A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages; volume III

[256] Ripoll II. 566.—Wadding. ann. 1409, No. 12.—Tamburini, Storia Gen. dell’ Inquis. II. 437-9.

[257] Jac. de Vitriaco Hist. Hierosol. cap. 65 (Bongars, II. 1083-4).—Rolewinck Fascic. Tempor. (Pistorii R. Germ. Scriptt. II. 546).—Regula Pauperum Commilitonum Templi c. 72 (Harduin. VI. ii. 1146).—Règle et Statuts secrets des Templiers, §§ 125, 128 (Maillard de Chambure, Paris, 1840, pp. 455, 488-90, 494-5).

Since this chapter was written the Société de l’Histoire de France has issued a more correct and complete edition of the Rule and Statutes of the Templars, under the care of M. Henri de Curzon.

[258] Jac. de Vitriaco loc. cit.—Roberti de Monte Contin. Sigeb. Gembl. (Pistorii, op. cit. I. 875).—Zurita, Añales de Aragon, Lib. I. c. 52-3.—Art de Vérifier les Dates V. 337.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 550, No. 1547.—Grandes Chroniques, IV. 86.—Gualt. Mapes de Nugis Curialium Dist. I. c. xxiii.—Hans Prutz, Malteser Urkunden, München, 1883, p. 43.

A curious illustration of the prominence which the Templars were acquiring in the social organization is afforded in 1191, when they were made conservators of the Truce of God, by which the nobles and prelates of Languedoc and Provence agreed that beasts and implements and seed employed in agriculture should be unmolested in time of war. For enforcing this the Templars were to receive a bushel of corn for every plough.—Prutz, op. cit. pp. 44-5.

[259] Rymer, Fœdera, I. 30.—Can. 10, 11, Extra. III. 30.—Prutz, op. cit. pp. 38, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56-61, 64, 76, 78-9.

[260] Prutz, op. cit. pp. 38-41, 43, 45, 47-8, 57, 64-9, 75-80.—J. Delaville le Roulx, Documents concernant les Templiers Paris, 1882, p. 39.—Bini, Dei Tempieri in Toscana, Lucca, 1845, pp. 453-55.—Raynald. ann. 1265, No. 75-6.—Martene Thesaur. II. 111, 118.

The systematic beggary of the Templars must have been peculiarly exasperating both to the secular clergy and the Mendicants. Monsignor Bini prints a document of 1244 in which the Preceptor of Lucca gives to Albertino di Pontremoli a commission to beg for the Order. Albertino employs a certain Aliotto to do the begging from June till the following Carnival, and pays him by empowering him to beg on his own account from the Carnival to the octave of Easter (op. cit. pp. 401-2, 439-40). For the disgraceful squabbles which arose between the secular clergy and the Military Orders over this privileged beggary, see Faucon, Registres de Boniface VIII. No. 1950, p. 746.

[261] Guillel. Tyrii Hist. Lib. XVII. c. 27; XX. 31-2.—Gualt. Mapes de Nugis Curialium Dist. I. c. XX.—Innoc. PP. III. Regest. X. 121. Cf. XV. 131.—Règle et Statuts secrets, § 173, p. 389.—Michelet, Procès des Templiers, I. 39; II. 9, 83, 140, 186-7, 406-7 (Collection de Documents inédits, Paris, 1841-51).

When, in 1307, the Templars at Beaucaire were seized, out of sixty arrested, five were knights, one a priest, and fifty-four were serving brethren; in June, 1310, out of thirty-three prisoners in the Château d’Alais, there were four knights and one priest, with twenty-eight serving brethren (Vaissette, IV. 141). In the trials which have reached us the proportion of knights is even less. The serving brethren occasionally reached the dignity of preceptor; but how little this implies is shown by the examination, in June, 1310, of Giovanni di Neritone, Preceptor of Castello Villari, a serving brother, who speaks of himself as “simplex et rusticus” (Schottmüller, Der Ausgang des Templer-Ordens, Berlin, 1887, II. 125, 130).

The pride of birth in the Order is illustrated by the rule that none could be admitted as knights except those of knightly descent. In the Statutes a case is cited of a knight who was received as such; those who were of his country declared that he was not the son of a knight. He was sent for from Antioch to a chapter where this was found to be true, when the white mantle was removed and a brown one put on him. His receptor was then in Europe, and when he returned to Syria he was called to account. He justified himself by his having acted under the orders of his commander of Poitou. This was found to be true; otherwise, and but that he was a good knight (proudons), he would have lost the habit (Règle, § 125, pp. 462-3).

[262] Matt. Paris. ann. 1228, 1243 (Ed. 1644, p. 240, 420).—Mansuet le Jeune, Hist. des Templiers, Paris, 1789, I. 340-1.—Prutz, op. cit. pp. 60-1.—Mag. Chron. Belgic. ann. 1274.—Faucon, Registres de Boniface VIII. No. 1691-2, 1697.—Marin. Sunuti Secret. Fidel. Lib. III. P. ix. c. 1, 2 (Bongars, II. 188-9).

The Hospital was open to the same reproaches as the Temple. In 1238 Gregory IX. vigorously assailed the Knights of St. John for their abuse of the privileges bestowed on them—their unchastity and the betrayal of the cause of God in Palestine. He even asserts that there are not a few heretics among them.—Raynald. ann. 1238, No. 31-2.

A sirvente by a Templar, evidently written soon after the fall of Acre, alludes bitterly to the sacrifice made of the Holy Land in favor of the ambition and cupidity of the Holy See—

“Lo papa fa de perdon gran largueza Contr’ Alamans ab Arles e Frances; E sai mest nos mostram gran cobeeza, Quar nostras crotz van per crotz de tornes; E qui vol camjar Romania Per la guerra de Lombardia? Nostres legatz, don yeu vos dic per ver Qu’els vendon Dieu el perdon per aver.”— Meyer, Recueil d’anciens Textes, p. 96.

It is also to be borne in mind that indulgences were vulgarized in many other ways. When St. Francis announced to Honorius III. that Christ had sent him to obtain plenary pardons for those who should visit the Church of S. Maria di Porziuncola, the cardinals at once objected that this would nullify the indulgences for the Holy Land, and Honorius thereupon limited the Portiuncula indulgence to the twenty-four hours commencing with the vespers of August 1.—Amoni, Legenda S. Francisci, Append, c. xxxiii.

[263] Mansuet, op. cit. II. 101, 133.—De Excidio Urbis Acconis (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 757).—Raynald. ann. 1291, No. 30, 31.—Archives Nat. de France, J. 431, No. 40.—Chron. Salisburg. ann. 1291 (Canisii et Basnage III. II. 489).—Annal. Eberhard. Altahens. (Ib. IV. 229).—De Recuperatione Terræ Sanctæ (Bongars, II. 320-1).

[264] Raynald. ann. 1306, No. 3-5, 12.—Regest. Clement. PP. V. (Ed. Benedict. T. I. pp. 40-46; T. II. p. 55, 58, Romæ, 1885-6).—Mansuet, op. cit. II. 132.—Raynouard, Monuments historiques relatifs à la Condamnation des Chevaliers du Temple, Paris, 1813, pp. 17, 46.

The summons to the Grand Master of the Hospital is dated June 6, 1306, (Regest. Clem. PP. V. T. I. p. 190). That to de Molay was probably issued at the same time. From some briefs of Clement, June 13, 1306, in favor of Humbert Blanc, Preceptor of Auvergne, it would seem that the latter was engaged in some crusading enterprise (Ibid. pp. 191-2), probably in connection with the attempt of Charles of Valois. When Hugues de Peraud, however, and other chiefs of the Order were about to sail, in November, Clement retained them (Ib. T. II. p. 5).

It has rather been the fashion with historians to assume that de Molay transferred the headquarters of the Order from Cyprus to Paris. Yet when the papal orders for arrest reached Cyprus, on May 27, 1308, the marshal, draper, and treasurer surrendered themselves with others, showing that there had been no thought of removing the active administration of the Order.—(Dupuy, Traitez concernant l’Histoire de France, Ed. 1700, pp. 63, 132). Raimbaut de Caron, Preceptor of Cyprus, apparently had accompanied de Molay, and was arrested with him in the Temple of Paris (Procès des Templiers, II. 374), but with this exception all the principal knights seized were only local dignitaries.

I think also that Schottmüller (Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, Berlin, 1887, I. 66, 99; II. 38) sufficiently proves the incredibility of the story of the immense treasure brought to France by de Molay, and he further points out (I. 98) that the preservation of the archives of the Order in Malta shows that they could not have been removed to France.

[265] Perhaps the most detailed and authoritative contemporary account of the downfall of the Templars is that of Bernard Gui (Flor. Chronic. ap. Bouquet XXI. 716 sqq.). It is impossible to doubt that had there been anything savoring of Catharism in the Order he would have scented it out and alluded to it.

[266] Wilcke, Geschichte des Ordens der Tempelherren, II. Ausgabe, 1860, II. 51, 103-4, 183.—Chron. Anonyme (Bouquet, XXI. 149).—Villani Cron. VIII. 92.—Mag. Chron. Belgic. (Pistor. III. 155).—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1307.—Règle et Statuts secrets, p. 64.—Real-Encyklop. XV. 305.—Havemann, Geschichte des Ausgangs des Tempelherrenordens, Stuttgart, 1846, p. 165.—Schottmüller, op. cit. I. 236, 695.

[267] Procès des Templiers, I. 144.—Raynald. ann. 1307, No. 12; ann. 1311, No. 53.—Schottmüller, op. cit. I. 465.—Ferreti Vicentini Hist. (Muratori S. R. I. IX. 1018).—Matt. Paris, ann. 1244 (p. 417).—Dom Bouquet, XXI. 545.—Chassaing, Spicilegium Brivatense, pp. 212-13.

An illustration of the exaggerations current as to the Templars is seen in the assertion, confidently made, that in Roussillon and Cerdagne the Order owned half the land, while an examination of its Cartulary shows that in reality it possessed but four lordships, together with fragmentary rights over rents, tithes, or villeins in seventy other places. A single abbey, that of St. Michel de Cuxa, possessed thirty lordships and similar rights in two hundred other places, and there were two other abbeys, Arles, and Cornella de Conflent, each richer than the Templars.—Allart, Bulletin de la Société Agricole, Scientifique et Littéraire des Pyrénées Orientales, T. XV. pp. 107-8.

[268] Du Puy, Hist. du Differend, Preuves, pp. 136-7.—Baudouin, Lettres inédites de Philippe le Bel, p. 163.—Maillard de Chambure, p. 61.—Grandes Chroniques, V. 173.—Raynouard, pp. 14, 21.—Rymer, I. 30.—Regest. Clement. PP. V. T. I. p. 192 (Ed. Benedict. Romæ, 1885).—Prutz, pp. 23, 31, 38, 46, 49, 51-2, 59, 76, 78, 79, 80.—Règle et Statuts, § 29, p. 226; § 58, pp. 249, 254; § 126, pp. 463-4.—Thomas, Registres de Boniface VIII. T. L. No. 490.—Baudouin, op. cit. p. 212.

Schottmüller (Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, Berlin, 1887, I. 65) conjectures that the loan of five hundred thousand livres to Philippe is probably a popular error arising from the intervention of the Templars as bankers in the payment of the dowry.

[269] D’Argentré I. I. 280.—Wilcke, op. cit. II. 304-6.

[270] Guill. Nangiac. Contin. ann. 1306.—Vaissette, IV. 135.—Raynouard, p. 24.

[271] Villani, Cron. VIII. 92.—Amalr. Augerii Vit. Clem. V. (Muratori S. R. I. III. II. 443-44).—S. Antonini Hist. (D’Argentré I. I. 281).—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1307.—Raynald. ann. 1307, No. 12. The best-informed contemporaries, Bernard Gui, the Continuation of Nangis, Jean de S. Victor, the Grandes Chroniques, say nothing about this story.

[272] Règle et Statuts secrets, §81, p. 314; §124, p. 448.—Wilkins Concilia II. 338.—Procès des Templiers, I. 186-7, 454; II. 139, 153, 195-6, 223, 440, 445, 471.—S. Damiani Lib. Gomorrhian.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1120.—Alani de Insulis Lib. de Planctu Naturæ.—Gualt. Mapes de Nugis Curialium I. xxiv.—Prediche del B. Frà Giordano da Rivalto, Firenze, 1831, I. 230.—Regest. Clement. PP. V.T. V. p. 259 (Ed. Benedictin. Romæ, 1887).—Alvar. Pelag. de Planct. Eccles. Lib. II. Art. ii. fol. lxxxiii.—Mémoires de Jacques Du Clercq, Liv. III. ch. 42; Liv. IV. ch. 3.—Rogeri Bacon Compend. Studii Philosophiæ cap. ii. (M.R. Series I. 412).

Unnatural crime was subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the punishment was burning alive (Très Ancien Cout. de Bretagne, Art. 112, 142 ap. Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 227, 232.—Statuta Criminalia Mediolani e tenebris in lucem edita, cap. 51, Bergomi, 1594). An instance of the infliction of the penalty by secular justice is recorded at Bourges in 1445 (Jean Chartier, Hist. de Charles VII. Ed. Godefroy, p. 72), and another at Zurich in 1482 (V. Anshelm, Die Berner Chronik, Bern, 1884, I. 221), though in 1451 Nicholas V. had subjected the crime to the Inquisition (Ripoll III. 301). D’Argentré says “Hæc pœna toto regno et vulgo statutis Italiæ indicitur per civitates, sed pene irritis legibus” (Comment. Consuetud. Duc. Britann. p. 1810). In England it was a secular crime, punishable by burning alive (Horne, Myrror of Justice, cap. IV. § 14) and in Spain by castration and lapidation (El Fuero real de España, Lib. IV. Tit. ix. l. 2).

The gossiping experiences in Syria and Italy of Antonio Sicci da Vercelli, as related before the papal commission in March, 1311, show the popular belief that there was a terrible secret in the Order which none of its members dared reveal (Procès, I. 644-5).

It is perhaps a coincidence that in 1307 the Teutonic Order was likewise accused of heresy by the Archbishop of Riga. Its Grand Master, Carl Beffart, was summoned by Clement, and with difficulty averted from his Order the fate of the Templars.—Wilcke, II. 118.

[273] Procès des Templiers, I. 36, 168.—Chron. Anonyme (Bouquet, XXI. 137).—Joann. de S. Victor. (Bouquet, XXI. 649-50).

[274] Bull. Pastoralis præeminentiæ (Mag. Bull. Rom. Supplem. IX. 126).—Bull. Faciens misericordiam (Ib. p. 136).—The Itineraries of Philippe and the record of pastoral visitations by Bertrand de Goth (Clement V.) sufficiently disprove the legendary story, originating with Villani, of the conditions entered into in advance at St. Jean d’Angely between Philippe and Clement (see van Os, De Abolitione Ordinis Templariorum, Herbipoli, 1874, pp. 14-15). None the less, however, was Clement practically subordinated to Philippe.

[275] Schottmüller’s theory (Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, I. 91) that Clement summoned the chiefs of the two Military Orders to arrange with them for the protection of the Holy See against Philippe appears to me destitute of all probability.

[276] Villani Chron. VIII. 91-2.—Raynald. ann. 1311, No. 26.—Ptol. Lucens. Hist. Eccles. Lib. XXIV. (Muratori S.R.I. XI. 1228).—Contin. Guill. Nangiac. ann. 1307.—Raynouard, pp. 18, 19.—Van Os De Abol. Ord. Templar, p. 43.—Procès des Templiers, II. 400.—Mag. Bull. Rom. IX. 131.—Procès, I. 95.—Du Puy, Traitez concernant l’Histoire de France, Paris, 1700, pp. 10, 117.

[277] Du Puy, pp. 18-19, 86.—Stemler, Contingent zur Geschichte der Templer, Leipzig, 1783, pp. 36-50.—Pissot, Procès et Condamnation des Templiers, Paris, 1805, pp. 39-43.

Clement V., in his letters of November 21 to Edward of England, and November 22 to Robert, Duke of Calabria, describes Philippe as having acted under the orders of the Inquisition, and as presenting the prisoners for judgment to the Church (Rymer III. 30; MSS. Chioccarello, T. VIII.). The Holy Office was recognized at the time as being the responsible instrumentality of the whole affair Chron. Fran. Pipini c. 49 op. Muratori S. R. I. IX. 749-50). The bull Faciens misericordiam of August 12, 1308, gives the inquisitors throughout Europe instructions to participate in the subsequent proceedings (Mag. Bull. Rom. IX. 136).