This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jacques de Molay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Jacques de Molay is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
His full name is Jacques de Molay, which means "Jacques from Molay". Thus one cannot use his alleged "surname" alone in a sentence, as it would e.g. translate from "de Molay went to France in 1306" into "from Molay went to France in 1306". Therefore I sometimes use only "Jacques". Does anyone know the correct way to use names like these? cun23:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to create such a rule. Plenty of surnames mean things in some original language, but as surnames they become proper nouns (or noun phrases). Hence it's perfectly proper to treat this name grammatically just the same as you'd treat Jacques Smith.Durova22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although his first and last name are given as "Jacques de Molay," it is never proper to "translate" names. Therefore, it should never be rendered as "James de Molay." Otherwise, one would always be required to translate a given name into every language. ("Guillaume" should not be translated to "William." "Pierre should not be translated to "Peter," etc.) Further, his last name, by itself, should always be given as simply "Molay," and not "de Molay," or "DeMolay." Therefore, "Alexis de Tocqueville" is always referred to simply as "Tocqueville," and "Guillaume de Nogaret" is always referred to as "Nogaret." This is the standard convention in editing." PGNormand06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know PGNormand, you are absolutely wrong. The standard convention among medieval historians is NOT to use the toponym (ie de Molay) as a surname unless it was used by the individual himself/herself as a surname. Over the course of the Middle Ages, some toponyms were adopted as surnames. This happened very quickly in England, for example, after the Norman conquest, when families with originally Norman or French toponyms became lords of new English lordships. Hence the English family 'de Vere' who were the Earls of Oxford. The first commenter here is correct, calling Jacques de Molay 'de Molay' would be like calling Duke William of Normandy 'of Normandy' or Elizabeth II of England 'of England'.
The proper use in French for nobiliarity particle surnames (with "de") is to say simply "Molay" not "De Molay", but this proper use is less and less known. For instance I can say "Molay fit la guerre" but "Jacques de Molay fit la guerre. See here (in French): http://omnilogie.fr/O/L'article_de_la_Particule_:_du_bon_usage_nobiliaire
More and more French speaking people make this mistake. There's 2 "de" particle. One is nobiliary, and one is to say the origin. For instance, if my name is Line and I live Toulon, I can say "Je suis Line de Toulon" but it's not my name, only a nickname or a geographical indication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D31:F23B:5D4B:C506 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to that. many parts of the article is apparently biased, made-up bs. Examples following
Downfall:
"It was falsely acknowledged that de Molay planned on corrupting Catherine of Valois' male children by tending to their sorrows, then by engaging in acts of anal rape."
"Philip knew the dangers that de Molay represented; his own sons were nearly sexually molested by de Molay. Upon escaping the vile pervert, they made up a fake confession to Philip what de Molay had tried to do."
Myths:
"It is said that Jacques de Molay cursed Philippe le Bel and his descent from his execution pyre, a curse which was responded to by Philip shouting in defiance "Fuck de Molay!""
"It has been speculated that several of the boys whom de Molay had corrupted had grown to enjoy the perversions of the homosexual lifestyle introduced to them"
Legacy:
"Members are encouraged to model their conduct after his example of loyalty and fidelity instead of the homosexual perversions that de Molay was incorrectly accused of
himself."
...
"vile pervert", "homosexual perversions", sheesh... Could someone SANE please clean up this article?
What are you talking about? These sentences are not in the article as we speak. They were removed days ago cun 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Right you are, now everything seems normal. Maybe a link in the "knights templar" article links to an older version - will find out which.
Surprisingly I found no references that the use of torture was widely used to force many templars, like Jacques de Molay himself to confess. User:Mistico
On the other hand, the Chinon Parchment specifically includes a denial that torture had been used up till then - and that was prepared in the absence of any representatives of the King of France. There was a hidden agenda (I have contemporary parchments, rather more directly associated with the roots of the Inquisition than the Templars), but I want to see the Vatican's latest publication before I say any more. In the mean time, start researching the roots of the French University system, in Montpellier (created by Cardinal-Bishop Conrad of Urach in 1222) and Paris (Neo-Platonists).Jel11:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that the rumours in the articles merely stay described as rumours... and not explicited.
Particularly interesting, since to this day, the rumours (and sometimes clear cut evidence) continues through modern orders... these days particularly the Socialist parties in Europe and the Grand Lodge of the Orient, ironically enough, in France\Belgium; the current hypermarket of paedophilia in the world. Go figure...
Well the latest historical record - THE LAST TEMPLAR mentioned in the article, which is regarded as having been written with the latest research and scholarship does not suggest that Molay did any paedophilia but that these accusations were standard ones from the Inquisition when smearing supposed heresies. Every supposed enemy of the Church - Cathars, Jews, Templars, Free Spirits, Monatists etc were accused of sexual perversion. Take all these accusations with a pinch of salt.
Plus - isn't accusing France and Belgium as being 'the current hypermarket of paedophilia in the world' a bit rash? You're talking about tens of millions of people here. Substantiate your claims. ThePeg19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of this discussion is utter nonsense, and not becoming of true editors. Any accusations made by 14th-century inquisitors, to include confessions presented during such trials, should be recorded as unsubstantiated rumors, accusations, and confessions made under duress. It is for the reader to decide for himself whether these trials were fair or not. For Wikipedia editors to accept these accusations and confessions as fact, 700 years after the fact, is to display incredible naivete. I don't believe that any 21st-century Wikipedists are really that gullible. Further, it endorses torture and rumor-mongering as legitimate sources of accurate information, a practice that the R.C. Church gave up centuries ago. Surely, Wikipedists can accept the same practices as unreliable, at best. PGNormand06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substantiation:
1. It is to be noted that the Dutroux and Fourniret networks refered to gravitate around Bouillon, and more particularly the Monastery-Priory of Orval, the birthplace of the Templars. Why, we do not as yet know. When Dutroux went on the run, where did he head for? You guessed it. Dutroux' Gendarmerie controllers were senior members of the Charleroi Abraxas lodge. Abraxas was a Templar familiar, and the trail is unbroken back to
2. Joan of Arc's lieutenant Gilles de Rais, burned at the stake at Nantes in 1240 for the murders of between 800 and 2500 children. 80 skulls were found. He was studying an alchemical text talking about the massacre of the innocents.
3. Another recent child-killer who took up alchemy in prison is Ian Huntley, in the UK.
Oh, in passing, there IS a lot more which I have hard original 13th-century and current evidence for, which you'll have to wait for...there WAS a hidden agenda, and it is still out there now.
This is NOT unsubstantiated, as I have the founders of the Inquisition mixed up in this like spaghetti under meatballs. Thus far the count is four Popes or leading papabile, including Eugene IV who reactivated the Templars and Leo XIII who nailed the Freemasons (the others I don't want to talk about here because it gives too much of the game away, sorry, you'll have to wait for publication), and denial of torture is about as useful in learning lessons as denial of the Holocaust. It happened, it distorted the truth, and some stranger things happened in the protection of the truth in this story. If an Admin wishes to contact me, please do so as I'm doing this for academic publication, and have proof to that standard accepted by two leading authorities: you will have to do a lot of homework before deciding, though.
de Molay failed to successfully lead the Templars through the inquisitions made against them and was burnt at the stake on an island in the river Seine in Paris, Ile de la Cité, on 18 March 1314.
How .. does one 'successfully' let alone 'lead' a group of people through 'the inquisitions', given that every inquisition had already, per history, made it's mind up before commencement of torture and eventual execution? Kind of oxymoronical to say he 'failed' at it. Did anyone succeed? :) 211.30.71.5912:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they did. Templar Orders in Spain and Portugal either went unsentenced or just changed their names thanks to royal support. Similarly the Scottish Templars got away safely. Other so-called heretics won their cases or avoided the stake. Meister Eckhart, for instance, was acquitted of capital charges. Commentators feel that Molay's mistake was to rely too much on the support of the Pope and so, by staying silent, not make a proper defense. Other Templars came forward to offer a defence but were just arrested. Having said that, the main driving force behind the persecution of the Templars was Philip of France who used military might to threaten the Pope. With the Pope neutralised Molay's protector was gone and the Templars were doomed. Its easy to say with hindsight what they Molay should have done but hindsight is easy for all of us. ThePeg19:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I mights just add the obvious - which you all probably know, it was ALL about the money and treasures of the Templars. I read somewhere, sorry I cannot cite so it is safe here, though not in an article, Edward I owed a fortune to the Templars and when he was "cut-off", he summarily joined in the call to destroy the Templars. Kings almost never repaid their war debts and in that, they were similar. Mugginsx (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the heading Myths to Legends. Also, there is one very notable ommission from this section: after the execution of Louis XVI during the french revolution, somebody in the crowd is said to have yelled "Jacques de Molay, thou art avenged!" this is a great legend, would tie up the "curse" subsection nicely, and would offer an opportunity to link to french revolution, freemasonry, and illuminati. unfortunately, i cant find any reputable place online to source it as a legend. --popefauvexxiii04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Paul de Saint Hilaire has the same happening at the execution of the Counts of Hornes and Egmont in Brussels in 1568 for heresy - I'm checking. And the Wandering Jew into the bargain, just to discredit himself...Jel12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand Master section of the article has been tagged as unreliable. Which statements are unreliable? In time, I might add footnotes and citations from the book which I used as a source, The Last Templar by Alain Demurger. Some paragraphs may have been added by others in later times, but I don't have the overview of just that.
sincerely, cun20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly this is related to recent additions from Franco-Mongol alliance. Such as the claim that De Molay was directly involved in combat operations, participated in a successful attack on Jerusalem in 1299, and briefly held the city. To my knowledge none of that happened. But if you have access to additional sources for this article or the alliance one, they would be much appreciated. :) --Elonka23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate opinions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Painting, to discuss whether or not Jacques de Molay was part of a force which re-took Jerusalem in 1299. Most books agree he didn't, but there is evidently a painting hanging in Versailles, which says that he did.[1] Opinions are requested. Thanks, Elonka07:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On page 265 in the book The Last Templar - The Tragedy of Jacques de Molay, Last Grand Master of the Temple from 2002 by Alain Demurger, the list of chronology says the following of the year 1299:
Historical context
1298/1299: Mamluk attack on Armenia of Cilicia; the Templars lose the castle of Roche-Guillaume.
1299 (24 December): Second battle of Homs. Victory of the Mongols over the Mamluks.
Jacques de Molay
1298 or 1299: In Armenia.
1299 (20 October): Limassol (letter to Pierre de Saint-Just).
No indication of a recapturing of Jerusalem here. It is probably just a hoax.
Looks like in the back of Demurger's book, he goes into detail about how there were a lot of misperceptions in France in the 1800s about the Templars. He mentions the painting, and other stories that were going around at the time. I also wrote to the Versailles about the painting, and they agreed that it's fantasy. Evidently they're going to rename it from "Jacques Molay Takes Jerusalem, 1299" to just "The Taking of Jerusalem". --Elonka09:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree the event described in the painting probably did not happen. This painting was nevertheless made in the 19th century ([2]), and very nicely documents how the story of the conquest of the Holy Land by the Mongols and their Templars allies was inflated at that time. It is nice illustration of the retelling and deformation of old history. The fact is that this painting exists with its own title, and I do not think anybody will destroy it because of what it depicts :) It is better to describe it, comment it, and explain what is historically right or wrong about it. This basically happens all the time with historical painting. Regards PHG09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I have isn't so much whether or not we include the painting here, but what the caption says. My version: "There was no battle, and De Molay was nowhere near Jerusalem at the time. In reality, after the Christians lost control of Jerusalem in 1244, it was not under Christian control again until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans", v. PHG's version: "Although the Mongol allies of the Templars may have controlled Jerusalem for some time in 1299-1300, De Molay was apparently nowhere near Jerusalem at the time." PHG's version is promoting a view that we are already in dispute about, as he's trying to say that the Mongols may have captured Jerusalem in 1300, and he is also promoting a view about the "Mongol allies." This is just an overflow of a dispute from other articles, and even an ongoing mediation. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. PHG, please just try to participate in the mediation, and don't go spreading the dispute to even more articles? --Elonka09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elonka, you know very well that scholars are divided on the question of the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem, hence the "may". So why try to impose you point of view here? Both views deserve representation as per Wikipedia Npov policy. Of course, to be further discussed on Mediation. Regards. PHG09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, scholars are not "divided", they say overwhelmingly that no such conquering occurred. The consensus of Wikipedia editors on the matter is very clear as well, as when they overwhelmingly agreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem to delete the POV fork article that you created. I have to admit that I am finding it very hard to understand why you are so determined to cling to these fringe theories, in blatant disregard of editor consensus. Please, you have to try harder to work with the other editors at Wikipedia, instead of repeatedly insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. --Elonka10:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Demurger, Runciman etc... describe Mongol raids or the occupation of Jerusalem by the Mongols, then these are not Fringe theories. You have no right to dismiss the opinions of such prominent scholars as Fringe and deny them representation side-by-side with other opinions. A sampling again: "In The Crusaders and the Crusader States, Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia"[254]. Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308.[255] Claude Mutafian, in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie mentions the writings and the 14th century Armenian Dominican which claim that the Armenian king visited Jerusalem as it was temporarily removed from Muslim rule.[256] Demurger, in Les Templiers, mentions the possibility that the Mongols may have occupied Jerusalem, quoting an Armenian tradition describes that Hethoum celebrated mass in Jerusalem in January 1300." The article fork discussion you are mentionning has nothing to do with this issue, it was only about the appropriateness of creating a stand-alone article or not, not about content. PHG10:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, repeatedly copy/pasting the same argument is obviously not going to make me change my mind. I've replied to your Jotischky/Runciman arguments multiple times now, I'm not going to just get back into the same cycle here. If you want to discuss things in good faith, please participate at the mediation page, rather than spreading the dispute out to other articles. --Elonka10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure let's discuss there, but please stop branding as "Fringe" something which clearly is not. You cannot just dismiss numerous and reputable sources: it is not even a matter of convincing you, just one of following Wikipedia rules. PHG11:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Location of "Jacques de Molay in Jerusalem" painting
We all agree the event described in the painting probably did not happen. This painting was nevertheless made in the 19th century ([3]), and very nicely documents how the story of the conquest of the Holy Land by the Mongols and their Templars allies was inflated at that time. It is nice illustration of the retelling and deformation of old history. User:Elonka reverted a Npov editing I did, and my relocation of it to the Crusades (where it belongs): there is currently absolutely no text that relates to this illustration in the Legend section. Overall, not such a big deal, but I think this kind of low-level reverting is quite cavallier and unjustified. Regards PHG09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there are 2 separate issues here:
The caption of the painting
The positioning of the painting in the article
It would prob help to separate out those points and resolve them separately as they seem to have become rather intertwined. WjBscribe09:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reworked the "Legends" section of the article, so the location of the image should no longer be an issue. --Elonka10:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very large amount of information was deleted from this article on November 17th [4]. In particular, referenced information pertaining to de Molay's relations with the Mongols disapeared. Could someone consider reinstating the information? Cheers PHG (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC) :[reply]
Combined offensives in 1300-1301.
Plans for combined operations were again made for the following winter offensive. A letter has been kept from Jacques de Molay to Edward I, and dated April 8, 1301, informing him of the troubles encountered by Ghazan, but announcing that Ghazan was supposed to come in Autumn:
"And our convent, with all our galleys and 'tarides' [light galleys][lacuna] has been transported to the isle of Tortosa to await Ghazan's army and his Tartars."
— Jacques de Molay, letter to Edward I, April 8, 1301[1]
And in a letter to the king of Aragon a few months later:
"The king of Armenia had sent his messengers to the king of Cyprus to tell him . . . that Ghazan was now on the point of coming to the sultan's lands with a multitude of Tartars. Knowing this, we now intend to go to the isle of Tortosa, where our convent has remained all this year with horses and arms, causing much damage to the casaux along the coast and capturing many Saracens. We intend to go there and settle in to await the Tartars."
— Jacques de Molay, letter to the king of Aragon, 1301[2]
In November that year, De Molay joined the occupation of the tiny fortress island of Ruad (today called Arwad) which faced the Syrian town of Tortosa. The intent was to establish a bridgehead to await assistance from the Mongols, but the Mongols failed to appear in 1300. The same happened in 1301 and 1302. In September 1302 the Templars were driven out of Ruad by the attacking Mamluk forces from Egypt, and many were massacred when trapped on the island. The island of Ruad was lost in the Siege of Ruad on September 26, 1302, and when Ghâzân died in 1304 Jacques de Molay's dream of a rapid reconquest of the Holy Land was destroyed.
The information was removed because it was giving undue weight to De Molay's relatively minor involvement with the Mongols. The Frankish-Mongol communications, along with their failed attempts at forming an alliance, are better covered in the article Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight? This is a very important part of de Molay's life. For a period of about 3 years he made a final attempt to reconquer the Holy Land by estalishing contacts with the Mongols and attempting to coordinate military activity with them. For example, in Alain Demurger's biography "Jacques de Molay" this is covered by a whole 20 pages. Isn't it legitimate to properly document these important 3 years of his life? Cheers PHG (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have four paragraphs about this in the "Grand Master" section of the article. In my opinion, that's already too much and should be condensed down even further. We don't need to add even more information to it. --Elonka19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Quoted in Demurger, p.154/French, pp. 105-106/English. PRO, Ancient Correspondence, Special Collections 1/55, f. 22; published in Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi, p. 368. Full content of the letter:
"Excellentissimo et potentissimo Domino, domino Eabardo (sic) Dei gratia serenissimo regi Anglie et domino Hibernie et duci Aquitanie et (... Jacobus de Mol)lay Dei gratia humilis magister pauperis milicie Templi salutem et separatum mandatus regis( tota)liter obediri. Quia de (...) edimus quos dominatio regia cup(it or iat) informari ideo eaque ad presens novimus regie majestati per presentes (...) Hanc est quod Casanus Tartarorum rex pungnavit cum domino Portefferi qui esse dicitur suus germanus et Casanus (...) suo exercitu (...) bellavit et extitit deinde de hostibus triumphator. Intelliximus etiam quod in mense septembris pro servicio venturo (...) et trahit in insula Turtesie. Casani et surrum tartarorum adventum attendendo; et per Dei gratiam noster conventus taliter (...)ndo dampna Saracenis et Fragendo casalia eorumdem quod per actum ipsorum casum (...) et votis precipere (...) intendere si altissimus noster (...)tetur his diebus. Nos igitur (...)nam potentiam flexis genibus (...) quod sua pietate ita dignetur dirigere et flaci approbare quod certa negotia Terre Sancte Comoda vel (...) dominationem regiam humiliter deprecamur ut nos nostroque et nostra bona sub protectione regia (...) et noster conventus parati sumus dominationis vestre mandatis totaliter obedire. Data Nomocie IX aprilis."
– Letter from Jacques de Molay to Edward I, London, Record Office, LV No22, transcripted in Laurent Dailliez, "Jacques de Molay, dernier maitre du Temple, p.190, Note 65
The image File:Crown.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Ordination of Jacques de Molay in 1265 as a Knight Templar, at the Beaune commandery, painted by Marius Granet (1777-1849).
Ordination of Jacques de Molay in 1265 as a Knight Templar, at the Beaune commandery, painted by Marius Granet (1777-1849). Feel free to insert the image into the article. Phg (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The account of de Molay's death and curse provided in this article is inconsistent with the version provided in the Wikipedia article on Phillip IV of France. ≈≈≈≈ Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.60.87 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no mention of the Chinon Parchment in this article? The Wikipedia article on the Chinon Parchment states that, "in 1308 Pope Clement V secretly absolved the last Grand Master Jacques de Molay and the rest of the leadership of the Knights Templar from the charges brought against them by the Medieval Inquisition." Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on the Knights Templar goes on to state that, "It is currently the Roman Catholic Church's position that the medieval persecution of the Knights Templar was unjust; that there was nothing inherently wrong with the order or its rule; and that Pope Clement was pressured into his actions by the magnitude of the public scandal and the dominating influence of King Phillip IV."≈≈≈≈Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.32.10 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. This is important and should be in the article. The correct word, with respect to what the Pope did, is "pardoned" not "absolved". Mugginsx (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original 1308 Latin that is used is absolutionem - and the second Chinon Parchment dated 20 August 1308 addressed to the King of France stated that absolution had been granted to all Knights Templar - so this was hardly a "secret". Beware of conspiracy theorists posing as historians. Lung salad (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there are some sources to the article which appear to be a bit mangled. For example: "Raynald. ann. 1313, No. 39.—Raynouard, pp. 20.J-10.—Cbntin. Guill. Nangiac. ann. 1313.—Joann. de S.Victor. (Bouquet, XXI. 658).—Chrou. Anon. (Bouquet, XXI. 143).—Godefroy de Paris v. G033-6129.—Villani Cbron. viii. 92.— hron. CorneL Zantfliet ann. 1310 (Martene Ampl, Coll. V. 160).— Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1307.—Pauli ^mylii de Reb. Gcst. Franc. Ed. 1509, p. 431" Can anyone expand these to something intelligible, so that the information can be verified? I'm also concerned that these may be Primary Sources, rather than the Secondary Sources that are best for Wikipedia. See also WP:PSTS and WP:CITE. --Elonka20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material was mine but the reference was not. I cannot explain it, however, I have re-inserted the proper reference. It is not a primary source though they are perfectly permittable here at Wiki and used, not only in Wiki, but throughout many scholarly works as well. What troubles me is the vast amount of unsourced material here. A large portion of the introductory paragraph is unsourced. The entire sections entitled "Youth" and "Arrest" are unsourced. In fact, various other information throughout the entire article is unsourced. I would not summarily delete it at this point however, but rather give the editors a chance to properly source their information. Though the material is not mine, I will be happy to try to find sources for these portions as my time permits. If anything should come out it may be the second paragraph on the "Curse" which mentions a series of "Novels" as its source. It is the reason I put in my paragraph in the "Curse". I do not like summary deletions without some kind of consensus, but this particular paragraph certainly has problems and to use a Novel as a source should really not be acceptable. Mugginsx (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I changed the Section Heading "References and Further Reading". They should never be together as they represent two different categories.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs)
Thanks, I expanded on your work, changed the section headers some more, and condensed the "Curse" section. I still have questions about the sources though. A couple of the cites just list titles, but without any other information about them... Are they from journals? Books? Who are the authors? What pages did the information come from? Also, one of the cites does have a fair bit of information, but it appears to be from a book which was published in 1888. For Wikipedia's purposes, we tend to look at very old sources such as that as primary sources, not secondary sources... Are there more modern sources available, to source the information? Thanks, --Elonka22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the sections you referred to are NOT mine, therefore I cannot answer your questions. My source, used twice, was clearly referenced as to title, author and page. Also, when you combined the "Curse" section, you mixed my sourced section with an unsourced section and left the Novel material in. The "long" section you refer to is from a book, again, it is properly referenced and is NOT a primary source. A primary source would need to be some account by someone who was there at the time of the incident. The mixed section needs to be either put back in the way it was originally edited, then separated as to source, or in the alternative, taken out entirely. I think you will find that sources regularly used in Wiki articles, particularly medieval articles are full of sources that are much older than the source I gave. Mugginsx (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if I've upset you, I apologize, that was not my intention. I actually like that we're both working on the same article, and look forward to finding the consensus version. For best results though, any sources used really need to be modern reliable sources. If the only source for a particular fact is something from pre-1900, it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you think I'm wrong though, we can definitely seek a third opinion. In the meantime though, if you're seeking newer sources for something, I highly recommend http://scholar.google.com and http://books.google.com :) --Elonka23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have certainly not upset me. I do find it strange however, that you are completely unmoved by the vast amount of totally unsourced material that I brought to your attention as well as a referenced portion which clearly uses a novel as its source and, instead you seem fixated on a scholarly book which does not disagree with anything said in more recent sources. In fact, the more "modern" sources probably use this as one of their source! It is not logical. Also your original research needs to come out. It is clearly against Wiki policy. As an adminstrator you surely remember hearing this. Mugginsx (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern sources are preferable, because history is an ever-evolving body of knowledge. Statements by historians from a hundred years ago, may or may not reflect more modern analyses of the same material. As is shown in this very article, a 19th-century encyclopedia said things about Jacques de Molay which have since been proven to be false. So, especially about an individual around whom is woven so many different legends and false stories, it is especially important to stick to modern reliable sources. As for any original research in the article, you are welcome to remove unsourced information, or request sources on anything you wish. --Elonka00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of a Reference from Oxford Dictionary - 2. a mention or citation of a source of information in a book or article. The operative word is "IN" a book or article. That is what differentiates the Reference Section from ALL others.
This can be a great article if we leave our egos at the door and pull together. I am willing to help if it does not lead to confrontation. That does not mean we cannot disagree, but that we are honest in our differences of opinion. I have seen some really great articles on Wiki and it was, without exception, when many people came to the article with whatever they could find, sourced it properly, and debated with respect on agreement or disagreement. Great minds work together, small minds work alone. They are some very good editors on this page and I would be priviledged to work with any and I hope you feel the same way. I am presently working with a post surgical rotator cuff impairment, so I am at somewhat of a loss as, after a short time, I am in pain just typing, but I promise I will help with humility and sincerely as best I can. I have a research background and if I can find something someone is looking for, I will do so and the credit will be yours. Mugginsx (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. You did great work improving the article. I think we have a difficult subject in de Molay, but not impossible. I would compare him to Alexander the Great in that we will probably have to be content with his deeds, rather than his words and personal life. If we do that well, however, we will come out with a fair presumption as to what kind of man he really was. That is an exciting thought, is it not? As to the Projects you mentioned, I am flattered that you think me capable, however I am not qualified at this time because I am only a bearly passable programmer. For now, I am happy to contribute at my own pace and ease, while gradually learning the programming aspect. I love history and enjoy reading as well as making contributions from time to time. Had physical therapy today and really cannot do anymore tonight. Thank you again for your kind words and best wishes. Mugginsx (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars will debate from now to infinitum about the exact day of de Molay's death, as well as many other exact dates. That is the kind of thing they dedicate their life doing. They carry with them the tools of years of learning several languages, including; but not limited to: Middle English, English, Middle French, French, and Old and Modern Latin. The honest ones will admit that many such "exact" dates, especially in medieval articles, are just not knowable. "Florence" is somewhat more reliable only because the dates are sometimes connected with astrological observations. Considering the venue we are presenting working in, I hope you will agree with me that it is best to leave out the day, keep the year and go on to researching more important things about this subject, thus accomplishing an article no one can contest. Can we have a consenses on this? Mugginsx (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to handle this is to just neutrally present the differing views, in proper proportion to what the sources are saying. The general rule on Wikipedia, is that we're not here to "decide" the dispute, we're here to describe the dispute. So let's just lay out the differing opinions, and then the reader will know that there is disagreement. For example, we might say, "The day of Molay's death is reported differently in various sources. Most, such as (name) say "x", but some, such as (names) say "y"". For more info on how to handle these situations of "the sources disagree", see WP:ASF and WP:NPOV. --Elonka18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph which I think is vital to the interpretation of the Chinon document, in that many people who are not Catholic might understandably confuse the words used "absolution" with "innocence". The document, if misread could be interpreted much differently if it is believed that the Pope (Clement V) or the Cardinals involved were trying to exonerate the Templars. I believe the truth was quite the contrary. It was all part of a most devious game to make the Templars "look guilty, but forgiven" which is quite a different matter, as when the Church "absolves" it actually acknowledges the sin as true and declares punishment. It was also quite clever and devious as Clement makes himself look innocent, when in fact it was an act of duplicity with the King of France. Mugginsx (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extract: Papal Bull, Vox in excelso (28 March 1312). "We wished to know the truth of the whole matter and whether their confessions and depositions, which were said to have been made in the presence of the inquisitor of heresy in the kingdom of France and witnessed by certain public notaries and many other good men, and which were produced in public and shown to us and our brothers by the inquisitor, were true. We empowered and commanded our beloved sons Berengar, Cardinal, then with the title of Nereo and Achilleo, now Bishop of Frascati, and Stephen, Cardinal-priest with the title of Saint Cyriac in Thermis, and Landulf, Cardinal-deacon with the title of Saint Angelo, in whose prudence, experience and loyalty we have the fullest confidence, to make a careful investigation with the grand master, visitor and preceptors, concerning the truth of the accusations against them and individual persons of the Order and against the Order itself. If there was evidence, it was to be brought to us; the confessions and depositions were to be taken down in writing by a public notary and presented to us. The cardinals were to grant absolution from the sentence of excommunication, according to the form of the Church, to the master, visitor and preceptors - a sentence incurred if the accusations were true - provided the accused humbly and devoutly requested absolution, as they ought to." Malcolm Barber, Keith Bate, The Templars: selected sources translated and annotated, page 313 (Manchester University Press, 2002). ISBN978-0-7190-5110-4Lung salad (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marked this as neutrality disputed for the following reasons:
♦ The statement "...claiming with little or no proof that Molay was a key figure connected to other stories of mystery" seems to be a blanket statement and has no supporting citation.
♦ The statement "There is no reliable basis for saying that the Shroud depicts Molay..." ignores some evidence already included and cited on the Turin Shroud page, including radiocarbon dating consistent with with the death of JDM, and the position that AB type blood did not come into existence until after 700AD.
--Deeptime (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the section Legends/Curse, the article states "Clement was described as shedding tears of remorse on his death-bed for three great crimes, the poisoning of Henry VI, and the ruin of the Templars and Beguines."
The Henry VI link goes to a disambig page; none of the persons listed there are described as being poisoned in their respective articles, and three of them don't come from Clement's time period in any event. So who, precisely, is the poisoned man whom Clement is said to have lamented on his deathbed? SS451 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a slight limb and remove the "James of Molay", only because I have never seen him referred to as anything but Jacques de Molay (with the usual messing about of caps on the "surname") in English. If someone feels compelled to put it back, please cite somewhere it appears. MSJapan (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears in Michael Haag, The Templars: History and Myth – From Solomon’s Temple to the Freemasons (2008), and also in Barber, Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources (2002).
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofinquis03leah/historyofinquis03leah_djvu.txt - Chapter 5 The Templars pg 263 paragraph 2 -
cites the five original charges against the Templars. One mentions the worshipping of an idol bearing the image of a "man with a long beard" the description is of a rounded idol. It was never found and de Moley was never identified as being the image. New book cited sounds like some sensationized version. Appearing here seems more like Wiki/Fringe. I would ask the editor who put the information contained in the Amazon described pseudohistorical book, at what reference point does this information exist and the reference given for the author's statement that the image was ever thought to be that of Jacques de Molay?
I have just modified 2 external links on Jacques de Molay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Jacques de Molay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
At the start of the article it states that the Templars were dissolved in 1307. The correct year is 1312. 1307 is the year that the pope ordered that the Templars be arrested. The date should be corrected or clarification provided. Jaccmatt (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through some of the conversations above, I do not wish to ignite any emotions or stir up any fever, but...
That being said, I wonder about the inclusion of the 'Shroud of Turin' text in the 'Legends' section. I'm not debating the validity of this text, merely the inclusion in this section of de Molay's entry. It seemingly does not have any relevance to de Molay or his subsequent legend.
Geoffroi de Charny (the French Knight who died at the 1356 battle of Poitiers) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy are the first reliably recorded owners of the Shroud of Turin. This Geoffroi participated in a failed crusade under Humbert II of Viennois in the late 1340s. He is sometimes confused with Templar Geoffroi de Charney.
If there is pertinent data missing, then I would invite one more learned than me in such matters to flesh out the piece. If de Molay has some involvement in this artifact, then it should be stated here. Again, not questioning the verity of this text, just its location here in this article. I'm open to discussion on it. I will refrain from any edits to this content for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasFoo99 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Death Account Inconsistent with the page on Hugues de Pairaud
This page states that "There de Molay, de Charney, de Gonneville, and de Peraud were slowly burned to death."
On the page for Hugues de Pairaud, it states "Hugues de Pairaud (Visitor of the Temple) was one of the leaders of the Knights Templar. He and Geoffroi de Gonneville (the Preceptor of Aquitaine) were sentenced to life imprisonment on March 18, 1314. They were spared the fate of Jacques de Molay (Grand Master) and Geoffroi de Charney (Preceptor of Normandy), who were both burned at the stake, because they accepted their sentence in silence."
One states that the other two survived, while this article states otherwise. Also, Pairaud is mispelled in one of the two articles.
I have changed birth and death. The sources I found were reliable. Especially I find that Alain Demurger has changed his opinion and now finds 11. March 1314 more probable than 18. March 1314. I think 11. March should be the main date. I also found some very reliable sources in addition to Demurger. 18. March is explained in the section covering his death. 18. March have been his date of death on Wikipedia for a long time so it is bound to be widely qouted, especially since one of the original sources must have been Demurger. There is no way to be certain so this is where I followed what the experts now think. They have looked at and evaluated what sources there is left. --regards ツDyveldi☯ prat✉ post13:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have given several references, please see section Jacques de Molay#Death the quotations should show what the historical community agrees on. Demurger seems to be the main expert and he finds 11. March most probable, mind you probable. Yes both dates should be quoted with this in mind. I have tried to take care of the uncertainties. I have also tried to give suficcient quotations for others to be able to judge the matter. Further rewriting probably should be done. --regards ツDyveldi☯ prat✉ post05:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Corroborated by this source:
"Molay entered the order in 1265, fought in Syria, and after 1291 was at Cyprus. He was elected grand master of the Templars about 1298."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-de-Molay
Molay was elected grand master in 1297 according to this source:
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1916_june.htm (JACQUES BERNARD DE MOLAI BY BRO. G. ALFRED LAWRENCE, NEW YORK. The Builder Magazine. June 1916 - Volume II - Number 6.)
A recently discovered letter from January 1296 calls Molay the humble master of the militia of the Temple (in Latin):
"A recent finding by Beatriz Canellas, Head of the Description Department at the Archives of the Crown of Aragon, has allowed us to find an unknown letter from Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Order of the Knights Templar, addressed to Ramon de Bell-lloc, Commander of the Order, dated 21st January 1296." https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/archivos-aca/en/destacados/carta-de-molay.html
1292 is supported here:
"Until recently, Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, was portrayed negatively in the historiography. At best, he was seen as a man of action, who happened to be often confused, but never as a diplomat. The Templars, however, played a significant role between the Latin sovereign powers. Elected in spring 1292, in a very difficult international context, Jacques de Molay immediately launched large-scale undertakings, in which, more than his predecessors, he was influential and above all acted independently."
https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-revue-historique-2020-4-page-3.htm (The making of a diplomat: Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, and his journeys to the West (1292–1296). Philippe Josserand. In Revue historique. Volume 696, Issue 4, October 2020, pages 3 to 21.)
And an authoritative summary from a leading scholar on the Templars:
"The apparently demoralised Theobald Gaudin did not long outlive the
fall of Acre. Sometime before 20 April, 1292, he had been succeeded by a
highly experienced Burgundian Templar of twenty-seven years’ standing
called James of Molay.43 [...] 43 This date is the first mention of Molay as grand master, Forey, Corona, no. 36, pp. 405–6. [...] Forey, A. J., The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, London, 1973."
Barber, Malcolm (2006). The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press. pp. 18, 315 and 374. ISBN978-0-511-24533-6.
Sorry, I do not know who edited this, but "knowing neither Law nor Theology" referred to Molay sounds a bit ridiculous. Perhaps Karen Ralls stated that about Molay? If so, on which grounds or sources? 5.91.86.7 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it's pretty far-fetched without direct support. That entire sentence was rather goofy in terms of language, too ("captious interrogatories"), so I've deleted it altogether. Grandpallama (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion of location of execution (and memorial plaque) in Paris: which island?
Where is the location of the execution? I see conflicting information in the article and in the caption for the photo of an island.
The conflicting information leads to the possibility that this Molay article identifies the wrong island as the place of execution:
First, this Molay article refers to the execution occurring at a location "on the Ile des Javiaux in the Seine." No link is in the article to this island. Web searches show few instances of this name online. Other Wikipedia articles describe this island as being more popularly known as "Ile Louviers," a former island, located to the east of the île Notre-Dame (modern Saint-Louis Island). Molay is not mentioned in the Wiki article for that island.
Third, elsewhere in this Molay article, it says the execution happened on a different (now former) island to the west, Île aux Juifs. Molay is mentioned in that Wiki article. That article says, "The island, along with two other small islands next to it, were joined to the Île de la Cité when the Pont Neuf was built across it between 1578 and 1604." And it says, "The island was located just to the west of tip of the Île de la Cité, approximately where the Square du Vert-Galant is today." And that article says that former island has also been known as "Île des Templiers." All of that information, if correct, seems to place the plaque in roughly the right place today to mark the execution.
The specificity of that last information, and the match to the current location of the plaque as shown by Google street view photos, suggests that this Molay article should identify the site of execution as a former island known as Île aux Juifs, now joined at the western tip of Île de la Cité, near the Square du Vert-Galant. And it should say that the memorial plaque to Jaques de Molay is just to the east of the square next to stairs.2600:480A:2A51:B500:2031:4B7F:33B2:491A (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg){kind=link}
