¹ Ratramnus, , De corpore et sanguine Domini 2 ed. Bakhuizen Van Den Brink, J. N., Ratramnus: De corpore et sanguine Domini: Texte établi d'après les manuscrits et notice bibliographique (Verhandelingen der koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 71, 1; Amsterdam 1954, pp. 33–60) 33 (= Van Den Brink). The translation essentially follows McCracken, George E., trans., ‘Ratramnus of Corbie: Christ's Body and Blood,’ Early Medieval Theology (Library of Christian Classics 9; Philadelphia 1957) 118 (= McCracken), with a few revisions of my own to bring the English closer to a literal rendering of the Latin text. McCracken's translation is based on Van Den Brink's critical edition of 1954. All my subsequent references to Ratramnus’ treatise give chapter and page numbers according to this edition. I have also consulted Van Den Brink's commentary on Ratramnus’ treatise and its editions: Van Den Brink 62–139. His 1974 edition has no changes that affect the substance of Ratramnus’ teachings: Ratramnus: De corpore et sanguine Domini, édition renouvelée (Amsterdam 1974) 45–69.Google Scholar

I am most grateful to Ann Professors E. Matter of the University of Pennsylvania and John Cavadini of the University of Notre Dame for their willingness to read and comment on earlier drafts of this article. I have also been greatly assisted by conversations and correspondence with David Ganz about the eucharistic writings of Corbie; he kindly sent me a copy of the relevant portions of his new book, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance (Francia: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte; Sigmaringen, Germany 1990; = Ganz, Corbie) before it had appeared in print. The article has grown out of an unpublished paper, ‘The Concept of Figura in the Carolingian Eucharistic Controversy,’ delivered at the Twenty-First International Congress on Medieval Studies (Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 10, 1986).

The following abbreviations, in addition to those noted above, are used throughout: Amann, L’Époque = Émile Amann, L’Époque carolingienne (Histoire de l’église 6; Paris 1947). Bouhot, Ratramne = Jean-Paul Bouhot, Ratramne de Corbie: Histoire littéraire et controverses doctrinales (Paris 1976). Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ = Marta Cristiani, ‘La controversia eucaristica nella cultura del secolo IX,’ Studi medievali 9 (1968) 167–233. Fahey, Ratramn = Fahey John F., The Eucharistic Teaching of Ratramn of Corbie (Pontificia Facultas Theologica Seminarii Sanctae Mariae ad Lacum, Dissertationes ad Lauream 22; Mundelein, Illinois 1951). Geiselmann, Eucharistielehre = Josef Geiselmann, Die Eucharistielehre der Vorscholastik (Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte 15, ed. Ehrhard A. and Kirsch J. P.; Paderborn 1926). De Lubac, Corpus

Mysticum = Henri De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum: L'Eucharistie et l’église au moyen âge (2nd ed., Paris 1949). Pelikan, Medieval Theology = Jaroslav Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300) (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 3; Chicago 1978). Peltier, Pascase = Henri Peltier, Pascase Radbert (Amiens 1938). Stock, Implications = Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton, NJ 1983).

² Ratramnus, , De corp. 5 (34 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

³ For the teachings of Paschasius Radbertus I have principally used the CCCM edition of Paschasius’ De corpore et sanguine Domini and of his letter to Fredugard, which responds to objections that Fredugard had raised to Paschasius’ views: ed. Paulus, B., Pascasius Radbertus: De corpore et sanguine Domini, cum appendice epistola ad Fredugardum (CCCM 16). I have focused on the second edition of the De corpore and the first edition of the letter. The treatise's second edition, which Paschasius prepared for presentation to Charles the Bald in ca. 843, is an expanded version of the one sent to Corvey in the early 830s. Subsequent editions of the treatise were not completed under Paschasius’ supervision. While additions were made to Paschasius’ text in the fourth edition, these are clearly marked in the CCCM volume. I have also referred to the CCCM edition of Paschasius’ commentary on Matthew, especially for his discussion of the account of the Last Supper in Matthew 26.26–29: ed. Paulus, B., Pascasii Radberti Expositio in Matheo Libri XII (I-IV) (CCCM 56–56B), esp. 56B. 1288–1298. The letter to Fredugard includes a portion of the same commentary.Google Scholar

⁴ Gottschalk's work is found (ascribed to Rabanus Maurus) in PL 112.1510–18, and in the critical edition by Lambot, D. C., Oeuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d'Orbais (Louvain 1945) 324–37. See also Rabanus Maurus (e.g., PL 112.1185f.); Amalarius, De ecclesiasticis officiis 3 (PL 105, esp. 1153f.). Two particularly good studies dealing with ninth-century eucharistic writings such as these, as well as with the works of Paschasius and Ratramnus, are Fahey, Ratramn, passim; and Cristiani, ‘Controversia,’ esp. 207–33. See also the earlier work of Geiselmann, Eucharistielehre; and De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum. Google Scholar

J-P. Bouhot argues that Ratramnus presented his treatise to Charles the Bald in 843 and that it was not meant as a direct rebuttal of the work by his abbot, Paschasius. I agree with Bouhot that Ratramnus’ treatise is not a direct refutation of Paschasius’ doctrine, although I argue this on different grounds. Bouhot's suggestion concerning the date is intriguing, but as David Ganz has recently noted, there is little concrete evidence to support it against the more usual assignment of Ratramnus’ De corpore to after 843. See Bouhot, Ratramne, esp. 77–88; Ganz, Corbie 88, and in general on the controversy between Paschasius and Ratramnus, 83–86 and 88–90.

⁵ So widely that it is impossible to review the entire bibliography here. Important, more recent discussions of Paschasius’ doctrine include the later studies among the works already cited in n. 4 (supra), as well as Stock, Implications 259–72; Pelikan, Medieval Theology 74–80. Among earlier studies from this century, besides those already mentioned, see esp. Peltier, Pascase, and Amann, L'Époque, 315–20.Google Scholar

⁶ See esp. Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 201–202; Ganz, Corbie 89. Cf. Pelikan, Medieval Theology, esp. 80; Fahey, Ratramn 49–52. Ambrose's influence on Ratramnus is generally less appreciated than his impact on Paschasius, however.Google Scholar

⁷ Again, the recognition of this aspect of Ratramnus’ teachings is so widespread that it is pointless to single out specific instances. Reference may be made to any of the scholarly literature discussing Ratramnus’ thought that has already been cited, though see especially the lengthy treatment by Fahey, Ratramn 82–129.Google Scholar

⁸ Esp. Ganz, Corbie 84–86, 88–90. See also Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 169–207; Fahey, Ratramn 47–55.Google Scholar

⁹ The interpretation, e.g., of Fahey, Ratramn 49–55.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Clear recognition is given to Paschasius’ creative handling of other sources in some more recent scholarly assessments of his work, in e.g. Ganz, , Corbie 84–85.Google Scholar

¹¹ Bouhot, , Ratramne 77–88. The perplexity of Henri Peltier led him to declare in frustration, ‘On cherche ce qui sous la plume de Radbert a pu provoquer cette accusation étrange, et l'on ne trouve pas, car sur ce point, il apporte les nuances voulues….’ And later: ‘Le mieux est de considérer ce début [of Ratramnus’ treatise, attacking the concept of a sensible presence] comme un procédé artificiel, “ab absurdo,” de notre auteur pour introduire sa propre thèse….’ Peltier, Pascase 205, 268. One reason that Bouhot feels justified in his redating of Ratramnus’ treatise, so as to suggest that it was not intended as a direct rebuttal to Paschasius’ De corpore, is the difficulty that he claims historians have experienced in finding a real opposition between the two works: Bouhot, Ratramne 81–82 (citing earlier literature).Google Scholar

¹² See Fahey, , Ratramn 163–65, where Fahey summarizes his position; Pelikan, Medieval Theology 74–80; Amann, L’Époque 318–20.Google Scholar

¹³ E.g., Paschasius argues against the notion (upheld by Ratramnus) that a body different from the one born of Mary might be present in the eucharist; he emphasizes (as Ratramnus does) that the eucharist is a figure as well as truth; and he seeks to reconcile the teachings of Augustine with his own, for instance, as expressed in Augustine's letter to Boniface on the meaning of sacramentum. Paschasius, Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16), e.g., 146, 147, 150.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ratramnus, , De corp. 2 (33 Van Den Brink); 11 (35f. Van Den Brink); 14 (37 Van Den Brink); 15 (37 Van Den Brink); 16 (37 Van Den Brink); 32 (42 Van Den Brink). Rabanus alluded to the controversy in his Penitential to Heribald 33, where he, too, uses a plural to indicate that the views being condemned (his own position corresponded mainly with that of Ratramnus) had been espoused by several persons. Despite this, Fahey thinks that Rabanus has only Paschasius in mind. Rabanus’ comment is quoted and discussed in Fahey, Ratramn 110.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Ratramnus, , De corp. 2 (33 Van Den Brink); 5 (34 Van Den Brink); and in general the remainder of the first half of his treatise (to chap. 50).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Paschasius discusses eucharistic miracles in chap. 14 of his treatise: Paschasius, De corp. 14 (CCCM 16.83–92, esp. 89–92).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bouhot (Ratramne 19–21), who similarly maintains that Ratramnus’ treatise was not intended as a direct refutation of Paschasius’ views, notes that it was not in Ratramnus’ character to engage directly in theological controversies with fellow-churchmen. Bouhot's dating of Ratramnus’ work (ibid. esp. 83–88) is discussed above, n. 4. On the level of education of the audiences of these works see Ganz, , Corbie 84, 86. Cf. Stock, Implications 263; Rosamond McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, 751–987 (London 1983) 118.Google Scholar

¹⁸ That Ratramnus’ opponents argued (at least sometimes) for a material change by which Christ's body and blood adopted the appearances of bread and wine is implied by statements made by one of the hypothetical (?) listeners to his arguments, who insists on the true presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist, and by Ratramnus’ responses to the listener: Ratramnus, De corp. 56 (48 Van Den Brink), 60 (49 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

¹⁹ The texts on which the following overview is based are cited in n. 3 supra. Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. especially Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 168–91; Pelikan, Medieval Theology 74–76; Peltier, Pascase 203–57. See also Geiselmann, Eucharistielehre 144ff.; Ganz, Corbie 83–86; Stock, Implications 265–68.Google Scholar

²¹ Paschasius, , De corp. 19 (CCCM 16.104f.): ‘Veritas enim Deus et Christus Veritas est, quia utique Deus. Propterea o homo si Veritas est, crede, caro Christi et sanguis quia uita est….’ See also, e.g., ibid. 1 (CCCM 16.15); 12 (CCCM 16.80); and again, Paschasius, Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.145, 146, 148, 154, 155, 156). Cf. also Paschasius, In Math. 2.2.12 (CCCM 56.168); 12.26.26 (CCCM 56B.1288). Paschasius’ emphasis on Christ's status as truth is discussed in Pelikan, Medieval Theology 76.Google Scholar

²² Cf. Peltier, , Pascase 225–28.Google Scholar

²³ Paschasius, E.g., De corp. 2 (CCCM 16.23); 9 (CCCM 16.53); 15 (CCCM 16.96). See also Paschasius, Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.146, 155). Cf. Peltier, Pascase 225f.Google Scholar

²⁴ The notion of the cleansing effect of the blood Christ shed is often the central theme of Carolingian soteriological thought. It is an idea that seems to receive more emphasis than the notion of Christ's sacrifice, even though the two concepts are frequently connected with each other. I have discussed this at greater length in my article ‘To Whom did Christ Pay the Price? The Soteriology of Alcuin's Epistola 307,’ Proceedings of the PMR Conference (Villanova, PA. 1989) 43–62. See also my dissertation, ‘The Cross, the Image, and the Passion in Carolingian Thought and Art’ (Yale University, Ph.D. diss. 1985) esp. 52–81, 285–317.Google Scholar

²⁵ Paschasius’ interest in this concept is discussed by Peltier, Pascase, e.g., 214–18, 227f.; see 240f. and esp. 245–49. Also De Lubac (who links it mainly to Augustine's influence), Corpus Mysticum e.g. 52f.; Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 185–86; Hilary, De Trinitate 8.13–14 (PL 10.245–247).Google Scholar

²⁶ Paschasius, , De corp. 21 (CCCM 16.112; see 113f., 116). But note the warning in De corp. 10 (CCCM 16.65) to distinguish Christ's flesh from our mortal flesh. See also ibid. 9 (CCCM 16.56f., 58f.); 12 (CCCM 16.79); 20 (CCCM 16.106). Our spiritual life, in which ‘we are configured and conformed to [God],’ is nourished by the eucharist: Paschasius, De corp. 20 (CCCM 16.107). Cf. ibid. 20 (CCCM 16.108). See also Paschasius, In Math. 12.26.29 (CCCM 56B.1296).Google Scholar

²⁷ Paschasius, , De corp. 7 (CCCM 16.37–40).Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. ibid. 9 (CCCM 16.57): the union of Christ's body and blood with our own is why it holds true that no one ascends into heaven except he who descends.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Paschasius, , De corp. 19 (CCCM 16.101 f.): ‘… sicut quidam uolunt, anima sola hoc mysterio pascitur, quia non sola redimitur morte Christi et saluatur, uerum etiam et caro nostra per hoc ad inmortalitatem et incorruptionem reparatur. Carne [carni] quidem [+ nostrae] caro [+ Christi] spiritaliter conuiscerata transformatur, ut et Christi substantia in nostra carne inueniatur, sicut et ipse nostram in suam constat adsumpsisse deitatem.’Google Scholar

³⁰ As Paschasius states already in De corp. 1 (CCCM 16.14f.), ‘Et quia uoluit figura panis et uini haec sic esse, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt. Unde ipsa Veritas ad discipulos: Haec, inquid, caro mea est pro mundi uita. Et ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane, quam quae nata est de Maria et passa in cruce et resurrexit de sepulchro….’ That Paschasius believed the body of the eucharist to be identical with the very flesh that hung on the cross is apparent from his insistence on the identity of the chalice with the blood from Christ's side; see, e.g. ibid. 11 (CCCM 16.72). On the objectivity of the eucharistic presence, see ibid. 2 (CCCM 16.21).Google Scholar

³¹ See Cristiani, , ‘Controversia’ 173–74. Cf. Stock, , Implications 260.Google Scholar

³² Paschasius, E.g., De corp. 2 (CCCM 16.23). See ibid. 1 (CCCM 16.17); 4 (CCCM 16.27f.); 8 (CCCM 16.41); 9 (CCCM 16.52, 53); Paschasius, Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.149, 151). As noted earlier, Paschasius repeatedly indicates that Christ's body and blood remain imperceptible in the eucharist: e.g., Paschasius, De corp. 1 (CCCM 16.15, 18); 3 (CCCM 16.24); 4 (CCCM 16.27f., 30); 10 (CCCM 16.68); cf. 12 (CCCM 16.77); Paschasius, Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.148). In places, however, his comments evoke thoughts of something approaching a physical body and blood. It may be that this reveals an attentiveness to Augustine's emphasis on the continued corporality of Christ's body after the resurrection, in light of Paschasius’ desire to identify the eucharistic presence with the crucified body that had risen from the dead. Thus a certain corporality or physicality of the eucharistic blood and body is suggested by the reference in chap. 14 of the treatise to miraculous apparitions associated with the consecrated elements: Paschasius, De corp. 14 (CCCM 16.85–92, esp. 89–92). Still more, it is intimated by the highly materialistic language Paschasius often uses to emphasize the reality of the sacred presence in the bread and wine, language that sometimes seems to come close to ignoring the continued presence, as well, of the material features of the bread and wine or the perceptibility of those features alone to the corporal senses. E.g., Paschasius, De corp. 1 (CCCM 16.15): To ‘see’ Christ's flesh in the eucharist is comparable to the experience of seeing him on the cross ‘in the form of a servant.’ Ibid. 8 (CCCM 16.42): Recipients of the eucharist must learn ‘to taste’ and ‘to see’ other than with the bodily senses. Ibid. 3 (CCCM 16.24): ‘… uis diuina ex hoc mentes credentium ad inuisibilia instruit ac si uisibiliter ea monstraret quae interius praestat ad effectum salutis….’ (‘… the divine power instructs the minds of believers concerning the invisible things as if it showed the same things visibly which it offers inwardly to effect salvation’). Ibid. 2 (CCCM 16.22): ‘… si recte sapimus uel recte percipimus, diuinus Spiritus qui in nobis est, etiam et per eandem gratiam ampliatur eosdemque sensus nostros ad ea percipienda instruit et componit ita sane, ut non solum gustum interius ad mistica perducat, uerum et uisum atque auditum necnon odoratimi et tactum ita tenus inlustrat quodammodo, ut nihil in eis nisi diuina sentiantur nihilque nisi caelestia.’ ('… if we taste or behold rightly [the eucharistic elements], the Holy Spirit which is in us both fills [us] through grace and instructs our senses for the reception of those things, and arranges things properly, so that it not only inwardly guides taste toward mystical things, but also in a certain manner illumines according to sight and hearing and smell and touch, such that in [the eucharistic bread and wine] nothing except divine and heavenly things are sensed’). Cf. Hesychius, Commentarius in Leviticum (PG 93.1071C–72B).Google Scholar

The impact of this way of thinking about the eucharistic presence is also noticeable where, in chap. 7 of his treatise, Paschasius talks about the relationship between the eucharistic body and the other modes in which he recognized that Christ's body might also be said to exist: Paschasius, De corp. 7 (CCCM 16.37–40). Foremost among these is the body equated with the Church, of which Christ is the head. Here Paschasius preserves the eucharist's unique identity with the historical body and its unique right to be called Christ's flesh as well as body; but at the same time he highlights the interdependence of the eucharist and the Church by emphasizing the eucharist's role, as Christ's flesh as well as his body, to join the believer who consumes it more firmly to the body of Christ which is the Church, because the very body with which the faithful person desires this union is now within that individual and has become part of his or her own physical being. The faithful partaker of the eucharist fulfills within himself the promise of St. Paul, which Paschasius applies to the union of the Church with Christ, that ‘… they will be two in one flesh’; for his consumption of the eucharist enables the body of the Church to become the true flesh of Christ. On Paschasius’ teachings in this chapter see also Geiselmann, Eucharistielehre 150; Peltier, Pascase esp. 214–19; De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum, esp. 39–41; Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 179–80. Augustine's understanding of the resurrected body is discussed toward the end of this article. See further De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum 147–48; also on Ambrose's different way of thinking, ibid. 145–47, 148f., and 150–54 on the impact of these two different conceptions on later writers, in particular Paschasius and Ratramnus. Cf. (quoting De Lubac) Fahey, Ratramn 93.

³³ Paschasius, , De corp. 5 (CCCM 16.31–34); cf. 7 (CCCM 16.39); 9 (CCCM 16.54); 10 (CCCM 16.68, 70f.); 21 (CCCM 16.111). Paschasius, Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.158). Cf. Ambrose, De sacramentis esp. 4.Google Scholar

³⁴ Paschasius, , De corp. 4 (CCCM 16.28). Cf. Peltier, Pascase 205; Stock, Implications 262f. Ambrose refers to the eucharist as figure in quoting the canon of the Mass: Ambrose, De sacram. 4.5. For Augustine, see e.g. De doctrina christiana 3.16.24 (CCL 32.92).Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Paschasius, , De corp. 5 (CCCM 16.31–34).Google Scholar

³⁶ Augustine, , De doct. Christ. esp. 2–3 (CCL 32.32–116).Google Scholar

³⁷ Augustine, , De doct. Christ. 2.10 (CCL 32.41); cf. 2.16 (CCL 32.48f.).Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Augustine, , De doct. Christ. 2.16 (CCL 32.48f.); 2.25 (CCL 32.60); but esp. 3.25 (CCL 32.97–99).Google Scholar

³⁹ See the references already indicated to the imperceptibility of the eucharistic presence (n. 32 supra), which generally imply the need for faith in order to recognize the existence there of Christ's flesh and blood. See also Paschasius, De corp. 13 (CCCM 16.83–85); 4 (CCCM 16.28) (emphasizing the dissimilarities); cf. 3 (CCCM 16.23). See ibid. 10 (CCCM 16.65–71), concerning the points of similarity that justify the celebration of the eucharist in bread and wine. Cf. ibid. 19 (CCCM 16.101–105).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Mention should also be made of the relation of Paschasius’ assertion of an historical presence to his concept of the eucharist as a sacrament. As Geiselmann made apparent, Paschasius’ belief in the presence of the very body and blood of the crucifixion informs the definition he proposes of the term sacramentum. Briefly, whereas other contemporary Carolingian writers may be identified who adhere essentially to Augustine's distinction between a sacrament and the reality to which it refers, the res sacramenti, Paschasius defines sacramentum so as to imply at least the possibility that the res is invisibly contained within the sacrament. Paschasius, De corp. 3 (CCCM 16.23). See Geiselmann, , Eucharistielehre esp. 146–48; Ganz, Corbie 85f. Geiselmann emphasizes Isidore's influence on the definition given by Paschasius. So, too, does Peltier, Pascase 203f.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ambrose, , De incarnationis Dominicae sacramento 10 (PL 16.817–846, at 845A). Augustine also associates caracter with Christ in writing against the Donatists, but not with Hebrews 1.3 in mind. See N. Häring, M., ‘Character, Signum und Signaculum: Die Entwicklung bis nach der karolingischen Renaissance,’ Scholastik: Vierteljahresschrift für Theologie und Philosophie 30 (1955) 492. In general on Augustine's employment of the term, see N. M. Häring, ‘St. Augustine's Use of the Word Character,’ Mediaeval Studies 14 (1952) 79–97.Google Scholar

⁴² Paschasius, , De corp. 4 (CCCM 16.29, see 30). See the brief comments on Paschasius’ employment of the word ‘character’ by Stock, Implications 262f., 266f.Google Scholar

⁴³ Paschasius, , De corp. 4 (CCCM 16.29, 30).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 4 (CCCM 16.29).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Paschasius, , De corp. 4 (CCCM 16.29).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 4 (CCCM 16.29–30).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Paschasius, , De corp. 4 (CCCM 16.30).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Paschasius, , Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.146); Augustine, De doct. Christ. 3.16 (CCL 32.91f.).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Paschasius, , Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.148).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid. The reference is to De corp. 4.Google Scholar

⁵¹ A distinction between a caracter and the thing it represents is clearly made in Paschasius’ commentary on Jeremiah, in a reference to the letter ‘Tau’: Paschasius, In Lam. Jerem. 1, PL 120.1101B. Passage quoted in Häring, ‘Character, Signum, und Signaculum’ (see n. 41 supra) 508, cf. n. 30.Google Scholar

⁵² Häring, ‘Character, Signum, und Signaculum’ 482; on the evolution of the Latin usage of the word in the early middle ages see ibid., passim. Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid. 488.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid. 492; see 494. See also idem, ‘St. Augustine's Use of the Word Character’ (see n. 41 supra) passim. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ This is suggested with more hesitancy by Häring, ‘Character, Signum, und Signaculum’ 508.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ambrose, , De incarn. 10 (PL 16.817–846, at 845A). The translation follows Deferrari, Roy J., trans., Saint Ambrose: Theological and Dogmatic Works (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 44: Washington, D.C. 1963) 259.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Häring identifies Smaragdus of St.-Mihiel as another Carolingian who adopted the caracter-version of Hebrews 1.3: ‘Character, Signum, und Signaculum’ 508 and n. 26. On the more common Carolingian association of caracter with letters see ibid. 508f. Paschasius’ rather defensive remark in the letter to Fredugard that his version of Hebrews 1.3 is found in ‘some codices’ may indicate that Fredugard and others, such as Ratramnus, had queried his rendering of the passage. See Paschasius, , Ep. ad Fred. (CCCM 16.148).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Stock, , Implications 266f.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The discrepancies between the thought of Ratramnus and Ambrose are mentioned, e.g., by Fahey, Ratramn esp. 50–52; Stock, Implications 272; Van Den Brink 131. See Bouhot, , Ratramne 154; Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 201–202. Also Ganz, Corbie 89, who notes that Ratramnus ‘reinterprets’ a passage from Ambrose.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ratramnus, , De corp. 76–77 (53f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See, e.g., Fahey, Ratramn 37f.; Pelikan, Medieval Theology 75; Bouhot, Ratramne 146; Stock, Implications 268.Google Scholar

⁶² Ratramnus, , De corp. 6–49 (34–46 Van Den Brink) discusses the first question; ibid. 50–101 (46–60 Van Den Brink) discusses the second question.Google Scholar

⁶³ E.g., Pelikan, Medieval Theology 76f.; Van Den Brink 129f.; Stock, Implications 268f.; Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 192–94; Bouhot, Ratramne 147–53; Fahey, Ratramn 56–81. See also the concise remarks by Ganz, Corbie 88f.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ratramnus, , De corp. 7–8 (34f. Van Den Brink). My translation basically follows that by McCracken 119f. I deviate from McCracken's version at points where I have decided that analysis of Ratramnus’ thought requires a more literal rendering of his text.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Fahey, , Ratramn esp. 58–60, and citing previous literature 47f.; Van Den Brink 130; Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ esp. 194–98.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ratramnus, , De corp. 86–88, 97–100 (56, 59–60 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid. 97 (59 Van Den Brink). Translation follows McCracken 146.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid. 100 (60 Van Den Brink). Translation follows McCracken 147, with slight emendations.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ratramnus, , De corp. 9 (35 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. 19 (38 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid. 72 (52 Van Den Brink); translation follows McCracken 138, with slight emendations. See also Ratramnus, De corp. 69 (51f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷² Ratramnus, , De corp. 16 (37 Van Den Brink); translation follows McCracken 123, with emendations.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ratramnus, , De corp. 9 11, 27, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 47, 57, 62, 72, 74, 89, 95, 96, 97, 101 (35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 59, 60 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid. esp. 20–24 (38–40 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid. 59–60 (49 Van Den Brink). Translation follows McCracken 135, with emendations. See also Ratramnus, De corp. 52 (47 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Ratramnus, e.g., De corp. 9–12, 16, 42–43, 45, 47–49, 52, 54, 57, 62, 71–72 (35f., 37, 45, 46, 47f., 48f., 50, 52 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ratramnus, , De corp. 15 (37 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid., e.g., esp. 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, 28, 29, 42, 49, 60, 77 (35, 36f., 37, 38, 41, 45, 46, 49, 53f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid. see 40, 73, 75 (44f., 52f. Van Den Brink); cf. 37, 38 (43f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Despite the short passage from De doctrina christiana that Ratramnus quotes in chap. 33: Ratramnus, De corp. 33 (42 Van Den Brink); Augustine, De doct. Christ. 3.16 (CCL 32.92). My analysis of how Ratramnus uses Augustine's concept of figure differs somewhat from that offered by Fahey, Ratramn esp. 58–60.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ratramnus, , De corp. 9–11 (35f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid. 86–88, and esp. 97, 100 (56, 59f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁸³ Cf. Ratramnus, , De corp. 89 (56 Van Den Brink): the eucharist is ‘what is done on the way’ and as such must be received spiritually. The implication is that the spiritual presence in the eucharist helps the faithful keep in mind what will come when ‘the way’ has been followed to its end.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ E.g.: ‘Et pignus enim et imago alterius rei sunt, id est non ad se sed ad aliud aspiciunt. pignus enim illius rei est pro qua donatur imago illius cuius similitudinem ostendit. significant enim ista rem cuius sunt, non manifeste ostendunt. quod cum ita est apparet quod hoc corpus et sanguis pignus et imago rei sunt futurae ut quod nunc per similitudinem ostenditur in futuro per manifestationem reueletur. quod si nunc significant in futuro autem patefacient, aliud est quod nunc geritur aliud quod in futuro manifestabitur’ (‘For both the pledge and the image are of something else [other than themselves], that is, they do not look towards themselves but towards another thing. For it is the pledge of that thing on behalf of which it is given; it is the image of something whose likeness it shows. These signify the thing of which they are [pledge and image]; they do not show it openly. Since it is thus, it seems that this body and blood are the pledge and the image of something to come, so that what is now shown through a likeness will in the future be revealed [unveiled] through a manifestation. But if they now signify, in the future they will reveal that what is involved now is one thing and what will be manifested in the future is another’). Ratramnus, De corp. 86 (56 Van Den Brink). The translation by McCracken 142f. differs in several places from my own. See also Christiani, ‘Controversia’ 202.Google Scholar

A separation of the eucharist from the reality it designates is also suggested by Ratramnus’ discussion of the eucharist as a sacrament (esp. Ratramnus, De corp. 35–48 (42–46 Van Den Brink), as Geiselmann indicated, in Eucharistielehre esp. 147–49. Sacraments bear a resemblance ‘with the things they represent,’ Ratramnus affirms: Ratramnus, De corp. 37 (43f. Van Den Brink). The actions of the Mass recall the circumstances of the Passion and Resurrection and especially Christ's sacrifice on the cross, without actually repeating that sacrifice: ibid. see 38–40 (44f. Van Den Brink). Cf. (concerning Christ's present inability to suffer or die) ibid. 76–77 (53f. Van Den Brink). As other scholars have observed, these comments are based on Augustine's letter on sacraments to Bishop Boniface: Augustine, Ep. 98 (PL 33.359–364). With this letter as support Ratramnus claims that a sacrament must necessarily be distinguished from the res sacramenti and that therefore, once more, the historical body and blood (the res sacramenti) are different from the body and blood celebrated in the Mass, despite their points of resemblance: Ratramnus, De corp. 36–37 (43f. Van Den Brink). See Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 197; Fahey, Ratramn 88f.; cf. Ganz, Corbie 89. Excerpts from Isidore are employed to underscore the distinction, too, between the eucharist's outer, sensible characteristics which obscurely hint at another reality and the spiritual and imperceptible presence which the faithful contemplate through their minds or souls and which is the source of its efficacy: see Ratramnus, De corp. 40–46 (44–46 Van Den Brink); esp 46 (46 Van Den Brink); Isidore, Etymologiae 6.19.38–40, 42. Also Ratramnus, De corp. 47–48 (46 Van Den Brink) where Ratramnus reworks Isidore in order to ask: ‘Quid istinc perdocemur nisi quod corpus et sanguis domini propterea misteria dicuntur quod secretam et reconditam habeant dispositionem? id est, aliud sint quod exterius innuant et aliud quod interius inuisibiliter operenter. Hinc etiam et sacramenta uocitantur quia tegumento corporalium rerum uirtus diuina secretius salutem accipientium fideliter dispensat.’ (‘What are we taught from this except that the Lord's body and blood are called mysteries because they possess a secret and hidden disposition, that is, in one respect they outwardly hint [at something], and in another they work [something] inwardly and invisibly? Hence also they are commonly called sacraments because under the cover of corporal things the divine power secretly dispenses the salvation of those who receive it with faith.’ Translation follows McCracken 132, with slight emendations.) Nothing in such remarks, either, suggests that this source of sacred power in the eucharist can be identified with Christ's historical and sensible body and blood. The influence of Isidore on Ratramnus’ concept of sacrament is emphasized by Geiselmann, Eucharistielehre esp. 149. See also Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ esp. 202–205. Cf. Fahey, Ratramn 47f. for earlier literature.

⁸⁵ Ratramnus, , De corp. 51–69 (47–52 Van Den Brink) (Ambrose); 70–71 (52 Van Den Brink) (Jerome); 78–83 (54f. Van Den Brink) (Augustine); 90–92 (57f. Van Den Brink) (Fulgentius); 93–96 (58f. Van Den Brink) (Augustine); 85–88 (55f. Van Den Brink) (liturgy).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ More comprehensive analyses of Ratramnus’ usage of his sources can be found in Cristiani, ‘Controversia’ 194–207; Ganz, Corbie 89; Fahey, Ratramn 47–55, 58–60, 64–76, 86–95; see also 118–129; Van Den Brink 130–32.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ This is the basic theme of Ratramnus’ discussion of Jerome's remarks, for example, which is used to introduce a short analysis of the eucharist's relationship with the body of Christ formed by the faithful. Ratramnus, De corp. 73–75 (52f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See n. 84 supra. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ratramnus, , De corp., see 56–59, but even more 60–65, 76–77, (48f., 49–51, 53f. Van Den Brink). Chapters 56 and 60 introduce the issue through challenges aimed at Ratramnus by hypothetical (?) listeners who insist on the true presence of Christ's body and blood.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid. 76–77 (53f. Van Den Brink). That Ratramnus believed the eucharist to hold a true body and a true blood of Christ that were distinct from the historical body and blood was also argued by Fahey, Ratramn esp. 82–129, although without any clear explanation of how Ratramnus understood the eucharist's purely spiritual contents as in fact ‘body’ and ‘blood.’Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ratramnus, , De corp. 61–65 (49–51 Van Den Brink). Fahey, Ratramn 49–51.Google Scholar

⁹² See Fahey, , Ratramn 51 and n. 94 where he quotes De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum 148ff.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ratramnus, , De corp. 61 (49f. Van Den Brink). Ambrose, De mysteriis 9.58. Translation follows McCracken 135, with slight emendations.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ratramnus, , De corp. 62–64 (50 Van Den Brink). See Fahey, , Ratramn 50f.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See De Lubac, , Corpus Mysticum 147f.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ratramnus, , De corp. 62 (50 Van Den Brink). Ratramnus reiterates this claim concerning Christ's resurrected body in ibid. 89 (56f. Van Den Brink). Cf. De Lubac (who points to this portion of Ratramnus’ treatise as evidence that Ratramnus was too Augustinian to accept completely the spiritualism of Ambrose), Corpus Mysticum 151f.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ratramnus, , De corp. 65 (50 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid. 76–77 (53f. Van Den Brink). Translation follows McCracken 139f., with slight emendations.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ratramnus, , De corp. 85–86; cf. 87–88 (55f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ambrose, , De myst. 9.58.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Augustine, , De civitate Dei 13.22. Translation by Henry Bettenson, Augustine: Concerning the City of God Against the Pelagians (Harmondsworth 1972) 536. The passage is also noted in De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum 147 n. 44.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Augustine, , De civ. Dei 13.17–24; 22.5–21, 25–30. See De Lubac, , Corpus Mysticum 147ff.; cf. Fahey, Ratramn 51, 93.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ratramnus, , De corp. 86 88, 97, 100 (56, 59, 60 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. 22–25 (39f. Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ This is made evident when Ratramnus declares, in chap. 84, that, ‘… what are the same are included in a single definition,’ which he goes on to repeat is not the case with the eucharistic and historical bodies. Ratramnus, De corp. 84 (55 Van Den Brink).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ For literature arguing along these lines, and studies offering other similar interpretations, see Fahey, , Ratramn 95–99.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (rev. ed. New York 1978) 440–49, esp. 446–49.Google Scholar