1. The questions are listed below in Appendix A; the Eucharistic tract with its questions is printed in its entirety in Appendix B, below. Both the questions and the tract are copied by the same scribe, with no indication that the two might be different works or derive from different sources. That the questions were originally distinct from the Eucharistic tract is clear from the introduction to the latter, which presupposes a foregoing discussion of penance not found in the questions as preserved in this codex. Both may, however, derive ultimately from the teachings of a single master. They are homogeneous in style and content (with some exceptions; see below, App. B). The Eucharistic tract is manifestly part of a larger work; perhaps the 80 questions have been excerpted from that same work.
2. See Appendix B., 6.
3. ‘Sed quae cui praeferenda est: utrum actio contemplationi an econtra? Et quidem si attendimus hinc Liam et Martham, inde Rachelem et Mariam, utraque apparebit bona, melior tamen contemplativa… . Sed Christus imo et apostoli ejus in labore et anxietate actionum maluerunt exerceri, nec inter agendum fructus defuerant contemplativi; verumtamen ex actione exstiterunt et mundo utiliores et Deo gratiores… . Exutis saeculo commoda est contemplatio; involutis, concordat actio; praelato autem utraque incumbit …’ Sententiae 7.25 (PL 186.938–939).
4. Master R P is quoted unambiguously elsewhere in the Sententie Gisliberti (see [ 1978] 100; [1979] 85). Although the word transubstantio does not occur in Robert Pullen's published Sententiae, all the elements of the doctrine as described in the Corpus Christi text are to be found there: ‘Cum autem panis in carnem, vinum quoque virtute Christi vertatur in sanguinem, substantia utique vini et panis desinit esse quod fuerat, idque fit quod prius non erat: proprietates tamen amborum transeuntium manent, unde fit ut id quinque sensus nostri post consecrationem inveniant, quod ante consecrationem inveniebant… . Transit itaque substantia, sed remanet forma; neutrum miraris, sed omnipotentem contemplaris. Quamobrem non est sensum delusio, sed vera rei comprehensio, quod cum Dominica in mensa sit solum caro et sanguis, nihilominus tamen vini natura percipiatur et panis. Non tamen quod caro et sanguis hujusmodi sint qualitatis, verum quod, post mutationem utriusque substantiae, non mutatur qualitas naturae’ (8.5, PL 186.966–67).
5. See van den Eynde D. , Les Définitions des sacraments pendant la première période de la théologie scholastique (1050–1240) (Rome 1950) 18–27.