Tension between bishop and count in 12th century + existence of "chaplains"

[rosesnake]

Hello everyone,

I'm not so much looking for answers to a question here as advice and suggestions (hope that's ok).

My situation is this :

Comments

[irreparable]

I'm going to guess that your count is based on Pons and Raymond of Tripoli, as Tripoli was the closest to an autonomous "state" in Outremer in the 12th century. As the other commenter said, though, you've got a few problems being in Outremer proper, not the least being the melting pot of religious groups and sects and religious military orders, but the importance of the king at Jerusalem really overrode everything else, be it figuratively or literally. If you wanted to keep your politics as you have, changing your location is a good way to do it, and you've got a few options there, one being Lamorie as the other commenter said, another being Cyprus, as Richard I took it from the Byzantine Empire and it was used as a staging location for the crusaders heading towards Outremer, so you've still got the diversity of nationalities and religions and politics. Cyprus was sold in 1191 to the Templars (Richard got it in 1190), and then it was sold to Guy of Lusignan after the Templars had a revolt. His brother and heir, Aimery took it over after him. Because it was essentially under control of crusaders, that would fit your plot points and political set up nicely.

As for religious personnel, who got sent where was determined by the Pope. Bishops would send him their suggestions, he'd consider it, depending on how corrupt the papal see was at the time and how much power the archbishops had, would determine the fate of a regular priest. The title of one sent to minister a high ranking count would be the bishop, he'd be addressed as Father, the pope would be addressed as Most Holy Father or Holy Father.

It'd also help you I think if you narrowed it down a bit on where to draw your sources from. The Holy Roman Empire (Germany), France and England all went on Third Crusade together and that's the most famous one. So if you picked a kingdom and researched that one only for your needs, I think you'd find what you're after to be a much easier task. Hope that helps.

(For the record, I'm a researcher and historical re-enactor of 12th century France and spent a lot of time researching/re-enacting the year 1195 in Outremer.)

[rosesnake]

Hi,

Thank you for your answer.

My count is in fact based on Raymond III of Tripoli (count btw 1152 and 1187), mostly the second part of his rule (after he was ransomned from the Saracens in 1172/1173).

I'm aware of the melting pot of religions in the area at the time. But I'm talking only among the Franks/Latins here (the ruling class “invaders” as you said, not the local population). Would it be really implausible for there to be a rivalry and tension between the count and the bishop ? And for it to manifest itself in power games between the two ? All of which would happens inside the (relatively small) Frank/Latin community of which everybody involved is a member (both the count's allies and the bishop's).

I got the idea from Antioch where there was a lot of tension between the Latin Patriarch and the successive Princes (first Renaud de Chatillon who had the Patriarch imprisonned and tortured before the King of Jerusalem intervened and later Bohemond III who, after being excommunicated by the Patriarch for bigamy, began an all out war against him (seizing his possessions, having his clergy imprisonned, etc), once more forcing the King of Jerusalem to intervene to mitigate things).

I know that both times the King of Jerusalem had to intervene in Antioch but I don't want things to get this bad in my story : it's more a case of the count and the bishop trying to promote their own agenda against the other's objections than outright war between them (so more subtle than in Antioch). Is that really implausible ?

And assuming I change the setting (more likely to Cyprus), do you have some suggestions of ways for this tension/rivalry between secular ruler and head of clergy to manifest itself ?

As for the second part of my question (the bishop involvement in the count's life), I get from your answer that he would be pretty involved. But would he personnally celebrate mass for the count daily and hear his confession every time (also : how frequently did they confess back then, I assume at least once a week) ? Or would he delegate someone (of his choosing) to do it ? What about when the count is away from his central city (and the centre of the bishop see) ? Would somebody be delegated to accompany him when he travels (to his various vassal fiefs and to war) ? The bishop can not be expected to follow him around everywhere, can he ?

Either way, it places the count's religious life under the control of the bishop. How much leeway would he have about that ? How much could he avoid and how much could the bishop force him to do ? I'm thinking of him going to mass in other churches whenever possible (whenever he visits a vassal fief or is in Jerusalem for exemple) and confessing to the priest/bishop/Patriarch there. Would that be allowed ?

And if the bishop delegate someone, what would be the rank of such a delegate (a mere priest, a monk, one of the bishop's cannons, ...) ? What would he be called ? What would he be expected to do ?

Also, since I've posted my question here I have done some more research on chaplains and in the Middle Age, “chaplain” merely meant the priest in charge of the castle's chapel. Would someone like that exist in Tripoli at the time ? Or would the bishop essentially be the chaplain of Tripoli (the castle's chapel then being the cathedral) ? And if a separate chaplain existed, what would his involvement be in the count's life (if any) ?

Thank you again for your help.

1/2.

[irreparable]

Ah righto, that makes things clearer. In this case, not changing the setting and focussing on Raymond, with there being some sort of line about how your count responds to the call of the king of Outremer, you should be okay. For the rest of it, well, mass is usually celebrated on the sabbath, confession would be when those who wished to confess desired it. What you could have as the beginning of the antagonism between duke and bishop could be a rumbling between personalities--not everyone gets along, even if a man of the cloth is supposed to be above those things. (They were just as involved in politics, if not more, than the gentry of the court). To exacerbate that, your bishop could find it un-Christian that your duke doesn't attend confession often enough, or that his court don't all attend mass on the sabbath, or any sort of thing that would stir the secular versus the church.

You could then build on that by having the duke write to the pope asking for a new bishop. That was certainly acceptable. But remember that the papal see was (and probably still is!) full of intrigue and politicking of its own, with loyalties and alliances changing often, so someone there, perhaps a cardinal, could contact the bishop to let him know what his duke has done. That would definitely increase tensions a *lot*, especially if your bishop feels that he's above the duke as he's a man of God, and the duke is a boor who is too close to worldy matters and not the holy cause of "liberating" Outremer from the "heathen". (I use parentheses because really, they could all be as bad or as good as each other, people being people.)

Most castles had a chapel. A cathedral was a separate building to show off the wealth and stature of the region. If you're in Outremer and you've got your Tripoli-esque situation, having an elaborate chapel within the castle would be the best and most believable. The bishop would have a few accolytes and probably a chaplain or two as well, his own little court within the court. So getting into each of your questions now.

But would he personnally celebrate mass for the count daily and hear his confession every time (also : how frequently did they confess back then, I assume at least once a week) ?
As often as the individual wanted. Usually that was once a week at a minimum, the more devout would confess every day and pray in the chapel twice a day, matins and nocht (evening).

Or would he delegate someone (of his choosing) to do it ?
The bish or his chaplains could take confession. Accolytes couldn't, they're novices.

2/2.

[irreparable]

What about when the count is away from his central city (and the centre of the bishop see) ? Would somebody be delegated to accompany him when he travels (to his various vassal fiefs and to war) ? The bishop can not be expected to follow him around everywhere, can he ?
Usually the bish and a chaplain and a novice (so he was suitably attended) would go with the duke. The duke can forbid him to go, though. Up to the bish if he wants to obey that, or complain to the pope and the cardinals in Rome about what's going on (which would also add to the tension).

How much leeway would he have about that ? How much could he avoid and how much could the bishop force him to do ? I'm thinking of him going to mass in other churches whenever possible (whenever he visits a vassal fief or is in Jerusalem for exemple) and confessing to the priest/bishop/Patriarch there. Would that be allowed ?
Not a lot. The church really did control the majority of life in the medieval world. Especially on crusade, as this was a holy war. The duke could definitely go to mass in other churches when out and about, and it's likely that his bish at home would hear about whether or not he attended from those other bishops. The content of his confessions wouldn't be discussed, though.

And if the bishop delegate someone, what would be the rank of such a delegate (a mere priest, a monk, one of the bishop's cannons, ...) ? What would he be called ? What would he be expected to do ?
Probably a priest, not a monk or accolyte, that's for sure. One of his chaplains could do the job. If the bish was ill, which was common, too, that could be cause for him to delegate someone else to go in his stead. That person would be expected to hold mass, administer to the dead and dying, lead any prayer services, hear confessions, serve communion, etc.

“chaplain” merely meant the priest in charge of the castle's chapel. Would someone like that exist in Tripoli at the time ? Or would the bishop essentially be the chaplain of Tripoli (the castle's chapel then being the cathedral) ? And if a separate chaplain existed, what would his involvement be in the count's life (if any) ?
I think I've covered all of that above, if not, hit me up again. :)

Hope this helps and it's my pleasure.

RE: 2/2.

[irreparable]

Thank you for such a detailled and clear answer ! It helps a lot !

Thanks again.

[syntinen_laulu]

Either way, it places the count's religious life under the control of the bishop.

No, it doesn't. A bishop's job is to manage his diocese and his centre of operations is his cathedral and chapter house; he would only ever be a guest in the secular ruler's castle. These would naturally be in the town/city. (I don't know of any medieval cathedral anywhere that was built in a castle, and I can't imagine that ever happening unless it was a prince-bishopric and the castle belonged to the bishop.) And in historical fact the Frankish cathedral of St Mary was in the town: it was destroyed in the earthquake of 1170 but some fragments of it - a tower and some doorways- are built into the present day Grand Mosque. )

The chapel in the castle would have its own priest (possibly more than one), and would not necessarily come under the authority of the bishop at all. Nor would the bishop necessarily have the right to appoint the chaplain(s).

And if a separate chaplain existed, what would his involvement be in the count's life (if any) ?

His primary and overriding function would be to say mass and perform all the other Holy Offices daily in the chapel. The count, if he were devout or at least set store by seeming so, would turn up to hear mass daily whenever he was in residence. Only hear it, mind you - in the Middle Ages lay persons weren't required or even encouraged to receive the Eucharist often, and only did so on major church feasts or other special occasions. (And 'hearing' Mass could be interpreted variously. An eyewitness at the court of Henry II of England, a furiously energetic administrator, reported that Henry would bring his ministers, councillors and clerks to daily Mass with him, and would sit in an antechamber to the chapel and continue to transact government business during the Mass. He could see the priest and the altar through the doorway and the chanting was audible: that counted as 'hearing Mass'.) But whenever the ruler did confess and receive the Eucharist, he would have his own chaplain do that in his own chapel unless he had a particular reason to wish to go to another priest.

It could also happen that the chaplain combined his priestly functions with other services to the count; priests in the employ of secular rulers were often councillors, secretaries, accountants, what-have-you. In the case of Raymond of Tripoli, who was well-read and exceptionally interested in the written word, it's possible to imagine the chaplain being his librarian and buyer/copier of books.

BTW, a bishop normally had a chaplain to say mass for him - he didn't do that daily even for himself, let alone other people. As I say, a bishop's function was to manage the whole diocese and keep it on the straight and narrow, and that would take all his time and energy : he couldn't afford to fritter away his time with routine care of individual souls.

[irreparable]

Thank you !

[wulfila]

I don't know of any medieval cathedral anywhere that was built in a castle

Well, there is one medieval cathedral within a castle that I am aware of: St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague.