178 THIS WAS NO COINCIDENCE, SINCE THERE WERE GOOD RELATIONSBETWE...

1235.

¹⁷⁸

This was no coincidence, since there were good relationsbetween the lords of Saint-Brieuc and Combour, evidenced by themarriage of Geoffrey Boterel II and Hawise, sister of John de Dol, andthe affection in which their younger son Stephen was held by hisgrandmother, Noga, and uncle.

¹⁷⁹

The role of these barons is indicated by the letters addressed byvarious popes to the lay-magnates concerned with the contest. A letterof 1077 was addressed to the counts of Rennes, Nantes and PenthieÁvre.Thereafter, none are addressed to counts. For instance, a letter dated1144 is addressed to Geoffrey Boterel II, lord of Lamballe, and hisbrother Henry, lord of TreÂguier, and to all the barons of the dioceses ofDol, Saint-Brieuc and TreÂguier. On the other hand, the bishops whosedioceses were controlled by the counts/dukes (Rennes, Nantes, Vannesand Quimper) were all loyal to Tours.By the twelfth century, the metropolitan of Dol was not a manifesta-tion of Breton separatism under its native ruler, but of its disunity.There was no longer consonance between Brittany as a political unitand as an ecclesiastical province. Although they asserted authority overBrittany as a political entity, the dukes acknowledged the ecclesiasticalprimacy of Tours over the dioceses within their control. The supportersof the metropolitan of Dol, in contrast, were the great barons who had,during the eleventh century, usurped comital authority over thenorthern half of Brittany, that is, the lords of Combour, Dinan,Lamballe, TreÂguier and LeÂon.A change is perceptible only after the deaths of both King Henry Iand Duke Conan III. Eudo de PorhoeÈt, Conan III's successor innorthern Brittany, actively supported archbishop Oliver (1147±c. De-cember 1153) and thus may also have been involved in the election ofHugo as Oliver's successor early in 1154.

¹⁸⁰

It is not clear how Eudo

178

`Inquest of Avaugour',

passim.

179

BN mss latin 5441(3), p. 438, 5476, pp. 98±9 and ms fr.22325, p. 523.

180

Duine (MeÂtropole de Bretagne, p. 125) asserts that Eudo de PorhoeÈt was involved in the election

of archbishop Oliver. This cannot be correct, because Duine implies that Oliver was elected

before Easter 1147, whereas Eudo de PorhoeÈt cannot have acted as duke of Brittany until after

the death of Conan III in 1148.

succeeded in interfering in Dol, when previous dukes had lacked eitherthe authority or the will to do so. His alliance with the lord ofCombour, John de Dol, would certainly have helped. Eudo's interven-tion, furthermore, coincides with the disappearance of strong rule inNormandy and England following the death of Henry I. It seems thatEudo de PorhoeÈt took over the patronage of Dol in the absence ofpatronage by the duke of Normandy for the ®rst time in nearly onehundred years. Eudo's patronage, as events showed, was of no avail toeither Oliver or Hugo. Oliver was the ®rst archbishop-elect since thetime of Archbishop Evan whom the pope had refused to consecrate.This marked the beginning of the phase which was to reach its nadirwith Archbishop Hugo's submission to Tours in 1154.One cannot be sure at what point Henry II became interested in thearchbishopric of Dol and decided to intervene. Whatever the precisetiming, Henry II saw in the archbishopric of Dol an opportunity toassert his rights as duke of Normandy. Relying on the historicalrelationship between the archbishop of Dol, the lord of Combour andthe duke of Normandy, Henry II intervened, early in 1155, to supportHugo's ailing archiepiscopacy. At the same time as supporting Hugo,Henry II secured the alliance of John de Dol. By the late 1150s, HenryII had removed John de Dol from the alliance of Eudo de PorhoeÈt,possibly received his homage, and assumed the right to approve theelection of the archbishop of Dol.Pope Adrian IV died in September 1159, and Archbishop Hugo didnot long outlast his support. In 1161, Hugo resigned on the grounds ofill-health. Since his resignation was made in Henry II's presence it islikely that he chose, or was obliged, to retire in favour of one moreequal to the challenge.

¹⁸¹

Henry II approved the election of a Norman,Roger du Hommet, archdeacon of Bayeux.

¹⁸²

With the certain loyalty of this archbishop, Henry II was prepared toallow Ralph de FougeÁres to hold the barony of Combour in wardshipafter John de Dol's death in 1162. Circumstances changed when Rogerdied, within only a year or two of his election, before 1164.

¹⁸³

He wassucceeded by archbishop John II (c. 1163±1177), the circumstances ofwhose election, and origins, are unknown. That John did not submit tothe archbishop of Tours is indicated by the fact that he had not yet been

181

RT,

i, p. 332.

182

Before his appointment to the archbishopric, Roger du Hommet attested several royal charters

in Normandy (Actes d'Henri II, nos.

lxxx,

clxii clxxxii,

cxciv). He was probably related to

Richard du Hommet, Henry II's constable of Normandy (who also attested no.

cxciv).

183

Since John II is attested in a document recording an act which cannot be dated later than 1163,

when he con®rmed a settlement with John, bishop of Saint-Malo, who died in that year

(Duine,

MeÂtropole de Bretagne, p. 130).

consecrated by 1170.

¹⁸⁴

In any event, the uncertainty produced by thedeath of Archbishop Roger may have prompted Henry II to send hiskinsman, Richard du Hommet, the constable of Normandy, to take thebarony of Combour into the king's hand in August 1164.After the appointment of Roger du Hommet, there is no furtherrecord of Henry II interfering in the election of the archbishop of Dol,although there would be two more elections before 1181, that of JohnII around 1163, and of Rolland of Pisa in 1177. The election of Rollandof Pisa may represent the renewed exercise of regalian right by the lordof Combour. Between 1164 and around 1173±5, Combour was held byJohn de Subligny in wardship of the gift of Henry II. Soon after the1173 revolt, John's son Hasculf became lord of Combour by marriage tothe heiress, Isolde. Thus Archbishop Rolland was elected during theperiod when either John de Subligny or (more probably) his son waslord of Combour. Before becoming archbishop, Rolland had been acanon of the cathedral chapter of Avranches. The Subligny family musthave had regular contact with the cathedral chapter. John's paternaluncle, Richard, was dean, then bishop of Avranches.

¹⁸⁵

It is thus notsurprising that the new archbishop was sought there. On the otherhand, Robert de Torigni portrays this election as dominated not by theNorman lord of Combour, but by the Norman clergy; in the persons ofRobert himself, as abbot of Mont Saint-Michel, and the bishops ofBayeux and Avranches.

¹⁸⁶

This is not a signi®cant dichotomy; rather itis illustrative of the Norman in¯uence, both lay and ecclesiastical, in thediocese of Dol which had begun under William the Conqueror.If it seems curious that there is no record of Henry II activelyintervening in the dispute between 1161 and 1181, there are twoexplanations. As mentioned above, after around 1164, the king'sinterests in the archbishop of Dol were overseen by John de Sublignyand his son, Hasculf. Secondly, the dispute was less intense between1157 and around 1173, when the archbishop of Tours was Josce, aBreton who was formerly the bishop of Saint-Brieuc. Henry IIcontinued to be interested in the case. As noted above, in 1181 heordered an inquest into the possessions of the archbishop of Dol in themarshes of Dol.

¹⁸⁷

The aim of the inquest was to establish whichproperty had been unlawfully alienated by previous archbishops, orotherwise usurped by laymen, and thus to reconstitute the archiepis-copal domain and improve the archbishop's ®nancial resources. The fact

184

Duine,

MeÂtropole de Bretagne, p. 130;

Preuves, col. 666.

185

A charter of Hasculf de Subligny describes Richard, bishop of Avranches, as his brother

(Preuves, col. 587), thus he was the uncle of John de Subligny.

186

RT,

ii, p. 72.

¹⁸⁷

EnqueÃte, pp. 32±77.

that the inquest was conducted by royal of®cers, under the seneschal ofRennes, must also have demonstrated the king's support for thearchbishop.The claims of Dol were ultimately a total failure, Pope Innocent III®nally deciding in favour of Tours, and, in effect, the king of France, in