32Barber, p. 93.
33Marcombe, p. 8.
34Marsy, p. 114. “Santo Lazaro de Jerusalem fratri videliciet Hugoni de Sancto Paulo, qui nunc est magister loci illius et toti leprosorum.”
35Marcombe, p. 15.
36Ibid., p. 14.
37Marsy, p. 157.
38Laurent Dailliez, Règle et Status de l’Ordre du Temple (Paris, 1972) p. 238, rule 443. “Quant il avient a aucun frere que par la volenté de nostre Seignor il chiet en meselerie et la chose est provée, li prodome frere de la maison le doivent amonester et proer que il demande congié de la maison et que il se rendre a saint Ladre, et que il preigne l’abit de frere de saint Ladre.” I find it interesting that the Old French word used for leprosy, “meselerie,” actually means “spoiled” or “led astray.” Perhaps the seeds of intolerence were already there in the thirteenth century. It has nothing to do with the topic, but if you’re obsessive enough to read the footnotes, it might interest you, too.
39Marcombe, p. 12.
40Ibid., p. 20.
41Ibid., p. 21.
42Ibid., p. xx.
43 www.st-lazarus.net/world/menu.htm
44Ralph of Diceto, Opera historia ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series, ii, London, 1876) pp. 80-81. “Sancto Thomae martyri sumptibus suis juxta facultum possibiliatem capellam consturueret, et procruraret ibidem ad honerem martyris cimiterium consecrati. Quod et factum est.” St. Thomas the Martyr is Thomas Becket, killed in Canterbury Cathedral Dec. 29, 1170, by henchmen of King Henry II of England.
45A. J. Forey, “The Military Order of St. Thomas of Acre,” in The English Historical Review No. 364, July 1977, p. 482.
46Ibid., p. 487.
47Ibid., p. 487.
48Forey, “St. Thomas,” p. 487.
49Ibid., p. 491.
50Ibid., p. 492.
51Ibid., p. 493.
52 Ibid., p. 497.
53 Ibid., pp. 502-3.
CHAPTER FORTY
Baphomet
During the trial of the Templars, one of the charges against them was that they worshipped an idol, sometimes called “Baphomet.” The inquisitors may have accepted this as plausible because they had heard the name before. In the Middle Ages most Europeans knew little about the beliefs of Islam. The Koran had been translated into Latin in the 1140s at the request of Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny.1 However, most people received their knowledge of the faith through fiction.
The French chansons de geste, tales of the deeds of great warriors, were full of battles against “Saracens,” their term for Moslems. In these stories, the Saracens were pagans who worshipped many gods, among them Apollo and “Baphomet.”
Under various forms, Baphomet appears often in the chansons de geste, always associated with Islam. For instance, in the twelfth-century epic Aymeri de Narbonne, Baphomet is one of the Saracen kings of Narbonne whom Aymeri must fight.
Rois Baufumez . . .
avec aus .xx. paien armé
Qui Deu ne croient le roi de majesté
Ne sa mere hautisme.
King Baphomet . . .
with twenty pagan warriors
Who don’t believe in God, the king of majesty
Nor in his mother most high.
ll 302-3062
This late-twelfth- or early-thirteenth-century crusade poem has a character called Bausumés or Baufremé, who is the uncle of a Saracen warrior.3 The Enfances Guillaume of the thirteenth century also has a Moslem character named Balfumés.4
It is generally agreed that “Baphomet” is a corruption of the name “Mohammed,” and linguistically, this is probable. There is a quote from the mid 1200s from a Templar poet, Ricaut Bonomel, lamenting the number of recent losses of Christian forces. “In truth, whoever wishes to see, realizes that God upholds them [the infidel]. For God sleeps when He should be awake, and Bafomet works with all his power to aid the Melicadeser [Baibars, the Mamluk ruler of Egypt at that time].”5
There is no information that indicates that Baphomet was the name of an ancient god. It is only in a few cases that the so-called idol of the Templars was even given a name at all.
During the trials most Templars said they didn’t know anything about an idol. One sergeant, Peter d’Auerac, admitted to denying Christ in the reception ceremony, but he “neither knew nor had heard it said that there was an idol in the form of a head.”6 The same is true for Elias de Jotro, a servant, and for Peter de Charute.7As a matter of fact most of the Templars, even the ones who had been tortured, claimed to have no idea what the inquisitors were talking about.
However, the ones who did tell of an idol all described it differently. One said it was the head of a bearded man, “which was the figure of Baphomet.” Another said it was a figure called Yalla (a Saracen word [possibly Allah]). Others called it “a black and white idol and a wooden idol.”8
One Templar, the knight William of Arreblay, stated that he did see a head venerated in Paris. “He frequently saw a certain silver head upon the altar that he saw adored by most of those at Chapter, and he heard it said that it was the head of one of the eleven thousand virgins.” 9 Saint Ursula and her eleven thousand virgins were popular among the Templars as saints who were steadfast in their faith even in the face of death. If mere women could do so much, the Templars could do no less.10After a little more coaching, William realized that “it seemed to him that the head really had two faces, a terrible aspect and a silver beard.”11
A servant was sent to go through the possessions of the Temple of Paris to look for any heads, either of metal or of wood. After some searching, he came back with the head of a woman, gilded in silver. Inside were bones from a skull, wrapped in a linen bag. There was a tag on the bag that said that this was head number fifty-eight of eleven thousand.12 No other head was found.
The historian is left with two choices. The first is that somehow the Templars managed to find out that the inquisitors were coming and hid the idol they normally worshipped. The second is that William made up the description of the two-faced idol under duress and that the only head owned by the Templars was the reliquary of Virgin Number 58. I think number two is the most likely.
There was also supposed to be another head belonging to the Templars, that of Saint Euphemia of Chalcedon, an early Greek martyr. This was kept in the Templar headquarters in Cyprus. It was among the property that was given to the Hospitallers after the dissolution of the order. They took it with them to Malta, where it was probably captured by Napoleon in 1798. If this is so, then Saint Euphemia went down with Napoleon’s ship, l’Orient, off the coast of Egypt.13
Even though we don’t have the head of Saint Euphemia that the Templars owned, it was likely much like the one of Virgin Number 58. If there had been anything odd or sacrilegious about it, the Hospitallers or a later scholar would have said something.
And, for those who are sorry that part of a saint has gone missing, don’t worry. Euphemia’s entire body is still kept at the Church of St. George in Istanbul.14 As with those who bought slivers of the True Cross or the foreskin of John the Baptist, it appears that the Templars were taken in by a shady relic salesman.
As for Baphomet the idol, he belongs firmly in the realm of fiction.
1Charles Bishko, Peter the Venerable and Islam.
2Aymeri de Narbonne, ed. Louis Demaison (Paris: Société des Anciens Textes Français, 1887) pp. 13-14.
3La Chanson de Jérusalem, ed. Nigel R. Thorp (Alabama University Press, 1992) p. 236, line 9019.
4Les Enfances Guillaume (Paris: Société des Anciens Textes Français, 1935) p. 117, line 2755.
5Alain Demurger, Jacques de Molay: Le Crepuscule des Templiers (Paris: Biographie Payot, 2002) p. 63.
6Roger Séve and Anne-Marie Chagny Séve, Le Procès des Templiers d’Auvergne 1309-1311 (Paris, 1986) p. 142. “Nescit nec audivit dici quod illud ydolum sue capud.”
7Jules Michelet, Le Procès des Templiers Tome I (Paris, 1987; rpt. of 1851 ed.) pp. 531-33.
8Malcom Barber, The Tr
ial of the Templars (Cambridge University Press, 1978) p. 62.
9Michelet, vol. I, p. 502. “Vidit super altare frequenter quoddom capud argenteum, quod vidit adorari a majoribus qui temebant capitulum, et audivit dici quod erat caup unius ex undecim milibus virginum.”
10Helen J. Nicholson, “The Head of St. Euphemia: Templar Devotion to Female Saints,” in Susan B. Edgington and Sarah Lambert, Gendering the Crusades (Cardiff, 2002) pp. 112-14.
11Michelet, vol. I, p. 502, “quia videtur sibi quod haberet duas facies, et quod esset terribilis aspectu, et quod haberet barbam argenteam.”
12Ibid., vol. III, p. 218. That must have been a gold mine for the relic sellers. As a matter of fact, in 1156, some new holes were dug near Cologne that turned up some extra virgins to distribute. In Paul Guéron, Vie des Saints Vol. XII (Paris: Bollandistes, 1880) p. 497.
13Nicholson, p. 111.
14Ibid., p. 110.
CHAPTER FORTY-ONE
The Cathars
The Cathars have several things in common with the Templars. They were celibate, they were accused of heresy, they were supposed to have a hidden treasure, and they were wiped out. And one thing more: they are pulled into all sorts of interesting speculations on subjects that they had nothing to do with, such as the Grail.
Who were the Cathars?
The religion contained beliefs that had been floating around for centuries, perhaps millennia. Looking at the cruelty and essential unfairness of life, some people have decided that a good god could not be responsible for such a mess. Instead of assuming that God was testing people or punishing them for their sins, these people came to the conclusion that God was not all-powerful. Some forms of this belief assumed that there must be two gods, one good and one evil, in constant battle over humanity. In religions that assumed one all-powerful god, this evil force, or the devil, was still under the control of heaven. The Cathars were among those who gave the devil a more dominant role in human fate.
The belief that the world is evil led to the belief that the evil god is responsible not just for the bad things in the world but also for the world itself. The good god rules in heaven and wishes to have human souls go (or return) there. In that case, everything that has to do with property or procreation is detestable because it just lengthens the time spent away from heaven. This means that truly devout dualists eat nothing that has been produced through sex, not meat, eggs, or milk products. At least one heretic hunter said that one way to spot them was because they were so pale.1
There were many varieties of this two-god belief. Some scholars have tried to trace the Cathars back to the early Gnostic Christians or the Manichians, a late Roman religion that fascinated Saint Augustine for a time.2 But, while some of the beliefs are similar, it’s likely that they were not directly connected.
The religion that became Catharism apparently developed in what is now Bosnia in the mid tenth century and established itself in Bulgaria. The first known preacher of a coherent theology was a Bulgarian priest who named himself Bogomil, which means “worthy of the pity of God.”3 From a sermon we have that was written against them by Cosmos, a tenth-century priest, it seems the Bogomils were one of many groups that wanted to reform the Christian church rather than secede from it. They did not venerate the cross, for why glorify a murder weapon? They pointed out the hypocrisy of many of the church authorities, something that Cosmos was forced to agree with. But he was shocked that they rejected the whole Old Testament and allowed only part of the New Testament.4
Cosmos complained that the Bogomils were falsely religious, that they were humble and fasted just for effect. They carried the Gospels with them but misinterpreted it. One of the worst of these mistakes was that “everything exists by the will of the devil: the sky, sun, stars, air, earth, man, churches, crosses: everything which emanates from God, they ascribe to the devil.”5Finally, these heretics saw no need for priests, confessing instead to each other and forgiving each other.
These two beliefs were what set the dualists apart from other Christians and it was a difference that could not be bridged.
In the mid twelfth century, there were many reform movements. Some were sanctioned by the Church and resulted in new monastic orders, such as the Cistercians and the Franciscans. Some were deemed heretical and forbidden, like the Waldensians and the Cathars. There were many in that time who were dissatisfied with what was happening in their lives and in the world. They were open to alternate beliefs, especially if these were preached using the stories about Jesus that they already knew and if they railed against the corruption of the church administration.
The religion of the Bogomils slowly worked its way into western Europe, following the trade routes through Italy, the Rhineland, and southern France, where it was only one of many that people were being presented with.
For example, in the early twelfth century a preacher named Henry came to the town of Le Mans and asked the bishop, Hildebert, for a license to preach. Hildebert granted it then left for a trip to Rome. When the bishop returned, he discovered that the people had decided to reject the clergy. He was not allowed back into his own town. Eventually, Hildebert regained control. Henry recanted his heresies and went into a monastery. But he was soon out again and off preaching somewhere else.6Apart from a strong dislike of the clergy, it’s not certain what Henry believed, but that may have been enough to make him popular.
Another man who preached for nearly twenty years (c. 1116-1136) was Peter of Bruys. He spent most of his time in the Rhone Valley, in the southeastern part of France. Some of Peter’s “heresies” resurfaced as doctrine in later Protestant churches. His main points were that infant baptism is pointless, for one must be at the age of reason to accept religion; that churches are unnecessary, “since God hears as well when invoked in a tavern as in a church”, that the cross, as an instrument of torture, should not be adored; that the Mass is not a sacrament; and that prayers and offerings for the dead are useless, for the dead are beyond human help.7
Henry never was punished. Peter tried to burn a cross in the town of St. Gilles and was instead tossed on the fire by the enraged citizens.
Peter and Henry were only two of many wandering preachers. Some of them attracted followers and formed communities. Most of them didn’t. Few ever got as far as writing down their doctrines. They were not just in the south of France but all over Europe.
The first hint that the Cathar sect of the Bogomils had come west was in the early 1140s, when the prior of a monastery near Cologne, Germany, wrote to Bernard of Clairvaux, asking him to preach against a group of heretics in the area. These had some of the practices of the Cathars, especially that of baptism of adults by the laying on of hands, rather than with water, but we don’t know enough about them to be sure.8
In 1145, Bernard went south to preach against heretics. At the time, he was concerned with the followers of Peter and Henry but he also ran across some people that his companion and biographer, Geoffrey of Auxerre, called “Arians.” He didn’t elaborate on them but the implication is that they had a belief about the nature of Christ that differed from the Church’s. He thought they were mostly cloth workers and that there “were many who followed this heresy, mostly in this city” [Toulouse].9But, as yet, the Cathars were too small a group to attract much attention.
Over the next forty years, however, the Cathar movement exploded throughout Occitania. The reasons for this have been puzzled over for centuries, for in other places they did die out after having some initial success. It seems to have been a combination of a lack of leadership in the local church, the appeal of the doctrine, the commendable behavior of the believers, and an acceptance of women on an equal footing with men. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that women were in the majority among the Cathars. They were allowed to become priests, and I’m sure that many thought it high time.
Unlike most of the heretical sects, the Cathars were well organized. By the 1160s they had their own priests and bishops.10 This made them far more vis
ible and far more threatening than other heretical groups. It also meant that members were not supporting their local priests, either morally or financially.
The Cathars were divided into two groups. The majority of them were known as credentes, or believers. They tried to live a good life according to the faith, but did not practice the extreme renunciation of the flesh that the second group, the perfecti, did. As the name implies, the perfecti held themselves to a much higher standard of behavior. Their time was spent in fasting, prayer, and preaching. They were celibate and ate no meat, eggs, or cheese.
At first various orders sent preachers to the Cathars to try to convince them of their errors. Much of the information we have about them comes from arguments written by these preachers, but it is possible to figure out many of the Cathar beliefs from the rebuttals that were made. For instance, “they [the perfecti] falsely claimed that they kept themselves chaste, they sought to give the impression of never telling a lie, when they lied constantly, especially concerning God; and they held that one should never for any reason take an oath.... They felt, in truth, more secure and unbridled in their sinning because they believed that they would be saved, without restitution of ill-gotten gains, without confession and penance, so long as they were able in the last throes of death to repeat the Lord’s Prayer and receive the imposition of hands by their officials.”11
The Real History Behind the Templars Page 36
