1. For the demography of American medievalists see David, Herlihy, “The American Medievalist: A Social and Professional Profile,” Speculum 58 (1983): 881–890.Google ScholarOf the useful contributions in Susan, Mosher Stuard, ed., Women in Medieval History and Historiography (Philadelphia, 1987),Google Scholar see esp. Susan Mosher Stuard, “A New Dimension? North American Scholars Contribute Their Perspective,” pp. 81–99.

2. Friedrich, Heer, The Intellectual History of Europe, tr. Jonathan Steinberg, 2 vols. (Garden City, N. Y., 1968), casts the entire intellectual history of Europe as a continuing struggle between the representatives of high and low culture.Google ScholarAlthough this, and my opening remarks here, can be no more than impressionistic, and should be qualified for instance by the point of view suggested by John Van, Engen, “The Christian Middle Ages as an Historiographical Problem,” The American Historical Review 91 (1986): 519–552Google Scholar (arguing against those who see popular and elite religious culture as essentially discontinuous rather than on the same, sometimes very wide, spectrum of a generally shared Christianity), and Daniel, Bornstein, review, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 59 (1990): 234–235,Google Scholarone does note a certain anxiety about the precariousness of their lives' work in many of the representatives of Roman, Mediterranean, learned culture in the early middle ages. See my “From Bede to the Anglo-Saxon Presence in the Carolingian Empire,” in Angli e Sassoni al di qua e al di la del Mare, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1986), 1: 305–382,Google Scholar esp. 314–319. I emphasize that I am not endorsing the idea of a bilevel religious culture (elite Christianity vs. age-old Indo-European folk culture) as much as noting the sense of isolation from their surroundings found in the writings of learned people like Bede and Lupus of Ferriéres (Van Engen, p. 538, in a different context, himself speaks of those who “understood just how tenuous Christianity's hold was,” and this could as well be said of Christian learning).Google ScholarJonas of Orléans's views on the ignorance of his flock are relevant here: De cullu imaginum, in Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologia, Series Latina (Paris, 1844-), 106.334C–335A (hereafter PL).Google Scholar

3. For all its moralizing in the matter of religion and implicit lack of sympathy or understanding for either the Germanic religious past or the attempts to reshape that past by the Carolingian clergy, Heinrich, Fichtenau, The Carolingian Empire: The Age of Charlemagne, tr. Peter Munz (New York, 1964), supplies a very important corrective to earlier treatments of the Carolingian achievements.Google Scholar

4. Colin, Morris, The Discovery of the Individual 1050–1200 (New York, 1972), pp. 98–104.Google Scholar What Morris says of friendship and letters in the twelfth century can be applied in muted form to the more straitened circumstances of the Carolingian period (Morris is aware of Carolingian precedent, but does not develop this very fully). Of the discussion in ch. 25 of Pierre Riché, Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne, tr. by McNamara, Jo Ann (Philadelphia, 1988), see esp. pp. 265–266.Google ScholarRelevant here on the pathetique quality of much early medieval Christian expression of friendship, and for further bibliography, see Peter, Dronke, Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Study of Texts from Perpetua (†203) to Marguerite Porete (†1310) (Cambridge, 1984), p. 18,Google Scholar and also pp. 30–35, for eighth-century letters of friendship, and p. 40, on Dhuoda herself. Karl, Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich (Vienna, 1979).Google Scholar

5. The famous treatment of the Frontispiece of the Aachen Gospels by Ernst Kantorowicz, King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton, 1957), pp. 61–78, although of course centering on a miniature more than a century after Dhuoda, also considers the Carolingian presentation of the ruler.Google ScholarOn Charlemagne's old age, compare Fichtenau, Carolingian Empire, pp. 177–188, with Riché, Daily Life, p. 47,Google Scholarwho cites Einhard, Vita Caroli, 30 (in Holder-Egger, O., ed., Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, 6th ed. [Hannover, 1911; reprint 1965], pp. 34–35), in incorrectly describing Charlemagne as “never sick.” Riché covers all aspects of this period: see pp. 14 and following on the king's travels.Google Scholar

6. In addition to Fichtenau, Carolingian Empire, see on Dhuoda–s own situation Pierre Riché's introduction to his edition of Dhuoda, Manuel pour mon fils, tr. Bernard de Vrégille and Claude Mondésert (Paris, 1975);Google ScholarSuzanne Fonay Wemple, Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister 500 to 900 (Philadelphia, 1981), pp. 98–99, 188;Google Scholarthe “Editoriale” by Inos Biffi and the “Introduzione” by Simona Gavinelli to the tr. of Dhuoda by Gabriella Zanoletti, Educare nel Medioevo. Per la Formazione di Mio Figlio Manuale (Milan, 1982);Google ScholarJames, Marchand, “The Frankish Mother: Dhuoda,” in Katharina, M. Wilson, ed., Medieval Women Writers (Athens, Ga., 1984), pp. 1–29 (pp. 1–12 is an essay on Dhuoda, and pp. 12–29 a translation of select passages);Google ScholarDronke, , Women Writers, pp. 36–54;Google ScholarFrances, and Joseph, Gies, Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages (New York, 1987), pp. 68–69, 75–83, 299;Google Scholarand Margaret, Wade Labarge, A Small Sound of the Trumpet: Women in Medieval Life (Boston, 1986), pp. 12–13.Google ScholarRégine, Pernoud, La femmeau tempsdes Calhé'drales (Paris, 1984), pp. 54–64, summarizes her life and thought.Google ScholarCarol, Neel, the translator of Dhuoda, Handbook for William: A Carolingian Woman's Counsel for Her Son (Lincoln, Neb., 1991), has informed me that Dronke's translations are not always reliable.Google ScholarDhuoda's Latin is very difficult, and there is much room for disagreement in interpreting it, but Dronke's study is the most perceptive we possess. Dhuoda is only briefly mentioned in Edith Ennen, The Medieval Woman, tr. Edmund Jephcott (Oxford, 1989), pp. 55–56.Google ScholarFor the political background of Dhuoda's marriage, see Silvia, Konecny, “Eherecht und Ehepolitik unter Ludwig dem Frommen,” Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Oestererreichische Geschichtsforschung 85 (1977): 1–21, esp. 17–20.Google Scholar

7. McKitterick, Rosamond, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms 789–895 (London, 1977),Google Scholaron which see the review of Thomas F. X. Noble in Speculum 53 (1978): 830–831, for reservations as to whether the impact of Carolingian reform ideas was as widespread as McKitterick claims.Google ScholarEven more to the point is McKitterick, Rosamond, The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 223–225, 236–237, 250, 259, 267, and 269 on Dhuoda,CrossRefGoogle Scholarand see McKitterick, Rosamond, ed., The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (New York, 1990).CrossRefGoogle ScholarSee also Nelson, Janet, “On the Limits of the Carolingian Renaissance,” in Derek, Baker, ed., Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (London, 1977), pp. 51–69.Google Scholar

8. Biographical details are taken from Wemple, Women, pp. 80–81, 98–99;Google ScholarMarchand, , “Frankish Mother,” pp. 1–3;Google ScholarDronke, , Women Writers, pp. 37–38;Google ScholarRiché, , Daily Life, pp. 98, 227.Google ScholarCarol Neel has pointed out to me that Dhuoda does not actually say that her son William was held as a hostage, but this is commonly assumed to have been the situation. It is not possible to tell from Dhuoda's text exactly what William was doing. Similarly (see text below at n. 12), it is commonly said that William had gone to court to give homage, but this goes beyond Dhuoda's words. For Judith see Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, pp. 80–81, 95, and ch. 8, which portrays the world of female monastic scholarship, albeit largely Merovingian, against which Dhuoda should be viewed, and Ennen, Medieval Women, pp. 54–55. Wemple, pp. 183–188,Google Scholaremphasizes the special place given to peace-making themes and love, specifically of neighbor, by women religious authors. We will find the same interests with the lay woman Dhuoda. Gies and Gies, Marriage, pp. 82–83, is excellent on the precariousness of noble life.Google ScholarSee also Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983), pp. 226–257, 263–278 on the reigns of Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald, and 285–286 on Dhuoda.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Manuel, 11. 2. 2–9, ed. Riché, pp. 368–370;Google ScholarMarchand, “Frankish Mother,” p. l. A fundamental analysis of the Manual is Joachim Wollasch, “Eine adlige Familie des fruhen Mittelalters, Ihr Selbstverstandnis und ihre Wirklichkeit,” Archiv fiir Kulturgeschichte 39 (1957): 150–188.Google ScholarTwo letters of Herchenefreda to her son Desiderius, from the seventh century, anticipate the kind of advice Dhuoda was to give: Dronke, Women Writers, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

10. Marchand, “Frankish Mother,” pp. 3–4: by 850 Bernard the elder and William had suffered violent deaths, and perhaps also the younger Bernard. For the continuance of an opposed view which dates the younger Bernard's death to 886, see on the whole family Roger Collins, Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000 (New York, 1983), pp. 256–257.Google ScholarEduard, Hlawitschka, “Die Forfahren Karls des Grossen,” in Wolfgang, Braunfels, ed., Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Düsseldorf, 1966–1968), 1: 51–82, has a geneaological chart between p. 72 and p. 73.Google ScholarSee also Gies and Gies, Marriage, p. 80.Google Scholar

11. Marchand, , “Frankish Mother,” pp. 4–6,Google Scholarargues for an overall plan to the work. See also pp. 6–8, on the fascination with number symbolism and etymology noted in what follows.Google Scholar

12. Riché, , Manuel, p. 27, and see also Daily Life, pp. 60, 62–63, 82;Google ScholarDronke, , Women Writers, p. 38. Gies and Gies, Marriage, pp. 78–79,Google Scholarsummarize the political situation. While concerned for the safety of her family, Dhuoda regularly places their eternal salvation above their fate in this world. In her preface to the Manuel, ed. Riché, p. 86, she tells William to accomplish his duties toward King Charles with good will, but “seek first the Kingdom of God.” In the preceding epigraph, Dhuoda prays for William that “he may flourish in the world, and have children, / holding what's here so as not to lose what's there” (Riché, p. 76, lines 52–53; tr. Dronke, Women Writers, p. 42).Google Scholar

13. Wemple, , Women in Franhish Society, pp. 59–61, traces the Merovingian expectations of maternal religious instruction, and see pp. 103 and 125 for the ninth century. See also McKitterick, Carolingians, pp. 223, 225.Google Scholar

14. I will give further evidence of the deepening of the subjective in “Christian Perfection and transitus ad monasterium in Lupus of Ferrières' Letter 29,” to be published in Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, University of California, San Diego, 20–27 08, 1988, ed. Stanley, Chodorow (Monumenta iuris canonici, series C: Subsidia, Cittá del Vaticano).Google ScholarCarole, Straw, Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), has as a theme Gregory's emphasis on the interior and attempt to foster spiritual reform, in reaction to all that was merely external in religion. Such concerns, found not only with Gregory of course, were broadcast in the early middle ages through Gregory's writings.Google Scholar

15. Manuel, 10. 4. 53–59, ed. Riché, p. 352.Google ScholarAt almost exactly the same time as Dhuoda wrote, Servatus Lupus in his letter 64 urged Charles the Bald in imitation of God to treat the rich, middling, and poor all the same. Many of Lupus's letters show the same desire for mutual love and unity expressed by Dhuoda. See Servatus Lupus, Ep 64, ed. Peter, K. Marshall, Epistulae (Leipzig, 1984), p. 70, lines 15–16.Google Scholar

16. Dhuoda frequently speaks of loving or cherishing God, and not merely of fearing him. Riché, Daily Life, p. 100, in discussing aristocratic ideology, gives examples from other writers of solicitude for the weak.Google Scholar

17. I am preparing a study on this subject entitled “On the Death of Emma: Love in Marriage in the Ninth Century.” “Companionate” is not used here to designate celibate marriages, but marriages in which love and companionship play a role.Google ScholarOf the existing bibliography, especially important is Pierre, Toubert, “La theorie du mariage chez les moralistes carolingiens,” in ll matrimonio nella societa altomedievale, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1977), 1: 233–282, with Discussione, pp. 283–285. To read Toubert is to gain some idea of how dated and anachronistic Fichtenau's treatment of Carolingian religion and reform is.Google Scholar

18. Parts of this chapter are translated by Dronke, Women Writers, p. 45, whom I follow in the translation of the chapter title, and by Marchand, “Frankish Mother,” pp. 19–20.Google ScholarOn Dhuoda's conception of the miles christianus and the novelty of this idea see Dronke, pp. 46–47 for example.Google Scholar

19. Manuel 3. 10. 66–69, ed. Riché, p. 176; tr. Marchand, “Frankish Mother,” p. 19.Google ScholarMarchand notes that the expression “individually, they plurally,” is antimetabole.Google ScholarDronke, Women Writers, p. 45, translates this, “If you love them in the singular, they will love you in the plural.” The passage is discussed in Jan Ziolkowsi, Alan of Lille's Grammar of Sex: The Meaning of Grammar to a Twelfth-Century Intellectual (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

20. Manuel, 3. 10. 77–99, esp. lines 95–99, ed. Riché, p. 178; tr. Marchand, “Frankish Mother,” p. 20.Google ScholarBoth Riche and Marchand suggest classical and patristic parallels. For illustration of this theme, see McCulloch, Florence, Mediaeval Latin and French Bestiaries (Chapel Hill, N. C. 1960), p. 174, with plate 8, fig. 5 b.Google Scholar

21. Manuel 3. 10. 99–105, ed. Riché, pp. 178–180: “Haec etenim a pluribus retro, etiam et in sanctis apostolis illorumque similibus capaces, per omnia legimus esse completum. Scriptum est: Non enim erat quisquam egens inter illos, sed eranl Mis omnia comunia, habentes in Deum cor unum et anima una, compassionis fraternitatem in Christo Iesu inuicem semper tenentes.”Google ScholarPierre, Riche, “Les bibliotheques de trois aristocrates laics carolingiens,” Moyen Age 69 (1963): 87–104, notes that in her more than 400 biblical citations, Dhuoda most often cites from memory, p. 94.Google Scholar

22. For my summary I am following the French translation in Riché, pp. 179–185, here very closely.Google Scholar

23. I have addressed the question of humanism at some length in my “From Bede to the Anglo-Saxon Presence,” especially in regard to the very arresting theses of Claudio Leonardi,Google Scholarwhich I consider further in “Twelfth-Century Humanism Reconsidered: The Case of St. Bernard,” Studi Medievali, 3a serie, 30, 1 (1990): 27–53.Google ScholarDhuoda's idea of humanity's place in the creation both shares many themes with earlier writers like Gregory the Great, and as in her emphasis on joy, beauty, and worldly success, goes beyond such writers: for Gregory see Straw, Gregory the Great, esp. ch. 1. In the Manual, 3. 3. 57–60,Google ScholarWilliam is told to model himself on the biblical Joseph: “very handsome and an enjoyer of the world, he was always acceptable to God and man in everything” (ed. Riché, p. 146; tr. Dronke, Women Writers, p. 44). See Dronke's chapter on Dhuoda, esp. pp. 46–47,Google Scholarand Martin, A. Claussen, “God and Man in Dhuoda's Liber manualis,” in Women in the Church: Studies in Church History 27 (1990): 43–52, for all the themes mentioned here, and also above n. 12 and below nn. 25–26.Google ScholarOn the dress of Carolingian courtiers, see Gies and Gies, Marriage, pp. 77–78. For Alcuin see his De virtutibus el vitus, in PL 101.613–638. A lay ideal similar to Alcuin's runs through the writings of Jonas of Orleans: see Toubert, “La theorie du mariage,” pp. 250 and following.Google ScholarFor a slightly later period, see Jaeger, C. Stephen, The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939–1210 (Philadelphia, 1985).Google Scholar

24. Wallace-Hadrill, Frankish Church, p. 286. The contemporary writer who has perhaps done the most, both from a historical and a theological view, to explicate the contrast between the glory and abasement of God is Hans Urs von Balthasar. For an introduction to the issues, see my “Hans Urs von Balthasar and the Rehabilitation of St. Anselm's Doctrine of the Atonement,” Scottish Journal of Theology 34 (1981): 49–61,CrossRefGoogle Scholarand “From Bede to the Anglo-Saxon Presence,” pp. 307–330.Google Scholar

25. Manuel, 1.7.13–14, ed. Riché, p. 114, quoting Job 40:5; tr. Dronke, Women Writers, p. 43. Dronke notes on p. 44 that for Dhuoda this is “a valid expression of his exalted manhood.” See above n. 23.Google ScholarPeter, Godman, ed., Poetry of the Carolingian Renaissance (Norman, Ok., 1985), pp. 51–53,Google Scholarwrites that Dhuoda's “work reflects a secular strain in Frankish culture,” (p.52) and translates the first of the four poems in the Manual, pp. 274–277.Google Scholar

26. Pier, Cesare Bori, Chiesa Primitwa: L'immagine deltà comunitd delle origini—Alli 2, 42–47; 4, 32–37—nella storia della chiesa antica (Brescia, 1974),Google Scholarcovers the premonastic and early monastic period. Of my writings on the subject see most recently “Recovering the Homeland: Acts 4:32 and the Ecclesia Primitiva in St. Bernard's Sermons on the Song of Songs,” Word and Spirit: a monastic review 12 (1990): 92–117.Google ScholarCompare with Lawrence, C. H., Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 2d ed. (London, 1989), ch. 8, esp. p. 151.Google ScholarThat Dhuoda seems unaware of the traditional monastic reading of these verses perhaps provides circumstantial evidence on the disputed question of whether she received any form of clerical help in the composition or setting down of her work: the thought here seems entirely her own. Riche, “Les bibliothéques de trois aristocrates,” esp. p. 89, argues for Dhuoda's direct authorship of her work.Google ScholarHe is followed by Jean, Verdon, “Les sources de l'histoire de la femme en Occident aux Xe-XIIIe siècles,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 20 (1977): 219–250,Google Scholaresp. p. 225. See also Medioevo Latino 1 (Spoleto, 1980), pp. 825–826.Google ScholarMcNamara in her preface to Riché, Daily Life, p. xiii (and pp. 72–73, 211, 225–229) notes that lay education was more widespread in this period than some have supposed.Google ScholarSusan, Groag Bell, “Medieval Women Book Owners: Arbiters of Lay Piety and Ambassadors of Culture,” in Women and Power in the Middle Ages, ed. Mary, Erler and Maryanne, Kowaleski (Athens, Ga., 1988), pp. 149–187,Google Scholartable 1, lists ten ninth-century laywomen as owning books, but without giving names, sources, or mentioning Dhuoda. See further on lay literacy, McKitterick, Carolingians. Dronke stresses throughout his study of Dhuoda her attempt to express a lay, “worldly,” or active spirituality, one suited to William's actual circumstances and problems, at once aimed at heavenly and earthly happiness: see esp. Women Writers, pp. 41 and following.Google ScholarAlthough the Manual had no great historical influence, it does strikingly anticipate the later attempt of writers like John of Salisbury and Peter of Blois to create an ethic suited to courtly life. See on this latter, in addition to n. 23 above,Google ScholarHans, Liebeschütz, Medieval Humanism in the Life and Writings of John of Salisbury (London, 1950; reprint Nendeln, Liechtenstein, 1968);Google ScholarMorris, , Discovery, pp. 97–99;Google Scholarand Rolf, Köhn, “Militia curialis'. Die Kritik am geistlichen Hofdienst bei Peter von Blois und in der lateinischen Literatur des 9. bis 12. Jahrhunderts,” Soztale Ordnungen im Selbstverständnis des Mittelalters, ed. Albert, Zimmermann, 2 vols. (Berlin-New York, 1979–1980), 1: 227–257, which does not mention Dhuoda.Google Scholar

27. Discussed in my “St. Boniface and the Vita Apostolica,” The American Benedictine Review 31 (1980): 6–19.Google Scholar