THE TURN OF THE ERMINE

An Anthology of Breton Literature

(Selected and translated by Jacqueline Gibson and Gwyn Griffiths)

The Invasion of Britain

EDWARD STILLINGFLEET

The Antiquities of the British Church, 1685 (Extract)

I t seems hard to determine when the firs colony of Britons was settled in the parts of Armorica. For in the declining times of the Roman Empire, there was so frequent occasion of the British soldiers removing into the continent, and so little encouragement to return hither, that it is not improbable, that after the troubles , as the condition of affairsof Maximus and Constantine a colony of Britons might settle themselves upon the sea coasts near to Britain where they might be ready to receive or to go over to their countrymen, as the condition of affairs should happen. This I am very much induced to believe, not from the authority of Nennius, or Geoffrey, or William of Malmesbury, or Radulphus Niger &c but from these arguments:

   First from Sidonius Apollinaris, and there are two pages in him which tend to the clearing of this matter. The first is concerning Aruandus, accused at Rome of treason, in the time of Anthemius, for persuading the king of the Goths to make war upon the Greek emperor i.e. Anthemius who came out of Greece, and upon the Britons on the Loire, as Sidonius Apollinaris expertly affirms, who lived at that time, and pitied his case. This happened about A.D. 467 before Anthemius was the second Consul. From whence it appears, not only that there were Britons then settled on the Loire, but that their strength and forces were considerable, which cannot be supposed to consist of such miserable people as fled for fear of the Saxons. And it is observable, that about this time Ambrosius had success against the Saxons, and by Vortimer's means, or his, the Britons were in great likelihood of driving them out of Britain. So that there is no probability that the warlike Britons should at that time leave their native country.

   A second passage is concerning Riothamus, a king of Britons in the time of Sidonius Apollinaris, and to whom he wrote, who went with 12,000 Britons to Assist the Romans against Euricus, king of the Goths, but were intercepted by him, as Jornandes relates the story, and Sigebert places it A.D. 470. Now what clearer evidence can be desired than this to prove that a considerable number of Britons were there settled, and in a condition not only to defend themselves but to assist the Romans; which cannot be imagined of such as merely fled thither after the Saxons coming into Britain. Besides we find in Sirmondus's Gallican Councils, Mansuetus, a Bishop of the Britons, subscribing tothe first council at Tours, which was held A.D. 461. By which we see the Britons had a full settlement then, as not only to have habitations but a king and bishops of their own; which was the great encouragement for other Britons to go over, when they found themselves so hard pressed by the Saxons at home. For a people frightened from hence, would hardly have ventured into a foreign country, unless they had been secure before hand of a kind reception there. If they must have fought for a dwelling there, had they not far better have done it in their own country? From whence I conclude, that there was a large colony of Britons in Armorica before those numbers went overupon theSaxon cruelties;of which Eginhardus and other foreign historians speak. Archbishop Usher seems to think this Riothamus himself to have been the first leader of them. But it is hard to think a person of his valour and experience would leave his country in that distressed condition it was brought into by the Saxons.

   But Florentius, the author of the life of Judocus says, that his name was Rivoal, a prince here in Britain, who gathered a good army and fleet together, and with that subdued the people who lived on the Armorican coasts, being then left destitute and unable to defend themselves. For that was the effect of the Roman government, which was kept up by the force of the Roman legions in all parts of it, and so when these were broken, the nations were so unaccustomed to war that they lay open to all invaders. So that the aggressors did generally succeed in their attempts where the Roman legions were withdrawn, and next to the wise providence of God which ordereth all things, there was no one cause which contributed so much to the miseries of those time. and the strange revolutions which happened in them, as the natives being not trained up to martial discipline, but depending wholly on the Roman legions for their defence and security; thence whatever people had the courage to  invade, did usually take possession of the country where the Roman legions were at a distance, or otherwise engaged against each other. [...] But to return to the Armorican Britons, whether they came over under Rivoal in the beginning of the distractions here, when the people were so rebellious against their princes, as Gildas relates, or whether they went over to assist Constantine and his son, and so remained there, I shall not determine. But that the Britons were well settled there before Sampson, Archbishop of York and his company passed the seas, Appears by what Mat. Paris (A.D. 1199) says, that they went to their fellow citizens and countrymen, hoping to live more quietly there. And after the death of the Bishop of Dol, he was by the consent of the Britons put in his place, and from thence forwardexercised his Archiepiscopal power there; the kings of that province, not suffering his successor there to pay any obedience to the Archbishop of Tours. Which begot a suit which held 300 years in the court of Rome, and was this year manfully decided by Innocent lll as Mat. Paris there relates: who states the case very unskilfully, laying the weight of it upon the Archbishop's bringing over his Pall fromYork, which the Pope had given him there. Suppose this were true (although the Popes gave no Palls then, nor a great while

after) yet this were no reason to contest it in the Court of Rome [for] so long together. But the difficulty of the case lay upon another point, viz. according tothe Old Canon of the Church, if a Ptovince were divided into two, each Province was to have Metropolitan.

Now this reason held much stronger when new kingdoms were erected out of the Roman Provinces. For what reason was there why the Bishop of Dol in the Kingdom of Brittany should yield subjection to the Bishop of Tours in a distinct kingdom, as appears by the account given of this Cause by Innocent lll in his Epistles lately published by Baluzius. On the other side it was pleaded, that all Brittany was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours, but that the Britons conspiring against the King of France, and setting up a kingdom of their own, they made use of Sampson , Archbishop of York, coming to establish a Metropolitan power within that kingdom: and upon complaint being made to Rome, the Popes had put it upon this issue, whether any of their predecessors had granted the Pall to the Bishopof Dol, which not being proved, the Pope as it is easy to imagine,gave sentence against the Bishop of Dol. But it is certain that they went upon a false suggestion, viz. that the Kingdom of Bretagne was set up in rebellion to the Kingdom of France. For Childeric had not extended his dominions in France as far as the Loire: and before his time, the Britonswere in quiet possession of those of Armorica; and the best French historians (Mezeray) now grant that the Britons came hither in  the time of Mervée, who obtained but little in Gaul as Hadrianus Valesius confesses. And the author of The Life of Gildas observes, that the power of the kings of France was very inconsiderable in the time of Childeric, son of Merovée, at what time Gildas went over to Armorica, as his school fellows under Iltutus, Sampson and Paulus had done before him: whereof one succeeded the other Sampson at Dol, and the other was made Bishop of Oxismii, the most northern people of Bretagne; which diocese is since divided into three , Treguier, St. Pol de Léon and St. Brieuc