THE MILITARY ORDERS: INTRODUCTION Paul Crawford

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The military orders were associations of knights and other persons who followed a monastic rule established by a pope or church council. They attempted to live out ideas about reformed Christianity which had gained wide currency by the twelfth century, and they also attempted to live out ideas about ideal knighthood which were gaining currency in the same period. The activities of these associations were viewed at least in principle as defensive, and the associations arose in the context of Crusading. The most famous of the military orders were the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Teutonic Knights. A number of other minor orders existed at various times and places as well. Notable examples of smaller orders included the Spanish orders of Santiago, Alcantara and Calatrava; the short-lived Baltic orders of the Sword and of Dobrin; the English order of St. Thomas of Acre; and the Syrian Order of St. Lazarus, apparently reserved for leper knights. By combining the monastic and military vocation in medieval society, the military orders fit neatly into attempts by churchmen (particularly popes) to divert the violence and aggression of Europe's nobility into more civilized and useful outlets. The Peace and Truce of God are two other well-known examples of religious attempts to mitigate noble warfare. Some churchmen objected to the idea of the military order on the grounds that the combination of the two vocations--military and monastic--seemed to violate canon law. Priests were not supposed to shed blood (though some did, anyway). But the military orders' fighting members did not violate canon law, for they were lay brothers, not clerics. Military orders did count clerics among their members, but as chaplains, not as knights, sergeants or squires. Some medieval critics also objected that the military vocation seemed contradictory to the monastic ideal of withdrawal from the world. But part of the eleventh-century reform movement involved attempting to apply Christian and especially monastic principles to daily life. The Peace and Truce of God were part of this attempt, and the establishment of colleges of canons, who lived in the world while following a religious rule, became popular at about this time. The period also saw a new emphasis on the Christian duty of the warrior to protect women, children and those weaker than himself. Indeed, some churchmen drew a connection between Christ's statement that no man has greater love "than this: that he lay down his life for his friends" and the self-sacrificing vocation of the ideal Christian knight, whether in or out of a military order. The military order had also been foreshadowed by the establishment of loose lay confraternities of knights in the eleventh century. These men often banded together to protect abbeys; some scholars believe that their example had an effect on the subsequent development of the military order. Genuine military orders were first created in the Holy Land in the early twelfth century, where they soon became mainstays of the defense of the Crusader kingdoms. They formed the first professional standing armies in the Latin world since late Roman times. Their implementation spread in a manner similar to the spread of the crusade idea. Just as the crusade was applied to Spain, the Baltic, and southern France, and finally deteriorated into an anti-imperial instrument in Italy, so military orders extended their operations to, or were invented in, all these theatres. Some of the military orders failed to survive the loss of the Holy Land in 1291. Others, including the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, and St. Lazarus, still exist today, though in considerably modified form. None retain any military aspects. See text articles on the Templars, the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, and the minor orders. See also the catalog of primary sources, glossary of terms, selected bibliography, chronological tables, maps, leadership lists, and photo collection. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 29 March 1996, Paul Crawford. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact. Comments to: Paul Crawford, crawford@alma.edu

Liber ad milites Templi: De laude novae militae (In Praise of the New Knighthood) St. Bernard of Clairvaux (trans. Conrad Greenia)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Editors' note: The following passage is taken from a treatise written in the early 12th century by the Cistercian abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, on behalf of the fledgling Knights Templar. It might be viewed as a combination of exhortation to the Knights, and advertisement to the population in general. Officially it is an answer to a letter written to Bernard by his friend Hugh de Payens, one of the founders of the Templars. We have reproduced the prologue and the first five chapters of this treatise here, using the translation of Conrad Greenia. These first sections deal directly with the Knights Templar and are of great importance to students of the early military orders. The remaining sections deal allegorically with holy sites in Palestine, and are equally interesting, if less directly relevant to the foundation of the Templars. The full text, along with comprehensive notes, may be found in The Cistercian Fathers Series: Number Nineteen, The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux: Volume Seven, Treatises III, translated by Conrad Greenia, Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Mich., 1977. The editors wish to thank Dr. Rozanne Elder and Cistercian Publications for their kind permission to use this excerpt. It may be downloaded for personal or classroom use only. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Prologue TO HUGH, KNIGHT OF CHRIST AND MASTER OF CHRIST'S MILITIA: BERNARD, IN NAME ONLY, ABBOT OF CLAIRVAUS, WISHES THAT HE MIGHT FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, MY DEAR HUGH, you have asked me not once or twice, but three times to write a few words of exhortation for you and your comrades. You say that if I am not permitted to wield the lance, at least I might direct my pen against the tyrannical foe, and that this moral, rather than material support of mine will be of no small help to you. I have put you off now for quite some time, not that I disdain your request, but rather lest I be blamed for taking it lightly and hastily. I feared I might botch a task which could be better done by a more qualified hand, and which would perhaps remain, because of me, just as necessary and all the more difficult. Having waited thus for quite some time to no purpose, I have now done what I could, lest my inability should be mistaken for unwillingness. It is for the reader to judge the result. If some perhaps find my work unsatisfactory or short of the mark, I shall be nonetheless content, since I have not failed to give you my best. CHAPTER ONE A WORD OF EXHORTATION FOR THE KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE IT SEEMS THAT A NEW KNIGHTHOOD has recently appeared on the earth, and precisely in that part of it which the Orient from on high visited in the flesh. As he then troubled the princes of darkness in the strength of his mighty hand, so there he now wipes out their followers, the children of disbelief, scattering them by the hands of his mighty ones. Even now he brings about the redemption of his people raising up again a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David. This is, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone by. It ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and against a spiritual army of evil in the heavens. When someone strongly resists a foe in the flesh, relying solely on the strength of the flesh, I would hardly remark it, since this is common enough. And when war is waged by spiritual strength against vices or demons, this, too, is nothing remarkable, praiseworthy as it is, for the world is full of monks. But when the one sees a man powerfully girding himself with both swords and nobly marking his belt, who would not consider it worthy of all wonder, the more so since it has been hitherto unknown? He is truly a fearless knight and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armor of faith just as his body is protected by armor of steel. He is thus doubly armed and need fear neither demons nor men. Not that he fears death--no, he desires it. Why should he fear to live or fear to die when for him to live is Christ, and to die is gain? Gladly and faithfully he stands for Christ, but he would prefer to be dissolved and to be with Christ, by far the better thing. Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

2. To be sure, precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his holy ones, whether they die in battle or in bed, but death in battle is more precious as it is the more glorious. How secure is life when the conscience is unsullied! How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him. Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you! But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die. CHAPTER TWO ON WORLDLY KNIGHTHOOD WHAT THEN IS THE END OR FRUIT of this worldly knighthood, or rather knavery, as I should call it? What if not the mortal sin of the victor and the eternal death of the vanquished? Well then, let me borrow a word from the Apostle and exhort him who plows, to plow in hope, and him who threshes, to do so in view of some fruit. What then, O knights, is this monstrous error and what this unbearable urge which bids you fight with such pomp and labor, and all to no purpose except death and sin? You cover your horses with silk, and plume your armor with I know not what sort of rags; you paint your shields and your saddles; you adorn your bits and spurs with gold and silver and precious stones, and then in all this glory you rush to your ruin with fearful wrath and fearless folly. Are these the trappings of a warrior or are they not rather the trinkets of a woman? Do you think the swords of your foes will be turned back by your gold, spare your jewels or be unable to pierce your silks? As you yourselves have often certainly experienced, a warrior especially needs these three things--he must guard his person with strength, shrewdness and care; he must be free in his movements, and he must be quick to draw his sword. Then why do you blind yourselves with effeminate locks and trip yourselves up with long and full tunics, burying your tender, delicate hands in big cumbersome sleeves? Above all, there is that terrible insecurity of conscience, in spite of all your armor, since you have dared to undertake such a dangerous business on such slight and frivolous grounds. What else is the cause of wars and the root of disputes among you, except unreasonable flashes of anger, the thirst for empty glory, or the hankering after some earthly possessions? It certainly is not safe to kill or to be killed for such causes as these. CHAPTER THREE ON THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD BUT THE KNIGHTS OF CHRIST may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight. The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a man killer, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth. I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity. 5. What then? If it is never permissible for a Christian to strike with the sword, why did the Savior's precursor bid the soldiers to be content with their pay, and not rather forbid them to follow this calling? But if it is permitted to all those so destined by God, as is indeed the case provided they have not embraced a higher calling, to whom, I ask, may it be allowed more rightly than to those whose hands and hearts hold for us Sion, the city of our strength?

Thus when the transgressors of divine law have been expelled, the righteous nation that keeps the truth may enter in security. Certainly it is proper that the nations who love war should be scattered, that those who trouble us should be cut off, and that all the workers of iniquity should be dispersed from the city of the Lord. They busy themselves to carry away the incalculable riches placed in Jerusalem by the Christian peoples, to profane the holy things and to possess the sanctuary of God as their heritage. Let both swords of the faithful fall upon the necks of the foe, in order to destroy every high thing exalting itself against the knowledge of God, which is the Christian faith, lest the Gentiles should then say, "Where is their God?" 6. Once they have been cast out, he shall return to his heritage and to his house, which aroused his anger in the Gospel, "Behold," he said, "your house is left to you desolate." He had complained through the Prophet: "I have left my house, I have forsaken my heritage," and he will fulfill that other prophecy: "The Lord has ransomed his people and delivered them. They shall come and exult on Mount Sion, and rejoice in the good things of the Lord." Rejoice Jerusalem, and recognize now the time in which you are visited! Be glad and give praise together, wastes of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people. He has ransomed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm in the sight of all peoples. O virgin of Israel, you were fallen and there was none to raise you up. Arise now and shake off the dust, O virgin, captive daughter of Sion. Arise, I say, and stand on high. See the happiness which comes to you from your God. You will no longer be referred to as the forsaken one, nor your land any more termed a wilderness; for the Lord takes his delight in you, and your land shall be peopled. Raise your eyes, look about you and see; all these are gathered together and come to you. Here is the help sent to you from the Holy One! Through them is already fulfilled the ancient promise, "I will make you the pride of the ages, a joy from generation to generation. You will suck the milk of the nations and be nourished at the breasts of their sovereignty." And again, "As a mother consoles her children, so will I console you, and in Jerusalem you will be comforted." Do you not see how frequently these ancient witnesses foreshadowed the new knighthood? Truly, as we have heard, so we have now seen in the city of the Lord of armies. Of course we must not let these literal fulfillments blind us to the spiritual meaning of the texts, for we must live in eternal hope in spite of such temporal realizations of prophetic utterances. Otherwise the tangible would supplant the intangible, material poverty would threaten spiritual wealth and present possessions would forestall future fulfillment. Furthermore, the temporal glory of the earthly city does not eclipse the glory of its heavenly counterpart, but rather prepares for it, at least so long as we remember that the one is the figure of the other, and that it is the heavenly one which is our mother. CHAPTER FOUR ON THE LIFE STYLE OF THE KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE AND NOW AS A MODEL, or at least for the shame of those knights of ours who are fighting for the devil rather than for God, we will briefly set forth the life and virtues of these cavaliers of Christ. Let us see how they conduct themselves at home as well as in battle, how they appear in public and in what way the knight of God differs from the knight of the world. In the first place, discipline is in no way lacking and obedience is never despised. As Scripture testifies, the undisciplined son shall perish and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, to refuse obedience is like the crime of idolatry. Therefore they come and go at the bidding of their superior. They wear what he gives them, and do not presume to wear or to eat anything from another source. Thus they shun every excess in clothing and food and content themselves with what is necessary. They live as brothers in joyful and sober company, without wives or children. So that their evangelical perfection will lack nothing, they dwell united in one family with no personal property whatever, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. You may say that the whole multitude has but one heart and one soul to the point that nobody follows his own will, but rather seeks to follow the commander. They never sit in idleness or wander about aimlessly, but on the rare occasions when they are not on duty, they are always careful to earn their bread by repairing their worn armor and torn clothing, or simply by setting things to order. For the rest, they are guided by the common needs and by the orders of their master. There is no distinction of persons among them, and deference is shown to merit rather than to noble blood. They rival one another in mutual consideration, and they carry one another's burdens, thus fulfilling the law of Christ. No inappropriate word, idle deed, unrestrained laugh, not even the slightest whisper or murmur is left uncorrected once it has been detected. They foreswear dice and chess, and abhor the chase; they take no delight in the ridiculous cruelty of falconry, as is the custom. As for jesters, magicians, bards, troubadours and jousters, they despise and reject them as so many vanities and unsound deceptions. Their hair is worn short, in conformity with the Apostle's saying, that it is shameful for a man to cultivate flowing locks. Indeed, they seldom wash and never set their hair--content to appear tousled and dusty, bearing the marks of the sun and of their armor. 8. When the battle is at hand, they arm themselves interiorly with faith and exteriorly with steel rather than decorate themselves with gold, since their business is to strike fear in the enemy rather than to incite his cupidity. They seek out horses which are strong and swift, rather than those which are brilliant and well-plumed; they set their minds on fighting to win rather than on parading for show. They think not of glory and seek to be formidable rather than flamboyant. At the same time, they are not quarrelsome, rash, or unduly hasty, but soberly, prudently and providently drawn up into orderly ranks, as we read of the fathers. Indeed, the true Israelite is a man of peace, even when he goes forth to battle. Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so

many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory. They are mindful of the words of Maccabees, "It is simple enough for a multitude to be vanquished by a handful. It makes no difference to the God of heaven whether he grants deliverance by the hands of few or many; for victory in war is not dependent on a big army, and bravery is the gift of heaven." On numerous occasions they had seen one man pursue a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight. Thus in a wondrous and unique manner they appear gentler than lambs, yet fiercer than lions. I do not know if it would be more appropriate to refer to them as monks or as soldiers, unless perhaps it would be better to recognize them as being both. Indeed they lack neither monastic meekness nor military might. What can we say of this, except that this has been done by the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. These are the picked troops of God, whom he has recruited from the ends of the earth; the valiant men of Israel chosen to guard well and faithfully that tomb which is the bed of the true Solomon, each man sword in hand, and superbly trained to war. CHAPTER FIVE THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM THEIR QUARTERS indeed are in the very temple of Jerusalem, which is not as vast as the ancient masterpiece of Solomon, but is no less glorious. Truly all the magnificence of the first temple lay in perishable gold and silver, in polished stones and precious woods; whereas all the beauty and gracious charming adornment of its present counterpart is the religious fervor of its occupants and by their well-disciplined behavior. In the former, one could contemplate all sorts of beautiful colors, while in the latter one is able to venerate all sorts of virtues and good works. Indeed holiness is the fitting ornament for God's house. One is able to delight there in splendid merits rather than in shining marble, and to be captivated by pure hearts rather than by gilded paneling. Of course the facade of this temple is adorned, but with weapons rather than with jewels, and in place of the ancient golden crowns, its walls are hung roundabout with shields. In place of candlesticks, censers and ewers, this house is well furnished with saddles, bits and lances. By all these signs our knights clearly show that they are animated by the same zeal for the house of God which of old passionately inflamed their leader himself when he armed his most holy hands, not indeed with a sword, but with a whip. Having fashioned this from some lengths of cord, he entered the temple and ejected the merchants, scattered the coins of the money changers, and overturned the chairs of the pigeon venders, considering it most unfitting to defile this house of prayer by such traffic. Moved therefore by their King's example, his devoted soldiers consider that it is even more shameful and infinitely more intolerable for a holy place to be polluted by pagans than to be crowded with merchants. Once they have installed themselves in this holy house with their horses and their weapons, cleansed it and the other holy places of every un-Christian stain, and cast out the tyrannical horde, they occupy themselves day and night in both pious exercises and practical work. They are especially careful to honor the temple of God with zealous and sincere reverence, offering by their devout service, not the flesh of animals according to the ancient rites, but true peace offerings of brotherly love, devoted obedience and voluntary poverty. 10. These events at Jerusalem have shaken the world. The islands hearken, and the people from afar give ear. They swarm forth from East and West, as a flood stream bringing glory to the nations and a rushing river gladdening the city of God. What could be more profitable and pleasant to behold than seeing such a multitude coming to reinforce the few? What, if not the twofold joy of seeing the conversion of these former impious rogues, sacrilegious thieves, murderers, perjurers and adulterers? A twofold joy and a twofold benefit, since their countrymen are as glad to be rid of them as their new comrades are to receive them. Both sides have profited from this exchange, since the latter are strengthened and the former are now left in peace. Thus Egypt rejoices in their conversion and departure while Mount Sion rejoices and the daughters of Juda are glad to acquire these new protectors. The former glory in being delivered from their hands, while the latter have every reason to expect deliverance by means of these same hands. The former gladly see their cruel despoilers depart, while the latter gladly welcome their faithful defenders; so that the one is agreeably heartened, while the other is profitably abandoned. This is the revenge which Christ contrives against his enemies, to triumph powerfully and gloriously over them by their own means. Indeed, it is both a happy and fitting thing that those who have so long fought against him should at last fight for him. Thus he recruits his soldiers among his foes, just as he once turned Saul the persecutor into Paul the preacher. Therefore I am not surprised that, as our Savior himself has affirmed, the court of heaven takes more joy in the conversion of one sinner than in the virtues of many just men who have no need of conversion. Certainly the conversion of so many sinners and evil doers will now do as much good as their former misdeeds did harm. 11. Hail then, holy city, sanctified by the Most High for his own tabernacle in order that such a generation might be saved in and through you! Hail, city of the great King, source of so many joyous and unheard-of marvels! Hail mistress of nations and queen of provinces, heritage of patriarchs, mother of apostles and prophets, source of the faith and glory of the Christian people! If God has permitted you to be so often besieged, it has only been to furnish brave men an occasion for valor and immortality. Hail Promised Land, source of milk and honey for your ancient inhabitants, now become the source of healing grace and vital sustenance for the whole earth! Yes, I say, you are that good and excellent soil which received into its fruitful depths the heavenly seed from the heart of the eternal Father. What a rich harvest of martyrs you have produced from that heavenly seed! Your fertile soil has not failed to furnish splendid examples of every Christian virtue for the whole earth--some bearing fruit thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundredfold. Therefore those who have seen you are most happily filled with the great abundance of your sweetness and are well nourished on your munificent bounty. Everywhere they go they publish the fame of

your great goodness and relate the splendors of your glory to those who have never seen it, proclaiming the marvels accomplished in you even to the ends of the earth. Indeed, glorious things are told of you, city of God! Now then we will set forth something of the delights in which you abound, for the praise and glory of your name. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 1996, Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise of the New Knighthood, prologue-chapter five, translated by Conrad Greenia ocso, from Bernard of Clairvaux: Treatises Three, Cistercian Fathers Series, Number Nineteen, Cistercian Publications, 1977, pages 127-145 (without notes). All rights reserved. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

The Primitive Rule of the Templars Trans. Mrs. Judith Upton-Ward

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This translation of the original, or primitive, Rule of the Templars is based on the 1886 edition of Henri de Curzon, La Rgle du Temple as a Military Manual, or How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge. It represents the Rule given to the fledgling Knights of the Temple by the Council of Troyes, 1129, although "it must not be forgotten that the Order had been in existence for several years and had built up its own traditions and customs before Hugues de Payens' appearance at the Council of Troyes. To a considerable extent, then, the Primitive Rule is based upon existing practices." (Upton-Ward, p. 11) This translation is excerpted from Judith Upton-Ward's The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1992, and is reprinted here with permission. The Rule of the Templars includes an introduction by Upton-Ward; it also contains the Templars' Primitive Rule and the Hierarchical Statutes; regulations governing penances, conventual life, the holding of ordinary chapters, and reception into the Order; and an appendix by Matthew Bennett, "La Rgle du Temple as a Military Manual, or How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge." The book is highly recommended to those interested in the Templars or any other military order. It is now available in paperback. The notes to the Primitive Rule, supplied by Mrs. Upton-Ward in The Rule of the Templars, are not included below. They are of considerable interest and should be consulted by those wishing to study the Rule in more detail, however.

The Primitive Rule Here begins the prologue to the Rule of Temple 1. We speak firstly to all those who secretly despise their own will and desire with a pure heart to serve the sovereign king as a knight and with studious care desire to wear, and wear permanently, the very noble armor of obedience. And therefore we admonish you, you who until now have led the lives of secular knights, in which Jesus Christ was not the cause, but which you embraced for human favor only, to follow those whom God has chosen from the mass of perdition and whom he has ordered through his gracious mercy to defend the Holy Church, and that you hasten to join them forever. 2. Above all things, whosoever would be a knight of Christ, choosing such holy orders, you in your profession of faith must unite pure diligence and firm perseverance, which is so worthy and so holy, and is known to be so noble, that if it is preserved untainted forever, you will deserve to keep company with the martyrs who gave their souls for Jesus Christ. In this religious order has flourished and is revitalized the order of knighthood. This knighthood despised the love of justice that constitutes its duties and did not do what it should, that is defend the poor, widows, orphans and churches, but strove to plunder, despoil and kill. God works well with us and our savior Jesus Christ; He has sent his friends from the Holy City of Jerusalem to the marches of France and Burgundy, who for our salvation and the spread of the true faith do not cease to offer their souls to God, a welcome sacrifice. 3. Then we, in all joy and all brotherhood, at the request of Master Hugues de Payens, by whom the aforementioned knighthood was founded by the grace of the Holy Spirit, assembled at Troyes from divers provinces beyond the mountains on the feast of my lord St. Hilary, in the year of the incarnation of Jesus Christ 1128, in the ninth year after the founding of the aforesaid knighthood. And the conduct and beginnings of the Order of Knighthood we heard in common chapter from the lips of the aforementioned Master, Brother Hugues de Payens; and according to the limitations of our understanding what seemed to us good and beneficial we praised, and what seemed wrong we eschewed. 4. And all that took place at that council cannot be told nor recounted; and so that it should not be taken lightly by us, but considered in wise prudence, we left it to the discretion of both our honorable father lord Honorius and of the noble patriarch of Jerusalem, Stephen, who knew the affairs of the East and of the Poor Knights of Christ, by the advice of the common council we praised it unanimously. Although a great number of religious fathers who assembled at that council praised the authority of our words, nevertheless we should not pass over in silence the true sentences and judgments which they pronounced. 5. Therefore I, Jean Michel, to whom was entrusted and confided that divine office, by the grace of God served as the humble scribe of the present document by order of the council and of the venerable father Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux. The Names of the Fathers who Attended the Council 6. First was Matthew, bishop of Albano, by the grace of God legate of the Holy Church of Rome; Renaud, Archbishop of Reims; Henri, Archbishop of Sens; and then their suffragans: Gocelin, Bishop of Soissons; the Bishop of Paris; the Bishop of Troyes; the Bishop of Orlans; the Bishop of Auxerre; the Bishop of Meaux; the Bishop of Chalons; the Bishop of Laon; the Bishop of Beauvais; the Abbot of Vzelay, who was later made Archbishop of Lyon and Legate of the Church of Rome; the Abbot of Cteaux; the Abbot of Pontigny; the Abbot of Trois-Fontaines; the Abbot of St Denis de Reims; the Abbot of St-Etienne de Dijon; the Abbot of Molesmes; the above-named Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux: whose words the aforementioned praised liberally. Also present were Master Aubri de Reims; Master Fulcher and several others whom it would be tedious to record. 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; Andr de Baudemant. 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. 7. And also present was Brother Hugues de Payens, Master of the Knighthood, with some of his brothers whom he had brought with him. They were Brother Roland, Brother Godefroy, and Brother Geoffroi Bisot, Brother Payen de Montdidier, Brother Archambaut de Saint-Amand. The same Master Hugues with his followers related to the above-named fathers the customs and

observances of their humble beginnings and of the one who said: Ego principium qui et loquor vobis, that is to say: 'I who speak to you am the beginning,' according to one's memory. 8. It pleased the common council that the deliberations which were made there and the consideration of the Holy Scriptures which were diligently examined with the wisdom of my lord Honorius, Pope of the Holy Church of Rome, and of the patriarch of Jerusalem and with the assent of the chapter, together with the agreement of the Poor Knights of Christ of the Temple which is in Jerusalem, should be put in writing and not forgotten, steadfastly kept so that by an upright life one may come to his creator; the compassion of which Lord [is sweeter] than honey when compared with God; whose mercy resembles oine, and permits us to come to Him whom they desire to serve. Per infinita seculorum secula. Amen Here Begins the Rule of the Poor Knighthood of the Temple 9. You who renounce your own wills, and you others serving the sovereign king with horses and arms, for the salvation of your souls, for a fixed term, strive everywhere with pure desire to hear matins and the entire service according to canonical law and the customs of the regular masters of the Holy City of Jerusalem. 0 you venerable brothers, similarly God is with you, if you promise to despise the deceitful world in perpetual love of God, and scorn the temptations of your body: sustained by the food of God and watered and instructed in the commandments of Our Lord, at the end of the divine office, none should fear to go into battle if he henceforth wears the tonsure. 10. But if any brother is sent through the work of the house and of Christianity in the East--something we believe will happen often--and cannot hear the divine office, he should say instead of matins thirteen paternosters; seven for each hour and nine for vespers. And together we all order him to do so. But those who are sent for such a reason and cannot come at the hours set to hear the divine office, if possible the set hours should not be omitted, in order to render to God his due. The Manner in which Brothers should be Received 11. If any secular knight, or any other man, wishes to leave the mass of perdition and abandon that secular life and choose your communal life, do not consent to receive him immediately, for thus said my lord St. Paul: Probate spiritus si ex Deo sunt. That is to say: 'Test the soul to see if it comes from God.' Rather, if the company of the brothers is to be granted to him, let the Rule be read to him, and if he wishes to studiously obey the commandments of the Rule, and if it pleases the Master and the brothers to receive him, let him reveal his wish and desire before all the brothers assembled in chapter and let him make his request with a pure heart. On Excommunicated Knights 12. Where you know excommunicated knights to be gathered, there we command you to go; and if anyone their wishes to join the order of knighthood from regions overseas, you should not consider worldly gain so much as the eternal salvation of his soul. We order him to be received on condition that he come before the Bishop of that Province and make his intention known to him. And when the Bishop has heard and absolved him, he should send him to the Master and brothers of the Temple, and if his life is honest and worthy of their company, if he seems good to the Master and Brothers, let him be mercifully received; and if he should die in the meanwhile, through the anguish and torment he has suffered, let him be given all the benefits of the brotherhood due to one of the Poor Knights of the Temple. 13. Under no other circumstances should the brothers of the Temple share the company of an obviously-excommunicated man, nor take his own things; and this we prohibit strongly because it would be a fearful thing if they were excommunicated like him. But if he is only forbidden to hear the divine office, it is certainly possible to keep company with him and take his property for charity with the permission of their Commander. On Not Receiving Children 14. Although the rule of the holy fathers allows the receiving of children into a religious life, we do not advise you to do this. For he who wishes to give his child eternally to the order of knighthood should bring him up until such time as he is able to bear arms with vigor, and rid the land of the enemies of Jesus Christ. Then let the mother and father lead him to the house and make his request known to the brothers; and it is much better if he does not take the vow when he is a child, but when he is older, and it is better if he does not regret it than if he regrets it. And henceforth let him be put to the test according to the wisdom of the Master and brothers and according to the honesty of the life of the one who asks to be admitted to the brotherhood. On Brothers who Stand Too Long in Chapel 15. It has been made known to us and we heard it from true witnesses that immoderately and without restraint you hear the divine service whilst standing. We do not ordain that you behave in this manner; on the contrary we disapprove of it. But we command that the strong as well as the weak, to avoid a fuss, should sing the Psalm which is called Venite, with the invitatory and the hymn sitting down, and say their prayers in silence, softly and not loudly, so that the proclaimer does not disturb the prayers of the other brothers. 16. But at the end of the Psalms, when the Gloria patri is sung, through reverence for the Holy Trinity, you will rise and bow towards the altar, while the weak and ill will incline their heads. So we command; and when the explanation of the Gospels is read, and the Te deum laudamus is sung, and while all the lauds are sung, and the matins are finished, you will be on your feet. In such a manner we command you likewise to be on your feet at matins and at all the hours of Our Lady.

On the Brothers' Dress 17. We command that all the brothers' habits should always be of one color that is white or black or brown. And we grant to all knight brothers in winter and in summer if possible, white cloaks; and no-one who does not belong to the aforementioned Knights of Christ is allowed to have a white cloak, so that those who have abandoned the life of darkness will recognize each other as being reconciled to their creator by the sign of the white habits: which signifies purity and complete chastity. Chastity is certitude of heart and healthiness of body. For if any brother does not take the vow of chastity he cannot come to eternal rest nor see God, by the promise of the apostle who said: Pacem sectamini cum omnibus et castimoniam sine qua nemo Deum videbit. That is to say: 'Strive to bring peace to all, keep chaste, without which no-one can see God.' 18. But these robes should be without any finery and without any show of pride. And so we ordain that no brother will have a piece of fur on his clothes, nor anything else which belongs to the usages of the body, not even a blanket unless it is of lamb's wool or sheep's wool. We command all to have the same, so that each can dress and undress, and put on and take off his boots easily. And the Draper or the one who is in his place should studiously reflect and take care to have the reward of God in all the above-mentioned things, so that the eyes of the envious and evil-tongued cannot observe that the robes are too long or too short; but he should distribute them so that they fit those who must wear them, according to the size of each one. 19. And if any brother out of a feeling of pride or arrogance wishes to have as his due a better and finer habit, let him be given the worst. And those who receive new robes must immediately return the old ones, to be given to the squires and sergeants and often to the poor, according to what seems good to the one who holds that office. On Shirts 20. Among the other things, we mercifully rule that, because of the great intensity of the heat which exists in the East, from Easter to All Saints, through compassion and in no way as a right, a linen shirt shall be given to any brother who wishes to wear it. On Bed Linen 21. We command by common consent that each man shall have clothes and bed linen according to the discretion of the Master. It is our intention that apart from a mattress, one bolster and one blanket should be sufficient for each; and he who lacks one of these may have a rug, and he may use a linen blanket at all times, that is to say with a soft pile. And they will at all times sleep dressed in shirt and breeches and shoes and belts, and where they sleep shall be lit until morning. And the Draper should ensure that the brothers are so well tonsured that they may be examined from the front and from behind; and we command you to firmly adhere to this same conduct with respect to beards and moustaches, so that no excess may be noted on their bodies. On Pointed Shoes' and Shoe-Laces 22. We prohibit pointed shoes and shoe-laces and forbid any brother to wear them; nor do we permit them to those who serve the house for a fixed term; rather we forbid them to have shoes with points or laces under any circumstances. For it is manifest and well known that these abominable things belong to pagans. Nor should they wear their hair or their habits too long. For those who serve the sovereign creator must of necessity be born within and without through the promise of God himself who said: Estote mundi quia ego mundus sum. That is to say: 'Be born as I am born.' How They Should Eat 23. In the palace, or what should rather be called the refectory, they should eat together. But if you are in need of anything because you are not accustomed to the signs used by other men of religion, quietly and privately you should ask for what you need at table, with all humility and submission. For the apostle said: Manduca panem tuum cum silentio. That is to say: 'Eat your bread in silence.' And the psalmist: Posui ori meo custodiam. That is to say: 'I held my tongue.' That is, 'I thought my tongue would fail me.' That is, 'I held my tongue so that I should speak no ill.' On the Reading of the Lesson 24. Always, at the convent's dinner and supper, let the Holy Scripture be read, if possible. If we love God and all His holy words and His holy commandments, we should desire to listen attentively; the reader of the lesson will tell you to keep silent before he begins to read. On Bowls and Drinking Vessels 25. Because of the shortage of bowls, the brothers will eat in pairs, so that one may study the other more closely, and so that neither austerity nor secret abstinence is introduced into the communal meal. And it seems just to us that each brother should have the same ration of wine in his cup. On the Eating of Meat 26. It should be sufficient for you to eat meat three times a week, except at Christmas, All Saints, the Assumption and the feast of the twelve apostles. For it is understood that the custom of eating flesh corrupts the body. But if a fast when meat must be forgone falls on a Tuesday, the next day let it be given to the brothers in plenty. And on Sundays all the brothers of the Temple, the chaplains and the clerks shall be given two meat meals in honor of the holy resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the rest of the household, that is to say the squires and sergeants, shall be content with one meal and shall be thankful to God for it.

On Weekday Meals 27. On the other days of the week, that is Mondays, Wednesdays and even Saturdays, the brothers shall have two or three meals of vegetables or other dishes eaten with bread; and we intend that this should be sufficient and command that it should be adhered to. For he who does not eat one meal shall eat the other. On Friday Meals 28. On Fridays, let Lenten meat be given communally to the whole congregation, out of reverence for the passion of Jesus Christ; and you will fast from All Saints until Easter, except for Christmas Day, the Assumption and the feast of the twelve apostles. But weak and sick brothers shall not be kept to this. From Easter to All Saints they may eat twice, as long as there is no general fast. On Saying Grace 29. Always after every dinner and supper all the brothers should give thanks to God in silence, if the church is near to the palace where they eat, and if it is not nearby, in the place itself. With a humble heart they should give thanks to Jesus Christ who is the Lord Provider. Let the remains of the broken bread be given to the poor and whole loaves be kept. Although the reward of the poor, which is the kingdom of heaven, should be given to the poor without hesitation, and the Christian faith doubtless recognizes you among them, we ordain that a tenth part of the bread be given to your Almoner. On Taking Collation 30. When daylight fades and night falls listen to the signal of the bell or the call to prayers, according to the customs of the country and all go to compline. But we command you first to take collation; although we place this light meal under the arbitration and discretion of the Master. When he wants water and when he orders, out of mercy, diluted wine, let it be given sensibly. Truly, it should not be taken to excess, but in moderation. For Solomon said: Quia vinum facit apostatare sapientes. That is to say that wine corrupts the wise. On Keeping Silence 31. When the brothers come out of compline they have no permission to speak openly except in an emergency. But let each go to his bed quietly and in silence, and if he needs to speak to his squire, he should say what he has to say softly and quietly. But if by chance, as they come out of compline, the knighthood or the house has a serious problem which must be solved before morning, we intend that the Master or a party of elder brothers, who govern the Order under the Master, may speak appropriately. And for this reason we command that it should be done in such a manner. 32. For it is written: In multiloquio non effugies peccatum. That is to say that to talk too much is not without sin. And elsewhere: Mors et vita in manibus lingue. That is to say: 'Life and death are in the power of the tongue.' And during that conversation we altogether prohibit idle words and wicked bursts of laughter. And if anything is said during that conversation that should not be said, when you go to bed we command you to say the paternoster prayer in all humility and pure devotion. On Ailing Brothers 33. Brothers who suffer illness through the work of the house may be allowed to rise at matins with the agreement and permission of the Master or of those who are charged with that office. But they should say instead of matins thirteen paternosters, as is established above, in such a manner that the words reflect the heart. Thus said David: Psallite sapienter. That is to say: 'Sing wisely.' And elsewhere the same David said: In conspectu Angelorum psallam tibi. That is to say: 'I will sing to you before the angels.' And let this thing be at all times at the discretion of the Master or of those who are charged with that office. On the Communal Life 34. One reads in the Holy Scriptures: Dividebatur singulis prout cuique opus erat. That is to say that to each was given according to his need. For this reason we say that no-one should be elevated among you, but all should take care of the sick; and he who is less ill should thank God and not be troubled; and let whoever is worse humble himself through his infirmity and not become proud through pity. In this way all members will live in peace. And we forbid anyone to embrace excessive abstinence; but firmly keep the communal life. On the Master 35. The Master may give to whomsoever he pleases the horse and armor and whatever he likes of another brother and the brother to whom the given thing belongs should not become vexed or angry: for be certain that if he becomes angry he will go against God. On Giving Counsel 36. Let only those brothers whom the Master knows will give wise and beneficial advice be called to the council; for this we command, and by no means everyone should be chosen. For when it happens that they wish to treat serious matters like the giving of communal land, or to speak of the affairs of the house, or receive a brother, then if the Master wishes, it is appropriate to assemble the entire congregation to hear the advice of the whole chapter; and what seems to the Master best and most beneficial, let him do it. On Brothers Sent Overseas 37. Brothers who are sent throughout divers countries of the world should endeavor to keep the commandments of the Rule according to their ability and live without reproach with regard to meat and wine, etc. so that they may receive a good report from outsiders and not sully by deed or word the precepts of the Order, and so that they may set an example of good works and wisdom; above all so that those with whom they associate and those in whose inns they lodge may be bestowed with honor. And

if possible, the house where they sleep and take lodging should not be without light at night, so that shadowy enemies may not lead them to wickedness, which God forbids them. On Keeping the Peace 38. Each brother should ensure that he does not incite another brother to wrath or anger, for the sovereign mercy of God holds the strong and weak brother equal, in the name of charity. How the Brothers Should Go About 39. In order to carry out their holy duties and gain the glory of the Lord's joy and to escape the fear of hell-fire, it is fitting that all brothers who are professed strictly obey their Master. For nothing is dearer to Jesus Christ than obedience. For as soon as something is commanded by the Master or by him to whom the Master has given the authority, it should be done without delay as though Christ himself had commanded it. For thus said Jesus Christ through the mouth of David, and it is true: Ob auditu auris obedivit mihi. That is to say: 'He obeyed me as soon as he heard me.' 40. For this reason we pray and firmly command the knight brothers who have abandoned their own wills and all the others who serve for a fixed term not to presume to go out into the town or city without the permission of the Master or of the one who is given that office; except at night to the Sepulchre and the places of prayer which lie within the walls of the city of Jerusalem. 41. There, brothers may go in pairs, but otherwise may not go out by day or night; and when they have stopped at an inn, neither brother nor squire nor sergeant may go to another's lodging to see or speak to him without permission, as is said above. We command by common consent that in this Order which is ruled by God, no brother should fight or rest according to his own will, but according to the orders of the Master, to whom all should submit, that they may follow this pronouncement of Jesus Christ who said: Non veni facere voluntatem meam, sed ejus que misit me, patris. That is to say: 'I did not come to do my own will, but the will of my father who sent me.' How they should Effect an Exchange 42. Without permission from the Master or from the one who holds that office, let no brother exchange one thing for another, nor ask to, unless it is a small or petty thing. On Locks 43. Without permission from the Master or from the one who holds that office, let no brother have a lockable purse or bag; but commanders of houses or provinces and Masters shall not be held to this. Without the consent of the Master or of his commander, let no brother have letters from his relatives or any other person; but if he has permission, and if it please the Master or the commander, the letters may be read to him. On Secular Gifts 44. If anything which cannot be conserved, like meat, is given to any brother by a secular person in thanks, he should present it to the Master or the Commander of Victuals. But if it happens that any of his friends or relatives has something that they wish to give only to him, let him not take it without the permission of the Master or of the one who holds that office. Moreover, if the brother is sent any other thing by his relatives, let him not take it without the permission of the Master or of the one who holds that office. We do not wish the commanders or baillis, who are especially charged to carry out this office, to be held to this aforementioned rule. On Faults 45. If any brother, in speaking or soldiering, or in any other way commits a slight sin, he himself should willingly make known the fault to the Master, to make amends with a pure heart. And if he does not usually fail in this way let him be given a light penance, but if the fault is very serious let him go apart from the company of the brothers so that he does not eat or drink at any table with them, but all alone; and he should submit to the mercy and judgment of the Master and brothers, that he may be saved on the Day of Judgment. On Serious Faults 46. Above all things, we should ensure that no brother, powerful or not powerful, strong or weak, who wishes to promote himself gradually and become proud and defend his crime, remain unpunished. But if he does not wish to atone for it let him be given a harsher punishment. And if by pious counsel prayers are said to God for him, and he does not wish to make amends, but wishes to boast more and more of it, let him be uprooted from the pious flock; according to the apostle who says: Auferte malum ex vobis. That is to say: 'Remove the wicked from among you.' It is necessary for you to remove the wicked sheep from the company of faithful brothers. 47. Moreover the Master, who should hold in his hand the staff and rod- the staff with which to sustain the weaknesses and strengths of others; the rod with which to beat the vices of those who sin--for love of justice by counsel of the patriarch, should take care to do this. But also, as my lord St. Maxime said: 'May the leniency be no greater than the fault; nor excessive punishment cause the sinner to return to evil deeds.' On Rumor 48. We command you by divine counsel to avoid a plague: envy, rumor, spite, slander. So each one should zealously guard against what the apostle said: Ne sis criminator et susurro in populo. That is to say: 'Do not accuse or malign the people of God.' But when a brother knows for certain that his fellow brother has sinned, quietly and with fraternal mercy let him be chastised

privately between the two of them, and if he does not wish to listen, another brother should be called, and if he scorns them both he should recant openly before the whole chapter. Those who disparage others suffer from a terrible blindness and many are full of great sorrow that they do not guard against harboring envy towards others; by which they shall be plunged into the ancient wickedness of the devil. Let None Take Pride in his Faults 49. Although all idle words are generally known to be sinful, they will be spoken by those who take pride in their own sin before the strict judge Jesus Christ; which is demonstrated by what David said: Obmutui et silui a bonis. That is to say that one should refrain from speaking even good, and observe silence. Likewise one should guard against speaking evil, in order to escape the penalty of sin. We prohibit and firmly forbid any brother to recount to another brother nor to anyone else the brave deeds he has done in secular life, which should rather be called follies committed in the performance of knightly duties, and the pleasures of the flesh that he has had with immoral women; and if it happens that he hears them being told by another brother, he should immediately silence him; and if he cannot do this, he should straightaway leave that place and not give his heart's ear to the pedlar of filth. Let None Ask 50. This custom among the others we command you to adhere to strictly and firmly: that no brother should explicitly ask for the horse or armor of another. It will therefore be done in this manner: if the infirmity of the brother or the frailty of his animals or his armor is known to be such that the brother cannot go out to do the work of the house without harm, let him go to the Master, or to the one who is in his place in that office after the Master, and make the situation known to him in pure faith and true fraternity, and henceforth remain at the disposal of the Master or of the one who holds that office. On Animals and Squires 51. Each knight brother may have three horses and no more without the permission of the Master, because of the great poverty which exists at the present time in the house of God and of the Temple of Solomon. To each knight brother we grant three horses and one squire, and if that squire willingly serves charity, the brother should not beat him for any sin he commits. That No Brother May Have an Ornate Bridle 52. We utterly forbid any brother to have gold or silver on his bridle, nor on his stirrups, nor on his spurs. That is, if he buys them; but if it happens that a harness is given to him in charity which is so old that the gold or silver is tarnished, that the resplendent beauty is not seen by others nor pride taken in them: then he may have them. But if he is given new equipment let the Master deal with it as he sees fit. On Lance Covers 53. Let no brother have a cover on his shield or his lance, for it is no advantage, on the contrary we understand that it would be very harmful. On Food Bags 54. This command which is established by us it is beneficial for all to keep and for this reason we ordain that it be kept henceforth, and that no brother may make a food bag of linen or wool, principally, or anything else except a profinel. On Hunting 55. We collectively forbid any brother to hunt a bird with another bird. It is not fitting for a man of religion to succumb to pleasures, but to hear willingly the commandments of God, to be often at prayer and each day to confess tearfully to God in his prayers the sins he has committed. No brother may presume to go particularly with a man who hunts one bird with another. Rather it is fitting for every religious man to go simply and humbly without laughing or talking too much, but reasonably and without raising his voice and for this reason we command especially all brothers not to go in the woods with longbow or crossbow to hunt animals or to accompany anyone who would do so, except out of love to save him from faithless pagans. Nor should you go after dogs, nor shout or chatter, nor spur on a horse out of a desire to capture a wild beast. On the Lion 56. It is the truth that you especially are charged with the duty of giving your souls for your brothers, as did Jesus Christ, and of defending the land from the unbelieving pagans who are the enemies of the son of the Virgin Mary. This above-mentioned prohibition of hunting is by no means intended to include the lion, for he comes encircling and searching for what he can devour, his hands against every man and every man's hand against him. How They May Have Lands and Men 57. This kind of new order we believe was born out of the Holy Scriptures and divine providence in the Holy Land of the Fast. That is to say that this armed company of knights may kill the enemies of the cross without sinning. For this reason we judge you to be rightly called knights of the Temple, with the double merit and beauty of probity, and that you may have lands and keep men, villains and fields and govern them justly, and take your right to them as it is specifically established. On Tithes 58. You who have abandoned the pleasant riches of this world, we believe you to have willingly subjected yourselves to poverty; therefore we are resolved that you who live the communal life may receive tithes. If the bishop of the place, to whom the tithe should be rendered by right, wishes to give it to you out of charity, with the consent of his chapter he may give those tithes which

the Church possesses. Moreover, if any layman keeps the tithes of his patrimony, to his detriment and against the Church, and wishes to leave them to you, he may do so with the permission of the prelate and his chapter. On Giving Judgment 59. We know, because we have seen it, that persecutors and people who like quarrels and endeavor to cruelly torment those faithful to the Holy Church and their friends, are without number. By the clear judgment of our council, we command that if there is anyone in the parties of the East or anywhere else who asks anything of you, for faithful men and love of truth you should judge the thing, if the other party wishes to allow it. This same commandment should be kept at all times when something is stolen from you. On Elderly Brothers 60. We command by pious counsel that ageing and weak brothers be honored with diligence and given consideration according to their frailty; and, kept well by the authority of the Rule in those things which are necessary to their physical welfare, should in no way be in distress. On Sick Brothers 61. Let sick brothers be given consideration and care and be served according to the saying of the evangelist and Jesus Christ: Infirmus fui et visitastis me. That is to say: 'I was sick and you visited me'; and let this not be forgotten. For those brothers who are wretched should be treated quietly and with care, for which service, carried out without hesitation, you will gain the kingdom of heaven. Therefore we command the Infirmarer to studiously and faithfully provide those things which are necessary to the various sick brothers, such as meat, flesh, birds and all other foods which bring good health, according to the means and the ability of the house. On Deceased Brothers 62. When any brother passes from life to death, a thing from which no one is exempt, we command you to sing mass for his soul with a pure heart, and have the divine office performed by the priests who serve the sovereign king and you who serve charity for a fixed term and all the brothers who are present where the body lies and serve for a fixed term should say one hundred paternosters during the next seven days. And all the brothers who are under the command of that house where the brother has passed away should say the hundred paternosters, as is said above, after the death of the brother is known, by God's mercy. Also we pray and command by pastoral authority that a pauper be fed with meat and wine for forty days in memory of the dead brother, just as if he were alive. We expressly forbid all other offerings which used to be made at will and without discretion by the Poor Knights of the Temple on the death of brothers, at the feast of Easter and at other feasts. 63. Moreover, you should profess your faith with a pure heart night and day that you may be compared in this respect to the wisest of all the prophets, who said: Calicem salutaris accipiam. That is to say: 'I will take the cup of salvation.' Which means: 'I will avenge the death of Jesus Christ by my death. For just as Jesus Christ gave his body for me, I am prepared in the same way to give my soul for my brothers.' This is a suitable offering; a living sacrifice and very pleasing to God. On the Priests and Clerks who Serve Charity 64. The whole of the common council commands you to render all offerings and all kinds of alms in whatever manner they may be given, to the chaplains and clerks and to others who remain in charity for a fixed term. According to the authority of the Lord God, the servants of the Church may have only food and clothing, and may not presume to have anything else unless the Master wishes to give them anything willingly out of charity. On Secular Knights 65. Those who serve out of pity and remain with you for a fixed term are knights of the house of God and of the Temple of Solomon; therefore out of pity we pray and finally command that if during his stay the power of God takes any one of them, for love of God and out of brotherly mercy, one pauper be fed for seven days for the sake of his soul, and each brother in that house should say thirty paternosters. On Secular Knights who Serve for a Fixed Term 66. We command all secular knights who desire with a pure heart to serve Jesus Christ and the house of the Temple of Solomon for a fixed term to faithfully buy a suitable horse and arms, and everything that will be necessary for such work. Furthermore, we command both parties to put a price on the horse and to put the price in writing so that it is not forgotten; and let everything that the knight, his squire and horse need, even horseshoes, be given out of fraternal charity according to the means of the house. If, during the fixed term, it happens by chance that the horse dies in the service of the house, if the house can afford to, the Master should replace it. If, at the end of his tenure, the knight wishes to return to his own country, he should leave to the house, out of charity, half the price of the horse, and the other half he may, if he wishes, receive from the alms of the house. On the Commitment of Sergeants 67. As the squires and sergeants who wish to serve charity in the house of the Temple for the salvation of their souls and for a fixed term come from divers regions, it seems to us beneficial that their promises be received, so that the envious enemy does not put it in their hearts to repent of or renounce their good intentions.

On White Mantles 68. By common counsel of all the chapter we forbid and order expulsion, for common vice, of anyone who without discretion was in the house of God and of the Knights of the Temple; also that the sergeants and squires should not have white habits, from which custom great harm used to come to the house; for in the regions beyond the mountains false brothers, married men and others who said they were brothers of the Temple used to be sworn in; while they were of the world. They brought so much shame to us and harm to the Order of Knighthood that even their squires boasted of it; for this reason numerous scandals arose. Therefore let them assiduously be given black robes; but if these cannot be found, they should be given what is available in that province; or what is the least expensive, that is burell. On Married Brothers 69. If married men ask to be admitted to the fraternity, benefice and devotions of the house, we permit you to receive them on the following conditions: that after their death they leave you a part of their estate and all that they have obtained henceforth. Meanwhile, they should lead honest lives and endeavor to act well towards the brothers. But they should not wear white habits or cloaks; moreover, if the lord should die before his lady, the brothers should take part of his estate and let the lady have the rest to support her during her lifetime; for it does not seem right to us that such confrres should live in a house with brothers who have promised chastity to God. On Sisters 70. The company of women is a dangerous thing, for by it the old devil has led many from the straight path to Paradise. Henceforth, let not ladies be admitted as sisters into the house of the Temple; that is why, very dear brothers, henceforth it is not fitting to follow this custom, that the flower of chastity is always maintained among you. Let Them Not Have Familiarity with Women 71. We believe it to be a dangerous thing for any religious to look too much upon the face of woman. For this reason none of you may presume to kiss a woman, be it widow, young girl, mother, sister, aunt or any other; and henceforth the Knighthood of Jesus Christ should avoid at all costs the embraces of women, by which men have perished many times, so that they may remain eternally before the face of God with a pure conscience and sure life. Not Being Godfathers 72. We forbid all brothers henceforth to dare to raise children over the font and none should be ashamed to refuse to be godfathers or godmothers; this shame brings more glory than sin. On the Commandments 73. All the commandments which are mentioned and written above in this present Rule are at the discretion and judgment of the Master. These are the Feast Days and Fasts that all the Brothers should Celebrate and Observe 74. Let it be known to all present and future brothers of the Temple that they should fast at the vigils of the twelve apostles. That is to say: St Peter and St Paul; St Andrew; St James and St Philip; St Thomas; St Bartholomew; Sts. Simon and Jude St James; St Matthew. The vigil of St John the Baptist; the vigil of the Ascension and the two days before, the rogation days; the vigil of Pentecost; the ember days; the vigil of St Laurence; the vigil of Our Lady in mid-August; the vigil of All Saints; the vigil of Epiphany. And they should fast on all the above-mentioned days according to the commandments of Pope Innocent at the council which took place in the city of Pisa. And if any of the above-mentioned feast days fall on a Monday, they should fast on the preceding Saturday. If the nativity of Our Lord falls on a Friday, the brothers should eat meat in honor of the festival. But they should fast on the feast day of St Mark because of the Litany: for it is established by Rome for the mortality of men. However, if it falls during the octave of Easter, they should not fast. These are the Feast Days which should be Observed in the House of the Temple 75. The nativity of Our Lord; the feast of St Stephen; St John the Evangelist; the Holy Innocents; the eighth day of Christmas, which is New Year's Day; Epiphany; St Mary Candlemas; St Mathias the Apostle; the Annunciation of Our Lady in March; Easter and the three days following; St George; Sts Philip and James, two apostles; the finding of the Holy Cross; the Ascension of Our Lord; Pentecost and the two days following; St John the Baptist; St Peter and St Paul, two apostles; St Mary Magdalene; St James the Apostle; St Laurence; the Assumption of Our Lady; the nativity of Our Lady; the Exaltation of the Holy Cross; St Matthew the Apostle; St Michael; Sts Simon and Jude; the feast of All Saints; St Martin in winter; St Catherine in winter; St Andrew; St Nicholas in winter; St Thomas the Apostle. 76. None of the lesser feasts should be kept by the house of the Temple. And we wish and advise that this be strictly kept and adhered to: that all the brothers of the Temple should fast from the Sunday before St Martin's to the nativity of Our Lord, unless illness prevents them. And if it happens that the feast of St Martin falls on a Sunday, the brothers should go without meat on the preceding Sunday. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 1992, J. M. Upton-Ward. Excerpted here by kind permission of the author. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

The Templars Malcolm Barber

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to St. Bernard, in his treatise De laude novae militiae, written in the 1130s, the Templars were "a new species of knighthood, unknown in the secular world," who waged a double conflict against both flesh and blood and against the invisible forces of evil. To him they were a unique combination of knight and monk; to later historians, they were the first military order, soon imitated by the Hospital, by specifically Spanish orders and, at the end of the twelfth century, by the Teutonic Knights. They originated in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, probably in 1119, when two French knights, Hugh of Payns and Godfrey of St. Omer, responded to a perceived need to protect pilgrims travelling from the port of Jaffa to the shrines in and around Jerusalem. Encouraged by King Baldwin II and Warmund of Picquigny, Patriarch of Jerusalem, they were apparently seen as complementary to the Hospitallers (recognized as an Order of the Church by the papacy in 1113, but not militarized until the 1130s), who cared for sick and exhausted pilgrims in their convent in Jerusalem. Their services were welcomed in a land where, since its conquest by the First Crusade in 1099, the Latins had failed to achieve an acceptable degree of internal security, not the least because they lacked sufficient manpower. In 1119, however, the venture was not seen as unique: the protagonists were seculars imbued with a desire to fulfill the Biblical injunction to love thy neighbor, but they were not a monastic order. It was at the Council of Troyes in Champagne, held in January, 1129, that their status underwent a dramatic change, for here they were officially accepted by Matthew of Albano, the papal legate, and they were given a proper Rule, written in Latin, which ran to 72 clauses. The impetus given by papal approval and the publicity generated by the visits of the leaders to France, England and Scotland in the months before the council ensured that the "new knighthood" would long outlive its founders. Papal recognition at Troyes was followed by the issue of three key bulls, which established the Temple as a privileged Order under Rome. Omne Datum Optimum (1139) consolidated the Order's growing material base by allowing spoils taken in battle to be retained for the furtherance of the holy war, placing donations directly under papal protection, and granting exemption from payment of tithes. It also strengthened the structure of the Order by making all members answerable to the Master and by adding a new class of Templar priests to the existing organization of knights and sergeants (1). The Templars could now possess their own oratories, where they could hear divine office and bury their dead. Milites Templi (1144) ordered the clergy to protect the Templars and encouraged the faithful to contribute to their cause, while at the same time allowing the Templars to make their own collections once a year, even in areas under interdict. Militia Dei (1145) consolidated the Order's independence of the local clerical hierarchy by giving the Templars the right to take tithes and burial fees and to bury their dead in their own cemeteries. As these privileges indicate, during the 1130s the Temple had attracted increasing numbers of donors, for it proved to be especially popular with that sector of the French aristocracy which, while it could not aspire to comital status, nevertheless held castles and estates and could mobilize vassals, albeit on a modest scale. Moreover, the rulers of Aragon and Portugal, confronted directly with the problems of warfare on a volatile frontier, realized their military value more quickly than most others. The Templars therefore began to accumulate a substantial landed base in the West, not only in Francia, Provence, Iberia and England, where they were first known, but also in Italy, Germany, and Dalmatia and, with the Latin conquests of Cyprus from 1191 and of the Morea from 1204, in those regions as well. By the late thirteenth century they may have had as many as 870 castles, preceptories, and subsidiary houses spread across Latin Christendom. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries these properties were built into a network of support which provided men, horses, money, and supplies for the Templars of the East. The development of a role as bankers arose out of these circumstances, for they were well placed to offer credit and change specie through their holdings in both east and west. It was a short step to move into more general finance, unconnected to crusading activity; by the 1290s their house in Paris could offer a deposit bank with a cash desk open on a daily basis and specialist accountancy services of great value to contemporary secular administrations. The Templar structure was cemented by effective communications including its own Mediterranean shipping. Together with the Hospitallers, the Templars thus became the permanent defenders of the Latin settlements in the Levant, increasingly entrusted with key castles and fiefs. By the 1180s they could call on as many as 600 knights in Jerusalem, Tripoli and Antioch, and perhaps three times that number of sergeants. No major battle took place without their participation. In the thirteenth century, the Order was the only institution capable of building great castles like Athlit (Pilgrims' Castle) (1217-21), on the coast to the south of Haifa, and Safed (early 1240s), dominating the Galilean Hills. Such military and financial power, together with the extensive papal privileges, gave them immense influence in the Latin East and, at times, led to conflict with other institutions. William, Archbishop of Tyre, the most important native Christian chronicler in the twelfth century, upset by what he believed were violations of Episcopal rights, alleged that they forgot their original humility, and describes a number of incidents in which they appear to have disregarded royal policy. King Amalric (1163 74) was particularly incensed when, in 1173, a group of Templars murdered an envoy from the dissident Muslim sect of the Assassins with whom he had been negotiating, thus wrecking the king's attempt to achieve an alliance. In the thirteenth century, as their relative strength increased, they were involved in further conflict, most notably in the vicious civil war which arose from a dispute between the Venetians and the Genoese over the possession of the monastery of Saint Sabas (near Acre) between 1256 and 1258. The Templars took the Venetian side, while the Hospitallers backed the Genoese. Such incidents have reinforced their modern reputation for headstrong behavior, a reputation which derives in part from the advice given by the Master, Gerard of Ridefort, to King Guy in July, 1187, which culminated in Saladin's overwhelming victory at the battle of Hattin. However, Templar aggression has often been exaggerated; most of the time they were intrinsically cautious, for they were well-aware of the continuing precariousness of the Latin states in the Levant. It was, for instance, largely on the advice of the leaders of the military orders that the English king, Richard I, abandoned his advance upon Jerusalem in January, 1192.

The Latin Rule of 1129, which had been influenced by a monastic establishment with little experience of practical crusading, soon proved inadequate for such an expanding organization. New sections, written in French, were added, first in the 1160s, when 202 clauses defined the hierarchy of the Order and laid down its military functions and then, within the next twenty years, a further 107 clauses on the discipline of the convent and 158 clauses on the holding of chapters and the penance system. Between 1257 and 1267 113 clauses set out case histories which could be used as precedents in the administration of penances. The existence of a version of the Rule in Catalan, dating from after 1268, shows that efforts were made to ensure that its contents were widely understood within the Order. Although the Order never underwent a thorough internal reform, these developments indicate that the Templars were not oblivious to the need to maintain standards. The loss of Acre in 1291 and the Mamluk conquest of Palestine and Syria have often been seen as a turning-point in Templar history, for the Order was apparently left without a specific role in a society still profoundly imbued with the idea of its own organic unity. Indeed, the failure of the military orders to prevent the advance of Islam had attracted criticism since at least the 1230s; with the loss of the Christian hold on the mainland, opponents were provided with a specific focus for their attacks. The more constructive of these critics advocated a union of the Temple and the Hospital as the first step in a thorough reassessment of their activities, although the orders themselves showed little enthusiasm for such schemes. There was, however, no suggestion that either order should be abolished. In fact, the Templars continued to pursue the holy war with some vigor from their base in Cyprus for, in keeping with most contemporaries, they did not see the events of 1291 as inevitably presaging the decline of crusading. The attack on them by the government of Philip the Fair in October, 1307, ostensibly on the grounds of "vehement suspicion" of heresy and blasphemy, therefore owes more to the potent combination of a king afflicted by a morbid religiosity on the one hand and an administration in severe financial trouble on the other, than it does to any failings of the Templars. In the end, neither intervention by Pope Clement V nor an energetic defense by some Templars, could save the Order, which was suppressed by the bull Vox in excelso in 1312. Its goods were then transferred to the Hospital. Such a dramatic end proved a potent source of myths; in that sense the Temple lives on even today, for the manner of its demise has proved almost irresistible to conspiracy theorists determined to adapt history to suit their own world views. (1) Sergeants: mounted, non-noble warriors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 1997, Malcolm Barber. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Recruitment to the Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries Alan Forey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As military orders were involved in warfare, death rates were probably higher in these institutions than in contemplative religious houses, even though by no means all brethren engaged in fighting. The recruitment of new members was therefore of constant significance. Many military orders were primarily associated with particular regions and obtained recruits mainly in these: the Spanish military orders drew on the Iberian Peninsula, and German-speaking areas provided most of the postulants of the Teutonic order. It was only the Templars and Hospitallers who usually recruited throughout western Christendom; even these, however, saw France as their most important source of new members. Recruits to the military orders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, like those to monasteries, were expected to satisfy certain criteria. Men of servile status were excluded, and in the thirteenth century, though apparently not in the twelfth, postulants to the rank of knight in an order had to be of knightly descent. At least in the Temple and Hospital, knightly recruits at that time were also to be of legitimate birth. Married men were eligible for entry, but--except in the Spanish order of Santiago, in which married men could become full members--married recruits had to abandon their wives, and this could not be done without the consent of the spouse Entrants were also asked about their health, both physical and spiritual. Military orders did not want to become refuges for handicapped or sick offspring, and they did not admit those who were excommunicate. Nor could they receive apostates from other religious foundations. They were also anxious to ensure that they did not become liable for a recruit's debts, and therefore questioned a postulant about his financial position. By the time that military orders were being established, the practice of child oblation was declining, and children who were reared in houses of military orders were not normally obliged to become professed brethren. Some military orders, like some monastic foundations, also decreed minimum age limits for admission. A postulant to the Teutonic order could not take vows before the completion of his fourteenth year, and in the order of Santiago the minimum age may have been fifteen. The Temple, on the other hand, specified no precise age, but expected recruits to be old enough to bear arms and mature enough to make a decision about entering. Evidence from the trial of the Templars suggests that, although a few had made their profession when they were still boys or youths, the average age of entry was the mid to later twenties. Records of that trial also throw light on the social backgrounds of postulants. Although knights predominated at the Templar headquarters in Cyprus, in the order as a whole the brother sergeants, who had to be merely of free status, comprised the largest group. An English Hospitaller survey of 1338 also reveals a preponderance of sergeants. It has further been shown that knights who monopolized major offices in the Temple were rarely drawn from more important noble families, while examinations of the family backgrounds of members of the Teutonic order have stressed the significance of recruitment from the ministerialis class. Some minor military orders, such as the Spanish order of Mountjoy and the Swordbrethren in Livonia, may have encountered recruiting problems throughout their history, and it is possible that there were more general difficulties in attracting sufficient recruits in Spain in the thirteenth century. There also seems to have been a widespread lack of clerical postulants, even in the leading military orders: these frequently had to employ secular priests in their chapels. But generally, the main orders fighting in the Holy Land in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries appear to have had little difficulty in attracting a sufficient number of lay recruits, even when they had suffered heavy losses in war. Those aspiring to enter the Temple did not always find ready acceptance. Money was a greater problem than manpower. The motives which led individuals to enter a military order were varied. Although child oblation had been rejected, parental and family pressures were still of significance. Many recruits were younger sons, and saw a military order as a means of livelihood, even if they did not enter until they were in their twenties. The warnings addressed to recruits on admission indicate that these orders were often thought to provide a comfortable existence. Their military activities may also have made them more attractive to some potential postulants than contemplative foundations. Among other mundane factors was the possibility of enhanced status. Historians of the Teutonic order have pointed out that for ministeriales entry might lead to an improvement in social standing. An order could also be a refuge for old age. But for some recruits admission occasioned material loss rather than gain, and the significance of spiritual aspects should not be minimized. In the Templar admission ceremony it was stated that the purpose of entry should be to abandon the sins of the world, to serve God and to do penance. Life in a military order was seen as a means of salvation, and no recruit was unaware of this when making his decision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 1998, Alan Forey. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

The Knights Templar: Warrior Monks By Melissa Snell, About.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also known as: Templars, Templar Knights, Poor Knights of Solomon's Temple, Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, Knights of the Temple The Origin of the Templars: The route traveled by pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land was in need of policing. In 1118 or 1119, not long after the success of the First Crusade, Hugh de Payns and eight other knights offered their services to the patriarch of Jerusalem for just this purpose. They took vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, followed the Augustinian rule, and patrolled the pilgrim route to aid and defend pious travelers. King Baldwin II of Jerusalem gave the knights quarters in a wing of the royal palace that had been part of the Jewish Temple; from this they got the names "Templar" and "Knights of the Temple." The Official Establishment of the Knights Templar: For the first decade of their existence, the Knights Templar were few in number. Not many fighting men were willing to take the Templar vows. Then, thanks largely to the efforts of Cistercian monk Bernard of Clairvaux, the fledgling order was given papal recognition at the Council of Troyes in 1129. They also received a specific rule for their order (one clearly influenced by the Cistercians). Templar Expansion: Bernard of Clairvaux wrote an extensive treatise, "In Praise of the New Knighthood," that raised awareness of the order, and the Templars grew in popularity. In 1139 Pope Innocent II placed the Templars directly under papal authority, and they were no longer subject to any bishop in whose diocese they might hold property. As a result they were able to establish themselves in numerous locations. At the height of their power they had about 20,000 members, and they garrisoned every town of any considerable size in the Holy Land. Templar Organization: The Templars were led by a Grand Master; his deputy was the Seneschal. Next came the Marshal, who was responsible for individual commanders, horses, arms, equipment, and ordering supplies. He usually carried the standard, or specifically directed a specially-appointed standard-bearer. The Commander of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the treasurer and shared a certain authority with the Grand Master, balancing his power; other cities also had Commanders with specific regional responsibilities. The Draper issued clothes and bed linen and monitored the brothers' appearance to keep them "living simply."Other ranks formed to supplement the above, depending on the region. The bulk of the fighting force was made up of knights and sergeants. Knights were the most prestigious; they wore the white mantle and red cross, carried knightly weapons, rode horses and had the services of a squire. They usually came from the nobility. Sergeants filled other roles as well as engaging in battle, such as blacksmith or mason. There were also squires, who were originally hired out but later allowed to join the order; they performed the essential job of caring for the horses. Money and the Templars: Though individual members took vows of poverty, and their personal possessions were limited to the essentials, the order itself received donations of money, land and other valuables from the pious and the grateful. The Templar organization grew very wealthy. In addition, the military strength of the Templars made it possible to collect, store, and transport bullion to and from Europe and the Holy Land with a measure of safety. Kings, noblemen, and pilgrims used the organization as a kind of bank. The concepts of safe deposit and travelers' checks originated in these activities. The Downfall of the Templars: In 1291, Acre, the last remaining Crusader stronghold in the Holy Land, fell to the Muslims, and the Templars no longer had a purpose there. Then, in 1304, rumors of irreligious practices and blasphemies committed during secret Templar initiation rites began to circulate. Very likely false, they nevertheless gave King Philip IV of France grounds to arrest every Templar in France on Oct. 13, 1307. He had many tortured to make them confess to charges of heresy and immorality. It is generally believed that Philip did this simply to take their vast wealth, though he may also have feared their growing power. Philip had previously been instrumental in getting a Frenchman elected pope, but it still took some maneuvering to convince Clement V to order all Templars in all countries arrested. Eventually, in 1312, Clement suppressed the order; numerous Templars were executed or imprisoned, and the Templar property that wasn't confiscated was transferred to the Hospitallers. In 1314 Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templar Knights, was burned at the stake. Templar Motto: "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name be the Glory." --Psalm 115

The image of Jacques de Molay, last Grand Master of the Templars, is from a nineteenth-century color lithograph by Chevauchet. The graphic is in the public domain.

The Templar Hierarchy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article is intended as an overview of the Templar's hierarchy. Please keep in mind that as the Order grew in size and scope new positions were created. The Grand Master The Grand Master was the supreme authority of the Templar Order and answered to none save the pope. Once elected to the office, the Grand Master served for the remainder of his life. In several cases that lifetime was cut short. Several Grand Masters were killed in battle, showing that the position was far more than an administrative one. While each country had its own Master, the Grand Master was above each of them. In addition to overseeing military operations, the Grand Master was also responsible for the business dealings of the Order. Seneschal The Seneschal was the right hand man to the Grand Master and in modern terms would be similar to a vice president of a corporation. The Seneschal also acted as a consigliare or advisor to the Grand Master and looked after a great deal of the administrative duties. Along with the Grand Master, the Seneschal ruled over eight Templar provincial Masters. These provinces were chiefly Aragon, Apulia, England, France, Hungary, Poitiers, Portugal and Scotland. Marshal The Marshal of the Order was the Templar in charge of war and anything that was related to it. In this sense the Marshal could be viewed as the second most important member of the Order after the Grand Master. His personal retinue was comprised of two squires, one turcoman, one turcopole and one sergeant. He also had four horses at his command. Under Marshal The Under Marshal was in charge of the footmen and the equipment. Standard Bearer The Standard Bearer was in charge of the squires and, despite the title of his office, never seemed to actually carry the Order's standard himself. Draper The Draper was in charge of the Templar garments and linens and while this may seem like a menial task, the Templar Rule of Order states that after the Master and Marshal, the Draper was superior to all brethren. The Templar Rule of Order said of the Draper's responsibilities regarding the robe of the order, "and the Draper or the one who is in his place should studiously reflect and take care to have the reward of God in all the above-mentioned things, so that the eyes of the envious and evil-tongued cannot observe that the robes are too long or too short; but he should distribute them so that they fit those who must wear them, according to the size of each one." The Draper had in his personal retinue two squires, a number of tailors and one brother in charge of the pack animals who would carry supplies. In addition the Draper, like the Marshal, had four horses at his disposal. Commanders of the Lands: Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli These Templar officers operated much like a Baillie and operated under the Masters. Commanders were responsible for all Templar houses, castles and farms in their jurisdiction. The personal retinue of the Commanders consisted of two squires, two foot soldiers, one sergeant, one deacon and one Saracen scribe. Like others, the Commander had four horses at his command as well as one palfrey (riding horse). Commanders of knights, houses and farms (Casals) These Templars fell under the Commanders of Lands and were responsible for the day to day operations of the various estates under their care. Generally speaking, they were knights, but if no knight resided in the region, the position could go to a sergeant. If the Commander was a knight he was permitted four horses, but if a sergeant he was allowed only two. Provincial Masters

Provincial Masters, who governed the western districts, were similar to the Commanders of Lands, but seem to have largely been responsible for managing revenue and recruiting new men to the Order. Knights and Sergeants The bulk of the Templar's military might was comprised of knights and sergeants. Although both classes of Templars were as likely to die in battle, the knight had a higher ranking within the Order. Knights had to be men of noble birth and wore the white mantle that is the most familiar garment of the Order. Each knight was permitted one squire and three horses. Sergeants did not have to be of noble birth and to show their lower rank, sergeants wore a black or brown mantle. They were given one horse and had no squires under their command.

A Brief History of the Knights Templar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The order of warrior monks who were to become one of the most powerful and controversial organizations in European medieval history, were known by a variety of names; the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon, la Milice du Christ or, more commonly, the Knights Templar. Detailed accounts of the founding of the order are non-existent. The main source used by historians are the documents written by Guillaume de Tyre some seventy years after the event, and while this is commonly accepted as the true account, alternative versions do exist, some of which are supported by documentation that makes them seem reasonably credible. The Foundation of the Order According to Guillaume de Tyre the Order was founded by a vassal of the Count of Champagne, a certain Hugh de Payen, acting in collaboration with Andr de Montbard, the uncle of Bernard of Clairvaux. In 1118, the two knights along with seven companions presented themselves to the younger brother of Godfroi de Bouillon who had accepted the title of King Baudoin I of Jerusalem. They announced to the monarch that it was their intention to found an order of warrior monks so that 'as far as their strength permitted, they should keep the roads and highways safe . . . with a special regard for the protection of pilgrims.' The new order took vows of personal poverty and chastity and swore to hold all their property in common. The King granted them quarters which included the stables of what was believed to be the Temple of Solomon. The Patriarch of Jerusalem granted the new order of knights the right to wear the double barred Cross of Lorraine as their insignia. The original nine knights are generally believed to have been: Hugh de Payen, a vassal of Hugh de Champagne and a relative by marriage to the St Clairs of Roslin. Andr de Montbard, the uncle of Bernard of Clairvaux and another vassal of Hugh de Champagne. Geoffroi de St Omer, a son of Hugh de St Omer. Payen de Montdidier, a relative of the ruling family of Flanders. Achambaud de St-Amand, another relative of the ruling house of Flanders. Geoffroi Bisol, Gondemare, Rosal, Godfroi.

Gondemar and Rosal were Cistercian monks who were now just transferring their allegiance. Many would simply see this transfer as one that took place between the monastic and the military arm of the same order, for the Cistercians and the Knights Templar were so closely linked by ties of blood, patronage and shared objectives that many Templar scholars believe that they were two arms from the same body. The position of Hugh de Champagne in this whole affair is curious and confusing in the extreme. There is a letter to him from the Bishop of Chartres dated 1114, congratulating him on his intention to join la Milice du Christ, which is another name for the Knights Templar. He certainly took up a form of lay associate membership of the order in 1124 and thereby created a bizarre anomaly in feudal terms, for by joining the Order and swearing obedience to its Grand Master Hugh de Payen he came under the direct control of a man who in the normal social order of things was his own vassal. There is a secret Templar archive in the principality of Seborga in northern Italy which has recently been discovered containing documents that demand further study. It is claimed that St Bernard of Clairvaux founded a monastery there in 1113, to protect a 'great secret'. This monastery under the direction of its abbot, Edouard, contained two monks who had joined the order with Bernard, two knights who took the names of Gondemar and Rosal on their profession as monks. One document claims that in February 1117 Bernard came to this monastery released Gondemar and Rosal from their vows and then blessed these two monks and their seven companions, prior to their departure to Jerusalem. This departure was not immediate and did not take place until November 1118. The seven companions of the two ex-Cistercians are listed as follows: Andr de Montbard, Count Hugh I de Champagne, Hugh de Payen, Payen de Montdidier, Geoffroi de Sainte-Omer, Archambaud de St Amand and Geoffroi Bisol. The document records that St Bernard nominated Hugh de Payen as the first Grand Master of the Poor Militia of Christ and that Hugh de Payen was consecrated in this position by the Abbot Edouard of Seborga. Whether or not Hugh de Champagne was directly involved in the actual founding of the Knights Templar is a decision we will leave to scholars of far greater wisdom than ourselves. Whatever the truth may prove to be, two things are certain. Firstly the count of Champagne was at the very least a prime mover behind the scenes even if he is not to be numbered among the original nine founding knights. Secondly, all those involved in both founding and promoting the Order were linked by a complex web of direct family relationships. The main reason given for the founding of the Order, to protect the pilgrim routes, does not bear any close examination whatsoever for the first ten or twelve years of the Order's existence. It would have been a physical impossibility for nine middleaged knights to protect the dangerous route from Jaffa to Jerusalem from all the bandits and marauding infidels who believed that the pilgrims, who provided such easy pickings, were a gift from God. The recorded actions of the knights make this an even more incredible scenario, for they did not patrol the dangerous roads of the Holy Land to protect the pilgrims, but spent nine years in the dangerous and demanding task of excavating and mining a series of tunnels under their quarters on the Temple Mount. These arduous tasks were completed with the patronage and support of the King of Jerusalem.

The tunnels mined by the Templars were re-excavated in 1867, by Lieutenant Warren of the Royal Engineers. The access tunnel descends vertically downwards for eighty feet through solid rock before radiating in a series of minor tunnels horizontally under the site of the ancient temple itself. Lieutenant Warren failed to find the hidden treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem, but in the tunnels excavated so laboriously by the Templars, they found a spur, remnants of a lance, a small Templar cross and the major part of a Templar sword. These artifacts are now preserved for posterity by the Templar archivist for Scotland, Robert Brydon of Edinburgh. Also in his keeping is a letter from a certain Captain Parker who took part in Warren's excavation under the Temple and several subsequent ones. Parker wrote to Robert's grandfather in 1912 and told of how on one of these expeditions he had discovered a secret room carved in the solid rock beneath the temple site with a passage leading from it to the Mosque of Omar. Parker went on to describe how when he broke through the stonework at the end of the passage and found himself within the confines of the mosque, he had to flee to save himself from a small army of extremely angry and devout Muslims. Two questions arise from the nature and position of these Templar excavations. What were they seeking? And how did they know precisely where to dig? On the exterior of Chartres Cathedral, by the north door, there is a carving on a pillar, which gives us an indication of the object sought by the burrowing Templars, representing the Ark of the Covenant, but in a rather strange context. The Ark is depicted as being transported on a wheeled vehicle. Legend recounts that the Ark of the Covenant had been secreted deep beneath the Temple in Jerusalem centuries before the fall of the city to the Romans. It had been hidden there to protect it from yet another invading army who had laid the city to waste. Hugh de Payen had been chosen to lead the expedition mounted to locate the Ark and bring it back to Europe. Persistent legends recount that the Ark was then hidden for a considerable time deep beneath the crypt of Chartres Cathedral. The same legends also claim that the Templars found many other sacred artifacts from the old Jewish temple in the course of their investigations and that a considerable quantity of documentation was also located during the dig. While there has been much speculation as to the exact nature of these documents, a reasonable consensus is emerging that they contained scriptural scrolls, treatises on sacred geometry, and details of certain knowledge, art and science - the hidden wisdom of the ancient initiates of the Judaic/Egyptian tradition. Until very recently these legends received short shrift from academic historians, but that situation is undergoing considerable change. One modern archeological discovery tends to support the speculative scenario that the Templars knew where to look and precisely what they were seeking. The Copper Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Quamran, tends to confirm not only the objective of the Templar excavations but also, albeit indirectly, gives some credence to the bizarre concept of the transmission of knowledge through the generations that led to the Templar's discoveries in Jerusalem. The Copper Scroll, which was unrolled and deciphered at Manchester University under the guidance of John Allegro, was a list of all the burial sites used to hide the various items both sacred and profane described as the treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem. Many of these sites have been re-excavated since the discovery of the Copper Scroll, and several of them have disclosed not Temple treasure but evidence of Templar excavation made in the twelfth century. At about the time the excavations were near completion, Count Fulk of Anjou sped with all haste to Jerusalem where he took the oath of allegiance to the new order. He immediately granted the order an annuity of thirty Angevin livres before returning to Anjou. When one considers that the vast majority of knights joining the order stayed within its ranks for their lifetime, this action by Fulk of Anjou is a trifle strange. His apparent freedom of maneuver, despite his oath of allegiance to the Order of the Knights Templar can be explained by the fact that Fulk was not only the Count of Anjou and a member of the Templar Order but was married to the sister of the King of Jerusalem who died childless, thus Fulk himself later became the King of Jerusalem. The next notable figure to arrive in Jerusalem was the Count of Champagne who, as we have mentioned earlier, took the oath of membership in 1124. Behind the scenes in Europe Bernard of Clairvaux, who had become a senior advisor to the pope, consolidated his position within the Church. Bernard began to persuade the pope that the new military order which was already active in the Holy Land should be given papal backing and a formal position within the Church. For this they would need a rule, a formal charter stating the aims and objectives of the order, the obligations of its members to it and the rules of membership as well as the establishment of a formal command structure. The main excavations in Jerusalem were completed in late December of 1127. Hugh de Payen with all the knights of the new order returned to France. The Grand Master Hugh de Payen and his principal co-founder of the order, Andre de Montbard, traveled to England to see the King and, having obtained safe-conduct from him, went directly north across the border to Scotland, where the two knights stayed at Roslin with the St. Clairs, who were Hugh's relatives by marriage. The Lord of Roslin made an immediate grant of land to the new order which became their headquarters in Scotland. The oldest Templar site in Scotland, once known as Ballontrodoch, is now called Temple after the order. The Granting of the Rule The Templars gained official recognition and were granted their rule in 1128 at the Council of Troyes, which was dominated by the thinking of Bernard of Clairvaux. The new order soon gained an exceptional degree of legal autonomy, which placed its activities completely beyond the reach of bishops, Kings or emperors, making it responsible through its grand master to the pope alone. Before his election the current pope had been a member of the Cistercian Order, and was a close friend of St. Bernard, who was his principal advisor. This was not the only example of either nepotism or the 'old pals act' that can be found in the early years of the Templar Order. The grant of land at Ballontrodoch by the St. Clairs of Roslin was followed by many similar gifts from other pious members of the aristocracy who also made generous donations of land and finance to the rapidly growing order. Membership grew with incredible speed and the order soon numbered among its ranks representatives from all the leading families in Western Europe. France, Provence, and the Languedoc-Roussillon areas became its major power base.

From the time of their foundation until the fall of Acre, the Templars exerted influence and then great power in the Holy Land. Guarding the pilgrim routes, transporting men, materials and pilgrims from ports in Europe, important though it was, played only a small part in their activities. They built castles in important defensive positions and played a significant role in military and established important bases throughout the Holy Land, to the extent that the Knights Templar became one of the most significant forces within the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Templars soon acquired a well-earned reputation for bravery in battle and never willingly surrendered to the enemy. However, their reputation for generalship and strategic thinking is not rated so highly. Their extensive and costly military activities in Outremer, as Palestine became known, were sustained by the profits from their estates and activities in Western Europe. The Templar Fleet Material wealth in the early twelfth century was almost invariably based on land and feudal dues. The Knights Templar owned estates of varying size scattered throughout every climatic zone in Europe from Denmark, Scotland and the Orkney Islands in the north, to France, Italy and Spain in the south. Their commercial interests were impressive and varied and their activities included the operation of farms, vineyards, stone quarries and mines. As a result of their two-fold interest in protecting pilgrims on the one hand and maintaining communications with their operative bases in the Holy Land on the other, the Templars operated a wellorganized fleet which exceeded that of any state at the time. For military purposes, this included a number of highly maneuverable war galleys fitted with rams and for the purpose of carrying pilgrims, troops, horses and commercial cargoes, they owned a large number of ships which plied the Mediterranean between bases in Italy, France, Spain and the Holy Land. Their main seat of naval power in the Mediterranean was on the Island of Majorca, while their principal port on the Atlantic coast was the highly ified harbor of La Rochelle from where, it is alleged, they conducted trade with Greenland, the British Isles, the North American mainland and Mexico. Within fifty years of their foundation, the Knights Templar had become a commercial force equal in power to many states; within a hundred years they had developed into the medieval pre-cursors of multi-national conglomerates with interests in every form of commercial activity of that time and were far richer than any kingdom in Europe. Templar Commercial Activities in Europe The transformative effect of Templar activity upon European culture and commerce was remarkable and yet many modern Church historians still accuse the order of being formed of illiterate knights. The so-called 'illiterates' developed sophisticated and coded means of communication which transcended the linguistic barriers which otherwise would have fragmented and diffused the commercial impact of their activities. Among the principal items of their trading activities were those which we would describe in modern terms as 'technology and ideas'. The Templar communication network was the principal route by which knowledge of astronomy, mathematics, herbal medicine and healing skills made their way from the Holy Land to Europe. Among the technological advances brought back by the warrior knights were mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, the telescope and a financial instrument which they acquired from the Sufis of Islam, known as 'the note of hand'. The Templars were great builders. On their own estates they built and maintained fortified castles and farms, barns, outbuildings and mills as well as dormitory blocks, stables and workshops. Some Templar castles, particularly in southern Europe and the Holy Land, were built on defensive sites which posed incredible difficulties of construction. They were particularly renowned for building strategically situated castles with water gates on coasts and rivers. The classic round Templar church, founded on octagonal geometry and supposedly based on the design of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, became such a distinctive feature of Templar construction that it became almost diagnostic of their activity or involvement. This type of building formed only a small part of their church construction programme, albeit of very special and cabalistic significance. The vast majority of Templar churches, especially those in the southern regions of Europe, are small, undecorated, rectangular structures often with apsidal ends. According to many scholars, including the ecclesiastical historian Fred Gettings, the Templars were openly involved in the financing and construction of the Gothic cathedrals. The sudden flowering of the Gothic style of architecture, which enabled cathedrals to be built of far greater height with more windows, brought about a new era in church design and art that allowed larger naves and greater spaces, uncluttered by pillars, to be created within church buildings. It is no coincidence that this architectural form, which cannot be explained as an evolutionary development from the Romanesque style that preceded it, arose after the knights returned from their excavations in Jerusalem. While many of the great cathedrals were heavily influenced by Templar thinking, geometry and design, one above all others is a hymn to their direct involvement and belief, the Cathedral of Chartres. Constructed with almost unbelievable speed, Chartres Cathedral is portrayed by the Church as the product of co-operative effort by the townspeople, financed by the pilgrim trade. This totally fails to explain the massive and immediate input of financial resources that must have been necessary in order to pay for the quarrying and transport of the stone and the enormous expenditure on the vast numbers of stonemasons, sculptors and other craftsmen who would have been employed to complete such a vast and complex edifice at such speed. It is highly doubtful if the proceeds of the pilgrimage to Chartres over the period of its construction would have paid for the creation and installation of the stained-glass windows, much less for the construction and decoration of the entire building. The only source of finance in Europe at that time which could have produced the resources necessary was the Order of the Knights Templar. In England, craftsmen who work in stone are known as stonemasons. In France they are known collectively as members of the Compannonage who, in the twelfth century, were broadly divided into three groups. These fulfilled separate functions under the umbrella of the same craft: the Children of Father Soubise were responsible for the construction of ecclesiastical buildings in the Romanesque style; the Children of Maitre Jacques were also known as Les Compagnons Passant and one of their primary functions was the art of bridge building. The craft masons who built the Gothic cathedrals were known as the Children of Solomon, named after King Solomon who, according to the scriptures, commissioned the first temple in Jerusalem. This branch

of the Compannonage were instructed in the art of sacred geometry by Cistercian monks and it was the Knights Templar who, acting with the agreement of Bernard of Clairvaux, gave a 'rule' to the Children of Solomon in March 1145, which laid down the conditions required for living and working. The preface to his rule contains words which have been intimately associated with the Knights Templar ever since: We the Knights of Christ and of the Temple follow the destiny that prepares us to die for Christ. We have the wish to give this rule of living, of work and of honor to the constructors of churches so that Christianity can spread throughout the earth not so that our name should be remembered, Oh Lord, but that Your Name should live. [our emphasis] Templar and Cistercians Holdings Compared It was not only the Order of the Knights Templar who attained immense wealth, property, power and prestige in the years that followed the completion of their excavations in Jerusalem. Under the guiding hand of Bernard of Clairvaux the once struggling order of Cistercian monks expanded at a similar rate. Within Bernard's lifetime the Cistercians established over 300 abbeys throughout Europe, a truly outstanding era of growth that was never even approached, much less exceeded, by any monastic order other than the Templars. The Cistercians became known as the 'apostles of the frontier' due to their habit of refusing donations of land near major centers of population and opting instead to site their new establishments in marginal lands in the mountains and barren reaches of Christian Europe. The Templars on the other hand, sited their possessions within cities, at centers of pilgrimage and sea ports as well as in the countryside, with a special emphasis on estates strategically situated near major trade and pilgrimage routes. In England and Wales they had over 5000 properties and they also owned a considerable number in Scotland, Ireland the Low Countries and the German states; they even had estates in Hungary guarding the overland routes to the Holy Land. Spain, long a centre of devout pilgrimage to the shrine of St James of Compostela, was liberally adorned with Templar strongholds and the order played its part in defending Christian Spain against Moorish incursions. Similar Knightly Orders Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and similar orders arose and achieved some degree of renown by modeling themselves on the Templars. Two such orders in Spain were the Knights of Calatrava and the Knights of Alcantara. Both orders were founded shortly after the Templars and St. Bernard of Clairvaux is known to have played a part in this. There were many Templar establishments in Italy, which was one of the major embarkation points on the sea routes to the kingdom of Jerusalem, but the most important power base for the Knights Templar in Europe was the present country of France. In the south are the regions of Provence and the Languedoc-Roussillon which, in the Templar era, were separate entities from the kingdom of France. Throughout these southern regions Templar holdings were plentiful, with over thirty per cent of the total estates owned by the Templars throughout Europe situated in the Languedoc-Roussillon alone. Communication Routes With Templar holdings strategically placed on hilltop positions that commanded panoramic views over the trade routes of Europe, important and transformative change soon took place. Prior to the Templars, Europe was a hegemony of squabbling feudal fiefdoms, counties and kingdoms. Long-distance trade was largely non-existent, except by sea, and all travelers were vulnerable to attack by brigands and extortion by feudal lords who charged a toll for safe passage through their lands. Towns were small and relatively powerless, being subject to the all-pervading will of the Church/State establishment or the arbitrary rule of the seigneur, or lord, of the district. With the advent of the Knights Templar all this was about to dramatically change. The Templars declared objective of protecting the pilgrimage routes was not restricted to travel within the Holy Land. Not only did they control the routes spreading like a fan northwards from the Mediterranean coast, which were used by the devout in their attempts to reach the birth place of the Savior, but they also policed all the other pilgrim routes as well. A complex series of communication networks linked every part of Europe to the major international sites of pilgrimage in Jerusalem, Rome and, most important of all in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, St James of Compostela in Spain. These routes alone linked all the major population centers in Europe. In addition to these were all the national sites of pilgrimage, such as Canterbury in England; Chartres, Mont-St-Michel, Rocamadour and the many other sites of veneration of the Black Madonna in France. With Templar protection, travel by pilgrim or trader alike along the major routes of Europe was now possible in comparative safety and freedom from extortion or assault. One other innovation made by the Templars further enhanced the safety of trade and accelerated the change in the balance of power between the feudal lords and the towns. This was the creation of an efficient and sophisticated banking system. The Templar Bankers The Templars used their immense wealth with skill and wisdom. Not only did they make substantial strategic investments in land and agricultural pursuits, but they also invested in basic industries which provided the essential ingredients for the massive expansion in building, both lay and ecclesiastical, which began to change the face of Europe. Using their own commercial insights as well as techniques which they adopted from their Muslim opponents in the east, they developed the concept of financial transfer by 'note of hand' into something like its modern equivalent, developed the bankers cheque and the pre-cursor of the credit card. This latter development arose from the financial needs created by the medieval equivalent of the 'package tour industry' - the pilgrimage trade. Whether to Rome, Jerusalem or Compostela, pilgrimage was a long, arduous and expensive enterprise for the pilgrim and a source of immense profit for the Church and innkeepers, ferrymen and others en route. The pilgrim would be wary of carrying large sums of money as he travelled, for fear of robbery, extortion or unforeseen accident. The answer was simple; seek out the master of the local Templar commanderie and deposit sufficient funds with him to cover the estimated cost of the return journey, including travel, accommodation and ancillary costs such as alms and gift-giving to the important ecclesiastical sites en route and at the final destination. In return for the financial deposit, the Templar treasurer would

give the traveler a coded chit as a form of receipt and as a means of exchange. At each overnight stop, or where alms or offerings had to be given, the pilgrim would hand his chit to the local Templar representative who would pay any dues outstanding, re-code the chit accordingly and return it to its owner. When the pilgrimage was over and the weary traveler had returned home, he would present the chit to the Templar treasurer who had first issued it. Any balance of credit would be returned in cash, or if the pilgrim had overspent he would be presented with the appropriate bill. The entire pilgrimage trade policed by the Templars, who also acted as the bankers for this form of travel, bears a startling resemblance to the modern package tour industry. The modern equivalent of the Templar chit is, of course, the credit card. Templar banking practice was not restricted to the pilgrimage trade, they also arranged safe transfer of funds for international and local trade, the Church and the State. In the medieval era it was forbidden for Christians to charge interest on loans and therefore money lending as a profession had been traditionally restricted to the Jews. This did little to enhance the reputation of the Jews as a racial group, which was already jeopardized by the persistent allegation that they were 'Christ killers'. The Knights Templar found a way around this restriction which allowed them to lend considerable sums of money at interest without being subjected to the charge of usury. It was quite permissible to charge rent for the leasing of a house or land, so the Templars used this principle in their money lending and charged 'rent' rather than interest for their services rendered. The rent was payable at the time the loan was granted and was added to the capital sum borrowed. By this euphemism the Templars avoided being brought before the courts on the un-Christian charge of usury. Templar wealth was such that their financial services were not only sought by the merchants and landowners of feudal Europe, but by the princes of the Church and State. They lent to bishops to finance church building programmes; to princes, kings and emperors to finance state works, building programmes, wars and crusades. Within the twin embrace of financial security and safe travel, Europe began to transform itself. Safe and effective trade over longer distances led to the accumulation of capital and the emergence of a newly prosperous merchant class, the urban bourgeoisie. The newfound wealth of the city merchants changed the balance of power still further in favor of the towns and cities. With the peace and tranquility of the countryside now ensured by the activities of the Knights Templar the feudal lords began to lose the raison d'etre on which their power was based. The Order of the Knights Templar, despite its relatively short life span, was the major instrument of transformative change in medieval Europe. The Templars brought many blessings of knowledge and technology from their Arab opponents in the Holy Land that conferred immense benefits on the European population. The Gothic cathedrals that arose from their knowledge of sacred geometry still adorn the European landscape and form a permanent series of 'prayers in stone' that raise their spires skyward in silent supplication. When taken as a whole, rather than studied in isolation, the various activities of the Knights Templar are like a huge mosaic of individual pieces which together form a picture which accurately predicted the future. The order was not merely the medieval pre-cursor of the modern multi-national conglomerate but was in many respects an early embryonic form of the European Union. However, success, wealth and power stimulated jealousy and resentment, especially from those who were heavily in debt to the order. The Suppression of the Order Philip le Bel (1268-1314), the King of France, was one monarch among many who was heavily in debt to the Order. He also had a further cause for resentment, for when a young man, his application to join it had been refused. During one period of civil unrest in his nearly bankrupt kingdom he sought refuge in the Paris Temple.29 Bedazzled by the vast store of bullion he saw there, he resolved to find a way to make it his own and cancel his enormous debt to the knightly bankers. He soon found an opportunity to destroy the Order. Plausible reasons for an investigation of any suspect individual or organization were not hard to find in that age of repression and injustice. The perfect means for dubious enterprise had long been perfected. The dreaded Inquisition had honed its evil arts of torture, secret trial and condemnation during its sixty year novitiate in the campaign against the Cathars. Philip knew that there had been contact between the Templars and Islam and links had also been proved between the Knights and the Cathars Certain knights who had been expelled from the Order were bribed or blackmailed into making accusations of heresy against their former brothers. The French King prepared his case with secrecy and skill. The death of the pope gave him the opportunity to suborn his successor. On Friday the thirteenth of October 1307, Jaques de Molay Grand Master of the Templars, and sixty of his senior knights were arrested in Paris: simultaneously many thousands of other Templars were arrested throughout the realm of France. A few escaped arrest and once the word got out the remainder simply fled; an episode commemorated by the saying Friday the thirteenth, unlucky for some. Under the King's orders the Templar high command were tortured for several years. The financially astute monarch had the gall to charge the Order for their upkeep for the entire period of their imprisonment. The final barbaric act of this dreadful charade took place on the Ile des Juifs, on the 14th March 1314. The elderly Grand Master, Jaques de Molay and the Preceptor of Normandy, Geoffroi de Charney, were publicly burnt on a slow fire. Before his death de Molay is on record as prophesying the imminent demise of the king and the pope. Both died within the year. When the King's agents visited the Templar treasury immediately after the first arrests, their great treasure, the very cause and objective of this brutal enterprise, had vanished without trace, as had almost the entire Templar fleet. The king had been foiled. French Masonic ritual indicates that Scotland was designated as the place of refuge or safe keeping for the Templar treasures. Charges Against the Templars One of the charges against the Templars was that of idolatry; the veneration or worship of an idol called Baphomet various translations have been offered for the name Baphomet; Idries Shah Author of The Sufis, claims that it is a corruption of the

Arabic abufihamet (pronounced bufhimat) which translates as 'Father of Understanding'. Magnus Eliphas Levi the mystical writer of the last century proposed that it should be spelled in reverse as TEM. OHP. AB. This he then construed as Templi Hominum Pacis Omnium Abbas or 'Father of the Temple of Universal Peace Among Men'.34 Another legend equates Baphomet with the severed head of St. John the Baptist who was venerated by the Knights Templar. The Atbash cipher, an esoteric code used by the Essenes to disguise the meaning of their scriptures, was applied to the name Baphomet by the Dead Sea Scroll scholar Hugh Schonfield. The cipher produced the word Sophia, the spiritual principle of Wisdom which is usually associated with the ancient Greek or early Mesopotamian goddesses. The Templar cult of the Black Madonna, black carvings or icons of the Madonna and Child, supports this concept. At first glance this cult looks like a variation upon normal Catholic practice of the time. The reality is very different however, especially when we take into account the influence of ancient Egyptian ideas on the Templars In ancient Egyptian symbolism, the color black indicates wisdom. In the cult of the Black Madonna the Templars were venerating the Mother of Wisdom, the ancient goddess Sophia embodied in the form of the goddess Isis with the Horus child. This pagan concept was disguised as the Christian Madonna and Child. Reactions to the suppression of the Templars varied from country to country. German knights of the Order either joined the Hospitallers or the Teutonic Knights. One leading Scottish Templar, William St. Clair of Roslin, who was the great-greatgrandfather of the founder of Rosslyn Chapel, was killed in Lithuania fighting for the Teutonic Knights. In Portugal the Templars were not suppressed at all, they simply changed their name to the Knights of Christ and carried on under royal patronage.38 Many years later Vasco de Gama the explorer, became a member and Prince Henry the Navigator was a Grand Master of the renamed Order. The Archbishop of Compostela made a vain plea for clemency for the brave knights by writing to the pope begging that the Templars be spared as they were needed for the Reconquista the fight against the Moors to recapture Spain for the Catholic monarchy. This pressing need for military skills, discipline and dedication to the Christian re-conquest of Spain was fulfilled in a simple way. Ex-Templars were encouraged to join similar military Orders which differed only in that they owed their allegiance to the Spanish crown rather than the pope. One Order that of St. James of the Sword or the Knights of Santiago, was actually affiliated to the Knights Hospitaller to ensure its survival. They too became immensely powerful and controlled more than 200 commandaries throughout Spain by the end of the fifteenth century. Thus Templar influence continued in mainland Europe. In France and England some Templars joined the Knights Hospitallers, but most simply seemed to vanish. People condemned for heresy in medieval Europe shared a similar fate to the alleged dissidents condemned in Soviet Russia during the Stalinist era. The victims became 'non-persons', their records were destroyed and all traces of them and their beliefs were completely erased. The only records remaining intact are those of the persecutor, Holy Mother the Church, hardly the most even-handed or dispassionate of sources. Thus getting to grips with the reality that lies behind the romantic myths and legends surrounding the warrior knights is extremely difficult. The French local archives disclose many details of their land dealings while other documents disclosing some of their history do surface from time to time.

Knights of Christ? The Templars, Hospitallers and other military orders in the eyes of their contemporaries, 1128-1291. Helen Nicholson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were the military orders? The Templars and Hospitallers are the best known of the military orders. These were religious orders, similar to monastic orders in their way of life, but with the special functions of protecting pilgrims in the Holy Land from Muslim attack, and providing for pilgrims` needs. They were Catholic Christians, and closely bound to the papacy. The first military order was the order of the Temple, which - according to Archbishop William of Tyre - was founded in Jerusalem around 1119 by a group of knights who had come to the Holy Land on a pilgrimage. They took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and Patriarch Warmund of Jerusalem commanded them, `in remission of their sins', to defend the pilgrim routes from bandits. The brothers were given some land next to the Lord`s Temple on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the adjoining royal palace in the former Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Latin Christians had erroneously identified the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the Temple of Solomon, so the brothers became known as the knights of the Temple of Solomon. By the 1140s the nickname `Templar` started to appear. William of Tyre tells us [Book 12, chapter 7] that even nine years after the order's foundation there were only nine Templars, when some of the brothers set out for Europe to seek papal approval of their order at the Council of Troyes, in Champagne, in north-eastern France. William is our major source for the history of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century, although as he did not begin writing his history until the 1160s his information on the Templars may be colored by hindsight. At the Council of Troyes in January 1129 the brothers were called: `The poor knights of Christ of the Temple which is in Jerusalem`. After the Council the order became very popular with western European donors, attracting generous donations and new recruits. The Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem had existed in Jerusalem before the first crusade, but purely as a hospital which cared for pilgrims. During the 1130s, however, the Hospital was employing mercenaries to protect pilgrims from bandits, and by 1136 it was also taking on the defense of part of the frontier against the Muslims. Historians disagree over how and when the Hospital became a military order, but it was certainly militarized by the 1160s, when Knights Hospitaller took part in the expeditions against Egypt (see Forey, 'Militarisation'). German crusaders founded a hospital for Germans at Acre in 1190, during the third crusade. This was relaunched as a military order in 1198, during the German crusade, and became known as the Teutonic order. Its full name was `The Hospital of St. Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem.` It owed a great deal of its development to the patronage of the Staufen emperors, and in the Holy Land it was never as powerful as the orders of the Temple and Hospital. From the 1230s it was also in the front line of the `Christianization` of Prussia and the Baltic States. Other military orders were founded, such as the order of St. Lazarus and the English order of St. Thomas of Acre, as well as various national orders, in Spain, Prussia and the Baltic States. These did not attract as many donations as the Templars and Hospitallers, never became as influential or famous and were seldom mentioned by writers outside their own regions. Virtually nothing is known about the origins of the founders of the first military orders, although legends grew up around them later. Clearly, they were not particularly important people. Most of those who joined the military orders came from the lesser nobility, the ordinary knights or rich peasant farmers (see Forey, 'Recruitment', 143-147). There were very few really rich or influential members. Instead, we find many examples of men joining the orders as a means of gaining influence and promotion which would otherwise have been beyond their reach (Forey, 'Recruitment', 165). Women also joined the Military Orders, including the Order of the Temple, despite the fact that the Templar Rule forbad the admission of women - the brothers rapidly discovered that they could not afford to offend female patrons by refusing them admission to the order. However, as the women of the military orders attracted very little attention from contemporaries they will not be discussed here (see Forey, 'Women'; Nicholson, 'Templar Attitudes'; Tommasi, 'Uomini e donne'). Military orders played a vital role in every military expedition to the Holy Land from 1128 until the final loss of the Holy Land in 1291, and assisted in invasions of Egypt from the Holy Land. They did not play a military role in the fourth crusade`s capture of Constantinople, nor did they fight in the Albigensian crusade against the Cathar heretics in southern France; but they did become involved elsewhere in Europe and Asia against the Muslims and pagans. Initial reactions to the concept of the military order. Historians disagree over how the concept of the military order first developed, but Alan Forey has argued that it was a natural development (Forey, 'Emergence'). Early Christians had held mixed views on violence, for while Christ had instructed his disciple to put away his sword 'for all who take the sword will perish by the sword' (Matthew's gospel, ch. 26 v. 52), John the Baptist had not told soldiers to stop fighting (Luke's gospel, ch. 3 v. 14). The North African bishop Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the third century, recorded that Christians did fight, although he believed that Christians should not fight. Augustine, bishop of Hippo in North Africa, writing in the early fifth century, argued that in certain circumstances warfare could be just, acceptable and necessary. In the crusade, of course, those who fought were promised remission of their sins and instant admission

to Heaven if they died in action, and the fighting brothers of the military orders were promised the same reward. So the title `Knights of Christ', which originally meant monks, came to refer to crusaders, and then to the military orders. Although the concept of the military order was very popular in regions with a frontier to the Muslims or pagans, a few of the clergy elsewhere expressed doubts as to whether a military order could be a valid religious order. Most of the clergy were very enthusiastic about the new form of knighthood. The most famous enthusiast was Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, now St. Bernard and best known for the dogs indirectly named after him. Bernard was one of the most influential international figures of his day. He had been present at the Council of Troyes when the order of the Temple received official Church approval, and Hugh of Payns, the first master of the Templars, approached him to write an encouraging sermon for the knights. Bernard eventually wrote them a letter `in praise of the new knighthood`. He declared that the brothers` desire was to die for Christ against the infidel. They lived a simple life, peaceful at home, fierce in battle, and were both monks and knights. His letter circulated widely, and seems to have been used by many other contemporary writers. Orderic Vitalis, an English monk living in Normandy, called the brothers `admirable knights` who `face martyrdom daily'. Otto, bishop of Freising, writing in the mid 1140s, imitated Bernard in calling the order `a new kind of knighthood', as did Richard of Poitou, a monk of Cluny, writing in 1153. Anselm, an Augustinian canon and bishop of Havelburg (in north eastern Germany), wrote in similar terms but called the brothers `holy laymen'. But he added that the pope had confirmed that the new order was of equal merit to monks and regular canons. Reading between the lines, it appears that not everyone agreed with these opinions. Bernard seems to have been refuting accusations that the brothers were murderers, because they killed Muslims. Another letter written by one 'Hugh the sinner' (probably Hugh de Payns, the first master of the order) to encourage the Templars in the 1130s mentions accusations that the Templars` vocation was invalid, a sin, and an obstacle to spiritual advancement. Whoever these critics were, their criticism has not survived at first hand. But we can deduce where such criticism came from. Some arose in long-established abbeys such as Cluny, a powerful and influential Benedictine abbey in Burgundy. Cluny was proud of its tradition, and not surprisingly, Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, and some of his monks objected to this new, radical order. The brothers of the Temple were not monks, Peter wrote, only knights, whos vocation of fighting the Muslims to protect pilgrims was less important than suppressing bandits in Burgundy. The pacifist argument was almost unheard. In the 1180s Walter Map, satirist, raconteur, courtier and later archdeacon of Oxford, remarked that Christ had forbidden Christians to use force, and by using force the Templars had lost all the territory that the apostles had won by peaceful preaching. But he may have been joking, as he often was. The most fervent preachers of Christian pacifism were the Cathar and Waldensian heretics. James of Vitry, bishop of Acre from 1216 to around 1228, condemned the pacifist argument. If it were not for the military orders, he believed, the Muslims and heretics would have devastated the whole of the Church. However, there was a more widespread belief among clergy that because they shed blood, and because they could not fast or keep vigils as constantly as other religious orders, the military orders were inferior in observance to other religious orders, although superior to ordinary lay folk. Hence, whenever a brother asked for papal permission to transfer to a stricter order, the pope would grant it. In the Hospital, the tension between the hospital and military functions of the order came to a head in the late 1160s and early 1170s when the order was almost reduced to bankruptcy as a result of its heavy involvement in King Amaury of Jerusalem's Egyptian campaigns. Pope Alexander III (1159-81), wrote to instruct the Hospitallers that they should give up fighting and remain in their original vocation, following the customs laid down by their forefathers, for love and mercy to the poor was a better defense than strength of arms. In other words, serving the poor and sick in a hospital was spiritually superior to defending them with weapons. It was not that Alexander condemned holy war, but the Hospitallers' first vocation had been best, and they should not change it. (Cartulaire gnral de l'ordre des Hospitaliers, nos. 391ter, 527.) The laity had no such doubts. As we would expect, the knightly class especially approved of the new type of religious order. In 1133 or 1134 one Laureta gave all she possessed in the village of Douzens (in the extreme south of France) to: `The knights of Jerusalem, living together in one mind in Solomon`s Temple and following the gospel by manfully waging daily war against the unexpected attacks of the Saracens, against the most impious who try to destroy God`s law and the faithful servants of God.` (Cartulaires des Templiers de Douzens, A no. 40, p.51.) Assuming that Laureta dictated this charter and that it was not compiled by one of the order`s scribes, she clearly believed that the brothers of the Temple were fighting Christ`s battles, that they were literally knights of Christ. At around the same time Roger, viscount of Bziers gave the order a village and some land with the words: `To the Jerusalem knighthood of the Temple of Solomon and the brothers fighting for God there for the guard and defense of the holy city of Jerusalem and holy Christianity Cartulaires des Templiers de Douzens, A no. 115 [114], p. 107). When one Azalais gave herself to the Order of the Temple in 1133 she did so from traditional religious motives, to serve God under obedience to the master of the order, in poverty `because my Lord deigned to be poor for me. ` (Cartulaire gnral de l'ordre de Temple, no. 68, pp. 51-2.) Although the Rule of the order forbad the acceptance of women, this does not seem to have

prevented Azalais serving God in the Order, nor have deterred the Order from accepting her. The brothers obviously believed that a pious woman could be admitted to their order whatever the Rule said. Numerous other charters survive which indicate that most lay donors believed that the military order was just as virtuous as a monastic order. In fact, it could be suggested that as knights the brothers seemed to the laity more trustworthy and accessible than the monks and many of the higher clergy. Yet most donors made no mention of their specific motives for choosing a military order. They seem to have taken for granted that a military order was pleasing to God, and worthy to receive a donation in alms. As there were many religious orders and other charitable institutions to which one could give and receive prayers for one`s soul in return, donors would not `waste` their charity in giving to a spiritually second-class order. Later views of the concept of the military order. How had views changed by the late thirteenth century? By this time, some commentators on the state of the Church regarded the military orders, especially the order of the Temple, as having been among the best of all religious orders. Before 1278, John Peckham (a Franciscan friar, later Archbishop of Canterbury) had set the Templars alongside the order of Grandmont as examples of good religious orders which had declined. A century earlier, Walter Map had declared that the order of Grandmont was the only pure order still in existence. If they reckoned the Templars as equal to the Grandmontines, then John Peckham, and his expected audience, held a very high opinion of the spirituality of the order of the Temple. In 1289, a Flemish poet, Jacquemart Gile, depicted the Temple and Hospital as the last bastion of spiritual purity. His poem, Renart le Nouvel, `the new Reynard,` was based on the popular fables of the fox (whose name meant craftiness, but had come to mean everything corrupt and dishonorable). Renart is depicted taking over everything in society, from the King to the friars. Only the hermits escape. At last even the military orders are corrupted - implying that hitherto they had been pure. Their fall marks the final triumph of evil in the world. In the 1290s Hugh of Trimberg, schoolmaster of Bamberg, lamented the decline of `even the high order of the Temple, ` again implying that until recently this order had been the best of all. Donations to the military orders had fallen off during the thirteenth century, but this was not surprising. In western Europe donations to all religious orders were falling during this period, due to changes in religious attitudes from an emphasis on public religious observance to an emphasis on private religious observance, and a change in the socio-political structure which meant that donations to religious orders were no longer so useful in obtaining political allies and influence as had been the case in earlier centuries. What is significant is that in Western Europe donations to military orders did in fact continue, albeit at a much reduced level, and the orders continued to be given generous donations of land in Eastern Europe, where religious orders were valued as colonizers. In other words, even when the trend was against religious donations, the military orders were still receiving some donations. The concept of the military order, then, met with some initial resistance, but this faded as the orders proved their worth in the Holy Land and became part of the religious establishment, and in time they were regarded as highly as any other religious order. Attitudes towards the activities of the military orders. (1) Praise. Praise falls roughly into two categories. There was praise of the brothers as knights of Christ, that is, as warriors fighting on behalf of Christendom, and of their courage and discipline. And there was praise for their spirituality and religious activity. Because of this they were also praised as trustworthy, reliable officials and servants. Of course praise was mixed with criticism, but for the purposes of this paper they will be treated separately. (a) In battle. The brothers were often described as laying down their lives for their brothers; that is, their brothers within their orders, and also their brother Christians. Initially they were fighting to defend Christian pilgrims from Muslim bandits, but by the 1130s they were also defending the frontiers of the Holy Land from the Muslims. Jacquemart Gile`s Templar, in 1289, actually claims that his order is responsible for the defense of the whole of Christendom, and that if his order has to give up the defense of the Holy Land the Muslims will conquer it and also invade and conquer Europe. This little speech does appear to be what the Templars really claimed, and some writers did credit them with being solely responsible for the defense of the Holy Land forgetting the Hospital and Teutonic order and the King and his Barons (Nicholson, (1993), p.127). Presumably the Templars were seen as being most important because their order was the first military order; for this reason, they could even be regarded as representing all military orders. If this was the case, this would help to explain why most of the praise of the military orders` prowess in battle was aimed at the Templars: it was not that the other orders were not as brave, but that they were seen as less significant. The occasional passage survives which describes the Hospitallers` prowess, but these are few in comparison with those describing the Templars. For instance, Ralph of Diss, otherwise known as Raduphus de Diceto, Dean of St. Paul`s Cathedral in London in the late twelfth century, records in his history the battle of Montgisard of 1177 between King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem and Saladin. King Baldwin has just a few knights of the Temple and Hospital with him and a very small army. Ralph says:

Odo the Master of the Knighthood of the Temple, like another Judas Maccabaeus [a great Biblical hero], had eighty-four knights of his order with him in his personal company. He took himself into battle with his men, strengthened by the sign of the cross. Spurring all together, as one man, they made a charge, turning neither to the left nor to the right. Recognizing the battalion in which Saladin commanded many knights, they manfully approached it, immediately penetrated it, incessantly knocked down, scattered, struck and crushed. Saladin was smitten with admiration, seeing his men dispersed everywhere, everywhere turned in flight, everywhere given to the mouth of the sword. He took thought for himself and fled, throwing off his mail shirt for speed, mounted a racing camel and barely escaped with a few of his men. ('Ymagines Historiarum', 1, pp. 423-4.) But what were the Hospitallers doing? We are not told. Again, on 1 May 1187 the Templars and Hospitallers fought a battle against Saladin`s forces near Nazareth. Again, most of the sources center on the order of the Temple. The Itinerarium Peregrinorum (`The Pilgrims` Journey`) praises the prowess of the Templar Brother Jacquelin de Mailly and compares him to St. George. The chronicle attributed to Ernoul, who was a squire in the Holy Land at the time, also praises Jacquelin de Mailly. Both merely mention that the Master of the Hospital was killed in the battle. We have to go to another, shorter source, the `Book about the capture of the Holy Land by Saladin,` (Libellus de Expugnatione de Terre Sanctae per Saladinum) to learn that the Hospitallers fought extremely bravely and for a lengthy description of the prowess and martyrdoms of the Master of the Hospital and of Brother Henry of the Hospital. Two months later, the Christians of the Holy Land were heavily defeated by Saladin at Hattin. Hospitallers were also present at this battle, but, again, their presence was only mentioned, while chroniclers spent much more time describing the deeds of the Templars. This continued to be the case throughout the thirteenth century. Although by the fifth crusade (1217-21) writers were saying a good deal more about the deeds of the Hospitallers, the Templars still received a better press and more space. The Teutonic order would receive a mention but no more. Oliver, schoolmaster of Cologne Cathedral, who was present on the Crusade, tells us a good deal about the Hospitallers` deeds, but more about the Templars. Describing one of the great defeats of the Crusade, he informs us that some of the Hospitallers ran away, whereas the Templars were first in the engagement and last in the retreat ('Historia Damiatina', pp. 214-5). It was not until the final loss of Acre to the Muslims in 1291 that other military orders finally won the limelight. Even so, most of the sources describing the last battle stated that the deciding factor was the death of the Master of the Temple, William of Beaujeu, and that if he had not been killed the city would not have fallen. Only one source, Thaddeo of Naples, had great words of praise for the Teutonic order: Like energetic warriors of Christ they persisted in the labor of the contest, and thought not of physical but spiritual gain, remembered their vows, trusted not in their own strength but in God`s. Even when exhausted they did not wish to turn their backs and flee from fear, but the boldness of the mind of faith persisted in the proposition of dying for Christ. They were annihilated by the impious swords and like victors, laurelled with the laurel of victory; they were taken up to the joys of eternal restoration (p. 24). The best-read and most copied version of the disaster, however, `On the destruction of the city of Acre` (De excidio urbis Acconis), gave a different slant to events. The Master of the Temple and his men arrived late and achieved nothing. The real hero of the last defense of the city was Brother Matthew of Claremont, Marshal of the Hospital. `Rushing through the midst of the troops like a raging man... he crossed through St. Antony`s gate beyond the whole army. By his blows he threw down many of the infidel dying to the ground. For they fled him like sheep, whither they know not, flee before the wolf...` (p. 781). Matthew continues until, in the middle of the city, his horse exhausted and unable to continue, he makes a stand, and is hit by a lance and falls to the ground, where he is transfixed with lance heads. `Thus this faithful warrior, knight of Christ, gave up his soul to the Creator' (p. 782). This writer apparently considered that the Templars had made a complete hash of their guardianship of the Holy Land, were more interested in quarrelling with the Hospitallers and saving their treasure than in protecting Acre, and deserved no credit at all. The Hospitallers were the heroes of the defeat. This is worth bearing in mind when we wonder why the order of the Temple was destroyed by Philip IV of France, while the Hospital escaped. The Temple must have been more vulnerable, because the brothers had claimed to be so vital for the defense of the Holy Land, but had so obviously failed. Little praise of this sort survives for the Teutonic order in the Holy Land, and none at all for the lesser military orders. In the Holy Land, the Teutonic order and the smaller orders were very much overshadowed by the two great orders of the Temple and Hospital, which received most of the donations, held most of the power, and sent most of the newsletters back to Europe, so that their patrons could read about their brave deeds. In Prussia and Livonia, however, the Teutonic order was fighting alone against the pagans, and it would be reasonable to expect that German chroniclers at least would have recorded some stirring descriptions of their prowess in battle. But in fact they only supply the briefest notices of the Teutonic order`s victories or defeats. There are stirring descriptions in the Livonian rhymed chronicle, but as this was produced for the Teutonic order itself it does not assist in gauging outsiders' views of the order.

Before moving on, it is worth noting that in the Holy Land the Muslims regarded the military orders as their worst enemies. They were the heart of the Latin Christian army; if they could be destroyed, then the whole military force of the Christians would be defeated. After the battle of Hattin (4 July 1187) Saladin executed every Templar and Hospitaller he could get his hands on, saying: 'I will purify the land of these two impure orders'. His secretary 'Im,d al-Dn declared: 'What evils he cures in harming a Templar!' and described the military orders' fortresses - such as Hospitaller Kaukab and Templar Baghras - as inaccessible strongholds set high up in the clouds, all but unattainable, nests of evil and lairs of wild beasts. Over a century later, Ab' l-Fid, described the Hospitaller's fortress of Marqab as being of such elevation and strength that none of the predecessors of Sultan Kalavun had even dreamt of attacking it. This sultan succeeded in capturing the castle in May 1285: 'In this memorable day were revenged the evils caused by the house of the Hospitallers, and the brightness of day replaced the shadows'. Whatever doubts some western European writers might have about the military orders' enthusiasm for holy war, the Muslims had no doubts on the matter. (b) Spirituality . There was a great deal of praise of the Hospital for its care for the sick and poor, and some for the Teutonic order. However, as some of the charters for the Hospital at least seem to be `standard form` charters, produced by the order for donors` use, it is hardly surprising that they praise the order. Sometimes individual members of a military order attracted particular praise for their personal holiness. William of Tyre described Bertrand de Blancafort, Master of the Temple from 1156 to 1169, and Raymond du Puy, Master of the Hospital from 1120 to 1160, as religious men who feared God. William the Breton, praising the reign of King Philip Augustus of France, compared Philip`s vice chancellor and counselor Brother Garin of the Hospital to St. Sebastian: `who, although he was distinguished in the palace, concealed a knight of Christ under the screen of his cloak, in order that he might opportunely help Christians and comfort their hearts' (Chronique, 175). But some other observers, such as the anonymous chronicler of Bthune, thought that Garin the Hospitaller had become rather worldly and his actions were unbecoming to a man of religion (p. 766). Perhaps a better example is Brother Arnold of the Swordbrothers of Livonia. Henry of Livonia, one of the Christian missionary priests in Livonia, describes Arnold as one of those `carried over into the brotherhood of martyrs. He was an extremely religious man and was always praying. He found, as we hope, that for which he prayed` (p. 273; p. 106 of Brundage's translation). The military orders obviously did attract some very pious recruits. Two members of the order of the Hospital were canonized during this period (that is, they were officially recognized as saints), one a sister from Pisa, and the other a brother from Genoa; no fighting brothers, however. Otherwise, James of Vitry records a number of tales of the piety of individual Templars, including one of a brother who became so weak from fasting that he kept falling off his horse in battle. Caesarius of Heisterbach, one of the preachers of the fifth crusade, recorded a tale of how a group of Templars at prayer were attacked by the Muslims. They continued praying, and angels repulsed the Muslims. It seems that the order of the Temple made a point of recording and repeating stories like these to strengthen the order`s spiritual self-image, but that the Hospital did not, as no neat anecdotes of this type survive for the Hospital during this period. Other evidence of the military orders` spiritual image can be found in the fictional literature of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is always difficult for historians to judge how far literature can be used as a guide to contemporary views and opinions. It is clear that the military orders did have a distinctive image in the literature of this period, but it is much more difficult to deduce a connection between this and their real-life images, or to explain why they appear in some literary works and not in others. The military orders sometimes appear in works where the author or the patron of the work had a particular interest in crusading, but not invariably. It may be that they were included by authors who wanted to add realism to the story they were inventing. When the military orders appeared in literature during this period, their spirituality was never stressed, but it was always assumed. In particular, the Templars sometimes appeared in roles where the audience would usually expect to find a hermit, that is, giving hospitality to wandering knights, acting as guides or burying dead knights. In the romances of the late twelfth and thirteenth century, the figure of the hermit acted as a vital link between the wandering knight and God, giving spiritual advice and direction, and showing sympathy to the knight and his weaknesses where the established Church only condemned. So it is interesting that the Templars were sometimes portrayed as the equivalent of hermits. But the Templars were never cast as spiritual guides for Christians; they only provided knights` physical needs. It was usually the Templars who appeared in romances and epics. The Hospitallers appeared far less often and in a smaller variety of roles, and the Teutonic order only began to appear towards the end of the thirteenth century, and then only in German works. In the same way as in the reports of battles I described above, the Templars seem to have caught the imagination of writers to a greater degree than the other military orders. It is probable that this was because they were the first military order, and the only international military order which had not evolved out of a hospital. While the work of hospitals in caring for the poor and sick was very spiritually commendable, it did not give much scope for the imagination. When writers wanted to romanticize or scandalize, they were more likely to use the Templars than one of the hospitaller orders. Praise of the military orders remained much the same throughout our period, although it might be directed towards different military orders, depending on which orders were in the limelight at the time. However, the criticism changed. (2) Criticism.

As I have already mentioned, in the twelfth century there were some doubts among the clergy as to whether a military religious order could be valid, but these faded as the orders became an established feature of the religious landscape. In the late twelfth century the major criticism was of the orders` privileges, but during the thirteenth century much of this criticism was redirected on to the Friars. There was criticism of the military orders' political stance, depending on which ruler they were supporting or offending at any particular time; and there was general moral criticism of them as religious orders, including complaints that they were failing in their vocation. There were many other accusations, but I shall consider only these major sources of criticism in detail. It is essential to remember that all religious orders were criticized by their contemporaries. It is easy to forget this, but the Cistercians and the Friars were criticized even more savagely than the military orders (e.g., Graves, pp. 45-55). In the 1180s a wonderful collection of libelous stories against the Cistercians was recorded by Walter Map, who has been mentioned above criticizing the Templars for fighting. In the thirteenth century, Matthew Paris, chronicler of St. Alban`s abbey, could sometimes bring himself to praise the courage or integrity of the Templars and Hospitallers, but he never had a good word for the Friars. Meanwhile, in fiction, the scurrilous farces of the time, known as fables, depict the Friars as greedy seducers, but I have yet to find one which criticizes any of the military orders. As most of the fables deal with sexual misdemeanors, this indicates that the military orders were not regarded as loose livers. (a) Privileges. As with other religious orders, the most widespread complaint raised against the military orders was that they had too many privileges, and that they abused them. Religious men, it was felt, should not have so many privileges, and certainly should not abuse and fraudulently extend them. The Templars and Hospitallers, and later the Teutonic order, were granted very extensive privileges by popes and kings alike. For instance, the pope exempted them from paying certain tithes on their lands. He also allowed them to admit laypeople to a `confraternity` or associate membership, whose members were likewise exempt from paying certain dues and, when they died, could be buried in consecrated ground even if their parish was under interdict, provided they were not themselves personally under interdict or excommunicated. The orders were also allowed to send out alms collectors who could go once a year to parishes under interdict, open the churches and celebrate mass for the purpose of collecting alms. At the Third Lateran Council of 1179 the clergy complained bitterly that the Templars and Hospitallers were abusing these privileges. They were flouting the bishops` authority, burying people who had died under personal interdict, giving their privileges to those who were not full members of their confraternity, and opening churches under interdict more than once a year. The pope, Alexander III, declared himself shocked, and said that he had not previously been aware of the problem. This is very unlikely, but the pope`s position had been extremely shaky throughout most of his pontificate, and the Templars and Hospitallers, with the Cistercians, were his main supporters. He therefore could not afford to offend them, and although the Council issued a decree against the Templars` and Hospitallers` abuses Walter Map complained that as soon as the Council was over their privileges were confirmed as strongly as ever. By the end of the twelfth century monarchs were also beginning to notice that the privileges and extensive possessions of the Templars and Hospitallers were undermining their authority. This was the inevitable result of their ancestors` great generosity towards them. Monarchs had granted lands, dues, rights and exempted the orders from fines. For instance, Henry II of England pardoned the Templars for clearing two thousand, one hundred and sixty-four acres of royal forest in various parts of England, for which a heavy fine was normally payable. Later monarchs regretted that their predecessors had been so generous, as the military orders had become too powerful and were absorbing more of their kingdom's revenues than the kingdom could afford. They had similar complaints against other religious orders. The most famous reaction against the privileges and possessions of a military order occurred in Hungary. In 1211 King Andrew had given the Teutonic order extensive territory and privileges in Burzenland, on his south-eastern frontier, hoping that the order would colonize the area. The brothers did this very successfully, going beyond the terms of the original donation, so that in 1225 the king drove them out of his territory. Reactions also took place on a less spectacular scale throughout Europe; and it was not only monarchs who complained about the orders` privileges. The military orders` privileges also caused considerable complaint among lesser landowners and merchants. There are numerous examples of disputes throughout our period, but some of the best examples come from the Hundred Rolls, begun in 1274-5 by order of Edward I, to discover where royal rights had been usurped. At Routhinton, Warwickshire the Templars and Hospitallers were criticized for their papal privileges, `which impede and subvert all common justice and excessively oppress the people' and the Hospitallers were criticized for the same at Wirksworth, in Derbyshire. The problem here was that the military orders were claiming that they could not be tried in the king's court and were not answerable to the bishop, but only to the pope, and that they had papal privileges which effectively allowed them to choose their own judges in the church courts. This could make it very difficult for those with a legal grievance against the military orders to get justice, unless they were persons of status and wealth. At Plympton and Dartsmouth in Devon, the burghers complained about the Hospitallers` exemption from toll, which they claimed was `in prejudice of the Lord King', but which also damaged their own trade. (b) Wealth. Another major cause of criticism was the orders` wealth. Clearly the orders did have considerable assets, but arguably they needed them to support their military activities in the East. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there two schools of thought on this question. One, expressed by William of Tyre in particular, was that the military orders` extensive possessions had made them proud, and this was why they had become defiant of Royal and Episcopal authority and caused so much disruption in the Holy Land rather than protecting it. Walter Map and Guiot of Provins (a poet who became a Cluniac monk) thought that the Hospitallers` wealth had caused them to lose their charity and become proud. Generally, the complaint was that good religious

orders should not be so wealthy. The other school of thought was that although the military orders were obviously extremely wealthy, for everyone knew how extensive their possessions were and that they paid no tithe or tax (or so people believed) they must be using their resources very inefficiently, because they were always claiming to be poor. Matthew Paris expressed this opinion most forcibly in around 1245: The Templars and Hospitallers... receive so much income from the whole of Christendom, and, only for defending the Holy Land, swallow down such great revenues as if they sink them into the gulf of the abyss....(Chronica Majora, 3, pp. 177-8). Richard Mepham, dean of Lincoln, summed up the general royal attitude to the order`s wealth at the second council of Lyons in 1274. This council had been convened by Pope Gregory X to plan a great crusade for the relief of the Holy Land. Richard Mepham claimed to speak for many kings and princes. He stated that the military orders already had extensive possessions. If these were turned into cash, they would be enough for the defense of the Holy Land, and there was no need for the pope to ask for still more money. Following the loss of Acre in 1291, Pope Nicholas IV summoned church councils in every province, to advise on how the Holy Land could be recovered (Registres, nos. 7626, 7628, 6794, 7381). In 1292 the archbishop of Canterbury wrote to the pope to report on the decision of the council at London: The properties of the Templars and Hospitallers were originally conferred on them by the generosity of kings and princes and others for the defense of the said land in pious devotion, and it is truly believed that many thousands of strong men could be permanently stationed in the Holy Land and suitably supported from them... The common assertion is that these incomes will suffice to recover the Holy Land and preserve it against the enemy`s attack, so long as Christ`s warriors hold themselves humbly and devotedly towards God... (Councils and Synods, 2 part 2, p. 1112). The Archbishop believed that the military orders had not been using their wealth effectively in the defense of the Holy Land. It had also made them proud, so that God allowed them to be defeated. This brings us to accusations that the orders had failed to live up to their religious vocation, because they were proud, greedy and quarrelsome. (c) Failure to live up to their religious vocation . Some of this criticism was clearly prompted by political interests. Matthew Paris` major complaint against the Templars and Hospitallers, for instance, was that they had refused to co-operate with the emperor Frederick II in the Holy Land during his crusade of 1229, thus undermining the security of the Holy Land. William of Tyre, as chancellor of the kingdom of Jerusalem, saw that the Templars` and Hospitallers` refusal to obey the king`s authority had fundamentally weakened the kingdom. The emperor Frederick II criticized the Templars in 1244 because they refused to agree to his policy of alliance with Egypt, preferring to ally with Damascus. Although their opposition was political, each of these expressed their complaints in moral terms, accusing the Templars and Hospitallers of being proud and greedy. The orders` greed made them advance their own cause in preference to the interests of Christendom, and their pride made them rash, rebellious and jealous of any competitors, including the emperor Frederick II and each other. Some criticism stemmed from general dissatisfaction with the state of the whole Church. This is interesting because it shows how quickly the military orders came to be seen as established religious orders rather than as something new and radical. At the end of the twelfth century, Roger, parson of Howden, a former king`s clerk, recorded in his `Chronicle` an anecdote of King Richard I of England responding to a rebuke by the famous preacher Fulk of Neuilly. Fulk had advised the king to marry off his three daughters, Pride, Greed and Sensuality. Richard retorted that he would marry Pride to the Templars, Greed to the Cistercians, and Sensuality to the bishops (Chronica, 4, pp. 76-7). The Hospital did not appear in such criticism until the 1220s. I suggest that this was not because the Hospital was more virtuous but because it took longer than the Temple to develop a stereotyped image, because it was less in the public eye. In a song written by the troubadour Peire Cardenal sometime after 1222, criticizing the whole of society, the Templars and Hospitallers were criticized for their pride. According to the so-called `Satirical Will` attributed to the emperor Frederick II on his deathbed (1250), Frederick bestowed pride on the Templars and Hospitallers, discord to the Friars Preacher and Minor, avarice to the Benedictines and sensuality to the Cistercians (Acta Imperii inedita, p. 370, no. 437). Clearly, pride became a stock criticism of the Templars and Hospitallers. Other evidence indicates that they were proud, but this was a particularly knightly vice so it was only to be expected. Criticism of this sort does not indicate particular dislike of the Templars and Hospitallers. Yet the troubadour Daspol, writing in 1270, makes the criticism more specific. According to him, because the Templars and Hospitallers have become proud and greedy and do evil instead of good, they are unable or unwilling to defend the Holy Land against the Saracens. There were other criticisms of the spirituality of these orders which were not stereotyped and do indicate specific and genuine criticism. Around 1220 Hugh, lord of Berz, in a survey of the whole Church, praised the self-sacrifice of the Templars and Hospitallers but criticized their quarrels and their privileges, which undermined the rule of law in the Holy Land. He was only one of many who criticized the Templars and Hospitallers for quarrelling between themselves (the Teutonic order was also involved, but seems to have escaped blame). Matthew Paris cited the orders` quarrels as one reason why their reports should not be believed, and Pope Gregory X, rebuking the Hospital on this matter, pointed out that these quarrels harmed the Holy Land (Cartulaire gnral de l'ordre des Hospitallers, no. 3581). They not only sapped the Christians` military strength and resources but angered God, as Christians should not quarrel. Modern historians have demonstrated that in fact the Templars and Hospitallers went to great lengths to ensure peaceful relations between their brothers, and often co-operated (Riley-Smith, 150-1, 469, 443-50; Bulst-Thiele, 235, 282, 291-2), but their contemporaries did not notice. After the final loss of Acre in 1291, the

pope, Nicholas IV, suggested that the military orders` quarrels had been a contributory factor in the defeat, and many chroniclers and churchmen agreed (Registres, nos. 7626, 7628, 6794, 7381). In the mid thirteenth century, an English critic, writing in Anglo-Norman, surveyed the whole of society in a poem entitled 'Sur les tats du monde', and concluded that if the clergy were saved despite their vices - especially their sexual laxity - then he must be saved as well. His remarks on the Templars and Hospitallers are at the very end of the manuscript: The Templars are most doughty men, And they certainly know how to provide for themselves, But they love pennies too much. When prices are high They sell their wheat Instead of giving it to their people. Nor do the lords of the Hospital, Have any desire for buying women`s services If they have their palfreys and horses, I don`t say it for any evil... At this point the manuscript breaks off. I observed above that the military orders were not seen as loose livers, and clearly the Templars were not - in a poem where the author seems determined to prove the sexual depravity of every religious man in the country, the Templars were only accused of being too fond of money. The author's view of the Hospital, however, is quite different. One wonders in what respect the Hospitallers' horses and palfreys could replace the hire of women's services; clearly horses could not wash the brothers' hair or do their laundry, the usual tasks of women servants. Women could, however, be 'ridden' in bed, and hence the obvious interpretation for this passage is that the Hospitallers did not need to hire women to ride as long as they had their fine horses; remarkably fine horses, as the author of the even more scurrilous 'L'ordre de Bel Ayre' was aware, as well as the 'Ministrel de Reims' who recorded Saladin's legendary sejourn at the Hospital of Acre, when (the story said) the sultan, pretending to be ill, asked to eat the right fore foot of the master's warhorse (pp. 106-7) - their horses being what the Hospitallers valued most. The disingenuous disclaimer in the last line seems only to reinforce the impression that the poet certainly did intend his remark to be taken 'the wrong way'. There was one similar accusation against the Hospitallers in March 1238, when a French crusade was preparing to depart for the Holy Land. Pope Gregory IX wrote a rather extraordinary letter to the Hospitallers in Acre. He had heard that the brothers kept harlots in their villages, owned private property (forbidden by their vows) and, among other crimes, that several of the brothers were suspected of heresy. He gave them three months to reform themselves, before he sent the archbishop of Tyre to reform them (Cartulaire gnral de l'ordre des Hospitaliers, no. 2186). There is no other evidence for such accusations. Their spitefulness is rather reminiscent of the emperor Frederick II. It is possible that Frederick had told the pope that he would not give the crusaders assistance, as the pope had asked, because the Hospitallers were so corrupt that the crusade was doomed to failure. On the other hand, shortly after this letter was written, the Hospitallers introduced a ruling to prevent brothers from revealing the proceedings of the order`s chapter meetings. So it is possible that such abuses had come up in chapter and had reached the pope`s ears, and that the order was determined to prevent this from happening again. (d) Lack of enthusiasm for waging war on Muslims or winning converts for Christ. One of the reasons given for this accusation was that the orders were in alliance with the Muslims. This was quite true, and plenty of evidence survives for alliances and friendships between the military orders and the Muslims. However, the chroniclers also claimed that the Muslims exploited the brothers` greed. There was a legend in circulation which recounted how the Christians had been prevented from capturing a Muslim fortress because one or more of the Christian leaders had been bribed with Muslim gold to raise the siege. The gold later turned out to be copper. This story appeared in various forms and with various parties in the role of the dupes from the mid-twelfth century. By the early thirteenth century the dupes had become the Templars, and by the mid-thirteenth century the Templars and Hospitallers. The fortress became first Harenc in 1177, then Tibnin in 1197, and finally Damascus in 1148. In fact this is a very old story and versions of it appear in Gregory of Tours` History of the Franks and the collection of Welsh legends known as the Mabinogion. Many accusations that the military orders were unwilling to attack the Muslims were due to a misunderstanding of the true situation in the Holy Land. The Templars were criticized for refusing to help the Third Crusade besiege Jerusalem in 1191-2, but the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi shows clearly that they did not believe that the city could be held after the crusaders had departed, and that it would be better to attack Egypt. Again, in 1239 the Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic knights were criticized for refusing to accompany some French crusaders on an expedition which led to an overwhelming defeat at Gaza. Their reason was that they believed the expedition to be rash, which of course turned out to be correct (see Nicholson (1993), p.68). But eager crusaders were often greatly irritated by the military orders` caution. The most famous instance of this occurred at Mansourah in 1250 in Egypt during King Louis IX`s first crusade. The Templars and Hospitallers advised Count Robert of Artois not to attack the Muslims, but he accused them of sloth and wishing to impede the Christian cause and advanced. The military orders accompanied him, rather than be accused of cowardice, and, as they had predicted, the Christian

army was cut to pieces. (See Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 5, pp. 148-54.) It was a terrible defeat, but something of a propaganda coup for the orders. Their conduct during the battle had been irreproachable, they had fearlessly died for Christ, while the blame for the defeat fell on the count of Artois. Very few derogatory stories were recorded of the orders after 1250. In contrast, other critics complained that they were too eager to fight. Some writers felt that this rashness was foolish and irrational, not worthy of reasonable men. This was particularly the case by the thirteenth century, when the image of the rational knight who only fights when he has to, became popular in the romances. Some of the clergy believed that the orders` love of violence and domination impeded or prevented conversions. This accusation was made against the Templars by Walter Map (De Nugis Curialium, pp. 60-2) and against the Teutonic order by some unknown critics and by Roger Bacon. In 1258, letters reached Pope Alexander IV from Duke Semovit of Masovia, in Poland, and the Franciscan friars of Thorn, in Prussia, defending the Teutonic order against certain accusations. Each claimed to be writing independently and without having been asked to do so, but the letters are so similar that they were probably dictated by the Teutonic order. They deny that the brothers had been forbidding the preaching of Christianity, or that they had prevented the priests from stamping out incest and adultery among the Prussians, or that they had forbidden oratories to be built or priests instituted there. It was untrue that the brothers had destroyed old churches, or impeded the sacraments of burial, confession, baptism, eucharist and so on, or that they were enslaving the new converts, since they had been giving the Prussians the liberty of Christ, even when they didn`t want to receive it (Preussisches Urkundenbuch, 1.2, nos. 62, 65). Walter Kuhn has suggested that these accusations were brought by the Polish princes Kasimir of Cujavia and Boleslaw of Krakaw-Sandomir, who were hoping to gain part of Prussia for themselves. In any case, similar accusations appear around ten years later in the writing of Roger Bacon, a Franciscan friar in prison in Paris for his radical views. Roger was not against the use of force, but he claimed that the military orders, by using force against the Saracens, had made them resistant to the Christian faith. In particular, the Prussians would have been converted long ago if it wasn`t for the violence of the Teutonic order, because the pagan people have many times been prepared to receive the faith in peace following preaching. But those of the Teutonic house do not wish to allow this, because they wish to subjugate them and reduce them to slavery, and by subtle persuasions they have already for many years deceived the Roman Church. (Opus Maius, pp. 121-2.) Yet, although Roger's writings show that such accusations were still around in the 1260s, he was the only writer in western Europe to record them during this period, and his views can in no way be regarded as typical. (e) Criticism after 1250. The peak of criticism of the military orders came around 1250. After this they faded from the chronicles and critical writings. Many critics of the Church did not mention them at all. Others show very little actual knowledge of them. Although there was a vast number of newsletters coming from the Holy Land, so that chroniclers could hardly have been under informed on events, they seem to have chosen to ignore them. News was almost invariably bad, and they probably believed that the loss of the Holy Land was only a matter of time. Perhaps they preferred to think of the Holy Land as a land of romance and legend, rather than a real place with real problems. As a result, after 1250, the image of the military orders expressed in the chronicles and other writing shows a relative improvement. This does not mean that the military orders had become more popular, but that chroniclers and satirists had other more pressing matters to worry about, and that the military orders' activities were far from the top of their list of problems. For day-to-day relations between the military orders and their neighbors and the authorities were usually peaceful. Bishops` registers, royal administrative records, and the records of the nobility where these survive, show that although there were disputes, generally the military orders were obedient subjects and reliable servants. As Walter Map remarked, whatever the Templars did in the Holy Land, in England they lived peacefully enough. Even Walter Map had more to say against the Cistercians than against the military orders; by the late thirteenth century, a satirist was more likely to complain about the friars than the military orders. Conclusion. Did the military orders` contemporaries during the period 1119-1291 view them as knights genuinely serving Christ, knights of Christ? No one doubted that they served Christ. Only once during this period did a pope suggest that some of the Hospitallers were guilty of heresy, and the accusation was never repeated or elaborated. The Templars and Teutonic knights and the other military orders were never accused of error in their religious beliefs. Although there was plenty of criticism that the brothers had put money before their service of Christ, or had proved themselves unworthy in other ways, they could still be redeemed. After the final loss of Acre, when Pope Nicholas IV asked the Church for suggestions as to how the Holy Land could be recovered, his bishops made many suggestions as to how the military orders could be reformed to make them more efficient, but no one suggested that they be abolished. The concept of the military order remained unquestioned, and they were still expected to spearhead the recovery of the Holy Places which they had fought so long to protect. I shall end this survey with one of the earliest European accounts of the fall of Acre, written in the summer of 1291, from the chronicle of St. Peter`s abbey in Erfurt, in eastern Germany. This sums up the military orders' most pervasive image, both during the twelfth and thirteenth century and in modern times: pious warriors, fearlessly laying down their lives in God's cause.

It is said that a good 7,000 men fled together to the house of the Templars. This house, because it is located in a strong part of the city by the sea shore and surrounded with good walls, defended itself manfully for perhaps twelve days after the capture of the city by the Saracens. But when the Templars and the others who had fled there saw that they lacked supplies and had no hope of receiving human help, with devoted prayers and after confession, making a virtue of necessity, they committed their souls to Jesus Christ, rushed out strenuously on the Saracens and strongly threw down many of their adversaries. But at last they were all finally killed by the Saracens. ('Cronica S. Petri Erfordiensis Moderna', ed. O. Holder-Egger, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores, 30, pp. 424-5.) Sources Abbreviations. BEFAR = Bibliothque des coles franaises d'Athnes et de Rome MGSS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, ed. G. H. Pertz et al., series in folio, 34 vols. (Hanover, 1826-1934) PL = Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, 217 vols., and 4 vols. of indexes (Paris, 1834-64). RHC Or = Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Orientaux, published by the Acadmie des Inscriptions et de BellesLettres, 5 vols. (Paris, 1872-1906) Primary sources. Ab' l-Fid,, in 'Resum de l'histoire des Croisades tir des annales d'Abu' l-Feda', in RHC Or 1, pp. 1-165. Acta imperii inedita seculi XIII. Urkunden und Briefe zur Geschichte des Kaiserreichs und des K^nigreichs Sicilien in den Jahren 1198 bis 1273, ed. E. Winkelmann (Innsbruck, 1880). Alexander III, 'Epistolae', Patrologia Latina, 200. Anonymous of Bthune, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Bouquet et al., new edition ed. L. Delisle, 24 vols. (Paris, 1878), 24, pp. 750-75. Anselm, bishop of Havelburg, 'Dialogi', PL, 188. Bernard of Clairvaux, 'In Praise of the New Knighthood', trans. C. Greenia, in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 7: Treatises III, Cistercian Publications Inc. 5 (Kalamazoo, 1977). Caesarius of Heisterbach: Caesarii Heisterbachensis monachi ordinis Cisterciensis Dialogus Miraculorum, ed. J. Strange, 2 vols. (Cologne, Bonn and Brussels, 1851). Cartulaire gnral de l'ordre des Hospitaliers de S. Jean de Jrusalem, 1100-1310, ed. J. Delaville le Roulx, 4 vols. (Paris, 18941905). Cartulaire gnral de l'ordre du Temple, 1119?-1150, ed. le Marquis d'Albon (Paris, 1913). Cartulaires des Templiers de Douzens, ed. Pierre Grard and lisabeth Magnou (Paris, 1965) Councils and Synods with other documents relating to the English Church, ed. D. Whitelock, F. M. Powicke et al., 2 vols. in 4 (Oxford, 1964-81) 'Cronica S. Petri Erfordiensis Moderna', ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGHS, 30 Daspol, 'Seinhos, aujas, c'aves saber e sen', in 'Les derniers troubadours de la Provence d'aprs le chansonnier donn # la Bibliothque impriale par M. Ch. Giraud', ed. Paul Meyer, Bibliothque de l'cole des chartes, 5, sixime srie (1869), 289. 'De excidio urbis Acconis', in Veterum scriptorum et monumentum, historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium, amplissima collectio, ed. E. Martne and U. Durand, 9 vols. (Paris, 1724-33), 5, cols. 757ff. Ernoul: the chronicle attributed to him is included in La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184-97), ed. M. R. Morgan (Paris, 1982) and translated by P. Edbury in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (Aldershot, 1996). Another version is found in Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trsorier, ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Socit de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1871). Guiot of Provins, 'La Bible', in Les Oeuvres de Guiot de Provins, pote lyrique et satirique, ed. J. Orr (Manchester, 1915). Henry of Livonia, 'Chronicon Lyvoniae', ed. W. Arndt, MGHS, 23; translated by J. Brundage as The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia (Madison, 1961).

Historia diplomatica Fridericii Secundi, ed. J. L. A. Huillard-Brholles, 6 vols. in 11 (Paris, 1852-61, reprinted Turin, 1963). Hugh, lord of Berz, in La 'Bible' au seigneur de Berz, ed. F. Lecoy (Paris, 1938). Hugh 'the sinner', in 'Un document sur les dbuts des Templiers', ed. Jean Leclercq, Revue de l'histoire ecclesiastique, 52 (1957), 81-91. Hugo von Trimberg, Der Renner, ed. G. Ehrismann, 4 vols., Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 247-8, 252, 256 (Tbingen, 1909). 'Im,d al-Dn al-Isfah,n, Conqute de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin (al-Fath al qws f l-fath al quds, trans. H. Mass (Paris, 1972). Itinerarium Peregrinorum. Eine zeitgen^ssische englishe Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprnglicher Gestalt, ed. H. Mayer (Stuttgart, 1962). A translation of this text is included in Chronicle of the Third Crusade, trans. H. Nicholson (Aldershot, 1997). Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, vol 1 of Chronicles and Memorials of the reign of Richard I, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series 38 (London, 1864-5). Translated by H. Nicholson as Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Aldershot, 1997). Jacquemart Gile, Renart le Nouvel, ed. H. Roussel, Socit des anciens texts franais (Paris, 1961). Translation of relevant passage in Nicholson, 'Jacquemart Gile'. James of Vitry, 'Sermones Vulgares', in J. B. Pitra, Analecta novissima spicilegii Solesmensis: altera continuatio 2, Tusculana, ed. J. P. Pitra (Paris, 1888), sermons 37 and 38. John Peckham, Tractatus tres de paupertate, ed. C. L. Kingsford, A. G. Little, and F. Tocco (Aberdeen, 1910). Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum, in Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series 66 (London, 1875). Livlo/oondische Reimchronik, ed. F. Pfeiffer, Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 7B (Stuttgart, 1844); translated in The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, trans. J. C. Smith and W. Urban (1977). Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols., Rolls Series 57 (London, 1872-83). Partly translated by J. A. Giles, Matthew Paris' English History, 1235-1273 (London, 1852). Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard, 3 vols., Rolls Series 95 (London, 1890). Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, sive... Historia minor, item... Abbreviatio Chronicorum Angliae, ed. F. Madden, 3 vols., Rolls Series 44 (London, 1866-9). 'Ministrel of Reims' in Rcits d'un mnestrel de Reims au treizime sicle, ed. N. de Wailly, Socit de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1876). Nicholas IV, Les Registres de Nicolas IV, ed. Ernest Langlois, 1 vol. in 2 parts, BEFAR (Paris, 1886-93). Oliver the schoolmaster, 'Historia Damiatina', in Die Schriften des K^lner Domscholasters, Spo/ooteren Bischofs von Paderborn und Kardinalbischofs von S. Sabina, Oliverus, ed. H. Hoogeveg, Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 202 (Tbingen, 1894). Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. M. Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969-80). Otto, bishop of Freising, 'Chronicon', ed. R. Wilmans, MGHS, 20. Peire Cardenal, 'Mon chanter vueil retraire', in Peire Cardenal, Posies compltes, ed. R. Lavaud (Toulouse, 1957). Peter the Venerable, in The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1967). Preussisches Urkundenbuch, ed. A. Phillippi et al., 6 vols. (K^nigsberg, Aalen and Marburg, 1882-1986), vol. 1, parts 1 and 2. Ralph of Diss, 'Ymagines Historiarum', in The Historical Works of Master Ralph of Diceto, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series 68 (London, 1875). Records of the Templars in England in the twelfth century: the inquest of 1185 with illustrative charters and documents, ed. B. A. Lees (London, 1935). Richard Mepham, in Councils and Synods with other documents relating to the English Church, ed. D. Whitelock, F. M. Powicke et al., 2 vols. in 4 (Oxford, 1964-81), 2.2, p. 185. Richard of Poitou, 'Chronica', extr. ed. G. Waitz, MGHS, 26.

Roger Bacon, Opus Maius, ed. J. H. Bridges, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1877-1900, reprinted Frankfurt, 1964). Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols., Rolls Series 51 (London, 1868-71). Rotuli Hundredorum temp. Hen. III & Edw. I in turri Lond. et curia receptae Scaccarii Westm. asservati, 2 vols. (London, 18128). 'Sur les tats du monde', in Anglo-Norman Political Songs, ed. I. S. T. Aspin, Anglo-Norman texts 11 (Oxford, 1953). Tabulae ordinis Theutonici ex tabularii regii Berolinensis codice potissimum, ed. Ernst Strehlke, new edn. with preface by H. E. Mayer (Jerusalem, 1975). Thadeo of Naples, Historia de desolacione et conculcacione civitatis Acconensis et tocius terre sancte, in ADMCCXCI, ed. Paul Riant (Geneva, 1873). Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. and trans. M. R. James, C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1983). William the Breton, 'Gesta Philippi Augusti', in Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume de Breton, historiens de Philippe Auguste, ed. H. F. Delaborde, 2 vols. (Paris, 1882-5). William of Tyre, in Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis 63, 63A (Turnhout, 1986); translated as A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea, trans. E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey, 2 vols. (New York, 1943). Secondary sources Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: a History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge, 1994) Marie Luise Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae Domus militiae Templi Hierosoymitani magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/9-1314 (G^ttingen, 1974). Alan Forey, 'The militarisation of the Hospital of St John', Studia Monastica, 26 (1984), 75-89, and in his Military Orders and Crusades (Aldershot, 1994). Alan Forey, 'Recruitment to the Military Orders (twelfth to mid-fourteenth centuries)', Viator, 17 (1986), 139-71, and in his Military Orders and Crusades (Aldershot, 1994). Alan Forey, 'Women and the Military Orders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries', Studia Monastica, 29 (1987), 63-92, and in his Military Orders and Crusades (Aldershot, 1994).. Alan Forey, Military Orders and Crusades (Aldershot, 1994). Alan Forey, The Military Orders: From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries (Basingstoke and London, 1992). C. V. Graves, 'The economic activities of the Cistercians in Medieval England, 1128-1307', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, 13 (1957), 3-60. W. Kuhn, 'Ritterorden als Grenzhter des Abendlandes gegen das ^stliche Heidentum', Ostdeutsche Wissenschaft, 6 (1959), 7-70. Helen Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: images of the military orders, 1128-1291 (Leicester and London, 1993). Helen Nicholson, 'Jacquemart Gile's Renart le Nouvel: the image of the military orders on the eve of the loss of Acre', in Monastic Studies I: the Continuity of Tradition, ed. Judith Loades (Bangor, 1990), pp. 182-9. Helen Nicholson, 'Templar attitudes towards women', Medieval History, 1, 3 (1991), 74-80. Helen Nicholson, 'Margaret de Lacy and the Hospital of St John at Aconbury, Herefordshire', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, forthcoming. Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights of St John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, c. 1050-1310 (London, 1967). Dominic Selwood, 'Quidam autem dubitaverunt: the Saint, the Sinner, the Temple and a possible chronology', in Autour de la Premire Croisade: Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, ed. Michel Balard (Paris, 1996)

Francesco Tommasi, Uomini e donne negli ordini militari di Terrasanta: Per il problema delle case doppie e miste negli ordini giovannita, templare e teutonico (secc. XII-XIV), in Doppelkloster und andere Formen der symbiose mannlicher und weiblicher Religiosen in Mittelalter, ed. Kaspar Elm and Michel Parisse, Berliner historische Studien, 18 (1992), pp. 177-202.

Religious Orders The Rule of St. Benedict Compared with the Rule of the Templars* by Steven Grobschmidt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the middle of the sixth century, the Abbot of Monte Cassino formulated guidelines for proper monastic life, administration, and spirituality. He created a setting for monks to lead ideal lives--both practically and spiritually--in service to God under a wise, firm, and yet compassionate Abbot. Benedict of Nursia wrote this rule in a plain, unadorned style. For the reader, it was not to be taken as an impersonal code of law, but as a trusted guide whose directions he must faithfully follow.(1) The Abbot would act as a mentor, faithful to the rule and stern, but also compassionate and reasonable. Prayer, attire, and ways of conducting oneself daily all comprised what would become the Rule of St. Benedict. In the late eleventh century, an order known as the Cistercians arose, with intentions to return monasticism to its original spirit. Bolstered in the next century by the presence of the dynamic St. Bernard of Clairvaux, these White Monks created a novum monasterium, based on stricter adherence to the Benedictine Rule, which many had felt was becoming abused and "diluted."(2) In roughly 1118, a group of some thirty knights including Hugh of Payens and Godfrey of Saint-Omer vowed to observe poverty and chastity, and to protect Christians on pilgrimages to the Holy Land from vagabonds and enemies.(3) A decade later, at the Council of Troyes, these Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon--better known as Templars--were formally recognized by the Church. In the centuries after, they would play a prominent role in the course of the Crusades, and in Mediterranean and European politics. The Rule given to the Templars had as a model the Rule of St. Benedict, influenced greatly by the reformed Cistercian version, and from this base developed their own distinct code of military, spiritual, and everyday life. As a result, the Benedictine and Templar Rules bear considerable similarities. Both the Templars and Benedictines prescribe leaders expecting complete obedience and in turn showing kindness, mercy, and fatherly care. To govern successfully, these men should seek counsel and appoint able subordinates. Elections allow the orders to choose the most capable brothers to be the head.(4) Both rules also create similar initiation processes(5), vows and duties, restrictions, and prayer procedures(6) for the brethren. Leadership in both the Rule of St. Benedict (hereafter RB) and the Rule of the Templars (hereafter RT) is exercised by the Abbot and the Master respectively. Below the latter is a significantly larger group of subordinates, from seneschal to various commanders to sergeant brothers.(7) Still, the authority, limitations, and responsibilities of the Abbot and the Grand Master are comparable. Above all, both are representatives of Christ. RB recommends that Abbots adhere to divine justice and remember whence their title arose--the word "abba" meaning father.(8) Likewise, the Grand Master is expected to observe humility and compassion in Christ's example.(9) Just as Christ tended to the sick and needy, the Abbot and Master are urged to regularly commit such acts of kindness. Guests of a Benedictine monastery deserve treatment befitting Christ, and the Abbot and other brothers should wash their feet and hands, and grant them the utmost courtesy.(10) On Maundy Thursday, the Master of the Templars should wash thirteen paupers' feet, then feed and clothe them.(11) Mercy plays an important part in their leadership. Abbots are to treat the sick with patience and care. RB places the responsibility of care for the ill on the shoulders of the Abbot. If nurses or others are neglecting the sick, the Abbot is responsible.(12) Physical illness is not the limit to this care--those spiritually troubled, even the excommunicated, are to be handled sternly but compassionately. Addressing the sin resolves the situation more than simply punishing the sinner. St. Benedict beautifully makes his point with a familiar analogy: the Abbot should follow the lead of the Good Shepherd who left ninety-nine sheep behind to search for the lost one. His compassion for weakness was such that he stopped to place the sheep on his shoulders to carry it back to the flock.(13) The RB is reminding Abbots that they must not, amidst heavy decision-making and maintenance of the monastery, lose sight of their fatherly role. The Master of the Temple also is expected to keep mercy a part of his many responsibilities. For example, when the Master gives out his clothing or bed linens to brothers, he should give the same to lepers or some other source in need. (14) Care for the serious sinner, according to RT, requires the Master to wield a staff and a rod: the former to hold up the spiritually weak and set them back onto the road to correct behavior, the latter to beat down the sinner's failings. In this way, just as RB suggests, RT warns that merciless punishment of offenders often accomplishes nothing. A good leader must battle sin, not the sinner. In that way, he can bring the brother back into the fold, not turn him away permanently by discouragement. (15) Though mercy and charity are parts of the makeup of Abbots and Grand Masters, there is no question in either Rule over the ultimate authority they wield. Benedictine monks owe their Abbots complete obedience. (16) Considering the Abbot is a representative of God who must not show any preferential treatment to an individual brother, a monk observes the code of obedience out of love for God and for spiritual guidance, not in hopes of gaining favor--a motivation for obeying a secular leader. (17) RB contains many instances where abbatial permission is required. Speaking to an excommunicated brother (18), receiving letters or presents from family or friends (19), practicing a craft (20), and obtaining bedding (21) are just a few things which must be approved by the Abbot beforehand. Priests within a given monastic community also owe the Abbot complete obedience, even in giving blessings and saying Mass. (22)

RT also makes it clear that all the brothers of the Temple are to obey the Master as their ultimate authority, while he in turns obeys his house. (23) In fact, as the prominence of the Templars grew, the Grand Master, residing in the mother house at Jerusalem, ranked in Christendom as a sovereign prince. (24) Added to abbatic-type duties, the Master has to deal with the allimportant military aspects of his order. RT instructs brothers to obey their Master strictly without delay, in deference to Christ. (25) In following this, a Templar brother must also seek permission before engaging in a wide variety of activities, including: exchanging one item for another, receiving things from others, and building a new house out of stone and lime. If the Master wishes to give the horse and armor of one brother to another, the one he is taking from must accept the transaction without a single ill thought. (26) The Master of the Temple and the Abbot of a Benedictine monastery stand atop their respective institutions, expecting nothing but pious cooperation from their brethren, who owe them the respect and obedience which God commands through their Rules. Both Rules contain interesting provisions regarding unreasonable requests made by the Abbot or Grand Master upon a brother. Near the end of RB, a chapter instructs a brother who has been given an impossible charge to accept it at first, attempt it, and if unsuccessful politely inform his superior. If the Abbot reasserts his initial order, the brother must "offer it up to the Lord" and do the deed. (27) The Templar version is perhaps a bit stronger. It echoes the RB instruction, but adds that the Master is obliged to honor the brother's request if it seems justified, and that brothers should be wary of orders that defy the Rule of the house. (28) In both cases, the point is that a brother must never lose sight of the true reason he is doing a deed--for God. If it seems unjust, he may consult his superior, but ultimately he must trust in the Lord that the task is possible. While the Abbot and Master stand atop their communities as representatives of Christ, both Rules highly recommend the usage of counsels to deal with problems. In this way, the leader can weigh several wise options and use his final judgment to resolve whatever is at hand. He is urged by the [Benedictine] Rule to take the advice of the brethren before taking policy decisions. (29) Chapter 3 of RB illustrates the value of consulting the entire community on an important matter. Old and young hold equal weight, and should offer calm, helpful advice without getting too opinionated adamant. In lesser affairs, the Abbot need only consult senior brothers for advice. (30) RT expresses the need for consultation by a Master. Be it in matters of war or peace, land acquisition, appointment of officials, or the eligibility of a would-be Templar, the Rule requires a Master to seek the advice of the Chapter. (31) The Rule also states firmly that a Master or anyone holding chapter must not do anything without first offering prayer and a sermon. In this way, he can be sure the grace of God is upon the brothers before decisions can be made. (32) What is important to notice is the strong indication by RT, and RB for that matter, that the Master (or Abbot) is in charge of his community, but must recognize both the value in consulting his brothers and the overall authority of God over everything. Delegating authority also moderates the absolute authority of the Abbot and Grand Master. Both Rules direct subordinates to take over some duties under the leaders. In the case of RB, abbots are advised to choose particularly pious and intelligent brothers as deans, to share their responsibilities. Deans must remain humble and dedicated, and receive three warnings before removal from office. (33) They are hand-picked by the Abbot, keeping the latter the true authority over all matters. RB creates another position for a monastery, but it is not as readily recommended. The prior (or provost) is designed to be a second-in-command. Benedict believes the position is inferior to a group of deans, who have equal authority, and is more susceptible to corruption and pride. (34) However, the option is open to the Abbot if he wants a single assistant to manage select tasks. The prior must never overstep his authority, remaining quietly obedient to his leader. (35) RB mentions other appointed positions, such as the cellarer, who must be a smart, sober, selfless man, fearing of God. RB frequently emphasizes that the cellarer must be honest, humble, and inoffensive. The Abbot may give him assistants in a large monastery. (36) An intelligent senior brother should be selected as guardian of the gates, worthy for his humility and kindness. (37) Such a position further demonstrates that RB recognizes and respects the value of older monks. Beneath the Templar Master is also a well-structured hierarchy. Most of the positions, as well as having specific duties of their own, receive a certain number of horses and underlings. A Seneschal takes the place of the Master when the Master is not present. (38) Unlike lesser officers, he is able to carry out actions without needing permission from the Master. Next is the Marshal, who manages the arms of the house, holds chapter in Jerusalem when the Master and Seneschal are not present, and calls brothers to arms.(39) There is a Commander of the Land of Jerusalem and of the Kingdom, a Commander of the City of Jerusalem, and Commanders of Tripoli and Antioch.(40) A Draper is appointed to attend to clothing matters, and wields significant power since all brothers must obey him when he cites a violation in dress.(41) RT also lists the duties and privileges of Knight Commanders and the Commander of the Knights. Finally, the Rule covers Knight Brothers (42), Sergeant Brothers of the Convent (43), standard-bearers (44), Under-Marshals (45), and Casilier Brothers. (46) The Hierarchical Statutes are well-defined and precise in their instructions. (47) These officers' duties are often military-related, but nonetheless show the importance of subordinates in checking the absoluteness of the leader's power. Like the Benedictine Abbot, the Templar Grand Master is not a sole power over his brethren. He divides key responsibilities among a group of capable individuals, freeing himself up to better serve the order as a pater and a representative of Christ. Because an Abbot or Master wields such substantial power, despite the guidance of God and the Rule, greed and arrogance no doubt would still be strong. Thus, the election of such a strong position is a careful process involving the entire brotherhood. Herein lies another close correlation between the two Rules. RB emphasizes piety and wisdom as prime requisites for a candidate,

and excludes no member of the community from eligibility. A local bishop or nearby Abbot can overturn the appointment if the community in question is known for being idle or corrupt and their choice seems to reflect such vices.(48) It is important to point out here that the Templars, on the other hand, were not bound to local bishops or ecclesiastical officials. They answered directly to the Pope. An interesting point in RB shows the election is not entirely democratic. The entire community should choose an Abbot, but if this proves unsuitable, a smaller group of more rational voices should do it. In any case, the process requires careful wisdom to fill in the important position of Abbot.(49) When a Master of the Temple dies, an elaborate election process is taken up, also comprised of "worthy men." If possible, the election should take place in Jerusalem.(50) A Grand Commander is appointed to take over the Master's duties until an election is arranged.(51) RB calls for sound-minded brothers to vote if the entire community's vote is unacceptable, but RT calls directly for worthy men, not the entire brotherhood. A rigorous system is carried out to arrive at thirteen electors, including a Commander of the election. These men decide the next Master, be it the Grand Commander or a more worthy choice "across the sea."(52) To choose a man to hold such authority, much less to represent Christ on earth, is a process RB and RT took very seriously. Thus they make measures to ensure wisdom and spirituality win out. The Templar Grand Master is responsible for far-reaching Templar influence in the Mediterranean and Western worlds, and becomes a powerful military figure in the course of the Crusades, yet RT fuses with those duties the necessity to adhere to his Rule and carry out the role of a traditional Benedictine Abbot.(53) Ultimately, both positions follow the same ways of life, guiding religious communities in the manner of Jesus Christ, and exercising humility, morality, and wisdom in all activities. Besides leaders, Templar and Benedictine brothers both follow comparable codes of life in accordance with their respective Rules, excluding the former's taking up of arms to wage physical battle against God's enemies. They take similar vows, must avoid similar transgressions, and dedicate good portions of their time to humble prayer and reflection. Secular knights enter the Templar ranks, but must change their livelihood to a one of discipline, purity, and hard work, placing aside the superficialities and temptations of secular life for the service of the Lord; they arm themselves not with gold, but inside with faith. (54) The Templars follow virtues and ideals espoused by the Benedictine Rule from which their own Rule borrowed greatly. Admission into both orders requires intense interviewing, aimed to be sure the initiate knows what he is getting into and what code of life he must follow. RB's coverage of initiation is simpler and more generalized than the many clauses RT dedicates to the same subject. Still, Chapter 58 of RB (The admission of new brothers), is one of the longest, most important chapters and clearly defines how a postulant is to be received and reviewed. (55) Basically, the petitioner arrives at the monastery doors to a cold reception. Days later, he is allowed in, where a senior brother interrogates him about his intentions for entering such work of the Lord. The senior warns about the rigors in the path before him. Then three periods of time pass in which the initiate must review the Rule and patiently wait. After each time, the senior re-reads the Rule for clarification. Ultimately, the novice promises before the entire monastic community that he will uphold the Rule and live as a monk. Everything he owns, clothing included, is taken away, a final gesture of complete fealty to God and the order. Before delving into the Templar reception process, it is important to note that three basic walks of life constitute the brothers of the Temple. Knights, often of wealthy upbringing, make up one class. Sergeants play an important role as well, as fighters, bailiffs, and other important positions. Finally, clerics create a non-combatant arm of the Templars, dedicated to religious and medicinal practices.(56) The Templar code for reception of new members deals almost entirely with questioning done by the brothers and Master.(57) The whole company of the house has greater participation than those under the Benedictine method. The brothers also warn the newcomer of the difficulties inherent in the life of a Templar.(58) They ask him a series of questions, such as if he has a wife, if he has existing vows to another order, etc. If no members have anything to object to, the questions and admonitions continue. When the order is satisfied that the newcomer is devoid of transgressions and is worthy of the order, his reception is concluded upon promising to God and St. Mary that none of the penalties listed by the Rule will be broken. (59) In both RB and RT, an initiate must know his Rule intimately and the difficulties lying before him in such a rigorous life of devotion to God. He must convince the order his intentions are sincere and his life free of serious sin. RB, in all its simplicity, makes this as clear as RT. The first chapter of RB defines four types of monks. The first kind is Cenobites, or those living in a monastery and waging their way under a rule and Abbot--the best kind of monks. (60) Anchorites spend time in their monastery training for their war against evil. Sarabaites are disrespectful to God, more concerned about pleasure, and weak-minded. Gyratory monks are unworthy of discussion according to the Rule, for they preoccupy themselves with pleasure and travel from monastery to monastery. RB applies to Cenobites, disregarding the others. (61) Obedience, silence, and humility serve God best, but only with zeal and happiness. One must obey not only his Abbot, but his fellow brethren, and show respect to both the young and old. As stated above, private property is forbidden--a brother could not claim ownership to so much as a pen and paper. In fact, RB states that a new member must recognize that he no longer owns his body. Manual labor, reading, and prayer comprise much of a monk's time, with applicable exclusions for the frail, ill, and elderly. In addition to the above vows, Benedictine monks need to follow various stipulations lest they be excommunicated from the order. Early on, RB provides a list of seventy-two requirements which include the Ten Commandments as well as: comforting the poor, avoiding anger and jealousy, restraining from excessive food and drink, praying often, remaining modest and optimistic, and obeying the Abbot in all things.(62) The confines of a monastery provide the best atmosphere for monks to observe these "good works." Not surprisingly, a monk is also forbidden from striking another one without abbatic permission.(63)

Further restrictions concern clothing, rest, and sustenance. Depending on the climate of the specific monastery, a monk should receive a simple cowl, tunic, and shoes, from whatever materials are available locally for the cheapest prices. The Abbot provides a mattress, blanket, pillow, and coverlet for sleeping. Violations result in strict punishment, since they usually entail private ownership. (64) Under the supervision of elders, all the monks should sleep in one room or in large groups if the monastery population is too big. They should keep their clothing on while asleep, and a candle must remain lit during the night. RB advises brothers to encourage each other in waking, for the sleepy make many excuses. (65) Two cooked meals a day, at the sixth and ninth hours, provide sufficient food. The Abbot may allow more if fresh fruit or vegetables are available or if the day's work is particularly taxing, but moderation is essential. RB allows usage of wine, but again only in moderation. The brothers must fast on Wednesdays and Fridays from Pentecost through summer, and during Lent.(66) Meat of four-footed creatures is specifically banned, and based on traditional monastic practice of Benedict's time, chicken, beef, pork, and mutton all are forbidden too.(67) One must carry out these stipulations with unwavering devotion to God. The mood of the text is reasonable and cordial amidst all these regulations and restrictions, testimony to RB's appeal to everyone.(68) That, with its simplicity, obviously appealed to the Templars when they adopted the Cistercian descendent of RB. In accepting Benedictine guidelines, RT also designs a way of life that is cenobitic. Templars too take vows of personal poverty, obedience, and chastity. They dress conservatively and wear their hair short. (69) Many of the requirements of RB arise in RT. A brother owes his Master the firmest of obedience, for nothing is dearer to Jesus Christ than obedience. (70) One should only speak when necessary, refraining from idle chatter and laughter. Hand gestures ought to supersede words at the dinner table. (71) Theft and heresy are two wrongs worthy of expulsion from the house that also appear in the aforementioned Chapter 4 of RB. The second tier of offenses, all worthy of losing one's habit, include contact with a woman and giving the alms of the house to a secular man (another form of theft).(72) RT specifically addresses swearing as vile no matter what the conditions. A brother should say nothing but good things, or remain silent. Certainly then, lying is an offense worthy of losing one's habit--particularly lying to discredit a fellow brother. (73) Physically assaulting a brother, as in RB, is intolerable, and in this case worthy of losing one's habit and even getting put in irons. (74) The Templars and Benedictine monks clearly should lead similar lives of brotherhood, moderation in all things, and purity worthy of Christ. RT parallels RB in requiring plain, one-color habits. Old clothing should be given to the needy. The Templar Rule forbids pointed shoes and shoe-laces, attributing such things to pagans, and the wearing of long hair, facial or otherwise. The Master doles out a mattress, bolster, and blanket for one's bedding.(75) Eating should be done in silence. No doubt because of the more strenuous military lives of the Templars, meat is allowed, though only thrice a week, excluding Christmas, All Saints, Assumption, and the feasts of the twelve disciples. Specifically, brothers may eat two meat meals on Sundays, but none on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Saturdays. Undiluted wine is allowed in RT, but not between dinner and Vespers. (76) The diet of the brothers is limited to what is needed to sustain them adequately amidst their labors. The Templars and Benedictine monks share analogous eating practices in this respect. The Templars receive more food because they require more as soldier-monks. Crucial to the practice of both orders is prayer. When not on military campaigns, the Templars are to lead typical monastic lives including devotion to God. (77) Though details naturally vary, the general methods of the orders' prayer services run parallel. Part of following the ways of Christ entails devotion to God and remembrance of the Scriptures and Saints. RB plainly outlines the schedule of devotion for a Benedictine monastery, and RT never loses sight of its importance, despite the attention that the defense of the Holy Land demanded of the Templar faculties. St. Benedict considered prayer--silent or communal--the most important element of monasticism; in fact, it was the justification of a monk's existence. (78) Rather quickly, RB details how a monastery should properly conduct prayer. It begins with when Matins should be said. Winter months require the brothers to get up in the eighth hour of the night, that is, daybreak. Certain psalms are said in the Night and Day offices. The daybreak Matins differ from Sundays to ordinary days, as do the Lauds after them. Brothers are to sing "Alleluia" specific times and ways on certain days. Above all, humility and purity must course through every prayer said, every song sung. (79) Monks must basically drop everything upon hearing the signal for prayer. A tardy brother must sit in a special section where all can see him, so that embarrassment may induce correction. He is not allowed to sit outside, where chatter and sleep can corrupt him.(80) Brothers who are too far away from the oratory, because of distant work or travel, must pray the Divine Office where they are.(81) At meals, a brother reads while everyone else remains silent. Thrice the reader chants, "O Lord, You will open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Your praise."(82) Prayer entwines with work and sleep to keep the monks active and pious, thus evading idleness. For Templar houses in the West and brothers not involved in any military endeavors, RT provides a strong schedule of prayers. When the bell tolls for matins, a Templar must immediately make his way to hear the Office. He should listen to the matins silently, then say thirteen paternosters. Later each day the bell summons the brothers to hear prime, mass, terce, then sext. (83) Prayer is said at the meals just as in a Benedictine monastery. A priest may say the blessing, and one paternoster must precede the breaking of bread. The same holds true for vespers--the bell must be heeded promptly. When compline arrives to end the monastic day, the brothers should be in place and may share in a communal drink. When compline itself begins, the drinking should give way to silence and attentive prayer. One must seek permission to miss a prayer service. In these ways, the Order of the Temple follows the Rule's message: "If we love God, we should willingly hear and listen to His holy words."

From leadership to the responsibilities and prayer methods of the brethren, the Rule of the Templars contains strong parallels to the Benedictine Rule. Though the military aspects of the Templars turned them into an international, wealthy powerhouse, their code of life in theory never lost traces of St. Benedict's influence. Though the Benedictine and Templar Rules were not followed to the letter throughout history, their messages are timeless. Benedict's Rule carries weight today, not only adapted by orders such as the Cistercians, but valuable to anyone seeking a life of piety and simplicity. Equally immortal are the Templars, who stand tall in history as "lions of war and lambs at the hearth; rough knights on the battlefield, pious monks in the chapel; formidable to the enemies of Christ, gentleness itself to His friends."(85) End Notes 1. Walter Nigg, Warriors of God, New York, 1972, p. 137. 2. C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, New York, 1984, p. 146-147. 3. Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Templars, Cambridge, 1995, p. 6-7. 4. Antony C. Meisel and M.L. Del Mastro, trans. and intro., The Rule of St. Benedict, New York, 1975, Chapter 64, p. 99-100 (hereafter, abbreviated RB); Judith Upton-Ward, trans. and intro., The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, 1992, cl. 198-222, p. 67-70 (hereafter RT). 5. RB, Chapter 58, p. 93-95; RT, cl. 657-686, p. 168-174. 6. For the most part, RB covers prayer in Chapters 8 through 20 (p. 61-69). RT treats the subject over several sections, which will be discussed further later in this paper. 7. The section of RT entitled "The Hierarchical Statutes" (cl. 39-223, p. 77-223) covers this material. It will be covered more specifically later. 8. RB, Chapter 2, p. 48. 9. RT, cl. 39, p. 29. 10. RB, Chapter 53, p. 90. 11. RT, cl. 98, p. 43-44. 12. RB, Chapter 36, p. 78. 13. RB, Chapter 27, p. 72-73. The Good Shepherd story is found in Matthew 16:10-14. 14. RT, cl. 97, p. 43. 15. RT, cl. 47, p. 30-31. The Rule includes an effective message from a Bishop of Turin, St. Maxime (d. 423), on this matter: "May the leniency be no greater than the fault; nor excessive punishment cause the sinner to return to evil deeds." 16. RB, Chapter 5, p. 54-55. 17. Dom Hubert van Zeller, The Holy Rule, New York, 1958, chapter 5, p. 85. This book's chapters conveniently correspond by number with those of RB itself. 18. RB, Chapter 26, p. 72. 19. RB, Chapter 54, p. 91. 20. RB, Chapter 57, p. 93. 21. RB, Chapter 55, p. 92. 22. RB, Chapter 60, p. 96. Chapter 62 deals with the ordination of monks by an Abbot . 23. RT, cl. 98, p. 44 24. Ian C. Hannah, Christian Monasticism: A Great Force in History, New York, 1925, p. 199. 25. RT, cl. 39, p. 29. 26. RT, cl. 35, p. 28

. 27. RB, Chapter 68, p. 103. 28. RT, cl. 313, p. 88-89. 29. Lawrence, p. 26. Lawrence is speaking of RB specifically, but his comment holds true for the Master of the Templar as well. 30. RB, Chapter 3, p. 51 . 31. Barber, p. 187. 32. RT, cl. 395, p. 107-108. 33. RB, Chapter 21, p. 69. 34. van Zeller, Chapter 65, p. 420. 35. RB, Chapter 65, p. 101-102. 36. RB, Chapter 31, p. 74-75. 37. RB, Chapter 66, p. 102. 38. RT, cl. 99-100, p. 44. 39. RT, cl. 101-109, p. 44-46. 40. RT, cl. 110-129, p. 47-51. 41. RT, cl. 130-131, p. 51-52. 42. RT, cl. 132-136, p. 52-53. 43. RT, cl. 180, p. 63. 44. RT, cl. 177-179, p. 62-63. 45. RT, cl. 173-176, p. 61-62. 46. RT, cl. 181, p. 63. 47. According to Upton-Ward's Introduction (p. 13-14), the Hierarchical Statutes define the hierarchy of the Order, detailing aspects of conventual, military, and religious life, as well as attire and duties of the brothers. 48. Lawrence, p. 27. Chapter 64 of RB (p. 99-100) covers elections. 49. RB, Chapter 64, p. 99-100. 50. RT, cl. 198-201, p. 67-68. 51. RT, cl. 204, p. 69. 52. RT, cl. 198-222, p. 67-72. Clearly, the process of deciding a Grand Master of the Temple is more exhaustive than the twopage RB version, but the theme of wise, careful voting runs strong in both. 53. Barber, p. 17. 54. Barber, p. 45. Barber, p. 16-17, discusses other ways in which knights broke with their past upon Templar admission, such as giving up hawking, hunting, elaborate attire, and other "aristocratic" penchants. 55. Van Zeller, Chapter 58. Appropriately, van Zeller chapter is one of the longest in his book, and analyzes what the aspirant must go through to gain acceptance into the Order. 56. Henry Treece, The Crusades, New York, 1994, p. 137. 57. RT, cl. 168-172, p. 658-676. This is a string of standard questions asked by the Order, followed by anticipated answers by the would-be brother.

58. RT, cl. 679, p. 172.59. RT, cl. 657-685, p. 168-174. 60. RB, Chapter 1, p. 48. 61. RB, Chapter 1, p. 48. 62. RB, Chapter 4, p. 52-53. 63. RB, Chapter 70, p. 104. 64. RB, Chapter 55, p. 91-92. 65. RB, Chapter 22, p. 70. Regarding the "encouraging" of heavy sleepers, van Zeller draws the conclusion that even this act must be done silently, with a hand signal perhaps. See van Zeller, Chapter 22, p. 188. 66. RB, Chapter 39-41, p. 80-81. 67. Van Zeller, Chapter 39, p. 261. 68. Hannah, p. 77. 69. Lawrence, p. 199. 70. RT, cl. 39, p. 29. 71. RT, cl. 23; 31-32, p. 25 & 27. 72. RT, Penances, p. 73-79. 73. RT, cl. 325 & 453, p. 91 & 121 (swearing and lying, respectively). 74. RT, cl. 234, p. 74. 75. RT, cl. 17-22, p. 24-25 . 76. RT, cl. 23, 26, 27-28; 286-287, 295-297, p. 26-27, 83-85. 77. Barber, p. 208. 78. Nigg, p. 143. 79. RB, Chapters 8-20, p. 61-69. 80. RB, Chapter 43, p. 83. 81. RB, Chapter 50, p. 89. 82. RB, Chapter 38, p. 79. Actual quote is Psalm 51:15. 83. Prime is the liturgical office sung at the first hour of the day, at sunrise. Terce is sung at the third hour. Sext is at the sixth hour. In the evening, Vespers are carried out. 84. RT, cl. 279-312, p. 82-89. 85. Lawrence, p. 199. A stirring quote by Jacques de Vitry. Works Consulted Barber, Malcolm. The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple, Cambridge, 1995. Barber, Malcolm. The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge, 1978. Hannah, Ian. Christian Monasticism: A Great Force in History, New York, 1925. Lawrence, C.H. Medieval Monasticism, New York, 1984. Meisel, Antony C. & M.L. Del Mastro, trans. & intro. The Rule of St. Benedict, New York, 1975. Nigg, Walter. Warriors of God, New York, 1972.

Thatcher, Oliver J. & Edward H. McNeal. "The Benedictine Rule", in A Source Book For Mediaeval History, E. Woelfflin, ed. Theisen, Abbot Primate Jerome. "The Rule of Saint Benedict", in The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1995. Treece, Henry. The Crusades, New York, 1994. Van Zeller, Hubert. The Holy Rule, New York, 1958. Upton-Ward, Judith, trans. & intro. The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, 1992.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*This essay grew out of a paper written for an undergraduate course on the Crusades. Copyright (C) 1997, Steven Grobschmidt. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus by Anne Gilmour-Bryson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hearings or trials at which the members of the Order of the Temple, and the Order itself, were charged with various offenses against morality and the Church began in October 1307 when Templars across France were arrested. The arrests were ordered by the French king, Philip IV, although in November of that year the pope, Clement V, took over at least ostensibly the conduct of the interrogations. He ordered the arrest of all members of the Order throughout Latin Christendom, a process which was carried out much more slowly outside France. On the island of Cyprus which was in the Christian frontline against the infidel, or Saracens as they were commonly referred to, the arrests occurred in 1308. The allegations against the Order itself, and its members, were detailed in general in a statement by King Philip in his order of arrest to be opened on the day of the capture of the French Templars. The specific accusations were sent out to those responsible for the arrests in a papal pronouncement referred to as Faciens misericordiam on 12 August 1308. The most serious charges were those of heresy, in particular spitting on the cross, denying the divinity of Christ, God, and the Blessed Virgin, denying that Christ died to redeem humanity from sin, and teaching that Jesus was not the true God. Had Templars actually believed any of this, had the Order taught this to new members, it would have most definitely constituted grave heresy, a fundamental lack of belief in the most fundamental doctrines of the fourteenth-century Church. The second most important series of allegations were those which suggested that when new members were inducted into the Order, at their reception ceremony or sometimes afterward, they were told that they could have carnal relations with other men in the Order. In fact, according to the list of charges, they were instructed that they ought to do this and that it was not a sin. The third serious group of charges was that relating to idolatry, specifically that Templars adored an idol, or even several of them, at ceremonies, venerating the idol as though it were God himself. Other accusations said that they believed that "the head could save them; it could make them rich; it could make the trees flower and the lands germinate." In order to link the notion of idolatry more closely to the brethren, the cords which they, like most monks, wore around their waists were supposedly wrapped around an idol before they put them on. (An English translation of the 87 accusations originally used in Cyprus can be found in my book, The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus, Leiden, 1998, pp. 45-51; a translation of the full list of 126 accusations is in Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge, 1978, pp. 248-52. A list in Latin, accompanied by the numbers of each charge, is in Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi, Citt del Vaticano, pp. 74-84.) The Order of the Temple had been present in Cyprus since 1191, when it had bought the island from king Richard I of England. Very little is known about their activities during the year they were there. There seems to have been some friction between them and the local Greek population, since a bloody riot broke out in Nicosia at Easter. The Templars obviously decided that they could not keep the island with the reduced manpower available, and sold it to Guy of Lusignan in the spring of 1192. From then until they were arrested in 1308 a certain number of Templar knights, sergeants, and priests remained on the island, primarily in their fortresses in Nicosia, Limassol, and Gastria. (See the many articles and books by Peter Edbury on medieval Cyprus, especially The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374, Cambridge, 1991; his essay "The Templars in Cyprus", in Malcom Barber, ed., The Military Orders, vol. 1, Aldershot, 1994, pp. 189-95; and my article "Testimony of non-Templar witnesses in Cyprus," also in Barber, The Military Orders, vol. 1, pp. 205-11. ) In 1307, when the first arrests occurred elsewhere, Cyprus was undergoing a period of turmoil. Amaury of Lusignan, brother of King Henry II, had engineered a coup which resulted in Henrys being sent into exile in Armenia while Amaury ruled in his absence. Many of the barons appear to have supported Amaury, who was a much more dynamic individual than his brother, and so did the Templars. The Hospitallers (Order of St John of Jerusalem), on the other hand, supported the king, as did some of the leading nobles. Perhaps because Amaury favored the Order, the Templars were not arrested until 1308, although the papal letter ordering the Templar arrest and trial was dated November 1307. Other Templars managed to hold out on the island until 1310. They do not seem to have been mistreated or tortured, unlike their brethren imprisoned in France and Italy. For no known reason, the hearings did not commence until 1310 or 1311. The long delay may have been caused by the fact that it took a long time to capture all Templars on Cyprus, and to gain control of their fortified property. The only manuscripts which remain of the Inquisitionary process (listed as Vatican Archives Castel Sant'Angelo, D-223 and D228) have the date listed only as 1310, but much of the parchment is completely unreadable. And to muddy the waters further, some of the witnesses at this hearing, important Cypriot nobles such as Philip of Ibelin the seneschal and his relative Baldwin, were in Armenia as hostages who accompanied the exiled king. How then, could they have appeared in Nicosia in May 1310? Could it have been May 1311? But we know from other evidence that the Templars themselves, seventy-six of them, did testify in May 1310. Is it reasonable that the trial was suspended and reconvened exactly twelve months later? I very much doubt it. At any rate, it is the evidence given and not the date which is significant. The hearing or trial, like all such courts of the Inquisition, was held according to strict protocol. A number of "silent witnesses" or observers, often members of other religious orders, attended each session. A series of notaries wrote down the testimony, which normally was later read back to the witnesses for their confirmation. Two bishops presided over the sessions: Peter Erlant, bishop of Limassol who was administering the diocese of Nicosia in the absence of the bishop, and Baldwin Lambert, bishop of Famagusta.

It all began with the testimony of twenty-one non-members of the order, a relatively unusual practice. Not one of these men believed the Templars to be guilty of anything serious whatsoever. Some of them were nobles supporting the king and they, one would have thought, would have been very angry at the Order and its members for helping to overthrow the king. Yet even these men failed to implicate the Order in any serious fault or error. They frequently stated that no one thought ill of the Templars until the papal letters arrived in Cyprus, the ones which would have contained the sensational allegations of heresy, illicit sexual activity, worshiping idols and cats, for example (witnesses 1, 4, 8, 18, 20). They did agree generally that secrecy was prevalent: the receptions were held in the presence only of members of the Order (witness 1 and most others.). The most interesting feature of these witnesses' testimony is the favorable view they have of the Order and its members. I will discuss a few of the most important elements of this testimony. The king's marshal in Cyprus, Reynald of Seisson (witness 3) said that the Templars did, in contrast to the allegations, believe in the sacraments and hold proper and legitimate religious ceremonies. James of Plany, the seventh person to testify, spoke passionately about the Templars who died for their faith, shedding their blood in the many battles in the Holy Land. He insisted that they were as good men of religion as you could possibly find anywhere. Raymond of Bentho (witness 9) told a marvelous story of what he was sure had been a miracle. He had been assigned to guard the prisoners after they had been captured at their rural property of Chierochitia. He had expected them to be evil, terrible men after what he had heard about them. He tried to stay away from them as much as possible. Since he had nowhere else to attend mass, he finally decided that there could be no harm in attending the Templar service. When the priest elevated the Host (the communion wafer) above the altar, Raymond was astounded to see that it was huge, much larger than normal, and white as snow. Troubled by what he had seen, he returned the next day to talk to the priest about what had occurred. The priest showed him his stock of wafers and Raymond saw that they were perfectly normal in size. It was then that he concluded that it had been a miracle caused by the Almighty because of his own unfounded assumptions about the Templars' guilt. Rupen of Montfort, an important noble of the king's party, testified as tenth witness that "he frequently saw brothers of the Temple in Nicosia and Limassol be devout in their churches and elsewhere and...Honor and adore the cross just as any other christians he had ever seen." Percival, lord of Mar, a Genoese, was one of the few outsiders to testify at this stage. He recounted a story he had heard from someone else about Templars' bravery when captured by the Egyptian sultan. It seems that this story, one which can be found elsewhere, actually refers to Templars who were captured when the island of Ruad fell to the Saracens in 1302, a mere eight years earlier. According to this tale, the sultan offered the Templars their freedom if they would deny their God. The Templars responded: "that they would not deny the Christian faith, but they wanted to die in that good faith of Christ, and live all their days there in captivity...rather than to do anything against the health of their souls, and that they would rather be decapitated than deny Jesus Christ." The result of their defiance was that their jailers were instructed to deny them all food and water from that moment on. They all perished. Percival, quite reasonably, stated that he could not believe that the Templars were committing errors of doctrine, errors against the faith such as those in the accusations. If they had been acting in that manner, they would have obviously not chosen death over denying the faith. This story was echoed in the testimony of Thomas, lord of Pingueno, witness 17, a knight from Acre, who said that after the Templars lost the castle of Saphet to the enemy "many brothers of the order were captured...who [as witnesses of the faith, not wishing to deny Christ] were decapitated." Balian, lord of Montgisard, witness 18, said as did most witnesses that in his view Templars did believe in all the sacraments of the Church. He had lived with them for a month or more which means that he had first-hand knowledge of them. "He saw them attend services devoutly and concentrate on the divine office. Those who knew their letters (most Templars would have been illiterate) at times used to say the Our Father with the Ave Maria." He was one of the few who had seen a book which contained the Templar Rule. "He did not see anything of the said errors contained there. On the contrary, everything written in the book was good, honest, efficacious, and useful. Nor was there any Christian in the world who would hear these words but who would consider and hold the rule to be holy and good." This first group of non-Templar witnesses ended with two abbots, an Augustinian and a Benedictine, who praised the religious devotion of the brethren and said nothing substantive against them. This group, then, composed of two high-ranking clerics, seventeen nobles, and two merchants, did not believe in the allegations. In fact, they stressed just how truly good and devout the Templars were, and importantly, most of this testimony came from eye-witnesses. The next stage involved the seventy-six Templars themselves: forty-two knights, two priests, thirty-two sergeants or servingbrothers. This is a much higher proportion of knights than is found in the Orders western preceptories. These men were asked different questions on their first appearance than they were when all but one of them reappeared to answer the specific numbered accusations. They all had to testify about where they were received, when, who was present, and whether any illicit acts occurred at that time or later. They were also asked what they knew, if anything, about the presence of idols in houses of the Order. The marshal in Cyprus, the leading dignitary, Ayme of Osilliers gave testimony which varies totally from the confessions made by the Templars in France. As usual, he specified that only members were present at receptions. He promised only the usual vows: chastity and obedience. Most witnesses, like the second Templar, added the vow of poverty to the other two. The Order possessed no idols.

All stressed that since there were no errors in the Order they could not correct them or reveal them to the Church (accusations 115, 116 of the usual set, accusation 75 in Cyprus). These men were testifying not only about receptions which had occurred in Cyprus (very few had been received on the island), but about ceremonies which had taken place in Armenia, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slavonia (Croatia or Yugoslavia), and Spain (Aragon, Castile, Catalonia, Valencia.) The Templars on Cyprus were a quite different cohort from those found anywhere else. They were younger, a much greater number of them were of high rank, more had taken part in fighting than Templars to be found anywhere else. And as I have noted, they came from almost every part of Christendom where the Order was established. All seventy-six men reiterated that the Order had committed no serious errors. The short preliminary depositions concentrated on the important matter of the reception, who was there, when and where it took place. It was correct that receptions were held in secret, with only Templars present, but it was simply their custom, some said. In general, the reception took place at a chapter meeting and in all religious orders chapter meetings were held in presence only of members of the group. The main reason for this was that at these gatherings members accused others of faults against the Rule, or brothers accused themselves of faults. Similar to what is said in the confessional; these were private matters not to be discussed in public. And as has been noted elsewhere, this practice may have come about because their chapter meetings in the Holy Land were also the place where military strategy was discussed. Obviously, they could not allow any strangers to be present. After these short depositions, the inquisitors heard all but one of the men a second time, this time asking them the 123 questions of the normal 126 interrogation questionnaire used in France. The order of the questions was slightly different, a few minor charges were left out, but generally the questions took the same form as they had done at other hearings. To the dismay of any intending to find them guilty, the answers succeeded one another in a constant reiteration of innocence. According to the seventyfive who testified, the reception ceremony was held absolutely according to the Rule, reverently, with no illicit acts taking place either then or later. The cord which allegedly hadbeen wrapped around idols was used only to remind the brothers to keep their vows of chastity. It was not true that they could only confess to priests of the Order. They could confess to any sort of priest including Dominicans, Franciscans, and Carmelites. Regarding the allegation that they did not offer charity and hospitality as they should, the men insisted that one-tenth of the bread cooked in a Templar house was given to the poor, as was money, clothing, and other food. "About offering lodging, he responded that the order is not obliged to offer hospitality...nevertheless, if good men came for hospitality to the...Temple, they were generously housed." And if any of the dignitaries had confessed to these crimes, "they have confessed and confessed against the truth, and against justice, and their soul." This statement was in relation to the widely publicized confessions of the last Grand Master, James of Molay, and other dignitaries in France. After the Templars had made their second and much longer depositions, it was the turn of another group of thirty-five nonTemplars to add the last word. This group lacked the presence of the higher nobility who had formed such a large part of the first cohort to testify. There were at least nine nobles, however, including the viscount of Nicosia. The highest ranking cleric was the bishop of Beirut, accompanied by at least twenty-one other clerics, abbots, canons, and monks. Three merchants were called to the stand along with two civic officials. Their testimony was very short and they made no serious charges against the Order. The bishop's deposition was particularly important as he had lived with the Templars for forty years. He swore that "brothers of the order...believed in the sacraments of the altar and of the church." How could they then have committed the alleged sacrilegious and blasphemous acts? According to a priest, archdeacon of Beirut (witness 11), the priests did indeed say the proper words of consecration when they celebrated mass. He too had seen them often offer charity to the poor, both money and leftover food. Another priest (witness 12) had acted as the chaplain of a high-ranking Templar. This man had made his confession four times a year (much more often than usual) and attended mass daily, not a common occurrence at the time. A secular priest (witness 14) related that he had served mass with Templar priests on various occasions and that the service took place in a completely normal fashion. The only vague statements made against the Order came from witness 35, the prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, the last witness. He said that he had heard from some unknown person that Templars did not believe in the Eucharist or the sacraments of the Church. He too had only heard these things after the papal letters came to Cyprus. He had heard some gossip about idols but had no specific information. Given that the Order of the Hospital and the Order of the Temple were often rivals, and that the Order of St John undoubtedly hoped to inherit the Templars' property, as it did, this man's information may have been understandably prejudiced. As far as we know from the only extant manuscript, that was the end of the trial. Obviously, the Templars had admitted no guilt. Equally, the preponderance of evidence given by the non-Templars did not implicate them in any serious guilt either. The fate of the members of the Order was obvious after pope Clement V gave his final statement in a bull on the matter at the Council of Vienne, a general universal council of the church held in 1312. In spite of the fact that no clear judgment could be made about guilt or innocence, the pope said, the Order had been so seriously defamed by the testimony of many of its members, including the high dignitaries that it must come to an end. No man was ever more to enter it. The members were to live out their lives in other religious orders. Another bull gave the Templar properties to the Order of St John of Jerusalem. The king was indemnified for his expenses in arresting Templars and keeping them in prison for up to five years. As far as the Templars on Cyprus, we have no real idea about what happened to them. No contemporary document makes clear what was done to them after the hearing ended. The much later chronicle known as the Chronicle of Amadi stated that in 1316

many Templars in Cyprus died in prison. Other narrative sources suggested that the Templars had been drowned as a punishment for their crimes. What really happened to them? We are still uncertain. (The best book on the Templar trials as a whole is Barber, The Trial of the Templars, mentioned above.) This trial is important because it is the only one in which we have substantial information from important men who were not part of the Order. It is important also because we have the testimony of Templars from every part of Christendom, all of them insisting vehemently that the charges were false, often in some detail. It gives us precious contemporary information on the state of the Order at the time of its suppression. This trial, like the hearings in England and Spain, leads to the distinct impression that the guilty testimony was the result of torture in France and Italy and that the Order was basically innocent of the serious charges imputed to it. The hearing in Cyprus is just one small part of a significant body of evidence, but it is an important part of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2000 Anne Gilmour-Bryson (University of Melbourne), annegb@home.com.