[BRITISH SAINTS IN BRITTANY.] 5. Vita S. Vitalis (Vial or Vian), Eremitæ (at Nermoustier near the mouth of the Loire, a Briton): in Actt. SS., Oct. 16, VII. i. 1096–1101: also his Miracula, ib. [Notices also exist of—i. ‡S. Pascharius (Pasquier), Bishop of Nantes during the Northmen troubles; in Actt. SS., July 10, III. 70–72.] APPENDIX C. SUPREMACY OF THE SEE OF TOURS OVER BRITTANY, AND ESPECIALLY AS AGAINST THE ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DOL. As Welsh nationality led to the assertion of an imaginary Archbishopric of S. David's, in order to escape submission to the Norman Canterbury, so Bréton nationality led to the attempted, and for several centuries actual, establishment by the Bréton Princes of (not a Bishopric only but) an Archbishopric of Dol, in order to escape the domination of the Frank Archbishopric of Toursa; both attempts being finally crushed at the same period, viz. at S. David's A.D. 1203, at Dol A.D. 1199. 1. The very earliest British Bréton Bishops and abbats, viz. Paternus of Vannes, and Corentin of Quimper, and Winwaloë and Brioc respectively at Landevenech and S. Brieuc, etc. etc., evidently resorted (as it was most natural they should) to S. Martin's still Gallo-Roman successors at Tours. But 2. The conquests of the Franks, c. A.D. 500, pushed up to the Vilaine and the Rance, and the entire occupation of Brittany proper, west of that boundary, by British immigrants, and the constant border wars that followed, naturally produced a national severance between the proper Bréton Church and the now Frankish see of Tours. Bréton Bishops proper do not appear thenceforth at Frank councils b. And a council of Tours in A.D. 567 condemns consecrations in Brittany independent of Tours. At the same time, there was no Archbishopric in Brittany either at Dol or anywhere else, and indeed at Dol not even a Bishopric (as is manifest from the MS. of Mont S. Michel quoted below). The Bréton Bishops must have consecrated one another, as the contemporary Welsh Bishops did; and probably one Bishop was held enough for a consecration, after the Celtic practice. 3. With Nomenoë's grand (and until the Northmen came, successful and enduring) effort at Bréton independence and kingship came a new ecclesiastical era also. Appointed Duke of Brittany by Louis le Débonnaire, A.D. 826, Nomenoë declared himself King A.D. 841-3; and the victory over the Franks at Ballon A.D. 845, and the treaty made by Charles [ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DOL.] the Bald with Nomenoë's son in A.D. 867, gave the Brétons possession of not only Rennes and Nantes and some way into Angers, but also of the Avranchin and Cotentin as far as Bayeux. In order to secure this independence on the ecclesiastical side, Nomenoë, under the advice of Convoion abbat of Redon (which abbey he had himself founded A.D. 832), contrived, after a council at Redon A.D. 846, and an unsuccessful mission of Convoion to Pope Leo IV., to extort, at a council of Coetlou near Vannes A.D. 848, the resignation on a charge of simony of the four Bréton Bishops, of Vannes, Quimper, Léon, and Aleth (“Quomodo Nomenoius tyrannus Britonum de Quatuor Episcopatibus fecit septem, tempore Caroli Calvi Regis Francorum," in Labb., Conc. VIII. 1957, 1958, from a MS. Cod. Mont. S. Michel. in Sirmond). And further, at a council of Dol A.D. 850, he both had himself crowned King, and established three new sees in addition to the above four, viz. Dol, S. Brieuc, Tréguier, the first two certainly, and probably all, taken out of the see of Aleth, and the first of the three made also into an Archbishopric (b.). He also set up a Bishop of his own, Gislard, in opposition to one Actard, at Nantes, the latter however holding the see nevertheless, A.D. 846-851, until Nomenoë's death. i. From this time to A.D. 881, Frank councils and Popes continuously condemned the Brétons, but with no practical result. A.D. 849, the council of Paris (Morice, I. 291-293; Labb., VIII. 58– 61), and A.D. 850, Leo IV. (M., I. 288, 289; L., VIII. 30-32), commanded respectively Nomenoë himself and the Bréton Bishops to submit to Tours; and Leo IV., also in A.D. 850 (L., ib. 32), enjoined Nomenoë to desist from supporting Gislard at Nantes. A.D. 855 x 858, Pope Benedict III. (as referred to by Pope Nicholas A.D. 862), and A.D. 862, Pope Nicholas I., writing to Salomon now King of the Brétons, pronounced that Bishops could not be deposed by laymen, or judged by less than twelve Bishops (Morice, I. 316-318; Martene, Thes., III. 859); and the latter also took up the cause of the now expelled Bishop Actard of Nantes. The council of Savoniéres near Toul, A.D. 859, writing to the Bishops of Brittany, to King Salomon, and to certain Bréton lords (Morice, I. 309–314; Mart., III. 858),—and Nicholas I., May 26, A.D. 865, writing to Salomon, and May 17, A.D. 866, writing again to Salomon and also to the Bréton Bishops (Morice, I. 318– 321; Mart., III. 862-864),-enjoined obedience to Tours; and the council. of Soissons, A.D. 866, August, also took up Actard's cause (Morice, I. 321-325). And that cause was again urged by Pope Adrian II., A.D. 868, Feb. 23 and 25, writing to Charles the Bald, to the Bishops of the council of Soissons, and to Actard himself (Morice, I. 325-328; and Mansi, XV. 824). The same Adrian II., A.D. 868, March 8, had assured Herard Archbishop of Tours that he would not favour Dol to Herard's injury [ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DOL.] (Morice, I. 324; Mart., III.865). And Pope John VIII., A.D. 878, writing to Maheu "Bishop" of Dol and the other Bréton Bishops, bade them submit to Tours on pain of excommunication (Morice, I. 333, 334). On the other hand, while it is obvious from these very letters and councils that the Brétons did not submit to Tours, they produced also on their own side, at a later period, a letter of Adrian, A.D. 867 x 872, sending "a leg of S. Leo" to King Salomon, and a pall to Festinian of Dol,-spurious however, and indeed only produced under very suspicious circumstances, and contradictory to Adrian's undoubted letter,-and a letter of John VIII. to Mainus (Maheu) " Archbishop" of Dol, and the Bréton Bishops, A.D. 881, relating only to the ordination of certain monks by their abbat, but incidentally styling Maheu Archbishop (Morice, I. 338; Mart., III. 867; Mabill., Ann. Ord. Bened., III. 683). ii. From A.D. 881 to 1076, with two exceptions at long intervals, the Bréton question went to sleep, Brittany evidently remaining (ecclesiastically) independent, and the Norman ravages and wars accounting probably in part for its being let alone. The two exceptions were, 1. a letter of Pope John XIII. to all the Bishops and Nobles of Hither Britain, A.D. 965 × 972, enjoining submission to Tours (Morice, I. 347, 348; Mart., III. 868); and 2. the council of Rheims, Oct. 4, A.D. 1049, followed by a letter of Leo IX. and a Roman council, May 12, A.D. 1050, to Eudo Prince of the Brétons and their other chiefs, the former declaring Dol not an Archbishopric and to have no pall, and ordering submission to Tours, the latter excommunicating the Armorican Bishops for alleged simony and for not appearing at Rome to answer the complaint of Tours, but summoning them to a council at Vercelli Sept. 1, at which it does not appear what happened; but A.D. 1059, Cardinal Stephen, writing to "J... called Archbishop of Dol," summons him to Rome against March 26, A.D. 1060, and to Tours meanwhile to meet the Pope's legate (Morice, I. 395, 396, 411, 412; Mart., III. 869-871; Labb., IX. 993, 994; Mansi, XIX. 928). iii. From A.D. 1076 to A.D. 1143, the Brétons in effect carried their point, by obtaining a distinct Papal recognition of their Dol Archbishopric. Gregory VII. (who had written Aug. 28, A.D. 1074, to "all the Bishops and Abbats of Brittany," summoning them to a council at Rome for February, A.D. 1075, and meanwhile enjoining them to prevent incestuous marriages), interfered in A.D. 1076 with his usual high-handedness in a disputed election at Dol, by himself consecrating one Ivo (abbat of S. Melanius at Nantes) to the Archbishopric of that see and giving him a pall; writing to that effect to the clergy and people of Dol, to the Bishops of Brittany (whom he enjoined to obey the Archbishop of Dol, pending the decision of the Tours claim), and to William of England (to support Ivo [ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DOL.] against Duke Alan of Brittany's "simoniacal" Bishop); but again in A.D. 1077 to Rodulph Archbishop of Tours, that he had reserved the question of the pall and the Tours supremacy, and to King William (who had interfered on behalf of the other Dol claimant), that he would send legates to decide (Morice, I. 442-447; Mart., III. 871-876). In A.D. 1078, however, the same Pope writes to Geoffrey, Howel, and Geoffrey son of Eudo, Counts of Brittany, to cause the Bishops, abbats, clerks, and laity to come to a synod about Ivo's case; and in A.D. 1080, he writes again to the Bishops, clergy, and people of Brittany "in the province of Tours," to inform them that a council of Rome has referred the cause to Apostolic legates (Morice, I. 447-451; Mart., III. 877). And those legates, in the same year 1080, at a council held at Saintes, decide against the claims of Dol (alleging the letter of Adrian above mentioned to be a forgery), but give the actual incumbent of Dol his pall for life (Labb., X. 398). Pope Urban II. perpetuated the same half-decision, by giving the pall to another Dol Bishop, Roland, while deciding in general against Dol: writing to that effect to the Bishops of Brittany and to the clergy and people of Dol A.D. 1093; and again to the Bishops of Brittany and to Ralph Archbishop of Tours A.D. 1094; and repeating his condemnation of Dol, according to the testimony of William Bishop of Poitiers, at the Council of Clermont, Nov., A.D. 1095 (Morice, I. 467, 469, 482, 483; Mart., III. 878, 879, 881, 882). Nevertheless, A.D. 1109, Pope Paschal grants a pall to Baldric, "Archbishop of Dol," without any restriction at all; writing to that effect to Baldric himself and to the "Suffragans, clergy, and people of Dol" (Morice, I. 497, 498; Mart., III. 882, 883). And " Baldric and his suffragans" are accordingly summoned as such to the council of Rheims, Oct., A.D. 1119, by the same Pope Paschal; and by Pope Calixtus II., June 25, A.D. 1122, to a council at Rome for March 18, A.D. 1123; and Geoffrey " Archbishop of Dol and his suffragans" to the council of Pisa, May 26, A.D. 1135, by Pope Innocent II., Nov. 8, A.D. 1134; and the "Archbishop" of Dol is addressed as one with the Archbishops of Bourges, Tours, Bordeaux, and Auche, by Pope Honorius II., A.D. 1124 × 1130 (Morice, I. 541, 552, 569, 570; Mart., III. 884, 885); and A.D. 1142, Dec. 10, Innocent II. summons Hugh Archbishop of Tours to Rome by Oct. 18, A.D. 1143, to answer the complaint of the "Archbishop of Dol," that he had taken from him the see of Aleth; repeating his summons Dec. 10, A.D. 1143 (Morice, I. 587; Mart., III. 886, 887). Hildebert of Tours however had during this period urged the claims of his see upon Innocent II. (Mart., III. 854). iv. A.D. 1144-1154, however, the tide turned again against Dol. In the first named year, Lucius II. issued a formal Bull in favour of Tours, yet left his pall to the actual Bishop of Dol; absolved the Bishops of Brieuc and |