The Journal of Theological Studies Volume 37 issue 1 1986 [doi 10.1093%2Fjts%2F37.1.91] GOERING, JOSEPH -- THE DIFFINICIO EUCARISTIE FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ROBERT GROSSETESTE.pdf

THE DIFFINICIO EUCARISTIEFORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO

ROBERT GROSSETESTEAMONG the theological writings attributed to Robert Grosseteste,the famous scholar and Bishop of Lincoln from 1235 to 1253, isa brief work ascribed in the unique manuscript copy DiffinicioEucaristie secundum sanctum Robertum Episcopum Lincolniensem. Inhis extensive survey of the manuscripts containing Grosseteste'swritings, S. Harrison Thomson found only the one copy, inCambridge, Trinity College MS B. 15.20 (356), a fifteenth-centurycodex. He comments that the lack of early copies and the 'patentlyfragmentary nature' of the text suggest that it has been extractedfrom a larger work such as Grosseteste's Dicta.1

Kevin W. Purday published an edition of the text from thismanuscript in 1976, and argued from it that Grosseteste's teachingon transubstantiation differed from that current on the Continentand given official currency by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.2Leonard E. Boyle subsequently took issue with this conclusion.3After correcting several errors in Purday's transcription of themanuscript, Boyle argued persuasively that the doctrine of thetreatise (which he inclined not to ascribe to Grosseteste) was in factfaithful to the general consensus concerning transubstantiation.Both Purday and Boyle commented on the faulty nature of thismanuscript copy of the text, and like Thomson, hoped that furthermanuscript discoveries might clarify both the content and thecontext of this work.

The Diffinicio Eucaristie is indeed an excerpt from a longerwriting, albeit not one of Robert Grosseteste's. It derives from awork on the seven sacraments which begins: Septetn sunt sacramentaecclesie que notantur hoc versiculo: Bos ut erat petulans cernentibusobice cursum This work is extant in at least fourteen manuscripts.4

1 S. Harrison Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln

1235-1253 (Cambridge, 1940; repr. New York, 1971), 130 (no. 89).2 Kevin M. Purday, 'The Diffinicio Eucaristie of Robert Grosseteste', J.T.S., NS

xxvii (1976), 381-90.3 Leonard E. Boyle, 'Robert Grosseteste and Transubstantiation', ibid, xxx

( 1 9 7 9 ) , 5 1 2 - 1 5 .4 Leonard E. Boyle, in his Oxford D.Phil dissertation: 'A Study of the Works

attributed to William of Pagula' (1956), ascribed the work to William de Montibusand listed the manuscripts numbered 8,9, 10, and 14 below. Morton W. Bloomfield,et al., Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices, 1100-1500 A.D. (Cambridge,Mass., 1979), 469-70, added MSS 3, 5-7, and 12. (In that list Munchen, Clm. 8883should be Clm. 8885; the work is not found in Clm. 8875. On MS Vat. Reg. lat. 440,see below.) R. A. B. Mynors, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College, Oxford(Oxford, 1963), 230-7, added MSS 1 and 4. Oxford University Press 1986[journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 37, Part 1, April 1986]

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

92 JOSEPH GOERINGIn all but one of these it is anonymous, however in Munich,Bayerische Staatsbibliothek MS Clm. 8961, it is ascribed toWilliam de Montibus, who was the Chancellor of Lincoln Cathe-dral from c.i 190 until his death in 1213.5 This copy was madein Germany in 1423. Since William's fame was not widespreadoutside thirteenth-century England, the unambiguous ascriptioncould hardly have originated with this scribe; it must reflect anearlier manuscript tradition.

Unfortunately no early manuscripts of the work seem to havesurvived. Unlike other writings by William de Montibus which areextant in more than one hundred manuscripts most of which werecopied before 1250, the earliest copies of the Septem sunt sacramentadate from the end of the thirteenth century.6 Internal evidence fromthe work itself, however, supports the attribution to William deMontibus.7

In terms of style and content, the theological questions on theEucharist preserved in the Septem sunt sacramenta are typical ofthe twelfth rather than the thirteenth century.8 William taughttheology in Paris during the 1170s before returning to his nativeEngland in the 1180s where he acquired a great reputation asa teacher and master of the schools at Lincoln. He may have studiedunder Peter Comestor at Paris, and he was a contemporary of Peterthe Chanter there. Both of these Parisian masters wrote summae onthe sacraments; Comestor's Sententiae de sacramentis were writtenc.i 165-70,9 and the Chanter's Summa de sacramentis et animaeconsiliis sometime between 1192 and his death in 1197.10 The

5 Fo. 173r: Explicit summa magistri teilhelmi de montibus super septem sacramenta

gloriose complete ex vno versiculo, anno (domini) m cccc" 23, frater symon. I havenot yet been able to examine Munich, MS Clm. 8885, which may also be ascribed toWilliam de Montibus. On William, see Hugh MacKinnon, 'William de Montibus, aMedieval Teacher', in T. A. Sandquist and Michael R. Powicke, (eds.), Essays inMedieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson, (Toronto, 1969), 32-45. A full studyof his life and works is in preparation. * See list of manuscripts below.

7 We will confine our comments here primarily to those portions of the text edited

below.8 See J. de Ghellinck, 'Eucharistie au Xlle siecle en Occident' in Dictionnaire de

theologie catholique, 5/2 (1924), 1233-302; D. van den Eynde, 'Les definitions dessacrements pendant la premiere periode de la theologie scholastique', Antonianumxxiv(i949), 183-228,439-488125 (1950), 3-78; L. Hod], 'DerTransubstantiations-begriff in der Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts', Recherches de theologie ancienneet medievale xxxi (1964), 230-59; Hans Jorissen, Die Entfaltung der Transub-stantiationslehre bis zum Beginn der Hochscholastik (Munster, Westf., 1965).

Raymond M. Martin (ed.), 'Pierre le Mangeur De sacramentis' in HenriWeisweiler, Maitre Simon et songroupe, De sacramentis (Louvain, 1937), Appendix,pp. i*-xxviii#, i*-i38*.

10 Pierre le Chantre, Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis, ed. Jean-Albert

Dugauquier, i (Louvain, 1954).

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE DIFFINICIO EUCAR1STIE 93doctrine and style of the Septem sunt sactamenta place it somewherebetween these two works. Like Comestor's, these questions on theEucharist are brief and relatively unsophisticated. The sourcesquoted and implied in both works come primarily from Gratian'sDecretum and Peter Lombard's Sentences. Both Comestor and ourauthor assume a substantial change in the bread and wine, but theterm transubstantiatio, first introduced in the middle of the twelfthcentury,11 is not yet central to their discussions. By the time ofPeter the Chanter's Summa, the philosophical and theologicalimplications of transubstantiation were being explored with greaterprecision.12 The Chanter also was able to look back critically atsome of the earlier teachings as represented by our author andothers. For example, concerning the meaning of 'hoc est corpusmeum' the Chanter reports an opinion very like that of the Septemsunt sacramenta, but qualifies it by saying that we should notintroduce extraneous words into an exposition nor change the formof the words actually used by Christ.13 So too he reports an opinionof his masters (doctores nostri) that the body of Christ is seen only ina veiled way in the Eucharist. This opinion is found in lines 32-7 ofthe Septem sunt sacramenta, below. Peter expresses his reservationsconcerning this opinion although he is loath to offer an alternativesolution.14

These examples suggest that the Septem sunt sacramenta may wellhave been composed at Paris sometime during the 1170s or 1180s,although an edition of the full text would be necessary to establishthis with certainty. As William was teaching theology in Paris

11 J. de Ghellinck, 'A propos du premier emploie du mot "transubstantiatio"',

Recherches de science religieuse ii (1911), 466-9, 570-2; (iii) (1912), 255-9. Cf. aboven. 8.

12 See Dugauquier, (ed.) 133-4, where Peter introduces the term 'ypostasis' (as

distinct from the 'forma' which remains after consecration), and the term 'partitas' todesignate the substance of the bread. Cf. Edouard Dumoutet, 'La theologie del'eucharistie a la fin du XI Ie siecle: Le temoignage de Pierre le Chantre d'apres la"Summa de sacramentis"', Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litter air e du moyen age,xiv (1943-5), 181-262; Jorissen, Transubstantiationslehre, 87-95.

13 'Alii exponunt locutionem per uerbum mutationis in quo resoluunt uerbum

substantiuum sic: hoc est corpus meum, id est hoc erit, id est net in proximo corpusmeum. Et licet sic exponantur, non tamen possumus in sacramento exponentia uerbasumere pro expositis quia non licet nobis mutare formam uerborum prolatorum aChristo.' Dugauquier (ed.), 148. Compare 11. 57-71, and 125-30 below.

14 'Respondent ad hoc doctores nostri quod corpus Domini uidetur uelatum;

uidetur in specie panis, sed non concedunt simpliciter, et sine adiuncto quoduideatur. Sicut dicitur quod manus hominis uidetur in cyrotheca, uel sub uelamine,non tamen dicitur simpliciter quod uideatur. Sed nonne conceditur simpliciter quodcorpus Domini manducatur sicut habuimus ex auctoritate Augustini, et absqueomni scrupulo uerum est quod corpus Domini in ore ponitur, quare non ita dicitursimpliciter quod uideatur? Hoc alii soluendum relinquimus.' Dugauquier (ed.), 167.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

94 JOSEPH GOERINGduring this period, it is at least possible that he is the author of thiswork. Evidence from William's other writings helps to confirm theascription of this work to him.

Two passages printed below from the Septem sunt sacramenta canbe identified in a work certainly written by William de Montibus.The unusual discussion in lines 100-6 concerning the power ofwords, herbs, and stones is very like an entry in William's Versarius,an important collection of more than 5000 lines of glossed verse onbiblical and moral/pastoral topics. There one finds the verse:

Vis est in uerbis, gemmis, oculis, et in herbis.The gloss on this verse explains: Verbis, presertim sacramentalibus.Vnde accidit uerbum ad elententunt etfit sacramentum. Gemmis, et aliislapidibus ut etiam in adamante et magnete. Herbis. Herbarum uiresMacer tibi carmine dicet.lb

The verses quoted in lines 96-9 of the text below are also found inWilliam's Versarius:

Christus et ecclesia duo sunt, set came sub una.Hie capud, hec corpus, nos quoque membra sumus.16

Although the lack of early, ascribed manuscripts of the Septemsunt sacramenta prevents an unqualified attribution of this work toWilliam de Montibus, the evidence available gives no cause toquestion the explicit ascription in the Munich manuscript.

It remains to explain how the excerpts entitled DiffinicioEucaristie came to be ascribed to Robert Grosseteste. Threepossibilities present themselves. The first, and least likely, is thatGrosseteste rather than William de Montibus is the author of theentire Septem sunt sacramenta. No bibliographer of the Bishop ofLincoln has attributed such a work to Grosseteste. I have found noparallels or close resemblances in Grosseteste's other works to thedoctrine of any part of the Septem sunt sacramenta. Furthermore,the twelfth-century date of composition almost certainly rules outGrosseteste's authorship. We do not know when he began studyingand teaching theology,17 but the earliest disputed questions on

16 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 186, fo. 1 i8r.

10 Ibid., fo. i25r (no gloss).

17 The general consensus, following Daniel A. Callus, 'Robert Grosseteste as

Scholar' in Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop, ed. D. A. Callus (Oxford, 195s),1 -69, is that he studied theology in Paris between 1209 and 1214, and probably taughttheology in England thereafter. However Josiah C. Russell has argued that Grosse-teste may not have become a master of theology until after 1225; see idem, 'Phases ofGrosseteste's Intellectual Life', Harvard Theological Review xliii (1950), 93-116.R. W. Southern states that 'there is no record of Grosseteste teaching in Oxfordbefore about 1225, when he began teaching theology'. See 'From Schools to Uni-versity' in J. I. Catto (ed.), History of the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1984), 36 n. 1.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE DIFFINJCIO EUCARISTIE 95theological topics date from the period around 1230.18 It isextremely unlikely that he was teaching theology in the schools asearly as the 1170s or 1180s, when the questions and responses in theSeptem sunt sacramenta were current.

A second possibility is that Grosseteste was responsible forexcerpting this Diffinicio Eucaristie from the longer work byWilliam de Montibus. Grosseteste seems to have been at Lincolnwhile William was Chancellor there,19 and he borrows fromWilliam's Versarius as well as from his Peniteas cito peccator,a didactic poem on confession and penance.20 However, the personmaking these excerpts, be it Grosseteste or not, can hardly bedescribed as their author, since they are taken almost entirely fromWilliam's Septem sunt sacramenta.

A third possibility is that the manuscript ascription to RobertGrosseteste rests on a scribal misinterpretation. During thethirteenth century Grosseteste came to be designated in manymanuscripts by the simple epithet Lincolniensis, referring to hisstatus as Bishop of Lincoln.21 However, William de Montibus, too,was sometimes designated by this same title in view of his fame asChancellor of Lincoln. It is possible that at some stage in the trans-mission of the excerpts now found in the Trinity College MS a scribe,finding the name 'Lincolniensis' in his exemplar, interpreted thisincorrectly as referring to the famous Bishop, Robert Grosseteste.22

The Diffinicio Eucaristie preserved in Trinity College,Cambridge MS B. 15.20 comprises roughly one-third of thematerials in the chapter on the Eucharist in the Septem sunt

18 Joseph Goering, 'The De dotibus of Robert Grosseteste', Mediaeval Studies xliv

(1982), 83-109. James McEvoy, in 'The Chronology of Robert Grosseteste'sWritings on Nature and Natural Philosophy', Speculum lviii (1983), 614-55, drawsattention on p. 619 to the lack of theological interests in Grosseteste's philosophicalwritings before c. 1230. F. A. C. Mantello and Joseph Goering have edited several ofGrosseteste's early penitential writings: Robert Grosseteste, Templum Dei, editedfrom MS 27 of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (Toronto, 1984), which wasprobably written between 1220 and 1230; 'De modo confitendi et paenitentiasiniungendi', to appear in Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale, probablywritten between 1214 and 1225; 'Perambulauit Iudas . . . (Speculum confessionis)', toappear in Revue benedictine, probably written after the 'De modo' and before theTemplum Dei. These works, however, are primarily of a practical/pastoral nature,and do not afford clear evidence of the scholastic teaching of a regent masterin theology. ' See Callus,'Grosseteste as Scholar', 3-4.

20 In his 'Perambulauit Iudas . . . (Speculum confessionis)', (see n. 18).

21 See F. A. C. Mantello, 'Letter CXXXI ascribed to Robert Grosseteste: A new

edition of the Text', Franciscan Studies xxxix (1979), 165-6 n. 3.11

A scribe has made precisely this mistake in a copy of William de Montibus'Distinctiones. In London, BL, MS Royal 8.G.II, fo. 92V, a fifteenth-century handhas added this note: 'Expliciunt distinctiones Lincolniensis honeste et utiles, velsecundum quosdam Willelmi de Montibus'.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

96 JOSEPH GOERINGsacramental3 There are, in addition, four lines of verse entitled'Versus de corpore Domini nostri lesu Christi' at the end of theDiffinicio Eucaristie which are not derived from the Septem suntsacramenta. Purday speculated that these might be part ofa different work.24 In fact these verses do occur in another work thathas been confused with the Septem sunt sacramenta, and may also beby William de Montibus.25 A treatise in Vatican Library MS Reg.lat. 440 opens with the same unusual verse that begins the Septemsunt sacramenta: Bos ut erat petulans, cernentibus obice cursum. Thisverse, written in large letters at the top of fo. 1, is followed by anintroduction which speaks of the author in the third person: 'Iste estliber compendiosus videlicet breuis et utilis de septem sacramentisecclesiasticis metrice compilatus versus decretales communiter abomnibus ad informacionem sacerdotum. Et diuiditur iste liber inprohemium et tractatum. . . . Postquam superius ac(tor)> posuitprohemium nunc accedit ad suum tractatum.' Wilmart, in hisdescription of this manuscript, has identified it with the Septem suntsacramenta ascribed to William de Montibus in Munich, MS Clm.8961,26 but it is a quite different work. The Vatican treatise consistsof glossed verses on the sacraments. It resembles, in both form andcontent, the Versarius of William de Montibus.27 Further researchwill be necessary to establish the precise relationship of the Vaticantext to William's other works, but there is at least presumptiveevidence that it, too, belongs in the canon of his writings. Theinsertion, at the end of the Diffinicio Eucaristie, of verses from theVatican treatise may suggest either that the scribe knew bothWilliam's Septem sunt sacramenta and the verses preserved in theVatican treatise, or, more plausibly, that these verses had beeninserted as marginal additions in his copy of the Septem suntsacramenta.

23 Approximately 175 of the 470 lines of text in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius

MS61/155.24

'Diffinicio', 390 n. 1.25

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Reg. lat. 440, fos. I3 v - i4 r :Partis mutatur species remanente priori.Set non est talis qualis sentitur in ore.Res occultatur quia res si iam videatur,Presbiter oreret manducare timere.

Both couplets are preceded by an explanatory gloss.* A. Wilmart, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana: Codices Reginenses latini, ii

(Vatican, 1941), 561-3.27

See above, n. 15. Like William's Versarius, this treatise consists of briefmnemonic verses and an explanatory gloss. A number of verses are common to bothworks, but these on the eucharist are not found in the two extant copies of theVersarius.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE DIFFINICIO EUCARIST1E 97The following manuscript copies of the Septem sunt sacramenta

have been indentified (those marked with an asterisk have beenexamined either on microfilm or in situ):

*i. Aberdeen, University Library MS 240, fos. 194vb-i98ra. Early 14thcentury. Inc.: (Tractatus de vij sacramentis ecclesie) Septem sunt sacramentaecclesiastica que notantur hoc uersu: Bos ut erat peculans cernentibus obicecursum. Expl.: (incomplete in Coniugium): . . . Secunda est fornicacionisremedium.ia

*2. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery MS W.i 31, fos. I33r-i74v. Late 13thcentury. Inc.: (De septem sacramentis ecclesie) Septem sunt sacramenta quenotantur isto uersiculo: Bos ut erat petulans cernentibus obice cursum. Expl.:. . . et ideo debet esse uel fieri in forma deprecatiueP

3. Budapest, Egyetemi Konyvtar (University Library) MS 39, fos.9Or-94r. 14/15th century. Inc.: (Sequitur de septem sacramentis matris sancteecclesie) Septem sunt sacamenta que nominantur in his verbis.. .. Expl.: ... Ethec dicta sufficiant de septem sacramentis sancte ecclesie.30

*4. Cambridge, Gonville and Caius MS 61/155, PP- I5oa-i76b. Late13th century. Inc.: (Incipit tractatus de vii sacramentis. De baptismo).Septem sunt sacramenta que notantur isto uersu: Bos ut erat petulanscernentibus obice cursum. Expl.: . . . Qui exemplis suis alios exhortatur, impletofficium dyaconj, qui autem corpus et sanguinem christi digne consecrat,officium sacerdotis perficit.31

5. Cambridge, Gonville and Caius MS 380/600, fos. I7va-i9vb. Late13th century. Inc.: Septem sunt sacramenta ecclesiastica que notantur perhunc uersum: Bos vt erat petulans cernentibus obice cursum. Expl.:(incomplete in Penitentia) . . . dummodo diuites sint.32

6. Leipzig, Universitatsbibliothek MS 423, pp. 308-18. 15th century.Inc.: Septem sunt sacramenta que nominantur in hoc versu. . .. Expl.: . . errornon separat.33

7. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek MS I. 117, fos. 19 ff.348. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek MS Clm 8885, fos. 27or-274v.

AD I375.3 5

9. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek MS Clm 8961, fos. i63r-i73r.28

M. R. James, A Catalogue of the Medieval Manuscripts in the UniversityLibrary, Aberdeen (Cambridge, 1932), 69-70.

29 Sr. Wilma Fitzgerald, curator of the microfilm collection at the Pontifical

Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, kindly brought this manuscript copy to myattention. See Seymour de Ricci and W. J. Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renais-sance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, i (New York, 193s). 819, no. 378.

30 Ladislaus Mezey, Codices latini Medii Aevi Bibliothecae Universitatis

Budapestinensis (Budapest, 1961), 55-7.31

M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library ofGonville and Caius College, i (Cambridge, 1907), 53-7.

32 Ibid., ii (Cambridge, 1908), 433-4.

33 Rudolf Helssig, Katalog der lateinischen und deutschen Handschriflen der

Universitdts-Bibliothek zu Leipzig, Vol. 1/1 (Leipzig, 1926-1935), 653-7.34

See Bloomfield, et al., Incipits, 470 n. 5461.36

Carolus Halm and Gulielmus Meyer, Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecaeRegiae Monacensis, vol. 2/1 (1874; repr. Wiesbaden, 1968), 63.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

98 JOSEPH GOERINGAD 1423. Inc.: Septem sunt sacramenta que nominantur in hoc versu: Bos utpeculans cernentis obice cursu. Expl.: . . . officium sacerdotis inplet et perficitchristi abluo firmo cibo penitet vngit et ordinata vxorque. Explicit summamagistri wilhelmi de montibus super septem sacramenta gloriose complete exvno versiculoanno (dotnini) m" cccc" 230 frater symon.36

*io. Oxford, Balliol College MS 228, fos. 22Orb-225rb. 14/15th century.Inc.: (Questiones de sacramentis ecclesie) Septem sunt sacramenta quenotantur hoc versiculo Bos ut erat peculans cernentibus obice cursum. Expl.: . . .prima causa est quia Mi sunt de una progenie.31

11. Tours, Bibliotheque Municipale MS 473, fos. io6 r- i98v , 202"",2O7v, 216", 2i7 r . 14th century. Inc.: Septem sunt sacramenta, que nomi-nantur isto versiculo: Bos ut erat petulans cernentibus obice cursum. Expl.: . . .quia coacta hoc fecit et non sponte.36

12. Troyes, Bibliotheque Municipale MS 1514, fos. 9ova-96va. 15thcentury. Inc.: Septem sacramenta que notantur in isto versiculo: Bos Ut ErantsPeculans, Cernentibus Obice Casum.

13. Utrecht, Bibliotheek der Universiteit MS 387, fos. 5Or~52v. 15thcentury. Inc.: OJ ut erat petulans cernentibus obice cursum. Nota quodper hunc versum. . . .40

14. Worcester, Cathedral Library MS Q.27, fos. 226V-234V. 14thcentury. Inc.: Septem sunt sacramenta, que nominantur hoc versiculo: Bos VtErat Petulans Cernentibus Obice Cursum.*1

The edition below of excerpts from the Septem sunt sacramenta isbased on Cambridge, Gonville and Caius MS 61/155 (designatedby the siglum C). Selected variants from Baltimore, Walters ArtGallery MS W.131 (siglum B), and Munich, Clm8g6i (siglum M)are cited, and are occasionally the basis for emendations of the textof C. Wherever a variant is cited, the reading of all threemanuscripts at that place is given in an apparatus criticus keyed tothe text by means of lowercase superscript letters. The text of theDiffinicio Eucaristie has been printed without emendation as itappears in Cambridge, Trinity College MS B. 15.20. Punctuationand paragraph divisions of both texts conform to modern practice.An apparatus fontium is keyed to the texts by line numbers.

36 Carolus Halm and Gulielmus Meyer, Catalogus codicum latinorum bibliothecae

Regiae Monacensis, vol. 2/1 (1874; repr. Wiesbaden, 1968), 68.37

R. A. B. Mynors, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College, Oxford(Oxford, 1963), 232.

38 Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques de France, Departe-

ments, xxxvii, ed. M. Collon, (Paris, 1900), 375-8.39

Jacques Guy Bourgerol, Les manuscrits franciscains de la Bibliotheque de Troyes,(Rome, 1982), 203.

40 [P. A. Tiele], Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum bibliothecae Universitatis

Rheno-Trajectinae, i (Utrecht, 1887), 132-3. The catalogue description fails to notethat another work has been appended on fo. S3r-9V- This is a work on confessionbeginning: 'Confessio est legitima peccatorum coram proprio sacerdote...." T h e scribenotes correctly on fo. 59V: 'Explicit liber de sacramentis ac liber penitenciarum.'

41 John Kestell Floyer, Catalogue of Manuscripts Preserved in the Chapter Library

of Worcester Cathedral, ed. and rev. S. G. Hamilton (Oxford, 1906), 121-3.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE D1FFINIC1O EUCARIST1E 99Incipit tractatus de vii sacra-mentis.(De baptismo)

Septem sunt sacramenta quenotantur isto versu: 'Bos ut eratpetulans cernentibus obicecursum.' Per hanc dictionem'bos' notatur baptismus; per 'ut'unctio; per 'erat' eucharistia; per'petulans' penitentia; per 'cer-nentibus' confirmatio; per 'obice'ordo; per 'cursum'coniugium. . . .(De confirmatione)

Confirmatio est unum sacra-mentum, et iure dicitur sacra-mentum quia sacrat mentem. . . .[De eucharistia]

Eucharistia est tercium sacra-mentum, et dicitur ab 'eu' quodest bonum et 'caris' quod estgratia, quasi bona gratia.

Eucharistia est panis angelo-rum, id est panis consecratusministerio" angelorum. Vndedicendum panem angelorummanducauit homopanem angel-orum, id est panem iustorum,quia iusti dicuntur angeli . . .[6 lines] . . .

Panis dicitur quia est panis inapparentia, set uera carob in exi-stentia. Non enim potest uidericarnalibus oculis corpus Christiglorificatum, set uidetur quasilatenterc et non aperte in rotapanis, sicut sol uidetur in rotanube interposita.

Sacramentum eucaristie estmaius aliis sacramentis et nonpotest percipi carnalibus oculis;

DIFFINICIO EUCARISTIE SECUNDUMSANCTUM ROBERTUM EPISCOPUMLINCOLNIENSEM.

[See below, lines 51-2]

Eucaristia dicitur ab 'eu' quodest bonum et 'caris' quod est

20 gracia, id est bona gracia.

Vnde eucaristia est panisangelorum uel contractus min-isterio angelorum.

25

30 Panis enim dicitur quia panisest in apparencia, hoc est extra,caro intra in existencia. Non enimpotest uideri carnalibus oculiscorpus Christi glorificatum. Sed

35 potest uideri quasi latenter et nonaperte in rota panis, sicut soluidetur nube interposita in rota.

Item sacramentum eucaristiemaiusestceterissacramentisetnon

40 potest prospici carnalibus oculis.

18-21: Cf. Peter Lombard, Sententiae 4 .8.1. (Magistri Petri Lombardi.. . Sententiaein IVlibrisdistinctae, 3rdedn., vol. ii (Grottaferrata, 1981), 280). 22-9: Cf. Ps.77: 25. 32-7: Cf. Peter the Chanter, Summa (Pierre le Chantre, Summa desacramentis et animae consiliis, ed. Jean-Albert Dugauquier, vol. 1 (Louvain, 1954),167).

" ministerio BM: in ministerio C. " set uera caro B: set uera statio C: setintra caro M. c latenter BM: latatum C.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

100 JOSEPH GOERINGuerum quanto carnaliores, tantoobscurioresd ad percipiendumhoc sacramentum . . . [48 lines]...[See above, lines 16-19]

Habet itaque formam et sig-num: formam quam spiritualiteruidemus, signum per quod corpusChristi credimus, quia si in easubstantia in qua debet esseuideretur, carnales oculi nonpossent sustinere.

Queritur a quibusdam quandodatum fuit hoc sacramentum.Dicimus pridie quam patereturtribuit hoc sacramentum.

Set queritur utrum habuit duocorpora quando, eleuatis oculis incelum, post agnum misticumpanem benedixit dicens: 'hoc estcorpus meum', et cum ipseChristus et corpus suum adhucpassibilis esset,e et hoc corrupti-bile quod tenebat. Dicimus quodnon habuit duo corpora, set deseipso dixit 'hoc est corpusmeum', non de pane. Sic intelli-gendum est uero,r id est, quociens-cumque in conmemoratione hocfacietis, pro meo corpore* huncpanem habebitis . . . [14 lines] . . .

In eucharistia sunt tria, scilicetforma panis, sacramentum, et ressacramenti.h Forma panis est queapparet exterius. Sacramentum,

45 Recte dicitur sacramentumquia sacrat mentem.

Habet itaque formam quamspiritualiter uidemus, signum perquod corpus esse credimus, quiain ea substantia in qua debet esse

50 uidemus quod non possunt hocsustinere oculi carnales.

Sed queritur a quibusdamquando hoc sacramentum datum

55 fuit. Respondemus quod pridiequam pateretur.

Sed queritur si habuit duocorpora quando, eleuatis oculis,post agnum misticum panem

60 benedicens ait: 'hoc est corpusmeum*, cum ipse Christus etcorpus Christi adhuc passibile etcorruptibile erat quod tenebat.Respondemus quod Christus non

65 habuit duo corpora, sed de seipsodixit 'hoc est corpus meum'. Depane uero sic intelligendum est:hoc est corpus meum, id estquociens in meam commemora-

70 cionem facietis, habebitis promeo corpore hunc panem.

Item eucaristia tria sunt: formapanis, sacramentum, et res sacra-menti. Forma panis que apparet

75 exterius. Sacramentum est misti-

53-6: pridie quam pateretur: from the prayer Qui pridie of the canon of the mass; cf.Peter the Chanter, Summa, i, 147, 149-50. 58-9: eleuatis oculis in celum: fromthe canon of the mass. 59-60: agnum misticum: i.e. agnum paschalem; cf. PeterComestor, De sacramentis ('Pierre le Mangeur De sacramentis', ed. Raymond M.Martin, Appendix, i*-i38* in H. Weisweiler, Maitre Simon et son groupe, Desacramentis (Louvain, 1937), 33*). 60-1: Cf. Matt. 26: 26, 1 Cor. 11: 24.68-71: Cf. 1 Cor. 11: 25-6. 75-82: Cf. Peter Lombard, Sententiae, 4.8.7 (ii.285); Peter Comestor, De sacramentis, p. 35*.d quanto . . . obscuriores BM: in quantum carnalius est, tanto absentius est C.

e adhuc . . . esset M: passibile esset ad duo B: possibilia ad duo essent C. ' deseipso . . . uero M: cum dicit hoc est corpus meum C: de seipso dixit hoc est corpusmeum B. * meo corpore M: pane meo B: patre meo C. h et ressacramenti M: res B: rerum, sacramentum forme panis C.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE DIFFINICIO EUCARISTIE 101misticum corpus Christi; et dici-tur misticum per similitudinemquia, sicut ex multis racemisefficitur uinum, et ex multis grantspanis, ita1 ex multis fidelibuscorpus Christi. Ipse enim Christusest caput, fideles autem membrasunt. Christus et ecclesia duosunt, carne sub una;^ Hie caput,hoc corpus, nos quoque membrasumus.k

Duplex est enim caro Christi,mistica et uera. Mistica que dictaest superius. Vera est quamassumpsit in uirgine Maria,1 queglorificata et spiritualis est.

Res et sacramentum est ipsacaro Christi quam quidam com-edunt spiritualiter. Vnde Augus-tinus: 'Vt quidm paras dentemetn uentrem. Tan turn crede etmanducasti' . . . [16 lines] . . .

Queritur quomodo per uerbaefficitur corpus Christi. Dicimusquod Dominus dedit uirtutem"tribus, scilicet herbis, uerbis, etlapidibus preciosis. Verbis, quiaquidam incantatores per uerbareddunt serpentes innocentes, etad se uenire faciunt. Non igiturmirum si sacramentum prolatumPab ore Christi in cena conficitqcorpus Christi, cum incantationi-bus et uerbis serpentes attrahunt.rHerbis dedit Deus potentiam,quia quedam fugant demones,

cum corpus Christi; et diciturper similitudinem quia, sicut exmultis granis unus panis, et exmultis ramis efficitur uitis, ita

80 ex multis fidelibus constituiturcorpus Christi. Ipse enim estcapud et fideles sunt membra.Vnde uersus: Christus et eternaduo sunt, sed carne sub una/ Hie

85 capud, hoc corpus, nos quoquemembra sumus.

Duplex est caro Christi, misticaet uera, quia est supernis ueraquod assumpsit in uirgine Maria,

90 que glorificata est spiritualis.

Res et sacramentum est ueracaro Christi quam quidamcommedunt spiritualiter. Vnde

95 Angustinus: 'Vt quid parasdentem et uentrem. Crede etmanducasti.'

Et quomodo per uerba sacrata100 efficitur corpus Christi. Respon-

sio: dicimus quod Deus deditpotestatem tribus rebus, scilicetuerbis, et herbis et lapidibuspreciosis. Verbis quia quidam

105 incantatores sunt per uerba. Incena efficitur corpus dominicumin cantacionibus et uerbis.

77-81: Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 17. 83-6: Cf. Eph. 5: 25-33. 87-97: Cf. PeterLombard, Sententiae, 4.8.7 (ii. 284-5); Peter Comestor, De sacramentis, 35*-6*.98-118: Cf. intro., n. 15; Thomae de Chobham Summa confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield(Louvain, 1968), p. 478.1 ita BM: om. C. > carne sub una ed.: carnem substantia M: om. BC.

k Christus et ecclesie . . . sumus M: om. BC. ' Maria BM: om. C.

m quid BM: quis C. " dentem et BM: om. C. uirtutem BC: potestatem

M. p sacramentum prolatum C: per sacrata uerba et probata uel prolata B: perverba sacrata et probata M. ' conficitC: conficiturfl: efficitur M. * attra-hunt C: attrahuntur BM.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

102 JOSEPH GOERINGut artimesia,s et herba sanctiIohannis. Quedam conformantsanitatem ut petrosillum, et que-dam fugant febres. Lapidibus,quia sunt quidam lapides quiconferunt' graciam, ut agates, etquidam conseruant sanitatem.

Opponitur de hoc quod dixitDominus discipulis suis antepassionem in cena dicens 'hocest corpus meum', demonstranspanem. Ergo habuit duo corpora,vnum quod traxit a uirgine, aliudquod erat in pane. Dicimus quodita intelligendum est, quod dicit'hoc est corpus meum', demon-strans in pane se ipsum. Set dicit'accipite et comedite; hoc erit" procorpore meo'.

Queritur quomodo panis illemutatur in corpusv Christi.Dicendum est quod multiplexmutatio: alia est enim mutatioartificialis, alia materialis, alianaturalis, alia accidentalis, aliamoralis,w alia substantialis siuesacramentalis.

Artificialis est ilia que fit medi-ante artificio hominis ut de fenoet silice" fit uitrum, et ex lactecaseus. Materialis est quando exuna materia procreatur alia/ utde materia oui procreatur pullus.Vnde ouorum materia est caro, etpropter hoc quidam non com-edunt oua in sexta feria,2 et suntmagis confortatiua quam caseus.

" 5

izo Item opponitur de hoc quodDeus dixit in cena ante passionemdiscipulis, 'hoc est corpus meum',demonstrans panem. Ergo habuitduo corpora, unum quod traxit de

125 uirgine, alterum quod erat inpane. Respondemus quod ita estintelligendum: Dominus dixit'hoc est corpus meum' set dixit'accipite et comedite; hoc erit pro

130 corpore meo', demonstrans se-ipsum, non panem.

Item queritur quando mutatursiue substanciatur panis ille incorpus. Respondemus quod

135 multiplex est mutacio, scilicetartificialis, materialis, naturalis,accidentalis, moralis, substancia-lis siue sacramentalis.

140 Artificialis est que fit mediantehominis artificio, ut de feno uelfelice fit uitrum, et ex lacte fitcaseus. Materialis, quando ex una

145 materia fit alia uel procreatur.Vnde de materia oui fit pullus.Vnde ouum materia est carnis,propter quod quidam non com-edunt oua sexta feria, et maius

150 confirmatiuum est quam caseus.

120-31: Cf. Peter of Poitiers, Sententiarum libri quinque, 5.11 (PL 211. 1244).132-68: Cf. ibid., 5. i2(PZ-2ii. 1246); Peter the Chanter, Summa, 133; H. Jorissen,Die Entfaltung der Transsubstantiationslehre bis zum Beginn der Hochscholastik(Munster, Westf., 1965), 102-3, cites several anonymous, twelfth-century glosseswhich are relevant to this discussion.

s artimesia M: artemisia B: arcomesia C. ' conferunt B: conservant C: con-firmantiW. u accipite... erit BM: hoc panem C. v corpus BM: corporeC. w alia moralis BL: om. C. * silice M: fulia B: filice C. * pro-creatur alia B: procreatur altera C: fit alia uel procreatur M. * sexta feria BM:die ueneris C.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE DIFFINICIO EUCAR1STIE 103Naturalis, quando ex putrefactaarbore et radice nascitur arbor,et ex putrefactione grani seges.Vnde in euangelio: 'Nisi granumfrumenti', etc. Aliter nisi putre-faceret, parere non posset. Acci-dentalis est quando res alba fitnigra. Moralis est quando aliquisbonus fit malus et rapax. Vnde itade agno1"1 mutatur in lupum, quiamalos homines et rapaces dicimusesse lupos. Vnde Licaon uersusest in lupum. Romulus et Remusnati sunt exbb lupa, id est exmeretrice.

Substancialis siue sacramen-talis est miraculosa, que fit exsubstantia panis in corpus Christi.Super hoc multiplex est opinio.Quidam dicunt quod substantiapanis non mutatur, set ita latetChristi corpus sicut unguentem inuase; vas uidetur, unguentumuero non. Ita corpus Christi nonuidetur set panis. Eos nonccreprobramus, set ita uidetur quodin die ueneris uel ieiunii nondebeat missa celebrari. Panis enimremanet, sacerdos comedit ilium,ergo peccat accipiendo corpusChristi, quod falsum est. Setmelius et tucius est credere quodsubstantia panis mutatur incorpus Christi,dd forma panisremanente . . . [38 lines] . . .

Notandum quod de paneremanent odor, sapor, et forma, eeut magis inuiteturrf sensus adaccipiendum.

Item uidetur quod Deus habeat

Naturalis, sicut ex putrefactionegrani nascitur seges. Vnde: 'Nisigranum frumenti cadens interram mortuum fuerit ipsum

155 solum manet.' Aliter quia nisiprius putrificeret, non possitparere. Accidentalis, quando dealba re fit nigra. Moralis, quandoaliquid prius bonus postea fit

160 malus et rapax. Vnde Licaonmutatus in lupum, et Remus inRomulus nutriti a lupa, id est ameretrice, quia malos hominesdicimus esse lupos.

16SSubstancialis siue sacramen-

talis est miraculosa, qui fit incorpore Christi, in substanciapanis non mutata. Super hoc

170 multiplex est oppinio. Quidamdicunt quod substancia panismutatur, sed ibi latet corpusChristi sicut unguentum in uase;vas enim uidetur, unguentum

175 non. Ita panis uidetur, corpusChristi non.

1 8 0

85Notandum quod de pane

remanet sapor, odor, et forma, utmagis inuitetur sensus hominisaccipiendum.

1 go Item uidetur quod habet154-5: Nisi granum frumenti. . .: John 12: 24. 158-64: The story of Licaon isfound in Ovid, Metamorphoses, 1. 5; that of Romulus and Remus, born to a VestalVirgin and nourished by a she-wolf, is in Livy, 1. 4. 186-9: Cf. PeterLombard, Sententiae, 4.11.3 (ii. 299). 190-204: Cf. Peter Comestor, Desacramentis, 47*.

" de agno B: licaon C: om. M. b b nati sunt ex BC: om. M. cc non B:nunc C: om M. dd corpus BM: corpore C. e e et forma M: forma B:om. C. " inuitetur M: imittetur BC.

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

104 JOSEPH GOERINGdiuersa corpora, quia in istagBecclesia et in ilia est, et totus hieet totus ibi. Respondemus quodtotus hie et totus ubique, sicutuox mea tota in aure mea, et totain aure audientis. Nee tamen estconparatio, quia corpus Christisubtilius est quam vox mea. Etsicut ex unahh candela accen-duntur11 multe, nee tamendecrescit nee minuitur, ita inomnibus ecclesiis corpus Christiconsecratur, nee tamen decrescitnee minuitur . . . [70 lines] . . .

Queritur quid significant trespartes quarum una mergitur inuino, due uero remanent in manu.Respondemus quod ilia quemergitur uinoJj significatChristum positum in sepulchro,alia Christum ambulantem superterram, alia misticum corpusChristi, idestmatremecclesiam.kk

Panis mutatur species remanentepriori.

Set non est talis qualis sentitur inore. . . .

Res occultatur quia res si iamvideatur,

Presbiter oreret, manducaretimere."

diuersa corpora, quia est in ista etin ilia, et totus hie et totus ibi.Respondemus quod totus hie ettotus ibi.

95

205 Corpus Christi informe intel-ligitur illud, scilicet quod in celisresidet, et quod in terra ambulat,et quod in sepulcro remansit.

In omni creatura Deus est per215 presenciam, per potenciam, per

essenciam.VERSUS DE CORPORE DOMINI NOSTRIIESU CHRISTI:Panis mutatur specie remanente

220 priore.Et non est talis qualis sentitur

in ore.Res occultatur queritur, quia si

uideretur,225 Forsitan horreres et manducare

timeres.

JOSEPH GOERING

205-12: Cf. ibid., 57#; Gratianus, Decretum, De cons. D.2C.22 (ed., E. Friedberg,Corpus iuris canonki, I, Decretum magistri Gratiani (Leipzig, 1879), c. 1321).BB ista BM: ilia C. hh ex una BM: om. C. " accenduntur BM: incen-duntur C. " due vero. . . . uino BM: om. C. kk misticum . . . ecclesiamB: corpus Christi in matrem ecclesiam C: misticum corpus christi M. " Panis.. . . timere Vatican, MS Reg. lat. 440, fos. 13"-I4r: om. BCM [cf. intro. nn. 25-6].

at University of M

anchester on March 23, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from