² The most recent biography of Alcuin is Duckett, E. S., Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne (Hamden, CT 1965 ). It is a sympathetic portrait with copious references to the sources, but earlier biographies by Kleinclausz, A. (Alcuin [Paris 1948]) and Gaskoin, C. J. B. (Alcuin: His Life and Work [London 1904; rpr. N.Y. 1966]) must still be consulted, and there is a very pressing need for a new biography. A brief, more up-to-date description of Alcuin's life and career is given in the Introduction to Peter Godman's translation of Alcuin's epic poem ( Godman, P., Alcuin: The Bishops, Kings, and Saints of York [Oxford 1982] xxxiii-xcii), and a good introductory article is that of Wilhelm Heil, ‘Alkuin,’ in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 2 [Berlin 1978] 266–76). Riché, Riché (Écoles et enseignement dans l'Occident chrétien [Paris 1979] 69) refers to Alcuin as Charlemagne's ‘cultural advisor,’ and describes the lively give-and-take, which included Charles himself, at the palace school where Alcuin presided (73–75; see also his Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne [tr. Ann McNamara, Jo; Philadelphia 1978], esp. chapters 21–22). For a recent and very provocative assessment of the character of Alcuin's contribution to the recovery of letters in the eighth century, see Bolton, W. F., Alcuin and Beowulf: An Eighth-Century View (New Brunswick, NJ 1978) 13–99, and, even more recently, Claudio Leonardi, ‘Alcuino e la scuola palatina: le ambizioni di uno cultura unitaria,’ in Nascita dell'Europa ed Europa carolingia: un'equazione da verificare (Settimane 27; Spoleto 1981) 459–96; I Deug-su, Cultura e ideologia nella prima età carolingia (Rome 189–206; Levison, W., England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford 1946) 152–73 (excellent on Alcuin and his influence), 314–23 (edition of Alcuin's only known letter to the anti-adoptionist Beatus of Liebana); Wallach, L., Alcuin and Charlemagne (rev. ed., Ithaca 1968). There is an exhaustive bibliography in Deug-Su, I, L'Opera Agiografica de Alcuino (Spoleto 1983) 201–12. See, too, Chazelle, C. M., To Whom Did Christ Pay the Price: The Soteriology of Alcuin's Epistola 307,” Proceeding of the Patristic, Mediaeval, and Renaissance Conference 14 (1989) 43–62.Google Scholar

³ This title comes from the nuncupatorial letter, affixed to the treatise in all early MSS containing the whole text. Alcuin tells Charles, to whom the letter is addressed, ‘direxi sanctissimae auctoritati vestrae de fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, sub specie manualis libelli, sermonem’ (Alc. Ep. 257 [MGH Epp. 4.414.35–36]). Some of the MSS give no title; others identify the treatise variously, e.g.: ‘In hoc codice continentur de fide sanctae trinitatis et de incarnatione domini libri tres,’ M1 (f. 14 ^v; MS sigla given below n. 5); M4 (f. 5^v); P3 (f. 3^v), with indications elsewhere in the codex, usually in a notary script, identifying Alcuin as the author (e.g., M2, in a table of contents at f. 1^v [see also 6^v], ‘Albini de sancta trinitate': cf. M1, on a leaf before 1^r [see also the contents given on the cover of the MS], ‘Alchuini de … sancta Trinitate'; R1 identifies ‘Alcuin the deacon’ as the author of the work ‘On the Trinity’ at f. 9^r in the top margin, and also the nuncupatorial letter, f. 6 ^v). Alcuin mentions himself, of course, in the salutation of the nuncupatorial letter, so as long as the letter is present, the author is known to the reader.Google Scholar

⁴ Donald Bullough in his very important essay on Alcuin's theological work, ‘Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven’ (in Carolingian Essays: Andrew W. Mellon Lectures in Early Christian Studies [ed. Blumenthal, U.-R.; Washington, DC 1983] 1–70) notes that ‘The De fide is the most substantial and effective work of its kind for many centuries,’ and provides indications of its influence from Gottschalk on (63–64). See also the only other recent, general treatment of any length of Alcuin as a theologian: Meyer, H. B., S.J., ‘Alkuin zwischen Antike und Mittelalter: Ein Kapitel frühmittelalterlicher Frömmigkeitsgeschichte,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 81 (1959) 306–50, 404–54, who calls it ‘Alkuins dogmatisches Hauptwerk’ (407). See also Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands II (2nd ed., Leipzig 1900), who says (139) of the De fide that ‘Alcuins Buch ist der Anfang der mittelalterlichen Theologie.’Google Scholar

⁵ These include a fair proportion of ninth-century MSS, some quite early. For most of the passages cited in the text of this paper, collations have been made with the following MSS: Vatican Biblioteca Apostolica MS Reg. lat. 231 pt. 2 fols. 44^r–86^v (820–30, Northern France, hereafter V1); Rome Biblioteca Casanatense 641 (B.IV.18) fols. 9^r–33^r (811/812, Monte Cassino, hereafter R1); Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (hereafter BS) Clm. 14510 fols. 80S^r–156^r (saec. ix, St. Emmeran, hereafter M1); Munich BS Clm. 14614 fols. 153–215^v (saec. ix, St. Emmeran 614, F. CXVII, hereafter M2); Munich BS Clm. 15813 fols. 40^v–83^r (saec. ix, Salzburg, Domkapitel, hereafter MS); Munich BS Clm. 28140 fols. 5^v–47^v (hereafter M4); Paris Bibliothèque National (hereafter BN) lat. 2341 (Colbert 323, Reg. 3647.2) fols. 158^va–165^vb (saec. ix [Delisle, 843; Bischoff, 825–50], Orléans, hereafter P1); Paris BN lat. 2826 (Reg. 4344.3; St. Martial 165), fols. 126^r–129^r (contains only Bk. 3 chapters 19–22; 800–825 [Bischoff], St. Martial, hereafter P2); Paris BN lat. 2849 (Colbert 5536, Reg. 4381), fols. 3^v–36^r (saec. ix, hereafter P3). For convenience, references in this paper are given to PL 101.11–58, a reprint of Froben's 1777 text.Google Scholar

⁶ Editio princeps in Kessler, Nicholas, ed., Homeliarium doctorum (Basel 1493; see Bullough, , Kingdom 62 n. 149). Thereafter, in Scotus, Joannes of Strassburg, ed., Homeliarius doctorum in Evangelia … cum insertione trium librorum Alcuini de fide Trinitatis. (Basel 1506); Alcuinus De sancta Trinitate (Ottobeuren 1509, the first edition of the work alone under its own title); De Trinitate ac mysteriis Christi Alcuini levitae libri tres … (Strassburg 1530); Lossius, Lucus, ed., Alcuini abbatis Turonensis … de fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis libri tres … (Frankfurt 1554); Kalt, N., ed., De sanctissima Trinitate libellus … Alcuini … (Constance 1596); Quercetanus, A. (A. Du Chesne), Opera … Alcuini, 2 vols. (Paris 1617); Froben, F., ed., Beati Flacci Albini seu Alcuinis … Opera …, 3 vols. (Regensburg 1777; a revision and amplification of Du Chesne's edition; repr. in PL 100–101).Google Scholar

⁷ This paper is in part a prolegomenon to a critical edition of this and other of Alcuin's texts, under preparation by myself and colleagues Ann Matter, E. and Chazelle., Chazelle. Work has advanced to the point of extensive collation of the above MSS (and others) with each other and with the text in PL 101.11–54. Froben's text, in general, appears highly reliable. Where significant variation in the text occurs in any passage cited in this paper, the variant will be indicated in a note.Google Scholar

⁸ On the De fide in particular there is scarcely any literature at all. Bullough discusses the text briefly (Kingdom 63–64), and refers the reader to Gaskoin, Alcuin 159–63. Meyer discusses the text (‘Alkuin,’ 405–414), giving references to earlier studies making claims regarding the method of the treatise as a proto-scholasticism. See also Ladner, G. B., ‘Eine karolingische Modifizierung der psychologischen Trinitätsanalogien des hl. Augustinus,' in Mordek, Hubert, ed., Aus Kirche und Reich: Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen 1983) 45–53. Among the earlier literature see Werner, K., Alkuin und sein Jahrhundert (Paderborn 1876) 158–67; Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte 138–141; and Kleinclausz, , Alcuin 201–3.Google Scholar

⁹ Bullough dates the text to 802, agreeing with the chronology established by Dümmler, Dümmler in his ed. (MGH Epp. 4, Berlin 1895) 414. For another view see Heil, W., ‘Der Adoptianismus, Alkuin, und Spanien,' in Bischoff, Bernard, ed., Karl der Grösse, 2: Das geistige Leben (Düsseldorf 1965) 147–148, where the text is dated 801.Google Scholar

¹⁰ At 3.9 (PL 101.43D), which refers to the Hispanica haeresis and gives a short disquisition against it as a form of ‘Nestorianism.’ Other passages which seem aimed directly at the adoptionists, include 3.10 (PL 101.44D, ‘non appellatione tantum, vel adoptione, sed veritate Dei Filius,’ from a pseudo-Augustinian passage also cited in Adv. Felicem Libri VII 1.13, PL 101.138–39, from which Alcuin also cites at the end of De fide 3.9) and 2.11 (PL 101.30B, ‘de Sanctis angelis atque hominibus Sanctis, quorum quamvis quislibet per adoptionis gratiam nuncupative Deus dicatur, nulla tamen ratione Deus angelorum, vel Deus sanctorum naturaliter dici posse, sicut de Christo dicitur'), where Alcuin has modified a passage from Fulgentius (Ep. 14.1058–62, CCL 91) to make its anti-adoptionist application clear. In addition, the discussion of Jesus' baptism at 3.17 (PL 101.49AB), insisting as it does that Jesus needed no washing from iniquity, may have anti-adoptionist motivation, although there is no mention of adoptionism or associated doctrines by name (cf. Adv. Fel. 2.20, PL 101.161–62 for a parallel discussion). At 2.22, the citation of Is. 53.8 (‘Generationem eius quis narrabit'), used to introduce the discussion in Bk. 3 of the nativity of Jesus, is reminiscent of the use of this verse in the anti-adoptionist literature (cf. Adv. Fel. 3.4, PL 101.164D–165A). Google Scholar

¹¹ Alcuin used a Latin translation of the Greek acta of Ephesus, presently the Bibliothèque Nationale latinus 1572. Extracts from these acta figure very prominently in all three anti-adoptionist works, the Liber Adv. Haeresin Felicis (PL 101.87–120, crit. ed. by Blumenshine, G., Liber Contra Haeresim Felicis: Edition with an Introduction [Studi e Testi 285, Vatican City 1980 ]), the Libri VII Adv. Felicem (PL 101.119–230), and, to a lesser extent, the Libri IV Adv. Elipandum (PL 101.231–300). See the literature cited by Blumenshine 18 n. 17 and 33 n. 5. Very few if any extracts from these acta appear in the De fide. There is also a reliance upon Leo which can only be considered minor, relative to the heavier reliance exhibited by the anti-adoptionist works. Note, e.g., the lists of Alcuin's citations of Leo's sermons given by Chavasse, A., ed., Sancti Leonis Magni … Tractatus … (CCL 138.clxii–clxiii: all the citations are in the anti-adoptionist works; none is repeated in the De fide). There are some source-citations in common. For example, part of the passage from Augustine, Ench. 11 (ed. Evans, E., CCL 46) cited at De fide 3.1 (PL 101.38–39) is also found at Adv. Fel. 4.10 (PL 101. 183CD) and 7.9 (PL 101.221D), where Alcuin indicates that Felix was the first to use this passage. Also, four lines from Fulgentius (De fide 61.1143–47, CCL 91A) cited as Adv. Fel. 4.10 (PL 101.183D) are also found at De fide 3.11 (PL 101.45A). Two lines from Cassian's De incarnatione Domini (7.25, CSEL 17), cited at Adv. Fel. (PL 101.185A) also appear at De fide 3.14 (PL 101.47A). Finally, 3.14 (PL 101.46C–47A) cites a passage on Mary as Theotokos from Arnobius (Conflictus 1.21, PL 53.301–2) also cited by Alcuin at greater length and with fewer modifications at Adv. Fel. 6.9 (PL 101.210–11). These are some of the links between the De fide and the Adv. Fel., and there are others, but the overall impression is of two separate types of work, which share only a very small percentage of their source-citations in common. It seems fair to say that while these specific connections to the anti-adoptionist literature, as well as the more general Christocentric emphasis of the De fide, are evidence for the way in which anti-adoptionist concerns have played a part in the shaping and conception of this treatise, it also seems fair to say that the work generated goes far beyond the dimensions of a specifically anti-adoptionist instrument, just as Augustine's Confessions, although framed in part by anti-Manichaean polemic, is far more than an anti-Manichaean tract.Google Scholar

¹² De fide 1.1.Google Scholar

¹³ E.g. Ep. 185.18 (‘On the Treatment of the Donatists'); De trin. 2.9. See Levison, 320 n. 1, and Kleinclausz 109–112. Cf. the use of Eph. 4.3 at Ep. 185.24, and the mention of the ‘false peace of Donatus,’ ibid. 47, contrasted to the ‘true peace of Christ.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ See, for example, Adv. Fel. 1.7 (PL 101.133B); cf., in the letter to Felix, affixed to the beginning of the Seven Books Against Felix, section 2 (PL 101.119D = Alc. Ep. 23 [p. 60.27–28]). Google Scholar

¹⁵ Alc. Ep. 205 (p. 341.27–28). Google Scholar

¹⁶ Alc. Ep. 139 (p. 220.20–21; 221.7, 15–33). Google Scholar

¹⁷ Alcuin notes, ‘Quam plurimis vero profuturum et pernecessarium fecistis opus in catholicae fidei taxatione, quod diu optavi et saepius domno regi suasi, ut symbolum catholicae fidei planissimis sensibus et sermonibus luculentissimis in unam congereretur cartulam, et per singulas episcopalium regiminum parrochias omnibus daretur praesbiteris legenda memoriaeque commendanda, quatenus, licet lingua diversa loqueretur, una tamen fides ubique resonaret. Ecce, quod mea optavit humilitas, vestra implevit sublimitas.’ The De fide is, of course, too long to be memorized, but could be understood as a kind of expanded version of what Alcuin is saying here he had wanted to write for a long time Alc. Ep. 139 (p. 220.25–32). Google Scholar

¹⁸ Alc. Ep. 257 (p. 415.9–13). Google Scholar

¹⁹ Alc. Ep. 257 (p. 415.18–19), ‘non ignava, ut reor, opum pondera in ratione catholicae fidei vestrae excellentissimae auctoritati adtuli.’ Google Scholar

²⁰ Alc. Ep. 257 (p. 415.22–24). Google Scholar

²¹ An example of a text which covers much the same material but which is in a form suitable for a school text, see Alcuin's De trinitate ad Fredegisum Quaestiones XXVIII (PL 101.57–64; on this text see Ann Matter, E., ‘Alcuin's Question and Answer Texts,’ forthcoming in Rivista di storia della filosofia). The content of this text is very closely related to the De fide, as though the former were a simplified and distilled version of the latter. In particular, there is a close correspondence between many of the questions of the De trinitate and the capitula of the De fide (using PL numbers, which differ slightly from those of the MSS for bk. 1): compare, for example, Question 2 (‘Quid sit proprium uniuscuiusque personae in sancta Trinitate?’and cap. 1.11 (‘Quae sint propria unicuique personae in sancta Trinitate'); Question 3 (‘Quare Spiritus sanctus ingenitus vel genitus non dici debet?') and cap. 1.14 (‘Quid sit inter ingenitum et Patrem, et quod Filius solus sit genitus, Spiritus sanctus nec ingenitus, nec genitus'); Question 13 (‘An ad solam Patris personam pertineat, ubi dicitur: Qui facit mirabilia magna solus [Ps. 71.18] et Apostolus, qui solus habet immortalitatem [1 Tim. 6.16]?') and cap. 2.18 (‘Non de solo Patre intelligendum esse, ubi dicitur: Qui facit mirabilia magna solus' — and 1 Tim. 6.16 is given in the text of the chapter); Question 25 (‘Dum in symbolo catholico cantari solet, Dei Filium de Spiritu sancto, et Maria virgine incarnatum, quare non dicitur Filius Spiritus sancti, sicut dicitur beatae virginis?') and cap. 3.3 (‘Quomodo non sit Christus Filius Spiritus sancti, dum in Symbolo dicitur, de Spiritu sancto et ex Maria virgine natus’— compare the response to the question with the text of cap. 3.1, PL 101.38D); etc.Google Scholar

²² Alcuin gives Charles the following advice on how to catechize the recently conquered Huns: ‘Igitur ille ordo, in docendo virum aetate perfectum, diligenter, ut arbitror, servandus est, quem beatus Augustinus ordinavit in libro cui de catecizandis rudibus titulum praenotavit. Primo instruendus est homo de animae immortalitate, et de vita futura, et de retributione bonorum malorumque, et de aeternitate utriusque sortis. Postea pro quibus peccatis et sceleribus poenas cum diabolo patiatur aeternas, et pro quibus bonis vel benefactis gloria cum Christo fruatur sempiterna. Deinde fides sanctae Trinitatis diligentissime docenda est, et adventus pro salute humani generis Filii Dei Domini nostri Jesu Christi in hunc mundum exponendus. Et de mysterio passionis illius, et veritate resurrectionis et gloria ascensionis in caelos, et futuro eius adventu ad iudicandas omnes gentes: et de resurrectione corporum nostrorum et de aeternitate poenarum in malos et praemiorum in bonos, mox — ut praediximus — mens novella firmanda est’ (Alc. Ep. 110 [p. 158.36–159.9]). Note that from ‘Deinde fides …’ this could be a description, in order, of the contents of the De fide. The last two topics are even phrased very close to the phrasing of the capitula for De fide 3.20–21, ‘De resurrectione corporum in novissimo die’ (3.20); ‘De iustorum praemio, et poena peccatorum’ (3.21). The De fide would be a book useful not for those being catechized, but for those charged with the catechesis here described. In another letter (Alc. Ep. 113 [p. 164.15–41]), Alcuin is emphasizing (to Arno) the importance of faith in the process of catechesis. He reminds Arno that ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Heb. 11.6, cited in chapter 1.1 of De fide), and asks him whether baptism is any profit without faith. One cannot force a person to believe what he or she does not believe — the adoptionists are evidence enough for that, he says. One must rather teach in such a way that the truth of the faith may be recognized. The De fide, it seems, would be a perfect handbook for anyone undertaking this sort of catechesis. (Alcuin also recommends Gregory's Pastoral Care.) Google Scholar

²³ Alc. Ep. 113 (p. 415.26–33). Translation from King, P. D., Charlemagne: Translated Sources (Lancaster, PA 1987) 327.Google Scholar

²⁴ For example, this construction of. the intent of the De fide and its relation to the adoptionism controversy would make it an instrument perfectly suitable to the advice which Alcuin gives in his letter to monks (and others) in Ireland: ‘Igitur antiquo tempore doctissimi solebant magistri ex Hibernia Britanniam, Galliam, Italiam venire et multos per Ecclesias Christi fecisse profectus; et quanto magis periculosa nunc esse tempora noscuntur, et plurimos, secundum apostolicam prophetiam, a via veritatis avertentes, tanto instantius ipsa catholicae fidei Veritas ubique inter vos discenda est et docenda, ut habeant orthodoxae fidei praedicatores, quo possint contradicentibus veritati resistere, et palam vincere adversarios apostolicae doctrinae. Erumpunt subito apostatica seducti calliditate pseudodoctores, novas et inauditas introducentes sectas, qui dum novis dogmatibus sibi laudem adquiri putant, inveniuntur reprehensibiles omnibusque odibiles esse, sicut in Hispaniae partibus vidimus factum. Unde, sanctissimi patres, exhortamini iuvenes vestros, ut diligentissime catholicorum doctorum discant traditiones, et catholicae fidei rationes omni intentione adprehendere studeant, quia sine fide Deo impossibile est placere (Heb. 11.6)' (Alc. Ep. 280 [p. 437.15–27]). In this letter Alcuin quotes the same passage from Hebrews that is virtually the motto for the De fide (1.1), and, as in the nuncupatorial letter to the De fide, he talks about the importance of learning the ‘rationes’ of the Catholic faith, especially for preachers, who will be able then to resist those ‘speaking against the truth’ (another phrase from De fide 1.1). It is especially the ‘youth’ who are to be encouraged to learn the traditions of the Catholic doctors and the ‘rationes’ of the Catholic faith, that is, what is envisioned here is primarily an educational endeavor, one meant to form a society in which it is harder for heresy of any sort to grow up and flourish. The adoptionists are mentioned not as the party against whom this endeavor is directed, but as an example of the sort of heresy which needs to be guarded against, and there is no anti-adoptionist polemic anywhere in the letter. See also Alc. Ep. 258 (p. 416.30–34), where he tells Paulinus of Aquileia about a book ‘quem noviter scripsi de catholica fide, et domno imperatori … direxi. Qui libellus nullatenus vestras effugiat manus, sed omnimodis scribatur, ut habetis, quia necessarius est valde fidem volentibus scire catholicam, in qua summa salutis nostrae consistit.’ This almost certainly refers to the De fide. Note that there is no polemic against or even mention of the adoptionists, and that the phrase ‘fidem volentibus scire catholicam’ implies a use for the work that is catechetical or as a kind of reference work (for teachers or preachers ‘wishing to know the Catholic faith’ on a particular point). In another letter, Alc. Ep. 254 (p. 411.10), to Arno, Alcuin could well be speaking of the De fide when he notes: ‘De catholicae fidei vero ratione tempore oportuno divino inspirante spiritu non me abnego aliquid inde considerare secundum catholicorum scripta patrum atque ad vestrae augmentum sanctitatis transscribere. Quod valde necessarium multis video, qui magis saecularia quaerunt, quam spiritalia; nescientes, quod secundum apostoli dictum impossibile est sine fide Deo placere.’ If the passage is not speaking of De fide, it certainly shows that all the language Alcuin uses to talk about De fide, including its virtual motto, Heb. 11.6, and the notion that it is on the ‘logic’ of the Catholic faith, does not imply an anti-adoptionist context at all, for they are not mentioned in this letter, and, when Alcuin says ‘necessary for many,’ he seems to be deliberately generalizing the audience in mind, as though this were a need of the age as a whole. Google Scholar

²⁵ From sections 61 and 82 (Admonitio Generalis, 3/23/789, in Boretius, A., ed., Capitularia regum Francorum I [= MGH Legum 2] 58, 61). Translations from King (see n. 23 above) 214 and 219. Note how chapter 82 (p. 61.28–38) reads almost like a table of contents for the De fide. And it is interesting to note that the other topics mandated for preaching in chapter 82 (pp. 61.39–62.7), are treated in Alcuin's On Rhetoric and the Virtues and On Virtues and Vices (copied as much as if not more than the De fide); Alcuin seems to have divided the topics into what we would recognize as systematic (De fide) and moral (the other two treatises) theology respectively.Google Scholar

²⁶ See e.g. Meyer 406; Bullough 63; Hauck 138. Google Scholar

²⁷ Hadot, P., ‘Marius Victorinus and Alcuin,' AHDL 29 (1954) 5–19.Google Scholar

²⁸ Alc. Ep. 257 (p. 415.10–15). Google Scholar

²⁹ De fide 1.13 (PL 101.21D).Google Scholar

³⁰ Some of the material Alcuin uses was, of course, probably already extant in extract form in florilegia, and in some ways the De fide itself, while by no means simply a florilegium, is a kind of evolution of that form. Yet it is notoriously difficult to gauge the use of florilegia with any precision, and, since not many have survived, we are not justified a priori in insisting that they were used heavily or exclusively, and such insistence is perhaps only another way of restating the standard view that the Carolingians were not in any sense creative thinkers. Someone else had to make these extracts for them. But Alcuin certainly knew and had long studied much more than florilegia of Augustine's Tractates on John, and was quite capable of deciding when to use it directly in his own Commentary, and when to use Bede or Gregory. There is no reason to believe that he did not know more than extracts of the De trinitate or the Enchiridion or other such texts as well. Although — and this must be emphasized — final results must await the completion of the critical edition, my collations to date indicate that Alcuin uses passages from Augustine (e.g. 1. Preface; 1.5; 2.12; and the long citations from the Enchiridion in 3.1–3.3) which are not found in any of the three major florilegia of his work (Vincent of Lerin's Excerpta; Prosper of Aquitaine's Liber Sententiarum; Eugippius' Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini), and that, where Alcuin uses a text represented in one or more of these florilegia, his version of the text almost never agrees with the variants represented by the florilegia, or does so only irregularly, agreeing with other MS traditions against the florilegia as much as the contrary. See e.g. 1.2, where Vincent cites the text from De trin. 1.4 cited here by Alcuin, but Alcuin's text agrees with Augustine's text (ed. Mountain, CCL 50–50A) where there is any variation. The same is true for 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, etc., where Alcuin agrees with the text of Augustine against Eugippius. In 3.12, Alcuin cites a passage from the De trin. also given by Prosper, but Alcuin's citation agrees with Augustine's text (although for the one sentence cited from De trin. 1 at the end of 2.9, Alcuin seems to follow Prosper). Also, Alcuin elected to use a passage from the Enchiridion containing a discussion of Jn. 1.14 and connecting to it, after a passage from Fulgentius, Col. 2.9 as a gloss, when he could have used the handy excerpt from Aug. Ep. 187.13.39, given by Vincent ( Madoz, J., ed., Excerpta Vincentii Lerinensis [Madrid 1940] 123–25), which contains a discussion based on the juxtaposition of these two texts. The same is true of Alcuin's decision to use the Enchiridion's discussion of the predestination of Christ, instead of the very similar discussion excerpted from the De praedest. sanct. 15.30 by Vincent (see Madoz 125). On Vincent, Prosper, and Eugippius, see Lienhard, J., ‘The Earliest Florilegia of St. Augustine,’ Augustinian Studies 8 (1977) 21–31. On florilegia of Augustine in general, see Dekkers, E., ‘Quelques notes sur des florilèges augustiniens anciens et médiévaux,' Augustiniana 40 (1990 = Melanges T. J. Van Bavel 1) 27–44.Google Scholar

³¹ E.g. 1.6 (PL 101.17B–18A), citing from Augustine's De trin. 6.2, gives verbatim lines 14–18 (line numbers from CCL 50–50A), then paraphrases other parts of the chapter (inserting a characteristic id est between citation and paraphrase, 17B), citing verbatim along the way De trin. 6.2.40–43, 51–55. After the addition of an explanatory example at 17CD, Alcuin backtracks, citing De trin. 6.2.26–29, followed by 6.2.50–51, 56–58. Also, in the latter half of 1.15 (PL 101.23 and 24AB), Alcuin has broken up verbatim citations from Augustine, De trin. 5, and given them out of order, re-connected by non-Augustinian material (5.10.17–19 followed by 5.10.26–27, followed by 5.8.23–8, 5.8.30–31, 5.2.7–12). Again, at 3.20 (PL 101.53A) sentences from Augustine's Ench. 24.2–7 (ed. Evans, E., CCL 46) have been rearranged, while at 3.22 (PL 101.54AB) not only have the sentences of Augustine's De civitate Dei 22.30.1–10 (edd. Dombart, B. and Kalb, A., CCL 47–48) been rearranged, they have been broken up as well, so that in effect it is fragments of sentences which are rearranged. It must of course be kept in mind that this may seem more dramatic to us than it did to the Carolingians, since their sense of where a sentence began and ended was more variable than our own, if the punctuation of the MSS is any indication.)Google Scholar

³² At 1.10 (PL 101.19CD), Alcuin cites Augustine, De trin. 5.5.19–22, followed immediately, without even one word intervening, by De trin. 6.8.1–3 (in the PL text the join is at 19C line 14, after ‘mutabile'). Alcuin then skips without warning, omitting all of 6.8.4–14, and picks up the text again, in mid-sentence, at 6.8.15. Two sections of two different sentences widely separated in the original text have thus been joined together into one seamless period. Google Scholar

³³ E.g. at 2.10 (PL 101.30A), Alcuin joins a passage from Augustine, De trin. 1.7.44–50, to a passage from Leo's Tome (Ep. 28.4) without even a conjunction. At 3.2 (PL 100.39C) Alcuin joins a passage from Augustine, Ench. 36, to a passage from Fulgentius of Ruspe, Ep. 14.1327–34, with only a short relative clause added in between, a clause which clarifies a point in the Augustinian text but in no way serves as an indication that there is a source change. Again, in 1.13 (PL 101.21AB), Alcuin cites a passage from the Creed of the Eleventh Council of Toledo, article 18 (text in Madoz, J., S.J., Le Symbole du XI^e Concile de Tolède [Louvain 1938] 16–26), which he places without warning into the middle of a long citation and paraphrase from Fulgentius (Ep. 14.115–119, 131–147). Also, at 3.9 (PL 101.43C), Alcuin runs a citation of Augustine, De trin. 2.6.9–10, directly into a citation from Fulgentius, Ep. 12.203–211, using Fulgentius' ideo as the only connector. As a final example, at 3.10 (PL 100.44B–D), Alcuin has joined together three citations (two from Fulgentius, Contra Fast. 12–13 and Ep. 14.903–06; one from a pseudo-Augustinian author also cited in the Libri VII Contra Felicem 1.13, PL 101.138C–39A) with the addition only of an enim in one case, and of a short sentence fragment (‘Hoc tamen sciendum est quod hanc …’) intended precisely to make the join invisible.Google Scholar

³⁴ At 3.11 (PL 101.45AB) Alcuin cites a passage from Fulgentius, De fide ad Pet. 63.1174–77, but in the middle of the passage places some eight lines, either of his own or from another source or sources not yet identified. These eight lines are placed into what is the middle of one of Fulgentius' sentences (at what is line 1175 in Fraipont's text, after natus est), and arranged in such a way that Fulgentius' text is resumed at the exact point it was dropped (qua crucifixus). The resumed text is placed directly into a sentence from the second source, which continues on after the citation from Fulgentius ends, until the end of the chapter.Google Scholar

Also note 2.9 (PL 101.28D), where Alcuin cites a passage from Fulgentius, De fide ad Pet. 6.144–49. In Fulgentius, this passage ends not only a sentence but a chapter, but Alcuin has made it part of a new sentence of his own, in the middle of a chapter of his own. The structure of the source has completely dissolved in favor of the structure which Alcuin is creating. An even more startling example of this is evident in chapters 2.11 and 2.19. In 2.11 (PL 101.30B–31A), Alcuin cites sentences from a lengthy section of Fulgentius, Ep. 14.1039–1223. Not only is this long passage broken up precisely as Alcuin sees fit, but one whole section of it, lines 1167–74, is extracted as a whole and transferred to a new setting, eight chapters later in 2.19 (PL 101.35D–36A).

Other examples include instances where the material interrupting a citation is definitely not Alcuin's composition, but is from a completely different third text. For example, at 3.16, there is a citation from Fulgentius, De fide ad Pet. 1.219–30, which is interrupted at 1.225 (after solam animam descendit, PL 101.48B). The material intervening includes a long citation from another text of Fulgentius, Ep. 14.1005–25, after which the passage from the De fide ad Pet. is resumed without any intervening word or phrase.

³⁵ For example, the chapter break and the heading for chapter 3.2 (PL 101.39B) is added in the middle of a long citation from Augustine, Ench. 11.1–30A. This does not correspond to any division in Augustine's text. Rather, Alcuin simply inserts a chapter break and heading at the end of one of Augustine's sentences (Ench. 11.23, after esset), and resumes the text of Augustine immediately, with the very next word from Ench. 11.23 (De). Also note the chapter break and heading at 2.8 (PL 101.28A), which is introduced into the middle of a long citation from Fulgentius, Ep. 14. Alcuin cites Ep. 14.56–93, then adds the chapter break and heading, and resumes the text of Fulgentius at Ep. 14.97. (By contrast, note that the chapter heading at 2.11 [PL 101.30B] is actually constructed from a passage of Fulgentius, Ep. 14.1039–40, while the text of the chapter continues to cite from this same source.) Google Scholar

³⁶ For an example of this, see 3.17 (PL 101.49B), where Alcuin cites a passage from Augustine, Ench. 14.10–14. Into the middle of one of Augustine's sentences (at in Spiritu sancto), just before the ut of a result clause, Alcuin inserts a passage of his own construction or from an unidentified source, after which Augustine's original result clause is placed (ut de Spiritu). In addition, Alcuin has modified the text of Augustine, carefully dropping words like illo from the phrase ut de illo Spiritu which had an antecedent in Augustine's sentence, and replacing them (in this case with sancto), fearing that the antecedent is too far distant and therefore unclear now that the passage has been interrupted by new material. A close comparison of Ench. 14.10–14 with Alcuin's citation of it will show other alterations of this sort. Also, at 3.12, Alcuin drops a text cited from Fulgentius, De fide ad Pet. 2.232–38, in the middle of a sentence, joining the incomplete sentence to a clause of his own construction. At 2.6, Alcuin cites a passage from Isidore, Sent. 1.5.3, which he drops before the end of Isidore's sentence and grafts on to a sentence of his own composition, a paraphrase of what he conceives to be Isidore's intentions. Google Scholar

³⁷ For example, at 3.11 (PL 101.44D), Alcuin adds the phrase sicut diximus to a passage cited from Fulgentius (Contra Fast. 17.678–82). At 1.9 Alcuin adds the phrase ut in superioribus diximus into a citation of Augustine, De trin. 5.5.1–5. Alcuin is also careful to take out the cross-referential remarks of his sources if he feels they do not apply, as e.g. at 1.13 (PL 101.21 A), where he removes the phrase sicut supra diximus from a passage of Fulgentius (Ep. 14.115–131) to accomodate his own structural scheme. Also, although it is not added into a citation, note that the phrase ‘quomodo haec Domini verba intelligenda sint, loco opportuno superius exposuimus’ at 3.19 (PL 101.51D) is a reflection of Alcuin's careful custody of the structure of his own work. Google Scholar

³⁸ For example, at 1.6 (PL 101.17B), after citing Augustine's De trin. 6.2 directly, Alcuin adds an explanatory id est followed by a loose paraphrase of other material in 6.2 where Alcuin summarizes Augustine's discussion in such a way that it becomes a useful generalized rule, suitable for memorization (‘Quocirca quidquid secundum substantiam, vel aeternitatem de eis dici potest, ambo simul sunt'). At the end of 1.5 (PL 101.17A), starting at ‘Non in ita …’) Alcuin adds a summary comment to citations taken from Augustine, De trin. 5.11, which, much more than Augustine, emphazises how to ‘speak’ correctly, as though one of his main intentions in writing the treatise is to help preachers and teachers learn to speak as precisely as possible about matters of doctrine. In 1.9 (PL 101.19B) Alcuin adds clarifying phrases or words into a citation from Augustine, De trin. 5.5, e.g. ‘… Filius non dicitur Filius, nisi ex eo quod habet Patrem': Alcuin has added the second ‘Filius’ (in italics) to clarify Augustine's intention, and in the sentence ‘Quod si aliquando coepisset Pater Pater esse, vel Filius Filius esse, vel desineret esse quod erat, secundum accidens diceretur Pater, vel Filius,’ Alcuin has expanded Augustine's sentence much as a teacher lecturing in class on the meaning of the sentence might comment. At 1.14 (PL 101.22B) Alcuin has added the clarifying phrase ‘sicut Pater’ into a short citation from the Creed of the Eleventh Council of Toledo. At 2.11 (PL 101.30B) Alcuin has added the word ‘nuncupative’ into a passage from Fulgentius (Ep. 14.25.1039–40) in order to make sure the applicability of Fulgentius' passage to the adoptionists is clear, and he also supplements Fulgentius with a short discursus of his own in which, presumably against the adoptionists, the difference between Christ and the saints is made clear. At 3.3 (PL 101.40A) Alcuin adds the clarifying expansion ‘vel Spiritus Sancti’ into a passage taken from Ench. 12.41; at the end of 3.4 (PL 101.40CD), Alcuin adds two sentences, beginning ‘In mundo erat …,’ which explain in a summary way the potentially confusing discussion taken over from De trin. 2.5. At 3.9 (PL 101.43CD), the most explicitly anti-adoptionist chapter in the work, Alcuin adds words to a passage from Fulgentius (Ep. 12.203–11) to make sure the applicability to adoptionism is clear, and also adds an explicit condemnation of the ‘Hispanica haeresis.’ At 3.10 (PL 101.44B), Alcuin adds words to clarify a passage from Fulgentius: ‘Neque enim in Christo hoc deitas potuit esse quod caro, aut caro quod deitas, quia utraque natura, id est divinitatis et humanitatis …’ (Contra Fast. 11.488–90, Alcuin's additions italicized). Google Scholar

³⁹ De fide 1.2 (PL 101.14D–15A). The passage from ‘And the Holy Spirit is neither’ to ‘belongs to the unity of the Trinity’ is from Augustine, De trin. 1.4. The next sentence, from ‘And this Trinity’ to the end of the citation of Rom. 11.36, is of Alcuin's own construction (although probably based on Augustine, De trin. 1.6.74–77). The next sentence is from Fulgentius, De fide ad Pet. 5.106f.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Another striking example of such close conflation of materials of different origin is at 3.14 (PL 101.45A), where a passage from Arnobius the Younger is run into a passage of Alcuin's own composition (or from an unidentified source) without even a sentence break, and where, four lines later, this passage is run mid-sentence into a citation of Ambrose or pseudo-Ambrose which itself is a citation given by Cassian, (De incarnatione 7.25). Since both joints are in mid-sentence, the passage appears seamless.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The ‘Amen’ is, however, attested in only one of the MSS consulted for this paper, P1. Google Scholar

⁴² De fide 1. Preface. Italics indicate words and phrases taken over directly from Augustine (De trin. 4.1.1–7). The rest is paraphrased.Google Scholar

⁴³ Hauck's laconic dictum is worth remembering: ‘Es wird kaum nötig sein, zu erinnern, daß Alkuin nicht den ganzen Augustin reproduziert’ (Kirchengeschichte 138 n. 8). Google Scholar

⁴⁴ De fide 2.21, PL 101.38C, introducing the topic of the next (third) book. Alcuin uses the word incarnatio and related phrases in many places, including the chapter headings to 3.10 and 3.14.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ench. 11.1–23.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ We often hear phrases like ‘Absque omni scilicet dubitatione credi necessarium est …’ (1.8); ‘hoc etiam atque firmiter tenendum est …’ (1.11); ‘Indubitanter siquidem credere debemus …’ (1.12); ‘et creditur et praedicatur ab omnibus catholicis …’ (3.9), as well as references to and explanations of what is said ‘in Symbolo catholicae fidei’ (3.1, cf. 3.3). In Ep. 139, when Alcuin commends Paulinus' accomplishment in writing a work ‘in catholicae fidei taxatione,’ he goes on to note that he had long been aspiring to the same thing, ‘et saepius domno regi suasi, ut symbolum catholicae fidei planissimis sensibus et sermonibus luculentissimis in unam congereretur cartulam …’ (p. 220.26–29). This is not a reference to De fide, but it is interesting to note how easily ‘an explanation of the Catholic faith’ is in Alcuin's mind aligned with a clear presentation of the Creed. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The table given at the end of this article provides an account of the sources which I have been able to locate to date. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The closest Alcuin comes to echoing this theme from Augustine is at 2. Prol., but even here it is only an echo, not integrated in any way into the structure of the work, as it is in Augustine's De trin. On this point Cavadini, J., ‘Alcuin and Augustine de trinitate,’ Augustinian Studies 12 (1981) 11–18, may be consulted.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Alcuin does not mention predestination even in contexts where it might have seemed natural. It is not mentioned in the discussion on the Fall in 3. Prol., even where the ‘justice’ and ‘mercy’ of God are mentioned — and in Augustine the mention of this pair is almost a cue for expanding upon those who are justly damned and those predestined by mercy for salvation. In fact, Alcuin almost seems to associate ‘justice’ with the punishment of the angels who incited humans to sin, contrasting it with the ‘mercy’ shown to human beings who are saved from ‘the very same perdition.’ At the end of 3.20, Alcuin cites Ench. 94, which contains a citation of Ps. 100.1, but without any explicit reference to predestination. This is a Scriptural passage which in other places in Augustine has a strong association with predestinarian themes. Alcuin avoids use of the expression ‘the elect’ to describe the saved, speaking by preference of ‘the saints'. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Alcuin will mention that angels and humans, the two rational types of creatures, were ‘ennobled’ with free choice of will (3. Prol.), and will explain that unless it is ‘liberated’ by grace the free choice of the will is not really free (2.8), and that our final condition will be to enjoy God, who gave us virtue and will make our free choice of the will unable to sin (3.22). But this sort of reference is non-thematic and isolated. In addition, there is no mention of the internal struggle of the will at all. Note in this connection how at 3.20 (PL 101.52A–53A) Alcuin actually plays one Augustinian text off against another, passages in which the term ‘flesh’ (caro) is used, Ench. 23.97–106 and De civ. 22.21.10–12. It is in the Enchiridion passage that 1 Cor. 15.50 is cited, and in this passage Augustine is interested in making a distinction between the ‘body’ (corpus) and the ‘flesh’ in the peculiarly Pauline sense of the word ‘flesh.’ He wants to show that it is the word ‘flesh,’ not the word ‘body,’ which is associated with ‘corruption.’ The passage from the De civitate Dei, on the other hand, does not try to make these distinctions, and although the relevant text in De fide 3.20 has more words in common with the Enchiridion passage than with the passage from De civitate Dei, Alcuin sees to it that it is the more physical, straightforward usage of the De civitate Dei text that is heard. Also note the omission of any reference to non posse non peccare at 3.22. Google Scholar

⁵¹ Jn. 1.14 cited at De fide 2.22, 3.2 (several times), and Col. 2.9 cited at 2.11, 2.22, 3.2, 3.11. Google Scholar

⁵² All references to De fide given by column numbers from PL 101. Google Scholar

⁵³ Ed. Mutzenbecher, A., CCL 44A.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Some of these citations are also given by Mountain 589. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cf. Isidore, , Sent. 2.1, 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Augustine, , Tract. in Iohan. 39.3.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Augustine, , De trin. 5.10.17–27, cited by Fulgentius at Ep. 2.12 (14.602–12).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Edd. Dekkers, E. and Fraipont, J., CCL 38–40.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. Augustine, , Tract. in Iohan. 39.3; De civ. Dei 11.24; and Caesarius of Aries, Brevarium adv. haereticos (ed. Morin, G., 2.192, lines 15–18).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ed. Goldbacher, A., CSEL 44 (Ep. 147) and 57 (Ep. 187).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Augustine, , De trin. 2.16; 2.17.16–49.Google Scholar

⁶² In the numbering of the Maurists, given in PL 38. This citation is one case where Alcuin may be using Eugippius instead of the text of Augustine itself. The passage he cites is a reduction of the answer which Augustine gives to his own rhetorical question, precisely the passage (excluding the long question) given by Eugippius at Excerpta 244 (ed. Knöll, P., CSEL 9.1) 797–99.Google Scholar

⁶³ Citation given by Hadot, P., ‘Marius Victorinus and Alcuin,' 8.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ed. Willems, D. R., CCL 36.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf. also Isidore, , Sent. 2.2 and Augustine, De trin. 1.1.3.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Fulgentius here explicitly acknowledges that he is citing Augustine, Tract. in Iohan. 14.10. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ This passage is a citation of Augustine, De trin. 6.5.1–4. Fulgentius gives full attribution to his source (14.1581–82), but it is clear that in this case Alcuin is following Fulgentius and not Augustine's text directly, since where the text of Fulgentius differs from Augustine, Alcuin follows Fulgentius. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Also citing Augustine, De trin. 6.5.30–32. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Oxford 1911).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cf. Augustine, , De trin. 1.1.37–48.Google Scholar

⁷¹ PL 83.538–738. Google Scholar

⁷² Ed. Petschenig, M., CSEL 17.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cassian is here quoting a passage which he believes to be Ambrose, ‘in natale domini’ (p. 383, line 23), but which remains hitherto otherwise unidentified. Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ed. Silva-Tarouca., Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The passage which Alcuin cites is also given by Fulgentius at Ep. 14.686–93 — Alcuin is probably citing the passage from this text of Fulgentius, on which he has already relied so heavily in constructing this treatise. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Citations from Hadot, P., ‘Marius Victorinus and Alcuin.'Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cited by Wallach, L., ‘The Libri Carolini and Patristics, Latin and Greek: Prolegomena to a Critical Edition,’ in Wallach, L., The Classical Tradition (Ithaca, NY 1966) 456–57. Wallach here discusses other possible sources for this chapter of the De fide as well.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See also Augustine, , De trin. 15.27; Isidore, Etym. 7.3.6. Note the comments of Madoz, Tolède 49 and 155 n. 1.Google Scholar