¹ Edited in Mansi 12.1055–76D; Baronius, C., Annales ecclesiastici 13 ed. Theiner, A. (Barri-Ducis 1868) 171^a-178^b; partly in Migne, PL 96.1215C-34C; Gaudenzi, A., ‘La Vita Adriani Papae,’ Bullettino dell’ Istituto Storico Italiano 36 (1916) 297–310 (an insert from Anastasius Bibliothecarius’ translation of the Greek Acts of II Nicaea, as correctly surmised by Th. R. von Sickel, Neues Archiv 18 [1893] 109). — The present writer is preparing a critical edition of this important document, whose catena of Greek testimonia and diplomatic sources will be dealt with in a volume entitled Diplomatic Studies of Latin and Greek Documents. Google Scholar

² See the edition of the Hadrianum by Karl Hampe in MGH, Epistolae 5 (Karolini Aevi 3; Berlin 1899) 5–57. Google Scholar

³ Cf. Wallach, L., ‘Libri Carolini and Patristics, Latin and Greek: Prolegomena to a critical merous fragments of the synodica‘s text, especially from its catena of patristic testimonia, were inserted into the Libellus synodalis of the Paris Synod of 825.⁴ Edition,’ in The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, ed. Wallach, L. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York 1966) 451–498.Google Scholar

⁴ Edited by Werminghoff, A., MGH, Concilia 2.2. (Karolini Aevi 1.2; Hannover and Leipzig 1908) 473–551, including the Epitome. Google Scholar

⁵ See n. 1 above. Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Levison, e.g. and Ostrogorsky, as cited n. 30 below, and Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (2nd ed. Munich 1952) 149 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁷ Art. cit. (n. 3) 467–496.Google Scholar

⁸ ‘ Zweisprachigkeit in den Konzilsakten,’ Philologus 88 (1933) 245–253; also ‘Der sechste nicaenische Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon,’ Sb. Akad. Berlin (1930) 614–616; see furthermore Steinacker, H., ‘Die römische Kirche und die griechischen Sprachkenntnisse des Frühmittelalters,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung 62 (1954) 28–66.Google Scholar

⁹ See Schwartz, E., Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum [= ACO] II.3.3 (Berlin-Leipzig 1937) p. xviii, with a list of all the relevant adnotationes Rustici, from ACO II.3.1 (1935) 40.16 (first intervention of the legates) to II. 3.2 (1936) 409.10ff. (the imperial allocution); also Schwartz, ‘Aus den Akten des Konzils von Chalkedon,’ Abh. Akad. Munich. 32.2 (1925) 13ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Schwartz, ACO I.1.7 (Berlin-Leipzig 1929) 119f.; see the Latin subscriptiones interspersed among the Greek signatures of the synodal proceedings, ibidem 111–117, passim. Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid. 119.25–120.31.Google Scholar

¹² Schwartz, ACO I.1.3 (1927) 53.31–54.24. — In 866, Nicholas I referred to this discussion, ep. 90: ‘… ita ut … ipsa epistola cum competenti honore Latine primitus et postea in Graecam dictionem sine ullo fuco falsitatis iam translata sit coram synodo lecta’ (ed. Perels, E., MGH, Epistolae 6 [Karolini Aevi 4; Berlin 1925] 492.39–493.4).Google Scholar

¹³ Franz Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches: Teil I.: Regesten von 565–1025 (Munich-Berlin 1924). Google Scholar

¹⁴ The later patriarch; see Alexander, P. J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958) 60f.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft (Darmstadt 1956) 54 n. 47. — Caspar's posthumously edited studies, first published in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935), contain a number of confusing references to the Hadrianum (JE 2483) and Hadrian I's synodica 2448 which are mistakenly interchanged: instead of JE 2448 read 2483 on p. 78 nn. 110 and 111, p. 79 n. 116; instead of JE 2483 read 2448 on p. 83 n. 130, p. 84 n. 132; also, p. 84 n. 131 has JE 2448 in mind, but cites the text of 2483 which was never included in the Acts of II Nicaea; on p. 86 read 692 instead of 612.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘ Entstehungsgeschichte der Libri Carolini,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 21 (1929–30) 24.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ed. Perels, E., MGH, Epistolae 6.436.Google Scholar

¹⁸ ed. Perels, E. and Laehr, G., MGH, Epistolae 7 (Karolini Aevi 5; Berlin 1928) 416.Google Scholar

¹⁹ MGH, , Epistolae 6.448–449.Google Scholar

²⁰ MGH, , Epistolae 6.457, and cf. 458.Google Scholar

²¹ See below, notes 30 and 31, and Dölger, cited in n. 43. Google Scholar

²² See MGH, , Epistolae 6.487.21; also ep. 91, p. 533, ep. 89, p. 488.9, ep. 90, p. 492.20–38, ep. 93, p. 541.36–40.Google Scholar

²³ MGH, , Epistolae 7.415.2–12.Google Scholar

²⁴ See John VIII, ep. 208, ed. Caspar, E., MGH, Epistolae 7.176–181; the section in the Tarasius passage, p. 178.22–27, is an unacknowledged quotation in JE 2448 from Gregory the Great's Registrum epistolarum 9.215; see below, II D.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Perels, MGH, Epistolae 6.448.31–35. Google Scholar

²⁶ MGH, , Epistolae 7.166, 176, 181.Google Scholar

²⁷ Edited by Gaudenzi, A., art. cit. (see note 1 above); ibidem pp. 296–7 see the Divalia, ed. Mansi 12.984–5.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, L. (Paris 1886–1892; reprint: Paris 1955) I 512, and the comments by von den Steinen, op. cit. (n. 16 above) 11ff. I discount as a later concoction the report by Roger de Wendover (von den Steinen 12 n. 3) that Charlemagne had received the acta of II Nicaea from Constantinople, and that he sent them to Alcuin in England, who wrote an epistola against them.Google Scholar

²⁹ See n. 28 above. Google Scholar

³⁰ Levison, W., Aus Rheinischer und Fränkischer Frühzeit (Düsseldorf 1948) 434 n. 6, and Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Rom und Byzanz im Kampf um die Bilderverehrung,’ Seminarium Kondakovianum 6 (1933) 75.Google Scholar

³¹ Michel, A., ‘Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche,’ Ostkirchliche Studien 5 (1956) 2 charges the imperial chancellery with the adulterated version of JE 2448; cf. also Jugie, M., Le schisme byzantin: Aperçu historique et doctrinal (Paris 1941) 85f.Google Scholar

³² Ed. Funk, F.X., Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum I (Paderborn 1905) 572, and II 42, no. VII.2.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Louis Bréhier, ‘L'investiture des patriarches de Constantinople au moyen âge,’ Miscellanea Mercati G. III (Studi e Testi 123; Città del Vaticano 1946) 368. The Greek text of c. 12 is not preserved; the extant fragment β’ (Mansi 16.405B) corresponds to a section of Latin c. 17 (ibid. 171D-E) which is not pertinent here. For a convenient confrontation of the 14 extant Greek fragments with the 27 Latin canons of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, see Ioannou, P.P.'s edition in Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta (ed. Centro di Documentazione, Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, Bologna; Herder, Freiburg etc. 1962) 142–162. (I am indebted to Professor Kuttner for the reference to Ioannou.)Google Scholar

³⁴ Edd. Perels and Laehr, MGH, Epistolae 7.403–18, especially 410.17f. Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. 417.27f. and n. 5. On Anastasius as dictator of imperial and papal documents see Nelly Ertl, ‘Diktatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 15 (1938), especially pp. 82–132, and the objections against Ertl voiced by Paul Devos, ‘Anastase le Bibliothécaire: Sa contribution à la correspondance pontificale,’ Byzantion 32 (1962) 97–115. Gudrun Lindholm, Studien zum mittellateinischen Prosarhythmus (Acta Univ. Stockholmiensis: Studia lat. Stockholmensia 10; 1963) 11 n. 13, reports that Miss Ulla Westerbergh shows in a still unpublished study that Anastasius was not the author of Nicholas I's letters. It remains to be seen whether the evidence for Anastasius’ authorship discussed by Lapôtre, Ernst Perels, and Nelly Ertl can be shaken. Clausulae alone are not sufficient evidence of authorship.Google Scholar

³⁶ MGH, , Epistolae 7.411.12.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. 411.17.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ed. Duchesne, II 181–3. Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. 181 and MGH Epistolae 7.411.11–13.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. ep. 86, MGH, Epistolae 6.451.15–16; also ep. 85 of 682, addressed to Emperor Michael III, ibid. 446.8–10. Compare also in the Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (IV Constantinople), translated by Anastasius, Mansi 16.331D-334E, the abridged text of ep. 82 by Nicholas I, addressed to Emperor Michael, MGH, Epistolae 6.433–439. Google Scholar

⁴¹ On Radoald and Zachary see, for instance, ep. 82, ibid. 439.12ff. and ep. 84, ibid. 441.15ff. — Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge 1948) 90, relies on Baronius’ Annales ecclesiastici, and instead of referring to Mansi 12.1055–76, misinterprets the contents and the diplomatic nature of JE 2448. Haller, J., Nikolaus I. und Pseudoisidor (Stuttgart 1936) 277ff., in my opinion also misjudges the intentions of See, Hadrian I. furthermore F. Dölger in Dölger and Schneider, A.M. Byzanz: Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte 5 (ed. Karl Hönn; Bern 1952) 134–138, passim; Dvornik, ‘The Patriarch Photios in the Light of Recent Research,’ Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinischen Kongress (Munich 1958), Section III. 2, pp. 1–56, and the Korreferat by Stephanou, P. (pp. 17–26), challenging Dvornik's theories.Google Scholar

⁴² Cf. Cyril Mango, The Homilies of Photius (Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 303. Google Scholar

⁴³ Loc. cit. (n. 30 above) especially p. 77f.; and F. Dölger, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal, Bavaria 1953) 103 n. 56 on suppression by Photius in papal documents of passages referring to the primacy of Rome.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Anastos, Milton V., ‘The Transfer of Illyricum, Calabria, and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,’ Silloge Bizantina in onore di Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 9; Rome 1957) 14–31.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ed. Wilhelm Gundlach, MGH, Epistolae 3 (Merowingici et Karolini Aevi 1; Berlin 1892) 469–657. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum, ed. Th. von Sickel (Wien 1884); cf. the ‘Gesamtausgabe’ by Hans Foerster (Bern 1958).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Wallach, above n. 3. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On the exclusive prerogative of the Roman Emperor to convene an ecumenical council see Schwartz, E., Gesammelte Schriften IV (Berlin 1960) 112, and Funk, F.X., ‘Die Berufung der ökumenischen Synoden des Altertums,’ Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen 1 (Paderborn 1897) 49f., 55, 68f.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Libri Carolini sive Caroli Magni Capitulare de imaginibus ed. Hubert Bastgen (MGH Concilia 2, Supplementum; Hannover-Leipzig 1924) 109f. — A rejoinder to Freeman, A., ‘Further Studies in the Libri Carolini,’ Speculum 40 (1965) 203–89, will appear in the near future, as announced in ‘Libri Carolini and Patristics’ (cited above, n. 3) 498 n. 103.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae, ed. Georg Goetz and Gotthold Gundermann (Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum 2; Leipzig 1888), 149, and M.L.W. Laistner, Philoxeni Glossarium in Glossaria Latina iussu Academiae Britannicae edita 2 (Paris 1926) 244b. Google Scholar

⁵¹ Op. cit. (above n.16) pp. 24, 61; also Hampe's note, MGH Epp. 5 ad loc. and p. 15, nn. 15, 16. — The relationship between JE 2448 and the Constitutum Constantini will be discussed in ‘Actus Silvestri, Libri Carolini, and the Constantine Donation: The Solution of a Pseudo-Problem,’ one of the studies in the forthcoming Pt. II of my Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Libri Carolini, listed in the article cited above n. 3) 498 n. 103. — The fragments of JE 2448 and 2449 cited in later collections of canon law are not included in the present study; their exact historical origin can now be assessed, I believe, on the basis of the present investigation. Google Scholar