¹ Das Prager Sakramentar [Cod. O. 83 (Fol. 1–120) der Bibliothek des Metropolitankapitels], vol. 2: Prolegomena und Textausgabe, ed. Dold, A. and Eizenhöfer, L., Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron, I. Abteilung: Beiträge zur Ergründung des älteren lateinischen christlichen Schrifttums und Gottesdienstes, Hefte 38–42 (Beuron, 1949) [hereafter: Prag. Sacr.]. The text of the edition is paginated separately from the prolegomena, and its pages are marked by an asterisk (*). The first volume of the edition, a photographic reproduction of the Sacramentary manuscript (“Lichtbild-Ausgabe”), was produced manually in very limited numbers in 1944, and I was not able to locate a copy, even in the excellent Benedictine collection of St. Vincent Archabbey and College Library, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, which made several items including the printed edition available to me. A microfilm of the manuscript is available at another Benedictine institution, the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, St. John's Abbey and University, Collegeville, Minnesota.Google Scholar

This essay is a (very) belated seventieth-birthday salute to my friend, Professor Wilhelm Stornier (Munich), who offered, as always, encouragement and welcome suggestions. Helpful comments and materials also were provided by Professor Helmut Bender (Passau), Professor Elvira Glaser (Zürich), Professor Rainer Müller and Frau Barbara Maigler (both Eichstätt), and Professor Roger Reynolds (Toronto).Google Scholar

² Gamber's, K. discussion of this work in his “Liturgiebücher der Regensburger Kirche aus der Agilolfinger- und Karolingerzeit,” Scriptorium 30 (1976): 3–25, here 7–11, should be read in conjunction with B. Bischoff's most recent comments in his Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, part 2: Die vorwiegend österreichischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden, 1980), 258–61. Bischoff's earlier comments on the manuscript, not entirely superseded in his Schreibschulen, are found in the prolegomena to the edition, Prag. Sacr., 31–37, and in the Codices Latini Antiquiores, vol. 10, ed. Lowe, E. A. (Oxford, 1963), nos. 1563–64, p. 36, with facing plates.Google Scholar

³ Prag. Sacr., 28–31. For the lectionary see Vogel, C., Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, rev. ed. and English trans. by Storey, W. and Rasmussen, N. (Washington, 1986), 345; and see below for date.Google Scholar

165 mm (9.75 × 6.5 inches), and the gatherings of the volume vary between three and five sheets with four sheets predominating. The first 84 folios are written in a single column of 21 lines across the entire page, but folios 85–120 are written in two columns also of 21 lines each with marginal bounding lines drawn in an arrangement that is characteristic of Bavarian scriptoria in the Carolingian period. Four folios are now missing from the Sacramentary, three from the lectionary, and two from the penitential.Google Scholar

⁴ Bischoff, , Schreibschulen 2, 260: “so kann man nicht umhin, nach ihrem ganzen Schreibstil festzustellen, daß sie [the minuscule hand of the Sacramentary] sämtlichen südostdeutschen, den bayerischen und — außer Salzburg — auch den österreichischen Schriften des späten VIII. Jahrhunderts in der Entwicklung und in natürlicher Einfachheit weit voraus ist.” Google Scholar

⁵ Codices Latini Antiquiores, vol. 9, ed. Lowe, E. A. (Oxford, 1959), no. 1345, p. 31, with facing plate; Bischoff, , Schreibschulen 2, 186–87, 261.Google Scholar

Social Landscape of the Prague Sacramentary Google Scholar

⁶ Bierbrauer, K., Die Ornamentik frühkarolingischer Handschriften aus Bayern , Abh. Akad. Munich, Neue Folge, Heft 84 (1979), 62–63.Google Scholar

⁷ There is a good, short introduction by R. Reynolds in his contribution “Sacramentary,” to the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 10, ed. Strayer, J. (New York, 1988), 605–6; and a very complete textual discussion in Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 61–134, with diagrams on 400–402, upon which the following discussion is primarily based.Google Scholar

⁸ The important church of St. Michael on an island in Lake Staffelsee, which was inventoried in 810, possessed three sacramentaries (libri sacramentorum III) as well as three lectionaries and two antiphonaries, clearly indicating this arrangement of separate volumes (MGH, Capitularia Regum Francorum, vol. 1, ed. Boretius, A. [Hannover, 1883], no. 128, p. 251). This church was located in the far southwest of Bavaria near the border with Alemmania at the River Lech. It may have been the seat of a small bishopric for a time in the late eighth century, but by 810 it had been (re-) incorporated into the Augsburg diocese and was part of its patrimony.Google Scholar

⁹ Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 105–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In a pastoral letter from about 798–800 the newly created Bavarian metropolitan and confidant of Charlemagne, Archbishop Arn of Salzburg, directed that: “Sacramentarium unusquisque [presbyter] habeat, quod episcopus debet considerare quomodo scriptum sit secundum ordinem, ut lex Domini per neglectum non pereat” (Étaix, R., “Un manuel de pastorale de l’époque carolingienne (Clm 27152),” Revue Bénédictine 91 [1981]: 105–30, here 117–18; MGH, Concilia Aevi Karolini, vol. 2, ed. Werminghoff, A. [Hannover and Leipzig, 1906], no. 22c, p. 198; my emphasis). This provision for episcopal review of sacramentary texts may well indicate an attempt to eliminate older versions such as the Prague Sacramentary in favor of uniformity on the new Roman model (“missas secundum consuetudinem caelebrare sicut romana traditio nobis tradidit”).Google Scholar

¹¹ This sacramentary survives only in three double-folio sheets that had been used for bookbinding. They have been edited by Siffrin, P., “Zwei Blätter eines Sakramentars in irischer Schrift des 8. Jahrhunderts aus Regensburg (Berlin, Preußische Staatsbibliothek. Ms. lat. fol. 877),” Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 10 (1930): 1–39, here 32; and: “Das Walderdorffer Kalenderfragment Saec. VIII und die Berliner Blätter eines Sakramentars aus Regensburg,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 47 (1933): 201–24; and by Gamber, K., “Das Regensburger Fragment eines Bonifatius-Sakramentars. Ein neuer Zeuge des vorgregorianischen Messkanons,” Revue Bénédictine 85 (1975): 266–302. There are short notices of these three fragments in Bischoff, B., Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, part 1: Die bayerischen Diözesen, 3. Auflage (Wiesbaden, 1974), 183–84; and in his Schreibschulen 2, 235.Google Scholar

¹² Gamber, K., Codices Liturgici Latini Antiquiores, Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 1 (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1963), nos. 631, 632, 635, pp.117–18 (I have not been able to consult the second edition of 1968 nor the supplement of 1988), and his “Liturgiebücher,” 4. There is no evidence that an Irish Gallican sacramentary surviving in a St. Emmeram palimpsest was ever used for liturgical purposes in Regensburg.Google Scholar

¹³ Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 69; for comparison of the texts see Siffrin, P., Konkordanztabellen zu den römischen Sakramentarien, vol. 2: Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae (Cod. Vatican. Regin. lat. 316) Sacramentarium Gelasianum, Rerum Ecclesiaticarum Documenta, Series Minor, Subsidia Studiorum 5 (Rome, 1959), passim. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Moreton, B., The Eighth-Century Gelasian Sacramentary; A Study in Tradition, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford, 1976), 205: “It cannot be insisted too strongly that in terms of the formulae set out in the mass-sets this Prague Sacramentary agrees with the Vatican Gelasian against the eighth-century Gelasians. Though some ‘Gregorianizing’ of the mass-sets has taken place, in that they are cut down uniformly to single-collect sets, the collect given is nearly always the first of the pair in Reg. 316.” Google Scholar

¹⁵ Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 73–74.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Prag. Sacr., 52.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., 49, 94.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., 90–96.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., 79–90.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid., unnumbered entry, 124*.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., no. 233, p. 124*.Google Scholar

²² See ibid., 19, 64, 72.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid., no. 234, pp. 125*–26*; no. 235, p. 126*; cf. p. 72.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 30–31.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 66.Google Scholar

²⁶ Prag. Sacr., 14.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid., 37,124*–25*; for the “Sanctus/Benedictus” entry with Hepinolf, see below.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., 37; Bischoff, , Schreibschulen 2, 261. Die althochdeutsche Glossen, vol. 4, ed. Steinmeyer, E. and Sievers, E. (Berlin, 1898; repr. Dublin/Zürich, 1969), 331, does not include the numerous glosses incised with a stylus (Griffelglossen) in the Sacramentary itself which, unfortunately, also are omitted from Dold and Eizenhöfer's edition of the Sacramentary. Professor Elvira Glaser (Zürich) is preparing these glosses for publication. She kindly informs me that her preliminary examinations confirm the language to be Bavarian but do not provide any other obvious clues regarding the identity of the writer.Google Scholar

²⁹ On this subject see especially Oexle, O., “Memoria und Memorialüberlieferung im früheren Mittelalter,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 10 (1976): 70–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Prag. Sacr., 17–28.Google Scholar

³¹ There was no standard orthography of personal names in this period, and dialect differences were still “pronounced.” In the following, excerpts from a primary text always follow the edition, but in my discussion of the texts I have tried to standardize the names of public figures according to the relevant secondary literature, although there is no complete uniformity. For other names, I generally have tried to preserve the particular spelling of the specific document under discussion, but where some standard form was required, I have normalized according to the “Nota” except where its usage is clearly idiosyncratic. For place names I give the modern form.Google Scholar

³² See the remarks by Bischoff, in Prag. Sacr., 37, n. 3.Google Scholar

³³ For Pippin's status see Classen, P., “Karl der Grosse und die Thronfolge im Frankenreich,” in Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel zum 70. Geburtstag am 19. September 1971, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 36/3 (Göttingen, 1972), 109–34, here 117–20; and Kasten, B., Königssöhne und Königsherrschaft. Untersuchungen zur Teilhabe am Reich in der Merowinger- und Karolingerzeit, Schriften der MGH 44 (Hannover, 1997), 141–51.Google Scholar

³⁴ For a discussion of these issues as it applies to royal sons see Kasten, , Königssöhne, 144–45.Google Scholar

³⁵ MGH, Necrologia Germaniae, vol. 2, ed. Herzberg-Fränkel, S. (Berlin, 1890), 12.Google Scholar

³⁶ Unterkircher, F., Die Glossen des Psalters von Mondsee, Spicilegium Friburgense 20 (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1974), 511.Google Scholar

³⁷ MGH, Epistolae, vol. 3 (Epistolae Selectae Pontificum Romanorum), ed. Hampe, K. (Berlin, 1899), nos. 3 and 5, pp. 58–59, 60–63.Google Scholar

³⁸ Classen, , “Thronfolge,” 118, n. 46.Google Scholar

³⁹ Prag. Sacr., 23–27.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On Sintpert of Augsburg see Schmid, K., “Bischof Wikterp in Epfach. Eine Studie über Bischof und Bischofssitz im 8. Jahrhundert,” repr. from Studien zu Abodiacum-Epfach, ed. Werner, J., Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7 (Munich, 1964), 99–134, in his Gebetsgedenken und adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Beiträge. Festgabe zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag (Sigmaringen, 1983), 18–58, here 52–53; and Prinz, F., “Einige genealogische Anmerkungen zu Bischof Sintpert von Augsburg,” repr. with revisions from Die Ausgrabungen in St Ulrich und Afra in Augsburg 1961–1968 , ed. Werner, J., Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 23 (Munich, 1977), 391–95, in Jahrbuch des Vereins für Augsburger Bistumsgeschichte 12 (1978): 15–21, here 16–17.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising, vol. 1, ed. Bitterauf, T., Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, Neue Folge 4 (Munich, 1905; repr. Aalen, 1967) [hereafter: Trad. Freising], no. 273, p. 241.Google Scholar

⁴² There is a good, recent overview from a social-history perspective in Althoff, G., Verwandte, Freunde und Getreue. Zum politischen Stellenwert der Gruppenbindungen im früheren Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1990), here 27–30.Google Scholar

⁴³ The main issues and the methodology for establishing social relationships, usually those of kinship, in this period are well established. There are four primary indicators of such relationships: 1) an explicit statement or clear implication of such a relationship in a document; 2) possession, especially hereditary possession, of common or neighboring properties; 3) close functional association or positional proximity in a document such as witnessing a conveyance for a person or occurring together in a memorial listing; and 4) sharing a common name or name element as in the following “Exhibit.” Names in this period normally were composed of two elements, a first or “designation/determination” (Bestimmungs-) element and a second or “base” (Grund-) element. Siblings, in particular, often shared a common name-element, usually the second or “base” element, but several variations, including alliteration, were possible between related persons and could result from a variety of other kinship relations, e.g. parent/child, uncle/nephew. Onomastic evidence should be used, whenever possible, in combination with the other three indicators of such relationships. Finally, although these methods can demonstrate a relationship at some general level, precise relationships usually can be established satisfactorily only from a documentary statement. In the following “Exhibit” and discussion, potentially significant name-elements are indicated by underlining.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ MGH, Necrologia Germaniae, vol. 2, 29; Hasdenteufel, M., “Das Salzburger Erentrudis-Kloster und die Agilolfinger,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 93 (1985): 1–29.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Prag. Sacr., 18, with an emended page 125* inserted at the front of the edition.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Trad. Freising, nos. 143a-b, pp. 147–49. For the location see Jahn, J., “Urkunde und Chronik. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Glaubwürdigkeit der Benediktbeurer Überlieferung und zur Geschichte des agilolfingischen Bayern,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 95 (1987): 1–51, here 22, n. 97, which I follow in preference to Mayr, G., Studien zum Adel im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern, Studien zur bayerischen Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte 5 (Munich, 1974), 28–29.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Trad. Freising, no. 144, pp. 149–50. For such lists of liturgical goods see my “Country Churches, Clerical Inventories and the Carolingian Renaissance in Bavaria,” Church History 49 (1980): 5–17, which, to my embarrassment, missed this deed.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Trad. Freising , no. 159, p. 158.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., no. 157, p. 157.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid., no. 532, p. 455.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Jahn, , “Urkunde,” 22–25.Google Scholar

⁵² Trad. Freising, no. 63, 89–91.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., nos. 46a-b, 74–75.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ On this point, Gerold's descent, see most recently Jarnut, J., “Genealogie und politische Bedeutung der agilolfingischen Herzöge,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 99 (1991): 1–22, here 17–21.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For a synoptic presentation of the Salzburg references see the edition by Losek, F., “Notitia Arnonis und Breves Notitiae. Die Salzburger Güterverzeichnisse aus der Zeit um 800: Sprachlich-historische Einleitung, Text und Übersetzung,” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 130 (1990): 164–65.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Prag. Sacr., 17–18.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Trad. Freising, nos. 143a, 144, pp. 148, 150.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., no. 237, p. 218; cf. no. 220, p. 206, where he is still a priest.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid., no. 12, pp. 39–40: “et ad omnium sanctorum quorum reliquias ibi honorifice requiescunt.” For David see Störmer, W., Adelsgruppen im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Bayern, Studien zur bayerischen Verfassungs- und Sozialgeshichte 4 (Munich, 1972), 84–87; and Jahn, J., Ducatus Baiuvariorum. Das bairische Herzogtum der Agilolfinger, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 35 (Stuttgart, 1991), 349–52.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Jahn, , Ducatus, 140.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Trad. Freising, nos. 159, 327, pp. 158, 280.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., no. 261, pp. 233–34.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., no. 253, p. 228.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid., nos. 605, 611, pp. 517–18, 523–24; unless this “Poah” is the Puch, also near the river Amper, where David's impressive church (see above) was located.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid., no. 479, pp. 410–11.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., no. 253, p. 228.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., no. 142, pp. 146–47. Bitterauf identified the modern place-name as Haushausen, but this has been disputed without a clear alternative emerging. Haushausen certainly appears to be in the right area and “Auuigozeshusir” may be located within the adjacent Geroldshausen; on this point, see now Diepolder, G., “Bemerkungen zur Frühgeschichte der Klöster Tegernsee und Ilmmünster,” in Herrschaft, Kirche, Kultur. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Festschrift für Friedrich Prinz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Jenal, G., Monographien zur Geshichte des Mittelalters 37 (Stuttgart, 1993), 141–64, here 156.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Störmer, , Adelsgruppen, 91–112, with diagram on 110; Mayr, , Studien, 71–76.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Trad. Freising, no. 736b, p. 612 (in confinio Hosiorum). The importance of this area has been underscored recently by the discovery of a small but impressive aristocratic cemetery dating to about 700 and located directly on the Roman road at Jesenwang, which has been associated with the remarkable burial chapel on the eastern shore of the Ammersee at Herrsching, another Huosi site (Diepolder, G. and Keller, E., “Ein Bestattungsplatz der Huosi (?) in Jesenwang,” Das Archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1987: 148–51). For the district (“pagus”) of the Huosi see Holzfurtner, L., “‘Pagus Huosi’ und Huosigau. Untersuchungen zur Gaulandschaft im westlichen Oberbayern,” in Land und Reich. Stamm und Nation. Festschrift für Max Spindler zum 90. Geburtstag, vol. 1, ed. Kraus, A., Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte 78 (Munich, 1984), 287–304, with map on 303. See also Trad. Freising, no. 31, pp. 59–60 (769) and no. 44, pp. 71–72 (772) for Sigi-frid, father of Erchan-frid, husband of Deotrata, parents of the “ancilla dei” Alpunia (cf. ibid., no. 143a, p. 148: “Alpuni testis”), mother of Karolus, a four-generation family of Huosi undoubtedly related to members of the “Nota,” which is notable for its unique appropriation of a key Carolingian name; Störmer, , Adels gruppen, 31–32.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Trad. Freising, no. 149, p. 152; cf. the name of Tassilo's Langobard consort, Liutpirc.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., nos. 148, 215, pp. 152, 203.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid., no. 147, p. 151.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid., nos. 200c-e, 228, pp. 193–94, 211–12.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ This and all subsequent references to the Roman road network, which still formed the basis for the early-medieval system, are taken from P. Reinecke's not-superseded, “Das römische Kunststraßennetz in Südbayern,” Deutsche Gaue 20 (1919): 127–34, and “Turum, Iovisura, Patrensibus, Sorviodurum, Augustis,” Niederbayerische Monatsschrift 7 (1918): 14–19, 83–88, both reprinted in his Kleine Schriften zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Topographie Bayerns (Kallmünz, 1962), 9–19, and 49–65; and from Walser, G., Die römischen Straßen und Meilenstein in Raetien, Itinera Romana. Beiträge zur Straßengeschichte des römischen Reiches 4 [= Schriften des Limesmuseums Aalen 29] (Stuttgart-Aalen, 1983). Unfortunately, there is still no detailed modern map of the Roman roads nor a study of their continued use, which must have varied considerably. However, their importance for early-medieval topography is well documented in W. Störmer's “Fernstrasse und Kloster. Zur Verkehrs- und Herrschaftsstruktur des westlichen Altbayern im frühen Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 29 (1966): 299–343.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Trad. Freising, no. 143b, p. 149.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ibid., no. 605, p. 518.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ “Sintpert,” here 18–21, where the initial assumption regarding the “licentia” for the consecration of the church at Ecknach (Trad. Freising, no. 477, p. 409) is almost certainly wrong, since Sintpert must have been acting in an official capacity as ordinary of Neuburg/Staffelsee, which, of course, does not exclude some element of personal involvement in the church and its founding clan.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Trad. Freising, no. 144, p. 150.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid., nos. 324, 327, pp. 277–78, 279–80.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., nos. 143a, b, 144, pp. 148, 149, 150.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid., no. 652, pp. 550–51; Hammer, , “Country Churches,” 15.Google Scholar

⁸² See Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 105–6. This terminology is indicated by the frequent occurrence in book inventories of separate lectionaries and antiphonaries along with the missal (Hammer, , “Country Churches,” 11, 14–17).Google Scholar

⁸³ Prag. Sacr., 65–66.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid., no. 219, p. 117*; see his discussion there, pp. 37–43. Moreton describes this formulary “as a product of misguided local enthusiasm” (Sacramentary, 158). For Zeno's early Bavarian connections see: Vogel, H., “Über die Anfänge des Zenokultes in Bayern,” in Bavaria Christiana. Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentums in Bayern. Festschrift Adolf Wilhelm Ziegler , ed. Gessel, W. and Stockmeier, P., Deutingers Beiträge zur altbayerischen Kirchengeschichte 27 (Munich, 1973), 177–203, here 193.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ For the following three prayer sets for St. Martin see the texts and notes in: Prag. Sacr., no. 155, p. 90*; and nos. 205, 206, pp. 110*–11*.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Siffrin, , “Kalenderfragment,” 204.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Prag. Sacr., no. 206, 3, p. 111*, with detailed notes of errors and corrections. The episodes in the “Life” are found in chapters 3, 6, and 10: Sévère, Sulpice, Vie de Saint Martin , ed. Fontaine, J., Sources Chrétiennes 133 (Paris, 1967), 256–59, 264–67, 272–75.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ For Bavarian church dedications to St. Martin see Sturm, J., Die Anfänge des Hauses Preysing, Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte 8 (Munich, 1931; repr. Aalen, 1974), 164–66; and Bauerreiß, R., Kirchengeschichte Bayerns, vol. 1, 2d ed. (St. Ottilien, 1958), 128–29. The Frankish or Eighth-Century Gelasians also accorded special prominence to this feast (Moreton, , Sacramentary, 110–11).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ The “Life” is in Munich University Library, 4° Cod. ms. 3, fols. 84v-104v, and the “Explicit” is reproduced in the facing plate to Codices Latini Antiquiores, vol. 9, no. 1345. The manuscript also contains Sulpicius's first two letters, but not the third or the Dialogues. The readings of this manuscript correspond closely to those of two principal Italian manuscripts, which is consistent with the Italian character of its hand (see Fontaine's introduction to his edition of the Life, 216–17, and above).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Prag. Sacr., no. 206, 3, p. 111*: “Haec tua, domine, veneranda potentia, cui merito omnes angeli et archangeli non cessant clamare dicentes: [Sanctus …]”. This prayer formula for the mass of St. Martin is found in both of these Gallican sacramentaries, where it designated as an “Immolacio” in the “Missale Gothicum” rather than a “Contestatio” as in the “Bobbio Missal.” But the “Missale Gothicum” also contains the first prayer formula from the Prague Sacramentary (Summi sacerdotis). Texts of the St. Martin formularies in these two sacramentaries are available in PL 72, 309–10 (Missale Gothicum), and 527–29 (Bobbio Missal); and in separate, modern, critical editions: Missale Gothicum (Vat. Reg. lat. 317) , ed. Mohlberg, L., Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior, Fontes 5 (Rome, 1961), 112–13; The Bobbio Missal; A Gallican Mass-Book (Ms. Paris. Lat. 13246), Text , ed. Lowe, E. A., HBS 58 (1920) and 61 (1924), reprinted as one volume (Woodbridge, 1991), 107–10. For both see also Vogel, , Medieval Liturgy, 108.Google Scholar

⁹¹ I cannot identify the Hepinolf whose name was added to the “Nota” along with the “Sanctus,” but see Trad. Freising, no. 705, pp. 592–93, for a “Hepinolt,” the only instance of the name-element “Hepin-” in the cartulary, who occurs next to a Situli in 849, witnessing a property transaction in the region of the “Nota” at Niederroth and Tandern. Thus the subsequent entry of the “Sanctus/Benedictus” in the “Nota,” to which Hepinolf's name is attached, appears to be closely related to the preceding group of names.Google Scholar

⁹² MGH, Capitularia, no. 22, p. 57 (Admonitio): “Sacerdotibus … ut nomina publice non recitentur ante precem sacerdotalem”; no. 28, p. 78 (Frankfurt): “De non recitandis nominibus antequam oblatio offeratur.” On this liturgical practice see Mohlberg, , Missale Gothicum, xxii–xxiii.Google Scholar

⁹³ The last of the allusions to St. Martin in the “Contestatio” refers to his exemplary role as bishop (Life, chap. 10). The major Frankish Gelasian sacramentaries — Gellone, Angoulême, and Autun (Phillipps) — omit this third, episcopal petition from their Martinian Preface, so that its retention in the Prague Sacramentary may indicate a particular interest (see, for example, the Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis, ed. Dumas, A., CCL 159A [Turnhout, 1981], 209). It is tempting to associate this passage with Bishop Adalwin's consecration, which also might account for his unusual precedence in the “Nota's” order of bishops (see above). If so, this would indicate that the year was 791, but, along the same lines, it could just as well mark the first anniversary in 792, which would coincide better with Pippin's royal title. We do know that Adalwin had a special devotion to St. Martin, since in early 803 he made a pilgrimage to Tours (veniente … orationis gratia ad Sanctum Martinum) where he visited Alcuin (MGH, Epistolae, vol. 4, ed. Dümmler, E. [Berlin, 1895], no. 264, p. 421). Because of Regensburg's critical importance at this time, Adalwin must have enjoyed Charlemagne's complete trust, and his name may associate him with the family of his predecessor, Bishop Sindperht of Regensburg, but I have no evidence to link him directly with the persons of the “Nota”; on Adalwin see now: Freund, S., “Vom hl. Erhard bis zu Konrad II. Die Regensburger Bischöfe bis 1180/85,” in Regensburg im Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum Beginn der Neuzeit , ed. Angerer, M. and Wanderwitz, H. (Regensburg, 1995), 71–88, here 73, 82–83.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Prinz, F., Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich. Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4. bis 8. Jahrhundert), 2d ed. (Darmstadt, 1988), 373; for St. Martin cf. Sturm, Preysing, 165–67.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Schmid, , “Wikterp,” 30–31; Bischoff, , Schreibschulen 2, 172, n. 2, and 259.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Alburg: MGH, Diplomata Karolinorum, vol. 1, ed. Mühlbacher, E. et al. (Hannover, 1906), no. 169, pp. 226–28 (for the text of the deed see also Wolfram, H., Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich. Die Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 31 [Vienna and Munich, 1995], 356–79); Kirchham: Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Passau , ed. Heuwieser, M., Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen Geschichte, Neue Folge 6 (Munich, 1930; repr. Aalen, 1988), no. 6, pp. 6–7; Salzburg: “Breves Notitiae,” c. 7, 1, pp. 110–11: “ecclesiam sancti Martini, que sita est in castro Iuuauensi.” Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Trad. Freising, nos. 60, 200g, 362, 447, pp. 87, 194, 309–10, 382–83.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid., no. 447, p. 383: “Convenerunt in ilio die ad ilium [Isancrim, the deceased] multi nobiles parentes sui corpus eius sepelire, et deportaverunt eum ad illa ecclesia sancti Martini dei confessoris. Cum autem venit in ecclesia et depositus fuerit eius corpus et orationes et preces legantur antequam corpus eius extra ecclesiam deportatus fuisset,” and his testamentary grant was completed at the altar. See Störmer, W., “Adelige Eigenkirchen und Adelsgräber — Denkmalpflegerische Aufgaben,” Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 38 (1975): 1144–58, here 1148–49, Adelsgruppen, 104–5; and his Früher Adel. Studien zur politischen Führungsschicht im fränkisch-deutschen Reich vom 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 6 (Stuttgart, 1973), 369–70. This ninth-century deed's description is astonishingly consistent with traditions documented archeologically in the seventh and early eighth centuries: the close association of major aristocratic burials with St. Martin and the specifically Bavarian practice of not burying within the church itself (Böhme, H., “Adelsgräber im Frankenreich. Archäologische Zeugnisse zur Herausbildung einer Herrenschicht unter den merowingischen Königen,” Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 40 [1993]: 397–54, here 519 and 521).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Trad. Freising, no. 234a, p. 216, MS: “Muniperhteshofen,” which Bitterauf incorrectly identified with its namesake, now in north central Munich, and which may derive from the same proprietor; see below for Situli.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., no. 234b, p. 216: “Hunker presbiter excidit altarem de petra supradicte ecclesiae” (MS: de totis mancipiis numerus XXVI). Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Ibid., nos. 199, 235, 295, pp. 191–92, 217, 255–56; see no. 144, p. 150, where Ellanod the deacon witnesses the donation at Rottbach together with Erachar the priest; Störmer, , Adelsgruppen, 92–94.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Trad. Freising, no. 235, p. 217.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Störmer, , Früher Adel, 49–50, 390–91.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Trad. Freising, no. 220, pp. 205–6; see above for the Agilolfing loyalist, Rihperht, and also below for his brother, Hunperht.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., nos. 122, 228, pp. 134, 211–12, and above.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., no. 336, pp. 286–87; Störmer, , Früher Adel, 383–84.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ There is a short discussion of the early-medieval roads in this area in Sturm, , Preysing, 105–6, which relies (perhaps, too) heavily on place-name evidence.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Prinz, , Frühes Mönchtum, 373–74; Störmer, , Adelsgruppen, 121–36; Jahn, , Ducatus, 214–16. It must have been a modest foundation. It is called a “cellam et oratorium sancti Zenonis” in 758 but not referred to explicitly as a “monasterium” before 811 (Trad. Freising, nos. 11, 298, pp. 38, 257), and it is possible that it was, rather, some sort of secular collegiate church or “minster” rather than a monastery.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Trad. Freising, no. 4, p. 30. Isen tradition maintains that Bishop Joseph is buried there, and he is venerated locally as “beatus.” Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Störmer, , Adelsgruppen, 126–27; Mayr, , Studien, 28–34; Borgolte, M., Die Grafen Alemanniens in merowingischer und karolingischer Zeit. Eine Prosopographie, Archäologie und Geschichte. Freiburger Forschungen zum ersten Jahrtausend in Südwestdeutschland 2 (Sigmaringen, 1986), 195–99.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Sturm, , Preysing, 89–92, 187–88.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Sturm, , Preysing, 91, 191, for connections to the north on the lower Amper. Cotani may have had connections to the monastery at Moosburg where the Amper joins the Isar. See the memorial list in MGH, Necrologia Germaniae, vol. 2, 42–43, which also includes two Erchanrats; and the commentary in Diepolder, G., “Freising — Aus der Frühzeit von Bischofsstadt und Bischofsherrschaft,” in Hochstift Freising. Beiträge zur Besitzgeschichte , ed. Glaser, H., Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Freising 32 (Freising, 1990), 417–68, here 456–68. Friedrich Prinz reckons Moosburg to the Huosi monasteries and argues that the original church there may have been dedicated to St. Martin who was then displaced in the eighth century by the translation of St. Castulus from Rome (Frühes Mönchtum, 373).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Trad. Freising, no. 135, pp. 142–43; the deed's scribe, Isaac the deacon, undoubtedly another kinsman, received investiture at Feldmoching itself.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Trad. Freising, no. 374, pp. 318–19; his brother's name was Pirtilo, cf. nos. 203, 321, pp. 196, 274–75, and Mayr, , Studien, 32–33, who does not explore the relationship between this Mezzi and the sheriff(s) named Mezzi who occur between 765 and 814 (Trad. Freising, nos. 23–323, pp. 52–277, passim). Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Ibid., no. 33, p. 61.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ibid., no. 292, p. 253.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ E.g., Garibald/Gerold; see also above for the Agilolfing loyalist, Hunperht, brother of Rihperht.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ “Nota” nos. 14. Perhttuni; 19. Cundraat; 22. Reginfriit; 29. Aothram; 33. Erchanraat; 34. Avina. Since nos. 33 and 34 do not seem to be separated by a “•,” the second term may be a form of the adjective, “advena,” i.e., “Erchanrat the alien.” Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See Richter, K., “Die böhmischen Länder zwischen dem Frankenreich und dem Südosten. Die Anfänge der Christianisierung,” in Handbuch der Geschichte der Böhmischen Länder, 1, ed. Bosl, K. (Stuttgart, 1967), § 49, pp. 186–92; and Vlasto, A., The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs (Cambridge, 1970), 86–87.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Gamber, , “Liturgiebücher,” 10.Google Scholar

¹²¹ “Unity and Diversity in the Carolingian Church,” in Unity and Diversity in the Church, ed. Swanson, R., Studies in Church History 32 (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass., 1996), 59–82, here 72–80.Google Scholar

¹²² MGH, Capitula Episcoporum, part 2, ed. Pokorny, R. and Stratmann, M. (Hannover, 1995), chap. 16, pp. 43–44 (also PL 125, 777–78): “de collectis, quas geldonias vel confratrias vulgo vocant.” See Althoff, , Verwandte, 126–28, and the excellent exposition of Hincmar's comments in Oexle, O., “Gilden als soziale Gruppen in der Karolingerzeit,” in Das Handwerk in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit , ed. Jankuhn, H. et al., Abh. Akad. Göttingen, 3. Folge, no. 122 (1981), 284–354, here 325–33.Google Scholar

¹²³ Oexle, , “Memoria,” 88–91.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Siffrin, , “Kalenderfragment,” 208. Theodoald's inclusion may be an indication that his usual assignment to the Bavarian ducal court at Regensburg is correct, but the missing months may have contained notices of his brothers who held court elsewhere at Freising, Passau, and Salzburg.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ There is an interesting but hypothetical essay by Jarnut, J., “Untersuchungen zur Herkunft Swanahilds, der Gattin Karl Martells,” Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 40 (1977): 245–49; for other Bavarian “Swanahilts” and their relationships to the region of the “Nota” see particularly: Das älteste Traditionsbuch des Klosters Mondsee , ed. Rath, G. and Reiter, E., Forschungen zur Geschichte Oberösterreichs 16 (Linz, 1989), no. 16/136, pp. 114–15; and Trad. Freising, nos. 36, 655a/b, 900, pp. 63–64, 552–53, 704. I am preparing a short monograph on Dukes Odilo and Tassilo that will deal somewhat more fully with this fascinating and exceptionally important woman and her son, Grifo.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Bischoff, B., “Die Kölner Nonnenhandschriften und das Skriptorium von Chelles,” reprinted from Karolingische und ottonische Kunst. Werden, Wesen, Wirkung (Wiesbaden, 1957), 395–411, in his Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, 1 (Stuttgart, 1966), 16–34, here 31–33; McKitterick, R., “Nuns’ Scriptoria in England and Francia in the Eighth Century,” Francia 19/1 (1992): 1–35, here 14. There is a very thorough study of the manuscript by Ziegler, U., “Das Sakramentar Gelasianum. Bibl. Vat. Reg. lat. 316 und die Schule von Chelles,” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 16 (1976): 1–142, which is based upon Bischoff's attribution and confines itself entirely to stylistic relationships, emphasizing influences from Laon, Tours, and, particularly, Corbie.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Moreton, , Sacramentary, 201.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ We know very little about the piety of the early Agilolfings, but it is likely that the interest in St. Martin, manifest by the later eighth century, first was introduced or emphasized only by Tassilo's father, Odilo, a son of Duke Gottfried of Alemannia and son-in-law of Charles Martel, who, with Carolingian support, established a new Agilolfing ducal line in Bavaria in 736/37. At least, the Carolingian revival of Martin's cult, which began around 700 under the major-domo, Pippin, is unlikely, for political reasons, to have been propagated under Pippin's contemporary, the Bavarian Duke Theodo, or his sons and grandson who preceded Odilo (for Martin see Ewig, E., “Der Martinskult im Frühmittelalter,” reprinted from Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 14 [1961]: 11–30, in his Spätantikes und Fränkisches Gallien. Gesammelte Schriften (1952–1973), 2, ed. Atsma, H., [Munich, 1979], 371–92, here 384–87). For this reason and, possibly, because Martin appealed particularly at this time to the (male) Frankish warrior aristocracy, he probably occupied only a modest place in Swanahilt's personal devotions.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Kasten, , Königssöhne, 149–50. It is worth noting that it was precisely Bavaria where “Louis [the Pious] créa le premier royaume franc d'outre Rhin,” when he established his oldest son, Lothar, there as “rex in Baioaria” in 814 and, subsequently, his son Ludwig (as an adult) from 826 (Werner, K. F., “Hludovicus Augustus: Gouverner l'empire chrétien — Idées et réalités,” in Charlemagne's Heir; New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) , ed. Godman, P. and Collins, R. [Oxford, 1990], 3–123, here 93; on the Bavarian polity in this period see my Charlemagne's Months and their Bavarian Labors: The Politics of the Seasons in the Carolingian Empire, BAR International Series 676 [Oxford, 1997], 31–52).Google Scholar