Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

[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 (ib.). 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, 1. 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; Marlene, 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. 318321; 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

[ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DOL.]

Tréguier from subjection to Dol; urged Godfrey Count of Brittany to suffer his Bishops to obey Tours (Morice, I. 591-595; Mart., III. 887, 890); and generally undertook to defend Tours (Maan, Eccl. Turon. 252). And Eugenius III., Jan. 3, A.D. 1147, issued a like Bull to that of his predecessor (Morice, I. 598; Mart., III. 892). The council of Rheims, A.D. 1148, March 20, excommunicated Dol and Brieuc for not obeying Tours; the great S. Bernard, at Pope Eugenius' request, effected a compromise between Tours and Dol, of which however the terms are not specified; Eugenius himself, writing to Hugh Archbishop of Tours and his chapter, A.D. 1149, took the Tours side, but withheld the actual sentence of excommunication; and Pope Anastasius IV., A.D. 1154, writing to the clergy, barons, and people of Dol, and (twice) to Engelbaud Archbishop of Tours, again took the Tours side, yet allowed Hugh of Dol to be an Archbishop and to have a pall, and urged S. Bernard's compromise (Morice, I. 599, 620; Mart., III. 812, 894, 896, 897).

v. In A.D. 1155-1160, Dol was again in the ascendant. Adrian IV. in the first-named year, May 21, abrogated S. Bernard's compact and gave a pall to Dol; desiring the Archbishop of Tours, Dec. 20, to be reunited to Dol, and the clergy and people of "the province" of Dol to submit to Dol, and in especial, A.D. 1156 × 1158, the Bishops of Brieuc and Tréguier; and A.D. 1155, Geoffrey son of Oliver, and A.D. 1156 × 1158, “E. Count of Léon," to help Dol, and the clergy and people of a particular parish ("de Murmicellio") to submit to Dol; and A.D. 1155, May 21, the Archbishop, Archdeacons, and Dean of Rouen, to give up his own churches to Hugh of Dol (Morice, I. 625-628; Mart., III. 898-902). And in A.D. 1160, March 3, Alexander III. still commended Dol to the barons and people of that see (Morice, I. 640; Mart., III. 903).

vi. But A.D. 1161-1199, the case turned finally against Dol. Pope Alexander III., July 12, A.D. 1161, desired the Dean and Chapter of Dol to send their newly elected Bishop to Tours to be consecrated. And the question being revived by the Archbishop of Tours at the council of Avranches, A.D. 1172 (Hoveden), appears to have been again pressed at the court of Rome. Alexander III., Dec. 18, A.D. 1179, and again May 12, A.D. 1180, writes to Bartholomew Archbishop of Tours to come to Rome on the subject, and to "the King of the French" (probably in A.D. 1179) to strive to reconcile the two, but to help Dol to have the case tried; and in A.D. 1179 or 1180, issues a commission to the Archbishop of Sens, the Bishop of Bayeux, the abbat of S. Genéviéve, and the Dean of Bayeux, to collect evidence (Morice, I. 645, 673, 674; Mart., III. 903-906). Lucius III., Aug. 18, A.D. 1184 or 1185, renews that commission to the Dean of Mans, the Archdeacon of Rouen, and Master Hugo Januensis (Morice, I.

[ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DOL.]

690; Mart., III. 910). Urban III., A.D. 1186 or 1187, urges a friendly agreement with Dol upon Bartholomew of Tours (Mart., III. 911). But A.D. 1199, Innocent III., after a full statement of the case on both sides (Testimonies on behalf of Tours against Dol, and on behalf of Dol against Tours, Petition of Church of Dol, with the succession of their Bishops, Reply of Tours to that Petition, Morice, I. 735-759), gave final sentence in, favour of Tours (ib. 759-767), writing to the Archbishop and Chapter of Tours and to the Duchess and Barons of Brittany to announce and enforce his sentence (ib. 767, 768). And accordingly, c. A.D. 1200, Jean de Lizannet, consecrated to Dol by Bartholomew of Tours, professes obedience to that see. So ended a suit, that had been prolonged in the Papal court just 350 years.

a The history of the later Bréton Church and that of the Welsh Church of the same period, present, beside the parallel histories of their (alike ineffectual) struggles for an independent national Church, some other curious resemblances, which however the scope of the present work only allows us to indicate. i. Northman invasion threw the Bréton Church, as well as the South Welsh, upon Anglo-Saxon protection, as early as Ethelwulf, A.D. 835-857; and King Alfred, who patronized Armorican monasteries, c. A.D. 888, as he did S. David's (Asser, De Reb. Gestis Elfredi, M. H. B. 486, 496); and Eadward, A.D. 901-925. And Athelstan, A.D. 925, gave refuge to Duke Alan of Brittany (Chron. Namnet. ap. Bouquet, VII. 276). The Epist. Radbod. Episc. Dol. (in W. Malm., G. P. V.; Gale, III. 364) is quoted by Lingard, as shewing that even then, in Athelstan's reign, the Brétons regarded themselves as Britons" In exulatu atque in captivitate in Francia commoramur."-ii. The same cause produced also, in A.D. 878, not one, but a whole series, of Translations," like the wanderings of S. Cuthbert; of which Le Grand (Vies des Saints de la Brét., p. 244, 3rd edit.) gives a list, including every Saint of any note in the country, their relics being transported to Paris, Angers, Poitiers, Chartres, Bourges, Marmoustier, etc., and not in all cases restored when the troubles were over.- -iii. Marriage of priests continued in Brittany, as in Wales, owing probably to their comparative isolation, longer than elsewhere (see Courson, II. 163, 164). And benefices became hereditary, also, in the one country as in the other: see Hildebert, Epist. (Opp., pp. 135, 136), who affirms that the practice was abolished in a council A.D. 1127 (see also Girald. Cambr., Opp., III. 130).— iv. Imputations of incestuous marriages were cast upon the Brétons as upon the Welsh and the Scots: see Gregory VII.'s letter to the Bréton

[ocr errors]

Bishops and Abbats of Aug. 28, A.D. 1074.

b Apparent exceptions either belong to the pre-Frank period, or are mere conjectures, or are explicable by peculiar circumstances. Mansuetus A.D. 461, Corentin (if indeed he was the same with " Cariatonus") at Angers in A.D. 453, Modestus of Vannes, and Venerandus, conjecturally of Quimper, by his vicar, at the council of Tours A.D. 461, and Albinus, also conjecturally of Quimper, at the council of Vannes A.D. 465, and S. Paternus, consecrated by the Archbishop of Tours in A.D. 465, come under the first head of the three. And Litharedus "Episcopus Oxomensis," at the council of Orleans, A.D. 511, who has been guessed to have been Bishop of Quimper (the one Osismian see prior to the erection of that of Léon), and S. Paul of Léon itself in A.D. 512, who was consecrated irrespectively of Tours but by Frank authority, belong also to a time when the national estrangement could hardly as yet have become intense, and when also Frank power had reached a point in Brittany from which it almost immediately receded. After this, there occurs only the one case of S. Samson, at the council of Paris A.D. 557, but without any see named. But Samson, according to his Legend, was then in refuge at the Frank court with the young fugitive Count Judwal; had been made a Bishop in Wales before he came to Brittany; and almost certainly was not only not Bishop of Dol, but there was no see of Dol at all at that time; and, lastly, the meeting at Paris was not a regular council. Paternus, at the same Council, himself apparently a Bréton, was Bishop of Avranches. It is a mere conjecture, that Cadoenus, at Rheims A.D. 682, was Bishop of Aleth.

The claim made long after, of a pall granted by the Pope, Severinus, to Restoaldus Bishop of Dol, A.D. 638 x 640, is manifestly founded on fiction. And S. Samson's pall is also an obvious fiction of the 12th century.

« AnteriorContinuar »