The Libellus de Waldrada is a 9th-century legal-theological brief authored by Bishop Adventius of Metz defending King Lothar II's attempt to divorce Queen Theutberga and legitimize his relationship with his mistress Waldrada. This partisan document reflects the tension between royal desire and ecclesiastical authority, ultimately provoking Pope Nicholas I's fierce opposition in a landmark case that strengthened papal claims over royal marriages and reinforced the Church's doctrine on matrimonial indissolubility.

Historical Background of the Text

The Libellus de Waldrada emerged from a sensational 9th-century royal divorce scandal involving King Lothar II of Lotharingia (r. 855–869). Lothar II had been pressured to marry Queen Theutberga, a noblewoman, for political alliance, but he remained deeply attached to his longtime mistress (and cousin) Waldrada (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia) (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). When Theutberga did not produce an heir and her brother’s support waned, Lothar sought to repudiate her in favor of Waldrada – with whom he had already fathered an illegitimate son – in hopes of legitimizing that son (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia). The divorce proceedings unfolded from 858 onward and quickly escalated into a Carolingian cause célèbre, drawing in bishops and the pope into a heated controversy (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today) (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia).

Lothar’s camp pursued extreme measures to nullify his marriage. In 858 he accused Theutberga of incest with her own brother, Hucbert, and even of committing an “unnatural” sexual act that led to an abortion (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia). Theutberga denied the charges and dramatically proved her innocence in 858/859 by surviving a trial by ordeal: her champion plunged a hand into boiling water and was unscathed, vindicating her by divine sign (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). This forced Lothar to temporarily restore Theutberga as queen (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia). Not giving up, Lothar imprisoned Theutberga and coerced her (under threat of torture) into a public confession in 860 that she had indeed engaged in “femoral” incest with Hucbert and aborted his child (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia). This grotesque confession – almost certainly false – gave Lothar new leverage. He convened sympathetic bishops in his realm to annul the marriage on canonical grounds. In 862 a Lotharingian synod at Aachen declared Lothar’s marriage to Theutberga dissolved and approved his union with Waldrada (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia).

Pope Nicholas I, however, was alarmed by these maneuvers and resolved to re-examine the case. He dispatched papal legates to a larger council held at Metz in June 863 ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). There, with only Lothar’s own bishops in attendance, the previous verdict was upheld: the synod again pronounced Theutberga’s marriage invalid and “found in favor of Lothair’s divorce”, even arguing that Lothar’s relationship with Waldrada should be considered a lawful marriage (Waldrada of Lotharingia - Wikipedia) ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). (One argument was that Lothar had a prior conjugal bond with Waldrada, allegedly arranged by his father.) Upon receiving the council’s acts, Pope Nicholas reacted with fury. Declaring the assembly’s decisions null, he famously denounced the Council of Metz “not as a synod but as a brothel” (postribulum) for abetting adultery ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). In late 863 Nicholas deposed and excommunicated the archbishops who had presided (Gunthar of Cologne and Theutgaud of Trier) and in 866 even excommunicated Waldrada herself (Waldrada of Lotharingia - Wikipedia) ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). Under intense pressure from the pope and Frankish relatives, Lothar II reluctantly took back Theutberga in 865. Yet he continued to lobby for a separation on new grounds (her alleged barrenness), which the indomitable Nicholas refused to accept (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia). Ironically, Lothar died in 869 still legally married to Theutberga, on his way to Italy to beg a new pope’s leniency. His kingdom was partitioned among his uncles, and Waldrada—never fully recognized as wife—ended her days in a convent (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia).

This turbulent backdrop directly prompted the writing of the Libellus de Waldrada. The text is essentially a legal-theological brief produced by Lothar II’s supporters at the height of the crisis (between 862 and 863) to justify the king’s divorce and marriage to Waldrada. It appears in the form of a letter or memorandum and was included in a dossier of documents gathered in Lotharingia during the controversy (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). Specifically, the libellus is attributed to Adventius, Bishop of Metz – a leading Lotharingian bishop and a moderate ally of Lothar. Adventius had been present at the 862 and 863 councils and was deeply involved in advocating the king’s cause (Adventius (bishop of Metz) - Wikipedia) (Adventius (bishop of Metz) - Wikipedia). The Libellus de Waldrada (literally “Little Book concerning Waldrada”) is his extended report on Lothar’s marital case, addressed to Archbishop Theutgaud of Trier (another partisan of the king) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). In it, Adventius recounts the history of Lothar’s marriages and the synodal proceedings, making a forceful case for Waldrada’s legitimacy as Lothar’s wife and for Theutberga’s disqualification. It was composed shortly after the contentious 863 Metz council – before news of the pope’s condemnation had fully hit – and thus preserves the reasoning used by Lothar’s party in their own defense (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz) ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374).

Theological Themes and Ecclesiastical Implications

The Libellus de Waldrada illuminates several key theological and canonical issues of the early medieval Church. Foremost is the indissolubility of Christian marriage versus the permissible grounds for separation or annulment. Lothar’s advisors marshaled arguments that, if valid, would nullify his bond to Theutberga in the eyes of Church law. One contention was that Theutberga’s shocking incest with her brother made her an unlawfully close relative to Lothar by affinity – effectively a polluted spouse whom the king could put aside for “just cause.” The libellus emphasizes this accusation, noting that a “most vile reputation for depravity followed Theutberga, and she was acclaimed guilty of incestuous intercourse with her brother Hucbert,” even producing a written confession of her crime (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). Such incest, if proven, could indeed constitute an impediment to marriage under canon law. A second argument was the claim of a prior marriage (or betrothal): Adventius asserts that Waldrada had essentially been Lothar’s legitimate wife first. According to the narrative, Emperor Lothair I (Lothar II’s father) had formally “handed over” the noble virgin Waldrada to his son in a sacred pledge when Lothar II was young, complete with a dowry of “a hundred manses” (landed estates) to signify a lawful union (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). If true, this would mean Lothar’s later wedding to Theutberga was invalid bigamy. A third rationale, less rooted in canon law, was Theutberga’s sterility – an understandable concern for a king needing an heir, but not a legitimate ground for divorce in Church teaching ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). Lothar’s supporters nonetheless raised all three points (incest, a preexisting marriage, and childlessness) in hopes that something would stick “under the profile of canon law,” as one scholar observes ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374).

Underlying these arguments is a complex interplay of moral theology and ecclesiastical authority. The libellus and the Lotharingian bishops sought to present Lothar’s cause as legally justifiable, but Pope Nicholas I saw through it as a dangerous challenge to Church discipline. The case forced clarification of the Church’s stance on marriage’s indissolubility: Nicholas I staunchly upheld that a valid Christian marriage, once consummated, could not be dissolved at will – not even by kings. He rejected the synodal rulings, insisting that no amount of political pressure or unproven accusations could sever what God had joined ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). In Nicholas’s eyes, Lothar’s attempt amounted to adultery and an affront to the sanctity of matrimony ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). The pope’s forceful intervention in 863–865, overturning decisions of Frankish councils and disciplining bishops, had far-reaching ecclesiastical implications. It marked one of the earliest major assertions of papal authority over secular rulers’ marital affairs, setting a precedent for the Church’s right to regulate royal marriages (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today) (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). This showdown prefigured later conflicts between kings and popes over marriage and divorce (Henry VIII’s case centuries later invites frequent comparison (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today)).

The libellus also highlights differing attitudes toward ecclesiastical justice. Lothar’s circle had relied on trial by ordeal (a hand plunged into boiling water) to decide Theutberga’s guilt or innocence (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). While the ordeal exonerated Theutberga, Lothar’s supporters later coerced her confession anyway – effectively gaming both divine trial and human testimony. Pope Nicholas and his advisors were deeply skeptical of such methods. Hincmar of Rheims, a prominent Frankish bishop siding with Theutberga, questioned the validity of Theutberga’s forced confession and even entertained the bizarre hypothesis that sorcery might be at play – suggesting that Waldrada could have magically prevented Theutberga from conceiving children (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia). (Hincmar’s advice was that Lothar undergo exorcism rather than abandon his lawful wife (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia)!) Such details reveal the era’s mingling of canon law, superstition, and pastoral care. In essence, the Libellus de Waldrada and the surrounding correspondence forced the Carolingian Church to confront how to handle contested marriages: what counted as proof of adultery or incest, whether ordeals or confessions should be trusted, and ultimately who had final say – local synods or the Apostolic See. Nicholas I’s firm stance (even calling the bishops’ synod a “whorehouse” for pandering to the king ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374)) underscored the principle that moral truth and canon law must trump royal convenience. This principle would be cited in subsequent church reforms. Indeed, the fallout of Lothar’s case helped shape evolving medieval doctrine on marital nullity and papal primacy in arbitration of marriage cases () (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today).

Authorship and Attribution

The Patrologia Latina attributes the Libellus de Waldrada to Adventius of Metz, and modern scholars concur that Adventius was the likely author or sponsor of this text (Patrologia Latina/121 - Wikisource) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). Adventius was bishop of Metz (Lotharingia’s leading see) from 858 to 875 and played a pivotal role in Lothar II’s divorce efforts (Adventius (bishop of Metz) - Wikipedia) (Adventius (bishop of Metz) - Wikipedia). Contemporary accounts present Adventius as a loyal – if somewhat cautious – supporter of the king’s wishes to be rid of Theutberga (Adventius (bishop of Metz) - Wikipedia). It was presumably in his capacity as an influential bishop that Adventius wrote this libellus, probably in late 863. Internally, the text is framed as a report from Adventius to Archbishop Theutgaud of Trier, recounting and justifying the Lotharingian bishops’ actions (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). Theutgaud, like Adventius, had sided with Lothar (and would soon be deposed by the pope), so the libellus may have been meant as a confidential brief among the king’s ecclesiastical allies.

Notably, Adventius’s tone in the libellus is unapologetically partisan – which later put him in an awkward position. After Pope Nicholas I reacted angrily to the Metz council, Adventius quickly wrote a letter to the pope professing that he had only gone along with the synodal consensus under pressure (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz). In that personal letter, Adventius pleaded that he was a reluctant participant, effectively distancing himself from the very narrative he had penned for Theutgaud. This suggests that the Libellus de Waldrada might reflect the “official” line agreed upon by Lothar’s circle more than Adventius’s private convictions. Nonetheless, the text circulated under Adventius’s name and he is traditionally regarded as the author. The Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi (a modern reference catalog of medieval authors) explicitly lists the Libellus de Waldrada under Adventius of Metz, confirming his authorship and linking it to the narrative about Lothar’s marriage (“Narratio Adventii…de Hlotharii matrimonio”) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407).

In terms of transmission, the libellus does not survive in any author’s personal collection of writings but rather as part of the acta (documents) of the Lothar divorce case. It was likely copied into a compendium of letters and council proceedings assembled in Lotharingia around 868 (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz) – essentially an archive of the pro-Lothar dossier. That original manuscript is now lost, but the text became known via later copies and citations. Tenth-century chronicler Regino of Prüm had access to Adventius’s dossier and drew on it for his history, which helped preserve knowledge of the libellus’s content (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz) (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz). In the seventeenth century, scholarly antiquarians transcribed the Libellus de Waldrada from a surviving copy; Cardinal Cesare Baronius included it (from a transcript by historian Ch. Brower) in his Annales Ecclesiastici (Annals for the year 862) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). It was later reprinted in Jacques-Paul Migne’s Patrologia Latina vol. 121 (columns 1141–1144) from those earlier editions (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). Thus, although the libellus was a relatively short memorandum letter, it found a lasting place in ecclesiastical literature as an important witness to the Lothar II affair.

Literary and Rhetorical Features

Though termed a “libellus” (little book), this text is essentially a polemic in epistolary form. Adventius writes in Latin that is formal and chronicle-like, starting ab ovo: he literally goes “back to the beginning” of Lothar’s marital story (“a capite repetita de Hlotharii matrimonio”) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/1407). The narrative is carefully structured to vindicate Waldrada and vilify Theutberga. It opens by recalling how Emperor Lothair I (“Augustus divae recordationis Lotharius”) arranged a union between his son and Waldrada. Adventius emphasizes Waldrada’s high birth (“virginem nobilem, nomine Waldradam”) and recounts that the emperor solemnly entrusted her to young Lothar II “in the name of divine faith” (as a future wife) (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). To prove the legitimacy of this bond, the libellus notes, the emperor provided a rich dowry – “in the pretitulatione dotis, he gave one hundred manses [landed estates]” to his son along with Waldrada (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). By highlighting the dowry and the public ceremony, Adventius argues that “this union was manifestly just.” He even buttresses the point with Scripture: the narrative quotes St. Paul’s epistle that an heir while a minor “differs not from a servant… but is under tutors and stewards until the time appointed by the father” (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource) (Galatians 4:1–2). This learned reference to guardianship implicitly likens Waldrada’s situation to a lawful betrothal during Lothar’s minority – an ingenious legal flourish that frames Waldrada as a legitimate bride held in trust for Lothar by his father’s will. Such use of a biblical analogy shows the rhetorical sophistication of the libellus, blending canon law concepts with theological authority.

Having established Waldrada’s credentials, Adventius then dramatically narrates the intrusion of Theutberga. He describes how, immediately after Emperor Lothair’s death, Hucbert (whom he pointedly labels “Acephalus”, i.e. a rebel or one without a head/leader) smuggled his sister Theutberga into Lothar’s household “fraudulently” and forced the young king to marry her by threats (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). Lothar is portrayed as reluctant (“he acquiesced, though unwilling, as he himself attested” (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource)). This portrayal casts Theutberga not as a true wife but as an interloper who ensnared the king under duress. The libellus then reaches its moral crescendo with lurid condemnation of Theutberga: “A most evil rumor of depravity follows Theutberga, and she is proclaimed guilty of incestuous intercourse with her brother Hucbert; a written confession is brought forth, wherein it is read that she confessed willingly…” (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). In tight succession Adventius writes that Theutberga was convicted by the nobles’ judgment, saved only by the bishops’ mercy, and then took flight from the kingdom (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). The rapid-fire clauses and alliterative phrasing (in Latin) give a sense of scandal and resolution – implying that secular and ecclesiastical authorities alike found Theutberga culpable, thereby clearing the way for Waldrada. The tone throughout is unequivocal: Waldrada is depicted as the rightful, honorable consort; Theutberga as a dishonored woman whose own sin caused her downfall.

Several rhetorical strategies stand out in the libellus. First, there is heavy use of character contrast: Waldrada is “praenobilis” (very noble) and virtuous, whereas Theutberga is associated with “pessima turpitudo” (the worst depravity) (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). Second, Adventius carefully stages the story to show that everything concerning Waldrada was done openly and lawfully (“not in a corner… but in the sight of bishops and nobles” as he assures (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource)), whereas Theutberga’s marriage happened under cloak of deception and political blackmail (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). This black-and-white narrative obviously serves the propagandistic goal. Third, the libellus weaves together different registers of authority: it cites the testimony of tutors and an uncle to Waldrada’s betrothal (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource), invokes the judgment of nobles and bishops in condemning Theutberga (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource), and, as noted, even quotes Scripture. By doing so, Adventius gives the impression of a consensus – secular, clerical, and divine – all favoring Lothar’s union with Waldrada. The letter’s style is that of a polished legal brief with historical narrative, likely intended to persuade other bishops (or perhaps the pope, if it ever reached him) that justice was on Lothar’s side.

Despite its partisan bent, the libellus maintains a surface appearance of a factual chronicle. It lists events in chronological order and references documents (e.g. Theutberga’s schedula confessionis). This quasi-official tone might have lent it credibility in the short term. However, modern readers easily detect the one-sided rhetoric and emotive language (“scandalous incest,” etc.) embedded in the account (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource). In sum, the Libellus de Waldrada is both a historical narrative of the divorce case and a piece of advocacy literature. It reflects the Carolingian Latin scholastic tradition, being well-structured and allusive, but directed toward a highly practical end: defending a king’s dubious marriage.

Reception and Interpretation in Scholarship

Contemporaries outside Lothar’s faction read the Libellus de Waldrada with great skepticism, and their reactions are telling. Pope Nicholas I, upon learning of the arguments presented by Lothar’s bishops (which the libellus encapsulates), was utterly unconvinced. He regarded the reasoning as so corrupt that he urged all involved bishops to repent. Nicholas’s definitive rejection of the libellus’s position – and his punishment of its promoters – show that, at the highest level of the Church, Lothar’s case was seen as without valid foundation. In a symbolic rebuke, the pope insisted that no synod on earth could legitimize adultery, calling the assembly that endorsed the libellus a sham council stained by sin ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374). The Libellus de Waldrada thus met a hostile reception from reformist churchmen like Nicholas and Hincmar, who in turn produced their own writings (letters and a treatise De Divortio Lotharii by Hincmar) to refute Lothar’s claims and uphold indissoluble marriage (). This contemporary counter-literature painted Waldrada as a temptress (even a witch) and lauded Theutberga’s virtuous resistance (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). Far from accepting Adventius’s narrative, the Frankish ecclesiastical establishment – backed by Rome – overwhelmingly sided with Theutberga. In the end, Lothar II’s failure to obtain an annulment affirmed the Church’s commitment to marital permanence. The case became a cause célèbre, enhancing Nicholas I’s legacy as a staunch defender of Christian marriage and papal authority (Saint Nicholas I - Pope, Defender of Papal Authority - Britannica) (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). Indeed, Nicholas I’s interventions in this affair earned him later acclaim as “Nicholas the Great” and have led historians to view this episode as a milestone in the centralization of Church law.

In the long term, the Libellus de Waldrada did not vanish into obscurity. Tenth-century historians knew of Lothar’s scandal and drew on the records. Regino of Prüm, writing ca. 908, included a summary of Lothar’s divorce story in his chronicle, likely influenced by Adventius’s dossier (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz). Regino, a monastic annalist, painted the episode as a cautionary tale of a king whose realm fell apart due to his immoral pursuit – a perspective that owes something to Nicholas’s harsh judgment. The survival of Adventius’s text in later manuscripts (even if fragmentary) meant that medieval scholars saw it as part of the official acta of the controversy (Knowledge of the past and the judgement of history in tenth-century Trier: Regino of Prüm and the lost manuscript of Bishop Adventius of Metz). When the libellus resurfaced in Baronius’s 17th-century annals, it attracted interest as a window into Carolingian church politics. Since then, modern historians have studied it intensely, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, as they reassess the Carolingian era’s marital politics and the early medieval church’s legal development.

Scholarly interpretations of the libellus and its broader context have evolved. Earlier historians tended to cast Nicholas I as the hero – a view reinforced by the obvious bias of texts like Libellus de Waldrada. Recent scholarship, however, has probed the issue more critically. Some scholars have asked whether Lothar’s bishops did have any legitimate case under the convoluted marriage law of the time. For example, Thomas Bauer (1994) and Raymond Kottje argued that the Lotharingian clergy advanced colorable legal arguments (such as prior betrothal and incest) that might justify an annulment, suggesting that Nicholas’s intransigence was motivated largely by asserting papal jurisdiction (). This view implies the libellus was not merely a pack of lies but a serious (if flawed) attempt to apply canon law for a royal purpose. Other historians have pushed back against this revisionism. Stuart Airlie, in a notable 1998 study, contends that Nicholas’s stance was not just papal egotism but had genuine moral and theological weight (). Airlie points out, for instance, that Lothar never treated Waldrada’s son as a true heir (naming him Hugh, a non-royal name), which hints that even Lothar recognized the weakness of his position (). From this angle, the Libellus de Waldrada is seen as a compromised text – a document that even its author had to disavow – and Nicholas’s hardline response emerges as both principled and pragmatic in upholding church law.

Historians also view the libellus through the lens of cultural and social history. The case has been analyzed as an example of how gender and power intersected in the early Middle Ages. Waldrada has been recast not simply as a “seductress” but as a pawn in high politics – a woman whose status (concubine vs. wife) was determined by clerical judgements and whose reputation (even accusations of sorcery) was shaped by political agendas (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). Theutberga, conversely, has been seen as a symbol of lawful queenship and the suffering imposed on royal wives by dynastic pressures. Scholars like Janet L. Nelson and others have noted how Theutberga’s personal ordeal and humiliation became a public matter of state, illustrating the politicization of a queen’s body. Stuart Airlie famously described the divorce case in terms of “private bodies and the body politic,” highlighting how Lothar’s inability to control his private life (his sexual and reproductive choices) undermined his public authority ([PDF] Understanding environmental policy convergence) (Introduction in: The divorce of King Lothar and Queen Theutberga). In this view, the Libellus de Waldrada is a piece of royal propaganda that inadvertently reveals the fragility of Carolingian kingship: a king’s intimate affairs could spark a crisis that even an army of supportive bishops and a crafted narrative could not contain (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today).

From a theological standpoint, the libellus and Nicholas’s rebuttals contributed to the medieval Church’s growing corpus of canonical precedent. The Council of Metz (863), though condemned, was a learning moment – later Church councils (like the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215) would take much harder lines against divorce and also formally prohibit trials by ordeal, reflecting lessons learned from earlier episodes like Lothar’s (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today) (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). The Libellus de Waldrada stands as a rare written justification of an attempted divorce in an age when such writings were not common, thereby attracting modern scholarly attention as the first recorded “royal divorce brief” in European history (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). Historian Charles West has called Lothar’s case “the first royal divorce scandal in European history” and notes that Lothar and his advisers were unwittingly “pioneering a new kind of political crisis” (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today). In other words, the affair foreshadowed future church–state conflicts over marriage and illustrated the Church’s increasing role as arbiter of matrimonial legitimacy.

In summary, the Libellus de Waldrada is not only a document rooted in a specific 9th-century controversy, but also a text of enduring interest for what it reveals about Carolingian power, church law, and the politics of sexuality. Modern historians continue to parse its arguments and context to understand how a king’s desire to swap his wife for his mistress set off a chain reaction of events – from clandestine accusations of incest to a papal pronouncement that a synod had become a “brothel”. The libellus itself, once a piece of partisan advocacy, now serves as a valuable historical source: a window into the mindset of Lothar II’s court and the ecclesiastical debates of the Carolingian world. Its legacy is ultimately tied to the resolution it sought but failed to achieve – the reinforcement of the principle that, in medieval Christendom, no earthly libellus could overturn the law of God regarding marriage.

Key Excerpts from the Libellus de Waldrada and Their Significance

(Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource) Adventius of Metz describes the arranged betrothal of Waldrada to Lothar II: “Emperor Lothair of divine memory…gave to his son Lord Lothar a noble maiden named Waldrada, under the name of divine fidelity, that he might guard and keep her in the faith of God for the future. And to show that this bond was just, he conferred a dowry (praetitulatione dotis) of one hundred manses upon the illustrious little boy (Lothar)…” – Here the author insists that Waldrada was given to Lothar with full royal sanction and a rich dowry, signifying a legitimate marital alliance. This excerpt illustrates the libellus’s central argument that Waldrada was effectively Lothar’s lawful wife by prior arrangement, long before Theutberga’s intrusion. ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374)

(Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource) On Theutberga’s alleged crimes and the judgment against her: “A most vile report of turpitude follows Theutberga, and she is cried out guilty of incestuous union with her brother Hucbert; a written confession is produced, wherein it is read that she confessed of her own will. She is condemned by the judgment of the peers (judicio consulum), [but] saved by the mercy of the prelates, [after which] she takes flight.” – This vivid passage shows the libellus’s condemnatory tone toward Queen Theutberga. In rapid succession, it accuses her of incest, emphasizes that she *confessed to the crime freely, and notes that although secular lords judged her worthy of death or repudiation, the bishops gave a merciful pardon (likely referring to her surviving the ordeal). The phrasing suggests that everyone acknowledged her guilt. Such language exemplifies the text’s polemical strategy of utterly discrediting Theutberga to justify Lothar’s actions.* (Libellus de Waldrada (Adventius Metensis) - Wikisource) (Epistolae: Theutberga of Lotharingia)

((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374) Contemporary reflection (by historian Antonia Fiori) on the libellus’s content: “…the synod of 863 confirmed the decisions of Aachen, basing itself also on a supposed earlier marriage of Lothar with Waldrada – a legitimate marriage, promoted by Emperor Lothair and endowed with a rich dowry, as explained by the Libellus de Waldrada of Adventius of Metz. The king and his supporters, in the end, kept advancing arguments (incest, prior nuptials, sterility) that had canonical relevance – but with little success. The pope stigmatized the ‘crime which King Lothar committed,’ annulled the synod’s decisions – even calling it a brothel… – and deposed and excommunicated Gunthar of Cologne and Theutgaud of Trier, who had been responsible for it.” ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374) ((PDF) La prima condanna canonica del duello nel suo contesto storico: Niccolò I e il divorzio di Lotario e Teutberga, in O. Condorelli (cur.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, Roma 2004, II, pp. 353-374) – This modern scholarly synopsis concisely captures the key points of the libellus and its aftermath: it reiterates how the libellus asserted Waldrada’s prior, dowried marriage and the various justifications Lothar’s camp gave (all found in the text), and it contrasts that with Pope Nicholas I’s forceful rejection of those claims, using the infamous “brothel” epithet. It highlights the ultimate failure of Adventius’s libellus to persuade the wider Church.

(Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today) From “Lothar’s Loveless Marriage” (Charles West, 2018): “It is a familiar story: a king dissatisfied with a loveless marriage that had lost its political value, burning to marry another woman accused by some of witchcraft; a group of educated royal advisers frantically devising strategies to make their king’s wishes a reality; an intransigent pope refusing to countenance any remarriage on principle, with a dash of realpolitik thrown in; an inheritance crisis and a scandal whose impact on European history can still be easily discerned today.” – West’s description provides a modern interpretation of the Lothar/Waldrada affair (encapsulating what the libellus was part of) and underscores its significance. He paints the broader narrative in which the *Libellus de Waldrada was an attempt by “educated royal advisers” to legitimize the king’s desire. The mention of accusations of witchcraft refers to how Waldrada was maligned (e.g. Hincmar’s suggestions of sorcery), and the “intransigent pope” of course is Nicholas I. West concludes that this first royal divorce scandal had long-lasting repercussions, reinforcing that the story of the libellus is an important chapter in European ecclesiastical history.* (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today) (Lothar’s Loveless Marriage - History Today)

Medieval illustration of a church council. In the end, the lofty assembly of bishops depicted in such manuscripts stands in stark contrast to the Council of Metz (863) – derided by Pope Nicholas as a “shameless gathering.” The failure of Adventius’s Libellus de Waldrada to secure ecclesiastical approval reaffirmed that even kings must bow to the Church’s laws on marriage.

Jeweled Cross of Lothair II (c.1000 AD, Aachen Cathedral Treasury) – a later artifact symbolically linked to Lothar II. The Lothair Cross (front side shown) was made a century after Lothar’s time, but its inscription and imagery associate it with his legacy. The scandal surrounding Lothar’s marriage, as argued in the Libellus de Waldrada, ultimately left him with an illustrious name but no legitimate heir. The cross, bedecked in gold and gems, perhaps serves as a regal memento of Lothar’s reign – a reign marred by the personal drama that this libellus so vehemently tried to defend (File:Aachen Germany Domschatz Cross-of-Lothair-01.jpg - Wikimedia Commons).