...n...-.-. 4
.o. .....v:
..

 

3 . .2... Punt?
.. Egg. any
6.... 5 v!

 

 

.A
1. é

1:11. .
5. $1434
.27..

 

A
.o. flab .

.. I.

_... :2 .
3.3.1:...

, 1.25.:
I . . .

 

1 » p:

._V4...r>y. WI.

.1 7:71;? run. .
.A l.v....t.:

 

:9. 1.5.1..»
[fritol . Y.
Ia... I

 

 

 

    

. . . ..l.u».

 

11:5: 5

$6.... a}

  

. _ I. .6 1:9. :7}!

     

    

3...,» Q. .E\: . .v

. I $5... 3:4,...

   

 

'
g

 

,Xiltcvl. .
5...... ally

c.r..‘..w..

         

I
.

 

.. up?
.9
x:

TWP-Is .A

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE PRESBYTER IN CAROLINGIAN SOCIETY

presented by

AI‘ITIIOIIY ZITO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

"'\ -v-1-".---3r\ 3'?
J t

77‘1- ’- degreein L -

 

 

 

///
r" _
‘ A1 LL( )2qu t L—é
(/7 Major professor

Date mm t n z m

0-7639

 

ABSTRACT

THE PRESBYTER IN CAROLINGIAN SOCIETY
By

Anthony Zito

In the period from 742 to 814, the reformation of the
Frankish Church was a state policy consistently pursued by
the Carolingian leadership. The religious inspiration of that
great "Apostle of Germany," St. Boniface, found the vehicle
for its fullest expression in the person and policies of Char-
lemagne who saw Christianity as the best hope for the unifi-
cation of his empire. Both he and his immediate predecessors
in the monarchy recognized the necessity, urged by St. Boni-
face, of restoring canonical discipline and creating a clergy
that would be capable of providing moral and religious leader-
ship. Especially important to the Carolingians was a reformed
secular priesthood operating at the parish level which could
by precept and example give moral and religious guidance and
be a general civilizing agency in a semi—barbaric society.

This paper first presents the Carolingian ideal of

what the secular presbyter or priest should be as that ideal

 

Anthony Zito

is set forth in the De clericorum institutione of Rabanus

 

Maurus. The evidence of civil and ecclesiastical sources
dealing with priestly life in France and Germany in the period
beginning with the Bonifacian reform councils and ending with
the death of Charlemagne is then examined to see how closely
the actual character of the priest conformed to the ideal.

When the comparison is made, it is concluded that in this area
of reform, as in others, the Carolingians pursued lofty ideals
but fell far short of achieving them in practice. Effective
reformation of the secular priesthood could only have been
realized by a total commitment of the Carolingians to a prac-
tical program of ecclesiastical reform. This total commitment
was not made. The exigencies of political and military life
led to the preservation and extension of the proprietary church
regime with all of its baneful consequences for church disci-
pline and organization. As revealed in the bulk of legislation
dealing with the clergy, the Carolingian attempt to regularize
the proprietary church system so as to minimize its deleterious
effects on ecclesiastical life failed. As a result, the efforts
to achieve canonical discipline inaugurated by St. Boniface
failed also. The secular priests remained, despite all reform
efforts to legislate to the contrary, not far removed from the
laity in the conduct of their lives and thus were unable to

provide effective spiritual leadership.

THE PRESBYTER IN CAROLINGIAN SOCIETY

BY

Anthony Zito

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of History

1971

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Dr. Richard E. Sullivan, I wish to give my thanks

for his inspiration and kindly guidance.

To my wife, Rita, I wish to say that without her
loving encouragement and her counsel, this task would neither

have been contemplated nor completed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATI CNS 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv

INTRMJCTION O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 1

Chapter
I. THE IDEAL PRIEST ACCORDING TO RABANUS MAURUS . . 4

II. SOCIAL ORIGINS OF THE PRIEST: PATRONAGE
AND THE PROPRIETARY CHURCH . . . . . . . . . . . 18

III. EDUCATIONAL PREPARATION AND ORDINATION
To THE ”155“!” O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 31

Iv. mE PASTORAL CARE OF sz-S . Q o o o o o o Q Q g 52

v. THE m1 EST IN sxlETY O O O O O O C C O O O O O O 106

CmchIm O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 125
BIBumRAmICAL ESSAY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 129

BIBumRAmY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 134

iii

Boniface, Ep.

 

DACL . .

Conc.

15’

Migne,‘£E

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

Mbnumenta Germaniae historica,
Epistolae Selectae, Tomus I:
Die Briefe des heiligen
Bonifatius und Lullus, ed.

M. Tangl, Berlin, 1955.

 

 

 

 

Dictionnaire d'archéblogig.
chrétienne et de litur ie,

ed. F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq,
Paris, 1907-1953.

 

 

Dictionnaire de théblogie
catholique, ed, A. vacant,
E. Mangenot, E. Amann,
Paris, 1908-1950.

 

 

Mbnumenta Germaniae historica,
ed. G. Pertz, T. Mommsen,
et al., Berlin, l826ff.

 

Leges, Legum Sectio II:
Capitularia regum francorum,
Tomus 1, ed. A. Boretius,
Hanover, 1883.

 

 

nges, Leggy Sectio III:
Concilia aevi Karolini,

Tomus II, Pars I, ed.

A. Werminghoff, Hanover, 1906.

 

 

Epistolae, ed. P. Ewald,
et al., 8 volumes, Berlin,
1887—1939.

 

Patrologiae cursus completus,
Series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne,
221 volumes, Paris, 1844-1864.

 

I NTR ODUCTI ON

In any age the ideals of a society are indicative of
its character. It is equally true that the realities of a
society never fully measure up to its ideals. There is always
a greater or lesser discrepancy between the two and it may be
said that the viability of a society depends in large part on
the degree to which the two converge. Viewing the Carolingian
Empire in this context, it seems apparent that one explanation
for its swift disintegration can be found in the fact that the
Carolingians overreached themselves by pursuing lofty and un-
realistic ideals in such areas as government and religion while
neglecting the practical considerations of organization and the
implementation of policy. This seems especially to have been
the case with reference to the religious life of the Carolin-
gian society in the eighth and ninth centuries. An attempt
was made by the ruling elite at religious reform of the clergy
and the imposition of Christian norms of behavior on a not
overly receptive population. It will be the object of this
dissertation to examine the ideal and the actuality with re-
spect to one institution of Carolingian religious life--that

of the priesthood. The question that will be asked is what
1

2

was the real character of the presbyter or priest and how

 

did it conform to the Carolingian ideal in the period from
742 to 814, from the age of the Bonifacian reform councils to
the death of Charlemagne.

To get a conception of the Carolingian ideal of the
priest, perhaps no better source can be used than the treatise

in three books, De clericorum institutione (Concerning the edu-

 

cation of the clergy), written in 819 by Rabanus Maurus, the

 

"primus praeceptor Germaniae," in response to numerous demands

made by the clergy.1

Rabanus, who became abbot of Fulda and
archbishop of Mainz, was a faithful disciple of Alcuin and a
product of the educational reforms instituted by Charlemagne.
His work, a manual of instruction on what the cleric should
know, is therefore in the Alcuinian tradition of scholarship
and is representative of the Carolingian renaissance in learn-
ing. In keeping with this tradition, Rabanus contributes
little that is original. He borrows heavily from earlier

writers, most notably the De doctrina Christiana of Augustine

and the Regula pastoralis of Gregory I and the works of Isidore

 

of Seville and Bede.2

 

1Rabanus Maurus, De clericorum institutione, Migne, fk,
CVII, 293-419; Critically edited in Rabani Mauri De institutione
clericorum libri tres, ed. A. Knoepfler, Munich, 1901 (here-
after cited as De. cl. inst.).

 

2M.L.W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe
A.D. 500 to 900 (Ithaca, 1957), pp. 306-308 (hereafter cited
as Laistner, Thought and Letters).

 

3

For the reality of the priesthood, the evidence from
both the secular and the ecclesiastical sources for Carolin-
gian history must be consulted. Here the most abundant refer-
ences to the priest are to be found in the legislative and
administrative edicts embodied in the royal capitularies and
in the decrees of church councils. Sources such as corre-
spondence, charters, annals, vitae, and gesta, though of great
importance in understanding the life of the priest, are, it
must be noted, rather meager when it comes to giving specific
detail. Moreover, those priests who are named in the sources
or who were important enough to have rated a vita, cannot, for
the purposes of this paper, be viewed as typical.

Despite the difficulties, however, it is felt that
valid use can be made of the evidence regarding the priestly
condition in the Carolingian kingdom in the eighth and the
ninth centuries. This paper, then, will first present the

ideal of the priest using the De clericorum institutione of

 

Rabanus Maurus as a guide. Subsequent chapters will be de-
voted to an examination of the priest as he is revealed in
the sources. By proceeding in this fashion, it will be pos-
sible to gain an appreciation of the Carolingian ideal of the
priest and a clearer elucidation of the working out of that

ideal in practice.

CHAPTER I
THE IDEAL PRIEST ACCORDING TO RABANUS MAURUS

For Rabanus, there is no question that of the three
orders which constitute the Church, i.e., the laity, the monks,
and the clergy, the clerical order is to be set above the
others. He asserts that the priests of the "present Church"
are thus exalted because they were especially chosen by God to
offer sacrifices, give judgment between the just and the un-
just, decide between the sacred and the profane, and instruct
the people of God in all His laws and precepts which He had
sent to them.1 Accordingly, to assume such awesome respon-
sibilities, candidates for the priesthood are selected neither
for their youth or decrepit old age but because they possess
honor and merit and wise doctrine. As stewards of God, their
conduct must be above reproach. Those given to riotous or un-
ruly behavior, the drunkard, the avaricious, the self-willed,
the distempered, and the homicidal are unacceptable. Only
men of the best character, therefore, can qualify to perform

the functions of the priest which are to administer the Holy

 

l1m. c1. inst., I, 2, Migne, 31;, cvn, 297-298.

 

4

5

Sacrament, give baptism, and conduct the office of preaching.2
Ideally one attains to the priesthood by proceeding

through the ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. After

undergoing the rite of tonsure which admits him to the clerical

order, the candidate for the priesthood serves in the various

degrees of holy orders, that is, ostiarius, lector, exorcist,

 

acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and finally, priest.3 He accedes
to this last named position, however, only at the canonical age
of thirty and providing that he is of blameless character, not
having entered the clericate either as a bigamist or a penitent
or a neophyte in the faith.4
Ordination to the priesthood, however, can come about
only after the candidate for priestly office has undergone ex-

tensive training and preparation. This is implicit in the very

title of Rabanus' treatise, Concernigg the education of the

 

clergy, and receives his strongest emphasis. As Rabanus sees
it, no one can fulfill the duties of the clerical office in-
volving the care of souls unless he be a man who possesses a
"plenitude of knowledge," has led a life of rectitude, and has
achieved a perfection in erudition. For unless a man be

trained in his vocation, he is of no use to others. Using

 

21bid., I, 6, Migne, 11., CVII, 301-302.
31bid., I, 4-12, Migne, 331;, cvn, 299-305.

41bid., I, 13, Migne, _P_L;, cvu, 306.

6

quotations from many apposite scriptual passages, Rabanus
argues that the blind are not to lead the blind and states
categorically that no one is to attempt to teach any art un-
less he has first mastered it through long study. It would,
he asserts, be an evil thing to give the charge of pastoral
care and the responsibility of teaching others to one who has
newly acquired the desire to learn. Indeed it would be peril-
ous to entrust such a one with the burdens of a ruler when he
is unsustained by the necessary wisdom.5

0f necessity, then, a candidate for the priesthood must
undergo careful educational preparation before his assumption
of the sacred priestly duties. While he has the leisure, the
future priest must arm himself, so to speak, with the necessary
weapons so that he may conquer the enemies of the faith and de-
fend the flock entrusted to his care.6 Rabanus devotes the
larger part of the third book of his treatise to teaching the
clergy how everything that is written in the Sacred Books and
all that is useful in the arts and studies of the pagans should
be investigated and learned.7 His view in this area, therefore,

is broad and comprehensive. According to this view, the end

product of clerical education should be the well-rounded

 

51bid., III, 1, Migne, fl, cvn, 377-378.
61bid., 111, 1, Migne, 31;, cvn, 377.

71bid., Preface, Migne, 2E: cvn, 296.

7

man--one who would not be ignorant of anything in which he
ought to instruct both himself and those subject to him.8

More particularly, the priest must have a thorough
knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, for in that knowledge lies
the foundation, the establishment, and the perfection of wis-
dom. The priest must know that all the truth of this world
has its source in the eternal wisdom of God which comes to us
in its highest form, in His very words as recorded in the
Scriptures. Keeping in mind, then, the superior truth of
Scripture and realizing that all truth has one source, the
priest should seek it wherever it is to be found whether it
be in or outside Church tradition. His goal should be the
perfect knowledge of truth and the highest degree of wisdom
and this is to be attained, not only by the study of the Sa-
cred Books and the writings of Christians, but also by ex-
tracting all the knowledge that is useful from the books of
pagan authors. This seeming liberality on the part of Rabanus
in recommending the study of heathen literature is under-
standable in the light of his dictum that all truth stems from
God. Pagan authors, although not originators of truth, em-
bodied truth in their writings. They can, therefore, be read
with profit by the clergy. The latter, however, must be se-

lective and ignore what is dross and idolatrous. Above all,

 

81bid., 111, 1, Migne, 31;, cvn, 377.

8

they must be sure to test the truth of pagan knowledge against
revealed truth before accepting it.9

Thus the ideal priest, Rabanus tells us, recognizes
the great utility of having a thorough knowledge of the seven
liberal arts, the trivium and the quadrivium, for a mastery
of these disciplines provides the indispensable tools for
those who would seek knowledge of the Scriptures and pursue
learning in general. For Rabanus, the study of theology is
the task to which all learning must be directed. He devotes
some thirteen chapters to an explanation of the manner and

method of studying the Scriptures, using the De doctrina

Christiana of Augustine as his authority. Included is an

 

extensive discussion of the three levels of meaning embodied
in literal, figurative, and mystical language. The priest,
ideally, should master all these modes of expression if he

is to be conversant with Scripture. Rabanus' emphasis can

be seen in his advice with reference to figurative expres-
sions. In order to avoid the perplexities of figurative
usage, Rabanus urges that the priest must have a knowledge

of languages and things. He thus should have an acquaintance
with Hebrew and Greek in addition to Latin and must not be

ignorant of the nature of animals, minerals, and plants. A

 

91bid., 111, 2, 16-17, Migne, EL, CVII, 379-380,
392-395.

9
failing on the part of the reader in any of these areas,

Rabanus teaches, causes figurative passages to be obscure.10

Rabanus then follows with a lengthy discussion of the
use that is to be made of secular learning, including a survey
of the seven liberal arts. He is careful to point out what in
pagan literature is fundamentally true and therefore proper for
priestly study. In this category, he includes all knowledge
that is essential to human existence. That which the priest
must shun at all costs are the false inventions of pagan
authors, namely, their pernicious superstition in such things
as idol worship and the taking of omens. Throughout, Rabanus
stresses the necessity of having a thorough knowledge of the
seven liberal arts, not only for their practical educational
value, but more importantly, as an aid to the study of the
ultimate science--theology. Thus he urges the study of grammar
and rhetoric as essential to any comprehension of the three
levels of meaning to be found in Scripture. In this connection,
the priest must have an acquaintance with music and arithmetic
if he is to understand fully the mystical use of numbers.
Rabanus goes on to state that geometry and astronomy, as they
reflect divine creation, give the student a clearer perception
of God's wisdom and omnipotence. Finally, the true priest

must have a facility for explicating church doctrine and also

 

1013.333” 111. 1. 3-15, Migne, 51;, cvn, 377, 380-392.

10
possess the cures necessary to combat the various afflictions
that may beset his flock. For this, he must have a knowledge
of that discipline of disciplines, as Rabanus puts it, dia-
lectic, which teaches the priest reason and right thinking so
that he may put the arguments of the Church's enemies to con-
fusion.11
The essential object of the priestly office is the

pastoral care of souls leading to their salvation. Accord-
ingly, the priestly ideal is exemplified in the preparation
that the individual priest must undergo so that he can pro-
vide for the maintenance of divine worship, administer the
sacraments, give inspirational guidance, and afford charity
to the needy.12 Providing for divine worship entails on the

part of the priest a wide range of liturgical knowledge. Thus

ten chapters of De clericorum institutione are devoted to the

 

instruction of the clergy in the refinements of sacerdotal
dress. The priest must know the sacred character and signif-
icance of the liturgical vestments related to his office.13
The priest must also be schooled in the ecclesiastical duties

associated with the seasons or times of the liturgical year,

 

111939., III, 1, 18-26, Migne, EL, CVII, 377, 395-405.

12Henry G. J. Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls in
South-East France During:3he Sixth Century (Romae apud Aedes
Universitatis Gregorianae, 1950), p. xiv (hereafter cited as
Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls).

 

 

13De. cl. inst., I, 14-23, Migne, EL, cv11, 306-309.

 

11

especially with the proper Observances of the feasts and fasts
of the temporal cycle centering as it did by the Carolingian
era on the two great feasts of the Nativity and the Resur-
rection. The greater portion of Book II is given over to a
review of the obligatory fasts, the major Christian festivals,
and the occasions of particular liturgical Observances.14

The liturgical year provides the broad framework in
which the priest must perform the two major acts of divine
worship-—celebrating the Mass and chanting the divine office.
The celebration of the Mass centering in the consecration of
the Body and Blood of Christ, as a direct legacy from the Lord
Himself, is the most important ecclesiastical duty of the
priest. The necessity of communicating this sacrament to
other Christians dictates that the priest not only know the
office and the order of the Mass according to the Roman rite,
but also that he understand the significance of the eucha-
ristic sacrifice. For Rabanus, this significance is twofold;
it includes both the commemoration of the Last Supper and the
Sacrifice of the Cross and the higher significance whereby the
Christian upon worthily receiving the Eucharist is mystically

incorporated in the body of Christ.15 Similarly, regarding

 

14;g;g., 11, 17-46, Migne, EL, CVII, 333-361.

151bid., I, 31- 33, Migne, PL, cv11, 316 326; cf.
A. Gaudel, "Messe dans l'eglise latine, Raban Maur, " in DTC,
X, l (1928), 1005- 1006.

12

the other important area of public prayer, the divine office,
the priest must know the cursus and the significance of the
canonical hours along with the elements of liturgical prayer--
the psalms, hymns, responsories, antiphons, and the appropriate
readings from the Scriptures.16

Divine worship also includes the various kinds of pri-
vate prayers and devotions for individual communion with God.
The priest must not only know the legitimate prayers to be said
at the inception of any task and such set forms of verbal prayer
as the Pater Noster, but also the most efficacious kinds of
prayer for particular occasions.17 Finally, all prayer comes
to nothing if the priest does not know the fundamental tenets
of the faith as embodied in the Creed. Above all in this re-
gard, he must be knowledgeable about the various ancient here-
sies so as not to fall victim to doctrinal error and create
schism.18

In his discussion of the sacraments, Rabanus uses
Isidore of Seville's seventh century classification which had
considerable vogue in the ninth century and was dominant in the

Carolingian period as a whole. In addition to the Body and

 

1606. cl. inst., II, 1-9, 47-54, Migne, 31:, cvu,
325-329, 361-367.

 

"1219.. II. 10-16, Migne, 51;, cm, 329-333.

19;g;g., II, 56-58, Migne, EL, cvxr, 368-378.

13

Blood or the Eucharist already discussed, there were the ini-
tiatory rites of baptism and confirmation.19 The priest, ac-
cording to Rabanus, in addition to knowing the meaning and
significance of baptism and confirmation, must be able to pre-
pare the catechumens for entrance into the Church following the
Roman ritual. The catechumenate necessitates that the priest
be able to conduct canonical examinations or scrutinies in-
volving exorcisms and instructions, the delivery and recital
of the Creed, the process of anointing, and the renunciation of
the devil. He then must be able to follow with the proper rites
of baptism leading to confirmation at the hands of the bishop.20
The priest must also be knowledgeable about penance or
the penitential discipline, although it was not yet considered
to be an official sacrament of the Church. Here again he should
know the meaning and significance of confession21 and penance22
and how satisfaction and reconciliation can be effected.23 A

knowledge of the methods of redeeming sins is necessary, in-

cluding such things as the different types of penitential

 

19Ahdre’ Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages,
trans. Archibald Alexander (New York, 1915), pp. 32-33 (here-
after cited as Lagarde, The Latin Church).

20De. cl. inst., I, 24-30, Migne, fl, cv11, 309-316.

 

21132112” 11. 14. Migne, 3g, CVII, 331-332.
22mm” II. 29. Migne, fl, CVII, 341-342.

23.1.9151” 11. 30, Migne, 31;, cvn, 342-343.

14

24 25

alms and the cure of sins by their contrary penalties.
Reconciliation can only take place after the completion of
penance and, except for those who are seriously ill, at the
canonical time before Easter. Finally, Rabanus teaches, the
priest must use discretion and assign public penance for pub-
lic sins and give secret penance for secret sins which are to
be disclosed only to the priest or bishop so that the weak may
not be tempted by examples of sin of which they were entirely
ignorant.26
In the area of inspirational guidance, or more specif-
ically, the office of preaching, Rabanus envisions a Cicero-
nian preparation on the part of the priest. As the defender
of the true faith and the conqueror of error, the priest must
teach right and correct wrong. In this task, he must overcome
opponents, arouse the neglectful, and instruct the ignorant.
And for this, he must be wise in argument, persuasive in ex-
hortation, and skillful in exposition.27 To attain the ends
of good preaching, that is, teaching, pleasing, and persuading,

the priest can do no better than learn the three styles of e1-

oquence as elucidated by Cicero, namely, the subdued style for

 

24l21g,, II, 28, Migne, PE, CVII, 340.
251bid., 111, 38, Migne, 511:, cvu, 415-418.
2612112., II, 30, Migne, _P_L, cvn, 342-343.

27121.9” III. 28, Migne, 11, CVII, 406.

lS

dealing with trivial matters, the moderate style for discussing
ordinary topics, and the grand style for the treatment of noble
subjects.28 The priest, then, will be able to communicate with
eloquence and effectiveness to his auditors when he has mastered
these styles so that he can use them both singly and in combi-
nation as occasion demands.29

Rabanus cautions, however, that eloquence without wis-
dom can be harmful and is never beneficial. Since the prin-
ciples of eloquence can be poorly learned, it is more important
that the priest speak wisely than that he speak eloquently.
And he can speak more or less wisely according to whether he
has become more or less learned in the Holy Scriptures, not
through rote memorizing, but by careful searching and a thor-
ough understanding.30 The biblical authors, manifestly in-
spired by God, were pre-eminently the wisest and most eloquent
of men. Priestly interpreters of the Bible, as lesser beings,
cannot hope to understand and appreciate it fully. They must,
therefore, in their teaching dwell on those passages which they
do understand and can present most clearly.31

Rabanus is insistent that inspirational guidance can

 

281222” III. 32, Migne, 31., cvn, 409.
29.1.2151” 111. 35. Migne. PL, CVII, 412.
3°Ihid., 111, 28, Migne, g, cvn, 406-407.

31.1.2_i_d.n 111. 29. Migne, fl, cvn, 407-408.

16

only be accomplished by priestly attention to the techniques of
good communication. If necessary, to avoid obscurity and ambi-
guity when speaking to the people, the priest should deliber-
ately use language that will be easily understood even if this
means the use of poorer words and idiomatic speech. Rabanus
concludes in this practical vein with the injunction that the
priest avoid all words that do not teach.32 Finally, he ad-
vises that there is a third alternative, if a priest cannot
master the canons of good speaking and can speak neither wisely
nor eloquently. He can conduct his priestly office in such a
way as not only to win eternal reward but set an example of
Christian conduct for others. In this way, the very beauty of
the life that the priest may lead will be in itself a powerful
sermon.33

Pastoral care, as stated earlier, includes, in addition
to conducting divine worship, administering the sacraments, and
preaching, a fourth duty, that of providing material support
for the needy. Rabanus, however, in this and in other impor-
tant practical matters of sacerdotal life, has nothing to say.
And it is important to note, at this point, that what Rabanus
does not say is as significant for our conception of the Caro-

lingian ideal of the priest as what he does say. In the pages

 

321239.” III. 30, Migne, 131:, (NH, 408.

331bid., 111, 36, Migne, _P_L, cv11, 413.

17
of Rabanus' treatise, the ideal priest emerges as a man of
flawless character; a scholar trained in the liberal arts of
the classical tradition; a theologian knowledgeable about the
mysteries of the Holy Sacrament, the Scriptures, and the an-
cient heresies; and a pastor of souls schooled in the litur-
gical usages of the Church and able to maintain divine worship,
to administer the sacraments, and to preach the word of God
effectively. From this summary of what Rabanus does say, it
can be gathered that he presents an impossible ideal of the
priest which presupposes a degree of sophistication that Car-
olingian society had not yet attained and which had little hope
of fulfillment. Equally important, however, is the fact, that,
except in only the most general way, as in his advice on preach-
ing and combatting sin, it appears that Rabanus does not speak
to the actual conditions confronting the Frankish priest in
the semi-barbaric world in which he lived and worked. It may
therefore be expected that there was a considerable gap be-
tween Rabanus' ideal of the priest and the reality. It is to

the reality of the priestly condition that we must now turn.

CHAPTER II

SOCIAL ORIGINS OF THE PRIEST:
PATRONAGE AND THE PROPRIETARY CHURCH
The sources for the period under discussion reveal
that the social classes from which the lower clergy ultimately
derived included the noble, the minor freeman, and the servile.
What the sources do not tell us is the proportion of the lower
clergy that came from each of these social classes. At best,
they admit only of an inferential answer. Beck, in his exam-
ination of pastoral care in southeastern Gaul, one of the more
recent studies of early parochial development, has estimated
that the great bulk of the lower clergy in the sixth century
was recruited from the large class of minor freemen. He bases
his estimate largely on the fact that it was "the broad belt
of minor freemen" who populated the ranks of the Merovingian
armies. This fact and the prohibition against young laymen
entering the clericate without royal consent embodied in a
synodal decree issued at Orleans in 511, according to Beck,
suggest that the crown lost the services of a soldier when-
ever a man became a cleric. The implication from this, Beck

reasons, is that the clerical candidate in southeastern Gaul

18

19
was normally chosen from the class of minor freemen which
supplied men for the army with only a few selected from the
nobility or the serf population.1
At Thionville in 805, the Emperor found it necessary

to re-enact the decree of 511 very explicitly in the form of
a royal capitulary and with the same end in view of preventing
the loss of manpower for his armies. Thus he decreed:

Concerning freemen who wish to enter the service of

God, let them first seek our permission. For we have

heard that some do so, not for reasons of piety, but

in order to avoid military service and other public

obligations.2
It would be an error, however, to conclude from this new pro-
hibition that the lower clergy throughout Charlemagne's do-
minions was largely recruited from the class of minor freemen.
Two important and related factors would militate against this
conclusion: the extension of patronage with the concomitant

reduction in the absolute number of freemen, and secondly, the

rapid increase in the number of proprietary churches located

 

1Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls, pp. 58-59. For a
different conclusion, cf. Sir Samuel Dill, Roman Society in
Gaul in the Merovingian Age (London, 1926), p. 480: ". . . as
the clergy were exempt from military service, no bishop could
ordain a freeman without royal permission, with the result that
the priesthood was largely recruited from the servile class."

 

 

2MGH, Capit., no. 44, c. 15, p. 125: "De liberis
hominibus qui ad servitium Dei se tradere volent, ut prius hoc
non fatiant quam a nobis licentiam postulent. Hoc ideo, quia
audivimus aliquos ex illis non tam causa devotionis quam
exercitu seu alia funccione regali fugiendo . . . ."

 

20
in the villas or private estates of the rural areas. It will
be necessary both for our discussion of the social origins of
the priest and for the general purposes of this paper to give
some attention to the influence of these factors on the Frank-
ish Church.

That the patronate became more pervasive during the
course of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries is gener-
ally accepted by historians. In fact, they are nearly unan-
imous in viewing the villa or great estate as the predominant
institution of landholding in the Carolingian period, relying

basically on such evidence as the Capitulare de Villis, char-

 

ters, and the polyptyques of a few great abbeys.3 The axio-
matic acceptance of this interpretation, however, has been
rightly questioned by Latouche, who has pointed out that in
Charlemagne's time only a small fraction of the area of the
Frankish Empire was occupied by the great ecclesiastical and
lay estates. On the remaining land, well into the ninth cen-
tury, there were independent 552§i_and a great many gig; or
villages populated by small independent farmers. In addition
to those farming a single mansus, there were medium land-

owners who held several mansi.4 This is precisely what is

 

3Robert Latouche, The Birth of Western Economy,
Economic Aspects of the Dark Ages, trans. E. M. Wilkinson
(New York, 1966), pp. 176-177 (hereafter cited as Latouche,
The Birth of Western Economy).

41bid., pp. 177-178.

21
revealed in the capitularies relating to Charlemagne's armies

where the heribannum and military service were made dependent

 

upon property ownership. The graded payments and fractional
holdings there listed in royal edicts are truly indicative of
the presence of a large number of minor freemen upon whom the
Emperor placed no small importance.5 Unfortunately, due to
the lack of documentation, little or nothing is known of these
minor freemen in the period under discussion.6 But that they
continued to exist in considerable numbers must be noted in
making some estimate of the social origins of the priest.
Despite the above caution, the fact seems established
that there existed in our period numerous great estates owned
by the crown and the lay and ecclesiastical lords. This was
true already in Merovingian times, with the churches and mon-
asteries possessing great wealth in land and competing with
the powerful secular aristocracy for more.7 The disorders
and uncertainties of life in this early period induced many
freemen, for the purposes of securing life and property, to
commend themselves to the rich and powerful for their pro-
tection. This was particularly true of the rural clergy es-

tablished in the vici whose churches were especially

 

5See MGH, Capit., no. 44, c. 19, p. 125; no. 48, c. 2,
pp. 134-135; no. 49, cc. 2, 3, p. 136; no. 50, c.1, p. 137.

 

6Latouche, The Birth of western Economy, p. 177.

 

7Ibid., pp. 178-179.

 

22
vulnerable to covetousness and abuse. Increasingly in the
sixth and seventh centuries, the free priests of the villages
placed themselves and their churches under the domination of
a lord.8
Along with the steady diminution of free churches in
the rural areas, there was a significant increase in the number

of proprietary churches built on the lands of the seigniory.9

 

8Imbart de la Tour, "Les paroisses rurales dans l'
ancienne France du IVe au XIe siecle," Revue historique, LXVII
(1898), 10-14 (hereafter cited as Imbart de la Tour, "Les
paroisses rurales"); H. Leclercq and F. Martroye, "Patronage,"
in DACL, XIII, 2 (1938), 2565 ff.; Paul Thomas, Le droit de
p_opri3te des laiques sur les églises et le patronage laique
au moyen ag_ (Paris, 1906), p. 20; Emile Lesne, Histoire de
la proprieté’ecclesiastique en France, Tome I: Epggues
romaine et merovingienne (Lille- Paris, 1910), pp. 72- 73 (here-
after cited as Lesne, La proprieté’ecclesiastique).

 

 

 

 

 

 

9As Dom David Knowles has noted in The Monastic Order
in England, A History of Its Development from the Times of St.
Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council, 943-1216 (Cambridge,
1941), p. 562, n. l (hereafter cited as Knowles, The Monastic
Order in England), modern research on the proprietary church
begins at the turn of the century with the pioneer studies of
Ulrich Stutz, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-
g:_manischen Kirchenrechtes (Berlin, 1895) and Geschichte des
Kirchlichen Benefizialwesens von seinem Anfangen bis auf die
Zeit des Alexanders III, Tome I (Berlin, 1895). The first
essay has been translated by Geoffrey Barraclough, "The Pro-
prietary Church as an Element of Mediaeval Germanic Ecclesi-
astical Law," in Mediaeval Germany, 911-1259, Essays by Ge;-
man Historians (Oxford, 1938), II, 35-70 (hereafter cited as
Stutz, "The Proprietary Church"). In the same period, Imbart
de la Tour, in "Les paroisses rurales," Revue historique, LX
(1896), 241-271, LXI (1896), 10-44, LXIII (1897), 1-41, LXVII
(1898), 1-35, LXVIII (1898), 1-54, was pursuing a parallel
line of research. Since these early works of Stutz and Imbart
de la Tour have appeared, an extensive literature has devel-
oped on thesubject. The pertinent bibliography may be found
in Stutz' s article, "Eigenkirche, Eigenkloster," in Real-
En_yklgpadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23
This development was very evident in southeastern Gaul in the
sixth century, a time when there was a decided increase in the
number of churches, both there and in other regions west of
the Rhine.10 Beck cites Chaume's study of the diocese of

Auxerre11

and the evidence from inscriptions to show that the
tendency was for the villa churches to multiply more rapidly
and to predominate numerically over the churches of the epis-
copal cities and the £123.12
In the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, the num-
ber of proprietary churches established on the lands of the
crown, the bishops, the monasteries, and the secular lords
grew apace.13 This numerical increase of privately-owned

churches and the extension of patronage over the free churches

had already in the seventh century placed the majority of

 

Albert Hauck (Third Edition, Leipzig, 1913), XXIII, 364 ff.,
and in H. Leclercq's article, "Paroisses rurales," in DACL,
XIII, 2 (1938), 2198-2235. According to Knowles, while the
latter research has given more precision as to details, it has
done little to alter the basic conclusions that are set forth
in the earlier works of Stutz and Imbart de la Tour.

10Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls, p. 80; Imbart de
la Tour, "Les paroisses rurales," Revue historiqgg, LX (1896),
257.

 

 

11Maurice Chaume, "Le mode de constitution et de

delimitation des paroisses rurales aux temps merovingiens et
carolingiens," Revue Mabillon, XXVII (1937), 65.

 

12Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls, pp. 81-82.

 

13Imbart de la Tour, "Les paroisses rurales, " Revue
historique, LXVIII (1898), 52; Lesne, La proprieté'ecclgsi-
astique, I, 73, Stutz, "The Proprietary Church, " p. 45.

 

24

rural churches under the control of the aristocracy. The pro-
prietors of the formerly free churches enjoyed rights similar
to those possessed by the founders of churches in the vil-
las.1‘ In effect, these rights reduced the rural church to
the status of private property. Not only the physical assets
of church property, but also the revenues including the obla-
tions and the tithes, were in the control of the proprietor.
As a species of private property, the rural churches, though
they could not be diverted from their religious purposes,
could be sold, given away, bestowed, and otherwise exchanged.15

One example of the complications that arose under such
circumstances may be seen in the fact that situations devel-
oped where multiple heirs laid claim to the rights of income

and property of individual churches and forced their division

into two, four, and even a dozen parts.16 This was but one

 

14Imbart de la Tour, "Les paroisses rurales, "Revue
historique, LXVII (1898), 13-14; Lesne, La_prqpriete echEsi-

astique, I, 76; Thomas, op. cit., p. 20.

 

15Stutz, "The Proprietary Church," p. 43; Imbart de
la Tour, "Les paroisses rurales," Revue historique, LXVII
(1898), 15; Lesne,_gg_propriété’ecclesiastique, 1, 73-74.

1°xnon1es, The Monastic Order in Eggland, p. 564.
Louis the Pious made the correction Offithis serious and wide-

spread abuse the subject of his earliest legislation (MEHJ
Capit., no. 138, c. 1, pp. 275-276). The paralyzing effects
of rivalry and discord on the governance of a parish caused
by division of a church into four parts by multiple heirs
with each part having its own priest is described in 395,
Conc., no. 37, c. 26, p. 278.

25
aspect of the more basic problem which was the threat to
episcopal government and to ecclesiastical discipline. As
the regime of private ownership developed, the canonically
recognized proprietary right of presentation tended to become
a right of appointment; and the episcopal authority to ex-
amine and approve clerical candidates was seriously compro-
mised, becoming a mere formality or disappearing entirely.
In inverse proportion, the strength of the ties between lord
and priest was increased while the bond between priest and
bishop became ever weaker.17
The negative consequences of these changes are no more
clearly revealed than in an often-cited letter of St. Boniface
to POpe Zacharias in 742. In it, Boniface vividly describes
for that pontiff's edification the anarchic state of ecclesi-
astical discipline at the end of Charles Martel's reign. Re-
garding the Frankish clergy, he asks:
If I find among these men certain so-called

deacons who have spent their lives since boyhood in

debauchery, adultery, and every kind of filthiness,

who entered the diaconate with this reputation, and

who now, while they have four or five concubines in

their beds, still read the Gospel and are nor ashamed

or afraid to call themselves deacons--nay rather, en-

tering upon the priesthood, they continue in the same

vices, add sin to sin, declare that they have a right
to make intercession for the people in the priestly

 

17Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, pp. 564-565;
Stutz, "The Proprietary Church," pp. 46-47; H. Leclercq and
F. Martroye, "Patronage," in DACL, X111, 2 (1938), 2566-2567.

26
office and to celebrate Mass, and, still worse, with
such reputations advancing from step to step to
nomination and appointment as bishops--may I have the
formal prescription of your authority as to your pro-
cedure in such cases so that they may be convicted by
apostolic judgment and dealt with as sinners?18
As the letter and the great reforming councils called by

Carloman19 and Pippin20

reveal, the Frankish Church had come
near to dissolution. In part, responsibility for this chaotic
state of affairs can be attributed to the secularizations of
church property carried out previously by the mayor of the
palace and to the practice of appointing warlords to head
bishoprics and abbeys. It was the extension of patronage and

the proprietary church system, however, that led to the gen-

eral collapse of ecclesiastical discipline, especially in the

 

18Boniface,_Ep., no. 50, pp. 82-83: "Si invenero inter
illos diaconos quos nominant, qui a puerita sua semper in
stupris, semper in adulteriis et in omnibus semper spurcitiis
vitam ducentes sub tali testimonio venerunt ad diaconatum et
modo in diaconatu concubinas IIII vel V vel plures noctu in
lecto habentes evangelium tamen legere et diaconos se nominare
nec erubescunt nec metuunt et six in talibus incestis ad
ordinem presbiteratus venientes in hisdem peccatis perdurantes
et peccata peccatis adicientes presbiteratus officio fungentes
dicunt se pro populo posse intercedere et sacras oblationes
offerre, novissime, quod peius est, sub talibus testimoniis
per gradus singulos ascendentes ordinantur et nominantur
episcopi: ut habeam preceptum et conscriptum auctoritatis
vestrae, quid de talibus diffiniatis, et per responsum
apostolicum convincantur et arguantur peccatores." Text: Egg
Letters of Saint Boniface, trans. Ephraim Emerton (New York,
1940), p. 80 (hereafter cited as Emerton, The Letters of Saint
Boniface).

 

 

19MGg, Cgpit., no. 10, pp. 24-26; no. 11, pp. 26-28.

 

2°1hid., no. 12, pp. 28-30.

27

rural areas.21

Thus one of the essential objects of the reform move-
ment set under way by Boniface and the Carolingian monarchy
was to seek a solution to the proprietary church problem.
Since the monarchy itself as the largest owner of private
churches had a clear interest in preserving the system, there
could be no question of eliminating the institution entirely.
A compromise had to be reached that would restore church dis-
cipline while not violating the cherished rights of property.
It is only in this context that the extensive ecclesiastical
legislation embodied in the royal capitularies and conciliar
decrees of our period can be understood. The direction that
this legislation took was to regularize the proprietary church
system so as to minimize its divisive effects, to improve the
lot of the priests, and to subordinate them to the authority
of the bishop.22 In the subsequent pages of this paper, the
characterof this legislation will be revealed in more detail.

Having traced in broad outline the influence of pa-
tronage and the proprietary church regime on the Frankish
Church, it is now possible to conclude our discussion of the
social origins of the priest. When the sources for the period

under discussion are read in the context of the developments

 

21Stutz, "The Proprietary Church," pp. 46-47.

zzlbido, pp. 47’480

28
just described, the judgment as to the social class, or
classes, from which the priests were recruited seems clear.
The priests were normally chosen from the class of minor free-
men and from the serf population with only a few coming from
the nobility. That many priests were freemen is an inference
that can be made from Charlemagne's edict of 805 and from
other enactments involving freemen attempting to avoid mil-
itary service.23 Also, in line with what has been said pre-
viously about the survival of a sizable body of minor freemen,
not all of the free churches fell under the control of the
seigniory. The often-repeated acts of Carolingian legislation
embodying the canonical prohibition against the reception of
stranger clerics reveal that there was a large floating body’
of priests, both free and unfree, wandering or fleeing from
place to place seeking positions of advantage.24 The numerous

instances of ordinations involving simony25 and references to

 

23WLCapjt” no. 22, c. 26, p. 56; no. 35, c. 12,
p. 102; no. 43, c. 10, p. 122; MGH, Conc., no. 24, c. 44,
p. 212.

 

24With respect to Carolingian ecclesiastical legis-

lation as a whole, the enactments relating to stability of the
clergy are by far the most often repeated. To cite but a few
examples of these enactments covering the period 742-813, see
MGH, Conc., no. 1, c. 4, p. 3; no. 36, c. 22, p. 267; no. 37,
c. 41, p. 282; MGH, Capit., no. 10, c. 4, p. 25; no. 14, c. 12,
p. 35; no. 19, c. 4, p. 45; no. 22, c. 3, p. 54; no. 78, c. 23,
p. 174; no. 123, c. 18, p. 244.

 

25Reiterating previous prohibitions, the regional
synods of 813 make especial note of this frequent abuse by

29
the recruitment of freemen by bishops and abbots for purposes
of acquiring their property26 indicate that many freemen were
entering the ranks of the priesthood.

The extensive body of Carolingian legislation seeking
to establish a balance between the rights of private ownership
of churches and the needs of ecclesiastical discipline gives
abundant evidence regarding priests who derived from the ser-
vile population. Of these enactments, those affecting sta-

bility27 and servile ordination,28

if taken alone, are enough
to demonstrate that a very great proportion of the priesthood
came from the lowest class of Carolingian society.29 Finally,

regarding priests who were of noble lineage, little can be

 

what could only be freemen with the necessary wealth to buy
lucrative livings; see MGH, Conc., no. 34, c. 5, p. 251;
no. 35, c. 21, p. 255; no. 36, cc. 29-30, p. 268; no. 37,
c. 42, p. 282; no. 38, c. 15, p. 288; MGH, Capit., no. 78,
Co 3, p. 1730

 

 

26MGH, Capit., no. 37, cc. 6, 7, p. 275.

 

27See above n. 24. Pope Zacharias, in a letter of 748
(Boniface, Ep., no. 83, p. 186), admonishes Frankish lay pro-
prietors not to receive stranger priests because these are
often escaped bondsmen who are passing themselves off as or-
dained priests.

 

28MGH, Conc., no. 24, c. 31, p. 211; MGH, Capit., no.
22, cc. 23, 57, pp. 55, 57; no. 28, c. 23, p. 76; no. 35,
c. 26, p. 103; no. 114, c. 4, p. 232. Cf. Boniface, Ep., no.
83, pp. 186-187.

 

29The Agmonitio generalis of 789 (MGH, Capit., no. 22,
c. 72, pp. 59-60) accurately reflected the social origins of
the priest, when it ordered the ministers of the altar of God
to "join and associate to themselves' not only the children of
servile condition, but also the sons of freemen.

 

 

30
said. That their relative numbers must have been small can be
inferred from the fact that there is only one piece of evidence,
and that an enactment of a Bavarian church council held in 800,
that is of general application to nobles entering the priest-
hood. It states:

No noble should be tonsured as abbot or as priest
before the question of his ordination has been examined
in the presence of the bishop of the diocese to which
he belongs. If he gives a part of his property to the
church or to the monastery where he has received the
tonsure, he can remain there and live there according
to the canonical or monastic rules. If, however, he
later quits this condition, he must serve again in the
army as the laity do.30

The remaining references, few in number, are of a particular

nature, such as those found in the biographies of saints.31

 

30MGH,_Conc., no. 24, c. 44, p. 212: "Ut nullus de
nobilibus neque abbas neque presbiter tonderi audeat, antequam
in praesentia episcopi examinetur eius causa, ad cuius dio-
cesim pertinet. Et si aliquas res vel ad monasterium vel ad
eclesiam tradiderit, ubi tonsuratus est, ibi sub cmnonica vel
regulari maneat vita. Si autem postea in propria sua residere
vult, faciat hostem ut ceteri laici."

 

31Thus of noble origin was the priest Gregory who had
charge of the church at Utrecht and was fulfilling the duties
of a bishop as we are told by an anonymous writer in his "Life
of St. Lebuin" in The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germanp,
Being_the Lives of SS. Willibrord,pBoniface, Sturm, Leoba and
Lebuin, together with the Hodoeporicon of St. Willibald and a
selection from the correspondence of St. Boniface, trans. and
ed. C. H. Talbot (New York, 1954), p. 229 (hereafter cited as
Talbot, The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germanp).

CHAPTER III

EDUCATIONAL PREPARATION AND
ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD
The fact that the priests were generally chosen from
the serf population and from the class of minor freemen meant
that in most instances their initial educational preparation
was minimal. To perform the duties of the priestly office,
they would need formal instruction prior to ordination. In
the Gallo-Roman era, candidates for the priesthood normally
had served an apprenticeship in the lower ranks of the cleri-
cate before receiving ordination.1 The conciliar legislation
of Merovingian times reveals the continued existence of the
lower orders in the greater churches of the episcopal cities
and the 333;. In addition to the regular practice of progres-
sion from the minor to the major orders, provision had been
made for the ordination of laymen to the deaconate or to the
priesthood after a probationary year of preparation, which

included observing continence and acquiring the necessary

 

1H. Leclercq, "Ordinations irregulieres," in DACL,
XII, 2 (1936), 2397-2398; Pierre Riche, Education et culture
dans l'occident barbare, VIe- VIIIepgiecles (Paris, 1962),
p. 163 (hereafter cited as RichgjiEducation et culture).

 

31

32

knowledge to perform baptism and celebrate the holy mysteries.
This concession had been made in an effort to combat the in-
creasingly common abuses stemming from the installation of
untrained priests, especially in the proprietary churches.2

By the time of St. Boniface, with the steady decline
of the old canonical discipline, training in the lower orders
before priestly ordination was far from normal practice.3
There were clergy in the lower orders to be sure, but, except

for the deaconate, references to them are few; and, as ex-

ampled in ecclesiastical legislation, not descriptive of their

 

2Louis Brehier, et Rene Aigrain, Greggire le Grand,
les Etats barbares et la conquete arabs (590- -757), V61. V of
Histoire de l'Eglise depuis les origines jusguTg nos jours,
ed. Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin (Paris, 1947), pp. 375- 376
(hereafter cited as Brehier et Aigrain, Grgggire le Grand);
Ellen Perry Pride, "Ecclesiastical Legislation on Education,
A.D. 300-1200," Church Histopy, XII (1943), 236-237 (hereafter
cited as Pride, "Ecclesiastical Legislation"); Lagarde, Egg
Latin Church, pp. 70-71; Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls,
p. 46.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3How far this deterioration had gone by the end of the
seventh century is evidenced by the diocesan synod held at
Auxerre in 695 (probably the last Frankish church council to
be held before 742). The diocesan priests were ordered to
take turns in celebrating the Mass in the cathedral church
which no longer had priests of its own. See Gustav Schnfirer,
Church and Culture in the Middle Ageg, Vol. I: 350-814,
trans. George J. Undreiner (New Jersey, 1956), p. 331 (here-
after cited as Schnfirer, Church and Culture).

 

33
status or condition.4 The decline of this discipline is most
clearly revealed in a letter of Archbishop Leidrad to Charle-
magne in the opening years of the ninth century. Leidrad
gives the Emperor an account of his progress in restoring the
ancient see of Lyons, a bishopric that had always been one of
the most considerable in southern Gaul. The enumeration of
the ecclesiastical buildings, including churches, monasteries,
and nunneries that he repaired is indicative of the disruption
and decay that had demoralized the Frankish Church, and, it
should be noted, the slowness with which Carolingian reform
and restoration were being accomplished. Of particular
interest here, however, is Leidrad's mention of the fact that

he had to repair many domus episcopales, or episcopal houses,

 

one of which had been all but destroyed. It was in the epis-
copal houses that training of the lower secular clergy took
place.5 Finally, Leidrad also notes that he reinstituted

schools of singers and readers in the episcopal church. The

 

4The term "clerici" is generally used in reference to
clergy in minor orders. See MGH, Capit., no. 33, c. 23,
p. 96; no. 118, c. 4, p. 236; MGH, Conc., no. 1, c. 6, p. 4;
no. 2, c. 1, pp. 6-7; no. 37, c. 3, pp. 274-275; Theodulf,
Capitula ad prespyterospparochiae suae, c. 15, Migne, 25,
CV, 195.

 

 

 

5Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian
Churches (London, 1881), p. 202. Cf. Carlo de Clercq, La
lZgislation religieuse franque de Clovis a Charlemggnep:3tude
sur les actes de conciles et les capitulaires les statuts
diocesains et les regles monastiquesJ 507-814 (Paris, 1936),
p. 155 (hereafter cited as Carlo de Clercq, La legislation
religieuse franque).

 

 

 

 

34

belated re-establishment of these very basic educational in-
stitutions of the Church in an important diocese of the Caro-
lingian realm adds to our appreciation of the extent to which
the minor orders had declined.6

The verdict of St. Boniface, writing in 742, is that
the Franks had been trampling upon and despoiling ecclesias-
tical discipline for several generations. Though an episco-
pal and monastic organization still existed, the upper ranks
of the church hierarchy were filled with greedy laymen and
unscrupulous clergymen. The provincial organization of
earlier times had collapsed and national church synods had
not met for over eighty years. Consequently, the canon law
of the Church had neither been established nor restored any-
where.7 As Fournier and Le Bras put it in describing the

disintegration of the Frankish Church: "La crise de l'Eglise

merovingienne entre 680 et 740 peut se resumer d'un seul mot:

 

OMGH, Ep., 1v, no. 30, pp. 542-544. It is true that
an enactment of the Council of Tours in 813 (MGHQ Conc.,
no. 38, c. 12, p. 288) states that candidates for the priest-
hood should first spend a formative period of training with
the clergy of a cathedral. But this isolated reference can
only be viewed as an anacronism borrowed from earlier church
canons of which the Council made heavy use. See Carlo de
Clercq, La législation religieuse franque, p. 246.

 

7Bonirace, Ep., no. 50, pp. 82-83.

 

35

mepris de 1'ancient droit."8

As we have seen, the contempt that the Franks had for
the canon law of the Church with respect to priestly ordination
is vividly described by St. Boniface. He reveals that the im-
pediments to ordination laid down by the ancient canons regard-
ing character, deportment, and preparation9 were clearly ig-
nored. Men were entering the deaconate with reputations for
debauchery and every kind of crime and were progressing to

priestly rank and were even becoming bishops while still

 

8Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Bras, Histoire des
collections canoniques en occident depuis les fausses
de’crétales jusqu'au de’cret de Gratien, Tome 1: De la re’forme
caroliggienne a la réforme grégorienne (Paris, 1931), p. 82:
"La hierarchie est ruinée: cadres dgtruits, longues vacances
des sieges, deux évéques dans certaines villes, et parfois un
seul éyaque pour deux siEges" (hereafter cited as Fournier and
Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques). ’Cf. Brehier et
Aigrain, Gregoire le Grand, p. 361 ff.; Richéfl Education et
culture, pp. 477-478.

 

 

 

9Included in the ancient canons and frequently re-
peated in Frankish ecclesiastical legislation are prohibitions
against the ordination of those who had married twice or had
married a divorced woman, of those who were neophytes in the
faith and of those who had lapsed, of those who were insane
or who were defective in body, of those who had not been ex-
amined for their faith and conduct and of those who were il-
literate, of those who were bond servants, of those who were
penitents or under court order, of those who had not reached
the age of thirty, and of lower clergy from another diocese
who had not received dimissory letters. See The Seven Ecu-
menical Councils, ed. Henry R. Percival, Vol. XIV of A Select
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Second Series; Grand
Rapids, 1956), pp. 10, 23-24, 46, 84, 363, 374, 595, 599;
Boniface, Ep. no. 18, p. 32; no. 80, p. 178; no. 83, p. 187;
no. 87, pp. 198-199; Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls, pp. 45-
46.

 

36
continuing in their vices. St. Boniface implies that the
priesthood had in large part been vitiated by the admission
of those who not only were morally unqualified but who also
had little or no preparation for their ministry.10 Letters
written in 748 and 751 by Pepe Zacharias to St. Boniface re-
veal that the situation had not improved. Reiterating earlier
reports made by St. Boniface, the Pape states that false
priests, including those who were adulterers, murderers, ped-
erasts, and fugitive serfs, outnumbered the true catholics.
These miscreant clerics led people astray and brought the work
of the Church to confusion. They were, in Pope Zacharias'

words:

Servants of the devil transformed into ministers of
Christ, who, subject to no bishop, live according to
their own caprice, protected by the people against
the bishops, so that these have no check upon their
scandalous conduct. They gather about them a like-
minded following and carry on their false ministry,
not in a catholic church, but in the open country

in the huts of farm laborers, where their ignorance
and stupid folly can be hidden from the bishops.
They neither preach the catholic faith to pagans,
nor have they themselves the true faith. They do
not even know the sacred words which any catechumen
old enough to use his reason can learn and understand,
nor do they expect them to be uttered by those whom
they are to baptize, as, for instance, the renunci-
ation of Satan, and so forth. Neither do they for-
tify them with the sign of the cross, which should
precede baptism, nor do they teach them belief in
one God and the Holy Trinity; nor do they require
them to believe with the heart for righteousness or

 

10Boniface, Ep., no. 50, pp. 82-85.

 

37
to make confession with the lips for salvation.11
The serious problem of the entrance into the priesthood of lay-
men without undergoing a period of probation is also revealed
by the Pope's order that all such priests who had concealed
criminal records in securing their ordination were to be un-
frocked and put to penance.12

It would be unwise to conclude from the evidence of
St. Boniface alone that many of those ordained to the priest-
hood were lacking in the necessary educational preparation.
The truth of his observations, however, both with respect to
the situation at the time of his writing and in the subsequent

period, is well attested to by other evidence which in great

part reflects the baneful influences of the proprietary church

 

131219-. nO- 80. pp. 175-176: ". . . servos diaboli
transfigurantes se in minystros Christi, qui sine episcopo

proprio arbitrio viventes populares defensores habentes contra
episcopos, ut sceleratos mores eorum non confringant, seorsum
populum consentaneum congregant et illum erroneum minysterium
non in aecclesia catholica, sed per agrestia loca, per cellas
rusticorum, ubi eorum imperita stultitia celari episcopis
possit, perpetrant nec fidem catholicam paganis predicant nec
ipsi fidem rectam habent, sed nec ipsa sollempnia verba, quae
unusquisque caticuminus, si talis aetatis est, ut iam in-
tellectum habeat, sensu cordis sui percipere et intellegere,
nec docent nec quaerent ab eis, quos baptizare debent, id est
abrenuntiatione satane et cetera, sed neque signacula crucis
Christi eos muniunt, quae precedere debent baptismum, sed nec
aliquam credulitatem unius deitatis et sanctae trinitatis
docent, neque ab eis quaerent, ut corde credant ad iustitiam
et oris confessio fiat illis in salutem . . . ." Text:
Emerton, The Letters of Saint Boniface, pp. 144-145.

12%.! no. 87’ pp. 199-200.

38
system. The royal and conciliar enactments, prohibiting the
ordination of priests before they had been properly examined
for their knowledge of the faith13 and exhorting the bishops
to see to the instruction of their clergy,14 demonstrate by
their endless repetition that many were receiving priestly
ordination without adequate preparation. This conclusion is
strongly reinforced when the legislation dealing with servile
and simoniacal ordinations is taken into consideration.15 It
cannot be doubted that both practices insured the entrance
into the priesthood of many individuals who were doctrinally
uneducated for their office.16

There are a good number of other irregularities

 

13MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 2, p. 54; no. 35, c. 1,
p. 102; no. 37, c. 10, p. 108; no. 38, cc. 1-17, pp. 109-111;
no. 40, c. 2, p. 115; no. 68, c. 7, p. 158; no. 177, c. l,
p. 363; MGH, Conc., no. 24, c. 35, p. 211; no. 35, c. 3, p.
254; no. 38, c. 12, p. 288. Especially admonished is the ex-
amination of stranger priests. See MGH, Capit., no. 10,
c. 4, p. 25; no. 19, cc. 4, 15, 16, pp. 45-46; MGH, Conc.,
no. 1, c. 4, p. 3; no. 34, c. 24, p. 253; no. 37, c. 41,
p. 282.

 

 

 

 

14MGH, Capit., no. 28, c. 29, p. 77; no. 33, cc. 21,
22, pp. 95-96; no. 119, cc. 1-5, pp. 236-237; MGH,,Conc., no.
22, cc. 2, 3, 8, pp. 198-199; no. 37, c. 3, pp. 274-275.

 

 

15See above Chapter 11, notes 25 and 28.

16The Council of Arles in 813 saw simoniacal ordina-
tion as very prevalent in the proprietary churches and stated
the consequences very clearly. See MGHi Conc., no. 34, c. 5,
p. 251: "Ut laici omnino a praesbiteris non audeant munera
exigere propter commendationem eclesiae, quia propter
cupiditatem plerumque a laicis talibus presbyteris eclesiae
dantur, qui ad peragendum sacerdotale officium indigni sunt."

 

39
connected with ordination that can be cited to show the gen-
eral decline or absence of canonical discipline affecting the
priest. Mention may be made of the repeated strictures against
the practice of ordaining priests before they had reached the

lawful age of thirty,17

and also those prohibiting ordination
except at canonically prescribed times.18 As late as 813, the
Council of Chalon found it necessary to deal with an important
problem that had vexed St. Boniface in earlier times--that of
illegal ordinations involving the suspicion of simony and
other errors committed by men of Celtic origin posing as bish-
ops in certain areas of the realm.19 We may also note the
frequent usurpation of episcopal authority by laymen in in-

stalling and removing priests from office.20 The important

consequences this practice held for the state of priestly

 

17pm, Capit., no. 22, c. 50, p. 57; no. 28, c. 49,
p. 78; no. 35, c. 24, p. 103; no. 37, c. 14, p. 108; MGH,
Conc., no. 38, c. 12, p. 288.

 

lemon, Capit., no. 42, c. 4, p. 119; MGH, Conc., no.
3, c. 11, p. 17; no. 24, c. 7, p. 208; no. 37, c. 23, p. 278.
St. Boniface was mildly censured by Pope Zacharias for ordain-
ing priests at irregular times. See Boniface,_Ep., no. 87,
p. 199. Ordinations of priests and deacons were permitted
only at the start of Lent, the Saturday evening after mid-Lent,
and on the fast days in the fourth, seventh, and tenth months.
See ibid., no. 18, p. 32.

 

 

19MGH, Conc., no. 37, c. 43, p. 282.

 

zones, Capit., no. 78, c. 2, p. 173; no. 81, c. 2,
p. 178; no. 83, c. 7, p. 182; MGH, Conc., no. 36, c. 29, p.
268; no. 37, c. 42, p. 282.

 

4O
preparation are clearly enunciated in a decree of the Council
of Arles of 813:

Let the laity not eject priests from churches or
install others without the assent of their bishops,
because when priests are installed in parishes by the
bishops, they are first given diligent instruction
before receiving their assigned churches lest through
ignorance they improperly administer the holy sacra-
ments, and because it was instituted by the holy
fathers that when the priests attend the synod they

shall give account to their bishop of their manner of
celebrating the office and administering baptism.2

Also adding to priestly instability was the canonically for-
bidden practice of absolute ordinations, i.e., ordinations at
large in which priests were ordained without being assigned a
benefice or a patrimony for their support. These illegal or-
dinations insured that there would be a sizable body of priests
who were without assignment of a church or an oratory for their
maintenance.22 Finally, reflecting the complications arising
from private ownership, bishops did not hesitate to ordain

priests to churches which they owned but which were located in

 

211488, Conc., no. 34, c. 4, pp. 250-251: "Ut laici
presbyteros absque iudicio proprii episcopi non eiciant de
ecclesiis nec alios mittere praesumant, quia, quando presbyteri
ab episcopis in parroechiis ordinantur, necesse est, ut ab
ipsis episcopis diligenter instructi eclesias sibi deputatas
accipiant, ne per ignorantiam, quod absit, etiam in ipsis
divinis sacramentis offendant, quia a sanctis patribus insti-
tutum est, ut quando ad concilium venerint, rationem episcopo
suo reddant, qualiter susceptum officium vel baptismum cele-
brent."

 

22MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 25, p. 55; no. 28, c. 28,
p. 76; no. 35, c. 11, p. 102.

 

41

another's diocese.23

It may reasonably be inferred from the foregoing evi-
dence relating to irregular ordinations that men qualified by
moral character and education for the priesthood were in short
supply. St. Boniface, pressured by the need for competent
priests, asked for and received special permission from Rome
in 751 to ordain men who had not yet attained the age of
thirty.24 At the accession of Charlemagne, this situation had
not materially improved and the prevailing ignorance of the
Frankish secular clergy made it extremely difficult to find
priests who could preach Christianity to the people and per-
form the task of pagan conversion.25 This conclusion is vali-
dated by the testimony of Charlemagne himself. In a letter to
an archbishop (most probably Lull), he complains that his cler-
gymen are shackled by ignorance and strongly urges the neces-
sity of clerical study and application. Revealing his deep
concern and perplexity, Charlemagne admonishes:

Since you are, with God's help, zealously atten-

tive to winning over the souls of the faithful, it
seems very astonishing to us that you have manifested

no solicitude for educating your clergy in the study
of letters. For you perceive that everywhere the

 

231219.. “0- 16. c. 14, p. 41; no. 22, cc. 11, 12,
p. 55.

2"Pope Zacharias permitted St. Boniface to ordain
priests at age twenty-five in cases of extreme necessity. See
Boniface, Ep., no. 87, p. 198.

25A. Kleinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934), p. 253.

 

42

darkness of ignorance enshrouds the hearts of your
subjects; and while you are capable of infusing into
them the light of knowledge, you permit them to remain
under their cloud of ignorance. . . . One of two
things is certain: either they, in their unyielding
pride, consider it an indignity to be subjected to
your guidance or, a thing which we do not wish to oc-
cur, you, on your part, deal with them too gently.

But whichever it is, Venerable Father, it is your re-
sponsibility; and you, notwithstanding their pride,
ought to correct them with fatherly admonition or con-
strain them with your pastoral staff. Further, in as
much as it concerns your zeal, they ought at times by
mild persuasion, at times by stern rebuke be stirred
to the desire for learning; if any of them are with-
out sufficient means, they should be encouraged and
assistance sought for them. Assuredly, although you
cannot attract others to learning, at least, you are
able to educate those of your ecclesiastical household
who, in your view, are capable of learning.26

Like St. Boniface and much more clearly than his prede-

cessors in the monarchy, Charlemagne saw the creation of an

 

26MGH E ., IV, no. 22, p. 532: "Cum in adquirendis
fidelium animaEus studiose Deo favente invigiles, mirandum

nobis valde videtur, cur in crudiendo clero proprio litterarum
studiis nullam sollicitudinem geris. Cernis namque undique in
subditorum cordibus ignorantiae tenebras circumfundi; et cum
possis eruditionis radium eorum sensibus infundere, in suae
illos caecitatiscaligine latere permittis. . . . Unum certe
est e duobus: aut enim contumaci ipsi superbia vestro
magisterio subdi dedignantur, aut a vestra, quod evenire
nolumus, parte cum eis remissius agitur. Sed quodlibet horum
sit, ad vestram, pater venerabilis, curam respicit; a quo,

etsi tumentes corde sunt, debent vel paterna ammonitione
corrigi vel pastorali baculo coherceri. Iam vero, quantum ad
vestrum studium attinet, debent modo blandis persuasionibus
modo duris etiam increpationibus ad eruditionis lumen excitari;
si qui vero ex eis inopes existunt, etiam conlatis subsidiis
invitari. Et certe, etsi alios ad discendum adtrahere non
vales, saltim de tuae ecclesiae famulis, quos capaces esse
perspexeris, erudire potes. Illud vero credere iam quis possit,
quod in tanta multitudine, quae vestro est subiecta regimini,
ad crudiendum aptus nemo valeat inveniri?"

43

educated body of clergy living in accordance with canon law
as one of the prime objects of church reform. The task of
achieving this goal, however, was considerable for the turmoil
of foreign invasions and civil war in the first half of the
eighth century had led to a general disruption of society and
had dealt a serious blow to culture. The regions of Aquitaine,
Provence, and Burgundy, which had traditionally been places of
refuge for learning after the fall of the Roman Empire in the
West, had been especially devastated. With the destruction of
churches and monasteries such as those that Archbishop Leidrad
gives witness to and the disruption of religious life, the
maintenance of a formal system of education for the secular
clergy was impossible.27

The demoralized state of Frankish education in the
early eighth century was clearly reflected in the condition of
the libraries. Everywhere there was a paucity of books. The
churches and monasteries of Gaul possessed only a fraction of
their former collections, the rest having been abandoned or
dispersed or lost entirely. As a consequence, books, espe-
cially those in the newly established churches, were regarded
as particularly precious to be numbered with the most valuable
items of movable wealth. Liturgical works were inventoried

along with sacerdotal vestments and plate as an important part

 

27Riché: Education et culture, pp. 473-478.

 

44
of church treasure.28

When the literary productions of the early Carolingian
period are considered, the picture of Frankish educational
decline is further accentuated. Little that deserves to be
called literature was produced in Gaul. Worthy of note are a
few lives of saints and rhythmical poems and the brief work,
Liber historiae Francorum. Characteristically, written Latin
was corrupted with idioms and otherwise barbarized by error.
Misreadings and misspellings were common in books copied from
earlier works. Especially indicative of the low level of
knowledge is an anonymous sermon portraying Venus as a man.
Across the Rhine no written literature as yet existed. How
ignorant the clergy there were of even elementary Latin can be
ascertained from the comments of Pope Zacharias29 who states
that a Bavarian priest had been reportedly performing baptism
incorrectly using feminine inflections in the baptismal for-

mula.30

 

28E’hile Lesne Histoire de lapropriété'ecclési-

9
astigue en France, Tome IV: Les livres "scriptoria" et bib-
liothbques du commencement du VIIIe a la fin du XIe siecle
(Lille, 1938), pp. 1-2, 28-29, 465, 762. Alcuin, at the be-
ginning of the ninth century, was much perplexed by the want
of good books at Tours. See MGH, Ep., IV, pp. 176-178.

 

 

 

29Boniface,E_p., no. 68, p. 141.

 

30Wilhelm Levison, Eggland and the Continent in the
Eighth Century (London, 1949), pp. 150-151 (hereafter cited
as Levison, Eggland and the Continent); Laistner, Thought and
Letters, pp. 176-178; Riché: Education et culture, p. 478.
After describing the disappearance of instruction affecting

 

 

 

 

 

45

Unfortunately, the necessary internal reform that
would have ameliorated the conditions of educational impov-
erishment affecting the secular clergy in the Frankish realm
did not immediately result from the legislation enacted by
the great reforming councils inspired by St. Boniface. The
emphasis of these councils was on the moral regeneration of
the Frankish Church and a restoration of clerical discipline.
In the event, the missionizing efforts of St. Boniface and
those of his countrymen not only produced conditions more
favorable to the revival of canonical discipline, but also

to the revival of letters.31 Subsequent to the passing of

 

the laity, Riché'characterizes the culture of the secular
clergy by stating "Les clercs remplacent donc definitivement
les laics dans les modestes charges de notaire. C'est a vrai
dire la seule manifestation de leur culture en cette premiere
moitie du VIIIe siEcle." See ibid., p. 477.

 

31Laistner, Thou ht and Letters, pp. 181-182; J. Bass
Mullinger, The Schools 0% Charles the Great and the Restoration

of Education in the Ninth Century (New York, 1932), pp. 46- 47
(hereafter cited as Mullinger, The Schools of Charles the
Great); Pride, "Ecclesiastical Legislation," p. 239; Riche, Ed-
ucation et culture, pp. 496- 497. For a discussion of the begin-
nings of the Carolingian renaissance in the first half of the
eighth century based on the activities of the monastic estab-
lishment and the Carolingian monarchy, see ibid., pp. 478- 498.
It should be noted that Riche clearly separates the religious
from the secular clergy and states that the latter were sunk in
ignorance and that monks were the only literate men. See ibid.,
pp. 479, 484. In summarizing the over- all effects of monastic
revival, Riche states that/PLe renouveau des etudes monastiques
va bient3t gagner toute l'Eglise, mais indirectement. Si les
moines cultives ont eu une influence a cette epoque, c' est
d'abord sur les princes, et en particulier sur les princes car-
olingiens." See ibid., p. 491. Cf. Albert Hauck, Kirchen-
ggschichte Deutschlands (eighth edition; Berlin, 1954), II,
173-177 (hereafter cited as Hauck, Kirchengeschichte).

 

 

 

 

 

46
St. Boniface, church councils did meet and both conciliar and
royal legislation was enacted seeking to restore canonical
discipline and to upgrade clerical education.32 After the
middle of the century, Archbishop Chrodegang of Metz can be
cited as an able prelate bending every effort to improve the
lot of his clergy. Notable are his achievements in establish-
ing a common life for his cathedral canons based on a modified
version of the Benedictine rule and a school for singers using
the Roman chant which quickly became famous.33 The efforts of
Bishop Remedius of Rouen to introduce the proper singing of the
psalms according to Roman practice may also be mentioned.34
These developments, however, though auspicious of church better-
ment, had only a limited effect on the education of the gener-
ality of priests. They can only be regarded as favorable
tendencies. Serious internal reform that would raise the gen-
eral level of education affecting the priest would have to

await more settled times. For both Pippin in the last years

 

32MGH, Conc., no. 7, pp. 51-53; no. 10, pp. 56-58;
no. 15, pp. 93-97; MGH,#Capit., no. 13, pp. 31-32; no. 14,
pp. 32-37; no. 15, pp. 37-39; no. 16, pp. 39-41; no. 18, pp.
42-43.

 

 

 

33Laistner, Thou ht and Letters, p. 192; Riche, fidu-
cation et culture, p 49%; Hauck, Kircfieggeschichte, II,

54-58, 64-690

 

 

34Eleanor Shipley Duckett, Alcuin, Friend of Charle-
magne: His world and His work, (New York, 1951), p. 123
(hereafter cited as Duckett, Alcuin).

 

 

47

of his reign and Charlemagne in his early years on the throne
were distracted by political and military preoccupations.35

Under Charlemagne, the propitious moment for internal
reform did arrive. With the aid pre-eminently of his "minis-
ter of education," Alcuin, but also with the indispensable
assistance of a host of other able men that he had appointed
to the higher ecclesiastical offices-~Theodulf of Orleans,
Arno of Metz, Leidrad of Lyons, and Angilbert of St. Riquier
immediately come to mind--Char1emagne did much to restore and
to improve education in the cathedral and monastic centers and
even at the parish level. This education was geared primarily
toward the training of secular and religious clergy. It com-
prehended not only the important and necessary first step of
amending and copying texts to provide sound materials for in-
struction, but also the study of the Scriptures, liturgy,
religious music, and the liberal arts.36

By the year 814, as compared with the situation that
had obtained in preceding centuries, remarkable progress had
been made in the availability of education to the prospective
priest. But we must not be misled in our assessment of the

impact of Charlemagne's educational reforms in the period

 

35Mullinger, The Schools of Charles the Great, p. 47.

36Emile Lesne, gigtoire de 1a,Qropriété’ecclesiastigue
en France, Tome V: Les écoles de la fin du VIIIe sfbcle a la
fin du XIIe (Lille, 1940), pp. 15-22; Laistner, Thought and
Letters, p. 194.

 

 

 

 

48
under consideration. The primary documents which are most
important for the historian in evidencing the progress of edu-
cation and the restoration of schools affecting the training
of the secular clergy nearly all date from the last decade of
the eighth century and the early years of the ninth.37 Not
only do these reforms come late, they also urge, for the most

part, only the most elementary instruction and thus reveal

 

37The great period of Charlemagne's religious legis-
lation extended from the year 789 to 802. It begins with the
legal compendium, Admonitio generalis (MGH,,Capit., no. 22,
pp. 52-62), which incorporates many borrowings from the collec-
tion of canons (Dionysio-Hadriana) sent earlier from Rome.
Chapter 72 of this important capitulary urging the establish-
ment of rural parish schools and reforms in the episcopal and
monastic schools is a key document for any discussion of Char-
lemagne's educational policies. Other significant documents
are the Karoli epistola generalis issued between 789 and 800
(MGH, Capit., no. 30, pp. 80-81) and the Karoli epistola de
litteris colendis (MGH, Capit., no. 29, pp. 78-79). For the
dating of the former epistle in the period 800-801, see Gerald
Ellard, Master Alcuin, Liturgist: A Partner of Our Piety
(Chicago, 1956), pp. 88, 191 (hereafter cited as Bllard, Master
Alcuin); for the latter epistle, Luitpold Wallach in "Charle—
magne's De Litteris Colendis and Alcuin, A Diplomatic-Historical
Study," Speculum, XXVI (1951), 302 gives the dates 794-796.
The significant pieces of evidence that show the application of
Charlemagne's educational reforms at the local level include
chapter eight of the pastoral instruction of Archbishop Arno
issued at the Council of Riesbach in 798 (MGH, Conc., no. 22,
pp. 199), chapters nineteen and twenty of the precepts of
Bishop Theodulf to his priests issued in the opening years of
the ninth century (Migne, EL, CV, 196), the letter of Arch-
bishop Leidrad to Charlemagne written in either 813 or 814
(MGH, 82., IV, no. 30. pp. 542-544), and finally, an enactment
of the regional Council of Chalon in 813 (MGH, Conc., no. 37,
c. 3, pp. 274-275). For convenient summaries and discussion
of Carolingian religious legislation, see Carlo de Clercq, Lg
législation religieuse franque.

 

49
that the level of clerical education was still very low. As
Charlemagne rightly fears in his famous epistle on education,

De litteris colendis, the barbarized letters that he had re-

 

ceived from various monasteries were indicative of a general
neglect of study which precluded, among other things, the
correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures.38 Thus at the
close of the eighth century, a long and arduous road yet re-
mained to be traveled before the desire that his churchmen be
"devout in mind, learned in discourse, chaste in conduct, and
eloquent in speech"39 would be fulfilled.40

It is against a background, then, of marginal instruc-
tion for the generality of the secular clergy and a near ab-
sence of canonical discipline affecting ordination that the
state of educational preparation for the priesthood must be
appraised. When placed in this context, Carolingian ecclesi-
astical legislation permits us to get some conception of the
level of priestly education prior to ordination. Contained in
this body of evidence are repeated enactments requiring a min-

imum of knowledge requisite to the conduct of the priestly

 

38MGH, Capit., no. 29, p. 79. In the view of this
writer, the evidence of this document, especially if we accept
Wallach's late dating of it, would make it appear that Riché's
assessment of the "vigueur" of monastic culture in the eighth
century (see above note 31) is a bit overdrawn.

 

39MGH, Capit., no. 29, p. 79.

 

40Cf. David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought
(Baltimore, 1962), pp. 71-72.

 

50
office. Included in the list of things that the priest was
required to know and pass examination on are the Athanasian
and the Apostles' creeds, the Lord's Prayer with a commentary,
the sacramentary, the Gospels and the lesson of the 92235
(a lectionary), the conduct of baptism and the last rites of
the Church, the office of the Masses, the computus or ecclesi-
astical calendar, prayers for the dying, the penitential, the
Roman chant, homilies for Sundays and feastdays, and exorcisms.
The canons, in addition, were to be acquainted with the £122;

pastoralis of Gregory the Great, the Liber officiorum, and the

 

 

Epistola pastoralis of Gelasius.41

The evidence, however, indicates that even this minimum
knowledge, directed as it was to the essentials necessary for
the conduct of the priestly office, was in many instances not
attained. The very fact that access to even rudimentary edu-
cation was difficult would insure that many priests would not

have the necessary comprehension of Latin to meet the demands

 

41mg, Capit., no. 117, cc. 1-15, p. 235. Cf. 35311,
Capit., no. 116, cc. 1-8, p. 234; no. 119, cc. 1-12, pp. 236-
237; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II, 251—253. As Hauck states,
this religious education was not much, but compared to the edu-
cation demanded of the secular clergy at the time of St. Bon-
iface, it was an important step forward. See ibid., p. 252;
Carlo de Clercq, La legislation religieuse franque, pp. 299-
300; Emile Amann, L'epoque carolingienne, Vol. VI of Histoire
de 1'Eglise depuis les origines_jusqu'a nos jours, ed.
Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin (Paris, 1947), pp. 82- 83
(hereafter cited as Amann, L'epoque carolingienne).

 

 

51
placed upon them. The fact that irregular ordinations were
frequent could only exacerbate the problem. Not only the
repeated calls for examination prior to ordination,42 but also
the many exhortations that priests be regularly examined on

the state of their learning and the conduct of their ministry,

 

bear witness by their repetition to a low level of educational #fl
preparation.43 Untrained secular priests and cathedral canons

drew the special ire of Charlemagne who on more than one occa-

sion threatened them with removal from office if they would I

not consent to be taught.44 Finally, numerous enactments of
the reforming church councils of 813 urging better instruc-
tion of the clergy and restoration of canonical discipline
point up the existence of many priests who were ignorant of
the basic duties of their office and the fundamentals of their

faith.45

 

42See above note 13. Cf. Amann, L'époque carolin-

gienne, p. 83.

 

4380niface,#§p., no. 78, p. 163; MGH,,Capit., no. 12,
c. 4, p. 29; no. 22, c. 70, p. 59; no. 35, c. 28, p. 103; no.
38, cc. 1-9, p. 110; MGH, Conc., no. 6, p. 47; no. 22, p. 200.

 

 

 

44MGH,Capit., no. 19, cc. 15, 16, p. 46; no. 33, c.
21, p. 95; no. 38, Co 1, pa 110. Cf. A. KIEinCI‘usz, Char-
lemagne (Paris, 1934), p. 228.

45See, for example, MGH, conc., no. 34, c. 3, p. 250;
no. 35, cc. 1-13, pp. 254-255; no. 37, c. 3, pp. 274-275; no.
38, c. 18, pp. 288-289. cr. Carlo de Clercq, La legislation
religieuse franque, pp. 299-300.

 

CHAPTER IV

THE PASTORAL CARE OF SOULS

Ultimately the state of priestly preparation and com-
petence is reflected in the general ministry of religion in
the care of souls. The pastoral care of souls leading to
their salvation is, as has been stated, the essential object
of the priestly office. To get some appreciation of the qual-
ity of pastoral care in the period under consideration, an
examination must be made of how priestly responsibility was
discharged in maintaining divine worship, administering the
sacraments, providing inspirational guidance, and affording
charity to the needy.

The educational renaissance under Charlemagne was pri-
marily directed, as has been noted, toward the training of the
clergy. The clergy, both secular and religious, were to under-
stand Holy Scripture and be able to recite the divine office,
celebrate the Mass, and administer the other sacraments cor-
rectly. Divine worship was especially to be conducted on
sound liturgical lines. Clearly, the marginal educational at-

tainments of the bulk of the secular clergy, especially those

52

53

in the small rural churches, did not conduce to the goal of
securing correct liturgical practice and we must, in what
follows, continually allude to this decisive factor. The con-
duct of divine worship also suffered from the fact of litur-
gical anarchy in the Carolingian realm. The Frankish Church
under the Merovingians had been ruled by what Duchesne has
characterized as an "acephalous episcopate." The Frankish
bishops had long acted independently of any higher authority
and individual churches pursued a great variety of liturgical
practices. The result of this lack of regulation was that the
same decadence that affected Christian life and manners in the
latter seventh and early eighth centuries was also manifest in
the performance of the sacred rites of the Church.1

Before discussing pastoral care as it relates to the
maintenance of divine worship and the communication of the

sacraments, some attention must be given to the program of

liturgical reform initiated by the Carolingians. The most

 

1L. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origins and
Evolution. A Study of the Latin Liturgy_Up to the Time of Char-
1emagne, trans. M. L. McClure (New York, 1910), p. 103 (here-
after cited as Duchesne, Christian Worship); F. Cabrol, "Char-
lemagne et la liturgie," in DACL, III, 1 (1913), 823. Cf.
Duckett, Alcuin, pp. 190-191; Arthur Kleinclausz, Charlemagne
(Paris, 1934), pp. 225-226, 233; Massey Hamilton Shepherd,
Jr., "The Effect of the Barbarian Invasions Upon the Liturgy,"
in Environmental Factors in Christian History, ed. John Thomas
McNeill, Matthew Spinka, Harold R. Willoughby (Chicago, 1939),
Pp. 167-186 (hereafter cited as Shepherd, "The Effect of the

Barbarian Invasions").

54

important impetus to liturgical uniformity in Francia came
with the reforming synods of the 740's instigated by St. Boni-
face. The great work of church reorganization and restoration
of canonical discipline undertaken by these councils included
the issuance of many decrees outlining liturgical uniformity
in accordance with Roman usage.2

The activities of St. Boniface and the work of the re-
forming synods resulted in closer ties between the Frankish
Church and Rome. Like Boniface, both Pippin and Charlemagne
were organizers who felt the need for order and uniformity.
Again, like Boniface, they both looked to Rome for liturgical
models; and their ecclesiastical policy, as it embraced reform,
can be seen as a continuation of the work of that great saint.3
As a decree of 789 tells us,4 it was King Pippin who began the
suppression of the Gallican and Romano-Gallican liturgies in
favor of the current Roman rite by a decree presumably made in

754 as an accompaniment to his political alliance with the

 

2MGH, Conc., no. 1, cc. 1-5, pp. 3-4; no. 2, cc. 1, 3,
pp. 6-7; no. 4, cc. 3-4, pp. 34-35; no. 6, pp. 46-48. .Cf.
Josef A. Jungmann, Public Worship: A Survey, trans. Clifford
Howell (Collegeville, Minnesota, n.d.) p. 24ff. (hereafter
cited as Jungmann, Public worship).

 

3Levison, England and the Continent, pp. 94-95;
Ellard, Master Alcuin, p. 18.

 

4MGH,Capit., no. 22, c. 80, p. 61.

55

papacy.5 The acquisition of Roman liturgical works and their
application in the Frankish realm were now accelerated. Ear-
lier, probably in 747, upon Frankish request for guidance in
reform efforts, Pope Zacharias had sent a collection of church
canons.6 With papal blessing, Pippin now ordered that the
Roman chant be instituted in Francia; and those great promoters
of liturgical Romanization, Archbishop Chrodegang of Metz and
Bishop Remedius of Rouen, as have been seen, took important
initiatives in this area. Capping Pippin's efforts towards
religious uniformity were his importation and imposition of
such liturgical works as an antiphonary, a lectionary, a sac-
ramentary and an ordinal--all necessary to the conduct of the
Mass.7

As in the many other areas of Carolingian reform, the
most concentrated and systematic attempts at achieving litur-
gical uniformity came with Charlemagne. In his view, Christen-

dom was, or should be, one in faith and doctrine and no

 

sSee Theodor Klauser, The western Liturgy and Its His-
tory: Some Reflections on Recent Studies, trans. F. L. Cross
(London, 1952), p. 34; Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the
Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia),
trans. Francis A. Brunner (New York, 1951), I, 74-75 (hereafter
cited as Jungmann, The Mass); Levison, England and the Conti-
nent, p. 97; Duchesne, Christian Worship, pp. 102-103.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

°MGH, Ep., 111, no. 3, pp. 479—487.

7Ellard, Master Alcuig, pp. 18-22, 29; H. Leclercq,
"Rome. liturgie," in DACL, XIV, 2 (1948), 3021-3022.

 

56
differences in ritual practice could be countenanced between

the Roman and Frankish churches. In the Admonitio generalis

 

of 789 which incorporated many of the canons contained in that

great collection, the Dionysio-Hadriana, carried from Rome in

 

774, Charlemagne decreed an inclusive program of liturgical
uniformity in accordance with Roman usage. The bishops, ab-
bots, and lesser clergy were to observe, among other things,
the Roman forms of the sacramentary, the chant, the calendar,
and baptism.8 In succeeding years, much ecclesiastical leg-
islation was passed seeking to implement this program.9

To obtain liturgical books that would be correct and
uniform, Charlemagne turned to such scholars as Paul the Deacon
who put together a book of homilies. More important were the
liturgical labors of Alcuin who, in addition to preparing a
homiliary, a lectionary, and a book of votive Masses, made

the famous recension of the Gregorian Sacramentary which had

 

 

8M0H,Cap;t., no. 22, cc. 7o, 72, 78, so, 82, pp. 59-
62. Cf. Ellard, Master Alcuin, p. 54ff.; F. Cabrol, "Charle-
magne et la liturgie," in DACL, III, 1 (1913), 807-824;
Cyrille Vogel, "La réforme liturgique sous Charlemagne," in
Karl der_grpsse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, hrsg. Wolfgang
Braunfels (Dusseldorf, 1965), Bd. II, pp. 217-232. For a dis-
cussion of the importance and influence of the Dionysio-
Hadriana, see Fournier and LeBras, Histoire des collections
canoniques, I, 92-120.

 

 

 

 

 

9To cite a few examples of this legislation, see MGH,
Capit., no. 23, c. 23, p. 64; no. 35, c. 28, p. 103; no. 367
c. 10, p. 106; no. 38, cc. 2-3, p. 110; no. 43, cc. 2, 5, p.
121; no. 78, c. l, p. 173; no. 116, cc. 4, 6-8, p. 234; no.
117, cc. 4, 8-11, p. 235; no. 177, c. 24, p. 366.

57

earlier been sent from Rome by Pope Hadrian at Charlemagne's
request. This Mass book, with Alcuin's corrections and addi-
tions, was completed shortly after 800 and, by Charlemagne's
order, was to be used by all of the clergy.10 Charlemagne
constantly admonished his bishops and abbots to commit their
most mature men to the task of multiplying these needed litur-
gical works.11 At the same time, he actively sought the sup-
pression of the many uncanonical books and spurious writings

which in this credulous age passed as Scripture.12

He also
instructed his giggi to see that the churches and other re-
ligious establishments carried out his wishes and acquired the
necessary texts, uncorrupted by error, for the Conduct of the
liturgy.13

In closing this brief survey of Carolingian liturgical

reform, it should be noted that the products of Alcuin's labors

 

10Duckett, Alcuin, pp. 190-197; Levison, England and
the Continent, pp. 158-159; C. J. B. Gaskoin, Alcuin: His Life
and His Work (New York, 1966), pp. 220-234 (hereafter cited as
Gaskoin, Alcuin). Cf. Jungmann, The Mass, I, 74ff.

 

 

 

 

11MGH,Capit., no. 22, c. 72, p. 60; no. 29, pp. 78-79;
no. 30, pp. 80-81; no. 43, c. 3, p. 121.

 

121bid., no. 22, cc. 20, 78, pp. 55, 60; no. 35, c. 7,
p. 102; no. 65, c. l, p. 147.

13Ibid., no. 43, cc. 1-3, 5, p. 121; no. 46, c. 3, p.
p. 131; no. 49, c. 4, p. 136; no. 62, c. l, p. 150. A capit-
ulary (ibid., no. 120, c. 6, p. 238) issued to the missi, per-
haps in 809, instructs them to see to the correction of priests
who were using their parish revenues to enrich themselves and
neglecting the acquisition of books and holy vessels.

.58
were completed late in the period under discussion. And when
the many royal and conciliar decrees ordering the adoption of
Roman usages are also considered, it must be concluded that
the reformation of the liturgy was only partially achieved in
the Frankish realm by the end of Charlemagne's reign. Pastoral
care in the maintenance of divine worship and in the communi-
cation of the sacraments, then, must be viewed in the context
of Carolingian attempts at liturgical reform which were but

imperfectly realized.14

We may now turn to an examination of priestly solici-
tude in the maintenance of divine worship as it relates espe-
cially to the two major liturgical practices--the divine office
and the Mass. In initiating his reform of the liturgy in 789,
Charlemagne decreed:

Let all clerics learn thoroughly the Roman chant

and let this be observed in all Offices of night and
of day, in accordance with the ordinance of our father,
King Pippin of blessed memory, when he abolished the
Gallican chant for the concord of the Apostolic See

and the peace of God's holy Church.15

According to this decree, then, every cleric was to learn and

 

14Cf. Ellard, Master Alcuin, p. 58ff.; Laistner,
Thought and Letters, p. 311.

ISMGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 80, p. 61: "Omni clero. Ut
cantum Romanum pleniter discant, et ordinabiliter per nocturnale
vel gradale officium peragatur, secundum quod beatae memoriae
genitor noster Pippinus rex decertavit ut fieret, quando
Gallicanum tulit ob unanimitatem apostolicae sedis et sanctae
Dei aeclesiae pacificam concordiam." Text: Duckett, Alcuin,

p. 123.

 

59

practice the cursus for the diurnal and nocturnal hours. This
complete cursus which included the lengthy matins was that
which had been introduced at mid-century under Pippin. It re-
flected the liturgy that had evolved in the religious commu-
nities of Roman basilicas. From the sixth century, the liturgy
of the basilica had spread northward to Gaul, England, and
Germany, propagated especially by Benedictine monks.16

What Pippin and Charlemagne, in effect, wanted to do
in their reformation of the liturgy, was to impose the office
of the Roman basilica in its entirety upon all of the Frankish

clergy.17

Clearly, this would be a difficult task for clergy
not living in community. For the generality of the secular
clergy, to celebrate the Roman office in its entirety, a
canonical life such as that instituted by Archbishop Chrodegang
at Metz was needed. And indeed, it may be argued that this is
exactly what Charlemagne envisaged. He saw that the best way
to insure canonical discipline and achieve proper liturgical
practice was to demand that all the clergy, where possible,

follow a common life. A certain number of the greater Frankish

churches did adopt the common life for their clergy, following

 

16Jungmann, Public WOrship, pp. 154-158; Knowles, The
Monastic Order in England, pp. 546-548.

17Much legislation was passed seeking to accomplish
this goal. See MGH, Capit., no. 36, c. 8, p. 106; no. 38,
c. 2, p. 110; no. 43, c. 2, p. 121; no. 116, c. 7, p. 234; no.
117, cc. 9-10, p. 235; no. 119, c. 5, p. 237; no. 120, c. 4,
p. 238.

60
either Chrodegang's rule or some other regimen. Charlemagne
legislated that canonical life be instituted also by the
priests and their subordinate clergy in the rural churches.18
The extension of the proprietary church system, how-

ever, did not favor the spread of community living to the bulk
of the secular clergy. The rural priest who derived from ser-
vile origins or from the class of minor freemen often performed
his pastoral duties in isolation. He would have done well if,
as urged by Charlemagne, he had any subordinate clergy that he
had taught or who were educated enough to carry on the divine
office in his absence.19 Nor does it appear that the institu-
tion of canonical life in the greater churches was overly rig-
orous. Royal and conciliar legislation, dating mostly in the

early years of the ninth century, reveal serious concern about

the kind of religious life led by canons.20 Despite the exis-

21

tence of the rule of Chrodegang, canonical life for the

 

18MGH,.Capit” no. 33, c. 23, p. 96; P. Salmon, "Roman
Divine Office," in New Catholic Encyclopedia, IV (1967), 919;
F. Cimetier, "Office divin," in 222, XI, 1 (1931), 957; Amann,
L'époque carolingienne, pp. 83-84.

 

19MGH,Capit., no. 120, c. 5, p. 238.

 

201bid., no. 22, cc. 73, 77, p. 59; no. 33, c. 22, pp.
95-96; no. 78, c. 4, p. 173; no. 79, c. 3, p. 175; MGH, Conc.,
no. 34, c. 6, p. 251; no. 35, c. 25, p. 256; no. 36, c. 21,
p. 267.

21See S. Chrodegang, Regula Canonicorum, Migne, EL,
LXXXIX, 1057-1120. For a critical analysis of Chrodegang's
I . . . .
rule, see Carlo de Clercq, La legislatlon religieuse franque,
pp. 146-1550

61

secular clergy was in many instances not well regulated.22
In a letter to Archbishop Arno, written in 802, Alcuin urged
that a careful inquiry should be made as to the proper life
for canons and monks.23 But in a memorandum of 811 concerning
matters to be discussed with his counts, bishops, and abbots,
Charlemagne reveals that the problem still awaited solution by
asking: "How ought those who are called canons to live?"24

It would appear, then, that the program for propagating the
common life among the secular clergy was ineffectual. It also
seems evident that the attempt to implement the full cursus
for all the clergy was unrealistic and revelatory of the Car-

olingian penchant for pursuing impossible ideals in the face

of insuperable obstacles.

 

22Thus we find Charlemagne in great anger at the habit-
ual indiscipline and bad repute of an important religious
house, St. Martin of Tours, stating that the brethren had var-
iously declared themselves to be monks, canons, and sometimes
neither (MGH, Ep., IV, no. 247, p. 400). Cf. Duckett, Alcuin,
p. 290ff.; H. Leclercq, "Chanoines," in DACL, III, 1 (1913),
240-245.

23MGH, Ep., IV, no. 258, p. 416. In an earlier letter
to Arno, we find Alcuin plaintively replying to that prelate's
query as to what was the proper life to be led by the canons
and monks that they both were too busy to handle the problem
(ibid., IV, no. 254, p. 411).

24MGH,Capit., no. 71, c. 11, p. 161: "De vita eorum
qui dicuntur canonici, qualis esse debeat." The reforming
councils of 813 gave serious attention to the problem of un-
disciplined canons and monks who lived according to no fixed
regimen. See MGH,;Conc., no. 34, c. 6, p. 251; no. 35, c. 25,
p. 256; no. 36, c. 21, p. 267; no. 38, c. 23, p. 289.

 

62
As we have seen, one of the most difficult problems

confronting Carolingian reformers was that of liturgical
anarchy. But discordant usages were not the major concern.
More important for the practice of divine worship in the Frank-
ish Church was the fact that secular priests were too poorly
equipped and educated to perform the task adequately. This
was especially true in their practice of the divine office as
Charlemagne indicated in his legislation and correspondence.
He often decried the fact that the clergy were not conducting
prayer properly because of faulty learning and uncorrected
texts. Thus in the Admonitio generalis he admonished:

Correct, we command you, with due care the copies of

the psalms, the written signs, the chants, the cal-

endar, the grammar in each monastery and diocese,

and the Catholic books, because often people wish to

pray to the Lord, but do so badly, because the books

are at fault. And do not allow your boys to corrupt

the books by their own reading or writing. If a copy

be needed, of the Gospel, or Psalter or Missal, let

men of ripe age write it out with all diligence.25
This admonishment was repeated in a later instruction to his

26

missi. In his De litteris colendis, he addressed a long

 

25MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 72, p. 60: "Psalmos, notas,
cantus, compotum, grammaticam per singula monasteria vel
episcopia et libros catholicos bene emendate; quia saepe, dum
bene aliqui Deum rogare cupiunt, sed per inemendatos libros
male rogant. Et pueros vestros non sinite eos vel legendo vel
scribendo corrumpere; et si opus est euangelium, psalterium et
missale scribere, perfectae aetatis homines scribant cum omni
diligentia." Text: Duckett, Alcuin, p. 122.

26MGH, Capit., no. 43, c. 3, p. 121.

63

exhortation on the same clerical deficiencies.27 And again in
his Epistola generalis, Charlemagne explained that he had Paul
the Deacon put together a collection of breviary homilies be-
cause:

We have found the lectionaries for the nocturnal

offices, compiled by the fruitless labor of certain

ones, in spite of their correct intention, unsuitable

because they were written without the words of their

authors and were full of an infinite number of errors,

we cannot suffer in our days discordant solecisms to

glide into the sacred lessons among the holy offices,

and we purpose to improve these lessons.28
In these unhappy comments, Charlemagne clearly reveals to us
that, even in the monasteries,29 Latin learning affecting the
practice of prayer and the understanding of Scripture was
decadent. The conduct of the divine office of matins suffered
particularly because the liturgy called for the reading or
singing of extracts from patristic writings and scriptural

passages in Latin.30

 

27Ibid., no. 29, pp. 78-79.

28Ibid., no. 30, pp. 80-81: ". . . ad nocturnale
officium compilatas quorundam casso labore, licet recto
intuitu, minus tamen idonee repperimus lectiones, quippe quae
et sine auctorum suorum vocabulis essent positae et infinitis
vitiorum anfractibus scaterent, non sumus passi nostris in
diebus in divinis lectionibus inter sacra officia inconsonantes
perstrepere soloecismos, atque earundem lectionum in melius
reformare tramitem mentem intendimus." Text: Translations and
Reprints from the Original Sources of European History (Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1900), V61. VI, no.
5, p. 14 (hereafter cited as Translations and Rgprints).

 

 

29See MGH, Capit., no. 29, p. 79.

30Ellard, Master Alcuin, p. 88.

64

At the provincial and diocesan levels, a few documents,
mostly from the early ninth century, permit us to see the
attempts made by Charlemagne's prelates to carry out his dic-
tates regarding divine worship. Thus we find Archbishop Arno

31

of Salzburg, repeating Charlemagne's edict of 789, ordering

his bishops to establish schools in which the full liturgy of

the divine office would be taught according to Roman usage.32

At LiEge, Bishop Ghaerbald ordered his priests, if they were
able to do so, to equip their churches with such liturgical
works as a missal, a lectionary, a martyrology, and a psalter.33
Bishop Haito of Basel instructed his priests to observe the full
cursus according to Roman usage. They were to take every pre-
caution not to introduce novelty into their worship through the
use of uncanonical texts and were to have a thorough knowledge
of the sacramentary, lectionary, antiphonary and psalter.34

An unknown diocesan synod of the period urged that all clerics
memorize the entire psalter.35 Finally. at Lyons, Archbishop

Leidrad detailed the fact that, in addition to his labors at

 

31MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 72, p. 60.

32MGH, Conc., no. 22, c. 8, p. 199.

 

33MGH, Capit., no. 123, c. 9, p. 243.

 

3‘12i9o. no. 177. cc. 6, 19, 24, pp. 363, 365-366.
Cf. ibid., no. 117, cc. l-15, p. 235.

351bid., no. 119, c. 2, p. 236.

6S

church restoration, he had established schools of singers and
readers following the example of the palace school. He boasted
that his students were well enough instructed in the chant to
teach others. He also noted that he was doing all that he
could to acquire copies of needed texts.36

Despite the conscientious efforts of Charlemagne and
those of his prelates to reform liturgical practice, it appears
that, at the parish level, there was left much to be desired
in the conduct of the divine office. As has been intimated,
there was little chance that the rural priest could practice
the complete cursus of the Roman office. And given the low
level of lay and clerical learning, it did little good to order
the priest to instruct his flock in the proper manner and times
of prayer so that they might be summoned by the church bell to

37 Much more realistic, and probably reflec-

recite the office.
tive of wider practice, were the instructions that Bishop
Theodulf of Orleans gave to his priests. For Theodulf, it was
accomplishing a good deal if his priests could get their par-
ishioners to pray at least twice a day in the morning and
evening; and this prayer might consist of nothing more than a

recitation of the Creed or of the Lord's Prayer. If a church

was nearby, it was to be made use of, but if work or travel

 

36MGH, Ep., 1v, no. 30, p. 543.

37MGH,_capit., no. 36, c. 8, p. 106.

66

interfered, the parishioner could pray anywhere in field or
forest.38 For the Lord's Day, Theodulf demanded that the
faithful participate in the night office in preparation for
Mass.39

Celebrating the Mass was the central act of divine
worship and the most important responsibility of the priest in
his work of pastoral care. In the primitive Church, the Mass
had been a corporate undertaking involving the participation
of elected ministers acting in the name of a Christian commu-
nity. However, with the great social and cultural changes
that the barbarian invasions brought to western Europe, the
Latin liturgy of the Mass came to be understood by only a small
fraction of society. This consisted principally of an appoint-
ed clergy who alone knew the necessary formularies and who
celebrated the Mass in behalf of the worshipping community.
The way in which the Frankish clergy and laity were assembled
at church clearly reflected their separation of roles in the
celebration of Mass. The parishioners stood in the nave cut
off from the altar by a chancel through which they were allowed
to pass only to receive communion. A further barrier, the

church choir, was placed between the chancel and the altar.40

 

38Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae,
c. 23, Migne, :11, CV, 198.

39Ibido ’ Co 24, pp. 198-199.

40Shepherd, "The Effect of the Barbarian Invasions,"
pp. 169-172; Jungmann, The Mass, 1, 81-84.

67

At the time of the Bonifacian reform councils, then,
cultural poverty insured that the laity could neither under-
stand nor play an active part in the Mass. And the decadent
state of the Frankish Church gave a surety that far too many
priests would not be able to perform this sacred task of pas-
toral care according to canonical prescription. As has been
indicated, the Carolingian reform movement, from 742 on,
sought to restore canonical discipline among the clergy and
to subject their knowledge of their office to yearly exam-
ination.41 The reformers also sought to renew the religious
life of the laity by ending their estrangement from the priests
in liturgical matters. They required that pastors explain to
their parishioners the necessary formularies of the Mass, as
well as teach them the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in language
that they would understand.42 For as the enlightened Char-
lemagne put it: "Let no one believe that prayer to God may be
made in only three tongues; but rather that He should be wor-

shipped in all languages, and that He will hear the just

 

41$ee especially MGH, Conc., no. 4, c. 4, p. 35; no. 6,
p. 47; MGH, Capit., no. 10, c. 3, p. 25; no. 12, c. 4, p. 29;
no. 19, c. 8, p. 45.

42See MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 70, p. 59; no. 35, cc.
29-30, p. 103; no. 36, c. 5, p. 106: "Ut unusquisque sacerdos
orationem dominicam et symbolum populo sibi commiso curiose
insinuet ac totius religionis studium et christianitatis cultum
eorum mentibus ostendat." MGH, Conc., no. 35, c. 2, p. 254;
no. 36, c. 45, pp. 271-272.

 

 

68

prayers of men."43 At Mass, the laity were to participate
actively in the liturgical singing and in the Latin re-
sponses.44 They were also to join in the offertory procession
and to give the kiss of peace at the proper times.45

Unfortunately our sources do not permit us to make a
direct appraisal of pastoral care in the conduct of the Mass.
And in what follows, we must perforce make use of indirect
evidence, such as the physical condition of Frankish churches
and the uses to which they were put, in order to make some
assessment of Mass practice. When we look at the physical cir-
cumstances of Carolingian churches, especially in the rural
areas, it is difficult to be optimistic about the efficacy of
Carolingian ecclesiastical reform affecting the Mass. It
appears that at mid-eighth century, Frankish churches, espe-
cially those in the countryside, were in very poor shape. As
a result of the political anarchy that obtained in the early
decades of the century and of Charles Martel's drastic spoli-

ations, a great number of churches were destroyed or fell into

decay and disuse because of poverty and neglect. Under the

 

43MGH, Capit., no. 28, c. 52, p. 78: "Ut nullus
credat, quod nonnisi in tribus linguis Deus orandus sit, quia
in omni lingua Deus adoratur et homo exauditur, si iusta
petierit."

 

44l§£§., no. 22, c. 70, p. 59; no. 177, c. 3, p. 363.

45Ibid., no. 22, c. 53, p. 57; MGH, Conc., no. 36, c.
44, p. 271.

 

 

69

first Carolingians, the rural churches, reflecting their
origins as domainal oratories, were too small and too few to
serve the population; and many of these were old and poorly
built.46

Carloman, Pippin, and Charlemagne regularized the
process of secularizing of church lands instituted by Charles
Martel. And in establishing the precarial system of land-
holding, they also decreed that benefice-holders pay a rent

(census) and a double tithe (decima et nona) for the support

 

and upkeep of the churches.47 In addition, it was made man-
datory upon all Christians that they remit the ordinary eccle-
siastical tithe to their churches.48 However, when we look at
the endless canons and capitularies ordering the restoration

of churches--which meant not only the rebuilding of walls and

 

46Jean Chélini, "La pratique dominicale des laics dans
l'église franque sous le rEgne de Pepin," Revue d'histoire de
l'e’giise de France, XLII (1356), 165-166; Riohe’, Education et
culture, pp. 473-475. Cf. Emile Lesne, Histoire de la ropriété'
ecclésiastigge en France, Tome II: Lagproprigté'eccl siastigue
et les droits reggliens a l'épogue carolingienne (Lille, 1922),
pp. 1-32.

 

47MGHLCapit” no. 11, c. 2, p. 28; no. 18, cc. 5, 11,
p. 43; no. 20, cc. 7, 13, pp. 48, 50; Fournier and LeBras,
Histoire des collections canoniques, I, 121.

 

48See Catherine E. Boyd, Tithes and Parishes in Medi-
eval Italy: The Historical Roots of a Mbdern Problem (New
York, 1952), p. 37ff. (hereafter cited as Boyd, Tithes and
Parishes); Giles Constable, MOnastic Tithes: From Their Ori-
gins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1964), p. 28ft. (here-
after cited as Constable, MOnastic Tithes).

 

 

7O

roofs and the replacing of fixtures, but also the supplying of
liturgical books, vessels, and vestments--we must conclude that
in too many instances this support was not forthcoming.49

As a result, church restoration proceeded slowly, if at
all. And here we may allude again to the fact that it is only
in the last few years of his reign that Charlemagne secured
the necessary revenues to support Archbishop Leidrad in his
work of restoring the devastated churches in the diocese of
Lyons.SO In his letter to Charlemagne, the good bishop showed
that he well appreciated the temper of the times by expressing
the hope that after his death his work would not be allowed to
perish. As he expressed it: "I inform you of these matters
so that, having been brought to your attention and weighed
with your indulgence, if they are found to be suitable and

according to your will, they may not be allowed to languish

 

49To cite but a few, see MGH, Capit., no. 18, c. l,
p. 42; no. 24, c. 2, p. 65; no. 28, c. 26, p. 76; no. 35, c.
56, p. 104; no. 42, c. l, p. 119; no. 43, c. 8, p. 121; no.
46, c. 3, p. 131; no. 49, c. 4, p. 136; no. 62, c. l, p. 150;
no. 63, c. 1, p. 152; no. 78, c. 24, p. 175; MGH, Conc., no.
34, c. 25, p. 253; no. 36, c. 42, p. 271. How impressed Char-
lemagne was with the necessity of restoring churches can be
seen in his decree urging the collection of alms to be sent
to Jerusalem for that purpose (MGH, Capit., no. 64, c. 18,
p. 154).

 

 

 

SOMGH, Ep., IV, no. 30, p. 543.

71
and die after my death but rather may grow and abide."51
To this negative picture of Frankish churches, we may
add other activities of both clergy and laity that worked to
the detriment of proper liturgical practice. The sources
reveal that there were pastors devoted more to their own per-
sonal aggrandizement than to the upkeep of their churches. For
the priests who originated from the serf and minor freeman
classes, the temptation was often too great not to build small
empires of allodia, slaves, and other property, using the do-
nations of the faithful.52 With respect to the laity, a capit-
ulary of 794 reveals that they were not above pillaging, for
use on their own houses, the stone, wood, and tile of their
local churches.53
The uses to which churches were put in the Carolingian
age also reflect on the nature of pastoral care in the conduct

of the Mass. Many prohibitions were issued in this period

seeking to prevent priests from celebrating Mass in private

 

51Ibid., p. 542: "Et ideo haec suggero, ut, cum
benignissimis auribus vestris praesentata fuerint et clementer
inspecta, in posterum divina vestra mansuetudo provideat, ut
si qua bene et secundum voluntatem vestram gessi, post meum
discessum non deficiant aut pereant, sed potius proficiant et
permaneant."

52MGH, Capit., no. 18, c. 3, p. 43; no. 24, c. 3,
p. 65; no. 81, c. 11, p. 178; no. 120, c. 6, p. 238.

 

53Ibid., no. 28, c. 26, p. 76.

72
homes and on unconsecrated altars.54 But if the clergy and
the laity were charged with coming to churches consecrated
to God for the celebration of Mass on Sundays and feastdays,55
they came there also for many other purposes. For Carolingian
churches, especially those in the rural areas, were in fact
centers for social and civil life as well as places of worship.
They were used as courthouses by the counts and their minis-
ters, as well as by the priests, often for cases involving
capital penalties. Accused criminals fled to them for asylum
and the ceremonies for the emancipation of serfs were held
near their altars. The churches and their consecrated grounds
were not only used for secular meetings of all kinds, but also
for all the exchanges of the marketplace. Finally, they were
used as depots or storehouses for provisions and crops. Even
arms were cached in them awaiting the time when the churches
were converted into fortresses for the protection of the local

population.56

 

54See ibid., no. 19, c. 14, p. 46; no. 23, c. 25, p. 64;
no. 36, c. 9, p. 106; no. 81, c. 6, p. 178; no. 114, c. 5, p.
232; no. 177, c. 14, p. 364; MGH, Conc., no. 37, c. 49, p. 283.

 

55MGH, Capit., no. 23, c. 25, p. 64; see below, note 59.

 

56MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 71, p. 59; no. 35, c. 36, p.
103; no. 39, c. 3, p. 113; no. 42, c. 8, p. 120; no. 74, c. 10,
p. 167; no. 78, c. 21, p. 174; no. 81, c. 5, p. 178; no. 83, c.
8, p. 182; no. 93, c. 4, p. 196, MGH, Conc., no. 34, c. 22, p.
253; no. 36, cc. 39-40, p. 271; no. 38, c. 39, p. 291; Theodulf,
Capitula ad presbyterosgparochiae suae, c. 8, Migne, EL, CV,
194.

 

 

73

To the poor state of Frankish churches and to their
irreligious usages, we may add the fact of cultural poverty
and credulity of a semi-pagan population.57 It is highly
questionable that meaningful participation in the liturgy of
the Mass, let alone its comprehension, was within the capacity
of illiterate men and women prone to see an element of magic
in every ritual practice. And surely the violated sanctity
of churches put to a variety of secular uses did not conduce
to religiosity on the part of the brethren. In churches in
which stray animals might relieve themselves, where hay and
armaments were stored, and where sacred vessels and altars
were negligently cared for, the atmosphere was more like that
of a mead hall than a place of worship.58

It is little wonder, then, that a great number of can-

ons and capitularies were issued prohibiting all servile work,

marketing, and secular meetings so that the laity would be

 

57It was necessary to legislate against pagan practices

throughout the Carolingian period. See MGH,;Capit., no. 10,

c. 5, p. 25; no. 11, c. 4, p. 28; no. 12, c. 6, p. 30; no. 19,
cc. 6-7, p. 45; no. 22, cc. 18, 65, pp. 55, 58-59; no. 23, cc.
20, 26, 34, p. 64; no. 28, c. 43, p. 77; MGH, Conc., no. 24,

c. 15, p. 209; no. 38, c. 42, p. 292. For an extensive list

of proscribed pagan superstitions, see MGH, Capit., no. 108,
cc. 1-30, p. 223. Cf. Richard E. Sullivan, "The Carolingian
Missionary and the Pagan," Speculum, XXVIII (1953), 731ff.

 

 

58mm, Cagt” no. 22, c. 71, p. 59; no. 23, c. 33,
p. 64; no. 35, c. 36, p. 103; no. 81, c. 7, p. 178; NEH, Ep.,
IV, no. 136, p. 210; Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros
parochiae suae, cc. 8, 18, Migne, EL, CV, 194, 196.

 

 

 

74

present at the Mass on Sundays. The faithful had to be con-
stantly reminded to keep the spiritual significance of Sunday
uppermost in their minds. This was to be accomplished by a
dedication to prayer at vespers on Saturday, attendance at the
office of matins and then at Mass, and a continuation of prayer-
ful solicitude until the Sunday vesper hour.59

It may be believed that this ideal practice found some
degree of application in the churches that came directly under
the purview of such able and reform-minded prelates as Theodulf,
Arno, and Haito. But for the majority of churches, i.e., the
rural and proprietary churches, the reality of the Mass must
have been quite different. For these, legislation was needed
to combat the irreligious commotions outside their doors on Sun-
days and feastdays caused by irreverent laymen accustomed to
viewing the church environs as community centers.60 Nor did
this irreligiosity stop at the church door. Commonly men,
women, and children stood in inattention during the solemn cel-

ebration of the Mass engaged in idle gossip and paying little

 

59MGH, Capit., no. 14, c. 14, p. 36; no. 22, cc. 15,
81, pp. 55, 61; no. 28, c. 21, p. 76; no. 35, c. 46, p. 104;
no. 78, c. 15, p. 174; no. 83, cc. 1-2, pp. 181-182; no. 84,
c. l, p. 182; MGH,gConc., no. 34, c. 16, p. 252; no. 35, c.
35, p. 256; no. 36, c. 37, p. 270; no. 38, c. 40, p. 292;
Theodulf, Cgpitula ad presbyterosgparochiae suae, c. 24, Migne,
'25, CV, 198-199.

 

60MGH, Capit., no. 79, c. 2, p. 175; MGH, Conc., no.
24, c. 8, p. 208; no. 36, c. 48, p. 272.

 

 

75
heed to the incomprehensible gestures of their pastor. Often,
they left the church before communion and the completion of
the Mass.61 This infrequent reception of the Eucharist on the
part of the laity offers the most convincing evidence of their
lack of participation in the Mass. Attempts made to enforce
more frequent communion on the part of the brethren failed
completely. The general practice of the laity in the Caro-
lingian period was to communicate, partaking of both the bread
and the wine, at the three principal feasts of the year, Christ-
mas, Easter, and Pentecost.62 Finally, lay participation in
the Mass further suffered from the fact that along with neglect
of communion came a concomitant neglect in offering the bread
and wine. By the ninth century the offertory procession ceased
to be general practice and the trend toward the use of un-

leavened bread prepared by the priest was well underway.63

 

61MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 71, p. 59; no. 35, c. 36, p.

103; MGH, Conc., no. 38, c. 38, p. 291; Theodulf, Capitula
ad presbyteros parochiae suae, c. 10, Migne, EL, CV, 194-195.

 

62MGH, Conc., no. 7, c. 6, p. 52; no. 38, c. 50, p.
293; Lagarde, The Latin Church, pp. 46-47; Shepherd, "The
Effect of the Barbarian Invasions," pp. 175-177. Theodulf
instructed his priests to enforce the reception of communion
on all Sundays in Lent, the three days at the close of Holy
Week, and at Easter (Capitula ad_presbyterosgparochiae suae,
c. 41, Migne, EL, CV, 204-205.

 

63Lagarde, The Latin Church, pp. 49-50; Shepherd, "The
Effect of the Barbarian Invasions," p. 177. The new belief
coming into vogue among the clergy that the sacramental offer-
ings of the laity were unfit for use is well illustrated by the
teachings of Theodulf. See Capitula ad presbyteros_parochiae

 

 

76

In concluding this sketch of pastoral care in the
conduct of the Mass, we must inevitably come back to the
parish priest himself. If the generality of the priests at
the local level had been so many Bonifaces, Chrodegangs, Arnos,
or Theodulfs, it would be difficult to accept the negative
picture that has been presented of church conditions and lay
religious practices that detracted from the proper celebration
of the Mass. But they were not. Despite the thrust of Caro-
lingian ecclesiastical reform reflected in an endless stream
of legislation seeking to establish and maintain canonical
discipline, the parish priests remained not far removed from
the lay population in their quality of life and culture.

The poor condition of the churches and their litur-
gical equipment reflected the fact that far too many priests
were mutilating the rite of the Mass because of ignorance, so
that often the Eucharist was improperly administered and the
correct order of the Mass not followed. Frequently, cele-

brants of the Mass themselves neglected to communicate.64

 

suae, c. 5, Migne, EL, CV, 193: "Panes, quos Deo in sac-
rificium offertis, aut a vobis ipsis, aut a vestris pueris
coram vobis, nitide ac studiose fiant, et diligenter observetur
ut panis, et vinum, et aqua, sine quibus missae nequeunt cele-
brari, mundissime atque studiose tractentur, et nihil in his
vile, nihil non probatum inveniatur . . ."

64MGH,Capit., no. 19, c. 8, p. 45; no. 22, cc. 6, 54,
pp. 54, 57; no. 28, c. 51, p. 78; no. 123, c. 13, p. 244; Egg,
Conc., no. 38, c. 19, p. 289; Theodulf, Cgpitula ad presbyteros
parochiae suae, c. 18, Migne,_§L, CV, 196.

 

77
Very often those who possessed the necessary liturgical
texts for celebrating the Mass could not use them intelli-
gently. The sacramentary was especially misused by the priests
who, because of their ignorance of Latin, could not properly
adapt the Masses for special Observances.65 The demands of
the liturgical year also taxed their competence. A good deal
of legislation seeking to enforce correct observance of the
major feasts and fasts of the year demonstrates that priests
were often unable to make proper use of the church calendar.66
By the end of Charlemagne's reign, the low quality of pastoral
care in the conduct of the Mass revealed by these deficiencies
was still very evident throughout the Frankish realm. For in
the year 813, we find the great reforming church councils still
urging that the most elementary instruction in the conduct of
the liturgy be given to the parish priests.67

In addition to administering the sacrament of the

Eucharist, the priest was charged with the responsibility of

 

65MGH, Capit., no. 38, c. 3, p. 110; no. 117, c. 4,
p. 235; no. 177, c. 6, p. 363.

 

66See MGH, Capit., no. 19, c. 11, p. 46; no. 22, c. 48,
p. 57; no. 35, c. 23, p. 103; no. 38, c. 10, p. 110; no. 81,
c. 19, p. 179; no. 119, c. 9, p. 237; no. 177, c. 8, pp. 363-
364. MGH,_Conc., no. 22, c. 2, p. 197; no. 24, cc. 5, 33-34,
41-42, pp. 208, 211-212; no. 36, cc. 32-36, pp. 268-270.
Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae, cc. 36-43,
Migne, EL, cv, 203-205.

 

 

67See MGH, Conc., no. 34, c. 3, p. 250; no. 35, cc. 4-
13, pp. 254-2550

 

78
communicating the sacred rite of baptism to the faithful.
And though, in the Carolingian period, penance, matrimony, and
extreme unction were not generally considered sacraments, they
too came under the province of pastoral care. The correct
performance of baptism was of pre-eminent concern to Frankish
church reformers from the time of St. Boniface. The latter
was extremely perplexed by the problems of false or heretical
priests improperly administering the sacrament of baptism to
pagans in such missionary areas as Hesse, Thuringia, and Bavar-
ia. In the face of a critical shortage of trained priests, St.
Boniface, with the sage advice of Rome, tolerated many irreg-
ularities in the performance of baptism so that the validity
of the sacrament might not be brought into question.68 After
St. Boniface's passing, the same necessity dictated that ir-
regular practices, such as baptisms conducted by unbaptized

or unfrocked priests, be tolerated.69

Reform legislation seeking to impose canonical disci-

pline and uniform practice in the administration of the

 

68Tolerated irregularities included the recognition
of baptisms made by priests who were wholly ignorant of Latin
and by priests who were adulterous and even heretical, so long
as they properly invoked the Trinity. See Boniface, Ep.,
no. 26, p. 46; no. 28, p. 50; no. 60, p. 122; no. 80, pp. 174-
177.

691x38, Capit., no. 15, c. 12, p. 38; no. 16, c. 15,
p. 41. Cf. Carlo de Clercq, La-législation religieuse

frangue, p. 306.

 

79
sacrament of baptism was passed in 74270 and repeated by Char-
lemagne in 769.71 But it was not until Charlemagne initiated
his program for liturgical uniformity in 789 that a concen-
trated effort was made to reform baptismal practice in the
Frankish Church. The bishops were ordered to examine their
priests diligently for their knowledge of the Roman baptismal
rite.72 Adding to Charlemagne's concern that the proper lit-
urgy of baptism be followed was the fact that many pagans were
still undergoing conversion. And thus, despite the fact that,
by the eighth century, infant baptism in settled areas of the
Frankish realm was the norm, the priest had to know the
lengthier liturgical procedures associated with adult baptism.
And again it was Alcuin who filled the need for a correct text
on the subject. By 798, he had put together a statement of
Roman baptismal practice and Charlemagne ordered that all the
clergy make use of it.74 As evidenced in ecclesiastical leg-

islation, Charlemagne's vigilance in the cause of baptismal

 

7oMGH, Capit., no. 10, c. 3, p. 25; MGH, Conc., no. 1,
c. 3, p. 3.

 

71MGH, Capit., no. 19, c. 8, p. 45.

 

7?;2;g., no. 22, c. 70, p. 59; no. 23, c. 23, p. 64.

73M8H, Ep.,‘lv, no. 304, pp. 203-204.

7"See Ellard, Master Alcuin, 75ff.

80

uniformity persisted until his death.75 In his very last
years, suspecting (and rightly it appears) that uniformity
in the practice of baptism had not yet been attained, he
wrote to his metropolitans asking them to report in what
manner they and their suffragans were instructing the priests
and the people in the matter.76

The replies of Charlemagne's greater churchmen to his
questions on baptism, as Hauck has remarked, reveal that they
had absorbed a considerable amount of theological culture.77
But this does not appear to be true of the lesser clergy.
Despite the best efforts of Charlemagne and his prelates, pas-
toral care in administering the sacrament of baptism, at the
parish level, suffered from priestly ignorance and negligence

of correct baptismal procedures. The priests were required

to memorize and comprehend the liturgy of baptism so that they

 

7sSee MGH,;Capit., no. 35, c. 28, p. 103; no. 36, c.
10, p. 106; no. 38, c. 3, p. 110; no. 78, c. l, p. 173; no.
116, c. 8, p. 234.

 

76Lagarde, The Latin Church, pp. 36-37; Schnfirer,
Church and Culture, I, 512-513; F. Cabrol, "CatéEhunéhat," in
DACL, II, 2 (1925), 2611-2612; F. Cabrol, "Charlemagne et la
liturgie," in DACL, III, 1 (1913), 821. For Charlemagne's
correspondence and the replies made by his prelates, see MEH,
'§2., IV, 533-541; ibid., V, 242-244, 273-274; MGH, Cgpit.,
nos. 125-126, pp. 246-248. An informative discussion on the
efforts made by Charlemagne and Alcuin to secure baptismal
uniformity in accordance with Roman usage is given in Ellard,
Master Alcuin, pp. 68-85.

 

 

77Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II, 181.

 

81

might properly prepare the catechumens and the godparents
by teaching them the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the proper
baptismal responses.78 They were ordered also to give baptism
only at the canonical times of Easter and Pentecost, making
exceptions only for those in danger of death. The repeated
issuance of canons and capitularies in the effort to achieve
correct practice, however, indicates that the priests not only
failed to follow the prescriptions for the conduct of baptism,
but also administered the sacrament at all times of the year.79

When we turn to pastoral care in the administration of
penance, we find that any discussion is complicated by the
fact that a new penitential discipline was in process of for-
mation. Long before the Carolingian period, the ancient system
of public penance involving episcopal excommunication and rec-

onciliation had fallen into decadence and disuse in the West.

In the eighth century, when it was applied, it was used only

 

78For the benefit of the laity, the baptismal vow was
translated into the vernacular. See MGH, Capit., no. 107,

p. 222.

 

79$ee MGH, Capit., no. 36, cc. lO-ll, p. 106; no. 37,
c. 8, p. 108; no. 38, cc. 3, 14, p. 110; no. 78, c. 1, p. 173;
no. 83, c. 5, p. 182; no. 119, cc. 3, 10, pp. 236-237; no.
123, cc. 8, 20, pp. 243-244; no. 177, cc. 5, 7, 25, pp. 363,
366; MGH,_Conc., no. 34, cc. 3, 19, pp. 250, 252; no. 35,
c. 7, p. 254; no. 36, cc. 4, 47, pp. 261, 272; no. 38, c. 18,
pp. 288-289. Charlemagne himself in a letter of 803/811 to
Bishop'Ghaerbald, lamented the fact that his many edicts on
the subject of baptism were being neglected by the priests in
the diocese of Libge (MGH, Capit., no. 122, p. 241).

 

 

82
for persons convicted of capital and notorious crimes, such as
murder, incest, and rape. Beginning in the late sixth century,
Celtic missionaries, such as St. Columbanus, introduced private
penance and auricular confession to the Frankish realm where
it won wide acceptance, except in southern Gaul where Visi-
gothic church traditions inhibited its progress. Anglo-Saxon
missionaries, such as St. Boniface, were also very instrumental
in the diffusion and development of this new discipline. The
successful establishment of this new system of penance owed
much to the use made of penitentials by the Celtic and Anglo-
Saxon missionaries. These penance books, which were widely
disseminated on the Continent, were compilations of the various
sins and their appropriate punishments to be meted out by
pastors. They thus envisioned the administration by priests
of private confession, penance, and reconciliation whenever

there were sins, whether venial or capital, to be repented.80

 

80Lagarde, The Latin Church, pp. 52, 57; Medieval
Handbooks of Penance, A translation of the principal libri
ppenitentiales and selections from related documents by John T.
McNeill and Helena M. Gamer (New York, 1938), pp. 20-29 (here-
after cited as MCNeill and Gamer, Handbooks of Penance). Cf.
Oscar D. Watkins, A History of Penance, Vol. II: The western
Church From A.D. 450 to A.D. 1215 (New York, 1961), 643ff.
(hereafter cited as Watkins, A History of Penance); Sources of
Christian Theolggy, ed. Paul F. Palmer, Vol. II: Sacraments
and Forgiveness: History and Doctrinal Development of Penance,
Extreme Unction, and Indulgences (London, 1960), 139ff. (here-
after cited as Palmer, Sources of Christian Theology); Bern-
hard Poschmann, Penance and the Anointing:of the Sick, trans.
Francis Courtney (New York, 1964), p. 122ff. (hereafter cited
as Poschmann, Penance and Anointing).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

During the course of the eighth and early ninth cen-
turies, the new penitential discipline was supported and re-
inforced by legislation. Capitularies and conciliar decrees,
while not making the practice mandatory for all Christians,
ordered the priests to be active in their exercise of the
pastoral office and to exhort the faithful to make frequent
confession and do penance for their sins. To insure their
qualification for their task, it was also decreed that priests
know and be examined on their use of the penitentials.81
Alcuin was especially anxious to promote the new discipline
and he is found repeatedly urging its practice by both the
laity and the clergy.82

By the beginning of the ninth century, however, many
problems had arisen in connection with the system of private
penance. There was a growing reaction among bishops against
the new penitential discipline that gave so much authority and
independence to the priests. The decrees of the reform coun-
cils of 813 reflect a grave concern on the part of Frankish

prelates with the fact of widespread abuse of private penance

 

81MGHLCapit” no. 10, cc. 1-2, p. 25; no. 19, cc. 1,
7, 10, pp. 44-45; no. 23, c. 32, p. 64; no. 26, c. 14, p. 69;
no. 36, c. 21, p. 107; no. 38, c. 4, p. 110; no. 81, cc. 12,
15, p. 179; no. 116, c. 3, p. 234; no. 117, c. 7, p. 235;
no. 120, c. 1, p. 237; 15H, Conc., no. 7, c. 2, p. 52; no. 22,
c. 5, p. 199.

 

 

32391432., IV, no. 131, p. l93ff.; ibid., 1v, no.
138, p. 218; Watkins, A History of Penance, II, 688-697.

 

84

by priests.33 In some parts of Austrasia, it was reported,
priests were violating the secrecy of the confessional by
extorting bribes from confessed criminals who otherwise might
be revealed. And in the diocese of Basel, there were priests
adjusting the severity of their assigned penances to the wealth
and social rank of their parishioners.84

Of much greater concern was the fact that the priests
were using a variety of penitentials. The authority of these
penitentials rested on their derivation, or alleged derivation,
from reputable church authors. Because of the profuse errors
made by copyists, these books varied considerably in the pen-
ance and commutations of penance that they prescribed for the
various categories of sin. Priestly ignorance and negligence
when added to this lack of textual uniformity resulted in
penitential chaos. Thus we find Theodulf desperately trying
to regulate his clergy in their conduct of penance so that the
brethren would be properly shrived. The priests of Orleans

were admonished to learn how to receive confessions properly

 

83See MGH, Conc., no. 35, cc. 12-13, 16, p. 255; no.
37, cc. 32-34, pp. 279-280; no. 38, c. 22, p. 289. Cf. Mc-
Neill and Gamer, Handbooks of Penance, pp. 26-27; Watkins, A
History of Penance, 11, 688-707.

 

 

84MGH, Cgpit., no. 79, c. l, p. 175; no. 177, CC. 19-
20, p. 365. That these and similar practices involving the
influence of personal considerations in the assignment of
penance were fairly common is evidenced by their condemnation
in the reform councils of 813. See MGH, Conc., no. 35, cc. 12-
13, p. 255; no. 37, c. 34, p. 280; no. 38, c. 22, p. 289.

 

 

85

and to be prepared to give suitable penance. To insure full
confessions, they were to instruct the penitents in how to
discriminate among the various kinds of sin, using Cassian's
list of the eight major vices as their guide. For their au-
thority in assigning penances, the priests, according to
Theodulf, were to consult the sacred canons and Holy Scripture.
By implication, they were not to use the error-filled peni-
tentials.85 In the early years of the ninth century, imperial
legislation reflects a rising concern with the same problems
of penitential indiscipline confronted by Theodulf. Priests
were admonished by royal decree to exercise vigilance in the
confessional and give penances that were proportionate to the
offences committed. Bishops were ordered to examine their
clergy as to their conduct of confessions.86

Compounding the problems of securing uniform peni-
tential practice was the fact that under the influence of the
Carolingian revival, with its emphasis on the restoration of
earlier church discipline, Frankish bishops were now attempt-
ing to reimpose the public system of penance. For example,

Theodulf in his capitularies, not only decreed that confessions

 

85Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae,
c. 31, Migne, 2L, CV, 201; Theodulf, Capitulare ad eosdem,

Migne, LL, CV, 2110

86MGH,,Capit” no. 36, c. 21, p. 107; no. 38, c. 4,
p. 110; watkins, A History of Penance, 11, 693-707.

 

 

86

be made to God alone or to a priest, but also that it was
within the discretion of the priest to assign public penance
for capital and mortal offences.87 And at Libge, we find
Bishop Ghaerbald instructing his priests to extend the regime
of public penance to those convicted of homicide. These were
to be reconciled only by the bishop or by his order.88 At the
same time, he urged that his priests be in possession of a
penitential.89 It is clear from these enactments that some
kind of forced accommodation was being made between the ancient
and the new systems of penance.

The reform councils of 813 which sought to clarify
matters relating to each system of penance so as to achieve a
standard practice succeeded only in generating more confusion.
Reflecting regional differences and experience, they issued
contradictory advice on the practice of private penance and
the use of penitentials. The Council of Chalon, for example,
closely following the penitential practice advocated by
Theodulf, took the position that confession could be made
either to God alone or to a priest, provided it was done fully.

0n the subject of penitentials, the Council was more explicit

 

87Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae,
c.30, Migne, 55, CV, 200; Theodulf, Capitulare ad eosdem,
Migne, BE, CV, 211.

 

 

BBMGH, Capit., no. 123, c. 10, p. 243.

 

89lbid., no. 123, c. 9, p. 243.

 

87

and urged that they be "repudiated and abolished altogether."
The Council of Arles, representing the church of southern
Gaul, appears only to have sanctioned the use of public pen-
ance. In contrast, the Council of Tours gave full sanction
to the system of private penance and to the use of peniten-
tials, urging only that all agree on the penance book that
should be used so as to insure uniformity.90 As a result of
these conflicting pronouncements, the imperial assembly that
met at Aachen in 813 put the problem of the penitentials and
how penitents should be judged aside for future inquiry.91
More general agreement was reached on the special application
of public penance to criminals convicted of notorious crimes,
such as homicidal violence, adultery, and unnatural sin.92
But as the succeeding age was to demonstrate, the unrealistic
episcopal attempt to reinstitute public penance was doomed to
failure. And as reflected in the teaching of Rabanus Maurus,93

a compromise was reached by which public penance was to be

applied to public offences and private penance was to be done

 

90See MGH, Conc., no. 34, c. 26, p. 253; no. 37, cc.
34, 38, pp. 280-281; no. 38, c. 22, p. 289. Cf. Watkins, A
History of Penance, 11, 700-706. ‘

 

 

91MGH, Capit., no. 81, c. 20, p. 179. Cf. Watkins,
A History of Penance, 11, 706-707.

 

 

92MGH, Conc., no. 34, c. 26, p. 253; no. 35, c. 31,
p. 256; no. 37, c. 25, p. 278; no. 38, c. 41, p. 292.

 

93De c1. inst., II, 30, Migne, BE, cvrr, 342-343.

 

88

for private sins.94

Closely associated with the evolution of penitential
discipline in the Carolingian period was the sacramental de-
velopment of extreme unction. The use on the Continent of
consecrated oil to cure the sick had long been practiced by
both the clergy and the laity. As with the introduction of
private penance, the custom of reserving to the priest the
sole right of anointing the sick was introduced by Celtic and
Anglo-Saxon missionaries. This priestly monopoly of extreme
unction is implicit in Carolingian ecclesiastical legislation.
At the same time extreme unction was being integrated with
the administration of penance and the viaticum to form the
last rites of the Church. As this development occurred, the
primary significance of extreme unction as a remedy for the
sick gave place to a conception of the rite as an integral act
in the remission of sins.95

Under the Carolingians, the administration of the last

rites of the Church was given clearer definition. The priests

 

94Watkins, A Historyfof Penangg, II, 701-707; McNeill
and Gamer, Handbooks of Penance, p. 27; Lagarde, The Latin
Church, pp. 60-61. Cf. Palmer, Sources of Christian Theology,
11, 152; Poschmann, Penance and Anointing, p. 134ff.; Paul
Anciaux, The Sacrament of Penance (New York, 1962), p. 63.

 

~ 95Lagarde, The Latin Church, pp. 66-68; Palmer, Sources
of Christian Theology, 11, 289. Cf. Poschmann, Penance and
Anointing, p. 242ff.; C. Ruch, "Extreme onction du Ier au IXe
siecle," in 939, v, 2 (1913), 1927-1985.

 

 

 

89
'were charged with the responsibility of securing from the
bishops on Holy Thursday supplies of consecrated oil for
anointing the catechumens and the sick, as well as chrism for
baptism.96 Supplied with holy oil and the Eucharist, which
they were always to have ready for immediate use, the priests
were to insure that no Christian died without proper anointing
and without reconciliation and viaticum.97 The procedure for
administering the last rites ideally entailed the services of
several priests who would participate together in anointing
the sick or dying individual to the accompaniment of prayers,
in a church if possible, but elsewhere if necessary.98 Both
Ghaerbald and Theodulf instructed their priests to give the
last rites to the sick who were incapable of speech, providing
witnesses were present to attest to their contrition and to
their desire to have received penance.99

The legislative evidence of Charlemagne, Ghaerbald,

and Theodulf cited above indicates by its repetitive nature

 

96MGQ,_Capit., no. 10, c. 3, p. 25; no. 12, c. 4,
p. 29; no. 81, c. 17, p. 179.

 

971219;. no. 19. c. 10, p. 45; no. 81, c. 16, p. 179.

981bid., no. 36, c. 22, p. 107; no. 81, c. 17, p.
179; no. 123, c. 19, p. 244; MGH,_Conc., no. 37, c. 48, p.
283; Theodulf, Capitulare ad eosdem, Migne, 2%, CV, 220-221.

 

 

99MGH,,Capit., no. 123, c. 15, p. 244; Theodulf,
Capitulare ad eosdem, Migne, PE, CV, 220. Cf. Palmer, Sources
of Christian Theology, II, 289-291.

 

 

 

90
that many priests were negligent in administering the last
rites of the Church.100 In the face of this negligence and
in view of the dire consequences awaiting those who died in
sin, Ghaerbald was moved to threaten delinquent priests with
loss of office.101 With respect to extreme unction, however,
priestly negligence reflected deeper problems involving cleri-
cal and lay ignorance and superstition. For despite the
monopoly given to priests of anointing the sick, the practice
of extreme unction was vitiated by the widespread misuse of
consecrated oil, especially chrism, as medicine to cure the
sick or as a magic potion to exorcise evil spirits. These
profane abuses, committed by both clerics and laymen, were
a legacy from the earlier practice of allowing the sick to
anoint themselves with chrism or other oil consecrated by a
bishop. The severity of the penalties enacted against these
abuses reveals the ineffectiveness of Carolingian attempts
to achieve their suppression. Thus in a capitulary of the
early ninth century, Charlemagne decreed:
Concerning clerics and laity who give or receive

chrism under the pretext of medicine or witchcraft;

if any priest or deacon shall have presumed to do so,

let him lose his office, the rest of the clergy and

nuns shall sustain corporal punishment and imprison-
ment; the laity who shall have received or given it

 

100Cf. Palmer, Sources of Christian Theology, II, 289.

101M314 Capit., no. 123, c. 11, p. 243.

 

 

91

to others shall lose a hand.102
In a similar vein, the priests and other clergy were re-
peatedly threatened with degradation and the obdurate among
them even with the same mutilation if they gave or used chrism
as medicine or as a magic remedy.103 Given the persistence of
these abuses, then, we may conclude that the practice of anoint-
ing the sick in the period under discussion very often did not
conform to the injunctions laid down by the church reformers.104

In an edict of 769, Charlemagne singled out the inces-

 

tuous to be included among those that the priest was to be es-
pecially concerned about in administering the last rites, lest
they perish in mortal sin.105 This particular concern for
those who committed incest derived in large part from the fact
that there was widespread nuptial practice by the laity in

violation of marriage impediments enunciated by both church

 

102Ibid., no. 55, c. l, p. 142: "De clericis et
laicis qui chrisma ad aliquam nimietatem dant et accipiunt:
si quis presbyter aut diaconus dare aut accipere praesumpserit,
gradum amittat; ceteri clerici et nonnanes disciplinam
corporalem et carceris custodian sustineant; laici qui
acceperint aut alicui dederint manum perdant."

103Ibid., no. 61, c. 10, p. 149; no. 62, c. 21, p.
150; no. 78, c. 17, p. 174; no. 119, c. 11, p. 237; MGH,#Conc.,
no. 34, c. 18, p. 252; no. 36, c. 27, p. 268; Lagarde, 123_
Latin Church, pp. 66-67.

 

104Cf. Poschmann, Penance and Anointing, p. 243.

 

105mm, Capit., no. 19, c. 10, p. 45.

 

92
and state. And in stating this, we are brought to the larger
consideration of pastoral care with respect to matrimony.
From the earliest years of the Church, the regulation of mar-
riage had been seen as a special responsibility of the clergy.
In the Carolingian period, priests were expected to join with
the elders of the community to investigate those who wished to
marry to see that they did not violate the prohibited degrees
of kinship whether physical, legal, or spiritual. Marriage

ceremonies were to take place in church with priestly prayer

 

and benediction. Thereafter, the priests were to insure, by
their constant vigilance, that the sanctity of the marriage
contracts entered into by the laity remained inviolate.106
The priests, then, were charged with the major respon-

sibility of insuring that those who married were not related
by close blood ties. Their task was complicated by the fact
that there was confusion in church doctrine as to the pro-
hibited degrees of relationship. Thus at different times
popes and Frankish councils decreed the prohibition of mar-

h,108

riage of those related to the fourth,107 fift and

 

106Ibid., no. 33, c. 35, p. 98; MGH, Conc., no. 71, c.
12, p. 53; Lagarde, The Latin Church, p. 76; Henry C. Lea,
Studies in Church History: The Rise of the Temporal Power,
Benefit of Clergy,_Excommunication (Philadelphia, 1869), pp.
308-311 (hereafter cited as Lea, Studies in Church History).

 

 

10730niface’ Ep., no. 26, p. 45; MGH, Capit., no. 15,
cc. 1-3, pp. 37-38; no. 16, c. 1, p. 40; no. 177, c. 21, p. 365.

 

1°8MGH, Conc., no. 36, c. 54, p. 273.

 

93

and seventh canonical degree.109 Doctrinal confusion, how-
ever, was not the most serious problem complicating the
priestly determination of blood ties in marriage. Much more
important was the fact that Germanic society, with its basic
clan structure, made it difficult for prospective married
couples to be free from all consanguineous relationship. In
such circumstances, to avert social chaos, especially in such
important areas as legitimacy and inheritance, the Carolin-
gians sought to coerce the incestuous not only with the ec-
clesiastical penalties of excommunication and public penance,
but also by threatening them with monetary fines, imprison-
ments, and the loss of patrimony.110

In addition to concerning themselves with the niceties
of genealogy, the priests were expected to investigate the
legal and spiritual affinity of those wishing to be married.
The union of two persons related by marriage was to be pro-
hibited in the same degrees as marriage involving a blood re-
lation. Both baptism and confirmation created a spiritual
relationship or affinity, the violation of which, as in the

case of an individual marrying the parent of his godchild, was

 

logBoniface, Ep., no. 28, p. 51; MGH, Ep., III, no. 3,

 

p. 485.

11OMGH, Capit., no. 13, cc. 1-3, pp. 31-32; no. 14,
c. 9, p. 35; no. 20, c. 5, p. 48; no. 33, cc. 33, 38, pp. 97-
98; no. 56, c. 3, p. 143; Schnurer, Church and Culture, 1,
517-518; Lea, Studies in Church History, pp. 310-312.

 

 

94

particularly to be regarded by the priests as a heinous

offence.111

Unfortunately, the nature of our evidence does not
permit any precise evaluation of actual practice in the regu-
lation of marriage by the priests. It appears, however, that
they experienced considerable difficulty both in comprehending
and in discharging their responsibilities in this area. This
judgment is reinforced when we consider the fact that even St.
Boniface himself did not understand the logic and necessity of
marriage impediments induced by spiritual affinity. In a
letter to Archbishop Nothelm of Canterbury, the perplexed
Boniface states:

I desire your counsel in regard to a sin which I have
unwittingly committed by granting to a certain man the
right to marry. It happened in this way: the man,
like many others, had stood as godfather to the child
of another and then after the death of the father had
married the mother. The Romans declare that this is

a sin, even a capital sin, and say that in such cases
a divorce should take place. They say that under
Christian emperors, such a marriage was punishable by
death or by perpetual exile. If you find that this is
accounted so great a sin in the decrees of catholic
fathers or in the canons or even in Holy Writ, pray
let me know it, so that I may understand and know what
is the authority for such an opinion. I cannot possi-
bly understand how, on the one hand, spiritual relation-
ship in the case of matrimonial intercourse can be so

 

111M6H,Capit., no. 13, c. l, p. 31; no. 15, c. 4,
p. 38; no. 177, c. 21, p. 365; MGH, Conc., no. 36, cc. 55-
56, p. 273; Schnurer, Church and Culture, I, 519.

 

 

95

great a sin, while, on the other hand, it is well

established that by holy baptism we all become sons

and daughters, brothers and sisters of Christ and

the Church.112
In any event, the stream of legislation directed against in-
cest indicates that it was impossible to enforce the obser-
vance of the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage
whether spiritual or physical. And thus we find the Council
of Tours in 813 bitterly deploring the multiplication of in-
cestuous marriages which even the threat of excommunication
did not stop and exhorting the Emperor to exert secular power
in the cause of reform.113 As if in recognition of the im-

possibility of eradicating the evil, Charlemagne subsequently

ordered only that increased vigilance be taken to see that

 

112BonifaceJ Ep., no. 33, pp. 57-58: "Praeterea de
uno peccato commisso vestrum consilium audire desidero, quod
cuidam homini in matrimonio concedendo nesciens commisi. Quod
hoc modo contigit. Homo quidam, sicut multi solent, alterius
filium de sacri baptismatis fonte elevans adoptavit sibi in
filium, cuius matrem postea viduatam marito duxit uxorem.
Quod Romani peccatum esse adserunt et capitale peccatum, ita
ut in talibus divortia facere precipiant; et adfirmant
regnantibus christianis imperatoribus illius matrimonii scelus
capitali sententia multandum vel peregrinatione perpetua
delendum. Ut si hoc in catholicorum patrum decretis vel
canonibus vel etiam in sacro eloquio pro tam magno peccato
conputatum esse inveniretis, indicare mihi curetis, ut et ego
intellegendo cognoscam, cuius auctoritas sit in illo iudicio,
quia nullatenus intellegere possum, quare in uno loco spir-
italis propinquitas in coniunctione carnalis copulae tam grande
peccatum sit, quando omnes in sacro baptismate Christi et
ecclesiae filii et filiae fratres et sorores esse comprobemur."
Text: Emerton, The Letters of Saint Boniface, p. 63.

 

113MGH,Conc., no. 38, c. 41, p. 292.

 

96

those who refused to do penance be excommunicated.114

Finally, preserving the integrity of the marriage con-
tract was an important responsibility of the priest in his
role as moral supervisor of the parish community. But as the
many strictures placed against fornication and adultery com-
mitted by both the laity and the clergy attest, the sanctity
of the marriage bond was often violated in the Carolingian
period. And though with papal blessing an attempt was made

under Pippin to apply the ancient canonical prohibitions

 

against divorce and remarriage, it met with failure.115 The
tradition of Germanic law in which the matrimonial relation-
ship was effected by a contract involving a monetary compen-
sation, which could be broken arbitrarily by the husband,
favored the easy dissolution of marriage. So did the unregu-
lated use of the penitentials which ensured a lax enforcement
of the marriage bond by the priest at the local level. In
756 and 757, legislation had to be passed which again gave
official sanction to divorce and remarriage in a variety of

circumstances.116 And though Charlemagne in 789 legislated

 

114MGHL¥Capit., no. 78, c. 8, p. 174; Lea, Studies in
Church History, pp. 311-313; Amann, L'époque carolingienne,
p. 88.

 

 

115MGH, Capit., no. 12, c. 9, p. 30; MGH, Ep., III,
cc. 7, 12, pp. 482-483.

 

116MGH, Capit., no. 15, cc. 7-8, 11, 13, 16-17, 19,
pp. 38-39; no. 16, cc. 5, 9, 17, pp. 40-41.

 

97

that the ancient canons prohibiting divorce again be applied,117
as his own actions in putting away unwanted wives demonstrate,
the laxer conceptions of the marriage bond continued to pre-
vail.118

Besides channeling the sacred benefits of divine wor-
ship and the sacraments to his parishioners, the priest was to
give them constant inspirational guidance. The office of

preaching was, in the eyes of Charlemagne, pre-eminently what

 

pastoral care was all about. Reflecting the needs of Frankish
society with its low level of culture, Charlemagne believed
that good preaching should lay stress on the teaching and ex-
position of Christian theology as well as on religious and
moral exhortation to live a good life. The theology that the
priest was to teach and expound upon, in sermons on every Sun-
day and feastday, was the most basic and found its central
matter in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer. Thus the priest,
using language that his flock could understand, was commanded
to teach most assiduously belief in the Holy Trinity and
Christ's incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension
into heaven where He sits in judgment on all mankind. The

priest was also to preach in great detail on the sins that

 

117Ibid., no. 22, c. 43, p. 56.

118Schn'urer, Church and Culture, 1, 519-523; Amann,
L'époque caroliggienne, pp. 88-89. Cf. Hauck, Kirchenges-
chichte, II, 238.

98
would bring eternal punishment and stress the virtues that
would win heavenly reward.119 In addition to preaching the
major tenets of the faith, the priest was to impart to the
laity the wisdom of Scripture and the writings of the church
fathers. And to accomplish this, he was ordered to have in
his possession a homiliary containing Latin homilies trans- I
lated into the vernacular for the benefit of the laity.120

Finally, to have a just appreciation of the techniques of

 

preaching, the priest was to be familiar with the Liber regulae I

 

pastoralis of Gregory.121

 

As Charlemagne himself found on his visit to LiEge
where he questioned prospective godparents who could not re-
cite the Creed or the Lord's Prayer, the office of preaching
was often neglected by the priests.122 This was especially

true of the rural clergy. The Council of Arles in 813 found

 

119MGH, Capit., no. 22, cc. 32, 61, 82, pp. 56, 58,
61-62; no. 28, c. 33, p. 77; no. 36, cc. 4-5, p. 106; no. 38,
c. 10, p. 110; no. 64, c. 6, p. 153; no. 78, c. 14, p. 174;
MGH, Conc., no. 36, c. 25, p. 268.

 

120mg”, Capit., no. as. c. 10. p- 110; no- 116, cc- 5-
6, p. 234; no. 117, cc. 11-12, p. 235; MGH, Conc., no. 35, c.
15, p. 255; no. 38, c. 17, p. 288.

 

 

121MGH, Capit., no. 38, c. 10, p. 110; no. 117, o. 13,
p. 235; MGHJ Conc., no. 35, c. 10, p. 255; Schnfirer, Church
33d Culture, 1, 510-511; Laistner, Thought and Letters, pp.
194-195; Gaskoin, Alcuin, pp. 221-222. Cf. Hauck, Kirchen-
gggchichte, II, 252ff.

 

 

 

Izzmcg, Capit., no. 122, pp. 241-242.

 

99
it necessary to urge all priests, including those located
outside the cities, to preach to the people.123 At Tours, it
was reported to Alcuin that certain bishops were continuing
the older episcopal practice of monopolizing the office of
preaching and were forbidding its performance by the priests
in their dioceses. Probably, as Alcuin suspected, the report
was merely a mendacious rumor spread by priests Who were too
indolent or ignorant to perform the task themselves.124
A reading of the evidence makes it impossible to avoid
the conclusion that in the office of preaching, as in the
other areas of pastoral care, priestly ignorance or lack of
education was the decisive factor influencing practice. In
his first capitulary of 769, an exasperated Charlemagne sought
to lift the veil of priestly ignorance affecting preaching by
decreeing that:
Whoever, after frequent admonishments from his

bishop concerning the state of his knowledge, shall

have neglected his learning shall be removed from

office and lose the church which he held; for those

who are ignorant of the law of God cannot proclaim
or preach it to others.125

 

123mH,_Conc., no. 34, c. 10, p. 251.

 

124MGH 52,, IV, no. 136, pp. 209-210; Gaskoin, Alcuin,
p. 221.

125MGH,_,Ca_pit., no. 19, c. 16, p. 46: "Quicunque autem
a suo episcopo frequenter admonitus de sua scientia, ut discere
curet, facere neglexerit, procul dubio et ab officio removeatur
et ecclesiam quam tenet amittat, quia ignorantes legem Dei eam
aliis annuntiare et praedicare non possunt."

 

 

100

But as the tenor of the decrees embodied in the Admonitio

 

generalis of 789 indicates the proclamation of 769, in too

 

many instances, fell on deaf ears. For we find Charlemagne
ordering his bishops to examine their priests, not for their
acquaintance with a homiliary or with the pastoral rule of
Gregory, but simply to discover if they understood and could
teach the Lord's Prayer and the Creed to others without in-
serting uncanonical doctrine!126 The later capitularies and
canons admonishing the clergy and the laity to master these
most basic precepts of the Church bear witness to the fact
that the priests were not vigorously performing the office of

preaching.127 The evidence of the Epistola generalis reveal-

 

ing the shortage of homiletic texts and the corrupt state of
those in existence only confirms this conclusion.128

We may end our discussion of pastoral care with respect

to the office of preaching by citing the wise course of action

 

126Ibid., no. 22, cc. 70. 32, pp. 59. 61-

127MGH,Capit., no. 28, c. 33, p. 77; no. 35, cc. 29-
30, p. 103; no. 36, c. 5, p. 106; no. 38, c. 9, p. 110; no. 60,
c. 2, p. 147; no. 120, c. 3, p. 238; no. 121, p. 239; no. 177,
c. 2, p. 363; MGH, Conc., no. 35, cc. 1-2, p. 254. The Council
of Mainz in 813 urged that those who failed to learn the Creed
and the Lord's Prayer were to be castigated with fasting or
some other penance. Children were to be taught by the monks
and priests to recite these prayers in Latin if possible, but
in their native tongue if necessary, so that they in turn
could teach those at home (MGH, Conc., no. 36, c. 45, pp. 271-
272).

 

 

 

IZBMGH, CQBito: no. 30, pp. 80-81; Laistner, Thought
and Letters, p. 195.

 

 

 

101
pursued by Bishop Theodulf of Orleans. Confronted by the
very real problem of priestly ignorance, he exhorted his
priests, each according to his own abilities, to preach to
the people. Thus he stated:

He who knows the Scriptures, let him preach the
Scriptures, but he who does not know them, let him
at least say to the people what is very familiar,
that they "turn from evil and do good, seek peace '4
and pursue it, because the eyes of the Lord are upon
the righteous and his ears are turned to their I
prayers," etc. No one can therefore excuse himself
because he does not have a tongue which he can use
to edify someone. For when he shall see anyone in
error, he can at once, to the best of his ability 5
and powers, by arguing, pleading, reproving, with-
draw him from his error and exhort him to do good
works. But when, with the Lord's help, we assemble
together for a synod, let each man know how to tell
us how much he has accomplished with help from the
Lord, or what fruit he has accomplished. And if any
man perhaps needs our aid, let him tell us this in
love, and we with no less love will not postpone
bringing aid to him as we are able.

 

 

129Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae,
c. 28, Migne, 5g, CV, 200: "Qui Scripturas scit, praedicet
Scripturas: qui vero nescit, saltem hoc, quod notissimum est,
plebibus dicat: Ut declinent a malo, et faciant bonum;
inquirant pacem, et sequantur eam, quia oculi Domini super
justos, et aures ejus ad preces eorum, etc. Nullus ergo se
excusare poterit, quod non habeat linguam, unde possit aliquem
aedificare. Mox enim, ut quemlibet errantem viderit, prout
potest et valet, aut arguendo, aut obsecrando, aut increpando,
ab errore retrahat, et ad peragendum bonum opus hortetur. Cum
vero, Domino opitulante, ad synodum in unum convenerimus, sciat
nobis unusquisque dicere, quantum Domino adjuvante laboraverit,
aut quem fructum acquisierit. Et si quis forte nostro indiget
adjutorio, nos cum charitate admoneat, et nos cum charitate
nihilominus ei pro viribus adjutorium ferre non differemus."
Text: Theodulph of Orleans, "Precepts to the Priests of His
Diocese" in George E. McCracken and Allen Cabaniss (eds.),
Early Medieval Theology, Vol. IX of The Library of Christian
Classics, ed. John Baillie, John T. McNeill, and Henry P. Van
Dusen (Philadelphia, 1957), pp. 379-399 (hereafter cited as

 

102
In the Carolingian era, pastoral solicitude en-

compassed not only the minds and souls of Christians, but
their bodies as well. The priest was expected to succor the
poor and the sick, the widow and the orphan, the pilgrim and
the traveler with works of charity. Affording charity to the
needy had in earlier times been solely an episcopal and F
monastic responsibility. With the development of the paro-

chial system, however, this charge devolved also upon the

 

parish priest. Under Charlemagne, responsibility for the

‘fi

weak and needy did not end with the clergy. He saw it as in-
cumbent upon all of his subjects as part of their oath of
fidelity. And finally, in his person, he made the state the
ultimate refuge of the destitute. As he so forcefully ex-
pressed it: "No one shall presume to rob or do any injury
fraudulently to the churches of God or widows or orphans or
pilgrims; for the lord emperor himself, after God and His
saints, has constituted himself their protector and de-

fender."130

 

McCracken and Cabaniss (eds.), Early Medieval Theology). Cf.
H. Dressler, "Preaching," in New Catholic Encyclopedia, XI
(1967), 686-687; Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, II, 254-255.

 

 

13°MGH,,Capit., no. 33, c. 5, p. 93: "Ut sanctis
ecclesiis Dei neque viduis neque orphanis neque peregrinis
fraude vel rapinam vel aliquit iniuriae quis facere presumat;
quia ipse domnus imperator, post Domini et sanctis eius, eorum
et protector et defensor esse constitutus est." Text: Trans-
lations and Reprints, Vbl. VI, no. 5, p. 17; SchnUrer, Church
and Culture, 1, 488-489.

 

 

103

At the parish level, the work of charity was largely
centered in the matricula_pauperum or register of the poor.
Only members of the parish who were unable to support them-
selves were inscribed on the register and thereby entitled
to sustenance from church revenues.131 The paucity of our
sources, however, does not permit an appraisal of this in-
stitution132 nor can we assess the priestly operation of the
hospices that Charlemagne ordered to be maintained for the
transient poor and the wayfarer.133 Support for these chari-
table enterprises came from the ecclesiastical tithes and
other offerings of the faithful. Depending on the locality,
one third or one fourth of these revenues was set aside for
charity.134 However, as has been indicated, the poor physical
state of Carolingian churches reflected the fact that these

revenues were often not received or were put to other uses.

 

131H. Leclercq, "Paroisses rurales," in DACL. X111:
2 (1938), 2233.

132See Emile Lesne, "La matricule des pauvres a
l'époque Carolingienne," Revue Mabillon, XXIV (1934), 105-123.

133nm, Capit., no. 22, c. 75, p. 60; no. 23, c. 35,
p. 77; no. 120, c. a, p. 238.

 

134Theodulf instructed his priests to use all of the
tithes and oblations that they received for the support of the
poor, pilgrims, and travelers (Capitulare ad eosdem, Migne,
‘EL, CV, 209). For an excellent discussion of the confusion
that existed throughout the Carolingian period over the proper
distribution of tithes, see Constable, Mbnastic Tithes, pp.
47-56.

 

 

104

In fact, the legislation of Charlemagne's later years suggests
that the poor and the defenseless were growing in number and
that they suffered greatly from the oppression of the rich
and powerful.135 And apparently the suffering of the poor
was not ameliorated by the activities of the priests in many
instances. For as the Emperor lamented in a capitulary of
811, not only laymen, but even churchmen, far from performing
the office of charity, were actively despoiling the poor of
their property.136

With these brief comments on the subject of charity,
our discussion of pastoral care comes to a close. In our ex-
amination of divine worship, the sacraments, preaching, and
charity, we have found that the actual practice of pastoral
care in the Carolingian era was seriously deficient. The
mutilation by priests of the rite of the Mass and their neg-
ligence in communicating the sacraments reflect the inability
of the Carolingians to affect needed reforms in the face of
the centrifugal tendencies of the proprietary church system.
The majority of priests, as has been stated, were included in
the proprietary regime. It appears that very often, because

of ignorance or negligence, they failed to respond to the

 

135See MGH, Capit., no. 33, cc. 1, S, 15, pp. 92-94;
no. 34, c. 19, p. 101; no. 35, c. 59, p. 104; no. 64, c. 20,
p. 154; no. 68, c. l, p. 157; no. 69, c. 3, p. 158.

 

1361bid., no. 73, cc. 1-3, pp. 164-165.

 

105
repeated instructions and admonitions to better the conduct
of their ministry.

The picture, however, is not entirely negative. As
we have seen, many of the elements that comprised pastoral
care were in a state of flux. Sacraments such as Penance
and extreme unction were in the process of attaining final
formulation through the collective experiences of numerous
priests. And perhaps this is the real significance that
emerges from the developments of the period under discussion.
Though his level of life and culture too often differed but
little from that of his untutored flock, nevertheless, the
Carolingian priest played a creative role in the cause of

religion.

CHAPTER V

THE PRIEST IN SOCIETY

For the priest, the care of souls does not end when
he has discharged the pastoral responsibilities of his office.
The very nature of his vocation demands that he conduct all
of his life activities so as to give a good example to his
flock. Given the superstitious, semi-barbaric character of
Carolingian society in which the ideals of manhood were best
expressed in hunting, carousing, and fighting, men of good
character who would encourage more civilized behavior were
especially needed in the priesthood. The endeavor of the
Carolingian church reformers, therefore, was to stress the
unique position of the priest in society and to discourage him
from all secular involvement that would detract from his role
as a moral leader. The priest was continually enjoined to
lead a good life and to provide the highest model of Christian
conduct for the emulation of his followers. In what follows,
we shall focus our attention on selected aspects of sacer-
dotal life in Carolingian society so as to make some assess-

ment of the priest's ability to give moral leadership.

106

 

107

We may begin our survey of priestly life in Carolin-
gian society by recalling (see Chapter Three) that St. Boniface
in the early years of the eighth century found an almost total
absence of canonical discipline in the Frankish Church. The
ranks of the clergy, as he discovered, were filled with men
whose lives were given over to every imaginable debauchery. i
As was indicated, the great reforming councils inspired by St.
Boniface sought to achieve a moral regeneration of the Frankish

Church by restoring canonical discipline. A major problem

“J:— «

confronting the reformers was the sexual immorality of the
clergy. The incontinence of the latter extended far beyond
the mere violation of the code of celibacy promulgated by

earlier church legislation to include every kind of sexual

vice.1

Regarding ecclesiastical celibacy, the discipline that
had obtained into the seventh century and that had been as-
serted by numerous church councils had forbidden the marriage
of those in holy orders. Those who had married before taking
orders had been permitted to cohabit with their wives pro-
vided they treated them as sisters. Needless to say, this
discipline had been difficult to enforce, and in the early

eighth century it had all but disappeared. St. Boniface found

 

1Henry C. Lea, History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the
Christian Church (London, 1907), I, 144-145 (hereafter cited

as Lea, Sacerdotal Celibacy).

 

108

that concubinage and sacrilegious marriages, including polyg-
amous unions, were common features of clerical life.2

The first Bonifacian reform council held under Carlo-
mann in 742 took vigorous action against clerical promiscuity.
Unchaste priests and other clergy were to be stripped of their
benefices, degraded, and put to penance.3 Bishops were charged
with close surveillance of their priests to ensure their chas-
tity.‘ Harsh penalties were to be applied to all the clergy
who henceforth fell into carnal sin. At a minimum, errant
priests were to be whipped until they bled and placed in prison
for two years on bread and water.5 Carlomann reasserted this
discipline in 743,6 while Pippin in the following year passed
less stringent legislation forbidding unchastity among the
clergy.7 The reinvigoration of canonical life for the secular
clergy was also important in regulating priestly morality.

The rule of St. Chrodegang discouraged all intercourse by

 

zBonifacgJ Ep., no. 50, pp. 82-83; no. 51, pp. 87-88;
Willibald, "Life of St. Boniface" in Talbot, The Agglo-Saxon
Missionaries in Germany, pp. 50-51; Lagarde, The Latin Church,
pp. 383-385. cr. H. Leclercq, "Célibat," in DACL, II, 2
(1925), 2820-2821.

 

 

 

3mm, Capit., no. 10, c. 1, p. 25.

 

41818., no. 10, c. 3, p. 25.
51bido, DO. 10, Co 6, pp. 25-26.
61bid., no. 11, c. 1, pp. 27-28.

7Ibid., no. 12, c. 3, p. 29.

109

priests with women and punished transgressors with floggings,
imprisonment, and deposition.8 Finally, legislation was en-
acted prohibiting cohabitation by the priest with any woman
unless she was above suspicion, such as a mother, a sister, or
a niece.9 Though our sources are silent on the matter,10 it
may be surmised that under this dispensation, married men who
entered the priesthood could no longer live with their wives.11

It appears, however, that priestly indulgence in carnal
pleasures, though perhaps less blatantly practiced as a result
of the efforts at reform, continued to be a very serious prob-
lem throughout the Carolingian period. The repeated enact-
ments against priestly cohabitation with women who were not

above suspicion,12 as well as the many canons and capitularies

 

88. Chrodegang, Regula Canonicorum, CC. 13, 29, 56, 66,
68, 70, Migne, EL, LXXXIX, 1065, 1070-1071, 1083-1084, 1088.

 

9MGH, Capit., no. 10, c. 7, p. 26; no. 12, c. 8, p. 30;
MGH, Conc., no. 1, c. 7, p. 4; no. 4, c. 8, p. 35; Lea, Sacer-
dotal Celibacy, I, 147-152; Lagarde, The Latin Church, 385-386.

 

 

 

10Carlo de Clercq, La legislation religieuse franque,
pp. 300-301.

11A capitulary (M63, Capit., no. 120, c. 2, p. 237),
issued perhaps in 809, orders priests to avoid consorting with
women altogether and forbids cohabitation.

 

12See MGH,_Capit., no. 22, c. 4, p. 54; no. 33, c. 24,
p. 96; no. 35, c. 3, p. 102; no. 36, c. 15, p. 107; no. 37,
c. 9, p. 108; no. 119, c. 6, p. 237; no. 123, cc. 1-2, p. 243;
MGHJ Conc., no. 24, c. 17, p. 210; no. 35, c. 22, p. 256;
no. 36, c. 49, p. 272.

 

 

110
directed toward regulating priestly admission into nun—
neries,13 are examples of the ineffectual attempts made to
eradicate the evil. The details of this legislation make it
appear that the priests had to be physically kept out of temp-
tation's way at all costs or they would easily succumb. To
take an example from a capitulary issued by Bishop Ghaerbald
to his diocesan priests:

As the holy council of Nice interdicts, no priest
may be permitted to have extraneous women in his house,
with the exception of a mother, a sister, or an aunt.
In addition, no priest may approach any woman secretly
in a bedroom or a storeroom. Should he do so after
this warning, he is to be removed from office; for
although we have frequently prohibited this, these
prohibitions have not been fully observed by the
priests. We therefore order that those who wish to
retain their offices abstain in all ways from famil-
iarity with extraneous women, so that no evil occa-
sion arises to suggest sin, and so that no priest may
incur an evil reputation among the people.14

 

13See MGH, Capit., no. 33, c. 18, p. 95; no. 42, c. 5,
p. 119; no. 78, c. 5, p. 173; no. 79, c. 4, p. 175; MGH, Conc.,
no. 24, c. 21, p. 210; no. 34, c. 7, p. 251; no. 36, c. 26,
p. 268; no. 38, c. 29, p. 290.

 

 

14MGH,,Capit” no. 123, c. 1, p. 243: "Sicut sancta
synodus Nicena interdicit, nullus umquam presbyter in domo sua
habitare secum permittat mulierem extraneam, preter matrem et
sororem atque amitam vel materteram, vel etiam ad secretum
cubiculi vel cellarium nullus presbyter feminam aliquam adire
permittat; quod si fecerit post hec, sciat se ab honore
presbyteratus deponi. Quia hoc frequenter secundum canonicam
institutionem prohibuimus, et pleniter a presbyteris ob-
servatum non fuit; ideoque praecipimus ut qui gradus honoris
sui retinere vult omnibus modis a familiaritate extranearum
mulierum se abstinere faciat, ut nulla occasio inimico pateat
suggerendi peccatum, et famam malam a populo nullus eorum
incurrat." How far this distrust of the flesh extended is
further evidenced by Bishop Theodulf of Orleans who forbade

 

111

Under these circumstances, then, it is not surprising that
clerical licentiousness was common--so much so that we find
Charlemagne in a capitulary of 811 posing the question as to
whether the clergy differed from the laity only in the fact
that they did not bear arms and were not married in public.15

But in fact, secular priests often did bear arms in
combat or for protection. They also frequently indulged in
the other manly pursuits of hunting and carousing. The
distinction made by Charlemagne that the clergy did not bear
arms is open to serious question in view of the need for pro-
tection in a violent age,16 but more particularly because of
the military dependence of the monarchy on the support of
churchmen. As the evidence of St. Boniface tells us, the
Franks in the first decades of the eighth century made no

distinction between laymen and priests when it came to

 

the sharing of residence by priests with even their mothers or
sisters lest the latter's presence lead to incestuous crime or
attract other women who might offer enticement. See Theodulf,
Capitula adgpresbyteros parochiae suae, c. 12, Migne, EL, CV,
195; Theodulf, Capitulare ad eosdem, Migne, EL, CV, 209.

15MGH, Capit., no. 72, c. 4, p. 163; Lea, Sacerdotal
Celibacy, I, 153.

 

16The priests and other clergymen, however, were ad-
vised to put greater confidence in God's protection than in
arms. See MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 70, p. 59; no. 35, c. 37,
p. 103. Cf. H. Leclercq, "Paroisses Rurales," in DACL,
x111, 2 (1938), 2214-2215.

 

112

military service.17 One of the first important measures
taken by the Bonifacian reform council of 742, held under
Carlomann, was to prohibit without exception all clerical par-
ticipation in warfare. Bishops, priests, and other clergy
who accompanied the armies were to perform strictly religious
duties.18 This edict, however, was stillborn. For both
Pippin and Charlemagne regularly called upon their church
prelates to muster themselves and their men for service in the
army.19 And given the fact that Frankish bishops had martial
responsibilities, it is not surprising to find that they failed
to give vigorous enforcement to the royal and conciliar de-
crees prohibiting the bearing of arms and the shedding of
blood by the lesser clergy.20

More often, priests bore arms because of the attrac-
tions of hunting. In general, the clergy ignored the decrees

seeking to keep them out of the fields and forests and

 

17Boniface, Ep., no. 50, p. 83; no. 51, pp. 87-88;
no. 61, p. 126.

 

18MGH,,Capit” no. 10, c. 2, p. 25.

 

19Lesne, Laflpropriété'ecclesiastique, II, 131-132.

 

20For examples of this prohibitory legislation, see:
MGH, Capit., no. 12, c. 3, p. 29; no. 16, c. 16, p. 41; no.
19, cc. 1-2, 5, pp. 44-45; no. 22, c. 70, p. 59; no. 35,
c. 37, p. 103; no. 36, c. 18, p. 107; no. 123, c. 3, p. 243;
MGH,;Conc., no. 6, p. 47; no. 22, cc. 1, 7, pp. 197, 199;
no. 36, c. 17, p. 266.

 

 

113
prohibiting to them the possession of hunting dogs and
birds.21 So serious did the problem become that we find Char-
lemagne in 802 ordering:
That no bishops, abbots, priests, deacons, or
other members of the clergy shall presume to have
dogs for hunting, or hawks, falcons and sparrow-
hawks, but each shall observe fully the canons or
rule of his order. If any one shall presume to do
so, let him know that he shall lose his office.
And in addition he shall suffer such punishment for
it that the others will be afraid to usurp such things
for themselves.22
For many priests, carousing at a banquet or in a tavern
was an even more attractive pastime than the hunt. The admo-
nitions of Bishop Ghaerbald of Liege to his priests may be
taken as typical of the concerns expressed by the reformers
regarding clerical dissipation. Ghaerbald admonished his
priests that they must not dare to enter taverns where they

might mingle with worldly men, hear or speak evil words, or get

into argument or altercation.23 When the priests were invited

<w—r- -‘1_-—

 

 

21See MGH, Capit., no. 10, c. 2, p. 25; no. 12, c. 3,
p. 29; no. 19, c. 3, p. 45; no. 23, c. 31, p. 64; MGH, Conc.,
no. 6, p. 47; no. 38, c. 8, p. 287.

 

 

22MGH,_Capit., no. 33, c. 19, p. 95: "Ut episcopi,
abbates, presbiteri, diaconus nullusque ex omni clero canes ad
venandum aut acceptores, falcones seu sparvarios habere
presumant, sed pleniter se unusquisque in ordine suo canonice
vel regulariter custodiant. Qui autem presumserit, sciat
unusquisque honorem suum perdere. Caeteri vero tale exinde
damnum patiatur, ut reliqui metum habeant talia sibi usurpare."
Text: Translations and Reprints, V01. VI, no. 5, p. 22.

 

 

23MGH, Capit., no. 123, c. 4, p. 243.

 

114
to feasts by any of the faithful, they were to deport them-
selves as men of God and practice moderation, temperance, and
self-control.24 Above all, the priests were to avoid the evil
of drunkenness so as to be able to administer the sacraments
in cases of emergency and perform the normal tasks of their
office without faltering.25 Theodulf of Orleans went over
much the same detail in his orders to his priests to lead
abstemious lives and teach their parishioners by good example
as well as by preaching on the subject. When asked by the
brethren to partake of food and drink, the priests were to
give them spiritual refreshment in return.26
As the many edicts on the subject indicate, the pro-
hibition of drunkenness and other forms of dissolute behavior
on the part of the clergy was no idle concern.27 One of the
more graphic of these states:
Let the priests, according to the Apostle's ad-
vice, withdraw themselves from revellings and drunk-

enness: for some of them are accustomed to sit up
till midnight or later, boozing with their neighbours:

 

241616., no. 123, c. 6, p. 243.
251bid., no. 123, c. 8, p. 243.

26Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros_parochiae suae,
c. 13, Migne, EL, CV, 195.

27See MGH, Capit., no. 22, c. 14, p. 55; no. 28, c. 19,
p. 76; no. 33, c. 22, pp. 95-96; no. 35, c. 4, p. 102; no. 36, '
cc. l4, 19, p. 107; no. 119, cc. 7-8, p. 237; no. 120, cc. 4,
7, p. 238; no. 177, c. 10, p. 364.

 

115

and then these men, who ought to be of a religious and

holy department, return to their churches drunken and

gorged with food, and unable to perform the daily and

nightly office of praise to God, while others sink

down in a drunken sleep in the place of their revels.28
The reforming councils of 813 took especial note of the wide-
spread evil of drunkenness among both the clergy and the laity
and ordered that excommunication be applied to the guilty.29

Along with the interdictions placed against unchas-

tity, the bearing of arms, hunting, and carousing, the priests
were warned against cursing, joining in worldly games and
song, and attendance at plays or other immodest exhibitions.30
Participation in some or in all of these secular activities

meant in too many instances that Carolingian priests were

little distinguishable in their behavior from the laity. So

 

281bid., no. 120, c. 4, p. 238: ". . . ut ipsi
presbyteri a comessationibus, potationibus, ut apostolus monet,
se subtrahant; nam quidam illorum cum quibusdam vicinis suis
utuntur usque ad mediam noctem et eo amplius cum ipsis bibendo
morantur; et qui religiosi et sancti esse videntur non quidem
tunc ibi manent, sed tamen saturati vel ebrii revertuntur ad
ecclesias suas et neque in die neque in nocte officium Deo in
ecclesia sibi credita persolvunt; nonnulli vero in eodem loco,
ubi ad convivium pergunt, dormiunt." Text: Thomas Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders 774-814, Vol. VIII: The Frankish Em-
pire (Oxford, 1899), p. 289.

 

29MGH, Conc., no. 35, cc. 18, 26, pp. 255-256; no. 36,
c. 46, p. 272; no. 37, cc. 10, 44, pp. 276, 282; no. 38,
c. 21, p. 289.

 

30MGH,Capit., no. 33, c. 23, p. 96; no. 36, c. 20,
p. 107; no. 120, c. 7, p. 238; MGH,#Conc., no. 36, cc. 10, 14,
pp. 263-265; no. 38, cc. 7, 8, 43, pp. 287, 292.

 

 

116

much was this the case that often priests wore the same cloth-
ing as laymen. They put aside (if they owned them at all) the
cassock and stole, which they were ordered to wear in public
so that they would be easily recognizable, and donned the
shorter cloaks worn by laymen.31 As a result, priests had to
be cautioned against wearing showy or martial dress.32 And
we can well believe that an undated address by an unknown
bishop to his diocesan clergy in which priests are instructed
not to wear riding spurs or knives strapped to their sides
when officiating at Mass captures an important part of the
flavor of sacerdotal life among the rural parishes in our
period.33

Obviously, promiscuity, combativeness, and dissipation
on the part of priests did not conduce to a role of moral lead-
ership. However, these were not the only worldly paths taken
by priests which detracted from their pastoral image. Their
involvement in secular affairs was perhaps nowhere more evi-

dent than in their avid participation in the activities of the

 

31MGH, Capit., no. 10, c. 7, p. 26; no. 12, c. 3,
p. 29; MGH, Conc., no. 6, p. 47; no. 22, cc. 1, 7, pp. 197,
199; no. 36, c. 28, p. 268.

 

32MGHLConc” no. 6, p. 47.

 

33Anonymous, "Address to the Clergy" in McCracken and
Cabaniss (eds.), Early Medieval Theology, p. 375. The editors
(pp. 371-373) state that no critical text of this address has
yet been published and speculate that it was composed before
855, probably in Gaul.

 

 

117

marketplace and in their pursuit of material betterment. As
has been stated, men who sprang from the lowest classes of
society often found that entrance into the priesthood opened
up avenues for personal advancement in social and economic
power. In the history of civilizations, the scribe, no matter
how minimal his education, has been at an advantage over his
ignorant fellows. In the Carolingian period, this truth is
vital to an understanding of the role that the priest played
in society. Very often his scribal talents were called upon
for the drafting of a charter or the preparation of other
legal and economic documents. Lay and ecclesiastical lords
utilized priests-as bailiffs or as business agents for the
management of their property and the regulation of their es-
tates. And the priests were not slow in taking advantage of
this need for their services to better their own condition.34

But there were other factors that induced priests to
become "slaves to the gluttony and cupidity of this world."
The most important of these was the fact that, as indicated
earlier, Carolingian churches, especially those in the rural
areas, often failed to receive their legitimate income from
benefice holders. Nor did they in many instances receive the

ecclesiastical tithe, one fourth of which was generally

 

3414811, Capit., no. 14, c. 16, p. 36; no. 81, c. 13,
p. 179; MGH, Cbnc., no. 37, cc. 12, 44, pp. 276, 282.

 

 

 

118

designated for the support of the priest and their clergy.

Not only did priests suffer financial abuse from lay pro-
prietors who diverted the revenues of their churches for their
own purposes, but they were also exposed on many occasions to
the venality and rapacity of their ecclesiastical superiors.
As the canons issued in 813 at the Council of Chalon inform
us, there were bishops who acted more like temporal lords and
tyrannized over their parochial clergy by exacting unjust

35

taxes, extorting exorbitant visitation fees, and placing

 

a charge not only on ordinations, but also on church dedi-
cations, and on holy oil. Some bishops even conSpired with
the counts to defraud their priests of the ecclesiastical
tithe by accepting bribes for its nonenforcement.36

Schooled by the evil practices of their superiors,

then, it is no surprise to find that many priests, often out

 

35Alcuin while at Tours became especially indignant
with Bishop Raganbert of Limoges who sought to enforce a novel

tax on the property and priests of St. Martin's. The penalty
imposed by the bishop if the tax (consisting of stipulated
measures of such items as wine, bread, feed, eggs, and fish)
was not paid was the interdiction of the singing of Mass in
the defaulting priest's church. See MGH, Ep., IV, no. 298,
p. 457. In the diocese of worms, Bishop Bernarius, a con-
temporary of Alcuin, refused to appoint a priest to celebrate
the Mass in the churches of the monastery of Hornbach because
(it was believed) the monks there had refused to care for his
horse at their expense. See ibid., IV, no. 34, p. 551.

36MGH, Conc., no. 37, cc. 14-19, pp. 276-277; Boyd,
Tithes and Parishes, pp. 43-45.

 

119

of necessity, "labored day and night" for their own personal
aggrandizement. Thus, despite the civil and ecclesiastical
prohibitions placed against usury, priests in many instances
used the revenues of their churches as capital to become
moneylenders turning their churches into countinghouses.37
Some of these became, in effect, bankers who not only put out
loans at interest but also provided fiduciary services to
those in need.38 Inevitably, these interests drew them into
all the activities of the marketplace. And, as a good deal
of legislation prohibiting their participation in secular
business indicates, the material advantages to be derived from
commerce were attractions not easily to be ignored.39

So overtaken were some priests by their desire for
earthly gain and advancement that they did not scruple to vio-

late the sacred injunction against selling the spiritual gifts

 

 

37MGflJ,Capit., no. 22, cc. 5, 33, pp. 54, 56; no. 28,
c. 34, p. 77; no. 37, c. 11, p. 108; no. 120, cc. 2, 6, pp.
237-238; no. 123, c. 14, p. 244; no. 177, c. 17, p. 364; MGH,
Conc., no. 24, c. 10, p. 209; no. 35, cc. 28, 30, 32, p. 256.

38MGH, Capit., no. 36, c. 16, p. 107; no. 37, c. 4,
p. 108; no. 123’ CC. 16-17, p. 244.

 

39Ibid., no. 14, c. 16, p. 36; no. 22, c. 23, p. 55;
no. 23, c. 30, p. 64; no. 35, c. 9, p. 102; no. 37, c. 1,
p. 108; no. 113, c. 1, p. 231. The reforming councils of 813
were especially concerned with clerical involvement in secular
affairs. See MGH, Conc., no. 35, c. 30, p. 256; no. 36, c.
14, pp. 264-265; no. 37, c. 12, p. 276; no. 38, c. 8, p. 287.

120

which God freely gave to man. This abuse of the donum Dei

 

extended even to the selling of the sacraments of baptism and
the Holy Eucharist.40 Finally, the urge to better their
worldly condition led many priests to abuse the rights of their
fellow pastors by pursuing the sharpest of practices. Thus we
find Bishop Theodulf legislating: I
Let no presbyter persuade the faithful of the
holy church of God belonging to the parish of

another presbyter to leave their own church and
come to his church and give their tithes to him.41

 

The most ambitious priests, however, not satisfied with merely i
raiding the flock of another parish, strove to acquire the

church also. And again Theodulf throws light on an important

problem when we find him ordering:

If any presbyter shall be found to be giving a
bribe or to have given one to any man, cleric or lay,
so that he may steal away the church of another pres-
byter, let him know that for this theft and keen cov-
etousness, either he will lose his rank or he ought
to be kept in the toils of prison a long time doing
penance.42

 

4OMGH, Capit., no. 36, c. 12, pp. 106-107; no. 79,
c. 1, p. 175; no. 123, c. 5, p. 243.

 

41Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae,
c. 14, Migne, EL, CV, 195: "Nullus presbyter fidelibus
sanctae Dei Ecclesiae de alterius presbyteri parochia per-
suadeat, ut ad suam ecclesiam concurrant relicta propria
ecclesia, et suas decimas sibi dent . . ." Text: McCracken
and Cabaniss (eds.), Early Medieval Theology, p. 386.

 

 

42Theodulf, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae,
c. 16, Migne, EL, CV, 196: "Si quis presbyter inventus fuerit
alicui clerico aut laico munera dare, aut dedisse, ut ecclesiam
alterius presbyteri subripiat, sciat se pro hac rapina et saeva

121

These priests were often driven to such simoniacal practices
by the attractions of acquiring a more lucrative living.43
Unfortunately, their success in achieving this goal usually
came at the expense of their original churches which were
seriously diminished by their self-serving administration.44

Such heavy involvement by priests in the social and 1
economic activities of Carolingian society often led to
serious contentions that needed to be settled by judicial
action. In Merovingian times, civil and ecclesiastical courts :
had variously assumed jurisdiction over the clergy. Efforts
to secure clerical immunity from secular justice had met with
small success. The impetus of ecclesiastical reform, however,
led the Carolingians to make a serious attempt to set the
clergy apart from the rest of society in matters pertaining to
justice. Under Pippin, and especially under Charlemagne, leg-
islation was passed seeking to establish sacerdotal immunity
from secular tribunals. Thus, priests were not only to be

submissive to their bishops, they were to be judged by them

 

cupiditate, aut gradum ammissurum, aut in carceris aerumna
longo tempore poenitentiam agendo detinendum." Text: Mc-
Cracken and Cabaniss (eds.), Early Medieval Theology, p. 386.

 

43MGH, Capit., no. 36, c. 13, p. 107; no. 123, c. 7,
p. 243; MGH, Conc., no. 35, c. 20, p. 255; no. 38, c. 14,
p. 288.

 

 

44MGH,Capit., no. 18, c. 3, p. 43; no. 24, c. 3,
p. 65; no. 81, c. 11, p. 178.

 

122

also. And episcopal permission was necessary before cases
involving priests could be adjudicated in secular courts. A
judgment taken in an episcopal court could only be appealed
to the archbishop and finally to the king himself.45

The fact that the ultimate appeal could be made to the
secular power in itself introduced ambiguity into the judicial
system as far as ecclesiastical exclusiveness was concerned.
As the repeated injunctions against the use of secular courts

by the clergy attest, practical enforcement of the principle

 

of sacerdotal immunity was impossible.46 Priests, especially
those in the rural areas who led lives given over largely to
secular concerns and whose churches were used as public court-
houses, did not hesitate to seek the convenience of secular
justice. An enactment of 794 attempted a compromise by order-
ing that a mixed lay and ecclesiastical tribunal be used to
adjudicate cases involving laymen and clergy.47 And, as a
capitulary of 805 ordering public judges to expedite suits

involving churches, widows, and orphans indicates, secular

 

45Ibid., no. 13, c. 7, p. 32; no. 14, cc. 9, 18,
pp. 35-36; no. 19, c. 17, p. 46; Lea, Studies in Church His-
tory, pp. 176-178. Cf. H. Leclercq, "Juridiction," in DACL,
VIII, I (1928), 485-498; H. Leclercq, "Tribunal du clerc,"
in DACL, XV, 2 (1953), 2761-2781.

 

46MGHiCapit” no. 22, cc. 28, 38, p. 56; no. 35,
c. 17, p. 103; no. 36, c. 16, p. 107; no. 84, c. 9, p. 183;
MGH,yConc., no. 24, c. 3, p. 207; no. 37, c. 11, p. 276.

 

 

47MGH, Capit., no. 28, c. 30, p. 77.

 

123

courts regularly handled ecclesiastical cases.48 Finally,
that priests often ignored the episcopal courts even at the
risk of excommunication and deposition is indicated by their
persistent attempts to secure royal justice without first
obtaining permission of their bishops.49

Thus, even where benefit of clergy was concerned, the
efforts by the Carolingians to stress the unique character of
the priest in society and to discourage him from all secular
involvement met with poor success. As our review of selected
aspects of sacerdotal life in Carolingian society reveals, a
large segment of the priestly population indiscriminately
participated in worldly affairs. They not only kept concu-
bines, bore arms, and took part in the hunt; they also caroused
in taverns, were convivial table companions, and involved them-
selves in a variety of economic pursuits. Such clerics, who
in effect differed little from the laity in the conduct of
their lives, we may conclude, were hardly in a position to give
moral leadership. Despite the best intentions of Charlemagne
and his ecclesiastical reformers expressed in many a canon and

capitulary, the necessary canonical discipline that would have

 

481816., no. 44, c. 2, p. 122.

49Ibid., no. 22, c. 10, p. 55; no. 28, cc. 6, 39,
pp. 74-75, 77; MGH, Conc., no. 24, c. 26, p. 210; no. 36, c.
24, p. 267; Lea, Studies in Church History, pp. 178-180.

124
insured exemplary conduct on the part of priest did not
obtain. For the period under discussion, then, this reform
legislation remained largely an oft-stated ideal and the
goal of achieving a morally pre-eminent priesthood remained

unrealized.

CONCLUSION

With our examination of the priest as he is revealed
in the sources completed we may now make some estimation as
1
to how he measured up to the Carolingian ideal set forth in 1
l

the De clericorum institutione of Rabanus Maurus. According

 

to Rabanus, Frankish priests attained to their office because
they were the chosen of God set apart from the commonality by
their possession of honor and merit and wisdom.1 That he was
speaking in this instance of the "present Church," that is, of
men in the real world of his age is an indication of the lofty
idealism that characterized the thinking of Carolingian re-
formers. This propensity to idealism often came, as was
stated at the outset of this paper, at the expense of neglect-
ing the practical application of energy to achieve necessary
reforms. Thus we would look in vain in the pages of Rabanus'
treatise to find any reference to patronage and the propri-
etary church regime as it affected the Frankish clergy. In-
stead of speaking to the actual needs of priests in a Carolin-

gian society in which the proprietary church was a dominant

 

10o. c1. inst., I, 2, 6, Migne, g, cvu, 287-298,
301-302.

 

125

126
reality, Rabanus, in the tradition of Alcuinian scholarship,
culls the books of earlier writers and holds up a model of
the priest that under the circumstances was impossible of
fulfillment..
As has been noted, the majority of Frankish churches
in the eighth and ninth centuries fell under proprietary

control and the bulk of the priesthood was recruited from the

ti

class of minor freemen and from the serf population. Under

 

this dispensation, priests were rarely selected on the ideal- é!
istic basis suggested by Rabanus. Rather, they were chosen
because of more mundane considerations. The motives for
choosing candidates for holy orders ranged from the selection
of a minor freeman for reasons of simony or property consid-
erations to the choice of a serf for reasons of mere seign-
ioral convenience. This meant that ordinations were often
irregular and that men who were morally unfit entered the
priesthood in great numbers. As we have seen in our study of
the priest in society, Carolingian legislation from the time
of St. Boniface is filled with repeated injunctions to the
clergy to abstain from dissolute behavior that included every
kind of vice. The indications, then, are that moral insuf-
ficiency was widespread in the ranks of the clergy.

Rabanus focused his greatest attention on the educa-

tional preparation of the candidate for priesthood while the

127
latter was serving in the various degrees of holy orders.
The ordained priest was seen ideally as a classical scholar
and a theologian whose training enabled him to understand the
Scriptures and the prayer of the Church and to perform the
pastoral duties of maintaining divine worship, administering
the sacraments, and preaching. The fact of priestly recruit-
ment from the lowest echelons of a semi-barbaric society did
make formal education for the priesthood a primary need. At
the same time, working with such culturally impoverished men
meant that a sophisticated educational program of the kind
prescribed by Rabanus was wholly unrealistic. In actuality,
our sources reveal that Carolingian education affecting the
priest remained, of necessity, very rudimentary; and fre-
quently priestly knowledge of even the Creed and the Lord's
Prayer was brought into question.

For Rabanus it followed logically that if men of the
best character were chosen for the priesthood and were prop-
erly indoctrinated, then they would be fully prepared for
their pastoral duties. But we have found that in the real
world of Carolingian society neither of his premises gener-
ally obtained. Consequently, there did not exist in fact a
priesthood with the necessary competence to carry on an ade-
quate program of pastoral care at the parish level despite all

reform efforts to legislate to the contrary.

128

Thus it must be concluded that the reformation of
ecclesiastical life envisioned by St. Boniface in which canon-
ical discipline would obtain throughout the Frankish Church
was far from realized at the time of Charlemagne's passing.
For in fact, the compromise made by the Carolingian monarchy
with the proprietary church system did not work. The prin-
ciple of private church ownership was fundamentally incompat-
ible with ecclesiastical reform and its divisive effects
could not be compensated for merely by legislation. But in
explaining the failure on the part of the ruling elite to
implement the reforms urged by St. Boniface, it is not enough
to point to the paradox of their position--that by counte-
nancing the evils of the proprietary church system the reform-
ist goals that they pursued remained ideals impossible of
attainment. In the final analysis, the political necessity
which induced the Carolingian rulers to use ecclesiastical
lands and prelates as a major prop of their military policy
dictated that the compromise be made. Charlemagne, it must
be said, sincerely tried to curtail the abuses of the pro-
prietary church regime, but inevitably his political policies

favored their evolution.

 

‘l'HE SCIJRCES

——— --=-m

 

f...-

 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

For convenience of reference, the edition of Rabanus

Maurus' De clericorum institutione published in J. P. Migne's

 

Patrologia Latina was used. The best edition of this work,

 

A. Knoepfler's Rabani Mauri De institutione clericorum libri

 

Eggg, includes an analysis of the sources used by Rabanus.
The most pertinent and detailed evidence for the life of the
Carolingian priest is to be found in the legislative and ad-
ministrative decrees contained in the royal capitularies and
in the canons of church councils. The standard recensions of

these primary sources remain A. Boretius' Capitularia regum

 

francorum and the Concilia aevi Karolini edited by A. Werming-

 

 

hoff in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. For the very im-

portant diocesan capitulary of Theodulf, Capitula ad presby-

 

teros parochiae suae, recourse must still be made to the early

 

edition published in the Patrologia Latina; a recent recension

 

of his Capitulare ad eosdem may be found in Carlo de Clercq,

 

La legislation religieuse franque de Clovis'a Charlemagne.

 

Next in importance in terms of its illumination of the
actual life of the priest in Carolingian society is the corre-

spondence. Here the letters of St. Boniface, Alcuin, and

129

 

130
Charlemagne are the most abundant and useful. The best edi-
tion of St. Boniface's letters is that of M. Tangl's Die

Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius. For the letters of Alcuin and

 

Charlemagne, reliance must still be placed upon the recensions
by E. D‘u'mmler, w. Gundlach, g_1_:__a_l_. of the Epistolae Karolini
3333. Important correspondence reflecting on the life of the
Frankish priest is also found in the papal letters contained

in the Codex Carolinus. Finally, with respect to pastoral

 

activities, enlightenment was gained from a reading of the
penitentials of which the principal works may be found trans-

lated by J. T. McNeil and H. M. Gamer in Medieval Handbooks

 

of Penance.

 

The limitations placed on the scope of this paper
dictated that no use be made of charters most of which deal
essentially with the granting or confirmation of donations
and immunities for the benefit of churches. An in-depth study
of the economic life of the priest, however, would necessitate
the use of the Diplomata Karolinorum edited by E. Mfihlbacher.
It should also be noted that little use was made of the annals,
23335, and gggtg of the period because, as a reading of them
reveals, they are generally lacking in specific detail con-
cerning the priest. Regarding the lives of saints, many of
which may be found critically edited in the Monumenta Germania

historica, Scriptores, the most important are those of

 

 

131
Anglo-Saxon missionaries. A convenient English translation
of the lives of the principal Anglo-Saxon saints may be found
in C. H. Talbot's The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany.
With respect to the secondary sources used in this
paper, a few of the more important works should be noted. The
general church histories such as Albert Hauck's Kirchenges-

chichte Deutschlands, Andre’ Lagarde's The Latin Church in the

 

 

I
Middle Ages, the Histoire de l'Eglise depuis les origines
jusqu”a nos jours edited by Augustin Fliche and Victor Martin,

and especially Gustav Schnurer's Church and Culture in the

 

Middle Ages were valuable for understanding the historical

 

context of the period. Mbre topical works such as A. Klein-

clausz's Charlemagne, E. S. Duckett's Alcuin, Friend of Char-

 

lemagge: His world and His Work, C. J. B. Gaskoin's Alcuin:

 

His Life and His WOrk, David Knowles' The Monastic Order in

 

 

England, and Wilhelm Levison's England and the Continent in

the Eighth Century provided valuable commentary. The schol-

 

arly articles published in the Dictionnaire d'archéblogie

 

chrétienne et de liturgie and in the Dictionnaire de théblogie

 

 

catholique were indispensable aids. Especially useful for the

 

critical study of canonical legislation were Carlo de Clercq's
La legislation religieuse franque de Clovis‘a Charlemagne, P.
Fournier and G. Le Bras' Histoire des collections canoniques

en occident, and Hefele-Leclercq's Histoire des conciles

 

 

 

132

d'aprs les documents originaux.

 

Henry G. J. Beck's The Pastoral Care of Souls in

 

South-East France During the Sixth Century is one of the very

 

few secondary publications that deals specifically with the
priest in Frankish society. To this work, this paper owes a
great debt. Much use was made of it for suggestions as to g
organization as well as for early developments in pastoral

care and in the proprietary church. With respect to the pro-

prietary church, an extensive bibliography has developed (see

 

Ifi,

Chapter II, note 9). The standard works on the subject are

those of Ulrich Stutz, Die Eigenkirche als Element des

 

mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechtes and Geschichte des

 

Kirchlichen Benefizialwesens von seinem Anfgngen bis auf die

Zeit des Alexanders III and Imbart de La Tour, "Les paroisses

 

rurales dans l'ancienne France du IVe au XIe siécle." To

these must be added the definitive volumes of Emile Lesne's
. ./ I /. .

HistOire de la propriete ecclesiastique en France.

For a comprehensive view of Carolingian education, re-
course was made to J. Bass Mullinger's old standard on the
subject, The Schools of Charles the Great and the Restoration
of Education in the Ninth Century and to M. L. W. Laistner's

incisively written Thogght and Letters in Western Eurgpe A.D.

 

/
500 to 900. Especially important were Pierre Riché's Edu-

 

cation et culture dans l'occident barbare, VIe-VIIIe siecles

133
I
and volumes four and five of Emile Lesne's magisterial
. . . I . .
HistOire de la proprieté'ecclésiastique en France.

Most helpful for the study of pastoral care and litur-
gical developments were L. Duchesne's still valuable work,
Christian Worship;, Its Origins and Evolution, J. A. Jungmann's
authoritative The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and De-

velopment (Missarum Sollemnia), and Gerald Ellard's illum-

 

inating Master Alcuin: A Partner of Our Piety. To these must

be added 0. D. watkin's A History of Penance along with the

 

 

critical commentary of J. T. McNeill and H. M.‘Gamer found in

the introduction to their work, Medieval Handbooks of Penance.

 

Finally, despite his anti-Catholic bias, H. C. Lea's Studies

in Church History, The Rise of the Temporal Power, Benefit

 

of Clergy, Excommunication still proves of great value in any

 

discussion of sacerdotal affairs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliographical Guides

Chevalier, Ulysse. Repertoire des sources historiques du
Moyen Age. 3 volumes. Paris, 1894-1907.

Dahlmann-Waitz. Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte.
3 volumes. Leipzig, 1931-1932.

Mblinier, Auguste. Les Sources de l'histoire de France.
6 volumes. Paris, 1901-1906.

Potthast, August. Bibliotheca Historica Medii Aevi. 2 vol-
umes. Berlin, 1896.

wattenbach, W., Levison, W., and Loewe, H. Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Fasc. I-II. Weimar,
1952-1953.

 

Primary Sources

Acta Sanctorum. Edited by Joannes Bollandus, et a1. 67 vol-
umes. Paris, 1863-1931.

The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany,Beingthe Lives of
SS. Willibrord, Bonifacel Stur LLeoba and Lebuin,tggether
with the Hodoeporicon of St. Willibald and a selection from
the correspondence of St. Boniface. Translated and edited
by C. H. Talbot. New York, 1954.

Anonymous. "Address to the Clergy" in McCracken, George E.
and Allen Cabaniss (eds.). Early Medieval Theology.
Vol. IX of The Library of Christian Classics. Edited by
John Baillie, John T. MCNeill, and Henry P. Van Dusen.
Philadelphia, 1957, pp. 371-378.

134

135

The Letters of Saint Boniface. Translated by Ephraim Emerton.
Vol. XXXI of Columbia University Records of Civilization.
New York, 1940.

 

 

Medieval Handbooks of Penance, A translation of the_principal
libri poenitentiales and selections from related documents
by John T. McNeill and Helena Mu Gamer. New York, 1938.

Monumenta Germaniae historica,,Diplomata Karolinorum: Die
Urkunden der Karolinger. Edited by A. Dopsch, et a1.
Hanover, 1906.

 

Monumenta Germaniae historical Epistolae. Edited by P. Ewald,
et a1. 8 volumes. Berlin, 1887-1939.

Menumenta Germaniae historicai Epistolae Selectae. Edited by
M. Tangl, et a1. 5 volumes. Berlin, 1916-1955.

Monumenta Germaniae historicanyeges, Legum Sectio II: Ca-
pitularia regum francorum. Edited by A. Boretius and
V. Krause. 2 volumes. Hanover, 1883-1897.

 

Menumenta Germaniae historicaLLegesL Legum Sectio III: Con-
cilia. Edited by B. Maassen and A. Werminghoff. 2 vol-
umes. Hanover, 1893-1924.

 

Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores. Edited by G. H.
Pertz, et a1. 32 volumes. Hanover, 1826-1934.

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina. Edited by J. P.
Migne. 221 volumes. Paris, 1844-1864.

 

 

Rabani Mauri De institutione clericorum libri tres. Edited
by A. Knoepfler. Munich, 1901.

 

The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Edited by Henry R. Percival.
vol. XIV of A Select Library of Nicene and Pest-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff
and Henry Wace. Second series. Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1956.

 

 

 

Sources of Christian Theology. Edited by Paul F. Palmer.
3 volumes. Westminster, Maryland, 1955-1966.

 

Theodulph of Orleans. "Precepts to the Priests of His Dio-
cese" in McCracken, George E. and Allen Cabaniss (eds.).
Early Medieval Theology. V01. IX of The Library of Chris-
tian Classics. Edited by John Baillie, John T. McNeill,
and Henry P. Van Dusen. Philadelphia, 1957, pp. 379-399.

 

 

 

136

Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of Euro-
pean History. 6 volumes. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1894-1900.

 

Secondary Sources

Addleshawy G. ML 0. The Beginnings of the Parochial System.
London, 1954.

 

 

I

Amann,}Emile. L'époque carolingienne. V01. VI of Histoire de
l'Eglise depuis les origines jusqg”a nos jours. Edited by
Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin. Paris, 1947.

. "La péhitence privée," in Dictionnaire de théblogie
catholigge. XII (1933), 845-948.

 

Anciaux, Paul. The Sacrament of Penance. New York, 1962.

 

Baldwin, Marshall W. The Mediaeval Church. Ithaca, New York,
1953.

 

Baldwin, Summerfield. The Organization of Medieval Christian-
ity. Gloucester, Massachusetts, 1962.

 

Bareille, G. "Catébhuméhat," in Dictionnaire de théslogie
catholique, II, 2 (1910), 1968-1987.

 

Beck, Henry G. J. The Pastoral Care of Souls in South-East
France Duringthe Sixth Century. Romae apud Aedes Uni-
versitatis Gregorianae, 1950.

 

Boyd, Catherine E. Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy:
The Historical Roots of a Modern Problem. New York, 1952.

 

 

Brehier, Louis et René’Aigrain. Gregoire le Grand, les Etats
barbares et layconqugte arabsyLS90-757L. V01. V of
Histoire de l'Eglise depuis les origines jusqu’h nos jours.
Edited by Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin. Paris, 1947.

 

Cabrol,‘§. "Catechuméhat," in Dictionnaire d'archéSlogie
chretienne et de liturgie, II, 2 (1925), 2609-2612.

 

 

"Charlemagne et la liturgie," in Dictionnaire
d'archéSlogie chréiienne et de liturgie, III, 1 (1913),
807-825.

 

137

A Catholic Dictionary. Edited by William E. Addis and Thomas
Arnold. Fifteenth edition (revised). London, 1951.

Chaume, Maurice. "Le mode de constitution et de delimitation
des paroisses rurales aux temps merovingiens et carolin-
giens," Revue Mabillon, XXVII (1937), 61- 73.

 

Chelini, Jean. "Alcuin, Charlemagne et Saint- Martin de Tours,"
Revue d'histoire de l'eglise de France, XLVII (1961),
19-500

 

. "La pratique dominicale des laics dan l'eglise
franque sous 1e regne de pepin," Revue d'histoire de
l'eglise de France, XLII (1956), 161- 174.

 

Cimetier, F. "Office divin," in Dictionnaire de théblggie cath-
oligue, XI, 1 (1931), 955-960.

 

Clercq, Carlo de. La legislation religieuse franque de Clovis
a Charlema agn e, etude sur les actes de conciles et les
capitulaires les statuts diocesains et les r les mon-
astiques, 507-814. Paris, 1936.

 

 

 

Constable, Giles. Monastic Tithes: From Their Origins to the
Twelfth Century. Cambridge, 1964.

 

 

I
Delaruelle, Etienne. "Charlemagne et l'eglise," Revue d'his-
toire de l'eglise de France, xxxrx (1953), 165-199.

 

A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Edited by W. Smith and
S. Cheetham. 2 volumes. London, 1875-1880.

 

A Dictionary of Christian Biographyi Literaturenyect Land
Doctrines. Edited by W. Smith and H. Wace. 4 volumes.
London, 1877-1887.

 

 

Dill, Samuel. Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age.
London, 1926.

 

Dressler, H. "Preaching," in New Catholic Encyclopedia, XI
(1967), 684-689.

 

Duchesne, L. Christian Worship: Its Origins and Evolution.
A Study of the Latin Liturgy Up to the Time of Charlemagne.
Translated by M. L. MOC1ure. New York, 1910.

 

Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. AlcuinJ Friend of Charlemagne: His
World and His W0rk. New York, 1951.

138

Ellard, Gerald. Master Alcuin) Liturgist: A Partner of Our
Piety. Chicago, 1956.

 

Flick, Alexander Clarence. The Rise of the Medieval Church.
New York, 1909.

 

Fortescue, Adrian. The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy.
London, 1937.

 

Fournier, Paul and Gabriel LeBras. Histoire des collections
canonigues en occident depuis les fausses déEréEales
jusqu'au dgcret de Gratien. 2 volumes. Paris, 1931-1932.

 

 

 

Ganshof, Francois L. "The Impact of Charlemagne on the Insti-
tutions of the Frankish Realm," Speculum, XL (1965), 47-62.

. Wat waren de Capitularia? Brussel, 1955.

 

Gaskoin, C. J. B. Alcuin: His‘Life and His Work. New York,
1966.

Gaudel, A. "Messe dans l'eglise latine, Raban Maur," in
Dictionnaire de théblogie catholique, x, 1 (1928),
1004- 1006 a

Hatch, Edwin. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches.
London, 1881.

Hauck, Albert. Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands. 5 volumes in
6. Eighth edition. Berlin, 1954.

Hefele, Charles Joseph. Histoire des conciles d'apfes les
documents originaux, nouvelle traduction francaise faite
sur la deuxieme edition allemande corrigée et augmentée
de notes critiques et bibliographiques, par Dom H. Leclercq.
11 volumes. Paris, 1907-1952.

 

Hildesheimer, Ernest. "Les clercs et l'exemption du service
militaire a 1'époque franque (VIe-IXe sfecle)," Revue
d'histoire de l'eglise de France, XXIX (1943), 5-18.

 

Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy and Her Invaders. 8 volumes. Oxford,
1892-1899.

 

Imbart de la Tour, "Les paroisses rurales dans l'ancienne France
du IVe au XIe siEcle," Revue historigpe, LX (1896), 241-
271, LXI (1896), 10-44, LXIII (1897), 1-41, LXVII (1898),
1-35, LXVIII (1898), 1-54.

 

139

Jungmann, Joseph A. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins
and Development_(Missarum Sollemnia). Translated by
Francis A. Brunner. 2 volumes. New York, 1951.

 

 

. Public Worship: A Survey. Translated by Clifford
Howell. Collegeville, Minnesota, n. d.

 

Kempf, Friedrich, et al. The Church in the Age of Feudalism.
Translated by Anselm Biggs. Vol. III of Handbook of Church
History. Edited by Hubert Jedin and John Dolan. New York,
1969.

 

 

Klauser, Theodor. The Western Liturgy and Its History; Some
Reflections on Recent Studies. Translated by F. L. Cross.
London, 1952.

 

Kleinclausz, A. Charlemagne. Paris, 1934.

 

Knowles, David. The Evolution of Medieval Though . Baltimore,
1962.

. The Monastic Order in England, A History of Its
Development from the Times of St. Dunstan to the Fourth
Lateran Council, 943-1216. Cambridge, 1941.

 

 

Lagarde, Andrei The Latin Church in the Middle Ages. Trans-
lated by Archibald Alexander. New York, 1915.

 

Laistner, M. L. W. Thought and Letters in Western Europe
A.D. 500 to 900. Ithaca, New York, 1957.

 

Landon, Edward H. A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic
Church. 2 volumes. Edinburgh, 1909.

Latouche, Robert. The Birth of Western Economy, Economic
Aspects of the Dark Ages. Translated by E. M. Wilkinson.
New York, 1966.

 

Lea, Henry C. History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian
Church. 2 volumes. London, 1907.

. Studies in Church History, The Rise of the Temporal
Powery_Benefit of Clergy, Excommunication. Philadelphia,
1869._

 

 

/
LeBras, Gabriel. "Pour l'etude de la paroisse rurale," Revue
d'histoire de l'église de France, XXIII (1937), 486-502.

 

140

Leclercq, H. "Célibat," in Dictionnaire d'archéologie
chretienne et do liturgie, II, 2 (1925), 2810-2823.

. "Chanoines," in Dictionnaire d'archéologie
chretienne et de liturgie, III, 1 (1913), 223-248.

 

 

. "Charlemagne," in Dictionnaire d'archéSlogie
chretienne et do liturgie, III, 1 (1913), 710-737.

 

 

. . . . . . . I .
. "Juridiction," in Dictionnaire d'archeologie
chretienne et do liturgie, VIII, 1 (1928), 480-499.

 

 

. "Manse," in Dictionnaire d'archéologie chretienne
et do liturgie, x, 2 (1932), 1553-1565.

 

 

O O I 0‘ O O O O
. "Ordinations irregulieres," in Dictionnaire
d'archéologie chretienne et de liturgie, X11, 2 (1936),
2391-2401.

. "Paroisses rurales," in Dictionnaire d'archéologie
chEZtionne ot do liturgie, XIII, 2 (1938), 2198-2235.

 

 

. ‘rPropriété'ecclégiastique," in Dictionnaire
d'archeologie chretienne et do liturgie, XIV, 2 (1948),
1906-1924.

 

 

. "Rome. liturgie," in Dictionnaire d'archéblogie
chrétionne et de liturgie, XIV, 2 (1948), 3015-3053.

 

. "Tribunal du clerc," in Dictionnaire d'arché61ogie
chretienne et do liturgie, xv, 2 (1953), 2761-2781.

 

Leclercq, H. and F. Martroye. "Patronage," in Dictionnaire
d'archéSlogie chréfienne et de liturgie, XIII, 2 (1938),
2524-2568.

 

I
Lesne, Emile. Histoire de la propriété’ecclégiastigue en
France. 6 volumes. Lille and Paris, 1910-1943.

. "La matricule des pauvres a l'époque Carolingienne,"
Revue Mabillon, XXIV (1934), 105-123.

 

Levison, Wilhelm. England and the Continent in the Eighth
Century. London, 1949.

 

141

McNeill, John T. "The Feudalization of the Church," in Eg-
vironmental Factors in Christian History. Edited by
John Thomas McNeill, Matthew Spinka, Harold R. Willoughby.
Chicago, 1939, pp. 187-205.

 

. "Medicine for Sin As Prescribed in the Peniten-
tials," Church History, 1 (1932), 14-26.

 

Mombert, J. I. A History of Charles the Great (Charlemggne).
New York, 1888.

 

I
Monod, M. Gabriel. Etudes critiqpes sur les sources de
l'histoire caroliogienne. Fasc. CXIX of Bibliotheque de
l'ECO1e des Hautes Etudes. Paris, 1898.

 

 

 

 

. "Les moeurs judiciaires au VIIIe stcle d'apfhs la
Paraenesis ad Judices de ThéCdulf," Revue Historique,
XXXV (1887), 1-20.

 

Mullinger, J. Bass. The Schools of Charles the Great and the
Restoration of Education in the Ninth Century. New York,
1932.

 

 

Peltier H. "Raban Maur. Oeuvres," in Dictionnaire de
theologie catholiqpe. XIII, 2 (1937), 1601-1619.

 

 

P0schmann, Bernhard. Penance and the Anointing of the Sick.
Translated by Francis Courtney. New York, 1964.

Pride, Ellen Perry. "Ecclesiastical Legislation on Education,
A.D. 300-1200," Church History, XII (1943), 235-254.

/’
Riche: Pierre. Education et culture dans l'occident barbare,
VIe-VIIIe stclos. Paris, 1962.

 

 

Ruch, C. "Extreme opction du Ier au IXe sfecle," in Dic-
tionnaire de theologie catholique, V, 2 (1913), 1927-1985.

Salmon, P. "Roman Divine Office," in New’Catholic Encyclopedia,
IV (1967), 917-920.

 

Schnurer, Gustav. Church and Culture in the Middle Age .
Volume I: 350-814. Translated by George J. Undreiner.
Paterson, New Jersey, 1956.

 

Shepherd, Massey Hamilton Jr. "The Effect of the Barbarian
Invasions Upon the Liturgy," in Environmental Factors in
Christian History. Edited by John Thomas MbNeill, Matthew
Spinka, Harold R. Willoughby. Chicago, 1939, pp. 167-186.

 

142

Stewart, Benedict. The Development of Christian worship, An
Outline of Liturgical History. London, 1953.

 

 

Stutz, Ulrich. Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalter-
lich-germanischen Kirchenrechtes. Berlin, 1895.

 

 

"Eigenkirche, Eigenkloster," in Real-Enzyklopadie
fur prostestantische Theologie und Kirche. Edited by
Albert HauCk. Third edition. Leipzig, 1913. volume
XXIII, 364ff.

 

 

. Gepghichte des Kirchlichen Benefizialwesens von
seinem Anfangen bis auf die Zeit dos Alexanders III.
Tome 1. Berlin, 1895.

 

 

. "The Proprietary Church as an Element of Mediaeval
Germanic Ecclesiastical Law," in Mediaeval Germany;
911-1250,rEssoys by German Historians. Translated with
an introduction by Geoffrey Barraclough. Oxford, 1948.
volume II, pp. 35-70.

 

 

Sullivan, Richard E. "The Carolingian Missionary and the
Pagan," Speculum, XXVIII (1953), 705-740.

Thomas, Paul. Le droit de_propriété’des lagques sur les
églises et 1e patronagglaique au moyen ogg. Fasc. XIX
of Bibliothbque de 1' cole des Haute Etudes. Paris, 1906.

Thomson, P. D. Parish and Parish Churchinheir Place and
Influence in History. New York, 1948.

 

 

vogel, Cyrille. "La réforme liturgique sous Charlemagne," in
Karl der_grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben. Edited by
Wolfgang Braunfels. Dfisseldorf, 1965. Volume II,
pp. 217-232.

 

Wallach, Luitpold. Alcuin and Charlemogne: Studies in Caro-
lingian History and Literature. Ithaca, New York, 1959.

 

. "Charlemagne's De Litteris Colendis and Alcuin,
A Diplomatic-Historial Study," Speculum, XXVI (1951),
288-305.

 

watkins, Oscar D. A History of Penance. 2 volumes. New
York, 1961.

West, Andrew Fleming. Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian
Schools. New York, 1892.