Louise Stephens, de l'Université d'Ottawa, a donné lors des
dernières journées d'études organisées par The Medieval Chronicle Society à l'Université
de Liverpool (7-10 juillet 2014) une importante communication sur les chroniques
médiévales de Bretagne réputées "perdues", dont les vestiges nous ont été transmis par les
Mauristes du XVIIIe siècle, et sur le "fameux" manuscrit 1 F 1003 des
archives départementales d'Ille-et-Vilaine, dont il a été question à plusieurs reprises sur le blog Hagio-historiographie médiévale, notamment ici. Nous sommes très heureux de publier ci-dessous le texte de cette
communication, avec un résumé en français par son auteur que nous remercions
bien vivement.
The Vetus Collectio Manuscripta Ecclesiae Nannetensis and the
Lost Chronicles of Brittany[1]
Résumé
Au début du XVIIIe siècle un Mauriste breton,
Dom Guy-Alexis Lobineau, a publié une histoire de la Bretagne avec un volume
complémentaire de plus de mille pages contenant ses sources ou « preuves ».
Quelques décennies plus tard un autre Mauriste, Dom Pierre-Hyacinthe Morice, a
publié sa propre histoire en deux tomes, complétée par Dom Charles Taillandier,
cette fois-ci avec non moins de trois gros volumes de sources. Parmi les
documents préservés dans ceux-ci il y a plusieurs textes présentés comme des
chroniques médiévales, notamment le Chronicon Britannicum, les Chroniques annaulx et la Chronique de Nantes, que les Mauristes disent avoir trouvées dans
un ancien recueil manuscrit de l’Église cathédrale de Nantes. Aujourd’hui cette
source, la Vetus Collectio Manuscripta Ecclesiae
Nannetensis, est souvent considérée comme disparue,
surtout hors de Bretagne, une impression largement répandue depuis 1896 quand
René Merlet a publié son édition célèbre de la Chronique de Nantes. Cependant, ce précieux recueil subsiste
encore et se trouve actuellement aux Archives départementales d’Ille-et-Vilaine
sous la cote IV 1 F 1003 dans le legs de l’historien et archiviste breton
éminent, Arthur de la Borderie, qui est lui-même responsable de l’erreur. Ce
petit carnet en papier de 206 pages, qui selon certains aurait appartenu à
l’historien breton du XVe siècle Pierre Le Baud, est surtout connu de nos jours
comme la source d’un texte arthurien très controversé, la Legenda Sancti Goeznovei, mais il renferme en outre de nombreux
extraits de documents copiés dans les archives bretonnes vers la fin du XVe
siècle dont il est ou bien la seule source ou bien la source principale, comme
c’est le cas de la plupart des chroniques publiées par les Mauristes parmi leur
« preuves ». Mais que sont exactement ces textes désignés comme « chroniques »
par les Mauristes et, plus important, quelle est leur relation avec ces
chroniques médiévales que selon le témoignage de l’historien breton du XVIe
siècle Bertrand d’Argentré existaient encore vers 1500 quand Pierre Le Baud les
a eues à sa disposition ? Une comparaison préliminaire du Chronicon Britannicum — en apparence le plus simple des trois — avec
le matériel préservé dans le manuscrit révèle que ce texte, loin d’être la
reproduction d’une chronique médiévale, est en réalité un texte hybride composé
par Dom Lobineau et ses collègues à partir de deux séries de notes
chronologiques distinctes. Il appartient donc par son fond au Moyen Âge mais
par sa forme au XVIIIe siècle — le produit d’un processus de sélection et
d’édition en deux étapes dont la première a été réalisée par les compilateurs
médiévaux anonymes et la deuxième par les Mauristes eux-mêmes. C’est aussi le
cas des autres « chroniques » publiées par les Mauristes qui proviennent
entièrement ou en partie de cette source. Ainsi le ms IV 1 F 1003 mérite une
étude plus approfondie non seulement à cause des documents de base parfois
uniques que ses compilateurs ont réussi à préserver, mais aussi parce qu’il
nous offre la possibilité de mieux comprendre comment ce recueil modeste a
contribué à former l’historiographie de la Bretagne médiévale et en particulier
celle des Mauristes.
I am here today to share with you something
interesting that I stumbled upon when I was working on something quite
different. I have been working on an edition of a literary text known as the Livre des
faits d’Arthur or the Book of the
Deeds of Arthur, a fragment
of an epic poem that survives in a single copy in a late fifteenth-century
manuscript, often referred to as the notebook or “carnet” of Pierre Le Baud, a
Breton historian or chronicler who died in 1505. It contains a wealth of
material copied in Latin and French in cursive scripts by two main hands and at
least three additional contemporary ones from a variety of sources such as
cartularies, histories, saints’ lives, letters, epitaphs and, especially,
chronicles. It is housed in the Archives départementales d’Ille-et-Vilaine in
Rennes, Brittany, as IV 1 F 1003[2] among
the papers of the eminent Breton historian, Arthur de La Borderie, who died in
1901. La Borderie was the first to identify in this manuscript the fragment of
this lost poem[3] and
also the more famous—and controversial—Legenda Sancti Goeznovei.[4]
In
the eighteenth century editions of several chronicles based on this manuscript,
including the Chronicon Britannicum, the Chroniques
Annaulx, and the Chronique
de Nantes, were
printed in two enormous collections of source documents or “preuves” by
Benedictine monks from the congregation of St.-Maur, known as Maurists, to
accompany their histories. The first was published by Dom Guy-Alexis Lobineau
in 1707, containing what he
labels his
preuves and pieces
justificatives,[5] and the second by Dom Pierre-Hyacinthe
Morice, consisting of three volumes of source documents entitled Memoires in the period 1742-46.[6] Both
historians refer to this manuscript as the Vetus Collectio Manuscripta
Ecclesiae Nannetensis, or the Old
Manuscript Collection of the Cathedral of Nantes, which I shall call the Vetus Collectio for short.
I
decided to examine these chronicles because I wanted to understand the
collection better and the way in which the Livre des Faits d’Arthur fitted into it. So I pulled out the Encyclopedia
of the Medieval Chronicle to consult
the relevant entries and I was very surprised to find that the manuscript was
generally considered lost. So today I would like to begin with a brief
explanation of how this came about. I shall then compare one of the chronicles
printed by the Maurists, the Chronicon Britannicum,[7] with the way it appears in the Vetus
Collectio in order to show how complex the
relationship is between these printed texts, this manuscript, and the medieval
chronicles that lie behind them.
Now
I had been aware when I started working on the manuscript that something
peculiar had happened. Up to the 1880s, La Borderie refers to it explicitly as
the Vetus
Collectio, but by the 1890s it has become
the Vetus
Collectio Manuscripta de Rebus Britannicis Armoricis. Indeed, in
a bundle of handwritten notes accompanying the manuscript, which contain
invaluable research, the original title has been written over everywhere except
on page 2. I had not, however, been aware of the full story, and I should like
to thank André-Yves Bourgès in Brittany for his invaluable help in
understanding it. I should also like to stress that this will be an
oversimplification, and that any errors in interpretation are mine and not his.
The
reason La Borderie altered the title is that he had, to put it delicately,
appropriated the manuscript from the Cathedral of Nantes. In 1864 he portrays
this as a kind of heroic rescue from the very teeth of rats.[8] Later
he adds damp.[9] As
late as 1883 he was still quite candid about its true title,[10] but
by the 1890s he was forced to cover it up.[11] He
also wished to maintain control over the contents, and in particular the Legenda
Sancti Goeznovei, which
purports to date from 1019 and which, according to him, demonstrated the
existence of an earlier text, a Historia Britannica that
predated Geoffrey of Monmouth and provided proof for his argument that the
migrations of the Bretons from insular Britain took place almost entirely as a
result of the Anglo-Saxon invasions in the mid-fifth century.[12] The
late Breton scholar Hubert Guillotel characterizes the use he made of this text
as “un étonnant psychodrame,” and one that shows, and here I am translating,
“how he grew intellectually intoxicated and deliberately misled generations of
historians.”[13] When
La Borderie published the text for the first time in 1883, he only included the
first three sections of it and ironically, as Guillotel points out, it still
undermines his argument.[14] When
the remaining sections were published in 1971 by Gwenaël Le Duc and Claude
Sterckx,[15] the
cat was out of the bag. In fact there is an anachronism, spotted by Guillotel
himself in 1981,[16] that
proves that this text dates not from 1019 but rather from 1135 at the very
earliest. To this I can add, having examined the text in the manuscript, that
La Borderie’s version is more hostile to the Anglo-Saxons than what is in the
manuscript. In a footnote he explains that he “completed” and “rectified” the
text using variants from another, shorter version found in an extant early
fifteenth-century Breton chronicle, the Chronicon Briocense or Chronicle of Saint-Brieuc.[17]
Thus
for decades until his death, La Borderie guarded this manuscript jealously and
restricted or even blocked other scholars’ access to it,[18]
although there were suspicions of the true state of affairs. In particular,
when in 1896 the French archivist and scholar, René Merlet, published a
meticulous reconstruction of the Chronique de Nantes, for which
this manuscript is one of the key sources, not only did La Borderie not let him
examine it, but he persuaded him to put in print that the Vetus
Collectio had been lost.[19] It
was not until the 1970s, decades after La Borderie’s death, that the manuscript
was again brought to the attention of the scholarly world, chiefly by Le Duc.
However, as so much attention has been centred on the Arthurian texts and also
the manuscript’s possible connection with Pierre Le Baud, its identity as the
Maurists’ source has been overshadowed. Thus although scholars in Brittany are
aware of the identity of this manuscript and do occasionally refer to it by its
eighteenth-century title,[20] the
confusion sown by La Borderie persists.
So
now I come to the lost chronicles of my title. But what do I mean by lost
chronicles? These are not strictly the chronicles or rather collections of
extracts from chronicles found in the Vetus Collectio. Instead I am
going further back still to the manuscript’s sources, the medieval chronicles
and other sources that we know existed at the end of the fifteenth century from
the evidence of Pierre Le Baud, who was commissioned by Duchess Anne in 1498 to
write a history of the sovereigns of Brittany. Le Baud did extensive research
in archives; he himself speaks of consulting history books, annals of kings,
princes, times, ancient churches and the legends of saints.[21] We
also know from Pierre Le Baud’s own great nephew, the historian Bertrand
D’Argentré, that many of the chronicles and other documents that were available
to Le Baud in 1500 had disappeared by the 1580s, destroyed by wars and other
accidents; he even lists some of them by name, including the Chronique
de Nantes.[22]
D’Argentré also acknowledges that there was a certain skepticism among some of
his contemporaries as to whether some of these chronicles had, indeed, ever
existed.
This
brings me to an important question. What can the Vetus
Collectio show us about how the chronicles
printed by the eighteenth-century Maurists relate to these lost medieval Breton
chronicles? What, indeed, does the label “chronicle” mean in this context?
These editions certainly preserve some of the contents of lost chronicles,
possibly some of the ones Pierre Le Baud names but other ones as well. Two of
them have titles used by him. But are these medieval chronicles? The answer
turns out to be that they are something very complex. They are ultimately the
product of two processes of selecting and editing, first by the compilers of
the Vetus
Collectio and second by Dom Lobineau and
possibly other Maurists, who, according to Dom Morice, also travelled around to
Breton archives in the 1680s much the way their medieval predecessors did.[23]
The
first stage of this process of selecting and editing is difficult, of course,
to recapture as the Vetus Collectio is the sole
source for much of this material. But we can work out some things about it from
the manuscript itself. First, as I have been stressing, this is a collection
not of complete chronicles but of extracts, so the choices made by the
compilers determined what was collected. According to internal evidence, the
manuscript was completed between 1484 and 1493, under Duke Francis II or his
daughter, Anne. The compilers were especially interested in historical events
concerning the sovereigns, who could be kings, counts, or dukes depending on
the period, births and deaths, genealogies, place names, and geographical
details. Sometimes they just copy a series of notes without comments, but at
other times they give the name of the source or its location. Occasionally a
compiler makes reference to his travels; for example, one of them writes, “The
things that follow I found in the Abbey of Saint Matthew in Finistere,” (p. 51)
and on the following page, “These things that follow I found in a certain very
ancient book of the Abbey of Landevennec in Cornouailles.” They often make
corrections and add entries in between lines. They also record variants and on
page 171 one comments that he could not find something. The notes are not
always in chronological order. It is hard to know if errors are attributable to
the copyists or if they existed in their sources. Small gaps such as those in
an entry in the Chronicon Britannicum about the
heretic Éon de l’Étoile that are represented using dots in Lobineau (cols.
33–34) and Morice (col. 5) suggest they also had trouble reading their
originals. The biggest question is, of course, how to know where the sources
began and ended, an important factor for understanding the Maurists’ printed
texts.
This
second stage of selecting and editing, that carried out by the Maurists, is
easier to check, but it also turns out to be extremely complex. To illustrate
this complexity, I have selected one of the three chronicles, the Chronicon
Britannicum,[24] because, unlike the Chroniques
Annaulx and the Chronicque
de Nantes, it is
presented as a single chronicle rather than a composite. The title of
“Chronicon Britannicum” is simply a label for “a Breton Chronicle.” I do not
have time to give details here, but I think that this chronicle is based on a
source connected to the Abbey of Sainte-Marie-de-Boquen. It starts in A.D. 211
with the death of Septimius Severus and ends in 1356 with a siege of Rennes by
Henry, duke of Lancaster and John IV, duke of Brittany. The entries are sparse
near the beginning and grow fuller near the end. Curiously, there is an entry
containing only the name of Guy, bishop of Saint-Brieuc, dated 1330 and
inserted out of sequence between 1345 and 1346. At the end of the chronicle in
Lobineau’s collection but not in Morice’s there is a note, “Cetera ut in Chron
Briocensi,” indicating that the rest of the chronicle is the same as the Chronicon
Briocense, which
survives in two separate manuscripts; this implies that the chronicle continues
beyond the printed text.
In
fact, this Chronicon Britannicum, although it
is composed of medieval material, never existed as a medieval chronicle. It is
an eighteenth-century composition and Dom Lobineau is in a very real sense its
author. It is made up of two separate series of notes from the Vetus
Collectio that have been spliced together,
rearranged, and supplemented. The first set of notes starts at the top of page
15 in the manuscript with the date of 211 and ends in the middle of page 22.
Lobineau stops at an entry for the death of John III, duke of Brittany, in
1341, mistakenly dated to 1340, the event that set off the Breton War of
Succession that lasted until 1364, but there are two more entries in this
series. The remaining entries in the printed Chronicon Britannicum which continue until 1356 actually come from
a different set of notes about the Breton civil war a few pages later that are
not all in chronological order. Lobineau uses the entry about John III in 1340
as his transition into the new set of notes. He takes the two remaining entries
in the first series, the first of which is a reference to the death of John of
Montfort, John III’s younger brother, in 1345 and the second the curious entry
dated 1330 about Guy, Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, which is also out of sequence and
too early as well as Guy was not elected until 1335. He inserts them both into the entries based on
the second set of notes. The entries in the Chronicon Britannicum based on this first set of notes from 211
until 1340/41 are reproduced relatively accurately, but there are some
alterations and additions that are not flagged, the most interesting of which
is the addition of an entire entry for the year 879 about the election of Alan
the Great as duke; this entry is taken from a completely different set of
entries on page 171 of the manuscript. (See Appendix, Example A.) Only half of
this entry is included; the other half concerns the claims of Breton rulers to
be considered kings.
Lobineau
then skips to p. 26 over another collection of notes and extracts to another
entry concerning the death of John III that belongs to a different series of
notes. (See Appendix, Example B.) This entry is correctly dated to 1341, but
Lobineau keeps the incorrect date of the other series and prints the correct
one in the margin. He keeps the beginning of the entry up to the phrase “post
cujus obitum,” which he uses to replace the grammatically equivalent “post
mortem Iohannis ducis Britanie” in order to combine the two entries into one.
This series of notes is clearly from a different source. The years are not
simple Roman numerals as in the first list, but they often include the words
“anno Domini” and are occasionally written out in words; Lobineau has made them
all consistently Roman numerals. Also the calendar dating system uses the
system of days numbered with ordinal numbers rather than the older system of
Kalends, Nones etc.
These
entries in the Chronicon Britannicum also
constitute a much more complicated patchwork of material not only from this
second series of notes but also from the notes in between pages 22 and 26. For
example, the entry for 1345 shows how entries from three separate places,
including the unused entry from the first series about the death of John of
Montfort, have been combined together, but the dating in relation to the
Kalends from the first series has been preserved. (See Appendix, Example C.)
Finally,
there is the question of the end of the Chronicon Britannicum. Are the subsequent entries actually the same
as the Chronicon
Briocense and how far does it actually go?
Unfortunately this part of the Chronicon Briocense has not
been published in a modern edition, so I can only compare it to the extracts
printed by Dom Morice in 1752. The entry for the year 1363, which recounts the
signing of the Treaty of Evran between John IV, duke of Brittany and count of
Montfort, and his opponent, Charles of Blois, shows that this part of the chronicle
is very closely related to the Chronicon Briocense, but it is
not exactly the same. (See Appendix, Example D.) Some of the wording is
different, and the information in this entry is much fuller. As far as I can
tell, this block of notes goes at least as far as August,1377, over two decades
past the end point of 1356 in the printed edition, but I have not had time to
decipher all of it.
In
conclusion, the Vetus Collectio allows us a
privileged glimpse into the Breton archives with the compilers as they
travelled around the duchy and scribbled hastily. It also shows us the layering
of selection, arrangement, and possibly interpretation imposed on these hasty
notes by the Maurist historians as they created not only their histories but in
a real sense rewrote these source documents and imposed order upon what is
often a jumble, creating new chronicles in the process. I can say that, having
worked on this manuscript, I can understand La Borderie’s fascination for it,
if not what he did, and I have had reason to be grateful to him and others for
the enormous work that they did over several centuries as it has helped me
navigate this fascinating but often baffling manuscript.
Appendix
Examples of
Entries from the Chronicon Britannicum and the Chronicon
Briocense Compared With Entries from MS IV
1 F 1003
Example A
Entries
876–917 (Lobineau col. 32; cf. Morice col. 4) The inserted material is
marked in bold.
A1. DCCCLXXVI. Rollo Dux Normannorum in Gallis appulit.
A2. DCCCLXXIX. Alanus cognomento
Magnus expulsis à Britanniâ Paganis-Danis & Northmannis, cunctisque
Britonum proceribus in subjectionem positis post multa miserabilia bella
intestina unâ totius exercitus voce factus est Britanniae Dux. Hic nepos erat
Regis quondam Salomonis & comes Venetensis, qui pro sua maxima strenuitate
dictus est Magnus.
A3. DCCCCXVII. Obiit Rollo primus Dux Normanorum.
Cui successit Guillelmus filius ejus.
Corresponding
entries[25]
in IV F 1 1003. The inserted material is marked in bold; the material not used is
italicized.
A1. dccc lxxui Rollo dux Normanorum in Galiis
appullit. (p. 17)
A3. dcccc xvii obiit Rollo primus dux Normannorum
cui successit Guillelmus filius eius. (p. 17)
A2. dccc lxxixo Alanus
cognomento magnus expulsis a Britania paganis Danis et Normannis cunctis
Britonum proceribus in subiectionem positis post multa miserabilia bella
intestina una totius exercitus uoce factus est Britannie dux. hic nepos erat
regis quonam Salomonis et comes Venetensis qui pro sua maxima strenuitate
dictus est magnus. ab isto primo {princeps} principes Britanie monarche ceperunt
dici duces a Conano enim primo eorum rege usque ad istum Alannum regis utebantur nomine. hic autem ducis
nomen accepit quo tunc temporis nulli uel pauci admodum principes utebantur.
reperi tamen in quibusdem antiquissimis kartis ecclesie
Nannetensis quod ipse maximus Alanus regem se in suis kartis appellabat unde
sic dicitur Alanus Rex summus Britonum dux. (p. 171)
[Corrigendum: I am sure that it should be quondam Salomonis rather than quonam. There is definitely a pale d with a squiggle at the end of the word].
[Corrigendum: I am sure that it should be quondam Salomonis rather than quonam. There is definitely a pale d with a squiggle at the end of the word].
Example B
Entry 1340 (Lobineau col. 35–6; cf. Morice col. 7). The phrases used as the
transition are underlined.
B. MCCCXL. Obiit bonus Johannes Dux
Britanniae. Post cujus obitum fuit bellum apud montem Relaxam inter
Carolum de Blesio & Comitem Montisfortis, in quo pars Caroli fuit devicta.
Corresponding
entries in IV F 1 1003. Italics indicate omitted text in edition.
Ba. mccc xl. obiit bonus Johannes dux Britanie post
cuius obitum [uacat] (p. 22)
Bb. anno Domini mccc xlio.
post mortem Iohannis ducis Britanie fuit bellum
apud Montem Relaxum inter Karolum de Blesi et comitem Monstisfortis in quo pars
Karoli fuit deuicta. (p. 26)
Example C
Entry 1345 (Lobineau
col. 36; cf. Morice col. 8)
C. MCCCXLV. Eadem civitas Corisopitensis fuit
obsessa per Dominum Joannem Comitem Montisfortis, sed non fuit capta. (1) Obiit
Dominus Johannes de Monteforti apud Henbont, frater boni Johannis Ducis
Britanniae & filius Arturi VI. Kal. Octobris. (2) Die veneris
ante Nativitatem S. Joan. Baptist. fuit bellum in Landa Cadoreti, in quo
Dominus Thomas Dagorne tenens partem Comitis Montisfortis obtinuit, & pars
Caroli de Blesis fuit devicta & succubuit. (3)
Corresponding
entries in IV F 1 1003
C2. mcccxluo. obiit dominus Iohannes
comes de Monteforti apud Hembont frater boni Iohannis ducis Britanie et filius
Arturi ui kalendas octobris. (p. 22)
C1. anno Domini m ccc xluo. idem [sic] ciuitas
Corisopitensis fuit obsessa per dominum Iohannem comitem Montisfortis sed non
fuit capta. (p. 26 [top])
C3. mcccxluo. ueneris ante natiuitatem
sancti Iohannis Baptiste fuit bellum in landa Cadoreti in quo dominus Thomas
Dagorne ferens partem comitis Montisfortis obtinuit et pars Karoli de Blesis
fuit deuicta et succubuit. (p. 26 [further
down])
Example D
First part of
entry concerning the Treaty of Evran (1363) in Chronicon
Briocense (Morice col. 43)
Anno 1363. die 12. mensis Julii fuit
tractatum & juratum in Landis de Evran, quod Carolus de Blesiis haberet mediam partem
Britanniae, & inter coetera quod idem Carolus infrà quindenam vel mensem traderet civitatem Nannetensem eidem Comiti
cum residuo usque ad medietatem
totius Ducatus. Et in quantum tangebat arma Ducatûs, voluerunt hoc à Regibus Franciae & Angliae
ordinari sine ressorto. De caetero debebant esse veri consanguinei & amici; & haec omnia
juraverunt ad sancta Dei Evangelia & super Corpus D. nostri J.C.
Corresponding
part of entry in IV F 1 1003 (The additional information is
marked in bold.)
anno domini millesimo ccc lxiii xiia.
die iulii fuit iuratum et promissum in landis dEuran quod Karolus de Blays haberet mediam partem Britanie pro se et
suis et dominus Iohannes
comes Montisfortis haberet alliam mediam partem et inter
cetera idem Karolus
debebat infra quindenam uel mensem tradere potessionem ciuitatis Nannetensis eidem comiti ac residuum usque ad dictam
mediam partem totius ducatus. et in quantum tangebat
arma ducatus consenserunt hinc inde tenere super hoc ordinationem regum Francie
et Anglie et per hoc debebant esse
de cetero ueri consanguinei et amici. et hec omnia iurauerunt ad sancta Dei euangelia et super
corpus Christi in dictis landis dEuran tenere complere
obseruare et in contrarium non uenire per se nec per alios quouismodo in presentia utriusque exercitus ipsorum
et baronum Britanie ibidem tunc existentium. (p. 26)
Primary
Sources
D’Argentré, Bertrand. L'Histoire
de Bretagne, des roys, ducs, comtes, et princes d'icelle. (1582) New Ed. Rennes: Jean Vatar, 1668. PDF.
Google Books.
La Borderie, Arthur Le Moyne de, L'Historia
Britonum attribuée à Nennius et l'Historia britannica avant Geoffroi de Monmouth.
Paris: H. Champion, 1883. PDF. Google
Books.
Le Baud, Pierre. Histoire de
Bretagne avec les Chroniques des Maisons de Vitré et de Laval. Ed. Le Sieur d'Hozier. Paris: Gervais
Alliot, 1638. PDF. Les Bibliothèques Virtuelles Humanistes, Université de Tours.
Le Duc, Gwenaël, and Claude
Sterckx. "Les fragments inédits de la Vie de saint Goëznou," Annales de
Bretagne 78 (Number 2, June 1971) 277-285. Print.
Lobineau, Dom Guy Alexis, Histoire de
Bretagne, composee sur les titres et les auteurs originaux. Tome
II. Contenant les Preuves, & pieces justificatives. Paris: Chez
la Veuve François Muguet, 1707. PDF. Google Books.
Morice, Dom Pierre Hyacinthe. Mémoires
pour servir de preuves à l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Bretagne, tirés des archives de cette province,
de celles de France et d'Angleterre, des
recueils de plusieurs savans Antiquaires, et mis en ordre. 3 vols.
Paris: L'Imprimerie Charles
Osmont, 1752-56. PDF. Google Books.
[1]. This is the corrected text of a talk given
at the Seventh International Conference on the Medieval
Chronicle in Liverpool, 9 July 2014.
[2]. The transcriptions are taken from digital
images of the manuscript obtained from the Institut de recherche et d’histoire
des textes, Paris, France.
[3]. Histoire de Bretagne, vol. 3, (Rennes: J. Plihon and L. Hervé, 1899;
repr. Mayenne: Joseph Floch, 1975), pp. 388–90.
[4]. L'Historia
Britonum attribuée à Nennius et l'Historia Britannica avant Geoffroi de Monmouth (Paris: H. Champion, 1883),
pp. 88–94.
[5]. Histoire de Bretagne, composee
sur les titres et les auteurs originaux. Tome II. Contenant les Preuves, & pieces justificatives (Paris:
Chez la Veuve François Muguet, 1707).
[6]. Mémoires pour servir de preuves
à l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Bretagne, tirés des archives de cette province, de celles
de France et d'Angleterre, des recueils de plusieurs savans Antiquaires, et mis
en ordre, 3 vols. (Paris: L'imprimerie
Charles Osmont, 1752-56).
[8]. La
Borderie, Arthur Le Moyne de. “Examen Chronologique des chartes du Cartulaire
de Redon antérieures au XIe siècle, Suite des observations générales.
Section II.—Princes Bretons (suite),” Bibliothèque de l’École des
Chartes, Vol. 5. Ser. 5, (1864), 403
n. 3.
[10]. Ibid, p. 19.
[11]. Histoire de Bretagne, vol. 2, (Rennes: J. Plihon and L. Hervé, 1898;
repr. Mayenne: Joseph Floch, 1975), p. 525 n. 3.
[12]. Hubert Guillotel, “Le poids historique d’Arthur de la Borderie,” Mémoires
de la Société d’Histoire et
d’Archéologie de Bretagne,
80 (2002): 356-358.
[13]. Ibid., 356.
[14]. Ibid., 357.
[15]. "Les
fragments inédits de la Vie de saint Goëznou," Annales
de Bretagne 78, 2 (June 1971): 277-285.
[16]. Review
of Les origines de Bretagne
by Léon Fleuriot (Paris: Payot, 1980), Mémoires de la Société
d’histoire et d’archéologie de Bretagne
58 (1981), 356.
[18]. See in particular Philippe Guigon, “Le
bénédictin François Plaine et le ‘bénédictin laïque’ Arthur de la Borderie :
Chronique d’une amitié enfuie,” Mémoires de la Société
d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de
Bretagne, 80 (2002), p. 369.
[19]. La Chronique de Nantes (570
environ - 1049) (Paris: Alphonse Picard et
Fils, 1896), pp. xxii–iii.
[20]. A-Y
Bourgès, "La cour ducale de Bretagne et la légende arthurienne au bas
Moyen Âge: Prolégomènes à une édition critique du Livre
des faits d'Arthur," A
travers les îles celtiques, Mélanges à la mémoire de Gwenaël Le Duc, Britannia Monastica 12 (2008), p. 80.
[21]. Avant-propos to
the Histoire de Bretagne avec les Chroniques des Maisons de Vitré et
de Laval,
ed. Le Sieur d'Hozier (Paris: Gervais Alliot, 1638), np.
[22]. L'Histoire
de Bretagne, des roys, ducs, comtes, et princes d'icelle (1582), 2nd ed. (Rennes: Jean
Vatar, 1668), p. 23.
[23]. Preface to the Histoire civile et ecclésiastique de Bretagne,
vol. 1, (Paris: Delaguette, 1750), p. x.
[25]. Proper
names have been capitalized and minimal punctuation added for clarity.
