Style 1200,” Encyclopædia Universalis, available online, accessed 25 September 2020, www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/style-1200/. Sonia Kirch, “Milites Christi: Peintures historiées des templiers et des hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem en Guyenne: Iconographie et idéologies” (M.A. thesis, Université de Rennes-II HauteBretagne 1999), 14. “Complainte de Jérusalem contre la Cour de Rome,” in La langue et la littérature franc̜aises depuis le IXème siècle jusqu’au XIVème siècle, ed. Karl Bartsch (Paris 1887), col. 373–80.

85

SONIA KIRCH

of the Iberian Peninsula); Philip’s grandfather, Louis IX, had been canonized by Pope Boniface VIII; and the Holy See was no longer sending tangible support to help the Templars who had sustained considerable losses, including their master, Guillaume de Beaujeu, during the fall of Acre in 1291. Almost twenty years before the Complaint of Jerusalem and also before the famous poem included in the Chronicle of the Templar of Tyre (dated to c. 1303), in which its author laments the failed conquest of the island of Ruad (off the coast of Syria, opposite Tortosa/Tartus),22 a call for help was sent on behalf of the Templars (yet not the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem who, by then, were also associated with the fight for the Holy Land), namely, Rutebeuf ’s New Complaint from Overseas.23 In his poem, dated to c. 1277, Rutebeuf describes the fate of the Templars and crusaders of France, whom he greatly admires, as tragic, considers them as martyrs, and connects loving God to loving the Order of the Temple (lines 216–220): For, in the long run, you will have little left, Send them overseas: And make yourselves loved by God; Show by word and by example That you love God and the Temple.24 Later on (lines 327–335), Rutebeuf adds another vibrant tribute to the Templars: Master of Overseas and France Of the Temple by the power of God, Brother Guillaume de Beaujeu, You can see the beautiful game To which the world gives itself in service. They do not care to serve God To conquer the Holy Paradise, Like the good men of old, Geoffrey, Bohemond, and Tancred.25 22 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314): La caduta degli Stati Crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples 2000), 237–52 (chapter 294/530). For the Templars’ occupation of Ruad in the early fourteenth century, see Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Templer auf Ruad (1300–1302),” in Die Ritterorden in Umbruchs- und Krisenzeiten, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Toruń 2011), 63–92. 23 Rutebeuf, Œuvres Complètes de Rutebeuf, ed. Edmond Faral and Julia Bastin, 2 vols. (Paris 1959– 1960), 1: 492–509. 24 Rutebeuf, Œuvres Complètes, 504: Dont par tenz porreiz pou avoir / Ses envoiez outre la meir / Et vos faites a Dieu ameir; / Montreiz par bouche et par example / Que vos ameiz Dieu et le Temple. 25 Rutebeuf, Œuvres Complètes, 508: Maistre d’outre meir et de France / Dou Temple par la Dieu poissance, / Frere Guillaume de Biaugeu, / Or poiez veioir le biau geu / De quoi li siecles seit servir / Il n’ont cure de Dieu servir / Por conquerre saint paradis, / Com li preudome de jadiz, / Godefroiz, Buemons et Tancreiz.

86

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

These excerpts are a valuable example of support for the Templars in the late 1270s, just after the Second Council of Lyon (1274) had questioned the crusade and the international military religious orders as such, including both Hospitallers and Templars. Until the discovery of Rutebeuf ’s poem, one had to look to the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries to find a text favorable to the Templars, namely, the First Crusade Cycle, the London-Turin version of the Song of Jerusalem, featuring the good Templar Harpin (probably the same Harpin who appears in The Captives, another epic poem from the same cycle).26 In his poem, Rutebeuf mentions Guillaume de Beaujeu as then living. In the later thirteenth century, the Beaujeu family had ties to the dioceses of Lyon and Mâcon. The Templars’ last five masters all hailed from Aquitaine or Burgundy. It is no coincidence that the devotion to martyrs in France paid tribute to the martyrs among the Order’s masters, namely, Armand de Périgord (probably killed at the 1244 battle of La Forbie), Guillaume de Sonnac (died from injuries sustained during the 1250 battle of Fariskur) and Guillaume de Beaujeu (killed during the 1291 Mamluk conquest of Acre), both at Montsaunès and at Paulhac. Time and again, the Templars’ desire to die for God has been linked to the writings of Bernard de Clairvaux. However, as Jean Flori has shown, this desire has, in fact, its origins in the Peace-of-God movement, the Gregorian Reform, and the idea of the crusade.27 According to Jean Flori (following John Cowdrey), the Byzantine Varangian Guard may have inspired Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) to develop his idea of a militia sancti Petri.28 Jean-Claude Cheynet, an expert on Byzantine history, has described the Varangian Guard as an elite corps of the Byzantine emperors, founded by Basil II (960/976–1025) to ensure his own safety during the rebellion of Nicephorus II Phocas (963–969). Its members responded directly to the emperors and demonstrated absolute obedience.29 For example, in 1058, when Isaac I Comnenus (1057–1059) decided to dismiss the Orthodox Patriarch Michael I Cerularius, he sent the Varangian Guard to arrest the patriarch.30 Cheynet has shown that Byzantium never sacralized war.31 While, as Flori has suggested, Pope Gregory VII indeed used the Byzantine Varangian Guard as a model for those troops who protected him from the Western emperor’s 26 Peter R. Grillo, The Jérusalem Continuations: The London-Turin Version, The Old French Crusade Cycle 8 (Tuscaloosa 1994), 31–2. 27 Flori, Guerre sainte, 216. 28 Herbert Edward John Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (London 1998), 650. See Flori, Guerre sainte, 216. 29 Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Les effectifs de l’armée byzantine aux Xe-XIIe siècles,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 38, no. 152 (1995), 319–35, here 322–3. 30 Cheynet, “Par saint Georges, par saint Michel,” 133. 31 Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Légitimer la guerre à Byzance,” in Mélanges Saint Joseph, vol. 62 (“La Guerre juste dans le Proche-Orient ancien médiéval: Approches historique, philosophique et juridique: Actes du colloque international tenu à Beyrouth les 29 et 30 mai 2006) (Beirut 2009), 233–51.

87

SONIA KIRCH

ambitions during the Investiture Controversy and while he was promoting his Reform, he did sacralize their military service by offering them complete remission of sins as well as the palm of martyrdom. In the Byzantine empire, this would have been inconceivable, as it contradicted the teachings of the Byzantine Orthodox Church. Thus, Gregory VII embraced the military model of the Varangian Guard but infused it with a specifically Latin Christian theology of martyrdom. The Templars would perfect Gregory VII’s ideal of milites Christi (Christian knights), a label that the latter had, in fact, used to describe those fighting on his behalf against the simonist clergy of Milan.32 To those warriors who were obedient to the Holy See, Gregory VII had promised spiritual rewards. According to Flori, St. Peter, the Gatekeeper of Paradise, was uniquely suited to offer the palms and crowns of martyrdom on behalf of all the saints. As the successor of St. Peter (the head of the Apostolic College), Gregory VII promised that those fighting his wordly and thus also his spiritual enemies would benefit from the intercession of St. Peter and – when they died – receive eternal glory at the side of Christ the Savior himself. Following such papal ideas precisely, the Templars commissioned a sculptured western portal for their church at Montsaunès which features the martyrdom of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Stephen on its north side (Figure 4.2), while the south side depicts the Chairete (Christ’s post-Resurrection encounter with Mary of Magdala, Mary [the mother of James], and Mary Salome in the garden) (Mark 16: 1–6), the resurrection of the widow’s son at Nain, or the resurrection of Lazarus. That it is indeed the resurrection of the widow’s son at Nain, which is only related by St. Luke (Luke 7: 11–17), is confirmed by the fact that the young man is still bearded and wearing proper clothes, and his burial has not yet begun; meanwhile, Lazarus, in Roman and Byzantine art, is usually depicted beardless, wrapped in linen strips, and accompanied by those holding their noses to avoid the unbearable stench of decay.33 The Chairete, on the other hand, appears in Byzantine liturgy and belongs to the Dodekaorton, the Twelve Great Feasts celebrated in the Orthodox Church by the twelfth century – but not yet standardized in the tenth century.34 Thus, Montsaunès reflects the Templars’ complete allegiance to and promotion of Roman/Latin ecclesiology. In the Apostolic College, St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Stephen the Protomartyr rank highest. At Montsaunès, these three appear in sculptures datable – on the basis 32 Flori, Guerre sainte, 217. 33 Sonia Kirch, “Milites Christi: Les programmes peints et sculptés en France dans les églises des hospitaliers de Saint-Jean et des templiers (fin 12e siècle à 1312): Étude iconographique,” 3 vols. (Ph.D. dissertation, Université Michel de Montaigne de Bordeaux III, 2005; Microfilm UMI 0945.47253/06), 140–2. 34 Vera Zaleskaya, “Icon with the Meeting in the Garden and the Anastasis,” in The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, ed. Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom (New York 1997), 147–8 no. 93: Saint Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum, inv. Ω 1473 (diptych leaf, ivory, 22.5 cm x 11.5 cm, s. X).

88

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

of stylistic and technical analysis – to between 1200 and 1220. The Templars of Montsaunès showed their devotion to the Savior, possibly in response to Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) and the Fourth Lateran Council’s insistence on the celebration of the Eucharist (Canon 21), by casting traditional Byzantine themes in the syntax and ecclesiological framework of Latin Christianity. Between 1220 and 1250, the figures of two bishops, St. Martin of Tours (Figure 4.3) and St. Bertrand of Comminges, were painted at Montsaunès (the latter had just been beatified, c. 1220). Across the Mediterranean Sea, there is a crusader icon, painted in Jerusalem in the twelfth or thirteenth century and nowadays kept at the monastery of St. Catherine near Mount Sinai.35 It shows St. Martin and St. Leonard of Noblat (also known as St. Leo of Limoges). The icon’s style, clothing details, and iconographical conventions are Byzantine, yet – with the exception of their faces – the two Frankish saints are painted with Western simplicity. It is conceivable that crusaders from southwestern France were the icon’s intended recipients. The crusader icon’s depiction of St. Martin resembles the saint’s painted figure at Montsaunès. The titulus above St. Martin’s head is authentic, and the architecture painted around the saint is appropriate for the period (c. 1220–1250). The pallium is very faded, but the liturgical ornaments are the same as those on the crusader icon: the starry chasuble and the cope are identical, as is the shape of the miter.36 Around 1200, St. Martin and St. Leonard were quite popular – both in Capetian France and in the Plantagenet territories. At the time, Montsaunès was fairly close to the border region between Plantagenet Guyenne (which later passed into the hands of Louis IX) and the county of Toulouse. Between 1209 and the middle of the thirteenth century, the county of Toulouse was engulfed by the Albigensian Crusade. When Louis VIII led the crusaders, he was accompanied by the Templars. At the assembly of Pamiers on 1 December 1212, where the fate of the count of Toulouse was determined, the Templars were present, as were the Hospitallers.37 It is noteworthy that Count Raymond VI of Toulouse chose to join the latter – and not the Templars – as confrater; perhaps, in his view, the Templars were too strongly aligned with the temporal and spiritual tenets of papal theocracy. In the Templar church of Paulhac, the paintings of the martyrdom of St. Peter, St. John the Baptist, St. Simon, and others (Figure 4.6), as well as St. Catherine of Alexandria (Figure 4.7), are still visible today. This menologion (Byzantine religious calendar) was painted toward the end of the thirteenth

35 Lyn Rodley, Byzantine Art and Architecture: An Introduction (Cambridge 1994), 266 illustration 220 (Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, “Crusader Icon”). 36 See also Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre, 1187–1291 (Cambridge 2005), 315 no. 162 (Icon, Sinai, App. No. 66/753, the Acre Triptych, left side outer wing). 37 Laurence W. Marvin, The Occitan War: A Military and Political History of the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–1218 (Cambridge 2008), 159.

89

SONIA KIRCH

century and before 1307 – perhaps after the fall of Acre (1291), where the Order’s Master Guillaume de Beaujeu had lost his life, or after the end of the Templars’ occupation of the island of Ruad (1300–1302). These paintings are exemplary for the Templars’ ideology and devotion toward the end of their history. The Crucifixion, the Sedes Sapientiae (Throne of Wisdom, i.e., Mary holding the Christ Child in her lap), and the martyrdom of St. Catherine of Alexandria (Figure 4.7) are painted on either side of the High Altar, and their respective halos feature paste of colored glass. Traces of carefully made holes, lapis lazuli around the Virgin Mary and St. Catherine, and gold leaf on the Tree of Jesse are also still visible. At Paulhac, the Byzantine influence is obvious, and the aspiration to martyrdom appears unequivocal and absolute. The menologion is inspired by the martyrdom scenes on the Holy Door of the Church of St. Paul outside the Walls (San Paolo fuori le Mura) in Rome. This door, made by Byzantine artists, depicts the martyrs in rectangular compartments. At Paulhac, the martyrs are painted in the Roman/Latin way: they follow a narrative scheme, like a ribbon, from east to west, from the sanctuary to the nave. Thus, at Cressac, Montsaunès, and Paulhac, we can see that the Templars viewed themselves as God’s earthly army but also – and rather early in their history – as martyrs.

The Templar church at Montsaunès: evidence for the Order’s admiration for Byzantine art The Templar church at Montsaunès contains a rare and magnificent Romanesque chancel, constructed from finely polished limestone. While it is well preserved, it is now incomplete (there are masonry pieces – at least 1.4 meters high – in the north wall of the choir). Considering its six-petal rosettes, oval oculi, and careful stone masonry, it dates from the twelfth century at the latest, may have belonged to a church that predates the current structure, and could be a testimony to the admiration for the liturgical space of Byzantine churches. In fact, the liturgical space enclosed by the Romanesque chancel is dedicated to the Holy Elements (of the Eucharist), similar to iconostases dedicated to the Holy Gifts (of the Eucharist) in Byzantine churches of the Ducas and Comneni period. Today, the Euphrasian Basilica in Poreč (Croatia), dating to the reign of the sixth-century Byzantine emperor Justinian, still features a chancel in an excellent state of preservation, with its decorum excluding (in Greek/Orthodox terminology) the laypeople from the space dedicated to the Holy Gifts.38 Poreč gives us a sense of what might have been intended at Montsaunès when its chancel was intact with its liturgical ornaments and vessels. The church at Montsaunès was not just the spiritual center of a powerful Templar commandery and a parish church; it also served as the mausoleum of 38 John Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (London 1997), 141.

90

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

the lords of L’Isle-Jourdain. The latter fought alongside Louis VIII and the Templars against Raymond VI of Toulouse. The family had also furnished a bishop, namely, the aforementioned Bertrand of Comminges (1050–1126). Venerated as a local saint since the twelfth century, Bertrand was beatified c. 1220 by Pope Honorius III. Thus, thanks to the image of Bertrand de Comminges, “c. 1220” should be considered the terminus post quem for the painted ensemble at Montsaunès. As for the terminus ante quem, we turn to the church’s ceiling. The Templars were a fighting force whose members believed and trusted in God alone. To the parish community at Montsaunès, they were divinely appointed guardians, just like the stars painted alongside the triangle of the Trinity in the church’s western triumphal arch (Figure 4.4) and vaulted ceiling (Figure 4.5), and reminiscent of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 43: 9–10 where the “glory of the stars” (species caeli gloriosa stellarum) is an “instrument of the armies on high” (vas castrorum in excelsis). Driven by the Mongol expansion, the Khwarezmian Turks conquered Jerusalem in 1244. It bears repeating that the Templars subsequently lost two of their masters, namely, Armand de Périgord in 1244 and Guillaume de Sonnac in 1250. Since both of these hailed from southern France, how could the Templars of Montsaunès – after 1250 – still hope for any kind of earthly victory? Thus, dating the paintings at Montsaunès to “c. 1220–1250” makes sense: even if they were suffering military defeats on Earth, the Templars could still hope for the glory of martyrdom and an eternity in the presence of the Trinity.39 Like the stars, foliate crosses appear numerous times in the liturgical space at Montsaunès (Figure 4.4). The oldest foliate crosses are Byzantine symbols that signify God’s victory over death (i.e., Satan) and can be found on the bronze doors commissioned by the sixth-century emperor Justinian for the exonarthex (outer narthex) of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.40 Foliate crosses also symbolize the Tree of Life, and they accentuate – like a choir repeating after the soloist – the intercession of the Virgin Mary amplifying the prayers of the saints.41 Since Montsaunès had originally been dedicated to the Virgin Mary, the semantic coherence of the sculptured and painted ensembles in this Templar and parish church is remarkable. The foliate crosses at Montsaunès – via the door of Hagia Sophia – link to Christ’s words in the Gospel of St. John (10: 9a): “I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (ego sum 39 By the second half of the thirteenth century, the Templars may well have been considering a more contemplative life, perhaps along the lines of the Carmelite Nicholas Gallicus’s Ignea Sagitta; see Nicolas le Français, Ignea Sagitta, ed. Francis de Sainte Marie, Les plus vieux textes du Carmel, 2nd ed. (Paris 1961). After all, the Carmelites were among the Templars’ confessors in the Holy Land; see Alan Forey, The Military Orders: From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries (London 1992), 202. 40 Margaret English Frazer, “Church Doors and the Gates of Paradise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in Italy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973): 145–62, here 154. 41 Frazer, “Church Doors,” 148.

91

SONIA KIRCH

ostium; per me si quis introierit salvabitur).42 Foliate crosses appear in several Byzantine, Coptic, and Latin churches, for example in Ravenna (together with the symbols for the Eucharist), on the bronze doors of Amalfi (c. 1060) and Atrani (1087), and on the wooden portal of the Egyptian church of the Holy Virgin (el-Adra) in Wadi Natrun (c. 926–927). On the bronze doors of the atrium of St. Mark in Venice, six prophets and the twelve apostles intercede with the Virgin and St. John the Baptist before Christ for the remission of sins.43 This is the Deesis of the Greek/Orthodox liturgy, and it is adapted at Montsaunès in a Roman/Latin liturgical space. There, represented on the vault of the third and fourth bay – painted c. 1220–1250, are the twelve apostles and six prophets (namely, Daniel, Moses, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, and two others). As an Orthodox iconographical theme, the Deesis appears specifically on chancel screens.44 Having it painted on the vault at Montsaunès, next to the apse, constitutes the Western or Roman/Latin adaption of an Eastern or Greek/Orthodox liturgical procedure. Similarly, the Templar commandery at Montsaunès was an adaption of the Order’s fortresses in the crusader states: like the latter, it was close to pilgrim roads (leading to Santiago de Compostela and Rome respectively) and surrounded by potential adversaries (Saracens in the kingdom of Aragón to the south and Albigensian heretics in the county of Toulouse to the north). Without a doubt, some Templars from the commandery at Montsaunès had actually seen Byzantine churches – either in situ or in drawings, sketches, or illuminations. Or they had visited churches in Venice, Amalfi, Atrani, Troia, or Ravenna and seen their sculptured Byzantine portals. Or they had been to Acre and had encountered the Byzantine influence there. Or they had seen the patriarchal, imperial, and monastery churches of Constantinople – either prior, during, or after 1204 when the crusaders (and the Templars among them) pillaged the city’s churches. Thus, at Montsaunès, we find the labarum (i.e., the military standard with the Chi-Rho symbol) both finely sculptured on the western façade and carried by angels, as well as painted twice in the fourth bay – at the Apostles’ feet – with a foliate cross in an arch. These are the signs of Christ’s victory over death. The northern portal, facing the conventual buildings and therefore only visible to the Templars (and their invited guests), features the sculptured Sedes Sapientiae (which we have already encountered as a painting at Paulhac), alongside the Nativity, the Visitation, the Flight to Egypt, Joseph’s Dream, the Adoration of the Magi, and the Adoration of the Shepherds. This is a Christmas Cycle, illustrating the mystery of the Incarnation. When we transpose the painted ensemble, the two labara, and the foliate crosses into three dimensions, they fashion a virtual chancel that is opened by the three actual windows of the semicircular apse (Figure 4.4). To the Latin Christian, this space constituted something akin to the iconostasis of their Greek/Orthodox 42 Frazer, “Church Doors,” 162. 43 Frazer, “Church Doors,” 152. 44 Frazer, “Church Doors,” 152.

92

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

counterparts where they could ask God for the forgiveness of their sins via their devotional practices, such as the chanting of the triple Sanctus (“Holy”), gestures of supplication, and the communion of the Eucharist (as prescribed by Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council), as well as the intercession of the Apostles, the Blessed Virgin, and the Savior. The Templars’ dedication to Our Lady at Montsaunès underscores that their primary objective was not an earthly victory over the Muslims; rather, their ideal was martyrdom and the imitation of Christ. During the three days of Easter, as well as the numerous procession days granted to the Templars by the popes (at least fifty-five per year),45 the western portal was opened to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ. On the vault of the first bay, in front of the western façade’s large oculus with its twelve petals, there is a painting of a large processional cross with two candle holders, perhaps resting on a ciborium (i.e., a receptacle for the Eucharist) that is decorated with six-petaled rosettes (Figure 4.5). At Easter and during the processions, this cross exuded great spiritual power as it reflected the forgiveness of sins by means of the Eucharist and the Crucifixion. The painting may well depict the processional cross carried by the Templars through the parish, and its placement is intentional: when looking west, it appears before the ceiling’s opening for the cord of the bell that sounded the triple Sanctus and proclaimed the Ego vera lux (“I am the true light”), symbolized and manifested both by the Holy Host and the light shining through the large oculus with its twelve petals (i.e., the Twelve Apostles surrounding Christ). With such a placement, the Montsaunès processional cross attained multiple dimensions, particularly as its physical equivalent was being carried through the parish: it could be viewed, heard (due to the bells and the liturgy), tasted (due to the Eucharist contained in the ciborium), and “believed” (i.e., received spiritually). All this may seem like an over-interpretation, but it is not, for – when other parish churches were affected by an interdict, such as those in the diocese of Toulouse during the Albigensian Crusade – Templars and Hospitallers retained their right to celebrate mass, collect tithes, and hold their many processions. Thus, the Montsaunès processional cross serves as a key to the semantic and formal complexities of this Templar church’s painted and sculptured ensembles. Moreover, it, too, shows Byzantine influence, as it resembles Byzantine processional crosses that today can be found, for example, in the Docheiariou monastery of Mount Athos (c. ninth/tenth century, bronze, no. 9.26), the Canellopoulos Museum of Athens (c. tenth century, bronze, no. X 863), the Benaki Museum of Athens (c. tenth/eleventh century, silver, no. 33794/T.A. 146), the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (c. eleventh century, 45 Anne-Marie Legras and Jean-Loup Lemaître, “La pratique liturgique des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem,” in L’écrit dans la société médiévale: Divers aspects de sa pratique du XIe au XVe siècle: Textes en hommage à Lucie Fossier, ed. Caroline Bourlet and Annie Dufour (Paris 1991), 77–137, here 90.

93

SONIA KIRCH

silver/silver-gilt, no. 1993.163), and the Cluny Museum of the Middle Ages in Paris (c. eleventh century, silver, no. CI.23295).46 In that sense, the Montsaunès processional cross underscores a fascination with Byzantine art in thirteenthcentury Latin Europe, with Templars, Hospitallers, and crusaders returning from the Holy Land serving as conduits.

Saints Constantine, George, and Michael: the ninth miracle of Saint George at Cressac At Cressac, on the right side of the church’s western wall, the painting of a crowned Constantine the Great has been identified by Emile Mâle (1862– 1954) as well as by myself.47 Constantine is depicted larger than the crowned Church. He receives eternal life, symbolized by a lily, for his conversion to Christianity, for legalizing Christianity in the Roman empire, and for turning against paganism (symbolized by a man trampled underfoot by the horse on which Constantine is riding). While this is the only identified depiction of Constantine in a European Templar church that has come to our attention thus far, it is not the only reference to Byzantium in this church. On the left side of Cressac’s western wall, we find a painting of St. George slaying the dragon and, thus, freeing the princess who had been promised to the monster. To my knowledge, Cressac’s combination of the military saints Constantine, George, and Michael (who is depicted on the church’s eastern wall) is unique among European Templar churches (Figure 4.1). For written evidence of the association of these three saints, we turn – once again – to Byzantium, namely, the Miracles of Saint George as related by Theodosius of Jerusalem (who flourished in the fifth century).48 In the ninth miracle of St. George, the Archangel Michael and St. George descend from heaven to topple the throne of the emperor Diocletian – as punishment for his pagan excesses and agitation against St. George – and bring about the elevation of the

46 On these crosses, see Athanasios A. Karakatsanis, Treasures of Mount Athos (Thessaloniki 1997), 351 (Mount Athos, Docheiariou monastery, no. 9.26); Glory of Byzantium, ed. Evans and Wixom, 58 no. 22 (Athens, Canellopoulos Museum, no. X 863); 59–60 no. 23 (Athens, Benaki Museum, no. 33794/T.A. 146); 62–4 no. 25 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 1993.163); 64–5 no. 26 (Paris, Musée National du Moyen Âge, no. CI.23295). See also John A. Cotsonis, Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications 10 (Cambridge [Massachusetts] 1995). 47 See Emile Mâle, L’art religieux du XIIIe siècle en France: Étude sur l’iconographie du moyen âge et sur ses sources d’inspiration, 8th ed. (Paris 1948); Kirch, “Milites Christi: Les programmes peints et sculptés en France dans les églises des hospitaliers de Saint-Jean et des templiers,” 255–60. Paul Deschamps and Marc Thibout, La peinture murale en France: Le haut Moyen Âge et l’époque romane (Paris 1951), 136, do not indicate which edition of Emile Mâle’s work they are using to substantiate their respective argument. 48 The Martyrdom and Miracles of Saint George of Cappadocia, ed. Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge (London 1888), 236–74, here 269–74.

94

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

first Christian emperor, namely, Constantine.49 By the twelfth century, this text might have been interpreted as a direct papal threat against royal overreach. This is especially noteworthy when considering that the paintings at Cressac date to the years between 1163 and 1180: in the early 1140s, King Louis VII of France had clashed with the pope in a disagreement over the election of the archbishop of Bourges; in 1170 and thereafter, King Henry II of England was blamed for the assassination of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury; and during the papal schism of 1159–1178, Emperor Frederick I of Germany was supporting the antipopes. Meanwhile, in the diocese of Angoulême, located between territories held by the Capetian and Plantagenet kings respectively, the Templars at Cressac were promoting the idea of papal theocracy by alluding to the ninth miracle of St. George in the decoration of their chapel – an idea that would move closest to becoming a reality during the impending pontificates of Innocent III (1198–1216) and Honorius III (1216–1227). Thus, at Cressac (just like later at Montsaunès) – more than a century after the so-called schism between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople – manifestations of Roman/Latin ecclesiology did not hesitate to employ Greek/Orthodox exempla. Of all the saints, St. Michael the Archangel, the leader of the heavenly army who had vanquished Lucifer, was most highly regarded by the Byzantine emperors. As God’s lieutenants on Earth, the emperors appealed to St. Michael’s patronage to legitimize their campaigns. St. Michael, it was believed, had offered his help to the Israelites during Joshua’s conquest of Jericho. The Byzantines related this early support by the Archangel against the pagans to their own early resistance against the Arab expansion and other pagan attempts to conquer their capital. Moreover, the aristocratic families of the Cerularii and Macrembolites, as well as the emperors Constantine IX Monomachus, Romanus Diogenes, and Isaac Comnenus, chose St. Michael as their patron and protector.50 Due to their international mobility and activities, the Templars would have been fully aware of this. Like the Hospitallers and the crusaders returning from the East, they contributed to the dissemination of Byzantine iconography and hagiography. The Feast of St. Michael was celebrated in the Order of the Temple, and the chapel in their fortress of Chastel Blanc/Burj Safita (southeast of Tortosa/Tartus) in the county of Tripoli was dedicated to him as well.51

Conclusion Preferring prayer and devotion to armed aggression, Byzantium never sacralized or sanctified war. In fact, as Jean-Claude Cheynet has shown, Byzantine religious dogma – unlike that of Rome – focused on avoiding bloodshed as 49 Martyrdom and Miracles, ed. Budge, 273. 50 Cheynet, “Par saint Georges, par saint Michel,” 115–34. 51 Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994), 194, 271; Burns, Monuments of Syria, 213–14.

95

SONIA KIRCH

much as possible.52 Thus, even in the Byzantine army, the notion of “holy war,” as promoted by Rome and later by the Templars – for example against the Muslims or against the Cathars of Guyenne, had no traction. By contrast, Hugues de Payns and his successors were guided by the Roman ecclesiology of a papal theocracy, and while they – at times – tried to coexist peacefully with their Muslim counterparts in the lands of the Eastern Mediterranean and even adhered to existing truce agreements, the latter was by no means their ultimate goal. At Cressac, Montsaunès, and Paulhac, as we have seen, the Templars synthesized the papal ideology of the crusade (i.e., the liberation of Christ’s inheritance) with the promise of their entry into Paradise. Yet, interestingly enough, they did so by using Byzantine saints as their devotional, artistic, and military models. The Templars continued to promote martyrdom in defense of the Roman Church until their arrest in 1307. In most places, they did not resist against the proceedings against the Order because of their total obedience to the pope, and it was to the pope’s judgment that the last Templar master, Jacques de Molay, never ceased to appeal. Meanwhile, King Philip IV of France must have sensed that he would never be able to bring an Order so utterly devoted to the realization of papal theocracy to bend to his own interests, namely, a crusade intended to reconquer Jerusalem but directed by Philip alone. Translated from the French by Jochen Burgtorf

52 Cheynet, “Légitimer la guerre à Byzance,” 241–8. My deepest gratitude to Jochen Burgtorf for his confidence in me and his fine translation of my chapter, and to Shlomo Lotan.

96

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

Figure 4.1 Le Dognon at Cressac-Saint-Genis, placement of the wall paintings Source: Drawing, Sonia Kirch, 2004

97

SONIA KIRCH

Figure 4.2 Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunès, western portal, capitals of the northern pillars, martyrdom of St. Paul (top) and St. Peter and St. Stephen (bottom) Source: Photo, Sonia Kirch, 2002

98

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

Figure 4.3 Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunès, southern vault, second bay, St. Martin, bishop of Tours, giving a blessing Source: Photo, Sonia Kirch, 2002

Figure 4.4 Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunes, fourth bay from the west, above the liturgical space with the main altar, triumphal arch Source: Photo, Sonia Kirch, 2002

99

SONIA KIRCH

Figure 4.5 Saint-Christophe (formerly Notre Dame) de Montsaunes, second and first bay, in front of the western façade’s oculus, processional cross with two candle holders Source: Photo, Sonia Kirch, 2002

100

101

Source: Drawing, Sonia Kirch, 1999

Figure 4.6 Église de la Décollation de Saint Jean-Baptiste de Paulhac, iconography of the liturgical space

T E M P L A R S A S M I L I T E S C H R I S T I A N D M A RT Y R S

SONIA KIRCH

Figure 4.7 Église de la Décollation de Saint Jean-Baptiste de Paulhac, eastern wall of the choir, Crucifixion, Sedes Sapientiae, and martyrdom of St. Catherine of Alexandria Source: Photo, Sonia Kirch, 1999

102

5 COLLATA BENEFICIO FILII DEI MILITIBUS SUIS Templar spirituality at the fortress of ‘Atlit in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem Shlomo Lotan and Joachim Rother

Introduction Two noble knights from Burgundy started the aforementioned Order of the Knighthood of the Temple in the manner which follows: namely, these two knights once guarded the pathway which is now named the Castle of the Pilgrims, on which pathway – which [back] then was called the Way of the Pilgrims – those setting out for the Jerusalem Sepulcher [i.e., the pilgrims] were being plundered and also killed. These knights stood guard over the pathway for a long time – for nine years or thereabouts – because they did not receive but nine companions. And then, because of the merits of their probity, which they devoted – in such an exercise of guarding the pathway – to the Catholic faith and to the security of those traversing [i.e., the pilgrims], the said Pope, who was [in office] at that time, confirmed to them the said Order with the habit they had used.1

This statement, given by the Italian notary Antonio Sici of Vercelli during the Templar Trial in the spring of 1311, offers an interesting alternative to William 1 Le procès des Templiers, ed. Jules Michelet, 2 vols. (Paris 1841–1851), 1: 643: duo nobiles de Burgondia milites dictum ordinem milicie Templi inceperant eo modo qui sequitur: videlicet quod illi duo milites quondam passum custodiebant qui nunc Castrum Peregrinum nuncupatur, in quo passu, qui tunc Iter Peregrinorum vocabatur, proficiscentes ad sepulchrum Jerosolimitanum spoliabantur et eciam necabantur. Quiquidem milites diu in custodia illius passus steterunt, per novem annos vel circa, quia non nisi novem socios receperunt; et tunc, propter eorum merita probitatis, que in exercicio custodie passus hujusmodi fidei catholice et securitati transeuncium impenderunt, dictus Papa, qui pro tempore erat, ipsis dictum ordinem cum habitu quem absumpserant confirmavit. This chapter is the result of collaborative field work by Shlomo Lotan and Joachim Rother during the latter’s three-month research studies in the land of Israel, generously made possible by the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation and the Jerusalem Institute of the Görres-Gesellschaft zur Pflege der Wissenschaften.

103

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

of Tyre’s famous narrative concerning the origins of the Order of the Temple.2 While Antonio’s deposition echoes some of the elements from William’s account, he completely changes the setting: instead of associating the Templar community’s foundation with the Templum Salomonis on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, Antonio moves the Templars’ original ministry into the vicinity of ‘Atlit (Castrum Peregrinorum, Château Pèlerin), established in 1217–1218, i.e., almost a century after the Templar community’s actual beginnings, and located between Caesarea and Acre on the Mediterranean coast.3 Antonio was not a member of the Order, but he had worked for the Templars in the Holy Land for over forty years;4 thus, he must have been well acquainted with stories and legends about ‘Atlit, which had become a major Templar fortress in the Latin East after the Franks’ loss of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187. Since the Templars were generally focused on the salvific promises of the Holy City of Jerusalem, this chapter aims to assess ‘Atlit’s spiritual significance for the Order in the thirteenth-century Latin kingdom and largely passes over the fortification’s military importance.5 Antonio Sici’s foundation story is only one of several pieces of evidence that suggest that ‘Atlit and its surroundings offered fertile ground to foster Christian devotion on a number of levels. Founded in the wake of the First Crusade in Jerusalem around 1119/1120, the Templar community received its Rule in 1129 at the Council of Troyes and became an exempt Order of the Church in 1139. Its members’ chosen purpose was to protect Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Sites. Meanwhile, the Templar Rule imposed on the members a monastic way of life. Since the Templars had maintained close relations with the Order of the Cistercians by kin and friendship from their very beginning, it was especially the great Bernard of Clairvaux who lastingly shaped the Templars’ spiritual profile and self-image.6 Combining two traditionally separated branches of society,

2 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi Chronicon / Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens, identification des sources historiques et détermination des dates par Hans Eberhard Mayer et Gerhard Rösch, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 63–63A (Turnhout 1986), 553–5 (XII, 7); Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994), 6–8; Anthony Luttrell, “The Earliest Templars,” in Autour de la Première Croisade: Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. Michel Balard (Paris 1996), 193–202, here 198, 200. 3 Malcolm Barber, “The Origins of the Order of the Temple,” Studia Monastica 12 (1970): 219–40, here 223–5. 4 Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006), 209–10. 5 For the military and strategic importance of the fortress, see Rudolf Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato in Siria,” 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), 23–41. 6 Jean Leclercq, “Saint Bernard’s Attitude toward War,” in Studies in Medieval Cistercian History, II, ed. John R. Sommerfeldt (Kalamazoo 1976), 1–40, here 22–5; William Purkis, Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia, c. 1095–c. 1187 (Woodbridge 2008), 98–111; Dominic Selwood, “Quidam autem dubitaverunt: The Saint, the Sinner, the Temple and a Possible Chronology,” in Autour de la Première

104

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

namely, monks and knights, the Templars lived a vita activa and formed indeed what Bernard later aptly described as a novum genus in his work De laude novae militae.7 As a “new” knighthood, they had a strong appeal to contemporary Christians, and their membership, the donations to their community, and their military expertise eventually increased to the point at which they became an integral part of the standing army that was essential to defend the Latin Christian territories in Outremer. Yet neither the military orders nor the Latin kingdom’s army were able to stem the tide of that fateful year of 1187, namely, the Frankish defeats at the Springs of Cresson in May and at Hattin in July, and the fall of the Holy City of Jerusalem to Saladin’s forces in October. The loss of the Holy City weighed heavily not just on the crusader states in general, but particularly on the Order of the Temple which was now bereft of both its headquarters and its spiritual focal point. Losing the sites of Christ’s very ministry and suffering must have had a detrimental effect on the Order’s constitutional and spiritual self-image. The construction of ‘Atlit in 1217–1218 was an attempt to regain posture, both militarily and politically, in the context of the Fifth Crusade: the expedition’s leaders and the European nobles arriving in the Latin kingdom in 1217 decided to fortify two major outposts on the road between Acre and Jaffa along the coast of the Mediterranean, namely, Caesarea and ‘Atlit.8 The fortification of ‘Atlit took place under the leadership of the Flemish knight Gautier d’Avesnes and was supported by the Templars and the Teutonic Order who joined forces for this military assignment.9 In 1220, the new fortress had to be put to the test already. While the Christian forces of the Fifth Crusade were largely occupied in Egypt, the troops of the Ayyūbid ruler of Damascus, al-Mu‘aẓẓam ‘Īsā, attacked Caesarea and, after destroying its new fortifications, turned north to lay siege to ‘Atlit. As the Muslims were moving against the crusader castle, the Templars – in charge of ‘Atlit’s defense – decided to destroy the small fort of Le Destroit to deprive the approaching enemy of any form of fortification nearby. The Muslims attacked

Croisade: Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. Michel Balard (Paris 1996), 221–30; Katherine Allen Smith, War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture (Woodbridge 2011), 107–9. 7 Bernardus Claraevallensis, “Liber ad milites Templi de laude novae militia,” in Sancti Bernardi Opera, vol. 3, ed. Jean Leclercq (Rome 1963), 213–39, here 214; Malcolm Barber, “The Social Context of the Templars,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 34 (1984): 27–46, here 33–4. 8 James M. Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213–1221 (Philadelphia 1986), 133. 9 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” in Die Schriften des Kölner Domscholasters, späteren Bischofs von Paderborn und Kardinal-Bischofs von S. Sabina, Oliverus, ed. Hermann Hoogeweg (Tübingen 1894), 159–280, here 169: Templarii vero cum domino Galthero de Avennis et paucis auxiliatoribus peregrinis et Hospitali de domo Teutonicorum castrum Peregrinorum quod olim Districtum appellabatur; “L’Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Occidentaux, vol. 2 (Paris 1859), 1–481, here 325–6.

105

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

‘Atlit with missiles and archers but were unable to inflict major damage or compromise its defenses. Eventually, al-Mu‘aẓẓam ‘Īsā decided to abandon the siege and left the coastal region.10 Apart from such military encounters, ‘Atlit also saw periods of stability and development. A new suburb (faubourg) with a Frankish population developed to the south and east of the main fortress along the sea shore and the bay, and the vicinity of ‘Atlit was dedicated to large-scale agricultural endeavors.11 Archaeological excavations have revealed a number of buildings, including a church, barns, stables, baths, and a free-standing tower.12 ‘Atlit’s primary advantage was its topographical layout: the fortification’s western part was naturally protected by the Mediterranean Sea, while the entire length of its eastern side was secured by a moat with two gates, as excavations have shown. There were two lines of walls on the eastern side, the first of them protected by three towers. Beyond the outer bailey lay an immense inner bailey wall with two large towers. The northern tower stood to a height of 30 meters and contained several barrel-vaulted chambers with fine sculptures. Around the castle’s remaining sides were two concentric rows of vaults, including several rib-vaulted halls in the southern and western parts of the castle, and there was a polygonal church at the castle’s center.13 In 1265, when Mamluk forces under Baybars conquered Arsuf and Caesarea, they also attacked ‘Atlit. They tore down the town wall and destroyed the structures in the faubourg. The inhabitants sought refuge behind the castle’s immense walls, and the fortress once again proved impenetrable.14 After the fall of Acre in May 1291, ‘Atlit remained the last crusader fortress in Christian hands in the Latin kingdom (see Figure 5.1). However, bereft of further support, its defenders had to realize that they no longer had the means to defend the castle. On 14 August 1291, the Templars evacuated the castle and sailed to the island of Cyprus, whereupon the Mamluks entered the fortress and destroyed its gates and towers. The Templars’ departure from ‘Atlit marked the end of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.15

10 Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade, 176, 180. 11 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 171: Territorium munitionis huius piscariis, salinis, lignis, pascuis, agris et herbis habundat, vineis plantatis et plantandis, hortis et pomeriis habitatores delectate. 12 Denys Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological Gazetteer (Cambridge 1997), 22–3. 13 Adrian J. Boas, Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East (London 1999), 110–12; Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre, 1187–1291 (Cambridge 2005), 128–32; see also later in this chapter. 14 Peter Thorau, The Lion of Egypt: Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the Thirteenth Century (London 1992), 177–8; Peter M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290): Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian Rulers (Leiden 1995), 69–88. 15 Les Gestes des Chiprois: Recueil de chroniques françaises écrites en Orient aux XIIIe & XIVe siècles (Philippe de Navarre & Gerard de Monréal), ed. Gaston Raynaud (Geneva 1887), 258 § 512.

106

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

‘Atlit, Acre, and a spiritual rivalry? Following the 1187 loss of Jerusalem and the partial reestablishment of the Latin kingdom in September 1191, the city of Acre became the new center for the majority of Christian magnates and institutions remaining in the Latin East, including the Templars. The account of the so-called Templar of Tyre impressively highlights the importance of this coastal city for the Templars. [The Temple] was the strongest place of the city. It occupied a large site on the sea, like a castle; it had at its entry a tall, strong tower, and the wall was thick, twenty-eight feet wide. On each corner of the tower was a turret, and upon each turret was a gilded lion passant, as big as a donkey, which cost – the four lions and the gold and the labour together – fifteen hundred saracenate bezants, and it was a most magnificent thing to see. And on the other corner, towards the Pisan Quarter, there was another tower, and near this tower above the Street of St. Anne, there was a most noble palace which belonged to the master.16 Acre’s Templar quarter must have been magnificent. The Order had invested vast sums of money to turn its new headquarters, the residence of its master and central convent, into a respectable place. Establishing the main base at Acre was a necessity for the Templars: the city served as the Latin kingdom’s new capital (since Jerusalem was unavailable, at least for the time being), thus a prolonged absence of the Templars’ central convent from Acre would have considerably diminished the Order’s influence on the affairs of Outremer.17 However, Acre’s political climate was often charged, and the city was a constant hot spot for strife between various parties, even its religious communities. In fact, there may have been a connection between the constant political discord in Acre and the construction of ‘Atlit: Oliver of Paderborn, who arrived in the Holy 16 Gestes des Chiprois, ed. Raynaud, 252–3 § 501: Car le Temple estoit le plus fort leuc de la ville, & estoit sur mer en grant leuc, com .j. chastiau, car il aveent sur l’entrée une haute tour & fort que le mur estoit espès, massis .xxviij. piés, & sur chascun canton de la tor avoit une tourete, & de sur chascune des touretes avoit .j. lion passant, grant come .j. ahaie, doré, quy cousterent, les .iij. lions & l’or & le labour, .m. & .vc. bezans sarazinas, & estoit une grant noblece a veïr; & [en] l’autre canton, de vers la Rue de Pize, & avoit une autre tour, & de près sele tour sur la Rue Sainte Anne avoit .j. mout nobles palais, qui estoit dou maistre. For the English translation, see The ‘Templar of Tyre’: Part III of the ‘Deeds of the Cypriots’, ed. Paul Crawford (Aldershot 2003), 114. See also Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314): La caduta degli Stati Crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples 2000), 220. 17 Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato,” 31–3; Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (LeidenBoston 2008), 94. During the era of the Crusader states, the Templars usually stayed in very very close proximity to the rulers; see, for example, Sylvia Schein, “Between Mount Moria and the Holy Sepulchre: The Changing Traditions of the Temple Mount in the Central Middle Ages,” Traditio 40 (1984): 175–95, here 178.

107

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

Land in 1217, pointed out that ‘Atlit’s “primary purpose” was to facilitate “that the convent of the Templars be led out of . . . Acre,” and – implying a divinely ordained exodus – Oliver referred to Acre as “a she-sinner [peccatrix] and a city filled with all filth [spurcitia].”18 Thus, safe in ‘Atlit until such a time when Jerusalem would be restored to Christianity, the Templars would not have to deal with the sinful activities in the city of Acre.19 Along the same lines, Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre between 1216 and 1225, was also convinced that ‘Atlit provided an opportunity for the Templars to dissociate themselves from a city (i.e., Acre) that he had described as “a monster and a beast, having nine heads which are quarrelling with each other,”20 shortly after his arrival in the Latin East. Jacques de Vitry perceived Acre as constantly being corrupted “by wicked deeds and evil examples.”21 Accordingly, in one of his letters to Pope Honorius III, he told the pontiff that the Templars were “unwilling to dress themselves in a veil of hypocrisy . . . and were therefore engaged in this excellent work,”22 namely, the construction of the fortress of ‘Atlit. Both accounts focus on distinctly eschatological elements and present Acre’s sinfulness as a main reason for the construction of ‘Atlit. Is there, however, any evidence that supports what Oliver of Paderborn and Jacques de Vitry are insinuating? Was ‘Atlit built or at least presented as an immaculate alternative for places lost or deemed unworthy? There are no explicit statements corroborating that the Templars thought of ‘Atlit this way, which is why Oliver’s assertion must be taken with a grain of salt.23 Yet there are traces of evidence that allow us to deduce what ‘Atlit may have meant – spiritually – to the Order of the Templars. One of the most striking remnants that deserves discussion in this regard is the polygonal church erected by the Templars at the end of the southern wall

18 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 171: Huius edificii prima est utilitas, quod conventus Templariorum eductus de peccatrice et omni spurcitia plena civitate Accon in huius castri presidio residibit usque ad reparationem munorum Jerusalem. 19 Matthew Paris seems to have largely copied Oliver’s account; see Burgtorf, Central Convent, 93 n. 95. See Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Maiora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 7 vols., Rolls Series 57.1–7 (London 1872–1884), 3: 14. 20 Jacques de Vitry, Lettres de Jacques de Vitry (1160/1170–1240), évêque de Saint-Jean d’Acre, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens (Leiden 1960), 83 (letter no. II): civitatem Acconenesem tanquam monstrum et beluam IX capita sibi adinvicem repugnantia habentem. 21 Jacques de Vitry, Lettres, 86 (letter no. II): qui timore domini penitus abiecto nephariis operibus et perniciosis exemplis totam civitatem corrumpebant. 22 Jacques de Vitry, Lettres, 99 (letter no. III): Ceterum Templarii nullo simulationis velamine se volentes palliare ne in obsequium dei et terre sancte tam se quam sua se prorsus exponerent opus egregium per se aggressi sunt. Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries, trans. Malcolm Baber and Keith Bate (Farnham 2010), 110, translates simulatio as “simulation” instead of “hypocrisy.” 23 Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato,” 32–3.

108

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

of ‘Atlit’s inner courtyard24 – a type of building that has attracted considerable attention.25 As Élie Lambert’s pioneering study has revealed, rotundae were neither Templar churches per se, nor was this architectural form in any way “Templar specific.”26 Only a handful of polygonal churches can be linked to the Order of the Temple directly and without a doubt, and the only common trait among these is that this type of structure seems to have been preferred in some major commanderies, like the ones in Tomar, Paris, and London,27 and this may explain the construction of such a church at ‘Atlit as well. First of all, since the polygon functioned as a reference to the anastasis of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, the place of Christ’s burial and resurrection, its construction at ‘Atlit, much like in other places, underscored a dedication to Christ, his death, and his resurrection – the soteriological cornerstone of Christian salvation. Secondly, however, why was such a building now deemed expedient in a Templar commandery in the Latin East? Presumably because the Holy Sepulcher itself had become inaccessible after the loss of Jerusalem in 1187 and had been lost again, after a fifteen-year interlude, in 1244. The polygonal church had not been a part of ‘Atlit’s original plan but was added only later, perhaps in the 1250s.28 Its comparatively late construction may have coincided with the growing conviction among the crusaders that the goal of recapturing Jerusalem was beyond reach in the foreseeable future and thus represents the overall defensive posture of the crusaders and the military orders in those years that is so magnificently palpable in ‘Atlit’s very defensive conception.29 From a spiritual perspective, the importance of this church for the Templars might be illustrated best by what Bernard of Clairvaux had told their earliest members about the Holy Sepulcher: among the holy and most longed for places, the Sepulcher takes the first place. . . . The commemoration of his [i.e., Christ’s] death urges

24 Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, 4 vols. (Cambridge 1993–2009), 1: 71; Cedric Norman Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), David’s Tower (Jerusalem) and Qal‘at ar-Rabad (‘Ajlun): Three Middle Eastern Castles from the Time of the Crusades, ed. Denys Pringle (Aldershot 1997), 52–3; Melchior Vogüé, Les églises de la Terre Sainte (Paris 1860), 368–9. See now also Vardit Shotten-Hallel, “An Altar from the Castle Chapel of Atlit and Its Journey to the Church of all Hallows by the Tower, London,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148, no. 2 (2017): 162–76. 25 For a historiographical overview, see Nikolas Jaspert, “Vergegenwärtigungen Jerusalems in Architektur und Reliquienkult,” in Jerusalem im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter: Konflikte und Konfliktbewältigung  – Vorstellungen und Vergegenwärtigungen, ed. Dieter Bauer, Klaus Herbers, and Nikolas Jaspert (Frankfurt 2001), 219–70, here 229–30 (with n. 20, n. 25). 26 Élie Lambert, L’architecture des Templiers (Paris 1955), 12, 18, 93. 27 Lambert, Architecture des Templiers, 65, 92. 28 Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 24; Pringle, Churches, 1: 74. It is unknown whether the church’s original layout was polygonal. 29 Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato,” 28.

109

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

to more devotion than the one of his life. . . . Since he died in death in order to rise, he endowed to the dying the hope of resurrection.30 As Sylvia Schein has shown, for Bernard “not the mystery of the incarnation or the resurrection but that of salvation through the death of Christ”31 was the key in interpreting the Holy Sepulcher. Thus, the Holy Sepulcher was of immediate eschatological relevance not just for Christianity in general but for the Templars in particular. To them, it was a constant reminder of the Gospel mandate (John 15:13) “to lay down their lives for their brothers,”32 a sentence that became vitally important for the Templars’ self-image:33 in contrast to the Hospitallers or the Teutonic Order who saw caring for the sick and fighting for the faith as equally significant components of their profession, warfare constituted the Templars’ sole vocation, and the dedication to martyrdom represented a main pillar of their eschatological anticipation, a fact that has only recently received its due attention.34 By imitating Christ not just spiritually but also corporally – via the possibility of death in battle against the Lord’s enemies, a full Christo-mimesis was possible. Bearing this in mind, it seems reasonable that the Templars would establish a visible symbol of their spiritual and corporal imitatio Christi, a “Vergegenwärtigung”35 (literally, a “bringing into the present time”) at ‘Atlit, especially now that Jerusalem was lost and the Holy Sepulcher itself largely inaccessible. Neither Acre nor any other Christian city or fortress in the Christian territories of Outremer provided such a reference to the place of mankind’s salvation at that time. Other still visible reminders of ‘Atlit’s prominent spiritual role can be seen in the crusader cemetery excavated not within the castle itself but outside the faubourg, the enclosed town east of the fortress, next to the road when passing through the northern gate (see Figures 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4).36 What is so striking 30 Bernardus Claraevallensis, “Liber ad milites Templi,” 229–30: Inter sancta ac desiderabilia loca sepulcrum tenet quodammodo principatum . . . atque amplius movet ad pietam mortis quam vitae recordatio. . . . quoniam quidem resurrecturus occubuit, et spem fecit morientibus resurgendi. 31 Sylvia Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099–1187) (Aldershot 2005), 73. 32 Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, ed. Rudolf Hiestand, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificus I (Göttingen 1972), 205–6: animas vestras pro fratribus ponere (in Pope Innocent II’s 1139 bull Omne Datum Optimum). 33 Purkis, Crusading Spirituality, 107–8; Joachim Rother, “Embracing Death, Celebrating Life: Reflections on the Concept of Martyrdom in the Order of the Knights Templar,” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 19 (2014): 169–92; Joachim Rother, Das Martyrium im Templerorden: Eine Studie zur historisch-theologischen Relevanz des Opfertodes im geistlichen Ritterorden der Templer (Bamberg 2017). 34 See, for example, Helen J. Nicholson, “The Head of St Euphemia: Templar Devotion to Female Saints,” in Gendering the Crusades, ed. Susan B. Edgington and Sarah Lambert (Cardiff 2001), 108–20, here 114–15; Purkis, Crusading Spirituality, 98–111; Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, 121; Rother, “Embracing Death, Celebrating Life,” 169–92; Rother, Martyrium im Templerorden, passim. 35 Jaspert, “Vergegenwärtigungen Jerusalems,” 228. 36 Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 70.

110

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

about this place is that, while the fortress was inhabited by the crusaders for only seventy-four years, the estimated number of approximately 1900 burials at this site is “exceedingly large,” and all of them can be dated to the Templars’ presence in the area.37 Since the absence of infant burials suggests that this was not the cemetery of the inhabitants of the adjacent town, the question arises who the people buried in this cemetery actually are.38 Jennifer Thompson’s study of the cemetery argues that the high number of burials might be explained by the fact that, after the fall of Jerusalem, no major Christian city in the Latin East seems to have offered any burial places exclusively dedicated to the Templars and those affiliated with their Order – not even Acre; hence, ‘Atlit may have served as a major cemetery for the Templars and those affiliated with their Order, and the bodies of the deceased may have been transported to the cemetery via ‘Atlit’s natural port.39 The implications of a central cemetery maintained by the Templars are striking, since such a facility would have represented a place of encounter with the Lord and ipso facto constituted a place of devotion and spirituality. Attention to the deceased was of utmost importance in any religious military order, and numerous paragraphs in the Templars’ normative texts stipulate how dead Brothers and confratres were to be commemorated, while special consideration was to be given to the ones in the Order’s very own cemeteries.40 The Order’s right to its own cemeteries was not self-evident but, rather, a papal privilege granted in the 1139 bull Omne Datum Optimum.41 Although the privilege initially only included members of the community, the Templars managed to

37 Jennifer A. Thompson, “Death and Burial in the Latin East: A Study of the Crusader Cemetery at ‘Atlit, Israel” (PhD thesis, Cardiff University 2006), 166. 171, available online, http://orca.cf.ac.uk/ id/eprint/54303; Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 92. 38 Thompson, “Death and Burial in the Latin East,” 165; Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 92–4; Adrian J. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlement and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120–1291) (London-New York 2006), 33–4, 37. Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 92, does not rule out the possibility that townspeople were also buried there, but Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 33–4, sensibly sets aside this differentiation: “Although we know nothing about its inhabitants, there is no difficulty in regarding the settlement as a Templar establishment. The residents must have been dependants of the Order, servants, craftsmen and traders occupying Templar land, paying rents and tithes to the Order and providing it with services.” 39 Thompson, “Death and Burial in the Latin East,” 147, 165. Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 172, reports the death of an unidentifiable magister theologus Thomas at ‘Atlit right after his description of the fortress’s construction, although he gives no details with regards to his burial: Magister Thomas theologus et doctor bonus et opinionis clare apud Castrum filii Dei diem clausit extremum. 40 La Règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris 1886), 283 § 541: et tout au derrain il doit prier por tous ceaus qui sont alés de cest siecle et qui atendent la misericorde de nostre Seignor, et especiaument por ceaus qui gisent en nos cimentires. Additional paragraphs that deal with the commemoration of the dead are Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 62–3 § 62; 164–5 § 268; 191 § 331; 191–2 § 332; 192 § 333; 202 § 355; 202–3 § 356; 295–6 § 566; 349–50 § 685. For the English translations of the French Rule in the text, see Judith M. Upton Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar (Woodbridge 1992). 41 Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, ed. Hiestand, 208.

111

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

expand this right to confratres and non-affiliated subordinates – a development that entailed welcome monetary benefits for the Templars.42 Although there is no certainty as to the identities of all those buried in ‘Atlit’s crusader cemetery, it is the “largest and best-preserved Frankish cemetery known to date,”43 and it appears to be a prime example of the Templars’ attention to the afterlife. Since the cemetery has left virtually no traces in the written sources, it is, however, not possible to draw definitive conclusions with regard to its effect on ‘Atlit’s overall spiritual reputation. It is noteworthy that ‘Atlit did not just serve as a resting place for the Order’s deceased but also as a final destination for those of its members who had broken the community’s commandments. The section of the Templar Rule concerning penances, written between 1257 and 1268,44 provides detailed information about the vital role that ‘Atlit (called “Château Pèlerin” in the text) played in the Order’s judicial processes: For it happened in Antioch that a brother who was named Brother Paris, and two other brothers who were in his company, killed some Christian merchants;  .  .  . and the failing came before the convent, and they were sentenced to be expelled from the house and flogged throughout Antioch, Tripoli, Tyre and Acre . . . and they were put in perpetual imprisonment at Château Pèlerin, and died there. And then in Acre a similar thing happened to another brother.45 In another case, three Templar Brothers from Château Pèlerin were accused of sodomy, and it was decided by the master that “this thing should not come to chapter, because the deed was so offensive, but that the brothers should come to Acre;” there, all three were convicted to forfeiting their habit and put in irons, but one of them was able to flee. The other two were sent back to the prison at ‘Atlit.46 On another occasion, the chapter held at Arsuf convicted a Brother, 42 Dominic Selwood, Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania, c. 1100–c. 1300 (Woodbridge 1999), 90–1, 128–9; Christian Vogel, Das Recht der Templer: Ausgewählte Aspekte des Templerrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Statutenhandschriften aus Paris, Rom, Baltimore und Barcelona (Münster 2007), 48. 43 Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 37. 44 Upton Ward, Rule of the Templars, 16. 45 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 289–90 § 554: Car il avint en Antyoche que I frere qui avoit a nom frere Paris, et dui autre frere qui estoient en sa compaignie, firent tuer marcheans crestiens; . . . et vint la faille devant le covent, et lor fu esgardé a perdre la maison et qu’il fussent frustés par Antyoche et a Triple et a Sur et en Acre. . . ; et furent mis en prison perpetuel a Chastiau pelerin, et la morurent. Et puis en Acre avint ce d’un autre frere, semblable a ce meisme fait. For the English translation, see Upton Ward, Rule of the Templars, 144. 46 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 297–8 § 573: Il avoit a Chastiau pelerin freres qui usoient de mauvais pechié et manjoient de nuit en chambres; si que cil qui estoient près dou fait, et autres qui trop l’avoient soufert, distrent au Maistre ceste chose et a une partie des prodeshomes de la maison. Et le Maistres ot conseill, que ceste chose ne venist en chapistre, que trop estoit le fait lait, mais feissent venir les freres en Acre; et quant ils furent venus, le Maistre mist un prodome en la chambre, et autres en sa compaignie en la chambre ou il erent, et lor fist lever

112

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

who had raised his hand against another Brother, to be put in irons “according to the customs of the House” and be sent to Château Pèlerin.47 Similarly, Brother George, who was a mason by profession, went to join the Saracens but was caught and imprisoned at ‘Atlit where he died.48 Thus, from various corners of the Latin East, Templars were sentenced to be incarcerated at the fortress of ‘Atlit. Although the exact location of the prison compound within the fortress remains unclear, it is remarkable that the Order’s main correction facility was not located at its headquarters at Acre where the Templars also maintained a prison.49 Considering the use of imprisonment in the military orders, the Rule of the Templars paints a vivid picture: punishments like chaining or incarceration were a vital aspect of the Order’s eschatological understanding since they were perceived as a form of penance, “so that he [i.e., the guilty] may be saved on the Day of Judgment.”50 Pride as the major instigator of misbehavior was to be redeemed by submitting to the mercy and judgment of the Master and the Brothers of the community, and if a perpetrator did not repent “let him be given a harsher punishment;” as the Rule shows, ‘Atlit seems to have been recognized as a place of penance – a site where the Templars “removed the wicked from among” them, as their Rule demanded, “the rod,” so to speak, “to beat the vices of those who sin.”51 ‘Atlit’s church, cemetery, and prison constituted facilities that were fundamentally important for the Brothers as pious Christians and as members of a religious order, since they were associated with means of ensuring salvation – one way or the other. Considering the overall significance of the city of Acre, the location of these facilities at ‘Atlit seems all the more peculiar. While at least with regard to the cemetery the answer may be as simple as “extensive space requirements,”52 an overall assessment of these facilities suggests that the Templars

47 48

49 50

51

52

l’abit et metre en gros fers. Et I des freres, qui ot a nom frere Lucas, eschapa de nuit et ala as sarrazins. Et li autre dui furent mandé a Chastiau pèlerin; et l’un cuida eschaper, si fu mors, et l’autres demora en la prison grant piesse. For the English translation, see Upton Ward, Rule of the Templars, 148. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 309 § 593. Et frere Hugue de Monlo fist assenement que l’en pooit bien faire segon les usaiges de la maison; et li plus s’acorda a ce, et fu mis en fers et mandés a Chastiau pelerin. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 312 § 603: Il avint que frere Jorge le Masson se parti d’Acre et s’en aloit as Sarrazins; et le Maistre le sot, si manda freres après lui, et fu attains, et li troverent robe d’ome seculier dessous la soe robe; si fu mandés a Chastiau pelerin ou il fu mis en prison et morut. Burgtorf, Central Convent, 92; Pringle, Churches, 4: 166. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 49 § 45: mais se la faillie est trop grieve, si soit departis de la compaignie des freres, que il ne boive ne ne mange a nulle table avec les freres; mès tout seul par soi, et soit sousmis a la misericorde et au jugement dou Maistre et des freres, que il puisse estre sauf au jor dou jugement. Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 50 § 46: Mais se il ne la veut amender, soit mis en plus destroite paine . . . selonc l’apostre qui dit: Auferte malum ex vobis. Ce est a dire: Ostés les mauves de vos. Besoing est que vos ostés la mauvaise oeille de la compaigne des feables freres; 50 § 47 continues: Mais li Maistres, qui doit tenir en la main le baston e la verge . . . la verge, de laquelle doit ferir les vices de ceaus qui faudront. Alex Kesten, The Old City of Acre: Re-examination Report, 1993 (Acre 1993), 70–2. The measurements are 30.8 meters by 78.4 meters by 74.7 meters by 209.0 meters (southwest by northwest by northeast by southeast); see Thompson, “Death and Burial in the Latin East,” 97.

113

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

associated distinct soteriological features with ‘Atlit. The castle’s layout perfectly represented their dual lifestyle, since it was an independent monastic compound but also a strategically important military fortress. ‘Atlit was rather different from Acre: the latter was the kingdom’s political and the Order’s administrative center, but ‘Atlit provided key spiritual assets to the Templars.53 It appears that, at least occasionally, the resulting disunity of political, judicial, and spiritual focal points was a cause of concern, as the example of the Templar Brothers accused of sodomy illustrates: the judicial authority of ‘Atlit’s local chapter was deemed insufficient or inappropriate to judge such a grave sin, which is why the master sent the Brothers from ‘Atlit to the central convent at Acre where they were tried in a special session “in the chamber.”54 Once convicted, they were sent back to ‘Atlit to receive their punishment. Whether it was due to this particular sin’s gravity or due to its exemplary status in the Rule that this incident was remembered repeatedly by Brothers during the Trial is subject to speculation.55 When it comes to explicit statements concerning ‘Atlit’s spiritual meaning among Christian magnates or Templar officials, the source material is very scarce. As for the Templars, Master William of Beaujeu’s stay at ‘Atlit in 1286 during Pentecost might underscore the location’s spiritual appeal, but it is likely that William’s visit was more of a political than of a spiritual nature.56 That said, ‘Atlit does seem to have attracted Christian nobles during feast days, which is documented in at least one very prominent case. In 1249, Margaret of Provence, the wife of the French king Louis IX, traveled via Acre to ‘Atlit to spend Easter there.57 Two years later, she appears to have spent both Easter and Pentecost there since, at the end of June, she gave birth to 53 Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 23, calls ‘Atlit “one of the chief bases of the Templars. Their headquarters remained in Acre, the capital, but they developed ‘Atlit as a depot second only to their older possessions, the seaport town of Tortosa in Syria, where much of the same massive style of architecture is still to be seen.” 54 Alan Forey, “Judicial Processes in the Military Orders: The Use of Imprisonment and Chaining,” in The Hospitallers, the Mediterranean and Europe: Festschrift for Anthony Luttrell, ed. Karl Borchardt, Nikolas Jaspert, and Helen J. Nicholson (Aldershot 2007), 87–97, here 88. 55 Procès des Templiers, ed. Michelet, 2: 223: Audivit dici quod duo fratres ordinis, commorantes in Castro Péregrini, erant de crimine sodomitico diffamati; et cum hoc pervenisset ad Magistrum, mandavit eos capi et unus illorum fuit interfectus cum fugeret, et alter fuit perpetuo carceri mancipatus. According to Procès des Templiers, ed. Michelet, 1: 386–7, the Knight Brother Gerald de Causso remembered that nunquam fecit nec cogitavit hoc nec fuit requisitus, nec fecit, nec audivit dici quod aliquis de ordine perpetraverit dictum flagicium, exceptis tribus duntaxat quorum nomina ignorat, quos audivit fuisse propter hoc incarceratos in castro Peregriori, tempore quo frater Thomas Berardi erat Magister Templi. 56 Gestes des Chiprois, ed. Raynaud, 227 § 454: & party seluy jour, & ala faire la pentecoste à Sur. Le maistre dou Temple estoit au Chastiau Pelerin. 57 Gestes des Chiprois, ed. Raynaud, 147 § 262: & quant vint après Pasques, le roy manda la raine de France en Acre, & d’Acre elle ala au Chastiau Pelerin, quy est dou Temple. William, a descendant of the counts of Saulx (house of Grancey) is recorded to have stayed at ‘Atlit in October 1251. The family maintained close links to the Templars during the Order’s entire existence; see Jochen Schenk, Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120–1307 (Cambridge-New York 2012), 143–5, 240.

114

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

one of her sons, Peter of Alençon, at ‘Atlit, whose godfather was the Templar Master Reynald of Vichiers.58 Whether it was devotion, the overall safety of the Templar castle for her period of confinement, or both, that made ‘Atlit so attractive to Margaret of Provence cannot be answered. At any rate, Jochen Burgtorf seems to be correct with his assessment that the magnificently built fortress of ‘Atlit represented by no means the image of a poor and humble Order (of course, neither did the Templar compound in Acre, as we have gathered from the account of the Templar of Tyre); rather, ‘Atlit must indeed have been a place “fit for royalty”59 – and probably had to be, since the presence of nobles added to its overall appeal and amplified its reputation of being somewhat exceptional.

Castrum Peregrinorum and the pilgrims: “constructing” spirituality? Naturally, ‘Atlit’s location between Acre and Caesarea, at the foot of Mount Carmel, was no coincidence but the result of strategic considerations. Viewed from a larger perspective, ‘Atlit represented the halfway point between Tyre and Jaffa in a region that had remained notorious for its numerous bands of robbers since the First Crusade and seems to have remained a dangerous section on the pilgrims’ pathway throughout the thirteenth century.60 Early in their history, the Templars had taken over a minor outpost in the area, built during the reign of King Baldwin I of Jerusalem (1100–1118) in response to this ongoing threat and called Le Destroit (Khirbat Dustray), a name derived from the “narrow way” or “defile” on the sand stone cliffs close to the sea shore that it was intended to protect.61 When we recall the “alternative foundation account”

58 Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato,” 27; Peter Partner, The Murdered Magicians: The Templars and Their Myth (Oxford 1982), 17. Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, Credo et letter à Louis X: Texte original accompagné d’une traduction, ed. Natalis de Wailly (Paris 1874), 282 § 514: Li maistres, qui estoit comperes le roy dou conte d’Alençon, qui fu nez à Chastel-Pelerin, ne onques la royne, ne autre, ne porent aidier frere Hue, que il ne li couvenist vuidier la Terre sainte et dou royaume de Jerusalem; see Burgtorf, Central Convent, 94, 638. For further details on the close relationship between the Templars and Louis IX, see Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militiae Templi Hierosolymitani magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/19–1314 (Göttingen 1974), 228–9. 59 Burgtorf, Central Convent, 94; see also earlier in this chapter. 60 Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (London 1972), 294. 61 Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 94; Pringle, Churches, 1: 69; Paul Deschamps, Les châteaux des Croisés en Terre-Sainte, II: La défense du royaume de Jérusalem: Étude historique, geographique et monumentale (Paris 1939), 29–32. Scholars disagree on whether Le Destroit was built by the Templars or taken over by them later on. The respective determination is further hampered by accounts like the one by Ludolf of Suchem which combines different traditions with partially false, second-hand knowledge. Ludolphi, rectoris ecclesiae parochialis in Suchem, De itinere Terrae Sanctae Liber, ed. Ferdinand Deycks (Stuttgart 1851), 50, claims anachronistically: Hanc civitatem Godfridus dux de Boliun, primus rex Ierusalem, Christianus, Templariis in sui memoriam donavit.

115

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

quoted at the beginning of this chapter, it appears that Templar tradition created an artificial continuity between the Order’s early twelfth-century outpost of Le Destroit and its thirteenth-century fortress of ‘Atlit. Claiming that the place “now” called the Pilgrims’ Castle was, in fact, the location of their Order’s very first ministry in the Holy Land, the Templars emphasized the legitimacy of their presence in the region. It also illustrates that the construction of tradition – a noteworthy parallel to the construction of the actual fortress – was deemed vital. While the Templars’ presence at Le Destroit might indeed have been one of their first practical engagements in the Levant, the “alternative foundation account” subtly subtracts attention from Jerusalem, the actual location of the community’s twelfth-century origins, and places the Order’s first steps into a politically more suitable contemporary context. There is no doubt that ‘Atlit’s location came with major advantages. Avoiding the dangerous eastern road through the mostly Muslim-held regions of Galilee and Samaria, most pilgrims took the coastal road that led south to Jaffa. Thus, ‘Atlit was situated on the main pilgrim road to Jerusalem and formed a vital cornerstone of this road’s defense against the ongoing raids. The fortress’s location next to the pilgrims’ lifeline and its function as a safe haven for threatened believers seems to have affected its overall perception and maybe even its naming, since ‘Atlit’s Latin name, Castrum Peregrinorum, and its French equivalent, Château Pèlerin, both mean “Pilgrims’ Castle.” While the name is reported to have derived from the assistance that some pilgrims had lent when the fortification’s construction had first gotten underway,62 it probably would not have permeated the sources so unequivocally if that had been its only connection to pilgrims – especially since, according to Oliver of Paderborn, only “a few” (pauci) pilgrims had helped with the original construction efforts.63 Oliver’s account also refers to ‘Atlit as Castrum filii Dei,64 the “Castle of the Son of God,” a name that is of special interest in the context of spirituality research.65 The text does not mention the polygonal church – because it had not been built yet, but Oliver’s naming of ‘Atlit as Christ’s very own fortress fits well with the eschatological interpretation of the polygonal church as a

62 Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Louis de Mas Latrie (Paris 1871), 421–2: Un autre en commencierent à fremer, à .vii. liues d’Acre et .v. liues de Cesare, en .i. liu c’on apele Le Destroit. Cis castiaus qu’il laissierent fremant quant il murent, est en le mer. Il li misent à non Castel Pelerin, por ce que li pelerin le commencierent à fremer. Et assés en i demoura puis que li rois en ala à Damiete, por le castel aidier à fremer. Cel castel tienent Templier, por çou qu’en lor tiere fu fermés. See Deschamps, Châteaux des Croisés en TerreSainte, II, 32. 63 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 169: et paucis auxiliatoribus peregrinis; Deschamps, Châteaux des Croisés en Terre-Sainte, II, 25, speaks of “un grand nombre de pèlerins;” however, the sources do not support this assertion. 64 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 254: Templarii intelligentes, quod Castrum filii Die vellet ibsidere, turrim Districti desertam in superiori parte destruere ceperunt. 65 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 254, refers to Jerusalem civitatem Dei viventis, an allusion to Hebrews 12:22.

116

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

direct reference to the place of Christ’s death.66 Of course, the figure of Christ had always been at the heart of pilgrimage and Christian devotion, and one should not over-interpret the issue, but the Templars’ theological and liturgical focus on Christ was unique even among thirteenth-century contemporaries.67 In accordance with the meaningful name of Castrum filii Dei, Oliver depicts ‘Atlit’s history as one that had been under Christ’s particular auspices from the very beginning: the miraculous discovery of ancient coins by the Templars (the pilgrims are no longer mentioned) was “conferred by the goodness of the Son of God onto his knights”68 and was, in fact, so astonishing that even Jacques de Vitry was left to wonder where the Templars might have obtained all the money to build such a magnificent fortification.69 Since the building efforts were now so obviously blessed, the Lord kept on supporting “his knights” and supplied fresh water, stones, and even cement in abundance to ensure a speedy construction.70 A short time later, when the castle was besieged by the Muslims “night and day by blows of the machines,” the “enemy could not move one stone from its place,” almost as if Christ himself was protecting the fortification; when some Christian traitors told the Muslim leader how much supply in men and arms the fortress received, he had to realize that it was actually “divine power [divina virtus] that forced him to retreat” from the siege “like a proud and arrogant man.”71 The fortress – “hateful to the Saracens, beloved by the Christians” – proved impenetrable.72 Interestingly enough, the name “Castle of the Son of God” was not as widespread as “Pilgrims’ Castle” and is, in fact, only accounted for thrice outside 66 One reason for Oliver’s silence concerning the church’s layout may be the fact that it may not necessarily have been polygonal just yet. It has been suggested that the layout of the church one can see today was built during the 1250s. See Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 24; Pringle, Churches, 1: 74. 67 Tom Licence, “The Templars and Hospitallers, Christ and the Saints,” Crusades 4 (2005): 39–57, here 41–2; Jochen Schenk, “The Cult of the Cross in the Order of Temple,” in As Ordens Militares: Freires, Guerreiros, Cavaleiros: Actas do VI Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, Palmela, 10 a 14 de Marção de 2010, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela 2012), 207–19, here 207–8; Jochen Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence for Templar Spirituality, Religious Life and Conduct,” Revue Mabillon 22 (2011): 99–119, here 101–2. 68 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 170: Inventa est etiam ibi pecunia in moneta modernis ignota, collata beneficio filii Dei militibus suis ad alleviandos sumptus et labores. 69 Jacques de Vitry, Lettres, 99 (letter no. III): se quam sua prorsus exponerent opus egregium per se aggressi sunt, ubi tot et tantas effuderunt divitias, quod mirum est unde eas accipiant. 70 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 170: Deinde in anteriore parte harenam fodientes et deportantes alius murus brevior inventus est, et inter murorum planiciem fontes aque dulcis largiter ebulliebant; lapidum etiam et cementi copiam Dominus ministravit. 71 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 254–6: Coradinus . . . erigens trabuculum unum, petrarias tres, mangonellos quator, diebus ac noctibus ictibus machinarum muniitonem infestans, sed de turribus novis ac muro medio nec unum lapidem de suo loco movere valuit. . . . Ipse vero sicut superbus et arrogans comminatus fuerat, se castrum comprehensurum per obsidionem longam; sed divina virtus eum recedere coegit combustis castris propriis circa Novembris principium. 72 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 256: Protegat Altissimus hanc domum in honorem filii Dei constructam Sarracenis odibilem, Christianis amabilem tanquam antemurale civitatis Accon!

117

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

of Oliver’s text. The Dominican friar Vincent of Beauvais repeatedly uses the term Castrum filii Dei for ‘Atlit, but he largely copied Oliver’s text (with only minor changes) and later informs the reader in a side note: Castrum filii Dei, quod peregrinorum dicitur (“the Castle of the Son of God, which is called ‘of the Pilgrims’”)73 The same is true of the account contained in the Chronica regia Coloniensis.74 Yet while Vincent copied Oliver’s text, he nonetheless seems to have had first-hand information about ‘Atlit, since he was demonstrably in contact with one of its most noble guests, namely, Margaret of Provence.75 Another reference to ‘Atlit’s unusual title as the “Castle of the Son of God” is contained in Marino Sanuto’s early fourteenth-century Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis. However, his account provides a different explanation for the castle’s naming, stating that the Templars rebuilt a castle with the help of some pilgrims that had “formerly been known as [the one] of God’s Son” (quod prius dicebatur filii Dei).76 This would suggest that Le Destroit, the Templars’ earlier fortification in the area, had borne this name, not the fortress that would later come to be known as Castrum Peregrinorum, as Marino Sanuto adds immediately afterwards.77 However, Marino Sanuto’s differing version concerning ‘Atlit’s naming seems to be based on an error in the text he was copying, namely, that of Vincent of Beauvais. Vincent was apparently unaware of the earlier building’s name, Le Destroit (Districtum), since he reconfigured that name into a participle: Castrum filii Dei, quod olim destructum, nunc Castrum Peregrinorum appellatur (“the Castle of the Son of God which, once destroyed, is now called the Pilgrims’ Castle”)78 Meanwhile, Oliver’s text, which was Vincent’s source, clearly states: Castrum Peregrinorum, quod olim Districtum appellabatur (“the Pilgrims’ Castle which was once called Le Destroit”).79 To make sense of Vincent’s error, Marino Sanuto simply came up with his own explanation. Considering Oliver’s disdain for Acre and his high regard for the Templars, his glorifying depiction of ‘Atlit is coherent and culminates in his naming of the fortress as Christ’s very own castle. While a few authors echoed Oliver’s description, the name only left minor traces in the sources, and neither Templar accounts nor pilgrim guides bear witness to it – a surprising fact, since one should think that the Templars would have readily adopted such a title for 73 Vincentius Bellovacensis, “Speculum Historiale,” in Testimonia minora de quinto bello sacro e chronicis occidentalibus excerptis, ed. Reinhold Röhricht (Geneva 1882), 97–110, here 100. 74 Chronica regia Coloniensis (Annales maximi Colonienses), ed. Georg Waitz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 18 (Hanover 1880), 243–4. 75 Vincent of Beauvais’s Liber de eruditione filiorum regalium is dedicated to Queen Margaret. 76 Marinus Sanutus, Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis, ed. Jacques Bongars (Jerusalem 1972), 207. 77 Marinus Sanutus, Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis, 207: Templarii vero, auxilantibus Peregrinis, & Hospitali de domo Theotonicorum, castrum, quod prius dicebatur Filii DEI, reaedificauerunt; & castrum Peregrinorum vocant. 78 Vincentius Bellovacensis, “Speculum Historiale,” 100. 79 Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” 169.

118

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

their fortress. One wonders whether Oliver’s awareness of the close association between the Templars and Christ was his sole impetus for naming ‘Atlit the “Castle of the Son of God.” Embedding the fortress into its biblical and spiritual landscape might provide further clues in this regard. In particular, it was ‘Atlit’s close association with pilgrims that served as a driving factor in shaping its spiritual dimensions. Christian pilgrims, for the most part, were not interested in the contemporary issues of the Holy Land; instead, they cared about devotional aspects that were often detached from historical realities.80 To them, the Holy Land was the place of the Old and the New Testament, and it was this holy geography that the pilgrims were looking for. Since the Templars are known to have “responded” to the pilgrims’ yearning for sacred places, it is not surprising that, once they had consolidated their presence at ‘Atlit, holy sites started to sprout in this fortification’s vicinity as well. An interesting example of this is the Peroun in front of the Pilgrims’ Castle, on which the Lord is said to have rested.81 “Perron” describes a plateau-like rock that could be seen by pilgrims when approaching ‘Atlit via the northern road.82 While the Peroun reference in an account dated to “around 1280” remains unique among the descriptions of ‘Atlit and its vicinity, it bears a striking resemblance to the tradition of the so called “Throne of Jesus,”83 situated at the western end of the northern wall of the Temple esplanade in Jerusalem.84 Like the rock in front of ‘Atlit, the respective place in Jerusalem was associated with the “Repose of Christ,” and while the structure in Jerusalem was directly linked to the Passion of Christ as part of the Templars’ own conception of the Via Dolorosa, the alleged stage of Christ’s life at ‘Atlit remains unclear. At first glance, the association of this sacred stone with Christ might provide a suitable explanation for the castle’s name, but neither Oliver of Paderborn nor an unknown pilgrim visiting ‘Atlit in 1231 mention it, suggesting that the story was either not circulating or not widely distributed just yet. Interestingly, the account by one Philippus from the second half of the thirteenth century also knows of a rock outside the castle, but on this particular

80 Prawer, Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, chapter 11, passim; Aryeh Grabois, “Christian Pilgrims in the Thirteenth Century and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: Burchard of Mount Sion,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem Presented to Joshua Prawer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar (Jerusalem 1982), 285–96, here 286. 81 “Pelrinages et pardouns de Acre [v. 1280],” in Itinéraires à Jérusalem et descriptions de la Terre Sainte, rédigés en français aux XIe, XIIe et XIIIe siècles, ed. Henri Michelant and Gaston Raynaud (Geneva 1882), 227–36, here 229: Peroun sur qui Dieu se reposa, devant le Chastel Pelryn. 82 Gustav Beyer, “Das Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea in Palästina siedlungs- und territorialgeschichtlich untersucht,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 59, nos. 1–2 (1936): 1–91, here 13. 83 Qubbat Sulaiman, Kursi ‘Isa, not to be confused with the “Cradle of Jesus” on the southeastern corner of the Temple esplanade in Jerusalem; see Pringle, Churches, 3: 310–14. 84 Pringle, Churches, 3: 129–32; Schein, Gateway to the Heavenly City, 86–7; John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185, with Joyce Hill and William F. Ryan (London 1988), 75.

119

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

rock the “Virgin Mary” is believed to have “rested.”85 Whether this tradition was connected to the widely popular Marian veneration nearby,86 or whether the sources actually refer to two different stones – one of Mary and one of Christ – is difficult to determine. Unfortunately, no Templar documents offer insights into these local traditions of veneration. Since neither tradition can be found in any itineraries predating the construction of the Pilgrim’s Castle, it seems plausible that the Templars were among the ones who encouraged these forms of devotion associated with their castle and may even have created them – similar to what they had done with the “Throne of Jesus” in Jerusalem. To recruit new members and obtain financial support, the Templars needed to attract as much favorable attention as possible;87 thus, creating and subsequently presenting sacred spaces in the vicinity of their establishments was considered a viable means of integrating “themselves into the religious fabric of the landscape in which they had settled,”88 even if there was only a questionable (if any) historical basis to support these spaces as sacred. In fact, ‘Atlit saw one of the most successful endeavors to “construct” spirituality in the Templar Order. The fortress was widely known for guarding the relics of Saint Euphemia,89 and pilgrim guides refer to the relics of this martyr of the early Church and Castrum Peregrinorum in the same context. The respective texts differ to a certain extent in the details they provide: while some speak of the “body [corpus] of the virgin and martyr Saint Euphemia within the castle,”90 85 Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar: A New History (Stroud 2001), 143; Helen J. Nicholson, “Templar Attitudes towards Women,” Medieval History 1, no. 3 (1991): 74–80, here 79. Philippi descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. Wilhelm Anton Neumann, Drei mittelalterliche Pilgerschriften III (Vienna 1872), 76: Milario est castrum peregrinorum: extra castrum est petra, ubi b. virgo Maria requievit. “Fratris Ricoldi de Monte Crucis Ordinis Predicatorum Liber Peregrinacionis,” in Peregrinatores medii aevii quatuor: Burchardus de Monte Sion, Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, Odoricus de Foro Julii, Wilbrandus de Oldenborg, ed. Johann C. M. Laurent (Leipzig 1864), 101–41, here 113: the cavea virginis referenced in this account’s Castrum Peregrinorum description, mentioning Ioseph . . . quiesceret super lapidem, may, according to Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 29–30, most likely be identified with the popular chapel of “Notre Dame de Maryas;” Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato,” 34. Places where Mary was supposed to have rested seem to have been popular, because Jacques de Vitry knows of such a place also near Damietta, as he reports in one of his letters: Jacques de Vitry, Lettres, 102 (letter no. IV): Est autem terra Egypti in multis privilegiata, in qua dominus noster Iesus Christus cum beata Maria matre sua aliquot tempore commoratus est. Unde in eodem loco, in quo beata Virgo ex itinere fessa dicitur requivisse, constructa est ecclesia, quam haben Sarraceni in magno honore. See also Megan Cassidy-Welch, “‘O Damietta’: War Memory and Crusade in Thirteenthcentury Egypt,” Journal of Medieval History 40, no. 3 (2014): 346–60, here 354. 86 Beyer, “Gebiet der Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Caesarea,” 28; Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 17. 87 See Barber, New Knighthood, 199. 88 Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence,” 113. 89 Nicholson, “Head of St Euphemia,” 110–12; Barber, New Knighthood, 199–200. 90 Philippi descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. Neumann, 76: Milario est castrum peregrinorum: extra castrum est petra, ubi b. virgo Maria requievit et infra castrum est corpus beate Eufemie virg. et mart. The account in “Pelrinages et pardouns de Acre,” 229 (le Chastiel Pelryn, e dedenz le Chastel gist le cors seint Eufenie) seems to explicitly verify this.

120

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

where it is “kept in great veneration by the Templars,”91 other accounts are more vague and only refer to “the house of the Templars, where Saint Euphemia, virgin and martyr, is kept.”92 In any case, the number of texts commenting on the relics suggests that their presence at the Templar fortress was common knowledge among the pilgrims. The relics kept at Acre and mentioned by Antonio Sici receive far less attention in other sources.93 Saint Euphemia’s relics were not just popular among pilgrims visiting the Holy Land: as Helen J. Nicholson has emphasized, the Templars, too, seem to have been very proud that their Order was guarding such prestigious relics; accordingly, many of the Brothers interrogated during the Templar Trial knew of her saintly remains and even saw the possession of these as a sign of their Order’s innocence.94 There is some uncertainty with regard to the actual parts of the Saint’s remains kept at ‘Atlit. The pilgrim texts withhold precise information and only refer to the relics as the corpus, which leaves doubts as to whether ordinary pilgrims were allowed to get close to these relics at all. Some Templars only mention the head (caput) of the martyr Euphemia. In fact, one description from the Templar Trial is exceptionally detailed: the Brother remembered that he had seen the relic while it was in Nicosia on Cyprus after the Order had evacuated ‘Atlit; he recalled “two heads crested in gold, and one of them was said to be the one of Saint Euphemia, the other one he knew nothing about.”95 Another Templar, also during the Trial, claimed to have heard of a Brother who had touched – with the cord of his habit – a head that was part of the Templar treasury at the Pilgrims’ Castle; presumably, he was talking about Saint Euphemia as well.96 Some Templars knew that “Saint Euphemia’s body had come [venit] to the Pilgrims’ Castle by the honor of the Lord, where it worked many miracles,” and they were convinced that it would not have done so if the Templars were

91 Philippi descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. Neumann, 76: in littore maris situm, nobilissimum castrum Templi, ubi corpus b. Euphemie virg. et mart, in magna veneracione habetur. 92 “Les pelerinaiges por aler en Iherusalem [v. 1231],” in Itinéraires à Jérusalem et descriptions de la Terre Sainte, rédigés en français aux XIe, XIIe et XIIIe siècles, ed. Henri Michelant and Gaston Raynaud (Geneva 1882), 87–103, here 91: De Cayfas à Chastiau Pelrin a .iij. lieues & siét sus la mer, & est de la maison du Temple, & gist iluec sainte Eufemie, virge & martire. 93 Procès des Templiers, ed. Michelet, 1: 646–7; Pringle, Churches, 4: 171; Barber, New Knighthood 199. 94 Nicholson, “Head of St Euphemia,” 111–12; Nicholson, “Templar Attitudes towards Women,” 78–9; Helen J. Nicholson, “Saints Venerated in the Military Orders,” in Selbstbild und Selbstverständnis der geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Toruń 2005), 91–113, here 99. 95 Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens: Mit urkundlichen und kritischen Beiträgen, 2 vols. (Berlin 1887), 2: 136: Dixit tamen, quod ipse vidit duo capita ornata de argento, quorum unum dicebatur sancte Euphemie, et custodiebatur in ecclesia domus Templi Nichocie insule Cipri, aliud vero capud dixit, se nescire seu non recordari, cuius sancti diceretur. 96 Procès des Templiers, ed. Michelet, 2: 240: Cum autem processu temporis, elapsis duobus vel tribus annis, audivisset dici in dicto Castro Peregrini, a fratre Petro de Vienna milite, quod in thesauro Templi erat quoddam capud quo tangebantur cordule predicte, ipse testis noluit ex tunc portare dictam cordulam.

121

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

not a virtuous Order and agreeable to God.97 The aforementioned thirteenthcentury account by Philippus explicitly comments on this arrival of the relics at ‘Atlit, stating that, “in the most venerable fortress of the Templars, the body of Saint Euphemia, virgin and martyr, is kept in great veneration, which was miraculously translated there from the Greek city of Chalcedon.”98 The fact that narratives pertaining to this translation miracle were circulating both inside and outside of the Order is proof that both groups, Templars and pilgrims, were interacting with one another. It also suggests that the Templars were intentionally propagating these narratives. The Templars had, of course, a deep interest in associating such spiritual experiences with their own Order, even if, as Helen J. Nicholson has explained, the Euphemia relics at ‘Atlit were most likely not authentic.99 That said, the Templars themselves genuinely believed in the relics’ authenticity, and most of them were likely unaware that the arrival of these relics at ‘Atlit did not constitute a miracle but, rather, was the result of a Templar raid during the Fourth Crusade.100 In the case of the Euphemia relics, the Order was highly successful in broadcasting the presence of the saintly remains among the pilgrims and linking them to one of its most important fortresses in the Holy Land. At ‘Atlit, this created an aura that was certainly beneficial for the Order’s overall reputation among Latin Christians.

Conclusion Thirteenth-century ‘Atlit must have been a remarkable place. Not only did it serve as a castrum inexpugnabile,101 a military fortress of magnificent extent, it was also a place of devotion and spiritual care for members of the Order of the Temple, for the Order’s associates, and for pilgrims passing by. As we have indicated, the Pilgrims’ Castle offered religious facilities that were unparalleled in other major Templar houses like Acre. These facilities provided a stand-alone criterion for ‘Atlit – a strong eschatological component that was absolutely pivotal for the spiritual health of a military religious community like the Order of the Temple. While ‘Atlit’s cemetery, its prison, and perhaps also

97 Procès des Templiers, ed. Michelet, 1: 145–6: Item, proponent deu cors de sancta Eufemia que venit à Castel Pelegri pro grace de De, en quel luc li a faicz plusors miracles, deu por li, que ile ne i so fure mie herbergée entre li Templiers, se il fussent cil que om dist, ne aucunas auteras reliquies qui sont et solunt ester en poder deu Temple; Barber, New Knighthood 199; Hiestand, “Castrum Peregrinorum e la fine del dominio crociato,” 29; Nicholson, “Head of St Euphemia,” 111; Nicholson, “Saints Venerated in the Military Orders,” 99. 98 Philippi descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. Neumann, 76: nobilissimum castrum Templi, ubi corpus b. Euphemie virg. et mart. in magna veneracione habetur de Calcedonia civitate Grecie illuc miraculose translatum. 99 Nicholson, “Head of St Euphemia,” 111. 100 Nicholson, “Head of St Euphemia,” 111; Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), 55. Oliver of Paderborn, “Historia Damiatina,” knows nothing of the relics in 1218, but the unknown pilgrim of 1231 already mentions the relics in “Les pelerinaiges por aler en Iherusalem,” 91. This provides a rough timeframe for the arrival of the relics at ‘Atlit. 101 Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Maiora, ed. Luard, 4: 560.

122

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

its church primarily pertained to members or associates of the Order, external visitors – especially pilgrims – were drawn into the aura of the fortress by what was presented to them in terms of biblical and early-Church traditions. Such created sacred spaces surrounded ‘Atlit with a constructed spirituality that responded to the pilgrims’ longing for biblical places. This, in turn, resulted in an enhanced, positive perception of the Order and its ministry by fellow Latin Christians. Consequently, ‘Atlit necessarily served as a platform for the Order to display itself, and this function was not only recognized but fully instrumentalized in favor of the Order’s reputation. There is no doubt that ‘Atlit was significant in many respects, but its spiritual role adds yet another layer to the historical perception of this “Castle of the Son of God” right in the heart of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.

123

S H L O M O L O TA N A N D J O A C H I M RO T H E R

Figure 5.1 ‘Atlit Castle, general view, looking southwest Source: Photo, Joachim Rother

Figure 5.2 ‘Atlit Castle, cemetery, looking northeast Source: Photo, Joachim Rother

124

C O L L ATA B E N E F I C I O F I L I I D E I M I L I T I B U S S U I S

Figure 5.3 ‘Atlit Castle, cemetery, looking west Source: Photo, Joachim Rother

Figure 5.4 ‘Atlit Castle, cemetery, detail Source: Photo, Joachim Rother

125

6 THE TEMPLAR CASTLES OF BARBERÀ, GARDENY, AND MIRAVET Status quaestionis Joan Fuguet Sans

Introduction While the history of the Templars in Catalonia is well known, thanks to major works of research published in the course of the twentieth century,1 the study of its monumental and artistic heritage has primarily been the work of the last few decades.2 These days, the significance of the religious military orders’ monumental heritage is fully acknowledged, and the systematic studies carried out over the last decades by various European universities and institutions have contributed to its dissemination. Yet while it is true that this heritage has been the subject of recent monographs and has also been incorporated into works of a more general nature, perhaps only insufficient attention has been devoted to presenting it within the military orders’ own historical context; the latter, though, would allow for this heritage to be studied and related not just to contemporary examples of architecture outside the military orders, but also to examples of the military orders’ architecture from other countries and particularly to the respective architecture of the crusaders in the Holy Land.3 1 Joaquim Miret i Sans, Les cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya: Aplech de noves y documents històrichs (Barcelona 1910); Heinrich Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2 vols. (Münster 1907); Alan J. Forey, The Templars in the ‘Corona de Aragón’ (London 1973). Abbreviation used in this chapter: ACA = Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón. 2 Núria de Dalmases and Antoni José i Pitarch, Història de l’Art Català, Vol. II: L’època del Cister s. XIII (Barcelona 1985), 91–9; Joan Fuguet Sans, “L’architecture militaire des templiers de la couronne d’Aragon,” in La commanderie: Institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médieval, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Leon Pressouyre (Paris 2002), 187–217; Joan Fuguet Sans, “L’empremta dels ordes religiosomilitars,” in L’Art Gòtic a Catalunya: Arquitectura, ed. Antoni Pladevall Font, vol. 1 (Barcelona 2002), 138–51. 3 This was the approach of my doctoral dissertation – Joan Fuguet Sans, “L’arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya” (Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad de Barcelona, 1989; Barcelona, Col·lecció de Tesis

126

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

In addition to a wealth of scholarly publications, recent excavations have contributed significantly to presenting new directions with regard to the status of the military orders’ fortresses. To analyze the military commanderies (see Figure 6.1), we will take into account both their castral organization as well as their construction techniques and styles, namely, their architectural elements. First of all, we will have to be aware of the plan and the structure of the castles – Christian or Andalusian – that the Templars received, and to what extent the Brothers took advantage of the layout of the preexisting enclosures and buildings in their new fortresses. Secondly, we will need to consider the layout of the conventual buildings once a castle had become a Templar commandery. The typology and architectural style of the buildings of the military commanderies will also be related to contemporary architecture outside the military orders. Finally, we will analyze how these castles relate to fortresses in the Holy Land. Since the Templars in Catalonia had agreed to collaborate in the conquest of the Andalusian territories as well as the defense of the new borders, their main commanderies were, as in the Holy Land, fortresses. This was the case in Granyena, Barberà, Gardeny, Miravet, Ascó, and Horta, among others. All of these were located in strategically significant places, which means that, prior to becoming Templar commanderies, they had already been castles that were more or less important. The fortresses that the Templars received in Catalonia displayed different characteristics depending on their position with regard to the Andalusian border: on the one hand, there were castles that had been old Christian constructions; on the other hand, there were Muslim castles that had just been conquered. The former belonged to a very simple type of fortress, developed between the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the lands that had been the March (Marca) during that long period, namely, the border between Old Catalonia and New Catalonia; examples of these are the castles at Barberà and Granyena, donated to the Temple between 1130 and 1133, and consisting of a small tower and a walled enclosure. The latter were husun or Andalusian castles, such as Miravet, Ascó, and Peníscola, which basically featured a celloquia (an upper enclosure, consisting mainly of a tower or a small fortified nucleus with a cistern) and an albacar (a lower enclosure which, in case of danger, could provide shelter to the inhabitants of the surrounding farmsteads). In both cases, these castles were expanded or built ex novo by the Templars according to their needs and the new feudal concepts. For many of these castle-commanderies it is difficult to determine what their exact military function might have been, since – after they had been established – the border continued to shift further to the south. This was the case, above all, for Doctorals Microfitxades, no. 840); Joan Fuguet Sans, L’arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya (Barcelona 1995) – which also involved an update of the Catalan Templar commanderies based on the aforementioned studies, namely, Miret i Sans, Cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya; and Forey, Templars in the ‘Corona de Aragón’.

127

JOAN FUGUET SANS

commanderies in the earlier Marca, such as Barberà and Granyena, which – while set up as fortresses – could have functioned as such only for a short time; indeed, they served from the very beginning the same purpose as all other non-military commanderies, namely, to colonize and administer the territorial patrimony. Examples of Templar fortresses include the castles of Barberà de la Conca, Gardeny, and Miravet. The first was a castle of Christian origin; the latter were old Andalusian fortresses.

The castle of Barberà de la Conca (Tarragona) Based on the successive archaeological campaigns carried out during the last quarter of the twentieth century, the study of the castle of Barberà’s architecture has seen a variety of interpretations. The first approach, an article published in 1983,4 suffered from a lack of bibliography on Catalan Templar architecture; in addition, it was still difficult to identify and interpret the rooms, since the building’s ground floor had remained filled with debris since the end of the nineteenth century.5 In 1989, a second study already displayed a much advanced knowledge in all respects, since the castle’s ground floor had now been partially emptied, and – after an exhaustive investigation – considerable progress had also been made with regard to research on Catalan Templar architecture.6 At this time, it was assumed that the Templars’ expansion of the castle of Barberà had taken advantage of older construction to basically produce two buildings located to the east of the castral complex: a residential tower with a square plan and a rectangular chapel (see Figures 6.2 and 6.3). This statement was partially revised in an article published in 2002, namely, after the excavations had been completed and restoration architects had carried out a complete raising of the castle.7 At that point, with the subsoil free from debris, a large unit could be appreciated in the entire lower – underground or semi-underground – construction: a long rectangular room measuring 25 by 5 meters, oriented east-west, with very thick walls (about 3 meters) of good ashlar rigging, arranged in rows of different heights (the lower ones, where the stones exceed 1 meter on each side, being taller). So far, the conclusions of this article come closest. In recent years, other studies have been published that continue along the same lines of research.8 The old fortress of Barberà is a large building with a modern look, well preserved, surrounded by battered remains of the wall and traces of other buildings, 4 Joan Fuguet Sans, “Arquitectura del castell de Barberà: Dels orígens als templers,” Aplec de Treballs 5 (1983): 91–120. 5 At that time, the castle functioned as a public school; consequently, many buildings considered dangerous were dismantled. 6 Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 205–18. 7 Fuguet Sans, “L’empremta.” 8 Marcel J. Poblet Romeu, Entre el Temple i l’Hospital: Arquitectura i formes de vida al castell de Barberà (Valls 2005).

128

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

and currently has little military appearance (see Figures 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6). In its entirety, it encompasses an elongated area measuring 71 by 35 meters, situated from east to west at the top of the hill where the town of Barberà de la Conca is located. At the western end are the ruins of an eleventh-century castle: the ground floor of a cylindrical tower and the remains of a curtain wall. In the Templar construction of the eastern sector, we find the castle’s main door which provides an opening in the eastern wall. Until 1950, the remains of a powerful barbican, built to protect this door, were preserved in front of it. This door is semi-circular, open at the level of the lower floor, with a robust structure and thick voussoirs. Inside the large elongated room, there are four stepped loopholes, also of robust construction, three of which open to the south and one to the west. Originally, this large room was probably covered by a wooden roof, as suggested by a step in the wall where the timbers may have rested. At its eastern end, next to the door, the beginning of a transverse diaphragm arch was preserved until recent times; it probably supported some part of the chapel’s presbytery which was located on the main floor immediately above. According to Hospitaller documents, the tower or palau veyll (“old palace”) was located on this upper or main floor, from the western end to the beginning of the chapel.9 It was apparently a large tower with a more or less square plan of 10 meters on each side, and the aforementioned documents also call it the “tower of the prior,” undoubtedly referring to the Hospitallers’ grand prior of Catalonia, who was its owner. It is likely that this tower would have had two more floors and a terrace (the current floors are modern restorations of little importance, carried out by the Hospitallers after the castle had suffered serious destruction during the wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). The chapel is a Romanesque building from the twelfth century with a rectangular plan, featuring the same architectural typology as the original chapels of San Esteban de Poblet and the Santísima Trinidad de Santes Creus. On the north side, it still shows the beginning of the barrel vault that once covered it and was destroyed during the wars of the modern era. Despite its deteriorated state, the chapel clearly shows the typology of a church with a single nave and a flat head that contains the only opening that would have provided light to the nave: a semi-circular window with an overflow toward the interior. The flat head, which can also be found in the Templar house at Masdéu (Roussillon), was most typical of both French10 and Catalan Templar chapels.11 The wall facings are as irregular as those in the lower room, which seems to indicate that they were once covered with the kind of plaster typically used to receive mural 9 ACA, Gran Priorato, reg. 553 (Inventari de béns y deutes del gran prior de Catalunya, any 1395). 10 Charles Daras, “Les commanderies et les chapelles des templiers dans la region Charentaise,” Mémoires de la Societé archéologique et historique de la Charente (1954), 31–67; Charles M. Higounet and Jacques Gardelles, “L’architecture des ordres militaires dans le sud-ouest de la France: Les construction des templiers et des hospitaliers en Bordelais et en Gascogne,” in Actes du 87e Congrès national des Societés Savantes, Section d’Archéologie (Poitiers 1962) (Paris 1963), 173–94. 11 Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 365–94.

129

JOAN FUGUET SANS

paintings. On the north side, an original door is preserved that connects to the castle’s parade grounds via a gallery-portico, similar to the one at Miravet castle.12 Another preserved ancient structure is an underground room covered by a barrel vault, located on the north side of the tower or palace. During Hospitaller times, it was the dungeon,13 and as such it had as its only openings two ceiling traps which it still retains. The typology and measurements of the large lower room are consistent in almost all the Templar castles in the Crown of Aragón that served as headquarters of a commandery: Miravet, Gardeny, and Castellote, among others, have similar rooms with very similar measurements.14 The Hospitaller documents speak of the palau veyll (“old palace”) when they refer to the existing building in order to distinguish it from the (no longer extant) palau nou (“new palace”) which had been commissioned in the fourteenth century by the Hospitallers’ grand prior of Catalonia, Guillem de Guimerà, who occupied the north side of the patio. There were once other buildings closing the courtyard to the west, built (or rebuilt) in the sixteenth century by another grand prior from the Requesens family; these structures have also disappeared.

The castle of Gardeny (city of Lleida) While we do not have any documentary reference to Gardeny in Islamic times, it is likely that some kind of Andalusian hisn had existed there.15 For the twelfth century, it is documented that King Alfonso el Batallador of Aragón fortified the hill. Since he was suspicious that Ramón Berenguer III might beat him to the conquest of Lleida, the Aragonese ruler conducted an expedition against the city of Segre in 1123 and settled on the hill of Gardeny. Yet, the Aragonese king’s campaign failed, and he abandoned the place.16 King Alfonso’s fortress cannot have been very significant as there is no trace of it. Ramón Berenguer IV’s conquest of Lleida, part of a strategic plan that included the capture of Fraga and Mequinenza, took place in October 1149. In fact, the count of Barcelona had already begun to seize key points near the city two years earlier.17 During the conquest, Ramón Berenguer and Ermengol 12 Hospitaller documents refer to it as claustro (“cloister”): ACA, Gran Priorato, Barberà, reg. 263 (Visita prioral de 1659), vol. 17, fol. 113r; likewise, at Gardeny: ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591), fol. 12v. 13 In inventories referred to as “sitja de la presó:” ACA, Gran Priorato, Barberà, reg. 264 (Visita prioral de 1661), fol. 3r. 14 Barberà: 25 meters; Miravet: 34 meters; Gardeny: 23 meters; and Castellote: 24 meters. 15 Josep Lladonosa i Pujol, La conquesta de Lleida (Barcelona 1961), 44. 16 Josep Lladonosa i Pujol, Història de Lleida, 2 vols. (Tàrrega 1972–1974), 1: 94. 17 Xavier Eritja Ciuró, “Estructuració feudal d’un nou territori al segle XII: L’exemple de Lleida,” in El feudalisme comptat i debatut: Formació i expansió del feudalisme català, ed. Miquel Barceló, Gaspar Feliu, Antoni Furió, Marina Miquel, and Jaume Sobrequés (Valencia 2003), 293–314, here 296.

130

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

de Urgell entered into a military participation agreement which was joined by a considerable part of the country’s nobility as well as other foreign noble vassals; however, the bulk of the army consisted of the Templar militia. According to the agreements, the Order of the Temple would hold one fifth of the conquered territory.18 Gardeny’s current fortified complex is the result of a great modification carried out by the military engineers of the modern wars of the Segadores (seventeenth century) and of the Succession (eighteenth century). Under these circumstances, the old Templar headquarters was requisitioned by the kings in order to control the city of Segre, and the castle was converted into a modern fortress surrounded by Vaubanian bastions, with a double enclosure and mock barbican. In the course of this reconversion, the high medieval walls and some of the buildings of the complex were demolished, namely, some from the Templar era and others, more modern ones, from the Hospitaller era.19 Later on, in modern times, Gardeny remained in the hands of the army until the 1950s and was sold to the city of Lleida a few years later. After a few years of neglect that left the castle in a sorry state, the city council finally decided to proceed with an ongoing restoration project that is intended to restore the monument’s dignity. The building elements that form today’s monumental complex at Gardeny basically reflect two clearly identifiable historical points in time: on the one hand, the architectural testimony to a unique medieval conventual space, first built by the Order of the Temple (twelfth to fourteenth centuries) and later under the domain of the Order of the Hospital (fourteenth to seventeenth centuries); on the other hand, the set of bastions that constitutes the new fortress, built in the middle of the seventeenth century and consolidated between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see Figures 6.7 and 6.8). While a significant portion of the medieval buildings is preserved, the current building bears little resemblance to the castle of the twelfth to seventeenth centuries. Probably the clearest evidence of this change, setting aside artistic liberties, can be found in the well-known view of the city of Lleida drawn in 1563 by Anton van den Wyngaerde (1525–1571) (see Figure 6.9). Thanks to this drawing, we can get a sense of Gardeny prior to its modern reconversion: a typical medieval castle with high walls, flanked by towers that surrounded and defended the current buildings and other now missing ones. The remodeling of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries profoundly modified the appearance of the old medieval complex to adapt it to the military needs of that point in time. The reconversion involved important works of adaptation and a leveling of the land, which presumably masked or completely replaced the previous walled perimeter. The Templar castle that has partially survived to this day was built by the Templars to serve as the headquarters of their commandery at Gardeny, one 18 Eritja Ciuró, “Estructuració feudal,” 307. 19 A walk through the round pass allows one to discover numerous ashlars with stonemason marks that are typical of Templar constructions, which were reused in the new construction.

131

JOAN FUGUET SANS

of the most important commanderies in the Order’s Catalan-Aragonese province, which initially held this key function jointly with Corbins.20 Gardeny was the type of fortress that featured a first nucleus (or upper enclosure), basically consisting of a residential tower, a church, and various service buildings; as well as a second enclosure (or lower enclosure), defined by a protective wall with towers.21 Apart from the modern renovations, all the wars have left their destructive marks on the walls of Gardeny, so that any attempt to identify the fortress built by the Templars runs into serious difficulties. Yet despite all this, the preserved medieval buildings of the upper enclosure, together with some written and graphical documentation from the time period prior to the great transformation, do facilitate an approach to the Templar fortress. In sum, of this old fortress only part of the wall on the north side of the lower enclosure has been preserved, as have two of the most important medieval buildings: the residential tower or palace and the conventual chapel, arranged at right angles and joined together by a corridor building. The complex originally comprised other significant spaces, such as the patio, the main cemetery, the minor cemetery, as well as other buildings – the refectory, the funerary chapel, the main cellar, the minor cellar, the kitchen, etc. – which were destroyed during the wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.22 The residential tower or palace (see Figures 6.10 and 6.11) consists of a large rectangular building (23.25 meters long by 7.5 meters wide) and a rectangular tower of much smaller dimensions (6.5 meters by 3.5 meters) that is attached to the former at the northwest corner. This tower connects to the head of the church via a corridor building. Both have two floors and a terrace. The naves on the lower and upper floors of the residential tower are covered by pointed barrel vaults: the lower one is semi-underground and measures 7.5 meters in height; the upper one is somewhat higher and measures 8.8 meters in height. The tower’s ground floor is covered by a quarter-barrel vault and the upper floor is covered by a pointed barrel vault. To enter the tower from the outside, one had to use wooden ladders, since the only access doors were located at the level of the upper floor, about 4 meters above ground, as was usual in these towers in order to make the building impregnable. Documentation from 20 For the Templar commandery, see Miret i Sans, Cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya; Forey, Templars in the ‘Corona de Aragón’; Fuguet Sans, “Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya;” Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya; Ramon Sarobe i Huesca, ed., Col·lecció diplomàtica de la Casa del Temple de Gardeny (1070–1200), 2 vols. (Barcelona 1999). 21 For the castle, see Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 160–72; Fuguet Sans, “Architecture militaire;” Joan Fuguet Sans, “Nuevas aportaciones al conocimiento del castillo templario de Gardeny (Lérida),” in Actas del II Congreso de Castellología Ibérica, 8 a 11 de noviembre de 2001, Alcalá de la Selva (Teruel), ed. Amador Ruibal Rodríguez (Madrid 2005), 563–84; Joan Fuguet Sans, “El castell templer de Gardeny: Arquitectura i pintura del castell a la llum de les recents excavacions i restauracions,” in Actes de la Jornada de Treball XLII: Romànic tardà a les Terres de Lleida, Estudis sobre Vilagrassa (Lleida 2013), 437–60. 22 Mentioned during the prior’s visit of 1591: ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591).

132

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

the sixteenth century explains that, at that time, people were still climbing up by using provisional ladders.23 The ground floor, situated semi-underground, was accessible only from the inside – from the first floor. In French donjons, this ground floor served as a storeroom for supplies, as a room for servants, and as a jail, and it may have had the same functions at Gardeny. Meanwhile, the first floor featured the armory as well as the chambers of the commander and the other Brothers, functions that would have continued during Hospitaller times. The first floor of the great hall had five loophole windows with interior recess, three to the east, one to the north, and one to the south. On the inside, the various floors are connected by spiral staircases that penetrate the thick wall; two are on the north side, one in the living room, and one in the annex tower. The interior rooms are very austere, since their only decoration consists of the molding that marks the beginning of the vault: it is a simple impost that outlines the arches of the windows and gives a touch of elegance to the room. The tower’s terrace is accessible and served as a watchtower and defense feature. During Hospitaller times, it was covered to serve as an attic. At its eastern end, the grand prior Requesens erected the torratxa (“lookout tower”) that is mentioned in the 1591 visitation document24 and can be appreciated in Wyngaerde’s drawing.25 In the latter, one can also see, at the western end, the lookout that the grand prior Miquel Ferrer ordered to be built in those years next to the cemetery;26 the main gate of the fortress on the south side, facing the river (on the opposite side of the current gate that gives access to the bastion);27 the belfry of the conventual chapel that is situated outside the complex; and other buildings that presumably disappeared during the castle’s modern reconversion.28 The church of Santa Maria de Gardeny (see Figures 6.12 and 6.13) – as was its dedication – is a very interesting singular building that belongs to the 23 ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591), fol. 13r: se.n pujaren per la scala amunt, y pujant per ella troben que és una part de pedra y molt vella y part de ella de fusta vella. 24 ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591), fol. 23v. 25 Richard L. Kagan, ed., Ciudades del Siglo de Oro: Las vistas españolas de Anton van den Wyngaerde (Madrid 1986), 155. 26 ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591), fol. 25v. 27 ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591), fol. 25r. The path that the visitors follow seems to make it clear where the door was in the old enclosure: they leave through the main door and walk to the right, toward the cemetery; in the corner, they happen upon viewpoint of Prior Ferrer, which is to the west. 28 The castle drawn by Wyngaerde is the Templar fortress with Hospitaller additions, just as it stood before the king seized it and ordered the medieval walls to be replaced by the modern bastions that we know today. Gardeny is part of the panoramic view of Lleida from the south, on the right bank of the river. It is one of those city views made according to an intuitive conical perspective even prior to the development of this system of representation. On Wyngaerde, see Juan Carlos Pardo González, “El Campo de Gibraltar en los dibujos de Anton van den Wyngaerde,” Almoraima: Revista de estudios campogibraltareños 20 (1998), 75–98. On Renaissance city views in general, see Federico Arévalo, La representación de la ciudad en el Renacimiento: Levantamiento urbano y territorial (Barcelona 2003), 193–7.

133

JOAN FUGUET SANS

transitional Romanesque style from the second half of the twelfth century. Unlike at Barberà and Miravet, where the church is on the first floor, here the building is free-standing and connected to the castle’s other rooms via an annexed corridor. As evidenced by recent archaeological surveys conducted by Xavier Payà Mercé,29 the church and the residential tower were initially independent buildings; the sacristy or corridor that joins them was built later. The church’s exterior appearance is very sober: powerful stone walls that are 1.5 meters thick, sturdy buttresses, and a wide frontispiece with a horizontal decoration. It has a rectangular floor plan with a single nave and a polygonal apse canonically oriented to the east. The church measures 25.5 meters in length by 7.5 meters in width and 10 meters in height. It is covered by a pointed barrel vault that starts from a very simple impost. There is a transverse arch, located toward the head about 6 meters from the apse, built in a proportionate classical order with attached columns and capitals; it is a double arch and counterpilaster, a typical formula of Cistercian architecture that was also common for civil and religious buildings of the Latin states in the Holy Land. However, it seems that this arch was not built in the twelfth century – at the same time as the church, since one can clearly see that it was superimposed later over an original window in the north wall that is currently blinded. It is likely that this transverse arch was built to reinforce the vault when, in the early thirteenth century, the side chapel was opened to the south, or, as Xavier Eritja Ciuró supposes,30 to form – together with the side chapels – a presbyterial space. In its current state, the apse is a problematic construction; in the first place, because it lacks the triumphal arch that Lluís Monreal has mistakenly assigned to it.31 It is polygonal and is built of stone up to the cornice, while its vault is a rough construction of brick arranged in rows. We do not know if it was left unfinished or if it was destroyed during the war of 1640.32 It connects via a narrow door to the corridor building that links the church and the tower.33 Between the transverse arch and the apse, there are two lateral chapels of unequal depth, one on each side of the presbytery, arranged in such a way to form a rudimentary transept. They are covered by a pointed barrel vault, 29 Xavier Payà Mercé, “INT-153 Castell de Gardeny: Memòria campanya juny 2005, Secció d’Arqueologia de l’Ajuntament de Lleida” (2005; unpublished), 5. 30 Xavier Eritja Ciuró and Laura Riudor, “Informe tècnic: Evolució històrica del conjunt monumental de Gardeny (s. XII–XX)” (Lleida 2002; unpublished), 36. 31 Lluís Monreal and Martí de Riquer, Els castells medievals de Catalunya, 2 vols. (Barcelona 1965). 32 Doubts concerning the apse’s chronology are reflected in my first two essays on Gardeny: in the first (Fuguet Sans, “Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya,” 211), I thought it had been built at the same time as the nave; in the second (Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 168), I thought it had been built later. Recent archaeological surveys – conducted prior to the restoration of the church – have shown that the apse is contemporary to the nave: Isabel Gil Gabernet, “Memòria del seguiment arqueològic de les obres de restauració de l’església de Santa Maria de Gardeny, 2010–2011” (Lleida 2011; unpublished), 9; Eritja Ciuró and Riudor, “Informe tècnic,” 14, share this opinion. 33 In the eighteenth century, a separation wall was built between the apse and the nave in order to use it as a depot for gunpowder.

134

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

perpendicular to the nave. In the middle of the thirteenth century, the side chapel to the north was dedicated to Santa Ana and the side chapel to the south was dedicated to San Salvador.34 The south chapel has been instrumental for the dating of the church at Gardeny; firstly, because it can be seen that it was built later than the actual church since the stones of its walls, viewed from the outside, ostensibly overlap one of the church’s buttresses; secondly, because the wall paintings35 that decorated this chapel – discovered a few decades ago – date from the mid-thirteenth century.36 Therefore, the construction of the church must have taken place at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The north chapel appears to be contemporary to the church. It could be the benefice established by the counts of Urgell in 1161.37 However, since this is the part of the building most altered by later works, its chronology is not clear at all. It is likely that its construction is related to the window that is walled up by the nave’s arch. The ornamentation of the nave itself is minimal and sober. Initially, there were two doors: the western one, which connected to the cemetery or galilee, and the north one, which led to the gallery38 and patio. This north door, which was the main entrance, is a very particular example in the austere context of Gardeny’s military architecture, as it is formed by a series of molded and receding concentric arches. Its inner arch is decorated with concave chevrons. The western façade must have been as we see it today: a large rectangular screen, bare and flat, with the door’s and window’s voussoirs as its only ornaments. It was topped by a belfry with two windows, as drawn by Wyngaerde. Two meters above the western door, one can still see the remains of the seven corbels of the portico cemetery for important individuals, documented during the prior’s 1591 visitation.39 During the excavations carried out in the castle in 2010 and 2011, three cist tombs (i.e., stone-built coffins) were found on the south side of the church, which could predate the Templar castle.40 It is probable that the castle’s cemetery area was located on the west side, where – years ago – in the course of some works many human remains were discovered.41 Externally, the pressure of the heavy vault is counteracted by five powerful buttresses with stepped leads, three to the south and two to the north; none of them match up with the transverse arch inside. These buttresses were built at the 34 Eritja Ciuró and Riudor, “Informe tècnic,” 8. 35 Joan Fuguet Sans, “Pinturas, miniaturas y graffiti de los Templarios en la Corona de Aragón,” in Religiones Militares, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Francesco Tommasi (Perugia 2008), 237–64. 36 Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 172–6. 37 Miret i Sans, Cases de Templers y Hospitalers en Catalunya, 73. 38 The 2010–2011 archaeological survey has also uncovered the foundations of the gallery wall: Gil Gabernet, “Memòria,” 22. 39 ACA, Gran Priorato, Gardeny, reg. 224 (Visita prioral de 1591), fol. 12v. 40 Gil Gabernet, “Memòria,” 19. 41 Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 171.

135

JOAN FUGUET SANS

same time as the nave, or immediately thereafter, and are typically Romanesque in their function. Their external appearance, forming stepped surfaces, evokes those built in twelfth-century France and introduced into Catalonia during the second half of the thirteenth century. The Gardeny buttresses, which are reminiscent of certain Occitan Templar chapels studied by Anne-Marie Legras,42 are unusual in the context of Catalan architecture from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, and for this reason some scholars have considered dating them later.43 However, since the painted chapel dates back to the mid-thirteenth century and is upheld by the buttresses, the buttresses must predate the chapel. The church’s sculptural ornamentation is as scarce on the outside as it is on the inside. In addition to the main door, we have only found a cornice with corbels in the chapel on the south side. The starkness and massive character of the walls, the buttresses, and – above all – the wide western frontispiece give this church a very remarkable appearance of soberness and military strength. The materials and construction techniques used for the church are the same as the ones used for the palace building. In both buildings the ashlars feature incised stonemason marks. The church is documented in the middle of the twelfth century, when the commandery was installed, and the architectural elements and stonework correspond to this time. The fortress at Gardeny, both its upper enclosure with the palace building and the church, was built immediately after the establishment of the Templar commandery. Based on the structure of the walls and the roof – thick walls with buttresses and a pointed barrel vault, the church is a typical construction that follows the Romanesque patterns of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, with an evident Occitan and French influence that manifests itself in the buttresses and the polygonal apse – unusual in Catalonia but common in the northern lands since the early Romanesque period. The church, the palace building, and the rest of the buildings in the upper enclosure must have been built during the fifties and sixties of the twelfth century. The works probably did not take longer than ten years, something that is not so exceptional if one considers that both the times and the location were particularly dangerous and demanded speed. One should remember in this context that the construction of the castle at Peníscola at the end of the thirteenth century, a time of much less defensive urgency, took only thirteen years.44 Josep Lladonosa i Pujol has suggested, with good reason in my opinion, that Gardeny was probably built by the same stonemasons that later worked on the Seu Vella (cathedral) in Lleida.45 Gardeny castle was probably one of the first 42 Anne-Marie Legras, Les commanderies des Templiers et des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem en Saintonge et en Aunis (Paris 1983). 43 Dalmases and José i Pitarch, Història de l’Art Català, 93. 44 Joan Fuguet Sans, “Els castells templers de Gardeny i Miravet i el seu paper innovador en la poliorcètica i l’arquitectura catalanes del segle XII,” Acta Mediaevalia 13 (1992): 353–74, here 362. 45 Lladonosa i Pujol, Història de Lleida, 250.

136

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

important construction projects for the companies of Occitan stonemasons working in the city. The typology of certain structural and formal elements, such as the nave covered by a pointed barrel vault with a molding that marks the beginning of the vault, the semi-circular window and the double overflow at the south façade, the stepped-lead buttresses, and the arched door with its voussoirs and various decorative elements, all appear to foreshadow solutions that would later be used in the Catalan architecture of the School of Lleida (Escola de Lleida) and the original Cistercian churches.

The castle of Miravet In recent years, some border castles of the Templars and Hospitallers in the lands of the Catalan Ebro have undergone excavations and/or restorations of various kinds and magnitudes. Such is the case with the Templar fortress of Miravet (Tarragona), built between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries on an earlier Andalusian settlement. Four years after the conquest of Lleida on 24 August 1153, Ramón Berenguer IV, continuing his campaign to conquer the lands of the Ebro, managed to occupy one of its main military places: the castle of Miravet. Adhering to the 1143 treaties of Gerona, the count ceded the castle to the Templars, together with its immense territories that included a large part of the current regions of Terra Alta and Ribera d’Ebre: Gandesa, Corbera, Algars, Batea, Pinell, Rasquera, and the town of Miravet itself. From that moment until the middle of the thirteenth century, the colonization and development of the Templar domain took place with the arrival of the Christian population. In 1156, the Templars established the headquarters of an important commandery in the castle of Miravet which, together with the commandery of Tortosa, functioned as a dual headquarters to administer the “Ribera district.”46 This “district” subsequently also incorporated the commanderies of Horta (1193) and Ascó with Riba-roja (1210), and it functioned as such until 1236 when it was dissolved. From then on, these commanderies became independent, except for those at Algars, Gandesa, and Nonaspe which remained linked to Miravet as sub-commanderies (during the final years of the Order of the Temple, the commandery of Torres de Segre would still be incorporated with Miravet-Gebut). After the dissolution of the “Ribera district,” each house took charge of managing a group of towns according to more or less geographical criteria.47

46 Laureà Pagarolas i Sabaté, Els templers de les terres de l’Ebre (Tortosa): De Jaume I a l’abolició de l’Ordre (1213–1312) (Tarragona 1999), 114–16, uses the term distrito (“district”) to highlight its territorial and administrative character halfway between a commandery and a province, controlled by the commander of Ribera. 47 Miravet, Pinell de Brai, Corbera, Benissanet, Gandesola, Ginestar, Rasquera, and La Pobla de Massaluca were assigned to the commandery of Miravet.

137

JOAN FUGUET SANS

Despite the decentralization that led to the disappearance of the “district,” Miravet continued to play a leading role due to its titular commander who became one of the most relevant officials in the Templars’ Catalan-Aragonese province. In addition to exercising a first-class military function – especially in its early days, the castle of Miravet served as a significant administrative and political center in the “district.” Due to a lack of studies, we do not know its economic potential, but agriculture, livestock, and manufacturing were undoubtedly very important as evidenced by a 1289 inventory published by Joaquim Miret i Sans.48 At the end of the thirteenth century, the Templars’ provincial masters adopted the custom of using fixed places to keep their treasury (before then they had carried it from place to place in an itinerant fashion), so they installed a central repository at Miravet to store the Order’s treasury and archives. Built next to the Ebro on a bend that rises about 100 meters above the river (see Figure 6.14), Miravet castle is a fortress with an oval perimeter that adapts to the orography of the rock.49 Starting from the Andalusian substrate, the Templars used the space of the celloquia and turned it into an upper enclosure where they raised the main buildings, arranging them in a square around a courtyard according to the classical castrum scheme. Miravet’s arrangement preserves the outline of the Muslim albacar50 (apart from the fact that the wall may have been 48 Joaquim Miret i Sans, “Inventaris de les cases del Temple de la Corona d’Aragó en 1289,” Boletín de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona 42 (1911): 61–75. 49 On Miravet, see Pasqual Ortega Pérez, Propietats i rendes de l’Orde de Sant Joan a la vila de Miravet d’Ebre i una descripció del seu castell, segons un document del segle XVII (Miravet 1986); Albert Curto i Homedes, “Resultats de les prospeccions arqueològiques al castell de Miravet,” Acta Arqueològica de Tarragona 1 (1987–1988): 49–61; Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 81–9; Joan Fuguet Sans, “De Miravet (1153) a Peníscola (1294): Novedad y persistencia de un modelo de fortaleza templaria en la provincia catalano-aragonesa de la orden,” 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), 43–67; [Various authors], “Miravet,” in Catalunya Romànica, XXVI: Tortosa i les terres de l’Ebre, la Llitera i el Baix Cinca: Obra no arquitectònica, dispersa i restaurada (Barcelona 1997), 190–7; Pere Lluís Artigues Conesa, “El castell de Miravet: Darreres actuacions,” Tribuna d’Arqueología, 1995–1996 (1997): 39–60; Pere Lluís Artigues Conesa, Immaculada Mesas, and Eduard Riu-Barrera, “El castell templer de Miravet, els seus precedents i transformacions (Miravet, Ribera d’Ebre),” Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2011–2012, available online, accessed 27 September 2020, https://tribunadarqueologia.blog.gencat.cat/2012/06/01/tribuna-darqueologia-2011-2012-el-castell-templer-de-miravet-els-seus-precedents-i-transformacions-miravet-ribera-debre/; Joan Fuguet Sans and Carme Plaza Arqué, Los templarios, guerreros de Dios: Entre Oriente y Occidente (Barcelona 2013). Carles Brull Casadó, Esther Colls Rissech, and Alfred Pastor Mongrell, “Treballs realitzats i previstos al castell de Miravet: Evolució d’un assentament estratègic,” in Fortificaciones: Intervenciones en el patrimonio defensivo, Actas del XXXIV curset, Jornadas Internacionales sobre la intervención del Patrimonio Arquitectònico, Barcelona i Tortosa, 15 al 18 de noviembre de 2011 (Barcelona-Tortosa 2011), 103–14; Joan Fuguet Sans, “Miravet: Un gran castell templer,” Miscel·lània del Centre d’Estudis de la Ribera d’Ebre 27 (2017): 297–331. 50 According to some authors, the albacar was an enclosure to keep livestock, while for others, the albacar housed people and was part of the fortification of a hisn. For good discussion, see André Bazzana, Patrice Cressier, and Pierre Guichard, Les châteaux ruraux d’al-Andalus: Histoire et archéologie des husun du sud-est de l’Espagne (Madrid 1988), 28–32.

138

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

rebuilt in later times) which descended toward the river, forming two terraces that constitute a lower enclosure where the Templars constructed various minor service buildings (a small chapel, stables, a cistern, etc.). Outside, on the western slope and sheltered by the castle, the old suburb (neighborhood) of the Muslim population that had remained there after the conquest was preserved.51 The upper enclosure consists of a group of residential and service buildings (see Figure 6.15). At the corners and on the west side of the enclosure, there are prismatic towers (in Templar documents, the northeastern tower which protects the access to the lower enclosure is called the torre del tresor, i.e., the “tower of the treasury”). The walls and towers had a walkway and, like the wall of the albacar, also must have had merlons. On the four sides, the buildings were distributed in a rational way. On the north side, there were service rooms on the ground floor, the chapel and the gallery on the main floor, and the bedrooms and terrace on the upper floor. Above the gallery is the “commander’s room” which was erected following the same process as the church and the gallery. It is a long room with masonry walls and a fat barrel vault. Originally, a thin wall divided the long room into two parts. The western part was shorter and had the vault and wall decorated in tempera, using red and black to create a mock ashlar effect. It was probably the chapel of the last commander, Berenguer de Sant Just, where he and his nephews took refuge in December 1308 when the castle surrendered to the king’s troops.52 On the south side, which is in the worst state of preservation, there was the entrance door to the upper enclosure, the guardhouse, and several rooms. The eastern side was largely occupied by a one-story building which, according to documents from the Hospitaller era, served as the refectory,53 as well as a large cistern. Finally, the western side had buildings for services whose exact function is difficult to determine since they were demolished centuries ago. Fortunately, the outer wall and flanking towers have been preserved and are nowadays among the castle’s most spectacular features (see Figure 6.16). The entrance door to this upper enclosure is located at the southeastern corner; it is accessed from the lower enclosure and at the entrance forms a tunnel with a ramp and turns. The best-preserved buildings in this part of the castle are those to the north: the chapel, the gallery, and the service rooms; and those to the east: the refectory and the cistern. In all cases, their construction is solid, perfect, and very austere. The chapel is located on the building’s first floor; it has a single nave and a semicircular apse preceded by a triumphal arch (see Figure 6.17). The apse connects, like a sacristy, to the first floor of the treasury tower (where the archive 51 The documents refer to it as Blora: Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2: 87. The old town has disappeared, but the place name survives. 52 Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2: 177. 53 Ortega Pérez, Propietats i rendes, 11.

139

JOAN FUGUET SANS

and treasury were located). A slightly pointed barrel vault covers the nave, and another, with a quarter sphere, covers the apse; in both cases, the beginning of the vault is indicated by a very simple impost. The chapel’s interior is dark and severe; it receives some light from three loopholes on the north side and a rose window on the west side. Inside, 2 meters from the ground, one can see some crosses that are incised and arranged in a circle: they are the consecration crosses that we can find in any church, be it a Templar church or not.54 At the foot of the nave, a spiral staircase that penetrates the wall goes up to the terrace. The church is entered from the south side, from the gallery-portico that is in front of it. The refectory is a large rectangular hall that occupies over half of the castle’s eastern part; its construction is similar to that of the chapel, also bare but less severe, and it is accessed from the patio. The refectory’s windows open to the lower enclosure; at present, they are quite altered, but originally they were biforas with mullions of columns and capitals. The walls of all these buildings have a considerable thickness and are built with a significant core of masonry, covered with ashlars of very good isodomic rigging. The vaults in the chapel, the refectory, and the gallery are also constructed with ashlars, while the vaults in the lower rooms and in the residential building above the gallery are made from formwork masonry. In many of the external and internal walls there are significant remains of ashlar joints made of lime mortar and local sand. Their function was to improve the impermeability of the walls and vaults, preventing the infiltration of water. In addition, here they had a decorative and symbolic purpose.55 In the castle, Templar work can clearly be appreciated on the north and east sides where the main buildings were located. Its defensive capacities were put to the test when the Templars of Miravet resisted Jaime II’s troops for a year in 1308–1309. It was equipped for (then) modern poliorcetics due to its 27-meter-high towers, as well as high stone walls of considerable thickness that supported wide platforms to set up military machines (trebuchets, catapults, etc.) to shoot stones of large size and fire bolts against the royal troops and onto the Blora neighborhood which was totally destroyed.56 Toward the end of the eighties of the last century, an initial small-budget archaeological survey took place in Miravet’s so-called refectory.57 This was 54 They have also been preserved at Gardeny. In Templar chapels, these crosses were sometimes painted: Fuguet Sans, Arquitectura dels templers a Catalunya, 168–9; Gaetano Curzi, La pittura dei templari (Milan 2002). 55 Sarah Boularand, Pilar Giráldez, Lourdes Ventolà, and Màrius Vendrell-Saz, “Templar Joint Repointings: Materials, Techniques, and Paint Decoration in Miravet Castle, Spain,” Archaeometry 53, no. 4 (2011): 743–52. 56 Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2: 87; Alan J. Forey, “The Military Orders and the Spanish Reconquest in the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries,” Traditio 40 (1984): 197–234; Paul E. Chevedden, “The Artillery of King James I the Conqueror,” in Iberia and the Mediterranean World of the Middle Ages, Volume 2: Studies in Honor of Robert I. Burns. S.J., ed. Paul E. Chevedden, Donald J. Kagay, and Paul G. Padilla (Leiden 1996), 47–94, here figure 10. 57 Curto i Homedes, “Resultats.”

140

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

followed by other, larger surveys in the following decade,58 accompanied by the first restoration work on the complex’s northern wing. The last campaign, which started in 2010,59 has been especially relevant because it enables us to verify different aspects that are related to the construction of this Templar castle. These aforementioned excavations (see Figures 6.18 and 6.19) have uncovered five masonry cylinders of 1.80 meters in diameter and 2.50 meters in height in the refectory’s subsoil, settled on the bedrock – which, at this juncture, forms a slope or step between the upper enclosure and the lower one – and arranged in an orderly fashion along the building work’s longitudinal axis. This suggests an initial project to cover the building with a ribbed vault, which probably had to be abandoned for structural reasons (one cylinder is slightly leaning). These (buried) cylinders would have fixed the pillars that, in conjunction with wall brackets, had to support a ribbed vault. In the same subsoil, in the area adjacent to the parade ground, the foundations of the old Andalusian wall that used to close the celloquia on its southeastern side have been uncovered. This wall ran along the upper platform in a north-south direction, just at the edge of the 6-meter gap that separates the great refectory hall from the lower enclosure. The curtain wall that has been unearthed from the Andalusian wall – about 30 meters long – had two rectangular, flanking half-towers and was built of mud with a masonry base. The Templars demolished it and built their refectory on the aforementioned slope. To do so, they raised the western wall in the upper enclosure (parade ground), approximately following the line of the ruined Andalusian wall, and built the eastern wall on the lower platform which stands at a height of under 6 meters. To bring the level of the refectory floor to the level of the parade ground, they filled it with debris from the Andalusian wall, which has been fortunate for the current investigation because the excavations have uncovered a good number of whole blocks from the old mud wall scattered throughout the subsoil. The excavations illustrate the Templars’ interest in making tabula rasa of the Andalusian construction and calls into question any claims that tend to minimize the Templars’ active role in the construction of the castle’s upper enclosure60 by arguing that the Templar work that closes the castle to the west was limited to taking advantage of the Andalusian wall by building it up on the outside with ashlar masonry. Such claims are not very demonstrable if one considers that the wall is 5 meters thick, while the masonry barely exceeds 1 meter: a wall of such thickness (namely, 4 meters) would not have been customary in Andalusian husun. In my opinion, as long as archaeological research does not clearly resolve the construction and constitution of this wall, any further speculation is meaningless. The authorship (Andalusian or Templar) of the southern side, which contains the access ramp to the upper enclosure, is more difficult to identify due to its 58 Artigues Conesa, “Castell de Miravet,” 39–60. 59 Artigues Conesa, Mesas, and Riu-Barrera, “Castell templer de Miravet.” 60 [Various authors], “Miravet,” 190–7.

141

JOAN FUGUET SANS

deterioration and numerous remodeling efforts during modern and contemporary times.61 The characteristics of this sector in its current state, lower than the others and with an exaggerated thickness that exceeds 10 meters, are complex.

Conclusion The comparison between these three castles leads to several findings that can be extrapolated to other fortresses in the Crown of Aragón. Firstly, it should be noted that the original settlement, Christian or Arab, conditioned the buildings’ layout and the preservation of certain elements prior to the Templars’ occupation of these sites. Thus, while the tower and the eleventh-century wall have survived at Barberà, there are no traces of the previous husun at Gardeny and Miravet, although the enclosure’s respective layout has survived in all cases. The verification of this fact allows us to prove that the Templars, like so many other feudal lords, were willing to humiliate the enemy by making Muslim construction (which, in fact, in many cases was just simple brickwork) disappear. The Christian expansion was characterized by reconverting the Muslim fortresses, replacing their horizontal mud constructions with tall, vertical stone donjons. Thus, the visibility and the material – the height and thickness of the walls and the use of well-carved stones instead of mud – symbolized the new power of this new hierarchical society and, at the same time, distanced itself from contemporary Muslim constructions.62 The recent archaeological discovery of the Andalusian brick wall at Miravet is an eloquent example of the Templars’ intention to transform an Andalusian hisn into a powerful and high stone fortress, a symbol of the Templar domain in the “Ribera district,” probably to show – by means of the new Christian building with its good ashlar rigging – the superiority of its newly established lordship. Thus, the new castle was a symbol of the new power. Secondly, many Catalan Templar castles were organized around a courtyard. It is possible that this was the original layout of the Templar fortress at Barberà, although it is impossible to confirm this because of the ephemeral construction of some of its buildings. And while Gardeny seems to have a different layout, its preserved buildings, the tower, and the chapel are connected and probably featured construction at the north side that formed a courtyard and a high wall that surrounded the complex. Except at Barberà, the entrance to the enclosures was normally fashioned in a bend, a widely used formula whose origin must be sought in Arab architecture. 61 Due to its orographical situation, this side enjoyed natural defenses, which allowed it to not be excessively reinforced. This favorable circumstance changed dramatically with the advent of artillery: in the course of modern wars, it was damaged severely from the opposite bank of the Ebro. 62 A usual procedure in fortresses built on ancient husun: Pascal Buresi, “Nommer, penser les frontières en Espagne,” in Identidad y representación de la frontera en la España medieval (siglos XI–XIV): Seminario celebrado en la Casa de Velázquez y la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 14–15 de diciembre 1998, ed. Carlos de Ayala Martínez, Pascal Buresi, and Philippe Josserand (Madrid 2001), 51–74.

142

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

Miravet is the most significant example of a layout in a square and constitutes the oldest and most paradigmatic example of the modern typology of castle that arranges the buildings around a courtyard. This fortress, built in the mid-twelfth century immediately after its conquest, is one of the earliest examples in both East and West of a rectangular castle of the castrum type. Miravet’s towers and walls on the west side are 27 meters high, and their thickness of 5 meters (often attributed to a bend in the previous Andalusian wall) represents a parallel to the reinforcement of the walls carried out in the castles of the East since the middle of the twelfth century to counter the new war machines. Also, at Miravet – and likewise at Peníscola and Castellote63 – the advanced towers on the south side (i.e., the river side) served as platforms to set up military machines.64 None of the castles mentioned here had a double enclosure. The concentric enclosures found in fortresses in the Holy Land65 and the West are not frequent in the Crown of Aragón (according to what has been preserved). That does not mean that they were inferior defensive constructions since the orography of the land renders such concentric enclosures unnecessary. Thirdly, it is important to highlight the structural similarity of the buildings that make up the fortresses studied here. In many cases, such as in Miravet and Gardeny, there was a cistern located in the upper enclosure and built with ashlar masonry. Other important buildings include the knights’ hall (the “refectory” of the Hospitaller documents), which in reality must have been a multipurpose room, and the chapel. In most of the castles of the Catalan-Aragonese Crown, such as Castellote, Peníscola, and Monzón, the knights’ halls are covered by a pointed barrel vault. At Gardeny, we find a decorative solution for the knights’ hall that is used abundantly in Syrian architecture: the impost of the vault is not interrupted when it reaches the windows; rather, it traces them, forming an arch. The knights’ hall at Miravet might have had a different layout if the supposed original project had been carried out, which would bring it formally closer to the Cistercian construction at neighboring Poblet monastery, the refectories of the Hospitallers (like the one in Acre), or the Templars’ upper room at Safita tower (Syria). The chapels of these Templar castles – like most in the Crown of Aragón – feature a single nave with a more or less pointed barrel vault and very similar measurements. The chapel at Barberà has smaller measurements and a flat head 63 Joan Fuguet Sans, “Nuevas aportaciones al estudio de los castillos del Temple y del Hospital de la Corona de Aragón,” in Castelos das Ordens Militares: Actas do Encontro Internacional [Tomar, 10 a 13 de outubro de 2012], ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Lisbon 2014), 11–28; Vera Hofbauerová and Carme Plaza Arqué, “Dos castillos templarios en el norte del reino de Valencia: Xivert y Peníscola,” in Castelos das Ordens Militares, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 45–62. 64 Hugh Kennedy, Crusader Castles (Cambridge 1994); David Nicolle, Medieval Siege Weapons (2): Byzantium, the Islamic World, and India, AD 476–1526 (Oxford 2003). 65 Adrian J. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlement and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120–1291) (London-New York 2006); Ronnie Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories (Cambridge 2007).

143

JOAN FUGUET SANS

while all the others have an apse. These chapels are examples of transitional Romanesque architecture – solid, austere, and close to Cistercian aesthetics. Gardeny’s apse is polygonal, while that of Miravet is semicircular on the inside and rectangular on the outside, a solution that, although frequent in the castles of the Holy Land, should not be attributed to an Eastern influence since it is, in fact, a very old feature of Western religious architecture,66 common during the first half of the twelfth century in the military architecture of Catalonia.67 A simple observation reveals the similarity of the chapels in Catalan Templar castles (Miravet, Gardeny, Monzón, and Peníscola) and those of Hospitaller and Templar fortresses in Syria (Krak des Chevaliers, Margat, and Safita),68 even with regard to their dimensions which range from 21 to 25 meters.69 Yet while these buildings present the same construction, typology, and style solutions in general terms, there are some differences: in Syrian chapels the vault is reinforced by transverse arches, while in Catalan chapels the vault is continuous. In Margat chapel, the covering system of the nave is different, since – instead of a barrel vault – an edge vault is used, a common formula in Eastern military architecture that is not found in any of the Catalan chapels but is a typical feature of the Cistercian Romanesque style. A joint characteristic of the apses of all these Western and Eastern chapels is their external appearance in the form of a powerful tower: in the plan, the apsidal semicircle appears surrounded by a polygonal on several sides. The presence of a lateral gallery is a rarity in the medieval churches of the Crown of Aragón; however, it is a frequent occurrence in the chapels of the main Templar castles. Those at Barberà and Miravet are still preserved, while only traces remain at Gardeny. The function of these galleries was similar to the cloisters of monasteries.70 In summary, the typology of the castles described here follows the construction schemes of military architecture from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.71 The Templars did not carry out construction programs that differed from those carried out by other military orders or Christian lords; their architecture 66 Camille Enlart, Les monuments des croisés dans le royaume de Jérusalem: Architecture religieuse et civile, 2 vols. (Paris 1925–1928), 1: 45–6. 67 José Puig i Cadafalch, Antonio de Falguera, and José Goday, L’arquitectura romànica a Catalunya, 3 vols. (Barcelona 1909–1918). 68 Joan Fuguet Sans and Carme Plaza Arqué, “Notas sobre arquitectura militar y religiosa del Temple de la Corona de Aragón y su relación con Oriente,” in As Ordens Militares: Freires, Guerreiros, Cavaleiros: Actas do VI Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, Palmela, 10 a 14 de Marção de 2010, vol. 2, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela 2012), 869–98. 69 Denys Pringle, “Castle Chapels in the Frankish East,” in La fortification au temps des Croisades: Actes du colloque international tenu au Palais des congrès de Parthenay, 26–28 septembre 2002, ed. Nicolas Faucherre, Jean Mesqui, and Nicolas Prouteau (Rennes 2004), 25–41. 70 Enlart, Monuments, 1: 53–4. 71 It should be noted that the same typology can be observed at Peníscola castle, built at the end of the thirteenth century: Fuguet Sans, “De Miravet (1153) a Peníscola (1294),” 43–67.

144

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

in the East and West belongs to the late Romanesque and proto-Gothic style, adapted and integrated into the construction traditions of their host countries. In the Holy Land, the knowledge of new defensive systems – which were actually not new but, rather, part of the Roman-Byzantine legacy (although perhaps more frequently used in the East) – led the Templars to carry out a synthesis that is evidenced by the great castles of the thirteenth century. In the West, the crusader kings of France and England adopted these innovations in their fortresses. The same happened in the Crown of Aragón, but in this case the castles were in the hands of the military orders, had perhaps a head-start of a few years, and – as an added factor – the contact with and the legacy of the Arab fortresses of the Andalusian caliphate (like the one at Tarifa, Cádiz), as well as that of the Catalan and Aragonese castles (like Llordà and Loarre) which were themselves heirs to the Roman-Byzantine knowledge concerning poliorcetics. The variant that generated Catalan Templar architecture – and the respective architecture throughout the Crown of Aragón – arranged the buildings around a courtyard that was more or less rectangular; minimized the main tower that was intended as a donjon; equipped the buildings with wide terraces for defense and attack; and often avoided the construction of ditches and moats because of the steep orography of the lands in which the Templars had settled. Translated from the Spanish by Jochen Burgtorf

145

JOAN FUGUET SANS

Figure 6.1 Templar commanderies in the Crown of Aragon Source: Map, Joan Fuguet Sans

146

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

Figure 6.2 Barberà Castle, general plan Source: Drawing, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.3 Barberà Castle, chapel, plan and sections Source: Drawing, Joan Fuguet Sans

147

148

Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.4 Barberà Castle, seen from the east

JOAN FUGUET SANS

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

Figure 6.5 Barberà Castle, chapel, interior Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.6 Barberà Castle, main east façade Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

149

JOAN FUGUET SANS

Figure 6.7 Gardeny Castle, general plan Source: Drawing from nineteenth-century plans, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.8 Gardeny Castle, buildings, plan and section Source: Drawing, Joan Fuguet Sans, 1989

150

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

Figure 6.9 Gardeny Castle, view from the south Source: According to Anton van den Wyngaerde, 1563, public domain

Figure 6.10 Gardeny Castle, palace, seen from the northeast Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

151

JOAN FUGUET SANS

Figure 6.11 Gardeny Castle, palace, interior Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.12 Gardeny Castle, church, seen from the southwest Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

152

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

Figure 6.13 Gardeny Castle, church, interior Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

153

JOAN FUGUET SANS

Figure 6.14 Miravet Castle, aerial view Source: Photo, courtesy of Raimon, Mora d’Ebre, 1985

154

155

Source: Drawing, according to Pasqual Ortega, 1986, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.15 Miravet Castle, plan and section

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

JOAN FUGUET SANS

Figure 6.16 Miravet Castle, general view of the western wall Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.17 Miravet Castle, conventual church, interior Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

156

C A S T L E S O F B A R B E R À , G A R D E N Y, A N D M I R A V E T

Figure 6.18 Miravet Castle, refectory, section and plan, showing the 2011 excavations Source: Drawing, Joan Fuguet Sans

Figure 6.19 Miravet Castle, refectory, after the 2011 excavations Source: Photo, Joan Fuguet Sans

157

Part II FALL

7 THE “LOST BOYS” OF THE TEMPLARS Some remarks on the life of the Templar corsair Roger de Flor Christian Vogel

The Templars lived as a community in their convents in the Levant and throughout Europe. However, there were different kinds of convents: some featured numerous inhabitants, both knights and servants, others were little houses with only a few servants, just as many as needed to administer the estates that were entrusted to them. Every Templar knight or servant was the member of a convent which, according to the Templar Rule, meant a group of at least two persons to ensure a minimum of social control over all members present.1 Many members, especially those who entered the Order at a later stage of their lives, were not accustomed to spending their days in a monastically inspired community. Thus, the question arises whether it was possible to maintain the appropriate level of social control throughout the Order, even in a simple commandery, to ensure obedience to the Rule and to the vows taken by each Templar during his reception. A few cases reported after the Order’s dissolution cast doubt on the assumption that, before the Trial, the Order’s internal control mechanisms worked perfectly.2 This issue was a consequence of everyday circumstances. Most commanderies in the West were simple economic units, inhabited merely by a small number of Templar servants. In some areas, there were Templar houses with just one Templar resident. A similar and yet somewhat different situation arose aboard Templar ships where the absence of social control could be even more pronounced. This chapter will examine the life of a Templar servant of the Order’s 1 La règle du Temple, ed. Henri de Curzon (Paris 1886), 46 § 41: Et ici poent aler II freres ensembles, et en autre maniere ne voisent de jor ne de nuit. 2 Christian Vogel, “Templar Runaways and Renegades before, during and after the Trial,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 317–26.

161

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

naval staff. It will focus on the most famous Templar captain, Roger de Flor, to shed some light on the Order’s maritime affairs and everyday life. Unfortunately, there is not enough information to imagine the everyday life aboard a Templar ship, but a few remarks in the Order’s statutes and several details mentioned by Ramon Muntaner in his biography of Roger de Flor at least help us to draw an incomplete picture. The Order’s retrais (a type of statutes) mention ships belonging to the Order’s house in Acre. This means that there must have been some naval activities at that time, for the retrais can be dated to the late twelfth century.3 In 1207, there were some Venetians on Templar ships traveling to the Holy Land.4 Such ships served primarily commercial purposes or were used for the transport of pilgrims. The Templars probably began with military campaigns at sea after the battle of Hattin (1187).5 Both Templars and Hospitallers played an active role in maritime warfare before Damietta in 1218.6 According to Malcolm Barber, the Templars had increased their maritime activities by the 1230s, and he assumes that their Mediterranean fleet developed to transport “men and supplies” from the West to the Holy Land.7 The main ports in the western Mediterranean were Marseille, the primary harbor on the southern French coast, as well as the seaports of Apulia on the Adriatic coast.8 Commercial traffic connected Apulia directly with the Holy Land.9 Calabria was less frequently used as a starting point 3 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 99–100 § 119; see Christian Vogel, Das Recht der Templer: Ausgewählte Aspekte des Templerrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Statutenhandschriften aus Paris, Rom, Baltimore und Barcelona 33 (Münster 2007), 107. For the maritime activities of the Knights Templar, see Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994), 2, 237–41, 291–4; Alain Demurger, Die Templer: Aufstieg und Untergang 1120–1314, 4th ed. (Munich 2005), 176–8. 4 Documenti del commercio veneziano nei secoli XI–XIII, ed. Raimundo Morozzo della Rocca and Antonio Lombardo (Turin 1940), 2: 27–8 no. 487: si Deus nos ambos iudicaverit ante quam revertamur in Venecia de peregrinacione qua imus Ultramare cum nave Militum Templi Yerosolimitani; see Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Carrefour de la Méditerranée et arrière-pays de la croisade: Les ordres religieux militaires et la mer au royaume de Sicile,” in Les Ordres militaires et la mer: Actes de 130e congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, La Rochelle 2005, ed. Michel Balard (Paris 2009), 103–10, here 104. 5 Pierre-Vincent Claverie, “Quelques réflexions sur les activités navales des ordres militaires,” in Ordres militaires et la mer, ed. Balard, 9–19, here 10. 6 Pierre-Vincent Claverie, “La marine du Temple dans l’Orient des croisades,” in Ordres militaires et la mer, ed. Balard, 47–59, here 49. 7 Barber, New Knighthood, 2. See also Jürgen Sarnowsky, “The Military Orders and Their Navies,” in The Military Orders, Volume 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Aldershot 2008), 41–56, here 50. Whereas the Teutonic Knights cooperated very closely with the Venetians, the Templars and the Hospitallers kept their “maritime autonomy:” Toomaspoeg, “Carrefour,” 105. 8 The Templars did not just have ships in the Mediterranean. For the Atlantic coast, they obtained a royal permission for the transport of wine from La Rochelle where the local commandery of the Order had at least three ships; see Jean-Claude Bonnin, “Les Templiers et la mer: L’example de La Rochelle,” in La commanderie: Institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiévale, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Léon Pressouyre (Paris 2002), 307–17, here 312. On the eastern Adriatic coast, the Templars were active as well; see Barber, New Knighthood, 238. It was noted that they built ships at Zara in 1242. 9 Mariarosaria Salerno, “Templari ed Ospitalieri di San Giovanni in Calabria in età medievale: resultati ed ipotesi,” in Religiones militares: Contributi alla storia degli ordini religioso-militari nel Medioevo, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Francesco Tommasi, vol. 2 (Città di Castello 2008), 209–35, here 215.

162

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

for maritime traffic, but the Apulian seaports of Barletta, Brindisi, and Manfredonia were all places where pilgrims and crusaders arrived and were taken aboard ships, including Templar ships.10 An order given by Charles I of Anjou, the king of Sicily, in 1274 shows the importance of sea traffic for the military orders. The king instructed Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights to take care of a new lighthouse in Brindisi since they were the ones primarily interested in the maritime infrastructure that facilitated sea traffic in the Eastern Mediterranean.11 In the West, Marseille was more important than Montpellier or Barcelona,12 thus Templars and Hospitallers entered into a contract with the city of Marseille in 1233/1234.13 From this point in time, the military orders were obligated to use Marseille as the only seaport along the southern French coast for their maritime traffic, especially for the transport of pilgrims and merchandise to the Holy Land.14 The contract’s mentioning of commandatores navium and the development of offices entrusted with naval affairs, such as that of the magister passagium or those of commanders in the Holy Land who were responsible for the Order’s ships, show a progressive institutionalization of the Templars’ maritime affairs.15 The Templar ships arriving in Acre were subordinate to the provincial master of the kingdom of Jerusalem, who was also responsible for their cargo.16 10 Salerno, “Templari ed Ospitalieri,” 229. 11 Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “The Templars and Their Trial in Sicily,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 273–83, here 278–9; Toomaspoeg, “Carrefour,” 105. 12 Nevertheless, the Templars in the Iberian Peninsula were also active in naval affairs, as the Aragonese Templars had their own ships since 1285; see Demurger, Templer, 177. Before that date, they had arrangements with merchants from Barcelona; see Alan J. Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón (London 1973), 326. 13 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, 1100–1310, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris 1894–1906), 2: 462 no. 2067. The document has to be dated to October 1233, according to Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed., Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, Old French texts by Jean Richard, 4 vols. (Hannover 2010), 3: 1363–6 (commentary on no. 785); see Damien Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312): Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales (Lyon 2005), 246. 14 Adolf Schaube, Handelsgeschichte der romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebietes bis zum Ende der Kreuzzüge (Munich 1906), 202–3. The cargo of two ships every year was tax-free, whether it belonged to the Templars or other merchants. The Order’s ships also transported merchandise for Italian merchants as evidenced by a 1301 contract according to which the Falconus, the ship formerly commanded by Roger de Flor, had to transport merchandise from Famagusta to Marseille where it would be sold; see Notai genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (3 Iuglio 1300–1303 Agosto 1301), ed. Valeria Polonio (Genoa 1982), 291–2 no. 246; Nicholas Coureas, “The Role of the Templars and the Hospitallers in the Movement of Commodities involving Cyprus,” in The Experience of Crusading, Volume 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. Peter Edbury and Jonathan Phillips (Cambridge 2003), 257–74, here 259. 15 Sarnowsky, “Military Orders,” 48–9. See also Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “The Military Orders and the Escape of the Christian Population from the Holy Land in 1291,” Journal of Medieval History 19, no. 3 (1993): 201–27, here 209 note 22, with further references. 16 The Rule and the statutes of the Order did not pay much attention to naval activities; see Barber, New Knighthood, 183. At least one article of the Order’s retrais deals with Templar ships: Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 99–100 § 119.

163

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

The office of admiral cannot be found among the Templars’ staff. Recently, Jochen Burgtorf has convincingly refuted the idea that the Templars created the office of admiral in the last decade of their existence. Only one source mentions an admiral, but this is not a document of Templar origin.17 According to the document, a certain Henry of Tyre was asking the document’s contracting party to show him a document from a Templar official whom he was referring to as “admiral or captain or count,” thus describing a function but unable to say which Templar official was in charge of maritime affairs and what his title might have been.18 According to the Templar Rule, at least one of the officials of the central convent was involved in naval business and responsible for the Order’s ships when they were docked at Acre. The ships are referred to as “all maritime vessels belonging to the house (commandery) of Acre,”19 suggesting that these ships belonged to the Templar commandery in this seaport and obviously formed part of the Order’s property. Therefore, it is somewhat astonishing – as Kristjan Toomaspoeg has pointed out – that no ships were mentioned during the interrogations of the Templar Trial.20 We can assume that the crews of these Templar ships were under the responsibility of the provincial master as well, at least if there were Templar servants among them and not just hired staff. His counterpart in the West may have been a certain magister passagium who may have resided in the city of Marseille. This office holder is mentioned several times in the interrogations during the Templar Trial, as well as several documents from southern France.21 He was probably charged with organizing the transfer of cargo, money, and human resources from the West to Outremer.22 Again, we can only assume that the Templars who served on these ships were subordinated to this magister passagium when their ships were anchored in the seaport of Marseille. 17 Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden 2008), 145. See Claverie, “Quelques réflexions,” 16; Claverie, “Marine,” 51, with further references. 18 Notai genovesi, ed. Polonio, 493 no. 413: Quadam cartam sive scripturam factam ex parte domini admirati sive capitanei vel comitti Templi. In this context, comitti can obviously be understood as “whoever is in charge of this affair.” See Burgtorf, Central Convent, 145. 19 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 99 § 119: Tuit li vaissel de mer qui sont de la maison d’Acre sont au comandement dou Comandour de la terre . . . et toutes les choses que li vaissel aportent, doivent estre rendus au Comandeor de la terre. 20 Toomaspoeg, “Carrefour,” 106. 21 A magister passagium or preceptor passagium is also mentioned in some unpublished charters; see the copies in the “Collection d’Albon:” Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Nouvelles acquisitions latines, vol. 57, fols. 28, 30, 57, 62, 77, 79, 84, 94. 22 Le procès des Templiers, ed. Jules Michelet, 2 vols. (Paris 1841–1851), 1: 458. See Jean Richard, “Les Templiers et Hospitaliers en Bourgogne et Champagne méridionale (XIIe–XIIIe siècle),” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, ed. Josef Fleckenstein and Manfred Hellmann, Vorträge und Forschungen 26 (Sigmaringen 1980), 231–42, here 233; Carraz, Ordre du Temple, 503; Vogel, Recht, 296; Burgtorf, Central Convent, 114; Claverie, “Quelques réflexions,” 15.

164

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

Regardless of their place in the Order’s hierarchy, the crew members of a Templar ship enjoyed some independence due to their involvement in sea travel, which temporarily interrupted all communication. The Templars themselves took into account that being on a ship would, for a time, sever all contact with their commanderies on land. Their Catalan Rule stipulated that, whereas a brother who had left his house and stayed away from it for more than a day was to be expelled from the Order, a brother who had left his house and embarked on a ship was to be treated differently.23 To repent for fleeing from the Order he had to talk to the captain, the senyor de la nave (“master of the ship”).24 The days or weeks he needed to return to one of the Order’s houses were not considered as time outside of the Order because “the sea is counted as only one day.”25 Detailed instructions like these give us an idea about life aboard a ship, as well as about the challenges of participating in the Templars’ religious life. The brother aboard a ship – probably not just a Templar ship, but any ship – had to stay on board until it docked somewhere where there was a Templar presence.26 The difference between such a “fugitive” brother at sea and the servants aboard a Templar ship was the simple fact that the latter spent their time on board legally in view of the Order’s Rule and statutes. But they, too, only came into contact with their superiors just a few times during the year, namely, whenever they reached a seaport with a nearby Templar commandery, or Acre, or Cyprus (from where a Templar ship sailed the Mediterranean at least once a year after 1291). While the crew was on sea, the commander of the ship was the highestranking Templar official. His position was that of a preceptor, comparable to that of the commander of a Templar house.27 Apart from his position in the Order’s organizational structure and the Templars’ system of social control, the preceptor of a Templar ship was possibly at 23 The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Cartas Reales, MS 3344, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Woodbridge 2003), 60–3 § 146–7. Leaving the house without permission was prohibited by the statutes as well: Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 162 § 262; 232 § 426; and 291–2 § 558; see Vogel, Recht, 216–17. 24 Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 60–1 § 146. This section deals with prodesommes, a word often used for high-ranking Templars, but in this case, it is not clear whether these prodesommes were members of the Order. I would suggest that they were not. 25 Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 60–3 § 147; leaving the Order on land was different to leaving it by ship, because “whoever is on board ship cannot do as he pleases” (translation by Judi Upton-Ward): mas qui és en nave no pot ffere a sa volenté. 26 Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 60–1 § 146; if the fugitive wanted to return he had to write a report to the master and obtain the testimony of the captain of the ship. 27 Peter Visianus served as preceptor of the Templar ship Santa Anna for several years: Notai genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (Gennaio–Agosto 1302), ed. Romeo Pavoni (Genoa 1987), 132–3 no. 104, and 179–80 no. 150. A certain Giacomo di Ancona, who is mentioned in some charters from Apulia, was known as a preceptor navis Templi about the same time when Brother Vassayll was in charge: Guido Iorio, Il Giglio e la Spada: Istituzioni e strutture militari nel meridione angioino (Rimini 2007), 312.

165

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

times the only Templar aboard that ship, assisted by a few hired seamen and servants. If there were just a few Templars – or perhaps only one – aboard a Templar ship, there was no community of brethren or something that can be called a “convent,” resulting in a lack of social control. In religious orders, a certain control over members was essential. Thus, chapter meetings had to dispense justice for the brethren’s failings or crimes. To ensure control and oversight, and to minimize temptations in the secular world, Templars had been restricted from leaving their houses from the very beginning. The members of the Order’s original convent in Jerusalem were allowed to visit some of the holy places in Jerusalem, but they usually had to stay in the Templar house and were not allowed to leave without the consent of their superior.28 When they left their house temporarily and were on the road, they were never to be allowed to go alone. Instead, they had to go in groups of at least two brethren.29 Furthermore, every group of Templars – no matter where they were and how many there were – had to meet in chapter to ensure both permanent control and the punishment of failings in accordance with the Order’s Rule and statutes.30 The situation aboard a Templar ship was quite different. Apart from hired staff, who were necessary to run the ship, there were only a few Templars, sometimes just the commander. When Roger de Flor was received into the Order he was, at the same time, made commander of his own galley. Perhaps his reception into the Order was a precondition for this, but we may assume that, despite his reception into a religious order, his everyday life would not have changed very much. He was now the commander of a ship and thus the highest-ranking Templar on board. What was the position of such a naval commander in the Order’s overall hierarchy? The term most frequently employed by the Templars for any “commanding” position was that of preceptor. This was also the title of the captain of the Templar ship Santa Anna, who can be found in two documents written in Famagusta in 1302.31 In March and April 1302, Peter Visianus acted on behalf of his ship and the Templar convent: et Petrus Visianus, ordinis domus milicie Templi, preceptor navis vocate ‘Santa Anna,’ dicti Templi, eius nomine proprio, in solidum, et in nomine conventus et ordinis dicti Templi.32 Both documents were written in the Templar house at Famagusta, and the second one was signed by a scribe as scriba dicte navis (“scribe of the aforesaid vessel”).33 Not surprisingly, scribes were crew members aboard commercial vessels where contracts and other documents had to be drafted on a regular basis. Scribes probably also served Roger de Flor

28 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 45 § 40. 29 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 46, § 41. 30 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 296–7 § 569; Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 68–71 § 163. See also Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 80–1 § 179; see Vogel, Recht, 303. 31 Coureas, “Role,” 264–5. 32 Notai genovesi, ed. Pavoni, 132 no. 104. 33 Notai genovesi, ed. Pavoni, 180 no. 150.

166

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

since we have several letters written in Latin during the time Roger acted as a corsair in the service of Frederick of Sicily.34 Peter Visianus was still preceptor of the same Templar ship in 1309.35 Thus, he was in command for at least seven years. Roger served as commander of the Falconus for about five or six years – that is, if his flight from the Order is to be dated to the early 1290s, – otherwise he served in that capacity for over a decade. Whereas commanders of Templar houses could be (and often were) transferred to other houses after a couple of years, the exchange of Templar officials at sea seems to have occurred less frequently; perhaps the Templars did not want to recall their experts from ships they were familiar with. In addition to being constantly absent from the regular life of a Templar convent on land, Templar captains at sea gained a considerable independence from the Order, especially from the monastically inspired life they would otherwise have been expected to live. Templar seamen had to spend a significant part of the year – mainly the winter months – in seaports where they were in contact with local Templar communities and subordinated to the said officials. Their main seaports were Acre and Marseille. At Acre, the Templars had their headquarters (1191–1291), and their ships regularly went from this seaport to the West. Roger de Flor served on the route between Acre and Marseille with his ship, the Falconus, as did ships like “The Rose of the Temple,” “The Good Adventure,” and others that are mentioned in the charter evidence.36 On the Adriatic coast of Italy, Brindisi was an important seaport, as reported by Muntaner, and therefore a suitable place for a temporary residence. Roger de Flor had grown up there and had had his first contact with the Templar Order and its ships in the port of Brindisi.37 According to Muntaner’s report, Templar ships crossing the sea between the Holy Land and Italy stayed at Brindisi during the winter months, when sailing was not possible, while their crews were 34 Diplomatari de l’Orient Català (1301–1409): Col·lecció de documents per la história de l’expedició catalana a Orient i els ducats d’Atenes i Neopàtria, ed. Antoni Rubió i Lluch (Barcelona 1947), 3–4 no. 2. Several other documents refer to Roger: Diplomatari, ed. Rubió i Lluch, 4–8 nos. 3–7, and 9–10 no. 9. 35 Notai genovesi, ed. Pavoni, 179–80, no. 150; see Coureas, “Role,” 261. See also Barber, New Knighthood, 237; Demurger, Templer, 177. 36 Some Templar ships that were present at Marseille are known by their names, such as “La Rose” during the years 1288–1290: Documents inédits sur le commerce de Marseille au Moyen-Âge, ed. Louis Blancard (Marseille 1884–1885; reprint Geneva 1978), 2: 436 and 446; or “La Bonne Aventure” in 1248: Demurger, Templer, 177. Apart from these vessels and, of course, the “Falcon,” Damien Carraz mentions “La Sainte-Trinité,” serving the route between Marseille and Apulia: Damien Carraz, “‘Causa defendende et extollende christianitatis’: La vocation maritime des ordres militaires en Provence (XIIe–XIIIe siècle),” in Ordres militaires et la mer, ed. Balard, 21–46, here 33. There is also charter evidence for Templar ships since 1229: Documents inédits, ed. Blancard, 2: 28–9 (no. 22, August 1229) and 134–6 (no. 87, February 1240). See also Claverie, “Marine,” 54. For other Templar ships in Southern Italy, see Favreau-Lilie, “Military Orders,” 206 note 10. 37 Ramon Muntaner, “Crònica,” in Les quatre grans cròniques, ed. Ferran Soldevila, 2nd ed. (Barcelona 1983), 665–1000, here 840–1 (chap. 194). For an English translation see Robert D. Hughes, The Catalan Expedition to the East: From the ‘Chronicle’ of Ramon Muntaner (Barcelona 2006), 21–3.

167

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

busy getting them repaired for their next departure in the spring.38 There is almost no information about the interaction between Templar seamen and the Order’s local commanderies in Apulia. With regard to Acre, several regulations have survived in the Order’s statutes, but when it comes to Marseille, we can only speculate about the interaction between the sailing Templars and the Order’s local authorities. Fray Vassayll, the Templar servant who inspired the young Roger de Flor to join his crew, originally hailed from Marseille and later spent his life aboard a Templar ship and in various seaports, especially Brindisi. Around 1286, he was present at the Templar commandery of Brindisi.39 He was the commander of a Templar vessel and a member of the Order, which means he was not a hired layman. His presence at a chapter meeting in Brindisi’s Templar commandery, combined with the fact that he was remembered two decades later by Templars, shows his close ties to the Order. It is possible that he “retired” to a convent on land after a career at sea. Fray Vassayll’s presence at the Templar commandery in Brindisi coincided with the date of Roger’s promotion: when Roger was about 20 years old, namely, in the mid-1280s, he was given the command of a vessel.40 Muntaner explains that the Templars bought a new ship for Roger, but it is also conceivable that Roger first succeeded his mentor Fray Vassayll before becoming captain of the Falconus. His career shows that Templar ships and their men constituted a world within the Order that could exist with or without close ties to the larger community of brethren and without too much influence of the Order and its religious life. And that is why it is so difficult to determine when Roger de Flor finally left the Order. It must have been sometime between 1291, the year of the fall of Acre, and 1301, when he was mentioned as a follower of Frederick, the new Aragonese king of Sicily. Nevertheless, a few moments of his life as a Templar in the 1280s – at least until 1291 – can be reconstructed from the accounts of Muntaner and the Greek chronicler Georgios Pachymeres. The maritime variation of the Templar life had little to do with monastic practices, an impression that becomes even stronger when we take into consideration the reports of these two chroniclers. As a Templar servant, Roger should have spent plenty of time on Cyprus where his Order had transferred the central convent and therefore its headquarters after 1291.41 His ship probably would have docked at Famagusta. When not traveling during the winter months, he would have had to stay on land. Fray Vassayll’s example suggests that Roger should have joined the local commandery of his Order during such a stay and participated in the regular everyday life 38 Toomaspoeg, “Carrefour,” 104. 39 Cristian Guzzo, Templari in Sicilia: La storia e le sue fonti tra Frederico II e Roberto d’Angiò (Genoa 2003), 82 note 3. 40 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 194. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 23. 41 For the discussion whether the headquarters were transferred to Nicosia or Limassol, see Burgtorf, Central Convent, 133–66 (with a preference for Nicosia on page 136).

168

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

of a Templar. But there is one little detail in Muntaner’s report that raises doubts about all this. Roger had a daughter who must have been born in the 1290s or late 1280s, and who later was in his company when he served the emperor of Byzantium. Muntaner states that Roger had a daughter with a woman in Cyprus,42 which means that Roger did not adhere to his vow of chastity and that he managed to escape the Order’s social control successfully and permanently.43 It seems rather unlikely that Roger would have stayed on Cyprus after escaping from the Order and while the Templar master was still trying to hold him accountable. Therefore, the next question is whether Roger’s escape from the Order took place in or very soon after 1291, or whether he was still a member of the Order in the 1290s and only left around 1299 or 1300. He was certainly still a Templar during the fall of Acre in 1291.44 The fall of Acre ended the crusaders’ presence in the Holy Land. The military orders played an important role in the evacuation of the beleaguered city and organized the transport of the masses of fugitives to Château Pèlerin (‘Atlit) and Cyprus. Roger de Flor and his ship, the “Falcon,” were part of this scene.45 Muntaner’s report creates the impression that Roger forced his passengers to pay large sums for their rescue. Such behavior was probably not uncommon, especially when compared to that of other captains in similar situations.46 Roger, it seems, became rich as a result of the evacuation of Acre, as he did not hand all respective proceeds over to his superiors. Because of this, the Order’s master tried to have Roger arrested, but Roger became aware of this and left the Order. Although Muntaner’s narrative seems to follow a logical sequence of events, doubts are in order, as Ernest Marcos Hierro has pointed out, especially if one considers the amount of time that must have elapsed between some of the events that seem to follow each other immediately in Muntaner’s narrative.47 According to Muntaner, Roger left the Order immediately after the fall of Acre. He brought the refugees to ‘Atlit and then returned to render account to the master, which must have been difficult in the chaos of the year 1291. The account-rendering may have taken place on Cyprus before one of the Order’s high officials, titled “master” in Muntaner’s narrative, or in the following years 42 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 206. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 58. 43 Ernest Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers: La història (Barcelona 2005), 75. Marcos Hierro supposes this episode to have taken place before 1291 because he assumes that Roger left the Order right after the fall of Acre: Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers, 79. 44 Marie-Anna Chevalier, “La prise d’Acre au procès chypriote,” in La fin de l’ordre du Temple: Journée d’études, Montpellier, Université Montpellier 3 Paul Valéry, 28 janvier 2011, ed. Marie-Anna Chevalier (Paris 2012), 181–220, here 191; Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay: Le crépuscule des Templiers, 3rd ed. (Paris 2014), 92. 45 The secondary works mentioning the participation of Roger de Flor (such as Demurger, Templer, 179; Favreau-Lilie, “Military Orders,” 210–11) refer to Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 194. 46 Favreau-Lilie, “Military Orders,” 211–12. 47 Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers, 79.

169

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

before the newly elected master Jacques de Molay. Roger learned about the accusations against him when he was in Marseille, whereupon he decided to leave his ship and the Order. His ship, the Falco or Falconus, continued to be used by the Templars for transports between Cyprus and Marseille.48 If Muntaner’s chronology is correct, all this took place in late 1291 (as the earliest possible date) or the following year. Otherwise the connection to the fall of Acre becomes doubtful. From Marseille, Roger went to Genoa to get help and a new ship, which took him at least a few months. He then traveled to Robert of Anjou at Catania, a city that did not fall into Angevin hands until 1299.49 In late 1300, he is mentioned for the first time as a follower of Frederick of Sicily; thus, his arrival at Catania must have occurred earlier. At any rate, we have to account for a gap of about seven or eight years. So, what was Roger doing between 1291 and 1300, and when did he finally leave the Templars? Muntaner mentions that Roger was well known by the Greeks because he gave so much help to the imperial ships and seamen.50 These helpful actions must have taken place before Roger joined the service of Frederick of Sicily, which means prior to 1300. His ability to speak Greek may have been the result of frequent contacts, particularly his consecutive stays on Cyprus, where he lived with a woman and a daughter whenever he was not sailing between Cyprus and Italy or Marseille.51 Again, this part of his life has to be placed into the last decade of the thirteenth century. Based on Muntaner, it can be concluded that Roger participated in several naval activities that were being noticed by the imperial court in Constantinople. The Greek chronicler Pachymeres provides further information on what Roger de Flor was doing during the years after the fall of Acre.52 The treasure from Acre – Pachymeres mentions a monastery, perhaps referring to the Templar convent at Acre, – was reinvested by Roger to build up a fleet of a few ships. Under his command, these ships fought against the Muslims, which probably means that Roger and his companions acted as corsairs and boarded ships of the Saracens. If Pachymeres’s explanation of the Templar’s escape is correct, with Roger becoming rich and proud of his deeds, the latter cannot have left the Order before that time. Thus, his deeds, which are obviously the deeds of a pirate or corsair, must have been done while he was still a Templar. If Roger was indeed conducting raids against the Saracens, as described by the Greek chronicler, while still a member of the Templar Order, this leads to several conclusions. First, the embezzlements Roger was accused of are not

48 See a document of 24 February 1301: Notai genovesi, ed. Polonio, 291–2 no. 246; see Coureas, “Role,” 259; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 175. 49 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro (1243–1314): La caduta degli Stati Crociati nel racconto di un testimone oculare, ed. Laura Minervini (Naples 2000), 282–3 § 340 (576). 50 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 199. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 39. 51 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 206; see note 43. 52 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. Albert Failler, 5 vols. (Paris 1984–2000), 4: 430–3.

170

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

to be seen in any relation to the evacuation of Acre but, rather, pertain to his activities as a Templar corsair during the following years. Secondly, the Templars permitted (or at least tolerated) their seamen – both members of the Order and hired mercenaries – to act as corsairs, just like most princes and maritime city states. Barber, too, has suggested that Roger was engaged in piracy while he was still a Templar.53 When we compare this picture with the scarce references to the Templars’ military activities at sea, we get a somewhat better idea of what the life of a Templar captain may have been like. But is it likely that a Templar captain acted as a corsair and was thus the representative of a maritime power of some sort? How extensive, then, were the Templars’ maritime forces? As mentioned earlier, the Templars had had their own ships since the twelfth century but, unlike the Hospitallers, apparently never created the office of admiral. There are, of course, certain indications that the Order should perhaps not be viewed as a maritime power. During the last years of the Order’s existence, Jacques de Molay rejected proposals to place a Christian fleet under the command of the military orders and offered only naval aid to organize transports to the Holy Land.54 Nevertheless, the pope and other contemporaries did consider the military orders, including the Templars, military maritime powers.55 In fact, the military orders, especially the Templars, were perhaps not the most important, but at least a recognizable factor in the maritime military activities after the fall of Acre. And yet, the Templar of Tyre mentions in his chronicle that the pope sent twenty galleys, half of them Genoese, while the king of Cyprus contributed fifteen more, which started to attack Muslim castles and cities on the Anatolian coast and against Alexandria, but he does not refer to a Templar presence within this fleet.56 Other sources, however, suggest that the Templars in the 1290s were very much involved in activities such as these. The Annals of Genoa report that Pope Nicholas IV ordered the military orders to pay for the naval support of Cyprus and Armenia.57 In 1293, Genoese merchants noted Venetian galleys that were armed – not just paid – by the Templars,58 which attributes a more

53 Barber, New Knighthood, 240–1. 54 Alan J. Forey, “The Military Orders in the Crusading Proposals of the Late-Thirteenth and EarlyFourteenth Centuries,” Traditio 36 (1980). 317–45, here 342–3; Bonnin, “Templiers,” 314. 55 Ramon Lull, for example, who wrote one of the first proposals suggested a merger of all military orders. The new Order should then also have a veritable fleet; see Forey, “Military Orders,” 336. Ramon Lull must have known the situation of the military orders in Cyprus since he had traveled to the East and had been a guest of the Templar master; see Adam Gottron, Ramon Lulls Kreuzzugsideen (Berlin 1912), 22, 26, and 85–7 (text). 56 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 234–5 § 288 (524). Neither does Amadi: Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, vol. 1, ed. René de Mas Latrie (Paris 1891), 228. 57 Jacobus Auria, Annales Ianuenses: Annali Genovesi di Caffaro e de suoi continuatori, vol. 5, ed. Cesare Imperiale di Sant’Angelo (Rome 1929), 143–4; see Chevalier, “Prise d’Acre,” 194. 58 Jacobus Auria, ed. Imperiale di Sant’Angelo, 167; see Coureas, “Role,” 258; Barber, New Knighthood, 293.

171

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

active maritime role to the Order. Finally, according to Marino Sanudo, the king of Cyprus, together with Templars and Hospitallers, armed seven galleys and a few smaller ships around the year 1300.59 The latter has to be seen in the context of the 1300 expedition that was based on the hope for an alliance with the Mongols.60 A few months earlier, however, the Templars had hired a ship from a Genoese merchant for a trading voyage.61 The destinations of this trading venture were named in the respective agreement. They include several coastal towns in Syria (Acre, Tyre, Tripoli, and Tortosa), that is to say places under Muslim control, even though the trade with Muslims in the Levant had been prohibited by papal bulls ever since the fall of Acre.62 The reasons for this trading venture are not quite clear, especially in light of the Order’s impending military campaign in the Eastern Mediterranean.63 Their subsequent raids against Egypt are indications of the alliance with the Mongols that the military orders and the king of Cyprus were hoping for. These raids also show the Templars’ ability to participate in maritime warfare. In the course of these events, the Templars conquered the island of Ruad near Tortosa which they held for a few years.64 Ruad was used as a base by the Templars to attack Muslim ships.65 Such Templar activities make it more probable that Roger de Flor was involved in similar activities while he was a Templar servant and captain of the Falconus, and they certainly match Pachymeres’s account of Roger’s deeds after the fall of Acre and before his escape from the Order. Nevertheless, most sources paint the picture of an Order that usually did not run galleys for naval fighting but, rather, only for the transporting of cargo and men. When the Templars were involved in military activities they paid for mercenaries. Only in rare cases is the master of the Temple mentioned as having “armed galleys,” which could mean mercenaries or a Templar crew of knights and servants. A similar wording was used in the account of an earlier event. In 1277, a quarrel arose between the Templars and the prince of Antioch, and, 59 Marinus Sanutus, Liber secretorum fidelium crucis super Terrae Sanctae recuperatione et conservatione, ed. Jacques Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, vol. 2 (Hanau 1611; reprint Jerusalem 1972), 241–2. 60 Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militia Templi Hierosolimitani magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens, 1118/19–1314 (Göttingen 1974), 309–10, with further references. Accounts from other sources: Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 300–1 § 379 (615); Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 236 (here the event is dated to 1299); see also Barber, New Knighthood, 293. 61 Cornelio Desimoni, ed., “Actes passes à Famagouste de 1299 à 1301 par devant le notaire génois Lamberto di Sambuceto,” in Archives de l’Orient latin, vol. 2 (Paris 1884), 3–120, here 42–3; Elena Bellomo, The Templar Order in North-west-Italy (1142–c.1330) (Leiden 2008), 54; Coureas, “Role,” 263. 62 Paul F. Crawford, “The Military Orders and the Last Decade of the Thirteenth Century,” Epeterida 33 (2007): 77–97, here 90–1; Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Templer auf Ruad (1300–1302),” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 16 (2011): 63–92, here 75. 63 Barber, New Knighthood, 293; Coureas, “Role,” 264. 64 Demurger, Jacques de Molay,159–66; Burgtorf, “Templer.” 65 Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militia Templi Hierosolimitani magistri, 311; Barber, New Knighthood, 294; Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 161.

172

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

according to Marino Sanudo, Magister itaque Templi septem galeas armat (“the master of the Temple armed seven galleys”), but these galleys shipwrecked later on.66 Here, too, it is unclear whether the galleys were manned by mercenaries or members of the Templar Order. This also applies to Oliver of Paderborn’s account in which he praises the Templars’ heavily armed ships that were used during the Fifth Crusade.67 Be all that as it may, the Templars did hire seamen for military purposes, at least occasionally. It is therefore possible to interpret the episode of Roger’s life, handed down by Pachymeres, as the description of a corsair in the service of the Templars. A small fleet was paid for by some of the treasure saved from Acre and subordinated to Roger de Flor who was an experienced sailor. The crews of the galleys under his command may have been composed of Templars, but they were more likely composed of mercenaries. Roger was then instructed to harass and seize Saracen trading vessels. Unlike Marcos Hierro, I maintain that Roger was not a pirate who was acting for himself after leaving the Order in the early 1290s; rather, he remained a Templar servant until the end of the decade, acting as a corsair on behalf of the Templars. As his stay in Marseille shows, he also continued to sail between the West and Cyprus for the purpose of naval transports. After leaving his ship in Marseille, he went to Genoa. During his lengthy service on behalf of the Templars, he had established contacts with Genoese merchants. One of them, a certain Tisi Doria, helped him to outfit a new ship, the Oliveta. Genoese merchants also purchased the Falconus from the Templars, indicating that Roger was making use of proven business relations.68 We now briefly turn to the connections between the Templars and the Genoese. With regard to the ongoing rivalry between the Italian city states, the Templars were accustomed to supporting the Venetians against the Genoese. As late as the early 1290s, Templar ships and Venetian ships jointly attacked a Genoese fleet with an unfortunate outcome for the Order.69 However, the Templars did not consider the Genoese permanent enemies. The Templar master William of Beaujeu tried to arbitrate between the two Italian cities in the mid-1280s. He was hoping to establish good relations with the mighty city of Genoa, yet an alliance between the Templars and the Genoese never 66 Marinus Sanutus, ed. Bongars, 228. The galleys were supposed to assist in the siege of the city, but they did not arrive: mittitque ad obsidendum Nephyn, militesque per terram, sed galeae naufragium passae sunt, quia ibant contra Domini voluntatem. See Claverie, “Quelques réflexions,” 11; Claverie, “Marine,” 50–1. 67 Oliverus Scholasticus (Oliver of Paderborn), “Historia Damiatina,” in Die Schriften des Kölner Domscholasters, späteren Bischofs von Paderborn und Kardinalbischofs von S. Sabina Oliverus, ed. Hermann Hoogeweg (Stuttgart 1894), 159–280, here 181 and 194; see Sarnowsky, “Military Orders,” 50; Barber, New Knighthood, 128. 68 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 194. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 23–4. 69 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 256–9 § 310 (537); Jacobus Auria, ed. Imperiale di Sant’Angelo, 167; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 230–3; see Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militia Templi Hierosolimitani magistri, 313; Claverie, “Marine,” 51.

173

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

materialized.70 As Muntaner reports, it was around this time that the Order bought the Falconus from the Genoese.71 There is ample evidence for negotiations between Templars and Genoese merchants during the last two decades of the Order’s existence.72 Muntaner’s account of Roger’s good relations with some of the Genoese he already knew, and the fact that Roger went straight to Genoa after leaving his ship and his Order, are additional hints that negotiations between Templars and Genoese merchants were not unusual at this time.73 This should not surprise us: the Genoese were allies of Charles of Anjou who was both the count of Provence, where Marseille was one of the Order’s most important seaports, and the ruler of much of southern Italy, where the Apulian harbors were of similar importance to the Templars. High Templar officials served at the court of Charles of Anjou, among them William of Beaujeu who was a relative of the Angevin ruler, commander of the Templar province of Sicily, and eventually master of the Order.74 However, the Order’s internationality made it difficult to maintain such alliances. In 1287, for example, Charles of Anjou seized the estates of both Templars and Hospitallers because he was not amused that the Templars had approved of the election of Henry II of Cyprus as king of Jerusalem.75 Thus, due to their involvement in Mediterranean trade and transport, the Templars had close ties to the Anjou dynasty and to the Genoese, and the latter provided Roger with shelter after his flight from Marseille. When Roger abandoned his ship, he must have known that he was leaving the Templars forever and passing a point of no return. Roger’s extensive contacts included the aforementioned Tisi Doria, identified by Marcos Hierro as Tedisio, a member of the Doria family, who was known for his travels to Cyprus in the mid-1290s.76 Tedisio Doria was also one of the Genoese admirals charged with arming ships that could assist the military orders during the interim following the death of Pope Nicholas IV (1292–1294).77 According to Muntaner, Tisi Doria helped 70 Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militia Templi Hierosolimitani magistri, 275. 71 According to Muntaner, Roger de Flor was aged about 20 when the Falconus was bought, that means around 1285. Claverie, however, dates this deal to 1282, referring to Muntaner; see Claverie, “Marine,” 54. 72 For some examples, see Coureas, “Role,” 261–5. 73 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 194. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 23–4. 74 Toomaspoeg, “Templars,” 278; David Nicolle considers the Templars “an integral part of the Angevin power structure around the Mediterranean;” see David Nicolle, Crusader Warfare, Volume 1: Byzantium, Europe, and the Struggle for the Holy Land 1050–1300 AD (London 2007), 9–10. After the suppression of the Templars by the Hohenstaufen, Charles restored their estates soon after his conquest; see Salerno, “Templari ed Ospitalieri,” 215. 75 Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militia Templi Hierosolimitani magistri, 280. 76 Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers, 78. For Tedisio’s journey to Cyprus, see Antonio Musarra, “Unpublished Notarial Acts on Tedisio Doria’s Voyage to Cyprus and Lesser Armenia 1294–1295,” Crusades 11 (2012): 173–97. 77 See Claverie, “Marine,” 51, who refers to the Templar of Tyre, but this source does not mention any of the admirals by name: Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 234–5 § 288 (524).

174

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

Roger to get a new ship, the Oliveta, which enabled him to enter the service of Robert of Anjou.78 This chronology, again, raises several questions. At that time, another member of the Doria family, a certain Corrado Doria, was an admiral in the service of Frederick of Sicily, the enemy of the Anjou in the long-lasting war for Sicily.79 Since the Doria family had traditionally sided with the Ghibellines,80 it is not surprising to find a Doria in the service of Frederick who considered himself the successor of his Hohenstaufen great-grandfather Frederick II. Meanwhile, Genoa was supporting the Anjou, and the Doria family was trying to establish good relations with the new lords of southern Italy. But why should the Doria family support the Anjou when, at the same time, a Doria was fighting for Frederick? Yet, Frederick himself was at war with his own brother, King James of Aragon, then an ally of the Anjou, so it is quite possible to imagine members of the Doria family on both sides of the conflict. It has to be taken into account that Corrado Doria had been involved in the struggle for Catania and had been captured by the victorious Angevins. Thus, is it possible that Roger de Flor and the Doria family offered a deal to Robert?81 There are other hypotheses that could be used to tackle this conundrum. Muntaner may not be altogether reliable, since Roger de Flor was probably one of his sources, and he may have confused the details. Perhaps it was Tedisio Doria who supported the Templars when he was in Cyprus around 1294/5 while Roger was raiding against the Saracens, or Muntaner was referring to Tedisio’s naval assistance provided to the military orders after the death of Pope Nicholas IV. Another possibility is that Marcos Hierro is correct in his assumption that Roger acted as a pirate in the early 1290s with the help of the Doria family and long before presenting himself to Robert of Anjou. And finally, the episode of Roger de Flor and Robert of Anjou may not be based on real events, even though Marcos Hierro convincingly argues that it would have been quite probable for Roger to enter the Anjou’s service. According to Marcos Hierro, Duke Robert could be considered Roger’s “senyor natural” (natural master), since Roger had grown up in Brindisi, a town that had always been loyal to the Anjou. As a Templar servant, Roger had been the member of an Order that was supporting Charles I of Anjou and his successors. Besides, Marseille, where Roger had left his ship, was the most important seaport of Provence, then also ruled by the Anjou.82 Yet, Roger’s decision is still astonishing in light of his personal history and that of his family. His father had been a servant of Frederick II, then of King Manfred, and had died fighting against Charles I. However, there are, again, issues with the chronology here. As Marcos Hierro 78 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 194. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 24. 79 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 280–3. 80 The Doria are mentioned as Ghibellines in Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 278–81 § 335 (571). 81 Cronaca del Templare di Tiro, ed. Minervini, 282–3 § 340 (576). 82 Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers, 80.

175

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

has pointed out, if Roger was born in the mid-1260s and his parents had been married since the reign of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, his parents would have been in their forties or even older at the time of his birth.83 Since the history of Roger’s family is only known from Muntaner’s report, it cannot be verified. Besides, Muntaner’s source certainly was Roger himself who, fighting with the Catalans for a Hohenstaufen heir and against the Anjou, may have related (or even created) a family tradition that he considered appropriate in this situation. In the end, we have no reliable information about Roger’s parents and their involvement in the political events pertaining to the struggle for Sicily before the Vespers (1282). Thus, it is at least conceivable that Roger went to Robert of Anjou first, with or without the help or consent of the Doria family. How might we characterize the relationship between the fugitive Roger and the Templar Order? Roger was still considering himself a Templar while raiding off the Catalan coast in the name of Frederick of Sicily. In several charters, he introduced himself as “Brother Roger of Brindisi, of the holy Order of the Temple, and follower of Frederick III, king of Sicily.”84 Marcos Hierro has suggested that Roger was opting for a reconciliation with the Templar master and therefore continuing to emphasize his affiliation with the Templar Order.85 But what did being a Templar brother mean to Roger? As I have argued earlier, a Templar servant functioning as a preceptor, in this case as the captain of a ship, was extensively free from the social control of a convent or the Order’s institutions – for several reasons. First, aboard ship, he was the commander and probably the only Templar brother. Secondly, on land, Roger was obviously not integrated into a local convent as evidenced by his cohabitation with a Cypriote woman and their daughter who later accompanied him. Roger had not entered the Order with the intention of becoming a monk. He had joined the crew of a Templar ship where he learned to live the life of a sailor, not that of the member of a religious order. When he was formally received as a brother servant this did not change his everyday life, apart from involving a promotion to the post of commander. Consequently, escaping from the Order did not mean a radical change in his life either. Considering the prestige that membership in the Templar Order had bestowed upon him, Roger saw no reason to change his name or title. The Templar master, on the other hand, considered Roger de Flor a fugitive who had left the Order without permission, something expressly prohibited

83 Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers, 73 note 3 (endnote on 356–7). 84 Diplomatari, ed. Rubió i Lluch, 3 no. 2: frater Rogerius de Brandusio ordinis sacre domus milicie Templi, serenissimi domini regis Frederici tertii Dei gratia regis Sicilie, ducatus Ampulie et principatus Capue consiliarius, familiaris et fidelis (July 1301). In a letter from September of the same year (Diplomatari, ed. Rubió i Lluch, 4–5 no. 3), the Aragonese king addressed Roger as fratri Rogerio de ordine milicie Templi. See also Demurger, Jacques de Molay, 175, who simply remarks that Roger was still a Templar in 1301. 85 Marcos Hierro, Almogàvers, 78.

176

T H E “ L O S T B OY S ” O F T H E T E M P L A R S

by the Order’s Rule.86 Additionally, Roger was accused of stealing or embezzling treasure that belonged to the Order, another crime that usually came with severe consequences.87 According to the Rule, the master was obligated to search for the fugitive to bring him before the chapter of the Order’s central convent where his crimes were to be judged.88 Doubtlessly, Roger de Flor was facing incarceration for the rest of his life and was therefore not very interested in being confronted by the Order’s authorities. The master, however, searched for him and, after the peace of Caltabellotta (1302), the pope urged Frederick of Sicily to hand over the renegade. It was a galling situation, reported by both Muntaner and Pachymeres, that there was – so to speak – an international warrant out for the former Templar corsair’s arrest. According to Muntaner, the Anjou, both Charles II and Robert, demanded that Roger be handed over to them because they hated him so much.89 The Templar master was certainly willing to fulfill their wishes, but his Order’s interests had to come first. The Templar statutes demanded the fugitive’s arrest, and the master was concerned about the reputation of his Order in light of Roger de Flor’s behavior, since the latter was not at all acting the way a Templar was supposed to.90 The importance of the Order’s reputation is repeatedly emphasized in both the Rule and the  statutes. When Templars were sent to travel throughout the world and handle secular affairs, they were expected to behave like members of a religious order at all times.91 They had to serve as good examples to members of other religious orders as well as secular persons.92 Roger completely disregarded these behavioral guidelines, but the Templars could not allow him to damage their Order’s reputation. Thus, Roger left Sicily to escape his Order once again. He subsequently entered the service of the Byzantine emperor and was murdered a few years later (1305). When we summarize those aspects of Roger de Flor’s life that touch on the Templars’ history and development, we have to acknowledge an obvious lack of social control in some of the Order’s branches. The same can probably be said for regions in which only very few Templars administered the Order’s estates, for example in central and eastern-central Europe, where some Templars did

86 Leaving a religious order was prohibited by canon law. According to the Templar rule, it was only possible to leave the Order with the permission of the master: Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 258–9 § 488; Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 6–7 § 11. The pope made the same stipulation in several bulls, beginning with Omne Datum optimum in 1139: Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter: Neue Folge, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius II, ed. Rudolf Hiestand (Göttingen 1984), 96–103, here especially 97–8. 87 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 230–1 § 423 and 290 § 555; Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 54–5 § 130; see Vogel, Recht, 219, 335–42. 88 For the legal proceedings within the Templar Order, see Vogel, Recht, 321–31. 89 Ramon Muntaner, ed. Soldevila, chap. 199. Translation: Hughes, Catalan Expedition, 36. 90 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 237 § 437. An example is given in Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 312 § 603; Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 96–7 § 198; see also Catalan Rule, ed. Upton-Ward, 86–7 § 181. 91 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 43–4 § 37. 92 Règle du Temple, ed. Curzon, 195 § 340; see Vogel, Recht, 208–10.

177

C H R I S T I A N VO G E L

not change their everyday lives after entering the Order but, rather, simply served as administrators.93 This matches our observations with regard to life aboard a Templar ship. The Templars installed only as many brethren as needed at sea and in some of the frontier regions. This often meant that there was only one commander who had (technically) been received into the Order, and he was assisted by laborers or sailors who were living in serfdom or had been hired for the work that needed to be done. Furthermore, the example of Roger de Flor sheds light on the Templar Order’s practice to let their maritime staff act as corsairs against the Muslims in the Eastern Mediterranean. At times, there may have also been close contacts between Templars and Byzantines in the Aegean Sea. The bottom line is, though, that those Templars who had their Order’s permission to act as corsairs were at least able to handle their affairs their own way: relatively independently from their superiors and just like they were living their everyday lives.

93 Some examples are given in Christian Vogel, “Die Templer in Mitteleuropa und ihre Organisationsstrukturen,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden in Mitteleuropa im Mittelalter, ed. Karl Borchardt and Libor Jan (Brno 2011), 157–70, here 169–70. See also Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Structures of the Orders of the Temple and the Hospital in c.1291,” in The Medieval Crusade, ed. Susan J. Ridyard (Woodbridge 2004), 125–43, here 131, with an example of a married man who wanted to enter the Order together with his wife – successfully: Procès, ed. Michelet, 1: 591–2.

178

8 THE TEMPLARS’ BANKING ACTIVITIES AND THEIR POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS TO THE ORDER’S DEMISE Ignacio de la Torre

Introduction As the Second Crusade was exhausting its financial reserves, King Louis VII of France took on a loan in the year 1147 in the amount of 2,000 marks of silver (i.e., the equivalent of around 6,000 livres tournois). This loan was provided by the Templars.1 Although the crusade did not succeed in its goal of conquering Damascus, this incident illustrates how the Templar Order – which had come into being less than thirty years earlier – was already involved in financial activities rather soon after its creation. Such was the relevance of this loan that we learn from Louis VII’s letters that this credit was critical to sustaining the crusade, and when it became apparent that the loan placed the Templar Order into serious financial difficulties, the king asked his minister, Abbot Suger of St. Denis, to accelerate the loan’s repayment to the Temple.2 1 David Michael Metcalf, “The Templars as Bankers and Monetary Transfers between West and East in the Twelfth Century,” in Coinage in the Latin East: The Fourth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. Peter W. Edbury and David Michael Metcalf (Oxford 1980), 1–17, here 10; Henri de Curzon, La Maison du Temple de Paris: Histoire et description (Paris 1888), 257; Jules Piquet, Des Banquiers au Moyen Âge: Les Templiers: Étude de leurs opérations financières (Paris 1939), 25; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006), 9; Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994), 67; Léopold Delisle, Mémoire sur les opérations financières des Templiers, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres XXXII.2 (Paris 1889; reprint Geneva 1975), 15. For a recent collection of essays on the Templars’ economic history, see L’économie templière en Occident: Patrimoines, commerce, finances: Actes du colloque international, Troyes-Abbaye de Clairvaux, 24–26 octobre 2012, ed. Arnaud Baudin, Ghislain Brunel, and Nicolas Dohrmann (Langres 2013). See also Alain Demurger, “Les ordres religieux-militaires et l’argent: Sources et pratiques,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson, Crusades Subsidia 10 (London 2017), 166–83. 2 Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France / Rerum gallicarum et francicarum scriptores, vol. XV, ed. Michel-Jean-Joseph Brial, new ed. Léopold Delisle (Paris 1878), 496 no. XXXVII; 501–2 no. LII.

179

IGNACIO DE LA TORRE

The Templars ultimately developed their financial services capabilities to a point at which both the French royal treasury and one of the two English royal treasuries were deposited with the Templars, and the Brothers performed treasury services for their respective kings. This chapter will analyze the main reasons why the Templars engaged in financial services, including a brief discussion of the main financial activities performed at a retail level; it will explore the financial relationships between the Templars and the French and English kings (i.e., services which we may call wholesale finance); and it will finally shed some light on the potential connections between these financial services and the arrest of the Templars.

Reasons for the Templars’ engagement in financial activities Deposit-taking: The Templars were accepting deposits from individuals at least as early as 1211.3 The security provided by the Templar Order led many people to secure deposits in Templar commanderies. From knights who deposited their valuables in coffers transported on Templar ships during the Crusade of Saint Louis4 to clerics,5 wealthy merchants,6 archbishops,7 and royalty,8 the Templars’ deposit services were utilized by a wide range of individuals. The Templars provided both regular9 and irregular10 deposits. The former, under Roman law, meant that the same coins that had been deposited also had to be returned. The latter meant that an equivalent amount of currency – but not the same units – had to be returned. Irregular depositing is key to understanding the origins of banking, as retail banking involves the lending of irregular deposits to third parties. There are no accounting entries to support the argument that the Templars were the first to perform retail banking; rather, accounting entries from 1260 show such activities for the Italian merchant house of Ugolini. Yet, as we will see, the depositing of English and French incomes at the London and Paris Temples – and their use in lending mechanisms – clearly shows that the Templars were performing true

3 Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, ed. Alexandre Teulet, Joseph de Laborde, Élie Berger, and HenriFrançois Delaborde, 5 vols. (Paris 1863–1909; reprint 1977), I: 371 doc. 969; Delisle, Mémoire sur les opérations financières des Templiers, 7. 4 Jean de Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, ed. Jacques Monfrin, 3rd ed. (Paris 2019; first published 1995), 202–4 § 412–14. 5 Delisle, Mémoire sur les opérations financières des Templiers, 3. 6 Delisle, Mémoire sur les opérations financières des Templiers, 3. 7 Auguste-Arthur Beugnot, Les Olim ou Registres des arrêts rendus par la cour du roi sous les règnes de saint Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis le Hutin et de Philippe le Long, 4 vols. (Paris 1839–1848; reprint 1977), II: 311 no. XXXIII. 8 Barber, New Knighthood, 275. 9 Thomas W. Parker, The Knights Templars in England (Tucson 1963; reprint 1994), 61. 10 Alan Forey, The Military Orders: From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries (London 1992), 119.

180

THE TEMPLARS’ BANKING ACTIVITIES

banking services for the English and French kings well before the merchant house of Ugolini.11 Responsions and on-shore lending: The formation of the Templar treasury can be explained by the liquidity that was generated by the responsions (responsiones) or production incomes (normally one third) that most of the Western Templar commanderies were expected to dispatch to the Latin East on a regular basis. Since land donations to the Order increased significantly during the second third of the twelfth century, the responsions generated from these land donations enabled the Templars to accumulate enough liquidity to grant the first relevant loan to the French king as early as 1147, as we have already seen. Similar to Carl von Clausewitz’s assertion from the nineteenth century that “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” the Templars used their financial liquidity to support the crusading effort. This is reflected in the French Templar Rule’s retrais section (c. 1165) which contains clear references to both a Templar treasury (§ 81, 83, 88, 89, 91, 111, 113) and a Templar treasurer, called the “commander of the kingdom of Jerusalem” (§ 89, 111). Off-shore lending: While it is true that the Templars in the West also granted travel loans to pilgrims intending to travel to the Latin East – the first such loan is recorded in Aragón in 1135,12 other ecclesiastical institutions, mainly Benedictine monasteries, had been involved in such lending activities since at least the eleventh century.13 These lending activities consisted of travel loans that were secured by the pilgrims’ landed estates. When incomes from these lands could reduce the actual loan amount, the loan would be called vif gage; when they were merely acting as interest14 on the principal, the loan would be called mort gage – the root of the English word “mortgage” and a practice prohibited by the Church in the following century. The Templars practiced both. One can argue that the trade deficit incurred by the Latin East in its dealings with the West (which can be deduced from the respective number of crusader coins found in Europe, explaining the purchase of European goods with money from the Latin East) had to be balanced with a financial surplus to compensate for this deficit. For this, the responsions and the travel loans should have played

11 André-Emile Sayous, “Les opérations des banquiers italiens en Italie et aux foires de Champagne pendant le XIIIe siècle,” Revue historique 170 (1932): 1–31, here 20. 12 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple 1119?–1150: Recueil des Chartes et des Bulles relatives à l’Ordre du Temple formé par le Marquis d’Albon, ed. Guigues Alexis Marie Joseph André d’Albon (Paris 1913), 79 no. CXI. 13 Robert Génestal, Rôle des monastères comme établissements de crédit étudié en Normandie du XIe à la fin du XIIIe siècle (Paris 1901), 64, 184, 211. 14 In Latin, the equivalent of the English word “interest” is usura. The indeclinable Latin noun interesse corresponds to the fine that had to be paid when a loan was not repaid according to the agreed-upon conditions. To circumvent Canon Law, many loans were signed with agreements on interesse and the assumption that these loans would not be repaid according to the agreed-upon conditions; as a consequence, interesse applied – instead of usura – and generated the same economic effect without breaking the law.

181

IGNACIO DE LA TORRE

a significant role, otherwise the crusader states would have found it much more difficult to sustain their finances, as Michael Metcalf has pointed out.15 In this chapter, we will focus our attention on the Templars’ wholesale finance activities (i.e., financial services rendered to kings) rather than their retail finance activities (i.e., small grants given to pilgrims and retail deposits) – considering the originality and relevance of the first versus the second, and we will explore how these wholesale lending activities soon evolved into the Templars providing broader financial services to the French and English kings. In analyzing why the Templars engaged in wholesale lending as early as the midtwelfth century, we observe the following facts: Firstly, this activity did not result in significant financial profits, as the Order was facing serious financial constraints, which we have already seen from Louis VII’s correspondence; if the Templars had been profiting from significant financial gains through usury, such constraints would have been difficult to imagine, and the Order was not accused of usury in the following decades. Secondly, the Templars accumulated very relevant properties in the West thanks to the donations given to them in the course of the twelfth century. Thirdly, as we have seen, one third of the production incomes from the Order’s commanderies – with the exception of the Iberian estates – was transferred to the East. Fourthly, we can deduce that these transfers resulted in an accumulation of monetary liquidity, otherwise the substantial 1147 loan to the French king would not have been possible, and the establishment (by c. 1165 or earlier) of the conventual treasury and the office of treasurer (or “commander of the kingdom of Jerusalem”). And lastly, these loans served to sustain the crusading effort, which placed the Order into financial difficulties, at least in 1147 and 1182.16 Thus, we can observe a logical relationship between crusading warfare and the Templars’ financial activities which were channeled to sustain the crusading effort. As the Templars developed their financial skills – and the French and English kings began to expand their administrations, it was critical to appoint financially literate officials to manage the respective kingdoms’ financial resources. The obvious candidates were the Templars, and as we shall see in the following section, they dominated the financial administrations of both kingdoms from the early thirteenth century up until their arrest in 1307.

Financial relationships between the Templars and the English and French kings Although the Templars performed financial services for the popes, the Angevin kings of Naples, and the kings of Aragón, their most sophisticated documented financial activities are those involving their relationships with the French and 15 Metcalf, “Templars as Bankers,” 8. 16 In 1182, Pope Lucius III wrote to the bishops, ordering them to liquidate any debtor positions to the Templars in less than thirty days to ease the Order’s financial difficulties; Marion Melville, La vida secreta de los templarios (Girona 1995), 176.

182

THE TEMPLARS’ BANKING ACTIVITIES

English kings during the thirteenth century.17 Let us analyze here the main financial administration functions performed by the Templars in this regard, focusing on the treasury, financial accounting and management, and foreign exchange. Treasury: The Paris and the London Temples served as royal treasuries. The Paris Temple served as the royal treasury from at least 1202 until the Brothers’ arrest in 1307 (except for an interval between 1296 and 1302);18 the London Temple served the same function from at least 122519 until 1291,20 namely, for one of the two royal treasuries (that of the Wardrobe).21 The Templars centralized the Crown’s revenues and expenditures and mixed its liquidity with that of the Order. This was only possible due to a complex financial accounting mechanism that we shall explore later on. Financial accounting: The English and French Templars, together with the respective king, appointed a “treasurer” who was responsible not just for activities regarding the management of the royal treasury (i.e., deposits, revenue collection, and payment system) but also for registering the evolving balances between the king and the Order through a complex accounting framework. This system involved, firstly, the development of well-structured budgets in which all revenues and expenditures were recorded (and not just those accruing to the Templar treasury) and organized according to specific concepts, giving the king a complete picture of the financial resources in his entire territory from a perspective of both usage and proceeds; and, secondly, three times a year the recording of the resulting balance between the kingdom and the Order, driven by the effective cash entries and exits from the Templar treasury and providing a balance (as creditor or debtor) between the king and the Order. Financial management: The Paris and London treasuries did not play a passive role by simply recording accounting entries but, rather, were directly involved in the financial administration of their respective kingdoms. For instance, the French Templar treasurer was a member of the camera compotorum, the French kingdom’s highest financial body, and he was also a member of the Exchequer of Normandy, which controlled the incomes and expenses of that

17 Ignacio de la Torre, “The London and Paris Temples: A Comparative Analysis of Their Financial Services for the Kings during the Thirteenth Century,” in The Military Orders, Volume 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judith M. Upton-Ward (Aldershot 2008), 121–7. 18 Léon Louis Borrelli de Serres, Recherches sur divers services publics du XIIIe au XVIIe siècle, vol. 1 (Paris 1895), 246. 19 John Bruce Williamson, The History of the Temple, London, from the Institution of the Order of the Knights of the Temple to the Close of the Stuart Period: Compiled from the Original Records of the Two Learned and Honourable Societies of the Temple (London 1924), 32; Parker, Knights Templars in England, 81. 20 Agnes Sandys, “The Financial and Administrative Importance of the London Temple in the Thirteenth Century,” in Essays in Medieval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, ed. Andrew G. Little and Frederick M. Powicke (Manchester 1925), 147–62, here 149. 21 James H. Ramsay, A History of the Revenues of the Kings of England, 1066–1399 (Oxford 1925), 184.

183

IGNACIO DE LA TORRE

province. In England, three English Templar treasurers were appointed royal treasurers (keepers) in the course of the thirteenth century.22 Foreign exchange: Both English and French Templars performed foreign exchange services for their kings, namely, by providing funds in a currency that was different from that of the respective kingdom, at a location that was different from the location where the original deposit had been made. Normally, the king would set aside money in English or French currency in his kingdom’s account at the London or Paris Temples and would order the Templar treasury to execute a payment in a different currency from a Templar house outside of London or Paris. As an example, the peace treaty documents between France and England in 1258 and 1259 established payments to be made at the Paris Temple.23 Furthermore, there are diplomatic documents between the kings of France and England showing that money owed by the king of France to Henry III of England was to be paid at the Paris Temple.24

Potential connections between the Templars’ financial activities and their arrest When analyzing the causes that led to the arrest of the Templars in October 1307, scholars have highlighted a wide range of aspects. Recently, the macroeconomic environment of Philip IV’s kingdom and, more concretely, its relationship to the weakening of the currency through manipulation (twentytwo debasements in the course of his reign) has been proposed and established as a potential factor behind the arrest (namely, the need to secure silver to strengthen the debased currency).25 As this macroeconomic aspect has been well researched, let us focus our attention here on the microeconomic relationships driven by the Templars’ financial activities that could provide additional reasons for their arrest.26 First, the use of the Temple as a royal treasury could result in debtor balances from the king to the Order. As a consequence of keeping the royal treasury in the hands of the Templars, the kings had easy access to credit from the Order; when expenses exceeded revenues, this resulted in debtor balances from the king to the Order. This frequently caused the Templars to ask for compensation for their creditor positions. For instance, in 1288, the Templar visitor of the province of England wrote to Edward I, asking him to pay back 4,000 marks 22 Eleanor Ferris, “The Financial Relations of the Knights Templars to the English Crown,” The American Historical Review 8, no. 1 (October 1902), 1–17, here 6. 23 Cartulaire normand: De Philippe-Auguste, Louis VIII, saint Louis et Philippe-le-Hardi, ed. Léopold Delisle (Caen 1882; reprint Geneva 1978), 329–31 no. 1201; 333–4 no. 1209. 24 Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, III: 496 doc. 4564; IV: 29 doc. 4724. 25 Ignacio de la Torre, “The Monetary Fluctuations in Philip IV’s Kingdom of France and Their Relevance to the Arrest of the Templars,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 57–68. 26 Ignacio De la Torre, Los Templarios y el Origen de la Banca, (Madrid 2004), 279.

184

THE TEMPLARS’ BANKING ACTIVITIES

which were owed to the Order.27 The English kings stopped using the Temple as a treasury in 1291, but the French kings were using it as a treasury as late as the date of the arrest, namely, 13 October 1307. The French treasury was transferred from the Paris Temple to the Louvre in 1296 and then back to the Paris Temple in 1303, following the defeat of the French in the battle of Courtrai, which resulted in extreme financial difficulties for the French king. While records of the balance between Philip IV and the Temple (from the moment the treasury returned to the Temple) have unfortunately not survived, we know that in 1286 – at the time of Philip IV’s coronation – the Crown held a debtor position of 101,000 livres parisis, or one sixth of its average annual incomes of the years between 1289 and 1292.28 We also know that, driven by his aggressive foreign policy, Philip IV systematically incurred fiscal deficits which had to be financed either by debasing the currency, by incurring further debts, or by arresting the Lombard merchants in 1292 and the Jews in 1306 and confiscating their respective assets.29 In 1289, the expenses exceeded the revenues by 14 percent, and by 1293 the expenses exceeded the revenues by 46 percent. Indeed, we know that in 1299 and 1301 (i.e., years in which the treasury was kept at the Louvre and not the Paris Temple) the fact that the expenses continued to exceed the revenues meant that the deficit could only be financed through further debasement or further indebtedness. That Philip IV removed the treasury from the Templars in 1296 and transferred it back to them by 1303 probably indicates that he needed the liquidity provided by the Paris Temple to continue running expenses that exceeded his revenues – something he did throughout his reign. This means that the kingdom’s revenues, which were consistently below its expenses, were partially financed by the Temple, hence generating debtor positions from the king to the Order (as had been the case during most years up until 1296). An arrest of the Templars and a subsequent suppression of the Order would eliminate such debtor balances. We know that Philip IV claimed to have a creditor position of 200,000 livres tournois with regard to the Order at the date of the Brothers’ arrest,30 forcing the Hospitallers to pay this sum to secure the transfer of the

27 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, nouvelles acquisitions latines, vols. 1–71 (André d’Albon, Cartulaire de l’Ordre du Temple, ms. s XIX–XX), vol. 69: 103–34 (Actes relatifs aux opérations financières des Templiers / Acta ad mensaria negocia Templi spectantia, 1227–1311), here 108. On this important archival collection of materials pertaining to the Templars, see Émile Guillaume Léonard, Introduction au cartulaire manuscrit du Temple (1150–1317), constitué par le marquis d’Albon et conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale, suivie d’un tableau des maisons françaises du Temple et de leurs précepteurs (Paris 1930). 28 The Cambridge Economic History of Europe from the Decline of the Roman Empire, Volume 3: Economic Organisation and Policies in the Middle Ages, ed. Michael M. Postan, Edwin E. Rich, and Edward Miller (Cambridge 1963), 473. 29 De la Torre, “Monetary Fluctuations in Philip IV’s Kingdom of France,” 60. 30 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ms. français 16583 (Extraits des Mémoriaux de la Chambre des Comptes, depuis le Registre Saint-Just jusqu’au Registre QQQQ, 1137–1599, vol. 1: années 1137–1314), fol. 325.

185

IGNACIO DE LA TORRE

Templars’ assets to them (in accordance with the 1312 papal bull Ad providam). This sum was paid in 1318, but all the evidence supports the assumption that this was a way for the king to extract cash from the Hospitallers and to profit from his seizure of the Templars’ properties; as we have seen, Philip IV tended to have fiscal deficits, which would result in debtor – not creditor – positions. Indeed, the liquidation of the balance of the treasury in 1296 shows that the king owed the Templars (and not the other way around) the sum of 28,854 livres parisis. Secondly, the Templars’ deposit-taking activities presented a temptation for cash-strapped kings. The London Temple acted as a relevant deposit center where many individuals brought their savings. Meanwhile, the Paris Temple certainly held the treasury of the Order’s French province and perhaps even that of the entire Order if said treasury was transferred from Cyprus when the last master, Jacques de Molay, departed for the West. If the Templars were indeed viewed as devoid of a clear “raison d’être” after the fall of the mainland crusader states, this cash was bound to become an easy target for cash-strapped kings. During the Seventh Crusade, the French king ordered the seizure of the Templars’ deposits (which were kept on a Templar ship) to secure the funds to pay for the ransom after his defeat and capture at Mansurah.31 In 1263, the English Crown prince (the future Edward I) attacked the New Temple in London and extracted 10,000 pounds that had been deposited in small coffers by citizens who soon revolted to recover their savings.32 Shortly after his father’s death, Edward II attacked the London Temple in September 1307 – one month before the arrest of the Templars in France – and obtained 50,000 pounds sterling.33 We can also deduce that Philip IV secured enough liquidity from the Paris Temple in October 1307 to facilitate a partial revaluation of the coin with a higher content of silver in 1308.34 Other rulers (for example in Aragón and Cyprus), who had initially been reluctant to believe the Templars’ alleged transgressions, soon changed their minds when they realized the potential liquidity that was to be gained once the Templars would be arrested in their realms.

Conclusion As we have seen, the Templars’ military mission was soon followed by financial activities that were very much related to the crusades. The liquidity generated by the Templars’ commanderies was at the heart of these financial activities. Over time, the Templars’ financial services increased in complexity, especially 31 32 33 34

Jean de Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, ed. Monfrin, 186–90 § 380–5. Williamson, The History of the Temple, London, 39; Piquet, Des Banquiers au Moyen Âge: Les Templiers, 6. Parker, Knights Templars in England, 60. De la Torre, “Monetary Fluctuations in Philip IV’s Kingdom of France,” 66.

186

THE TEMPLARS’ BANKING ACTIVITIES

when dealing with the kings of France and England. Apart from the monetary fluctuations that seriously undermined Philip IV’s France, I believe that the Templars’ financial services ultimately contributed to their Order’s demise, as the suppression of the Order brought two key financial benefits to kings, namely, the cancellation of potential debtor positions (for the king of France) and the Crown’s confiscation of the deposits held by the Templars (in both France and England).

187

9 FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL Alan Forey

Research on the Templar Trial has tended to focus on Philip IV’s motives for his attack on the Order in 1307 and on the question of the guilt or innocence of the Templars. A consensus on these issues, which have been debated ever since the French king took action, has still not been reached. The present chapter does not seek to re-examine these matters but merely to consider the Templars who evaded arrest or who escaped from custody. This approach can, however, throw some light on the attitudes both of the Templars and of those who were responsible for their arrest and detention. The success of attempts to detain Templars at the beginning of proceedings throughout Western Christendom depended on various factors, including the timing of arrests, the element of surprise, the degree of information which rulers possessed about the whereabouts of brothers, and the diligence of officials entrusted with the task. The most effective measures were those taken by Philip IV in France. Not only did he seek to ensure the secrecy of his plans and to achieve simultaneous action throughout the kingdom on 13 October 1307: he also gave instructions for an enquiry beforehand about Templar establishments, so that officials would know where Templars were housed.1 In Navarre, which was then nominally under the rule of Philip IV’s son Louis, arrests were apparently made at the same time, and the few Templars in that kingdom would have had little opportunity to flee.2 In Aragon James II issued instructions for the arrest of the Templars at the beginning of December 1307, after he had heard of confessions in France, but brothers there had learned of the detention of their colleagues in Navarre within a few days, and rumours about papal and

1 Georges Lizerand, Le dossier de l’affaire des Templiers (Paris 1964), 24. Abbreviations used in this chapter: ACA = Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón; R. = Cancillería real, Registro. 2 Alan Forey, The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Aldershot 2001), 1. The two Templar convents in Navarre were at Aberín and Ribaforada. Thomas of Pamplona, who was commander of both houses in 1307, was apparently in France at the time of the arrests: Jules Michelet, Procès des Templiers, 2 vols. (Paris 1841–1851), 2: 15–18.

188

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

royal intentions were circulating in Aragonese lands well before James began proceedings; and he did not attempt to maintain secrecy or to synchronise the actions of those charged with arresting the Templars.3 By contrast, the English king Edward II, who issued instructions on 20 December 1307 for the detention of the Templars,4 did seek to achieve secrecy about the timing of his measures and also to ensure that action was synchronized, as the pope in November had required in the bull Pastoralis preeminentie;5 and he wanted arrests to be made in Ireland before news of the detention of brothers in England became known there.6 Yet he did not have detailed information about the whereabouts of brothers: instructions for arrest were sent to justiciars in Wales, even though there were no Templars there.7 Furthermore, news of arrests in France had reached England before Edward’s instructions were implemented: it was said of several English brothers that they had fled when they heard of what had happened across the Channel.8 In Provence, Charles II on 13 January 1308 sent sealed letters which officials were to open before dawn on 24 January, and in these they were instructed to proceed with the arrest of brothers on the same day.9 Yet, as in England, the arrests in France must already have been known.10 In many regions, however, papal orders for the arrest of Templars were implemented much more slowly. In Cyprus, attempts to secure the persons of the Templars were first made by persuasion and negotiation in May 1308 before there was any recourse to force.11 No action was taken in parts of Lombardy until the summer of 1308;12 and it is clear that in some areas of Italy

3 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 1–7. 4 Thomas Rymer, Foedera, conventiones, litterae et cuiuscunque generis acta publica, 4 vols. (London 1816– 1869), 2.1: 18–19. 5 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 16–17; Antonio Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV de Castilla, 2 vols. (Madrid 1860), 2: 619–21 doc. 415. 6 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 18. 7 Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles 1308– 1311 (Stroud 2009), 49. 8 Helen J. Nicholson, The Proceedings against the Templars in the British Isles, 2 vols. (Farnham 2011), 1: 341. 9 Honoré Bouche, La chorographie ou description de Provence et l’histoire chronologique du mesme pays, 2 vols. (Aix-en-Provence 1664), 2: 328–9; Hans Prutz, Entwicklung und Untergang des Tempelherrenordens (Berlin 1888), 336–7, 340; Benoît Beaucage, “La saisie des biens provençaux de l’ordre du Temple,” in Normes et pouvoir à la fin du moyen âge, ed. Marie-Claude Déprez-Masson (Montréal 1989), 85–103, here 100–2. 10 Damien Carraz, L’ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312): Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales (Lyon 2005), 526–7. 11 Peter W. Edbury, “The Arrest of the Templars in Cyprus,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 249–58, here 252–5. 12 Elena Bellomo, The Templar Order in North-West Italy (1142–c. 1330) (Leiden 2008), 182; Elena Bellomo, “Rinaldo da Concorezzo, Archbishop of Ravenna, and the Trial of the Templars in Northern Italy,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 259–72, here 264; Alessandro

189

ALAN FOREY

knowledge of the whereabouts of Templars was lacking.13 In Castile, where brothers sought the protection of the Queen Mother Mary of Molina and of the Infante Philip, and where Fernando IV was more concerned – at a time of political uncertainty – to gain control of Templar property than to detain members of the Order,14 many Templars appear to have still enjoyed freedom when they were summoned to be questioned at Medina del Campo in April 1310. Those who were then at Alcañices were threatened with excommunication if they ignored the summons, which suggests that they could not be coerced. They also sought guarantees of safety on the journey, which implies again that they were not under guard, while a group of brothers at Alba also claimed that they did not dare to travel to Medina del Campo.15 The number of Templars who evaded arrest and fled at the beginning of proceedings cannot be known at all fully, especially in several regions, but certainly in some of the countries for which the fullest evidence survives it seems to have been relatively small. A contemporary list of French fugitives gives twelve names, including that of the French provincial master, Gerard of Villiers, but the records of the Trial proceedings indicate that at least thirty-five were not apprehended in October 1307;16 this is, however, only a very small proportion of the brothers then resident in France. Of course, there may have been other French fugitives. Templars who were interrogated would not necessarily have known who had absconded and, even if they were aware that a brother had fled, it cannot be assumed that they would always mention it: Gerard of Villiers was named in numerous Templar testimonies given before papal commissioners in Paris, but only in one was reference made to his fugitive status.17 Yet

13 14

15

16 17

Colombo, “I Gerosolimitani e i Templari a Milano e la via Commenda,” Archivio storico Lombardo 53 (1926): 185–240, here 220 doc. 8. Anne Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi (Vatican City 1982), 239–44. Crónica del rey Don Fernando Quarto, in Crónicas de los reyes de Castilla, ed. Cayetano Rosell, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1875–1877), 1: 159–60; Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 1: 204–5, 208–9; Carlos Estepa Díez, “La disolución de la orden del Temple en Castilla y León,” Cuadernos de historia 6 (1975): 121–86, here 125–7; Philippe Josserand, “O processo da Ordem do Templo em Castela,” in Cister, os Templários e a Ordem de Cristo: I Colóquio Internacional: Da Ordem do Templo à Ordem de Cristo: Os anos da transição, ed. José Albuquerque Carreiras and Giulia Rossi Vairo (Tomar 2012), 141–57, here 151; Carlos Barquero Goñi, “El proceso de los templarios en Europa y sus repercusiones en la Península Ibérica (1307–1314),” Clío & Crímen: Revista del Centro de Historia del Crimen de Durango 6 (2009): 294–343, 345–62, here 322–5. Fidel Fita y Colomé, Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles celebrados desde el año 1282 hasta el de 1314 (Madrid 1882), 80–6; Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 2: 738–41 doc. 511; Aurea L. Javierre Mur, “Aportación al estudio del proceso contra el Temple en Castilla,” Revista de archivos, bibliotecas y museos 69 (1961): 47–100, here 75–8 doc. 3; see Gonzalo Martínez Diez, Los Templarios en los reinos de España (Barcelona 2001), 273–7, 289–91, 318–20. Heinrich Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2 vols. (Münster 1907), 2: 74 doc. 50; Michelet, Procès, passim. Michelet, Procès, 2: 134. In most references it is made clear that Templars fled at the time of the arrests, but in a few cases they were merely reported to have fled (Michelet, Procès, 1: 509; 2: 179),

190

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

a large number of fugitives would hardly be expected in France unless some officials were remiss in executing the king’s orders: but there is little evidence of this. Probably most fugitives were brothers who for a variety of reasons happened to be away from their houses on 13 October 1307: Amaury Cambellani thus claimed that at the time of the arrests he was not in one of the Order’s houses because he was ill and staying with his family.18 In England, where it has been calculated that there were about 144 Templars in 1307,19 fifteen were apparently not detained at the beginning of proceedings.20 Probably not many more evaded arrest, as the fourteen Templar fugitives whose Christian names are given in an undated summons by the archbishop of Canterbury can all be linked with known fugitives;21 and it has also been pointed out that the amount of personal gear recorded in inventories drawn up after the arrest usually corresponds to the numbers of Templars detained from the various houses in England.22 In Aragonese lands, most Templars gathered in the autumn of 1307 in a small number of castles which the Order sought to defend,23 and there are only a few reports of brothers who absconded when James II ordered the seizure of Templar property and personnel in December 1307. When brothers from the convent of Horta went to help in the defence of Miravet, one Templar was reported to have hidden himself to avoid going with them; he presumably intended to flee. Yet the non-Templar who provided this evidence stated that it was merely a report which he had heard.24 In December 1307, three Templars were captured by the bailiff of Tortosa when they were attempting to flee by

18

19 20

21 22 23 24

and it has been questioned whether such comments always refer to brothers who had avoided arrest: Benoît Beaucage, “La fin des Templiers en Provence: L’exemple de la viguerie d’Aix,” Provence historique 49 (1999): 79–91, here 81–2. Yet no doubt they usually allude to Templars who had not been apprehended when arrests were made: in the testimony which referred to Gerard of Villiers as a fugitive, it was merely stated that he had fled (Michelet, Procès, 2: 134). Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 2 vols. (Berlin 1887), 2: 44. Alain Demurger, La persécution des Templiers: Journal (1307–1314) (Paris 2015), 54–6, does not include Amaury in his list of thirty-four Templars in France who escaped arrest. He does name Peter of Sornay who was said to have absconded ten days before the arrests and whose flight was probably not linked with Philip IV’s plans (Michelet, Procès, 1: 30), but not Walter of Montengrier, who in June 1308 was reported to be still free (Schottmüller, Untergang, 2: 44), but who was later said to be in custody at Avignon (Michelet, Procès, 2: 222). For a catalogue of French Templars at the time of the Trial, see Alain Demurger, Le peuple templier, 1307/1312 (Paris 2019). Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 49. Ralph of Bulford, John of Ebreston, Richard Engayn, William of Grafton junior, Thomas of Hagworthingham, William of Hereford, Edmund Latimer, Thomas of Lindsey, John of Poynton, Walter the Rebel, Walter of Rockley, Stephen of Stapelbrigg, Roger of Stowe, Thomas of Thoralby, and John of Usflete. Registrum Henrici Woodlock diocesis Wintoniensis, A.D. 1305–1316, ed. Arthur W. Goodman, 2 vols. (Oxford 1940–1941), 1: 403–4. Eileen Gooder, Temple Balsall: The Warwickshire Preceptory of the Templars and Their Fate (Chichester 1995), 84–5. Forey, Fall of the Templars, 15 and map on 16. Barcelona, Archivo Capitular, codex 149A, fols. 57v–58.

191

ALAN FOREY

boat, but they may have been seeking to join their colleagues in one of the castles which was being defended, and the same may have been true of the commander of Peñíscola, who was caught when he tried to escape by sea when his castle fell in the same month.25 James ordered a blockade of the castles which the Templars were defending and issued instructions that brothers should not be able to leave strongholds without being apprehended; but encirclement was never completely effective.26 Yet few Templars appear to have fled from castles while they were being besieged. Three brothers did leave Monzón before the stronghold fell to royal forces. They are known to have been soon in royal custody and one of them, Bernard of Fuentes, later claimed to have surrendered voluntarily to the king, and the others may similarly have submitted to James of their own accord.27 James of Garrigans, who deserted his colleagues at Miravet in the autumn of 1308, certainly did so with the intention of surrendering to James II.28 But the Templar Raymond of San Ipólito did flee, although it is not known when he absconded.29 Detailed evidence has not survived about Templars in the kingdom of Castile, but of eighty-five brothers summoned by name by the archbishop of Toledo to appear for questioning at Medina del Campo in 1310 only seven were said to have abandoned the Order.30 There is certainly no evidence to support the claim made by William of Plaisians at Poitiers in May 1308 that many Templars in Spain had fled to Muslim territories.31 Precise information is lacking, however, for many other regions. In Cyprus, seventy-six Templars were interrogated, but the later chronicles of Amadi and Bustron state that in 1308 there were 118 Templars on the island.32 There would probably have been some deaths between 1308 and 1310, when Templars were questioned, but the chronicle figures would, if accepted, suggest that some fled; but the reliability of their sources cannot be established. It has admittedly been argued that in 1310 Aigue of Bessan captured a number of Templars 25 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 17; ACA, R. 291, fol. 96v; Prutz, Entwicklung, 349–50; Finke, Papsttum, 2: 228–9 doc. 124. 26 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 8, 34–5, 39–42. 27 ACA, R. 291, fols. 201v–202, 221v, 227; Angeles Masiá de Ros, La Corona de Aragón y los estados del Norte de Africa (Barcelona 1951), 490–2 doc. 186. On Bernard of Fuentes, see Alan J. Forey, “Bernard of Fuentes: A Templar in Christian and Muslim Service,” in Von Hamburg nach Java: Studien zur mittelalterlichen, neuen und digitalen Geschichte: Festschrift zu Ehren von Jürgen Sarnowsky, ed. Jochen Burgtorf. Christian Hoffarth, and Sebastian Kubon, Nova Mediaevalia 18 (Göttingen 2020), 309–22. 28 Alan J. Forey, “The Templar James of Garrigans: Illuminator and Deserter,” in The Military Orders, Volume 3: History and Heritage, ed. Victor Mallia-Milanes (Aldershot 2008), 107–14, here 109–11. 29 ACA, R. 274, fol. 41v. 30 Javierre Mur, “Aportación,” 75–8 doc. 3; Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 2: 738–41 doc. 511. 31 Lizerand, Dossier, 122. 32 Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. René de Mas Latrie, in Mélanges historiques 5 (Paris 1886), 167; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. René de Mas Latrie, 2 vols. (Paris 1891–1893), 1: 286. For the interrogations in Cyprus, see Schottmüller, Untergang, 2: 143–400; Anne GilmourBryson, The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus: A Complete English Edition (Leiden 1998).

192

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

on the island, but in fact he was at this point merely transferring to Famagusta brothers who were already in custody.33 It could also be pointed out that the records of interrogations in Cyprus contain no references at all to Templars in Cyprus who had absconded, as those reporting proceedings in France and England do; but most of those questioned in Cyprus had entered the Order in the West, and in describing their admission ceremonies they usually referred to brothers who resided in the West. It is true that a couple of Templars who were mentioned during interrogations in Cyprus and who were apparently resident on the island in 1308 did not testify, but flight is not the only possible explanation.34 To ensure freedom, it would in any case have been necessary to take passage on a ship leaving the island. It is certainly possible that there was a higher percentage of fugitives in some other countries where the evidence is limited, such as Italy. Fewer than forty Templars can be identified whose testimonies survive or who are known to have been interrogated in Italian lands.35 Some Templar houses, such as Castelnuovo del Lodigiano and Fiorenzuola, were reported to have been found deserted,36 and by July 1310 no Templars had been traced in the Campagna and Marittima regions in central Italy.37 Yet it is clear that the known brothers who testified were not the only ones who were arrested and questioned. At the end of the record of six testimonies of named Templars questioned at Florence, it was stated that interrogations of seven other Templars had not been recorded “since some of them had never held a post or office in the Order, and some were engaged only in menial or farming tasks, and others – because of their recent recruitment – were unlikely to be aware of the Order’s secrets” (cum aliqui eorum nullo tempore habuerint statum seu prelationem in ordine, aliqui ad sola servitia seu rusticana opera deputati et aliqui propter novitatem in ordine, secreta ipsa dicti ordinis verisimiliter potuerint ignorari).38 As most of the accusations related to admission ceremonies in which all had participated, it would seem that some testimonies which did not include the required confessions were discarded, and in some other instances this fact may not have been recorded. References also occur

33 Gilmour-Bryson, Trial of the Templars in Cyprus, 17; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 1: 360; Chronique de l’île de Chypre par Florio Bustron, ed. Mas Latrie, 219. 34 Schottmüller, Untergang, 2: 154, 159; Gilmour-Bryson, Trial of the Templars in Cyprus, 55, 64. 35 For Italian testimonies, see Telesforo Bini, “Dei Tempieri e del loro processo in Toscana,” Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 15 (1845): 397–506, here 460–501; Jules Loiseleur, La doctrine secrète des Templiers (Paris 1872), 172–212; François J. M. Raynouard, Monumens historiques rélatifs à la condamnation des chevaliers du Temple et à l’abolition de leur ordre (Paris 1813), 273, 280–4; Renzo Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo arcivescovo di Ravenna 1303–1321 al tempo di Dante (Florence 1964), 298–307 doc. 49; Antonio Tarlazzi, Appendice ai monumenti ravennati dei secoli di mezzo del conte Marco Fantuzzi, 2 vols. (Ravenna 1869–1876), 1: 603–4, 624–8, 629–31 docs. 361, 370, 372; Gilmour-Bryson, Trial of the Templars in the Papal State. 36 Tarlazzi, Appendice, 1: 485–7 doc. 318. 37 Gilmour-Bryson, Trial of the Templars in the Papal State, 240–4. 38 Bini, “Tempieri,” 501; Loiseleur, Doctrine secrète, 211–12.

193

ALAN FOREY

to brothers in various districts who were held in custody but for whom there is no record of interrogation: among these were eight Templars who in 1308 were being detained in Barletta.39 Nor can it be assumed that in 1307 brothers had been residing in all houses which were later said to be deserted. It is clear, however, that although a considerable number of Italian Templars may have absconded when proceedings began, by no means all sought to flee. Not only did some brothers avoid arrest when Templars were first detained: there was also the possibility of later escape from custody. The chances of this depended in the first place on whether brothers were held incarcerated or not. Most were, but they were detained in a variety of buildings, some of which were more secure than others. Escape was also more difficult if brothers were chained, and further factors were the number and honesty of those responsible for guarding them. Local officials were not always given precise instructions about the places where arrested Templars were to be detained: the English king Edward II merely ordered that they should not be kept in their own houses.40 In practice many were detained in castles. Most English brothers were after arrest held in the nearest royal castle, and later, during the period of interrogation, were detained in York and Lincoln castles and the Tower of London.41 In Provence, twenty-two Templars were imprisoned in the castle of Pertuis and twentyseven in that of Meyrargues.42 The eight Templars held at Barletta were kept in the castle there.43 In Aragon, however, James II adopted the policy of detaining Templars in their own buildings: some of these, such as Alfambra, Ascó, and Chalamera, were castles, but they also included houses situated in towns and cities: the king was in fact ready to negotiate with Templars about where they were to be detained within a commandery.44 Buildings of various types – including city and ecclesiastical prisons45 and private houses – were used to hold captured Templars. Some English brethren sent to York had for a period to be accommodated in private houses because the castle was not in a fit state to hold them.46 When large numbers of Templars were assembled in one place the use

39 Prutz, Entwicklung, 363–4; see also the list of Templars in an appendix to Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo. 40 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 18–19; see Bouche, Chorographie, 2: 331–2; Beaucage, “Saisie des biens,” 101–2. 41 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 46–9, 62. 42 Bouche, Chorographie, 2: 329; Prutz, Entwicklung, 338–9; Carraz, Ordre du Temple, 526. 43 Prutz, Entwicklung, 363–4; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “The Templars and Their Trial in Sicily,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 273–84, here 280; see also Prutz, Entwicklung, 356–7. 44 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 89–90. Templars in Roussillon were similarly detained in the Order’s convent at Mas-Déu: Michelet, Procès, 2: 425–6. 45 Tarlazzi, Appendice, 1: 546–54 doc. 340; Prutz, Entwicklung, 355; Alain Demurger, “Encore le procès des Templiers! A propos d’un ouvrage récent,” Le moyen âge 97 (1991): 25–39, here 35–6. 46 Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 49; Gooder, Temple Balsall, 89.

194

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

of various kinds of buildings could hardly be avoided. During the inquiries conducted by papal commissioners in Paris, seventy-five Templars were being held in the Order’s own headquarters in the city, but others were detained in groups varying in size from forty-seven to four in nearly thirty places, including the abbey of Sainte Geneviève, the houses of the bishops of Amiens and Beauvais and of the abbot of Lagny, and also a considerable number of residences of laymen.47 Towards the end of 1310, when Templars were brought to London from Lincoln, Edward II was similarly prepared to use private houses if the Tower and the various gatehouses of the city were not sufficient.48 It seems that in France Templars in custody were usually kept in irons, which was a common practice in prisons, except for those of high standing.49 Brothers interrogated at Alès in 1310 were reported to have testified “released from prison and freed from all their chains” (solutus omnibus vinculis et carcere liberatus), which implies that until they were brought for questioning they had been in chains.50 Templar representatives appearing before papal commissioners in Paris claimed that all were held chained, and a similar assertion was made by several groups of Templars detained in the city.51 Two Templars who appeared before the pope in June 1308 also said that they had been held in irons: one of these stated that he had not only been held in leg irons but also “was sometimes manacled when he was taken in a cart from place to place” (aliquando fuit ligatus manibus quando ducebatur in quadriga de loco in loco).52 There was obviously a need for increased security measures when Templars were being transported for questioning or other reasons, and it is possible that a group of Templars in Paris were alluding to additional chaining when they said that they were charged two shillings “for chaining and unchaining us when we were taken before the interrogators” (pour nos fergier et desfergier puis que nos somes devant les auditors).53 Chaining at an early stage also occurred in Provence, and when five Templars were transferred from Pertuis to Aix in February 1308 they were chained together on the journey.54 But in some other countries a more lenient approach was adopted. In Aragonese lands Templars were not put in irons until July 1310,

47 Michelet, Procès, 1: 113–64; Filip Hooghe, “The Trial of the Templars in the County of Flanders (1307–1312),” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 285–300, here 297. For a survey of the places used to house Templars in Paris at this time, see Edward Burman, Supremely Abominable Crimes: The Trial of the Knights Templar (London 1994), 106–10. 48 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 119. 49 Jean Dunbabin, Captivity and Imprisonment in Medieval Europe, 1000–1300 (Basingstoke 2002), 34, 121. 50 Léon Ménard, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique et littéraire de la ville de Nismes, 7 vols. (Paris, 1750–1758), 1: Preuves, 172, 174, 176–7, 181, 185–8, 194. 51 Michelet, Procès, 1: 101, 117, 133, 146. 52 Schottmüller, Untergang, 2: 67, 69. 53 Michelet, Procès, 1: 151. Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006), 154, takes this comment to mean that Templars were unchained while being interrogated and were later chained again. But the text places the chaining before the unchaining. 54 Prutz, Entwicklung, 336; Beaucage, “Saisie des biens,” 89.

195

ALAN FOREY

when those conducting inquiries sought stricter confinement of brothers. But they were put only in leg irons, and James II told officials that neck irons were not necessary. Within a few months, however, all had on the king’s orders been released from their chains, and irons were not used again until August 1311, after the pope had instructed that torture should be employed and there was therefore an increased risk of attempted flight.55 In England, irons may similarly not have been employed in the early stages of imprisonment. When ordering the arrest of the Templars Edward II stated that they should be held honourably and not in “harsh or vile captivity” (dura et vili prisona).56 Apparently the first reference to the use of chaining was in November 1310 when Edward II ordered that Templars brought to the Tower of London from Lincoln should be placed in leg irons.57 Little is known about the numbers of guards employed to watch over Templars. In Aragon, James II adopted a policy of having one guard for each Templar, although in July 1309 the numbers of guards were for a time reduced – probably for financial reasons – to one guard for every five Templars.58 It is clear, however, that escapes from custody were at times facilitated by corrupt or wayward officials and guards. The English Templar Thomas of Thoralby admitted that he gave the sheriff and custodian of Lincoln castle forty florins in order to effect his escape,59 and it was said that in 1311 William of Lor was able to flee from Gandesa in Aragon because the royal official in charge there had been pocketing the money which should have been used to pay guards.60 The sheriff of York was reprimanded in 1310 and again in 1311 after it had been reported that he allowed Templars who were supposed to be held in York castle to wander about (vagari), so that there was a danger of their fleeing.61 In 1310, James II of Aragon also deemed it necessary to threaten any guards who failed to implement his orders about the chaining of Templars: he feared that some would be too sympathetic to brothers.62 Some captured Templars were, however, at times not held in close confinement and were allowed greater freedom of movement by rulers. When the brothers defending the castle of Miravet surrendered to James II of Aragon late in 1308, it was conceded that they could walk in groups of not more than three, under guard, for a distance of two or three arrow shots from the buildings 55 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 95–7. 56 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 18–19. 57 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 119; see also The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothwell, Camden Society, 3rd series, 89 (1957): 395. 58 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 93–5. 59 Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 354; on shrieval corruption in the fourteenth century, see Richard Gorski, The Fourteenth-Century Sheriff: English Local Administration in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge 2003), chap. 4. 60 ACA, R. 291, fol. 302; Forey, Fall of the Templars, 97. 61 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 105, 125. 62 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 95.

196

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

where they were to be held, provided that they were not being detained in a city or large town. Some of the Templars who surrendered at Monzón in 1309 were even assigned a mule “for riding” (a son cabalcar): Berenguer Guamir, former commander of Barcelona, was even permitted to ride through that city whenever he wanted.63 In March 1308, the English King Edward II allowed the provincial master William de la More to go out under guard from Canterbury castle during daylight with two brothers, and two months later the master was entrusted to the care of Anthony Bek, patriarch of Jerusalem and bishop of Durham.64 In July, two brothers – Michael of Baskerville and John of Stoke – were freed to accompany William de la More.65 It was not until November 1308 that the provincial master was detained in the Tower of London.66 The Yorkshire Templar William of Grafton was at first allowed the use of his horses while still residing at the Order’s house at Whitley.67 In Ireland Templars appear not to have been closely confined. In the spring of 1309, they were assigned the three manors of Kilcloggan, Kilbarry, and Crooke for their upkeep, and these were under Templar control until Michaelmas 1311, while Thomas Lindsey had already been involved in the administration of Kilsaran at the beginning of 1309.68 In 1310, the release under guarantee of some Templars in northern Italy was also being considered, although the outcome is not known.69 Yet recorded escapes are comparatively few. In France, it was reported that a brother Bertrand had broken out of prison,70 and in February 1308 James of Montecucco fled from papal custody in Poitiers, to the embarrassment of Clement V, who was then seeking to have all Templars placed in ecclesiastical keeping.71 Philip of Treffon was also reported to have escaped, with some colleagues, in northern France when he was being held in the house of the knight Peter of Plailly.72 One other brother who is known to have escaped in France was Peter of Bologna: he had been a spokesman for the Order before the papal commissioners who were conducting inquiries in Paris but broke out of prison during these proceedings.73 Admittedly, William of Plaisians in May 1308 alluded to Templars 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71

72 73

Forey, Fall of the Templars, 92–3. Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 46; Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 52–3. Gooder, Temple Balsall, 89. Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 53. Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 49. Irish Exchequer Payments, 1270–1446, ed. Philomena Connolly (Dublin 1998), 209; Gearóid MacNiocaill, “Documents Relating to the Suppression of the Templars in Ireland,” Analecta Hibernica 24 (1967): 183–226, here 196, 222. Tarlazzi, Appendice, 1: 582 doc. 350; Bellomo, Templar Order, 189. Michelet, Procès, 2: 180. Finke, Papsttum, 2: 113–14 doc. 74; Bellomo, Templar Order, 204–5. Julien Théry-Astruc, “The Flight of the Master of Lombardy (13 February 1308) and Clement V’s Strategy in the Templar Affair: A Slap in the Pope’s Face,” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 70 (2016): 35–44. Prutz, Entwicklung, 355. Michelet, Procès, 1: 287; Bellomo, Templar Order; 206; Francesco Tommasi, “Fratres quondam Templi: Per i Templari in Italia dopo il concilio di Vienne e il destino de Pietro da Bologna,” in The Templars

197

ALAN FOREY

who had broken out of prison, suggesting that escapes were not uncommon, but he was merely trying to blacken the character of Templars in front of the pope.74 In Aragonese lands, the only known Templar who escaped – apart from William of Lor – was Bernard of Fuentes, who fled after being interrogated at Lérida in 1310.75 Several English Templars similarly gained their freedom. Stephen of Stapelbrigg and Thomas of Lindsey, who had fled to Ireland but were apprehended or surrendered there, later fled again.76 Michael of Baskerville and the chaplain John of Stoke, who after being arrested had in July 1308 been assigned to accompany the English provincial master, were in November 1309 reported to have absconded.77 The chaplain Roger of Stowe and Thomas of Thoralby, who had earlier been fugitives, also escaped after initial interrogations.78 It is difficult to discern common characteristics among the Templars who avoided arrest or escaped from custody. They included brothers belonging to all ranks within the Order – knights, sergeants, and chaplains. Templars residing in Western countries in the early fourteenth century were predominantly sergeants,79 but among fugitives of known rank in France knights were proportionately more numerous than sergeants, and both of the Templars who escaped from royal custody in Aragon were knights. Yet the samples are too small to be necessarily significant. Fugitives were also of varying ages and differing lengths of service. Although several English runaways had entered the Order at the turn of the century, Thomas of Thoralby had been received about the year 1282;80

74 75 76

77

78

79 80

and their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson, Crusades Subsidia 10 (Abingdon 2017), 248–306¸ here 286–8. Lizerand, Dossier, 122. Masiá de Ros, Corona de Aragón, 490–2 doc. 186; Finke, Papsttum, 2: 372 doc. 157. Irish Exchequer Payments, ed. Connolly, 204; MacNiocaill, “Documents,” 196, 222; Councils and Synods, with other Documents Relating to the English Church, ed. Frederick M. Powicke and Christopher R. Cheney, 2 vols. (Oxford 1964), 2: 1369–1370; Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records, Edward II, A.D. 1307–1313 (London 1892), 316–17. Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 48, 73. It has been argued that these two Templars had been appointed for a year as attorneys by the provincial master shortly before the arrests, and that they had not absconded but were merely going about the master’s business: Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 50. Yet the attorneys were Michael of Baskerville and Peter of Oteringham, not John of Stoke: Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Edward II, A.D. 1307–1313, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (London 1894), 28. It may also be pointed out that, as brothers were in prison and Templar properties in royal hands, the master had few functions to fulfil; and, even if the powers of attorney were still considered valid after the arrest, the year for which they had been granted expired in December 1308. Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 58–61, 235–6; 2: xvii, xxxix. On escapes of people in prison on charges of heresy, see Walter L. Wakefield, “Friar Ferrier, Inquisition at Caunes, and Escapes from Prison at Carcassonne,” Catholic Historical Review 58 (1972–1973): 220–37, here 220 and n. 2; and on escapes from prison more generally, see Dunbabin, Captivity, 141–2. Alan J. Forey, “Recruitment to the Military Orders (Twelfth to Mid-Fourteenth Centuries),” Viator 17 (1986): 139–71, here 144–5. Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 105, 107, 235, 282, 349.

198

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

and among fugitives in France Peter of Bologna had also become a Templar about the year 1282, while others had served for only a few years before the arrests;81 and whereas Rainald of Belli Pili was about 50 when he was interrogated, Peter of Boucli was about half that age.82 Unsurprisingly, however, known fugitives did not include men of great age or unusually long service: it is hardly to be expected that many fugitives would have come from the English commanderies of Denny and Eagle, where sick and infirm brethren were housed.83 Those who fled were from various parts of the countries in which they were serving. In England, two were from the New Temple in London, but some others were from houses in northern England and Scotland, while Stephen of Stapelbrigg belonged to the house of Lydley in Shropshire.84 French fugitives similarly were from various parts of the kingdom. The sources do not give the impression of a concerted flight by large groups of Templars. Seven brothers of the house of Toulon in Provence were reported to have avoided arrest, but this was unusual.85 As the numbers in individual houses were usually very small, it would in any case have been difficult to co-ordinate a large-scale disappearance at the time of the arrests. Those who fled during the Trial scattered in various directions. Some sought to leave the countries where they had been serving. Several French fugitives, such as Richard of Moncler and Charembaut of Comflanz, made for Germany,86 while the Aragonese Templar Bernard of Fuentes went to Tunis where he became the head of the Christian militia in the service of the local ruler.87 As has been mentioned, Thomas of Lindsey and Stephen of Stapelbrigg fled from England to Ireland, and an English Templar chaplain, Roger of Stowe, was reported to have gone to “foreign parts” (alienas partes).88 Peter of Bologna went back to his homeland in Italy, where he was later reported to be living, as did James of Montecucco.89 It has, of course, frequently been claimed that fugitive Templars from France sailed from La Rochelle and fled to Scotland, where they are said to have maintained their identity as a group. It is odd that the focus in these claims has

81 Michelet, Procès, 2: 157, 265–6, 348. 82 Michelet, Procès, 1: 412–13; 2: 267. 83 On these houses, see Alan J. Forey, “Provision for the Aged in Templar Commanderies,” in La commanderie: Institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Léon Pressouyre (Paris 2002), 175–86, here 177–8. 84 Stephen of Stapelbrigg’s presence at Lydley on the eve of the arrests is mentioned in Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 198. 85 Alain Demurger, Les Templiers: Une chevalerie chrétienne au moyen âge (Paris 2005), 439. Barber, Trial, 323 n. 8, suggests that John of Chali, Peter Modies, Falco Milly, and Hugh of Chalons planned their flight together; but this is merely a hypothesis. 86 Finke, Papsttum, 2: 74 doc. 50. 87 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 216. 88 Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 359–359v. 89 Bellomo, Templar Order, 204–6.

199

ALAN FOREY

mainly been on French Templars, since fugitives were likely to have been more numerous in some other countries; but it has been assumed that there were many brothers in France who were not apprehended by Philip IV’s officials. This is because exaggerated assessments of the total numbers of Templars in France have been accepted and the numbers of those arrested under-estimated. It has been claimed in The Temple and the Lodge, for example, that 620 Templars were arrested in France.90 Certainly some 600 brothers expressed a readiness to defend the Order before papal commissioners in Paris.91 Yet this figure clearly does not include all who were apprehended in France. Of the sixty-nine Templars interrogated at Clermont in 1309, only thirty-two appeared in Paris in the following year.92 It should also be remembered that, apart from those who were executed during the Trial, there were other deaths during that period, occasioned either by torture and ill-treatment or by natural causes.93 The claims relating to Scotland in fact rest on very uncertain foundations. The only documentary basis for the supposed flight of French Templars from La Rochelle is the testimony given by the Templar John of Châlons at Poitiers in June 1308, together with a list of French fugitives which refers rather ambiguously to Gerard of Villiers qui est armez li XL de freres (perhaps “who was accompanied by forty brothers”?).94 John of Châlons testified that in 1307 leading members of the Order, who knew what was about to happen, fled, and that he himself had met Gerard of Villiers, the French provincial master, leading a string of fifty horses; and he further asserted that he had heard that Gerard had later sailed with eighteen galleys. Gerard of Villiers was certainly a fugitive, but this testimony provides little support for the theories which have been advanced. John’s claim that leading Templars had prior knowledge of the planned arrests and therefore disappeared is hardly borne out by the imprisonment of many of them in October 1307. He had presumably met Gerard shortly before the arrests, but that does not necessarily indicate that the latter was then seeking to avoid arrest: to take fifty horses, which would need stabling and feeding, was hardly the best way of evading capture. Templars in the West commonly dispatched horses to the East, and both they and the Hospitallers continued to do so after the collapse of the crusader states:95 it might therefore be suggested that this was the purpose of Gerard’s journey. Early October would admittedly have been late for the normal autumn passage to the East, but an explanation 90 Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, The Temple and the Lodge (London 1998), 101. 91 Barber, Trial, 152. 92 Roger Sève and Anne-Marie Chagny-Sève, Le procès des Templiers d’Auvergne, 1309–1311 (Paris 1986), 65–6. 93 On deaths during the Trial in England, where torture was not used until a late stage, see Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 54–6. 94 Finke, Papsttum, 2: 74, 337–9 docs. 50, 155. 95 Riccardo Filangieri, I registri della cancelleria angioina, 50 vols. (Naples 1950–2011), 47: 149, 285; Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général de l’ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, 4 vols. (Paris 1894–1906), 3: 808 doc. 4512; 4: 304 doc. 4855bis.

200

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

of this kind would be possible if the meeting had been in September.96 Where Gerard was going is not clear, but there is certainly nothing to indicate that he was making for La Rochelle: John of Châlons does not mention that port, and as he was commander of a Templar house in the diocese of Troyes, to the south-east of Paris, his meeting with Gerard of Villiers hardly indicates a journey in that direction. In the thirteenth century, the Templars were certainly transporting wine by ship from La Rochelle, but some of the vessels they used were hired, and there is nothing to suggest that they had eighteen galleys based there.97 John himself admits that the report about boarding ships was merely a rumour: it could easily have begun as a question, then become a suggestion, and ended as a statement. The curiously worded claim about Gerard of Villiers in the list of fugitives could well have been based on this rumour: although Finke thought that the list was drawn up in late 1307,98 the document is not dated: all that is known is that it was compiled before the time of the papal commissioners’ proceedings in Paris, as some of those listed as fugitives had by then been apprehended.99 It is clear, however, that many fugitives remained in the countries where they had been resident in 1307. This is obviously true of some French Templars who later surrendered or were captured, and in Germany twenty local Templars who were still at large are reported to have burst into a provincial council held at Mainz in 1310.100 Stephen of Stapelbrigg even returned from Ireland to England.101 Templars who had evaded arrest or escaped from custody normally sought to avoid detection by abandoning their habits and shaving their beards. Adam of Wallancourt said that he had discarded his habit and shaved his beard, “so that he could go wherever he wanted more freely and discreetly” (ut liberius et secretius ire posset quo vellet).102 The French Templars John of Chali and Peter of Modies were wearing striped clothing when they were caught, and the English chaplain Roger of Stowe adopted the guise of a secular priest.103 As fleeing 96 There is no evidence, however, to support the suggestion that he went as far as Genoa: PierreVincent Claverie, L’ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle, 3 vols. (Nicosia 2005), 2: 281; Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi, ed. Mas Latrie, 291. 97 Jean-Claude Bonnin, “Les Templiers et la mer: L’exemple de La Rochelle,” in Commanderie, ed. Luttrell and Pressouyre, 307–15. 98 Finke, Papsttum, 2: 74 doc. 50. 99 For criticism of claims that there were numerous Templar graves of this period in western Scotland, see Mark Oxbrow, Ian Robertson, and Caroline Davies, Rosslyn and the Grail (Edinburgh 2006), 123; Robert L. D. Cooper, The Rosslyn Hoax? (Hersham 2006), 227–34. There is, of course, no evidence to indicate that Templars participated in the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, as has often been asserted. 100 Johannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols. (Florence 1759– 1793), 25: 297–9. 101 Calendar of Close Rolls, 1307–1313, 316–17. 102 Michelet, Procès, 1: 409. 103 Michelet, Procès, 2: 263, 265; Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 359–359v; see Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 100.

201

ALAN FOREY

Templars usually shaved off their beards, it was bearded non-Templars whose appearance was likely to make them suspect. A manservant of Edward II called Peter Auger, who had vowed not to shave his beard until he had completed a pilgrimage, had to be provided with a letter by the king stating that he was not to be mistaken for a Templar “by reason of his flowing beard” (ratione barbe sue prolixe).104 Fugitive brothers might also, of course, hope for shelter and protection from their families or those who had in the past patronized and supported the Temple.105 Various measures were adopted by ecclesiastical and secular authorities in attempts to apprehend fugitives. The pope and secular rulers sent out orders, and prelates issued summonses. In December 1308, for example, Clement V not only instructed secular rulers to arrest any Templars who had not been detained, but also forbade anyone to aid, favour, or harbour fugitives.106 When issuing instructions for the detention of Templars in Provence Charles II stated that any who were not captured on 24 January 1308 were to be pursued until they were apprehended,107 and in England Edward II ordered sheriffs and also officials in Scotland and Ireland in September 1309 to detain Templars who had not been captured, and a further instruction was issued to English sheriffs in December of that year.108 Some of the summonses issued by prelates were to all Templars, whether in custody or not, but others were addressed to named fugitives. Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, gave orders that fourteen Templars, whose Christian names were given, were to be summoned, and in May 1310 the archbishop of York similarly called upon eight named fugitives to appear on 2 July of that year.109 Wide publicity was commonly given to such orders and summonses. On 4 November 1309, clergy and laity in Parma were summoned by bells, trumpets, and town criers, and papal letters were then read out to them both in Latin and the vernacular, and the same happened at Piacenza a week later.110 It is also reported that in central Italy copies of summonses were affixed to the walls of various buildings.111 Decrees were accompanied by threats of censure: Templars who failed to surrender were to be declared contu104 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 128. 105 On patterns of patronage, see, for example, Jochen Schenk, Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120–1307 (Cambridge 2012). 106 Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 2: 626–8 doc. 420; Tarlazzi, Appendice, 1: 490–4 doc. 321; Regestum Clementis papae V ex Vaticanis archetypis nunc primum editum, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, 8 vols. (Rome 1885–1892), 4: 3, 276–8 nos. 3641, 3642, 4637–52; The Register of William Greenfield, Lord Archbishop of York, 1306–1315, ed. William Brown and A. Hamilton Thompson, 5 vols., Surtees Society, vols. 145, 149, 151–3 (1931–1940), 4: 307–10 doc. 2280; Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Rothwell, 393–4; Barquero Goñi, “Proceso,” 357–9. 107 Bouche, Chorographie, 2: 329. 108 Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 90, 93, 94, 100. 109 Registrum Henrici Woodlock, ed. Goodman, 1: 403–4; Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 4: 285–6 doc. 2271. 110 Tarlazzi, Appendice, 1: 512–14 docs. 329, 330. 111 See, for example, Gilmour-Bryson, Trial of the Templars in the Papal State, 67–71.

202

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

macious and excommunicated, and Clement also ruled in December 1308 that those who continued to aid Templars were to be subject to excommunication and their lands placed under interdict.112 On occasion incentives were offered for the detention of fugitives. In 1308, Clement offered a reward worth 10,000 florins for the capture of James of Montecucco, but this was not an example that was commonly followed.113 At times a more active approach was adopted by instituting inquiries. Arrested Templars were sometimes asked to name fugitives: thus, in January 1308, the Templar Hugh of St. Jean, who helped to compile an inventory of Templar goods at Aix, swore that the three brothers who had been arrested were the only ones in that house.114 At the request of the inquisitors in England, the bishop of Winchester in 1310 ordered inquiries to be undertaken by the archdeacon of Surrey about those who were supporting or sheltering Templars and impeding proceedings;115 and Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, ordered his commissary to ask clergy and laymen who were present at consistories and chapters whether they knew of any Templars who were not in custody.116 In central Italy, non-Templar witnesses at Velletri and Segni were asked if they knew of any Templars or of any who were giving support and aid to brothers.117 None of these Italian witnesses, however, provided any information. Yet if Templars were residing in the locality of their homes and sought refuge with their families, the latter might be approached. That this was done is suggested by an instruction by an inquisitor to Lunato Bazano and Hugh Garilio to present the Templars John Bazano and Peter Garilio to the podestà of Casale.118 Not all families, however, could be relied upon to co-operate, and as Templars were commonly transferred from one house to another, many would have been living far from their homes at the time of the arrests. Apprehending Templar fugitives was not an easy task, and was no doubt made more difficult by the limited means of communication which existed. As Clement V admitted in 1312, “it is impossible or at least very difficult to track vagabonds down” (vagabundi nullatenus possent aut saltem non faciliter inveniri).119 Yet clearly

112 Tarlazzi, Appendice, 1: 490–4 doc. 321; Regestum Clementis papae V, 4: 3 nos. 3641, 3642; Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Rothwell, 393–4; Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 4: 307–10 doc. 2280. Clement had earlier threatened to excommunicate any who continued to hide James of Montecucco: Finke, Papsttum, 2: 113–14 doc. 74. 113 Finke, Papsttum, 2: 113–14 doc. 74. 114 Beaucage, “Fin des Templiers,” 82. 115 Registrum Henrici Woodlock, ed. Goodman, 1: 468–9. 116 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, ed. Rose Graham, 2 vols., Canterbury and York Society 51–52 (Oxford 1952–1956), 2: 1240–41. 117 Gilmour-Bryson, Trial of the Templars in the Papal State, 239–41, 243–4. 118 Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo, 265–6 doc. 34. 119 Regestum Clementis papae V, 7: 303–5 doc. 8784; Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 2: 855–7 doc. 579; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. Josephus Alberigo et al. (Basel 1962), 323–5. On the problems which military orders themselves experienced in apprehending deserters during

203

ALAN FOREY

information was in some instances received which allowed arrests to be made. In 1310, the prévôt of Castellet told the papal commissioners in Paris that he had arrested seven men in secular clothing at the behest of royal officials who had been told that they were Templar fugitives; and the abbot of Noyon captured Philip of Treffon in September of the same year after being asked to act by an unnamed armiger.120 But it is not clear whether information in these instances resulted from inquiries or whether informers had taken the initiative in divulging what they knew. Nor is the background known to the capture of Drohet of Parisius, who was apprehended by Oudard of Maubuisson, the official responsible for the arrest of Templars in the sénéchaussée of Beaucaire, or of Stephen of Stapelbrigg, who was seized in 1311 by officials of the bishop of Salisbury; and fugitives who later testified in Paris before papal commissioners and said that they had been captured provide no details of how they were caught.121 Some fugitives who were later in custody had, however, surrendered of their own accord. The archbishop of York said of John of Ebreston in 1310, for example, that “appearing before us in a spirit of humility, he begged to be restored to his religious status and to the habit of his Order” (coram nobis in spiritu humilitatis comparens, ad statum suum et habitum sui ordinis restitui . . . postulavit), and in the next year Thomas of Thoralby “presented himself before the venerable father, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, . . . asking that he should be treated mercifully by the Church and submitting himself to the Church’s decree” (representavit se coram venerabili patre domino Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi . . . petens per ecclesiam misericorditer secum agi, submittens se ordinacioni ecclesie).122 Only limited information survives about the total numbers of fugitives who were in custody at the end of the Trial. In England, nine had been captured or had surrendered, although Thomas of Lindsey and Roger of Stowe had disappeared again before proceedings were completed.123 Ten were unaccounted for at the end of the Trial, although some of these may by then have died. In France, where the number of fugitives was larger, only nine are known to have been in custody by the end of the Trial but, in view of the treatment meted out to brothers detained by Philip IV, numerous voluntary surrenders were hardly to be expected. Surviving sources provide little indication of the severity of the punishment meted out to fugitives who were captured or surrendered. At the end of the Trial in England, John of Stoke was given a harsh penance, but it was no more

120 121 122 123

the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Alan J. Forey, “Desertions and Transfers from Military Orders (Twelfth to Early-Fourteenth Centuries),” Traditio 60 (2005): 143–200, here 188–92. Michelet, Procès, 1: 29–30; Prutz, Entwicklung, 355. The seven were not in fact all Templars. Ménard, Histoire, 1: Preuves, 177; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1307–1313, 316–17; Michelet, Procès, 1: 409, 412; 2: 263, 265. Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 4: 326–7 doc. 2294; Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 352. See earlier (with note 78).

204

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

demanding than that given to some brothers who had not absconded. Penances in England appear to have been determined mainly by length of service in the Order, and there is no evidence of additional penances being imposed upon those who had been fugitives.124 It is also clear that in England fugitives who were in custody when the Trial ended were granted the same allowance of fourpence a day as other Templars.125 There were no doubt fugitives still at large in all regions when Clement V abolished the Temple in 1312. The pope decreed that these should present themselves before their diocesans within a year and should be questioned: those who did not obey were to be excommunicated and those who remained excommunicate for a year were to be condemned as heretics. These rulings were to be publicized by bishops in cathedrals and elsewhere.126 Some fugitives in countries where Templars were not imprisoned after the Trial, such as England and Aragon, did then seek to reconcile themselves with the Church. In England, Thomas of Lindsey had surrendered by the spring of 1312,127 and William of Grafton junior submitted voluntarily within the year specified by the pope: he was questioned by the bishop of Lincoln on the accusations against the Templars and then absolved from the excommunication he had incurred by his flight. He was sent to the Augustinian convent of Missenden to do penance.128 Richard Engayne and Thomas of Hagworthingham, who had not been interrogated during the Trial but who were receiving pensions in religious houses before the end of 1311 and by the summer of 1313 respectively, had presumably submitted after the Trial had been completed in England.129 It was not until 1316, however, that the Templar chaplain Roger of Stowe sought absolution.130 When these had submitted, only five English fugitives remained unaccounted for, and possibly most of these were dead by 1316.131 In the kingdom of Aragon, where few had fled, in 1313 the Templar Raymond of San Ipólito received 124 Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 223; on penances imposed on English Templars, see Alan J. Forey, “Ex-Templars in England,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 53, no. 1 (2002): 18–37, here 25–6. 125 On the allowances given to former fugitives at the end of the Trial, see Calendar of Close Rolls, 1307–1313, 365, 373, 384, 509, 512; Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records, Edward II, A.D. 1313–1318 (London 1893), 22; Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 5: 9–10 doc. 2369; see Rosalind Hill, “Fourpenny Retirement: The Yorkshire Templars in the Fourteenth Century,” in The Church and Wealth, Studies in Church History, vol. 24 (1987): 123–8, here 126–7; Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 28. 126 Regestum Clementis papae V, 7: 303–5 doc. 8784; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. Alberigo et al., 323–5; Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 2: 855–7 doc. 579. 127 Councils and Synods, ed. Powicke and Cheney, 2: 1369–70. 128 Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 267. 129 Calendar of Close Rolls, 1307–1313, 391; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1313–1318, 10. 130 Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 359–359v. 131 These were Ralph of Bulford, Edmund Latimer, John of Poynton, Walter the Rebel, and John of Usflete.

205

ALAN FOREY

absolution from the bishop of Tortosa, while in the same year Bernard of Fuentes returned from Tunis, and on the instructions of the bishop of Lérida was absolved by the archdeacon of Besalú.132 Those who submitted after the end of the Trial were not harshly treated. Clement V had in fact decreed in 1312 that fugitives who later surrendered were to be treated mercifully, unless they were impenitent or relapsed.133 Raymond of San Ipólito, who was a Templar sergeant, was granted a pension of 500 Barcelona shillings (s.B.) a year – the norm for brothers of that rank in Aragon  – and the knight Bernard of Fuentes was more generously assigned 3000 s.B. a year, even though the basic rate for Aragonese knights was 1400 s.B.134 In 1313, he was even allowed to complete his diplomatic work for the Tunisian ruler before taking up residence in the former Templar house of Gardeny.135 In England, fugitives who submitted after 1312 were given the same daily allowance as other Templars there.136 Details of penances imposed on Templars who surrendered after the Trial are almost completely lacking. Only that of William of Grafton junior is known. He was to be allowed out of his room only to go to the church or cloister to hear divine service and also once a week to get fresh air for four hours, although he was not to leave the monastery’s precincts. He was permitted one kind of cheap meat on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and on Fridays he was to have only bread, beer, and broth. On other days he was to be given one kind of fish. As he was literate, he was to recite the Psalter with the Litany three times a week. This penance was harsher than that demanded of some brothers who had not been fugitives, but it was also lighter than the penances decreed for other Templars, including some who had not been fugitives.137 In the years following the abolition of the Temple, comments continued to be made about fugitive Templars. In 1316, for example, the Hospitallers asserted that there were Templars living in Flanders who had not been reconciled with the Church, and the contemporary Italian chronicler Ferretus Vincentinus alluded to fugitives who were still at large after 1312.138 There does 132 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 216. William of Lor was receiving a pension by October 1313 and had apparently surrendered after the end of the Trial: ACA, R. 274, fol. 74. 133 Regestum Clementis papae V, 7: 303–5 doc. 8784; Benavides, Memorias del rey D. Fernando IV, 2: 855–7 doc. 579; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. Alberigo et al., 323–5. 134 ACA, R. 274, fol. 41v; Forey, Fall of the Templars, 213, 216. 135 Louis de Mas Latrie, Traités de paix et de commerce et documents divers concernant les relations des chrétiens avec les arabes de l’Afrique septentrionale au moyen âge, 2 vols. (Paris 1866), 2: 306–10. 136 On the pensions of Richard Engayne and Thomas of Hagworthingham, see Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 152; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1307–1313, 391, 521; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1313–1318, 10. In 1314, Edward II instructed the Hospitallers to pay former Templars fourpence a day: Rymer, Foedera, 2.1: 243. 137 Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 267; see Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 25–6. 138 Hooghe, “Trial of the Templars,” 299; Ferreto de’ Ferreti Vicentino, Historia rerum in Italia gestarum, in Le opere di Ferreto de’ Ferreti, ed. Carlo Cipolla, 3 vols. (Rome 1908–1920), 1: 186. In countries such as France, where many Templars were held in prison after the Trial, and England, where brothers were sent to live in houses of other religious orders, there may have been some

206

FUGITIVES DURING THE TEMPLAR TRIAL

not, however, despite Clement V’s rulings in 1312, normally seem to have been any active pursuit of fugitives at this stage. They were usually able to live out their lives with impunity, if in varying degrees of comfort. Ferretus Vincentinus claims that some gave themselves up to “plebeian occupations” (ministeriis plebeis), but others who had the support of families or friends were no doubt able to enjoy a more comfortable existence. Although a study of Templar fugitives does not throw much direct light on the main questions which are usually asked about the Templar Trial, it does provide some indications of attitudes. It is clear that in some countries the arrest and detention of Templars were not conducted with the rigour and determination which characterized the measures taken in France. Some rulers and officials were prepared to treat Templars considerately during the Trial, allowing some brothers a marked degree of freedom. Fugitives who were taken into custody were apparently not penalized more severely than other brothers, and after the Trial Templars still at large were not actively pursued. The attitudes commonly displayed by those in authority suggest that there were many who were not altogether convinced of the Templars’ guilt and not ill-disposed towards the Order, despite the mounting criticism of military orders, especially the Temple and the Hospital, voiced in the thirteenth century. Conclusions may also be drawn about the attitudes of the fugitives themselves. Not all those who were not apprehended at the beginning of proceedings had taken the initiative in absconding: as has been seen, some brothers in France had not been captured merely because at the time they were not in the places where officials carried out arrests. But many of these sought to remain at liberty, while other Templars did at the outset take measures to avoid capture or later sought to escape from custody. The reason usually given was fear. Roger of Stowe, for example, claimed that he had been “terrified with fear of being arrested” (timore captionis huius perterritus), and Thomas of Thoralby stated that he had sought to escape from custody after the abbot of Lagny had asserted during interrogation that he would make the Templar confess to the accusations.139 Similarly Andrew of Siena, who was questioned at Cesena, asserted that he had fled through fear when he heard that others were being arrested and killed.140 The fear could have been not only of physical suffering and possibly death, but

who escaped and fled after the Trial. But nothing appears to be known about escapes from prison in France at this time, and Roger of Sheffield, who absconded from the Cistercian monastery of Kirkstall, was an exception among English Templars: Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 5: 1–3, 5 doc. 2354; Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 24, 27. The abbot of Kirkstall was criticized for neglecting to keep Roger in leg irons when it was suspected that the Templar would abscond. 139 Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, Episcopal Register III, fol. 359–359v; Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 354. 140 Francesco Tommasi, “Interrogatorio dei Templari a Cesena (1310),” in Acri 1291: La fine della presenza degli ordini militari in Terra Santa e i nuovi orientamenti del XIV secolo, ed. Francesco Tommasi (Perugia 1996), 265–300, here 297.

207

ALAN FOREY

also of being induced to confess to charges which were not true.141 Yet clearly in various countries many who had an opportunity to avoid being arrested or to escape after they had been apprehended did not do so. Some were, of course, too old or infirm to contemplate taking action. Some probably also feared that flight would be taken as an indication of guilt. Presumably, however, many felt that they would be able to establish their innocence of the main charges against them: this was the intention of the Aragonese Templars, who held out in their castles in the hope, while they were still in a position of relative strength, of persuading the Aragonese king of their innocence.142 Such expectations were no doubt especially strong in countries where torture was not used to extract confessions during most of the period of the Trial: it was only at a late stage that some brothers were subjected to torture in England and Aragon.143 There are no doubt various explanations for voluntary surrenders both during and after the Trial. Some brothers, who were far removed from family and friends, probably had difficulty in finding a means of livelihood, if they had fled without money and could not easily secure employment. Those who had been in the Order for many years may have become institutionalized and therefore had difficulty in acclimatizing themselves to life in the outside world. For some the constant fear of being caught may have been a factor. Fugitives may also in some countries have become readier to surrender if they had heard that brothers were not being tortured. There were also those who had inadvertently evaded arrest and who may have felt that continued failure to surrender would be taken as evidence of guilt: such a consideration could have influenced Amaury of Cambellani, who claimed that when he heard of the arrest of others he went to the papal court to submit.144 For fugitives who surrendered after the Trial reconciliation offered a livelihood and freed them from any fear of being apprehended; and in England, and to a lesser extent in Aragon, it also offered an institutional form of life, to which many had become accustomed.

141 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xlv–xlviii, and Helen J. Nicholson, “Charity and Hospitality in the Military Orders,” in As Ordens Militares: Freires, Guerreiros, Cavaleiros: Actas do VI Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, Palmela, 10 a 14 de Marção de 2010, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes, 2 vols. (Palmela 2012), 1: 193–206, here 201–2, has used modern research on interrogations to show that those questioned can for various reasons be led to make statements which are not true. Yet it should be remembered that in countries such as Aragon, Cyprus, and England, all Templars (with three late exceptions in England when torture may have been used) consistently rejected the main charges against them, while accepting some minor accusations which were true, such as that relating to the lack of a novitiate; and the defence of the Order before the papal commissioners in Paris collapsed not because of determined interrogation but because fifty-four Templars were burnt on the orders of the archbishop of Sens; and the papal commissioners, instead of taking advantage of this, suspended proceedings. 142 Forey, Fall of the Templars, 9–10, 29. 143 On torture in these countries, see Nicholson, Knights Templar on Trial, 177; Forey, Fall of the Templars, 85–7. 144 Schottmüller, Untergang, 2: 44.

208

10 THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND Helen J. Nicholson

Introduction The Templars first arrived in Britain in 1128.1 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records under that year that Hugh de Payns, master of the Temple, met King Henry I in Normandy and was favourably received. He then went on to Britain, where he met King David of Scotland who again gave the Order generous gifts.2 The Templars were very successful in obtaining valuable property in Britain. It has been estimated by Philip Slavin that at the time of the arrests, the Templars’ manorial estates in England and Wales totalled 141 demesnes: 137 in England and four in Wales, equalling 34,400 acres of cultivable land (about 22,000 arable and 14,400 fallow acres), plus an additional 30,000 acres of woodland and permanent pasture.3 Although it held only two demesnes in Scotland, it could be argued that at the time of the arrests the Order of the Temple was the single wealthiest landlord in Britain. The Order was less successful in Ireland, where it was introduced by the Cymro-Normans who came to Ireland from 1169 onwards. The Templars’ first Irish property was granted to them in around 1185 by King Henry II of England, and was followed by grants from other leading Cymro- and AngloNorman families who were acquiring land in Ireland. Apart from one estate in Sligo in western Ireland, the bulk of the Templars’ property in Ireland was 1 This article is based on and develops my research in Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311 (Stroud 2009); Helen J. Nicholson, “The Trial of the Templars in Ireland,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 225–35; and Helen J. Nicholson, The Proceedings Against the Templars in the British Isles, 2 vols. (Farnham 2011). A further article on this subject is due to appear in the published proceedings of the conference “Gli Ordini di Terrasanta: Questioni aperte nuove acquisizioni (XII–XVI secolo),” at Perugia, 14–15 November 2019, to be edited by Mirko Santanicchia, Sonia Merli, and Arnaud Baudin. 2 Evelyn Lord, The Knights Templar in Britain (Harlow 2002), 1. 3 Philip Slavin, “Landed Estates of the Knights Templar in England and Wales and Their Management in the Early Fourteenth Century,” Journal of Historical Geography 42 (2013): 36–49.

209

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

within the areas dominated by the invaders, in the south-eastern quarter of the island.4 Gwynn and Hadcock judged that the Order had only six commanderies within Ireland, as well as nine or ten camerae or subordinate houses.5 Clearly the Templars’ landed wealth would have been attractive to their neighbours, rivals, and the king. Even in Ireland, although their holdings were not extensive, they were situated in the drier part of the island, the region most suitable for growing grain. But the Templars were protected from avaricious enemies by their close association with the royal government. Since their beginnings in Britain and Ireland, the Templars had been patronised by the monarch. As noted earlier, the king of England and the king of Scotland first endowed them in Britain, while the king of England gave the brothers their first possessions in Ireland. They had received extensive properties and exemptions in England from the reign of King Stephen (1135–1154) onwards, starting with valuable donations of land by Stephen’s queen Matilda, heiress of Boulogne and niece of the first Catholic rulers of Jerusalem, Godfrey de Bouillon and Baldwin I; and from the time of King Henry II (reigned 1154–1189), they always had representatives at the royal court.6 Although from the mid-thirteenth century the Order no longer provided the king with his almoner, the Order remained close to the king, both as trusted royal servant and as a source of money.7 The politico-cultural context of the proceedings against the Templars in England is difficult to establish. This was a time of economic pressure; although scholars do not agree how great the “crisis” was, it is clear that in the first decade of the fourteenth century the economy had flatlined, even if it was not in depression.8 King Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 must have damaged commerce and trade, for the Jews were leading financiers in the realm. His own wars in France, Wales, and Scotland had left the royal treasury empty, the Crown indebted, and his subjects exasperated at continued heavy taxation. In Scotland, the proceedings against the Templars coincided with the Anglo-Scottish War, and in fact were truncated because of that conflict. Given the Templars’ historic close ties to the kings of England, they would not have aroused any sympathy from Robert Bruce and his adherents. 4 Lord, Knights Templar, 138. 5 Aubrey Gwynn and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, with an Appendix to Early Sites (London 1988), 329. 6 Helen J. Nicholson, “The Military Orders and the Kings of England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, ed. Alan V. Murray (Turnhout 1998), 203–18; Lord, Knights Templar, 155–69. 7 Ignacio de la Torre, “The Monetary Fluctuations in Philip IV’s Kingdom of France and Their Relevance to the Arrest of the Templars,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 57–68, here 66. 8 Barbara F. Harvey, “Introduction: The ‘Crisis’ of the Early Fourteenth Century,” in Before the Black Death: Studies in the ‘Crisis’ of the Early Fourteenth Century, ed. Bruce M. S. Campbell (Manchester 1991), 1–24.

210

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

In Ireland (which would be invaded by Robert Bruce’s brother Edward just a few years later), the Templars were, again, closely connected to the English administration, and some of the anger shown against them from the Irish witnesses may reflect that connection. But the situation in England was more complex. Did the population’s failure to support the Templars during the proceedings against them reflect the widely-held hostility towards Edward II? Yet individuals offered support to individual Templars. Or did the English nobility agree that, in the face of papal decrees, nothing could be done for the Order, and so they contented themselves with ensuring that the Trial followed due procedure? Timothy Guard has shown that the English military classes were very interested in the Hospitallers’ proposed crusade of 1309, yet it is not clear how this interest related to the proceedings against the Templars, which were taking place at the very time that the crusade was being planned and recruited. Prospective crusaders may have intended to demonstrate their dedication to the crusade while the most famous military order was under investigation, and it would be interesting to know whether any of those planning to join the crusade came from families who were associated with the Templars.9 In Paris in 1313, King Edward II, Queen Isabella, and their household took the Cross, at the same time as King Philip IV of France and his household; but none of them ever set out on crusade.10 These events suggest a deliberate policy by the rulers of France and England to separate the crusade from the former famous crusading military order, asserting that the crusade could continue and flourish without the Templars. As nothing came of their planned crusade, they failed to prove their point.

The arrests When King Edward II of England received Pope Clement V’s orders to arrest the Templars, he refused to comply, replying he was not prepared to give credit to malicious rumours: the Templars had always been constant in the purity of the Catholic faith, and he and the people of his kingdom had often commended their actions and their practices. He also wrote to his allies King James II of Aragon and King Dinis of Portugal, and to his relatives King Ferdinand of Castile and King Charles II of Naples, stating that he could not believe the charges against the Templars.11 Edward had already declined to take action against the Templars. In October 1307, his father-in-law to be, King Philip IV of France, had sent his clerk Master Bernard Pelet to Edward to inform him of the charges against the Order. 9 Timothy Guard, Chivalry, Kingship, and Crusade: The English Experience in the Fourteenth Century (Woodbridge 2013), 23–31. 10 Guard, Chivalry, 31, 139. 11 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 24, 45; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006), 216–17.

211

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

Edward wrote to Philip on 30 October 1307 telling him that he found the charges unbelievable and that he would summon William of Dène, seneschal of Agen – in the region where the Templars’ crimes were supposed to have arisen – and ask him to explain the situation. He summoned William on 17 November.12 The results of Edward’s investigations in early winter 1307 are unclear, but on 26 December he issued instructions to his sheriffs and other officials for the Templars to be arrested. The arrangements were to be confidential, so that the Templars would not be forewarned. The sheriffs were to make inventories of the Templars’ possessions, arrest the Templars, and take them to a secure place such as the nearest royal castle, but they were not to be kept in harsh prison. They were allowed to take some of their possessions with them – the inventories indicate that they took their bedrolls, but not personal cutlery. The arrests in England took place between 9 and 11 January 1308.13 Yet the king’s instructions did not remain confidential. When the sheriff of Oxfordshire and Berkshire arrived to arrest Brother Thomas of Wonhope, commander of the Templars’ house at Bisham in Berkshire, he discovered that the Templar had been expelled from the house by Lord John de Ferrers six days previously and had taken refuge at the priory of Hurley nearby. Lord John was the descendant of the original donor of Bisham, Robert Ferrers, earl of Derby.14 When the sheriff ’s men arrived at Bisham, they found Lord John there, claiming his right in the manor. Nevertheless, the sheriff ’s men took possession in the king’s name.15 Clearly John de Ferrers had become aware of the king’s confidential order before it could be implemented, and had decided to act to recover his family’s property. Elsewhere in England, the original donor families acted to take back land that their ancestors had given: so Faxfleet in the East Riding of Yorkshire returned at least temporarily to the Mowbray family.16 The Templars in Ireland were not arrested until 3 February 1308, and again inventories were made of their possessions. Although King Edward sent instructions to his justiciars in Wales to arrest the Templars, no Templars were arrested there; and only two were arrested in Scotland.17 It is not clear whether any inventory was made at the Templars’ two Scottish commanderies, as no such record has survived. 12 David Bryson, “Three ‘Traitors’ of the Temple: Was Their Truth the Whole Truth?” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 97–103, here 98; Jeffrey S. Hamilton, “King Edward II of England and the Templars,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 215–24, here 215–16; Nicholson, Knights Templar, 24. 13 Barber, Trial, 219; Nicholson, Knights Templar, 46. 14 David Knowles and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, 2nd ed. (Harlow 1971), 293. 15 Kew, The National Archives of the UK, E 142/13 (Exchequer: Templars’ Lands in Oxfordshire and Berkshire), mem. 2. 16 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 228; Simon Phillips, “The Hospitallers’ Acquisition of the Templars Lands in England,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 237–46, here 241. 17 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 45, 133, 135, 146.

212

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

Edward must have realised that he could not stop the proceedings against the Templars. In the long term, he could not maintain his opposition to Pope Clement V’s command to arrest the Templars, because his position in England was insecure. He owed vast sums of money, debts left to him from the wars of his father, King Edward I; he was unpopular with his nobles, who despised his friendship with the Gascon knight Piers Gaveston18 and believed that the gifts, favour, and influence the young king gave to his friend would be better given to themselves; he was losing the war in Scotland against Robert Bruce, whom the pope had excommunicated, and he wanted to retain papal support on that front; and he could not afford to offend King Philip IV of France because he was due to marry the king’s daughter Isabella, a ceremony which took place at Boulogne on 25 January 1308.19 Instead, Edward stayed at a physical distance from proceedings. When the Templars were arrested early in January 1308, he was in France, making preparations for his wedding. When the Trial actually began in London in October 1309 he was in York, and he did not return to Westminster until the start of December, when the bulk of the initial investigations were over. He left London again on 26 July 1310 and headed north for Scotland, which he reached in September; and he then remained in Scotland or on the Anglo-Scottish border until the beginning of August 1311, after the Templars in Britain had been disbanded.20 While keeping away from proceedings, Edward exploited what was both a crisis and an opportunity for him. It was a crisis because the Templars were one of the very few groups in England on whose support he could rely. Yet as the liege lord of the Templars in the British Isles and as their patron and protector, Edward took their property into his own hands, and the revenues from that property went to his Exchequer. Despite papal rulings and objections from the inquisitors whom the pope sent to England, Edward held on to the Templars’ property until long after the proceedings in England were complete.

The Templars’ estates As the revenues from the Templars’ estates were now directed to the Exchequer, anyone who was entitled to payment from the Templars (for example, holders of corrodies) had to petition the king to recover the payments due. This must have led to considerable hardship for the Templars’ extensive network of

18 Jeffrey S. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall 1307–1312: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of Edward II (Detroit 1988), 19–20. 19 Seymour Phillips, Edward II (New Haven-London 2010), 125–51; Sophia Menache, Clement V (Oxford 1998), 269–75; John Carmi Parsons, “Isabella (1295–1358),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, available online, accessed 20 September 2020, www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14484. 20 Elizabeth Hallam, ed., The Itinerary of Edward II and His Household, 1307–1328 (London 1984), 52–4, 62–76.

213

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

corrody-holders, who were entitled to lifetime allowances of food, clothing, and cash payments from the Order: some of them were effectively salaried staff while others were elderly former employees or donors. On the other hand, property that had been leased out to tenants before the Templars’ arrests remained in the hands of the tenants; the royal officials responsible for administering the Templars’ estates simply collected the rents due. Some commanderies, such as Wetherby in West Yorkshire and South Witham in Lincolnshire, were apparently being administered from another, neighbouring Templar house. Some, such as the estates in Worcestershire, had been administered by managers. The royal keepers of the estates maintained the Templars’ organisational structure, at least initially. Many of the Templar houses in the British Isles had few or no Templars in residence at the start of 1308. In England, thirty-five Templar houses had at least one brother normally at least part-time resident at the time of the arrests, but only four houses had more than four brothers. Ten houses had only one resident Templar, ten had two brothers, seven had three brothers, and four had four. Clearly the Templars had been running down their personnel in England to a minimum.21 The records of the proceedings and estate records in England indicate that until recently Templars had probably been resident at another eight houses that in January 1308 were either leased out to tenants (as at Addington in Surrey) or being administered from a neighbouring Templar house (as at South Witham in Lincolnshire or Wetherby in West Yorkshire). Presumably this change in administration was part of the Templars’ efforts to rationalise their resources in order to finance expeditions to the East, such as Brother Himbert Blanc’s naval expedition of 1306–1307.22 In Scotland there were only two brothers, who were apparently living in Balantrodoch (now Temple) in mid-Lothian. The other Scottish commandery, at Maryculter in North-east Scotland, had probably become unsafe during the war with Robert Bruce. In Ireland, no formal records survive of which Templars were arrested where. The sheriff ’s inventories indicate that there were four Templars at Kilcloggan in Co. Wexford, and at least one at each of six houses: Kilsaran in Co. Louth, Kilbarry in Co. Waterford, Crooke in the same county, Cooley, Clonaulty and Rathronan in Co. Tipperary, and Athkiltan in Co. Carlow.23 However, no Templars were mentioned in the inventories for other houses, such as Baligaueran (Gowran) in Co. Kilkenny, Templehouse in Co. Sligo, Rathbride and Kilcork in Co. Kildare, and Clontarf near Dublin – although it was the Templars’ major house in Ireland.24 In theory, the royal keepers who were appointed by King Edward II to administer the Templars’ former property had the same aim as the Templars: 21 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 72. 22 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 54, 70–1. 23 Gearóid MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents Relating to the Suppression of the Templars in Ireland,” Analecta Hibernica 24 (1967): 183–226, here 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 205, 207, 209, 212, 214. 24 MacNiocaill, ed., “Documents,” 210, 211, 216–17.

214

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

to raise as much money as possible from the estates. In practice, however, their intentions were rather different. King Edward II’s administration wanted to maximise short-term returns, to benefit the king’s hard-pressed finances, and, in particular, pay for the Scottish war. Wool from the Templars’ estates was sold to pay the king’s debts, timber was felled, and livestock was taken to supply the king’s army. The Templars, in contrast, would have looked to the long term. They had corrody-holders to maintain, servants and labourers to employ, and local charity to finance, in addition to sending a portion of their revenue to the East. The royal keepers’ stripping of the estates was very different from the Templars’ previous management.25 Edward II was anxious to exploit the Templars’ property to the full. In March 1309 he instructed his officials to look for money, precious objects, or other goods which had belonged to the Templars and to take them into royal hands. He then ordered a complete investigation into the Templars’ estates, their extent, and their annual value. Yet the lands were not his to keep. Pope Clement V had ordered that the confiscated Templar properties should be placed in the care of the patriarch of Jerusalem – Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, – the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the bishop of Lincoln. They should have full authority over these properties, and if anyone caused damage they should inform him at once. When the papal inquisitors arrived in England in September 1309, they would have expected to be able to draw on the income from the Templars’ estates to pay their expenses, but little or nothing would have been available to them. In late September 1309, King Edward began investigations into who had taken Templar property and chattels – but in fact he himself had ordered most of the depredations that had occurred.26 When the Trial in England finally came to an end in the summer of 1311, the Templars’ former properties remained in Edward’s hands. In the bull Ad Providam on 2 May 1312, Pope Clement V assigned the Templars’ former properties to the Knights Hospitaller.27 The Hospitallers did not physically claim the Templars’ lands in Britain and Ireland until November 1313, when Albert von Schwarzburg and Leonard de Tibertis arrived in England. On 5 December 1313, they issued a document stating that the king of England had handed over to them all the former property of the Knights Templar insofar as he was able.28 In fact the estate records show that many movables were not handed over but were taken for the king’s use. So, for example, in his final account for the Templars’ estate at Garway in Herefordshire, the official in charge of the estate, John de la Haye, refers to royal instructions for the livestock to be handed over 25 Slavin, “Landed Estates;” Nicholson, Knights Templar, 69–86. 26 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 80–1. 27 Barber, Trial, 267–9; Thomas Rymer, ed., Foedera, conventiones, literæ, et cujuscunque generis acta publica, revised by Robert Sanderson, Adam Clarke, and Frederic Holbrooke, 4 vols. in 7 (London 1816– 1869), 2.1: 167–9. 28 Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 235, 236–7.

215

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

to two members of the king’s household, Hubert of Sutton and Robert de Sapy. Hubert of Sutton was to have omnes grossas bestias que fuerunt in custos ipsius Johannis in dicto manerio (“all the large beasts in John’s custody”) while Robert de Sapy received 100 multones (wethers, or neutered male sheep), 100 ewes, and 30 pigs.29 The king retained certain desirable estates, such as Bisham in Berkshire, which was used in 1308–1312 to accommodate an eminent prisoner, Elizabeth Bruce. King Edward II also stayed there, dating letters close from Bisham in December 1314.30 Likewise, the Hospitallers never obtained the valuable Yorkshire estates of Faxf leet, Newsam, and Hirst.31 Although an inventory survives from Ireland, as the annual estate records have not survived it is not possible to trace the royal officials’ administration of the estates to the same level of detail as in England. Many medieval records were destroyed when the Irish Public Record Office was blown up in 1922, but among those that do survive are some of the memoranda rolls for the Irish Exchequer for the period of the Templars’ Trial. These records show the same pattern as in England: King Edward II exploited the Templars’ property to meet his immediate financial needs. On 19 June 1308, he sent instructions to his justiciar John Wogan and the treasurer of the Exchequer in Dublin to provide supplies for his forthcoming expedition to Scotland. Among other sources of supply, the justiciar was to supply from the Templars’ property in Ireland 1000 quarters of wheat, 1000 quarters of oats, 200 quarters of beans and peas, 300 tuns of wine, three tuns of honey, 200 quarters of salt, and 1000 stockfish. At the same time, the king ordered the English sheriffs to supply materials from the Templars’ lands in England. In 1309, the sheriff of County Louth was instructed to let Reginald Irpe, the king’s provisor (collector) of food in the Drogheda area, have £26 from the grain of the manor of Kilsaran and the other Templar lands in his county, for purchasing food for the lord king’s forthcoming expedition to Scotland. In February 1310, the sheriffs of Louth, Meath, Dublin, and Kildare were sent instructions to take all the grain from the former Templar manors in their territory (except for Kilsaran in Co. Louth) and send it to Drogheda or Dublin to the king’s collectors of food for his forthcoming campaign in Scotland. As in England, in autumn 1309, the sheriffs and the keepers of the Templars’ lands in Ireland were instructed to draw up a record of the extent of the Templars’ lands, so that the king would know

29 Kew, The National Archives of the UK, E 358/19 (Exchequer: Pipe Office: Miscellaneous Enrolled Accounts; Accounts: Accounts for the Lands of the Templars, Confiscated by the Crown), rot. 47v. 30 Kew, The National Archives of the UK, E 368/79 (Exchequer: Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer: Memoranda Rolls, 8 July 1308–7 July 1309), rot. 107; Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records, Edward II, A.D. 1307–1313 (London 1892), 284, 394, 493, 511; Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1:155, 182; Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records, Edward II, A.D. 1313–1318 (London 1893), 130, 205. 31 Phillips, “Hospitallers’ Acquisition.”

216

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

exactly what the Templars had owned and what it was worth. The investigations continued until the following spring.32 From the Templars’ estates in Wales, only one estate account survives: the sheriff of Glamorgan’s account for the manor of Llanmadoc on the Gower Peninsula, from January to Michaelmas (29 September) 1308. This shows that no Templars had been in residence at Llanmadoc. Some land was leased to free and unfree tenants, and some was kept in demesne, which was worked by the unfree tenants. No inventories or accounts of the Templars’ estates in Scotland survive: because of the war between King Edward II and Robert Bruce it is unlikely that the king’s justiciar was able to organise effective administration of the Templars’ former estates, and no records were forwarded to the Exchequer at Westminster.

The Templars imprisoned King Edward II’s instructions to his officials in December 1307 suggest that he did not know exactly where the Templars were, as he sent instructions for the Templars in Wales to be arrested even though no Templars were resident there. Likewise, only two were arrested in Scotland. Twenty-one were arrested in Ireland, of whom fourteen were interrogated; two had come from England and were later interrogated there, one was never interrogated but continued to draw his allowance from the government in Dublin as a former Templar, and the remaining four did not draw an allowance, so presumably had died. 121 Templars were arrested in England. A few of the English Templars escaped arrest, but to judge from the lists of fugitive Templars that were later circulated, only three vanished without trace: Edmund Latimer or Barville, John of Poynton, and Ralph of Bulford.33 John of Usflete, who was mentioned during the Trial in Scotland, may have returned to his home in the East Riding of Yorkshire – if he is the “John Usflet” mentioned in the “Patent Roll” for 10 October 1316 as one of those involved in breaking down dykes at Hull.34 Richard Engayn, a fugitive during the Trial in England, was in a monastery doing penance by the end of 1311, while Thomas of Lindsey, who had been in Ireland during the Trial proceedings, returned to England in spring 1312 and presented himself at the Church Council in London. He was sent away to a monastery to perform penance.35 Stephen of Stapelbrugge, who had also been in Ireland, returned to England at the start of June 1311 and was arrested at Salisbury. He was taken

32 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 147–8. 33 The Register of William Greenfield, Lord Archbishop of York, 1306–1315, ed. William Brown and A. Hamilton Thompson, Surtees Society 145, 149, 151–3 (1931–1940), 4: 286, 337. 34 Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Edward II, A.D. 1313–1317, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (London 1898), 595. My thanks to Raymond E. O. Ella for this point. 35 Alan Forey, “Ex-Templars in England,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 53, no. 1 (2002): 18–37, here 36.

217

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

to London and interrogated; his testimony indicates that he was tortured. He confessed to some of the accusations against the Templars, one of only three Templars in England who did so. The question remains why he returned to England when he did, as there had been no attempt to interrogate him in Ireland. He would have been better advised to have remained in Ireland with his colleague Thomas of Lindsey. Those Templars who had not evaded capture or escaped during the proceedings were generally well treated. As the leading members of the Order in England had been exercising authority on the king’s behalf, it was probably embarrassing for the government to have to imprison them, especially as the king had indicated that he did not believe the charges against them. On 25 June 1308, King Edward allowed Lord Henry de Percy to take charge of Brother William of Grafton, commander of Yorkshire, on condition that he bring him back for Trial when requested in the same state that he left prison. Brother William also received an allowance of six pence a day and a servant. This situation probably lasted until November 1308, when the king gave orders that all Templars should be confined. Brother William de la More, grand commander of the Temple in England, was imprisoned in Canterbury Castle, but in March 1308 he was granted permission to go out into the town with two companions during daylight hours, provided they had a guard. They were allowed to have their own beds, clothes, and silver plate. The grand commander initially received a daily allowance of two shillings a day, which was raised in March 1308 to two shillings and sixpence a day. In May 1308, the grand commander was entrusted to Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham and titular Patriarch of Jerusalem, who went bail for him, and in July the king assigned further revenues to the grand commander and his entourage. He was even allowed to recover his personal property from the Templars’ commandery in London.36 It may have been around this time that a letter in defence of the Templars, written in France early in 1308, arrived in England. This Lamentacio pro Templariis set out a reasoned defence of the Templars, from the point of view of a supporter of the Order. It pointed out that the investigators of heresy were misleading King Philip IV of France about the Templars’ alleged guilt, and that undue pressure was being put on the Templars to force them to confess to crimes that they could not have committed. C. R. Cheney, who first published this letter in 1965, pointed out that the scholar M. R. James had suggested that the book in which the letter was recorded “was ‘probably the property of a notarial personage’ in the diocese of Durham.” More recently, Larissa C. Tracy has suggested that it was sent from France to Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, or to a member of his household, to inform him about the Templars’ plight in France; and that this letter could have prompted his favourable stance towards

36 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 52–3.

218

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

the Templars throughout the proceedings in England, until his death on 3 March 1311.37 Even though they were well treated, over thirty Templars died in prison before or during the interrogations in Britain and Ireland, while a few more were never interrogated because they were too ill or of unsound mind. The majority of those who died had been living at the Templars’ houses of Denny (Cambridgeshire) or Eagle (Lincolnshire) before the arrests, where the Templars had hospitals for elderly and sick brothers. Presumably these houses were regarded as suitable for this purpose because of their locations in the open countryside, away from the smoke and stench of the towns, in exposed areas with cold north-easterly winds.38 Forcibly detained and confined indoors, although not chained up like their French counterparts, even the healthiest brothers would have been more vulnerable to sickness and the infirm brothers quickly succumbed. When the inquisitors appointed by Pope Clement V arrived in England in September 1309, King Edward II sent out instructions that all the Templars imprisoned in England were to be brought from the prisons where they were being held to custody in London, Lincoln, or York, so that they could be interrogated.

The Templars interrogated The pope laid down arrangements in August 1308 for the proceedings, but these instructions were not put into action until August 1309 when his papal commission began proceedings in France, summoning witnesses to appear on 12 November.39 The inquisitors he had appointed to conduct the Trial in Britain and Ireland arrived in England in September 1309. They were Abbot Dieudonné of Lagny and Sicard of Vaur, who both had legal and administrative experience: Sicard had previously worked as a clerk and an official of the king of France.40 They appointed judges to pursue investigations in Scotland and Ireland, rather than visiting these distant regions themselves. Clearly there was a great deal of administration to sort out before they could begin proceedings, 37 “Lamentacio pro Templariis,” ed. Christopher R. Cheney, in “The Downfall of the Templars and a Letter in their Defence,” in Medieval Texts and Studies, ed. Christopher R. Cheney (Oxford 1973), 314–27, here 321–2; Larissa C. Tracy, “Lamentacio: Inquisition, Torture and the English Templars,” unpublished paper presented at the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 10 July 2012; Larissa C. Tracy, Torture and Brutality in Medieval Literature: Negotiations of National Identity (Woodbridge 2012), 138 n. 29. 38 Lambert B. Larking, ed., The Knights Hospitallers in England: Being the Report of Prior Philip de Thame to the Grand Master Elyan de Villanova for A.D. 1338, introduction by John Mitchell Kemble, Camden Society, First Series 65 (1867), 230, note on p.  78: quoting Thomas Tanner, Notitia Monastica, ed. James Nasmith (Cambridge 1787), vi. 39 Barber, Trial, 125–7, 139. 40 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 92.

219

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

as it was not until 23 October that the interrogation of the Templars in England began, in London. The pope had instructed that the interrogations should be conducted by the local bishop or archbishop, two canons from the cathedral chapter, two Dominican friars, and two Franciscan friars.41 King Edward also appointed the bishop of London to represent his interests at the Trial in London, the bishop of Lincoln in Lincoln, and the archbishop of York in York. During the interrogations in London, the bishop of London made repeated public statements that he was present only to ensure that proper procedures were followed and not to judge anyone – because he was representing the king.42 The Templars were to be interrogated on eighty-eight charges which Pope Clement devised for use in episcopal inquiries against the Templars, and which were also used in Aragon and Castile.43 Unlike in France, where a list of 127 charges was used, the Templars in Britain and Ireland were not asked why they had not informed holy Mother Church about the alleged heretical abuses or whether the Order had given in charity. There was also an error in the list of charges used in England, where the brothers were asked whether they had performed their alleged blasphemous procedures devoutly (devote) rather than at night (de nocte); in contrast, the list of charges used in Ireland was correct.44 No records of interrogation on the initial eighty-eight charges survive for two of the grand commanders in Britain and Ireland, Brothers William de la More (grand commander of England) and William de Warenne (former grand commander of Ireland). It is possible that they were spared interrogation in respect for their rank, but it is more likely that their interrogation had been reserved to the pope who, in August 1308 in his bull Faciens misericordiam, had expressly reserved the cases of the provincial commanders and the grand master to himself. These two grand commanders were not sent to Pope Clement V for interrogation, and although it is possible that the record of their interrogation was sent no record survives, or at least none has yet been traced. On the other hand, interrogation records do survive for the grand commander of the Auvergne, Brother Himbert Blanc, and the current grand commander of Ireland, Henry Danet. It is not clear why these two had to undergo interrogation despite their rank, or why the surviving proceedings contain records for their interrogations yet not those of de la More and Warenne. That said, records do survive of de la More’s interrogation on supplementary charges that were introduced by the papal inquisitors as the Trial proceeded. Apparently, the inquisitors expected interrogations in London to take only three weeks, planning then to move on to Lincoln and York.45 In fact they did 41 42 43 44 45

Barber, Trial, 124. Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 142, 159, 171, 364, 369; 2: 139; Calendar of the Close Rolls 1307–1313, 230. Nicholson, Knights Templar, 31–8; Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 11–15; 2: 12–16. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 15. Nicholson, Knights Templar, 98.

220

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

not reach Lincoln until the end of March 1310, while proceedings in York were not complete until the start of June 1310. The reason for this delay was that the initial interrogations in London revealed that the Templars from the Province of Canterbury were not prepared to confess to any heresy. The Templars conceded that when brothers were admitted to the Order they swore not to leave the Order without permission of their superior (charge 34), and they admitted that brothers were regarded as fully professed as soon as they had been admitted and that admissions took place clandestine, in secret, with only members of the Order present (charges 35–37), but all agreed that these things were not done for any sinister reason. They denied all the other charges, although some were uncertain whether the grand master and officials of the Order could absolve Templars from sin (charges 24–28). Some Templars thought that they could, because of the privileges given to them by the pope; others said that they could not, because they were only laymen, but they could absolve Templars from breaking the Templars’ own rule. There was also confusion over whether or not the grand commander could absolve brothers of faults for which they were sorry but which they had not confessed. The belief that lay officials could absolve sins seems to have been a genuine misunderstanding and confusion over the difference between a sin (against God) and a crime (against the Order). However, as even the grand commander of England was confused on this point and had to be corrected by the grand commander of the Auvergne, it was clear that there had been at least an error of procedure within the Templar Order in the Province of Canterbury.46 The Provincial Church Council which assembled in London on 24 November 1309 had intended to discuss the Templars’ case, but discovered that there were no confessions to discuss. The Council decided to ask the king to allow torture to be used against the Templars, meanwhile proroguing the Council until September 1310 to give the inquisitors time to gather more evidence. The king gave permission for torture to be used, and in February 1310 he announced that William of Dène (possibly the official who had come from the Agenais at the end of 1307 to inform the king about the Templars there) had been appointed to oversee the proceedings against the Templars and help the inquisitors – that is, to oversee torture. But in June 1310 the inquisitors complained that neither William of Dène nor the prison guards were helping them as they should.47 They blamed this lack of active support from royal officials for their lack of progress in obtaining confessions. In January 1310, the inquisitors began a second round of questioning in London, based on the fact that the Order was a tightly-structured, top-down organisation, and arguing that, as the Order’s leading members in France had confessed to the charges, the Templars in England must also be guilty. The

46 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 175–85, 396. 47 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 99.

221

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

Templars in the Province of Canterbury denied this. The inquisitors then questioned the Templars on the premise that they all knew each other and had all been received in the same way. Their reasoning was that as a few brothers who had been admitted in England but had been arrested in France had confessed to the charges, all the English Templars were implicated in the same heresies. These confessions had been sent to the papal inquisitors in England for their reference. But the Templars in London and Lincoln denied everything that the Templars in France had said, and accused those in France who had confessed of lying. At York and in Scotland and Ireland, the Templars shared the confusion over absolution of sins. At York, Brother Ralph of Ruston, priest, believed that a commander in the Order of the Temple could absolve sins because he was the equivalent of an abbot in a monastery – overlooking the fact that an abbot would be a priest, whereas a Templar commander was a layman.48 In Scotland, Brother Walter of Clifton believed that the pope had given the grand master and commanders of the Order the right to absolve sins except for homicide and violence against priests, although his colleague William of Middleton stated that the master delegated the absolution to a brother-priest.49 The Irish brothers also believed that the Templars’ officials held a papal privilege allowing them to absolve sins. At length, the confusion over absolution of sins was the only fault which the inquisitors were able to identify.50 In default of evidence from the Templars themselves, in November 1309 the inquisitors began the search for external evidence. In the course of the thirteenth century, investigators of heresy had reinterpreted the old rules of evidence required by Roman law and hence by canon (Church) law. Roman law required “undoubted indications” of guilt, but as heresy is essentially a hidden crime – being hidden within the soul – there was often no visible evidence of it. So, the inquisitors of heresy reinterpreted the old rules about using public reputation or fama (“fame” or “infamy”) to meet the need. If public reputation could constitute an “undoubted indication” the inquisitors need only find solid evidence of the Templars’ public reputation in the British Isles. But they had to take care in this, because Roman law did forbid the use of hearsay, and “public reputation” could all too easily be simply hearsay evidence.51 In the case of the Trial in the British Isles, most of the evidence gathered by the inquisitors from non-Templars turned out to be rumour, slander, and unsupported colourful anecdotes. The search for outside witnesses drew in anyone and everyone who had ever had contact with the Templars. For example, Archbishop William Greenfield 48 49 50 51

Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 298. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 384–5, 387. Nicholson, Knights Templar, 100–9. Paul Hyams, “Due Process versus the Maintenance of Order in European Law: The Contribution of the ius commune,” in The Moral World of the Law, ed. Peter Coss (Cambridge 2000), 62–90, here 82.

222

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

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.52 He also sent two rectors to go to places near the Templars’ manors of Ribston, Wetherby, and Newsam in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and summon people who were recorded to have been in the Templars’ service in the past. The rectors should ask them if they had ever served the Templars, and if so where and when, and when they had left their service. They should ask whether any Templars were received into the Order while they were in the Templars’ service, and if so whether they were received at night and whether the witness was present. They should also be asked whether they knew anything about the admission ceremonies, and generally whether they knew, or had heard or seen anything about the Templars which made them suspect that they were guilty of the alleged abuses. The replies were to be recorded in writing under the two rectors’ seals and sent to the archbishop. Those questioned should be warned that they should not talk about their testimony to others, on pain of excommunication.53 This was an attempt to prevent “copycat” testimonies, although it did not prevent witnesses from agreeing on a story in advance. As a result, anyone who had had any sort of dealing with the Templars came under pressure to give evidence against them. The external witnesses who now gave evidence clearly included those who had a personal grudge against the Templars; they may also have included those who wanted to gain attention for themselves, gossips, and seekers of reward. Yet the surviving testimonies from London and Scotland also include many favourable testimonies, or witnesses who said simply that they knew nothing about the Templars.54 Witnesses included former employees of the Order and men who held corrodies from the Templars, some of whom had been present at the Templars’ chapter meetings.55 In all, the testimonies of 170 non-Templars survive from the proceedings in Britain and Ireland. Those from London, Scotland, and Ireland appear to be complete records of all those who came forward to give evidence, but the inquisitors’ final summary of seventy-four testimonies, made in April/May 1311, had been edited to include only testimonies which implied the Templars’ guilt.56 Only a handful of the hostile witnesses gave evidence that appeared to have some basis in events. Seven claimed that when lay members of the Order inflicted punishment on the Order’s servants, they would state that it was their penance, as if these laymen were priests. The key-holder (claviger) of a commandery, an 52 53 54 55 56

Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 4: 286, end of no. 2271. Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 4: 334–5, no. 2301. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 104–11, 387–95. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xxix–xxx. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 188–230.

223

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

administrative official who was always a layman and sometimes was not even a professed Templar, would flog a servant who had committed some crime against the Order – such as stealing bread – while saying “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”57 The invocation of God indicated that this was a religious ceremony, in which case a priest should have performed it. When asked about this procedure, several Templars confirmed that this was a custom within the Order.58 Another story that had a basis in truth was that pious Templars had been deliberately sent overseas to be killed.59 The accusations suggested that the Templars “punished” devout brothers for their piety by sending them overseas to die. It is not difficult to understand why people in the West would be willing to believe such a story: the Order had lost a great many warriors in the previous twenty years, including heavy losses at the fall of Acre in 1291 and again at the fall of Arwad (Ruad) Island in 1302, and for the families of those who had died it may have seemed that any good knight who joined the Templars would be killed. Brother Adam of Smeton, an Austin friar, testified that he had met an elderly man who had served at the Templars’ commandery of Sandford in Oxfordshire and who had described the Templars’ veneration of a stone slab. During this ceremony, no one was allowed into the chapel.60 The inquisitors’ record suggests that this was a secret heretical ceremony, but as Brother Adam’s description of the stone suggests that it was a portable altar containing relics, veneration would have been the expected behaviour for Catholic Christians at that time. Geoffrey of Nafferton, priest and Franciscan friar, had served the Templars for six months at Ribston in the West Riding of Yorkshire, but left their employment in November 1306. Geoffrey explained that, while he was at Ribston, the Templar Brother William of Pokelington had been received into the Order there. He described how he had had to get out of bed to celebrate mass for the Templars in chapel at the beginning of the admission ceremony, but was then sent out before the new brothers made their vows. The record of his testimony implied that illicit deeds took place in the chapel, which an outsider could not be allowed to witness. In fact, Ribston chapel, which still stands, is a small building: when William of Pokelington, Geoffrey, and the five brothers Geoffrey mentioned were present it would have been crowded.61 If Geoffrey’s testimony is true, he would probably have seen nothing unreasonable

57 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 215–17, 220, 221, 227, 394. 58 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 106–7. 59 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 209, 214; Helen J. Nicholson, “Myths and Reality: The Crusades and the Latin East as Presented during the Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311,” in On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy, and the Christian World, ed. Helen J. Nicholson, Crusades Subsidia 4 (Farnham 2011), 89–99, here 95–6. 60 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 214–15. 61 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 76, 226–7.

224

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

in being asked to leave the crowded room for the part of the ceremony which did not concern him. Only under questioning from the inquisitors would he have realised that he must produce a reason for having left the ceremony, or be accused of abetting heretics. Many other friars also gave testimony against the Templars in Britain and Ireland; in fact, the majority of the external witnesses were friars, for they had been in the best position to detect and report the Templars’ alleged heresies. The Trial testimonies show that before the arrests the Order of the Temple had only ten priests of its own in Britain and one in Ireland. To meet the Templars’ spiritual needs at houses where there was no priest-brother, the Franciscans, Dominicans, and other mendicant friars acted as priests for the Templars.62 As priests who heard the Templars’ confessions and conducted chapel services for them, the friars should have known about the Templars’ alleged heretical practices and either taken action themselves to correct the Templars or reported them to the local bishop. Yet as they had not done so, the mendicants themselves would have been under suspicion for not reporting heresy. This was a difficult time for the mendicants as well as for the Templars. The Franciscan friars were already under suspicion of heresy because of the debates over the importance of absolute poverty.63 It is possible that some hoped that by accusing the Templars of heresy they would place themselves above suspicion. The Dominican friars also experienced problems of discipline and misbehaviour within their Order during the early fourteenth century.64 Bringing accusations against the Templars could have distracted attention from the friars’ own failings. Both the Franciscans and Dominicans had aroused the anger of the secular clergy. Sometime during the years 1305–1310, the rectors of the London churches wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury to complain that the friars were overstepping their rights and taking over the work and income of the secular clergy.65 Such hostility gave the friars further incentive to speak up against the Templars to demonstrate that they were enemies of heresy, and deflect other criticism. The Carmelite friars were also vulnerable, since the Second Council of Lyons (1274) had declared that no religious order founded since 1215 should continue. The Carmelites could not afford to oppose the papal orders against the Templars, as the continuing existence of their own Order remained uncertain. One English Carmelite whose testimony against the Templars was included in the inquisitors’ summary also wrote a book setting 62 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xxxvi. 63 David Burr, The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century after Saint Francis (Philadelphia 2001); Michael Robson, The Franciscans in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge 2006), 101–7, 119–219. 64 William J. Courtenay, “Inquiry and Inquisition: Academic Freedom in Medieval Universities,” Church History 58, no. 2 (1989): 168–81, here 175, 177; Andrew G. Little, “A Record of the English Dominicans, 1314,” English Historical Review 5 (1890): 107–12, and 6 (1891): 752–3. 65 Frederick M. Powicke and Christopher R. Cheney, eds., Councils and Synods with other Documents Relating to the English Church, II: A.D. 1205–1313, Part 2: 1265–1313 (Oxford 1964), 2.2: 1255–63.

225

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

out the Templars’ guilt, but this has not survived.66 In Ireland, the friars were particularly critical of the Templars but presented little solid evidence against them, simply repeating that the Templars had caused a scandal in the Church and were imperilling souls. The inquisitors made careful use of the testimonies from non-Templars to compile reports supporting their case for the Templars’ guilt. The first such report appears to have been produced in April 1311, either as a formal compilation of evidence against the Templars to be presented to the Templars themselves, or for the use of the reconvened Provincial Council of London.67 A further summary was produced soon afterwards, probably for the use of the papal commissioners at Malaucène in their preparations for the postponed Church Council at Vienne, which finally opened in October 1311. A final summary was produced early in July 1311, probably for the Church Council at London which decided the fate of the Templars in the Province of Canterbury.68 Only a few selected extracts from the Templars’ own testimonies were included, presented to imply that the Templars were guilty as charged, despite the fact that they had denied virtually all the charges. Some of the outside witnesses claimed to have knowledge of statements made by Templars who were not interrogated during the proceedings, and these statements were quoted in the inquisitors’ final reports as if they had been made by the Templars themselves. The inquisitors also sent to France transcripts of the Templars’ responses to the second round of questioning in London from January 1310 onwards, which confirmed that the procedures for admission and holding chapter meetings were the same across the whole Order, and that some Templars in England did not understand the difference between absolving a brother or a servant of a crime against the Order and absolution of sins. As these transcripts were assembled with summaries of the Templars’ testimonies from Florence, Cyprus, and France, they may have been used by the papal commissioners at Malaucène.69

The end of the Templars in Britain and Ireland By June 1310, proceedings had been heard in England, Scotland, and Ireland, but nothing substantial had been collected against the Templars except for the rumours reported by the non-Templar witnesses and the Templars’ own confusion over confession and absolution of sins in the Order. The papal inquisitors

66 67 68 69

Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xxxvii–xxxviii. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xxvi. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xxviii. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS lat. 5376, fols. 33–40. I am very grateful to Marie-Lise Tosi for drawing this manuscript to my attention. Folios 33 and 40 of MS lat. 5376 correspond to Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 454, fols. 88v–90r, and London, British Library, Cotton MS Julius B xii, fol. 77r–v; folios 34 to 39 correspond to MS Bodley 454, fols. 74r–81r (edited in Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 141–58, 173–8).

226

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

complained to the archbishop of Canterbury that their work was being impeded by the king and his officials, and suggested possible ways forward, including light torture. When the Provincial Church Council met at London in September 1310, the evidence collected to date was read out, and it was agreed that the Templars in Lincoln should be brought to London, where all the Templars in the Province of Canterbury could be questioned again, and torture should be used. King Edward agreed that all the Templars in the Province of Canterbury should be brought to London; but it was not until March 1311 that the Templars who had been imprisoned at Lincoln arrived in London.70 At the beginning of March 1311, Bishop Antony Bek died. Since Pope Clement V had nominated him in August 1308 to oversee the Trial in England, it had progressed slowly and with considerable leniency towards the Templars. Only after Bishop Bek’s death is it clear that torture was used in England; he may have been instrumental in preventing torture, although the complaints of the papal inquisitors in June 1310 suggest that all the king’s officials were against it. It is possible that torture had already been used on the Templars in Ireland, although the evidence is inconclusive.71 Three Templars imprisoned in London were induced to confess in late June and early July 1311. They had almost certainly been tortured.72 Stephen of Stapelbrugge specifically stated that he had not given his testimony because of torture but because of concern about his soul, a statement which would have been unnecessary if no torture was used. Thomas Totty of Thoraldby changed his testimony considerably after an interruption in his evidence, suggesting that he had come under duress; John of Stoke’s final testimony dramatically changed from his earlier testimonies. These three Templars would have been particularly vulnerable to interrogation. Stephen of Stapelbrugge and Thomas “Totty” of Thoraldby had evaded capture and Thomas had later escaped after being arrested. Their failure to come forward when summoned indicated that they were guilty, and neither could give a satisfactory explanation as to why they had previously failed to give themselves up. The third, John of Stoke, was a priest who had been present at the burial of Walter le Bachelor, former grand commander of Ireland; during the proceedings in England it had been suggested that Walter had been murdered by the Order. John, who was also treasurer at the New Temple in London, had initially been slow to come forward to give testimony, and possibly there were unanswered questions about his financial management at the New Temple, which the merchants of London, the king, and many English nobles and 70 Nicholson, Knights Templar, 120–3. 71 Helen J. Nicholson, “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, ed Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum, and Jonathan Riley-Smith, Crusades Subsidia 1 (Aldershot 2007), 411–23, here 420. 72 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: xxv–xxvi.

227

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

lawyers used as a safe-deposit.73 To make matters worse for him, his testimonies had been persistently unreliable, mentioning Templars whose existence cannot be verified, stating that Brother Johannes de Sancto Georgio was present in England as a Templar in 1293 (he did not join the Order until 1300), and that the priest-brother Richard of Grafton was in England and heard Brother Walter le Bachelor’s dying confession in 1301, although the evidence given by Brother Richard in Cyprus indicates he did not enter the Order until 1303.74 Such inconsistencies suggested that he might be hiding something. These three confessions were added to the final summary of testimonies against the Templars and provided the Church Council of London with the evidence it needed to reach a conclusion on the Templars’ case. The Council resolved that the Templars should abjure all heresy. Having done so, they were absolved of the charges, reconciled to the Church, and each sent to separate religious houses to do penance. The only exceptions to this were the grand commanders of England and the Auvergne, Brothers William de la More and Himbert Blanc, who refused to abjure heresies which they had always denied. They remained in prison, awaiting the decision of the Church Council.75 As the Church Council deferred a decision on their cases, it seems that both remained in prison until their deaths. In York, no torture had been used, and there were no incriminating confessions. Nevertheless, the Provincial Council reached a similar decision as their colleagues in London on the Templars interrogated at York and in Scotland: they should abjure all heresy and were despatched to individual religious houses to do penance. The records of the Church Council that decided the Templars’ case in Ireland have not survived, but in autumn 1312 the grand commander of Ireland was released from prison on bail.76 There is no record of the Irish Templars being sent to monasteries to do penance, but they received a regular pension.77 The harshest penance assigned to the Templars from the Province of Canterbury was to be confined to their room at all times, except to attend church services. They were allowed out into the monastery enclosure for fresh air for only four hours once a week. Food included cheap meat twice a week, fish on four days, and fasting on bread and water on Fridays. A large number of prayers had to be recited daily. Brothers John of Moun, John of Ecle or Eagle, and Robert of Hameldon were among those who were given this harsh penance. John of Moun had been in the Order for around thirty-eight

73 74 75 76

Nicholson, Knights Templar, 177. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: lv–lvi. Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 415–25. Maeve Brigid Callan, The Templars, the Witch, and the Wild Irish: Vengeance and Heresy in Medieval Ireland (Ithaca 2015), 50. 77 Herbert Wood, “The Templars in Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 25C, no. 14 (1906): 327–77, here 357–9; Philomena Connolly, ed., Irish Exchequer Payments, 1270–1446 (Dublin 1998), 217.

228

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

years at the time he was first questioned, while John of Eagle and Robert of Hameldon had both been in the Order for around twenty years, so it appears that the reason for these harsh penances was their long period of service.78 John of Stoke, former treasurer of the Temple in London, was also assigned a harsh penance.79 He had been in the Order for only seventeen years, but he was one of the three Templars in England who confessed to the charges, and the Church Council probably judged that he was likely to be guilty of more than he confessed to. At the other end of the scale, Templars with the least severe penance could take exercise in the monastery gardens twice a week, could eat meat three days a week and fish on three days a week, and had no additional prayers to say. This level of penance was given to Templars who had been in the Order for less than four years, such as Robert of Sautre, who had joined the Order just over a year before the arrests.80 Alan Forey points out that, while the restrictions on eating meat would have been familiar, the forced enclosure and lack of purpose would have been the most punishing part of the penance. The Templars were not used to being kept enclosed in one house; they had joined an active Order and expected to work.81 In England, the Templars who survived their interrogation and went to religious houses hardly appeared in later records except when they did not settle down. The English bishops’ registers record that a few Templars caused trouble in the monasteries where they were housed. Henry Craven, who had been sent to Pontefract Abbey, was excommunicated for continuing to wear his Templar habit in violation of the pope’s prohibition; in September 1312, the archbishop of York absolved him and sent him back to Pontefract with instructions to the prior and monks to keep him and look after him until the pope sent further instructions.82 Roger of Sheffield escaped from Kirkstall Abbey and had to be tracked down and sent back, while Thomas of Staunford was accused of insulting the abbot and monks of Fountains Abbey. Some abbey communities simply did not want the responsibility of looking after these alleged heretics – even though the Templars had nearly all denied the charges and had all abjured all heresy.83 The monks also resented the expenses imposed on them, as the Templars’ pensions did not always arrive promptly; and even when the money was available, some Templars refused to pay for their upkeep.84 Regrettably, we

78 Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 24–6; Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, Diocesis Saresbiriensis, A.D. 1297–1315, ed. Cyril T. Flower and Michael C. B. Dawes, Canterbury and York Society 40–1 (1934), 1: 404. 79 Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 25. 80 Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 24–6; Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, ed. Flower and Dawes, 1: 404; for Robert of Sautre, see Nicholson, Proceedings, 1: 68. 81 Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 25. 82 Register of William Greenfield, ed. Brown and Thompson, 5: 8. 83 Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 23–4, 27, 28. 84 Forey, “Ex-Templars,” 28–30.

229

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

know nothing of the Templars in Ireland after 1312, except that their pensions continued to be paid. King Edward II supported the Church Councils’ decisions, issuing repeated instructions to his sheriffs and bailiffs to co-operate with the bishops in delivering the Templars to their assigned monasteries, and ensuring that those monasteries received the money due for the Templars’ support.85 He went on to act as if the Council’s decision had confirmed him in possession of the Templars’ property. In October and November 1311, he sent out information to all his faithful subjects explaining to whom he had entrusted the Templars’ lands. In some cases these were royal officials responsible for collecting and accounting for the revenues; in others, the king had given the Templars’ estates to an individual who could keep the revenues for themselves.86 Further letters were sent out to the various keepers, instructing them what payments they should be making to the Templars’ pensioners and corrody-holders.87 The king also granted further Templar estates to his friends and allies.88 Edward was not the only landlord in England to act as if the Templars’ lands now belonged to him: his cousin, Earl Thomas of Lancaster, confiscated all the lands which the Templars had been leasing from him.89 While the king was making free with the Templars’ former property in this way, his relations with his nobles were reaching crisis point. In March 1310, Edward had agreed to the appointment of Ordainers, who would reform the administration of the royal household.90 The Ordainers’ demands included the exile of Edward II’s favourite Piers Gaveston, that policy and official appointments should be decided by the barons in Parliament, and that the king should no longer be able to raise money without going through Parliament. During the drafting of the Ordinances, some of the Ordainers were present at the final events of the proceedings against the Templars in London: Earl Thomas of Lancaster, the king’s cousin, Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford, Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, and Guy de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick had been present on Monday 12 July 1311 when the archbishop and bishops and the whole Church Council assembled to deal with the Templars’ case, with a great crowd of people from the City of London. The official record does not explain why they were present. As they themselves had a claim on much of the Templars’ land, which their ancestors had originally given to the Order, perhaps they were present to ensure that their interests were represented at the Council.91 85 86 87 88

Calendar of the Close Rolls 1307–1313, 365, 369, 370, 373, 375, 468, 473, 490, 497, 504, 509, 512, 521. Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 144, 148, 149, 150. Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 150–1. Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 155, 157, 166; Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Edward II, A.D. 1307–1313, Prepared under the Superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (London 1894), 414, 440, 442, 453, 466; Calendar of the Close Rolls 1307–1313, 410, 414, 426–7. 89 John Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–1322: A Study in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford 1970), 34. 90 Jeffrey S. Hamilton, “Lords Ordainer (act. 1310–1313),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, available online, accessed 20 September 2020, www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/50153. 91 Nicholson, Proceedings, 2: 419–20.

230

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

The Ordinances received royal assent on 11 October 1311, imposing limitations on the king’s right to obtain goods and money which made the Templars’ properties more valuable than ever to Edward. Gaveston went into exile on 4 November, but was back in England by early 1312. Over the next few months, as the Ordainers and the king prepared to go to war against each other, Edward used the Templars’ properties to aid his preparations: on 21 January 1312, he instructed the keeper of the Templars’ manor of Ribston to send from the produce of the manor 100 quarters of wheat, ten and a half quarters of barley, twenty oxen, eighty sheep, and two carts with iron-hooped tyres to Gaveston’s castle at Knaresborough, to reinforce that castle.92 In March, Archbishop Winchelsey of Canterbury excommunicated Gaveston for returning to England, and the opposition clergy and earls laid out their campaign against the king and his favourite.93 Civil war seemed imminent. Meanwhile, on 22 March 1312, Pope Clement V dissolved the Order of the Temple “not by way of condemnation but by papal provision.” He had not declared the Order guilty as charged, but its reputation had been so blackened that it could not continue in operation. This dissolution was published on 3 April. On 2 May, in the bull Ad Providam, Pope Clement V announced that all the Order’s possessions were to be kept for their original purpose: to help the Catholic Christians in the Holy Land and defend them against the enemies of the Christian faith. With the exception of the properties in the Iberian Peninsula, he gave the former properties of the Templars to the Hospitallers, who would continue the war in the East. On 15 May, Clement wrote to King Edward and the archbishops and bishops and nobles of England with these instructions.94 The pope’s command probably did not reach Edward until after Gaveston’s death on 19 June 1312, which was followed by further military manoeuvrings on the part of both the king and his opponents.95 The king authorised the sale of timber from the Templars’ estates and ordered payments to be made from the Templars’ revenues directly into the Wardrobe or the Chamber, his private accounts. Stock from the Templars’ lands in Warwickshire and Leicestershire was taken for the royal household; hay and oats were to be sent to meet the expenses of the king’s horses at the next Parliament. Templar lands were given to the king’s allies.96 At the start of August, Edward wrote to the prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, forbidding him to make any attempt to obtain 92 Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 154; Michael Prestwich, “The Ordinances of 1311 and the Politics of the Early Fourteenth Century,” in Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England, ed. John Taylor and Wendy Childs (Gloucester 1990), 1–18; Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 79–89, 94, 164 n. 36. 93 Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 87–94. 94 Barber, Trial, 267–9; Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 167–9. On the papal dissolution of the Templars, see now Elizabeth A. R. Brown and Alan Forey, “Vox in excelso and the Suppression of the Knights Templar: The Bull, Its History, and a New Edition,” Mediaeval Studies 18 (2018): 1–58. 95 Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 95–9, 104–5. 96 Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 169, 171, 172, 173, 180; Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1307–1313, 461, 465, 466, 467, 481, 484, 486, 501, 504, 511, etc.; Calendar of the Close Rolls 1307–1313, 424, 467, 482.

231

HELEN J. NICHOLSON

the Templars’ lands, “because the execution of the papal mandate, if it happens, will be manifestly prejudicial to us and the royal dignity of our crown.”97 War was averted by the mediation of two earls, the pope’s representatives who had brought the instructions regarding the Templars’ lands to Edward, and Count Louis of Évreux, brother of King Philip IV of France. Formal peace was made on 20 December 1312.98 On 17 October 1312, Fulk de Villaret, grand master of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, had announced that he was sending his representatives to the West to take over custody of the former Templar properties.99 Edward furiously resisted the papal command to hand the properties over to the Hospitallers, until the Hospitallers’ representatives, Albert von Schwarzburg – former marshal (military commander) of the Hospital, then commander of the Hospital on Cyprus and now grand commander of the Hospital and lieutenant of the grand master in Europe – and Leonard de Tibertis, prior of Venice and general procurator of the Hospital, arrived in England in November 1313. Albert was from a noble family, descended from the counts of Schwarzburg of Thuringia and Saxony; perhaps his noble pedigree and the influence which he could wield as a result impressed the king. In addition, Pope Clement agreed to make Edward a private loan of 160,000 florins, an agreement which was finally confirmed on 20 January 1314. Although Edward continued to protest that he feared the danger to his kingdom and his subjects if he handed over these properties to the Hospital, he finally agreed to do so.100 On 5 December 1313, Albert of Schwarzburg and Leonard of Tibertis issued a statement that the king of England had handed over to them all the former property of the Knights Templar, insofar as he was able, and that he had ordered his subjects to restore to them the former Templars’ properties that they held. They stated that they were satisfied, and that they relinquished all claims on himself and his heirs and would not seek anything more over these properties. Yet many properties, such as Bisham in Oxfordshire, Bruer in Lincolnshire, Combe in Somerset, Faxfleet, Hirst and Newsam in Yorkshire, and even New Temple itself were in fact still in the hands of the king or of the local landowner. It would be many years before the Hospitallers obtained many of these properties, and some they never obtained.101

Conclusion The Order of the Temple in Britain and Ireland was not dissolved because of events in these islands, but because the Church and the English royal government 97 98 99 100

Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 174; Calendar of the Close Rolls 1307–1313, 544. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 104–5. Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 182–4. Rymer, ed., Foedera, 2.1: 209, 211, 214, 225, 235, 236–7; J. R. Seymour Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307–1324: Baronial Politics in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford 1972), 71–2 and 72 n. 2. 101 Phillips, “Hospitallers’ Acquisition.”

232

T H E T R I A L I N B R I TA I N A N D I R E L A N D

were unable or did not wish to stand apart from events in France. Once King Philip IV of France’s inquisitors had wrung confessions from the Templars in France, because those accused of heresy were regarded as guilty until proven innocent, proceedings against the Templars could not be stopped; and the English, Irish, and Scottish clergy were determined to protect their flocks by eradicating all heresy in their country. In August 1308, Pope Clement V had devolved the investigation into the Templars’ alleged heresy to the Provincial Church Councils, and on that basis the Church Councils of London, York, and Dublin made decisions on the Templars’ fate and effectively disbanded the Order in these islands in the summer of 1311, long before Pope Clement V announced his decision in April 1312 to dissolve the Order. Despite every endeavour by the inquisitors and the British and Irish clergy, nothing was proven against the Templars in these islands, who denied all heresy until three of them were tortured. They had every opportunity to explain the meaning behind the alleged initiation rituals, but they simply insisted that no such rituals existed. The most straightforward explanation is that these Templars were innocent of the accusations of blasphemy, idolatry, and heresy. They were guilty of some misunderstanding of the difference between a sin against God and a crime against the Order, and they seemed to equate crimes against the Order with sins against God. But this was hardly sufficient to justify dissolving the Order. Despite the failure to prove the charges against the Templars, the Order of the Temple was disbanded in Britain and Ireland because no lay or spiritual leader had the authority or the will to withstand the pope’s order to investigate the allegations. The pope himself had not been able to stand against the King of France’s demand for an investigation, after the Templars in France had confessed under torture. King Edward II’s lack of financial resources made the Templars’ properties more valuable to him than the Order of the Temple itself had been; he was able to exploit the Templars’ valuable estates to help repay his father’s debts and to wage war on the Scots and his own barons. As king of England, he represented the Templars’ greatest patronal family in Britain and Ireland, but throughout the Trial he used his patronage to pursue his own interests. He began the Trial by protesting to the pope against it; he took care that the Templars and their properties remained under his control, so that the Templars could not be tortured and their revenues came to his Exchequer; and he ended by refusing to hand over the Templars’ property to their heirs, the Hospitallers, only agreeing to comply when the pope granted him a loan. Over two hundred years later, King Henry VIII of England would pursue a similar policy, dissolving for financial gain the religious houses that had looked to him for protection.

233

11 THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY Jochen Burgtorf

Introduction On 2 May 1312, at the Council of Vienne, Pope Clement V issued the bull Ad providam Christi which transferred the properties of the Templars to the Hospitallers.1 As this news spread through Latin Christendom, there were those in Germany, continuing a behavior that had already been evident earlier during the proceedings against the Order, who either did not get or did not want to get the “message.” For example, three months after Ad providam Christi, Helfrich, the Hospitaller prior of Germany, promised that he would return a former Templar property, namely, Topfstedt in Thuringia, to the archbishop of Mainz, should the pope in the future come to a different decision with regard to the Templar properties.2 Even more stunning, three years after Ad providam Christi, in 1315, an estate sale in Bavaria contained the stipulation that, after the death of the buyer, the estate would revert to the Templar house at Moritzbrunn near Eichstätt, as if the Order were still alive and well.3 1 Regestum Clementis papae V ex Vaticanis archetypis nunc primum editum, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, 9 vols. (Rome 1885–1888), docs. 7885–6 (year 7, 65–71: 2 May 1312, Vienne, Ad providam Christi). This chapter employs the terms “Trial” and “proceedings” to denote the Templar affair of the years 1307–1314, and it uses “Germany” to refer to the German territories of the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. 2 Valentin Ferdinand von Gudenus, ed., Codex diplomaticus anecdotorum, res Moguntinas, Francicas, Trevirenses, Hassiacas, finitimarumque regionum, nec non ius Germanicum, et S[acri]. R[omani]. I[mperii]. historiam vel maxime illustrantium, vol. 3 (Frankfurt 1751), 73–4 doc. 60 (2 August 1312, Mosbach): Venerabili D[omi]no Petro Archiepiscopo Moguntino . . . si predictus Dominus summus Pontifex aliud de ipsis bonis ordinandum duxerit, restituemus plene et libere; Regesten der Erzbischöfe von Mainz von 1289–1396, ed. Ernst Vogt, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1913), 265 doc. 1504. 3 Urkunden des Hochstifts Eichstätt II: Urkunden von 1306–1365, ed. Ludwig Steinberger and Josef Sturm, Monumenta Boica 50 (Munich 1932), doc. 130 (23 February 1315, Eichstätt): meinen hof, den ich han gechauft von der maisterschaft und dem convent gemainlich der Tempelherren des huses ze Muesprunnen . . . und nach ir peider tode sol er wider gevallen an das vorgenant haus ze Muesprunnen an alle widerred und an allen chriech; Regesta sive rerum Boicarum autographa e regni scriniis fideliter in summas contracta, ed. Maximilian Prokop von FreybergEisenberg, vol. 5 (Munich 1836), 299. See Karl Heinz Mistele, “Zur Geschichte des Templerordens in Süddeutschland,” Mitteilungen für die Archivpflege in Bayern, Sonderheft 5 (1967): 18–24, here 19, 21.

234

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

Despite such fascinating oddities, the Trial of the Templars in Germany has received little scholarly consideration for at least three reasons. Firstly, in the early fourteenth century, Germany was politically fragmented. The territorial princes, both ecclesiastical and secular, had a strong sense of independence, and thus there were no coherent proceedings against the Order.4 Secondly, there were not nearly as many Templars in Germany than there were, for example, Hospitallers or Teutonic Knights. The Order had perhaps fifty houses or fewer, a mere third of the houses of the other two major Orders, and so the Trial itself received limited attention.5 Thirdly, the sources for the German Trial are scarce, scattered, or even lost, and therefore studying the Trial seems a less than promising prospect. Hence, the most thorough scholarly work on the German Trial remains an excellent chapter in Michael Schüpferling’s 1915 dissertation on the Templars in Germany, now over a century old.6 This present chapter intends to show why it is significant to include the German Trial in our overall assessment of the Order’s dissolution. To do so, it first considers the German princes’ reaction to the Trial, then the elusive German Trial records, and lastly the Order’s post-Trial legacy in Germany.

The princes’ reaction In the fall of 1307, as the Templar affair was just getting under way in his own country, King Philip IV of France sent letters to King Albrecht of Germany as well as several German “borderland” princes, urging them to proceed against the Templars.7 A few of the responses have survived, and while there was some polite attention to the powerful French neighbor, there was limited

4 Gunther Lehmann and Christian Patzner, Die Templer im Osten Deutschlands (Erfurt 2005), 85; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006), 241. 5 Karl Borchardt, “The Templars in Central Europe,” in The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky (Budapest 2001), 233–44, here 233–4. See also Nicolaus Heutger, Die Tempelherren einst und heute: Zum 50. Jubiläum der Reaktivierung des Tempelherren-Ordens in Deutschland (Berlin 2007), 106. I have argued elsewhere that, if one distinguishes between Templar properties, houses, and commanderies in the German empire north of the Alps, there may have been just over thirty houses and only about twenty commanderies, with some overlap between these two categories, since all commanderies were houses, but not all houses were commanderies: Jochen Burgtorf, “Die ersten Templerniederlassungen im Reich,” in Die Kreuzzugsbewegung im römisch-deutschen Reich (11.–13. Jahrhundert), ed. Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck (Ostfildern 2016), 119–40. 6 Michael Schüpferling, Der Tempelherren-Orden in Deutschland (Bamberg 1915), 203–39. One of the most significant recent publications on Templer commanderies in Germany is Regionalität und Transfergeschichte: Ritterorden-Kommenden der Templer und Johanniter im nordöstlichen Deutschland und in Polen seit dem Mittelalter, ed. Christian Gahlbeck, Heinz-Dieter Heimann, and Dirk Schumann (Berlin 2014). 7 Jakob Schwalm, “Reise nach Frankreich und Italien im Sommer 1903: Mit Beilagen,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 29 (1904): 569–640, containing, 632–5, “Sechs Schreiben deutscher Fürsten an Philipp den Schönen.”

235

JOCHEN BURGTORF

commitment to Philip’s cause.8 Only the earliest responder, Duke John II of Lower Lorraine, Brabant, and Limburg, had been fully compliant and was able to assure the French king that he had arrested and incarcerated the Templars and confiscated their properties, just as Philip had ordered.9 More reserved, Guy of Avesnes, the bishop of Utrecht, told Philip that he would proceed against the Templars should there be any in his diocese.10 Even more reserved, King Albrecht of Germany reminded his French colleague of the actual chain of command: should the Templars be found guilty he would proceed against them, namely, when and in whatever fashion the pope would ask him to.11 The archbishop of Cologne, Henry II of Virneburg, wrote an exceedingly polite but not very concrete reply along the lines of “your wish must be my command.”12 Count Gerard V of Jülich assured Philip that he would proceed against the Templars according to his ability and to the extent that they were subordinate to him.13 However, as late as January 1308, namely, two months after the pope’s official entry into the proceedings with the bull Pastoralis praeeminentiae solio,14 Theobald of Bar, the bishop of Liège (Lüttich), told Philip that, to his knowledge, the pope had not yet issued a formal missive in the matter.15 Clearly, word was getting out slowly, and the reaction of the German princes was at best “lukewarm.” Then, figuratively speaking, lightning struck Germany but not in the direction of the Templars. On 1 May 1308, King Albrecht of Germany was murdered. A new king had to be elected, and, from a German perspective, the ambitions of the French king to install his own brother, Charles of Valois, on the German throne had to be thwarted. As the new king, Henry VII, from the house of Luxemburg, was primarily interested in going to Italy to obtain the imperial crown, the Templar affair was in danger of slipping completely off the radar in the German territories.16 Thus, the pope found himself relying on Germany’s archbishops, 8 Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 216. 9 Schwalm, “Reise,” 633 doc. 2: nous avons pris les Templiers demouranz en nostre terre et les tenons en nostre prison et leurs biens sont mis en arrest, tout ainsi comme mande le nous avez. 10 Schwalm, “Reise,” 635 doc. 6: Et si iidem Templarii, qui in terminis nostris domos non habent, apud nos degerent, nos ad deffendendum et exstirpandum errorem huiusmodi dampnabilem parati essemus exurgere, ut tenemur. 11 Schwalm, “Reise,” 632–3 doc. 1: si dicti religiosi inveniantur culpabiles extitisse, cum ex parte sedis eiusdem moniti et requisiti fuerimus, et quicquid nobis super his predicta sedes iniunxerit, execucione fideli curabimus observare. 12 Schwalm, “Reise,” 633–4 doc. 3: Nam petitio vestra semper nobis esse debet iussio et mandatum. 13 Schwalm, “Reise,” 634–5 doc. 5: contra dictos Templarios et eorum sectam iuxta posse nostrum, prout nobis subsunt, in locis quibuslibet procedemus. 14 Thomas Rymer and Robert Sanderson, eds., Foedera, conventiones, literae, et cujuscunque generis acta publica, 3rd ed., vol. 1 (The Hague 1745), part 4, 99–100 (22 November 1307, Poitiers, Pastoralis praeeminentiae solio). 15 Schwalm, “Reise,” 634 doc. 4: Verumptamen a sanctissimo patre et domino nostro summo pontifice nullum adhuc super hiis accepimus mandatum. 16 Heutger, Tempelherren, 106.

236

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

but one gets the impression that Clement V, himself a Frenchman, had little idea who he was dealing with. The highest ranking archbishops were those of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier. They ruled over vast territories as ecclesiastical lords; they played key roles in the election of the German king; they served as imperial archchancellors of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy, respectively; and their exalted position was without parallel in any other European country. Trier’s archbishop was Baldwin of Luxemburg. A member of the high nobility, Baldwin had studied in Paris, was interested in mathematics, astronomy, and canon law, and had been elevated to the archbishopric of Trier in 1307/1308 when he was still in his early 20s. He was also the brother of the soon-to-be German king Henry VII, meaning that, due to the French king’s ambitions to win Germany’s royal crown for his own brother, Baldwin of Trier was not a natural proponent of “things French.”17 Cologne’s archbishop was Henry II of Virneburg, a relative of the late German king Adolf of Nassau. Henry had already found himself at odds with the Roman curia, for, after his election to the see of Cologne, papal confirmation had been delayed for two years, namely, until 1306, the year he turned 60. Thus, Henry of Cologne was not an ardent supporter of “things papal.”18 Mainz’s archbishop was Peter of Aspelt. University-educated at Bologna, Padua, and Paris, Peter had enjoyed a medical and chancery career, serving, among others, the kings of Germany and Bohemia as well as Pope Clement V himself. He was elevated to the see of Mainz in 1306, then in his early-tomid 60s, and became closely aligned with Archbishop Baldwin of Trier, supporting the election of Baldwin’s brother, Henry VII, to the German throne. Thus, like Baldwin of Trier, Peter of Mainz was not an advocate of “things French.”19 In sum, the top three German archbishops were either somewhat anti-French or somewhat anti-papal. They had royal relatives or strong royal connections. And they were fairly new to their offices, which may have made them even more assertive. Magdeburg’s archbishop was Burchard III of Schraplau. The year of his birth is unknown. Burchard had risen through the ranks in the cathedral chapter at Magdeburg and in 1308 received his pallium and marching orders with regard to the Templars from Clement V personally at Poitiers. Burchard would have a turbulent career, culminating in his assassination in 1325.20 The remaining German archbishops of Salzburg, Bremen, and Riga were of somewhat lesser

17 Sabine Krüger, “Balduin von Luxemburg,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 1 (Berlin 1953), 553–4. 18 Erich Wisplinghoff, “Heinrich II. von Virneburg,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 8 (Berlin 1969), 364–5. 19 Stephanie Haarländer, “Peter von Aspelt,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 20 (Berlin 2001), 222. 20 Berent Schwineköper, “Burchard III., genannt Lappe,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 3 (Berlin 1957), 26–7.

237

JOCHEN BURGTORF

significance. Conrad IV of Fohnsdorf-Praitenfurt, the archbishop of Salzburg since 1291, was in his 50s at the time of the Templar Trial, and mostly entangled in conflicts between the Habsburgs of Austria and the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria. Early on during the Templar affair, Bremen’s archiepiscopal see was vacant. In 1310, John (or Jens) Grand, of Danish descent, highly educated and probably in his late 40s, obtained it through papal intervention, but he soon managed to antagonize the cathedral chapter and had to retreat to the papal court at Avignon. Tellingly, he was later nicknamed “Fursat” (the “Fire-sower”). Finally, Frederick of Pernstein, the archbishop of Riga since 1305, was in his late 30s, and he spent the years between 1307 and 1312 suing the Teutonic Order at the papal court. The empire’s ecclesiastical princes outside the German territories were the patriarch of Aquileia, Ottobuono of Razzi, and the archbishop of Besançon, Hugh of Chalon, and both of these later attended the Council of Vienne.21 During the Templar Trial, the focus in the German lands was on Mainz and Magdeburg. According to the Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburgensium from the later fourteenth century, Archbishop Burchard of Magdeburg had all the Templars in his territories arrested on a single day in early May 1308.22 What happened next can be gathered from a summary of events in Clement V’s 1312 bull In nostra retulisti. Those Templars who managed to escape retreated to Beyernaumburg, a castle owned by the archbishop, to defend themselves there. Then Burchard committed a major blunder. To lay siege to his own castle at Beyernaumburg, he fortified a nearby church which belonged to the bishop of Halberstadt, a subordinate of the archbishop of Mainz. Thereupon, the bishop of Halberstadt, Albert I of Anhalt, presumably with the consent of his superior at Mainz but officially “on his own impulse,” excommunicated Burchard of Magdeburg, because the latter had failed to ask his permission for the construction.23 It was probably his excommunication, combined with the Templars’ 21 Heinz Dopsch, “Konrad IV. von Fohnsdorf-Praitenfurt,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 12 (Berlin 1979), 525–6; Günther Möhlmann, “Johann I.,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 10 (Berlin 1974), 479–80; Manfred Hellmann, “48. F[riedrich]. v[on]. Pernstein,” in Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 4 (Munich 1989), 965–6; Luca Gianni, “Razzi (dei) Ottobono da Piacenza, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti: Dizionario Biografico dei Friulani, vol. 1 (Il Medioevo), ed. Cesare Scalon (Udine 2006), 732–6; Biographical Index to the Middle Ages, ed. Berend Wispelwey (Berlin 2008), 555. 22 “Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburgensium,” ed. Wilhelm Schum, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 14 (Hanover 1883), 361–484, here 427: circa principium mensis Maii anno Domini 1308. idem Borchardus archiepiscopus . . . fecit una die capi omnes Templarios et magistros eorum de quatuor curiis in terra sua iacentibus. Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens: Mit urkundlichen und kritischen Beiträgen, 2 vols. (Berlin 1887)., 1: 437–8. 23 Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 7858 (year 7, 58–9: 20 January 1312, Vienne, In nostra retulisti): olim nonnulli illarum partium fautores Templariorum castrum Beygervigemborch, Halberstaden[is]. diocesis, ad mensam tuam archiepiscopalem pertinens, occupatum contra iustitiam detinerent, ubi plures ex dictis Templariis .  .  . tunc temporis morabantur, ad obsidendum dictum castrum

238

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

fierce resistance at Beyernaumburg, that forced Burchard in November 1308 to conclude an elaborate truce with the Templars, assuring them, among other things, complete freedom of travel and agreeing to give them an advance warning should there be any future action against the Order.24 The pope eventually voided Burchard’s excommunication in 1310 and 1312, declaring it “foolish and useless” (inanis et irrita).25 Unlike his colleague in Magdeburg, Archbishop Peter of Mainz was in no rush to proceed against the Templars. In 1309, following his appointment as papal inquisitor for the Templar affair in Germany (inquisitor contra ordinem milicie Templi Jerusalemitani et Magnum Preceptorem Alemanie eiusdem ordinis a Sede apostolica deputatus), he informed the archbishopric of Bremen that he would not be personally involved in an investigation against the Templars in Bremen because of various unspecified hostilities, because of the unsafe condition of the roads, which would necessitate a greater armed entourage than he would be able to afford, and because of many urgent matters that were, at present, keeping him occupied.26 The Templar Trial, it seems, was not one of these urgent matters, and therefore Bremen could do its own investigation. In 1310, a provincial synod gathered in Mainz to discuss a wide range of ecclesiastical matters and to take the depositions of Templar and non-Templar witnesses. We shall return to these depositions later on. The synod had barely commenced when, according to a report ascribed to the fourteenth-century chronicler James of Mainz and later excerpted by John Nauclerus (1430–1510),27 a certain Count Hugh appeared in the company of twenty armed Templar Knights. Wearing their white mantles over their armor, they all wanted to solemnly testify to the innocence of the Order. They pointed out that those Templars who had been burned elsewhere

24

25

26

27

intendens . . . quamdam ecclesiam dicte diocesis, sitam ante predictum castrum incastellare et munire curasti, . . . sed venerabilis frater noster Albertus, Alberstaden[sis]. episcopus, pretendens quod tu ecclesiam fregeras supradictam, eamque incastellaveras, eius licentia non obtenta . . . te per Halberstaden[sem]. civitatem et diocesim et in civitate Magdeburgensi excomunicatum, motu proprio, publice nuntiavit et fecit ab aliis publice nuntiari. Leopold von Ledebur, “Die Templer und ihre Besitzungen im Preußischen Staate: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Statistik des Ordens,” Allgemeines Archiv für die Geschichtskunde des Preußischen Staates 16 (1835): 97–120, 242–68, 289–336, here 251–2 doc. 114: We . . . Templerern, Bekennet opelike an dißme jegenwerdigen breve, Dat we gededinget hebbet mit vnseme Eraftigen herren Ertzebischop Borcharde von Meydeborch an ene half; vnde he mit vns an ander halff . . . Dat we in sime lande . . . sekerliken wanderen, war we willen, vnde he en schal vns nicht hinderen, eth enwere, dat eme en nige both gesant warde von deme pavese, vnde were, dat eme dat gesant worde, dat he vns hinderen scholde, dat scholde he vns verteyn nacht vore weten laten, ehe he icht weder vns dede. Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 5888 (year 5, 271–2: 24 September 1310, priory of Sainte-Marie de Grausel, Licet cun[c]tis fidelibus); doc. 8347 (year 7, 179–80: 25 July 1312, priory of Sainte-Marie de Grausel, Fraternitatis tue sincera). See Barber, Trial, 251. Hans Sudendorf, ed., Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Herzöge von Braunschweig und Lüneburg und ihrer Lande, vol. 8 (Vom Jahre 1395 bis zum 31. März 1399) (Hanover 1876), 288–9 doc. 1 (27 September 1309, Mainz): propter capitales inimicicias, ac viarum pericula, que tantas expensas propter maximam armatorum comitivam requirerent quod ad eas non valeremus sufficere, ac eciam propter urgentia negocia plura quibus ad presens admodum impedimur; Regesten der Erzbischöfe von Mainz, ed. Vogt, vol. 1, 227–8 doc. 1297. See Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 226–8.

239

JOCHEN BURGTORF

had, prior to their death, denied that they had ever confessed to the crimes of which they had been accused. God himself had proven their innocence through a miracle: their white mantles and red crosses had not been harmed by the fire.28 According to Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, the only thing that is convincing about this report is the “brave defense of the Order by its German knights.”29 However, Archbishop Peter of Mainz did play along with the Templars’ defense. The Mainz synod ultimately produced thirty-seven Templar testimonies (of a total number of forty-nine testimonies), compared to only three Templar testimonies given at the Trier synod (of a total number of seventeen testimonies), and all were in favor of the Order.30 Moreover, the synods at Mainz and Trier apparently acquitted the individual Templars and the Order as a whole, which greatly incensed the pope who emphasized, in letters sent from Avignon in December 1310, that he alone had the right to absolve or condemn, therefore voided the synodal judgment, and ordered that the respective inquisitorial documents be sent to him “at once.”31 The king of France was so upset with Peter of Mainz that he demanded that the pope summon and punish the archbishop. However, Clement V, stuck between a rock and a hard place, explained to Philip IV’s envoys that he could not summon and punish the archbishop. The latter, he explained, had not acted out of cunning but, rather, out of inexperience; besides, he could not summon him because the archbishop was one of the vicars of the German king, a reality clearly lost on the French king.32 Peter

28 Chronica D. Iohannis Naucleri praepositi Tubingensis, succinctim compraehendentia res memorabiles seculorum omnium ac gentium, ab initio Mundi usque ad anum Christi nati M.CCCCC. (Cologne 1614), 986–7: Praeterea Jacobus de Moguntina, scribens de istis temporibus, refert quod . . . conuocavit idem archiepiscopus synodum, & dum esset in domo capitulari Moguntiae cum clero sibi subiecto, volens publicare processus, subintrauit potenter religiosus vir Hugo comes Syluestris, vulgo Wiltgraff / qui morabatur in castello Grunbach prope Meisenheim / cum viginti militibus confratribus ordinis, induti albis palliis more Teutonicorum fratrum cum signo crucis rubeo, era[n]t autem omnes sub palliis armati. . . . At comes stans, ait: . . . petimus vt appellationem a nobis interpositam ad futurum papam, velitis clero praesenti publicare. . . . Inter alia autem quae in appellatione continebantur, vna causa legebatur, quod fratres militiae templi, quos papa cremari mandasset, dixerunt, se immunes de criminibus impositis, & in signum miraculi suae innocentiae pallia ipsorum cum signo crucis exustionem nullam senserunt nec corruptionem. 29 Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militiae Templi Hierosolymitani magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/19–1314 (Göttingen 1974), 343–4 n. 231. 30 François Raynouard, Monumens historiques relatifs à la condamnation des chevaliers du Temple, et l’abolition de leur ordre (Paris 1813), 268–70. 31 Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 6666 (year 6, 83: 23 December 1310, Avignon, Circumspecta sedis apostolice): Cum autem ad nos solum pertineat ordinare et iudicare de ordine supradicto ac per hec sententie et processus huiusmodi nulli sint ipso iure, nos illos, sivi in absolvendo sive in condempnando sint habiti . . . decernimus nullos esse ac nullius existere firmitatis; doc. 6668 (year 6, 84: 23 December 1310, Avignon, Cum inquisitionem faciendam): mandamus, quatenus processum inquisitionis et sententiarum . . . ad nos quantotius destinare procures. For the acquittal at Trier, see Cesare Baronio, Annales ecclesiastici denuo excusi et ad nostra usque tempora perducti, ed. Augustin Theiner, vol. 23 (Paris 1871), 466 doc. 41. 32 Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, vol. 4.1, ed. Jakob Schwalm, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges (Hanover 1906), 468–75 doc. 514 (24 December 1310, Avignon, “Memoriale nunciorum regis Franciae”), § 9: Circa articulum eorum, que fecerat archiepiscopus Maguntinus, cum peteremus,

240

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

of Mainz definitely had no interest in discussing his actions at the Council of Vienne. In 1311, he turned to King Henry VII with the request to procure for him the apparently much-sought-after dispensation from attending the Council.33 The pope agreed but demanded that Peter send well-instructed envoys to Vienne to answer for his “less than good” (minus bene) handling of the Templar affair in Mainz.34 The archbishop of Trier excused himself from the Council by attending the progress of his brother, King Henry VII, to Italy.35 Thus, with the exception of Burchard of Magdeburg, Germany’s ecclesiastical princes dealt with the Templars on their own terms, in their own good time, or not at all. This explains why, in many parts of Germany, the Order’s dissolution only manifested itself in slow motion.

The Trial records We now turn to the German Trial records which are considered “lost.”36 How did this come about? In 1308, Pope Clement had ordered the holding of provincial synods at which the Templars were to be interrogated.37 While there appear to be no references to synods in Bremen, Magdeburg, or Riga, synods were held in Salzburg, Cologne, and Trier, and there is a good bit of information about the synod convened in Mainz in 1310.38 But none of the surviving

33

34

35 36 37

38

eum personaliter citari et puniri etc., incepit eum excusare, quod licet male fecisset, non citaret nec puniret eum, quia non ex dolo, sed propter eius imperitiam fecerat, et quia erat unus de vicariis, quem rex Romanorum dimiserat pro se in Alemannia. Constitutiones et acta publica, vol. 4.1, ed. Schwalm, 598–9 doc. 638 (17 June 1311, Brixen, addressed to Peter of Mainz by Henry VII): credimus, quod per summum pontificem ad instantiam nunciorum nostrorum . . . a visitacione concilii releveris; Johann Peter Schunk, ed., Beyträge zur Mainzer Geschichte, mit Urkunden, vol. 3 (Mainz 1790), 207–8 doc. 17 (23 July 1311, Malaucène, addressed to Peter of Mainz by Hugutio of Novara): pro vobis & pro Domino Friderico Domini nostri Regis Cancellario, & pro nullo alio Prelatorum excusationem petitam potuimus obtinere; Regesten der Erzbischöfe von Mainz, ed. Vogt, vol. 1, 251 doc. 1426; 252–3 doc. 1437. Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 7610 (year 6, 464: 15 August 1311, priory of Sainte-Marie de Grausel, Carissimi in Christo): mandantes, quatenus aliquos discretos viros procuratores tuos . . . ad dictum concilium studeas destinare, cum in provinciali concilio per te super ipso negotio in tua provincia celebrato multa per te minus bene habita predicentur. Krüger, “Balduin von Luxemburg,” 553–4. See, for example, Borchardt, “Templars in Central Europe,” 239, 243 n. 29. Célestin Port, ed., “Le Livre de Guillaume le Maire” [part 2], in Mélanges historiques: Choix de documents, vol. 2 (Paris 1877), 187–569, here 426–35 (12 August 1308, Poitiers, Regnans in coelis, vidimus of 25 February 1309 by the archbishop of Tours, as well as the bishops of Nantes and Angers); Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 3402 (year 3, 284–7: 12 August 1308, Poitiers, Faciens misericordiam cum); doc. 7479 (year 6, 398–403: 22 November 1310, Avignon, Regnans in coelis). Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 225–32. Salzburg: “Continuatio canonicorum Sancti Rudberti Salisburgensis,” ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 9 (Hanover 1851), 819–23, here 820; Cologne: Anton Joseph Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen Concilien, vol. 6 (Mainz 1852), 124–6; Trier: Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 270; Mainz: Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 268–70; Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi

241

JOCHEN BURGTORF

synodal acts contain references to the proceedings against the Templars.39 Why? Displeased that the German synodal interrogations had resulted in acquittals of the individual Templars and the Order as a whole, Clement V had demanded that these Trial records be sent to him.40 To Cardinal Cesare Baronio, who worked in the Vatican around 1600, the Trial records from Mainz were known as “file 68” and those from Trier as “file 92.” Baronio noted that these files had once belonged to the archive of the papal palace in Avignon and were subsequently brought to Rome.41 However, the Templar Trial records were apparently too extensive to be catalogued.42 In 1810, Napoleon had the Vatican archives and libraries, “3,239 cases or baskets” in total, transported to Paris.43 There, François Juste Marie Raynouard, a French dramatist and historian, utilized the Mainz and Trier Trial records, merely citing them as pertaining to the “Archives of the Vatican, Miscellaneous Instruments.”44 It seems that Raynouard was the last person to see files 68 and 92 and live to talk about them. While it was his intention to prove the Templars’ innocence, Raynouard probably would not have suppressed evidence to the contrary, and he could not have foreseen that the documents would not stay in Paris for long.45 Unfortunately, Raynouard only included three of the thirty-seven Templar testimonies from Mainz in his book on the Trial, namely, those of Fleury of

39

40

41 42

43 44

45

Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 7610 (year 6, 464: 15 August 1311, priory of Sainte-Marie de Grausel, Carissimi in Christo). Schottmüller, Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 1: 440. For the acts of these provincial councils held in 1310 at the behest of Pope Clement V, see Philippe Labbé and Gabriel Cossart, ed., Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta, ed. Étienne Baluze and Jean Hardouin, vol. 14 (Venice 1731), 1409–14 (Salzburg), 1413–30 (Cologne), 1429–79 (Trier), and 1479–1526 (Mainz, where the Templars are at least mentioned, alongside the Hospitallers, in the context of stipulations pertaining to the regular clergy, see 1495–6). Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 6668 (year 6, 84: 23 December 1310, Avignon, Cum inquisitionem faciendam): mandamus, quatenus processum inquisitionis et sententiarum . . . ad nos quantotius destinare procures. Baronio, Annales ecclesiastici, vol. 23, 465 (including notes). Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 215: “Par l’inventaire fait à Avignon, lors du retour des papes à Rome, il parait que les pièces relatives aux Templiers étaient en telle quantité, qu’on se contenta d’en faire une mention générale, sans les spécifier;” Schottmüller, Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 1: 705. Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, “Historical Background,” available online, accessed 18 September 2020, www.archivioapostolicovaticano.va/content/aav/en/l-archivio/note-storiche.html. Alain Demurger, “The Knights Templar between Theatre and History: Raynouard’s Works on the Templars (1805–1813),” in The Military Orders, Volume 3: History and Heritage, ed. Victor MalliaMilanes (Aldershot 2008), 45–52, here 45. Schottmüller, Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 1: 710, 712 (docs. 35/Trier, 44/Trier, 45/Mainz, and 46/Mainz), lists all these as “Arch. du Vat. Instr. miscell.” Heinrich Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, 2 vols. (Münster 1907), 1: 319, speculates that the acts demanded by the pope in 1310, when he revoked the excommunication sentence against the archbishop of Magdeburg, were perhaps the ones later summarized by Raynouard. See Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi Ordinis S. Benedicti, doc. 6668 (year 6, 84: 23 December 1310, Avignon, Cum inquisitionem faciendam). Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 200, 215–16. See Demurger, “Knights Templar,” 47, 51.

242

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

Dulguan, Alberic of Vendingen, and Frederick of Salm.46 All three refuted the accusations against their Order, pointed to their long years of membership and to their tours of duty in the Holy Land, and Frederick of Salm even offered to submit himself to the ordeal of carrying hot iron to prove the Order’s innocence, a practice no longer permitted by the Church at that time.47 From the testimonies of the twelve non-Templar witnesses at Mainz, among them three counts,48 Raynouard only included that of the Archpriest John who commented favorably on Templar charity during times of famine.49 As far as the Trial in Trier was concerned, Raynouard merely composed a summary.50 The return of the papal archives from Paris to Rome began in 1814, was interrupted by the so-called Hundred Days of Napoleonic Restoration, and was not completed until 1817. Tragically, the “high transport costs involved prompted the papal commissioners to destroy hundreds of documents that were considered ‘useless’ and to sell thousands as wastepaper.”51 According to the nineteenth-century Cardinal Archivist Joseph Hergenröther, the acts of the Templar Trial had never been integrated into the Vatican Secret Archive (now Vatican Apostolic Archive) but, rather, had remained “Miscellaneous Instruments,” which is what Raynouard had called them. This, in turn, gave Konrad Schottmüller in 1887 enough hope to state that some of these records might have remained in Paris, or might have been diverted, or might still be misplaced.52 Given the fact that the Vatican materials are still not exhaustively cataloged, files 68 and 92 may yet re-surface. But what difference would that make for our assessment of the German Trial? According to Raynouard, the 46 Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 268–9 docs. 15, 16, and 23. See Schottmüller, Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 1: 443–4; Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 229–30. 47 Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 269 n. 2 (Frederick of Salm’s testimony): Licet fuerit in partibus ultra marinis XII annis et amplius tanquam Frater dicti Ordinis, numquam tamen aliquid de horrendis erroribus scivit, audivit vel intellexit. Et super hoc paratus esset experientiam subire et ferrum ardens portare. Conversatus fuit cum magno magistro Ordinis ultra mare et fuit socius suus et cum ipso reversus fuit de partibus ultra marinis, et tunc tenuit et adhuc tenet eum pro bono christiano, si aliquis bonus christianus esse possit. See Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 230 n. 2. 48 Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 269: “Les douze autres, parmis lequels sont trois comtes et d’autres personnes d’un rang distingué, déposent également en faveur de l’Ordre.” 49 Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 270 n. 1: Recolit quod magna fuit carestia bladi videlicet quod mensura bladi qui communi estimatione vendi solet pro X solidis vel infra, vendebatur XXXIII, et illo tempore mille vel paulo pauciores pauperes reficiebantur singulis diebus in domo predicta (de Mostaire) dicta carestia durante. See Barber, Trial, 251–2; Anne Gilmour-Bryson, “Templar Trial Testimony: Voices from 1307 to 1311,” in The Military Orders, Volume 4: On Land and by Sea, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Aldershot 2008), 163–74, here 171. 50 Raynouard, Monumens historiques, 270: “Informations faites par l’Archevêque de Trèves. Elle est composée de dix-sept témoins, dont trois seulement sont Templiers. Tous déposent en faveur de l’Ordre.” 51 Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, “Historical Background,” online (see note 43). 52 Schottmüller, Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 1: 713–14. This statement was made after Pope Leo XIII had already opened the Vatican Secret Archive (now Vatican Apostolic Archive) to the public, namely, scholars, in 1881: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, “Historical Background,” online (see note 43).

243

JOCHEN BURGTORF

Mainz and Trier records yield nothing to confirm the Order’s guilt. However, if Raynouard’s excerpts are any indication, they do contain valuable details for the study of prosopography, careers, networks, mentalities, charity, and so forth. It might also be worthwhile to investigate where Raynouard’s unpublished, personal papers are today, as these might contain a more complete transcription of the German Trial records. Interestingly enough, two letters handwritten by Raynouard surfaced as recently as 2013 at an auction in Saumur.53

The post-Trial legacy We shall now address the Templar legacy in Germany as far as it can be traced in historiography, archaeology, and folklore. Some German fourteenth-century chroniclers repeated the accusations against the Templars.54 Ottokar’s Austrian Rhymed Chronicle, for example, charged the Templars with greed (nît), recklessness (gevære), and deceit (betrugen).55 The Schöppen Chronicle of Magdeburg added heresy (ketterie) and pride (homut) to this list.56 And the Salzburg annalist spoke of “proven crimes” (mala probata), including the denial of Christ, spitting on a crucifix, and homosexuality.57 But there were also significant positive voices.58 The Franconian poet Hugh of Trimberg sorrowfully referred to the weakening of “the Order of the high Templars.”59 According to John of 53 Xavier de La Perraudière, “Autographes, vieux papiers, documents historiques, Saumur, Mercredi, 23 Octobre 2013,” 69, lot no. 217, available online, accessed 18 September 2020, https:// en.calameo.com/read/000237541bed7d5bb814c. 54 Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 203–4. 55 Ottokars Österreichische Reimchronik, ed. Joseph Seemüller, vol. 1, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Deutsche Chroniken, vol. 5, 1 (Hanover 1890), 640 verses 48512–23: die [Templæren] erzeigten ouch ir nît, / der von in leider sît / offebâr is worden, / daz si den heiligen orden / mit gevære hânt getragen, / als ir wol gehôret sagen, / sô wir nû komen an diu jâr, / daz dem bâbst wart offenbâr / und dem kunic von Francrîche / und der phafheit algelîche, / wie si die werlt betrugen. 56 Die Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, ed. Karl Janicke, Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte, vol. 7 (Leipzig 1869), 180–1 (year 1308): In dussen sulven jare begunde men vorstoren den tempelerheren orden, de dar hadde gestan 20 jar min wenn twehundert. pawes Clemens und de koning von Frankriken hadden dat so bestalt dat men se upgrep in allen landen. dat schach in sunte Calixti avende. men teich on ketterie dat se Cristum scholden verlokent hebben und scholden dat cruz Cristi an gespiet hebben. men meind doch wol, se hedden neine sake, wenn dat de pawes und de koning van Frankrike und andere vorsten or gut hebben wolden, wente se unmate rike weren. se dreven groten homut: dat dunket mi de groteste sake, dat des god stadede dat se vorstort worden. 57 “Continuatio Waichardi de Polhaim,” ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 9 (Hanover 1851), 810–18, here 818 (year 1307): Eodem etiam anno capti sunt plus quam quingenti fratres Templarii per regem Francie, propter multa mala, videlicet heresim, quia non recipiebant aliquem ad professionem, nisi prius negaret Christum, et spueret in faciem Crucifixi, et adoraret idolum quod portabatur coram eo, et tunc abiuravit omnes mulieres, et indulgebatur sibi ut abuteretur se cum aliis fratribus eiusdem ordinis, Que omnia mala probata fuerant coram papa, et per se confessi. 58 Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 204–6. 59 Der Renner von Hugo von Trimberg, ed. Gustav Ehrismann, 2 vols. (Tübingen 1908–1909), 1: 70 verses 11133–6: Des ist sô vil ouch leider worden, / Daz der hôhen templer orden / Geswachet ist und manic man, / Der klôster lebens sich nam an.

244

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

Viktring who spent most of his life in Carinthia, there were those who refused to accept the former possessions of the Templars because they believed that the Order had been destroyed unlawfully. To him, the Order was a “famous and shining star in the firmament of the Church” (preclarus et lucidus de firmamento ecclesie), but it had been pulled up like a useless root.60 Peter of Zittau, a chronicler in the Cistercian abbey of Königsaal (Aula Regia or Zbraslav) near Prague, celebrated the Order as “world famous” (per totum mundum celebrem).61 Benesch of Weitmühl called it “most valiant” (valentissimum).62 And the Continuation of the Saxon World Chronicle praised the virtues of the Order whose members “had shed their blood for the Christian faith” (verguzzen auch dick ir blut umb christenlichen gelauben).63 Interestingly enough, almost all of these sources mention the French king and the pope as the main agents against the Order. Overall, Michael Schüpferling claims, the Order’s positive press in the German and Austrian chronicles reflects the undiminished favor that the Templars enjoyed in most secular and ecclesiastical circles in these territories.64 In Germany, the Templars had been recruited from the local nobility and had brought their possessions into the Order. After the Order’s dissolution, many families reclaimed these possessions rather than allowing their transfer to the Hospitallers.65 This may explain why the Templars lived on in many German place names, most famously the “Tempelhof ” in Berlin. At Tempelfeld (Owczary) in Lower Silesia (Poland), locals long considered the local “murderer’s cross,” a penitential monument, as the place where the last Templar had been struck down.66 However, a healthy dose of suspicion is in order. In 1914, a local historian, Siegmar von Schultze-Galléra, wrote about Beyernaumburg, the scene of the Templars’ armed resistance against Burchard of Magdeburg: “Even 60 Iohannis abbatis Victoriensis liber certarum historiarum, ed. Fedor Schneider, 2 vols., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, vol. 36 (Hanover 1909–1910), 2: 2: Bona eorum aliis cruciferis optulit, quidam tamen recipere recusarunt, dicentes iniuste perditos homines . . . et sic ordo ille preclarus et lucidus de firmamento ecclesie usque hodie tamquam stirps inutilis est sublatus. 61 Die Königsaaler Geschichts-Quellen, ed. Johann Loserth, Fontes rerum Austriacarum, Scriptores, 8 (Vienna 1875), 354 chapter 121: Praedictus etiam papa illum praepotentem et per totum mundum celebrem ordinem cruciferorum Templariorum ascribens eisdem quosdam errores heresis, abrasit der gremio ecclesie totaliter et delevit. 62 “Chronicon Benessii de Weitmil,” ed. Josef Emler, in Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 4 (Prague 1884), 457–548, here 470 (referring to Pope Clement V): Hic delevit ordinem valentissium Templariorum in concilio Wyennensi. 63 “Fortsetzungen der Sächsischen Weltchronik,” ed. Ludwig Weiland, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Deutsche Chroniken, vol. 2 (Hanover 1877), 280–384, here 334: Ditz was ein gar ersamlicher orden und was geleuch Daeutscher herren orden an dem gewande, wan daz si roteu chrauz trugen an iren mænteln. Si verguzzen auch dick ir blut umb christenlichen gelauben. 64 Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 206. 65 Lehmann and Patzner, Templer im Osten Deutschlands, 85–6. 66 Carl Stehr, Chronik der ehemaligen Hochritterlichen Maltheser-Ordens-Commende, jetzigen Hochgräflichen York von Wartenburg’schen Majorats-Herrschaft Klein-Öls, Ohlauer Kreises, vom Jahre 1152 bis 1845 (Breslau 1845), 34; Kurt Eistert, “Der Ritterorden der Tempelherren in Schlesien,” Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte 14 (1956): 1–23, here 2. See Heutger, Tempelherren, 106 n. 409.

245

JOCHEN BURGTORF

today, one can see in the castle gardens the knightly tombs that cover the bodies of the fallen Templars.”67 Alas, the tombs are those of the von Bülow family, the owners of Beyernaumburg between 1653 and 1945, and a local burial mound, also traditionally associated with the last Templars of Beyernaumburg, has turned out to be a prehistoric interment site.68 Thus, the Romantic era’s fascination with all things medieval probably conjured up its fair share of dramatic German Templar legacy. Perhaps as a result of the linguistic turn, some academic historians are becoming more comfortable with folklore. And yet, don’t legends merely provide a clue to the Templars’ presence in a particular region?69 I skip here over the legends that claim that Templars in the Mosel region and in Jülich imposed the ius primae noctis (the “privilege of the first night”),70 or that Templars, in their pride, built a tower at Rheda Castle in imitation of the infamous Old Testament Tower of Babel.71 These legends are most likely Reformation era anti-Catholic propaganda against a community long gone and unable to fight back. However, there are legends pertaining to the Templar Trial in Germany that seem to have earlier origins.72 According to one of these, in 1311, Count Henry of Regenstein received the order to destroy all Templars in his territory. Thus, he invited twelve Templars to dine with him at Schlanstedt Castle (in the Harz region). The seating arrangement was thus that each Templar was placed between two of the count’s knights. After dinner, the count’s daughter left the room, whereupon one of the Templars made a disparaging remark about the lady. This was the signal for all non-Templars to rise and slaughter the Templars until “the room was swimming in smoking blood like a pond on a fall morning,” and this room has been referred to as the “red Templar room”

67 Siegmar von Schultze-Galléra, Wanderungen durch den Saalkreis, vol. 2 (Halle 1914), 35: “Noch heute sieht man im Parke des Schlosses die Rittergräber, welche die Leichen der gefallenen Templer decken.” See Joe Labonde, Die Templer in Deutschland: Eine Untersuchung zum historisch überkommenden Erbe des Templerordens in Deutschland (Mainz 2010), 27–8 n. 1. 68 Hermann Grössler, “Geschlossene vorgeschichtliche Funde aus den Kreisen Mansfeld (Gebirge und See), Querfurt und Sangerhausen,” Jahresschrift für die Vorgeschichte der sächsisch-thüringischen Länder 1 (1902): 125–244, here 131–3. 69 Lehmann and Patzner, Templer im Osten Deutschlands, 11. 70 Nikolaus Hocker, “Templersagen,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Mythologie und Sittenkunde 2 (1855): 413– 17, here 414–15; Heinrich Hoffmann and Gottfried Henßen, Sagen, Märchen und Schwänke des Jülicher Landes (Bonn 1955), 212 doc. 370: “Et ös net schönn, wat se hee van de Tempelhäre sage: weä sich hierot, moht de Tempelhäre e Stöck Land jövve, dat aan ehr Land steeß, ode se mohte die nöü Frau en de iëtzte Naht bei de Tempelhäre schlofe loße. Die Jonge leefe sich zebascht, ih se dat zojove.” See Heutger, Tempelherren, 106 n. 408. 71 Ledebur, “Templer und ihre Besitzungen,” 117–18; Horst Conrad, “Bemerkungen zur Baugeschichte des Schlosses Rheda,” Westfälische Zeitschrift: Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 139 (1989): 239–73, here 257, 259. See Labonde, Templer in Deutschland, 165. 72 Johann Wilhelm Spitz, Rheinischer Sagen- und Liederschatz, vol. 3 (Düsseldorf 1843), 3–8 (“Die Templer auf Lahneck”); Lorenz Heckel, “Tempelritter am Rhein,” Heimat am Mittelrhein (1963): 3. See Labonde, Templer in Deutschland, 107 n. 1.

246

THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN GERMANY

ever since.73 Possible interpretations of this legend might address the Templars’ alleged attitude toward women; their valiance, because the count saw the need for a two-to-one fighting ratio; and the fact that their demise came suddenly.74 All this is complicated by the fact that historians generally assume that no Templar blood was spilled in Germany.75 The challenge for historians interested in the discourse on the legacy of the Templars in Germany is to trace legends like these, and much remains to be done in this respect.

Conclusion According to Michael Schüpferling, the German Templar Trial transpired the way it did for four reasons. Firstly, the German branch of the Order was highly aristocratic and thus enjoyed the support of secular and ecclesiastical lords; secondly, Germany lacked a central authority, which made a Trial in accordance with the French model impossible; thirdly, the Templars in Germany actually put up a fight; and fourthly, the Order did not give the impression of internal decay; rather, it enjoyed an increasing popularity.76 Some historians claim that the end of the Templars came about, at least in part, because they were allegedly not defining new tasks for themselves, unlike the Hospitallers on Rhodes and the Teutonic Knights in Prussia;77 or because they were not engaged in hospital work, like the members of the other Orders;78 or because their Order’s overall “state . . . seems to have been so dire that one wonders how long it could have been allowed to remain in existence.”79 Yet, Helmut Lüpke has demonstrated that the activities of the Order’s branch in the eastern part of Germany, shortly before its downfall, were those of a healthy and forceful community, capable of making far-reaching plans and executing them with energy.80 Considering the Templars’ activities in the Eastern Mediterranean around 1300 as well as 73 Stephan Kunze, Statistik und Topographie sämmtlicher Ortschaften des landräthlichen Kreises Oschersleben, vol. 1 (Oschersleben 1842), 115–16; Friedrich Günther, Aus dem Sagenschatz der Harzlande (Leipzig 1893), 217 doc. 200; Gunther Lehmann and Christian Patzner, Die Templer in Mitteldeutschland (Erfurt 2004), 55. See Labonde, Templer in Deutschland, 173–4. 74 The French king had orchestrated the arrest of the Templars in his realm to take place on “one day.” Likewise, the pope had instructed the princes of Christendom to arrest the Templars on “one day.” Thus, the idea of all this happening on “one day” became a historiographical obsession. Fifteenth and sixteenth-century histories printed in Germany would continue to report that the Templars in Saxony were struck down on “one day.” See Schottmüller, Untergang des TemplerOrdens, 1:445–6 n. 2. 75 Schottmüller, Untergang des Templer-Ordens, 1:446. 76 Schüpferling, Tempelherren-Orden, 237–8. 77 Lehmann and Patzner, Templer im Osten Deutschlands, 14. 78 Borchardt, “Templars in Central Europe,” 237–8. 79 Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Structures of the Orders of the Temple and the Hospital in c.1291,” in The Medieval Crusade, ed. Susan Y. Ridyard (Woodbridge 2004), 125–43, here 143. 80 Helmut Lüpke, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens im Gebiet der nordostdeutschen Kolonisation (Bernburg 1933), 15.

247

JOCHEN BURGTORF

their involvement in the Eastern European colonization movement in Silesia, Greater Poland, and Pomerania, it is clear that they were far from paralyzed.81 Therefore, a careful analysis of the allegedly peripheral German, Cypriote, and Iberian Templar Trial proceedings is crucial to a holistic assessment of the Order and its demise. And when it comes to Germany, this particular research still has a long way to go.

81 For the eastern Mediterranean, see Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Templer auf Ruad (1300–1302),” in Die Ritterorden in Umbruchs- und Krisenzeiten, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky, Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica 16 (Toruń 2011), 63–92; for Eastern Europe, see Borchardt, “Templars in Central Europe,” 235–7.

248

Part III LEGACY

12 THE TEMPLAR TRIAL AND THE TEUTONIC ORDER Klaus Militzer

In 1291, when the city of Acre was lost to the Christians after a century of their control, the military orders moved their headquarters, which up until then had been in that city, to other places. Templars and Hospitallers at first relied on their houses in Cyprus,1 assuming that a re-conquest of Acre and the Holy Land would be more easily accomplished from this Mediterranean island. Meanwhile, the Teutonic Order moved its headquarters from Acre to Venice.2 When compared to Cyprus, where Templars and Hospitallers were setting up their headquarters, a greater distance separated the city in the lagoon from the Holy Land, but the Teutonic Order was not about to surrender its idea of re-conquering the Holy Land. Yet without Venice’s fleet, that idea had no prospects of ever becoming a reality for only the city in the lagoon had a sufficient number of ships to make such a campaign of re-conquest against the Muslim rulers of Palestine a promising endeavor. The hope of a re-conquest of the Holy Land was prevalent in the Teutonic Order, apart from the brethren in Prussia and Livonia, and certainly not limited to the brethren of the Venetian headquarters. After all, Christ had lived and died in Palestine, a tradition that was emphasized time and again.3 Thus, at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, the idea of reconquest was strong in the Venetian headquarters and many other commanderies

1 Alain Demurger, Chevaliers du Christ: Les ordres religieux-militaires au Moyen Âge, XIe–XVIe siècle (Paris 2002), 215–17. 2 Klaus Militzer, Von Akkon zur Marienburg: Verfassung, Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur des Deutschen Ordens 1190–1309, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 56 (Marburg 1999), 153–64; Udo Arnold, “Der Deutsche Orden und Venedig,” in Deutscher Orden und Preußenland: Ausgewählte Aufsätze anläßlich des 65. Geburtstages, ed. Udo Arnold, Bernhart Jähnig, and Georg Michels, Einzelschriften der Historischen Kommission für Ost- und Westpreußische Landesforschung 26 (Marburg 2005), 207–24, here 210 (first published 1994). Arnold provides additional information and possible reasons why the Teutonic Order chose Venice as its headquarters. 3 See Hans Eberhard Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, 8th ed. (Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne 1995), 16–17, 251; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (London 1987), 14–17.

251

K L AU S M I L I T Z E R

of the Teutonic Order’s various bailiwicks.4 However, there appears to have been considerable opposition against such an endeavor in the Baltic territories, namely, Prussia and Livonia. Sentiments in favor of re-conquering the Holy Land and strengthening the Order’s Mediterranean branch probably influenced the decisions of the grand masters (“Hochmeister”) in Venice, perhaps even more so than can be ascertained today. Undoubtedly, there were differences of opinion, particularly between those who had lived in the Holy Land for a longer period of time, or had even been born there, and those brethren of the military orders who, after having been received into their respective communities in their home commanderies in Western Europe, had subsequently been sent to the Holy Land. However, such differences disappeared after the 1291 conquest of Acre by the Mamluks of Egypt. For, after the fall of Acre, only very few individuals who had been born in the Holy Land were received as brethren into military orders. In the Teutonic Order, their number was probably very small; even though it is impossible to establish the family background of all members, this seems to be a safe assumption. At any rate, they no longer dominated the Order and, instead, found themselves appointed to comparatively low-ranking offices.5 On the other hand and in contrast to the two older military orders, the Teutonic Order had, in the first half of the thirteenth century and thus long before the fall of Acre, acquired territories in the Baltic region, namely, Prussia and Livonia.6 The European nobility had acknowledged the Baltic region by sending so-called “crusaders” to Prussia and Livonia; they usually stayed for a year, and without them the Teutonic Order would not have been able to conquer these territories.7 Even the popes in Rome had encouraged the Order to vanquish the Baltic territories and to bring them under its dominion.8 In order

4 See now also Shlomo Lotan, “Hermann von Salza und sein Beitrag zur Friedensstiftung im lateinischen Osten,” in Sprache, Macht, Frieden: Augsburger Beiträge zur Historischen Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, ed. Johannes Burkhardt, Kay-Peter Jankrift, and Wolfgang E. J. Weber, Documenta Augustana Pacis 1 (Augsburg 2014), 155–72. 5 Hubert Houben, “I cavalieri teutonici nel Meditarraneo orientale (sec. XII–XV),” in I cavalieri teutonici tra Sicilia e Mediterraneo: Atti del convegno internazionale di studio, Agrigento, 24–25 marzo 2006, ed. Antonio Giuffrida, Hubert Houben, and Kristjan Toomaspoeg, Acta theutonica 4 (Galatina 2007), 47–74, here 64–7. Hubert Houben, “Die Landkomture der Deutschordensballei Apulien,” Sacra Militia: Rivista di storia degli ordini militari 2 (2001): 115–54, here 127–8, doubts that Guido Amendola hailed from the Holy Land. On page 127 Houben establishes that, after the fall of Acre in 1291, the bailiwick of Apulia lost its function as a supply base for the Holy Land. 6 Militzer, Von Akkon zur Marienburg, 336–86. 7 See Werner Paravicini, Die Preußenreisen des europäischen Adels, 2 vols., Beihefte der Francia 17.1–2 (Sigmaringen 1989–1995), passim. 8 See the papal privileges in Tabulae ordinis Theutonici ex tabularii regii Berolinensis codice potissimum, ed. Ernst Strehlke (Berlin 1869), nos. 203, 206–9. For additional papal privileges see the respective cartularies (“Urkundenbücher”) for Prussia and Livonia: Preußisches Urkundenbuch, 6 vols., ed. Rudolf Philippi, Carl Peter Woelky, August Seraphim, Max Hein, Erich Maschke, Hans Koeppen, and Klaus Conrad (Königsberg-Marburg 1882–2000); Liv-, esth- und kurländisches Urkundenbuch nebst

252

THE TEMPLAR TRIAL AND THE TEUTONIC ORDER

to achieve this, the heathens of Prussia and Livonia had to be subjugated and converted to the Christian faith. Whether the latter was actually accomplished remains debatable.9 In the course of the thirteenth century, at least some progress was made toward this goal. Pockets of resistance in both Prussia and Livonia had to be overcome before the Order could commence its missionary work among the heathens of Lithuania, and even though this endeavor remained unsuccessful, it was certainly worthy of a military order. As the Baltic region was situated far from Rome, Avignon, and papal influence,10 the Order managed to establish its own dominion, which has been demonstrated time and again.11 It is significant that differences between the Order’s Baltic and Prussian factions emerged as early as 1237, during the grand-mastership of Hermann of Salza, when favoritism toward Mediterranean ideas was alleged at a chapter meeting in Marburg. In 1299, during the grand-mastership of Gottfried of Hohenlohe, the Order’s brethren in Prussia staged a vigorous opposition against similar ideas at a chapter meeting in Elbing.12 What remains to be addressed is the approximate distance (“as the crow flies”) between Rome, Venice, the Holy Land, and Prussia. While the distance between Rome and the Holy Land was about 2,160 kilometers, that between Rome and Marienburg (Malbork) in Prussia, the Order’s future headquarters, was about 1,400 kilometers, giving Marienburg an advantage of over 600 kilometers in terms of closer proximity. Venice was situated even closer to Rome, namely, at a distance of about 515 kilometers. But that is not all. Since 1278, the Roman curia had annexed Bologna and the Romagna,13 which brought it as close as 100 kilometers to Venice, and, since 1309, it was also trying to dominate Ferrara,14 moving it potentially even closer to Venice. One has to consider, of course, that travel to the Holy Land routinely happened by ship, meaning that the Holy Land could be reached more quickly than the Baltic region. Meanwhile, travel to Marienburg in Prussia involved horseback-riding, crossing the Alps, or journeying on foot. All this to say, the trip to Marienburg was more arduous, more time-consuming, and accompanied by more difficulties

9

10

11 12 13 14

Regesten, Div. 1, 12 vols., ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge, Hermann Hildebrand, Philipp Schwartz, and August von Bulmerincq (Reval-Riga-Moscow 1853–1910); Regesta historico-diplomatica Ordinis S. Mariae Theutonicorum, 1198–1525, ed. Walther Hubatsch, 2 vols. (Göttingen 1948). See Marian Biskup and Gerard Labuda, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen: Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Staat, Ideologie (Osnabrück 2000), 252–4; Hartmut Boockmann, Der Deutsche Orden: Zwölf Kapitel aus seiner Geschichte (Munich 1981), 108–14. See also Andrzej Radzimiński, Kirche und Geistlichkeit im Mittelalter: Polen und der Deutsche Orden in Preussen (Toruń 2011), 252. See Jan-Erik Beuttel, Der Generalprokurator des Deutschen Ordens an der römischen Kurie: Amt, Funktion, personelles Umfeld und Finanzierung, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 55 (Marburg 1999), 21–6. See, for example, Boockmann, Der Deutsche Orden, 93–114, 181–96. Militzer, Von Akkon zur Marienburg, 147, 162–3. See Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 2 (Munich-Zurich 1983), 372 (s.v. “Bologna”). See Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 4 (Munich-Zurich 1989), 387–8 (s.v. “Ferrara”); Handbuch der europäischen Geschichte, vol. 2, ed. Theodor Schieder (Stuttgart 1987), 638.

253

K L AU S M I L I T Z E R

than the journey by boat to Palestine. Indeed, if one boarded a ship at Danzig (Gdansk) it was necessary to transfer to an Italian galley at Bruges, since the cogs crossing the North Sea and the Baltic Sea usually did not travel beyond Bruges. In addition, there were the dangers of traveling by boat from Danzig to Rome. We know, moreover, that the trip between Marienburg and both Rome and Avignon was usually done by land and only rarely by sea. From Marienburg, the grand master normally sent his envoys to the pope by land.15 In 1291, shortly after the fall of Acre, the newly elected grand master Konrad of Feuchtwangen had to acknowledge that the Order’s headquarters were being moved to Venice. We do not know for sure whether Konrad of Feuchtwangen agreed to this move to Venice, or not, – whether it was a compromise, as some historians assume, or not.16 The surviving evidence does not contain an answer to this question. Written records in conjunction with the grand master’s election or notes indicating the position taken by the Order’s leadership, if such documents ever existed, have not survived.17 No other account has come down to us that contains an unequivocal answer. Nonetheless, it appears certain that, during the electoral chapter, a majority of the Teutonic Order’s brethren demanded a Mediterranean program of some sort. After all, the pope as the Teutonic Order’s protector had demanded a similar program and was even providing assistance to that end.18 In contrast to Cyprus, the Venetian commandery was situated in closer proximity to the bailiwicks of the German empire. Not only did the Order own 15 See Beuttel, Generalprokurator, 196–205. For the rare evidence of travel by land and – hardly ever – by sea, see Die Berichte der Generalprokuratoren des Deutschen Ordens an der Kurie: Die Geschichte der Generalprokuratoren von den Anfängen bis 1403, vol. 1, ed. Kurt Forstreuter, Veröffentlichungen aus den Archiven Preußischer Kulturbesitz 12 (Göttingen 1961), passim. 16 Most recently Ulrich Niess, “Konrad von Feuchtwangen,” in Die Hochmeister des Deutschen Ordens 1190–2012, ed. Udo Arnold, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 40 (Weimar 2014), 41–5, here 43. 17 For the election of the grand master, see the stipulation in the Order’s customs: Max Perlbach, Die Statuten des Deutschen Ordens nach den ältesten Handschriften (Halle an der Saale 1890), 92–5. The customs do not require any written records in conjunction with the election of the grand master. See also Reinhard Wenskus, “Das Ordensland Preußen als Territorialstaat des 14. Jahrhunderts,” in Der deutsche Territorialstaat im 14. Jahrhundert, vol. 1, ed. Hans Patze, Vorträge und Forschungen 13 (Sigmaringen 1970), 347–82, here 370–2; Hans Patze, “Neue Typen des Geschäftsgutes im 14. Jahrhundert,” in Der deutsche Territorialstaat, ed. Patze, 9–64, here 19, 43, 50–2; Boockmann, Der Deutsche Orden, 194. Nonetheless, there must have been some written records even if they have not survived: see Perlbach, Statuten, 161 no. 8: Item volumus, ut commendatores, qui destituuntur, successoribus domus bona sub scripto et fratrum testimonio representent. A letter by Eberhard of Sayn, dated to 1251, now also in Visitationen im Deutschen Orden im Mittelalter, 3 vols., ed. Marian Biskup and Irena Janosz-Biskupova, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 50.1–3 (Marburg 2002–2008), here vol. 1, 5. See Militzer, Von Akkon zur Marienburg, 347. 18 Klaus Militzer, “Die Übersiedlung Siegfrieds von Feuchtwangen in die Marienburg,” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 16 (2011): 47–61, here 53–4. The move has been interpreted as a “compromise” in Niess, “Konrad von Feuchtwangen,” 41–5. For further references, see Klaus Militzer, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart 2012), 40.

254

THE TEMPLAR TRIAL AND THE TEUTONIC ORDER

houses and properties in northern Italy, but also south of the Alpine passes, especially in the Alpine foothills to the North and beyond.19 However, we do not know whether the Venetian commandery’s geographical location in any way impacted the decision of the Order’s leadership. What does appear certain, though, is that considerations pertaining to the Venetian fleet were a deciding factor.20 Some historians believe that it was Konrad of Feuchtwangen (1291–1296) who, after his election to the office of grand master, made plans to move the Order’s headquarters from Venice to Marienburg.21 Yet, such a plan, if it ever existed, cannot be found anywhere in the surviving documents. It cannot be ruled out that the grand master Konrad of Feuchtwangen had such a plan. However, he was unable to put this potential plan into action, presumably because there was too much resistance among the Order’s brethren whose ideas remained focused on a Mediterranean program of some sort and, perhaps, the re-conquest of the holy places in the East. Clearly, the time had not yet come to move the Order’s headquarters again. Both of Konrad’s successors, Gottfried of Hohenlohe (1297–1303) and Siegfried of Feuchtwangen (1303–1311), were tied to the Venetian headquarters based on additions to the Order’s statutes. With regard to Siegfried of Feuchtwangen, whose familial connections to Konrad, if there were any, remain unclear,22 this was only true for his early years as grand master, namely, up until 1309, as will be shown. According to the additions to the statutes which had been passed by a chapter, the grand master depended on the good-will of the German master (“Deutschmeister”), as well as that of the two masters of Prussia and Livonia. One could say that the grand master was “fenced in” within in the Venetian commandery. At best, he could move about within the bailiwick of Lombardy, the so-called mainland of the city in the lagoon. Without the consent of the other three masters, or at least that of the German master, he was not allowed to cross

19 See the maps in Klaus Militzer, Die Entstehung der Deutschordensballeien im Deutschen Reich, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 16 (Marburg 1981); Klaus Militzer, Die Balleien des Deutschen Ordens in „deutschen und welschen Landen“ um 1400, Part 1, Historisch-geographischer Atlas des Preußenlandes 11 (Stuttgart 1985). 20 Militzer, Geschichte, 40. 21 See, for example, Niess, “Konrad von Feuchtwangen,” 42. At any rate, Peter of Dusburg does not report any such plan: Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie / Peter von Dusburg, Chronik des Preußenlandes, ed. Klaus Scholz and Dieter Wojtecki, Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe 25 (Darmstadt 1985), 380 no. 3, 264: frater Conradus de Wucgwangen magister generalis domus Theutonice venit ad terram Prussie vidensque ipsam innumeris oppressam tribulacionibus fratres verbis et exhortacionibus salutiferis confortans per dona magnifica consolatur. See also, for a by no means outdated portrayal, Udo Arnold, “Konrad von Feuchtwangen,” Preußenland 13 (1975): 2–34. Arnold, too, suspects a compromise. 22 Werner Uhlich, “Der Beitrag der Hochmeister Konrad und Siegfried von Feuchtwangen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens,” Feuchtwanger Heimatgeschichte 2 (1990): 9–125, here 83, suspects that he was Konrad’s nephew and considers it “very likely” (“sehr wahrscheinlich”) that they were related.

255

K L AU S M I L I T Z E R

the Alps.23 Furthermore, he was supposed to have been invited by one of the other masters before he could travel. While this stipulation is not attributed to any particular grand master in the extant manuscripts, Max Perlbach has attributed it to Grand Master Siegfried of Feuchtwangen. Yet, a similar article, part of a pre-election agreement, can be attributed to Siegfried’s predecessor, Gottfried of Hohenlohe, and in this case the manuscripts confirm that Gottfried consented to this article.24 While the two articles are not identical and assume different preconditions, it is ultimately impossible to decide to which of the two grand masters the limiting second article should be attributed.25 This may be a problem for future scholarly investigations, but it is of little relevance here. For now, the question whether this stipulation already bound Gottfried of Hohenlohe or did not take effect until the grand-mastership of Siegfried of Feuchtwangen has to remain undecided. In either case, the grand master, the Order’s head, had lost control over those masters who would normally be subordinated to him. Ever since this stipulation, the grand master had to rely on the incomes of the Order’s house in Venice or, at best, those of the bailiwick of Lombardy.26 Furthermore, there is no evidence for any transfer of goods or money from the bailiwicks of the German master, let alone the territories of the masters of Prussia or Livonia, to the grand master in Venice. Stipulations such as this gradually starved the office of the grand master in favor of the office of the German master, as well as those of the masters of Prussia and Livonia. While the grand master had to depend on Venice and the bailiwick of Lombardy, the regions north of the Alps remained free from claims from the Order’s head. The situation of the Order’s other bailiwicks on the Mediterranean Sea, especially Apulia and Sicily, is unclear, as the respective records have not survived. They, too, did probably not contribute to the grand master’s income, since there is no evidence that they did.

23 Perlbach, Statuten, 145: Wi setten, datte meester uut deme hovethuse des oerdens over dat ghebercht niet en vare, hi en werde gheladen van saken, als hierna bescreven is, van heme der drier lande ghebieder Duutschlant, Lijflant, Prusen. 24 Perlbach, Statuten, 144: Wir setzen daz, ob der hômeister geladen wirt mit gewonlicher ladunge sînes capiteles unde zu der dritten ladunge nicht enkumet, daz er danne ungehôrsam sie worden, unde daz ime nieman sal gehôrsam sîn, unde sînes amtes ledic sal sîn unde daz man einen anderen nemen muge. 25 Perlbach, Statuten, 145–6, with an attribution to Siegfried of Feuchtwangen, but without presenting any corroboration from the manuscripts for this attribution. In agreement with Perlbach was Ulrich Niess, Hochmeister Karl von Trier (1311–1324): Stationen einer Karriere im Deutschen Orden, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 47 (Marburg 1992), 23–4. This view has been opposed by Kurt Forstreuter, Der Deutsche Orden am Mittelmeer, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 2 (Bonn 1967), 194–5; Arnold, “Konrad von Feuchtwangen,” 29; Militzer, Entstehung, 144; Militzer, Von Akkon zur Marienburg, 159–60, with additional references. See also Militzer, “Übersiedlung,” 54–5. 26 Piotr Cierzniakowski, “L’Ordine Teutonico nell’Italia settentrionale,” in L’Ordine Teutonico nel Mediterraneo: Atti del convegno internazionale di studio, Torre Alemanna (Cerignola), Mesagne, Lecce, 16–18 ottobre 2003, ed. Hubert Houben, Acta theutonica 1 (Galatina 2004), 217–35; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “La fondazione della provincia di ‘Lombardia’ dell’ordine Teutonico (secoli XIII–XIV),” Sacra militia 3 (2002): 111–56, here 111–45.

256

THE TEMPLAR TRIAL AND THE TEUTONIC ORDER

Now that we have established the general situation of the Order’s head in Venice, we turn to an assessment of the character of the new grand master Siegfried of Feuchtwangen (1303–1311). He seems to have been a weak man, because scarcely any of his charters, at least not those that can clearly be attributed to him, have survived. In addition, Peter of Dusburg has barely anything to say about him.27 Peter of Dusburg was the Order’s most important chronicler. He probably lived in the Order after Siegfried of Feuchtwangen’s grand-mastership. According to Peter’s account, it was Grand Master Werner of Orseln (1324–1330) who encouraged him to compose his chronicle,28 and he extensively mourned Werner’s assassination.29 Thus, Peter wrote during the grand-mastership of Werner of Orseln, the second successor of Siegfried of Feuchtwangen. During Siegfried of Feuchtwangen’s tenure of office (1303–1311), there were other issues that appear to have made the Order’s continued stay in Venice either difficult or impossible. These were, firstly, the Templar Trial; secondly, the challenge to the Teutonic Order’s autonomy based on the proposal to merge all military orders into one (which was also a major threat from the perspective of the Hospitallers); and thirdly, the threat that a papal interdict, in conjunction with the announcement of a “crusade” against the city in the lagoon, posed to Venice. Even though these three issues do not appear in the Order’s own sources as reasons to move headquarters, it is understandable that the grand master made the decision to relocate to Marienburg in Prussia. Yet, whether these three issues actually impacted the move remains open to conjecture or interpretation by historians writing after Siegfried’s grand-mastership. The Templar Trial may have threatened the Teutonic Order, or at least its leadership, especially its grand master. On 14 September 1307, the French king Philip IV, “the Fair,” secretly instructed his officials to monitor the Templar brethren and assemble evidence against them. However, the Teutonic Order and its top leadership could not have known this. On 13 October of the same year, it was time for the king’s officials to proceed against the Templar brethren in their respective jurisdictions and arrest them. Initially, all this was confined to the French kingdom and the reach of Philip IV’s power. However, the king soon managed to bring the pope over to his side. In 1311–1312, at the Council of Vienne, the pope conferred the Templars’ properties to the Hospitallers, but he did have to make various concessions and exceptions in several European realms.30

27 For his alleged statements regarding the Templar Trial, see later. 28 Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 26: epistola, dated to 1326. See also Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 7–14; Arno Mentzel-Reuters, “Pierre de Dusburg,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand (Paris 2009), 722–3, with additional references. 29 Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 553–4, suppl. 20. 30 Julien Théry, “Procès des Templiers,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 743–51, with additional references.

257

K L AU S M I L I T Z E R

The French king’s public proceedings against the Templars after 13 October 1307 probably did not worry the Teutonic Order’s brethren too much, especially since they had no important properties in the French kingdom. In fact, the extent of the Order’s properties there was negligible and hardly worth mentioning.31 However, after the pope appeared to have fallen in line with the French king’s position and was threatening the dissolution of the Templar Order, the Teutonic Order or its leadership may have become alarmed. Yet, we know very little about all this as far as the Teutonic Order is concerned, for Peter of Dusburg reports hardly anything about all this. Nonetheless, Arno Mentzel-Reuters has interpreted some of the chronicler’s words as an echo of the imminent danger that the Order was facing at the time. Peter of Dusburg states that the brethren of the Order were, in those days, plagued (by) multis tribulacionibus, namely, “by many adversities” or “durch viele Widerwärtigkeiten” in the German translation of editors Klaus Scholz and Dieter Wojtecki. Therefore, Siegfried of Feuchtwangen had demanded of the priest brethren that, following the hours, they should pray an antiphonal Salve regina with the short verse In omni tribulacione and the prayer Protege Domine, while the lay brethren should pray an Ave Maria for the veneration of the Holy Virgin, so that the oppression (turbacio) might be mitigated.32 Arno Mentzel-Reuters has viewed this as a hint that the Teutonic Order was dealing with the Templar Trial.33 This may be the case, but would then be rather hidden and could also be interpreted differently, namely, as a reference to the grand master’s being “fenced in” at Venice or to other issues that will be mentioned later. When reporting the fall of the Templar Order, the chronicler does not appear to show any particular emotions.34 It is therefore difficult to see Peter of Dusburg’s account as a reflection of the position held by the Order’s leadership at the time. Since, as far as the Teutonic Order’s own historiography is concerned, only Peter of Dusburg reports about the Templar Trial, while Nikolaus of Jeroschin’s account is both 31 Thomas Krämer, “Der Deutsche Orden im heutigen Frankreich: Ein Beitrag zur Ordensgeschichte im Königreich Frankreich und im Midi,” in L’Ordine Teutonico nel Mediterraneo, ed. Houben, 237–76, here 246–54. 32 Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 416 no. 305: Hoc tempore fratres oppressi fuerunt multis tribulacionibus. Unde statuit idem frater Syfridus magister, quod post singulas horas fratres clerici antiphoniam: “Salve regina” cum versiculo: “In omni tribulacione” et collecta: “Protege Domine,” et layci fratres unum “Ave Maria” dicerent ob reverenciam beate virginis, ut per eius intercessionem dicta turbacio posset aliqualiter mitigari. 33 Arno Mentzel-Reuters, Arma spiritualia: Bibliotheken, Bücher und Bildung im Deutschen Orden, Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 47 (Wiesbaden 2003), 30–1. 34 Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 474 no. IV, 14: Ordo Templariorum anno domini MCXII tempore Paschalis pape II, qui destructus fuit a Clemente papa V in concilio Viennensi anno Domini MCCCXII XI kalendas Aprilis, pontificatus vero dicti pape anno VII, non per sentenciam definitivam, sed per provisionem sedis apostolice tempore Henrici imperatoris VII.; or Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 530 no. IV, 109: Anno Domini MCCCXII XI kalendas Aprilis tempore Henrici VII imperatoris ordo Templariorum a Clemente V papa non per sentenciam definitam, sed per provisionem sedis apostolic condempnatur in concilio Viennensi.

258

THE TEMPLAR TRIAL AND THE TEUTONIC ORDER

later and based on Peter’s report, one could say, with all due caution, that the Teutonic Order, or at least its leadership, was affected by the dissolution of the Templar Order insofar as it represented proceedings against a sister institution. Thus, it is not far-fetched to view the Templar Trial as a potential reason for the relocation of the Teutonic Order’s headquarters. Another issue was the interdict that Pope Clement V had imposed on Venice. Ever since the death of Azzo of Este in 1308, the pope had claimed dominion over Ferrara on behalf of the papal states, thus setting aside Venice’s respective claims.35 The pope had imposed an interdict and threatened a “crusade,” and combining an interdict with a call for a “crusade” had led to quite the verbal hype.36 It was, however, a hype without consequences. For Venice, the fight for Ferrara ended in a loss. Meanwhile, for the Teutonic Order and its headquarters in Venice, the situation became increasingly delicate. In Italy, the Order could not very well take a position against the pope who, after all, was its protector. In accordance with the interdict, the Order was only allowed to celebrate Mass behind closed doors, and that only for its members and affiliates. The Order and its representatives were no longer permitted to negotiate with those in charge of the city’s government, otherwise they themselves ran the risk of being placed under an interdict. The grand master and his staff were no longer able or allowed to discuss with members of the city’s leadership plans for a new crusade against the Muslims for the re-conquest of the Holy Land. Thus, the brethren of the Teutonic Order in the city in the lagoon were isolated. What was the Order to do in the event papal troops conquered Venice? For better or worse, and without the possibility to defend itself, the Order had to hope for leniency from the papal troops and their leaders. As things turned out, it did not come to this, but such a scenario would have seemed very plausible to the Order’s members. Yet, while such a line of thought certainly makes sense, there is no evidence for it or for any of the other potential reasons in the surviving source material. There may have been a third issue. Since the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, leading clerics and priests had been calling for a merger, a union of all military orders in order to facilitate a more effective opposition against Muslim rulers than that which had been displayed by the various military orders in the thirteenth century. This idea had been circulating even before 1291, and the fall of Acre had only added to the number and volume of its proponents.37 It is unnecessary to discuss here the peculiarities

35 Handbuch, vol. 2, ed. Schieder, 638; Gerhard Rösch, Venedig: Geschichte einer Seerepublik (Stuttgart 2000), 89; Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. Monachi O. S. Benedicti (Rome 1885–1888), nos. 5024, 5081. 36 For the definition of “crusade,” see Riley-Smith, Crusades, xxviii–xxix; Jean Flori, “Croisade,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 276–8, here 278. 37 See Alain Demurger, “Unions des ordres,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 944–6, here 944–5; Sylvain Gouguenheim, “Die Vorschläge zum Zusammenschluss der Ritterorden am Ende des 13. und Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts: Eine Konsequenz der Kritik oder eine Chance?” Ordines

259

K L AU S M I L I T Z E R

of the various proposals. It is sufficient to say that the various treatises exist, but, also, that they are not addressed in the Teutonic Order’s own sources. It is unclear whether the Order’s brethren or leadership were afraid of the respective discussion. And yet, this, too, may have been a reason for the relocation of the Order’s headquarters from Venice to Marienburg. These three issues, particularly the Templar Trial, may have induced the Teutonic Order’s leadership at Venice and in other commanderies to move its headquarters. The waning opposition of a Mediterranean faction within the Order may have contributed to this as well. At any rate, in 1309, the Teutonic Order’s headquarters were moved to Marienburg, as Peter of Dusburg informs us.38 This was later considered one of Siegfried of Feuchtwangen’s great deeds.39 Yet, depending on one’s perspective, the move to Marienburg has been viewed very differently. Polish historians have pointed out that, ever since the conquest and occupation of Pomerelia in 1309, Marienburg had become the center of the Order’s dominion, making the relocation of its headquarters to Marienburg understandable.40 German historians have been inclined to view the Templar Trial as the deciding factor, while retaining the conquest and occupation of Pomerelia as a contributing factor.41 As a result of many years of scholarly debate, the German-Polish difference of opinion over this issue has lost its ferocity. Polish historians, too, agree that there is no single explanation for the Teutonic Order’s decision to move its headquarters to Marienburg.42 But was it Siegfried of Feuchtwangen, then residing in Venice, who made the decision to move headquarters from the city in the lagoon to Marienburg? Did he design it, introduce it, and eventually implement it or have it implemented? Such questions are liable to make historians uncomfortable, as such decisions are difficult to reconcile with Siegfried’s apparent character. Either he was a weak character, as has been suggested earlier, or he was capable of making such decisions and asserting himself. We do not know this for sure, since the chroniclers do not provide us with sufficient insights into Siegfried’s imagination. Considering what has been established thus far, it seems more likely that Siegfried of Feuchtwangen was driven by his advisors. They probably sent him, the Order’s head, from Venice to the safety of Marienburg in Prussia, a castle that

38

39 40 41 42

militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 16 (2011): 29–45. See also, for a summarized portrayal, Nikolas Jaspert, Die Kreuzzüge, Geschichte kompatibel, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt 2004), 155. Petri de Dusburg, Chronica terre Prussie, ed. Scholz and Wojtecki, 414 no. III, 304: Anno Domini MCCCIX frater Syfridus de Wucgwangen magister generalis . . . venit ad terram Prussie et domum principalem . . . transtulit ad castrum Mergenburgk in Prussiam. Boockmann, Der Deutsche Orden, 148–9. Biskup and Labuda, Geschichte, 284, 299–300. Bruno Schumacher, Geschichte Ost- und Westpreußens (Würzburg 1959), 46. Roman Czaja, “Marienburg, auj. Malbork,” in Prier et combattre, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 585–6, here 585. See also Ulrich Niess, “Siegfried von Feuchtwangen,” in Hochmeister des Deutschen Ordens, ed. Arnold, 51–6, here 52–3.

260

THE TEMPLAR TRIAL AND THE TEUTONIC ORDER

was indeed becoming the center of the Order’s dominion. But we do have to remember that the castle of 1309 was a far cry from the elaborate and extensive structure of later years.43 Marienburg, in 1309, was at the level of a commandery, surrounded by swamps and water. At least it was already – as one of the first castles of its kind – designed in a square and constructed from bricks.44 Marienburg’s beginnings were, however, humble and far from representative. What is more, the Order’s archive remained, for the time being, in the Venetian commandery. There is barely anything that Siegfried of Feuchtwangen did at Marienburg that we can ascertain today. As had been his characteristic behavior at Venice, Siegfried kept quiet. The actual affairs were apparently determined by the former master of Prussia, Heinrich of Plötzkau, now holding the office of grand commander.45 Siegfried had left several key individuals behind at Venice, but these, too, soon moved on to other regions.46 Thus, it looks like Siegfried of Feuchtwangen was sent to Prussia and that Marienburg was his compensation. If Siegfried of Feuchtwangen was indeed sent to Prussia by his Venetian advisors, then these advisors, among them the Order’s top officials, including its top marshal, its grand commander, and others, had several reasons to do so. The three issues mentioned earlier, especially the Templar Trial, must have played a role in all this. Moreover, the position and influence of the Order’s Mediterranean faction was in decline. In Prussia, this rather weak grand master found himself surrounded by brethren who determined the Order’s actual affairs and were accustomed to doing so. They relegated the grand master to Marienburg, then a place of little prestige. Only his successors, particularly Karl of Trier (1311–1324) and Werner of Orseln (1324–1330), were able to transform Marienburg into a center of the Order’s dominion in Prussia and beyond. Since Karl of Trier had to leave Prussia in 1317, the bulk of this transformation must have been accomplished by Werner of Orseln and his successors.47 43 Klaus Militzer, “Die Marienburg als Zentrale des Ordens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert,” in Die Marienburg: Vom Machtzentrum des Deutschen Ordens zum mitteleuropäischen Erinnerungsort, ed. Bernd Ulrich Hucker, Eugen Kotte, and Christine Vogel (Paderborn 2013), 19–33, here 19–20. 44 See Wiesław Długokęcki and Wiesław Sieradzan, “Malbork,” in Atlas historyczny miast Polskich, vol. 1, 15 (Malbork) (Toruń 2002), 24; Militzer, “Übersiedlung,” 57. 45 Bernhart Jähnig, “Wykaz, urzędów,” in Państwo zakonu krzyżackiego w Prusach: Podziały administracyjne i kościelne w XIII–XVI wieku, ed. Marian Arszyński (Toruń 2000), 95–127, here 101–2; Grischa Vercamer, Siedlungs-, Sozial- und Verwaltungsgeschichte der Komturei Königsberg (13–16. Jahrhundert), Einzelschriften der Historischen Kommission für ost- und westpreußische Landesforschung 29 (Marburg 2010), 465. 46 Militzer, “Übersiedlung,” 58. 47 For Karl of Trier and Werner of Orseln, see also Klaus Conrad, “Karl von Trier” and “Werner von Orseln,” in Hochmeister des Deutschen Ordens, ed. Arnold, 56–60 and 60–5. For Werner of Orseln’s successor, see Simon Helms, Luther von Braunschweig: Der Deutsche Orden in Preußen zwischen Krise und Stabilisierung und das Wirken eines Fürsten in der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens 67 (Marburg 2009). For the remnants of the Order’s archive in Venice, see Ricardo Predelli, “Le reliquie dell’Archivio dell’Ordine Teutonico in Venezia,” in Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Atti, vol. 64.2 (Venice 1904/1905), 1379–463.

261

K L AU S M I L I T Z E R

Starting with Peter of Dusburg and continuing with all future authors and historians, the move of the Teutonic Order’s headquarters from Venice to Marienburg has been regarded as one of Siegfried of Feuchtwangen’s great deeds. Peter of Dusburg laid the foundation for this view, perhaps because even in his days the Order’s tradition considered this relocation a noteworthy accomplishment. Yet, it has to be emphasized that this relocation was ultimately caused by rather unexpected issues that were certainly beyond the control of the Teutonic Order’s grand master. The complaints of the Order’s Prussian brethren had been heard relatively early on, but they did not cause the grand master’s relocation. After Siegfried of Feuchtwangen’s arrival in Prussia, he kept quiet and left the Order’s actual affairs to others, just as he had done in Venice. Nonetheless, the name of the grand master Siegfried of Feuchtwangen has been inextricably linked to the move of the Teutonic Order’s headquarters from Venice to Marienburg. Chances are this is not going to change any time soon. Translated from the German by Jochen Burgtorf

262

13 THE IMAGE OF THE TEMPLARS IN MODERN CASTILIAN NOBILIARY TREATISES A note on Juan Benito Guardiola (1530–1600) José Antonio Guillén Berrendero

That writing about the military orders in the modern era meant talking about the obligations of the nobility is a truism that requires no further reflection.1 By the same token, it was an inherent reality in the discourse on the nobility that the subject of these institutions was addressed as an integral part of what it meant to be noble. All the texts on nobility that were circulating in Europe during the modern era, whether printed or handwritten, dedicated a chapter to these Orders and quickly linked them to the timeless presence of the nobility in society. With their connections to the power of the sovereign and the papacy, these Orders – as representations of the nobility – constituted a focal point when it came to constructing the language of what it meant to be noble. From the perspective of modern politicians and theologians, it was the task of man to defend the heavenly and earthly realms; the soldiers of the Faith and those of the king were one and the same. To that end, one resorted to explaining this task by communicating the idea of excellence and the government of virtues. The discourse on the military orders, particularly the Order of the Temple, was based on the kingdom and its history. To that end, one had to establish arguments of creation and conservation (ordo ad Deum and ordo ad invicem, namely, “relation with God” and “relation with [the] other[s]”) as general principles of power. These explanatory and legitimizing standards 1 This chapter represents one of my ongoing research projects, PROYECTO DINRA, Projectos Puente, financed by the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. I would like to thank Dr. Shlomo Lotan for his kind invitation to contribute to this volume. On this project in particular, see José Antonio Guillén Berrendero, “La nobleza como objeto de estudio en la historiografía Espanõla: Una propuesta de análisis,” in II Encuentro de Jóvenes Investigadores en Historia Moderna: Líneas recientes de investigación en Historia Moderna, ed. Félix Labrador Arroyo (Madrid 2015), 49–68. Unless otherwise specified, the term “modern” in this chapter refers to what is commonly known as the early modern era.

263

J O S É A N T O N I O G U I L L É N B E R R E N D E RO

found their most fundamental expression in the literature on the nobility and its interpretation. To illustrate this issue, which surely needs further investigation, let us consider the following example, written in 1615 by Cristóbal Suárez de Figueroa (1571–after 1644): Los caballeros Templarios tuvieron su origen en tiempo de Balduino II Rey de Jerusalén; y fueron llamados así, porque en su principio habitaron una parte del templo de la misma ciudad. San Bernardo escribió sus regla, y florecieron en el Pontificado de Gelasio II, año de 1117. Crecieron en grandísimas riquezas: mas al fin por sus muchos vicios (según varios autores) fueron extirpados por Clemente V no sin persuasión y obra de Felipo Rey de Francia. Sus bienes fueron después distribuidos entre los de Malta, Calatrava y Alcántara. Quien deseare saber esto más por extenso, lea a Platina, a Sabélico, a Volterrano, al Arzobispo Florentino, y a Nauclero.2 The Knights Templar had their origin during the time of King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, and they were called thusly because, in the beginning, they inhabited a part of the Temple of that same city. Saint Bernard wrote their Rule, and they flourished during the pontificate of Gelasius II in the year 1117. They grew to very great riches. But in the end, because of their many vices (according to various authors), they were rooted out by Clement V, [but] not without the persuasion and work of King Philip of France. Their goods were then distributed between those [i.e., the Orders] of Malta, Calatrava, and Alcántara. Whoever wishes to know this at greater length may read from Platina, from Sabélico, from Volterrano, from the Florentine archbishop, and from Nauclero. In the diverse setting of the stories and creation of fame that was so typical of the writings about the nobility that proliferated throughout Europe and Castile in the modern era, the focus on feats of arms, the attention paid to the individual and his deeds, as well as the institutions created by various sovereigns from antiquity to the modern centuries, were common places to visit in order to construct a very clear image of what it meant to be a knight. To that end, one resorted to a repertoire of well-established figures and narratives of military marvels in the defense of the Catholic Faith. And in this context, the legacy of the Templars and their relationship with the nobility was a common place to which one could turn. Throughout the modern era, the military orders occupied a permanent space in the idea and practice of the nobility as a resource to be drawn upon to elaborate the nobility’s fantastic stories concerning the authentication of their lineage and to justify their very presence in society. Along with this, we find that the 2 Cristobál Suárez de Figueroa, Plaza universal de todas las ciencias y artes (Madrid 1615), fol. 90r.

264

M O D E R N C A S T I L I A N N O B I L I A RY T R E A T I S E S

military orders were an essential factor in the building of the Western world, thanks to the circulation of their ideals, their values, and their role as aids to the emerging royal power. Thus, the (by and large) absence of a “mythical” Order – like that of the Temple of Jerusalem – among the European Orders of nobility in these contemporary Castilian nobiliary treatises is quite striking. A series of texts, both printed and handwritten, with an argumentative focus on the subject of nobility was circulating throughout Castile and Europe during the modern era.3 Yet despite the limitations imposed by the various authors and other circumstances, we hardly find any references in the Castilian nobiliary treatises. It is obvious that an Order that was founded during the first decades of the twelfth century, right after the First Crusade, could offer a whole arsenal of myths and social values that could connect it to the nobility. The milites Templi or Christi milites were the champion defenders of the Faith and Catholicism, thanks to their particular vows and their very powerful iconography – like their white mantles which featured a visible red cross. Their expansion across Europe turned them into role models whose epic deeds were recounted all over the continent with an undisguised taste for the transmission of excellence. Even beyond the disgrace and all the myths involved in its dissolution, the Order of the Temple’s visual and discursive imprint was very intense and lasted until the nineteenth century in the mythical building of the liberal nation states. Yet despite all this rhetoric and all the expressive power that had dominated the Templars’ past, little or nothing of them is reflected in the modern centuries’ Castilian nobiliary literature; meanwhile, there are allusions to other military orders – such as the Order of the Golden Fleece, the Order of Malta, or the Castilian military orders. Some brief and very descriptive references can be found in other discursive artifacts. Thus, it should be noted that an author like Luis de Salazar y Castro (1658–1734), in his famous Pruebas de la historia de la Casa de Lara (“Evidence of the House of Lara”) (1694), informs us whenever the ancestors of various individuals are reported to be descendants of previous masters of the Order.4 We find references in the annals of the great cities of the kingdom of Castile – like an allusion to Don García Fernández as master of the Order of the Temple,5 or in the family histories of some nobles – like in a text on the origin of the Márquez family when it talks about the different privileges granted by King Alfonso XI to the forty knights of the city of Jerez

3 José Antonio Guillén Berrendero, La Edad de la Nobleza: Identidad nobiliaria en Castilla y Portugal (1556–1621) (Madrid 2012). 4 Luis de Salazar y Castro, Pruebas de la historia de la Casa de Lara: Sacadas de los instrumentos de diversos iglesias y monasterios, de los archivos de sus mismos descendientes, de diferentes pleytos que entre sì han seguido y de los escritores de mayor credito y puntualidad (Madrid 1694), 41, 631, 670. 5 Alonso Fernández, Historia y anales de la ciudad y obispado de Plasencia: Refieren vidas de sus obispos, y de varones señalados en Santidad, Dignidad, Letras y Armas, Fundaciones de sus Conventos, y de otras obras pias, y servicios importantes hechos à los Reyes (Madrid 1627), 12.

265

J O S É A N T O N I O G U I L L É N B E R R E N D E RO

de la Frontera,6 or in the Anales eclesiásticos y seculares de la muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Sevilla (“Ecclesiastical and Secular Annals of the Very Noble and Very Loyal City of Seville”) (1677) – like when we find a reference to Don Juan Fernández who is said to have been a master of the Order of the Temple.7 But the core matter of the Order of the Temple and the virtues of its knights can be found in the Historia General de los Santos y varones ilustres en santidad del principado de Cataluña (“General History of the Saints and Illustrious Men of Holiness of the Principality of Catalonia”) written by the clergyman Antonio Vicente Domenech in 1630. Of these knights, of this Order, it said – above all – for the time of Don Ramón Berenguer: Es cosa aueriguada, como dize el autor del libro llamado Crónica Mundi, que en el principio de la religión de los Templarios, huuo entre ellos grandes fieruos de Dios, y varones de mucha santidad.8 It is something that has been ascertained, as the author of the book called Crónica Mundi [Chronicle of the World] says, that at the beginning of the Order of the Templars there were among them great zealots of God and men of great holiness. It seems as if, for the authors of the Castilian nobility, the great negative myth and the appearance of corruption linked to the Order of the Templars made it disappear from the mythical past. It would seem logical, though, that we would find some references to it in the histories of the military orders. The Order’s dissolution gave rise to the Castilian Orders of Calatrava, Alcántara, and Santiago since, according to what Juan de Pineda (c. 1513–c. 1593) tells us in Los XXX libros de la Monarchia ecclesiastica o Historia Universal del Mundo (“The Thirty Books of the Ecclesiastical Monarchy or Universal History of the World”) (1606; first published 1576), the Templars of Spain were good and innocent.9 This is a very general idea that sought to legitimize the Castilian Orders, and we can find it – above all – in Micheli Márquez’s Tesoro Militar de Cavalleria Antiguo y Moderno (The Military Treasure of Ancient and Modern Knighthood) (1642). In this work, the vice chancellor of the Constantinian Order of St. George sets up a very interesting concept of what the military orders meant in his time by studying their

6 Agustín Laurencio Padilla, Compendio del origen, antiguedad, y nobleza de la familia, y apellido de Márquez, con la noticia de los escudos des sus Armas, y de la de algunos Linages, y Apellidos Nobles destos Reynos de España (Sevilla 1689), 98. 7 Diego Ortiz de Zúñiga, Anales eclesiásticos y seculares de la muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Sevilla, metrópoli de la Andalucia, que contienen sus mas principales memorias desde el año de 1246, en que emprendió conquistarla de poder de los Moros el gloriosísimo Rey S. Fernando III de Castilla y Leon, hasta el de 1671 en que la Católica Iglesia le concedió el culto y título de Bienaventurado (Madrid 1677), 127. 8 Antonio Vicente Domenech, Historia General de los Santos y varones ilustres en santidad del principado de Cataluña (Gerona 1630), 265. 9 Juan de Pineda, Los XXX libros de la Monarchia ecclesiastica o Historia Universal del Mundo (Barcelona 1606).

266

M O D E R N C A S T I L I A N N O B I L I A RY T R E A T I S E S

ceremonies; however, he does not dwell on the issue of the close relationship between the existing Orders in the Iberian Peninsula and that of the Templars. The role of the military orders in explaining the modern era’s configuration of European monarchies involves a lot of discourse on the different excellencies that made up Europe during that time. Thus, the Orders could occupy a space of priority in the social order and in the reaffirmation of the very idea of nobility. Since it seems that there was no clear notion of self-arrogation with regard to the term “noble” until the thirteenth century,10 it would be logical to think that – in the process of taking up the past to the extent that it was needed to construct national histories and lineages – the military orders and the term “knight” that was associated with them would serve as the basis to justify certain categories of language that pertained to social excellence. We can find this perfectly stated in the encyclopedic work of the Augustinian Jerónimo Román, Repúblicas del Mundo divididas en tres partes (“The Republics of the World, Divided into Three Parts”) (1595). Even though this work went through very complicated vicissitudes with the Inquisition, even appearing on the Index in 1583,11 and despite the fact that our author12 was a well-known scholar of the ancient world and even of the nobility – since he came to be known as the “ducal chronicler,”13 he very clearly addresses the origin of the Order of the Temple in his general treatise on the known world. In one of this work’s chapters, titled Del origen y principio de la Orden del Templo con todos sus sucesos prospperos hasta que fue destruyda y desfecha por la sede Apostólica (“Of the Origin and Beginning of the Order of the Temple with All Its Successful Events until It Was Destroyed and Discarded by the Apostolic See”), we read: Ninguna orden halló yo de las militares tan antigua ni poderosa como la de los Templarios, porque aunque es verdad que la de Sanctiago tiene alguna mas antiguedad, no tuuo aprouacion de la Sede Apostólica. Y si aquellos caualleros fuesen a corte Romana, no ternian mas principal asiento y lugar que le da el tiempo de su confirmación.14 I did not find any Order among the military [orders] as old or as powerful as that of the Templars, because, although it is true that the one of Santiago is somewhat older, it is not approved by the Apostolic See. 10 Jean Flori, Caballeros y caballería en la Edad Media (Madrid 2001; originally published in French 1998), 70. 11 Rolena Adorno, “La Censura y su evasión: Jerónimo Román y Bartolomé de las Casas,” Anuario del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 23 (1993): 263–94, here 264. 12 For detailed information on the author, see Fidel Villarroel, Fray Jerónimo Román: Historia del Siglo de Oro (Zamora 1974). 13 Fernando Bouza, Imagen y propaganda: Capítulos de historia cultural del reinado de Felipe II, 2nd ed. (Madrid 1998), 53. 14 Jerónimo Román, Repúblicas del Mundo divididas en tres partes (Salamanca 1595), fol. 404v.

267

J O S É A N T O N I O G U I L L É N B E R R E N D E RO

And if those knights went to the Roman court [i.e., the papal curia], they would only have the seat and place given to them at the time of their confirmation. A mythical Order of the European ordo, the way of life and the social category associated with its members via the constructed narratives served to establish a direct way of dealing with the issues of excellence, as Jerónimo Román alludes to when dealing with the noble origin of the Order’s own founding knights: Después que se intento aquella Sancta jortanda de Hierusaelm y se puso en efecto ganando la Sancta ciudad y otras muchas de Iudea y Palestina y de otras prouincias comarcanas, muerto el buen Godufre de Bullón, dique de Lotoringia y primero rey de Hierusalem, sucediole un hermano suyo llamado Balduyno, en cuyo tiempo entre otras muchas gentes, passaron de esta nuestra parte occidental, fueron nueue compañeros, hombres nobles y hijosdalgo que nosotros llamamos . . . .15 After that Holy Journey to Jerusalem [i.e., the First Crusade] was undertaken and put into effect, gaining the Holy City and many others of Judea and Palestine and other neighboring provinces, the good Godfrey of Bouillon died, the duke of Lorraine and first king of Jerusalem, [and] a brother of his succeeded him, called Baldwin, in whose time, among many other people, there traveled from this, our western parts, nine companions, noble men and nobles whom we call . . . . But the clearest and most comprehensive information on the Order is offered by Don Andrés Mendo (1608–1684) in his De las Órdenes Militares y su gobierno (“On the Military Orders and Their Government”) (1681).16 Mendo is one of the central authors on Castilian political thought and a defender of the role of the military orders and their relationship with noble values; hence the discourse he offers concerning the Order of the Temple, to which we will now refer, is very significant. For Mendo, the military orders drew their impulse to be defenders of the Faith from their own institutions, hence their usefulness is linked to the defense of an ordered society from a religious-secular perspective, in which knights are the embodiments of hero-saints. For Mendo, the military orders – since their foundation – had shared the need for the communion of heroic and religious values that should govern the entire Christian community. It is a call for a cosmopolitanism of values drawn from all spheres, although the brief information that it contains about the Order of the Templars could be misleading: 15 Román, Repúblicas del Mundo, fol. 405r. 16 Andrés Mendo, De las Órdenes Militares: De sus principios, gobierno, privilegios, obligaciones y de todos los casos morales que pertenecen a los cavalleros y religiosas de las mismas órdenes (Madrid 1681).

268

M O D E R N C A S T I L I A N N O B I L I A RY T R E A T I S E S

El año mil y nouenta y seis, Gofredo de San Adelmano con otros ocho Caualleros piadosos se dedicaron à hospedar à los peregrinos que iban a Gerusalen a visitar el Santo Sepulco de Christo Señor nuestro y a limpiar de salteadores los caminos para que fuesen aquellos seguros. Hizieron voto solemne desto y de dar la vida por la defensa de la Fè, en manos de su Prelado, el Patriarcha de Gerusalen, que como tal le aceptó. Fundaron vn insigne Hospital, y aprobó su instituto el Papa Honorio, dándoles la Regla de San Benito, con el instituto del Císter, y señalándoles vestidos blancos; Honorio III les añadió por insignia vna Cruz roxa en la forma y hechura de los Caualleros de San Iuan. Creció por todo el mundo esta Orden, y se dize que llegó a tener dos millones de renta, fuera de quarenta mil encomiendas muy ricas de que gozauan. Hazían voro de castidad conjugal y peleauan valerosamente los Caualleros en las guerras contra los Infieles. Desde el tiempo de Honorio III, començaron a leegir Gran Maestre, y auia de ser vno de la primera clase de grandes Cruzes. Auia ayudantes o siruientes y estos traían hasta media Cruz. Florezio esta orden mas de ducientos años hasta el de mil trescientos y diez, en el que la extinguió Clemente V en vn Concilio el año sexto de su Pontificado, para el qual llamó al Maestre de Santiago, que no asistió. A no pocos caualleros se cortó la cabeça, a los demás se les quitó el hábito. Imputaronseles grauisimas culpas y aun desta debaxo de opiniones de los escritores si fueron verdaderas o se originaron de odio o codicia. Sus rentasse adjudicaron al Erario de los Reyes en cuyos dominios las gozauan: parte a otras Órdenes Militares. En España se celebró en Salamanca vn Concilio prouincial en que furon dados por inocentes y libres de culpas, que se les imputauan, pero obedeciéndose al Pontifice y a nuestros piadosissimos Reyes, auiendo aplicados todas las rentas a las Órdenes Militares en ellas las de San Iuan, mandaron que a todos los Caualleros despojados, se les señalasse rente con que mientras viuian, pudiessen decentemente sustentarse.17 In the year 1096, Godfrey of San Adelmano and eight other pious knights dedicated themselves to host the pilgrims who were going to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Sepulcher of Christ our Lord and to clear the roads of robbers so that they would be safe. They made a solemn vow to this – and to give their lives for the defense of the Faith – into the hands of their prelate, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who received them as such. They founded a distinguished hospital, and Pope Honorius approved their institution, giving them the Rule of St. Benedict, [together] with the Cistercian institution, and appointed [them] their white habits; Honorius III added to these the sign of a red cross in the form and fashion of the Knights of St. John. This Order grew all over the world, and it is said that it had two million in incomes out of the 40,000 very rich commanderies that they enjoyed. They took a vow of conjugal chastity, and the knights fought bravely in the wars against the 17 Mendo, De las Órdenes Militares, fol. 8v, 9r.

269

J O S É A N T O N I O G U I L L É N B E R R E N D E RO

infidels. From the time of Honorius III on, they elected a grand master, and he was to be someone from the first class of the Grand Crosses. They had aids or servants and these had half a cross. This Order flourished for more than 200 years until that [year] of 1310 in which Clement V extinguished it at a council in the sixth year of his pontificate, to which he called the master of Santiago, who did not attend. Not a few knights had their heads cut off; the rest had their habit taken off. They were charged with very serious faults, and there is this debate on the opinions of the writers whether these [i.e., the charges] were true or originated from hatred or greed. Their incomes were assigned to the treasuries of the kings in whose dominions they had enjoyed them [and] in part to other military orders. In Spain a provincial council was held in Salamanca in which they were declared innocent and free of the guilt which had been imputed to them, but – obeying the Pontiff – our pious kings, having already assigned all the rents [i.e., incomes] to the military orders, among them that of St. John, ordered that all the dispossessed knights be assigned a pension so that, while they were [still] living, they could decently sustain themselves. These excerpts are just a few brief notes concerning the influence that the narratives on the Templars and their origin had in national and military orders’ histories – where their presence was common. Apart from a moral analysis of the Templars’ activities at the time and throughout their existence, the important thing is that the discourse on them does not slip an iota from the purely positive: dates, narratives, and eloquent stories about the tradition of the fight against the infidel and its visualization as a receptacle of chivalric Catholic values for the defense of the true religion and of the symbolic capital assigned to the Holy Places. Thus, how did the Castilian nobiliary treatises deal with them? They were the heroes that Martín Carrillo (1561–1630) commented on in his Annales y Memorias cronológicas (Annals and Chronological Memories) (1620): eran grande la fama en este tiempo de los Caualleros Templario (“the fame of the Templar Knights was great at this time”).18 To better explain what it is that we want to show in this chapter, we will take as an example a central text from the genre of Castilian nobiliary treatises. It bears the generic title Tratado de la nobleza i de los títulos i ditados que oy dia tienen los claros varones de España (Treatise of the Nobility and of the Titles and Pronouncements that the Famous Men of Spain Have Today); it was published in its first edition in 1591 and only received a second edition in 1595. Its author, Juan Benito Guardiola (1530– 1600) was a Benedictine monk and the archivist of the count of Gondomar.19 18 Martín Carrillo, Annales y Memorias cronológicas: Contienen las cossas mas notables assi Ecclesiasticas como Seculares succedidas en el Mu[n]do señaladamente en España desde su principio y poblacion hasta el año M.DC.XX (Madrid 1620), fol. 165r. 19 For more information about this book and the author, see José Antonio Guillén Berrrendero, La idea de nobleza en la Castilla durante el reinado de Felipe II (Valladolid 2007).

270

M O D E R N C A S T I L I A N N O B I L I A RY T R E A T I S E S

Even though it was printed in just two editions, Guardiola’s work enjoyed a highly significant prestige in later treatises, and its influence is noticeable until the twentieth century. In chapter XXXIII of his work, he addresses the issue of the military orders: En que se declara el Principio de las Órdenes de Caualleria de España y de sus armas (“In Which the Origin of the Orders of Knighthood of Spain and Their Arms Is Explained”). In this text, Guardiola links all these institutions to the nobility. With regard to the Templars, Guardiola provides a positive account of their activities: La Orden de Templarios fue instituyda por Hugo de Campanis y Gaufredo de Santo Adelmano, y otros siete caualleros cerca de los años de mil nouenta y seys, para que los caualleros della tuuiesen cargo de defender de los Moros y salteadores (que auia desde el puerta de Iapha hasta Hierusalem) a los Christianos romeros que yuan a Hierusalem a visitar el Santo Templo y sepulcro y a la conquista y defensa de la Tierra Santa. Poco tiempo después que Godefredo de Bullon ganó a los Moros la ciudad de HIerusale, y tuuo titulo della, tomaron por costumbre aquellos dos caualleros Hugo y Gaufredo de traer los cauallos con dos sillas. En la delantera yuan los caualleros con sus armas y lanças en la otra lleuauan el peregrino, porque mejor se tuuiesse al correr del cauallo y pelear (Antonio Beuther). Llamaronse templarios por hazer la principal residencia al templo de Salomon edificado por Santa Elena en el luhar donde le edificara antes Salomon. Oyendo deste exercicio Christiano el glorioso Doctor Sant Bernardo les ordenó la regla que auian de tener y guardar en su Religión. Y assi se señalaron de mantos blancos con vna cruz negra en ellos y quedaron caualleros y religiosos por su caualleria, seguían el exercicio de las armas defendiendo los Christianos peregrinos y por su religión guardauan su orden de rezar con vnas cuentas. Multiplico-se esta Caualleria siendo fauoredida de todos los Reyes Christianos con tanta prosperidad que en breue tiempo fue señora de grandes y muchas villas y castillos en toda la Christiandad, teniendo ocn la renta dellos grandes armadas por la mar y exercitos por tierra contra los moros en el essalçamiento de la santa Fê Cathólica y vtilidad del pueblo Christiano.20 The Order of the Templars was instituted by Hugh of Campanis and Godfrey of San Adelmano and seven other knights around the year 1096, so that the knights would be in charge of defending the Christian pilgrims who came to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Temple and the Sepulcher against the Moors and robbers (who went from the port of Jaffa to Jerusalem), and to conquer and defend the Holy Land. Shortly after Godfrey of Bouillon had won the city of Jerusalem from the Moors and obtained the title to it, those two knights, Hugh and Godfrey, adopted 20 Juan Benito Guardiola, Tratado de nobleza i de los titulos i ditados que oy dia tienen los grandes i claros varones de España (Madrid 1591), fol. 87r–v.

271

J O S É A N T O N I O G U I L L É N B E R R E N D E RO

the custom of having horses with two saddles. In the front rode the knights with their weapons and spears, in the other the pilgrim, because it was better for having the horse run and fight (Antonio Beuther). They were called Templars for making the Temple of Solomon – built by St. Helena at the location where Solomon had built it earlier – their main residence. Hearing of this Christian practice, the glorious Doctor [of the Church] St. Bernard assigned them the Rule that they should have and keep in their Order. And so they were attired with white cloaks with a black cross on them, and there were knights and religious [i.e., chaplains] for their Knighthood. They continued in the exercise of arms, defending the Christian pilgrims, and for their religion they kept their Order to pray with various requirements. This Knighthood multiplied, being favored by all the Christian kings with such prosperity that, in a short time, it was the mistress of [both] great and many manors and castles throughout Christianity, having the income of the great armies by sea and exercises [of arms] on land against the Moors – to the exaltation of the Holy Catholic Faith and the utility of the Christian people. In this narrative, we find confirmation that the Order of the Temple was founded to protect Christianity and that it was endowed with a symbolic and ceremonial structure that distinguished its members. When relating its presence in Spain, it is obvious that one had to allude to the material and symbolic bases that would equate this Order with the more traditional Castilian ones; hence, it is stated: En España tenían doze conuentos principales, alguno de los quales eran Montaluan, Sant Iuan de Valladolid, Sant Benito de Torrijos, Sant Saluador de Toro, San Iuan de Otero en Osma, Montesa en el Reyno de Valencia, Castro Marín y Tomar en el Reyno de Portugal.21 In Spain, they had twelve main convents, some of which were Montalbán, San Juan de Valladolid, San Benito de Torrijos, San Salvador de Toro, San Juan de Otero in Osma, Montesa in the kingdom of Valencia, Castro Marín and Tomar in the kingdom of Portugal. The Templars’ disappearance would facilitate the rise of other military orders in the kingdoms of Castile, Portugal, and Aragón, to which Juan Benito Guardiola refers only very briefly. It is indeed more important to him to identify the existence of the military orders with the different development that the concept of knight would take, as well as the dimension that this concept would obtain from aristocratic culture. Polysemic, polyhedral, and difficult to define throughout the modern era, its contours would be affected by the different 21 Guardiola, Tratado de nobleza., fol. 87v.

272

M O D E R N C A S T I L I A N N O B I L I A RY T R E A T I S E S

processes of how to access the noble institutions that would eventually become the military orders. It is indeed very significant to identify the symbolic role attributed to the Order of the Temple with regard to the culture of nobility and the knightnobleman’s symbolic use of garments and ceremonies. We must not forget that the narrative concerning the military orders, provided by the authors of the nobiliary treatises, is inserted into a doctrinal discourse that constituted an associative form between what the Crown indicated with regard to what it meant to be noble and what society bestowed upon it. It was the priority for the authors of the texts on nobility to show the usefulness of all the nobility’s interpretive ceremonies and their relationship to the past. Guardiola’s narrative concerning the military orders is directly related to what the eyes could see in the finery of the honored, the intense white colors and the red crosses stained by the blood of the defenders of the Catholic Faith. The knight-nobleman portrayed by Guardiola is not a simple exegetical device of a more or less finished medieval past, nor is he presented as timeless. When looking at the Temple and the other military orders, Guardiola’s eyes are those of a chronicler of the glory and excellence that the defense of the Cross bestowed on its agents, as planetary metaphors of the virtue of the sword and the second skin that the knightly habit provided to the knight-nobleman. Despite its brevity, the story that the Benedictine Guardiola tells us about the Templars is based on the repetition of all the stereotypes that the historiographical tradition of his time was capable of generating. The practical writing about the Order has much to do with the awareness of an “aristocratizing” past for the definition of nobility that was operational throughout the modern era. It is not by chance that language concerning the nobility needed to deal with the origin of all the military orders. The founding myths of the nobility are consecrations of the role of all militaryreligious institutions that man has been able to create and transmit. Thus, it is logical that Guardiola expends all his bona mens on connecting the definition of nobility with the explanation of noble institutions and that he tries to justify their existence from this chosen perspective. In general terms, Guardiola’s view is based on connecting the legitimacy of the nobility to its social function throughout history. To do so, he invests the Temple with a corollary of expressions concerning the knights’ warrior courage and the role of the Orders in the defense and colonization of territory and, by extension, of Christendom. All this discursive effort aims at narrating the discursive articulations of the nobility as part of the historical continuity of the warrior virtues and their link to a holistic idea that abandons individualism. Guardiola considers the military orders in general – and the Temple in particular – as a space for heroic solidarity within society itself. It is a “natural issue” that is inherent to the very existence of a nobility. Translated from the Spanish by Jochen Burgtorf

273

14 COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS Italian views of the Templar Trial from contemporary authors to Angelo Fumagalli’s Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi (1792) Elena Bellomo

Introduction The Trial of the Templars and the demise of the Order were dramatic and unprecedented events which involved the whole of Western Christianity as well as the remains of the Latin East, the ephemeral political entity the Templars had helped to establish. The wide geographical scope was not the only extraordinary feature of these developments. The relevance of the Temple as a religious order and as a political and economic body, the astonishing accusations leveled against it, its complete dissolution, and the tragic end of some of its members made a lasting impression on the public. Thus, it is not surprising that the incident received an exceptional echo in historiography. Not only did contemporary chroniclers recount and comment on these events; subsequent authors have continued to discuss them until the present time. Dissonant voices have expressed their opinions about the proceedings, interpreting them in conflicting terms. The Trial and the Order’s dissolution can be perceived as acts of royal despotism and cupidity and as symptoms of the papacy’s weakness during the Avignon period. At the same time, the events can also be explained as acts of true religious fervor and signs of papal supremacy and effective action against heresy. With passing centuries, these developments have turned into a source for the Temple’s “afterlife” in masonic theories as well as into emblems of medieval pernicious superstition and blind obscurantism.1 This chapter will provide an outline of the different views on the end of the Temple as presented by a selection of Italian authors. Medieval writers as well as modern intellectuals will be examined for comparative purposes. Their use and interpretation of primary sources and opinions on the protagonists of the Trial, the king of France, the pope, and the Templars, will be investigated to assess the authors’ 1 For a survey on the subject, see Ansgar Konrad Wildermann, Die Beurteilung des Templerprozesses bis zum 17. Jahrhundert (Freiburg/Switzerland 1971).

274

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

attitudes toward the Trial in general, the Templars’ innocence or guilt, and the role and motivations of Clement V and Philip IV. Italy provides a particularly interesting field of study, thanks to the various kinds of chroniclers and scholars who dealt with this issue. There are ecclesiastical writers, merchants, and communal officials. Canonists, humanists, and pioneers of the historical-critical method also found the dissolution of the Temple a challenging subject. The works of major Italian authors who presented stimulating and original insights will be examined in chronological order and in their respective geographical, political, and cultural contexts.

Fourteenth-century authors A suitable starting point is Dante Alighieri’s Divina Commedia which includes a short but very significant allusion to the Templars in canto XX of the Purgatorio. Passing through the realm where people who lived a greedy or lavish life are punished, the Florentine poet sees “the modern Pilate so relentless” who, not satisfied with the outrage of Anagni, “without decree . . . to the Temple bears his avid sails.”2 This new Pilate is Philip IV. Dante (1265–1321) uses an epithet here that had already been utilized by the successor of Boniface VIII, Pope Benedict XI, who had compared the king of France to the first-century Roman official because Philip had claimed that he had not been involved in the assault on the pontiff at Anagni. Dante then clearly points out that the attack on the Temple was unjust (senza decreto) and includes the metaphor of the cupide vele (“the avid sails”) to convey the idea that this act could be compared to piracy. The greed of the kings of France is actually the subject of the entire canto, but it is clear that Dante credits the proceedings against the Temple solely to Philip IV’s cupidity. The Templars were a familiar Order to the Florentine as they had their local seat in the church of San Jacopo in Campo Corbolini, consecrated in 1206 (even though the Templars are not documented there until 1256). After the Order’s dissolution, this house passed to the Hospitallers, and the respective transfer was already complete in 1313.3 Moreover, the bishops of Florence – Lotterio della Tosa and Antonio D’Orso – as well as several local inquisitors were involved in the investigations against the Temple. Pope Clement V was initially unsatisfied with the result of their efforts and urged the commissioners he had appointed (the archbishops of Pisa and Ravenna and the bishops of Florence and Cremona) to use torture in order to obtain evidence for the Templars’ crimes. While the head of the Church at Ravenna, Archbishop Rinaldo da Concorezzo, ignored the pope’s order, the inquiry in Tuscany employed torture and produced confessions from several Templars.4 2 Dante Alighieri, Divina Commedia, Purgatorio, canto XX, lines 91–3. 3 Ludovica Sebregondi, San Jacopo in Campo Corbolini a Firenze: Percorsi storici dai Templari all’Ordine di Malta all’era moderna (Florence 2005), 23–30. 4 Telesforo Bini, “Dei Tempieri e del loro processo in Toscana,” Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 15 (1845): 397–506; Renzo Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo, arcivescovo di Ravenna (1303–1321) al tempo di Dante (Florence 1964), 157–8.

275

ELENA BELLOMO

While a direct link between the two cannot be established, it is worth noting that Dante departed this life in Ravenna – the exact location where Archbishop Rinaldo had so resolutely defended the Templars’ innocence.5 Dante’s critical view of Philip IV’s actions is shared by his fellow citizen Dino Compagni (c. 1255–1324), a Florentine merchant employed in the administration of the Commune until the defeat of the White Guelphs (1301) when he was excluded from all public offices. Barred from the latter, he devoted himself to writing. Besides authoring several poems, Compagni also composed a Cronica delle cose occorrenti ne’ tempi suoi which covers the period between 1280 and 1312, focusing on Florentine developments. The chronicle remained unfinished and – hidden by Compagni’s descendants because of its harsh comments on contemporary Florentine politics – was only rediscovered in the fifteenth century.6 In Compagni’s account, the Temple’s demise is described briefly, and the only protagonist of the event is Philip the Fair. The author recounts Philip’s role in the outrage at Anagni and in Boniface VIII’s condemnation as a heretic. Compagni then clearly links Clement V’s election and move to France to the king’s influence.7 The main feature of Philip’s character, according to the chronicler, is arrogance, a defect increased by the fact that he was successful in all his undertakings: the struggle against Boniface VIII, which – according to Compagni – also caused that pope’s death, the imposition of his candidates for cardinalship, and the proclamation of Boniface’s heresy while the new pope, Clement, was under his influence. Therefore, the king’s pride had no limit: he persecuted the Jews to get their money, accused the Templars of heresy, and damaged the Holy Church.8 Self-aggrandizement and longing for power were the reasons for Philip’s actions, particularly those targeting the Church. Compagni only identifies an economic motivation behind the king’s decision with regard to his treatment of the Jews. In Compagni’s list of the French ruler’s deplorable actions, the attack against the Templars is the final one. The author links it to the birth of a general awareness of the Church’s need for a defender whom Compagni identifies as the Emperor Henry VII. From the chronicler’s perspective, the inquiry into the Temple is only one piece of Philips’ strategy against the Church. The Order was innocent and a victim of the French king’s hegemonic plans. However, the Trial constitutes only one element of a list of events and is not described in detail. There is no reference to its developments 5 Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo, 169–203. 6 Girolamo Arnaldi, “Compagni, Dino,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 27 (Rome 1982), 629–47; Girolamo Arnaldi, “Dino Compagni, cronista e militante ‘popolano’,” La cultura 21 (1983): 37–82; Francesca Braida, “Le travail de mémoire: La Cronica de Dino Compagni: La fiabilité du voir: Le rôle de témoin oculaire et la véridicité du souvenir,” The Medieval Chronicle VI, ed. Erik Kooper (Amsterdam-New York 2009), 125–40; Christian Bratu, “Compagni, Dino,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 1: 483–4. 7 Dino Compagni, Cronica, ed. Davide Cappi, Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia Medievale, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 1 (Rome 2000), 84–5, 194. 8 Dino Compagni, Cronica, 119.

276

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

either in Tuscany or in Europe, and, actually, the Order’s dissolution is not even mentioned. A very different approach and explanation of the Templar Trial can be found in the work of another contemporary lay author who was also active in the Italian communal environment, namely, Albertino Mussato (1261–1329), the illegitimate son of a Paduan noble who, after very lowly beginnings, came to play a major role in civic affairs as a member of the communal council and ambassador of the Commune to Pope Boniface VIII and Emperor Henry VII. He sided with the Guelph Party, was deeply involved in local factionalism, and eventually found himself exiled. Mussato’s major historical work, the Historia Augusta, focuses on the events pertaining to Henry VII’s journey to Italy (1308–1313). In this chronicle, Mussato also deals with the end of the Temple, particularly the Council of Vienne which was attended by Ottobono, the patriarch of Aquileia.9 Before listing the charges against the Order, the author emphasizes that heresy had taken root at all levels in the Temple and involved both officials and knights. Apostasy, sodomy, idolatry, and heresy were all among the Templars’ alleged crimes. Mussato recounts the heretical initiation ritual with the denial of Christ and the offences against the Cross, specifying that these practices had spread both in the East and the West, particularly in France. In Mussato’s reconstruction of the events, Philip IV plays a prominent role (the pope is not even mentioned), and the chronicler vigorously points out that the king started the inquiry motivated only by his religious zeal and following the bright examples of his ancestors. Mussato categorically rejects the idea that the king was motivated by greed and adds that, sua sponte, Philip refused to take possession of any Templar properties which actually came under the control of the Church.10 Mussato’s account is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, his narrative clearly shows that he was familiar with the text of Faciens Misericordiam, the papal bull issued in August 1308 and sent to inquisitors and papally appointed commissioners involved in the inquiry. It was also sent to Padua where, as we know, there was a Templar house, Santa Maria in Conio, and where inquisitorial actions did take place.11 According to the usual practice, papal bulls were

9 Sante Bortolami, “Da Rolandino al Mussato: Tensioni ideali e senso della storia nella storiografia padovana di tradizione ‘repubblicana’,” in Il senso della storia nella cultura medievale italiana (1100– 1350): Quattordicesimo convegno di studi, Pistoia, 14–17 maggio 1993, Centro Italiano di Studi di Storia e d’Arte – Pistoia, Atti 14 (Pistoia 1995), 53–86, here 74–86; Susanna Celi, “L’‘Historia Augusta’ di Albertino Mussato,” Quaderni Veneti 23 (1996): 35–84; Benjamin G. Kohl, “Mussato, Alberto,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 2: 1132–3. 10 Albertino Mussato, “Historia Augusta,” in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 10, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori (Milan 1727), 1–548, here 377–8. 11 Nicola Pezzella, I Templari a Padova e la loro chiesa di Santa Maria in Conio (Villorba 1997); Renzo Caravita, “Nuovi documenti sull’Ordine del Tempio dall’Archivio Arcivescovile di Ravenna,” Sacra Militia Sacra 3 (2002): 225–78, here 235–6, 274–8.

277

ELENA BELLOMO

solemnly read and translated in the presence of the local community.12 Several passages in Mussato’s chronicle, for instance the one describing Philip’s attitude and motivations, the list of lands where the Templar heresy spread, and the number of Templars who confessed, are drawn from Faciens Misericordiam. This shows that Mussato aimed at providing a reliable description of the Templar affair and consulted what he thought was a crucial document to understand the event. In his perception of the Trial and confirmation of the Templars’ guilt, Mussato displays his full acceptance of Guelph ideals and completely embraces the papal position on the issue.13 However, while emphasizing the French king’s role in the affair, Mussato chooses to ignore the part played by the pope. While Mussato had access to very limited documentary material concerning the Trial, our next author observed events from a privileged viewpoint. Tolomeo da Lucca (c. 1240–1327), the Dominican bishop of Torcello, wrote several historical works, the most significant being his Historia ecclesiastica nova. The first two versions of this chronicle were composed before the inquiry into the Templars. In these, Tolomeo contextualized Lucca’s history within the development of Western Christianity, using the conflict between papacy and empire as a matrix, but the author subsequently conceived a chronicle that was modeled on the Liber Pontificalis. This Historia ecclesiastica nova was completed after Tolomeo had moved to Avignon and entered the household of William of Bayonne. It covers the period between 1294 and 1314 and ends with the pontificate of Clement V. Due to the author’s contacts with the curia, this work includes significant information; it also draws from local chronicles, documents, and oral accounts. Using these sources, along with earlier historical works and canon law collections, Tolomeo tries to substantiate a definite concept of papal supremacy. However, the author is very balanced in his approach to contemporary developments, and his insider knowledge of the papal curia makes him a significant witness in the Templar affair. Tolomeo recounts the conflict between Boniface VIII and the outrage at Anagni, recording that the king of France made indescribable accusations against the pope and that the Anagni assault caused the latter’s death.14 Tolomeo then begins his reconstruction of the Templar Trial with the arrest of the Order’s members on charges of heresy and the confiscation of their property in France. The imprisonment of the Templars in Aragón follows. Tolomeo also adds that the members of the Order who tried to escape by sea were carried back by the wind and arrested cum thesauro multo.15 12 Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo, 123–35; Elena Bellomo, “Notaries in Inquisitorial Trials: The Evidence from the Templars’ Inquiry in North Italy,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson (London 2017), 307–19. 13 On the Paduan political situation during this period, see John Kenneth Hyde, Padua in the Age of Dante (Manchester 1966), 253–67. 14 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova nebst Fortsetzungen bis 1329, ed. Ottavio Clavuot, nach Vorarbeiten von Ludwig Schmugge, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 39 (Hanover 2009), 650–1. 15 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 661.

278

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

After briefly mentioning the assembly of Tours held in 1308 and convened by King Philip,16 the chronicler describes the meeting between the king and the pope at Poitiers, underscoring the warm reception given to Philip (who knelt and kissed the pontiff ’s feet, but Clement made him rise – elevavit ad osculum oris).17 Despite seemingly receiving the king with favor, according to Tolomeo, Clement was not ready to accede to all the royal requests. The following day, one of the king’s ministers, William de Plaisians, presented the charges against the Templars, asking that they be punished as heretics, and further speeches were made in support of this solution. Tolomeo reports what he heard of the papal reply (he introduces the pope’s response with the verb dicitur), stating that Clement admitted the seriousness of the charges but also expressed his surprise that he had not been informed of the situation before any measures had been decided on. Plaisians underscored that the king had acted by means of the Inquisition, but the pope neither accepted this excuse nor the fact that the king had taken the initiative without consulting the Holy See.18 Tolomeo also adds that the pope’s first action was to entrust the cardinal bishop of Palestrina with the custody of both the Templars and their possessions.19 Meanwhile, the king of France presented three further requests: the canonization of Celestine V, that justice be done in the case against Boniface VIII, and that William de Nogaret be absolved from Pope Benedict XI’s condemnation of the outrage at Anagni. According to Tolomeo, it was easy for the pope to accept the first demand. As for the second, Clement replied that he did not believe the accusations against Boniface to be true; however, he could not leave the issue unsettled. As for the third request, Clement rejected his predecessor’s condemnation. Then Tolomeo returns to the Templars, noting that seventy members of the Order were questioned and confirmed their confessions in front of the cardinals. He mentions the heretical rituals ascribed to the Order but only refers to the profanation of the Cross and the denial of Christ, stating that it was too repugnant to write or talk about the other practices.20 According to the chronicler, because the Templars’ confessions were obtained through unacceptable methods (ex torsiones indebite), the pope started an ecclesiastical inquiry that involved inquisitors as well as metropolitans and their suffragans. He then reserved the final judgment concerning the Order for a general Council to be held at Vienne.21 While the king’s counsellors were still pressing the pope to condemn Boniface VIII, Tolomeo records that all the Templars in the kingdom of France were sent to Paris where many of them withdrew their confessions. Thus, they were

16 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 662; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006), 102–5. 17 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 663; Barber, Trial, 106. 18 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 663; Barber, Trial, 107–15. 19 Barber, Trial, 124–5. 20 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 663–4; Barber, Trial, 122–3. 21 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 664–5.

279

ELENA BELLOMO

considered relapsed heretics, and fifty-four of them were burnt at the stake because they kept stating that they were good Catholics.22 Tolomeo’s last references to the Templars concern the Council of Vienne. Tolomeo informs us that – during the meeting – all the prelates and cardinals from Italy except one, all the prelates from Spain, Germany, Dacia, England, Scotland, and Ireland, and three metropolitans from France were in favor of granting the Templars the opportunity to be heard.23 In a very short passage, the author then records the end of the Order, stating that the pope sibi reservabat its property; Tolomeo had already specified that the Hospital eventually inherited the Templar possessions when relating their confiscation in France by royal decree.24 Tolomeo provides reliable information on the Templar Trial. He was well informed about the nature of the military order, its founding, and its contribution to the defense of the Holy Places and the crusades, which he mentions in his chronicle. He does not directly express an opinion concerning the Templars’ innocence or guilt. Tolomeo was a staunch supporter of papal authority. Therefore, his work contains no clear statement against Clement’s treatment of the Templars. His account deliberately notes the diplomatic plot behind the proceedings against the Templars and the multiple pressures exerted on the pope by the king of France and his envoys. In this difficult situation, Tolomeo shows that Clement tried to defend papal authority effectively, both in terms of the condemnation of Boniface VIII and the Templar Trial, and that he was not ready to grant every royal request. Clement clearly expressed his disappointment that he had not been informed of the charges against the Templars before their arrest, and he placed the members of the Order and their possessions into the custody of the Church. His decision to launch an ecclesiastical inquiry was part of the papal attempt to re-establish the Church’s control over the Templars and to follow canonical procedure. By using the expression ex torsiones indebite in reference to how the first Templars’ confessions had been obtained, Tolomeo reinforces the negative view of the royal inquiry into the Order, which had been undertaken without papal approval. It is interesting that, as Tolomeo tells us, the Templars burnt in Paris were executed because they claimed to be good Catholics. According to contemporary legislation, retraction could be understood as a relapse into heresy. Therefore, any heretic going back on his confession risked condemnation as a relapsus. In this case, the ultimate sentence that could be passed was death by burning at the stake. Tolomeo describes this situation without taking a clear stance: his clarification that the Templars were burnt because they maintained they were loyal to the Church could be read as a comment on their innocence, but it is also merely a reference to canon law. Guglielmo Ventura (c. 1250–1322) was a merchant and a member of the ruling class of the Commune of Asti in Piedmont. A fervent supporter of 22 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 670. 23 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 676; Barber, Trial, 264. 24 Tholomeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, 676.

280

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

communal ideals and detractor of civil factionalism, he had been a credendarius of the Commune, and he wrote a town chronicle for the period between 1261 and 1325. While his chronicle mostly focuses on local developments, Ventura also included events of international importance such as the Trial of the Templars.25 Ventura recounts the election of Clement V, crediting it to the influence of the king of France, and states that the arrest of the Templars in France was due to Philip’s jealousy and cupidity. The French ruler also hated the Templars because they had sided with Pope Boniface when the latter had excommunicated Philip. The author briefly presents the charges against the Order, adding to the defilement of the Cross the fact that some Templars dragged it on the floor with a rope for three steps. Ventura also emphasizes that torture played a crucial role in the Templars’ confessions. Some of them were burnt at the stake, while many others died in prison, deprived of all their property in the East as well as in the West, yet others fled after shedding their habit. According to the author, the pope cursed and dissolved the Order at the Council of Vienne, granting its possessions in France to King Philip, while the rest of its property was awarded to the Hospital for a future crusade. Ventura notes that God, who foresees everything and knows everything before it happens, would decide what was best concerning this future expedition. The author also believed William de Nogaret, the king’s counsellor, to be the real architect of the Temple’s ruin because the Templars had burnt his ancestor at the stake. Ventura’s account ends with a vivid portrayal of the execution of some Templars. As they were brought to the stake, one of them cried out to Nogaret that he had falsely and unjustly provoked the end of the Order. Since the Templars could not appeal to the king or the pope, they were going to appeal to the highest judge – God – who was more powerful than Philip and Clement. Thus, the Templar summoned William to appear before God in eight days. It seemed like a miracle when, within that time span, Nogaret died terribiliter et sine percussione. Ventura eventually recounts Clement V’s death, emphasizing that the pontiff had been paid generously by the Hospital in exchange for Templar treasure.26 Guglielmo Ventura clearly sides with the Templars and underlines the personal interests of the king of France, of William of Nogaret, and even of Clement V in annihilating the Order. He emphasizes the tragic destiny of the Templars, who were unjustly tortured, killed, or dispersed and lost their identity. He also records one of the first curses ascribed to the dying Templars, an element destined to play a major role in the development of the so-called Templar myth. The concept of just vengeance is very important to Ventura 25 Alberto Luongo, “Ventura, Guglielmo,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 2: 1470–1; Axel Goria, “Studi sul cronista astigiano Guglielmo Ventura,” Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo e Archivio Muratoriano 52 (1937): 137– 256; offprint, 1–120. 26 Memoriale Guillemi Venturae, civis Astensis, de gestis civium Astensium et plurium illorum, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 11, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori (Milan 1727), 153–282, here 192.

281

ELENA BELLOMO

who specifies that both Philip and Nogaret died morte pessima because of their sins. In fact, according to the author, the “God of Vengeance” gave vent to His fury, making it impossible to believe that people who lived a bad life could have a good death.27 It is worth noting that the Templars had an important house in Asti and that in Italian contemporary politics the Order had often sided with the local Commune.28 Thus, Ventura’s positive attitude toward the Temple is not surprising. The central convent of the Hospital’s priory of Lombardy was also in Asti and had forged positive links with local society. Thus, Ventura’s negative comments about that Order, which he accused of paying Clement V to receive the Templars’ rich possessions, is surprising. Approximately during the same time period, Francesco Pipino (c. 1270– c. 1328), a Bolognese Dominican Friar, composed a Chronicon in thirty-one books, mainly focusing on emperors reigning from 754 to 1314 with some further additions to 1322. Popes and the crusades are other subjects of interest to Pipino. The majority of his work was completed before 1321.29 Pipino approaches the Templar Trial by recording the suppression of the Order as declared at the Council of Vienne. He then recounts the various phases of the inquiry. In the inquisitorial province of Lombardy, excepting Romagna which was controlled by the Franciscans, it was the Dominican Order that took charge of the inquisitorial proceedings. Therefore, the archive of the officium fidei in Bologna also stored the documentary material relevant to the Templar Trial. Pipino explicitly refers to the letters sent by the pope to the inquisitors heretice pravitatis. However, he does not directly quote from these texts. The author openly supports the actions of Philip IV and Clement V, emphasizing the severity of the charges against the Order, which had led to royal sanctions, as well as the confessions of both the highest officials and other members of the Temple, which provoked the papal decision to arrest all Templars and confiscate the Order’s possessions. Based on these testimonies, there could be no doubt as to the Templars’ guilt, and Pipino then records the death of several Templars at the stake without any further comments. He adds that the Templars’ wealth was transferred to the Hospital but that it was said that the pope and the king took for themselves two thousand florins. Finally, Pipino notes that the Templars who managed to escape arrest abandoned their habit and dispersed, an unprecedented event which was surprising and even hard to believe.30 During the inquiry made in Emilia and Romagna, the Templars did not confess to any charges, and the Dominican inquisitors wanted to use torture in

27 Goria, “Studi sul cronista astigiano Guglielmo Ventura,” 118. 28 Elena Bellomo, The Templar Order in North-west Italy (1142–c. 1330) (Leiden-Boston 2008), 159–70. 29 Fulvio Delle Donne, “Pipino, Francesco,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 1: 1219–20. 30 Francesco Pipino, “Chronicon fratris Francisci Pipini Bononiensis O.P. ab anno 1176 usque ad annum 1314,” in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 9, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori (Milan 1726), 581–752, here 748–9.

282

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

order to obtain truthful confessions. As we will see, this approach was rejected by a provincial council held in Ravenna. Thus, supporting the papal actions and believing that the Templars were guilty, Pipino sided with his fellow Dominican Friars who considered the Templars’ claims of innocence untrustworthy.31 A much more complex view of the Trial emerges from the account of another contemporary lay author, Ferreto de’ Ferreti (c. 1294–before 1337), a notary and historian from Vicenza. His major work is the Historia rerum in Italia gestarum which deals with events in North Italy between 1250 and 1318.32 Although Ferreto’s reconstruction of the Templar Trial is error-strewn with a faulty or confused timeline, his account is of some interest for its approach to the subject and some of the information that it includes. Ferreto also presents King Philip as the initiator of the inquiry. The French ruler was aware of the Templars’ faults and actually hated the Order because of its perceived lack of respect for religion. This awareness dated back to the pontificate of Boniface VIII, but it was with Clement V that the inquiry began. In Ferreto’s work, the action against the Order is orchestrated jointly by the king of France and the pope. The Temple, according to the chronicler, was characterized by a striking contradiction: while it carried on fighting for the recovery of the Holy Land against the Saracens – and its members seemed to be Christi pugiles, they performed scandalous, sacrilegious rituals at their initiation ceremony. The pope, moved by the indignation of the king of France and many other rulers, thus started an investigation into the Order to discover the truth. Ferreto states that the Templars spontaneously admitted those and many other serious faults. The pope then, at the general Council of Vienne (Ferreto here confuses this town with Valence), eterna proscritione damnavit the Order and condemned the Templars to prison and death. This severe sentence was carried out in the whole of Christendom. The Templars were arrested and died in prison. Ferreto fully describes their fall, their anguish in the prisons where some of them eventually died, and the hard life of those members of the Order who managed to escape after giving up their habit and being forced to commit themselves to “plebeian services and illiberal arts.”33 The contrast between some of the Templars’ prestigious origins and their present misery, regardless of the fact that they claimed to be innocent of any charges, is also striking.34 This insightful description of the Order’s collapse is complemented by an account of the dialogues between Pope Clement V and a Templar from Naples who had been sentenced to death. Ferreto sketches an impressive portrait of this fierce Templar. When the knight meets the pope for the first time, he vehemently attacks 31 Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo, 148–9. 32 Benjamin G. Kohl, “Ferreto de’ Ferreti,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 1: 617. 33 Ferreto de’ Ferreti, Le Opere di Ferreto de’ Ferreti vicentino (s. XIV), ed. Carlo Cipolla, 3 vols., Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 42–43bis (Rome 1908–1920), 1: 186. 34 Ferreto de’ Ferreti, Opere, 1: 183–6.

283

ELENA BELLOMO

him, predicting that – in front of a higher tribunal – the pontiff would meet the people he had condemned not out of a zeal for justice but out of revenge. There the pope would face his own judgment, and the Templar explicitly states that on that occasion he would not be afraid of the pope’s wrath and would not try to placate him with calm words as the pope would be judged the same way he had judged the Templar. Several days later, when he is about to be burnt at the stake, the knight still shows remarkable resolve (Ferreto here quotes the Gospel in describing his attitude) and fiercely addresses the pope again and states that he is appealing to the living and true God who is in Heaven: within one year and one day, both Clement and Philip would be forced to answer to the Templar’s objections and defend themselves. Then, according to Ferreto, the Templar endures his execution with virile courage. The author finally comments that the Templar’s prophecy, amazingly, found God’s consent and came true as both Clement and Philip died within the aforementioned time span. After recording the death of the Trial’s main actors, Ferreto feels the need to clarify that he had written his work not ut auctoritate nostra posteris evangeliçetur but, rather, to report the events that he thought worth remembering of those he had witnessed in person and those he had heard about. He then concludes that it was of great harm to the faithful that so many pugiles Christi (he speaks of 15,000 Templars) received such a harsh judgment for their crimes. The author specifies that ignorant people might condemn such a severe punishment, but that it cannot be assumed that the pope acted in an unfair way, and that nobody can doubt that what Clement did was well and wisely done.35 Ferreto also mentions the transfer of the Templars’ possessions to the Hospital, pointing out that he had heard that Philip IV came into the possession of some of the Templar wealth kept in Paris. Ferreto summarizes elsewhere what he had already written about the Trial: his multifaceted attitude is still apparent there when he states that Philip had persuaded Clement to condemn an Order which consisted of valuable men.36 Mentioning the Council of Vienne again, Ferreto underscores that the Templars’ nefarious crime of idolatry still awaited judgment and that the Order was eventually suppressed.37 Ferreto’s account is interesting due to the author’s complex attitude. On the one hand, he believes in the Templars’ guilt and defends the pope’s behavior. On the other hand, he also has a twofold attitude toward the Templars. While they deserved such a severe sentence and tough penances, Ferreto admits that they had bravely fought against the infidel, and he repeatedly defines them as pugiles Christi. This distinctive feature of the Templars is embodied by the Brother who is not afraid to challenge the pope twice and then very valiantly faces death at the stake. The chronicler’s admiration for the Brother’s attitude is apparent, and for Ferreto it is not easy to reconcile his respect for strict papal 35 Ferreto de’ Ferreti, Opere, 1: 186–8. 36 Ferreto de’ Ferreti, Opere, 2: 147. 37 Ferreto de’ Ferreti, Opere, 2: 228–9.

284

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

decisions with the courage of the Templars and the fact that, according to what he had been told, the prophecy of the dying Templar had come true. Ferreto’s account is also significant because later versions would ascribe the dying Brother’s prophecy to Jacques de Molay, the last Templar master.38 The best-known Italian account of the Trial was probably written by Giovanni Villani (c. 1276–1348), a successful Florentine merchant. After visiting Rome during the 1300 jubilee, he decided to write a historical work focusing on his hometown. This chronicle was completed in the 1330s. A supporter of the Guelph Party, Villani recounts Florentine developments in the context of a universal history. His chronicle starts with the building of the Tower of Babel and ends in the year 1348. Villani’s work merges evidence drawn from classical and medieval authors, contemporary information, economic data, and statistics in a very original example of lay medieval historiography.39 The Florentine chronicler also records the harsh conflict between Philip IV and Boniface VIII40 and the election and coronation of Clement V. According to Villani, a secret agreement between Philip and Clement predated the latter’s accession to the papal throne. The king had promised Clement the pontificate in exchange for some favors: he desired reconciliation with the Church and a pardon for what he had done to Boniface VIII; he also wanted all the tithes of his kingdom for five years, the condemnation of Pope Boniface, and the cardinalship for Iacopo and Pietro Colonna, but the French king held back his last big favor to be asked of the future pope. Clement accepted these conditions, was elected, and then proceeded to fulfil the king’s requests.41 As for the Trial of the Templars, Villani clearly links the king’s accusations to his cupidity. In fact, the charges had originated with a Templar official, who had been imprisoned by the grand master for his crimes, and his cellmate, the Florentine merchant Onofrio Dei. Both cooperated by crafting the accusations against the Templars, hoping to thereby obtain a royal release from prison. Their respective confidence in Philip was disappointed, and they both later died. However, they provided the French king with a motive to attack the Order, and he managed to obtain Clement’s secret assent for its destruction. While the king acted out of greed and hatred against the Temple and its grand master, Clement, according to Villani, also acted to get Philip to ease off the pressure in the Boniface issue. Thus, the Templars were arrested and their property confiscated by papal command. The Order’s possessions in France were taken over by the king. Villani briefly 38 Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994), 314– 15; Alain Demurger, Tramonto e fine dei cavalieri Templari: L’avventurosa storia di Jacques de Molay, l’ultimo Templare (Rome 2004), 213–14; first published as Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay: Le crépuscule des Templiers (Paris 2002; new ed. 2014). On the subject, see also Colette Beaune, “Les rois maudits,” Razo: Cahiers du Centre d’études médiévales de Nice 12 (Mythes et Histoire) (1992): 7–24. 39 Francesco Salvestrini, “Villani, Giovanni,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 2: 1478–9. 40 Giovanni Villani, Nuova Cronica, ed. Giuseppe Porta, 3 vols. (Parma 1990–1991), 2: 113–21. 41 Giovanni Villani, Nuova Cronica, 2: 157–64, 178–80.

285

ELENA BELLOMO

mentions the heretical rituals ascribed to the Templars, focusing on the defilement of the Cross. He also adds that, according to the charges, the Templars’ treason had caused the loss of the Holy Land and King Louis IX’s defeat at al-Manṣūra (1250). The real problem was that the Templars, even though they were imprisoned and tortured, did not confess. Therefore, to achieve their submission, fifty-six of them were burnt at the stake. Although they were offered a pardon if they confessed, and their relatives and friends begged them to do so, the Templars did not admit anything. Villani also vividly sketches their suffering during these slow and painful executions. They were executed one by one, and the author mentions their desperate denials of the accusations, their claims to be innocent and good Christians, and their appeals to Christ, the Virgin, and the saints. Villani’s text juxtaposes these Templars’ bravery with the later confessions of the Order’s high officials, including the grand master, in exchange for a pardon. However, the grand master himself later on went back on his words, saying that he actually deserved to die but that the Order was blameless. Therefore, he was sentenced to death. Alongside another Templar, Jacques de Molay faced his execution with courage while, according to the Florentine chronicler, the Templar official Hugh of Pairaud and another official confessed again. In this way, the latter saved their lives but, as Villani points out, died miserably later on. The author also specifies that the property of the Temple was then awarded to the Hospital. However, this Order was forced to ransom it from kings and princes and, in the end, found itself impoverished rather than enriched. Actually, many people said that the Templars had been unjustly persecuted by Philip only to seize their wealth. Thus, the king of France and his heirs had to face shame and misfortune for what they had done to Pope Boniface and the Temple. Villani concludes his account by mentioning the fact that, during the night after the martyrdom of the Templar officials, some Friars and religious people collected their ashes and bones and took them to sacred places.42 Villani’s reconstruction of the Temple’s demise is noteworthy for both the author’s approach and the information included in his description. The chronicler, who could rely on evidence from Florentine merchants and, in particular, from a relative who was in Paris at the time,43 clearly portrays the Templars as martyrs and is convinced that the French king’s avarice was one of the main reasons behind the inquiry. However, Villani also develops a more complex view of these events. He refers to Onofrio Dei, a Florentine merchant who, most probably for irregularities committed while serving as a collector of tithes due to the French king, had been imprisoned. To be released, Onofrio agreed to give testimony against Guiscard, bishop of Troyes, in two trials against the latter. The second of these was orchestrated by William de Nogaret, and Onofrio’s testimony later turned out to be false.44 Unfortunately, Villani’s chronicle is the only source which mentions 42 Demurger, Tramonto e fine dei cavalieri Templari, 210. 43 Demurger, Tramonto e fine dei cavalieri Templari, 210. 44 Daniela Stiaffini, “Dei, Onofrio,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 36 (Rome 1988), 260–2.

286

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

Onofrio’s involvement in the Templar affair. Alain Demurger does not lend any credence to this information, and Malcolm Barber thinks that Villani merged the two different inquiries involving Onofrio. Robert Davidsohn, on the other hand, highlights that the merchant was not new to false accusations and could have conceived his allegations against the Templars some years before the Trial; only later were these used by the king’s entourage to devise the inquiry.45 Villani is well aware of the pope’s difficult position because of the king pressuring Clement to have Boniface VIII condemned. Reporting the accusations against the Order, Villani also voices contemporary criticism against the Temple which was blamed for the crusaders’ defeats in the East. Finally, the author recounts that the remains of the executed Templars were collected as relics. This provided another significant piece for the creation of the Templar myth, and it reflects both the chronicler’s and part of the public’s pro-Templar attitude.46 Villani reports that the adultery of the wives of Philip’s heirs was considered a punishment for the sins of the members of this dynasty; this is noteworthy because, in the primitive text of his work, Villani also includes the destruction of the Temple among these sins.47 During the very same period in North Italy, we encounter another interesting voice whose opinion is based on the direct acquaintance with a person involved in the inquiry. It is the jurist Alberico da Rosate (c. 1290–1360), the member of a family of notaries and judges from the Bergamo area, who had studied law in Padua. Back in Bergamo, he served the local government. When the Visconti, the lords of Milan, ruled his town, he went to the papal curia in Avignon three times (in 1335, 1337–1338, and 1330–1341) to support the cause of the Visconti and that of the city of Bergamo when they were subject to excommunication and interdict respectively.48 It was in all likelihood during one of his stays at the curia in France that Alberico gathered the information about the last days of the Temple, which he later included in his Dictionarium iuris tam civilis quam canonici. In this work, he states that the Order enjoyed a prominent role in the Church and that its members were brave knights devoted to the Virgin Mary. He then describes the part of both the pope and the king of France in the dissolution of the Temple. The king took the initiative, while the pope destroyed the Temple to avoid displeasing the king. Alberico states that, according to what an examinator cause et testium of the Templar Trial had told him, the Order had been unjustly suppressed. The same person also told Alberico that Pope Clement had stated that if it was not possible to annihilate the Temple per viam iustitie, it should be destroyed per viam expedentie to avoid scandalizing the “dear son” of the pope, the king of France.49 45 46 47 48 49

Demurger, Tramonto e fine dei cavalieri Templari, 169; Barber, Trial, 64–5; Stiaffini, “Dei, Onofrio,” 262. Barber, Trial, 282; Demurger, Tramonto e fine dei cavalieri Templari, 210–11. Giovanni Villani, Nuova Cronica, 2: 268–9. Luigi Prosdocimi, “Alberto da Rosate,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 1 (Rome 1960), 656–7. Alberico da Rosate, Dictionarium Iuris tam Civilis quam Canonici (Venice 1623), 807.

287

ELENA BELLOMO

Alberico’s account is significant. The author came from Bergamo, an area where the Temple had founded one of its first houses in North Italy – documented as early as 1175 – and established very positive connections with local society.50 It is conceivable that this played a part in shaping Alberico’s positive opinion of the Temple. His attitude was strengthened by the words of a person directly involved in the Trial who was convinced of the Templars’ innocence. The cynical statement ascribed to Clement V by this prelate, most probably a member of the papal curia, clearly paints the picture of a pope bowing to Philip the Fair’s desires. A negative view of the Trial can also be found in the anonymous Storie pistoresi, written in the second half of the fourteenth century. This work covers the history of the Tuscan town of Pistoia between 1300 and 1348, recording both local struggles between Guelphs and Ghibellines and events relevant to North Italy. Some developments concerning the Mediterranean and the crusades in particular are also included in the chronicle.51 The anonymous author ascribes three major sins to the rulers of France: the outrage against Boniface VIII at Anagni, the destruction of the Temple, and the massacre of all the sick in France (most likely a reference to the persecution of the lepers during the reign of Philip V).52 The chronicler is certain that the assault against the Temple was based on the desire for its possessions, castles, and money. According to the Storie, after some Templars had been burnt at the stake, the Order’s wealth was transferred to the French Crown.53 The anonymous Pistoian is the only author who explicitly refers to Philip IV’s actions against the Temple as a sin, and, in his account, sin is actually a common feature of Philip’s dynasty. He associates Philip IV’s actions with his son’s persecution of the sick: thus, violence against innocents appears here as an infamous mark of this royal lineage. Tuscany is the birthplace of another author who mentioned the Trial of the Templars. Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375) is a complex and dynamic figure, much more famous for his literary works (like the Decamerón) than his historical interests. In his work De casibus virorum illustrium, Boccaccio also dedicates a chapter to the last grand master of the Temple, Jacques de Molay.54 The author initially focuses on the history of the Order which rose from humble origins to attain power and wealth, losing its original vocation and purity in the process. Boccaccio points to the close familial link between the king of France and Molay who, according to the author, was the godfather of Philip’s son. Despite 50 Elena Bellomo, “Una mansione templare dell’Italia settentrionale: S. Maria del Tempio di Bergamo,” Sacra Militia 2 (2001): 179–204. 51 Stefan Albrecht, “Storie pistoriesi,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 2: 1393–4. 52 Storie Pistoresi [MCCC–MCCCXLVIII], ed. Silvio Adrasto Barbi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Nuova edizione 11.5 (Città di Castello 1907–1927), 225 n. 3. 53 Storie Pistoresi, ed. Barbi, 225. 54 On Boccaccio’s historical works, see Benjamin G. Kohl, “Boccaccio, Giovanni,” in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, ed. Graeme Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden-Boston 2010), 2: 186–7.

288

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

this intimate connection, the king’s avarice led him to destroy the military order to acquire its treasures. Taking advantage of Pope Clement’s health problems, the king gave the order to arrest the Templars and take control of their possessions. Boccaccio does not mention the charges against the Order, but he emphasizes the determined resistance of the imprisoned Templars who did not admit to any wrongdoing even when tortured; it was actually this steadfastness that led to many of them being executed. Boccaccio’s work contains an intense description of the Templars’ agony, followed by a reference to the grand master’s confession. However, Boccaccio also notes that Molay later withdrew his testimony and bravely faced his death.55 Boccaccio’s version almost completely relies on Villani’s work, but it also includes some original comments. For instance, while in Villani’s chronicle Pope Clement is party to Philip’s actions, Boccaccio states that the king of France seized upon the pontiff ’s sickness. The author also affirms that the Templars could have survived the Trial by maintaining the claims to their innocence and appealing to a fair judicial process. Unfortunately, Philip required their demise to take possession of the Order’s property; consequently, they did not stand a chance against such a determined king. Despite Boccaccio’s apparent admiration for the Templars’ courage, the author calls them cattivi because the Order had lost its original virtue.56 The same comment also applies to Molay, and Boccaccio concludes the portrayal of the grand master by saying that his evil nature was the reason why cruel people did not pity him (the author had previously highlighted that Molay had only entered the Temple due to his ambition and hunger for power). Moreover, for Boccaccio, Molay’s story is the perfect example of the power of fate which can suddenly and tragically change a man’s life. A final interesting detail is that Boccaccio modeled his description of the end of the Temple on Villani’s work, but he also states that his own father was an eyewitness to the grand master’s execution which he later recounted to his son.

Humanist and Renaissance authors As the Templar Trial became an increasingly distant event and a new cultural climate arose in Italy, the episode attracted less attention. Humanist and Renaissance chroniclers and intellectuals gave less consideration to the subject. A survey of Italian authors from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries shows that the Templar Trial was a marginal topic in contemporary historiography. While the Temple’s demise and the charges against the Order were still significant enough to be mentioned in several works, they were merely recorded in a few lines. For instance, in the Supplementum chronicarum of Giacomo Filippo 55 Giovanni Boccaccio, Tutte le opere di Giovanni Boccaccio, Volume 9: De casibus virorum illustrium, ed. Vittore Branca (Milan 1983), 822–31. 56 Demurger, Tramonto e fine dei cavalieri Templari, 244.

289

ELENA BELLOMO

Foresti (1434–1520), the persecution of the Templars is noted as only one of Philip IV’s several reprehensible actions, and the author does not include any comments about it or record the king’s motivations.57 Raffaello Maffei from Volterra (1451–1522), who held the post of secretary during the pontificates of Pius II, Paul II, and Sixtus IV, only briefly mentions the end of the Temple in his Commentariorum rerum urbanarum libri XXXVIII, specifying that the Order was justly suppressed but not explaining why.58 In his Lettere, the Tuscan diplomat and writer Claudio Tolomei (1492–1556) highlights that the cruelty of princes can give rise to the suspicion that they want to seize the wealth of their subjects. This is what people thought when Philip IV accused the Templars of crimes of which they were said to be innocent.59 More interesting is the short account written by Flavio Biondo (1392–1463) in his Historiarum ab Inclinatione Romanorum Libri XXXI. This author connects the Templars’ blasphemy and sacrilegious behavior to the crusaders’ defeats in the East, stating that the Order cooperated with the Turks and undermined the Christian campaigns. Therefore, the Temple was justly punished, and its possessions were transferred to the Hospital and the other new military orders founded in Spain.60 Later on, another famous humanist, namely, Bartolomeo Sacchi – known as Platina (1421–1481), in his Liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum, also embraced this version of the events, basing his account on Biondo’s work.61 These authors, unlike the earlier ones, expressed their opinions concerning the Templars’ guilt or innocence, and writers linked to the papal curia, unsurprisingly, usually supported Clement V’s actions and considered the Templars as heretics and traitors. Giacomo Bosio (1544–1627), the author of the first comprehensive history of the Hospital of St. John, naturally had to consider the Templars in his work. Just before describing the beginning of the Trial, Bosio sketches a very negative portrait of the Templars, highlighting that, after acquiring great wealth in the East – in part through robberies and looting, they decided to move their central convent to France and refrain from military activities. Not only did they become useless to Christendom; they also enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle which was a source of scandal. Moreover, many people envied them and longed for their wealth. Bosio, relying on Villani’s account, reports the story of the Templar official and Onofrio Dei, pointing out that they accused the Order of heresy and of being responsible for the major Christian defeats in the East. This led the king of France to seek the pope’s intervention, and he gave the

57 Supplemento delle croniche del Reverendo Padre Frate Iacobo Filippo da Bergamo (Venice 1540), 239v. 58 Raffaello Maffei [Raphael Maffaeus Volterranus], Raphaelis Volterrani Commentariorum rerum urbanarum libri XXXVIII (Frankfurt 1603), 808. 59 Lettere di Claudio Tolomei libri sette (Venice 1575), 119. 60 Flavio Biondo, Blondi Flavii Historiarum ab Inclinatione Romanorum Libri XXXI (Basel 1531), 340. 61 Bartolomeo Sacchi [Platina], Platynae historici Liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum (A.A. 1–1474), ed. Giacinto Gaida, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Nuova edizione 3.1 (Città di Castello 1913– 1932), 263.

290

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

order to arrest the Templars and confiscate their property. Despite this, as Bosio states, the king was able to seize the Temple’s wealth. The remainder of Bosio’s account follows Villani’s chronicle without any significant additions. Bosio acknowledges that Clement’s final decision had been the subject of debate, but he refrains from expressing an opinion, stating only that this decision could not have been totally wrong since it had been made by the pope during a Council.62 Later on, Bosio dwells on the Hospital’s problems in taking possession of the Templar properties, especially in the Iberian Peninsula where local rulers tried to keep them under their control. Bosio states that a long conflict arose and that, in the end, the Hospital was actually impoverished by this dispute.63 Bosio sees the end of the Temple from a very particular perspective, namely, the point of view of the Order which inherited the Temple’s possessions and had often clashed with it in eastern politics. It is significant that the chronicler criticizes the Temple so harshly, claiming the Order had completely abandoned its original mission and disregarded the fight against the infidel and the humble and poor life of a true religious institution. He thereby implicitly praises his own Order and stresses its enduring service in the defense of Christendom. Since the Hospital benefited from the Temple’s dissolution, Bosio, even though he is aware that the charges against the Temple were false, expresses caution regarding the papal decision suppressing the Order. According to Bosio, if greed was the reason for the king of France’s attack on the Templars, the Iberian kings were no better in their determination to appropriate the properties destined for the Hospital. While Bosio had to consider the demise of the Temple in his work because of the close ties between his Order and that of the Templars, local historiographers were also sometimes interested in the military order because of its presence in Italy. At the end of the sixteenth century, Girolamo Rossi (1539–1607) in his Historiarum Ravennatum libri decem provided significant information concerning the inquiry overseen by Rinaldo da Concorezzo, the archbishop of Ravenna. Describing the Ravenna council that judged the Order’s local Brothers, Rossi records the charges against them, highlighting that the seriousness of the accusations rendered the issue of their innocence or guilt a crucial one. Rossi carefully notes that the Templars rejected the accusations and contradicted those testifying against them.64 When Rinaldo asked the prelates present whether the examination of the Templars should be prolonged and torture should be used, most of the participants – apart from the Dominican inquisitors – thought that further investigations were not required. The Templars could be acquitted after a public oath in support of their innocence, supported by the statements 62 Giacomo Bosio, Dell’Istoria della Sacra Religione et Illustrissima Militia di S. Giovanni Gierosolimitano di Iacomo Bosio, vol. 1 (Venice 1695), 1/2: 18–19. 63 Bosio, Dell’Istoria, 1/2: 19–20. Bosio further mentions the problems the Hospital experienced in obtaining the Templars’ possessions in France: Bosio, Dell’Istoria, 1/2: 27. 64 Girolamo Rossi, Historiarum Ravennatum libri decem (Venice 1590), 525–6.

291

ELENA BELLOMO

of some witnesses. Moreover, the prelates stated that those who had confessed for fear of torture should be considered innocent if they subsequently withdrew their admissions, as should those who did not retract theirs for the same reason. Despite the results of the Ravenna council, the pope – Rossi adds – condemned some Templars to be burnt at the stake and dissolved the Order.65 Rossi does not include any personal comments on the issue in his account, but he emphasizes the zeal and uprightness of the archbishop’s work and the careful procedure he adopted during the council; his approval for Concorezzo, whose strong personality also led to the formulation of an unprecedented statement against torture, is apparent. In 1613, Monsignor Silvestro Mauroli (fl. 1553–1613) published his Historia sagra. Each chapter of this work focuses on a specific religious order, and the one on the Temple also evaluates the reasons for its suppression. After pointing out that the Order, despite the defeats in the East, had continued its fight against the enemies of the faith, Mauroli first presents those scholars who believed the Templars to be guilty, listing the historical works he had consulted (including the one written by Raffaello Maffei) and illustrating the charges against the Order. He then considers the opposing opinion of those writers who believed the Temple to be innocent of wrongdoing. He again lists his primary sources (including Villani, Boccaccio, and others). The subsequent account of the Trial is actually based on the aforementioned Tuscan writers with some minor differences (for instance, Onofrio Dei becomes a Templar Brother, and the Templars burnt in Paris were tried before their execution). Mauroli’s narrative is deliberate in its admiration for the Templars’ steadfastness, and the author disapproves that the pope, basing his decisions solely on the denunciations of renegade Templars, ordered all members of the Order arrested. Despite this, the writer states that he is not going to express his opinion on the Trial: the truth remains to be discovered before God’s tribunal on the Last Day.66 Mauroli’s work is noteworthy because, for the first time, a short account of the debate on the Trial of the Templars is given before reconstructing its events. Despite Mauroli’s clear pro-Templar stance, it is interesting that he does not dare to openly contradict the pope’s decisions and that he appeals to God’s judgment to be pronounced at the end of time. Another scholar who focused on the inquiry was the Sicilian Antonino Amico (1586–1641) who also worked in Spain, where he was appointed royal historian by Philip IV, and who conducted extensive archival research in Sicily, discovering and transcribing documents relevant to both Hospitallers and 65 Caravita, Rinaldo da Concorezzo, 145–52; Bellomo, Templar Order in North-west Italy, 193–4; Bellomo, Elena. “Rinaldo da Concorezzo, Archbishop of Ravenna, and the Trial of the Templars in North Italy,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 259–72. 66 Silvestro Mauroli [Silvester Maurolicus], Historia sagra intitulata Mare Oceano di tutte le religioni del mondo: Divisa in cinque libri, Composta da Monsignor D. Silvestro Maruli, o Maurolico (Messina 1613), 217–19.

292

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

Templars.67 His collection of primary sources, published only recently, includes some passages aimed at outlining the history of the two military orders with special attention to their origins and, in the case of the Templars, also to their demise.68 When dealing with the Trial, Amico – just like Mauroli – first examines those accounts which supported Clement V’s decisions. In particular, he considers Biondo’s and Platina’s reconstruction of the events, pointing out their mistakes and inaccuracies. Amico also highlights Platina’s superficial reading of the papal bulls, particularly the one proclaiming the end of the Order. In his analysis, Amico attributes considerable importance to those statements that could substantiate the pope’s hesitancy in making a definitive decision in the matter. Amico later on also quotes Alberico da Rosate’s aforementioned passage to strengthen his comments concerning the papal attitude toward the Templars. His main source for the Templars’ innocence is Giovanni Villani. In the Florentine author’s chronicle, Amico finds proof that it was the king of France’s avarice that led to the Temple’s demise, while the pope supported Philip’s plans because he was already being pressured by him to condemn Boniface VIII. Along with other Italian and foreign historical works, Amico also quotes Boccaccio’s account. All these sources reinforce the Sicilian scholar’s belief that cupidity was the real reason why the Order was suppressed. Thus, his exposition ends with examples of kings’ voracity to the detriment of the Church, which led to these rulers’ tragic end; Philip IV’s death concludes this overview.69 It comes as no surprise that Amico viewed the Templars’ demise as the result of royal greed for the Church’s possessions. In fact, this was a particularly significant issue for the Sicilian scholar who worked on local disputes over ecclesiastical property and revenues, in which, thanks to accurate references to documentary sources, he defended the Church’s prerogatives against lay interferences.70

Angelo Fumagalli In the following century, the development of the historical-critical method and subsequent remarks by eminent intellectuals such as Voltaire led to further reconsiderations of the Trial, both in Italy and elsewhere.71 While the scholar and editor Ludovico Antonio Muratori only briefly commented on the Trial, showing a pro-Templar attitude, for instance, in his edition of Albertino Mus67 Luciana Petracca, Giovanniti e Templari in Sicilia: Il ms. Qq H12 della Biblioteca Comunale di Palermo,2 vols. (Galatina 2006), 1: 17–21; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, Templari e Ospitalieri nella Sicilia medievale, Melitensia 11 (Taranto 2003), 26–31. 68 Petracca, Giovanniti e Templari in Sicilia, 1: 22–30. The manuscript is edited in the second volume of Petracca’s work. 69 Petracca, Giovanniti e Templari in Sicilia,2: 479–93. 70 Petracca, Giovanniti e Templari in Sicilia, 1: 18, 20. 71 Wildermann, Beurteilung des Templerprozesses, 175–7; Fulvio Bramato, Storia dell’Ordine Templare in Italia, 2 vols. (Rome 1991), 1: 16–19.

293

ELENA BELLOMO

sato’s chronicle,72 a comprehensive analysis of the subject was produced at the end of the century by another scholar committed to editing and commenting on medieval primary sources, namely, Angelo Fumagalli (1728–1804), the abbot of the Milanese Cistercian monastery of Sant’Ambrogio.73 In his Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi illustrate con dissertazioni, Fumagalli wanted to shed new light on several medieval facts, practices, and developments by analyzing documents from the Milanese archives. One of Fumagalli’s forty dissertazioni focuses on the author of the Templar Rule in its first part,74 and on the Trial and the Order’s demise in its second part.75 Fumagalli starts his examination by pointing out the Templar Order’s instant success in recruiting a large number of Brothers, as well as in assembling noteworthy possessions within a short period. However, the Order also took a rapid turn toward decadence, because its wealth, sometimes acquired through abuses, allowed the Templars to lead a rich and indolent life. Fumagalli here makes an obvious mistake, thinking that St. Bernard in his De laude novae militiae was reproaching the Templars when describing the lavish lifestyle of secular knights. Still referring to this source, Fumagalli points out that the majority of Templars followed their Rule and lived a humble and poor existence, bravely fighting for the faith. At any rate, the Order was ultimately unsuccessful in its endeavors in the East, but the degenerate behavior of some Brothers spread to Europe where the Templars experienced very tense relations with several kings.76 A short reconstruction of the Trial follows, based on the papal bulls carefully consulted by Fumagalli, who also read a copy of Faciens Misericordiam kept in the archive of the Milanese Dominican church of Sant’ Eustorgio. By drawing from medieval chroniclers as well, the Cistercian scholar recounts the various phases of the inquiry, the end of the Order, and the transfer of its possessions to the Hospital.77 Fumagalli notes that, after examining the Templars, the pope became convinced of their guilt. This notion was then perpetuated by several medieval, modern, and contemporary authors, as listed by the writer. However, Fumagalli also provides a full list of chroniclers and writers who had supported the Templars’ innocence from the Middle Ages to the contemporary age. To present a comprehensive picture of the opinions on the issue, he includes the authors who thought that only part of the Order was guilty and performed the

72 Albertino Mussato, “Historia Augusta,” 377. On Muratori, see Girolamo Imbruglia, “Muratori, Ludovico Antonio,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 77 (Rome 2012), 443–52. 73 Guido Fagioli Vercellone, “Fumagalli, Angelo,” in Dizionario Biografico deli Italiani, vol. 50 (Rome 1988), 717–19. 74 Angelo Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi: Illustrate con dissertazioni dai monaci della Congregazione cisterciense di Lombardia, 4 vols. (Milan 1792–1793), 2: 161–85. 75 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 185–238. 76 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 185–9. 77 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 189–92.

294

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

heretical rituals ascribed to the whole institution.78 After reporting the account of the Trial included in Villani’s chronicle (which here further proves to be one of the most influential descriptions of the events), Fumagalli stresses that rarely has an issue provoked such a heated debate. Therefore, he suggests that previous reconstructions of the events be set aside to approach the facts directly. He notes that the Italian sources might have been affected by the aforementioned struggle between Philip and Boniface VIII, as well as by Clement V’s move of the Holy See to Avignon. Thus, major attention should be devoted to the French sources which pertain to the epicenter of the inquiry. Despite this concession, Fumigalli relies on an Italian source (once again Villani) when addressing the motivations behind the Trial. Fumigalli takes up Onofrio Dei’s story and convincingly argues that the Templars had never been publicly suspected of wrongdoing before the inquiry. He quotes several contemporary primary sources to emphasize that the Templars’ arrest was an unexpected and shocking event. Fumagalli concludes this section on the accusations against the Order highlighting that the actual existence of charges against it before the Trial had begun cannot not be viewed as proof of guilt.79 Taking into consideration Philip’s and Clement’s motivations, Fumagalli then rejects some chroniclers’ biased portrayals of these figures but admits that greed played a crucial role in the ruin of the Templars. He emphasizes that, at the beginning of the inquiry, there were two different types of charges: those relevant to the king and the kingdom (including the Templars’ alleged responsibility for the crusaders’ defeats in the East and the capture of Louis IX) and those relevant to the Church and the faith (focusing on the rituals performed during the initiation of new Brothers). Fumagalli convincingly argues that the second type of accusations was easier to corroborate even in the absence of real evidence; thus, they were preferred by the king’s counsellors. The Milanese author also does not rule out the possibility that, even before the Trial, Clement had already promised Philip a part of the Templar wealth.80 In focusing on the inquiry, Fumagalli examines the heretical rituals ascribed to the Templars. He stresses that there was too striking a contradiction between these practices and true religious professions. Therefore, he considers it very unlikely that such ceremonies could have involved new members of the Order who expected to be admitted to a genuine religious institution through orthodox rituals. Rather, the sacrilegious practices described in the papal bulls and the Templars’ depositions were appropriate for people who were already members of the Order and whose loyalty had already been put to the test. Fumagalli adds that no material evidence, such as the idols allegedly worshipped in these ceremonies, was ever uncovered.81 78 79 80 81

Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 192–5. Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 195–203. Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 203–7. Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 207–8.

295

ELENA BELLOMO

The author then replies to the possible questions or assertions of an interlocutor convinced of the Templars’ guilt. The first question focuses on the fact that the Templars actually admitted their faults. Fumagalli draws attention to the evidence that several members of the Order did not confess to any of the charges and highlights that the Templars’ testimonies were modeled on the inquisitors’ questionnaire and thus inevitably provided confirmation of the charges. The author furthermore acknowledges the major role that torture must have played in the Templars’ confessions – along with the promise of being released after confessing. The significance of these elements is confirmed by the fact that, when the Templars understood that they were not going to be freed, they withdrew their confessions and determinedly defended their Order. Fumagalli also criticizes the assumption that the secrecy of Templar initiation ceremonies could be further evidence of the Order’s guilt, and he refers to ceremonies which occurred in the presence of a very large number of Brothers and thus could not have been kept secret. He declares that it is not his goal to deny the existence of the confessions but, rather, to show that they did not concern the majority of the Templars. Another possible objection deals with the lack of uniformity in the Templars’ admissions and in their explanations to justify their behavior. Some authors saw this as evidence that these depositions were truthful. Fumagalli emphasizes that these justifications did not confirm the Templars’ guilt and compares them with the Templars’ retractions. In fact, according to the Milanese author, the Templars confessed as a result of torture, the initial shock, and despair.82 Fumagalli highlights that the judges and even the pope were likely biased. Reading Faciens Misericordiam, he has the feeling that Clement had already condemned the whole Order on the basis of the French inquiry. This papal attitude was also the consequence of the judges’ bias. Fumagalli points to the systemic faults of the medieval legal system in which innocence – and not guilt – had to be demonstrated and the denial of a crime was a further sign of culpability. Thus, he compares the Trial of the Templars to the witch hunts. Fumagalli also wonders about the biases of the prelates who discussed the Templar issue at Vienne. He emphasizes that, in some provincial councils, the Templars had been acquitted and refers to the determined actions of Rinaldo da Concorezzo in favor of the Order. After pointing out that too little is known about the discussions which took place at Vienne, Fumagalli focuses on the papal resolution to suspend the Order which, according to the author, was arbitrarily imposed on the Council.83 He also refutes those scholars who claimed that the French Crown did not gain any relevant economic advantage from the disbanding of the Temple, citing both medieval evidence and Voltaire’s reconstruction of the events.84 82 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 209–16. 83 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 216–24. 84 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 224–30.

296

COLLIDING PERCEPTIONS

Fumagalli finally addresses the Templars directly, blaming them for being naïve in their assumption that confessions could save them from prison and death. However, the courage of those who withdrew their depositions and faced death through burning at the stake cannot be denied and, according to the author, cannot be seen as a display of their heresy or arrogance. Actually, it was proof that they considered themselves good Christians, and Fumagalli even compares them to the first martyrs of the Church.85 Despite rejecting the arguments of those who deemed the Templars to be guilty, Fumagalli does not express a final judgment. He is aware that his reconstruction of the events cannot be taken as conclusive due to possible gaps in the evidence, and he also stresses that a private citizen cannot understand and judge the motivations of rulers and their decisions. What was certain was that some members of the Temple enjoyed an undeniably decadent lifestyle and that the Order could not be reformed. Perhaps this was the reason why God consented to its destruction.86 Fumagalli’s extensive analysis reveals the maturity of a scholar used to investigating medieval primary sources and willing to carefully evaluate both the historical evidence and how this evidence has been used in the past. Fumagalli is the first Italian to approach the Trial through a comprehensive assessment of different types of primary sources (chronicles, charters, depositions, and papal bulls) and to fully take into consideration the status quaestionis. Fumagalli clearly believes in the Templars’ innocence, and this assumption is based on a detailed examination of the extant evidence. In his review of the medieval legal system, he reflects the new ideals of justice and equity which characterized the end of the eighteenth century and were particularly significant in the Milanese intellectual environment. Aware that understanding the past is an ongoing process, Fumagalli did not conclude his dissertazione with a definitive pronouncement, but it is unquestionable that his exposition, although not immune to misunderstandings, was a step forward in our comprehension of the Templar Trial and in the development of a critical method of historical analysis. However, at the end of his work, Fumagalli, being a cleric, finally addresses the Templar affair from a religious perspective and refers to the Order’s corruption as a possible reason for God permitting its violent end.

Conclusion The works of Italian authors from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries offer a stimulating subject for the study of the perceptions of an event of international scope and wide resonance like the Trial of the Templars. Their accounts provide significant information about this issue and original views of

85 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 230–7. 86 Fumagalli, Delle antichità longobardico-milanesi, 2: 237–8.

297

ELENA BELLOMO

inquiry. Not only did they include eyewitness accounts in some of their reconstructions of the events; they also mentioned Templar prophecies and curses which later played a major role in the development of the Templar myth. A variety of authors dealt with this subject, obviously influenced by their education, work, interests, and political stance. Italian accounts clearly linked Philip IV’s action to his struggle against Boniface VIII, a well-known event in the Peninsula. Like in any other country, authors could either criticize the inquiry, the avarice of the king of France, and the papal decision to disband the Order, or condemn the Temple without reservation for its crimes. Lay chroniclers often, but not always, sided with the Templars. Clerics routinely supported the pope’s decisions. Interpretations on both sides were not unanimous: the decadence and corruption of the Temple were admitted by some pro-Templar authors, but even writers convinced of the Order’s culpability stressed the Templars’ heroic attitude when condemned to death. As centuries passed, the Trial attracted less attention, but it still provoked contrasting reactions, and it is worth noting that, despite being critical of the inquiry, some authors did not dare to openly reprove papal decisions. At the end of the eighteenth century, the tragic end of the Temple remained a challenging subject for intellectuals and proved to be a suitable field of study to test the emerging historical-critical method.

298

15 FROM LEGEND TO REALITY Recent historiography on the Templar Order Kristjan Toomaspoeg

Introduction Over the last three decades, the history of the religious military orders has become one of the most intensely researched fields of medieval studies.1 Consequently, it can be quite stressful nowadays to follow the respective historiographical developments and access the numerous works published every year as monographs or papers in conference volumes, collections, and journals. Unlike scholars of the Hospitallers or Teutonic Knights, Templar historians who consistently engage in research and publication do not benefit from some kind of central coordination2 (except for those belonging to the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East),3 a circumstance which does not facilitate the “tracking” of their endeavors. 1 See Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Die Geschichtsschreibung der mittelalterlichen geistlichen Ritterorden: Status quaestionis,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden in Mitteleuropa: Mittelalter, ed. Karl Borchardt and Libor Jan (Brno 2011), 25–48. In this essay, I do not intend to discuss all existing historiography on the Templars. Rather, I will focus on the years between 2009 and 2015, which largely coincided with the 700th anniversary of the Templar Trial and were particularly fruitful – even though there will be occasional references to works published through 2020 – and I will pay special attention to monographs and conference volumes. Thus, I apologize to those authors who will not find their names in this essay (including important scholars). What I am interested in are general historiographical trends, and due to space constraints I will not be able to address every cited work with as much detail as might be desirable. Finally, this essay represents my own opinions which, of course, may not be shared by all. 2 I am referring here to the activities of institutions such as the International Historical Commission for Research on the Teutonic Order (Internationale Historische Kommission zur Erforschung des Deutschen Ordens) in Vienna or, to a lesser extent, the Accademia Internazionale Melitense (Fort St. Angelo, Malta), the Centro di Studi Melitensi (Taranto), and the Museum and Library of the Order of St. John (Clerkenwell, London, acting in conjunction with the London Centre for the Study of the Crusades, the Military Religious Orders, and the Latin East). 3 Articles on the Templars can occasionally be found in Crusades, the journal of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (SSCLE), for example (in recent volumes since 2013): Damien Carraz, “Templars and Hospitallers in the Cities of the West and the Latin East (Twelfth to Thirteenth Centuries),” Crusades 12 (2013): 103–20; Judith Bronstein, “Food and the Military Orders: Attitudes of the Hospital and the Temple between the Twelfth and Fourteenth Centuries,” Crusades 12 (2013):

299

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

The foundational contemporary general histories of the Templar Order all describe and comment on their subject’s historiography and contain lists of bibliographical references. The most useful among these are the works by Malcolm Barber (1994),4 Helen J. Nicholson (2001),5 and Alain Demurger (2005),6 the latter a completely revised reedition of the author’s Vie et mort des Templiers;7 and one should add to these Jürgen Sarnowsky’s short but precise and updated general history of the Templars (2009).8 Reflections on Templar historiography were offered by Helen J. Nicholson in 2010,9 but the issue has also been a part of general considerations on historical writing pertaining to the military orders,10 including those published by Alain Demurger in 2009,11 as well as those published by Karl Borchardt,12 Nikolas Jaspert,13 and Jonathan Riley-Smith14 in 2012.15 The works I have cited thus far describe the situation of the historiography of the Templar Order in the earlier twenty-first century, even if none of them has the ambition to offer a complete bibliography on the subject: in fact, for a more exhaustive list one would have to go back to The Crusades and the Military

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13 14 15

133–52; Kevin James Lewis, “A Templar’s Belt: The Oral and Sartorial Transmission of Memory and Myth in the Order of the Temple,” Crusades 13 (2014): 191–209; Philip Slavin, “The Fate of the Former Templar Estates in England, 1308–1338,” Crusades 14 (2015): 209–35; Giampiero Bagni, “The Sarcophagus of Templar Master Arnau de Torroja in Verona? Sources and Scientific Analysis,” Crusades 17 (2018): 31–8. Another scholarly publication to consider is the series (now annual journal) Ordines Militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica, published in Toruń. Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge 1994). Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar: A New History (Phoenix Mill 2001). Alain Demurger, Les Templiers: Une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Âge (Paris 2005). Alain Demurger, Vie et mort de l’ordre du Temple (Paris 1985; new ed. 1993). Jürgen Sarnowsky, Die Templer (Munich 2009). Helen J. Nicholson, “The Changing Face of the Templars: Current Trends in Historiography,” History Compass 8, no. 7 (July 2010): 653–67. Another volume that must be mentioned here is The Military Orders, Volume 3: History and Heritage, ed. Victor Mallia-Milanes (Aldershot 2008). Even though it was published some eight years after the original conference, it contains several papers that remain of considerable value for Templar historiography. Alain Demurger, “Histoire de l’historiographie des ordres religieux-militaires de 1500 à nos jours,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand (Paris 2009), 22–46. Karl Borchardt, “Historiography and Memory: What Was New and Unique about the Templars?” in As Ordens Militares: Freires, Guerreiros, Cavaleiros: Actas do VI Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, Palmela, 10 a 14 de Marção de 2010, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela 2012), 49–60. Nikolas Jaspert, “Military Orders and Social History: Some Introductory Thoughts,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 495–517. Jonathan Riley-Smith, “New Approaches to the Histories of the Hospitallers and the Templars in the Central Middle Ages,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 37–48. See also Jürgen Sarnowsky, On the Military Orders in Medieval Europe: Structures and Perceptions (Farnham 2011); and Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson, “Conclusion,” in The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010), 359–64.

300

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

Orders, a volume edited by Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky in 2001.16 Their merit is mostly that they offer profound reflections on the historical development, current trends, and possible future of Templar studies. This essay builds on these reflections, offers some considerations concerning Templar studies nowadays, and focuses primarily on the years between 2009 and 2015, which largely coincided with the 700th anniversary of the Templar Trial and were particularly fruitful. The current state of research shall be examined from the point of view of the major issues identified by the scholars mentioned earlier and on the basis of their proposals for future investigation. To begin, I provide a general overview of the various areas of research, followed by a closer look at some specific points: Which suggestions made by the scholars of the earlier twenty-first century have been at least partially implemented, and what remains to be done?

Areas of research According to Nikolas Jaspert, “[a] major task for the future remains the editing of sources.”17 Notably, when discussing the historiography of the military orders, most of Jaspert’s examples of existing editions pertain to the Teutonic and Hospitaller Orders, and apart from publications on the acts of the Templar Trial, an area in which considerable progress has been made (as discussed later), only comparatively few examples of editions of Templar sources could be cited when Jaspert’s paper was published in 2012. Yet the situation is less “dark” than it may first appear, and several very important steps have been taken to improve things. First of all, we should consider that the Templars’ normative texts (i.e., their Rule, statutes, and customs), unlike those of the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights, have been the focus of a recent study and edition: Simonetta Cerrini’s doctoral dissertation, a study and edition of the Templar Rule (1998),18 is still awaiting publication, but copies of it have been circulating and its contents have been presented, developed, and expanded by the author in a number of publications.19 There is also Judith

16 The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky (Budapest 2001). See also Simonetta Cerrini, “L’ordine del Tempio: Aggiornamento bibliografico,” in I Templari, la guerra e la santità, ed. Simonetta Cerrini (Rimini 2000), 153–63; and Josep Maria Sans i Travé, “Estat de la qüestió sobre l’orde del Temple a Catalunya: realitat i perspectives,” in Templers i hospitalers: Ordes militars a Catalunya: Actes de la XXXVII Jornada de Treball, ed. Miguel Torres Benet (Lleida 2008), 11–62. 17 Jaspert, “Military Orders and Social History,” 513. 18 Simonetta Cerrini, “Une expérience neuve au sein de la spiritualité médiévale: L’ordre du Temple (1120–1314): Étude et édition des règles latines et françaises” (Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne 1998). 19 See, for example, Simonetta Cerrini, “A New Edition of the Latin and French Rule of the Temple,” in The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen J. Nicholson (Aldershot 1998), 207– 15; as well as her more recent publications on the issue, including Simonetta Cerrini, “L’économie

301

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

Upton-Ward’s new edition of the Order’s Catalan Rule,20 as well as a very stimulating monograph by Christian Vogel, one of the most active and intuitive scholars of the military orders in our times, concerning the legal and administrative foundations of the Temple and the application of its statutes in everyday life.21 The situation is considerably more problematic when it comes to Templar charters. As is well known, the Marquis d’Albon’s project (a century ago) to furnish a complete edition of these documents, following the example of Joseph Delaville Le Roux’s Hospitaller Cartulaire,22 remained unfinished, so that only the first part of d’Albon’s endeavors (containing documents up until 1150), was published in 1913, shortly after his death,23 and even this part contains its fair share of errors and gaps.24 Thus, while scholars working on the Hospital continue to use the old but relatively reliable Cartulaire, and those working on the Teutonic Order benefit from recent instruments cataloging and publishing their sources,25 there are no general publications or repertories of the Templar Order’s diplomatic sources.26 This is both caused

20

21

22 23

24 25 26

idéale des ‘Pauvres chevaliers du Christ et du Temple de Salomon’ d’après leur règle et leurs statuts,” in L’économie templière en Occident: Patrimoines, commerce, finances: Actes du colloque international, Troyes-Abbaye de Clairvaux, 24–26 octobre 2012, ed. Arnaud Baudin, Ghislain Brunel, and Nicolas Dohrmann (Langres 2013), 31–56; and Simonetta Cerrini, “Les Templiers et le progressif évanouissement de leur règle,” in The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson (London 2017), 187–98. The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Cartas Reales, MS 3344, ed. Judith M. Upton-Ward (Woodbridge 2003). One must also mention here the same author’s “classic” publication: Judith M. Upton Ward, The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar (Woodbridge 1992). Christian Vogel, Das Recht der Templer: Ausgewählte Aspekte des Templerrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Statutenhandschriften aus Paris, Rom, Baltimore und Barcelona (Münster 2007). See also Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Templars and Their Legislation,” in Law as Profession and Practice in Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of James A. Brundage, ed. Kenneth Pennington and Melodie Harris Eichbauer (Farnham 2011), 359–70. Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem (1100–1300), ed. Joseph Marie Antoine Delaville le Roulx (Paris 1894–1904). Cartulaire général de l’Ordre du Temple 1119?–1150: Recueil des Chartes et des Bulles relatives à l’Ordre du Temple formé par le Marquis d’Albon, ed. Guigues Alexis Marie Joseph André d’Albon (Paris 1913). See Émile Guillaume Léonard, Introduction au cartulaire manuscrit du Temple (1150–1317), constitué par le marquis d’Albon et conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale, suivie d’un tableau des maisons françaises du Temple et de leurs précepteurs (Paris 1930). See Damien Carraz and Marie-Anna Chevalier, “Le marquis d’Albon (1866–1912) et son Cartulaire général de l’ordre du Temple,” Hereditas monasteriorum 1 (2012): 107–28. Die Urkunden des Deutschordens-Zentralarchivs in Wien: Regesten, ed. Udo Arnold (Marburg 2006–2019). With the exception of Regesta pontificum romanorum: Erga Templarios (1139–1313), ed. Gaetano Lamattina (Rome 1984), a manuscript available, for example, in the Vatican Library and containing a (by no means exhaustive) collection of papal letters to Templars from 1139 to 1313. The two volumes Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter: Archivberichte und Texte (Göttingen 1972); and Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter: Neue Folge (Göttingen 1984), cover only the twelfth century.

302

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

and aggravated by the loss of the Templars’ central archives27 and by the loss of many of their regional fonds. This issue was debated at a conference organized by the Monumenta Germaniae Historica in Munich in 2014, which focused on the primary sources of and for the Templars, as well as the Templars’ activities compared to those of other military orders, and devoted special attention to “open questions and desiderata for critical editions.”28 The 2017 publication of the papers presented at this conference, led by Karl Borchardt,29 has closed a number of gaps in Templar studies concerning the Order’s regional and central archives and its sources in general. At this same Munich conference, a research project on the heritage of the Marquis d’Albon was launched, an enterprise based on the over seventy volumes of the “Collection d’Albon” preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (nouvelles acquisitions latines 1–71) which contain d’Albon’s and his collaborators’ copies and extensive notes from numerous European archives. In cases where the original charters of the Temple were lost after 1913, like in South Italy,30 this project may eventually lead to a reconstruction of the documentation; in other cases, like in France, Portugal, and Spain, the original sources still exist and can be collated on site before they are included in a central repertory of all Templar documents. Meanwhile, the general situation of edited Templar sources remains quite uneven and incomplete. Many documents concerning the history of the Order in the Latin East became available in 2010, thanks to the monumental edition of the charters of the kings of Jerusalem by Hans Eberhard Mayer (with the edition’s Old French texts by Jean Richard),31 and the publication of Pierre-Vincent Claverie’s doctoral dissertation offers summaries of 720 selected sources (as well as some editions) pertaining to the Templars in the Holy Land and on Cyprus.32 At the regional level, there has been some continuity in the editing of the Order’s charters from the rich Catalan-Aragonese archives. Thus, the enormous works published in the final years of the twentieth century by Josep Sans i Travé33 and Ramon Sarobe i Huesca34 were recently followed

27 See Rudolf Hiestand, “Zum Problem des Templerzentralarchivs,” Archivalische Zeitschrift 76, no. 1 (1980): 17–38; and now also Anthony Luttrell, “The Templars’ Archives in Syria and Cyprus,” in Templars and Their Sources, ed. Borchardt, Döring, Josserand, and Nicholson, 38–45. 28 The Templars and Their Sources, ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson (London 2017), based on the conference held in Munich, February 24–27, 2014. 29 Templars and Their Sources, ed. Borchardt, Döring, Josserand, and Nicholson. 30 See Luciana Petracca, “Documenti pontifici inediti dell’Archivio di Stato di Napoli riguardanti l’Ordine Templare (1202–1288),” Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 66, no. 2 (2012): 539–58. 31 Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer (Old French texts by Jean Richard) (Hanover 2010). 32 Pierre-Vincent Claverie, L’ordre du Temple en Terre Sainte et à Chypre au XIIIe siècle (Nicosia 2005), vol. 3. 33 Col·lecció diplomàtica de la Casa del Temple de Barberà (945–1212), ed. Josep Maria Sans i Travé (Barcelona 1997). 34 Col·lecció diplomàtica de la Casa del Temple de Gardeny (1070–1200), ed. Ramon Sarobe i Huesca (Barcelona 1998). See also the second volume (“Col·lecció diplomàtica”) of Laureà Pagarolas i

303

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

by those edited by Joaquín Sanz Ledesma,35 Ramón Román Martínez,36 Sandra de la Torre Gonzalo,37 and Rodrigue Tréton.38 The latter is based on Tréton’s doctoral dissertation39 and contains the documents of the Templar commandery of Mas Déu in Roussillon, an impressive work in five volumes (overall more than 3000 pages). Today, Aragón and Catalonia can be considered the areas with the greatest number of high-quality editions of Templar charters. The same cannot be said for Castile, for which a presentation of local editions and archives can be found in the 2004 publication of Philippe Josserand’s doctoral dissertation,40 or for Portugal, where the numerous and relatively well-preserved charters of the Temple are still awaiting their edition.41 In France (if we set aside Roussillon), the situation must be considered as unsatisfactory: while the existing sources in and about Provence have been cataloged in Damien Carraz’s doctoral dissertation,42 we still have to use old and partial editions from the archives of individual commanderies for the territories of the kingdom of France. For Italy, where most of the local Templar archives were lost during the modern era or earlier, Elena Bellomo’s doctoral dissertation offers an overview of the documents that are still available in the Peninsula’s northern part,43 while the sources from Sicily, which no longer exist in their original format but have been preserved “in copy” in a seventeenthcentury manuscript, have been published on the basis of the latter by Luciana Petracca.44 Certainly one of the best archives for the history of the Templar Order in Italy (and not just there), the Archivio Segreto Vaticano has only been explored selectively by scholars (except when it comes to the acts of the

35

36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44

Sabaté, Els templers de les terres de l’Ebre (Tortosa): De Jaume I a l’abolició de l’Ordre (1213–1312) (Tarragona 1999). Cartulario escrito en vitela, que contiene diferentes bulas apostólicas y privilegios reales & donaciones y otros documentos pertenecientes a las encomiendas de la orden y milicia del Temple, ed. Joaquín Sanz Ledesma (Monzón 2007). Cartulari de l’Ordre del Temple escrit en català medieval en temps del Maestre fra Arnau de Castellnou, ed. Ramón Román Martínez (Barcelona 2008). El cartulario de la encomienda templaria de Castellote (Teruel), 1184–1283, ed. Sandra de la Torre Gonzalo (Zaragoza 2009). Diplomatari del Masdéu, ed. Rodrigue Tréton (Barcelona 2010). Rodrigue Tréton, “Recueil des chartes de la maison du temple du Mas Déu en Roussillon (1001– 1329)” (Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne 2007). Philippe Josserand, Église et pouvoir dans la Péninsule Ibérique: Les ordres militaires dans le royaume de Castille (1252–1369) (Madrid 2004). Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Historiographie de l’Ordre du Temple au Portugal: Status quaestionis,” in Cister, os Templários e a Ordem de Cristo: I Colóquio Internacional: Da Ordem do Templo à Ordem de Cristo: Os anos da transição, ed. José Albuquerque Carreiras and Giulia Rossi Vairo (Tomar 2012), 171–91. Damien Carraz, L’Ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312): Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales (Lyon 2005; 2nd ed. 2020). Elena Bellomo, The Templar Order in North-west Italy (1142–c. 1330) (Leiden-Boston 2008). Luciana Petracca, Giovanniti e Templari in Sicilia. Il ms. Qq H12 della Biblioteca Comunale di Palermo (Galatina 2006).

304

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

Templar Trial). For England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, where Templar studies have advanced considerably in recent years, only the proceedings of the Templar Trial have been edited systematically (as discussed later). In other regions, like in Central Europe, the original Templar archives are mostly lost, and the quantity of existing charters is difficult to assess: historians there have to use documents from the royal chancelleries or the surviving Hospitaller archives. In some cases, the Marquis d’Albon project may permit the gathering of dispersed primary sources. One of the “indicators of health” of historical research is the publication of general syntheses such as those mentioned in this essay’s introduction. Another set of recent works on the Templar Order’s history focuses on specific areas, time periods, or issues. Pierre-Vincent Claverie’s work, published in 2005,45 examines the history of the Temple in the Holy Land and  on Cyprus in the thirteenth century (with some excursions into the previous and subsequent centuries) in three volumes and in all its aspects. While one might not share all the author’s conclusions, his endeavor to write a total history of the Templar Order in the East for a selected period of time deserves applause. One of Claverie’s major ideas is that the Temple collapsed in the fourteenth century under the influence of external factors, and the reasons for its fall should not be sought merely inside the Order itself. In 2008, Jochen Burgtorf published a comparative study of the central convents of Hospitallers and Templars,46 one of the most important works in recent years. This book treats the history of the two convents, their evolution, and the way they functioned with significant conclusions about the two Orders’ administrative structures; a range of other topics is addressed as well, as is the prosopography of the two Orders’ high conventual officials. To find a similar work on the central structures of the Templar Order, one would have to go back to the historiography of the nineteenth century. To this study, we must add Klaus Militzer’s comparative analysis of the administrative organizations of Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights in the Holy Land.47 A recent book by Jonathan Riley-Smith48 considers Templars and Hospitallers as members of religious orders, their role in the care for the poor and the sick and their protection of and support for the pilgrims, rather than as warriors and holders of economic power, a point of view also taken by current scholars of the Teutonic Order.49

45 Claverie, Ordre du Temple. 46 Jochen Burgtorf, The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120–1310) (Leiden-Boston 2008). 47 Klaus Militzer, “Administrative Organisations of the Three Main Military Orders in the Holy Land,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 705–14. 48 Jonathan Riley-Smith, Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land (Notre Dame 2010). 49 See, for example, Cura animarum: Seelsorge im Deutschordensland Preußen, ed. Stefan Samerski (Cologne-Weimar-Vienna 2013).

305

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

In recent years, regional studies on the Temple have progressed in all of Europe (and beyond),50 and even for some lesser known areas the first “serious” monographs on the subject have appeared. These works also offer a convincing answer to Helen J. Nicholson’s admonition: “For too long the history of the Templars has been the preserve of crusade historians and Templar specialists; as the Order was involved in everyday life across medieval Europe, the history of the Templars should be of interest to all historians of the European Middle Ages.”51 In fact, the monographs I reference here should be considered, above all, research in medieval history and not exclusively studies on the military orders, as they concern themselves with political, economic, social, and religious aspects of the society surrounding the Templars. I begin with Marie-Anna Chevalier’s doctoral dissertation on Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights in Cilician Armenia,52 which, thanks to the author’s knowledge of the Armenian language and sources, fashions the hitherto “missing link” in the history of the military orders between the Holy Land and Cyprus. Turning to France, Damien Carraz’s monograph offers a complete overview of the history of the Templar Order in a large part of Provence, one of the most important and well documented regions, but prior to his work also less studied with regard to its Templar presence.53 This work, followed by Carraz’s other publications, especially those on the relations between the Temple and the Anjou dynasty, opens new doors and, alongside a number of recent papers on different regions (such as Bourgogne, Brittany, Champagne,54 and others), is indicative of the new interest 50 New studies have also been published on the Latin East, including (but not limited to) those on archaeology and architecture. See, for example, Jochen Burgtorf, “Die Templer auf Ruad (1300– 1302),” in Die Ritterorden in Umbruchs- und Krisenzeiten, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Toruń 2011), 63–92; Karol Polejowski, “Between Jaffa and Jerusalem: A Few Remarks on the Defence of the Southern Border of the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Years 1229–1244,” in The Military Orders, Volume 6.1: Culture and Conflict in the Mediterranean World, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr (London 2016), 62–9; and Vardit Shotten-Hallel, “An Altar from the Castle Chapel of Atlit and Its Journey to the Church of all Hallows by the Tower, London,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148, no. 2 (2017): 162–76. 51 Nicholson, “Changing Face of the Templars,” 659. 52 Marie-Anna Chevalier, Les ordres religieux-militaires en Arménie cilicienne: Templiers, hospitaliers, teutoniques & Arméniens à l’époque des croisades (Paris 2009). 53 Carraz, Ordre du Temple. See also the papers published in Les ordres religieux militaires dans le Midi (XIIe–XIVe siècle), ed. Julien Théry-Astruc (Toulouse 2006). 54 See, for example, Michel Miguet, Les templiers en Bourgogne (Précy-sous-Thil 2009); Michel Miguet, Templiers et Hospitaliers de Bure: Histoire et rayonnement d’une commanderie bourguignonne (Langres 2012); Philippe Josserand, “Les Templiers en Bretagne au Moyen Âge: mythes et réalités,” Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest 119, no. 4 (2012): 7–33; The Knights Templar: From the Days of Jerusalem to the Commanderies of Champagne, ed. Arnaud Baudin, Ghislain Brunel, and Nicolas Dohrmann; trans. (from French into English) Camille Domecq, David Hunter, and Barbara Mellor (Paris 2012). Of course, not just French scholars study the Templars in France; see, for example, Michael J. Peixoto, “Maintaining the Past, Securing the Future in the Obituary of the Temple of Reims,” Viator 45, no. 3 (2014): 211–35; Michael J. Peixoto, “Copies and Cartularies: Modernizing Templar

306

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

in current French historiography on the military orders. An updated bibliography on the Templars in France can be found in Philippe Josserand’s recent work which provides, for the first time, a convincing scholarly overview concerning Les Templiers en France.55 The fact that French scholars in greater numbers are now showing a more widespread interest in the history of the Templar presence in their own territories must be considered a very positive development. Templar studies in France have also benefitted from Jochen Schenk’s recent monograph on the landowning families and the Order of the Temple in France, which combines, similarly to Carraz’s work, research on the military orders with social history.56 The former Aragonese-Catalan territories belong (as noted earlier) to the most researched areas with a Templar presence, thanks in part to the initial impulse given by Alan Forey in 1973.57 From more recent times, it is worth referring to an important conference volume on the origins and expansion of the Templar Order, published in Tarragona in 2010,58 as well as an overview of the history of the military orders in Catalonia by Josep Maria Sans i Travé, the best known specialist in this field.59 For Castile, Philippe Josserand’s 2004 monograph60 treats all the military orders in the kingdom during a specific period of time (i.e., the mid-thirteenth to the mid-fourteenth centuries), based on some 6000 primary documents, discusses the Templar Order as part of the local society, and, more importantly, replaces the notion of the military orders’ decline found in traditional historiography with that of their adapting to the developments of Castilian society. One hopes that Josserand’s work will find those in Spain who will further apply his approach to the history of the Templars in Castile and León. Elena Bellomo’s doctoral dissertation on the Templar presence in Northwest Italy61 can easily be linked to the works by Burgtorf, Carraz, Chevalier,

55

56

57 58

59 60 61

Documents in Mid-thirteenth-century Champagne,” in Templars and Their Sources, ed. Borchardt, Döring, Josserand, and Nicholson, 64–77. This work, which appears as a first step of a larger research project, was first published as a monograph: Philippe Josserand, Les Templiers en France (Paris 2013). The author subsequently presented its contents in a scholarly more convincing format: Philippe Josserand, “Les Templiers en France: Histoire et héritage,” Revue historique 316, no. 1 (669) (2014): 179–214. Jochen Schenk, Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120– 1307 (Cambridge-New York 2012). See also, for the sake of comparison, Karol Polejowski, “The Counts of Brienne and the Military Orders in the Thirteenth Century,” in The Military Orders, Volume 5: Politics and Power, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Farnham 2012), 285–95. Alan J. Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón (London 1973). Actes de les Jornades Internacionals d’Estudi sobre els Orígens i l’Expansió de l’Orde del Temple a la Corona d’Aragó (1120–1200), Tortosa, 7, 8 i 9 de maig de 2004, ed. Josep M. Sans Travé and Josep Serrano Daura (Tarragona 2010). Josep Maria Sans i Travé, “The Military Orders in Catalonia,” Catalan Historical Review 4 (2011): 53–82. Josserand, Église et pouvoir. Bellomo, Templar Order.

307

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

Claverie, Josserand, and Schenk that were mentioned earlier. Primarily on the basis of sources from Piedmont, Bellomo addresses a number of issues that are common in the “new historiography” of the Temple, such as connections between the major military orders and between East and West; the role of the Templars in the care for the poor and the sick; their diplomatic relations with the papacy, the empire, and the other powers; the Order’s adaptation to the local context and original elements introduced by the Templars; and the degree of their involvement in local society. The geography of Templar studies has considerably expanded in recent years. In addition to publications already cited, the works of Helen J. Nicholson on the Templars in England, Ireland, and Wales,62 of Mariarosaria Salerno63 and Luciana Petracca64 on southern Italy, of Karl Borchardt,65 Libor Jan,66 Christian Vogel,67 and others68 on Central Europe, of Xavier Baecke on the Low

62 Helen J. Nicholson, “The Templars in Britain: Garway and South Wales,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 323–36; Helen J. Nicholson, “The Hospitallers’ and Templars’ Involvement in Warfare on the Frontiers of the British Isles in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 17 (2012):105–19; Helen J. Nicholson, “The Military Orders in Wales and the Welsh March in the Middle Ages,” in Military Orders, Volume 5, ed. Edbury, 189–207; Helen J. Nicholson, “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, ed. Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum, and Jonathan Riley-Smith (Aldershot 2007), 411–23; Helen J. Nicholson, “Relations between Houses of the Order of the Temple in Britain and their Local Communities, as Indicated during the Trial of the Templars, 1307–12,” in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. Norman Housley (Aldershot 2007), 195–207. 63 Mariarosaria Salerno, “Les templiers dans le sud de l’Italie (Abruzzes, Campanie, Basilicate, Calabre): Domaines et activités,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 115–37. 64 Petracca, Giovanniti e Templari in Sicilia; Petracca, “Documenti pontifici inediti dell’Archivio di Stato di Napoli.” 65 Karl Borchardt, “The Templars in Central Europe,” in Crusades and the Military Orders, ed. Hunyadi and Laszlovszky, 233–44. 66 Libor Jan, “Die Templer in Böhmen und Mähren,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. Borchardt and Jan, 171–82. 67 Christian Vogel, “Die Templer in Mitteleuropa und ihre Organisationstrukturen,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. Borchardt and Jan, 157–70. 68 Grzegorz Jacek Brustowicz, “Die Aufhebung des Templerordens in der Neumark und in Pommern,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte: Ritterorden-Kommenden der Templer und Johanniter im nordöstlichen Deutschland und in Polen seit dem Mittelalter, ed. Christian Gahlbeck, Heinz-Dieter Heimann, and Dirk Schumann (Berlin 2014), 155–70; Ralf Gebuhr, “Templer und Machtpolitik: Bemerkungen zur Kommende Tempelhof im Süden Berlins,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 121–39; Marie-Luise Heckmann, “‘Fecit pulsare campanas . . .’: Kriegsdienste und Frömmigkeit deutscher Templer aus der Pespektive ihrer Wohltäter,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 91–119; Jochen Burgtorf, “Die ersten Templerniederlassungen im Reich,” in Die Kreuzzugsbewegung im römisch-deutschen Reich (11.–13. Jahrhundert), ed. Nikolas Jaspert and Stefan Tebruck (Ostfildern 2016), 119–40.

308

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

Countries,69 of Zsolt Hunyadi on Hungary,70 of Maria Starnawska and Maciej Przybyl on Poland71 – and there are many others that could be named here – now provide us with an almost complete coverage of the former Templar patrimony. In Portugal, a new research center on military orders with Cistercian tradition is directly interested in Templar studies, has organized a conference on the Cistercian Order, the Templars, and the Order of Christ, and has published several volumes related to the Templar topic.72 A deepened knowledge of the primary sources and the various regions has also made it possible to include Templar studies in several concrete research endeavors. One of the best testimonies to this is the Dictionnaire of the military orders, published in 2009 by Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand with contributions by 240 different historians from all over the world.73 The Dictionnaire features a number of prominent voices on the Templars,74 as well as a very long list of regional, thematic, and biographical entries pertaining to Templar topics. While research continues to progress, the Dictionnaire maintains a high level of currency. One of the great issues at the beginning of the twenty-first century was the application of social history to the study of the military orders.75 Several conferences have been organized and important volumes have been published on this topic since International Mobility in the Military Orders first appeared in Cardiff in 2006.76 When we consider just the few years including and after 2009,

69 See Xavier Baecke, “The Symbolic Power of Religious Knighthood: Discourse and Context of the Donation of Count Thierry of Alsace to the Templar Order in the County of Flanders,” in The Military Orders, Volume 6.2: Culture and Conflict in Western and Northern Europe, ed. Jochen Schenk and Mike Carr (London 2016), 46–56. 70 Zsolt Hunyadi, “The Formation of the Territorial Structures of the Templars and Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary,” in Die geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. Borchardt and Jan, 183–97. 71 Maria Starnawska, “The Commanderies of the Templars in the Polish Lands and Their History after the End of the Order,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 301–14; Maria Starnawska, “Zur Geschichte der Templer in Polen,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 47–62; Maciej Przybyl, “Die Herzöge von Großpolen und Schlesien und die Templer im Raum an der mittleren Oder und unteren Warthe,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 140–54. 72 Cister, os Templários e a Ordem de Cristo: I Colóquio Internacional: Da Ordem do Templo à Ordem de Cristo: Os anos da transição, ed. José Albuquerque Carreiras and Giulia Rossi Vairo (Tomar 2012); and Cister e as Ordens Militares na Idade Média: Guerra, Igreja e Vida religiosa: II Colóquio Internacional Cister, os Templários e a Ordem de Cristo, ed. José Albuquerque Carreiras and Carlos de Ayala Martínez (Tomar 2015). 73 Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicole Bériou and Philippe Josserand (Paris 2009). 74 See, for example, Alain Demurger, “Temple,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 896–902. 75 Jaspert, “Military Orders and Social History.” 76 International Mobility in the Military Orders (Twelfth to Fifteenth Centuries): Travelling on Christ’s Business, ed. Jochen Burgtorf and Helen J. Nicholson (Cardiff 2006). See, for example, Christian Vogel, “The

309

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

one of the most interesting conferences that included Templar topics certainly was Élites et ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, an academic gathering organized in tribute to Alain Demurger in October 2009 and subsequently published as an edited volume in 2015.77 The respective papers addressed the Order’s relations with the elites of medieval society,78 the Templars’ own hierarchies and elites,79 and their activities in the service of the papal and royal courts.80 While the fifth Military Orders conference – held almost at the same time (in September 2009) in Cardiff, dedicated to politics and power, and publishing its proceedings in 201281 – featured relatively few links to Templar history (apart from the Templar Trial), the sixth Palmela conference on military orders (2010),82 which primarily focused on social history, offered papers on the relations between the Templars and the elites and powers of medieval society83

77 78 79

80

81 82 83

Mobility of Templars from Provence,” in International Mobility in the Military Orders, ed. Burgtorf and Nicholson, 114–29. Élites et ordres militaires au Moyen Âge: Rencontre autour d’Alain Demurger, ed. Philippe Josserand, Luís Filipe Oliveira, and Damien Carraz (Madrid 2015). Damien Carraz, “Le monachisme militaire, un laboratoire de la sociogenèse des élites laïques dans l’Occident médiéval?” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 39–64. Luis Filipe Oliveira, “La sociologie des ordres militaires: Une enquête à poursuivre,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 155–68; Simonetta Cerrini, “Rangs et dignités dans l’ordre du Temple au regard de la règle,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 169–88; Jürgen Sarnowsky, “The Priests in the Military Orders: A Comparative Approach of Their Standing and Role,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, Alan J. Forey, “The Careers of Templar and Hospitaller Office Holders in Western Europe during the Twelth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 201–14; Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes, “Les lieux de pouvoir des ordres militaires au Portugal,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 225–40; Joan Fuguet Sans and Carme Plaza i Arqué, “La arquitectura militar del Temple en la Corona de Aragón como símbolo del poder feudal,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 241–60. Helen J. Nicholson, “‘Nolite confidere in principibus’: The Military Orders’ Relations with the Rulers of Christendom,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 261–76; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Les ordres militaires au service des pouvoirs monarchiques occidentaux,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 321–32; Marie-Anna Chevalier, “Les ordres religieuxmilitaires et les pouvoirs arméniens en Orient (XIIe–XIVe siècles),” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 333–46; Pierre-Vincent Claverie, “Les relations du Saint-Siège avec les ordres militaires sous le pontificat d’Honorius III (1216–1227),” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 277–92; Anthony Luttrell, “Observations on the Fall of the Temple,” in Élites et ordres militaires, ed. Josserand, Oliveira, and Carraz, 365–72. The Military Orders, Volume 5: Politics and Power, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Farnham 2012). As Ordens Militares: Freires, Guerreiros, Cavaleiros: Actas do VI Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, Palmela, 10 a 14 de Marção de 2010, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela 2012). Simonetta Cerrini, “I Templari, religiosi e gli intellettuali del XII secolo: Alcuni spunti,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 339–54; José Valente, “The End of the Knights Templar in Portugal: Loyalty or Pragmatism?” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 355–69; Pierre-Vincent Claverie, “Les Templiers informateurs de l’Occident à travers leur correspondance,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 715–35; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Charles Ier d’Anjou, les Ordres Militaires et la Terre Sainte,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 761–77.

310

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

and on the Order’s internal mobility.84 I cite these examples to indicate just how much social history has become relevant for the framework of Templar studies. Within this field of research, several topics can be distinguished, such as the Templars’ “dominion” (i.e., Max Weber’s Herrschaft) in some territories and its position as ruler,85 as well as the Templars as members of social, religious, and political networks of their time. The latter was the topic of the seventeenth Ordines militares conference in Toruń (2013),86 where the presence of the Templars at the papal court,87 the role of the military orders in the Latin East,88 and the procedures for settling disputes between the Orders89 were discussed. The social-history approach also includes prosopographical research on the brethren of the Temple, an important instrument for the study of the military orders as Nikolas Jaspert has emphasized,90 which – following the trailblazer monograph on the Templar masters written by Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele in 197491 – did not enjoy much popularity in Templar historiography. While recent studies like the ones cited earlier by Elena Bellomo, Jochen Burgtorf, Damien Carraz, Philippe Josserand, and Jochen Schenk have considerably expanded our knowledge of the members of the Templar Order, there is still a lot to be done, especially on the Iberian Peninsula. Templar prosopography was not the only topic to be relaunched in the earlier twenty-first century. One of the crucial issues in Templar history is the Order’s 84 Damien Carraz, “Les Templiers de la Provence à la Terre sainte: Mobilité et carrières (XIIe–début XIVe siècle),” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 779–97; Elena Bellomo, “Templari, Oriente, crociata: Percorsi di ricerca in Italia settentrionale,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela 2012), 799–822. 85 See for example, among the papers published in volume XIV of Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica, Alan J. Forey, “A Templar Lordship in Northern Valencia,” in Die Ritterorden als Träger der Herrschaft: Territorien, Grundbesitz und Kirche, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Toruń 2007), 59–68; and Nikolas Jaspert, “Transmediterrane Wechselwirkungen im 12. Jahrhundert: Der Ritterorden von Montjoie und der Templerorden,” in Ritterorden als Träger der Herrschaft, ed. Czaja and Sarnowsky, 257–78. See also Damien Carraz, “La territorialisation de la seigneurie monastique: Les commanderies provençales du Temple (XIIe–XIIIe siècles),” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Moyen Âge 123, no. 2 (2011): 443–60. 86 Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica, 17th conference, “The Brethren of the Military Orders in Their Social, Religious, and Political Networks in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period,” Toruń, September 26–29, 2013. 87 Karl Borchardt, “Die Templer an der römischen Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert: Ein Netzwerk?” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 20 (2015): 25–38. 88 Alan V. Murray, “The Grand Designs of Gilbert of Assailly: The Order of the Hospital in the Projected Conquest of Egypt by King Amalric of Jerusalem (1168–1169),” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 20 (2015): 7–24. 89 Alan J. Forey, “Procedures for the Settlement of Disputes between Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Ordines militares, Colloquia Torunensia historica: Yearbook for the Study of the Military Orders 19 (2014): 27–39. 90 Jaspert, “Military Orders and Social History,” 516. 91 Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae domus militiae Templi Hierosolymitani magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/19–1314 (Göttingen 1974).

311

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

economic development, for example with regard to the question from where and how logistical support was directed from the West to the East to enable its function as a defender of the Holy Land,92 and in the context of financial services rendered by the Temple to the Western courts.93 The existing historiography on this topic needed to be updated, which was done in 2004 by Ignacio de la Torre Muñoz de Morales in his monograph of almost 500 pages on the Templars and the origins of banking.94 The interesting and innovative elements of this book derive from the fact that its author is an active participant in today’s financial and banking systems, which also explains why not all of his opinions can be shared by other Templar scholars. But his work, which offers many new and “fresh” points of view on the economic history of the Temple, has led to a certain revival of research on this topic, as evidenced by an important conference in Troyes in October 2012.95 The Troyes conference – alongside the Munich conference on sources – was one of the rare scholarly encounters in recent years to focus specifically on the Order of the Temple and not on general issues pertaining to all military orders. As the organizers at Troyes noted, the conference had to address why and how the Templar Order’s economic role had been a “poor relative” in its historiography.96 The widest range of conceivable aspects was considered – from the ideology of the Templar economy97 to the Order’s foundations in several Western regions,98 its urban and rural commanderies,99 and the exploitation

92 See, for example, Alain Demurger, “Subsidium Terre Sancte et ordres religieux-militaires,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 745–59; and Philippe Josserand, “De l’arrière au front: Perspectives croisées, perspectives comparées: Regards sur la logistique des ordres militaires au moyen âge,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 683– 703. On this topic, Judith Bronstein’s monumental monograph offers an excellent analysis: Judith Bronstein, The Hospitallers and the Holy Land: Financing the Latin East 1187–1274 (Woodbridge 2005). 93 Alain Demurger, “Service curial,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 866–8. 94 Ignacio de la Torre Muñoz de Morales, Los templarios y el origen de la banca (Madrid 2004). 95 L’économie templière en Occident: Patrimoines, commerce, finances: Actes du colloque international, TroyesAbbaye de Clairvaux, 24–26 octobre 2012, ed. Arnaud Baudin, Ghislain Brunel, and Nicolas Dohrmann (Langres 2013). 96 See Michel Balard, “L’économie templière: Introduction,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 13–28. 97 Cerrini, “Économie idéale.” 98 Anthony Luttrell, “The Origins of the Templars’ Western Economy,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 57–64. Other papers in the same volume concern Champagne: Thierry Leroy, “La formation du temporel templier en Champagne, in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 65–91; South Italy: Salerno, “Templiers dans le sud de l’Italie;” and Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Le grenier des templiers: Les possessions et l’économie de l’Ordre dans la Capatinate et en Sicile,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 93–113; and Portugal: Ernesto Jana, “Les origines des propriétés et des revenus des territoires templiers au Portugal: Un aperçu,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 387–413. 99 Cases discussed included Arles: Damien Carraz, “L’emprise économique d’une commanderie urbaine: L’ordre du Temple à Arles en 1308,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann,

312

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

and management of its possessions100 – and the conference reached a number of important general conclusions.101 Studies concerning the Templar economy in the West can be related to those dealing with the Order’s local commanderies. This approach, which became well known in the framework of studies on the military orders following the 2002 publication of the volume La commanderie by Anthony Luttrell and Léon Pressouyre,102 has grown into a vibrant component of research on the Templars in Europe. Lately, the Order’s urban commanderies have received special attention:103 they were the subject of the 2010 Clermont-Ferrand conference on the presence of the military orders in the medieval city.104 Several papers

100

101

102 103

104

141–75; the land of Aunois: Charlie Chagny, “L’installation des templiers dans le pays de l’Aunois: Du patrimoine au territoire: La construction d’une seigneurie” (presented at the conference); lower Provence: Bruno Tadeu Salles, “Les commanderies d’Arles et de Bayle et leurs conflits avec les moines de Sylvéréal et de Saint-Antoine: Considérations sur la ‘seigneurialisation’ du Temple en Basse-Provence (1176–1244),” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 177–206; and the forests of Champagne: Michael J. Peixoto, “Growing the Portfolio: Tempar Investments in the Forests of Champagne,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 207–24; and Jean-Marie Yante, “Les templiers et les foires de Champagne,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 225–36. The case of the commandery of La Neuville-au-Temple in the Marne department: Michel Chossenot, Françoise Le Ny, and Guy Venault, “Les activités de meunerie de la commanderie de La Neuville-au-Temple (Marne): Essai de synthèse des données archéologiques et archivistiques,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 239–58; Burgundy: Michel Miguet, “Création et gestion des maisons du Temple en Bourgogne: Quelques aperçus,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 259–72; the commandery of Payns: Mickaël Wilmart, “Salariés, journaliers et artisans au service d’une exploitation agricole templière: La commanderie de Payns au début du XIVe siècle,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 273–93; the Templar lands in Lincolnshire: Mike Jefferson, “Edward II and the Templar Lands in Lincolnshire,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 295–321; Garway and South Wales: Helen J. Nicholson, “The Templars in Britain: Garway and South Wales,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 323–36; and the movement of lifestock between the Mediterranean and the Pyrenees: Rodrigue Tréton, “Aux origines de la transhumance entre Méditerranée et Pyrénées: Templiers, cisterciens et essor du pastoralisme (XIIe-XIIIe siècles),” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 337–60. Marie-Anna Chevalier, “La diversité de l’économie templière en Orient: Aperçu des ressources et des activités économiques de l’Ordre,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 363–86; Karl Borchardt, “The Templars and Thirteenth-Century Colonisation in Eastern Central Europe,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 415–52; and Alain Demurger, “Conclusions,” in Économie templière, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann, 453–73. La commanderie: Institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Léon Pressouyre (Paris 2002). The long list of works that could be cited here includes, for example, Thomas Krämer, “The Role of the Military Orders in German and French Towns: Functional Comparisons,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 519–42, which is an original experiment comparing very different contexts. See also Thomas Krämer, Dämonen, Prälaten und gottlose Menschen: Konflikte und ihre Beilegung im Umfeld der geistlichen Ritterorden (Berlin 2015). Les Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale (1100–1350): Actes du colloque internationale de ClermontFerrand, 26–28 mai 2010, ed. Damien Carraz (Clermont-Ferrand 2013).

313

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

from this conference pertained to the Templars,105 specifically addressing Templar history in the Holy Land,106 in the kingdom of France,107 in Hungary,108 in North and South Italy,109 and in cities like Toulouse,110 Perpignan,111 Tortosa, Barcelona,112 and Tomar.113 From reading these papers, one gets the impression that there was a considerable range of urban establishments of the Templar Order and that it is difficult to put the individual cases presented at the conference into a common framework: therefore, more cases need to be studied, and the Templar presence in cities needs to be “mapped” before general conclusions on this topic can be obtained. Another crucial but somehow still neglected aspect of Templar history is the issue of war and warfare. While it was mentioned in the context of the second Military Orders conference in 1996,114 neither its ideological foundations nor its concrete applications to Templar warfare were discussed in any specific way at the time. Since then, though, several papers have been published on the topic,115 and Damien Carraz has recently summarized the existing historiography and added some new propositions in a monographic study.116 Many technical details concerning the modalities, tactics, and strategies of Templar warfare have yet to be researched, but this topic looks like one of the most promising,

105 See, for example, Nikolas Jaspert, “Military Orders and Urban History: An Introductory Survey,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 15–36. 106 Denys Pringle, “The Military Orders in the Cities of the Holy Land,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 79–95. 107 Valérie Bessey, “L’implantation du Temple et de l’Hôpital dans les villes du nord du royaume de France (1100–1350), in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 97–112. 108 Zsolt Hunyadi, “Extra et intra muros: Military-Religious Orders and Medieval Hungarian Towns (c. 1150–c. 1350),” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 139–57. 109 Elena Bellomo, “The Temple, the Hospital and the Towns of North and Central Italy,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 159–70; Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Les ordres militaires dans les villes du Mezzogiorno,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 171–85. 110 Laurent Macé, “In salvetate domini comitis. Les ordres religieux-militaires dans la cité de Toulouse (XIIe–XIIIe siècles),” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 205–22. 111 Rodrigue Tréton, “L’ordre du Temple dans une capitale méditerranéenne: Perpignan,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 223–38. 112 Joan Fuguet Sans and Carme Plaza i Arqué, “L’ordre du Temple dans la Couronne d’Aragon: Aspects topographiques et archéologiques: Le cas de Tortosa et Barcelone,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 239–55. 113 Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes, “Le château dans la ville: Le cas du Portugal,” in Ordres militaires dans la ville médiévale, ed. Carraz, 257–71, here 257–9. 114 The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare, ed. Helen J. Nicholson (Aldershot 1998). 115 Manuel Rojas, “L’Ordre del Temple en batalla (1120–1193),” in L’Orde del Temple, entre la guerra i la pau, ed. Àngels Casanovas and Jordi Rovira (Barcelona 2005), 81–96; Luis García-Guijarro Ramos, “Les arrels croades de l’Orde del Temple,” in Orde del Temple, ed. Casanovas and Rovira, 97–109; João Gouveia Monteiro, “As Ordens Militares e os modelos tácticos de combate de um e do outro lado do Mediterrâneo: Uma abordagem comparada,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 823–68. 116 Damien Carraz, Les Templiers et la guerre (Clermont-Ferrand 2012).

314

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

if also one of the most complicated, fields of future Templar studies.117 The same applies to archaeological research on former Templar sites, especially in the East.118 Much new work continues to be published in this area, so that new insights could be added to the excellent overview published by Adrian J. Boas in 2006.119 This archaeological approach is part of the general field work on the churches and castles of the military orders, a topic which has made important strides since the 1990s, both in the East, thanks to the foundational works of Denys Pringle,120 and in the West. With regard to the latter, a great many authors could be mentioned, but I will limit myself here to two “masters” of this domain, namely, Joan Fuguet Sans, the author – often alongside Carme Plaza i Arqué – of a long list of research publications on Templar architecture in the kingdom of Aragón and its satellites,121 and the art historian Antonio Cadei whose death in June 2009 has deprived us of one of the most eminent specialists of the Templars’ sacred and military architecture.122 Archaeological and architectural field work on the military orders, including the Templars, was the subject of a volume published in 2014 by castle specialist Mathias Piana and archaeologist Christer Carlsson;123 the second part of their book is dedicated to the Templar Order, with papers on its presence in Italy, southern France, and the Latin East. The military orders’ castles were the specific focus of an ambitious conference held at Tomar in 2012, the

117 The latest significant discussion of this topic is John France, “Templar Tactics: The Order on the Battlefield,” in Templars and Their Sources, ed. Borchardt, Döring, Josserand, and Nicholson, 156–65. 118 See Riley-Smith, “New Approaches,” 38–40. 119 Adrian J. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlement and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120–1291) (London-New York 2006). 120 For a detailed overview, see, for example, Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus (Cambridge 1993–2009). 121 Of Joan Fuguet Sans’s many works I cite here only his foundational 1995 monograph and some of his recent works: Joan Fuguet Sans, L’arquitectura dels Templers a Catalunya (Barcelona 1995); Joan Fuguet Sans and Carme Plaza i Arqué, “Notas sobre arquitectura militar y religiosa del Temple de la corona de Aragón y su relación con oriente,” in As Ordens Militares: Actas do VI Encontro, ed. Ferreira Fernandes, 869–902; Fuguet Sans and Plaza i Arqué, “Ordre du Temple dans la Couronne d’Aragon;” and Joan Fuguet Sans, “El patrimonio monumental y artístico de los templarios en la Corona de Aragón,” in Arte y Patrimonio de las Órdenes Militares de Jerusalén en España: Hacia un estado de la cuestión, ed. Amelia López-Yarto Elizalde and Wifredo Rincón García (Zaragoza-Madrid 2010), 371–402. 122 See, for example, Antonio Cadei, “Architecture religieuse,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 110–15; Antonio Cadei, “Architettura sacra templare,” in Monaci in armi: L’architettura sacra dei Templari attraverso il Mediterraneo, ed. Goffredo Viti, Antonio Cadei, and Valerio Ascani (Firenze 1995), 15–173; Antonio Cadei, “L’insediamento templare: Una verifica tipologica,” in L’ordine templare nel Lazio meridionale: Atti del Convegno, Sabaudia (21 ottobre 2000), ed. Clemente Ciammaruconi (Casamari 2003), 11–43. 123 Archaeology and Architecture of the Military Orders: New Studies, ed. Mathias Piana and Christer Carlsson (Farnham 2014).

315

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

proceedings of which were published the following year;124 the fourth section of that volume concerns the fortifications of Hospitallers and Templars and includes papers on Aragón and Catalonia, the kingdom of Valencia, France, Italy, Portugal, and other regions. The volume generated by another important congress, convened in Zaragoza and Madrid in 2010, offers contributions on the architectural remains of the Temple on the Iberian Peninsula125 and some recent information on Templar sites in Central Europe.126 To all these works should be added the exhaustive monograph of Nuno Villamariz Oliveira on Templar castles in Portugal127 and an edited volume on the history, art, and architecture of the Temple Church in London.128 Not just the architecture but also the figurative art of the Templars has been the subject of more or less recent studies – following the “classic” work, for example, on the paintings in the church of San Bevignate in Perugia.129 In 2002, Gaetano Curzi published a monograph on Templar paintings,130 offering many new points of view and a good bibliography, even if the number of cases presented by the author is limited and some of them remain doubtful.131 Among other researchers, Joan Fuguet Sans has dealt with the question of Templar paintings, miniatures, and graffiti in Aragón,132 but other names and regions could be added to the list.133 In recent times, this topic has seen another revival, thanks to the indefatigable French colleagues who have launched a series of scholarly encounters on the iconographic representation of the saints in the military orders: a first meeting was held in April 2014 at Nanterre, followed by 124 Castelos das Ordens Militares: Actas do Encontro Internacional [Tomar, 10 a 13 de outubro de 2012], ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Lisbon 2013). 125 Arte y Patrimonio de las Órdenes Militares de Jerusalén en España: Hacia un estado de la cuestión, ed. Amelia López-Yarto Elizalde, and Wifredo Rincón García (Zaragoza-Madrid 2010); see this work’s third part. 126 Przemyslaw Kolosowski and Dominika Sieminska, “The Templars’ Sites in Rurka (Rörchen) and Chwarszczany (Quartschen) in the Light of the Latest Studies,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 442–57; Dirk Schumann, “Die mittelalterlichen Ordensbauten der ehemaligen Templerkommende in Lietzen und Quartschen (Chwarszczany): Konzepte sakraler Architekturgestaltung im späten 13. Jahrhundert,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 412–41. 127 Nuno Villamariz Oliveira, Castelos templários em Portugal: 1120–1314 (Lisbon 2010). 128 The Temple Church in London: History, Architecture, Art, ed. Robin Griffith-Jones and David Park (Woodbridge 2010). 129 Templari e ospitalieri in Italia: La chiesa di San Bevignate a Perugia, ed. Mario Roncetti, Pietro Scarpellini, and Francesco Tommasi (Milan 1987). 130 Gaetano Curzi, La pittura dei Templari (Milan 2002). 131 Hubert Houben, “Templari o Teutonici? A proposito degli scudi crociati nella cripta del Crocifisso ad Ugento,” Pavalon 1 (1999): 77–86. 132 Joan Fuguet Sans, “Pinturas, minitaturas y graffiti de los Templarios en la Corona de Aragón,” in Religiones militares: Contributi alla storia degli ordini religioso-militari nel Medioevo, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Francesco Tommasi (Città di Castello 2008), 237–64. 133 See, for example, Peter Knüvener, “Die Kommende Tempelhof und ihre mittelalterlichen Kunstwerke,” in Regionalität und Transfergeschichte, ed. Gahlbeck, Heimann, and Schumann, 394–411.

316

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

a second one in November of the same year at Clermont-Ferrand,134 and both times the Templars occupied a prominent place during the deliberations, as can be seen in the concluding volume published by Damien Carraz and Esther Dehoux in 2016.135 The main problem in the field of art research is the distinction between scholarly, “serious” works and those with a more “sensationalist” approach. Another issue when talking about the “art of the Templars” is the distinction between original and adopted elements.136 Many other fields of research and issues could be examined here, such as the role of the Templars in medieval navigation,137 their diplomatic activities,138 their participation in the defense of frontiers in the West,139 their relations with the Jews,140 the way they recorded the origins of their Order,141 their hagiography and spiritual life,142 their everyday life,143 or their cultural knowledge and interests,144 but it is necessary to mention the most prominent subject in 134 Sainteté guerrière et ordres militaires au Moyen Âge: Représentations iconographiques et enjeux idéologiques, Journées d’étude, Université Paris-Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense (Nanterre), April 4, 2014, and Université Blaise-Pascal (Clermont-Ferrand), November 8, 2014. 135 Images et ornements autour des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. Damien Carraz and Esther Dehoux (Toulouse 2016). 136 On this point, a comparison can be made with the studies on the Teutonic Order: Giulia Rossi Vairo, “Originality and Adaptation: The Architecture of the Teutonic Order in Italy,” in Archaeology and Architecture, ed. Piana and Carlsson, 193–218. 137 See the papers published in Les Ordres militaires et la mer: Actes de 130e congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, La Rochelle 2005, ed. Michel Balard (Paris 2009), web. 138 See, for example, Damien Carraz, “Pro servitio maiestatis nostre: Templiers et hospitaliers au service de la diplomatie de Charles I et Charles II,” in La diplomatie des états angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles: Actes du colloque international de Szeged, Visegrád, Budapest, 13–16 septembre 2007, ed. Zoltan Kordé and István Petrovics (Rome-Szeged 2010), 21–42; and Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Les ordres religieux militaires et la diplomatie. Formes et enjeux,” in Les relations diplomatiques au Moyen Âge: Formes et enjeux: XLIe Congrès de la SHMESP [Société des historiens médiévistes de l’Enseignement supérieur public], Lyon, 3–6 juin 2010 (Paris 2011), 227–38. 139 Philippe Josserand, “Frontières et ordres militaires dans le monde latin du Moyen Âge,” in Frontières oubliées, frontières retrouvées: Marches et limites anciennes en France et en Europe, ed. Michel Catala, Dominique Le Page, and Jean-Claude Meuret (Rennes 2011), 189–98. 140 Norman Roth, “Templars and the Jews in Catalonia,” Miscelánea judaica catalana 5 (2013): 147–51. 141 Alain Demurger, “Étourdis ou petits malins? Pourqui les Templiers n’ont-ils pas eu de mythe d’origine,” in La mémoire des origines dans les ordres religieux-militaires au Moyen Âge: Actes des journées d’études de Göttingen (25–26 juin 2009), ed. Philippe Josserand and Mathieu Olivier (MünsterHamburg-Berlin-London 2012), 73–82. 142 Jochen Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence for Templar Spirituality, Religious Life and Conduct,” Revue Mabillon 22 (2011): 99–119; Giulia Rossi Vairo, “I santi venerati negli ordini religioso-militari: Culto e iconografia,” in Cister e as Ordens Militares: II Colóquio Internacional, ed. Albuquerque Carreiras and de Ayala Martínez, 227–58; and Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “La spiritualité des ordres religieux-militaires du Moyen Âge: L’état de la recherche,” in Cister e as Ordens Militares: II Colóquio Internacional, ed. Albuquerque Carreiras and de Ayala Martínez, 23–45. 143 Helen J. Nicholson, The Everyday Life of the Templars: The Knights Templar at Home (Stroud 2017). 144 Alan J. Forey, “Literacy among the Aragonese Templars in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” in Die Rolle der Schriftlichkeit in den geistlichen Ritterorden des Mittelalters: Innere Organisation, Sozialstruktur, Politik, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Toruń 2009), 203–11.

317

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

Templar studies at the beginning of the twenty-first century, namely, the Trial of the Templars.145 Between 2007 and 2014, scholars were commemorating the 700th anniversary of the Trial and the abolition of the Templar Order, and several conferences were held on this topic. The best known initiative surely involved the “Debate on the Trial” encounters, held as sessions at the 2007 International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo) and the same year’s International Medieval Congress (Leeds) and published three years later.146 In addition to general considerations on the Trial, several regional examples were examined on this occasion, especially France, the Iberian Peninsula, and the British Isles, but also Cyprus, Italy, Flanders and the Polish lands. Other regional conferences on the Trial followed,147 and the Trial was also featured at several of the general congresses on the history of the military orders cited earlier and devoted more to local and regional issues.148 One of the most important steps forward has been made by Helen J. Nicholson who has edited the British sources for the Trial149 and published a monographic study on the subject,150

145 The foundational monographs on this topic remain Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay: Le crépuscule des Templiers (Paris 2002; new ed. 2014); and Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 2006). See also Alain Demurger, La persécution des Templiers: Journal (1307–1314) (Paris 2015). 146 The Debate on the Trial of the Templars (1307–1314), ed. Jochen Burgtorf, Paul F. Crawford, and Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2010). 147 A Extinção da Ordem do Templo: Edição comemorativa dos 700 anos da extinção da Ordem do Templo (1312–2012), ed. José Albuquerque Carreiras (Tomar 2012), including chapters by Carlos de Ayala Martínez (“Prólogo”), Kristjan Toomaspoeg (“L’ordre du Temple en Occident et au Portugal”), Mário Farelo (“Pro defensione iuris regis: Les relations entre la Couronne portugaise et le pape Clément V à la lumière du procès des Templiers”), Josep Maria Sans i Travé (“Els Interrogatoris dels Templers Catalans durant el Procés (1309–1311)”), and Nuno Villamariz Oliveira (“Inter Hierusalem et Thomar: Reflexões sobre arquitectura e exegese na espiritualidade templária do século XII em Portugal”); and La fin de l’ordre du Temple: Journée d’études, Montpellier, Université Montpellier 3 Paul Valéry, 28 janvier 2011, ed. Marie-Anna Chevalier (Paris 2012), including chapters by Armand Strubel (“Entre fascination et répulsion: L’ordre du Temple et la littérature (XIIe–XIVe siècles)”), Alain Demurger (“Le ‘peuple templier’ ou du bon usage d’un procès”), Julien Théry-Astruc (“Une hérésie d’État: Philippe le Bel, le procès des ‘perfides templiers’ et la pontificalisation de la royauté française”), Sean L. Field (“La fin de l’ordre du Temple à Paris: Le cas de Mathieu de Cressonessart”), Philippe Josserand (“Le procès de l’ordre du Temple en Castille”), Roger Figueres (“La fin de l’ordre du Temple dans le royaume de Majorque”), Jean Richard (“Templiers et hospitaliers dans lecomté de Tripoli”), and Marie-Anna Chevalier (“De la prise d’Acre au procès chypriote: Les conditions de la survie et du déclin des templiers en Orient”). 148 See, among others, Josep Maria Sans i Travé, La fi dels templers catalans (Lleida 2008); Carlos Barquero Goñi, “El proceso de los templarios en Europa y sus repercursiones en la Península Ibérica (1307–1314),” Clío & Crímen: Revista del Centro de Historia del Crimen de Durango 6 (2009): 294–343, 345–62; and Saul António Gomes, “A Extinção da Ordem do Templo em Portugal,” Revista de História da sociedade e da cultura 11 (2011): 75–116. 149 The Proceedings Against the Templars in the British Isles, ed. and trans. Helen J. Nicholson (Farnham 2011). 150 Helen J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308– 1311 (Stroud 2009).

318

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

but sources from the Vatican have also been revisited recently and in some cases edited.151 At long last, the Templars have become a topic of solid scholarly investigation and of historical surveys written for a wider audience,152 and they have found their space in the “serious” sections of bookstores quite apart from the usual “Templarist” and esoteric works.

Questions and answers The state of Templar studies in the earlier twenty-first century is one of acceleration and expansion, as well as one of increasingly high quality as the monographs and conference volumes cited earlier undoubtedly demonstrate. Important questions and debates still worth mentioning some years ago have been definitively resolved and set aside – among them the alleged influence of Islamic thought on the Templars; the criticism of the Order which (for some authors in the past) supposedly made its dissolution inevitable; or the misguided claim that the Templars closed themselves off from the society around them.153 Other questions remain open or have received less decisive answers. First of all, there is the issue of the “revolution of the Templars,” presented by Simonetta Cerrini in 2007.154 This theory assigns to the Templars the originality of being an ecclesiastical Order of laymen who transcended the traditional division of medieval society into men of the church, knights, and the non-noble. Cerrini’s theory, which has its scholarly basis in the author’s studies on the manuscripts of the Templar Rule, has encountered some criticism: for instance, it has been noted that the rigid division of medieval society into oratores, pugnatores, and laboratores, even if used by some medieval intellectuals, is more of a concept than a reality,155 similar to the idea of a “feudal pyramid” or other historiographical concepts which give an immutable character to an era that was actually quite dynamic and unstable. This criticism notwithstanding, the basic idea that the Templars (and the members of other military orders) fashioned a link between the ecclesiastical and lay worlds, as well as between nobles and non-nobles,

151 See, for example, Andrea Nicolotti, “L’interrogatorio dei Templari imprigionati a Carcassonne,” Studi Medievali: Rivista della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 52, no. 2 (2011): 697–729. For a new edition of an important papal document for the proceedings against the Order, see Elizabeth A. R. Brown and Alan J. Forey, “Vox in excelso and the Suppression of the Knights Templar: The Bull, Its History, and a New Edition,” Mediaeval Studies 80 (2018): 1–58. 152 In addition to works already cited (such as Knights Templar, ed. Baudin, Brunel, and Dohrmann), see Joan Fuguet Sans and Carme Plaza i Arqué, Los templarios en la Península Ibérica (Barcelona 2005). 153 See Nicholson, “Changing Face of the Templars,” 655–7. 154 Simonetta Cerrini, La révolution des Templiers: Une histoire perdue du XIIe siècle (Paris 2007). See also Simonetta Cerrini, L’apocalisse dei Templari (Milan 2012). 155 Borchardt, “Historiography and Memory,” 50–5.

319

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

cannot be contested. There is no doubt that the Templar Order was an original feature of medieval history. But was this originality maintained throughout the Order’s history? Other military orders followed the Templars’ example from the middle of the twelfth century, often increasing in their statutes the degree to which they “opened” themselves to the surrounding society,156 and in the following century the new “revolutionaries” were the members of the Mendicant Orders. This question brings us to the old issue of the internal or external factors behind the fall of the Templar Order and its Trial. As Karl Borchardt has reminded us (referring to earlier works by Hans Prutz), it is possible to observe the Temple developing into a substantially “reactionary” institution.157 That said, regional studies suggest that the Templars opened themselves to the surrounding world and were well integrated into feudal and urban society. A good vantage point to discern the Templars’ position in society is by viewing their relations with the papal and royal courts in the West. For instance, their connections to the court of Charles I of Anjou, in Provence, in Sicily, in the kingdom of Jerusalem, and elsewhere, were of considerable intensity, so that they could serve the king, alongside the Hospitallers, as diplomats, specialists on the economy, or technicians of war in a very flexible and dynamic way.158 The originality of combining the skills of laymen with the prestige and discipline of a religious order159 evidently continued to have an impact in the second half of the thirteenth century. In reality, there is no evidence to affirm that the Templar Order was any more “closed” or “reactionary” than the Orders of the Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights. The social and geographical origins of the vast majority of individual Templars remain an open question. Similar to the members of the other military orders, most Templar brethren did not represent the upper echelons of the feudal nobility, and their origins have to be sought among the families of the lower, rural nobility, as well as both noble and non-noble urban families, but only a complete mapping of the sources will allow us to understand the situation more fully.160 An extremely important but so far only partially examined issue is the mobility of Templars within their Order and between East and West.

156 Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights,” in A Companion to Medieval Rules and Customaries, ed. Krijn Pansters (Leiden-Boston 2020), 225–52. 157 Borchardt, “Historiography and Memory,” 59. 158 Damien Carraz, “Christi fideliter militantium in subsidio Terre Sancte: Les ordres militaires et la première maison d’Anjou (1246–1342),” in As Ordens Militares e as Ordens de Cavalaria entre o Ocidente e o Oriente: Actas do V Encontro sobre Ordens Militares, 15 a 18 de fevereiro de 2006, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes (Palmela 2009), 549–82; Toomaspoeg, “Charles Ier d’Anjou.” 159 On this point, see the stimulating paper by Henri Bresc, “Gli Ordini ospedalieri e militari nel Mediterraneo,” in I cavalieri Teutonici tra Sicilia e Mediterraneo: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studio, Agrigento, 24–25 marzo 2006, ed. Antonino Giuffrida, Hubert Houben, and Kristjan Toomaspoeg (Galatina 2007), 17–46. 160 On this point, as indicated earlier, the most exhaustive recent studies are Burgtorf, Central Convent; and Schenk, Templar Families.

320

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

In some regions, like Provence, the number of brethren of local origin seems to have been exceptionally high; in others, like Sicily, almost no Templar hailed from that region. There were considerable developments on this and other points during the almost two centuries of Templar history. New research also seems to indicate remarkable variations between local geographical contexts with their respective characteristics and features. It is quite difficult to find a common historical model for the Templar houses in Portugal, Provence, South Italy, and the Latin East. A question awaiting an answer is the relationship between local influences and the Order’s traditions. Written primary sources are often more helpful to identify local characteristics than to discover features that were “original” to the Templars, but much information can be obtained from the archaeological field work and from the study of art and architecture. Was there an “art of the Temple,” and was Templar architecture really unique and specific in its genre? In both cases, the answer seems to be negative: Templar art and monuments were often original in their context but contained cultural imports from elsewhere. One of the topics that allows us to view the Templar Order as a centralized institution is the history of its economic activities, and the question has been asked whether it is possible to talk about a specific “Templar economy.”161 The old notion of the Templars as bankers was already discussed in the twentieth century. What can be considered as certain today is that the Temple was indeed active in the financial realm but mostly in a passive way, for example by depositing funds. By the way, both Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights engaged in similar activities. It is not helpful to compare the Temple to the first Italian banking families, as the purposes and modalities of their respective financial transactions were quite different. Mainstream studies on the Templar economy still take as their point of departure the idea of the “Templar network” (or “réseau”), first defined by Malcolm Barber and Alain Demurger, according to which a series of commanderies and houses in the West were destined to “feed” the Order’s military activities in the East, but also to defend its interests and to proselytize. Yet in some cases it is evident that the local western units of the Temple carried on activities that went beyond the primary function of supporting the Holy Land. The establishment of the Templar Order in territories such as Portugal, Provence, or Sicily, its local function there as a landlord, and its significant political and economic role in Europe sometimes seems quite distant and different from the Order’s evolution in the Latin East. An important issue here is also the Templars’ participation in the commercial networks of their time: many of the agricultural resources produced in the West were not sent to the Holy Land (or, if so, as cash) but rather utilized and invested in Europe, on site, as local funds.162 161 Demurger, “Conclusions,” 454. 162 Demurger, “Conclusions,” 468–73. See also David Michael Metcalf, “The Templars as Bankers and Monetary Transfers between West and East in the Twelth Century,” in The Eastern Mediterranean Frontier of Latin Christendom, ed. Jace Andrew Stuckey (Farnham 2014), 253–70.

321

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

At this juncture of research, the Templar Order’s discontinuity poses a problem: for the Hospital, the Teutonic Order, and the institutions of the Iberian Peninsula, the sources of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries permit us to draw “deeper” conclusions. Yet, at the same time, the acts of the Templar Trial can in many cases serve as a “snapshot” of the economic situation of the Order’s commanderies, and for a similar series of sources on another military order one has to wait until the 1373 papal inquiry into the Hospitallers. Turning to the Trial, the earlier twenty-first century witnessed the rise and fall of Barbara Frale’s theory, first presented in 2001,163 which suggested that some of the accusations against the Templars could have been justified due to the existence of an entrance ritual for the Order. This theory was contested from the start, as was Frale’s other theory which asserted that there was a “papal absolution” of the Order after the Trial.164 In the context of his controversy with Barbara Frale concerning her respective publications, Andrea Nicolotti has identified methodological weaknesses and errors that remove any credibility from Frale’s theory.165 Today (as for much of the past) almost all scholars are convinced that the Templars were innocent,166 but it remains difficult to determine the exact causes of the Trial which could have been motivated by various factors.167 The prevailing idea is that Philip IV of France did not act against the Temple for material reasons (i.e., to take over the “treasure” it did not possess) but, rather, in the interest of emancipating the French king from papal authority and of consequently diminishing the prestige of the “universal” institutions in society, such as the military orders. The exact modalities of the Trial are, for almost every scholar, related to the tradition of the inquisitional proceedings against heretics. Much progress has been made in this regard thanks to the research carried out by Julien Théry-Astruc who has reconstructed the Trial’s ideological foundations.168

163 Barbara Frale, L’ultima battaglia dei Templari: Dal codice ombra d’obbedienza militare alla costruzione del processo per eresia (Rome 2001). 164 Nicholson, “Changing Face of the Templars,” 654, 657–9. See Barbara Frale, “The Chinon Chart: Papal Absolution to the Last Templar, Master Jacques de Molay,” Journal of Medieval History 30, no. 2 (2004): 109–34. 165 Andrea Nicolotti, I Templari e la Sindone: Storia di un falso (Rome 2011). 166 See, for example, Alan J. Forey, “Were the Templars Guilty, Even if They Were Not Heretics or Apostates?” Viator 42, no. 2 (2011): 115–41. 167 See, among many others, Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, “Conclusion;” and Borchardt, “Historiography and Memory,” 59. 168 Julien Théry-Astruc, “A Heresy of State: Philip the Fair, the Trial of the ‘Perfidious Templars,’ and the Pontificalization of the French Monarchy,” Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures 39, no. 2 (2013): 117–48; Julien Théry-Astruc, “Le pionnier de la théocratie royale. Guillaume de Nogaret et les conflits de Philippe le Bel avec la papauté,” in Guillaume de Nogaret: Un Languedocien au service de la monarchie capétienne: Actes du colloque de Nîmes, 20 janvier 2012, ed. Bernard Moreau (Nîmes 2012), 101–28; Julien Théry-Astruc, “Procès des templiers,” in Prier et combattre: Dictionnaire, ed. Bériou and Josserand, 743–50.

322

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

Finally, it is impossible to completely ignore the influence that the myths which surround the Templars have had on historiography.169 In some recent cases, the boundaries between “serious” research, pseudo-scholarly work, and simple esoteric literature have been crossed, and scholars with a good reputation have neglected methodology for the benefit of sensationalism. For this reason, it continues to be extremely important to maintain the distinction between “Templarism” and Templar studies. Following Helen J. Nicholson’s admonition quoted earlier, one should abandon the idea of Templar studies as a specific and closed field of research and, rather, approach the Order and its history in the general context of medieval history. As a first step on this road, the comparison with other military orders, already made by many scholars over the last fifteen years, is essential, as Alain Demurger has recently noted when discussing research on the Templar economy.170 One of the most significant and still open questions in Templar historiography is that of the Order’s originality. As illustrated earlier, almost every aspect of recent Templar studies – from administration and economy to art history – has been impacted by the issue of originality. Were the Templars more “rigid” and hierarchical than, for example, the Hospitallers or the Teutonic Knights? Were the Templars an original and unique phenomenon of medieval history or only part of a bigger development? Can we speak of “Templar” spirituality, economy, architecture, and art, or were the brethren only vectors of cultural transfusions?

Conclusion In sum, recent historiography on the Templar Order has definitively abandoned some old concepts and debates, as well as responded to a series of questions, but also raised new doubts. Many of the works I have cited here are the published doctoral dissertations of their authors, a fact which underscores the comparatively rejuvenated and dynamic character of current research on the Temple. From 2009 until today, very important topics, such as the Order’s central administration or the development of its economy, have been addressed, and many regions have seen new or even first studies concerning the local Templar presence. The new generation of scholars can in no way be classified simply as one of Templar specialists: they are all medievalists, interested in a wide range of different historical issues. 169 See the reflections on this topic in Franco Cardini, Templari e templarismo: Storia, mito, menzogne (Rimini 2011); Nicolotti, Templari e la Sindone; John Walker, “‘The Templars are Everywhere’: An Examination of the Myths behind Templar Survival after 1307,” in Debate on the Trial, ed. Burgtorf, Crawford, and Nicholson, 347–57; John Walker, “‘From the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant to Freemasonry and the Priory of Sion’: An Introduction to the ‘After-History’ of the Templars,” in Military Orders, Volume 5, ed. Edbury, 439–47; and Juliette Wood, “The Myth of Secret History, or ‘It’s not just the Templars involved in absolutely everything’,” in Military Orders, Volume 5, ed. Edbury, 449–60. 170 Demurger, “Conclusions,” 473.

323

KRISTJAN TOOMASPOEG

Unfortunately, research has not proceeded in the linear way one would expect – from the edition of primary sources to their eventual interpretation. As Michel Balard has noted, for example, many Templar charters remain unpublished and unknown.171 This deficiency of information and lack of knowledge of the sources suggests that now-current research on Templar history will, in the future, need to be updated and completed. The lack of editions is a problem which should not be underestimated. I can only hope and urge that the upcoming years of Templar historiography will focus on the publication of primary sources.172 Some research topics have just found their first scholars but will also require deeper and more exhaustive study. To take the issue of Templar spirituality: this topic has remained rather neglected, as has the spirituality of the military orders in general, even after the sixth Toruń conference (held on this topic in 1991)173 had raised hopes for new developments. The respective research has become more intense only in recent years, thanks to studies by Cristina Dondi on Templar and Hospitaller liturgy,174 by Tom Licence on the Christological aspects of the Templar ideology and their monastic and pious activities,175 and by Jochen Schenk on the hagiography of the Order.176 There are still many aspects of Templar spirituality which remain only partially known. For example, the “practical” and “material” sides of their spirituality – like the cura animarum, the participation of the Temple in charity, and the phenomenon of pilgrimages – should be re-examined. The conceptual openings made by authors like Simonetta Cerrini should be accompanied by reflections on theology and liturgy with, if possible, the participation of theologians, as there is still very little collaboration between historians and theologians, a gap for which there is no justification in today’s world.

171 Balard, “Économie templière,” 28. 172 Kristjan Toomaspoeg, “The Archives of the Military Orders: Some Introductory Remarks,” in Entre Deus e o Rei: O mundo das Ordens militares, ed. Isabel Cristina Ferreira Fernandes, Coleção Ordens Militares 8 (Palmela 2018), 29–42. 173 Die Spiritualität der Ritterorden im Mittelalter, ed. Zenon Hubert Nowak (Toruń 1993). 174 Cristina Dondi, “Liturgies of the Military Religious Orders,” in The Genius of the Roman Rite: Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives on Catholic Liturgy: 11th International Colloquium of CIEL [Centre International d’Études Liturgiques], Merton College, Oxford, 13–16 September 2006, ed. Uwe Michael Lang (Chicago 2010), 143–58. See also Sebastián Ernesto Salvadó, “The ThirteenthCentury Templar Breviary of Acre: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds latin 10478” (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University 2011). 175 Tom Licence, “The Templars and Hospitallers, Christ and the Saints,” Crusades 4 (2005): 39–57; Tom Licence, “The Military Orders as Monastic Orders,” Crusades 5 (2006): 39–53. 176 Schenk, “Some Hagiographical Evidence.” Naturally, the “classic” study by Helen J. Nicholson on this topic must be cited here: Helen J. Nicholson, “Saints Venerated in the Military Orders,” in Selbstbild und Selbstverständnis der geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. Roman Czaja and Jürgen Sarnowsky (Toruń 2005), 91–113. See also Joachim Rother, Das Martyrium im Templerorden: Eine Studie zur historisch-theologischen Relevanz des Opfertodes im geistlichen Ritterorden der Templer (Bamberg 2017).

324

F RO M L E G E N D T O R E A L I T Y

As has been shown, there are other questions that remain unanswered, like those pertaining to Templar warfare, or to the history of their local western commanderies, or to the prosopography of the Order’s personnel: they will require new and updated studies. In all these cases, the point of departure should always be the knowledge of the sources and the use of a comparative methodology. The earlier twenty-first century, especially the years since 2009, can be considered an important era for the historiography on the Templar Order. It witnessed the publication of many new and foundational works, often presented by a new generation of scholars, and it marked the beginning of the transformation of Templar topics from a separate field of research to an essential part of medieval history: from legend to reality.

325

SUGGESTED READINGS

Primary and secondary sources for the study of the Templars come in a wide range of medieval and modern languages respectively, and the references in the chapters of this present volume will guide readers to specific materials that are of interest to them. Kristjan Toomaspoeg’s chapter in particular discusses both recent primary source editions and scholarly works pertaining to the study of the Order. The suggested readings listed here feature primary and secondary sources that are available in English. In addition to these, a considerable number of medieval narrative primary sources from both Christian and Muslim authors are included in the series “Crusade Texts in Translation” (now published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis). The secondary sources listed here are either monographs or collections of articles. Bibliographical information on articles in scholarly journals are recorded annually in the journal Crusades (published on behalf of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East by Routledge/Taylor & Francis).

Primary sources Bernard of Clairvaux. “In Praise of the New Knighthood.” Trans. Conrad Greenia, introduction by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. In The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 7, 115–71. Kalamazoo 1977. The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Cartas Reales, MS 3344. Ed. Judith M. Upton-Ward. Woodbridge 2003. Chronicles of the Crusades: Joinville and Villehardouin. Trans. Caroline Smith. London 2008. Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185. Trans. John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill, and William F. Ryan. London 1988. Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims, and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries. Trans. Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate. Farnham 2013. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291. Ed. Denys Pringle. Farnham 2012. The Proceedings Against the Templars in the British Isles. Ed. and trans. Helen J. Nicholson. 2 vols. Farnham 2011. Revised Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani Database. http://crusades-regesta.com/. The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar. Transl. Judith M. Upton Ward. Woodbridge 1992.

326

SUGGESTED READINGS

The Templars: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated. Trans. Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate. Manchester 2002. The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus: A Complete English Translation. Trans. Anne GilmourBryson. Leiden 1998. Usama ibn Munqidh. The Book of Contemplation: Islam and the Crusades. Trans. Paul M. Cobb. London 2008. William of Tyre. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Trans. Emily A. Babcock and August C. Krey. 2 vols. New York 1943.

Secondary sources Barber, Malcolm. The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple. Cambridge 1994. Barber, Malcolm, ed. The Military Orders, Volume 1: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick. Aldershot 1994. Barber, Malcolm. The Trial of the Templars. 2nd ed. Cambridge 2006. Bellomo, Elena. The Templar Order in North-west Italy (1142–c. 1330). Leiden 2008. Boas, Adrian J. Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlements, and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120–1291). London 2006. Boas, Adrian J., ed. The Crusader World. Abingdon 2016. Bom, Myra M. Women in the Military Orders of the Crusades. New York 2012. Borchardt, Karl, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand, and Helen J. Nicholson, eds. The Templars and Their Sources. London 2017. Browne, Martin, and Colmán Ó Clabaigh, eds. Soldiers of Christ: The Knights Hospitaller and the Knights Templar in Medieval Ireland. Dublin 2016. 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. Burgtorf, Jochen, and Helen J. Nicholson, eds. International Mobility in the Military Orders (Twelfth to Fifteenth Centuries): Travelling on Christ’s Business. Cardiff 2006. Buttigieg, Emanuel, and Simon Phillips, eds. Islands and Military Orders, c. 1291–c. 1798. Farnham 2013. Demurger, Alain. The Last Templar: The Tragedy of Jacques de Molay, Last Grand Master of the Temple. New ed. London 2009. Demurger, Alain. The Persecution of the Knights Templar: Scandal, Torture, Trial. London 2019. Edbury, Peter W., ed. The Military Orders, Volume 5: Politics and Power. Farnham 2012. Forey, Alan J. The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon. Aldershot 2001. Forey, Alan J. Military Orders and Crusades. Aldershot 1994. Forey, Alan J. The Military Orders: From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries. London 1992. Forey, Alan J. The Templars in the Corona de Aragón. London 1973. Housley, Norman, ed. Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber. Aldershot 2007. Hunyadi, Zsolt, and József Laszlovszky, eds. The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity. Budapest 2001. Johns, Cedric Norman. Pilgrims’ Castle (‘Atlit), David’s Tower (Jerusalem), and Qal‘at ar-Rabad (‘Ajlun): Three Middle Eastern Castles from the Time of the Crusades. Ed. Denys Pringle. Aldershot 1997. Kennedy, Hugh. Crusader Castles. Cambridge 1994.

327

SUGGESTED READINGS

Lord, Evelyn. The Knights Templar in Britain. London 2002. Lord, Evelyn. The Templar’s Curse. Harlow 2008. Major, Balázs. Medieval Rural Settlements in the Syrian Coastal Region (12th and 13th Centuries). Oxford 2015. Mallia-Milanes, Victor, ed. The Military Orders, Volume 3: History and Heritage. Aldershot 2008. Marshall, Christopher. Warfare in the Latin East, 1192–1291. Cambridge 1992. Morton, Nicholas, ed. The Military Orders, Volume 7: Piety, Pugnacity, and Property. London 2019. Murray, Alan V., ed. The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara 2006. Nicholson, Helen J. The Everyday Life of the Templars: The Knights Templar at Home. Stroud 2017. Nicholson, Helen J. The Knights Templar: A Brief History of the Warrior Order. London 2010. Nicholson, Helen J. The Knights Templar: A New History. Stroud 2001. Nicholson, Helen J. The Knights Templar on Trial: The Trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311. Stroud 2009. Nicholson, Helen J. Love, War and the Grail: Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights in Medieval Epic and Romance, 1150–1500. Leiden 2000. Nicholson, Helen J., ed. The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare. Aldershot 1998. Nicholson, Helen J. Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291. Leicester 1993. Nicholson, Helen J., and Jochen Burgtorf, eds. The Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Crusades: Essays in Homage to Alan J. Forey. London 2020. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land. Notre Dame 2010. Schenk, Jochen. Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120–1307. Cambridge 2012. Schenk, Jochen, and Mike Carr, eds. The Military Orders, Volume 6.1: Culture and Conflict in the Mediterranean World. Abingdon 2017. Schenk, Jochen, and Mike Carr, eds. The Military Orders, Volume 6.2: Culture and Conflict in Western and Northern Europe. Abingdon 2017. Selwood, Dominic. Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania, c. 1100–c. 1300. Woodbridge 1999. Smail, Raymond C. Crusading Warfare, 1097–1193. 2nd ed. with a new bibliographical introduction by Christopher Marshall. Cambridge 1995. Upton-Ward, Judith M., ed. The Military Orders, Volume 4: On Land and by Sea. Aldershot 2008.

328

INDEX

Aberín 188n2 Abū l-Fidā 76 Acre 6, 11, 41, 48, 58, 66–7, 70, 73–4, 80, 89n36, 92, 104–8, 111–15, 118, 121, 143, 163–5, 167–8, 170, 172–3, 251; siege (1189–1191) 57; siege (1291) 9, 65, 74, 86–7, 90, 106, 168–72, 224, 251–2, 254, 259; Templar headquarters 6, 107–8, 113–15, 121–2, 162, 164, 170, 173 Ad providam (1312) 186, 215, 231, 234 Adam de Noers (Noyers), Templar 26, 30, 33 Adam of Wallancourt, Templar 201 Addington 214 administration 8, 47–9, 114, 128, 137–8, 161, 177–8, 183, 197, 214, 224, 302, 305, 323; see also central convent; castles and fortifications; chapter meetings; commanderies and houses; officials admirals 72, 164, 171, 174–5 admission and initiation 5, 7, 9, 161, 166, 176, 178, 193, 198, 221–4, 226, 233, 277, 283, 295–6 Adolf of Nassau, king of Germany 237 Agenais 212, 221 agricultural and farming activities 9–10, 106, 138, 193, 209–10, 215–16, 312–13, 321 Aigue of Bessan 192 Aimery de Lusignan, king of Cyprus and Jerusalem 59, 70 Aix 195, 203 al-‘Adīd, caliph 53 al-‘Al 42 al-Aqsa mosque (Temple of Solomon) 2–3, 68, 104 al-Ashraf Khalīl, sultan 6, 74 Alba 190 Alberic of Vendingen, Templar 243

Alberico da Rosate 287–8, 293 Albert I of Anhalt, bishop of Halberstadt 238 Albert von Schwarzburg, Hospitaller 215, 232 Albigensians 89, 92–3 Albrecht, king of Germany 235–6 al-Buqaia, battle (1163) 85 Alcañices 190 Alcántara, Order 264, 266 Alès 195 Alexander III, pope 55 Alexandria 171 Alfambra 194 Alfonso el Batallador, king of Aragon 130 Alfonso XI, king of Castile 165 Algars 137 Alix of Champagne (Armenia) 68 al-Kāmil, sultan 66 al-Makrīzī 75 al-Mansūr Ibrāhīm, prince of Homs 69 al-Mu‘aẓẓam ‘Īsā, emir of Damascus 105–6 al-Naqīr 76 al-Nasir Dā‘ūd, emir of Kerak 69 Alps 234n1, 235n5, 253, 255–6 al-Sālih Ayyūb, sultan 68–9 al-Sālih Ismā‘īl, sultan 68–9 Amadi 171n56, 192 Amalric (Amaury), king of Jerusalem 38, 52–6, 58, 63, 78–9 Amanus region 60–3 Amaury Cambellani, Templar 191, 208 Amaury de La Roche, Templar 20n18 Amaury of Tyre 77–8 Amico, Antonino 292–3 Anagni 275–6, 278–9, 288 Andalusia 127–8, 130, 137–8, 141–3, 145 Andrew de Baudement, seneschal of Champagne 10, 15–20, 22–31, 33–5

329

INDEX

Andrew (André) de Montbard, Templar 19–20, 51 Andrew of Siena, Templar 207 Andronicus II Palaeologus, emperor 77 Antioch 51, 60–1, 63–5, 69, 71, 74, 79, 85, 112, 172 Antonio D’Orso, bishop of Florence 275 Antonio Sici of Vercelli 103–4, 121 Antony Bek, patriarch of Jerusalem, bishop of Durham 197, 215, 218, 227 apostasy (denial of Christ) 244, 277, 279 Apulia 67, 70, 72, 162–3, 165n27, 167n36, 168, 174, 252n5, 256 Aquileia 238, 277 Aquitaine 83, 87 Aragon 92, 130, 132, 138, 142–6, 163, 168, 175, 176n84, 181–2, 186, 188–9, 191, 194–6, 198–9, 205–6, 208, 211, 220, 272, 278, 303–4, 307, 315–16 archaeology 10, 39, 45, 106, 110, 127–8, 134–5, 137, 140–2, 157, 244, 306n50, 315, 321 Archambaud de Saint-Amand, Templar 20 architecture 11, 82–3, 84n16, 89–90, 92, 105–9, 111n39, 114n53, 116–18, 120, 126–45, 150, 245, 306n50, 315–16, 321, 323; see also Gothic style; Romanesque style archives 38, 49, 138–9, 185n27, 242–3, 292, 294, 303–5 Armand de Périgord, Templar 65, 69, 87, 91 Armenia (Cilicia) 38, 50–1, 60–4, 68, 71, 74–9, 171, 306 Arsuf (Arsur) 43–4, 106, 112 art 11, 81–5, 88–95, 97, 106, 129–30, 135–6, 265, 316 Ascalon 51, 58; siege of (1153) 9 Ascó 127, 137, 194 Assassins (Neo-Ismā‘īlis) 54–6, 58–9, 67, 79 Asti 280, 282 Athkiltan 214 ‘Atlit 9, 11, 45–6, 65, 103–25, 169 Augustinians (Austin friars) 205, 224, 267 Austria 59n19, 238, 244–5 Auvergne 220–1, 228 Avignon 191n18, 238, 240, 241n37, 242, 253–4, 274, 278, 287, 295 Ayas 75 Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke 230 Ayyubids 6, 47, 57, 66, 68–9, 105 Badr al-Dīn Baktāsh al-Fakhri, emir 72 Baecke, Xavier 308

Baghrās 61, 63, 64, 74 Balantrodoch (Temple) 214 Balard, Michel 324 Baldwin I, king of Jerusalem 17, 115, 210, 268 Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem 2–4, 27, 30, 50, 264 Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem 51–2, 56, 62 Baldwin IV, king of Jerusalem 56–7 Baldwin V, king of Jerusalem 56–7 Baldwin of Ibelin 73 Baldwin of Luxemburg, archbishop of Trier 237 Balian d’Ibelin, bailli of Jerusalem 70 Balian de Sidon 65 Balian of Ibelin 78 Baligaueran (Gowran) 214 Baltic Sea region 252–4 banners 8, 84 Bar Hebraeus 58, 60 Barber, Malcolm 6, 53, 162, 171, 287, 300, 321 Barberà 11, 127–30, 134, 142–4, 147–9 Barcelona 130, 163, 197, 206, 314 Barletta 163, 194 Barthélémy Embriaco (de Gibelet) 72 Barthelemy Mansel, bishop of Tortosa (Syria) 71 Basil II, emperor 87 Bate, Keith 6 battles and sieges 4, 9, 46, 52, 54, 57, 60, 69, 71–2, 85, 87, 105–6, 110, 117, 162, 173n66, 185, 192, 201, 238; see also Acre; al-Buqaia; Ascalon; Cresson; Damietta; Fariskur; Forbie; Hārim; Hattin; Jerusalem; Mansurah; Ruad Baudement 10, 15–20, 22–36; see also Andrew de Baudement; Johannes Rufus de Baudement; William de Baudement Bavaria 234, 238 Baybars, sultan 74, 106 beards 201–2 Beirut 67, 70 Bellomo, Elena 11, 304, 307–8, 311 bells 9, 93 Belvoir 47–8 Benedict XI, pope 275, 279 Benedictines 2, 4, 9, 11, 181, 269–70, 273 Benesch of Weitmühl 245 Berenguer de Sant Just, Templar 139 Berenguer Guamir, Templar 197 Bergamo 287–8 Bériou, Nicole 309

330

INDEX

Bernard de Trémelay, Templar 51 Bernard of Clairvaux 4–7, 19, 22, 30, 87, 104–5, 109–10, 264, 271–2, 294 Bernard of Fuentes, Templar 192, 198–9, 206 Bertrand, Templar 197 Bertrand de Blanquefort, Templar 53–4 Bethgibelin 46 Bethlehem 83 Beuther, Antonio 271–2 Beyer, Gustav 39, 43 Beyernaumburg 238–9, 245–6 Biondo, Flavio 290, 293 Bisham 212, 216, 232 blasphemy 220, 233, 290 Boas, Adrian 39, 42, 315 Boccaccio, Giovanni 288–9, 292–3 Bohemia 237 Bohemond III, prince of Antioch 61, 63 Bohemond IV, count of Tripoli and prince of Antioch 63–4, 79 Bohemond V, prince of Antioch 65, 71 Bohemond VII, count of Tripoli 71–3, 78, 80 Bohemond of Taranto 86 Bologna 237, 253, 282 Boniface VIII, pope 86, 275–81, 283, 285–8, 293, 295, 298 Borchardt, Karl 300, 303, 308, 320 border (frontier) regions 9, 42–3, 50, 61–2, 74, 76, 79, 89, 127–8, 137, 178, 213, 235, 317 Bosio, Giacomo 62, 290–1 Bourgogne 306 Bourquelot, Félix 24 Boutron (Batrūn) 57, 72 Braine 18, 22, 26 Bremen 237–9, 241 Brie 16, 20, 27–8, 30 Brienne 23–4, 26, 60, 65, 67 Brindisi 163, 167–8, 175–6 British Isles (Britain) 11, 209–10, 213–15, 219–20, 222–3, 225–6, 232–3, 318 Brittany 306 Bronstein, Judith 40 Broyes 24, 26–7, 29, 36 Bruer 232 Bulst-Thiele, Marie Luise 4, 311 Burchard III of Schraplau, archbishop of Magdeburg 237–9, 241, 245 burgesses 41–2, 45–6 Burgtorf, Jochen 11, 50n1, 80, 96, 115, 145, 164, 262, 273, 305, 307, 311

Burgundy 19, 26n57, 87, 103, 237, 313 Bustron, Florio 192 Byzantium 11, 40–1, 50, 54, 60–2, 81–5, 87–96, 122, 145, 168–70, 177–8 Caco 41, 44, 46–7 Cadei, Antonio 315 Caesarea 10, 39–47, 53, 104–6, 115 Cafarlet 44–7 Cairo 53, 72 Calabria 162 Calansua 40–3, 49 Calatrava, Order 264, 266 Campagna 193 canon law (Church law) 89, 93, 177n86, 181, 222, 237, 278, 280 canons regular 2, 22 Canterbury 85, 95, 191, 197, 202–4, 215, 218, 221–2, 225–8, 231 captains 162, 163–9, 171, 172, 176 Carlsson, Christer 315 Carmelites 91n39, 225 Carraz, Damien 167n36, 304, 306–7, 311, 314 Carrillo, Martín 270 Carthusians 5 cartularies 20n18, 42, 252n8 Casal Moyen 43–4 Castellote 130, 143 Castellum Arearum 41 Castellum Regis 48 Castelnuovo del Lodigiano 193 Castile 11, 190, 192, 211, 220, 264–6, 268, 270–2, 304, 307 castles and fortifications 6, 8–9, 11, 25, 38, 42, 45–7, 50, 52, 56, 60–7, 71–8, 92, 95, 103–8, 110–11, 113–25, 127–45, 147–57, 171, 191–2, 194, 196–7, 208, 212, 218, 231, 238, 246, 260–1, 272, 288, 315–16; see also Alfambra; Ascó; ‘Atlit; Baghrās; Barberà; Castellote; Chalamera; Darbsāk; Gardeny; Gaza; Granyena; Horta; La Roche Guillaume; La Roche Roissol; Miravet; Monzón; Peniscola; Safed; Safita; Tortosa (Syria) Castro Marín 272 Catalonia 11, 21, 74, 126–30, 132, 136–8, 142–5, 165, 176, 266, 302–4, 307, 316 Catania 170, 175 Cathars 96 Celestine II, pope 6 Celestine V, pope 279

331

INDEX

cemeteries and burial 5–6, 44, 110–13, 122, 124–5, 132–3, 135, 201n99, 227, 246 central convent 8–9, 107–8, 112, 114, 164, 166, 168, 170, 177, 182, 290, 305 Cerrini, Simonetta 301, 319, 324 Cesare Baronio, cardinal 242 Chalamera 194 Champagne 1, 10, 15–30, 59, 68, 306, 312n98, 313n99 chaplains and priests 5–7, 198–9, 201, 205, 222–5, 227–8, 272 chapter meetings 5, 8–9, 54, 112, 114, 166, 168, 177, 223, 226 Charembaut of Comflanz, Templar 199 charity 3, 215, 220, 243–4, 324 Charles I of Anjou, king of Sicily and count of Provence 70, 72–3, 79, 163, 175, 320 Charles II of Anjou, king of Naples and count of Provence 85, 174, 177, 189, 202, 211 Charles of Valois 236 charters 2–3, 10, 16, 18–19, 23, 25, 26n57, 28, 164n21, 165n27, 167, 176, 257, 297, 302–5, 324; see also Collection d’Albon Châtillon 28, 57, 60–1 Cheney, Christopher R. 218 Chevalier, Marie-Anna 10, 306–7 Cheynet, Jean-Claude 87, 95 Christ and Christology 2, 4, 7, 82, 88, 90–3, 96, 105, 109–10, 116–19, 244, 265, 269, 277, 279, 283–4, 286, 324 Christ, Order 309 chronicles 2, 4, 8, 21, 46, 60–1, 66–7, 74, 78, 86, 168, 170–1, 192, 206, 209, 239, 244–5, 257–8, 260, 266–7, 273–81, 283–9, 291, 293–5, 297–8 churches and chapels 5–6, 9, 11, 81–5, 88, 89–95, 106, 108–9, 113, 116, 117n66, 128–9, 132–7, 139–40, 142–4, 147, 149, 152–3, 156, 206, 224–5, 228, 238, 275, 294, 315–16; see also ‘Atlit; Barberà; Chwarszczany; Cressac; Gardeny; London; Metz; Miravet; Montsaunès; Paulhac; Perugia; Tomar Chwarszczany 9 Cistercians 4–5, 15, 18–19, 22, 104, 134, 137, 143–4, 207n138, 245, 269, 294, 309 cisterns 44, 127, 139, 143 Clausewitz, Carl von 181 Claverie, Pierre-Vincent 174n71, 303, 305, 308

Clement V, pope 10, 77, 197, 202–3, 205–7, 211, 215, 219–20, 227, 231–4, 237–8, 240–2, 245n62, 259, 264, 269–70, 275–6, 278–85, 287–91, 293, 295–6 Clonaulty 214 Clontarf 214 Cluny 28 coinage and currency 26–9, 34, 53, 55, 74, 107, 117, 179–81, 184–6, 196, 203, 232, 282 Collection d’Albon 164n21, 185n27, 303 Cologne 236–7, 241 Combe 232 commanderies and houses 8–9, 20n18, 25, 42, 44, 55, 66, 71, 81–2, 90, 92, 109, 112, 121–2, 127–32, 136–7, 146, 161–2, 164–8, 180–2, 184, 186, 188, 191, 193–5, 197, 199, 201, 203, 206, 210, 212, 214, 218–19, 223–5, 229, 234–5, 251–2, 254–6, 260–1, 269, 275, 277, 282, 288, 304, 312–13, 321–2, 325 Compagni, Dino 276 confession and absolution practices 91n39, 221–2, 225–6 confraternity 62, 71, 89, 111–12 Conrad de Montferrat, king of Jerusalem 58–9, 67 Conrad IV of Fohnsdorf-Praitenfurt, archbishop of Salzburg 238 Conradin 69 Constantine de Paperon 64–5, 78 Constantine I, king of Armenia 76–7 Constantine IX Monomachus, emperor 95 Constantinian Order of St. George 266 Constantinople 54, 81–2, 91–2, 95, 170 Cooley 214 Corbera 137 Corbins 132 corsairs (pirates) 11, 167, 170–1, 173, 175, 177, 178, 275 councils and synods 1, 3, 5, 10, 15–16, 20–2, 29, 30, 87, 89, 93, 104, 201, 217, 221, 225–30, 233–4, 238–42, 257, 270, 277, 279–84, 291–2, 296; see also Lateran; Lyon; Nablus; Troyes; Vienne Cowdrey, John 87 Crécy 27–30 Cressac 81–5, 90, 94–7 Cresson, battle (1187) 46, 105

332

INDEX

Crooke 197, 214 crosses 8, 81, 84, 91–4, 99–102, 140, 240, 245, 265, 269–70, 272–3, 277, 279, 281, 286 Crown of Thorns 82 Crucifixion 90, 93, 101–2 crusader states (Holy Land, Outremer) 1–7, 9–11, 16–21, 26, 30, 37, 39, 49–51, 53, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 79–80, 82, 85–6, 91n39, 92, 94, 104–5, 107–11, 113, 116, 119, 121–2, 126–7, 134, 143–5, 162–4, 167, 169, 171, 181–2, 186, 200, 231, 243, 251–3, 259, 271, 274, 283, 286, 299, 303, 305–6, 311–12, 314–15, 321, 326; see also Antioch; Cyprus; Jerusalem; Tripoli crusades and crusading 17, 22, 29–30, 39–40, 45, 50, 65, 68, 76–7, 83–7, 89, 92, 94–7, 105–6, 109–12, 126, 145, 163, 169, 179, 181–2, 186, 211, 252, 257, 259, 280–2, 287–8, 290, 295, 299, 306; First Crusade 16, 85, 87, 104, 115, 265, 268; Second Crusade 51, 179; Third Crusade 58; Fourth Crusade 122; Fifth Crusade 46, 105, 173; Sixth Crusade 65; Seventh Crusade 114, 180, 186, 286, 295; Albigensian Crusade 89, 92–3 Curzi, Gaetano 316 customs see normative texts Cyprus 7, 11, 51, 58–9, 68–70, 73–4, 77–8, 106, 121, 165, 168–76, 186, 189, 192–3, 208n141, 226, 228, 232, 248, 251, 254, 303, 305–6, 318; Templar headquarters 7, 168, 251 Damietta 120n85; siege (1169) 54; siege (1218–1219) 162 Dampierre 23–7, 29, 36 Dante Alighieri 11, 275–6 Danzig (Gdansk) 254 Darbsāk 61 David, king of Scotland 209 Davidsohn, Robert 287 de la Torre Gonzalo, Sandra 304 de la Torre, Ignacio 11, 312 Dehoux, Esther 317 Delaville Le Roux, Joseph 302 Demurger, Alain 7, 54, 57, 287, 300, 310, 321, 323 Denny 199, 219 Deschamps, Paul 52 desertion 4, 192, 203n119

Diego Gelmírez, archbishop of Santiago de Compostela 1 Dinis, king of Portugal 211 diplomatic activities and relations 50, 53–4, 56, 60, 63, 69, 75, 77, 79, 173–5, 184, 206, 294, 306, 308, 310, 317, 320 dissolution of the Order of the Temple 10–11, 161, 187, 206, 231–3, 235, 241, 245, 247–8, 258–9, 265–6, 274–7, 281, 286–7, 289, 291–4, 318–20 Districtum (Le Destroit) 41–2, 45–6, 105, 115–16, 118 Dome of the Rock (Temple of the Lord) 3, 50, 66, 68 Domenech, Antonio Vicente 266 Dominicans 118, 220, 225, 278, 282–3, 291, 294 donations and patronage 3, 5–6, 10, 18, 20–1, 23–30, 38, 40, 42–6, 48–9, 51, 105, 181–2, 210, 212, 214, 233 Dondi, Cristina 324 Doria 173–6 draper 8 Drogheda 216 Drohet of Parisius, Templar 204 Dublin 214, 216–17, 233 Dulaurier, Édouard 61n25 Durham 197, 215, 218 Eagle 199, 219, 228–9 Ebro river 137–8, 142n61 economic activities 4–5, 9, 19, 25, 28, 38–41, 44, 47–9, 111n38, 138, 161, 180–5, 214–15, 256, 269–70, 272, 274, 276, 285, 296, 305–6, 312–13, 320–3 Edmund Latimer (Barville), Templar 191n20, 205n131, 217 Edward Bruce, earl of Carrick 211 Edward I, king of England 184, 186 Edward II, king of England 11, 186, 189, 194–7, 202, 210–20, 227, 230–3 Egypt 47, 51–4, 56, 66, 68–9, 73, 77, 79, 92, 105, 172, 252 Ehrlich, Michael 10 election of the master 5, 54, 56 elites 310 Elizabeth Bruce, queen consort of Scotland 216 Ellenblum, Ronnie 43 Embriaci 71–3 Emilia 282

333

INDEX

England 8–9, 21, 56, 68, 59n19, 67–8, 83, 85, 95, 145, 180–7, 189, 191, 193–4, 196–9, 201–6, 207n138, 208–22, 225–33, 280, 305, 308 Eritja Ciuró, Xavier 134 Ermengol de Urgell, count 130–1 estates and properties 4–5, 10, 27, 38–49, 60, 62–3, 66, 78, 137, 142, 161, 164, 174, 177, 181–2, 186, 190–1, 198n77, 209–10, 212–18, 230–4, 235n5, 236, 255, 257–8, 277–8, 280–1, 285–6, 289, 291, 293 Estoire de Eracles 64 Eudes de Saint-Amand, Templar 55 Eudes Poilechien, bailli of Jerusalem 70, 73 Eugenius III, pope 6 Evrard des Barres, Templar 51 Exchequer 213, 217, 233; Ireland 216; Normandy 183 excommunication 18, 63–5, 190, 203, 205, 213, 223, 229, 231, 238–9, 242n44, 281, 287 exemption 5–6, 104, 210 Faciens misericordiam (1308) 220, 277–8, 294, 296 Falco Milly, Templar 199 Falconry 70 Famagusta 163n14, 166, 168, 193 Fariskur, battle (1250) 87 Faxfleet 212, 216, 232 Fernando IV, king of Castile 190, 211 Ferreto de’ Ferreti 206–7, 283–5 financial activities 5, 11, 39, 45, 48, 55, 59, 112, 120, 179–87, 213–15, 223, 227–8, 230–1, 312, 321 Finke, Heinrich 201 Fiorenzuola 193 First Crusade Cycle 87 Flanders 19, 21, 57, 105, 206, 318 Fleury of Dulguan, Templar 242–3 Florence 193, 226, 264, 275–6, 285–6, 293 Flori, Jean 87–8 folklore, legends, and myths 10, 104, 244, 246–7, 265–6, 268, 273, 281, 287, 298, 323, 325 Forbelet 47 Forbie, battle (1244) 9, 69, 87 Foresti, Giacomo Filippo 290 Forey, Alan 11, 307 foundation and origins 1–7, 19, 39, 87, 103–5, 115–16, 264–5, 267–73, 283, 288, 291, 293, 302, 307, 312, 317, 320

Frale, Barbara 322 France 9–11, 17–18, 20, 22, 28, 30, 56, 58–60, 73, 81–7, 89, 91, 95–6, 114, 136, 145, 164, 179–91, 193, 195, 197–201, 204, 206n138, 207, 210–11, 213, 218–22, 226, 232–3, 235–7, 240, 245, 247, 257–8, 264, 274–83, 285–91, 293, 295–6, 298, 303–4, 306–7, 314–16, 318, 322 Franciscans 220, 224–5, 282 Frederick I, emperor 95 Frederick II, emperor 65–9, 79, 175–6 Frederick III, king of Sicily 167–8, 170, 175–7 Frederick of Pernstein, archbishop of Riga 238 Frederick of Salm, Templar 243 fugitives 4, 11, 112, 165, 167, 169–70, 172, 174, 176–7, 188–208, 217–18, 227, 229, 238, 278, 281–3 Fuguet Sans, Joan 11, 315–16 Fulk de Villaret, Hospitaller 232 Fumagalli, Angelo 11, 293–7 Gabrieli, Francesco 67 Galilee 42, 47–8, 84, 116 Gandesa 137, 196 Gandesola 137 García Fernández, Templar 265 Gardeny 11, 127–8, 130–7, 140n54, 142–4, 150–3, 206 Garnier l’Aleman 65 Garway 215 Gastrie 77 Gautier d’Avesnes 105 Gautier du Mesnil, Templar 55 Gaza 46, 51, 54 Gelasius II, pope 264 Genoa 71–2, 74, 170–5 Geoffrey of Charney, Templar 10 Geoffrey of Nafferton 224 Geoffroy de Vendac, Templar 72 Geoffroy Foucher, Templar 53 George, Templar 113 Georges Maniakes 83 Georgios Pachymeres 168, 170, 172–3, 177 Gerald de Causso, Templar 114n55 Gerard de Ridefort, Templar 57–9, 78–9 Gerard of Villiers, Templar 190, 191n17, 200–1 Gerard V, count of Jülich 236 Gerard, prior of the Holy Sepulcher 1

334

INDEX

Géraud de Lausanne, patriarch 66 Germany 11, 56, 82, 95, 199, 201, 234–48, 254–6, 258, 260, 280 Gerona 137 Ghāzān, Ilkhan 76–7 Ghibellines 175, 288 Giacomo di Ancona, Templar 165n27 Gibelet (Djubayl) 71–3, 79 Gilbert d’Assailly, Hospitaller 53 Ginestar 137 Godfrey Bisol, Templar 20 Godfrey de Bouillon, ruler of Jerusalem 86, 210, 268, 271 Godfrey de Saint-Omer (San Adelmano), Templar 19–21, 269, 271 Golden Fleece, Order 265 Gondemar, Templar 20 Gothic style 145 Gottfried of Hohenlohe, Teutonic Knight 253, 255–6 grand commander 8; Auvergne 221, 228; England 218, 220–1, 228; Ireland 220, 227–8 Granyena 127–8 Greece 7, 54, 61–2, 84, 90, 92, 95, 122, 168, 170 Gregorian Reform 19, 87–8 Gregory VII, pope 82, 87–8 Gregory IX, pope 67 Gregory of Tours 84 Grodecki, Louis 85 Guard, Timothy 211 Guardiola, Juan Benito 11, 270–3 Guelphs 276–8, 285, 288 Guillaume de Beaujeu, Templar 70–1, 73–5, 80, 86–7, 90, 114, 173–4 Guillaume de Sonnac, Templar 87, 91 Guillem de Guimerà, Hospitaller 130 Guillén Berrendero, José Antonio 11 Guiscard, bishop of Troyes 286 Guy de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick 230 Guy de Lusignan, count of Jaffa, king of Jerusalem and Cyprus 56–9, 78 Guy II, lord of Gibelet (Djubayl) 71–2 Guy of Avesnes, bishop of Utrecht 236 Guyenne 89, 96 Gwynn, Aubrey 210 habit 8, 103, 112, 121, 201, 204, 229, 239–40, 265, 269–70, 273, 281–3 Hablot, Lauren 8 Hadcock, R. Neville 210

hagiography 95, 317, 324 Halberstadt 238 Hamus 76 Hārim 62; battle (1164) 53 Harpin, Templar 87 Hato, bishop of Troyes 23–9, 33 Hattin, battle (1187) 9, 40, 57, 105, 162 headquarters see Acre; central convent; Cyprus; Jerusalem Hebron (St. Abraham) 68 Heinrich of Plötzkau, Teutonic Knight 261 Helfrich, Hospitaller 234 Henry VII, emperor 236–7, 241, 276–7 Henry I, king of England 209 Henry II, king of England 95, 209–10 Henry III, king of England 68, 184 Henry VIII, king of England 233 Henry I (Henri de Champagne), king of Jerusalem 59 Henry II, king of Cyprus and Jerusalem 73–4, 174 Henry II of Virneburg, archbishop of Cologne 236–7 Henry, count of Regenstein 246 Henry, Templar 20 Henry Craven, Templar 229 Henry Danet, Templar 220 heraldry 84 heresy 10, 92, 198n78, 205, 218, 220–2, 224–5, 228–9, 233, 244, 274, 276–80, 282, 286, 290, 295, 297, 322 Hergenröther, Joseph, cardinal 243 Hermann of Salza, Teutonic Knight 253 Het‘um I, king of Armenia 64–5, 76 Het‘um II, king of Armenia 76–7, 80 Het‘um of Korykos 77–8 Hetoumids 79 Himbert Blanc, Templar 214, 220, 228 Hirst 216, 232 historiography 9n45, 10–12, 109n25, 127–8, 235, 244, 247n74, 256–8, 260, 273, 274, 285, 289, 291, 298–308, 311–17, 319, 322–5 Hohenstaufen 65–7, 175–6 Holy Land see crusader states Holy Sepulcher 1, 9, 82, 103, 109–10, 269, 271 holy war and jihad 50, 96 Honorius II, pope 5, 269 Honorius III, pope 65, 91, 95, 108, 270 horses 8–9, 29, 83–5, 94, 197, 200, 231, 253, 272

335

INDEX

Horta 127, 137, 191 Hospitallers 5, 7, 10, 38–49, 51, 53, 56–60, 62–3, 65–70, 72–4, 78, 86–7, 89, 93–5, 110, 129–31, 133, 137, 139, 143–4, 162–3, 171–2, 174, 185–6, 200, 206–7, 211, 215–16, 231–5, 242n39, 245, 247, 251, 257, 264–5, 269–70, 275, 280–2, 284, 286, 290–2, 294, 299, 301–2, 305–6, 316, 320–4 hospitals 219, 269 Hosto de Saint-Omer, Templar 21 Hugh, count 239 Hugh (Hugues) de Payns (de Campanis), Templar 1–4, 17, 19–20, 30, 96, 209, 271 Hugh III of Antioch-Lusignan, king of Cyprus and Jerusalem 69–70, 73, 78, 80 Hugh of Chalon, archbishop of Besançon 238 Hugh of Chalons, Templar 199n85 Hugh of Pairaud, Templar 286 Hugh of St. Jean, Templar 203 Hugh of Trimberg 244 Hugh of Troyes, count of Champagne, Templar 16–17, 19–20, 29 Hugues de Caesarea 53 Hugues de Saraman 71 Hugues de Tiberias (Saint Omer) 59 Humanism 275, 289, 290 Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford 230 Hungary 309, 314 Hunin 42 Hunyadi, Zsolt 301, 309 Iberian Peninsula 9, 11, 86, 163n12, 182, 192, 231, 248, 266–7, 270–2, 280, 290–2, 303, 307, 311, 316, 318, 322 Ibn al-Athīr 68 iconography 81–2, 84–5, 89–90, 92, 95, 97–102, 265, 316 idolatry 233, 277, 284, 295 ‘Imād al-Dīn al-Isfahānī 58 Innocent II, pope 5–6, 110n32 Innocent III, pope 63–4, 71, 89, 95 interdict 93, 203, 257, 259, 287 inventories 130n13, 138, 191, 203, 212, 214, 216–17 Ireland 11, 189, 197–9, 201–2, 209–12, 214–23, 225–8, 230, 232–3, 280, 305, 308 Isaac I Comnenus, emperor 87, 95 Isabella, queen consort of England 211, 213 Isabella, queen of Jerusalem 56, 58–9

Italy 9, 11, 67, 70, 103, 163n14, 167, 170, 173–5, 180, 189, 193–4, 197, 199, 202–3, 206, 236–7, 241, 254–5, 259, 274–5, 277, 280, 282–3, 285–9, 291, 293, 295, 297–8, 303–4, 307–8, 314–16, 318, 321 Jacques ( James) de Molay, Templar 10, 76–7, 96, 170–1, 186, 285–6, 288 Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre 108, 117, 120n85 Jaffa 27, 56, 66, 105, 115–16, 271 James ( Jaime) II, king of Aragon 140, 175, 188–9, 191–2, 194, 196, 211 James of Garrigans, Templar 192 James of Mainz, chronicler 239 James of Montecucco, Templar 197, 199, 203 Jan, Libor 308 Jaspert, Nikolas 300–1, 311 Jean de Gibelet 71 Jerez de la Frontera 265–6 Jerusalem 1–4, 7, 10–11, 17, 20–21, 27, 30, 38, 41, 44, 47–8, 50–1, 53–60, 62–3, 65–70, 73, 78, 82–3, 85–7, 89, 94, 96, 103–4, 106–11, 115–16, 119–20, 123, 163, 166, 174, 181–2, 197, 210, 215, 218, 264–5, 268–9, 271, 303, 320; siege (1187) 6, 105, 107, 109, 111; siege (1244) 69, 82, 91, 109; Templar headquarters 2–3, 5–6, 20, 66, 68, 104, 166, 264; see also al-Aqsa mosque; Dome of the Rock; Holy Sepulcher; Saint Mary Latin Jews 85, 185, 210, 276, 317 Johannes de Sancto Georgio, Templar 228 Johannes Rufus de Baudement, Templar 24–5, 29–32, 34 John II, duke of Lower Lorraine, Brabant, and Limburg 236 John (Jens) Grand (Fursat), archbishop of Bremen 238 John Bazano, Templar 203 John de Crécy-en-Brie, Templar 28–30, 33 John Nauclerus 239, 264 John de Ferrers 212 John of Arsur 43 John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem 60, 65, 67 John of Chali, Templar 201 John of Châlons, Templar 200–1 John of Ebreston, Templar 191n20, 204 John of Ecle (Eagle), Templar 228–9 John (Jean) of Ibelin 46, 68 John of Moun, Templar 199n85, 228

336

INDEX

John of Poynton, Templar 191n20, 205n131, 217 John of Stoke, Templar 197–8, 204, 227, 229 John of Usflete, Templar 191n20, 205n131, 217 John of Viktring 244–5 Jordan river 52, 66, 68 Josselin de Vierzy, bishop of Soissons 18–19 Josserand, Philippe 304, 307–9, 311 Juan Fernández, Templar 266 Judea 268 Juliana, lady of Caesarea 44 Jülich 236, 246 Justinian, emperor 90–1 Karl of Trier, Teutonic Knight 261 Khwarezmians 69, 91 Kilbarry 197, 214 Kilcloggan 197, 214 Kilcork 214 Kildare 214, 216 Kilsaran 197, 214, 216 Kirch, Sonia 11 knights 1–6, 8, 12, 19, 72, 103, 105, 117, 143, 161, 172, 198, 206, 224, 239–40, 264, 266–73, 277, 283–4, 287, 319 Konrad of Feuchtwangen, Teutonic Knight 254–5 Krak des Chevaliers 63, 144 Kuwayrā 76 La Ferté-Gaucher 25 La Neuville-au-Temple 313n100 La Roche Guillaume 61, 76–7 La Roche Roissol 61, 75 La Rochelle 162n8, 199–201 Lādjīn, sultan 76 Lambert, Élie 109 Lamentacio pro Templariis 218 Lara 265 Laszlovszky, József 301 Lateran, Fourth Council (1215) 89, 93 Le Puiset 26–7 Legras, Anne-Marie 136 Leicestershire 231 Leo XIII, pope 243n52 León 307, 313 Leonard de Tibertis, Hospitaller 215, 232 Leopold V, duke of Austria 59n19 Lewis, Bernard 55 Lewon I, king of Armenia 63–4, 78, 80 Lewon II, king of Armenia 75–6

Licence, Tom 324 Limassol 168n41 Lincoln 194–6, 205, 215, 219–22, 227 Lithuania 253 liturgy 5, 7, 9, 81, 88–94, 97–102, 117, 206, 224, 228–9, 259, 324 Livonia 251–3, 255–6 Lladonosa i Pujol, Josep 136 Llanmadoc 217 Lleida (Lérida) 130–1, 136–7, 198, 206 Llordà 145 Loarre 145 Lombardy 82, 185, 189, 255–6, 282 London 87, 194–7, 213, 217–23, 225–8, 230, 233; Templar house and church 9, 109, 180, 183–4, 186, 199, 229, 316 Lorraine 236, 268 Losbertus de Vico Forti 26, 34 Lotan, Shlomo 11, 96n52, 103n1, 263n1 Lotterio della Tosa, bishop of Florence 275 Louis VI, king of France 22 Louis VII, king of France 95, 179, 182 Louis VIII, king of France 89, 91 Louis IX, king of France 82, 86, 89, 114, 115n58, 180, 286, 295 Louis I, king of Navarre 188 Louis, count of Évreux 232 Louth 214, 216 Lucca 278 Lucienne de Segni 71 Lucius III, pope 182n16 Lucy (Lucia) of Antioch 72 Ludolf of Suchem 115n61 Lüpke, Helmut 247 Luttrell, Anthony 313 Luxemburg 236–7 Lydley 199 Lyon, Second Council (1274) 87, 225 Maffei, Raffaello 290, 292 Magdeburg 237–9, 241, 242n44, 244–5 Mainz 201, 234, 237–44 Malaucène 226 Mâle, Emile 94 Malta, Order see Hospitallers Mamluks 6, 40, 70, 73–7, 79–80, 87, 106, 252 Manfred, king of Sicily 175 Manfredonia 163 Mansurah, battle (1250) 186, 286 Manuel I Comnenus, emperor 54, 60, 62 Mar‘ash 76

337

INDEX

Marburg 253 Marcos Hierro, Ernest 169, 173–6 Margaret of Provence, queen of France 114–15, 118 Margat (Markab) 75, 144 Maria de Montferrat, queen of Jerusalem 60, 65 Maria of Antioch 69–70 Marienburg (Malbork) 11, 253–5, 257, 260–2 Marino Sanuto 118, 172–3 maritime activities 11, 162–8, 170–3, 175, 178, 214, 317; see also captains; ports and harbors; ships Marittima 193 Márquez, Micheli 265–6 Marseille 162–4, 167–8, 170, 173–5 marshal 8, 72 martyrs and martyrdom 4, 7–8, 81–2, 84, 86–91, 93, 96, 98, 101–2, 110, 120–2, 286, 297 Mary of Molina, queen mother of Castile 190 Maryculter 214 Mas Deu 129, 194n44, 304 Mas‘ūd, sultan 61 master 2, 5, 7–8, 10, 17, 51, 53–5, 57, 59–60, 65–7, 69–80, 86–7, 90–1, 96, 107, 112–15, 138, 169–70, 171n55, 172–4, 176–7, 186, 209, 220–2, 270, 285–6, 289, 311; provincial master 138, 163–4, 190, 197–8, 200, 265–6; see also Andrew (André) de Montbard; Armand de Périgord; Bernard de Trémelay; Bertrand de Blanquefort; Eudes de Saint-Amand; Evrard des Barres; Gerard de Ridefort; Guillaume de Beaujeu; Guillaume de Sonnac; Hugh (Hugues) de Payns (de Campanis); Jacques (James) de Molay; Philippe de Naplouse; Pierre de Montaigu; Reynald of Vichiers Matilda, countess of Boulogne and queen consort of England 210 Matthew Paris 8, 58, 59n19, 66–7, 108n19 Matthew, cardinal bishop of Albano 5 Matthieu de Clermont, Hospitaller 72 Mauroli, Silvestro 292–3 Mayer, Hans Eberhard 17, 303 Meath 216 Medina del Campo 190, 192 Mediterranean Sea region 7, 10, 70, 85, 89, 96, 104–6, 162–3, 165, 172, 174, 178,

247, 248n81, 251–6, 260–1, 288; passage 76–7, 163–4, 193, 200 Meleh, prince of Armenia 62–3, 78 Melisende, queen of Jerusalem 27, 51, 54 members see chaplains and priests; knights; sergeants and servants mendicants 225, 320 Mendo, Andrés 268 Mentzel-Reuters, Arno 258 Mequinenza 130 mercenaries 83, 171–3 merchants 112, 163n12, 163n14, 171–4, 180–1, 185, 227, 275–6, 280, 285–7 Merle 41, 45–6 Metcalf, Michael 182 Metz 9 Meyrargues 194 Mezdrikoff, Irène 85n16 Michael I Cerularius, patriarch 87 Michael of Baskerville, Templar 197–8 Michael the Syrian 60–1 Michael V, emperor 83 Milan 88, 287, 294–7 military religious orders 2, 7–8, 16, 38–41, 44, 46–9, 51, 56, 59–60, 62, 70, 72–3, 87, 105, 109, 113, 122, 126–7, 144–5, 163, 169, 171–2, 174–5, 207, 251–2, 257, 259, 263–8, 270–3, 290, 293, 299–303, 306–13, 315–16, 318–20, 322–4; proposed merger 7, 87, 171n55, 257, 259; see also Alcántara, Order; Calatrava, Order; Christ, Order; Golden Fleece, Order; Hospitallers; Santiago, Order; Teutonic Knights Milites Templi (mid-1130s) 5–6 Militia Dei (1145) 6 Militzer, Klaus 11, 305 Milly 17, 199n85 Milo II of Brienne, count of Bar-surSeine 23 Miquel Ferrer, Hospitaller 133 Miravet 9, 11, 127–8, 130, 134, 137–44, 154–7, 191–2, 196 Miret i Sans, Joaquim 138 Missenden 205 mobility 95, 309, 311, 320 Molesme 17, 23, 26n57 monasticism 104–5, 114, 161, 167–8, 176, 324 Mongols 76–7, 91, 172 Monreal, Lluís 134 Montalbán 272 Montdidier 20, 44

338

INDEX

oaths 5, 291 officials 7, 114, 138, 164–5, 167, 169, 174, 221–2, 224, 277, 282, 285–6, 290, 305; see also draper; grand commander; marshal; master; seneschal; treasurer (commander of the kingdom of Jerusalem) Oliver of Paderborn 107–8, 116–19, 122n100, 173 Omne datum optimum (1139) 5–6, 111, 177n86 Onfroi IV de Toron 58 Onofrio Dei 285–7, 290, 292, 295 Osma 272 Ottobuono of Razzi, patriarch of Aquileia 238, 277 Ottokar, Austrian Rhymed Chronicle 244 Outremer see crusader states

Montesa 272 Montlhéry 26–7, 30, 36–7 Montpellier 163 Montsaunès 81–2, 87–9, 90–6, 98–100 Monzón 143–4, 192, 197 Morea 51 Moritzbrunn 234 Mount Athos 93 Mount Carmel 115 Mount Cocu (Abū Halqa) 71 Mount Galaad 52 Mowbray 212 Muratori, Ludovico Antonio 293, 294n72 Muslims 1, 4–5, 40, 44–5, 50–5, 58, 61–3, 65–9, 74, 76, 79, 83, 85, 91–3, 95–7, 105, 107, 113, 116–17, 127, 130, 138–9, 142, 145, 170–3, 175, 178, 192, 251, 259, 270–2, 283–4, 290–1, 319 Mussato, Albertino 277–8, 293–4 Nablus, 68; Council (1120) 1 Naples 182, 211, 283 Napoleon 242–3 Narjot II de Toucy 72 Navarre 20n18, 188 Nephin (Enfé) 72 networks 10, 213, 244, 311, 321 Newsam 216, 223, 232 Nicephorus II Phocas, emperor 87 Nicholas Gallicus 91n39 Nicholas IV, pope 72, 171, 174–5 Nicholson, Helen J. 11, 121–2, 300, 306, 308, 318, 323 Nicolas Lorgne, Hospitaller 72 Nicolotti, Andrea 322 Nicosia 7, 121, 168n41 Nikolaus of Jeroschin 258 nobiliary treatises 11, 265, 270, 273 nobility 18, 21, 26–7, 38, 64, 131, 211, 237, 245, 252, 263–7, 270–1, 273, 320 Nonaspe 137 Normans and Normandy 4, 10, 16, 183, 209 normative texts (Rule, retrais, customs, statutes) 4–5, 7–9, 111, 113, 162, 163n16, 165–6, 168, 177, 181, 224, 272, 301–2, 320 Notre Dame de Maryas 120n85 novitiate 208n141 Nūr al-Dīn, emir 50, 52–3, 62–3, 85

Padua 237, 277, 278n13, 287 papacy (popes and papal administration) 5–7, 10–11, 55–6, 63–5, 66n39, 67, 70–2, 77–8, 82, 85–9, 91, 93, 95–6, 103, 108, 110n32, 111, 171–2, 174–5, 177, 182, 186, 188–90, 195–8, 200–2, 204–5, 208, 211, 213, 215, 219–22, 225–7, 229, 231–4, 236–43, 245, 247n74, 252–4, 257–9, 267–70, 274–98, 302n26, 310–11, 319n151, 320, 322; see also Alexander III; Benedict XI; Boniface VIII; Celestine II; Celestine V; Clement V; Eugenius III; Gelasius II; Gregory VII; Gregory IX; Honorius II; Honorius III; Innocent II; Innocent III; Leo XIII; Lucius III; Nicholas IV; Paul II; Pius II; Sixtus IV papal documents 5–7, 19, 110n32, 111, 172, 177n86, 186, 189, 205–6, 211, 215, 220–2, 231–2, 234, 236, 238, 277, 293–5, 297, 319n151; see also Ad providam; Faciens misericordiam; Militia Dei; Milites Templi; Omne datum optimum; Pastoralis praeeminentiae; Regnans in coelis Paris 10, 84–5, 94, 190, 195, 197, 200–1, 204, 208n141, 211, 237, 242–3, 279–80, 284, 286, 292; Sainte Chapelle 82; Sainte Geneviève 195; Templar house and church 109, 180, 183–6 Paris, Templar 112 Parma 202 Pastoralis praeeminentiae (1307) 78, 189, 236 Paul II, pope 290

339

INDEX

Paul de Segni, bishop of Tripoli 71 Paulhac 81–2, 87, 89–90, 92, 96, 101–2 Payà Mercé, Xavier 134 Payen de Montdidier, Templar 20 Payns 1, 3–4, 17, 19–20, 30, 96, 209, 313n100 Peace-of-God movement 87 penance 5–6, 8, 55, 112–13, 204–6, 217, 223, 228–9, 284 Peniscola 9, 127, 136, 143–4, 192 Perlbach, Max 256 Perpignan 314 Pertuis 194–5 Perugia 9; San Bevignate 9, 316 Peter Garilio, Templar 203 Peter Modies, Templar 199n85, 201 Peter of Alençon 115 Peter of Aspelt, archbishop of Mainz 237, 239–41 Peter of Bologna, Templar 197, 199 Peter of Boucli, Templar 199 Peter of Dusburg 255n21, 257–60, 262 Peter of Oteringham, Templar 198n77 Peter of Sornay, Templar 191n18 Peter of Zittau 245 Peter Visianus, Templar 165n27, 166–7 Petracca, Luciana 304, 308 Pharaon (Far-‘un) 44 Philip II Augustus, king of France 58 Philip IV (the Fair), king of France 10–11, 85, 96, 184–8, 191n18, 200, 204, 211–13, 218, 232–3, 235–6, 240, 257, 264, 275–9, 281–90, 292–3, 295, 298, 322 Philip, infante of Castile 190 Philip of Antioch 64–5 Philip of Treffon, Templar 197 Philippe de Naplouse, Templar 54 Philippe de Novare 67 Philippus, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae 119, 122 Piacenza 202 Piana, Mathias 315 Piedmont 280, 308 Pierre de Montaigu, Templar 67 Pierrefonds 25, 28 Piers Gaveston 213, 230–1 pilgrims and pilgrimage 2–4, 6, 11, 17, 41, 43, 50, 66, 83, 92, 103–5, 110, 115–23, 162–3, 181–2, 202, 269, 271–2, 305, 324 Pineda, Juan de 266 Pinell (El Pinell de Brai) 137 Pipino, Francesco 282–3 Pisa 57n15, 74, 107, 275 Pistoia 288

Pius II, pope 290 Plancy 26–7, 29, 36 Plantagenets 82, 89, 95 Platina (Bartolomeo Sacchi) 264, 290, 293 Plaza i Arqué, Carme 315 Poblet 129, 143; San Esteban 129 Poitiers 192, 197, 200, 237, 279 Poland 9, 245, 248, 260, 309, 318 Polejowski, Karol 10 Pomerania 248 Pomerelia 260 Port-Bonnel 75 ports and harbors 72, 114n53, 162–5, 167–8, 174–5, 201; see also Acre; Apulia; ‘Atlit; Barcelona; Barletta; Brindisi; Cyprus; Jaffa; La Rochelle; Manfredonia; Marseille; Mediterranean Sea region; Tortosa (Syria); Tripoli Portugal 9, 211, 272, 303–4, 309, 312n98, 316, 321 Premonstratensians 5, 19 Prémontré 23 Pressouyre, Léon 313 Pringle, Denys 39, 42–3, 315 prosopography 12, 244, 305, 311, 325 Provence 114–15, 118, 174–5, 189, 194–5, 199, 202, 304, 306, 313n99, 320–1 Provins 20 Prussia 247, 251–3, 255–7, 260–2 Prutz, Hans 320 Przybyl, Maciej 309 Pyrenees 313n100 Qalāwūn, sultan 70, 72–5 Rainald of Belli Pili, Templar 199 Ralph of Bulford, Templar 191n20, 205n131, 217 Ralph of Ruston, Templar 222 Ramla 48 Ramón Berenguer III, count of Barcelona 130, 266 Ramón Berenguer IV, count of Barcelona 130, 137 Ramon Muntaner 162, 167–70, 174–7 Raoul (of Saint Omer) 59 Raqim al-Khaf 52 Rāshid al-Dīn Sinān 54–5, 59n19 Rasquera 137 Rathbride 214 Rathronan 214 Ravenna 92, 275–6, 283, 291–2 Raymond III, count of Tripoli 56–7, 61

340

INDEX

Raymond VI, count of Toulouse 89, 91 Raymond of San Ipólito, Templar 192, 205–6 Raymond-Roupen, prince of Antioch and Armenia 63–4 Raynouard, François Juste Marie 242–4 Reconquista 84 recruitment 4, 7, 10, 20–1, 30, 82, 120, 193, 245, 294 Red Tower 39, 44, 47 Reformation 246 Regimund, Templar 26–7, 30, 33 Regnans in coelis (1308) 241n37 Reims 18n10, 22, 28 relics 81–3, 120–2, 224, 286–7 Renaissance 133n28, 289 Renaud de Châtillon, prince of Antioch 57, 60–1 Requesens, Hospitaller 130, 133 responsions 82, 181 retrais see normative texts Reynald, archbishop of Reims 18n10, 22, 28 Reynald of Vichiers, Templar 115 Rheda 246 Rhodes 247 Ribaforada 188n2 Riba-roja 137 Ribera district 137–8, 142 Ribston 223–4, 231 Richard I (Lionheart), king of England 58 Richard, earl (count) of Cornwall 68, 79 Richard Engayn, Templar 205, 206n136, 217 Richard of Grafton, Templar 228 Richard of Moncler, Templar 199 Riga 237–8, 241 Riley-Smith, Jonathan 300, 305 Rinaldo da Concorezzo, archbishop of Ravenna 275, 291, 296 Robert, Templar 20 Robert Bruce, king of Scotland 210–11, 213–14, 217 Robert de Sandford, Templar 69 Robert Ferrers, earl of Derby 212 Robert of Anjou, duke of Calabria 170, 175–7 Robert of Hameldon, Templar 228–9 Robert of Sautre, Templar 229 Robert of Torigni 4 Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury 202–3 Roger de Flor, Templar 11, 161–2, 163n14, 166–78 Roger of San Severino, bailli of Jerusalem 70

Roger of Sheffield, Templar 207n138, 229 Roger of Stowe, Templar 191n20, 198–9, 201, 204–5, 207 Röhricht, Reinhold 17 Roland, Templar 20 Romagna 253, 282 Roman law 180, 222 Román Martínez, Ramón 304 Román, Jerónimo 267–8 Romanesque style 90, 129, 134, 136, 144–5 Romania 51 Romanus Diogenes, emperor 95 Rome 82, 85, 90, 92, 95–6, 242–3, 252–4, 285; San Paolo fuori le Mura 90 Rossi, Girolamo 291–2 Rother, Joachim 7, 11, 103n1 Roupen II, prince of Armenia 62 Roupen III, prince of Armenia 63 Roupenids 60–3, 78–9 Roussillon 129, 194n44, 304 Ruad (Arwad), siege (1302) 7, 86, 90, 172, 224 Rui de Cuer (Reddecoeur), Templar 72 Rule see normative texts Runciman, Steven 57 Rutebeuf 86–7 Sadoux, Eugène 84 Safed 9, 42, 46–7 Safita (Chastel Blanc) 9, 95, 143–4 Saint Mary Latin 44 Saint-Omer 19–21 saints 11, 81–5, 88–9, 91, 94–102, 120–2, 264, 268, 286, 316 Saladin, sultan 6, 54, 57, 63, 79, 104–5 Salamanca 269–70 Salazar y Castro, Luis de 265 Salerno, Mariarosaria 308 Salisbury 204, 217 Salzburg 237–8, 241; Salzburg annalist 244 Samaria 116 San Benito de Torrijos 272 San Juan de Otero 272 San Juan de Valladolid 272 San Salvador de Toro 272 Sandford 69, 224 Sans i Travé, Josep Maria 303, 307 Santes Creus, Santísima Trinidad 129 Santiago de Compostela 1–2, 92 Santiago, Order 5, 266–7, 269–70 Sanz Ledesma, Joaquín 304 Sarfandkār 76

341

INDEX

Sarnowsky, Jürgen 300 Sarobe i Huesca, Ramon 303 Saxony 232, 245, 247n74 Schein, Sylvia 110 Schenk, Jochen 15, 22, 24, 307–8, 311, 324 Schlanstedt 246 Schöppen Chronicle of Magdeburg 244 Schottmüller, Konrad 243 Schultze-Galléra, Siegmar von 245 Schüpferling, Michael 235, 245, 247 Scotland 199–200, 201n99, 202, 209–10, 212–17, 219, 222–3, 226, 228, 233, 280, 305 seals 8–9 Segni 71, 203 Segre 130–1, 137 Seingibis (kh. Nisf Jubail) 44 Sembat, king of Armenia 77, 79 seneschal 8, 51 Sens 208n141 sergeants and servants 5, 8, 29, 111, 133, 161, 164–6, 168, 172–3, 175–6, 198, 206, 215, 218, 223–4, 226, 270 Seville 266 Shāwar 53 ships 72, 77, 161–76, 178, 180, 186, 192–3, 200–1 Shīrkūh 52–3 Sibt ibn al-Jawzi 66 Sibylla of Armenia 71 Sibylla, queen of Jerusalem 56–7 Sicilian Vespers 70, 176 Sicily 68, 70, 83, 85, 163, 167–8, 170, 174–7, 256, 292–3, 304, 320–1 Sidon 45, 55, 65, 70, 72 Siegfried of Feuchtwangen, Teutonic Knight 255–8, 260–2 signa see banners; crosses; seals Silesia 245, 248 Simon of Farabell, Templar 75 Sis 75 Sixtus IV, pope 290 Slavin, Philip 209 Sligo 209, 214 sodomy 112, 114, 244, 277 Soissons 18 Somerset 232 Song of Jerusalem 87 sources 2, 4–6, 10, 12, 16–34, 39, 42–6, 48–9, 62, 74, 76, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120–1, 129–30, 132–3, 135–6, 139, 143, 163n13, 164, 166, 167n34, 170n48, 171–2, 174n77, 175–6, 182,

184, 192, 199–201, 204, 215, 229, 235, 240, 242–3, 245, 254–5, 257, 259–60, 274–5, 278, 282, 286, 288, 292–5, 297, 301–9, 312, 318–27; see also archaeology; architecture; art; charters; chronicles; inventories; nobiliary treatises; normative texts; spirituality; Trial (proceedings against the Templars) South Witham 214 Spain see Iberian Peninsula spirituality 3–7, 9, 11–12, 44, 81–4, 87–93, 95–6, 104–5, 108–17, 119–20, 122–3, 225, 233, 317, 323–4; see also cemeteries and burial; Christ and Christology; churches and chapels; hagiography; iconography; liturgy; martyrs and martyrdom; penance; pilgrims and pilgrimage; relics; saints; Virgin Mary; vows St. Anne 107, 135 St. Bernard of Clairvaux see Bernard of Clairvaux St. Bertrand of Comminges 89, 91 St. Catherine of Alexandria 89–90, 101–2 St. Constantine the Great, emperor 82–3, 94–5, 97 St. Demetrius 83–5 St. Euphemia 120–2 St. George 83–5, 94–5, 97, 266 St. Helena 272 St. John the Baptist 89, 92, 101 St. Leonard of Noblat (Leo of Limoges) 89 St. Martin of Tours 89, 99 St. Mary, Christ’s mother see Virgin Mary St. Michael the Archangel 84, 95, 97 St. Paul 88, 90, 98 St. Peter 88–9, 98, 101 St. Savior (Salvador) 83, 88–9, 93, 135, 272 St. Sergius 84 St. Simon 89, 101 St. Stephen the Protomartyr 88, 98 St. Theodore 84 Starnawska, Maria 309 statutes see normative texts Stephen, king of England 210 Stephen (Stephen-Henry) of Blois, count of Champagne 16–18 Stephen of Stapelbrugge, Templar 191n20, 198–9, 201, 204, 217, 227 Storie pistoresi 288 Suárez de Figueroa, Cristóbal 264 Suger of St. Denis 179 Syria 9, 60–1, 84, 86, 114n53, 143–4, 172

342

INDEX

Tancred 86 Tarifa (Cádiz) 145 Tarragona 128, 137 Tartus see Tortosa (Syria) Teira 42–4 Tempelfeld (Owczary) 245 Tempelhof (Berlin) 245 Templar of Tyre 86, 107, 115, 171, 174n77 Templarism 20, 274, 298, 319, 323 Templehouse 214 Teutonic Knights 5, 7, 11, 39, 48–9, 69–70, 76, 78, 105, 110, 162n7, 163, 235, 238, 247, 251–62, 299, 301–2, 305–6, 320–3 The Captives 87 The Hague 83–5 Theobald of Bar, bishop of Liège (Lüttich) 236 Theodosius of Jerusalem 94 Théry-Astruc, Julien 322 Thibaut II (V), king of Navarre and count of Champagne 20n18 Thibaut I, count of Blois-Champagne 18 Thibaut II, count of Blois and Champagne 15–22, 25–6, 29–30 Thierry d’Alsace, count of Flanders 52 Thomas, earl of Lancaster 230 Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury 95 Thomas d’Acerra, bailli of Jerusalem 65 Thomas de Saint-Bertin 70 Thomas of Hagworthingham, Templar 191n20, 205, 206n136 Thomas of Lindsey, Templar 191n20, 197–9, 204–5, 217–18 Thomas of Pamplona, Templar 188n2 Thomas of Staunford, Templar 229 Thomas of Thoralby, Templar 191n20, 196, 198, 204, 207 Thomas of Wonhope, Templar 212 Thomas Totty of Thoraldby, Templar 227 Thompson, Jennifer 111 Thoros (T‘oros) II, prince of Armenia 38, 60–2 Thoros (T‘oros) III, king of Armenia 77 Thuringia 232, 234 Tibble, Steven 40, 43 Tiberias 57, 59 Tibnin 42 T‘il Hamtun 60n23, 75–6 tithes 5, 27, 93, 111n38, 285–6 Toledo 192 Tolomei, Claudio 290 Tolomeo da Lucca, bishop of Torcello 278–80

Tomar 9, 109, 272, 314–15 Toomaspoeg, Kristjan 12, 164, 326 Topfstedt 234 Tortosa (Spain) 137, 191, 206, 314 Tortosa (Syria) 9, 55, 71, 86, 95, 114n53, 172 Toulon 199 Toulouse 89, 91–3, 314 Tours 84, 89, 99, 241n37, 279 Tracy, Larissa C. 218 transfer of Templar possessions to the Hospitallers 185–6, 215, 231, 234, 245, 275, 281–2, 284, 290, 294 treasures and treasuries 57, 64, 121, 138–40, 170, 173, 177, 181–5, 270, 278, 281, 289, 322; England 180, 183–5, 210; France 180, 183–6, 322 treasurer (commander of the kingdom of Jerusalem) 8, 181–2 treaties, truces, and and peace agreements 66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 79, 96, 137, 177, 184, 232, 239 Tréton, Rodrigue 304 Trial (proceedings against the Templars) 10–11, 74–7, 96, 103, 114, 121, 161, 164, 188–248, 257–61, 274–98, 299n1, 301, 305, 310, 318, 320, 322; accusations and charges 10–11, 193, 205, 207–8, 211–12, 218, 220–2, 224–6, 228–9, 233, 240, 243–4, 270, 274–5, 277–87, 289–92, 295–6, 298, 322; arrests and detentions 10–11, 77–8, 96, 180, 182–6, 188–204, 207–9, 211–14, 217, 219, 222, 225, 227, 229, 236, 238, 247n74, 257, 278, 280–3, 285, 289, 291–2, 295; executions and other deaths 10, 200, 204, 208n141, 217, 219, 224, 239, 280–9, 292, 297; imprisonment 10, 188, 191n18, 192–8, 200–7, 212, 216–19, 221, 227–8, 236, 278–9, 281, 283, 285–6, 289, 297; innocence or guilt 10, 121, 188, 207–8, 218, 221–3, 226–7, 229, 231, 233, 236, 239–40, 242–4, 266, 270, 275–6, 278, 280, 282–4, 286, 288–97, 322; interrogations 10, 164, 190, 192–8, 203–5, 207, 208n141, 219–23, 225–7, 229, 242, 275–80, 282–3, 286–7, 291–2, 294–6, 298; torture 10, 196, 200, 208, 218, 221, 227–8, 233, 275, 279, 281–2, 286, 289, 291–2, 296 Trier 237, 240–4, 261 Tripoli 51, 55–7, 61–3, 71–4, 80, 95, 112, 172

343

INDEX

Troyes 16–17, 19–20, 23, 25–7, 29, 201, 286; Council (1129) 1, 3–5, 15–16, 20–2, 29–30, 104 Tunis 199, 206 Turin 87 Tuscany 275, 277, 288, 290, 292 Tyre 2–3, 6, 20, 52, 55, 57–8, 62, 70, 73, 77, 86, 103–4, 107, 112, 115, 164, 171–2, 174n77 Ugolini 180–1 Upton-Ward, Judith 302n20 Urgell 130–1, 135 Vadum Jacob 47 Vahram 75 Valence 283 Valencia 272, 316 Varangian Guard 87–8 Vassayll, Templar 165n27, 168 Velletri 203 Venice 11, 70, 72, 74, 92, 162, 171, 173, 232, 251–62; St. Mark 92 Ventura, Guglielmo 280–2 Vicenza 283 Vienna 299n2 Vienne, Council (1311–1312) 10, 226, 234, 238, 241, 257, 277, 279–84, 296 Villamariz Oliveira, Nuno 316 Villani, Giovanni 285–7, 289–93, 295 Vincent of Beauvais 118 Virgin Mary 44, 90–3, 101–2, 120, 133, 258, 277, 286–7 Visconti 287 visitors and visitation 133, 135, 184 Vogel, Christian 11, 302, 308 Voltaire 293, 296 Volterra 264, 290 vows (obedience, chastity, and no personal property) 2–3, 5, 7–8, 96, 161, 169, 224, 265, 269 Wales 189, 209–10, 212, 217, 305, 308 Walter II, count of Brienne 23–4, 26 Walter le Bachelor, Templar 227–8 Walter Map 55n12 Walter of Clifton, Templar 222 Walter of Montengrier, Templar 191n18 Walter of Rockley, Templar 191n20 Walter the Rebel, Templar 191n20, 205n131

Warmund of Picquigny, Latin patriarch of Jerusalem 1–2 Warwickshire 231 wealth 209–10, 269, 282, 284, 286, 288, 290–1, 294–5 Weber, Max 311 Werner of Orseln, Teutonic Knight 257, 261 Westminster 213, 217 Wetherby 214, 223 Whitley 197 Willer, Templar 27, 30, 33 William, count of Flanders 21 William II, count of Nevers 15 William de Baudement, Templar 15, 22–4, 28, 30, 31 William de la More, Templar 197, 218, 220, 228 William de Nogaret 279, 281–2, 286 William de Plaisians 192, 197, 279 William de Warenne, Templar 220 William Falco, Templar 26–8, 30, 33 William Greenfield, archbishop of York 222–3 William of Beaujeu see Guillaume de Beaujeu William of Dène, seneschal of Agen 212, 221 William of Grafton, Templar 197, 218 William of Grafton junior, Templar 191n20, 205–6 William of Hereford, Templar 191n20 William of Lor, Templar 196, 198, 206n132 William of Middleton, Templar 222 William of Pokelington, Templar 224 William of Tyre, archbishop 2–3, 20, 52, 57–8, 62, 103–4; continuators 57–8 Winchester 203 wine 20n18, 162n8, 201, 216 Worcestershire 214 Wyngaerde, Anton van den 131, 133, 135, 151 Yolanda (Isabella II), queen of Jerusalem 65 York 194, 196, 202, 204, 213, 215, 219–23, 228–9, 233 Yorkshire 197, 212, 214, 216–18, 223–4, 232 Zapel (Isabella), queen of Armenia 64 Zengids 62

344