Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T17:06:21.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THREE OVERLOOKED MANUSCRIPT WITNESSES OF CAROLINGIAN EPISTOLAE FORMATAE BY ARCHBISHOP THEUTGAUD OF TRIER AND BISHOP ADVENTIUS OF METZ FROM PROVENCE AND CATALONIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2025

MATTHIAS M. TISCHLER
MATTHIAS M. TISCHLER*
Affiliation:
ICREA/Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
*
matthias.tischler@icrea.cat

Extract

This article presents three new discoveries of Carolingian epistolae formatae from Provence and Catalonia, which update recent editions of the texts in question and offer clues about their historical context and purpose.

Keywords

Carolingian historymanuscript studiesepistolae formataeProvenceCatalonia

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 80 , 2025 , pp. 301 - 311
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fordham University

In memory of Martí Aurell i Cardona (1958–2025)

This article presents three new discoveries of Carolingian epistolae formatae from Provence and Catalonia, which update recent editions of the texts in question and offer clues about their historical context and purpose.

In 2022, Isolde Schröder published the Monumenta Germaniae Historica edition of the remaining Carolingian letters of the ninth to early tenth century.Footnote 1 Printed in the first section of this edition are letters that belong to the so-called epistolae formatae, letters of recommendation for clerics or priests travelling to particular destinations with the permission of their bishop for well-defined reasons.Footnote 2 These episcopal passports for authentication give us information about the object of the journeys, often with dates, and are thus a valuable source for early medieval travel activities and episcopal control of them. In recent years, scholars have taken a fresh look at these letters and have even published an updated survey of all witnesses known at present.Footnote 3 The three new discoveries presented here show, however, that despite recent editorial efforts, the last word has not yet been spoken on this topic. Ongoing manuscript research reveals that even the most recent critical editions cannot be considered definitive.

An Unknown Witness of Archbishop Theutgaud of Trier’s Epistola formata from the Early Twelfth-Century Catalan-Provençal World

The first discovery adds an unknown manuscript witness of an epistola formata that was previously published in the seventeenth century from a now lost or as yet unidentified manuscript. Paris, BnF, Latin 3880 is an otherwise well-known early twelfth-century manuscript, the final folios of which have not been well catalogued.Footnote 4 It contains the following texts:

Fols. 1r–69v: the Collectio Dacheriana (“form A”).Footnote 5

Fols. 70r–91v: the so-called Epistolae Arelatenses genuinae (or Liber auctoritatum ecclesiae Arelatensis).Footnote 6

Fols. 93r–98v: a partial version of a Poenitentiale Romanum, comprising the texts that follow.

  1. (a) Fols. 93r–94v: an Ordo poenitentiae for men, women, and priests under the title “Incipit ordo qualiter suscipere debent sacerdotes in ecclesia. Penitentes ad penitenciam.”Footnote 7

  2. (b) Fols. 94v–97r: the Summa de iudiciis omnium peccatorum. Footnote 8

  3. (c) Fols. 97r–98v: a short tract entitled De sacramento poenitentiae. Footnote 9

Fols. 99r–141v: Rufinus of Aquileia’s Latin translation of the Rule of St Basil. Footnote 10

Fols. 142r–150r: a selection of penitential texts (monastic and canonical), letters, and other short extracts.Footnote 11

This poorly catalogued final section of the manuscript contains a rare text, namely, an epistola formata written by Archbishop Theotgaud of Trier (847–868) for the priest Hegilo, addressed to King Charles the Bald, bishops, and all other ecclesiastical and secular dignitaries of Charles’s realm (fols. 144v–145v). This letter was printed for the first time in 1629 by the Jesuit Jacques Sirmond (1559–1651), who used a manuscript from Lérins, which is either lost or remains unidentified (= L).Footnote 12 Karl Zeumer did not publish this letter in his 1883 edition of Merovingian and Carolingian formulae. Isolde Schröder decided to reproduce Sirmond’s printed version in her new critical edition, making small changes to it. Her efforts did not improve the text (= L’), however, as we can now see with the help of this new manuscript witness.Footnote 13 A comparison of the newly-discovered Paris copy with Sirmond’s text reveals several slight differences and, in one case, a more extensive text passage (= P). The new witness therefore deserves a diplomatic edition in which the variants are highlighted in comparison to Sirmond’s publication (see below).

Is it possible to uncover the precise historical context of Theotgaud’s letter, even though Carine van Rhijn and Isolde Schröder claimed that it could not be clearly dated?Footnote 14 The text itself offers some clues, which, together with our knowledge of the new witness, may provide some fresh insights through the texts transmitted in its immediate manuscript context. The letter says that Hegilo is on a pilgrimage to Rome (tutius atque securius loca sanctorum visitare), after which he will proceed to visit Charles the Bald and other leaders of his realm (ad vestram presentiam liberius ac familiarius … accedere ad quemcumque ex nobis illum itineris varietas perduxisset). This journey was obviously more than an ordinary pilgrimage to Rome, since it was also intended to take Hegilo to the court of Charles the Bald. In other words, it may have been a diplomatic mission. The double transmission of the letter, both from Lérins and, as we will later see, from Arles, may hint at the route—a practical one—that Hegilo took on his way from Rome to the Western Frankish kingdom, namely, through Provence.Footnote 15 The route from Italy to Provence and the Western Frankish realm went through the Carolingian Middle Kingdom, to which Theutgaud’s archbishopric of Trier also belonged.

There was, in fact, a central political event in Theutgaud’s life that brought him together with several important Church metropolitans of this Middle Kingdom: a church synod. Evidence for this synod has been preserved in an invitation dated to 862/863, in which Theutgaud of Trier—here titled “Belgicę Galliae primas” of the church provinces of “Belgica I” (Trier) and “Belgica II” (Rheims)—together with his colleagues (Gunthar of Cologne, Hartwig of Besançon, Rotland of Arles, Tado of Milan, and their bishops) addressed the archbishops and bishops of King Louis the German’s realm. The trigger for this invitation was the deposition of Bishop Rothad of Soissons, which Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims had carried out a few months earlier (June 862).Footnote 16 Unfortunately, we do not know where the bishops in the Middle Kingdom met for the writing of this letter. Previous research has assumed, however, that the reason for this meeting was the death of King Charles of Provence on 24 January 863. He had died young and his inheritance had to be settled between his brothers, Emperor Louis II of Italy and King Lothar II of Lotharingia.Footnote 17 Does Theutgaud’s epistola formata for Hegilo belong to this historical context and, more precisely, to the time leading up to this meeting?

At the same time, this epistola formata also offers an important witness to Theutgaud’s interference in the question of the legitimacy of the deposition of Bishop Rothad of Soissons by Hincmar of Rheims. This was underpinned by Theutgaud’s conviction that he was the actual “primas” of the entirety of “Belgica,” and therefore of the church province of Rheims with its suffragan bishopric of Soissons.Footnote 18 The letter is thus a neglected indirect testimony to the long dispute over precedence between Theutgaud and Hincmar, which also touched on the question of canon law regarding who was entitled to elect, appoint, and, if necessary, dismiss bishops in a church province.Footnote 19 In view of this specific constellation of ecclesiastical politics and canon law, it is no coincidence that following directly after the new witness of this epistola formata, the Paris manuscript includes a short collection of extracts from church councils and papal decretals dealing with these and related questions (fols. 145v–147v).Footnote 20 The copying of a special dossier of canon law alongside an epistola formata was quite common in the ninth century.Footnote 21 Does the new textual witness to Theutgaud’s epistola formata reveal the original transmission context of the letter, which hints at its original historical context and the true reason for Hegilo’s diplomatic journey?

The origin and provenance of the Paris manuscript is still contested. Is it from Provence or from the Septimano-Catalan world?Footnote 22 Among his personal index cards preserved in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, an overlooked handwritten note by the French art historian and manuscript librarian François Avril may provide us with a clue.Footnote 23 Are we being directed to Catalonia in his hints at the yellow color (jaune ‘catalan’) used for the manuscript’s illumination? The codex was owned by Cardinal Jules Mazarin, who bought most of the manuscript collection of the Aix-en-Provence manuscript hunter, Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc.Footnote 24 Mazarin therefore owned manuscripts from the southeast of France, but whether our codex also came from this collection is impossible to say. Taken together, however, Avril’s observation of a Catalan feature in the manuscript’s illumination, its acquisition history, and its specific contents point to the south or southeast of France as the codex’s place of origin.

The difficulty of determining the provenance of the manuscript may have something to do with the peculiarities of that area. At the time of the copy’s production at the beginning of the twelfth century, two decisive changes had taken place in the ecclesiastical and secular power structure of the region spanning Catalonia, Septimania, and Provence. The first was a result of Narbonne’s loss of the Catalan dioceses after the first restitution of the Ecclesia Tarraconensis. On 6 November 1097, Pope Urban II compensated for this loss by conceding to Archbishop Bertrand of Narbonne (1097–1106) the primacy over the metropolitan see of Aix-en-Provence (including Arles).Footnote 25 The second change arose from the marriage of Ramon Berenguer III of Barcelona (1082–1131) and Dolça of Arles (c. 1095–1127) on 3 February 1112, after which the county of Provence belonged to the house of the counts of Barcelona, which had been extending its influence beyond the Pyrenees since the middle of the eleventh century.Footnote 26 This specific historical context thus generated a lively Catalano-Septimanian interest in the letter collection of Arles, which formulated the rights and privileges of this church. It will be the task of future research to determine the patron and first owner of this manuscript, which not only provided a new copy of an older letter collection from Arles (perhaps made on the basis of an exemplar from this region, if not from the city of Arles itself), but also copies of penitential literature and the Carolingian epistola formata by Theutgaud of Trier.Footnote 27 In order to identify its patron and first owner, we will have to look for the models of this composite manuscript in this region, if not in Arles itself, which was the first firm base of the Catalan dynasty’s deployment of power in Provence and the place of several archbishops loyal to the Catalan counts.Footnote 28

Jaume Caresmar’s Eighteenth-Century Copy of Ripoll’s Early Eleventh-Century Manuscript of an Epistola formata by Bishop Adventius of Metz

The second discovery is a standardized epistola formata written by Bishop Adventius of Metz (858–875) to an unnamed addressee (archbishop or bishop) containing the recommendation for an unnamed cleric to receive a higher ordination in the recipient’s diocese. The letter was printed by Karl Zeumer, who followed the text of a Rheims manuscript from the third quarter of the ninth century (Merseburg, Domstiftsbibliothek, Ms. 100, fol. 2r), which has been missing since 1957. Zeumer thought that it was probably the witness used by the French Baroque scholar Étienne Baluze for his 1677 edition.Footnote 29 Isolde Schröder then published this letter again in her recent critical edition, drawing on all the manuscripts known to her, but she suggested that the probable model for Baluze’s edition was a single leaf from a Metz manuscript from the third quarter of the ninth century (Paris, BnF, Latin 3358, fol. 49v).Footnote 30 Zeumer and Schröder both overlooked two more manuscript witnesses of this letter, which have recently been discussed by Gerhard Schmitz in two publications from 2006.Footnote 31 A manuscript of this letter also existed at the Catalan Benedictine abbey of Santa Maria de Ripoll until 1835, but it is now lost. Fortunately, it had been copied in 1776 by the Catalan scholar Jaume Caresmar (1717–1791), a work authorized by the Ripoll monk and librarian Antoni d’Olmera i Desprats.Footnote 32 This early modern copy of the letter has been preserved as Barcelona, Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, MS Ripoll 77, fols. 5rb–5vb.Footnote 33 The lost medieval Ripoll codex and its early modern copy can thus be added to existing print and electronic text and manuscript repertories.Footnote 34

At this point, a supplementary remark should be made about the dating of the lost Ripoll original. Gerhard Schmitz preferred a ninth-century date, while Jaime Villanueva, whose palaeographic eye was excellent, dated it to the early tenth century. Both datings are rather unlikely, however, in view of what we know about Ripoll’s earliest manuscripts, both those written within the Catalan abbey and those that were imported. In general, Ripoll copies of very specific Carolingian works began to appear more frequently only in the early eleventh century, especially under Abbot-Bishop Oliba of Ripoll and Vic (1008/1018–1046). Oliba specifically sought out collections of Carolingian legal texts.Footnote 35 This suggests that the original Ripoll copy was a product of the eleventh century.

In conclusion, this note has shown that even in the most recent critical editions, important textual witnesses have been overlooked because a full analysis of the holdings of the manuscript collections of national and international libraries is still wanting.Footnote 36 It stands as a warning to us not to regard even the latest critical editions as definitive, as long as our rich medieval manuscript heritage has not been completely viewed, identified, described, indexed, and digitized.

Edition of Archbishop Theutgaud of Trier’s Epistola formata

Gloriosissimo et a deo coronato magno et pacifico regi karolo . et omnibus beatissimis presulibus ceterisque in gradibus ecclesiasticisa ordinatis et universis in regno eius secularem administrantibus (fol. 145r) dignitatem seu cunctis fidelibus domini nostri iesu christi adventum diligentibus . Teotgaudusb humillimus trevirorum archiepiscopus plenam pacem et perpetui gaudii optabilemc implorat salutem . Quia sepe fieri solet ut magni viri summa religionis arce conspicui virtutum robore prevalidi . Armis iusticię accincti castitatis candore insigniti sapientię decore prefulgidi . migrandi de suis locis concipiant amorem quo per talem occasionem humanam possint subterfugere laudem . et minoris meriti aestimantur ab extraneis qui granditer honorificabanturd a notise . plurima quippe sunt istius modif occasionisg veteris et novi testamenti hortamenta et evidentissima hnon solum in redemptore sed ipsis etiam apostolicis imitabiliah pre oculisi documenta quę vobis quoniamj satis agnita esse non ambigimus oportuniusk ea preterimus . Hac igitur felicissima consuetudine et saluberrima doctrina commonitus quidam frater nobis karissimusl et cunctis benevolentibus nomine hegilo quia diocesanusm noster erat in nostra videlicet dyocesin nutritus et tonsus sacroque dogmate sanctarum scripturarum plenissime eruditus . et honestissime conversatuso atque in aecclesia nobis commissa ad sacerdotii dignitatem fuerat promotus licentiam a nobis petiit ut more canonico absolutione suscepta et largita sibi benedictione tutius atque securiusp loca sanctorum visitare et ad vestram presentiam liberius ac familiarius valeret accedereq ad quemcumquer ex nobiss illum itineris varietas perduxisset . Itaque nos petitioni eius adsensum tribuentes et venerationi illius consentientes adquievimus consentiendo quod secundum deum desiderare videbatur . Quocirca suppliciter deprecamur et obnixe deposcimus humanitatem vestram ut honorabiliter susceptum sicut dei templum et habitaculum spiritus sancti veluti mansionem sanctę trinitatis. quemadmodum preciosissimum membrum christi . sicuti auctum dono et largitionet septiformis gratiae dei . quocumque pervenerit . sive modico seu largiori spatio. apud vos moraturus benigne tractetis . humanę exibeatis . ut christum in eo suscipientes prout rogamus fideliter pro illo meritum munificentię vestrę adquiratis ęternaliter . Denique cum propter memorabilem iustificationum ipsius prerogativam has vobis pacificas litteras porrigere decerneremus opere precium fore arbitrati sumus . ut greca quoque elementa ex nomine patris .Π. et filii .Υ. et spiritus sancti .Λ. Primamqueu litteram ex nomine beati petri apostoli .Π. et amen . In fine in(fol. 145r/v)seremus cum litteris nihilvominus grecis . summam illarum demonstrantibus Φ . Ξ . Λ . ut per hoc vobis evidentius luceret honorificentia eius . quamw exoramus prefixis apicibus sanctę trinitatis . ut sacrosancta trinitasx illum ubique conservet muniat atque deffendaty . intercędente beato petro apostolo. Λ . )–( . Η Ν . vero in extremo adponere studuimusz optantes ut iter illius salubriter dirigatur . oculis divine maiestatis efficiatur acceptabile . receptibile sanctis . et memorabile in ęternum per dominum iesum christum . Hac ratione in hac epistola greca helementa posuimus . non ut canonicam formatam formaremus . sed ut eidem Iam intimato hegiloni . prospera per helementa indita imprecaremura’ . Valete . Dextera dei patris per quamb’ facta sunt secula religionemc’ vestram tueatur . et bonamd’ impleat voluntatem iuxta desiderium vestrum omnes fideles et cuncti beatissimi fratres cum rege karolo a rege omnium regum pro magnis meritis in perpetuum coronandoe’. amen .

Variants

a ecclesiae L’ b Teutgaudus L’ c optabilem om. L’ d honorificabuntur L. L’ e nobis L. L’ f istiusmodi L. L’ g occasiones corr. occasionis P h … h om. L. L’ i ocula L’ j quia L. L’ k opportunius L. L’ l charissimus L. carissimus L’ m dioecesanus L. L’ n dioecesi L. L’ o conservatus L’ p post corr. P q accedere valeret L. L’ r quemcunque L. quemquamque L’ s vobis L. L’ t largitate L. L’ u primam quoque L. L’ v h rad. P w quem L. L’ x trinitatis L’ y defendat L. L’ z studiumus sic L’ a’ precaremur L. precaremus L’ b’ quem L. L’ c’ religiontem L erronee L’, p. 63 n. a d’ bonum corr. bonam P e’ coronandi L. L’

Footnotes

The three new manuscript witnesses discussed in this article were identified and analyzed in the framework of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) project “Carolingian Culture in Septimania and Catalonia” (Vienna and Barcelona, P 33080-G). The author would like to thank the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris and the Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó in Barcelona for the opportunity to consult the original manuscripts for in-depth codicological and palaeographical research.

References

1 Epistolae variorum 798–923, ed. I. Schröder, MGH, Epistolae 9 (Epistolae Karolini aevi 7) (Wiesbaden, 2022).

2 Epistolae variorum 798–923, ed. Schröder, 3–283. The classic study of this text genre remains C. Fabricius, “Die Litterae Formatae im Frühmittelalter,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 9 (1926): 39–86 and 168–94.

3 S. Patzold, Presbyter: Moral, Mobilität und die Kirchenorganisation im Karolingerreich (Stuttgart, 2020), esp. 503–505 for a chronological overview of the fifty-four Carolingian epistolae formatae currently known. See also idem, “Bishops, Power, and Local Churches in the Frankish Countryside,” in I Franchi: Settimane di Studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 69 (Spoleto, 21–27 aprile 2022), 2 vols. (Spoleto, 2023), 1:651–89, at 669–72; and I. Schröder, “Kanonisches Recht und seine Umsetzung am Beispiel der ‘epistolae formatae’ des 9. Jahrhunderts,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Paris, 17–23 July 2016, ed. F. Demoulin-Auzary et al. (Vatican City, 2022), 1–12.

4 The description of the manuscript in Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae 3 (Paris, 1744), 524b, does not analyze the complex content of the final part (fols. 142r–150r) following the Rule of St Basil. See more recently F. Maassen, “Bibliotheca Latina Juris Canonici Manuscripta 1: Die Canonensammlungen vor Pseudo-Isidor. II. Frankreich,” Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 54 (1866): 157–288, at 254–55.

5 Maassen, “Bibliotheca Latina Juris Canonici Manuscripta 1,” 254–55; idem, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters, Band 1: Die Rechtssammlungen bis zur Mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Graz, 1870), 849 (no. 21); H. J. Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche, 2 vols. (Mainz, 1883–1898), 1:716 (“saec. xii”) and 2:260; H. Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: Die ‘Collectio vetus Gallica,’ die älteste systematische Kanonessammlung des fränkischen Gallien: Studien und Edition (Berlin, 1975), 263 (“saec. xii”); L. Kéry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (Washington D.C., 1999), 89 (“saec. xii”); and A. Firey, “Ghostly Recensions in Early Medieval Canon Law: The Problem of the ‘Collectio Dacheriana’ and its Shades,” Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 68 (2000): 63–82, at 72 n. 39. On specific features of this copy of the Collectio Dacheriana, see G. Le Bras, “Les deux formes de la ‘Dacheriana’,” in Mélanges Paul Fournier (Paris, 1929), 395–414, at 404–405.

6 Epistolae Arelatenses genuinae, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH, Epistolae 3 (Epistolae Merowingici et Carolini Aevi 1) (Berlin, 1892), 5–47 and 55–66 (Manuscript 4). See also Maassen, “Bibliotheca Latina Juris Canonici Manuscripta 1,” 254; idem, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts, 768–70 (no. 4); W. Gundlach, “Der Streit der Bisthümer Arles und Vienne um den Primatus Galliarum,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 14 (1889): 251–342; and 15 (1890): 9–102 and 233–92 (Manuscript 4); and D. Jasper and H. Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages (Washington, D.C., 2001), 86 (“twelfth century”).

7 For an edition, see Schmitz, Bussbücher 1:752–57. Further on this text, see idem, Bussbücher 1:197, 201, 394, 716, and 751; and 2:39, 55, 97, 178, 192, 195, 260, 388, 389, 403, 468, and 677; A. Lagarde, “Le manuel du confesseur du xi e siècle,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, n.s. 1 (1910): 542–50, at 547; and K. M. Delen et al., “The ‘Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense’: A Witness of the Carolingian Contribution to the Tenth-Century Reforms in England,” Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002): 341–73, at 346–48 and 358.

8 For a partial edition, see Schmitz, Bussbücher 1:757 (only the beginning on fol. 94v) and 2:480–88 (fols. 96r–97r). Further on this text, see idem, Bussbücher 2:468–69, 472–73, 476, and 505; P. Fournier, “Essai de restitution d’un manuscrit pénitentiel détruit,” in Mélanges Mandonnet: Études d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale du Moyen Âge, 2 vols. (Paris, 1930), 2:39–45, at 42; and P. Fournier and G. Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les fausses décrétales jusqu’au Décret de Gratien, Tome 1: De la réforme carolingienne à la réforme grégorienne (Paris, 1931), 432–34.

9 On this text, see Schmitz, Bussbücher 1:752, and 2:468. There is no modern edition.

10 Basili regula a Rufino latine versa, ed. K. Zelzer, CSEL 86 (Vienna, 1986), xxix (“s. xi/xii”). Further on this text, see Maassen, “Bibliotheca Latina Juris Canonici Manuscripta 1,” 255; idem, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts, 346; Gundlach, “Der Streit der Bisthümer Arles und Vienne,” 285; and J. Gribomont, Histoire du texte des Ascétiques de S. Basile (Louvain, 1953), 99 (no. 23, dated “fin xi e ou début xii e s., provient d’Arles”) and 107.

11 See n. 4, above; the edition of fols. 144v–145v at the end of the article; and n. 20, below, with a description of the content of fols. 145v–147v.

12 Concilia antiqua Galliae tres in tomos ordine digesta, ed. J. Sirmond, 3 vols. (Paris, 1629–1666), 2:666–67 (no. III: “Ex codice Lirinensi”); Fabricius, “Die Litterae Formatae,” 178 and 192–93 (no. 39: “9. Jhrh.”); and C. van Rhijn, Shepherds of the Lord: Priests and Episcopal Statutes in the Carolingian Period (Turnhout, 2007), 175–76 with n. 13. The letter is now also listed by Patzold, Presbyter, 504 (no. 18).

13 For her edition of the letter based on Sirmond’s text, see Epistolae variorum, ed. Schröder, 62–63 (no. 31), with eadem, “Kanonisches Recht”, 12.

14 C. van Rhijn, “Priests and the Carolingian Reforms: The Bottlenecks of Local Correctio,” in Texts and Identities in the Early Middle Ages, ed. R. Corradini et al. (Vienna, 2006), 219–37, at 227 n. 40; eadem, Shepherds of the Lord, 175 n. 13: “This letter dates to the time of Charles the Bald and can be dated no more precisely than that”; and Epistolae variorum, ed. Schröder, 61: “Der Brief enthält … nicht die übrigen Zeichen für Absender, Empfänger, Überbringer und Indiktion, sodass er sich nicht eindeutig datieren lässt.”

15 Further on the significance of Arles, see below.

16 The deposition has been edited by W. Hartmann in MGH, Concilia 4 (Hanover, 1998), 124–26, with indirect evidence assembled on 91 (an excerpt from the Annales Bertiniani ad a. 862) and 96 (Hincmar of Rheims’s Subscriptio).

17 C. von Noorden, Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Rheims: Ein Beitrag zur Staats- und Kirchengeschichte des westfränkischen Reiches in der zweiten Hälfte des neunten Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1863), 183. According to H. Schrörs, the letter’s content points to a time when Pope Nicholas I had not yet taken up the matter, but that does not contradict the temporal context suggested here. See H. Schrörs, Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims: Sein Leben und seine Schriften (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1884), 246 n. 34.

18 M. Stratmann, Hinkmar von Reims, Collectio de ecclesiis et capellis, MGH, Fontes iuris 14 (Hanover, 1990), 49 and 51; and O. Schneider, Erzbischof Hinkmar und die Folgen: Der vierhundertjährige Weg historischer Erinnerungsbilder von Reims nach Trier (Berlin, 2010), 87–88, 90–91, 100, 215, 265, 302, and 345.

19 A short abstract of Hincmar’s letter addressed to Theutgaud, in which he refuted the latter’s pretensions (dated to 852/853), is mentioned in Flodoard of Rheims, Historia Remensis Ecclesiae 3.21: “Teutgaudio Treverensi de primatu, quem deferri ab eo debere scripserat ille sedi Trevirorum, insinuans id eidem sedi a sede Remorum numquam fuisse delatum et cetera,” ed. M. Stratmann, MGH, Scriptores 36 (Hanover, 1998), 57–457, at 271. See also M. Stratmann, “Briefe an Hinkmar von Reims,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 48 (1992): 37–81, at 52.

20 The collection comprises the following topics and sources: decision by majority at a Church council (Nicaea I 6 [here can. 11]); episcopal election (Arles II 54 [here can. 33]; decision by majority in the case of different opinions in an episcopal election (Nicaea II 7 [here can. 4]); metropolitan election (Orléans III 3); involvement of further bishops in the case of a disputed episcopal election (Carthage XVII 50 [here Carthage 1]); rights and tasks of the primate in the case of an episcopal or metropolitan election (Leo I: JK 411); promotion of monks to clerics and bishops (Siricius: JK 255); obtaining permission from the abbot in the case of appointing a monk as a cleric or bishop (Agde 27 [here can. 28]); avoidance of ecclesiastical and secular business activities by monks (Chalcedon 4 [here can. 3]); prohibition against leaving the clerical or monastic status (Chalcedon 7); prohibition against a monk exercising any office other than his mission (Tarragona 11 [here can. 12]); rights and obligations of bishops and abbots in the case of a new monastic foundation and relocation or transfer of monks to clerical status (Agde 27 [here can. 28]); prohibition against delaying an episcopal election (Chalcedon 22 [here can. 25]); prohibition against implementing an episcopal candidate against the will of the clergy and people (Leo I: JK 411); prohibition of simony (Chalcedon 2); prohibition of clerical ordination and acceptance of itinerant monks (Agde 27 [Pseudo-Isidor]? [here Innocentius I]); abbot’s duty to release a monk for episcopal election in case of necessity (Paenitentiale Umbrense XXI 10 [here Gelasius I]); and a bishop’s ability to request monks for clerical ordination from an abbot in case of necessity (Agde 27 [Benedictus Levita] [here Gelasius I]). I thank my German colleagues Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schmitz (Tübingen) and Prof. Dr. Christof Rolker (Bamberg) for suggesting identifications in the last part of the collection (28 February and 1 March 2024).

21 This is the case, for example, in the transmission of Bishop Adventius of Metz’s epistola formata, which originally accompanied a special collection of church law. See n. 31, below.

22 The manuscript is not mentioned by F. Avril et al., Manuscrits enluminés de la Péninsule ibérique (Paris, 1982). Its provenance from Narbonne was already assumed, however, by J. R. Barriga [i] Planas, El sacramentari, ritual i pontifical de Roda (Barcelona, 1975), 144 n. 261: “El tipus d’escriptura fa pensar en una procedència meridional i el gran nombre de cartes dels Papes al bisbe Rusticus de Narbona fa suposar que prové d’aquesta seu”; and F. X. Altés i Aguiló, “Un qüestionari sinodal sobre la litúrgia gaŀlicana en un manuscrit gironí,” Revista catalana de teologia 4 (1979): 101–16, at 104: “el penitencial del Ms. lat. 3880 de la Biblioteca Nacional de París, el qual procedeix de Narbona.”

23 F. Avril, Fichier des manuscrits enluminés du départment des manuscripts = Paris, BnF, Nouvelle acquisition française 28635 (1).

24 L. Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, 3 vols. (Paris, 1868–1881), 1:282–85.

25 Regesta Pontificum Romanorum: Tomus Quintus, ed. P. Jaffé and K. Herbers, 3rd ed. (Göttingen, 2024), 330 (no. 13242) = PL 151, cols. 495–96 (no. 224). See also H. Vidal, “Les origines de la primatie narbonnaise (xi e–xii e siècles),” in Narbonne: Archéologie et histoire, Tome 2: Narbonne au Moyen Âge: XLVe Congrès organisé par la Fédération historique du Languedoc méditerranéen et du Roussillon, à l’occasion de la célébration du VIIe Centenaire de la Cathédrale Saint-Just et Saint-Pasteur (Montpellier, 1973), 121–27, at 122 and 126.

26 M. Aurell i Cardona, Les noces du comte: Mariage et pouvoir en Catalogne (785–1213) (Paris, 1995), 55, 348, 394, 421, 476, and 533–34.

27 On the relationship of the Arles witnesses of this letter collection, see Gundlach, “Der Streit der Bisthümer Arles und Vienne,” 303.

28 M. Aurell i Cardona, “L’expansion catalane en Provence au xii e siècle,” in La formació i expansió del feudalisme català: Homenatge a Santiago Sobrequés i Vidal, ed. J. Portella i Comas (Girona and Barcelona, 1986), 175–97, at 177, 186, and 190. One should not overlook, however, the role of Aicard of Arles, former monk of Saint-Victor de Marseille, who ruled again from 1107–1113, precisely during the Catalan takeover in Provence.

29 See the editions by É. Baluze in Capitularia regum Francorum, 2 vols. (Paris, 1677), 2:585 (no. 42); and K. Zeumer, in MGH, Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi (Hanover, 1886), 563 (no. 20). See also Fabricius, “Die Litterae Formatae,” 178 and 192–93 (no. 24: “858”); and Patzold, Presbyter, 504 (no. 24).

30 Epistolae variorum, ed. Schröder, 90–92 (no. 44).

31 G. Schmitz, “Die Appendix Dacherianae Mettensis, Benedictus Levita und Hinkmar von Laon,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 92 (2006): 147–206, at 150; and idem, “Ein Kanonist bei der Arbeit: Kleine Rechtstexte aus Codex Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón Ripoll 77,” in Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington, ed. W. P. Müller and M. E. Sommar (Washington D.C., 2006), 57–65, at 59–60.

32 On Jaume Caresmar, see now P. Freedman, The Splendor and Opulence of the Past: Studying the Middle Ages in Enlightenment Catalonia (Ithaca, 2023), passim.

33 P. Ewald, “Reise nach Spanien im Winter von 1878 auf 1879,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 6 (1881): 217–398, at 387 and 392; R. Beer and Z. García [y Villada], Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Hispaniensis, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1886–1915), 2:43–44; F. Valls i Taberner, “Les coleccions canóniques a Catalunya durant la época comtal (872–1162),” in Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der mittleren und neueren Geschichte und ihrer Hilfswissenschaften: Eine Festgabe zum siebzigsten Geburtstag Geh. Rat Prof. Dr. Heinrich Finke gewidmet (Münster in Westphalia, 1925), 43–51, at 45–48; J. Rius [i Serra], “El Concili de Nicea en la província eclesiàstica Tarraconense,” Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia 2 (1926): 553–92, at 566 and 591; G. Martínez [y] Díez, La Colección Canónica Hispana 1: Estudio (Madrid, 1966), 65 n. 36 (where the text is not mentioned); I. Maria Puig i Ferreté et al., Índex codicològic del ‘Viatge literario’ de Jaume Villanueva (Barcelona, 1998), 100 (no. 503) and 164 (no. 503); and M. Zimmermann, Écrire et lire en Catalogne (ix e–xii e siècle), 2 vols. (Madrid, 2003), 2:767.

34 For example, M.-H. Jullien and F. Perelman, Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi. Auctores Galliae 735–987, 4 vols. (Turnhout, 1994–2015), 1:60; and Compendium Auctorum Latinorum Medii Aevii (500–1500), 7 vols. (Florence, 2000–2021), 1:48–49.

35 The most famous is certainly Barcelona, Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, Ms. Ripoll 40, a copy of Ansegis of Saint-Wandrille’s collection of capitularies and many other Carolingian legal texts made around the year 1020. Another copy from early eleventh-century Vic, later in nearby Santa Maria de l’Estany, is New York, Hispanic Society of America, HC 380/819 with the acts of the Council of Troyes of 878 (containing capitularies of several Carolingian bishops such as Theodulf of Orléans, Radulf of Bourges, and Pseudo-Theodulf of Orléans), capitularies of Bishop Isaac of Langres, and excerpts of Pseudo-Isidore’s Decretalia. A less well-known case concerns the earliest secure knowledge of the Collectio Dacheriana in Catalonia under Abbot Oliba. See M. M. Tischler, “Carolingian Canon Law Collections in Early Medieval Catalonia: Complementing or Replacing the Hispano-Visigothic Legal Tradition?,” in Canon Law and Christian Societies between Christianity and Islam: An Arabic Canon Collection from al-Andalus and its Transcultural Contexts, ed. M. Maser et al. (Turnhout, 2024), 87–125, at 108–11.

36 This observation applies in principle to all new finds or rediscoveries presented here. In the first case, it has to do with the lack of modern cataloguing of the legal manuscripts of the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (Latin 3836–4793), which was called for nearly thirty years ago by M. Bertram, “Drei neuere Kataloge juristischer Handschriften,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 82 (1996): 381–402, at 397 n. 52.