¹ Bib. Nat., MS. Nouv. acq. fr. 23395, fols. 177–305 contains transcripts of John de Montfort's claims, as set out in Arch. Nat., J 241, nos. 44 and 44bis, which were probably derived from Bib. Nat., MS. Nouv. acq. fr. 7270. There are numerous further seventeenth-century partial transcripts.

² Bouchard, A., Les Grandes Croniques de Bretaigne (Paris, 1514)Google Scholar, fols. clv^v-clvii^r; Dictionnaire de Biographie Française, vi, cols. 1181–2.

³ Bib. Nat., MS. latin 6003.

⁴ d'Argentré, B., Histoire de Bretagne (Paris, 1582)Google Scholar, fol. 283^r: ‘Les Moyens dudict Comte sont touchez en l'arrest, et extraicts de leur plaidoyez, sur lesquels furent faictes les Enquestes, que i'ay devers moy, qui sont en brief…’

⁵ Dictionnaire de Biographie Française, iii, cols. 572–4.

⁶ Op. cit., pp. 432–3.

⁷ Lobineau, Dom G.-A., Histoire de Bretagne, ii (Paris, 1707), 479–86.Google Scholar

⁸ Morice, Dom P.-H., Mémoires pour servir de preuves à l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Bretagne, i (Paris, 1742), 1415–21Google Scholar, cited as Morice, Preuves.

⁹ Cf. the passage beginning ‘Avoue ledit Comte que les Prelaz … plus eclairez qu'eux’ (Morice, , Preuves, i. 1419Google Scholar) with that printed below p. 50 to establish the confused way in which Lobineau and Morice transcribed and abbreviated this text.

¹⁰ de la Borderie, A., Histoire de Bretagne, iii (Rennes, 1899), 411–15.Google Scholar

¹¹ La Borderie, , op. cit., iii, 400 ff.Google Scholar; Le Patourel, J., ‘Edward III and the Kingdom of France’, History, xliii (1958), 186–8Google Scholar; Jones, Michael, Ducal Brittany 1364–1399. Relations with England ana France during the reign of Duke John IV (Oxford, 1970), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Jones, op. cit., passim.Google Scholar

¹³ Olivier-Martin, F., Histoire de la coutume de la prévóté et vicomté de Paris (Paris, 1922), i, 305–7.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In 1345 when John de Montfort attempted to gain possession of the vicomté of Limoges (Spinosi, C., ‘Un réglement pacifique dans la succession de Jean III, duc de Bretagne, à la vicomté de Limoges’, Revue historique du droit français et étranger, 4ème série, xxxix (1961), 453–67Google Scholar), or in 1361 when Charles II of Navarre likewise sought possession of the duchy of Burgundy (Gaudemet, J., ‘Les pretensions de Charles II à la succession de Philippe de Rouvres’, Mémoires de la société pour l'histoire du droit … des anciens pays bourguignons (1936), 75)Google Scholar to cite two examples.

¹⁵ In thé Songe du Vergier, whose relationship with the documents of 1341 is examined below pp. 6–10, in fourteenth-century chronicles and in a multitude of later works.

¹⁶ Arch. Nat., K 1152, no. 49. Some clauses from John III's defence have been printed in La Très Ancienne Coutume de Bretagne, ed. M. Planiol (Rennes, 1896), pp. 481–2.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Below pp. 31, 34, 38, 62–3.

¹⁸ Arch. Nat., K 1152, no. 49, m. 8.

¹⁹ Ibid., m. 1 ‘…Item que les contes de Bretaigne qui pour le temps estoyent avoyent autre telle noblesce comme les Roys ou temps que il avoit Roys en Bretaigne fors que de la dignete du Roy et de toute noblesce en seingneurie ils ussoyent tout par entier en leur contee quar ils ne tenoyent de nulluy ne ne tindrent onques jusques a tant que ils firent de leur volente hommage au Roy de France a fin que ils en fussent plus forz et leur droytures et leur noblesces mieuz gardees…’ and m. 2, ‘Item, que le premier conte qui onques fist hommage au Roy de France nossire retint en fessant celi hommage toutes ses noblesces et touz les droiz, justices et seingneuries que il avoit par avant le temps du dit hommage et que ses predecesseurs avoyent exceptee la soveraynete et le resort de son parlement que il volut que fust au Roy notresire…’.

²⁰ Ibid., m. 11. Cf. Touchard, H., ‘Les brefs de Bretagne’, Revue d'histoire économique et sociale, xxxiv (1956), 116–40.Google Scholar

²¹ The examples of Artois Blois, discussed in 1341 (below pp. 37, 68) were examined in 1336 (Arch. Nat., K 1152, no. 49, m. 4). In 1336 the duke's lawyers stressed the ‘regal’ qualities of their master. However, since the case involved a dispute over the apportionment of Duke John II's inheritance Breton custom (as expressed in the Assize of Count Geoffrey, below p. 38, n. 72) came usefully to support ducal arguments as the Assize established the indivisibility of baronies and, so it was argued, Count Geoffrey and his successors intended the same rule to apply to the duchy (Ibid., m. 2). It was Countess Marie who first appealed for the application of the law which bound the superior rather than the subject (Ibid., m. 4), ‘Item, a ce que elle dit que en ce cas len doit garder la coustume du chief et non des subiez et que par la coustume du chief parrie se devise et baronnie et met exemple de la conte de Artoys et de Bloys etc. Respont le dit procurer [of John III] que sauve la grace de li le contrayre est verite quar les dictes parries ou contez ne se devisent mie et si les puysnez des contes de Artoys et de Bloys eu ont porte aucune porcion des dictes contez ce ne a mie este par maniere de quotite ou de partage mes par maniere de appanage ou de provision tant seulement … quar le chief des parries si est le Roy nossire et le Royaume le quel ne se devise pas …’.

²² le Baud, P., Histoire de la Bretagne, ed. le sieur de Hozier (Paris, 1638), p. 274Google Scholar. The original Latin Somnium Viridarii was published by Melchior Goldast in Monarchia Sancti Romani Imperii (Hanover, 1611), pp. 58–229Google Scholar and the French adaptation is best known in the edition by Brunet, J. L., Traitez des droits et libertez de l'eglise gallicane, 3rd edn. ii (Paris, 1731)Google Scholar, and recently reproduced photographically, with a new introduction by F. Chatillon in Revue du moyen âge latin, xiii and xiv (1957–1958)Google Scholar. I have also used a Paris edition of 1491 which served as the basis for Brunet's edition. Charles V's autograph manuscript of the work is Brit. Mus., Royal MS. 19 C iv. The most recent contribution to a large literature on the subject is Royer, J.-P., L'église et le royaume de France au XIVe Siècle d'aprés le ‘Songe du Vergier’ et la jurisprudence du Parlement (Paris, 1969).Google Scholar

²³ An earlier version of Le Baud's work was edited by Charles, vicomte de la Lande de Calan, Cronicques et Ystoires des Bretons, for the Société des bibliophiles bretons (Nantes, 1907). La Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne, iii, 400 ffGoogle Scholar. has used d'Argentré's MS. copy (Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 8266) as well as the 1638 edition quite extensively.

²⁴ Particularly La Borderie, op. cit., iii, 412–15.

²⁵ Lievre, M., ‘Notes sur le manuscrit original du Songe du Vergier et sur la librairie de Charles V’, Romania, lxxvii (1956), 352–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar and idem, ‘Note sur les sources de Somnium Viridarii et du Songe du Vergier’, Romania, lxxxi (1960), 483–91.Google Scholar

²⁶ Lewis, P. S., Later Medieval France: the Polity (London, 1968), p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ ‘The Opinions of the Doctors of Bologna on the Sovereignty of Aquitaine (1369); a source of the Songe du Vergier’, ed. P. Chaplais, Royal Historical Society, Camden Miscellany xix (1952), 51–78.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Bossuat, R., ‘Nicole Oresme et le “Songe du Vergier”,’ Le Moyen Age, liii (1947), 82–130Google Scholar, for a valuable but unsuccessful attempt to establish Oresme as the author of the Songe. Mme M. Lievre-Schnerb and M. Royer prudently reserve judgment, though they tend to see the two treatises as co-operative works; cf. Romania, lxxxi (1960), 484Google Scholar and Royer, , op. cit., pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

²⁹ Royer, , op. cit., pp. 207–8, 316–18.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 219 ff.

³¹ Somnium Viridarii, ed. Goldast, p. 145Google Scholar, lines 24–44.

³² Ibid., p. 147, line 40 to p. 148, line 5.

³³ Songe du Vergier, ed. Brunet, pp. 162–3.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid., p. 162.

³⁵ Gaudemet, J., Méms. de la soc. pour l'hist. du droit … des anciens pays bourguignons (1936), 68–9.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. the exclusion of Robert of Artois in favour of his aunt, Mahaut, in 1302 and the dispute which ensued, below p. 68, n. 112.

³⁷ Spinosi, , Rev. hist, au droit français et étranger, 4ème sér., xxxix (1961), 453–67.Google Scholar

³⁸ Archives départementales de la Loire-Atlantique, E 238.

³⁹ Ibid., E 239, fol. 20^r: ‘Item, la lettre du jugement fait par le Roy pour Charles de Bloys contre le conte de Montfort que le dit Charles doit estre receu a lommage de Bretaigne etc. Scellee … Donne le iiij jour de May 1361.’ This vidimus is now in Ibid., E 165. The Arrêt, issued on 7 September 1341, was printed from Arch. dép. de la Loire-Atlantique, E 165 in Morice, , Preuves, i, 1421–4Google Scholar, and has been most recently re-edited from the Parlement register (Arch. Nat., X^ia 9, fol. 201^v) by Prof. P. C. Timbal in his French translation of E. Meijers, Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis van het international privaat-en strafrecht in Frankrijk en de Nederlanden (The Hague, 1914) (Etudes d'Histoire du droit international privé (Paris, 1967), pp. 116–19)Google Scholar. My thanks are due to Prof. Timbal for information on this matter.

⁴⁰ Arch. dép. de la Loire-Atlantique, E 240, fol. 74^r ‘Item, ung grant Rolle en parchemin intitule “Rasiones super debato ducatus Britannie contra Karolum de Blays in dicto ducato intrusum”’, cf. below, p. 15.

⁴¹ Ibid., E 243, fol. 208^r: ‘Rolle en parchemin contenant les Raisons moyens et escritures pour le duc Jehan comte de Montfort allencontre Charles de Bloys et Jehanne de Bretaigne sa femme touchant la succession du duché non signény daté.’ There are copies of the Turnus Brutus in Arch. Nat., PP 99bis and Brit. Mus., Harley MS. 4359, where our document is noted on fol. 106^v.

⁴² Arch. dép. de la Loire-Atlantique, E 248, fol. 18^r: ‘Armoire O Cassette B. Ensuitte nous avons veriffié les pièces de la cassette B estant sous 28 cottés lesquelles nous avons pareillement trouvée saiuve et entieres et suivant quelles sont mantionnée audit inventaire’ (i.e. Turnus Brutus).

⁴³ Inventaire sommaire des archives départementales avant 1789, Loire-Inférieure, ed. L. Maître, iii (Nantes, 1879), 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ P.R.O. E.30/63.

⁴⁵ Cf. Jones, , Ducal Brittany 1364–1399, p. 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Dr Wolfgang van Emden, Lancaster University, pointed out these regional differences in spelling.

^{page 15 note a} On dorse; one of the seventeenth-century transcripts is entitled ‘Raisons alleguees par Johan de Bretaigne, comte de Montfort, pour le duche de Bretaigne, pairrie de France au proces pendan pardevant le roy et sa cour entre le dit comte de Montfort et Charles de Blois a cause de sa famme’ (Bib. Nat., MS. Nouv. acq. fr. 7270, fol. 1 r).

^{page 15 note b} A adds et parrie et appartenances en vous offrant la bouche et les mains et tout ce que il appartient a faire par raison et que.

^{page 15 note c} A adds dus.

^{page 15 note d} A adds dicte.

^{page 15 note e} A omits de Bretaingne

¹ Philip VI, 1328–50.

² John de Montfort (1293–1345) was the only son of Arthur II, duke of Brittany, by his second wife Yolande, daughter of Robert IV, count of Dreux and formerly wife of Alexander III King of Scotland. He succeeded his mother as count of Montfort in 1322.

³ John III, duke of Brittany 1312–41, earl of Richmond 1334–41, and viscount of Limoges 1291–1341, was the eldest son of Arthur II by his first wife Mary, only daughter and heiress of Guy VI, viscount of Limoges.

⁴ Arthur II, duke of Brittany 1305–12, was the eldest son of John II, duke of Brittany 1286–1305.

^{page 16 note a} A, de.

^{page 16 note b} A adds que.

^{page 16 note c} A Bloys.

^{page 16 note d} A, Pontevre.

^{page 16 note e} A, a partie.

^{page 16 note f} A, nossire.

⁵ Établissements de Saint-Louis, ed. P. Viollet, Soc. de l'hist. de France, ii (1881), p. 337Google Scholar and Viollet, P., Histoire de Droit Civil Français, 3rd. edn. Paris 1905, p. 888Google Scholar, § 831.

⁶ Charles de Blois (c. 1320–64) was the second son of Guy de Châtillon, count of Blois, and Marguerite de Valois, sister of Philip VI.

⁷ Joan de Penthièvre (c. 1322–84) was the only daughter of Guy, second son of Arthur II and Mary of Limoges, and Joan d'Avaugour. She succeeded her father as countess of Penthièvre in 1331 and married Charles de Blois in 1337.

^{page 17 note a} A, Premierement.

^{page 17 note b} A adds et vestuz.

^{page 17 note c} A, estachelles.

^{page 17 note d} A, cellui.

^{page 17 note e} A, fast.

⁸ No record of Arthur II's homage svirvives (Jeulin, P., ‘L'hommage de la Bretagne’, Annales de Bretagne xli (1934), p. 430).Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Établissements de St-Louis, ed. Viollet, ii, pp. 334–40Google Scholar, lib. II cap. iv, ‘De saisine demander comme prochains ou comme oirs et de faire protestation ou retenue selonc l'usage de la cort de Baronie’. ‘… Quiconque demande saisine d'eritage, il doit demander en tele maniere: “mes pere, ou mes freres, ou mes cosins, ou mes paranz, morut, saisiz et vestuz, tenanz et prenanz, bleanz et desbleanz et tenanz de saignor, a icel tans qu'il ala de vie a mort …’.

^{page 18 note a} A, Et.

^{page 18 note b} A adds efficaces et.

^{page 18 note c} lan xli in margin.

^{page 18 note d} xli underlined in MS. and mil ccc quarante et un added in different hand.

¹⁰ Although a codicil to the will has survived, the will has, perhaps not surprisingly, disappeared (Morice, , Preuves, i, 1412–13Google Scholar). On 26 May 1340 John III informed the vicomte de Rohan that he was sending him a sealed-up copy of the will containing his name and those of the other executors ‘et ne vous merveillez pas si ladite ordrenance vous envoions enclose soubz nostre sceau, quar nous avons ce fait par la deliberation de nostre conseil’, though Rohan was assured that there was nothing in it which was prejudicial to him (Ibid., 1398).

¹¹ John III died on 30 April 1341 according to the inscription on his tomb in the church of the Franciscans, Ploërmel (Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 22325, p. 478, ‘Cygist Jean jadis duc de Bretagne vicomte de Limoges qui deceda a Caen en Normandi lan 1341 la dernier jour d'Avril’).

¹² Cf. Établissements de St-Louis, ed. Viollet, ii, pp. 395–400Google Scholar, lib. II cap. xix, ‘Coment l'en doit requerre son seignor et d'entrer en sa foi, sans demeure et de faire obeissance ligement.’ This states forty days as the legal period within which to make this request.

^{page 19 note a} requeste from A.

^{page 19 note b} lex divina in margin.

^{page 19 note c} A omits sainte.

^{page 19 note d} A adds dit.

¹³ Numbers xxvii, 8–9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Decret. Grat. I.v, §1, section I.

¹⁵ II Kings i, 17.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Decret. Grat. I.v, §1, section I.

^{page 20 note a} A, grant

^{page 20 note b} A, cellui.

^{page 20 note c} A reads madamoiselle.

^{page 20 note d} A adds se.

^{page 20 note e} costez interlined in A.

^{page 20 note f} A, nest point.

¹⁷ Inst. III.vi, §2–3; Dig. 38.10.

¹⁸ Dig. 28.7.28.

¹⁹ The pope's power to dispense from natural (divine) law is dealt with in Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism (London, 1949), pp. 50–75.Google Scholar

²⁰ Decret. Greg. IX IV.xiv.8.

^{page 21 note a} A, constant.

^{page 21 note b} A adds et lomme constant.

^{page 21 note c} A adds homme bon et valable.

^{page 21 note d} A, sus.

^{page 21 note e} A adds et.

²¹ Ephesians v, 23 and Decret. Grat. II.xv.3: principium. For the growth of sentiment against female rulers see Viollet, P., ‘Comment les femmes ont été exclués en France de la succession à la couronne’, Mémoires de l'Institut National de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, xxxiv (1892–1895), part ii, p. 127Google Scholar, n. 3, pp. 129–31.

²² Dig. 27.2.3.

²³ Nov. 118 C.2.

^{page 22 note a} Regalie' in margin.

²⁴ Coa. 3.28.27.

²⁵ Libri Feudorum I.i, §2.

²⁶ Lib. Feud. I.viii, §2.

²⁷ Lib. Feud. I.i, §4.

²⁸ In 1245 Innocent IV was involved in a plot to depose Sancho II of Portugal in favour of his brother Afonso. Sancho was a minor when he succeeded to the Portuguese crown in 1223 and his reign, which began with civil war, was one of continual dispute with the church. The king could not control his nobility and the realm suffered from the ensuing anarchy. Innocent IV, whose predecessors had helped to create the Portuguese monarchy in the twelfth century by giving the kings their spiritual blessing and protection, probably wanted to use this Portuguese case as a stern warning to the contumacious Emperor Frederick II about what could happen to disobedient secular rulers. In Grandinon immerito Innocent ordered the nobles, knights and communities of Portugal to deliver the kingdom to a more worthy ruler. Afonso, count of Boulogne, was the pope's choice. However, the pope did safeguard the rights of any legitimate heirs Sancho might have, although Afonso was able to capture Sancho's wife and thus made it impossible for the latter to get an heir. Afonso then succeeded to the crown after Sancho's deposition in 1248 (Sext. Decret. I.viii.2; A. Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 11751; Livermore, H., A History of Portugal (Cambridge, 1947), pp. 122–33).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note a} A omits de crimes.

^{page 23 note b} A, absolucion.

^{page 23 note c} A adds Roy.

^{page 23 note d} A, de.

^{page 23 note e} A, mues.

²⁹ This had been the case in France in 1316 and 1322.

³⁰ This startling statement was already becoming a commonplace in the armoury of Breton lawyers. It had been used in 1336 by John III, see Arch. Nat., ? 1152, no. 49, cf. also below p. 77, clause XII.

³¹ For further references to regalities see Jones, Ducal Brittany 1364–99, pp. 3 ff. In 1320 John III had alleged that the right to mint coins was ‘partie de la pairie’ (M. Sautel-Boulet, ‘Le rôle juridictionnel de la cour des pairs aux XIIIe et XlVe siecles’. Recueil de travaux offerts a Clovis Brunel, ii (Paris, 1955), p 514.Google Scholar

³² Salomon, , ‘king’Google Scholar of the Bretons 857–74, was involved in wars with Charles the Bald, king of the West Franks 840–77, and he was the second or third Breton leader to have his overlordship in the province recognised by the Carolingians.

³³ Cohel and Chouable may be identified with Juhel and Judicael (d. 888), counts of Rennes.

³⁴ I am unable to suggest a possible identity for this ‘king’, unless it is a corruption of Arthur.

³⁵ John II, count-duke of Brittany, was created a peer of France in September 1298 (A.L.A., E 103, printed in Lobineau, Hist, de Bretagne, ii, 442Google Scholar, Anselme, , Histoire généalogique, iii, 38Google Scholar and Morice, , Preuves, i, 1122Google Scholar). There is no explicit reservation clause as stated here.

^{page 24 note a} A, lacessoire.

^{page 24 note b} A, reglee.

^{page 24 note c} A, forecloant.

^{page 24 note d} A, li ait.

^{page 24 note e} et interlined.

^{page 24 note f} A, hic in margin.

^{page 24 note g} A, viennent.

^{page 24 note h} A, jasoit ce quil soient.

^{page 24 note i} A, censives.

^{page 24 note j} A omits quare etc.

^{page 24 note k} Non est feodal car le Roy ne la donna onqes au duc, written above this clause.

³⁶ Sext. V.xii. De regulis juris, I.42.

³⁷ See above p. 17, n. 9.

³⁸ Olivier-Martin, , Hist, de la coutume de la prévôté et vicomté de Paris, i, pp. 305–7.Google Scholar

³⁹ Olivier-Martin, , op. cit., pp. 306–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Montfort's lawyers were here trying to claim a principle which was only just being formulated with regard to the succession to the crown of France, cf. Viollet, Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres xxxiv (1892–5), part ii, pp. 125–50.

^{page 25 note a} Paria que fuit annexata ducatui in margin; hic in margin of A.

^{page 25 note b} en foy underlined in MS.

^{page 25 note c} annexee au duche interlined.

^{page 25 note d} que la dicte duché … resons omitted in A.

^{page 25 note e} A, gardez nottoirement.

^{page 25 note f} A, menuent.

^{page 25 note g} A omits quare etc.

^{page 25 note h} hic in margin of A which begins Item, la.

^{page 25 note i} a la quelle la parrie de France est annexee, interlined.

^{page 25 note j} fie underlined in MS. and homage interlined.

^{page 25 note k} A, directe.

^{page 25 note l} A adds ou souverain siege. Item, la tierce.

^{page 25 note m} A, hic in margin.

^{page 25 note n} de France interlined in A.

⁴¹ Brittany first became a direct fief of France when Arthur I did liege homage to Philip Augustus in 1202 and the feudal tie was strengthened by the grant of peerage in 1297 (Jeulin, , Annales de Bretagne xli (1934), 419–20, 429).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note a} A, regle.

^{page 26 note b} jourz interlined.

^{page 26 note c} Arrest de Burgondia in margin. A omits this clause entirely.

^{page 26 note d} Jaquin de Bailli in margin. A adds, after Item, par vertu desdites coustumes et usages de France.

⁴² Cf. Sautel-Boulet, M., Recueil … Clovis Brunel, ii, 507–20.Google Scholar

⁴³ Décret. Grat. I.xxi.4.

⁴⁴ The immensely complicated Burgundian succession problem of 1272 is dealt with comprehensibly by Richard, J., Les ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du duché du XIe au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1954), pp. 318–28Google Scholar. Hugh IV, duke of Burgundy, had married twice and by the time of his death in 1272 his two eldest sons by the first marriage (including the eldest Eudes, here referred to as duke) had predeceased him. A formula had to be devised to satisfy the claims of Robert, his third son by the first marriage (who eventually succeeded him), the four daughters of Eudes, the daughter of the second son and the five children of the second marriage. Robert's main rival was Yolande of Nevers, eldest daughter of Eudes, who was count of Nevers at the time of his death in 1266. Hugh IV was opposed to the Burgundian customs of successoral representation and of allowing all children of the first marriage to take half the paternal heritage, because this would have deprived Robert of the chance to maintain the unity of the duchy in the face of counter-claims from his nieces and half-brothers and sisters. Eventually the case was brought before the king and Robert was recognised as duke of Burgundy, following the French custom of ‘baroniani non posse dividi’ and the other surviving relatives of Hugh IV were endowed with lands dependent on the duchy.

⁴⁵ For the case of Jaquin le Bailli see Actes du Parlement de Paris, Deuxième série, de l'an 1328 à l'an 1350, Jugés i (1328–42), ed. H. Furgeot (Paris, 1920), no. 2671.

^{page 27 note a} A adds Premierment quar feme ne succede pas en fie selon le droit des fies et en succession collateral et quant il y a malle aussi prochain si comme il appert en plusours liexix es drois des fies et ainsi linterprete la coustume du royaume de France dessus alleguee.

^{page 27 note b} A omits Item, il appert que.

^{page 27 note c} A adds qui est.

^{page 27 note d} A adds que.

^{page 27 note e} e A adds dit.

^{page 27 note f} A, domination.

^{page 27 note g} A, prises.

^{page 27 note h} A, ne.

^{page 27 note i} A adds inconstant et ne puent.

⁴⁶ Cf. Froissart, J., Chroniques, ed. S. Luce, Soc. de l'hist. de France, ii (1874), 86–9, 267–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ II Kings i, 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ I Peter ii, 13–14.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Décret. Grat. II.xv.3: principium.

^{page 28 note a} A, par jugement.

^{page 28 note b} A adds de royaume et les droiz.

^{page 28 note c} Non est feodal written above this clause.

^{page 28 note d} A, soient.

⁵⁰ Dig. 50.17.2; cf. Gaudemet, J., ‘Le statut de la femme dans l'Empire Romain’, Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin xi (1959), La Femme, pp. 191–222, esp. p. 198.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Decret. Grat. II. xxxiii.V. 11–20 summarised in Metz, R., ‘Le statut de la femme en droit canonique médieval’, Recueils de la Soc. J. Bodin, xii (1962), La Femme, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

⁵² Montfort was on dangerous ground in this and the next three clauses since there were precedents for women succeeding to peerages, especially the case of Mahaut d'Artois (cf. below p. 68 and Viollet, , Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres xxxiv (1892–1895), part ii, pp. 147–8).Google Scholar

⁵³ d'Argentré, Hist, de Bretagne, fol. 286, mentions two cases where women had succeeded to the duchy of Brittany. Constance, only daughter of Conan IV, was countess from 1171–1201. Alice, daughter of Constance and her third husband Guy de Thouars, brought her claim to Brittany by marriage to Peter of Braine, usually styled Mauclerc, count of Brittany 1213–37. Hoel II, by right of Havoise, sister of Conan II, in 1066 and Eudes, count of Penthièvre, by right of his wife Bertha, daughter of Conan the Fat, in 1156, had succeeded as counts of Brittany, cf. La Borderie, Hist, de Bretagne, iii, 413.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note a} A adds ou duchie vient.

^{page 29 note b} A, hic in margin.

^{page 29 note c} A, puet.

^{page 29 note d} A, es besoignes.

^{page 29 note e} A, hic in margin.

⁵⁴ For the coronation service cf. Lot, F. and Fawtier, R., Histoire des Institutions Françaises au Moyen Age, ii, Institutions Royales (Paris, 1958), pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar, esp. p. 31 and The Coronation Book of Charles V of France, ed. E. S. Dewick, Henry Bradshaw Society, xvi (1898), cols. 35–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ ‘Women … had no official part in the government and owed their power solely to their personal ascendancy over an immature or weak-minded emperor’, Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire 284–602 i (Oxford, 1964), P. 341.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note a} A adds espirituel struck out.

^{page 30 note b} A adds laics.

^{page 30 note c} A, hic in margin.

^{page 30 note d} A omits qui seroit.

^{page 30 note e} de parria in margin; hic in margin of A.

^{page 30 note f} A omits il.

^{page 30 note g} A, doivent.

^{page 30 note h} heritag' Brit' et reservat' in margin.

⁵⁶ Matthew xix, 28.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In 1316 there had been a call for the peers to judge the succession to the French crown, which Philip V forestalled by declaring himself king. The peers did take part in discussions over the succession to Charles IV in 1328 (cf. Viollet, , Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres xxxiv (1892–1895), part ii, pp. 138, 153–4Google Scholar; Gazelles, R., La société politique et la crise de la royauté sous Philippe de Valois (Paris, 1958), pp. 53–7)Google Scholar. It was between 1316–28 that the principle that women should not succeed to the French crown was established in practice if not in theory. The precedent of 1328 was also important because the exclusion of Edward III of England, who claimed by right of descent from the French royal house through a female line, formed a precedent for the exclusion of future claimants through a female line.

⁵⁸ The fundamental article on the Breton Parlement is B.-A. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, ‘Les Faux Etats de Bretagne de 1315 et les premiers Etats de Bretagne’, Bibliothèque de l'école des Chartes, lxxvi (1925), pp. 388–406.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note a} foy et struck out in MS.

^{page 31 note b} de parria in margin.

^{page 31 note c} A, approchee.

^{page 31 note d} et receuz interlined.

^{page 31 note e} C in margin; Rasiones in margin of A.

^{page 31 note f} A, mie for en riens.

⁵⁹ This argument was borrowed from the case of John III v. Marie de Saint-Pol (Arch. Nat., K 1152, no. 49, m. 8 ‘…et ainsin apparoint que le duc de Bretagne ne la duche ne sont pas de autel condicion comme les autres pers et parries de France’).

^{page 32 note a} A, omits la.

^{page 32 note b} A, et non mic.

^{page 32 note c} A, non.

^{page 32 note d} A omits et.

^{page 32 note e} A, estez.

^{page 32 note f} A omits lon.

^{page 32 note g} A, duchie.

^{page 32 note h} A, nest.

⁶⁰ Colossians iii, 25.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ep. liv (S. Aureli Augustini, Hipponiensis Episcopi Epistulae, recensit Al. Goldbacher (Vindobonae, 1895), Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, xxxiiii, Pars II, pp. 158–68Google Scholar). The Rev. D. Powell, Exeter University, helped me to locate this reference.

^{page 33 note a} A, elle.

^{page 33 note b} A, que.

^{page 33 note c} Followed by desus, omitted by A.

^{page 33 note d} A, en.

^{page 33 note e} A, Ce.

^{page 33 note f} telle interlined.

^{page 33 note g} A omits ne.

^{page 33 note h} A omits si.

⁶² Genesis xxv, 25–6, 33; Decret. Grat. Il.vii.I c. 8.

⁶³ Decret. Greg. IX III. xxxiv. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note a} A, maisne.

^{page 34 note b} Nota in margin.

^{page 34 note c} A omits se.

^{page 34 note d} A inserts Quare.

^{page 34 note e} A, Peintioure.

⁶⁴ This argument had been used in 1336 (cf. Arch. Nat., K 1152 no. 49, m.1), and was advanced in the fifteenth century to maintain the unity of the kingdom of France (Viollet, , Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, xxxiv (1892–1895), part ii, p. 177).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Guy de Bretagne, father of Joan de Penthièvre, was the second son of Arthur II and Mary of Limoges. After an arrangement with his elder brother, John III, to succeed to the vicomté of Limoges in 1314, John eventually invested Guy with the comte of Penthiévre in 1317 (Morice, , Preuves i, 1248–9, ii, 470–4Google Scholar and Spinosi, , Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 4ème sér., xxxix (1961), 453–5).Google Scholar

^{page 35 note a} A omits encores entre … y ait.

^{page 35 note b} Non electe de Roy en Brit' in margin.

^{page 35 note c} A adds point.

^{page 35 note d} A adds cest assavoir le duc, ne ne sestcnt a la cause la ou len traicte de la duche qui est parrie.

^{page 35 note e} A, avec.

^{page 35 note f} A adds toute.

^{page 35 note g} A, et ainsi.

^{page 35 note h} A, soit et.

^{page 35 note i} Following clauses, omitted in A, added in different hand.

⁶⁶ La Très Ancienne Coutume of Brittany was written down between 1312–25 (cd. Planiol, p. 7). It allows successoral representation (Ibid., cl. 220); idem, Histoire des Institutions de Bretagne (Rennes, 1955), iii, 32–3.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note a} A, presence.

^{page 36 note b} A, saintisme entre.

^{page 36 note c} A, quar se la.

^{page 36 note d} A, mendiez.

^{page 36 note e} A, hic in margin

^{page 36 note f} A, baronie.

^{page 36 note g} A, elle est.

^{page 36 note h} A adds au manie.

^{page 36 note i} A omits autres.

^{page 36 note j} A, condicion.

^{page 36 note k} Followed by et struck out.

⁶⁷ Esther iii, 13.Google Scholar

^67a Cod. I, 14Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Romans xiii, 1–7.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note a} Burgundy intended. See above, I c. viii. a. A reads Borgoigne.

^{page 37 note b} A, Bloiz.

^{page 37 note c} A, Bloiz.

^{page 37 note d} A, voult.

^{page 37 note e} Nota in margin.

^{page 37 note f} A omits de la comptee.

^{page 37 note g} A omits et.

⁶⁹ Blois would appear to be the correct reading. In 1329 Guy, count of Blois, brought an action against his former guardian, the count of Saint-Pol, for failure to discharge debts after the death of Guy's father Hugh (cf. Actes du Parlement de Paris, ed. Furgeot, nos. 142 and 288).

⁷⁰ Roucy, dép. Aisne, arr. Laon, cant. Neufchâtel-sur-Aisne.

⁷¹ The succession dispute here referred to was between Yolande, countess of Montfort, mother of the 1341 claimant, and her sister Jeanne, countess of Roucy, over the county of Montfort previously held by their mother Beatrice. In 1312, after earlier arrangements with their elder brother had been annulled, the sisters shared Montfort between themselves on Beatrice's death, according to the custom of the county of Montfort. But in 1314 Yolande pretended she owed homage for all of the county to Louis X, while Jeanne claimed she held directly from the king, following French custom. Louis X, contrary to what is stated in our document, overruled Jeanne's claim and in April 1315 admitted Yolande to homage for all of Montfort (Arch. Nat., JJ no. 35, fol. 18^v). The actual division of the county was finally sorted out in 1317 (Rhein, A., La seigneurie de Montfort-en-Iveline (Versailles, 1910), pp. 89–91Google Scholar and Bib. Nat., MS. Clairambault 1188, fols. 35–6).

^{page 38 note a} A, pas.

^{page 38 note b} A adds another ne.

^{page 38 note c} A, Item, et par ce.

⁷² This theory of the heritable nature of Breton apanages is difficult to validate. Like the early Capets, the thirteenth-century counts of Brittany had few heirs and created no apanages. In 1305, on the death of John II, his eldest son, Arthur, succeeded to the duchy and after a short delay his second son, John, became earl of Richmond, despite a possible counter-claim by Arthur. The reason for this decision was principally political—the earldom was a reward for John's services to the English crown. He died in 1334 and the earldom, claimed by John III as belonging to the dukes of Brittany by right, passed back into his hands (Jones, , Ducal Brittany 1364–99, p. 4Google Scholar). The establishment of the apanage of Penthièvre in 1317 was the first major alienation of ducal demesne for a hundred years and it did descend to Guy's daughter, Joan de Penthièvre. Witnesses in 1341 made a distinction between this grant and earlier ones. The proctors of the late Pierre de Bretagne, son of John II, testified that Pierre had been refused permission to hold a grant from his grandfather in perpetuity by his brother Arthur II (a case complicated by debt) and the bishop of Saint-Malo likewise distinguished between the grants to Pierre and Guy de Bretagne—the former was for life, the latter in perpetuity (Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 22338, fols, 138^v and 141^v). John de Montfort was said to have been given the seigneury of Guérande by Arthur II (Ibid., fol. 140^v and La Borderie, , Hist, de Bretagne, iii, 400Google Scholar) and his son later held it as his patrimony (Bock, F., ‘Some new documents illustrating the early years of the Hundred Years War, 1353–6’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xv (1931), pp. 65, 84–91Google Scholar). When he became duke, John IV was very careful to avoid creating heritable apanages. Thus although there was no formulated theory of inalienability until the early fifteenth century the dukes, in general, followed for their own demesne the Assize of Count Geoffrey (1185), which stated that ‘quod in baroniis et feodis militum ulterius non fierent divisiones, sed major natu integre dominatum obtineret’ (La Très Ancienne Coutume, ed. Planiol, pp. 321–2Google Scholar and Renaudin, Y., ‘Les domaines des ducs de Bretagne. Leur administration du XIIIe au XVe siècle’, Ecole des Chartes, Positions 1957Google Scholar, a copy of which is deposited at the Arch. dép. Loire-Atlantique, Nantes). Cf. Arch. Nat. K 1152, no. 49 m. 1, where it was argued that the duke held all the ducal demesne in the duchy and his brothers and sisters only had ‘leur pourveance a leur vie tant seulement … et par la main du duc leur frere … par sa soffrance de sa volente nom pas par droit’. A French translation of the Assize of Count Geoffrey and two Latin versions, possibly prepared for the 1341 case, survive in a contemporary hand (Arch. Nat., J 240 nos. 30^1–2 and 31).

^{page 39 note a} A, renunca.

^{page 39 note b} diversitas ducis et subditorum in margin.

^{page 39 note c} Item interlined.

^{page 39 note d} A omits qe and reads pas fois.

^{page 39 note e} A omits ussez et.

^{page 39 note f} A, nommie.

^{page 39 note g} nobleces real' in margin and, lower down paragraph, reservare noblices et dignetez preced'. A, hic in margin.

^{page 39 note h} MS., reyaune. A adds et y ot plussours Roys.

⁷³ See previous note.

⁷⁴ By the Assize of Rachat, 1276, John I agreed to forego his right to seigneurial seizure of lands of a deceased vassal in return for one year's revenue from the lands as a relief from the heir (B.-A. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, ‘La génèse du législatif dans la duché de Bretagne’, Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 4ème sér. xl (1962), 358).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The erection of Brittany into a peerage in 1297 allowed the duke to follow the custom of Paris and to reclaim the dower lands of duchesses (cf. La Très Ancienne Coutume, ed. Planiol, cl. 213 and Renaudin, , op. cit., pp. 37–8).Google Scholar

^{page 40 note a} Followed by simple, struck out in A.

^{page 40 note b} estre interlined above hole in MS.

^{page 40 note c} chef provided from A because of hole in MS.

^{page 40 note d} A adds ainz est duchie.

^{page 40 note e} la interlined, omitted in A.

^{page 40 note f} li fut annexee et interlined.

^{page 40 note g} A adds et espec'.

^{page 40 note h} Following clause, omitted in A, added in different hand.

^{page 40 note i} A, y amaine.

^{page 40 note j} A, depuis que.

^{page 40 note k} A, dont duchiez et reyaulmes.

^{page 40 note l} qui, interlined.

^{page 40 note m} A, desus sont thouchez.

⁷⁶ Numbers xxvii.

^{page 41 note a} A, par voix.

^{page 41 note b} Followed by dit est struck out in A.

^{page 41 note c} Followed by las struck out.

^{page 41 note d} A, de sexe.

^{page 41 note e} A, desus.

^{page 41 note f} MS. repeats et mesmement.

^{page 41 note g} A, maisnez.

^76a Cod. 6. 26. 11.

^{page 42 note a} A adds laquelle.

^{page 42 note b} A, elle se.

^{page 42 note c} A omits pas.

^{page 42 note d} A, Juges.

⁷⁷ I have been unable to identify the Robert and Geoffrey de Beaumont whom d'Argentré, Hist, de Bretagne, fol. 286^r, indicates as parties in the case here referred to, and, anyway, our document refers to a dispute between the dead vicomte's brother and his nieces. The succession to the vicomté of Beaumont (dép. Sarthe, arr. Maniers, ch.-1. cant.) appears to have passed from father to son without interruption in the first half of the fourteenth century (Anselme, Histoire généalogique, vi, 137–8).

⁷⁸ Duchesne has noted an inquiry into the customs of Anjou, Maine and Touraine, made between 1340–50, to ascertain whether a barony could be dismembered and which showed that in the case where there were only heiresses, the eldest daughter or her heirs received the whole barony to the exclusion of younger sisters. This inquiry and the precedents cited, together with the proximity of the note to his notes on the 1341 case, suggest that the document may have been associated with the Breton case. The note is on Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 22338, fol. 116, and the Breton case begins on fol. 117^r.

⁷⁹ On the death of Henry IV, baron of Avaugour, probably in 1331, his barony passed to his granddaughter, Joan de Penthièvre, whose mother, Joan d'Avaugovir, had died in 1327, instead of to Guillaume d'Avaugour, Henry's younger brother (Anselme, , Histoire généalogique, iii, 59–60).Google Scholar

^{page 43 note a} Fallowed by un smed' struck out.

^{page 43 note b} A adds ut.

^{page 43 note c} A omits li.

^{page 43 note d} A, XII.

^{page 43 note e} ac in margin.

^{page 43 note f} A. posse.

^{page 43 note g} A, et.

⁸⁰ Numbers xxvii, 1–11.

⁸¹ Judges iv, 4.

⁸² I have been unable to trace this reference.

⁸³ Auth. 9.1 = Nov. 118 c. 2.

⁸⁴ Cf. Ullmann, W., ‘The Development of the Medieval Idea of Sovereignty’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxiv (1949), p. 11, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 44 note a} A, de filz Dieu.

^{page 44 note b} A, publique.

^{page 44 note c} A adds et ne parle pas en eschoite de telle chose.

^{page 44 note d} Neither MS. has est, which is necessary.

^{page 44 note e} A omits quar.

^{page 44 note f} A, lignage.

^{page 44 note g} A omits de.

^{page 44 note h} A omits nestoit mie pourveu.

^{page 44 note i} A, fie.

⁸⁵ This refers to the medieval tradition about the handing down of Justinian's Novels in their Latin form (cf. Jolowicz, H. F., Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, 2nd edn. Corrected, Cambridge 1965, pp. 508–9Google Scholar and Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, ed. R. Naz, Paris i (1935), col. 1474).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Montfort's lawyers used the Digest and Codex for their arguments over the succession because in the Novels Justinian attempted to do ‘away with the old unfair distinctions between male and female’, Buckland, W. W., A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd edn (Cambridge, 1963), p. 375.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note a} A adds touz.

^{page 45 note b} A adds vient.

^{page 45 note c} A, entendre.

^{page 45 note d} A, parrie.

^{page 45 note e} A, leritage.

^{page 45 note f} A omits qe.

^{page 45 note g} toute interlined.

^{page 45 note h} A, or.

^{page 45 note i} A, anciens.

^{page 45 note j} A omits dovent les queux and reads doivent estre.

^{page 45 note k} A, et.

^{page 46 note a} A adds C.

^{page 46 note b} estoit repeated in MS.

^{page 46 note c} A, a.

^{page 46 note d} A adds mais.

^{page 46 note e} A, voison.

^{page 46 note f} A, xxxviii chapitre.

^{page 46 note g} A, sustirast.

^{page 46 note h} A, que en isseroit representast

^{page 46 note i} A adds par.

^{page 46 note j} A adds si.

⁸⁷ Lib. Feud. II.

⁸⁸ Genesis xxxviii, 8.

⁸⁹ Deuteronomy xxv, 5–6.

⁹⁰ Genesis xxii, 18.

⁹¹ Luke ii, 23.

^{page 47 note a} A adds que.

^{page 47 note b} A, y.

^{page 47 note c} A adds en.

^{page 47 note d} A adds si.

^{page 47 note e} A omits nest.

^{page 47 note f} A adds dicte.

^{page 47 note g} A omits et conjoent.

^{page 47 note h} A, leffet.

^{page 47 note i} A omits lan.

^{page 47 note j} Followed by leyaus, struck out.

^{page 47 note k} A, len doit.

^{page 47 note l} A, elle.

^{page 47 note m} A, liens.

^{page 47 note n} A adds de.

^{page 47 note o} A adds li.

⁹² Nov. 84.13.1 § I, and Spinosi, Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 4ème sér., xxxix (1961), 462 for the principle of ‘double lien’; cf. also J. Maillet, ‘Un problème de droit successoral dans les anciens coutumiers bourguignons’, Etudes historiques à la mémoire de Noel Didier (Paris, 1960), pp. 217–30.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note a} A omits ce fait … et que.

^{page 48 note b} A adds et sa fame.

^{page 48 note c} A, a.

^{page 48 note d} A, y.

^{page 48 note e} A, autres.

^{page 48 note f} tendant repeated in MS

^{page 48 note g} A, deux.

^{page 48 note h} A omits etc.

^{page 48 note i} A adds damoiselle.

^{page 48 note j} A, supposse.

^{page 48 note k} A, elle ait.

^{page 48 note l} A, lempourer.

^{page 48 note m} A, in terpret'.

^{page 48 note n} A, ensuir.

^{page 48 note o} A, anciens.

^{page 48 note p} A, que elles.

^{page 48 note q} A, du donation et la.

^{page 48 note r} A adds etc.

⁹³ Dig. 2.4.5.

^{page 49 note a} A, XII.

^{page 49 note b} A adds fu fait.

^{page 49 note c} A omits fut faite.

^{page 49 note d} A, armes plains.

^{page 49 note e} A adds de Bretaigne.

^{page 49 note f} A adds ne.

^{page 49 note g} A, pour.

^{page 49 note h} A omits qe.

⁹⁴ For the Emperor's position as a divine law-giver in the Middle Ages see E. H. Kantorowicz, ‘Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence’, Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society, ed. M. Clagett et al. (Madison, 1961), p. 100Google Scholar and n. 51, where the opinion of Guillaume Durand, commenting approvingly on the glossators, is cited: ‘that the emperor ranked as a presbyter according to the passage where it is said “Deservedly we (the jurisprudents) are called priests”’.

⁹⁵ None of the documents containing the terms upon which Charles de Blois married Joan de Penthièvre provides evidence to substantiate Charles's claim. He is always referred to in Breton documents before September 1341 as ‘seigneur of Penthièvre’ (cf. Arch. Nat., K 42, nos. 371–4, extracts from which are printed in A. Duchesne, Histoire de la maison de Chastillon-sw-Marne, Preuves (Paris, 1620), pp. 118–20). The marriage seems to have taken place in Brittany. The contract has no stipulation concerning the arms to be borne by their children (cf. Plaine, F., Monuments du procès de canonisation du bienheureux Charles de Blois duc de Bretagne 1320–64 (Saint-Brieuc, 1921), p. 480Google Scholar). In 1338 John III was referred to as ‘seigneur souverain et garde de la dite Jeanne’ (Morice, Preuves, i, 1394–5).

^{page 50 note a} A, aussi.

^{page 50 note b} A, faut.

^{page 50 note c} A, on regart et.

^{page 50 note d} A, ont plainement.

^{page 50 note e} A, a droit,

^{page 50 note f} A adds se.

^{page 50 note g} A, adjouster.

^{page 50 note h} A, portes.

^{page 50 note i} A adds que le dit conte.

^{page 50 note j} A omits et.

^{page 50 note k} A, contrainte.

^{page 50 note l} A, aleguera.

^{page 50 note m} A adds y.

^{page 50 note n} A omits en.

^{page 50 note o} A adds et.

⁹⁶ B.-A. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, Les papes et les ducs de Bretagne (Paris, 1928), i, 270Google Scholar, suggests that Alain An Gall, bishop of Quimper, and Geoffroy de Saint-Guen, bishop of Vannes, supported Montfort. The bishop of Léon, whom Froissart says first supported Montfort, but who then joined Blois, testified alongside the bishops of Saint-Malo and Saint-Brieuc for him in Paris (cf. Froissart, , Chroniques, ed. Luce, ii, 270Google Scholar and Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 22338, fol. 125^r, 29 August 1341).

^{page 51 note a} R in margin of A and Duplicationes in margin of Bib. Nat., MS. Nouv. Acq.fr. 7270, foi. 57 r.

^{page 51 note b} yd est le peuple repeated in MS.

^{page 51 note c} A, esconvient.

^{page 51 note d} A, mistice.

^{page 51 note e} A, indice.

^{page 51 note f} Followed by main, struck out.

^{page 51 note g} A omits il.

^{page 51 note h} A omits tant seulement.

^{page 51 note i} A, sceue.

^{page 51 note j} A adds a.

^{page 52 note a} A adds dont.

^{page 52 note b} A omits ne.

^{page 52 note c} A adds et.

^{page 52 note d} A, en.

^{page 52 note e} A adds de Bretaigne et garderoit les coustumes.

^{page 52 note f} A, pour.

^{page 52 note g} A, on le.

^{page 52 note h} A, pais.

^{page 52 note i} tele interlined.

^{page 52 note j} A, mie.

⁹⁷ John III died at Caen on his way back from the Tournai campaign of 1340–1, cf. above, p. 18, n. 11.

^{page 53 note a} A, et desclere a sa mort.

^{page 53 note b} A adds le dit.

^{page 53 note c} A omits lan.

^{page 53 note d} A omits a.

^{page 53 note e} A omits naturel.

^{page 53 note f} A, ne.

^{page 53 note g} A omits ce.

^{page 53 note h} A adds les.

^{page 53 note i} R. in margin.

^{page 53 note j} la coustume repeated in MS.

^{page 54 note a} A, general alleguee.

^{page 54 note b} A adds ne.

^{page 54 note c} A, genre.

^{page 54 note d} A, elle.

^{page 54 note e} A omits giens.

^{page 54 note f} A adds de.

^{page 54 note g} A adds et.

^{page 54 note h} A omits et de lobservacion.

^{page 54 note i} et en simple repeated in MS.

^{page 54 note j} A, ensuivre et.

^{page 54 note k} A adds ce.

^{page 54 note l} A omits dites et.

⁹⁸ Breton custom allowed representation, cf. above, p. 35, n. 66. Montfort did not deny that Breton custom allowed representation as Planiol alleges but argued that it was a custom applicable to ducal subjects only, not to the duke himself who ought to be judged by the custom of the king of France, i.e. of Paris.

^98a Cf. Levy, J. Ph., ‘La pénétration du droit savant dans les coutumes angevins et bretons au Moyen Age’, Tijdschrift voor Rechsgeschiedenis, xxv (1957). 24.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note a} Desouverain in margin.

^{page 55 note b} A, publique.

^{page 55 note c} A adds la.

^{page 55 note d} A adds la.

^{page 55 note e} A, contrians.

^{page 55 note f} A omits this clause.

^{page 55 note g} Desouverain in margin.

^98b Ibid., 24–5 and n. 103 for further references to anti-feminist bias of legal thinking in general and Breton custom in particular.

^{page 56 note a} sa interlined.

^{page 56 note b} A omits this clause.

^{page 56 note c} est interlined over et.

^{page 56 note d} Droit du Roy in margin.

^{page 56 note e} par appellacion in margin, and hic, in A.

^{page 56 note f} A, en.

^{page 57 note a} A omits du ray et.

^{page 57 note b} A adds cellui qui a.

^{page 57 note c} A adds est miex fonde cornine.

^{page 57 note d} A omits juger … France.

^{page 57 note e} A omits et du duc … France.

^{page 57 note f} Followed by est, struck out, but left in A.

^{page 57 note g} A, dit.

^{page 57 note h} A omits dite.

^{page 57 note i} A, et.

⁹⁹ Dig. I.3.32, §1.

^{page 58 note a} A, contenuz.

^{page 58 note b} A, sus.

^{page 58 note c} A omits Charlles, li princes de.

^{page 58 note d} A adds soubz.

^{page 58 note e} A, appert.

^{page 58 note f} A omits clerement.

^{page 58 note g} A adds Item, suppose que coustume soit introduite par la plus grand partie du peuple ne sensuit soit contenuz le prince ne en lapellation du peuple en cest cas quar le peuple na point de telle noblece ne de tel regale ne de telle duche ne fie, mais un part a Dieu subz lappellation du peuple est contenu le prince.

^{page 58 note h} A adds ce.

^{page 58 note i} A adds la.

^{page 58 note j} A adds Item, cest droit commun des fiez pour ledit comte qui est nouvel et destruit tout autre.

^{page 58 note k} A, on.

^{page 58 note l} A, cest assavoir.

^{page 58 note m} Et precedes oultre in A.

^{page 58 note n} A adds a.

^{page 59 note a} A, toute.

^{page 59 note b} de Bretaingne underlined in MS and omitted in A.

^{page 59 note c} A, entre les.

^{page 59 note d} A, reglee.

^{page 59 note e} A adds avec.

^{page 59 note f} A omits et.

^{page 59 note g} A adds faire.

^{page 60 note a} A, on.

^{page 60 note b} acception interlined over accession.

^{page 60 note c} A, equalitez.

^{page 60 note d} A, une acception.

^{page 60 note e} A omits, segont toute escripture.

^{page 60 note f} A adds a.

^{page 60 note g} Jurium ducis in margin.

^{page 60 note h} A adds les coustumes se aucunes en ya li inpraingnont et faire garder.

^{page 60 note i} A adds autres.

^{page 60 note j} A, es.

^{page 60 note k} A adds Item, cette raison sert pour le dit comte en ce que pour ce que la dicte duche doit appartenir et appartient audit comte ledit Charles vient contre son serment en luy faisant empeschement.

¹⁰⁰ Matthew vii, 2.

¹⁰¹ Although the counts of Brittany had a coronation service as early as the eleventh century, where amongst other things they swore to maintain the rights and privileges of the Breton church, the text of the oaths can only be established from later ceremonies, especially that of John V in 1402 (Morice, , Preuves, 1, 80–2Google Scholar and B.-A. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, ‘Couronne fermée et cercle ducal en Bretagne’, Bull. phil. et historique du Comité des travaux historiques jusqu'a 1715 (1951–1952), pp. 109 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note a} A, dictes.

^{page 61 note b} A adds ne debat ne se pourroit entre le duc et ses subges.

^{page 61 note c} A adds etc.

^{page 61 note d} Followed by venisat, struck out.

^{page 61 note e} A, ceulx.

¹⁰² The bishop of St.-Brieuc deposed on 30 August 1341 that he had examined various witnesses in his diocese, including the Abbot of Beauport, and various registers, and all the evidence tended to show that the barony of Avaugour was a parcel of the duchy. The implication of this was plain—Joan de Penthièvre had succeeded to the barony, ergo she should succeed to the duchy (Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 22338, fol. 137^v).

^{page 62 note a} Followed by II, struck out.

^{page 62 note b} A reads et pour ce nossire merveille and has been struck out.

^{page 62 note c} A omits tant.

^{page 62 note d} A adds laquelle chose elle ne fu onques royaume.

^{page 62 note e} Followed by duch, struck out.

^{page 62 note f} A, quar.

^{page 62 note g} A, appenaige.

^{page 62 note h} A adds que nous sommes en autre jugement et entre autres personnes si ne Ion porroit mis ou redaigner avec.

¹⁰³ Cf. Arch. Nat., K 1152, no. 49, m. 1 ‘Item que par la coustume general des paries et baronnies de France notoyre et approuver le per ou baron mort le filz ainsne vient a toute la succession de son pere seulement pour le tout …’; cf. above, p. 38.

¹⁰⁴ Following the precedent set by Pierre de Bretagne, Arthur II's brother, who asked for a part of the duchy for his heritage, Marie, countess of Saint-Pol, their sister, asked for her share of John II's landed possessions. But Arthur refused Pierre all but a life interest in certain lands on which he was to receive a large rental. During John II's reign Pierre had held the vicomté of Léon, but this was now taken away from him and he was allowed to keep only one manor in perpetuity (cf. Bib. Nat., MS. fr. 22338, fol. 140^r and above, p. 38, n. 72). Likewise Arthur refused the countess all lands on the ground that she had already been given lands for her dower. A few clauses from the case between the countess and John III have been published, cf. above, p. 5, n. 16, where the document is undated. The case, which was extremely long drawn out, was terminated in 1336. Marie was authorised to plead by proctor and John III replied to her demands (Actes au Parlement de Paris, ed. Furgeot, no. 1718 and Arch. Nat., K 1152, nos. 48–9).

¹⁰⁵ This may refer to a dispute between Marie de Beaumont-Brienne (d. 1328), wife of Henry III d'Avaugour (d. 1301), and Charles de Valois; cf. Petit, J., Charles de Valois 1270–1325 (Paris, 1900), pp. 288–91.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note a} R. Numeri xxvii in margin and lower down paragraph.

^{page 64 note b} A, que il.

^{page 64 note c} A adds que si.

^{page 64 note d} A, quel.

^{page 64 note e} A adds contre soy.

^{page 64 note f} A, crestienz.

^{page 64 note g} A, ou.

^{page 64 note h} A, souldre.

^{page 64 note i} A, consanguinite.

^{page 64 note j} A omits dicte.

^{page 64 note k} au dit repeated in MS.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. above, p. 42–3.

^{page 65 note a} A, cellui.

^{page 65 note b} A adds il.

^{page 65 note c} A adds a.

^{page 65 note d} A, autrement.

^{page 65 note e} A adds ce que dit le dit Charles peut estre vray ne fait rienz au propos ne fait solution aus raisonz quar aus raisons amentes.

^{page 65 note f} Followed by li, struck out.

^{page 65 note g} A, administracions.

^{page 65 note h} A adds temporelz.

^{page 65 note i} A omits rest of sentence.

^{page 65 note j} A adds es ff.

^{page 66 note a} Followed by manere, struck out.

^{page 66 note b} A, bonz.

^{page 66 note c} Ius cau' in margin.

^{page 66 note d} A, que.

^{page 66 note e} A omits y.

^{page 66 note f} Et precedes respont in A.

^{page 66 note g} A omits ne.

¹⁰⁷ On the development of this theory, see references in Ullmann, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxiv (1949), 7 ff. and A. Bossuat, ‘La formule “Le Roi est Empereur en son royaume”’ Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 4ème sér., xxxix (1961), 372–3.

¹⁰⁸ Above, p. 44, n. 86. for reasons why Montfort rejected the law contained in Novels 118 and 127.

¹⁰⁹ Sext. Decret. I.viii.2.

¹¹⁰ Below, p. 77, cl. XV.

^{page 67 note a} A adds ley.

^{page 67 note b} A adds tant soulement and omits etc.

^{page 67 note c} A, se.

^{page 67 note d} A adds quelle chose nest pas il niavroit point de malle aussy que ou cas presant si.

^{page 67 note e} A adds Item, que se onques fame y succeda ce fust avant que elle fust onques duche et parrie et par donacion en mariage faicte entre les vis et non mie par succession et suppose que ou cas de succession ce fust en droite ligne et ou cas que il ny avoit nul malle qui peust succeder iusques au tier degre mais en cas nous sommes en termes tous centrares cestassavoir en cas de succession collateral et ya malle plus prochain en degre et en lignage ou consanguinite.

^{page 67 note f} A adds quant.

¹¹¹ The Libri Feudorum was a collection of Lombard feudal law made at the end of the twelfth century, principally by Osbertus da Horto, but these laws were never recognised as having legal force in France (cf. Chaplais, P., ‘English Arguments concerning the Feudal Status of Aquitaine in the Fourteenth Century’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research xxi (1946–1948), p. 209).Google Scholar

^{page 68 note a} A adds cause.

^{page 68 note b} A adds avecques cest la coustume de la duche en son pais mesmes.

^{page 68 note c} Pers de France in margin.

^{page 68 note d} A, Challes.

^{page 68 note e} A omits de.

^{page 68 note f} A adds que par.

^{page 68 note g} A adds par ce.

^{page 68 note h} A, la.

^{page 68 note i} A, droite.

¹¹² Madame Dartois was Mahaut, daughter of Robert II of Artois (d. 1302), who disputed the succession to the county of Artois on Robert's death with her nephew, Robert III, son of Robert II's predeceased son, Philip. Robert III was not of age when his grandfather died and Mahaut was temporarily invested with the county. From 1307 Robert III, considering Mahaut's seisin to be illegal, sought to regain Artois. This resulted in an immensely long and complicated legal battle only finally solved when Robert was banished from France in 1332.

In 1309, after it had been agreed to submit the case to Philip the Fair and to accept his judgment, Parlement decided that Artois belonged to Mahaut and her heirs and that Robert should receive compensation totalling 5000 livres tournois of land. The case had revolved about the customs of Artois and whether they admitted representation—if they did Robert was the legal heir. When Robert managed to get the case reopened again in 1317 he claimed that ‘since the count of Artois, whoever he is, is a peer, he should be tried by his peers’ (Keeney, B. C., Judgement by Peers (Harvard, 1949), p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar). For all these events see, most recently, The Chronicle of Jean de Venelle, ed. Birdsall, J. and Newhall, R. A. (New York, 1953), pp. 151–3Google Scholar, Cazelles, R., La société politique … sous Philippe de Valois, pp. 75–105Google Scholar and Wood, C. T., The French Apanages and the Capetian Monarchy 1224–1328 (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), pp. 59 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note a} Ius parrie in margin, and further down paragraph, tenist feodal.

^{page 69 note b} A, et.

^{page 69 note c} A adds que ce ne doit mouvoir quar pour ce ne soit ou dire ne conclure que fame inable sicomme dessus est dit a succeder en parrie ou ne puisse succeder en parrie ne forclore de parrie malle plus prochain ou aussy prochain comme elle et si est miex selonc toute raison octuee avant quii soit mestre de remede que attend le besoing et le peril et puis querir remede et si porroit pour la fragilite de leur sexe advenir ou gouvernement des parriez cas deffaux et meffais moult qui ne vendroit ne ne porroient venir a cognoissens du Roy et moult que ne pouroient estre adrescies ne corrigies.

^{page 69 note d} de parrie in margin.

¹¹³ For the succession of women in Brittany, cf. above, p. 28, n. 53.

¹¹⁴ Decret. Greg. IX IV.xvii.13; Ullmann, , Eng. Hist. Rev., lxiv (1949), p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note a} A adds commes dessus et si a lempereur moult de privileges avecques tous autres drois que personne princes.

^{page 70 note b} A, Bloiz.

^{page 70 note c} Followed by disoit, struck out.

^{page 70 note d} A, considerer et suplier.

^{page 70 note e} A omits et aprouver souffissant.

^{page 70 note f} A adds et.

¹¹⁵ Elder full sister of John de Montfort. She was already vastly experienced in the Montfort family‘s almost perpetual litigation over inheritances (cf. Gazelles, , op. cit., pp. 86–7Google Scholar and Actes du Parlement de Paris, ed. Furgeot, nos. 589, 2044, 2053, 2055–6, 2095, 2614, 3373 etc.).

¹¹⁶ Dép. Nord, arr. Dunkerque, ch.—1. cant.

^{page 72 note a} le dit interlined.

^{page 72 note b} This word, which has been corrected, is almost illegible. It may originally have been cccc, i.e. making up the number of men-at-arms to 1000.

¹¹⁷ The terms of the agreements between the Montfortists and Edward III, after the outbreak of civil war in Brittany in the autumn of 1341, have previously only been known in part from a series of commissions and orders issued to Walter Manny and William Bohun, earl of Northampton, between March and July 1342 (Foedera, Rec. Comm. Edn., II, ii, 1189, 1205).

^117a under the date 7 March 1342, Amaury de Clisson and Bernard de Gyngan were paid £66 13s. 4d. for their expenses as envoys coming to England (P.R.O., Issue Roll 323, m. 31).

¹¹⁸ Cf. above p. 11.

¹¹⁹ Dig. I.9.6.

¹²⁰ Cod. 10.40.

^{page 76 note a} Followed by tam, struck out.

¹²¹ Dig. 28.7.28.

¹²² Isaiah x, 15.

¹²³ Decret. Grat. I.xxi.4.

¹²⁴ Dig. I.3.31.

¹²⁵ Inst. 1.2.

^{page 78 note a} Followed by prout, struck out.