brittany and the angevins

21 Pages·2000·0.16 MB·English

BRITTANY AND THE
ANGEVINS
Province and Empire
1158–1203
J. A. EVERARD
publishedbythepresssyndicate ofthe universityofcambridge
ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom
cambridgeuniversitypress
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb22ru,UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk
40West20thStreet,NewYork,ny10011–4211,USA http://www.cup.org
10StamfordRoad,Oakleigh,Melbourne3166,Australia
RuizdeAlarco´n13,28014Madrid,Spain
#J.A.Everard2000
Thebookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevant
collectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2000
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
TypefaceMonotypeBembo11/12pt System3b2 [ce]
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdata
Everard,JudithAnn,1963–
BrittanyandtheAngevins:provinceandempire,1158–1203/J.A.Everard.
p. cm.– (Cambridgestudiesinmedievallifeandthought;4thser.)
isbn0521660718(hardback)
1.Brittany(France)–History.2.Anjou,Houseof.3.HenryII,KingofEngland,1133–1189.
4.GreatBritain–Relations–France.5.France–Relations–GreatBritain.I.Title.II.Series.
dc611.b864 2000
944’1–dc21 00–086596
isbn0521660718hardback
CONTENTS
Listoffiguresandmaps page viii
Preface ix
Listofabbreviations xi
Introduction 1
1 DucalBrittany,1066–1166 17
2 HenryIIandBrittany 34
3 ThegovernmentofBrittanyunderHenryII 76
4 DukeGeoffreyandBrittany,1166–1186 93
5 DukeGeoffrey,HenryIIandtheAngevinempire 123
6 TheendofAngevinBrittany,1186–1203 146
Conclusion 176
Appendices
1 The‘AssizeofCountGeoffrey’ 182
2 ThehereditaryseneschalsofRennes 204
3 AngevinofficersinBrittany 207
4 Therightofwreckandducal 213
brefsdemer
Bibliography 216
Index 237
vii
FIGURES AND MAPS
Figure1 GenealogyofthedukesofBrittany,1066–1203 page xv
Map1 TheprincipalpoliticaldivisionsofBrittany,c.1066 xvi
Map2 Ducaldomains,c.1066–1186 xvii
Figure2 GenealogyoftheSeneschalsofRennes 206
viii
1
DUCAL BRITTANY, 1066–1166
Brittany, as a political unit, was a creation of the Carolingian empire,
but during the tenth and the first half of the eleventh centuries, the
former Carolingian regnum experienced political fragmentation.1
Although individuals vied for the title of ‘dux Britannie’, in fact none
exercised authority over the whole of the Armorican peninsula and its
hinterland.Bythemid-eleventhcentury,thepeninsulawasdividedinto
six main political units; the county of Rennes, the lordships of
Penthie`vre and Le´on, the county of Cornouaille, the Broe¨rec (or the
Vannetais)andthecountyofNantes(seemap1).
At this point, the process of political fragmentation was halted by a
series of marriages which united the comital families of Rennes, Nantes
and Cornouaille to form a single ducal dynasty.2 Duke Hoe¨l I
(1066–84) and his descendants now had the potential to consolidate
ducal authority, winning back the exercise of public authority from
those who had usurped it. This chapter will present a brief survey of
political conditions in Brittany for the 100 years from 1066 to the
adventofHenryIIfromtheperspectiveofducalauthority.
Around 1066, the position of the dukes of Brittany was analogous to
thatofthecontemporarykingsofFrance,thefirstamongequals,having
prestige and no internal rival for the ducal title, but no real authority
outside their own domains.3 In terms of the exercise of ducal authority,
three different categories of territory may be identified. First, in the
north-west, the lordships of Penthie`vre and Le´on completely escaped
ducal authority. The remainder of the duchy was notionally subject to
1 J. M. H. Smith, Province and empire: Carolingian Brittany, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 144–5;
H.Guillotel, ‘Le premier sie`cle du pouvoir ducal breton (936–1040)’, in Actes du 103e congre`s
nationaldessocie´te´ssavantes,Paris,1979,pp.63–84.
2 A. Che´deville and N.-Y. Tonnerre, La Bretagne fe´odale, XIe-XIIIe sie`cle, Rennes, 1987,
pp.30–62,andseefig.1.
3 B.A.PocquetduHaut-Jusse´,‘LesPlantageneˆtsetlaBretagne’,AB53(1946),1–27at3.
17
Brittany and the Angevins
ducal sovereignty. Here, though, there is a distinction between ducal
domains, which were subject to direct ducal authority and administra-
tion, and the remaining territory, which was divided into numerous
baronies. The duke did not exercise any direct authority within the
baronies, but had some influence by virtue of the personal loyalty of
individual barons and possibly also the physical proximity of ducal
domains. Ducal domain and baronies coexisted in the counties of
Rennes,CornouailleandNantesandtheBroe¨rec.4
penthiŁvre and lØon
The absence of ducal authority in these regions is indicated by the fact
that the dukes never went there, and their lords never attested ducal
charters. Fortunately, it is not necessary to argue entirely from silence,
because of the evidence of the ‘Communes petitiones Britonum’. This
istherecordofaninquest,oneinaseriesconductedin1235byorderof
King Louis ix to investigate complaints about the maladministration of
the then duke, Peter de Dreux (1213–37). The inquest was held at
Saint-Brieuc. The lay-witnesses (so far as they can be identified) were
all vassals and tenants of the lords of Le´on and Penthie`vre; the
ecclesiastical witnesses were all members of churches in the dioceses of
Le´on,Saint-BrieucandTre´guier.
As recorded in the inquest proceedings, the ‘petitiones’ were that,
beforethetimeofPeterdeDreux:
– No duke of Brittany took custody of or relief from lands in Le´on and
Penthie`vre;
– The barons of Le´on and Penthie`vre could construct fortifications without
thepermissionoftheduke;
– Thebarons ofLe´onand Penthie`vrehad theright of wreckontheshoresof
theirlands;
– The barons of Le´on and Penthie`vre were accustomed to make wills
(‘testamenta’) and to make arrangements freely regarding their debts and
alms;
– Thedukecouldnottakehomagefromthebarons’men;
– The barons of Le´on and Penthie`vre had jurisdiction in ‘pleas of the sword’
(‘placitumspade’).5
The ‘petitiones’ thus depict a situation in which ducal authority was
non-existent. The basic elements of public authority (jurisdiction and
4 SeeA.delaBorderie,Essaisurlage´ographiefe´odaledelaBretagne,Rennes,1889,forasurveyof
bothducaldomainandbaronies.Forducaldomains,seeMap2.
5 This was not listed as one of the ‘petitiones’, but see ‘Communes petitiones britonum’,
pp.100–1.
18
Ducal Brittany, 1066–1166
controlofcastle-building)andevenfeudallordship(therighttocustody
of lands and infant heirs, the right to receive relief and homage) were
exercisedbybaronsratherthanbythedukeofBrittany.
What circumstances predisposed and enabled the lords of Le´on and
Penthie`vre to resist ducal authority? In the case of Le´on, the answer is
probablysimplyremotenessfromthecentresofducalpower.Therewas
also the history of the baronial dynasty, originally vicecomites of the
comites of Cornouaille who had usurped the public authority delegated
to them. By the late eleventh century they were therefore able to
exercise public authority within their lands with a semblance of
legitimacy.6
The lords of Penthie`vre held an even stronger position, necessarily
since their lands adjoined the county of Rennes. The barony was
created in the early eleventh century by Eudo, the younger brother of
DukeAlanIII(1008–40).Insteadofacknowledgingthatthebaronywas
in any way subject to the senior, ducal line, Eudo and his descendants
adopted a resolutely autonomous policy, evoking their ducal pedigree
to rule Penthie`vre under the title comes or even comes Britannorum.7 In
addition to the evidence of the ‘Communes petitiones Britonum’, their
exercise of public authority is exemplified by the fact that the lords of
Penthie`vremintedtheirowncoins,thenotoriousdeniersofGuingamp.8
No other ‘feudal coinage’ is known to have been minted in Brittany
otherthantheducalcoinageitself.
the baronies
In the absence of such explicit evidence as the ‘Communes petitiones
Britonum’, the exercise of ducal authority within the baronies is less
clear.Itwouldseemthattherightsandimmunitiesenjoyedbythelords
of Le´on and Penthie`vre were also enjoyed by the barons of the other
regions of Brittany. There is no evidence that barons (as distinguished
from tenants of ducal domain) regarded themselves as holding their
lands ‘of the duke’. There is no evidence that they rendered homage to
the duke for their lands, or that the duke in any way regulated
succession to the baronies, and for this reason I have avoided calling
them‘tenants-in-chief’or‘vassals’oftheduke.
6 H. Guillotel, ‘Les vicomtes de Le´on aux XIe et XIIe sie`cles’, MSHAB 51 (1971), 29–51;
P.Kerne´vez,‘LeschaˆteauxduLe´onauXIIIesie`cle’,MSHAB69(1992),95–127.
7 H.Guillotel,‘LesoriginesdeGuingamp:Saplacedanslage´ographiefe´odalebretonne’,MSHAB
56(1979),81–100;H.Guillotel(ed.),‘LesactesdesducsdeBretagne(944–1148)’(the`sepourle
DoctoratenDroit,Universite´ deDroitd’EconomieetdessciencessocialesdeParis(ParisII),
1973).
8 Seeabove,p.13.
19
Brittany and the Angevins
Thedukecouldnotsummonbaronstohiscourt,andhencehecould
not exercise jurisdiction over them. Barons did however attend the
ducalcuria,ascanbeseen fromthelistsofwitnessesto ducalacta.9They
seemtohaveattendedvoluntarily,whenitsuitedthemtoassociatewith
theduke.Asmightbeexpected,themorepowerfultheduke,themore
barons attended his court. As an example of the converse, during the
civil war of 1148–56, the acta of the rival claimants to the duchy, Eudo
de Porhoe¨t and Hoe¨l, count of Nantes, are almost free of baronial
attestations.10
There is also some evidence for the existence of two rights which
would indicatethe exerciseof ducalauthority: the right to summon the
host and the right to levy a general impost (tallia). Some of the barons
were, theoretically at least, liable to the military duty of ost or exercitus.
Examples come from the baronies of Pontchaˆteau and Hennebont in
the first quarter of the twelfth century.11 Both baronies were relatively
recent creations, however, and had perhaps escaped less completely
from ducal authority than had older baronies.12 Counts/dukes under-
took military campaigns within Brittany in this period, but their armies
could have comprised household knights, the tenants of domainal lands
and any barons who voluntarily lent their support. Hence there is no
evidence that the barons were ever actually obliged to join the ducal
host;neitheraretheprecisemilitaryobligationsofanybaronspecified.
There is even less evidence of the dukes levying a general impost, as
distinct from the customary dues payable by the inhabitants of ducal
domains. The only instance I have found of ducal tallia levied on the
inhabitants of a barony is at Pontchaˆteau. There, Jarnogon de Pont-
chaˆteau made a gift of immunity from tallia but not from ‘talliaca
comitis’,13 presumably because it was not within Jarnogon’s power to
waive a ducal impost. There is still no evidence that the ‘tallia comitis’
was actually collected or even levied. This reference may represent no
more than the recognition that ‘tallia comitis’ might be levied, and, as
noted above, Pontchaˆteau was not a typical barony; its proximity to
Nantesandrecentcreationmadeitvulnerabletoducalauthority.
Ingeneral,theexerciseofducalauthoritydependedupontherelative
strength of the duke and of each individual baron from time to time.
9 E.g.Cart.Redon,no.ccxc;Preuves,cols.465–6,and470;Actesine´dits,nos.xxxiandxl.
10 Actesine´dits,nos.xlv–xlvii.
11 M.deBrehier,‘Chartesrelativesauprieure´dePontchaˆteau’,BSAN3(1863),17–40at23,no.
III;Cart.Quimperle´,no.lxviii.
12 N.-Y.Tonnerre,NaissancedelaBretagne:Ge´ographiehistoriqueetstructuressocialesdelaBretagne
me´ridionale(NantaisetVannetais)delafinduVIIIea`lafinduXIIesie`cle,Angers,1994,pp.317and
345–6.
13 deBrehier,‘Pontchaˆteau’,p.23no.iii.
20
Ducal Brittany, 1066–1166
The relative strength of the dukes increased during the long and stable
reigns of Alan IV and Conan III. The latter was able to take punitive
action against some defiant barons; Conan imprisoned Oliver, the son
of Jarnogon de Pontchaˆteau, disinherited Savary de Donges, and also
pursuedavigorouscampaignagainstRobertdeVitre´.14
the ducal domains
Ducal domain was not, of course, permanently fixed and stable.
Domains, or portions of them, were alienated to the church and to
laymen, who might escape ducal control and hold their lands autono-
mously, although this was unlikely to occur after the early twelfth
century. New domains were added when the duke took baronial lands
into his own hand. Lack of detailed evidence makes it impossible to
determine the exact extent of ducal domains in this period; one can
identifytheirlocationsbutnottheirboundaries(seeMap2).
Onlywithinthelandswhichconstitutedtheducaldomainscouldthe
dukes exercise authority whether seignorial or ducal, such as levying a
general impost (tallia) and summoning the host. A charter of Redon,
albeit probably a twelfth-century forgery, records that the dukes levied
‘quandam consuetudinem . . . quam vulgo tallia nuncupatur’, in their
domains of Piriac and Gue´rande.15 Conan III granted immunity to
Savigny from ‘hostico et tallia et corvea’ in ducal forests. Conan IV
granted twenty solidi of the tallia of Guingamp to the abbey of Beaulieu
and also made a grant in respect of the tallia of Cap-Sizun.16 When
Duke Hoel I gave ‘Treu Ridiern’ to Sainte-Croix de Quimperle´, he
granted it free from ‘ostagium’, ‘tali pacto ut quod homines in exercitu
expenderent,adopusecclesieredderenondifferant’.Aninquestheldin
Nantes in 1206 describes elaborate customary procedures, dating at least
from the early twelfth century, for the summoning of the ducal host in
thecity.17
There was nothing in principle to distinguish the administration of
the ducal domains from baronial administration. The only difference
wasthateventhegreatestofthebaronsheldlandslimitedtoaparticular
region of the duchy, whereas, in consequence of the dynastic history of
the ducal family, the ducal domain consisted of parcels of land scattered
14 Cart.Redon,no.cccxlviii;Preuves,col.553;H.Guillotel,‘LesoriginesdubourgdeDonges’,
AB 84 (1977), 541–52 at 544; M. Brand’honneur, ‘La lignage, point de cristillisation d’une
nouvelle cohe´sion sociale. Les Goranton-Herve´ de Vitre´ aux XIe, XIIe et XIIIe sie`cles’,
MSHAB70(1993),65–87at74–5.
15 Cart.Redon,no.ccclxx,Guillotel,‘Actes’,no.115.
16 Actesine´dits,no.xxxix,Guillotel,‘Actes’,no.171,Actesine´dits,no.LI,Cart.Quimper,pp.45–6.
17 Cart.Quimperle´,no.lv;Preuves,cols.802–4.
21
Brittany and the Angevins
throughout Brittany, excepting Le´on and Penthie`vre in the north-west.
This was particularly advantageous in enabling the dukes to control the
principal routes of transport and communication, both by land and by
water.18
The counts had retained control of the principal urban centres in
their counties. Thus the ducal domains featured profitable rights in and
around the largest towns of Brittany, Nantes, Rennes, and Vannes. In
Nantes, the duke held half of the town in domain, the other half being
held by the bishop.19 The ducal domain was even more extensive in
Rennes.20
The county of Cornouaille represented an exception. Here, the
principal town, Quimper, was dominated by the bishop, with the
count/duke possessing only a suburb outside the town walls. Never-
theless, the majority of comital/ducal acta made in Cornouaille were
made at Quimper, which suggests it was the principal seat of the
counts/dukes in that county. Quimperle´, originally comital domain,
grew into a substantial town during the eleventh century, but it was
controlled by the abbey of Sainte-Croix, which the counts of Cor-
nouaille had founded there early in the eleventh century.21 On the
other hand, comital rule in Cornouaille had been effective during the
eleventh century, and the count/dukes retained extensive and strategic
domainsinthecounty.Forinstance,theseincludedtheeasternforestof
Carnoe¨t, used to found the abbeys of Sainte-Croix de Quimperle´ and
Saint-Maurice de Carnoe¨t, and the north-western castellany of Chaˆ-
teaulin,retainedasabufferagainstLe´ontothenorth.22
In contrast, in the county of Rennes, the dukes possessed little
beyond the city of Rennes and its environs, with the forest which
extended to the north-east of the city as far as the frontier baronies of
Fouge`res, Chaˆteaugiron and Vitre´. By 1066, the counts of Rennes also
possessed the Broe¨rec, where extensive domains were retained. Conse-
quently, the dukes controlled the town of Vannes, which like Nantes
wasanimportantfocusformarineandrivertrade,andthecastellaniesof
Auray andPloe¨rmel. Mostof the extensive coastline of theBroe¨rec was
also comital/ducal domain, but apart from Ploe¨rmel and some lesser
baronies (Rochefort, Malestroit, Elven), the hinterland of the Broe¨rec
wasoccupiedbythebaronyofPorhoe¨t.23
18 Tonnerre,NaissancedeBretagne,pp.496,515,and538.
19 Che´devilleandTonnerre,Bretagnefe´odale,p.77;Tonnerre,NaissancedeBretagne,p.525.
20 Che´devilleandTonnerre,Bretagnefe´odale,pp.419–20.
21 Charters,no.C3;Cart.Quimperle´,no.lxxiv;Actesine´dits,no.xxviii.
22 Che´devilleandTonnerre,Bretagnefe´odale,p.60.
23 Tonnerre, Naissance de Bretagne, pp. 349–50, 357, 515–20; H. Guillotel, ‘De la vicomte´ de
Rennesa`lavicomte´dePorhoe¨t(finduXe-milieuduXIIesie`cle)’,MSHAB73(1995),5–23.
22