Part 13 (1/2)

The residences of the great-priors of these four provinces were, for France, the capacious and stately Temple at Paris, which was, as we are informed by Matthew Paris, large and roomy enough to contain an army; for Normandy, as is supposed, _La ville Dieu en la Montagne_; for Poitou, the Temple at Poitiers; for Provence, that at Montpellier.

VIII. England.--The province of England included Scotland and Ireland.

Though each of these two last kingdoms had its own great-prior, they were subordinate to the great-prior of England, who resided at the Temple of London.

The princ.i.p.al bailiwicks of England were--1. London; 2. Kent; 3.

Warwick; 4. Waesdone; 5. Lincoln; 6. Lindsey; 7. Bolingbroke; 8. Widine; 9. Agerstone; 10. York. In these were seventeen preceptories; and the number of churches, houses, farms, mills, &c., possessed by the order was very considerable[85].

[Footnote 85: The possessions of the Templars in England will be found in the works of Dugdale and Tanner.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Interior of Round Tower, in Temple Church, London.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Saxon Doorway, Temple Church, London.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Details of Saxon Capitals.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Round Temple Church, Cambridge.]

The chief seat of the order in Scotland appears to have been Blancradox.

Its possessions were not extensive in that poor and turbulent country; and in Ireland the Templars seem to have been few, and confined to the Pale. We hear of but three of their houses in that country--namely, Glaukhorp, in the diocese of Dublin; Wilbride, in that of Ferns; and Siewerk, in that of Kildare.

IX. Germany.--It is difficult to ascertain how the order was regulated in Germany, where its possessions were very extensive. We hear of three great-priors: those of Upper Germany, of Brandenburg, and of Bohemia and Moravia; one of whom, but it cannot be determined which, had probably authority over the others. Though the Templars got lands in Germany as early as the year 1130, their acquisitions were not large in that country till the thirteenth century. Poland was included in the province of Germany. Great-prior in Alemania and Slavia was a usual t.i.tle of the great-prior of Germany. Though the possessions of the Templars in Hungary were very considerable, there are no grounds for supposing that it formed a separate province: it was probably subject to the great-prior of Germany.

X. Upper and Central Italy.--There was no town of any importance in this part of the Italian peninsula in which the Templars had not a house. The princ.i.p.al was that on the Aventine Hill at Rome, in which the great-prior resided. Its church still remains, and is called _Il Priorato_, or the Priory.

XI. Apulia and Sicily.--The possessions of the Templars in Sicily were very considerable. They had houses and lands at Syracuse, Palermo, Trapani, Butera, Lentini, &c.; all of which were dependent on the princ.i.p.al house, which was in Messina. The great-prior resided either at Messina or at Benevento in Apulia. Possibly the seat was removed to this last place, after the Emperor Frederic II. had seized so much of the property of the order in Sicily.

In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the order had no possessions whatever.

Though the people of these countries took some share in the crusades, and were, therefore, not deficient in religious zeal, their poor and little-known lands offered no strong inducements to the avarice or ambition of the knights of the Temple, and they never sought a settlement in them.

We thus see that, with the exception of the northern kingdoms, there was no part of Europe in which the order of the Temple was not established.

Everywhere they had churches, chapels, t.i.thes, farms, villages, mills, rights of pasturage, of fis.h.i.+ng, of venery, and of wood. They had also, in many places, the right of holding annual fairs, which were managed, and the tolls received, either by some of the brethren of the nearest houses or by their _donates_ and servants. The number of their preceptories is, by the most moderate computation, rated at 9,000; and the annual income of the order at about six millions sterling--an enormous sum for those times! Masters of such a revenue, descended from the n.o.blest houses of Christendom, uniting in their persons the most esteemed secular and religious characters, regarded as the chosen champions of Christ, and the flower of Christian knights, it was not possible for the Templars, in such lax times as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to escape falling into the vices of extravagant luxury and overweening pride. Nor are we to wonder at their becoming objects of jealousy and aversion to both the clergy and the laity, and exciting the fears and the cupidity of an avaricious and faithless prince.

CHAPTER VII.

Officers of the Order--The Master--Mode of Election--His Rights and Privileges--Restraints on him--The Seneschal--The Marshal--The Treasurer--The Draper--The Turcopilar--Great- Priors--Commanders--Visitors--Sub-Marshal--Standard-bearer.

An order consisting of so many members, and whose wealth and possessions were of such extent, must necessarily have had numerous officers and various ranks and dignities. The elucidation of this branch of their const.i.tution is now to engage our attention.

At the head of the order stood the Master, or, as he was sometimes called, the Great-Master[86] of the Temple. This personage was always a knight, and had generally held one of the higher dignities of the order.

Though, like the Doge of Venice, his power was greatly controlled by the chapter, he enjoyed very great consideration, and was always regarded as the representative of the order. In the councils, the Masters of the Temple and the Hospital took precedence of all amba.s.sadors, and sat next the prelates. All monarchs conceded princely rank and place to the Master of the Temple.

[Footnote 86: _Magister_, _Maistre_, is the almost invariable expression in the historians, the statutes of the order, and most doc.u.ments.

_Magnus Magister_ was, however, early employed. Terricus, the Master of the order, thus styles himself when writing to Henry II. of England. The term Grand-Master is apt to convey erroneous ideas of pomp and magnificence to the minds of many readers.]

A situation which offered so much state and consideration must, of necessity, have been an object of ambition; but the scanty records remaining of the society do not enable us to point out any specific cases of intrigue employed for the attainment of it. That of the last Master, hereafter to be mentioned, is somewhat problematic.

The election of a Master of the Temple was as follows:--