Talk:Jacques de Molay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jacques de Molay article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Use of name

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)

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. Durova 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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." PGNormand 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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'.

[edit] Clean up article

This article badly needs a good editor. Are there any medieval scholars out there who can do justice to this important historical figure?

How come? Do you have any examples? cun 11:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree to that. many parts of the article is apparently biased, made-up bs. Examples following

Downfall:

"It was common knowledge 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 confessed 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 guilty 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.

[edit] Torture

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)

[edit] Pædophilia

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...

References? Lern2spell too, by the way. 211.30.71.59 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. PGNormand 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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.

Jel 12:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drivel

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?  :) 211.30.71.59 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)

[edit] "Jacques de Molay, thou art avenged!"

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)

[edit] According to Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

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)


[edit] Grand Master section unreliable?

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)

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.  :) --Elonka 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

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, Elonka 07:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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.
Sincerely, cun 13:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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". --Elonka 09:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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 PHG 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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? --Elonka 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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. PHG 09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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. --Elonka 10:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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. PHG 10:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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. --Elonka 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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. PHG 11:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 PHG 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are 2 separate issues here:

  1. The caption of the painting
  2. 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. WjBscribe 09:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reworked the "Legends" section of the article, so the location of the image should no longer be an issue. --Elonka 10:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is starting to make more sense at last... PHG 11:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)