IV.

The earliest work of lvo of Chartres: the case of

lvo's Eucharist florilegium and
the canon law collections attributed to him
Von

Christof Rolker
Most pre-Gratian canon law collections are anonymous works; often, their
date and place of origin can only deduced indirectly from the study of their
material and formal sources and their reception in later works. Although a
number of collections, especially from the eleventh century, can be attributed to known authors, most cannot. Sometimes we have a real or supposed
compiler's name but little eise, so in the end all that can be said has to be
deduced from a study ofthe collections themselves and the textual history of
the canons they contain. In the case of Ivo of Chartres (t 1115), the prob lern
is, so to speak, the reverse - at least at first sight1). In addition to his extensive correspondence and several minor works, no less than four canonical
collections are commonly attributed to him: the chronological Tripartita A,
the bulky Decretum, and two very different abbreviations of the Decretum,
namely Tripartita B and the famous Panormia2). In the present paper 1 will
On lvo's life see Rolf Sprandel, Ivo von Chartres und seine Stellung in der
Kirchengeschichte (Stuttgart 1962). For the vast literature on Ivo and the collections
1)

!!

attributed to him, see the bibliography in Lotte Kery, Canonical collections ofthe
early Middle Ages (ca. 400---1140): a bibliographical guide to the manuscripts and
literature (Washington/D. C. 1999), 244-260. In general, see now Linda FowlerMagerl, Clavis canonum: selected canon Iaw collections before 1140: access with
data processing (Munich 2005), 192-202.
2) Paul Fournier, Les collections attribuees aYves de Chartres, Bibliotheque
de l'Ecole des Chartes 57 (1896), 645-698; Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes 58
(1897), 26-77, 293-326, 410---444 & 624--676, summarised in idem/Gabriel Le

llO

Christof Rolker

concentrate on the Decretum and the Panormia which are commonly seen as
expressing Ivo's legal thought most directly. However, Ivo's very authorship
is less certain than it is often thought. In particular, the chronological key argument for a common authorship ofthe 'Ivonian' collections is today in the
process of being dispelled 3). Fournier thought that all 'lvonian' collections
originated within a very short time between 1093 and 1095. He (probably
rightly) held that no text in any of the 'Ivonian' collections can be confidently dated after 1093, and his assumption was that all collections could
be dated confidently shortly after the most recent material they contained.
Fournier went on to argue that the compiler would not have omitted canons
of the councils ofNimes and Clermont, had they been available. In fact, he
speculated whether the collections may have been compiled in preparation for
these events). However, research undertaken since Foumier's days has made
it clear that most collections compiled in the century before Gratian show in
fact some reserve towards recent legislation. lt is the exception rather than
the rule that canon law collections contain the decrees of recent councils 5). lt
would therefore seem precarious to date a collection close to the most recent
material it contains. Fournier's second argument, that the Prologus found
with both the Decretum and the Panormia must have been written for the
latter was criticised early and has never won universal acceptance6). lndeed,
it is disputed whether the Prologus was intended for the Decretum, for the
Panormia or originally conceived as an independent treatise7). There is little
Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident: depuis !es Fausses Decretales
jusqu'au Decret de Gratien (2 vols., Paris 1931/32), ii, 55-114.
3
) Forcriticism,see Sprandel, IvovonChartres(n. l), 73; Martin Brett, Urban II and the collections attributed to Ivo ofChartres, in: Proceedings ofthe eighth
international congress ofmedieval canon Iaw, ed. Stanley Chodorow (Vatican
City 1992), 27-44, 46; Brett, The sources and influence of Paris, Bibliotheque de
I'Arsenal 713, in: Proceedings of the ninth international congress of medieval canon
law, ed. Peter Landau/Jrg Mller (Vatican City 1997), 149-167, 159-160.
4
) Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 314 and 325.
5) One such collection may be the Collection in ten parts which contains canons
from Lateran 1. More commonly, recent councils were added as appendices as found
e. g. with numerous Panormia copies.
6 ) Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 314-316, repeated in idem/Le Bras, Histoire
(n. 2), ii, 107-108. For critique, see Franz Plazidus Bliemetzrieder, Zu den
Schriften Ivos von Chartres (t 1116): ein literargeschichtlicher Beitrag (Vienna 1917),
repeated in idem, Paul Fournier und das literarische Werk Ivos von Chartres, Archiv
fr katholisches Kirchenrecht 115 (1935), 53-91.
7) From the vast literature since Fournier, see e. g. Alfonso M. Stickler, Historia iuris canonici latini (Turin 1950), 183; Charles Muni er, Yves de Chartres,

1vo 's Eucharist florilegium

111

if any evidence for Foumier's idea that the Prologus was written for the Panonnia and only later attached to the Decretum, the Panormia's main source.
lt rather seems that Foumier's argument here becomes circular: the Prologus
must have been written for the Panormia because the Panormia was compiled
by Ivo, a claim which mainly rests on the link between Ivo's Prologus and this
collection. A third argument Foumier brought forward supporting a common
authorship of the Decretum and the Panonnia was that he thought that the
latter drew not only on the Decretum but also its immediate sources, namely
the Collectio Britannica and TripartitaA. This, however, is not the case8). The
Panonnia does, on the contrary, draw on at least two sources unknown to the
compiler to the Decretum); there is no evidence from lvo's correspondence
that he knew any ofthese new sources. Thus, all arguments Foumier developed for lvo 's authorship on the Panormia are open to debate and indeed
partly misguided. Consequently, the question of authorship for the Ivonian
collections, in particular the Panormia, is still open. The manuscript tradition
shows that Ivo and his Prologus were associated with the Panormia, but also
other collections, from an early time on; yet no conclusive evidence has come
to light which would either corroborate or invalidate Ivo 's direct authorship.
In the light ofthis uncertainty, new arguments on the relation between lvo and
the collections attributed to him may not be entirely useless.
lt is the purpose of the present paper to challenge the common authorship
of the Decretum and the Panormia by stressing the different preoccupations
and interests oftheir respective compilers. Following Foumier, who described
in: Dictionnaire de spiritualite(16 in 21 vols Paris 1937-94), xvi (1994), coll. 15511564, 1555 (Prologus written for Panormia); Bliemetzrieder, Schriften Ivos (n. 6),
17, Laurent Chevailler, Yves de Chartres, in: Dictionnaire de droit canonique
(7 vols., Paris 1924-65), vii (1965), coll. 1641-1666, 1648; Richard William
Southern, Scholastic humanism and the unification ofEurope (2 vols Oxford and
Cambridge/Mass. 1995/2001), i, 260 (Prologus written for the Decretum); Landau,
Jvo von Chartres, in: Theologische Realenzyklopdie (36 vols Berlin 1976-2004),
xvi (1987), 422-427, 424 (Prologus predating collections); Bruce C. Brasington,
Tue Prologue of lvo of Chartres: a fresh consideration from the manuscripts, in: Proceedings 8 (n. 3), 3-23, 19; (more cautiously) idem, Ways ofmercy: the Prologue of
Ivo ofChartres: edition and analysis (Mnster 2004), 105-107 (Prologus originally
independent treatise ).
') Brett, Sources and influence (n. 3), 156-160 against Fournier, Collections
(n. 2), 305-307.
9) Brett, Sources and influence (n. 3), 157-159; idem, Creeping up on the Panormia, in: Grundlagen des Rechts: Festschrift fr Peter Landau, ed. Richard H.
Heimholz et al. (Paderborn 2000), 205-270, here at 209-210 and 222-260 (concordance table).

112

Christof Rolker

the collections as two stages of one enterprise 10), scholars have commonly assumed that both collection express essentially the same thought. They indeed
share several features, but at the same time there are important differences
which are sometimes overlooked. Even abrief description ofboth collections
can highlight this.
The Decretum is a systematic collection divided into seventeen books. lt
was compiled presumably at Chartres around 1094, though reworking may
well have continued after this time. lts most recent material is from 1093,
and from the mid-1090s Ivo quoted the Decretum in his letters alongside
Tripartita A 11 ). The Decretum compiler drew mainly on Burchard of Worms
but almost doubled its length by additional material drawn from Tripartita
A, the Collectio Britannica, several minor collections and patristic writing. The canons were taken from a wide range of material sources, and the
Decretum contains many contradictory canons; above all, its compiler was
inclusive rather than selective. As a result, the Decretum is very bulky. This
may also explain why there are only four complete manuscripts extant 12).
Nonetheless, the collection must have enjoyed a wide and rapid success 13).
Already in Ivo's lifetime it was used for example by the Norman Anonymous14). There are a considerable number of short versions which emerged
in early twelfth-century France and England 15 ), and at least five twelfth-century canon law collections drew on the Decretum: in addition to Tripartita
B and the Panormia there are the Caesaraugustana 116), the Collection de
Sainte-Genovieve 17), the Collectio Casinensis 18), and perhaps the Collectio
10
)

F o u rn i er, Yves de Chartres et le droit canonique, Revue des questions historiques 63 ( 1898), 51-98 & 384-405, here at 395: 'Ce recueil se presente anous en deux
etats: Je Decret [...] et Ja Panormia.'
11
) Fournier, Collections(n. 2), 319-21.
12
) There are four complete copies plus a number of fragments. For an account of
the known mss., see Landau, Das Dekret des Ivo von Chartres: die handschriftliche
berlieferung im Vergleich zum Text in den Editionen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts,
ZRG 101 Kan. Abt. 70 (1984), 1-44.
13
) Brett, Panormia (n. 9), 206.
1' ) Wilfried Hartmann, Beziehungen des normannischen Anonymus zu frhscholastischen Bildungszentren, Deutsches Archiv fr Erforschung des Mittelalters
31(1975),108-153.
15
) Brett, Panormia (n. 9), 206-207.
16) Brett, Sources and influence (n. 3), 160-164.
17) Fournier/Le Bras, Histoire (n. 2), ii, 265-268; Landau, Dekret Ivos
(n. 12), 35; Fowler-Magerl, Clavis canonum (n. 1), 201.
1s) Roger E. Reynolds, The Collectio canonum Casinensis duodecimi seculi
(Codex terscriptus) ... : a derivative of the South-Italian Collection in five books: an

lvo's Eucharist florilegium

113

Pragensis 19). In addition, the Decretum was used by twelfth-century theologians including Alger of Liege and Abelard 20).
The Panormia, divided into eight books, is much shorter than the Decretum
'
it is in principle an abbreviated Decretum which preserves the overall structure of its model2 1). However, the Panormia compiler employed two sources
unknown to the Decretum compiler22 ). Both by the addition of new material
and by the careful selection ofthe Decretum material, the Panormia compiler
produced a collection very different from the Decretum. In general, the Panormia is highly selective23). For example, it dropped most material found in the
last three books of the Decretum 24 ). Where retained, the Decretum material
was largely rearranged and often re-worked 25). The Panormia was compiled
some time after the Decretum; yet the only fixed terminus ante quem is that
of its earliest use in the Leges Henrici Primi which were presumably compiled
by 1118 26). So far no cogent evidence for an employment of the Panormia beimplicit edition (Toronto 2001), 73: 'There is a heavy use ofthe Decretum of lvo of
Chartres or a source like it. While there are no extant mss. ofthis collection at Montecassino, there is evidence that the Decretum may have been known in areas where
the Beneventan script was written.'
19) Ed. Friedrich Schulte, ber drei in Prager Handschriften enthaltenen Canonen-Sammlungen, Sitzungsberichte der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 57 (l 868), 171-221, here at 175-221;
cf. Kery, Canonical collections (n. l), 186-187 for further references.
20) Cf. Nikolaus M. Hring, A study in the sacramentology of Alger of Liege,
Mediaeval Studies 20 (1958), 41-78; Blanche Beatrice Boyer/Richard Peter
McKeon, The textual relation oflvo andAbailard, in: Peter Abailard, Sie et non, ed.
iidem (Chicago and London 1977), 617--634, respectively.
21 ) See http://wtfaculty.wtamu.edu/-bbrasington/Panormia.html for a provisional
edition by Brasington and Brett based on a wide range ofmss., and for further
references.
22 ) Brett, Panormia (n. 9), 219.
23) Cf. most recently Greta Austin, Editorial concems in the Ivonian Panormia:
the case ofrepetitious canons in book 8, ZRG 120 Kan. Abt. 89 (2003), 82-106.
24) Decretum xv (penitential), xvi ('lay legislation') and xvii (speculative theology). On the significance ofthe treatment ofDecretum xv~ see Sprandel, lvo von
Chartres (n. 1), 67-73.
is) Cf. Friedrich Wilhelm Hermann Wasserschieben, Beitrge zur Geschichte der vorgratianischen Kirchenrechtsquellen (Leipzig 1839), 47-77; Brett,
Panormia (n. 9), 222-260 (concordance table).
26) Fe 1i x Liebe rm an n, ber das englische Rechtsbuch Leges Henrici (Halle
1901), 24: 'Weitaus die meisten Stze knnen aus dem 4. und 8. Buch der Panormia
Ivo's von Chartres stammen, zwei aus lvo's Decret.' He was followed by Leslie J.
Downer, Introduction, in: Leges Henrici primi, ed. idem (Oxford 1972), l-78, who

114

Christof Rolker

fore this date has been found, but from the l l 20s on it became outstandingly
successful. More than 130 extant copies ofthe Panormia are known, with new
copies found relatively frequently 21 ). While the success ofthe Decretum was
mainly limited to the first half ofthe twelfth century 28), the Panormia continued to be valued by theologians and canonists long after this time.
Both collections are linked to Ivo of Chartres in different ways. For the
Decretum, Foumier demonstrated that Ivo quoted from it in bis letters very
soon after the collection could have been compiled. Contrary to what Foumier
assumed, no such link between the Panormia and Ivo 's correspondence can be
found 29). In any case, the main evidence for the supposed common authorship
is the preface found with both collections which mentions Ivo as the author...,).
This preface certainly links both collections to Ivo in some sense. However,
no consensus has been reached what the original purpose of the Prologus
was31 ). lt is possible that the Prologus in fact predates both collections and
originated as a treatise that was only later adapted as a preface12). If this were
the case, the question would still remain which collection it was adapted for
first; if not, which collection was the Prologus written for? Foumier held that
the Prologus was meant to introduce the Panormia and only later attached to
the Decretum. He argued that the Prologus referred to certain subdivisions of
the Panormia books and their summary-rubrics 13); however, it tumed out that
these elements are in fact absent from the early manuscripts and often only
artefacts ofthe edition Foumier relied on 34). Bliemetzrieder, in a polemic rep. 34 lists Decretum parallels in his apparatusfontium, and most recently by Patrick
Wormald, The making of English law: King Alfred to the twelfth century (Oxford
1999), 471. The date of the Leges is inferred from the preface which mentions Queen
Mathilda.
27
) In addition to the list in Kery, Canonical collections (n. l) see the !ist of Brett
and Brasington (n. 21). In 2004, 1 identified two more mss. (Stuttgart WLB, Jur. q.
146 and Munich BSB, Clm 7608) and Dr Brett has recently found another one (private
communication); they all will be added to the on-line !ist.
28
) There are, however, exceptions to this rule; notably, the important Decretum
fragment from Siguenza is from the thirteenth century.
29) Against Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 319-322.
30) Ed. Brasington, Ways ofmercy (n. 7), 115-142.
31 ) Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 315-316, idem/Le Bras, Histoire (n. 2), ii,
105-108; see above (n. 7) for furtherreferences.
n) Landau, Ivo (n. 7), 424; Brasington, The Prologue (n. 7), 7-9 and 19.
33) Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 315-316.
34 ) Jacqueline Rambaud-Buhot, Les sommaires de Ja Panormie et l'edition
de Melchior de Vosmedian, Traditio 23 (1967), 534-536; Muni er, Pour une edition
de Ja Panormie d'Ive de Chartres, Revue de sciences religieuse 44 (1970), 153-164;

Ivo's Eucharist florilegium

115

sponse to Fournier, argued that the Prologus was written for the Decretum3s).
However, Decretum and Panormia share many features and in principle, the
Prologus would fit both collections. Therefore, the question of authorsbip
cannot be settled this way. The Prologus links both collections to each other
(andin some way to lvo, too), but from internal evidence alone it does not
answer the question whether Ivo compiled the Decretum, the Panormia, or
both collections.
There are different ways to respond to tbe resulting uncertainty. One option
is to assume tbat botb collections are somehow 'lvonian' and to stress their
shared features, assuming tbat Ivo's thought is found in those elements both
collections bave in common. The alternative is rather to study the differences
between the collections, whicb may or rnay not represent different autbors.
What I suggest is a certain rnethodological scepticisrn. Forthe purpose ofthis
paper, I will study the Decretum and the Panormia without relying on their
supposed cornmon autborsbip. Instead, 1 want to compare botb collections to
eacb otber and also to the corpus of Ivo's remaining work, tbat is bis correspondence, bis sermons and a lost collection be cornpiled before be became
bisbop ofCbartres. My main focus is on the work last mentioned.
The existence oftbis work, the earliest known work oflvo, can be inferred
frorn a cornparison of the Decretum and lvo's correspondence. The rnain
evidence comes from a Ietter-tract on the Eucbarist Ivo wrote when still at St
Quentin, wbere he was abbot until 109036). Ivo's letter belongs to tbe late responses to Berengar ofTours37). Here, Ivo quotes numerous patristic autborities, some but not all of wbicb be found in tbe writings of Lanfranc of Bec,
wbo may or may not bave been Ivo's teacber38 ). Interestingly, Ivo augmented
Landau, Die Rubriken und Inskriptionen von Ivos Pamormie, Bulletin ofmedieval
canon law n. s. 12 (1982), 31-49. Cf. most recently Brett, Panormia (n. 9), 212-214
on the mss. tradi tion.
35) Bliemetzrieder, Schriften lvos (n. 6), 10, 17 and 24.
36) Ivo, ep. 287 (PL 162, 285-288); a provisional edition is found in the appendix.
37) Cf. Ludwig Ott, Untersuchungen zur theologischen Briefliteratur der Frhscholastik: unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Viktorinerkreises (Mnster 193 7),
28-38.
31) Tue only source is Robert de Torigni, Chronicon, a. 1117 (sie): 'Mortuus est
autem etiam hoc anno vir re/igiosus et magnae /iteraturae lvo Carnotensis episcopus.
Hie dum esset iuvenis, audivit magistrum Lanfrancum priorem Becci de secularibus et
divinis /itteris tractantem in illafamosa scola, quam Becci tenuit.' (MGH SS 6, 485);
sceptical Margaret T. Gibson, Lanfranc ofBec (Oxford 1978), 36, but cf. also
Lynn K. Barker, Ivo ofChartres and the Anglo-Norman cultural tradition, AngloNorman Studies 13 (1991), 15-33, here at 18.

-------~-

116

---.,._

Christof Rolker

the Augustine quotations he found in Lanfranc from the original sources 39).
Other passages are abbreviated or have minor variants compared to the original sources. Tue important point for our purpose is that this all gave the proof
texts in Ivo's early Eucharist tract a distinct character. This is where the Decretum comes into play. At the beginning ofbook two (the first ten canons in
the modern numbering) it includes a small, self-contained collection of some
forty authorities on the Eucharist4). This sub-collection makes a substantial
part ofthe whole book; in the Cambridge manuscript ofthe Decretum, for example, these canons occupy ten folios, the rest of the book only little more41 ).
Crucially, it is distinct from the rest of the book it introduces: the material is
presented in the form of an argument, whereas much of the remaining book
consists in large blocks of material taken from Burchard without much reworking42). Instead of Burchard of Worms or Tripartita A, the main sources
of the Decretum, the opening section of Decretum ii draws on the writings
of Lanfranc and Berengar, supplemented from the original sources, namely
St Augustine43 ). So the Decretum seems to contain a sub-collection of the
Eucharist drawing inter a/ia on Lanfranc. lf we compare this sub-collection
to the above-mentioned letter of Ivo, a striking parallel becomes visible. The
florilegium not only contains all texts Ivo quoted in the letter; it also presents
them in the very form found in lvo 's letter44). The Decretum canons (but
no other known source) have the same additions, abbreviations and other
idiosyncratic deviations from the sources found in Ivo's letter. Now we do
know that lvo in his letters frequently cited from the Decretum45 ). However,
39

On the sources of De corpore, cc. 18-9 see Jean de Montclos, Lanfranc

et Berenger: la controverse eucharistique du XI siecle (Leuven 1971), 307-310; see
Bliemetzrieder, Schriften Ivos (n. 6), 32 on the textual relation between De corpore and Ivo's works.
40
) Bliemetzrieder, Schriften Ivos (n. 6), 32.
") Cambridge, Corpus Christi College ms 17, foll. 30ra-39ra (Decretum ii, cc.
1-10) and foll. 39ra-5lva (Decretum ii, cc. 11-143).
42 ) Decretum ii, cc. 11-62 contains Burchard's book five completely; Decretum ii,
cc. 117-43 consists ofmaterial from Burchard, Liber decretorum ii, cc. 50-93 and iii,
cc. 70-108 in the order found there.
43 ) Bliemetzrieder, Schriften Ivos (n. 6), 32; de Montclos, Lanfranc et
Berenger, 461, n. 462; Hring, Berengar's definitions of sacramentum and their
influence on medieva1 sacramentology, Mediaeval Studies lO (1948), 109-146, here
at 125.
44) Ivo in ep. 287 quotes (in this order) from texts found in Decretum ii, cc. 9, 8,
9, 4. Tue first three are from Lanfranc, but with additions from Lanfranc's original
source.
4s) f ournier, Collections (n. 2), 319-322. See below for some examples.
)

Ivo 's Eucharist florilegium

ll7

Ivo wrote the fetter in question at St Quentin, several years before the Decretum could have been compiled. So the Eucharist letter cannot depend on the
Decretum in its extant form. Nonetheless, the parallels strongly suggest that
it drew on a source very similar to the opening section ofDecretum ii which
therefore seems to predate the Decretum in its mature form. Given Ivo's early
familiarity with this source, which has no known circulation otherwise, it is
sound to assume that lvo compiled it himself, perhaps when preparing his
anti-Berengarian tracl The Decretum preserved this source, and did so faithfully; all idiosyncratic features that can be inferred to have marked Ivo's lost
Eucharist florilegium are still found in its extant form, placed prominently at
the beginning ofDecretum ii.
Let us now turn to the Panormia. Most of its canons are taken from the
Decretum, and it is therefore no surprise that many of its Eucharist canons
were taken from the first ten canons ofbook two ofthe Decretum and hence
ultimately go back to Ivo's Eucharist florilegium, too. In total, the first book
of the Panormia contains about half of the authorities found in the latter. They
are, however, not placed first but rather scattered over the whole book, often
in a different order compared to the Decretum 46), and it is striking that none
ofthe canons lvo had quoted in his letter-tract on the Eucharist was retained
in the Panonnia. So while the Panormia compiler had access to a source also
known to Ivo, he can be seen to select different material. However, the most
crucial difference is found in the inscriptions. Two of the Ambrose texts were
given a wrong book title in the Panormia, another one was misattributed to St
Augustine1). Vice versa, a passage from Augustine is attributed to Ambrose48).
Most striking, however, are the eight excerpts from the Jong Lanfranc section
in Decretum ii, c. 9. In the Panonnia they are all misattributed to Augustine.
Tue error presumably resulted from an eye-slip. In the Decretum, the inscription 'Lanfrancus' is easy to overlook; the Panormia compiler instead copied
the last inscription found in the Decretum before the Lanfranc passage. The
rubric in all cases is that oflast text found in Decretum viii, c. 8 ('Augustinus
Decretum ii, cc. 1 (= Panormia i, c. 123, incomplete), 4 (= Panormia i, cc. 136,
129), 5 (= Panormia i, c. 138), 6 (= Panormia i, c. 144), 7 (= Panormia i, cc. 141, 124a,
127), 8 (= Panormia i, cc. 130, 131, 142, 133, 135), 9 (= Panormia i, cc. 137a, 128,
139, 125, 137b, 110, 137c, 143 in fragments), 10 (= Panormia i, c. 126).
47 ) See the inscriptions to Panormia i, cc. 124, 127 (both 'Ambrosius in libro de
ojficiis ') and 141 ('Augustinus in /ibro de Trinitate ad Corinthios'). All fragments are
from Decretum ii, c. 7 ('Ambrosius'), where the respective subdivision have the rubrics 'Ambrosius in libro de sacramentis' and 'In libro de Trinitate ad Gratianum'.
48) Panormia i, c. 123 ('Ambrosius in libro de catechizandis rudibus'), taken from
Decretum ii, c. 1 ('Augustinus in libro de catechizandis rudibus').
46)

118

Christof Rolker

in libro sententiarum Prosperii'). Alger ofLiege, who also used the Eucharist
material in the Decretum, made the same mistake49). Both the manuscript tradition of the Panormia and its early reception suggest that the misattributions
were present from the outset50). In fact, while single misattributions could
perhaps have entered the Panormia because of scribal errors at an early stage
ofthe manuscript tradition, the misattribution of all eight Lanfranc pieces to
Augustine in all known manuscripts can only be explained by an error occurring when the Panormia was compiled from the Decretum. The Panormia
compiler either made the error himself or he relied on a defective Decretum
copy 51 ). The compiler's eyeslip had considerable consequences as the Panormia became soon widely known. Via Gratian the misattributions found there
became even more widely spread52 ). Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas, to
name only two eminent theologians, both tried to reconcile these Pseudo-Augustine pieces with other authorities on the Eucharist53 ). A late irony was that
Wyclif in search of authorities against Lanfranc among other texts turned to
'Augustine' as found in Gratian 's De consecratione, thus unknowingly quoting Lanfranc against Lanfranc 54).
What is the significance of all these misattributions? Scholars have often
commented on the relatively numerous misattributions found in the Panormia55). They are sometimes seen as evidence that the Panormia was compiled
in some rush, or that less competent secretaries did part ofthe work 56). However, the misattributions just mentioned in my opinion carry special weight.
Both the number of misattributions and the nature of the texts in question
Cf. Hring, Sacramentology of Alger (n. 20), 52-53.
so) E. g. Abelard repeats the misattribution of the Panonnia in his Sie et non, qq.
lxvi, 4 and cxvii, 44, ed. Boyer/McKeon (n. 20), 180 and 246.
51 ) In the incomplete Decretum ms Vat. Pa!. lat. 587, the reference to Lanfranc is
missing. However, contrary to what Hring, Sacramentology of Alger (n. 20), 55,
suspected, all complete mss. ofthe Decretum have the correct inscription.
52
) De consecratione, D. 2, c. 48.
53) On Peter Lombard, who struggled to reconcile this piece of 'Augustine' with
genuine Augustinian texts, see Hring, Sacramentology of Alger (n. 20), 74-75; on
Thomas Aquinas see Wayne John Hankey, Magis ... pro nostra sentencia: John
Wyclif, his mediaeval predecessors and reformed successors, and a pseudo-Augustinian Eucharistie decretal, Augustiniana 45 (1995), 213-245, here at 325, n. 54.
54
) lbid., 215.
55) Wasserschieben, Beitrge zur Geschichte (n. 25), 61-76; Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 317.
56) Fournier, Collections (n. 2), 325. Cf. Hring, Sacramentology of Alger
(n. 20), 55: 'In compiling the Panonnia either Ivo himself(which appears unlikely) or
rather his assistant fell victim to this very difficulty.'
49

lvo's Eucharist florilegium

119

strongly teil against the idea that Ivo participated in the reworking ofthe Decretum that produced the Panormia. The Eucharist was a topic he treated in
letters from bis time at St Quentin until his last years as bishop of Chartress 7).
He was entirely familiar with the original writings and the formal source of
all the canons misattributed in the Panormia. lt is therefore hard to see how
Ivo could have persistently misattributed these canons in the Panormia. The
fact that the Panormia compiler omitted the very canons Ivo had employed
in bis Eucharist letter written at St Quentin is also telling. lt seems therefore
that the Panormia compiler was less familiar with the original sources than
Ivo was, and valued some oflvo's prooftexts less than Ivo did.
The different treatment of the Eucharist material in the Decretum and the
Panormia provides thus evidence against a common authorship. While the
Decretum can be linked to Ivo's letters, the treatment of the same material
in the Panormia rather teils against Ivo compiling it. The question remains
whether this is an isolated case or not. For this purpose, we can study other
material Ivo was interested in and compare the respective canons' fate in both
the Decretum and the Panormia.
The first observation is that the Decretum can be linked much more easily to the letters than the Panormia. In his famous letter to Hugh of Lyon, for
example, Ivo at the beginning quotes a long series of canons on the inviolability of canon Jaw tradition 58). These eight canons all seem to be taken from
the Decretum where they can be found closely together in book four 59). In
the Panormia, in contrast, six of the eight canons were dropped and one of
the remaining was misattributed""). Again there is little in the Panormia that
57) Epp. 289 (written at St Quentin), 231 (ca. 111 O?), 255, 262 (both written ca.
l 1l3x 1115). In addition, cf. lvo 's Sermo XVII (PL 162, 588-589)
ss) Ivo, ep. 60, ed. Ernst Sack ur in MGH Libelli de lite 2, 642-657, here 642643. Tbe otherwise excellent apparatus fonlium could be added to in two cases. One
passage at the beginning (ed. Sackur, 642, lines 20-22), not indicated as a quotation
by Sackur, is in fact lifted from Nicholas I, JE 2750 (MGH Epp. 6, 286) as found in
Decretum v, c. 39 (but not the Panormia). In addition, while Sackur indicated the Decretum parallels for almost all quotations in the letter, he failed to do so for the Leo IV
piece (ed. Sack ur, 643, lines 12-13) taken from Decretum iv, c. 210b (absent from
the Panormia). lt may also be worth mentioning that all canon law quotations in the
Ietter have a parallel either in the Decretum or in its formal sources, i. e. Tripartita A
and the Collectio Britannica.
59) Decretum iv, cc. 226, 197, 199a, 199b, 196, 204, 210b, 212.
60) Panormia iii, c. 4 (from Decretum iv, c. 197); Panormia ii, c. l 56b (from Decretum iv, c. 212) is attributed to Leo IV while both the Decretum and ep. 60 correctly
have Nicholas 1. Tbe error in the Panormia again results from an eye-slip.

120

Christof Ro lker

seems to reflect Ivo's preferences for certain material or his familiarity with
the texts he quoted in one of his most famous letters. Other letters show the
same pattern. Ivo's ep. 125, for example, one ofhis many letters on marriage,
also seems to quote from the Decretum, where all ofthe seven canon law texts
quoted can be found in book eigh~ 1 ). Only five of these texts reappear in the
Panormia, where they are distributed in two different books and thus placed
in a different contex~2 ). In addition, two of the texts are misattributed in the
Panormia, while both tbe Decretum and Ivo's letter bave tbe correct inscriptions63}. As in tbe case of ep. 287 discussed above, these letters confirm that
tbe Decretum but not the Panormia agrees with Ivo 's letters both in the selection of material andin baving tbe correct inscriptions.
lt would be easy to multiply tbese examples of letters quoting from tbe
Decretum but not tbe Panormia. Yet even more telling is the observation tbat
the Decretum not only simply contains the material lvo quotes in his letters but also displays similar preoccupations, wbile tbe Panormia does not.
Indeed often, Ivo in bis letters and sermons showed special interest in material wbich we find in prominent places in tbe Decretum but which is eitber
suppressed or displaced in the Panormia. In one ofbis sermons, for example,
lvo expounded tbe Creed of Union; this text is found in tbe Decretum at tbe
very beginning of the collection; in the Panormia it is dropped64). As in the
case oftbe Eucharist quotations treated above, tbe Panormia compiler seems
not especially interested in texts wbich were valued bighly by Ivo. Further,
tbe Decretum contains a small set of excerpts from Isidore of Seville on the
seven grades of tbe clergy, again prominently placed at tbe very beginning of
book six on priests and priestbood65 ). Tbis material is closely linked to one
Ivo's most influential works, bis sermon-tract on tbe Ordinals of Christ66). lt
may well be that Ivo gatbered this material in preparation ofthis work. In the
61

Ivo, ep. 125(PL162, 136-138) in this orderquotes from Decretum viii, cc. 263,
12, 13, 240a, 250, 45, 38.
62
) Decretum viii, cc. 12-3 (= Panormia vi, c. 74a-b), 38 (= Panonnia vi, c. 57),
240a (= Panormia vii, c. 3a), 250 (= Panonnia vii, c. 31 ).
63) Panormia vi, c. 74 is misattributed to 'Augustinus de bono coniugali', while ep.
125 and Decretum viii, cc. 12-3 both have 'Augustinus de nuptiis et concupiscentia'
which is indeed correct, cf. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia i, c. 11 (CSEL
42, 224).
64
) Decretum i, c. 3, which is the first canon after the title (' Hec prima pars continet
defide et sacramento fidei [.)') in all known mss.; however, two canons are placed
in front ofthe title. The sennon-tract is Sermo XVII (PL 162, 588-589).
65) Decretum vi, cc. 1-11.
66) Sermo II 'De excel/entia sacrorum ordinum' (PL 162, 513-519); cf. Reyn)

Ivo's Eucharist florilegium

121

Panormia, these texts were dropped completely. Another example are the first
canons of book five of the Decretum61). There is good reason to believe that
these too were of some importance to the compiler. Not only are they placed
first; they also contain much material not found in any earlier systematic
canon law collection, which suggests that the compiler took some effort to
gather these texts68 ). And it seems that the Decretum compiler and Ivo agreed
in their interest in these texts. Ivo frequently cited canons from this section
in his letters69). Among other canons, this Decretum section contains a forged
decretal stating that papal legates do not have the fullness of power; this corresponds well to Ivo's general reservations vis--vis legatine powers 70). In
addition, the Decretum is the first canon law collection to include a decretal
attributed to Nicholas 1 which lvo quoted frequently to argue against the supposed privileges of primates11 ). The Panormia compiler, however, did not
retain these Decretum texts as opening canons for the corresponding book in
o ld s, The Ordinals of Christ from their origins to the twelfth century (Berlin - New
York 1978), I00-106.
67
) Decretum v, cc. 1-56.
68) In contrast, the middle part ofbook five is almost identical to the corresponding
book in Burchard's collection.
69) Ivo quotes authorities found in Decretum v, cc. I-56 in epp. 8, 52, 60, 61, 65,
83, 95, 103, 159, 236.
10) Ps.-Gregory IV, JE t 2579 (MGH Epp. 5, 72-81). The extract in Decretum v,
c. II it is taken from Tripartita A 1.55, c. 32. In both collections, it is attributed to
Gregory I and has the rubric 'Quod vicarii Romanae ecclesiae non habent plenitudinem potestatis aposto/icae'. The text is found in the very same form in one ms of
the Collectio Brugensis (London, BL Cotton Cleopatra C.VIII, fol. 107v) which may
have been the source ofTripartita A here. On JE t 2579 cf. Robert Louis Benson, Plenitudo potestatis: evolution of a formula from Gregory N to Gratian, Studia
Gratiana 14 (1967), 193-217 and most recently Detlev Jas per, The beginning of
the decretal tradition: papal letters from the origin of the genre through the pontificate
of Stephen V, in idem/Horst Fuhrmann, Papal letters in the Early Middle Ages
(Washington/D. C. 2001), 3-133, here at 102-103; see also the correction in FowlerMagerl, A selection of canon law collections compiled between 1000 and 1140: access with data processing (Piesenkofen 2003), 148.
71 ) Ps.-Nicholas 1, JE t 2765 (MGH Epp. 6, 633-636). Tue text in Decretum v,
c. 56 is taken from Tripartita Al.62, cc. 50 and 74. Ivo quoted JE t 2765 in epp. 60,
65, 83 and 236. This interpolated form of JE t 2765 is not found in any earlier canon
law collection but was later widely dispersed, e. g. Panormia iv, c. 29, Collectio decem
partium v, c. 7, Catalaunensis 1 ix, c. 30 and Caesaraugustana 1 ii, c. 78. On JE t 2765
see fedor Schneider, Ein interpolierter Brief Papst Nikolaus 1. und der Primat
von Bourges, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde 32
(1907), 477-492, esp. 477.

itschrift fr Rechtsgeschichte. CXXIV. Kan. Abt.

122

Christof Rolker

his collection72 ). Instead, he tumed to texts overwhelmingly absent from the

Decretum13).
If we assume that both the Decretum compiler and the Panormia compiler
attached special importance to the texts they placed at the very beginning of
their books, this seems to suggest different preoccupations. There is something of a pattem here, for in only two cases did the Panormia compiler retain
a text found at the beginning of a Decretum book as the opening canon of a
Panormia book74). Indeed, often texts not found in the Decretum at all figure
prominently in the Panormia. The very first canons of the Panormia, which
must have had special importance to the compiler, are taken from sources
other than the Decretum, and the Papal Election Decree of l 059 the Panormia
compilerprominently placed at the very beginning ofhis third book is equally
absent from the Decretum75). And while the opening sections of many Parts
ofthe Decretum are regularly cited in Ivo's letters and sermons, the opening
sections ofthe Panormia books are not; more generally, none ofthe new material introduced by the Panormia, whether at the beginning of the books or
not, is cited in lvo's genuine works. His letters and sermons never discuss or
even quote any ofthe canon law material found only in the Panormia, while
they frequently draw on material found in the Decretum but not the Panormia.
Thus, the new Panormia material cannot be linked to Ivo's letters the way the
Decretum can be.
The findings of this study can be summarised briefly. Contrary to what
has been thought, the common authorship of Decretum and Panormia is far
from certain, and the Prologus found with both collections provides no cogent
proof that Ivo compiled the Panormia. As I have argued in detail above, the
Decretum and the Panormia in many respects display different preoccupa72

Decretum v, cc. 1-56; only seven canons reappear in the opening section of
Panormia iv, as observed by Jean Gaudemet, La Primaute romaine vue par Ives de
Chartres, in: Convergance: etudes offertes Marcel David (Quimper 1992), 173-189,
here at 174.
73
) Panormia iv, cc. 2-5, 8-10, 12, 17, 24, 30-35 are all taken from the Collection
in four books [4L]; there is nothing to indicate that this collection was known to Ivo.
4Lonly contributes a relatively small part ofthe Panormia material but can be seen to
have played an important part for this section. The remaining material is taken from
the Decretum.
74 ) Decretum viii, c. l = Panormia vi, c. l; Decretum x, c. l = Panormia viii, c. l.
75 ) Panormia i, cc. 1-6, not found in the Decretum, are taken from Ps.-Augustine,
De ecclesiae dogmatibus, cc. l-5 (PL 42, 1213-1215). On the transmission oftbe
Election Decree see Jasper, Das Papstwahldekret von 1059 (Sigmaringen 1986),
esp. 10-13 on Panormia iii, c. l.
)

lvo 's Eucharist florilegium

123

tions. Those of the Decretum compiler often can be linked to those of Ivo
in bis letters and sermons; those of the Panormia compiler cannot. While
the Panormia in general takes most of its texts from the Decretum, the treatment ofthis material differs significantly. In addition, the Panormia not only
contains many errors not found in the Decretum, it frequently misattributes
canons lvo was very familiar with, including the proof texts on the Eucharist
or marriage quoted in bis letters. This all tells against the supposed common
authorship of both collections, and in my opinion it specifically calls into
question the idea that Ivo compiled the Panormia.
Appendix: A provisional edition of lvo's ep. 287
The following edition is based on six manuscripts selected from a !arger
set of rnanuscripts containing 1vo 's letters; compared to the other manuscripts
collated, these six all provide a relatively good text. Two manuscripts each
represent three distinct branches of the tradition of lvo's epistolary. Berlin,
SPKB Phil. I694, foll. 5r-26r [Bb] and Cambridge, Jesus College Q.G.5
[Cd] contain a collection which originally contained only letters to ca. 1105.
This suggests that these manuscripts preserve a collection oflvo's letters that
circulated alread in bis lifetime. Two other manuscripts may also go back to
collections circulating before 1115: London, BL Royal 6.B.vi [Ln] from Rochester and Vat. Reg. lat. 147 [Vm]. The collection behind these manuscripts
contains Ivo's letters in chronological sequence, ending with ep. 189, which
was written in II 08. However, as ep. 189 ends in mid-text, the exemplar
behind this collection may have been an incomplete manuscript originally
containing more, and later, letters. On the other band, both manuscripts have
a very good text, and in addition, the Rochester copy is the earliest datable
manuscript oflvo's letter collection; by 1124 it bad reached StAndrew's, Rochester. Whether or not the collection it contains was made in Ivo's lifetime, it
is an irnportant branch ofthe transmission. The two Paris manuscripts, finally,
represent the so-called 'type II' of the letter collection76). 'Type II' contains
alrnost all known letters from Ivo's pontificate and was compiled shortly after
bis death; ep. 287 was added at an early stage. Having collated several 'type
II' manuscripts for a number oftexts including, where present, ep. 287, 1 have
chosen Paris, BN lat. 2893 [Pt] and I5165 [Qd] as representatives of this
group. The most common form oflvo's Jetter collection, the so-called 'type
On 'type I' and 'II' see Jean Lee lercq, La collection des lettres d'Yves de
Chartres, Revue benedictine 56 (l 946), 108-125. Contrary to what Leclercq claimed,
the latest Jetters in both collections date from 1115, i. e. the same year Ivo died.
16)

124

Christof Rolker

I' tradition, is closely related to 'type II' but contains ep. 287 only occasionally; if present, ep. 287 appears to be a relatively late addition to the respective manuscripts. For this reason, 1 have chosen not to extend my sample to
'type I' manuscripts.
The main goal of the text established this way is to provide a reasonably reliable basis for an analysis of the formal sources of ep. 287 as
presented above. lt does not claim to be more than a provisional edition;
indeed, given the complicated manuscript tradition of lvo's correspondence and the current stage of research, any such claims would be precarious at least.

10

15

[Bb: foll. 25rb-26ra; Cd: foll. 5r-6r; Ln: foll. 121v-l22v; Pt: foll. 220r22 I v; Qd: foll. 279r-28 l r; Vm: fol. 24r-v]
luo minimus Beluacensis ecclesie beati Quintini presbyter, Haimerico hone spei fratri: quod pie pulsat sibi patenter aperiri. 1
Litteras fraternitatis tue nuper accepi; neque enim domi eram quando ad
ecclesiam nostram perlate sunt, Lugdunum profectus occasione cuiusdam ecclesiastici negotii. Querit autem in litteris illisb fraternitas tua utrum Dominus
noster Jesus Christus in cena quam fecit cum discipulis ante passionem suam
dederit eis corpus suum passibile, cum nos illud de mensa altaris accipiamus
impassibile. Ad quam questionem si tibi respondeatur, discipulos Christi corpus Domini tale accepisse quale tune erat, nos uero tale accipere quale nunc
est, non uideo que auctoritas mihid contradicat, que rationis uiolentia me urgeat; immo, si aliter dicerem, repugnantem' uiderem rationem et auctoritatem.
Nam corpus illud quod tune discipulis suis Dominuss commendabat, adhuc
fuisse passurum, nemo esth qui abnuat; sicut tu ex auctoritate Dominica in litteris tuis posuisti: Hoc corpus quod pro uobis tradetur. 2 Passibile autem fuisse
quod passurum erat, quis deneget? Impassibile uero nunc esse quod sumimus.
tu ipse benei ex auctoritate ApostoJii confirmasti, quia Christus resurgens ex
mortuis iam non moritur, mors illi ultra non dominabitur. 3 Quomodo enimk si
figulus daret1 mihi uas fictile ante fornacem crudum et infirmum, post foma H. BbCd

istis BbCd
om. PtQd
d om. Pt
non uideo add.
PtQd
r mihi add. PtQd
a discipulis suis Dominus] Dominus discipulis
i om. PtQd
l apostolica
PtQd
k om.
suis BbCd
h om. BbCd
1
LnVm
om. PtQd
b

') Cf. Mt. vii, 7.

Luc. xxii, 19; l Cor. xi, 24.
Rom. vi, 9.

2)
3
)

Ivo 's Eucharist florilegium

125

cem uero redderet idemm coctum et firmum et humane utilitati commodum

'
20
quam utilitatem habere non posset nisi prius coctum esset: sie Christi corpus
ante passionem quale erat datum est discipulis passibile, quod per passionem
transiturum erat ad impassibilitatem. Nec cuiquam profuisset ad salutem infirmitas man passibilis corporis, nisi subsecuta fuisset glorificatio impassibilis et immortalis. Quomodo etiam posset mihi dicere figulus, uas quod tibi
25
do ante ignem inutile et infirmum, hoc statim0 reddam post ignem utile et
robustumP: ita Dominus noster Iesus Christus signanter'I dixit: Hoc corpus,
quodpro uobis tradetur; accipite; et subsequenter adiunxit: Hocfacite.' Hoc
dixit, non aliud; alterum tarnen futurum esse non negauit, quatinus relinqueret intellectui nostro corpus quod de Dominica mensa sumimus, eiusdem'
30
essentie; quod exemplo sue transfigurationis et documento sue auctoritatis
presignauerat suis discipulis futurum esse alterius glorie. Nec pretereundum
est ad huius rei discussionem, quod cum dixisset: Hoc facite, addidit, in meam
commemorationem.6 Que autem sit illa commemoratio, beatus Apostolus exponit dicens: Quotienscunque enim panem Domini accipimus et calicem1 bi35
bimus, mortem Domini annuntiamus donec ueniat. 7 Sicut ergo impassibilis
corporis assumptio Dominice mortis iam preterite est commemoratio, sicu
passibilis illius corporis acceptio eiusdem Dominice mortis adhuc future fuit
prenuntiatio. Nec refert quale tune acceptum fuerit uel modo accipiatur, sed
qua utilitate acceptum sit uel accipiatur. Et cum utriusque acceptionis unus
40
finis reperiatur, de qualitate rei que sumitur omnis dubitatio sopiatur. Sicut
enim cum esurio panis meus qualis sit non exquiro mollis an durus, fiigidus
an calidus; uinum quoque meum cum sitio non euro sapa sit an carenum; sed
hoc attendo, ut ruinas uentris reficiat et indigentie mee satisfaciat. Sie Christi
corpus quale sumptum sit a discipulis uel nunc sumatur a christicolis nil mea
45
interest; tantum illi utilitati satisfaciatw propter quam statutum est a Domino,
ut illud populus fidelis accipiat.
Item dixisti te herere in quibusdam uerbis beati Augustini conantis determinare uerba Domini duodecim Apostolos instruentis qui remanserant, septuaginta ferme retro abeuntibus. Sunt autem hec uerba: Non hoc corpus quod
om.PtQd
boratum BbCd
cipulis suis Bb

infirmitasilla]illainfinnitasLnVm
0 tibiadd.PtQd
Proq significanter Cd
' esse add. PtQd
suis discipulis] dis' eius add. PtQd
sicut Cd
tibi Cd
"' sufficiat Cd

Luc. xxii, 19; 1 Cor. xi, 24.

Ibid.
6 ) lbid.
7) l Cor. xi, 26.
4)

5)

----~

126
50

55

60

65

70

Christof Rolker

uidetis manducaturi estis neque bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt
il/i qui me crucifigent. Quod sie conuenienter intelligi potest, quia etY ipsum
est, et non ipsum. Ipsum quidem materiali essentia, sed non uisibi/i forma.
Vnde et subditur: 9 "Etsi' necesse est illud uisibiliter celebrari, necesse est tarnen inuisibiliter intelligi." Ipsi enim qui recesserunt, putabant quod carnes
Domini uiuentis bestiali more essent in frusta scissuri, et aut elixas uelaa assas
in uerubusb comesturi. Quod si nollent, non possent eius esseac discipuli. Nos
autem sie immolatum Christum manducamus et bibimus, ut integrum eum ad
dexteram Patris manere credamus. Et cumd semel in distinctione membrorumar suorum in manifestatione corporis sui se obtuleritag hostiam uiuentem,
passibilem et mortalem, quotidie tarnen sub uelamento panis et uini aah sancta
ecclesia immolatur, et non in partes scissum neque cruentum corpus eius fidelium ore percipitur; et hoc est quod dicitur: Non hoc corpus quod uidetis
manducaturi estis. 10 Neque enim quod de altari sumimus beatus Augustinus
uerum corpus esse negaret, quiai hoci in plerisque tractatuum suorum locis
euidenter affirmat. Vnde dicit in quodam sermone de uerbis Euangeliiak:11
"Quod uidetis in altaria1 panis est et calix, quod etiam oculi renuntiant; quod
autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus, calix est sanguis." Et interpositis quibusdam: 12 "Quomodo panis est corpusn, uel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis? Istaan, fratres, ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia aliud uidetur,
aliud intelligitur." Item" idem in Sermone ad neophytosP: 13 "Hoc accipite in
pane, quod pependit in cruce, hoc accipite in calice, quod manauit de Christi
latere." De hac item"'I inuisibili corporis Christi assumptione dicit Eusebius
Emisenus: 1 "Cum"' reuerendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis, sacrum Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide respice, honora, mirare, mente
1 om. BbCd
om. PtQd
ipsum. Ipsum quidem - etsi om. LnVm
aut LnVm
"" ueribus LnVm
" eius esse] esse eius PtQd
d se obtule distinctionem Cd
ar memborum Qd
111 se
rit add. LnVm (vide infra)
obtuleritom.LnVm(videsupra)
ab abBbCdLnVm
a1 quiaLnVm
ai hec
Cd
a1t Euangelii] Domini Euangelium LnVm
a1 altare BbCd
am caIix est sanguis. Et interpositis - panis est corpus om. Cd
"" Ita Qd
ao om.
PtQd
ap in sermone ad neophytos] ad neophitos in sermone BbCd
aq autem
LnVm
autem add. LnVm

Ep. 287.01: Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos xcviii, c. 8 (CCSL 39, 1386).

Ep. 287.02: ibid.
10) Ep. 287.03: ibid., c. 9 (CCSL 39, 1386).
11 ) Ep. 287.04: Augustine, Sermo CCLXXII (PL 38, 1246).
12 ) Ep. 287.05: ibid. (PL 38, 1247).
13) Ep. 287.06: Augustine, Sermo de sacramentis altaris ad infantes (PL 46, 827).
14) Ep. 287.07: Eusebius 'Gallicanus', Homilia XVII (CCSL 101, 198).
8)

9)

lvo's Eucharist florilegium

75

127

continge, manu cordis suscipe, et maxime totum haustuas interioris hominis

assume." Possem quidem de Scripturis in hanc sententiam plura colligere, sed
nunc ista sufficiant fraternitati tue. Vale.
haustum Bb

Possem quidem de scripturis - fratemitati tue om. PtQd