No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Confession and Confessors in the Templars’ Testimonies, 1307–1311: Notes on the Brothers’ Defence Strategy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2023
Abstract
This paper focuses on one of the elements employed in their defence by individual Knights Templar during the trials preceding the dissolution of the order: making reference to a previous confession made long before the start of the trials, in the course of which a brother divulged the sin of heresy. Questions are raised about the reliability of fragments of testimonies pertaining to this, the potential benefits that the Templars could have gained and the risks involved. An attempt is also made to indicate the source of this defence strategy, as well as the way in which it was disseminated among brothers interrogated at various times and in various places.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2023
References
1 The literature based on the minutes of interrogations of the Templars is very extensive. See, for example, a recapitulation of the most important directions of studies relying primarily on documents from French proceedings in Processus contra Templarios in Francia: procès-verbaux de la procédure menée par la commission pontificale à Paris (1309–1311), ed. M. Satora, Leiden 2020, i. 30–4.
2 The interrogations of the Templars during different stages of the proceedings were carried out based on changing lists of charges against individual members of the order or the entire order. See, for example, lists of charges used during different interrogations in France: Le Dossier de l'affaire des Templiers, ed. and trans. G. Lizerand, Paris 1923, 26–9; Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne (1309–1311): édition de l'interrogatoire de juin 1309, ed. R. Sève, and A. M. Chagny-Sève, Paris 1986, 107–11; Processus, i. 162–9.
3 Minutes from interrogations carried out in the last months of 1307 in other parts of France have also been preserved to the present day (Troyes, Pont de l'Arche and Roche d'Orival, Caen, Cahors, Aigues-Mortes, Nîmes, Bigorre). Prior confession is not mentioned in them. For all hearings carried out in France after the arrest of the Templars see Demurger, A., La Persécution des templiers: journal (1305–1314), Paris 2015, 59–75, 363Google Scholar.
4 Pursuant to the content of the minutes, the question about prior confession was asked thrice during the work of the papal commission in Paris. The commissioners first asked about it when they noted that the testimony of one of the Templars was in many aspects consistent with the testimony of a witness heard just before him. However, it did not refer to earlier confession: Processus, i. 338. Later, the question about confession was asked twice (i. 525f, 627). It may be surmised that in these cases too the commissioners took the content of the testimonies of the Templars heard before them into account.
5 This was the case in Aragon, Castille, Portugal, the Kingdom of Mallorca, Cyprus, Germany and in a majority of investigations carried out in the British Isles, where only a few Templars made incriminating testimonies. See a review of trials outside France and their effects in Barber, M., The trial of the Templars, 2nd edn, New York 2006, 217–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 In this context, the Templar dignitaries, interrogated in Chinon, and the brothers interrogated in the Kingdom of Arles talked about prior confession: Frale, B., Il papato e il processo ai Templari: l'inedita assoluzione di Chinon alla luce della diplomatica pontificia, Rome 2003, 200f, 204fGoogle Scholar; Finke, H., Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens, Münster 1907, ii. 344, 347f, 355Google Scholar and passim.
7 The brothers interrogated about confession by the papal commission in Paris talked about confession in this context: Processus, i. 289, 329, 354 and passim.
8 The Templars interrogated in Clermont talked about prior confession in this context: Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 126, 129, 132f and passim.
9 This was done, for example, by the Templars testifying in Poitiers: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 333, 338.
10 Cf. Krüger, A., ‘Schuld oder Präjudizierung? Die Protokolle des Templerprozesses im Textvergleich (1307–1312)’, Historisches Jahrbuch cxvii (1997), 340–77Google Scholar.
11 On the differing reactions of confessors see Riley-Smith, J., ‘Were the Templars guilty?’, in Ridyard, S. J. (ed.), The medieval crusade, Woodbridge 2004, 107–24Google Scholar.
12 Le Procès des Templiers, ed. J. Michelet (1841–51), Paris 1987, ii. 293.
13 Nicolotti, A., ‘L'interrogatorio dei Templari imprigionati a Carcassonne’, Studi Medievali lii (2011), 706Google Scholar.
14 K. Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Temlper-Ordens mit urkundlichen und kritischen Beiträgen, Berlin 1887, ii. 17. On the possible knowledge of the Templars' crimes among the church representatives before 1307 see Forey, A., ‘Could alleged Templar malpractices have remained undetected for decades?’, in Burgtorf, J., Crawford, P. W. and Nicholson, H. J. (eds), The debate on the trial of the Templars, London 2010, 11–19Google Scholar.
15 For a summary of the discussion on this question see S. L. Field, ‘La Fin de l'ordre du Temple à Paris: le cas de Mathieu de Cressonessart’, in A. M. Chevalier (ed.), La Fin de l'ordre du Temple, Paris 2012, 101–32. See also Théry, J., ‘Une Hérésie d’état: Philippe le Bel, le procès des « perfidies templiers » et la pontificalisation de la royauté française’, Médiévales lx (2011), 157–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The proceedings against the Templars in the British Isles, ed. H. J. Nicholson, Farnham 2011, ii, pp. xli–xlviii.
16 The surviving documents provide no information on whether the inquisitors or papal commissioners were trying to verify the truthfulness of the testimonies of the Templars. However, it follows from the minutes of hearings carried out in the British Isles that the inquisitors interrogated persons who were previously pointed out by witnesses outside the order as their source of information about the transgressions of the Templars: Proceedings, ii, p. xxxiii. Hence, the verification of testimonies was possible.
17 For the question of criticism of the Templars and discussion of the fusion of the military orders held at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries see Forey, A., ‘The military orders in the crusading proposals of the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth centuries’, Traditio xxxvi (1980), 317–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Demurger, A., Les Templiers: une chevalerie chrétienne au moyen âge, Paris 2005, 395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 The papal commission conducting the proceedings in Paris ordered the summons for all witnesses who had something to disclose about the Templars to be read out in cathedrals, collegiate churches and universities: Processus, i. 60. In turn, in England, the archbishops of York and Canterbury ordered all persons associated with the Templar Order, among them priests who were their confessors, to be summoned and interrogated: H. J. Nicholson, The Knights Templar on trial: the trial of the Templars in the British Isles, 1308–1311, Stroud 2009, 101; Proceedings, ii, p. xxx.
19 In the British Isles clergy were a clear majority among the 170 witnesses from outside the order: Proceedings, ii. 105–11, 189–230, 365–80, 387–95 (English translation). See also Gilmour-Bryson, A., ‘The London Templar trial testimony: truth, myth or fable?’, in her A world explored: essays in honour of Laurie Gardiner, Melbourne 1993, 44–61Google Scholar. Twenty-two clerics outside the order took part in the Cyprus trial: The trial of the Templars in Cyprus: a complete English edition, ed. and trans. A. Gilmour-Bryson, Leiden 1998, 74f, 405–41. See also Gilmour-Bryson, A., ‘Testimony of non-Templar witnesses in Cyprus’, in M. Barber (ed.), The military orders: fighting for the faith and caring for the sick, Aldershot 1994, 205–11Google Scholar. Clerics from outside the order also testified in Paris in 1311: Processus, i. 532–8, 888f; Navarre: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 375; Castile: J. M. Sans I Trevé, ‘L'inedito processo dei Templari in Castiglia (Medina del Campo, 27 aprile 1310)’, in F. Tommasi (ed.), Acri 1291: la fine della presenza degli ordini militari in Terra Santa e I nuovi orientamenti nel XIV secolo, Perugia 1996, 227–64; Aragon: Forey, A., The fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon, Aldershot 2001, 81Google Scholar.
20 For example, one of the witnesses testifying in Cyprus said that during eighteen years of staying with Templars he served as confessor for at least sixty of them. He had nothing to accuse them of: The trial of the Templars in Cyprus, 410f. A Franciscan friar participating in the trial in the Kingdom of Navarre made a similar statement. He said that he was the confessor for several Templars and believed them to be good Christians: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 375. See also Forey, ‘Alleged Templar malpractices’, 17n.
21 Proceedings, ii. 191, 437 (English translation).
22 Only one Templar testifying in Poitiers and asked by the cardinals about earlier confession answered that he did not confess because he was not aware of having committed a sin: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 333.
23 For example, in the course of various proceedings, the Templars talked about confession made on the day of reception: Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 60; a few days after reception: ibid. ii. 133; two or three days after reception: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 348; within a month of reception: Processus, i. 289.
24 This was said by one of the brothers interrogated by the cardinals in Poitiers: Finke, Papsttum, ii. 338; the brothers testifying in Clermont: Le procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 129, 133, 143 and passim; and one brother interrogated in Alès: L. Ménard, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique, et littéraire de la ville de Nismes avec des notes et les preuves, Paris 1744–58, I: Preuves, 175.
25 This was the testimony of the brothers heard before the papal commission in Paris: Processus, i. 225, 340, 885. See also other examples in Forey, A., ‘Desertions and transfers from military orders (twelfth to early-fourteenth centuries)’, Traditio lx (2005), 143–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Forey, ‘Alleged Templar malpractices’, 14n.
26 Cf., for example, Processus, i. 885.
27 Lea, H. C., A history of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, London 1887, iii. 275Google Scholar.
28 Processus, i. 393.
29 Ibid. i. 828.
30 Ibid. i. 695.
31 Le Procès, ii. 342; Processus, i. 659.
32 Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 41; Processus, i. 457.
33 Processus, i. 528.
34 Le Procès, ii. 356.
35 Apart from them, one Templar heard in Paris in 1307 (ibid. i. 378) and one in Brindisi in 1310 (Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 133) mentioned the penance.
36 Some Templars said that the confessor ordered them to fast for three days: Processus, i. 531, 545, 627, 655. Sometimes they were told not to wear a shirt (i. 620) or sing specific masses, Psalms or say specific prayers (i. 639, 732). Others said that they had to fast on designated days, for several months (i. 329, 383, 423, 436 and passim) and sometimes even years: Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 41; Processus, i. 420, 599, 616 and passim. Only one talked about fasting on every Saturday until death: Processus, i. 300.
37 Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 40; Processus, i. 388, 398, 426, 507f and passim.
38 Processus, i. 388, 591, 693.
39 Finke, Papsttum, ii. 331; Processus, i. 546, 618, 695.
40 Processus, i. 289, 558, 606, 620 and passim.
41 Ibid. i. 393, 454, 528, 550, 747.
42 Ibid. i. 398, 440.
43 Ibid. i. 481, 548.
44 Ibid. i. 620.
45 Ibid. i. 300, 467, 834. One of them also claimed (i. 467) that he had to wear chain mail over a shirt.
46 Ibid. i. 605, 642, 647, 651.
47 Only two Templar chaplains claimed that confessors did not initially want to absolve them: ibid. i. 393, 828. Others declared that they received absolution, and as part of their repentance they were supposed to fast for, for example, thirteen Fridays and were only allowed to have bread and water, to read the psalter nine times (i. 403), to fast on bread and water for five Saturdays (i. 545), and to wear a cord tied to their naked body for a year (i. 591).
48 Such information was provided by 26 Templars heard at various stages of the trial: Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 57; Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 129, 149, 172, 191; Processus, i. 397, 454, 547, 550 and passim.
49 For example, some brothers said that they confessed to ‘a certain Franciscan’: Le Procès, ii. 342; Processus, i. 419; ‘Dominican brother Nicholas’: Le Procès, ii. 356; ‘a Franciscan and others’: Processus, i. 647. A large group of brothers testifying in Clermont only said that they confessed their sins to ‘lay persons and clergymen’: Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 146, 159, 174f, 204 and passim. Others said that their confessor was a ‘brother chaplain’: Le Procès, ii. 399; Schottmüller, Der Untergang, 24, 39f, 60; Finke, Papsttum, ii. 338; The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and Abruzzi, ed. A. Gilmour-Bryson, Città del Vaticano 1982, 195, 219; B. Frale, ‘L'interrogatorio ai Templari nella provincia di Bernardo Gui: un'ipotesi per il frammento del Registo avignonese 305’, in Dall'Archivio Segreto Vaticano: niscellanea di testi, saggi e inventari, i, Città del Vaticano 2006, 245, 261.
50 Such information was provided by the brothers participating in the Paris proceedings between 1310 and 1311: Processus, i. 426, 430, 457, 510 and passim.
51 During various hearings, information was provided about twelve deceased bishops: Le Procès, ii. 360; Processus, i. 300, 354, 383, 393, 467, 546, 774, 947; Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 36, 46f; Frale, ‘L'interrogatorio’, 261, 263. One of the dignitaries of the order, interrogated in Chinon in 1308, claimed that he had confessed to the bishop of Carpentras (Frale, Il Papato, 200f), but did not provide any more detailed information. He was accepted into the order in 1265, so he could have confessed to any of four subsequent bishops. Three of them were already dead; the last one, Bérenger ii de Mazan, held the position until 1317.
52 One of the Templars testifying before the papal commission listed the Italian Cardinal Guglielmo Longhi as the confessor: Processus, i. 299. Others talked about confessing to the patriarch of Jerusalem: Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 59; Frale, Il papato, 204f; Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 143, 188. One witness stated twice that he confessed to the bishop of Gibelet, Pierre de Chartres: Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 194; Processus, i. 931. The date of the bishop's death is unknown, but the testifying brother assumed that he was still alive.
53 Processus, i. 481.
54 Le Procès, ii. 278. In relation to mentioning a Parisian official, Malcolm Barber even considered Jean de Fouilloy to be one of the informants of Philip the Fair: The trial, 66, 79. It is hard to verify this assumption.
55 Finke, Papsttum, ii. 311f. Guillaume Baufet was elected bishop on 18 September 1304 and consecrated on 17 January 1305: B. Hauréau, ‘Guillaume Baufet, évêque de Paris’, in Histoire littéraire de la France, xxii, Paris 1897, 469–74. Thus, the suggestion of Alain Demurger that Jean de Fouilloy confessed to the bishops between the first and the second hearing is untrue: ‘Johannes de Folheyo’, in A. Demurger, Le Peuple templier, 1307–1312: calogue prosopographique des templiers présents ou (et) cités dans les procès-verbaux des interrogatoires faits dans le royaume de France entre 1307 et 1312, Paris 2019, 177.
56 Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 36. When talking about the bishop of Meaux, Jean de Fouilloy could have meant Jean de Monterolles or his successor, Nicholas Volé, deceased on 18 April 1308: Marion, J., ‘Liste des archevêques et évêques de France, distribuée par provinces ecclésiastiques’, Annuaire historique pour l'année 1849 publié par la Société de l'histoire de France, xiii, Paris 1849, 27–168Google Scholar.
57 On this question see Demurger, La Persécution, 61.
58 The interrogations were carried out over three days, from 29 June to 1 July 1308. The first information about the confession appeared in the testimonies from the first day; however, the cardinals started to ask about it only on the second day. In total, they asked 10 out of 40 testifying brothers about earlier confession: Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 39–69 passim.
59 Le Procès, ii. 298, 306f, 317f, 344, 381f; Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 39–41, 59–62.
60 Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 62; Finke, Papsttum, ii. 333, 336.
61 In the course of hearings carried out between 1309 and 1311, only two brothers said that they did not confess earlier the sins they had committed during the reception ceremony: Frale, ‘L'interrogatorio’, 243; Processus, i. 525f.
62 Apart from the Templars interrogated in 1307 in Paris, four brothers who previously testified in Carcassonne (Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii, 50) and in Cahors (Finke, Papsttum, ii. 317, 319f) were present in Poitiers. It is unknown whether and where the other Templars from the group that testified before the cardinals had been interrogated earlier.
63 Schottmüller, Der Untergang, ii. 39–41, 59, 60f.
64 On the participation of the brothers interrogated in Poitiers in the Paris proceedings see Demurger, La Persécution, 113.
65 In total, 86 Templars imprisoned in the Temple testified before the commissioners, yet 22 refused to defend the order, and therefore did not participate in further proceedings and in the meetings of brothers organised in relation to it: Processus, ii, annexe 2, 967–1167. See also Demurger, Le Peuple templier, passim.
66 On the participation of Templars testifying in Clermont in 1309 in the Paris proceedings see Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 65–70.
67 Minutes from hearings of forty brothers have been preserved. However, it follows from the document that testimonies were made by seventy-two Templars. See, for example, Demurger, La Persécution, 112f.
68 On the number of brothers who took part in the meeting organised by the commissioners see Processus, i. 15.
69 For the meeting of all brothers who arrived in Paris which was held on 28 March 1310, and other forms of contact, see Satora, M., ‘Information flow between the Templar brothers during their trial in France (March–April 1310)’, Ordines militares: Colloquia Torunensia Historica: yearbook for the study of the military orders xxv (2020), 95–108Google Scholar. On the course of the trial carried out by the commissioners in Paris see also Barber, The trial, 139–201, and Demurger, La Persécution, 151–262.
70 Processus, i. 289, 299f. The first group that stood before the commission, on 11 April, comprised seven Templars (i. 253f), yet only four of them testified.
71 In the group that was sworn in on 5 May (ibid. i. 313f), there were four brothers in total who had testified before the commissioners earlier. Two had talked about confession (i. 354).
72 Between 17 December 1310 and 17 February 1311, eleven groups of Templars testified before cardinals: ibid. i. 371–665.
73 The Templars who did not participate in the earlier proceedings were present in almost all groups making testimonies at that time. The only exception was a group of three sworn in on 9 January: ibid. i. 449.
74 Between 25 February and 29 March 1311, ten groups of Templars were sworn in, comprising both participants in the first part of the proceedings and brothers testifying before the commission for the first time: ibid. i. 665–847. Among them were two groups in which nobody mentioned confession (a group of six brothers who arrived on March 8: i. 713–30; and a group of six brothers who arrived on March 26: i. 808–18). Apart from them, testimonies were made by two other brothers: one of them arrived on his own (i. 786), the other one stood before the commissioners with a group of Templars convicted and sentenced to lifetime imprisonment by the Council of Sens and who gave testimony as the only one (i. 717). None of them mentioned confession.
75 One testifying brother mentioned confession during a hearing in Paris in 1307 (Le Procès, ii. 378). However, he did not do it in the testimony of 1311: Processus, i. 736–8. The situation was similar with respect to three brothers participating in the inquisitional proceedings in Clermont in 1309, heard by the commissioners between 30 March and 1 April 1311: Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 126, 146, 159; Processus, i. 830–2, 840–2, 843–5.
76 Processus, i. 847–924.
77 Between 19 and 26 May, three groups of Templars testified before the cardinals: ibid. i. 924–57.
78 Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 194; Processus, i. 931.
79 Processus, i. 947; ii, annexe 2, 1022. Out of ten witnesses sworn in on 19 May (i. 924f), confession was mentioned only by one (i. 931). The second testifying Templar who did so (i. 947) belonged to the group of three brothers who stood before the commissioners on 22 May (i. 945). The last three brothers arrived on 26 May (i. 951f). None of them mentioned confession.
80 Together with Guillaume de Cardeilhac, two brothers participating in the earlier proceedings testified before the commissioners: ibid. ii, annexe 2, 984f, 1074f.
81 Together with Pierre Maurin, nine more Templars testified before the commissioners on 19 May who had earlier taken part in the trial in Clermont. At Clermont four of them had spoken about confession: Le Procès des Templiers d'Auvergne, 132f, 191, 202, 207; Processus, i. 925–29, 938-41.
82 Two brothers said that they fasted for thirteen Fridays (Processus, i. 393, 403), one fasted for seventeen or eighteen Fridays (i. 423), while two others for twelve Fridays: i. 426, 436.
83 Ibid. i. 625.
84 Such penance was mentioned by three out of five brothers who spoke about the confession: ibid. i. 507f, 510, 515.
85 Ibid. i. 560, 564, 568, 572, 580.
86 Ibid. i. 605, 632, 642, 647, 651.
87 On this question see Satora, M., ‘Mantle and beard as symbols of the Templars in the records of the Paris proceedings against the order (1309‒1311)’, in Sarnowsky, J., Kwiatkowski, K., Houben, H., Pósán, L. and Bárány, A. (eds), Studies on the military orders, Prussia, and urban history: essays in honour of Roman Czaja on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, Debrecen 2020, 105–15Google Scholar.
88 Ménard, Historie civile, I: Preuves, 176f.
89 On the results of the inquisitional processes see Forey, A., ‘Templars after the trial: further evidence’, Revue Mabillon xxiii (2012), 89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
90 Demurger, La Persécution, 289–93.