f. 55r,
line 10

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

f. 51r,
line 15

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

f. 55r,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>

f. 56v,
line 37

<figure><img src="image_126.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.
OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE PAST PARTICIPLE DECLENSION (AC)

Other erasures concern the ending of past participles:

*aemplíz*, f. 39v, lines 11–12 (*aemplíz est* < *adimpletus est*, nominative singular). The only other masculine form is *aemplí* (*serúnt aemplí* < *implebuntur*, nominative plural) on f. 62r, line 21.

*aprestéz* (nominative singular): f. 45r, line 36 (*aprestéz súi* < *paratus sum*); f. 49v, line 14, *aprestéz* (*aprestéz est* < *paratum est*). The same form, nominative singular, is also used on f. 64r, line 20; f. 65r, line 23; f. 67r, line 26. The spelling *aprestét* occurs on f. 39v, line 8 (nominative singular); f. 43v, line 8 (oblique singular).

*contristéz*, f. 44r, line 17 (< *contristatus*, nominative singular). The *u* variant *cuntristéz*, nominative singular, is used on f. 45r, line 22; f. 46r, line 37; f. 49r, line 4.

*cumparéz*, f. 47v, line 32 (*cumparéz est* < *comparatus est*, nominative singular). The same spelling is written without any sign of erasure on f. 48r, line 2.

*descuuért*, f. 39v, line 31 (*descuuért sunt* < *revelata sunt*, nominative plural). Perhaps the scribe initially made a mistake by inserting a final *-z*, then realised that the nominative plural did not take this inflection.

*enfichiéz*, f. 52r, line 10 (*enfichiéz sui* < *infixus sum*, nominative singular).

*entréz*, f. 74v, line 10 (nominative singular).

*esfacéd*_, f. 64v, line 8 (*seit esfacéd* < *deleatur*). There are traces of an erased final *-e* under the erasure. Perhaps the scribe made a mistake in agreeing his past participle to the Latin feminine noun *generatio*, that precedes it, instead of agreeing it to the Latin neuter noun *nomen* that follows: *in generatione una deleatur nomen eius*. On

the same folio (f. 64v, line 10), there is also the past participle *seit esfacé* < *et peccatum matris eius non deleatur*. In these two cases, the nominative singular does not follow the declension as usual in the case of past participle used as a predicate and linked to a neuter noun in the singular (cf. Sneddon 1972: 118).

*fáiz*, f. 45r, line 21 (< *factus sum*, nominative singular); f. 47v, line 33 (< *factus est*, nominative singular) + line 37 (< *factus fuerit*, nominative singular). On f. 43v, line 3, one notices the first occurrence of the spelling *fáiz*, yet it is used as nominative plural (< *facta sunt*). The two occurrences of f. 45r and f. 47v follow. In the remainder of the text, *fáiz* is mainly used for nominative singulars. The spelling *fait* appears for the first time on f. 37r, line 6, as nominative plural, but it is also used as a nominative singular in the remainder of the text.

*fundéz*, f. 47v, line 5 (*fundéz est* < *fundatur*, nominative singular).

*mundéz*, f. 40v, line 5 (*serai mundéz* < *emundabor*, nominative singular).

*raeúmple*, f. 53r, line 27 (*sera raeúmple* < *replebitur*, nominative singular). After erasure, the last letter was replaced by *-e*. The scribe probably made a declension mistake, then realised that he needed a feminine form.

*refreidíez*, f. 45v, line 20 (*seie refreidíez* < *refrigerer*, nominative singular). The scribe could have made a declension mistake, writing a final *-t* instead of *-z*.

*tresturnée*, f. 38r, line 2 (*serat tresturnée* < *convertetur*, nominative singular). The traces of the erased letter show that the scribe could have written *-t* or *-z*, then corrected it into *-e* (feminine declension).

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /><figcaption>f. 62r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /><figcaption>f. 64v,
line 8</figcaption></figure>
OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE PAST PARTICIPLE DECLENSION (AC)

Other erasures concern the ending of past participles:

aemplíz, f. 39v, lines 11-12 (*aemplíz est < adimpletus est*, nominative singular). The only other masculine form is *aemplí* (*serúnt aemplí* < implebuntur, nominative plural) on f. 62r, line 21.

aprestéz (nominative singular): f. 45r, line 36 (*aprestéz súi < paratus sum*); f. 49v, line 14, *aprestéz* (*aprestéz est < paratum est*). The same form, nominative singular, is also used on f. 64r, line 20; f. 65r, line 23; f. 67r, line 26. The spelling *aprestét* occurs on f. 39v, line 8 (nominative singular); f. 43v, line 8 (oblique singular).

contristéz, f. 44r, line 17 (*< contristatus*, nominative singular). The **u** variant *cuntristéz*, nominative singular, is used on f. 45r, line 22; f. 46r, line 37; f. 49r, line 4.

cumparéz, f. 47v, line 32 (*cumparéz est < comparatus est*, nominative singular). The same spelling is written without any sign of erasure on f. 48r, line 2.

descuuért, f. 39v, line 31 (*descuuért sunt < revelata sunt*, nominative plural). Perhaps the scribe initially made a mistake by inserting a final **-z**, then realised that the nominative plural did not take this inflection.

enfichiéz, f. 52r, line 10 (*enfichiéz sui < infixus sum*, nominative singular).

entréz, f. 74v, line 10 (nominative singular).

esfacéd_, f. 64v, line 8 (*seit esfacéd < deleatur*). There are traces of an erased final **-e** under the erasure. Perhaps the scribe made a mistake in agreeing his past participle to the Latin feminine noun *generatio*, that precedes it, instead of agreeing it to the Latin neuter noun *nomen* that follows: *in generatione una deleatur nomen eius*. On

the same folio (f. 64v, line 10), there is also the past participle *seit esfacé* < *et peccatum matris eius non deleatur*. In these two cases, the nominative singular does not follow the declension as usual in the case of past participle used as a predicate and linked to a neuter noun in the singular (cf. Sneddon 1972: 118).

fáiz, f. 45r, line 21 (*< factus sum*, nominative singular); f. 47v, line 33 (*< factus est*, nominative singular) + line 37 (*< factus fuerit*, nominative singular). On f. 43v, line 3, one notices the first occurrence of the spelling *fáiz*, yet it is used as nominative plural (*< facta sunt*). The two occurrences of f. 45r and f. 47v follow. In the remainder of the text, *fáiz* is mainly used for nominative singulars. The spelling *fait* appears for the first time on f. 37r, line 6, as nominative plural, but it is also used as a nominative singular in the remainder of the text.

fundéz, f. 47v, line 5 (*fundéz est < fundatur*, nominative singular).

mundéz, f. 40v, line 5 (*serai mundéz < emundabor*, nominative singular).

raeúmple, f. 53r, line 27 (*sera raeúmple* < *replebitur*, nominative singular). After erasure, the last letter was replaced by **-e**. The scribe probably made a declension mistake, then realised that he needed a feminine form.

refreidíez, f. 45v, line 20 (*seie refreidíez < refrigerer*, nominative singular). The scribe could have made a declension mistake, writing a final **-t** instead of **-z**.

tresturnée, f. 38r, line 2 (*serat tresturnée* < *convertetur*, nominative singular). The traces of the erased letter show that the scribe could have written **-t** or **-z**, then corrected it into **-e** (feminine declension).

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /><figcaption>f. 62r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /><figcaption>f. 64v,
line 8</figcaption></figure>
A series of other situations concern erasures related to present participles. Sneddon 1972: 101–102 notes that the declension is followed by present participles when the focus is on their adjectival value. My survey identified several instances. The first one is:

fuiánz, f. 49r, line 9, *ié_mesluignái fuiánz*

(*< ecce elongavi fugiens>*)

This correction could concern the agreement of the present participle with the subject. The scribe’s correction of final –*t* to –*z* could mean that he interpreted that participle as an adjective, and thus made an agreement (nominative singular) with the subject *ié*.

loánz, f. 39v, line 17, *loánz enuucherái le segnur*

(*< Laudans invocabo dominum>*)

As in the previous example, the erasure and correction could be based on the same reasons.

queránt, f. 44r, line 3, *li queránt la meie áneme*

(*< quaerentes animam meam>*)

A nominative plural –*ant* is required here. On f. 46r, line 4, the same Latin present participle is written as *querant* (nominative plural) without any sign of erasure. On f. 38r, line 23; f. 41v, line 1; and f. 62r, line 33, the plural *queránz* renders Latin *quaerentes* as an oblique form. For the same present participle used with the role of a noun, the scribe follows the declension. One can argue that he made a

mistake on f. 44r, line 3, by initially writing *queránz*.

From 37r to 49v, –*anz* is mainly used to express present participles, nominative singular, or oblique plural. However, there are exceptions: on f. 42v, line 1, *Latin vox domini confringentis cedros* is rendered as *lá uóiz del segnur frainánz les cédres*. The scribe could have chosen to agree the present participle to *vox*, thus justifying the –*anz* ending. Sneddon 1972: 117, argues that “in this case the participle may be influenced by the Latin spelling *confringentis*.” Again, on f. 44r, line 12, *esdreceánz* (on top of an extensive erasure and with the value of a noun) expresses a nominative plural. As for *defisánz* on f. 44v, line 32 (with the end letters erased and corrected, and with the value of an adjective), it renders a nominative plural too.

On the other hand, the suffix –*ant* is used to express nominative plural and oblique singular. In three instances, the present participle is written entirely on top of an erasure, but one cannot be sure that the erasure can be linked to the participle ending: f. 43r, line 32, (*l*) *esperánt* (oblique singular); f. 43v, line 27, *enqueránt* (nominative plural); f. 44v, line 35, *maldisánt* (nominative plural). Finally, in two other cases, the declension is not correct: f. 46v, line 28, *esprouánt* (value of a noun, nominative singular) + line 29, *deparlánt* and *parsúant* (value of a noun, nominative singular).

<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_127.png" /><figcaption>f. 49r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /><figcaption>f. 39v,
line 17</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /><figcaption>f. 44r,
line 3</figcaption></figure>
A series of other situations concern erasures related to present participles. Sneddon 1972: 101–102 notes that the declension is followed by present participles when the focus is on their adjectival value. My survey identified several instances. The first one is:

fuiánz, f. 49r, line 9, *ié_mesluignái fuiánz*

(*< ecce elongavi fugiens>*)

This correction could concern the agreement of the present participle with the subject. The scribe’s correction of final –*t* to –*z* could mean that he interpreted that participle as an adjective, and thus made an agreement (nominative singular) with the subject *ié*.

loánz, f. 39v, line 17, *loánz enuucherái le segnur*

(*< Laudans invocabo dominum>*)

As in the previous example, the erasure and correction could be based on the same reasons.

queránt, f. 44r, line 3, *li queránt la meie áneme*

(*< quaerentes animam meam>*)

A nominative plural –*ant* is required here. On f. 46r, line 4, the same Latin present participle is written as *querant* (nominative plural) without any sign of erasure. On f. 38r, line 23; f. 41v, line 1; and f. 62r, line 33, the plural *queránz* renders Latin *quaerentes* as an oblique form. For the same present participle used with the role of a noun, the scribe follows the declension. One can argue that he made a

mistake on f. 44r, line 3, by initially writing *queránz*.

From 37r to 49v, –*anz* is mainly used to express present participles, nominative singular, or oblique plural. However, there are exceptions: on f. 42v, line 1, *Latin vox domini confringentis cedros* is rendered as *lá uóiz del segnur frainánz les cédres*. The scribe could have chosen to agree the present participle to *vox*, thus justifying the –*anz* ending. Sneddon 1972: 117, argues that “in this case the participle may be influenced by the Latin spelling *confringentis*.” Again, on f. 44r, line 12, *esdreceánz* (on top of an extensive erasure and with the value of a noun) expresses a nominative plural. As for *defisánz* on f. 44v, line 32 (with the end letters erased and corrected, and with the value of an adjective), it renders a nominative plural too.

On the other hand, the suffix –*ant* is used to express nominative plural and oblique singular. In three instances, the present participle is written entirely on top of an erasure, but one cannot be sure that the erasure can be linked to the participle ending: f. 43r, line 32, (*l*) *esperánt* (oblique singular); f. 43v, line 27, *enqueránt* (nominative plural); f. 44v, line 35, *maldisánt* (nominative plural). Finally, in two other cases, the declension is not correct: f. 46v, line 28, *esprouánt* (value of a noun, nominative singular) + line 29, *deparlánt* and *parsúant* (value of a noun, nominative singular).

<figure><img src="image_129.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_130.png" /><figcaption>f. 49r,
line 9</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /><figcaption>f. 39v,
line 17</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /><figcaption>f. 44r,
line 3</figcaption></figure>
FINAL -T AND -D IN THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES (AC)

Before proceeding to this other survey of erasures and
the specific reasons behind them, a series of general ob-
servations must be made about this type of corrections in
Douce MS 320:

-t forms are prevalent in the first part of the text;

-d forms are mainly present in the second part.

The erasures left blank, without any further correction,
are found on f. 40-41; f. 45-47; f. 50-51; f. 53; whereas
those followed by a correction occur on f. 38-39; f. 41;
f. 43; f. 44-45; f. 48; f. 51; f. 55; f. 60. Such erasures often
concern a final -t or -d. It is worth noting that the scribe
writes those terms without a final dental in the first part
of the manuscript (see *iniquité; pensé*). In certain cases,
it appears that the scribe had problems with the declen-
sion, thus deciding to erase a final flexional -z instead
of a final dental; or to replace a final dental with a final
flexional -z. For these matters, see e.g., Pope 1952: §775,
794-807, 1241-1247; Sneddon 1972: 84-89; 115-117; Short
2015: 22-26; Meister 1877: 85-96.

Erasures not followed by corrections

All the following kinds of erasures concern feminine
nouns. Sneddon 1972: 86 argued that, in the Oxford
Psalter, "feminine nouns have basically the modern form,
with flexional -s [-z in our case] in the plural of both
cases" (cf. Pope:1952, § 801-803). In one specific situa-
tion (salú), the scribe hesitated in the matter of the flex-
ional -z for nominative singular (cf. Meister 1877: 86-87).

bealté_, f. 47r, line 39. This variant with erasure was used for oblique singular. There are no traces of the erased final consonant, but the declension of the word may suggest a final dental. See *béltet*, on f. 40v, line 22; *bealtét* on f. 47r, line 4; f. 48r, line 5; f. 51v, line 20; *bealtéd*, on f. 55v, line 10; *bealté*, on f. 59v, line 1; f. 60r, line 13 (nominative singular); f. 61v, line 29. There is also *bealtéz*, on f. 51r, line 14 (nominative plural).

cité_, f. 47r, line 27 (oblique singular). No traces of the erased end consonant are visible, but as the declension is respected, therefore one would expect a dental. *Citét* is both used for nominative and oblique singular on f. 43r, line 12 (extensive erasure); f. 47v, line 4 + line 6 + line 10 + line 11; f. 49r, line 12; f. 49v, line 39; f. 50r, line 9 + line 23; f. 53r, line 23. *Citéd* is used on f. 53v, line 7; f. 57v, line 6; f. 61r, line 3; f. 63v, line 19; f. 64r, line 12 + line 31; f. 69r, line 17. *Cité* on f. 63v, line 16; f.

69v, line 15 (oblique singular). *Citéz* is the spelling for nominative and oblique plural on f. 38r, line 19; f. 52v, line 7; f. 71v, line 3.

enfermeté_, f. 46r, line 10, oblique singular. No traces of the erased letter unfortunately; impossible to decide if it was a dental or a flexional —z. The spelling enfermetéz of f. 39r, line 24, and f. 61v, line 2-3, is used for nominative and oblique plural.

erité_, f. 45r, line 8 (traces of an erased —t). The spelling is always used for an oblique singular. *Eritét* occurs on f. 43v, line 7; f. 44v, line 29; f. 52v, line 7. *Eritéd* is found on f. 74v, line 7. The related term *herédité* shows signs of erasure on f. 47r, line 38-39; f. 50r, line 32. *Heréditét* spelled as such occurs from f. 37r up to f. 53v: f. 37r, line 17; f. 39r, line 26 + line 27 + line 28 (nominative singular); f. 42r, line 34; f. 51v, line 17. Spellings with a final —d start on f. 53v and are used until the end of the text: f. 53v, line 20; f. 55v, line 11 + line 20 + line 22; f. 56v, line 21; f. 59v, line 21; f. 62v, line 2; f. 63r, line 3; f. 65r, line 8 (*ereditéd*); f. 68r, line 5; f. 70v, line 10 (twice) + line 31 (twice); f. 75r, line 21. *Herédité* is found on f. 59v, line 12; f. 63v, line 1; f. 69v, line 18 (*erédité*, nominative singular).

esté_, f. 53v, line 38 (oblique singular). It is the only oc-
currence of this word in the text.

iniquité_, f. 45r, line 37; f. 53r, line 19 (with evident traces
of an erased —t). On f. 50v, line 29, there is iniquitét.
The word is always used here to express an oblique
singular. On f. 50v, one can argue that the erased letter
was —z. Iniquitét is used for both the nominative and
the oblique singular: f. 38r, line 1; f. 39v, line 18; 43r,
line 6-7; f. 44r, line 38; f. 47v, line 23 (extensive erasure);
f. 49r, line 11; f. 49v, line 34 + line 36. Iniquitéd on f.
58r, line 23, and f. 63v, line 31, is an oblique singular.
Iniquité, nominative singular, but also oblique singular,
is found on: f. 39r, line 39; f. 50v, line 9. The spelling
iniquitez on f. 45r, line 19; f. 45v, line 13 + line 38; f. 50v,
line 33; f. 61v, line 2, is used both for nominative and
oblique plural.

maiesté_, f. 53r, line 26 + line 27 (oblique singular). Cf. f. 42r, line 39, *maiestét* (oblique singular).

óelté_ (oblique singular), f. 45r, line 11 (with traces of an erased —t); f. 51v, lines 2-3. *Oeltét* (oblique singular): f. 38v, line 22; f. 51r, line 4. *Oeltéd* (nominative or oblique singular) occurs on f. 60r, line 19 + line 23; f. 60v, line 11; f. 65r, line 10; f. 67r, line 4; f. 67v, line 4; f. 68v, line

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 19</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /><figcaption>f. 46r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>
FINAL -T AND -D IN THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES (AC)

Before proceeding to this other survey of erasures and
the specific reasons behind them, a series of general ob-
servations must be made about this type of corrections in
Douce MS 320:

-t forms are prevalent in the first part of the text;

-d forms are mainly present in the second part.

The erasures left blank, without any further correction,
are found on f. 40-41; f. 45-47; f. 50-51; f. 53; whereas
those followed by a correction occur on f. 38-39; f. 41;
f. 43; f. 44-45; f. 48; f. 51; f. 55; f. 60. Such erasures often
concern a final -t or -d. It is worth noting that the scribe
writes those terms without a final dental in the first part
of the manuscript (see *iniquité; pensé*). In certain cases,
it appears that the scribe had problems with the declen-
sion, thus deciding to erase a final flexional -z instead
of a final dental; or to replace a final dental with a final
flexional -z. For these matters, see e.g., Pope 1952: §775,
794-807, 1241-1247; Sneddon 1972: 84-89; 115-117; Short
2015: 22-26; Meister 1877: 85-96.

Erasures not followed by corrections

All the following kinds of erasures concern feminine
nouns. Sneddon 1972: 86 argued that, in the Oxford
Psalter, "feminine nouns have basically the modern form,
with flexional -s [-z in our case] in the plural of both
cases" (cf. Pope:1952, § 801-803). In one specific situa-
tion (salú), the scribe hesitated in the matter of the flex-
ional -z for nominative singular (cf. Meister 1877: 86-87).

bealté_, f. 47r, line 39. This variant with erasure was used for oblique singular. There are no traces of the erased final consonant, but the declension of the word may suggest a final dental. See *béltet*, on f. 40v, line 22; *bealtét* on f. 47r, line 4; f. 48r, line 5; f. 51v, line 20; *bealtéd*, on f. 55v, line 10; *bealté*, on f. 59v, line 1; f. 60r, line 13 (nominative singular); f. 61v, line 29. There is also *bealtéz*, on f. 51r, line 14 (nominative plural).

cité_, f. 47r, line 27 (oblique singular). No traces of the erased end consonant are visible, but as the declension is respected, therefore one would expect a dental. *Citét* is both used for nominative and oblique singular on f. 43r, line 12 (extensive erasure); f. 47v, line 4 + line 6 + line 10 + line 11; f. 49r, line 12; f. 49v, line 39; f. 50r, line 9 + line 23; f. 53r, line 23. *Citéd* is used on f. 53v, line 7; f. 57v, line 6; f. 61r, line 3; f. 63v, line 19; f. 64r, line 12 + line 31; f. 69r, line 17. *Cité* on f. 63v, line 16; f.

69v, line 15 (oblique singular). *Citéz* is the spelling for nominative and oblique plural on f. 38r, line 19; f. 52v, line 7; f. 71v, line 3.

enfermeté_, f. 46r, line 10, oblique singular. No traces of the erased letter unfortunately; impossible to decide if it was a dental or a flexional —z. The spelling enfermetéz of f. 39r, line 24, and f. 61v, line 2-3, is used for nominative and oblique plural.

erité_, f. 45r, line 8 (traces of an erased —t). The spelling is always used for an oblique singular. *Eritét* occurs on f. 43v, line 7; f. 44v, line 29; f. 52v, line 7. *Eritéd* is found on f. 74v, line 7. The related term *herédité* shows signs of erasure on f. 47r, line 38-39; f. 50r, line 32. *Heréditét* spelled as such occurs from f. 37r up to f. 53v: f. 37r, line 17; f. 39r, line 26 + line 27 + line 28 (nominative singular); f. 42r, line 34; f. 51v, line 17. Spellings with a final —d start on f. 53v and are used until the end of the text: f. 53v, line 20; f. 55v, line 11 + line 20 + line 22; f. 56v, line 21; f. 59v, line 21; f. 62v, line 2; f. 63r, line 3; f. 65r, line 8 (*ereditéd*); f. 68r, line 5; f. 70v, line 10 (twice) + line 31 (twice); f. 75r, line 21. *Herédité* is found on f. 59v, line 12; f. 63v, line 1; f. 69v, line 18 (*erédité*, nominative singular).

esté_, f. 53v, line 38 (oblique singular). It is the only oc-
currence of this word in the text.

iniquité_, f. 45r, line 37; f. 53r, line 19 (with evident traces
of an erased —t). On f. 50v, line 29, there is iniquitét.
The word is always used here to express an oblique
singular. On f. 50v, one can argue that the erased letter
was —z. Iniquitét is used for both the nominative and
the oblique singular: f. 38r, line 1; f. 39v, line 18; 43r,
line 6-7; f. 44r, line 38; f. 47v, line 23 (extensive erasure);
f. 49r, line 11; f. 49v, line 34 + line 36. Iniquitéd on f.
58r, line 23, and f. 63v, line 31, is an oblique singular.
Iniquité, nominative singular, but also oblique singular,
is found on: f. 39r, line 39; f. 50v, line 9. The spelling
iniquitez on f. 45r, line 19; f. 45v, line 13 + line 38; f. 50v,
line 33; f. 61v, line 2, is used both for nominative and
oblique plural.

maiesté_, f. 53r, line 26 + line 27 (oblique singular). Cf. f. 42r, line 39, *maiestét* (oblique singular).

óelté_ (oblique singular), f. 45r, line 11 (with traces of an erased —t); f. 51v, lines 2-3. *Oeltét* (oblique singular): f. 38v, line 22; f. 51r, line 4. *Oeltéd* (nominative or oblique singular) occurs on f. 60r, line 19 + line 23; f. 60v, line 11; f. 65r, line 10; f. 67r, line 4; f. 67v, line 4; f. 68v, line

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /><figcaption>f. 53r,
line 19</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /><figcaption>f. 46r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_132.png" /><figcaption>f. 60v,
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_133.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.

2; f. 72r, line 24. Oelté without any sign of erasure is found on f. 68v, line 35 (nominative singular). There is also óeltez on f. 39r, line 38 (oblique plural).

(en) parmanableté_ (oblique singular): f. 45r, line 1; f. 46r, line 21 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 47r, line 22 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 50r, line 34; f. 51r, line 23; f. 52v, line 16; f. 53r, line 27; f. 53v, line 14. En parmanabletét is the formula transcribed by the scribe and not corrected from f. 37v, line 14, to f. 50v, line 7. He wrote en parmanabletéd from f. 54r, line 39, to f. 75v, lines 28-29 (with only one erased variant on f. 57r, line 35, en parmanabletéd). As for en parmanableté, without erasure, it occurs on f. 59r, line 30; f. 63r, line 31; f. 64v, line 37; f. 65r, line 11; 67v, line 21 + line 32; f. 68r, line 7.

pensé_, f. 51v, line 38 (oblique singular). For other oblique singular uses of this term, the scribe wrote pénse on f. 43r, line 13; and penséd on f. 54r, line 37.

plenté_, f. 51r, line 14 (oblique singular). Plentét on f. 41r, line 35; f. 44v, line 4; f. 48r, line 16; and plentéd on f. 58r, line 10; f. 60v, line 8, are used for nominative and oblique singular. Traces of an erased letter suggest the

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 34</figcaption></figure>

initial transcription of a final —t—. On f. 60r, line 20, the flexional form plentéz marks a nominative singular.

salú_, f. 45v, line 1 + line 34; f. 50r, line 25. The example of f. 45 is a rather interesting one. On line 1, the scribe erased a final —t—; on line 34, he clearly erased a final —d—. The variant salút is used from f. 37r to f. 52v : f. 37r, line 24; f. 39v, line 16; f. 40r, line 12 + line 24; f. 40v, line 14 + line 18 + line 31-33; f. 42r, line 1; f. 43v, lines 11-12; 44r, line 2; f. 45r, line 13; f. 48v, line 5; f. 52r, line 25; 52v, line 2. From that point onwards, he uses the variant salúd: f. 53v à 74v : f. 53v, line 33; f. 57v, line 12; f. 58r, line 28; f. 64r, line 33; 68v, line 15; f. 71v, line 15; f. 72r, line 39; f. 72v, line 35; f. 73v, line 5 + line 18; f. 74r, line 24; f. 74v, line 31 + line 32. Salú, without any signs of a final consonant, occurs on f. 50r, line 37 (extensive erasure); f. 50v, line 4; f. 66r, line 23 (twice) + line 30 + line 39. The variants used in all examples (with or without final dental), nominative or oblique singulars. Last but not least, the salúz variant with a flexional —z— is used for an oblique plural on f. 40r, line 28; f. 46v, line 16; f. 51v, line 30. Flexional —z— is also used on f.
<figure><img src="image_135.png" /><figcaption>f. 60v,
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_136.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.

2; f. 72r, line 24. Oelté without any sign of erasure is found on f. 68v, line 35 (nominative singular). There is also óeltez on f. 39r, line 38 (oblique plural).

(en) parmanableté_ (oblique singular): f. 45r, line 1; f. 46r, line 21 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 47r, line 22 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 50r, line 34; f. 51r, line 23; f. 52v, line 16; f. 53r, line 27; f. 53v, line 14. En parmanabletét is the formula transcribed by the scribe and not corrected from f. 37v, line 14, to f. 50v, line 7. He wrote en parmanabletéd from f. 54r, line 39, to f. 75v, lines 28-29 (with only one erased variant on f. 57r, line 35, en parmanabletéd). As for en parmanableté, without erasure, it occurs on f. 59r, line 30; f. 63r, line 31; f. 64v, line 37; f. 65r, line 11; 67v, line 21 + line 32; f. 68r, line 7.

pensé_, f. 51v, line 38 (oblique singular). For other oblique singular uses of this term, the scribe wrote pénse on f. 43r, line 13; and penséd on f. 54r, line 37.

plenté_, f. 51r, line 14 (oblique singular). Plentét on f. 41r, line 35; f. 44v, line 4; f. 48r, line 16; and plentéd on f. 58r, line 10; f. 60v, line 8, are used for nominative and oblique singular. Traces of an erased letter suggest the

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 34</figcaption></figure>

initial transcription of a final —t—. On f. 60r, line 20, the flexional form plentéz marks a nominative singular.

salú_, f. 45v, line 1 + line 34; f. 50r, line 25. The example of f. 45 is a rather interesting one. On line 1, the scribe erased a final —t—; on line 34, he clearly erased a final —d—. The variant salút is used from f. 37r to f. 52v : f. 37r, line 24; f. 39v, line 16; f. 40r, line 12 + line 24; f. 40v, line 14 + line 18 + line 31-33; f. 42r, line 1; f. 43v, lines 11-12; 44r, line 2; f. 45r, line 13; f. 48v, line 5; f. 52r, line 25; 52v, line 2. From that point onwards, he uses the variant salúd: f. 53v à 74v : f. 53v, line 33; f. 57v, line 12; f. 58r, line 28; f. 64r, line 33; 68v, line 15; f. 71v, line 15; f. 72r, line 39; f. 72v, line 35; f. 73v, line 5 + line 18; f. 74r, line 24; f. 74v, line 31 + line 32. Salú, without any signs of a final consonant, occurs on f. 50r, line 37 (extensive erasure); f. 50v, line 4; f. 66r, line 23 (twice) + line 30 + line 39. The variants used in all examples (with or without final dental), nominative or oblique singulars. Last but not least, the salúz variant with a flexional —z— is used for an oblique plural on f. 40r, line 28; f. 46v, line 16; f. 51v, line 30. Flexional —z— is also used on f.
37r, line 29, for nominative singular. Thus, it is quite probable that the scribe erased a final flexional —z— and not a final dental on f. 50.

uerité_ (nominative or oblique singular), f. 45v, line 34 + line 35 + line 36 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 50r, lines 34-35 (traces of an erased —d—); f. 53r, line 2 (probable traces of an erased —t—). Ueritét without erasure is used from f. 37 to f. 49 (nominative or oblique singular): f. 37v, line 10; f. 39r, line 16; f. 41v, line 11 + line 17 + line 31; f. 42v, line 18 + line 29; f. 43r, line 15; f. 44r, line 40; f. 46v, line 6; f. 47r, line 5; f. 48r, line 36; f. 48v, line 39; f. 49v, line 9; f. 49v, line 18. The variant *uertét* occurs on f. 52r, line 24-25 (oblique singular). From f. 57 until the end of the text, the scribe wrote *ueritéd* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 57r, line 3 + line 17 + line 18 + line 33; f. 57v, line 25-26 + line 36 + line 38; f. 58r, line 1 + line 6 + line 13 + line 25 + line 37; f. 58v, line 15; f. 59r, line 7 + line 23; f. 60r, line 24; f. 60v, line 3 + line 30; f. 64r, line 24; f. 65r, line 9 + line 10; f. 65v, line 7; f. 66v, line 33; f. 67r, line 8; f. 67v, line 4 + line 17 + line 22; f. 68r, line 36 + line 40; f. 68v, line 11 + line 21; f. 70r, line 20; f. 71r, line 11; f. 72r, line 11; f. 72v, line 28 + line 38; f. 74r, line 1 + line 3. Cf. *Uerité* on f. 66r, line 8 (nominative

singular). *Ueritez* on f. 38v, line 23 (nominative plural). *uertu_* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 40v, line 18 + line 30; f. 41r, line 6; f. 45r, line 26; f. 47r, line 23; f. 50r, line 26 (here the scribe probably erased —d—); f. 50v, line 16 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 51r, line 6 (clear traces of an erased —t—) + line 23. On f. 53v, line 33, there is an erasure followed by correction and it changes the final letter into —d: *uertúd* (oblique singular). As this is the turning point where the scribe starts changing —t— into —d, it is safe to assume that he had initially written a final —t. *Uertút* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 39v, line 14; f. 40r, line 9 + line 17; f. 42v, line 1 + line 7-8 + line 15 + line 36; f. 43r, line 40; f. 43v, line 10 + line 11 + line 12; f. 47v, line 16 + line 24; f. 48v, line 34; f. 50r, line 4; f. 51r, line 19; f. 51v, line 19 + line 40; f. 52r, line 6 + line 7 + line 8; f. 52v, line 26. *Uertúd* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 54v, line 7; f. 55r, line 8; f. 55v, line 10; f. 56v, line 37 (twice); f. 58r, line 8 + line 16; f. 61r, line 31; f. 61v, line 23; f. 64r, line 34; f. 65r, line 7; f. 66r, line 25; f. 69r, line 22; f. 70v, line 28-29; f. 71r, line 13; f. 71v, line 15; f. 72v, line 13; f. 73r, line 8; f. 73v, line 11. *Uertú* (oblique singular): f. 64v, line 34 + line 35; f. 66r, line 24. *Uertúz* (oblique plural): f. 40v, line 31 (extensive

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /><figcaption>f. 45v,
line 36</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /><figcaption>f. 41r,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r,
line 34</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /><figcaption>f. 47r,
line 23</figcaption></figure>
37r, line 29, for nominative singular. Thus, it is quite probable that the scribe erased a final flexional —z— and not a final dental on f. 50.

uerité_ (nominative or oblique singular), f. 45v, line 34 + line 35 + line 36 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 50r, lines 34-35 (traces of an erased —d—); f. 53r, line 2 (probable traces of an erased —t—). Ueritét without erasure is used from f. 37 to f. 49 (nominative or oblique singular): f. 37v, line 10; f. 39r, line 16; f. 41v, line 11 + line 17 + line 31; f. 42v, line 18 + line 29; f. 43r, line 15; f. 44r, line 40; f. 46v, line 6; f. 47r, line 5; f. 48r, line 36; f. 48v, line 39; f. 49v, line 9; f. 49v, line 18. The variant *uertét* occurs on f. 52r, line 24-25 (oblique singular). From f. 57 until the end of the text, the scribe wrote *ueritéd* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 57r, line 3 + line 17 + line 18 + line 33; f. 57v, line 25-26 + line 36 + line 38; f. 58r, line 1 + line 6 + line 13 + line 25 + line 37; f. 58v, line 15; f. 59r, line 7 + line 23; f. 60r, line 24; f. 60v, line 3 + line 30; f. 64r, line 24; f. 65r, line 9 + line 10; f. 65v, line 7; f. 66v, line 33; f. 67r, line 8; f. 67v, line 4 + line 17 + line 22; f. 68r, line 36 + line 40; f. 68v, line 11 + line 21; f. 70r, line 20; f. 71r, line 11; f. 72r, line 11; f. 72v, line 28 + line 38; f. 74r, line 1 + line 3. Cf. *Uerité* on f. 66r, line 8 (nominative

singular). *Ueritez* on f. 38v, line 23 (nominative plural). *uertu_* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 40v, line 18 + line 30; f. 41r, line 6; f. 45r, line 26; f. 47r, line 23; f. 50r, line 26 (here the scribe probably erased —d—); f. 50v, line 16 (traces of an erased —t—); f. 51r, line 6 (clear traces of an erased —t—) + line 23. On f. 53v, line 33, there is an erasure followed by correction and it changes the final letter into —d: *uertúd* (oblique singular). As this is the turning point where the scribe starts changing —t— into —d, it is safe to assume that he had initially written a final —t. *Uertút* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 39v, line 14; f. 40r, line 9 + line 17; f. 42v, line 1 + line 7-8 + line 15 + line 36; f. 43r, line 40; f. 43v, line 10 + line 11 + line 12; f. 47v, line 16 + line 24; f. 48v, line 34; f. 50r, line 4; f. 51r, line 19; f. 51v, line 19 + line 40; f. 52r, line 6 + line 7 + line 8; f. 52v, line 26. *Uertúd* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 54v, line 7; f. 55r, line 8; f. 55v, line 10; f. 56v, line 37 (twice); f. 58r, line 8 + line 16; f. 61r, line 31; f. 61v, line 23; f. 64r, line 34; f. 65r, line 7; f. 66r, line 25; f. 69r, line 22; f. 70v, line 28-29; f. 71r, line 13; f. 71v, line 15; f. 72v, line 13; f. 73r, line 8; f. 73v, line 11. *Uertú* (oblique singular): f. 64v, line 34 + line 35; f. 66r, line 24. *Uertúz* (oblique plural): f. 40v, line 31 (extensive

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>

f. 45v,
line 36

<figure><img src="image_140.png" /></figure>

f. 41r,
line 6

<figure><img src="image_141.png" /></figure>

f. 50r,
line 34

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /></figure>

f. 47r,
line 23
erasure); f. 41v, line 5; f. 46v, line 21; f. 47r, line 30 + line 35; f. 47v, line 11; f. 49v, line 37; f. 50r, line 24; f. 51v, line 19; f. 52r, line 17; f. 54v, line 20; f. 56r, line 6 + line 9 + line 16 + line 21; f. 56v, line 29 + line 38; f. 57r, line 4; f. 58r, line 5; f. 61v, line 25; f. 64r, line 32; f. 73r, line 28; f. 73v, line 11.

uolunté_ (oblique singular), f. 45v, line 31. Uoluntét (nominative or oblique singular): f. 37r, line 3; f. 37v, line 16 (extensive erasure); f. 40v, line 19; f. 42r, line 8 + line 32; f. 42v, line 13 + line 15; f. 48v, line 9. Uoluntéd (oblique singular): f. 53v, line 11; f. 61v, line 25; f. 64r, line 6; f. 72r, line 22; f. 72v, line 28; f. 73r, line 14; f. 75v, line 12. Uolunté (oblique singular): f. 66v, line 5. Uoluntéz (oblique plural): f. 39r, line 24; f. 61v, line 7; f. 65r, line 4.

## Erasures followed by corrections

This other category concerns nouns (and sometimes adjectives) that render Latin masculines, feminines, or neuters. Some of them figure also in Meister 1877: 86-87.

cuuenabletéz, f. 38r, line 34-35 (oblique plural). On the same folio (line 22), the term is written a second time

and in the same case, yet without any trace of erasure. Traces of the previous letter under the erasure of f. 38r point to an erased —t—.

fórt (adjective), f. 48r, line 7 (*fórt tempeste* < nominative singular, feminine). Perhaps the scribe initially wrote a final —z. *Fort*: on f. 47v, line 3 (*fort déu* < nominative plural) + line 9 (*en fort espirit* < oblique singular). On f. 48v, line 36 (*li fort* <nominative plural).

génz, f. 55v, line 2 (oblique plural; follows the feminine declension with flexional —z— on plural). The scribe must have written a final dental, then erased it and replaced it with —z. Génz (oblique plural): f. 37r, line 17; f. 38r, line 18 + line 24; f. 38v, line 12; f. 40r, line 22; f. 41r, line 22 (twice) + line 22; f. 43v, line 4; f. 46v, line 12 + line 23 + line 26; f. 47r, line 34 + line 38; f. 47v, line 1; f. 49v, line 17 + line 38; f. 50r, line 1; f. 51r, line 24 + line 40; f. 51v, line 2; f. 52r, line 3; f. 53r, line 16 + line 25; f. 55v, line 29 + line 35 (twice); f. 56r, line 10; f. 56v, line

<figure><img src="image_140.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_141.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r, line 26</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /><figcaption>f. 53v, line 33</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /><figcaption>f. 51r, line 6</figcaption></figure>
erasure); f. 41v, line 5; f. 46v, line 21; f. 47r, line 30 + line 35; f. 47v, line 11; f. 49v, line 37; f. 50r, line 24; f. 51v, line 19; f. 52r, line 17; f. 54v, line 20; f. 56r, line 6 + line 9 + line 16 + line 21; f. 56v, line 29 + line 38; f. 57r, line 4; f. 58r, line 5; f. 61v, line 25; f. 64r, line 32; f. 73r, line 28; f. 73v, line 11.

uolunté_ (oblique singular), f. 45v, line 31. Uoluntét (nominative or oblique singular): f. 37r, line 3; f. 37v, line 16 (extensive erasure); f. 40v, line 19; f. 42r, line 8 + line 32; f. 42v, line 13 + line 15; f. 48v, line 9. Uoluntéd (oblique singular): f. 53v, line 11; f. 61v, line 25; f. 64r, line 6; f. 72r, line 22; f. 72v, line 28; f. 73r, line 14; f. 75v, line 12. Uolunté (oblique singular): f. 66v, line 5. Uoluntéz (oblique plural): f. 39r, line 24; f. 61v, line 7; f. 65r, line 4.

## Erasures followed by corrections

This other category concerns nouns (and sometimes adjectives) that render Latin masculines, feminines, or neuters. Some of them figure also in Meister 1877: 86-87.

cuuenabletéz, f. 38r, line 34-35 (oblique plural). On the same folio (line 22), the term is written a second time

and in the same case, yet without any trace of erasure. Traces of the previous letter under the erasure of f. 38r point to an erased —t—.

fórt (adjective), f. 48r, line 7 (*fórt tempeste* < nominative singular, feminine). Perhaps the scribe initially wrote a final —z. *Fort*: on f. 47v, line 3 (*fort déu* < nominative plural) + line 9 (*en fort espirit* < oblique singular). On f. 48v, line 36 (*li fort* <nominative plural).

génz, f. 55v, line 2 (oblique plural; follows the feminine declension with flexional —z— on plural). The scribe must have written a final dental, then erased it and replaced it with —z. *Génz* (oblique plural): f. 37r, line 17; f. 38r, line 18 + line 24; f. 38v, line 12; f. 40r, line 22; f. 41r, line 22 (twice) + line 22; f. 43v, line 4; f. 46v, line 12 + line 23 + line 26; f. 47r, line 34 + line 38; f. 47v, line 1; f. 49v, line 17 + line 38; f. 50r, line 1; f. 51r, line 24 + line 40; f. 51v, line 2; f. 52r, line 3; f. 53r, line 16 + line 25; f. 55v, line 29 + line 35 (twice); f. 56r, line 10; f. 56v, line

<figure><img src="image_143.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_144.png" /><figcaption>f. 50r, line 26</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_145.png" /><figcaption>f. 53v, line 33</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_146.png" /><figcaption>f. 51r, line 6</figcaption></figure>
f. 44r, line 21

<figure><img src="image_144.png" /></figure>

8; f. 58v, line 16; f. 59v, line 16; f. 60r, line 10 + line 13 + line 15 + line 18; f. 60v, line 2; f. 61r, line 22; f. 62r, line 31; f. 62v, line 34; f. 63r, line 27 + line 34; f. 63v, line 2 + line 9; f. 64r, line 23; f. 65r, line 8 + line 31; f. 65v, line 9; f. 69v, line 10; f. 70v, line 8 + line 13; f. 73v, line 7; f. 74v, line 20 + line 31; f. 75r, line 18. This spelling is also used for nominative plural: f. 37r, line 10; f. 38r, line 24 + line 30 + line 33 + line 34; f. 47r, line 29 + line 36; f. 47v, line 19; f. 51r, line 7; f. 51r, line 25; f. 51v, line 1; f. 55v, line 22; f. 57r, line 30; f. 63r, line 34; f. 65v, line 8; f. 66r, line 7 + line 18. *Gént* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 43v, line 6; f. 46v, line 3; f. 56v, line 13; f. 62v, line 3 (twice); f. 63r, line 2; f. 73r, line 26; f. 75v, line 1 + line 11.

**gránt** (feminine adjective, oblique singular), f. 41r, line 17; f. 44r, line 21; f. 45v, line 32. *Gránt*, without any signs of erasure, is used on f. 48r, line 30 as a feminine adjective on oblique singular. There is also the form *gránde* (feminine, nominative singular): f. 40v, line 22; f. 43r, line 7; f. 62r, line 16; f. 64r, line 23; f. 71r, line 15. The use of this variant could explain certain erasures: on f. 44r, line 21, there are perhaps traces of an ending **-de**; and on f. 45v, the erasure also concerns two letters. Only the situation of f. 41r remains uncertain.

**iugement**, f. 39v, line 38-39 (oblique plural). *Iugemént*, (nominative and oblique, both singular and plural): f. 38r, line 17 + line 20 + line 29; f. 39r, line 37-38; f. 41v, line 16; f. 43r, line 38; f. 44r line 26; f. 44v, line 1 + line 16; f. 45r, line 1 + line 4; f. 53r, line 6 + line 7; f. 54r, line 26 + line 27; f. 56r, line 26; f. 58r, line 12; f. 59v, line 21-22; f. 60r, line 26; f. 60v, line 15+ line 15-16 + line 31; f. 61v, line 6; f. 62v, line 39; f. 65r, line 9 + line 21; f. 67r, line 3; f. 67v, line 4 + line 16; f. 68r, line 17 + line 29; f. 68v, line 9 + line 14 + line 16 + line 21 + line 38; f. 69r, line 20; f. 71v, line 22; f. 72r, line 11; f. 72v, line 39; f. 73v, line 8-9; f. 75v, line 29-30. *Iugeménz*, f. 68r, line 35 (nominative singular). *Iugeménz* (oblique plural or nominative plural): f. 38r, line 39; f. 40v, line 1; f. 47v, line 15; f. 58r, line 33; f. 60r, line 34; f. 62r, line 35-36 + line 37-38; f. 66v, line 8 + line 15 + 33; f. 67r, line 8 + line 18 + line 29; f. 67v, line 35 + line 40; f. 68r, line 2 + line 13 + line 16; f. 68v, line 25; f. 73r, line 25 + line 26; f. 75r, line 12. The word renders Latin neuter *iudicium*, but has an unstable and hesitant declension (cf. Sneddon 1972: 116).

**iumént**, f. 48r, line 14 (nominative plural). It renders Latin neuter *iumentum*. The correction of the scribe (probably an erased **-z**) suggests that he made efforts to follow the declension. *Iumenz* (nominative singular or oblique plural): f. 44v, line 2; f. 47v, line 32; 48r, line 2; f. 53v, line 9; f. 55r, line 33 + line 36; f. 62r, line 4; f. 64r, line 14; f. 73r, line 13.

**núiz**, f. 53v, line 37 (nominative singular). Perhaps the scribe wished to follow the declension, but as many others feminine terms, **núit/núiz** is subject to alterations of a flexional final **-z**. The spelling **núiz** (oblique plural) is also found on f. 37v, line 22; f. 70r, line 37. *Núit* (nominative or oblique singular): on f. 39r, line 29 + line 39; f. 40r, line 31 (twice); f. 40v, line 34; f. 43r, line 21; f. 46r, line 26 + line 35; f. 49r, line 12; f. 54r, line 34 + line 38 (extensive erasure); f. 54v, line 34; f. 57v, line 12; f. 58v, line 24; f. 59r, line 24; f. 62r, line 10; f. 62v, line 30; f. 67r, line 21 + line 28; f. 69r, line 13; f. 70r, line 2; f. 70v, line 25; f. 71r, line 31 + line 32.

**mónz** (nominative singular), f. 51v, line 23 + line 24 (twice) + line 25. *Monz* (extensive erasure): f. 51v, line 24 (nominative singular); f. 56v, line 24 (oblique plural). *Monz* (nominative singular or oblique plural, with one exception only): f. 47v, line 14; f. 51r, line 6; f. 53r, line 22; f. 53v, line 21; f. 54r, line 13 + line 22; f. 56r, line 12; f. 57v, line 4; f. 59v, line 37; f. 61v, line 35 + line 39; f. 62r, line 2 + line 26; f. 65v, line 2 (nominative plural); f. 69r, line 8; f. 72r, line 33; f. 73r, line 12 + line 34; f. 75v, line 3. *Munz* (oblique plural): f. 39v, line 22; f. 48r, line 14. *Mónt* (nominative plural or oblique singular, with two exceptions): f. 46r, line 33; f. 46v, line 7; f. 47r, line 26; f. 47v, line 5 (twice, once as nominative singular); f. 55v, line 1 (twice) + line 17; f. 58v, line 20; f. 60r, line 29; f. 60v, line 9 + line 23; f. 61v, line 37; f. 62r, line 9; f. 65r, line 40; f. 69r, line 40 (nominative singular); f. 69v, line 2; f. 70r, line 33; f. 74v, line 7 + line 15 + line 20 + line 21 + line 27. *Múnt* (nominative plural or oblique singular): f. 37r, line 26; f. 38v, line 15; f. 39r, line 15; f. 41r, line 37; f. 44v, line 1; f. 47r, line 25; f. 53r, line 7.

**pechet**, f. 43r, line 19 (nominative plural). It translates Latin neuter plural *peccata*. *Pechét* (oblique singular), f. 41v, line 18; f. 48r, line 32. *Pecchét* (oblique singular), f. 43r, line 19 + line 25; f. 45v, line 30. Cf. the spelling *pechiet*, nominative singular, on f. 38v, line 11; and
f. 44r, line 21

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>

8; f. 58v, line 16; f. 59v, line 16; f. 60r, line 10 + line 13 + line 15 + line 18; f. 60v, line 2; f. 61r, line 22; f. 62r, line 31; f. 62v, line 34; f. 63r, line 27 + line 34; f. 63v, line 2 + line 9; f. 64r, line 23; f. 65r, line 8 + line 31; f. 65v, line 9; f. 69v, line 10; f. 70v, line 8 + line 13; f. 73v, line 7; f. 74v, line 20 + line 31; f. 75r, line 18. This spelling is also used for nominative plural: f. 37r, line 10; f. 38r, line 24 + line 30 + line 33 + line 34; f. 47r, line 29 + line 36; f. 47v, line 19; f. 51r, line 7; f. 51r, line 25; f. 51v, line 1; f. 55v, line 22; f. 57r, line 30; f. 63r, line 34; f. 65v, line 8; f. 66r, line 7 + line 18. *Gént* (nominative or oblique singular): f. 43v, line 6; f. 46v, line 3; f. 56v, line 13; f. 62v, line 3 (twice); f. 63r, line 2; f. 73r, line 26; f. 75v, line 1 + line 11.

**gránt** (feminine adjective, oblique singular), f. 41r, line 17; f. 44r, line 21; f. 45v, line 32. *Gránt*, without any signs of erasure, is used on f. 48r, line 30 as a feminine adjective on oblique singular. There is also the form *gránde* (feminine, nominative singular): f. 40v, line 22; f. 43r, line 7; f. 62r, line 16; f. 64r, line 23; f. 71r, line 15. The use of this variant could explain certain erasures: on f. 44r, line 21, there are perhaps traces of an ending **-de**; and on f. 45v, the erasure also concerns two letters. Only the situation of f. 41r remains uncertain.

**iugement**, f. 39v, line 38-39 (oblique plural). *Iugemént*, (nominative and oblique, both singular and plural): f. 38r, line 17 + line 20 + line 29; f. 39r, line 37-38; f. 41v, line 16; f. 43r, line 38; f. 44r line 26; f. 44v, line 1 + line 16; f. 45r, line 1 + line 4; f. 53r, line 6 + line 7; f. 54r, line 26 + line 27; f. 56r, line 26; f. 58r, line 12; f. 59v, line 21-22; f. 60r, line 26; f. 60v, line 15+ line 15-16 + line 31; f. 61v, line 6; f. 62v, line 39; f. 65r, line 9 + line 21; f. 67r, line 3; f. 67v, line 4 + line 16; f. 68r, line 17 + line 29; f. 68v, line 9 + line 14 + line 16 + line 21 + line 38; f. 69r, line 20; f. 71v, line 22; f. 72r, line 11; f. 72v, line 39; f. 73v, line 8-9; f. 75v, line 29-30. *Iugeménz*, f. 68r, line 35 (nominative singular). *Iugeménz* (oblique plural or nominative plural): f. 38r, line 39; f. 40v, line 1; f. 47v, line 15; f. 58r, line 33; f. 60r, line 34; f. 62r, line 35-36 + line 37-38; f. 66v, line 8 + line 15 + 33; f. 67r, line 8 + line 18 + line 29; f. 67v, line 35 + line 40; f. 68r, line 2 + line 13 + line 16; f. 68v, line 25; f. 73r, line 25 + line 26; f. 75r, line 12. The word renders Latin neuter *iudicium*, but has an unstable and hesitant declension (cf. Sneddon 1972: 116).

**iumént**, f. 48r, line 14 (nominative plural). It renders Latin neuter *iumentum*. The correction of the scribe (probably an erased **-z**) suggests that he made efforts to follow the declension. *Iumenz* (nominative singular or oblique plural): f. 44v, line 2; f. 47v, line 32; 48r, line 2; f. 53v, line 9; f. 55r, line 33 + line 36; f. 62r, line 4; f. 64r, line 14; f. 73r, line 13.

**núiz**, f. 53v, line 37 (nominative singular). Perhaps the scribe wished to follow the declension, but as many others feminine terms, **núit/núiz** is subject to alterations of a flexional final **-z**. The spelling **núiz** (oblique plural) is also found on f. 37v, line 22; f. 70r, line 37. *Núit* (nominative or oblique singular): on f. 39r, line 29 + line 39; f. 40r, line 31 (twice); f. 40v, line 34; f. 43r, line 21; f. 46r, line 26 + line 35; f. 49r, line 12; f. 54r, line 34 + line 38 (extensive erasure); f. 54v, line 34; f. 57v, line 12; f. 58v, line 24; f. 59r, line 24; f. 62r, line 10; f. 62v, line 30; f. 67r, line 21 + line 28; f. 69r, line 13; f. 70r, line 2; f. 70v, line 25; f. 71r, line 31 + line 32.

**mónz** (nominative singular), f. 51v, line 23 + line 24 (twice) + line 25. *Monz* (extensive erasure): f. 51v, line 24 (nominative singular); f. 56v, line 24 (oblique plural). *Monz* (nominative singular or oblique plural, with one exception only): f. 47v, line 14; f. 51r, line 6; f. 53r, line 22; f. 53v, line 21; f. 54r, line 13 + line 22; f. 56r, line 12; f. 57v, line 4; f. 59v, line 37; f. 61v, line 35 + line 39; f. 62r, line 2 + line 26; f. 65v, line 2 (nominative plural); f. 69r, line 8; f. 72r, line 33; f. 73r, line 12 + line 34; f. 75v, line 3. *Munz* (oblique plural): f. 39v, line 22; f. 48r, line 14. *Mónt* (nominative plural or oblique singular, with two exceptions): f. 46r, line 33; f. 46v, line 7; f. 47r, line 26; f. 47v, line 5 (twice, once as nominative singular); f. 55v, line 1 (twice) + line 17; f. 58v, line 20; f. 60r, line 29; f. 60v, line 9 + line 23; f. 61v, line 37; f. 62r, line 9; f. 65r, line 40; f. 69r, line 40 (nominative singular); f. 69v, line 2; f. 70r, line 33; f. 74v, line 7 + line 15 + line 20 + line 21 + line 27. *Múnt* (nominative plural or oblique singular): f. 37r, line 26; f. 38v, line 15; f. 39r, line 15; f. 41r, line 37; f. 44v, line 1; f. 47r, line 25; f. 53r, line 7.

**pechet**, f. 43r, line 19 (nominative plural). It translates Latin neuter plural *peccata*. *Pechét* (oblique singular), f. 41v, line 18; f. 48r, line 32. *Pecchét* (oblique singular), f. 43r, line 19 + line 25; f. 45v, line 30. Cf. the spelling *pechiet*, nominative singular, on f. 38v, line 11; and
oblique singular on f. 45r, line 37; f. 48r, line 33. *Pecchéd*: f. 64v, line 2 (oblique singular) + line 10 (nominative singular). *Pechiéz*: f. 48r, line 35 (oblique plural). *Pecchiéz*: f. 48r, line 40 (oblique plural); f. 49v, line 36 (nominative singular). *Pecchéz* (oblique plural): f. 45r, line 19; f. 55r, line 21; f. 55v, line 34; f. 57r, line 7; f. 58r, line 35; f. 61v, line 10; f. 71v, line 29-30.

reguárz, f. 53r, line 31 (nominative singular). Perhaps the scribe wrote a final **-t** initially, then corrected it into **-z**, to follow the declension.

saínz, f. 51r, line 4; f. 60v, line 17 (nominative singular). In both cases there seem to be traces of an erased **-t** under the correction. *Sáinz / saínz* (nominative singular or oblique plural): f. 38v, line 23; f. 39r, line 23; f. 40r, line 2; f. 43r, line 26 (extensive erasure); f. 45r, line 1; f. 48r, line 8 (extensive erasure); f. 48v, line 23; f. 52r, line 8; f. 53r, line 2 (on top of an erasure); f. 55v, line 24; f. 56v, line 12; f. 57r, line 15 + line 23; f. 57v, line 4; f. 58r, line 2 + line 3 + line 19; f. 60r, line 36; f. 60v, line 14 + line 23; f. 64v, line 36; f. 66r, line 2; f. 72v, line 23 + line 26; f. 73r, line 40; f. 73v, line 1 + line 9 + line 10 + line 23; f. 74r, line 7 + line 18; f. 74v, line 15. *Sáint / saínt* (nominative plural or oblique singular): f. 37r, line 15 + line 26 + line 34; f. 37v, line 8; f. 38v, line 18; f. 39r, line 15 + line 33; f. 39v, line 21; f. 40r, line 2 (extensive erasure); f. 40v, line 9 + line 14 + line 34; f. 41r, line 38; f. 42r, line 25 + line 38; f. 42v, line 12; f. 43r, line 15; f. 43v, line 16 (extensive erasure) + line 26; f. 46v, line 7; f. 47v, line 2 + line 4; f. 48v, line 2; f. 55v, line 23; f. 50r, line 19; f. 51v, line 12; f. 54v, line 5; f. 55r, line 25; f. 55v, line 18; f. 58r, line 18 + line 21 + line 38; f. 60r, line 17; f. 60v, line 1 + line 23; f. 61r, line 27 + line 40; f. 62r, line 32; f. 63r, line 15; f. 63v, line 10; f. 65r, line 12; f. 70r, line 18 + line 26; f. 71r, line 10 + line 11; f. 72v, line 18 + line 31; f. 73v, line 5; f. 74v, line 1.

túz, f. 45r, line 25. The adjective is agreed here with a masculine, nominative singular. The width of the erasure suggests that the scribe erased two letters. Initially, he

possibly wrote túit, the usual form of nobimative plural. *Uanitéz*, f. 45v, line 9 (nominative singular). *Uanitéz* (oblique plural): f. 42v, line 29; f. 45r, line 30; f. 45v, line 26; f. 75r, line 40. *Uanitét* (oblique singular): f. 37r, line 33; f. 41v, line 32; f. 48v, line 20. *Uanitéd* (oblique singular): f. 55r, line 15; f. 67r, line 1; f. 71v, line 3; f. 72r, line 32 + line 37; f. 72v, line 1. *Uanité*: f. 50v, line 9 (oblique singular).

At the end of this survey of dentals in both nominal and verbal endings, it is evident that there was a turning point in the habits (or perhaps even the routine) of the scribe. For future and past tenses, this break occurs on f. 53–59. In the fist part of the text, the scribe erased a final **-t** and left only the final tonic vowel; whereas in the second part of the text, he either transcribed a form ending in a vowel, or a form ending in **-d**. Erasures in other verbal forms tend to disappear after f. 56, and thus prove that the scribe managed to find a logic to those spellings. In the case of the past participle, a turning point happens on f. 57. After that folio, the scribe ceases to erase final dentals and/or correct them into **-z**. As for noun declension, the last erasure of a dental and its replacement by a correction is on f. 60, while the last erasure without correction is on f. 53. This suggests that the turning point in the transcription of dental endings occurs approximately on f. 53-60. It must be linked with other corrections made by the scribe, the turning point of which seems to occur on more or less the same folios. However, our survey is yet incomplete and provisional. The second instalment of this paper, to be published next year, will present a comprehensive diagram of all the idiosyncracies of the scribe. The diagram will provide the means to study in depth the scribe’s method of translation (or adaptation), and the genetics of the text.

The Douce MS 320 scribe is not an unproficient speaker and writer of Old French. It is difficult (at least at this stage of our analysis) to postulate why certain translation choices were used in his initial transcription of the text. Certain erasures were clearly determined by the scribe's attempt at writing in a better language.

<figure><img src="image_145.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_146.png" /><figcaption>f. 51r,
line 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /><figcaption>f. 60v,
line 17</figcaption></figure>
oblique singular on f. 45r, line 37; f. 48r, line 33. *Pecchéd*: f. 64v, line 2 (oblique singular) + line 10 (nominative singular). *Pechiéz*: f. 48r, line 35 (oblique plural). *Pecchiéz*: f. 48r, line 40 (oblique plural); f. 49v, line 36 (nominative singular). *Pecchéz* (oblique plural): f. 45r, line 19; f. 55r, line 21; f. 55v, line 34; f. 57r, line 7; f. 58r, line 35; f. 61v, line 10; f. 71v, line 29-30.

reguárz, f. 53r, line 31 (nominative singular). Perhaps the scribe wrote a final **-t** initially, then corrected it into **-z**, to follow the declension.

saínz, f. 51r, line 4; f. 60v, line 17 (nominative singular). In both cases there seem to be traces of an erased **-t** under the correction. *Sáinz / saínz* (nominative singular or oblique plural): f. 38v, line 23; f. 39r, line 23; f. 40r, line 2; f. 43r, line 26 (extensive erasure); f. 45r, line 1; f. 48r, line 8 (extensive erasure); f. 48v, line 23; f. 52r, line 8; f. 53r, line 2 (on top of an erasure); f. 55v, line 24; f. 56v, line 12; f. 57r, line 15 + line 23; f. 57v, line 4; f. 58r, line 2 + line 3 + line 19; f. 60r, line 36; f. 60v, line 14 + line 23; f. 64v, line 36; f. 66r, line 2; f. 72v, line 23 + line 26; f. 73r, line 40; f. 73v, line 1 + line 9 + line 10 + line 23; f. 74r, line 7 + line 18; f. 74v, line 15. *Sáint / saínt* (nominative plural or oblique singular): f. 37r, line 15 + line 26 + line 34; f. 37v, line 8; f. 38v, line 18; f. 39r, line 15 + line 33; f. 39v, line 21; f. 40r, line 2 (extensive erasure); f. 40v, line 9 + line 14 + line 34; f. 41r, line 38; f. 42r, line 25 + line 38; f. 42v, line 12; f. 43r, line 15; f. 43v, line 16 (extensive erasure) + line 26; f. 46v, line 7; f. 47v, line 2 + line 4; f. 48v, line 2; f. 55v, line 23; f. 50r, line 19; f. 51v, line 12; f. 54v, line 5; f. 55r, line 25; f. 55v, line 18; f. 58r, line 18 + line 21 + line 38; f. 60r, line 17; f. 60v, line 1 + line 23; f. 61r, line 27 + line 40; f. 62r, line 32; f. 63r, line 15; f. 63v, line 10; f. 65r, line 12; f. 70r, line 18 + line 26; f. 71r, line 10 + line 11; f. 72v, line 18 + line 31; f. 73v, line 5; f. 74v, line 1.

túz, f. 45r, line 25. The adjective is agreed here with a masculine, nominative singular. The width of the erasure suggests that the scribe erased two letters. Initially, he

possibly wrote túit, the usual form of nobimative plural. *uanitéz*, f. 45v, line 9 (nominative singular). *Uanitéz* (oblique plural): f. 42v, line 29; f. 45r, line 30; f. 45v, line 26; f. 75r, line 40. *Uanitét* (oblique singular): f. 37r, line 33; f. 41v, line 32; f. 48v, line 20. *Uanitéd* (oblique singular): f. 55r, line 15; f. 67r, line 1; f. 71v, line 3; f. 72r, line 32 + line 37; f. 72v, line 1. *Uanité*: f. 50v, line 9 (oblique singular).

At the end of this survey of dentals in both nominal and verbal endings, it is evident that there was a turning point in the habits (or perhaps even the routine) of the scribe. For future and past tenses, this break occurs on f. 53–59. In the fist part of the text, the scribe erased a final **-t** and left only the final tonic vowel; whereas in the second part of the text, he either transcribed a form ending in a vowel, or a form ending in **-d**. Erasures in other verbal forms tend to disappear after f. 56, and thus prove that the scribe managed to find a logic to those spellings. In the case of the past participle, a turning point happens on f. 57. After that folio, the scribe ceases to erase final dentals and/or correct them into **-z**. As for noun declension, the last erasure of a dental and its replacement by a correction is on f. 60, while the last erasure without correction is on f. 53. This suggests that the turning point in the transcription of dental endings occurs approximately on f. 53-60. It must be linked with other corrections made by the scribe, the turning point of which seems to occur on more or less the same folios. However, our survey is yet incomplete and provisional. The second instalment of this paper, to be published next year, will present a comprehensive diagram of all the idiosyncracies of the scribe. The diagram will provide the means to study in depth the scribe’s method of translation (or adaptation), and the genetics of the text.

The Douce MS 320 scribe is not an unproficient speaker and writer of Old French. It is difficult (at least at this stage of our analysis) to postulate why certain translation choices were used in his initial transcription of the text. Certain erasures were clearly determined by the scribe's attempt at writing in a better language.

<figure><img src="image_148.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_149.png" /><figcaption>f. 51r,
line 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /><figcaption>f. 60v,
line 17</figcaption></figure>
## ENFER(N), IUR(N), AND CAR(N) (AC)

### Enfern

Three striking erasures concern the deletion of an **-n** in *enfer(n)* (oblique singular): f. 57r, line 37 (*enfer_*); f. 58v, line 14 (*enfer_*); f. 59v, line 25 (*enfér_*). One must note that, in oblique singular, the same term is written without any trace of erasure (and no final **-n**) from f. 71r to f. 75v: f. 71r, line 27; f. 71v, line 35; f. 73v, line 24; f. 75v, line 2. *Enfern* (oblique singular) is written with final **-n** and no erasure from the very beginning of the text until f. 65v: f. 37v, line 21; f. 38r, line 30; f. 39r, line 33; f. 39v, line 19; f. 42v, line 10; f. 43r, line 5; f. 47v, line 34 + line 35 + line 37; f. 49r, line 19; f. 57v, line 15; f. 65v, line 24 + line 28.

On f. 73v, line 39, the word has a flexional **-s**: *enfér*s (nominative singular). On f. 74r, line 14 (*enfér*s, oblique) is difficult to explain (cf. versions of Gallicanum that read here *ad inferos* or *ad infernum*). In this specific situation, the scribe could have actually translated *ad inferos*.

Concerning the ending **-n**, the scribe prefers this spelling at the beginning of his transcription process, but later decides to delete the final letter from f. 57r to f. 59v. This is, again, the turning point that I noticed in the spelling of final dentals. The choice of **-n** is consistent with the series of examples occurring from f. 37v to 65v, where the word is written with **-n**. However, the scribe later changed his mind and wrote it without **-n** from f. 62v to 75v. This accounts for an overlap in his spelling choices. The overlap coincides with the erasures and corrections that he made from f. 57r to f. 59v.

### Iurn

The deletion of final **-n** in the *iur(n)* follows a similar pattern. *Iur_*(oblique singular) occurs twice on f. 50r, line 36, as part of a formula, but the erasure concerns only the first word (*de iúr_ en iúrn*). In this particular situation, it is worth noting, on the one hand, that the sequence *de iúr* is part of an extensive erasure; on the other hand, that a small dot still visible close to the final **-r** bears witness to an erased letter **-n**). Other erasures of the same type occur on f. 57r, line 25 + line 28 (traces of an erased final **-n**); f. 57v, line 12; f. 58r, line 15; f. 60r, line 10 (in the formula *de iúr en iúr_*; which is a variant of the one from f. 50r, line 36, but both words have no final **-n** here).

*Enfer_ with final **-n** erased (+ visible traces):

f. 57r,
line 35

<figure><img src="image_148.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 14

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /></figure>

f. 59v,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /></figure>

*Iúr*, written without erasures and no final **-n** (nominative plural or oblique singular) occurs on f. 38v, line 35; f. 58v, line 28 + line 30; f. 59r, line 8; f. 61r, line 6 + line 7 + line 8 + line 13 + line 17; f. 64v, line 2 + line 35 + line 39; f. 66r, line 36; f. 67v, line 15 + line 30; f. 68v, line 25; f. 69r, line 12; f. 70v, line 24; f. 71r, line 4 + line 12 + line 39; f. 71v, line 9 + line 16; f. 72r, line 32; f. 72v, line 35; f. 73v, line 20; f. 74v, line 39. The spelling *iúrn* (oblique singular or nominative plural) is found on f. 37r, line 3; f. 39v, line 34; f. 40r, line 31; f. 40v, line 8 + line 17 + line 33; f. 41v, line 11; f. 42r, line 9; f. 43r, line 21 (twice); f. 44r, line 34; f. 44v, line 38; f. 45r, line 22 + line 30; f. 46r, line 7 + line 26 (twice) + line 34; f. 46v, line 20 + line 27 + line 35; f. 47v, line 23; f. 48r, line 18; f. 48v, line 13; f. 49r, line 12 + line 21 + line 31 + line 32 + line 33 + line 35; f. 49v, line 1; f. 50r, line 12 + line 33 + line 36; f. 51v, line 29 (twice, the first one on top of an erasure, also part of a repetition: *el iúrn chescún iúrn*); f. 52v, line 25 + line 33; f. 53r, line 4 + line 21 + line 37; f. 53v, line 1; f. 54r, line 5 + line 28 + line 33; f. 54v, line 28 + line 33; f. 55r, line 26; f. 56r, line 25; f. 57v, line 23 + line 32; f. 60r, line 3.

Two other erasures concern the flexional final **-z** (nominative singular and oblique plural): *iúrz*, f. 45v, line 8 (traces of an erased letter) ; f. 40r, line 31 (extensive erasure); f. 46v, line 12. The spelling *iúrz* from f. 37v, line 39 to f. 75r, line 16, is used as oblique plural. In the following instances it is used as nominative singular: f. 44v, line 24; f. 53v, line 36; f. 56v, line 40; f. 58v, line 23; f. 61v, line 16; f. 66r, line 33; f. 71r, line 32; f. 75v, line 21.

The spelling in **-n**, except for *iúr* on f. 38v, line 35, is the preferential choice of the scribe in the first part of the text. It is worth noting that the erasures are found at a turning point in the text (f. 50r to 60r), where the scribe changes *iúrn* to *iúr*. The exemple of *iúrz* shows that the scribe followed the declension in this occurrence too.

### Carn

On f. 56v, line 31, the scribe erases **-n** in *cárn* (*cár_* , nominative singular). The spelling *cárn* is used both for nominative and oblique singular on f. 39r, line 32; f. 42r, line 32; f. 45r, line 18 + line 23; f. 49r, line 35; f. 50v, line 14; f. 51r, line 1; f. 53v, line 13; f. 61r, line 11; f. 64v, line 23 (*cárn*).

*Cár* (nominative and oblique singular) is found on f. 55r,

*Iúr_ with final **-n** erased (+ visible traces):

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

f. 58r,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>

f. 60r,
line 10
### ENFER(N), IUR(N), AND CAR(N) (AC)

#### Enfern

Three striking erasures concern the deletion of an **-n** in *enfer(n)* (oblique singular): f. 57r, line 37 (*enfer_*); f. 58v, line 14 (*enfer_*); f. 59v, line 25 (*enfér_*). One must note that, in oblique singular, the same term is written without any trace of erasure (and no final **-n**) from f. 71r to f. 75v: f. 71r, line 27; f. 71v, line 35; f. 73v, line 24; f. 75v, line 2. *Enfern* (oblique singular) is written with final **-n** and no erasure from the very beginning of the text until f. 65v: f. 37v, line 21; f. 38r, line 30; f. 39r, line 33; f. 39v, line 19; f. 42v, line 10; f. 43r, line 5; f. 47v, line 34 + line 35 + line 37; f. 49r, line 19; f. 57v, line 15; f. 65v, line 24 + line 28.

On f. 73v, line 39, the word has a flexional **-s**: *enfér*s (nominative singular). On f. 74r, line 14 (*enfér*s, oblique) is difficult to explain (cf. versions of Gallicanum that read here *ad inferos* or *ad infernum*). In this specific situation, the scribe could have actually translated *ad inferos*.

Concerning the ending **-n**, the scribe prefers this spelling at the beginning of his transcription process, but later decides to delete the final letter from f. 57r to f. 59v. This is, again, the turning point that I noticed in the spelling of final dentals. The choice of **-n** is consistent with the series of examples occurring from f. 37v to 65v, where the word is written with **-n**. However, the scribe later changed his mind and wrote it without **-n** from f. 62v to 75v. This accounts for an overlap in his spelling choices. The overlap coincides with the erasures and corrections that he made from f. 57r to f. 59v.

#### Iurn

The deletion of final **-n** in the *iur(n)* follows a similar pattern. *Iur_*(oblique singular) occurs twice on f. 50r, line 36, as part of a formula, but the erasure concerns only the first word (*de iúr_ en iúrn*). In this particular situation, it is worth noting, on the one hand, that the sequence *de iúr* is part of an extensive erasure; on the other hand, that a small dot still visible close to the final **-r** bears witness to an erased letter **-n**). Other erasures of the same type occur on f. 57r, line 25 + line 28 (traces of an erased final **-n**); f. 57v, line 12; f. 58r, line 15; f. 60r, line 10 (in the formula *de iúr en iúr_*; which is a variant of the one from f. 50r, line 36, but both words have no final **-n** here).

Enfer_ with final **-n** erased (+ visible traces):

f. 57r,
line 35

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

f. 58v,
line 14

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

f. 59v,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>

**Iúr**, written without erasures and no final **-n** (nominative plural or oblique singular) occurs on f. 38v, line 35; f. 58v, line 28 + line 30; f. 59r, line 8; f. 61r, line 6 + line 7 + line 8 + line 13 + line 17; f. 64v, line 2 + line 35 + line 39; f. 66r, line 36; f. 67v, line 15 + line 30; f. 68v, line 25; f. 69r, line 12; f. 70v, line 24; f. 71r, line 4 + line 12 + line 39; f. 71v, line 9 + line 16; f. 72r, line 32; f. 72v, line 35; f. 73v, line 20; f. 74v, line 39. The spelling *iúrn* (oblique singular or nominative plural) is found on f. 37r, line 3; f. 39v, line 34; f. 40r, line 31; f. 40v, line 8 + line 17 + line 33; f. 41v, line 11; f. 42r, line 9; f. 43r, line 21 (twice); f. 44r, line 34; f. 44v, line 38; f. 45r, line 22 + line 30; f. 46r, line 7 + line 26 (twice) + line 34; f. 46v, line 20 + line 27 + line 35; f. 47v, line 23; f. 48r, line 18; f. 48v, line 13; f. 49r, line 12 + line 21 + line 31 + line 32 + line 33 + line 35; f. 49v, line 1; f. 50r, line 12 + line 33 + line 36; f. 51v, line 29 (twice, the first one on top of an erasure, also part of a repetition: *el iúrn chescún iúrn*); f. 52v, line 25 + line 33; f. 53r, line 4 + line 21 + line 37; f. 53v, line 1; f. 54r, line 5 + line 28 + line 33; f. 54v, line 28 + line 33; f. 55r, line 26; f. 56r, line 25; f. 57v, line 23 + line 32; f. 60r, line 3.

Two other erasures concern the flexional final **-z** (nominative singular and oblique plural): *iúrz*, f. 45v, line 8 (traces of an erased letter) ; f. 40r, line 31 (extensive erasure); f. 46v, line 12. The spelling *iúrz* from f. 37v, line 39 to f. 75r, line 16, is used as oblique plural. In the following instances it is used as nominative singular: f. 44v, line 24; f. 53v, line 36; f. 56v, line 40; f. 58v, line 23; f. 61v, line 16; f. 66r, line 33; f. 71r, line 32; f. 75v, line 21.

The spelling in **-n**, except for *iúr* on f. 38v, line 35, is the preferential choice of the scribe in the first part of the text. It is worth noting that the erasures are found at a turning point in the text (f. 50r to 60r), where the scribe changes *iúrn* to *iúr*. The exemple of *iúrz* shows that the scribe followed the declension in this occurrence too.

#### Carn

On f. 56v, line 31, the scribe erases **-n** in *cárn* (*cár_*, nominative singular). The spelling *cárn* is used both for nominative and oblique singular on f. 39r, line 32; f. 42r, line 32; f. 45r, line 18 + line 23; f. 49r, line 35; f. 50v, line 14; f. 51r, line 1; f. 53v, line 13; f. 61r, line 11; f. 64v, line 23 (*cárn*).

**Cár** (nominative and oblique singular) is found on f. 55r,

*Iúr_ with final **-n** erased (+ visible traces):*

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

f. 58r,
line 15

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>

f. 60r,
line 10
<figure><img src="image_154.png" /></figure>

f. 50r,
line 36

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

f. 57r,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>

f. 57r,
line 28

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>

line 23 (that is, on the folio before the erasure); f. 72v,
line 31. On f. 42r, line 3, plural *carns* translates an oblique
plural (just as in other cases after it). Yet on the next oc-
currence (f. 48r, line 17, on top of an erasure), the plural
becomes *cárz*: *Mangerái ié dunc les cárz*. The same plural

is written as such on f. 55r, line 8. The last example of a
plural can be found on f. 68r, line 15, where *cárz* is not writ-
ten on top of an erasure. However, on f. 55v, line 24, our
scribe wrote the flexional *-z* on top of an erasure: *carz*.

This short discussion of *cárn* is less conclusive than
the other two (*enfern + iúrn*) in the matter of final *-n*.
The occurrences of the word are rarer. Nevertheless, one
notes that the erasure appears in the same group of folios
concerned by the erasure of a final *-n*.
<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>

f. 50r,
line 36

<figure><img src="image_158.png" /></figure>

f. 57r,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

f. 57r,
line 28

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

line 23 (that is, on the folio before the erasure); f. 72v,
line 31. On f. 42r, line 3, plural *carns* translates an oblique
plural (just as in other cases after it). Yet on the next oc-
currence (f. 48r, line 17, on top of an erasure), the plural
becomes *cárz*: *Mangerái ié dunc les cárz*. The same plural

is written as such on f. 55r, line 8. The last example of a
plural can be found on f. 68r, line 15, where *cárz* is not writ-
ten on top of an erasure. However, on f. 55v, line 24, our
scribe wrote the flexional *-z* on top of an erasure: *carz*.

This short discussion of *cárn* is less conclusive than
the other two (*enfern + iúrn*) in the matter of final *-n*.
The occurrences of the word are rarer. Nevertheless, one
notes that the erasure appears in the same group of folios
concerned by the erasure of a final *-n*.
## KAR, QUAR, AND KER (AC)

Another type of erasures concerns the adverbial conjunction *car*, written in various manners on the first folios of the text (more or less until f. 40r). The word gradually stabilises as *kar* and does not change spellings in the remaining folios of the Douce MS 320.

*Kar* seems to be the choice of the scribe (written as such, without erasures) on f. 37r, line 28; f. 37v, line 10; f. 38r, line 40; f. 38v, line 22 + line 23 (twice); f. 39r, line 22; f. 39r, line 33; f. 39v, line 23; f. 40v, line 20 + line 23 + line 24 + line 28 + line 29. This spelling is therefore well known to the scribe and he kept it thoroughly until the end of the manuscript. However, there are instances in which the same scribe preferred a different spelling.

The first three times when the scribe corrects this word in his copy, on the first folio (f. 37r-v), he scrapes off a space of two letters and replaces the erased segment with a single letter *k*. Given the frequency of the spelling *quar* on the same first two folios of Douce MS 320 (f. 37v, line 3 + line 4 + line 18 + line 20 + line 24; f. 38r, line 5 + line 7 + line 16 + line 23 + line 24 + line 31 + line 36), it is safe to assume that the scribe had written *quar* on f. 37r, line 9 + line 27 and on f. 37v, line 1. Furthermore, in the specific case of f. 37r, line 27, where the first letter of the word was written in minuscule, traces of an initial *q-* are still visible on the margins of the erasure. According to the *Anglo-Norman Dictionary*, this spelling is rather frequent, along with *qar*, *qare*, *quare*, and *quer* in texts of the 12th and 13th centuries.

A second type of erasure concerns *kar* written on top of an erasure *k_r* or *k__*. There are ten instances in which the erased middle letter of this word was certainly *e*, thus the initial spelling must have been *ker* (f. 39r, line 11 + line 12; f. 39v, line 2 + line 34 + line 36 + line 37; f. 40r, line 3 + line 4 + line 5 + line 8). Two more erasures could also hide a reading *ker*. In these two cases, even though the final *-r* is also written on top of an erasure, this could be due to a clumsy movement of the blade. The scribe possibly damaged the final letter of the word in the process of scraping off *e* and had to write it again.

### 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_158.png" /><figcaption>*Kar* written on top of an erased *quar*:</figcaption></figure>

f. 37r,
line 9

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

f. 37r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 1

This *ker* spelling is used on three folios separated from a bilingual psalter, now at Maidstone, Kent History and Library Centre, Fa/Z1, dated mid-12th century, not long after Douce MS 320. The Maidstone scribe used only once the spelling *kar* (f. 3ra, Ps 68:17). All the other thirteen instances use *ker* (Ps 55:13; Ps 56:2; Ps 57:3; Ps 58:4; Ps 58:8; Ps 58:10–11; Ps 58:17; Ps 58:18; Ps 59:4; Ps 68:18; Ps 68:27; Ps 68:34; Ps 68:36). This suggests that the spelling *ker* by the Douce scribe was frequent at the time, just as

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /><figcaption>The use of *quar* on the first two folios (no erasures):</figcaption></figure>

f. 37v,
lines 3–4

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 18

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 20

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
lines 5–7

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 16

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 23

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 31

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 36
## KAR, QUAR, AND KER (AC)

Another type of erasures concerns the adverbial conjunction *car*, written in various manners on the first folios of the text (more or less until f. 40r). The word gradually stabilises as *kar* and does not change spellings in the remaining folios of the Douce MS 320.

*Kar* seems to be the choice of the scribe (written as such, without erasures) on f. 37r, line 28; f. 37v, line 10; f. 38r, line 40; f. 38v, line 22 + line 23 (twice); f. 39r, line 22; f. 39r, line 33; f. 39v, line 23; f. 40v, line 20 + line 23 + line 24 + line 28 + line 29. This spelling is therefore well known to the scribe and he kept it thoroughly until the end of the manuscript. However, there are instances in which the same scribe preferred a different spelling.

The first three times when the scribe corrects this word in his copy, on the first folio (f. 37r-v), he scrapes off a space of two letters and replaces the erased segment with a single letter *k*. Given the frequency of the spelling *quar* on the same first two folios of Douce MS 320 (f. 37v, line 3 + line 4 + line 18 + line 20 + line 24; f. 38r, line 5 + line 7 + line 16 + line 23 + line 24 + line 31 + line 36), it is safe to assume that the scribe had written *quar* on f. 37r, line 9 + line 27 and on f. 37v, line 1. Furthermore, in the specific case of f. 37r, line 27, where the first letter of the word was written in minuscule, traces of an initial *q-* are still visible on the margins of the erasure. According to the *Anglo-Norman Dictionary*, this spelling is rather frequent, along with *qar*, *qare*, *quare*, and *quer* in texts of the 12th and 13th centuries.

A second type of erasure concerns *kar* written on top of an erasure *k_r* or *k__*. There are ten instances in which the erased middle letter of this word was certainly *e*, thus the initial spelling must have been *ker* (f. 39r, line 11 + line 12; f. 39v, line 2 + line 34 + line 36 + line 37; f. 40r, line 3 + line 4 + line 5 + line 8). Two more erasures could also hide a reading *ker*. In these two cases, even though the final *-r* is also written on top of an erasure, this could be due to a clumsy movement of the blade. The scribe possibly damaged the final letter of the word in the process of scraping off *e* and had to write it again.

### 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_161.png" /><figcaption>*Kar* written on top of an erased *quar*:</figcaption></figure>

f. 37r,
line 9

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>

f. 37r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 1

This *ker* spelling is used on three folios separated from a bilingual psalter, now at Maidstone, Kent History and Library Centre, Fa/Z1, dated mid-12th century, not long after Douce MS 320. The Maidstone scribe used only once the spelling *kar* (f. 3ra, Ps 68:17). All the other thirteen instances use *ker* (Ps 55:13; Ps 56:2; Ps 57:3; Ps 58:4; Ps 58:8; Ps 58:10–11; Ps 58:17; Ps 58:18; Ps 59:4; Ps 68:18; Ps 68:27; Ps 68:34; Ps 68:36). This suggests that the spelling *ker* by the Douce scribe was frequent at the time, just as

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /><figcaption>The use of *quar* on the first two folios (no erasures):</figcaption></figure>

f. 37v,
lines 3–4

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 18

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 20

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>

f. 37v,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
lines 5–7

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 16

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 23

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 24

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 31

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

f. 38r,
line 36
kare, kaar, kaer, car, care, char, kor, and quore.

There are several other erasures on top of which the
word kar was written on the first folios of Douce MS 320:
f. 37v, line 13 (icels kar il entariérent téi síre) + line 15 (chi
aiment le tuén núm ; kar tu beneisterás al iúste); f. 38v, line
6 (Kar il dist_ en sun cuer) + line 17 (Kár lesquels chóses
tu parfesís íl destrui-); f. 39v, line 38 (ne felunessement ne
fís cóntre le mien deu. Kar túit li sun iuge-); f. 42v, line 34

(é li miéns uéntres. Kar defist en do-); f. 43v, line 3 (Kar
íl meésme). However, all of them are part of longer re-
writes and concern issues of phraseology. For the time
being, one can only assume that the use of three consec-
utive spellings on f. 37r-40r (and reaching perhaps as far
as f. 44v) bear witness to the scribe's initial wavering,
before a spelling automatism falls into place. For further
details, see the facsimiles of ff. 37r and 37v, where certain
cases are treated in context (with reconstructions).

Kar with a written on top of an erased e (ker):

Unclear cases of kar (on top of an erased ker?):

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>
kare, kaar, kaer, car, care, char, kor, and quore.

There are several other erasures on top of which the
word kar was written on the first folios of Douce MS 320:
f. 37v, line 13 (icels kar il entariérent téi síre) + line 15 (chi
aiment le tuén núm ; kar tu beneisterás al iúste); f. 38v, line
6 (Kar il dist_ en sun cuer) + line 17 (Kár lesquels chóses
tu parfesís íl destrui-); f. 39v, line 38 (ne felunessement ne
fís cóntre le mien deu. Kar túit li sun iuge-); f. 42v, line 34

(é li miéns uéntres. Kar defist en do-); f. 43v, line 3 (Kar
íl meésme). However, all of them are part of longer re-
writes and concern issues of phraseology. For the time
being, one can only assume that the use of three consec-
utive spellings on f. 37r-40r (and reaching perhaps as far
as f. 44v) bear witness to the scribe's initial wavering,
before a spelling automatism falls into place. For further
details, see the facsimiles of ff. 37r and 37v, where certain
cases are treated in context (with reconstructions).

Kar with a written on top of an erased e (ker):

Unclear cases of kar (on top of an erased ker?):

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /></figure>
## QUER > CUER (AC)

Cuer(s) modified from a previous quer(s) with the scraping off of the perpendicular bar of q is obvious in a great number of examples up to f. 43v: f. 37r, line 33; f. 37v, line 10 + line 37 + line 38; f. 38r, line 14; f. 38v, line 6 + line 8 + line 35; f. 39r, line 1 + line 16 + line 38; f. 40r, line 39; f. 40v, line 7 + line 11 + line 19; f. 41r, line 39; f. 41v, line 23 + line 30; f. 42r, line 5 + line 13 + line 21 + line 27 + line 32; f. 43r, line 16 + line 34; f. 43v, line 6 + line 9. This

Quer becomes cuer (the initial letter is half erased):

variant change is also pointed out by Sneddon (1972: 18). The most evident situations are shown in the accompanying photos.

Other instances are not certain. There are, on the one hand, those which are part of longer erasures: *il díst en sun cúer* (f. 38r, line 40); *li miéns cuers* (f. 39r, lines 31-32); *escalfá lí miéns cuérs* (f. 45v, line 5); *anguíssiéz lí miéns cuérs* (f. 50r, line 28). On the other hand, the porosity seen on certain parts of various folios can be due to a varying number of factors that look very similar to erasures. Such cases occur on f. 37r, line 36 + line 38; f. 38v, line 13 +

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /><figcaption>f. 37r,
line 33</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /><figcaption>f. 40v,
line 07</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
line 10</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_175.png" /><figcaption>f. 40v,
line 11</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
lines 37-38</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_177.png" /><figcaption>f. 41v,
line 30</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 27</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v,
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 32</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v,
line 35</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /><figcaption>f. 43r,
line 16</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_187.png" /><figcaption>f. 43r,
line 34</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_188.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 38</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_189.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_190.png" /><figcaption>f. 40r,
line 39</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_191.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 9</figcaption></figure>
## QUER > CUER (AC)

Cuer(s) modified from a previous quer(s) with the scraping off of the perpendicular bar of q is obvious in a great number of examples up to f. 43v: f. 37r, line 33; f. 37v, line 10 + line 37 + line 38; f. 38r, line 14; f. 38v, line 6 + line 8 + line 35; f. 39r, line 1 + line 16 + line 38; f. 40r, line 39; f. 40v, line 7 + line 11 + line 19; f. 41r, line 39; f. 41v, line 23 + line 30; f. 42r, line 5 + line 13 + line 21 + line 27 + line 32; f. 43r, line 16 + line 34; f. 43v, line 6 + line 9. This

Quer becomes cuer (the initial letter is half erased):

variant change is also pointed out by Sneddon (1972: 18). The most evident situations are shown in the accompanying photos.

Other instances are not certain. There are, on the one hand, those which are part of longer erasures: *il díst en sun cúer* (f. 38r, line 40); *li miéns cuers* (f. 39r, lines 31-32); *escalfá lí miéns cuérs* (f. 45v, line 5); *anguíssiéz lí miéns cuérs* (f. 50r, line 28). On the other hand, the porosity seen on certain parts of various folios can be due to a varying number of factors that look very similar to erasures. Such cases occur on f. 37r, line 36 + line 38; f. 38v, line 13 +

<figure><img src="image_175.png" /><figcaption>f. 37r,
line 33</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /><figcaption>f. 40v,
line 07</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_177.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
line 10</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /><figcaption>f. 40v,
line 11</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /><figcaption>f. 37v,
lines 37-38</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /><figcaption>f. 41v,
line 30</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r,
line 14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 21</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 27</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v,
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /><figcaption>f. 42r,
line 32</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_187.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v,
line 35</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_188.png" /><figcaption>f. 43r,
line 16</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_189.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_190.png" /><figcaption>f. 43r,
line 34</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_191.png" /><figcaption>f. 39r,
line 38</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_192.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_193.png" /><figcaption>f. 40r,
line 39</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_194.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v,
line 9</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_192.png" /><figcaption>f. 42v, line 38 (first certain spelling cuer in the text)</figcaption></figure>

Cases of *cuer* in which the erasure is not certain:

<figure><img src="image_193.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v, line 39 (porosity due to folding?)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_194.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v, line 17 (inconclusive case)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_195.png" /><figcaption>f. 41r, line 19 (inconclusive case)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_196.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_197.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.

line 17 + line 25 (twice); f. 41r, line 19; f. 42v, line 38. One of these causes can be identified with the folding of the Psalm translation quires at a historical date, previous to the binding of the current manuscript. This is clearly the case on f. 38v, line 39.

The first time the scribe wrote unequivocally *cuer*, with no sign of erasure, is on f. 42v. A second one, on f. 43v, line 15, has the sequence *lí nostre cuer* written in the margin of the folio. Since these words depass the average length of the other lines on the folio, and since the last letters of *cuer* are buried into the spine of the codex, this is clearly an addition made during the revision process (for more cases of the same type, *vide infra*). Throughout the remaining part of the manuscript, *cuer* is the only spelling used by the scribe.

<figure><img src="image_198.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v, line 15</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_195.png" /><figcaption>f. 42v, line 38 (first certain spelling cuer in the text)</figcaption></figure>

Cases of *cuer* in which the erasure is not certain:

<figure><img src="image_196.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v, line 39 (porosity due to folding?)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_197.png" /><figcaption>f. 38v, line 17 (inconclusive case)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_198.png" /><figcaption>f. 41r, line 19 (inconclusive case)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_199.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_200.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.

line 17 + line 25 (twice); f. 41r, line 19; f. 42v, line 38. One of these causes can be identified with the folding of the Psalm translation quires at a historical date, previous to the binding of the current manuscript. This is clearly the case on f. 38v, line 39.

The first time the scribe wrote unequivocally *cuer*, with no sign of erasure, is on f. 42v. A second one, on f. 43v, line 15, has the sequence *lí nostre cuer* written in the margin of the folio. Since these words depass the average length of the other lines on the folio, and since the last letters of *cuer* are buried into the spine of the codex, this is clearly an addition made during the revision process (for more cases of the same type, *vide infra*). Throughout the remaining part of the manuscript, *cuer* is the only spelling used by the scribe.

<figure><img src="image_201.png" /><figcaption>f. 43v, line 15</figcaption></figure>
MAIS vs ACERTES (AC)

In several erasures, corrections concern a syntactic group made up of *mais* + subject, which renders the Latin syntactic group subject + *autem*. The first one occurs on f. 40v, line 15: *mais nús* on top of an erasure in the sequence *mais nús el num del segnur de nostre déu apelerúms* (cf. Lat nos autem in nomine domini dei nostri invocabimus). The second time it appears in the line below: f. 40v, line 16, where *mais nús* was written on top of an erasure in the sequence *mais nús leuámes é súmes esdrecét* (cf. Lat nos autem surreximus, et erecti sumus). In both situations, *mais* is part of an extensive erasure. Other examples follow on f. 42r, line 16, where *mais nostre síre* was written on top of an erasure in the sequence *mais nostre síre receút méi* (cf. Lat dominus autem assumpsit me); but also f. 43r, line 1, in *Máis ié en téi esperái* (cf. Lat Ego autem in te speravi domine). It is worth noting that in the same psalm, a few lines earlier, a different translation choice was used for the same Latin group: Lat ego autem in domino speravi was rendered as OFr *lé acertes el segnur esperai* (f. 42v, line 30). Moreover, at the end of the same psalm, Lat Ego autem dixi in excessu mentis mee is once again rendered as *lé acértes dis el trespás de la méie pénse* (f. 43r, lines 12-13).

Another example of *mais* on top of an erasure is visible

<figure><img src="image_199.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.

*Mais + subject possibly in place of subject + acertes:*

f. 40v,
lines
15–16

<figure><img src="image_200.png" /></figure>

f. 42r,
line 16

<figure><img src="image_201.png" /></figure>

f. 43r
line 1

<figure><img src="image_202.png" /></figure>

f. 44r,
line 9

<figure><img src="image_203.png" /></figure>

f. 44r,
line 14

<figure><img src="image_204.png" /></figure>

f. 45r,
line 31

<figure><img src="image_205.png" /></figure>

on f. 44r, line 9, where the longer sequence *Mais la meie anemewas* written on top of an erasure in the phrase *Máis. la meie aneme sesleécerat el seignur* (cf. Lat Anima autem mea exsultabit in domino). On the same folio, line 14, *mais ié* was written on top of an erasure in *Máis ié cum il á hei füssent moléste* (cf. Lat Ego autem cum mihi molesti essent). On f. 45r, line 31, the erasure occurs once again at the beginning of the line, just as in the previous example: *Máis ié ensement cum súrz nen ođéie* (cf. Lat Ego autem tam quam surdus non audiebam). On f. 46r, line 5, the erasure is longer, a sign that the syntactic change affects not only the neighbouring words, but a larger group: *Máis ié súi mendís é póúre*. Here, in the space between *mendís* and *é*, one still catches a glimpse of the letters left by the verbal form *sui*, which would be in the right place if the initial translation choice was *acertes*, which follows to the word order of Gallicanum (*Ego autem mendicus sum et pauper*). This is further supported by the fact that the majuscule *M* in *Mais* is written on top of the same extensive erasure; traces of a previous accent can be seen above the letter *a* in *mais*.

Certain erasures occur in compound phrases where the text source (a variant of Gallicanum) must have used a participle noun + *autem*: f. 43r, line 32: *mais lesperánt* (cf. Lat sperantem autem); f. 43v, line 27: *mais li enqueránt* (cf. Lat inquirentes autem); f. 44v, line 19: *mais li sustenant* (cf. Lat sustinentes autem; a few lines further down, Lat Mansueti autem hereditabunt terram is rendered as OFr Lí suéf acertes eriterúnt la térre; and Lat Dominus autem irridebit eum becomes OFr Máis li síre escharnirát lúi). Last but not least, there is also f. 44v, line 35 with *mais lí maldisánt* (cf. Lat maledicentes autem). There is ample proof that all these corrections on top of erasures were intended to replace an expression which used *acertes* instead of *mais*.

In addition to these erasures, one should note that there are two situations in which the OFr formula participle noun + *acertes* mirrors Lat verbal noun + *autem*, in the absence of any trace of erasure. The first one is on f. 39r, line 19: *les cremanz acertes le segnur glorifíe* (cf. Lat timentes autem dominum glorificat). The second one is on f. 57v, line 30: *exalcéz acértes*. *humiliéz súi*. *é conturbéz* (cf. Lat exaltatus autem, humiliatus sum et conturbatus). However, f. 69v, line 6 bears witness to OFr Máis *les declinánz*, without any trace of erasure, which renders Lat Declinantes autem in obligationes. This suggest that the scribe had both types of expression in mind.

Apart from the situations noted on erasures, the Latin syntactic group noun + *autem* is rendered in the exact same ways throughout the entire text: sometimes as *mais + subject*, sometimes as *subject + acertes*.

Here are the examples illustrating the first choice: f. 37r, line 14 (OFr *Máis ie sui establít réis de lúi sur syon*; cf. Lat Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo super Sion); f. 37r, lines 24-25 (OFr *Máis tu sire ies li miens receuérre*; cf. Lat Tu autem domine susceptor meus es); f. 37v, line 7 (OFr *mais ie en la multudine de la túe misericordie*; cf. Lat Ego autem in multitudine misericordie tue); f. 38v, line 39 (OFr *mais ié en la túe misericordie esperái*; cf. Lat ego autem in misericordia tua speravi); f. 45r, line 2-3 (OFr *Máis li iúste eriterunt lá térre*; cf. Lat Iusti autem hereditabunt terram); f. 45r, line 6 (OFr *Máis li sire ne deguérpirá*; cf. Lat Dominus
MAIS vs ACERTES (AC)

In several erasures, corrections concern a syntactic group made up of *mais* + subject, which renders the Latin syntactic group subject + *autem*. The first one occurs on f. 40v, line 15: *mais núς* on top of an erasure in the sequence *mais núς el num del segnur de nostre déu apelerúms* (cf. Lat *nos autem in nomine domini dei nostri invocabimus*). The second time it appears in the line below: f. 40v, line 16, where *mais núς* was written on top of an erasure in the sequence *mais núς leuámes é súmes esdrecét* (cf. Lat *nos autem surreximus, et erecti sumus*). In both situations, *mais* is part of an extensive erasure. Other examples follow on f. 42r, line 16, where *mais nostre síre* was written on top of an erasure in the sequence *mais nostre síre receút méi* (cf. Lat *dominus autem assumpsit me*); but also f. 43r, line 1, in *Máis ié en téi esperái* (cf. Lat *Ego autem in te speravi domine*). It is worth noting that in the same psalm, a few lines earlier, a different translation choice was used for the same Latin group: Lat *ego autem in domino speravi* was rendered as OFr *lé acertes el segnur esperai* (f. 42v, line 30). Moreover, at the end of the same psalm, Lat *Ego autem dixi in excessu mentis mee* is once again rendered as *lé acértes dis el trespás de la méie pénse* (f. 43r, lines 12-13).

Another example of *mais* on top of an erasure is visible

<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.

*Mais + subject possibly in place of subject + acertes:*

f. 40v,
lines
15–16

<figure><img src="image_202.png" /></figure>

f. 42r,
line 16

<figure><img src="image_203.png" /></figure>

f. 43r
line 1

<figure><img src="image_204.png" /></figure>

f. 44r,
line 9

<figure><img src="image_205.png" /></figure>

f. 44r,
line 14

<figure><img src="image_206.png" /></figure>

f. 45r,
line 31

<figure><img src="image_207.png" /></figure>

on f. 44r, line 9, where the longer sequence *Mais la meie anemewas* written on top of an erasure in the phrase *Máis. la meie aneme sesleécerat el seignur* (cf. Lat *Anima autem mea exsultabit in domino*). On the same folio, line 14, *mais ié* was written on top of an erasure in *Máis ié cum il á hei füssent moléste* (cf. Lat *Ego autem cum mihi molesti essent*). On f. 45r, line 31, the erasure occurs once again at the beginning of the line, just as in the previous example: *Máis ié ensement cum súrz nen ođéie* (cf. Lat *Ego autem tam quam surdus non audiebam*). On f. 46r, line 5, the erasure is longer, a sign that the syntactic change affects not only the neighbouring words, but a larger group: *Máis ié súi mendís é póúre*. Here, in the space between *mendís* and *é*, one still catches a glimpse of the letters left by the verbal form *sui*, which would be in the right place if the initial translation choice was *acertes*, which follows to the word order of Gallicanum (*Ego autem mendicus sum et pauper*). This is further supported by the fact that the majuscule *M* in *Mais* is written on top of the same extensive erasure; traces of a previous accent can be seen above the letter *a* in *mais*.

Certain erasures occur in compound phrases where the text source (a variant of Gallicanum) must have used a participle noun + *autem*: f. 43r, line 32: *mais lesperánt* (cf. Lat *sperantem autem*); f. 43v, line 27: *mais li enqueránt* (cf. Lat *inquirentes autem*); f. 44v, line 19: *mais li sustenant* (cf. Lat *sustinentes autem*; a few lines further down, Lat *Mansueti autem hereditabunt terram* is rendered as OFr *Lí suéf acertes eriterúnt la térre*; and Lat *Dominus autem irridebit eum* becomes OFr *Máis li síre escharnirát lúi*). Last but not least, there is also f. 44v, line 35 with *mais lí maldisánt* (cf. Lat *maledicentes autem*). There is ample proof that all these corrections on top of erasures were intended to replace an expression which used *acertes* instead of *mais*.

In addition to these erasures, one should note that there are two situations in which the OFr formula participle noun + *acertes* mirrors Lat verbal noun + *autem*, in the absence of any trace of erasure. The first one is on f. 39r, line 19: *les cremanz acertes le segnur glorifíe* (cf. Lat *timentes autem dominum glorificat*). The second one is on f. 57v, line 30: *exalcéz acértes . humiliéz súi . é conturbéz* (cf. Lat *exaltatus autem, humiliatus sum et conturbatus*). However, f. 69v, line 6 bears witness to OFr *Máis les declinánz*, without any trace of erasure, which renders Lat *Declinantes autem in obligationes*. This suggest that the scribe had both types of expression in mind.

Apart from the situations noted on erasures, the Latin syntactic group noun + *autem* is rendered in the exact same ways throughout the entire text: sometimes as *mais + subject*, sometimes as *subject + acertes*.

Here are the examples illustrating the first choice: f. 37r, line 14 (OFr *Máis ie sui establít réis de lúi sur syon*; cf. Lat *Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo super Sion*); f. 37r, lines 24-25 (OFr *Máis tu sire ies li miens receuérre*; cf. Lat *Tu autem domine susceptor meus es*); f. 37v, line 7 (OFr *mais ie en la multudine de la túe misericordie*; cf. Lat *Ego autem in multitudine misericordie tue*); f. 38v, line 39 (OFr *mais ié en la túe misericordie esperái*; cf. Lat *ego autem in misericordia tua speravi*); f. 45r, line 2-3 (OFr *Máis li iúste eriterunt lá térre*; cf. Lat *Iusti autem hereditabunt terram*); f. 45r, line 6 (OFr *Máis li sire ne deguérpirá*; cf. Lat *Dominus*
<figure><img src="image_206.png" /><figcaption>f. 46r,
line 5</figcaption></figure>

autem non derelinquet); f. 46r, line 18 (OFr Máis tu sire aies merci de méi; cf. Lat Tu autem domine miserere mei); f. 48v, line 20–21 (OFr Máis ié sicume olíue frúit portánt en la mái-sun déu; cf. Lat Ego autem sicut oliva fructifera in domo dei); f. 49r, line 30 (OFr máis ié espererái en téi síre; cf. Lat ego autem sperabo in te domine); f. 50r, line 10 (OFr Máis ié canterái la túe fortéce; cf. Lat Ego autem cantabo fortitudi-nem tuam); f. 52v, line 31–32 (OFr Máis ié tútes óres espere-raí; cf. Lat Ego autem semper sperabo); f. 54r, line 17 (OFr Máis ié annuncerái en siécle; cf. Lat Ego autem annuntiabo in seculum); f. 55r, line 21 (OFr Máis íl est. merciábles; cf. Lat Ipse autem est misericors); f. 55v, line 40 (OFr Mais nus li tuéns póples; cf. Lat Nos autem populus tuus); f. 56v, line 7 (OFr Máis uus sicume húmes murréz; cf. Lat Vos autem sicut homines moriemini); f. 59r, line 30 (OFr máis tu altísmes en parmanableté síre; cf. Lat tu autem altissimus in eternum domine); f. 60r, line 13 (OFr máis nóstre síre físt les cíels; cf. Lat Dominus autem celos fecit); f. 61r, line 18 (OFr Máis tu síre en parmanabletéd parmáins; cf. Lat Tu autem domine in eternum permanes); f. 61r, line 35 (OFr máis tu parmáins; cf. Lat tu autem permanes); f. 61r, line 36 (OFr máis tú un meésme iés; cf. Lat tu autem idem ipse es); f. 64v, line 27 (OFr máis li tuens sérés sesledecerá; cf. Lat servus autem tuus letabitur); f. 66v, lines 25-26 (OFr máis li túens sérés estéit trauaillé; cf. Lat servus autem tuus ex-ercebatur); f. 67r, lines 36–37 (OFr máis ie en tut mun cuér escércherái; cf. Lat ego autem in toto corde meo scrutabor); f. 67v, line 8 (OFr máis ié serái trauailliez; cf. Lat ego autem exercebor); f. 67v, line 19 (OFr máis ié ne deguerpi les túens comandeménz; cf. Lat ego autem non dereliqui mandata tua); f. 69v, line 13 (OFr Máis uenánz uendrúnt ót eslede-cemént; cf. Lat Venientes autem venient cum exsultatione).

Many other situations illustrate the formal / functional type of translation, in which the Latin word order was followed accordingly (subject + acertes): f. 39v, line 13 (OFr Ié acértés en iustíse apparistrái _al tun esguardement; cf. Lat Ego autem in iustitia apparebo conspectui tuo); f. 40v, line 34 (OFr Tú acértes en sánt habítes; cf. Lat Tu autem in sancto habitas); f. 40v, line 36 (OFr Ié acértes súi uérm é nient húem; cf. Lat Ego autem sum vermis et non homo); f. 41r, line 10 (OFr Tu acértes sire ne esluignerás tá aiúe de méi; cf. Lat Tu autem domine ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me); f. 41v, line 38 (OFr Ié acertes en la meie nun nuisánce sui entré_; cf. Lat Ego autem in innocentia mea in-gressus sum); f. 42v, line 14 (OFr Ié acértes dis en la meie abundánce; cf. Lat Ego autem dixi in abundantia mea); f. 44v, line 3 (OFr Lí fil acertes des húmes; cf. Lat Filii autem

hominum); f. 45r, line 12 (OFr Lí torcenús acértes deperirúnt ensé mole; cf. Lat Iniusti autem disperibunt simul); f. 45r, lines 37-38 (OFr Lí mien enemí acértes uíuent; cf. Lat Ini-mici autem mei vivunt); f. 45v, line 35 (OFr Tú acértes sire niént luínz fáces; cf. Lat Tu autem domine ne longe facias); f. 46r, line 20 (OFr Méi acértes pur nún_nuisance receús; cf. Lat Me autem propter innocentiam suscepisti); f. 48r, line 19 (OFr A pecchedúr acértes dist deus; cf. Lat Peccatori autem dixit deus); f. 53v, line 32 (OFr Deus acértes li nóstre réis devant siécles; cf. Lat Deus autem rex noster ante secula); f. 55r, line 19 (OFr Lí _cuérs acértes dicels ne estéit drei-turérs ot lúi; cf. Lat cor autem eorum non erat rectum cum eo); f. 64r, line 39 (OFr ié acértes orówe; cf. Lat ego autem orabam); f. 65v, line 8 (OFr Lí nóstre deus acértes el ciél; cf. Lat Deus autem noster in celo); f. 65v, line 36 (OFr ie acértes humiliéz súi mult; cf. Lat ego autem humiliatus sum nimis); f. 71v, line 31–32 (OFr ólie acértes de peccheúr ne en-craisserá le mien chiéf; cf. Lat oleum autem peccatoris non impinguet caput meum).

All these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the scribe of Douce MS 320 wrote acertes when the Latin word was autem and later changed some of them into mais. The scribe also rendered autem as mais, from the start, on f. 37r to 69v; he corrected sporadically acertes into mais from f. 40v to f. 46r; and he left acertes uncorrected from f. 40v to f. 71v. The main reason for these erasures seems to be a need to avoid repetition, as pointed out by Sneddon in her article:

> There would seem to be a definite attempt in O to avoid the excessive use of *acertes*, and this is achieved by sometimes translating *autem* and *enim* by *mais* and *kar*, and altering the word order (...). (Sneddon 1978: 399; cf. Sneddon 1972: 20, 111).

This need is manifested by the rendering of *autem* as *mais*. Erasures are a testimony to the method that the scribe was perfecting. Sneddon compares examples from Oxford and Arundel Psalters. This comparative work, extended to all types of erasures, will be dealt with in the second instalment of the present article. For the time being, several cases show that the Arundel scribe makes the same corrections and in the same places as the scribe of Douce MS 320. In anticipation of the comparison that lies ahead, the alternating use of *mais* + noun / noun + *acertes* could be simply of a stylistic nature.
<figure><img src="image_208.png" /><figcaption>f. 46r,
line 5</figcaption></figure>

autem non derelinquet); f. 46r, line 18 (OFr Máis tu sire aies merci de méi; cf. Lat Tu autem domine miserere mei); f. 48v, line 20–21 (OFr Máis ié sicume olíue frúit portánt en la mái-sun déu; cf. Lat Ego autem sicut oliva fructifera in domo dei); f. 49r, line 30 (OFr máis ié espererái en téi síre; cf. Lat ego autem sperabo in te domine); f. 50r, line 10 (OFr Máis ié canterái la túe fortéce; cf. Lat Ego autem cantabo fortitudinem tuam); f. 52v, line 31–32 (OFr Máis ié tútes óres espere-raí; cf. Lat Ego autem semper sperabo); f. 54r, line 17 (OFr Máis ié annuncerái en siécle; cf. Lat Ego autem annuntiabo in seculum); f. 55r, line 21 (OFr Máis íl est. merciábles; cf. Lat Ipse autem est misericors); f. 55v, line 40 (OFr Mais nus li tuéns póples; cf. Lat Nos autem populus tuus); f. 56v, line 7 (OFr Máis uus sicume húmes murréz; cf. Lat Vos autem sicut homines moriemini); f. 59r, line 30 (OFr máis tu altísmes en parmanableté síre; cf. Lat tu autem altissimus in eternum domine); f. 60r, line 13 (OFr máis nóstre síre físt les cíels; cf. Lat Dominus autem celos fecit); f. 61r, line 18 (OFr Máis tu síre en parmanabletéd parmáins; cf. Lat Tu autem domine in eternum permanes); f. 61r, line 35 (OFr máis tu parmáins; cf. Lat tu autem permanes); f. 61r, line 36 (OFr máis tú un meésme iés; cf. Lat tu autem idem ipse es); f. 64v, line 27 (OFr máis li tuens sérés sesledecerá; cf. Lat servus autem tuus letabitur); f. 66v, lines 25-26 (OFr máis li túens sérés estéit trauaillé; cf. Lat servus autem tuus exercebatur); f. 67r, lines 36–37 (OFr máis ie en tut mun cuér escércherái; cf. Lat ego autem in toto corde meo scrutabor); f. 67v, line 8 (OFr máis ié serái trauailliez; cf. Lat ego autem exercebor); f. 67v, line 19 (OFr máis ié ne deguerpi les túens comandeménz; cf. Lat ego autem non dereliqui mandata tua); f. 69v, line 13 (OFr Máis uenánz uendrúnt ót esledecemént; cf. Lat Venientes autem venient cum exsultatione).

Many other situations illustrate the formal / functional type of translation, in which the Latin word order was followed accordingly (subject + acertes): f. 39v, line 13 (OFr Ié acértés en iustíse apparistrái _al tun esguardement; cf. Lat Ego autem in iustitia apparebo conspectui tuo); f. 40v, line 34 (OFr Tú acértes en sánt habítes; cf. Lat Tu autem in sancto habitas); f. 40v, line 36 (OFr Ié acértes súi uérm é nient húem; cf. Lat Ego autem sum vermis et non homo); f. 41r, line 10 (OFr Tu acértes sire ne esluignerás tá aiúe de méi; cf. Lat Tu autem domine ne elongaveris auxilium tuum a me); f. 41v, line 38 (OFr Ié acertes en la meie nun nuisánce sui entré_; cf. Lat Ego autem in innocentia mea ingressus sum); f. 42v, line 14 (OFr Ié acértes dis en la meie abundánce; cf. Lat Ego autem dixi in abundantia mea); f. 44v, line 3 (OFr Lí fil acertes des húmes; cf. Lat Filii autem

hominum); f. 45r, line 12 (OFr Lí torcenús acértes deperirúnt ensé mole; cf. Lat Iniusti autem disperibunt simul); f. 45r, lines 37-38 (OFr Lí mien enemí acértes uíuent; cf. Lat Ini-mici autem mei vivunt); f. 45v, line 35 (OFr Tú acértes sire niént luínz fáces; cf. Lat Tu autem domine ne longe facias); f. 46r, line 20 (OFr Méi acértes pur nún_nuisance receús; cf. Lat Me autem propter innocentiam suscepisti); f. 48r, line 19 (OFr A pecchedúr acértes dist deus; cf. Lat Peccatori autem dixit deus); f. 53v, line 32 (OFr Deus acértes li nóstre réis devant siécles; cf. Lat Deus autem rex noster ante secula); f. 55r, line 19 (OFr Lí _cuérs acértes dicels ne estéit drei-turérs ot lúi; cf. Lat cor autem eorum non erat rectum cum eo); f. 64r, line 39 (OFr ié acértes orówe; cf. Lat ego autem orabam); f. 65v, line 8 (OFr Lí nóstre deus acértes el ciél; cf. Lat Deus autem noster in celo); f. 65v, line 36 (OFr ie acértes humiliéz súi mult; cf. Lat ego autem humiliatus sum nimis); f. 71v, line 31–32 (OFr ólie acértes de peccheúr ne en-craisserá le mien chiéf; cf. Lat oleum autem peccatoris non impinguet caput meum).

All these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the scribe of Douce MS 320 wrote acertes when the Latin word was autem and later changed some of them into mais. The scribe also rendered autem as mais, from the start, on f. 37r to 69v; he corrected sporadically acertes into mais from f. 40v to f. 46r; and he left acertes uncorrected from f. 40v to f. 71v. The main reason for these erasures seems to be a need to avoid repetition, as pointed out by Sneddon in her article:

> There would seem to be a definite attempt in O to avoid the excessive use of *acertes*, and this is achieved by sometimes translating *autem* and *enim* by *mais* and *kar*, and altering the word order (...). (Sneddon 1978: 399; cf. Sneddon 1972: 20, 111).

This need is manifested by the rendering of *autem* as *mais*. Erasures are a testimony to the method that the scribe was perfecting. Sneddon compares examples from Oxford and Arundel Psalters. This comparative work, extended to all types of erasures, will be dealt with in the second instalment of the present article. For the time being, several cases show that the Arundel scribe makes the same corrections and in the same places as the scribe of Douce MS 320. In anticipation of the comparison that lies ahead, the alternating use of *mais* + noun / noun + *acertes* could be simply of a stylistic nature.
HESITANT RENDERINGS FOR LATIN –TIO (AC)

The scribe did not know how to deal with this category of Latin borrowings into the French vernacular, at least not from the start. His hesitant renderings –tiun or –ciun, written on top of an erasure, can suggest that he probably used several suffixes until he focused on some of them.

For instance, on f. 52r, line 38, the term (*l)abitatiun* is written on top of an extensive erasure (*labitatiun* *déls de-sérte*). (*H)abitatiún* is written without any trace of erasure on f. 41v, line 36; f. 54r, line 20; f. 57v, line 10. From f. 63 on-wards, the word becomes *habitaciún(s)*, as on f. 63v, line 19; f. 64r, line 12; f. 64v, line 5; f. 73v, line 23.

Similarly, on f. 37r, line 36, *compunctiun* is written on top of an extensive erasure, as part of a sequence *aiez compunctiun*, the letters of which are packed in the little available space (and with an abbreviation). Yet *compunctiún* is written without any trace of erasure on f. 50r, lines 16-17.

This also happens to *consummatiún* on f. 50r, line 7. Nevertheless, the letters of the word are not crammed in. *Consummatiún* is written as such, without erasures, on f. 50r, line 7, that is, on the exact same line. On f. 67v, line 29, there is also *consummaciún*.

As for *contriciún*, it is written on top of an erasure on f. 39r, line 8. Given the size of the erasure, one could guess that the previous word must have been much longer, composed of many more letters. Yet again, *contriciúns* is writ-

ten without erasure on f. 50r, line 15.

On f. 42v, line 12, (*l*)*indignatiún* is also transcribed on an extensive erasure as part of *en lindignatiun de lúi*. The sequence *en lindignatiun de*, written on the same line, is crammed in, while the word *de* crosses into the inner margin of the folio. However, on f. 55r, line 34 (twice), and on f. 57r, line 9, one may read *indignatiún*, without any erasure; while on f. 61r, line 16, and f. 74v, line 24, the word is written as *indignaciún*.

Finally, *tribulatiun* is on an extensive erasure (*refúges de la tribulatiun*) on f. 43r, lines 27-28. In the specific case of this erasure, the word *refuges* may seem tightly written (for *refuges*, see the section dedicated to this word), but the rest of the text is stretched, particularly in the sequence *de la*, as if the erased text had more letters than the correction. With regard to the word *tribulatiun* itself, it should be noted that the erasure stops before the –i– of the suffix. Furthermore, the final –un, which is written on the following line, was not erased. It must therefore be assumed that the scribe had previously written a word already ending in –un (in which case –i– would have been added after the erasure), or perhaps a word ending in –iun. However, from f. 37r to f. 59r, the spelling *tribulatiún* appears on numerous occasions. On the other hand, we find *tribulaciún* on f. 64r, line 15 + line 33; f. 65v, line 29; f. 66r, line 13; f. 68v, line 1; f. 71r, line 17; f. 72r, line 1 + line 25; f. 74v, line 39.

Before proceeding to the analysis of these general situa-

The particular erasure of *nace*? (now *naciuns*):

Erasures with –ciun / –tiun suffixes:

f. 52r,
line 38

<figure><img src="image_207.png" /></figure>

f. 37r,
line 36

<figure><img src="image_208.png" /></figure>

f. 50r
line 7

<figure><img src="image_209.png" /></figure>

f. 39r,
line 8

<figure><img src="image_210.png" /></figure>

f. 42v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /></figure>

f. 43r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_212.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /></figure>

f. 40r,
line 27
HESITANT RENDERINGS FOR LATIN –TIO (AC)

The scribe did not know how to deal with this category of Latin borrowings into the French vernacular, at least not from the start. His hesitant renderings –tiun or –ciun, written on top of an erasure, can suggest that he probably used several suffixes until he focused on some of them.

For instance, on f. 52r, line 38, the term (*l)abitatiun* is written on top of an extensive erasure (*labitatiun* *déls de-sérte*). (*H)abitatiún* is written without any trace of erasure on f. 41v, line 36; f. 54r, line 20; f. 57v, line 10. From f. 63 on-wards, the word becomes *habitaciún(s)*, as on f. 63v, line 19; f. 64r, line 12; f. 64v, line 5; f. 73v, line 23.

Similarly, on f. 37r, line 36, *compunctiun* is written on top of an extensive erasure, as part of a sequence *aiez compunctiun*, the letters of which are packed in the little available space (and with an abbreviation). Yet *compunctiún* is written without any trace of erasure on f. 50r, lines 16-17.

This also happens to *consummatiún* on f. 50r, line 7. Nevertheless, the letters of the word are not crammed in. *Consummatiún* is written as such, without erasures, on f. 50r, line 7, that is, on the exact same line. On f. 67v, line 29, there is also *consummaciún*.

As for *contriciún*, it is written on top of an erasure on f. 39r, line 8. Given the size of the erasure, one could guess that the previous word must have been much longer, composed of many more letters. Yet again, *contriciúns* is writ-

ten without erasure on f. 50r, line 15.

On f. 42v, line 12, (*l*)*indignatiún* is also transcribed on an extensive erasure as part of *en lindignatiun de lúi*. The sequence *en lindignatiun de*, written on the same line, is crammed in, while the word *de* crosses into the inner margin of the folio. However, on f. 55r, line 34 (twice), and on f. 57r, line 9, one may read *indignatiún*, without any erasure; while on f. 61r, line 16, and f. 74v, line 24, the word is written as *indignaciún*.

Finally, *tribulatiun* is on an extensive erasure (*refúges de la tribulatiun*) on f. 43r, lines 27-28. In the specific case of this erasure, the word *refuges* may seem tightly written (for *refuges*, see the section dedicated to this word), but the rest of the text is stretched, particularly in the sequence *de la*, as if the erased text had more letters than the correction. With regard to the word *tribulatiun* itself, it should be noted that the erasure stops before the –i– of the suffix. Furthermore, the final –un, which is written on the following line, was not erased. It must therefore be assumed that the scribe had previously written a word already ending in –un (in which case –i– would have been added after the erasure), or perhaps a word ending in –iun. However, from f. 37r to f. 59r, the spelling *tribulatiún* appears on numerous occasions. On the other hand, we find *tribulaciún* on f. 64r, line 15 + line 33; f. 65v, line 29; f. 66r, line 13; f. 68v, line 1; f. 71r, line 17; f. 72r, line 1 + line 25; f. 74v, line 39.

Before proceeding to the analysis of these general situa-

The particular erasure of *nace*? (now *naciuns*):

Erasures with –ciun / –tiun suffixes:

f. 52r,
line 38

<figure><img src="image_209.png" /></figure>

f. 37r,
line 36

<figure><img src="image_210.png" /></figure>

f. 50r
line 7

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /></figure>

f. 39r,
line 8

<figure><img src="image_212.png" /></figure>

f. 42v,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /></figure>

f. 43r,
line 27

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_215.png" /></figure>

f. 40r,
line 27
tions, special attention must be given to two other words, the transcription of which made the scribe even more hesitant. On f. 40r, line 27, he wrote *naciuns* on top of an erasure. It is evident that the initial form of the word, before the erasure, must have occupied the space of the first four letters, while the sequence *-uns* was written above the line during the correction process, as there was no more available space. The word *naciúns* appears again on f. 64v, line 39, but there is no erasure there.

By far, the most interesting treatment is that of the word *generaciun*. On f. 38r, line 40, *generaciun* is part of an extensive erasure (*en generaciun senz mal*). It appears again on f. 39r, line 12 (*generaciún est*). Smaller erasures occur on f. 41v, line 1 (*generaciuns*); f. 43v, line 6 (twice: *generaciun / generaciún*); f. 54v, line 26 (twice: *generaciuns / generaciún*), and f. 65r, line 17 (*generáciún*). The latter is particularly interesting, on account of the position of the erasure, which concerns only the letter *-i-* and suggests that the scribe could have written either *generaceun* (thus mixing up two competitive variants found in the text) or perhaps *generace* (provided that the right half of the letter *-u-* and the entire letter *-n* were written in the blank spacing between the words, as documented by the test in the image below). Only *-i-* and the left half of the letter *-u-* could be written on top of the erasure, thus documenting the use of *generace*.

Four other cases (out of the eight already mentioned erasures) would equally be explained if the initial spelling of the word were *generace*. In the case of f. 39r, line 12,

The particular erasure of *generace*? (+ spacing):

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /></figure>

f. 39r,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_215.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_216.png" /></figure>

f. 65r,
line 17
tions, special attention must be given to two other words, the transcription of which made the scribe even more hesitant. On f. 40r, line 27, he wrote *naciuns* on top of an erasure. It is evident that the initial form of the word, before the erasure, must have occupied the space of the first four letters, while the sequence *-uns* was written above the line during the correction process, as there was no more available space. The word *naciúns* appears again on f. 64v, line 39, but there is no erasure there.

By far, the most interesting treatment is that of the word *generaciun*. On f. 38r, line 40, *generaciun* is part of an extensive erasure (*en generaciun senz mal*). It appears again on f. 39r, line 12 (*generaciún est*). Smaller erasures occur on f. 41v, line 1 (*generaciuns*); f. 43v, line 6 (twice: *generaciun / generaciún*); f. 54v, line 26 (twice: *generaciuns / generaciún*), and f. 65r, line 17 (*generáciún*). The latter is particularly interesting, on account of the position of the erasure, which concerns only the letter *-i-* and suggests that the scribe could have written either *generaceun* (thus mixing up two competitive variants found in the text) or perhaps *generace* (provided that the right half of the letter *-u-* and the entire letter *-n* were written in the blank spacing between the words, as documented by the test in the image below). Only *-i-* and the left half of the letter *-u-* could be written on top of the erasure, thus documenting the use of *generace*.

Four other cases (out of the eight already mentioned erasures) would equally be explained if the initial spelling of the word were *generace*. In the case of f. 39r, line 12,

The particular erasure of *generace* (+ spacing):

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /></figure>

f. 39r,
line 12

<figure><img src="image_217.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_218.png" /></figure>

f. 65r,
line 17
<figure><img src="image_217.png" /></figure>

f. 41v
line 1

<figure><img src="image_218.png" /></figure>

f. 43v
line 6

► 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.

-iun and the abbreviated est occupy the exact same space as an -e est, reconstructed as generace est, written in full. On f. 41v, line 1, -uns was written above the line, while the erasure concerns a single letter, now replaced by -i-, suggesting that the initial spelling was indeed generace. Next, on f. 43v, line 6, both erasures of the same word had the initial spelling generace. The first one was corrected in the same manner as the case of f. 41v, line 1, while the second one was dealt with as the one from f. 65r, line 17.

The remaining cases are ambiguous, with the entire
word written on top of an erasure, such as in the cases occur-
ing on f. 54v, line 26, where generaciuns and generaciún are
difficult to interpret. Generace or generasse is nevertheless
attested since the second half of the 12th century (e.g.,
Et entour lui teus generace / Qui li rendent et gré et grace,
v. 6127–6128 in Gauthier d’Arras’ Eracle, c.1154; ed. Ray-
naud de Lage 1976, 188–189). The word was probably
created according to the same pattern as modern French
words préface (< Lat praefatio) or dédicace (< Lat dedicatio)
and had the meanings ‘(1) race, lineage, descent’ or ‘crowd
(of people)’ according to DEAFél. If this is the case, per-
haps the same reconstruction can be applied to naciuns on

f. 40r, line 27, the initial spelling of each could cover only four letters. Even though the form nace or nasse is not attested by any dictionary, the correction follows the same pattern as those of generace > generaciuns on f. 41v, line 1, and f. 43v, line 6 (first example).

The ending -ace could also explain an unattested form indignace rapidly corrected into indignatiun on f. 42v, line 12, thus requiring a rewriting of the preposition de, which crosses now into the inner margin of the folio. However, this is just speculation, as it does not explain the erasure of the preposition en that precedes lindignatiun.

Leaving aside words such as *compunctiun*, (*h*)abitaciun,
and *tribulaciun*, corrected in extensive erasures and
difficult to reconstruct, the ending **-ace** does not explain
the erasures later corrected into *contriciún* (more letters
in the initial spelling) or *consummatiún* (more or less
the same amount of letters). Since the scribe rendered
*sanctificatio* as *saintificatiún/-ciún* on f. 55v, line 1, and
f. 70r, line 18 + line 29, but also as *saintefiemént* on f. 60r,
line 14 + line 39, and f. 65r, line 38, perhaps the initial
ending of *contriciun* and *consummatiún* could be **-ment**.

AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, there is a break in the spelling of *tribulatiún*, written as such from f. 37r to f. 59r, and *tribulaciún* from f. 64r to f. 74v. This **-c-** and **-t-** feature may seem less revealing from a grammatical point of view. Still, it is extremely relevant as to the idiosyncracies of
<figure><img src="image_219.png" /></figure>

f. 41v
line 1

<figure><img src="image_220.png" /></figure>

f. 43v
line 6

► 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.

-iun and the abbreviated est occupy the exact same space as an -e est, reconstructed as generace est, written in full. On f. 41v, line 1, -uns was written above the line, while the erasure concerns a single letter, now replaced by -i-, suggesting that the initial spelling was indeed generace. Next, on f. 43v, line 6, both erasures of the same word had the initial spelling generace. The first one was corrected in the same manner as the case of f. 41v, line 1, while the second one was dealt with as the one from f. 65r, line 17.

The remaining cases are ambiguous, with the entire
word written on top of an erasure, such as in the cases occur-
ing on f. 54v, line 26, where generaciuns and generaciún are
difficult to interpret. Generace or generasse is nevertheless
attested since the second half of the 12th century (e.g.,
Et entour lui teus generace / Qui li rendent et gré et grace,
v. 6127–6128 in Gauthier d’Arras’ Eracle, c.1154; ed. Ray-
naud de Lage 1976, 188–189). The word was probably
created according to the same pattern as modern French
words préface (< Lat praefatio) or dédicace (< Lat dedicatio)
and had the meanings ‘(1) race, lineage, descent’ or ‘crowd
(of people)’ according to DEAFél. If this is the case, per-
haps the same reconstruction can be applied to naciuns on

f. 40r, line 27, the initial spelling of each could cover only four letters. Even though the form nace or nasse is not attested by any dictionary, the correction follows the same pattern as those of generace > generaciuns on f. 41v, line 1, and f. 43v, line 6 (first example).

The ending -ace could also explain an unattested form
indignace rapidly corrected into indignatiun on f. 42v, line
12, thus requiring a rewriting of the preposition de, which
crosses now into the inner margin of the folio. However,
this is just speculation, as it does not explain the erasure
of the preposition en that precedes lindignatiun.

Leaving aside words such as *compunctiun*, (*h*)abitaciun,
and *tribulaciun*, corrected in extensive erasures and
difficult to reconstruct, the ending **-ace** does not explain
the erasures later corrected into *contriciún* (more letters
in the initial spelling) or *consummatiún* (more or less
the same amount of letters). Since the scribe rendered
*sanctificatio* as *saintificatiún/-ciún* on f. 55v, line 1, and
f. 70r, line 18 + line 29, but also as *saintefiemént* on f. 60r,
line 14 + line 39, and f. 65r, line 38, perhaps the initial
ending of *contriciun* and *consummatiún* could be **-ment**.

AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, there is a break in the spelling of
*tribulatiún*, written as such from f. 37r to f. 59r, and *tribu-
laciún* from f. 64r to f. 74v. This **-c-** and **-t-** feature may
seem less revealing from a grammatical point of view.
Still, it is extremely relevant as to the idiosyncracies of
the scribe and to the chronology of his waverings.

A quick look at the specific features of *compunctiún* and *contriciún*, on f. 50r in particular, where **-ciun** and **-tiun** occur at the same time, certifies that the scribe used both forms indiscriminately. However, when confronting them with other examples (*indignatiún*, *tribulatiún*, *consum-matiún*, *habitatiún*), one notes that the use of the **-t-** variant tends to occur before the turning point of f. 59. After this folio, the scribe starts favouring the spelling **-c-**. This is amply demonstrated by the inventory of spellings for *cogitatiún(s)*, a word written without any sign of erasure throughout the text. On f. 37v, line 12; f. 43v, line 4 + line 6; f. 45v, line 27; f. 49r, line 36; and f. 54r, lines 27-28 (twice), the word is written with **-t-**. After f. 59, the spelling changes into *cogitaciún(s)* with **-c-**: f. 59r, line 27; f. 59v, line 17; f. 68r, line 13; f. 71r, line 21; f. 71v, line 3; f. 72v, line 36; and f. 74r, line 10.

There are many more examples of words spelled with **-t-** in the first part of the manuscript and **-c-** after f. 59: *temptatiun* on f. 40r, line 6 / *temptaciún* on f. 60r, line 3; *fornicatiún* on f. 53v, line 15 / *fornicaciún* on f. 63r, line 40; *miseratiuns* on f. 45v, line 36 / *miseraciúns* on f. 61v, line 4; as well as f. 67v, line 6; and f. 72v, line 17; *adinuentiúns* on f. 54v, line 5; f. 56r, line 35 / *adinuenciúns* on f. 73v, line 21; *saintificatiún* on f. 55v, line 1 / *sanctificaciún* on f. 70r, line 18 + line 29; *abominatiún* on f. 57v, line 21 / *abominaciúns* on f. 75r, line 33.

With few exceptions, words ending in **-tiun** occur often before f. 59: *significatiún* (f. 50r, line 17); *afflictiún* (f. 39v, line 35; f. 46v, line 32); *corruptiun* (f. 39r, line 34; f. 42v, lines 17-18); *refectiun* (f. 41r, line 28); *subsannatiún* (f. 44r, line 19; f. 46v, line 25; f. 55v, line 27); *oblatiun* (f. 45v, line 29; f. 48v, line 11); *fluctuatiún* (f. 49r, line 28); *congregatiún* (f. 50v, line 6; f. 52r, lines 1-2; f. 53v, line 19); *predicatiún* (f. 53v, line 17); *commotiuns* (f. 51r, line 26); *retributiún* (f. 40v, line 3); *conturbatiún* (f. 43r, line 10); *contradictiún* (f. 43r, line 11; f. 56r, line 8 + line 30; f. 63r, line 32); *uo-ciferatiún* (f. 43r, line 37); *meditatiún* (f. 45v, line 5; f. 47v, line 21); *supplantatiún* (f. 46r, line 18); *propositiún* (f. 47v, line 23; f. 54v, line 17); *assumptiún* (f. 58r, line 18); *conso-

latiúns (f. 59v, line 27); *dilectiún* (f. 64r, line 40); *resurrec-tiún* (f. 71r, line 21); *imperfectiún* (f. 71r, line 38).

Similarly, **-ciun** is most frequent in the second part of the manuscript, from approximately f. 59 onwards: *peti-ciuns* (f. 40v, line 13; line 44v, line 14); *uituperaciun* (f. 42v, line 39); *exercitaciun* (f. 49r, line 4); *peregrinaciún* (f. 67r, line 20); *perdiciún* (f. 57v, line 26; f. 63v, line 35; f. 75v, line 21); *iubilaciún* (f. 58r, line 14); *preuar-caciúns* (f. 60v, line 35); *dominaciún* (f. 61v, line 27; f. 72v, line 22); *peticiún* (f. 63r, line 14); *congregaciún* (f. 63r, line 16; f. 65r, line 3); *iustificaciún(s)* (f. 66v, line 6 + line 9 + line 14 + line 17 + line 22 + line 26 + line 27 + line 30 (twice) + line 36; f. 67r, line 13 + line 20 + line 22 + line 29 + line 31 + line 36 + line 39; f. 67v, line 10 + lines 14-15 + line 26 + line 27; f. 68r, line 7 + line 12 + line 20 + line 33 + line 39; f. 68v, line 4 + line 15 + line 34); *commociún* (f. 69r, line 9); *redempciún* (f. 70r, line 3); *dormitaciún* (f. 70r, line 13); *deprecaciún* (f. 71v, line 15; f. 72r, line 6); *ex-cusaciúns* (f. 71v, line 29); *saluaciún* (f. 74v, line 25).

Still, there are other waverings in the text as well. On f. 41r, line 40, the scribe wrote *beneiceún* with a tiny erasure visible under **-ic-**; while on f. 40v, line 20 + line 23, and f. 44v, line 39, the same spelling *beneiceún* is written without erasure. Perhaps the erasure in the first case is related to a variant spelling such as *benediceún*, which occurs on f. 37r, line 30, and f. 56v, line 36. However, there is also *beneicún*, on f. 64v, line 13-14; f. 69v, line 36; f. 70r, line 34; f. 72v, line 26.

These additional variant endings are randomly encountered in other parts of the text: *maledictio* is rendered as *maleiceun* on f. 38v, line 1; and *maleicún* on f. 64v, line 13 + line 14. *Redemptio* is *raencéun* on f. 47v, line 26, but also *raencún* on f. 65r, line 11. Finally, *cantatio* becomes *canceún* on f. 52v, line 23. Consequently **-ceun** seems to be a proper alternative for **-tiun** in the first part of the manuscript, while **-cun** is an alternative for **-ciun** towards the end.

<figure><img src="image_219.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v
line 26 (1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_220.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v
line 26 (2)</figcaption></figure>
the scribe and to the chronology of his waverings.

A quick look at the specific features of *compunctiún* and *contriciún*, on f. 50r in particular, where **-ciun** and **-tiun** occur at the same time, certifies that the scribe used both forms indiscriminately. However, when confronting them with other examples (*indignatiún*, *tribulatiún*, *consum-matiún*, *habitatiún*), one notes that the use of the **-t-** variant tends to occur before the turning point of f. 59. After this folio, the scribe starts favouring the spelling **-c-**. This is amply demonstrated by the inventory of spellings for *cogitatiún(s)*, a word written without any sign of erasure throughout the text. On f. 37v, line 12; f. 43v, line 4 + line 6; f. 45v, line 27; f. 49r, line 36; and f. 54r, lines 27-28 (twice), the word is written with **-t-**. After f. 59, the spelling changes into *cogitaciún(s)* with **-c-**: f. 59r, line 27; f. 59v, line 17; f. 68r, line 13; f. 71r, line 21; f. 71v, line 3; f. 72v, line 36; and f. 74r, line 10.

There are many more examples of words spelled with **-t-** in the first part of the manuscript and **-c-** after f. 59: *temptatiun* on f. 40r, line 6 / *temptaciún* on f. 60r, line 3; *fornicatiún* on f. 53v, line 15 / *fornicaciún* on f. 63r, line 40; *miseratiuns* on f. 45v, line 36 / *miseraciúns* on f. 61v, line 4; as well as f. 67v, line 6; and f. 72v, line 17; *adinuentiúns* on f. 54v, line 5; f. 56r, line 35 / *adinuenciúns* on f. 73v, line 21; *saintificatiún* on f. 55v, line 1 / *sanctificaciún* on f. 70r, line 18 + line 29; *abominatiún* on f. 57v, line 21 / *abominaciúns* on f. 75r, line 33.

With few exceptions, words ending in **-tiun** occur often before f. 59: *significatiún* (f. 50r, line 17); *afflictiún* (f. 39v, line 35; f. 46v, line 32); *corruptiun* (f. 39r, line 34; f. 42v, lines 17-18); *refectiun* (f. 41r, line 28); *subsannatiún* (f. 44r, line 19; f. 46v, line 25; f. 55v, line 27); *oblatiun* (f. 45v, line 29; f. 48v, line 11); *fluctuatiún* (f. 49r, line 28); *congregatiún* (f. 50v, line 6; f. 52r, lines 1-2; f. 53v, line 19); *predicatiún* (f. 53v, line 17); *commotiuns* (f. 51r, line 26); *retributiún* (f. 40v, line 3); *conturbatiún* (f. 43r, line 10); *contradictiún* (f. 43r, line 11; f. 56r, line 8 + line 30; f. 63r, line 32); *uo-ciferatiún* (f. 43r, line 37); *meditatiún* (f. 45v, line 5; f. 47v, line 21); *supplantatiún* (f. 46r, line 18); *propositiún* (f. 47v, line 23; f. 54v, line 17); *assumptiún* (f. 58r, line 18); *conso-

latiúns (f. 59v, line 27); *dilectiún* (f. 64r, line 40); *resurrec-tiún* (f. 71r, line 21); *imperfectiún* (f. 71r, line 38).

Similarly, **-ciun** is most frequent in the second part of the manuscript, from approximately f. 59 onwards: *peti-ciuns* (f. 40v, line 13; line 44v, line 14); *uituperaciun* (f. 42v, line 39); *exercitaciun* (f. 49r, line 4); *peregrinaciún* (f. 67r, line 20); *perdiciún* (f. 57v, line 26; f. 63v, line 35; f. 75v, line 21); *iubilaciún* (f. 58r, line 14); *preuar-caciúns* (f. 60v, line 35); *dominaciún* (f. 61v, line 27; f. 72v, line 22); *peticiún* (f. 63r, line 14); *congregaciún* (f. 63r, line 16; f. 65r, line 3); *iustificaciún(s)* (f. 66v, line 6 + line 9 + line 14 + line 17 + line 22 + line 26 + line 27 + line 30 (twice) + line 36; f. 67r, line 13 + line 20 + line 22 + line 29 + line 31 + line 36 + line 39; f. 67v, line 10 + lines 14-15 + line 26 + line 27; f. 68r, line 7 + line 12 + line 20 + line 33 + line 39; f. 68v, line 4 + line 15 + line 34); *commociún* (f. 69r, line 9); *redempciún* (f. 70r, line 3); *dormitaciún* (f. 70r, line 13); *deprecaciún* (f. 71v, line 15; f. 72r, line 6); *ex-cusaciúns* (f. 71v, line 29); *saluaciún* (f. 74v, line 25).

Still, there are other waverings in the text as well. On f. 41r, line 40, the scribe wrote *beneiceún* with a tiny erasure visible under **-ic-**; while on f. 40v, line 20 + line 23, and f. 44v, line 39, the same spelling *beneiceún* is written without erasure. Perhaps the erasure in the first case is related to a variant spelling such as *benediceún*, which occurs on f. 37r, line 30, and f. 56v, line 36. However, there is also *beneicún*, on f. 64v, line 13-14; f. 69v, line 36; f. 70r, line 34; f. 72v, line 26.

These additional variant endings are randomly encountered in other parts of the text: *maledictio* is rendered as *maleiceun* on f. 38v, line 1; and *maleicún* on f. 64v, line 13 + line 14. *Redemptio* is *raencéun* on f. 47v, line 26, but also *raencún* on f. 65r, line 11. Finally, *cantatio* becomes *canceún* on f. 52v, line 23. Consequently **-ceun** seems to be a proper alternative for **-tiun** in the first part of the manuscript, while **-cun** is an alternative for **-ciun** towards the end.

<figure><img src="image_221.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v
line 26 (1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_222.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v
line 26 (2)</figcaption></figure>
ODD ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS (VA)

Many words were absent from the initial copy of the text, words which were inserted later. It is hard to believe they were unnoticed during the translation process. It is safer to assume that they point to the existence of a vernacular antigraph. I do not include in this category the subsequent insertion of missing definite or indefinite articles, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, negations, or other less consequential words—going as far as the absence of the verb ‘to be’, which can equally be due to an elliptical type of clause (or expression).

Certain errors, including longer ones, such as f. 57v, line 23 (*tute iúrn* inserted in the sequence *Ie criái á téi sìre* ; \ *tute iúrn/ espandí á téi les meies máins*), can be interpreted as errors of translation, given their inessential syntactical usage, and cannot be considered definite proof of a copy.

Insertions (some based, some not) on a antigraph:

f. 37v
line 8

<figure><img src="image_221.png" /></figure>

f. 38r
line 28

<figure><img src="image_222.png" /></figure>

f. 49r,
line 1

<figure><img src="image_223.png" /></figure>

f. 49r,
line 6

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /></figure>

f. 54v
line 8

<figure><img src="image_225.png" /></figure>

f. 55v
line 29

<figure><img src="image_226.png" /></figure>

f. 57v,
line 23

<figure><img src="image_227.png" /></figure>

f. 63v,
line 39

<figure><img src="image_228.png" /></figure>

f. 66r,
line 25

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>

f. 67r,
line 25
ODD ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS (VA)

Many words were absent from the initial copy of the text, words which were inserted later. It is hard to believe they were unnoticed during the translation process. It is safer to assume that they point to the existence of a vernacular antigraph. I do not include in this category the subsequent insertion of missing definite or indefinite articles, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, negations, or other less consequential words—going as far as the absence of the verb ‘to be’, which can equally be due to an elliptical type of clause (or expression).

Certain errors, including longer ones, such as f. 57v, line 23 (*tute iúrn* inserted in the sequence *Ie criái á téi sìre* ; \ *tute iúrn/ espandí á téi les meies máins*), can be interpreted as errors of translation, given their inessential syntactical usage, and cannot be considered definite proof of a copy.

Insertions (some based, some not) on a antigraph:

<figure><img src="image_223.png" /><figcaption>f. 38r
line 28</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /><figcaption>f. 49r,
line 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_225.png" /><figcaption>f. 49r,
line 6</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_226.png" /><figcaption>f. 54v
line 8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_227.png" /><figcaption>f. 55v
line 29</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_228.png" /><figcaption>f. 57v,
line 23</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /><figcaption>f. 63v,
line 39</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_230.png" /><figcaption>f. 66r,
line 25</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_231.png" /><figcaption>f. 67r,
line 25</figcaption></figure>
This applies to absent nouns without equivalent in the Latin text, inserted later by the scribe in the interline, such as *chóse* on f. 49r, above line 1, in the sequence *kar bone \chóse/ est*, where Galicanum had only *quoniam bonum est* (Ps 53:8). Distinctively, the repetition of certain words can equally lead to errors in translation, such as *les ewes* on f. 54v, line 8, which was inserted in the sequence *uirent tei \les ewes/ deus uirent téi les éwes*, where Galicanum had *Viderunt te aque deus viderunt te aque et timuerunt* (Ps 76:17). Finally, one can imagine a situation in which a translator skipped certain nouns, provided that they were followed by a relative clause that played the syntactic part of a subject: on f. 55v, line 29, where *genz* was inserted in the sequence *éspant la túe ire es\genz/ chi téi ne cuneúrent* (cf. Galicanum *Effunde iram tuam in gentes que te non nouerunt*; Ps 78:6).

However, there are five peculiar situations in which key elements of the phrase were missed in translation, being inserted later, during the revision process. For instance, it is hardly possible to argue that the Oxford Psalter was an autograph translation of the Latin St Albans Psalter when the word *genz* was inserted in the sequence *enfichees sunt les\genz/ el destruiment que il fîrent* on f. 38r, line 28. Here,

*genz* is the object of the verb. Missing it in an autograph translation would be nearly impossible.

The same occurs on f. 37v, line 8 (*enterrái* is inserted in the sequence *ié\enterrái/ en ta maisun*); f. 49r, line 6 (*cúers* inserted in the sequence *lí miéns \cúers/ conturbéz est*); f. 63v, line 39 (*oures* inserted in the sequence *les \oures/ del seignór*); f. 66r, line 25 (*déstre* inserted in the sequence *la \déstre/ del segnór exalcãd méi*); f. 67r, line 25 (*ueies* inserted in the sequence *ié purpensái les méies_ \ueies/ e conuertí mes piez*; perhaps on account of a similar shape of the letters in *ueies* and *meies*).

These situations concern essential words whose absence is unexplainable in a translation process. Definite articles are there, but nouns are not. The first person pronoun in the singular is there, but the verb is absent. Such types of omissions are perfectly explainable when one transforms an interlinear gloss into a prose text. The scribe would not be able to pay equal attention to all the words, concentrating mostly on the transformation of said gloss into actual prose.

ANOTHER ESSENTIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE is the transformation of an *L* majuscule into an *I* majuscule via the erasure of the right part of the initial letter on f. 72r, line 3 (*Le esguardowe > Ie esguardowe*). This strongly supports the idea that the scribe was copying from a source, as he mistook the first person personal pronoun in the singular (*je*, written as *Ie*) with the masculine definite article in the singular (*Le*), without paying attention to the meaning of the entire phrase.

<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>

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

<footnote>Facing page: insertions based (or not) on a source text.</footnote>

<footnote>Below: *Le > Ie* on f. 72r, line 3.</footnote>

<footnote>Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.</footnote>

<footnote>Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.</footnote>
This applies to absent nouns without equivalent in the Latin text, inserted later by the scribe in the interline, such as *chóse* on f. 49r, above line 1, in the sequence *kar bone \chóse/ est*, where Galicanum had only *quoniam bonum est* (Ps 53:8). Distinctively, the repetition of certain words can equally lead to errors in translation, such as *les ewes* on f. 54v, line 8, which was inserted in the sequence *uirent tei \les ewes/ deus uirent téi les éwes*, where Galicanum had *Viderunt te aque deus viderunt te aque et timuerunt* (Ps 76:17). Finally, one can imagine a situation in which a translator skipped certain nouns, provided that they were followed by a relative clause that played the syntactic part of a subject: on f. 55v, line 29, where *genz* was inserted in the sequence *éspant la túe íre es\genz/ chi téi ne cuneúrent* (cf. Galicanum *Effunde iram tuam in gentes que te non nouerunt*; Ps 78:6).

However, there are five peculiar situations in which key elements of the phrase were missed in translation, being inserted later, during the revision process. For instance, it is hardly possible to argue that the Oxford Psalter was an autograph translation of the Latin St Albans Psalter when the word *genz* was inserted in the sequence *enfichees sunt les\genz/ el destruiment que il fîrent* on f. 38r, line 28. Here,

*genz* is the object of the verb. Missing it in an autograph translation would be nearly impossible.

The same occurs on f. 37v, line 8 (*enterrái* is inserted in the sequence *ié\enterrái/ en ta maisun*); f. 49r, line 6 (*cúers* inserted in the sequence *lí miéns \cúers/ conturbéz est*); f. 63v, line 39 (*oures* inserted in the sequence *les \oures/ del seignór*); f. 66r, line 25 (*déstre* inserted in the sequence *la \déstre/ del segnór exalcãd méi*); f. 67r, line 25 (*ueies* inserted in the sequence *ié purpensái les méies_ \ueies/ e conuertí mes piez*; perhaps on account of a similar shape of the letters in *ueies* and *meies*).

These situations concern essential words whose absence is unexplainable in a translation process. Definite articles are there, but nouns are not. The first person pronoun in the singular is there, but the verb is absent. Such types of omissions are perfectly explainable when one transforms an interlinear gloss into a prose text. The scribe would not be able to pay equal attention to all the words, concentrating mostly on the transformation of said gloss into actual prose.

ANOTHER ESSENTIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE is the transformation of an *L* majuscule into an *I* majuscule via the erasure of the right part of the initial letter on f. 72r, line 3 (*Le esguardowe > Ie esguardowe*). This strongly supports the idea that the scribe was copying from a source, as he mistook the first person personal pronoun in the singular (*je*, written as *Ie*) with the masculine definite article in the singular (*Le*), without paying attention to the meaning of the entire phrase.

<figure><img src="image_232.png" /></figure>

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

<footnote>Facing page: insertions based (or not) on a source text.</footnote>

<footnote>Below: *Le > Ie* on f. 72r, line 3.</footnote>

<footnote>Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.</footnote>

<footnote>Courtesy of the Imaging Services of The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_231.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 39v.</figcaption></figure>

Above: Three erased words at the beginning of line 1 and the left part of the extensive erasure of line 0.

Below: Extent of the erasure of line 0 to the right.

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.

A RATHER ODD ERASURE occurs at the beginning of f. 39v. The first line up (line 0), completely erased, was added to the regular 40 lines of each folio. Since it is copied above the first ruling line of the page, it is hard to consider it is an omission during the translation process.

The second line (now line 1) also presents a problem, as its first three words have been erased. However, the first

<figure><img src="image_232.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_233.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 39v.</figcaption></figure>

Above: Three erased words at the beginning of line 1 and the left part of the extensive erasure of line 0.

Below: Extent of the erasure of line 0 to the right.

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.

A RATHER ODD ERASURE occurs at the beginning of f. 39v. The first line up (line 0), completely erased, was added to the regular 40 lines of each folio. Since it is copied above the first ruling line of the page, it is hard to consider it is an omission during the translation process.

The second line (now line 1) also presents a problem, as its first three words have been erased. However, the first

<figure><img src="image_234.png" /></figure>
erased word started with a straight descender which is
still visible, the only possible choice being *p*-. The second
word was either *les* or *ses*, as testified by the height and
lower serif of its first letter, as well as the imprint of *-e*-
and final *-s* on the remaining parchment. As for the third
word, it started with the sequence *le*- (the upper part of
these two letters is still visible on the folio) and ended
with an *-s*, the upper and lower serifs of which are still
visible to the naked eye. Given the space it occupies on
the line, the third word had six letters: *le*__s*.

Since the fourth word of line 1 in the initial version (now
the first word on the folio) reads *leuîres* ('lips'), it is highly
probable that the word preceding it (the third one erased)
was also *leures*. The scribe must have made an eye-skip.
Nevertheless, the last group of words on the preceding
folio (f. 39r) is *pur les paróles de tes*, none of which fits as
such in the sequence of three erased words of f. 39v.

Besides, the scrapping of line 0 goes as far above as the
possessive adjective *miens* of line 1. It must have been a
rather long text sequence, but not as long as to account for
a complete additional line written during the first stage
of transcription. However, the remaining space available
on line 0 presents no erasures and there is no trace of
a majuscule at the beginning of line 1 either, therefore
line 0 cannot be the end of text unit in the initial tran-
scription of the text. The blank space at the end of line 0
suggests that the erased words of the latter could only be
transcribed later, during the revision process, probably in
connection or as part of the same problem as the eye-skip
of line 1, in a situation rather similar to the one that we
see on f. 69v (vide *infra*). Unfortunately, it is impossible
to reconstruct any letter from line 0, except for a line ac-
counting for an *n*-, *m*-, or *u*- at the beginning of its
second word, above the erased *le*__s* of line 1. Alas, this
is too vague to make any supposition or reconstruction.

Comparisons with codices from the same manuscript
tradition are not helpful either. The word sequence is
more or less the same in Arundel MS 230 (f. 18r), Cotton
MS Nero C IV (f. 51vb), and other versions. As a result,
the only possible explanation is that the scribe made an

eye-skip, transcribing a sequence of words that made no
sense, tried to repair it by writing more words on an ad-
ditional line 0, and finally decided to erase it and the first
three words of line 1 in order to fix the text.

On f. 69v, another eye-skip made him miss the first half
of an entire verse, which he later transcribed above the
first line, as another line 0.

ANOTHER SITUATION OCCURS ON f. 73v, in the margin of
the last two lines (39-40) of that folio, where the scribe
inserted *la meie áneme* because he had no place to write
it in the interline of the main text. Also, the three words
formed too long a sequence to be rewritten on top of
an erasure, packed in little space available. However,
the three additional words form the object of *deliurer*,
which is a transitive verb. It is almost impossible to skip
them during the translation process, as the phrase would
not make sense. The best explanation is that the scribe
followed an interlinear gloss sprinkled here and there
above a Latin text written in large letters, and that he
repaired bits and parts of his copy while revising it.

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

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.

<figure><img src="image_233.png" /><figcaption>f. 73v,
lines 39–40</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_234.png" /><figcaption>f. 69v,
line 0</figcaption></figure>
erased word started with a straight descender which is
still visible, the only possible choice being *p*-. The second
word was either *les* or *ses*, as testified by the height and
lower serif of its first letter, as well as the imprint of *-e*-
and final *-s* on the remaining parchment. As for the third
word, it started with the sequence *le*- (the upper part of
these two letters is still visible on the folio) and ended
with an *-s*, the upper and lower serifs of which are still
visible to the naked eye. Given the space it occupies on
the line, the third word had six letters: *le*__s*.

Since the fourth word of line 1 in the initial version (now
the first word on the folio) reads *leuîres* ('lips'), it is highly
probable that the word preceding it (the third one erased)
was also *leures*. The scribe must have made an eye-skip.
Nevertheless, the last group of words on the preceding
folio (f. 39r) is *pur les paróles de tes*, none of which fits as
such in the sequence of three erased words of f. 39v.

Besides, the scrapping of line 0 goes as far above as the
possessive adjective *miens* of line 1. It must have been a
rather long text sequence, but not as long as to account for
a complete additional line written during the first stage
of transcription. However, the remaining space available
on line 0 presents no erasures and there is no trace of
a majuscule at the beginning of line 1 either, therefore
line 0 cannot be the end of text unit in the initial tran-
scription of the text. The blank space at the end of line 0
suggests that the erased words of the latter could only be
transcribed later, during the revision process, probably in
connection or as part of the same problem as the eye-skip
of line 1, in a situation rather similar to the one that we
see on f. 69v (vide *infra*). Unfortunately, it is impossible
to reconstruct any letter from line 0, except for a line ac-
counting for an *n*-, *m*-, or *u*- at the beginning of its
second word, above the erased *le*__s* of line 1. Alas, this
is too vague to make any supposition or reconstruction.

Comparisons with codices from the same manuscript
tradition are not helpful either. The word sequence is
more or less the same in Arundel MS 230 (f. 18r), Cotton
MS Nero C IV (f. 51vb), and other versions. As a result,
the only possible explanation is that the scribe made an

eye-skip, transcribing a sequence of words that made no
sense, tried to repair it by writing more words on an ad-
ditional line 0, and finally decided to erase it and the first
three words of line 1 in order to fix the text.

On f. 69v, another eye-skip made him miss the first half
of an entire verse, which he later transcribed above the
first line, as another line 0.

ANOTHER SITUATION OCCURS ON f. 73v, in the margin of
the last two lines (39-40) of that folio, where the scribe
inserted *la meie áneme* because he had no place to write
it in the interline of the main text. Also, the three words
formed too long a sequence to be rewritten on top of
an erasure, packed in little space available. However,
the three additional words form the object of *deliurer*,
which is a transitive verb. It is almost impossible to skip
them during the translation process, as the phrase would
not make sense. The best explanation is that the scribe
followed an interlinear gloss sprinkled here and there
above a Latin text written in large letters, and that he
repaired bits and parts of his copy while revising it.

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

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.

<figure><img src="image_235.png" /></figure>

f. 73v,
lines 39–40

<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

f. 69v,
line 0
<figure><img src="image_235.png" /></figure>

f. 38v
line 16

## CORRECTIVE USES OF THE LOW DASH (AC)

The fact that OFr *aste téi* on f. 38v, line 16, was mistaken for OFr *aste tei* (Fr *hâte-toi* ‘you hurry up!’) instead of the deictic particle ('behold!') is another piece of evidence that the scribe was copying from a source that he did not always understand well. During the revision process, the scribe made a correcting low dash (with a more diluted type of ink) and united the two segments of the word (which the scribe of the Winchester Psalter also writes as two words). This is a common phenomenon, occurring on erasures. It will not be listed here, as it concerns only the deletion of a single letter in various words.

A series of accidents are also related to material features of the copy. The scribe used low dashes to join segments of words separated by parchment holes: f. 42r, line 6 (*requer_rái*); f. 58r, line 7 (*moue_mént*); f. 63r, line 25 (*exo_irent*). A similar situation occurs on f. 57r, line 23, where *Guár_de* was written as such due to a cut in the folio. Also, on f. 73r, line 33, a low dash was later inserted in *d_é* because the scribe probably disliked the wide spacing between the two letters.

However, a series of low dashes clearly fall in the same category as *aste_téi* from f. 38v and can be explained only by a misunderstanding of the source text leading to transcription errors in the copy.

No traces of erasure can be noticed in *de_currát* on f. 37r, line 6—no material limitations of the parchment surface either, yet the prefix is written as a preposition. He wrote *de_getement_de póple* on f. 40v, line 37, with the first *de* interpreted once again as a preposition, not a prefix. As for *la_uirunemént* on f. 48r, line 7, the scribe probably believed, at least initially, that he was writing a

definite article followed by a noun, without any trace of ellison; then he changed his mind later. On f. 50v, line 21, *co_uirement* is probably a distraction error or a separation in the source that could have already split the word. On f. 55r, line 9, the final reading is *em_pennéz*, but his initial choice must have been *en pennéz*, with a correction of *-n-* in *-m-*-, as well as a low dash transforming the preposition to a prefix. Next, he probably had a preposition (*cun / cum*) + noun in mind when he wrote *cun_út* on f. 59r, line 18; and a preposition + verbal noun on f. 59r, line 34, where one reads *es_dreceánz*. Finally, on f. 71r, line 40, the text has *a_mí*. Instead of writing *ami* ‘friend’, the scribe probably mistook it for a phrase based on the preposition *a*, and corrected it later. All these cases concern the use of prepositions, articles, and particles. The special situation of *aimen_óre* *aimen_óre* on f. 52v, line 12, was already analysed. It suggested that the scribe probably read *ore* either as a conjunction or as the verb *orer* (‘pray amen’).

Other low dashes occur in odd places, perhaps linked (or not) to the scribe's misunderstandings of the source. There is the wavering *ploúde_chóse* on f. 73r, line 15, where the scribe wrote, on the exact same line, the exact same sequence without any low dash, as separate words. There is also the unclear situation of *resplendi_rent* on f. 54v, line 11. This needs to be interpreted in comparison with a f. 60r, line 28, where the scribe wrote once again *resplendi_rent*, but the low dash was transcribed on top of an erasure, due to a spelling error.

<caption>► 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.</caption>
<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>

f. 38v
line 16

## CORRECTIVE USES OF THE LOW DASH (AC)

The fact that OFr *aste téi* on f. 38v, line 16, was mistaken for OFr *aste tei* (Fr *hâte-toi* ‘you hurry up!’) instead of the deictic particle ('behold!') is another piece of evidence that the scribe was copying from a source that he did not always understand well. During the revision process, the scribe made a correcting low dash (with a more diluted type of ink) and united the two segments of the word (which the scribe of the Winchester Psalter also writes as two words). This is a common phenomenon, occurring on erasures. It will not be listed here, as it concerns only the deletion of a single letter in various words.

A series of accidents are also related to material features of the copy. The scribe used low dashes to join segments of words separated by parchment holes: f. 42r, line 6 (*requer_rái*); f. 58r, line 7 (*moue_mént*); f. 63r, line 25 (*exo_irent*). A similar situation occurs on f. 57r, line 23, where *Guár_de* was written as such due to a cut in the folio. Also, on f. 73r, line 33, a low dash was later inserted in *d_é* because the scribe probably disliked the wide spacing between the two letters.

However, a series of low dashes clearly fall in the same category as *aste_téi* from f. 38v and can be explained only by a misunderstanding of the source text leading to transcription errors in the copy.

No traces of erasure can be noticed in *de_currát* on f. 37r, line 6—no material limitations of the parchment surface either, yet the prefix is written as a preposition. He wrote *de_getement_de póple* on f. 40v, line 37, with the first de interpreted once again as a preposition, not a prefix. As for *la_uirunemént* on f. 48r, line 7, the scribe probably believed, at least initially, that he was writing a

definite article followed by a noun, without any trace of ellison; then he changed his mind later. On f. 50v, line 21, *co_uirement* is probably a distraction error or a separation in the source that could have already split the word. On f. 55r, line 9, the final reading is *em_pennéz*, but his initial choice must have been *en pennéz*, with a correction of *-n-* in *-m-*-, as well as a low dash transforming the preposition to a prefix. Next, he probably had a preposition (*cun / cum*) + noun in mind when he wrote *cun_út* on f. 59r, line 18; and a preposition + verbal noun on f. 59r, line 34, where one reads *es_dreceánz*. Finally, on f. 71r, line 40, the text has *a_mí*. Instead of writing *ami* ‘friend’, the scribe probably mistook it for a phrase based on the preposition *a*, and corrected it later. All these cases concern the use of prepositions, articles, and particles. The special situation of *aimen_óre* *aimen_óre* on f. 52v, line 12, was already analysed. It suggested that the scribe probably read *ore* either as a conjunction or as the verb *orer* (‘pray amen’).

Other low dashes occur in odd places, perhaps linked (or not) to the scribe's misunderstandings of the source. There is the wavering *ploúde_chóse* on f. 73r, line 15, where the scribe wrote, on the exact same line, the exact same sequence without any low dash, as separate words. There is also the unclear situation of *resplendi_rent* on f. 54v, line 11. This needs to be interpreted in comparison with a f. 60r, line 28, where the scribe wrote once again *resplendi_rent*, but the low dash was transcribed on top of an erasure, due to a spelling error.

<caption>► 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.</caption>
<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

f. 48r
line 7

<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>

f. 50v
line 21

<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>

f. 55r
line 9

<figure><img src="image_239.png" /></figure>

f. 54v
line 11
<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>

f. 48r
line 7

<figure><img src="image_239.png" /></figure>

f. 50v
line 21

<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>

f. 55r
line 9

<figure><img src="image_241.png" /></figure>

f. 54v
line 11
EXTENSIVE ERASURES = LINES IN A SOURCE? (VA, AC)

A casual look at the extensive erasures of Douce MS 320 shows gripping patterns that occur with certain frequency, almost mechanical, mostly in the first section of the text, where the scribe was preoccupied with mending initial choices that seemed somewhat faulty later on in the transcription process, when he had perfected his method. Yet when one tries to understand the nature of those gripping patterns, most of them look as if erasures had been determined by pure chance. An exception to this apparent rule of aleatory erasures is the presence of the possessive adjective in the singular. This occurs rather frequently on extensive erasures. Some examples are also linked with the more general issue of word order. It is therefore quite probable that the issue of the possessive adjective is actually an issue related to word order.

However, the number of characters written on top of 'extensive erasures' can vary. Therefore, it can hardly be related to the lines of vernacular text in an alleged manuscript source of Douce MS 320. The best explanation is given by the rather fixed number of characters in the corresponding Latin text of *Gallicanum*, as if the vernacular text's rhythmicity was not determined by its own structure, but by the structure of a Latin text.

MacBain and Busby have already used Old French texts in their analyses of scribal memory, specifically in situations where scribes made progressive or regressive repetitions of lines or couplets, probably because they had copied the text several times and had learned part of it by heart (MacBain 1987; cf. Busby 2002, 2:85-86). In the specific case of 13th century poems, the textual unit recognised and repeated by scribes is both oral (a verse) and visual (a line on a column of a folio). In our case, this textual unit occurs in a translation context and should be explained accordingly. This is where the issue of a certain rhythmicity of Latin words comes into play. Indeed, extensive erasures in Douce MS 320 could

be based on lines from a Latin psalter, therefore corresponding to transcription units, that is, sequences of words that scribes memorised before transferring them to the manuscript they write. Nevertheless, our scribe is not memorising Latin words; they seem to be vernacular phrases. As a result, the rhythmicity of erasures in Douce MS 320 is perhaps determined by the interplay of Latin and vernacular segments in a source that had texts in two languages, and the vernacular ones were transcribed in the interline.

The hypothesis that this situation can be found in an interlinear gloss is supported by the fact that the number of characters in the principal text (in Latin) looks stable, since it was the first text to be transcribed in the source manuscript (and because it would be the main text of that codex), whereas the number of characters in the vernacular interline varies depending on translation choices. Since this leads to condensed or extended spacing of letters, there is no way the number of characters in an interlinear vernacular gloss can be stable, because it is not autonomous. It cannot have the same number of characters from one line to the next, simply because the gloss does not structure the manuscript. Stability characterises only the Latin text, which is principal text of that codex.

We took notice of this pattern in four cases where parallels could be established between Douce MS 320 and Arundel MS 320. Even though the word order and lexical choices of the Arundel gloss were not always those of the

<figure><img src="image_240.png" /><figcaption>▼ Drawing of the last two lines on London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 9r.

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_241.png" /></figure>
EXTENSIVE ERASURES = LINES IN A SOURCE? (VA, AC)

A casual look at the extensive erasures of Douce MS 320 shows gripping patterns that occur with certain frequency, almost mechanical, mostly in the first section of the text, where the scribe was preoccupied with mending initial choices that seemed somewhat faulty later on in the transcription process, when he had perfected his method. Yet when one tries to understand the nature of those gripping patterns, most of them look as if erasures had been determined by pure chance. An exception to this apparent rule of aleatory erasures is the presence of the possessive adjective in the singular. This occurs rather frequently on extensive erasures. Some examples are also linked with the more general issue of word order. It is therefore quite probable that the issue of the possessive adjective is actually an issue related to word order.

However, the number of characters written on top of 'extensive erasures' can vary. Therefore, it can hardly be related to the lines of vernacular text in an alleged manuscript source of Douce MS 320. The best explanation is given by the rather fixed number of characters in the corresponding Latin text of *Gallicanum*, as if the vernacular text's rhythmicity was not determined by its own structure, but by the structure of a Latin text.

MacBain and Busby have already used Old French texts in their analyses of scribal memory, specifically in situations where scribes made progressive or regressive repetitions of lines or couplets, probably because they had copied the text several times and had learned part of it by heart (MacBain 1987; cf. Busby 2002, 2:85-86). In the specific case of 13th century poems, the textual unit recognised and repeated by scribes is both oral (a verse) and visual (a line on a column of a folio). In our case, this textual unit occurs in a translation context and should be explained accordingly. This is where the issue of a certain rhythmicity of Latin words comes into play. Indeed, extensive erasures in Douce MS 320 could

be based on lines from a Latin psalter, therefore corresponding to transcription units, that is, sequences of words that scribes memorised before transferring them to the manuscript they write. Nevertheless, our scribe is not memorising Latin words; they seem to be vernacular phrases. As a result, the rhythmicity of erasures in Douce MS 320 is perhaps determined by the interplay of Latin and vernacular segments in a source that had texts in two languages, and the vernacular ones were transcribed in the interline.

The hypothesis that this situation can be found in an interlinear gloss is supported by the fact that the number of characters in the principal text (in Latin) looks stable, since it was the first text to be transcribed in the source manuscript (and because it would be the main text of that codex), whereas the number of characters in the vernacular interline varies depending on translation choices. Since this leads to condensed or extended spacing of letters, there is no way the number of characters in an interlinear vernacular gloss can be stable, because it is not autonomous. It cannot have the same number of characters from one line to the next, simply because the gloss does not structure the manuscript. Stability characterises only the Latin text, which is principal text of that codex.

We took notice of this pattern in four cases where parallels could be established between Douce MS 320 and Arundel MS 320. Even though the word order and lexical choices of the Arundel gloss were not always those of the

<figure><img src="image_242.png" /><figcaption>▼ Drawing of the last two lines on London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 9r.

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_243.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_242.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.</figcaption></figure>

Facing page: the extensive erasures of Douce, f. 37v and 46r.

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.

<caption>► Drawing of London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 45v.</caption>

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.

Douce prose, the erasures of the latter manuscript were in tune with the interlinear glosses of the former, as if the source of Douce MS 320 was based on a Latin codex that had exactly the same number of characters in that line as the version of the Arundel Latin text.

On Douce MS 320, f. 37v, line 2, the extensive erasure fits the number of words from the gloss of Arundel: (L)ES méies. paróles. ot tes oréiles recéif síre. Incidentally, the Old French text is the same in Douce and Arundel (cf. Arundel MS 230, f. 9r). However, the following examples will show that this is mere coincidence. The essential thing in this particular case is that the Latin characters extend exactly over the same amount of space, that is, a single line—VERBA mea auribus percipe domine.

A second example can be found in Douce MS 320 on f. 46r, line 24. This corresponds to the width of the Latin text in Arundel MS 230, f. 45v. Certainly, the vernacular text is rather different (Douce reads here Sezelát la meie áneme á déu fontáine uíue, with the first word not on top of an erasure), and another one (quant) added in the margin, as if the initial version of the sequence would have been much shorter. The erasure covers the space of a Latin line in Arundel, that is, *Sitiuit anima mea ad*

Situuit anima mea ad dīm fonte iuīu?
quinque uemiam & apparebo ante
faciem deu. ubi est deus ius.

dominum fonte uiuum. If the scribe wanted to correct the word order of a source (perhaps in connection with the possessive adjective), he would have not needed to erase and rewrite the first word; only the remaining part.

A third example is *aflisís les póples. é debutás els.*, on f. 46v, line 13, of Douce MS 320. This corresponds to the Latin line *afflixisti populos et expulisti eos* from Arundel MS 230, f. 46v, and the vernacular text (again) has the same structure in both manuscripts. This time the corrected text seems to be reduced in comparison with what was initially written, before the erasure.

The fourth striking example can be found in Douce on f. 57r, line 10: *Dum ne te iraistrás tu enparmanabletéd á nus; ú* is the spitting (vernacular) image of the Latin line from Arundel, f. 86v, that reads *Nunquid in eternum irasceris nobis; aut*, to the point that even the erasure ends with the conjunction, but does not concern the remaining part of the text. In this passage, the Arundel French gloss is divergent, for it reads *Nient unces en parmanabletet curuces tu a nus; u*, which is a text, the structure of which cannot be compared with what we find in Douce. The Latin principal text is once again the best explanation.

Coincidences linking the Latin text of Arundel MS 230
<figure><img src="image_244.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.</figcaption></figure>

Facing page: the extensive erasures of Douce, f. 37v and 46r.

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.

<caption>► Drawing of London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 45v.</caption>

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.

Douce prose, the erasures of the latter manuscript were in tune with the interlinear glosses of the former, as if the source of Douce MS 320 was based on a Latin codex that had exactly the same number of characters in that line as the version of the Arundel Latin text.

On Douce MS 320, f. 37v, line 2, the extensive erasure fits the number of words from the gloss of Arundel: (L)ES méies. paróles. ot tes oréiles recéif síre. Incidentally, the Old French text is the same in Douce and Arundel (cf. Arundel MS 230, f. 9r). However, the following examples will show that this is mere coincidence. The essential thing in this particular case is that the Latin characters extend exactly over the same amount of space, that is, a single line—VERBA mea auribus percipe domine.

A second example can be found in Douce MS 320 on f. 46r, line 24. This corresponds to the width of the Latin text in Arundel MS 230, f. 45v. Certainly, the vernacular text is rather different (Douce reads here Sezelát la meie áneme á déu fontáine uíue, with the first word not on top of an erasure), and another one (quant) added in the margin, as if the initial version of the sequence would have been much shorter. The erasure covers the space of a Latin line in Arundel, that is, Sitiuit anima mea ad

Sitiuit anima mea ad dīm fonte iuīu?
qam uendat i6 et apparerat deuante
quando uemam & apparebo ante
faciem deu. ubi est deu tūus.

dominum fonte uiuum. If the scribe wanted to correct the word order of a source (perhaps in connection with the possessive adjective), he would have not needed to erase and rewrite the first word; only the remaining part.

A third example is *aflisís les póples. é debutás els*., on f. 46v, line 13, of Douce MS 320. This corresponds to the Latin line *afflixisti populos et expulisti eos* from Arundel MS 230, f. 46v, and the vernacular text (again) has the same structure in both manuscripts. This time the corrected text seems to be reduced in comparison with what was initially written, before the erasure.

The fourth striking example can be found in Douce on f. 57r, line 10: *Dum ne te iraistrás tu enparmanabletéd á nus; ú* is the spitting (vernacular) image of the Latin line from Arundel, f. 86v, that reads *Nunquid in eternum irasceris nobis; aut*, to the point that even the erasure ends with the conjunction, but does not concern the remaining part of the text. In this passage, the Arundel French gloss is divergent, for it reads *Nient unces en parmanabletet curuces tu a nus; u*, which is a text, the structure of which cannot be compared with what we find in Douce. The Latin principal text is once again the best explanation.

Coincidences linking the Latin text of Arundel MS 230
<figure><img src="image_243.png" /></figure>

Larue ma in lesgenz depoier
et plantas els .
Manuf tua gentel dispidit & plantas u eos?
afflait
les peoples
er debuta els.
affixitu populof & expuliti eos.

<figure><img src="image_244.png" /></figure>

Drawings of London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 46v (above) and 86v (below).

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.

<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320 and print-screens of London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230.

Above: The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 46v, line 13.

Below: The extensive erasure of Douce, 57r, line 10.

Facing page (up): The extensive erasure of Douce, 41r.

(down): The extensive erasure of Douce, 41r, line 22.

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.

with the erasures of the vernacular text of Douce MS 320 are naturally an exception. They cannot occur in every instance, simply because (even when various manuscripts present the same Latin text, written in large characters of the same height and width), variations always occur. Certain abbreviations will be present or absent in one or the other, and so on. However, when imagining the most

Hienr uncef en parmanablecte curceſe tu anuſ:
N unquid in eternum iraſceri nobil aut
u eſtendraſ larue ire deſenacur
ſtendel iram tuam a generatione in
enſactur:
generationem.

<figure><img src="image_246.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

Larue ma in lesgenz depoier
et plantas els .
Manuf tua gentel dispididit & plantas u eos?
afflait
les peoples
er debuta els.
affixitu populof & expuliti eos.

<figure><img src="image_246.png" /></figure>

Drawings of London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 46v (above) and 86v (below).

© Vladimir Agrigoroaei.

<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>

Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320 and print-screens of London, Bodleian Library, Arundel MS 230.

Above: The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 46v, line 13.

Below: The extensive erasure of Douce, 57r, line 10.

Facing page (up): The extensive erasure of Douce, 41r.

(down): The extensive erasure of Douce, 41r, line 22.

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.

with the erasures of the vernacular text of Douce MS 320 are naturally an exception. They cannot occur in every instance, simply because (even when various manuscripts present the same Latin text, written in large characters of the same height and width), variations always occur. Certain abbreviations will be present or absent in one or the other, and so on. However, when imagining the most

Hienr uncef en parmanablecte curceſe tu anuſ:
N unquid in eternum iraſceri nobil aut
u eſtendraſ latue ire deſenacur
ſtendel iram tuam a generatione in
enſactur:
generationem.

<figure><img src="image_248.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_249.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_248.png" /></figure>

basic reconstructions, with few letters more or few letters less in the line, the erasures of Douce seem once again to follow a Latin text with interlinear gloss, to the letter.

Consider the erasure of Douce, f. 41r : *é li mien calices eniuránz mult clérs est.* If we look at Arundel, f. 26r-26v, we read :

Lat. Impinguasti in oleo caput meum; et

Fr. Tu en olie mun chief encraisas ; et

Lat. calix meus inebriant quam preclarus est.

Fr. li miens calices eniuranz kar mult clers est.

Douce reads on one line Tú encraissás én ólie mun chéf and on the next line the rewriting on erasure *é li mien calices eniuránz mult clérs est*. In the first part of the sentence, Douce reverses the word order of Arundel (or another presumed source, for that matter, cf. infra), as if the scribe wished to be closer to the order of the Latin words. In the remaining part, we assume that he had

written a variant that did not suit him, which he corrected later. The odd thing is once again that the length of the erasure corresponds to Latin phrasal units as they might appear in a line from a source manuscript which, in our opinion, contained both the Latin text (in large letters) and a vernacular gloss (in small letters).

Take another example from the same f. 41r, this time on line 22 (Ps 21): *e il meeéme seignurerát sur les génz. Mangérent é aorérent túit li crás dé la térre*. In Arundel, f. 25v-26r, we find :

Lat. Quoniam domini est regnum ; et ipse

Fr. Kar del seignur est le regne ; et il

Lat. dominabitur gentium.

Fr. seinurirat des genz.

Lat. Manducauerunt et adorauerunt omnes

Fr. Mangerent et aurerent trestuit

Lat. pingues terre ; [...]

<figure><img src="image_249.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_250.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_250.png" /></figure>

basic reconstructions, with few letters more or few letters less in the line, the erasures of Douce seem once again to follow a Latin text with interlinear gloss, to the letter.

Consider the erasure of Douce, f. 41r : *é li mien calices eniuránz mult clérs est.* If we look at Arundel, f. 26r-26v, we read :

Lat. Impinguasti in oleo caput meum; et

Fr. Tu en olie mun chief encraisas ; et

Lat. calix meus inebriant quam preclarus est.

Fr. li miens calices eniuranz kar mult clers est.

Douce reads on one line Tú encraissás én ólie mun chéf and on the next line the rewriting on erasure *é li mien calices eniuránz mult clérs est*. In the first part of the sentence, Douce reverses the word order of Arundel (or another presumed source, for that matter, cf. infra), as if the scribe wished to be closer to the order of the Latin words. In the remaining part, we assume that he had

written a variant that did not suit him, which he corrected later. The odd thing is once again that the length of the erasure corresponds to Latin phrasal units as they might appear in a line from a source manuscript which, in our opinion, contained both the Latin text (in large letters) and a vernacular gloss (in small letters).

Take another example from the same f. 41r, this time on line 22 (Ps 21): *e il meeéme seignurerát sur les génz. Mangérent é aorérent túit li crás dé la térre*. In Arundel, f. 25v-26r, we find :

Lat. Quoniam domini est regnum ; et ipse

Fr. Kar del seignur est le regne ; et il

Lat. dominabitur gentium.

Fr. seinurirat des genz.

Lat. Manducauerunt et adorauerunt omnes

Fr. Mangerent et aurerent trestuit

Lat. pingues terre ; [...]

<figure><img src="image_251.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_252.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_251.png" /></figure>

Fr. li cras de la terre ; [...]

In the case of our erasure, it is quite possible that the Douce scribe initially wrote something similar to what we find in the Arundel, which is not very faithful to the Latin text in this passage either; and that he then changed his mind by correctly translating *ipse* by *meésme*, and by better rendering the concept of *gentium* with *sur les génz*. The presence of *mangerent* on the erasure is probably due to the presence, in the source, on the same line, of the sequence *et ipse dominabitur gentium*. Manducauerunt.

Next, the erasure of 41r, line 27, reads *Líire guuérne méi. é núle chóse ne désiert a méi; en lúi de pastúre ilúec méi aluát*. In Arundel, f. 26r, the text is:

Lat. Dominus regit me PSALMVS DAVID

Fr. *Li sire guuerne mei*

Lat. et nichil michi deerit; in loco

Fr. et nule chose a mei ne desert; en liu

To explain the erasure in Douce, one can assume that the Latin title of the psalm took up a bit more space in the first line of that first psalm verse:

Dominus PSALMVS DAVID

regit me et nichil michi deerit

in loco [...]

In this case, perhaps the Douce scribe had transcribed the same French variant as Arundel. For the moment, we

<figure><img src="image_252.png" /></figure>