The
Trial of the Templars in Cyprus
by
Anne
Gilmour-Bryson (University of Melbourne, Australia)
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 land 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, Città 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
theywere 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 Henry’s 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 D-228) 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 serving-brothers. This is a
much higher proportion of knights than is found in the Order’s
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 seventy-five
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 non-Templars 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 judgement 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.
A bibliography
for Cyprus and the Military Orders
- Malcolm
Barber, The Trial of The Templars (Cambridge
University Press, 1978).
- Malcolm
Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the
Temple (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
- Malcolm
Barber (ed.), The Military Orders. Fighting for the Faith
and Caring for the Sick (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994)
- includes:
- A.H.S. Megaw,
'A castle in Cyprus attributable to the Hospital?', 42-51.
- Alan Forey,
'Towards a profile of the Templars in the early fourteenth
century', 196-204.
- Anne Gilmour-Bryson,
'Testimony of non-Templar witnesses in Cyprus', 205-211.
- Annetta
Ilieva, 'The suppression of the Templars in Cyprus according
to the Chronicle of Leontios Makhairas', 212-19.
- Peter Edbury,
'The Templars in Cyprus', 189-95.
- Nicholas
Coureas, The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195-1312 (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1997)
- Anne Gilmour-Bryson,
The Trial of the Templars in Cyprus. A complete English
edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998).
- Anthony
Luttrell, 'The Hospitallers in Cyprus after 1310' Kupriakai
Spoudai, 50 (Nicosia, 1986), 155-84. (reprinted in The
Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World, (Aldershot,
Variorum Collected Studies, 1992)
- Anthony
Luttrell, 'Sugar and schism. The Hospitallers in Cyprus from
1378 to 1386', in 'The Sweet Land of Cyprus'. Papers
given at the 25th jubilee spring symposium of Byzantine
studies, edited by A.A.M. Bryer and G.S. Georghallides
(Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre/Society for the Promotion
of Byzantine Studies, 1993), 157-66.
- Anthony
Luttrell, 'The Hospitallers in Cyprus after 1386', in Cyprus
and the Crusades, ed. N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith
(Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre/Society for the Study of
the Crusades and the Latin East, 1995, 125-41.
- Jean
Richard, 'Les révoltes chypriotes de 1191-1192 et les inféodations
de Guy de Lusignan', in Montjoie. Studies in crusade
history in honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B.Z. Kedar,
J. Riley-Smith, R. Hiestand (Aldershot: Variorum, 1997),
123-8.
For a modern
general history of the first two centuries of Lusignan Cyprus
with a bibliography of earlier work:
Peter
Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1375
(Cambridge University Press, 1991)
I shall be
publishing a review article on work on Cyprus since 1991 to
appear in the Journal
of Medieval History later this year.
The second
(1996) conference held in London on the Military Orders has now
been published, but although Cyprus was alluded to in several
papers, none are devoted specifically to the island: Helen
Nicholson (ed.), The Military Orders: Welfare and Warfare
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998)
Related
Links
