# The Manufacturing Stages of the Old French Barlaam and Ioasaph in the Library of the Iviron Monastery from Mount Athos. Preliminary Investigations

Vladimir Agrigoroaei

► To cite this version:

Vladimir Agrigoroaei. The Manufacturing Stages of the Old French Barlaam and Ioasaph in the Library of the Iviron Monastery from Mount Athos. Preliminary Investigations. Medioevo Romanzo, 2022, 46/2. hal-03511197v2

HAL Id: hal-03511197

https://hal.science/hal-03511197v2

Submitted on 24 Jan 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
MEDIOEVO ROMANZO

RIVISTA SEMESTRALE

FONDATA DA D'ARCO SILVIO AVALLE, FRANCESCO BRANCIFORTI,

GIANFRANCO FOLENA, FRANCESCO SABATINI, CESARE SEGRE,

ALBERTO VARVARO

DIRETTA DA STEFANO ASPERTI, CARLO BERETTA, EUGENIO BURGIO,

LINO LEONARDI, SALVATORE LUONGO, LAURA MINERVINI

VOLUME XLVI

(XVI DELLA IV SERIE)

FASCICOLO II

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

SALERNO EDITRICE · ROMA

MMXXII
Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Firenze n. 5617 del 12.12.2007

Tutti i diritti riservati - All rights reserved

Copyright © 2022 by Salerno Editrice S.r.l., Roma. Sono rigorosamente
vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, l'adattamento, anche parziale o per
estratti, per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, senza la preventi-
va autorizzazione scritta della Salerno Editrice S.r.l. Ogni abuso sarà perse-
guito a norma di legge.
THE MANUFACTURING STAGES OF THE OLD FRENCH
BARLAAM AND IOASAPH IN THE LIBRARY
OF THE IVIRON MONASTERY FROM MOUNT ATHOS.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS*

Mount Athos is often imagined as the cradle of the Byzantine Common-
wealth, a place where Greek, Georgian, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Ro-
manian monks lived, prayed, laboured, and read together. Yet in the old times
there were many other monastic communities, nowadays lost. There were the
Italians from Amalfi, Sicily, and Calabria. And for a brief period of time, French
could have been spoken on the Holy Mountain. This happened at the begin-
ning of the *Frankokratia*, the French occupation of Byzantine territories after
1204.

Although the dissemination of French cultural patterns to the Byzantine
Commonwealth was characterised by partial unintelligibility (lack of linguistic
and confessional exchanges), this unintelligibility did not reflect in the same
way throughout the entire Greek world. The only proven cases of syncretism are
Cyprus and Southern Italy. In mainland Greece, the two cultures clashed, leav-
ing scarce and odd pieces of evidence of their encounter.¹ These dissimilar re-
sponses were determined, on the Western side, by a fascination for the Greek
East, previous to the Fourth Crusade, while confessionalism played a more im-
portant part on the Orthodox side.² Since the French-speaking West and the
Byzantine world had difficulty in understanding each other, the Athonite French

* This study of the Iviron Old French version of *Barlaam and Ioasaph* was made possible through the generous 2019 *Travel Grant of the Mount Athos Foundation of America*. I also express my gratitude to Father Theologos, librarian of the Monastery of Iviron on Mount Athos, who took care of my Athonite visit and gave me the permission to take the six photos presented in the current article. This study also benefited from the pieces of advice I received from Marina Toumpouri, Chariton Karanasios, Bernard Outtier, and Jost Gippert.

1. For the situation of Peloponnesus and Attica, see V. AGRIGOROAEI, *The Culture of Latin Greece: Seven Tales from the 13th and 14th Centuries*, Leiden-Boston, Brill, forthcoming.

2. For instance, the only oral version of a multilingual Creed (Latin-French) is preserved in a Greek manuscript. It was copied by a Greek monk who was eager to illustrate a refutation of the *Filioque*. Cf. É. EGGER, *Mémoire sur un document inédit pour servir à l'histoire des langues romaines*, in «Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres», XXI 1857, pp. 349-76; R. DISTILO, *Fra latinico e romaco. Per un 'Credo'
translation of the life of *Barlaam and Ioasaph* appears in this (apparent) cultural void, being one of the most astonishing witnesses of a reciprocal discovery.

It is preserved in a single codex, one of the treasures of Mount Athos.³ The disposition of the two texts in the manuscript is unique. The Greek version is the main text, copied in the 11th century. The French translation occupies its margins, which have been trimmed. Probably copied locally, at the Athonite monastery of Iiron (my previous research allowed me to date it to 1207-1213),⁴ this is the earliest translation from (Old) Greek into French.⁵ No other translation of this type exists, as all other medieval French versions of Greek texts were based on pre-existing Latin translations. The study of the Athonite Old French text is vital to the understanding of how the East-West cultural exchanges evolved during the Middle Ages. The vernacular translation of Mount Athos was probably made at a time when the monastery of the Georgians (Iiron) accepted the Latin supremacy for a brief period of time. From the look of it (a traductological look in particular), it seems to be the work of a mixed team of translators who probably conversed in Latin. I imagined the possibility of it being made with the help of the Benedictines from the Amalfitan monastery on Mount Athos, as this Iiron *Barlaam* is the only French translation of its time

3. For the first study of this French translation, see P. MEYER, *Fragments d'une ancienne traduction française de 'Barlaam et Ioasaph', faite sur le texte grec au commencement du treizième siècle*, in «Bibliothèque de l'École de chartes», XXVII 1866, pp. 313-34. For the manuscript, see S.P. LAMBROS, *Κατάλογος των εν ταις βιβλιοθήκαις του Αγίου Ορους ελληνικών κωδίκων. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos*, 2 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1895-1900. For the images, see S. DER NERSESSIAN, *L'Illustration du roman de 'Barlaam et Ioasaph' d'après les clichés de la Frick Art Reference Library et de la Mission Gabriel Millet au Mont Athos*, Paris, De Boccard, 1937. A colour reproduction of the images was published in *Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ορους, Σειρά Α΄ Εικονογραφημένα κειρόγραφα. Παραστάσεις, επίτιτλα, αρχικά γράμματα, Τόμος Β΄ Μονή Ιβήρων, Μονή Αγίου Παντελεήμονος, Μονή Εσφιγμένον, Μονή Χιλανδαρίου, Επιμέλεια Στ.Μ. ΠΕΛΕΚΑΝΙΔΗΣ, Π.Κ. ΧΡΗΣΤΟΥ, Χρ. ΜΑΥΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ-ΤΣΙΟΥΜΗ, Σ.Ν. ΚΑΔΑΣ (και Μ. ΣΚΙΑΔΑΡΕΣΗΣ), Αθήνα, Εκδοτική Αθηνών*, 1975, pp. 60-91 (figs. 53-132).

4. V. AGRIGOROAΕΙ, «Rara avis»: la traduction française médiévale du 'Barlaam et Ioasaph' du Mont Athos, in MR, XXXVIII 2014, pp. 106-51; Id., *Traduction et sotériologie. Nouvelles recherches au sujet du Barlaam français du Mont Athos, in Francofonie medievali. Lingue e letterature gallo-romanzze fuori di Francia* (sec. XII-XV). Atti del Convegno internazionale di Verona, 11-13 settembre 2014, a cura di A.M. BABBI e C. CONCINA, Verona, Fiorini, 2018, pp. 229-49.

5. The Greek version of the *Chronicle of the Morea*, with a debatable origin (source or adaptation of the French version) was written in Demotic Greek. See for this *Το χρονικόν του Μορέως*: Το Ελληνικόν κείμενο κατά τον κώδικα της Κοπεγχάγης μετά συμπληρώσεων και παραλλαγών εκ του Παρισινού, Επιμέλεια Π. ΚΑΛΟΝΑΡΟΣ, πρόλογος Ρ. Αποστολιάνες, Αθήνα, Εκάτη, [1990]. For the French version, see *Chronique de Morée* (1204-1305): Livre de la conqueste de la princée de l'Amorée*, éd. par J. LONGNON, Paris, Renouard, 1911. For a recent study of these two versions, see T. SHAWCROSS, *The 'Chronicle of Morea', Historiography in Crusader Greece*, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.
to follow precise translation techniques, such as the ones usually encountered
in the translations of sacred texts. The translation respects the Orthodox canon
of the translating practices in the Byzantine Commonwealth.

The unique character of the manuscript and its French translation need to be
evaluated from many points of view. My chief interest here lies in the direct
consultation of the manuscript and in identifying the various stages in the tran-
scription of the Old French text, that is, in its internal chronology. The Greek
text will be of less importance, quoted only when it explains an odd situation in
the French text.⁶ Last but not least, the current analysis provides more argu-
ments for the refutation of another interpretation which argues that the French
translation was made about the same time as the Greek text (11th century) in the
Byzantine capital: Constantinople.⁷

Unfortunately, I will have to focus only on the internal chronology of the French text and ignore the codicological study of the manuscript, for several good reasons. During an undated but fairly recent restoration, the gatherings were opened, the bifolios were cut in half, and their inner margins also trimmed. Each folio was then individually inserted into a modern support peg, in turn fitted to the new spine. This leaves no clues as to how the original manuscript was assembled (or reassembled, as the use of the manuscript during the transcription of the French translation could involve a reassembly of the original quires).

Add to this the fragmentary state of the French translation. The outer mar-
gins of the manuscript were trimmed at an earlier but unknown date (probably
during the modern era, in order to fit different covers),⁸ leading to the loss of
marginal letters from the vernacular text and even entire words. Since both the
inner and outer margins of each folio have been already cut, it is simply impos-
sible to conduct a codicological study.

6. This Greek text was already studied and edited along with all the other manuscripts of the Greek version in 'Barlaam and Ioasaph'. *Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos VI/1 & VI/2: Historia animae utilis de 'Barlaam et Ioasaph' (spuria)*, hrsg. von R. VOLK, 2 vols., Berlin, Gruyter, 2006-2009.

7. For my refutation of this hypothesis, see V. AGRIGOROAEI, *La datation du 'Barlaam' français du Mont Athos (à propos d'un article récent)*, in «Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica», XX 2016, pp. 153-64. Cf. E. EGEDI-KOVÁCS, *La traduction française de la version grecque dite d'Iviron de 'Barlaam et Ioasaph'. À propos de l'édition critique en cours*, in *Investigatio fontium. Griechische und lateinische Quellen mit Erläuterungen, Beitrage der Tagung, Klassisches Altertum-Byzanz-Humanismus der XI. Ungarischen Konferenz fur Altertumswissenschaft*, [Budapest, 22.-24. Mai 2014], hrsg. von L. HORVATH, Budapest, Eötvös József Collegium, 2014, pp. 83-94.

8. I hereby thank Chariton Karanasios, who pointed to me that such amputations were rather common in the modern era. For other Athonite manuscripts trimmed in order to fit modern covers (during the 17th century or later), see e.g. *Catalog. Manuscripts on Microform of the Hilandar Research Library (The Ohio State University)*, dir. P. MATEJIC and H. THOMAS, 2 vols., Bloomington, Slavica, 1992, vol. II pp. 797-98, 928.
This leaves me with an emergency option replacing the codicological study: a study of the internal chronology of the French text transcribed on the margins of the Greek one. Further studies concerning other aspects of the manuscript will be made in a collaborative framework. Understanding the process through which this translation was achieved will provide the basis for a wider project involving the collaboration of colleagues from several countries and several disciplines. The present study does not strive to achieve an exhaustive analysis of the manuscript. It is based only on a selection of notes taken during its direct consultation in May 2019, with the kind authorisation of Father Theologos, librarian of the Monastery of Iviron, whom I thank wholeheartedly for his patience and generosity.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

In spite of these challenges, several conclusions can be reached very quickly. There are no traces of prickling and the marginal ruling of the French text is often chaotic, unaligned, as if it were done in an *ad hoc* manner.<fnref n="9" /> This chaotic ruling (in unparalleled lines) must have been made from one page to the next, as the translator(s) advanced in their reading, according to an average estimation of the space necessary for the number of words and letters of the projected French text. This suggests that the ruling was probably done on the bound manuscript and not on open quires. It must have been hard to keep the manuscript leaves flat during the process, thus the oscillation in the drawing of the lines. This shows that the French translation was transcribed at a later date, since it was grafted on the folios of an already well-achieved Greek manuscript.

This being said, there are three separate issues that need to be addressed in the following pages: 1) the corrections and revisions of the initial translation, which are linked with the use of colours; and: 2) the occasional overlapping of French and Greek, which also goes to show that the French text was transcribed at a later date; as well as: 3) the author of the French text was not alone, as he was assisted by a person who probably understood the Greek language better than the translator (whose knowledge of Greek is questionable).

## 1. THE USE OF COLOURS AT VARIOUS REVISION STAGES IN THE FRENCH TRANSLATION

Two other colours (red and green) appear in the French vernacular text. Green is rarely used, for certain majuscules, while red is used in the transcrip-

<footnote n="9">9. To give but one example, one such situation is evident in the margin of the ff. 28v-29r, the folio presenting a Judgement Day iconography.</footnote>
tion of majuscules, corrections, and most of all in the transcription of chapter
titles. Even though they also function as image descriptions, these titles are ac-
tual titles for the chapter. They coincide with the images in most cases (the
images were probably used as a manner of segmenting the text), but there are
also situations in which the French copyist transcribed a title in the absence of
an image. Such is the case of f. 129r (olim 128r), where a title in red ink («† comment
uesq'rent ensemble») was inserted in the absence of an image. It is evident that
the choice was consciously done at a later stage, when the French translation
was revised, for this title was transcribed on the lower margin of the folio and
the insertion cross that precedes it redirects it to an upper segment of the text
from the same folio, before a phrase starting with «Ioasaf».

The French scribe had not prepared a careful strategy when he started tran-
scribing his translation on the margins of the Greek text. He perfected it in
stages. This is also evident from the number of corrections that he made (and
from their gradual alleviation towards the end of the text). The more the French
scribe advanced in his translation, the fewer the corrections he made. It is true
that this may be explained in two ways. On the one hand, the method of trans-
lation was perfected in a gradual manner, therefore the translation got better
towards the end. On the other hand, scribes generally tend to fatigue when
correcting their copies and become more tolerant (or sloppy) toward the end.
However, the first interpretation (a gradual definition of a method) is also in
accord with the (more or less) three or four stages that can be identified in the
evolution of the vernacular text:

1.1 initial transcription of the text, with corrections made during the translation process;

1.2 corrections made at a later date with a paler or darker type of ink;

1.3.1-1.3.2 corrections and additions in red ink, probably made during the
transcription of the titles and red majuscules (and/or the red strokes for the
green majuscules).

1.4 no corrections in green ink; only green letters (probably transcribed at the same time as the red ones).

In the following pages, red and green letters will be underlined in the quota-
tions, while the additions copied in the interline will be transcribed in super-
script.

1.1. *Corrections in dark ink made during the translation process*

Certain corrections concern words or phrases transcribed in superscript dur-
ing the initial phase of the translation or immediately after, with the same or
with a similar ink. On f. 19v, middle segment, down of the folio, «merueloses
uertus» was added during the main phase, «[...]os aues dit que | [...]erueloses uertus |
[...]e a tantes, *Bar*». These additions in the same type of ink testify to some
fluctuations during the translation, as if the translator reworked certain passages
on the spot. He probably had to change his mind as a result of a re-evaluation of
his interpretation of the source text. On f. 21*ν* (middle up), «de sa corone» is an
addition in superscript. With a similar ink, lower down the same folio, he also
added «[...]ement e entel[...]». On f. 23*β* (middle up), another addition in super-
script was made: «ne ualoret...». On f. 49*ρ* (*olim* 50*ρ*, upper part of the folio), a
superscript correction in the same colour and intensity of the initial ink suggests
that the addition was done during the first stage of the translation process: «[...]_
quil *uolle* enluminer». On f. 108*ν* (*olim* 109*ν*), there are two corrections in super-
script in an identical ink to that of the main text. And on f. 113*ρ* (*olim* 114*ρ*), anoth-
er superscript correction in the same type of ink appears in the fifth line from
the top. They belong to the same phase as the instant corrections following or-
thographic hesitations (cf. f. 115*ν*, *olim* 116*ν*: «seche *ene* eme»).

1.2. *Corrections in normal ink made at a different stage (different ink tint)*

Among the corrections in a darker ink (at a different stage of the process),
one should note two on f. 28r (upper part): «*mostra* ensegna nos[...] | ueres. *que* nos
pa[...]». On f. 31v, after the red title of the miniature, the *I majuscule* in super-
script is also written with a different tint of ink. In the last line of f. 22v, an *r* was
inserted («p[ecioses»), while on the bottom line of f. 50v (*olim* 51v), there is a
paler type of ink: «*en uous acompli mon office* e uos ai endoctrine de la conisance de lui e uous
ai ensegne la doctrine els». At the passage of f. 54v (*olim* 55v) and f. 55r (*olim* 56r),
one can notice a reworking of the French translation at a later stage: «Or uous
rauies donc en la force de ur' pensee. enuers celui qui uous a semons. *qui est seins*
e uos aussi seintefies uos en totes bones costum[es]. || [*b]*eneureus seins parfaitement. Soies seint car
ie sui seins dit nostres sires». The initial translation choice was probably deter-
mined by a linguistic automatism, possibly connected to the vernacular transla-
tions of the *beatus vir* in the Psalter (thus the choice «*beneureus*»). It is safe to as-
sume that the correction was probably more in line with the Greek text and that
it was done at a later stage, when the two versions (French and Greek) were
again confronted. Last but not least, on f. 110r (*olim* 111r), there is also an addition
in the lower segment of the folio: «*e se meisent en la loial foi*».

1.3.1. *Red line cancelations and various corrections in red ink*

Some of the corrections mentioned above could be done at the time of the
writing of the red-ink majuscules. It is unclear whether all these corrections
were done at that stage, but some of those made in a different ink tint appear in
connection with red-line cancellations. One such situation occurs on the upper
segment of f. 24v, where the strikethrough was done in red ink, perhaps at the
time of the writing of a C majuscule: «[...] *C'est-uns-de* [...] *Cis est* | [...] *ic poeste* [...] *s persones-uns*». On f. 29v, a now faded word from the second line from the bottom
up was cancelled with a red-ink line and the word «hom» was written above it.
On f. 34r, which is already full of red additions and corrections, the last line from
the bottom up reads «ies les iuees Joasaf dist au uellart Toutes ces riches *chieres*
choses unt[...]», with red-ink cancellation. Such cancellations in red ink, prob-
ably determined by the presence of red-ink majuscules nearby, appear also in
the «*Ott*» transcribed towards the middle of f. 36v. They can also occur close to
letters in green ink. On f. 123r, there is another superscript correction before a
green *E* majuscule («nos retrain de mal *einsi disoient* *E* seroient»). And there are also
entire corrections written in red. On f. 7r, last line, there is a correction in red
ink next to a (corrected) majuscule: «uos agloire e aoneur *QLues* biens *uos en*».
On f. 47r (*olim* 48r), a «de» in superscript appears above a red-line cancellation
of a two-letter word in the upper line of the folio; etc.<fnref n="10" /> Red-line cancellations
accompany red-ink corrections as well, meaning that the scribe was already
using a pen for the red ink and he made the correction as he went through the
text. See for this the second line of f. 88r (*olim* 89r): «preecheur. par ses enchan-
temens. e *car* il li disoit que ses regnes deuoit amender enio[...] *ler*». Some of
these red-ink corrections in superscript, made during later stages, were clearly
intended to perfect the fluency of the French text, as the initial translation
choice had been much too influenced by the Greek language. This is the case of
a correction in the bottom line of f. 17r («de seu», in «demonstra la uoie par unt *de*
*seu* il dist *aler*»). However, other corrections are the result of continuous changes
of heart during the translation process (probably discussions), such as the re-
placing of adjectives in the fifth line from the bottom up of f. 131v («[...sp]
*irituex* [p]rofitables paroles»). Finally, some of these red lines and marks must have
been made after the initial corrections, in order to signal them. An interesting
case occurs in the second bottom line up on f. 131r, where the superscript is in
normal ink but the strikethrough is in a red line: «*Receues* *tolentiers* li
miens amis les ensegnemens deu car qui puet desturner ce q[...] *E*/ntedes ce
*que* il nos garde par sa grace. Einsi parla cis uellars eniot digne». This last case
could also be a consequence of the use of several types of ink (in «Entendes», for
instance, the majuscule is green, while the *hastae* are red). It is therefore evident
that there were at least three correction stages and that the scribe used all types
of ink, in various contexts, in order to achieve them. Perhaps this is why he used

<footnote n="10">10. For more corrections in red ink, see the fifth line from the bottom up of f. 72v (*olim* 73v); or the middle section of f. 87v (*olim* 88v): «*quil* liros *lauoit*. Similarly, another addition in red at f. 44r (*olim* 45r), in the lower part: «moralites». On f. 33r, in red ink, above the sixth line from the top, in superscript: «*guarder* ne [...]».</footnote>
so many cancellations, in order to eliminate any ambiguities. Other type of
corrections are quite rare. Exponctuation, for instance, appears only on the last
line of f. 22v («empliṣ»).

1.3.2. *Additions in red ink*

There are situations in which it is difficult to ascertain at what precise stage
of the translation process the red ink was used. In a sequence from f. 24v, sever-
al letters are written in red («*Le ciel e la terre e la mer. Le ciel*»). These situations
multiply on f. 34r, which is full of red additions and corrections, even though
there are no visible traces of erasures («na consuirunt. ~ *Li fruis* del esprit siest.
*Charites pais Joie Longuanimites. douce[...] | cuer. b[...] | tes fois [...] | tes. ab-
sti[...] | Seintee d[...] | e de cors. h[...] | tes cusen[...] | er enlagi[...] | sor Aum[...]
| ence Amis[...] | les ferme[...] | ce des meffa[...] | fais Lerm[...] | conisance.
d[...] | ses peches. E[...] | qui ces semb[...] | Ausi cum de[...]»). Perhaps some of
them are the result of corrections and additions, transcribed in a similar manner
to a situation from f. 49v (*olim 50v*), where the scribe added one more letter, in
red, when he transcribed the red initial («*Jeo neu*»). The perfect example for
these various types of correction is the f. 112v (*olim 113v*). It has a red superscript
correction on the seventh line from the top, which arrives after another super-
script addition in normal ink on the third line from the top. And in the last line
of the folio, a part of the initial translation was erased: «[*][*]asi cum cil qui [*]
*E* le doneur qui li auoit la poeste done».

1.4. *Green letters*

There are also cases in which the additions have been made in a sloppy man-
ner, as the attention of the scribe was concentrated on the interplay of colours.
On f. 50v (olim 51v), for instance, the initial of Ioasaph's name was doubled: «*J/L
ioasaf*», with the bars in red and the *J* majuscule in green. This probably means
that the scribe had the intention to erase the minuscule *i* at a later date and for-
got to do it, or simply that he did not pay attention to that fact, hurrying up to-
ward the rest of the text. This interplay of red and green is a consequence of an
alternation of red and green majuscules which starts at f. 37v, the green ones
being marked by two red ink bars. However, this does not imply that the green
majuscules were written at a later date and that the red bars marked the spot
where they were supposed to be transcribed. They were probably transcribed
at more or less the same time, because from f. 43r (olim 44r) onwards, the scribe
did not use red strokes for green majuscules anymore: see «*Barlaam*»; as well as
«*Quant*» on f. 43v (olim 44v). Nevertheless, he reused them once on f. 45r (olim
46r). Further proof of this simultaneous alternate use of colours is evident on
f. 49v (olim 50v), where there are several green letters with red strokes. These green letters were decorated with inner red dots, meaning that the dots were added after the transcription of the green majuscules. Similarly, on f. 115r (olim 116r), apart from the inner dots, the scribe makes more dot decorations around the letters. A green Q majuscule has red dots and a red H majuscule has green dots. While another red letter has green dots and line ornamentation on f. 120r: «Ι.Ι.οασίς fist en». This suggests that the green ink was used additionally, from time to time, in order to create a pleasant effect, but that the use of this green colour varied and that the scribe changed his mind from one folio to the next. These sudden changes also posed some problems. On f. 44r (olim 45r), the scribe made an error when writing the green majuscules. He corrected it rapidly, as soon as he realised that he had made a mistake, but he still left a hole in the parchment, for he erased sloppily.¹¹ All this shows that his mind was set on different things at the same time. He was, on the one hand, preoccupied with colours. On the other hand, he also had to write titles for the chapters, and there was also the issue of text revision. These corrections do not concern only of the language, but also the initial translation choices. Last but not least, there are also minute interventions in the Greek text, which will be presented in the following pages, and certain pieces of evidence testify to a certain form of teamwork, meaning that the scribe did not work alone.

## 2. GREEK MAJUSCULES OVERLAPPED BY THE FRENCH TEXT AND THE ISSUE OF CORRODED METAL

The following argumentation is necessary in order to eliminate once and for all the hypothesis that the two texts, Greek and French, could have been written at the same time.¹² Contrary to the French text, the Greek one – principal text of the manuscript – has paragraph majuscules written in gold on the left margins. The presence of these gold majuscules in the margins of the folios, where the French text was transcribed, often leads to the overlapping of the two texts.

11. There is a hole at «<.>dont adont» in the place of an A majuscule. He must have realised that the first word did not need a majuscule and tried to erase it.

12. Odd as it may seem, even though the French text's Picardisms reflect a series of early 13th-century linguistic traits, this hypothesis is still tolerated in certain academic circles. For a rejection of this hypothesis, see AGRIGOROAEI, *La datation*, cit. The Picard traits of the scripta are obvious even in the short fragments of the Old French text published by MEYER, *Fragments*, cit., pp. 317-30; and AGRIGOROAEI, *«Rara avis»*, cit., pp. 112-13. I quote only actual words preserved in their entirety in the Iviron manuscript. See e.g. frequent ones such as *caus*; *lermes* (the so-called 'a' entravé par 'r'); or rarer ones such as those maintaining the Picard *a* in *damages*; the monophthong conversion of *ai* to *a* in pretonic syllables (*basier*); etc. For references to Picard features, see CH.Th. GOSSEN, *Grammaire de l'ancien picard*, Paris, Klincksieck, 1970.
This situation concerns only the versos of the folios. On the rectos, the French text is transcribed on the right margin of the Greek text and does not touch the latter's gold majuscules.

First of all, there are many folios in which the French text avoids the Greek majuscules on purpose.<fnref n="13" /> The most interesting example is on f. 44r (olim 45r), where a Π majuscule from the verso of the folio left an imprint in the parchment and the French text carefully avoids it. In other cases, the French text barely touches the Greek majuscules, avoiding them.<fnref n="14" /> However, one can have the false impression that Greek initials painted in gold overlap some letters of the French text on several occasions. The situation is not that frequent, as the French text (in ink) and the Greek gold majuscules rarely come in contact. In the greyscale microfilm copy, these overlappings are unclear, but the direct consultation of the manuscript reveals that the gold paint is not well preserved in many cases. Yet, when it was well preserved, it affected the preservation of the French text. In many cases, the vernacular text had completely vanished. This creates the false impression that the ink of the French could be hidden under the gold of the Greek majuscules, such as in the case of the Ζ majuscule from f. 59v (olim 60v).<fnref n="15" /> In fact, the French text, written in ink, did not dry well on metal and it wore off in many places where it overlapped the gold Greek majuscules. One can observe this in the lower part of f. 43v (olim 44v), where a Greek M majuscule in gold appears to overwrite the French text. A similar case occurs on f. 56v (olim 57v), for the golden majuscules Λ and T. The French text's ink stops at the precise limit of the Greek majuscules. It is preserved on the parchment, but not on metal. The same happens on the next folio, f. 57v (olim 58v), where the Π majuscule seems to overlap the French word «guerredon»; or on ff. 62v (olim 63v), 64v (olim 65v), 103v (olim 104v), 127v (olim 126v), or 132v.<fnref n="16" /> It occurred because the vernacular French text had a greater density and the little

<footnote n="13">13. See for this the cases on ff. 2v, 4v, 5v, 6v (the last majuscule, T, barely touches the margin), 11v, 15v, 16v, 17v, 18v, 22v, 25v, 26v, 27v, 28v, 32v, 33v, 34v, 35v, 36v, 45v (olim 46v), 48v (olim 49v), 50v (olim 51v), 52v (olim 53v), 69v (olim 70v), 72v (olim 73v), 83v (olim 84v), 84v (olim 85v), 87v (olim 88v), 88v (olim 89v), 101v (olim 102v), 122v, 135v.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14. See for this the cases on ff. 3v, 9v, 40v (olim 39v), 44v (olim 45v), 46v (olim 47v), 68v (olim 69v), 73v (olim 74v), 80v (olim 81v), 82v (olim 83v), 85r (olim 86r), 85v (olim 86v), 89v (olim 90v), 90v (olim 91v), 95v (olim 96v), 110v (olim 111v), 121v, 125v, 126v, 132v.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15. See for this the cases on ff. 6v (last majuscule, a T), 7v (the first O majuscule), 8v (X), 29v, 42v (olim 43v, T), 55v (olim 56v, the first T), 56v (olim 57v, Λ), 57v (olim 58v, Π), 61v (olim 62v, O), 62v (olim 63v, Λ), 75v (olim 76v, C), 76v (olim 77v, Λ, Y, and T), 78v (olim 79v, Φ), 81v (olim 82v, Λ and O), 91v (olim 92v, T), 92v (olim 93v, H and T), 93v (olim 94v, O), 97v (olim 98v, Λ), 102v (olim 103v, Δ), 112v (olim 113v, E, but the lines line of the French text that could have come in contact with it is erased), 113v (olim 114v, Π), 123v, 124v, 128v (olim 129v, Λ), 130v (I), 131v (Λ).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16. A similar situation occurs on f. 24v. The metal from the majuscule O is so stiff and slippery that the French text's ink completely wore off. Similarly, on ff. 12v (B majuscule), 13v</footnote>
space available in the margins of the Greek text pushed the vernacular text close to the area where the Greek text had been already transcribed. For instance, the French scribe tried to reduce the size of the French letters on f. 86v (olim 87v), possibly in hope of obtaining more space for his vernacular text, but he still did not manage to avoid touching the Greek letters.

The same thing happened with the heads of several figures from the miniatures, as they were painted on a layer of gold and not directly on the parchment. On f. 39r (olim 40r), the heads of two figures are missing from the miniature. The head of Ioasaph is also missing in the miniature from f. 59v (olim 60v). Other parts disappeared on the miniatures from ff. 65v (olim 66v), 67r (olim 68r), 111r (olim 112r), 119r, and 123v. But the waxing off of the paint in contact with the metal is best seen on ff. 93r (olim 94r), and 99r (olim 100r), where the heads of various figures worn off because they had been painted directly on gold.¹⁷

In other cases, the microfilm gives the impression that the vernacular text is overlapped by the Greek majuscules (or text), but they have different causes. One such situation occurs on f. 23v, where a Greek Δ majuscule seems to cover the French text and the upper and lower strokes of a Greek minuscule Δ transcribed three lines above that Δ appears to cover the French words «uos» and «cil poure». The problem here is that the ink used for the French text is diluted to the point where the ink from the Greek text, of a better quality, leaves a dark-er imprint at their intersection.

Variations in ink intensity and colour are a common phenomenon in longer handwritten texts, so one should not be surprised that there are situations in which the French text's ink was of a better quality, thus proving that it was transcribed at a much later date than the Greek one. One such case is that of the French E majuscule in the last line of f. 6r. It intersects with a Greek T; the French E is worn off, probably because of the same contact with the metal, but there are enough traces arguing in favour of its later dating. Similarly, traces of the ink from the French text are barely visible on the Greek majuscule M on

(Δ majuscule), and f. 64v (olim 65v, the H and O majuscules), the ink of the vernacular text was so diluted that it completely wore off.

17. There are also miniatures that have been purposely damaged, but for different reasons and at an unknown date. On f. 28v, a large part of the Last Judgement miniature was smothered in its own red ink (from the River of Fire), which covers parts of the gold background too. Another destruction occurs on f. 43r (olim 44r), where the group of figures painted close to the boat is completely wiped out. The case of f. 69v (olim 70v) accounts for a destruction done with a wet hand. One should not forget the drawing from f. 86r (olim 87r), immediately above the miniature, in the upper right corner, where there is a little space left blank by the Greek text. There one may see a bust of a naked man, maybe in connexion with the image below it. According to Father Theologos, these damages (probably on purpose) can be a re-action to the depictions of devils in those miniatures.
f. 10v; or on the *T* and *Z* Greek majuscules of f. 58v (*olim* 59v). On f. 30v, the last majuscule of the Greek text is a *T* whose horizontal stroke deceptively seems to overlap the last letter of the French word group «les gens il», while the vertical one touches the last letter of the group «...onuertirent de». Nevertheless, both the -l from «il» and the -e from «de» were written on the fine edges of the Greek majuscule *T*; traces of their ink, of a darker variety, are still present on the golden Greek majuscule. Two similar situations appear on f. 19v, where traces of French letters overlap the first Greek majuscule of that folio (*T*); and a French word «que» overlaps the breathing mark and accent of the second and last Greek majuscule (E). The breathing mark and accent of a majuscule *O* from the f. 31v are also overlapped by minute traces of French letters. On f. 37v, the Greek *K* preserves traces of French ink from the -r of «isuelor». And on f. 43v (*olim* 44v), an interesting case in the manuscript, the -i from the French letter group «homeroi» overlaps a Greek Θ (Fig. 1), while the -r of «il por» and the letters «asar» overlap a Greek *M*. It is worth noting that this latter folio has a rather high density of words in the French translation, thus explaining why all these letters needed to be crammed in together. And there are countless other examples of other Greek majuscules overlapped by vernacular letters.<fnref n="18" />

Perhaps the most interesting situation occurs on f. 132v (Fig. 2). Immediately after the miniature presenting Barlaam’s death and burial, the lower segment of a Greek majuscule *T* intersects with the French text «il ot finee». The upper parts of the last two French letters (-ee) darken the Greek *T’s* lower edge. Nevertheless, several lines below, on the same folio, the intensity of the French text’s ink gradually fades and leaves no trace on another Greek majuscule (*O*). One sees it even better on f. 49v (*olim* 50v), at the Greek majuscule Φ painted in gold, a French letter overlaps it and darkens the metal (Fig. 3). Probably because the gold paint was not well preserved at the date when the French text was transcribed and the French text’s ink corroded it during the transcription process. This argues in favour of a later dating of the French text. The same situa-

<footnote n="18">18. On f. 63v (*olim* 64v), the upper part of the final -s from «porpens» overlaps the ornamental trait of a Greek majuscule *T*. On f. 71v (*olim* 72v), the Greek gold Δ is overlapped two times: first by the final -e of «puruearice»; next by an a worn out letter at the end of «...us rie[.]». On f. 74v (*olim* 75v), the upper loop of the final -e from «ie uoe» leaves a trace on the lower stroke of a Greek majuscule Φ. On f. 77v (*olim* 78v), one may see also a small trace of the French letters which covered part of the Greek majuscule *M*. On f. 79v (*olim* 80v), a tiny trace from the final -t of «percoiuent» superposing a Greek golden Π is still visible. On f. 104v (*olim* 105v), the final -r from «laspide sur» covers a small part of a golden Greek majuscule Θ. Other minute traces are discernable on f. 107v (*olim* 108v, at the *H* overlapped by the *u* in «natu»), on f. 108v (*olim* 109v, at the *K* overlapped by «prometes»). On f. 111v (*olim* 112v), the upper part of a majuscule Greek *Y* is feebly covered by the last letter of the French group «sen pasoit», while its lower half shows traces of superposition of the final -t from an «[l]egierement».</footnote>
tion may be observed on f. 66v (olim 67v), where the French word «ne» touches a Greek Φ majuscule; nevertheless, the Greek majuscule's metal is already corroded in five places and one of them is exactly where the French *e* was intersecting with it. Corroded metal covered by the French text's ink is also visible on f. 109v (olim 110v), at the lower *K*. The same on f. 118v, where an *M* corroded gold leaf seems to be touched or covered twice: by a «proueire» on the upper part and by a group of letters composing a verbal form whose termination is impossible to reconstruct at this stage («sapare[...]»).<fnref n="19" /> Or on f. 119v, where two French lines («...oi estes uos» and «...isoit il b[.]au») overlaps a Greek *P*, but both the metal and the ink are corroded and discoloured to provide any firm conclusions. The situation is very similar to the overlapping of the French *-ee* and the Greek *T* from the already presented case of f. 132v.

In a number of cases, the red or green ink came into contact with the Greek majuscules' metallic golden paint. On f. 47v (olim 48v), the green ink from a French majuscule *D* and the red ink from its strokes touch the edges of a Greek *T*. On f. 60v (olim 61v), the red line of a bared «s...» (after an «estes») slightly touches the majuscule *O* of the Greek text. On the same folio, at the Greek majuscule *I*, the final *n* from an «een» overlaps the Greek majuscule (observation in oblique light). On f. 65v (olim 66v), the French red-ink majuscule *E* touches the edge of a Greek golden majuscule *E* and leaves a small mark on it. The best example is that of f. 120v, where two Greek majuscules present traces of dark ink superposition (*E* and *X*), while a third one (the lower *T*) is overlapped by the red ink of the French title (Fig. 4). The Greek majuscule's metal must have been already corroded (or at least had lost its glitter) by the time the French title was transcribed. This explains why the red ink is so well preserved.

### 3. PROOF OF TEAMWORK AND CONCLUSIONS

When the internal chronology of the translation – a process that I call the “manufacturing” of this translation – is understood, other isolated accidents from the Athonite manuscript start to make sense. The Greek majuscule *T* from «Ταῦτα» on f. 71v (olim 72v) is written in red ink as a correction (Fig. 5). This suggests that the Greek text was read at the same time as the French one during the revision process, and explains why some of the corrections in the French text are in red (as they were checking it again, for a second or perhaps a third time). However, this Greek majuscule *T* was transcribed by a different hand, even though the red ink and the size of the quill are the one and the same, meaning that two different persons shared them and those two persons were

<footnote n="19">19. The ink from the lower group of French letters is too discoloured and the metal from the Greek initial too damaged to draw any immediate conclusion.</footnote>
involved in the revision process. The spacing of the vernacular letters attests to
the fact that they were the first ones to be written on the margin. The Greek *T*
from «*Tastone*» was written after them, being carefully inserted in between two
vernacular French letters. The two persons making the revision probably did
not pay attention to this detail during the translation process or postponed the
correction until later. Real attention was paid only during the checking of the
two texts at a later date, that is, when the majuscules were transcribed. Yet this
also means that a Greek speaker (different from the French translator) was
present during these checks, and this implies the existence of a team, thus con-
firming the working hypothesis presented in my first study, based on the trans-
latological analysis.<fnref n="20" />

It is safe to assume that this Greek speaker was reading the Greek text at the
same time as the Francophone read the French one, and they probably com-
pared their readings. Further proof of this teamwork is evident at f. 15v, where
the French title in red ink was written on an erasure (Fig. 6). The scribe probably
forgot to leave enough space for this title, so he had to reduce the size of the
previous vernacular sentence, but he also erased part of the Greek majuscule *M*
in the process. They (or the Greek speaker alone) then proceeded to redraw the
Greek majuscule in red. That red has the same colour and intensity as the ink of
the French title, thus suggesting that it was done in the same timeframe. A sim-
ilar situation occurs on f. 28v, where an erasure in the French text had created
another problem, leading to the transcription of two initials in order to solve the
issue («Aᵇ»). These isolated incidents suggest that the team of scribe-translators
respected a logic that dictated certain priorities in the use of the Greek and
French texts.

Both texts were equally important at the time when the revision was made.
Nevertheless, the situation had been certainly different during the translation
process, as testified by the same overlapping of French and Greek texts. It is
now evident that the ink(s) used for the French text probably dried well on the
metal in the first stages, but wore off with the passage of time.<fnref n="21" /> Yet this also
suggests that the French scribe was not interested in the source text or did not
pay much attention to the Greek words, since French words overlap Greek
majuscules and sometimes entire parts of the source text. The first part of the
translation process – the transcription of the French text – was done only with
the priority of the French text in mind. This is evident on another folio, in

<footnote n="20">20. AGRIGOROAEI, «Rara avis», cit., pp. 125-33. For a summary of those conclusions, see below.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21. If the scribe realised that the ink was wearing off, he would find another solution, certainly avoiding the Greek gold majuscules and transcribing the text only on the parchment segments.</footnote>
which the marginal French text invades the column of the Greek text, because
the translator could not abridge the translation. It is once again evident on the
lower half of f. 115v (olim 116v), where a Greek golden majuscule E is overlapped
by a French text («aues sofer[t?]»). Generally, the scribe avoided such situations
by condensing the text in the upper and lower margins. However, on this other
folio, he had to get very close to the Greek text and this led to an overlapping of
«aigue/μοι» (ninth line from the bottom up) and «enuos enracine/ση» (fourth
line from the bottom up).

These observations strengthen the conclusions of my 2014 study. From a
linguistic and traductological point of view, the analysis of the French transla-
tion already showed that it was done in stages, some of them bearing witness to
a slavish formal equivalence based on the Greek text, which affected both the
syntax of the vernacular language and stylistic choices. In light of those initial
conclusions, I assumed that a French translator of the early 13th century could
not be able to understand the subtleties of the Greek text, further proof of this
being his traductological reflexes from Latin, which could have been a media-
tion language of the translation, in between the Greek and the French text. The
new data presented in the current study confirm that the French translation of
Iviron was made by a French-speaking translator with the help of a local monk,
through the mediation of an oral Latin translation, in a historical context which
was already well explored in the previous studies.<fnref n="22" />

VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI

CÉSCM Poitiers-CNRS

vladimir.agrigoroaei@gmail.com

<footnote n="22">22. For the historical context, see AGRIGOROAEI, «Rara avis», cit., pp. 133-48; ID., *La datation*, cit., *passim*; ID., *Traduction et sotériologie*, cit. (the entire study).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>1. Detail of f. 43v (olim 44v).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>2. Detail of f. 132v.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>3. Detail of f. 49v (olim 50v), with the French text partly covering the Greek majuscule
Φ.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>4. Detail of f. 120v, with the Greek *T* majuscule from the lower part of the folio.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>5. Detail of f. 71v (olim 72v), with the Greek majuscule *T* inserted in the middle of a French word.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>6. Detail of f. 15v, with the erasure and rewriting of the Greek majuscule *M* in red ink.</figcaption></figure>