^{page 232 note 1} Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, p. 354.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} Cf. Bunsen, C. C. J., God in History, vol. iii., c. viii.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 3} Cf. Bunsen, , op. cit., p. 475.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 4} Cf. Magni, Caroli, selecta Capitula ecclesiastica, apud Labbé, ix., tit. i., cap. i., p. 232Google Scholar. Ibid., c. iii., p. 233. Headship of King and Queen. Concil. Aquisgr., an. 802. Labbé, , ix., 265.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} Epistles of Nicholas I. Mansi, Conc. xv., Migne, , Patrologia S. Lat. v., cxiv., p. 769Google Scholaret seq.; v., cxxix., p. 1011, et seq.: Anastasius Vita. Nicol.

^{page 233 note 2} Opera omnia juxta editonem Sirmondianam, 1852Google Scholar, 2 v. (Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., v. 125, 126.)Google Scholar

Duchesne, A., Hist. Franc. Script., v. 2, pp. 414, 456, 475, 484Google Scholar.

D'Achery, J. L., Spicileg. v. 3, p. 337Google Scholar.

Bouquet, M., Rec. Hist. Gaules, v. 9, p. 254Google Scholar; v. 7, pp. 292, 518; v. 6. p. 252; v. 7, p. 292, 518; v. 9, 254.

Noorden, C. von, Hinkmar, Bonn, 1863Google Scholar.

Gess, W. F., Merkwürdigkeiten aus d. Leben u. d. Schriften Hincmar, Göttingen, 1806.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 3} Cf., de Jure Metropolitanorum; Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., v. 125Google Scholar; also Fleury, , Histoire Ecclesiastique, xi., pp. 331, et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} “No branch of the papal theocratic monarchy, whether in relation to spiritual matters or not, could unfold itself at any later period, which had not been already contained in the idea of the papacy as apprehended by Nicholas.” Neander, , History of the Christian Religion and Church. Eng. Trans.; iii., 361CfGoogle Scholar; Milman, , Latin Christianity, Bk. 5, c. 4Google Scholar; Plank, , Geschichte des Pabstthums von der Mitte des neunten Jahrhunderts, an, I, 35–147.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} Consequent on II and III post. Cf., Capitula Hadriani, lxxiiGoogle Scholar; Labbé, , viii., 606.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} Agobard, , De privilegio et jure sacerdotii, c. 1Google Scholar; Agobard, , De dispensatione ecclesiasticarum rerum, c. xv., Pii I, Ep. 1Google Scholar; Cf. Zephyrini. Ep. 1.

^{page 234 note 4} Urbani I, Ep. § 4; Pontiani, Ep. 1.

^{page 235 note 1} Cook, , Life of Boniface, Lond., 1883Google Scholar; Hope, , Boniface, Lond., 1872Google Scholar; Fischer, C., Bonifacius, Leipzig, 1881Google Scholar; Maclear, , Apostles of Western Europe, Lond., 1869Google Scholar; Pfahler, G., Bonifacius und seine Zeit, Heilbronn, 1880Google Scholar; Werner, A., Bonifacius d. Apostel d. Deutschen, Leipzig, 1875.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} Bonif, . Ep. ed. Serarii, 118.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} Boniface, , Epistolœ et SermonesGoogle Scholar, Migne, , Patrol., T., 89, pp. 593–801Google Scholar; Jaffé, , Monumenta Moguntina; Opera quœ omnia extant omnia, ed. J. A. Giles, 1844Google Scholar, 2 v. See also, Mai, A., Auctor classic, v. 7Google Scholar; Bouquet, M., Rec. Hist. Gaules, v. 5Google Scholar; D'Achery, J. L.Spicilegium, v. 1Google Scholar; Mencke, J. B., Script, rerum German, v. i.Google Scholar; Jaffé, P., Biblioth. rerum German., v. 3Google Scholar; Pertz, , Mon. Ger. Script., v. ii.Google Scholar; Hefele, , Conciliengeschichte, iii., 458Google Scholar. For Vita, see Migne, , Patrol., T. 89, p. 603Google Scholar, and Willibald, , Pertz, ii., 33Google Scholar. See also note 2, p. 235.

^{page 236 note 2} Boniface thus expresses himself: “Sic emin ni fallor, omnes Episcopi debent Metropolitano, et ipse Romano Pontifici, si quid de corrigendis populis apud eos impossibile est, notum facere; et sic alieni fierit a sanguine animarum perditarum.” Cf. Gieseler, , ii., 27, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 3} Mansi, , xii., 365Google Scholar. I wish to note that I cite to Mansi or Labbé as they are nearest to my hand. In case of difference between their statements citation will be made to both and variation noted.

^{page 238 note 1} Cf. Astronomius, c. xxxvii. Einhard, , p. 390Google Scholar. Lives of Leo III., Stephen IV., Paschal I., Eugenius II., Gregory IV., Benedict III., in Anastasius.

^{page 238 note 2} Appeals lay through the Metropolitan not to the Pope but to the Emperor. Capit. Franco ford, A.D. 794, c. 4. “Et si aliquid, quod Episcopus metropolitanus non possit corrigere me pacifare, tune tandem veneant accustores cum accusato cum litteris metropolitani, ut sciamus venitatem rei.” Cf. Gieseler, , op. cit. ii., pp. 40, 46Google Scholar. The Emperor presided at Councils. Canons were issued in his name.

^{page 238 note 3} See Thegan, , Vit. Lud. Pii., cc. xiii., xixGoogle Scholar.; ap. Pertz, , v. ii., pp. 594, 595Google Scholar.; Astron. Vit. Lud. Pii., ibid.Cf. Luden. Gesch. d. Deutsch., vol. v., p. 581.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 4} Annales Bertinani, ad an., 830–833Google Scholar. Ap. Pertz, ., i., p. 423Google Scholaret seq.; Thegan., Vit. Lud. Pii., ap. Pertz, , v. ii., pp. 597, 598Google Scholar; Anom., ibid, pp. 631–635. Nithard, ibid., p. 652.

^{page 239 note 1} Nithard, Caroli M. Nepotis Historiœ, L. i., § iv.; Bouquet, , op. cit., vi., p. 69Google Scholar; Thegan, , Vit. Lud. Pii, xvi., xvii.Google Scholar; Bouquet, , vii., pp. 593–594.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 2} Thegan, , De Gest. Lud. Pii. Imp., 833Google Scholar, § xlii.; Bouquet, , op. cit., vi., p. 81Google Scholar, et seq.; Annal. Bertin. ad. an. 833.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} It has been thought that the presentation of these documents mentioned by Radbertus, , Vit. Walœ, ii. 16Google Scholar, was the first appearance of the Pseudo-Isidore. This is however pure conjecture. Cf. Greenwood, , Cathedra Petri, iii.,p. 151Google Scholar. Justification of attitude of bishops, Astron. 383, ed. Giuzot. Mansi, , xiv., p. 403.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 4} Fleury, , Histoire Ecclesiastique, 48, 40Google Scholar. Agobard, Libel, ap. Mansi, , xiv., p. 652.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 5} Thegan, , 297Google Scholar. Cf. Ep. Caroli, ad. Nich. ap., ad an. 867, ap. Mansi, xv.

^{page 239 note 6} Louis made several public penances. These had an important effect. By them he humiliated in his own person the monarchical authority, and elevated that of the church before which he abased himself; he gave incentive to dispute the commands of a power which accused itself. He published his humiliation to the world. See Capit. of Attigny, “Confitemur nos in pluribus locis … tam in vita quam in doctrina et ministerio neglegentes exstitisse.”

^{page 240 note 1} Ann Bertin. ad an. 834.

^{page 240 note 2} Astron, ., 394.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} Thegan, ., p. 396Google Scholar. Mansi, , xiv., 658.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 4} Ann. Bertin. ad an. 834.

^{page 240 note 5} Ebbo, , 775–851Google Scholar. Apologeticum. D'Achery, J. L., Spicilegium, iii., p. 335Google Scholar. Confessio; Apologeticum, Narratio depositionis, Pœmaticœ; apud Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., v. 116, p. 9Google Scholar. See also Bouquet, , vii., 277Google Scholar. Duchesne, , ii., 34Google Scholar. Migne, Ibid., p. 17.

^{page 240 note 6} For his subsequent career see Flodoard, , op. cit., ii., 20.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 7} Mansi, , xv., 793.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 8} Flodoard, Bouquet, , vi., 214 C. D.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 9} In accordance with the African Synod of 407 A.D.

^{page 240 note 10} African Synod 407 A.D.

^{page 241 note 1} Thegan, Bouquet, , vii., 85A.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Hincmar, , de Prœd.Google Scholar, Ed. Sirmondi; Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 127Google Scholar; Mansi, , xv., 796Google Scholar. Annal. Bertin. ad an. 834; Flodoard, ap. Bouquet, , vi., 215.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} Mansi, , xv., 796Google Scholar; Bouquet, , vi., 251et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 4} Lothair, , 795–855Google Scholar. Capitularia, Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 97, p. 371Google Scholar. Constitutions, Bouquet, , vi., 265, 405Google Scholar. Diplomata, ibid., viii., 365. Epistolœ ad Leonem IV. Papam, ibid., vii., pp. 307–318, 565. Agobard, , Chartula ad Lotharium AugustumGoogle Scholar, Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 104, p. 319Google Scholar. Excerpta ex Vit. Sanc, de Lothario, Imp. Bouquet, vii., 323.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 5} No legal synod was ever held to restore Ebbo, neither was the case ever considered during his lifetime. Hincmar, , Ep. ad Nichol. PapamGoogle Scholar, Mansi, , xv., 777Google Scholar; Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T., 126Google Scholar; Flodoard, , iii., 2.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 6} Edict for restoration of Ebbo published by Lothair at Ingelheim, June 24, 840. Mansi, , xiv., 773Google Scholar; cf. Flodoard, , iii., 20.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 7} Bouquet, , vi., 254Google Scholar; vii., 281; D'Achery, , Spicileg., vii., 175Google Scholar. Ebbo was never legally restored to the episcopate. For his appeal see Hincmar, , de Prœd., c. 36, p. 326.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 8} On his return to Rheims, Ebbo caused Lothair's decree to be read publicly in the church, and also made it known to bishops and other important persons. He also read and promulgated a confession of his guilt. See Hincmar, , de Prœd.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 9} For early life of Hincmar see Flodoard, , iii., 1.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 10} Migne, , Encycl. Théol. DisciplineGoogle Scholar, i. Cf. iii., 1. Cf. Hincmar, Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 126, c. 99–101Google Scholar, for a definition of the position of the palace clergy.

^{page 241 note 11} Fleury, , op. cit., 47Google Scholar: 28; Flodoard, , iii., 10.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} Exc. ex Hermanni Contracti Chron. ad an. 844; Bouquet, , vii., 232Google Scholar; Ex brevi Chronico Remensi ap., Labbé, , i., 359Google Scholar; Bouquet, , vii., 271.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} Epis. Lotharii ad Leonem IV Papam; Pro usu Pallii, etc., Bouquet, , vii., 565.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} Pallium quotidiamum, Flodoard, , iii., 10.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 4} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 843. Cf. Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores, vii.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 5} Charles I. (le chauve), King of France, 823–877. Capitularia; Epistolœ; Bouquet, , vii., 552, 560, 598Google Scholar. Diplomata, ibid., vi. Ex Epistola de Ebbonis archiepiscopi Remensis depositione,—apud Bouquet, , vi., 254.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} Hincmar did not depose the clerks. It was the action of the synod. Mansi, , xiv., 985Google Scholar. Annal. Bertin., ad an. 853.

^{page 243 note 2} Bouquet, , vii., 277Google Scholaret seq. Mansi, , xiv., 987et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 3} Hincmar, , Epis., iii.Google Scholar; Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 4} Mansi, , xiv., 985Google Scholar; Migne, , Encycl. Théol., xiv., 894Google Scholar; Bouquet, , vii., 277, et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 5} See note on exceptio spolii, post.

^{page 243 note 6} Cf. Ep. ii. of Zephyrinus.

^{page 243 note 7} See page 244 and note.

^{page 243 note 8} For transactions of this synod and their consequences, in regard to Wulfadus et al., see Epistles of Hincmar to Popes Nicholas and Benedict, Migne, Patrol. S. Lat., T. 126. Cf. Flodoard, , iiiGoogle Scholar., Mansi, , xiv., 977Google Scholar, et seq. See also Du Pin whose realistic but possibly prejudiced account is worth reading (Du Pin, H. E., IX. Cent. ch. 4). The decision of the Synod, after the report of the Council of Thionville and an account of the action of Sergius in the matter had been read, was, that Ebbo had not been properly restored and had no right to ordain. This was additional support to the position of Hincmar. It is surprising that no mention was made at Soissons of the acts of the Council of Bourges, which would have been so much to the point.

^{page 244 note 1} This paper had already been published by Ebbo in his Apology. Mansi, , xvi., 775Google Scholar; Flodoard, , ii., 26Google Scholar; D'Achery, , viiGoogle Scholar.; Bouquet, , vii., 281.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} Mansi, , xv., 746.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 3} For Epistles and Decretals of Leo, see Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 125, 129Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 1} Mansi, , xiv., 746.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 2} The question naturally arises whether, the reasons ascribed to Leo are based on the Pseudo-Isidore. It seems more probable that the true reason for the refusal of Leo to approve the action of the Synod of Soissons (853) was the opposition of the Emperor, and that the reasons in text would seem to have been put into Leo's mouth by Nicholas, and were not advanced by Leo.

^{page 245 note 3} Benedict III., Pope, Vita. Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 115Google Scholar. Notitia historica; Epistolœ; Diploma, ibid.Supplementum ad Diplomata, ibid. T. 113.

^{page 245 note 4} The Pope in his confirmation used a phrase that afterwards caused difficulty and was used against Hincmar by Nicholas I.—“Si ita est ut scriptis,” etc.—the real meaning of which could hardly be more than, “upon such grounds.” Nicholas, however, gave it a strictly conditional turn.

^{page 245 note 5} Flodoard, , iii., 11.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} Some authorities for the case of Rothadus: Ep. Nicholas Nos. 28–44, ap. Mansi, , xv.Google Scholar; Ep. Hincmar, Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., T. 125, 126Google Scholar. Flodoardus, , op. cit. iii., 13Google Scholar. Annales Bertiniani, ad an. 862 et seq. Libellus Rothadus, Mansi, , xv., 681Google Scholar. Consult Fleury, i., cc. 21, 27, 36, 37. Du Pin., H.E., IX. Cent. Baxman, , Die Politik der Päpste, ii., 25Google Scholaret seq. Gfrörer, , Church History, iiiGoogle Scholar., 1001 et seq. Alexander, Natalis, Historia Ecclesiastica; Bingen, 1787, xii., 368Google Scholaret seq. Neander, , Church History, Am. Ed., iii. 358, 361Google Scholar. Gieseler, , op. cit., ii., 109, 127Google Scholar, Am. Ed. Milman, Latin Christianity, bk. v., c. 4. Greenwood, , Cathedra Petri, iii., 252–268Google Scholar. Guizot, , History of Civilization in France, Bohn's edition, iii., 344Google Scholar ff. Von Noorden, , Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Rheims: Bonn, 1863Google Scholar. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirchen von Nicholas bis Gregor, vii., 1892.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} See, Hefele, , Conciliengeschichte, iv., 245.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 3} This was contrary to the Carthaginian Canon. Cf. Hefele, , op. cit., i., p. 413.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 4} Back of these accusations was the determination on Hincmar's part to bring his unruly suffragan into obedience. He had already sent him numerous warnings. But the Bishop of Soissons seems to have been too fully imbued with the spirit of the new order of things to obey his metropolitan. Flodoardus mentions a number of warnings which Hincmar had written him. See op. cit. iii., 21.

^{page 248 note 1} Text of appeal apud Baronius, ad an. 863.

^{page 248 note 2} It was on this principle that Hincmar took his stand. His position was supported by strong precedents; for example, the case of the Vicariate of Arles, Cf. Gieseler, , op. cit., i., 391Google Scholar. Zosimus, i. Ep. i. ad. Eps. Galliæ.

^{page 248 note 3} Annal. Bertin, ad an. 861. Episcopale privat communione, etc.

^{page 248 note 4} Can. 10. Coun., Carthage, A.D. 401. Cf. Phillips, , Kirchenrecht, ii., 276.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 5} Ann. Bertin., ad an. 862.

^{page 249 note 1} Cf. Migne, Dic. des Concil, ii., 850, in Encyl. Théol.; Vita Nic. I. Pap. Anastasius, Bouquet, , vii., 328.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 2} This demand conforms to Gaii P. Ep. ad. Felicene, Mansi, , i., 1231Google Scholar; Zephyrini, Ep. ii., Mansi, , i., 732Google Scholar; Stephani I., Ep. ii., Mansi, , i., p. 889.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 3} It is an open question whether or not it reached him before the council was held at Soissons, 862.

^{page 249 note 4} Hincmar went so far as to refuse to read the Pope's letters to the synod or to transmit them to the King.

^{page 250 note 1} See opinion of Nicholas, Ep. xlii., Mansi, , xv., 639.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 864.

^{page 250 note 3} Ibid., 864: Natalis. Alexand., xii., 375.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} Vita Pap. Nic. I. Anast., Bouquet, , vii., 328.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 2} Mansi, , xv.Google Scholar; Vita Pap., Nic. I., Bouquet, , vii., 328.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 3} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 865.

^{page 251 note 4} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 862.

^{page 251 note 5} Anast., Vita Nic., cited; Aquello, Liber pontificalis sive vitæ pontificum Ravennatum, cum appendice, Migne, Patrol. S. Lat., T. 106, 431. Pertz, , Monumenta; Script. rer. Langobard, 6–9, 265.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 1} Cf. the letters of N. to Rudolf of Bourges (Mansi, , xv., 382 and 389Google Scholar) belonging to the year 864. In the latter he lays down a principle destructive of all rights of metropolitans: “primates enim, vel patriarchas, nihil privilegii habere præ ceteris episcopis,” etc.

^{page 252 note 2} Note 2, p. 251, ante.

^{page 252 note 3} First quotation of the Decretals by Nicholas was in 865. Nich. Pap. Epis. ad universos episcopus Galliœ, ad an. 865. Mansi, , xv., 694et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 1} Mansi, , xv., 695Google Scholar: “decretales epistolæ Romanorum pontificum sunt recipiendæ etiamsi non sunt canonum codici compaginatæ.”

^{page 253 note 2} Ep. Nich. I. Pap. ad. Car., Bouquet, , vii., 405.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 3} S. C. Vita Nich. I. Pap., Bouquet, , vii., 328Google Scholar. Of this act Hincmar said: “Thus was a criminal solemnly deposed by the unanimous judgment of five provinces of this realm, reinstated by the Pope, not by ordinary canonical rule, but by an extraordinary act of power, in a summary way, without inquiry, and against the consent of his natural judges.”

^{page 254 note 1} Ep. i., Canon 16: “Nam in sæcularibus legibus, post quam vocatus quis venerit et in foro decertare cœperit, non licet ei ante peractam causam recedere, in ecclesiasticis vero dicta causa recedere licet, si necesse fuerit aut si se prægravari viderit. … si quis autem judicem adversum sibi senserit, vocem appellationis exhibeat, quam nulli oportet negari.”

^{page 254 note 2} This applicability of the decretals of Pseudo-Isidore to the case of Ebbo has given rise to a strongly sustained hypothesis that Ebbo was the sole or principal collector and fabricator of the Pseudo-Isidore, at least in so far as they concern the trials of bishops. Cf. Noorden, V., Hinkmar, p. 25Google Scholaret seq.

^{page 254 note 3} It should be noted that the claims of Nicholas and his attempt to reopen the case of Ebbo was unsupported by precedent. The current of law from Sardica down had given competent jurisdiction to local synods. Unless the decree of the synod was appealed from (and this was not the case here), it stood valid against the world. Cf. Greenwood, , op. cit., iii., 272.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 1} The epistle of Leo to the bishops of Campania (Ep. v.) provided for the reception of all previous epistles and decretals: “omnia decretalia constituta, tam beatæ recordationis Innocentii quam omnium decessorum nostrorum quæ de ecclesiasticis ordinibus et canonum promulgata sunt disciplinis, ita vestram dilectionem custodire debere mandamus.” As a matter of fact the decretal of Gelasisus, de libris recipiendis, not included in the current legal code, was received. Cf. Credner, , Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 151 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 2} Mansi, , xv., 712.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 866.

^{page 256 note 2} See p. 245, supra.

^{page 256 note 3} Here, as in the case of Rothadus, and of Hincmar of Laon, was a direct reference to the exceptio spolii of Pseudo-Isidore. The following sentence used by Nicholas is quoted from the Pseudo-Damasius:. “Non enim enermis cum annato vite conflictum mire potuit.” The demand that the clerks should be reinstated before any action began is based upon Ep. Zephr. in Pseudo-Isidore.

^{page 256 note 4} Mansi, , xv., 738.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} Ep. Alex.: “Similiter, si hujusmodo personis queddam scriptoræ quoque modo per metum, aut fraudeno, aut vem extortæ fuerunt.” The answer of Hincmar is not a full acceptation of the Pseudo-Isidore. It may, however, be construed as admitting its authenticity.

^{page 257 note 2} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 867.

^{page 258 note 1} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 867.

^{page 258 note 2} Annal. Bertin., ad an. 867.

^{page 258 note 3} Hincmar had also outflanked his adversaries, for six months before the synod of Troyes he had sent agents to the Pope. These in the disguise of pilgrims had evaded the enemies that beset them and reached Rome. They had gained, the Pope's ear, and the letters mentioned must, at least in part, be ascribed to their influence. Cf. Annal. Bertin., ad an. 867.

^{page 258 note 4} Mansi, , xv., 355.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 5} Nicholas died less than three weeks after the council of Troyes.

^{page 259 note 1} Adrian II., Pope.—Epistolœ ap., Bouquet, Rec. Hist., Gaules, v. 7. Epistolœ et decreta, Migne, , Patrol. S. Lat., 122 pp. 129–1015Google Scholar. Notitia Historica in Adrianum, II, Migne, Ibid.

^{page 259 note 2} Migne, , Patrol., T. 126Google Scholar; Hincmari, opuscula et epistolœ quœ spectant, causam Hincmari Laudunensis, Ibid., T. 124. Epistola Hincmari Laudunensis ad Hincmarum Rhememsem; Annal. Bertin., ad an. 868.

^{page 259 note 3} I will not here go into a study of its detail, reserving that for later publication.

^{page 260 note 1} This preserved the rights of Rome and overthrew those of Rheims.

^{page 260 note 2} Cf. Von Noorden, , Hinkmar, p. 268.Google Scholar