 Who were the Green Children of Woolpit and where did they come from? Speculation has ranged from the story being merely fanciful folklore to extra-terrestrials and everything in between. Over 800 years later, the mystery remains. THE STORY During one summer harvest in the middle of the 12th century, during the reign of King Stephen (reigned 1135-1154), villagers from Woolpit in Suffolk, England, discovered a boy and a girl wandering the fields looking lost and bewildered. And they were far from ordinary. Their skin was entirely green, they spoke a language no one had ever heard before, and they wore strangely colored clothing of an unknown material. The villagers took them to the house Sir Richard de Calne, a local knight who lived at Wykes, 6 miles north of Woolpit. For days the children refused to eat, believing bread and other food they were offered to be “inedible”. At length, someone brought in beans, freshly picked and still in their pods. The children, near starvation, grew excited and examined the stalks, thinking the beans would be inside them. When they didn’t find any, they began to weep. Bystanders then opened the pods and offered them the beans inside. These, the children gladly ate and would eat nothing else for some time after. It is said that over time they grew accustomed to “normal” food and their skin color gradually faded to a normal hue. The boy ended up dying, but the girl carried on and learned to speak English. She ended up serving in Richard de Calne’s household and later married a man at Lynn; one of the sources even speaks to her character, stating that “she remained wanton and impudent”. When she was able to communicate how she and the boy had come to Woolpit, her answers only raised more questions. She said that she and the boy, her brother, came from a land of perpetual twilight, where everything and everyone, were green. She called it St. Martin’s Land since, according to her, the saint was revered there and Christianity was practiced. She also said that they could see a luminous land not far from their own, but separated from them by a broad river. One day, as they were tending their father’s flocks, they heard a noise, like a bell. They followed it, entranced, into a cavern. They wandered through the caves for some time, eventually emerging close to where the villagers found them – near the “Wolf-Pits”; old ditches from which the town derived its name. The two were struck by the brightness of the sun and the warmth of the air. They grew afraid when they heard the villagers coming but could no longer find the entrance to the cave from whence they’d come.
THE SOURCES The story itself comes from what are generally considered two reliable primary sources. The first is from the Historia Rerum Anglicarum (“The History of English Affairs”), a history of England from 1066 to 1198 and written by William of Newburgh (c.1136 – 1198), an Augustinian Canon at Newburgh Priory in Yorkshire. William makes it clear that despite the story being widely circulated, he was skeptical at first. It was only after he was overcome by the testimony of so many reliable witnesses that he was compelled to believe it.
The second source comes from a manuscript known as the Chronicon Anglicanum, another history of England from 1066, but written by several 12th Century authors. The section dealing with the Green Children was written by Ralph of Coggeshall (died c. 1226), the abbot of a small Cistercian abbey at Coggeshall in North Essex, 26 miles south of Woolpit. While each account contains minor variations, the whole of the story is the same. What’s more, both mention the testimony of witnesses. Ralph even tells us that his information regarding the girl serving in Sir Richard de Calne’s household and that she remained “wanton and impudent” into adulthood, came directly from Sir Richard and members of his household. This tells us that the story was not one that was merely invented as a fable or folktale, but that something, at least resembling it, actually occurred.  Pages from the Chronicon Anglicanum (The English Chronicle), a history of England from 1066 to 1226 by several authors. The section dealing with the Green Children was written by Ralph of Coggeshall (died c. 1226). Ralph claimed to have gotten information straight from Sir Richard de Calne and his household. ANEMIC CHILDREN OF FLEMISH MIGRANTS? The most commonly accepted explanation is that they were children of Flemish migrants who had settled in or around the nearby town of Fornham St. Martin, a center of the local cloth making industry. According to the theory, this would explain their strange language (Flemish) and unrecognizable clothing, as well as their reference to St. Martin’s Land. The broad river the girl mentioned would be the River Lark and their parents victims of persecution either after Henry II ordered Flemings expelled from England in 1154 or after Flemish mercenaries participated in a rebellion against Henry in 1173. And their strange coloration? A form of anemia called chlorosis caused by malnutrition, which is said to sometimes give the sufferer’s skin a green tint. While attractive, however, this hypothesis does not hold up well under scrutiny. While there was a significant Flemish settlement in Pembrokeshire, in south Wales, there is no evidence of any Flemish settlement(s) in the Woolpit region at this time. Even if there were a Flemish family or two, the English wouldn’t have seen them as something so drastically different to warrant their reaction to the Green Children. Likewise, Fornham St. Martin did not become a hub for the cloth making industry until the 14th century. It’s true there was growing trade between Flanders and England. Flemings were renowned for their superior weaving and dying skills and the English for wool. There would have most certainly been some Flemish merchants at the annual trading fairs in the area. But with that being the case, the people of Woolpit and Sir Richard de Calne, at the very least, would have surely recognized the children’s language for what it was. Likewise, the River Lark would have been far too narrow to match the description given by the girl. The date of the 1173 rebellion also places the timeframe outside of the reign of King Stephen; thus contradicting William’s chronology.
It is also highly unlikely they were the children of mercenaries either. Mercenaries do not typically bring their children with them on campaign. In this case, the few who managed to survive the battle either tried to flee but were taken prisoner, were beaten to death by local peasants, or died in some other way. Whatever the case, if they were Flemish, their language would have been identifiable. Chlorosis was also most likely not the culprit for the children’s green skin color. The green tint that it produces in the skin is both very slight and not the defining characteristic of the malady. It is more pale than green. Ralph of Coggeshall goes so far as to describe the hue of their skin as prassinum colorem (“leek-green”) at one point. The deep green of leeks is a far cry from the slight greenish pallor that sometimes accompanies chlorosis. It is also noteworthy that as a type of anemia (Hypochromatic anemia), the condition would have been caused by an iron deficiency. Since the children were only willing to eat beans for some time, it is hard to see how they would have been anemic since beans are packed with iron. This explanation also doesn’t adequately explain the twilight conditions and green quality of their “homeland” or why they saw the food they were offered as “inedible”. BACK FROM THE OTHERWORLD? Could they have come from the Faerie realm or Otherworld? The description of their homeland certainly implies another “world”. The presence of a river with a bright land on the farther shore recalls the Celtic idea of the Otherworld separated from our own by a great river. The bright land itself bears a hint of the notion that the Faerie world is somewhere in between earth, heaven, and hell. The subterranean passage allegedly taken by the children finds strong parallels in Celtic routes to the Otherworld as well. Similarly, in myth, legend, and folklore, green is considered the color most favored by the Fae. While faeries are more often described as wearing green, there are references to some being green. That the children would only eat raw beans may also be an inversion of the idea that visitors to the Otherworld mustn’t eat its food, lest they be trapped there forever. The children’s inability to even recognize normal human food as edible or to think beans were to be found in beanstalks (and not the pods), certainly suggests their point of reference was far removed from ours.  The Fae were well known to abduct children and leave a changeling in their place. See "Robert Kirk: Chaplain of Fairyland" (click image). Yet there is no doubt that they were physically human since their “normal” color returned after regularly consuming a regular human diet. This isn’t incompatible with an Otherworldly explanation, however, since Fae stealing human children and leaving a changeling in their place is common in Faerie lore. Ralph of Coggeshall’s description of the girl in adulthood as being “wanton and impudent”, only further hints she possessed a (Faery?) wildness that never left. Could the children have therefore been Fae abductees who found their way back to human society? Toward the end of William’s account (in his version, the boy dies only after he and the girl tell the story) he tells us, “These, and many other matters, too numerous to particularize, they [the children] are said to have recounted to curious inquirers.” It’s a shame he didn’t record more of these “other matters”. Would they give us the answers to this solve this centuries-old enigma? Or would they only make the tale of the Green Children of Woolpit even more mysterious? Woolpit Today from www.britainexpress.com/counties/suffolk/woolpit.htm SOURCES
Clark, John. “Martin and the Green Children.” Folklore, vol. 117, no. 2, 2006, pp. 207–214. Clarl, John. “"Small, Vulnerable ETs": The Green Children of Woolpit.” Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 33, no. 2, 2006), pp. 209-229. Clark, John. The Green Children of Woolpit. 2018, www.academia.edu/10089626/The_Green_Children_of_Woolpit. Keightley, Thomas. FAIRY MYTHOLOGY: Illustrative of the Romance and Superstition of Various Countries ... (Classic Reprint). FORGOTTEN Books, 2016. Patch, Howard Rollin. “Some Elements in Mediaeval Descriptions of the Otherworld.” Pmla, vol. 33, no. 4, 1918, pp. 601-643. “William of Newburgh: Book One.” Internet History Sourcebooks, sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/williamofnewburgh-one.asp#27.
3 Comments
 CHARLEMAGNE’S LEADERSHIP RESHAPED “DARK AGE” EUROPE AND OFFERS IMPORTANT LESSONS FOR LEADERS TODAY  Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne, by Friedrich Kaulbach, 1861 On Christmas day 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charles the Great (Charlemagne) Holy Roman Emperor. Under Charlemagne’s leadership, Europe had begun to emerge from the long dead ruins of the fallen Western Roman Empire into something more civilized, at least for a time. Long-standing conflicts were put to rest; learning and trade grew, and the concept of justice become more than a relic. This has led historians to call Charlemagne’s reign, “The Carolingian Renaissance”; and Charlemagne himself, “The father of Europe.” As one of the most successful leaders in history, Charlemagne’s reign conveys lessons for leaders today. BACKGROUND The royal dynasty that preceded the Carolingian (Charlemagne’s) was called the Merovingian. For over 200 years the Merovingian monarchs ruled the Kingdom of the Franks in a political climate of shifting borders, unsteady allegiances, cruel assassinations, and a culture of near constant conflict. Theirs is what we think of when we think “Dark Ages”. More than anything else, the early Merovingian kings were powerful warlords. Yet as time wore on, custom and tradition began to weaken their real power. Eventually they became little more than ceremonial do-nothings. By the end, custom had become so ossified their role that they could neither cut their hair nor their beard and had to ride in an ox-pulled cart whenever they traveled. Real power came to rest with the mayors of the royal household. This office had been held for several generations by Charlemagne’s family. In 751, Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short (c. 714 - 768) deposed the last Merovingian king, Childeric III (c. 717 – c. 754). With the blessing of the Pope, he became King of the Franks and started the “Carolingian” dynasty. Pepin went on to expand Frankish territory and assist the papacy by acting as its protector against group of barbarians in northern Italy called the Lombards. For this he was given the title, “Patrician of Rome” – which would be passed on to Charlemagne, his son.
When Charlemagne took on the mantle of King of the Franks, he made improvements that not only drastically improved its practices and institutions but expanded his father’s kingdom to the greatest it had ever been (or would be). The successes and reforms that resulted from his leadership altered the face of Europe and made the Medieval Renaissance periods possible. BE HUMBLE AND LET YOUR COMPETENCE SPEAK FOR ITSELF By the time of his imperial coronation, Charlemagne had defeated the Lombards (and declared himself their king), expanded the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony and Bavaria, and improved the administration and infrastructure of his kingdom beyond what any of it had known since Antiquity. Yet Pope Leo’s coronation of him came as an unwelcome surprise to Charlemagne. In fact, Eginhard, his royal biographer, states that Charlemagne so disliked the title of emperor that he would have never entered the church that day had he known the Pope was going to do such a thing. Despite the coronation being against his will, no one could deny that Charlemagne had earned it. His humility in this regard therefore only magnifies the quality of his character and enhances the depth of his accomplishments.  GET THE BEST PEOPLE AND EMPOWER THEM The office of missi dominici (Envoys of the Lord) was one that began with Charlemagne’s grandfather, Charles Martel and was meant to represent the king and ensure his orders were followed. The position lasted a year and those assigned the role were usually sent out in pairs; 1 from the Church and 1 from among the lay nobility. Until Charlemagne they were only used sporadically. Recognizing their potential for information gathering and local influence, however, Charlemagne made them a regular feature in his administration. They were highly effective because they were fully empowered to affect change and set things right. He granted them greater authority that included the investigation and execution of justice, the enforcement of royal rights, the administration of courts, and the supervision of both secular government and clergy. In order to ensure impartiality, Charlemagne also gave the missi dominici jurisdiction over regions they were strangers to. He also appointed those who were already wealthy enough to not be swayed through bribes. Likewise, their word carried the weight of the king or emperor himself and any violation of their person was considered a violation against the royal family. BE VISIBLE AND UNPRETENTIOUS Charlemagne had no permanent capital. Until the last few years of his life, his was a traveling court. It followed a circuit of palaces and estates located at key points in the kingdom/empire. This served a dual purpose. The first was that he could reduce local expenses by not relying on the resources of any one region for too long. The second, and more important, was that it allowed his subjects to see him; and to witness local lords setting the example of paying homage and reinforcing their allegiance to him. Apart from special occasions, he preferred common clothes. He was not above resolving disputes at any time; even while putting on his clothes and boots. His visibility and unpretentious nature no doubt made him more likeable. This would have inspired a greater degree of loyalty than if he were content to issue commands from the Dark Age equivalent of the Executive Suite. DON’T MICROMANAGE For generations the nations that Charlemagne ruled over had their own local laws. Charlemagne allowed the national laws to remain intact and even had them codified. However he did enact decrees of his own called "capitularies". These were similar to modern federal laws and dealt with items like military obligations, criminal law, the conduct of clergy, and the authority of the missi dominici. By allowing nations to maintain their individual laws, the acceptance of capitularies would have been much less onerous. They were designed to improve rather than impose. One example is the capitulary issued in 794 at the Synod of Frankfurt. In it, he introduces a new standardized coinage across his kingdom to facilitate trade: “'these new denarii shall be legal tender in every village, town and market, and shall be acceptable to everyone.” Had Charlemagne insisted on more direct interference in every aspect of his subjects' lives, internal unrest would surely have followed; making territorial expansion impossible. INVEST IN LEARNING Apart from his military and civic achievements what makes Charlemagne had a keen mind and love of learning. At a time when the sword was mightier than the pen and the overwhelming majority of the population could neither read nor write, Charlemagne required that his officials be literate in order to govern effectively. He also gathered about his court the most learned men of the day and funded a network of monasteries (where most education took place) and even established schools for secular clergy and lay persons. His efforts resulted in a revival of classical studies and production of manuscripts; without which, few ancient texts would have survived to today. Some scholars even assert that had the monks of this period not so laboriously copied the writings of antiquity, the Medieval and Renaissance periods (and the Modern Era) would not have been possible. He also reformed the style of writing so that it was easier to read; even titling one of his capitularies, On Scribes – That They Should Not Write Corruptly.
On a personal level, he studied and understood both Latin and Greek, and educated his children in the liberal arts – Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, and Astronomy. While he ate, he had the deeds of men of old sang or read to him. This served as both entertainment and learning from past examples of excellence – much like you’re doing now.  Charlemagne, Emperor of the West (1837), by Louis-Félix Amiel After Charlemagne’s death in 814, his empire began to disintegrate. Infighting and the lack of strong leadership such as he provided contributed much to this. By contrast, however, it only highlights how effective his leadership actually was and why we can learn from it today. In short, because it worked. SOURCES
Burbank, Jane and Frederick Cooper. Empires in World History. Princeton University Press, 2010. Coupland, Simon. “Charlemagne and his Coinage.” in Rolf Große and Michel Sot (eds), Charlemagne : les temps, les espaces, les hommes. Construction et déconstruction d’un règne (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 427-451., 2018, www.academia.edu/41560329/CHARLEMAGNE_AND_HIS_COINAGE. Davis, Jennifer R. Charlemagne’s Practice of Empire. Cambridge University Press, 2015. Eginhard. The Life of Charlemagne. Translated by A.J. Grant, In parentheses Publications, Medieval Latin Series, Cambridge Ontario, 1999. Ganshof, François L. “Charlemagne.” Speculum, Vol. 24, No. 4, October 1949, The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Medieval Academy of America, pp. 520-528. Tierney, Brian and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475. 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1992. “Missi Dominici.” Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. theodora.com/encyclopedia/m2/missi_dominici.html.  Do you spend time alone contemplating what Life is all about? Ever worry that it has no meaning? Like your efforts are futile? Like your life has become a prison where the hours and days stretch on and on and on and on...? That might sound like the adult working life to some, but the early Christian desert monks had a name for it: Acedia. If you’ve never heard of it, it’s probably because not too many people have used the term over the past few hundred years. The modern phrase “dark night of the soul” is close, however. Ever the bane of early Christian hermits and solitary monks, one might speculate that it has made a comeback in our own time; assuming it ever left. The Desert Fathers of early Christianity were the first to report Acedia as a condition among their brothers and sisters. They were the leaders of early Christian hermits, ascetics, and monks who exchanged the pleasures of the city for the harshness of life in the desert. By withdrawing from society, they believed that they could become closer to God. Their style of living would give birth to what later became Christian monasticism. While some formed communities, where sharing and working together was the goal, others preferred solitude. These individual contemplatives were the hardest hit by Acedia. Acedia had both a physical and psychological dimension, and was said to be the worst in the early afternoon – it therefore came to be known as the “noonday demon”. It was viewed initially as demonic since it aimed to cause the monk to give up on their spiritual lifestyle. Acedia’s physical symptoms included chills, headaches, sleepiness, a bodily heaviness, and an inability to pray. Psychologically however, it was much more devastating. A strong sense of alienation, dejection, and listlessness would lay hold of the sufferer, and cause him to see all of his efforts as futile. He might also become hypersensitive and critical of fellow monks or the monastic way of life in general; believing he could do better elsewhere, with different people, with a new teaching. A species of bitter indifference and indignation would begin to permeate his thoughts. This resulted in a form of spiritual inertia: Either in overzealous efforts at asceticism and work, to the point of obsession (what we would call workaholism), or the inability to focus even on a few passages of scripture (boredom or ennui). The sufferer may also indulge in overeating/drinking, oversleeping, or flipping back and forth between lethargy and nervousness. This is why Acedia would later become lumped under the category of the deadly sin of sloth in the Middle Ages, and depression by psychologists. But neither sloth nor depression really captures the nuances of Acedia. It was more than both of these actually. Much more existential, as it were. It’s when existence itself gets put on review and there’s little to answer for it. Like looking at life and saying, “Is this all there is?” To which life responds, “Sorry, bruh.” Or worse, doesn’t respond at all. One website, “The Hermitary”, which deals with the history of hermits and solitaries, cites John of the Cross (1542-1591) (the same who originally coined the term “dark night of the soul”), when he identifies Acedia as an ailment that afflicts mostly newer monks. He reasons that their thoughtful nature, not yet tempered by experience, causes them to have a lower threshold of “non-virtue”. This means that they are less able to tolerate all the nastiness in worldly culture and essentially become disillusioned with their own pursuits as a result.  St. John of the Cross (1542-1591). Ascribed Acedia as the result of newer monks having a lower threshold of "non-virtue", leading to disillusionment. Disappointed dreamers and idealists everywhere, know just how easy this can happen. The same site concludes that Acedia is “a personal statement against the contrivances of culture, the hypocrisy of public morality, alienation from the natural patterns of nature and simplicity.” Does anyone with a conscience NOT feel this way today? A strong sense of community and fellowship in itself might provide a good enough remedy to this. And it’s why Acedia doesn’t show up all that much in literature dealing with monks who lived in more communal settings. But for the introverted and the overly thoughtful, this was, and is, less of an option. In a 2005 article for the Harvard Theological Review, Dr. Andrew Crislip advances the hypothesis that Acedia was in fact, a response to the concept of “anomie”. The renowned sociologist Emile Durkheim first introduced anomie in 1897, in his book, Suicide. In societies where individual achievement is heralded as supreme, when an individual feels he or she is unable to meet the standards set by that society they experience anomie. They become alienated and withdraw from “social norms and obligations.” As Durkheim pointed out, this also results in an increased rate of suicide - hence the title of the book. When placed in the context of the early solitary monks, Crislip argues that Acedia happens as a result of the anomie they felt when, in their solitude, they were unable to reach the lofty heights of communion with God as quickly as they anticipated. Thus, their anomie gave way to Acedia and life’s purpose became as barren as the desert they lived in. Seen in this light, when we translate anomie and Acedia to today, we see conditions for it are fertile. In fact, as recent as the middle of the 20th Century, Aldous Huxley said Acedia was the primary affliction of his age. And it’s only gotten worse. This is not to imply that there’s been a rise in contemporary populations of solitary desert monks, but rather, with advances in communication technology and the dissolution of traditional sources of community, solitude has become a much more common phenomenon. Meanwhile, the social standards we’re meant to strive for have become ever more artificial and/or hard to reach. So what’s the antidote to Acedia? Older sources advocate perseverance, courage, and detachment. In modern parlance, one might translate this to the phrase, “keep on keeping on.” The Hermitary, proposes that gratitude for living and consciously altering one’s “threshold for non-virtue, in the ability to seek contentment” might do the trick. One might also consider some honest soul-searching and holding fast to teachings and traditions that are enduring and offer meaning. They do exist, but in the modern “winner-take-all”, disposable, culture we live in, they are largely forgotten or ignored. Regardless, we can take solace in knowing that even though the Noonday Demon has visited countless people throughout history, for those who persist, he eventually goes away. Sources “Acedia, Bane of Solitaries.” Hermitary, http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/acedia.html Crislip, Andrew. “The Sin of Sloth or the Illness of the Demons? The Demon of Acedia in Early Christian Monasticism”. The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 143-169. Norris, Kathleen. “Got Acedia? Who Cares?” The Washington Post, September 16, 2008. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/09/got_acedia_who_cares.html AuthorRobertus Magnus is the creator of Totally Awesome History. He hold and MA in History, B.Ed, Hons. BA (History and Classics), and a post-graduate Scriptwriting Certificate. He is also the author of "Perduo: Obadiah Emerson in the Place Where Lost Things Go".  Perhaps the one figure to have a name in Arthurian Legend as memorable as Arthur himself was Merlin. At various times he has been hailed as a prophet, a wizard, advisor and friend to Arthur, and an archetype of the Pre-Christian Celtic Sorcerer. But was he real? In truth, it is impossible to say; especially if we are to look for the Merlin described in legend. But we do have a reference in the Annales Cambriae to someone name Merlin (or Myrddin) living in the 6th Century. The trouble is, if we are to accept a relative date of 495ish for the Battle of Mount Badon (where Arthur allegedly halted the Saxon advance) and 520 for the Battle of Camlann (where “Arthur and Medraut fell”), the Merlin that is mentioned would have been far too young to be the long-bearded sage and wizard described in the legends – at least while Arthur was still alive. Myrddin Wyllt (the wild) (c. 520-590) was a bard at the court of Gwenddoleu ap Ceidio, a Brythonic, pagan king, whose kingdom was located in south-west Scotland near Hadrian’s Wall. The Annales Cambriae tell us that Myrddin fought alongside Gwenddelou at the Battle of Arfderydd in 573. But upon seeing his king and master killed during the battle, he went mad.
After the battle, it is said that Myrddin fled to the forest where he lived with the animals and developed the gift of prophecy. It is also believed by many scholars that it is this Myrddin that Geoffrey of Monmouth based his character of Merlin on. When we think about it, though, it seems somewhat bizarre that Myrddin, a Scottish bard, should come to be directly connected to Arthur. What was the point? Why not just have him be a legend unto himself, separate from Arthur? Certainly, the exploits of each of them would have been sufficient for them to stand alone. One possible explanation is that Arthur did have a bard or advisor whose qualities later came to be merged with those of Myrddin. Like all kings and warlords of the time, Arthur certainly would have had a bard to act as a sort of PR man who held an esteemed rank in his court. And it was quite common for kings and chieftains to have spiritual advisors such as priests or missionaries (many of whom resembled wild men as Merlin later did). Likewise, pagan kings would have hosted wizards, sorcerers, or pagan priests in lieu of their Christian counterparts. Often, these men would conduct a sort of spiritual warfare of their own against each other while their lords fought in the flesh. Rodney Castleden, author of King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend, has even suggested that Arthur would have been seen as doubly remarkable if he was a Christian King who had a pagan wizard in his entourage. Was there someone in the oral traditions that was later identified and merged into the figure of Myrddin? We may never know. But it does beg the question how Myrddin Wyllt, a mad pagan prophet, came to be so strongly associated with a “Christian” King Arthur. Sources
Ashley, Mike. A Brief History of King Arthur: The Man and the Legend Revealed. Running Pr, June 8 2010. Castledon, Rodney. King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend. Routledge; 1 edition, May 11, 2003. Morris, John. The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350 to 650. Charles Scribner’s Sons, June 1973. Snyder, Christopher. The World of King Arthur. Thames & Hudson; Reprint edition, February 1, 2011.  When most of us think of the Knights Templar we either think of the secrets they may have held or the military role they played in the Crusades. Less considered, however, is the iron discipline their Rule demanded they exercise in their day-to-day lives off the battlefield. Today, their fierce commitment to it even in peacetime is both extraordinary and mind-boggling. PRAYERS, PRAYERS, AND MORE PRAYERS When the Templars were first officially recognized as an Order in 1129, the “Templar Rule” consisted of 72 rules for them to follow. By the mid-thirteenth century, it had expanded to over 700. The Rule demanded that when not training or at war, these “warrior-monks” were to dedicate their days to work and prayer; a lot of prayer. Like monks of other Orders, they were required to observe the Seven Canonical Hours; times of the day set aside for prayer and devotion. Their day would have started at 4am with the first of these, Matins (Morning prayer). Later would come Prime (First Hour of the day) and the hearing of Mass at around 6am, Terce (Third Hour) at 9am, Sext (Sixth Hour) at noon, Nones (Ninth Hour) at 3pm, Vespers (Evening prayer) at 6pm, and Compline (Night prayer) at bedtime. Silence was then to be observed between Compline and Matins and knights were to sleep with a candle lit to avoid the temptations that darkness could bring. Meals were eaten 2-3 times a day, also in silence. Only the priest who blessed the meal and the clerk who read aloud from the Bible or the Templar Rule were permitted to speak. Templars were also required to eat in pairs both to save on dishes and to ensure that no one fasted without permission. Since it was important that they remained fighting fit, a number of rules in the Templar Rule were designed to prevent them from indulging in too austere a lifestyle. To that end, unlike other monks, they were allowed to eat meat three times a week and occasionally drink diluted wine before Compline. In between the hours of prayer and meals, Templars were expected to work. Idleness was not permitted. When engaged in business outside the Temple, they were to bring honor to the Order by being models of holiness, above reproach. COMMUNAL LIFE OF THE TEMPLARS Their communal lifestyle and rigid hierarchy also meant that nothing was kept private. When a Knight joined the Order he handed over all of his possessions, including his clothing, and was issued new ones. Since the concept of personal property was discouraged, everything was regarded as belonging to the Temple (as opposed to the individual knight). Templars were not even permitted to trade clothing or equipment without permission. This emphasized the importance of the brotherhood over the individual. Any personal items were to be modest and approved by superiors. Nothing was kept secret. Gifts and letters from relatives were no exception and could not be received or sent or without approval. Similarly, although they promoted cleanliness (both inwardly and outwardly), permission had to be granted before they could take a bath. In truth permission was required for a great many things. Some others included being bled, taking medicine, and/or riding into town. STRONG MORAL FIBER – AND NO POINTED SHOES! What’s more, a Templar’s personal conduct was meant to be free of disruptive qualities such as pride, envy, backbiting, or anything that could lead to discord in the community. The vanity that came from trimming beards or growing long hair was also to be avoided, as was the wearing of pointed shoes and shoelaces. Having also taken the monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a Templar was forbidden from kissing any women or even looking at them too much. Even his mother, sisters, and aunts. If he was unfortunate enough to succumb to the temptations of a prostitute, his first priority was to ensure that no one found out. If someone did and there was a public scandal, he would be put out of the Order. Likewise, sodomy and heresy were punishable by immediate expulsion from the Order. Apparently this policy worked. Unlike the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights, the Templars never experienced a public sex scandal or accusations of heresy until Philip IV of France accused them of that and more in 1307; around the same time he realized the Templar wealth would look much better in his own treasury. Their strength of character also earned them a reputation of honesty and trustworthiness. As the Order expanded at an unprecedented rate, this led to popes, monarchs, families, and individuals, either donated or entrusted their riches to the Templars. As a result, some have compared the Templars as financiers, bankers, and/or investors to modern multinational corporations. The difference, however, was that any profit the Templars made was put toward funding their efforts in the Holy Land. Individual Templars were not permitted to possess more than 4 dinars, a paltry sum. If they were caught with more, they would be punished. If they were caught with a hoard, they were thrown out. Of course at higher levels, senior Templar officials were known to engage in political intrigue that would not have been permitted among the rank-and-file. In this regard, the comparison between the Order and a modern multinational corporation is even more on the mark. A TEMPLAR’S DEDICATION To live the life of a Templar, one had to embrace these and dozens of other rules provided for in the Rule. Looking back, it makes their dedication to the Order and the Rule both impressive and bizarre to our modern sensibilities. And just before you think they may have only taken it seriously when the boss was around, consider the words of an English Templar named William Watson: “The Rule is the bones of my body, it runs from my feet to my head, and it is in my arms; these fingers… The Rule is my marrow. Am I not also garbed in the Rule, for it tells me what I wear. The Rule is within me and about me. It is my hand when I fight and tells me what my weapons are. Within and Without.” Wow. Sources:
Barber, Malcom. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Bernard of Clairvaux: Patron Saint of the Templar Order. www.electricscotland.com/books/ries/BERNARD%20OF%20CLAIRVAUX%20011713.pdf Frale, Barbara. The Templars: The Secret History Revealed. Translated by Gregory Conti, Arcade Publishing, 2009. Newman, Sharan. The Real History Behind the Templars. Berkley Books, 2007. Ralls, Karen. The Templars and the Grail. Quest Books, 2003. Wojtowicz, Robert T. Trans. The Original Rule of the Knights Templar. Western Michigan University, 1991, scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=masters_theses.  When the Order of the Knights of the Temple of Solomon (Knights Templar) was formally suppressed in 1312, it wasn’t because it had been found guilty of heresy. It was because the campaign of fake news waged by the French Crown had so defamed the Order that the Pope deemed it beyond saving. Philip IV of France (1268-1314) aka Philip the Fair needed money. He had wars to wage and bills to pay. Everyone knew it. By 1307 he had already driven the Jews out of the kingdom after seizing their property only a year earlier. He’d also been extorting the Italian Lombards of their assets since the 1290s; eventually appropriating all of their property and arresting their persons in 1311. But it was in 1307 that Philip moved against his most lucrative target yet: The Knights Templar. The Templars were wealthy. They were also not as popular as the once had been. Many blamed the Order for the fall of Acre in 1291 (which was the last of the Christian cities to fall in the Holy Land). Public support for crusading in general was also on the wane. The Templars were weakened and Philip knew it. Urged on by his minister Guillaume de Nogaret, in the spring of 1307 Philip began a campaign of misinformation (read: fake news) that accused the Templars of heresy and sexual depravity. Although by the end of their trial the Templars were made to answer for 127 articles put against them, Philip’s initial accusations centered on three things.
What made the Templars especially susceptible to Philip and Nogaret’s fake news/propaganda campaign was the secrecy surrounding the Order. When people aren’t given a narrative, they fill in the blanks themselves – until someone else does. Since so much of Templar life was kept secret rumors couldn’t help but grow. DENYING CHRIST AND SPITTING ON THE CROSS Although many Templars confessed, their confessions were almost all obtained under torture or the threat of it. Furthermore, the majority of Templar members were non-combatants. They would not have been able to withstand the conditions they were placed in after their arrest. Even the most battle hardened knight would have a hard time resisting the likes of the rack or the strappado. Not surprisingly, in regions where torture was not used regularly, confessions were few and far between. Testimonies in those areas spoke well of all the good the Templars had done. Of all the accusations, however, the denial of Christ and spitting on the Cross was the one that may have had some truth to it. Though it was a charge leveled at other heretics in the past, even Jacques de Molay had identified it as an immoral practice in the Order when he became Grand Master in 1293. Some sources claim it had been carried out for over 100 years by then. The practice stemmed from a section of the original Templar Rule that stated new initiates were not to be accepted too quickly. Rather, they should be tested to determine their worthiness of the Templar mantle. Of course no test was formally defined. The official initiation ceremony involved the initiate swearing oaths of obedience, chastity, poverty, and placing all his strength at the service of the Holy Land. Over time, an unofficial ceremony designed to test him afterwards developed. In it, the receptor demanded the initiate deny Christ and spit on the Cross. What outsiders would not have known was the context and reason for this. This part of the ceremony was meant to imitate what could happen to a Templar if he was captured by Muslims. The script for the ceremony was based on testimony from Templar escapees. Sometimes a refusal was respected while at other times the initiate would be threatened if he didn’t obey. Most pretended to say the words and/or spit in the general direction of the cross. Thus they performed the actions with their mouth, but not in their heart. After the ceremony was over, the receptor enjoined the initiates to confess the sins they had just committed to the chaplain so they could be absolved. Sometimes, however, they confessed to priests of other orders. This no doubt had the effect of allowing dark rumors to grow since those outside the Templar Order would have had no understanding of the ritual’s context. Something Philip and Nogaret would capitalize on.   OBSCENE KISSING AND HOMOSEXUALITY Church and secular authorities also had a long history of using sexual deviance as a means of labelling individuals or groups as heretics. Ironically, it was also a claim that Romans frequently used against early Christians to justify persecuting them. Even today nothing creates a bigger political splash than an accusation of sexual malpractice, true or not. With regard to the Templars, however, there is little evidence of truth to it. For the accusation of obscene kissing on the buttocks, navel, etc., where it may have been practiced, it can be understood as an additional part of the initiation ceremony that amounted to a form of hazing. The same may be said for initiates being told they had to have sex with their brothers on demand. Even then, these would not have been uniform practices throughout the Order. The only thing that came close was something called the “kiss of peace”. It consisted of a kiss on the mouth that welcomed a new initiate into the Order. There was nothing controversial about it. Christians had practiced it regularly from an early date. What’s more, the Templar Rule lists sodomy as one of the most serious offenses a Templar could commit. It carried with it fierce penalties, including expulsion from the Order. Of close to 1000 depositions, only six confirmed acts of homosexuality. Each of these also involved long-term relationships of genuine affection. IDOLATRY: THE MYSTERIOUS HEAD (OR CAT) Similarly, worshipping a cat and/or a mysterious head was a well established practice that heretics were commonly held to do. Traditions of heads having magical powers were common in medieval Europe. They had a long history that stretched as far back as the legend of Perseus and Medusa. Some said that the Templars worshiped the head because it was a “giver of plenty” that made the “trees flower and the land germinate.” The implication here was that the Templars owed their wealth and successes to sorcery and the devil. Similar accusations would be made against “witches” during the witchcrazes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Some Templars identified the “head” idol as having the name Baphomet, which some scholars have taken as a corruption of John the Baptist (who was beheaded) while others suggest it was Mohamet. Certainly many Templar opponents tried to say they had been infiltrated by Islam, but both of these interpretations remain speculation. Other Templars who confessed regarding the head gave differing descriptions of it. Some said that it had a long dark beard, others a silver beard. Some claimed it had two faces while others said four. Some said it had legs and feet. Some even said that it was the head of Hugues de Payns, the founder and first Grand Master of the Order! Whatever the case, such contradictory testimony tells us that it had little if any basis in truth. Ultimately, apart from the induced confessions and unsubstantiated rumor, royal authorities could not produce any evidence to support the claim of idol worship. ABSOLUTION Despite Philip and Nogaret’s best efforts, Pope Clement V saw through them. Unfortunately, he was no match for these masters of information manipulation. When the French Templars were first arrested on Friday 13th 1307, the Pope was furious. He demanded that they be released to Church custody. As a religious order legally beholden only to the Pope, Philip required Clement’s consent before undertaking such an action. Though Philip implied to everyone he had it, he did not. Any objections raised by Clement V were met with the suggestion that the Pope’s inaction had forced Philip’s hand, and even worse, that the Pope may have been complicit in the Templar’s heresy. This ensured that the French Templars would remain under royal custody indefinitely. In June 1308, Philip agreed to send a hand-picked selection of Templars to the Pope to confess before him and affirm their guilt. This group consisted almost entirely of low-ranking sergeants, apostates, and those who were terrified from torture. But Philip’s ploy worked. The Pope issued a bull across Christendom for rulers to arrest and seize Templars and their property until a full investigation could be conducted. A few days later Clement V sent three of his most trusted cardinals to the fortress of Chinon, where Jacques de Molay and the Templar leadership were being held. Documents such as the recently discovered “Chinon parchment” reveal that the Pope then absolved them of heresy. However, he did find them guilty of lesser crimes (such as allowing the practice of denying Christ and spitting on the Cross to flourish, regardless of context). The Templar leaders were also given judicial immunity. This meant that no one could so much as interrogate them without the permission of the Pope. Of course this did not stop Philip from burning Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey De Charney (Preceptor of Normandy) at the stake on March 18th, 1314. He did so without Clement’s permission and to ensure that the Templars would never rise again. In the meantime, Clement V and Jacques de Molay agreed that to save the Order they would merge it with the Knights Hospitallers and a new Rule would be established. Afterwards, word of Clement V’s intent to save and reform the Order began to spread. Philip was not amused.   SUPPRESSION Philip and Nogaret responded by threatening to try Pope Boniface VIII posthumously. Previously, Boniface VIII and the French Crown had clashed over a number of issues dealing with Papal vs. Royal authority. Boniface VIII had gone so far as to excommunicate Nogaret and draw up a bull excommunicating Philip (which was never published). In 1303, Nogaret responded by framing Boniface VIII on charges of murder, idolatry, simony, and heresy. More fake news. By trying the bones of Boniface VIII, Philip would send a signal to the world that secular authority trumped the Pope’s. It was a form of blackmail that betrayed a weakness in the papacy at the time. It was also too much for Clement to handle. He gave up. Under the military “protection” of Philip, the Council of Vienne convened in 1311 to finalize the fate of the Templars. Although they were not allowed to defend themselves and no evidence proved them guilty of heresy, Clement V publically suppressed the Order on April 3rd, 1312. He did so on the grounds that it had been so defamed that it was not saveable. Most outside observers knew it was bogus, but they were powerless to do anything. Fake news had done its job. A WARNING By playing on popular superstitions and the use of threats and misinformation about their enemies, Philip IV of France and Guillaumme de Nogaret were able to bring down one of the most powerful organizations in Western history. As Vatican historian Barbara Frale puts it, “By way of sophistry, generalization, and manipulation, the royal lawyers managed to transform every failing, every fault, every misdeed of the Templars into crimes against the faith.” It serves us with a warning. Even without the help of mass media and communications like we have, fake news destroyed the mighty Knights Templar. Imagine how much more damaging it can be today! In this regard, the words of Edgar Allan Poe ring true, “Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.” Sources:
Barber, Malcom. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Frale, Barbara. The Templars: The Secret History Revealed. Translated by Gregory Conti, Arcade Publishing, 2009. Napier, Gordon. The Rise and Fall of the Knights Templar:The Order of the Temple 1118-1314 – A True History of Faith, Glory, Betrayal. The History Press, 2006. Ralls, Karen. The Templars and the Grail. Quest Books, 2003. Wojtowicz, Robert T. Trans. The Original Rule of the Knights Templar. Western Michigan University, 1991, scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=masters_theses.  Long before the US Marines were known as the “first to fight”, the Knights Templar had earned that honor during the Crusades. Admired and feared by allies and enemies alike, one Arabic historian, El-Fadhel, went so far as to change the Persian-Arabic word for Templars to the same word as the demon gods of Zoroastrianism in his writings. In light of their tenacity and ferocity on the battlefield, it’s easy to see why. SHOCK TROOPS: FIRST TO FIGHT Every Templar Knight came from the nobility. It was a stipulation for admission to their ranks. Only someone who had already received the lifelong training that secular knights and nobles did could hope to be effective as a Knight in combat. They could be identified by their white uniform with the red Templar cross of martyrdom emblazoned on it. Compared to the membership as a whole, however, they were in the vast minority, comprising roughly 10% of the Order. Even at the Order’s height, they would have numbered no more than 2000 at any given time. On the battlefield however, the Knights were their primary fighting force and, along with the other military orders, were the shock troops of the Crusades. Templar sergeants, sometimes called serving brothers, filled every other position necessary for the functioning of the Order. On the battlefield, if they were there, they acted in a supporting role such as light cavalry or infantry. Their uniform also featured the red Templar cross but they wore a black surcoat with the Templar cross on the front and back. Before battle Templar Knights were organized into squadrons. Once the battle commenced, Templar Knights could not break formation or charge out ahead of their squadron. Absolute discipline was required. This served the purpose of military cohesion, but also reinforced the Templar ideal of humility; wherein the Order took precedence over the individual. The only time it was acceptable for a Templar Knight to act on his own initiative was when it meant saving the life of a Templar or a Christian.  Templar Camp scene: Notice the white and black uniforms differentiating the Templar Knights from Sergeants. (Illustrated by Wayne Reynolds in "Knight Templar 1120-1312" by Helen Nicholson, 2004, pg. 37.) The Templars were known to always be among the first to seek engagement with the enemy. Once the battle trumpet sounded, the Templars would sing the Templar motto (and Psalm 115): “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da gloriam” (Not to us, Lord, not to us but to your name give the glory). Then, they charged; unleashing carnage on the enemy line and fighting until either the enemy or they were vanquished. The overwhelming impact of a Templar charge allowed the Templars and their allies to confront even numerically superior forces successfully. Sometimes it was so effective that it left little time for support troops to follow before the Knights found themselves surrounded by the enemy. Such was the case at the battle of Hattin in 1187. The Templars succeeded in charging Saladin’s army but the rest of Frankish forces did not follow them. Surrounded, the Templars fell by the hundreds. Those not killed in battle were executed by Saladin’s men afterwards. The “Horns of Hattin” became known as the most devastating defeat ever suffered by crusader forces. THE BAUCENT In battle, the Templar banner held a place of extreme importance. It was called the Baucent, meaning “piebald horse”. It was so called for its black and white colors. The black half represented the darkness of sin that the Templars had left behind. The white represented the purity of the Order. Sometimes it also bore the red Templar cross; a symbol of martyrdom. To die fighting for Christ was among the greatest honors a Templar could achieve.   Not only did the Baucent have a guard of 10 men, but often the Templars brought a second folded banner along, should anything happen to the first. Under no circumstances could anyone use the banner as a weapon. If they did, they would be placed in irons after the battle. As the banner still flew, the Templar Knights were not allowed to retreat. This held true even if they were unarmed or wounded. In the case of the latter, they could only quit the field if their commander gave them permission. If the banner did fall, or they were separated from their brothers, they were to rally to the banner of the Knights Hospitallers and failing that, to support any Christian banner still standing. Only once all Christian banners had fallen, could they abandon the fight. Any Templar Knight who deserted the battlefield before this could be expelled from the Order. Only non-fighting sergeant brothers, if they saw there was nothing they could do, were allowed to retreat. This was to save the Order’s equipment so that it wouldn’t fall into enemy hands. Yet, even in retreat the Templars fought on to allow other Christian forces to withdraw. This led to heavy losses for the Order when crusader forces were defeated, but it gained them the reputation as being among the most stalwart of warriors; fighting on against impossible odds even long after a battle had turned. FEARED AND ADMIRED BY THEIR ENEMIES Likewise, their courage and stamina on the battlefield earned them both respect and dread from their enemies. A witness of the battle of Montgisard in 1177 tells us how 84 Templar knights under their commander, Odo de Saint-Amand, forced Saladin to flee and the reluctant admiration Saladin felt as a result. “Spurring all together, as one man, they made a charge, turning neither to the left nor to the right. Recognising the body of troops in which Saladin commanded many knights, they manfully approached it, immediately penetrated it, incessantly knocked down, scattered, struck and crushed. Saladin was smitten with admiration, seeing his men dispersed everywhere, everywhere turned in flight, everywhere given to the mouth of the sword. He took thought for his own safety and fled, throwing off his mail shirt for speed, mounted a racing camel and barely escaped with a few of his men.”  Templar charge. You did not want to be on the business end of this. (Illustrated by Wayne Reynolds in "Knight Templar 1120-1312" by Helen Nicholson, 2004, pg. 38.) But Saladin also hated them for the same reason. After all, the Templars were responsible for inflicting immense damage to his army. So great was his disdain for them that after the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 he granted mercy to the Christians left in the city but he executed every Templar and Hospitallar he could find. Both admired and feared, the Templars were a force to be reckoned with during the Crusades. When they charged, one could only pray they were on your side. Sources:
Barber, Malcom. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Frale, Barbara. The Templars: The Secret History Revealed. Translated by Gregory Conti, Arcade Publishing, 2009. Nicholson, Helen. Knight Templar: 1120-1312. Osprey Publishing, 2004. Ralls, Karen. The Templars and the Grail. Quest Books, 2003. |
RSS Feed