In this post, we discuss one of the most widely debated accusations levelled against the Templars, that of homosexuality. Here, we will explore evidence from the trials as well as the historiography to see if the charges of homosexuality were fabricated to further condemn the Templars.
In the early hours of the morning on Friday 13th October 1307, the Brothers of the Temple who were resident in France were arrested suddenly by the officials of King Philip IV of France in the name of the Inquisition. A renegade from the Order, Esquiude de Floyrian had given Philip IV information which would condemn the Order[1]. The Templars were accused of heresies, including the denial of Christ, desecrating the crucifix and idol worship. They were also accused of indecent kissing, homosexuality, and the secrecy of their ceremonies was called into question[2].
The Grand Master, of the Templars, Jacques de Molay had condemned the Order from the start by confessing to the charges of heresy within a few days of his arrest[3]. The tortures and confessions over the next few years are collectively known as ‘The Trial of the Templars’. The Templars were found guilty by the French King, which is not surprising due to the fact that in France torture was used quite extensively[4]. Pope Clement V dissolved the Order in 1312, and in 1314 their destruction was marked by the burning of Jacques de Molay.
Historiography
There is a wide historiography surrounding the guilt of the Templars to these accusations; Henry Charles Lea in 1889 concluded that the Templars were innocent; the only evidence for their guilt was extracted by torture[5]. Opinions changed throughout the twentieth century, Robert Fawtier in 1940 believed the Templars were condemned because they were believed to be guilty[6]. Joseph Strayer in 1978 claimed that the Templars were not unusual, as homosexuality was inevitable within an all-male institution[7].
Malcolm Barber believes that the guilt of the Templars is ‘intrinsically unlikely’ as the accusations represent an attempt to play on the deep fears of contemporaries[8]. J. Riley-Smith believes there was some corruption within the Order; however, the most important deduction from the trials is that the Order was in dire need of reform[9]. Although there may have been individual incidents of homosexuality and heresy, the Knights Templar as an institution was not guilty of the charges brought against them.
Boswell claims that the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries saw a period of openness and tolerance in European societies, where new ideas and experiments were welcomed. However, this followed an age of less tolerance, adventurousness and acceptance in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which led to harsh punishments for homosexuals and sodomites.[10]. In the medieval period, sodomy and homosexuality could mean two different sexual activities; sodomy referred to any sexual activity with the primary purpose of sexual pleasure this could include oral sex, bestiality and even sex between married couples[11]. Homosexuality could also be included in this category; the accusations of sodomy against the Templars refer specifically to homosexuality. It was common in this period to accuse heretical movements of sexual deviance; this practice began with the heretical Cathars, who were accused of practicing non- reproductive and ‘un-natural’ sex[12].
Boswell found in the civil and ecclesiastical records dealing with heresy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, ‘It became commonplace of official terminology to mention “traitors, heretics, and sodomites” as if they constituted a single association of some sort’[13]. Mazo Karras claims that the accusations of homosexuality against the Templars were a conventional part of heresy prosecutions and do not reflect the Templars’ actual practices[14].Heresy was associated with women; medieval writers emphasised female involvement in heretical sects to further discredit heresy[15]. Women were deemed the weaker sex and therefore more prone to religious deviance than men; the accusations of heresy feminise the Templars as well as discrediting them as religiously deviant. The Templars were only accused of homosexuality because it was believed to be part of heretical practice, the Templars were given a standard heresy trial.
Philip IV
Philip IV had used the tactic of combining heresy and sodomy accusations before he had accused the Templars of these crimes. In 1303, Philip accused Pope Boniface VIII of heresy, simony, sodomy, he claimed that he had been elected by trickery and he had a private demon as an adviser[16]. The mastermind behind these accusations was Philip’s adviser, William de Nogaret. Philip and William used propaganda to ruin the reputations of Pope Boniface and the Templars. Propaganda was a way to bring down a political opponent, in the case of the Templars and Pope Boniface, the idea was to de-masculinise the opponent.
The charges of homosexuality on the Brothers of the Temple were a way of poking fun at the Brothers’ chastity[17]. The accusations against Boniface were done for the same reason. By poking fun at the Templars’ chastity, it implied that to be chaste was un-natural, un-masculine. Politically motivated charges of homosexuality were also effective propaganda[18]. Accusations of homosexuality were a convenient way to blacken the name of an enemy; they depicted the accused as ‘other’ in society[19], making them appear alien and dangerous to their contemporaries.
The condemnations of homosexuality by Saints Paul and Augustine were translated into Justinian law in 538/9 and 559; the claim was that homosexuality was diabolical in origin, and even worse than incest[20]. The way medieval writers discredited homosexuality was by linking it with effeminacy, the natural order demanded man and woman should couple, not man with man, therefore a man who coupled with another man was not a real man[21]. It was especially easy to accuse an all male religious order of homosexuality as they slept, ate and lived together.
The Rule Prohibits Homosexual Acts
The Rule of the Templars states, ‘…they will at all times sleep dressed in shirt and breeches and shoes and belts, and where they sleep shall be lit until morning’[22]. This rule may imply that the Templars need to be ready to fight for God’s cause at any time, however, when away from the House, the Brothers are told they should also sleep with a light, ‘…so that shadowy enemies may not lead them to wickedness, which God forbids them’[23]. These quotes are taken from the Primitive Rule of the Templars, as early as 1128.
In the early years of the Order, the founders were eager to eradicate any scandal that may surround an all male institution. St. Benedict was also aware of scandals or temptations during the night, chapter 22 of his Rule states, ‘A candle shall always be burning in that same cell until early in the morning. They shall sleep clothed, and girt with belts or with ropes’[24]. These restrictions for Benedictine monks and Templars were to stop any sexual activity between brothers, and also to prevent scandal.
The sleeping arrangements also prevented the brothers from the temptation of their own naked bodies; it was sinful for a monk to participate in any sexual activity, even masturbation[25]. Charlemagne (768-814) recognised the problems of monks’ indulging in homosexuality[26]; a capitulary condemned homosexuality among monks claiming it had become common[27]. Medieval Bishop’s visitation records mention many instances of homosexual acts confessed by monks[28].
One of the accusations against the Templars was,
…that those being received into the brotherhood were told they could have sex together with each other[29].
Many Brothers throughout the trials agreed that permission had been given to them to engage in homosexual acts, but few confessed to practising it[30]. Brother Bernard Villars of the Order claimed he was told he should allow himself to be used sexually by the Brothers, and was given permission to engage in sex with other Bothers, but said he had not done so and did not know any other Brothers who did[31]. Geoffrey of Charney, when interrogated in November 1307 claimed that he was told, it was ‘…better to have sex between brothers of the Order than to usage their lust with women, but he claimed never to have done this or even to have been asked’[32].
In order to add to the Templars’ deviance, the trials were constructed to demonstrate that sexual practices were kept within the Order so as not to arouse any suspicion of Brothers breaking their vows of chastity.
It would not have been as damaging to the Order if the Brothers had been found guilty of having sex with women, although it would have demonstrated that the Templars were not chaste, it did not feminise them to the extent that accusations of homosexuality did. The fact that few men admitted to being approached by another Brother for sexual activity means that it is unlikely that it was included in the reception ceremony. During the trials at Poitiers, Brother Deodatus Jefet said that William Dersis asked to have sex with him; Jefet refused but does not say that he received any punishment for his refusal. If the Templars were told they had to allow themselves to be used sexually by other Brothers, there would surely be consequences if one refused, it would have been a fault against the vow of obedience[33].
Due to occasional overcrowding within the Order, Brothers were sometimes required to share beds; Fulk of Trecis claimed that ‘…brothers’ beds were [common between them][34]. Riley-Smith and Gilmour-Bryson claim that the requirement of Brothers to share beds at times with other members of the Order may have influenced serving Brothers to believe that homosexuality was licit within the Order[35]. However, Brothers having taken vows of chastity, and sleeping fully clothed should have known that homosexuality was illicit within the Order. Perhaps some Brothers would have engaged in homosexual activity due to these sleeping arrangements, these Brothers had then lost their battle with lust and therefore their masculinity.
The Reception
The accusations claimed that during the reception of a brother,
…the receiver sometimes and the received occasionally kissed each other on the mouth, on the navel or naked stomach and on the anus or dorsal spine[36].
The kiss on the mouth was standard practice, it was a sign of brotherhood.[37] This point was exaggerated by the accusers to include the kissing of other bodily parts, to suggest homosexuality. The trials were carefully constructed to show that homosexuality was part of the institution of the Templars, not something that was undertaken by just a few individuals. This was essential because it led to the condemnation of the Order as a whole.
The Rule of the Templars gives an example of the punishments received by two Brothers who were caught engaging in homosexual activity.[38] This suggests that homosexual acts did take place, however, the Order was quick to eradicate it, and it seems that only a small percentage may have engaged in homosexual activities. The Order of the Templars did not give permission, or instruct brothers to participate in any kind of sexual activity, especially homosexuality. According to the Rule of the Templars, a brother could be expelled from the Order if he ‘…is tainted with the filthy, stinking sin of sodomy….’[39]; this ‘sin’ was placed alongside such serious crimes as killing another Christian and conspiring against another Brother[40].
The Use of Torture
The Templars, for the most part, were not guilty of homosexuality; the confessions of homosexuality and other serious sins were extracted under torture[41]. Under torture, the sufferer is likely to admit to anything in order to stop the pain. Guilty confessions of homosexuality were obtained in France and Italy where torture was used, but not in the Iberian Peninsula, Cyprus and England, where torture was not used[42]. The only confession in England to homosexuality was from a testimony from a non-member and appears to be based on gossip, rather than evidence.[43]
Some brothers who suffered torture did not admit to homosexuality as an aspect of the Order. The fact that torture was used suggests that this was the only way to gain any confessions of homosexual activity within the Order; homosexuality is one of the charges the brothers were least willing to confess to. This reveals contemporary views of homosexuality as a shameful and un-masculine pursuit, which would ruin the reputation of the accused, and his Order. The depositions in Paris in October and November 1307 reveal that only three Templars admitted to having sexual intercourse with other brothers, (although most admitted to being given permission to do so) out of a total of one hundred and thirty-eight questioned[44].
The trials were carefully constructed to feminise the Brothers, homosexual practices questioned their masculinity. Article IX of the trials states, ‘…they ought to play both the active and passive roles’[45] during homosexual intercourse with each other. To play the passive role meant to be the female, the receiver of the sexually active, male partner. J. E. Sailsbury claims, ‘It was perfectly acceptable to be the active partner in a homosexual relationship, since that preserved the all-important gender definition equating activity with masculinity’[46]. However, the penetrator was guilty of feminizing another man, and both could be accused of homosexuality[47].
For the Templar Brothers, it was a sin to engage in any sexual activity, because he had promised God that he would remain chaste. At his reception, the Brother was asked, ‘Do you promise God and Lady St Mary that you henceforth all the remaining days of your life you will live chastely in your body’[48]. The Templars vowed to remain in the Order perpetually, the wording of the Rule suggests he engaged in a marriage pact at his reception, he promised to ‘…never leave this Order for stronger or weaker, nor worse or better’[49].
A brother who participated in any sexual act was breaking his promise of chastity to God; it would be adultery against God and the Virgin. This ‘spiritual marriage’ made the sin of homosexuality even greater. Whether a Templar engaged in sex as the active or passive partner, he was feminised, as he gave into the temptation of lust, he had lost his spiritual battle, the will of the body now ruled the will of the soul. The accusations of homosexuality were intended to demonstrate that the Templars could not keep their vows of chastity, as they were not masculine enough to do so and therefore not worthy to remain a religious Order.
Many Templars died before condemning the Order as heretical and morally corrupt. Those who did confess did so due to the agony of torture used upon them. The trials had only one purpose, to bring down the Order. The trials were constructed upon a series of accusations made by a man who had been expelled from the Order and held a grudge[50]. The Templars were asked to admit to a long list of questions, constructed before they were asked upon the accusations, they were false accusations.
The accusations of homosexuality were a standard part of heretical investigations; however, the accusation had a detrimental effect on the Order. The financial success of the Templars caused suspicion and jealousy from religious and lay individuals, Philip IV only wanted to acquire the Templar’s riches and used the accusations to ensure his own financial gain. If anything, the Templars needed reforming, they suffered from a loss of purpose when they lost the Holy Land. There may have been individual incidents of homosexuality and heresy, however, as an institution, the Templars were innocent of these charges.
[1] M. Barber, The Knight and Chivalry, (London, 1970), p. 242.
[2] J.Riley-Smith, ‘Were the Templars Guilty? S .J. Ridyard (ed.), The Medieval Crusade, (Suffolk, 2004), p.110.
[3] Ibid, p. 107.
[4] Ibid, p.108.
[5] M. Barber, ‘The trial of the Templars’, (London, 1980), p. 329.
[6] Ibid, p. 331.
[7] Ibid, p. 330-1.
[8] M. Barber, The Trial of the Templars, p. 243.
[9] J. Riley-Smith, ‘Were the Templars Guilty?’, p.p. 107-124.
[10] J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, (London, 1981), p.p. 269-270.
[11] J. A. Brundage, ‘Sex and Canon Law’, in V.L. Bullough and J. A. Brundage (ed.), The Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, (New York, 2000), p. 40.
[12] R. Mazo Karras, Sexuality in Medieval Europe, Doing Unto Others, (London, 2005), p. 132.
[13] J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, p. 284.
[14] R. Mazo Karras, Sexuality in Medieval Europe, Doing Unto Others, p. 135,
[15] N.R. Hodgson, Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative, (Suffolk, 2007), p. 25.
[16] H. Nicholson, The Knights Templar A New History, (Gloucestershire, 2001), p. 201.
[17] Ibid, p. 214.
[18] W. E. Burgwinkle, Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in Medieval Literature: France and England, 1050-1230, (Cambridge, 2004), p. 52.
[19] R. Mazo Karras, Sexuality in Medieval Europe, Doing Unto Others, p. 142.
[20] M. Barber, ‘The trial of the Templars’, p. 338.
[21] M. Kuefler, ‘Male Friendship and the Suspicion of Sodomy in Twelfth-Century France’, in M. Kuefler (ed.), The Boswell Thesis, Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (London, 2006), p.196.
[22] J. M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, The French Text of the Rule and the Order of the Knights Templar, (Suffolk, 2001), p. 25.
[23] Ibid, p. 29.
[24] ‘The Rule of St Benedict’.
[25] J.A. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, p.p. 109-110.
[26] J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century Boswell, p. 177.
[27] W. Johansson and W.A. Perry, ‘Homosexuality’, in V. L. Bullough and J. A. Brundage (ed.), Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, (U.S.A., 2000), p. 166.
[28] A. Gilmour-Bryson, ‘Sodomy and the Knights Templar’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, (Vol. 7, 1996), p. 164.
[29] M. Barber and K. Bate (ed.), The Templars, (Manchester, 2002), p. 274.
[30] A. Gilmour-Bryson, ‘Sodomy and the Knights Templar’, p. 156.
[31] M. Barber and K. Bate (ed.), The Templars, p. 281.
[32] Ibid, p. 251.
[33] A. Gilmour-Bryson, ‘Sodomy and the Knights Templar’, p. 174.
[34] Ibid, p. 177.
[35]A. Gilmour-Bryson, ‘Sodomy and the Knights Templar’, p. 177 and J. Riley-Smith, ‘Were the Templars Guilty?’, p. 113.
[36] M. Barber and K. Bate (ed.), The Templars, p. 274.
[37] M. Barber, The Knight and Chivalry, p. 246.
[38] J. M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, The French Text of the Rule and the Order of the Knights Templar, p. 148.
[39] Ibid, p. 112.
[40] Ibid, p. 112.
[41] A. Gilmour-Bryson, ‘Sodomy and the Knights Templar’, p. 157.
[42] Ibid, p. 182.
[43] Ibid, p. 160.
[44] M. Barber, ‘The trial of the Templars’ Revisited’, p.339.
[45] M. Barber and K. Bate (ed.), The Templars, p. 275.
[46] J. E. Salisbury, ‘Gendered Sexuality’p.84.
[47] R. Mazo Karras, ‘Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Sodomy’, p. 277.
[48] J. M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, The French Text of the Rule and the Order of the Knights Templar, p. 171.
[49] Ibid, p. 171.
[50] M. Barber, The Knight and Chivalry, p. 242.
Featured Image: Giovanni Boccaccio (De casibus virorum illustrium), translated in French by Laurent de Premierfait (Des cas des ruynes des nobles hommes et femmes), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
For a similar post from me, see Gender as a Weapon – The Case of the Emperor Elagabalus.
