54IF THE SOURCES CON¯ICT AS TO THE PLACE OF CONSTANCE'S CAPTURE,...

1195.

⁵⁴

If the sources con¯ict as to the place of Constance's capture, there isno evidence at all for the location, or duration, of her captivity. Thereis, however, a substantial amount of evidence for events in Brittanyduring this period.Roger of Howden again treats these events very summarily. Ac-cording to Howden, when Arthur was unable to free his mother (apetition to Richard by Arthur and his counsellors must be impliedhere), he went over to Philip Augustus and attacked Richard's lands. Inresponse, Richard invaded Brittany and laid waste to it.

⁵⁵

In view ofthis account of violent hostility, it is curious that Howden should recordthat, at around the same time, Arthur `dux Britannie' petitionedRichard on behalf of Peter de Dinan, then archdeacon of York.

⁵⁶

Perhaps this was at an early stage, when Arthur ®rst sought Constance'srelease, otherwise he could not have expected to have any in¯uence atthe Angevin court. This incident does, however, give the sense of aperiod of time elapsing between Constance's capture and the outbreakof hostilities.This is also the sense one gets from Le Baud's account in his `Histoire

52

A. de la Borderie,

Essai sur geÂographie feÂodale de la Bretagne, Rennes, 1989, pp. 9, 86;

Preuves, cols.

985±6;

Cart. St-Sulpice, pp. 100, 104, 142, 181, 183, 283, 420, 432.

53

Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, p. 202, 204.

54

Charters, nos. C25, R6, see also

EYC,

iv, pp. 77±8 and plate

xv.

Teillolium

has been tentatively

identi®ed as Le Tilleul (deÂp. Manche).

55

RH,

iv, 7.

56

RH,

iv, 8. See

Charters, `Biographical notes', pp. 118±9.

de Bretagne'.

⁵⁷

According to Le Baud, when the Breton barons learnedof Constance's capture, their response was to send to her to ask whatthey should do. William, seneschal of Rennes, conveyed to them theduchess's orders, that they should swear fealty and render homage toArthur, and serve him as they would herself. An assembly of bishopsand barons then met Arthur at Saint-Malo de Beignon on 16 August, atwhich the magnates swore fealty to Arthur, and he swore, with sureties,that he would not make peace with Richard without them.

⁵⁸

Soonafter Constance was taken captive, Richard came to Rennes to seeArthur, but the boy had been given by his guardians into the custody ofAndrew de VitreÂ, who concealed him in his own estates. Richard thenleft for Normandy. Herbert, bishop of Rennes, and Andrew de VitreÂfollowed the king and petitioned him to release Constance. Richardagreed, provided the Bretons gave hostages to guarantee that Constancewould henceforth govern Brittany in accordance with his wishes.Andrew de Vitre and other barons gave hostages, on the condition thatthey should be returned if Constance had not been freed by the feast ofthe Assumption of the Virgin Mary next (15 August 1196). BothRichard and HarscoeÈt de Rays swore to these terms.

⁵⁹

When the appointed date came, Le Baud continues, and neitherConstance nor the hostages were delivered, Andrew de Vitre soughtConstance's instructions. She ordered him to ensure that Arthur did notfall into Richard's hands. The Breton barons demanded Richard and hissureties (the surety named is Robert of Thornham, seneschal of Anjou)to ful®l their undertaking and release Constance. Not wishing to do so,Richard sent military forces under Robert of Thornham into Brittany.They invaded the barony of VitreÂ, but Andrew had already departed,taking Arthur with him to the western extremities of Brittany. At thispoint, Le Baud interrupts his narrative to cite various Breton annals ofthe con¯ict between Richard and the Bretons, without attempting to

57

Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, pp. 202±4; cf.

ibid., Le Baud,

Chroniques de VitreÂ, pp. 30±4 in

C. d'Hozier (ed.),

Histoire de Bretagne, avec les chroniques des maisons de Vitre et de Laval par Pierre

Le Baud, Paris, 1638.

58

Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, p. 202. Saint-Malo de Beignon (cant. Guer,

arrond. PloeÈrmel,

deÂp.

Morbihan) was a residence of the bishops of Saint-Malo (L. Rosenzweig,

Dictionnaire

topographique du deÂpartement du Morbihan, Paris, 1870, pp. xvii-xviii, 251±2), con®rming William

of Newburgh's record that the Bretons withdrew Arthur `ad interiora Britannie' (WN,

ii,

p. 464). Le Baud's account of this assembly appears to be derived from two contemporary

documents. One, a charter for Andrew de Vitre (Le Baud,

Chroniques de VitreÂ, pp. 30±1) is

dated, `the sixth day in the octave of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, 1180 (sic)'. Friday in

the octave of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in 1196 fell on 16 August.

59

Again, the

Chroniques de VitreÂ

(p. 31) gives more details of the document which was Le Baud's

source, reciting the terms which were to apply if Constance was released within the term. The

names of witnesses and the seals attached to this charter are also listed.

reconcile their brief accounts. The narrative resumes with Andrew deVitre and Arthur received by Guihomar and Harvey de LeÂon andsheltered at their castle of Brest. Then a pitched battle is fought near thetown of `Kđrhes' (Carhaix?) between a Breton army consisting of thebarons who had sworn fealty to Arthur and the men of LeÂon, Quimper,TreÂguier and the Vannetais, and the forces of Richard led by Robert ofThornham and Mercadier. The Angevin army is defeated and with-draws, whereupon Richard is prepared to make peace.In the `Chroniques de VitreÂ', Le Baud follows the same chronology,but the account is, naturally, focused on the role of Andrew de VitreÂ.This source omits the `battle of Carhaix', describing only the initialcampaign against the barony of VitreÂ, and ultimately attributes Richard'sdecision to make peace to the losses he suffered there in the face ofAndrew de VitreÂ's resistance.

⁶⁰

Le Baud is the only source to mention the assembly at Saint-Malo deBeignon, or any diplomatic negotiations, but other sources corroborateHowden and Le Baud as to the military con¯ict which occurred duringConstance's captivity. A bull of Pope Celestine III dated November1197 describes a chapel in the barony of Becherel which had fallen intodisrepair on account of the `guerras et orribiles tempestates bellorum inpartibus illis'.

⁶¹

Annals from the adjacent barony of Montfort recordthat, in the con¯ict, `destructa est tota Britannia'. Mercadier enteredBrittany with a great army, and there was, `magna guerra in Britannia etmortalitas hominum'. The local event of note was that Montfort wasdestroyed by Alan de Dinan (the lord of BeÂcherel).

⁶²

Repercussionswere felt in England, where some of the honour of Richmond landswere taken into the king's hand, including the lands of Alan de Rohan.

⁶³

There were in fact two Angevin campaigns in Brittany, the ®rst, inApril 1196, led by Richard himself, the second, probably after August