THE TEMPLE AND THE LODGE
MICHAEL BAIGENT AND RICHARD LEIGH
2
Military Monks : the Knights Templar
Even before their dissolution, the Knights Templar had been shrouded in extravagant myth and legend, dark rumour s, suspicions and superstitions. In the centur ies f ollowing their suppression, the mystique surrounding them intensified, and genuine mystery became ever more swathed in spurious mystification. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as we shall see, certain rites of Freemasonry assiduously sought to establish a pedigree dating back to the Templar s. At the same time, other , neo- Templar , organisations began to appear , similarly claiming a pedigree derived from the original Order . Today, there are no fewer than five organisations in existence alleging one or another species of direct descent f rom the white-mantled warrior -monks of the Middle Ages. And despite the cynicism and scepticism of our age, there is, even f or outsider s, something f ascinating, even romantic, about the soldier -mystics of 700 year s ago, with their black- and- white banner and distinctively splayed red cross. They have passed into the heritage of our folklore and tradition; they appeal to the imagination not just as crusader s, but as something far more enigmatic and evocative — as high- level intriguer s and power - broker s, as guardians of fabulous treasure, as sorcerer s and arcane initiates, as custodians of a secret knowledge. Time has served them better than they, in the throes of their last ordeals, could ever have anticipated.
Time, however , has also obscured the identity and character of the human beings behind the exotic veil of romance — the human beings and the true nature of the institution they created. Questions still remain, for example, about how or thodox, or heretical, the Templar s’ belief s really were. Questions remain about how guilty they were of the charges levelled against them. Questions remain about the internal highlevel activities of the Order , their secret grand designs, their project for the creation of a Templar state, their policy of reconciling Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Questions remain about the influences that shaped the Order , the ‘ inf ection’ of the Cathar heresy and the impact of older , non- Pauline forms of Christian thought encountered by the knights in the Holy Land. Questions remain about what happened to the wealth accumulated by these supposedly poor ‘ soldiers of Christ’ — a wealth which kings sought to plunder and which vanished without trace. Questions remain about the Templar s’ rituals and the mysterious ‘ idol’ they allegedly wor shipped under the cryptic name of ‘ Baphomet’ . And questions remain about the supposed secret knowledge to which the upper echelons of the Order , at least, were reputedly privy. What was the nature of this knowledge? Was it truly ‘ occult’ in the sense charged by the Inquisition, involving forbidden magical practices, obscene and blasphemous rites? Was it political and cultural — pertaining, for example, to the or igins of Christianity? Was it scientific and technological, encompassing such things as drugs, poisons, medicine, architecture, car tography, navigation and trade routes? The more closely one examines the Templar s, the more such questions as these tend not to resolve themselves, but to prolif erate.
As we have noted, the history of the Templar s is almost precisely contemporary with that of the feudal Celtic Kingdom of Scotland, from the reign of David I to that of Bruce. On the surface, there would appear to be little else in common between the Scottish monarchy and the military- religious Order created in the Holy Land. And yet a number of connections obtained between them, some dictated by the geopolitics of the medieval world, some by more elusive f actor s which have never been properly chronicled. By 1314, these connections would have rendered quite possible a Templar presence at Bannockburn.
The Rise of the Templars
According to most sources, the Knights Templar—the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon — were created in 1118, although there is signif icant evidence to suggest they were already in existence at least four years earlier . 1 Their ostensible raison d’ être was to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. The evidence suggests, however , that this avowed purpose was a façade, and that the knights were engaged in a much more ambitious, more grandiose geopolitical design which involved the Cistercian Order , Saint Bernard, and Hugues, Count of Champagne and one of the first sponsor s and patrons of both the Cistercians and the Templar s. The count became a Templar himself in 1124, and the Order ’ s first Grand Master was one of his own vassals, Hugues de Payens. Among the other founding member s was Saint Bernard’ s uncle, André de Montbard.
Until 1128 — four years after David I became king of Scotland — the Templars were said to have consisted of only nine knights, although the actual records show several additional recruits. Besides Hugues de Champagne, these included Fulk, Comte d’ Anjou, father of Geoffroy Plantagenet and grandf ather of Henry II of England. Never theless, the Order ’ s initial enrolment seems to have been relatively small. Then, at the Council of Troyes, conducted under the auspices of Saint Bernard, the Templars were given a monastic rule, the equivalent, so to speak, of a constitution, and were thereby formally established. They represented a new phenomenon: ‘ For the f ir st time in Chr istian history, soldier s would live as monks.’ 2
From 1128 on, the Order expanded at an extraordinary pace, receiving not just a massive influx of recruits, but also immense donations of both money and property. Within a year , they owned lands in France, England, Scotland, Spain and Por tugal. Within a decade, their possessions would extend to Italy, Austria, Germany, Hungary and Constantinople. In 1131, the king of Aragon bequeathed to them a third of his domains. By the mid- twelf th century, the Temple had already begun to establish itself as the single most wealthy and powerful institution in Christendom, with the sole exception of the Papacy.
In the year s immediately f ollowing the Council of Troyes, Hugues de Payens and other founding members of the Order travelled extensively in Europe, promoting everything from themselves to the virtues of timeshare fiefdoms in Palestine. Hugues and at least one of his comrades are known to have been in both England and Scotland. According to The Anglo- Saxon Chronicle , when Hugues visited Henry I:
. . . the king received him with much honour , and gave him rich presents in gold and in silver . And afterwards he sent him into England; and there he was received by all good men, who all gave him presents, and in Scotland also; . . . And he invited the folk out to Jerusalem; and there went with him and af ter him more people than ever did before. 3
On this first visit, Philip de Harcour t conf er red on the Order their preceptory at Shipley in Essex. The Dover preceptory (the remains of its church are still visible today) is believed to date from the same time. As Grand Master , Hugues de Payens proceeded to appoint regional masters for each of the Temple’ s ‘ provinces’ , as its enclaves of property in each country were called. The first Master of England, of whom little is known, was one Hugh d’ Argentein. He was succeeded by a young Norman knight, Osto de St Omer , who presided until 1153—4, then by Richard de Hastings. Under these two master s, the Templar s in England embarked on one of their most innovative ventures, a translation of part of the Old Testament into the vernacular . This version of the Book of Judges took the form of a chivalric romance—Joshua and his Fierce Knights. 4
The relations between the Templar s and the rulers of those realms where they possessed lands were mixed. In France, for example, the relationship was always, even at its best, uneasy. In Spain, on the other hand, the relationship was consistently good. In England, too, for the most part, the Order enjoyed a cordial rapport with the monarchy. As we have seen, Henry I received the first knights with open arms, while Stephen, who seized power in 1135, was the son of the Count of Blois, one of the leader s of the Fir st Crusade, and was thus particularly sympathetic to the Templar s’ activities in the Holy Land. Under his auspices, the network of preceptor ies began to spread across England. The Earl of Derby donated Bisham; the Earl of Warwick donated land for a preceptory at Warwick itself ; Roger de Builli offered the site of Willoughton in Lincolnshire. Stephen’ s own wif e, Mathilda, bestowed tracts of territory in Essex and Oxford which became Temple Cressing and Temple Cowley respectively, two of the most important early preceptories.
During Stephen’ s reign, too, the Templar s built their f irst central installation in England. This — the ‘ old Temple’ — was located at Holborn. It consisted of the preceptory buildings, a church, a garden, an orchard and a cemetery, all sur rounded by a boundary ditch and, it is believed, a wall. Its f oundations existed on the site of what is now the Underground station at High Holborn. This did not, however , remain the Order ’ s seat in London for long. By 1161, the knights had already established themselves in the ‘ new Temple’ , the site of which even today bear s their name and contains not only their original round church, but also a number of graves. ‘ Barram Novi Templi’ , or Temple Bar , where Fleet Street meets the Strand, was the gate opening into the Order ’ s precincts. In its heyday, the ‘ new Temple’ extended from Aldwych up the Strand and half - way along Fleet Street, then down to the Thames, where it had its own whar f . Once a year , a general chapter was convened on these premises, attended by the Master of England and all other officer s of the Order in Britain, including the Priors of Scotland and Ireland.
Henry II continued the close association of the English monarchy with the Temple, who were especially active in trying to reconcile him with Thomas à Becket. But it was under Henry’ s son, Richard Cœur de Lion, that that association became closest. Indeed, Richard was on such good terms with the Order that he is often regarded as a kind of honorary Templar . He consor ted regular ly with the knights; he travelled in their ships, resided in their preceptories. When, having antagonised his fellow potentates, he was obliged to f lee the Holy Land, he did so disguised as a Templar , and an entourage of authentic Templar s attended him. He was closely embroiled in the transactions between the Templar s and their Islamic equivalents, the Hashishim or ‘ Assassins’ . He also sold Cyprus to the Order , and the island later became, for a time, their official seat.
At the same time, the Temple had by then become influential and powerful enough to command respect and allegiance f rom Richard’ s brother and arch- rival, King John. Like Richard, John stayed regularly at the London preceptory, making it his part- time residence during the last four years of his reign (1212—16). The Master of England, Aymeric de St Maur , was John’ s closest advisor , and it was primarily as a result of Aymeric’ s persuasion that the king signed the Magna Carta in 1215. When John appended his signature to the document, Aymeric was at his side and signed as well. Subsequently, Aymeric was named one of the executor s of John’ s will.
Officially, the Temple’ s primary sphere of activity was supposed to be the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Europe was supposed to be but a support base, both a source for men and matériel and a channel for their transport to the Holy Land. Certainly the Templar s never let ‘ Outremer ’ — the ‘ land across the sea’ , as they called the Middle East — slip out of their focus. Their activities extended at least from Egypt, if not from points west, all the way to Constantinople. Few decisions were made in the crusader principalities, and little happened there, in which the Templar s were not involved. At the same time, however , as their role in the signing of the Magna Carta indicates, the knights were soon deeply embroiled in the internal affairs of most European kingdoms. In England, they enjoyed particular privileges and prerogatives. Thus, for example, the Master of the Temple sat in Parliament as the premier baron of the realm. The Order was also, of cour se, exempt from taxes, and metal Templar crosses marked its houses and holdings in larger English towns and cities, warding of f tax- collector s. Specimens of these crosses, from the Street of the Templar s in Leeds, can be seen today in the museum of the Order of St John, Clerkenwell. Within such enclaves, the knights were a law unto themselves. They offered right of sanctuary, like any church. They convened their own cour ts to try cases of local crime. They ran their own markets and fairs. They were exempt from tolls on roads, bridges and rivers.
Templar possessions in England were extensive and spanned the length and breadth of the country. Some — though by no means all of the Order ’ s former lands are recognisable today by the prefix ‘ Temple’ , as in the London district of Temple Fortune just north of Golder s Green. It is generally accepted that wherever this prefix occurs in the British Isles there was once some species of Templar installation. To compile a def initive list of the Order ’ s holdings is today impossible, but even the most conservative estimates show a minimum of seventyfour major properties, including thirty full- scale preceptores 5 and literally hundreds of smaller belongings – villages, hamlets, churches and farms. On occasion, the Order ’ s commercial activities even led them to establish towns of their own. Baldock, f or example, near Letchwor th in Hertfordshire, was founded by the Templar s around 1148. Its name derives from Baghdad.
A substantial section of modern Br istol was once Templar property. Indeed, Bristol was one of the major ports f or the Order , and ships trafficked regularly between the city and the Templar s’ primary Atlantic base of La Rochelle in France. The Close Rolls of Henry III cite the names of two Templar ships – La Temple re and Le Buscard. 6 One of the knights’ most lucrative privileges was that of exporting their own wool. This, like the transport of pilgrims, brought in very considerable revenues, as too, did the Order ’ s lands. In Yorkshire alone, dur ing 1308, Temple proper ties produced an income of £1130. 7 (At that time, a modest castle could be built f or £500. A knight and a squire could be employed for a year f or L55, a crossbowman f or £7. A horse cost £9, making it cheaper to r ide a crossbowman.)
In Ireland, the Templar s’ network of holdings was equally widespread, though less well documented. 8 There were at least six preceptor es, one in Dublin, at least three on the south coast in Counties Water ford and Wexford. As in England, there were numerous manors, farms, churches and castles. The preceptory of Kilsaren in County Louth, for example, owned twelve churches and collected tithes from eight other s. There was at least one manor , Temple House, at Sligo, on the west coast. As we shall see, the question of other Templar installations in the west of Ireland is of crucial importance.
For Scotland, records are particularly patchy and unreliable, partly because of the turmoil in the kingdom at the end of the thirteenth century, par tly because much appear s to have been deliberately concealed. There were at least two major preceptories. 9 One, Maryculter , was near Aberdeen. The other , Balantrodoch - Gaelic for ‘ Stead of the War r ior s’ — was larger and constituted the Order ’ s pr imary Scottish base. Situated near Edinburgh, it is now called Temple. The compilation of Templar proper ties in Scotland, however , is based on the testimony of one knight, William de Middleton, interrogated by the Inquisition. He mentioned Maryculter and Balantrodoch as the two places in which he had personally served. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of others at which he did not serve; and he had, in any case, every reason to be ‘ economical with the truth’ . In f act, chronicles ref er to Templar holdings at Berwick (then part of Scotland) and at Liston, near Falkirk. Quite apart from Argyll, there is evidence of Templar possessions in, at the very least, another ten locations in Scotland; but there is no way of knowing if these were large or small — if they were preceptories, manors or merely farms.
The Financial Influence of the Templa s
By virtue of its possessions, its manpower , its diplomatic skills and its martial expertise, the Temple wielded enormous political and military influence. But it was no less influential financially, and wrought profound changes in the economic foundations of the age. Historians generally ascribe the evolution and development of Western Europe’ s economic institutions to Jewish money- lender s and to the great Italian merchant houses and consortiums. In fact, however , the role of Jewish money- lenders was minor compared to that of the Temple; and the Temple not only pre- dated the Italian houses, but established the machinery and procedures which those houses were later to emulate and adopt. In effect, the origins of modern banking can be attributed to the Order of the Temple. At the peak of their power , the Templars handled much, if not most, of the available capital in Western Europe. They pioneered the concept of credit facilities, as well as the allocation of credit for commercial development and expansion. They performed, in fact, virtually all the functions of a twentieth- century merchant bank.
In theory, canon law forbade Christians to engage in usury, the collecting of interest on loans. One might expect this interdict to have been applied even more str ingently to an institution as ostensibly pious as the Temple. Never theless, the Temple lent money, and collected interest, on a massive scale. In one proven case, the agreed rate of interest on late payment of debt was 60 per cent per year — 17 per cent more than Jewish money- lender s were allowed to claim. The strictures of canon law against usury were evaded by nothing more elaborate than semantics, euphemism and circumlocution. 10 One can only speculate on the terms used by the Templar s themselves in order to avoid speaking explicitly of ‘ interest’ , since few of their documents survive; but the recipients of Templar loans, in their repayment instructions, are not bound by any such reserve. In his repayment to the Temple, Edward I, to cite but one of many possible examples, speaks of the capital component and, quite specifically, the ‘ interest’ . 11 In fact, the English crown was chronically in debt to the Temple. King John borrowed incessantly from the Order . So, too, did Henry III, who between 1260 and 1266, his treasury depleted by military expeditions, even pawned the English crown jewels to the Templar s, Queen Eleanor personally taking them to the Order ’ s Paris preceptory. In the years before Henry ascended the throne, the Templar s also lent money to the future Edward I. During the first year of his reign, Edward repaid 2000 marks on a total debt to the Order of 28,189 pounds. 12
One of the most important of the Temple’ s financial activities was ar ranging payments at a distance without the actual transfer of funds. In an age when travel was uncertain, when roads were unprotected and plunder a constant risk, men were under standably reluctant to travel with valuables on their persons. The Robin Hood legends bear eloquent testimony to the threat constantly looming over wealthy merchants, tradesmen, even nobles. In consequence, the Temple devised letter s of credit. One would deposit a particular sum in, say, the London Temple and receive a species of chit. One could then travel freely to other parts of Britain, to most of the Continent, even to the Holy Land. At one’ s destination, one had only to present the chit and one would receive cash, in whatever the cur rency desired. Theft of such letter s of credit, as well as fraud, was precluded by an elaborate system of codes to which the Templar s alone were privy.
In addition to lending money and providing letters of credit, the Templars provided, through their network of preceptor ies, places of safe deposit. In France, the Paris Temple was also the most important royal treasury, housing the state’ s wealth as well as the Order ’ s, and the knights’ treasurer was also the king’ s. All the finances of the French crown were thus yoked to, and dependent upon, the Temple. In England, the Order ’ s influence was not quite so great. As we have noted, however , the crown jewels, dur ing the reign of King John, were kept at the London Temple — which, under Henry II, John, Henry III and Edward I, served as one of the four royal treasuries. In England, the Templars also acted as tax collector s. Not only did they collect papal taxes, tithes and donations; they collected taxes and revenues for the crown as well—and seem to have been even more fear some in that capacity than today’ s Inland Revenue. In 1294, they organised the conversion from old to new money. They frequently acted as trustees of funds or proper ty placed in their custody, as broker s and as debt collector s. They mediated in disputes involving ransom payments, dowries, pensions and a multitude of other transactions.
At the apex of their power , the Templar s were accused of pride, arrogance, ruthlessness, and intemperate and dissolute behaviour . ‘ To drink like a Templar ’ was a frequent simile in medieval England; and despite their vow of chastity, the knights seem to have wenched as zealously as they drank. But whatever their conduct in such respects as these, their reputation f or accuracy, honesty and integrity in financial affairs remained untarnished. One might not like them, but one knew one could rely on them. And they were particularly harsh to any member of their own Order who proved unworthy. In one instance, the Prior of the Temple in Ireland was found guilty of embezzlement. He was imprisoned in the penitential cell of the Templar church in London —a room too small even to lie down in, which can still be seen today — and starved to death. He is said to have taken eight weeks to die.
Like the Swiss banks of today, the Temple maintained a number of long- term trust funds from the dead and/or dispossessed. Not surprisingly, monarchs or other potentates would occasionally try to lay hands on such resources. Thus, for example, Henry II, in one instance, demanded f rom the Templar s the money deposited with them by a disgraced lord. He was told that ‘ money conf ided to them in trust they would deliver to no man without the permission of him who had intrusted it to be kept in the Temple’ . 13
‘ The Poor Knights’ most lasting achievement . . . was economic. No medieval institution did more for the rise of capitalism.’ 14 But the very wealth they managed so effectively was to render them an irresistible lure to a monarch whose temerity was equal to his greed.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar