var editData = {"errorMessage":"","dataLines":"Nicholas I\t429\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tUnnamed\tBishop\ti\tunspecified\tunspecified\t50.173538\t3.236633\tN\/A\tc\tanswer \/ response\tepiscopal\tCustom of popes to quote words of predecessors in letters\tFragment. Date unclear. Interesting idea of custom of quoting predecessors in letters.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t435\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\ts\tprompt\tadvice\tMay conclude friendship treaties with other non-Christian people.\tLouis taken to be in Milan. Fragment. Date unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t437\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiphanius\tBishop\ti\tunspecified\tunspecified\t50.173538\t3.236633\tp\tc\tprompt\tforbid\tForbid excommunicated priest from receiving communion with another bishop, punishment for unlawful communion\tFragment\/ Date unclear. Questions of authenticity but commentary states insufficient.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t438\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tRivoladrus\tBishop\ti\tAlet\tAbbey of Alet\t42.995035\t2.2574139\tp\tc\tprompt\treport\tPenance of triple murder. Commentary states according to Goetz and Poschmann, Pope's task in this and similar cases of penance is mitigation of punishment. \tDate unclear. Listed Alet as commentary mentions possibility but not certainty of this.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t439\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tJeremias\tBishop\ti\tunspecified\tunspecified\t50.173538\t3.236633\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tRebukes marriage between relatives.\tDate unclear. Commentary states unable to determine what bishopric sent to. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t441\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tLeo \tAbbot\ti\tSubiaco\tSubiaco Lazio\t41.9246531\t13.0936685\tp\tc\t(received)\tprivileges\tAsks for confirmation of privileges. \tDate unclear. Subiaco taken to be the town in Lazio.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t443\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tBishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tInstruction of baptized could be done by priests of each church like in Rome. \tDate unclear. Fragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t444\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tBishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\tinstruction\tInvestigate marriage.\tDate unclear. Fragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t446\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tBishops of Louis the German's Kingdom\tBishop\tg\tGermany\tGermany\t51.165691\t10.451526\tr\tc\tprompt\treport\tEntry monastic state should be voluntary, reports on matters\tDate unclear. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t447\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tOsbald of Carinthia\tBishop\ti\tCarinthia\tCarinthia\t46.722203\t14.1805882\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tClerics who have killed pagan in defence- not acceptable for any reason. \tFragment. Date unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t448\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tSoloman of Constance\tBishop\ti\tConstance\tKonstanz\t47.6779808\t9.1736741\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tepiscopal\tNumber of things laid out, including that monks chose to live life Benedictine or Basil cannot reverse decision.\tFragment. Date unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t451\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tRathold of Strasbourg \tBishop\ti\tStra\u00dfburg\tStra\u00dfburg, Austria\t46.8998718\t14.3336805\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tPenance for matricide.\tFragment. Date unclear. Not sure if Austria or France, have taken Germanic name and located in Austria.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t452\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tTheoto of Fulda\tAbbot\ti\tFulda\tFulda\t50.5558095\t9.6808449\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tscripture\tGives requested copy of papal liturgy of Pope Damascus.\tFragment. Date unclear. Commentary claims this is a copy of the Liber Pontificalis.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t454\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald, Bishop Donnus\tKing, Bishop\tsi\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\tboth\tprompt\treport, order\tAbout penance for fratricide. \tFragment. Date unclear. Have located as Quierzy (where palace is). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t455\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald, Hincmar of Reims\tKing, Archbishop\tsi\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\tboth\tprompt\treport\tPenance of monk who came to Rome. \tDate unclear. Only Flodoard apparently reports it being sent to Charles as well.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t456\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar  of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\treport, admonish\tAbout monks penance. 'Admonishes' Hincmar that monks should not hinder execution of penance.\tDate unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t458\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tHerard of Tours\tArchbishop\ti\tTours\tTours France\t47.394144\t0.68484\tp\tc\tprompt\tadmonish\tReturn priest to role, had gone to Rome and been acquitted. \tFragment. Date unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t459\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tFrotharius of Bordeaux\tArchbishop\ti\tBordeaux\tBordeaux\t44.837789\t-0.57918\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tPenance for men damaging church property.\tDate unclear. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t461\tVague\t858-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tChurch of Nin\tClergy\tg\tNin\tNin Croatia\t44.2423373\t15.183695\tp\tc\tprompt\tquestion\tAsks how church can be run without council of apostolic see. \tDate unclear. Have located as Nin Croatia, as can't find church of Nin anywhere else.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t463\tVague\t858-866\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tUnnamed Clerics \tClergy\tg\tunspecified\tunspecified\t50.173538\t3.236633\tN\/A\tc\t(received)\tappeal\tClerics deposed council of Soissons 853 appeal writing to Nicholas.\tDate range narrowed. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t464\tVague\t858-864\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tRudolf of Bourges \tArchbishop\ti\tBourges\tBourges\t47.081012\t2.398782\tp\tc\tprompt\tunknown\tUnclear.\tDate unclear. No content given as letter is only known from mention. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t465\tVague\t858-865\tMay\tN\/A\tSent\tRoland of Arles\tArchbishop\ti\tArles\tArles\t43.676647\t4.6277769\tp\tc\tprompt\tadvice\tUnclear.\tDate unclear. As above. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t466\tVague\t858-865\tMay\tN\/A\tSent\tWenilo of Sens\tArchbishop\ti\tSens\tSens France\t48.20065\t3.28268\tp\tc\tprompt\tadmonish\tAfter excommunication priest should not have way to appeal to Apostolic see more difficult. \tFragment. Date unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t467\tVague\t858-864\tJune\tN\/A\tSent\tBranidingus of M\u00e2con \tBishop\ti\tM\u00e2con\tM\u00e2con\t46.3068839\t4.828731\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tSupporting bishop fled to Rome again. Cricisies lack of proof of guilt, investigation of priestly matters by fewer than six bishops. Orders after receipt of letter, latter be reinstituted and new investigation by at least six bishops. \tDate unclear.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t469\tVague\t858-863 \tJune\tN\/A\tSent\tKarl of Mainz\tArchbishop\ti\tMainz\tMainz\t49.9928617\t8.2472526\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tepiscopal\tNumber of things about what to do in situations, and penances. \tDate unclear. Does say have been writings about authenticity, but does not say is definitely not genuine.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t470\tVague\t858-863\tJune\tN\/A\tSent\tKarl of Mainz\tBishop\ti\tMainz\tMainz\t49.9928617\t8.2472526\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tMarriage cannot be dissolved because of illness or physical mutation.\tDate unclear. About dissolving marriage. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t471\tVague\t858-863\tApril\tN\/A\tSent\tKarl of Mainz\tBishop\ti\tMainz\tMainz\t49.9928617\t8.2472526\tp\tc\tprompt\tinstruction\tInvestigate an abbot and his possibly incestuous marriage.  \tDate unclear. 'beauftragt' taken to mean 'instruct' as translators giving different meanings.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t472\tVague\t858-862\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tAnastasius Bibliothecarius \tLibrarian\ti\tRome\tRome\t41.9027835\t12.4963655\tp\tc\t(received)\tscripture\tSends Nicholas translation of Vita of John Eleemon and asks for judgement. \tDate unclear. Anastasius noted as librarian- comments marks letter as submissive and wanting to regain trust.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t474\tVague\t858-862\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tKing of Bretons Solomon\tKing\ti\tBrittany\tNantes\t47.218371\t-1.553621\tr\ts\tprompt\tunknown\tUnclear.\tDate unclear. Letter only mentioned so content not clear. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t475\tVague\t858-862\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tHubert of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune\tAbbot\ti\tSaint-Maurice d'Agaune\tSaint-Maurice d'Agaune\t46.2195915\t7.0038501\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tUnclear.\tAs above. Commentary provides location.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t476\tVague\t858-860\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tTado of Milan\tArchbishop\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\tc\tprompt\tinstruction\tVeneration of relics. \tFragment. Date unclear. Translation uses word 'forbid' but have put as instruction. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t478\t858-859\t858-859\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tOrders Hincmar of Reims to send the fugitive wife of the Italic Count Boso (Ingiltrud) back to him.\tLetter is known from n. 517 and n. 863 according to commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t480\t858-859\t858-859\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tArchbishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tContradicts canons if bishop leaves church on feast days.\tFragment. Date is taken 'with reservations' by commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t481\t858-859\t858\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tappeal\tAppeals to Pope as agreements made broken by Louis invasion.\tFragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t482\t858-859\t858-859\tMay-August\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\ts\tprompt\tunknown\tAbout excommunication of Emperor Archadius.\tLetter is a mention. Louis located as in Milan. Cannot really classify type as just says 'writes to'. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t489\t858-859\t858\tMay-September\tN\/A\tReceive\tAbbot Lupus Servatus \tAbbot\ti\tFerri\u00e8res Abbey\tFerri\u00e8res-en-G\u00e2tinais\t48.090359\t2.789813\tp\tc\t(received)\treport, request\tReport about deposed and reinstated bishop. Asks pope for text of his statues so decision can be made, similar to that of Gregory I or Gelasius I.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t491\t858-859\t858\tJuly-September\tN\/A\tSent\tWenilo of Sens\tArchbishop\ti\tSens\tSens France\t48.20065\t3.28268\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tpraise, recommend\tMatter of Bishop Hermann, surprised that allegedly ill man had been forced appear before synod. Check whether offences committed 'awake or clouded mind'. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t494\tVague\t859-864\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tintercede\tCharles the Bald intercedes with Pope Nicholas I on behalf of Queen Theutberga's brother (Abbot Hucbert of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune), explaining the circumstances.\tCommentary notes Charles intervention for Hucbert who had been rebelling against Lothar II since the outbreak of the marriage dispute is only known from the latter letter from the Pope to Charles. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t495\tVague\t859-864\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tFestinian of Dol\tBishop\ti\tDol\tDol France\t48.54969\t-1.753965\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tcriticise\tCriticise lack of solemn request and improper postulatio. \tDate unclear. Located as Dol in France as seems most likely.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t496\t858-859\t859\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tTheutberga\tQueen\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tappeal\tAppeal to Nicholas, confession which was coerced is revoked?\t. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t498\t858-859\t859\tMay-June\tN\/A\tReceive\tAbbot Theoto of Fulda\tAbbot\ti\tFulda\tFulda\t50.5558095\t9.6808449\tp\tc\t(received)\trequest, report\tRequests privilege. Reports on events as envoy of Louis German. \tListed as (Rome). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t499\t858-859\t859\tJune-September\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\tunknown\tAbout legation of Theotos?\tExact content unknown. Louis taken to be in Frankfurt. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t503\tVague\t859-867\tNovember-?\tN\/A\tSent\tAdalwin of Salzburg\tArchbishop\ti\tSalzburg\tSalzburg Austria\t47.80949\t13.05501\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tepiscopal\tAbout marriage. Widow became a nun then re-married. Nicholas says she should be returned to the monastery, after penance. Justified with ordo ecclesiasticus, observance with canons and other quotes.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t504\t858-859\t859\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tPrudentius of Troyes\tBishop\ti\tTroyes\tTroyes\t48.2973451\t4.0744009\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tReaffirm doctrine of grace of God, double predestination and Blood of Christ for all the faithful.\tSome debates about this letter according to the commentary, which is noted in Annals of St Betin. Not outright forgery stated though so have included.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t505\tVague\t860-863\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy \tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\torder\tOrders him to send Latin translation of Greek work by John Scottus so it can be accepted after papal approval.\tWork was apparently sent to Rome according to the commentary. Be careful as there is an altered and unaltered version. Although some debate whether even 'genuine' version was forged. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t506\t860-861\t860-861\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tHunfried of Th\u00e9rouanne \tBishop\ti\tTh\u00e9rouanne \tTh\u00e9rouanne \t50.637833\t2.256984\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tforbid\tForbids leaving flock is expelled by Normans, and promotion of cleric who has killed pagan, and distinguishes between milites saeculi and milites ecclesiae.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t507\t860-861\t860\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tArchbishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\twarn\tWarns John to refrain from further violations of the law through letters and bequests. \tReaffirm doctrine of grace of God, double predestination and Blood of Christ for all the faithful.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t508\t860-861\t860\tMarch-July\tN\/A\tReceive\tTheutberga\tQueen\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tappeal\tAppeals again for her testimony given under duress at second Aachen synod. \tCommentary says probably written after her condemnation at Aachens synod in February 860, and flight to western Francia in mid 860. CTB and Hubert probably supported, as claims seen in 843 and 534 directly and indirectly respectively. Also possible apparently concerns raised by older brother. Italian Count Boso, obtained papal letters on own behalf  (517,518). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t509\t860-861\t860\tMarch-April\tN\/A\tReceive\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium \tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\t(received)\tlegation\tSends legation, also letters of Michael and Photios to Nicholas.\tEmperor located as Istanbul as modern equivalent. Legation but included due to the sending of letters with this legation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t510\t860-861\t860\tMarch-April\tN\/A\tReceive\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium \tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\t(received)\tlegation\tAsks for Nicholas to send legation for order of abuses which is iconoclastic controversy.\tContent is derived from pope's reply according to commentary but also LP. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t511\t860-861\t860\tMarch-April\tN\/A\tReceive\tPatriarch Photios of Constantinople\tPatriarch\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tReports about predecessor. Announces will to communion with Rome, comments on religious issues, asks to be included in papal prayer. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t512\t860-861\t860\tMay\tN\/A\tSent\tAdalwin of Salzburg\tArchbishop\ti\tSalzburg\tSalzburg Austria\t47.80949\t13.05501\tp\tc\tprompt\tgrant\tGrants the pallium to Adalwin, determines the days of the pallium and exhorts to dignified conduct of office.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t515\tVague\t860-863\tJune\tN\/A\tSent\tArchbishop Charles of Mainz and his suffragan bishops.\tArchbishop, Bishop\tsi\tMainz\tMainz\t49.9928617\t8.2472526\tp\tc\tprompt\tlegal\tSeveral legal statements. Marriage mentioned in relation to incest.\tHave entered as 'si' due to several named bishops not just 'bishops of'. Some debates of authenticity mentioned in commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t517\t860-861\t860\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tcommand\tCommands him to send back a count his fugitive wife and in case of disobedience excommunicate her and all beneficiaries. \tInteresting that sends specifically to Hincmar, but also orders episcopate of Charles the Bald's realm- seemingly clear Hincmar is the leading figure. Commentary states Boso probably obtained letter himself and handed over with 518- interesting that he went to Rome to get this. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t518\t860-861\t860\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy \tQuierzy \t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tTells Charles to make Lothar II not tolerate the fugitive wife of Boso. Tells him of excommunication. \tCommentary claims Charles considered nephew excommunicated due to disregard for papal instructions.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t525\t860-861\t860\tSeptember\t25\tSent\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium \tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tr\ts\tanswer \/ response\tassert\tNumber of things, including that no synod can pass resolutions without Roman approval. \tPope claims in later letters 569 and 570 that this letter was falsified in Constantinople, I have taken this to mean upon arriving in Constantinople the letters meaning was altered- not this summary here. Commentary says reference to Leo IV and Benedict IV rebuking Ignatios 'shows the hand of papal consciousness of tradition'. Located as Constantinople. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t526\t860-861\t860\tSeptember\t25\tSent\tPatriarch Photios of Constantinople\tPatriarch\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tassert\tThanks for identifying him as catholic, but claims that cannot rise from lay state to highest patriarchal dignity. (Photios did this).\tCommentary claims in this and above that both became part of 'prehistory' of conflict between Nicholas and Michael in that it was mentioned as part of this in works the commentary lists. Listed this and above as 'assert' as seems to fit given the primacy idea.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t528\tVague\t860-867\tNovember-\tN\/A\tSent\tTado of Milan\tArchbishop\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\tc\tprompt\tallow\tExclude communion those who offend priests after three warnings. \tFragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t529\tVague\t860-867\tNovember-\tN\/A\tSent\tTado of Milan\tArchbishop\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tRegards those who have committed an outrage with their spiritualis mater.\tOnly know this letter from specified mention in the commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t530\tVague\t860-867\tNovember-\tN\/A\tSent\tTado of Milan\tArchbishop\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tPriests who have unintentionally committed manslaughter, orders them be readmitted after penance. \tFragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t532\tVague\t860-867\tDecember-\tN\/A\tSent\tTado of Milan\tArchbishop\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\tc\tprompt\tepiscopal\tPunishment for incest. \tFragment. Refers to his earlier letter of 529 according to commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t533\t860-861\t860-861\tDecember-February\tN\/A\tReceive\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tdiplomacy\tWants to visit Rome, says not to listen to his enemies and will defend St Peter in event of renewed invasion by pagans. \tCommentary says concerned for papal goodwill, so have put as 'diplomacy'.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t534\t860-861\t860-861\tDecember-February\tN\/A\tReceive\tEpiscopate of Lothar II\tClergy\tg\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tr\tc\t(received)\tdiplomacy\tAnnounces sending of archbishops to pope, stresses not to listen to enemies who have been trying to get involved with divorce case, and claims have only imposed penance on Theutberga after her public confession which she evaded. \tLocated in same place as commentary states probably written at same time and are partly identical. Also says that Anton 115 stresses special suitability of Lothar as king, which was to be achieved by the divine sanctioning of Lothar's kingship and kingdom.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t535\t860-861\t860-861\tDecember-January\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tArchbishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tNicholas sends three letters of John IV of Ravenna summoning him to a council.\tCommentary notes this is known from LP.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t536\t860-861\t860-861\tDecember-January\tN\/A\tSent\tAthanasius I of Naples\tArchbishop\ti\tNaples\tNaples Italy\t40.8517983\t14.26812\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tNicholas summons Athanasius to the Council, which is set to pass resolutions against John VII of Ravenna.\tCommentary notes this is known only from the Vita Athanasii. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t538\t860-861\t860\tDecember\tN\/A\tSent\tLothar II, Thietgaud of Trier, Gunther of Cologne, Bishops\tEmperor, Bishop\tg\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tr\tboth\tprompt\tcall\tCalls on Lothar, his bishops especially those named in the recipient section to send back wife of Boso, and treat her as excommunicated. \tCommentary doubts whether Charles forwarded the earlier letters to Lothar II.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t543\t860-861\t861\tApril\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tArchbishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons the excommunicated Archbishop to a council on the 1st of November to make satisfaction.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t545\t860-861\t861\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tReceive\tPatriarch Photios of Constantinople\tPatriarch\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\t(received)\tdispute\tMany things, including that he was forced into office, and defending his elevation from lay world to papacy by pointing to Gregory I.\tCommentary states content as asks the pope, who holds the primacy. Listed as 'dispute' due to nature of letter and commentary saying letter belongs in context of further disputes.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t546\t860-861\t861\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tReceive\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium \tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\t(received)\tdispute\tUnderlines validity Council held Constantinople, reports deposition of Ignatios, justified elevation of Photios.\tContent of letter is determined by mentions according to commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t547\t860-861\t861\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tReceive\tPeople of Emilia, Senators of Ravenna\tPeople, Senator\tg\tEmilia, Ravenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tr\tboth\t(received)\thelp\tPeople and senators ask for help for their rights\tComplaint in Liber Pontificalis according to commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t556\t860-861\t861\tNovember\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tArchbishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons John of Ravenna to council with demand for satisfaction. \tCommentary shows known from mention in LP.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t560\t860-861\t861\tNovember\t19-30\tSent\tBishop Peter, Bishops of Emilia\tBishop\tg\tEmilia\tRavenna \t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tr\tc\tprompt\tsupport\tAgainst harassment from John. Forbids a number of things. Including diminution of rights in the dioceses and that services in accordance to the canons are to be rendered in an equivalent manner to those of the other bishops of Liguria, Venice and Istria to their metropolitans. \tCommentary notes: Papal letter is probably a synodal document. Mentions passingly possible authorship by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. I have located in Ravenna due to it being relevant and part of the historical Emilia region according to Wikipedia. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Emilia_(region)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t562\t860-861\t861-862\tNovember-February\tN\/A\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tprompt\tpraise, admonish\tPraises zeal, asks him to resist transgressors of statutes and answer his requests.  Forbids remarriage or keeping of concubine even if wife committed adultery, also forbids if woman was had sex before marriage without knowledge of husband, orders anathema and excommunication in the event of devastation of church property, and orders king may be brought to justice. Also a few other non-eminent points. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t565\tVague\t862-867\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tJohn IV of Ravenna\tArchbishop\ti\tRavenna\tRavenna\t44.4183598\t12.2035294\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes for sending new bishop to Gavello, and orders death of bishop be investigated. Episcopal election should be carried out according to provisions of Synod in n. 559.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t566\tVague\t862-866\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tKing of Bretons Solomon\tKing\ti\tBrittany\tNantes\t47.218371\t-1.553621\tr\ts\tanswer \/ response\tpermission\tAnswering request for permission to depose several Breton bishops, declares provincial synod and exhorts Soloman and bishops to respect metropolitan of Tours who will lead. Demands deputation of two bishops from each party to Rome. \tVery interesting content helped by commentary- Solomon interpreting decision of Leo, and Nicholas very much disagreeing. Refers to letters of Leo IV (n.235), and consults Roman archive. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t567\t862\t862\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy \t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tunknown\tUnclear\tOnly know of legation by mention according to commentary. Included as worth recording instances of kings sending letters to Nicholas. Monks delivered this along with mandates, later took relics back- though commentary doubts whether actually received the mentioned.  Commentary states that Heiric emphasises the importance of the royal letter which accompanied a transfer of relics in accordance with customary practice. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t569\t862\t862\tMarch\t18\tSent\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium \tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\trebuke, reject\tVarious matters, rejects Photios as patriarch and condemnation of Ignatios, exhorts Emperor to take vigorous stance in order to avoid schism in East.\tRefers to the letters of Leo IV once more. Commentary notes emphasises primacy once more, and canonical reasons that speak against decision of Council of Constantinople 861. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t570\t862\t862\tMarch\t18\tSent\tPatriarch Photios of Constantinople\t\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\tprompt\tassert\tReminds Photios of the primacy conferred on the Apostle Peter and the Roman Church and the responsibility resulting therefrom; he refers to the canonically inadmissible consecration of Photios from lay state, and explains the different nature of similar cases cited by Photios in his defence. Is astonished at Photios' statement that certain canons and papal decrees did not exist in Byzantium. \tCommentary notes that Gregory VII uses frequently citation of primacy and suspects had read this letter of Nicholas. Interesting how he justifies using the canons, would be nice to see this one properly.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t571\t862\t862\tMarch\t18\tSent\tChurch of Constantinople\tClergy\tg\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\tprompt\tunknown\tWrites about illegally deposed patriarch Ignatios and the pervasor Photios. \tCommentary states published in n.572 with letter to Michael and should have had a similar kind of content. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t572\t862\t862\tMarch\t18\tSent\tAll Faithful\tPeople\tg\tChristian World\tJerusalem\t31.768319\t35.21371\tr\tboth\tprompt\treport, order\tReports on matters that have been mentioned in previous entries with Byzantium. Important is that orders leaders of churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to agree with the pope concerning restoration of patriarchal dignity to Ignatios and expulsion of Photios.\tCommentary states faithful and episcopate of Eastern Church may be regarded as addressees, especially given that three patriarchs named separately. Nicholas clearly states his position on the East. Decision making authority of Rome also emphasised. Due to the three referenced patriarchs have chosen to locate as Jerusalem (Region) to show intended for East. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t574\t862\t862\tApril-May\t29-\tReceive\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\treport, request\tInforms pope in writing and orally by messengers of the permission granted to him by bishops at the third synod of Aachen 29 April 862 to separate from Theutberga in order to marry Waldrada, and asks for the papal judgement.\tLetter now lost, mentioned above all according to commentary in the Capitula of Savonni\u00e8res. Commentary also notes: Lothar's request seen to be hypocritical- Haller doubts the content of the king's request in principle and sees in it a papal insinuation. Request for papal judgement is only mentioned in papal letters n. 604 and n. 863. Lothar may well have communicated results to the pope without asking for papal judgement. Staubach interprets statement of Charles at meeting of Savonni\u00e8res to effect Lothar wanted obtain confirmation of synod not only from pope but also Charles. Lothar request for legates to be sent to hold synod mentioned in n. 597 probably later than legation in question here. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t575\t862\t862\tApril-May\t29-\tReceive\tTheutberga\tQueen\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tappeal\tThird appeal about marriage affair.\tKnown from mentions. Commentary notes remarkable pope only acts after this third appeal. Support of her brothers. Further appeal after marriage of Lothar to Waldrada cannot be ruled out. Do we still see Theutberga in Lothar's kingdom or Charles's?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t578\t862\t862\tJune-August\tN\/A\tReceive\tLouis the German, Lothar II\tKing\tsi\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\trequest, report\tInform pope of successful defence against pagans, about disputes in past years that have been settled together with Charles, attempts of Charles to seize Provenance, request coming of pope who should follow example of predecessors and subdue troublemakers by apostolic severity and ecclesiastical commandments, reaffirm earlier report (n533).\tHave located in Aachen due to commentary saying writing in Lotharingian chancellery possible. Commentary notes: Letter directed primarily against Charles. Lothar won over Louis probably by unkept military promise. Also condemns Charles's accomplices not mentioned by name but probably Adalhard and Hubert of Saint-Maurice. In postscript by bishops Lothar again portrayed as particularly suitable for kingship because of his work as a church protector. Papal response to request for intervention not survived. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t579\t862\t862\tJuly-October\tN\/A\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tadmonish\tPromises in response to request to send legates later date, and admonishes king not to take any further action in his marriage matter in the meantime.\tCommentary notes: Letter is known from other mentions of it. Delay in sending legates according to commentary is excused by pope due to 'urgent business'. Possibility this was also addressed to the episcopate, or a second letter that was, was sent separately.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t582\t862\t862\tSeptember-August\tN\/A\tSent\tLandulf I\tBishop\ti\tCapua\tCapua\t41.1061258\t14.2130486\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tOrders bishop reinstate deacon to office after appeal. \tOnly from LP know of order according to commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t584\t862\t862-863\tSeptember-March\tN\/A\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\task\tCharles asks Nicholas by letter to confirm a privilege for the monastery of Saint-Denis.\tCommentary notes petition is only known from given mentions. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t585\t862\t862\tOctober-November\t?-23\tReceive\tBaldwin I of Flanders\tCount\ti\tFlanders\tFlanders\t51.0950244\t4.4477809\tp\ts\t(received)\thelp\tAsks for help because of marital union with Charles the Bald's daughter Judith, and for release for anathema which pope grants after penance. \tCommentary notes had stolen the king's daughter without his permission. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t586\t862\t862\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis the German \tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\t(received)\tdemand\tDemands in same way as n.596 sending of two bishops of his realm to the Metz synod. \tInvitation according to commentary also mentioned in n. 597. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t587\t862\t862\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\tinform\tTells Lothar that for upcoming Metz synod two bishops from kingdom of Louis (German)  and Charles (of Provenance) may come. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t588\t862\t862\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles of Provence\tKing\ti\tProvence\tMarseille\t43.296482\t5.36978\tr\ts\tprompt\tinform\tAs above.\tHave located as Marseille as unsure where Charles would have been based. Order is weakly recorded but mentioned as commentary states in n. 597 so included here. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t589\t862\t862-863\tNovember-January\tN\/A\tSent\tRadoald of Porto, John of Cervia\tLegates\tsi\tCervia\tCervia\t44.2635492\t12.3476822\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tOrders legates to investigate and decide vicariously the matter of Lothar II. Orders to first determine whether union Waldrada had been entered publically, with priestly blessing and gifts given before witnesses- in order to then determine the reasons for the later marriage with Theutberga. Refers to Theutberga's appeals, then asks when present at Metz synod it be examined whether had been any crime, forced confession, or judicial partiality against her to then renew the sentence accordingly. \tAccording to commentary no doubt also presented to Lothar II, and is printed in all additions except Baronius as an appendix to n. 605.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t590\t862\t862\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tReceive\tIgnatios, 10 Archbishops, 15 Bishops and other clerics\tClergy\tg\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\t(received)\tcomplain\tThose listed complain to Pope Nicholas I and the Roman church about their fate, and request a judgement of the pope and papal help.\tCommentary notes the letter has only survived in connection with the Acts of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t591\t862\t862\tNovember\tN\/A\tReceive\tKing Charles of Aquitaine\tKing\ti\tAquitaine\tAquitaine\t44.7002222\t-0.2995785\tp\ts\t(received)\treport\tReports on marriage entered without fathers consent, and subsequent fallout with Charles the Bald (father).\tNot entirely certain whether communication was in form of letter or visit.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t592\t862\t862\tNovember\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tinform\tInforms about the above marriage. Says that marriage was to be divorced only if other serious grounds arose.\tFragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t593\t862\t862\tNovember-May\t23-\tSent\tEpiscopate at Synod of Metz\tEpiscopate\tg\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\tprompt\tunknown\tThose listed complain to Pope Nicholas I and the Roman church about their fate, and request a judgement of the pope and papal help.\tCommentary also notes accused in later letter accuses deposed Archbishops Gunther of Cologne and Thietgaud of Trier of having falsified these letters when read out at synod. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t594\t862\t862\tNovember\t23\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\ts\tprompt\tinform, ask\tAbout sending of two legates to hold synod by papal mandate about matter of Lothar II, asks to accompany his legates to a place (border), refers to summons of two bishops from Charles the Bald's realm to synod in Metz. \tCommentary notes probably served to secure or establish agreement with Louis II who was on side of Lothar II. That is why invitation of Charles the Bald's bishops specifically mentioned.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t595\t862\t862\tNovember\t23\tSent\tEpiscopate at Synod of Metz\tEpiscopate\tg\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\tprompt\tadmonish\tDemands council's decisions for papal confirmation, and sending of legates. \tCommentary notes urged above all to an impartial investigation in marriage affair. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t596\t862\t862\tNovember\t23\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tdemand\tSending of two bishops to forthcoming synod Metz. Refers to letter of same manner to Louis the German. \tCommentary notes that in n. 597 Lothar II was asked to give this letter to Charles, stating it was probably an intended handing over after Emperor Louis II had left his domain. Whether this was taken by legates there by friends of Lothar II is uncertain. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t597\t862\t862\tNovember\t23\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\trecommend\tRecommends the bishops Radoald and John to hold a synod. Refers to some earlier letters, and asks to transmit n. 596 by messenger to King Charles the Bald. \tNotes that transmission probably did not take place. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t598\t862\t862\tNovember\t23\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\trequest\tAt request of count Baldwin for pardon and mercy so he does not ally himself with Normans and enemies of the church. Refers to legates Radoald and John as bearers of the letter. \tLetter emphasises according to commentary Roman see as authority with dealing with appeals essentially even for petitioning breakers of the law. Also notes: Letter taken (stolen?) from papal bearers together with n.599 after arrival in realm of Lothar II. Led to new probably unchanged copies by the pope- n. 605 Charles granted pardon here and gave letters to pope with them. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t599\t862\t862\tNovember\t24\tSent\tErmentrude\tQueen\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\trequest\tAs above re. forgive Baldwin.\tLetter supports 598, and commentary mentions the issue of robbery. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t601\t862\t862-863\tDecember-May\tN\/A\tSent\tCount Stephen of Auvergne\tCount\ti\tAuvergne\tAuvergne\t45.7032695\t3.3448536\tp\ts\tprompt\treproach\tOrders the immediate restitution of expelled bishop Sigo of Clermont, orders to make satisfaction before legates and makes threats of punishment if not.\tListed as 'reproach' as this is the tone of letter according to commentary. Also due probably to role of Stephen in marriage mentioned above of king of Charles the Bald. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t603\t862\t862-863\tDecember-March\tN\/A\tSent\tBishops of Gallia \tBishop\tg\tGallia\tDijon\t47.322047\t5.04148\tr\tc\tanswer \/ response\tinform\tReplies to bishops that Theutberga has wrongfully lost conjugal communion with Lothar II and decrees and appropriate application of canons. \tDebates about authenticity in commentary, but no conclusive proof of forgery yet and so have included here. Located as Dijon for mapping purposes- seems like a good mapping point for region of Gallia.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t604\t863\t863\tJanuary-May\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiscopate in Gallia and Germania\tEpiscopate\tg\tGallia and Germania\tSchleithal\t48.988369\t8.044635\tr\tc\tprompt\torder\tReminds episcopate of his letter, reports that Lothar before receiving requested and promised papal judgement he had repudiated his legitimate first wife (Theutberga) and married second wife (Waldrada), he had only been informed after commissioning of two legates. Orders episcopate to pronounce canonically on Lothar II. Threatens his excommunication in case of non-appearance and refusal to repent. \tLocated as Schleithal for mapping purposes- as seems like a good midpoint between the two regions. Transmitted with n. 605 and is first to report on marriage of Lothar II to Waldrada, which had taken place in meantime and their coronation in autumn of 862. Pope's sharp tone can be explained by his new knowledge of the situation: Theutberga is described as Lothar's lawful wife, moreover, it is no longer a question of an investigation, but above all of a canonical judgement to be pronounced in Metz. Excommunication threatened first time, also later considered excommunicated without being so formally. In contrast to earlier letters where only individual representatives of bishops were summoned, now entire episcopate of Gaul and Germany are. Possibly a parallel letter to Lothar II to be assumed with Parisot, but not documented. Engelmann assumes present letter also delivered in Soissons where Charles the Bald held court, quite conceivable due to indirect papal instruction. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t605\t863\t863\tJanuary-May\tN\/A\tSent\tRadoald of Porto, John of Cervia\tLegates\tsi\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\tprompt\texhort\tExhort to act at Metz according to previous instruction. If synod does not happen or Lothar II does not come, convey papal orders to him personally. Talks about Count Baldwin, and letters to be publicly presented to Charles the Bald. Refers to new letters in place of stolen.\tCommentary states Charles the Bald probably strongest ally, and that Staubach rejects Haller's assertion- Nicholas was by no means as determined as he led bishops to believe, with the different form of the letters and the purely instructional character of the legation letter.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t607\t863\t863\tJanuary-February\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes Hincmar about deposition of Rothad, who had been placed in monastic custody. Refers to the violation of the canons and Rothad's appeal to the Roman see. Demands from Hincmar within 30 days of receipt of letter, either the restoring of Rothad or the accompanying him and Rothad or by envoy to Rome for decision in presence of both parties. Threatens if time expires to forbid Hincmar to celebrate mass, affirms validity of papal sentence for other bishops who assist in Rothad affair, and orders Hincmar to inform them. \tCommentary notes: pope informed by writs of complaint from Lotharingia and East Frankish kingdom. Threats are mentioned in n. 608 rather than being in this letter. Hincmar seems to have largely ignored the demands. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t608\t863\t863\tJanuary-February \tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tdemand\tDemands reinstatement of Rothad, and Charles's protection for his safe passage to Rome. Refers to Hincmar's letter and threatened punishments there. \tCommentary states that Nicholas emphasises above all preservation of the apostolic privileges. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t609\t863\t863\tFebruary-March\tN\/A\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\trequest\tSends copy of document of Pope Benedict III (n.376) as well as acts of first Synod of Soissons (853) with request for confirmation as well as for extension of the privileges of Reims. \tCommentary notes that this letter only handed down as insert in Hincmar's detailed letter from July 867 (n.848) and n. 854, which corresponds almost word for word with it.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t610\t863\t863\tFebruary-March\tN\/A\tReceive \tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\tdefend\tDefends faith to Nicholas against false doctrine of Gottschalk. \tWe know of this through Flodoard. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t611\t863\t863\tFebruary-March\tN\/A\tReceive\tHubert of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune\tAbbot\ti\tSaint-Maurice d'Agaune\tSaint-Maurice d'Agaune\t46.2195915\t7.0038501\tp\tc\t(received)\tdefend\tDefends himself against Nicholas and his censure. \tKnown from mentions. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t614\t863\t863\tFebruary-March\tN\/A\tReceive\tCount Gerhard of Vienne \tCount\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\ts\t(received)\tannounce\tTransfer of monasteries to the pope with conditions. \tCommentary says can be explained against background of dynastic disputes. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t621\t863\t863\tApril-May\tN\/A\tSent\tHubert of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune\tAbbot\ti\tSaint-Maurice d'Agaune\tSaint-Maurice d'Agaune\t46.2195915\t7.0038501\tp\tc\t(received)\tinform\tConfirms receipt of earlier letter about censure. Announces to him handling of various affairs, especially those of his sister (Theutberga) and brother (Boso) at the synod of Metz. \tCommentary notes: Odo of Beauvais transported this letter, may have informed pope of new violations by Lothar II, and took several letters including perhaps this one back with him from Rome to the Frankish Empire according to commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t626\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tconfirm, order\tConfirms to Hincmar decisions of 853 council of synod according to model of his predecessor Benedict. But without prejudice to rights of Apostolic see, orders province of Reims the observance of the canons (named), as well as of other popes, confirms model of granting of pallium by Pope Leo, as well as privilege of Benedict. Primitive rights of Reims and finally reaffirms validity of present privilege as long as Hincmar does not deviate from apostolic directives. \tCommentary notes that what is decisive in comparison with Benedictine privileges, are the numerous clauses which restrict the validity of the privileges initially granted, so that Hincmar himself may have recorded a remark in a manuscript that Nicholas had subsequently invalidated what he confirmed following his own predecessors. Confirmation of the Synodal acts of 853 gained importance in particular during the renegotiation of the case of the Ebo clergy around Wulfad in 866. See n. 806. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t627\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\trequest\tIntercedes on behalf of Count Baldwin, with mention of similar matter under Emperor Lothar I asks King for the 'rightful surrender' of his daughter, informs Charles about matters of Rothad, letter to Hincmar, enjoins king to send Rothad to Rome. Underlines privileges of the Roman church, and mentions reports of Bishop Odo and Legate Primus about the king, and expresses joy at the defeat of the Normans. \tCommentary notes similar matter under Lothar I mentioned could be referring to Fulkrich (n.246). Mentions in context of Rothad summons to Rome as well as the threatened punishments. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t628\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tParticipants of the Council of Pitres \/ Soissons of 862\tClergy\tg\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\treport, order\tMany many things here, underlines necessary appeal to pope in major matters, initially refuses requested confirmation of Rothad's condemnation at council, mentions Lothar affair among other things.\tCommentary notes passage according to which Bishops esp. Hincmar demanded general council but Nicholas sought only a provincial synod and put off bishops until later. Commentary also notes that in contrast to the simultaneous letter to Hinkmar (n. 629), Nicholas repeats the deadline of 30 days already announced in the first letter to the archbishop of Reims in the Rothad affair (n. 607) for execution of the papal instructions along with the threat of the prohibition of mass in case of not following his orders, but, as in n. 629, does not offer the bishops the alternative of reinstating Rothad in his episcopal office. Also noted is that when talking about need to appeal to Pope in major matters underlines with a quotation from Innocent I (JK314), and uses same quote along with Gregory I (JE1817) when talking about the invocation of secular-imperial laws, in relation to Rothad's condemnation and imprisonment despite appeal to Holy See, and when referencing the canons of Serdica.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t629\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tcriticise\tReports reading Acts of the Council of Soissons 862, regrets decision to depose Rothad, points out that even without his appeal a papal judgement would have had to be awaited. At least after Rothad had appealed to pope no new bishop should have been consecrated until a papal decision had been reached. Critiques confirmation of privileges demanded by Hincmar, admonishes him to reinforce the devotion of Charles Bald to Roman church, reminds him with threat of further punishment if third summons is necessary, that this is second time has summoned Rothad to Rome. \tCommentary notes: Schr\u00f6rs sees the argument of even without appeal Roman judgement needed to be awaited, as inadmissible interpretation of the third canon of Serdika. No longer confronts Hincmar with choice of reinstating or sending him to Rome. Perels sees threat of excommunication if doesn't send to Rome. Nicholas later accuses him of keeping letters to him and the bishops (n.628) secret for months. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t630\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tRothad of Soissons\tBishop\ti\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform \/ request\tInforms him mentioning letters to Charles the Bald and Hincmar about request of episcopate for confirmation of their decisions, and about papal reply. Asks him to come to Rome as soon as possible, and if refused refer to his appeal to the Roman see. \tCommentary notes: reports reading Acts of the Council of Soissons 862, regrets decision to depose Rothad, points out that even without his appeal a papal judgement would have had to be awaited. At least after Rothad had appealed to pope no new bishop should have been consecrated until a papal decision had been reached. Criticises confirmation of privileges demanded by Hincmar, admonishes him to reinforce the devotion of Charles Bald to Roman church, reminds him with threat of further punishment if third summons is necessary, that this is second time has summoned Rothad to Rome. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t631\t863\t863\tApril \t28\tSent\tLouis of Neustria, Charles of Aquitaine\tPrince\tsi\tNeustria\tOrl\u00e9ans \t47.902964\t1.909251\tp\ts\tprompt\tPraise, Order\tJoy at their reconciliation with father. Orders presence at synod of Metz to submit to the canonical provisions before the papal legates. \tHave located as Orl\u00e9ans due to being a major city in Neustria. Commentary states that date is given as Bishop Odo probably brought this back from Rome at the same time as other Papal letters, and to see n. 644.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t631\t863\t863\tApril \t28\tSent\tLouis of Neustria, Charles of Aquitaine\tN\/A\tN\/A\tAquitaine\tAquitaine\t44.7002222\t-0.2995785\tp\tN\/A\tN\/A\tN\/A\tN\/A\tHave included this entry like this as I believe it is useful for mapping purposes to show the letters going to the two princes in different locations, but did not want to distort quantitative analysis involving values by including two instances of type, recipient type etc.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t632\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tCleric Hilduin\tCleric\ti\tunspecified\tCambrai\t50.173538\t3.236633\tp\tc\tprompt\tcensure\tCensures for uncanonical invasion of the church of Cambrai, which has already lasted 10 months as well as disobedience to the metropolitan bishop Hincmar of Reims. Demands return of all property alienated from the Church, canonical election in Cambrai by clergy and people, and threatens anathema in case of non-compliance. \tNot 'the' Hilduin of Saint-Denis. Located as Cambrai due to its mention in relation to Hilduin. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t633\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tEpiscopate of Lothar II\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate of Lothar II\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tr\tc\tprompt\tcriticise\tRebukes in particular Lothar's appointment of the priest Hilduin to episcopate in Cambrai, underlines rejection of Hincmar, orders episcopate to hold election, excommunicate Hilduin if defies papal orders. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t634\t863\t863\tApril\t28\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tExhort not allow to continue invasion of church of Cambrai, against rights of Hincmar. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t640\t863\t863\tJune-July\tN\/A\tReceive\tRobert of Le Mans\tBishop\ti\tLe Mans\tLe Mans\t48.00611\t0.199556\tp\tc\t(received)\tunknown\tAbout dispute with monastery of Saint-Calais. \tLetter known from mentions. Other letters from pope in dispute refer to information that had come to pope's ears, and commentary states perhaps through this letter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t641\t863\t863\tJune-July\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tunknown\tAbout matter of Rothad.\tKnown from mentions, directly in n.665, generally in n. 701. Of the three papal exhortations mentioned in n. 701- this is probably the third. This is said to have the same tone as later letter n.662. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t643\t863\t863\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tSays has not seen papal letter n.602, and reports Rothad has now been transferred from monastic custody to the care of a bishop by order of King Charles the Bald. \tLetter mainly documented in substance by n. 665. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t644\t863\t863\tAugust-September\tN\/A\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tunknown\tWrites especially about matter of Rothad of Soissons. \tMentioned especially in n.665 according to commentary. Said to probably contain Charles's requests which are generally mentioned in n. 663. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t646\t863\t863-864\tSeptember-August\tN\/A\tSent\tErmentrude\tQueen\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tthank\tThanks for rich gifts and compares them with those of the Queen of Sheba. e referred to in entry n. 645.\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t654\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tExhorts Charles after receiving letter from bishop Robert of Le Mans about dispossession of monastery of Saint-Calais, to restore Robert the monastery unjustly deprived. Gives Robert power to choose judges to settle dispute, but if wants to appeal to pope he may come to Rome for a papal judgement. King must enforce travel in case of refusal.\tAccording to the commentary the dispute is later settled in favour of Saint-Calais and Charles the Bald, and this letter mentioned in record of synod that settled it- Council Acts of Verberie. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t655\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiscopate of Charles the Bald\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate of Lothar II\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tr\tc\tprompt\tadmonish\tAdmonishes the episcopate to intervene in the dispute between monastery of Saint-Calais and the bishop Robert in favour of the bishop. Orders if an assembly of judges chosen from among them does not decide the dispute, both parties should come to Rome to end the dispute. \tDecision takes place as mentioned above Synod of Verberie. Interesting that Nicholas is telling them which way to intercede. Located as Quierzy as referring to those in Charles's realm. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t656\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tHerard of Tours\tArchbishop\ti\tTours\tTours France\t47.394144\t0.68484\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tInforms Herard of the proceedings in dispute between Robert and Saint-Calais.\tLetter mentioned in council records of Verberie with other contemporaneous letters. Substance of letter determined primarily from n. 659. Herard said to have read letter himself at Synod of Verberie. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t657\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes Hincmar as he has heard about Hincmar inciting Charles the Bald against Robert of Le Mans, who claimed the right over the monastery. Criticises Hincmars behaviour at synod of Pitres \/ Soissons 862 and stresses that only lawful things are granted to Robert. Finally he exhorts Hincmar to be lenient towards Charles the Bald. \tBecause letter not mentioned in diploma of Charles the Bald issued at Council of Verberie and because of some peculiarities, Lesne has questioned the authenticity- which Perels has rejected. I have included this as such. Few weeks before decision of Verberie. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t658\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tMonastic community of Saint-Calais\tMonk\tg\tSaint-Calais\tSaint-Calais\t47.920883\t0.744722\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes for wanting withdraw from the jurisdiction of their diocese, commands them return to that church, otherwise decrees that the dispute will be dealt with before bishops whom Robert must summon, and that in event of failure decrees that delegation of three from the convent and the bishop or his messenger have to go to Rome for final canonical judgement. \tLetter mentioned Council Acts of Verberie along with other contemporary letters (654, 655, 656, 659). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t659\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tRobert of Le Mans\tBishop\ti\tLe Mans\tLe Mans\t48.00611\t0.199556\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tinform\tConcerns monks of Saint-Calais, he will refuse to their request for confirmation of privileges, urges caution in event of possible presentation of papal privileges by the monks, refers to letters to Charles the Bald and bishops in his realm, and to Herard of Tours. \tCommentary mentions the 'Le Mans forgeries'- important part of this affair. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t660\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tPatriarch Vitalis I of Grado\tPatriarch\ti\tGrado\tGrado\t45.6817741\t13.3863992\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons to council called for 30th of October, if unable to attend demands that he send suitable suffragan bishops and a priest and deacon. \tWhether he accepts this invitation or not is not documented according to the commentary. Refers to the region of Grado, have located it in the town of the same name \/ place. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t661\t863\t863\tSeptember\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tthreat\tConcerns occupation of Cambrai and Judith, may read letter to his suffragans. Should release Baldwin from excommunication because King Charles the Bald has promised the papal legates to comply with the papal will, and threatens excommunication if he does not. \tCommentary notes that letter is detailed more especially in n. 692, that here it says that Hincmar did not comply with papal request as pope had merely expressed a desire.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t662\t863\t863\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tunknown\tAbout Rothad, who may want to accept judgement of Pitres \/ Soissons 862 and then be provided with means of support by King Charles the Bald. \tOnly survives as short fragments in the indicated in commentary letter of Hincmar to pope, which only Flodoard preserves. Unsure of precise content. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t663\t863\t863\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tpraise, admonish\tPraises for his 'emperor-like behaviour', but admonishes him to support actively Rothad's journey to Rome in the matter, and refers to his simultaneous reply to Hincmar (n. 662) concerning the request submitted by Charles regarding some persons.\tCommentary notes that Lap\u00f4tre attributes the use of the Greek word basileos for king to the influence of Anastasius (secretary).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t664\t863\t863\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tErmentrude\tQueen\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\trebuke, inform\tConfirms receipt of her letters, rebukes her remarks that by the decision made in the matter of Rothad, Roman privileges had been strengthened- for the heavenly father as architect had laid the foundations; finally refers to papal decision given to Charles (n. 663) by Deacon Liudo. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t665\t863\t863\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tRothad of Soissons\tBishop\ti\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform, order\tMany things, about reproving letter meant to be for Rothad, which pope passed on to Hincmar, which Hincmar claims did not get (n. 643). Recalls many things from past letters, before saying that now released from monastic custody he should not hesitate to travel to Rome in accordance with the promises given. \tMan who is said to have come to Rome with Count Boso and deliver Nicholas the letter mentioned for Rothad is unknown. Commentary also mentions that Nicholas refers to fact his earliest letter of admonition to Hincmar (n. 607) should also be sent to Rothad.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t666\t863\t863\tOctober\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tInforms Hincmar that, according to the scriptures the culprit and accuser must be present at the same time. \tFragment. Put in this time due to references to disputes to Rothad. Is not impossible however that the letter originates from lost letter to Hincmar in the matter of Rothad. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t668\t863\t863\tOctober-November\t29-\tReceive\tBishops from the Synod of Verberie\tBishop\tg\tVerberie\tVerberie\t49.310294\t2.727467\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tOn the matter of deposed bishop Rothad.\tCommentary notes: written statements of the bishops taken by Rothad himself. Number and authors of the letters remain unclear. Rothad's accusers according to Nicholas in n. 745 only commented on Rothad's matter in writing.Louis II said to hold Rothad up in Annals of St Bertin, who refused them passage. Content derived from later papal statements (n. 745, n. 753) that bishops were only evasive about Rothad's deposition and denied their involvement altogether.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t671\t863\t863\tOctober\t30\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tInforms Ado about the crime of Lothar II, with Theutberga and Waldrada, which the former archbishops Thietgaud and Gunther would have favoured, as they made known by presenting the Metz synodal acts to the Roman synod. Encloses his letter, the sentence of deposition and the further decisions of the Roman synod. \tSimilarity of the passage with various letters of Pope John VIII see mentioned by Ertl according to commentary. Only one of the four preserved letters addressed to a single person, but not clear in commentary whether this means out of the series of 'circular letters' mentioned before, that were written at the same time during the Synod. Claims it is not possible to decide if this is due to special trust in Ado or result of tradition. Could also be regarded as an intermediary for the bishops in kingdom of Lothar II. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t672\t863\t863\tOctober\t30\tSent\tBishops of Gallia, Italy, and Germany.\tEpiscopate\tg\tGallia, Italy, Germany\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tr\tc\tprompt\tinform\tInforms them with the same wording as n. 671 the decisions of the Roman Synod.\tAs mentioned above, one of the series of papal circulars on the synod that has survived not in its entirety but only in canon collections. (n. 671, 673, 674).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t673\t863\t863\tOctober\t30\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate of Charles the Bald\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tr\tc\tprompt\tinform\tInform with same wording as n. 671 on decisions of Roman Synod. \tLocated as Quierzy for mapping purposes as addressed due to being in Charles the Bald's realm. Delivered probably by Engelwin, Charles's chaplain according to the commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t674\t863\t863\tOctober\t30\tSent\tArchbishops in realm of Louis the German\tArchbishop\tg\tRealm of Louis the German\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tr\tc\tprompt\tinform\tAs above.\tLocated as Frankfurt for mapping purposes as addressed to archbishops in Louis the German's realm. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t675\tVague\t863-867\tOctober-\t31-\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tprompt\ttransmit\tSends eight canonical sentences to Ado, including in the duties and exemplary function of metropolitans, and due deference and obedience of suffragans to their metropolitans. \tCommentary states that according to manuscript tradition, the recipient can only be Ado. Possible that sections were compiled in response to requests from the archbishop, however- a corresponding accompanying letter from the pope has not survived. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t676\tVague\t863-867\tOctober-April\t31-\tSent\tEpiscopate in Gallia , Burgundy and Germania\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate in Gallia , Burgundy and Germania\tSchleithal\t48.988369\t8.044635\tr\tc\tprompt\texhort\tExhorts them to unanimity towards Lothar II. Grants deposed archbishops right to attend church and to lay communion, but with reference to synodal decision (n. 670) denies them the exercise of their episcopal office. \tLocated as Schleithal again for mapping purposes- as seems like a good midpoint between the three regions. Two fragments of papal letter. Refers as in n. 721 to the required resistance against illegitimate rulers. Letter probably belongs with the 'papal circular letters' listed prior to this. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t677\t863\t863\tOctober-December\t31-\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\tcriticise\tWrites to Lothar that he has given way to his bodily desires and brought misfortune on himself and others, as evidenced by the lawful deposition of the former archbishops Thietgaud and Gunther, because they had to tried to obstruct justice under the appearance of law. Pope asks whether he is not justly to be punished on account of his adultery with two women. \tTwo fragments are said to be regarded as likely belonging together. Letter dated to time shortly after Roman Synod. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t678\t863\t863\tOctober-December\t31-\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\torder\tOrders Lothar not to admit anyone in Trier and Cologne to archbishop election before reporting to Rome.\tCommentary notes that this is only fragment of longer letter has survived, and also that some have put this as part of n. 677. Commentary also says letter resulted from deposition of the archbishops pronounced at Roman Synod of 863, and letter probably written shortly after or even at the same time. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t679\t863\t863\tOctober-December\t31-\tReceive\tAdventius of Metz\tBishop\ti\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\t(received)\task for pardon\tAdventius asks for forgiveness in response to papal decrees.\tBelongs to series of further letters of apology of the Lotharingian bishops. Letter supported by one of Charles the Bald, see next entry.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t680\t863\t863\tOctober-December\t31-\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tintervene\tIntervenes with Nicholas on behalf of Adventius of Metz who had asked him for a letter of intercession and for transmission of his signed confession of guilt. He justifies his request with the education of Adventius by his uncle Bishop Drogo of Metz in the realm of his brother Emperor Lothar I, with his friendship as well as with the special dignity of the see of Metz since the times of King Charlemagne and Emperor Louis the Pious. He cites quotations from Augustine and Leo to excuse Adventius. \tCommentary states intervention of Charles on behalf of Adventius proves his tactical approach, as the bishop of Metz had previously sided with Lothar II. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t684\t863\t863-864\tNovember-March\tN\/A\tReceive\tThietgaud of Trier, Gunther of Cologne\tArchbishop\tsi\tCologne\tCologne Germany\t50.937531\t6.9602786\tp\tc\t(received)\tcomplain\tThey write to Nicholas after their deposition, say they had turned to the pope at the behest of their fellow bishops to review the Metz deliberations and to instruct them, they refer to their three-week waiting period and to a first, initially positive papal judgement (n. 667- unlikely this was the case), criticise the manner of the condemnation without due canonical procedure in the presence of other metropolitans and bishops and involvement of Anastasius, together with their brethren reject this sentence contrary to canonical law, renounce papal communion, accuse the pope of transgression of the apostolic precepts quoted by himself, of unworthy imperiousness and arrogance, and understand themselves to be representative of their entire state. In summary they state that according to canon and secular law, no free virgin may be given to a man as a concubine, therefore such a girl is considered his wife by virtue of parental consent and her fidelity and love. \tCommentary notes the complaints were probably also circulated in Byzantium.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t685\t863\t863-864\tDecember-October\tN\/A\tSent\tRadoald of Porto\tBishop\ti\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons the fugitive bishop Radoald of Porto to suspended punishment by several letters sent by his episcopal legates to various places.\tLocated as Metz for mapping purposes as unclear where Radoald would have been and we know he was present at Metz previously.  Commentary notes that although he is said to have first fled to Emperor Louis II, the dispute between Louis II and the Pope at the beginning of 864 would make a legation to the surroundings of Louis II highly unlikely but not impossible. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t688\t864\t864\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tRomans\tPeople\tg\tRome\tRome\t41.9027835\t12.4963655\tp\tboth\tprompt\torder\tOrders a general fast with supplications and litanies for himself and the Romans on the news of the hostile advance of Louis II. \tThe commentary says events can only be  determined by looking elsewhere such as in the Annals of St. Bertin. Louis travels to Rome on initiative of the two deposed archbishops to persuade him to reinstate them. Different reports as to how violence broke out with stress on either Louis targeting one of the pope's processions or the pope holding the procession against Louis's polite protests as a provocation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t692\t864\t864\tJanuary-February\tN\/A\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tBishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\tinform\tAbout affairs of Hilduin of Cambrai, Baldwin of Flanders, Rothad of Soissons and Gottschalk. Very long.\tSome interesting things here, firstly Hincmar seems to be very diplomatic at times if we judge from the commentary, trying to make reasoning of his actions such as because he had already fallen into papal disgrace, as well as emphasizing the popes instructions to him and bishops of Charles in regards to Rothad were implemented as quickly as possible. We also see 'classic' Hincmar through a defence in detail the individual steps taken by him and fellow bishops against Rothad, as well as quoting several times from previous letters from Nicholas as well as justifying his actions on canons of various councils. Says he will send Gottschalk to Rome at the Pope's request. Supposed letter sent to Hincmar by Lothar II about Hilduin has not been preserved and nothing is known about the legation outside this letter according to the commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t693\t864\t864-865\tMarch\tN\/A\tReceive\tTheoto of Fulda\tAbbot\ti\tFulda\tFulda\t50.5558095\t9.6808449\tp\tc\t(received)\task\tAsks the pope in a letter to protect his nephew who had wounded the son of King Charles of Aquitaine. \tFragment.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t694\t864\t864\tMarch-April\tN\/A\tReceive\tRathold of Strasbourg \tBishop\ti\tStra\u00dfburg\tStra\u00dfburg, Austria\t46.8998718\t14.3336805\tp\tc\t(received)\task\tAsks Nicholas for pardon for his behaviour in Lothar II marriage affair. Excuses his letter sent by legate which was delayed due to his participation in royal undertakings against the pagans and bad christians.\tLetter survived only in fragments. Commentary also states that this letter likely corresponded in its working to the other letters of apology of the other bishops from Lothar's realm. of which that of Adventius of Metz survived. Staubach wants to recognise the influence of Adventius in this fragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t696\t864\t864\tMarch\t30\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tpraise\tReplies to his letter request, praises him for his zeal and excuses his late reply with the difficulty Ado's messengers had, exhorts him concerning the marriage of Lothar II to influence the king. Astonishment at supposed papally legitimised marriage of a cleric and doubts authenticity of the alleged papal letter sent along. \tLetter of Ado to the Pope mentioned in this letter has not survived according to commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t697\t864\t864\tApril-June\tN\/A\tReceive\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tjustify\tExpresses to Nicholas his wish for a Rome journey, rebukes ill-talk as enemies seeking only his kingdom, says he had opposed Gunther and forwarded the papal letter to the suffragan bishops of Cologne with regards to Ingiltrude, he exhorted Gunther to expel from his realm after knowledge of the papal anathema. Finally intercedes on behalf of the uninvolved suffragan bishops of the Trier and Cologne ecclesiastical provinces. \tPerels has called 'submissive declaration of obedience' according to commentary. Commentary also notes: letter supposedly written by Adventius according to Staubach. Letter also supposedly hints at reinstatement of the two archbishops, otherwise denies Gunther in particular, but takes the side of both suffragan bishops and significantly does not mention Waldrada at all. Letter can be dated shortly before Lothar's meeting with his brother, Emperor Louis II in Orbe which happened in Spring or Summer 864.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t699\t864\t864\tMay-June\tN\/A\tSent\tHorich II\tKing\ti\tDenmark\tJutland\t55.62955\t9.20105\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tthank\tThanks him for the gifts brought by the bishop as in the above entry, praises the development of Horich's faith even before his baptism, reports his prayers for him, commends the Christian faith and exhorts him to serve no more idols and demons. \tLetter is said to pursue a thoroughly missionary tone, and commentary further states that Dr\u00f6gereit speaks of a questionable piece, but no valid proof of forgery can be provided. Located as Jutland for mapping purposes purely as unclear where Horich would have been located. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t700\t864\t864\tMay\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tsend\tSends a letter to Charles the Bald through Hincmar of Reims. Content unclear.\tContent is unclear as we only through the mention in the letter to Hincmar do we know about the contemporaneous letter to Charles, which Nicholas commissioned Hincmar to forward. Can be assumed however also according to commentary that we can assume it concerned the matter of Rothad as did the one to Hincmar. Pope had already addressed Charles three times in this matter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t701\t864\t864\tMay\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tcommission\tCommissions Hincmar to forward a papal letter to Charles the Bald, expresses his astonishment that Rothad contrary to four papal orders is neither reinstituted to his former office by Hincmar nor has been presented to the Pope, but rather prevented from making the journey to Rome despite his appeal to the Holy See. Orders again sending of Rothad and forbids the consecration of another bishop for the see until the dispute is decided. Orders Hincmar to stop communion with Gunther who contrary to papal and synodal sentence of deposition is said to have presumed to himself papal office, and calls for public proclamation of Gunther's offences. \tThe papal letter to Charles mentioned at the start has not survived. Alot of detail included as I see this as an important letter between Nicholas and Hincmar. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t702\t864\t864\tMay\t2\tSent\tRoland of Arles\tArchbishop\ti\tArles\tArles\t43.676647\t4.6277769\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tpraise\tReplies to his letter, praises his devotion to the Apostolic See and thanks him for the call to steadfastness, confirms to him with reference to the fifth synod (of Constantinople), that his predecessors had conferred the vicariate on the archbishops of Arles and also offers Roland papal protection and elevation of position following his continued support. Calls for execution of the indications communicated in another letter (n. 465) communicated to him. \tLetter from the archbishop to the pope has not survived, appeal to steadfastness perhaps refers to the marriage quarrel of Lothar II. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t703\t864\t864\tMay-June\tN\/A\tSent\tAdalwin of Salzburg\tArchbishop\ti\tSalzburg\tSalzburg Austria\t47.80949\t13.05501\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tInforms Adalwin that bishops may not be withdrawn from the office conferred on them because of illness or that others may be consecrated in their place, but neighbouring bishops may assist during the illness, among other things. \tNote that Gregory the Great says he will 'put up with' the Emperor Maurice ordering 'the archbishop of Justinana Prima to be replaced because he is sick in the head and therefore unable to care for the defence of the city' despite the fact he 'objects that this is uncanonical'. Reference: Paul Magdalino, \u2018Church, Empire and Christendom in C. 600 and C. 1075: The View From the Registers of Popes Gregory I and Gregory VII\u2019, in Cristianit\u00e0 d'Occidente e Cristianit\u00e0 d'Oriente: (Secoli VI - XI); 24 - 30 Aprile 2003; Tomo Primo (Spoleto, 2004), p. 10.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t704\t864\t864\tMay-June\tN\/A\tSent\tAdalwin of Salzburg\tArchbishop\ti\tSalzburg\tSalzburg Austria\t47.80949\t13.05501\tp\tc\tprompt\tinstruction\tInstructs Adalwin as he has heard various information about the youthful bishop Lanfred of S\u00e4ben-Brixen, to prevent him from hunting game and birds in the future, and to forbid him again for his intimacies with a daughter and to deal with both accusations against Lanfred at a synod. \tLetter apparently offers a detailed rejection of hunting, complete with biblical quotations. Unclear whether the daughter mentioned is his own. Nicholas suggests excommunication and possibly degradation to the archbishop as possible punitive measures for the mentioned synod. Further news about this synod does not survive. Commentary states that since an outcome of the papal threat is not known, Prinz doubts the scope of papal authority; but also states that this argument is limited by the fact that in other cases there is often no information about the consequences of papal letters.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t705\t864\t864\tMay-June\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\trebuke\tAnswers questions of Louis the German brought to him by Bishop Solomon I of Constance. Rebukes king for not having prevented the unlawful union between Lothar and Waldrada, and calls upon him to publically disapprove of this as well as to admonish Lothar, finds fault with Louis' non-appearance at the Metz synod, demands restraint from dealing with the two deposed archbishops as well as Lothar II if he does not obey the admonitions. \tCommentary notes that the letter is formally addressed to Bishop Solomon and speaks of Louis the German in third person. Also states that in Nicholas' demand to publicly disapprove of the behaviour of Lothar II, Staubach wants to recognise the influence of Hincmar of Reims on the Pope.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t706\t864\t864\tMay\t31\tSent\tAll Faithful\tPeople\tg\tunspecified\tBremen\t53.0792962\t8.8016936\tr\tboth\tprompt\tinform\tConcerning the union of bishopric of Bremen with the archbishopric of Hamburg. \tLocated as Bremen for mapping purposes due to the the topic of the letter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t709\t864\t864\tJune-September\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiscopates in Gallia, Germania and Belgium\tEpiscopate\tg\tGallia, Germania and Belgium\tSchleithal\t48.988369\t8.044635\tr\tc\tprompt\tconfirm\tConfirms once again the deposition of Thietgaud and Gunther, and sends an invitation to a synod in Rome in early November to reaffirm the deposition as well as to negotiate the cause of King Lothar II and the Bishop Ignatios of Constantinople.\tCommentary states that Gunther and Thietgaud supposedly accepted the papal invitation and went to Rome in the hope of being reinstated, but the synod did not take place. Have followed earlier convention in using Schleithal for mapping purposes.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t710\t864\t864\tJune-September\tN\/A\tSent\tRudolf of Bourges, Suffragans\tArchbishop, Bishop\tg\tBourges\tBourges\t47.081012\t2.398782\tp\tc\tprompt\tremind\tReminds Rudolf and his suffragans of the sending of the Sentence of Condemnation on the former archbishops Thietgaud and Gunther. The latter had allowed the adulteress Ingiltrude who had left her husband Boso to stay in their dioceses despite the sentence pronounced by Pope Benedict III and further papal admonitions. Nicholas calls for no communion with the banished archbishops, who have also stirred up emperors and kings, and asks for two messengers to be sent for the time around 1 November. \tThis papal letter is the only extant letter of invitation to the November synod which ultimately did not take place according to the commentary. There is a question as to whether the mentions of the Council of Nicaea and the indirect reference to the Council of Antioch may indicate the use of the Pseudoisidoric Decretals.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t711\t864\t864\tJune-September\tN\/A\tSent\tRudolf of Bourges\tBishop\ti\tBourges\tBourges\t47.081012\t2.398782\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tpraise\tPraises him for his attitude towards the Apostolic See in which he should persevere, and sends chapters on his request. Concludes by referring to various excerpts, exhorting that future messengers should appear in less of a hurry as he has many matters to attend to from all over, referring to his other letter to Rudolf (n.464) and calling for the delivery of another letter (n. 710) to Hincmar of Reims and to the episcopate in the realm of Charles the Bald. \tThe further letter mentioned at the end has not survived according to the commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t716\t864\t864\tSeptember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tUnnamed\tPeople\tg\tSardinia\tSardinia\t40.1208752\t9.0128926\tr\tboth\tprompt\tintervene\tExact content of letters unknown \tCommentary states this is due to the fact that we only know of them from a mention in the Liber Pontificalis. We do know that the letters were sent along with legates to intervene against received news that incest and marriage if relatives was being tolerated by judges on the island of Sardinia. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t718\t864\t864\tSeptember\t17\tSent\tFranko of Tongern\tBishop\ti\tTongern\tTongeren\t50.7799815\t5.4601943\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tforgive\tIn a reply to a letter of apology forgives Bishop Franko of Tongern for attending the Metz synod as Pope Leo I had done with the repentant participants of the Ephesian Robber Synod (except with Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) if he avoids archbishop Thietgaud of Trier and the archbishop Gunther of Cologne, who exercises his office unlawfully, and also if he opposes the adulterous king Lothar II, and admonishes him to urge Lothar II to take back his wife Theutberga. \tAccording to commentary the pope's letter partly corresponds word for word with one to Adventius of Metz (n. 721), the apology of Franco has not been preserved and could have been similar to that of Adventius. It is likely all the bishops in the kingdom of Lothar II, who were affected by the decisions of the Roman synod of 863 (cf. n. 670), received papal pardon in order to be able to better influence King Lothar II. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t720\t864\t864-865\tJune\tN\/A\tSent\tBernhard Plantevelue\tCount\ti\tAutun\tAutun\t46.950914\t4.301565\tp\ts\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes Bernhard for the misdeeds perpetrated against the people in the realm of King Charles the Bald.\tLocated as Autun due to Bernhard being the Count of Autun from 864. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t721\t864\t864\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tAdventius of Metz\tBishop\ti\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\tprompt\tpardon\tAlluding to his earlier letter (n.671) grants pardon to Adventius as he wishes, condemns the behaviour of the former archbishop of Cologne, allows the duty of submission mentioned by Adventius to apply only to kings and princes fit to rule, not to tyrants, takes up the provisions of Pope Leo I and Innocent I mentioned by Adventius and promises heavenly reward of Adventius no longer regards the former archbishop Thietgaud of Trier as a bishop, no longer keeps company with Gunther of Cologne and his followers, and opposes the king Lothar II as a bishop. \tCommentary states that this and the letter to Franko of Tongren (n.718) are the only two preserved letters of absolution to bishops in the realm of Lothar II who were affected by the decisions of the Roman synod of 863. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t722\t864\t864\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\ts\tprompt\task for permission\tNicholas asks through the Apokrisiar (and bishop) Arsenius (of Orte), asks for permission from Emperor Louis II to send envoys to King Charles the Bald in ecclesiastical matters.\tCommentary states that according to comments in the Annals of Saint Bertin, Louis refused the request because he distrusted the Pope. The legation could be connected with the Pope's synodal plan, and Parisot suspects that Louis II might have feared an alliance between Nicholas and Charles the Bald. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t723\t864\t864\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tArchbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and Lothar II\tArchbishop, Bishop\tg\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons the archbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald and Lothar II to a synod on 18 or 19 May 865. \tI have taken a similar approach as taken for n. 631 whereby this entry has been entered three times reflecting letters sent to each of the kingdoms. The commentary states that n. 763 documents that the letters went to all three kingdoms. For the letter to the bishops in the realm of Lothar II, n. 757 attributes the delivery of the invitation to the kings Louis the German and Charles the Bald. According to n. 724 Bishop Ado of Vienne was to commission messengers to deliver it. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t723\t864\t864\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tArchbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and Lothar II\tArchbishop, Bishop\tg\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons the archbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald and Lothar II to a synod on 18 or 19 May 865. \tI have taken a similar approach as taken for n. 631 whereby this entry has been entered three times reflecting letters sent to each of the kingdoms. The commentary states that n. 763 documents that the letters went to all three kingdoms. For the letter to the bishops in the realm of Lothar II, n. 757 attributes the delivery of the invitation to the kings Louis the German and Charles the Bald. According to n. 724 Bishop Ado of Vienne was to commission messengers to deliver it. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t723\t864\t864\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tArchbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and Lothar II\tArchbishop, Bishop\tg\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\tc\tprompt\tsummon\tSummons the archbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald and Lothar II to a synod on 18 or 19 May 865. \tI have taken a similar approach as taken for n. 631 whereby this entry has been entered three times reflecting letters sent to each of the kingdoms. The commentary states that n. 763 documents that the letters went to all three kingdoms. For the letter to the bishops in the realm of Lothar II, n. 757 attributes the delivery of the invitation to the kings Louis the German and Charles the Bald. According to n. 724 Bishop Ado of Vienne was to commission messengers to deliver it. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t724\t864\t864\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tprompt\texhort\tExhorts Ado to continue to influence King Lothar II although he has presented him and his followers as excommunicated, and he asks to be informed of the results, and invites him as well as two of his suffragans to a synod dealing with this and other ecclesiastical matters on 18 May 865. Also sends by messenger another copy of the answer given earlier by possibly not received (n.696) in the matter of the cleric Aluicus, and rejects a synod to be held by him or his legates (in West Franica) as requested by Gallic metropolitans, and on the other hand requests Ado that the synodal invitation be forwarded by suitable messengers to the metropolitans (n.723) who are to appear themselves or be represented by two suffragans.\tSurvives as a fragment. Commentary states cf.  n.764 and n.768 on the request of bishops for a synod in West Francia which was rejected by the Pope. It also remarks that the Pope's plan to invite the Frankish bishops to a (regional) synod in Rome could by considered a novelty in the history of synodal law, as Barion points out. The 'excommunication' of Lothar II has been interpreted by Perels, following D\u00fcmmler, to the effect that Lothar was considered by the Pope to be excommunicated without being formally excommunicated. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t726\t864\t864\tDecember\t11\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\thelp\tReplies to several requests and quotes from a letter of Pope Innocent I to the bishop Gubbio concerning the uniformity of ecclesiastical orders and the governing function of the Roman Church.\tThe multiple enquiries of Ado have not survived according to the commentary and so can only be deduced from the inscribed passage of Pope Innocent I's letter included within, which nicholas' letter is said to be composed almost exclusively of.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t729\t865\t865-866\tN\/A\tN\/A\tReceive\tHelletrud\tNoble\ti\tSpoleto\tSpoleto\t42.7404881\t12.7378003\tp\ts\t(received)\tpetition\tComplains by letter to Nicholas about the dispossession of her estates received from Emperor Lothar I by her brother Lothar II and asks the Pope for letters to Lothar II as well as to King Charles the Bald and Louis the German. \tHave located as Spoleto based purely on the fact I believe she was married to Berengar di Spoleto. Her petition is mentioned only in the papal letter to Charles the Bald according to the commentary, and it is unclear which of the details mentioned there were recorded in the letter or perhaps found the pope in another way. Nicholas complied with the request by writing to Charles the Bald (n.731) and the Deperditum to Louis the German (n.730); no other letters have survived or been mentioned elsewhere. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t730\t865\t865-866\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\tadmonish\tAt the request of a letter from Helletrud (n. 729), Nicholas admonishes King Louis the German in the matter of Helletrud.\tCommentary states that we only know from the parallel letter addressed to Charles the Bald which has survived, that Nicholas also wrote to Louis (probably with the same wording). The consequences that Louis may have drawn are unknown, as they are for Charles. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t731\t865\t865-866\tN\/A\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tadmonish\tAt the request of a letter from Helletrud (n. 729), Nicholas admonishes King Charles the Bald to grant the widow of Count Berengar, Helletrud, help in safeguarding the estates given to her by Emperor Lothar I. The goods had been unlawfully given to the Normans like a fief by her brother Lothar II, whom he treats as if excommunicated and to whom he therefore does not want to write; the pope finally asks for later notification. \tCommentary states that the Pope's commission is justified with pro reverentia apostolorum principum and recommends Charles to influence Lothar II. It also states that an excommunication of Lothar is not mentioned expressis verbis, the formulation of excommunication habemus remains vague. The success of the papal admonition is said to be unknown. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t732\t865\t865\tJanuary-July\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\ts\tprompt\tstress\tEmphasises to Louis II with the words of Emperor Constantine and the Holy scriptures that he should spread the mantle (of silence) if he hears anything bad about priests which might confuse pure minds. He refers to the case of Bishop Seufried of Piacenza who can only resign his office by a judgement of the Primate, not of other diocesan bishops, or else in doubt after the matter has been dealt with by the Pope. He orders that Seufried, removed by Deacon Paul, be reinstated in his office. \tFragment. Commentary states to see n. 760 and n. 771 for more on this matter.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t733\t865\t865\tJanuary-April\tN\/A\tReceive\tKing Solomon III of Brittany and his wife Gyembret\tKing\ti\tBrittany\tNantes\t47.218371\t-1.553621\tp\ts\t(received)\trequest\tRebukes the episcopate in the realm of Lothar II with reference to earlier letters due to their inaction in the matter of King Lothar II, he implores them to persuade Lothar to repudiate the adulteress Waldrada if a final sentence of the Pope is not to be passed on the King. Refers to the letter delivered by the then-bishop Radoald and Bishop John of Cervia (n.605) with the Commonitorium (n. 589), according to which the king, together with the adulteress and her retinue, are already now deprived of papal communion. \tCommentary states that presumably bishop Festinian had previously asked for the pallium himself, since in n. 764 the pope refers to his (not preserved) earlier negative answer (n. 495). Because of this failure, the king and his wife were probably subsequently called in by Festinian as mediators. The letter mentions the papal criticism of the missing seal and the royal messenger. Both are also criticised in n. 764: the envoys because they did not wait patiently for the papal decision, and the handing over of an open, unsealed letter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t734\t865\t865\tJanuary-April\t22\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\treject\tWrites to Louis that he has received the imperial messenger Aistulf, although it had hitherto been unusual at the apostolic see to do so in the absence of a signed letter; he rejects the complaint of Aistulf's messenger that contrary to custom (among Nicholas' predecessors),  only Bishop Arsenius of Orte but not the Roman optimates, had been present at the reception. \tFragment. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t735\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis II\tEmperor\ti\tMilan\tMilan\t45.4642035\t9.189982\tp\ts\tprompt\torder\tBy order of Pope Nicholas I, Louis II is to fight against infidels and not against christians. \tCommentary states we know about this instruction only from a mention in n. 740, from which the quotation is also taken. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t736\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\torder\tNicholas I at the intervention of Louis II and King Lothar II writes to King Louis the German in a manner similar as to King Charles the Bald (n. 737) telling him not to oppress Lothar II and his reign. \tCommentary states that only from the Annals of St Bertin do we learn of identical letters to Louis the German and his episcopate (n. 741). It also notes that introduction mentions first of all the legation of Liutfried, an uncle of Lothar II, sent by Lothar II to his uncle Louis II. The explicit intervention of Louis II again mentioned only in the Annals of St Bertin, should apply to the present letter as well as the one to Charles the  Bald, and was prompted by the agreements made at Tusey on 19 February 865 between Charles the Bald and Louis the German. This letter is said to have been dispatched together with n. 737. 740 and 741 by Arsenius, who delivered the present letter in Frankfurt in mid-June 865. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t737\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tAttingy\tAttingy\t49.478191\t4.5776519\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tExhorts Charles quoting numerous biblical passages and emphasising the papal duties, to make peace with Emperor Louis II, who as defender of the Christians against the Saracens and the Roman church should hold the emperorship and the realm of his brother undisturbed, recalls the various treaties (of Coblenz, Savonni\u00e8res and Meersen) and recommends his aprocrisar, legate and bishop Arsenius (of Orte), sent with further oral and written commissions (n. 759). \tCommentary notes that letters with corresponding content were also sent to the clergy in the respective kingdoms of the two Frankish kings (cf. n. 740 and n. 741).  Located as Attingy as the commentary states that the copy to Charles was delivered by the papal legate Arsenius together with n. 753 in mid-July 865 in the palatinate of Attingy. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t738\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tGondreville\tGondreville\t48.693085\t5.963734\tp\ts\tprompt\trebuke\tNicholas rebukes Lothar II for the poor reception of papal legates. \tCommentary notes that this is only short fragment of a papal letter found inserted in Lothar's reply letter (n. 786) in which he denies the bad treatment of the papal legates. Located as Gondreville due to commentary noting this could be likely. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t739\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\trebuke\tNicholas rebukes Lothar II for his transgressions and exhorts to repentance, emphasising papal moderation which, like already communicated in an earlier letter (cf. n. 677 and n.678) due to to the influence of the Emperor; he recalls other accusations in the Commonitorium (n. 589) brought to Metz earlier by the former bishop Radoald of Porto and Bishop John of Cervia, and the revelation made there by the Pope (n. 589) and to the letter delivered there (n. 605); he threatens final judgement in the event of his failure to act before the the return of the apocrisiarch and legate Bishop Arsenius of Orte who had been sent for exhortation. \tCommentary notes that Arsenius probably delivered the letter together with n. 742 (and possibly n. 738) at the beginning of July 865 during Lothar II's first stay at Gondreville hence the locate as. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t740\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiscopate of Charles the Bald\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate of Charles the Bald\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tr\tc\tprompt\texhort\tExhorts the episcopate in the realm of King Charles the Bald with quotations from numerous biblical passages to urge the king, in accordance with the papal letter addressed to him (n. 737), he recalls Charles' promise of peace to his brother and their children (Meersen 851), refers to the fight of Louis II against the infidels ordered by the Pope (n. 735), recalls the imperial coronation performed by Pope Leo IV and the imperial dignity, and finally recommends his legate Arsenius of Orte who should act by papal commission, but submit difficult cases to himself for decision (n. 759). \tLetter partially coincides with the letter to Charles the Bald (n. 737) according to the commentary, which also states that nicholas' approach to Louis II was presumably determined by general political considerations, among other things. Located as Quierzy for mapping purposes. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t741\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiscopate and nobles of Louis the German\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate and nobles of Louis the German\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tr\tboth\tprompt\texhort\tNicholas writes to the episcopate and great ones in the realm of Louis the German in the same way as to the bishops in the realm of Charles the Bald (n. 740). \tOnly from the Annals of St Bertin do we learn of identical letters to Louis the German (n. 736) as well as to his episcopate and nobles according to the commentary. The commentary also notes that this was presumably delivered in Frankfurt in mid-June 865 hence the locate as. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t742\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tEpiscopate of Lothar II\tEpiscopate\tg\tEpiscopate of Lothar II. \tGondreville\t48.693085\t5.963734\tr\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes the episcopate in the realm of Lothar II with reference to earlier letters due to their inaction in the matter of King Lothar II, he implores them to persuade Lothar to repudiate the adulteress Waldrada if a final sentence of the Pope is not to be passed on the King. Refers to the letter delivered by the then-bishop Radoald and Bishop John of Cervia (n.605) with the Commonitorium (n. 589), according to which the king, together with the adulteress and her retinue, are already now deprived of papal communion. \tCommentary notes that the earlier papal pronouncements mentioned in the letter are only mentioned in very general terms. Gondreville once again used as locate as due to commentary stating this is where the letter was presumably handed over. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t744\t865\t865\tJanuary-March\tN\/A\tSent\tCharles the Bald, Lothar II\tKing\tsi\tAttingy\tAttingy\t49.478191\t4.5776519\tp\ts\tprompt\tcomment\tNicholas comments in writing to King Charles the Bald and King Lothar II on the excommunication of the adulteress Ingiltrud. \tOnly known from mention in the Annals of St Bertin according to commentary. It further notes that the original intended recipient cannot be inferred from the mention, but that Arsenius likely read the letter before Charles the Bald and Lothar. Located as Attingy due to commentary noting this is where it would have been read (along with n. 743- which has not been included as it is about returning money to Arsenius, had an unclear recipient and could have had it's content influenced by Arsenius, thus it did not seem worth noting. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t745\t865\t865\tJanuary\t19\tSent\tRothad of Soissons\tBishop\ti\tRome\tRome\t41.9027835\t12.4963655\tp\tc\tprompt\tconfirm\tNicholas confirms to Rothad with reference to his earlier letters his restitution to the episcopate, threatens with excommunication all who should prevent him from exercising his office, points out the non-appearance of bishops summoned by him by letter in the matter of Rothad, all except for one.\tCommentary notes that the mention of the plaintiffs' invitations also remains very general, and the letters themselves are not preserved. Located as Rome as this is where Rothad states he has been waiting (n. 745).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t746\t865\t865\tJanuary\t21\tReceive\tRothad of Soissons\tBishop\ti\tRome\tRome\t41.9027835\t12.4963655\tp\tc\t(received)\tplea\tRothad describes in detail to Nicholas his uncanonical deposition by Hincmar of Reims at the Synod of Bishops (of P\u00eetres and Soissons in June 862) despite his appeal to the Pope (n. 577) and goes on to explain that Hincmar then prevented him several times both from his right of appeal and from travelling to Rome, disregarding the papal letters, and instead took him into monastic custody. He refers to several letters of his own to Hincmar, to Charles, to the priest he himself deposed and to a fellow bishop and participant in the synod. He stresses he has now been waiting in Rome for six months for the bishops accusing him, (n. 712), so that he could present his case. Since none of them had appeared in Rome so far (despite several papal requests), Rothad pleads with the pope to judge his case according to canon law. \tCommentary notes to cf. n. 607, 629, 641, 662 and 701 concerning papal letters to Hincmar, which also contain the papal request to Hincmar or his deputies to appear as his accusers in Rome for the renegotiation of the Rothad affair.  Located as Rome as this is where Rothad states he has been waiting. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t751\t865\t865\tFebruary-June\tN\/A\tReceive\tRemigus of Lyon\tArchbishop\ti\tLyon\tLyon\t45.764043\t4.835659\tp\tc\t(received)\tintercede\tRemigus intercedes with Nicholas on behalf of the deposed archbishops Gunther of Cologne and Thietgaud of Trier.\tCommentary states that Hugh of Flavingy mentions the intervention in connection with a letter from Remigus to Ado of Vienne on the same matter. It notes that these are at the same time the most important indications of a dissemination of the propaganda writing of Archbishop Gunther of Cologne (n. 752).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t752\t865\t865\tFebruary\t28\tReceive\tArchbishops summoned to the Synod of Pavia\tArchbishop\tg\tPavia\tPavia\t45.1847248\t9.1582069\tp\tc\t(received)\tplea\tThe archbishops summoned to the Synod of Pavia by Louis II including Tado of Milan, Roland of Arles and Arpert of Embrun plead with Pope Nicholas I on behalf of the deposed archbishops Gunther of Cologne and Thietgaud of Trier and refer to examples of forgiveness among papal predecessors. \tCommentary notes that Fuhrmann was the first to prove that this was a propaganda writing, preserved in the original and intended for further distribution, which Gunther of Cologne sent to Hincmar of Reims. On the pardon of punishment by papal predecessors for repentant sinners, the commentary states this was almost certainly preceded by a canonistic collection produced between 863 and 865 under the influence of Archbishop Gunther.  It was probably disseminated in part, and obviously promoted the rumour about the reinstatement of the archbishops according to the commentary, which Nicholas countered with n. 768. It is said that this may have been helped by the fact that Gunther of Cologne assured Hincmar in his letter that the Pope was not averse to his reinstatement. He also referred to the support of the emperor, empress and the bishops present in Pavia. Already in Pavia Gunther had probably given the impression that he came to the synod with the pope's approval, as the introduction to the collection of the examples suggest, the commentary further states however that the text could also refer to the fact that Gunther was able to leave Rome with papal permission and advice. The synodal letter is said to have been written with imperial approval at the Synod of Pavia.  \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t753\t865\t865\tFebruary-April\t24-22\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tAttingy\tAttingy\t49.478191\t4.5776519\tp\ts\tprompt\tinform\tNicholas, using a quotation from Pope Innocent I, informs King Charles the Bald that the priests of his realm, in contempt of the Pope, to whom Bishop Rothad of Soissons had appealed (n. 577) deprived him of his see, refers to the influence of the archbishop Hincmar of Reims in this matter as well as to his own letters summoning him to a legal decision in Rome (n. 607 and n.608), justifies a judgement in Rome with (mentioned) council canons and papal letters on Chalcedon, Serdica, Popes Innocent I and Julius. He mentions (already earlier) papal admonitions given to Bishop Odo, and rebukes Hincmar of Reims for having withheld the papal letter addressed to him (n. 628, n.629) for four months and for not acting in accordance with some of the letters; he mentions Hincmar's letter to himself (n. 692) with the reference to the blocked way to Italy, and refers to the two year period which this matter had already taken up. He underlines that neither Odo nor the royal envoys had brought an accusation against Rothad. He also asserts Rothad's innocence with several quotations from letters of Popes Coelestine I and Boniface I. He finally announces Rothad's reinstatement to his former office and dignities, requests royal care for Rothad and asks in particular to help with the restitution of the goods alienated by the invader of the Church of Soissons. \tCommentary states that the papal letters mentioned and quoted are often passages that were probably taken from pseudoisidoric  texts. Furthermore it notes that a side blow to the disputes with Byzantium can be seen in the remark referring to the observance of the Council of Chalcedon, where Rome is even referred to as the place of Romulus. Located as Attingy due to commentary noting this is where the letter was delivered. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t754\t865\t865\tFebruary-April\t24-22\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tcriticise\tNicholas criticises the behaviour of Hincmar towards his suffragan Rothad of Soisson, especially the uncanonical deposition of the bishop which took place without the knowledge of the Pope, also noting Hincmar's falsification of a letter from Rothad to his fellow bishops, the archbishop's further action against Rothad despite his appeal in Rome, including being prevented from travelling to Rome and his arrest. Among other things he further notes Rothad's journey to Rome which was made difficult by the companions sent by the archbishop of Reims (c.f. n. 669) and the further delays in Rome caused by the absence of accusers. He refers to Rothad's reinstatement in his episcopate (n. 749) before finally demanding obedience from Hincmar, whom he threatens with permanent removal from office if he does not restitute all of Rothad's goods, and commands that any future conflicts with Rothad be immediately brought before Rome. \tCommentary states that unlike n. 566, the knowledge of pseudoisidoric decrees is obvious in this letter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t755\t865\t865\tFebruary-April\t24-22\tSent\tEpiscopate in Gallia\tEpiscopate\tg\tGallia\tDijon\t47.322047\t5.04148\tr\tc\tprompt\tjustify\tA lot of points made in this letter, he first emphasises to the episcopate in Gallia the unity if the Church, and quoting Pope Leo I the primacy of the See of Peter. He also repeatedly annuls Rothad's deposition after his appeal as unlawful. He then underlines the validity of the various (pseudoisidoric) writings and decrees, rejecting the objection raised in a letter that the decrees are not to be found in the collection of canons, especially as then also writings of Pope Gregory I, among other texts would not be valid and reinforces his view with quotations from Popes Innocent I, Leo I, Gelasius I. He explains later his conception of the role of Rome and emphasises again that it is absurd to refer matters of laymen to Rome for judgement, but not those of bishops. Nicholas then in accordance with the Council of Nicaea calls for Rothad to be restored to his office or for his accusers and representatives of bishops to be sent to Rome for judgement. \tLocated as Dijon as seems a good mapping point for Gallia, as was done for n. 603. Commentary notes that Devos wants to prove the authorship of Anastasius on the basis of the use of biblical quotations and to cf. with other arguments (the pseudoisidoric forgeries as an indication of Anastasius as the author). Another point made is that the cited letter concerning the objection that the decretalia are not found in this Codex canonum is only mentioned at one point; the reference to the Dyonisio-Hadriana is not completely certain. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t756\t865\t865\tFebruary-April\t24-22\tSent\tClergy, People\tPeople\tg\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tr\tboth\tprompt\tpraise\tNicholas praises the clergy and people of Soissons for their loyalty to their bishop Rothad, and announces his return after reinstatement. Stresses Rothad's innocence and the reprehensible behaviour of Hincmar of Reims, recommends a joyful reception of Rothad and orders the execution of his exhortations. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t757\t865\t865\tMarch-May\t19\tReceive\tAdventius of Metz\tBishop\ti\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\t(received)\tthank\tThanks Nicholas for the forgiveness received by letter (n. 721), mentions other letters received from King Louis the German and King Charles the Bald addressed to archbishops and bishops in the realm of King Lothar II, in which the pope had summoned the metropolitans or two of their suffragans to Rome for the synod on 19 May 865. \tCommentary notes the synod of 19 May 865 did not take place, and that the letters dating results from the mention of the synodal invitations received from the kings. It further notes considerations from Galliard that Nicholas was already planning to send Arsenius in December 864 and had given up his intention to hold a council, but this presupposes that the bishop of Metz knew about this at an early stage which is uncertain. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t758\t865\t865\tMarch-April\t22\tSent\tArduicus of Besan\u00e7on\tArchbishop\ti\tBesan\u00e7on \tBesan\u00e7on \t47.237829\t6.0240539\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tepiscopal\tReplies to Arduicus with references to the duty of obedience to the Pope in response to his enquiries. Responds to matter concerning marriage and incest. On incest, the Pope cites the decisions of Popes Gregory II, Zacharias and further biblical examples. According to these, after seperation and repentance, no new marriage should be entered into, but a chaste life should be lived; only after the death of  partner could women also begin a new union, as Pope Leo I had already determined. He also comments that an election of bishop was valid if elected by the clergy and the people of the civitas and if there was a profession of faith; a bishop elected in this way could no longer be removed from office. On the case of a priest, the Pope replies that he cannot be reinstated after an offence as Pope Gregory I had already explained. Finally he refers to further possibilities of consultation with Bishop Arsenius of Orte, whom he had sent as aprocrisiar and envoy (n. 759). \tCommentary notes that interestingly, although the provisions on the consecration of churches do go back to Gelasius I, special importance is also attached in the pseudoisidoric decretal to prohibiting the consecration of churches by choir bishops, \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t761\t865\t865\tApril-August\tN\/A\tSent\tHatto of Verdun\tBishop\ti\tVerdun\tVerdun\t49.1598764\t5.3844231\tp\tc\tprompt\tadmonish\tConfirms possession of a monastery to Hatto, declares the former sale of Adelhelm under King Lothar I to be invalid on threat of anathema, and also admonishes Hatto in connection with the marriage quarrel of King Lothar II, in which he was involved like Thietgaud of Trier, Adventius of Metz, and Arnulf of Toul, saying that he should return to the pope's allegiance. \tCommentary notes that the letter itself no longer exists today. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t762\t865\t865\tApril-June\tN\/A\tReceive\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium\tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\t(received)\tdemand\tSends a letter through the protospathar Michael, disparaging the Latin language and mentioning other points of contention such as the sending of papal legates, the judgement on Ignatios not demanded by Byzantium, the adherence to Photios, finally demanding the extradition of the Theognost and his followers.\tCommentary states that the factual points of this unpreserved letter result almost exclusively from nicholas' reply to it (n. 777).  Also that the bearer of the letter probably did not reach Rome personally, judging from the Pope's letter to him (n. 779). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t763\t865\t865\tApril\t22\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\tindignation\tNicholas praises the kings for their concord at Tusey, but mentioning the letters (n. 723 and n.723) addressed to the archbishop and bishops in their realms and that of Lothar II, criticises in particular, apart from the alleged refusal of passage through imperial territory for the bishops from the realm of Lothar II, the fact that bishops were not sent to the Synod. justifies the necessity of a synod to discuss Lothar II, regrets the admonition to King Lothar II mentioned as an enclosure in the royal letter, forbids Lothar's journey to Rome, which had already been requested by imperial messengers, approves a second announced admonition to Lothar II by both kings, demands Lothar's oath about proper treatment of Queen Theutberga, allows a seperation of the two only in the case of mutual vows of chastity, refers to the exhortation indicated in the letter (n. 604) in the event of further resistance by Lothar II, sends the kings copies of papal letters given to Arsenius, and recommends them to trust him concerning Rothad and Albuin, otherwise only when establishing the authenticity of the documents. Asks for information about the results of the negotiations, decides on the basis of their request to have a provost consecrated in the Cologne church and likewise a bishop consecrated in Cambrai according to canonical election, finally rebukes the disparaging designation of the thirty year episcopate of Bishop Rothad of Soissons by Charles the Bald.\tAfter the meeting in Tusey on February 19 865 the two kings sent a common messenger to Rome with letters which are only mentioned in the present papal letter, this letter is the Pope's reply the commentary states. The idea that the kings each sent their own letter is made probable according to the commentary by the papal rebuke addressed only to Charles the Bald regarding Rothad. It further notes that earlier papal letters had already been devoted to the enquiries about the bishoprics in Cambrai and Cologne, but it is now noteworthy that the pope addresses Charles the Bald and Louis the German about bishoprics in the realm of Lothar II. Finally the enclosed copies of the letters given to Arsenius are said to show Nicholas I's reservations about his own legate. Given the idea of two separate letters with perhaps slightly different content given the Rothad comment, I have duplicated this entry with separate addresees, as has been done in other instances previously (n. 723, 631). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t763\t865\t865\tApril\t22\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\tindignation\tNicholas praises the kings for their concord at Tusey, but mentioning the letters (n. 723 and n.723) addressed to the archbishop and bishops in their realms and that of Lothar II, criticises in particular, apart from the alleged refusal of passage through imperial territory for the bishops from the realm of Lothar II, the fact that bishops were not sent to the Synod. justifies the necessity of a synod to discuss Lothar II, regrets the admonition to King Lothar II mentioned as an enclosure in the royal letter, forbids Lothar's journey to Rome, which had already been requested by imperial messengers, approves a second announced admonition to Lothar II by both kings, demands Lothar's oath about proper treatment of Queen Theutberga, allows a seperation of the two only in the case of mutual vows of chastity, refers to the exhortation indicated in the letter (n. 604) in the event of further resistance by Lothar II, sends the kings copies of papal letters given to Arsenius, and recommends them to trust him concerning Rothad and Albuin, otherwise only when establishing the authenticity of the documents. Asks for information about the results of the negotiations, decides on the basis of their request to have a provost consecrated in the Cologne church and likewise a bishop consecrated in Cambrai according to canonical election, finally rebukes the disparaging designation of the thirty year episcopate of Bishop Rothad of Soissons by Charles the Bald.\tAfter the meeting in Tusey on February 19 865 the two kings sent a common messenger to Rome with letters which are only mentioned in the present papal letter, this letter is the Pope's reply the commentary states. The idea that the kings each sent their own letter is made probable according to the commentary by the papal rebuke addressed only to Charles the Bald regarding Rothad. It further notes that earlier papal letters had already been devoted to the enquiries about the bishoprics in Cambrai and Cologne, but it is now noteworthy that the pope addresses Charles the Bald and Louis the German about bishoprics in the realm of Lothar II. Finally the enclosed copies of the letters given to Arsenius are said to show Nicholas I's reservations about his own legate. Given the idea of two separate letters with perhaps slightly different content given the Rothad comment, I have duplicated this entry with separate addresees, as has been done in other instances previously (n. 723, 631). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t764\t865\t865\tMay\t26\tSent\tKing Solomon III of Brittany and his wife Gyembret\tKing\ti\tBrittany\tDijon\t47.322047\t5.04148\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tgrant\tGrants King Soloman III of Brittany and his wife Gyembret the pallium for Bishop Festinian of Dol. References his earlier refusal (n.495), recommends the bishop be sent earlier pallium documents,a profession of faith and obedience to the pope, which a messenger on behalf of a bishop should affirm on oath during a stay of at least 30 days in Rome. \tCommentary notes Soloman's unrealistic royal title and points to writing about this. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t765\t865\t865-866\tJune-December\t5\tSent\tEpiscopate\tEpiscopate\tg\tSens\tSens France\t48.20065\t3.28268\tp\tc\tprompt\tadmonish\tNicholas admonishes compatriots and fellow priests of Egilo of Sens and reminds them of the canons concerning the assumption of ecclesiastical offices. \tCommentary notes that the letter is mentioned only in n. 766, in which the pope announces to Egilo the sending of the pallium, but disapproves of the circumstances of the elevation. The addressees of the letter are noted to have likely been the bishops of the Kingdom of West Francia, so I have noted it as episcopate, but also retained an element of the location by putting Sens as the locate as. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t766\t865\t865-866\tJune-December\t5\tSent\tEgilo of Sens\tArchbishop\ti\tSens\tSens France\t48.20065\t3.28268\tp\tc\tprompt\tcriticise\tSends Egilo the pallium as requested, but criticises that contrary to the canons a candidate from the monastery (Flavingy) and not from the episcopal city (Sens) has reached the episcopate, recalls the duties of the milites Christi with mention of a letter to Egilo's compatriots and fellow priests (n. 765) and exhorts to good conduct of office. \tCommentary states that the Pope's criticism, which was supported by several quotations, was probably directed among other things against the influence of laymen in the election of bishops. If further notes that regarding the points of criticism, to cf. the parallel letter to Charles the Bald (n.767) which also reveals Charles as a supplicant. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t767\t865\t865-866\tJune-December\t5\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\twarn\tReplies to Charles' letter of praise for the newly elevated archbishop Egilo of Sens, expresses regret that the new ruler is not from the clergy of Sens but the monastery (Flavingy), demands the king's vigilance, warns against coercion from the royal side, announces his intention to eradicate abuses in principle (in West Francia) by a general decree; the Pope reports on the conferral of the pallium (n. 766) in accordance with the royal request and calls for the restitution of alienated church property. \tCommentary notes both that the letter of Charles to Nicholas is only known from the present letter, and that the announced decree was likely never written, at least there are no traces of transmission. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t768\t865\t865\tJune\t9\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tinform\tInforms Ado in response to a letter about the cancellation of the announced Roman synod (cf. n. 724) and about the sending of Bishop Arsenius as legate to Gallia and Germania. He rejects the rumour about the reinstatement of the former archbishops Thietgaud of Trier and Gunther of Cologne (cf. n. 750 and 752), especially as the repudiation of Queen Theutberga by King Lothar II and the offence of the adulteress Ingiltrud persisted and Gunther in particular had exercised his office contrary to the canons. Finally, Nicholas criticises the designation of the bearer of Ado's letter as the priest of Count Gerhard. \tCommentary describes the end of the letter concerning the priest as an early papal attack on the church's own system. It further notes that the Pope's reasons for the cancellation of the synod are likely politically motivated according to Kremers and Engelmann, but the true reasons are not presented as this would have been tantamount to admitting failure. It further states that the rumour of the reinstatement of the Archbishops probably developed due to Gunther's propagandistic efforts.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t769\t865\t865-866\tJuly-February\tN\/A\tReceive\tKing Soloman III of Brittany\tKing\ti\tBrittany\tDijon\t47.322047\t5.04148\tp\ts\t(received)\task\tKing Soloman III once again asks Nicholas I for the pallium for archbishop Festinian of Dol\t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t770\t865\t865-866\tAugust-March\tN\/A\tSent\tKing Soloman III of Brittany\tKing\ti\tBrittany\tDijon\t47.322047\t5.04148\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tdemand\tReplies to Solomon about his renewed request by letter for the pallium for Bishop Festinian of Dol; he reiterates with reference to previous letters (n. 566 and n. 764) and in accordance with previous papal decisions, reaffirms the subordination of the Breton bishops to the metropolis of Tours as a jurisdiction subject to papal powers, otherwise demands the presentation of legal documents by Soloman and by the Church of Tours, but in case of loss, the sending of suitable, informed messengers to Rome to settle the dispute. \tCommentary notes that nothing is known about the sending of messengers from Brittany following Nicholas I's demand. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t771\t865\t865\tAugust-October\tN\/A\tSent\tPaul of Piacenza\tDeacon\ti\tPiacenza\tPiacenza\t45.0526206\t9.6929845\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tOrders deacon Paul of Piacenza never again to attempt to take the episcopal see of Piacenza, whether in his lifetime or after the death of Bishop Seufried. \tCommentary notes that we only learn of this from the Liber Pontificalis, and that despite this prohibition, Paul became the successor of Bishop Seufried and to cf. a fragmentary letter of Pope Stephen V on this matter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t772\t865\t865\tAugust-December\t3\tReceive\tAdventius of Metz\tBishop\ti\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\t(received)\tjustify\tThanks Nicholas with partly the same wording as his earlier letter (n. 757) for the pardon granted to him (n. 721), praises the Pope's efforts for the Church, rejects the Pope's rebuke concerning his behaviour in the marriage affair of Lothar II and again justifies his initial hesitance with a lack of knowledge of the matter, but affirms his unequivocal petition against Lothar's actions, having known of them more fully. He praises the achievements of the papal legate Arsenius, who had restored the marriage of Lothar II to its rightful state and thus far surpassed the work of the earlier legate Radoald of Porto, and finally recommends his messenger to the pope and asks for papal blessing for the church of Metz.\tThe commentary states that the success of Arsenius' legation probably refers to the reconciliation of Lothar II with his wife Theutberga and  Lothar's oath to refrain from further contact on the third of August 865 in Vendresse, where Adventius was present. It further comments that Adventius may have written the letter shortly afterwards, since Waldrada broke off her journey to Rome with Arsenius only a short time later and returned to Lothar's kingdom, thus destroying the success of the legate Adventius mentions, and finally that this is the reason for the given date.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t777\t865\t865\tSeptember\t28\tSent\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium\tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\trebuke\tA very long letter (said to be more than 20 pages by the commentary), in which Nicholas replies to a letter from Michael, and rebukes the insults and blasphemies he believes were laid down in Michael's letter. Major themes include papal \/ Roman primacy and the deposition of Ignatios. \tThe commentary states that the detailed letter should probably be attributed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t778\t865\t865-866\tOctober-November\t13\tSent\tFaithful\tFaithful\tg\tAsia, Europe, Libya (Africa)\tunclear\t26.335100\t17.228331\tr\tboth\tprompt\tinform\tNicholas informs the patriarchs, episcopate, clergy, and all other faithful in Asia, Europe and Libya (Africa) in ten points via the attached writings- about the deposition of Ignatios by Michael III, the two letters (n. 525 and n.526), the report on the decisions of the council of Constantinople (861) which were not accepted by the Pope, the letters n.569 and n. 570, the resolutions of the Roman synod of 863, the resolutions of the Roman synod of 861, remarks on Radoald of Porto, before he exhorts people to follow the Pope's decision, who no one can judge, and to ignore the sentence against Ignatios, he informs of the call for a judgement on Ignatios and Photios in Rome, and remarks on the reception of the Roman deacons and on the missionary work of the Armenians. \tCommentary notes that the letter has survived only in Greek within the acts of the fourth Council of Constantinople (869), that it has points of reference to n. 831, and that it is only an excerpt. Have not put as a locate as due to it being unclear where this letter would have actually gone to and where would be best to map it. \t\t\t\t\t\t\tAPPROXIMATE\nNicholas I\t779\t865\t865\tOctober-December\tN\/A\tSent\tImperial Spathar Michael\tSpathar\ti\tunspecified\tunspecified\t50.173538\t3.236633\tp\ts\tprompt\torder\tTransmits to imperial spathar Michael the letter to the Byzantine Emperor (n. 777) by suitable people, points out that he has only admonished the emperor like a father and that it is still possible to settle the conflict; he orders the spathar, under threat of excommunication, to transmit the letter as well as to influence that nothing be changed in a translation into Greek and that the letter be read out publicly, and threatens excommunication if these orders are neglected. \tCommentary notes that the spathar probably did not personally send the emperor's letter (n.762) to Rome, but conveyed it to Ostia or another port. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t783\t865\t865-866\tNovember-August\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\tenquiry\tNicholas makes enquiries to Hincmar about the welfare of Queen Theutberga. \tThe papal request is only known from a mention in Hincmar's reply (n. 820) according to the commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t784\t865\t865\tNovember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tNicholas orders Hincmar of Reims, following King Charles the Bald's request, to decide how to proceed with regard to those who have been married to Ingiltrud, who has been excommunicated several times, and distinguishes between those who do so out of necessity, out of ignorance, or out of intention.\tCommentary notes both that the request of Charles the Bald has not survived, and that although the source for the systematic distinction of contacts is not proven, the differentiations themselves are an indication of how strongly Nicholas Nicholas or his circle took aspects of intentional liability into account in legal matters. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t785\t865\t865\tDecember\tN\/A\tSent\tRimbert of Hamberg\tArchbishop\ti\tHamberg\tHamberg-Bremen\t53.5548961\t9.9895402\tp\tc\tprompt\tgrant\tGrants Rimbert the pallium.\tThere are some debates about authenticity but the commentary states that the assumption of a falsification that did not occur until the 12th century remains worth considering, and so this has been included. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t786\t866\t866-867\tSeptember\tN\/A\tReceive\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tassure\tLothar II assures Pope Nicholas I that he has received the papal legates through his envoy in a dignified manner. underlines that the accusations made by his opponents are fabricated and without any foundation, that he is ready to prove his innocence before the Pope, but not in the presence of his enemies. He refers to an earlier letter to Nicholas (n. 697) and finally defends himself by quoting verbatim from a papal letter (n. 738) against the accusation of alleged bad treatment of papal legates, distinguishing between earlier and a later envoy. He emphasises that he has always endeavoured to comply with the instructions and decrees of the pope, but that papal legates had harmed him and his kingdom at a time when he had to concentrate on extending his borders by fighting the pagans, and concludes by calling the leader of his enemies an accusator fratrum with a biblical quotation. \tCommentary notes the earlier papal legates likely refer to Radoald of Porto and John of Cervia, later to Arsenius of Orte. It further notes that on the while recent research no longer sees Charles the Bald exclusively as the arch-enemy of Lothar II, who speculated on the collapse of the middle Kingdom from the beginning, as well as the fact that the accusator fratrum mentioned at the end is quoted in a later letter of the Pope to Louis the German (cf. n. 861). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t787\t866\t866\tJanuary-April\tN\/A\tReceive\tFestinian of Dol\tArchbishop\ti\tDol\tDol France\t48.54969\t-1.753965\tp\tc\t(received)\task\tFestinian asks Nicholas for the pallium. referring to the consecration of Restoald as archbishop by Pope Severin and the conferral of the pallium on luthinael by Pope Hadrian I. \tCommentary states that Festinian put his name before the papal name and that the letter reached the pope without a seal.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t788\t866\t866\tFebruary\t2\tSent\tEpiscopate in Italy, Germania, Neustria and Gallia\tEpiscopate\tg\tItaly, Germania, Neustria, Gallia\tVillingen-Schwenningen\t48.0594021\t8.4640869\tr\tc\tprompt\tannounce\tNicholas I announces the excommunication of Waldrada to the episcopate in Italy, Germania, Neustria and Gallia on 2 February and transmits the sentence to her and the bishops. \tThe located as is used purely as a central point in Europe for mapping purposes. Commentary states that only in n. 800 in which the pope repeats the sentence because it might not have reached the bishops, is the fact as well as the date of promulgation precisely mentioned. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t789\t866\t866\tApril\t3\tSent\tArchbishop and bishops of Gallia and Neustria, including Archbishop Wenilo of Rouen and Archbishop Remigius of Lyon\tEpiscopate\tg\tGallia, Neustria\tCharolles\t46.435442\t4.277004\tr\tc\tprompt\tcall on\tNicholas calls on the archbishops and bishops of Gallia and Neustria, including Archbishop Wenilo of Rouen and Archbishop Remigius of Lyon to negotiate the case of Wulfad and the other Ebo clerics during a synod in Soissons.\tLocated as again used purely as what could be deemed a rough point between the regions for mapping purposes. Commentary states that this letter is only known from mentions, and that the synod ordered by the Pope finally took place in Soissons in August 866. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t790\t866\t866\tApril\t3\tSent\tWulfad of Bourges\t(Later) Archbishop\ti\tBourges\tBourges\t47.081012\t2.398782\tp\tc\tprompt\tinvite\tWrites to (later Archbishop) Wulfad of Bourges and his associates, inviting them to consider the validity of their consecrations at a synod in Soissons.\tHave designated Wulfad as (later Archbishop) in keeping with the regesta. Commentary again states this invitation is only known through mentions. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t791\t866\t866\tApril\t3\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tNicholas reports to Hincmar of Reims regarding numerous clerics who had come to Rome from Gallia who had been consecrated by the former ruler of Reims, Ebo.    He had looked in the archives of the Roman church as well as in the acts of the Council of Soissons 853 sent by Hincmar (n. 609), but could find no clear evidence for the invalidity of their consecrations. Nicholas asks Hincmar to make the restitution of (later archbishop) Wulfad of Bourges and his colleagues himself, but that if Hincmar finds this impossible for reasons of conviction, the pope orders the bishops Remigius of Lyon, Ado of Vienne and Wenilo of Rouen to meet with Hincmar and his suffragans as well as with the rest of the episcopate of Gallia and Neustria at Soissons, and refers to his corresponding letters to the episcopate (n. 789, 792, 793) as well as to Wulfad and his comrades (n. 790). He orders- if no agreement is reached- Wulfad and his companions as well as Hincmar should come to Rome or send respective representatives as soon as possible after the council to be held in Soissons on the 18th of August 866, and further points out that the deadline for an appeal has not passed because the clerics- as stated in papal letters (n. 284, 290) had already appealed under Leo IV (n. 282, 286). He counters a potential appeal by Hincmar to papal privileges for the Reims church with the fact that in these privileges too the final decision had been reserved for the Roman see. Finally Nicholas informs Hincmar of his order to Remigus of Lyon (n. 795) to forward the letters of invitation for the council, if necessary, and concludes with the demand for the transmission of the council acts for confirmation by the pope. \tCommentary states that this letter together with other parallel letters (n. 789, 790, 792, 793, 794) document that the Pope doubted the legality of the earlier proceedings and that he subjected the documents stored in the papal archives to a renewed examination. It further states that above all, it seemed that Wulfad was the main issue- and perhaps Nicholas may have sought to curtail Hincmar's increasing power. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t792\t866\t866\tApril\t3\tSent\tHerard of Tours and his suffragan bishops\tArchbishop, bishop\tsi\tTours\tTours France\t47.394144\t0.68484\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tWrites to Herard and his suffragans with almost the same wording as in n. 791.\tThe letter begins with a reference to the fact that the Pope had heard about the events from travellers from Rome to Gallia according to the commentary, it also notes that it is slightly shorter \/ less detailed than that to Hincmar. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t793\t866\t866\tApril\t3\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop, bishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tWrites to Ado with almost the same wording as in n. 792.\tCommentary notes that despite the invitation Ado does not seem to have attended the council and that his signature is missing from the synodal records.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t794\t866\t866\tApril\t3\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\treport\tThanks Charles for the reception of his legate, mentions the complaints of the clerics Wulfad and his comrades deposed by Hincmar, reports his request to Hincmar to negotiate the restitution of the clerics (n. 791), in the event if the latter's disobedience, warns that he will be dealt with at a synod in Soissons with the episcopate of Gallia and Neustria, and recommends the clerics to Charles' protection. \tCommentary notes that there are gaps in the text due to damage, and that in n. 848 Hincmar of Reims refers to an unidentifiable papal letter to Charles the Bald in which Nicholas is said to have declared the personal innocence of the Ebo clerics, and thus it is possible that the present letter contained corresponding passages. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t796\t866\t866\tApril-June\tN\/A\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tinform\tKing Charles the Bald informs Pope Nicholas I, through the retainer of Louis II named Erich, of the state of affairs in the matter of the Wulfad and his fellow clerics.\tCommentary states that the content of Charles the Bald's message to the Pope can only be roughly deduced from reference, that after he had described in n. 801 his efforts, undertaken on papal instruction (n. 794) but unfortunately unsuccessful, to persuade Hincmar of Reims to yield on the question of the Ebo clerics, and announced the resulting necessity for the Council of Soissons to convene in August 866, Charles apologised to Nicholas for this repetition, which may seem superfluous, since he had already had similia transmitted by Erich at an earlier time. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t797\t866\t866\tMay\t17\tSent\tHerard of Tours\tArchbishop\ti\tTours\tTours France\t47.394144\t0.68484\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tNicholas orders Herard to send a messenger to Rome to decide the metropolitan dispute with the Church of Dol. \tLetter is only known from mentions according to the commentary, as well as the fact that although nothing is known about an actual sending of messengers, the dispute became a subject of the Synod of Soissons which took place on the 18th of August 866.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t798\t866\t866\tMay\t17\tSent\tFestinian of Dol\tBishop\ti\tDol\tDol France\t48.54969\t-1.753965\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\trebuke\tNicholas rebukes Festinian because of the form of his letter (n. 787), refers with regard to the pallium for Dol to his earlier letter in which he requested the transmission of older documents from Dol and which he has not yet carried out. He discusses the Breton metropolitan controversy before ordering Festinian not to call himself metropolitan until older documents concerning an earlier conferral of the pallium are produced, rejects Festinian's reference to (alleged) predecessors (n. 787) as false and orders him and the archbishop Herard of Tours to send messengers to Rome to decide the dispute. \tCommentary mentions the requirement to bring together twelve bishops to resolve conflicts in matters of canon law, which is a law which has existed since the Council of Carthage in 390. He mentions this in the context of the special difficulty of bringing together this number in Brittany according to the commentary. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t800\t866\t866\tJune`\t13\tSent\tEpiscopate in Italy, Germania, Neustria and Gallia\tEpiscopate\tg\tItaly, Germania, Neustria, Gallia\tVillingen-Schwenningen\t48.0594021\t8.4640869\tp\tc\tprompt\tinform\tNicholas informs the episcopate in Italy, Germania, Neustria, and Gallia about Waldrada's obstinate behaviour, he mentions from previous events in particular her aborted trip to Rome and the efforts of the legate Arsenius (cf. n. 759), her search for places where she could easily communicate with King Lothar II, and her actions towards Theutberga. He therefore repeats his excommunication sent in writing (n. 788) and announced on February 2nd 866, so that this note reaches everyone for further dissemination and they can behave accordingly towards Waldrada. The pope also rebukes Lothar's behaviour and calls for the letter to be forwarded and circulated. \tLocated as again purely for mapping purposes as was done with n. 788. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t801\t866\t866\tJune-August\t17\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\tinform\tKing Charles the Bald informs Nicholas that he has followed papal instructions (n.794) concerning Wulfad and his companions, who were deposed because of their consecration by the former archbishop of Reims Ebo, he reports on his interventions with archbishop Hincmar of Reims in favour of papal proposals, mentions the papal meeting scheduled for the 18th of August that was convened by papal order, as he had already informed the pope through Erich. Since bishops and faithful of the realm had unanimously elected Wulfad as successor of the recently deceased archbishop Radulf of Bourges, Charles asks the pope, because of the necessitas in the Aquitanian kingdom transferred to his son (Charles), to ordain Wulfad before his (possible) restitution at the synod (of Soissons) in September or at least to entrust him with (the administration of) the diocese. \tThe commentary notes that the king praises the person of Wulfad and emphasises the dangers in Aquitaine several times. Further that the king justifies the urgency among other things with the influences of certain persons, which is perhaps directed at Hincmar.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t802\t866\t866\tJuly-November\tN\/A\tReceive\tTheutberga\tQueen\ti\tTrier\tTrier\t49.749992\t6.6371433\tp\ts\t(received)\tconfession\tRebukes the episcopate in the realm of Lothar II with reference to earlier letters due to their inaction in the matter of King Lothar II, he implores them to persuade Lothar to repudiate the adulteress Waldrada if a final sentence of the Pope is not to be passed on the King. Refers to the letter delivered by the then-bishop Radoald and Bishop John of Cervia (n.605) with the Commonitoriun (n. 589), according to which the king, together with the adulteress and her retinue, are already now deprived of papal communion. \tLocated as Trier due to the commentary stating that Parisot assumes that the letter was written during the synod in Trier in October or November 866, and so this seems like a reasonable place to map the letter. The letter has not been preserved, and so the content can be deduced mainly from the Pope's letter of reply (n. 841) and from his letter to Lothar II (n. 840) according to the commentary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t803\t866\t866\tAugust-December\tN\/A\tSent\tSons of King Louis the German\tNoble\tsi\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\tpastoral\tNicholas sends a letter to the sons of King Louis (the German) about upholding honour towards their parents.\tThe commentary notes that this belongs to the context of Louis the Younger's revolt against his father, and perhaps was written at the request of Louis the German.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t807\t866\t866\tAugust\t18(-25)\tReceive\tParticipants of the Synod of Soissons\tEpiscopate\tg\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tp\tc\t(received)\tcomplain\tThe participants of the Synod of Soissons held on the 18th of August 866 on papal instruction complain to the pope on various matters, including about the deposition of a bishop without papal or synodal involvement, restitution of two bishops by the Duke of Brittany (Solomon III) alone, as well as about the interest payment to King Charles the Bald which the Duke had omitted. \tCommentary notes that the letter was signed by 31 bishops, but have put as 'episcopate', as well as locating as Soissons given they were participants. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t808\t866\t866\tAugust\t25\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tp\tc\t(received)\texplain\tSynodal letter from Soissons, with the words of Hincmar of Rheims. Explains that the restitution desired by the Pope of the Ebo clerics deposed by the Synodal Assembly of Soissons (853) according to the Councils of Nicaia and Antioch was not possible for him alone and that he had therefore brought the case before the Council as instructed. It expresses its agreement in principle with the attitude expressed in Nicholas's letter to King Charles (the Bald) (n, 794) concerning a speedy rehabilitation of the clerics concerned around Wulfad, but further declares that he himself does not have the authority to revise earlier council decisions as well as papal privileges concerning the Ebo clerics. He therefore refers the case back to the pope for a final decision and proposes to him referring to multiple letters of previous pontiffs, as well as to other canons, to make restitution of those affected by mercy. \tHave put as Hincmar due to the comment that it was in his words. Commentary notes the precise instructions given to the carrier Egilo by Hincmar (n. 821), and the fact that he asks him not only to hand the letter to the Pope, but also take another copy for himself or to keep the letter in his memory in order to be able to explain the exact decisions of the Synod in the face of possible questions or criticism from the papal environment. It further notes that in its argumentation, the synodal letter fully agrees with the memoranda presented by Hincmar in Soissons in which the latter stated, in terms of canon law, the irrevocability of a council decision already confirmed by the pope, as it had come about in Soissons in April 853 concerning Wulfad, upheld the legality of Archbishop Ebo's deposition and his own ordination as Metropolitan of Reims, and raised the canonical possibility of reinstalling Wulfad and his suspended co-clerics by grace. Furthermore, it points out that in his reply to Hincmar (n 838) Nicholas refers to a supposed passage of the letter which cannot be found in the extant textual witnesses. Already in a marginal gloss of the oldest manuscript from the 9th C however, this passage is described as a subsequent falsification of the synodal letter by the envoy Archbishop Egilo of Sens.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t809\t866\t866-867\tAugust-November\t26\tReceive\tActard of Nantes\tBishop\ti\tNantes\tNantes\t47.218371\t-1.553621\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tActard reports to Nicholas on his exile due to the occupation of the depopulated city of Nantes by Normans and Bretons, which is expected to last for some time. \tCommentary shows that the letter is known from mentions. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t810\t866\t866-867\tAugust-November\tN\/A\tReceive\tHerard of Tours\t\ti\tTours\tTours France\t47.394144\t0.68484\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tHerard reports to Nicholas by letter (coinciding with n. 809) on the exile of Bishop Actard of Nantes. \tCommentary states that this letter was likely handed over by Bishop Actard of Nantes together with n. 807, n. 854, n. 865 and n 866 actually to Hadrian II, the successor of Nicholas, who had died in the meantime. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t811\t866\t866\tAugust-September\t26-29\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\task\tCharles acknowledges the receipt of Nicholas' letter (n. 794) describing the complaints of the clerics Wulfad and his comrades deposed by  Hincmar; he reports on his successful intervention with Hincmar in accordance with papal instructions, refers with regard to the still outstanding reinstatement of the Reims clerics to the letter of the Synod of Soissons (n. 808), praises the handling of this matter at the Synod (n. 806), but emphasises that not least the confirmations of privileges by Benedict III and Nicholas I would have made faster handling difficult, he finally reports with reference to the papal letter (n. 794) about the already announced (provisional) transfer of the church of Bourges to Wulfad out of necessity and asks for the pope's quick confirmation in the interest of his empire, especially as his son (Charles the Younger) was ill. \tCommentary describes the letter as respectfully formulated, and notes that it is emphasised that Charles had not wanted to transfer the church of Bourges to a new bishop without a papal decision, and the rapid entrustment is explained by an emergency situation. It further states that in a later letter (n. 866), Charles justifies his arbitrary action in consecrating Wulfad as archbishop with the danger of Pagan invasions of the Aquitanian regnum of his son, who was weakened by fatal illness. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t812\t866\t866\tAugust\t29\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tinform\tNicholas replies to Charles' letter (n. 801) in the matter of Abbot Wulfad and his comrades; he refers to his earlier letter (n. 794) as well as to the expected judgement of the synod he has ordered (of Soissons 866), which must be made before any possible restitution of the clergy. \tCommentary notes that Charles had asked before the synod of Soissons for early papal confirmation of Wulfad's election to the Arch See of Bourges and that when the council delegated the decision in the case of the Ebo clerics back to Rome (n. 808), Charles did not wait for the papal judgement, and as stated in n. 811- in order to consolidate the Aquitanian regnum, destabilised by the illness of his son, Charles had Wulfad consecrated Archbishop of Bourges in September 866. It further notes that for reasons of time, the present papal letter cannot have reached Charles before this measure and the writing of this letter (n. 811). It points out that in n. 837 Nicholas declares to the participants of the Council of Soissons (866) that in a letter to Charles the Bald he had approved in principle the elevation of Wulfad to the Arch See of Bourges provided the council agreed to it, but no such explicit approval can be found in this letter, and thus it is unclear whether the mention in n. 837 refers to this letter or a letter from Nicholas to Charles that has not survived. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t819\t866\t866\tSeptember-December\tN\/A\tSent\tLiutbert of M\u00fcnster\tBishop\ti\tM\u00fcnster\tM\u00fcnster\t51.9606649\t7.6261347\tp\tc\tprompt\trelics\tSends relics of St Magnus to Bishop Liutbert of M\u00fcnster. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t820\t866\t866\tSeptember\t1\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tHincmar reports to Nicholas on his attendance as instructed (n. 791) and participation in the Council of Soissons to which he had also invited Wulfad as well as other clerics under his supervision- he declares that he himself had accepted the restitution demanded by the pope (n. 791) of the clerics deposed by a council composed of five ecclesiastical provinces, but could not carry it out himself, since according to the canonical provisions on excommunication, the sanctions could only be lifted by the original assembly of bishops, in whose decision he himself had no part. Among other things, he also declares that in accordance with papal orders, he has refrained from sending his own messenger to Nicholas, since the Synod's envoy, Archbishop Egilo of Sens was also speaking on his behalf because of the unanimity of the council's decisions, to give the pope the requested detailed information about the course of the negotiations and to report on Hincmar's faithful fulfillment of the papal instructions in the case of the only seven remaining Ebo clerics. He concludes by pointing out that he feels unable to report to Nicholas on the welfare of Queen Theutberga as ordered, since he has met neither Theutberga nor Lothar II since the stay of the Roman apocrisiarch and bishop Arsenius of Orte in the palatinate of Attingy. \tThe enquiry of the Pope about the condition of Theutberga has not survived according to the commentary, which also notes that Nicholas criticised the lack of a seal on Hincmar's letter, which in turn prompted a justification from Hincmar in n. 848. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t822\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tBoris I\tRuler\ti\tBulgaria\tBulgaria\t42.733883\t25.48583\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tdoctrinal\tThe enquiry of the Pope about the condition of Theutberga has not survived according to the commentary, which also notes that Nicholas criticised the lack of a seal on Hincmar's letter, which in turn prompted a justification from Hincmar in n. 848. \tCommentary notes this as a doctrinal letter hence the designation of type, this letter could be said to be one of the most famous of Nicholas, and is described in the commentary as of inestimable cultural-historical value. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t823\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tEmperor Michael III of Byzantium\tEmperor\ti\tByzantium\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tNicholas exhorts Michael to listen, he repeats the individual papal criticisms concerning the Photian schism, especially the overthrow of Ignatios and the unlawful elevation of Photios. Among other things, he also mentions the falsification of his letters, and rebukes the approval or toleration of the falsification by the emperor. \tCommentary states that this belongs to a series of contemporaneous letters (n. 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831) all of which had the aim of explaining the papal judgements and bringing them to bear. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t824\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tClergy and Episcopate of Constantinople\tClergy, Episcopate\tg\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\tprompt\tcomplain\tNicholas complains to the episcopate and clergy of Constantinople about their partial defection from Ignatios and the unlawful elevation of Photios, along with other complaints including the the case of Gregory of Syracuse. \tCommentary notes that the letter covers the entire prehistory of the dispute between the Eastern and Western churches and in many cases takes up arguments from earlier writings. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t825\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tPatriarch Photios of Constantinople\tPatriarch\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tNicholas rebukes Photios, for whom he does not recognise due to his misdemeanours, some of which Nicholas then proceeds to address, he calls on Photios to repent and renounce his ill-gotten position, threatens punishment in case of non-compliance, and renews the sentence on the deposition of Photios. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t826\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tBardas\tNoble\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tprompt\trebuke\tNicholas assures the Caesarian Bardas that many hopes placed in him have been disappointed after so much strife and factionalism. He reminds the Emperor [?] of the importance of the imperial office and once  again in order to establish ecclesiastical order, calls for the reinstatement of Ignatios.\tCommentary notes that Emperor Bardas was no longer alive at the time the letter was written, having been murdered in May 866 which Nicholas probably did not know. Bardas was essentially regent for Michael III I believe, but I am slightly confused by the addressal of him as Emperor, and I have designated it as a letter to a noble for now. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t827\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tIgnatios\tPatriarch (deposed)\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\tc\tprompt\tconsole\tNicholas comforts the Patriarch Ignatios of Constantinople, and informs him of several matters such as the letters delivered by the imperial messenger Leo as well as the replies to Michael III and Photios. He finishes by comforting Ignatios again with references to various biblical passages as well as emphasising Ignatios' legitimacy before God. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t828\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tTheodora\tEmpress\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tprompt\tpraise\tNicholas praises Empress Theodora and her virtues with which she stood up to her husband (Theophilus) and her only son (Michael III), he also praises the decisions taken at the time of her sole rule, consoles her with biblical quotations, stresses that he wants to do everything for the restitution of Ignatios of Constantinople and recommends to her as well as her daughters his sent legates. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t829\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tEudokia of Byzantium\tEmpress\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tPope Nicholas I exhorts the Empress Eudokia of Byzantium to intervene with her husband Emperor Michael III so that the invader of the Church of Constantinople, Photios, may be removed and ignatios reinstated. He refers her to the letter to Michael, and the legation (n. 823 and n. 834), which the Empress should support by her intervention- he cites biblical examples. especially of Esther as a model, and refers to the Empresses' devotion to the Roman see with a lengthy quotation from Galla Placidia to Emperor Theodosius II, proving the importance of Rome as the First See, and asks again for her support. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t830\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tSenators in Constantinople\tSenator\ti\tConstantinople\tIstanbul\t41.0082376\t28.9783589\tp\ts\tprompt\texhort\tWrites to senators in various letters praising their firm attitude, which he has learned from Roman pilgrims, exhorting them to support the legitimate patriarch of the Church of Constantinople, Ignatios, to abandon communion with the anathematised Photios (n.616) and recommends the support of the legates sent. \tCommentary states that the letter was likely sent in several copies, as can be seen from the note a parabus following the address, to various senators, who are addressed in the singular. It notes that the Pope had allegedly learned of the particular loyalty to Rome of these people, who are not mentioned by name, through Roman pilgrims.  \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t831\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tAll right-believing patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops and all faithful in Asia and Libya (Africa)\tFaithful\tg\tAsia and Libya (Africa)\tunclear\t26.335100\t17.228331\tr\tboth\tprompt\tinform\tInforms all right-believing patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops and all faithful in Asia and Libya (Africa) on the events in Constantinople in the schism between Ignatios and Photios, as well as matters concerning Radoald of Porto. \tI am not overly sure where best to locate this at. \t\t\t\t\t\t\tAPPROXIMATE\nNicholas I\t832\t866\t866\tNovember\t13\tSent\tAshot I Prince of Armenia\tPrince\ti\tArmenia\tArmenia\t40.069099\t45.038189\tp\ts\tprompt\treport\tReports on the confirmation in office of Patriarch Ignatios and the condemnation of Photios, as well as the heresy of theopaschism spreading in the Armenian province. He also confirms the receipt of the Creed, which corresponds to the (right) Roman faith, and refers to a legation. \tCommentary notes that more recent research attributes relations between Rome and Armenia to Pope Nicholas I. Fragment.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t835\t866\t866\tDecember\tN\/A\tSent\tNobles, Great men and Residents of Aquitaine\tNoble\tg\tAquitaine\tAquitaine\t44.7002222\t-0.2995785\tr\ts\tprompt\trebuke\tNicholas rebukes the nobles, great men, and residents of Aquitaine for the desecrations of the Church and the alienation of Church property in their territories and demands, the restitution of all alienated property, also the benefices formerly unlawfully transferred by kings from church property, but excludes the property acquired according to the will of the rectors of the churches. \tCommentary states that it is not known who informed the Pope about the conditions and how successful his demands were. Located as noble as even though it says inhabitants it seems fairly clearly aimed at this particular group. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t836\t866\t866\tDecember\t6\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\task\tNicholas praises Charles  for his frequent letters and legations to Rome, thanks him for his efforts on behalf of the deposed Reims clerics, quotes from Charles' letter (n. 811) with reference to privileges of Benedict III as well as his own letter (n. 626) and explains these documents. He states that he appreciates the royal attitude with regard to Count Baldwin of Flanders but asks for the execution of the as yet unfulfilled promises and finally refers to further information about the deposed Reims clerics in his letter to Archbishop Hincmar of Reims (n.838). In an appendix, Nicholas informs of the misdeeds of a Rangerius who is harassing homines in the villa Meteriola in the patrimony of Linorer, which Nicholas has entrusted to royal protection (n. 462) and asks the king to send messengers there soon for a peace mission. \tCommentary notes to cf. n. 585 on the matter of Baldwin and n. 636 for the position of Charles the Bald, who had promised the papal envoys Radoald and John pardon for Baldwin. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t837\t866\t866\tDecember\t6\tSent\tParticipants of the Council of Soissons\tEpiscopate\tg\tSoissons\tSoissons\t49.376636\t3.32342\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\trebuke\tNicholas writes to the participants that he has received their envoy and heard his report, he sharply rebukes the grave procedural errors and falsifications for which Archbishop Hincmar of Reims is responsible, which he had discovered when looking through the documents he had received together with those concerning the deposition of Rothad. He continues with various complaints, criticising among other things the lack of a comprehensive report on the whole matter despite his explicit instructions (n. 791, 792, 793) and sternly urges the sending of the complete files since the argumentation set out in Hincmar's letter (n.820) and the synodal letter (n. 808) was not accepted and appears downright ridiculous. He declares the clerics concerned to be completely rehabilitated in every respect and grants Hincmar a period of one year to prove the alleged legality of their former deposition, after which the case is to be treated as finally closed. He rebukes the participants for exceeding their authority which is evident in the synod's letters in their arbitrary elevation of Wulfad to higher orders, which Charles the Bald had requested on several occasions but which he had postponed in his papal reply, until after the council's decision. He also explains the behaviour of his predecessor in office, Pope Sergius II towards Ebo of Reims in accordance with the Council decisions of Nicaea is correct, but with reference to sentences of Popes Gelasius I, Leo I and Anastasius II denies it any evidentiary value in the current case. \tCommentary notes that the letter was also sent to Ado of Vienne, although he did not take part in the council of Soissons, and also interestingly that Nicholas repeatedly refers to alleged contents in the synodal letter of the Council of Soissons or in Hincmar's accompanying letter (n. 808, 820) which are not to be found in the surviving versions of the texts, for instance on the ordination of Wulfad as the Archbishop of Bourges. It also states that the papal letter to Charles the Bald n. 812 also does not record the fundamental ordination of Wulfad, which was only subject to the approval of the Council of Soissons, as Nicholas is said to imply in the current letter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t838\t866\t866\tDecember\t6\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\trebuke\tNicholas confirms to Hincmar that he has received his letter delivered together with the synodal letter of Soissons (n. 821, 808) by Egilo of Sens, and accepts his willingness in principle to cooperate in dealing with the case of Wulfad and his deposed fellow clerics. Criticises Hincmar in similar terms to n. 837, points out that the offence of falsifying privileges is usually punished by anathema but grants him mercy, as well as criticising among other things his assurances of wanting to receive a positive solution to the case for those affected, in view of his actual behaviour, as window dressing. \tCommentary notes a debate as to whether Egilo of Sens or Hincmar was responsible for elements of forgery in the letter. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t839\t866\t866\tDecember\t6\tSent\tWulfad of Bourges, Reims Clerics\tArchbishop, Clergy\tsi\tBourges\tBourges\t47.081012\t2.398782\tp\tc\tprompt\tconfirm\tConfirms the once deposed Reims clerics including Archbishop Wulfad the reinstatement to their offices and congratulates them on this, while also exhorting them to show respect their due respect to Hincmar and informs them he has given Hincmar a year's respite to pursue the matter in Rome with regard to their deposition. \tI have located as Bourges for mapping purposes, as presumably a copy would have reached Wulfad. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t840\t867\t867\tJanuary\t24-25\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\trebuke\tRebukes Lothar II for the manifest breach of all promises made to the papal legate Bishop Arsenius of Orte (cf. n. 759) in the dispute over his marriage, declares his surprise at the letter of Theutberga (n. 802), the contents of which cannot be reconciled with the reports arriving daily from Gallia and Germania and the writing of which- as confirmed many times- had only come about under duress. He declares reprisals against Theutberga to be an offence against the church and the Apostolic See, which due to the appeal of both spouses is appointed as the arbitration authority in the marriage matter. He calls on Lothar to guarantee Theutberga's safety during her journey to Rome, which however may only take place after Waldrada's departure. A divorce based on only the one-sided wish for abstinence in favour of spiritual life is inadmissible, as is the argument of Theutberga's infertility or her unspecified character defects; he therefore calls on Lothar to continue his marriage to Theutberga, who is under the protection of the Apostolic See, and to dissolve his relationship with Waldrada, whose excommunication has been generally announced by papal envoys. \tCommentary notes that the two mentions given report that Nicholas sent a copy of this letter and of the letter to Lothar's bishops (n. 842) to Charles the Bald, who was to ensure that they were reliably forwarded. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t841\t867\t867\tJanuary\t24\tSent\tTheutberga\tQueen\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\treject\tNicholas expresses surprise at Theutberga's letter given it does not match up with his reports about reprisals against her person, he rejects her reasons for the invalidity of her marriage to King Lothar II, exhorts her to steadfastness and truthfulness, referring to biblical models, and assures her of the protection of Saint Peter and the Apostolic See, to which he alone reserves the decision in the marriage dispute. He permits her desired journey to the Apostolic See only after Waldrada's departure for Rome, in order to guarantee Theutberga's safety and not to allow the continuation of the adulterous relationship between Waldrada and Lothar II by her absence. He finally declares Theutberga's expressed desire for abstinence insufficient a reason for dissolving the marriage, citing a sentence of Pope Gregory I. \tAccording to the commentary, to which letters or reports from Gallia and Germania Nicholas alludes to exactly is uncertain.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t842\t867\t867\tJanuary\t25\tSent\tEpiscopate in the kingdom of Lothar II\tEpiscopate\tg\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tr\tc\tprompt\trebuke\tNicholas informs the episcopate in the kingdom of Lothar II about Waldrada's excommunication for a third time, recalls the renunciation vowed Lothar in the presence of the papal envoy (Bishop Arsenius of Orte) (cf. n. 759) vowing to renounce his illegitimate union and his re-acceptance of Theutberga as a lawful wife, as well as the order not obeyed by Waldrada to submit to a papal judgement in Rome; he rebukes the episcopate, which has already been called upon to intervene in several letters of admonition, for its inactivity up to now and calls upon it once again, quoting from the Bible, to finally take action against (Lothar's) adultery, refuses to accept the rumour that he has given Waldrada permission to return to the Frankish kingdom, and refers all those who may not yet be aware of the papal position in the matter in question to the Counts Christian and Walther, who have been instructed by him several times while on visits to Rome. He obliges the prelates under threat of excommunication to inform him in writing by reliable messengers whether Lothar's dealings with Theutberga satisfy his declaration of commitment to the papal legate Arsenius, and to publish the letter of excommunication against Waldrada. Finally, Nicholas explicitly orders Bishop Hatto of Verdun to send a messenger from among his clergy. \tCommentary states that as well as a copy of the letter being brought to Charles the Bald by Egilo of Sens, who according to papal wishes was to see that it was passed on to the episcopate of his own realm (cf. 843), but it is also said to be clear from the two mentions that Charles was to ensure a reliable transmission of the letter to the episcopate of Lothar II. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t843\t867\t867\tJanuary\t25\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\task\tNicholas reminds Charles of his previous support for Queen Theutberga and her brother and expresses dismay at his apparent [apparent] decision to enter into a convent with King Lothar II to the dismay of Theutberga, informs Charles of Lothar's plan to try and determine the invalidity of his marriage to Theutberga potentially even through a duel, and declares this planned judgement before a secular court inadmissible, since the case had already been decided by the higher authority of an ecclesiastical court after Theutberga and Lothar had appealed. He calls on Charles to intercede for Theutberga and if necessary grant her asylum in his realm. He asks Charles to forward a copy of this letter to the bishops there, to hand over the letter sent to him in n. 840 to Lothar, and to send the letter in n. 842 to the frightened or indisposed clergy in his kingdom by a capable messenger, and finally to report as soon as possible on the success of this mission. In an appendix the Pope asks Charles to keep the letter to Lothar (n. 840) secret for the time being until it becomes clear whether Lothar will obey the papal admonitions, but to publish the letter for all to see in the event of a continuation of his obstinate behaviour. \tCommentary notes that in his rebuke, Nicholas hints that Charles had changed sides in the marriage dispute at the price of a monastery transferred to him, referring to the transfer of the monastery of Saint-Vaast which Lothar ceded to his uncle in July 866. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t845\t867\t867\tMarch\t7\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\task\tAsks Louis the German to exhort Lothar II to give his wife Theutberga the love she deserves and to force her to confess offences on the basis of which he might separate from her; he points out that there is no possibility of a marriage with Waldrada and asks him to persuade the banished wife of Count Boso, Ingiltrud, by all means to return to her husband. \tCommentary states that following the various papal letters of the 25th of January 867 (cf. n 840, 841, 842, 843) the Pope attempted with this letter to gain increased influence over the marriage affairs of Lothar II through Louis the German. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t846\t867\t867\tJune\t13\tSent\tAdo of Vienne\tArchbishop\ti\tVienne\tVienne Is\u00e8re\t45.525587\t4.874339\tp\tc\tprompt\trenew\tNicholas renews the decretum perpetuum to Archbishop Ado of Vienne.\tThe commentary states that the intention here was to defend the primacy rights of Vienne against Arle.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t848\t867\t867\tJuly\tN\/A\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tHincmar reports to Nicholas on the events that took place after the meeting of King Charles the Bald with King Louis the German in Metz through Archbishop Egilo of Sens, that took place on the 20th of May 867. He justifies \/ reports on several matters including the matter of Wulfad and the complaint about him not sealing his letter, he emphasises his agreement to the restitution of clerics consecrated by Ebo, and disputes the undertaking of changes to the privilege of Pope Benedict III. He finally defends himself with regard to the exhortations in n. 838 to observe papal rights, above all with a reference to the division of his ecclesiastical province and diocese and their situation in two kingdoms, and furthermore counters the rebuke concerning too frequent wearing of the pallium with references to his numerous affairs and to Pope Gregory I. \tCommentary states that Hincmar's letter extensively addresses various still unresolved issues in a coherent way.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t849\t867\t867\tJuly\tN\/A\tReceive\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\t(received)\tassure\tLothar II writes to Nicholas I and assures him of his complete and lasting obedience, complains of constant slander, declares himself ready for a judicial enquiry in Rome, regrets that he has hitherto been prevented by all kinds of adversity from making a journey to the Pope, and asks Nicholas also to summon his opponents and until then not to listen to slander. He announces that he will send envoys to Rome from the assembly which he will hold in mid-July, affirms that he has always shown obedience to the papal legates and therefore asks Nicholas, if he has communications to make to him, to send him envoys or letters directly. He further denies as a lie (with similar working as Adventius in n. 853 the assertion that he had had renewed contact with Waldrada after the departure of the papal legate Arsenius as a lie. He concludes by recommending his chancellor Grimland as envoy. \tThe commentary notes that linguistic and content-related similarities between the letter and n. 697 and n. 786 could point to the same dictator, and that whether Lothar sent envoys to Rome again after the announced imperial assembly is not clear from the sources. It further notes that the envoy probably reached Rome shortly before the death of Nicholas I, and in fact returned with a letter from Hadrian II to Charles the Bald, and with Waldrada's absolution on the 25th of May 868.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t853\t867\t867\tAugust\tN\/A\tReceive\tAdventius of Metz\tBishop\ti\tMetz\tMetz\t49.1193089\t6.1757156\tp\tc\t(received)\tapologise\tAdventius apologises to Nicholas for his late reply to n. 842, citing as reasons his illness of two years on one hand, and on the other the military campaign against the Bretons and Normans. He expresses his thanks (as already in n. 757) for the pardon granted to him by the Pope, refers finally to the repeated announcement of the excommunication of Waldrada by Nicholas and affirms, as the Pope had demanded of the bishops, that Lothar had kept away from Waldrada according to the papal requirements and to his oath taken in the presence of the apostolic legate (Bishop Arsenius of Orte), and had taken Theutberga back as his wife.  \tAccording to the commentary Adventius' assertion that Lothar had had no contact with Waldrada since the departure of Arsenius was hardly true, since the latter returned to Lothar's realm after breaking off her journey to Rome and repeatedly stayed in places where she could at least meet Lothar. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t854\t867\t867\tOctober\tN\/A\tReceive\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tHincmar of Reims confirms to Pope Nicholas with citation of the letter to the bishops (n. 837) the receipt of the papal letter (n. 838) by Egilo of Sens, refers to the declining affliction by the Normans, and the possibility therefore given to hold a meeting. Reports once again but more briefly on the depositions of Ebo, on the consecration of Wulfad and his colleagues as well as his own assumption of office. While more brief this is largely verbatim in agreement with n. 848. He reject's Nicholas's accusations of a lack of respect for papal rights and the use of the pallium, stressing in particular his lack of signature on the Acts of the Synod of Soissons 853, convened after Ebo's death on the 20th of March 851, and mentions or cites numerous documents and events. \tCommentary notes that Perels has proved the letter, which corresponds in large parts with n., 848, to be an independent letter which Hincmar due to his uncertainty as attested in the Annals of St Bertin about whether his first letter had arrived.  \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t855\t867\t867\tOctober\t7\tSent\tLothar II\tKing\ti\tAachen\tAachen\t50.7753455\t6.0838868\tp\ts\tprompt\tadmonish\tNicholas admonishes Lothar among other things, to urge the clergy of Trier and Cologne to elect new rulers canonically as soon as possible, excluding Waldrada's favourites or the former archbishops Thietgaud and Gunther. He calls for their consecration by the bishops of the ecclesiastical province, and the subsequent sending of messengers to obtain the pallium. \tCommentary notes that the letter is only included as a fragmentary insert in two given letters.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t856\t867\t867\tOctober\t23-24\tSent\tHincmar of Reims\tArchbishop\ti\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tanswer \/ response\tsatisfied\tNicholas replies to Hincmar (n. 854) that he is satisfied on all points. \tCommentary notes that according to the context of the Annals of St Bertin, the Pope's answer referred to the information of Hincmar (n. 848). The text is also said to speak of Hincmar's messengers who met the Pope in August, who was already suffering and busy with the matter of the Greeks. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t857\t867\t867\tOctober\t23\tSent\tHincmar of Reims, Episcopate in the land of Charles the Bald\tEpiscopate\tg\tReims\tReims\t49.258329\t4.031696\tp\tc\tprompt\task\tNicholas complains to Hincmar of Reims and the episcopate in the realm of King Charles the Bald about the disputes with the Greek Emperors Michael III and Basil I, and also mentions the prehistory. He lists the points with which Byzantium reproaches the Roman See and the entire church using the Latin language, and calls for the compilation of arguments and emphasises the primacy of Rome at length. After further comments, Nicholas calls for a common struggle and in a postscript encourages Hincmar to further disseminate the letter to the metropolitans and suffragans in the realm of King Charles the Bald. \tThe commentary points towards Hartmann, Konzil Von Worms pp. 28-37 and MG Conc. IV 292-307 for more information about Nicholas' request to compile arguments against the Greeks and what came from this. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t858\t867\t867\tOctober\t24\tSent\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\tprompt\task\tNicholas informs Charles of the invitation of the metropolitans to his realm and some suffragans to a synod, the execution of which has been entrusted to Archbishop Hincmar of Reims, and he asks the king for his support. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t859\t867\t867\tOctober\t30\tSent\tLiutbert of Mainz\tArchbishop\ti\tMainz\tMainz\t49.9928617\t8.2472526\tp\tc\tprompt\torder\tNicholas writes to Archbishop Liutbert of Mainz and the bishops of Germania about the machinations of the Greeks and orders Liutbert to summon them to a synod. \tThe commentary notes that particularly from the Annals of Fulda is this letter to the episcopate of Germania is known, which is mentioned in there together with n. 863 and so probably arrived in East Francia together with this letter. The commentary further states that since the letter to Louis the German (n. 860) is identical with the letter to Charles the Bald (n. 858), which mentions the letter to Hincmar and the West Frankish Episcopate (n. 857), it is possible to conclude that the present letter aimed at Liutbert and the episcopate is similar in content to n. 857.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t860\t867\t867\tOctober\t30\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\task\tNicholas informs Louis the German of the invitation of the metropolitans and some suffragans of his realm to a synod, the execution of which he has entrusted to Archbishop Liutbert of Mainz, and asks the king for support. \tCommentary states that the council envisaged by the pope finally met in Worms in 868.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t861\t867\t867\tOctober\t30\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tanswer \/ response\tcomplain\tNicholas thanks King Louis the German in a reply to a letter reporting on his meeting with King Charles the Bald in Metz for his efforts in regards to Lothar II, but bemoans with reference to the latter's reports (n. 849) the little success of the papal and royal exhortations to Rome. \t.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t862\t867\t867\tOctober\t30\tSent\tLouis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tp\ts\tprompt\task\tNicholas writes to King Louis the German to ask him not to continue his efforts to reinstate the former archbishops Thietgaud and Gunther because after their penance they could hope for other ecclesiastical benefices, but not for their former or any other priestly office. He finally refers to his letter to the bishops in Louis' realm (n. 863). \tCommentary notes that just as in n. 863, which provides a detailed justification for the deposition of the two Rhenish archbishops, one sentence on the validity of papal judgements agrees almost word for word with Gregory, Decretum C. XXXV q. IX c. 4 (Friedberg I 1284)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t863\t867\t867\tOctober\t31\tSent\tEpiscopate of Louis the German\tKing\ti\tFrankfurt\tFrankfurt\t50.1109221\t8.6821267\tr\tc\tprompt\tcriticise\tInforms the episcopate in the realm of Louis the German of his regret at their taking sides with the banished archbishops of Trier and Cologne, criticise the bishops' inactivity in the matter of Waldrada and Ingiltrud, and again describes in detail the circumstances which led to the deposition of the two archbishops. He lists seven reasons for his initial dismissal sentence of Thietgaud and Gunther: 1)Thietgaud and Gunther did not follow the papal instructions concerning Ingiltrud, Theutberga and Waldrada. 2) In violation of the Council of Nikaia and against the instruction of Pope Gelasius (I), they received Ingiltrud, who had been papally and synodally banned. 3) They distorted the papal letters concerning Ingiltrud (n. 593) for the Metz meeting (n. 642). 4) They have supported adultery by their conduct. 5) They disregarded the appeals of Theutberga (n. 496, 508, 575) and Lothar (II) (n. 574) to the Holy See and condemned Theutberga. 6) They pronounced their condemnation in her absence. 7) They signed the Metz Protocol (n. 642) themselves and induced others to sign it. He lists further offences committed by them after their condemnation , including the physical attack on the pope (cf. n. 688), and he reports of a bishop present at Metz who informed him of the erasal by the archbishops of an addition essentially to the Metz Sentence that made it valid only until papal judgement. \tThe commentary states that perhaps a massive statement in favour of the metropolitans caused the detail of Nicholas in this letter, but that a corresponding letter from them has not survived, as well as noting that this letter was already used by medieval authors as an important source for the account of the events of c. 860-867 e.g. by Regino of Pr\u00fcm. It further points to the fact that references or allusions to earlier popes and councils are particularly frequently combined with biblical quotations in the case of the seven indictments listed in the letter (of Gunther and Thietguad), which are supposedly representative of the numerous other offences and are said to offer for the first time a more precise, even legal, justification by the pope for the synodal decision of 863 (n. 670). \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t865\t867\t867\tNovember\t2\tSent\tParticipants of the Synod of Troyes\tEpiscopate\tg\tTroyes\tTroyes\t48.2973451\t4.0744009\tp\tc\t(received)\treport\tThe participants of the synod report to Nicholas in response to his order (n. 837) with mention of numerous persons, places, and council decisions and documents, on the origin, elevation, and depositions of Archbishop Ebo of Reims, and refer to their enclosed compilation of papal and other letters, as well as to the letters of Hincmar of Reims and of the clerics consecrated by Ebo. They request the papal decision, apologize for the elevation of Wulfad to archbishop of Bourges before the papal approval, and nevertheless request the granting of the pallium on the latter's behalf. \tCommentary notes that after reading this, Charles the Bald gave another account of the Ebo affair to Rome (cf. n. 866), and that this prompted Hincmar of Reims to write an additional letter to Anastasius Bibliothecarius. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNicholas I\t866\t867\t867\tNovember\t3-30\tReceive\tCharles the Bald\tKing\ti\tQuierzy\tQuierzy\t49.572026\t3.142956\tp\ts\t(received)\treport\tCharles replies to Nicholas mentioning the papal orders to the bishops in n. 837, reports on various matters and apologies for the installation of Wulfad, the educator of his son Charles, as Archbishop of Bourges before the return of Archbishop Egilo of Sens and before a papal response (n. 836), he justifies this prematurity with the invasion of the pagans and nevertheless asks for the pallium for Wulfad. Finally, he recommends for further news the messenger of the synods of Soissons and Troyes, Bishop Actard of Nantes, and, because of the destruction of Nantes by Normans and Bretons, which has been going on for a decade, asks the Pope to confer a new see on Actard. \tCommentary notes that the letter clearly differs in tendency from n. 865, and the reports on Ebo and and the dispute over the clerics consecrated by him as mentioned in the letter is said to have the aim of making Ebo's deposition in 853 seems doubtful. It further notes that a note at the end presevred in the manuscript from Laon notes that the recipient of the letter was no longer Nicholas the I, but his successor Hadrian II, who sent the replies. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n","config":"{\"dataType\":null,\"address\":\"-1\",\"city\":\"-1\",\"state\":10,\"zip\":\"-1\",\"country\":\"-1\",\"lat\":12,\"lng\":13,\"title\":\"-1\",\"web\":\"-1\",\"image\":\"-1\",\"email\":\"-1\",\"group\":15,\"mapType\":null,\"pinLabel\":7,\"pinLabelName\":\"Recipient \/ Sender\",\"markerLabelZoomIn\":\"11\",\"markerLabelZoomInName\":null,\"addressPrettyName\":\"none\",\"cityPrettyName\":\"none\",\"statePrettyName\":\"Location\",\"zipPrettyName\":\"none\",\"countryPrettyName\":\"none\",\"latPrettyName\":\"Lat\",\"lngPrettyName\":\"Long\",\"titlePrettyName\":\"none\",\"webPrettyName\":\"none\",\"imagePrettyName\":\"none\",\"emailPrettyName\":\"none\",\"groupPrettyName\":\"Clerical or Secular?\",\"hideLatLong\":true,\"markerTitle\":false,\"mouseOverColumn\":10,\"mouseOverColumnName\":\"Location\",\"regionCode\":\"\",\"regionCountry\":\"Auto-Detect\",\"showLabels\":true,\"moveSingleMarker\":false,\"emm_lat\":12,\"emm_lng\":13,\"emm_acc\":26,\"center_lat\":55.788907514322254,\"center_lng\":-12.755058305023216,\"zoom\":4,\"customZoomAndCenter\":true,\"selectedMapType\":\"Terrain\",\"displayDataOnPage\":false,\"clustering\":true,\"clusterValue\":null,\"clusterColumn\":null,\"clusterColumnName\":null,\"clusterColumnType\":null,\"clusteringRangeEnabled\":false,\"clusteringRangeVals\":[],\"clusterRowIdCount\":0,\"clusterZoomLevel\":\"12\",\"heatMapEnabled\":true,\"heatMapOpacity\":\"0.60\",\"heatMapRadius\":\"40\",\"heatMapAndPins\":true,\"enableStreetView\":false,\"savedMultiSelectFilterValues\":{},\"savedSelectedFilterValues\":{},\"savedGroupsOff\":{},\"showMoreOptions\":false,\"disAbleDynamicFilters\":false,\"exportData\":true,\"scrollWheel\":true,\"zoomInSearching\":false,\"zoomInLevel\":\"13\",\"mapLanguage\":\"en\",\"showMarkerNumbers\":false,\"markerNumberColumn\":null,\"markerNumberColumnName\":null,\"excludeFromCluster\":false,\"excludeFromClusterColumn\":null,\"excludeFromClusterColumnName\":null,\"excludeFromClusterValues\":null,\"multiSelectFilters\":true,\"SavePresetFilters\":false,\"showDirectionDescription\":false,\"useGoogleMapsDirections\":false,\"columnHeaderArray\":[\"Pope\",\"Record Number\",\"Date Range\",\"Year\",\"Month\",\"Day\",\"Receive or Sent?\",\"Recipient \/ Sender\",\"Role of Recipient \/ Sender\",\"Individual, Several Individuals, Group\",\"Location\",\"Located As\",\"Lat\",\"Long\",\"Point or Region?\",\"Clerical or Secular?\",\"Prompt or answer \/ response?\",\"Type\",\"Content (Full attribution to Regesta Imperii Online)\",\"Comments (The majority of information related to the entry here has been garnered by translating the comments of Regesta Imperii Online and so full credit should be given for this, the rest is composed of my own comments mainly noting decisions I have made while compiling the data and why)\",\"\",\"\",\"\",\"\",\"\",\"\",\"emm_acc\"],\"headerDisplayOrderIdxs\":[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25],\"noDisplayNames\":[],\"groupHash\":{\"N\/A\":[118],\"both\":[13,14,65,69,79,153,166,170,192,202,219,257],\"c\":[0,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,35,36,38,40,42,43,45,46,50,51,52,53,56,57,58,59,60,62,63,64,66,67,70,71,72,73,77,78,84,90,91,94,96,102,103,104,105,107,108,109,111,112,114,115,116,119,120,122,123,124,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,149,151,152,154,155,156,157,161,162,163,164,167,168,169,171,173,175,176,177,178,179,191,193,195,196,197,198,200,201,203,204,205,210,211,213,216,217,221,222,223,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,234,235,236,240,241,242,243,246,247,250,251,253,261,262,263,266,269,270,272,273,275,276,278,282,283],\"s\":[1,28,33,34,37,39,41,44,47,48,49,54,55,61,68,74,75,76,80,81,82,83,85,86,87,88,89,92,93,95,97,98,99,100,101,106,110,113,117,121,125,126,127,136,137,147,148,150,158,159,160,165,172,174,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,194,199,206,207,208,209,212,214,215,218,220,224,232,233,237,238,239,244,245,248,249,252,254,255,256,258,259,260,264,265,267,268,271,274,277,279,280,281,284]},\"sortedGroupKeys\":[\"N\/A\",\"both\",\"c\",\"s\"],\"groupImageHash\":{\"N\/A\":0,\"both\":1,\"c\":2,\"s\":3},\"groupCustomColorImageHash\":{\"N\/A\":0,\"both\":1,\"c\":2,\"s\":3},\"ImageDimensions\":{},\"StreetView\":false,\"columnTypes\":[\"string\",\"whole_number\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"number\",\"number\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\",\"string\"],\"maxNumber\":{\"1\":866,\"11\":55.62955,\"12\":55.62955,\"13\":45.038189},\"CircleWithRadius\":false,\"CircleRadiusColumn\":null,\"CircleRadiusColumnName\":null,\"DefaultCircleRadius\":\"10\",\"CircleWithRadiusUnits\":\"miles\",\"circleFillOpacity\":0.35,\"exludeCustomRadiusFromCluster\":false,\"filterListNames\":[\"Year\",\"Date Range\",\"Month\",\"Recipient \/ Sender\",\"Receive or Sent?\",\"Role of Recipient \/ Sender\",\"Point or Region?\",\"Prompt or answer \/ response?\",\"Type\",\"Individual, Several Individuals, Group\"],\"filterListArray\":[{\"858\":[33,35,36],\"859\":[39,40,41,43],\"860\":[46,47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,65],\"861\":[66,67,68,69,70,71],\"862\":[75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,86,87,88,89,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100],\"863\":[103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,147,148,149,150],\"864\":[153,154,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,173,174,175,176,177,178,179],\"865\":[183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,213,216,217,218,220,222,223],\"866\":[225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263],\"867\":[264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284],\"858-867\":[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18],\"858-866\":[19],\"858-864\":[20,23],\"858-865\":[21,22],\"858-863\":[24,25,26],\"858-862\":[27,28,29],\"858-860\":[30],\"858-859\":[31,32,34],\"859-864\":[37,38],\"859-867\":[42],\"860-863\":[44,52],\"860-861\":[45,61,62,63,64],\"860-867\":[57,58,59,60],\"861-862\":[72],\"862-867\":[73],\"862-866\":[74],\"862-863\":[85,90,101,102],\"863-864\":[126,151,152],\"863-867\":[145,146],\"864-865\":[155,172],\"865-866\":[180,181,182,210,211,212,214,215,219,221],\"866-867\":[224,242,243]},{\"862\":[75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102],\"863\":[103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,147,148,149,150,151,152],\"864\":[153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179],\"865\":[180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223],\"866\":[224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263],\"867\":[264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284],\"Vague\":[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,37,38,42,44,52,57,58,59,60,73,74,145,146],\"858-859\":[31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40,41,43],\"860-861\":[45,46,47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]},{\"N\/A\":[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,37,38,39,44,45,46,73,74,75,180,181,182],\"October\":[19,87,88,89,135,136,137,138,139,141,142,143,144,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282],\"September\":[20,55,56,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,171,218,224,247],\"May\":[21,22,51,160,161,162,166,209,234,235],\"June\":[23,24,25,52,172,213,269],\"April\":[26,66,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,207,208,227,228,229,230,231,232],\"May-August\":[34],\"May-September\":[35],\"July-September\":[36],\"May-June\":[40,159,163,164,165],\"June-September\":[41,167,168,169],\"November-?\":[42],\"November-December\":[43,91,173,174,175,176,177,178,222],\"March-July\":[47],\"March-April\":[48,49,50,156,204],\"August-September\":[53,54,67,68,69,124,125,244],\"November-\":[57,58,59],\"December-\":[60],\"December-February\":[61,62],\"December-January\":[63,64],\"December\":[65,179,223,259,260,261,262,263],\"November\":[70,71,92,93,95,96,97,98,99,100,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,283,284],\"November-February\":[72],\"March\":[76,77,78,79,155,157,268],\"April-May\":[80,81,111],\"June-August\":[82,237],\"July-October\":[83],\"September-August\":[84,126],\"September-March\":[85],\"October-November\":[86,140,219],\"November-January\":[90],\"November-May\":[94],\"December-May\":[101],\"December-March\":[102],\"January-May\":[103,104],\"January-February\":[105,106,154],\"February-March\":[107,108,109,110],\"June-July\":[122,123],\"October-\":[145],\"October-April\":[146],\"October-December\":[147,148,149,150,220],\"November-March\":[151],\"December-October\":[152],\"January-March\":[153,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194],\"April-June\":[158,206,233],\"September-December\":[170,246],\"January-July\":[183],\"January-April\":[184,185,225],\"January\":[195,196,264,265,266,267],\"February-June\":[197],\"February\":[198,226],\"February-April\":[199,200,201,202],\"March-May\":[203],\"April-August\":[205],\"June-December\":[210,211,212],\"July-February\":[214],\"August-March\":[215],\"August-October\":[216],\"August-December\":[217,239],\"November-August\":[221],\"June`\":[236],\"July-November\":[238],\"August\":[240,241,245,272],\"August-November\":[242,243],\"July\":[270,271]},{\"Unnamed\":[0,170],\"Louis II\":[1,34,95,174,183,185,186],\"Epiphanius\":[2],\"Rivoladrus\":[3],\"Jeremias\":[4],\"Leo\":[5],\"John IV of Ravenna\":[6,7,32,46,63,66,70,73],\"Bishops of Louis the German's Kingdom\":[8],\"Osbald of Carinthia\":[9],\"Soloman of Constance\":[10],\"Rathold of Strasbourg\":[11,156],\"Theoto of Fulda\":[12,155],\"Charles the Bald, Bishop Donnus\":[13],\"Charles the Bald, Hincmar of Reims\":[14],\"Hincmar  of Reims\":[15],\"Herard of Tours\":[16,129,234,243],\"Frotharius of Bordeaux\":[17],\"Church of Nin\":[18],\"Unnamed Clerics\":[19],\"Rudolf of Bourges\":[20,169],\"Roland of Arles\":[21,162],\"Wenilo of Sens\":[22,36],\"Branidingus of M\u00e2con\":[23],\"Karl of Mainz\":[24,25,26],\"Anastasius Bibliothecarius\":[27],\"King of Bretons Solomon\":[28,74],\"Hubert of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune\":[29,109,111],\"Tado of Milan\":[30,57,58,59,60],\"Hincmar of Reims\":[31,53,105,107,108,112,115,123,124,130,134,135,139,143,154,161,200,221,222,229,241,247,262,270,273,275],\"Charles the Bald\":[33,37,44,54,75,85,93,97,99,106,113,125,127,136,150,160,182,188,199,208,212,232,233,237,244,245,260,267,277,284],\"Abbot Lupus Servatus\":[35],\"Festinian of Dol\":[38,225,235],\"Theutberga\":[39,47,81,238,265],\"Abbot Theoto of Fulda\":[40],\"Louis the German\":[41,87,165,181,187,207,268,279,280,281],\"Adalwin of Salzburg\":[42,51,163,164],\"Prudentius of Troyes\":[43],\"Hunfried of Th\u00e9rouanne\":[45],\"Emperor Michael III of Byzantium\":[48,49,55,68,76,206,218,249],\"Patriarch Photios of Constantinople\":[50,56,67,77,251],\"Archbishop Charles of Mainz and his suffragan bishops.\":[52],\"Lothar II\":[61,80,83,88,98,121,147,148,158,189,190,224,264,271,274],\"Episcopate of Lothar II\":[62,120,193],\"Athanasius I of Naples\":[64],\"Lothar II, Thietgaud of Trier, Gunther of Cologne, Bishops\":[65],\"People of Emilia, Senators of Ravenna\":[69],\"Bishop Peter, Bishops of Emilia\":[71],\"Ado of Vienne\":[72,141,145,157,178,179,213,231,269],\"Church of Constantinople\":[78],\"All Faithful\":[79,166],\"Louis the German, Lothar II\":[82],\"Landulf I\":[84],\"Baldwin I of Flanders\":[86],\"Charles of Provence\":[89],\"Radoald of Porto, John of Cervia\":[90,104],\"Ignatios, 10 Archbishops, 15 Bishops and other clerics\":[91],\"King Charles of Aquitaine\":[92],\"Episcopate at Synod of Metz\":[94,96],\"Ermentrude\":[100,126,137],\"Count Stephen of Auvergne\":[101],\"Bishops of Gallia\":[102],\"Episcopate in Gallia and Germania\":[103],\"Count Gerhard of Vienne\":[110],\"Participants of the Council of Pitres \/ Soissons of 862\":[114],\"Rothad of Soissons\":[116,138,195,196],\"Louis of Neustria, Charles of Aquitaine\":[117,118],\"Cleric Hilduin\":[119],\"Robert of Le Mans\":[122,132],\"Episcopate of Charles the Bald\":[128,191],\"Monastic community of Saint-Calais\":[131],\"Patriarch Vitalis I of Grado\":[133],\"Bishops from the Synod of Verberie\":[140],\"Bishops of Gallia, Italy, and Germany.\":[142],\"Archbishops in realm of Louis the German\":[144],\"Episcopate in Gallia , Burgundy and Germania\":[146],\"Adventius of Metz\":[149,173,203,217,272],\"Thietgaud of Trier, Gunther of Cologne\":[151],\"Radoald of Porto\":[152],\"Romans\":[153],\"Horich II\":[159],\"Episcopates in Gallia, Germania and Belgium\":[167],\"Rudolf of Bourges, Suffragans\":[168],\"Franko of Tongern\":[171],\"Bernhard Plantevelue\":[172],\"Archbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and Lothar II\":[175,176,177],\"Helletrud\":[180],\"King Solomon III of Brittany and his wife Gyembret\":[184,209],\"Episcopate and nobles of Louis the German\":[192],\"Charles the Bald, Lothar II\":[194],\"Remigus of Lyon\":[197],\"Archbishops summoned to the Synod of Pavia\":[198],\"Episcopate in Gallia\":[201],\"Clergy, People\":[202],\"Arduicus of Besan\u00e7on\":[204],\"Hatto of Verdun\":[205],\"Episcopate\":[210],\"Egilo of Sens\":[211],\"King Soloman III of Brittany\":[214,215],\"Paul of Piacenza\":[216],\"Faithful\":[219],\"Imperial Spathar Michael\":[220],\"Rimbert of Hamberg\":[223],\"Episcopate in Italy, Germania, Neustria and Gallia\":[226,236],\"Archbishop and bishops of Gallia and Neustria, including Archbishop Wenilo of Rouen and Archbishop Remigius of Lyon\":[227],\"Wulfad of Bourges\":[228],\"Herard of Tours and his suffragan bishops\":[230],\"Sons of King Louis the German\":[239],\"Participants of the Synod of Soissons\":[240],\"Actard of Nantes\":[242],\"Liutbert of M\u00fcnster\":[246],\"Boris I\":[248],\"Clergy and Episcopate of Constantinople\":[250],\"Bardas\":[252],\"Ignatios\":[253],\"Theodora\":[254],\"Eudokia of Byzantium\":[255],\"Senators in Constantinople\":[256],\"All right-believing patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops and all faithful in Asia and Libya (Africa)\":[257],\"Ashot I Prince of Armenia\":[258],\"Nobles, Great men and Residents of Aquitaine\":[259],\"Participants of the Council of Soissons\":[261],\"Wulfad of Bourges, Reims Clerics\":[263],\"Episcopate in the kingdom of Lothar II\":[266],\"Hincmar of Reims, Episcopate in the land of Charles the Bald\":[276],\"Liutbert of Mainz\":[278],\"Episcopate of Louis the German\":[282],\"Participants of the Synod of Troyes\":[283]},{\"Sent\":[0,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,34,36,38,41,42,43,44,45,46,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,63,64,65,66,70,71,72,73,74,76,77,78,79,83,84,87,88,89,90,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,123,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,152,153,157,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,181,182,183,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,199,200,201,202,204,205,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,215,216,218,219,220,221,222,223,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,234,235,236,239,245,246,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283],\"Receive\":[5,27,33,35,37,39,40,47,48,49,50,61,62,67,68,69,75,80,81,82,85,86,91,92,107,108,109,110,122,124,125,140,149,150,151,154,155,156,158,180,184,196,197,198,203,206,214,217,224,225,233,237,238,240,241,242,243,244,247,270,271,272,273,284]},{\"Bishop\":[0,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,23,25,26,38,43,45,71,84,102,116,122,132,138,140,149,152,154,156,169,171,173,195,196,203,205,217,235,242,246,272],\"Emperor\":[1,34,48,49,55,68,76,95,174,183,185,186,206,218,249],\"Abbot\":[5,12,29,35,40,109,111,155],\"King, Bishop\":[13],\"King, Archbishop\":[14],\"Archbishop\":[15,16,17,20,21,22,24,30,31,32,36,42,46,51,53,57,58,59,60,63,64,66,70,72,73,105,107,108,112,115,123,124,129,130,134,135,139,141,144,145,151,157,161,162,163,164,178,179,197,198,200,204,211,213,221,222,223,225,229,234,241,247,262,269,270,273,275,278],\"Clergy\":[18,19,62,78,91,114],\"Librarian\":[27],\"King\":[28,33,37,41,44,54,61,74,75,80,82,83,85,87,88,89,92,93,97,98,99,106,113,121,125,127,136,147,148,150,158,159,160,165,181,182,184,187,188,189,190,194,199,207,208,209,212,214,215,224,232,233,237,244,245,260,264,267,268,271,274,277,279,280,281,282,284],\"Queen\":[39,47,81,100,126,137,238,265],\"Patriarch\":[50,56,67,133,251],\"Archbishop, Bishop\":[52,168,175,176,177],\"Emperor, Bishop\":[65],\"People, Senator\":[69],\"People\":[79,153,166,170,202],\"Count\":[86,101,110,172],\"Legates\":[90,104],\"Episcopate\":[94,96,103,120,128,142,143,146,167,191,192,193,201,210,226,227,236,240,261,266,276,283],\"Prince\":[117,258],\"N\/A\":[118],\"Cleric\":[119],\"Monk\":[131],\"Noble\":[180,239,252,259],\"Deacon\":[216],\"Faithful\":[219,257],\"Spathar\":[220],\"(Later) Archbishop\":[228],\"Archbishop, bishop\":[230,231],\"Ruler\":[248],\"Clergy, Episcopate\":[250],\"Patriarch (deposed)\":[253],\"Empress\":[254,255],\"Senator\":[256],\"Archbishop, Clergy\":[263]},{\"N\/A\":[0,19],\"p\":[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,68,70,72,73,75,76,77,78,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,145,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,168,169,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,220,221,222,223,224,225,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,258,260,261,262,263,264,265,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,283,284],\"r\":[8,28,55,62,65,69,71,74,79,89,102,103,120,128,142,143,144,146,166,167,170,191,192,193,201,202,219,226,227,257,259,266,282]},{\"answer \/ response\":[0,10,12,24,36,38,42,45,55,56,74,76,83,102,112,114,115,132,137,157,159,162,165,169,171,179,185,204,209,212,213,215,218,235,245,248,260,261,262,265,275,280],\"prompt\":[1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,34,41,43,44,46,51,52,53,54,57,58,59,60,63,64,65,66,70,71,72,73,77,78,79,84,88,89,90,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,103,104,105,106,113,116,117,119,120,121,123,126,127,128,129,130,131,133,134,135,136,138,139,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,152,153,160,161,163,164,166,167,168,170,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,181,182,183,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,199,200,201,202,205,207,208,210,211,216,219,220,221,222,223,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,234,236,239,246,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,263,264,266,267,268,269,274,276,277,278,279,281,282],\"(received)\":[5,19,27,33,35,37,39,40,47,48,49,50,61,62,67,68,69,75,80,81,82,85,86,87,91,92,107,108,109,110,111,122,124,125,140,149,150,151,154,155,156,158,180,184,196,197,198,203,206,214,217,224,225,233,237,238,240,241,242,243,244,247,270,271,272,273,283,284],\"N\/A\":[118]},{\"episcopal\":[0,4,6,9,10,11,17,24,25,32,42,43,58,59,60,204],\"advice\":[1,21],\"forbid\":[2,45],\"report\":[3,8,14,50,92,124,140,232,242,243,247,258,270,273,283,284],\"privileges\":[5],\"instruction\":[7,26,30,164],\"scripture\":[12,27],\"report, order\":[13,79,114],\"report, admonish\":[15],\"admonish\":[16,22,83,96,128,181,182,205,210,274],\"question\":[18],\"appeal\":[19,33,39,47,81],\"unknown\":[20,28,34,41,75,78,94,122,123,125,135],\"rebuke\":[23,29,73,105,130,131,165,172,189,190,193,218,235,251,252,259,261,262,264,266],\"order\":[31,44,84,90,103,148,153,186,187,216,220,222,229,234,278],\"report, request\":[35,80],\"praise, recommend\":[36],\"intercede\":[37,197],\"criticise\":[38,115,120,147,200,211,282],\"request, report\":[40,82],\"warn\":[46,212],\"legation\":[48,49],\"grant\":[51,209,223],\"legal\":[52],\"command\":[53],\"exhort\":[54,104,121,127,146,178,188,191,192,249,255,256],\"assert\":[55,56,77],\"allow\":[57],\"diplomacy\":[61,62],\"summon\":[63,64,66,70,133,152,175,176,177],\"call\":[65],\"dispute\":[67,68],\"help\":[69,86,179],\"support\":[71],\"praise, admonish\":[72,136],\"permission\":[74],\"rebuke, reject\":[76],\"ask\":[85,155,156,214,225,244,260,267,268,276,277,279,281],\"demand\":[87,97,106,206,215],\"inform\":[88,89,93,102,111,129,132,139,141,142,143,144,154,163,166,199,213,219,230,231,233,236,237,245,257],\"complain\":[91,151,240,250,280],\"inform, ask\":[95],\"recommend\":[98],\"request\":[99,100,107,113,184],\"reproach\":[101],\"defend\":[108,109],\"announce\":[110,226],\"confirm, order\":[112],\"inform \/ request\":[116],\"Praise, Order\":[117],\"N\/A\":[118],\"censure\":[119],\"thank\":[126,159,203],\"threat\":[134],\"rebuke, inform\":[137],\"inform, order\":[138],\"transmit\":[145],\"ask for pardon\":[149],\"intervene\":[150,170],\"praise\":[157,162,169,202,254],\"justify\":[158,201,217],\"send\":[160],\"commission\":[161],\"confirm\":[167,195,263],\"remind\":[168],\"forgive\":[171],\"pardon\":[173],\"ask for permission\":[174],\"petition\":[180],\"stress\":[183],\"reject\":[185,265],\"comment\":[194],\"plea\":[196,198],\"indignation\":[207,208],\"enquiry\":[221],\"assure\":[224,271],\"call on\":[227],\"invite\":[228],\"confession\":[238],\"pastoral\":[239],\"explain\":[241],\"relics\":[246],\"doctrinal\":[248],\"console\":[253],\"renew\":[269],\"apologise\":[272],\"satisfied\":[275]},{\"i\":[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,68,70,72,73,74,75,76,77,80,81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,92,93,95,97,98,99,100,101,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,115,116,119,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,129,130,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,141,145,147,148,149,150,152,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,169,171,172,173,174,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,195,196,197,199,200,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,220,221,222,223,224,225,228,229,231,232,233,234,235,237,238,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,251,252,253,254,255,256,258,260,262,264,265,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,277,278,279,280,281,282,284],\"g\":[8,18,19,62,65,69,71,78,79,91,94,96,102,103,114,120,128,131,140,142,143,144,146,153,166,167,168,170,175,176,177,191,192,193,198,201,202,210,219,226,227,236,240,250,257,259,261,266,276,283],\"si\":[13,14,52,82,90,104,117,151,194,230,239,263],\"N\/A\":[118]}],\"filterListSortedKeyHash\":{\"Year\":[\"858-867\",\"858-866\",\"858-864\",\"858-865\",\"858-863\",\"858-862\",\"858-860\",\"858-859\",\"858\",\"859-864\",\"859\",\"859-867\",\"860-863\",\"860-861\",\"860\",\"860-867\",\"861\",\"861-862\",\"862-867\",\"862-866\",\"862\",\"862-863\",\"863\",\"863-864\",\"863-867\",\"864\",\"864-865\",\"865-866\",\"865\",\"866-867\",\"866\",\"867\"],\"Date Range\":[\"858-859\",\"860-861\",\"862\",\"863\",\"864\",\"865\",\"866\",\"867\",\"Vague\"],\"Month\":[\"April\",\"April-August\",\"April-June\",\"April-May\",\"August\",\"August-December\",\"August-March\",\"August-November\",\"August-October\",\"August-September\",\"December\",\"December-\",\"December-February\",\"December-January\",\"December-March\",\"December-May\",\"December-October\",\"February\",\"February-April\",\"February-June\",\"February-March\",\"January\",\"January-April\",\"January-February\",\"January-July\",\"January-March\",\"January-May\",\"July\",\"July-February\",\"July-November\",\"July-October\",\"July-September\",\"June\",\"June-August\",\"June-December\",\"June-July\",\"June-September\",\"June`\",\"March\",\"March-April\",\"March-July\",\"March-May\",\"May\",\"May-August\",\"May-June\",\"May-September\",\"N\/A\",\"November\",\"November-\",\"November-?\",\"November-August\",\"November-December\",\"November-February\",\"November-January\",\"November-March\",\"November-May\",\"October\",\"October-\",\"October-April\",\"October-December\",\"October-November\",\"September\",\"September-August\",\"September-December\",\"September-March\"],\"Recipient \/ Sender\":[\"Abbot Lupus Servatus\",\"Abbot Theoto of Fulda\",\"Actard of Nantes\",\"Adalwin of Salzburg\",\"Ado of Vienne\",\"Adventius of Metz\",\"All Faithful\",\"All right-believing patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops and all faithful in Asia and Libya (Africa)\",\"Anastasius Bibliothecarius\",\"Archbishop Charles of Mainz and his suffragan bishops.\",\"Archbishop and bishops of Gallia and Neustria, including Archbishop Wenilo of Rouen and Archbishop Remigius of Lyon\",\"Archbishops and bishops in the kingdoms of Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and Lothar II\",\"Archbishops in realm of Louis the German\",\"Archbishops summoned to the Synod of Pavia\",\"Arduicus of Besan\u00e7on\",\"Ashot I Prince of Armenia\",\"Athanasius I of Naples\",\"Baldwin I of Flanders\",\"Bardas\",\"Bernhard Plantevelue\",\"Bishop Peter, Bishops of Emilia\",\"Bishops from the Synod of Verberie\",\"Bishops of Gallia\",\"Bishops of Gallia, Italy, and Germany.\",\"Bishops of Louis the German's Kingdom\",\"Boris I\",\"Branidingus of M\u00e2con\",\"Charles of Provence\",\"Charles the Bald\",\"Charles the Bald, Bishop Donnus\",\"Charles the Bald, Hincmar of Reims\",\"Charles the Bald, Lothar II\",\"Church of Constantinople\",\"Church of Nin\",\"Clergy and Episcopate of Constantinople\",\"Clergy, People\",\"Cleric Hilduin\",\"Count Gerhard of Vienne\",\"Count Stephen of Auvergne\",\"Egilo of Sens\",\"Emperor Michael III of Byzantium\",\"Epiphanius\",\"Episcopate\",\"Episcopate and nobles of Louis the German\",\"Episcopate at Synod of Metz\",\"Episcopate in Gallia\",\"Episcopate in Gallia , Burgundy and Germania\",\"Episcopate in Gallia and Germania\",\"Episcopate in Italy, Germania, Neustria and Gallia\",\"Episcopate in the kingdom of Lothar II\",\"Episcopate of Charles the Bald\",\"Episcopate of Lothar II\",\"Episcopate of Louis the German\",\"Episcopates in Gallia, Germania and Belgium\",\"Ermentrude\",\"Eudokia of Byzantium\",\"Faithful\",\"Festinian of Dol\",\"Franko of Tongern\",\"Frotharius of Bordeaux\",\"Hatto of Verdun\",\"Helletrud\",\"Herard of Tours\",\"Herard of Tours and his suffragan bishops\",\"Hincmar  of Reims\",\"Hincmar of Reims\",\"Hincmar of Reims, Episcopate in the land of Charles the Bald\",\"Horich II\",\"Hubert of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune\",\"Hunfried of Th\u00e9rouanne\",\"Ignatios\",\"Ignatios, 10 Archbishops, 15 Bishops and other clerics\",\"Imperial Spathar Michael\",\"Jeremias\",\"John IV of Ravenna\",\"Karl of Mainz\",\"King Charles of Aquitaine\",\"King Soloman III of Brittany\",\"King Solomon III of Brittany and his wife Gyembret\",\"King of Bretons Solomon\",\"Landulf I\",\"Leo\",\"Liutbert of Mainz\",\"Liutbert of M\u00fcnster\",\"Lothar II\",\"Lothar II, Thietgaud of Trier, Gunther of Cologne, Bishops\",\"Louis II\",\"Louis of Neustria, Charles of Aquitaine\",\"Louis the German\",\"Louis the German, Lothar II\",\"Monastic community of Saint-Calais\",\"Nobles, Great men and Residents of Aquitaine\",\"Osbald of Carinthia\",\"Participants of the Council of Pitres \/ Soissons of 862\",\"Participants of the Council of Soissons\",\"Participants of the Synod of Soissons\",\"Participants of the Synod of Troyes\",\"Patriarch Photios of Constantinople\",\"Patriarch Vitalis I of Grado\",\"Paul of Piacenza\",\"People of Emilia, Senators of Ravenna\",\"Prudentius of Troyes\",\"Radoald of Porto\",\"Radoald of Porto, John of Cervia\",\"Rathold of Strasbourg\",\"Remigus of Lyon\",\"Rimbert of Hamberg\",\"Rivoladrus\",\"Robert of Le Mans\",\"Roland of Arles\",\"Romans\",\"Rothad of Soissons\",\"Rudolf of Bourges\",\"Rudolf of Bourges, Suffragans\",\"Senators in Constantinople\",\"Soloman of Constance\",\"Sons of King Louis the German\",\"Tado of Milan\",\"Theodora\",\"Theoto of Fulda\",\"Theutberga\",\"Thietgaud of Trier, Gunther of Cologne\",\"Unnamed\",\"Unnamed Clerics\",\"Wenilo of Sens\",\"Wulfad of Bourges\",\"Wulfad of Bourges, Reims Clerics\"],\"Receive or Sent?\":[\"Receive\",\"Sent\"],\"Role of Recipient \/ Sender\":[\"(Later) Archbishop\",\"Abbot\",\"Archbishop\",\"Archbishop, Bishop\",\"Archbishop, Clergy\",\"Archbishop, bishop\",\"Bishop\",\"Clergy\",\"Clergy, Episcopate\",\"Cleric\",\"Count\",\"Deacon\",\"Emperor\",\"Emperor, Bishop\",\"Empress\",\"Episcopate\",\"Faithful\",\"King\",\"King, Archbishop\",\"King, Bishop\",\"Legates\",\"Librarian\",\"Monk\",\"N\/A\",\"Noble\",\"Patriarch\",\"Patriarch (deposed)\",\"People\",\"People, Senator\",\"Prince\",\"Queen\",\"Ruler\",\"Senator\",\"Spathar\"],\"Point or Region?\":[\"N\/A\",\"p\",\"r\"],\"Prompt or answer \/ response?\":[\"(received)\",\"N\/A\",\"answer \/ response\",\"prompt\"],\"Type\":[\"N\/A\",\"Praise, Order\",\"admonish\",\"advice\",\"allow\",\"announce\",\"apologise\",\"appeal\",\"ask\",\"ask for pardon\",\"ask for permission\",\"assert\",\"assure\",\"call\",\"call on\",\"censure\",\"command\",\"comment\",\"commission\",\"complain\",\"confession\",\"confirm\",\"confirm, order\",\"console\",\"criticise\",\"defend\",\"demand\",\"diplomacy\",\"dispute\",\"doctrinal\",\"enquiry\",\"episcopal\",\"exhort\",\"explain\",\"forbid\",\"forgive\",\"grant\",\"help\",\"indignation\",\"inform\",\"inform \/ request\",\"inform, ask\",\"inform, order\",\"instruction\",\"intercede\",\"intervene\",\"invite\",\"justify\",\"legal\",\"legation\",\"order\",\"pardon\",\"pastoral\",\"permission\",\"petition\",\"plea\",\"praise\",\"praise, admonish\",\"praise, recommend\",\"privileges\",\"question\",\"rebuke\",\"rebuke, inform\",\"rebuke, reject\",\"recommend\",\"reject\",\"relics\",\"remind\",\"renew\",\"report\",\"report, admonish\",\"report, order\",\"report, request\",\"reproach\",\"request\",\"request, report\",\"satisfied\",\"scripture\",\"send\",\"stress\",\"summon\",\"support\",\"thank\",\"threat\",\"transmit\",\"unknown\",\"warn\"],\"Individual, Several Individuals, Group\":[\"N\/A\",\"g\",\"i\",\"si\"]},\"filterColumnIdxs\":[\"3\",\"2\",\"4\",\"7\",\"6\",\"8\",\"14\",\"16\",\"17\",\"9\"],\"filterCounts\":true,\"markerImageIdx\":[2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,3,3,2,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,1,2,2,3,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,1,3,3,3,3,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,3,3,2,3,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,0,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,2,3,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,3,1,2,2,2,1,2,3,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,1,2,3,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,2,2,3,2,3,3,2,2,3,1,3,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,3,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,3,2,3,3,3,1,3,3,3,2,2,2,3,3,2,3,3,2,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,3,2,3,3,3,2,2,3],\"useCustomImages\":false,\"CustomImages\":[],\"customImageSizes\":{},\"singleCustomImage\":null,\"singleCustomImageHeight\":null,\"singleCustomImageWidth\":null,\"customSearchText\":\"Search\",\"clusterColor\":\"red\",\"clusterHexColor\":\"FF776B\",\"selectedDefaultMarker\":\"red\",\"selectedDefaultMarkerHexColor\":\"FF776B\",\"disableSearching\":false,\"noSearchColumns\":[7,9,16,17,18],\"mobileSearchEnabled\":true,\"centerLocationOnMap\":true,\"showSearchLocationImage\":false,\"hideLogo\":false,\"hasCustomLogo\":false,\"logoText\":\"Map made with EasyMapMaker.com\",\"logoUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.easymapmaker.com\",\"defaultLogo\":\"\/\/cdn.easymapmaker.com\/img\/small_logo2.png\",\"defaultLogoShort\":\"\/img\/small_logo2.png\",\"defaultLogoText\":\"Map made with EasyMapMaker.com\",\"defaultLogoUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.easymapmaker.com\",\"hidePoi\":true,\"mapStyle\":\"custom\",\"customMapStyleValue\":[{\"featureType\":\"administrative\",\"elementType\":\"geometry\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"off\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"landscape.natural\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"on\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"landscape.natural.terrain\",\"stylers\":[{\"color\":\"#fcff3d\"},{\"visibility\":\"on\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"landscape.natural.terrain\",\"elementType\":\"geometry\",\"stylers\":[{\"color\":\"#0b5c00\"},{\"weight\":5.5}]},{\"featureType\":\"landscape.natural.terrain\",\"elementType\":\"geometry.fill\",\"stylers\":[{\"color\":\"#5fb979\"},{\"visibility\":\"on\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"landscape.natural.terrain\",\"elementType\":\"geometry.stroke\",\"stylers\":[{\"color\":\"#fcff3d\"},{\"visibility\":\"on\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"poi\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"off\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"poi.place_of_worship\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"off\"},{\"weight\":8}]},{\"featureType\":\"road\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"off\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"road\",\"elementType\":\"labels.icon\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"off\"}]},{\"featureType\":\"transit\",\"stylers\":[{\"visibility\":\"off\"}]}],\"minNumber\":{\"1\":100,\"11\":26.3351,\"12\":31.768319,\"13\":-1.753965}}","userSettings":{"title":"The 'Regesta' Of Nicholas I Mapped","description":"This interactive map was made using a selective composition of Nicholas I's correspondence in the Regesta Imperii, resulting in a total of 287 entries on this map. The map has filters and is searchable, which may hopefully make it useful for those wishing to explore the data, and who can try different combinations of filters to see if anything interesting results from this. The methodology is explained more on Figshare (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.6084\/m9.figshare.19589902.v1)"},"temp":"","stats":"","mapid":"TheRegestaOfNicholasIMapped"};