PP. 9, 64, 81±2, 84) AND BROTHER OR NEPHEW OF THE OFT-MENTIONEDW...

5476, pp. 9, 64, 81±2, 84) and brother or nephew of the oft-mentioned

William de Lanvallay (Ransford (ed.),

Charters of Waltham Abbey, pp

lxxiv-v, nos. 165, 169±74).

I am especially grateful to Dr Daniel Power for his advice on the Subligny

family.

THE RIGHT OF WRECK AND DUCALBREFS DE MER

In view of how little contemporary sources disclose of ducal or seignorial

administration in twelfth-century Brittany, there is a comparatively large

amount of evidence concerning the customary right of wreck. This is

re¯ected in the variety of terms, Latin and vernacular, employed by the

clerks (naufragium,

fractura navium,

varech,

lagan[us],

bris). Although common

throughout the

pays de coutume, wreck must have had a special signi®cance in

Brittany with its extensive coastline, much of it rocky and treacherous, and

its position on a shipping route dominated by the wine-trade.

¹

The use and

abuse of wreck was a such a signi®cant phenomenon in Breton society that it

was one of the matters raised at an ecclesiastical council convened at Nantes

by Hildebert, archbishop of Tours, with the co-operation of Duke Conan

III, and was consequently condemned by Pope Honorius II.

²

Evidence of the exercise of the right of wreck from the late twelfth

century suggests this ecclesiastical censure had little effect.

³

Even the clergy,

both secular and regular, continued to exercise it. In the inquest conducted

on behalf of the archbishop of Dol in 1181, wreck is repeatedly mentioned in

the same context as the seignorial right to `great ®sh' from the sea.

⁴

In the

1190s, the ducal seneschal of the BroeÈrec determined a dispute over a

shipwreck on the shores of Belle-Ile (Morbihan) in which the abbey of

Sainte-Croix de Quimperle claimed right of wreck. The seneschal found

that the abbey, `de more principis, naufragium suum in terra sua . . . semper

habuerit et habere deberet'. The grounds for this ®nding are not stated, but

Belle-Ile had been given to the abbey by Alan `Canhiart', count of

Cornouaille, before 1058.

⁵

The monks would have argued that this grant

implicitly included the count's right of wreck on the island. To these two

examples, from the north-eastern and southern coasts respectively, may be

added evidence from the north-west, that the barons of LeÂon and TreÂguier

counted wreck as an important source of revenue. When Guihomar de LeÂon

1

See H. Touchard, `Les brefs de Bretagne',

Revue d'Histoire Economique et Sociale

34 (1956),

116±40 at 116±27.

2

Preuves, cols. 554±6.

³

Touchard, `Brefs de Bretagne', p. 119.

4

EnqueÃte, pp. 35±7, 43±5.

⁵

Charters, no. C26;

Cart. QuimperleÂ, p. 131.

boasted of his `precious stone' worth 100 000 s.

per annum, one has to suspect

that not all of the wrecks were due to natural causes.

⁶

The right of wreck pertained to the counts/dukes of Brittany wherever

their domains included sea-coast, and these were extensive along the

southern littoral of the peninsula, from the GueÂrande to Cornouaille. During

the reigns of Geoffrey and Constance, the coastlines of the baronies of LeÂon

and TreÂguier also constituted ducal domain (at least to the extent that they

were under the control of the lords of these baronies) and the duke and

duchess exercised the seignorial right of wreck while these baronies were in

their possession.

⁷

From the thirteenth century, the customary right of wreck was replaced

by the system of ducal

brefs. Henceforth, it was possible to purchase at the

port of departure letters issued under the ducal seal, which, in their simplest

form, represented the duke's warranty of indemnity against loss in the event

of shipwreck on the coasts of Brittany. The dif®culty lies in determining

when this system was ®rst introduced. This Appendix has been included to

consider the theory that it formed part of the Angevin governmental reforms

in Brittany and speci®cally that it was the work of Henry II.

⁸

The king

certainly had an interest in the security of shipping between his territories;

shortly after acquiring the county of Nantes in 1158 he was having wine

shipped to England from Brittany.

⁹

Apart from a general bias in favour of Henry II when discussing advances

in twelfth-century government, the case rests largely upon a royal ordinance

abolishing the right of wreck on the coasts of England, Poitou and Gascony

dated `26 May 1174'. This would seem to provide ®rm evidence that Henry

II took an active interest in wreck and its reform. However, the ordinance is

in fact an act of Henry III which was erroneously attributed to Henry II in

Rymer's

Fúdera.

¹⁰

With this, in any event circumstantial, evidence removed from the

equation, the earliest evidence for the ducal

brefs

dates from the reign of

Duchess Constance. In 1379, the abbey of Begard sought ducal con®rmation

of a grant by Duchess Constance. According to the 1379 con®rmation,

which is the earliest extant record of Constance's act, the grant was of, `la

disme de sa rente des Nefs, laquelle rente Semimarc est appelee, en quelques

lieux, que ladite rente fust prinse en la Rochelle ou ailleurs'. In a subsequent

con®rmation of Duke Francis II (1459), this is rendered as; `le dixiesme du

revenu des Briefz qui sappelloient demi marc en quelque lieu quil fust prins

6

`Communes petitiones Britonum', pp. 97±102.

7

`Communes petitiones Britonum', p. 99, para. 4. On the general principle of ducal

rights on coastlines, see J. Quaghebeur, `Puissance publique, puissances priveÂes sur les

coÃtes du Comte de Vannes (IX

^e

±XII

^e

sieÁcles)' in G. Le BoueÈdec and F. ChappeÂ,

Pouvoirs

et littoraux du XV

^e

au XX

^e

sieÁcle, Rennes, 1999, 11±28.

8

B.A. Pocquet du Haut-JusseÂ, `L'origine des Brefs de sauveteÂ',

AB

46 (1959), 255±62 at

262; A. CheÂdeville and N.-Y. Tonnerre,

La Bretagne feÂodale, XIe-XIIIe sieÁcle, Rennes,