<figure><img src="image_253.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 desíert 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_254.png" /></figure>
have assumed that the Oxford scribe was both a scribe in the strict sense of the term, but also an adapter, anxious to present a text close to the Latin source. It is possible that in this case our copyist tried a different translation, but then changed his mind and thought that the one in his source was better than his own.

Leaving aside conjectures such as the paragraph above, there are other arguments that point in the direction of an interlinear gloss. All this is supported by the eye-skip of f. 69v, already discussed (*vide supra*). There, the scribe had missed the first half of an entire verse, which he later transcribed above the first line, as another line 0. If this was indeed a skip of a line, and if such a line would have roughly more or less 40 characters with spaces, then the source could be an interlinear gloss (similar to Arundel MS 230), not a bilingual version on two columns where lines like these reach 30 characters on average with spaces (see the Maidstone fragments or Cotton MS Nero C IV). This is further supported by the length of the odd erasure at the beginning of f. 39v. The first line up of that folio (line 0) was completely erased, but it had been added to the regular 40 lines of each folio. We have already argued that it is rather difficult to interpret this as part of a regular translation process. Since its length fits that of f. 69v, line 0, and since the number of characters also corresponds to those of interlinear glosses, not bilingual manuscripts with Latin and vernacular on separate columns, it is safe to assume that the situations of f. 39v, line 0, and f. 69v, line 0, are related to the issue of extensive erasures discussed in this section of the present article. Furthermore, the double erasure of f. 39v occurs at the beginning of a verso, that is, once the ink from the recto had dried and the scribe could turn the page. The eye-skip was possibly determined by a pause in the process of copying.

A large part of these extensive erasures correspond to visual units that the scribe was transcribing from the source, using his short-term/working memory in similar processes as those of charter scribes (cf. Korkiakangas 2022). The process is not very different from the ones attested during Late Antiquity, when Greek scribes used to copy small units of text, between three and

seven syllables. This was proven by a careful analysis of re-inkings and changes occurring in baselines (cf. Schwendner 2021, 337–338). The only thing that changed was an increase in the number of characters (and words), probably as a result of the introduction of spaces between words in the late seventh century.

Our research has identified many more erasures which could be based on this visual segmentation of the source text. When we extended these reconstructions to many other situations, the conclusion was that the Latin text of the prototype had a variation in line width that did not surpass an average of 3-5 letters in comparison with the Latin text of Arundel MS 230. When this occurs, it is probably due to different abbreviations. Sometimes the words (or part of those words) transcribed at the beginning or at the end of certain lines are not written on top of an erasure, as the scribe must have been preoccupied with word order and those terms were already fixed. Nevertheless, just like Arundel MS 230, this reconstructed Latin source had verses written on independent lines, with rare exceptions in which two verses would be copied one after another, separated only by majuscules.

Among the source-lines erased entirely and rewritten in Douce MS 320, we counted four other examples of erasures and all seem to be determined by reworkings of the word order. The first one occurs on f. 38r, line 19, where the French text reads *Les espédes del enemi defistrent en fin* and corresponds to Arundel ms 230, f. 12v (Lat. *Inimici defecerunt framee in finem*; Fr. *Del enemi defistrent les espedes en fin*). This is one of many instances where Ian Short’s assertion that the Douce scribe did a word-to-word translation is confirmed (cf. Short 2015: 31–37). Yet there are oscillations on a scale ranging from formal/functional to dynamic equivalence, and they cannot be determined by a “doctrinal explanation” related to the scribe’s “veneration... of the Holy Writ” (Short 2015: 36). This conjecture has little to do with the actual translation process.

On f. 38r, line 28: *enfichees sunt les génz el destruiment que il firent*—with génz written in small letters above the line, corresponds to Arundel, f. 13r (Lat. *Exultabo in salutari tuo*; *infixe sunt gentes in interitu quem fecerunt*).

On f. 38v, line 17: *Kár lesquels chóses tu parfesís il destruient; le iúste a certes que fist ?*—where -strent is written in the right-hand margin, below, would fit Arundel’s f. 14v–15r (Lat. -tos corde. *Quoniam que perfecisti / destruxerunt; iustus autem quid fecit ?*) reconstructed as a simple line *Quoniam quae perfecisti destruxerunt*, if *quoniam* were abbreviated *qm*.

Last but not least, on f. 39v, line 3: *Fái merueilúses lés túes misericórdes; chi sals fáis les esperánz en téi* (with *salf*

◆ *Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320. Facing page (up):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 41r, line 27; *(down):*
The correction of the eye-skip in Douce, f. 69v, line 0. *This page (below):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 38r, line 19.

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_253.png" /></figure>
have assumed that the Oxford scribe was both a scribe in the strict sense of the term, but also an adapter, anxious to present a text close to the Latin source. It is possible that in this case our copyist tried a different translation, but then changed his mind and thought that the one in his source was better than his own.

Leaving aside conjectures such as the paragraph above, there are other arguments that point in the direction of an interlinear gloss. All this is supported by the eye-skip of f. 69v, already discussed (*vide supra*). There, the scribe had missed the first half of an entire verse, which he later transcribed above the first line, as another line 0. If this was indeed a skip of a line, and if such a line would have roughly more or less 40 characters with spaces, then the source could be an interlinear gloss (similar to Arundel MS 230), not a bilingual version on two columns where lines like these reach 30 characters on average with spaces (see the Maidstone fragments or Cotton MS Nero C IV). This is further supported by the length of the odd erasure at the beginning of f. 39v. The first line up of that folio (line 0) was completely erased, but it had been added to the regular 40 lines of each folio. We have already argued that it is rather difficult to interpret this as part of a regular translation process. Since its length fits that of f. 69v, line 0, and since the number of characters also corresponds to those of interlinear glosses, not bilingual manuscripts with Latin and vernacular on separate columns, it is safe to assume that the situations of f. 39v, line 0, and f. 69v, line 0, are related to the issue of extensive erasures discussed in this section of the present article. Furthermore, the double erasure of f. 39v occurs at the beginning of a verso, that is, once the ink from the recto had dried and the scribe could turn the page. The eye-skip was possibly determined by a pause in the process of copying.

A large part of these extensive erasures correspond to visual units that the scribe was transcribing from the source, using his short-term/working memory in similar processes as those of charter scribes (cf. Korkiakangas 2022). The process is not very different from the ones attested during Late Antiquity, when Greek scribes used to copy small units of text, between three and

seven syllables. This was proven by a careful analysis of re-inkings and changes occurring in baselines (cf. Schwendner 2021, 337–338). The only thing that changed was an increase in the number of characters (and words), probably as a result of the introduction of spaces between words in the late seventh century.

Our research has identified many more erasures which could be based on this visual segmentation of the source text. When we extended these reconstructions to many other situations, the conclusion was that the Latin text of the prototype had a variation in line width that did not surpass an average of 3-5 letters in comparison with the Latin text of Arundel MS 230. When this occurs, it is probably due to different abbreviations. Sometimes the words (or part of those words) transcribed at the beginning or at the end of certain lines are not written on top of an erasure, as the scribe must have been preoccupied with word order and those terms were already fixed. Nevertheless, just like Arundel MS 230, this reconstructed Latin source had verses written on independent lines, with rare exceptions in which two verses would be copied one after another, separated only by majuscules.

Among the source-lines erased entirely and rewritten in Douce MS 320, we counted four other examples of erasures and all seem to be determined by reworkings of the word order. The first one occurs on f. 38r, line 19, where the French text reads *Les espédes del enemi defistrent en fin* and corresponds to Arundel ms 230, f. 12v (Lat. *Inimici defecerunt framee in finem*; Fr. *Del enemi defistrent les espedes en fin*). This is one of many instances where Ian Short’s assertion that the Douce scribe did a word-to-word translation is confirmed (cf. Short 2015: 31–37). Yet there are oscillations on a scale ranging from formal/functional to dynamic equivalence, and they cannot be determined by a “doctrinal explanation” related to the scribe’s “veneration... of the Holy Writ” (Short 2015: 36). This conjecture has little to do with the actual translation process.

On f. 38r, line 28: *enfichees sunt les génz el destruiment que il firent*—with génz written in small letters above the line, corresponds to Arundel, f. 13r (Lat. *Exultabo in salutari tuo*; *infixe sunt / gentes in interitu quem fecerunt*).

On f. 38v, line 17: *Kár lesquels chóses tu parfesís il destruient; le iúste a certes que fist ?*—where -strent is written in the right-hand margin, below, would fit Arundel’s f. 14v–15r (Lat. -tos corde. *Quoniam que perfecisti / destruxerunt; iustus autem quid fecit ?*) reconstructed as a simple line *Quoniam quae perfecisti destruxerunt*, if *quoniam* were abbreviated *qm*.

Last but not least, on f. 39v, line 3: *Fái merueilúses lés túes misericórdes; chi sals fáis les esperánz en téi* (with *salf*

◆ *Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320. Facing page (up):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 41r, line 27; *(down):*
The correction of the eye-skip in Douce, f. 69v, line 0. *This page (below):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 38r, line 19.

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_255.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_254.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_255.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_256.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_256.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_257.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_258.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_257.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_258.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.

*Facing page (up):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 38r, line 28; *middle*: The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 38v, line 17; *down*: The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 39v, line 3. *This page (up)*: The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 37v, lines 10-11.

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.</figcaption></figure>

and *fâis* probably rewritten on top of a sequence which was briefer initially), corresponds to Arundel, f. 18v: *Mirifica misericordias tuas; qui saluos / facis sperantes in te*, if the reconstruction allows once again a minor variation of characters.

The examples of f. 38r, line 28, and f. 38v, line 17, could represent rewritings, with the inclusion of more terms absent from the initial version of the text in Douce MS 320. There is an excess of words that begs for a coherent explanation (not only here, built elsewhere as well). This excess cannot be linked to the structure of a Latin text in the source, only to the scribe's simplifications of the vernacular gloss in the initial phase of his transcription. This would explain why he did not have enough space to fit in all the words in during the rewriting and had to go overboard, into the margin. As for the examples of f. 38r, line 19, and f. 39v, line 3, they seem to be mere reshufflings with a different word order. Once the scribe

erased the initial version of the text, his rewritings are neatly transcribed, occupying the same space as the initial phrases from before the erasure. Even though the mechanics of the two categories of examples are determined by the memorisation of the lines of Latin text that shape the copy units, the actual reasons for the corrections on top of erasures are rather different.

There are situations in which copy units corresponding to two lines in the underlying structure of a Latin text have been erased one after another. On f. 37v, lines 10–11 now read: *Sépúlchre aourânz est. li guitrún di cels. par lur lângues tricherusemènt faiseient*. Cf. the Latin text of Arundel, f. 9v: *Sepulchrum patent est guttur eorum; linguis suis dolose agebant; iudica*. An explanation could be that both sequences presented problems, or perhaps the scribe had made a mess of the sentence comprising the two copy units, therefore, the mending required even more erasures. Further down the same folio (f. 37v, line 17) Douce MS 320 reads: *SIRE ne me arguer en tà fuirûr ; ne en la túe íre ne me castiér*. Cf. Arundel, f. 10r: *DOMINE ne in furore tuo arguas me; neque in ira tua corripias me*. In this other example, the Arundel text is rather different: *Sire ne en ta forsenerie constreinnes mei; ne en ire la tue castier mei*. It is hard to tell if the Douce scribe wished to diverge from the source material or simply reshuffled a bad word order of his transcription. Both options are valid (and one cannot exclude the third possibility of both being correct at the same time).
<figure><img src="image_259.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_260.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_261.png" /></figure>

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

Facing page (up): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 38r, line 28; (middle): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 38v, line 17;

(down): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 39v, line 3. This page (up): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 37v, lines 10-11.

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.

and *fāis* probably rewritten on top of a sequence which was briefer initially), corresponds to Arundel, f. 18v: *Mirifica misericordias tuas; qui saluos / facis sperantes in te*, if the reconstruction allows once again a minor variation of characters.

The examples of f. 38r, line 28, and f. 38v, line 17, could represent rewritings, with the inclusion of more terms absent from the initial version of the text in Douce MS 320. There is an excess of words that begs for a coherent explanation (not only here, built elsewhere as well). This excess cannot be linked to the structure of a Latin text in the source, only to the scribe's simplifications of the vernacular gloss in the initial phase of his transcription. This would explain why he did not have enough space to fit in all the words in during the rewriting and had to go overboard, into the margin. As for the examples of f. 38r, line 19, and f. 39v, line 3, they seem to be mere reshufflings with a different word order. Once the scribe

erased the initial version of the text, his rewritings are neatly transcribed, occupying the same space as the initial phrases from before the erasure. Even though the mechanics of the two categories of examples are determined by the memorisation of the lines of Latin text that shape the copy units, the actual reasons for the corrections on top of erasures are rather different.

There are situations in which copy units corresponding to two lines in the underlying structure of a Latin text have been erased one after another. On f. 37v, lines 10–11 now read: *Sépúlchre aourânz est. li guitrún di cels. par lur lângues tricherusemènt faiseient*. Cf. the Latin text of Arundel, f. 9v: *Sepulchrum patent est guttur eorum; linguis suis dolose agebant; iudica*. An explanation could be that both sequences presented problems, or perhaps the scribe had made a mess of the sentence comprising the two copy units, therefore, the mending required even more erasures. Further down the same folio (f. 37v, line 17) Douce MS 320 reads: *SIRE ne me arguer en tà fuirûr ; ne en la túe íre ne me castiér*. Cf. Arundel, f. 10r: *DOMINE ne in furore tuo arguas me; neque in ira tua corripias me*. In this other example, the Arundel text is rather different: *Sire ne en ta forsenerie constreinnes mei; ne en ire la tue castier mei*. It is hard to tell if the Douce scribe wished to diverge from the source material or simply reshuffled a bad word order of his transcription. Both options are valid (and one cannot exclude the third possibility of both being correct at the same time).
<figure><img src="image_259.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_260.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_262.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_263.png" /></figure>
The fact that the first half word on f. 37v, line 10 (*Sépúl-*), and the first word on line 17 (*SIRE*) were not erased shows once again that the scribe's intention is often uneven. In this situation, he wished to keep close to the word order of the Latin text (or perhaps to that of the source, if indeed the latter was an interlinear gloss).

Last but not least, there is a category of erasures of variable length that occurs always at the end of a verse and can correspond to the end of a line written incompletely in the source—by incompletely we refer to the fact that the remaining part of that line was probably left blank. This explains the various lengths, since Psalm verses have various sizes. On f. 39v, lines 14–15, for instance, we read: *li síre li míens firmamenz. é li miéns refúges. e li miens deliuñere.* This corresponds to Arundel

f. 19r: *Diligam te domine fortitudo/ mea; dominus firma- mentum meum et/ refugium meum; et liberator meus, but the text can also be reconstructed as:*

*Diligam te PSALMVS DAVID domine fortitudo mea; dns fir- mam'tu' meu' et refugiu' meu' et liberator meus.*

In such a case, the erasure would concern a copy-unit of a line and a half. But there is something else of great interest in this lines. Why did the Douce scribe leave all that blank space after *fir-*? It is evident that by the time he was copying the first verse of a new psalm (*Ié amerái téi...*) he realised that he had forgotten to write the end line of the previous psalm. It could well be that that line was thrown further down at the end of another verse, and marked by a pilcrow, just like Arundel does every now and then. When the scribe realises the error, he stops copying the remaining lines of the first verse from the new psalm, transcribes the end of the previous psalm and marks it with a pilcrow, then returns to his transcription by copy-units and leaves the line with the blank space to help readers identify the structure of the text. Consequently, the fact that he wrote only *fir-*, not

<figure><img src="image_261.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_262.png" /></figure>

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

<footnote>*Facing page (up + down):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 37v, line 11.</footnote>

<footnote>*This page (down):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 39v, lines 15 + the issue of the end of the previous psalm on line 14.</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>
The fact that the first half word on f. 37v, line 10 (*Sépúl-*), and the first word on line 17 (*SIRE*) were not erased shows once again that the scribe's intention is often uneven. In this situation, he wished to keep close to the word order of the Latin text (or perhaps to that of the source, if indeed the latter was an interlinear gloss).

Last but not least, there is a category of erasures of variable length that occurs always at the end of a verse and can correspond to the end of a line written incompletely in the source—by incompletely we refer to the fact that the remaining part of that line was probably left blank. This explains the various lengths, since Psalm verses have various sizes. On f. 39v, lines 14–15, for instance, we read: *li síre li míens firmamenz. é li miéns refúges. e li miens deliuñere.* This corresponds to Arundel

f. 19r: *Diligam te domine fortitudo/ mea; dominus firma- mentum meum et/ refugium meum; et liberator meus, but the text can also be reconstructed as:*

*Diligam te PSALMVS DAVID domine fortitudo mea; dns fir- mam'tu' meu' et refugiu' meu' et liberator meus.*

In such a case, the erasure would concern a copy-unit of a line and a half. But there is something else of great interest in this lines. Why did the Douce scribe leave all that blank space after *fir-*? It is evident that by the time he was copying the first verse of a new psalm (*Ié amerái téi...*) he realised that he had forgotten to write the end line of the previous psalm. It could well be that that line was thrown further down at the end of another verse, and marked by a pilcrow, just like Arundel does every now and then. When the scribe realises the error, he stops copying the remaining lines of the first verse from the new psalm, transcribes the end of the previous psalm and marks it with a pilcrow, then returns to his transcription by copy-units and leaves the line with the blank space to help readers identify the structure of the text. Consequently, the fact that he wrote only *fir-*, not

<figure><img src="image_264.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_265.png" /></figure>

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

<footnote>*Facing page (up + down):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 37v, line 11.</footnote>

<footnote>*This page (down):* The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 39v, lines 15 + the issue of the end of the previous psalm on line 14.</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_263.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_264.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_265.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_266.png" /></figure>

the entire word, at the end of that line, is further proof that he operated by copy-units.

Another example occurs on f. 42r, line 29, where we read: *rént le guerredún dels á els meísmes*. —with the final –s of *meísmes* written in superscript. Cf. Arundel MS 230, f. 30r: *Secundum opera manuum eorum tribue/ illis; redde retributionem eorum ipsis*. The erasure could be determined by the initial rendering of *ipsis*, that is, by the absence of *meísmes* in the initial translation. And the lines of the source could be reconstructed as:

*S'c'd'm op'a manuum eor' tribue illis;*
*redde retributionem eorum ipsis*

In this case, it is evident that the verb *rént* was written at the end of the previous line (line 28) during the revision process, probably about the same time as the correction on top of an erasure from line 29. It is safe to assume that the verb *rént* had been written initially at the beginning of line 29 (traces of his accentuation are still visible in the upper part of the erasure, above the initial **g**-in *guerredún*), but the scribe had no place to insert *meísmes* in an already crowded line. Therefore, he pushed all words up one position, until he created enough space to include the missing term.

The last example of this type presented here is that of f. 37v, lines 9–10: *dréce el tuén esguardement la méie uéie*. Cf. Arundel, f. 9v: *Domine deduc me in iusticia tua propter/inimicos meos; dirige in conspectu/ tuo uiam meam*. The Arundel vernacular gloss is very different from the Douce prose in this passage: *derece esguardement el ton uoie la moie*. Yet the reconstruction of the Latin source suggests

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.
(left): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 42r, line 29.
(right): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 37v, lines 9-10.
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.

that it could have had a corresponding final line:

*Domine deduc me in iusticia tua
propter inimicos meos; dirige
in conspectu tuo uiam meam*

The fact that *uéie* is not part of the erasure is not surprising, since the scribe does this many times with words located at the beginning or at the end of these copy-units, probably because he considers that he can solve the issue by making smaller erasures. Could it be that the Douce scribe initially wrote a nonsensical formula such as that of the Arundel just in the case of *esguardement el ton*? It is quite tempting to make this conjecture, especially since *el tuen* of the previous line is also written on top of an erasure. In that case, *es-* at the end of line 9 was written in the blank space of the margin left by the initial version of the scribe.

It is perhaps high time to try a more complex reconstruction of a larger passage. The middle section of 37v (second half of Ps 5 and beginning of Ps 6) can become a proper case study, since many lines have been almost entirely erased there, four of which have already been discussed. For comparison, we include the transcription of the same passage in Douce MS 320 (erasures marked
<figure><img src="image_266.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_267.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_268.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_269.png" /></figure>

the entire word, at the end of that line, is further proof that he operated by copy-units.

Another example occurs on f. 42r, line 29, where we read: *rént le guerredún dels á els méismes*. —with the final –s of méismes written in superscript. Cf. Arundel MS 230, f. 30r: *Secundum opera manuum eorum tribue/ illis; redde retributionem eorum ipsis*. The erasure could be determined by the initial rendering of *ipsis*, that is, by the absence of *meismes* in the initial translation. And the lines of the source could be reconstructed as:

*S'c'd'm op'a manuum eor' tribue illis;*
*redde retributionem eorum ipsis*

In this case, it is evident that the verb *rént* was written at the end of the previous line (line 28) during the revision process, probably about the same time as the correction on top of an erasure from line 29. It is safe to assume that the verb *rént* had been written initially at the beginning of line 29 (traces of his accentuation are still visible in the upper part of the erasure, above the initial **g**-in *guerredún*), but the scribe had no place to insert *meismes* in an already crowded line. Therefore, he pushed all words up one position, until he created enough space to include the missing term.

The last example of this type presented here is that of f. 37v, lines 9–10: *dréce el tuén esguardement la méie uéie*. Cf. Arundel, f. 9v: *Domine deduc me in iusticia tua propter/inimicos meos; dirige in conspectu/ tuo uiam meam*. The Arundel vernacular gloss is very different from the Douce prose in this passage: *derece esguardement el ton uoie la moie*. Yet the reconstruction of the Latin source suggests

► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320.
(left): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 42r, line 29.
(right): The extensive erasure of Douce, f. 37v, lines 9-10.
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.

that it could have had a corresponding final line:

*Domine deduc me in iusticia tua
propter inimicos meos; dirige
in conspectu tuo uiam meam*

The fact that *uéie* is not part of the erasure is not surprising, since the scribe does this many times with words located at the beginning or at the end of these copy-units, probably because he considers that he can solve the issue by making smaller erasures. Could it be that the Douce scribe initially wrote a nonsensical formula such as that of the Arundel just in the case of *esguardement el ton*? It is quite tempting to make this conjecture, especially since *el tuen* of the previous line is also written on top of an erasure. In that case, *es-* at the end of line 9 was written in the blank space of the margin left by the initial version of the scribe.

It is perhaps high time to try a more complex reconstruction of a larger passage. The middle section of 37v (second half of Ps 5 and beginning of Ps 6) can become a proper case study, since many lines have been almost entirely erased there, four of which have already been discussed. For comparison, we include the transcription of the same passage in Douce MS 320 (erasures marked
in yellow) and the one of the Latin and French text of
Winchester Psalter, to prove that the source's lines
cannot fit those of bilingual manuscripts on two columns.
It should also be noted that we do not yet attempt to re-
construct the initial version of the Douce MS text in this
first instalment of our paper, only its correlation with
the Latin lines in its probable source manuscript. We
included the text of Douce in the interline just to make it
easier to correlate its erasures with the wording of the re-

constructed Latin source. A proper reconstruction of the
vernacular text will be done, only when all phenomena
related to erasures will be analysed in detail.

At the beginning of the passage, there is no reason
to change the arrangement of Ps 5:8 from the Arundel.
The Douce source could have had the same structure
on two lines. However, we reconstructed a version with
two minor abbreviations, to show that such variations
could occur, and that they do not change the interpre-

*Oxford Psalter's largest erasure group* (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37v):

la túe crieme. Sire deméine méi en ta iustíse pur les miens enemís; dréce el tuén es guardement la méie ueie. Kar ueritét nen est. en lur búche; lur cúer est uáin. Sépúl cŕe aouranz est. li guitrún di cels. par lur lángues tricherusemént faiseient; iúge icéls deus. Dechédent de lur cogitatiuns selunc la multitúdine de lur impietz; de dúte icels kar il entariérent téi síre. E esleðecent séi túit chi espéirent en téi; en parmanabletet sesioirúnt é tu habiterás en els. E sesglorierúnt en téi túit chi aiment le tuén núm; kar tu beneisterás al iúste. Síre sicume. délescút de la túe bóne uoluntét córunás nús.

Sire ne me arguer en tá fuirúr; ne en la túe íre ne me castiér. Merci áies de mei sire quar íe sui enferm; sáine mei sire. quar li mien ós sunt conturbét E lá meie áneme conturbéde est. mult; é tu síre deque aquant? Seies cunuertit síre é delíure ma aneme; salf me fái pur la tue misericordie. Quar nen est en mort chi

*Winchester Psalter Latin column*

(London, BL, Cotton MS Nero C IV, f. 47r-v):

Introibo in domum tuam; adorabo ad
templum sanctum tuum in timore tuo.
Domine deduc me in iustitia tua propter
inimicos meos; dirige in conspectu
tuo uiam meam.
Quoniam non est in ore eorum ueritas;
cor eorum uanum est.
Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum
linguis suis dolose agebant; iudi-
ca illos deus.
Decidant a cogitationibus suis secundum mul-
titudinem impietatum eorum expelle eos;
quoniam irritaverunt te domine.
Et letentur omnes qui sperant in te; in eternum
exultabunt et habitabis in eis.
Et gloriamuntur in te omnes qui diligunt
nomen tuum; quoniam tu benedices iusto.
Domine; ut scuto bone uoluntatis
tue coronasti nos.
Domine ne in furore tuo arguas me;
neque in ira tua corripias me
Miserere mei domine quoniam infirmus
sum; sana me domine quoniam contur-
bata sunt ossa mea.
Et anima mea turbata est ualde; et
tu domine usquequo.
Conuertere domine et eripe anima meam.
saluum me fac propter misericordiam tuam.
Quoniam non est in morte qui memor sit tui; in
inferno autem quis confitebitur tibi.

*Winchester Psalter Old French column*

(London, BL, Cotton MS Nero C IV, f. 47r-v):

Ieo enterai en ta maison; e aorerai el
tun saint temple en la tue crieme.
Sire demeine mei en ta iustice pur
les miens enemis; drece el tuen es
guardement la meie ueie.
Kar uerited nen est en lor buche;
lur cuer est uain.
Sepulchre aouranz est li guitrun
di cels; par lur langues tricheruse
ment faiseient iuge cels deus.
Decheent de lur cogitatiuns. selonc la
multitudine de lur impietz debut
icels; kar il entarierent tei sire.
Esleecent se tuit ki espeirent en tei. en
parmanabletet sesioirunt e tu habiteras en els.
ses glorierunt en tei tuit ki aiment le
tuen num; kar beneistas al iuste
Sire si cume del escut de la tue bone
uolunted corunas nos.
Sire ne me arguer en ta fuirur. ne
en la tue ire ne me chastier.
Merci aies de mei sire kar leo sui enferm;
saine mei sire kar li mien os sunt
conturbet.
E la meie aneme conturbede est mult;
e tu sire desqueaquant?
Series conuertit sire e de liure maneme;
salf me fai pur la tue misericorde.
Kar ne. est. en mort ki remenbrere seit de
tei; en enfern acertes chi gihirat a tei?
in yellow) and the one of the Latin and French text of
Winchester Psalter, to prove that the source's lines
cannot fit those of bilingual manuscripts on two columns.
It should also be noted that we do not yet attempt to re-
construct the initial version of the Douce MS text in this
first instalment of our paper, only its correlation with
the Latin lines in its probable source manuscript. We
included the text of Douce in the interline just to make it
easier to correlate its erasures with the wording of the re-

constructed Latin source. A proper reconstruction of the
vernacular text will be done, only when all phenomena
related to erasures will be analysed in detail.

At the beginning of the passage, there is no reason
to change the arrangement of Ps 5:8 from the Arundel.
The Douce source could have had the same structure
on two lines. However, we reconstructed a version with
two minor abbreviations, to show that such variations
could occur, and that they do not change the interpre-

*Oxford Psalter's largest erasure group* (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37v):

la túe crieme. Sire deméine méi en ta iustíse pur les miens enemís; dréce el tuén es guardement la méie ueie. Kar ueritét nen est. en lur búche; lur cúer est uáin. Sépúl cŕe aouranz est. li guitrún di cels. par lur lángues tricherusemént faiseient; iúge icéls deus. Dechédent de lur cogitatiuns selunc la multitúdine de lur impietz; de dúte icels kar il entariérent téi síre. E esleðecent séi túit chi espéirent en téi; en parmanabletet sesioirúnt é tu habiterás en els. E sesglorierúnt en téi túit chi aiment le tuén núm; kar tu beneisterás al iúste. Síre sicume. délescút de la túe bóne uoluntét córunás nús.

Sire ne me arguer en tá fuirúr; ne en la túe íre ne me castiér. Merci áies de mei sire quar íe sui enferm; sáine mei sire. quar li mien ós sunt conturbét E lá meie áneme conturbéde est. mult; é tu síre deque aquant? Seies cunuertit síre é delíure ma aneme; salf me fái pur la tue misericordie. Quar nen est en mort chi

*Winchester Psalter Latin column*

(London, BL, Cotton MS Nero C IV, f. 47r-v):

Introibo in domum tuam; adorabo ad
templum sanctum tuum in timore tuo.
Domine deduc me in iustitia tua propter
inimicos meos; dirige in conspectu
tuo uiam meam.
Quoniam non est in ore eorum ueritas;
cor eorum uanum est.
Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum
linguis suis dolose agebant; iudi-
ca illos deus.
Decidant a cogitationibus suis secundum mul-
titudinem impietatum eorum expelle eos;
quoniam irritaverunt te domine.
Et letentur omnes qui sperant in te; in eternum
exultabunt et habitabis in eis.
Et gloriamuntur in te omnes qui diligunt
nomen tuum; quoniam tu benedices iusto.
Domine; ut scuto bone uoluntatis
tue coronasti nos.
Domine ne in furore tuo arguas me;
neque in ira tua corripias me
Miserere mei domine quoniam infirmus
sum; sana me domine quoniam contur-
bata sunt ossa mea.
Et anima mea turbata est ualde; et
tu domine usquequo.
Conuertere domine et eripe anima meam.
saluum me fac propter misericordiam tuam.
Quoniam non est in morte qui memor sit tui; in
inferno autem quis confitebitur tibi.

*Winchester Psalter Old French column*

(London, BL, Cotton MS Nero C IV, f. 47r-v):

Ieo enterai en ta maison; e aorerai el
tun saint temple en la tue crieme.
Sire demeine mei en ta iustice pur
les miens enemis; drece el tuen es
guardement la meie ueie.
Kar uerited nen est en lor buche;
lur cuer est uain.
Sepulchre aouranz est li guitrun
di cels; par lur langues tricheruse
ment faiseient iuge cels deus.
Decheent de lur cogitatiuns. selonc la
multitudine de lur impietz debut
icels; kar il entarierent tei sire.
Esleecent se tuit ki espeirent en tei. en
parmanabletet sesioirunt e tu habiteras en els.
ses glorierunt en tei tuit ki aiment le
tuen num; kar beneistas al iuste
Sire si cume del escut de la tue bone
uolunted corunas nos.
Sire ne me arguer en ta fuirur. ne
en la tue ire ne me chastier.
Merci aies de mei sire kar leo sui enferm;
saine mei sire kar li mien os sunt
conturbet.
E la meie aneme conturbede est mult;
e tu sire desqueaquant?
Series conuertit sire e de liure maneme;
salf me fai pur la tue misericorde.
Kar ne. est. en mort ki remenbrere seit de
tei; en enfern acertes chi gihirat a tei?
<figure><img src="image_267.png" /></figure>

tation. Next comes a passage that was already discussed,
followed by the case of Ps 5:10 + Ps 5:11 (also mentionned
in passing). Those two verses would follow one another,
thus explaining the extensive erasure that follows and
the problems posed by word order in its rewriting. If
the scribe copied textual units as they appeared in the
source (and only later changed his method), then this
complex passage would lead him to make a series of
choices that he would regret at a later stage. In the next
verse, the erasure of *Dechédent* is probably related to
flexional issues, not to word order, but the longer erasure

at the end could be linked to a probable line in the Latin
text of the source. In Ps 5:12, the erasure of *sesioirúnt* (cf.
Latin *exultabunt*) concerns a lexical matter and no other
problems can be noticed. For no other reasons than just
to show that variation is always possible, we redistrib-
uted some characters (the prepositions French *en* / Latin
*in*) from one line to another. However, in the next textual
unit, the extensive erasure of the second part of the verse
(which corresponds to the actual end of the verse Ps 5:12)
could be the result of bad choices in the adaptation of
the source, especially if the transcription unit to which

<figure><img src="image_268.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_270.png" /></figure>

tation. Next comes a passage that was already discussed,
followed by the case of Ps 5:10 + Ps 5:11 (also mentionned
in passing). Those two verses would follow one another,
thus explaining the extensive erasure that follows and
the problems posed by word order in its rewriting. If
the scribe copied textual units as they appeared in the
source (and only later changed his method), then this
complex passage would lead him to make a series of
choices that he would regret at a later stage. In the next
verse, the erasure of *Dechédent* is probably related to
flexional issues, not to word order, but the longer erasure

at the end could be linked to a probable line in the Latin
text of the source. In Ps 5:12, the erasure of *sesioirúnt* (cf.
Latin *exultabunt*) concerns a lexical matter and no other
problems can be noticed. For no other reasons than just
to show that variation is always possible, we redistrib-
uted some characters (the prepositions French *en* / Latin
*in*) from one line to another. However, in the next textual
unit, the extensive erasure of the second part of the verse
(which corresponds to the actual end of the verse Ps 5:12)
could be the result of bad choices in the adaptation of
the source, especially if the transcription unit to which

<figure><img src="image_271.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_269.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_270.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37v.</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.

le tuén núm belonged was separate from the copy unit of
the verb that precedes it (also erased together with qui).
As for the next erasure, it concerns half a line from Ps
5:13 and is related to the issue of the possessive adjective.
This is where Ps 5 ends.

At the beginning of Ps 6, there is no need to rearrange

the lines; we moved Latin *me* just to show that variation
is possible and that the layout of Arundel is not the only
one that the source could have had. The fact that the two
lines of Ps 6:2 were entirely erased and rewritten perhaps
point to problems in the phrasing of the vernacular gloss
of the source. In point of fact, the Arundel gloss presents
such odd arrangements of syntax, and the Douce scribe
could have faced real challenges if and when he set out
to adapt an interlinear source text. This perfectly justifies
the erasure of the two lines. Moving on to Ps 6:3, we made
a minor redistribution of the abbreviations in the two

<figure><img src="image_271.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_272.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_273.png" /><figcaption>► Close-ups of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce MS 320, f. 37v.</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.

le tuén núm belonged was separate from the copy unit of
the verb that precedes it (also erased together with qui).
As for the next erasure, it concerns half a line from Ps
5:13 and is related to the issue of the possessive adjective.
This is where Ps 5 ends.

At the beginning of Ps 6, there is no need to rearrange

the lines; we moved Latin *me* just to show that variation
is possible and that the layout of Arundel is not the only
one that the source could have had. The fact that the two
lines of Ps 6:2 were entirely erased and rewritten perhaps
point to problems in the phrasing of the vernacular gloss
of the source. In point of fact, the Arundel gloss presents
such odd arrangements of syntax, and the Douce scribe
could have faced real challenges if and when he set out
to adapt an interlinear source text. This perfectly justifies
the erasure of the two lines. Moving on to Ps 6:3, we made
a minor redistribution of the abbreviations in the two

<figure><img src="image_274.png" /></figure>
L dormirai. è veposerai. Kar tu fìre: fenglement en espance establi, mèi. Es meies, paroles, et tes oreils receif fìre; entemt la meie clamur. Entemt à la uorz de la meie oraifun: li mienf reiſ è li mienſ d's. Quar è reterai à reiſ fìre: le marin oraſ la meie uorz. Le marin eſterai à reiſ e uerrai: quar tu eſ d's nient uoilanz felunie. È de uiste rei ne habiterat maligneſ: ne ne parmainderunt li torceunier de uant tes ôlz. Tu haſt tuz chi oeurent felunie: pderas tuz cels chi parolent men- ceunge. Hume de sants, et triche ur, n'ie ſire ferat abominable: maſs ie... en la mul- titudine de la tue misericordie. I eſterai en ta maſſun: & aórerai al tun ſaint teple en la tue crieme. Sire, meine mèi en ta uistuse pur les mienſ enemiſ: d'rece el tuen ef guardement: la meie uele. Kar ueritèt nen è. en lur buche: l'ur cuer eſt uain. S epul-chre aouranz è. li guirrun di cels. par l'ur langueſ tricheruſement faſeient: iuge icaſs d'i. Dechedeſ de l'ur cogitatiunſ ſelunc la multitudine de l'ur impietet: de-bute icaſs kar il entarieret rei ſire. È eſledecent ſei turt chi eſperent en rei: en parmanabletèt ſeſlo turt: è tu habiteras en icaſ. È eſeglorierunt en rei turt chi aiment le tuen num: kar tu beneſteras al uiste. Sire ſicume d'eſcut de la tue bone: uoluntet corunas nuf. S ira nie me arguer en ta furur: ne en la tue ire ne me caſtier. O era aieſ de mei ſire quar è ſin enferm: ſain e mei ſire. quar li mien of ſunt conturbèt è la meie aneme: conturbède è. mult: è tu ſire deq; aquant. S eiaſ cuerit ſire è deliure ma aneme: ſalſ me ſai pur la tue misericordie. Quar nen è. en mort chi vemebrere ſeu de rei: en enferm à cerres chi gehirat a rei? Te trauailai el mien gemis- ſement: lauerai par ſengles nuiz mun ur de mei lermes mun ur aruserai. Turbeſ è. de furur, mien ôlz: enuieret: entre tuz mei enemiſ. Deſeueret de mei turt chi uurez felunie: quar d'or li ſire la uor del mien plurement. Oit li ſire la mei preiere: li ſire la meie oraifun receut. Vergundiſſent è ſeient conturbèt forment treſtuut li mien enemiſ: ſeuſ cuerit: è uergundiſſent mult ignelement. Ira mien d's en rei eſpaſ: ſalſ me ſai de tuz parſuante mèi. è deliure mèi. Que alquune fiede ne ravuſſet ſi cume leun la meie aneme: demeſtres que n'est chi reaimet ne chi ſalſ facet. S ire li mienſ d's ſi è ſis ico: ſi è felunie e meies maſſ. Si ie rendi aſguerredunantz a mei maſſ choſer: dechiede par deſſerte de mei ene- miſ uainſ. Par ſeueret li enemiſ la meie aneme e coprenget: e deſult en terre la mei uie: è la meie glorie en puldre demeint. È s'dr'rece rei ſire en la tue ire: è ſeiaſ eſal- ceſ el deuiles de mei enemiſ. È et s'dr'rece rei ſire li mienſ d's el cùmandement que tu mandas: è la ſynagoga deſ pòples auirunerat rei. È pur icoſt in hale reparaunt: li ſire iugeſe ſel pòples. I uge mei ſire ſulunc la meie uistuse: è ſulunc la meie innoceace ſur mèi. Conſumèdeſeit lordeet deſ peccheurs e adreceraſ le uiste: eſcer- chanz les cuers è les rains tu d'i. La meie d'rete auirone del ſegnor: chi ſalſs ſait ſel d'reiturer de cuer. D's d'reit iugeſe forſ è ſuffrant: dum ne ſe curuce il par ſengles iurz? S i uus ne ſerrez conuerit ſa eſpede crollerat: ſun arc tendit: & apareilat le. È rene lui aprestat ſel uaisſels de mort: ſel ſaieſes alardanz fiſt.
L dormirai. é veposerai. Kar tu fire. senglement en espance establis mèi. Es meies. paroles. et tes oreils receif fire. entemt la meie clamur. Entemt á la uorz de la meie oraifun. li mien rei é li mien ds. Quar ie orerai árei fire. Le marin oraif la meie uoriz. Le marin esterai árei é uerai: quar tu es ds nient uoilanz felunie. É de iuste tei ne habituerat malignef: ne ne parmainderunt li torceunier de uant tes ôlz. Tu haif tuz chi oeurent felunie. Poderaf tuz celf chi parolent men- ceunge. Hume de sants. et triche ur. nire fire ferat abominable. maif ie. en la mul- titudine de la tue misericordie. I en ta maifun. & aorerai al tun faint teple en la tue crieme. Sire, meine mèi en ta iustise pur les mienf enemis. drece el tuen ef guardement. la meie uele. Kar ueritec nen è. en lur buche. lur cuer est uain. Sepul- chre aouranz è. li guirrun di celf. par lur languef tricheruement faiseient: iuge ielfs dr. Dechedej de lur cogitatiun felunc la multitudine de lur impieter. de- buite ielfs. kar il entarieres tei fire. E eſledecent tei tutt chi esperent en tei. en parmanabletet ſeſloir tutt. et tu habitueras en ſel. E ſeſglorierunt en tei tutt chi aiment le tuen num. kar tu beneſteras al iuste. Sire ſicume deſcuit de la tue bone: uoluntet corunas nuf. S ira: nie me arguer en ta furur. ne en la tue ire ne me caſtier. O era: aieſ de mei fire. quar ie ſui enferm: ſain e mei fire. quar li mien of ſunt conturbet. E la meie aneme. conturbéde è. mult: et tu fire deq; aquant. Sees cuerit fire e deliure ma aneme: ſalſ me fai pur la tue misericordie. Quar nen è. en mort chi vemebrere ſeu de tei. en enferm á cerres chi gehirat a tei? Te trauailai el mien gemis- ſement. lauerai par ſengles nutz mun ur: de mei lermes mun lu aruserai. Turbe- è. de furur, mien ôlz: enuieret: entre tuz mei enemis. Deſeueret de mei tutt chi uurez felunie: quar ort li fire la uor del mien plurement. Otr li fire la mei preiere: li fire la meie oraifun receur. Vergundiſſent e ſeient conturbet forment treſtuut li mien enemis. ſeu cuerit e uergundiſſent mult ignelement. I ſeu mien ds en tei eſpaí: ſalſ me fai de tuz parſuante mèi. e deliure mèi. Que alquune fiede ne rauiſſet ſi cume leun la meie aneme: demeintres que nesf chi reaimet ne chi ſalſ facet. Sire li mien ds ſi ie ſis ico: ſi é felunie e meies mainf. Si ie rendi aſguerredunantz a mei maleſ choſer: dechiede par deſſerte de mei ene- mif uainſ. Par ſeueret li enemis la meie aneme e còprenget: e default en terre la mei uie: e la meie glorie en puldre demeint. E ſdrece tei fire en la tue ire: e ſeas eſal- cez e demeſſel de mei enemis. Et ſid्रее tei fire li mienſ ds el cùmandement que tu mandas: e la ſynagoga deſ pòples auirunerat tei. E pur icoſt in hale reparaue: li fire iugec leſ pòples. I uge mei fire ſulunc la meie iustise: e ſulunc la meie innoceace ſur mèi. Conſumèdeſeit lordeet deſ peccheurs e adreceraſ le iuste: eſcer- chanz les cuers é les rains tu dr. La meie duree auiorne del ſegnor: chi ſalſs fait les dreitureres de cuer. Ds dreyr iugeerre forſ e ſuffrant: dum ne ſe curuce il par ſengles iurz? Si uus ne ſerrez conuerit ſa espede crollerat: ſun arc tendit. & apareilat le. Oren lui aprestat leſ uaiſſels de mort: ſes ſaieſes alardanz fiſt.
lines of this biblical verse, so that they fit the structure
of the two erasures in Douce. If Arundel was based on
another gloss, this would also explain why *maaneme* was
written above *animam* and nothing was written above
*meam*—because the formula was taken from a source and
not adapted on the spot. This concludes the case study.

Arundel Psalter interlinear gloss (London,
British Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 9v-10r):

Jo enterai enta maisun enta aurerai al
Introibo indomum tuam ; adorabo ad
temple saint tun en creme latue
templum sanctum tuum in timore tuo .
Sire de meinne mei en iustise en ta pur
Domine deduc me iniusticia tua propter
les enemis mens drece esguarde ment
inimicos meos ; dirige in conspectu
el ton uoie lamoie dees coels uain est .
tuo uiam meam ; ¶ eorum uanum est .
Kar nen est en buche de icels ueritet ; quor
Quoniam non est in ore eorum ueritas ; cor
Sepulcre auranz est li guntur dicels ;
Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum ;
par langues lur tricherusemenz demenoent iuge
linguis suis dolose agebant ; iudica
Dedechedent cogitaciun de lur ; selunc
Decidant acogitationibus suis ; secundum
la multitudine impietet de lur
multitudinem impietatum eorum
debute icels ; kar il ascharnirent tei sire .
expelle eos ; quoniam irritauerunt te domine .
et es selecent sei tuit ki espereirent en tei ; en par manabletet
Et lętentur omnes qui sperant in te ; in ęternum
se lecerunt et tu habiteras en els .
exultabunt et habitabis in eis .
Et ses gloriesent en tei tuit ki eiment
Et gloriabuntur in te omnes qui diligunt
nun le ten ; kar tu beneistras a iuste .
nomen tuum ; quoniam tu benedices iusto .
Sire sicume de lescut bone uolentet delatue
Domine ; ut scuto bonę uoluntatis tuę
curunas nus .
coronasti nos . PSALMVS DAVID
Sire ne en ta forsenerie constremnes mei ;
Domine ne in furore tuo arguas me ;
ne en ire latue castier mei . li men .
neque in ira tua corripias me . ¶ mea
Merci aies de limen sire mei kar enferm io sui
Miserere mei domine quoniam infirmus sum ;
saine mei sire kar contur bet sunt os
sana me domine quoniam conturbata sunt ossa
Et lamoi aneme con turbet est mult ; et tu
Et anima mea turbata est ualde ; et tu
sire desque aquant ? Latue
domine usquequo . ¶ tuam
Seies conduertit sire et deliure maaneme
Conuertere domine et eripe animam
salf mei fai pur misericordie .
meam ; saluum me fac propter misericordiam .

Reconstruction of the possible Latin lines
in the source of Douce MS 320:

[lé enterrái en ta maisun ; et aórerái] ?
Introibo in domum tuam ; adorabo
[al tun saint temple en la túe crieme .] ?
ad templum sanctum tuum in timore tuo .
[Sire deméine méi en ta iustíse] ?
Domine deduc me in iusticia tua
[pur les miens enemís ; dréce] ?
propter inimicos meos ; dirige
[el tuén esguardement la méie uéie] ?
in conspectu tuo uiam meam ;
[Kar ueritét nen est . en lur búche ;] ?
Quoniam non est in ore eorum ueritas ;
[lur cúer est uáin. Sépúlchré a-] ?
cor eorum uanum est . Sepulchrum pa-
[ouránz est li guitrún di cels par lur lángues] ?
tens est guttur eorum ; linguis suis
[tricherusemént faiseient ; iúge icéls deus .] ?
dolose agebant ; iudica illos deus .
[Dechédent de lur cogitatiuns selunc]
Decidant a cogitationibus suis ; secundum
[la multitúdine de lur impietz ;] ?
multitudinem impietatum eorum
[debúte icels kar il entariérent téi síre .] ?
expelle eos ; quoniam irritauerunt te domine .
[Esleðcent séi túit chi espéirent en téi ; en] ?
Et letentur omnes qui sperant in te ; in
[parmanabletet sesioirúnt é tu habiterás en els .] ?
eternum exultabunt et habitabis in eis .
[E sesglorierúnt en téi túit chi aiment] ?
Et gloriabuntur in te omnes qui diligunt
[le tuén núm; kar tu beneisterás al iúste .] ?
nomen tuum ; quoniam tu benedices iusto .
[Síre sicume . délescút de la túe bóne uoluntét] ?
Domine ; ut scuto bone uoluntatis tue
[córunás nús .] ?
coronasti nos . PSALMVS DAVID
[Sire ne me arguer en tá fuirúr ;] ?
Domine ne in furore tuo arguas
[ne en la túe íre ne me castiér.] ?
me ; neque in ira tua corripias me .
[Merci áies de mei sire quar íe sui enferm ;] ?
Miserere mei domine quoniam infirmus
[.] ? [sáine mei sire . quar sunt conturbét .] ?
sum ; sana me domine quoniam conturbata
[li mien ós] ?
sunt ossa mea .
[E lá meie áneme conturbéde est . mult ; é tu] ?
Et anima mea turbata est ualde; et tu
[síre deque aquant .] ?
domine usquequo .
[Seies conduertit síre é deliúre ma aneme ;] ?
Conuertere domine et eripe animam meam ;
[salf me fái pur la tue misericordie.] ?
saluum me fac propter misericordiam tuam .
lines of this biblical verse, so that they fit the structure
of the two erasures in Douce. If Arundel was based on
another gloss, this would also explain why *maaneme* was
written above *animam* and nothing was written above
*meam*—because the formula was taken from a source and
not adapted on the spot. This concludes the case study.

Arundel Psalter interlinear gloss (London,
British Library, Arundel MS 230, f. 9v-10r):

Jo enterai enta maisun enta aurerai al
Introibo indomum tuam; adorabo ad
temple saint tun en creme latue
templum sanctum tuum in timore tuo.
Sire de meinne mei en iustise en ta pur
Domine deduc me iniusticia tua propter
les enemis mens drece esguarde ment
inimicos meos; dirige in conspectu
el ton uoie lamoie dees coels uain est.
tuo uiam meam; ¶ eorum uanum est.
Kar nen est en buche de icels ueritet; quor
Quoniam non est in ore eorum ueritas; cor
Sepulcre auranz est li guntur dicels;
Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum;
par langues lur tricherusemenz demenoent iuge
linguis suis dolose agebant; iudica
Dedechedent cogitaciun de lur; selunc
Decidant acogitationibus suis; secundum
la multitudine impietet de lur
multitudinem impietatum eorum
debute icels; kar il ascharnirent tei sire.
expelle eos; quoniam irritauerunt te domine.
et es selecent sei tuit ki espereirent en tei; en par manabletet
Et lętentur omnes qui sperant in te; in ęternum
se lecerunt et tu habiteras en els.
exultabunt et habitabis in eis.
Et ses gloriesent en tei tuit ki eiment
Et gloriabuntur in te omnes qui diligunt
nun le ten; kar tu beneistras a iuste.
nomen tuum; quoniam tu benedices iusto.
Sire sicume de lescut bone uolentet delatue
Domine; ut scuto bonę uoluntatis tuę
curunas nus.
coronasti nos. PSALMVS DAVID
Sire ne en ta forsenerie constremnes mei;
Domine ne in furore tuo arguas me;
ne en ire latue castier mei. li men.
neque in ira tua corripias me. ¶ mea
Merci aies de limen sire mei kar enferm io sui
Miserere mei domine quoniam infirmus sum;
saine mei sire kar contur bet sunt os
sana me domine quoniam conturbata sunt ossa
Et lamoi aneme con turbet est mult; et tu
Et anima mea turbata est ualde; et tu
sire desque aquant? Latue
domine usquequo. ¶ tuam
Seies conduertit sire et deliure maaneme
Conuertere domine et eripe animam
salf mei fai pur misericordie.
meam; saluum me fac propter misericordiam.

Reconstruction of the possible Latin lines
in the source of Douce MS 320:

[lé enterrái en ta maisun ; et aórerái] ?
Introibo in domum tuam ; adorabo
[al tun saint temple en la túe crieme .] ?
ad templum sanctum tuum in timore tuo .
[Sire deméine méi en ta iustíse] ?
Domine deduc me in iusticia tua
[pur les miens enemís ; dréce] ?
propter inimicos meos ; dirige
[el tuén esguardement la méie uéie] ?
in conspectu tuo uiam meam ;
[Kar ueritét nen est . en lur búche ;] ?
Quoniam non est in ore eorum ueritas ;
[lur cúer est uáin. Sépúlchré a-] ?
cor eorum uanum est . Sepulchrum pa-
[ouránz est li guitrún di cels par lur lángues] ?
tens est guttur eorum ; linguis suis
[tricherusemént faiseient ; iúge icéls deus .] ?
dolose agebant ; iudica illos deus.
[Dechédent de lur cogitatiuns selunc]
Decidant a cogitationibus suis ; secundum
[la multitúdine de lur impietz ;] ?
multitudinem impietatum eorum
[debúte icels kar il entariérent téi síre .] ?
expelle eos; quoniam irritauerunt te domine.
[Esleðcent séi túit chi espéirent en téi ; en] ?
Et letentur omnes qui sperant in te ; in
[parmanabletet sesioirúnt é tu habiterás en els .] ?
eternum exultabunt et habitabis in eis.
[E sesglorierúnt en téi túit chi aiment] ?
Et gloriabuntur in te omnes qui diligunt
[le tuén núm; kar tu beneisterás al iúste .] ?
nomen tuum; quoniam tu benedices iusto .
[Síre sicume . délescút de la túe bóne uoluntét] ?
Domine; ut scuto bone uoluntatis tue
[córunás nús .] ?
coronasti nos. PSALMVS DAVID
[Sire ne me arguer en tá fuirúr ;] ?
Domine ne in furore tuo arguas
[ne en la túe íre ne me castiér.] ?
me; neque in ira tua corripias me .
[Merci áies de mei sire quar íe sui enferm ;] ?
Miserere mei domine quoniam infirmus
[.] ? [sáine mei sire . quar sunt conturbét .] ?
sum; sana me domine quoniam conturbata
[li mien ós] ?
sunt ossa mea.
[E lá meie áneme conturbéde est . mult ; é tu] ?
Et anima mea turbata est ualde; et tu
[síre deque aquant .] ?
domine usquequo.
[Seies conduertit síre é deliúre ma aneme ;] ?
Conuertere domine et eripe animam meam ;
[salf me fái pur la tue misericordie.] ?
saluum me fac propter misericordiam tuam .
f. 40v,
line 31

<figure><img src="image_272.png" /></figure>

Getting back to the analysis of individual examples, it
is worth noting that on f. 40v, line 31, Douce MS 320 reads:
*nus canterums é recunterúns lés túes uertúz*. The Arundel
vernacular gloss presents a similar vernacular text based
upon a Latin text with a slightly different layout of the
lines: *Exaltare domine in uirtute tua; canta-/bimus et
psallemus uirtutes tuas* (f. 24r). Perhaps the text of the
Latin source used by the Douce scribe could have had the
following layout:

Exaltare domine in uirtute tua;
cantabim' et psallem' uirtutes tuas

On f. 47v, lines 39–40, Douce reads: *Kar láneme dé lúi en lá uie de lúi meésme serát benedéite*. The Latin text of Arundel has (f. (51v): *Quia anima eius in uita ipsius benedi-/cetur; confitebitur tibi cum benefece*. Its vernacular gloss is once again rather similar to Douce.

On f. 49v, line 5, Douce's sequence *que ié pláise devant déu en la lumière dés uiuánz* can be interpreted in comparison with the lines of Latin text in Arundel, f. 58r: *Quoniam eripuisti animam meam de/ morte. E pedes meos de lapsu; ut placeat/ coram deo in lumine uiuentium, especialy since the translation of Douce is similar to that of Arundel in this passage. However, minor adjustments*

need to be made and the reconstruction of the passage in
the presumed source of Douce could be:

Quoniam eripuisti animam meam
de morte et pedes meos de lapsu; ut
placeat coram deo in lumine uiuentium.

Coincidentally, this would also be the last line-unit of
the entire psalm.

There is another example on f. 51r, line 34. Douce has
here: *A lúi par lá meie búche criái ; é esledeceai desúz ma
lángue*. In Arundel, f. 65r, the Latin text is: *Ad ipsum ore
meo clamaui; et exultaui /sub lingua mea* (displaced above,
in a different line). The reconstruction of a possible source
for Douce is:

Ad ipsum ore meo clamaui; et exultaui
sub lingua mea

And the translation choices seem very similar to those
of Arundel.

On f. 55r, line 28, Douce reads: *é les súes meruéilles el*

<figure><img src="image_273.png" /></figure>

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

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei / Alessia Chapel, 2023.

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

f. 47v,
line 39

<figure><img src="image_274.png" /></figure>

f. 47v,
line 40

f. 47v,
line 39

<figure><img src="image_275.png" /></figure>

f. 47v,
line 40
<figure><img src="image_275.png" /></figure>

f. 40v,
line 31

Getting back to the analysis of individual examples, it
is worth noting that on f. 40v, line 31, Douce MS 320 reads:
*nus canterums é recunterúns lés túes uertúz*. The Arundel
vernacular gloss presents a similar vernacular text based
upon a Latin text with a slightly different layout of the
lines: *Exaltare domine in uirtute tua; canta-/bimus et
psallemus uirtutes tuas* (f. 24r). Perhaps the text of the
Latin source used by the Douce scribe could have had the
following layout:

Exaltare domine in uirtute tua;
cantabim' et psallem' uirtutes tuas

On f. 47v, lines 39–40, Douce reads: *Kar láneme dé lúi en lá uie de lúi meésme serát benedéite*. The Latin text of Arundel has (f. (51v): *Quia anima eius in uita ipsius benedi-/cetur; confitebitur tibi cum benefece*. Its vernacular gloss is once again rather similar to Douce.

On f. 49v, line 5, Douce's sequence *que ié pláise devant déu en la lumière dés uiuánz* can be interpreted in comparison with the lines of Latin text in Arundel, f. 58r: *Quoniam eripuisti animam meam de/ morte. E pedes meos de lapsu; ut placeat/ coram deo in lumine uiuentium, especialy since the translation of Douce is similar to that of Arundel in this passage. However, minor adjustments*

need to be made and the reconstruction of the passage in
the presumed source of Douce could be:

Quoniam eripuisti animam meam
de morte et pedes meos de lapsu; ut
placeat coram deo in lumine uiuentium.

Coincidentally, this would also be the last line-unit of
the entire psalm.

There is another example on f. 51r, line 34. Douce has
here: *A lúi par lá meie búche criái ; é esledeceai desúz ma
lángue*. In Arundel, f. 65r, the Latin text is: *Ad ipsum ore
meo clamaui; et exultaui /sub lingua mea* (displaced above,
in a different line). The reconstruction of a possible source
for Douce is:

Ad ipsum ore meo clamaui; et exultaui
sub lingua mea

And the translation choices seem very similar to those
of Arundel.

On f. 55r, line 28, Douce reads: *é les súes meruéilles el*

<figure><img src="image_276.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_277.png" /></figure>

f. 47v,
line 39

f. 47v,
line 40

<figure><img src="image_278.png" /></figure>

f. 47v,
line 39

f. 47v,
line 40
<figure><img src="image_276.png" /></figure>

f. 49v,
line 5

câmp de tafneós. Cf. Arundel, f. 80r: *Sicut posuit in egypto signa sua; e pro/digia sua in campo taphneos*. For once, nonetheless, there is a difference in the vernacular text: *Sicume il cum il posat*. As for the reconstruction of the source, it could be:

*Sicut posuit in egypto signa sua;
et prodigia sua in campo taphneos*

Finally, on f. 55r, line 37, Douce has: *E ferit chescúne chôse premiér engendrée en la térre d'egypte*. Cf. Arundel's Latin text, 80v: *Et percussit omne primogenitum in terra/egypti; primitias omnis laboris eorum*. Leaving aside the fact that the Old French translation seems once again close to the Arundel gloss, the reconstruction of the lines in the source could be:

*Et percussit omne primogenitum in terra egypti (...)*

However, not all extensive erasures can be included in this category, because the scribe certainly operated with other types of segmentation as well. The reading of an entire line was practical and saved him time and effort, but he probably relied on other segmentations of the source too, either syntactical or in accord with punctuation. For instance, on f. 46r, line 5, Douce has a phrase written on

top of an erasure: *Máis ie súi mendís é póûre*. The Arundel gloss is similar to the Douce prose and corresponds to the Latin text (f. 44v): *Ego autem mendicus sum et pauper; domi-/nus sollicitus est mei*. It is probably related to the issue of *mais* and *acertes* (*vide supra*).

Sneddon 1972: 110-112, has already analysed the issue of word order, arriving at the conclusion that “although the Latin word-order may be retained in French and the phrase remain comprehensible, it may never the less be altered.” She tried to explain changes in word order in relation to conjunctions, pronouns, and possessive adjectives. This is indeed correct. Sneddon’s observation that Arundel and Douce stem from a shared source (Sneddon 1972: 178) also seems to be correct.

In our opinion, the scribe of Douce MS 320 used as a source a Latin manuscript with a vernacular interlinear gloss written in smaller characters. His goal was the transformation of said gloss into a prose text. However, he was undecided about the proper translation choices for certain passages. Sometimes he modified the source material, sometimes he followed it faithfully, depending on the complexity of the problem, on his ability (or inability) to rephase, and on many other factors. This will be analysed in the next instalment of this paper.

<figure><img src="image_277.png" /></figure>

f. 46r,
line 5
<figure><img src="image_279.png" /></figure>

f. 49v,
line 5

câmp de tafneós. Cf. Arundel, f. 80r: *Sicut posuit in egypto signa sua; e pro/digia sua in campo taphneos*. For once, nonetheless, there is a difference in the vernacular text: *Sicume il cum il posat*. As for the reconstruction of the source, it could be:

*Sicut posuit in egypto signa sua;
et prodigia sua in campo taphneos*

Finally, on f. 55r, line 37, Douce has: *E ferit chescúne chôse premiér engendrée en la térre d'egypte*. Cf. Arundel's Latin text, 80v: *Et percussit omne primogenitum in terra/egypti; primitias omnis laboris eorum*. Leaving aside the fact that the Old French translation seems once again close to the Arundel gloss, the reconstruction of the lines in the source could be:

*Et percussit omne primogenitum in terra egypti (...)*

However, not all extensive erasures can be included in this category, because the scribe certainly operated with other types of segmentation as well. The reading of an entire line was practical and saved him time and effort, but he probably relied on other segmentations of the source too, either syntactical or in accord with punctuation. For instance, on f. 46r, line 5, Douce has a phrase written on

top of an erasure: *Máis ié súi mendís é póûre*. The Arundel gloss is similar to the Douce prose and corresponds to the Latin text (f. 44v): *Ego autem mendicus sum et pauper; domi-/nus sollicitus est mei*. It is probably related to the issue of *mais* and *acertes* (*vide supra*).

Sneddon 1972: 110-112, has already analysed the issue of word order, arriving at the conclusion that “although the Latin word-order may be retained in French and the phrase remain comprehensible, it may never the less be altered.” She tried to explain changes in word order in relation to conjunctions, pronouns, and possessive adjectives. This is indeed correct. Sneddon’s observation that Arundel and Douce stem from a shared source (Sneddon 1972: 178) also seems to be correct.

In our opinion, the scribe of Douce MS 320 used as a source a Latin manuscript with a vernacular interlinear gloss written in smaller characters. His goal was the transformation of said gloss into a prose text. However, he was undecided about the proper translation choices for certain passages. Sometimes he modified the source material, sometimes he followed it faithfully, depending on the complexity of the problem, on his ability (or inability) to rephase, and on many other factors. This will be analysed in the next instalment of this paper.

<figure><img src="image_280.png" /></figure>

f. 46r,
line 5
## PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (VA, AC)

The first instalment of this paper cannot provide conclusions based on a partial analysis of the erasures in Douce MS 320. Proper conclusions will be drawn only at the end of the next instalment, when the study of erasures will be completed. For the time being, the preliminary results of our partial study (to be confirmed or rebutted by further research) is that the transcription process was done in stages, two of which are obvious beyond any doubt. In the first part of the text, after much hesitation, the scribe gradually defined his method and settled on certain spellings and on how to render the word order in vernacular. In the second part of the vernacular version of the Psalms, a certain degree of hesitation is still present, but to a lesser extent, because the method was defined. The exact separation between the two parts is hard to pin down, for the scribe took various decisions at different stages of the text transcription.

That the process was gradual and decisions were taken step by step is evident from the fact that the scribe took a minor decision rather quickly, at the end of the first three folios. On f. 40r he stopped correcting *quar* and *ker* into *kar*. Four folios later, on f. 43v, he settled for a solution on the issue of *quer* corrected into *cuer*. In other instances, the scribe probably gave up erasing and correcting. The fact that he rendered Lat *autem* as OFr *mais* from f. 37r to 69v, corrected *acertes* into *mais* between f. 40v-46r, and finally left *acertes* uncorrected from f. 40v to f. 71v is proof of such resignation. Similarly, the erasures concerning double **-rr-** do not occur after f. 47. The scribe was in search of a method; he had to perfect it gradually, since there were too many things to be taken into account. In the specific case of interconsonantal **-e-**, he came up with a decision only after several hesitations on f. 45-54. This interval corresponds to the beginning of an actual turning point in several categories of erasures and corrections.

For instance, the scribe's hesitation in the transcription of vowels and digraphs seems to end on f. 55-56. Four other corrections on top of erasures of this type occur on f. 56v-57r (*sul* > *sol*), f. 58v (*uitante* > *oitante*), f. 60r (? > *curucez*), and f. 70r (> *aorerums*), but they are rare exceptions. In the case of dentals in future and past tense verbal forms, the turning point occurs on f. 53-59. This

was amply discussed at the end of the section on dentals, where it was also noted that it can be linked to a turning point in the spelling of past participles (f. 57) and nouns ending in dentals (f. 60), thus leading to the conclusion that the scribe experimented and finally settled the issue of dentals when he transcribed f. 53-60. By that point, he took the decision to enforce irrelevant idiosyncrasies as well. The majority of the spellings with **-tiun** or **-ceun** occur before f. 59r, whereas **-ciun** and **-cun** are preferred after. Similarly, the deletion of an **-n** in *car(n)*, *enfer(n)*, and *iur(n)* occurs respectively on f. 56v, f. 57r-f. 59v, and f. 57r-60r. Extensive erasures stop on f. 57r. There are only two on f. 61r and 75v, but they are not very large and cannot be linked to the issue of lines in the Latin source, only with word order. Folios 55-60 are therefore the segment of the text where he had found his method.

The fact that the corrective insertions of words or segments of words occur throughout the entire text of the Psalms suggests that they cannot be related to his hesitations but rather to the fact that he is adapting a source, making eye-skips and other errors that all scribes commit when working with a source. Also, the extensive use of erasures and corrections in the first part of his transcription of the Psalms is not related to his variable degree of acquaintance with the textual tradition of certain Psalms, but to an overall pattern of rewriting. Therefore, our two main hypotheses are as follows: first, that the scribe focused on making a pre-existing text more fluid—a hypothesis that was amply dealt with in the sections focusing on the extensive erasures, the corrective uses of the low dash, and the odd additions and corrections; and secondly, that the scribe took care to convert certain dialectal features into a more continental or high-preservative variety of language. This does not explain the relationship between ms Douce 320 and Arundel ms 230, the text of which was certainly not the source of Douce. Our preliminary findings cannot support a full and thorough discussion of the issues in the Arundel manuscript before its own erasures have been analysed. However, it can be argued that the unnatural word order found in Arundel ms 230 follows the pattern of several glosses that are known in Old English literature (vide infra). In this type of equation, Douce would represent a possible prosification of a gloss.

## OLD ENGLISH PRECEDENTS (VA)

The thing that makes the interpretation of the filiation of Arundel MS 230 and Douce MS 320 extremely difficult is their back-and-forth consonance and dissonance. Some passages resemble to the letter, and there are passages which could not be more dissimilar. Neither of the two manuscripts can be the copy of the other. Ecdotics might suggest that they could both be linked to a third manuscript, but this explanation does not take into account translatological issues. We need to address the manner in which the rewriting of glosses shapes new texts. This is common in Old English glosses to the Psalms, a textual tradition the last exemplars of which partly coincide with Arundel and Douce (cf. Toswell 2014 for an introduction to Old English Psalms and psalters). Old English glosses rarely use the word order of the vernacular language (Crowley 2000 for one rare situation); they are mostly tributary to Latin. It is also worth noting that vernac-

ular glosses could have been one of the tools for the standardisation of the Old English language in late 10th century Winchester under bishop Æthelwold, as part of the Benedictine Reform (Gneuss 1972; cf. Gretsch 2001; Gretsch 2005; Lendinara 2019: 87-92). Since the translations of the Bible could have played a similar role in the evolution of Old French (e.g., Trenel 1904), the comparison is worth investigating.

Concerning Old English Psalter glosses, there still remains a general tendency to divide them into two groups. Research rather speaks of a "network of relationships" between *Group α* of Old English psalter glosses and *Group δ* (cf. Pulsiano 1991). It was argued that one cannot understand the links between them if they are edited alone (cf. Pulsiano 1992 for the proposal of a joint edition of all glosses). According to Philipp Pulsiano, the only solution would be to present them in a collective form (see the concordance of Pulsiano 2001 for a posthumous
## PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (VA, AC)

The first instalment of this paper cannot provide conclusions based on a partial analysis of the erasures in Douce MS 320. Proper conclusions will be drawn only at the end of the next instalment, when the study of erasures will be completed. For the time being, the preliminary results of our partial study (to be confirmed or rebutted by further research) is that the transcription process was done in stages, two of which are obvious beyond any doubt. In the first part of the text, after much hesitation, the scribe gradually defined his method and settled on certain spellings and on how to render the word order in vernacular. In the second part of the vernacular version of the Psalms, a certain degree of hesitation is still present, but to a lesser extent, because the method was defined. The exact separation between the two parts is hard to pin down, for the scribe took various decisions at different stages of the text transcription.

That the process was gradual and decisions were taken step by step is evident from the fact that the scribe took a minor decision rather quickly, at the end of the first three folios. On f. 40r he stopped correcting *quar* and *ker* into *kar*. Four folios later, on f. 43v, he settled for a solution on the issue of *quer* corrected into *cuer*. In other instances, the scribe probably gave up erasing and correcting. The fact that he rendered Lat *autem* as OFr *mais* from f. 37r to 69v, corrected *acertes* into *mais* between f. 40v-46r, and finally left *acertes* uncorrected from f. 40v to f. 71v is proof of such resignation. Similarly, the erasures concerning double **-rr-** do not occur after f. 47. The scribe was in search of a method; he had to perfect it gradually, since there were too many things to be taken into account. In the specific case of interconsonantal **-e-**, he came up with a decision only after several hesitations on f. 45-54. This interval corresponds to the beginning of an actual turning point in several categories of erasures and corrections.

For instance, the scribe's hesitation in the transcription of vowels and digraphs seems to end on f. 55-56. Four other corrections on top of erasures of this type occur on f. 56v-57r (*sul* > *sol*), f. 58v (*uitante* > *oitante*), f. 60r (? > *curucez*), and f. 70r (> *aorerums*), but they are rare exceptions. In the case of dentals in future and past tense verbal forms, the turning point occurs on f. 53-59. This

was amply discussed at the end of the section on dentals, where it was also noted that it can be linked to a turning point in the spelling of past participles (f. 57) and nouns ending in dentals (f. 60), thus leading to the conclusion that the scribe experimented and finally settled the issue of dentals when he transcribed f. 53-60. By that point, he took the decision to enforce irrelevant idiosyncrasies as well. The majority of the spellings with **-tiun** or **-ceun** occur before f. 59r, whereas **-ciun** and **-cun** are preferred after. Similarly, the deletion of an **-n** in *car(n)*, *enfer(n)*, and *iur(n)* occurs respectively on f. 56v, f. 57r-f. 59v, and f. 57r-60r. Extensive erasures stop on f. 57r. There are only two on f. 61r and 75v, but they are not very large and cannot be linked to the issue of lines in the Latin source, only with word order. Folios 55-60 are therefore the segment of the text where he had found his method.

The fact that the corrective insertions of words or segments of words occur throughout the entire text of the Psalms suggests that they cannot be related to his hesitations but rather to the fact that he is adapting a source, making eye-skips and other errors that all scribes commit when working with a source. Also, the extensive use of erasures and corrections in the first part of his transcription of the Psalms is not related to his variable degree of acquaintance with the textual tradition of certain Psalms, but to an overall pattern of rewriting. Therefore, our two main hypotheses are as follows: first, that the scribe focused on making a pre-existing text more fluid—a hypothesis that was amply dealt with in the sections focusing on the extensive erasures, the corrective uses of the low dash, and the odd additions and corrections; and secondly, that the scribe took care to convert certain dialectal features into a more continental or high-preservative variety of language. This does not explain the relationship between ms Douce 320 and Arundel ms 230, the text of which was certainly not the source of Douce. Our preliminary findings cannot support a full and thorough discussion of the issues in the Arundel manuscript before its own erasures have been analysed. However, it can be argued that the unnatural word order found in Arundel ms 230 follows the pattern of several glosses that are known in Old English literature (vide infra). In this type of equation, Douce would represent a possible prosification of a gloss.

## OLD ENGLISH PRECEDENTS (VA)

The thing that makes the interpretation of the filiation of Arundel MS 230 and Douce MS 320 extremely difficult is their back-and-forth consonance and dissonance. Some passages resemble to the letter, and there are passages which could not be more dissimilar. Neither of the two manuscripts can be the copy of the other. Ecdotics might suggest that they could both be linked to a third manuscript, but this explanation does not take into account translatological issues. We need to address the manner in which the rewriting of glosses shapes new texts. This is common in Old English glosses to the Psalms, a textual tradition the last exemplars of which partly coincide with Arundel and Douce (cf. Toswell 2014 for an introduction to Old English Psalms and psalters). Old English glosses rarely use the word order of the vernacular language (Crowley 2000 for one rare situation); they are mostly tributary to Latin. It is also worth noting that vernac-

ular glosses could have been one of the tools for the standardisation of the Old English language in late 10th century Winchester under bishop Æthelwold, as part of the Benedictine Reform (Gneuss 1972; cf. Gretsch 2001; Gretsch 2005; Lendinara 2019: 87-92). Since the translations of the Bible could have played a similar role in the evolution of Old French (e.g., Trenel 1904), the comparison is worth investigating.

Concerning Old English Psalter glosses, there still remains a general tendency to divide them into two groups. Research rather speaks of a "network of relationships" between *Group α* of Old English psalter glosses and *Group δ* (cf. Pulsiano 1991). It was argued that one cannot understand the links between them if they are edited alone (cf. Pulsiano 1992 for the proposal of a joint edition of all glosses). According to Philipp Pulsiano, the only solution would be to present them in a collective form (see the concordance of Pulsiano 2001 for a posthumous
first volume in a planned series of four).

Leaving aside the links with an Old English metrical
psalter (O'Neill 2016; cf. Toswell 1997) and the issue of
dialectal implications (cf. Kitson 2002; Kitson 2003; Ogura
2006), both features being less interesting in the current
framework, my presentation starts with the first group
of texts, *Group α* (for the use of *α* and *δ* in reference to
manuscript groups instead of individual manuscripts,
see Schabram 1965, 23, *passim*; Gretsch 1999, 17–21; cf.
Lendinara 2023: 338). *Group α* consists of its namesake
codex *A* (London, British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian
A i; manuscript *B* (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius
27; and another independent apograph known as *C*
(Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff. 1. 23). The rela-
tionship between the three is complex, yet all are early
texts, dating back to 9th century, 10th century, and c.1000
respectively. In spite of various attempts made at iden-
tifying an *Urtext*, filiation remains rather unclear, much
like in the case of the Old French Psalters known as
Oxford and Arundel with the addition (or not) of Orne
and Maidstone (e.g., Pulsiano 1996 for the complex links
between *C* and *A*).

Most manuscripts in *Group δ*, on the other hand, are
of a later date. Despite the fact that *D* (London, British
Library, Royal MS 2 B v) is also early, dated to mid-10th
century, the other glosses were compiled in early 11th-
century: *L* (London, British Library, Additional MS 37517,
in a 10th-century codex); mid-11th century—*G* (London,
British Library, Cotton MS Vitellius E xviii); mid- or third
quarter of the 11th century—*F* (London, British Library,
Stowe MS 2) and *H* (London, British Library, Cotton
MS Tiberius C vi); second half of the 11th century—*J*
(London, British Library, Arundel MS 60); or 11th–12th
century—*K* (Salisbury, Cathedral Library, MS 150, in a
manuscript dated to the second half of the 10th century).
Filiation is once again problematic. And there is also a
version *I*, Lambeth Psalter from the first half of the 11th
century (London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 427), which
contains different glosses with many mixed readings from
*Group α* and *Group δ*, as well as corrections and revisions.

The same could be said about the Old English gloss of
the Eadwine Psalter (E—Cambridge, Trinity College, MS
R.17.1, mid-12th century). Its basis could be a version of
*Group α*, while corrections to its Old English text could
be made on the basis of *Group δ* (e.g., Lindelöf 1904; cf.
O'Neill 1992: 126—who identifies Vespasian Psalter (*A*)
and Regius Psalter (*D*) as models for the base of the text
and corrections respectively). Nevertheless, given the
presence of several scribes working on the Old English
text, not to mention double glosses (i.e., two glosses given
for the same Latin word), the issue of these corrections is
intriguing. Many corrections look like they were made
as spontaneous interventions (Zagórska 2020a; Zagórska
2020b). A different situation concerns the Salisbury
Psalter (*K*) of *Group δ*. *D* being the base, the glossator
of *K* probably chose to eliminate the poetical renderings
of *D* and his choices fell sometimes too close to those
found in various glosses from *Group α* (cf. Lendinara
2021: 192–196).

In most cases, peculiar variations and similitudes within
*Groups α, δ*, or in between the two groups are stuck in the
basic causality dilemma. However, research seems to be
focused mainly on the relationship between the appara-

tuses of glosses. Pictured in the form of a deterministic
chain of transmission, glosses are expected to move from
point *α* to point *δ*, or vice-versa. This happens because
they are seen as independent from the Latin text to
which they adhere, an idea inherited from the nineteenth
century—the century of dictionaries, national philolo-
gies, and national identities. Lendinara 2002a: 249–254
(with examples) pointed out that a gloss should not be
readily taken as a translation of its Latin lemma. Glosses
cannot be used as the lemmata of a modern dictionary,
to be mined for renderings to use in a translation. Such a
choice apparently ignores the specific circumstances that
link *lemmata*—i.e., clusters of words in a source text—and
their *interpretamenta*—clusters of glosses corresponding
to such *lemmata*. By the same token, treating a gloss (and
its meaning(s)) as a word within a prose translation is
likewise off the mark. The said *lemma* and *interpreta-
mentum* form a cluster. It is my personal opinion that an
edition which meets this requirement is the partial one
by Pignatelli, Lavrentiev (s.a.)—who edited the Latin and
Old French glosses of Arundel MS 230.

There is also the issue of double *interpretamenta* in vernacular glosses. The entries of glossaries with *interpretamenta* drawn from different sources woven together by scribes can operate as interpretation networks of their respective *lemmata* (cf. Lendinara 2002a: 257–265). Another category comprises glosses, the *interpretamenta* of which stem from the former. A bridge is thus built between the two glosses (*lemma 1* + *interpretamentum 1* and *lemma 2* + *interpretamentum 2*) (Lendinara 1992a). This and other features of the *interpretamenta* (and their origin once detected) makes so-called errors of translation entirely irrelevant in the discussion of many glosses. Glossators did not have just the source text in mind. Their work was multifaceted, anchored in both source texts and glossaries (Lendinara 1992b; cf. Lendinara 2012). For instance, as regards Psalter glosses, the “errors” of the K gloss (i.e., Salisbury Psalter) are none other than a diorthosis type of rewriting based on a Romanum gloss, but with the help of commentaries and additional works (Lendinara 2021). Viewed in light of the above-mentioned instances, the so-called errors of language or translation in the Old French Arundel Psalter might be the result of a similar method of glossing. When Arundel MS 230 breaks with Douce MS 320 or presents odd rephrases of a clusterial nature, this happens because its interlinear gloss is not an actual translation, but only the adaptation of source material in order to fit the purpose devised by (or for the use of) the glossator.

When historical analysis is applied to the corpus of Old
English interlinear glosses to the Psalms, none of them
can be considered a prose translation (for a prose trans-
lation of the Psalms, see the Old English text of Psalms
1–50 in an 11th-century Canterbury manuscript—Paris,
BnF, f. lat. 8846; Psalms 51–150 have a verse translation in
the same manuscript). The tradition started rather early,
at the end of the 7th century. It characterised Germanic
languages as a group—not only Old English, but also Old
High German, Old Frisian, and it spread as far as Scan-
dinavian lands (Lendinara 2002b; cf. Bremmer 2007;
Grauwe 1990 for Old Frisian). Old Franconian glosses
to the Psalms from the 10th century were also part of
the same phenomenon (cf. Kyes 1969 for an edition).
first volume in a planned series of four).

Leaving aside the links with an Old English metrical
psalter (O'Neill 2016; cf. Toswell 1997) and the issue of
dialectal implications (cf. Kitson 2002; Kitson 2003; Ogura
2006), both features being less interesting in the current
framework, my presentation starts with the first group
of texts, *Group α* (for the use of *α* and *δ* in reference to
manuscript groups instead of individual manuscripts,
see Schabram 1965, 23, *passim*; Gretsch 1999, 17–21; cf.
Lendinara 2023: 338). *Group α* consists of its namesake
codex *A* (London, British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian
A i; manuscript *B* (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius
27; and another independent apograph known as *C*
(Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff. 1. 23). The rela-
tionship between the three is complex, yet all are early
texts, dating back to 9th century, 10th century, and c.1000
respectively. In spite of various attempts made at iden-
tifying an *Urtext*, filiation remains rather unclear, much
like in the case of the Old French Psalters known as
Oxford and Arundel with the addition (or not) of Orne
and Maidstone (e.g., Pulsiano 1996 for the complex links
between *C* and *A*).

Most manuscripts in *Group δ*, on the other hand, are
of a later date. Despite the fact that *D* (London, British
Library, Royal MS 2 B v) is also early, dated to mid-10th
century, the other glosses were compiled in early 11th-
century: *L* (London, British Library, Additional MS 37517,
in a 10th-century codex); mid-11th century—*G* (London,
British Library, Cotton MS Vitellius E xviii); mid- or third
quarter of the 11th century—*F* (London, British Library,
Stowe MS 2) and *H* (London, British Library, Cotton
MS Tiberius C vi); second half of the 11th century—*J*
(London, British Library, Arundel MS 60); or 11th–12th
century—*K* (Salisbury, Cathedral Library, MS 150, in a
manuscript dated to the second half of the 10th century).
Filiation is once again problematic. And there is also a
version *I*, Lambeth Psalter from the first half of the 11th
century (London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 427), which
contains different glosses with many mixed readings from
*Group α* and *Group δ*, as well as corrections and revisions.

The same could be said about the Old English gloss of
the Eadwine Psalter (E—Cambridge, Trinity College, MS
R.17.1, mid-12th century). Its basis could be a version of
*Group α*, while corrections to its Old English text could
be made on the basis of *Group δ* (e.g., Lindelöf 1904; cf.
O'Neill 1992: 126—who identifies Vespasian Psalter (*A*)
and Regius Psalter (*D*) as models for the base of the text
and corrections respectively). Nevertheless, given the
presence of several scribes working on the Old English
text, not to mention double glosses (i.e., two glosses given
for the same Latin word), the issue of these corrections is
intriguing. Many corrections look like they were made
as spontaneous interventions (Zagórska 2020a; Zagórska
2020b). A different situation concerns the Salisbury
Psalter (*K*) of *Group δ*. *D* being the base, the glossator
of *K* probably chose to eliminate the poetical renderings
of *D* and his choices fell sometimes too close to those
found in various glosses from *Group α* (cf. Lendinara
2021: 192–196).

In most cases, peculiar variations and similitudes within
*Groups α, δ*, or in between the two groups are stuck in the
basic causality dilemma. However, research seems to be
focused mainly on the relationship between the appara-

tuses of glosses. Pictured in the form of a deterministic
chain of transmission, glosses are expected to move from
point *α* to point *δ*, or vice-versa. This happens because
they are seen as independent from the Latin text to
which they adhere, an idea inherited from the nineteenth
century—the century of dictionaries, national philolo-
gies, and national identities. Lendinara 2002a: 249–254
(with examples) pointed out that a gloss should not be
readily taken as a translation of its Latin lemma. Glosses
cannot be used as the lemmata of a modern dictionary,
to be mined for renderings to use in a translation. Such a
choice apparently ignores the specific circumstances that
link *lemmata*—i.e., clusters of words in a source text—and
their *interpretamenta*—clusters of glosses corresponding
to such *lemmata*. By the same token, treating a gloss (and
its meaning(s)) as a word within a prose translation is
likewise off the mark. The said *lemma* and *interpreta-
mentum* form a cluster. It is my personal opinion that an
edition which meets this requirement is the partial one
by Pignatelli, Lavrentiev (s.a.)—who edited the Latin and
Old French glosses of Arundel MS 230.

There is also the issue of double *interpretamenta* in vernacular glosses. The entries of glossaries with *interpretamenta* drawn from different sources woven together by scribes can operate as interpretation networks of their respective *lemmata* (cf. Lendinara 2002a: 257–265). Another category comprises glosses, the *interpretamenta* of which stem from the former. A bridge is thus built between the two glosses (*lemma 1* + *interpretamentum 1* and *lemma 2* + *interpretamentum 2*) (Lendinara 1992a). This and other features of the *interpretamenta* (and their origin once detected) makes so-called errors of translation entirely irrelevant in the discussion of many glosses. Glossators did not have just the source text in mind. Their work was multifaceted, anchored in both source texts and glossaries (Lendinara 1992b; cf. Lendinara 2012). For instance, as regards Psalter glosses, the “errors” of the K gloss (i.e., Salisbury Psalter) are none other than a diorthosis type of rewriting based on a Romanum gloss, but with the help of commentaries and additional works (Lendinara 2021). Viewed in light of the above-mentioned instances, the so-called errors of language or translation in the Old French Arundel Psalter might be the result of a similar method of glossing. When Arundel MS 230 breaks with Douce MS 320 or presents odd rephrases of a clusterial nature, this happens because its interlinear gloss is not an actual translation, but only the adaptation of source material in order to fit the purpose devised by (or for the use of) the glossator.

When historical analysis is applied to the corpus of Old
English interlinear glosses to the Psalms, none of them
can be considered a prose translation (for a prose trans-
lation of the Psalms, see the Old English text of Psalms
1–50 in an 11th-century Canterbury manuscript—Paris,
BnF, f. lat. 8846; Psalms 51–150 have a verse translation in
the same manuscript). The tradition started rather early,
at the end of the 7th century. It characterised Germanic
languages as a group—not only Old English, but also Old
High German, Old Frisian, and it spread as far as Scan-
dinavian lands (Lendinara 2002b; cf. Bremmer 2007;
Grauwe 1990 for Old Frisian). Old Franconian glosses
to the Psalms from the 10th century were also part of
the same phenomenon (cf. Kyes 1969 for an edition).
Furthermore, a recent book by Blom proves beyond
doubt that the culture of glossing flourished upon an
“early medieval paratextual network” (Blom 2017: 4). This
network connected several Western-European non-Ro-
mance languages in the span of six long centuries, and
it created its own system of verbal and non-verbal ex-
pression (syntax marks, punctuation, and layout must
be taken into account too). Moreover, the Psalms were
central in the development of glossing. This is amply
demonstrated by Blom 2017.

Blom identified three types of glosses. The first one con-
cerns "substitution glosses [that] replace a lemma from
the principal text with another term in order to provide
more or less exact lexical equivalents or perceived equiv-
alents." They can be divided in SUB1 "glosses which pro-
vide a synonym or translation of a noun (phrase), verb
(phrase), preposition(al phrase), adverb, or conjunction;"
SUB2 "substitution glosses which provide an explanatory
replacement" (some [...] derived from the commentary
paratext in the margin of the manuscript); and SUB3 those
that provide a paraphrase of a lemma, "more difficult to
fit into a taxonomy." (Blom 2017: 29-32). This corresponds
to the peculiar mechanics of complex translation clusters
analysed in the recent *Translation Automatisms* volume
(Agrigoroaei, Sasu, Voleková, Svobodová, Korondi, Un-
gureanu, Gínsac 2023). Old English interlinear glosses to
the Latin Psalms often belong to this category of substi-
tution glosses.

The second category postulated by Blom includes “sup-
plement glosses [that] elucidate the morphology and
syntax of the principal text by supplying additional clar-
ifying forms, often repeated, or otherwise deduced, from
context.” These are hard to identify in Old French glosses,
as they are bereft of any evident uses for language ac-
quisition and educational hermeneutics. They can be
“complete constituents, words or a group of words that
function as a single syntactic unit, such as an object, a
subject, or a phrase, added to a sentence in the principal
text.” Supplement glosses divide into SUP1 “gloss [that]
supplies a constituent,” and SUP2 gloss that “supplements
a constituent.” Syntax marks can belong to this subcat-
gory. Blom notes that “non-verbal glosses are especially
common in Irish and Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, consist-
ing of combinations of abstract signs (dots, commas, and
dashes) and letters to explicate the syntactic context of a
lemma.” (Blom 2017: 32–34).

Blom's last category consists of "commentary glosses provid[ing] new information to and elucidate[ing] a given lemma, but without substituting or supplementing the principal text." He further notes that "defining this category and the relation between commentary glosses, scholia and commentary proper is problematic, which results in these terms often being used interchangeably." He then divides them into four subcategories: COM1 "provide lexical or etymological commentary"; COM2 "provide commentary on morphology and syntax; COM3 "provide variant readings or other text-critical information," and COM4 cover glosses that "give explicative commentary, for example on exegesis or historical background." (Blom 2017: 34). This corresponds to a situation that we also noted, namely that of glosses of an exegetical nature that "can be similar to the contemporary translation technique known as 'description'—i.e., replacing a

term or an expression with a description—and ‘amplifi-
cation’” (Agrigoroaei, Sasu 2023: 37, with translatological
bibliography in the footnotes). Blom’s categories 1 and
3 can be found in Old French texts—substitutions and
commentaries, that is, linguistic variation or the impli-
cations of exegesis. Blom’s second category, that of sup-
plement glosses, is hard to find in Old French glosses, as
it is related to the peculiar interest for grammar that we
see in the “early medieval paratextual network.” The co-
existence of *glossae collectae*, class glossaries, and alpha-
betical glossaries, as well as the presence of Old English
glosses in Latin grammatical texts suggests that language
acquisition and hermeneutics were interwoven to a
certain degree (e.g., Lapidge 1982; Gneuss 1990; Gneuss
1993; Lendinara 2020). Furthermore, a similar interest in
grammar, glosses (some on Psalms), and glossaries char-
acterises Celtic languages (e.g., Bauer, Krivoshchekova
2022; cf. Best 1936; Law 1982; Holtz 1983; McNamara
2000; Bauer 2017; O’Sullivan 2021).

Since it was repeatedly pointed out that Old English
glosses were an instrument for teaching, even though the
precise dynamics of Anglo-Saxon pedagogy are not fully
grasped (Lendinara 2002c; cf. Stanton 2002), one must
also note that the 11th and 12th centuries saw a shift in
the evolution of the contents of libraries, the responsi-
bility for which did not lie with the Norman Conquest,
but with a Western-European cultural trend that started
earlier. The essential place occupied by grammatical
and educational works characterising the period before
the 11th century was gradually overtaken by patristic
works and commentaries (Webber 1997; cf. Thomson
1986). The decline of Old English translations or glosses
(such as those from the Lambeth and Eadwine Psalters)
coincides with this decline of grammatical and educa-
tional works, whereas the interest in patristic works and
commentaries underpins the rise of glosses to (and trans-
lations from) the Psalms in the Old French literature of
the 12th century. In the second part of the 12th century,
a generation after the emergence of Old French trans-
lations of (and glosses to) the Psalms, vernacular com-
mentaries to the same book of the Bible were made. The
First French Commentary to the Psalms, written in four
instalments on the Continent c.1165, was soon copied
in many Anglo-Norman manuscripts of the 12th and
13th centuries, its only extended copy being located in
England: the three manuscripts of Durham, Cathedral
Library, MSS A.H.11–A.H.13) (for this text, see Gregory
1990).

That the Old French written tradition did not have a
penchant for grammar is evident from the inventory of
12th-century texts. Yet there has always been a pecu-
liar category of Anglo-Norman texts of a didactical na-
ture, mostly poems, many of which belong to the wider
corpus of biblical adaptations (see two cases concerning
the Psalms: the First French Metrical Psalter, studied by
the *PSalteRATIO* ANR project—London, British Library,
Harley MS 4070 + Additional MS 50000; and the *Miserele*
poem in London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 431—edited

<footnote>► Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.17.1, f. 10v.</footnote>

<footnote>The Old English gloss is transcribed on the text of *Romanum* (second column), whereas the Old French one on *Hebraicum* (first column).</footnote>

<footnote>Courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge</footnote>
Furthermore, a recent book by Blom proves beyond
doubt that the culture of glossing flourished upon an
“early medieval paratextual network” (Blom 2017: 4). This
network connected several Western-European non-Ro-
mance languages in the span of six long centuries, and
it created its own system of verbal and non-verbal ex-
pression (syntax marks, punctuation, and layout must
be taken into account too). Moreover, the Psalms were
central in the development of glossing. This is amply
demonstrated by Blom 2017.

Blom identified three types of glosses. The first one con-
cerns "substitution glosses [that] replace a lemma from
the principal text with another term in order to provide
more or less exact lexical equivalents or perceived equiv-
alents." They can be divided in SUB1 "glosses which pro-
vide a synonym or translation of a noun (phrase), verb
(phrase), preposition(al phrase), adverb, or conjunction;"
SUB2 "substitution glosses which provide an explanatory
replacement" (some [...] derived from the commentary
paratext in the margin of the manuscript); and SUB3 those
that provide a paraphrase of a lemma, "more difficult to
fit into a taxonomy." (Blom 2017: 29-32). This corresponds
to the peculiar mechanics of complex translation clusters
analysed in the recent *Translation Automatisms* volume
(Agrigoroaei, Sasu, Voleková, Svobodová, Korondi, Un-
gureanu, Gínsac 2023). Old English interlinear glosses to
the Latin Psalms often belong to this category of substi-
tution glosses.

The second category postulated by Blom includes “sup-
plement glosses [that] elucidate the morphology and
syntax of the principal text by supplying additional clar-
ifying forms, often repeated, or otherwise deduced, from
context.” These are hard to identify in Old French glosses,
as they are bereft of any evident uses for language ac-
quisition and educational hermeneutics. They can be
“complete constituents, words or a group of words that
function as a single syntactic unit, such as an object, a
subject, or a phrase, added to a sentence in the principal
text.” Supplement glosses divide into SUP1 “gloss [that]
supplies a constituent,” and SUP2 gloss that “supplements
a constituent.” Syntax marks can belong to this subcat-
gory. Blom notes that “non-verbal glosses are especially
common in Irish and Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, consist-
ing of combinations of abstract signs (dots, commas, and
dashes) and letters to explicate the syntactic context of a
lemma.” (Blom 2017: 32–34).

Blom's last category consists of "commentary glosses provid[ing] new information to and elucidate[ing] a given lemma, but without substituting or supplementing the principal text." He further notes that "defining this category and the relation between commentary glosses, scholia and commentary proper is problematic, which results in these terms often being used interchangeably." He then divides them into four subcategories: COM1 "provide lexical or etymological commentary"; COM2 "provide commentary on morphology and syntax; COM3 "provide variant readings or other text-critical information," and COM4 cover glosses that "give explicative commentary, for example on exegesis or historical background." (Blom 2017: 34). This corresponds to a situation that we also noted, namely that of glosses of an exegetical nature that "can be similar to the contemporary translation technique known as 'description'—i.e., replacing a

term or an expression with a description—and ‘amplifi-
cation’” (Agrigoroaei, Sasu 2023: 37, with translatological
bibliography in the footnotes). Blom’s categories 1 and
3 can be found in Old French texts—substitutions and
commentaries, that is, linguistic variation or the impli-
cations of exegesis. Blom’s second category, that of sup-
plement glosses, is hard to find in Old French glosses, as
it is related to the peculiar interest for grammar that we
see in the “early medieval paratextual network.” The co-
existence of *glossae collectae*, class glossaries, and alpha-
betical glossaries, as well as the presence of Old English
glosses in Latin grammatical texts suggests that language
acquisition and hermeneutics were interwoven to a
certain degree (e.g., Lapidge 1982; Gneuss 1990; Gneuss
1993; Lendinara 2020). Furthermore, a similar interest in
grammar, glosses (some on Psalms), and glossaries char-
acterises Celtic languages (e.g., Bauer, Krivoshchekova
2022; cf. Best 1936; Law 1982; Holtz 1983; McNamara
2000; Bauer 2017; O’Sullivan 2021).

Since it was repeatedly pointed out that Old English
glosses were an instrument for teaching, even though the
precise dynamics of Anglo-Saxon pedagogy are not fully
grasped (Lendinara 2002c; cf. Stanton 2002), one must
also note that the 11th and 12th centuries saw a shift in
the evolution of the contents of libraries, the responsi-
bility for which did not lie with the Norman Conquest,
but with a Western-European cultural trend that started
earlier. The essential place occupied by grammatical
and educational works characterising the period before
the 11th century was gradually overtaken by patristic
works and commentaries (Webber 1997; cf. Thomson
1986). The decline of Old English translations or glosses
(such as those from the Lambeth and Eadwine Psalters)
coincides with this decline of grammatical and educa-
tional works, whereas the interest in patristic works and
commentaries underpins the rise of glosses to (and trans-
lations from) the Psalms in the Old French literature of
the 12th century. In the second part of the 12th century,
a generation after the emergence of Old French trans-
lations of (and glosses to) the Psalms, vernacular com-
mentaries to the same book of the Bible were made. The
First French Commentary to the Psalms, written in four
instalments on the Continent c.1165, was soon copied
in many Anglo-Norman manuscripts of the 12th and
13th centuries, its only extended copy being located in
England: the three manuscripts of Durham, Cathedral
Library, MSS A.H.11–A.H.13) (for this text, see Gregory
1990).

That the Old French written tradition did not have a
penchant for grammar is evident from the inventory of
12th-century texts. Yet there has always been a pecu-
liar category of Anglo-Norman texts of a didactical na-
ture, mostly poems, many of which belong to the wider
corpus of biblical adaptations (see two cases concerning
the Psalms: the First French Metrical Psalter, studied by
the *PSalteRATIO* ANR project—London, British Library,
Harley MS 4070 + Additional MS 50000; and the *Miserele*
poem in London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 431—edited

<footnote>► Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.17.1, f. 10v.</footnote>

<footnote>The Old English gloss is transcribed on the text of *Romanum* (second column), whereas the Old French one on *Hebraicum* (first column).</footnote>

<footnote>Courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_278.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_279.png" /></figure>

Infinem peæ que bedicunt: consequtæ p[ro]t. vox eccl[esi].

ERBA
mea aurib[us]

pape domi

T[em]pual est clamor q[ui]ntelligit: v[n]t aurib[us] di[mi]nentia maiebatur accepit.

ne: mcelluge clamorem mei.

T[em]p[ae]

<figure><img src="image_280.png" /></figure>

In tende uo[rum] orationis mee:

f[er]t. b[us] p[ro]mo t[em]x. quia p[er]t. i[n]n. ad par[ati]. v[n]t fab[us].

t[em]x meus & deus meus. Quo

mam ad te orabo domine:

mane exaudies uocem mea.

t[n]n. nacebo m[ur]tus.

mane aftabo ubi & uidebo:

t[em] quinque: mendaciti. hominidum. dolit. & butid[us] t[em]n. nox. & exsulte. f[er] mane. ut uideat.

quoniam non deus uolens.

cauſam cur mane aftab[us] undebit, quia d[am]s non t[em]tur im

imquitatem ues. N. eq[ui]s. ha

debit w[er]hear.

bitabit iuxta te: malignus.

t[em] qua oſt. r[um]s e[mi]s. p[er]tenebr[us] peccatoz: non ſup[er]t. lucte. & ſi alijn undib[us] uera, non p[er]mane[re]. quia amar[is]

neq[ui]s; p[er]manebunt in iuſu

horari: f[er] aftabo. & ſeuā q[ui]deum & placere inquitare niuqua ſuemum. Et appr[i]s aftat d[om] ut p[er]ſat qui p[er]ſus: h[uius] mane. m[ox] ut tenebr[us] deferit. T.

<figure><img src="image_281.png" /></figure>

ERBA

n[am] p[er]ſolens

mea
at
audi

domine. inſul[em]

le mengrundil

luge muriatur

ſentent

a. ad uo[rum] de ma

ad uocem clamo

clamur, mei;

t[em] m[ens] p[er]ſat.

dau[que] meuſt.

kar 10 depres

qua te depreſſis

conſi. Domine

par. manu-

mat. te

audies uocem

non par. manu-

meam. mane

ſerat. apatuit ad

preparabo ad

conſi. ſi te eſtuar-

te. & contem-

dem. kar

plabo. Quo

t[n]nam
non ef deuſt
uolifanz. ſumme
uolens impjet a

conſi. e ne habi

t[em] tu. nec habi

conſi. deuſte. cer

tabit iuxta te

malign. Hoc ſtert

malign: Non ſta

conſi. & ſe eſtuar-

be. miq[ui]ſpectu

<figure><img src="image_282.png" /></figure>

ERBA

aln[us]p[and]

mea
duſi[n]men
duri

bus p[ape] do

on uocu
mine m[itu]l

mine diu[nſe]nse

ge. clamorem

mine. bes[ut]m

meum: m[itu]n

de uocu orato

mines. p[er]ſim

n[am] ad uo[rum] ora

bo domine

on morso[em]. 2 ju[que] h[oc]rast

mane & exau

ſefne: m[ine]

die: uocu mea.

on mey[men] te he ce ſounde

ane aftabo ubi

conſi. 2 ju[que] h[oc]rast

c[ui]s: uidebo: q[ui]m

ha cayet. 20

non deuſt uo

na[mi] pillende

ler. 15

unjuſp[er]ſiſſe

imquitatem

wes. N. on ha

cardech neah he

briabit iuxta

aptus.

te malignus.

ne. p[er]ſup[er]t

neq[ui]s: p[er]mane

bunt in iuſu

HEBR.

ROM.

BE COMETÆ JAM STEVORJAN

Dylliene leoman hæp[us] cometa se st[ec]orja. 2 on enſtief h[uius] man nemd se ſeaxeda st[ec]orja he h[uius] acy[us] p[er]ſedan ſy mbe p[é]ſa p[im]tia 2 ſonne for forſacne.

<figure><img src="image_283.png" /></figure>

Galt.

Trina o[n]w. Nerba: o[n]t p[er]ſat modiá. Clamoré. cord affe deu. to exandi orationé. ecce é de eod.
<figure><img src="image_281.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_282.png" /></figure>

Infinem peæ que bedicunt: consequtis p[ro]t. vox eccle[se].

ERBA
mea aurib[us]

pape domi

T[em]pual est clamor q[ui]ntelligerit. N[unc] aurib[us] di[تي] p[ro]femina malefactus ad caperunt.

Trina or[em] Nerba: or[em] p[er]sual modiá. Clamoré: corda fette. Et exandit orationem. Eccl[es]iæ de eodem.

<figure><img src="image_283.png" /></figure>

In tende uoc[em] orationis mee:

fitur. bi[n] p[ro]mo r[ex]. quia p[er]t. i[n]n. ad par[ati]. v[n] fab[us]. d[s]. m. et i[n] di[n]t. i[n] tenet

diret. s[in]tende. quæ un[que].

r[ex] meus & deus meus. Quo

mam ad te orabo domine:

mane exaudies uocem mea.

Non undecim q[ui]remus.

Mane aftabo ubi q[ui]videbo:

Imquaraf. mendaciti. hominidum. doti[que] & buti[que] tibi. nor[que] & c[ir]semeque mane. ut ad te exaudet.

Quoniam non deus uolens.

Eratam cur mane aftab[us] undebit, quæ d[s] non tuerit in quatuor, q[ui]s titeret: posse. abmiq[ui]s.

Imquitarum uies. Neque ha

qui male utuntur. ximo.

bitabit iuxta te. malignus.

Quæ orbi ruris e[m]s. p[er]tenebræ peccatoræ. non suus. remane. luc[em]. Et s[in]aligni undine ueræ, non p[ro]mane[rit]. quæ amast. ea quæ à nemo auerunt. Et h[uius] tunc transire non. et

neque; p[ro]manebunt in iuſtu

horari. f[er]aftabo. & ſeuá q[d]deum. & placere iniquitate: niuqua ſuemum. Et apprini aſtar do ut p[er]ſat qui pur? et mane. mgx. ut tenebræ defers. et.

<figure><img src="image_284.png" /></figure>

ERBA

nunc
pariſaſ

mea
or
audi

are. intereuy
Domine. inucl.
Le meungrundil
Lige muriurur
Lement. adturne
meum aducrente
a. la uot. de ma
ad uocem clamo
clamur.

Rex meus &
lui meus deus.

dae → meuf
kar 10 depri
qui ce depre

coz; Domine

par manu: → te

audies uocem
notiz parmann
meam. mane

ferat. apatallidem
preparabo ad
cui e[rit]e et uere
re. & contem
comet; kar
plabo. Quo

nam
non ef deus
uolifanz. ſumme
uolens impjetæ
et ne habi

tè tu. nec habi
cer. deutha cer
tabit iuxta te
malignè. Husque est
malign: Non ſta

le. ſedun & ſe edwardem
be. miq[ui]ſpectu

<figure><img src="image_285.png" /></figure>

ERBA

Almynyorp

mea
duinen
auri

comun ad foh

bus p[ape] do
mine inctu

mine diuunte
ge. clamorem

mine. bes[im]m
meum: mi ten

ſtepe[n]ne et bedes
de uoc[em] orato

nus mee: f[er]t

min
meus & deus

med. Quo

nam ad te ora
bo domine
on morson. 7 ju[que] hye horg[ur]

mane & exau
ſefne = mine

dich uoc[em] mea.

on meyzen. 1c he. et ſaufe
ane aftabo ubi
7 ju[que] hye horg[ur]

c[ui]t deu[que] q[ui]m

non deus uo

na pillende
ler → 15

unjuſp[er]ſiſſe

imquitarum uies. Ne
non ha

c[ui]t deu[que] q[ui]m
briabit iuxta
aptuſus.

te malignus.

ne jufp[er] pantech
neq: p[ro]mane
unp[er] ſel[an]

bunt in iuſu

H[uius] coram ſup[er]he[di]catib[us] c[ui]nticiu[m] d[d].

HEBR.

ROM.

Be cometa jam storrjan

Dyllicne leoman hæp[us]a
cometa se storrja. 7 on
enq[ui]ſt h[ui]ne man nem[da]
ſe ſeaxeda storrja he h[ui]ne
ac[ui]p[us] ſeldan ſy mbe
ſelda p[int]ia 7 ſonne
ſor for[acne].

<figure><img src="image_286.png" /></figure>

Galt.
d. S. et nādaicā qdā spfitare u'l como do alt. n. maltia. s. benugitare ut obftrere, que dixet pharaos falſi, p[ro]filis hebroiz. h. auſt m[ādaicā] ſi re f[im]dolo laudant. q. q[ui]c m[āmunt]: merebunt aliq ab o[mi] m[ādaic] libari. Et eca m[ādaicā] ioco, quod ſi faller, ſur em' em d[omi]ta uo di. h. duo gena ſi ſine culpa. h. n. c[ui] magnia. p[er]ſed aut n[ō]uenit m[āt]. nec prepalt iua, aut morre ſua l'al[ia] n. occidit anna. Lucre autē ed ſi ſi falſi d[ic]uerit tace. vt ſigni ſi mult hōc ad moſt p[er]t: uerit ta ceat. ſ. n. falſi dieat, ne p[er]pore al[ia] anna ſua occider. Honē. culpa uerit tace. ut d[omi]s. muta. h. u. o. ſi lud aut ubi n.ē. duplex co: n. debet d[ic]a m[ādaicā] vt ſigns com[ander] gladiu. y. p[er]miſa poſent redere, ſi ſuret p[er]ſert. n. debo redde. ne ſe u'l al[ia] occider. d[omi] h[oc] ſi n.ē. duplex co: quia c[ui] p[er]miſ redde. n. cogitat ſurent poſse reperere.

P[er]cat cont ea que emula ingere. u[n]t ip[s]a p[er]bit. Juftrina t. quia p[er]ſentem ſupplicet temp[us].

In ſp[er]ſpectu t. ubi homin under. cu laudant l'un p[er]ann n.ē. credend[us] qua n. under in conſentia in qua ſe ad d[omi]n dirigent. ſo ſub d. Q[ui]n n.ē. m. o. e.

Non modo n.ē. ueritas in ore: f. ſepulchrum, qua ſe ſuda p[er]vum ad corri p[er]c. d[omi]. q[ui]b. ſi n. p[er]ſum: dolo ſe a. n. m[ō]tum: f. ef-ſiunt.

-māne. ut under & here aut uerant.

C[ui]na n.

ante oculos toos Odiſt

ſim[ur] manere inſe.

F[op]atur eu p[la]ce[er]. ſi diſplicet. & ſi cadre: lango[us] nāte fae.

omnes qui opandant m[iqu]ni

n. ipſe.

C[ui]na h. et uta conſtrui. utas?

ſgnat.

de eo q[ui]c. m[ādaic] n.ē. ſuba. l[ui]na.

tatem: p[er]ſes omnes qui lo

-f. de eo q[ui]c. & m[ō]no p[er]ſtur q[ui]deſtat ab eo quod eſt ad id

quod non.ē.

quinque mendacium.

C[ui]na q[ui]c.

q[ui]c p[er]ſura. q[ui]c p[er]ſuram.

C[ui]na homidam.

C[ui]na t[em]or. e. loqui conq boe q[ui]c a[ui] ſent.

Vitrum ſanguinum & dolo

-m[ādaic]. s. exhe. edictab.

C[ui]na q[ui]c p[er]ſa.

her

ſum abhominabitur domi

utat ipſe.

C[ui]na d[omi] di. & n[ō]t p[er]imare in moſe. a[n]

nus: ego autem inmultui

-eſt m[āt]a p[er]ſeſi. q[ui]c n[ō]t

part. c[ed]ia.

C[ui]na

dine miſericordie tu: In

tapis t[em]edicta. m[ō]b

in t[em]or]o p[er]ſecto.

C[ui]na c[ele]tta.

C[ui]na

t[em]or]o in domum tuam: ad

m[or]or]o. q[ui]c adorabo. t. prope n[ō]m.

-templo. h. de p[er]greu. pru:in.

orabo ad templum ſanctum

C[ui]na. magni p[er]ſidu. p[er]ſicemabi. f. p[er]uenient. b[ac]t n[ō]mi.

C[ui]na n[ō]mi. n[ō]mi amic.

tuum in u more t[em]o Domi

-aduſa.

C[ui]na p[er]ſicem.

C[ui]na

ne deduc me in uſtua t[ia]a.

homnis. ubi malu p[er]maio datur. q[ui]c d[omi] di. q[ui]b. ſi p[er]miſ.

n. ſum m[āt]a m[er]ſt. f. malu co relinquit. h[oc] c[ui] p[er]miſ malo uoq h[oc] agt. & deo p[er]t. ip[er]maus.

pp[er]mi[n]icos meos diri

C[ui]na p[er]ch[ui] habent p[er]ceper.

C[ui]na

ge in conſpectu tuo uiam mea.

C[ui]na u[di]cio non eſt credend[us]. & u[di] ad ſciennu

ubi d[omi] under fugiend[us].

e.

Quomam non eſt in ore coru:

q[ui]c co[ſ] fallit de peccato. ſpena peccati.

ueritas: cor corum uanu eſt.

C[ui]na patre, p[er]qua adulando mentiuntur. C[ui]na ſep bract

uora c[er]tus. k[ar]ulatione chum homines. & de

Sepulchrum patens eſt guttur

uorant ſibi affiniando. qui[bi] moru[n]t. ip[er]ſe ſe

corum: linguis ſui dolose

C[ui]na

p[er]ſu.

befo[ma]n h[oc]ne d[omi] ocuſos. C[ui]na h[oc]ne t[em]o p[er]ſi. tu[os] d[omi] do d[omi]n. w[ale]. pa. im[n]e om[n] qui he p[er]ſed impuſt. p[er]ſi. opanur inq uſſe h[oc]ne p[er]ſauller.

tatem: p[er]ſe

C[ui]na q[ui]c.

q[ui]c m[āt]ur men

l[au]ſtus.

dacum: V[ir]u

d[omi]nium &

ſa[ſ]e.

dolosum abho

d[omi]nabatur

domini.

C[ui]na

e p[er]ſi on

g[ui]ne dom[mi]n.

multitudine.

h[ui]n]c midicoguſſe

miſericordio

tue: in p[er]ſi bo

d[omi]n onm. l[ui]m.

domne in

ic ſebuſde

m[ui]m tuam.

adorabo ad t[em]e

plum ſanctu

omnium ex.

cuiu maio

re t[em]o p[er]duce

me domnem in

t[em]e

t[em]o p[er]mi[n]m

homand. p[er]ſi. s[an]ce

cos meo[di]ri

ge in conspe

t[em]e p[er]ſi. m[ō]n.

ctu tuo uiam

p[er]ſi. ſo[du]m.

mea Quomā

n[ō]m onluma

m[ab]e p[er]ſi. m[ō]n.

coru uerit: h[oc]que h[oc]que

coru corum u[mi]na

chriu patente.

h[oc]que hyb[ec]e. h[oc]que

guttur coru: in

gunt ſui dolose

de cel

oculorum

C[ui]na h[oc]ne t[em]o p[er]ſi.

tu[os]u m[ādaic] do

omnes operan

t[em]e u[n]iqui

tu[os]u de

tatem: p[er]ſe

t[em]o p[ar]ſa[n]ce

loquencie

m[er]t. m[er]t.

dacum: V[ir]u

d[omi]nium &

t[em]e p[er]ſi.

dolosum abho

Abomenc

m[in]abatur.

noſtre ſive

dommu.

C[ui]na

e p[er]ſi

d[omi]nium in

C[ui]na mulandine

mutandine

de la p[er]ſi. p[er]ſi

miſericordie

t[em]e: in t[em]o

bo in domum

matum. t[em]o u[n]iqui

bo in templo

temple en ta

two in moſtore

c[er]tine. S[ire]

t[em]o: D[omi]n

temne met

ne. deduc me

in ſiſtura t[ia]a

p[er]ſer de can

t[em]o p[er]duce

t[em]o p[er]mi[n]m

t[em]o p[er]miſt. f. malu co relinquit. h[oc] c[ui]

t[em]o p[er]miſt. n. c[ui]

n[ō]m eſt

en in t[em]o

buche d[re]w.

corum rectum.

l[ui]r. d[er]zenzeu: choſet

in terio[ra] cos

a[gu]gē ſi[n]. ſepulcre

miſidie. l[ep]ul

anuarum p[er]miſi.

chrum paten[ē].

l[ui]r. guiterun

guttur coru: in

l[ui]r. guiterun

guadam ſua leuſi

<figure><img src="image_284.png" /></figure>
by Grange 2015; many more texts of this category were
written both in England and on the Continent; see e.g.,
Sansun of Nantuil's Proverbs, Évrat's Genesis, etc.). Such
texts precede and underpin the rise of Anglo-Norman
glossaries and grammars in the 13th century (cf. Hunt
1991), as the latter represents a specific group of texts
with tight insular dynamics.

It is therefore safe to assume that French culture ended
up assimilating local cultural trends after a while, but this
was a hesitant process. Full cultural assimilation was not
possible at the very beginning of the occupation; only
stimulus diffusion, that is, achieving similar results with
different means. Since the earliest manuscripts in the
corpus of Old French psalters are either proper transla-
tions (Douce) or glosses based on the lemma-interpreta-
mentum pattern (Arundel), I believe that the Arundel
gloss should be interpreted along the same lines as
the Old English glosses to the Psalms. When stating
this, I am not defending the view of Howlett 1996. I
am merely referencing several instances where Old
French texts are based on Old English precedents (e.g.,
Agrigoroaei 2020). Perhaps the best example is the Com-
put of Philippe de Thaon (c.1113/1119), one of the first
(if not the first) Old French poem of the aforementioned
didactic group. The odd genre and subject of Philippe's
poem can be linked to the fact that computistical works, a
fashionable type of texts before the Conquest, continued
to thrive in England after 1066 (cf. Lendinara 2007: esp.
92–102, for various computistical works).

This is where a comparative look at Old English and
Old French translations and glosses to the Psalms bears
interesting fruit in a number of respects. Anglo-Norman
textual tradition formed during the 12th century, which
represented not only a decline but also the end of the Old
English tradition of glosses. Still, there are other simi-
larities to be taken into account in connection with the
pattern of lemma-interpretamentum. Perhaps the most
interesting feature are the so-called "glossary words," that
is, words that occur only in the limited frame of cer-
tain interlinear glosses. Defined as 'morphological bor-
rowings' or 'structural replicas' (Kornexl 2003: 206; cf.
Lendinara 2019: 93-94), they are the by-product of an
etymological approach to glossing that can be noticed in
Old French examples, too. Leaving aside the case of the
Oxford Psalter or of the Arundel Psalter, the etymological
formations of which will be analysed in the next instal-
ment of this paper, I will present an example that was
already analysed in a recent publication.

I argued that the rendering of Lat *pusillus* as OFr *petringneth* in the Old French gloss of the Eadwine Psalter’s Psalm 151 must be interpreted along the same lines as the translation choice *peterinés* that renders Lat *pusillus* in the anonymous Walloon translation of saint Bernard’s *Sermones in annuum* (Agrigoroaei 2023: 123, 125). The translation choice is one and the same, even though the word is not attested elsewhere in the corpus of Old French texts; different translators came up with identical etymological formations as a result of identical trans-

lation strategies (extreme functional equivalence). The
presence of such tailor-made words in Old English gloss-
es, often in connection with Latin realia (Lendinara 2012:
967-974) suggests that they cannot be extracted from
their *lemma-interpretamentum* setting, to be included in
actual dictionaries of the old language. This is indeed the
case of *petringneth*, which should not have been includ-
ed in the *Anglo-Norman Dictionary*—on the one hand, be-
cause *petringneth* is a structural by-product of a *lemma-
interpretamentum* cluster, being the vernacular answer to
Lat *pusillus*; on the other hand, because this word for-
mation is not Anglo-Norman, since an identical formation
occurred in a Walloon text of the same period.

I do not share the opinion that vernacular *interpretamenta* from interlinear glosses should be studied in complete isolation from actual prose translations, some of which are based on similar or identical translation strategies. The fact that OFr *peterinés* occurs in a prose translation is proof enough that the situation is more or less the same. Instead, I have already argued that extreme-functional translation strategies in the vernacular texts of the 12th century did not operate between high-prestige sources and low-prestige target texts. The juncture of diglossia and bilingualism created four main language categories between the source text and target text: 'high-prestige and low-prestige Latin, high-prestige and low-prestige Romance, with an infinity of intermediate degrees'. The translator (or glossator) adapted a text 'from a high variety of the Latin language to a high variety of French, passing through a low-prestige type of Latin' (*latin haut et bas*, *roman haut et bas*, avec une infinité de degrés intermédiaires, [...] d'une variété haute de la langue latine à une variété haute du français*, par l'entremise d'un *latin en variété basse*; Agrigoroaei 2016: 297). In my own opinion, 'glossary words' could be the result of a certain aesthetic of translation, based on an extreme functional translation strategy.

This aesthetic is evident only in a handful of Old French
texts, most of which can be traced back to 12th-century
England. Apart from the aforementioned translations
and glosses to the Psalms, the group includes the trans-
lation of the book of Judges (made for Norman Knights
Templar), and that of the four books of Kings, both of
them made in the second part of the 12th century (cf.
Curtius 1911; Albon 1913; Ham 1937; Nobel 2015). In
a literary context that favoured verse adaptations, it
is possible that this minority of translations based on
extreme functional translation strategies could have been
influenced by Old English models, just as certain texts
from Wallonia and Lorraine show that a similar approach
to an extreme functional translation strategy could have
been influenced by German models (Agrigoroaei 2011, 1:
527-537).

The best illustration of the manner in which Old French
took off by the exact time that Old English was gradually
dying out is none other than Eadwine Psalter. Its Old
English composite gloss was written in the interline of
Romanum, while the Old French gloss—independent
from the text of the Oxford Psalter (see the demonstration
in Agrigoroaei 2023)—was transcribed in the adjacent
column of Hebraicum. However, there are other types of
encounters as well (see again Agrigoroaei 2019).

<figure><img src="image_285.png" /></figure>

Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.17.1, f. 10v.

The Old English gloss is transcribed on the text of Romanum
(penultimate column), whereas the Old French one on
Hebraicum (last column).

Courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge
by Grange 2015; many more texts of this category were
written both in England and on the Continent; see e.g.,
Sansun of Nantuil's Proverbs, Évrat's Genesis, etc.). Such
texts precede and underpin the rise of Anglo-Norman
glossaries and grammars in the 13th century (cf. Hunt
1991), as the latter represents a specific group of texts
with tight insular dynamics.

It is therefore safe to assume that French culture ended
up assimilating local cultural trends after a while, but this
was a hesitant process. Full cultural assimilation was not
possible at the very beginning of the occupation; only
stimulus diffusion, that is, achieving similar results with
different means. Since the earliest manuscripts in the
corpus of Old French psalters are either proper transla-
tions (Douce) or glosses based on the lemma-interpretata-
mentum pattern (Arundel), I believe that the Arundel
gloss should be interpreted along the same lines as
the Old English glosses to the Psalms. When stating
this, I am not defending the view of Howlett 1996. I
am merely referencing several instances where Old
French texts are based on Old English precedents (e.g.,
Agrigoroaei 2020). Perhaps the best example is the Com-
put of Philippe de Thaon (c.1113/1119), one of the first
(if not the first) Old French poem of the aforementioned
didactic group. The odd genre and subject of Philippe's
poem can be linked to the fact that computistical works, a
fashionable type of texts before the Conquest, continued
to thrive in England after 1066 (cf. Lendinara 2007: esp.
92–102, for various computistical works).

This is where a comparative look at Old English and
Old French translations and glosses to the Psalms bears
interesting fruit in a number of respects. Anglo-Norman
textual tradition formed during the 12th century, which
represented not only a decline but also the end of the Old
English tradition of glosses. Still, there are other simi-
larities to be taken into account in connection with the
pattern of lemma-interpretamentum. Perhaps the most
interesting feature are the so-called "glossary words," that
is, words that occur only in the limited frame of cer-
tain interlinear glosses. Defined as 'morphological bor-
rowings' or 'structural replicas' (Kornexl 2003: 206; cf.
Lendinara 2019: 93-94), they are the by-product of an
etymological approach to glossing that can be noticed in
Old French examples, too. Leaving aside the case of the
Oxford Psalter or of the Arundel Psalter, the etymological
formations of which will be analysed in the next instal-
ment of this paper, I will present an example that was
already analysed in a recent publication.

I argued that the rendering of Lat *pusillus* as OFr *petringneth* in the Old French gloss of the Eadwine Psalter’s Psalm 151 must be interpreted along the same lines as the translation choice *peterinés* that renders Lat *pusillus* in the anonymous Walloon translation of saint Bernard’s *Sermones in annuum* (Agrigoroaei 2023: 123, 125). The translation choice is one and the same, even though the word is not attested elsewhere in the corpus of Old French texts; different translators came up with identical etymological formations as a result of identical trans-

lation strategies (extreme functional equivalence). The
presence of such tailor-made words in Old English gloss-
es, often in connection with Latin realia (Lendinara 2012:
967-974) suggests that they cannot be extracted from
their *lemma-interpretamentum* setting, to be included in
actual dictionaries of the old language. This is indeed the
case of *petringneth*, which should not have been includ-
ed in the *Anglo-Norman Dictionary*—on the one hand, be-
cause *petringneth* is a structural by-product of a *lemma-
interpretamentum* cluster, being the vernacular answer to
Lat *pusillus*; on the other hand, because this word for-
mation is not Anglo-Norman, since an identical formation
occurred in a Walloon text of the same period.

I do not share the opinion that vernacular interpreta-
menta from interlinear glosses should be studied in com-
plete isolation from actual prose translations, some of
which are based on similar or identical translation strat-
egies. The fact that OFr *peterinés* occurs in a prose trans-
lation is proof enough that the situation is more or less
the same. Instead, I have already argued that extreme-
functional translation strategies in the vernacular texts
of the 12th century did not operate between high-pres-
tige sources and low-prestige target texts. The juncture
of diglossia and bilingualism created four main lan-
guage categories between the source text and target text:
'high-prestige and low-prestige Latin, high-prestige and
low-prestige Romance, with an infinity of intermedi-
ate degrees'. The translator (or glossator) adapted a text
'from a high variety of the Latin language to a high
variety of French, passing through a low-prestige type of
Latin' (*latin haut et bas*, *roman haut et bas*, avec une in-
finité de degrés intermédiaires, [...] d'une variété haute de
la langue latine à une variété haute du français, par l'en-
tremise d'un latin en variété basse*; Agrigoroaei 2016: 297).
In my own opinion, 'glossary words' could be the result
of a certain aesthetic of translation, based on an extreme
functional translation strategy.

This aesthetic is evident only in a handful of Old French
texts, most of which can be traced back to 12th-century
England. Apart from the aforementioned translations
and glosses to the Psalms, the group includes the trans-
lation of the book of Judges (made for Norman Knights
Templar), and that of the four books of Kings, both of
them made in the second part of the 12th century (cf.
Curtius 1911; Albon 1913; Ham 1937; Nobel 2015). In
a literary context that favoured verse adaptations, it
is possible that this minority of translations based on
extreme functional translation strategies could have been
influenced by Old English models, just as certain texts
from Wallonia and Lorraine show that a similar approach
to an extreme functional translation strategy could have
been influenced by German models (Agrigoroaei 2011, 1:
527-537).

The best illustration of the manner in which Old French
took off by the exact time that Old English was gradually
dying out is none other than Eadwine Psalter. Its Old
English composite gloss was written in the interline of
Romanum, while the Old French gloss—independent
from the text of the Oxford Psalter (see the demonstration
in Agrigoroaei 2023)—was transcribed in the adjacent
column of Hebraicum. However, there are other types of
encounters as well (see again Agrigoroaei 2019).

<figure><img src="image_287.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.17.1, f. 10v.</footnote>

<footnote>The Old English gloss is transcribed on the text of *Romanum* (*penultimate column*), whereas the Old French one on *Hebraicum* (*last column*).</footnote>

<footnote>Courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_286.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_287.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_288.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_289.png" /></figure>
MAIDSTONE FRAGMENTS: TRANSCRIPTION (VA)

From Douce MS 320 and Arundel MS 230 stems the entire group of bilingual psalters on two columns, the evolution of which seems simple, but no research into their links has been made. Among these psalters, one witnesses an odd transformation that could be related not to bilingual psalters as a group, but to the (again) unclear filiation of Douce and Arundel. This other psalter was mentioned earlier, in the section concerning *ker* as a spelling for *car*.

The codex is now lost, but three leaves are still in the Kent County Archives of Maidstone, file Fa Z 1. The local catalogue of manuscripts states that the free folios were in the possession of Faversham Borough Records, "where they presumably had been used as wrappers, covers, and so forth" (Freeth 1974: no pagination). Since the dossier of fragments from the Faversham Borough Records comprises three other items (two leaves from a biblical concordance of the late 14th-century; three leaves from a Sarum Missal, 15th century; and two leaves from a Missal, also dated 15th century), it is quite possible that they originated in the Benedictine St Saviour's Abbey of Faversham (founded 1147/8) and were pillaged or dismembered during the dissolution of the monasteries. Faversham Abbey was dissolved in 1538. At the time of the writing of the Maidstone psalter fragments (mid-12th century or second half of the same century according to Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 108, who quote the opinion of Michael Gullik and argue that the manuscript could have been written at Christ Church, Canterbury), Faversham Abbey was Cluniac and subject to the authority of St Augustine's Abbey (Canterbury), not Christ Church (also Canterbury). Cf. Dobson, Edwards 2010, 96–97. Yet this means that a direct line of transmission of the manuscript could have been either Canterbury, where many manuscripts of the times were produced, or the network of English monasteries.

The fragments contain the biblical verses Ps 55:7–Ps 59:10 and Ps 68:15–70, and are sufficient to identify the Old French text with an avatar of the aforementioned tradition (cf. Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 108). The layout gives the false impression that the Maidstone psalter could have been similar to double psalters. Yet even though the text is transcribed on two columns, it no longer presents two autonomous texts. The Latin and French verses alternate within each column, and paragraph breaks mark linguistic change. Perhaps the hierarchy of languages dictates that Gallicanum had to be copied first, followed by the Old French translation. However, the size of the letters in the French text is the same as that of the characters of the Latin one, therefore it is hard to argue that the two languages are different in status, at least from the point of view of the layout.

The size of the codex (280 x 185 mm) is comparable to that of other bilingual psalters belonging to the Anglo-Norman tradition, such as the palimpsest of Copenhagen (Universitetsbiblioteket Arnamagnasanske Samling 618 4°), especially since the fragments date to the same period. Yet despite similitudes with Douce MS 320 which link them in the same textual tradition, the three leaves

present a text which is a little different than what one finds in bilingual psalters based on Douce MS 320. It is therefore not certain that the Maidstone fragments represent a witness marking the transition to another category of bilingual (or trilingual) psalters. This transformation would seem natural if it were indeed dictated by the strict symmetry of the two-column arrangement, which would in turn testify to 'the reader's greatest ease for establishing linguistic correspondences' (la plus grande commodité de lecture pour établir des correspondances linguistiques; Ruby 2010: 180).

An analysis of the translation strategies (or rewriting / diorthosis) from the Maidstone fragments is scheduled for the next instalment of the current experimental paper. For the time being, only a basic transcription of the text is provided in this last section of the first instalment. I must also note that references to folios can be confusing, as they were not properly assembled. The second folio's recto is in fact its verso. Folios 1 and 3 form a bifolium, that used to be part of the same quire as folio 2. There are also traces of minor erasures, rewritings, writings in spaces initially left blank by the scribe, and a series of marginal notes that must also be taken into account.

◄ Maidstone, *Kent History and Library Centre, Fa/Z1* (*Faversham Fragment I.*): f. 3v (last folio in the (and two details on the facing page))

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei, 2023.

Courtesy of Kent Archive Service, Kent County Council.

<figure><img src="image_288.png" /></figure>
MAIDSTONE FRAGMENTS: TRANSCRIPTION (VA)

From Douce MS 320 and Arundel MS 230 stems the entire group of bilingual psalters on two columns, the evolution of which seems simple, but no research into their links has been made. Among these psalters, one witnesses an odd transformation that could be related not to bilingual psalters as a group, but to the (again) unclear filiation of Douce and Arundel. This other psalter was mentioned earlier, in the section concerning *ker* as a spelling for *car*.

The codex is now lost, but three leaves are still in the Kent County Archives of Maidstone, file Fa Z 1. The local catalogue of manuscripts states that the free folios were in the possession of Faversham Borough Records, "where they presumably had been used as wrappers, covers, and so forth" (Freeth 1974: no pagination). Since the dossier of fragments from the Faversham Borough Records comprises three other items (two leaves from a biblical concordance of the late 14th-century; three leaves from a Sarum Missal, 15th century; and two leaves from a Missal, also dated 15th century), it is quite possible that they originated in the Benedictine St Saviour's Abbey of Faversham (founded 1147/8) and were pillaged or dismembered during the dissolution of the monasteries. Faversham Abbey was dissolved in 1538. At the time of the writing of the Maidstone psalter fragments (mid-12th century or second half of the same century according to Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 108, who quote the opinion of Michael Gullik and argue that the manuscript could have been written at Christ Church, Canterbury), Faversham Abbey was Cluniac and subject to the authority of St Augustine's Abbey (Canterbury), not Christ Church (also Canterbury). Cf. Dobson, Edwards 2010, 96–97. Yet this means that a direct line of transmission of the manuscript could have been either Canterbury, where many manuscripts of the times were produced, or the network of English monasteries.

The fragments contain the biblical verses Ps 55:7–Ps 59:10 and Ps 68:15–70, and are sufficient to identify the Old French text with an avatar of the aforementioned tradition (cf. Careri, Ruby, Short 2011: 108). The layout gives the false impression that the Maidstone psalter could have been similar to double psalters. Yet even though the text is transcribed on two columns, it no longer presents two autonomous texts. The Latin and French verses alternate within each column, and paragraph breaks mark linguistic change. Perhaps the hierarchy of languages dictates that Gallicanum had to be copied first, followed by the Old French translation. However, the size of the letters in the French text is the same as that of the characters of the Latin one, therefore it is hard to argue that the two languages are different in status, at least from the point of view of the layout.

The size of the codex (280 x 185 mm) is comparable to that of other bilingual psalters belonging to the Anglo-Norman tradition, such as the palimpsest of Copenhagen (Universitetsbiblioteket Arnamagnasanske Samling 618 4°), especially since the fragments date to the same period. Yet despite similitudes with Douce MS 320 which link them in the same textual tradition, the three leaves

present a text which is a little different than what one finds in bilingual psalters based on Douce MS 320. It is therefore not certain that the Maidstone fragments represent a witness marking the transition to another category of bilingual (or trilingual) psalters. This transformation would seem natural if it were indeed dictated by the strict symmetry of the two-column arrangement, which would in turn testify to 'the reader's greatest ease for establishing linguistic correspondences' (la plus grande commodité de lecture pour établir des correspondances linguistiques; Ruby 2010: 180).

An analysis of the translation strategies (or rewriting / diorthosis) from the Maidstone fragments is scheduled for the next instalment of the current experimental paper. For the time being, only a basic transcription of the text is provided in this last section of the first instalment. I must also note that references to folios can be confusing, as they were not properly assembled. The second folio's recto is in fact its verso. Folios 1 and 3 form a bifolium, that used to be part of the same quire as folio 2. There are also traces of minor erasures, rewritings, writings in spaces initially left blank by the scribe, and a series of marginal notes that must also be taken into account.

◄ Maidstone, *Kent History and Library Centre, Fa/Z1* (*Faversham Fragment I.*): f. 3v (last folio in the (and two details on the facing page))

Photos: Vladimir Agrigoroaei, 2023.

Courtesy of Kent Archive Service, Kent County Council.

<figure><img src="image_290.png" /></figure>
Maidstone Fragments

[text of the first fragment]

Ps 55:7a [f. 1ra] Habiterunt e se respondrunt ; il meisme le mien talum agaiterunt.

Ps 55:7b Sicut sustinuerunt animam meam pro nichilo saluos
+ Ps 55:8 facies illos ; in ira populos confrin[<displaced>]ges.
Sicum il sustindrent la mei ame ; pur nient salf les feras
en ire les poples freindras.

Ps 55:9a Deus uitam meam nunciaui tibi ; posuisti lacrimas meas in conspectu tuo.
Deus la meie uie nuncei a tei ; tu posas mes lermes el
tuen esguardement.

Ps 55:9b + Sicut et in promissione tua ; tunc conduertentur inimici

Ps 55:10a mei re[<displaced>]trorsum.
Sicume en la tue pramesse ; lores serunt tresturne li
mien enemi arere.

Ps 55:10b In quacumque die inuocauero te ; ecce cognoui quoniam
deus meus es.

In quel quunques iurn apelerai tei ; eite tei io cuni . que
tu es li miens deus .

Ps 55:11 In deo laudabo uerbum [in] domino laudabo sermonem
[in] deo speraui . non timebo [...]ciat michi homo.
[E]n deu lo[e]rai p[...] / nel lo[...] /
espera[...].

Ps 55:12 [l]n m[e .........] / de[.........]
[E]n [........] / l[.........]

Ps 55:13 [........] / [........] / [........] [f. 1rb] in lumine uiuientium.
Ker tu deliuras la meie ame de mort e mes pez de sculurge-
ment que io plaise deuant deu en la lumere des uiuanz.

[text division]

Ps 56:2a MISERERE mei deus miserere mei ; quoniam in te confidit
ani[<displaced>]ma mea.

Merci aies de mei deus merci aies de mei ker en tei se fie
la mei aneme.

Ps 56:2b Et in unbra alarum tuarum sperabo ; donec transeat
iniquitas.

E en lumbre de tes eles esperrai ; desque trepast la felonie.

Ps 56:3 Clamabo ad deum altissimum ; deum qui benefecit michi.

Io crierai al deu altisme ; deu ki bien fist a mei.

Ps 56:4a Misit de celo et liberauit me ; dedit in oprobrium
conculcan[<displaced>]tes me.

Il en[u]eia del ciel e deliura mei duna en reproce les
calcanz mei.

Ps 56:4b Misit deus misericord[iam] suam et ue[rit]atem suam ; et
eripuit animam [me]am de medio catulorum le[onum ;]
dormiui conturbatus.

[Enueia] deus la sue misericorde e sa [ueritet e] deliura la
meie ame [del mi...] des ch[ael]s des lions . [...]nturbez.

Ps 56:5b [Filii homin]um de[nt]es eorum ar[ma et sagi]te ; et
lingua eorum [gladius ac]utus.

[......... d]ent d[e]ls ar[mes ......... l]a l[angu]e dels
[.........]

Ps 56:7a [........] [........] [<displaced>]gloria tu[a.]
[........] [f. 1va] en tute terre la tue glorie

Ps 56:6 Laqueum parauerunt pedibus meis ; et incuruauerunt
animam meam.

Laz apresterent a mes pez ; e encurberent la meie ame.

Foderunt ante faciem meam foueam ; et inciderunt in eam. Ps 56:7b
Foirent deuant la meie face fosse ; e enchairent en li.

Paratum cor meum deus paratum cor meum ; cantabo et
psalmum [displaced] dicam.

Aprestez est li miens cuers deus ; aprestez est mis cuers
io canterai é psalme dirrai.

Exurge gloria mea exurge psalterium et cithara ;
exurgam diluculo.

Esdrece tei sire meie glorie ; esdrece tei sater e harpe io
leuaria [displaced] ainz iorn.

Confitebor tibi in populis domine ; et psalmum dicam
tibi in gentibus.

Io regehirai a tei en poples sire ; e salme dirrai en gent.

Quoniam magnificata est usque a[d] celos misericordia
tua ; et usque a[d] nubes ueritas tua.

[K]er magnifiee est de[...] as [c]el[s] la tue misericorde e
[...... nu]/es la [t]ue uerite.

Exaltare s[uper cel]os deus [et super om]/nem terram
glor[ia tua.]

Seies esalce s[u]r les c[iels deus e sur] tute terre l[a] tue
g[lorie].

[text division]

SI VERE [......] / u[.........iudica]/te fi[lii ......] Ps 57:2

[.........] / [.........]

[Etenim corde iniquitates operamini] [f. 1vb] in terra ;
iniusticias manus uestre concinnant.

Ker el cuer eniquitez uus ourent en terre . torconeries les
uoz ma[displaced]ins composent.

Alienati sunt peccatores a uulua ; errauerunt ab utero
locuti sunt falsa.

Estrange sunt li pecheour de naisance ; foleerent de
uentre par[displaced]lerent falses coses.

Furor illis secundum similitudinem serpentis ; sicut
aspidis surde et obturantis aures suas.

Furur est a els selunc la semblance de serpent ; sicume
del surd serpent estupanz ses oreilles.

Que non exaudiet uocem incantancium ; et uenefici
incantantis sapienter.

La queue nen norra la uoiz des enchantanz sagement.

[D]eus conter[e]t dentes eorum in ore ipsorum ; [mo]l[a]s
l[eo]num confringet dominus.

Deus det[rib]lera les denz dels en la buch[e] d[e]ls
meimes les ioes des [.....]s[.....]i[.....]n[.....]a li sire.

[Ad nihil]um [d]euenient tanquam [aqua de]currens
i[nt]endit arcum [displaced] suum [displaced]donec infirmentur.

[......] de[u]end[run]t sic[u]me eueue [........... ent]ende
sun arc [....] [.........]

[.........] [.........] [.........] Ps 57:9

[.........] [.........] [.........]

[.........] [.........] [.........] Ps 57:10

[.........] [f. 2va] [......... si]cume uiande issi [..........]ez icels.
Maidstone Fragments

[text of the first fragment]

Ps 55:7a [f. 1ra] Habiterunt e se respondrunt ; il meisme le mien talum agaiterunt.

Ps 55:7b Sicut sustinuerunt animam meam pro nichilo saluos
+ Ps 55:8 facies illos ; in ira populos confrin[<displaced>]ges.

Sicum il sustindrent la mei ame ; pur nient salf les feras
en ire les poples freindras.

Ps 55:9a Deus uitam meam nunciaui tibi ; posuisti lacrimas meas
in conspectu tuo.

Deus la meie uie nuncei a tei ; tu posas mes lermes el
tuen esguardement.

Ps 55:9b + Sicut et in promissione tua ; tunc conduertentur inimici

Ps 55:10a mei re[<displaced>]trorsum.

Sicume en la tue pramesse ; lores serunt tresturne li
mien enemi arere.

Ps 55:10b In quacumque die inuocauero te ; ecce cognoui quoniam
deus meus es.

In quel quunques iurn apelerai tei ; eite tei io cuni . que
tu es li miens deus .

Ps 55:11 In deo laudabo uerbum [in] domino laudabo sermonem
[in] deo speraui . non timebo [...]ciat michi homo.

[E]n deu lo[e]rai p[...].] / nel lo[...].] / 
espera[...].]

Ps 55:12 [l]n m[e ...] / de[...].]

[E]n [...].] / l[...].]

Ps 55:13 [...].] / [...] / [...] [f. 1rb] in lumine uiuientium.

Ker tu deliuras la meie ame de mort e mes pez de sculurge-
ment que io plaise deuant deu en la lumere des uiuanz.

[text division]

Ps 56:2a MISERERE mei deus miserere mei ; quoniam in te confidit
ani[<displaced>]ma mea.

Merci aies de mei deus merci aies de mei ker en tei se fie
la mei aneme.

Ps 56:2b Et in unbra alarum tuarum sperabo ; donec transeat
iniquitas.

E en lumbre de tes eles esperrai ; desque trepast la felonie.

Ps 56:3 Clamabo ad deum altissimum ; deum qui benefecit michi.

Io crierai al deu altisme ; deu ki bien fist a mei.

Ps 56:4a Misit de celo et liberauit me ; dedit in oprobrium
conculcan[<displaced>]tes me.

Il en[u]eia del ciel e deliura mei duna en reproce les
calcanz mei.

Ps 56:4b Misit deus misericord[iam] suam et ue[rit]atem suam ; et
eripuit animam [me]am de medio catulorum le[onum ;]
dormiui conturbatus.

[Enueia] deus la sue misericorde e sa [ueritet e] deliura la
meie ame [del mi...] des ch[ael]s des lions . [...]nturbez.

Ps 56:5b [Filii homin]um de[nt]es eorum ar[ma et sagi]te ; et
lingua eorum [gladius ac]utus.

[... d]ent d[e]ls ar[mes ...] l]a l[angu]e dels
[...].]

Ps 56:7a [...] [...] [...] [displaced] gloria tu[a.].

[...].] [f. 1va] en tute terre la tue glorie

Ps 56:6 Laqueum parauerunt pedibus meis ; et incuruauerunt
animam meam.

Laz apresterent a mes pez ; e encurberent la meie ame.

Foderunt ante faciem meam foueam ; et inciderunt in eam.

Foirent deuant la meie face fosse ; e enchairent en li.

Paratum cor meum deus paratum cor meum ; cantabo et
psalmum [displaced] dicam.

Aprestez est li miens cuers deus ; aprestez est mis cuers
io canterai é psalme dirrai.

Exurge gloria mea exurge psalterium et cithara ;
exurgam diluculo.

Esdrece tei sire meie glorie ; esdrece tei sater e harpe io
leuaria [displaced] ainz iorn.

Confitebor tibi in populis domine ; et psalmum dicam
tibi in gentibus.

Io regehirai a tei en poples sire ; e salme dirrai en gent.

Quoniam magnificata est usque a[d] celos misericordia
tua ; et usque a[d] nubes ueritas tua.

[K]er magnifiee est de[...] as [c]el[s] la tue misericorde e
[... nu]/es la [t]ue uerite.

Exaltare s[uper cel]os deus [et super om]/nem terram
glor[ia tua.]

Seies esalce s[u]r les c[iels deus e sur] tute terre l[a] tue
g[lorie].

[text division]

SI VERE [... /] u[... iudica/]te fi[lii ...]

[...].] / [...]

[Etenim corde iniquitates operamini] [f. 1vb] in terra ;
iniusticias manus uestre concinnant.

Ker el cuer eniquitez uus ourent en terre . torconeries les
uoz ma[displaced]ins composent.

Alienati sunt peccatores a uulua ; errauerunt ab utero
locuti sunt falsa.

Estrange sunt li pecheour de naisance ; foleerent de
uentre par[displaced]lerent falses coses.

Furor illis secundum similitudinem serpentis ; sicut
aspidis surde et obturantis aures suas.

Furur est a els selunc la semblance de serpent ; sicume
del surd serpent estupanz ses oreilles.

Que non exaudiet uocem incantancium ; et uenefici
incantantis sapienter.

La queue nen norra la uoiz des enchantanz sagement.

[D]eus conter[e]t dentes eorum in ore ipsorum ; [mo]l[a]s
l[eo]num confringet dominus.

Deus det[rib]lera les denz dels en la buch[e] d[e]ls
meimes les ioes des [...]s[...]i[...]n[...]a li sire.

[Ad nihil]um [d]euenient tanquam [aqua de]currens
i[nt]endit arcum [displaced] suum [displaced] donec infirmentur.

[...].] de[u]end[run]t sic[u]me eueue [... ent]ende
sun arc [...].] [...].]

[...].] [...] [...]

[...].] [...] [...]

[...].] [...] [...]

[...].] [f. 2va] [...] si]cume uiande issi [...]ez icels.

Ps 56:7b

Ps 56:8

Ps 56:9

Ps 56:10

Ps 56:11

Ps 56:12

Ps 57:2

Ps 57:3

Ps 57:4

Ps 57:5

Ps 57:6

Ps 57:7

Ps 57:8

Ps 57:9

Ps 57:10
Ps 57:11 [Letabitur] iustus cum uiderit uin[dictam] ; manus suas lauabit in [san]guine peccatoris.

[Esl]eecera li iuste cum il uerra ueniance ; les sues mains leauera el sanc del peccheor.

Ps 57:12 [E]t dicet homo si utique est fructus iusto ; utique est deus iudicans eos in ter[<displaced>]ra.

E dirra li huem si acertes est fruit al iuste acertes est deus iuianz els en terre uiuant.

[text division]

Ps 58:2 ERIPE ME de inimicis meis deus meus ; et ab insurgentibus in me libera me.

Deliure mei de mes enenemis li miens deus ; e des esdrecanz encontre mei deliure mei.

Ps 58:3 Eripe me de operantibus iniquitatem ; et de uiris sanguinum salua me.

Deliure mei des ouranz iniquite e des homes de sanc salue mei.

Ps 58:4 Quia ecce ceperunt animam meam ; irruerunt in me fortes.

Ker eite tei il <pristrent> la meie aneme embruierent en mei li <displaced>] fort.

Ps 58:5 [N]eque iniquitas mea neque peccatum meum ; domine sine iniquitate cucurri et direxi.

Ne la meie felunie ne li miens pecchez sire ; sanz iniquite curu e adrecai.

Ps 58:6a Exurge in occursum meum et uide ; et tu domine deus uirtutum <displaced>] deus israel.

Esdrece tei el mien contrecors e uei ; e tu sire deus de uertuz ; deus israel.

Ps 58:6a [I]ntende ad uisitandas omnes gentes ; non miserearis omnibus qui [f. 2vb] operantur iniquitatem.

Entent a uisiter tutes genz ; nen aies merci de tuz ki ourent felu[<displaced>] nie.

Ps 58:7 Conuertentur ad uesperam et famem pacientur ut canes ; et circuibunt ciuitatem.

Il serunt conuerti al uespre e faim sufferunt cume chiens ; e auriu[<displaced>] nerunt la cite.

Ps 58:8 Ecce loquentur in ore suo ; et gladius in labiis eorum quoniam quis audiuit.

Eite tei il parlerunt en lur buche e glaives es leures de els. ker li <displaced>] quels oit.

Ps 58:9 Et tu domine deridebis eos ; ad nichilum deduces omnes gentes.

E tu sire les escharniras ; a neent demerras tutes genz.

Ps 58:10 Fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam ; quia deus susceptor + Ps 58:11 meus deus meus misericordia eius preueniet me.

La meie fortece a tei guarderai ker deus li mien receuere ; li miens deus la misericorde de lui deuancera mei.

Ps 58:12a Deus ostendit michi super inimicos meos ; ne occidas eos nequando obliuiscantur populi mei ;

Deus demustre a mei sur les miens enemis ne ocies els que alcune fiee ne oblient li mien pople.

Ps 58:12b Disperge illos in uirtute tua ; et depone eos protector meus domine.

Despant els en la tue uertu ; e depose els sire li mien defendere.

Ps 58:13a Delictum oris eorum sermonem labiorum ipsorum ; et comprehendantur in superbia sua.

Les mesfaiz de lur buche la parole de lur leures e seient compris en la <displaced>] lur superbe.

[f. 2ra] Et de execratione et mendatio ; anunciabuntur in consummatione ; in ira consummationis et non erunt.

E de execratione e mencunge annuncie serrunt en consummation. <line left blak>

Ps 58:13b + Ps 58:14

a(-b)

Et scient quia deus dominabitur iacob ; et finium terre.

En ire de consumation e nen erent e saurunt que deus seignoriera iacob e les fins de terre.

Ps 58:14 (b)-c

Conuertentur ad uesperam et famem pacientur ut canes ; et circuibunt <displaced>] ciuitatem.

Serunt conuerti al uespre e faim sufferunt ; a cume chens e auirunerunt la cite.

Ipsi dispergentur ad manducandum ; si uero non fuerint saturati et murmurabunt.

Il serunt esparpeille a manger acertes ne serunt saule e mur[<displaced>] murerent.

Ego autem cantabo fortitudinem tuam ; et exaltabo mane misericordiam tuam.

Mais io canterai la tue force e essalcerai par matin la tue mi[<displaced>] sericorde.

Quia factus es susceptor meus ; et refugium meum in die tribulationis mee.

Ker tu es faiz li miens receuere e li miens refuies el iorn de la me[<displaced>] ie tribulation.

Adiutor meus tibi psallam. quia deus susceptor meus es ; deus meus misericordia mea.

Li miens adiuuere a tei cantærai ker deus tu es li mens receuere ; li miens deus la meie misericor[<displaced>] de. <text division>

DEVS REPPVLISTI nos et destruxisti nos ira[f. 2vrb]tus es et misertu[s ......]

Deus tu debutas nus e [......] / nus irez es e as merci [......]

Commouisti terram et contu= / eam ; sana contriciones eiu[s quia] / commota est.

[T]u commous la terre e si la conturbas ; seign les contriciuns de le <displaced>] ker commoue est.

Ostendisti populo tuo dura ; potasti nos uino compunctionis.

Tu demustras al tuen pople dures choses abeuras nus del uin de compunction.

Dedisti metuentibus te significationem ; ut fugiant a facie arcus.

Tu dunas as cremanz tei signification que il fuient de la face del arc.

Vt liberentur dilecti tui ; saluum fac dextera tua et exaudi me.

Purco que seient deliure li tuen amet ; salf me fai par ta destre e oi mei.

Deus locutus est in sancto suo ; letabor et partibor siccimam et conuallem tabernaculorum metibor.

Ieus parla en sun saint io mesleecerai et departirai siccima ; e la ualee des tabernacles mesuerai.

Meus est galaad et meus est manases ; et effraim fortitudo capitis mei.

Miens est galaad miens est manases e effraim la fortece de <displaced>] mun chief.

Iuda rex meus ; moab olla spei <displaced>] mee.

Iude li miens reis ; moab le pot de la meie spee.

In idumeam extendam calcia[mentum meum ...] Ps 59:10b
Ps 57:11 [Letabitur] iustus cum uiderit uin[dictam] ; manus suas lauabit in [san]guine peccatoris.

[Esl]eecera li iuste cum il uerra ueniance ; les sues mains leauera el sanc del peccheor.

Ps 57:12 [E]t dicet homo si utique est fructus iusto ; utique est deus iudicans eos in ter[<displaced>]ra.

E dirra li huem si acertes est fruit al iuste acertes est deus iuianz els en terre uiuant.

[text division]

Ps 58:2 ERIPE ME de inimicis meis deus meus ; et ab insurgentibus in me libera me.

Deliure mei de mes enenemis li miens deus ; e des esdrecanz encontre mei deliure mei.

Ps 58:3 Eripe me de operantibus iniquitatem ; et de uiris sanguinum salua me.

Deliure mei des ouranz iniquite e des homes de sanc salue mei.

Ps 58:4 Quia ecce ceperunt animam meam ; irruerunt in me fortes.

Ker eite tei il <pristrent> la meie aneme embruierent en mei li <displaced>] fort.

Ps 58:5 [N]eque iniquitas mea neque peccatum meum ; domine sine iniquitate cucurri et direxi.

Ne la meie felunie ne li miens pecchez sire ; sanz iniquite curu e adrecai.

Ps 58:6a Exurge in occursum meum et uide ; et tu domine deus uirtutum <displaced>] deus israel.

Esdrece tei el mien contrecors e uei ; e tu sire deus de uertuz ; deus israel.

Ps 58:6a [I]ntende ad uisitandas omnes gentes ; non miserearis omnibus qui [f. 2vb] operantur iniquitatem.

Entent a uisiter tutes genz ; nen aies merci de tuz ki ourent felu[<displaced>] nie.

Ps 58:7 Conuertentur ad uesperam et famem pacientur ut canes ; et circuibunt ciuitatem.

Il serunt conuerti al uespre e faim sufferunt cume chiens ; e auriu[<displaced>] nerunt la cite.

Ps 58:8 Ecce loquentur in ore suo ; et gladius in labiis eorum quoniam quis audiuit.

Eite tei il parlerunt en lur buche e glaives es leures de els. ker li <displaced>] quels oit.

Ps 58:9 Et tu domine deridebis eos ; ad nichilum deduces omnes gentes.

E tu sire les escharniras ; a neent demerras tutes genz.

Ps 58:10 Fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam ; quia deus susceptor + Ps 58:11 meus deus meus misericordia eius preueniet me.

La meie fortece a tei guarderai ker <deus> li mien receuere ; li miens <deus> la misericorde de lui deuancera mei.

Ps 58:12a Deus ostendit michi super inimicos meos ; ne occidas eos nequando obliuiscantur populi mei ;

Deus demustre a mei sur les miens enemis ne ocies els que alcune fiee ne oblient li mien pople.

Ps 58:12b Disperge illos in uirtute tua ; et depone eos protector meus domine.

Despant els en la tue uertu ; e depose els sire li mien defendere.

Ps 58:13a Delictum oris eorum sermonem labiorum ipsorum ; et comprehendantur in superbia sua.

Les mesfaiz de lur buche la parole de lur leures e seient compris en la <displaced>] lur superbe.

[f. 2ra] Et de execratione et mendatio ; anunciabuntur in consummatione ; in ira consummationis et non erunt.

E de execratione e mencunge annuncie serrunt en consummation. <line left blak>

Et scient quia deus dominabitur iacob ; et finium terre.

En ire de consumation e nen erent e saurunt que deus seignoriera iacob e les fins de terre.

Conuertentur ad uesperam et famem pacientur ut canes ; et circuibunt <displaced>] ciuitatem.

Serunt conuerti al uespre e faim sufferunt ; a cume chens e auirunerunt la cite.

Ipsi dispergentur ad manducandum ; si uero non fuerint saturati et murmurabunt.

Il serunt esparpeille a manger acertes ne serunt saule e mur[<displaced>] murerent.

Ego autem cantabo fortitudinem tuam ; et exaltabo mane misericordiam tuam.

Mais io canterai la tue force e essalcerai par matin la tue mi[<displaced>] sericorde.

Quia factus es susceptor meus ; et refugium meum in die tribulationis mee.

Ker tu es faiz li miens receuere e li miens refuies el iorn de la me[<displaced>] ie tribulation.

Adiutor meus tibi psallam. quia deus susceptor meus es ; deus meus misericordia mea.

Li miens adiuuere a tei cantærai ker deus tu es li mens receuere ; li miens deus la meie misericor[<displaced>] de. <text division>

DEVS REPPVLISTI nos et destruxisti nos ira[f. 2vrb]tus es et misertu[s ......]

Deus tu debutas nus e [......] / nus irez es e as merci [......]

Commouisti terram et contu= / eam ; sana contriciones eiu[s quia] / commota est.

[T]u commous la terre e si la conturbas ; seign les contriciuns de le <displaced>] ker commoue est.

Ostendisti populo tuo dura ; potasti nos uino compunctionis.

Tu demustras al tuen pople dures choses abeuras nus del uin de compunction.

Dedisti metuentibus te significationem ; ut fugiant a facie arcus.

Tu dunas as cremanz tei signification que il fuient de la face del arc.

Vt liberentur dilecti tui ; saluum fac dextera tua et exaudi me.

Purco que seient deliure li tuen amet ; salf me fai par ta destre e oi mei.

Deus locutus est in sancto suo ; letabor et partibor siccimam et conuallem tabernaculorum metibor.

Ieus parla en sun saint io mesleecerai et departirai siccima ; e la ualee des tabernacles mesuerai.

Meus est galaad et meus est manases ; et effraim fortitudo capitis mei.

Miens est galaad miens est manases e effraim la fortece de <displaced>] mun chief.

Iuda rex meus ; moab olla spei <displaced>] mee.

Iude li miens reis ; moab le pot de la meie spee.

In idumeam extendam calcia[mentum meum ...] Ps 59:10b
[text of the second fragment]

Ps 68:15 [..................] [f. 3tra] me et de profundis aquarum .
Oste mei del fanc que io ne seie enzfiche de cels ki
hairent mei e des parfundeces des eues .

Ps 68:16 Non me demergat tempestas aque neque absorbeat me profundum ; neque urgeat super me puteus os suum .
Ne me plunge tempeste deue ne ne transglute mei la
parfundece ne ne constrainne sur mei li puiz sa buche .

Ps 68:17 Exaudi me domine quoniam benigna est misericordia tua ; secundum multitudinem miserat[i]onum tuarum respice in me .
Exoi mei sire kar benigna est ta misericorde selunc la
multitudene de tes merciz esguar[> displaced] de mei .

Ps 68:18 Et ne auertas faciem tuam a p?uero tuo ; quoniam tribulor uelociter exaudi me .
E ne desturner la tue face del tuen enfant ker io sui
trible isnelement oiez mei .

Ps 68:19 Intende anime mee et libera eam ; propter inimicos meos eri[> displaced]pe me .
Entendez a la meie amme e deliu[re li p]ur les miens e
nen[......] mei .

Ps 68:20 T[u s]cis [..................et] confu[s]i[onem ........ reuer]en- [t]iam [>displaced] meam .
[..................] e ma / [.................. reuer]ence .

Ps 68:21a [In conspectu tuo sunt omnes q]ui / [.........] / [.........]
[.........] / [.........] / [.........]

Ps 68:21b [f. 3rb] Et sustinui qui simul contristaretur et non fuit ; et qui consolaretur et non inueni .
E io suztinc ki ensemblement o mei tristast e ne fu ; ki
ne confortast e nel truuai .

Ps 68:22 Et dederunt in escam meam fel ; et in siti mea potau- erunt me [> displaced] aceto .
E dunerent en ma uiande fel ; e en la meie sei abeurerent
mei [> displaced] de aisil .

Ps 68:23 Fiat mensa eorum coram ipsis in laqueum ; et in retribu- tiones et in scandalum .

Seit fait la lur table devant els en laz e en guerredons e
en [> displaced] scandele .

Ps 68:24 Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant ; et dorsum eorum semper in curua .
Seient oscure li oil dels que il ne ueient ; e le dos de els
tute ueie en curue .

Ps 68:25 Effunde super eos iram tuam ; et furor ire tue conpre- hendat eos .
Espant sur els la tue ire ; e la furor de la tue ire
comprenge els .

Ps 68:26 Fiat habitatio eorum deserta ; et in tabernaculis eorum non sit qui inhabitet .
Seit faite le habitacion de els deserte ; e en lur tabernac- les ne seit [> displaced] ki i habite .

Ps 68:27 Quoniam quem tu percussisti persecuti sunt ; et super dolorem uulnerum meorum addiderunt .
Ker celui que tu feris parseuuirent e sur la dolor de mes
plaies aiusterent .

Appone iniquitatem super iniquitatem eorum ; et non intrent in iustitiam tuam .

E pose felunie sur l[a] felunie de els e ne [..]tre[..] en
[l]a tue iustice .

[f. 3val] Deleantur de libro uiuentium ; et cum iustis non scribantur .

Ego sum pauper et dolens . salus tua deus suscepit me .

Io sui poures e dolent la tue saluz deus recout mei .

Laudabo nomen dei cum cantico ; et magnificabo eum in laude .

Io loerai le num de deu o chant e magnifierai lui en loenge .

Et placebit deo super uitulum nouellum ; cornua produ- centem et ungulas .

E plaisirat a deu sur ueel nuuel ; cornes fors menant e
ungles .

Videant pauperes et letentur ; querite deum . et uiuet anima uestra .

Veient li poure e esleecent querez deu e uiura uostre ame .

Quoniam exaudiuit pauperes dominus ; et uinctos suos non despexit .

Ker oi les poures li sire e ses liez ne despist .

Laudent illum celi et terra ; mare et omnia reptilia in eis .

Loent li ciel e terre mer e tutes choses rampantes en els .

Quoniam deus saluam faciet syon ; et edificabuntur ciuitates iude .

Ker deus salue fera syon e serunt edifiedes les citez de iude .

Et inhabitabunt ibi ; et hereditate adquirent eam .

E enhabiterunt iloc ; e par herite aquerrunt le .

Et semen seruorum eius possidebit eam ; et qui diligunt nomen eius habitabunt in ea .

[E] la semence de sers purserra le ; e ki aiment le sun num habite[> displaced]runt en le .

[text division]

[f. 3vb] Devs in adiutorium meum intende ; domine ad adiuandum me festina .

Deus en la meie adiutorie entent ; sire a aiuuer mei haste tei .

Confundantur et reuereantur ; qui querunt animam meam .

Seient confundu e redutent ; ki querent la meie ame .

Auertantur retrorsum et erubescant ; qui uolunt michi mala .

Seient desturne tost e uergundissent ; ki uolent a mei mals .

Auertantur statim et erubescentes ; qui dicunt michi euge euge .

Seient destorne tost e uergundissent ; ki dient a mei
eimunore eimunore .

Exultent et letentur in te omnes qui querunt te ; et dicant semper magnificetur dominus qui diligunt [> displaced]salutare tuum .

Esioent e esleecent en tei tuit ki querent tei ; e dient tutes
ures seit magnefie li sire ki aiment sun salu[..]r .

Ego uero egenus [et p]auper sum ; deus adiuua [me .]

Io acertes [.........] poures sui ; de[us ...........]

Adiutor [..................]r meus es tu ; [..................]

Li m[iens ....................]

Ps 68:28

Ps 68:29

Ps 68:30

Ps 68:31

Ps 68:32

Ps 68:33

Ps 68:34

Ps 68:35

Ps 68:36a

Ps 68:36b

Ps 68:37

Ps 69:2

Ps 69:4a
(-b mixed)

Ps 69:4b

Ps 69:5

Ps 69:6a

Ps 69:6b
[text of the second fragment]

Ps 68:15 [..................] [f. 3tra] me et de profundis aquarum .
Oste mei del fanc que io ne seie enzfiche de cels ki
hairent mei e des parfundeces des eues .

Ps 68:16 Non me demergat tempestas aque neque absorbeat me profundum ; neque urgeat super me puteus os suum .
Ne me plunge tempeste deue ne ne transglute mei la
parfundece ne ne constrainne sur mei li puiz sa buche .

Ps 68:17 Exaudi me domine quoniam benigna est misericordia tua ; secundum multitudinem miserat[i]onum tuarum respice in me .
Exoi mei sire kar benigna est ta misericorde selunc la
multitudene de tes merciz esguar[> displaced] de mei .

Ps 68:18 Et ne auertas faciem tuam a p?uero tuo ; quoniam tribulor uelociter exaudi me .
E ne desturner la tue face del tuen enfant ker io sui
trible isnelement oiez mei .

Ps 68:19 Intende anime mee et libera eam ; propter inimicos meos eri[> displaced]pe me .
Entendez a la meie amme e deliu[re li p]ur les miens e
nen[......] mei .

Ps 68:20 T[u s]cis [..................et] confu[s]i[onem ........ reuer]en- [t]iam [>displaced] meam .
[..................] e ma / [.................. reuer]ence .

Ps 68:21a [In conspectu tuo sunt omnes q]ui / [.........] / [.........]
[.........] / [.........] / [.........]

Ps 68:21b [f. 3rb] Et sustinui qui simul contristaretur et non fuit ; et qui consolaretur et non inueni .
E io suztinc ki ensemblement o mei tristast e ne fu ; ki
ne confortast e nel truuai .

Ps 68:22 Et dederunt in escam meam fel ; et in siti mea potau- erunt me [> displaced] aceto .
E dunerent en ma uiande fel ; e en la meie sei abeurerent
mei [> displaced] de aisil .

Ps 68:23 Fiat mensa eorum coram ipsis in laqueum ; et in retribu- tiones et in scandalum .

Seit fait la lur table devant els en laz e en guerredons e
en [> displaced] scandele .

Ps 68:24 Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant ; et dorsum eorum semper in curua .
Seient oscure li oil dels que il ne ueient ; e le dos de els
tute ueie en curue .

Ps 68:25 Effunde super eos iram tuam ; et furor ire tue conpre- hendat eos .
Espant sur els la tue ire ; e la furor de la tue ire
comprenge els .

Ps 68:26 Fiat habitatio eorum deserta ; et in tabernaculis eorum non sit qui inhabitet .
Seit faite le habitacion de els deserte ; e en lur tabernac- les ne seit [> displaced] ki i habite .

Ps 68:27 Quoniam quem tu percussisti persecuti sunt ; et super dolorem uulnerum meorum addiderunt .
Ker celui que tu feris parseuuirent e sur la dolor de mes
plaies aiusterent .

Appone iniquitatem super iniquitatem eorum ; et non intrent in iustitiam tuam .
E pose felunie sur l[a] felunie de els e ne [..]tre[..] en
[l]a tue iustice .

[f. 3va] Deleantur de libro uiuentium ; et cum iustis non scribantur .
Ego sum pauper et dolens . salus tua deus suscepit me .
Io sui poures e dolent la tue saluz deus recout mei .

Laudabo nomen dei cum cantico ; et magnificabo eum in laude .
Io loerai le num de deu o chant e magnifierai lui en loenge .

Et placebit deo super uitulum nouellum ; cornua produ- centem et ungulas .
E plaisirat a deu sur ueel nuuel ; cornes fors menant e
ungles .

Videant pauperes et letentur ; querite deum . et uiuet anima uestra .
Veient li poure e esleecent querez deu e uiura uostre ame .

Quoniam exaudiuit pauperes dominus ; et uinctos suos non despexit .
Ker oi les poures li sire e ses liez ne despist .

Laudent illum celi et terra ; mare et omnia reptilia in eis .
Loent li ciel e terre mer e tutes choses rampantes en els .

Quoniam deus saluam faciet syon ; et edificabuntur ciuitates iude .
Ker deus salue fera syon e serunt edifiedes les citez de iude .

Et inhabitabunt ibi ; et hereditate adquirent eam .
Et habiterunt iloc ; e par herite aquerrunt le .

Et semen seruorum eius possidebit eam ; et qui diligunt nomen eius habitabunt in ea .
[E] la semence de sers purserra le ; e ki aiment le sun
num habite[> displaced]runt en le .

Et inhabitabunt ibi ; et hereditate adquirent eam .
Et habiterunt iloc ; e par herite aquerrunt le .

Et semen seruorum eius possidebit eam ; et qui diligunt nomen eius habitabunt in ea .
[E] la semence de sers purserra le ; e ki aiment le sun
num habite[> displaced]runt en le .

[text division]
[. 3vb] Devs in adiutorium meum intende ; domine ad adiuandum me festina .
Deus en la meie adiutorie entent ; sire a aiuuer mei haste tei .

Confundantur et reuereantur ; qui querunt animam meam .
Seient confundu e redutent ; ki querent la meie ame .

Auertantur retrorsum et erubescant ; qui uolunt michi mala .
Seient desturne tost e uergundissent ; ki uolent a mei mals .

Auertantur statim et erubescentes ; qui dicunt michi euge euge .
Seient destorne tost e uergundissent ; ki dient a mei
eimunore eimunore .

Exultent et letentur in te omnes qui querunt te ; et dicant semper magnificetur dominus qui diligunt [> displaced]salutare tuum .
Esioent e esleecent en tei tuit ki querent tei ; e dient tutes
ures seit magnefie li sire ki aiment sun salu[..]r .

Ego uero egenus [et p]auper sum ; deus adiuua [me .]
Io acertes [.........] poures sui ; de[us ............]

Adiutor [..................]r meus es tu ; [..................]
Li m[iens ....................]

Ego uero egenus [et p]auper sum ; deus adiuua [me .]
Io acertes [.........] poures sui ; de[us ............]
Adiutor [..................]r meus es tu ; [..................]

Li m[iens ....................]
Bibliographical Abbreviations

Agrigoroaei 2011—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Histoire des traduc-
tions en français au XIIe siècle,” (PhD diss., University of Poitiers,
2011), 2 vols.

Agrigoroaei 2016—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Les traductions de la Bible aux XIIe-xIIIe siècles, *videlicet Biblia Francorum* (Les psautiers),” (PhD diss., University of Verona, 2016).

Agrigoroaei 2019—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Un manuscrit partagé par deux cultures: le vieil anglais et l’ancien français dans une Règle de saint Benoît” (Ms. Londres, British Library, Cotton Titus A iv), *Studi Mediolatini e Volgari* 66 (2019): 5–15.

Agrigoroaei 2020—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Un manuscrit partagé par deux cultures: le vieil-anglais et l’ancien français dans une Règle de Saint Benoît” (ms. Londres, British Library, Cotton Titus A IV), *Studi médiolatini e volgari* 66 (2020): 5–15.

Agrigoroaei 2023—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Identical Language Automatisms and Translation Clusters in the Old French Oxford Psalter and Eadwine Psalter: Analysis of Ps 151,” in *Translation Automatisms in the Vernacular Texts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period*, eds. Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 122–129.

Agrigoroaei, Sasu 2023—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu, “Translation Clusters, Translation Units, and Language Automatisms: Describing Organic Language Phenomena Found in Translation,” in *Translation Automatisms in the Vernacular Texts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period*, eds. Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 296–304.

Agrigoroaei, Sasu, Voleková, Svobodová, Korondi, Ungureanu, Gînsac 2023—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu, Kateřina Voleková, Andrea Svobodová, Katarzyna Jasińska, Ágnes Korondi, Mădălina Ungureanu, Ana Maria Gînsac, “A Pan-European Translation Cluster? Synonymic Variations in the Vernacular Translation Choices for τυμπανιστριαί / tympanistriae (Ps 67:26),” in *Translation Automatisms in the Vernacular Texts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period*, eds. Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 296–304.

Albon 1913—(Marquis) d’Albon (ed.), *Le Livre des Juges. Les cinq textes de la version française faite au XIIe siècle pour les chevaliers du Temple* (Lyon: Rey, 1913).

AND—Anglo-Norman Dictionary, Aberystwyth University [online: https://anglo-norman.net/ Accessed 22.11.2023]

Bauer 2017—Bernhard Bauer, “Different Types of Language Contact in the Early Medieval Celtic Glosses,” *Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium* 37 (2017): 33–46.

Bauer, Krivoshchekova 2022—Bernhard Bauer, Victoria Krivoshchekova, “Definitions, dialectic and Irish grammatical theory in Carolingian glosses on Priscian: a case study using a close and distant reading approach,” *Language & History* 65/2 (2022): 85–112.

Berger 1884—Samuel Berger, *La Bible française au moyen âge: étude sur les plus anciennes versions de la Bible écrites en prose de langue d’Oïl* (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884).

Best 1936—*The Commentary on the Psalms with Glosses in Old Irish preserved in the Ambrosian Library*, ed. R. I. Best (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1936).

Beyer 1887—A. Beyer, “Die Londoner Psalterhandschrift A-rundel 230,” *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 11 (1887): 513–534.

Beyer 1888—A. Beyer, “Die Londoner Psalterhandschrift A-rundel 230 (S. Ztschr. XI 513),” *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 12 (1888): 1–56.

Blom 2017—Alderik H. Blom, *Glossing the Psalms. The Emergence of the Written Vernaculars in Western Europe from the Seventh to the Twelfth Centuries* (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2017).

Brachet 1870—Auguste Brachet, “Le ‘Psautier’ d’Oxford,” *Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature* 5/2 (1870): 254–258.

Bremmer 2007—Rolf H. Bremmer, “Footprints of Monastic In-
struction: A Latin Psalter with Interverbal Old Frisian Glosses,”
in *Space, Text and Margin in Medieval Manuscripts*, eds. Sarah
Larratt Keefer, Rolf H. Bremmer Jr (Paris: Peeters, 2007), 203–
233.

Busby 2002—Keith Busby, *Codex and Context. Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript* (Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, 2002), 2 vols.

Careri, Lacanale 2015—Maria Careri, Marcella Lacanale, “Accents et syllabes dans les manuscrits anglo-normands,” in *Anglo-français : philologie et linguistique*, eds. Oreste Floquet, Gabriele Giannini (Paris: Classques Garnier, 2015), 35–44.

Careri, Ruby, Short 2011—Maria Careri, Christine Ruby, Ian Short (dir.), *Livres et écritures en français et en occitan au XIIe siècle. Catalogue illustré*, avec la collaboration de T. Nixon et P. Stirnemann (Rome: Viella, 2011).

Cornu 1878—Jules Cornu, “Conjugaison des verbes aidier, arais-
nier et mangier,” *Romania* 7/27 (1878): 420–432.

Cornu 1881a—Jules Cornu, “De l’influence régressive de l’i atone sur les voyelles toniques,” *Romania* 10/37–38 (1881): 216–217.

Cornu 1881b—Jules Cornu, “Valeur de ch dans la prose de sainte Eulalie, la vie de saint Alexis, la chanson de Roland et les psauiers d’Oxford et de Cambridge,” *Romania* 10/39 (1881): 401–402.

Crowley 2000—Joseph Crowley, “Anglicized Word Order in Old English Continuous Interlinear Glosses in British Library, Royal 2. A. xx,” *Anglo-Saxon England* 29 (2000): 123–151.

Curtius 1911—Ernst Robert Curtius (ed.), *Li quatre livre des Reis. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige in einer französischen Bearbeitung des 12. Jahrhunderts nach der ältesten Handschrift unter Benutzung der neu aufgefundenen Handschriften kritisch herausgegeben* (Dresden: Gesellschaft für romanische Literatur, 1911).

DEAFél—*Dictionnaire étymologique de l'ancien français* (version électronique), Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften [online https://www.deaf-page.de/ Accessed 29.11.2023]

Faulde 1880—O. Faulde, “Über Gemination im Altfranzösischen,” *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 4 (1880): 542–570.

Förster 1914—Margarete Förster, “Die französischen Psalmen-
übersetzungen vom XII. bis zum Ende des XVIII. Jahrhunderts: ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der französischen Übersetzungskunst”
(PhD diss., University Friedrich-Wilhelms, Berlin, 1914).

Franzén 1939—Torsten Franzén, *Étude sur la syntaxe des pro-
noms personnels sujets en ancien français* (Uppsala: Almqvist/
Wiksells, 1939).

Freeth 1974—S. Freeth, *Catalogue of Medieval Fragments* (Maid-
stone: Kent County Council, Archives Office, 1972).

Geddes 2005—Jane Geddes, *The St Albans Psalter. A Book for Chris-
tina of Markyate* (London: The British Library, 2005).

Gerry 2009—Kathryn Gerry, “The Alexis Quire and the Cult of Saints at St Albans,” *Historical Research* 82 (2009): 593–612.

Gerry 2013—Kathryn Gerry, “Cult and Codex: Alexis, Christina and the St Albans Psalter,” in *Der Albani Psalter. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung / The St Albans Psalter. Current Research and Perspectives*, eds. J. Bepler, Ch. Heitzmann (Hildesheim et al.: Georg Olms, 2013), 69–95.

Gnädinger 1972—Louise Gnädinger, *Eremitica: Studien zur altfran-
mzösischen Heiligenvita des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts* (Tübingen: Nie-
meyer, 1972).

Gneuss 1972—Helmut Gneuss, “The origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold’s school at Winchester,” *Anglo-Saxon England* 1 (1972): 63–83.

Gneuss 1990—Helmut Gneuss, “The Study of Language in Anglo-Saxon England,” *Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library in Manchester* 72/1 (1990): 3–32.

Gneuss 1993—Helmut Gneuss, “Anglicae linguae interpretatio: Lexical Contact, Lexical Borrowing and Glossing in Anglo-Saxon England,” *Proceedings of the British Academy* 82 (1993): 107–148.

Grange 2015—Huw Grange, “A Paraphrase of the ‘Miserere’ in Anglo-Norman Verse (Lambeth Palace, MS 431),” *Medium Æ-vum* 84/1 (2015): 40–59.

Grauwe 1990—L. de Grauwe, “Zur Wortwahl der altfriesischen Psalmenglossen im Umkreis der germanischen Überlieferung: Eigenständigkeit oder Tradition?,” in *Aspects of Old Frisian Philology*, eds. Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, Geart van der Meer, Oebele
Bibliographical Abbreviations

Agrigoroaei 2011—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Histoire des traduc-
tions en français au XIIe siècle,” (PhD diss., University of Poitiers,
2011), 2 vols.

Agrigoroaei 2016—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Les traductions de la Bible aux XIIe-xIIIe siècles, *videlicet Biblia Francorum* (Les psautiers),” (PhD diss., University of Verona, 2016).

Agrigoroaei 2019—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Un manuscrit partagé par deux cultures: le vieil anglais et l’ancien français dans une Règle de saint Benoît” (Ms. Londres, British Library, Cotton Titus A iv), *Studi Mediolatini e Volgari* 66 (2019): 5–15.

Agrigoroaei 2020—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Un manuscrit partagé par deux cultures: le vieil-anglais et l’ancien français dans une Règle de Saint Benoît” (ms. Londres, British Library, Cotton Titus A IV), *Studi médiolatini e volgari* 66 (2020): 5–15.

Agrigoroaei 2023—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, “Identical Language Automatisms and Translation Clusters in the Old French Oxford Psalter and Eadwine Psalter: Analysis of Ps 151,” in *Translation Automatisms in the Vernacular Texts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period*, eds. Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 122–129.

Agrigoroaei, Sasu 2023—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu, “Translation Clusters, Translation Units, and Language Automatisms: Describing Organic Language Phenomena Found in Translation,” in *Translation Automatisms in the Vernacular Texts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period*, eds. Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 296–304.

Agrigoroaei, Sasu, Voleková, Svobodová, Korondi, Ungureanu, Gînsac 2023—Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu, Kateřina Voleková, Andrea Svobodová, Katarzyna Jasińska, Ágnes Korondi, Mădălina Ungureanu, Ana Maria Gînsac, “A Pan-European Translation Cluster? Synonymic Variations in the Vernacular Translation Choices for τυμπανιστριαί / tympanistriae (Ps 67:26),” in *Translation Automatisms in the Vernacular Texts of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period*, eds. Vladimir Agrigoroaei, Ileana Sasu (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 296–304.

Albon 1913—(Marquis) d’Albon (ed.), *Le Livre des Juges. Les cinq textes de la version française faite au XIIe siècle pour les chevaliers du Temple* (Lyon: Rey, 1913).

AND—Anglo-Norman Dictionary, Aberystwyth University [online: https://anglo-norman.net/ Accessed 22.11.2023]

Bauer 2017—Bernhard Bauer, “Different Types of Language Contact in the Early Medieval Celtic Glosses,” *Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium* 37 (2017): 33–46.

Bauer, Krivoshchekova 2022—Bernhard Bauer, Victoria Krivoshchekova, “Definitions, dialectic and Irish grammatical theory in Carolingian glosses on Priscian: a case study using a close and distant reading approach,” *Language & History* 65/2 (2022): 85–112.

Berger 1884—Samuel Berger, *La Bible française au moyen âge: étude sur les plus anciennes versions de la Bible écrites en prose de langue d’Oïl* (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884).

Best 1936—*The Commentary on the Psalms with Glosses in Old Irish preserved in the Ambrosian Library*, ed. R. I. Best (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1936).

Beyer 1887—A. Beyer, “Die Londoner Psalterhandschrift Arundel 230,” *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 11 (1887): 513–534.

Beyer 1888—A. Beyer, “Die Londoner Psalterhandschrift Arundel 230 (S. Ztschr. XI 513),” *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 12 (1888): 1–56.

Blom 2017—Alderik H. Blom, *Glossing the Psalms. The Emergence of the Written Vernaculars in Western Europe from the Seventh to the Twelfth Centuries* (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2017).

Brachet 1870—Auguste Brachet, “Le ‘Psautier’ d’Oxford,” *Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature* 5/2 (1870): 254–258.

Bremmer 2007—Rolf H. Bremmer, “Footprints of Monastic In-
struction: A Latin Psalter with Interverbal Old Frisian Glosses,”
in *Space, Text and Margin in Medieval Manuscripts*, eds. Sarah
Larratt Keefer, Rolf H. Bremmer Jr (Paris: Peeters, 2007), 203–
233.

Busby 2002—Keith Busby, *Codex and Context. Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript* (Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, 2002), 2 vols.

Careri, Lacanale 2015—Maria Careri, Marcella Lacanale, “Accents et syllabes dans les manuscrits anglo-normands,” in *Anglo-français : philologie et linguistique*, eds. Oreste Floquet, Gabriele Giannini (Paris: Classques Garnier, 2015), 35–44.

Careri, Ruby, Short 2011—Maria Careri, Christine Ruby, Ian Short (dir.), *Livres et écritures en français et en occitan au XIIe siècle. Catalogue illustré*, avec la collaboration de T. Nixon et P. Stirnemann (Rome: Viella, 2011).

Cornu 1878—Jules Cornu, “Conjugaison des verbes aidier, arais-
nier et mangier,” *Romania* 7/27 (1878): 420–432.

Cornu 1881a—Jules Cornu, “De l’influence régressive de l’i atone sur les voyelles toniques,” *Romania* 10/37–38 (1881): 216–217.

Cornu 1881b—Jules Cornu, “Valeur de ch dans la prose de sainte Eulalie, la vie de saint Alexis, la chanson de Roland et les psauiers d’Oxford et de Cambridge,” *Romania* 10/39 (1881): 401–402.

Crowley 2000—Joseph Crowley, “Anglicized Word Order in Old English Continuous Interlinear Glosses in British Library, Royal 2. A. xx,” *Anglo-Saxon England* 29 (2000): 123–151.

Curtius 1911—Ernst Robert Curtius (ed.), *Li quatre livre des Reis. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige in einer französischen Bearbeitung des 12. Jahrhunderts nach der ältesten Handschrift unter Benutzung der neu aufgefundenen Handschriften kritisch herausgegeben* (Dresden: Gesellschaft für romanische Literatur, 1911).

DEAFél—*Dictionnaire étymologique de l'ancien français* (version électronique), Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften [online https://www.deaf-page.de/ Accessed 29.11.2023]

Faulde 1880—O. Faulde, “Über Gemination im Altfranzösischen,” *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 4 (1880): 542–570.

Förster 1914—Margarete Förster, “Die französischen Psalmen-
übersetzungen vom XII. bis zum Ende des XVIII. Jahrhunderts: ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der französischen Übersetzungskunst”
(PhD diss., University Friedrich-Wilhelms, Berlin, 1914).

Franzén 1939—Torsten Franzén, *Étude sur la syntaxe des pro-
noms personnels sujets en ancien français* (Uppsala: Almqvist/
Wiksells, 1939).

Freeth 1974—S. Freeth, *Catalogue of Medieval Fragments* (Maidstone: Kent County Council, Archives Office, 1972).

Geddes 2005—Jane Geddes, *The St Albans Psalter. A Book for Christina of Markyate* (London: The British Library, 2005).

Gerry 2009—Kathryn Gerry, “The Alexis Quire and the Cult of Saints at St Albans,” *Historical Research* 82 (2009): 593–612.

Gerry 2013—Kathryn Gerry, “Cult and Codex: Alexis, Christina and the St Albans Psalter,” in *Der Albani Psalter. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung / The St Albans Psalter. Current Research and Perspectives*, eds. J. Bepler, Ch. Heitzmann (Hildesheim et al.: Georg Olms, 2013), 69–95.

Gnädinger 1972—Louise Gnädinger, *Eremitica: Studien zur altfranzösischen Heiligenvita des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts* (Tübingen: Nie-meyer, 1972).

Gneuss 1972—Helmut Gneuss, “The origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold’s school at Winchester,” *Anglo-Saxon England* 1 (1972): 63–83.

Gneuss 1990—Helmut Gneuss, “The Study of Language in Anglo-Saxon England,” *Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library in Manchester* 72/1 (1990): 3–32.

Gneuss 1993—Helmut Gneuss, “Anglicae linguae interpretatio: Lexical Contact, Lexical Borrowing and Glossing in Anglo-Saxon England,” *Proceedings of the British Academy* 82 (1993): 107–148.

Grange 2015—Huw Grange, “A Paraphrase of the ‘Miserere’ in Anglo-Norman Verse (Lambeth Palace, MS 431),” *Medium Æ-vum* 84/1 (2015): 40–59.

Grauwe 1990—L. de Grauwe, “Zur Wortwahl der altfriesischen Psalmenglossen im Umkreis der germanischen Überlieferung: Eigenständigkeit oder Tradition?,” in *Aspects of Old Frisian Philology*, eds. Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, Geart van der Meer, Oebele