 De Calan thinks likewise that the "vita" explanation of the election of Goulven as is unlikely, and serves no other purpose then to bring the tenure of Cetomerinus (whose historicity is accepted by scholars) in agreement with the "vita" election of Goulven, whose initial refusal or hesitance to serve as bishop thus allowed the hagiography to be reconciled with the history of the bishopric.In reality, says de Calan, these machinations also suggest Goulven was simply inserted into the Léon history.He may have been bishop of Rennes or, possibly, may have been regarded as having been a bishop of Rennes since it was in the possession of the body of a man who led a saintly life.