"At first although they were active in arms they were so poor that they only had one war horse between two. As a result, and as a record of their early poverty and as an encouragement to be humble, there was inscribed upon their seal two men riding one horse." -- Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, 1250 (Nicholson 2001, p. 46)

The Importance of Seals

From ancient times, the seal--an individualised wax impression--was the equivalent of the modern signature. Though a literate person could use his signature in conjunction with a seal, even an illiterate person was able to use a seal to show his approval of a document. Affixing a seal was an acknowledgment of a document's authenticity. It was also a declaration that the person or group whose seal was affixed approved of the content of the document, or declared it to be the truth.

Matthew Paris, in his Chronica Majora, twice accuses the Templars of spreading false rumours under their seal. "From then onwards" the chronicler wrote, "we regarded such letters, even if they were true, with more suspicion and dislike." (Vaughan 1984, pp. 193, 217). As we can see, one had to be very careful about what one affixed one's seal to. If one attested to the truth of a statement, using a seal, and the statement was found to be false, one's reputation could be irreparably damaged.

The Grand Masters of the Temple took special care of their seal, to ensure that it would not be misused. It was kept in a locked compartment which required three keys to open. The Grand Master himself kept one of these keys, and two of his high officials held the others (Upton-Ward 1992, p. 41).

A seal affixed to a letter identified the author of that letter, as well as ensuring the security of the information within. Each seal was unique and hand made, which made forgery very difficult. Anything associated with a person's seal reflected on that person, and the imagery used for the seal was also meant to say something about the person who used it.

People used images of animals, words and letters, buildings and other symbols, often taken from their heraldry, deeds they had performed, or their family names. The Templars, like any other individual or group, would have needed a seal whose imagery expressed something positive and fundamental about their organisation.

Two Knights on Horseback

Probably the most instantly recognisable image used by the Templars is that of two knights astride a single horse. Matthew Paris, a thirteenth century English monk and chronicler from St Albans, has left us two examples of this image, one in his Chronica Majora (Plate 1), and another in his Historia Anglorum (Plate 2). Both the Historia and the Chronica were written in about 1250, which was relatively late in Templar history--only about 60 years before the Order was dissolved.

Matthew Paris did not think highly of the Templars, as I mentioned above. He thought they were ambitious and worldly (Vaughan 1958, p. 138), and that if they were really trying, they should have been able to defeat the Muslims. He was not alone in thinking these thing, but this point of view demonstrates how little Western writers knew about the situation in the East (Nicholson 2002, p. 7 and Forey 1992, p. 201-2).

Because they were a military Order, they had set a task for themselves at which they could be seen to succeed or fail (Nicholson 2002, p. 14). While contemplative Orders spent their time in prayer, the Templars were fighting battles, the outcome of which, as people believed at the time, was dependent upon God's favour. Their contemporaries would have seen their apparent lack of success on the field of battle as symptomatic of some spiritual failing within the Order. The fact that the Templars sometimes made treaties with the Muslims, instead of just killing them, was, to these people, proof that the Templars were not doing their job.

Despite the low opinion of Matthew Paris and his contemporaries, his depictions are accurate representation of a Templar symbol, since they are copied from the Grand Master of the Order's official seal. He did not, however, realise that the seal's image did not date from the foundation of the Order.

This image of two men on horseback originally appeared nearly one hundred years earlier than Matthew Paris's illustrations, in 1158 as the seal of the Grand Master of the Temple (Plate 3), Bertrand de Blanchefort, and is the earliest known seal for the Grand Master of the Temple (Nicholson 1995, p. 108), forty years after the Order was formed. Use of this symbol continued under subsequent Grand Masters for as long as the Order survived, however the seal went through more than one incarnation. As you can see, de Blanchefort's seal in 1168 is not the same one used by Reynaut de Vichiers (Plate 5), who was Master of the Temple from 1255-1259. The symbol is the same, but it is obviously not the same seal.

The Grand Master was the head of the Order of the Temple, and since the Order was a military one, his title would have been akin to that of General. His position was based in Jerusalem until 1187 when the headquarters were moved to Acre, then in 1291 to Cyprus. There were twenty-three Grand Masters of the Temple between Hughes de Payens in 1118 and Jacques de Molay in 1314.

There are many theories among historians as to the meaning of the Grand Master's seal. One is that it is a reference to the Templars' vow of poverty, but symbolically, rather than as a representation of an actual occurrence, though contemporary Templar legend would have us believe otherwise (Nicholson 1995, p. 108). Two men in full armor riding a single horse in battle would be a disadvantage at best and fatal at worst, as well as being an impossible burden for the horse.

Contemporary legend held that the symbol represented the initial poverty of the Order; that they could afford only a single horse for every two men. However, the Rule of the Order from the outset permitted three horses and no more for each knight (Upton-Ward 1992, p. 32). Judith Upton-Ward disagrees with Matthew Paris, and other chroniclers who insist on this origin myth, doubting that the image was ever practiced (Upton-Ward 1992, p. 104). Accounts of the origins of the Templars vary widely in their descriptions, and were all written long after the actual founding. The truth was that it took a few years after the Order was founded before word really got around of their existence.

By de Blanchefort's inauguration as Grand Master, the Templars' resources were impressive, but a rapid expansion of military activity during his Grand Mastery drove the Order into debt, and even caused de Blanchefort to suffer a nervous breakdown (Riley-Smith 1987, p. 59), So perhaps the seal was a symbol of caution and economy.

The Order had earned itself a money grubbing reputation in the West by de Blanchefort's time, since all western Templar activity was devoted to the collecting of funds for support of the eastern brothers in their struggles against the Muslims, so the seal may have served to remind the brothers of the need for humility. Outfitting, arming, training and keeping large numbers of men and horses is an expensive business. The customs and statutes of the Order show a distinct fear of poverty and stress the need to economise wherever possible (Nicholson 2001, p. 46). Loss of funding could easily have meant the end of the Order. Even with all the funding they were able to collect, at the height of the Order's prosperity they were only able to put a few hundred men on horseback, though there were many more foot soldiers among the sergeants of the Order (Nicholson 2001, p. 54). The Templars' financial difficulties would have been much on de Blanchefort's mind about the time he created the seal.

Another suggestion found in the more sensational sources, is that this symbol is proof of the homosexuality of which the brothers were accused by the King of France in 1307 (Dafoe & Butler 2002, Seal). I consider this theory to be one of the least likely, since, although homosexuality did undoubtedly exist in medieval Europe, and holy orders were a refuge for those who did not wish to marry, and sought the company of their own sex, such relationships were never sanctioned by the Church. In fact, the Rule of the Order states, "for if any brother does not take the vow of chastity he cannot come to eternal rest nor see God," (Upton-Ward 1992, p. 24). It is fair to presume that the writers of the Rule meant for such a vow to be kept.

Perhaps some of the brothers were so inclined, but the idea that homosexuality was common and accepted--even official--practice among the members of the Order is unthinkable. For the Grand Master of the Temple to openly endorse such a practice by adopting a symbol of it as his official seal would have been an affront to the authority and beliefs of the Church, not to mention a deliberate transgression against the Order's vow of chastity (Upton-Ward 1992, p. 24).

In fact, measures were taken within the Order to check homosexual practice: the brothers were encouraged not to bathe, so that no one would see their naked bodies, and they were to sleep with the lamps lit so that shameful acts could not be hidden by darkness (Dafoe & Butler 2002, Garments). The Rule of the Order mentions that the brothers should sleep dressed, and that their sleeping area is to remain lit, but does not give a reason. However, this was common to all monastic Orders of the period, and homosexual practices may have been--if not the main reason--at least one of the reasons for it (Upton-Ward 1992, p. 25)

I contacted Stephan Dafoe about contemporary sources for the connection between the seal and homosexual practices among the Templars, but he was unable to provide satisfactory answers, stating only that it is mentioned somewhere in the records of the trial. He himself does not adhere to this theory. I was able to confirm no such suggestion contemporary with the Order, so I must conclude that this idea arose out of later rumour. While certainly many of the charges brought against the Templars were of homosexual practices, the inquisitors were only concerned with events which had happened involving people still living, not with de Blanchefort and his seal.

Franklyn (1963, p. 139) associates the Pegasus, a mythical winged horse, with the Templars. Two men seated on a horse would, from a distance, he suggests, convey "an impression of a horse with a pair of wings raised as if ready to become volant." He goes on to tell us that, for this reason, the Knights Templar chose the Pegasus as their device. I have found no other source which mentions the mythical horse in association with the Order, so I am inclined to doubt a historical link between them. Besides this, as I stated above, there could not have been an actual occurrence associated with the seal, and therefore, nothing to be seen at a distance, as Franklyn suggests.

De Blanchefort did not leave behind his reason for choosing the seal for himself and his Templar brothers, and so we can never with any certainty know why he chose it. It seems most reasonable to me that his choice was symbolic, as Selwood (2001, p. 173) suggests, having to do with the dual nature of the knighthood. The brothers were two things at once and, in a way, two people at once--two men on the same horse. They were warriors, but they were also monks. By their vows they were poor, but in practice the Order was wealthy. They were worldly men, but in many ways withdrawn from the world.

This may not have been all that de Blanchefort meant by it; there may be some truth to a few of the other theories, or perhaps something altogether different was being suggested. Maybe the Grand Master was making a connection with the verse in the gospel of Matthew (18:20) which says, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Anonymous 1997, Gospel of Matthew), or suggesting that Christ rides with each of the brothers--though this is unlikely, since images of Christ were very stylised during the Medieval period (Plate 20, 21, 22).

De Blanchefort chose a symbol which, to him, best represented the spirit of the Order, and it is usually the case that the best symbols have many layers of meaning.

Men of Letters

The figure of two knights on horseback are not the only significant use of symbolism in the seals of the Grand Masters. Many historical sources will tell you that, around the outer edge of the obverse of the seal reads the phrase SIGILLUM MILITUM CHRISTI, Latin for "the seal of the Knights of Christ". This is not entirely correct. Differences can be clearly seen between the seals of the Grand Masters. De Blanchefort's seal (Plates 3, 4) reads SIGILLUM MILITUM on the obverse, and CHRISTI DE TEMPLO on the reverse, which means "the seal of the Temple of Christ".

De Vichiers' seal (Plate 5), on the other hand, reads SIGILLUM MILITUM XPISTI, "the seal of the knights of Christ". The phrase is in no way out of the ordinary, and is, in fact entirely apt for the Knights Templar. It is the lettering of the phrase which is of symbolic interest.

Although the phrase is written using the Latin alphabet, the first two letters of Christ's name are the Greek XP (Chi Rho) rather than the Latin CHR. I believe this is unlikely to be a mistake, since anyone who knew enough Latin to write SIGILLUM MILITUM XPISTI correctly, would know to write using the Roman alphabet. I submit that this is not a simple spelling error, made out of ignorance.

The Templars, as I have said, were not generally educated men. Some were literate in their own native language, but on the whole, learning was frowned upon within the Order. They had joined to fight, not study. Jaques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Order was said to have referred to himself as "a knight, unlettered and poor" (Riley-Smith 1987, p. 210).

Despite their general ignorance, however uneducated an individual was in the Medieval period, he or she was able to recognise the Greek letters Chi Rho, and know instantly that the name of Christ was meant. The symbol's origin lies in the early roots of Christianity, but came into popular use after the Emperor Constantine had a vision of it and converted to Christianity in the early fourth century (Plate 11). Eusebius, a historian contemporary with the emperor, described this symbol--called the labarum because of its subsequent use as a military standard--in detail in his Vita Constantini (Knight 1999, Labarum).

From the time of Constantine, it became one of the most significant symbols of Christianity, surpassed only by the cross itself. Its early associations with the military make it the more apt of the two symbols for the Templars. In fact the Chi Rho can also be seen on the shields of the knights on de Vichiers' seal (Plate 5), though this symbol did not actually appear on the arms of the Order.

I assert that the Templar seal was made by an educated person who knew the meaning behind this symbol, but was made in such a way that even the uneducated would understand its significance. The Chi Rho was used in Templar churches before the creation of the Grand Master's seal, but this is not significant, because it was used in many medieval churches.

De Templo Christi

On the reverse of de Blanchefort's seal is an image of a stylised building (Plate 4), and, as I said above, the phrase CHRISTI DE TEMPLO, which some translate as "the Temple of Christ", but which I think is more likely to be a continuation of the phrase begun on the other side; "the seal of the knights of Christ of the Temple". There is some question, however, as to what building is actually depicted on the seal.

Helen Nicholson (2001, p. 31, 116) maintains that it is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Plate 8), which was, according to at least one origin legend, the first home of the Knights Templar. Dafoe and Butler (2002, Seal) on the other hand, insists that it is the Dome of the Rock (Plate 7). The Holy Sepulchre was usually referred to as such, while the Dome of the Rock was referred to as the Lord's Temple. The legend on the seal seems to be indicating that the building depicted is the temple which is meant.

While Helen Nicholson is the more authoritative source, I believe the building may well be the Dome of the Rock. If we look at the reverse of Grand Master William de Chartres' seal from 1214 (Plate 6) for enlightenment, we find little. The image of the building is very different here, but even more stylised, though Peter Partner (1982, p. 3-4) insists that it is the Dome of the Rock, based on the shape of the arches. The evidence is inconclusive, since the crowning feature of both buildings is a large dome, and the images are, as I said, very stylised.

It is somewhat ironic that the Templars may have chosen one of Islam's most holy sites to represent themselves, but there is a good reason for this. When the Crusaders came to Jerusalem, most of them had little knowledge of history and even less of Muslim architecture. They knew a few stories from the Bible, but not many details, because, in those days, the Bible was only accessible to those who could read Latin.

They did not realise that Solomon's Temple, mentioned in the Bible, did not exist any longer, and that the Lord's Temple had never even been built. They mistook the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque, which was the Templars' headquarters, which were built centuries too late, for these Biblical buildings (Nicholson 2001, p. 19).

Despite their ignorance, they understood well the use of seals. Unlike a signature, a seal can have many layers of meaning. Bertrand de Blanchefort certainly knew this, and made his seal accordingly, with many unique details, which served to mark the Knights Templar as a brotherhood apart. Even if the exact meaning of some of the aspects of his seal did not survive de Blanchefort, still its emblem became ingrained in the minds of the age. To contemporaries, it represented the Knights Templar, which was its purpose.

Back to Main Page

©2004 Mary Adelle Leinart