2.5.4. Catholicon latin-français: mss. Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine H110 and Stockholm, KB N78

Source is another difference between MPST and the Aalma series, in addition to the increased macrostructure and more complex microstructure. The Aalma manuscripts are derived entirely from the Catholicon of John Balbi, while the sources of MPST also include the Elementarium of Papias. Nobel (1986: 161) calculates that of the first 232 entries in MP, 148 (64%) occur in the Catholicon and the remainder derive from Papias. It should be kept in mind that some lemmata occur in both sources, as the following comparison of lemmata in MP with corresponding lemmata in Papias and/or the Catholicon illustrates:

Another observation which may be made from this example is that, while some lemmata appear in both sources, it seems the compiler has taken large blocks alternately from each. Merrilees (1994c: 12) notes that, although the two manuscripts are very similar, MP includes more Latin (etymologies and Latin definitions) than ST. The edition of the Catholicon français which is being prepared by Pierre Nobel of l'Université de Strasbourg III with Brian Merrilees and William Edwards of the University of Toronto for the Nouveau Recueil des Lexiques latin-français du Moyen Age, will present MP and the most important variants from ST.

2.5.5. Glossarium gallico-latinum: ms. Paris, BN lat. 7684

Another tool was the Latin-vernacular glossary, of which we have ample evidence. However, the need to access Latin forms through the vernacular was also obviously felt, and one solution appeared to be the reversal of the usual entry order of Latin lemma and French gloss. Lists of French headwords followed by Latin glosses (usually not in alphabetical order) are found in a number of manuscript collections; for example, 116 French nouns and adjectives and their Latin equivalents on ff.18b-19d of ms. Glasgow, Hunter 292 (formerly U.6.10, R.7.14). The Latin synonyms are grouped under their respective French headwords, in no apparent order. [42] The following examples are taken from Hunt (1991: I, 403):

Other examples include an alphabetical list of about eighty French verbs accompanied by their Latin equivalents in ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce n° 88 (folio number is not identified in Lindemann 1994: 131); an alphabetical list of French verbs, each glossed by several Latin synonyms, on ff.102-107 of ms. Paris, BN lat. 7692 (Littre 1852: 26, Roques 1936b: xxii, Merrilees 1990: 287); a list of French verbs with Latin synonyms in ms. Lille, BM n° 147 (formerly n° 388, n° 369) (Merrilees 1990: 287).

The wordlists cited in the previous paragraph date from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Also dating from the fourteenth century is ms. Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine H236 (see 2.5.2.), which contains a Picard-Latin glossary written in the margins of an earlier Latin-Picard compilation and accessed through a unique sign system referring the user to the location of the Latin gloss in the text (see 3.1.2.2.2.).

Merrilees (1994c: 14f.) describes another glossary, in ms. Angers, BM n° 497/498, which uses a sign system to direct the reader from French headwords to Latin definitions. The lexicon, which comprises two volumes, is incomplete. It includes the letters G-Z; letters A-F are lacking. The reference system, which is described in 3.1.2.2.2., is necessary because the articles are alphabetical only to the first letter. The Angers manuscript is very large - 621 and 561 folios respectively in the two volumes - but the number of French lemmata is relatively small. The Latin definitional material is extensive, and the author randomly inserted extracts from Christian authors as well as French and Latin verses.

The only large French-Latin glossary known from the Middle Ages is conserved at the Bibliothèque nationale as ms. lat. 7684, and was named Glossarium gallico-latinum (GGL) by an eighteenth-century cataloguer (Merrilees 1992b: 331). The GGL contains 132 folios, and is set out two columns per page, thirty-four to thirty-six lines per column. It comprises some 9500 French lemmata.

It is evident from the macrostructure of GGL that the anonymous compiler sought to create a French-Latin lexicon by abridging a larger Latin-French text and then reversing the canonical order of the selected entries. It appears that he wanted to arrange the French lemmata alphabetically but was not able to break the order of the Latin words in his source (Monfrin 1988: 31; Merrilees 1990: 287, 1992b: 331, etc.). [43] The scribe's method of compiling his glossary is described in 3.1.2.1.3.

Latin was the organizing force in the creation of GGL; the order of French lemmata is determined by their Latin equivalents and, with few exceptions, Latin constitutes the metalanguage. At a superficial level, French lemmata are ordered alphabetically only to the first letter. At a deeper level, it is possible to see the remains of Latin derivational groups, sometimes in a classic unit such as verb/participle/noun:

Beneistre - benedico .cis .xi .ctum	a
Benaist - benedictus .a .um	o
Beneisson - benedictio .onis	f

or adjective/adverb/noun:

Cauteleux - callidus .a .um et comparatur	o
Cauteleusement - callide - adverbium et comparatur
Cautelle, malice - calliditas .tatis	f

To find a particular French word, a user would be obliged to search successive French lemmata. Despite this difficulty, GGL is a remarkable attempt to give priority to French in a lexicon.

The Latin-French text which is the source of the GGL has not been precisely determined. However, it is certain that the GGL is closely related to two other bilingual lexica: a large Latin-French manuscript dictionary, the Dictionarius of Firmin Le Ver (see 2.5.6.) and a Latin-French incunable, the Vocabularius familiaris et compendiosus (see 5.0.). The exact nature of the relationship among the three texts is not known but the examples in Exhibit 24 show that the links are undeniable.

French, which is lemmatic in the GGL and definitional in the other two dictionaries, affords another approach to comparison of the three texts. An analysis at this level is attached as Appendix 1, from which it will be seen that roughly 75 percent of the articles examined are identical or nearly so. While this figure confirms that these texts belong to the same family, there are sufficient differences that each retains its distinct character. In particular, French terms in GGL which are lacking from DLV and VFC (e.g. aclinouer, administrour, admonnesteresse, ameresse, chevaucheresse, cornemeuseuse, cornemuseresse, espelement, estraigneur, fletrisseure, fornicaresse, etc.) illustrate its innovative nature.

The GGL appears to be somewhat closer in order and content to the VFC, but there are elements in common with the DLV that are absent from the latter. All three appear to have drawn upon a common source for part of their French vocabulary, but the disparity in size among the three texts makes it difficult to draw precise conclusions about the lines of transmission.

Godefroy used GGL in the Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue française, as did Charpentier in his edition of Du Cange's Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis.

GGL has not been printed previously, but an edition is currently being prepared by Brian Merrilees and William Edwards for inclusion in the Nouveau Recueil des Lexiques latin-français du Moyen Age.

[Next] -- [Table of Contents]