¹ See especially Wilks, Michael, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1963)Google Scholar; ‘St. Augustine and die General Will’, Studia Patristica, 9 (1966), pp. 487-522; ‘Ecclesiastica and Regalia; papal investiture policy from the Council of Guastalla to the First Lateran Council, 1106-23’, SCH, 7 (1971), pp. 69-85. On the legal position of the Church in Late Antiquity, see Gaudemet, J., L’Eglise dans l’empire romain (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar; on the early papacy, Richards, J., The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1979)Google Scholar, Markus, R. A., ‘Gregory the Great’s Europe’, TRHS, ser. 5, 31 (1981), pp. 21—36Google Scholar, and Herrin, J., The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the local lordship of eighth- and early nintli-century popes, Noble, T. F. X., The Republic of St Peter (Philadelphia, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on dualism in thought and practice, see Knabe, L., Die gelasianische Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturstreits (Berlin, 1936)Google Scholar, and Morrison, K. F., The Two Kingdoms (Princeton, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The best study of Carolingian political ideas is Anton, H. H., Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit-Bonner Historische Forschungen, 32 (Bonn, 1968)Google Scholar. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is full of insights on the varieties of ninth-century thought.

² Jarnut, J., ‘Ludwig der Fromme, Lothar I. und das RegnumItaliae ’, in Godman, P. and Collins, R., eds, Charlemagne’s Heir. New Perspectives on tile Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford, 1990), pp. 349–62Google Scholar, observes the change from the 820s onwards.

³ I see Lothar’s playing of the papal card in 833 as a classic instance: Gregory IV’s role in the events leading to Louis the Pious’s deposition was seen retrospectively by Hincmar of Rheims (letter to Pope Hadrian II, PL 126, col. 180) as diminishing the papacy’s honor. But for a thought-provoking, positive appraisal of Gregory’s pontificate, see J. Fried, ‘Ludwig der Fromme, das Papsttum und die fränkische Kirche’, in Godman and Collins, eds, Charlemagne’s Heir, pp. 231-73, at pp. 266-72.

⁴ Annales de Saint-Berlin [hereafter AB], ed. F. Grat, J. Vielliard, and S. Clémencet, with introduction and notes by L. Levillain (Paris, 1964), sa 862, pp. 91-2. Cf. sa 865, pp. 118-19, for Rothad’s reinstatement by Pope Nicholas acting non regulariter sed potentialiter, according to the annals’ author, Hincmar of Rheims. On Hincmar’s position vis-à-vis the papacy, see Kennedy, K., The Permanence of an Idea: three ninth-century Frankish ecclesiastics and the authority of the Roman See’, in Mordek, H., ed., Ans Kirche und Reich: Studien zu Théologie, Politili und Rechi im Millelalter. Festschrift für F. Kempf (Sigmaringen, 1983), pp. 105–16, at pp. 112–16Google Scholar. See further on the Rothad case, Devisse, J., Hincmar, archevêque de Reims 845-882 3 vols (Geneva, 1975-6), 2, pp. 583–600Google Scholar; and Fuhrmann, H., Einfluss und Verbreitung der pseudo-isidorischen Fälschungen. Von ihrem Auftauchen bis in die neuere Zeit, MGH Schriften, 24, 3 vols (Munich, 1972-4), 2, pp. 254–63 and 266–70Google Scholar. For Louis II, see Delogu, P., ‘Strutture politiche e ideologia nel regno di Ludovico II’, Bolletino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 80 (1968), pp. 137–89.Google Scholar

⁵ Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government, 2nd rev. edn (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar, ch. 7. Cf. now Fried, ‘Ludwig der Fromme, das Papsttum und der fränkische Kirche’, p. 273.

⁶ Konecny, S., ‘Die Frauen des karolingischen Königshauses’ (University of Vienna dissertation, 1976), pp. 103–17, 210–17Google Scholar, and Bishop, J., ‘Bishops as marital advisors in the ninth century’, in Kirshner, J. and Wemple, S., Women of the Medieval World (Oxford, 1985), pp. 53–84Google Scholar, are useful on some aspects of die affair, but see now also R. Kottje, ‘Kirchliches Recht und päpsdicher Autoritätsanspruch. Zu den Auseinanderserzungen über die Ehe Lothar II’, in Mordek, ed., Aus Kirche und Rechi, pp. 97-103. The archbishops’ case was taken seriously north of the Alps: Annales Fuldenses, ed. F.Kurze, MGH.SRG, 7 (Hanover, 1891), sa 863, pp. 57-8 with n. *,60-1. See further Fuhrmann, H., ‘Eine im Original erhaltene Propagandaschrift des Erzbischofs Gunthar von Köln (865)’, Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftsgeschichte, Siegel- un Wappenkunde, 4 (1958), pp. 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hincmar in the AB, sa 864, pp. 105—11, sketches the political context of the archbishops’ position, and also seems to have ‘edited’ the archbishops’ letter to Pope Nicholas (incorporated in their démarche to their Lotharingian suffragans): Hincmar’s aim, according to L. Levillain’s note to the AB text, p. 108,1, was to blacken the archbishops, but for an alternative interpretation, see Nelson, J. L., ‘The Annals of St Berrin’, in Gibson, M. T. and Nelson, J. L., eds, Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, 2nd rev. edn (London, 1990), p. 35.Google Scholar

⁷ Hincmar, De divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae reginae, PL 125, col. 756.

⁸ AB, sa 869, pp. 1 S3—6. By now the pope was Hadrian II: see below.

⁹ See Perels, E., Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar; Devos, P., ‘Anastasius the Librarian’ in NCE, 1, pp. 480–1Google Scholar; Ullmann, Growth, pp. 209-19.

¹⁰ McKeon, P., Hincmar ofLaon and Carolingian Politics (Urbana, 1978)Google Scholar; H. Fuhrmann, ‘Fälscher unter sich: zum Streit zwischen Hinkmar von Reims und Hinkmar von Laon’, in Gibson and Nelson, eds, Charles the Bald, pp. 224-34.

¹¹ Implied by Hincmar of Rheims.ep. 126, ed. E. Perels, MGH.Ep, VIII, i (repr. Munich, 197s), p. 64.

¹² Charles, ep. 7, PL 124, col. 879. On this letter, see below, pp. 28-9.

¹³ See McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, pp. 28-38; and below, p. 27 and n. 18.

¹⁴ McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, pp. 121-31; Nelson, J. L., ‘A tale of two princes’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 11 (1988), pp. 105–40.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Fuhrmann, Einfluss una Verbreitung, 3, pp. 662, 670, 672, and cf. 2, pp. 259-60, n. 59; McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, pp. 105—8, 127, and (for the Bishop’s earlier contacts with Pope Hadrian) pp. 273-14, 280.

¹⁶ For the extent of imperial pressure on Hadrian, see the letter of Anastasius to Hincmar of Rheims, PL 129, cols 741-2. Cf. AB sa 869, pp. 167-8. See also Hadrian’s letters nos 4,6,16 and 17,21,24 and 31, ed. E. Perels, MGH. Ep. Karolini aevi, IV, pp. 701, 702—4, 717-20, 724-6, 729-30, 735-6.

¹⁷ Ibid., ep. 32, pp. 736-7. Cf. Fried, J., ‘Laienadel und Papst in der Frühzeit der französischen und deurschen Geschichte’, in Beumann, H. and Schrüder, W., eds, Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelaller. Ergebnisse der Marburger Rundgespräche 1972-75 (Sigmaringen, 1978), pp. 367–406, at pp. 372–7, 404–5.Google Scholar

¹⁸ MGH. Ep. Karolini aevi, IV, ep. 14, pp. 715-16.

¹⁹ Ibid., epp. 16 and 24, pp. 717-19,729-30.

²⁰ Lauer, P., Bibliothèque Nationale, Catalogue Général des manuscrits latins, 7 vols (Paris, 1940), 2, p. 80Google Scholar, and Carey, F., ‘The Scriptorium of Rheims’, in Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of E. K. Rand (New York, 1938), pp. 41—60, at p. 58Google Scholar, both suggest a late nindi-century date for this manuscript (but see below, p. 32). Its contents are: fols 1-150: the acta of the synod of Douzy; fols 150V—6v: Charles the Bald’s first letter to Hadrian; fols 156v-62r: the Douzy synod’s letter to Pope Hadrian; fols 162v—70r: Hincmar of Rheims’ accompanying letter to Hadrian; fols 170V-3V: liturgical formulae related to ordeals (these folios are written in a tenth-century Rheims hand); fols 174r-95v: Charles’s second letter to Hadrian; fols 106r-227V: the response of the council of Douzy (early 872) to Hadrian (the last 16 folios are badly damaged). See further, Devisse, Hincmar, 2, p. 942. For convenience, I cite Charles’s letters (epp. VII and VIII) below from PL 124, cols 876-96. But there is a better edition in Delalande, P.. ed., Concilia antiqua Galliae cum epistolis pontificum, principum constitutionibus et aliis Gallicanae rei ecclesiasticae monumentis, 4: Supplementa (Paris, 1666), pp. 264–74Google Scholar. This volume supplements the 3 volumes of Concilia antiqua published by Delalande’s uncle, J. Sirmond (Paris, 1629).

²¹ McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, pp. 132-46.

²² See Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, pp. 339-40; cf. the passages cited, ibid., pp. 205-6, 233-4, 235-9. See also Nelson, J. L., ‘Kingship, law and liturgy in the political thought of Hincmar of Rheims’, EHR, 92 (1977), pp. 241–79, at pp. 247–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. in Nelson, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London, 1986), pp. 139—40.

²³ Charles the Bald, ep.VII, PL 124, col. 878, emending non to nos in the first line of the passage quoted.

²⁴ Libellus contra Wenilonem, ed. A. Borerius, MGH. Cap, 2 vols (Hanover, 1897), 2, no. 300, p. 450, with citation (cheerfully wrenched out of context!) from Gregory, Homiliae in Evangelia Book I, x, 5, PL 76, col. 1112: ‘in Francorum regno reges ex genere prodeunt.’ For Hincmar’s authorship of the Libellus., see Lot, F. and Halphen, L., Le règne de Charles le Chauve (Paris, 1909), p. 193 with n. 1Google Scholar. Devisse, Hincmar, 1, p. 346, n. 318, thinks Hincmar ‘participated’ in its redaction, without himself being the author, and in 2, p. 682, n. 52 points out that Hincmar cites from Gregory’s Horn, in Evang. no fewer than 27 times.

²⁵ The sole canon of a council of 4.54, subscribed by Bishops Leo of Bourges, Eustochius of Tours, and Victor of Le Mans, is cited by Hincmar several times, for instance, in his Pro ecclesiae libertatum defensione addressed to Charles the Bald in 868, PL 125, cols 1047, 1067, where Leo is erroneously identified as ‘pope’ and the council as ‘Roman’. (Modern commentators fail to note the confusion here; but see Delalande, Concilia, 4, p. 32. Mansi, 7, cols 005—7, numbered this council among those ‘incerti loci’.) For Bishop Leo of Bourges, see L. Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule, 3 vols (Paris, 1907-15), vol. 2, pp. 24,26-7. For the passage from Augustine, InJoannisEvangelium traci. VI, 25,26 (PL 35, col. 1437), see Hincmar’s prefatory letter to his De ecclesia el capellis (857/858), ep. 108, MGH. Ep, Vili, pp. 5 3-4, and the Douzy Ada, Mansi, 16, col. 654.

²⁶ Anton, Fürslenspiegel und Herrscherelhos, p. 339; Devisse, Hincmar, 2, pp. 693-6, and n. 134 (drawing attention to the use of some of the same biblical passages in Hincmar’s letter to Hadrian, PL 126, cols 181—4), and p. 785, n. 477. Cf. Schrörs, Hincmar, p. 343, n. 148, rejecting Hincmar’s authorship on the grounds that he ‘always’ attributed the Bourges canon to Pope Leo I (though see above, n. 25), but suggesting that Hincmar contributed material.

²⁷ E. Lesne, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France, 6 vols (Lille, 1905—43), 2, ii, pp. 28-9. Devisse, Hincmar, 2, pp. 695-6, argued that Lesne wrongly translated dominas terrae as ‘“seigneur de la terre” au sens de propriétaire’, instead of ‘seigneur de ce monde’. Lesne’s reading, according to Devisse, would entail claims ‘que personne alors n’aurait admise dans le royaume’: surely a subjective judgement! See below, p. 32, and n. 41. For Hincmar’s views in Pro ecc. lib. def., see Devisse, Hincmar, 2, pp. 730-5.

²⁸ Charles the Bald, ep. VIII, PL 124, cols 881-96. Note that where Migne, col. 887, gives: ‘Leo ac romana synodus’, Delalande, Concilia, p. 269, correctly gives ‘… Bituricensis synodus’. This letter is accompanied by the very short ep. IX, col. 806, essentially a note explaining that the foregoing letter is larger than usual, written in large format (quaternions) and sealed with the King’s seal. For the letter’s significance, see Schrörs, Hinkmar, pp. 347-8; Devisse, J., Hincmar et la Loi (Dakar, 1962), pp. 85–6Google Scholar; Morrison, Two Kingdoms, pp. 170—5; McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, pp. 152—4.

²⁹ Hadrian, ep. 35, MGH. Ep. Karolini aevi, IV, pp. 741-2. The Pope declares: ‘Nos in depositione illius [i.e. Hincmar of LaonJ quamdiu vivimus nullatenus consentiemus, nisi ad nostrani ipso veniente praesentiam… causa … fuerit… definita.’

³⁰ PL 124, col. 881.Cf. Hincmar, Proecc. lib. def., PL 12s, col. 1039: (after a string of quotations from book 16 of the Theodosian Code) ‘sed scio sapientiam vestram ex his quae de decimo sexto libro Theodosianae legis sunt posita, debere comprehendere plura.’

³¹ Ibid., cols 881,883. For the reference to Christ, cf. Augustine, In Joannis Evang. tract. XVIII, 3, PL 35, col. 1537.

³² Ibid., col. 885.

³³ Ibid., col. 886, the term dictator clearly referring to Anastasius (see above, p. 25, n. 9) in an attempt to deflect criticism from Hadrian himself. Hadrian, ep. 36, MGH. Ep. Karolini aevi, IV, p. 744, went along with this to suggest that he was not responsible for what went out in his name. See Ertl, N., ‘Dictatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe’, Archiv für Urkunden-forxhung, 15 (1938), pp. 56–133, at pp. 83–5, 108Google Scholar. For an echo of the Ninth Abuse of Pseudo-Cyprian’s Di decern abusivis in Charles’s letter, see Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p. 340.

³⁴ PL 124, cols 886-7.

³⁵ Ibid., col. 889. Biblical citations in the preceding passage include Rom. 13.4, and Prov. 8.15.

³⁶ PL 124, cols 890— I. In a citation here from c. 29 of the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae, the emperors are referred to as principes terrae. (Cf. Ps. 2.2; Ps. 148. 11; Isa. 14.9; Apoc. 18.23). There are citations from the Theodosian Code, 16.2.35, and (via Gregory the Great and the Epitome Juliana) Jusrinian’s Constitutions. See Devisse, Hincmar et la Loi, pp. 16 and 22 with n. 1.

³⁷ PL 124, col. 895. Charles promises to bring with him ‘so many suitable witnesses of various orders and ranks’.

³⁸ Ibid., cols 895-6. The Gregory reference is to Reg. i, 24.

³⁹ On the Fifth Oecumenical Council, see Herrin, Formation of Christendom, pp. 110-25. McKeon, Hincmar, p. 262, n. 102, notes that that council had resulted in the imprisonment and coercion of Pope Vigilius, but thinks it unlikely that ‘this is the threat intended’ in Charles’s letter, suggesting instead that Hadrian was being reminded of the hostile reaction of western churchmen to his predecessor’s capitulation to Justinian’s pressure. I think a threat to coerce is intended.

⁴⁰ Hincmar in a letter termed his bailiffs ‘plebeian persons’: Flodoard, Historia Remensis Ecclesiae, III, c. 28, ed. I. Heller and G. Waitz, MGH. SS, XIII (Hanover, 1881), p. 553. Cf. the comments on royal fiscal agents (maiores, actores) of S. Airlie, ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association in the Court Circle of Louis the Pious’, in Godinan and Collins, eds, Charlemagne’s Heir, pp. 191-204, at pp. 198-9, showing that some, at least, were not of high birth.

⁴¹ Levy, E., West Roman Vulgar Law. The Law of Property (Philadelphia, 1951), pp. 19–21, 110–11, 114–26, 120–6Google Scholar; Buckland, W. W., A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd edn (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 187–8Google Scholar; Gaudemet, L’Eglise dans l’empire romain, pp. 314-15,495-6. See Lesne, Histoire Je la propriété ecclésiastique, 2, ii, p. 30: ‘le roi maître de la terre exerce sur ses églises l’autorité qu’il a partout en ses états’; and cf. p. 61, n. 2, citing Hincmar’s assertion in his letter to Hadrian (PL 126, col. 184) that bishops owe the king obsequium de ecclesiasticis possessionihus. What Lesne does not make clear is that die phrase dominus terrae seems to appear very rarely in ninth-century literature. (Morrison, Two Kingdoms, in an otherwise stimulating study, likewise neglects to point this out.) Hincmar uses the phrase again in 873 in the preface to De regis persona et regio ministerio, PL 125, col. 833, addressed to Charles the Bald. Possible biblical sources for the phrase dominus terrae are Gen. 42. 30; 45.9, and Judith 6.4.

⁴² Charles’s clearest assertion of this claim is in the Edict of Pitres (864), MGH. Cap, II, no. 273, c. 27, p. 322. See Nelson, J. L., ‘Translating images of authority: the Christian Roman Emperors in the Carolingian World’, in Mackenzie, M. M. and Roueché, C., eds, Images of Authority. Papers presented to Joyce Reynolds on the Occasion of her Seventieth Birthday (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 194–205, at p. 197.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Devisse, Hincmar, 2, pp. 941-4, and n. 658. The excised passage denounces Louis the German’s bishops both for supporting Hincmar of Laon and for consecrating a rival to Charles’s candidate as archbishop of Cologne. Motives for the excision are suggested by McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, pp. 261-2, n. 94.

⁴⁴ Nelson, J. L., Charles the Bald (forthcoming, London, 1991), ch. 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ PL 124, col. 881.

⁴⁶ Hadrian II, ep. 36, MGH. Ep. Karolini aevi, IV, pp. 743—6.

⁴⁷ Löwe, H., ‘Hinkmar von Reims und der Apokrisiar. Beiträge zur Interpretation von De Ordine Palatii ’, in Festschrift für H. Heimpel, 3 vols (Göttingen, 1972), 3, pp. 197–225, at pp. 208–11.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Nelson, Translating images of authority’, pp. 195-9. FOT Hincmar’s interest in the Theodosian Code (and his readiness to ‘improve’ it!), Fuhrmann, ‘Fälscher unter sich’, p. 234, n. 38. Devisse, Hincmar et la Loi, p. 91, finds ‘un fort courant “juridique” sous Charles le Chauve au moins après 860.’

⁴⁹ Bishop Liemar of Bremen to Bishop Hezilo of Hildesheim, in Briefsammlungen der Zeil Heinrich IV, MGH, Brief e der deutschen Kaiserzeit, ed. C. Erdmann and N. Fickermann (Munich, 1977), no. 15, p. 34: ‘Periculosus homo vult iubere, que vult, episcopis ut villicis suis.” See Robinson, I. S., Authority and Resistance in the Investiture Contest (Manchester, 1978), pp. 169–70.Google Scholar