[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.51 In the Temple, a brother who refused to go to a stricter order when he was sentenced to be expelled was to be put in irons tant que il ait pense, ou autre por lui, de son ordenement, while Dietrich of Altenburg decreed that detention was to used as a means of dissuading a brother of the Teutonic order from leaving it: he was to be kept in prison or irons until he abandoned his intention.52 The Catalan version of the Templar Customs also states that if a brother was reported by an outsider to have committed an offence, and refused to admit it, he might not only be put on bread and water but also placed in a room and forbidden to leave it until he confessed, although house arrest is also mentioned as a possible measure in these circumstances.53 According to an early-fourteenth-century version of the Hospitaller esgarts, irons might also be used to coerce a sergeant in the employ of the Hospital who left a house and did not fulfi l his obligations.On the fourth refusal to return to his house and perform his work, he was to be put in irons until he gave a pledge to complete his year’s contract of service.54Most information about chaining and imprisonment in military orders, for whatever purpose, is contained in surviving rules and regulations.Yet not all cases of confi nement were in accordance with an order’s decrees.In defi niciones drawn up for Calatrava in 1325, Juan Palazuelos, the abbot of Morimond, referred to the muy gran escandalo en la casa de Calatrava por prissiones e penitencias, sin Dio, e sin orden, and he forbade the master to incarcerate brothers without counsel.55 As has been noted, this ruling was made in a period of dissension within Calatrava, and the master had clearly been seeking to silence opponents by locking them up.56Earlier, in 1311, the master had himself been threatened with incarceration, for his opponents had informed him, when he was in Aragon, that if he entered the Campo de Calatrava, they would imprison him.5749 O’Callaghan, ‘Earliest “Difi niciones”’, pp.264 (1304: 10), 275 (1336: 8); O’Callaghan,‘Defi niciones de Montesa’, pp.231 (1326: 5), 237 (1331: 16).50 J.B.Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society.Power, Discipline, and Resistance in Languedoc (Ithaca, 1997), pp.52–65.51 Canivez, 2, p.42 (1225: 36).52 RT, p.237 (437); SDO, p.149 (5); Schmidt, pp.139–40.53 Catalan Rule, p.16 (32–3).54 CH, 2, pp.536–61 doc.2213 (16).55 O’Callaghan, ‘Earliest “Difi niciones”’, p.270 (1325: 6).56 See Ayala Martínez, ‘Cuestionario’, p.85.57 Ibid., pp.77, 80, 87–9.Claims of arbitrary imprisonment were also made during the Templar trial: Finke, 2, p.331; but such evidence is suspect.Alan Forey95Regulations of military orders include few rulings about the establishment of prisons or the nature of irons.The general chapter of the Cistercians, to whom some Spanish military orders were affi liated, in 1206 allowed monasteries to establish prisons, and in 1229 it decreed that strong and secure prisons were, if possible, to be built in all abbeys;58 but the only comparable ruling in regulations of military orders themselves was that of Conrad of Feuchtwangen, master of the Teutonic order, who ordered in 1292 that each Landkomtur should have one or two prisons in his district59: the ruling does not suggest that prisons were then common in houses of that order, although the issuing of such a decree reinforces the suggestion that imprisonment was becoming a more common penalty.It is usually diffi cult to discover information about the nature of the prisons that did exist for the incarceration of brothers or employees, or about the methods of chaining delinquents.During the Templar trial several witnesses referred to the severity of that order’s prisons.Those detained were said to have been treated inhumanely and usually did not long survive: a brother who claimed to have been custos of a Templar prison said that in his time nine brothers had died because of harsh conditions.60 Yet these claims are to be explained partly by the context in which they were made; and, although Templars in prison would also be subject to fasting and other punishments, there is no reason to believe that these gaols were of exceptional harshness: cold, disease, and a lack of food and of clothing were common features of prison life, and deaths were frequent.61 When chaining was mentioned, reference was usually made merely to ‘irons’ ( fers), although when a more precise word was used it was normally compedes, which in the context presumably signifi es leg irons.62 Ramón of Guardia, the Templar commander of Mas-Déu, when interrogated in 1310, admittedly claimed that according to the order’s statutes those convicted of sodomy were detained not only in leg irons but also in collo catenis appositis et in manibus manicis ferreis 63 ; but this is not stated in surviving Templar regulations, and Ramón was probably merely seeking to counter as forcibly as possible the accusation that the order encouraged homosexuality.Inventories of Templar houses and castles compiled after the arrest of brethren in the early fourteenth century do not refer to prisons or chains although, as they are primarily lists of movables, and as these are not always comprehensive, the omission is not necessarily signifi cant.64 Castles no doubt had underground chambers or other 58 Canivez, 1, p.320 (1206: 4); 2, p.76 (1229: 6); cf [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.51 In the Temple, a brother who refused to go to a stricter order when he was sentenced to be expelled was to be put in irons tant que il ait pense, ou autre por lui, de son ordenement, while Dietrich of Altenburg decreed that detention was to used as a means of dissuading a brother of the Teutonic order from leaving it: he was to be kept in prison or irons until he abandoned his intention.52 The Catalan version of the Templar Customs also states that if a brother was reported by an outsider to have committed an offence, and refused to admit it, he might not only be put on bread and water but also placed in a room and forbidden to leave it until he confessed, although house arrest is also mentioned as a possible measure in these circumstances.53 According to an early-fourteenth-century version of the Hospitaller esgarts, irons might also be used to coerce a sergeant in the employ of the Hospital who left a house and did not fulfi l his obligations.On the fourth refusal to return to his house and perform his work, he was to be put in irons until he gave a pledge to complete his year’s contract of service.54Most information about chaining and imprisonment in military orders, for whatever purpose, is contained in surviving rules and regulations.Yet not all cases of confi nement were in accordance with an order’s decrees.In defi niciones drawn up for Calatrava in 1325, Juan Palazuelos, the abbot of Morimond, referred to the muy gran escandalo en la casa de Calatrava por prissiones e penitencias, sin Dio, e sin orden, and he forbade the master to incarcerate brothers without counsel.55 As has been noted, this ruling was made in a period of dissension within Calatrava, and the master had clearly been seeking to silence opponents by locking them up.56Earlier, in 1311, the master had himself been threatened with incarceration, for his opponents had informed him, when he was in Aragon, that if he entered the Campo de Calatrava, they would imprison him.5749 O’Callaghan, ‘Earliest “Difi niciones”’, pp.264 (1304: 10), 275 (1336: 8); O’Callaghan,‘Defi niciones de Montesa’, pp.231 (1326: 5), 237 (1331: 16).50 J.B.Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society.Power, Discipline, and Resistance in Languedoc (Ithaca, 1997), pp.52–65.51 Canivez, 2, p.42 (1225: 36).52 RT, p.237 (437); SDO, p.149 (5); Schmidt, pp.139–40.53 Catalan Rule, p.16 (32–3).54 CH, 2, pp.536–61 doc.2213 (16).55 O’Callaghan, ‘Earliest “Difi niciones”’, p.270 (1325: 6).56 See Ayala Martínez, ‘Cuestionario’, p.85.57 Ibid., pp.77, 80, 87–9.Claims of arbitrary imprisonment were also made during the Templar trial: Finke, 2, p.331; but such evidence is suspect.Alan Forey95Regulations of military orders include few rulings about the establishment of prisons or the nature of irons.The general chapter of the Cistercians, to whom some Spanish military orders were affi liated, in 1206 allowed monasteries to establish prisons, and in 1229 it decreed that strong and secure prisons were, if possible, to be built in all abbeys;58 but the only comparable ruling in regulations of military orders themselves was that of Conrad of Feuchtwangen, master of the Teutonic order, who ordered in 1292 that each Landkomtur should have one or two prisons in his district59: the ruling does not suggest that prisons were then common in houses of that order, although the issuing of such a decree reinforces the suggestion that imprisonment was becoming a more common penalty.It is usually diffi cult to discover information about the nature of the prisons that did exist for the incarceration of brothers or employees, or about the methods of chaining delinquents.During the Templar trial several witnesses referred to the severity of that order’s prisons.Those detained were said to have been treated inhumanely and usually did not long survive: a brother who claimed to have been custos of a Templar prison said that in his time nine brothers had died because of harsh conditions.60 Yet these claims are to be explained partly by the context in which they were made; and, although Templars in prison would also be subject to fasting and other punishments, there is no reason to believe that these gaols were of exceptional harshness: cold, disease, and a lack of food and of clothing were common features of prison life, and deaths were frequent.61 When chaining was mentioned, reference was usually made merely to ‘irons’ ( fers), although when a more precise word was used it was normally compedes, which in the context presumably signifi es leg irons.62 Ramón of Guardia, the Templar commander of Mas-Déu, when interrogated in 1310, admittedly claimed that according to the order’s statutes those convicted of sodomy were detained not only in leg irons but also in collo catenis appositis et in manibus manicis ferreis 63 ; but this is not stated in surviving Templar regulations, and Ramón was probably merely seeking to counter as forcibly as possible the accusation that the order encouraged homosexuality.Inventories of Templar houses and castles compiled after the arrest of brethren in the early fourteenth century do not refer to prisons or chains although, as they are primarily lists of movables, and as these are not always comprehensive, the omission is not necessarily signifi cant.64 Castles no doubt had underground chambers or other 58 Canivez, 1, p.320 (1206: 4); 2, p.76 (1229: 6); cf [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]