Thus  the  attitude  was  threefold  of  parties  in  France
during  this  controversy.  There  was  the  party  led  by  Ama-
larius, that  insisted  on  revising  the  Office-books  in  their
own  way,  and  on  destroying  all  that  had  been  in  use  pre-
viously, wherever  they  could  lay  hands  on  them.  As  these
soon  had  Paschasius  for  their  dogmatic  exponent,  and  the
strong  arm  of  the  Emperor  Lewis  and  his  son  Charles  for
their  support,  their  success  was  assured.  Hence  their
language  was  as  explicit  as  their  views  were  decided.  The^e
was  a  second  party  that  had  several  pupils  of  Alcuin  be-
longing to  it,  represented  by  Rabanus  Maurus  and  Walafrid
Strabo,  who  clang  to  the  teaching  in  which  they  had  been.
brought  up,  but  being  men  of  peace,  were  too  timid  to  defend
it,  and  therefore  were  reserved  or  ambiguous.     And  there


406  PERFECT  CALM  AT  ROME.
was  a  third  party  composed  of  devoted  adherents  to  the
teaching  of  the  Fathers,  who  loudly  protested  against  the
changes  that  were  being  made,  yet  showed  by  their  language
that  they  were  supporting  a  falling  cause.  Of  these  Ago-
bard,  Floras,  and  Ratramn  are  names  that  must  always
command  respect.
The  attitude  of  Rome  during  this  controversy  will  now
be  shown  to  have  been  in  remarkable  contrast  to  that  of
France.  There,  neither  questions  of  liturgy  nor  of  dogma
were  stirred.  No  pen  noticed,  no  tongue  was  heard  on  the
disputes  agitating  France.  Peace  reigned  in  the  cloister,
everything  went  on  as  usual  in  church  there.  Moderns
of  course  will  declare  this  to  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that
at  Rome  there  was  nothing  to  change,  that  its  teaching  was
then  what  it  always  had  been,  that  its  Canon  had  been  cor-
rectly transcribed  by  Amalarius,  and  was  then  what  it  is  now.
