Index:
A. Advice offered by Christian writers concerning the choice of a bride
(click here)
B. Carolingian statements on the indissolubility of marriage (click
here)
C. Some excerpts from canon law concerning marriage, divorce, etc.
(click here)
D. Evidence from Carolingian royal decrees (click
here)
E. The Lothar-Theutberga Dossier (material specific to their case)
1. An excerpt from Hincmar's
treatise, Concerning the Divorce of Lothar and Theutberga (click
here)
2. An excerpt from the synod
of Aix (860) (click here)
3. Excerpts from the Annals
of St Bertin (click here)
1. Christian of Corbie, Advice to Men on Choosing Brides, 9th century
Whether she be gluttonous, quarrelsome or sickly, a wife must be kept until the day of her death, except if by mutual agreement both partners withdraw from the world. Therefore, before he accepts a wife, a man must get to know her well, both with regard to her character and health. He should not do anything rash that may cause him sorrow for a long time. If all decisions are to be made with advice, this one [ought to be] even more so; in matrimony a man surrenders himself. Most men, when they choose a wife, look for seven [sic] qualities: nobility, wealth, looks, health, intelligence and character. Two of these, intelligence and character, are more important than the rest. If these two are missing, the others might be lost.
Source: Christian of Corbie, Expositio in Mattheum 62 [PL 106, 1413-1414], trans. Suzanne Wemple, in Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500-900 (Philadelphia, 1985), p. 88.
2. Sedulius Scottus, Advice on Choosing a Wife, 9th century
He [the prince] therefore takes careful care that he shall have a wife who is not only noble, beautiful and rich, but also chaste, prudent and observant of the Christian virtues.
Source: Sedulius Scottus, De rectoribus christianis 5, in PL 103, 300; trans. by Richard Barton from text printed by Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 88 n. 71.
3. Jonas of Orleans, Virtues of a Potential Bride, in order of importance, 9th century
Family, prudence, wealth and beauty.
Source: Jonas of Orleans, De Institutione laicali 2.12, in PL 106, 188D-189A, trans. Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 88 n. 71.
B. On the Indissolubility of Marriage
1. Isidore of Seville, Advice to Prospective Husbands, 560-636
Must one keep a wife of this sort, who is barren, deformed, of great age, foul-smelling, a drunkard, irritable, immoral, luxurious, gluttonous, foolish, a vagabond, or one who curses or swears? Whether you like it or not, she must be kept.
Source: Isidore of Seville, De ecclesiasticis officiis 2.12, in PL 83, 813B; taken from Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 88 note 70, translated by Richard Barton.
2. Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, Advice to Prospective Husbands, circa 860-863
Must one keep a wife of this sort, who is a drunkard, irritable, immoral, luxurious, gluttonous, a vagabond, or one who curses and swears? Whether you like it or not, she must be kept. [Note: Hincmar is clearly paraphrasing Isidore - but what did he leave out? why?]
Source: Hincmar of Rheims, De divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae reginae, in PL 125, 656; translation by Richard Barton, with inspiration from the translation offered by Suzanne Wemple, Women in Frankish Society (Philadelphia, 1985), p. 88.
3. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, on grounds for divorce
A man and a woman cannot be separated unless for the cause of manifest fornication. And having been separated, they may either live as such or may be mutually reconciled.
Source: Hincmar of Rheims, De divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae reginae, in PL 125, 645A; translation by Richard Barton.
1. St Ambrose, on Adultery (4th century)
Every act of adultery is a disgrace, and what is not permitted to women is also not permitted to men.
Source: Ambrose of Milan, De Abraham, 1.4.25, translated by Richard Barton from text in Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 75 n. 2
2. Council of Orleans, 533
Cap.10. No one shall be joined in any union [copulatio] to his step-mother, that is, to the wife of his father. Let whomever shall presume to do this know that he shall be struck with the penalty of anathema.
Cap. 11. Marriages that have been contracted may not be dissolved by any contrary opinion, even if illness should arise. And if anyone so joined shall do this, he shall be deprived of communion.
Source: Translated by Richard Barton from the Latin text in Les Canons des conciles Mérovingiens (Vie-VIIe siècles), 2 vols., ed. Jean Gaudemet and Brigitte Basdevant, Source Chrétiennes, nos. 353-354 (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1989)., 1:200-201.
3. Council of Orleans, 541
Cap. 22. [Let it be known] that no one shall dare to use the authority of his power to lust after the daughter of another, lest the marriage, which is joined impiously against the will of the parents, be judged to be a captivity. But if such a thing, which is prohibited, shall occur, let the sanction of excommunication be placed on those who perpetrated it according to the manner fixed by the bishop.
Source: Translated by Richard Barton from the Latin text in Les Canons des conciles Mérovingiens (Vie-VIIe siècles), 2 vols., ed. Jean Gaudemet and Brigitte Basdevant, Source Chrétiennes, nos. 353-354 (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1989), 1:278-279.
4. Pope Eugenius II and the Council of Rome, 826
It is not permitted to anyone, except in the case of fornication, to relinquish a wife whom he has taken legitimately [adhibitam uxorem] and to then sleep with another woman; but it is proper for the transgressor to be bound to the first marriage.
Source: Conc. Romanum (826), 36 (MGH Conc. 2, 582; MGH Capit. 1, 376), translated by Richard Barton from text in Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 78 n. 19.
5. Benedict Levita, on what made a legitimate marriage (mid 9th century)
a marriage is lawful ... if the wife was requested from those who appear to have power over her and guard her. If she was betrothed by her nearest relatives and in accordance with the laws she was provided with a dos, and when the time came, as it is proper, she was given a sacerdotal benediction with prayers and oblations by a priest, and, as custom teaches, she was guarded, attended and requested at the appropriate time by bridal attendants, and she was given by her nearest kin according to the laws and was solemnly received .... then their children will not be spurious but legitimate and will be eligible to be their heirs.
Source: Suzanne Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 83.
1. Charlemagne, Admonitio generalis (789)
Text lackng - sorry
Source: MGH Capit, 1, 56
2. Council of Friuli, 796
Item, it pleased us [to decree] that, after the conjugal chain has been broken on account of fornication, a man may not marry another wife so long as the adulteress lives, even if it is the adulteress that he wishes to marry; but nor shall an adulteress, who ought to accrue the most grave penalties or the torment of penance, accept another husband, regardless of whether the husband whom she hadn’t blushed to defraud was living or dead.
Source: MGH, Conc., 2:192, trans. by Richard Barton.
3. Capitulary to the Missi, 802
Chapter 33: We forbid absolutely the crime of incest. If anyone is stained by wicked fornication he must in no circumstances be let off without severe penalty, but rather should be punished for it in such a way that others will be deterred from committing the same offense, that filthiness may be utterly removed from our Christian people, and that the guilty person himself may be fully freed from it through the penance that is prescribed for him by his bishop. The woman concerned should be kept under her parents’ supervision subject to our judgment. And if such people are unwilling to agree to the bishop’s judgment concerning their improvement, they are to be brought into our presence, mindful of that exemplary punishment for incest imposed by Fricco upon a certain nun.
Source: Patrick Geary, ed., “General Capitulary for the missi, spring 802,” in Readings in Medieval History, 1st edition (Broadview, 1989), p. 335.
4. Capitulary for upholding the law, Worms, August 829
Chapter 3: Whoever has dismissed his own wife, or killed her without sin, and then takes another wife, let him put down his arms and undergo public penance; and if he shall prove contumacious, let him be seized by the count, bound in fetters, and tossed into prison until the matter can be brought to our attention.
Source: Capitulare pro lege habendum Wormatiense, 3; in MGH Capit. 2, p. 18. Translated by Richard Barton.
5. Report of the Bishops to Emperor Louis, August 829
Among the labors of our assembly, we also compiled many other chapters
[capitula] concerning the well-being and practice of faithful laymen, of
which due to their great prolixity we make here only the following mention:
namely,
-that it is fitting for
them [ie., laymen] to know that marriage was constituted by God, and that
it exists not for the sake of pleasure,
but for the sake of striving for more children.
-and that, as our Doctors
[i.e., theologians] related, virginity ought to be maintained until marriage
-that those who have wives
should not also have mistresses or concubines
-how they ought to love
their wives in chastity, and to devote to their wives, inasmuch as they
are weaker, all the proper honor
-and that carnal intercourse
with their wives ought to occur for the sake of offspring, not pleasure,
-and how men ought to abstain
from intercourse with their pregnant wives
-and that unless for the
reason of fornication, as the Lord said [Matthew 5:32], a wife must not
be sent away, but rather must be supported
-and that those who take
new wives after having dismissed their first ones for reasons of fornication
shall be known as adulterers,
according to the sentence of the Lord
-and also how incest is
to be avoided by Christians
Source: Episcoporum ad Hludovicum imperatorem relatio; in MGH Capit. 2, pp. 45-46. Translated by Richard Barton.
6. Council of Mainz, 852
cap. 11. Concerning homicide [but a case of interest to us is
buried in this chapter]
.... when Albgis publicly abducted the wife of Patricius and led her
to the extreme ends of the empire to the savage, yet still Christian, people
of Moravia, he thereby defamed the church of Christ by the crime of adultery.
By common counsel we decreed that, by the order of the king sent into exile
alongside the statutes of the holy canons he ought to perform full penance,
namely: three years on bread and water and beans and vegetables, except
on the important feast-days; afterwards, four more years in which he shall
similarly abstain for three days each week as well as for three Lenten
periods, unless an exceedingly great illness shall prevent him from completing
this. In addition, having laid aside his military gear [literally:
‘warlike belt’], let him remain for the rest of his life without marriage.
c. 12. Concerning concubines
If whosoever shall have a concubine, to whom he was not legitimately
betrothed, and afterwards, having abandoned the concubine, he shall marry
a girl to whom he was betrothed properly, let him have her to whom
he was legitimately betrothed. Concerning this matter, Pope Leo stated
thus in his decrees, saying: “It should not be doubted that such a woman
does not belong to matrimony, in which
15. He who has a wife and, at the same time, a concubine
Concerning he who has a wife, if he should then take a concubine, let
him be deprived of communion. On the other hand, however, he who
does not have a wife and takes a concubine as if she were his wife should
not be expelled from communion, as long as he is content with union with
either one woman, or one wife, or one concubine, howsoever it pleases him..
Let he who is living otherwise be cast aside, until he desists or until
he returns to penance.
Source: Concilium Moguntinum, 852, in MGH Capit. 2, pp. 189-190; translated by Richard Barton.
7. Synod of Meaux, June 845
cap. 77. Let powerful men and especially powerful women take care lest adultery, carnal concubinage and incestuous adultery flourish in their households. And they should make their priests, who accompany them in the chapel, hold to the same virtue, since they ought to curtail all vices in their households. ...
Source: Concilium Meldense-Parisiense, June 17, 845-February 2, 846, in MGH Capit. 2, 419. Translated by Richard Barton.
E. The Lothar-Theutberga Dossier
1. Hincmar of Rheims, “Concerning the divorce
of Lothar and Theutberga”
Note: this excerpt comes from a treatise written by Hincmar concerning
the whole affair. It is very long (many hundreds of pages) and divided
into a number of ‘inquiries’, each of which is paired with Hincmar’s ‘response’.
In the ‘inquiries’ Hincmar sets out the alleged facts and the arguments
of Lothar’s supporters; in the responses, he marshals evidence from many
authorities (mostly the bible) to counter and contradict Lothar’s party.
What follows is a lengthy section of the first inquiry, in which Hincmar
reveals most of the facts of the case as it existed in 860.
First Inquiry [interrogatio]
Indeed, they claim in their
first charge [that] the wife of the lord king Lothar was indeed charged
first with dishonor, alleging that her brother committed a crime with her
by masculine intercourse between the femurs, in the same manner as men
are accustomed to perform sinful acts with other men. Moreover, from
this she became pregnant; on account of this and in order to hide her shame
[ut celaretur flagitium], she drained a potion and aborted the fetus .
She denied this, but the
source and witnesses of this proof were lacking. So, by the judgment
of noble laymen, at the decree [consultu] of the bishops, and with the
consent of the king himself, the champion [vicarius] of that woman underwent
the ordeal of boiling water. When afterwards he was found to be uncooked
[incoctus], that woman was restored to the marital bed and to her royal
husband, through the decree by which it had been suspended. And thus
after a space of time, we do not know whether concerning the same
deed or concerning something which took place after the marriage had been
initiated, a little book just like that we have transmitted to you is known
to have been drawn up by certain bishops and, through the mouths of certain
men, to have been made public; [saying] that on account of a secret confession,
which the little book sets forth, all of you other bishops, having spoken
about it, ought to utterly remove her from marital union. And if
you require anything more, you ought to be urged to consider [Latin: dare]
that the book was attested by her own hand, so that just as Ebo, formerly
archbiship of Rheims was removed from his see and status through a book
with a secret confession, so too ought this woman to be removed from her
marital consort on account of a book containing a secret confession.
But concerning the venerable
archbishop of Rheims it was said to us that he consented [to his removal]
in the following way: through bishops, namely Wenilo archbishop of Rouen
and Bishop Hildegar, he fully outlined his vices in his own words, and
through Adventius, with whom he spoke about his case at Rheims, he sent
letters containing his consent to the royal assembly and to the episcopal
synod. Also through the same Adventius he sent his letters [of consent]
to the apostolic see. For this reason what is held therein from truth
following authority we command to be remanded to us by you for the sake
of truth, which is God’s.
The text of the eight chapters of the little book is known to be the following:
1. We bishops, who having been summoned, recently came together at the palace of Aix-la-Chapelle wish to bring to the notice of our brothers and fellow-bishops what we experienced there, or, better, what we found out there. We do this so that they, listening to the ear of their hearts and bodies, shall distinguish and with unanimous counsel shall discover what solution and what end they shall place on the following case.
2. The glorious King Lothar, having intimate and private speech with us, humbly and with pious purity set forth to us his special needs, for which he was seeking advice and a solution. We also, applauding his good intentions, having invited his tears and sighs and having been moved to compassion, with God’s inspiration, gave counsel and offered a medicinal remedy to his requests, pleas, and demands.
3. Then the king, in a mournful voice, which certain of us could not follow without grief and sadness, began to tell us about his wife, whom he wished to keep, namely that she was begging with firm and continual prayers that she be absolved from her conjugal chains, being unworthy, as she herself claimed, of the marriage bed, so that she might deserve to take up the sacred veil and serve Christ the Lord.
4. Meanwhile, a messenger from the same queen sought us out, asking that we not prevent her from coming to see us. We agreed to this, and she hastened to come to meet us. Then, having wholly cast herself at our feet, she began to beg us very much with these words, saying “For the sake of God and your ministerium, I beg you to give me true counsel.”
5. To whom we instantly responded: “O that God would deliver counsel to us, which we could then deliver truthfully and healthfully to you! Tell us with a pure and true confession of your knowledge everything concerning that which you are asking our counsel with these great imprecations, since otherwise we will not be able to fulfill what you seek if we do not know the truth of the matter. We admonish this, that we prohibit you from falsely inventing for yourself any crime, whether due to anyone’s suasion, or, if you have been enticed by other honors, due to deception, or due to fear of any sort of pain or death; and we prohibit you from thereby leading us into error, which is always to be avoided. But, as we reminded you above, throw open the truth of the matter, just as it is, no more and no less, and we, God willing, will strive to offer counsel and aid to you, so that by no means will you be cheated of your justice in any respect.”
6. “In no wise,” she said, “with God, my own conscience, and my confessor as witnesses, will I speak otherwise, either on one side or the other, nor will I confess anything about myself unless it is wholly the truth. I acknowledge,” she said, “and concerning me I do know myself, that I am not worthy to remain in conjugal union; and concerning this I immediately offer as witness Bishop Gunther, to whom I made confession. He understands that I am not worthy.” And she, turning herself to the same bishop, beseeched him with these words, “Bishop,” she said, “I ask that you, since you know better, make your fellow bishops understand that it is so, just as I presented testimony concerning myself.” The aforesaid bishop said to her, “It would be good for you yourself to lay bare to these, my brethren, what still lied hidden, so that they may hear from your own mouth what they must decide.” And she said, “Why is it necessary that I speak again when you already know what I said? Let it be your [task], for the sake of God, to reveal to them my desire, in order that you give to me, equally with my husband, license to do what I desire, since,” she said, “not even for the whole world do I want to lose my soul. And therefore I ask you, for the sake of God and for the sake of the ministerium you have taken up, that for the health of my soul you do not deny what I ask.”
7. Then we the bishops, testing [this], asked whether she would want to make any further complaint concerning this matter, or to begin any plots, if her petition were answered. To which she, in a clear voice, said: “By that faith which I cherish, I promise to you before God that for ever after will I raise no quarrel in this regard either on my own or through any plot.”
8. Finally we utterly denied to the penitent what [she sought] from our aforesaid brother, who was wailing, lamenting and very greatly distressed concerning this thing, and who was ever conscious of her confession, [and] this was to be narrated in a loud voice to the brothers and fellow-bishops alongside the terms of the license that was granted, so that, just as it was said in the beginning, when the evidence of this to-this-point-secret case will be learned, everyone with one and the same counsel and consent shall expel error and set up truth.
[Hincmar also reveals the presence of another ‘little book’ (latin: libellus) that was intended to be distributed to the laymen of Lothar’s realm]
Cap. 1: After our lord Lothar, the most serene and glorious king, with the consent and will of his vassals joined himself to Theutberga in marriage by royal custom, quarrels of disagreements began to spring up between them. It was then said to the same prince by certain of his men that the said Theutberga performed a certain horrible and abominable crime and thereby had a hidden wound in her soul or heart, by which God would be gravely offended. On account of this crime, moreover, she was not worthy of him nor was it permissable or seemly for him to have her as wife any longer.
Cap. 2: With regard to the story concerning the queen set forth above [ie., concerning her ‘crime’], which was flying about in everyone’s mouths, the aforesaide king in the presence of his vassals discussed it frequently, both in private and openly, and with them came to many opinions, from which, with their advice, an ordeal was later performed; but the divine piety did not want to reveal the truth of the matter. But when afterwards he had come to his brother Louis in Italy, the crime she committed was made clear to him there.
Cap. 3: Henceforth, lest this suspicion and the most wretched rumor concerning his royal wife should remain unexamined or unproved for any longer, in this way our lord set in motion more strongly and more securely concerning the case [the following]: when he completed more freely by royal custom those things which were to be done there, the following men gathered by the command of the same prince at the palace of Aix in the year 860, in the fifth year of his reign, in the 8th indiction, on the 5th Ides of January: Gunther [of Cologne] the supreme chaplain, Teotgaud archbishop of Trier, Bishop Adventius of Metz, Bishop Franco, Abbot Hegil, Abbot Odelingus and his other vassals. Describing to these men all the things listed above, he advised by commanding the aforesaid bishops and abbots, directing them to her, so that they might inquire about the whole truth of the matter concerning the said rumor from the queen herself; and this they did. For she confessed to them before God and his angels all things which existed in this matter, and every secret alongside the rumor that had risen was made clear to them; and they, having returned, announced to the said king that it was not appropriate for him to have her as wife.
Cap. 4: First Gunther spoke: “She confessed to God and to us that the wound in her was carried out not with her consent, but violently, and for this reason she judged herself wholly unworthy to approach the royal or marital bed any longer, and that she was by no means able, on account of the said crime, which is disgusting to discuss, to have intimate union any longer with him or with anyone else. And thus she begged that license be given to her to change out of her secular habit and to separate herself from male company [virili commixtione] would be held within her; no angry deception or desire, which she might hold against the king, would intervene, but, with her separating from him, he might be consoled in body and soul and she, since she had acted sinfully, would be able to weep prayers to the mercy of God and his bishops.”
Cap. 5: Adventius spoke: “This crime and deed was hidden from me up to this point, and it is sinful that hereafter you join together in the manner of husband and wife; yet if she is still beloved and lovely [to you], as she used to be, let me give you advice according to the ministerium granted to me and let me prove wholly to you .....
Cap. 6: In a similar manner, Archbishop Teotgaud spoke and consented.
Cap. 7: Abbot Egil, standing in for the same Theutberga, counseled and sought that this should be done, namely that, since the shameful deed was not perpetrated with her consent but through violent force, these things be granted to her: the opportunity to take the veil and a place in which she might heal the wound that had been given her, which things she truly sought simply for the love of God and the salvation of her soul, and not due to any menacing fear, event or will.
Source: Hincmar of Rheims, De divortio Lotharii regis et Theubergae reginae, in PL, 125, cols. xx-yy; translated by Richard Barton. The texts of the two ‘little books’ are also found (in better editions) in MGH Capit. 2, 463-466.
2. Synod of Aix, 860 - another account:
Capit. 15 .... Then she explained it to certain bishops and laymen. Afterwards she extended a small charter of her confession written up by her will in our presence and in the presence of many other laymen into the hand of glorious king Lothar, and soon it was spoken publicly before everyone: “My lord king,” she said, “I ask for the sake of God and of your reward, that it be permitted to me to do penance, since I confess by words and in writing that I do not deserve conjugal union. And therefore, having prostrated myself, I humbly demand that you not deny to me just now or henceforth that I be allowed after this to look to my salvation.” The text of this writing contained these words and this sense: “I, Theutberga, as much as I have been failed by the imprudence and frailty of the feminine sex, and stung/bitten by human conscience of the crime,
Introductory Note
The Annals of Saint-Bertin were begun in the 830s
in the imperial palace of Emperor Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne.
First recorded in the heart of the Carolingian court, the annals moved
out of court c.843 when they were taken over by Bishop Prudentius of Troyes.
When Prudentius died in 861, the annals again changed hands, to be continued
by the great scholar-bishop Hincmar of Rheims. For much of what concerns
us, then (from at least 861, if not 860), the record comes from the sharp
mind and pen of Bishop Hincmar. Keep in mind that Hincmar was a thorough
partisan of church law (canon law), and an equally strong supporter of
King Charles the Bald (Charles was the uncle of Lothar II). Hincmar’s
opinion thus clearly falls on the side of the pope and Theutberga.
Indeed, he is responsible for a lengthy treatise entitled “Concerning the
divorce of Lothar and Theutberga,” in which he systematically attacks Lothar’s
claims. The annals were written year-by-year. I omit most of each
year’s entry, providing only what seems necessary to follow the bitter
dispute between Lothar and Theutberga. Words in brackets [like this]
are my comments or explanations. Ellipses [.....] indicate sections
where other material has been left out.
TEXT: Selections from the Annals of Saint-Bertin pertaining Lothar's divorce case
853: .... The most Christian Queen Ermengard had died two years previously. The Emperor Lothar I now took as mistresses two serving-women from a royal villa: one of them, named Doda, bore him a son whom he ordered to be called Karlmann. His other sons, like their father, gave themselves up to adulterous affairs. [this latter sentence is taken to be a reference to Waldrada; Hugh, the son of Waldrada and Lothar, was born between 855-860]
855: [Emperor Lothar I died; his son Lothar II got Francia and his son Charles got Provence]
857 .... Lothar II wickedly kept concubines, and put aside his wife the queen. [a reference to Theutberga, whom Lothar II married in 855]
858: ... King Lothar was forced by his own people to take back the wife he had put aside: but instead of readmitting her to his bed, he had her locked up.
860: ... Lothar hated his queen, Theutberga, with irreconcilable loathing,
and after wearing her down with many acts of hostility, he finally forced
her to confess before bishops that she had had sodomite intercourse with
her brother Hubert. For this crime she was immediately condemned to penance
and shut away in a convent. .....
King Lothar, fearing his uncle Charles, allied himself
with Louis king of Germany, and to obtain this alliance handed over part
of his kingdom, namely Alsace, to Louis. Lothar’s wife, fearing the
hatred and dark schemes of her husband, fled to her brother Hubert in the
realm of Charles.
862 ... Lothar had been demented, so it was said, by witchcraft and
ensnared in a blind passion by the wiles of his concubine, Waldrada, for
whom he had cast aside his wife Theutberga. Now with the backing
of his uncle Liutfrid and of Walter, who because of this were his special
favorites, and with the consent - an abominable thing this is to say -
even of certain bishops of his realm, Lothar crowned Waldrada and coupled
with her as if she were his lawful wife and queen, while his friends grieved
and spoke out against this action. .....
Louis king of Germany sent smooth-talking envoys
to his brother Charles and asked him to come to a meeting in the neighborhood
of Toul. Because Charles refused to hold talks with Lothar until he had
told his brother the reasons why he was displeased with Lothar, quite a
battle of words ensued. Finally Charles and the bishops who were
with him sent to Louis and the bishops who were with him a written text
drawn up in capitula [literally, ‘under separate headings’], showing the
grounds on which Charles refused to communicate with Lothar unless he would
undertake either to give a reasonable explanation on these points or would
show some improvement, according to rightful authority. When Lothar gave
an undertaking on these terms, Charles and the bishops with him received
Lothar into communion. As for the texts of the ‘announcements’ from their
meeting, which had been written down and read out to the counselors, and
which they ought to have issued to the people, Louis and Lothar totally
rejected them. In this they were following the advice especially of Conrad,
Charles’ uncle, who was trying hard in his usual fashion with an arrogant
yet superficial knowledge of the world which brought little benefit to
himself, still less to others, to prevent the people from finding out what
accusation Charles was making against Lothar. But Charles, against
their wishes, made it fully known to everyone that he had refused to communicate
with Lothar before he gave the undertaking mentioned above for two reasons:
first, because Lothar had abandoned his wife and taken another woman, contrary
to the authority of the Gospel and of the apostles, and second, because
Lothar and his mistress [ie., Waldrada] had had communication with excommunicated
persons, namely with the wife of Boso, and with Baldwin who had stolen
away Charles’ daughter and married her.
863: ... Legates also came from the pope to Metz to hold by apostolic
delegation a synod in mid-June, to consider the divorce which had occurred
between Lothar and his wife Theutberga, and the substitution for her of
his concubine Waldrada whom he had joined to himself in marriage, contrary
to both ecclesiastical and secular laws. At this synod, the two legates,
corrupted by bribes, concealed the pope’s letters and carried out none
of the things that had been entrusted to them by sacred authority. But
in order to give the impression that they had achieved something, with
the connivance of Hagano, a crafty and very greedy Italian bishop, they
ordered Gunther archbishop of Cologne and Theutgaud his fellow archbishop
of Trier to go to Rome with the childish nonsense which the bishops of
Lothar’s realm had had written out and had subscribed in that synod, so
that the case might be settled by the judgment of the pope. But the
pope was fully aware of all that had gone on. He wished to condemn Radoald
on another similar charge, for he had lately been corrupted by greed in
Constantinople along with his fellow bishop, Zacharias. The pope himself
therefore now summoned a synod. Radoald, when he got wind of this, fled
by night and disappeared. Gunther and Theutgaud, when they came to Rome,
were condemned by the pope first in the synod and afterwards in the church
of St Peter in the following terms:
Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our most reverent and most holy confreres Hincmar of Rheims and Wenilo of Rouen and all our confreres, the archbishops and bishops established in the realm of the glorious King Charles. That crime which Lothar the king - if that man can truly be called a king who reins in his appetites by no healthy control of his body but rather with weakness yields to its unlawful motions - committed against two women, namely Theutberga and Waldrada, is manifest to all. But almost the whole world was reporting to us, as it flowed to the threshold or seat of the apostles, even though those who wrote this to our apostolate were absent in person, that in such a deed Lothar formerly had as authors and supporters Bishops Theutgaud and Gunther. This we were the more reluctant to believe, in so far as we used to hope never to hear any such thing about bishops, until those very men, coming to Rome at the time of the council, were found before us to and the holy synod to be exactly as they had so very often beforehand been said to be by many people: that is, they were caught by that very document which they had set out with their own hands and which they wished us to confirm with our own hand, and while they were trying to set a trap for the innocent, they were ensnared in their own toils. Thus has been fulfilled, at God’s instance, what is read in the Book of Proverbs [1:77]: “The net is thrown in vain before the eyes of the birds.” Thus they were bound and fell. But we who were falsely being said to have fallen into that crime, by God’s favor have risen up again with the defenders of justice, and we are upright. Therefore with the holy synod decreeing along with us, they stand in our presence indubitably deposed and excommunicated from episcopal office and removed from the government of episcopacy. Wherefore let your fraternity, guarding as it does the norm of the canons and observing the sanctions of the decrees, take care not to presume to receive in the catalogue of high priests those whom we have cast aside. The sentence of deposition which we have delivered against the above-mentioned Theutgaud and Gunther, together with other decrees which we have promulgated, the holy synod sanctioning them with us, is shown attached below
chapter 1: That the synod assembled at Metz by archbishops Theutgaud and Gunther is utterly annulled
.... we decree that it should not be termed a synod, but because it favored adulterers, it should be called a brothelchapter 2: the depositions of Archbishops Theutgaud and Gunther
Theutgaud ... and Gunther, now before us by reason of their deeds, in as much as they acknowledged and judged the case of King Lothar and his two women, namely Theutberga and Waldrada, offering a document on this matter confirmed by their own hands, and affirming with their own mouths to the many before whom they spoke that they had done nothing more or less nor otherwise, and confessing themselves publicly and orally to have violated the sentence which our most holy brother Archbishop Tado of Milan ... requested should be sent out from the apostolic see against Engeltrude, the wife of Boso, and which we, afire with divine zeal, canonically delivered under assurance of anathema, in all of which matters we have found them to have exceeded in many respects the apostolic and canonical sanctions and wickedly to have defiled the rule of equity [they are then deposed]chapter 3: Other bishops
[supporters of Theutgaud and Gunther face the same penalty unless they ‘come to their senses’ and follow the papal decree]chapter 4: The Case of Engeltrude
Engeltrude, daughter of the late Count Matfrid, who abandoned her own husband Boso and, look, has now for about seven years been running about here and there, a vagabond, we recently lawfully anathematized, along with her supporters; but on account of her contumacies we have thought it fit that she should again be knotted in the bonds of anathema. ... [the ritual curse follows ...] But of course, if that woman returns to her husband, or comes hastening to Rome, to the apostolic see of the Blessed Peter, there is no doubt that we shall not deny her forgiveness after due satisfaction [ie., penance]. Yet let her remain in the meantime bound under the previous bond of anathema by which we formerly bound her and now bind her.chapter 5: the sentences and interdicts of the apostolic see
[anyone who ignores these decrees will be anathema]
[also in 863]... Charles reached Auxerre: there, on the advice of
his faithful men and in accordance with the pope’s request, he permitted
his daughter Judith to be joined in lawful matrimony to Baldwin with whom
she had eloped.
864: ... Louis, so-called emperor of Italy, goaded on by Gunther to
his own harm, felt that those legates of his brother Lothar whom the pope
had degraded, as described above, had been sent to Rome by means of his
[Louis’] guarantees and intervention. In fury, showing no self-restraint,
he traveled with his wife [Queen Engelberga] to Rome, taking those legates
Theutgaud and Gunther along with him, with the intention of having the
two bishops reinstated by the pope, or, if the pope refused to act, laying
hands on him to do him some injury. [the pope orders a general fast with
litanies to make the emperor well-disposed to the church] .... When the
emperor had reached Rome and was staying near the church of St Peter, the
clergy and people of Rome, celebrating their fast with crosses and litanies,
approached the tomb of St Peter. As they began to climb the steps in front
of St Peter’s basilica, they were thrown to the ground by the emperor’s
men, and beaten with all kinds of blows. Their crosses and banners were
smashed, and those who could escape simply fled. [Gunther sends his brother
Hilduin to deliver to the pope a list of charges, defending himself and
charging the pope with uncanonical judgment] ... Pope Nicholas refused
to receive this document. Hilduin, mentioned above [ie., Gunther’s brother],
fully armed and with a troop of Gunther’s men, entered the church of St
Peter without showing any respect, wanting to throw that diabolical text
[ie., Gunther’s charges] on the body of St Peter ... When the guards refused
them admission, Hilduin and his accomplices started hitting them with clubs,
so fiercely that one of them was killed on the spot. Then Hilduin threw
that document on St Peter’s body and he and those who had come with him,
protecting themselves with naked swords, made their way out of the church,
and, having completed the whole sorry business, returned to Gunther.
A few days later the emperor [Louis] left Rome ... That very Good Friday
[30 March], Gunther had reached Cologne, and presumed, godless man, to
celebrate mass and consecrate the sacred chrism. Theutgaud, however, showed
proper respect and abstained from his official functions, as he had been
commanded to do. With the cooperation of the other bishops at his court,
Lothar deprived Gunther of his archbishopric. Entirely at his own initiative,
Lothar granted it to Hugh, son of King Charles’ uncle Conrad and of Lothar’s
own aunt, a tonsured cleric but one who had only been ordained a subdeacon
and who in his own morals and way of life fell far short of the standards
even of a good layman. Gunther, furious at this, went back again to Rome,
carrying with him what was left of the Cologne cathedral treasure; he wanted,
according to the pope’s command, to set out all Lothar’s and his own false
arguments about Theutberga and Waldrada.
The bishops of Lothar’s realm also sent their own
envoys to the pope with statements of penitence and canonical professions
to the effect that in the case of Theutberga and Waldrada they had greatly
deviated from the truth of the Gospels and from apostolic authority and
from the sacred rules. Lothar too in his false fashion had already
sent Bishop Ratold of Strasbourg to the pope with documents, expressing
excuses for his conduct and his voluntary correction of it.
.... Hubert, a married cleric and abbot of the monastery
of St Martin [also Theutberga’s brother], who was holding on to the abbacy
of St Maurice and other honores belonging to Emperor Louis of Italy against
his will, was killed by his own men. Theutberga, Hubert’s sister,
having been cast aside by Lothar, came over into Charles’ protection. Charles
granted her the convent of Avenay.
865: .... Lothar suspected his uncles Charles and Louis of wanting to take away his kingdom from him and divide it between themselves. So he sent his uncle Liutfrid to his brother the Emperor of Italy, asking him to get the pope to send letters to his uncles on his behalf so that they would keep the peace so far as his kingdom was concerned and not harm his interests in any way. The emperor Louis got the pope to do this .... Pope Nicholas sent Arsenius bishop of Orte, his close advisor, with letters to the brothers Louis and Charles and also to the magnates of their kingdoms. The letters contained the things Lothar had requested, using his brother’s influence. Nicholas sent these letters, not as popes had been accustomed to write to kings, to honor them, that is, with apostolic mildness and the usual signs of respect; rather, he sent them with malicious and interfering threats. ... To Lothar and the bishops and leading men of his realm, Arsenius handed over the pope’s letters. These said that unless Lothar took back his wife Theutberga and put aside Waldrada, as soon as Arsenius had reported back, Nicholas would have to cast Lothar out from all Christian society, as a man whom the pope had often before, in many letters preceding these ones, warned would be excommunicated and ejected from the fellowship of Christians. ... [Arsenius visits Charles] .... After all this Arsenius made his way to Douzy to meet Lothar, bringing with him Theutberga who had for some time now been living with due honor in Charles’ realm. After receiving an oath from twelve men swearing on Lothar’s behalf, Arsenius restored Theutberga to him in matrimony, although no ecclesiastical satisfaction was performed by Lothar, following the sacred canons, to atone for his public adultery. The oath taken before Theutberga on Lothar’s behalf, as dictated and brought from Rome by Arsenius himself, went as follows:
“I, so-and-so, promise with an oath, by these four holy Gospels of Christ which I touch with my own hands, and by these relics of the saints, that my lord King Lothar, son of the late most serene Emperor Lothar of pious memory, now and henceforth will receive Theutberga his wife as his lawfully married lady, and shall hold her thus in every way , as it behooves a king to hold the queen his wife. And she shall have on account of the dissensions already mentioned, no harm either in life or in limb, either from the said lord Lothar, or from any man acting at his instigation or with his help or even with his consent. But he will treat her in such a way as it behooves a king to treat his lawful wife, on condition, however, that she from now on may so keep herself, as it behooves a wife to do, having regard to her lord’s honor in all things.”
These are the names of those who took this oath: of the counts, Milo, Rathar, Erland, Theutmar, Werembald, Roculf; of the vassals, Erlebald, Wulfrid, Bertmund, Nithard, Arnost.
This was sworn on the four Gospels of God, and on the most precious wood of the holy cross of our Lord, and on other relics of the saints, in the place called Vendresse, on the third day of August in the thirteenth indiction. [more dating clauses ...]
The names of the bishops in whose presence the oaths were given are as follows: Arduic abp Besancon, Remedius abp Lyons, Ado abp Vienne, Roland abp Arles, Adventius bp Metz, Atto bp Verdun, Franco bp St Lambert [Liege], Ratald [sic] bp Strasbourg, Fulcric the chaplain and imperial envoy. From the kingdom of Charles, Isaac bp Langres, and Erchanraus bp Chalons. From the hands of these last two bishops, Queen Theutberga was received by the venerable Bishop Arsenius, legate of the apostolic see, together with the above-mentioned archbishops and bishops, and in the presence in that place of noble men from various kingdoms and with a multitude of the people
That same day, Bishop Arsenius, legate of the apostolic see, together
with all the above-mentioned archbishops and bishops, restored and gave
Queen Theutberga into the hands of King Lothar, not only on the oath cited
above, but also on pain of adjuration and excommunication in the following
terms: that if Lothar should not observe and fulfil in every respect the
conditions set out above, he would have to render account not only in this
present life but also at the eternal and terrible Judgment of God to the
Blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and would be damned by him eternally
in that Judgment and condemned to burn in perpetual fire. .....
Then, having accomplished at Charles’ court everything
he had come to him to do, Arsenius went on with Lothar to Gondreville.
Theutberga had preceded him there. He stayed there a few days on account
of Waldrada, who was to be brought before him there and then was to be
taken by him to Italy. He celebrated mass on the day of St Mary’s Assumption
[15 August], with Lothar and Theutberga both attired in royal splendor
and wearing their crowns. Then Arsenius left Gondreville with Waldrada
and made for Orbe ... [and then] he returned to Rome.
867 ... Lothar was suspicious of Charles, so he went to Frankfurt to see Louis [his uncle] on his return from Metz, and there reconciled himself with the man who had previously been quite hostile to him. To Hugh, his son by Waldrada, Lothar gave the duchy of Alsace and commended him to Louis. He also committed the rest of his realm to Louis on the grounds that he was about to go to Rome and would send Waldrada on there ahead of him. ..... Pope Nicholas had died on 13 November. Pope Hadrian succeeded him in his pontificate. ... Lothar sent his wife Theutberga to Rome, so that she would incriminate herself and he would then be able to be released from his marriage with her. But Pope Hadrian and the Romans did not believe such ludicrous tales, and she was ordered to return to her husband.
868: ... [on 4 June Charles received letters from Pope Hadrian. One letter] was about Waldrada’s absolution [from the sin of adultery]; [it said that] absolution had been granted to Waldrada on condition that she did not stay with Lothar under any arrangements whatever.
869 ... [Lothar sets out for Rome to plead his case yet again] He therefore
set off to Rome, to speak first of all with his brother the Emperor Louis,
so that then, if he possibly could, through Louis’ influence he might get
Pope Hadrian’s authorization to put aside Theutberga and take Waldrada
back. He ordered Theutberga to follow him to Rome. [Louis prevaricates
and tells Lothar to leave; Lothar presses on to find his brother] ... Using
Engelberga [Emperor Louis’ wife] as an intermediary, Lothar after petitions
and gifts and a great deal of trouble got Louis to agree that Engelberga
should accompany him as far as the monastery of St Benedict on Monte Cassino.
There, at the Emperor’s behest, he caused Pope Hadrian to come to Engelberga
and himself , and after giving him many gifts, and again through Engelberga’s
intercession, he got the pope to say mass for him and to grant him holy
communion on the understanding that since Pope Nicholas’ excommunication
of Waldrada he [Lothar] had not lived with her, had had no sexual intercourse
with her, and had not even spoken with her at all. The wretched man,
like Judas, made a pretense of having a good conscience, and neither feared
nor shrank from receiving holy communion with bare-faced effrontery on
this understanding. His supporters with him also took communion from Pope
Hadrian; among them was Gunther, the originator and inciter of the public
adultery, who received communion with the pope among the laity, after first
giving the following profession [in which he accepts his deposition and
promises to follow the papal will]. .... On the Tuesday he entered Rome
and had lunch with the pope in the Lateran palace: after giving him gifts
in vessels of gold and silver, he got the pope to agree to bestow on him
a cloak, a palm and a rod, which he duly did. Lothar and his followers
interpreted these gifts as follows: with the cloak, Lothar was being reinvested
with Waldrada; with the palm, Lothar showed himself the victor in what
he had begun; and with the rod, he would beat down the bishops who resisted
his will.
Matters were arranged otherwise by the pope and
the Romans, however. For the pope decided that Bishop Formosus and another
bishop would have to be sent to the regions of the Gauls to deliberate
with the majority of the bishops on Lothar’s requests. They were to report
back their findings to the pope at the synod which he had already announced
for the beginning of the following March at Rome. ...
Lothar left Rome in high spirits and got as far
as Lucca. There he was stricken by fever, and this disastrous sickness
spread among his men. He watched them dying in heaps before his eyes. But
he refused to recognize that this was a judgment of God. On 7 August he
reached Piacenza. He survived through the Sunday, but about the ninth hour
unexpectedly became almost unconscious and lost the power of speech. Next
day [8 August], at the second hour, he died.
Source: The Annals of St-Bertin: Ninth-Century Histories, Volume 1, trans. Janet Nelson, Manchester Medieval Sources (Manchester, 1991), s.a. 853 (p. 77), 857 (p. 84), 858 (p. 87), 860 (92, 93) 862 (102-104), 863 (p. 106-110), 864, (112-117, 121), 865 (121-122, 123-127), 867 (138-139, 142-143), 868 (144), 869 (154-156).