7

The Templars and the Parisian Builders

The Domain and Sovereignty of the Temple

From the very beginning of the formation of their Order, the Templars sought to establish themselves in Paris.

King Louis VI, who ruled from 1108 to 1137 and had the sobriquet Louis the Fat, received a visit at his palace in the city one day from Father Bernard (the future Saint Bernard), abbot of Clairvaux. The abbot had come in the name of Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, to ask if two Templars, Andre and Gondomard, whom Baldwin had sent as envoys of Jerusalem, could hope to find aid and protection in France and whether Louis was disposed to give them a roof for shelter and a chapel where they could pray to God.

“I understand,” the king answered, “that it is a church you are asking me for. I will think on the matter.” The result of his thought was that he gave them a house next to the Saint Gervais Church, which was then outside the city walls. The two Templars settled in and soon invited other members of the Order until gradually the Order took root in Paris and the king gave them a large piece of land that was known as the Temple’s field. It extended from the current entry into the Faubourg du Temple^a to the rue de la Verrerie. The Templars saw to it that within their walls—the Enclos, as it was known—a church was built dedicated to the Holy Virgin and to Saint John the Baptist. They also erected a refectory, a colombier, a large tower—the famous tower of the Temple—and several houses.

This was the origin of the first two Templar establishments in Paris, the building near Saint Gervais and the Enclos of the Temple. In 1147 the Order had some fairly spacious buildings in Paris near Saint Gervais, where a domain called des Barres was located (Everard de Barris, or des Barres, was then grand master of the Order). This was used to hold a general chapter assembly, which both Pope Eugene III and King Louis VII attended.

The domain of the Templars expanded considerably in short order, either through acquisitions and donations or through construction. A harvest record from 1247¹ shows that their holdings covered one third of Paris at that time. Superimposed over a map of modern Paris, the Order’s domain would include part of the first arrondissement (the areas approaching the Pont au Change and the Pont St. Michel, Châtelet, rue Saint Germain l’Auxerrois, rue Saint Denis, and the current area of Les Halles); part of the second arrondissement (rue Saint Denis and its immediate area); a large portion of the third arrondissement; a portion of the fourth arrondissement including the Saint Merri and Saint Gervais quarters as well as the central part of the cité^b (between rue d’Arcole and the palace); a large part of the Sorbonne quarter (mainly Saint Julien le Pauvre, Saint Sevrerin, and Cluny) in the fifth arrondissement; and, finally, part of the eleventh arrondissement in the north, which served as the Templar’s farmland at that time and thus had no construction.

Of course this domain did not form a territory with clearly demarcated borders. Only the Enclos^c and its dependencies and the agricultural land had no break in continuity. The rest consisted of streets, land, and houses that were sometimes isolated enclaves in the jurisdiction of the provostship, the university, or another sovereign jurisdiction. The rights of the Temple were confirmed by the placement of the Order’s coat of arms on the facades of their buildings.

Inside this vast commandery lived a large number of knights and an even larger number of brother servants, among whom were the brothers who concerned themselves with construction projects and who were placed under the command of an officer called the master carpenter, magister carpentarius in domo templi parisiensis. The rapid building of the quarters of the Templar censive district shows that numerous lay craftsmen, masons, carpenters, and other tradesmen had come to reside there.

Inside this huge domain, the Templars ruled as masters. As was the case for such orders throughout the Christian world, the Order was sovereign both spiritually and temporally. With regard to the spiritual, just like the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, the Templars answered directly to the Holy See. The papal bull Omne datum optimum, issued on March 23, 1139, by Pope Innocent II and confirmed in 1162 by Alexander III, immediately transferred the affairs of the Order to the Holy See and removed them from the authority of the patriarch of Jerusalem—and the prelates of other countries. It also gave the Order complete authority to institute priests and chaplains to serve its churches.^d Shortly afterward, another bull, this one issued by Gregory VIII in 1188, declared that the Templars did not have to acknowledge the supremacy of any bishop other than the pope. This enabled them to avoid the pastoral authority of the bishop in Paris. By virtue of these privileges, the Order not only was spared the necessity of Episcopal visits, but it also assumed visitation and jurisdictional rights over the dependent parishes of its commanderies, except for the ordinances of diocesen bishop’s concerning the management of souls and the administration of sacraments. The Order had the power to consecrate its own oratories and churches without any intervention from the clergy and the right to possess its own cemeteries and inter people in its parish churches.

In the temporal sphere, the Templar Order asserted its full manorial independence by exercising in its domain and censive district important rights concerning justice and authority over roadways.

Before we look at these rights in detail, a short digression is necessary to examine several points in the history of public law. In the Middle Ages, the justice handed down by the lords appeared in two distinct forms: manorial justice and feudal justice.²

Manorial justice was an infeudated dismemberment of public power. The lord served as the judge in civil, criminal, and administrative trials within his seigniorial borders and over all the inhabitants of his seigniorial domain. Not all lords had an equally extensive authority, however. Two degrees were recognized: high and low justice. High justice dealt with every criminal accusation that carried an afflictive penalty and all civil trials in which a legal battle could take place—in other words, all major criminal cases. All other cases were the purview of low justice. It could be quite possible that one lord administered high justice while another lord in the same location was responsible for meting out low justice.

During the fourteenth century an intermediary—middle justice—appeared. This feudal or land-based justice was the result not of public authority but of feudal contracts and tenures and the relationships they created between men. It had two applications. In the first, the vassal, through homage, was subject to the jurisdiction of the lord of the fief, and it was this lord alone that was recognized as a judge in civil or criminal proceedings. In the second, any lord ruling over a feudal tenure had the exclusive authority to resolve any litigation concerning this tenure. The lord of the fief was the natural judge of any actions against the vassal by virtue of his authority over that fief. Likewise the lord censier (who received a censine’s taxes) knew the causes concerning the censive area. We should note that in towns and cities, feudal tenures applied to houses. We should also be aware that in terms of pure feudal law, manorial and feudal justices were all of sovereign jurisdiction; their verdict stood as final and there was no right to an appeal.

Now we can look at precisely how the Temple exercised these rights of feudal and manorial justice in its censive district. In the beginning, it appears that the Temple possessed the rights of both high and low justice over the Barres, the Enclos, and those lands located outside of the walls of Paris. The growth of the Templar’s domain, however, called for a modification of this authority. The properties belonging to its censive district but located inside the Parisian enceinte (the wall built by Louis VI that determined the city limits of Paris until Philip Augustus’s construction of another in 1190), were subject only to the feudal justice of the Temple or, at most, its low justice. After the construction of the new enceinte, Philip Augustus, along with all high justice lords, challenged the Temple regarding its rights of high justice over the part of its domain located inside the city’s walls. This conflict lasted for close to a century until an agreement was finally reached between King Philip III and the Templars in August 1279. This accord was on the whole favorable to the king, though it did establish the rights of the Templars in a solemn and definitive manner. After that time, all the patent letters of the king as well as all the claims of the order were based on this document, summarized as follows:³ In Paris the Templars will hold possession of, in peace and perpetuity, all their houses, gardens, streets, and squares, with the rights to all land taxes and rents incumbent to them as well as the domain and property justice attached to them . . . outside of which the king reserves to himself all other right of high or low justice. Outside the walls, they will retain over their lands, houses, and streets, over their subjects and goods, all their rights whatsoever with all high or low justice . . . The king promises for himself and his successors never to lay claim to any of these rights mentioned, and never to demand any tally, military service, watch, and so forth.

This legal agreement carefully established the limits of of high justice left to the Temple. It consisted of everything located outside the enceinte erected by Philip Augustus, between the Temple and the Barbette Gates, up to the line that would later demarcate the new wall of Charles V. The incorporation of this area into the city at that time did not effect any of the privileges that had been attached to it.

Here an important observation must be added: It is not out of the question that the rights of the Temple to administer justice—mainly high justice—remained much more extensive in the areas directly dependent on the Enclos, such as Saint Gervais and the Barres. Similarly, it is quite possible that they retained these rights of administration over the fiefs that entered into the Order’s possession by means of donations or purchases. On the left bank this would have included the area of Garlande, donated to the Templars by Monsignor Guillaume de Garlande in 1216 and 1224, and the fief of the “Franc Rosier,” consisting mainly of the rue Parcheminerie.⁴ On Ile de la Cité the Templars owned the lands of Saint Eloi,^e which they had acquired in 1175 as the result of an accord they concluded with the prior of the Benedictines of Saint Eloi. On the right bank they had properties in the Saint Merri, Saint Opportune, and Saint Honore encloisteres.

The Temple was not the sole sovereign jurisdiction in Paris to exist before the fall of the Ancien Régime; other abbeys and religious orders in the city enjoyed the same prerogatives,^f but the Templars’ jurisdiction was by far the largest. Because of this sovereignty, the Temple was independent of the king and he had no power over the inhabitants in this high justice area—which we could easily call a state. There the laws of the police were enforced and justice was exercised by a civil officer named by the Templar commander. This officer originally held the title of procurator, then mayor, then later, at the time of the Hospitallers, the title of bailiff.^g His powers corresponded to those held by the king’s provost in the rest of the city. For a long time this mayor or bailiff would pronounce his verdicts at the foot of the famous elm of Saint Gervais. This tree, located in front of the church, is known to have been there since the thirteenth century. It had long been the site of the rendering of justice as well as the fulfillment of certain civic duties, such as the payment of rents or tenant farm dues. The tree was cut down in 1811. The Paris municipality was well inspired when it elected to plant a new elm on the Place Saint Gervais to recall the tradition of this historic site.⁵

In addition to the bailiff, the bailiwick of the Temple included, during the final days of the Order, a fiscal prosecuter, a court clerk, a court usher, and a sworn surgeon.

The Paris Temple and Craftsmen

Circumstances eventually prompted many craftsmen to seek protection in the sovereign censive district of the Temple. It was a fact that until the time of Saint Louis and the drafting of the Livre des Métiers in 1628 by the king’s provost, Etienne Boileau, the working class suffered greatly from a lack of genuine laws whose texts could serve as reference when grievances were raised. The taxes and fees that weighed down working individuals were levied unequally with no standard rate. Eventually the situation became so intolerable for workers that many abandoned the quarters of the city belonging to the king to settle as best they could in quarters that fell under different jurisdiction.⁶ The Templars’ quarter, which was in full development at this time, must have been particularly appealing to them. “Because of the great hurt and great rapines they suffered in the provostship,” writes Joinville, “the ‘little people’ dared no longer remain on the grounds of the king, but sought instead to dwell in other provostships and manorial holdings; and thus it was the lands of the king that became so sparse that when he held his plebiscite, no more than ten or twelve people would elect to attend.”

Craftsmen were all the more inspired to dwell in the Temple’s jurisdiction, for doing so, let us recall, gave to those who came seeking assistance and protection the benefit of two important privileges: asylum and trade exemptions. These privileges were expressly confirmed in Paris by the accord of 1279. Right to asylum was not unique to the Temple, however. The free lands of other abbeys and religious orders also offered this privilege. A manuscript from the beginning of the sixteenth century provides the following list of these other jurisdictions: the Notre Dame de Garlande land and all the land of the chapter of Notre Dame inside the city of Paris, the Evesque land, the land of the franc-fie of the Rosiers, the Saint Marcel land on Mount Saint Hilaire, the Saint Victor land outside the gates, the Sainte Genevieve land out-side the gates, the Saint Germain des Près land outside the gates, the Saint Benoit Cloister, the Saint Eloi land on Ile de la Cité, the Saint Symphorien land, the Saint Denis de la Chastre land in the city, the Ostel Dieu land, the Dougnans land, the Saint Merri Cloister, the Sainte Opportune Cloister, the Saint Honnoure Cloister, the Saint Germain l’Auxcerrois Cloister, the Saint Martin land outside the gates, the Temple land outside the gates, the Saint Eloi land in the old Tisseranderie, the Saint Victor land at the crossroads of the Temple, and several easements in the city of Paris.”⁷ Saint Jean de Latran can also be added to this list.

It should be noted that the Temple’s right of asylum applied only to its lands outside the city walls. These were the very terms laid out in the 1279 accord. But certain parts of the privileged enclaves listed above that were located within Paris entered into the Templars’ possession. It is certain that the right of asylum necessarily followed the right of possession. Ultimately, of course, the right of asylum, which was so widespread in Paris during the Middle Ages, gradually disappeared. At the end of the Ancien Régime, there was no spot other than the Enclos of the Temple that existed stricto sensu as a sure place of asylum.

The right of craft and trade exemptions was much more exceptional. It existed in the censive districts of the Hospitallers of Saint John and the large Benedictine abbeys: Saint Germain des Pres, Saint Martin des Champs, Saint Eloi, the Enclos of the Quinze Vingts, and the rue Nicaise (Tuileries). But in these jurisdictions, where asylum was more or less limited in fact or in law, it was gradually beaten down completely by royal power as well as by city and community authorities. To avoid competition from free craftsmen “outside the walls,” the Parisian bourgeois periodically pushed back the enceinte of the cité. This practice hindered the settling of the suburbs, especially the Faubourg Saint Germain.^h Only the Temple granted and had the power to guarantee a very extensive franchise to craftsmen.

The right of franchise allowed the exercise of any craft or commerce outside the ordinary laws of the king, the city, and craft organizations. The exact territorial limits covered by the Temple’s franchise are not known. It is quite certain that they went well beyond the Enclos itself. The 1279 accord stipulates in fact the rights and franchises for those artisans who lived and worked in the courts and the Enclos of the Temple. The franchise privilege obviously was exercised throughout the area where the Templars had the authority to administer high justice, a domain that was much more extensive than the Enclos and its direct dependencies. It is likely, however, that originally all the taxpayers of the Temple benefited from it.⁸

By virtue of this right of franchise, the entry into a craft would have been free in the Temple censive district, whereas in the royal provostship many crafts and trades had to be purchased from the king. Generally speaking, the subjects of the Temple, at least those in its high justice domain, were exempt from royal and municipal charges and most taxes: those attached to the tally, conscripted labor (the corvee), regulations concerning weights and measures, the giving of free gifts, and so forth. After 1279, they all escaped the servitude that the bourgeois and crafts masters found so unpleasant: the watch. In the provostship, on the other hand, it was quite rare that those crafts described as francs métiers in Etienne Boileau’s book escaped this obligation. Among those that did were the mortar makers and stonecutters, but not masons and carpenters. In the Temple jurisdiction, all craftsmen were francs métiers and the masons who were established there were freemasons. The bourgeois there were known as francs bourgeois, such as a certain Simon le Franc, who lived around 1200 and left his name on a street in the censive district that neighbored the rue des Francs Bourgeois.

Thus privileges of asylum and franchise were not common. They long made the Temple highly popular among craftsmen. It was the influx of these artisans that helped populate and enrich the Parisian establishment of the Order—so much so that it was chosen to be the Order’s headquarters when the Christians lost the Holy Land.

The Temple enclosed its population within its huge commandery, effectively a large city that manufactured everything needed to live there. The Parisian merchants, craftsmen, and bourgeois who lived under Templar jurisdiction were so numerous in comparison to those who were dependents of the royal provostship, and the tutelary action of the Order was so powerful, that the Templars can be credited with the transformation of the hansa, home to the Hanseatic League of Paris, into a municipality under Saint Louis, with freedoms and an administration that it helped to develop further.⁹ In support of this theory, we can note that the seat of municipal government was originally located within the Templar censive district.

The religious seat of the Order, where the worship ceremonies of the Brotherhood were performed, was the Sainte Madeleine Church on the rue de la Juiverie, in the cité. This street, which was originally part of the censive and justice district of the Saint Eloi Priory and the order of Saint Eloi, had passed into Templar possession following the agreement reached by the two orders in 1175. As for the church, it was a former synagogue that had been converted in 1183, when Philip Augustus had driven out the Jews. It was in this church where the Brotherhood of Water Merchants would meet, followed by the Great Brotherhood of the Bourgeois of Paris around 1205. Abbe Lebeuf indicates that the church was not a dependency of any secular or regular body.¹⁰ Such a franchise, irreconcilable with feudal law, could have been conferred only by the lord high justice of the Templars. The Great Brotherhood had its own censive district and an enclave in the Jacobin area near the rue Saint Jacques, the Clos des Bourgeois.

It seems that the office of the Brotherhood, what we could call its temporal seat, was originally in the Templar censive district, in the Maison de la Marchandise [Merchandise House] in the Valley of Misery, bordering the Seine to the west of the grand Châtelet. It was then transferred in 1246 to the Parloir aux Bourgeois, between the grand Châtelet and Saint Leufroy, still in the Templar censive district. It was in 1357 that the municipality was installed in the Maison aux Piliers [Column House], bought from the dauphin and located on the Place de Greve, neighboring the Templar domain.ⁱ

The Temple and the Organization of Parisian Masons and Carpenters

Several facts demonstrate quite clearly that it was under the aegis of the Temple and under its sovereign jurisdiction that the organization of Parisian masons and carpenters formed.

At the time the Livre des Métiers was written in 1268, a Templar known as Master Fouques held the office of the king’s master carpenter and, by virtue of this title, had jurisdiction over the carpenters of the royal provostship.

At the same time Master Fouques was the master carpenter of the Temple. In fact, the preamble to the rules for carpenters (tit. XLVII from the Livre des Métiers) states: “These are the ordinances of the crafts that belong to carpentry in the suburbs of Paris, in accordance with how Master Fouques of the Temple and his predecessors have used and maintained them from times past.” The jurisdiction of Master Fouques, then, as for his “predecessors,” was outside the provostship of Paris. In this regard, the rule was not exercised by virtue of the king’s master carpenter, but by virtue of similar but earlier powers conferred within a sovereign censive district that could only be that of the Temple. The mention of predecessors shows that their origin—and consequently that of a Templar carpenter association—was already old history.

Master Fouques’s dual role is again confirmed by the first article of the rule: “Firstly, Master Fouques of the Temple says, when the craftsmen and the masters of the said carpenter trade of the king was given him, he was sworn to all the masters of said crafts . . .” There is quite a distinction between the “trades (of the carpenter of the Temple)” on the one hand, and the trades of the “king’s carpenters” on the other. It also appears that the custom of Temple carpenters, which became the rule of the organization of carpenters of the provostship when Master Fouques was placed at its head, went back to an already remote past. This underscores the importance of the Temple in the construction craft—and it is not foolhardy to venture that the carpenter’s association of Paris originated with the Templars.

The Templars remained at the head of this carpenters association known as the king’s carpenters until the dissolution of their order. At that time, in fact, the position of the royal carpenter was abolished under Philip the Fair by an act of Parliament in 1314 on the Tuesday before Palm Sunday.¹¹

What proves that this suppression was only circumstantial in nature and targeted only the officeholder is that the position was later restored. In fact, in the epitaph record of Saint Paul Church we can read: “Jean, son of Jacques Barbel, known as de Chastrel, sergeant of arms, carpenter of the king for his kingdom, who died on November 24, 1882” (emphasis mine).

We know what kind of authority over the building crafts was held by the magister carpentarius, the master carpenter, in the Templar domain. As a result, Master Fouques had oversight of both carpenters and masons in the Parisian domain of the Temple. By way of contrast, in the royal provostship his authority extended only to the carpenters. This provostship in fact had a king’s master mason, at this time Guillaume de Saint Palu, who held authority over all the masons in the provostship. The two trades of carpenter and mason were nonetheless connected throughout the entire city and the influence of the Templars is equally evident where masons are concerned.

This Templar influence is noticeable in the rule of the masons in the Livre des Métiers. It was because of the Templars that the masons enjoyed free status, which, as we have seen, was the rule for all trades exercised in the jurisdiction of the Temple, whereas in the royal provostship, the majority of trades had to be purchased. “He who so wishes can be a mason in Paris, provided that he knows the craft and that he employ it according to the usages and customs of the trade” (tit. XLVIII, art. 1). An even rarer privilege characterized the franc métier in Etienne Boileau’s book: The trades of mortar maker and stonecutter were exempted from watch duties.

The drafting of the Livre des Métiers in 1268 by the king’s provost, Etienne Boileau, did not result in unification of all organizations for a particular craft existing in different jurisdictions. The autonomy of these areas stood in opposition to any such unification. The Livre des Métiers and the system of sworn confraternities it instituted were applicable only within the jurisdiction of the city’s provostship. Even when the statutes and standards for craft mastership were identical, as was the case for carpenter mastership, no merger was possible. Master Fouques held his dual jurisdiction from two different sovereign powers: the king and the Temple. The identical nature of their statutes and craft mastery were circumstantial in nature; they could cease to be so, which did not fail to happen on an individual basis to start. The kings could have the tendency to regulate the trades—including those of carpenters and masons—with greater strictness by creating sworn carpenters and masons who had purchased their craft, but in the jurisdiction of the Temple all crafts would retain their freedom. Furthermore, the franchises given Temple craftsmen went beyond the professional framework, touching on personal status, fiscal authority, and exemption from the watch.

Under these conditions, the influence of the Temple continued to make itself felt, as we can see from the creation of craft associations, the maintenance of free associations, and the francs métiers, all contrasted to sworn trades of the royal domain. This influence and the distinguishing features of trades exercised inside its censive territory did not disappear with the Order’s dissolution; instead, they survived up to the time of the French Revolution and tradition has maintained remnants of them even into the present.

The Survival of Templar Communities and Their Franchises after the Dissolution of the Order

The Templar Order was abolished by Pope Clement V on March 22, 1312. In a bull issued on May 2 of that same year, he decreed that all Templar properties, with the rights and privileges granted their owners, would be transferred to the possession of the Hospitallers of Saint John of Jerusalem. Philip the Fair ratified this transfer in France on August 24, 1312.^j

The Hospitallers, who were known as the Knights of Rhodes since 1309 and later the Knights of Malta (1530), were thus made surrogate holders of the manorial rights of the Templars and over the centuries preserved them with all the privileges of their predecessors. There was never any legal confusion between the Hospitaller’s own domain and what they owned in the name of the ex-commandery of the Temple. Distinguishable was the “censive district of high, middle, and low justice of Milord and the high prior of the town, city, and university of Paris, because of the commandery of the Temple.” This was the phraseology used during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries in the accounts and inventories raised by the high prior of the Hospitallers.^k For a long time the high prior of France pronounced his title to be: “Humble prior of the Hospital in France and commander of the bailiwick that formerly belonged to the Temple.”

The Hospitallers were not only surrogates for the manorial rights of the Temple, but also for its purely ecclesiastical and spiritual privileges. On certain holidays until the eve of the Revolution, the clergy of the parishes of Saint Nicholas des Champs, Saint Jean en Greve, and Notre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle, all dependencies of the Templar censive, continued to march in procession to the church of the Temple, as they had at the height of the Templars’ influence. The homage that was once rendered to the Templars was thus transferred to the Knights of Malta.

The Temple church always maintained its independence from the archbishop of Paris, which was why, in 1787, free masons went to the Temple after encountering difficulties from the Paris archbishop Monsignor de Juigné for their wish to have a High Mass sung “with a large choir.” In the Temple, the Mass was sung and on the next day a service was celebrated for brothers who had died over the course of the previous year.¹²

This independence even extended so far as to allow those who had been excommunicated by the Church to be buried with the sacraments in the cemeteries of the Temple.

The kings tried their best to restrict rights and privileges inherited by the Hospitallers from the commandery of the Temple, either by limiting exercise of these rights within the confines of the Enclos itself or, in a more general way, by fighting against the sovereignty of manorial justices through appeal of royal cases and, in 1674, through the prevention and suppression of high justice rights (criminal cases). They never, however, contested the legitimacy of these rights. It is important to note that the 1279 accord, which included a transferring of rights to the Hospitallers, was confirmed by all subsequent kings of France from 1287 to 1718—thirty-four confirmations in all. The last were made by Louis XV in 1716 and 1718.

One of the rights of the Temple that had been transferred to the Hospitallers stemmed from privileges and franchises that benefited the craftsmen in the Templar domain. This meant that Templar communities of craftsmen, who were otherwise laypersons and outside the Order, did not disappear with the Order.

The right of asylum in the Templar domain was confirmed for the Hospitallers by numerous papal bulls, notably in 1523 and 1539. We have some interesting texts from the eighteenth century showing how far this right extended. A November 3, 1701, memorandum of the high prior Philippe de Vendôme¹³ attests that not all were suffered to seek sanctuary in the Temple Enclos and that the officers there were charged with quelling any misuse of this privilege. A police regulation from the high prior of Crussol on February 5, 1780, stipulates that asylum was not granted to exiles, fugitives from justice, bad-faith debtors, fraudulent bankrupts, and those who led criminal lifestyles. These kinds of individuals would be given twenty-four hours to leave the Enclos.

Sometimes, for opportunistic reasons, the Temple refused to grant to craftsmen the right to asylum in the Enclos. Thus in 1645 the Compagnons Cordonniers du Devoir [Companion Cobblers of Duty] were denounced among the Sorbonne’s faculty of theology because of initiation practices they employed to make an apprentice into a journeyman. This exposure led to the targeting of other such practices among the hatters, tailors, and saddlers, and condemnation of these rites by verdict of the Officiality of Paris on May 30, 1648. Confessors were ordered to see to it that their penitents atoned for all the rites in compagnnonage [journeyman rituals], to make public confession of their mysteries, and, most important, to renounce these mysteries. In order to escape prosecution by the archbishop of Paris, the compagnnonages reunited within the enceinte of the Temple, but the right of asylum was not granted them and they were driven out by an order of the Temple bailiff on September 11, 1651.¹⁴ These instances remain the exception to the rule, however; the compagnnonages, especially those of the masons, always had their headquarters, their cayennes, in the jurisdiction of the Temple.

The privilege of franchise for craftsmen was maintained all the more easily by the Hospitaliers of Saint John, for they had already recognized such a privilege in their own censive district on the left bank of the Seine. Workers, though in small numbers, remained in the commandery of Saint John of Latran, where they could plie their craft without purchasing a trade.¹⁵

The right of franchise within the Templar censive district survived intact until the end of the seventeenth century, the time when the king’s council began to batter it. A council decision on January 28, 1678, declared the rights of high justice belonging to the Enclos would be respected and added that it would not allow “the craftsmen and workers plying their trade or crafts to settle in the Enclos without being subject to inspection by masters, guards, and the sworn servants of the city.”

Overall, however, the right of franchise appears to have remained fairly intact through the years, as can be seen by another passage from a 1701 memorandum of the high prior Philippe de Vendome:

It is not without good reason that it pleased the king to confirm said privileges . . . because it is obvious to each and all what the famous merchants and traders of Paris are in a position to confirm—that is, if said Enclos was not an asylum and a free retreat for different merchants and other folk for whom a fall from grace was precipitated by an unexpected misfortune in business that not all the prudence in the world could have avoided, there would be an infinite number of merchants and traders in Paris, and likewise outside, who would find themselves forced to move into foreign lands and carry with them their effects because there is naught but this place in Paris that is regarded as an established haven. This would be a consequence more dangerous than it is possible to say.

Only the crafts masters’ visits to the Enclos were authorized. Thus we can read that on June 28, 1705, a declaration from the king to the carpenters association granted:

[p]ermission to the sworn syndics of said community to make their visits to all the studios and worksites, whether in the Faubourg Saint Antoine, the Enclos of the Temple, of Saint John of Latran . . . and other privileged places. And in the case they find there shoddy products, defective wood, or works that violate police regulation and the art of carpentry, said sworn syndics will make their report and appear before the lieutenant general of the police, in the places where said visits were made . . .¹⁶

Up until the end of the Ancien Régime, then, we find existing inside the Temple domain craftsmen benefiting from privileges and franchises that go back to the medieval Templars. These craftsmen formed more or less marginal communities in relation to the sworn confraternities and corporations of the city of Paris.

It is certainly much harder to find traces of these Templar associations than of the sworn associations. The latter were regarded as legal entities: They had statutes, they possessed properties, and they contracted and operated under terms provided by the justice system. It is therefore possible to rediscover documents concerning them. The Templar communities, however, were not legally formed groups. There could be no question of this in the area of the Temple; such a legal entity would have been irreconcilable with the exercise of francs métiers, which was the rule of the Temple—they were de facto communities. Yet these groups were more than simple assemblies of workers, craftsmen, and merchants of the same status within the same quarter. That a trade was franchised did not mean it could not be regulated. The rule that existed for carpenters, for instance, was modeled on the sworn association that preceded it. Franchise merely meant that a master did not have to purchase the trade, that he was exempt from royal and municipal fees and charges, and that every journeyman could freely establish himself as a master, but it did not mean that a trade was no longer subject to traditional rules concerning length of apprentice and journeyman status, operative oaths, and celebration of patron saints’ holidays—all specifics that clearly imply an organization.

To compensate for the absence of a judicial body charged with protecting common interests and ensuring that the rules of the profession were respected, craftsmen of francs métiers were likely more inspired to follow traditional and symbolic rites and practices. Such customs are much more strictly respected when they take on the force of law.

The free craftsmen living in the Temple commandery did not, then, scorn the prospect of becoming part of a sworn confraternity. With it they were able to exercise their talents in two arenas. As Templar subjects, they benefited from certain privileges and franchises. As associates of the community, they were assured of being able to work and of being protected throughout the territory of the city. “It was in the best interest of the worker who, placed under the jurisdiction of an abbey, shared the legal status of the area in which he lived, to submit at the same time to royal jurisdiction so that his affairs would prosper.”¹⁷ Joint allegiance—to the Templars and to the royalty—ensured commissions from both.

This state of affairs does not make the historian’s task an easy one. Templar documents are fairly scarce.^l We do have useful testimonies that help us pick up the trail of craftsmen in the former Templar censive district: the old epitaph records in Paris churches; street names; records of pious and charitable foundations, chapels, and trade groups. All of these are sources of evidence that help us follow through the centuries until the French Revolution the existence of what we call Templar communities. The example of the builders—masons, carpenters, mortar makers, stonecutters, and so forth—is particularly significant. To this extent we can safely claim that the Temple survived, even under its own name, the destruction of the Order. This fact has escaped most of those studying the history of Freemasonry, for they have often been overly prone to focusing on only the religious and spiritual aspects of the Templars and to seek—or refute—the survival of the Order within what can be characterized as chivalrous or philosophical organizations.

Templar Traditions and Parisian Builders

The bond between the Templars and the masons and carpenters was so strong that traces of it remained for centuries. The Templar’s domain in Paris was, throughout its entire existence, the preferred dwelling place for these builders. Convincing evidence of this can be found simply by taking a stroll through time and space within this former Templar area. We will begin our walk at the Temple itself. From there we will go to Saint Nicolas des Champs and Notre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle, then down toward the Seine by way of Saint Gilles, Saint Leu, and Saint Merri. We will linger momentarily at Saint Paul, Saint Gervais, and Saint Jean en Grève before crossing the Seine to Ile de la Cité. We will then end our visit to the Templar commandery on the left bank of the Seine, at Saint Julien le Pauvre and Saint Séverin.

The House of the Temple inside the Enclos, the church, and the famous Templar tower were built on the territory of Saint Nicolas de Champs parish. The Templars’ original church, the rotunda, was built some time around 1140 and was modeled on the Holy Sepulchre. The nave and choir were built at a later date and the church was definitively consecrated on January 11, 1217.

This rotunda is comparable in every respect to the one built later in London and dedicated in 1185. It seems that the same architect designed both churches.¹⁸ We know that a Christian architectonic association brought over from the Holy Land by the Templars built the Temple on Fleet Street in London. Could this same association be credited with construction of the Temple in Paris? It is almost a certainty that no mason and carpenters association existed at that time in Paris. The oldest merchant brotherhood of the capital, the mercatores aquoe, is not mentioned before 1130.¹⁹ Yet, the rapid erection of large and important buildings of the Temple and of the city adjoining it presumes the existence of an extensive organization. It could be that it was only the Templar community led by the magister carpentarius and that this organization was the source of the Parisian matrises of masons and carpenters. It is also within reason to suggest that the Parisian métier was organized before that of London and that the craftsmen in the English capital were influenced by it.

One bit of proof within the Templar rotunda suggesting a link between the Parisian builders and the Templars is the Saint Anne Chapel or Altar that lies to the left of the nave and choir and is maintained by the toicturiers (roofers) of Paris.²⁰ There was also a small Saint Nicolas Chapel in the Templar Church at one time that may have been the seat of a confederation of carpenters. Masonry, carpentery, mortar making, stonecutting, plastering, and other trades involved in the construction of buildings would have required a number of patron saints among which are Jesus Christ, Saint Blaise, Saint Nicolas, Saint Anne, Saint Thomas, Saint John the Baptist, and Saint John the Evangelist.

Right next to the site of the former church of the Temple on the rue Saint Martin, we find the church of Saint Nicolas des Champs, which is also dedicated to Saint John the Baptist. A church dedicated to Saint Nicholas had already been built on this spot at the beginning of the twelfth century, before the arrival of the Templars.

The parish district was always under the jurisdiction of Saint Martin des Champs, a priory of the Cluny Order. A bull from around 1119 issued by Calixtus II mentions a parish Saint Nicolas Chapel that was separate from the convent church.²¹ With respect to the administration of justice, the parish territory was divided between the priory of Saint Martin and the Temple—another example of the closeness of Templar and Benedictine neighbors in the city itself. An agreement concluded in 1292 confirmed the rights of the Temple over the moat of the Saint Martin Convent (on rue Frépillon, or today’s rue Volta).²² We are quite certain that until the Templars settled there, the town was only a collection of peasant huts around the priory of Saint Martin. The monks, who mainly devoted themselves to intellectual tasks customary of Benedictines, hardly inspired any craftsmen to settle in their censive district. This situation changed when the Templars moved onto parish territory. The increased peopling of the area seems to have been a direct result of the arrival of brothers of the Militia of the Temple. In fact, population growth in this area was so great that in 1220 it proved necessary to create a new parish cemetery.

In 1399 the church was expanded:

The church wardens of Saint Nicolas des Champs . . . decided, after obtaining the consent of the priest and the bishop of Paris and the counsel of the king’s sworn representatives of masonry and carpentry—masons Remon du Temple [emphasis mine], Jehan Filleul, Regnault Lorier, and Adam Ravier (known as de Moret), and carpenters Robert Focuchier and Philippe Milon—to see to the construction of the masonry of the three chapels in the alley between said church and the hostel of said priest . . .²³

The mention of Remon du Temple, sworn master mason, must be singled out. This master, better described as an architect and sculptor, practiced between 1363 and 1404. He was the master builder of Notre Dame in Paris and built the famous Beauvais College on rue des Carmes. His seal depicted a shield bearing a hammer flanked by a square and trowel, with both crowned and flanked by fleurs de lys.²⁴ While working on the Louvre and performing construction miracles there, he drew the recognition of Charles V, who called him his “beloved sergeant of arms and mason.”^m

At this time there could be no question of any kind of alliance with an order that had been suppressed since 1312. Master Remon must have belonged to an operative organization of the Temple, such as the one that survived in Saint Gervais Parish in the seventeenth century.

Builders continued to show an affection for the church and parish of Saint Nicolas des Champs for years to come. The entire quadrilateral formed by the streets rue des Archives (the former rue du Grand Chantier), rue des Quatre Fils (formerly the Quatre Fils Aymon), rue Vielle du Temple, and rue des Francs Bourgeois (the current site of the national Archives) was long occupied by the workshops of entrepreneurs and retained the name of Worksite of the Temple.²⁵

The church of Saint Nicolas des Champs was also the seat of a confederation of carpenters dedicated to Saint Joseph.²⁶ In 1588 one of this church’s chapels was granted to Jean Jacquelin, treasurer of the king’s buildings. In it we can read the epitaphs of Robert Marquelet, concierge and guard of the king’s furnishing in his palace of the Tuileries, sworn servant of the king in the office of masonry, and bourgeois of Paris (April 20, 1625); Charles de la Champagne, sworn representative of the king for works of carpentry (May 25, 1608); Barthélémi Camuset, merchant in the roofing of houses and bourgeois of Paris (May 5, 1601); Marguerite du Saussay, his wife (February 13, 1587); Jean Camuset, their son, roofer (16??); Marie Aubert, his first wife (Kuly 16, 1594); Blaise de la Champagne, his second wife (16??); Barthélémy Beaulieu, master mason and bourgeois of Paris (October 10, 1572); Thomasse Léger, his wife (October 11, 1571); Jean de la Vallée, master mason and bourgeois of Paris (April 22, 1600); Anne Le Roy, his first wife (September 30, 1597); Jean Fessart, master mason and bourgeois of Paris (16??); Elisabeth Davy, his wife (March 26, 1639); Louis Le Rambert, keeper of the king’s marble and bourgeois of Paris (August 12, 1614); Madeleine Maillard, his wife (September 21, 1610); François Angoulvant, Lord of Launay and Gasserant and master builder of locks for the king’s buildings (December 18, 1603); Charles Prevost, master mason and bourgeois of Paris (16??); Fleurie Le Gendre, his wife (April 3, 1606); Guillaume Chéron, master mason and bourgeois of Paris (n.d.); Antoinette du Chaume, his wife (April 9, 1608).ⁿ Paul Lacroix added another name to this list: Nicolas the Younger, mason (December 13, 1608).²⁷

If we consider that on the whole this epitaph record contains only a few names and that the vocations of many are not indicated, the proportion of builders appears sufficiently strong to show that Saint Nicolas Parish was clearly a builders’ neighborhood at one time. This same holds true for the neighborhoods near Saint Sauveur, Saint Gervais, and Saint Paul, as we can see from epitaph records from these parishes.

Near Saint Nicolas des Champs was the small parish of Saint Sauveur, throughout whose territory the Temple had its domains. Here again, Saint John the Evangelist served as the second patron saint. The church here was demolished in 1787 and its site is now occupied by a house on the rue Saint Denis.

As the short epitaph record suggests, the parish of Saint Sauveur was home to numerous masons: Pierre Morin, mason and bourgeois of Paris (December 15, 1623); Gilles de Harlay, master mason and sworn mason to the king (February 24, 1579); Jeanne Legrand, his wife (July 13, 1580); Pierre Bréau, employed on royal construction projects and excelling in masonry (January 8, 1606); Anne Bréau, his wife (October 18, 1617).

An intriguing indication of the connection of Saint Sauveur to the Templars is its proximity to Trinity Hospital, located on the corner of rue Saint Denis and the rue Darnétal or Grenéta in the censive district of the Temple.^o This hospital, one of the oldest in Paris, was founded in 1202 by two private citizens, Jean Palée and Guillaume Estuacol, to take care of “poor pilgrims.” Sometime around 1210 a chapel was erected at the hospital, which was long administered by the members of a religious community, the Premontrés d’Hermières. “This order,” writes Pierre Bonfons, “was continued charitably for a good length of time until the abbot of Hermières placed there other monks who were more inclined to seek their own personal profit than to give charity of either a spiritual or temporal nature.” In 1547 the court of Parliament reorganized Trinity and delegated five “good bourgeois of the city of Paris to administer it.”²⁸

Cocheris points out the existence in Trinity Chapel of a Confederation of the Ascension, which he connects to tailors of religious habits. It may be more likely, however, that this was the seat of a confederation of stonecutters, for the Ascension of Our Lord was depicted on the coat of arms of the association of masons and stonecutters.²⁹ According to a trade legend, it was a stonecutter who unsealed the stone that covered the tomb of Jesus and a mason who demolished the rest of it to enable Jesus to ascend to Heaven.³⁰ Trinity Chapel was also the seat of the Confederation of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord, which received patent letters from Charles V awarding them the privilege of staging the Mystery of the Passion and other Catholic mystery plays. Such performances, which were very popular during the Middle Ages, offered religious and initiatory amphibological sense relevant to the rituals of craftsmen. Over time, however, their meaning was lost and they eventually became spectacles deemed impious by the clergy and justice authorities. Nonetheless, the attraction of these plays survived for an audience of diverse quality made up mostly of the “mechanically minded,” meaning artisans, according to Pierre Bonfons, who was a contemporary of this era. (The first edition of his book, itself a revision of the 1532 book by Gilles Corrozet, was published in 1586.) Eventually, similar Passion confederations were formed in Paris and its suburbs, causing the confederation of Trinity Church to assert its privilege and request the authorities to ban these rival associations. With an act of November 17, 1548, the Parliament of Paris satisfied this request by forbidding the staging of all sacred mysteries, including those of the Passion of Our Savior, and permitting the staging of only “profane, honest, and licit mysteries.”

Trinity Hospital, originally intended to give succor to “poor pilgrims,” was eventually also used to house transients,³¹ a term that is worth some additional attention. As we will see when we discuss Saint Gervais Hospital, it refers not only to pilgrims, but also to workers in transit, who traveled a kind of “Tour de France” of journeymen. We might assume, therefore, that many of those who attended the Mystery of the Passion and other Catholic mystery plays belonged to this group. At the time of the hospital’s reorganization, supported by an act of Parliament on July 1, 1547, it was decided that children of the poor would also be raised there and educated in craft techniques by male and female workers in return for the privilege of obtaining, in six years’ time, recognition as masters in their crafts without the requirement of any fee or masterpiece. Justification for their status would be provided by the professional skills of their eventual students, who would themselves enjoy the status of the sons of masters.^p By a declaration of Henri II given in Paris on February 2, 1553, craft masters in the city of Paris could take on a second apprentice only from among the children raised at Trinity Hospital. Two acts of Parliament, one of December 3, 1672, and one of August 22, 1798, specifically confirmed “the rule over the rights and privileges of those who taught the art of craft and masonry in the hospital of the Trinity and those who have learned it in said hospital.”³²

These institutions prove the long existence of social work among craftsmen, notably masons. Other examples can be found in connection to Saint Gervais Hospital and a second Trinity Hospital located on the left bank.

Bordering the Saint Nicolas des Champs and Saint Sauver Parish were Notre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle on the north and, to the south, the parishes of Saint Gilles and Saint Loup and Saint Merri, located in the Templar’s domain. The church of Notre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle is the most recent church, having first been erected from 1624 to 1628. The masons who lived in neighboring parishes likely came to settle in this quarter under construction in fairly large numbers. In fact, in 1663 the church became the seat of the Confederation of Stonecutters, instituted under the name of the Ascension of Our Lord.^q

In the proximity of Saint Nicolas des Champs, between the current rue Saint Denis and boulevard de Sépastopol, is located the very old church of Saint Gilles and Saint Leu, or simply Saint Loup. This church was originally a dependency of the Benedictine Saint Magloire Abbey, which still exercised the right to administer high justice in its domain. The Templars owned important properties in the territory of the Saint Leu Parish, providing another piece of evidence that testifies to the relationship shared by the Benedictines and Templars.^r

Saint Leu was formerly the seat of a confederation of Saint Anne—who, we know, was venerated by roofers—and also housed chapels dedicated to Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Evangelist. In addition, it served, for several different periods of time, as the sanctuary of the Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, who were instituted in the fifteenth century by Pope Alexander VI. This church’s neighborhood had always been a frequent haunt of the Compagnons Étrangers du Devoir de Liberté [Foreign Companions of Duty to Freedom]—the Loups [wolves]—perhaps because of the patron saint of the parish, Saint Loup. Even into the nineteenth century the compagnons still met in cabarets located on two colorful streets: the rue du Grand Hurleur (formerly the rue Grand Hue Leu, or Hue Loup) and the rue du Petit Hurleur.³³ The term hurler, meaning “to howl,” is still a compangonnage term, which is significant given that these streets were already in existence in the thirteenth century. From 1242 to 1540, the rue du Petit Hurleur was known as rue Jean Palée, referring to the name of the founder of Trinity Hospital. This quarter also had a rue du Renard [fox] (which should not be confused with the current street that holds that name)—which is interesting given that journeymen designated as “foxes” those aspirants to their ranks.

Saint Merri Church is also of ancient origin. In the seventh century there was already a chapel by this name built on a site that was then part of the territory of Saint Gervais. Saint Merri was raised to parish status sometime during the seventeenth century.³⁴ According to Rochegude, the current building was constructed between 1520 and 1612. Above the main portal, set between two figures on the keystone of the arch, there is an enigmatic figure that some believe represents the Baphomet of the Templars.³⁵

The presence of masons in this parish was confirmed as early as 1229 by a charter of that year that makes mention of the house of a certain Guillaume, cementarius. In older eras, chapels could be found in Saint Merri dedicated to Saint Blaise, the patron saint of masons and carpenters; Saint Nicholas, patron saint for carpenters alone; Saint Anne, protector of home roofers; Saint John the Baptist; and Saint John the Evangelist.³⁶ Saint Merri was dependent on the priory of the same name, but was contiguous to the Temple’s censive district. The rue de la Verrerie, which was shared by the priory and the Temple, was inhabited by a specific category of artists working on the construction of churches and fine homes: the glassworkers and painters on glass, whose confraternity, according to Rochegude, was established there in 1187.

Within the territory of Saint Merri was the chapel of the Holy Sepulcher, erected in 1326, where sculptors and stone and plaster engravers had a confraternity that celebrated Saint Jean Porte Latine on his feast day of May 6. This church also housed an altar dedicated to Saint Nicholas and Saint Giles and a chapel of Saint Nicholas. The chapel of the Holy Sepulcher belonged to a confraternity who shared its name. It was originally administered by pilgrims who had been to the Holy Land, then later by four directors elected by the confraternity of Saint John and assisted by a council. In 1454 an individual named Yves Petit, a sworn mason of the king, was a member of this counsel.³⁷

In very close proximity to Saint Merri are Saint Paul, Saint Gervais, and Saint Jean en Gréve. These churches, among the oldest in Paris, were connected to the Benedictine Orde, another suggestion of an association between these monks and the Templars.

The former church of Saint Paul, which should not be confused for the current church of the Jesuits (Saint Paul and Saint Louis Church), was located at the site of what are now numbers 30–34 on the rue Saint Paul. An earlier oratory of this name is supposed to have been erected by Saint Eloi. In 1107 it was reunited to the Benedictine priory Saint Eloi, then later with the abbey of Saint Maur des Fossés. The church was expanded and repaired under Charles V and was demolished in 1798.

The first church dedicated to Saint Gervais was built in the seventh or eighth century. In the tenth century the counts of Meulan took possession of this church and its properties and remained its masters for a time until the difficulties connected to the administration of an ecclesiastical property induced them to make a present of it to the monks of Saint Nicaise Priory, who were Benedictines of the Saint Maur congregation, which they had founded in Meulan. In a charter of 1141, Waleran, count of Meulan, numbers this monastery among his properties: Ecclesias Sancti Gervasii et Sancti Joannis quoe Sunt Parisius in vico qui dicitur Greva. Le Pouillé, a Parisian of the thirteenth century, mentions that the parish district of Saint Gervais was named as such by the prior of Saint Nicaise de Meulan.³⁸

Saint Jean Church was originally only a baptistery of Saint Gervais, but later it became a separate chapel, which was expanded in the eleventh century, then raised to the status of a cure in 1212, when Saint Gervais underwent redistricting due to its “multitude of parishioners”—a sign of urban development in this area. Saint Jean Church, rebuilt in 1326, was demolished in 1800, with the exception of its communion chapel, which was annexed to the Hôtel de Ville,^s where, as the Saint Jean Room, it long served as a meeting place for various groups until it was torn down in 1837.

We know that it was in the proximity of Saint Paul and Saint Gervais that the Templars had their first establishments in Paris before 1137. In 1152 the count of Beaumont donated “to God and the brothers of Solomon an oven and a house, which had belonged to Frogier l’Asnier.” This house gave its name to the street that today bears the erroneous name Geffroy l’Asnier. An act of 1175 indicates that the Templars then owned fairly large properties in the censive district of Saint Eloi, which has since become Saint Paul Parish. For a long time this quarter served as the Templars’ principal establishment until the definitive Templar church was consecrated in 1217.

Until 1217, then, the commandery’s seat was in the Barres area, the site mentioned in the 1152 donation charter for the house of Frogier l’Asnier (domum Frogerii Asinarii ante barras sitam),³⁹ which, to be more specific, sat by the south chevet of Saint Gervais. On a 1618 map, we can still see at this location the House of the Temple designated as such by name, on the rue des Barres. The maps of Truschet (1551) and Nicolay (1609) depict at this spot abutting Saint Gervais a large building with two facades, one facing the rue de Longport (the rue de Brosse today) and the other overlooking the rue des Barres.^t In reference this property is often referred to as Old Temple, Small Temple, or Hotel of the Garrison. Its division into parcels prompted a legal action between the church wardens of Saint Gervais and the grand prior of Malta, acting in the name of the “Noble Lords of the Temple.” The subsequent trial ended in an agreement following two acts of Parliament on February 6 and 24, 1618.^u The house, rebuilt in 1623, was demolished in 1945.

Following the transfer of its seat, the Temple retained its port, mills, and barns in the Barres area. In 1250 the road was called the ruelle aux Moulins des Barres; in 1293, the ruelle des Moulins du Temple; then the rue Barres or Barris. Historical dictionaries of Paris remain mute on the origin of this name, though it is possible that it derives from Evrard des Barres or Barris, who was grand master of the Temple from 1146 to 1149, the exact time a general chapter of the Order existed in this area.

In the middle of the thirteenth century, a large building, the Hôtel des Barres, was erected on the rue des Barres, occupying a large site on what is now the corner of rue des Barres and rue de l’Hôtel de Ville. Remnants of this Hôtel des Barres are still in existence: At number 56 of rue de l’Hôtel de Ville (the former rue de la Mortellerie), we can see a strange ogive-shaped cavern in two bays. One of the arch keystones adorning the first bay is adorned with a crest that includes a cross; the keystone of the second bay is decorated with a rose window with a leafy border.⁴⁰

In three parishes with confused borders—Saint Paul, Saint Gervais, and Saint Jean en Grève—the number of properties owned by the Templars increased rapidly. The 1632 list made by the grand prior of Malta showing the definitive status of the censive district of the former Templar commandery notably indicates these holdings: “rue Frognier l’Asnier; rue Garnier sur l’Eau (Grenier sur l’Eau); rue des Barres or Barrys; Saint Gervais Church, cememtery, chevet; Beaudoyer Gate; rue du Gantelet; rue Jean en Grève; Martlet; chevet of the church (Saint Jean); Hôtel de Ville of Paris; Grève; old Saint Jean Cemetery, rue de la Mortellerie: the Seine River: the Vannerie and Jean de l’Espine: rue Vielle Tissanderie (today Francois Miron).”⁴¹

The presence of organized builders in this quarter is visible from the time the Templars installed themselves, long before the existence of a sworn association of masons in Paris. Toward 1170, according to Lebeuf, a mason named Garin and his son Harcher, priest of the parish district of Saint Jacques de la Boucherie, founded a hospital on rue de la Tissanderie (Francois Miron).⁴² This hospital was created “to shelter poor travelers, to whom bed and board were given for only three nights.” Originally, the institution had a master and brothers to provide hospitality. It is possible to believe that the monks who managed this hospital, called Saint Gervais, were affiliated with the Temple, for in the fourteenth century, following the dissolution of the Order, the bishop of Paris entrusted its administration to the clergy. The chapel of Saint Gervais Hospital was rebuilt in 1411 and consecrated in the name of Saint Anastasius. In 1657, the hospital was transferred into the Hôtel d’O at 60 rue Vielle du Temple. Abbe Lebeuf states that in his day (1754) nothing remained of the old hotel except its chapel, which people called the Saint Nicholas Chapel. The number of guests it sheltered, which varied every year from 15,000 to 16,000, reached the astounding figure of 32,238 people in 1789. These “poor travelers” just like the “transients” we saw earlier in relation to Trinity Hospital, were originally pilgrims, most often those beginning the journey to Saint James of Compostella. Later, it was more than likely that these transients and travelers were not only the faithful on pilgrimage, but mendicants and vagabonds as well. A vagabond was one who had no profession, trade, or sure abode, while valid mendicants were “the homeless who wandered the land.”⁴³

The police always acted ruthlessly against these mendicants and vagabonds: In 1270 the ordinance of Saint Louis pronounced the penalty of banishment against them; Henri II’s ordinance of April 18, 1558 declared the crime of being a vagabond to be punishable by hanging; and a declaration of August 27, 1702, banned these homeless from the jurisdiction of the provostship and viscounty of Paris and, in the case of repeat offenders, sentenced them to three years in the galleys.⁴⁴ Through the declaration made by the grand prior of Vendôme, we also know that such individuals could not benefit from the right of asylum in the Temple’s jurisdiction. Finally, a police ordinance issued on February 19, 1768, made it “a crime for mendicants and vagabonds, and persons without the proper credentials, and so forth, to seek lodging at Saint Gervais Hospital, and for pilgrims and travelers to present themselves there without certificates and passports in the proper order.”⁴⁵

We can easily deduce from these texts that the “poor transients” and “travelers” housed in such large number at Trinity Hospital and especially at Saint Gervais Hospital were in possession of a trade. Quite often they were nothing more or less than transient journeymen in search of a master to employ them. We could maintain they were simply a “Tour de France” of guildsmen. Their wandering of the countryside echoed the route taken by those on pilgrimage, which was how they would obligatorily visit Saint Baume to pay homage to Saint James, in whom they saw their patron saint (Maitre Jacques), who would have lived near Saint Magdalene and been buried in her famous cave.

At this point, how could we not bring up the famous Compagnons du Devoir? The journeymen stonecutters and carpenters of the Duty called themselves the Compagnons Passant. It was they who were nicknamed the Loups Garoux [werewolves] and the Drilles [good fellows]. They presented as their remote founders this same Master Jacques [James], who would have been the overseer of the works of the Temple, and Father Soubise, Solomon’s head carpenter. They stated that their modern organization dated from the Templars and some identified Master Jacques as Jacques de Molay, the last grand master of the Templars.⁴⁶ C. H. Simon, in his Etude historique et morale sur le Compagnonnage,⁴⁷ considers it likely that “the Children of Solomon” received a new “duty” from Jacques de Molay. He sees a great connection between the legend of Master Jacques of the Companions of Duty and the history of the grand master of the Templars. The long ironshod cane of the “children of Master Jacques,” so dreadful to the “Gavots,”^v would be considered as a souvenir of the Templars’ terrible lance. Others have compared it to the Templar cross.^w

The Companions of Duty obligatorily professed the Catholic faith. A confession of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ was required to be accepted into the rites of Master Jacques or Father Soubise. It was the Companions who gave particular honor to the Ascension and the Holy Savior.

The Compagnons Étrangers du Devoir de Liberté (the Loups),^x however, accepted into their ranks men of all nations and creeds. According to Agricole Perdiguier, in his book on compagnonnage, the Compagnons Passant [Traveling Journeyman] lived on the right bank of the Seine and the Compagnons de Liberte lived on the left bank. What we find here is actually an entire quarter inhabited by masons. Both were obliged by their conventions to work on the side of the river where their homes were located.

The “traveling journeymen” housed at Saint Gervais Hospital could easily find work with the numerous master masons residing in that quarter, notably on rue de la Mortellerie (later the rue de l’Hôtel de Ville), which earned its name from the many mortar-maker workshops located along its length.

Rue de la Mortellerie was cited under this name as early as 1212 in the act establishing the parish district of Saint Jean en Greve,⁴⁸ which serves as proof that during the time of the Templars it was already inhabited by numerous masons. In 1348 of the following century, a certain Richard “the mortellier” [mortar maker], who lived on this street, established the seat for a society of masons in his house. The Office of the Master Masons remained fixed there for centuries, until the French Revolution. In 1787 the building also housed the offices of the carpenters, joiners, cabinetmakers, miniature furniture makers, and turners. This house stood there until the nineteenth century, when it was removed to accommodate the expansion of the Hôtel de Ville. Close by it, also on the rue de la Mortellerie at the current location of the garden of the Maire de Paris, stood the so-called chapel of the Haudriettes, which the society of masons and carpenters bought from the Sisters of the Assumption on December 22, 1764, in order to install the confederation of Saint Louis and Saint Blaise there after it was transferred from the rue Saint Jacques.⁴⁹

Other streets in this quarter that formed part of the Templars’ censive district also evoke the presence of builders: the rue du Platre or Plastriere, or the rue du Jean de Saint Paul, still in existence today. A plaster works once existed there and numerous plasterers had established homes along its length.⁵⁰ Another rue Plastriere or Lingariere, which should not be confused with the first one mentioned, ran from the rue Beaubourg to the rue Saint Martin.

There are many other pieces of evidence of the affection that masons have always felt for the old Templar quarter of Saint Gervais and the Greve. There are stalls dating from the sixteenth century in the choir of Saint Gervais Church that depict images of the quarter’s corporations sculpted on the misericordes: bargemen, wine merchants, cobblers, meat roasters, masons, and stonecutters.^y

In the epitaph record of the persons buried at Saint Gervais, we can read these names: Marguerite Rousset, wife of Claude Monnart, sworn mason to the king and bourgeois of Paris (September 18, 1632); Guillaume Chappeau, architect mason; Claude de Villiers, his first wife (September 25, 1546); Balthazar Monard, master mason and bourgeois of Paris (June 11, 1637); Pierre Chambiges, master of works for masonry and paving in the city of Paris (June 19, 1544); Jacqueline Laurens, his wife (June 3, 15??); Guillaume Guillain, master of works for masonry and paving in the city of Paris; Gillette de la Fontaine, his wife (February 15, 1558); Percevel Noblet, bourgeois of Paris and sworn mason to the king (May 23, 1632); Catherine Denison, his wife; Guillaume Marchand, architect of the king (October 12, 1555); Claude du Puys or Dupuis, master glazier and glazier for the king’s buildings (April 23, 1599); Jean Jacquet, master mason, bourgeois of Paris, and mason of Saint Gervais (July 12, 1603); and Renee Fezari, his wife.

In the epitaph record of old Saint Paul Church, we find the following names: Augustin Guillain, master of works, keeper in charge of the fountains of Paris, sworn servant of the king for works of masonry (June 6, 1636); Jeanne de la Robye, wife of Mederic de Donon, equerry, lord of Chastres, counselor of the king, and general overseer of his buildings (date?); Pierre Biard, master sculptor, painter, and architect (September 17, 1609); Michel Richier, master of paving works in the king’s buildings (January 26, 1610); Louis Coulon, king’s sworn master carpenter and bourgeois of Paris; Louise Thévenard, his wife (December 4, 1639); François Pinart, master mason (November 21, 1622); Jaquette Chardon, his wife (1623); Pierre Pinart, their son, master mason (163?); Marie Autin, his wife; Jean, son of Jacques Barbel called of Chastres, sergeant of arms, carpenter of the king for his kingdom (November 24, 1382). We can also add the names of François Mansart, who was notably the architect of Jacques de Souvré, Grand Prior of Malta (1666); and of Jules Hardouin Mansart (May 11, 1708).

Finally, how could we note the name of Rabelais? The epitaph record of Saint Paul parish gives us the date of his death: François Rabelais, deceased at the age of 70 years, rue des Jardins, on April 9, 1552, was buried in Saint Paul Cemetery.”⁵¹ Rabelais, who was then the priest beneficiary of Meudon, seems to have lived the last two years of his life on the rue des Jardins Saint Paul, which was in the jurisdiction of the censive district of the Benedictines of Saint Maur, for whom he was a canon. This mention of Rabelais and his home in the masons’ quarter, the quarter of the mortar makers, is really not tangential to the topic at hand. Everything leads us to believe that he enjoyed the company of craftsmen quite often and that he was at the very least the chaplain for a confraternity of masons. Doesn’t he admit as much in the prologue to Book Three of Pantagruel, and again in the prologue to Book Five, when he reveals his status of “accepted mason?”: “I am resolved to do as did Regnault de Montauban; to serve the masons and put the pot on for the masons; then, since their journeyman I am not, they will have me for their indefatigable audience for their heavenly writings.”⁵² This confession takes on its full meaning when placed in context with the one that appears earlier in the prologue to “Gargantua”: “To me it is all honor and glory to be dubbed and esteemed as a good gaultier^z and a fellow companion.” The word gaultier can be related to the gault, meaning “cock,” that medieval- and Renaissance-era masons took as a sobriquet.

The Sainte Catherine du Val des Ecoliers was located not far from Saint Paul Church, on the current site of the rue d’Ormesson where the masons confraternity celebrated Saint Louis on August 25.^aa

No masons’ names were left in the epitaph records of Saint Jean en Grève Church. The building nonetheless includes a chapel dedicated to Saint Joseph, the patron saint of carpenters, and one dedicated to Saint Nicholas, who was also honored by carpenters. Both of these existed before 1325. In these, masons celebrated the feast day of Saint Blaise on February 3.⁵³

To bring our stroll to an end, we cross the place de Grève and the Notre Dame Bridge over the Seine. Now we are in the Cité. Here the Templars long held ownership of a large domain between Notre Dame and the palace. As we can recall, the rights of the Temple over this domain were the result of the accord concluded in 1175 by the Order and the prior of the Benedictines of Saint Eloi. Their territory mainly consisted of the rue Saint Landry and rue de la Regraterie, the new Notre Dame, the rue Saint Christopher and rue Saint Genevieve, the crossroads, and the Palu Market.

Crossing the Seine again, we arrive at the Ile de la Cité, by the Petit Pont. This brings us to the Left Bank, the old university quarter. We are still in the Templar’s censive district, although at its southernmost point. This domain belonged in large part to the free and franchised fiefs of Garlande and the Franc Rosier. It encompassed: the rue de Garlande (now the rue Galande, which should not be confused with the rue de la Calandre on Ile de la Cité), the rue de la Huchette, the lower part of the rue Saint Jacques, the rue de la Parcheminerie,^bb the rue Erembourg de Brie or Boutebrie, the rue du Foin (which started at the rue Saint Jacques and ended at the rue de la Harpe), the rue des Mathurins (now rue Sommerand), the rue des Massons (rue Champollion), the rue de la Harpe, the rue Platriere or des Plastriers (rue Domat), and the Palais des Thermes.^cc

Here, too, we find the presence of masons and builders. First there is the rue des Massons (or des Maçons; called the rue Champollion after 1868), which has been in existence since 1254 (vicus cementariorum)^dd in close proximity to two other streets that should not be confused with each other or their namesakes on the Right Bank: the rue des Plastriers or Plastriere (rue Domat), and the rue Plastriere (rue Serpente today). The rue des Plastriers was at least partially within the Templars’ censive district. It has been in existence since the thirteenth century. In 1247, 1250, and 1254 it was referred to as both vicus Plastrariorum and vicus Plasteriorum and is mentioned in fourteenth-century titles as Plastriers or Platriers. In the sixteenth century it became the rue du Platre and in 1864 it became the rue Domat. Interestingly, in the thirteenth century a house called the domus Radulphi plastrarii is mentioned as having stood there and, in the fifteenth century, mention is made of a Maison des Maillets (House of Mallets) that was to have faced the rue Saint Jacques and a Hostel de la Palastriere.⁵⁴

As for the rue Platriere that now forms part of rue Serpente and is known to have existed as early as the thirteenth century,⁵⁵ it connected the rue Hautefeuille (whose upper half was called rue des Veieils Plastrieres or Ville Plastriere from the twelfth to sixteenth centuries) and rue Cauvain (rue de l’Eperon).

The rue des Maçons was part of Saint Benoit or Holy Trinity parish, whose church was located on the rue Saint Jacques, near the Palais des Thermes. Saint Benoit Church housed a chapel dedicated to Saint Blaisel, the patron saint of masons and carpenters, and two chapels to Saint Nicholas, two to Saint John the Evangelist, and one to Saint John the Baptist.⁵⁶ This veneration of the two Saint Johns was primarily related to printers and booksellers, who also resided in this quarter. We know that patronage of Saint John was also invoked by sculptors and engravers, the ancient “ymagiers” who worked with stone and plaster.

The rue de la Bucherie dates from the twelfth century and owes its name to the numerous merchants who lived there during the Middle Ages and sold wood for both heating and building purposes. The wood was floated on the Seine to Paris, where it was received and collected on the Left Bank at the spot called the port aux buches. The thirteenth century Livre de la Taille provides the names of numerous buchiers, carpenters, masons, and joiners who lived in this area.⁵⁷

The greater portion of this Templar quarter on the Left Bank was a dependency of Saint Julien le Pauvre Parish, which later became Saint Severin Parish. It was also placed under the protection of Saint John in memory of an old baptistery that once existed near the original church built in the eighth century by Saint Julien the Hospitaller (or Saint Julien the Poor), bishop of Brioude. The current church called Saint Julien le Pauvre is the the chapel of the small priory that was erected on this site in the twelfth century by the Benedictines of Notre Dame de Longpont (near Montlhéry).⁵⁸

Formerly on rue Garlande (Galande) near Saint Julien Church was Saint Blaise of the Masons and Carpenters Chapel, situated on the site of the old refectory of the Benedictine Priory. According to Breul, the old confederacy of masons and carpenters, which existed prior to 1268, was established in 1476 in Saint Blaise Chapel, which was also placed under the patronage of Saint Louis and Saint Roch.⁵⁹ During the seventeenth century, the brotherhood gathered in this chapel once a year on February 3.⁶⁰

The ownership of this chapel was the object of a lawsuit between the masons and carpenters association and the General Hospital that lasted from 1473 to 1713! As the result of some highly complex legal maneuvering, the General Hospital’s claim was dismissed, but because it strongly desired ownership of Saint Blaise Chapel as well as the two houses adjacent to it, it purchased this property from the master masons and carpenters in 1764. At that time the chapel was threatening to collapse and it was totally demolished around 1770.⁶¹ The service of the Brotherhood of Masons and Carpenters was then temporarily transferred to Saint Yves Chapel on the rue Saint Jacques before being installed once and for all at the old Haudriettes Chapel on rue de la Mortellerie.

It also seems that around 1760, a brotherhood of masons and carpenters met in the Chapel of the Nation of Picardy on the rue de Fouarre (rue Lagrange) and that their corporation kept an office on rue de la Harpe at this time.⁶²

The Temple’s domain ended south of the rue des Mathurins, which formed part of their district. The area beyond this point fell under the jurisdiction of Saint Jean de Latran—that is, the Knights Hospitallers. This street owed its name to the Hospital of the Mathurins or the Trinity, which had been created around 1206. This facility was administered by the Mathurin Order, the donkey driver brothers founded by Saint Jean de Matha with an eye to ransoming prisoners held captive by the Muslims. This indicates that it had a relationship with the Templars, although it was a direct dependency of the chapter of the Paris Cathedral. The Templars, who were not priests, were affiliated furthermore with several religious orders, such as the Mathurins or the Carmelites, from whom they recruited their chaplains. Following the abandonment of the Holy Land and the end of the Crusades, it is quite probable that the Mathurins’ Trinity Hospital, just like its namesake on the rue Saint Denis, would have given shelter to the poor “walkers,” meaning both pilgrims and journeymen.

Masons and builders must have been numerous in the Templar Quarter on the Left Bank, although the epitaph records have only passed down a handful of their names. At Saint Yves Chapel we find only Jacques Dyche, house roofer and bourgeois of Paris (1400) and Jeannette, his wife. At Saint Severin there are only a master mason, Austicier (May 28, 1615), and his wife Marie Foliot (February 17, 1601). Saint Benoit lists the famous Claude Perrault, architect (October 9, 1678), and Mathurins Chapel has Claude Roman, architect and entrepreneur of buildings (1675).

This brings us to the end of our excursion through the old Paris of the Templars. It seems, from the evidence we have encountered, that during the entire time of the Ancien Regime it was also the Paris quarter of masons and carpenters. Here they had their homes and their religious and charitable foundations; here they enjoyed exceptional rights and privileges. Royal authority definitely sought to restrict them and limit them ratione loci to the area of the Enclos and its immediate dependencies, such as the Old Temple, near Saint Gervais. Elsewhere, in fact, the necessity of police and the maintenance of public order strictly prohibited the overlapping of authority. Nonetheless, the singular legal system instituted by the Templars during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries survived inside the Enclos until the Revolution; throughout the rest of the former commandery, it survived in the form of traditions.

To be absolutely thorough and give this demonstration all its conclusive value, it is important not only to establish, as we have done here, the bonds that existed between the Templars and craftsmen builders, it is also necessary to demonstrate that there are no profound traces of masons and carpenters having settled outside the boundaries of the Temple’s former jurisdiction. In other words, it is just as important that we look closely at the other neighborhoods of ancient Paris for signs of populations of builders. Having researched fifty-eight of the main churches of Paris during this same time, here is what we can conclude: To be precise, there were neither evocative street names nor chapels or brotherhoods of masons and carpenters in any other areas of the city. The epitaph records rarely reveal any names of builders. Notre Dame and its dependencies and Saint Louis en l’Isle, the Blancs Manteaux, Sainte Croix de la Bretonnerie, Sainte Opportune, Saint Merri, Saint Jean de Latran, Saint Jacques du Haut Pas, Saint Victor, Saint Laurent, and Saint Lazare reveal not a single mason or carpenter in their records. Only one was found at Saint Jacques de la Boucherie (Jean Douillier, 1562) and at Saint Germain des Pres (the famous Pierre de Montreuil, deceased March 17, 1266), and only two each were found at Saint Eustache and Saint Martin des Champs. The epitaph record of the charnel house of the Holy Innocents, which is quite considerable and the largest in Paris, gives only three builders’ names.

Likewise, it seems that very few masons appear to have settled in the juridictions of the large abbeys where other trades enjoyed franchises. We learned earlier that Saint Nicolas des Champs Parish, a dependency of the Saint Martin Priory, was only a peasant village before the Templars installed themselves there. The settlement of the abbey of Saint Germain des Pres was also quite slow. A 1523 cartulaire confirms that the abbey exercised the right of all justice in its censive district and specifically stated that “said religious lords can make sworn masters of every trade in the forsbourgs of said Saint Germain, just solely as bakers, wine sellers, butchers, fishmongers, drapers, couturiers, stocking makers, cobblers, locksmiths, chandeliers, grossiers, apothecaries, barbers, surgeons, and generally of all other trades as it pleases said lords, with neither the king nor any others having the right to prevent it.”⁶³ Not a single building trade figures in this list, which implies that none were practiced within the abbey’s jurisdiction.

The Temple and Contemporary Masons

Neither the disappearance of secular privileges and franchises with the Revolution nor the suppression of the Order of Malta by Bonaparte in 1798 caused any change in the localization and traditions of crafts and commerce in the former Templar censive district. Up into the present day, this localization has given a very distinctive physiognomy to the third and fourth arrondissements. The construction of the Marais and its splendid mansions in the seventeenth century did not manage to change this character. Crafts and small businesses prevailed. This is something everyone knows, though it is a social and historical reality that those responsible for the renovation project of the Marais have overlooked to some extent. Few, however, are aware of one other quarter to which mason artisans have long held a traditional attachment: the Hôtel de Ville neighborhood.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, this is where masons lived in order to find employment. In a work that was published in 1840⁶⁴ we can read the following text, illustrated by an engraving made from a daguerreotype:

During ordinary times, when it is not troubled by moments of public unrest, the Place de Greve is fairly calm but still not in a state of perfect tranquility. This is the place where workers, primarily masons in search of employment, have chosen to rendezvous . . . Around six in the morning one can see a crowd of individuals emerging from all the tiny streets in the neighborhood of the square. They are all clad in a garb that, because of its many patches, would rival the clothes of a harlequin if it were not for the whitish layer that is uniformly spread atop the garments’ surface. They all carry on their backs what could be well called their insignia: a small basket inside of which sits a wooden spade whose handle emerges from a small hole contrived in the back of the basket. This is how the entrepreneurs who come there in search of workers recognize the men they need.”

In 1835 the name of rue de la Mortellerie was changed to rue de l’Hôtel de Ville. But it’s character still remained that of rue de la Mortellerie. Before the concerns of hygiene and urbanization that followed the Second World War led to the razing of this old quarter, at that time referred to by the bureaucratic title of insalubrious block number 16, numerous suppliers of mason’s tools—trowels, brollys, squares, plumblines—could be found there, as was the case during the time of the mortar makers.⁶⁵ There were also numerous rooming houses where many of these workers in stone, plaster, and cement lived. Being for the most part natives of the provinces of central France who had come to Paris to ply their trades, these men were popularly known as ligorgneaux or limousins. The names of several of hotels in the area are quite significant in this regard: no. 7, Restaurant du Batiment; no. 33, Au rendezvous de la Haute Vienne; no. 51, Au rendezvous des Creusois; no. 73, Au rendezvous des enfants de Limoges; no. 12, Au chantier de l’Hôtel de Ville; no. 36, Au rendezvous des Cimentiers; no. 50, Au rendezvous des Compagnons; no. 52, Hôtel de la Creuse; no. 74, Au rendezvous des Maçons.

Several of these establishments must have served as meeting places (cayennes), for the Journeymen of Duty. Until the expropriations motivated by the renovation of “block 16”—a small hotel and restaurant—the Rendezvous des Maçons on the rue de Brosse at the very chevet of Saint Gervais served such a purpose. It sat partially on the former site of the Old Temple or Small Temple, or the Garrison Hotel. The facade of this building, whose enseigne remained until 1955, fortunately escaped the pickaxes of the demolition team, though not, incidentally, for the memories it evoked but to “shore up” the southern side of Saint Gervais Church. Expanded and embellished, it has since been incorporated into a pastiche composition.

Today the Compagnons du Tour de France have a building in close proximity at 84 rue de l’Hôtel de Ville, which they have carefully restored. The Compagnons du Tour du Devoir thus continue a tradition and help us to grasp how they are right to claim to be the successors to the Templars. Freemasons could make this same claim if their history was not so poorly known. Their story does, however, reveal a different reality, if not too far off—one of certain people religiously repeating legends that induce a smile among those who don’t believe in articles of faith.