Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:05:30.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘archbishopric’ of Dol and the ecclesiastical politics of ninth-century Brittany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Julia M. H. Smith
Julia M. H. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the history of the invasions which marked the end of the Roman empire in the west, the Armorican peninsula of northwestern Gaul holds a distinctive place. It witnessed the only substantial settlements by people whose homeland lay within the Roman empire, and who had been subject to Roman civil government for several centuries. These settlers crossed the English Channel probably between the late fourth and early seventh centuries. Establishing new communities in the sparsely populated areas of western Armorica, they brought with them their own language, social patterns and Christian organisation, and a strong sense of affinity with the Celts of Wales and Cornwall from whom they derived.’ Whilst the Britons were establishing themselves as Bretons, the Franks were asserting their hold over the remainder of northern Gaul. A few of them settled in the eastern approaches to the peninsula, in the Roman civitates of Rennes and Nantes. Culturally and politically, only this part of Armorica was attached to Merovingian Gaul, having as its kings the descendants of Clovis, and as its bishops members of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 18: Religion and National Identity , 1982 , pp. 59 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The controversies and uncertainties surrounding the Breton migrations are conveniently summarised by Musset, L., The Germanic Invasions (London 1975) pp 112-15, 236-7Google Scholar. The linguistic and place-name evidence for which areas of Armorica were settled by the Bretons is set out by Jackson, K. H., A Historical Phonology of Breton (Dublin 1967) pp 21–33 Google Scholar.

2 McDermott, W. C., ‘Felix of Nantes: a Merovingian bishop’ Traditio 31 (New York 1975) pp 1-24Google Scholar. Merovingian political interest in eastern Armorica is clear from Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum IV.4, 20, V. 16, 26, 29, 31, IX. 18, X.9 (MGH SRM 1 pp 143-4,157-8, 207, 221, 223, 224, 372, 416-18).The archaeological evidence for Frankish presence in the eastern fringes of Brittany is discussed by Reinach, S., ‘Les Francs et la Bretagne armoricaine’ Revue archéologique 27 (Paris 1928) pp 246-53Google Scholar and Souillet, G., ‘La Guerche. Le Problème de la marche franco-bretonne’ M[émoires de la] S[ociété d’] H[istoire et d’] Archéologie de] B[retagne] 24 (Rennes 1944) pp 25–46 Google Scholar.

3 See the cautions against using the term ‘Brittany’ for the period before the ninth century of Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, B-A., ‘Nominoé et la naissance de Bretagne’, MSHAB 25 (1945) pp 5–6 Google Scholar.

4 The fullest account of the history of Brittany in the middle ages, although unreliable, remains that of La Borderie, [A. de], Histoire [de la Bretagne] 4 vols (Paris 1896-1906)Google Scholar. More up to date is [Histoire de la Bretagne, ed J.] Delumeau (Toulouse 1969).

5 Epp IV 4, 5 (MGH Epp Sel 2 pt 1pp 300-3) Duine, [F.], [La] Métropole [de Bretagne] (Paris 1916)Google Scholar. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, B-A., ‘La Bretagne a-t-elle été vassalle du Saint-Siège?’ SGre 1 (1947) pp 189–196 Google Scholar discusses the evidence that Gregory VII wished to make Brittany a papal vassal state.

6 Pocquet de Haut-Jussé, B-A., ‘Les Plantagenets et la Bretagne’ Ann[ales de] Bret[agne] 53 (Rennes 1946) pp 1-27Google Scholar; Warren, W. L., Henry II (London 1973) p 561 Google Scholar.

7 Epp II.82, 83, PL 214 (1854) cols 625-35.

8 Most of the records pertaining to the litigation were preserved in the Tours archives throughout the middle ages. They are conveniently ressembled as a group by Martène and Durand, Thesaurus 3 cols 849-956.

9 The equation between Celtic nation and ecclesiastical province underlay the unsuccessful attempts to have Saint David’s elevated into an archbishopric after the Normans had begun to penetrate Wales. Here, as in ninth-century Brittany, the stimulus for the attempt was political and ecclesiastical intervention by a powerful non-Celtic neighbour coupled with a demand for recognition of his metropolitan archbishop. Lloyd, [J. E.], A History of Wales [from the earliest times to the Edwardian conquest] (3 ed London 1939) 2 p 486 Google Scholar; Brooke, C. N. L., ‘The Archbishops of St. David’s, Llandaff and Caerleon-on-Usk’, Studes in the early British Church, ed Chadwick, N.K. (Cambridge 1958) pp 201-42Google Scholar, and more recently, Richter, M., ‘Professions of Obedience and the metropolitan claims of St. David’s’, The National Library of Wales Journal 15 (Aberystwyth 1967-8) pp 197–214 Google Scholar.

10 The phrase is that of Schlesinger, W., who likened Brittany to Gascony in this respect. ‘Die Auflösung des Karlsreiches’, Karl der Grosse 1, Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed Beumann, H. (Düsseldorf 1965) p. 812 Google Scholar.

11 Though the date of Nominoë’s appointment is not given by any contemporary writer, it represents an important step in the assertion of Frankish control over Brittany. de la Borderie, A., ‘La Chronologie du Cartulaire de Redon’, Ann Bret 5 (1890) pp 552-6Google Scholar; Dhondt, J., Etudes sur la naissance des principautés territoriales en France, IXe au Xe siècle (Bruges 1948) pp 82-106Google Scholar.

12 Lesne, [E.], La Hiérarchie épiscopale. [Provinces, métropolitains, primats en Gaule et Germanie 742-882] (Lille/Paris 1905) pp 57–86 Google Scholar; Merlet, [R.], ‘L’Émancipation [de l’église de Bretagne et le concile de Tours (848-51)’], Moyen Age 11 (1898) pp 1-30Google Scholar.

13 Morice, [H.], [Mémoires pour servir de] preuves [à l’histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Bretagne] 1 (Paris 1742) cols 225-6Google Scholar; Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Landevennec, ed de la Borderie, A. (Rennes 1888) 1 pp 75-6Google Scholar.

14 The bishops of Nantes and Rennes were frequent attendere at Merovingian church councils. Champagne, J. and Szramkiewicz, R., ‘Recherches sur les conciles de temps mérovingiens’, RHDFE 49 (1971) pp 5-49Google Scholar. However, no bishops from any part of Brittany are recorded at Carolingian councils until 835. MGH Conc 2 p 703. The only Breton bishop with a Celtic rather than a Frankish name to attend Frankish councils was Uumarius (Gernobrius) of Rennes; Mansi 14 pp 796, 919.

15 This is the view advocated by La, Borderie, Histoire 2 pp 52-9Google Scholar in particular, and following him by Merlet, ‘L’Émancipation’, and recently, but more cautiously, by P. Riché, in his contribution to Delumeau, pp 131-2. Attempts to unravel the scanty and conflicting information about what Nominoë was doing are made by Levillain, L., ‘Les Réformes ecclésiastiques de Noménoé (847-8), étude sur les sources narratives’, Moyen Age 15 (1902) pp 201-57Google Scholar; Lot, F., ‘Le schisme breton du IXe siècle’ in his Mélanges [d’histoire bretonne] (Paris 1907) pp 58–96 Google Scholar, and in an article published anonymously by Duine, F., ‘Le Schisme breton’, Ann Bret 30 (1914-15) pp 424–472 Google Scholar.

16 [La] Chronique de Nantes, [ed Merlet, R.], Collection de textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’histoire (Paris 1896) cap 11 pp 32-9Google Scholar.

17 ibid pp xxv-xi. On Airard’s reforms see Constable, G., Monastic Tithes from their origin to the twelfth century (Cambridge 1964) pp 85-7Google Scholar.

18 Loup, de Ferneres, Correspondance, ed Levillain, L. (2 ed Parish 1964) Ep 81 2 pp 56–64 Google Scholar; Levillain, L. ‘Étude sur les lettres de Loup de Ferneres’, BEC 63 (1902) pp 303-12Google Scholar.

19 Chronique de Nantes cap 16 pp 51-7 (=Mansi 15 pp 732-4).

20 Mansi 15 pp 532-3.

21 Fawtier, R., La Vie de Saint Samson. Essai de critique hagiographique, BEHE 197 (1912) I.43-44 pp 138-40Google Scholar. On the correct interpretation of this passage, Chadwick, O., ‘The evidence of dedications in the early history of the Welsh church’, Studies in Early British History, ed Chadwick, N.K. (Cambridge 1954) pp 173-4Google Scholar.

22 Certainly in the twelfth century Tours did not possess any evidence to suggest that the dispute had been originated by Nominoë. All the stages of the controversy were reviewed by Innocent III in the ruling which brought the affair to a close. See n7 above.

23 The best narrative of Salomon’s relations with the Franks is that of Prudentius and Hincmar, , Annales de Saint-Berlin, ed Grat, F., Viellard, J., Clémencet, S., Société de l’histoire de France (Paris 1964) a 857-74 passimGoogle Scholar.

24 MGH Epp 6 pp 639-40, 646-7, 648-9, 619-22. A date of 866 for this last is preferable to 862 (as suggested by E. Perels) for the reasons given by Merlet, Chronique de Nantes p 62 n2. The identity and career of Festinian (or Festinianus, Festgen) are discussed by F. Lot, ‘Festien “archevêque” de Dol’, Mélanges pp 14-32.

25 Duchesne, L., Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule 2 (Paris 1899) p 268 Google Scholar. Duchesne was the first to notice that Festinian’s claim (MGH Epp VI pp 648-9) that pope Severinus had bestowed the pallium on a Breton Restoaldus was most probably a misreading of the notice of Sergius sending the pallium to Bertoaldus of Canterbury in 693. In the Liber Pontificala the phrase Bertoaldum Britanniae archiepiscopum will have caused this error.

26 Cartulaire de Redon, ed de Courson, A., Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, (Paris 1863) no 89 p 67 Google Scholar. Allegations that this letter is a forgery have been made on no good grounds, Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, B-A., Les Papes et les ducs de Bretagne, BEFAR 133 (1928) 1 p 17 Google Scholar. It does however survive in a version interpolated in the eleventh century, Duine, Méetropole pp 61-4. I am grateful to Dr Chaplais for his opinion that the version preserved in the Redon cartulary has every appearance of authenticity.

27 Duine, Métropole pp 33-4. The Chronicle of Dol was written between 1076 and 1080 to set out the case that the archbishopric had existed since the time of Samson onwards. It also narrated the alleged grant of the pallium to Festinian. The text is printed by Duine, ibid pp 38-54.

28 MGH Epp 7 pp 87-8.

29 Letter of Radbod, prior of Dol, to Athelstan in William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed Hamilton, N. E.S. A., RS (1870) pp 399–400 Google Scholar, and letter of John XIII to the Breton bishops, PL 126 (1854) col 959 (where it is misattributed to John VIII). Perhaps the title was used in the tenth century as an honorific one only, without indicating that the archbishop enjoyed metropolitan rights. For the use of archiepiscopus in this sense in Wales at about the same time see Lloyd, , A History of Wales 2 p 486 Google Scholar and Charles-Edwards, T. M., ‘The Seven Bishop-Houses of Dyfed’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 24 (Cardiff 1971) p 257 Google Scholar.

30 Annales de Saint-Bertin pp 6-7.

31 Ibid pp 136-7.

32 Cartulaire de Redon nos 21, 225, 240, 243, 247, 257, pp 18-9, 173-4, 187-9, 194-5, 198-9, 207-8 and Morice, Preuves 1 col 308.

33 Especially Cartulaire de Redon nos 240 and 241, pp 187-92.

34 There is nothing whatever to substantiate the claim of the Chronicle of Nantes that Nominoë was anointed at Dol in 848 or 849. However, the link made in this chronicle between the creation of the archbishopric and the introduction into Brittany of some form of royal consecration ceremony may perhaps hold some truth. There is good evidence that one of Salomon’s successors, Alan the Great, received anointing at the hands of a bishop in 878. Since his reign is not otherwise noteworthy for any innovations in Breton governance, the suggestion that it was rather Salomon who was the first ecclesiastically consecrated ruler is perhaps worth bearing in mind. He would need an archbishop in order to receive consecration. Lesne, La Hiérarchie épiscopale pp 289-90.

35 See for instance the account of Salomon’s murder in Annales de Saint-Bertin, a 874, p 196.

36 It is impossible to tell how far the ninth-century ‘archbishopric’ of Dol had the support of the rest of the Breton episcopate. The ordination of Electramnus as bishop of Rennes in 866 was performed at Tours; this may suggest that Salomon never succeeded in detaching the bishops of the largely Frankish east of Brittany from their allegiance to Tours. Ordinatio Electramni, GalC 14 Instrumenta col 163.

37 I should like to thank Peregrine Horden for his helpful comments on this paper.