The licence of Hadrian I, allowing the abbat and brethren of St. Martin’s to elect and to have their own bishop, is printed (from Baluz) in Gallia Christiana, vol. xiv, p. 7 of the Instrumenta relating to Tours. The date is 786. The licence is addressed to Abbat Autherius, that is, Itherius. It sets forth that by royal and papal privileges the Abbey of St. Martin of Tours was in all respects independent of the episcopal authority of the bishop of Tours;[213] whatsoever in the flock of St. Martin needed arranging, ruling, or correcting, was a matter for the abbat, provost, dean, and other most approved men. Hadrian declares that they may have a bishop of their own, as had been the custom from ancient times until most recent times, because of the great numbers of persons who flocked from all parts to visit the shrine and needed instruction in the faith. The person elected by the abbat and the flock shall be ordained by the neighbouring bishops. The metropolitan bishop—that is, the archbishop of Tours—shall not enter the church for any exercise of his episcopal office, such as ordinations, or making the chrism, nor shall he have power to summon any of the priests of the monastery to appear before him. The abbey bishop must not be impleaded without the assent of the abbat. He is to have the pastoral care of the neighbouring districts held by the abbey, and is to amend and correct in canonical manner and due order with the consent of his abbat. If the abbat does not choose to settle any matter of dispute which may arise between the St. Martin’s bishop and the bishops of the neighbourhood, the matter must come direct to the apostolic see.
That is a very remarkable document. We are not without indications of other unusual customs in the province of Tours.
The Archbishop of Tours had eventually eleven suffragans, Le Mans, Angers, Rennes, Nantes, Vannes, Cornouaille, Léon, Tréquier, St. Brieuc, St. Malo, Dol. Some of these bishoprics trace their origin to refugees from Britain in the middle of the sixth century. A marked feature of the Archbishopric was the existence and permanence of the office of Archpresbyter. The Chapter of Tours itself, in its most complete form, consisted of Dean, Archdeacon of Tours, Treasurer, Praecentor, Chancellor, two other Archdeacons, the Archpresbyter of Tours, and fifty or more Canons. The Princeps Archipresbyter preached on the greater Sundays, as the Ecclesiastes Theologus did on other Sundays. At Le Mans, before Alcuin’s time at Tours, there were two Archpresbyters, each in management of half of the diocese; in the eleventh century there were three; in 1200, eight. In 1230 Maurice replaced them by seven Archdeacons, who had under them a number of rural deans, decani rusticanis negotiis, an office into which the Archpresbyters, once so important, subsided. Archdeacons of Le Mans are first named in the will of St. Bertramn, in 623. At Angers the chief Archdeacon had under him four Archpresbyters; the second Archdeacon had one Archpresbyter and two Rural Deans; the third Archdeacon had three Rural Deans. At Angers the Archbishop of Tours acted in 1334 much as the Archbishop acted at St. Martin’s at Tours in or before Alcuin’s time; he freed the Chapter from episcopal control and himself confirmed the Deans[214].
CHAPTER XIV
Great dispute on right of sanctuary.—Letters of Alcuin on the subject to his representatives at court and to a bishop.—The emperor’s severe letter to St. Martin’s.—Alcuin’s reply.—Verses of the bishop of Orleans on Charlemagne, Luitgard, and Alcuin.
In the year 801, or early in 802, a question of sanctuary arose on which Alcuin and Charlemagne took opposite views. The Emperor was imperious in his dealing with the matter.
Ep. 179.
Two of Alcuin’s pupils, Candidus and Nathanael, held offices in the court of the Emperor at Aachen. Nathanael was the pupil to whom Alcuin wrote a well-known letter about the temptations and occupations of the court, his warnings against the temptations being conveyed under cover of figurative language. “Let not the crowned doves come to thy windows, that flit about in the chambers of the palace; let not wild horses break in at the door of thy chamber; do not occupy thyself with dancing bears.” To Candidus and Nathanael he wrote, in evident anxiety, to tell them what had happened, and to bid them put it before the Emperor in a favourable light. This is what he says.
Ep. 180. A.D. 801-2.