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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2012. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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? cun 23:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
This article badly needs a good editor. Are there any medieval scholars out there who can do justice to this important historical figure?
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?
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
You've got to be kidding! Almost every historical book on the subject gives evidence of torture! ThePeg 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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). Jel 11:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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. ThePeg 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jel 12:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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? :) 211.30.71.59 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
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. ThePeg 19:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- popefauvexxiii 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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... Jel 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The "thou art avenged" is in the Illuminatus Trilogy, first published 7 years before Holy Blood, Holy Grail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.70.229 ( talk) 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgot all about that. Does anybody know of any interviews with wilson (or shea) in which a claim for the legends source is made? -- PopeFauveXXIII 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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, cun 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
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, El on ka 07:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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 PHG 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that there are 2 separate issues here:
It would prob help to separate out those points and resolve them separately as they seem to have become rather intertwined. WjB scribe 09:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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) :
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.
References
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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- El on ka 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I would advise all interested in the concept of "modern interpretation of old history" to read "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Historian Norman F. Cantor. Mugginsx ( talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Excellent idea! If you wish to word it in the way you described, it's fine with me. Mugginsx ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The images are just beautiful in this article. My congratulations to the editor or editors who inserted them Mugginsx ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I also congratulate Elonka who works tirelessly to make this an article to be proud of!
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)
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)
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)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_VI_du_Saint-Empire Lung salad ( talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Here's a reference for all the other books [5] Lung salad ( talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
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?
Took it out WP:BOLD. Mugginsx ( talk) 10:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
66.76.17.74 ( talk) 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
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 ✉ post 13:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The source given for 1292 actually says the following (I have added Barber (2006) to the Wikipedia article that confirms 1292): "A Templar at Beaune since 1265, Molai is mentioned as Grand Master of the Templars as early as 1298." https://web.archive.org/web/20090310202531/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10433a.htm
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. ISBN 978-0-511-24533-6.
Here is appendix no. 36 from Forey: https://libro.uca.edu/forey/append1.pdf Bevidsthed ( talk) 21:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)