TEMPLARI. — The Order of the Temple owes its origin to Ugo di Payens, who persuaded a group of knights to go to Jerusalem in order to secure the passage of pilgrims from Jaffa to the Holy City. The newcomers settled around 1119 in a part of the royal palace called Templum Salomonis, whence their name, T. Subsequently, all the numerous houses they established, both in the Holy Land and in the West, were designated by the name “Temples.” The Council of Troyes (Jan. 1128) regularized their juridical status, and s. Bernardo drew up for their use a strict rule (cf. H. de Curzon, La règle du Temple, Paris 1886; G. Schnitzer, Die ursprüngliche Tempelerregel, Freiburg im Br. 1903).
The members of the Order were divided into three different classes: knights, recruited from the nobility; sergeants, or squires, drawn from the bourgeois classes; and chaplains, entrusted with the service of worship. The knights wore a white mantle, and the sergeants a black or reddish mantle. Eugenio III added a red cross to II. In addition to the three religious vows, the T. swore to undertake the defense of the Holy Places. Recruited as they were from among the knights, they possessed both their good qualities and their defects. Exemplary in courage and disciplined in their obedience to their commanders, they fought the infidels and performed feats of arms that filled their contemporaries with admiration. The grand master Guglielmo di Beaujeu fell heroically in the disaster of S. Giovanni d'Acri (1291). Yet these valiant warriors sinned through reckless daring, for too often they allowed themselves to be massacred by the enemy, charging against it before awaiting the arrival of the bulk of the Christian troops. Proud of their exploits, they yielded to arrogance and pride and, pursuing an entirely independent policy, advanced interests contrary to those of the kings of Jerusalem; they imprudently broke useful truces and, instead of concluding a profitable alliance with the Mongols, drove them to war. They also committed the imprudence of entering into conflict with the Hospitallers and of taking the side of the Venetians against the Genoese. All in all, through their manner of acting, they contributed to the collapse of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.
The T. also suffered another misfortune: it is true that they acquired a reputation as able financiers in administering the considerable possessions they held throughout Christendom, whose revenues provided them with the indispensable means for maintaining their troops, but they also came to be regarded as selfish, indeed avaricious. Careful stewards of their treasures, they refused, on 6 May 1250, to advance s. Luigi the money necessary for the ransom of the prisoners who had fallen into the hands of the infidels in the disaster of Damietta; Joinville relates that the King, taking up an axe, threatened to break open their chests, which forced them to capitulate (cf. ed. by N. de Wall, Paris 1838, §§ 380-85).
(from Academie des Inscriptions et Lettres, Comptes rendus des sciences de l'année 1916, p. 12)
TEMPLARI - Letter from the knight Gerardo di Ridefort to Oddone di Vendôme (ca. 1784) concerning the capture and degradation of the knight Roberto di Sourdeval.
administered the royal treasury judiciously (cf. Borelli de Serres, Recherches sur divers services publics du XIIIe au XVIIe siècle, III, Paris 1909, pp. 1-45). Indeed, since they no longer waged war, the T. had lost their reason for existing; hence a union with the Hospitallers would have been beneficial, but it did not succeed (cf. E. Baluze, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, ed. G. Mollat, III, Paris 1921, pp. 450-58).
On Friday, 13 October 1307, all the T. in the Kingdom of France were suddenly arrested and imprisoned (cf. E. Baluze, op. cit., I, Paris 1916, p. 8). The jurists of Philip the Fair justified that arrest on the pretext of infamous crimes. After much prevarication, Clement V ordered (July 1308) that a double inquiry be conducted: one against the persons of the T., under the care of the Ordinary, and the other against the Order itself, through pontifical commissioners. The fate of the individuals was then to be determined by the provincial Councils; that of the Order by a general Council to be held at Vienne in the Dauphiné.
The double inquiry produced contradictory results; in England, Scotland, Ireland, Aragon and Castile, and Germany, the T. were recognized as innocent of the crimes imputed to them, whereas in France and in the countries subject to its influence, such as Provence, the Kingdom of Naples, and even the Papal States, they were declared guilty. Their execution, which took place on the Island of Cyprus, was a political murder. On 3 April 1312, at a conciliar session, Clement V pronounced the suppression of the Order, but using formal terms that deserve consideration, namely as a measure and not as a condemnation. On 3 May the property of the Order was assigned to the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, except in Aragon, Castile, Portugal and Majorca, where it was transferred to the national Orders that were conducting the crusade against the Saracens. The fate of the Order’s principal dignitaries was reserved to the
Holy See. Brought before three cardinals in Paris, the grand master James of Molay protested his innocence. Philip the Fair did not allow him to present the proofs of it; indeed, by his order that unfortunate man was burned at the stake (18 March 1314).
The question of whether the T. were guilty or innocent arises only with regard to France; and it remains controversial even today. Some historians maintain the good faith and religious zeal of Philip the Fair; others, on the contrary, believe that he committed an abuse of power and a denial of justice. It seems that reason lies with the latter. If the T. made confessions, this occurred only under the pressure of fear of capital punishment. The orders given by the King of France to his officials were peremptory: «he promised them pardon if they confessed the truth, returning to the faith of Holy Church; otherwise they would be sentenced to death» (cf. G. Lizerand, Le dossier de l'affaire des Templiers, Paris 1923, p. 27). On the other hand, it is known with certainty that the prisoners underwent appalling tortures. The friar Ponsard de Gisi «confessed that he had been placed in a pit, his hands tied behind his back so tightly that blood spurted from his fingernails... protesting that, if he were subjected to torture again, he would deny everything he had said and say everything they wished» (G. Lizerand, ibid., pp. 157-59).
The application of torture explains the large number of confessions collected by the royal officials. As soon, however, as the T. appeared before the cardinals in charge, they retracted them. Furthermore, there is no material evidence whatsoever of their alleged crimes. The royal sergeants did not find a single copy of the alleged secret rule proclaiming heresy and infamous practices, nor any copy of the idols to which, their accusers claimed, the T. rendered idolatrous worship. Undoubtedly Philip the Fair wanted the downfall of the T., because, always short of money, he coveted their wealth. In any event, he exerted such pressure on Clement V that the latter suppressed the Order without nevertheless condemning II.
BIBLI: the bibliography is quite extensive and may be found in G. Mollat, Les Papes d'Avignon, 9th ed., Paris 1930, no. 563-65. Only the principal works are listed here: K. Scholtmueller, Der Untergang des Templerordens, mit wömmel und krit. Beilagen, Berlin 1887; H. Pruis, Entwicklung und Untergang des Tempelherrenordens, ibid. 1888; H. Finke, Popsitzum und Untergang des Tempelherrenordens, Münster 1907; G. Lizerand, Clément V et Philippe IV le Bel, Paris 1910, pp. 43-210, 250-347; L. Bréhier, L'Eglise et l'Orient au moyen âge: Les Croisades, 5th ed., ibid. 1925; R. Grousset, Hist. des Croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem, II and III, ibid. 1935-36; G. Charpentier, L'Ordre des Templiers, Paris 1945. Guglielmo Mollat