Images de page

could be reconciled with the foregoing, it certainly cannot be reconciled with the recorded facts of the judicial destruction and burning of the Book of John Scot on the Eucharist,' at the Council of Paris, and Vercellæ, and divers other Councils.1 It may be assumed, therefore, we think as certain, that John Scot did write a treatise on the Eucharist at the request of King Charles the Bald, and that this treatise was in answer to that of Paschasius. The next and most important point is, what has become of this treatise? Is it lost, or may it now be consulted and examined? The majority of modern writers, including Mr. Maurice (who, in his Medieval Philosophy, has given an excellent account of the learned Irishman), hold that it is lost. Dr. Floss, the latest discusser of the matter, holds that it never existed. We think, however, that we can show both that it existed and that it exists. We believe that in the comparatively well known treatise entitled Bertramnus (or Ratramnus) De Corpore et Sanguine Domini,' is to be found none other than the Treatise of Joannes Scotus on the Eucharist. This opinion is not new. It was first broached by the learned Peter de Marca, Archbishop of Paris in the seventeenth century, and by him communicated to Luke D'Achery, the famous collector of mediæval writings, who was associated with Mabillon in his great work of the Acts of the Benedictines.' The arguments of De Marca are given by Gabriel Cossart in the ninth volume of Labbe's Concilia,' and we should not think it worth while to reproduce them here, when they could be read in such a wellknown work as Labbe, were it not for the fact that the discovery of Berengar's Treatise, long after the time when they were written, adds immensely to their weight; and were it not also from the extraordinary treatment which they have received from Dr. Floss, selected to edit this volume by the Abbé Migne, the learned French patrologist of our own time.

[ocr errors]

The following, then, are the arguments which induce us to

refutation of his own theory in the Commentatio de Vitâ et Præceptis I. Scoti' which follows his Preface. See page 35.

1 Berengarius de Sacra Coena, p. 37.

2 The anonymous Commentator printed by Dr. Floss, says that as no one is ound to hold this opinion now, it is not worth while to discuss it. This is, at any rate, a convenient way of getting rid of it. It is singular that these two introductory notices printed side by side differ from each other in every particular on the subject which we are handling. Dr. Floss says, John Scot wrote no book on the Eucharist; the Commentator proves that he did. Dr. Floss says, Ascelinus and Berengar quoted the Book of Ratramn as that of John Scot by mistake. The Commentator, seeing the absurdity of this, tries to show that they did not quote the Book of Ratramn. But in this he fails. There is no other way of escaping the difficulties of the question except the simple one of admitting that the Book of Ratramn is in reality the Book of John Scot, attributed to Ratramn to save it from destruction.

believe that the book which has been usually ascribed to Bertram or Ratramn, is the genuine work of John Scot:


(1) In the letter of Berengar, quoted above, it is stated that John Scot composed his Book on the Eucharist at the special request of King Charles the Bald.1 Such being the reason assigned for the composition of this treatise by a writer who lived about a century and a half after its production, and who was familiar with its contents, we turn to the treatise popularly ascribed to Ratramn, and we find in the first paragraph as follows: You were pleased to command me, glorious Prince, to 'signify to your Majesty my sentiments touching the mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, which command is no less be'coming to your Highness, than the performance of it is above 'my poor abilities,' &c. Now it is, of course, possible that King Charles may have given the same command both to his friend and tutor John Scot, and to Ratramn, the monk of Corbey. But this, though possible, is not very probable. There is every reason from the circumstances of the King's life why he should have sought the opinion of the learned Irishman, as it is proved he did; there is no reason why he should have sought out an obscure monk to lay this honour upon him, and to attribute this importance to his opinion, and this we believe he did not. (2) in the letter of Ascelinus to Berengar, the charge of explaining the Fathers in a wrong sense in his book is urged against John Scot. The writer says, 'In proof of this it will suffice to remark 'here on that prayer of S. Gregory-"May thy Sacraments, O 'Lord, perfect in us that which they contain, that what we now ' receive in outward appearance, we may obtain in actual verity." In explaining which the aforesaid John, among other things 'contrary to the faith, says, "These things are taken in out'ward form, not in actual verity." (Specie geruntur ista non ' veritate.)' Now, in the treatise ascribed to Ratramn, this very prayer is quoted, and the comment on it begins with these precise words: Dicit quod in specie geruntur ista non veritate.' Is not then the book of Ratramn the same as that which Ascelinus calls the book of John Scot? (3.) We come now to Berengar's testimony, which is found not only in the letters quoted above, but, much more expressly, in his treatise on the Holy Supper, discovered since the time of De Marca. At page 37 of this treatise, we have him saying to Lanfranc, With 'respect to Joannes Scotus, and the cause of his work being cut 'to pieces, I have heard you yourself narrating the cause of this 'punishment, namely, because he had written in a certain passage of his treatise, that these things which are consecrated on

[ocr errors]

1 Berengar writes Carolus Magnus: but this is either done to exalt the dignity of the king, or is an error which has crept into the MS.

[ocr errors]

'the altar, "are the figure, the sign, the pledge of the body and 'blood of the Lord." We turn to the work ascribed to Ratramn, and we find that this is an accurate description of the matter of it, and of the terms principally employed. At the same time, however, it should be stated that very strong passages as to the Real Presence also occur in the treatise. The German editor of John Scot, convinced by these proofs that both Ascelinus and Berengar did clearly assign to John Scot the work now given to Ratramn,' has nevertheless a singular subterfuge to save himself from agreeing with their opinion, 'It is scarce doubtful,' says he, that Berengar used the book of Ratramn on the Body and Blood of the Lord, and that this book was in 'the synods condemned, cut up, and burnt.' From this what follows? Not, according to this learned gentleman, that the treatise which was quoted as John Scot's by nearly contemporary writers, condemned and burnt as John Scot's by nearly contemporary synods, is in reality John Scot's, but that all these made a mistake, and that the book was composed by quite another writer after all? And why, forsooth, is this inferred? Because the most ancient manuscripts of the treatise has at the commencement, 'Incipit liber Ratranni de Corp. et Sang. Dñi.' But the Lobez MS. which bears this title cannot be shown to be older than 1049, and Berengar's letters to Lanfranc and Ascelinus, in both of which he mentions the Treatise of John Scot in such a way as to indicate this treatise, are both earlier than this. So that the unknown scribe who wrote Ratrannus is to be preferred before the known and intelligent, and earlier testimony of Berengar! We have, however, not yet done with the remarkable logic of the German Professor. But,' says he, you will ask how it came about that in that Beren'garian controversy no one came forward to refer the book to its 'true author, Ratramn? How did it happen that the synods 'did not discover the true author?' This is a very natural question to ask, and a somewhat difficult one to answer. answer given by Dr. Floss to his own puzzling query is really charming from its naïveté, To these questions I oppose the 'following questions, which are quite as apt:-If Berengar used the Book of John Scot, how is it that neither he nor his school ever appealed to the Book of Ratramn, which is 'especially favourable to his error?' Aye, how indeed? We will attempt to answer the question. Simply for the reason that no such book of Ratramn existed. He had already used the treatise as that of Scot; it would be rather singular for him to refer to the same work as that of Ratramn. How


[ocr errors]


Hæc omnia quadrant in librum de corpore et sanguine Domini, qui sub nomine Ratramni sæpissime editus est.'-Proem. p. xxi.

again,' asks the Doctor, 'came it about that in all that controversy there was never any mention of Ratramn?' We imagine that the reason was, that Ratramn had nothing to do with it. We said before, that the opposite of Dr. Floss's conclusions as to the work of John Scot on the Eucharist, could be proved from his own premises, and we submit that this total silence as to Ratramn in the tenth and eleventh centuries, which is incontestable, and which the Doctor freely admits, does prove the very opposite to that which he makes it to infer. Ratramn became a very well known man, and in high repute for learning. If he had written this treatise, and at the command of the king, it would assuredly have been referred to when men began to write and argue on this subject, when councils were held upon it, and judicial sentences pronounced. But as the learned Gabriel Cossart well points out, 'In the early days of this controversy, there was no mention of Ratramn, 'but a perpetual mention of John Scot. Hincmar, Berengar, 'Lanfranc, Guitmund, Durand, Ascelin, the Synods of Rome, Vercellæ, and Paris, do not speak of Ratramn as having 'propagated errors; with them it is always John Scot who has 'done the mischief.' There is clear and abundant proof that during the time when the book of John Scot was spoken of and quoted, there was no book of Ratramn ever mentioned. Sigebert, who died in 1112, first introduces us to a book of Ratramn,1 which is evidently the same as that since known by his name. From whence did this book, before unknown, suddenly emerge to the light? It came forth as the book of Ratramn by the simple process of the copier substituting the name of Ratramn for that of John Scot the true author. And wherefore? Because the writing of John Scot had been condemned, burnt, cut to pieces, and ordered to be destroyed. The simple way to evade all these horrors was to put the name of another writer at the head of it, and what name so suitable as that of Ratramn, who had already been engaged in controversy with Paschasius, and who was doubtless known to have entertained opinions on the Eucharist similar to those of the treatise ascribed to him. The monks thus preserved their manuscript, and the Pope and cardinals were not a whit the wiser. This is not the only instance by many that the same device has been resorted to with the same result.

We have dwelt the longer on this point because it seems to us

1 An anonymous writer, printed by Cellot, does mention a work of Ratramn on this subject. This has been thought to be the Abbot Heriger, who lived towards the end of the tenth century, but Fabricius clearly disproves this, and hence the time as well as the person of this witness being altogether doubtful, it cannot be shown that Ratramn's book was mentioned before the date of Sigebert.

of great importance to the theological argument on the Eucharist to gain for the Scriptural and Catholic doctrine, a witness so early, so distinguished as the great Erigena. The treatise itself is sufficiently well known, but we believe that it will be read with new interest by any whom we are able to convince that it is not the work of an obscure monk, writing perhaps with a feeling of petty jealousy against another monk of the same house, an old antagonist in literary strife, but that it is the work of the grand philosophical and reflective mind of the Irish philosopher, who occupies so prominent a position in the literary history of his era.

And here we cannot avoid bestowing a word of commiseration on the unfortunate case of the authors of the 'Literary History of France.' Had the learned Benedictines been cognizant of the treatise of Berengar they might perhaps have changed their view as to the authorship of the work ascribed to Ratramn, and abandoning the book to John Scot, an acknowledged heretic in their eyes, have saved themselves the palpable stultification to which they have thought it necessary to submit in this case. So long as the author was held to be a monk of their own order, he was of course in all things to be glorified. Accordingly, they undertake to prove against the Council of Trent, against Cardinal Perron, against the Theologians of Douai, against the almost universal voice of the Romish Church, that the said monk, Ratramn, teaches the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that it is quite a mistake to suppose that he wrote in answer to Paschasius. His writings, say they, would never have been held anything but purely orthodox had not the translators interpreted them in a way exactly opposite to their real sense. 2 It is competent to any one to test the value of these assertions by referring to the plain and straightforward language of the treatise, and no one who does so can fail to smile at this bold attempt of the monks to browbeat the common sense of Christendom. Dr. Floss is wiser in his generation. He speaks of the book as 'specially favouring the error of Berengar,' and does not attempt to show that it argues in favour of Transubstantiation, when it is arguing as plain as words can speak against it. The characteristic doctrine of the writer is, indeed, that of the Real Presence, which is again and again explained to be spiritual not material. The notion of a change in the substance


1 The Literary History of France' was compiled by various hands, and is not always quite consistent with itself. Thus, when noticing Ratramn (vol. iv. 337) it is indignantly denied that he wrote his treatise against Paschasius, but when noticing Paschasius it is said, Those who wrote against Paschasius were soon followed by Ratramn, who undertook with the same object his famous treatise on the Body and Blood of the Lord.'-Lit. Hist. iv. 260.

2 Hist. Littéraire de France, v. 337.

« PrécédentContinuer »