Words are the most basic as well as the most potent carriers of cultural memory. The focus of this impressive volume, dedicated to the memory of the Old and Middle English scholar Hans Sauer (1946-2022), is essentially bilingual lexicography in the middle ages, involving Latin and the languages of the non-Romance areas of north-western Europe. Designed as a “reference work for researchers,” (15) this book is the outcome of a conversation among the Editors begun in 2016 and placed on a purposeful footing with an International Exploratory Workshop funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation in 2017. As lists of words compiled from even earlier glossaries, with explanations, usually organised alphabetically, [1] there are many aspects that medieval glossaries have in common, but there is also enormous diversity in types, sources, functions and contexts of transmission, as well as the traditions of scholarship about them.
The volume draws together many different strands of research, both in the actual topics and glossaries discussed and the consideration of earlier scholars’ interpretations. The focus on glossary traditions in Britain and Ireland as well as “Germanic speaking areas on the Continent” (15) highlights what the Editors refer to as “the negotiation of linguistic and cultural barriers” (23). The book is divided into four sections: Cultural, Intellectual and Textual Contexts (8 chapters); Glossaries from Britain and Ireland (16 chapters); Continental Germanic and Scandinavian Glossaries (21 chapters covering Old High German, High German, Old Saxon, Middle Low German, Middle Dutch and Medieval Scandinavian glossaries); and, in the final section, four chapters discussing “From Medieval to Renaissance Lexicography.” Many chapters discuss a single glossary, and do so with full linguistic expertise and attention to the contexts and transmission. It would be advisable to read the Introduction first before sampling any of the chapters, so that the variation between traditions dealt with in the individual chapters can be understood. Some authors summarise a wealth of scholarship on famous glossaries; others introduce the reader to new examples. The reference book framework means that sections of many of the articles offer handbook-type summaries: Rolf H Bremmer’s concise commentary on Ælfric’s Glossary is a case in point.
I Cultural, intellectual and textual contexts: Claudia Wich-Reif launches the thematic sections, with a chapter on a “typology of glossaries” according to their origin or process of rearrangement, viz, topical (biblical, legal, herbal, animal) and alphabetical glossaries, all of which can be further subdivided according to how they are arranged. She provides examples of all three general types in Old High German, Old or Middle English, Old French/Anglo-Norman. She stresses that glossaries cover words in need of explanation. They do not set out to cover the lexis of a language in the way that dictionaries do. Rolf H. Bremmer highlights translingualism; that is, language as a resource in cultural interchange. For him, glossaries have an “enhanced heuristic function” in the process of foreign language learning (74), an opportunity to expand vocabulary and act as conduits of encyclopaedic knowledge. Kees Dekker augments the latter in his chapter on glosses, glossaries and “wisdom texts” (i.e. texts of an encyclopaedic nature) by pointingout (98) that a glossary depended on the type of implicit question that lies at the basis of a gloss. Thus an interpretamentum can be a synonym, a translation, a definition, a description, an encyclopaedic comment, an exegetical comment, or an excursus.
Part II of the book, Glossaries from Britain and Ireland, contains chapters covering Britain and Ireland from the early years of the consolidation of Christianity and the contribution of the school of Canterbury in relation to the study of the Latin Bible under Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury (668-90), to the Renaissance period during which the Humanists’ classical Latin established itself. Considerable attention, reflecting the volume of past scholarship, is devoted to the so-called Leiden group whose origin is currently associated with late seventh-century Canterbury. [2] The manuscripts in this group share words that occur in the distinctive glossae collectae, namely, groups of words labelled as deriving from particular books of the Bible and other key early medieval texts, some no doubt deriving from earlier collections, preserved in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS VLQ 69. This codex was written at St Gall c. 800 and is discussed in judicious detail by Rolf H. Bremmer and Kees Dekker. The late Hans Sauer provides a survey of the earliest English collections (the “Épinal-Erfurt,” “Corpus,” “Cleopatra,” and “Antwerp-London” glossaries known from the particular codices in which they survive) with particular reference to some of the Old English words included. These collections are also discussed in separate chapters by Philip G. Rusche and David W. Porter. Porter highlights the Latinised Greek and Hebrew head words included in the Épinal-Erfurt glossary which also contains Old Irish and abut 1,100 Old English glosses. Although the facsimile of the Épinal-Erfurt codex edited by Bernhard Bischoff and others in 1988 is mentioned, the full reference was omitted from the volume’s Bibliography. [3]
The making of glossaries was a perpetual process of partial recycling and addition, and a nexus of relationships between the surviving copies is unmistakeable. With Lucia Kornexl’s chapter on Ælfric’s glossary, however, there is certainty at last about both the compiler and the monastic teaching context. This strengthens assumptions about the function of this class glossary (i.e., ordered as words in subject groups, such as fish, birds, animals, plants, trees, buildings, etc.) as a practical didactic compilation. Richard Marsden provides a survey of glossaries and biblical learning in early medieval England which provides an additional context for the individual glossaries mentioned in this section. It neatly complements the chapters on Aldhelm (Emily V. Thornbury), legal glossaries (Sara M. Pons-Sanz) and the herbal glossaries which include many English plant names (Hans Sauer).
The Bible remained a focus for glossary compilers. Bilingual glossaries became prominent in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when English appears to have been elevated “as a valid vehicle for the continuation of the Christian interpretative tradition” (Marsden, 252). Heather Pagan describes how French in England started out as the spoken language of the new elite after the socio-political changes consequent on the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. French was learnt as a second language by the gentry, but by the end of the middle ages it was a foreign language taught via Latin or English. A fascinating glimpse of the aids available for learning French are the bilingual verse vocabularies discussed by Thomas Hinton, such as Walter of Bibbesworth’s Tretiz from the middle of the thirteenth century (also mentioned by Pagan). The Tretiz is written in rhymed Anglo-Norman verse with glosses in Middle English. Hinton gives an example of the interest in homophones with words for red in the Tretiz: a knight whose hair is rous, on a sor horse, carrying a shield of goules, a rouge lance and a glass of vermaille wine. Patrizia Lendinara offers an account of Middle English glossaries from the twelfth century. These preserve what appear to be new French as well as English and class glossaries.
One notable expansion of the possible functional context of such word lists is the way household accounts spawned specific glossaries. Claudio Cataldi, for example, explains the Latin--Anglo-Norman glossaries preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley MS 730, in which there is a striking concentration of agricultural vocabulary, animal and plant names and an interesting example of voces variae animantium (the sounds made by animals). By the end of the Middle English period, moreover, as Annette Horn establishes, the character of the bilingual glossaries changes. The vernacular is often used for the headwords and all parts of speech are included. Middle English was increasingly used in literary and a variety of technical and official contexts, as well as remaining a tool for Latin learning. A precise origin has been established for the Promptorium parvulorum (Storehouse for the little ones) compiled by a Dominican living in King’s Lynn in Norfolk, England. In contrast to the limited circulation of most of the other glossaries Horn discusses, the Promptorium parvulorum survives in nine late medieval manuscripts as well as no fewer than six printed editions between 1499 and 1528. As Patrizia Lendinara reminds us, the multilingualism of all these glosses can shed light on the multilingualism of medieval Britain. Much awaits “to be fully explored” (312), though for the central middle ages, Sara Harris’s important monograph needs to be added to the references supplied. [4]
Sharon Arbuthnot, Pádraic Moran and Paul Russell introduce the short section on the “Celtic,” actually “Irish,” tradition. There is little in the Brittonic tradition apart from a Vocabularium cornicum of Old Cornish added to a copy of Ælfric’s glossary. The authors distinguish four medieval Irish glossaries: De origine scoticae linguae; Irsan; Dáil Dromna Cetta; Sanas Cormaic. One difficulty is that for the most part these word lists are preserved in manuscripts from the sixteenth century and later, and are perhaps a product of antiquarian interest. Precise dating is therefore difficult, but some elements are probably early medieval. They still have much to reveal.
Part III, on Continental Germanic and Scandinavian Glossaries,follows. The introductory chapter by Stephanie Stricker on Old High German glossaries makes clear what a very well-worked field this has become since the definitive pioneering work of Elias von Steinmeyer and Eduard Sievers between 1879 and 1898. [5] Even then, Steinmeyer and Sievers were able to exploit around 750 manuscripts, but the known corpus with Old High German glossographic material is now at least twice as large (the tally stood at 1,490 manuscripts on 22nd December 2019). The earliest examples can be linked to other Continental as well as the English traditions, and are often associated initially with the needs of missionaries, both to supply essential Christian texts in the vernacular in the Germanic speaking areas and to learn German themselves. In contrast to the emphasis on the role of Canterbury in the chapters on early English glossaries, Paolo Vaciago elucidates these Insular-Continental connections, highlights the complexity of the interdependence of glosses and underlying supposed collections, and the evidence of a constant process of interchange between England and the Continent.
He distinguishes a first phase characterized by the import of glossarial material from the Continent and especially Rome in the seventh century and subsequent export of such material from the eighth century onwards in the context of the activities of English missionaries. Prime examples of such connections are the lists of animals, especially birds, discussed by Annina Seiler, who adds a comprehensive list in tabular form of English and German animal glossaries and their manuscript sources on pages 461-72 here. Many glossary manuscripts were apparently designed to contain Old English glosses alongside those in Old High German. Generally, the glossaries serve the purpose of making the Latin works of classical and patristic authors more accessible and “appear in the functional context of text comprehension and of education” (Stricker, 375).
Many of these glossaries, such as the Vocabularius Sancti Galli, the Old High German Abrogans and Salomonian glossary (all discussed by Andreas Nievergelt), the Kassel Glosses, the Paris Conversations and glossaries in the set of fascicles assembled in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius MS 25, will be familiar to cultural historians of the early middle ages as well. The 42,000 entries with 3,000 Old High German glosses in the probably originally ninth-century Mondsee Bible glossary may be less familiar but, as Claudia Wich-Reif explains, it was reproduced many times between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. Similarly, the Summarium Heinrici, packed with medieval school knowledge glossed in the vernacular, survives in forty-five manuscripts, concentrated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Another aid to instruction in Latin is the Versus de volucribus, with mnemonics in Latin hexameters glossed in Old High German. This continued to be copied into the fifteenth century as Vreni Markwardt demonstrates in the table on pages 489-93.
Elke Klotz on “High German glossaries 1050-1515” acknowledges that the usual periodization of the German language phases for Middle High German and Early New High German does not coincide with the development of High German glossaries; older types of glossary linger on for some time. Alphabetically-sorted universal glossaries, topical glossaries, and specialised dictionaries continue but become more systematic from the middle of the fourteenth century onwards, adding the lexis of a language to the rare and non-standard vocabulary. The earliest German Latin Dictionary, that of Johannes Kotman, Vocabularius Optimus c. 1328, however, was designed as a finding aid for an appropriate Latin word, not as a thesaurus of the German language. As in England, the classical emphasis of the humanists in the early sixteenth century began to change the corpus of Latin lemmata.
The volume finds space for an account by Sarah L. Higley of Hildegard of Bingen’s extraordinary ignota lingua, offering over a thousand “divinely inspired words” (three were included in her antiphon O orzchis (= immense) ecclesia, pertaining to the spiritual and human realms. The latter includes kinship relations and the human body, church offices and structures, trades, activities and titles, temporal elements (days of the week etc), the monastic household and village, and the natural world (trees, plants, birds and insects). Some glosses are added in Latin or German in both the extant manuscripts and an invented alphabet was included as well.
In contrast to the tiny number of witnesses to Hildegard of Bingen’s ingenuity, late medieval Latin-German glossaries, such as theVocabularius Ex quo discussed by Bernhard Schell and the Liber ordinis rerum or esse essencia glossary (synonyms ordered by word class) discussed by Chiara Benati, were very widely circulated. TheVocabularius ex quo, for example, comprised more than 12,000 lexical entries, survives in 280 late medieval manuscripts, and was printed in no fewer than 46 editions. Chiara Benati also describes the still unedited fifteenth-century Vocabularius quadriidiomaticus which has Latin, Latin--German, Hebrew--Latin and Greek--Latin sections, apparently designed for school use. Benati contributes seven chapters altogether on a number of high and low German glossaries, not least Middle Low German glossaries in the northern part of the German language area, attested in over 200 late medieval MSS (see the Table on pages 542-51). Some appear to be adaptations of already existing Latin--German glossaries, and have the potential to throw light on the linguistic development of both Low and High German.
On the Vocabularius Theutonicus, for example, a large alphabetical Middle Low German--Latin dictionary compiled at the end of the fourteenth century by Master Johannes Egberti from Einseck, Benati comments that it was produced in a number of recensions over about a century but was limited to the Low German language area, in a transmission context which suggests it was conceived as a teaching aid, especially in Latin lessons. By contrast, the “Stralsund vocabulary,” a comprehensive Middle Low German--Latin Dictionary, survives in only one manuscript but looks as if it is an unfinished draft. This is one precious indication of the very personal and individual efforts that could be devoted to the compilation of a glossary.
A further valuable aspect of the discussion of the Germanic glossaries is the linguistic differentiation according to geographical location, though, as Maria Rita Digilio explains, the linguistically heterogeneous area whence Old Saxon glosses and conflation of Old High German and Old Saxon elements come (Werden and Essen were important centres) sometimes makes it difficult to be certain about the Old Saxon forms in relation to Old High German. Nevertheless, a hybrid linguistic situation “did not always constitute an obstacle to the transmission of knowledge” (531).
According toPiet van Sterkenburg in his discussion of Middle Dutch glossaries,Latin--Middle Dutch glossaries and vocabularia from the middle of the thirteenth century onwards appear not to have built on the existing Germanic tradition discussed in such detail elsewhere in the volume. They were influenced, rather, by the Latin tradition, with glossaries compiled by excerpting from Latin dictionaries (such as theAbavus glossary) and were used to learn Latin.
A short chapter on Medieval Scandinavian glossaries by Chiara Benati and Simon Skovgaard Boeck acknowledgesthat these are scarcer in comparison with the other Germanic-speaking areas. This is due in part to the later conversion to Christianity and introduction of Latin culture in Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. The earliest bilingual glossary is from twelfth-century Iceland, but its vocabulary seems to be entirely secular and is thought to be a personal compilation for an Icelandic scholar who had studied abroad. Its peculiarity is the inclusion of a number of Arabic astronomical words written in the Roman alphabet. Similarly personal is the short list in a fourteenth-century wax tablet notebook from Norway. Late medieval glossaries from Denmark and Sweden, witnesses to the “East Norse” language group, however, are rather more numerous, substantial, and varied; glossaries of botanical/medical words are also quite common. Vadstena Abbey in Sweden is an important source of these books.
The final part of this volume discusses the transition from Medieval to Renaissance Lexicography. John Considine provides a concise introduction in which he usefully reminds us how conservative a tradition lexicography can be, with constant recycling of earlier--even centuries old--lists. Nevertheless, he paints a picture of discontinuity as well as continuity, and of innovation as well as tradition, in which developments in Latin lexicography (such as the Elementarum of Papias, the Catholicon of Giovanni Balbi (1286) or the Mammotrectus super Bibliam of John Marchesinus) were a constant inspiration and were printed in the second half of the fifteenth century. They were augmented in the course of the fifteenth century by other Latin dictionaries, not least the Dictionarium of Ambrogio Calepino (1502) and the Dictionarium, seu linguae latinae thesaurus of Robert Estienne (1531). Considine discusses four different traditions--Irish, English, German, and Spanish--with a varying pace and degree of change in relation to the medieval tradition. He also discusses vernacular dictionaries and phrase books for travellers, wordlists derived from oral elicitation and antiquarian use.
The remaining chapters of the volume provide specific examples of the changes in lexicography and of attitudes to the Latin language as well as to the interest in the vernaculars. As Elke Krotz shows in her chapter on High German lexicography in the Humanist period, there was enormous variety in the levels of engagement on the part of compilers of dictionaries, lexicons of synonyms, polyglot dictionaries and alphabetical glossaries, as well as those produced in more specialised and scholarly contexts. Simon Skovgaard Boeck provides a useful survey of printed Danish and Swedish lexicography from the sixteenth century, but the handwritten and unpublished dictionaries from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries remain to be documented.
The volume culminates in Ludwig Rübdekil’s study of Busbecq’s Crimean Gothic wordlist. Gothic, an east Germanic language, has long been familiar from the sixth-century Codex Argenteus, now in Uppsala, as well as from a few other early medieval manuscript fragments and inscriptions, containing Ulfilas’s Gothic translation of the New Testament written in the Gothic alphabet devised by Ulfilas in the fourth century. The Busbecq list from the sixteenth century reflects an interest in the genealogy of language. It records aspects of the Gothic language still attested as in use in the Crimea in the early sixteenth century, though the corpus of about ninety words and phrases has apparently been influenced by the language of the recorder (Flemish) and the informant (Greek).
The volume concludes with a composite and extensive bibliography for the entire volume in which primary sources (sometimes by editor, sometimes by title) and secondary literature are amalgamated (626-730). A general index follows; it is less useful than it might have been, because of the failure to break down long lists of page numbers under certain items or to check that the numbers are accurate. “Bible” for example has 64 page numbers listed, not all of which turn out actually to refer to the Bible on the pages indicated. Thereafter the “Bible” entry has separate sub-entries for the various books, though with some oddities: “Book of Psalms” and Psalms are listed as separate items but together only have 3 pages listed, namely, page 113 (a specific reference to a gloss on Psalm 104, verse 1 in Milan Biblioteca Ambrosiana MS M79 sup. fol. 102ra) and pages 409 and 414 (in Claudia Wich-Reif’s article on the Mondsee Bible Glossary); “Books of Kings” is a separate item but not referred to on the page indicated; “Pentateuch” is listed twice but the books comprising the Pentateuch are also listed separately. In one or two cases the page numbers do not include other references of substance: the entry for “Gospel of Matthew” for instance cites page 114 correctly, but omits the discussion of the glosses to the Gospel of Matthew in Essen, Münsterschatzkammer, MS 1 on page 522 (though 522 IS in the set of numbers for the Bible!). The Index of Manuscripts is more helpful.
In conclusion, it has only been possible in this review to give very brief indications of the importance of the various chapters in this volume and the wealth of information they contain. The authors demonstrate unequivocally that the Latin tradition remained constant and fundamental throughout the history of these glossaries, simply because almost all of them were devised in order to assist in the process of learning Latin. All the papers in the book assume at least a bilingual context of use, though some clearly imply multilingual ones as well. All are agreed that Latin was most usually the language of learning, administration, and the church. Assumptions about bilingual or multilingual contexts need nevertheless to be tested in relation to the two hundred or so ninth-century manuscripts containing Latin--Latin glossaries, not least the Liber glossarum, produced in the Romance speaking areas that this volume does not consider in any detail. [6] In many of the bilingual glossaries that are discussed, moreover, especially those from the early middle ages, the vernacular glosses were not necessarily part of the original design of the glossary and form only a small proportion of the interpretationes to the lemmata. The chapters relating to Continental Germanic and Scandinavian glossaries are generally more sensitive to the Latin traditions than those on the glossaries from Britain and Ireland.
The great variety of form and context in which these glossaries survive suggests considerable diversity in their function and contexts of use. It is one disappointment in many of the chapters that so few discussthe earlier glossaries in their manuscript contexts (the account of the Vocabularius sancti galli in St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 913 by Andreas Nievergelt is a notable exception), but refer only to the few folios containing a glossary in the relevant codex. Important cultural indicators are overlooked in consequence, and scholars may wish now to pursue them.Individually and collectively, moreover, glossaries and their construction reveal links and connections across time and space, even though the reorganisation of words takes them out of context, and their ultimate (as distinct from immediate) sources may be very much older than the glossary in which they appear. As Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, Lucia Degiovanni and Franck Cinato demonstrate in their chapters, the material collectively known as the Hermeneumata pseudo-Dositheana and Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae, notably Book X, are obvious examples of the reception of older material, as well as becoming influential for specific vocabulary in their turn. [7] The three principal approaches to the assembling of a glossary from the ultimate sources, and containing hundreds and even thousands of entries, have been best defined by Franck Cinato as, first, the “stacking” of letters or blocks of alphabetical sections; second, “integration,” which can combine different explanations for the same lemma; third, “distribution,” which involves the complete reorganisation of the materials with the incorporation of new entries. [8] The fluidity of the glossary tradition cannot be emphasized enough. Kees Dekker, for example, stresses that material was gathered, re-arranged, recontextualised, reformatted, translated, and dynamically transferred from one scholarly context to another. In considering sources of glossary material, not least that which reached the newly Christianised regions of early medieval England, moreover, there is first of all a surprising lack of consideration of the role of Italy, let alone Rome itself. As noted above, it is only Paolo Vaciago who refers to the substantial flow of glossaries from Rome to north of the Alps in the early middle ages. Secondly, given the didactic context in which the compilation and use of so many glossaries is placed, more weight should surely be given, especially in relation to the explanations / interpretations, to the role of memory and oral transmission rather than to an exclusive dependence on texts. As Dekker says, memorisation was a basic didactic strategy (118). One need not consider onlya “well-stocked library” as a source.
A cumulative and complex definition of glossaries emerges from this volume. Certainly, they are more than collections of glosses. The volume as a whole supports the diverse characterisations of glossaries stated at the outset. Thus Rolf H. Bremmer’s statement that glossaries are typically the product of a literate culture and a response to a “deep human desire for communication across linguistic and conceptual boundaries” (74), the highlighting in many contributions of the didactic purpose of glosses and glossaries, Maire ni Mhaonaigh’s view that glossaries are “defined by linguistic interplay, both within and between languages” (85), and Kees Dekker’s emphasis on the glossaries’ main functions being the acquisition, collection, storage, and dissemination of knowledge (97), are effectively complementary. The linguistic interaction and intense interest in the essence of language on the part of the compilers and perhaps their anticipated audiences as well is clear. Franck Cinato’s proposition that glossaries are mostly “collections of words that are rare or out of use” (149), however, adds a necessary challenge to our assessments of the contexts within which particular glossaries were compiled and copies made. Overall, despite some oddities of presentation and some inevitable internal contradictions of interpretation, this volume is a treasure trove for any readers inclined to immerse themselves in the instructive and entangled world of glossaries in relation to the texts they study. The editors have provided many cross references throughout the volume. It provides an invaluable marker in a fast-moving field.
--------
Notes:
1. For an assessment of the impact of medieval Latin orthography on alphabetisation see Richard Sharpe, “Vocabulary, word formation, and lexicography,” in Medieval Latin. An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide, ed. by Frank Anthony Carl Mantello and A.G. Rigg (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), pp. 93-103.
2. The arguments for Canterbury are most recently presented by Michael Lapidge, Canterbury Glosses from the School of Theodore and Hadrian. The Leiden Glossary, Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023).
3. Bernhard Bischoff ed., The Épinal, Erfurt, Werden and Corpus Glossaries (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1988).
4. Sara Harris, The Linguistic Past in Twelfth-Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
5. Elias von Steinmeyer and Eduard Sievers, Die althochdeutschen Glossen, 5 vols (Berlin: Weidmann, 1879-98) and Supplement 1922. An essential complement to this set of essays on Old High German glosses is the volume edited by Rolf Bergmann and Stefanie Stricker,Glossenstudien: Ergebnisse der neuen Forschung (Heidelberg: Winter, 2020).
6. For the Latin tradition as well as that of the vernacular, the following remain indispensable: Jacqueline Hamesse, ed., Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’antiquité tardive à la fin du moyen age (Louvain-la-Neuve, Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, 1996); J. Hamesse and J. Merinhos, Glossaires et lexiques Médiévaux inédits. Bilan et perspectives (Porto, Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, 2011); and Rolf Bergmann and Stefanie Stricker, eds., Glossenstudien. Ergebnisse der neuen Forschung, ed. (Heidelberg: Winter, 2020). Many of the texts were edited in the late nineteenth century by Georg Goetz, Corpus glossariorum latinorum, 7 vols (Leipzig, Teubner, 1888-1923) and Georg Goetz, Gustav Loewe and Gotthold Gundermann, Corpus glossariorum latinorum. Thesaurum glossarum emendaturum (London, Legare Street Press, 2022). On the Liber glossarum see Anne Grondeux and Franck Cinato, eds., Liber Glossarum Digital (Paris, 2016), online at <http://liber-glossarum.huma-num.fr>.
7. See, for example, Eleanor Dickey, The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositeana, 2 vols, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 49 and 53 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 and 2015); the arguments made by David W. Porter “Isidore’s Etymologiae at the school of Canterbury,” in Anglo-Saxon England, 43 (2014): 7-44, and A.C. Dionisotti, ed., Expositio notarum. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 64 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).
8. See further, Franck Cinato, “Critical cumulation? How glossaries were constituted in the early middle ages (6th-8th centuries),” in Sinéad O’Sullivan and Ciaran Arthur, eds., Crafting Knowledge in the Early Medieval Book. Practices of Collecting and Concealing in the Latin West, Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin, 16 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), pp. 173-200. See also the new website project to include hitherto unpublished glossaries overseen by Franck Cinato and Suzanne Mpouli online at <https://htldb.huma-num.fr/exist/apps/htldb/elma/thegloss/critical_cumulation_CA.home.html>.