Download PDF | J. A. Everard - Brittany and angevins. Province & Empire 1158-1203-Cambridge University Press (2000).
265 Pages
The rule of the Angevins in Brittany is characterised usually as opening an isolated ‘Celtic’ society to a wider world and imposing new and alien institutions. This study, the first on the subject of Brittany under the Angevins, demonstrates that the opposite is true: that before the advent of Henry II in 1158, the Bretons were already active participants in Anglo-Norman and French society. Indeed those Bretons with landholdings in England, Normandy and Anjou were already accustomed to Angevin rule.
The book examines in detail the means by which Henry II gained sovereignty over Brittany, and how it was governed subsequently by the Angevin kings of England from 1158 to 1203. In particular, it examines the extent to which the Angevins ruled Brittany directly, or delegated authority either to native dukes or royal ministers, and shows that in this respect the nature of Angevin rule changed and evolved over the period.
JUDITH EVERARD is co-editor (with Michael Jones) of The Charters of Constance, Duchess of Brittany, and her Family (1171-1221) (1999).
PREFACE
By [the twelfth-century], Brittany was a central player in the feudal politics of the Anglo-Norman world, partaking of the cosmopolitan Latin culture of the day and economically transformed by the growth of towns. It was no longer a peripheral society ... Distinctive still in cultural and linguistic terms, Brittany was nevertheless taking its place among the territorial principalities which clustered under the mantle of the Capetian monarchy.!
Thus, in the epilogue of Province and Empire: Carolingian Brittany, Dr Julia Smith elegantly summarised Brittany in the hundred years or so preceding the advent of Angevin rule.
The aim of this study is to examine Brittany as a province of the Angevin empire from the perspective of the duchy as a participant in the contemporary culture and politics of western France and the AngloNorman realm. I hope to dispel the notion that twelfth-century Brittany was ‘Celtic’ and different, backward and atypical, and therefore not relevant to any discussion of Capetian France or of Anglo-Norman society. This notion has fostered the view that Angevin rule in Brittany, between 1158 and 1203, involved the autocratic imposition of AngloNorman or Angevin institutions which were alien to the Bretons. Since, on closer inspection, these institutions prove to be anything but alien to Brittany by the mid-twelfth century, a thorough reconsideration of Angevin rule in Brittany is called for.
This study provides such a reconsideration, examining in detail both Brittany’s place within the Angevin empire, and the mechanisms of Angevin rule in Brittany. ‘Angevin rule’, it will be stressed, was not a monolithic phenomenon, unchanging over a period of nearly half a century. On the contrary, one can trace the changes in the nature of Angevin rule in Brittany under the succession of Angevin rulers down to King John.
This book is derived from my doctoral thesis, completed in 1995 under the supervision of Professor Sir James Holt. My primary debt of gratitude is to Professor Holt, whose patient supervision and good advice were responsible for the production of the thesis. Professor R. B. Dobson has been and I hope will continue to be a valued mentor, whether official or unofficial, and has shown great forbearance in his capacity (until his retirement very shortly before publication) as the Advisory Editor to the ‘Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought’ series charged with overseeing production of this book. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Professor Michael Jones, Professor Rosamond McKitterick, M. Hubert Guillotel, Dr Elisabeth van Houts, Dr Katharine Keats-Rohan, Dr Daniel Power and Dr Karen Jankulak for their advice and encouragement.
My research trips to France would have been far less productive without the assistance of the staff of the various libraries and archives I visited. I am particularly indebted to those of the salle des manuscrits at the Bibliothéque nationale and of the Archives départementales of Ille-et-Vilaine (Rennes), Cotes-d’Armor (Saint-Brieuc) and LoireAtlantique (Nantes).
Completion of my doctoral thesis was made possible by generous financial assistance from the Coles-Myer Scholarship, the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals’ Overseas Students Research Awards scheme and the Principal and Fellows of Newnham College, Cambridge. Completion of the book was undertaken as a British Academy post-doctoral fellow, and in this capacity I have greatly benefited from the hospitality of the Master and Fellows of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.
Finally, I wish to thank my husband, Nicholas Syms, for first tolerating the absences of his new wife, then taking a prolonged sabbatical from his own work to care for the two sons who arrived while this work was in progress.
INTRODUCTION
It is well-known that Henry I], king of England, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of Anjou, added the duchy of Brittany to the ‘Angevin empire’ and granted it to his third son, Geoffrey. As the necessary background to the conflict between the young Arthur of Brittany, Geoffrey’s posthumous son, and his uncle King John over the succession to Richard the Lionheart, this is about as much as British historians have felt they needed to know about Brittany in the twelfth century.
The history of the Angevin regime in Brittany has received only scant attention from historians. This neglect has two causes; firstly, the relative scarcity of contemporary sources, which makes the history of Brittany in this period quite obscure, and secondly, the sentiments of historians. Both British and French historians tend to overlook Brittany as peripheral, backward, and, because of its Celtic history, different and atypical. Whether the subject is the Anglo-Norman realm, the Angevin empire or the Capetian monarchy, Brittany appears marginal, both geographically and culturally.
Breton historians, for their part, have tended to avoid the period of Angevin rule, passing over it as a shameful episode of foreign, and worse, ‘English’, domination best overlooked. When the topic cannot be avoided, they have tended to emphasise baronial rebellion against Henry II, characterising it as the heroic resistance of Breton patriots.' In the otherwise excellent A. Chédeville and N.-Y. Tonnerre, La Bretagne feodale, xte-xute siecle (Rennes, 1987) the subject of ‘La mainmise progressive d’Henri II sur la Bretagne’ is dealt with in two pages (pp. 86-8), while five pages are devoted to baronial resistance (‘Un pouvoir difficilement accepté’, pp. 88-93). Although these attitudes are understandable, the central argument of this book is that they are unjustified.
Furthermore, the effect of Brittany’s near-absence from the historiography on the Angevin empire has been positively misleading. The politics of Henry I] and his sons cannot be understood without regard to the time and resources they invested in acquiring and maintaining lordship over Brittany. In particular, the political career of Henry II’s son Geoffrey is incomprehensible, an apparently irrational series of plots and betrayals, if one ignores his career as duke of Brittany. Without an understanding of the institutions of Breton government before Angevin rule, it is impossible to judge whether Henry II and Geoffrey deliberately introduced Anglo-Norman or Angevin institutions in Brittany.
In contrast with the dearth of material on Brittany under the Angevins, the historiography of Brittany in the earlier middle ages, even up to the late eleventh century, is thriving. Two monographs have recently appeared on Carolingian Brittany.” At the same time, several Breton historians have focused their research on Brittany in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and especially on the subject of the formation of the nobility. The result of this work is to emphasise continuity in Breton society through the ninth and tenth centuries.
The twelfth century represents something of a lacuna in the historiography of Brittany. There is no monograph on the subject of Brittany in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and few published articles. Recent scholarship resumes at the end of the Angevin period, with two articles on the life and reign of Duchess Constance.*
This lacuna can be explained, at least in part, because the twelfth century falls in between two periods. It is too late for the period of the formation of the post-Carolingian feudal society, which so interests the current school of Breton medieval historians, and too early for the golden age’ of ducal Brittany. This book aims to go some way towards bridging the gap. Although there has been some work on Brittany and the Angevins, no work has appeared on Angevin rule in Brittany in its own right, rather than for the purposes of comparison with other provinces or periods.®
Primary sources for Brittany in the twelfth century are scarce. The scarcity is particularly conspicuous in literary sources. In contrast with the eleventh-century ‘chronicles’ of Nantes and Dol, no Breton chronicles written in the twelfth century have survived, only monastic annals.° Breton historiography was revived in the late middle ages, but the late ‘chronicles’ or ‘histories’ of Pierre Le Baud, Alain Bouchard and the ‘anonymous of Saint-Brieuc’ obviously are not reliable as primary sources for the twelfth century.’ Yet it has recently been argued that these authors were serious scholars, albeit politically motivated, and, more importantly, they had privileged access to ducal and baronial archives and drew on documentary sources which are no longer extant.® In this study, especially in Chapter 6, I have used Le Baud’s ‘Histoire de Bretagne’ (1505) and ‘Chroniques de Vitré’ selectively, citing Le Baud where it is probable that his account is based upon a documentary source, and adding corroborative evidence as far as possible.
Contemporary literary evidence, therefore, derives solely from sources written outside Brittany. The limitations of this are obvious; a writer residing elsewhere and having only a passing interest in Brittany could not be expected to describe Breton current affairs accurately or in detail. This is illustrated by the work of William the Breton, who wrote his Gesta Philippi Augusti around 1214. In a brief digression from his royal subject-matter, William records an important event in the history of Brittany: the end of the succession contest which followed the death of Duke Conan II, with Conan IV’s triumph over Eudo de Porhoét in 1156. William relates this in a way which would interest his French audience, describing Eudo’s period of exile at the court of Louis VII. This chronicle is the only source for some of the matters it records, and there is no reason to doubt William’s veracity. The lack of Breton chronicle material is illustrated by the fact that this material was included by William in his chronicle merely as ‘incidentia’.'° It is ironic that we are obliged to rely upon ‘incidentia’ in a chronicle written for other purposes as an important contemporary source for Brittany.
William was writing many years after the events occurred, and from Paris, but at least he was a native of Brittany, and possibly an eyewitness to some of the events he describes. The well-known British chroniclers of Henry II and Richard also make some references to Breton affairs, but only insofar as they concern the Angevin royal family, mainly Henry II’s and Geoffrey’s visits and military campaigns there. The most detail is provided by Roger of Howden, and it is unfortunate that his chronicles do not begin until 1169 (coincidentally, with Henry II’s Christmas court at Nantes).
The most valuable chronicle is that of Robert de Torigni, who knew Henry II personally and enjoyed royal favour. As abbot of Mont SaintMichel, Torigni was in an excellent position to record events in northeastern Brittany. In contrast, he does not seem to have been well informed about events in southern Brittany. This is well illustrated in his account of the 1173 revolt. Torigni gives a detailed account of the siege of Dol, the cathedral town just across the bay from Mont SaintMichel, but as to rebellion around the borders of Nantes and Anjou, Torigni’s account is sketchy and garbled.''
Other literary sources provide evidence of Breton affairs. Henry II’s military campaigns in 1167 and 1168 are mentioned in Stephen of Rouen’s epic poem, ‘Draco Normannicus’, and in the vita of Hamo of Savigny.'* The siege of Dol in 1173 is described in Jordan Fantosme’s verse ‘chronicle’.'? An especially valuable source is a narrative account of the theft and recovery of the relics of Saint Petroc which occurred in 1177.'4 Written soon after the events it describes, this remarkable narrative contains much material about the workings of Henry II’s chancery, about life in Brittany, and not least about the administration of Brittany (or at least north-eastern Brittany) under Henry II at this date.
The literary sources are valuable for the politics of Henry II and Geoffrey regarding Brittany. Being concerned with events like births, deaths and marriages, warfare and treaties, they are, however, a poor source for anything routine and generally contain little evidence for the administration of Brittany. I have given them so much emphasis, however, because the diplomatic sources are so limited.
In the use of written records, the government of Brittany resembled that of the neighbouring counties of Anjou and Poitou much more than that of England and Normandy. There were no routine records of financial accounting or justice, equivalent to pipe rolls or plea rolls, created and preserved by an office of royal/ducal government.'? The principal sources for the administration of Brittany are charters and notices recording property transactions. Some of these were created by royal/ducal officials in the conduct of their duties; more indicate the participation of a ducal officer, usually as a witness. There are also ducal acta, including a small number of charters of Henry II and Geoffrey concerning Brittany.
The common characteristic of all this diplomatic material is that its subject-matter concerns ecclesiastical institutions, or lands which ultimately came into their possession. The church remained solely responsible for the preservation, if not the creation, of legal documents in Brittany even in the last quarter of the twelfth century.
Given that all the administrative records which have survived, whether produced by officials or by the ecclesiastical beneficiaries of their actions, were preserved by the latter, the survival of episcopal and monastic archives is of paramount importance to the study of the administration of Brittany in the twelfth century. Here, unfortunately, we are not well served. Most of the extant cartularies containing Breton material were those of the great Benedictine houses: Redon and Quimperlé in Brittany, Mont Saint-Michel, Marmoutier, Saint-Florent de Saumur and the great abbeys of Angers outside. By the late twelfth century, patronage of Benedictine monasteries had become unfashion-able and the Benedictine abbeys and priories of Brittany were in decline, or at least had ceased to expand. The cartularies of Redon, Quimperlé and Mont Saint-Michel are principally eleventh-century works. Twelfth-century charters which were not included in the cartularies have not all survived. There are thus relatively few charters relevant to this study in Benedictine cartularies.
By the mid-twelfth century, patronage of the new religious orders was much more fashionable, in Brittany as elsewhere.'® For these, though, the survival of documents is even less reliable. How much material is missing or lost is illustrated by comparison with the few extant twelfth-century cartularies. For instance, the cartulary of Savigny contained three charters of Duke Geoffrey. The Cistercian abbey of Buzay did not produce a cartulary but preserved its original charters, including two of Duke Geoffrey. Another Cistercian abbey, La Vieuville, preserved the written record of a dispute determined on the orders of Henry II around 1167 (in La Vieuville’s favour, of course), and a confirmation charter of Duke Geoffrey. The twelfth-century cartularies or archives which have survived, even if only as copies, contain not only ducal charters but documents providing valuable evidence for the administration of Brittany under the Angevins, such as charters for Buzay and Fontevraud made by Henry II’s seneschals of Nantes, or a charter made for Savigny recording that Ralph de Fougéres, as ‘Seneschal of Brittany’, presided over the ducal curia at Rennes.'”
Other Breton monasteries which Henry II and Geoffrey are known, or are likely, to have patronised, such as Begard, Langonnet, SaintMaurice de Carnoét, La Blanche Couronne and Melleray (all Cistercian), had all suffered almost total loss of their archives before the eighteenth century. Cathedral archives have also suffered serious losses, for instance, the archives of the cathedral of Dol were destroyed when the cathedral was attacked by King John in 1203.'% The scarcity of documents from the monasteries, which were in their heyday in the second half of the twelfth century, and from the cathedrals is particularly unfortunate.
Apart from ducal acta, the only official records of the Angevin administration are charters of the ducal seneschals recording proceedings in the ducal curia. Even these were produced ad hoc, at the request of the parties, and not as a matter of routine.
Transactions between laymen were not customarily recorded in writing in Brittany before the mid-twelfth century. The extant charters and notices from before this date were all produced to record transactions in which a religious institution had an interest. The practice of recording transactions between laymen first appears during the reign of Duke Conan IV (1156—66).'° It is likely that this material is significantly under-represented in the historical record, in comparison with written records of transactions involving churches. The relative rarity of extant written records of transactions between laymen is probably explained by failure of preservation. It is significant that some of the earliest documents made on behalf of laymen pertain to the greatest baronial families, principally Fougéres and Vitre, who were the leaders, among the barons, in beginning both to produce and to preserve documents themselves.?°
The main diplomatic sources for this study, then, are the acta of Henry II and Duke Geoffrey pertaining to Brittany, the acta of royal/ ducal officers produced in the exercise of their duties, and documents produced by religious institutions who were the beneficiaries of the exercise of these duties.
The remainder of this introductory chapter will pursue the theme of Brittany’s integration in the wider Frankish and Anglo-Norman world. This issue would not arise in a study of any of the neighbouring regions, such as Maine or Anjou, and the reason why it arises in respect of Brittany is the conventional characterisation of Brittany as a Celtic region. As a preliminary matter, then, I would emphasise that medieval Brittany was not culturally homogeneous. The immigrants from the British Isles who began to colonise Brittany in the fifth century joined a population similar to that in other parts of the former Roman Gaul, combining Gallo-Romans and more recent Germanic arrivals in the east. The Bretons, naturally, did not colonise Brittany uniformly, rather they were concentrated in the west, on the Armorican peninsula, and along the littoral. Although later military success would extend the hegemony of the peninsular Bretons eastwards beyond even the boundaries of the medieval duchy of Brittany, this proved ephemeral, both politically and culturally, even in the future counties of Rennes and Nantes. By the twelfth century, Frankish cultural influence predominated east of a zone running north-south, corresponding, very approximately, with the courses of the Rance and the Vilaine.?! Hence there is no question about the integration of at least the eastern part of Brittany with the neighbouring regions of Francia. They belonged to the same cultural and political world.
One would expect to find a distinction between the east and the west of Brittany in this regard, and indeed, around 1100, contemporaries might describe men of Cornouaille as “Britones’, as distinct from men of Nantes.?* Yet the sources do not yield any visible cultural difference between east and west, at least among the clergy and the aristocracy. The exclusive use of Latin for writing, and its monopoly by the clergy, certainly disguises such differences, but this in itself is a manifestation of how ecclesiastical institutions were a force for integration between east and west, Frankish and Breton.
Cultural influences may be seen as working in both directions. The aristocracy of eastern Brittany, while integrated in Frankish society, as is demonstrated for example by their personal names (Radulfus, Gaufridus, Willelmus), were evidently conscious of, and proud of, their separate Celtic cultural and literary heritage.*? The aristocracy of western Brittany, although they ruled over a society that was geographically isolated and where the vernacular language was Breton,”* were perfectly capable of participating in Frankish and Anglo-Norman affairs when they chose to, as the examples discussed below demonstrate.
The second matter to be emphasised is that, prior to the advent of Henry II, Brittany was not an autonomous region. Since the Merovingian period, rulers of Brittany had been subject, at least in theory, to the rulers of Francia.*° After the collapse of Carolingian authority, the dukes and counts of Brittany from time to time came under the political influence of the counts of Blois-Chartres, Maine and Anjou and of the dukes of Normandy.*° Thus, when Henry II asserted his lordship over all of Brittany, he was not exercising some new and unheard of rapacity, but was following the example of his Norman and Angevin ancestors. In exercising direct lordship over Brittany, he was merely fulfilling their ambitions. The fact that the counts and dukes of Brittany had been effectively independent of external lordship since the end of the Carolingian era was not a manifestation of some ancient autonomy; it was rather due to the fragmentation of political authority which was occurring throughout Francia at the time.
The incidence of Frankish institutions in eleventh-century and early twelfth-century Brittany may be traced to two causes. The first was Brittany’s relationship with the Carolingian empire, which necessarily involved the importation of Frankish institutions west of the Breton march. Even the westernmost regions were incorporated in the ninthcentury province of Brittany, which was unified under Carolingian authority.*’ The demise of the Carolingian empire did not extinguish these institutions. As elsewhere in Francia, they evolved and mutated in the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
A second phase of importation of Frankish institutions occurred in the tenth and eleventh centuries.** During the Viking attacks on Brittany in the first half of the tenth century, many leaders, lay and ecclesiastical, went into exile in the French hinterland. Inevitably they were influenced by the society they encountered there, and these influences were felt when they returned to Brittany. This is exemplified by the drive to revive and reform Benedictine monasticism which took place in Brittany from the late tenth century. New abbeys were founded, and the few that had survived from the Carolingian period were reformed. In all cases, this involved the introduction of an abbot and monks from an established monastery outside Brittany.?? As well as reforming ideals, the monks brought with them Frankish institutions for the administration of the monastic estates. These, in turn, influenced the estate-management practices of their lay neighbours. Arguably, this is the origin of the offices of senescallus, prepositus and vicarius character-istic of the administration of both lay and ecclesiastical estates in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Significantly, in Cornouaille, where Breton was the vernacular language, a Frankish term was employed for the office of seneschal, presumably because the institution itself was a Frankish importation °°
There were thus two separate currents of Frankish influence operating throughout Brittany in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. One derived from the survival of Carolingian institutions, the other from the importation from Francia of post-Carolingian institutions in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
It would be satisfying to list all the manifestations of Brittany’s integration with the politics and culture of neighbouring regions. This would, however, involve a lengthy description of all aspects of contemporary politics and culture. Instead, I have selected some specific topics by way of illustration. These are marital alliances with neighbouring regions, relations with England, crusading, coinage and the church.
Prior to the mid-eleventh century, the comital family of Rennes had formed marriage alliances with the dukes of Normandy (Geoffrey I (992—1008) and Richard II, duke of Normandy, had each married the other’s sister) and the counts of Blois (Alan HI (1008-40) married Bertha, daughter of Eudo II, count of Blois). From the late eleventh century, the dukes of the newly forged ducal dynasty always married brides from outside the duchy. Duke Alan IV (1084-1112) married Constance, daughter of William the Conqueror, in 1087.°' After her early death, Alan married Ermengard, the daughter of Pulk IV of Anjou. Ermengard provided a son and heir, Conan III, and survived her husband by many years. She was a formidable influence throughout most of Conan’s reign, and especially ensured that the counties of Nantes and Rennes enjoyed close relations with Anjou.** Conan III himself married an illegitimate daughter of King Henry I. These marriages indicate that the dukes of Brittany had sufficient prestige to enter into marriage alliances with the counts, dukes and even kings of neighbouring regions, but the marriages are also significant for the familial connections they created. The marriage of a daughter of Duke Alan IV to Baldwin VII, count of Flanders, around 1101, was dissolved by papal decree on the grounds of consanguinity, the parties being within the prohibited degrees of relationship on at least two counts.°°
Although it was unusual for the Breton nobility to marry outside Brittany, the occasions when they did also indicate involvement in French and Anglo-Norman politics at a high level. In the mid-eleventh century, Rivallon, the first lord of Combour, married Aremburga du Puiset.°* Harvey, lord of Léon, married an illegitimate daughter of Stephen of Blois at a time when the latter seemed secure on the throne of England.*? In 1151, Henry, lord of Tréguier, married Matilda, daughter of John, count of Vendome.*°
Links between the Armorican peninsula and the south-west of Britain were of course fundamental to the creation of Breton society in the early middle ages. I will begin this discussion, though, with contacts in the tenth century. While Breton monks notoriously sought refuge from Viking attacks in more easterly parts of France, at least some of the Breton nobility went into exile in southern England. It was from England that Alan ‘Barbetorte’ launched his campaign to reunite Brittany under his authority. Thus the Breton aristocracy also experienced Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions.*” In contrast with the Carolingian influence, there is now little evidence for Anglo-Saxon influence on Breton society, although the identification of Anglo-Saxon motifs in the ornament of the tenth-century crypt of the church of Lanmeur (Finistére) is tantalising.*®
These contacts did not cease in the eleventh century. Bretons were among the foreigners received in England by Edward the Confessor.°” Recent research has revealed the extent to which Bretons participated in the Norman conquest of England, and subsequently held crosschannel estates as tenants-in-chief of the English crown.*° Two different contingents of Breton settlers have been identified. The most conspicuous was from the north-west of Brittany, under the leadership of the sons of Eudo comes Britannorum, younger brother of Duke Alan II and autonomous lord of Penthiévre. At least two of Eudo’s younger sons, Brian and Alan Rufus, took part in the 1066 expedition. Alan was rewarded with large estates in eastern England. With additional grants of land stretching from northern Yorkshire to Essex and Hertfordshire, these formed the honour of Richmond, retained by Eudo’s descendants into the thirteenth century. Numerous Bretons, principally from the lands controlled by the Penthiévre family, settled on these estates. The other contingent lacked the unity of the Richmond tenants. These were Bretons from the north-east of the duchy who received grants of land in the midlands, the south-west and the Welsh Marches, mainly from Henry I.
It is self-evident that these Bretons, who were so involved in AngloNorman and Angevin society through landholding and marriage, cannot have been monolingual in Breton or in any way insular in their culture and politics. It is surely significant that in establishing the caput of his honour near Gilling (North Yorks.), Alan Rufus gave it the Romance name of Richmond, rather than a name derived from Brittany or the Breton language.
In addition to their participation in the Norman conquest of England, Bretons joined in the other contemporary Frankish movement of the First Crusade. A Breton contingent, led by Duke Alan IV, fought alongside the Normans.*! One source (albeit probably a partisan one) accords Alan IV a prominent role, describing him as the first lay magnate to take the cross at Clermont in 1095, and as leading the Frankish delegation to meet the emperor at Byzantium.*? In joining the first crusade, Bretons shared an experience common to other contemporary French nobles and knights. After 1099, Bretons continued to make pilgrimages, armed and unarmed, to Jerusalem.”
As to coinage, Brittany followed the pattern common to western Francia following the breakdown of Carolingian royal authority. The royal prerogative of minting coins devolved to the level of the dukes but no further. The only coins minted in Brittany other than at ducal mints were those of the lords of Penthiévre, a cadet branch of the ducal dynasty which did not acknowledge ducal authority. Breton coinage was consistent with that of neighbouring regions in terms of its design and value.**
There is some evidence for the circulation of ‘foreign’ coinage in Brittany before the mid-twelfth century. A coin-hoard from the 1080s deposited at Bain is predominantly composed of Breton ducal coinage, but also contains some coins minted by the counts of Anjou and one specimen of French royal coinage minted at Mantes. There is more evidence for Breton coins circulating outside Brittany in this period, mainly in Normandy. Among these are specimens of the coinage of Penthiévre, minted at Guingamp by Stephen, lord of Penthiévre (r098—c. 1136), if not before.*° Deniers of Guingamp were common currency within the continental domains of the Angevin empire. As such, they were included in an Angevin royal ordonnance on exchange rates, which indicates that deniers of Guingamp were of approximately the same value as those of Angers and Tours.*°
On the subject of the integration of Brittany into the Frankish world, one cannot overestimate the role of the church. All nine dioceses of Brittany were within the ecclesiastical province of Tours, which, through provincial councils and archiepiscopal acts, ensured a degree of co-ordination between the Breton dioceses and the other, Frankish, dioceses of the province (Tours, Angers and Le Mans).
The dispute with Tours over the claims of the archbishop of Dol to metropolitan status, pursued from the mid-eleventh century and throughout the twelfth, is deceptive because it suggests that the Breton church had a national identity and that it sought independence from the ‘French’ archbishop of Tours.*” Not all of the dioceses of Brittany recognised Dol’s metropolitan status, however. In fact the dukes do not seem to have supported Dol, and the dioceses which were in comital/ ducal hands (Rennes, Nantes, Vannes and Cornouaille) were not suffragans of Dol in this period. From 1122 until its final demise in 1199, the archbishopric of Dol in fact had only two suffragans, the bishops of Saint-Brieuc and Tréguier, with the remaining six dioceses of Brittany accepting the supremacy of Tours. The dioceses of Saint-Brieuc and Tréguier were controlled by the lords of Penthiévre, who, throughout the period of the Dol dispute, maintained a policy of independence from the dukes of Brittany. The decision of their bishops to support the archbishop of Dol, contrary to ducal policy, was a manifestation of their dependence upon the lords of Penthiévre.
Gregorian reform was at first stubbornly resisted in Brittany, where the counts and other magnates treated the bishoprics within their territories as family property.** By the twelfth century, though, the reform movement began to take effect. Bishops from outside Brittany were appointed, such as the Angevin Marbod, bishop of Rennes (1093-1123), and Baldric of Bourgeuil, archbishop of Dol (1107-30). Native Breton bishops shared the education and values of their brother bishops, no doubt due to the fact that the Breton clergy moved freely between Brittany and Francia. Peter Abelard, for instance, was born at Le Pallet in the county of Nantes. After the downfall of his scholastic career, Abelard was elected abbot of the ancient Breton abbey of SaintGildas de Rhuys. Bernard de Moélan was chancellor of the cathedral of Chartres before returning to his native Cornouaille as bishop of Quimper (1159-67). Bernard d’Escoublac was a monk at Clairvaux before becoming bishop of Nantes (c. 1148—70). Josce, bishop of SaintBrieuc (1150-1157), became archbishop of Tours (1157-74). William the Breton was educated at Mantes, returned to his native diocese of Saint-Pol de Léon, then entered the service of Philip Augustus. Breton clerics enjoyed a high reputation as scholars. *”
As to the regular clergy, no Breton monastery survived unscathed the Viking attacks of the early tenth century. All the Breton monasteries of the eleventh century were, therefore, refounded, or were new foundations, initially with monks from outside Brittany. Similarly, at this time many smaller monasteries were founded or refounded as priories directly dependent upon these ‘foreign’ abbeys.*”
From the turn of the twelfth century, Brittany was at the forefront in the growth of the new religious orders. Initially, the forests which formed the marches of Brittany, Normandy and Maine attracted hermits and ascetic communities. The abbey of Savigny was founded there under the patronage of the lords of Fougéres. Ralph I de Fougéres also offered property to Bernard, the founder of Tiron, but apparently there was not room in the forest for both holy men, and Bernard and his followers moved on.°! Robert of Arbrissel, the founder of Fontevraud, originated in this area. One of his followers, Ralph de la Fustaye, founded the abbey of Saint-Sulpice-la-Forét, north-east of Rennes, modelled on Fontevraud.°* The Cistercian order enjoyed early and rapid success, under the patronage of both the ducal family and the lords of Penthiévre.°? The Angevin Ermengard, especially as dowager-duchess, seems to have played an important role in religious reform in Brittany. She was in correspondence not only with Marbod, the reformist bishop of Rennes, but also Gerard of Angouléme, Robert of Arbrissel, Bernard of Clairvaux and Geoffrey of Vendéme.** All were, no doubt, eager to benefit from Ermengard’s patronage and her influence with her son, Duke Conan III, to implement their reforming ideals in the duchy. Apart from liturgies containing some obscure Celtic saints,°° by the mid-twelfth century there was nothing to distinguish the church in Brittany from that of the neighbouring provinces.
Finally, as an example of integration, I would cite the seignorial family of Léon. While most of the evidence of relationships between the Breton aristocracy and that of neighbouring provinces derives from the eastern parts of Brittany, the case of the lords of Léon, from the extreme north-west, proves that geographical situation was not a conclusive factor. The populace of the barony of Léon was culturally Breton and spoke the Breton language. The lords themselves continued to use Breton personal names.°° In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, institutions of Carolingian origin were present in Léon. The lords of Léon themselves seem to have been descendants of the Carolingian vicecomes of that pagus, who usurped the public authority of their office. Their baronial administration had Carolingian aspects and they employed typically Frankish household officers such as a seneschal.°’
In terms of external relations, the lords of Léon seem to have followed a policy of splendid isolation. Effectively independent of the dukes of Brittany, they eschewed participation in the Norman conquest of England, and Harvey de Léon was said to have declined an invitation to the court of Henry I. Making it very clear that he did so only of his own free will, he later crossed to England in support of King Stephen.>* Stephen rewarded Harvey with marriage to his illegitimate daughter and endowed him with the earldom of Wiltshire and the honour of Eye, around 1139. Harvey showed his interest in the long-term future of his English estates in his attempt to make Eye priory an abbey, ending its dependence on the Norman abbey of Bernay.°? If a lord of Léon was involved to this extent with Anglo-Norman affairs, it is safe to say that no part of Brittany was isolated from the currents of English and French politics and culture.
Angevin rule did not introduce completely new and alien institutions into Breton society. It is misconceived to attempt to understand Breton/Angevin relations in terms of Celtic versus Frankish culture. Rather, the Angevin government of Brittany was another phase in the long history of close political and cultural relations between Brittany and its neighbours, especially Normandy and Anjou. To understand the Angevin regime in Brittany, and in particular the extent to which it was innovative, it is necessary to consider the politics and government of the duchy immediately before it came under Angevin rule, and that is the subject of chapter one.
Link
Press Here
