WAS TO APPOINT A NEW SENESCHAL, THECURIALISWILLIAM DE LANVALLAY....

1166, was to appoint a new seneschal, thecurialisWilliam de Lanvallay.

⁴³

Even so, Guy the hereditary seneschal was not removed from of®ce.Styled `senescallus de Redonia', he attested at least one charter ofWilliam de Lanvallay. In 1170, styled `dapifer', Guy attested a charter ofStephen de FougeÁres, bishop of Rennes.

⁴⁴

The coexistence of the twoseneschals is probably explained by the appointment of William deLanvallay as Guy's superior. Signi®cantly, there is no record of Guypresiding in any legal process.The seneschal of Rennes under Dukes Conan III and Conan IV wasthe chief of®cer responsible for the ducal domain in the county ofRennes. Whether his circumscription was the entire county of Rennesor the city of Rennes is somewhat academic, because ducal domain inthe county of Rennes was limited to the city of Rennes and its environs.The seneschal appointed by Henry II, in contrast, was the chief of®cerresponsible for the administration of the county of Rennes. Hisjurisdiction extended throughout the county, not just within the ducaldomains. William de Lanvallay witnessed a transaction in which thebishop of Rennes bought land from the abbey of Melleray, whichobviously was not ducal domain.

⁴⁵

It is no coincidence that the bishopwho thus acknowledged William's authority was Stephen de FougeÁres,chaplain of Henry II. As noted in the previous chapter, in the earlyyears of Angevin rule in the county of Rennes, the bishop and theseneschal worked together to reinforce royal authority. Henry II'sauthority was more ®rmly established in 1181, when the seneschal ofRennes conducted an inquest into the temporal rights of the archbishopof Dol in the environs of Dol.

⁴⁶

42

See Appendix 2.

⁴³

See Appendix 3.

⁴⁴

AN ms L977.

45

Bibl. mun. de Rennes ms 242, fols. 206v ± 7r;

Preuves, col. 672.

46

EnqueÃte, pp. 32±77.

Another innovation under Angevin rule was the practice of recordingin writing of®cial acts of the seneschal of Rennes. Before 1166seneschals of Rennes are recorded only as witnesses to ducal charters.William de Lanvallay, in contrast, appears in written records holding theking's court at Rennes, and also attesting a transaction of the bishop ofRennes in his of®cial capacity.Even in William's case, most of the extant records of his activities(that is, two out of three) were made by the churches which bene®tedfrom them. One is the notice written by Stephen de FougeÁres, bishopof Rennes, mentioned above, attested by William de Lanvallay `Redon'senescallus'.

⁴⁷

The second is an undated notice of the abbey of Saint-Melaine de Rennes recording the settlement of a dispute which wasmade `in curia Guillermi de Lanvallai, qui tunc temporis senescallusRedonensis erat'.

⁴⁸

The most remarkable document is William de Lanvallay's owncharter, recording the mortgage of unidenti®ed land by WilliamPingnardto Esveillard de Cesson:

Ego Guillermus de Lanvalei senescallus Redonie presentibus et futuris notum

facio quod Esveillardus de Seisson in curia domini regis Redonie recepit a

domino Guillelmo Pingnardo in gagium suam terram pro .lxxx.i. libris coram

me concessione amicorum et consanguineorum memorati Willelmi et dom-

inorum feodi. Et predictus Esveillardus tenebit predictam terram donec

prenominatum debitum ei persolvatur. Et

si

aliquid in servicio ejusdem terre de

suo expenderit, supradictus Willelmus hoc

totum

ei persolvet antequam terram

recuperet. Testibus Guarino decano de Redonis, Petro ®lio Milesent, Regi-

naldo Crocun, Roberto de Lenci, Gabillardo et Herveo de Sesson, et Guidone

senescallo de Redonis, et Acario de Muscuns et Reinero de Gahart.

⁴⁹

In its brief, economical form and language, this document appears tohave been produced as a matter of routine. It is the formal record of acontract between two laymen, which may have been brought to the`curia domini regis Redonie' speci®cally so that it could be witnessed bythe seneschal and recorded in writing in his name. The fact that atransaction between two laymen (rather than between a layman and areligious house) has been recorded in writing is remarkable in itself inBrittany in this period. From the circumstances of the making of thischarter, and its form, it is unlikely that it was an isolated document. It is

47

Bibl. mun. de Rennes, ms 242, fols. 206v ± 7r. As noted above, Guy `dapifer' also witnessed an

episcopal charter, in 1170.

48

`Cart. St-Melaine', f. 14v.

49

After `Cart. St-Melaine', f. 64r. Esveillard de Cesson was alive in 1177 (see note below), but

both Esveillard and William

Pingnard

were active in the early 1150s (AN ms L977;

Preuves, cols.