1. See, In general, Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (London, 1970), pp. 262–309, esp. 299ff.Google Scholar

2. This theme is well treated in Strayer, Joseph B., “The Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century,” Change in Medieval Society, ed. Thrupp, Sylvia (New York, 1964), pp. 103–115.Google Scholar

3. The fundamental treatment of the eighth-century papacy remains Caspar, Erich, “Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft,” Zeitachrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935): 132–264.Google Scholar For an interesting recent treatment of some key developments at mid-century see Miller, David H., “The Roman Revolution of the Eighth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 36 (1974): 79–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Louis Duchesne, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1955), 2:52–63, 69.Google Scholar

5. Louis lacks a full modern treatment. The standard accounts of his reign are Simson, Bernhard, Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem Frommen, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1876–1878)Google Scholar; Mühlbacher, Englebert, Deutsche Geschichte unter den Karolingern (Stuttgart, 1896), pp. 321–424Google Scholar; Halphen, Louis, Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris, 1947; reprinted 1968), pp. 197–262.Google Scholar Recent and useful, though incomplete, are Duckett, Eleanor Shipley, “Louis the Pious, King and Emperor,” Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century (Ann Arbor, 1962), pp. 20–57Google Scholar; Schlesinger, Walter, “Die Anflösung des Karlsreichs,” Karl der Grosse. ed. Braunfels, Wolfgang (Düsseldorf, 1965), 1:792–857.Google Scholar The last chapter of Fichtenau, Heinrich, Das karolingische Imperium (Zurich, 1949)Google Scholar contains many insightful remarks but was left out of Peter Munz' English translation. Two studies which provide valuable points of departure for future work are Ganshof, F. L., “Louis the Pious Reconsidered,” in his The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy, tr. Sondheimer, Janet (Ithaca, 1971), pp. 261–272Google Scholar; and Schieffer, Theodor, “Die Krise des karolingischen Imperiums,” in Aus Mittelalter und Neuzeit: Festschrift Gerhard Kallen, eds. Engel, J. and Klinkenberg, H. (Bonn, 1957), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

6. Details of the affair may be found in Simson, , Jarrbücher, 1:202–204Google Scholar; Halphen, , Charlemagne, pp. 221–222.Google Scholar For Paschal's remarks to Louis, see Annales regni Francorum, ed. Kurze, , Monumenta Germaniae Historica (hereafter MGH), Scriptores in usum Scholarum, p. 162.Google Scholar

7. Information on Paschal's pontificate may be found In Mann, Horace K., The Lives of the Popes (London, 1925), 2:122–155Google ScholarHauck, Albert, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 5th ed. (Leipzig, 1935), 2:492–495Google Scholar; Amann, Emile, L'époque carolingienne, Histoire de l'église depuis les origines jusqu'à nos jours, ed. Fliche, A. and Martin, J. (Paris, 1947), 6:205–208Google Scholar; Seppelt, F. X., Geschichte der Päpste (Munich, 1955), 2: 202–207Google Scholar; Schwaiger, G., “Paschalis I,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 8 (1963): 128Google Scholar; Sullivan, Richard E., “Paschal I,” New Catholic Encyclopedia 10: 1048–1049.Google Scholar

8. Radbertus, PaschasiusVita Walae 1.28,Google Scholar in Migne, , Patrologia Latina (hereafter PL): 120:1640DGoogle Scholar: “in cujus nimirum ordinatione plurimum laborasse dicitur.” See also Weinrich, Lorenz, “Wala: Graf, Monch und Rebell,” Historische Studien 386 (1963): 51–52Google Scholar; Amann, , L'époque carolingienne, p. 208.Google Scholarvon Schubert, Hans, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter (Tübingen, 1920), p. 398,Google Scholar calls Eugenius a “gefügiger”man but Mann, , Lives of the Popes, 2: 161Google Scholar goes too far in calling Eugenlus “a man of the most conciliatory disposition.” The role of the Constitutio Romana in Eugenius' pontificate is discussed below on pp. 441–442.

9. On Eugenius' pontificate see Mann, , Lives of the Popes, 2: 156–182Google Scholar; Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte, 2:496–503Google Scholar; Amann, , L'époque carolingienne, pp. 208–210, 229–240Google Scholar; Seppelt, , Geschichte der Päpste, 2:207–214Google Scholar; Schwaiger, “Eugen II,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 3:1171–1172Google Scholar; Dumas, Auguste, “Eugene II,” Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographic ecoléslastique 15 (1963): 1347–1349Google Scholar; Eeck, H. O. J., “Eugene II,” New Catholio Encyclopedia 5:625.Google Scholar

10. Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 2557.Google Scholar The basic facts, so far as they are known, are presented by Simson, , Jahrbücher 1:213.Google ScholarTangl, Michael, “Die fuldaer Privilegienfrage,” Mittelungen des Instituts für österreichs Geschichtsforsehung 20 (1890):236Google Scholar n. 2 dates the affair in 823 because Hrabanus became abbot in late 822 and Pasehal died in early 824.

11. For the privilege, see Urkundenbuch des Klosters Fulda, ed. E. E. Stengel (Marburg, 1958), no. 15, pp. 30–32.Google Scholar It is dated Nov. 4 and was granted to Boniface. For his request for the privilege see no. 13, pp. 22–24.

12. Epp. Fuld. Frag., 26, MGH, Epistolae, 5, 528: “Paschalis pontifex eius opistolam de privilegio coenobii Fuldensis molestissime tulit et monachos eam offerentes incarceravit ipsumque coram episcopis Francine vituperavit et parum absit, quin Hrabanum excommunicasset, ut ipse testatur in epistola ad Hattonem.”

13. Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte, 2:495.Google ScholarMann, , Lives of the Popes, 2:146–147,Google Scholar thinks that Paschal's trouble may have stemmed from a judgment by Paschal on behalf of Fulda's diocesan bishopric, Wurzburg. The sources say clearly, however, that Paschal was angry about a letter concerning Fulda's privilege. so it is difficult to go as far as Mann does. Tangl, , “Fuldaer privilegienfrage,” pp. 235–236,Google Scholar reviews Dümmler's discussion of the sources and prefers to suggest that Hrabanus may, quite innocently it seems, have submitted to Paschal for confirmation an altered form of Fulda's privilege. This is possible since Tangl makes a good case for the existence of two versions of the document by 823. Even this, however, does not explain Paschal's extreme reaction which Hauck calls “rätselharf.”

14. Whatever the case may be, it is interesting to note that in 828, apparently with no difficulty, Gregory IV confirmed Fulda's privilege on Hrabanus' request. Jaffè, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 2568.Google Scholar For the document see PL 129:991D–993B.Google Scholar This document makes no mention of the affair in question here. Moreover, Hrabanus must have been restored to Paschal's good graces because he wrote a poem to Paschal, which cannot be dated precisely, that begins: “Pontificalis apex, primus et in orbe sacerdos / Petri successor, Pauli dignissimus heres,” MGH, Poet., Lat., 2, 170.

15. Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte, p. 495,Google Scholar notes that Paschal commanded Barnard of Ambonrnai to occupy the see of Vienne to which he had been elected. It seems that Barnard had some reservations and that Paschal threatened him with censure. See also Jaffé, , Repesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 2549.Google Scholar So little is known about this affair that it would be dangerous to draw conclusions from it.

16. “The Papacy and Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages,” Mediaval Studies 18 (1955): 85.Google Scholar

17. Simson, , Jahrbücher, 1:210,Google Scholar believes that this decision was made at Attigny in August of 822. It is more likely that it was made at Frankfurt in November. The assembly at Attigny dealt with Louis' reconciliation with those implicated in Bernard of Italy's revolt, Louis' public penance and things which Louis or his father had done which required emendation: Annales regni Francorum, p. 158. A capitulary was issued at the same time and, judging from what it and the Annales say, it does not seem that a mission was discussed. See MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum (hereafter Cap.), 1, no. 174, pp. 357–358. In Frankfurt, we are told, Louis handled “necessaria quaeque ad utilitatem orientalium partem regni sui pertinentia” (which could include the north-east) and, second, that legates from the Danes appeared: Annales, p. 159. It is known that Ebbo spent the summer of the following year in the north with missi sent there by Louis, : Annales, p. 163.Google Scholar All of this makes it likely that the mission received its mandate in November at Frankfurt.

18. Kirchengeschichte, 2:692Google Scholar; See also Simson, , Jahrbücher, 1:210.Google Scholar

19. Rimbertus, Vita Anskarii, ed. Waitz, p. 26Google Scholar: “quo scilicet inter eos maior familiaritas esse posset populusque Christianua ipsi ac sui promptiori voluntati in adiutorium sic veniret, si uterque unum coleret Deum.”

20. Annales regni Francorum, pp. 162–163.

21. Böhmer-Mühlbacher, , Regesta Imperii 1, no. 696Google Scholar; Simson, , Jahrbücher, 1:55–56Google Scholar; Reuter, C., “Ebbo und Ansgar,” Historische Zeitschrift 105 (1910): 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Ermoldus Nigellus, ed. Faral, vs. 1908ff. See also Mckeon, Peter, “Archbishop Ebbo of Reims: A Study in the Carolingian Empire and Church,” Church History 43 (1974): 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Flodoard Hist. Rem. Ecc. 2.19, MGH, Scriptores, 13, p. 467.

24. Simson, , Jahrbücher, 1:209Google Scholar; Trillmich, Werner, “Missionsbewegung im Nordseeraum,” Festschrift Hermann Aubin (Hamburg, 1950), pp. 230–231.Google Scholar

25. Renter, , “Ebbo und Ansgar,” pp. 251–254.Google Scholar

26. Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 2553,Google Scholar and many others following him, hold for 822. If I am correct that the decision to send Ebbo was made in November of 822 (above n. 17) then early 823 seems more likely. Annales regni Francorum, p. 162, in narrating the events of November 823, says that Ebbo spent the past summer, that is the summer of 823, In the north and that he was already equipped with papal authority at that time. Again only early 823 may be suggested. Renter, , “Ebbo und Ansgar,” p. 255,Google Scholar raises some doubt that Ebbo went to Rome at all. This is contrary to the language of the papal bull: “ante corpus et confessionem ipsius apostolorum principis.” The authenticity of this bull Is beyond question according to Jaffé, no. 2553.

27. P. 163: “consilio imperatoris et auctoritate Romani pontificis.” Sullivan, , “Papacy and Missionary Activity,” p. 85,Google Scholar says “Christian society must have placed some value on this aspect of papal authority; otherwise Louis would not have taken the trouble to send Ebo on a special journey to Rome.”

28. Paschal, I Epistola no. 4, PL 129:938AGoogle Scholar: “Auctoritate beatorum principum apostolorum Petri ac Pauli … evangelizandi publica autoritate liberam tradidimus….”

29. Ibid.: “Nostra fraterna vice.”

30. Simson, , Jahrbücher, 1:210Google Scholar n. 4, argues that the Haltigar in question must have been a cleric of the Roman Church. Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 2553Google Scholar; Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte, 2:668Google Scholar; and Reuter, , “Ebbo und Ansgar,” p. 255,Google Scholar rightly consider him to have been the Bishop of Cambrai. Simson, like the other scholars just listed, noticed the close and friendly relations between Ebbo and Halitgar and decided that Paschal would not have chosen as his “eyes and ears” a good friend of Ebbo. This is ingenious but not convincing. Halitgar was, for many of the same reasons as Ebbo, a perfect candidate for the northern mission. One needs to focus on what Paschal expected of him, not on who he was. That Halitgar soon became involved in the Paris synod of 825 and a legation to Constantinople does not disqualify him either, for at just about this time Ebbo requested and received the services of another man who was closely tied to him, Gauzhert: Rimbertus, Vita Anskarii, p. 36.Google Scholar This suggests to me the possibility that Ebbo and Halitgar may have been envisioned as dual missionaries in the first place and that our sources have lost sight of this fact. There is simply no reason, however, to invent an otherwise unattested Halitgar.

31. Paschal I Epistola no. 4, PL 129:983B-C: “Collegam denique huic divinae administrationis legationi ei providentes, Halitgarium … constituimus, quatenus ad sedem apostolicam opportuno valeat tempore de credito negotio facilius, praestante Domino, intimare et nunoquam se in qunlibet parte huius nostrae auctoritas ministerio commisso negligere.”

32. Kirchengeschochte, 2:691–692.Google Scholar

33. Kirche im Frühmittelalter, pp. 398. 504.

34. Reufer, , “Ebbo und Anegar,” p. 255.Google Scholar

35. Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, nos. 2564 and 2574.Google Scholar

36. Rimbertus, Vita Anskarii, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

37. I did not have access to Lappenberg's edition of Gregory's bull. However, Reuter, , “Ebbo und Ansgar,” pp. 260–261Google Scholar reproduces the key portions of three receusions of it. The pertinent words from the genuine version read “Ansgarium legatum … delegamus.”

38. Ibid., pp. 267–268, again from the bull.

39. Hadrian's letters to Charlemagne are cited and discussed by Sullivan, , “Papacy and Missionary Activity,” pp. 82–84.Google Scholar

40. For the preceding see Hefele, C. J. and Leclercq, J., Histoire des conciles (Paris, 1907), vol. 4, pt. 1, pp. 40–48Google Scholar; von, Schubert, Kirche im Frühmittelalter, p. 400Google Scholar; Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte, 2: 496ff, 499, 502Google Scholar; Voigt, Karl, Staat und Kirche von Konstantin dem Gross bis zum End der Karolingerzeit (Stuttgart, 1936), pp. 415–417Google Scholar and n. 169; Amann, , L'épogue carolingienne, pp. 235ff.Google Scholar; Seppelt, , Geschichte der Päpste, 2:211–212Google Scholar; Every, George, The Byzantine Patriarchate (London, 1962), pp. 102–112, esp. 105–106Google Scholar; Vasiliev, A. A., A History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1964), 1:283ff.Google Scholar; Ostrogorsky, Georg, A History of the Byzantine State, rev. ed., trans. Hussey, Joan (New Brunswick, 1969), pp. 182–209Google Scholar; Bréhier, Louis, Vie et mort de Byzance (Paris, 1969), pp. 96–104.Google Scholar

41. Declercq, Carlo, La legislation réligieuse franque, vol. 2, De Louis le Pieux à la fin du iXe siècle (Antwerp, 1958), pp. 56–57,Google Scholar notes that the bishops to whom this task was assigned were chosen specifically because of their close association with Louis.

42. MGH, Concilia aevi Karolini (hereafter Conc.) 2.2, pp. 533–534.

43. Thegan, Vita Hludowici 37,Google ScholarMGH, Scriptores, 2, 597.

44. Ibid., p. 598: “lubente Gregorio Romano pontifice.”

45. Papal Government, p. 167 n. 2.

46. Kirchengeschichte, 2:513.Google Scholar Ullmann, as in n. 45, is more reserved than Hauck, noting that this marked the “first papal order to an emperor in a matrimonial affair.”

47. MGH, Cap., 1, no. 138, c. 20, p. 278.

48. Below, Appendix, c. 32.

49. The synod commenced November 15: Jaffé, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, no. 2561.Google Scholar For a list of the participants see MGH, Conc., 2.2, pp. 560–563.

50. Ibid., pp. 554–558.

51. Ullmann, , “Public Welfare and Social Legislation in the Early Medieval Councils,” Studies in Church History 7 (1971): 1–39,CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes that many of the Carolingian measures replicated in 826 have histories reaching far back into Merovingian and Visigothic conciliar enactments. For all that concerns Merovingian conciliar legislation see Declercq, , La legislation, vol. 1, De Clovis à Charlemagne (Louvain, 1936), pp. 3–114.Google Scholar

52. Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte, 2:503Google Scholar; Seppelt, , Geschichte der Päpste, 2:211Google Scholar; and Schwaiger, , “Eugen II,” p. 1172Google Scholar are the only standard authorities who interpret the synod this way. Beck, , “Eugene II,” p. 625Google Scholar seems to take this position by mentioning the synod in a paragraph beginning “Other acts of this pontificate indicating the return of papal initiative…”

53. The best general introduction to the proprietary church system remains Stutz, Ulrich, “The Proprietary Church as an Element of Mediaeval Germanic Ecclesiastical Law,” in Barraclough, Geoffrey, Mediaeval Germany (Oxford, 1938) 1:35–70.Google Scholar

54. Originally by Stutz, , Geschichte des kirchliche Benefiziatwesens, 3rd ed. by Feine, H. E. (Aalen, 1972), pp. 285ff.Google Scholar In the tradition of Stutz see Feine, H. E., Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, 5th ed. (Cologne, 1972), pp. 168–169.Google Scholar See also von Schubert, , Kirche im Frühmittelalter, p. 548,Google Scholar who observes that the acceptance of the system by the pope in 826 marked the high point of its development. Finally, Brunner, Heinrich, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 2, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig, 1928), p. 432.Google Scholar

55. Kirche im Frühmittelalter, p. 399.

56. Stutz, , Benefizialwesen, pp. 236–239, 248ff.Google Scholar See also Lesne, Emile, Histoire de la propriété ecelésiastique en France (Lille, 1922–1926), 2:1, 149–156,Google Scholar 2.2, passim; Declercq, , La legislation, 2:24–25, 27–36.Google Scholar

57. The most vitriolic of all these writings is Agobard Liber de dispensatione rerum ecclesiasticarum, PL 104:227ff.Google ScholarBoshof, Egon, Erzbischof Agobard von Lyon (Cologne, 1969) p. 85Google Scholar dates this treatise “nach dem November des Jahres 823.”

58. Stutz, , Benefizialwesen, pp. 260–261.Google Scholar Interesting is the title of the section in Feine's Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte dealing with the early Middle Ages: “Das germaniach geprähgte Kirchenrecht.”

59. Papal Government, p. 138.

60. Ibid., pp. 137–138.

61. Barion, Hans, Das fränkisch-deutsch Synodalrecht des Frühmittelalters, Kanonistische Studien und Texte 5–6 (Bonn, 1931), pp. 254ff.Google Scholar and passim.

62. Jahrbücher, I: 280.Google Scholar

63. Hinschius, Paul, System des katholischen Kirchenrecht (Berlin, 1879), 8:508–510.Google Scholar

64. MGH, Cap., 1, no. 137, p. 274. On the Carolingian attitude towards ecclesiastical legislation see Declercq, , La legislation, 1:vGoogle Scholar; on Louis' attitude see ibid., 2:36, 38, 40ff. and 5–51 passim.

65. For the connections between Louis' attitudes and ninth century political theories see R. W., and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West (London, 1930), 1:253–292Google Scholar; Knabe, Lotte, Die gelasianische Zweigewaltenlehre bis zum Ende der Investiturstreits, Historische Studien 292 (1936): 45–95Google Scholar; Voigt, , Staat und Kirche, pp. 418–425Google Scholar; Ganshof, F. L., “Over het idee van bet keizersehap bij Lodewijk de Vrome tijdens het eerste deel van zija regering,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie, Elasse dee Letternen 15 (1953), no. 9Google Scholar; Semmler, Josef, “Kirehliche Gesetzgebung und Reichsidee,” Zeitschrift für Kircehengeschichte 71 (1960):37–65Google Scholar; Mohr, Walter, Das karolingische Reichsidec (Münster, 1962), pp. 70–105Google Scholar; Ullmann, , The Carolingian Renaisssance and the Idea of Kingship (London, 1969), pp. 43–110Google Scholar; Arquilliere, H. X., L'augustinisme politique, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1955).Google Scholar

66. Morrison, Karl F., The Two Kingdoms: Ecclesiology in Carolingian Political Thought (Princeton, 1964), pp. 68–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church (Princeton, 1969), pp. 228–233Google Scholar; Congar, Yves, L'ecciésioiogie du haut moyen age (Paris, 1968), pp. 158ff.Google Scholar

67. Agobard Epistola no. 5, c. 20, MGH, Epistolae, 5, 174. On this passage see Boshof, , Agobard, pp. 77–78.Google Scholar

68. MGH, Cap., 1, no. 161, pp. 322–324. Sound, basic discussions of the document may be found in Simson, , Jahrbüoher, 1:225–233Google Scholar and Halphen, , Charlemagne, pp. 221–225.Google Scholar

69. A Short History of the Papacy (London, 1972), pp. 91–92Google Scholar (the quote is at p. 92); see also his “The Origins of the Ottonianum,” Cambridge Historical Journal 9 (1953): 114–128.Google Scholar

70. See, in addition to the works in n. 68, Duchesne, Louis, Les premiers temps de l'état pontifical, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1911), p. 198Google Scholar; Amann, , L'époque carolingienne, p. 209Google Scholar; Bertolini, Ottorino, “Osservazione sulla ‘Constitutio Romana’ dell'824 e sul ‘Sacramentum Cleri et Populi Romani,’ Studi Medievali in Ronore A. de Stefano (Palermo, 1956), pp. 43–78Google Scholar; Schwaiger, , “Eugen II,” p. 1172.Google Scholar Examples could be multiplied considerably. Some, however, like Schieffer, Theodor, “Die Krise des Karolingischen Impeniums,” Festschrift für Gerhard Kallen (Bonn, 1957), p. 7,Google Scholar go too far in seeing the Constitutio as a return to Byzantine type control over the papacy.

71. Ed. Wolf von Glanville (Paderborn, 1905), 1, c. 123, p. 98.

72. Amann, , L'époque carolingienne, p. 209Google Scholar; Dumas, , “Eugene II,” p. 1348.Google Scholar

1. “Public Welfare Legislation,” p. 39.

2. This may be an oblique reference to the large number of bishops employed on secular concerns by the Carolingians. Numerous similar prohibitions against priests or monks tarrying away from their churches or monasteries could be cited. Priests: MGH, Cap., 1, no. 177, c. 13, p. 364, c. 18, pp. 364–365; no. 178, c. 4, p. 367; Monks: no. 170, c. 26, p. 345, c. 80, p. 348.

3. Required bishops to provide proper dwellings for clergy.

4. Refectories are taken for granted in these capitula.

5. Reference only to dormitory.

6. This is not a general measure. It refers only to the monastery of St. Croix at Poltiers.

7. Ullmann, , “Public Welfare Legislation,” pp. 25–29Google Scholar notes that the Roman enactment here with respect to women took up a harsher tradition, frequently found in Merovingian legislation, than the Carolingian model cited. For some comments on this Merovingian legislation see Declereq, , La legislaition, 1:10, 57ff.Google Scholar

8. This measure was issued nnder Charlemagne. but Prinz, Friedrich, Kierus und Krieg im früheren Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1971), pp. 81ff.Google Scholar, proves that it remained in force later.

9. It may be noted that this canon is consonant with several of the others and that prohibitions of this sort became more important in later centuries.

10. See above n. 7. I could find no reference in Carolingian legislation to the requirement for three warnings. The so-called Strafcodex of the Rule of St. Benedict often required several warnings, in some cases three. Could this have been the source here?

11. These are general prohibitions against the alienation of moveable property with no particular reference to bishops.

12. Ducange, , Glossarium 3:861Google Scholar: “Litterae, quas Synodus in Trullo can. 17 apolntikés vocat, et Clerici ab Episcopos impetrabant, ut in alienam diocesim transirent, in ea manerent, ant ab aliis Episcopis ordinaretur.”

13. These measures are from Italian capitularies of Pepin. The only other mention of dimissoriae I could find is MGH, Conc., 2.1, no. 3, c. 9, p. 17, a Roman synod of 743. Perhans it was a peculiarly Italian problem.

14. Though this canon has no direct Frankish model it is certainly consonant with the spirit of the church property legislation issned by Louis is 819. See Stutz, , Benefiziaiwesen, pp. 236–271.Google Scholar

15. No reference to the three month time limit.

16. This refers particularly to the Lombard kingdom.

17. The models cited do not directly require episcopal supervision. This was required in MGH, Cap., 1, no. 169, “Epistola ad archepiscopos,” pp. 338–342. This document was printed among the capitularies because the capitulary issued at the time has not survived.

18. Ullmann, , “Public Welfare Legislation,” pp. 30–33,Google Scholar has much to say on the long history of Sunday prohibitions.

19. Ullmann, , Papal Government, p. 128Google Scholar (wrongly referring to c. 23), is certainly right in saying that this was an attempt to emphasize the special character of priests.

20. Von, Schubert, Kirche im Frühmittelalter, pp. 673, 707, 709,Google Scholar notes that this was the first time that the papacy had seriously legislated on education. Can this have been a response to the educational program of the Carolingian Renaissance?

21. I found twelve such references in early legislation stemming from Pepin and Charlemagne but none from Louis. None of these Carolingian prohibitions refer especially to women. Ullmann, , “Public Welfare Legislation,” pp. 34–36,Google Scholar discusses the history of Frankish sanctions against pagan practices.

22. Ibid., p. 38, noting that marriage legislation in the early Middle Ages was in a state of flux. Thus the models cited here, and for canons 37 and 38, are not exact in the sense that other Items could be cited which take slightly different stands on the issues at hand.