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

HAL
open science

# The Manufactory of Old French Psalters

Alessia Chapel, Vladimir Agrigoroaei

► To cite this version:

Alessia Chapel, Vladimir Agrigoroaei. The Manufactory of Old French Psalters: Part 1: The Genetic Stratigraphy Documented by the Erasures of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce ms 320. museIKON A Journal of Religious Art and Culture, 2024, 7, pp.55-143. halshs-04373977

HAL Id: halshs-04373977

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04373977

Submitted on 5 Jan 2024

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
# The Manufactory of Old French Psalters

Alessia Chapel, Vladimir Agrigoroaei

► To cite this version:

Alessia Chapel, Vladimir Agrigoroaei. The Manufactory of Old French Psalters. museIKON A Journal of Religious Art and Culture, 2024, 7, pp.55-143. halshs-04373977

HAL Id: halshs-04373977

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04373977v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2024

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
esfleechat bi miens
rat en espance.

ceſures kar
a mèi en multe clé
ſtrau le ſegnur
uſſirent en mèi

l mien calioe?

ume a empli
esfleechat bi miens
rat en espance.

ceſures kar
a mèi en multe clé
ſtrau le ſegnur
uſſirent en mèi

l mien calioe?

ume a empli
# *The Manufactory of Old French Psalters*

## PART 1

### *The Genetic Stratigraphy Documented by the Erasures*
*of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320*

Alessia Chapel (AC)
Vladimir Agrigoroaei (VA)
CÉSCM UMR 7302-CNRS (FR)

anr

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

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

RÉSUMÉ: Afin d'avancer dans la compréhension des relations intertextuelles entre les psautiers français médiévaux, il était essentiel de revenir à une source fondamentale telle que le Psautier d'Oxford (manuscrit d'Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 320). Ainsi, l'une des finalités du présent article est de jeter les bases d'une étude des altérations textuelles (représentées par de très nombreuses érasures) qui rendent compte du procédé rédactionnel et approfondissent la logique intrinsèque de ce manuscrit. L'étude étant de grande envergure, elle est segmentée en plusieurs publications. Dans cette première étape, après une introduction qui analyse les rapports du manuscrit Douce 320 avec d'autres codices de sa famille (e.g., Londres, British Library, Arundel ms 230), les auteurs discutent les érasures liés à la fluctuation de voyelles et diphtongues dans l'orthographe de certains mots. L'analyse du traitement des dentales finales occupe ensuite des sections concernant certaines formes verbales du mode indicatif, subjonctif et participe. Elle se complète par des approfondissements concernant le cas du -e- interconsonantique dans des formes futures et le choix entre -r- et double -rr- dans le futur du verbe *estre*. Encore, les érasures et/ou corrections liés aux dentales ont permis d'aborder la question de la déclinaison, non seulement dans le cas des participes, mais également dans le cas de plusieurs substantifs et adjectifs. L'étude porte ensuite sur des études de cas : l'effacement d'un **-n** final dans *enfer(n)*, *iur(n)* et *car(n)* ; les hésitations du scribe liés à l'orthographe de la conjonction *car* ; le fréquent remplacement du *q* en *c* dans le mot *quer/cuer* ; le choix parfois hésitant entre les conjonctions *mais* et *acertes* ; ou bien les différents choix pour traduire le suffixe latin **-tio**. Une parenthèse ouverte sur certains ajouts et/ou corrections suggère la possibilité que le manuscrit Douce 320 pourrait ne pas être une traduction autographe du Psautier de St. Albans (ms Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, St Godehard 1) ; et que le scribe se serait plutôt servi d'une source latine avec une gloise vernaculaire interlinéaire. Cette piste semble également confirmée par l'emploi du tiret bas, que le scribe utilise pour compenser des probables fautes de transcription. Mais elle est surtout soutenue dans la section où les auteurs s'arrêtent sur quelques « longues érasures », à savoir des unités de transcription dont l'émendation paraît liée à la structure et à l'interconnexion textuelle d'une source présentant à la fois latin et gloise interlinéaire. En conclusion de cette partie, après avoir présenté, à titre comparatif, des exemples tirés du Psautier de Winchester et du Psautier d'Arundel, les auteurs proposent la reconstruction d'un segment textuel qui pourrait se rapprocher de la source du manuscrit Douce 320. L'article se termine par une comparaison avec les précédents vieil-anglais et une transcription des fragments de Maidstone, Centre d'histoire et bibliothèque de Kent, Fa/Z1 (fragment Faversham 1). La continuation de la publication est prévue pour le prochain numéro *Museikon*.

MOTS-CLÉS: paléographie; critique textuelle; traductologie; Psaumes; linguistique.

REZUMAT: Pentru a înţelege mai bine relaţiile intertextuale dintre psaltirile franceze medievale, întoarcerea la o sursă fundamentală precum Psaltirea de la Oxford (manuscrisul Oxford, Biblioteca Bodleiană, Douce 320) este esenţială. Astfel, unul dintre scopurile acestui articol este cel de a pune bazele unui studiu al modificărilor de natură textuală reprezentate de numeroase ştersături care reflectă procesul de redactare şi spun povestea acestui manuscris. Deoarece studiul este de amploare, a fost necesară segmentarea lui în mai multe publicaţii. În această primă etapă, după o introducere care analizează relaţiile manuscrisului Douce 320 cu alte manuscris din fami-

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Close-up of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 39r. Photo: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.
Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.
# *The Manufactory of Old French Psalters*

## PART 1

### *The Genetic Stratigraphy Documented by the Erasures*
*of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320*

Alessia Chapel (AC)
Vladimir Agrigoroaei (VA)
CÉSCM UMR 7302-CNRS (FR)

anr

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

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

RÉSUMÉ: Afin d'avancer dans la compréhension des relations intertextuelles entre les psautiers français médiévaux, il était essentiel de revenir à une source fondamentale telle que le Psautier d'Oxford (manuscrit d'Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 320). Ainsi, l'une des finalités du présent article est de jeter les bases d'une étude des altérations textuelles (représentées par de très nombreuses érasures) qui rendent compte du procédé rédactionnel et approfondissent la logique intrinsèque de ce manuscrit. L'étude étant de grande envergure, elle est segmentée en plusieurs publications. Dans cette première étape, après une introduction qui analyse les rapports du manuscrit Douce 320 avec d'autres codices de sa famille (e.g., Londres, British Library, Arundel ms 230), les auteurs discutent les érasures liés à la fluctuation de voyelles et diphtongues dans l'orthographe de certains mots. L'analyse du traitement des dentales finales occupe ensuite des sections concernant certaines formes verbales du mode indicatif, subjonctif et participe. Elle se complète par des approfondissements concernant le cas du -e- interconsonantique dans des formes futures et le choix entre -r- et double -rr- dans le futur du verbe *estre*. Encore, les érasures et/ou corrections liés aux dentales ont permis d'aborder la question de la déclinaison, non seulement dans le cas des participes, mais également dans le cas de plusieurs substantifs et adjectifs. L'étude porte ensuite sur des études de cas : l'effacement d'un **-n** final dans *enfer(n)*, *iur(n)* et *car(n)* ; les hésitations du scribe liés à l'orthographe de la conjonction *car* ; le fréquent remplacement du *q* en *c* dans le mot *quer/cuer* ; le choix parfois hésitant entre les conjonctions *mais* et *acertes* ; ou bien les différents choix pour traduire le suffixe latin **-tio**. Une parenthèse ouverte sur certains ajouts et/ou corrections suggère la possibilité que le manuscrit Douce 320 pourrait ne pas être une traduction autographe du Psautier de St. Albans (ms Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, St Godehard 1) ; et que le scribe se serait plutôt servi d'une source latine avec une gloise vernaculaire interlinéaire. Cette piste semble également confirmée par l'emploi du tiret bas, que le scribe utilise pour compenser des probables fautes de transcription. Mais elle est surtout soutenue dans la section où les auteurs s'arrêtent sur quelques « longues érasures », à savoir des unités de transcription dont l'émendation paraît liée à la structure et à l'interconnexion textuelle d'une source présentant à la fois latin et gloise interlinéaire. En conclusion de cette partie, après avoir présenté, à titre comparatif, des exemples tirés du Psautier de Winchester et du Psautier d'Arundel, les auteurs proposent la reconstruction d'un segment textuel qui pourrait se rapprocher de la source du manuscrit Douce 320. L'article se termine par une comparaison avec les précédents vieil-anglais et une transcription des fragments de Maidstone, Centre d'histoire et bibliothèque de Kent, Fa/Z1 (fragment Faversham 1). La continuation de la publication est prévue pour le prochain numéro *Museikon*.

MOTS-CLÉS: paléographie; critique textuelle; traductologie; Psaumes; linguistique.

REZUMAT: Pentru a înţelege mai bine relaţiile intertextuale dintre psaltirile franceze medievale, întoarcerea la o sursă fundamentală precum Psaltirea de la Oxford (manuscrisul Oxford, Biblioteca Bodleiană, Douce 320) este esenţială. Astfel, unul dintre scopurile acestui articol este cel de a pune bazele unui studiu al modificărilor de natură textuală reprezentate de numeroase ştersături care reflectă procesul de redactare şi spun povestea acestui manuscris. Deoarece studiul este de amploare, a fost necesară segmentarea lui în mai multe publicaţii. În această primă etapă, după o introducere care analizează relaţiile manuscrisului Douce 320 cu alte manuscris din fami-

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Close-up of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 39r. Photo: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.
Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.
lia sa (de exemplu, Londra, British Library, Arundel MS 230), autorii discută ștersăturile legate de fluctuația voca-
lelor și diftongilor în ortografia anumitor cuvinte. Analiza tratamentului dentalelor finale ocupă apoi secțiuni
referitoare la anumite forme verbale ale modurilor indicativ, conjunctiv și participiu. Acestea sunt completate
de studii privind ștergerea unui -e- interconsonantic în formele de viitor și oscilarea între -r- și dublu -rr- în for-
mele de viitor ale verbului estre. În cele ce urmează, ștersăturile și/sau corecturile legate de dentale permit de
asemenea să fie abordată problema declinării, nu numai în cazul participiilor, ci și a mai multor substantive și
adjective. Cercetarea se concentrează apoi pe studii de caz: ștergerea unui -n- final în enfer(n), iur(n) și car(n);
ezitările scribului legate de ortografia conjuncției car; înlocuirea frecventă a lui q cu c în cuvântul quer/cuer;
ezitarea între folosirea conjuncției mais sau a conjuncției acertes; precum și multiplele opțiuni de a traduce
sufixul latin -tio. O paranteză deschisă cu privire la anumite adăugiri și/sau corecturi sugerează posibilitatea ca
manuscrisul Douce 320 să nu fie o traducere autografă a Psaltirii St Albans (păstrată la Hildesheim, Dombibli-
thek, St Godehard 1). Scribul ar fi folosit mai degrabă o sursă latină cu o glosă vernaculară interliniară. Această
deducție pare să fie confirmată și de utilizarea unei liniuțe de unire, pe care copistul o folosește pentru a compensa
erori probabile de transcriere. Îpoteza aceasta este susținută mai ales de cercetarea asupra cătorva „ștersături
lungi”. Ele par a privi unități de transcriere a căror modificare este legată de structura și interconectarea
textuală cu o sursă care prezintă atât un text latin, cât și o glosă interliniară. În încheierea acestei părți, după ce
au prezentat, spre comparație, exemple preluate din Psaltirea Winchester și Psaltirea Arundel, autorii propun
reconstituirea unui segment de text care ar putea fi mai aproape de sursa manuscrisului Douce 320. Articolul se
încheie cu o comparație cu precedentele în limba engleză veche și cu o transcriere a fragmentelor de la Maid-
stone, Centrul și Biblioteca de Istorie Kent, Fa/Z1 (fragmentul Faversham 1). Continuarea cercetării este
prevăzută pentru următorul număr al revistei Museikon.

CUVINTE-CHEIE: paleografie; critică de text; traductologie; Psalmi; lingvistică.

FOREWORD (VA, AC)

In an analysis of Peshitta's Syriac rendition of the book of
Jeremiah, Greenberg investigated how scribes modified
the text of the original translation. It became evident
that features characterising translation technique often
indicate revisional activity too (Greenberg 2002: 126-142).
In other words, when a sacred text went through a 'di-
orthosis' process, alterations were usually inserted in a
coherent manner, that is, reviewers and rewriters insert-
ed them according to a certain logic. This is what the au-
thors of the present paper intend to examine in studying
the filiation between the earliest Old French Psalters,
with special attention to the particular case of Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Psalters written in the Anglo-Norman dialect in the 12th
century and their copies or adaptations from the 13th and
14th centuries form an odd category of texts, the dynamics
(and mechanics) of which have not been properly explored.
There are monolingual manuscripts, bilingual manuscripts
on double columns presenting the Latin and vernacular
texts as individual units aligned to the verse, there are
interlinear glosses in Latin manuscripts, and many other
arrangements. Some of these Old French psalters written
in Anglo-Norman dialect are related; some of them are
not. It is hard to explain their filiation, since no proper
analysis of the manner in which the text evolved has
been made. Partly influenced by philological Bédierism,
scholars focused on one manuscript more than others and
often came up with incompletely justified conclusions.

Some believe that the first text of the group must have
been a psalter with an interlinear translation. It is an old
idea, allegedly superseded by new research, but—as the
current experimental paper will show—it is not an idea to
be dismissed. The most interesting candidate for a source
has always been the Arundel Psalter (London, British
Library, Arundel MS 230, 12th century), given its strong
textual links with the other texts (vide infra). Others
argued that the prototype of the translation was the only
monolingual psalter of the lot—Oxford Psalter (Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, also dated to the middle
of the 12th century). Douce's links with the Latin Psalter
of St Albans (Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, St Godehard
1), its alleged source, would confirm that Oxford Psalter
was the first in the series. In all these instances, neverthe-

less, the perspective is misleading: each time we query
the corpus, it gives different results. Since the texts are
unstable and shape-shifting, it is our opinion that the re-
relationships between them must be analysed to the letter
(and to the erasure).

One thing is certain: most translations are linked in
one way or another to Douce MS 320, a manuscript that
was the focus of many linguistic studies at the end of the
19th century, at a time when the history of the Old French
language was still in an exploratory stage. See e.g., Bra-
chet 1870 on accentuation; Meister 1877 on conjugation
and declension (cf. the review of Koschwitz 1878); Cornu
1878 for conjugation; Harseim 1879 on vocalism and con-
sonantism; Varnhagen 1879 for the Old French rendering
of Latin c (cf. the reply of Cornu 1881b); Faulde 1880 on
geminated consonants; Cornu 1881a on matters related
to verbal forms; Lincke 1886 on accentuation; etc. To this,
it is possible to add various comparative studies with
other vernacular texts, such as Berger 1884: 1–34 (cf. the
reviews of Meyer 1888: 122–124, Suchier 1884: 416–429);
Förster 1914; etc.

Currently there is no way of knowing if the Psalm sec-
tion of Douce MS 320 was the very first codex of its group,
but it is one of the oldest manuscripts preserved today.
Arundel MS 230 seems to be part of the same textual
tradition, yet it goes into realms of functional equiva-
lence, towards a different aesthetic of translation, as if it
were a manuscript that stood alone in the middle of the
entire textual tradition. As of now, we present only these
two manuscripts, with others to follow at a later stage of
the paper or in future instalments.

Douce MS 320 is a monolingual Old French codex, dating from the 12th century and produced somewhere in England. It was located in the Benedictine abbey of Montebourg (Normandy) at the beginning of the 14th century. There, it was bound in a single volume with an Old French translation of the Rule of Saint Benedict, dated to the first half of the 13th century. This is why old bibliographical references refer to it as the 'Psalter of Montebourg'. The

▸ *Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37r.*

Photo: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.
lia sa (de exemplu, Londra, British Library, Arundel MS 230), autorii discută ștersăturile legate de fluctuația voca-
lelor și diftongilor în ortografia anumitor cuvinte. Analiza tratamentului dentalelor finale ocupă apoi secțiuni
referitoare la anumite forme verbale ale modurilor indicativ, conjunctiv și participiu. Acestea sunt completate
de studii privind ștergerea unui -e- interconsonantic în formele de viitor și oscilarea între -r- și dublu -rr- în for-
mele de viitor ale verbului estre. În cele ce urmează, ștersăturile și/sau corecturile legate de dentale permit de
asemenea să fie abordată problema declinării, nu numai în cazul participiilor, ci și a mai multor substantive și
adjective. Cercetarea se concentrează apoi pe studii de caz: ștergerea unui -n- final în enfer(n), iur(n) și car(n);
ezitările scribului legate de ortografia conjuncției car; înlocuirea frecventă a lui q cu c în cuvântul quer/cuer;
ezitarea între folosirea conjuncției mais sau a conjuncției acertes; precum și multiplele opțiuni de a traduce
sufixul latin -tio. O paranteză deschisă cu privire la anumite adăugiri și/sau corecturi sugerează posibilitatea ca
manuscrisul Douce 320 să nu fie o traducere autografă a Psaltirii St Albans (păstrată la Hildesheim, Dombibli-
thek, St Godehard 1). Scribul ar fi folosit mai degrabă o sursă latină cu o glosă vernaculară interliniară. Această
deducție pare să fie confirmată și de utilizarea unei liniuțe de unire, pe care copistul o folosește pentru a compensa
erori probabile de transcriere. Îpoteza aceasta este susținută mai ales de cercetarea asupra cătorva „ștersături
lungi”. Ele par a privi unități de transcriere a căror modificare este legată de structura și interconectarea
textuală cu o sursă care prezintă atât un text latin, cât și o glosă interliniară. În încheierea acestei părți, după ce
au prezentat, spre comparație, exemple preluate din Psaltirea Winchester și Psaltirea Arundel, autorii propun
reconstituirea unui segment de text care ar putea fi mai aproape de sursa manuscrisului Douce 320. Articolul se
încheie cu o comparație cu precedentele în limba engleză veche și cu o transcriere a fragmentelor de la Maid-
stone, Centrul și Biblioteca de Istorie Kent, Fa/Z1 (fragmentul Faversham 1). Continuarea cercetării este
prevăzută pentru următorul număr al revistei Museikon.

CUVINTE-CHEIE: paleografie; critică de text; traductologie; Psalmi; lingvistică.

FOREWORD (VA, AC)

In an analysis of Peshitta's Syriac rendition of the book of
Jeremiah, Greenberg investigated how scribes modified
the text of the original translation. It became evident
that features characterising translation technique often
indicate revisional activity too (Greenberg 2002: 126-142).
In other words, when a sacred text went through a 'di-
orthosis' process, alterations were usually inserted in a
coherent manner, that is, reviewers and rewriters insert-
ed them according to a certain logic. This is what the au-
thors of the present paper intend to examine in studying
the filiation between the earliest Old French Psalters,
with special attention to the particular case of Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Psalters written in the Anglo-Norman dialect in the 12th
century and their copies or adaptations from the 13th and
14th centuries form an odd category of texts, the dynamics
(and mechanics) of which have not been properly explored.
There are monolingual manuscripts, bilingual manuscripts
on double columns presenting the Latin and vernacular
texts as individual units aligned to the verse, there are
interlinear glosses in Latin manuscripts, and many other
arrangements. Some of these Old French psalters written
in Anglo-Norman dialect are related; some of them are
not. It is hard to explain their filiation, since no proper
analysis of the manner in which the text evolved has
been made. Partly influenced by philological Bédierism,
scholars focused on one manuscript more than others and
often came up with incompletely justified conclusions.

Some believe that the first text of the group must have
been a psalter with an interlinear translation. It is an old
idea, allegedly superseded by new research, but—as the
current experimental paper will show—it is not an idea to
be dismissed. The most interesting candidate for a source
has always been the Arundel Psalter (London, British
Library, Arundel MS 230, 12th century), given its strong
textual links with the other texts (vide infra). Others
argued that the prototype of the translation was the only
monolingual psalter of the lot—Oxford Psalter (Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, also dated to the middle
of the 12th century). Douce's links with the Latin Psalter
of St Albans (Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, St Godehard
1), its alleged source, would confirm that Oxford Psalter
was the first in the series. In all these instances, neverthe-

less, the perspective is misleading: each time we query
the corpus, it gives different results. Since the texts are
unstable and shape-shifting, it is our opinion that the re-
relationships between them must be analysed to the letter
(and to the erasure).

One thing is certain: most translations are linked in
one way or another to Douce MS 320, a manuscript that
was the focus of many linguistic studies at the end of the
19th century, at a time when the history of the Old French
language was still in an exploratory stage. See e.g., Bra-
chet 1870 on accentuation; Meister 1877 on conjugation
and declension (cf. the review of Koschwitz 1878); Cornu
1878 for conjugation; Harseim 1879 on vocalism and con-
sonantism; Varnhagen 1879 for the Old French rendering
of Latin c (cf. the reply of Cornu 1881b); Faulde 1880 on
geminated consonants; Cornu 1881a on matters related
to verbal forms; Lincke 1886 on accentuation; etc. To this,
it is possible to add various comparative studies with
other vernacular texts, such as Berger 1884: 1–34 (cf. the
reviews of Meyer 1888: 122–124, Suchier 1884: 416–429);
Förster 1914; etc.

Currently there is no way of knowing if the Psalm sec-
tion of Douce MS 320 was the very first codex of its group,
but it is one of the oldest manuscripts preserved today.
Arundel MS 230 seems to be part of the same textual
tradition, yet it goes into realms of functional equiva-
lence, towards a different aesthetic of translation, as if it
were a manuscript that stood alone in the middle of the
entire textual tradition. As of now, we present only these
two manuscripts, with others to follow at a later stage of
the paper or in future instalments.

Douce MS 320 is a monolingual Old French codex, dating from the 12th century and produced somewhere in England. It was located in the Benedictine abbey of Montebourg (Normandy) at the beginning of the 14th century. There, it was bound in a single volume with an Old French translation of the Rule of Saint Benedict, dated to the first half of the 13th century. This is why old bibliographical references refer to it as the 'Psalter of Montebourg'. The

▸ *Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37r.*

Photo: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.
manuscript's folios are approximately 29 x 20 cm, the text
is transcribed in a single column. It has forty lines per
page, with initials and majuscules written in red or green,
used alternately. This second part of the Douce manu-
script contains the translation of the 150 Psalms based on
Gallicanum, followed by the Canticles. The translation is
written in prose, contrary to the custom of early Anglo-
Norman biblical texts, which are often written as adap-
tations in verse. The text was edited first by Michel 1860

and more recently by Short 2015. We concur with the
palaeographic analysis of Short, Careri, Ruby 2010 in the
matter that the translation of the Psalms in Douce MS 320
does not show signs of being the work of more than one
scribe. Variations in character width are the result of the
scribe's attempt to fit more letters in the tight space left
available by certain erasures; no sign of different ducti
can be found throughout this copy of the Psalms.

Occasional claims have been made that the version of

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
manuscript's folios are approximately 29 x 20 cm, the text
is transcribed in a single column. It has forty lines per
page, with initials and majuscules written in red or green,
used alternately. This second part of the Douce manu-
script contains the translation of the 150 Psalms based on
Gallicanum, followed by the Canticles. The translation is
written in prose, contrary to the custom of early Anglo-
Norman biblical texts, which are often written as adap-
tations in verse. The text was edited first by Michel 1860

and more recently by Short 2015. We concur with the
palaeographic analysis of Short, Careri, Ruby 2010 in the
matter that the translation of the Psalms in Douce MS 320
does not show signs of being the work of more than one
scribe. Variations in character width are the result of the
scribe's attempt to fit more letters in the tight space left
available by certain erasures; no sign of different ducti
can be found throughout this copy of the Psalms.

Occasional claims have been made that the version of

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
► Two folios from the St Albans Psalter (Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, St Godehard 1): the prologue of the Song of St Alexis, a seminal text at the beginning of Old French literature (p. 57), and the Canticle of Isaiah at the end of the Psalter (p. 372).

Source https://www.albani-psalter.de/.

► Drawing of the marginal transcription (without the modern text) in London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 9r.

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Douce MS 320 could be derived from a now lost bilingual psalter, despite its antiquity when compared with the other psalters of its group. All this changed a decade ago, when Short, Careri, Ruby 2010 proposed a different interpretation. They argued that the text of Douce could be the original autograph of the Old French translation and that the other witnesses (all bilingual), could be derived from it. In their opinion, Douce would be translated from a distinct Gallicanum, the one preserved in the already-mentioned St Albans Psalter. This famous codex, contains not only the Psalms, but also one of the oldest version of the Old French *Song of Saint Alexis*, the vernacular text being copied after a cycle of images. To avoid the twists and turns of various interpretations, we mention only fundamental notions, notably the fact that this codex was probably composed for a certain Christine of Markyate, a recluse whose life would have several points in common with the story of saint Alexis. Certain researchers argue that the manuscript could be linked to the evangelical conversion of Christine. Others consider that the quire comprising the *Song of Saint Alexis* was produced separately, in a different devotional context, before being included in the final structure of that Latin psalter (e.g., Gnädinger 1972, 24–28; cf. Matthew 2008; Gerry 2009: 600; Gerry 2013, 81; for the recluse and her links with the St Albans Psalter, see also Geddes 2005).

The conjecture that the Oxford Psalter and the St Albans Psalter could be related is to many scholars’ liking, since it establishes a relationship between two texts (and two manuscripts) which greatly influenced the onset of Anglo-Norman translations (or French literature in general). This led to speculations about the uses of Douce MS 320, especially in connection with Christina of Markyate.

The key argument of Short, Careri, Ruby 2010 is an oral observation made by R. Thompson. He noticed that the hand of *scribe B* from the St Albans Psalter, dated 1130–1160, closely resembles that of the copyist who transcribed the French translation of the Psalms in Douce MS 320. It was from this palaeographic observation that the three scholars set out to search other common points between the two codices. According to them, St Albans Psalter’s Gallicanum would preserve a Latin text with contaminations from Romanum. By comparing specific *lectiones* from it with the translation from Douce MS 320, they argued that the translation from the latter could be based on the Latin Gallicanum of the former. There are no mentions, however, of why the features identified in

St Albans Psalter are specific to this manuscript and not to any other psalters of the same area or timeframe. The relevance of the comparison rests entirely on palaeographic arguments.

In the publication, they mention few cases of variation or discrepancy. Such an exception occurs in the translation of Ps 136:9. St Albans Psalter follows Romanum in that verse, while the Old French translation is modelled on Gallicanum. Another one appears in the translation of Ps 118:69. There, Douce MS 320 renders a term which is erased in St Albans Psalter (found in Romanum). Short, Careri, Ruby 2010: 36 explain these exceptions as ‘memory-triggered mechanisms or individual initiatives on the part of the scribe of the Saint Albans Psalter or the Oxford Psalter’ (*mécanismes de type mémoriel ou des initiatives individuelles de la part du copiste du Saint Albans ou de l’Oxford*). They do not analyse them further and focus on the divisions of longer Psalms in two or more textual units. It appears that these internal divisions would correspond to those of St Albans Psalter, but it is not explained why the comparison with this particular manuscript is relevant in aspects which both the Latin manuscript and the vernacular translation probably share with an extensive number of codices from the same period. Indeed, as the three scholars suggest, perhaps this can be linked to a Benedictine liturgical tradition, but the fact that the two manuscripts (and texts) are monastic in origin does not link them in a direct manner. In the remainder of the paper, further similitudes are identified in the sizes of initials, but these initials do not always correspond from one manuscript to the other. In concluding their study, it is argued ‘that it is not excluded, or rather that it is highly probable, [...] that the Anglo-Norman psalter [i.e., Douce MS 320] was translated directly from the Psalter of St Albans’ (*qu’il n’est pas exclu, ou plutôt qu’il est hautement vraisemblable, [...] que le psautier anglo-normand a été traduit directement sur le Psautier de Saint Albans*; Short, Careri, Ruby 2010: 40). This conclusion sets the stage for a reconstruction of the social and cultural context in which Douce MS 320 would have been produced.

Arundel MS 320 is not the chief interest of their paper, nor of the edition of Douce MS 230 by Short 2015. However, this manuscript represents the most interesting example in the category of Old French interlinear gloss translations of the Psalms and can be just as well a candidate for the source of the Oxford Psalter manuscript tra-
► Two folios from the St Albans Psalter (Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, St Godehard 1): the prologue of the Song of St Alexis, a seminal text at the beginning of Old French literature (p. 57), and the Canticle of Isaiah at the end of the Psalter (p. 372).

Source https://www.albani-psalter.de/.

► Drawing of the marginal transcription (without the modern text) in London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 9r.

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Douce MS 320 could be derived from a now lost bilingual psalter, despite its antiquity when compared with the other psalters of its group. All this changed a decade ago, when Short, Careri, Ruby 2010 proposed a different interpretation. They argued that the text of Douce could be the original autograph of the Old French translation and that the other witnesses (all bilingual), could be derived from it. In their opinion, Douce would be translated from a distinct Gallicanum, the one preserved in the already-mentioned St Albans Psalter. This famous codex, contains not only the Psalms, but also one of the oldest version of the Old French *Song of Saint Alexis*, the vernacular text being copied after a cycle of images. To avoid the twists and turns of various interpretations, we mention only fundamental notions, notably the fact that this codex was probably composed for a certain Christine of Markyate, a recluse whose life would have several points in common with the story of saint Alexis. Certain researchers argue that the manuscript could be linked to the evangelical conversion of Christine. Others consider that the quire comprising the *Song of Saint Alexis* was produced separately, in a different devotional context, before being included in the final structure of that Latin psalter (e.g., Gnädinger 1972, 24–28; cf. Matthew 2008; Gerry 2009: 600; Gerry 2013, 81; for the recluse and her links with the St Albans Psalter, see also Geddes 2005).

The conjecture that the Oxford Psalter and the St Albans Psalter could be related is to many scholars' liking, since it establishes a relationship between two texts (and two manuscripts) which greatly influenced the onset of Anglo-Norman translations (or French literature in general). This led to speculations about the uses of Douce MS 320, especially in connection with Christina of Markyate.

The key argument of Short, Careri, Ruby 2010 is an oral observation made by R. Thompson. He noticed that the hand of *scribe B* from the St Albans Psalter, dated 1130–1160, closely resembles that of the copyist who transcribed the French translation of the Psalms in Douce MS 320. It was from this palaeographic observation that the three scholars set out to search other common points between the two codices. According to them, St Albans Psalter's Gallicanum would preserve a Latin text with contaminations from Romanum. By comparing specific *lectiones* from it with the translation from Douce MS 320, they argued that the translation from the latter could be based on the Latin Gallicanum of the former. There are no mentions, however, of why the features identified in

St Albans Psalter are specific to this manuscript and not to any other psalters of the same area or timeframe. The relevance of the comparison rests entirely on palaeographic arguments.

In the publication, they mention few cases of variation or discrepancy. Such an exception occurs in the translation of Ps 136:9. St Albans Psalter follows Romanum in that verse, while the Old French translation is modelled on Gallicanum. Another one appears in the translation of Ps 118:69. There, Douce MS 320 renders a term which is erased in St Albans Psalter (found in Romanum). Short, Careri, Ruby 2010: 36 explain these exceptions as 'memory-triggered mechanisms or individual initiatives on the part of the scribe of the Saint Albans Psalter or the Oxford Psalter' (*mécanismes de type mémoriel ou des initiatives individuelles de la part du copiste du Saint Albans ou de l'Oxford*). They do not analyse them further and focus on the divisions of longer Psalms in two or more textual units. It appears that these internal divisions would correspond to those of St Albans Psalter, but it is not explained why the comparison with this particular manuscript is relevant in aspects which both the Latin manuscript and the vernacular translation probably share with an extensive number of codices from the same period. Indeed, as the three scholars suggest, perhaps this can be linked to a Benedictine liturgical tradition, but the fact that the two manuscripts (and texts) are monastic in origin does not link them in a direct manner. In the remainder of the paper, further similitudes are identified in the sizes of initials, but these initials do not always correspond from one manuscript to the other. In concluding their study, it is argued 'that it is not excluded, or rather that it is highly probable, [...] that the Anglo-Norman psalter [i.e., Douce MS 320] was translated directly from the Psalter of St Albans' (*qu'il n'est pas exclu, ou plutôt qu'il est hautement vraisemblable, [...] que le psautier anglo-normand a été traduit directement sur le Psautier de Saint Albans*; Short, Careri, Ruby 2010: 40). This conclusion sets the stage for a reconstruction of the social and cultural context in which Douce MS 320 would have been produced.

Arundel MS 320 is not the chief interest of their paper, nor of the edition of Douce MS 230 by Short 2015. However, this manuscript represents the most interesting example in the category of Old French interlinear gloss translations of the Psalms and can be just as well a candidate for the source of the Oxford Psalter manuscript tra-
dition. Arundel dates to the middle of the 12th century (cf. Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 68; for previous editions of Arundel MS 230, see Beyer 1887 and Beyer 1888). Arundel's French gloss, in small letters, occupies the interline of a Gallicanum in large characters (f. 7r–161v). In most cases, this vernacular interlinear gloss seems to be subservient to the Douce MS 320 translation choices, but the relationship between the two is still unclear. It is often implied that 'only the order of the words has changed [in Arundel MS 230], which is not surprising, because [t]here the French is copied word for word, in the form of glosses, unlike all the previous psalters' (Ruby 2010, 183). Last but not least, it was argued that the Psalms could have been written at the Benedictine abbey of SS Peter, Paul and Andrew in Peterborough, whereas the calendar that precedes them could be that of a Benedictine abbey at Crowland (Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 69).

Indeed, nobody can deny that such conclusions can be drawn, but the matter is complex. The Arundel manuscript presents a series of curious elements. We will leave aside the fact that the gloss is preceded by a prologue in six hexasyllables taken from a much later text, the First French Metrical Psalter (cf. Meyer 1866, who identified the source), and the fact that the gloss of f. 7r–8v was transcribed by a modern hand, without trace of erasure (cf. Rector 2010: note 76, who believed that the initial text could be lost “due to either fading or erasure;” the modern hand transcribes an Anglo-Norman text, dated to the 17th century by Careri, Ruby, Short 2011; cf. Michel 1860: XVI, who sees it as more recent). Instead, we will briefly concentrate on a matter already analysed in Agrigoroaei 2016, 44–46 (cf. Rector 2010, for a different interpretation). Well before the beginning of the medieval gloss, starting at the end of f. 8v, one notices a tentative transcription of the vernacular gloss in the margin of the Latin text, not between its lines. This happens on the first folio of the first Psalm (f. 7r), the margin of which is now cropped. The gloss was possibly transcribed at a time when the quires had not yet been bound together, that is, when the margin of the folio was a few centimetres thicker. The French scribe copied the translation of the first verse of the first psalm twice, making an eye-skip, although he had already written *huem* above *vir* on the same leaf, as if tempted to transcribe an independent text and not an interlinear one. Here is the transcription of the text in the margins to the right:

*Li benurez huem [...]*
*el conseil des felun [...]*
*des pecheurs nest[...]*
*chaere de pestilence [...]*
*Li benurez huem [...]*
*el conseil des feluns. [...]*
*des peccheurs ne stu[...]*
*ere de pestilence n[...]*
*Mais en la lei de nostre [...]*
*uolentet de lui ; et e[...]*
*purpenserat par iu[...]*
*Et ert ensement cu[...]*
*que plante est ; deiuste l[...]*
*ewes ; ki sun fru[...]*
*en tens.*

It corresponds to the version of Douce MS 320, f. 37r (cf. the editions of Short 2015, 43; Michel 1860, 1), but the first three words and several other words from the third verse appear in a rather different order:

*Beneurez lí huem chi ne alat el conseil des feluns ; et en la
ueie des pecheurs ne stóut ; et en la chaére de pestilence
ne sist.*

*Mais en la lei de nostre seignur lá uoluntét de lui ; et en la*

*sue lei purpenserát par iúrn é par núit.*

*Et ert ensement cume le fust queò est. plantét de iuste les
decurs des éwes. chi dunrát sun frut en sun tens.*

This eye-skip gives the impression that Arundel MS 230 is based on a previous text. That text was adapted, but it cannot be the text of Douce MS 320. The source copied by the Arundel scribe was slightly different. This is confirmed by the fact that the scribe does not change the word order in the second part of the eye skip repetition: *li benurez huem* appears twice with the same word order, as opposed to *beneurez lí huem* in Douce MS 320.

This does not mean that Arundel MS 230 is not related to Douce MS 320. The different readings can be due to the emendations of scribes. As a result, Short, Careri, Ruby 2010: 39 can also be right in their assumption that the possible Latin source from which the Old French Psalter tradition stems could be related to the Latin versions of Cotton MS Nero C IV and Arundel MS 230 of the British Library. Therefore, another hypothesis must be taken into account: that Arundel is the witness of an original development of (French) biblical translations though being composed of words that match the Latin ones and following the syntax of Latin verses. Douce MS 320 can be a reworking of a primary version, not necessarily that of Arundel MS 230. This hypothesis was first formulated (albeit only in part) by Herman 1954: 75, who followed in the footsteps of Franzén 1939 (cf. Nordahl 1972, who followed Herman 1954). It was certainly a possibility for Beyer 1887: 517, and it is not completely excluded by Pignatelli 2015, 35, note 1 (cf. Pignatelli 2009; Pignatelli, Lavrentiev 2013).

The Latin text of Arundel is often close to Romanum, and the French gloss is based on a Latin text which contained a slightly different text from Gallicanum. The close reliance on Latin syntax in Arundel appears to be significantly greater than the one we find in other texts of the same period. The only downside of these analyses is that they evaluate the vernacular rendering in terms of good or bad—that is, in terms of the ‘superiority’ of Arundel MS 230 (based on its respect for the Latin source), or its ‘inferiority’ in comparison to the fluidity of the vernacular text in Douce MS 320.

We believe that the maze of Anglo-Norman psalters should be analysed via in-depth analyses of each essential manuscript. All phenomena related to translation, rewriting, or copying should be properly listed, so that each individual research can take a step further in the direction of a general comprehensive explanation for the filiation links in the entire group. The current analysis is conducted on the erasures of Douce MS 320, as a continuation of ideas already presented in Agrigoroaei 2016: 26-29, and in other articles by the same author. A research mission of the two authors (Chapel and Agrigoroaei) at the Bodleian Library in July 2023 allowed them to note down all indisputable erasures in the Psalm section of the manuscript, leading to subsequent classifications suggesting that the conclusions reached by Sneddon 1978, though neglected by many scholars, could be correct. The reason for such negligence might be due to the unavailability of the results of the extensive research of Sneddon 1972. This publication (a B.Litt. diss.) became available online as a scanned copy only in recent years. Initially, our research was independent of this publication, but when it could be confronted with it, it became evident that it was heading towards similar conclusions. It is therefore copiously quoted in the following pages, to acknowledge its value, especially since it is the only study that focused on the erasures of Douce MS 320.
dition. Arundel dates to the middle of the 12th century (cf. Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 68; for previous editions of Arundel MS 230, see Beyer 1887 and Beyer 1888). Arundel's French gloss, in small letters, occupies the interline of a Gallicanum in large characters (f. 7r–161v). In most cases, this vernacular interlinear gloss seems to be subservient to the Douce MS 320 translation choices, but the relationship between the two is still unclear. It is often implied that 'only the order of the words has changed [in Arundel MS 230], which is not surprising, because [t]here the French is copied word for word, in the form of glosses, unlike all the previous psalters' (Ruby 2010, 183). Last but not least, it was argued that the Psalms could have been written at the Benedictine abbey of SS Peter, Paul and Andrew in Peterborough, whereas the calendar that precedes them could be that of a Benedictine abbey at Crowland (Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 69).

Indeed, nobody can deny that such conclusions can be drawn, but the matter is complex. The Arundel manuscript presents a series of curious elements. We will leave aside the fact that the gloss is preceded by a prologue in six hexasyllables taken from a much later text, the First French Metrical Psalter (cf. Meyer 1866, who identified the source), and the fact that the gloss of f. 7r–8v was transcribed by a modern hand, without trace of erasure (cf. Rector 2010: note 76, who believed that the initial text could be lost “due to either fading or erasure;” the modern hand transcribes an Anglo-Norman text, dated to the 17th century by Careri, Ruby, Short 2011; cf. Michel 1860: XVI, who sees it as more recent). Instead, we will briefly concentrate on a matter already analysed in Agrigoroaei 2016, 44–46 (cf. Rector 2010, for a different interpretation). Well before the beginning of the medieval gloss, starting at the end of f. 8v, one notices a tentative transcription of the vernacular gloss in the margin of the Latin text, not between its lines. This happens on the first folio of the first Psalm (f. 7r), the margin of which is now cropped. The gloss was possibly transcribed at a time when the quires had not yet been bound together, that is, when the margin of the folio was a few centimetres thicker. The French scribe copied the translation of the first verse of the first psalm twice, making an eye-skip, although he had already written *huem* above *vir* on the same leaf, as if tempted to transcribe an independent text and not an interlinear one. Here is the transcription of the text in the margins to the right:

Li benurez huem [...]
el conseil des felun [...]
des pecheurs nest[...]
chaere de pestilence [...]
Li benurez huem [...]
el conseil des feluns. [...]
des peccheurs ne stu[...]
ere de pestilence n[...]
Mais en la lei de nostre [...]
uolentet de lui ; et e[...]
purpenserat par iu[...]
Et ert ensement cu[...]
que plante est ; deiuste l[...]
ewes ; ki sun fru[...]
en tens.

It corresponds to the version of Douce MS 320, f. 37r (cf. the editions of Short 2015, 43; Michel 1860, 1), but the first three words and several other words from the third verse appear in a rather different order:

Beneurez lí huem chi ne alat el conseil des feluns ; et en la
ueie des pecheurs ne stóut ; et en la chaére de pestilence
ne sist.

Mais en la lei de nostre seignur lá uoluntét de lui ; et en la

sue lei purpenserát par iúrn é par núit.

Et ert ensement cume le fust queò est. plantét de iuste les
decurs des éwes. chi dunrát sun frut en sun tens.

This eye-skip gives the impression that Arundel MS 230 is based on a previous text. That text was adapted, but it cannot be the text of Douce MS 320. The source copied by the Arundel scribe was slightly different. This is confirmed by the fact that the scribe does not change the word order in the second part of the eye skip repetition: *li benurez huem* appears twice with the same word order, as opposed to *beneurez lí huem* in Douce MS 320.

This does not mean that Arundel MS 230 is not related to Douce MS 320. The different readings can be due to the emendations of scribes. As a result, Short, Careri, Ruby 2010: 39 can also be right in their assumption that the possible Latin source from which the Old French Psalter tradition stems could be related to the Latin versions of Cotton MS Nero C IV and Arundel MS 230 of the British Library. Therefore, another hypothesis must be taken into account: that Arundel is the witness of an original development of (French) biblical translations though being composed of words that match the Latin ones and following the syntax of Latin verses. Douce MS 320 can be a reworking of a primary version, not necessarily that of Arundel MS 230. This hypothesis was first formulated (albeit only in part) by Herman 1954: 75, who followed in the footsteps of Franzén 1939 (cf. Nordahl 1972, who followed Herman 1954). It was certainly a possibility for Beyer 1887: 517, and it is not completely excluded by Pignatelli 2015, 35, note 1 (cf. Pignatelli 2009; Pignatelli, Lavrentiev 2013).

The Latin text of Arundel is often close to Romanum, and the French gloss is based on a Latin text which contained a slightly different text from Gallicanum. The close reliance on Latin syntax in Arundel appears to be significantly greater than the one we find in other texts of the same period. The only downside of these analyses is that they evaluate the vernacular rendering in terms of good or bad—that is, in terms of the ‘superiority’ of Arundel MS 230 (based on its respect for the Latin source), or its ‘inferiority’ in comparison to the fluidity of the vernacular text in Douce MS 320.

We believe that the maze of Anglo-Norman psalters should be analysed via in-depth analyses of each essential manuscript. All phenomena related to translation, rewriting, or copying should be properly listed, so that each individual research can take a step further in the direction of a general comprehensive explanation for the filiation links in the entire group. The current analysis is conducted on the erasures of Douce MS 320, as a continuation of ideas already presented in Agrigoroaei 2016: 26-29, and in other articles by the same author. A research mission of the two authors (Chapel and Agrigoroaei) at the Bodleian Library in July 2023 allowed them to note down all indisputable erasures in the Psalm section of the manuscript, leading to subsequent classifications suggesting that the conclusions reached by Sneddon 1978, though neglected by many scholars, could be correct. The reason for such negligence might be due to the unavailability of the results of the extensive research of Sneddon 1972. This publication (a B.Litt. diss.) became available online as a scanned copy only in recent years. Initially, our research was independent of this publication, but when it could be confronted with it, it became evident that it was heading towards similar conclusions. It is therefore copiously quoted in the following pages, to acknowledge its value, especially since it is the only study that focused on the erasures of Douce MS 320.
We chose to ignore (for safety reasons) the segments of the folio where porosity could be due not only to erasures, but also to the fact that the second part of the manuscript circulated independently for a certain time, being folded twice (see the photo on the facing page). The words or passages quoted from Douce MS 320 are presented in semi-diplomatic transcription (with abbreviations expanded silently). The *punctus* is transcribed as a full stop preceded by a non-breaking space. The *punctus elevatus* is transcribed as a semicolon preceded by a non-breaking space. The rare uses of *punctus interrogativus* are transcribed as question marks preceded by non-breaking spaces. The colour red marks the extent of the erasures (either entire words and phrases; or just letters in a given word); and essential graphemes or endings, for better identification. Accents are transcribed as they appear in the manuscript. In many situations where the accent was placed above a consonant or close to one, the comparison with similar instances in the remaining part of the Psalm translation suggests that it should be placed on a nearby vowel. In the rare and ambiguous situation of intervocalic consonants carrying accents, our temporary choice is to present the accent above said consonant, as it appears in the manuscript.

The selection criteria for the list of “selected scribal corrections” published by Short 2015: 147–149 are unclear, as the list does not include examples from many categories of erasures that our own research considers of utmost importance. The list is very selective, to the point that it provides an incomplete picture of the reality in the manuscript. Preference seems to be given to certain categories, and the bulk of the corpus of extensive erasures is not taken into account. In several instances, the editor considered that only one or several letters were erased in examples where erasures cover entire words. Since these divergences between the picture painted by Short 2015 and the reality found by us cannot be evidenced via a simple compilation of a table or list of erasures in the manuscript, and since the facts relevant to the case need to be substantiated thoroughly, we present and illustrate our own interpretation in a manner which might often seem redundant. This redundancy is a guarantee against data manipulation. It provides readers with direct access to an extensive segment of our raw data, enabling them to verify whether or not interpretations are correct, and allows them to form their own clarifications. For the same reasons, every now and then our inventory will provide lists of spellings of certain words in the remainder of the Psalm translation, spellings that are not written on erasures, but which are essential for a statistical approach to the idiosyncrasies of the scribe, to be presented in the second instalment of this paper. In certain sections, these lists of a comparative nature can be used to study the scribe’s particular patterns and conventions that help him differentiate between homograph verbal forms or other ambiguous situations. No in-depth linguistic analysis is provided at this stage of the analysis. A thorough linguistic study will be included in the second instalment of this paper, at the end of the analysis of the erasures of Douce MS 320. The study of the erasures is accompanied by photos that testify to the validity of the reconstructions, to provide a stable basis for a general evolution chart of the scribe’s idiosyncracies that will be presented at the end. As a result, research can be presented only in stages, thus the choice for a long publication, in several instalments. The authors thank the Imaging Services of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, for the permission to illustrate their research with an extensive number of images.

The first instalment of this paper deals only with some

aspects of the extensive analysis, chief among which are: (1) the scribe’s inconsistency in spelling vowels and his use of digraphs; (2) the issue of final dentals erased and/or corrected in verbal and nominal forms, linked to the related problem of (3) *enfer(n)*, *iur(n)*, and *car(n)*; (4) the spelling of *kar / quar / ker*; (5) the transformation of *quer* into *cuer*; (6) the complex relationship between *mais* and *acertes*; (7) a series of hesitant renderings of Latin *-tio*; (8) odd additions and corrections suggesting that the Douce scribe was copying from (and adapting) a source; (9) the use of certain low dashes, pointing in the same direction; and (10) the issue of extensive erasures that seem to correspond to copy units made up of interlinear glosses based on the Latin lines of a source. To this, (11) a comparison with the filiation of Old English psalters was added, since it can explain the complex relationship of Arundel, Douce, and other manuscripts. Finally, (12) a transcription of the Maidstone fragments was also added, since it will be used for translatological analyses in the next instalments of the paper.

Speaking of these instalments, the next one will be finalised at the end of 2024, to be published in this same journal. It will analyse erasures (with or without correction on top of them) that concern other phonetical issues, issues related to conjugation, to the declension of nouns and adjectives, or determinative articles. A large survey will concern the scribe’s treatment of personal pronouns, possessive adjectives, and pronouns, as well as demonstrative adjectives and pronouns. Several other categories will be explored as well: adverbs (e.g., *ne*) and prepositions (e.g. *a, de, en*) followed by a noun, an article or a pronoun, and our analysis will reach the issue of prefixes, thus entering the lexical realm proper. Many terms (especially nouns and adverbs) have been corrected or replaced by the scribe during his revision process (e.g., body parts or musical instruments). Last but not least, there are syntagmatic units that need to be taken into account; other low dashes, made for different reasons; the blank spaces left by the scribe before, after, and in between words (that he filled in later); other categories of extensive erasures, also made for different reasons; and the issue of accentuation (cf. Careri, Lacanale 2015: 43). Only then can the links between Douce MS 320 and Arundel MS 230 be determined. The double folding of the Psalm section of the Douce manuscript is another topic worth investigating, as it can be related to the physical circulation of this vernacular copy of the Psalms, perhaps even to the fact that many bilingual psalters of the 12th century seem to be based on it.

We do not yet discuss the comparison of the Orne fragments with the Douce MS 320 tradition (see e.g., Le Hir 1961; cf. the edition and study of Samaran 1929 for the hypothesis that Orne and Douce are unrelated); nor the conjecture that the Old French gloss of Eadwine Psalter could be a rewriting of Douce MS 320 (cf. Förster 1914: 12–14; for the contrary, see Agrigoroaei 2023; for an edition of the text of the Eadwine Psalter, see Markey 1989). They should be discussed as separate issues. Analysis into the translation or adaptation techniques of other psalters, either related (e.g., Maidstone fragments) or unrelated (e.g., Orne fragments or Eadwine Psalter) will contribute to a better picture of the evolution of Anglo-Norman psalters.

► *Drawing of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37v (erasures marked in yellow in this drawing).*

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.
We chose to ignore (for safety reasons) the segments of the folio where porosity could be due not only to erasures, but also to the fact that the second part of the manuscript circulated independently for a certain time, being folded twice (see the photo on the facing page). The words or passages quoted from Douce MS 320 are presented in semi-diplomatic transcription (with abbreviations expanded silently). The *punctus* is transcribed as a full stop preceded by a non-breaking space. The *punctus elevatus* is transcribed as a semicolon preceded by a non-breaking space. The rare uses of *punctus interrogativus* are transcribed as question marks preceded by non-breaking spaces. The colour red marks the extent of the erasures (either entire words and phrases; or just letters in a given word); and essential graphemes or endings, for better identification. Accents are transcribed as they appear in the manuscript. In many situations where the accent was placed above a consonant or close to one, the comparison with similar instances in the remaining part of the Psalm translation suggests that it should be placed on a nearby vowel. In the rare and ambiguous situation of intervocalic consonants carrying accents, our temporary choice is to present the accent above said consonant, as it appears in the manuscript.

The selection criteria for the list of “selected scribal corrections” published by Short 2015: 147–149 are unclear, as the list does not include examples from many categories of erasures that our own research considers of utmost importance. The list is very selective, to the point that it provides an incomplete picture of the reality in the manuscript. Preference seems to be given to certain categories, and the bulk of the corpus of extensive erasures is not taken into account. In several instances, the editor considered that only one or several letters were erased in examples where erasures cover entire words. Since these divergences between the picture painted by Short 2015 and the reality found by us cannot be evidenced via a simple compilation of a table or list of erasures in the manuscript, and since the facts relevant to the case need to be substantiated thoroughly, we present and illustrate our own interpretation in a manner which might often seem redundant. This redundancy is a guarantee against data manipulation. It provides readers with direct access to an extensive segment of our raw data, enabling them to verify whether or not interpretations are correct, and allows them to form their own clarifications. For the same reasons, every now and then our inventory will provide lists of spellings of certain words in the remainder of the Psalm translation, spellings that are not written on erasures, but which are essential for a statistical approach to the idiosyncrasies of the scribe, to be presented in the second instalment of this paper. In certain sections, these lists of a comparative nature can be used to study the scribe’s particular patterns and conventions that help him differentiate between homograph verbal forms or other ambiguous situations. No in-depth linguistic analysis is provided at this stage of the analysis. A thorough linguistic study will be included in the second instalment of this paper, at the end of the analysis of the erasures of Douce MS 320. The study of the erasures is accompanied by photos that testify to the validity of the reconstructions, to provide a stable basis for a general evolution chart of the scribe’s idiosyncracies that will be presented at the end. As a result, research can be presented only in stages, thus the choice for a long publication, in several instalments. The authors thank the Imaging Services of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, for the permission to illustrate their research with an extensive number of images.

The first instalment of this paper deals only with some

aspects of the extensive analysis, chief among which are: (1) the scribe’s inconsistency in spelling vowels and his use of digraphs; (2) the issue of final dentals erased and/or corrected in verbal and nominal forms, linked to the related problem of (3) *enfer(n)*, *iur(n)*, and *car(n)*; (4) the spelling of *kar / quar / ker*; (5) the transformation of *quer* into *cuer*; (6) the complex relationship between *mais* and *acertes*; (7) a series of hesitant renderings of Latin *-tio*; (8) odd additions and corrections suggesting that the Douce scribe was copying from (and adapting) a source; (9) the use of certain low dashes, pointing in the same direction; and (10) the issue of extensive erasures that seem to correspond to copy units made up of interlinear glosses based on the Latin lines of a source. To this, (11) a comparison with the filiation of Old English psalters was added, since it can explain the complex relationship of Arundel, Douce, and other manuscripts. Finally, (12) a transcription of the Maidstone fragments was also added, since it will be used for translatological analyses in the next instalments of the paper.

Speaking of these instalments, the next one will be finalised at the end of 2024, to be published in this same journal. It will analyse erasures (with or without correction on top of them) that concern other phonetical issues, issues related to conjugation, to the declension of nouns and adjectives, or determinative articles. A large survey will concern the scribe’s treatment of personal pronouns, possessive adjectives, and pronouns, as well as demonstrative adjectives and pronouns. Several other categories will be explored as well: adverbs (e.g., *ne*) and prepositions (e.g. *a, de, en*) followed by a noun, an article or a pronoun, and our analysis will reach the issue of prefixes, thus entering the lexical realm proper. Many terms (especially nouns and adverbs) have been corrected or replaced by the scribe during his revision process (e.g., body parts or musical instruments). Last but not least, there are syntagmatic units that need to be taken into account; other low dashes, made for different reasons; the blank spaces left by the scribe before, after, and in between words (that he filled in later); other categories of extensive erasures, also made for different reasons; and the issue of accentuation (cf. Careri, Lacanale 2015: 43). Only then can the links between Douce MS 320 and Arundel MS 230 be determined. The double folding of the Psalm section of the Douce manuscript is another topic worth investigating, as it can be related to the physical circulation of this vernacular copy of the Psalms, perhaps even to the fact that many bilingual psalters of the 12th century seem to be based on it.

We do not yet discuss the comparison of the Orne fragments with the Douce MS 320 tradition (see e.g., Le Hir 1961; cf. the edition and study of Samaran 1929 for the hypothesis that Orne and Douce are unrelated); nor the conjecture that the Old French gloss of Eadwine Psalter could be a rewriting of Douce MS 320 (cf. Förster 1914: 12–14; for the contrary, see Agrigoroaei 2023; for an edition of the text of the Eadwine Psalter, see Markey 1989). They should be discussed as separate issues. Analysis into the translation or adaptation techniques of other psalters, either related (e.g., Maidstone fragments) or unrelated (e.g., Orne fragments or Eadwine Psalter) will contribute to a better picture of the evolution of Anglo-Norman psalters.

► *Drawing of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37v (erasures marked in yellow in this drawing).*

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.
Benevezt li buem chi ne alar el conseil des feluns: & en la ueie des pecheurs ne stour: & en la chaere de pestilence ne sifst. Mais en la lei de n'ie seignur la uolumer de lui: & en la fue leippenferat par iuun e par nuur. Et ieret ensement cume le fust qu'e' planet de iuste les decurs des esses: chi durnat fun frut en fun tenst. Et sa finlle ne de currat: & tures les coles que il unque ferat: se runt faispsprel. Nient eus li felun mient eus: mais ensement cume la puldre que li uenz getet de la face de terre Empice ne resurdent li felun en iuste: ne li pecheur el conseil des drecuriers. Kar n'ie fire cumuist la ueie des iustes: e le eure des feluns perirat.

N'ie quei fremirent les gent: & li pople purpenferent uaines coles: ? Li vei de terre estourent: & li pince se asemblerent en un: en contre n'ie seignur e en cunte fun crist. Deripumf les lir liens: e de getums de nuf le iuun de ells. Chi habivee et ciels les escharnat: & n'ie fire les subfannerat. Lo reis parlerat a ells en sa ure: & en sa furur les contur berat. Mais ie sui establit reis de lir fur iyon fun Saint munt: preechent fun cumandement. N'ie fire dist a mei tu es li mien filz: ie hui vei engendrai. Requeer de mei e ie durrat a tei les gent la due herediret: e la due possesun. Les termes de terre. Tusguerne ras en uerge ferrine: e sifframdrasf ensement cume le uaisel del potier. Et hore uus veis entender: seiez apris uus chi uigiez la terre. Servez a n'ie seigni en crieme: e si esleez lez a lui och tremblur. Pernez discipline que n'ie fire alquune fiede ne se curuist: e uus pissetz de la iuste ueie. Cume la fue ure espenderat en brief venst: beneuret ture icil chi en lir sei fident.

Sire à quei funt multipliet cil chi mei triblent: mult lesd'recent en contre mei. Mult dient à la meie áneme: nen e' salut à l'u en fun deu. Mais tu fire les li mien receuierre: e la meie gle: e exalchant mun chief. Ie criai à n'ie seignur par ma uoit: & il me oit de fun Saint munt. Ie dormi e si sumeillai. et le uai: Kar n'ie fire me receut. Ne crendrau milliers de pople aurunant mei: esd'rece vei fire. Li mien ds fai me salf. Kar tu as ferir tuz contrariant à mei s'enfz achaisun: les dent des pecheurs tu as atriblet. Saluz e' de nostre seignur: e fur t'un pople la due benediceun.

Quan i'ie apeloswe. di de la meie iuste me oit: en tribulariun tu purlung. N'as a mei. Aue merci de mei e oits la meie oreisun. Li fil des humes desque à quante seret uus e grief cuer: pur quei amez uus uanuret. & que reiz menceunge? Esacher que n'ie fire at fait merueillu: fun Saint n'ie fire the ornat, quant ie crierai à lui. Iraffer uus e ne uulez peccer: les coles que uus dires en uor cuers: & en uor liz aiez copunctum. Sacrifiez sacrifise de iustise. & espez el seignur: mult dient chi nuf demustree bones choles? Seignet e' fur nuf la lumiere del tuen uult fire: tu duna$ letice el mien cuer. Del frut del fru ment: del uun e del suen ôlie funt multipliet. En pauf en ice meisme:
Benevezt li buem chi ne alar el conseil des feluns: & en la ueie des pecheurs ne stour: & en la chaere de pestilence ne sifst. Mais en la lei de n'ie seignur la uolumer de lui: & en la fue leippenferat par iuun e par nuur. Et ieret ensement cume le fust qu'e' planet de iuste les decurs des esses: chi durnat fun frut en fun tenst. Et sa finlle ne de currat: & tures les coles que il unque ferat: se runt faispsprel. Nient eus li felun mient eus: mais ensement cume la puldre que li uenz getet de la face de terre Empice ne resurdent li felun en iuste: ne li pecheur el conseil des drecuriers. Kar n'ie fire cumuist la ueie des iustes: e le eure des feluns perirat.

N'ie quei fremirent les gent: & li pople purpenferent uaines coles: ? Li vei de terre estourent: & li pince se asemblerent en un: en contre n'ie seignur e en cunte fun crist. Deripumf les lir liens: e de getums de nuf le iub de ells. Chi habivee et ciels les escharurat: & n'ie fire les subfannerat. Lo reis parlerat a ells en sa ure: & en sa furur les contur berat. Mais ie sfi establit reis de lui sur lyon fun Saint munt: preechent fun cumandement. N'ie fire dist a mei tu es li mien filz: ie hui vei engendrai. Requeer de mei e ie durrat a tei les gent la due beredre: e la due possesun. Les termes de terre. Tugguerne ras en uerge ferrine: e sifframdrasf ensement cume le uaisel del potier. Et hore uus veis entender: seiez apris uus chi uigiez la terre. Sereuz a n'ie seigni en crieme: e si esleez lez a lui och tremblur. Pernez discipline que n'ie fire alquune fiede ne se curuist: e uus pissetz de la iuste ueie. Cume la fue ure espenderat en brief venst: beneuret ture icil chi en lin sei fident.

Sire à quei funt multipliet cil chi mei triblent: mult lesd'recent en contre mei. Mult dient à la meie áneme: nei e' salut à l'u en fun deu. Mais tu fire les li mien receuierre: e la meie gle: e exalchant mun chief. Ie criai à n'ie seignur par ma uoiz: & il me oit de fun Saint munt. Ie dormi e si sumeillai. et le uai: Kar n'ie fire me receut. Ne crendrau milliers de pople aurunant mei: esd'rece vei fire. Li mien ds fai me salf. Kar tu as ferir tuz contrariant à mei s'enfz achaisun: les dent des pecheurs tu as atriblet. Saluz e' de nostre seignur: e fur t'un pople la due benediceun.

Quayt ie apeloswe. Dis de la meie iuste me oit: en tribulariun tu purlung. Nas a mei. Aief merci de mei e oits la meie oreisun. Li fil des humes desque à quante seret uus e grief cuer: pur quei amez uus uanuret. & que reiz menceunge? Esacher que n'ie fire at fait merueillu: fun Saint n'ie fire the ornat, quant ie crierai à lui. Iraffer uus e ne uulez peccer: les coles que uus dires en uor cuers: & en uor liz aiez copunctum. Sacrifiez sacrifile de iustise. & espez el seignur: mult dient chi nuf demustree bones choles? Seignet e' sur nuf la lumiere del tuen uult fire: tu duna$ letice el mien cuer. Del frut del fru ment: del uun e del suen ôlie funt multipliet. En pauf en ice meisme:
## VOWEL SPELLINGS AND DIGRAPHS (AC)

While analysing the erasures of Douce MS 320, I came across several examples of fluctuating vowels or vowel groups that the scribe erases (and often replaces by writing a new letter on top of erasure). The most important one is **u > o** (see also **o > u**; **i > e**; **ou > o**; **ou > u**; **ue > oe**; **oe > o**; **ue > u**). The following list contains all the erasures of this type found in the manuscript, introduced according to their entry order in *Anglo-Norman Dictionary* (AND). For a study of the phonology and spelling in Douce MS 320, see Sneddon 1972, 50–79, where the replacement of **u** by **o** was already noted, as well as the alteration of certain digraphs. Short 2015, 13–22, also analyses certain variations. Both studies, however, do not present a comprehensive list of examples.

### Verbs

**aovrir:** **u > o**

f. 44r, line 24, *aourírent*; f. 45r, line 31, *aóurǎnz*; f. 45v, line 14, *aóurí*; f. 47v, line 22, *aóuerrái*; f. 48v, line 6, *aóuerrás*.

**aurer:** **u > o ; ou > o**

f. 41r, line 23, *aórérent*; f. 42r, line 24, *ór*; f. 42r, line 38, *aorez*; f. 70r, line 16, *ao_rerúms*. In the first two examples, the scribe replaced **u** by **o**, hesitating between *aurer* and *aorer*. In the latter case, the initial choice could have been *aurer*.

**commoveir:** **ou > u**

f. 53v, line 39, *commút*; f. 54v, line 37, *comm_úrent*; f. 55r, line 24, *comm_úrent*; f. 55v, line 7, *comm_úrent*.

**conceivre:** **u > o**

f. 48r, line 35, *conceút*.

**confermer:** **u > o**

f. 48v, line 3, *conferme*.

**conuistre:** **u > o ; ou > u**

f. 48r, line 33, *conúis*; f. 49r, line 17, *coneúz*; f. 49v, line 1, *conúi*; f. 53v, line 24, *con_úrent* (probably based on an initial spelling *conourent* with the erasure of *o*; not confirmed by an example in *AND*).

**conturber:** **u > o**

f. 49r, line 4 + line 6, *conturbéz* (with evident traces of the correction, see photo); f. 49v, line 10-11, *conturbéz*.

**corucer:** **? > u**

f. 60r, line 5, *curucéz*. The word in entirely rewritten on top of an erasure, except for the first letter. The variant *curúce* without erasure occurs on f. 37v, line 38.

**coveiter:** **u > o**

f. 47r, line 14, *couéiterá*.

**coverer (2):** **u > o**

f. 42r, line 9, *courít*, with evident marks of the previous **u** changed into **o**.

**covrir:** **u > o**

f. 46v, line 32, *co urít*; f. 52r, line 18, *co urít*. Cf. f. 50r, line 31, where the scribe wrote *cu_uérz* entirely on top of an erasure, without changing **u** into **o**).

**devorer:** **u > o**

f. 39r, line 10, *deuórent*; f. 44r, line 29, *deuorerúms*; f. 48v, line 29, *deuórent*.

**doner (1):** **o > u**

f. 50r, line 24, *dúne*.

**envucher:** **u > o**

f. 39r, line 11, *enuocherent*.

**escumunier:** **u > o**

f. 49r, line 35, *escommuniówent*.

**esprover:** **u > o**

f. 46v, line 28, *esprouánt*.

**fuir (2):** **u > o**

f. 49v, line 13, *foírent*.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v,
line 37</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>f. 49r,
line 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r,
line 24</figcaption></figure>

<caption>f. 49r,
line 6</caption>
## VOWEL SPELLINGS AND DIGRAPHS (AC)

While analysing the erasures of Douce MS 320, I came across several examples of fluctuating vowels or vowel groups that the scribe erases (and often replaces by writing a new letter on top of erasure). The most important one is **u > o** (see also **o > u**; **i > e**; **ou > o**; **ou > u**; **ue > oe**; **oe > o**; **ue > u**). The following list contains all the erasures of this type found in the manuscript, introduced according to their entry order in *Anglo-Norman Dictionary* (AND). For a study of the phonology and spelling in Douce MS 320, see Sneddon 1972, 50–79, where the replacement of **u** by **o** was already noted, as well as the alteration of certain digraphs. Short 2015, 13–22, also analyses certain variations. Both studies, however, do not present a comprehensive list of examples.

### Verbs

**aovrir:** **u > o**

f. 44r, line 24, *aourírent*; f. 45r, line 31, *aóurǎnz*; f. 45v, line 14, *aóurí*; f. 47v, line 22, *aóuerrái*; f. 48v, line 6, *aóuerrás*.

**aurer:** **u > o**; **ou > o**

f. 41r, line 23, *aórérent*; f. 42r, line 24, *ór*; f. 42r, line 38, *aorez*; f. 70r, line 16, *ao_rerúms*. In the first two examples, the scribe replaced **u** by **o**, hesitating between *aurer* and *aorer*. In the latter case, the initial choice could have been *aurer*.

**commoveir:** **ou > u**

f. 53v, line 39, *commút*; f. 54v, line 37, *comm_úrent*; f. 55r, line 24, *comm_úrent*; f. 55v, line 7, *comm_úrent*.

**conceivre:** **u > o**

f. 48r, line 35, *conceút*.

**confermer:** **u > o**

f. 48v, line 3, *conferme*.

**conuistre:** **u > o**; **ou > u**

f. 48r, line 33, *conúis*; f. 49r, line 17, *coneúz*; f. 49v, line 1, *conúi*; f. 53v, line 24, *con_úrent* (probably based on an initial spelling *conourent* with the erasure of *o*; not confirmed by an example in *AND*).

**conturber:** **u > o**

f. 49r, line 4 + line 6, *conturbéz* (with evident traces of the correction, see photo); f. 49v, line 10-11, *conturbéz*.

**corucer:** **? > u**

f. 60r, line 5, *curucéz*. The word in entirely rewritten on top of an erasure, except for the first letter. The variant *curúce* without erasure occurs on f. 37v, line 38.

**coveiter:** **u > o**

f. 47r, line 14, *couéiterá*.

**coverer (2):** **u > o**

f. 42r, line 9, *courít*, with evident marks of the previous **u** changed into **o**.

**covrir:** **u > o**

f. 46v, line 32, *co urít*; f. 52r, line 18, *co urít*. Cf. f. 50r, line 31, where the scribe wrote *cu_uérz* entirely on top of an erasure, without changing **u** into **o**).

**devorer:** **u > o**

f. 39r, line 10, *deuórent*; f. 44r, line 29, *deuorerúms*; f. 48v, line 29, *deuórent*.

**doner (1):** **o > u**

f. 50r, line 24, *dúne*.

**envucher:** **u > o**

f. 39r, line 11, *enuocherent*.

**escumunier:** **u > o**

f. 49r, line 35, *escommuniówent*.

**esprover:** **u > o**

f. 46v, line 28, *esprouánt*.

**fuir (2):** **u > o**

f. 49v, line 13, *foírent*.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v,
line 37</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>f. 49r,
line 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r,
line 24</figcaption></figure>

<caption>f. 49r,
line 6</caption>
oblier: **u > o**

f. 46r, line 37, *obliás*; f. 46v, line 33, *obliámes*

ovrer (1): **u > o**; **oe > o**

f. 37v, line 6, *óeurent* (< *ouurent*?); f. 39r, line 16, *ouřet* (< *uuret*?); f. 42r, line 26, *ó urńz* (< *uuranz*?); f. 44v, line 8, *óeurěnt* (< *ueurent*?); f. 46v, line 12, *ó urſas* (< *uuras*?); f. 49v, line 38, *ó urěnt* (< *oeurent*?); f. 50v, line 29, *ó urńnz* (< *oeuranz*, with evident trace of the initial *e*); f. 51v, line 40, *ó urět* (< *oeuret*?) Two phenomena concur in the spelling of this verb: the erasure of an *u*, then changed into *o* (*u > o*); and the deletion of *e* which breaks down the digraph *oe*.

prover (1): **u > o**

f. 52r, line 2, *prouét*.

renoveler: **u > o**

f. 48v, line 1, *renouéle*.

reprover (1): **u > o**

f. 43v, line 4, *repró uet* and *repro uet*; f. 52r, line 20, *reprouńnz*.

tesmoigner: **u > o**

f. 48r, line 10, *testimonierái*.

voler (2): **u > o**

f. 44r, line 32-33 (twice), *uólent*; f. 46r, line 2, *uólent*.

## Nouns

corone (1): **u > o**

f. 51r, line 13, *corúne*.

coverment: **ue > u**

f. 50r, line 31, *cu uřement*.

dolur: **u > o**

<caption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.</caption>

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>f. 50v,
line 29</figcaption></figure>

f. 45r, line 36, *dolúr*.

funtaine: **u > o**

f. 44v, line 5, *fontáine*; f. 51v, line 37, *fontéines*. See f. 46r, line 24, where the variant *fontáine* is written on top of an extensive erasure; and f. 73v, line 19, where the word *fontáines* is written with no erasures.

home: **u > o**

f. 56r, line 19, (*l*)*óme*; f. 56r, line 20, (*d*)*óme*.

honur: **u > o**

f. 42r, line 37, *honur*. AND does not register the specific spelling *hunur*.

leun (2): **i > e**; **u > o**

The scribe hesitates between two spellings: f. 37v, line 28, *leúns*; f. 44r, line 21, *leúns*; and f. 49v, line 10, *leóns*. The spelling *leúns* is written without any trace of erasure on f. 49v, line 26; and f. 73v, line 31. However, the spelling *león(s)* is also found in passages where no trace of erasure can be noted, such as on f. 39v, line 8; f. 39v, line 9; f. 41r, line 3; and f. 62r, line 12. Therefore, the scribe makes two types of corrections. When he writes *leuns / leúns* on f. 37v and f. 44r, it is likely that the initial spelling, rejected later by the scribe, was *liuns*. AND does not register the spelling *liun* with an *i*, only the form *lyun* with an *y*. When the scribe corrects it as

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 4 (2)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r,
line 31</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 4 (1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
line 28</figcaption></figure>
oblier: **u > o**

f. 46r, line 37, *obliás*; f. 46v, line 33, *obliámes*

ovrer (1): **u > o**; **oe > o**

f. 37v, line 6, *óeurent* (< *ouurent*?); f. 39r, line 16, *ouřet* (< *uuret*?); f. 42r, line 26, *ó urńz* (< *uuranz*?); f. 44v, line 8, *óeurěnt* (< *ueurent*?); f. 46v, line 12, *ó urſas* (< *uuras*?); f. 49v, line 38, *ó urěnt* (< *oeurent*?); f. 50v, line 29, *ó urńnz* (< *oeuranz*, with evident trace of the initial *e*); f. 51v, line 40, *ó urět* (< *oeuret*?) Two phenomena concur in the spelling of this verb: the erasure of an *u*, then changed into *o* (*u > o*); and the deletion of *e* which breaks down the digraph *oe*.

prover (1): **u > o**

f. 52r, line 2, *prouét*.

renoveler: **u > o**

f. 48v, line 1, *renouéle*.

reprover (1): **u > o**

f. 43v, line 4, *repró uet* and *repro uet*; f. 52r, line 20, *reprouńnz*.

tesmoigner: **u > o**

f. 48r, line 10, *testimonierái*.

voler (2): **u > o**

f. 44r, line 32-33 (twice), *uólent*; f. 46r, line 2, *uólent*.

## Nouns

corone (1): **u > o**

f. 51r, line 13, *corúne*.

coverment: **ue > u**

f. 50r, line 31, *cu uřement*.

dolur: **u > o**

<caption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.</caption>

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>f. 50v,
line 29</figcaption></figure>

f. 45r, line 36, *dolúr*.

funtaine: **u > o**

f. 44v, line 5, *fontáine*; f. 51v, line 37, *fontéines*. See f. 46r, line 24, where the variant *fontáine* is written on top of an extensive erasure; and f. 73v, line 19, where the word *fontáines* is written with no erasures.

home: **u > o**

f. 56r, line 19, (*l*)*óme*; f. 56r, line 20, (*d*)*óme*.

honur: **u > o**

f. 42r, line 37, *honur*. AND does not register the specific spelling *hunur*.

leun (2): **i > e**; **u > o**

The scribe hesitates between two spellings: f. 37v, line 28, *leúns*; f. 44r, line 21, *leúns*; and f. 49v, line 10, *leóns*. The spelling *leúns* is written without any trace of erasure on f. 49v, line 26; and f. 73v, line 31. However, the spelling *león(s)* is also found in passages where no trace of erasure can be noted, such as on f. 39v, line 8; f. 39v, line 9; f. 41r, line 3; and f. 62r, line 12. Therefore, the scribe makes two types of corrections. When he writes *leuns / leúns* on f. 37v and f. 44r, it is likely that the initial spelling, rejected later by the scribe, was *liuns*. AND does not register the spelling *liun* with an *i*, only the form *lyun* with an *y*. When the scribe corrects it as

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 4 (2)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r,
line 31</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 4 (1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
line 28</figcaption></figure>
f. 49v,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

léons, he does not like the initial *u* and turns it into an *o*. One can also note that the two types of corrections are never found together in the same examples.

munt (1): **u > o**

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

f. 46r, line 33, *mónt*; f. 47v, line 5, *mónt* (twice); f. 47v, line 14, *mónz*; f. 51r, line 6, *mónz*; f. 51v, line 23, *mónz*; f. 51v, line 24, *mónz* (three times). All examples probably bear witness to the transformation **u > o**. In two other cases of erasure, it is difficult to say what precise problems the scribe had encountered: f. 51v, line 24; and f. 56v, line 24, where *monz* is written on top of an extensive erasure.

Mont / Monz can be written without erasure. For a complete list of these occurrences, please refer to the section on dentals (specifically the issue of declension). It will suffice here to mention just a few other interesting examples, which show the **u > o** wavering between two choices of the scribe: f. 46v, line 7; f. 47r, line 26; f. f. 51r, line 6, where the imprint of an initial **u** is visible under an **o**. Residual occurrences of the spelling *munt* / *munz* are condensed in the first part of the text (between f. 37 and f. 49), where the scribe gradually stabilised his spelling choices (for a complete overview see once again the section on dentals, specifically related to declension). To conclude, one can also note that the verb *munter* never undergoes any spelling corrections and remains stable throughout the entire text,

f. 51v,
line 24
line 25

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
f. 49v,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

léons, he does not like the initial *u* and turns it into an *o*. One can also note that the two types of corrections are never found together in the same examples.

munt (1): **u > o**

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

f. 46r, line 33, *mónt*; f. 47v, line 5, *mónt* (twice); f. 47v, line 14, *mónz*; f. 51r, line 6, *mónz*; f. 51v, line 23, *mónz*; f. 51v, line 24, *mónz* (three times). All examples probably bear witness to the transformation **u > o**. In two other cases of erasure, it is difficult to say what precise problems the scribe had encountered: f. 51v, line 24; and f. 56v, line 24, where *monz* is written on top of an extensive erasure.

Mont / Monz can be written without erasure. For a complete list of these occurrences, please refer to the section on dentals (specifically the issue of declension). It will suffice here to mention just a few other interesting examples, which show the **u > o** wavering between two choices of the scribe: f. 46v, line 7; f. 47r, line 26; f. f. 51r, line 6, where the imprint of an initial *u* is visible under an *o*. Residual occurrences of the spelling *munt* / *munz* are condensed in the first part of the text (between f. 37 and f. 49), where the scribe gradually stabilised his spelling choices (for a complete overview see once again the section on dentals, specifically related to declension). To conclude, one can also note that the verb *munter* never undergoes any spelling corrections and remains stable throughout the entire text,

f. 51v,
line 24
line 25

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

f. 51v,
line 24

f. 51v,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

f. 51v,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

f. 51v,
line 23

line 24

without any trace of **u** becoming **o**. In the following list, I provide an example for each spelling in the text (the list is therefore not exhaustive): f. 39v, line 23 + line 25 (*muntát*); f. 41r, line 37 (*munterát*); f. 47r, line 39 (*muntá*); f. 51v, line 27 (*muntás*); f. 54r, line 6 (*múnte_*); f. 54r, line 24 (*muntérent*); f. 61v, line 36 (*múntent*); f. 63r, line 6 (*muntánz*); f. 64r, line 1 (*múntent*); f. 70r, line 12 (*munterái*); f. 74r, lines 10-11 (*surmuntéz*); f. 74v, line 24 (*munterás*). The same situation concerns the noun *muntement*: f. 56v, line 35 (*munteménz*); f. 61v, line 31 (*muntemént*); and the noun *munteour*: f. 74r, line 23 (*muntedúr*).

oil (1): *ou > o; u > o*

The word *oil* has undergone two different types of era-

sures. The first type is on f. 38v, line 3, ó\_il, where traces of a previous **u** are visible under the blank space. Thus, the word was originally spelled *ouil*. In other instances there is place for two letters in the initial version, before the erasure. The scribe probably corrected a previous **u** into an **o**. In other words, the initial spelling could have been *uilz*. Cf. f. 38v, line 36, ó\_ilz; f. 39r, line 9, ó\_ilz; f. 39v, line 5, *oil* (where one can actually see the traces of an initial **u** under the **o** written on top of the erasure); and f. 39v, line 7, óilz.

The spelling *óil / óilz* (with or without accent) occurs for the first time on f. 37v, line 6 + line 23, where there is no trace of erasure. Examples of variation can be found on f. 38v and f. 39r-v. In the remaining part of the text, the spelling is stable. Examples of variation are

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

f. 38v,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

f. 39v,
line 5
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

f. 51v,
line 24

f. 51v,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

f. 51v,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

f. 51v,
line 23

line 24

without any trace of **u** becoming **o**. In the following list, I provide an example for each spelling in the text (the list is therefore not exhaustive): f. 39v, line 23 + line 25 (*muntát*); f. 41r, line 37 (*munterát*); f. 47r, line 39 (*muntá*); f. 51v, line 27 (*muntás*); f. 54r, line 6 (*múnte_*); f. 54r, line 24 (*muntérent*); f. 61v, line 36 (*múntent*); f. 63r, line 6 (*muntánz*); f. 64r, line 1 (*múntent*); f. 70r, line 12 (*munterái*); f. 74r, lines 10-11 (*surmuntéz*); f. 74v, line 24 (*munterás*). The same situation concerns the noun *muntement*: f. 56v, line 35 (*munteménz*); f. 61v, line 31 (*muntemént*); and the noun *munteour*: f. 74r, line 23 (*muntedúr*).

oil (1): *ou > o; u > o*

The word *oil* has undergone two different types of era-

sures. The first type is on f. 38v, line 3, ó\_il, where traces of a previous **u** are visible under the blank space. Thus, the word was originally spelled *ouil*. In other instances there is place for two letters in the initial version, before the erasure. The scribe probably corrected a previous **u** into an **o**. In other words, the initial spelling could have been *uilz*. Cf. f. 38v, line 36, ó\_ilz; f. 39r, line 9, ó\_ilz; f. 39v, line 5, *oil* (where one can actually see the traces of an initial **u** under the **o** written on top of the erasure); and f. 39v, line 7, óilz.

The spelling *óil / óilz* (with or without accent) occurs for the first time on f. 37v, line 6 + line 23, where there is no trace of erasure. Examples of variation can be found on f. 38v and f. 39r-v. In the remaining part of the text, the spelling is stable. Examples of variation are

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

f. 38v,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

f. 39v,
line 5
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 11

found on f. 39r, line 38; f. 40r, line 2, line 4 + line 40 ; f. 41v, line 21 + line 31, etc. ; f. 60v, line 37, etc.

ombre (2): **o > u**

f. 49v, line 7, úmbre.

oeille: **u > o**

f. 38r, line 11, _o_ _eiles_, with visible traces of the change of the letter. The word is written with _o_ throughout the rest of the text.

ovre (1): **ue > oe; u > o; oe > o**

With *ovre*, we are once again confronted with different types of erasures. On f. 38r, line 8, (*les*) *oeuřes*, the digraph *ue* was replaced by *oe*. Sneddon (1972: 56-57) argues "that in the case of *uevres* / *oevres* the *oe* forms were used to avoid the possibility of the initial *u* being

thought in as a *v*," which is quite plausible. On f. 39r, line 40, there is *óures*; f. 40r, line 30, *óures*; and f. 42r, line 27 + 28 + 29 (twice), *ouřes*. In these cases, the change is *u* > *o*. On f. 43r, line 38, *óeures*; and f. 43v, line 10, *oeures* show two peculiarities. There occurs, on the one hand, the transformation *u* > *o* at the beginning of the word, and, on the other hand (and only these two exemples), a brief return of the digraph *oe*. This is a unique situation. In the following erasures, the *e* of this digraph has been systematically deleted: f. 46v, line 11, (L)*ó-uře*; f. 46v, line 40, *ó-uřes*; f. 47r, line 31, *ó-uřes* (with clear traces of an *e* still evident on the parchment); f. 50v, line 12, *o-uřes* (again traces of a previous *e* on the parchment); f. 50v, line 37, *ó-uřes* (once again traces of a previous *e*); f. 51r, line 18, *ó-uřes* (there are traces

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 8
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 11

found on f. 39r, line 38; f. 40r, line 2, line 4 + line 40 ; f. 41v, line 21 + line 31, etc. ; f. 60v, line 37, etc.

ombre (2): **o > u**

f. 49v, line 7, úmbre.

oeille: **u > o**

f. 38r, line 11, _o_ _eiles_, with visible traces of the change of the letter. The word is written with _o_ throughout the rest of the text.

ovre (1): **ue > oe; u > o; oe > o**

With *ovre*, we are once again confronted with different types of erasures. On f. 38r, line 8, (*les*) *oeuřes*, the digraph *ue* was replaced by *oe*. Sneddon (1972: 56-57) argues "that in the case of *uevres* / *oevres* the *oe* forms were used to avoid the possibility of the initial *u* being

thought in as a *v*," which is quite plausible. On f. 39r, line 40, there is *óures*; f. 40r, line 30, *óures*; and f. 42r, line 27 + 28 + 29 (twice), *ouřes*. In these cases, the change is *u* > *o*. On f. 43r, line 38, *óeures*; and f. 43v, line 10, *oeures* show two peculiarities. There occurs, on the one hand, the transformation *u* > *o* at the beginning of the word, and, on the other hand (and only these two exemples), a brief return of the digraph *oe*. This is a unique situation. In the following erasures, the *e* of this digraph has been systematically deleted: f. 46v, line 11, (L)*ó-uře*; f. 46v, line 40, *ó-uřes*; f. 47r, line 31, *ó-uřes* (with clear traces of an *e* still evident on the parchment); f. 50v, line 12, *o-uřes* (again traces of a previous *e* on the parchment); f. 50v, line 37, *ó-uřes* (once again traces of a previous *e*); f. 51r, line 18, *ó-uřes* (there are traces

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 8
f. 50v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

too, but not as evident as the previous ones); f. 51r, line 21, ó_uřes.

reproce: **u > o; ou > o**

f. 52r, line 18, *repróce*; f. 52r, line 20, *repró_ces*; f. 52r, line 21, *repró_ce*.

seignur: **u > o**

f. 37v, line 37, *segnór*. The spelling *segnor* / *segnór*, without any trace of erasure, is found several times in the remaining part of the text, starting on f. 59v, line 40, and up to the very end. The parallel spelling *segnur* / *segnúr*, without erasure, can be found from the beginning of the text (f. 37r, line 37) until the end (f. 75r, line 20).

The noun (or its verbal counterpart) is found in extensive erasures: f. 37r, line 3, *seignur*; f. 37r, line 12, *seignur*;

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

f. 37r, line 19, *seignur* (with an abbreviated **ur** superscript); f. 37r, line 25, *seignur*; f. 38r, line 37, *seignur* d(this case involves a much longer erasure); f. 38r, line 39, *seignurerát* (written over a two-lines long erasure); f. 40v, line 5, *seignurerúnt* (written over a three-lines long erasure); f. 41r, line 22, *seignurerát* (extensive erasure); f. 44v, line 35, *seignur* (again extensive erasure). In these instances, it is not clear if the initial spelling of the word posed a problem. When the entire word is written on top of an erasure, the issue may concern word order (see the section on extensive erasures below).

This noun and its verbal counterpart are written *seignur* without erasure on f. 37r, line 29; f. 44r, line 5, line 6 + line 9; f. 44v, line 12 + line 13 + line 14 + line 16 + line 32; f. 45r, line 7; f. 45v, line 21 + line 25 (twice); f. 47r, line 31; f. 47v, line 10 + line 35 (*seignurerunt*); f. 49r, line 27; f. 49v, line 2; f. 50r, line 7-8 (*seignurerát*); f. 50v, line 38; f. 51r, line 23 (*seignúret*); f. 51v, line 28 + line 30 (twice) + line 37; f. 52r, line 5; f. 52v, line 34; f. 53r, line 12 (*seignurerá*); f. 53v, line 16 + line 39;

f. 37v,
line 37

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>
f. 50v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

too, but not as evident as the previous ones); f. 51r, line 21, ó_uřes.

reproce: **u > o; ou > o**

f. 52r, line 18, *repróce*; f. 52r, line 20, *repró_ces*; f. 52r, line 21, *repró_ce*.

seignur: **u > o**

f. 37v, line 37, *segnór*. The spelling *segnor* / *segnór*, without any trace of erasure, is found several times in the remaining part of the text, starting on f. 59v, line 40, and up to the very end. The parallel spelling *segnur* / *segnúr*, without erasure, can be found from the beginning of the text (f. 37r, line 37) until the end (f. 75r, line 20).

The noun (or its verbal counterpart) is found in extensive erasures: f. 37r, line 3, *seignur*; f. 37r, line 12, *seignur*;

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

f. 37r, line 19, *seignur* (with an abbreviated **ur** superscript); f. 37r, line 25, *seignur*; f. 38r, line 37, *seignur* d(this case involves a much longer erasure); f. 38r, line 39, *seignurerát* (written over a two-lines long erasure); f. 40v, line 5, *seignurerúnt* (written over a three-lines long erasure); f. 41r, line 22, *seignurerát* (extensive erasure); f. 44v, line 35, *seignur* (again extensive erasure). In these instances, it is not clear if the initial spelling of the word posed a problem. When the entire word is written on top of an erasure, the issue may concern word order (see the section on extensive erasures below).

This noun and its verbal counterpart are written *seignur* without erasure on f. 37r, line 29; f. 44r, line 5, line 6 + line 9; f. 44v, line 12 + line 13 + line 14 + line 16 + line 32; f. 45r, line 7; f. 45v, line 21 + line 25 (twice); f. 47r, line 31; f. 47v, line 10 + line 35 (*seignurerunt*); f. 49r, line 27; f. 49v, line 2; f. 50r, line 7-8 (*seignurerát*); f. 50v, line 38; f. 51r, line 23 (*seignúret*); f. 51v, line 28 + line 30 (twice) + line 37; f. 52r, line 5; f. 52v, line 34; f. 53r, line 12 (*seignurerá*); f. 53v, line 16 + line 39;

f. 37v,
line 37

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>

f. 54r, line 14 + line 29 + line 32; f. 54v, line 3 + line 20; f. 56r, line 38; and f. 56v, line 30. The spellings *seignur* and *segnur* are dominant in the first part of the text. Starting with f. 59, the spelling with an *o* becomes prevalent. See also the first erasure (f. 37v), where the scribe had corrected the former spelling into *segnor*.

uelté: **u > o**

f. 38r, line 21, *o eltet*. The scribe transformed an initial **u** in *o*, erased the straight segment of **u**, and placed a low dash to join the parts of word; f. 51v, line 1-2, *oelté*.

vou (1): **u > o**

f. 48r, line 18, *uóz*; f. 49v, line 3, *uót*. In its first occurrence (f. 41r, line 18), the term is spelled *uuz*. It is likely that in the specific case of this erasure, the scribe decided to correct **u > o**. See also f. 50r, line 36, where *uóz* is written over an extensive erasure; see also the spellings that show no trace of hesitation in f. 51r, line 30; f. 65v, line 40; and in f. 66r, line 4.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>f. 40v,
line 7</figcaption></figure>

ure (1): **u > o; ou > u**

f. 44r, line 32, *óres*; f. 45r, line 36, *óres*; f. 45v, line 36, *óres*; f. 48r, line 12, *óres*; f. 48r, line 33, *óres*. The change **u > o** is systematic in all the occurrences. However, two other examples show that the digraph was likely pronounced differently. On f. 40v, line 7, there is _úres_. In this case, an initial letter has been deleted and it is safe to assume that the scribe's first choice had been *oures*. The same happens on f. 41v, line 21-22: _óres_. Here, the scribe might have corrected the digraph **ou** by erasing the initial *o* and afterward changing **u** into *o*. It is evident that, in the last two examples, the scribe hesitates between **u** and **o** when it occurs at the beginning of the word.

## Varia

encontre (1): **o > u**

Since the beginning, the scribe chose the **u** spelling, which dominates till the end of the text. However, there are three instances of hesitation: f. 42r, line 4-5, *encúntre*, with the probable alteration **o > u**; f. 43v, line 40, on top of an extensive erasure, where the scribe wrote *cóntre*; and f. 59v, lines 23-24, where he wrote *encóntre*, without any sign of erasures.

molt: **o > u**

Two situations from the first folios of the manuscript comprise the transformation **o > u** in the case of the adverb *molt > mult*, which is the dominant spelling in the text: f. 39r, line 27, *mult*; f. 39r, line 28, *mult*.

sul: **u > o**

On two occasions, the scribe does not write immediately *sol*, but, rather, he wrote at first *sul*, to correct it: f. 56v, line 28, *sóls*; f. 57r, line 32, *sóls*.

uitante: **u > o**

f. 58v, line 31, *óitante*.

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>f. 41v,
line 21</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>

f. 54r, line 14 + line 29 + line 32; f. 54v, line 3 + line 20; f. 56r, line 38; and f. 56v, line 30. The spellings *seignur* and *segnur* are dominant in the first part of the text. Starting with f. 59, the spelling with an *o* becomes prevalent. See also the first erasure (f. 37v), where the scribe had corrected the former spelling into *segnor*.

uelté: **u > o**

f. 38r, line 21, *o eltet*. The scribe transformed an initial **u** in *o*, erased the straight segment of **u**, and placed a low dash to join the parts of word; f. 51v, line 1-2, *oelté*.

vou (1): **u > o**

f. 48r, line 18, *uóz*; f. 49v, line 3, *uót*. In its first occurrence (f. 41r, line 18), the term is spelled *uuz*. It is likely that in the specific case of this erasure, the scribe decided to correct **u > o**. See also f. 50r, line 36, where *uóz* is written over an extensive erasure; see also the spellings that show no trace of hesitation in f. 51r, line 30; f. 65v, line 40; and in f. 66r, line 4.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>f. 40v,
line 7</figcaption></figure>

ure (1): **u > o; ou > u**

f. 44r, line 32, *óres*; f. 45r, line 36, *óres*; f. 45v, line 36, *óres*; f. 48r, line 12, *óres*; f. 48r, line 33, *óres*. The change **u > o** is systematic in all the occurrences. However, two other examples show that the digraph was likely pronounced differently. On f. 40v, line 7, there is _úres_. In this case, an initial letter has been deleted and it is safe to assume that the scribe's first choice had been *oures*. The same happens on f. 41v, line 21-22: _óres_. Here, the scribe might have corrected the digraph **ou** by erasing the initial *o* and afterward changing **u** into *o*. It is evident that, in the last two examples, the scribe hesitates between **u** and **o** when it occurs at the beginning of the word.

## Varia

encontre (1): **o > u**

Since the beginning, the scribe chose the **u** spelling, which dominates till the end of the text. However, there are three instances of hesitation: f. 42r, line 4-5, *encúntre*, with the probable alteration **o > u**; f. 43v, line 40, on top of an extensive erasure, where the scribe wrote *cóntre*; and f. 59v, lines 23-24, where he wrote *encóntre*, without any sign of erasures.

molt: **o > u**

Two situations from the first folios of the manuscript comprise the transformation **o > u** in the case of the adverb *molt > mult*, which is the dominant spelling in the text: f. 39r, line 27, *mult*; f. 39r, line 28, *mult*.

sul: **u > o**

On two occasions, the scribe does not write immediately *sol*, but, rather, he wrote at first *sul*, to correct it: f. 56v, line 28, *sóls*; f. 57r, line 32, *sóls*.

uitante: **u > o**

f. 58v, line 31, *óitante*.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>f. 41v,
line 21</figcaption></figure>
DENTALS IN FUTURE TENSES (AC)

A large group of erasures are determined by morphologi-
cal features, particularly those pertaining to final dentals.
Since the erasure and/or replacement of final dentals in
nouns (and verbal nouns or adjectives) seems to be link-
ed to the erasure of final -z, erasures in verbs will be sepa-
rated from those in nouns. As a result, the criterion for the
categories presented henceforth becomes grammatical.

The issue of dentals is mentioned in passing by Meister
1877: 67–68, based on the edition of Michel 1860. Meister
notes only the merging of dentals with -s as -z, or the sim-
plification by erasure of double consonants. No remarks
concerning erasures or dentals are found in Meister’s
or in the review by Koschwitz 1878 either. Short pointed
out that “dentals are widely preserved in -at and -ad
future endings.” He argued that they represent a minority
in the case of forms in -a- (Short 2015: 30). A first obser-
vation is that the scribe decided to erase the final dental
of a third person future form in a certain number of cases:

aiuerá, f. 58r, line 21, with traces of an erased -t.

apelerá, f. 58r, line 27.

(n)aposerá, f. 58r, line 23. The spelling (n)aposerá
without erasure occurs on f. 54r, line 39

(n)aprismerá, f. 59r, line 10 + line 13 (twice). The
spelling aprismerát can be noted on f. 50v, line 34. All
occurrences show traces of an erased final -t.

ardrá, f. 45v, line 5-6. On f. 75v, line 2 + line 3, one
finds ardrá without any trace of erasure.

confermerá, f. 58r, line 22.

couéiterá, f. 47r, line 14.

damnerá, f. 45r, line 7.

degeterá, f. 54r, line 39 (traces of a possible final -t).

deliuerrá, f. 53r, line 16-17 (with traces of an erased -t);
f. 58v, line 13 (traces of an erased -t); f. 59r, line 4-5
(traces of an erased -t). The spelling with final -t
occurs on f. 43v, line 24 (extensive erasure) + line 36; f.
45r, line 14; f. 46r, lines 7-8. A variant with a final -d
occurs on f. 60r, line 37.

demurerá, f. 59r, line 3, with clear traces of -t under
the erasure. The spelling demurerát can be found on f.
41v, line 20; f. 42v, line 13.

dirá, f. 59r, line 3, with clear traces of an erased -t.
Dirá without signs of erasure appears on f. 63v, line 11.

dunrá, f. 56v, line 37 (traces of an erased -t); f. 57r, line 3 (also traces of an erased final -t). The spelling with -t is found on f. 37r, line 5; f. 39r, line 13; f. 44v, line 34; f. 48v, line 32; f. 49r, line 8 + line 28; f. 51v, 19; f. 52r, line 6 + line 8 ; f. 57r, line 19 + line 20. At the end of the text, there is dunrád on f. 69v, line 17. The only spelling of the type dunrá written without erasure occurs on f. 74r, line 21.

enumberrá, f. 59r, line 6, with traces of an erased -t.

f. 59r,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

f. 59r,
line 3

f. 59r,
line 13

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

f. 59r,
line 3

f. 45r,
line 7

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

f. 57r,
line 3

f. 58v,
line 13

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

f. 59r,
line 6
DENTALS IN FUTURE TENSES (AC)

A large group of erasures are determined by morphologi-
cal features, particularly those pertaining to final dentals.
Since the erasure and/or replacement of final dentals in
nouns (and verbal nouns or adjectives) seems to be link-
ed to the erasure of final -z, erasures in verbs will be sepa-
rated from those in nouns. As a result, the criterion for the
categories presented henceforth becomes grammatical.

The issue of dentals is mentioned in passing by Meister
1877: 67–68, based on the edition of Michel 1860. Meister
notes only the merging of dentals with -s as -z, or the sim-
plification by erasure of double consonants. No remarks
concerning erasures or dentals are found in Meister’s
or in the review by Koschwitz 1878 either. Short pointed
out that “dentals are widely preserved in -at and -ad
future endings.” He argued that they represent a minority
in the case of forms in -a- (Short 2015: 30). A first obser-
vation is that the scribe decided to erase the final dental
of a third person future form in a certain number of cases:

aiuerá, f. 58r, line 21, with traces of an erased -t.

apelerá, f. 58r, line 27.

(n)aposerá, f. 58r, line 23. The spelling (n)aposerá
without erasure occurs on f. 54r, line 39

(n)aprismerá, f. 59r, line 10 + line 13 (twice). The
spelling aprismerát can be noted on f. 50v, line 34. All
occurrences show traces of an erased final -t.

ardrá, f. 45v, line 5-6. On f. 75v, line 2 + line 3, one
finds ardrá without any trace of erasure.

confermerá, f. 58r, line 22.

couéiterá, f. 47r, line 14.

damnerá, f. 45r, line 7.

degeterá, f. 54r, line 39 (traces of a possible final -t).

deliuerrá, f. 53r, line 16-17 (with traces of an erased -t);
f. 58v, line 13 (traces of an erased -t); f. 59r, line 4-5
(traces of an erased -t). The spelling with final -t
occurs on f. 43v, line 24 (extensive erasure) + line 36; f.
45r, line 14; f. 46r, lines 7-8. A variant with a final -d
occurs on f. 60r, line 37.

demurerá, f. 59r, line 3, with clear traces of -t under
the erasure. The spelling demurerát can be found on f.
41v, line 20; f. 42v, line 13.

dirá, f. 59r, line 3, with clear traces of an erased -t.
Dirá without signs of erasure appears on f. 63v, line 11.

dunrá, f. 56v, line 37 (traces of an erased -t); f. 57r, line 3 (also traces of an erased final -t). The spelling with -t is found on f. 37r, line 5; f. 39r, line 13; f. 44v, line 34; f. 48v, line 32; f. 49r, line 8 + line 28; f. 51v, 19; f. 52r, line 6 + line 8 ; f. 57r, line 19 + line 20. At the end of the text, there is dunrád on f. 69v, line 17. The only spelling of the type dunrá written without erasure occurs on f. 74r, line 21.

enumberrá, f. 59r, line 6, with traces of an erased -t.

f. 59r,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

f. 59r,
line 3

f. 59r,
line 13

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

f. 59r,
line 3

f. 45r,
line 7

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

f. 57r,
line 3

f. 58v,
line 13

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

f. 59r,
line 6
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>f. 58v,
line 10</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 20</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 20</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

esledecerá_, f. 57r, line 12, with traces of an erased **-t**. Esledecerát also occurs on f. 50v, line 38; f. 51r, line 12. The spelling esledecerá without erasure is found on f. 62r, line 24.

esprendrá_, f. 58v, line 10, with traces of a final **-t**.

estrangerá_, f. 57r, line 4, with traces of an erased **-t**.

ferá_, f. 53r, line 9 (traces of an erased **-t**); f. 55r, line 21 (traces of a possible **-t**). There is ferát on f. 37r, line 6; f. 37v, line 7; f. 44v, line 15; f. 51v, line 29; f. 52v, line 6; f. 53r, line 18. However, one finds the variant ferád on f. 62v, line 39. The spelling ferá without any sign of erasure is found on f. 72v, line 28 + line 29; and f. 74r, line 2.

flurirá_, f. 59r, line 36, with traces of an erased **-t**. The spelling flurirád is found on f. 74v, ligne 40; as well as florirád on f. 70r, line 28. Flurirá without traces of erasure appears on f. 61v, line 16.

humilierá_, f. 53r, line 9, with traces of a probable final **-t**. There is humilierát on f. 49r, line 23.

irá_, f. 57r, line 20, with traces of an erased **-t**. There is irád on f. 74v, line 18.

oblierá_, f. 54v, line 1, with clear traces of an erased **-t**.

orrá_, f. 59r, line 35. The spelling with final **-t** occurs on f. 37r, line 34; f. 49r, line 22; f. 51r, line 35. Orrá without erasure occurs on f. 59v, line 15.

parlerá_, f. 57r, line 14, with traces of an erased **-t**. Parlerát appears on f. 45r, line 4; f. 47v, line 21. The spelling with final **-d** occurs only once, at the end of the text, on f. 72v, line 30. Parlerá without erasure is found on f. 62v, line 38; and f. 69v, line 21.

parmainderá_, f. 53r, line 9.

perdrá_, f. 55r, line 22 (traces of a probable final **-t**).

poserá_, f. 57r, line 20, with traces of an erased **-t**.

profiterá_, f. 58r, line 22.

recunterá_, f. 57v, line 9, with traces of a final **-t**.

regehirá_, f. 54r, line 28 (traces of a probable final **-t**). There is regehirát on f. 42v, line 18; and f. 47v, line 40. Towards the end of the text, one notices the spelling with final **-d**: f. 73v, line 39; f. 74r, line 2.

repróuerá_, f. 53v, line 30.

seignurerá_, f. 53r, ligne 12. There is seignurerát on f. 38r, line 39 (entirely on top of an erasure); f. 41r, line 22 (extensive erasure); f. 50r, line 7-8.

uerrá_, f. 58v, line 13, with traces of an erased **-t**. The variant with **-t** is found on f. 47v, line 27 + line 28; f. 48r, line 1; f. 49v, line 30; f. 50v, line 33. Uerrá without any sign of erasure occurs on f. 59v, line 14; f. 65r, line 26.

uiuerá_, f. 53r, line 20; f. 58v, line 13, with traces of an erased final **-t**. One finds an occurrence with final **-t** on fol. 47v, line 27.
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>f. 58v,
line 10</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 20</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>f. 57r,
line 20</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

esledecerá_, f. 57r, line 12, with traces of an erased **-t**. Esledecerát also occurs on f. 50v, line 38; f. 51r, line 12. The spelling esledecerá without erasure is found on f. 62r, line 24.

esprendrá_, f. 58v, line 10, with traces of a final **-t**.

estrangerá_, f. 57r, line 4, with traces of an erased **-t**.

ferá_, f. 53r, line 9 (traces of an erased **-t**); f. 55r, line 21 (traces of a possible **-t**). There is ferát on f. 37r, line 6; f. 37v, line 7; f. 44v, line 15; f. 51v, line 29; f. 52v, line 6; f. 53r, line 18. However, one finds the variant ferád on f. 62v, line 39. The spelling ferá without any sign of erasure is found on f. 72v, line 28 + line 29; and f. 74r, line 2.

flurirá_, f. 59r, line 36, with traces of an erased **-t**. The spelling flurirád is found on f. 74v, ligne 40; as well as florirád on f. 70r, line 28. Flurirá without traces of erasure appears on f. 61v, line 16.

humilierá_, f. 53r, line 9, with traces of a probable final **-t**. There is humilierát on f. 49r, line 23.

irá_, f. 57r, line 20, with traces of an erased **-t**. There is irád on f. 74v, line 18.

oblierá_, f. 54v, line 1, with clear traces of an erased **-t**.

orrá_, f. 59r, line 35. The spelling with final **-t** occurs on f. 37r, line 34; f. 49r, line 22; f. 51r, line 35. Orrá without erasure occurs on f. 59v, line 15.

parlerá_, f. 57r, line 14, with traces of an erased **-t**. Parlerát appears on f. 45r, line 4; f. 47v, line 21. The spelling with final **-d** occurs only once, at the end of the text, on f. 72v, line 30. Parlerá without erasure is found on f. 62v, line 38; and f. 69v, line 21.

parmainderá_, f. 53r, line 9.

perdrá_, f. 55r, line 22 (traces of a probable final **-t**).

poserá_, f. 57r, line 20, with traces of an erased **-t**.

profiterá_, f. 58r, line 22.

recunterá_, f. 57v, line 9, with traces of a final **-t**.

regehirá_, f. 54r, line 28 (traces of a probable final **-t**). There is regehirát on f. 42v, line 18; and f. 47v, line 40. Towards the end of the text, one notices the spelling with final **-d**: f. 73v, line 39; f. 74r, line 2.

repróuerá_, f. 53v, line 30.

seignurerá_, f. 53r, ligne 12. There is seignurerát on f. 38r, line 39 (entirely on top of an erasure); f. 41r, line 22 (extensive erasure); f. 50r, line 7-8.

uerrá_, f. 58v, line 13, with traces of an erased **-t**. The variant with **-t** is found on f. 47v, line 27 + line 28; f. 48r, line 1; f. 49v, line 30; f. 50v, line 33. Uerrá without any sign of erasure occurs on f. 59v, line 14; f. 65r, line 26.

uiuerá_, f. 53r, line 20; f. 58v, line 13, with traces of an erased final **-t**. One finds an occurrence with final **-t** on fol. 47v, line 27.
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Two more erasures could be linked to the issue of dentals in future tenses, but there is not enough data to support this conclusion. For instance, *contrestérá*, f. 54r, line 25, the three final letters of which are written on top of an erasure. There is also *decirerá*, f. 54r, line 40, entirely written on top of an erasure. The initial choice of the scribe could have been another verb.

As Short pointed out, there is a deliberate effort on behalf of the scribe to intervene in the spelling of final dentals on f. 53–59 (Short 2015: 20; cf. 6–7). However, this alleged willingness to intervene starts well before f. 53. Traces of erasures are found as early as f. 45 and f. 47. See also Sneddon 1972: 69.

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 9

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 13

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

f. 54r,
line 28

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 13
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Two more erasures could be linked to the issue of dentals in future tenses, but there is not enough data to support this conclusion. For instance, *contrestérá*, f. 54r, line 25, the three final letters of which are written on top of an erasure. There is also *decirerá*, f. 54r, line 40, entirely written on top of an erasure. The initial choice of the scribe could have been another verb.

As Short pointed out, there is a deliberate effort on behalf of the scribe to intervene in the spelling of final dentals on f. 53–59 (Short 2015: 20; cf. 6–7). However, this alleged willingness to intervene starts well before f. 53. Traces of erasures are found as early as f. 45 and f. 47. See also Sneddon 1972: 69.

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 9

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 13

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

f. 54r,
line 28

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 13
A RELATED PROBLEM: INTERCONSONANTAL –E– (AC)

Furthermore, two instances in the text concern the merger of two distinct phenomena: the erasure of a final consonant and the erasure of an interconsonantal **-e-**:

descend_rá_, f. 53r, line 10. See also f. 38r, line 3, and f. 47v, line 39, for an occurrence with final **-t**, but no vowel: *descend Rat*. The same can be noted in *náist_rá_* on f. 53r, line 11.

This erasure of an interconsonantal **-e-** can also be seen in other cases:

criend_runt, f. 45v, line 24; crend_runt, f. 48v, line 18; crend_rái f. 49r, line 33; criend_runt f. 50v, line 31. Nevertheless, the vowel drop does not occur in *crienderái* (f. 41r, line 30; f. 47v, line 23); *crenderái* (f. 42r, line 1; f. 49r, line 34; f. 49v, line 2); *crenderát* (f. 42r, line 5); and *crienderúms* (47r, line 24). I also noted the particular situation of *cr_end_rúnt* on f. 51r, line 8 (with traces of an erased **-e-**). The scribe intervenes here on the stem vowel as well, in accordance with a choice that we find again elsewhere, in other instances of a future tense of the same verb, from the beginning to the end of the Douce MS 320 text.

descend rat, f. 38r, line 3.

exard_rát, f. 48r, line 7 (there seems to be a trace here of an erased **-e-**).

raiend_rát, f. 49r, line 22. A form with a vowel drop and no erasure is found just before it, on f. 47v, line 36. On the same folio, one also finds *raiendrát* in the context of an extensive erasure.

eist_rás, f. 50r, line 24. The only other occurrence of this verbal form, without erasures, is on f. 64r, line 32.

receu_řai, f. 54r, line 8. The text contains instances of

verbs in the future without a vowel drop. Here are some examples concerning verbs in the first person: *receuerái* (f. 48r, line 12; f. 65v, line 39).

naist_rúnt, f. 54v, line 23. For the spelling *náisterunt*, see f. 59r, line 28.

prend_rát, f. 47v, line 39.

rend_rái, f. 51r, line 30.

As Pope states, “two tendencies conflicted in Anglo-Norman: the tendency to efface unstressed *e* in interconsonantal position, and the tendency to develop a vocalic glide between interconsonantal groups consisting of consonant + *r* showed itself earliest and was commonest between breathed consonants and *r*; the glide development began in the later 12th century and was at first most frequent between voiced consonants and *r*” (Pope 1952: § 1290). In an initial phase, before the erasures and corrections, most of which are condensed approximately between f. 45 and f. 54, the scribe often transcribed and maintained interconsonantal **-e-**. Only later he took the decision to eliminate it. (cf. Pope 1952: §1173, 1290; Sneddon 1972: 68, 97–98; Short 2015: 30–31).

In his treatment of future tenses, the scribe made other modifications as well, some of them linked to vocalic processes influencing the development of future tenses (cf. Pope 1952: § 966–979): *esio rrái*, f. 42v, line 30, where he erased a probable *i*, that we find in *sesioirúnt* (f. 37v, line 14, written on top of an erasure).

Before closing this parenthesis on interconsonantal **-e-**, it must be noted that one of the accents was often written above the erased letter. For instance, *descend rat* (f. 38r, line 3); *criend runt* (f. 45v, line 24); *crend runt* (f. 48v, line 18); and *exard rat* (f. 48r, line 7). The case of *receu řai* (f. 54r, line 8) is not that certain. Perhaps it is

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

f. 53r,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

f. 51r,
line 8

f. 53r,
line 11

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

f. 48r,
line 7
A RELATED PROBLEM: INTERCONSONANTAL –E– (AC)

Furthermore, two instances in the text concern the merger of two distinct phenomena: the erasure of a final consonant and the erasure of an interconsonantal **-e-**:

descend_rá_, f. 53r, line 10. See also f. 38r, line 3, and f. 47v, line 39, for an occurrence with final **-t**, but no vowel: *descend Rat*. The same can be noted in *náist_rá_* on f. 53r, line 11.

This erasure of an interconsonantal **-e-** can also be seen in other cases:

criend_runt, f. 45v, line 24; crend_runt, f. 48v, line 18; crend_rái f. 49r, line 33; criend_runt f. 50v, line 31. Nevertheless, the vowel drop does not occur in *crienderái* (f. 41r, line 30; f. 47v, line 23); *crenderái* (f. 42r, line 1; f. 49r, line 34; f. 49v, line 2); *crenderát* (f. 42r, line 5); and *crienderúms* (47r, line 24). I also noted the particular situation of *cr_end_rúnt* on f. 51r, line 8 (with traces of an erased **-e-**). The scribe intervenes here on the stem vowel as well, in accordance with a choice that we find again elsewhere, in other instances of a future tense of the same verb, from the beginning to the end of the Douce MS 320 text.

descend rat, f. 38r, line 3.

exard_rát, f. 48r, line 7 (there seems to be a trace here of an erased **-e-**).

raiend_rát, f. 49r, line 22. A form with a vowel drop and no erasure is found just before it, on f. 47v, line 36. On the same folio, one also finds *raiendrát* in the context of an extensive erasure.

eist_rás, f. 50r, line 24. The only other occurrence of this verbal form, without erasures, is on f. 64r, line 32.

receu_řai, f. 54r, line 8. The text contains instances of

verbs in the future without a vowel drop. Here are some examples concerning verbs in the first person: *receuerái* (f. 48r, line 12; f. 65v, line 39).

naist_rúnt, f. 54v, line 23. For the spelling *náisterunt*, see f. 59r, line 28.

prend_rát, f. 47v, line 39.

rend_rái, f. 51r, line 30.

As Pope states, “two tendencies conflicted in Anglo-Norman: the tendency to efface unstressed *e* in interconsonantal position, and the tendency to develop a vocalic glide between interconsonantal groups consisting of consonant + *r* showed itself earliest and was commonest between breathed consonants and *r*; the glide development began in the later 12th century and was at first most frequent between voiced consonants and *r*” (Pope 1952: § 1290). In an initial phase, before the erasures and corrections, most of which are condensed approximately between f. 45 and f. 54, the scribe often transcribed and maintained interconsonantal **-e-**. Only later he took the decision to eliminate it. (cf. Pope 1952: §1173, 1290; Sneddon 1972: 68, 97–98; Short 2015: 30–31).

In his treatment of future tenses, the scribe made other modifications as well, some of them linked to vocalic processes influencing the development of future tenses (cf. Pope 1952: § 966–979): *esio rrái*, f. 42v, line 30, where he erased a probable *i*, that we find in *sesioirúnt* (f. 37v, line 14, written on top of an erasure).

Before closing this parenthesis on interconsonantal **-e-**, it must be noted that one of the accents was often written above the erased letter. For instance, *descend rat* (f. 38r, line 3); *criend runt* (f. 45v, line 24); *crend runt* (f. 48v, line 18); and *exard rat* (f. 48r, line 7). The case of *receu řai* (f. 54r, line 8) is not that certain. Perhaps it is

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

f. 53r,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

f. 51r,
line 8

f. 53r,
line 11

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

f. 48r,
line 7
<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>f. 54r,
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 24</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>f. 57v,
line 39</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>f. 48v,
line 18</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>f. 54r,
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 24</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>f. 57v,
line 39</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>f. 48v,
line 18</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>
DENTALS AND DOUBLE -R- IN THE FUTURE TENSE OF ESTRE (AC)

The future tense forms of ‘to be’ are also subject to erasures when the final dental occurs in the third person singular: *será* f. 45r, line 7; f. 47r, line 24 (*ser_rá_*); f. 53r, line 20+22; f. 53r, line 27; f. 55v, line 28 (clear traces of an erased -t*); f. 56r, line 31 + line 38; f. 56v, line 9, (traces of an erased -t*) + line 37; f. 57v, line 37 (twice); f. 58r, line 2 + line 17 + line 25; f. 59r, line 32 (clear traces of an erased -t*) + line 36.

The spelling *serát* can be found on f. 38r, line 2 with the last three letters of which written on top of the erasure; f. 38v, line 11 (twice) (*se_rát*) + line 35 (*se_rát*); f. 39r, line 21 (*se_rát*); f. 40v, line 24 (*se_rát*); f. 43v, line 11 (*se_rát*)+ line 12 (*se_rát*)+ line 19 (*se_rát*) + line 37 (*se_rát*); f. 44r, line 15 (*se_rát*); f. 44v, line 20 (*se_rát*) + line 36 (*se_rát*); f. 47r, line 24 (*ser_rá*) + line 28 (*se_rát*); f. 47v, line 40 (*serát* in an extensive erasure). The spelling *serád* is also used on f. 59v, line 2; f. 61v, line 34; f. 65r, line 7; f. 74r, line 19 + line 34; f. 74v, line 17. *Será* is found on f. 75r, line 2.

This list of examples also shows that on many occasions an -r- has been erased from the root of the verb as well. This happens not only with *serrat*, but also with *serrai*, *serras* and *serrunt*, all of which are listed below and occasionally illustrated, especially when traces of an erased double -r- are visible (for *se_rát*, *vide supra*):

*Se_rái*: f. 38r, line 40; f. 38v, line 38 (here the scribe for-

got to tie the two segments of the word by a low dash after erasure); 39r, line 25 (the scribe added an accent over *a* in red ink); f. 39v, line 13 + line 17 (with an accent over *a* in green ink) + line 39; f. 40r, line 6; f. 40v, line 5 (twice, with the addition of accents in red ink); f. 41v, line 30; f. 42r, line 23; f. 42v, line 14; f. 42v, line 23.

*Se_rás*: f. 38v, line 10; f. 40r, line 2 (twice, the first case on top of an extensive erasure and with a *s* in superscript); f. 40r, line 3 (twice); f. 44v, line 13.

*Se_rúnt*: f. 37r, line 6; f. 38r, line 16; f. 41r, line 19 + line 20; f. 41v, lines 8-9; f. 43v, line 22 + line 27; f. 44v, line 3 (here the scribe seems to place a double dash, one above and one under the erased segment) + line 19 + line 28 + line 30 + line 31 + line 32; f. 44v, line 36; f. 45r, line 2.

From the beginning of the text up to f. 47, the scribe has the tendency to correct such verbal forms by deleting an -r-. A few rare exceptions escaped his erasure campaign. Such is the case with *serrez* on f. 37v, line 39; *serrums* on f. 40v, line 12; *serrái* on f. 41v, line 33; and *serrát* on f. 42v, line 7. Instances where the scribe wrote a single -r- from the start occur from f. 45 onwards: *serúnt* on f. 45r, line 1 + line 5, f. 47r, line 17 (on top of an extensive erasure) + line 18 + line 19 + line 25; *serái* on f. 45v, line 20 (on top of an extensive erasure), but also on f. 46r, line 32, and

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>f. 56v,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 40</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 25</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>f. 44r,
line 15</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>f. 39v,
line 17</figcaption></figure>
DENTALS AND DOUBLE -R- IN THE FUTURE TENSE OF ESTRE (AC)

The future tense forms of ‘to be’ are also subject to erasures when the final dental occurs in the third person singular: *será* f. 45r, line 7; f. 47r, line 24 (*ser_rá_*); f. 53r, line 20+22; f. 53r, line 27; f. 55v, line 28 (clear traces of an erased -t*); f. 56r, line 31 + line 38; f. 56v, line 9, (traces of an erased -t*); + line 37; f. 57v, line 37 (twice); f. 58r, line 2 + line 17 + line 25; f. 59r, line 32 (clear traces of an erased -t*); + line 36.

The spelling *serát* can be found on f. 38r, line 2 with the last three letters of which written on top of the erasure; f. 38v, line 11 (twice) (*se_rát*) + line 35 (*se_rát*); f. 39r, line 21 (*se_rát*); f. 40v, line 24 (*se_rát*); f. 43v, line 11 (*se_rát*)+ line 12 (*se_rát*)+ line 19 (*se_rát*) + line 37 (*se_rát*); f. 44r, line 15 (*se_rát*); f. 44v, line 20 (*se_rát*) + line 36 (*se_rát*); f. 47r, line 24 (*ser_rá*) + line 28 (*se_rát*); f. 47v, line 40 (*serát* in an extensive erasure). The spelling *serád* is also used on f. 59v, line 2; f. 61v, line 34; f. 65r, line 7; f. 74r, line 19 + line 34; f. 74v, line 17. *Será* is found on f. 75r, line 2.

This list of examples also shows that on many occasions an -r- has been erased from the root of the verb as well. This happens not only with *serrat*, but also with *serrai*, *serras* and *serrunt*, all of which are listed below and occasionally illustrated, especially when traces of an erased double -r- are visible (for *se_rát*, *vide supra*):

*Se_rái*: f. 38r, line 40; f. 38v, line 38 (here the scribe for-

got to tie the two segments of the word by a low dash after erasure); 39r, line 25 (the scribe added an accent over *a* in red ink); f. 39v, line 13 + line 17 (with an accent over *a* in green ink) + line 39; f. 40r, line 6; f. 40v, line 5 (twice, with the addition of accents in red ink); f. 41v, line 30; f. 42r, line 23; f. 42v, line 14; f. 42v, line 23.

*Se_rás*: f. 38v, line 10; f. 40r, line 2 (twice, the first case on top of an extensive erasure and with a *s* in superscript); f. 40r, line 3 (twice); f. 44v, line 13.

*Se_rúnt*: f. 37r, line 6; f. 38r, line 16; f. 41r, line 19 + line 20 ; f. 41v, lines 8-9; f. 43v, line 22 + line 27; f. 44v, line 3 (here the scribe seems to place a double dash, one above and one under the erased segment) + line 19 + line 28 + line 30 + line 31 + line 32; f. 44v, line 36; f. 45r, line 2.

From the beginning of the text up to f. 47, the scribe has the tendency to correct such verbal forms by deleting an -r-. A few rare exceptions escaped his erasure campaign. Such is the case with *serrez* on f. 37v, line 39; *serrums* on f. 40v, line 12; *serrái* on f. 41v, line 33; and *serrát* on f. 42v, line 7. Instances where the scribe wrote a single -r- from the start occur from f. 45 onwards: *serúnt* on f. 45r, line 1 + line 5, f. 47r, line 17 (on top of an extensive erasure) + line 18 + line 19 + line 25; *serái* on f. 45v, line 20 (on top of an extensive erasure), but also on f. 46r, line 32, and

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>f. 56v,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 40</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 25</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>f. 44r,
line 15</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>f. 39v,
line 17</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

f. 40v,
line 5

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

f. 46v,
line 17

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

f. 44v,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

f. 40r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

f. 47r,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

f. 42v,
line 18

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

f. 40r,
line 2

f. 40r,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

on f. 47r, line 34 (twice); serúms on f. 46v, line 20; serát on f. 47v, line 6 + line 37 + line 38 + line 40 (on top of an extensive erasure). The scribe's choice to transcribe the root of the verb with a single **-r-** becomes frequent from f. 48 onwards, with the exception of serréiz on f. 69v, line 17, and serrunt on f. 70r, line 23.

The interesting case of f. 47r, line 24, *se_rá*, must also be highlighted. It marks a turning point in the treatment of the text. Not only do we find both approaches to correction in the same example, one can also note that this is the last time the scribe has to delete an **-r-**.

Sneddon pointed out that the use of **-r-** and **-rr-** in

future forms in our manuscript can be classified in three groups. The scribe uses either the single or the double form; he can use both of them; or he can decide to correct double **-rr-** to single **-r-**. In the particular case of *estre*, Sneddon's hypothesis is that the scribe could have corrected the spelling to "avoid the confusion with the verb 'to sit'" (Sneddon 1972: 64, cf. 68, 105; cf. Short 2015: 29-30). However, the transformation **-rr-** > **-r-** is also found in a future form of the verb despire: *despí_rums*, f. 46v, line 17; while a double **-rr-** form can be found a few folios afterwards, in *despirrás*, f. 48v, line 9. I must also mention the case of *regehi_rái* (f. 40r, line 27; f. 42v, line 21-22; f. 43r, line 24; f. 44r, line 21; f. 46r, line 30). This other verb is always written *regehirái* from the beginning to the end of the text, but has been erased only in the cases listed above; and in *regehi_rat* of f. 42v, line 18.
<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

f. 40v,
line 5

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

f. 46v,
line 17

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

f. 44v,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

f. 40r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

f. 47r,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

f. 42v,
line 18

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

f. 40r,
line 2

f. 40r,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

on f. 47r, line 34 (twice); *serúms* on f. 46v, line 20; *serát* on f. 47v, line 6 + line 37 + line 38 + line 40 (on top of an extensive erasure). The scribe's choice to transcribe the root of the verb with a single **-r-** becomes frequent from f. 48 onwards, with the exception of *serréiz* on f. 69v, line 17, and *serrunt* on f. 70r, line 23.

The interesting case of f. 47r, line 24, *se_rá*, must also be highlighted. It marks a turning point in the treatment of the text. Not only do we find both approaches to correction in the same example, one can also note that this is the last time the scribe has to delete an **-r-**.

Sneddon pointed out that the use of **-r-** and **-rr-** in

future forms in our manuscript can be classified in three groups. The scribe uses either the single or the double form; he can use both of them; or he can decide to correct double **-rr-** to single **-r-**. In the particular case of *estre*, Sneddon's hypothesis is that the scribe could have corrected the spelling to "avoid the confusion with the verb 'to sit'" (Sneddon 1972: 64, cf. 68, 105; cf. Short 2015: 29-30). However, the transformation **-rr-** > **-r-** is also found in a future form of the verb despire: *despí_rums*, f. 46v, line 17; while a double **-rr-** form can be found a few folios afterwards, in *despirrás*, f. 48v, line 9. I must also mention the case of *regehi_rái* (f. 40r, line 27; f. 42v, line 21-22; f. 43r, line 24; f. 44r, line 21; f. 46r, line 30). This other verb is always written *regehirái* from the beginning to the end of the text, but has been erased only in the cases listed above; and in *regehi_rat* of f. 42v, line 18.
DENTALS IN PAST TENSES OF THE INDICATIVE (AC)

As in the case of certain third person future forms, the erasure of a final dental can concern certain past tense forms as well. In particular, this is the case for third person forms of the *a*-type weak perfect (cf. Pope 1952: §995–1009; cf. Sneddon 1972: 98–101). Once again, my survey is illustrated by the most relevant photos that show actual traces of the erased consonant on the parchment:

*amá*, f. 47r, line 39 (*amá* entirely on top of an erasure, space at the end of the word); f. 55v, line 17. Spellings with final **-d** on f. 38v, line 22; f. 68v, line 28. *Amá* on f. 64v, line 13; f. 68r, line 38.

*aportá*, f. 55r, line 11.

*aprismá*, f. 57v, line 15. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 49r, line 26.

*debrisá*, f. 54r, line 20. *Debrisá* on f. 63v, line 30; f. 64v, line 38 (*debrisá* entirely on top of an erasure)

*debutá*, f. 55v, line 8-9 + line 16.

*deguerpí*, f. 45r, line 26 (*deguerpír*). Perfect third person singular, rendering Latin perfect *dereliquit*. The same verbal form is written with a final **-t**, *deguerpít*, on f. 45v, line 39 (*< dereliquit>*); f. 52v, line 28 (*< dereliquit*); f. 75r, line 31. However, *deguerpít* is also used to express the past participle *derelictus*: f. 38v, line 9 (*< derelictus*

est); f. 44v, line 38 (*< iustum derelictum*). an *i*-type weak perfect that loses its final **-t**.

*demená*, f. 54v, line 33; f. 55r, line 39; f. 55v, line 8 + line 21. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 41r, line 28-29; f. 54v, line 36. *Demená* on f. 63r, line 8, f. 63v, line 19; f. 64r, line 5.

*demustrá*, f. 54v, line 30. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 50r, line 3.

*desturná*, f. 56r, line 28. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 38v, line 6; f. 41r, line 16; f. 51r, line 37.

*diuisá*, f. 55v, line 2.

*duná*, f. 55r, line 6 + line 30; f. 55v, line 15. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 38v, line 40; f. 39r, line 20 + line 29; f. 39v, line 29; f. 47r, line 30; f. 49v, line 9; f. 51r, line 26; f. 51v, line 3. However, the spelling with final dental **-d**, *dunád*, is used on f. 60v, line 21; f. 63r, line 14; f. 69r, line 36; f. 74v, line 27. *Duná* on f. 62v, line 34; f. 63v, line 7; f. 65r, line 6 + line 24; f. 65v, line 23; f. 70v, line 10 + line 31.

*edifiá*, f. 55v, line 17. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 61r, line 23.

*encliná*, f. 54r, line 15. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39v, line 24. The form *encliná*, without any dental or erasure, occurs on f. 65v, line 27.

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 11

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

f. 54r,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 1

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

f. 54v,
line 30

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

f. 55v,
line 1

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 30

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 29
DENTALS IN PAST TENSES OF THE INDICATIVE (AC)

As in the case of certain third person future forms, the erasure of a final dental can concern certain past tense forms as well. In particular, this is the case for third person forms of the *a*-type weak perfect (cf. Pope 1952: §995–1009; cf. Sneddon 1972: 98–101). Once again, my survey is illustrated by the most relevant photos that show actual traces of the erased consonant on the parchment:

amá_, f. 47r, line 39 (*amá_ entirely on top of an erasure, space at the end of the word*); f. 55v, line 17. Spellings with final **-d** on f. 38v, line 22; f. 68v, line 28. *Amá* on f. 64v, line 13; f. 68r, line 38.

aporta_, f. 55r, line 11.

aprismá_, f. 57v, line 15. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 49r, line 26.

debrisá_, f. 54r, line 20. *Debrisá* on f. 63v, line 30; f. 64v, line 38 (*debrisá* entirely on top of an erasure)

debutá_, f. 55v, line 8-9 + line 16.

deguerpí_, f. 45r, line 26 (*deguerpír*). Perfect third person singular, rendering Latin perfect *dereliquit*. The same verbal form is written with a final **-t**, *deguerpít*, on f. 45v, line 39 (*< dereliquit>*); f. 52v, line 28 (*< dereliquit*); f. 75r, line 31. However, *deguerpít* is also used to express the past participle *derelictus*: f. 38v, line 9 (*< derelictus*

est*); f. 44v, line 38 (*< iustum derelictum*). an *i*-type weak perfect that loses its final **-t**.

demená_, f. 54v, line 33; f. 55r, line 39; f. 55v, line 8 + line 21. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 41r, line 28-29; f. 54v, line 36. *Demená* on f. 63r, line 8, f. 63v, line 19; f. 64r, line 5.

demustrá_, f. 54v, line 30. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 50r, line 3.

desturná_, f. 56r, line 28. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 38v, line 6; f. 41r, line 16; f. 51r, line 37.

diuisá_, f. 55v, line 2.

duná_, f. 55r, line 6 + line 30; f. 55v, line 15. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 38v, line 40; f. 39r, line 20 + line 29; f. 39v, line 29; f. 47r, line 30; f. 49v, line 9; f. 51r, line 26; f. 51v, line 3. However, the spelling with final dental **-d**, *dunád*, is used on f. 60v, line 21; f. 63r, line 14; f. 69r, line 36; f. 74v, line 27. *Duná* on f. 62v, line 34; f. 63v, line 7; f. 65r, line 6 + line 24; f. 65v, line 23; f. 70v, line 10 + line 31.

edifiá_, f. 55v, line 17. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 61r, line 23.

encliná_, f. 54r, line 15. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39v, line 24. The form *encliná*, without any dental or erasure, occurs on f. 65v, line 27.

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 11

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

f. 54r,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 1

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

f. 54v,
line 30

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

f. 55v,
line 1

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 30

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 29
enfánte_, f. 38r, line 1, renders the Latin perfect tense parturiit. The same line has enfantát (f. 38r, line 1), used to render the Latin perfect tense peperit. At the end of the text, one notices the spelling with final -d: enfantád (f. 74r, line 12, again for the past tense third person singular). It is hard to find a grammatical explanation for the presence of -e instead of -a in the verbal inflection. Perhaps it is just a matter of scribal inconsistency, determined by a confusion with the present indicative, given that the third person of the verb is parturit.

enmená_, f. 55v, line 1.

entendiét, f. 47v, line 32; f. 48r, line 2 (entendre). Entendiét is a dedi-type perfect tense form. It is used here to translate Latin perfect intellexit. Without any traces of corrections on top of erasures, it is also used for the rendering of Latin perfect intendit: f. 49v, line 27; f. 54r, lines 32–33; f. 56r, line 34. According to Sneddon 1972: 99–100, certain verbs could have been conjugated either according to the i-type paradigm, or the dedi-type one. In the case of the i-type paradigm, the third person ending could have been -it. Cf. Pope 1952: §995–1009, and 1278; Sneddon 1972: 99–100; Short 2015, 28–29.

enueiá_, f. 55r, line 6 + line 29 + line 33. Spelling with final -t on f. 39v, line 29 + line 32. Spelling with final -d, enueiád, on f. 62v, line 18; f. 63v, line 34; f. 65r, line

11. Enueiá on f. 62v, line 9 + line 16; f. 63r, line 14.

esguardá_, f. 57r, line 19. Spelling with final -t on f. 39r, line 2-3. Esguardá on f. 61r, line 26 + line 27; f. 74v, line 19-20.

exterminá_, f. 56r, line 15.

forsgetá_, f. 55v, line 2.

fundá_, f. 55v, line 18; f. 57v, line 9. Spelling with final -t on f. 41r, line 36-37; f. 47v, line 11.

habitá_, f. 55v, line 9.

liurá_, f. 55v, line 10. Liurá on f. 66r, line 27. Spelling with final -d on f. 55r, line 32.

mandá_, f. 55r, line 4; f. 59r, line 14. Spelling with final -t on f. 43v, line 3; f. 46r, line 34-35. Mandá on f. 54v, line 21; f. 62r, line 39; f. 65r, line 11; f. 70r, line 33; f. 73r, line 31.

maniá_, f. 55r, line 6; f. 55v, line 12. Spelling with final -d on f. 62v, line 25 (twice). Maniá on f. 55r, line 30.

mená_, f. 55r, line 7 + line 39. Spelling with final -d on f. 75r, line 22.

muntá_, f. 47r, line 39; f. 55r, line 3 + line 13. Spelling with final -t on f. 39, line 23 + line 25; f. 51v, line 9; f. 52r, line 5.

ordená_, f. 56v, line 36.

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>f. 59r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 33</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>f. 55v,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 13</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /><figcaption>f. 55v,
line 18</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 27</figcaption></figure>
enfánte_, f. 38r, line 1, renders the Latin perfect tense *parturiit*. The same line has *enfantát* (f. 38r, line 1), used to render the Latin perfect tense *peperit*. At the end of the text, one notices the spelling with final **-d**: *enfantád* (f. 74r, line 12, again for the past tense third person singular). It is hard to find a grammatical explanation for the presence of **-e** instead of **-a** in the verbal inflection. Perhaps it is just a matter of scribal inconsistency, determined by a confusion with the present indicative, given that the third person of the verb is *parturit*.

enmená_, f. 55v, line 1.

entendiét, f. 47v, line 32; f. 48r, line 2 (*entendre*). Entendiét is a *dedi*-type perfect tense form. It is used here to translate Latin perfect *intellexit*. Without any traces of corrections on top of erasures, it is also used for the rendering of Latin perfect *intendit*: f. 49v, line 27; f. 54r, lines 32–33; f. 56r, line 34. According to Sneddon 1972: 99–100, certain verbs could have been conjugated either according to the *i*-type paradigm, or the *dedi*-type one. In the case of the *i*-type paradigm, the third person ending could have been **-it**. Cf. Pope 1952: §995–1009, and 1278; Sneddon 1972: 99–100; Short 2015, 28–29.

enueiá_, f. 55r, line 6 + line 29 + line 33. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39v, line 29 + line 32. Spelling with final **-d**, *enueiád*, on f. 62v, line 18; f. 63v, line 34; f. 65r, line

11. *Enueiá* on f. 62v, line 9 + line 16; f. 63r, line 14.

esguardá_, f. 57r, line 19. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39r, line 2-3. *Esguardá* on f. 61r, line 26 + line 27; f. 74v, line 19-20.

exterminá_, f. 56r, line 15.

forsgetá_, f. 55v, line 2.

fundá_, f. 55v, line 18; f. 57v, line 9. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 41r, line 36-37; f. 47v, line 11.

habitá_, f. 55v, line 9.

liurá_, f. 55v, line 10. *Liurã* on f. 66r, line 27. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 55r, line 32.

mandá_, f. 55r, line 4; f. 59r, line 14. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 43v, line 3; f. 46r, line 34-35. *Mandá* on f. 54v, line 21; f. 62r, line 39; f. 65r, line 11; f. 70r, line 33; f. 73r, line 31.

maniá_, f. 55r, line 6; f. 55v, line 12. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 62v, line 25 (twice). *Maniá* on f. 55r, line 30.

mená_, f. 55r, line 7 + line 39. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 75r, line 22.

muntá_, f. 47r, line 39; f. 55r, line 3 + line 13. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39, line 23 + line 25; f. 51v, line 9; f. 52r, line 5.

ordená_, f. 56v, line 36.

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /><figcaption>f. 59r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 33</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>f. 55v,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 13</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>f. 55v,
line 18</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /><figcaption>f. 55r,
line 27</figcaption></figure>
f. 56r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 7

f. 54v,
line 20

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 28

f. 54v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 23

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

f. 62v,
line 6

parmená_, f. 54v, line 32.

plántá_, f. 56r, line 17.

posá_, f. 54v, line 21; f. 55r, line 27; f. 56r, line 27.
Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39v, line 26; f. 40r, line 9 +
line 34; f. 47r, line 32; f. 48v, line 19; f. 51r, line 25-26.
Spelling with final **-d** on f. 62v, line 17 + line 22; f. 64r,
line 10; f. 73r, line 19 + line 32; f. 74r, line 17. Posá on
f. 56v, line 36; f. 64r, line 17.

purluigná_, f. 55r, line 2.

refusá_, f. 54r, line 34.

reposá_, f. 54r, line 26.

reprouá_, f. 53v, line 39.

saúlá_, f. 56r, line 40. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 62v,
line 31.

suscitá_, f. 54v, line 20.

tremblá_, f. 54r, line 26; f. 54v, line 12. Spelling with
final **-t** on f. 39v, line 22.

trespassá_, f. 58v, line 23. Spelling with final **-d** on f.
69r, line 34; f. 74v, line 27. Trespassá on f. 62v, line 8.

tresportá_, f. 55r, line 7.

tresturná_, f. 55r, line 28. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 51r,
line 22. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 65v, line 4. Tresturná
on f. 62v, line 19.

One last, rather particular, case is *apela* on f. 62v, line 6. There seem to be two erased letters at the end, one of which is either a **-t** or a **-z** (scribal error? especially since it is located too far from all the other erased dentals).

With the exception of two erasures found on folio 47, the survey showed that all the other instances are condensed between f. 53 and f. 59, thus confirming Short's hypothesis of "a deliberate effort, presumably on the part of the scribe-translator himself, to erase final dentals" (Short 2015: 20; cf. Sneddon 1972: 99). Competitive forms in **-t** seem to be prevalent in the first part of the text, in our case up to f. 52. In contrast, **-d** endings or the absence of a final dental occurs mainly after f. 53-59. There are, naturally, a series of exceptions. The scribe already uses the spelling *mandá* on f. 54; *liurãd* on f. 55; and *amád* on f. 38. The case of *apela*, on the other hand, shows that the scribe was not immune from returning to his old spelling automatisms even after the turning point mentioned previously. He sometimes reintroduced final **-t**, but corrected it immediately.
f. 56r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

f. 54v,
line 20

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

f. 54v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 23

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

parmená_, f. 54v, line 32.

plántá_, f. 56r, line 17.

posá_, f. 54v, line 21; f. 55r, line 27; f. 56r, line 27.
Spelling with final **-t** on f. 39v, line 26; f. 40r, line 9 +
line 34; f. 47r, line 32; f. 48v, line 19; f. 51r, line 25-26.
Spelling with final **-d** on f. 62v, line 17 + line 22; f. 64r,
line 10; f. 73r, line 19 + line 32; f. 74r, line 17. Posá on
f. 56v, line 36; f. 64r, line 17.

purluigná_, f. 55r, line 2.

refusá_, f. 54r, line 34.

reposá_, f. 54r, line 26.

reprouá_, f. 53v, line 39.

saúlá_, f. 56r, line 40. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 62v,
line 31.

suscitá_, f. 54v, line 20.

tremblá_, f. 54r, line 26; f. 54v, line 12. Spelling with
final **-t** on f. 39v, line 22.

trespassá_, f. 58v, line 23. Spelling with final **-d** on f.
69r, line 34; f. 74v, line 27. Trespassá on f. 62v, line 8.

tresportá_, f. 55r, line 7.

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 7

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 28

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

f. 62v,
line 6

tresturná_, f. 55r, line 28. Spelling with final **-t** on f. 51r,
line 22. Spelling with final **-d** on f. 65v, line 4. Tresturná
on f. 62v, line 19.

One last, rather particular, case is *apela_* on f. 62v, line 6. There seem to be two erased letters at the end, one of which is either a **-t** or a **-z** (scribal error? especially since it is located too far from all the other erased dentals).

With the exception of two erasures found on folio 47, the survey showed that all the other instances are condensed between f. 53 and f. 59, thus confirming Short's hypothesis of "a deliberate effort, presumably on the part of the scribe-translator himself, to erase final dentals" (Short 2015: 20; cf. Sneddon 1972: 99). Competitive forms in **-t** seem to be prevalent in the first part of the text, in our case up to f. 52. In contrast, **-d** endings or the absence of a final dental occurs mainly after f. 53-59. There are, naturally, a series of exceptions. The scribe already uses the spelling *mandá* on f. 54; *liurãd* on f. 55; and *amád* on f. 38. The case of *apela*, on the other hand, shows that the scribe was not immune from returning to his old spelling automatisms even after the turning point mentioned previously. He sometimes reintroduced final **-t**, but corrected it immediately.
DENTALS IN OTHER VERBAL FORMS (AC)

The inventory of erasures led to the identification of other situations connected to the fluctuation of final dentals in present and past tenses.

aúne_, f. 45v, line 11 (auner). Present indicative third person singular, rendering Latin *thezaurizat*.

éntre_, f. 39r, line 16 (entrer). This present indicative third person singular translates Latin present indicative *ingreditur*. The scribe erased a final dental (probably –t), but he did not make the same choice for two other present indicatives on the same line: *ouřet* and *parólet*. On f. 41v, line 38, (sui) *entrée* renders Latin *ingressus* (*sum*). In the remainder of the text, the spelling *éntre* is written without erasures, and translates subjunctives on f. 53v, line 3 (rendering the first person singular of of the present subjunctive *intrem*). See also the spelling *éntret* on f. 44v, line 26 (for the third person singular of the present subjunctive *intret*). And the spelling *éntred* on f. 55v, line 37 (for the present subjunctive third person singular *introeat*).

esguárde_, f. 45r, line 5-6 (esguarder). This is an indicative present tense in the third person singular, rendering Latin present indicative *considerat*. The Latin term *considerat* is translated in the same way in another psalm, without any sign of erasure: (n)esguárde (f. 59v, line 16; the Old French spelling *esguárde* translates the Latin imperative *aspice* on f. 56v, line 39, and f. 68r, line 28).

exálce_, f. 54r, line 14, (exalcer). This is a present indicative third person singular, rendering Latin present indicative *exaltat*. The spelling *exalcét* is used as a past participle on f. 40r, line 24 (*seit exalcét < exaltetur*); f. 40v, line 30 (*seies exalcét < exaltare*); f. 44v, line 32 (*serunt exalcét < exaltati fuerint*); f. 49v, ligne 12 + ligne

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /><figcaption>f. 41v,
line 38</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.</figcaption></figure>

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 16</figcaption></figure>
DENTALS IN OTHER VERBAL FORMS (AC)

The inventory of erasures led to the identification of other situations connected to the fluctuation of final dentals in present and past tenses.

aúne_, f. 45v, line 11 (auner). Present indicative third person singular, rendering Latin *thezaurizat*.

éntre_, f. 39r, line 16 (entrer). This present indicative third person singular translates Latin present indicative *ingreditur*. The scribe erased a final dental (probably –t), but he did not make the same choice for two other present indicatives on the same line: *ouřet* and *parólet*. On f. 41v, line 38, (sui) *entrée* renders Latin *ingressus* (*sum*). In the remainder of the text, the spelling *éntre* is written without erasures, and translates subjunctives on f. 53v, line 3 (rendering the first person singular of of the present subjunctive *intrem*). See also the spelling *éntret* on f. 44v, line 26 (for the third person singular of the present subjunctive *intret*). And the spelling *éntred* on f. 55v, line 37 (for the present subjunctive third person singular *introeat*).

esguárde_, f. 45r, line 5-6 (esguarder). This is an indicative present tense in the third person singular, rendering Latin present indicative *considerat*. The Latin term *considerat* is translated in the same way in another psalm, without any sign of erasure: (n)esguárde (f. 59v, line 16; the Old French spelling *esguárde* translates the Latin imperative *aspice* on f. 56v, line 39, and f. 68r, line 28).

exálce_, f. 54r, line 14, (exalcer). This is a present indicative third person singular, rendering Latin present indicative *exaltat*. The spelling *exalcét* is used as a past participle on f. 40r, line 24 (*seit exalcét < exaltetur*); f. 40v, line 30 (*seies exalcét < exaltare*); f. 44v, line 32 (*serunt exalcét < exaltati fuerint*); f. 49v, ligne 12 + ligne

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>f. 41v,
line 38</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.</figcaption></figure>

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 16</figcaption></figure>
f. 54r,
line 6

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 35

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

18 (seies exalcet / exalcét < exaltare); f. 50v, line 34 (serat exalcet < exaltabitur); f. 51r, line 24 (seient exalcét < exaltentur). The case of f. 47r, line 34 is particularly interesting. There are two variant spellings: (serai) exalced / exalcét < exaltabor. The spelling exalcéd appears again on f. 54r, line 18 and f. 58r, line 16 (serunt exalcéd < exaltabuntur). As for the spelling exalcé, without any trace of erasure, it is used as a past participle in the following cases: f. 59r, line 32 (sera exalcé < exaltabitur); f. 59v, line 9 (seies exalcé < exaltare); f. 63v, line 40 (exalcé sunt < exaltati sunt); f. 64r, line 24 (seies exalcé < exaltare); f. 65r, line 26 (sera exalcé < exaltabitur); f. 70r, line 5 (est exalcé < est exaltatum); f. 71v, line 18 (seient exalcé < exaltentur).

humilie_, f. 54r, lines 13–14 (*humilier*). Present indicative third person singular for the Latin present indicative *humiliat*.

iúre_, f. 39r, line 19 (*iurer*). Present indicative, translating the Latin present tense third person singular *iurat*). *múnte*, f. 54r, line 6 (*munter*). Present indicative, translating the Latin present tense third person singular *ascendit*. In this particular case, given the dimension of the erasure and the scribe’s tendency to write a final *-d* in this part of the manuscript, it is safe to assume that the erased consonant was also a *-d*. *Múnte*, without any erasure, occurs on f. 74v, line 40.

trespásse_, f. 45v, line 10 (*trespasser*). Present indicative third person singular, rendering Latin *pertransit* (*trespásse* without erasure occurs on f. 38v, line 15, and renders the Latin imperative *transmigra*).

trúué_, f. 56v, line 31 (*trover*). Present indicative, rendering Latin third person singular *invenit*. The same spelling is also used for the past participle on f. 45r, line 10 (*est truué_* < *est inventus*); f. 53r, line 37 (*serúnt truué_* < *invenientur*). The spelling *truué*, without any erasure, occurs on f. 38v, line 11 as past participle

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

f. 46r,
line 14

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

masculine singular (*serat truué* < *invenietur*).

This survey confirms the hypothesis of Sneddon 1972: 96, that in the case of the present indicative “the final *t* in the 3rd person sing. is often erased in the second half of the Oxford Psalter.” However, there are situations in which the final dental was erased well before the second half of text, as well as a series of examples in which the erased final dental could have been **-d**. Cf. Meister 1877: 68–69; Short 2015: 27.

To these, one must add situations in which the erasure
was followed by the insertion of a correction:

iraisséit_, f. 69r, line 33 (*irer*). Third person singular translating Latin imperfect subjunctive *irasceretur*. For the same verb, the ending in a present indicative second person plural is written on top of an erasure on f. 37r, line 35, *iraissez* (*< irascimini*).

iúget, f. 37v, line 35 (*iuger*). This verb in the third person singular renders Latin present indicative *iudicat*. As the ending of the present indicative third person singular could be **-e(t)**, perhaps the scribe wrote **-ed** and then erased and corrected it. Cf. Pope 1952: §891.

parlót_, f. 46r, line 13 + line 14 (*parler*). Imperfect indicative third person singular for Latin imperfect *loquebatur*. The spelling is written without any sign of erasure on f. 60v, line 20 (*< loquebatur*). In the two instances of lines 13 and 14 of f. 46r, the correction occupies less space than the erasure. On line 14, there are also traces of an erased **-t** in the remaining blank space. Maybe the erased variant of the word could have been *parlout*.

uiénc, f. 45v, line 30 (*venir*). This present indicative first person singular renders Lat *invenio*.
<figure><img src="image_102.png" /><figcaption>f. 54r,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
line 35</figcaption></figure>

18 (seies exalcet / exalcét < exaltare); f. 50v, line 34 (serat exalcet < exaltabitur); f. 51r, line 24 (seient exalcét < exaltentur). The case of f. 47r, line 34 is particularly interesting. There are two variant spellings: (serai) exalced / exalcét < exaltabor. The spelling exalcéd appears again on f. 54r, line 18 and f. 58r, line 16 (serunt exalcéd < exaltabuntur). As for the spelling exalcé, without any trace of erasure, it is used as a past participle in the following cases: f. 59r, line 32 (sera exalcé < exaltabitur); f. 59v, line 9 (seies exalcé < exaltare); f. 63v, line 40 (exalcé sunt < exaltati sunt); f. 64r, line 24 (seies exalcé < exaltare); f. 65r, line 26 (sera exalcé < exaltabitur); f. 70r, line 5 (est exalcé < est exaltatum); f. 71v, line 18 (seient exalcé < exaltentur).

humilie_, f. 54r, lines 13–14 (*humilier*). Present indicative third person singular for the Latin present indicative *humiliat*.

iúre_, f. 39r, line 19 (*iurer*). Present indicative, translating the Latin present tense third person singular *iurat*). *múnte*, f. 54r, line 6 (*munter*). Present indicative, translating the Latin present tense third person singular *ascendit*. In this particular case, given the dimension of the erasure and the scribe’s tendency to write a final *-d* in this part of the manuscript, it is safe to assume that the erased consonant was also a *-d*. *Múnte*, without any erasure, occurs on f. 74v, line 40.

trespásse_, f. 45v, line 10 (*trespasser*). Present indicative third person singular, rendering Latin *pertransit* (*trespásse* without erasure occurs on f. 38v, line 15, and renders the Latin imperative *transmigra*).

trúué_, f. 56v, line 31 (*trover*). Present indicative, rendering Latin third person singular *invenit*. The same spelling is also used for the past participle on f. 45r, line 10 (*est truué_* < *est inventus*); f. 53r, line 37 (*serúnt truué_* < *invenientur*). The spelling *truué*, without any erasure, occurs on f. 38v, line 11 as past participle

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /><figcaption>f. 46r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries,
University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

masculine singular (*serat truué* < *invenietur*).

This survey confirms the hypothesis of Sneddon 1972: 96, that in the case of the present indicative “the final *t* in the 3rd person sing. is often erased in the second half of the Oxford Psalter.” However, there are situations in which the final dental was erased well before the second half of text, as well as a series of examples in which the erased final dental could have been **-d**. Cf. Meister 1877: 68–69; Short 2015: 27.

To these, one must add situations in which the erasure
was followed by the insertion of a correction:

iraisséit_, f. 69r, line 33 (*irer*). Third person singular translating Latin imperfect subjunctive *irasceretur*. For the same verb, the ending in a present indicative second person plural is written on top of an erasure on f. 37r, line 35, *iraissez* (*< irascimini*).

iúget, f. 37v, line 35 (*iuger*). This verb in the third person singular renders Latin present indicative *iudicat*. As the ending of the present indicative third person singular could be **-e(t)**, perhaps the scribe wrote **-ed** and then erased and corrected it. Cf. Pope 1952: §891.

parlót_, f. 46r, line 13 + line 14 (*parler*). Imperfect indicative third person singular for Latin imperfect *loquebatur*. The spelling is written without any sign of erasure on f. 60v, line 20 (*< loquebatur*). In the two instances of lines 13 and 14 of f. 46r, the correction occupies less space than the erasure. On line 14, there are also traces of an erased **-t** in the remaining blank space. Maybe the erased variant of the word could have been *parlout*.

uiénc, f. 45v, line 30 (*venir*). This present indicative first person singular renders Lat *invenio*.
DENTALS IN PARTICIPLES (AC)

Sneddon 1972: 102, notes that, “in common with the 3rd person sing. forms of many tenses, the final consonant of past participles is often omitted in the case of –et, –it and –ut forms.” Indeed, the case of *exalcé(t)* (discussed in the previous section) shows that the scribe used alternative past participles with or without a final dental. The following list of erasures shows a fluctuation in spelling final –t and –d. Certain instances from the ensuing survey also show that erasures are also linked to a final flexional –z from the nominative singular. The past participle declension was unstable in agreement. This is already evident from the analysis of *entré*, *exalcét*, *exalcéd*, *exalcé*, or *truué* (*vide supra*). Cf. Pope 1952: §1049–§1057; Sneddon 1972: 101–102, 117–120.

amé_, f. 51v, line 20 (twice). In the phrase *Lí réis de vertúz de amé del amé* [...], it translates Latin *Rex virtutum dilecti, dilecti* [...]. The past participle renders an oblique case in the singular. On f. 50r, line 18, there is *amét* (< *dilecti*, nominative plural), and the variant *amé* (< *dilecti*, again nominative plural) on f. 56v, line 29. The spelling *améz* occurs on f. 69v, line 17 (oblique plural) and on f. 75r, line 30 (nominative singular). The scribe could have erased two final –t.

beneuré_, f. 46r, line 8 (*beneuré lé fácet* < *beatum faciat eum*, oblique case singular); f. 56v, line 33 (*beneuré cil*

chi *habitent* < *beati qui habitant*, nominative plural). The only spelling with a final dental seems to be *beneurét* on f. 37r, line 21–22 (< *beati*, nominative plural). The spelling *beneuré* is used on f. 72v, line 6 (< *beatum*, oblique case singular) + line 7 (< *beatus*, nominative singular). It is also used in the nominative plural for the rendering of Latin *beati*: f. 43r, line 18; f. 62v, line 39; f. 66v, line 1 + line 2; f. 69v, line 22. *Beneuréz* is always used when translating Latin nominative singular *beatus*: f. 37, line 1; f. 43r, line 19; f. 43v, line 25; f. 45v, line 25; f. 46r, line 7; f. 51r, line 2; f. 56v, line 34–35; f. 57r, line 5; f. 58r, line 14; f. 59v, line 18; f. 65r, line 15; f. 69v, line 19 + line 23; f. 71r, line 5 + line 6; f. 72v, line 36. Concerning its declension, the only exception occurs on f. 72v, line 7, where *beneuré* renders a nominative singular. However, Sneddon already pointed out that “past participles and adjectives, when used as predicates, are found with and without –s in nom. singular” (Sneddon 1972: 118). Concerning the erasures in our survey, the photo of the second example clearly shows that the scribe omitted a final –d. In the first case, nevertheless, one cannot be sure if the erasure is of a final –t or –z. The scribe could have either written *beneurét* in the initial version of the text, thus following the declension; or he could have made a mistake by writing a final –z. *conforté*, f. 57v, line 3 (*ás conforté* < *consolatus es*, nominative singular). The scribe wished to omit a final –d. In

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /><figcaption>f. 51v,
line 20</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /><figcaption>f. 56v,
line 33</figcaption></figure>
DENTALS IN PARTICIPLES (AC)

Sneddon 1972: 102, notes that, “in common with the 3rd person sing. forms of many tenses, the final consonant of past participles is often omitted in the case of –et, –it and –ut forms.” Indeed, the case of *exalcé(t)* (discussed in the previous section) shows that the scribe used alternative past participles with or without a final dental. The following list of erasures shows a fluctuation in spelling final –t and –d. Certain instances from the ensuing survey also show that erasures are also linked to a final flexional –z from the nominative singular. The past participle declension was unstable in agreement. This is already evident from the analysis of *entré*, *exalcét*, *exalcéd*, *exalcé*, or *truué* (*vide supra*). Cf. Pope 1952: §1049–§1057; Sneddon 1972: 101–102, 117–120.

amé_, f. 51v, line 20 (twice). In the phrase *Lí réis de vertúz de amé del amé* [...], it translates Latin *Rex virtutum dilecti, dilecti* [...]. The past participle renders an oblique case in the singular. On f. 50r, line 18, there is *amét* (< *dilecti*, nominative plural), and the variant *amé* (< *dilecti*, again nominative plural) on f. 56v, line 29. The spelling *améz* occurs on f. 69v, line 17 (oblique plural) and on f. 75r, line 30 (nominative singular). The scribe could have erased two final –t.

beneuré_, f. 46r, line 8 (*beneuré lé fácet* < *beatum faciat eum*, oblique case singular); f. 56v, line 33 (*beneuré cil*

chi *habitent* < *beati qui habitant*, nominative plural). The only spelling with a final dental seems to be *beneurét* on f. 37r, line 21–22 (< *beati*, nominative plural). The spelling *beneuré* is used on f. 72v, line 6 (< *beatum*, oblique case singular) + line 7 (< *beatus*, nominative singular). It is also used in the nominative plural for the rendering of Latin *beati*: f. 43r, line 18; f. 62v, line 39; f. 66v, line 1 + line 2; f. 69v, line 22. *Beneuréz* is always used when translating Latin nominative singular *beatus*: f. 37, line 1; f. 43r, line 19; f. 43v, line 25; f. 45v, line 25; f. 46r, line 7; f. 51r, line 2; f. 56v, line 34–35; f. 57r, line 5; f. 58r, line 14; f. 59v, line 18; f. 65r, line 15; f. 69v, line 19 + line 23; f. 71r, line 5 + line 6; f. 72v, line 36. Concerning its declension, the only exception occurs on f. 72v, line 7, where *beneuré* renders a nominative singular. However, Sneddon already pointed out that “past participles and adjectives, when used as predicates, are found with and without –s in nom. singular” (Sneddon 1972: 118). Concerning the erasures in our survey, the photo of the second example clearly shows that the scribe omitted a final –d. In the first case, nevertheless, one cannot be sure if the erasure is of a final –t or –z. The scribe could have either written *beneurét* in the initial version of the text, thus following the declension; or he could have made a mistake by writing a final –z. *conforté*, f. 57v, line 3 (*ás conforté* < *consolatus es*, nominative singular). The scribe wished to omit a final –d. In

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /><figcaption>f. 51v,
line 20</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /><figcaption>f. 56v,
line 33</figcaption></figure>
the French text, the past participle is linked to the auxiliary verb *avoir*. Therefore, as in modern French, past participles “do not agree in number or case with the subject” (Sneddon, 1972: 119). The spelling *confortét* (no-

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /><figcaption>f. 57v, line 3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /><figcaption>f. 42v, line 16</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /><figcaption>f. 42v, line 36</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /><figcaption>f. 47r, line 26</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /><figcaption>f. 39v, line 23</figcaption></figure>
the French text, the past participle is linked to the auxiliary verb *avoir*. Therefore, as in modern French, past participles “do not agree in number or case with the subject” (Sneddon, 1972: 119). The spelling *confortét* (no-

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

f. 57v,
line 3

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

f. 42v,
line 16

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

f. 42v,
line 36

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

f. 47r,
line 26

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

f. 39v,
line 23

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>
minative singular and plural) occurs on f. 38r, line 32 (seit confortet < confortetur); f. 39v, line 34 (confortét sunt < confortati sunt); f. 42r, line 20 (séit confortet < confortetur); f. 52r, line 14 (confortét sunt < confortati sunt). Confortéd (nominative plural) occurs on f. 69v, line 8 (súmes confortéd < sumus consolati) and on f. 72r, line 7 (confortéd sunt < confortati sunt).

conturbe_, f. 42v, line 16, *sui fait conturbe_* (< factus sum conturbatus; nominative singular) + line 36, sunt conturbé_ (< conturbata sunt; nominative plural; maybe a final –t); f. 47r, line 26, *cunturbé* sunt (< conturbati sunt, nominative plural; maybe an erased –t). In the case of f. 39v, line 23, sunt contúrbe_ (< conturbata sunt, nominative plural) one may still see traces of an erased –z. In this specific situation, the Latin phrase is *fundamenta montium conturbata sunt*. Perhaps the erased final –z marked an agreement between the participle and the plural *montes* (oblique plural in Old French). In another example, the last letter was erased and changed into a –t: f. 47v, line 8, *cunturbét sunt* (< *conturbati sunt*, nominative plural). The same spelling, again for nominative plural, is correctly used

on f. 50v, line 36, *conturbét sunt* (< *conturbati sunt*). On other folios, the scribe used the variants –éd/-é: f. 56v, line 26, *seient conturbéd* (< *conturbentur*); f. 74v, line 2, *conturbé sunt*. The erased letter could have been a –z, perhaps a scribal mistake in the declension. However, many examples show that erasures concern dentals in nominative singulars that are replaced with final –z: f. 45r, line 26, *est cunturbéz* (< *conturbatum est*) + line 11, *est conturbéz* (< *conturbatur*); f. 45v, line 17, *est cunturbéz* (< *conturbatur*); f. 49r, line 6, *conturbéz est* (< *conturbatum est*); f. 49v, lines 10–11, *conturbéz* (< *conturbatus*). *Conturbéz*, without erasures, and always used as nominative singular, is found on f. 42v, line 33 (*conturbéz est* < *conturbatus est*); f. 49r, line 4 (*conturbéz súi* < *conturbatus sum*); f. 57v, line 31 (*sui conturbéz* < *conturbatus sum*); f. 64v, line 20 (*conturbéz est* < *conturbatum est*); f. 74v, line 37 (*conturbéz est*). Finally, two instances have past participles rewritten entirely on top of erasures: f. 37v, line 18, *sunt conturbét* (nominative plural < *conturbata sunt*) + line 19 *conturbéde est* (extensive erasure, feminine nominative singular < *turbata est*).

*esleué*, f. 45r, line 9 (< *elevatum*, oblique singular). Es-

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

f. 47v,
line 8

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

f. 45r,
line 26

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

f. 45v,
line 11

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

f. 49r,
line 6
minative singular and plural) occurs on f. 38r, line 32 (seit confortet < confortetur); f. 39v, line 34 (confortét sunt < confortati sunt); f. 42r, line 20 (séit confortet < confortetur); f. 52r, line 14 (confortét sunt < confortati sunt). Confortéd (nominative plural) occurs on f. 69v, line 8 (súmes confortéd < sumus consolati) and on f. 72r, line 7 (confortéd sunt < confortati sunt).

conturbe_, f. 42v, line 16, *sui fait conturbe_* (< factus sum conturbatus; nominative singular) + line 36, sunt conturbé_ (< conturbata sunt; nominative plural; maybe a final –t); f. 47r, line 26, *cunturbé* sunt (< conturbati sunt, nominative plural; maybe an erased –t). In the case of f. 39v, line 23, sunt contúrbe_* (< conturbata sunt, nominative plural) one may still see traces of an erased –z. In this specific situation, the Latin phrase is *fundamenta montium conturbata sunt*. Perhaps the erased final –z marked an agreement between the participle and the plural *montes* (oblique plural in Old French). In another example, the last letter was erased and changed into a –t: f. 47v, line 8, *cunturbét sunt* (< *conturbati sunt*, nominative plural). The same spelling, again for nominative plural, is correctly used

on f. 50v, line 36, *conturbét sunt* (< *conturbati sunt*). On other folios, the scribe used the variants –éd/-é: f. 56v, line 26, *seient conturbéd* (< *conturbentur*); f. 74v, line 2, *conturbé sunt*. The erased letter could have been a –z, perhaps a scribal mistake in the declension. However, many examples show that erasures concern dentals in nominative singulars that are replaced with final –z: f. 45r, line 26, *est cunturbéz* (< *conturbatum est*) + line 11, *est conturbéz* (< *conturbatur*); f. 45v, line 17, *est cunturbéz* (< *conturbatur*); f. 49r, line 6, *conturbéz est* (< *conturbatum est*); f. 49v, lines 10–11, *conturbéz* (< *conturbatus*). *Conturbéz*, without erasures, and always used as nominative singular, is found on f. 42v, line 33 (*conturbéz est* < *conturbatus est*); f. 49r, line 4 (*conturbéz súi* < *conturbatus sum*); f. 57v, line 31 (*sui conturbéz* < *conturbatus sum*); f. 64v, line 20 (*conturbéz est* < *conturbatum est*); f. 74v, line 37 (*conturbéz est*). Finally, two instances have past participles rewritten entirely on top of erasures: f. 37v, line 18, *sunt conturbét* (nominative plural < *conturbata sunt*) + line 19 *conturbéde est* (extensive erasure, feminine nominative singular < *turbata est*).

esleué_, f. 45r, line 9 (< elevatum, oblique singular). Es-

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

f. 47v,
line 8

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

f. 45r,
line 26

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

f. 45v,
line 11

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

f. 49r,
line 6
leuét occurs on f. 47v, line 3 (nominative plural); spelled esleué on f. 70r, line 5. The scribe could have erased a -t or a -d.

espandú_, f. 53r, line 29 (espandú sunt < effusi sunt, nominative plural). There are traces of an erased final -t. Espandút (súi), f. 41r, line 4 (< effusus sum, nominative singular). For the spelling espandúz (ést), see f. 55v, line 36 (< effusus est, nominative singular). Once again, this is an exception in the agreement of the past participle: espandút (súi) on f. 41r, line 4, where one would expect a final -z.

guardé_, f. 45r, line 2 (serúnt guardé < conservabuntur, nominative plural). The same nominative plural, without erasure, can be found on f. 66v, line 5 (< custodiri). The scribe probably omitted a final -t.

humilié_, on f. 48r, line 39, is used for nominative plural (< humiliata). The variant with a final dental, humiliet, on f. 48v, line 8, is used for an oblique singular (< humiliatum). The spelling humiliéd is used in different ways: on f. 56r, line 37, it marks a past participle with the auxiliary verb avoir (ousse < humiliassem); on f. 63v, line 3 +

line 5 + line 31, it is a nominative plural (*humiliéd fúrent < humiliati sunt; humiliéd fúrent < humiliati sunt; fúrent humiliéd < humiliati sunt*). See also *humiliez*, f. 44r, line 17 (*estéie humiliez < humiliabar*); f. 45r, line 23-24 (*humiliéz súi < humiliatus sum* and f. 45v, line 4 (*humiliéz súi < humiliatus sum* on f. 57v, line 30; f. 65v, line 31 + line 36; and f. 63v, line 24 (nominative singular linked to a neuter noun, *cor. humiliéz est < humiliatum est*). Yet we find the variant *humilié* (nominative singular), on f. 67r, line 34 (*ié fússe humilié < humiliarer* ) and f. 72r, line 6 (*humilié súi < humiliatus sum*), where the ending -t of singular nominative case does not occur.

oscuré_, f. 52r, line 36 (*seient oscuré < obscurentur*, nomin-

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 29</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /><figcaption>f. 54r,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /><figcaption>f. 45r,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 5</figcaption></figure>
leuét occurs on f. 47v, line 3 (nominative plural); spelled esleué on f. 70r, line 5. The scribe could have erased a -t or a -d.

espandú_, f. 53r, line 29 (espandú sunt < effusi sunt, nominative plural). There are traces of an erased final -t. Espandút (súi), f. 41r, line 4 (< effusus sum, nominative singular). For the spelling espandúz (ést), see f. 55v, line 36 (< effusus est, nominative singular). Once again, this is an exception in the agreement of the past participle: espandút (súi) on f. 41r, line 4, where one would expect a final -z.

guardé_, f. 45r, line 2 (serúnt guardé < conservabuntur, nominative plural). The same nominative plural, without erasure, can be found on f. 66v, line 5 (< custodiri). The scribe probably omitted a final -t.

humilié_, on f. 48r, line 39, is used for nominative plural (< humiliata). The variant with a final dental, humiliet, on f. 48v, line 8, is used for an oblique singular (< humiliatum). The spelling humiliéd is used in different ways: on f. 56r, line 37, it marks a past participle with the auxiliary verb avoir (ousse < humiliassem); on f. 63v, line 3 +

line 5 + line 31, it is a nominative plural (*humiliéd fúrent < humiliati sunt; humiliéd fúrent < humiliati sunt; fúrent humiliéd < humiliati sunt*). See also *humiliez*, f. 44r, line 17 (*estéie humiliez < humiliabar*); f. 45r, line 23-24 (*humiliéz súi < humiliatus sum* and f. 45v, line 4 (*humiliéz súi < humiliatus sum* on f. 57v, line 30; f. 65v, line 31 + line 36; and f. 63v, line 24 (nominative singular linked to a neuter noun, *cor. humiliéz est < humiliatum est*). Yet we find the variant *humilié* (nominative singular), on f. 67r, line 34 (*ié fússe humilié < humiliarer* ) and f. 72r, line 6 (*humilié súi < humiliatus sum*), where the ending -t of singular nominative case does not occur.

oscuré_, f. 52r, line 36 (*seient oscuré < obscurentur*, nomin-

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 29</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /><figcaption>f. 54r,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /><figcaption>f. 45r,
line 2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 5</figcaption></figure>
f. 55r,
line 10

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

f. 51r,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

f. 55r,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

f. 56v,
line 37

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

ative plural). There are no traces of an erased letter. One could simply suppose that the scribe omitted a dental (**-t** or **-d**). The only other example of this past participle is *oscuréd*, on f. 54r, line 2 (*oscuréd sunt* < *obscurati sunt*, nominative plural).

ra, f. 54r, line 2 (*ra* sunt < *repleti sunt*, nominative plural). This erasure still shows traces of an erased **-t**, according to the variants *raemplít* and *raemplí* used as nominative plural on f. 51r, line 3 (*serúms raemplít* < *replebimur*) + line 14, *serúnt raemplít* < *replebuntur*); f. 58v, line 36 (*raemplí súmes* < *repleti sumus*); f. 69r, line 29 (*súmes raemplí* < *repleti sumus*). The spelling *raemplíz*, for nominative singular, occurs on f. 51r, line 10 and f. 69v, line 8 (*raemplíz est* < *repletum est*).

reduté_, f. 44r, line 2 (*seient reduté* < *revereantur*, nominative plural); f. 53r, line 5 (*reduté serúnt* < *reveriti fuerint*, nominative plural). In the first case, the term is a part of the following sentence: *Seient confundút é reduté_* ; *li queránt la meie áneme*. There is an erasure at the end of *reduté*_, as well as another one at the end of *queránt* (*vide infra*). It is possible that the scribe mistook the correct desinence for nominative plural and wrote a final **-z** in his initial transcription. The second term shows clear traces of **-t** under erasure.

saúlé_, f. 55r, line 10 (*saúlé sunt* < *saturati sunt*, nominative plural). There are clear traces of an erased final **-t**. This is only one of the instances of instability in spelling the declension of past participles. For nominative plurals, the scribe used the spelling *saulé* (f. 55r, line 10 after erasure) and f. 62r, line 6 (*serúnt saúlé* < *saturabuntur*); but he also spelled it *saúlet* on f. 41r, line 19 (*se_rúnt saúlet* < *saturabuntur*); f. 44v, line 31 (*se_runt saúlét* < *saturabuntur*); f. 50r, line 10 (*serúnt saúlet* < *fuerint saturati*). Not to mention the spelling *saúléd* (*sunt*) on f. 74r, line 12. And finally *saúlez sunt* on f. 39v, line 12

(*< saturati sunt*).

supplanté_, f. 45r, line 5 (*supplantabuntur*, nominative plural). Traces of a letter are visible under the erasure; it could be **-t** or **-z**.

tresporté_, f. 47r, line 25 (*serúnt tresporté* < *transferentur*, nominative plural). On f. 64v, line 4, the same past participle is written without erasures (*séient tresporté* < *transferantur*, nominative plural). In the first example, the erased letter could be **-t**.

tresturné_, f. 55r, line 25 (*tresturné sunt* < *conversi sunt*, nominative plural). There are traces of an erased **-d**. For nominative plural, there is also the spelling *tresturnéd*: f. 55v, line 6 (*sunt tresturnéd* < *conversi sunt*); f. 61v, line 38 (*serúnt tresturnéd* < *convertentur*). The spelling *tresturné* occurs once on f. 69v, line 33 (*séient tresturné* < *convertantur*). The spelling with final **-t** is found on f. 46r, line 2 (*seient tresturnét* < *convertantur*); f. 49r, line 40 (*serúnt tresturnét* < *convertentur*).

vestú_, f. 51r, line 15 (*vestú sunt* < *induti sunt*, nominative plural). There are evident traces of an erased final **-z**. For nominative plurals, the scribe used *uestút* on f. 44r, line 30 (*seient uestút* < *induantur*); *uestúd* on f. 70r, line 18 (*séient uestúd* < *induantur*), and *uestú* on f. 64v, line 27 (*séient uestú* < *induantur*). *Uestúz* is used on f. 44r, line 14, for nominative singular (*estéie uestúz* < *induebar*), but the scribe had to correct the last letter to **-z**. He also used the past participle with the auxiliary verb *avoir* on f. 59v, line 1 (twice, *ád uestúd* < *indutus est*).

Before concluding this section, one must mention a particular situation on f. 56v, line 37, where there are no erasures, but the scribe corrected a final **-t** to **-d** in the past participle *ueut* > *ueud*. This shows the scribe's new tendency to use **-d** as the preferential final dental in the second part of the text.