Return of the Templars to the East--Exoneration and Refutation of
the Charge of a Connection with the Ismailites--Actions of the
Templars--Crusade of Louis VII.--Siege of Ascalon--Sale of
Nassir-ed-deen--Corruption of the Hospitallers--The bull, _Omne
Datum Optimum_--Refusal of the Templars to march against
Egypt--Murder of the Ismailite Envoy.
In the year 1129 Hugh de Payens, accompanied by 300 knights of the
noblest families in Europe, who had become members of the order, and
followed by a large train of pilgrims, returned to the Holy Land.
Shortly after his arrival, the unlucky expedition to Damascus above
narrated[74], was undertaken, and the Templars formed a portion of the
troops which marched, as they fancied, to take possession of that city.
As has been observed, this is the first occasion on which we find the
Christians in alliance and connection with the Ismailites; and as
Hammer, the historian of the last, makes the grave charge against Hugh
de Payens, of having modelled his new society on the plan of that deadly
association, and of having been the chief planner and instigator of the
treacherous attempt on Damascus, we will suspend the course of our
narration, to discuss the probability of that opinion, though in so
doing we must anticipate a little respecting the organisation of the
Order of the Temple.
[Footnote 74: _See_ p. 88.]
Hammer argues an identity between the two orders, as he styles them, of
the Ismailites and the Templars, from the similarity of their dress,
their internal organisation, and their secret doctrine; and as the two
societies existed in the same country, and that of the Ismailites was
first instituted, he infers that this was the original, and that of the
Templars the copy.
First, with respect to the outward habiliment, the dress of the order.
Nothing, as appears to us, can be weaker than to lay any stress on so
casual a circumstance as similarity of forms or colours, more especially
when a true and distinct cause for the assumption of them on either side
can be assigned. The colour of the khalifs of the house of Ommiyah was
_white_; hence the house of Abbas, in their contest with them, adopted
_black_, as their distinguishing hue; and hence, when the Abbassides
were in possession of the supreme power, all those who, under pretence
of supporting the rights of the family of Ali, or on any other pretext,
raised the standard of revolt against them, naturally selected _white_,
as the sign of their opposition. Hassan Sabah, therefore, only retained
the use of the colour which he found already established. When he formed
the institution of the Fedavee, or the _Devoted to Death_, what more
suitable mark of distinction could he assign them than a _red_ girdle or
cap, which indicated their readiness to spill their own blood or that of
others? With respect to the Templars, the society of the Hospitallers
was already existing when Hugh de Payens and his companions resolved to
form themselves into a new association. The mantle worn by the members
of the Hospital was _black_: what colour then was so natural for them to
adopt as its opposite, _white_? and when, nearly thirty years after
their institution, the pope appointed them or gave them permission to
wear a cross on their mantle, like the rival order, no colour could
present itself so well suited to those who daily and hourly exposed
themselves to martyrdom, as that of blood, in which there was so much of
what was symbolical.
With respect to internal organisation, it will, we apprehend, be always
found that this is, for the most part, the growth of time and the
product of circumstances, and is always nearly the same where these last
are similar. The dominion of the Assassins extended over large tracks of
country; hence arose the necessity of appointing lieutenants. In like
manner, when the Templars got large possessions in the West and the
East, they could not avoid, after the example of the Hospitallers,
appointing persons to manage the affairs of the society in different
countries. Hence, then, as the Ismailites had their Sheikh-al-Jebal,
with his Dais-al-Kebir of Kuhistan and Syria, so the Templars had their
Master and their Priors of different provinces. The resemblance is so
far exact, but, as we see, easily accounted for. That which Hammer goes
on to draw between the component parts of each society is altogether
fanciful. To the Refeek, Fedavee and Lazik of the Ismailites, he sets as
counterparts the knights, esquires, and serving-brethren of the
Templars. It is needless to point out the arbitrariness of this
comparison. The chaplains of the Templars, we may see, are omitted, and
it was, perhaps, they who bore the greatest resemblance to the Refeeks,
while neither knights nor esquires had the smallest similarity to the
Fedavee.
As to a secret doctrine, we shall hereafter discuss the question whether
the Templars had one or not. Here we shall only observe, that the proof
of it, and of the ultimate object of the Templars being the same with
that of the Ismailites, namely, the acquisition of independent power,
adduced by Hammer, is by no means satisfactory. He says that it was the
object of both societies to make themselves masters of the surrounding
country, by the possession of fortresses and castles, and thus become
formidable rivals to princes; and he sees, in the preceptories or houses
of the Templars, the copies of the hill-forts of the Ismailites. That
such was the design of this last society is quite apparent from the
preceding part of our work; but what resemblance is there between such
formidable places of defence as Alamoot and Lamseer, and the simple
structures in which a few knights and their attendants dwelt in the
different parts of Europe, and which were hardly, if at all, stronger
than the ordinary baronial residences? and what resistance could the
Temple of London or that of Paris offer to the royal strength, if put
forth? Hammer has here again fallen into his usual error of arguing too
hastily from accidental resemblances. The preceptories of the Templars
were, as we shall show, the necessary consequence of the acquisition of
property by the order, and had nothing hostile to society in their
nature.
When we reflect on the character of the first crusaders, and
particularly on that of the first Templars, and call to mind their
piety, ignorance, and simplicity, nothing can appear more absurd than to
ascribe to them secret philosophical doctrines of impiety, imbibed from
those whose language they did not even understand, and whose religion
and manners they held in abhorrence, and to suppose that the first poor
knights of the Temple could have had visions of the future power of
their order, and have looked forward to its dominion over the Christian
world. "But this is a common mistake with ingenious men, who are for
ever ascribing to the founders of empires, religions, and societies,
that attribute of divinity which sees from the beginning the ultimate
end, and forms all its plans and projects with a view to it. It is thus
that some would fain persuade us that Mahommed, in his solitary cave at
Mecca, saw clearly and distinctly the future triumphs of Islam, and its
banners floating at the Pyrenees and the Oxus; that Cromwell, when an
obscure individual, already in fancy grasped the sceptre of England; and
that Loyola beheld the members of his order governing the consciences of
kings, and ruling an empire in Paraguay. All such results are in fact
the slow and gradual growth of time; one step leads to another, till the
individual or the society looks back with amazement to the feeble
commencement."
The Templars and the Ismailites are mentioned together by history in
only one more relation, that is, on occasion of the tribute paid to the
former by the Syrian branch of the latter, and the murder of the
Ismailite ambassador above related[75]. As this act was very probably
committed by order of the Master of the Temple, who, it might be,
doubted the ability or the future inclination of the king to pay the
3000 byzants a year, it testifies but little for any very friendly
feeling between the Templars and the Ismailites. Yet Hammer opines that
the 3000 byzants were paid, not as the tribute of the weaker to the
stronger, but by way of pension for the secret services which the
Templars were in the habit of rendering their cause; such, for example,
as refusing on one occasion to join in the expedition against the khalif
of Egypt, the great head of the society of the Assassins.
[Footnote 75: Page 116.]
To narrate the various exploits of the knights of the Temple, would be
to write the history of the Crusades; for, from the time that the order
acquired strength and consistency, no action with the Infidels ever was
fought in which the chivalry of the Temple did not bear a distinguished
part. Their war-cry was ever heard in the thickest of the fray, and
rarely was _Bauseant_ seen to waver or give back in the conflict. The
knights of St. John fought with emulative valour; the example of the
rival orders stimulated all parts of the Christian army; and to this
influence may be, in great measure, ascribed many of the most wonderful
triumphs of the Cross during the twelfth century.
In the year 1147, when Pope Eugenius III. came to Paris to arrange the
proposed crusade with Louis VII., both the pope and the king honoured
with their presence a general chapter of the order of the Temple, which
was holden at that place. It was probably on this occasion that the
supreme pontiff conferred on the order the important privilege of having
mass said once a year in places lying under interdict. The newly-elected
Master of the Temple, Eberhard de Bar, and 130 knights, accompanied the
king on his march for the Holy Land; and their valour and their skill
greatly contributed towards the preservation of the crusading army in
their unfortunate march through Lesser Asia. The siege of Damascus,
which was undertaken after the arrival of the French and German kings in
the Holy Land, miscarried, as is well known, through treachery. The
traitors were doubtless the _Pullani_, as the Latins of Syria were
called, who were at this time capable of every thing that is bad. Some
writers most unjustly charge the Templars with this guilt; but those who
are the best informed on the subject make no accusation against them.
The charge, however, while it shows the power and consideration of the
Templars at that time, may be considered to prove also that they had
degenerated somewhat from their original virtue; for otherwise it could
never have been made.
The Christian army laid siege in 1153 to the town of Ascalon, which the
Saracens still held, and would have taken it, but for the cupidity of
the Templars. A large heap of wood had been piled by the besiegers
against a part of the wall, and set fire to. The wind blew strong
towards the town during an entire night, carrying the smoke and heat
into the town, so that the garrison was forced to retire from that
quarter. The Christians fed the flames with pitch, oil, and other
inflammable substances, and the wall next the pile, cracked by the heat,
fell down, leaving a considerable breach. The army was preparing to
enter at this opening when Bernard de Tremelai, the Master of the
Temple, taking his station at it with his knights, refused all ingress.
It was the law of war in those days, among the crusaders, that whatever
house or spoil any one took when a town was stormed, became his
property. The Templars, therefore, were eager to have the first choice;
and having kept off all others, Tremelai, with forty of his knights,
boldly entered a strongly-garrisoned town. But they paid the penalty of
their rashness and cupidity; for the garrison surrounded and slew them
all, and then closed up the breach.
One of the most disgraceful acts which stain the annals of the Templars
occurred in the year 1155, when Bertrand de Blancford, whom William of
Tyre calls a "pious and God-fearing man," was Master of the order. In a
contest for the supreme power in Egypt, which the viziers, bearing the
proud title of _Sultan_, exercised under the phantom-khalifs, Sultan
Abbas, who had put to death the khalif his master, found himself obliged
to fly from before the vengeance of the incensed people. With his harem,
and his own and a great part of the royal treasures, he took his way
through the Desert. A body of Christians, chiefly Templars, lay in wait
for the fugitives near Ascalon; the resistance offered by the Moslems
was slight and ineffectual; Abbas himself was either slain or fled, and
his son Nassir-ed-deen and the treasures became the prize of the
victors. The far larger part of the booty of course fell to the
Templars; but this did not satisfy their avarice; and though
Nassir-ed-deen had professed his desire to become a Christian, and had
begun, by way of preparation for that change, to learn the Latin
language, they sold him to his father's enemies for 60,000 pieces of
gold, and stood by to see him bound hand and foot, and placed in a sort
of cage or iron-latticed sedan, on a camel, to be conducted to Egypt,
where a death by protracted torture awaited him.
The Hospitallers were at this time become as corrupt as the Templars;
and in this same year, when the patriarch demanded from them the tithes
which they were bound to pay him, they treated the demand with scorn;
raised, to show their superior wealth, stately and lofty buildings,
before the humble church of the Holy Sepulchre; and whenever the
patriarch entered it to exhort the people, or pronounce the absolution
of sins, they rang, by order of their Master, the bells of the Hospital
so loud, that, with the utmost efforts, he could not succeed in making
himself heard. One day, when the congregation was assembled in the
church, the Hospitallers rushed into it in arms, and shot arrows among
them as if they were robbers or infidels. These arrows were collected
and hung up on Mount Calvary, where Christ had been crucified, to the
scandal of these recreant knights. On applying to the Pope Adrian IV.
for redress, the Syrian clergy found him and his cardinals so
prepossessed in favour of their enemies,--bribed by them, as was
said,--that they had no chance of relief. The insolence of the
Hospitallers became in consequence greater than ever.
In fact, as an extremely judicious writer[76] observes, valiantly as the
knights of the spiritual orders fought against the heathens, and great
as was their undoubted merit in the defence of the helpless pilgrims, it
cannot be denied that these knights were, if not the original promoters,
at least active participators in all the mischiefs which prevailed in
the Holy Land, and that they were often led to a shameful dereliction of
their duties, by avarice and thirst after booty.
[Footnote 76: Wilken Geschichte der Kreuzzuege, Vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 39.]
The year 1162 is conspicuous in the annals of the Templars, as the date
of the bull _Omne Datum Optimum_, the Magna Charta of the order, and the
great key-stone of their power. On the death of Adrian IV. two rival
popes were elected,--Alexander III. by the Sicilian,--Victor III. by the
Imperial party. The Templars at first acknowledged the latter; but at a
synod, held at Nazareth, in 1161, they took the side of his rival.
Alexander, who came off victor, was not ungrateful; and on the 7th
January, of the following year, the aforesaid bull was issued. By this
document, which would almost appear to be the dictation of the order,
the Templars were released from all spiritual obedience except to the
Holy See; they were allowed to have peculiar burial-grounds at their
houses, and to have chaplains of their own; they were freed from the
obligation to pay tithes, and could, with the consent of the bishop,
receive them. It was also prohibited to any one who had once entered the
order, to leave it, unless it were to enter into a stricter one. These
great privileges necessarily awakened the envy and enmity of the clergy
against the Templars and the Hospitallers, which last were equally
favoured by the pontiffs; but these artful prelates, who were now aiming
at universal power, knew well the advantage which they might derive from
attaching firmly to them these associations, which united the valour of
the knight to the obedience of the monk, whose members were of the
noblest families in Europe, and whose possessions were extensive and
spread over all parts of the Christian world.
In 1167 occurred one of the few instances of cowardice, or rather, we
might say, treachery, which the annals of the Templars present. Almeric,
king of Jerusalem, had committed to the Templars the charge of guarding
one of those strong fortified caverns which were on the other side of
the Jordan. Here they were besieged by the Turks, and, though the king
was hastening to their relief, they capitulated. Almeric, incensed at
their conduct, though he was a great friend of the order, and
particularly of the Master, Philip of Naploos, instantly had twelve of
the cowardly or treacherous knights hanged, and he experienced no
opposition whatever on the part of the order. Philip, we may observe,
was the first Master of the Temple who was a born Syrian; but he appears
to have been a man of fair and honourable character. He was lord of the
fortresses of Krak and Montreal in the Stony Arabia, which he had
obtained with his wife. It was not till after her death that he became a
Templar. Alter holding the dignity of Master for three years he resigned
it. The cause of his resignation is unknown; but he was highly honoured
and respected during the remainder of his life, and was employed on
various important occasions.
It was during the mastership of Philip of Naploos, that King Almeric, at
the instigation of the Master of the Hospital, and in violation of a
solemn treaty, undertook an unprosperous expedition into Egypt. The
Templars loudly protested against this act of perfidy, and refused to
take any share in the war, either, as William, the honest Archbishop of
Tyre, observes, "because it was against their conscience, or because
the Master of the rival order was the author and projector of it." The
prelate seems to regard the more honourable as the true cause. Perhaps
we should express ourselves correctly if we said that in this, as in
many other cases, duty and prejudice happily combined, and the path
which was the most agreeable was also the most honourable.
In the mastership of Ado of St. Amando, the successor of Philip of
Naploos, occurred the treacherous murder of the Ismailite envoy above
narrated[77]--an act which brought the Templars into great disrepute
with pious Christians, as it was quite manifest that they preferred
money to winning souls to Christ.
[Footnote 77: Page 116.]