The Constitution and Functions of Collections of Patristic Extracts: The example of the Eucharistie Controversy (9th-1 1th centuries)

The Constitution and Functions
of Collections of Patristic Extracts:
The example of the Eucharistie Controversy
(9th-1 1th centuries)
Stephane Gioanni
The collections of patristic extracts that are frequently found in medieval
manuscripts1 are one of the main modes of transmission of the Church
Fathers2 in the Middle Ages: these collections ( called in tables of contents
florilegia, flores, analecta, col/ecta, compendia, dicta, sententiae and
also miscellanea … ) deliberately bring tagether texts which are chronologically,
geographically, and generically diverse.3 But they are not simple
receptacles: their organisation brought about connections, reconfigurations
and rewritings that had a decisive influence on the transmission,
perception and reception of the documents contained within
them. Grouping them into collections responded to the desires of readers
in a position to develop or modify them. These carefully composed
miscel/anea came also to have a particular importance for the
transmission of ancient texts because, on one hand, they demonstrated
the auetoritos attributed to certain authors and, on the other hand, they
I arn very gratefui to rny colleague Robert jones for the insightful Supervision of
this paper.
Richard H. Rouse and Maty A. Rouse, „Fiorilegia of Patristic Texts,“ in Les Genres
Iittemires dans /es sources theologiques et philosophiques medievales. Definition,
critique et exploitation. Actes du Col/oque international de Louvain-la-Neuve, 25-
27 mai 1981 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut des etudes rnedil􀢶vales, 1982), 165-80.
The term „Church Fathers“ was used for influential writers and eminent teachers
of the Church, especially after the Lateran Council of 649. This expression was
not unknown in late Antiquity but it indicates rnostly, in the 5′“-6’h centuries, the
„318 fathers“ of the Council of Nicaea of 325 and, rnore widely, participants in
the Ecurnenical Councils.
Birger Munk Olsen, „Les florileges d’auteurs classiques,“ in Les Genres /itteraires
dans /es sources theologiques et philosophiques medievales, 1 51-64.
COLLECTIO-;S Of PA TRISTJC EXTRACTS 183
neglected others, removing sometimes definitively the possibility of
reading them. They contributed to determining who were and who were
not the Church Fathers and, consequently, they are one of the sources o f
legitimate authority in the Christian world.4 The power of patristic
jlorilegia thus extends into the present day, too, as it shapes our own
views of the past, and the miscellany’s form stands as an important
source for knowledge about this past.
Because of the difficulty of making an exhaustive typology of medieval
collections based on generic, linguistic and cultural criteria, I will
Iimit my study to patristic miscellanea composed in polemical contexts in
France between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The constitution of
these patristic miscellanies was different from that of the great anthologies
made during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (the Florilegium
Angelicum,s the Florilegium Gallicum,6 and, in the development of Christian
canon, the Decretum Gratianum or the Sententiae of Peter Lombard7)
which also contain numerous patristic extracts. lndeed, the small patristic
anthologies that I would like to study comprise only extracts of the
Church Fathers. They show the emergence of the auetoritos of the Fathers
from the fifth century and their influence on medieval thought and
theological science. This investigation will examine the birth o f the „patristic
argument“ that, along with the Bible and the Councils, is one of the
three authoritative sources in the ecclesiastical Canon.
Within the framewerk of this volume, I would like to focus on a famaus
example, the Eucharistie controversy o f the eleventh century between
Serengar of Tours and Lanfranc of Pavia from 1 0 5 9 to 1079. This
controversy was crucial, first for the central rite in Christian religious
practice and, secondly, for the process by which an intellectual and
scholarly community took shape. In addition the numerous jlorilegia that
Edward Peters, Heresy and Authorir;y in Medieval Europe: Documents in Translation
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980).
Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, „The ‚Florilegium Angelicum.‘ lts Origin.
Content and l nfluence,“ in Medieval Learning and Literature. Essays Presented to
Richard William Hunt, ed. Jonathan ]. G. Alexander and Margaret T. Gibsan
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1976), 66-114.
Beatriz Fernandez de Ia Cuesta Gonzalez, En Ia Senda del ‚Florilegium‘ Gallicum,
edici6n y estudio del florilegio del manuscrito Cordoba, Archivo Capitular 150,
Textes et etudes du Moyen Age 45 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Federation internationale
des Instituts d’etudes medievales, 2008).
Alain Boureau, „L’usage des textes patristiques dans !es controverses scolastiques,“
Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 91 (2007): 39-49.
184 STEPHA:-.’E GIOA:-<Nl
it produced show the influence of patristic texts on the doctrinal debates.
In this paper, I will First seek to extend the boundaries of the current research
in this field, tracing the history of patristic anthologies from the
fifth century. Secondly, I will recall the origin of the Eucharistie controversy
before studying the functions of the main miscellanies during this
conflict and a recently found florilegium of the Bibliotheque nationale de
France.
1. The medieval ‚jlorilegia‘: one of the main modes of transmission of the
Church Fathers
The emergence of patristic florilegia8 was essentially due to two factors:
1. the lists of the writers considered as authorities, the Church
Fathers (see the Decretum pseudo-Gelasianum9 or Cassiodorus‘
I nstitu tioneslO);
2. the codicological context of the Early Middle Ages. The rise of the
codex in Late Antiquity and then the development of Caroline
Minuseule in the eighth to ninth century made possible an increase
in the contents of books, which allowed them to include works by
various authors.
The codex became a „collection“ or „corpus,“ its table of contents
opening with the words: in hoc corpore continentur. Among these „corpora,“
it is necessary to distinguish between collections of complete texts
and collections of excerpts. Patristic miscellanies had appeared in late
joseph T. Lienhard, „The Earliest ‚florilegia‘ of Augustine,“ Augustinian Studies 8
(1977): 21-31; Eligius Dekkers, „Quelques notes sur des florileges augustiniens
anciens et medievaux,“ Augustiniana 4 (1990): 27-44; Fran􀢻ois Do1beau, „La formation
du canon des Peres, du rv• au vr• siede,“ in Receptions des Peres et de leurs
ecrits au Moyen Age. Le devenir de Ia tradition ecclesiale, ed. Nicole Beriou, Paris,
forthcoming.
Ernst von Dobschütz, Das Decreturn Gelasianum de /ibris recipiendis et non recipiendis
im Kritischen Text (Leipzig: j.C. Hinrichs, 1912); Charles Pietri, „Synode de
Darnase ou Decret de Ge1ase?,“ i n Roma Christiana: recherches sur l’Eglise de
Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son ideologie de Miltiade d Sixte lfi (311-440)
1 (Rome: Ecole fran􀢼aise de Rome, 1976), 881-84.
1o Roger A. B. Mynors, ed., Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1961); English translation by ]. W. Ha1porn, Institutions of Divine and
Secular Learning, and On the Soul, Translated Texts for Historians 42 (Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2004).
COLLECT!O􀀩S OF PA TRJSTJC EXTRACTS 185
Antiquity, as the example of Augustine’s jlorilegia demonstrates from the
fifth century onwards, in the form of large collections of excerpts or
small jlorilegia, which were useful for meditating, preaching, studying
and debating during the controversies. lt is however advisable to distinguish
between the jlorilegia composed only, for example, of Augustine’s
excerpts and the mixedjlorilegia consisting of various authors.
In the First case, we can consider the collection of Augustine’s folIower
Prosper of Aquitaine, which contains 392 short sententiae taken
from the works of Augustine. At the same time, Vincent of Lerins compiied
another, very different Augustinian collection, the Excerpta ex uniuersa
beatae recordationis Augustini episcopi in unum co/lecta, which
contains roughiy ten Iong extracts. We know of a third collection, the jlorilegium
of Eugippius, ab bot of Lucullanum near Naples, which contains
338 long extracts.
In the sixth century, there were many Augustinian jlorilegia, such as
the Contra Philosophos and Contra ludaeos, which contain 2000 quotations
of Augustine; the Early Middie Ages also knew numerous anthologies
with the farnaus compilation of Bede, at the beginning of the cighth
century, and that of Florus of Lyon on Paul’s epistles, in the ninth century,
which contains thousands of Augustinian extracts. There were also
small jlorilegia composed of small collections on a subject or a debate of
which the Fathers were ignorant: for example, the Augustinian „jlorilegium
of Verona,“ a small anthology of Augustinian extracts, created
within the framewerk of the Three-Chapter Controversy in the middle of
the sixth century. In the Early Middle Ages, there were also mixedj7ori/egia
containing extracts of the Bible and different patristic texts. The best
example is the jlorilegium entitled Liber Scintillarum, the „book of
sparks“ from the words of God and Church Fathers, compiled by the
monk Defensor of Liguge, areund 700.
2. The patristic miscel/anies du ring the Eucharistie controversy
a) The origin ofthe Eucharistie controversy
Debate on the Eucharist was raised i n the ninth century when
Ratramnus, a monk from the French Abbey of Corbie, wrote a treatise De
1 8 6 STEPHA:\E GIOA‘-1:-11
Corpore et Sanguine Domini11 against his abbat, Pascasius (785-860). I n
8 3 1 Pascasius had composed a treatise o n this subject also entitled De
Corpore et Sanguine Domini.12 Pascasius taught a complete identity
between the historical body of Jesus Christ born of Mary and the
Eucharistie Body and thus insisted on the daily repetition ofthe suffering
of Christ. At the request of the king, Ratramnus wrote against his abbat
that the bread and wine are only images (figurae) of Christ and are not
really changed by the consecration. He did not intend to deny a true
presence of Christ but only to oppose a complete identification of the
historical body with the Eucharistie Body. He spoke instead of a
repraesentatio of the unique suffering and death. He stressed the
Eucharist as symbolic rather than corporeal. His treatise De Corpore et
Sanguine Domini, which was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli i n
1050, intluenced a l l subsequent theories that contradicted the
traditional teaching of the Church.l3
Within two centuries the issue had reached such a point of gravity
that a formal declaration was evoked from the Holy See. Indeed, in 1079,
Serengar of Tours, who favoured Ratramnus‘ position against what he
considered the excessive realism of Pascasius, had to make a declaration
of faith in the Eucharistie presence. This controversy had begun thirty
years earlier.14 Serengar was a mature scholar who apparently taught as
a member of the cathedral chapter ofSaint-Martin of Tours. Between the
years 1 040 and 1045, he came to the conclusion that the Eucharistie doc-
11 Jan N icolaas Bakhuisen van den Brink, Ratramnus, De Corpore et Sanguine
Domini (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1974). 12 Paulus Beda, ed., Paschasius, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini cum appendice Epistola
ad Fredugardum, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 16 (Turnhaut:
Brepols, 1969); Jean-Paul Bouhot, „Extraits du De Corpore et Sanguine
Domini de Pascase Radbert sous Je nom d’Augustin,“ Recherehes Augustiniennes
1 2 (1977): 119-73.
13 W. V. Tanche, „Ratramnus of Corbie’s Use of the Fathers in his Treatise De corpore
et sanguine Domini,“ i n Vl/1 International Conference on Patristic Studies
(1 979}, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, Studia Patristica 17 (Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1983), 176-80. 14 Nicholas M. Haring, „Berengar’s Definitions of Sacramentum and their lnfluence
on Mediaeval Sacramentology,“ Mediaeval Studies 10 (1948): 109-46; Jean de
Montclos, Lanfranc et Berenger. La controverse eucharistique du x1• siede,
Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 37 (Leuven: Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense,
1971); Jacob van Sluis, „Adelman of L1􀢷ge. The First Opponent of Serengar of
Tours,“ Nederlandsch theologisch tijdschrift 4 7 (1993): 89-106.
COLLECTTO:-IS OF PATRJSTIC EXTRACTS 187
trine of Pascasius was a superstition contrary to the Scriptures and to
the Fathers. He promulgated his view among his many pupils in France
and Germany, and the controversy arosc because of his Ietter to Laufranc
of Pavia, his former Fellow-student in 1049. In this Ietter, Serengar expressed
his surprise that Lanfranc should agree with Pascasius and condemn
)ohn Scotus (confounded with Ratramnus) as heretical. The Ietter
was sent to Rome, where Lanfranc sojourned and caused the first condemnation
of Serengar by a Roman Synod held under Pope Leo lX. Then
Hildebrand invited Serengar to Rome to address the Lateran Council in
1059, but this assembly would not reccive his doctrine and forced him to
burn bis books and recant. Returning to France, he also returned to his
former convictions and wrote strongly against Laufranc and Nicholas I I
for their ideas o n the Eucharist, arousing violent reactions. I n 1079 a
Roman Council required Serengar to sign a Statement which unequivocally
maintained the conversion of substance in terms that allowed no
other interpretation. In 1088, he returned to France where he died.
The controversy was definitively resolved by the Fourth Lateran
Council in 1 2 15, which adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation, introducing
the Aristotelian concept of „accidents“ into the discussion of
the Eucharist.lS
b) Elementsfor a typology of patristic misce/lanies
As we have said, miscellanies of patristic extracts were not a new type of
collection.l6 Some had even played an important role in the Carolingian
world, particularly during doctrinal controversies; the debate on God’s
predestination betwcen Gottschalk of Orbais17 and his Former abbat Rabanus
Maurus and his metropolitan H incmar of Reims gave a real importance
to this type of miscellany. Gottschalk’s predestinarian doctrines
claimed to be modelled on those of St. Augustine, from whom he quotes
JS Dominique Iogna-Prat, La Maisan Dieu. Une histoire monumentale de l’Eglise au
Moyen Age (Paris: Seuil, 2006), 451.
16 Dennis E. Nineham, „Gottschalk of Orbais: Reactionary or Precursor of the Reformation?,“
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40 (1989): 1-18; David Ganz, „The Debate
on Predestination,“ in Charles the Bald. Court and Kingdom, ed. Margaret T.
Gibson and janet L. Nelson (Oxford: BAR., 1981; repr. Aldershot: Variorum,
1990}, 353-73; Klaus Zechiei-Eckes, Florus von Lyon als Kirchenpolitiker und
Publizist (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 1999}; Bernard Boiler, Gottschalk d’Orbais de
Fulda a Hautvil/ers: une dissidence (Paris: SDE, 2004).
17 Boiler, Gottschalk d’Orbais; Nineham, „Gottschalk of Orbais.“
1 8 8 STEPHA:-IE GIOANNI
voluminously. For instance, he replied with his Langer Confession (Confessio
prolixior), which presents a collection of quotations-sometimes
without comment-from Augustine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Gregorius and
lsidorus. There were many defenders of Gottschalk’s Augustinian theology,
including Lupus of Ferrieres, Ratramnus of Corbie, Prudentius of
Troyes and the deacon Florus of Lyon (who also made a famous Augustinian
florilegium). Neverthless, Hincmar used Augustinian works and
the text of Hilary of Poitiers o n the Trinity to compose his De praedestinatione
Dei et Iibero arbitrio and to refute the predestinarian theories of
Gottschalk, which were condemned at the second Council of Quierzy in
853.
Concerning sacraments, the best example is the „Florilegium o n the
Symbolism of Baptism“ (late eighth century) which held a crucial roJe i n
the interpretation of the Roman rite and in the uniformity o f baptismal
practice. lt was widely distributed by the Church, as evidenced by the
numerous copies that have been found.ta The debate on the Eucharist
between Pascasius and Ratramnus of Corbie, in the middle of the ninth
century also produced several florilegia on the sacraments.19 For example,
we know that Pascasius‘ De corpore et sanguine Domini was completed
by a florilegium of twenty-one texts and that his Epistula ad
Frudegardum contains a short collectum of patristic quotations.2o The
same goes for the Eucharistie controversy of the eleventh century: almost
all texts of Pascasius, Ratramnus, Berengar, Lanfranc and others21
lB jean-Paul Bouhot, „Un tlorih􀢸ge sur le symbolisme du bapteme de Ia seconde moitie
du Vlllc siede,“ Recherehes augustiniennes 18 (1983): 151-82.
19 Guy Morin, „Les Dicta d’Heriger sur !’Eucharistie,“ Revue benedictine 25 (1908):
1-18. 2o jean-Paul Bouhot, Ratramne de Corbie. Histoire litteraire et controversies doctrinales
(Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1976); and Bouhot, „Extraits du Oe Corpore
et Sanguine Domini de Pascase Radbert.“
21 The best example is the text written by Alberic of Monte Cassino at the end of the
controversy in 1079. lt praises the language and the doctrine of Saint Augustine
which „as an eagle following another eagle, uses a divine and spiritual language“
(Aduersus Berengarium Diaconum de Corpore et Sanguine Domini 111: haec beatus
Augustinus exponens, quasi aquila post aquilam uolans, diuina et spiritali utitur /ocutione).
The imitation of Augustine’s style (utitur locutione, utitur simi/itudine,
utitur uerbis) is as important as the doctrine itself, because the Fathers had never
really known this controversy; see Charles M. Radding and Francis Newton, Theology,
Rhetoric, and Politics in the Eucharistie Controversy, 1078-1079, Alberic of
COLLECTIONS OF PAT RJSTIC EXTRACTS 189
contain miscellanies of quotations from patristic texts. These examples
are not exhaustive, but we can already draw some conclusions.
3. Functions ofpatristic ‚miscellanea‘
a) The ‚jlorilegia‘ and patristic ‚auctoritas‘
The numerous florilegia show that at first the collections of excerpta
were perceived as a mode of argumentation in their own right, which
contributed to the auctoritas of the Fathers.zz They reflect indeed a mode
of learning and teaching in the mid-ninth and mid-eleventh centuries,
when scholars still expected ancient authorities to provide the answers
to most questions.
The patristic misce/lanea do not play, however, the same roJe: in the
debate between Pascasius and Radbert at Corbie, in the second half of
the ninth century, florilegia are composed to reconcile points of view. At
the end of his life, Pascasius sent a patristic florilegium with a Ietter to
Frudegard, a monk at Corbie, in which he finally supported a „middle
doctrine.“ He insisted on the identity between the sacramental body and
the historic body of Christ but rejected, like Ratramnus, any materiahst
conception of the Eucharist. In this case, through the florilegia, the
Church Fathers are mediators much like St. Paul, the mediator par
excellence, presenting the teaching of Christ. The patristic florilegia
seem, however, to play another role in the controversy of the eleventh
century. The Church Fathers are often quoted to discredit the Opposition,
not to reconcile the parties. In addition, both sides often quoted the same
patristic excerpts, although using them to support opposite theses.
lndeed, scholars expected ancient authorities to provide answers to their
questions; however, in the case of the Eucharist, they were often disappointed,
because the relevant patristic texts were vague, off the point
and susceptible to various interpretations. This difficulty forced the ecclesiastical
community to seek formulations of their positions that would
attract the widest possible support. This fact reveals, it seems to me, a
new stage in the reception of the Church Fathers in so far as their
thought seems to be less important for the dispute itself than for the in-
Monte Cassino against Berengar of Tours (New York: Columbia University Press,
2003). 22 Michel Zimmermann, ed., Auetor et Auctoritas. Invention et conformisme dans
l’tkriture medievale, Memoires et documents de I’Ecole des Chartes 59 (Paris:
f:cole des chartes, 2001).
190 STEPHA:‘-IE GJOAN:>IJ
terpretation and comments of the contemporaries of the controversy,
although everybody agrees in their admiration of the style of patristic
literature.
b) An unknown ‚jlorilegium‘ of the Eucharistie controversy (BNF, lat.
5340, fol. 145r-146v)
We can examine, as an example, an unknown florilegium that I have just
edited and that aptly illustrates this evolution.23 I will first present
indications which show that this florilegium was inspired by the teaching
of Berengar of Tours: the codex BNF, lat. 5340 is a Jegendary composed
in the centre of France. Its exact date of origin is unknown, though scholars
have assigned it to the mid-eleventh century from palaeographic
study. This patristic florilegium is on two folios between the Vita Eusicii
(Eusicius of Celles) and the Vita Maximini (Maximinus of Micy). It was
probably copied in the region of Tours where both saints were honoured
in the eleventh century, as we can see in a missal of Tours from the mideleventh
century (Paris, BNF, lat. 9434-5).
The patristic extracts preach a doctrine very close to the teaching of
Serengar on the Eucharist. We can recognize, in the second extract of the
florilegium, Augustine’s „Theory of Signs,“ which decisively influenced
Berengar’s thought and which defines the „sacrament“ as the „sacred
sign“ of a spiritual-symbolic presence and not a real presence (sacramentum-
sacrum signum).24
De sacramento quod accipit cum ei bene commendatllm fuerit, signacula quidem
rerum diuinarum esse uisibilia sed res inuisibiles in eis honorari, nec sie
habendam spetiem benedictione sanctificatam, quemadmodum in usu quo/ibet;
dicendum etiam quid significet, cuius il/a res similitudinemgerot.25
23 Stephane Gioanni, „Un tlorilege augustinien sur Ia connaissance sacramentelle:
une source de Serenger de Tours et d’Yves de Chartres?,“ in Parva pro magnis
munera, Etudes offertes a Fran􀊰ois Da/beau par ses eleves ed. Monique Gaullet
(Turnhout: Srepols, 2009), 699-723.
H Haring, „Serengar’s Definitions,“ 1 1 1 : „While, despite definitions, Carolingian
and post-Carolingian writers continued to use sacramentum as the Fathers had
done in a wide sense, comprising sacred things both material and spiritual, actions
and words, Serengar made a first determined effort to narrow and restriet
it to the consecrated material, visible element. Hence his patristic quotations and
especially his Augustinian definitions are purposely chosen to prove that the dualism,
sacramentum and res, does not convey the notion of substantial change.“
zs Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus, XXVI, 50 (2): „On the subject of the sacrament,
indeed, which he receives, it is first to be weil impressed upon his notice
COLLECTIO􀂶S OF PA TRISTIC EXTRACTS 1 9 1
Besides, almost all the extracts are also quoted by Berengar, sometimes
in the same order, and with the same variants: for example, the eucharistic
food-cibis in the manuscript tradition of Eusebius’s text26-becomes
cibis spiritualibus in Berengar’s Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum27 and i n
the jlorilegium :
\􀊾(rnllJ􀊷􀊸doy<>fQ.-tufnn>n<>UÄmkr􀊹ad.􀊺<�􀇯lti
�’f“Ut<t“di’􀊻􀊼-um.:-l:ad:W�……..d􀊽dffi-..- ‚f.>=llsc,r􀇉
􀇊:rf.,.􀇋.. -=“·..r􀇌.un.re-<il.Jr􀇍f.o.a􀇎S􀇏““‚
Figure 2 1 : Paris, BNF, lat. 5340, foL 146v, 1 1 lh century.
I studied, in a recent paper, other elements that show that Bereugar used
and perhaps even made this patristic jlorilegium. I shall not repeat them
here. In any case, this example is interesting because the most important
surviving work of Berengar, his treatise Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum
that was found at the end of the eighteenth century in a single manuscript,
did not circulate in his own l ifetime. All the texts or manuscripts
of Bereugar or anyone eise who taught a spiritual interpretation of the
Eucharist were prohibited. That may be why this jlorilegium is copied
(almost hidden) between two Vitae in a legendary of the region of Tours.
But this example is also interesting because it shows that numerous
patristic quotations can be found (besides this jlorilegium) in the work of
Bereugar as weil as that of Yvo of Chartres, although the two defend
opposite positions:
that the signs of divine things are, it is true, things visible, but that the invisible
things themselves are also honoured in them, and that that species, which is then
sanctified by the blessing, is therefore not to be regarded merely in the way in
which it is regarded in any common use. And thereafter he ought to be told what
is also signified by the form of words to which he has listened“ (English trans. S.
D. F. Salmond). This extract is quoted in the florilegium (foL 145r) and also by
Serengar in Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum (II, 1025-26; II, 1659-60; III, 153-
58). 26 Eusebius GaI I., Hom., 17, 3, p. 198: cum reuerendum a/tare c i b i s satiandus
ascendis.
27 Robert B. C. Huygens, ed., Beringeritts Turonensis, Rescriptum contra Lanfrannum
(= Oe sacra Coena), Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 84 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1988).
192 STEPHA:-.IE GJOA \1:\J
Excerpta Augustini Berengar, Rescriptum Yvo of Chartes, Decretum,
BNF, lat. 5340, fol. 145r-146v contra Lanfrannum PL 161 (Ivo.)
(P) (CCCM, 84)
1. Augustine, De catechizandis col. 147C-148A. II, cap. 8
rudibus, XI, 16 (5-6)
2. Augustine, De catech., XXVI, II, 1025-1026, p. 129; col. 147C-148A, II, cap. 8. so 11, 1659-1660, p.
146-147; 111, 153-
158, p. 193-194.
4. Augustine, Enn. Ps. 103, 20 111, 657-660, p. 208 col. 163C-163D, II, cap.
5. cf. Cyprian, epist 63, 13, 1 12
8. Augustine, De bapt., 3, 5, 8 II, 1 18-121, p. 104 col. 314D-3 15A, IV, cap.
9. Augustine, De bapt, 3, 7 10 1!, 121-123, p. 104 234
11. Matth. 18, 7 I, 27, p. 35 col. 3 1 4D-315A, IV, cap.
12. lob 2 1 , 14 I, 36-37, p. 36; I, 272- 234
273, p. 43; I, 601, p.
16. Eusebius Gallicanus, Horn., 52
17, 1-3 I, 1 536-1539, p. 78
( + loh. 6, 56) col. 139C-140C, 11, cap. 4
111, 300-301, p. 197
marginalia (fol. 146r)
II Reg. 5, 1 2 II, 1 1 52-1153, p . 1 3 2
loh. 3, 1 6 II, 2391-2392, p. 166
col. 698, I, cap. 10
We can remark that seven excerpts (out of sixteen) are repeated. This is
interesting because we know that, after the death of Berengar, Lanfranc
and his foliower Yvo of Chartres2B received all of Berengar’s papers. Let
us now consider the main variants ofthe texts:29
ut P Ivo.: ut nobis ed.
in die cene P lvo.: in hac die ed.
substantiam P lvo.: substantia ed.
comedite P Ivo.: edite ed.
ubi precipit uirtus P Ivo.: uerbi praebet uirtus ed.
2B Franz P. Bliemetzrieder, Zu den Schriften Ivos von Chartres (Vienna: A. Hölder,
1917); Fabrice Delivre, „Du chronologique au systematique. Les canons du concile
de Chalcedoine ( 451) dans !es collections d’Yves de Chartres (fin xi•-debut
xii• siecle),“ in L ‚Antiquite tardive dans /es col/ections medieva/es. Textes et representations
VI‘-XtV“ siede, ed. Stephane Gioanni and Benoit Grevin, Collection de
I’Ecole Fran􀢹aise de Rome 405 (Rome: Ecole fran􀢺aise de Rome, 2008), 141-63. 29 Abbreviations used below: P = BNF lat. 5340; Ivo. = Yvo of Chartres; ed. = edition
of Eusebius Gallicanus, Col/ectio homiliarum, ed. Fr. Glorie, CCSL 101 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1970).
COLLECTIO:-;s OF PATRISTIC EXTRACTS
esse non debeat P Ivo.: non debeat uideri ed.
substantiam P lvo.: substantia ed.
indutus es P lvo.: indutus ed.
sunt credita ita et P lvo.: credis ita et ed.
cibis spiritualibus P /vo.: cibis ed.
honora et P Ivo.: honore ed.
maxime totum haustu interioris hominis P lvo.: maxime haustu interiori ed.
193
Several points show that Yvo of Chartres had probably read a copy of the
jlorilegium or the florilegium itself. For example, the expression in hac
die, which indicates the Ascension Day in Eusebius‘ text, is replaced, only
in the florilegium and in the quotation of Yvo’s Decretum, by the expression
in die cene, the day of the Last Supper.
* * *
The patristic miscellanies composed during the Eucharistie controversy
in the eleventh century demonstrate the contemporary interest in small,
patristic florilegia and sometimes allow us to reconstruct the readings of
medieval authors. The producers of these short collections present
themselves as aware that the miscellany’s form had meaning and as capable
of using the ideology of this form in conscious ways to take control
oftheir environment. Indeed, the examples we have presented show that
patristic florilegia are a key element of intellectual history in that they
directly influenced the theologians who used them during their deliberations
and their works. Finally, these florilegia also reveal an important
aspect of the reception of the Fathers; indeed, the fact that the same extracts
of the Fathers are used to defend the opposing views indicates that
the original patristic speech was gradually losing its strength. The words
of the Fathers are no Ionger arguments as such. They seem to be less important
than contemporary interpretation. Patristic Iiterature was still
the object of worship but was relegated to the margins of theological science.
This was the first step in the process that distinguished between
theology and patristic literature. ln this light these small patristic miscellanea
can also be considered as original compositions.3o
Jo Munk Olsen, „Les florileges d’auteurs classiques.“