¹ Annales Fuldenses s.a. 846, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, SRG vii. 36; Annales Bertiniani s.a. 862, ed. G. Waitz, SRG, v. 56–7.

² Hincmar of Rheims, De coercendo et exstirpando raptu viduarum, puellarum ac sanctimonialium, PL cxv.1017–36; a new edition is being prepared by Sylvie Joye (Université de Reims. No manuscripts are extant: L. Böhringer, ‘Einleitung’, in Hincmar of Rheims, De divortio Lotharii regis et Theutbergae reginae, ed. L. Böhringer (MGH, Conc. IV, Supplementum 1), 1–98 at p. 68.

³ Elsakkers, M., ‘“Raptus ultra Rhenum”: early ninth-century Saxon laws on abduction and rape’, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik lii (1999), 27–53.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘qui feminam ingenuam trahit contra voluntatem parentum suorum’: Summula de bannis c 5, MGH, Cap. I, no. 110, 224.

⁵ Evans-Grubbs, J., ‘Abduction marriage in late antiquity: a law of Constantine (CTh IX. 24. 1) and its social context’, Journal of Roman Studies lxxix (1989), 59–83 at pp. 61–4.Google Scholar

⁶ Eleutherius carried off and married Pope Hadrian ii's daughter, who was already betrothed to another man. When missi were sent to judge him, he killed his wife and her mother, before being slain himself: Annales Bertiniani s.a. 868, 92.

⁷ Grodzynski, D., ‘Ravies et coupables: un essai d'interprétation de la loi ix, 24, 1 du Code Théodosien’, Mélanges de l'École française de Rome xcvi (1984), 697–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ S. F. Wemple, Women in Frankish society: marriage and the cloister, 500–900, Philadelphia 1981, 34; Siegmund, F., ‘Pactus legis Salicae s 13: über den Frauenraub in der Merowingerzeit’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien xxxii (1998), 101–23.Google Scholar

⁹ A girl who did not consent was also punished (with loss of inheritance rights) if she failed to raise enough clamour to alert the neighbours and prevent the attack.

¹⁰ Evans-Grubbs, ‘Abduction marriage’, 59–65.

¹¹ Pactus legis Salicae, Capitula Legi Salicae addita, Capitulare VI, 2-2, ed. K. A. Eckhardt, MGH, Leges nationum Germanicarum, 4.1, 268.

¹² Ibid. 13·1–7, 12–13, 59–63.

¹³ R. Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (VIIe – Xe siècle): essai d'anthropologie sociale, Paris 1995, 268.

¹⁴ Evans-Grubbs, ‘Abduction marriage’, 73–6.

¹⁵ There are three references in Merovingian councils to the raptus of consecrated women: Concilium Aurelianense 538 c 19, Concilium Parisiense 556–73 c 5, Concilium Clippiacense 626–7 c 26, MGH, Conc. i, 79, 144, 200. Only two councils deal with other forms of raptus: Concilium Aurelianense 511 c 2 (on sanctuary claims by the raptor), Concilium Aurelianense 541 c 22 (no-one ‘per imperium potestatis’ is to marry without parental consent), MGH, Conc. i, 3, 92.

¹⁶ Capitulare ecclesiasticum 818x819 c 22, MGH, Cap. i, no. 138, 278, inserts canons on raptus so all know ‘quantum malum sit, et non solum humana sed etiam divina auctoritate constricti’.

¹⁷ The raptores of nuns were often excommunicated, for example, Capitulare ecclesiasticum 818x819 c 25, MGH, Cap. i, no. 138, 279; Council of Ver 844 c 5, MGH, Conc. iii, no. 7, 41.

¹⁸ Programmatic capitulary 802 c 33, MGH, Cap. i, no 33, 97, refers to the example made by Charlemagne of Fricco's ‘incestum’ with a nun. Annales Fuldenses s.a. 887, 105–6, records how Liutward of Vercelli abducted the daughter of Count Unruoch from a convent for his relative to marry; the relative was then killed by divine punishment.

¹⁹ Pactus legis Salicae 13.12–13, 63. Capitula legibus addenda 818x819 c 9, MGH, Cap. i, no. 139, 282, also seems to allow the marriage if the girl's guardian agrees subsequently, but the perpetrator must still pay compensation to the groom and the fisc.

²⁰ See, for example, Capitulare ecclesiasticum 818x819 c 24, MGH, Cap. i, no. 138, 279 (citing Council of Ancyra 314 c 10 [11]); Capitula incerta c 1, MGH, Cap. i, no. 156, 315.

²¹ See, for example, Capitulare ecclesiasticum 818x819 c 23, MGH, Cap. i, no. 138, 278.

²² Council of Meaux-Paris c 64–5, 68, MGH, Conc. iii, no. 11, 115–17. However, c 66, 116, specifically punishes the serial raptor by anathema and barring him from all marriage.

²³ Council of Pavia 850 c 10, MGH, Conc. iii, no. 23, 224.

²⁴ Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, 301; I. Weber argues convincingly that the decrees on raptus instead show the Church's ambiguity as to whether the couple's consent alone created a valid marriage: ‘“Consensus facit nuptias!” Überlegungen zum ehelichen Konsens in normativen Texten des Frühmittelalters’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung cxviii (2001), 31–66 at pp. 52–7.

²⁵ See, for example, Council of Meaux-Paris c 65, MGH, Conc. iii, no. 11, 115: ‘non regulam constituimus, sed … quid sit tolerabilius, aestimamus’.

²⁶ Hludowici, Karoli et Hlotharii II conventus apud Saponarias 862 c 5, MGH, Cap. II, no. 243, 160–1.

²⁷ Annales Bertiniani s.a. 863, 66.

²⁸ Nicholas i, epp. vii–viii, lvii, ed. E. Perels, MGH, Epp., vi, 272–5, 361.

²⁹ Idem, ep. lx,369: ‘ne ex hoc adhuc deterius forte aliquid oriatur’. In ep. vii, 274 he specifies that he is concerned that Baldwin might ally with the Vikings.

³⁰ On Hincmar see Jean Devisse, Hincmar, archevêque de Reims, 845–882, Geneva 1975–6.

³¹ ‘Post quae voluimus … ut iuxta ecclesiasticiam traditionem prius ecclesiae, quam laeserant, satisfacerent et sic demum quod praecipiunt iura legum mundialium exequi procurarent. Sed quoniam litteras vestras, quae inde nihil praeceperunt … sibi sufficere voluerunt’: Hincmar, ep. clxix, ed. E. Perels, MGH, Epp., viii. 145. Hincmar did not resist the pope, but took as little part in the marriage ceremony as possible.

³² Böhringer argues that the passages in De divortio are copied from De coercendo, based on their more logical arrangement in the latter text: ‘Einleitung’, 68–71. However, this ignores the overall subject of the common passages: that husbands may not arbitrarily kill even adulterous wives. This topic is clearly related to the wider one of whether a marriage may be ended in any way (the theme of De divortio); it has only peripheral relevance to the question of marriage by abduction.

³³ Devisse, Hincmar, 461–3.

³⁴ De coercendo c 2, 1018D.

³⁵ ‘Obsecramus igitur, ut et pietas vestra … arripiat zelum pro domo Dei … et flagello justae severitatis exterminans quorumdam hominum impudentissimam audaciam, qui … absque ulla divini sive humani pudoris reverentia … templum Dei, quod est sanctimonia fidelium, violare non metuunt … dum in nonnullis regni hujus partibus, propter eorum publicam infestationem, nec viduarum miseranda desolatio legitimam habere libertatem permittitur, nec filiae in aetate puellari et parentum domibus constitutae, juxta leges divinas et humanas, eorumdem parentum suorum votis atque auctoritate, matronalibus nuptiis honestari ullatenus sinuntur: et ipsarum quoque sanctimonialium Deo dicata devotio, contra professionem sanctitatis, et reverentiam divinae consecrationis, dissolvitur et profanatur’: ibid. c 4, 1019D-20B.

³⁶ ‘Ita ille antiquus humani generis hostis quondam per Balthasar impium et sacrilegum regem vasa domus Dei aurea atque argentea polluit: nunc per istorum profanam insolentiam atque impietatem multo pretiosiora et Deo chariora commaculare … non cessat’: ibid. c 4, 1020B.

³⁷ St Paul specifically applies it to prostitution, a sin rarely condemned explicitly by Carolingian moralists and councils.

³⁸ ‘raptores … viduarum et puellarum, et sanctimonialium, contemptores sacerdotum, violatores templi Dei’: De coercendo c 4, 1020C.

³⁹ ‘Testantur hoc publicae Romanorum leges’: ibid. c 5, 1021A.

⁴⁰ Hincmar's failure to mention who promulgated the law may be intended to imply that it was a pagan Roman emperor, thus showing that such a prohibition was ‘natural’.

⁴¹ ‘Quod mirabiliter divinae legi consonat, ubi puella desponsata, si ab aliquo in civitate oppressa fuerit, lapidibus obrui jubetur, quia non clamavit’: De coercendo c 5, 1021A.

⁴² Ibid. c 6, 1021B–D.

⁴³ ‘Qui cum nec divinae legis ordine, nec parentalis voluntatis auctoritate, nec ecclesiasticae sanctitatis pietate, conjugalem copulam sortiti sunt, sed insuper pro benedictione sacerdotali excommunicationem publicam ex auctoritate canonum meruerunt, qua fronte sacrilegium videri volunt esse conjugium, et latrocinium matrimonium, et violentiam pietatem? … de hujusmodi nequaquam legitimo connubio, sed adulterino contubernio, nullatenus dici possit quod Dominus in Evangelio ait: Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet, sed potius: Quod homo impie et improbe conjunxit, Deus sua aequitate dissociet’: ibid. c 7, 1022A–B.

⁴⁴ ‘quando inter ingenuos et inter aequales fit et paterno arbitrio viro mulier ingenua, legitime dotata et publicis nuptiis honestata sexuum commixtione coniungitur’: Hincmar, ep. cxxxvi, 93. The case was that of Count Stephen of the Auvergne, who attempted to get his marriage dissolved on the grounds of incest and non-consummation. On the case see Devisse, Hincmar, 432–6; Gaudemet, J., ‘Indissolubilité et consommation du mariage: l'apport d'Hincmar de Reims’, Revue de droit canonique xxx (1980), 28–40Google Scholar; Gérard Fransen, ‘La Lettre de Hincmar de Reims au sujet du marriage d'Étienne: une relecture’, in R. Lievens, E. Van Mingroot and W. Verbeke (eds), Pascua mediaevalia: studies voor Prof. Dr. J. M. De Smet, Leuven 1983, 133–46.

⁴⁵ ‘Ex his nonnulli tam immites, et non humanae affectionis, sed belluinae immanitatis inveniuntur, ut prioribus uxoribus ex suspicione adulteri nulla lege, nulla ratione, nullo judicio, sola sua animositate et crudelitate occisis, adhuc cruenti et sanguine madentes, … incunctanter ad altare Domini accedant, et indifferenter sacra mysteria contingere praesumant’: De coercendo c 8, 1023B–C. This passage is also found in De divortio, responsio 5, 145, where it fits more logically into a discussion of whether a man may ever divorce his wife and where no explicit link is made with raptus.

⁴⁶ De coercendo c 9, 1024A–C.

⁴⁷ Leviticus xx.10.

⁴⁸ Paulinus of Aquileia, ep. 16, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH. Epp., iv. 520–2, in a judgement referred to by later Carolingian authors, imposed a severe lifelong penance on a certain Aistulf, who had killed his innocent wife and afterwards alleged she was an adulteress. He added (p. 521): ‘Nam et si verum … fuisset, sicut adulter ille mentitus est, post octo annos paenitentia forsitan peracta dimittere eam per adprobatam causam poteras, si voluisses, occidere eam tamen nullatenus debuisti.’ Concilium Triburiense 895 c 46, MGH, Cap. ii, no. 252, 239–40, declares that bishops must protect any ‘debauched’ (constuprata) wife who fled to sanctuary, to ensure she was not killed. They should aim to negotiate with her husband to spare her life, but if this failed, she should not be returned, but taken to a place of safety. (Such episcopal concern to protect adulterous wives is seen in practice in the case of Ingiltrude, the wife of Count Boso of Italy: see, for example, Hincmar, ep. cxxxv, 82–3, where Hincmar tells Archbishop Gunther of Cologne that Ingiltrude must be returned to Boso, once guarantees of her safety have been obtained from him).

⁴⁹ ‘tamen si Christiani sunt, sciant se in die judicii nec Romanis, nec Salicis, nec Gundobadis, sed divinis et apostolicis legibus judicandos’: De coercendo c 12, 1026B.

⁵⁰ ‘Qui etiam usque ad tantam stultitiam et caecitatem prorumpunt, ut eas quas in primis contra omnes et divinas et humanas leges, et contra ipsius jura humanitatis per violentiam et raptum sibi conjungunt, vel etiam ex professione et habitu sanctimoniali sacrilega impietate commaculare non metuunt, postea blanditiis delinitas, et parentibus earum artificiosa, imo ignominiosa adulatione placatis, putant se et divinum et humanum evasisse judicium, et tam illicitum atque iniquum contubernium volunt videri velut legitimum et honestum conjugium’: ibid. c 12, 1026D.

⁵¹ The Council of Chalcedon 451 c 27, which anathematised laymen who committed raptus, was cited by, for example, Capitulare ecclesiasticum 818–819 c 23, MGH, Cap. i, no. 138, 278; Council of Pavia 850, c 10, MGH, Conc. iii, no 23, 224; Council of Worms 868 c 77, MGH, Conc. iv, 290. Concilium Romanum 721 c 10–11, also anathematised those who committed raptus on widows or girls: Sacrorum conciliorum: nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D. Mansi, Florence 1759–98, xii. 264.

⁵² ‘et per ecclesiasticum judicium, quicunque ejusmodi sint, vel usque ad separationem excommunicandos sive anathematizandos, vel etiam post separationem ab omni aspectu publico arcendos, et usque ad diem mortis sub arctissima poenitentia in ergastula jubeat contradendos’: De coercendo c 12, 1027A.

⁵³ ‘De velatis et sacratis deo tam viduis quam virginibus, si clam adulteraverint vel si publice nupserint … volumus, ut usque ad finem vitae in ergastulis retrusae poenitentiam agant, viri autem, qui vim eis intulerint, et ipsi censura ecclesiastica ad poenitentiam constringantur’: Council of Tusey 860 c 2, MGH, Conc. iv, no. 3, 19.

⁵⁴ Concilium Aurelianense 511 c 2, MGH, Conc. i, 3; De coercendo c 12, 1027A.

⁵⁵ ‘Sin vero quae rapitur patrem habere constiterit et puella raptori aut rapienda aut rapta consenserit, potestati patris excusata reddatur et raptor a patre superioris conditionis [enslavement or redemption] satisfactione teneatur obnoxius’: Concilium Aurelianense 511 c 2, MGH, Conc. i, 3. There is no specific prohibition on a raptor who has redeemed himself from slavery then marrying the rapta.

⁵⁶ ‘si quis tam insanus est, ut istud profanum et violentum contubernium idcirco putet legitimum fieri posse conjugium’: De coercendo c 13, 1027B.

⁵⁷ ‘Haec ergo … vel ita illi tempori Mosaicae legis concessa, … Sed et regem, qui pro conditione temporis illius non prohibebatur plures habere uxores, potuisse legitime accipere cujuslibet defuncti uxorem?’: ibid. c 14, 1028A–B.

⁵⁸ ‘Quod autem conjugium illud, tam graviter increpatum et improbatum, atque flagellatum, ita manere permissum est, manifeste non est cuiquam ad imitandum propositum, ut quilibet in injusto ordine credat se habere justum conjugium: sed potius divinum exstitit miraculum vel sacramentum’: De coercendo c 13, 1027D. Patristic and later exegesis often allegorised David's adultery with Bathsheba in various ways to stress its aspect as a mystery: Buc, Philippe, ‘David's adultery with Bathsheba and the healing power of the Capetian kings’, Viator xxiv (1993), 101–20 at pp. 101–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ ‘In qua re jam nulla metuenda esset divina indignatio, cum pro amore et honore divino, et pro Dei causa totum ageretur … Servata ergo ubique justitia, cum neque illae puellae aliqua lascivia vel contumacia, sed necessitate sola parentum suorum regimine abductae essent, nec illi qui eas ceperant, aliquid suo libitu vel temeritate, sed populi et seniorum jussione atque auctoritate fecissent: restabat sola parentum querimonia rationabili satisfactione sopienda’: De coercendo c 16, 1030A.

⁶⁰ ‘Miseremini eorum. Non enim ceperunt eas jure bellantium atque victorum, sed rogantibus ut daretis, et non dedistis, et a vestra parte peccatum est’: De coercendo c 16, 1030A–B (following Judges xxi.22). Unlike the original, however, Hincmar sees the parents here not as being bound by the original vow, but refusing solely from hardness of heart. He comments ‘Erant itaque residui habitatores Silo … qui nec in illo juramento, nec in illa pugna … fuisse credendi sunt: et idcirco licenter dare potuisse istas filias suas in conjugium, sed quadam duritia et exsecratione illius facinoris, quod a tribu Benjamin fuerat perpetratum, facere noluisse’: c 15, 1029C–D.

⁶¹ ‘Totum igitur istud rationabiliter provisum, rationabiliter factum, rationabiliter finitum, pro publica utilitate, publica auctoritate, atque intercessione, ita singulare est et minime imitandum, vel potius mysticum, ut semel legatur gestum, et nunquam ulterius iteratum’: ibid. c 16, 1030B.

⁶² ‘qua stultitia atque dementia putant placatis et pacificatis parentibus, pacatam se habere posse Ecclesiam Dei, … cum tantae praevaricationis et impietatis malum, adversus Deum et Ecclesiam ejus commissum, nulla ratione, nullis argumentis emendari possit, nisi omnipotentis Dei et Ecclesiae judicio ac satisfactione?’: ibid. c 17, 1030D.

⁶³ ‘contagia funesta’: ibid. c 18, 1031C.

⁶⁴ ‘quaelibet illa sit, uxor dici non potest prostituta, uterque vestrum nota semper inuretur infamiae’: ibid. c 19, 1032A.

⁶⁵ The literature on the Carolingian Church's attitudes to marriage and divorce is extensive. See, for example, Il matrimonio nella società altomedievale, 22–28 Apr 1976, Spoleto 1977; J. Gaudemet, Le Mariage en occident: les moeurs et le droit, Paris 1987, 111–29; P. L. Reynolds, Marriage in the western Church: the Christianisation of marriage during the patristic and early medieval periods, Leiden 1994; and P. Toubert, ‘L'Institution du mariage chrétien de l'antiquité tardive à l'an mil’, in Morfologie sociali e culturali in Europa fra tarda antichità e alto medioevo, 3–9 aprile 1997, Spoleto 1998, i. 503–53. On Hincmar's specific contributions see also Devisse, Hincmar, 366–467; Brühl, C., ‘Hinkmariana ii: Hinkmar im Widerstreit von kanonischen Recht und Politik in Ehefragen’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters xx (1964), 55–77Google Scholar; and K. Heidecker, ‘Why should bishops be involved in marital affairs? Hincmar of Rheims on the divorce of King Lothar ii (855–869)’, in J. Hill and M. Swan (eds), The community, the family and the saint: patterns of power in early medieval Europe, Turnhout 1998, 225–35.

⁶⁶ As well as Count Stephen (see n. 44 above), examples include Lothar ii's attempt to divorce Theutberga (Airlie, S., ‘Private bodies and the body politic in the divorce case of Lothar ii’, Past and Present lxi [1998], 3–38)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the case of Falcric, a vassus of Lothar i (Devisse, Hincmar, 36–42); and the unnamed Frankish noble who claimed at the Council of Tribur 895 that despite a long marriage to a Saxon noblewoman, he was not validly married to her by Frankish law: Concilium Triburiense 895 Iudicia c 4, MGH, Cap. ii, no. 252, 207).

⁶⁷ On the problems caused by too strict definitions of consanguineous marriage see, for example, Hrabanus Maurus, ep. xxix, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH, Epp., v. 447.

⁶⁸ These are Council of Ancyra c 10 and Pope Siricus, Epistola I ad Himerium episcopum Tarraconensem c 4, PL xiii.1136B–1137A.

⁶⁹ These are Concilium Aurelianense 511 c 2 (Conc. 1, 3) and Concilium Romanum 721 c 10–11: Mansi, xii. 264. It is not clear why the text of Council of Chalcedon 451 c 27, frequently quoted in Carolingian conciliar decrees on raptus, is omitted.

⁷⁰ K. Heene, The legacy of paradise: marriage, motherhood and woman in Carolingian edifying literature, Frankfurt-am-Main 1997, 73–6.

⁷¹ See Gaudemet, J., ‘Indissolubilité et consommation du mariage: l'apport d'Hincmar de Reims’, Revue de droit canonique xxx (1980), 28–40 at p. 30Google Scholar. Leo i explained to Rusticius of Narbonne how a concubine might be turned into a wife.

⁷² On a discussion between Hrabanus Maurus and Abbot Hatto of Fulda on Old Testament incest provisions see M. de Jong, ‘Old law and new-found power: Hrabanus Maurus and the Old Testament’, in J. W. Drijvers and A. A. Macdonald (eds), Centres of learning: learning and location in pre-modern Europe and the Near East, Leiden 1995, 161–76 at p. 171.

⁷³ For example, he drew on Deuteronomy xxii when discussing the punishment for abduction of betrothed women, but omitted any mention of verses 28–9, which provided that the rapist of an unmarried girl must marry her.

⁷⁴ Hrabanus Maurus, the most authoritative biblical scholar of the period, discusses only the first half of the story of the Benjaminites (ch. xx) in Commentaria in Librum Judicum, PL cviii.1999A–1200B.

⁷⁵ ‘Possunt etiam istiusmodi pravi atque distorti homines, sive fautores ac deceptores eorum, illud quasi juste et licenter assumere in exemplum, quod de viris tribus Benjamin refertur in libro Judicum’: De coercendo c 15, 1028C–D; ‘Quapropter quod Scriptura Dei narrat ad memoriam pietatis, vel ad commendationem mysterii spiritualis, absit ut stulti et impudenti petulantia dissoluti usurpare permittantur ad exemplum vel defensionem suae procacitatis, ut putent se isto exemplo, cum non facile impetrant a parentibus, licere sibi rapere quas voluerint, et postea complacatis parentibus, quasi legitimo eas matrimonio detinere’: c 17, 1030B–C.

⁷⁶ This seems the most likely explanation for the reference ibid. c 15, 1028D to ‘fautores ac deceptores’: see n. 75 above.

⁷⁷ For fuller discussion see Rachel Stone, ‘Masculinity, nobility and the moral instruction of the Carolingian lay elite’, unpubl. PhD diss. King's College London 2005, 210–36.

⁷⁸ ‘Sunt plerique conjugalem ducentes vitam, qui tempora coeundi et non coeundi cum uxoribus pudicissime discernere student; sunt etiam qui hujus discretionis modum non solum habere renuunt, quin potius se castigantibus et redarguentibus impudenter objicere solent. Uxores, inquiunt, nostrae nobis lege conjunctae sunt; si pro libitu nostro eis quando et qualiter volumus, utimur, non peccamus. Majoris autem criminis rei efficimur, si ab uxorum amplexibus abstinemus, et filios, quos generare debuimus, non generamus. Quod dico, saepissime mihi objectum est’: Jonas of Orléans, De institutione laicali ii.3, PL cvi.172D–173A.

⁷⁹ ‘Non desunt suae libidini vacare volentes, qui dicant: Genitalia membra ideo a summo opifice Deo in utroque sexu creata sunt, ut pariter commisceantur: quid ergo delinquimus, si pro libitu nostro concubitus exercemus?’: ibid. ii.9, 184D–185A. Jonas follows Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum libri duo i.36, PL xxiii.260A, in this second objection: I have not been able to trace any analogy to the first objection he cites: see n. 78 above.

⁸⁰ ‘quamplures et maxime carne nobiles et honore temporali sublimes’: Council of Douzy, 874, MGH, Conc. iv, no. 40A, 581. Hincmar's complaint (De divortio, responsio xii.179) that some people misapplied Scripture to claim that non-penetrative acts were not sodomitical is not specific about whether the offenders were clerics or laity.

⁸¹ There is an intensive study of moral texts with noble laymen as an audience in Stone, ‘Masculinity, nobility’, but no parallels were found in other moral areas, such as warfare or the use of power.

⁸² See, for example, ‘Sanctarum lectio Scripturarum divinae est cognitio beatitudinis. In his enim quasi in quodam speculo homo seipsum considerare potest, qualis sit, vel quo tendat’: Alcuin, De virtutibus et vitiis liber c 5, PL ci.616C. Lothar i had homilies and mass texts read to him while dining and Hrabanus' biblical commentaries were also intended to be read out to him: M. de Jong, ‘The empire as ecclesia: Hrabanus Maurus and biblical historia for rulers’, in Y. Hen and M. Innes (eds), Using the past in the early Middle Ages, Cambridge 2000, 191–226 at pp. 191, 195–6. Given the communal nature of court life, lay courtiers were presumably also among the audience.

⁸³ ‘Grandis namque confusio est animabus laicorum, qui dicunt: Quid pertinet ad me libros Scripturarum legendo audire vel discere, vel etiam frequenter ad sacerdotes et ecclesias sanctorum recurrere? Dum clericus fiam, faciam ea quae oportet clericis facere. Quare non intelligit, quia panem et vinum, et omnia hujus terrae bona, et regni felicitatem aequaliter vult participare, et aequali labore jugum Christi ferre non vult?’: Paulinus of Aquileia, Liber exhortationis, PL xcix.240A.

⁸⁴ Alcuin, ep. cxxxvi, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH, Epp. iv. 205–10. This letter is discussed in M. Alberi, ‘‘The sword which you hold in your hand’; Alcuin's exegesis of the two swords and the lay miles Christi', in C. Chazelle and B. V. Edwards (eds), The study of the Bible in the Carolingian era, Turnhout 2003, 117–31.

⁸⁵ R. McKitterick, The Carolingians and the written word, Cambridge 1989, 245–9, 261–5.

⁸⁶ On Dhuoda see J. L. Nelson, ‘Dhuoda’, in P. Wormald and J. L. Nelson (eds), Lay intellectuals in the Carolingian world, Cambridge 2007, 106–20, and Stofferahn, A., ‘The many faces in Dhuoda's mirror: the Liber manualis and a century of scholarship’, Magistra iv (1998), 89–134.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ For example, Olsen, G. W., ‘One heart and one soul (Acts 4:32 and 34 in Dhuoda's “Manual”)’, Church History lxi (1992), 23–33 at pp. 32–3Google Scholar, argues for Dhuoda's ‘lay imagination’ in her use of the Apostles' common life in the book of Acts as a model for all Christians, but Jonas of Orléans used this passage in a similar way a little earlier: De institutione laicali i.11, 20, 143C, 163B–C.

⁸⁸ Dhuoda, Handbook for her warrior son: Liber manualis, ed. M Thiébaux, Cambridge 1998, iii.4, pp. 92–3.

⁸⁹ See 2 Samuel iii.22–31; xi.14–21; xviii.4–17; xx.7–10; 1 Kings xi.15–16.

⁹⁰ The nearest parallel I have found in a search of the PL database is Freculf of Lisieux, Chonicon i.3.1, PL cvi. 971B–C: ‘Qua virtute audaciaque Joab, qui primus altitudinem superaverat arcis, est princeps factus militiae’.

⁹¹ The lament on Fontenoy by Angelbert, one of the rare surviving poems written by a layman, is also marked by biblical echoes: ‘Versus de bella quae fuit acta Fontaneto’, ed. P. Godman, Poetry of the Carolingian renaissance, London 1985, 262–5.

⁹² ‘quendam audivi virum prudentum aliquando dicere clericorum esse evangelium discere, non laicorum … saepe posterior adfert hora, quod prior non poterat’: Alcuin, ep. cxxxvi, 205. The view of R. E. Sullivan that this passage is an example of attempts by clerics to exclude lay aristocrats from literate culture does not seem plausible: ‘The context of cultural activity in the Carolingian age’, in R. E. Sullivan (ed.), ‘The gentle voices of teachers’: aspects of learning in the Carolingian age, Columbus, Oh 1995, 51–105 at p. 70.

⁹³ S. Reynolds, ‘Carolingian elopements as a sidelight on counts and vassals’, in B. Nagy and M. Sebök (eds), The man of many devices who wandered full many ways: Festschrift in honor of Janos M. Bak, Budapest 1999, 340–6.