Theology, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Eucharistic Controversy, 1078-1079: Alberic of Monte Cassino Against Berengar of Tours (review)

This book is a valuable contribution to an understanding of the controversy over the Eucharist that swirled around Berengar, the scholasticus of Tours, in the eleventh century. The debate was arguably the most important academic discussion of the early scholastic period. One of the intriguing documents stemming from this debate is the anonymous Aberdeen libellus. Drs. Radding and Newton have made a convincing case for the authorship of the libellus by Alberic of Canossa, an argument that forms the core of their book. In doing so, they have also added much to the understanding of a crucial period in the Berengarian debate and in the reform papacy of the period.

This slim volume consists of five main sections. First the authors set the scene by describing the background of the Berengarian dispute up until the Roman councils of 1078 and 1079. Next, the single extant manuscript of the Aberdeen libellus is analyzed in some detail, suggesting that Alberic of Monte Cassino could be the author. In a third section, the style and content of the libellus are compared to the known existing work of Alberic, concluding that the libellus indeed fits closely with Alberic's modus scribendi. The long argument in favor of Alberic's authorship of the libellus closes in a final section detailing the politics behind the Roman synods of 1078 and 1079 in which Berengar's case was heard. The last section of the book is a critical edition and translation of Alberic's treatise and a dossier of sententiae attached to the libellus but considered an addition by the authors.

The study does more, however, than arguing persuasively for the authorship of Alberic. It offers an excellent example of scholarly collaboration. Dr. Radding, an historian, joins forces with Dr. Newton, a linguist, to provide a combination of history, codicology, linguistic analysis, and even art history that one scholar alone is rarely able to master. The study is a model for future scholarly efforts.

Not having seen the Aberdeen manuscript, I am not in a position to offer an evaluation of the critical edition, although it appears to be carefully and conscientiously produced. The translation is also well done, although one criticism might be in order. The authors consistently translate "sacramentum" as "sacrament" when "sacred ritual" or "sacred symbol" might be more appropriate. "Sacrament" carries all the overtones of sixteenth-century theological debates and is never used in English except to identify certain very specific Christian rituals. In the eleventh century "sacramentum" still retained a broader use, standing for any symbol or ritual. The present translation introduces an unintended but conspicuous anachronism.

There are a few minor areas where the authors' infectious enthusiasm perhaps carries them away. The argument that Bishops Landulf and Ulrich urged a deferral of a decision on Berengar in 1078 because they opposed him seems weak. Could the delay not also indicate support? It also seems a stretch to posit that the Ottoboni philosophical manuscript 1406 was produced to celebrate the victory over Berengar (pp. 112-113). Still both theories are fascinating and indicate the kinds of questions collaboration can produce.

This is an important book for several reasons. First, the identification and dating of the Aberdeen libellus would indicate that a serious discussion of substantia in regard to the Eucharist occurred much earlier than scholars (including this one) had previously thought. Secondly, it fills a gap in the story of Berengar and his political relationship with Gregory VII. Thirdly, it provides a critical edition and translation of a very important work of the eleventh century. Finally it offers an excellent example of the virtues of collaborative scholarship.