¹ I wish to thank Lola Badia, Anthony Bonner, and very specially Hillgarth, J. N. for kindly reading several drafts of this paper and helping to improve it with their comments. I am indebted also to Robert Archer for the English version of the article. I am grateful to the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes of the CNRS and to the Section des Manuscrits Occidentaux of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, for the facilities they gave me during my research. I use the following abbreviations: BN: Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; MOG: Raymundi Lulli Opera Omnia, ed. Ivo Salzinger, 8 vols. (Mainz, 1721–42); ORL: Obres de Ramon Lull, ed. Salvador Galmés et al., 21 vols. (Palma de Mallorca, 1906–50); OS: Anthony Bonner, Obres selectes de Ramon Llull (1232–1316), 2 vols. (Palma de Mallorca, 1989); ROL: Raymundi Lulli Opera latina, ed. Friedrich Stegmüller et al., 18 vols. (vols. 1–5 Palma, 1959–67; vols. 6–18 Turnhout, 1975–91); SW: Anthony Bonner, Selected Works of Ramon Llull, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1985).Google Scholar

Llull arrived in Paris after a fruitless visit to Rome. The Vita coaetanea, IV, 18 (ROL 8: 283) recounts that he arrived at the Roman curia shortly after the death of Pope Honorius IV (3 April 1287). Because of this event and the delay in electing a new pope, Llull “direxit versus Parisius gressus suos ad communicandum ibidem mundo, quam sibi dederat Deus, Artem.” Albert Soler, “El Liber super Psalmum Quicumque de Ramon Llull i l'opció pels tàrtars,” Studia Lulliana 32 (1992):3–19.Google Scholar

² The reason why this possibility has received little attention is that the connection between Llull and Peter of Limoges is not immediately evident. Peter did not compose any compilations of Lullian material like those of Thomas Le Myésier, for whom see Hillgarth, J. N., Ramon Lull and Lullism in Fourteenth-Century France (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

³ Although some of the works contained in these manuscripts have been published and some have not, in the interest of simplicity I have italicized all of their titles here. For an exhaustive description of the manuscripts see Albert Soler, “Els manuscrits lul.lians de Pere de Llemotges,” Llengua & Literatura 5 (forthcoming). Peter's library passed to the Sorbonne. The provenance of the great majority of his books is attested by the acquisition note found on their last folios. Unless otherwise indicated, the dates and location of the Lullian works follow Bonner, OS 2: 539–600 (the Catalan version of his SW, with an updated catalog of works). A question mark indicates that it is impossible at present to specify in which of the years indicated the work was written.Google Scholar

⁴ William's work was no doubt added to those of Llull by Peter himself. Soler, “Encara sobre la data del Blaquerna,” Studia Lulliana 31 (1991): 114 ff. The work is often cited and appears in catalogs under a title derived from the prologue, “Commendacio antiquorum sapientum et artificiorum.” Hillgarth, Ramon Lull, 158 n. 42, 165 n. 65.Google Scholar

⁵ French version of the Llibre d’Evast e Blanquerna (Book of Evast and Blanquerna). For the date see Soler, “El Liber super Psalmum Quicumque.”Google Scholar

⁶ The much-disputed date of this novel is discussed by Soler, “Encara sobre la data.”Google Scholar

⁷ The Epistolae were edited (from a MS now lost) by Edmond Martène and Ursin Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (Paris, 1717), 1: cols. 1315–19. They have been dated as ca. 1300; Hillgarth, Ramon Lull, 50 n. 12, argues convincingly that they belong to Llull's first visit to Paris. See also Anthony Bonner, “Notes de Bibliografia i cronologia lul.lianes,” Estudios Lulianos 24 (1980): 80 n. 34. Hillgarth's identification of the “friend” of the third letter with “an (unnamed) prelate” is presumably based on the use of the term “reverenda paternitas.”Google Scholar

⁸ Martène and Durand, Thesaurus novus 1: col. 1318.Google Scholar

⁹ Llull, Ramon, Libre de meravelles. ed. Galmés, S. (Barcelona, 1934), 4: 107 ff.Google Scholar

The translation is by Bonner, SW 2: 982. For the date of the work see ibid., 655.

¹⁰ For the Disputatio see MOG 4 [Int. VI]: 1. The Vita coaetanea IV, 19 continues: “Veniens ergo Raimundus Parisius tempore cancellarii Bertoldi, legit ibidem in aula sua commentum Artis generalis de speciali praecepto praedicti cancellarii.” For the identification proposed see Bonner, “Notes de Bibliografia,” 79. The fact that the Commentum and the Disputatio are found in the same MS supports the idea that both works were written at the same time in Paris.Google Scholar

¹¹ Soler, “El Liber” (as in n. 1).Google Scholar

¹² Anthony Bonner, “La situación del Libre del gentil dentro de la enseñanza luliana en Miramar,” Estudios Lulianos 22 (1978): 49–55.Google Scholar

¹³ We cannot be sure that all the Lullian MSS that Peter of Limoges possessed have been preserved. The catalog of the Sorbonne library in the early fourteenth century (Léopold Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, 4 vols. [Paris, 1868–81], 3: 8–114) tells us that, apart from the MSS donated by Peter and by Llull himself, there were three further Lullian volumes: a miscellany, containing works like the De adventu Messiae or the Liber amici et amati; an unidentifiable Ars Raymundi; and an Ars demonstrativa. These volumes may well have belonged to Peter; see Soler, “Encara sobre la data,” 116 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The first obituary, dated 3 November 1306, reads:Google Scholar

(Palémon Glorieux, Aux origines de la Sorbonne [Paris, 1966], 1: 176). The second contains two notes; the first, of 14 January, reads: “Commemoratio magistri Petri de Lemovicis, ebroicensis canonici”; the other, of 9 November, states: “Obitus magistri Petri de Lemovicis, diaconi, canonici ebroicensis, qui dedit quatuor libras et quinque solidos turonensium” (Delisle, Le cabinet 2: 168). Bernard Gui, “Nomina episcoporum lemovicensium,” Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 21 (1857): 756, is particularly important. Gui (ca. 1261–1331) was Peter's contemporary and countryman.

¹⁵ Information from other sources presents the often insuperable problem of homonyms. There is no general study of Peter of Limoges. The studies available deal with specific issues and sometimes merely repeat information contained in earlier works. I have used the following works: Lecoy, A. de la Marche, La chaire française au moyen âge, spécialement au xiiie siècle (Paris, 1868); Delisle, Le cabinet, and idem “Inventaire des manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale provenant du fons de la Sorbonne,” Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 31 (1870): 1–50, 135–61; Hauréau, B. “Pierre de Limoges, chanoine d’Évreux,” Histoire littéraire de la France 26 (1873): 460–67; Clément-Simon, G. “Notice de quelques manuscrits d'une bibliothèque limousine,” Bulletin de la Société scientifique, historique et archéologique de La Corrèze 15 (1893): 299–317, 467–70; Spettmann, H. “Das Schriftchen ‘De oculo morali’ und sein Verfasser,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 16 (1923): 309–22; Th. Welter, J., L'exemplum dans la littérature religieuse et didactique du moyen âge (Paris, 1927); Glorieux, P., Répertoire des maîtres en théologie de Paris au xiiie siècle (Paris, 1933); idem, “Nouvelle candidature pour le commentaire sur les Sentences de Paris Nat. lat. 16407,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 22 (1955): 312–22; and idem, Aux origines; Thorndike, L. “Peter of Limoges on the comet of 1299,” Isis 36 (1945): 3–6, and Latin Treatises on Comets between 1238 and 1368 A.D. (Chicago, 1950); Birkenmajer, A. “Pierre de Limoges commentateur de Richard de Fournival,” Isis 40 (1949): 18–31; Rouse, R. H. “The Early Library of the Sorbonne,” Scriptorium 21 (1967): 42–71, 227–51; Mabille, M. “Pierre de Limoges, copiste de manuscrits,” Scriptorium 24 (1970): 45–48, and “Pierre de Limoges et ses méthodes de travail,” Hommages à André Boutemy (Brussels, 1976), 244–51; Schneyer, J. B., Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters, für die Zeit von 1150–1350 4 (Münster, 1972); M.-Th. d’Alverny, “Un adversaire de saint Thomas: Petrus Iohannis Olivi,” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies (Toronto, 1974): 2: 179–218; Schleusener, G.-Eichholz, “Naturwissenschaft und Allegorese: Der ‘Tractatus de oculo morali’ des Petrus von Limoges,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 12 (1978): 258–309; N. Bériou, “La prédication au béguinage de Paris pendant l'année liturgique 1272–1273,” Recherches augustiniennes 13 (1978): 105–97; eadem, “Pierre de Limoges et la fin des temps,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 98–1 (1986): 65–107; eadem, La prédication de Ranulphe de la Houblonnière: sermons aux clercs et aux simples gens à Paris au xiiie siècle (Paris, 1987); L.-J. Bataillon, “Graphie et ponctuation chez quelques maîtres universitaires du XIIIe siècle,” Grafia e interpunzione del latino nel medioevo (Rome, 1984), pp. 153–65; idem, “Les problèmes de l’édition des sermons et des ouvrages pour prédicateurs au xiiie siècle,” The Editing of Theological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages, ed. Monika Aztelos (Stockholm, 1986), 105–20; idem, “Comptes de Pierre de Limoges pour la copie de livres,” La production du livre universitaire au moyen âge: Exemplar et pecia, ed. Bataillon et al. (Paris, 1988), 265–73.Google Scholar

¹⁶ These sermons appear in BN Lat. 15971, fols. 69r-198r.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The College of the Sorbonne was restricted to students of theology who were already masters of arts and did not belong to a religious order. This suggests that Peter of Limoges fulfilled these prerequisites. It has been suggested that our Peter could be the homonymous dean of the Faculty of Medicine, documented between 1267 and 1270. Hauréau, “Pierre de Limoges,” 462, denies this; Delisle, Le cabinet 2: 169, and Thorndike, in Isis 36: 3, argue in favor. Bériou, “Pierre,” 69 merely raises the question of whether Peter interrupted his theological studies to assume this post.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Bériou, “La prédication,” 108 n. 13, notes: “Le manuscrit Paris B. N. lat. 16390, que m'a signalé le P. L.-J. Bataillon, contient aux fol. 9r^a–14r^a un ensemble d'actes universitaires reportés de sa main, qui pourraient bien marquer les étapes de sa formation théologique jusqu’à la maîtrise incluse.” In a later article (“Pierre” [as in n. 15], 69 n. 18) Bériou remarks that Peter is not considered a master “peut-être parce qu'il ne fut pas maître-régent.” Hillgarth, Ramon Lull (as in n. 2), 158, suggests that our Peter could be the person summoned in 1302 by Boniface VIII to the Council of Rome.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See n. 30, below.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bernard Gui (as in n. 14) appears to state that Peter of Limoges was already canon of Évreux when he was offered the bishopric of Albi; according to Hauréau “Pierre de Limoges,” 463, this was between 1271 and 1275.Google Scholar

²¹ See nn. 14, 20, above. In the De oculo morali Peter openly, and at times harshly, criticizes church dignitaries. Thus (Spettmann, “Das Schriftchen,” 312 n. 4): “Modo vergente mundi vespere videmus Praelatos Ecclesiae a statu perfectionis pristinae plus quam laicos cecidisse … Praelatorum … modernorum pars quaedam ferrea est per cordis duritiam, et quaedam fictilis per carnis luxuriam.” Spettmann remarks: “Seine Kritik geht nicht selten auf die moderna tempora. Sie ist manchmal recht frei und offen und geht besonders häufig gegen die moderni praelati. Aber die Kritik ist sachlich gehalten. Der Verfasser schliesst sich selbst mit ein. Vor allem ist es die Benefizienkumulation, die im Schmerz macht, dann aber auch die Trägheit und die Geldgier der praelati maiores und minores, mit einem Worte: ihr weltlicher Sinn.” Peter's refusal of important positions is similar to the attitudes adopted by his friends Robert of Sorbon and Gerard of Reims (Bériou, “Pierre,” 70).Google Scholar

²² BN Lat. 16481, fol. 186r-188v.Google Scholar

²³ Rouse, “The Early Library,” 243, deduces the date of the donation from the early fourteenth-century catalogs of the Sorbonne. He also notes (p. 227) that Peter's collection is the “second largest known gift to the medieval library.”Google Scholar

²⁴ For example, the first chapter describes how the pupil, foundation of the “virtus visiva,” is protected by seven elements: two liquid (humores), the tela, three tunicae, and the palpebrae. Peter then draws a parallel with the seven capital virtues (“pro spiritualis pupillae in anima perfecta custodia”), and establishes further allegorical correspondence. Spettmann, “Das Schriftchen,” and Schleusener-Eichholz, “Naturwissenschaft und Allegorese.” The latter lists 158 MSS of the De oculo. To her list of editions one should add that of Arnao Guillén de Brocar (Logroño, 1503). There is no modern edition (See Bataillon, “Les problèmes” [as in n. 15]).Google Scholar

²⁵ For the first work see Birkenmajer, “Pierre de Limoges,” and Thorndike, Latin Treatises (as in n. 15); for the second, Thorndike, “Peter of Limoges,” 3–6. Another treatise on the comet of 1301 is less clearly by Peter (Thorndike, Latin Treatises, 203–7).Google Scholar

²⁶ Two sermons of 1273, “In dominica Quinquagesimae,” and “In Coena Domini,” are preserved in BN Lat. 16481, fols. 124v and 186r. The latter was preached in the Sainte-Chapelle. A sermon of 1280, preached to the Franciscans, is in Lat. 15972, fol. 177r. There are two of uncertain date, one “In festivitate Vincentii, S.,” preached to the Carthusians (Lat. 16501, fol. 277v), the other sub voce “Dives,” in Lat. 16482. It is doubtful if the sermon of 1260 “In die Germani”, S. (Lat. 15971) is by Peter (see Bériou, “Pierre” [as in n. 15], 70 n. 22). Glorieux, Répertoire (as in n. 15), 366, lists some works of doubtful attribution. The many fragments and short works of uncertain authorship in Peter's MSS may include some of his original works.Google Scholar

²⁷ See the inventory of existing manuscripts in Soler, “Els manuscrits lul.lians” (as in n. 3).Google Scholar

²⁸ Peter's Liber magnus iudiciorum (BN Lat. 7320) originally had at least 339 folios. It still contains astrological treatises by Almansor (fols. 37r-40v), William the Englishman (fols. 40v-43v), the pseudo-Hippocrates (fols. 44r-47v), Abraham ibn Ezra (fols. 44r–46r, in the margins), Messahala (fols. 48r-58r), and Ptolemy's Quadripartitum in the version of Plato of Tivoli (fols. 61r–104v). There are many references to this compilation in other volumes in Peter's library. See Birkenmajer, “Pierre de Limoges” (as in n. 15).Google Scholar

²⁹ Peter copied at least BN Lat. 7434 (fols. 49r-59r), 15845 (fols. 200r-208r), 15971; Lat. 16390 (fols. 1r-14r); Lat. 16396 (fols. 48r-108r); Lat. 16407, 16482 (fols. 285r-349r); Lat. 16501 (see Mabille, “Pierre de Limoges, copiste” and “Pierre de Limoges et ses méthodes” [as in n. 15]); to this one must add Lat. 16482 (fols. 350r-356r); Lat. 15972 (fols. 133r-155r, 174r-177r); Lat. 16614 (fol. 122r), and Lat. 16658 (fols. 31v-32r). Lat. 16397 is an example of a MS that he corrected (Bériou, “Pierre” [as in n. 15], 78).Google Scholar

³⁰ Mabille, “Pierre de Limoges et ses méthodes,” 250. See, for instance, BN Lat. 16481, a collection made at Peter's instigation of 219 sermons preached in Paris by various clerics, including Peter himself, between 28 October 1272 and 12 November 1273. Each sermon has a precise heading which states not only its author's name and his order or ecclesiastical rank but also the date and place of delivery. The MS is complemented by Lat. 16482, mostly copied by the same scribe; this is a collection of Distinctiones, arranging in alphabetical order part of the material found in 16481. Peter made these two remarkable compilations so as to have at hand models for his own preaching (Bériou, “La prédication” [as in n. 15], 112).Google Scholar

³¹ For Giles see BN Lat. 15863, 16122, 16124, 16157, 16616, 16681; for Nicholas Lat. 15212–15213, 15576, 15598, and 16485.Google Scholar

³² BN Lat. 15559, 15588. d’Alverny (“Un adversaire” [as in n. 15], 193) noted the fact that Peter owned works by someone as controversial as Olieu:Google Scholar

³³ BN Lat. 16397; Bériou, “Pierre” (as in n. 15), 94. On p. 71 Bériou states that Peter also owned works by Arnau of Vilanova, but she does not specify which they were nor supply a source for this information. So far I have not found any work by Arnau among Peter's MSS. In the sermon preached in 1273 “post prandium” before the king (BN Lat. 16481, fol. 186r-188v) Peter himself adopted a somewhat radical attitude. For instance:Google Scholar

³⁴ For full references see Soler, “Els manuscrits lul.lians” (as in n. 3). The only Lullian MS in which Peter did not make a single annotation is BN Lat. 16112, which contains the Disputatio fidelis et infidelis and the Compendium seu commentum Artis demonstrativae. Google Scholar

³⁵ Various parts of the novel are structured around a prayer (the Ave Maria or the Gloria) or a basic doctrinal scheme (the seven mortal sins or the seven virtues). Schleicher, W., Ramon Lulls Libre de Evast e Blanquerna (Geneva-Paris, 1958), 148, remarks: “Ramón Lull gibt in seinem Blanquerna-Roman innerhalb der vielen behandelten Themen auch Richtlinien für die Predigt.”Google Scholar

³⁶ MOG, 2: 99 ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Contra Hauréau, “Pierre de Limoges” (as in n. 15), 463; Mabille, “Pierre de Limoges et ses méthodes” (as in n. 15), 244. Le Myésier, who was to become Llull's main follower in Paris, could have met him in 1287–89, when he was a young socius of the Sorbonne (Hillgarth, Ramon Lull [as in n. 2], 159), but it is improbable that he then possessed much influence. The relation between the two men is documented definitely only from July 1299, when Llull replied, from Paris, to the fifty Quaestiones Le Myésier sent him from Arras, where he was a canon. However (Hillgarth, 161), these questions already “reveal considerable knowledge of Lull's different writings.” For the Carthusian monastery at Vauvert see n. 45, below.Google Scholar

³⁸ Hillgarth, , Ramon Lull, 49, asserts “The Vita and other sources provide evidence that Lull was received by Philippe le Bel on each of his three main visits to Paris.” But on this point the Vita says nothing. The passage from the Llibre de meravelles (as in n. 9) is the only indication of personal contact with the king. Llull certainly tried to establish contact through his Epistola ad regem (as in n. 7).Google Scholar

³⁹ See the Vita coaetanea (as in n.10). Bertaut de Saint Denis was elected chancellor of the university in December 1288. Riedlinger, H., ROL 5 (1967): 115; Hillgarth, Ramon Lull, 152 ff. The Vita continues: “Perlectoque Parisius illo commento, ac ibidem viso modo scholarium, ad Montem rediit Pessulanum.” Le Myésier has a note in the margin of this passage in his Electorium (BN Lat. 15450; Hillgarth, Ramon Lull, 354): “1289.” At that time the year in France began on Easter day. In 1290 Easter fell on 2 April and up to this date Le Myésier may have considered the year to be 1289. On this stay in Montpellier and the composition of the Ars inventiva see Soria, A., ROL 3 (1961); Armand Llinarès, “Raymond Lulle à Montepellier: La refonte du ‘Grand Art’,” Cahiers de Fanjeaux 22 (1987): 17–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Soler, “Encara sobre la data” (as in n. 4), 117.Google Scholar

⁴¹ My critical edition of the Llibre d'amic e amat (the first part of the fifth book of Blaquerna), to appear in the series Els Nostres Clàssics (Barcelona: Editorial Barcino), takes into account all the versions of this short work.Google Scholar

⁴² For the last two works see Soler, “El Liber“ (as in n. 1).Google Scholar

⁴³ Tarré, J., “Los códices lulianos de la Biblioteca Nacional de Paris,” Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia 14 (1941): 160, alleged that Peter was the translator. It is perhaps unlikely that a leading intellectual with a group of collaborators at his disposal would himself undertake a translation. Occitan was certainly Peter's native language. In BN Lat. 15971 there are two passages in his hand in Occitan; they are incorporated into sermons by Robert of Sorbon. On fol. 171r^a we have: “eu soy tot floritz e en arma e en cors quar me soy confessatz de bona voluntat;” on fol. 173v^a: “eu soy champio qui sui intratz el cham de la batalha per vos salvar.” These poetic comments on the theme of the sermon were apparently added by Peter.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Soler, “El Liber.” One can dismiss the idea that Peter was the author of the Latin translation. This was made from an Occitanian version of the Catalan original; it contains misunderstandings that an Occitanian speaker would never have committed. See n. 41, above, and Charles Lohr and Fernando Domínguez, “Raimundus Lullus, ‘Liber amici et amati’: Introduction and critical text,” Traditio 44 (1988): 325–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ The first Lullian collection in Paris is only documented in the Carthusian monastery of Vauvert from 1298; see BN Lat. 16111, fol. i (Hillgarth, Ramon Lull, 157 n. 37).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Some of Peter's Lullian MSS (by then present in the Sorbonne) were apparently used by Thomas Le Myésier in his Electorium; see Hillgarth, , Ramon Lull, 383, 387, 392.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Llull was never easily influenced by others: he was too certain of the divine inspiration of his Art. I do not refer to a specific influence upon his system or doctrines but rather to a more subtle process of osmosis with the Parisian context in which Peter moved; this can perhaps be detected in Llull's less technical works written during these years. For instance, one could read the Llibre de meravelles in the light of the preaching of Peter and his colleagues.Google Scholar