[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.31 Templars interrogated in the early fourteenth century also quoted examples of perpetual imprisonment for theft and sodomy, and some seem to have thought that it was the normal punishment for the latter offence.32 Yet, according to the Templar Customs, sentences of to expulsion, other than for lying on admission, were not necessarily accompanied by imprisonment or chaining.In a fourteenth-century decree of the Teutonic order, however, it was ruled that those guilty of sodomy should suffer perpetual imprisonment: this may have been a new ruling, for earlier Gesetze apparently refer only to expulsion.33 In orders linked to the Cistercians there seems similarly to have been a trend for expulsion to be replaced by imprisonment for some offences.Calatravan statutes from the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries decree that a brother who struck another and caused bleeding should be expelled from the order and should not be received back without the permission of the visitor; defi niciones for the order of Montesa in 1331, on the other hand, rule that if a brother gravely wounded another, he was to be held in a house in irons and chains, until the master showed mercy to him.34Those who committed lesser offences, for which the penalty was the loss of habit for a period, might also be put in irons or imprisoned.When a list of punishments was drawn up in the Temple in the second half of the twelfth century, it was stated that those who were guilty of such faults might be put in irons, especially if the offence was of a serious nature or caused considerable harm.A brother who struck a colleague might be put in irons se la bateure est laide, and a Templar carrying a 30 Chronica, ed.W.Stubbs, 2 vols, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1868–9), 2, p.354; Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed.W.Stubbs, 2 vols, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867), 2, pp.47–8.31 D.Wilkins, Concilia magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, 4 vols (London, 1737), 2, pp.337, 346.32 Finke, 2, pp.325, 327–8 doc.154; L.Ménard, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique et littéraire de la ville de Nismes, 7 vols (Paris, 1750–8), 1, Preuves, p.188; Michelet, 1, pp.382, 386–7; 2, pp.7, 223.When interrogated, many French Templars claimed that they had been threatened with imprisonment, or feared that they would be incarcerated, if they revealed what had allegedly happened at admission ceremonies: see, for example, Michelet, 1, pp.191, 219, 226, 295; R.Sève and A.-M.Chagny-Sève, Le procès des Templiers d’Auvergne, 1309–1311(Paris, 1986), pp.123, 126, 140; but they may have been infl uenced by the wording of the articles of accusation and by a desire to explain away their supposed failure to publicize the alleged happenings.Templar regulations refer only to expulsion as a penalty for revealing chapter proceedings: RT, pp.153 (225), 228 (418), 288 (550); Catalan Rule, p.38 (74).The further claims that imprisonment was threatened to those who refused to deny Christ and spit on the Cross during the Templar admission ceremony require comment only if the validity of the accusations is accepted.33 SDO, pp.86–7 (39), 135 (III, 2); cf.Schmidt, p.137.34 D.W.Lomax, ‘Algunos estatutos primitivos de la orden de Calatrava’, Hispania 21(1961), 492–4 (26); J.F.O’Callaghan, ‘Las defi niciones medievales de la orden de Montesa, 1326–1468’, Miscelánea de textos medievales 1 (1972), 237 (1331: 16).92The Hospitallers, the Mediterranean and Europebanner who charged without permission could similarly be chained se grant damaige en avenist.35 The Gesetze of the Teutonic order similarly state that graver – as distinct from the gravest – offences might be punished by chaining and imprisonment as well as a year’s penance, if the circumstances demanded:Etsi excessus enormitas vel diuturnitas aut iteracio aut penitentis impaciencia penam exaggerari per vincula et carcerem aut anno penitenciali secundum annum vel minus superaddi vel eciam penam carceris perpetuari exegerit, superiorum et fratrum iudicio decernatur.36As in the Temple, the matter was left to the discretion of those in authority.In later additions to the Templar Customs, however, which give further information about punishments, the statement that a brother could be put in irons was sometimes replaced by the ruling that in some circumstances he ought ( doit) to be chained.Both in the section on the holding of chapters, which possibly dates from the later twelfth century, and in another section, which has been ascribed to the years 1257–67, it was said of a brother who was found to have slept with a woman that he ought to be put in irons.37 Yet there was no consistent change in wording: article 612 in the later Customs still stated that if a brother charged with a banner without permission and great harm was done, li porroit l’on regarder a metre en fers; and in other clauses chaining was similarly still left to the discretion of the chapter.38 Nevertheless, the increasing use of the word ‘ought’ suggests that there was a trend towards the imposition of chaining, rather than leaving the matter to the discretion of the chapter.That chaining was becoming more common in the Temple is also implied by a case in the mid thirteenth century when a Templar who had struck another was put in irons, even though the blow had not been serious
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]