“A bitter thing, a lamentable thing, a thing which is horrible to contemplate, terrible to hear of, a detestable crime, an execrable evil, an abominable work, a detestable disgrace, a thing almost inhuman, indeed set apart from all humanity.” Hyperbole aside, I would have assumed this was an opinion about the persecution of the Templars, but it’s a description of the Templars’ supposed transgressions from the introduction to the (secret) orders of Philip IV to arrest the Templars (p. 45). This Trial of the Templars is an enormously detailed account of the proceedings of the trial, and the background against which it all transpired. I have to say, I knew it was going to be a cynical matter, but I didn’t realize it was this sordid.
Let me start by saying that Barber did a great job. He’s gone over all the existing evidence (mostly transcripts and records of the trial, but also letters etc.). I doubt you will find a more complete account of the trial itself. I can’t think of anything that could be added, or of any shortcuts Barber might have taken. His mastery of the subject feels complete, and you feel it at every turn of a page.
On to the trial itself: that it was a cynical matter is obvious from the introduction to the trial and the reasons for Philip IV’s chronic lack of money. The French crown needed more and more money to effectively control the large swaths of territory it gained since the rule of Philip II, and Philip IV (called the Fair, but “the Villainous” would perhaps be more accurate) tried to ‘find’ funds by persecuting first the Jews, then the Lombards (North-Italian mercantile families/companies who figured prominently as moneylenders), and then the Templars. Philip, or more exactly, his servants, used existing disapproval of Templar-arrogance and wealth, dissatisfaction with the loss of the Holy Land and frustration at the failures of crusading, and superstition and homophobia to fabricate a case in which the Templars were accused of denying Christ, worshipping idols, and practicing homosexuality, with a side helping of implicated heresy, money-grubbing and satan-worshipping. There is no doubt the Templars were high and mighty before November 13 of 1307, so arrogance is probably something some of them were guilty of. The accusations themselves were nothing but a sham.
The Templars were arrested across France on November 13th 1307. They were taken into royal custody, not papal custody; this is important, because the Templars were formally a religious order, and subject only to the pope. The pope protested against the French king’s methods, but was unable to force him to relinquish control of the Templars. He could do no more than slow the proceedings down, in part also because he rated his personal struggle of papacy vs. monarchy of higher importance than taking a stand for the Templars. The leaders of the Order maintained a constant faith in the pope, which was in fact a pitiable pitiful delusion. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master, even forsook to appear for the defense of the Order because he wanted to reserve himself for papal judgment.
The main case against the Templars comes down to a pattern, characterized as follows: a new brother is formally received into the order, but during the secret part of the ceremony is ordered to deny Christ, spit on a cross, and perform illicit homosexual acts. The crown-appointed interrogators asked all the captured Templars virtually the same set of questions, and through torture and abuse managed to get confessions from most every Templar. Some were left defiant, but most were broken by the abuse they had to suffer. Because of the system of inquisition, these confessions, shambolic as they were, were a strong force against the Templars. (Those accused were not allowed advocates, they were not allowed to know who made accusation against them – they could only name their enemies, in the hopes of negating the anonymous testimony against them. The point of the inquiry was to fix guilt in order to forgive and rehabilitate.) The confessions of the leaders or the Order, extracted by torture or fear of torture, also counted heavily against them.
Barber describes the proceedings in lots of detail. He gives detailed accounts of what numerous separate Templars testified to: from seeing a cat during reception, to being asked to worship a four-legged three-faced head. These testimonies only prove that the inquisitors (mostly appointed by king Philip) got the story they set out to get; very often it is mentioned how gaolers and royal ministers were present during testimony, in obvious efforts to cow the brutalized Templars. Almost every rule of law, trial and inquisition was bent or disregarded in order to intimidate the Templars. Callous comments by scribes and inquisitors like “subject was incoherent with fear” or “subject is adamant that he wishes to confess, but does not seem to understand what he’s confessing to” reveal how torture was employed to win confessions, and how worthless these confessions really were. Further happenings, like Templars prominent in the defense of the Order suddenly disappearing (like Peter of Bologna), and the king losing patience and having the bishop of Sens burn 84 Templars almost on a whim testify to the sheer inhumanity of the course of events.
I knew beforehand what the trial was about, in broad strokes, and that it was a naked money-grab by the king. I was not expecting to be touched by the sparse stories of defiance and more common stories of older Templars who were so obviously scared out of their minds because of the large-scale program of torture and maltreatment. Even Barber is sometimes numbed by the numerous mentions of torture.
Cynical, sordid, pitiful episode, but a very good book. Scholarly and businesslike.