¹ Mabillon, J., De re Diplomatica (Paris 1681) p 142 Google Scholar, and Suppl (Paris 1704) p 48 with plate; Le Blanc, F., Dissertation historique sur quelques monnoyes de Charlemagne frappées dans Rome (Paris 1689, 1690) title-page and p 24 Google Scholar. The most accessible reproductions are now Schramm, [P. E.], K[aiser] K[önige und] P[apste] 1 (Stuttgart 1968) p 370 Google Scholar; a bibliography of other eighteenth- and nineteenth-century references is in Schramm KKP 2 p 21 n 23 whose pp 21-5 are the most extended recent discussion of the bulla; but compare my comments in Studies [in Memory of David] Talbot Rice (Edinburgh 1975) ed Henderson, G. and Robertson, G. pp 244-5Google Scholar. Mabillon tells us that his design was provided by iam laudatus Fauvellus abbas e suo cimelio. The abbé Fauvel does not figure in any French biographical dictionary and Mr Robert Shackleton (Bodley’s librarian) and other students of the period whom I have asked have been unable to discover any account of him elsewhere: he is presumably the collector of curios, two pamphlets by whom are listed in the Catalogue Général des livres imprimés de la Bibliothèque Nationale 50 (Paris 1929) col 41.

² Haselbach, I., Aufstieg und Herrschaft der Karlinger in der Darstellung der sogenannten Annales Mettenses priores, Historische Studien 412 (Lübeck/Hamburg 1970) esp pp 184 seq Google Scholar.

³ For the colophons of the ‘Gelasians’ see most conveniently Moreton, B., The Eighth-Century Gclasian Sacramentary (Oxford 1976) pp 176 Google Scholar seq, where also the history of the term is comprehensively reviewed on pp 2-14 (without, however, taking account of the iconographic evidence of, for example, Berlin MS Theol lat fol 192, inserted leaf; Göttingen Land-und Univ Bibl MS Theol 231, fol l^v; and Bamberg Staatl Bibl MS A II 52 fol 12^v). For the colophons of ‘Gregorians’ see the splendid edition of Deshusses, [Dom J.], [Le Sacramentare Grégorien] (Fribourg-en-Suisse 1971) p 85 Google Scholar, which limits its apparatus to ninth-century examples: and note that according to Bourque, E., Etude sur les Sacramentaires romains, 2. ii (Vatican City 1958) p 37 Google Scholar, Mainz Seminarbibl MS 1 (Deshusses’s F) does have editum ex authentico libro bibliothecae cubiculi. The only listing of later examples of this phrase—which seems not to figure in any English manuscript—is Traube, L., Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti ABAW, 3 Cl, 21 iii (1898) pp 675-6Google Scholar.

⁴ Wurm, [H.], Studien [und Texte zur Decretalsammlung des Dionysius Exiguus] (Rome 1939) p 115 Google Scholar lists the early collections in which it figures. The most accessible text is PL 20 (1845) pp 351-61 (from Coustant); for other early editions see Kehr, P., Italia Pontificia 4 (Berlin 1909) p 82 nr 1 Google Scholar, to be used in conjunction with Wurm, Studien, pp 124-8, with Spicilegium Casinense 1 (Monte Cassino 1888/1893) p 231 (variant readings in Novara bibl cap MS XXX), and—for c.[5]— Capelle, B. ‘Innocent 1er et le canon de la messe’, RTAM 19 (1952) pp 5–16 Google Scholar, which demonstrates that all medieval readers of the text knew only (but did not follow?) an incorrect version of the pope’s ruling here! The most recent discussion of the content of the letter is by Monachino, V. in Atti del II° Convegno di Studi Umbri, Gubbio, 1964 (Perugia 1965) pp 211-34Google Scholar.

⁵ MGH Epp 2, ed Ewald, P./Hartmann, L. M. (1899 repr 1957) pp 332 Google Scholar seq, Bede, HE I, 27; Meyvaert, [P.], ‘Diversity within Unity, a Gregorian theme’, The Heythrop Journal, 4 (London 1963) esp pp 144 seq Google Scholar; Meyvaert, ‘Bede’s text [of the Libellus Responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Canterbury’, England before the Conquest: studies . . . presented to Dorothy Whitelock], ed Clemoes, P. and Hughes, K. (Cambridge 1971) pp 15–33 Google Scholar. The dissemination from north Italy is observed but not developed by Meyvaert in ‘Bede’s text’, p 29 n 4. A plausible context is the Rome-directed missionary activity which completed the conversion of the Lombards in the concluding decades of the seventh century, magisterially described by [G. P.] Bognetti in his ‘Sta. Maria foris portas di Castelseprio e la storia religiosa dei Longobardi’ (1948) and in a series of papers subsequently, all reprinted as L’Éta Longobarda, 4 vols (Milan 1966-9), even though not all his arguments and interpretations are now acceptable. The plausibility of the view that the Libellus was used as a convenient handbook by those working among the Lombards in this missionary period is strengthened by the fact that the (interpolated) answer permitting marriage within the fourth degree is related to rulings on marriage in the period 723-50 and a query of the bishop of Pavia to pope Zacharias: on the former see Bognetti, L’Éta Longobarda, 2 pp 214-17, on the latter my remarks in Atti [del] 4° [Congr int di studi sull’Alto medioevo, Pavia,] 1967 (Spoleto 1969) p 323.

⁶ Andrieu, [M.], [Les] Ordines [Romani du Haut Moyen Age] 5 vols (Louvain 1931-61)Google Scholar: for John, Ordines, 3, pp 6-15, 20-21 with Hist abb anon, cap 10 (Plummer p 391), Hist abb Bedae, cap 6 (Plummer p 369) and HE IV, 18; for his monastery see Ferrari, G., Early Roman Monasteries (Vatican City 1957) pp 230 Google Scholar seq, with a discussion of the evidence of the ordines for the monastic observance of the Vatican basilical monasteries at pp 392-9. For the hymns quoted in De Arte metrica see Gneuss, H., Hymnar und Hymnen im englischchen Mittelalter (Tübingen 1968) pp 35-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar with the table on pp 24-5, and the new edition by Kendall, C. B., CC 123 A (1975)Google Scholar. The addition to the canon is recorded in HE II 1 (which it is not correct to say ‘is borrowed from the Liber Pontificalis’ , as Colgave in the edition of [B.] Colgrave and [R. A. B.] Mynors (Oxford 1969) p 130 n 4, since the Liber does not quote the added petitions in full); for its presence in other eighth-century sacramentarles see the apparatus of Botte, B., Le Canon de la Messe romaine: édition critique (Louvain 1935) p 36 Google Scholar. For the antiphon compare HE I 25 with the additions to the Compiègne and Senlis texts of the Roman Antiphonale Missarum, Hesbert, [R-J.] [Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex] (Rome 1935) 202a, p 207 Google Scholar; for the Rogations see the Epistola de obitu Bedae, ed Colgrave and Mynors, pp 582-4 and Duchesne, L., Christian Worship, its origin and evolution (5 Engl ed, London 1927) pp 288-9Google Scholar.

⁷ Hist abb Bedae, caps 4, 6, 9, 11 (Plummer, pp 367 seq).

⁸ Courcelle, [P.], [Les] Lettres grecques [en Occident dc Macrobe à Cassidore] (2 ed, Paris 1948) pp 374-6Google Scholar (but compare below n 10); Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., ‘The Art of the Codex Amiatinus’, J[ournal of the] B[ritish] A[rcheological] A[ssociation], 32 (London 1969) pp 1 Google Scholar seq, but for the text of the Amiatinus as an edition based on exemplars from various sources, not exclusively Cassiodoran, see Fischer, B. in La Bibbia nell’Alto Medioevo, SS Spoleto 10 (1963) pp 559-61Google Scholar.

⁹ Welzhofer, [K.], [‘Beda’s Citate aus der Naturalis historia des Plinius’], Wilhelm v. Christ . . . dargebrachten Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Klass.-Altertumswissenschaft (Munich 1891) pp 25–41 Google Scholar thought that Bede’s citations were exclusively from bks II-VI, which nicely coincides with the scope of the northern English manuscript Leiden Voss Lat F.4 (CLA nr 1578) and with the range of the extracts in a Leiden and a Paris manuscript published by Rück, [K.] in Sitzungsberichte München (1898) 1 pp 257-87Google Scholar. Laistner, [M. L. W.], [‘The library of the Venerable Bede’], Bede, his Life, Times and Writings, ed Thompson, A. H. (Oxford 1935) pp 243-4Google Scholar found evidence, however, that he also knew bks XII, XIII, XVI and XXXVII but evidently not XVIII. Since it seems likely that what Rück (the first scholar to study it) called an ‘astronomisch-komputischen Sammelwerk des achten Jahrhunderts’, Programm des Ludwigsgymn. in München (1888) containing extracts from bks II and XVIII, was produced in York or in Wearmouth-Jarrow not long after Bede’s death (Rück, p 87; Welzhofer, p 37), it is reasonable to assume that the Wearmouth-Jarrow exemplar was considerably more extensive than bks II-VI.

¹⁰ Laistner, p 245 supposed that Bede used Cassiodorus’s Historia Tripartita but Levison, [W.], England and the Continent [in the Eighth Century] (Oxford 1946) p 141 Google Scholar and note, disproved this. Laistner could, on the other hand, find no trace of the Institutiones in Bede’s writings. Courcelle, Lettres grecques p 375 argues that Bede used Inst I. i 1-4 (ed Mynors, pp 11-12) for the dedicatory letter to his In Genesim (Hexameron), ed Jones, C.W., CC 118A, p 1 Google Scholar. The general similarity is certainly very close but exact verbal parallels are almost entirely lacking and some other explanation than direct dependence on Inst I should probably be sought. Alcuin, too, shows no certain knowledge of Inst I although he used Inst II.

¹¹ MCH Poet 1, ed Duemmler, E. (1880/1 repr 1964) p 204 Google Scholar, where rhetor quoque Tullius implies the De inventione; SS Spoleto, 20 (1973) pp 584-5; and, for Vitruvius, Bischoff, ibid, 18 (1971) p 273. For the transmission of the de inventione between the late-eighth and the late-eleventh centuries see Wallach, [L.] [Alcuin and Charlemagne] (Ithaca 1959) pp 36-7Google Scholar and EHR 75 (1960) pp 490-1.

¹² For the latter see Wallach, pp 193-7, 263-4; but additional examples can be found both in the ‘York Poem’ and elsewhere in Alcuin’s writings. (The epithet iustitiae cultor was used as late as 1225 for the epitaph of a bishop of Kotor (Yugoslavia), where it is walled into the cathedral!) The presence of calendar verses in York is a little more speculative: it can be assumed from the presence of the verses beginning Prima dies Phoebi sacrato nomine fulget (Riese, [Anthologia Latina] 1.ii p 43, nr 488) on fol 107 of London, BL Cott MS Vesp. B VI, that is, in the portion that appears to be at least in part a Mercian copy of late-eighth century York material, which may originally also have included a copy of Riese, 1 ii p 155, nr 680, beginning Bis sena mensum vertigine volvitur annus (so Wilmart, A. in RB 46 (1934) p 49 n 2 Google Scholar, although his reasons are not very clear). For the later history of these verses in England see below, n 61b.

¹³ Haddan, [A. W.] and Stubbs, [W.], [Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents] (Oxford 1869-78) 3, pp 362-75Google Scholar, caps 13, 15, 16, 18; Die Briefe Bonifatius und Lullus, ed Tangl, M. (Berlin 1916) nr 78 Google Scholar. The supposed difficulty presented by the latter’s reference to a letter from pope Zacharias was resolved long ago by Tangl, who saw that this was his nr 77 (Jaffé nr 2278) of 5 January 747 and not his number 80 (Jaffé nr 2286)—clearly excluding, therefore, an ante-dating of Clofesho to 746, as still by SirStenton, Frank, Anglo-Saxon England (3 ed Oxford 1971) p 237 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Haddan and Stubbs, 3, pp 410-13, the Dialogue as a whole on pp 403-13, from the unique complete copy in BL Cott MS Vitellius A XII: but interrogationes i, ii, xii, dealing with secular legal points, are in the Wulfstan MS, Corpus Christi College Cambridge 265, p 99, which argues that a text survived at York until the eleventh century. For the question of authorship compare below pp 30-1.

¹⁵ For example pseudo-Hieronymus, , Expositio IV evangeliorum, PL 11 (1845) cols 549 Google Scholar seq (531 seq), on which see Bischoff, , ‘Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinische Exegese im Frühmittalter’, MStn, 1 (1966) pp 240 seq Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Continuatie Bedae, sa 735, ed Colgrave and Mynors, p 572 and the other references conveniently assembled by Levison, England and the Continent, p 243; Alcuin’s ‘York poem’, MGH Poet I pp 201-2, lines 1457 seq, compare 1465 seq, which shows clearly that the customary dating of Alcuin’s first continental journey to 767 is several years too late; MGH Poet I, p 206.

¹⁷ Fischer, L., Die Kirchlichen Quatember (Munich 1914)Google Scholar is the most comprehensive account of ‘Ember Days’ but this is superseded for the period with which we are concerned here by Willis, [G. G.] [Essays in Early Roman Liturgy], Alcuin Club 46 (London 1964) pp 49–98 Google Scholar; for later Old English practice (interestingly conservative) see Sisam, [K.] [‘ “Seasons of Fasting” ’], Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford 1953) pp 45–60 Google Scholar and esp pp 48-50. For the fast ‘of the first month’ and its early Roman observance see esp Willis, pp 59 seq, although his use of the Egbert Dialogue to support a Gregorian origin for observance in the ‘first week of Lent’ obviously does not appeal to me: and note that the addition of primi in the Liber Diurnus’s text of a much-quoted letter of Gelasius I relating to ordinations (form VI: ed H. Foerster (Bern 1958) p 81)—which Willis p 61 dates, very debatably, ‘c560’—would have created a tautology after the identification of ‘the first month’ with ‘the first week in Lent’, since ingresso quadragesimali is separately mentioned. (In fact Gelasius himself and Symmachus ordained in February, Gregory I in Quadragesima, but no subsequent pope in either until Sergius I ordained in March: Lib Pont 1, pp 255, 263, 312, 376). Gregory’s introduction of the practice into England is categorically asserted in a short text that figures among the supplementary material of the ‘Leofric Missal’ added at Glastonbury c970 (ed F. E. Warren (Oxford 1883) p 53; another text from an (?) eleventh-century continental manuscript in Haddan and Stubbs, 3, pp 52-3) and may in fact be not very much older than this (similarly Sisam, p 49 and n 1).

¹⁸ For the rubrics in the Vatican Gelasian sacramentary see bk I, lxxxii, lxxxiii, ed Wilson pp 124, 125; bk II, lx, lxxxv, ed Wilson pp 200, 220. I am convinced that the type of mass-book in most common use in the major Northumbrian centres in the early part of the eighth century was one very close to but not identical with ‘the Vatican Gelasian’ which in some version or versions must have included masses for south Italian as well as central Italian saints (compare Hohler, [C.] in [Tenth-Century Studies], ed Parsons, D. (London/Chichester 1975) pp 61-2Google Scholar and Mayr-Harting, [H.] [The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England] (London 1972) pp 175-7Google Scholar, 273-4) as well as already commemorating saint Mark on 18 May, for which the fragmentary (Northumbrian) calendar at Munich published by Bauerreiss, R. in Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens 51 (1933) pp 178-9Google Scholar provides evidence earlier than any cited by Hohler, p 227 n 79. The rubrics Sabbato in xii lectiones are Deshusses pp 139, 232, 277, 299 and Hesbert nrs 7a, 46a, III, 192. The Monza gradual and Compiègne antiphoner have almost identical prologues (Hesbert pp 2-3, nr 00) which declare that Gregorius praesul . . . renovans (Compiègne—avit) monumenta patrum [que] priorum tum conposuit hune libellum musicae artis scolae cantorum (Compiègne adds per anni circulum) which has sometimes been attributed to pope Hadrian I. But the supposed eighth-century date of the Monza gradual is rejected by Bischoff—‘nicht vor dem zweiten Drittel des 9. Jhs.’— K[arl] d[er] G[rosse], ed Braunfels, W., 2 (Düsseldorf 1965) p 250 Google Scholar n 132; and both renovare monumenta (at the very least unexpected in the 770s and 780s) and the textual link with John the Deacon’s Antiphonarium centonem cantorum studiosissimus nimis utiliter compilauit; scholam quoque cantorum . . . constituit (Vita Gregorii II 6, PL 75 (1864) col 90)—which has no counterpart in earlier lives—raise doubts whether it is really so early: it was, however, already in circulation in the late 830S when Agobard of Lyons challenged its validity as evidence in his Liber de correctione antiphonarii cap 15, PL 104(1864) col 336. The earliest extent ‘Roman’ capitularia evangeliorum have a rubric mense primo— Klauser, [Th.] Das Römische Capitulare Evangeliorum, L[iturgiegeschichte] Q[uellen und] F[orscltungen] (Münster 1935) pp 19 Google Scholar, 65, 107—which in the court-school manuscript BL Harl 2788 (a text of Klauser’s type Σ) is emphasised by the use of capitals (fol 201).

¹⁹ Vita Prima XV cap 89, ASB Febr 1 (1657/1863) p 131. For authorship and manuscript evidence see meanwhile Connolly, S. in Manuscripta 16 (St Louis, Miss., 1972) pp 67–82 Google Scholar.

²⁰ Levison, England and the Continent, pp 97, 283-4; Frank, H. in Sankt Bonifatius Gedenkgabe (Fulda 1954) pp 58–88 Google Scholar, Hohler, ibid pp 89-93; Mayr-Harting pp 274-5.

²¹ Corpus Cottsuetudinum Monasticarum 1, ed Hallinger, K. (Siegburg 1963) pp 82–91 Google Scholar, [text], 79-82 [intro]. The manuscript, BL Cott Nero A II fols 14-45 (CLA 186), is the earliest source for the sermon published by Levison (England and the Continent pp 302-14) as ‘Venus a Man’ and claimed by him as Merovingian, although a neglected early-ninth-century manuscript from Reichenau, Karlsruhe Aug cxcvi (details in TRHS, 5 ser, 24 (1974) p 106 n 19) with a text that is in some respects fuller, strengthens the case for an origin in or near the Alpine regions.

^21b Klauser, , [‘Ein Metzer Stationsliste des 8. Jh]’ [1930], Gesammelte Arbeiten [zur Liturgiegeschichte . . .], JAC, Erg-Bd 3 (1974) p 28 Google Scholar; council of Mainz, an 813, cap 34, MGH Leg sectio III, concilia ii, ed Werminghoff, A. (Hannover/Leipzig 1906) p 269 Google Scholar.

²² Libri Carolini, I 6, ed Bastgen, , MGH Conc ii suppl (Berlin 1924) pp 21-2Google Scholar.

²³ E. Jammers ‘Die Musik in Byzanz, im päpstlichen Rom und in Frankenreich’, Abh der Heidelberger Akademie 1962/1, esp pp 196 seq; Llewellyn, P. Rome in the Dark Ages (London 1970) cap 4, esp pp 123-6Google Scholar; Lib Pont 1, p 497.

²⁴ Andrieu, , Ordines 2, pp xlvi seq Google Scholar, 137 seq; 3, pp 3 seq. The substitution of ‘Capua’ for ‘Gubbio’ is, according to Wurm, Studien, p 124, a feature of the text of the letter added to the so-called collectio Sanblasiana in a Corbie manuscript of the second half of the eighth century, Paris BN 3836, here fol 101^v.

²⁵ Meier, G. Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum qui in bibliotheca monasterii Einsidlensis servantur 1 (Einsiedeln/Leipzig 1899) pp 297 Google Scholar seq (with refs to earlier literature); Huelsen, C. ‘La pianta di Roma dell’Anonimo Einsidlense’, Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 2 ser, 9 (1907) pp 3 seq Google Scholar; Valentini, R., Zucchetti, G. Codice topografico della Città di Roma 2 (Rome 1942) pp 170–207 Google Scholar, compare pp 60 seq.

²⁶ Lib Pont 1, p 464, compare p 455; MGH Epp 3, ed Gundlach, W. (1892 repr 1957) p 511 Google Scholar; Schiffers, H. Der Relinquienschatz Karls des Grossen und die Anfänge der Aachenfahrt (Aachen 1951) pp 81-3Google Scholar; Codex Laureshamensis, ed Glöckner, K., 3 (Darmstadt 1936) nr 2966, pp 244-5Google Scholar. For the cemetery-church from which the relics were taken see Krautheimer, R. Corpus Basilicarum Romanarum 3 (Vatican City 1967) pp 128-34Google Scholar; for the one-time imperial mausoleum see Koethe, H. in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abt 46 (Rome 1931) pp 9–26 Google Scholar. Prinz, F. ‘Stadtrömischitalische Märtyrerreliquien und Fränkischer Reichsadel im Maas-Moselraum’, HJch 87 (1967) pp 1–25 Google Scholar puts the Petronilla-translation and its political implications in a wider context.

²⁷ Eckhardt, K.A., Lex Salica: 100 Titel-Text, Germanenrechte NF (Weimar 1953) pp 88–90 Google Scholar.

²⁸ [R.] Krautheimer’s epoch-making ‘The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture’ Art Bulletin 24 (Providence 1942)Google Scholar repr with corrections in Krautheimer, , Studies [in Early Christian, Medieval and Renaissance Art] (New York/London 1969/1971) pp 203-54Google Scholar supposed (cautiously) that the history of the single-apsed, continuous-transepted basilican church north of the Alps began with Fulrad’s St.-Denis. The discovery in re-excavation of evidence for an arcade segregating the transept wings from its centre bay deprives St Denis of its priority as a ‘copy’ of St Peter’s, which now therefore belongs to Fulda a generation later (Krautheimer, Studies, p 255 and private communication of 20 April 1965): but Fulrad’s church still seems to me Rome-inspired. Major Frankish churches as ‘Romes’ is the notion of Häussling, A. A., Mönchskonvent und Eucharistiefeier, LQF 58 (1973) esp pp 88 Google Scholar seq, 180 seq.

²⁹ Paris BN MS n.a. lat. 1203: CLA nr 681; Koehler, [W.] [Die Karolingischen Miniaturen, 2: Die] Hofschule [Karls des Grossen] (Berlin 1958) pp 22 seq Google Scholar, pls 1-12; Bullough, D. A. The Age of Charlemagne (London 1973) pp 99 seq Google Scholar.

³⁰ Frere, W. H., Studies in Early Roman Liturgy, 2: The Roman Gospel-Lectionary, Atcuin Club (Oxford 1934) pp 215-16Google Scholar. Underwood, P. ‘The Fountain of Life in manuscripts of the Gospels’, DOP 5 (1950) pp 43–138 Google Scholar, esp 44-67, whose interpretation of the Evangelistiary and Soisson gospels (below) picture is in my view not overthrown by Klauser’s ‘demonstration’ (Gesammelte Arbeiten pp 314-27, esp 326-7) that the image is that of a ciborium over a puteus; MGH Poet 1, pp 94-5, with Wallach, p 196.

³¹ BL Harleian MS 2788 fol 11^v, Paris BN MS lat 8850 fol 7^v, Koehler Hofschule pls 52, 70; Perkins, J. B.Ward ‘The shrine of St. Peter and its twelve spiral columns’, JRS 42 (1952) pp 21–33 Google Scholar; Rosenbaum, E. ‘The vine columns of Old St Peter’s in Carolingian Canon Tables’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 18 (London 1955) pp 1–15 Google Scholar.

³² Lowe, E.A., CLA 6 (Oxford 1953) p xxvii Google Scholar; Brown, T. J. in La paléographie Hébraïque Médiévale, Colloques internationaux du CRNS nr 547 (Paris nd [?1975]) p 132 Google Scholar.

³³ Bischoff in KdG, 2, p 234; Bischoff, in [Medieval Learning and Literature.] Essays [presented To Richard William] Hunt, ed Alexander, J. J. G. and Gibson, M. T. (Oxford 1976) p 12 Google Scholar.

³⁴ CLA nr 707; B. Fischer in KdG 2, p 186. Manuscripts written subsequently (but pre-800) in Maurdramnus minuscule are listed by Lowe CLA 6, p xxiv; for the identification of the grammatical texts in Amiens MS 426 fols 1-29 (CLA nr 712) see Jeudy, C. in Viator 5 (Berkeley 1974) pp 78-9Google Scholar.

³⁵ Vienna Nat bibl MS lat 1861: Koehler, Hofschule pp 42-6, pls 31-2, but better (actual-size colour) reproductions are Beer, R., Monumenta palaeographica Vindobonensia 1 (1910) pls 17–26 Google Scholar. A dating c793-5 is supported by the psalter’s supplementary collection of creeds: see Studies Talbot Rice pp 242-3, 271 (n 88).

³⁶ A marginal entry on fol 125 relating to the year 781 reads, according to Piper, F., Karls des Grossen Kalendarium und Ostertafel (Berlin 1858) p 33 Google Scholar: In isto anno fuit Dominus rex Karolus ad Scm Petrum et baptizatus est filius eius Pippinus a Domino apostolico. I have unfortunately not been able to examine the original. Doubts whether this can be a contemporary statement are raised by the ad Scm Petrum. The easter eve baptisms took place, of course, at the Lateran (see, in addition to the other evidence, Andrieu Ordines, 3, pp 471 seq—ordo XXXB, from the ‘Collection of St. Amand’); and the easter day station at this period was at S. Maria Maggiore (not clear in the sacramentaries, compare Deshusses p 191, but see the gospel-lectionaries, Klauser, Capitulare Evangeliorum, pp 24, 70, 111 and BL Harl MS 2788 fol 202, and Lib Pont 1, p 498). But the ad sanctum Petrum could be a (hitherto ignored) reference to the Frankish Court’s residence there as at Easter 774, Lib Pont 1, pp 497-8.

³⁷ Morison, S., [Politics and Script] (Oxford 1972) pp 138 Google Scholar, 140, compare 93 seq, 126. For reproductions of all the display-pages see above, n 35.

³⁸ Koehler, , [Die] Karolingischen Miniaturen, 3 pt 1 Google Scholar, [Die gruppe des Wiener Krönungs Evangeliars], passim but esp pls 1, 2-17, 28 seq; Das Lorscher Evangeliar intro by Braunfels, W. (Munich 1965)Google Scholar; Koehler, Hofschule pls 99, 105, 109 etc.

³⁹ Pages with capitals are conveniently reproduced in Lowe, [E.A.], English Uncial (Oxford 1960) pl IXA Google Scholar (fol 989^v), Lowe, , [Palaeographical] Studies (Oxford 1972) 2, pl 97 Google Scholar (fol 1007^v). Excellent reproductions of the Temple picture are in JBAA, 3 ser, 32 (1969) after p 8 and pl VII (Bruce-Mitford). For the use of Rustic capitals in eighth-century Wearmouth-Jarrow copies of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica see Lowe, , Studies 2, pp 450 seq Google Scholar and esp p 455.

⁴⁰ Schramm, P. E., Mütherich, F., Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser (Munich 1962) nr 12 Google Scholar; Morison pp 143, 170-2; MGH Epp 4, ed Duemmler, E. (1895) pp 136-8, nr 93 Google Scholar.

⁴¹ There is a photograph but no text of the David-epitaph in Silvagni, A., Monumenta epigraphica Christiana saeculo XIII antiquora (Rome 1943) 4 ii, pl 2 Google Scholar; the inscriptions on the arch of Trajan are illustrated in, for example, Meomartini, A., Benevento, Italia Artistica, 44 (Bergamo 1909)Google Scholar: the letters of the epitaph have more emphatic serifs but only the M diverges significantly from the Trajanic exemplar. For the Marian sermon in Vatican MS lat 4222 see Barré, H., ‘La Fête mariale du 18 Décembre à Bénévent au VIII^e siècle.’ Ephemerides Mariologicae 6 (Madrid 1956) pp 451-61Google Scholar.

⁴² Convenient illustrations of sections of the Lateran baptistery epistyle are in DOP 5 fig 24, after p 70. For the lettering of Charles’s pre-imperial coinage see the plates in Völckers, H. H. Karolingische Münzfunde der Fruhzeit, AAWG PhK, 3 ser, 61 (1965)Google Scholar.

^42b Maassen, [F], [Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts] (Graz 1870) pp 441 seq Google Scholar; Wurm, Studien pp 33-5, 41-5 and below, n 53.

⁴³ Bischoff, in KdG, 2 pp 45-6Google Scholar, citing MGH Poet 1 pp 93-4 (from Paris BN MS lat 7494 fol 123) and pp 95-7. The latter is taken from Martène and Durand’s edition of the Genesis section of Wigbod’s commentary, repr PL 96 (1862) cols 1103-68, from a lost St. Maximin, Trier manuscript. There is, however, another text of the poem, without the Carolus . . . scribere iussit inscription, in Brussels Bib roy MS 3222 (seventeenth century: post-1617) where it precedes a full text of the commentary. Hervagius had previously published the whole commentary without the prefatory poem (repr PL 93, cols 232-430) from an unidentified manuscript in which it was apparently preceded by the (? early Carolingian) De sex dierum creadone (PL 96 cols 207-34, from Hervagius). A similar but not identical manuscript is Oxford Bodleian Laud mise 159 (Lorsch, s. IX¹/IX mid) where the text of the Wigbod commentary on fols 29-135 (now defective because of the loss of qu. ‘VI’; with a title on fol 29 corresponding to that of the Martène and Durand text, not that of Hervagius) is preceded on fols 1-16^v by the De sex dierum creatione and on fols 16^v-29 by the Exameron Bedae, that is, Bede’s comm in Genesem versio prima, bk I. The subsequent manuscript-history of the commentary and the other evidence for Wigbod cannot be considered here.

⁴⁴ MGH Epp 3, p 600, Cod Car nr 70: for the identification of Charles’s missus as bishop Peter II of Pavia and for the date of the letter see Atti 4 1967 (1969) p 324. Verecundus’s adbreviatum al excerptiones were published by Pitra, J.B., Spicilegium Solesmense, 4 i (Paris 1858) pp 166-79Google Scholar from five manuscripts all of which he describes as twelfth-century. The identification of the pseudopittatium is more difficult. I am indebted to Dr J. F. Matthews for the suggestion that it is (however unexpectedly) the lost appreciation or obituary of Theodosius the Great by Paulinus of Nola which the latter is known to have sent to Jerome, who seemingly did not think much of it.

⁴⁵ Berlin MS Diez B.66 pp 218-19, ed Bischoff in KdG 2, pp 59-60, in his introduction to the complete facsimile Sammelhandschrift [Diez B. Sant. 66]=Codices Selecti, 42 (Graz 1973) pp 38-9. For the identifiable copies of court-collection manuscripts see esp Bischoff, , KdG 2, pp 60-2Google Scholar; but for the Cicero Holkhamicus (ex-Cluniacensis, nr 498 in the twelfth-century catalogue), now BL Add MS 47678 see further Pattie, T. S. in The British Library Journal 1 (London 1975) pp 15–21 Google Scholar, with the corrections and amplifications demanded by the leaf at Geneva (Bibl publ et univ MS Lat 169), which was incompletely published by G. Vaucher in Bulletin du Musée de Genève 1931, pp 120-4.

⁴⁶ The fullest account of the ‘Calendar [or Chronograph] of 354’, known only from sixteenth/seventeenth century copies of a lost Carolingian copy, is Stern, H. [Le Calendrier de 354. Etude sur son texte et ses illustrations], Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth (Paris 1953)Google Scholar: but for its availability at the Frankish court see Bischoffin, Studies Hunt, p 16 n 3 Google Scholar. Good examples of its capital scripts are Stern, pls 1, 4 seq, where, however, there are no examples of the ‘embraced letter’ which may therefore be proper to the inscriptions. The latter are comprehensively treated in Femia, A., Epigrammata Damasiana (Rome 1942)Google Scholar. Court-manuscript examples of the ‘embraced letter’ are BL Harl MS 2788 fols 68^v, 72, 109; Bucharest National Library, ‘Codex Aureus’ p 36 (probably the most-frequently reproduced page of the Lorsch Gospels); and Brussels Bib royale MS II 2572 fol 1 (repr KdG 2, p 49, fig 1), accepting this as a careful post-800 copy of a pre-800 manuscript.

⁴⁷ That is, that in Brussels Bib roy MS II 2572 fols 120-5.

⁴⁸ Bischoff, , ‘Hadoard und die Klassikerhandschriften aus Corbie’, MStn, 1 (1966) pp 49–63 Google Scholar; Ullman, B. L., ‘A list of Classical manuscripts...’, Scriptorium 8 (Antwerp 1954) pp 24 Google Scholar seq, here esp p 31. But for knowledge of Tibullus in eleventh-century Monte Cassino and twelfth-century Orléans (?) see Newton, F. in Transactions of the American Philological Association 93 (New York 1962) pp 253-86Google Scholar, esp pp 259 seq (Venice Bibl Marciana MS Z.L. 497) and , R. H. and Rouse, M. A. in Essays Hunt pp 84-5, esp p 85 n 1 Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Intro to the facsimile Sammelhandschrift pp 21-3, compare pp 27-30.

⁵⁰ For the use of norma in early Carolingian and pre-Carolingian texts, compare Bischoff’s sharp critique in ZKC 66 (1955) pp 176-80Google Scholar of Fleckenstein, J., Die Bildungsreform Karls des Grossen als Verwirklichung der norma rectitudinis (Freiburg i. Br. 1953)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Deshusses pp 71-2; Gamber, K. ‘Der Codex Tridentinus’, Scriptorium 24 (1970) pp 293–304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: the colophon, Gamber p 295, compare Deshusses p 85.

⁵² Concilia Galliae 511-695, ed de Clercq, C., CC 148A (1963) p 64 Google Scholar; Aldhelmi Opera, ed Ehwald, R., MGH AA 15, p 566 svGoogle Scholar; compare Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch 1/9 (Munich 1966) sv authenticus col 1282; MGH Conc 2, ed Werminghoff, A., 2 parts (1906/8) p 460 cap 1Google Scholar.

⁵³ The text of the colophon in Traube, ABAW, 3 Kl, 21 iii p 675 (copied by Lietzmann, H., Das Sacramentarium Gregoriamtm (Munster 1921) p xvi and othersGoogle Scholar) omits Carolo: but its presence in at least one of the three manuscript sources, namely Würzburg MS M.p. th. F.72 (second third of the ninth century) is established by Bischoff, B., Hofmann, J., Libri sancii Kyliani (Würzburg 1952) p 119 Google Scholar. Wurm Studien, pp 33-5, 41-5, does not consider the possiblity of sub-groups within the Dionysio-Hadriana group: the earliest manuscripts are apparently Paris BN lat 8921 of s. VIII ex (CLA 574; Corbie) and Paris BN lat 11710 of 805 (‘zweifellos burgundisch’: Bischoff). The latter has the oldest text of the dedicatory poem; for the origin and date of other early examples compare EHR 85 (1970) p 96 n 1.

⁵⁴ MGH Epp 3, p 476.

⁵⁵ Bullough in Studies Talbot Rice, esp pp 243-4, 273-5 (where in n 94 ‘Silvester’ should be substituted for ‘Constantine’); Classen, [P.] [‘Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz’], KdG 1, pp 569-94Google Scholar (also separately, with revisions, Düsseldorf 1968); compare Schramm, , ‘Die Anerkennung [Karls des Grossen als Kaiser]’ [1951], KKP 1, pp 215-63Google Scholar, and below, n 58.

⁵⁶ Schramm, ‘Die Anerkennung’, last note.

⁵⁷ Codex diplomaticus Amiatinus 1, ed Kurze, W. (Rome 1974) nr 49 Google Scholar, ostensibly of April 800.

⁵⁸ Kantorowicz, E., Laudes Regiae (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1946) esp pp 13 seq Google Scholar, 76 seq, 101 seq. Kantorowicz’s thesis that the acclamations were ‘constitutive’ and the notion of the crowning as a ‘signal’ to schola and congregation (Classen, pp 583-4) are both challenged by Benz, K. J. ‘ Cum ab oratione surgeret. Überlegungen zur Kaiserkrönung Karls des Grossen’, DA 31 (1975) pp 337-69Google Scholar: Benz’s arguments for placing the moment of crowning in the introduction to the mass at an earlier stage than the acclamations are ingenious and serious, without entirely convincing me. Classen, p 583 is rightly critical both of B. Opfermann’s edition of the pre-800 Liturgischen Herrscherakklamationen (Weimar 1953) p 101 Google Scholar (Montpellier, Bibi de l’École de Méd MS 409), pp 102-3 (Paris BN MS lat 13159) and of Kantorowicz’s dating of the first of these to 783-7. A particularly egregious error is (Opfermann p 102) exercitui Romanorum where the manuscript reading (BN lat 13159 fol 163^v) is exercitui Francorum. The reference to Rotruda at the end of the litany on fol 344^v of the Montpellier manuscript is even less relevant to the dating of the preceding laudes than Classen and others have supposed since this is clearly a later (early-ninth-century?) addition to the section of the manuscript (fols 331-46) which had been added to the original Mondsee text almost certainly post 788 and perhaps very shortly before the death of Fastrada (who is named in the laudes) in 794. This later dating of laudes incorporating the ‘Byzantine’ titulature a Deo coronatus, magnus, pacificus offers the possibility of a connection with the Frankish court’s challenge to the emperor in the east in the Libri Carolini.

⁵⁹ Sacr Gel I xli (561), ed Wilson p 76; Tellenbach, G. ‘Römischer und christlicher Reichsgedanke in der Liturgie des frühen Mittelalters’, Sitz Heidelberg, PhK (1934/35) 1, p 32 Google Scholar; Deshusses nr 344 and app.

⁶⁰ Characteristic examples are: Berlin Phillips MS 1831 (Rose nr 128) (Verona; ?an. 810) where fols 126-7^v bring together (for the first time?) seven computistic or calendar poems of late-antique and more recent origin including Prima dies Phoebi sacrato (above n 12) and Ausonius’s Primus Romanas ordiris, lane, Kalendas with the non-Ausonian last line Imbrifer ast mensis tumque December adest (compare below, n 61b); Munich Staatsbibl MSS elm 14468 (St. Emmeram, Regensburg; an. 821); clm 14510 fols 76-186 (Bavarian; s. IX¹), combined at an early date with the St. Emmeram collection of ordines, fols 1-75; Merseburg Domstiftsbibl MS 136 fols 1-21 (? Fulda; c820/40); Vatican MS Pal lat 485 (Lorsch; IX², ante 875): for the vernacular texts in all but the first of these see now Bischoff, ‘Paläographische Fragen deutscher Denkmäler der Karolingerzeit’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 5 (Münster 1971) pp 101-34Google Scholar, esp pp 109 seq.

⁶¹ The Contents of BL Roy MS 8 C.III are adequately indicated in Warner, G. F., Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the old Royal and King’s Collections 1 (1921) p 229 Google Scholar. For item 1, pseudo-Jerome, de diversis generibus musicorum, which exists in over 60 manuscripts from the early-ninth century onwards, see Hammerstein, R. ‘Instrumenta Hieronymi’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 16 (Hildesheim 1959) pp 117-34Google Scholar. Avenary, H., ‘Hieronymus’ Epistel über die Musikinstrumente und ihre altöstlichen Quellen’, Anuario Musical 16 (Barcelona 1961) pp 55–80 Google Scholar (inclining to a fourth-century date). Item 2 is the expositio missae printed by Giorgi, D., De liturgia Romani pontificis 3 (Rome 1744) pp 371-92Google Scholar from Vatican MS Pal lat 485 (above n 60) and by Staerk, A. Les manuscrits latins du V^e au XIII^e siècle conservés à la bibliothèque imperiale de Saint-Pétersbourg 1 (St. Petersburg 1910) pp 181-90Google Scholar from Leningrad MS Q.v.I. 34, fols 23^v-33^v (s.IX ex from Corbie). Item 3 is Theodulf de ordine baptismi, to be added to the manuscripts of this work listed in Dahlhaus-Berg, E., Nova Antiquitas et Antiqua Novitas, Kölner Hist Abh 23 (Cologne/Vienna 1975) pp 109-11Google Scholar and to the apparatus of the prefatory letter in MGH Epp 4, pp 533-4.

^61b Oxford Bodl MS Bodley 569 fols 53^v-54: ed Warren, F. E., The Leofric Missal (Oxford 1883) pp 51-2Google Scholar; and identically in the prefatory material of Rouen bibl publ MS 16 (‘the Missal of Robert of Jumièges’): ed Wilson, H. A., HBS 11 (1896) at pp 35-6Google Scholar, Ausonius’s poem is as in Berlin Phillips MS 1831 (above n 60). The same version is found in Exeter Cath Libr MS 3507 (s.x²? S.W. England) fol 59^v, where it occurs as the third of a group of eight calendar poems on fols 58-60^v, following Hrabanus De computo and preceding De septem miraculis mundi manu factis (a copy—or a twin?— of this section is Avranches Bibl publ MS 114 of the twelfth century, the poems on fols 133–4^v); and as such it forms part of a notably different Carolingian and post-Carolingian tradition, six of the eight poems occurring in the group of seven in the Berlin manuscript. Note, however, that it is also the version used for the verses terminating each monthly section of the ‘metrical calendar’ in BL Cott MS Galba A XVIII fols 3–14— Hampson, R. T. Medii Aevi Kalendarium 1 (London 1841) pp 397–420 Google Scholar; Hennig, J. ‘Versus de Mensibus’, Traditio 11 (1955) pp 65–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, whose discussion fails to take account of the Berlin-Exeter group—which carries back the history of this adapted Ausonian poem in England at least to the early years of the tenth century.

⁶² Bullough ‘The educational tradition in England from Alfred to Aelfric: teaching utriusque linguae’, SS Spoleto 19, 1971 (1972) pp 453-94; Gneuss, H. ‘The origin of Standard Old English and Ethelwold’s school at Winchester’ A[nglo] S[axon] E[ngland] ed Clemoes, P., 1 (Cambridge 1972) pp 63–83 Google Scholar; Gretsch, M. ‘AEthelwold’s translation of the Regula Sancti Benedicti and its Latin exemplar’, ASE 3 (1974) pp 125-51Google Scholar.

An earlier version of this paper was read to the University College, Dublin, medieval studies seminar in 1975. I am grateful to members of the audience in both places for their comments and criticisms, of which I have tried to take account. The manuscript research in continental libraries on which this paper is in part based would not have been possible without the generous financial support of the British Academy and of the Leverhulme Trust during 1972-3.