[In the following essay, Purday discusses the theological issues described in the Diffinicio Eucaristie,, arguing that the work, whose authorship has been under dispute, should be attributed to Grosseteste.]

The philosophical and scientific works of Robert Grosseteste, first chancellor of Oxford University and Bishop of Lincoln from 1235 until his death in 1253, have in recent decades received considerable attention.¹ His theological works, however, have been somewhat neglected. Edward Brown published some of the sermons and Dicta in 1690,² a few of the sermons have been individually published,³ and there has been a recent publication of sixteen Dicta in translation.⁴ These, together with a few other individual pieces, represent the sum total of the printed theological works of Grosseteste. Of all his theological writings, his treatise on the Eucharist is particularly interesting since it provides an insight into the state of Eucharistic theology well after the Berengarian controversy but before the full impact of Aristotelianism was felt.

As far as is known, Robert Grosseteste's treatise on the Eucharist is to be found in only one place in the manuscript collections. Professor Harrison Thomson, who made an extensive survey of all the manuscripts known to contain works of Grosseteste,⁵ found that this treatise exists only in MS. B. 15. 20 of Trinity College, Cambridge, although, as he stated, it may still turn up elsewhere in an as yet unrecorded manuscript.

MS. B. 15. 20 is made up of two distinct collections of his works. They are written on vellum measuring 11[frac38] × 8[frac18] inches. At least two scribes were involved in the work and the script would point to a date somewhere in the second half of the fourteenth century. The numbering of the manuscript is by columns, two to a page, until column 742 after which the numbering is by folia with the exception of the single page immediately following column 742 which is numbered 743. The section numbered by columns contains the first collection of Grosseteste's works: the 147 Dicta, misnumbered 148; sixteen Sermons including the De Confessione and Templum Domini. These are all written by one hand whom we may call scribe A. Scribe B then took over and he wrote the De Confessione, this time as a separate treatise; the Diffinicio Eucaristie; and Epistola 128. Whereas scribe B took over from Scribe A with no gap, after letter 128, half of column 522 and the whole of columns 523 to 526 are blank. Scribe A then resumes on a new sheet of vellum on which he starts at column 527 the De Cessacione Legalium which is followed by the De Decem Mandatis. This last item in the first collection is incomplete. The second collection starts on what is marked as page 743 with twelve sermons followed by the 147 Dicta, Excerpta Notabilia from letters 2 to 89, and lastly a fragment of the De Regimine Principum not by Grosseteste at all but by Egidius Romanus.⁶

When we turn to the history of this manuscript, we are faced with an even more confusing picture although it does provide some internal evidence. The binding, which is not modern, is uninformative especially as it was re-backed, probably in the 1930s. Tracing its history in reverse chronological order, we know that it was in Trinity College Library by 1697 since it is listed as no. 284 in Bernard's catalogue of that year.⁷ Edward Brown, whose notes are on the manuscript, saw it in the Library in 1688,⁸ and by following up an old cataloguing number on the front paste-down, it can be ascertained that it was in the Library as C 3 29 in 1667 from the Library catalogue of that year.⁹ Between that date and its previous known owner there is an unfortunate lacuna. James, when he described the manuscript,¹⁰ was unable to trace the donor and there certainly appears to be no trace of the manuscript in the College's Memoriale.¹¹ From internal evidence the next known fact is that the manuscript was at some time in the possession of Henry, Earl of Northampton since we find his ‘H. Northampton’ on folio 1. This pinpoints his ownership as being between 1606, when he was created Earl, and 1614, the time of his death. James suggests that it may have been he who gave the manuscript to Trinity College,¹² but with the lack of evidence this can only be treated as a possibility. The next owner back in time was Henry Savile of Banke and the manuscript can be identified as no. 16 in his catalogue.¹³ We know little about his ownership except that it must have been some time before 1614 when the subsequent owner, the Earl of Northampton, died. Henry Savile probably obtained the manuscript from Dr. John Dee whose ‘44’ marks are on folio 1 and whose hand occurs passim. His ownership must date from 1583 at the latest since the manuscript is probably the one entered as no. 63 in his catalogue of that year¹⁴ although this is by no means certain since the De Oculo Morali mentioned in the description is no longer in the manuscript.¹⁵ Dr. Dee wrote in his diary that he first came to know a Mr. Savile on 3 February 1582¹⁶ and there are further references to him in the entries for 14 June, 15 June, and 5 July 1596.¹⁷ If, as seems highly probable, the ‘Mr. Harry Savill, the antiquary’¹⁸ is the same man who later owned the manuscript,¹⁹ it would indicate that it came into his possession in all probability some time after the start of their acquaintance in 1582 but not earlier than 1583.

The last clue we have for the history of the manuscript is supplied by the antiquary Thomas Talbot. He saw the manuscript about the year 1580 and described it in his notebook as item 46.²⁰ There are two interesting but tentative conclusions that can be drawn from this. The first is that it seems likely from his description of the manuscript that the whole of Egidius' De Regimine Principum was still present. It is possible, therefore, that this same work was wrongly described as the De Oculo Morali in Dee's catalogue which does contain discrepancies. This, of course, cannot be substantiated. The more profitable, although still tentative, conclusion is that the manuscript originally came from a monastery in Yorkshire. We lack the final clue that would clinch the exact provenance, but we do know that all the manuscripts seen by Talbot were northern and that he saw them in or around York.²¹ If we link this with the fact that some of Dee's manuscripts and a great number of Savile's are known to have come from Yorkshire and other northern monasteries, there is a strong likelihood that the manuscript of Grosseteste's works has the same pedigree.²²

There must be some doubt as to Grosseteste's authorship of the treatise on the Eucharist in view of its solitary appearance in the manuscript collections and the relatively late date of the manuscript containing it. It is certainly strange that it is known to exist in only the one manuscript, but it would not be the first time that a work has been preserved in one copy and, as said before, it may still turn up elsewhere. The late date of the manuscript, at least a hundred years after Grosseteste's death, certainly casts doubt on the veracity of the ascription. Apart, however, from the fragment of the De Regimine Principum of Egidius Romanus which is to be found right at the end of the manuscript, all the other works are ascribed to Grosseteste and are accepted as his. The position of the treatise on the Eucharist in the middle of the first collection of works and the explicit ascription to Grosseteste both support his authorship.

Internal evidence from the treatise itself also adds weight to this view. The simple use of Greek in the opening lines to explain the meaning of Eucharistia not only points to Grosseteste as author, but also, if we accept his authorship, goes some way to pinpointing the dates between which the treatise was probably written, and the analogy with the sun in column 519, line 19 is reminiscent of certain passages from the De Luce. Accepting that Grosseteste is likely to be the author, we can ascertain from the one elementary use of Greek that this treatise must predate the time when he seriously set about learning the language, which we can place as about 1231 to 1235.²³ Such a use of Greek to explain a simple etymology bears comparison with his notes on Psalms i-lxxxix which he made before 1231.²⁴ At the same time it is unlikely that Grosseteste would have written the treatise prior to his return to Oxford about 1214 after his studies in Paris.²⁵ It seems likely, therefore, that it was written some time during the period 1214 to 1231.

The treatise may well be notes for a sermon or lecture. The ideas it expresses are frequently disjointed with the result that it often reads like a series of headings or shorthand jottings. Despite its awkwardness, however, the work is of great value. Grosseteste was familiar with several of Aristotle's works and was indeed responsible for translations and commentaries which were written either by himself or under his direction.²⁶ He was therefore more acquainted with the philosopher than were most people at the time. The result of his contact with Aristotle was a willingness to employ the philosopher's terms and ideas when he found them useful, while remaining firmly rooted in the school of thought which is loosely called Augustinian. The effect is an unusual mingling which at first can be confusing.

Probably the most interesting theological issue dealt with in the treatise is the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist and it is precisely in this area that we come across a striking use of Aristotelian terminology. Grosseteste employs the terms substantia and substantialis on six occasions²⁷ but their connotation is very different to that attached to them in, for example, the oath presented to Berengar at the Council of Rome in 1079.²⁸ The term transsubstantiatus is to be found in a decree promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council in November 1215²⁹ and again its meaning there is quite different to that attached to its cognates by Grosseteste at about the same time. Certainly by 1273, when Thomas Aquinas was writing the Tertia Pars of the Summa, it was the common practice to assert that although some people had stated that the substances of bread and wine remained after the consecration, this position was to be avoided as heretical.³⁰

Grosseteste was not always on the best of terms with the papacy thanks to his denunciations of what he considered to be various abuses of power. Despite this his reputation as a theologian remained untarnished so it is likely that his use of the term substantia was sufficiently orthodox in England at that time. Indeed he identifies sacramental with substantial change³¹ but then goes on to say that the change takes place without affecting the substance of the bread.³² He is well aware of the opinion held by some that the substance of the bread is changed, but he prefers to compare the Body of Christ in the Eucharist with oil in a jar: ‘Just as the jar is seen and not the oil, so the bread is seen and not the body of Christ.’³³

It is interesting that such a view could be put forward during the first quarter of the thirteenth century and not provoke any reaction. It seems likely, however, that although transubstantiation became the only orthodox method of describing the Eucharistic change on the Continent, thanks very largely to the Aristotelian influence of Paris University, English theology, dominated by the more Augustinian outlook first of Oxford and then of Cambridge as well, remained outside the mainstream of Aristotelianism and retained a more eclectic approach. Such an approach showed itself, for example, during the following century in the Eucharistic theology of Wyclif who knew and made use of the writings of both St. Augustine and Grosseteste.³⁴ The debt of Grosseteste himself to Augustine is considerable. Although only quoting him explicitly once in the treatise on the Eucharist, there are many passages which contain echoes of his thought which give a distinctly Augustinian tone to the whole work.

Unfortunately the text of the treatise in the manuscript is roughly written. The scribe has not been consistent with his contractions and would appear to have made some mistakes while copying. Until such time as another copy of the Diffinicio Eucaristie is found and a textual comparison made, the present text cannot be accepted as anything but an interim measure. With regard to the text, the following procedure has been adopted. All letters which have been omitted by means of suspension or contraction are shown in italics. Where there has been any special doubt as to the correct reading, there is a footnote to that effect. The punctuation, unsatisfactory as it often is, has been left largely in the form it is found in the manuscript. The work is made up of eighty-two lines of text preceded by two lines of heading and followed by four lines containing four hexameters. The first eight lines of column 519 are taken up by the end of the De Confessione and after the finish of the treatise on the Eucharist the remaining lines of column 520 are occupied by the start of Epistola 128.

1. Col. 519
2. line 9. DIFFINICIO EUCARISTIE SECUNDUM SANC-
3. TUM ROBERTUM EPISCOPUM LINCOLNIENSEM³⁵
4. Eucaristia dicitur ab eu quod est bonum et ca-
5. ris³⁶ quod est gracia id est bona gracia. Unde
6. eucaristia est panis angelorum vel
7. contractus³⁷ ministerio angelorum. Panis enim
8. dicitur quia panis est in apparencia hoc est extra. Caro
9. intra in existencia. Non enim potest videri car-
10. nalibus oculis corpus Christi glorificatum. Sed potest
11. videri quasi latenter et non aperte in rota panis.
12. Sicut sol videtur nube interposita in rota.³⁸ Item
13. sacramentum eucaristie maius est ceteris sacra-
14. mentis et non potest prospici carnalibus o-
15. culis. Recte³⁹ dicitur sacramentum quia sacrat mentem
16. habet itaque formam quam spiritualiter⁴⁰ videmus signum
17. per quod corpus esse credimus quia in ea substantia⁴¹ in qua
18. debet esse videmus quod non possunt hoc sustinere oculi
19. carnales. Sed queritur a quibusdam quando hoc sacra-
20. mentum datum fuit. Respondetur quod pridie quam pateretur.⁴²
21. Sed queritur si habuit duo corpora quando elevatis oculis⁴³
22. post agnum misticum panem benedicens ait hoc
23. est corpus meum⁴⁴ cum ipse Christus et corpus Christi adhuc
24. passibile et corruptibile erat quod tenebat. Respondetur
25. quod Christus non habuit duo corpora sed de seipso dixit hoc
26. est corpus meum. De pane vero sic intelligendum
27. est hoc est corpus meum id est quociens in meam
28. commemoracionem facietis⁴⁵ habebitis pro meo corpore
29. hunc panem. Item eucaristia tria sunt, forma
30. panis, sacramentum et res sacramenti; forma panis
31. quod apparet exterius, sacramentum est misticum corpus
32. Christi et dicitur per similitudinem. Quia sicut ex multis
33. granis unus panis et ex multis ramis effi-
34. citur vitis ita ex multis fidelibus constituitur
35. corpus Christi.⁴⁶ Ipse enim est capud et fideles sunt mem-
36. bra, unde versus: Christus et eterna duo sunt sed
37. carne sub una. Hic capud hoc corpus. Nos
38. quoque membra sumus. Duplex est caro Christi, mis-
39. tica et vera quia est supernis vera quia assumpsit
40. in virgine maria que glorificata est spiritualis
41. res et sacramentum est vera caro Christi quam quidam come—
42. dunt spiritualiter. Unde Augustinus, ut quid paras den-
43. tem et ventrem. Crede et manducasti.⁴⁷ Et quo-
44. modo per verba sacrata efficitur corpus Christi. Respondetur di-
45. cimus quod deus dedit potestatem tribus rebus
46. scilicet verbis et herbis et lapidibus pretiosis. Verbis
47. quia quidam incantatores sunt per verba. In
48. cena efficitur corpus dominicum in cantacionibus
49. et verbis. Item opponitur de hoc quod deus dixit in
50. cena ante passionem discipulis, hoc est corpus
51. meum, demonstrans panem igitur habuit duo corpora
52. unum quod traxit de virgine alterum quod erat in
53. Col. 520
54. line 1. pane. Respondetur quod ita⁴⁸ est intelligendum. Dominus dixit
55. hoc est corpus meum set dixit accipite et comedite
56. hoc erit pro corpore meo demonstrans seipsum non panem.
57. Item queritur quando mutatur sine substantia panis ille in corpus.
58. Respondetur quod multiplex est mutacio, scilicet artificialis, mater—
59. ialis, naturalis, accidentalis, moralis, substantialis sive sacra-
60. mentalis. Artificialis est que fit mediante
61. hominis artificio ut de feno vel felice fit nitrum
62. et ex lacte fit caseus. Materialis quando ex una materia
63. fit alia vel procreatur unde de materia ovi fit pullus
64. unde ovum materia est carnis propter quod quidam non co-
65. medunt ova videlicet fratres et maius confirmatum
66. est quam caseus. Naturalis sicut ex putrefectione grani nas-
67. citur seges unde nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit ipsum solum manet.⁴⁹
68. Aliter quia nisi prius putrificeret non possit parere.
69. Accidentalis quando de alba re fit nigra. Moralis quando
70. aliquid prius bonus postea fit malus et rapax
71. unde Licaon⁵⁰ mutatus in lupum et remus et⁵¹ romul-
72. us nutriti a lupa id est a meretrice quia malos homines
73. dicimus esse lupos. Substantialis sive sacramentalis est
74. miraculosa qui fit in corpore Christi in substantia panis
75. non mutata. Super hoc multiplex est oppinio; quidam
76. dicunt quod substantia panis mutatur. Sed ibi latet corpus
77. Christi sicut unguentum in vase. Vas enim videtur; un-
78. guentum non. Ita panis videtur; corpus Christi non. Notandum
79. quod de pane remanet sapor odor et forma ut
80. magis invitetur sensus hominis accipiendum. Item
81. videtur quod habet diversa corpora quia est in ista et in illa et
82. totus hic et totus ibi. Respondetur quod totus hic et totus
83. ibi. Corpus Christi informe intelligitur, illud scilicet quod in celis re-
84. sidet et quod in terra ambulat et quod in sepulcro re-
85. mansit. In omni creatura deus est per presenciam per
86. potenciam per essenciam.⁵² VERSUS DE CORPORE DO-
87. MINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI. Panis mutatur specie
88. remanente priore. Et non est talis qualis sen-
89. titur in ore. Res occultatur qualiter quia si videretur ffor-
90. sitan horreres et manducare timeres.

Notes

1. See Servus Gieben, Bibliographia Universa Roberti Grosseteste ab an. 1473 ad an. 1969, in Collectanea Franciscana, 39 (1969), entries 127-44, 296-312, etc.

2. Edward Brown, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum (London, 1690), ii, pp. 250-415.

3. e.g. Servus Gieben has edited the sermon Tota Pulchra Es in Collectanea Franciscana, 28 (1958), pp. 221-7; and the sermon Ex rerum initiarum in Collectanea Franciscana, 37 (1967), pp. 120-41. He has also edited the Dictum, Omnis creatura speculum est in Franciscan Studies, 24 (1964), pp. 153-8.

4. Gordon Jackson, Dicta Lincolniensis, a selection of the Dicta Theologica of Robert Grosseteste (Lincoln, 1972).

5. S. Harrison Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste (Cambridge, 1940).

6. Egidius Romanus, Giles of Rome, was the most outstanding thinker in the Order of St. Augustine's Hermits during the second half of the thirteenth century. See F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy (London, 1950), ii, pp. 460-5.

7. Edward Bernard, Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae (Oxford, 1697), Tom. I, Part iii, p. 96, no. 284: ‘Opera quaedam Rob. Grosthead Lincolniensis’.

8. There is a signed note by him in the margin of column 520. It is dated 5 April 1688.

9. Catalogus Librorum in Bibliotheca SS. et Individuae Trinitatis Collegii Cantabrig., Anno Domini 1667 (Add. MS. a. 101), p. 10, col. 1, ‘Grosthead Ep(iscop)us Lincolniensis’. There were some additions made to this catalogue on 19 October 1674 but the two lots of entries are easily distinguishable by the ink.

10. Montague Rhodes James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1900), i, entry 356, pp. 483-5.

11. The Memoriale Collegii Trinitatis (MS. R. 17. 8) is a list of donors with some details of their gifts. It dates back to about 1614.

12. Montague Rhodes James, op. cit., p. xxii.

13. There are in fact two versions of the catalogue; British Museum MSS. Add. 35213, ff. 5-32 and Harley 1879, ff. 1-10. J. P. Gilson used the first for his edition, The Library of Henry Savile of Banke, Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, ix (Oct. 1906-March 1908). For entry 16, see pp. 148-9. See also A. G. Watson, The MSS of Henry Savile of Banke (no. 16) (Bibliographical Society, 1969), p. 20.

14. Published in Lists of Manuscripts formerly owned by Dr. John Dee by M. R. James, Supplement to the Bibliographical Society's Transactions no. 1, 1921. Catalogue entry 63, p. 22: ‘Roberti Groshed Lincolniensis episcopi Dicta quorum initium est “Spiritus sanctus per os Salomonis” etc. Eiusd. tract. de oculo morali una cum aliis variis.’ The entry is also to be found in James Orchard Halliwell, The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee and the Catalogue of his Library and Manuscripts (London, 1842), p. 73.

15. The De Oculo Morali was written by Pierre de Limoges, Petrus Lacepiera.

16. James Orchard Halliwell, op. cit., p. 18, ‘Feb. 3rd. Mr. Savile, Mr. Powil the yonger, travaylors, Mr. Ottomeen his sonne, cam to be acquaynted with me’.

17. James Orchard Halliwell, op. cit., pp. 55 and 56.

18. Ibid., p. 55.

19. A. G. Watson, op. cit., p. 5, says of these references to a Henry Savile in Dr. Dee's diary that they may refer to the elder Savile, the father of the man in question. This is possible but seems the less likely of the alternatives.

20. Thomas Talbot's notebook (British Museum MS. Cotton Vespasian D. XVII) is published as an appendix in A. G. Watson's The MSS of Henry Savile of Banke. Item 46 of the notebook: ‘Dicta Roberti Grostead Lincolniensis episcopi, notabilia ex epistolis eiusdem. Sermones eiusdem. Idem de confessione. de decem preceptis. Egidius de regimine principum’. A. G. Watson, p. 82.

21. See A. G. Watson, op. cit., Appendix II.

22. M. R. James, Lists of Manuscripts formerly owned by Dr. John Dee, gives the provenance of Dee's MSS. where known. For Savile's MSS., see A. G. Watson, op. cit., p. 9.

23. See Daniel A. Callus, ‘Robert Grosseteste as Scholar’ in Robert Grosseteste Scholar and Bishop, ed. D. A. Callus (Oxford, 1969), p. 37.

24. D. A. Callus, op. cit., pp. 37-8.

25. Ibid., pp. 5-7.

26. See F. Copleston, op. cit., ii, p. 228.

27. Col. 519, line 24; Col. 520, lines 4, 6, 20, 21, and 23.

28. The oath is to be found in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, CL, 411, and Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Rome, 1965, no. 700. The importance of their use in the oath lies in the fact that they were inserted precisely as a touchstone of orthodoxy.

29. Denzinger 802.

30. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, iii. 75. 2. ‘… quidam posuerunt post consecrationem substantiam panis et vini in hoc sacramento remanere … haec positio vitanda est tanquam haeretica’.

31. Col. 520, lines 6 and 20.

32. Col. 520, line 21.

33. Col. 520, lines 24-5. ‘Vas enim videtur; unguentum non. Ita panis videtur; corpus Christi non.’

34. See John Stacey, Wyclif and Reform (London, 1964), pp. 94-121.

35. I am very grateful to the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, for their permission to publish this treatise. I am also indebted to the Librarians of Trinity College Library for their kind help during my various searches and Mr. T. A. M. Bishop of St. John's College, Cambridge, for his valuable advice on the text.

36. The c of caris more closely resembles a t. The meaning, however, demands the reading given.

37. The word contractus is badly pinched by the decorated majuscule E of Eucaristia in line 11. Contractus seems the most likely reading.

38. Cf. Grosseteste, De Luce: ‘Lux enim per se in omnem partem se ipsam diffundit, ita ut a puncto lucis sphaera lucis quamvis magna subito generetur, nisi obsistat umbrosum.’ L. Baur, Die philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln (Munich, 1912), p. 51.

39. The R of Recte here closely resembles a majuscule S.

40. Alternative reading: specialiter.

41. The scribe occasionally uses an s very similar to a Greek sigma. In this treatise such an s is to be found only twice: the s in the contraction of substantia here and in column 520, line 21. Other examples of such an s written by the same scribe are to be found in the De Confessione (sint; MS. B. 15. 20, col. 507, line 44) and Epistola 128 (suppremo; MS. B. 15. 20, col. 521, last line).

42. Cf. the prayer Qui pridie in the Western canons of the Mass. See A. Fortescue, The Mass (London, 1937), pp. 99 and 335.

43. The phrase elevatis oculis is a traditional part of the prayer Qui pridie. See A. Fortescue, op. cit., p. 335.

44. Mt. xxvi, 26; Mk. xiv, 22; Lk. xxii, 19; I Cor. xi, 24.

45. Cf. I Cor. xi, 25.

46. A common analogy started by St. Paul (I Cor. x, 17) and developed by St. Cyprian (Epistola 62/63, De Sacramento domini calicis) onwards.

47. St. Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus, xxv, 12. However, dentesand not dentem is the accepted reading. Cf. Corpus Christianoru (Turnbolt, 1954), xxxvi, p. 254.

48. Alternative reading: intra.

49. Jn. xii, 24.

50. An interesting allusion to Lycaon, King of Arcadia who, according to mythologists, either offered human sacrifice to the gods or served human flesh at his table. Tradition has it that he was turned into a wolf by Jupiter as a punishment for his impiety. He is mentioned, for example, by Ovid, Metamorphoses 1. v. 198.

51. The scribe has written not et but in. The twin nominatives and the general meaning, however, seem to require the amended reading.

52. It is possible that the treatise as such finishes here. The four hexameters which follow would therefore form a separate section.