Vorscholastik : The contribution of the Carolingian monk Paschasius Radbertus of Corbie (c. 790–860) to early medieval philosophy

the historical–philosophical significance of the monk and abbot of Corbie Abbey (est. 657), Paschasius Radbertus (c. 790–860). Radbert is contextualised within the cultural and academic setting of the Carolingian period of the eighth and ninth centuries while taking into account the diverse scholarly accomplishments of his contemporaries such as Alcuin of York (c. 740–804), Rabanus Maurus (c. 780–856), Walafrid Strabo (c. 809–849) and John Scottus Eriugena (815–877). The characteristic absence of contributions regarding Radbert in otherwise comprehensive introductions and editorial works in medieval philosophy is subsequently surveyed. It is shown that only a few introductory works of note contain references to Radbert, while the current specialised research is also relatively limited. Reconsidering depictions of Radbert in several older commentaries, notably Martin Grabmann’s (1875–1949) Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode I (1957), it is suggested that Radbert’s philosophical importance could be traced to Vorscholastik or the earliest development of scholasticism, as presented in his extensive commentary Expositio in Matheo Libri XII – without diminishing the ecclesiastical weight of his dispute with Ratramnus (d.c. 868) regarding their interpretation of the Eucharist in their similarly titled but disparate treatises De corpore et sanguine Domini , for which Radbert is generally better known and accordingly reflected in studies of early medieval intellectual history. Contribution: This article contributes to scholarship in early medieval philosophy by reassessing the philosophical influence of Paschasius Radbertus, based on the most recent specialised analyses and older modern receptions of his texts De corpore et sanguine Domini and Expositio in Matheo Libri XII .


Introduction
How does the Carolingian monk Paschasius Radbertus 1 of Corbie (c. 790-860) fit into the early medieval landscape of philosophy and the broader Western history of ideas? Could his name be mentioned in the same vein as his (in)famous contemporary John Scottus Eriugena and other eminent Carolingians 2 such as Alcuin of York, Rabanus Maurus and Walafrid Strabo? What was Radbert's most definitive contribution to medieval philosophy in particular? In an attempt to answer these questions, this article 3 reappraises Radbert's life and work, expressly as a thinker from the Carolingian period in the early Middle Ages. Radbert is unquestionably one of the most important literary and intellectual figures of the Carolingian Renaissance but is better known as an author of biblical exegesis (especially regarding his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Expositio in Matheo Libri XII, cf. Paschasius Radbertus of Corbie 1984 [c. 822 -c. 856]), 'theologian' (for instance, his treatise on the Eucharist, De corpore et sanguine Domini, cf. Paschasius Radbertus of Corbie 1969 [c. 843]), and historical biographer (particularly the Vita Adalhardi [cf. De Jong & Lake 2020] and Epitaphium Arsenii [cf. De Jong 2019]), than as a philosopher or authentic exponent of philosophia. As such, Radbert is given little to no coverage in standard summaries of medieval philosophy. To the degree that Radbert is thought of as an intellectual figure with lasting influence, this is typically based on De corpore et sanguine Domini, which anticipated what would eventually become the official church position on 'transubstantiation' since the early 13th century. However, it is argued infra that the division between theology and philosophy from the 12th century onwards distorts Radbert's philosophical significance, because Expositio in Matheo Libri XII (thus an exegetical work) was an important contribution to the early development of the scholastic method, itself a profoundly philosophical enterprise.
Against this background, the article's research justification holds that the striking lack of references to Radbert in otherwise highly inclusive contemporary introductions and editorial works, with little to consult outside of the applicable specialised domains in early medieval research, point towards a relatively unacknowledged thinker from the early Middle Ageswho thus merits an accessible reappraisal. Reconsidering several older studies, notably the relevant passages in the first volume of early 20thcentury scholar Martin Grabmann's Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode (1957), it is suggested that Radbert's philosophical significance could be traced to what only later came to be known as scholasticism, specifically regarding its earliest development (or Vorscholastik), as established in his extensive commentary Expositio in Matheo Libri XII, a work consisting of 12 volumes and written over a period of around three decades (c. 822 -c. 856). This rehabilitative emphasis is put forward without discounting the ecclesiastical significance of Radbert's dispute, for which he is more generally known, with his colleague Ratramnus of Corbie (d.c. 868) regarding their interpretation of the Eucharist in their similarly titled but opposing treatises De corpore et sanguine Domini.
(footnote 3 continues...) focuses on the origins and development of an idea, the relation between ideas and institutions or thought and praxis and situated in the more flexible space between historiography and exposition. In extensive works, such as dissertations or specialised monographs, one could expect a more pertinent positioning regarding either a fully developed historiographical survey or a thorough literary analysis (in this instance, it would involve an in-depth analysis of the 12 volumes of Expositio in Matheo Libri XII). However, a short ideengeschichtliche study, such as the one in hand, given its discreet purpose and declared limited scope, does not necessarily have to rigidly position itself to either historiography or literary analysis but can afford to utilise the restricted space between the two.
9. For Eriugena's role in and signifance for the Carolingian period and immediately thereafter, see Beierwaltes (ed. 1987:9-38), Carabine (2000:13-26), Copleston (1993:112-135), Hyman, Walsh and Williams (eds. 2010:145-148), Marenbon (1981Marenbon ( :88-111, 1988, Moran (1989Moran ( :35-47, 1990, O'Meara (1988), Otten (1991:40-81) and Weiner (2007:1-40 Figure 1) in 847. He was considered an excellent exegete of the Gospel of Matthew and the Pauline letters, presented commentaries on the church fathers which were widely circulated and was, as the author of De rerum naturis, also known as a remarkable encyclopaedist in the tradition of Isidor of Sevilla's (c. 560-636) Etymologiae. 11 Walafrid again earned trust for his balanced and irenic handling of tense theological-philosophical issues, including the correct interpretation of the Eucharist (an issue, as we will see, that led to intense controversy in the Carolingian empire from the 830s onwards). As a hallmark of his conciliatory approach, Walafrid even succeeded in appeasing the predestinarian dissident Gottschalk Van Orbais' (c. 808-868) theological participation in the revolts of 828 and 832 against Louis the Pious. Walafrid became abbot of Reichenau Abbey (est. 724) at the uncommonly young age of 29. In Alcuin's footsteps, Rabanus, Eriugena and Walafrid contributed to an intellectual environment wherein their contemporary Radbert was sculpted into an authentic Carolingian who made an independent contribution to the early medieval history of ideas. The question is what that contribution was, and if Radbert's legacy is to be restricted to only a single yet consequential event: the circulation of his treatise De corpore et sanguine Domini in 822.

De corpore et sanguine Domini (822-843): Radbert and Ratramnus
Born between 785 and 790 and brought up as an orphan at the nunnery Notre-Dame de Soissons, Radbert became a monk at and later the abbot of Corbie Abbey (est. 657, cf. Figure 1) in Picardy, a Merovingian royal monastery containing an excellent library (cf. Ganz [1995]  Radbert was the principal of the monastery school and a respected lecturer in biblical exegesis (cf. Contreni [1995] 2006:721). In that capacity, he was able to successfully advance the appointment of Wala as his late brother's successor.
11. For an overview of Rabanus' historical-philosophical significance, especially as an encyclopaedist, see Heyse (1969). The import of encyclopaedic works during the 9th century will be discussed in the last section of the article.
12. Given the limited biographical information on Radbert, De Jong's (2019:35-43) account is the most extensive and updated offering in the current scholarship. For an analysis of the social conditions in Picardy relating to Corbie Abbey around the middle of the 9th century, see Ganz (1990:1-25) and Krüger (1982:181-196  A t l a n t i c O c e a n M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a  Plotnik [1970:59-64]) had the objective to embed his Aristotelian interpretation of causality also theologically: only the accidental features of the bread and wine change, not its full substance (thus, at odds with Constitution 1 of the Fourth Lateran Council). The key feature of this 'impanation' theory (or 'consubstantiation') is that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in the Eucharist; however, 'it does not remain in its own supposit but is drawn into the supposit of Christ' (Plotnik 1970:57). Quidort essentially extended (Augustine's and) Ratramnus' interpretation and anticipated the 16th-century Protestant his attempt to demonstrate philosophically that Christ is substantial and fully present at the moment of consecration at the sacrament of the altar. The bread and wine become, in this transubstantiated sense, the true body (verum corpus) of Christ. Ratramnus countered this interpretation with his accent on the symbolical and (even) metaphorical functioning of the bread and wine (thus as 'signs'). Ratramnus used the same distinction between figura and veritas as Radbert but provided it with a sharper empirical content: figura accordingly points to 'that which can be recognised by the senses' and veritas that 'which is known to be true', a deduction based on the former recognition by the senses. The bread and wine could, as a result, not be the real body and blood of Christ because it is not recognised as such by the senses. The sensory experience of the bread and wine never changes: the bread and wine are at the time of receiving the sacrament precisely what they were before, namely bread and wine, and not the real, historical and incarnated body of Christ (cf. Chazelle 2001:32-36). However banal this may seem, the point was that something else was required for the sacrament to be truly functional: namely, on Augustine's trail, faith. Although Ratramnus had no intention to let this difference in interpretation develop into a formal controversy (e.g. not mentioning Radbert by name), it was clear to their contemporaries whose interpretation was critically exposed. Although Radbert was not formally reprimanded (because it was not an official controversy), Ratramnus' version was welcomed to such an extent that Radbert's position at Corbie Abbey was considerably weakened. Nevertheless, in the absence of any official proceedings, Radbert was appointed abbot of Corbie in September 843. He attempted to reform the monastery on several levels in this capacity, however, with negligible success.
Ratramnus' version of DcsD gained the upper hand on at least three possible grounds. 16 Firstly, he quoted and annotated the patristic sources thoroughly and consistently, especially regarding Augustine, while even Radbert's last reworked version of 843 lacked a similar scope of referencing, including his preferred source, Ambrose. Secondly, and as a result of this, 16. Because of the more favourable reception of his version of DcsD, Ratramnus presented a second influential theological work, again ordered by Charles II and circulated since 850 onwards: De praedestinatione presented a summary of existing interpretations of God's knowledge of future contingents and the resulting teachings on divine predestination, as embedded in patristic texts and post-Roman theologies. As both his version of DcsD and this work focused on an interpretation (rather than an uncritical validation of authoritative readings) of the relevant biblical texts, the two works were positively reappraised in the initial phases of the Reformation of the early 16th century. Radbert, after 843, on the other hand, finalised his second book on the Vita Walae (after having completed the Vita sancti Adalhardi before the onset of the dispute), a two-volume commentary on the theological significance of the virgin Mary (De partu virginis) and a series of three books on Psalm 45. Whatever one may think of the two monks' views, their dispute was far more sophisticated than the controversies of the preceding generation. Both consistently and spontaneously employed the analytic and discursive techniques provided by philosophy, including 'argumentation, drawing or rejecting distinctions, attempts to define issues on an abstract level, use of examples and counterexamples, and drawing out consequences of positions' (King 2006:34)indeed, philosophical discourse was an integral part of their debate, as it was of everything else that would since the early 12th century progressively be distinguished as 'theology'.
Radbert was suspected of indifference towards tradition: in fact, the students at the monastery school, under the guidance of one Fredugard, formally challenged his knowledge of and loyalty to the patristic sources (cf. Otten 2000:141, 158

The state of Radbert research, anno 2022
Radbert is a relatively unacknowledged thinker from the early Middle Ages: except for what eventually turned out to be the lasting nature of his version of DcsD, his broader historical 17. One may add, counter-intuitively so for the modern reader, that Ratramnus' interpretation conformed more closely to the mediated nature of the Carolingian worldview than that of Radbert. To an even greater extent than in the central and later Middle Ages, the mediated nature of all things was the defining feature of the worldview in the early period: everything in this world was a sign of a higher order, mediating the divine and the mundane, representing not itself but an elevated and wholly different reality (cf. Colish 1997:72-73 impact is still underexplored in contemporary medieval philosophy scholarship. This statement could be substantiated by a comparative reading of the most significant introductions, companions and dictionaries published in the field over the past two decades. These kinds of works, also intended for a nonspecialised readership, are often helpful as barometers for the evaluation of a particular thinker's standing on the margins or completely outside the canon 19 of medieval philosophy. The dictionary of Brown and Flores (2007:208) (Evans 2002:44-50). 20 Evans' (2002:48) singling Radbert out as 'representative of a series of Carolingian and post-Carolingian scholars who took forward the work of Bede' (Venerabilis, 673-735) and her immediate focus on Expositio in Matheo Libri XII while only briefly discussing DcsD as of secondary interest thereafter (Evans 2002:49) should, in light of the above overview, be considered exceptional. Evans' reception holds that Radbert's legacy should not be restricted to only his participation in this 9th-century dispute on the Eucharist but include his exegetical style, that is, 'how to balance brevity with completeness' (Evans 2002:48). Regarding references to Radbert as an original Carolingian thinker, these three works stand out in the recent overview literaturebecause there is conspicuously little else. 21 To depict Radbert as a relatively unacknowledged thinker from the early Middle Ages who therefore merits an accessible reappraisal is thus a reasonable deduction: wherever he is implied to be in the context of early medieval philosophy and Carolingian culture, 19. For an exposition on the (problem of the) 'canon' in medieval philosophy, see Beukes (2020c:1-6;2021b1-3). The following sections are consequentially not building a case for only Radbert but the many solitary or non-canonised thinkers in the medieval history of ideas. They are the 'lesser' ones on whose shoulders the 'giants' or canonised thinkers stood -in this case, the giant Anselm of Canterbury on the shoulders of the lesser Radbert of Corbie: 'We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants; we perceive more and see farther than they, but not because we have better vision, nor because we are taller than they, but because they have lifted us up and added their gigantic height to ours' 21. For instance, Luscombe's (1997:32) introduction refers to Ratramnus and Gottschalk but not Radbert. Marenbon's (1981Marenbon's ( , 1988Marenbon's ( , 1991Marenbon's ( , 2007 four excellent introductions contain no references to Radbert (while thoroughly engaging Ratramnus and Gottschalk, cf. Marenbon 2007:53-55); also, both his editorial works (ed. Marenbon 1998Marenbon :96-120, 2012 only imply and never name Radbert in references to, for example, Alcuin, Eriugena, Ratramnus and Gottschalk. A similar lack of references to Radbert is notable in otherwise highly inclusive introductions, companions, handbooks and readers of late, such as Beukes (2020a) http://www.hts.org.za Open Access he is being subordinated to other Carolingians who do feature in these introductory works.
Why is this the case? McKitterick and Marenbon (1998:96-97) provided a cue: 'The period from 800 to 1100 is even more neglected by historians of medieval Western philosophy than the rest of the Middle Ages [...]'; however, '[T]he names of some of those besides Eriugena and Anselm who considered philosophical questions in the early Middle Ages are known [...]', followed by an extensive list of Carolingians and post-Carolingians, with, of course, the exception of Radbert. Thus, apart from the Carolingian and post-Carolingian contexts as such being underrepresented in medieval scholarship, Radbert is not included even in a comprehensive list of thinkers from these two under-rated idea-historical periods.
The reason for that is, taking McKitterick and Marenbon's second remark into count, that Radbert is evidently not considered a philosopher properbut a theologian. On the one hand, that is true: Radbert did not contribute to the primary index of medieval philosophy regarding cosmology, epistemology, metaphysics, psychology and ethics (including political theory). On the other hand, up to the last decades of the 11th century, there was no fixed borderline between philosophy and (what would only from that time slowly but progressively be referred to as) theology. Until the development of scholasticism within the institutional framework of the upcoming universities of the early 12th century, there were no philosophers vis-à-vis theologians: all academics were still considered to be exponents of one administrated form of learning and tuition called philosophia.
Even pura et vera 'philosophers' -thus, those who formally contributed to the given indexwere as much theologians as they were literary theorists, linguists, natural scientists and jurists. And 'theologians', such as Radbert, who thus did not formally or substantially contribute to that index, utilised the full repertoire of (medieval) philosophy to address theological issues (in debates on, e.g. the Eucharist, regarding causality and the relation between substance, matter, form and accidental features). It is unclear how this trend of overlooking Radbert based on an implied distinction between theology and philosophy before the 12th century established itself in the later modern scholarship. If one wants to engage the broader significance of Radbert's legacy, it appears that the only route is to go back in the reception history to a point where that implied distinction was not made, which would be in commentaries from at least the first half of the 20th century.
The most recent specialised research on Radbert is also comparatively limited. It comprises the eminent scholar of the early Middle Ages, De Jong's (2019) outstanding Epitaph for an Era, 22 De Jong and Lake's (2020) translation and annotation of Radbert's funeral oration for Wala, reminiscent of Cabaniss's (1967) Peltier 1908Peltier :1628Peltier -1639; to be certain, Peltier discussed EMLXII first, before briefly turning to DcsD) 25 ; also, McCracken and Cabaniss' (1957:90-93) relevant section in their Early Medieval Theology presented a nonprioritised reception of the two texts. This unprejudiced focus on EMLXII vis-à-vis DcsD is also present in a remarkable series of passages contained in the first unit of a two-volume study on the development of scholasticism by an eminent German scholar from the first half of the 20th century, Martin Grabmann's (1875Grabmann's ( -1949  although published in the (now digitalised) dictionary between 1992 and 1995, the undated overview clearly was written much earlier. Grégoire also did not prioritise DcsD in his précis and referred substantially to EMLXII as well. The same applies to Aris' (1993Aris' ( :1754Aris' ( -1755 appraisal of Radbert in the sixth volume of the most exhaustive German dictionary in the field, Lexikon des Mittelalters. 26. Indeed, '[a]ll too often, modern scholars ignore at their peril the absolutely massive accomplishments and enduringly useful information contained in studies such as Grabmann's, and those by any number of German scholars from the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries' (acknowledging an anonymous peerreviewer's remark).
philosophy before the 12 century, as one would find in more recent interpretations. The two volumes of Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode were posthumously edited and composed of Grabmann's publications and unpublished manuscripts on scholasticism, presented from 1909 to 1949 (cf. publisher's Vorwort, second title page and vii-ix, in Grabmann 1957). The first volume covers developments only after Augustine (who Grabmann curiously but explicitly, if not polemically, excluded from the medieval corpus), specifically from Boethius (c. 477-524, 'der letze Römer und der erste Scholastiker', Grabmann 1957:148-177) onwards, ending with an exhaustive section on Anselm, to whom Grabmann (1957:258) rightly refers as the authentic founder of the scholastic method ('Der Vater der Scholastik'; cf. Grabmann 1957:258-340).
In the fourth section of this first volume, titled 'Die Überlieferung und Weiterbildung der patristischen und boethianischen Anfänge der scholastischen Methode in der Vorscholastik', Grabmann (1957:178-257) isolates two phases in the earliest phases of the development of scholasticism: Vorscholastik (which can possibly be translated as 'protoscholasticism', cf. Grabmann 1957:178-214) indicating the relevant post-Roman and Carolingian contributions from Bede onwards ('Die wissenschaftlice Arbeitsweise im karolingischen Zeitalter') and Am Vorabend der Scholastik ('the dawn of scholasticism'), referring to post-Carolingian developments up to Anselm in the 11th century ('Methodische Strebungen und Strömungen in der Theologie des 11. Jahrhunderts'). Radbert was accordingly located in Vorscholastik, a subperiod which Grabmann (1957:178-214) qualified with reference to Eriugena in particular ('Ist Scotus Eriugena der Vater der Scholastik?' (pp. 202-210), a rhetorical question he answers in the negative). However, Grabmann (1957:198-200) singles out Radbert as the most significant contributor to Vorscholastik, next to Eriugena. While giving proper attention to the contributions of Alcuin (pp. 193-195),  and Walafrid (pp. 197), he remarkably highlights EMLXII as 'the best exegetical work of the ninth century' ('Der Matthäuskommentar des Paschasius Radbertus ist die beste exegetische Arbeit des 9. Jahrhunderts'; Grabmann 1957:198[4]). Given Rabanus' reputation as the leading ninth-century commentator on Matthew, this statement is very significant. Although Grabmann (1957:198-200) thoroughly acknowledges the import of DcsD for medieval church history from the early 13th century onwards (i.e. after the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215), his main focus is on Radbert's import for his own timethat is, regarding Vorscholastik. Grabmann's statement and subsequent exposition were fundamentally based on Anton Schönbach's reading of Radbert in his Über einige Evangelienkommentare des Mittelalters (cf. Grabmann 1957:198-199;Schönbach 1903:142-174). Schönbach (1903:145-147)  historical-philosophical significance of the rise of encyclopaedic works such as that of Rabanus, thoroughly employed the available register of interpretations on a particular topic, synthesising it in a single event. This was not the scholastic method yetbut clearly a prelude to its development from Anselm onwards. For Schönbach and Grabmann Vorscholastik was, in this sense, of profound philosophical significance. This is the reason why Grabmann accentuated Radbert's meticulous exegetical style, his ability to combine concision and historical-discursive density, working proto-scholastically forward on the strengths of tradition without being held captive by it: an approach developed with painstaking precision over more than three decades in the 12 volumes of EMLXII. This methodical and indeed stylistic quality must have been of direct significance for 'all the great theologians of early-and high-scholasticism' (Grabmann 1957:200 However, Grabmann did not pursue these remarks about Radbert any further, neither in the section on Radbert (Grabmann 1957:198-200) nor in the section on Anselm (Grabmann 1957:258-340). In what sense then, did Radbert's exegetical method represent a stepping-stone on the path to the development of scholasticism, as Grabmann in this teleological understanding of the development of scholasticism maintained? Had Anselm indeed read EMLXII? If it cannot be confirmed, we must deduce that Grabmann's highlighting of Radbert's significance for the later development of scholasticism was based on stylistic considerations only.
There is no evidence that Anselm read EMLXII. A survey of Evans ' (ed. 1984) four-volume concordance of all Anselm's works and their English translations by Davies andEvans (eds. &transl. 1998 [2008]) and Hopkins and Richardson (eds. & transl. 2000) shows that Anselm did not make any reference to Radbert, EMLXII or DcsD. Plus, if there was such a reference, however subtle, as a leading Anselm scholar Evans most likely would have mentioned it in her previously mentioned section on Radbert (thus, in Fifty Key Medieval Thinkers, Evans 2002:44-50). Grabmann, for his part, knew there was no such reference and that is why he did not further elaborate on any possible textual relation between Anselm and Radbert. He already stated his case: simply put, Vorscholastik was key in the early development of scholasticism and EMLXII was exemplary of it. As Evans did more than four decades later, in her highlighting of Radbert's exegetical style and method, Grabmann concentrated on matters of style and composition, and, for the first time in a long time, Radbert was recognised as important beyond an infamous dogmatic debate on the Eucharistindeed, as an encyclopaedic spirit and a Carolingian of philosophical consequence.

Conclusion
This article endeavoured, within a limited scope, to draw attention to the philosophical impact Paschasius Radbertus exerted on early medieval intellectual and religious culture. He should be considered an influential exponent of the development of the earliest stages of scholasticism and not be relegated to only his participation in the Eucharist debate of the ninth century. Based on the lack of references to Radbert in contemporary nonspecialised introductions and taking into account a limited specialised scholarship, he was depicted as a relatively unacknowledged thinker from the early Middle Ages: however, by reconsidering portraits in modern, less recent commentaries, of which Grabmann's Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode I of 1957 could be considered representative, it was suggested that Radbert's historicalphilosophical significance could be traced to Vorscholastik or the earliest stages of the development of scholasticism, as established over more than three decades in Expositio in Matheo Libri XII. This reconstructive reading was presented without disregarding the ecclesiastical significance of the Eucharist debate in De corpore et sanguine Domini, as typically underscored in contemporary scholarship. The modest master from Corbie deserves to be remembered for more than his participation in an eventual influential dogmatic debate: certainly, also for his encyclopaedic exegetical style, which helped paved the way for the myriad of multivolume commentaries presented by the prestigious schoolmen of the central Middle Ages.