Delsaux - Textual and Material Investigation On The Autography of Laurent de Premierfait's Original Manuscripts PDF

TEXTUAL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION ON THE AUTOGRAPHY
OF LAURENT DE PREM IERFAIT’S ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS*
Olivier Delsaux*
Abstract: Laurent de Premierfait was probably the most disseminated French translator of the fifteenth
century. Several manuscripts approved by the author himself have been preserved and studied by art and
book specialists. This article reconsiders the nature of the author’s intervention in the manuscripts of his
texts from both a philological and archaeological perspective. It demonstrates that these manuscripts have
been copied by two main scribes (Hand S and Hand T) and that the author’s hand (Hand L) has proof-read
them. The identification of S or T with the author’s hand is evaluated on the basis of a textual (spelling,
punctuation, errors) and material (layout, personal marks, writing) assessment of their profile. The article
also identifies manuscripts hitherto excluded from the corpus of original manuscripts.
Keywords: Laurent de Premierfait, translation, philology, codicology, scribal behavior, Giovanni
Boccaccio, Cicero, Terence, Statius.
The French poet and translator Laurent de Premierfait (1360/1370?-1418) is one of

the leading figures of the first French Humanism and no doubt the most widely dis
seminated translator of the fifteenth century.1 He translated Cicero’s De senectute
(1405) and De amicitia (1416), Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium (first ver
sion in 1400 and second version in 1409-1411) and the Decameron (1414); he wrote
several political poems in Latin hexameters (ca. 1415) and a commentary on Statius’s
Thebaid and Achilleid (end of the fourteenth century) and on Terence’s six plays (be
ginning of the fifteenth century), which he published along with the Latin text he had
established himself. Having worked at the Avignon court as secretary of the cardinal
Amédée of Saluces, he lived in Paris and was successively supported by Jean Chan-
teprime, Jean Bertaut, Louis de Guyenne, Bureau de Dammartin, and Jean de Berry;
there, he established privileged relations with Jean de Montreuil and Gontier Col. He
can be regarded as one of the first French authors to consider together Humanism and
its vulgarization.
While working on a list of manuscripts in Middle French entirely or partially auto
graph,2 I made some findings which can lead to a reconsideration of the autograph
nature of some manuscripts regarded as original manuscripts of Laurent de
Premierfait. This study will lead to a better assessment of the author’s intervention in
the “mise en livre” of his texts, the layout which contributes significantly to his at
tempt to transmit a Latin and clerical knowledge to the French seigniorial environ
ment.
Fonds national de la Recherche scientifique-FNRS (Belgium) / Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-

la-Neuve). I am very grateful to Marie-Hélène Tesnière (Paris, BnF), Nathalie Coilly (Paris, BnF), and
Bernard Bousmanne (Bruxelles, KBR), who have facilitated my consultation of restricted materials. This
article is dedicated to Christine Reno (Vassar College).
1 On this author, see Un traducteur et un humaniste de l ’époque de Charles VI. Laurent de Premierfait,
ed. C. Bozzolo, Textes et documents d’histoire médiévale 4 (Paris 2004), esp. C. Bozzolo, “Introduction à la
vie et à l’œuvre d’un humaniste,” 17-29, and R. C. Famiglietti, “Laurent de Premierfait: The Career of a
Humanist in Early Fifteenth-Century Paris,” 31-51, esp. 35.
2 O. Delsaux & T. Van Hemelryck, Les manuscrits autographes en français. Guide de recherches,
Texte, Codex & Contexte 15 (Turnhout 2013).
Viator 45 No. 3 (2014) 299-338. 10.1484/J.VIATOR.5.102930

300 OLIVIER DELSAUX
P r io r In v e s t ig a t io n s
Specialists of book production and illumination have identified several original manu
scripts among those of Laurent de Premierfait’s texts whose date of production is
contemporary with the date of the redaction of the text. Scholars have based the major
part of these identifications on their ownership (by the patron of the text or one of the
usual patrons of Parisian authors during the reign of king Charles VI) and on their
iconographic program (designed, perhaps supervised, by the author himself; nonethe
less, the conditions of intervention are often difficult to determine3):
Certain Identifications
Geneva, BPU, fr. 190. Second translation of Boccaccio’s De casibus (Des cas 1409 for
short). Manuscript illustrated by the Master of Luçon; gift of Martin Gouge to Duke Jean de
Berry, explicit patron of the text, as the manuscript contains the ex-libris of the duke and it
appears in his inventories (1413 and 1416); same iconographic program as in the manuscript
Arsenal 51934
Paris, Arsenal, 5193 (Des cas 1409). Manuscript illustrated by the Master of the Cité des
dames; appears in the 1420 inventory of Duke Jean sans Peur; same iconographic program as
in the manuscript Geneva, BPU, fr. 1905
Paris, BnF, lat. 7907A. Terence’s six plays and first version of the Commentary attributed to
Premierfait, beginning of the fifteenth century. Manuscript illustrated by the Master of Fla
vius Joseph and the Orosius Master; gift from Martin Gouge to Duke Jean de Berry; its
iconographic program would have been supervised by Premierfait6
Vatican (City of), BAV, pal. lat. 1989. Translation of Boccaccio’s Decameron, 1414. Manu
script illustrated by the Master of the Cité des dames; appears in the 1420 inventory of Duke
Jean sans Peur7
3 On the basis of the “maquette /model” conceived by the humanist Jean Lebègue for the illustration of
Sallust’s manuscripts, A. D. Hedeman assumed that Premierfait edited a model for the miniaturists and
inspected the miniatures after their completion; A. D. Hedeman, Translating the Past. Laurent de
Premierfait and Boccaccio’s De casibus (Los Angeles 2008) 50-70; A. D. Hedeman, “Laurent de
Premierfait and the Visualization of Antiquity,” Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users. A Special
Issue o f Viator in Honor o f Richard and Mary Rouse (Turnhout, 2011) 27-50. Cf. M. Meiss, French Paint
ing in the time o f Jean de Berry. The Limbourgs and their contemporaries (New York 1974) 283-284; D.
Byrne, “An Early French Humanist and Sallust: Jean Lebègue and the Iconographical programme for the
Catiline and Jugurtha,” Journal o f the Warburg and Courtauld Intitutes 49 (1986) 41-65.
4 On this manuscript, see C. Bozzolo, Manuscrits des traductions françaises d'oeuvres de Boccace (XVe
siècle), Medioevo e umanesimo 15 (Padova, 1973) 145-147; M.-H. Tesnière, “Notice,” Boccaccio
visualizzato: narrare per parole e per immagini fra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Part III, ed. V. Branca
(Torino 1999) n° 21; A. D. Hedeman, “Notice,” Imagining the Past in France. History in Manuscript
Painting. 1250-1500, ed. E. Morrison and A. D. Hedeman (Los Angeles 2010) n° 35.
5 On this manuscript, see P. Durrieu, “Découverte de deux importants manuscrits de la librairie des ducs
de Bourgogne,” Bibliothèque de l ’École des chartes 71 (1910) 64-69; H. Martin, Le Boccace de Jean sans
Peur. Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes. Reproduction des cent cinquante miniatures du manuscrit
5193 de la Bibliothèque de l ’Arsenal, Bruxelles (Van Oest 1911); Meiss, French Painting (n. 3 above) 35,
47, 50, 54; Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 51-53; Tesnière, “Notice,” Boccacio visualizzato (n. 4 above)
n° 24.
6 On this manuscript, see Meiss, French Painting (n. 3 above) 294-298; I. Villela-Petit, “Notice,” Paris
1400. Les arts sous Charles VI, ed. E. Taburet-Delahaye (Paris 2004) n° 145; C. Villa, “Laurencius,” Italia
medioevale e umanistica 34 (1981) 133-134; V. de Becdelièvre, “Notice,” Archives et manuscrits de la BnF
[http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr]; C. Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” Un traducteur (n. 1
above) 148-149, previously published as Vestigia. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Billanovich (Roma 1984)
I.93--129.
7 On this manuscript, see Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 163-165; P. Durrieu, “Le plus ancien manu
scrit de la traduction française du Decameron,” Comptes rendus des séances de l ’Académie des Inscriptions
et Belles-Lettres (1909) 347-349; M. Meiss, “The First Fully Illustrated Decameron,” Essays presented to
Rudolf Wittkower on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. D. Fraser (London 1967) 56-61; Tesnière, “Notice,”
TEXTUAL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION 301
Probable Identification
Paris, BnF, lat. 7789. Cicero’s Oratio pro Marcello and De senectute, followed by the
French translation of the second text, 1405. Manuscript illustrated by the Master of the duke
of Berry’s Cleresfemmes; perhaps in possession of Louis II of Bourbon, patron of the trans
lation; sole contemporary manuscript respecting the bilingual layout planned by Premierfait8
Uncertain Identifications
(We thus exclude these manuscripts from the corpus of original manuscripts considered
here.)
Paris, Arsenal, 664. Terence’s six plays and second version of the Commentary attributed to
Premierfait. Manuscript illustrated by the Master of Luçon, the Master of the Cité des dames,
the Master of Adelphes, the Master of Flavius Joseph and the Orosius Master; borrowed for
Duke Jean de Berry by Jean d’Arsonval, bishop of Châlons9
Paris, BnF, fr. 131 (Des cas 1409. Manuscript illustrated by the Master of the Cité des
dames; kept, corrected and annotated by Gontier Col, Premierfait’s friend it was produced
later than the Geneva and Arsenal manuscripts, as its iconographic program is different from
the authorial version contained in these two manuscripts and nothing suggests that it was an
author’s gift10
Paris, BnF, fr. 226 (Des cas 1409) Manuscript illustrated by the Master of the Cité des
dames and the Master of Bedford; produced after 1416; the particularly realistic presentation
miniature would suggest that it was in possession of Duke Jean de Berry11
Paris, BnF, fr. 264-265-266. Rewriting of Pierre Bersuire’s translation of Livy’s Ab urbe
condita. Manuscript illustrated by the Master of the Cité des dames and the Master of Luçon
and copied by the scribe Raoul Tainguy, probably for Jean Chanteprime, protector of
Premierfait; but the attribution of this version of the text to Premierfait, suggested by M.-H.
Tesnière, has still to be fully demonstrated12
Until now, the assessment of Premierfait’s role in the production of his manuscripts
has never been at the core of research on this author. Therefore, his intervention in the
published manuscripts of his texts is rarely mentioned and the contemporary manu
scripts of his texts are not very often designated in explicit terms (dedication manu-
Boccacio vizualizzato (n. 4 above) n° 83; Boccaccio, Decameron: alle 100 Miniaturen der ersten Bilder
handschrift, ed. E. König (Zürich 1989).
8 On this manuscript, E. Pellegrin, “Notes sur deux manuscrits enluminés contenant le De senectute de
Cicéron avec la traduction française de Laurent de Premierfait,” Scriptorium 12 (1958) 276-283; A. D.
Hedeman, “Making the Past Present in Laurent de Premierfait’s Translation of De senectute,” Excavating
the medieval image: manuscripts, artists, audiences. Essays in honor o f Sandra Hindman, ed. D. Areford
and N. A. Rowe (London 2004) 59-73, esp. 60; Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 24-35; V. de
Becdelièvre, “Notice,” Archives et manuscrits de la BnF [http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr].
9 On this manuscript, see H. Martin, Le Térence des ducs (Paris, 1907) 13-14; Meiss, French Painting
(n. 3 above) I.347-350; Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence” (n. 6 above) 149; A. Châtelet, L ’âge
d ’or du manuscrit à peintures en France au temps de Charles VI et les Heures du Maréchal Boucicaut
(Paris 2000) 123-128.
10 On this manuscript, see Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 59-60; Tesnière, “Notice,” Boccacio
visualizzato (n. 4 above) 83-85; C. Bozzolo, “L’humaniste Gontier Col et Boccace,” Boccaccio in Europe.
Proceedings o f the Boccaccio Conference, Louvain, December 1975 (Leuven 1977) 15-22; Hedeman,
Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 131-133.
11 On this manuscript, see Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 18 and 61-63; Tesnière, “Notice,” Boccacio
visualizzato (n. 4 above) n° 27.
12 M.-H. Tesnière, “Les manuscrits copiés par Raoul Tainguy. Un aspect de la culture des grands
officiers royaux au début du XVe siècle,” Romania 107 (1986) 282-368 and 334-340; M.-H. Tesnière, “Un
remaniement du Tite-Live de Pierre Bersuire par Laurent de Premierfait (manuscrit Paris, B.N., fr. 264-265
266),” Romania 107 (1986) 231-281; Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 37-53. I have found no
linguistic connection between this text and the authentic Premierfait corpus.
302 OLIVIER DELSAUX
script, presentation manuscript, facsimile from the original, original, original manu
script, author approved manuscript, author supervised manuscript .. .)•
A priori, there is a presumption that, as other authors of his generation (such as
Christine de Pizan, Jean de Montreuil, Nicolas de Clamanges, Gontier Col, Pierre
d ’Ailly, and Jean Lebègue),1314Laurent de Premierfait intervened directly in the produc
tion of the manuscripts of his texts intended for publication. As clerc, secretary in
scribam14 of the cardinal Amédée de Saluces in Avignon (1383-1397), apostolic and
imperial notary in the service of Jean Chanteprime (1397-1400), and notary in the
service of the dauphin Louis de Guyenne (1408-1410),15 Premierfait must have had
easy access to writing materials and probably had calligraphic skills16—as indicated
by the regularity of his writing in the three autograph vidimus that have been preserved
(see below). Furthermore, contrary to the situation of his contemporary Pierre
d ’Ailly,1718the volume of original manuscripts produced is not incompatible with his
probable agenda; his literary production is limited to less than ten texts, written at
quite long intervals, and his professional activities seem to have been quite limited.
Moreover, Premierfait, translator and admirer of Boccaccio, could have appreciated
the act of copying his own works, as did the author of the Decameron,18 Nevertheless,
there is no external evidence of Premierfait’s intervention in the production of manu
scripts of his texts (account, inventory, testimony of contemporaries, or author’s
statement). The identification of his autograph manuscripts has been limited to the
evaluation of preserved manuscripts.
In 1903, H. Hauvette, pioneer of scientific research on Premierfait, was the first to
formulate the hypothesis that one of the original manuscripts, Paris, Arsenal, 5193
(Des cas 1409), was an autograph: this manuscript was the only one to contain the
mention “Laurent,” after the closing title of Book I, syntactically independent and put
in the spotlight by a blank:19 “Cy fine le premier des neuf livres de Jehan Boccace Des
cas des nobles hommes et femmes. [blank] Laurent . [line-filler] (Arsenal, 5193, fol.
48a).” In 1910, P. Durrieu allied himself with Hauvette’s hypothesis and extended it to
13 On the original and autograph manuscripts of these authors, see G. Ouy, “Manuscrits autographes
d’humanistes en latin et en français,” Gli autografi medievali. Problemi paleografici e filologici. Atti del
convegno di studio della Fondazione Ezio Franceschini. Erice, 25 settembre—2 ottobre 1990, ed. P. Chiesa
& L. Pinelli, Quaderni di cultura mediolatina 5 (Spoleto 1994) 269-305; O. Delsaux & T. Van Hemelryck,
Les manuscrits autographes français à la fin du Moyen Âge (Turnhout 2013).
14 Gente Saluciata juvenem cupidissimum illum / In scribam dederam quem dum temptare volebam;
epistle from Giovanni Moccia to Laurent de Premierfait, Paris, BnF, lat. 8410, fol. 80v, reference, without
citation, in Bozzolo, “Introduction à la vie et à l’œuvre d’un humaniste” (n. 1 above) 18.
15 On these engagements, see Bozzolo, “Introduction à la vie et à l’œuvre d’un humaniste” (n. 1 above)
19-21.
16 On these skills for this kind of chancelry men, see R.-H. Bautier, “Chancellerie et culture au Moyen
Âge,” Cancelleria e cultura nel medio Evo, ed. G. Gualdo (Vatican 1990) 1-75; N. Pons, “Les chancelleries
parisiennes sous les règnes de Charles VI et Charles VII,” op. cit. 137-168; É. Cottereau, La copie et les
copistes français de manuscrits aux XIVe et XVe siècles. Etudes sociologique et codicologique (Paris, 2005).
17 J.-P. Boudet, “Un prélat et son équipe de travail à la fin du Moyen Âge: remarques sur l’œuvre scien
tifique de Pierre d’Ailly,” Humanisme et culture géographique à l ’époque du Concile de Constance. Autour
de Guillaume Fillastre. Actes du Colloque de l ’Université de Reims, ed. D. Marcotte, Terrarum Orbis.
Histoire des représentations de l’espace. Textes, Images 3 (Turnhout 2002) 127-150.
18 On these manuscripts, see E. Ianni, “Elenco dei Manoscritti Autografi di Giovanni Boccacio,” Modern
Language Notes 86 (1971) 99-113; M. Cursi, La scrittura e i libri di Giovanni Boccaccio (Roma, Viella
2013).
19H. Hauvette, De Laurentio de Primofato (Paris 1903) 55-57.
the Decameron from the Vatican Library as he had discovered a similar signature after
the title inscribed at the end of the text, and as he believed that the writing of these two
manuscripts was very similar:2021
Cy fine le livre appellé Decameron ... qui nagueres a esté translaté premieremant en latin et
secondemant en françois à Paris ... par moy Laurent de Premierfait, familier dudict Bureau,
lesqueles deux translations par iii ans furent accomplies le XV e jour de juing l’an mil quatre
cens et quatorze. œ 21 [1UR] T Laurent de Premierfait œ (Vatican, BAV, pal. lat. 1989, fol.
327v).
For H. Hauvette, P. Durrieu and, after them, H. Martin, these signatures were some
kind of autograph “trademark” intended to authenticate the volumes. However, more
recently, C. Bozzolo questioned the autograph nature of these signatures. Her data
were larger as she had identified other specimens in the original manuscript of Geneva
(Des cas 1409):
Et que il conduye ma plume diligemment escrivant sanz langoreuse peresse au commun

proufit de tous et à louange divine œ T Laurens (Geneva, I, fol. 5d, 1st prologue of the
translator, explicit)
Cy fine le second des neuf livres de Jehan Boccace Des cas des nobles hommes etfemmes œ
Et tantost après commencent les rubriques du tiers livre œ [line-filler] Laurent (Geneva, I,
fol. 82d, Book II, closing title)
and in original manuscripts of his Latin texts:
Recensui recitavi Andriam fabulam. [2UR] Laurentius œ œ [7UR] Publii Terentii afri poete
comici Andria finit. Eunuchus incipit (Paris, BnF, lat. 7907, Commentary on the end of the
last scene of the Andria, fol. 51v)
Thebaidos ... incipit compendium feliciter. Laurencius Campannus ... [sign of collation] T
Thebaidos per Stacium poetam descripte compendium finit œ Laurencius Campannus
œ (1st part of the Thebaides Compendium, beginning and closing titles, London, Burney
257, fols. 2r et 4v)
... T Librorum duodecim parcialium Thebaidos juxta eorum singula capitula summatim
intelligencie expliciunt feliciter œ [line-filler] Laurencius œ [line-filler] (Summary of the 12
Books, closing title, fol. 222v)
For C. Bozzolo, this inscription of the name “Laurent/Laurencius” was the sign of a
mechanical reproduction, in “facsimile,” of a lost model/exemplar genuinely authenti
cated by an autograph signature.22
20 Durrieu, “Découverte de deux importants manuscrits” (n. 5 above) 66.

21 œ indicates that the scribe wrote a “trefoil.”
22 Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 28 n. 3. That does not diminish their authenticity. Indeed, at the end
of the Middle Age, the “text” of a signature sometimes had the same value as an utterance, and it was usual
to delegate the execution of an “authentic” signature to a collaborator. B. Guenée, “Authentique et ap
prouvé. Recherches sur les principes de la critique historique au Moyen Âge,” La lexicographie du latin
médiéval et ses rapports avec les recherches actuelles sur la civilisation du Moyen Age. Paris, 18—21 octo
bre 1978, Colloques internationaux du CNRS 589 (Paris 1981) 215-230; Cl. Jeay, “La naissance de la
signature dans les cours royales et princières de France (XIVe-XVe siècle),” “Auctor" et "Auctoritas."
Invention et conformisme dans l ’écriture médiévale. Actes du colloque tenu à l ’Université de Versailles-
Saint-Quentin-en Yvelines (14—16 juin 1999), ed. M. Zimmermann, Mémoires et documents de l ’École des
Chartes 59 (Paris 2001) 458-476, esp. 461; B. Fraenkel, “La signature: du signe à l’acte,” Sociétés et
Représentations 25 (2008) 13-23.
304 OLIVIER DELSAUX
In my judgment, these signatures do identify the author of the text—when the au
thor’s name is absent from the traditional peritext (beginning and closing titles)—and
not the person responsible of the manuscript’s preparation; neither do they serve as a
mark of a “Premierfait workshop.” For instance, the original manuscript Paris, BnF,
lat. 7789 presents a closing title with the author’s name, but no signature,23 while the
beginning and closing titles followed by a “signature” do not present his name. Thus,
in the examples cited above, the “signature” Premierfait is not redundant and has a
textual function.24 The identification of “signatures” in non-original manuscripts can
confirm this role of textual attribution:
qu’ilz vouldront recorder [line-filler] [1UR (= unit of ruling)] Ci fine le premier des neuf
livres de Jehan Boccace Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes . Laurent . (Paris, BnF, fr.
226, fol. 34v [Des cas 1409, Book I])
Incipit compendium feliciter. Laurencius Campannus ... Thebaidos per Statium poetam
descripte compendium finit. Laurencius Campannus. (Compendium of the Thebaid, incipit et
explicit, Vatican, BAV, ottob. lat. 1475,25 fols. 23r et 25v); Librorum duodecim parcialium
Thebaidos iuxta eorum singula capitula summatim intelligencie expliciunt feliciter.
Laurencius. (Summary of the 12 Books, opening title, ibid. fol. 36r); ... id est ratis deorum
ordinibus nequiuerit obstetisse. Laurencius (Compendium of the Achilleid, explicit, ibid. fol.
38r)26
Laurentius (Cambridge, UL, Ff VI 4, introduction to Terence’s six plays, explicit, fol.
144r27)
Abicit, et gaudens cantus et oscula miscet. Laurentius (Bâle, BU, F.V.6., Latin poem of
Premierfait, explicit, fol. 135r28)
Si qua detur pietas et merces equa labori. [1UR] ~ Arcens Laurentius primus (Latin verse
honoring Boccaccio, Paris, BnF, fr. 131, fol. 312r, perhaps transcribed by the hand of
Gontier Col)29
Therefore, the presence of the “signature” Premierfait in a manuscript gives no clues

concerning the attribution of the copying and thus upon the autograph nature of the
23 “Cy fine le livre de Tulle, De vieillesse, translaté de latin en françois du commandement de

tresexcellant, glorieux et noble prince Loys duc de Bourbon par moi, Laurent de Premierfait, cinquiesme
jour de novembre mil quatre cens et cinq.” (Paris, BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 104r).
24 Except in the case of the Decameron, the last original manuscript with a “signature”; Premierfait
could have changed his practices.
25 On this manuscript, see E. Pellegrin, Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane
Documents, études et répertoires publiés par l’IRHT 21 (Paris 1975) 584—585; C. Jeudy & Y-Fr. Riou,
“L’Achilléide de Stace au Moyen Âge: abrégés et arguments,” Revue d ’histoire des textes 4 (1974) 143—
180, esp. 158.
26 The manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 7936 contains the following “signatures” in marginal addition, by the
hand of Jean Lebègue (who was in possession of the Vatican manuscript): Incipit compendium feliciter.
Laurencius Campanus (fol. 80v) ... Thebaydos per Stacium poetam conscripte compendium finit Laurencius
Campannus, dictus de Primo Fato (fol. 140d).
27 Citation in Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence” (n. 6 above) 103.
28 Reference, without citation, in Ouy, “Poèmes retrouvés de Laurent de Premierfait,” Un traducteur et
un humaniste (n. 1 above) 245.
29 For Hauvette, De Laurentio de Primofato (n. 19 above) 21, arcens is a scribal error for arceus or
arcensis, which could mean “from Arc is-sur-Aube” (Paris, 1903 21). For Bozzolo, Manuscrits des
traductions françaises (n. 4 above) 6, it could be a reference to the “closed” style of the author. For Ouy,
“Poèmes retrouvés” (n. 28 aove) 245, arcens would be a reference to Odi profanum uulgus et arceo from
Horace (Od. I, 1), citation which would emphasize his posture of elitist poet.
manuscript.30 If signatures appear scarcely in non-original manuscripts of Premierfait,

the fact is that the scribes got rid of what could have been read as a signature of the
manuscript, which was therefore in direct competition with the attribution of their own
work of transcription.31 Thus, it seems the presence or absence of an authorial “signa
ture” is not a sufficient reason for proving the autography of a given manuscript.
In 1983, the historian R. C. Famiglietti discovered an autograph vidimus of
Premierfait (see below). Nevertheless, this discovery did not become a milestone in
the identification of autograph manuscripts of his texts. Until now, linkage of the vi
dimus with manuscripts connected to Premierfait has not been better than probable or
possible.32 For instance, although the renowned paleographer G. Ouy identified auto
graph manuscripts of Premierfait’s contemporaries such as Jean de Montreuil, Nicolas
de Clamanges, Jean Lebègue, and Gontier Col, he was not able to establish a link
between the hand of this vidimus and the hand(s) of the original manuscripts:
... ne pourra-t-on jamais faire la démonstration irréfutable du caractère autographe des man
uscrits originaux de Laurent de Premierfait. La comparaison de leur admirable calligraphie
avec l’élégante cursive des documents d’archives—qui, portant sa signature, sont, eux,
incontestablement écrits de sa main—ne m’a encore permis d’arriver à aucune conclusion.33
As the paleographic materials did not allow him to reach a definitive conclusion, G.
Ouy attempted a linguistic approach.34 He thought that the author himself was the only
scribe able to perfectly assimilate and systematically copy the atypical spelling forms,
in particular etymological forms, that can be observed in Laurent de Premierfait’s
original manuscripts. In particular, G. Ouy noted the use of gerundival forms in -end
or -and (< -ando/-endo) and the use of the suffix -mant for adverbs (< mente). If the
alteration of author “orthographic” choices seems to be an accurate criterion for ex
cluding a manuscript from the corpus of his autograph manuscripts, it seems to me that
30 For a French author in the Paris of Charles VI, this kind of textual signature is very unusual. Authors
used an epilogue or an explicit where the Christian name or the family name had a syntactic function (sub
ject or agent). We can find a similar system of signatures slightly later, in Antoine de La Sale’s original
manuscripts, but their role is quite different, as the author adopted the epistolary form, where a signature is
usual. Cf. S. Lefèvre, Antoine de La Sale. La fabrique de l ’œuvre et de l ’écrivain. Suivi de l ’édition critique
du Traité des anciens et des nouveaux tournois, Publications romanes et françaises 238 (Genève 2006) 69
101; and S. Lefèvre, “Signatures et autographes. L’exemplaire Antoine de la Sale,” " Auctor” et "Auctori
tas, ” ed. Zimmermann (n. 22 above) 429^56.
31 On this dynamic, see O. Delsaux, “Le texte contre comme contre-texte. Observations sur les fonctions
et le fonctionnement des colophons en moyen français,” Texte et contre-texte pour la période pré-moderne
(Bordeaux, mai 2012), ed. N. Labère, Scripta Mediaevalia 23 (Pessac 2013) 33-53.
32 Ornato, “Préface,” Un traducteur et un humaniste (n. 1 above) 10.
33 Ouy, “Manuscrits autographes d’humanistes en latin et en français,” (n. above 13) 269-305, esp. 295.
34 Ouy, “L’orthographe de Laurent de Premierfait,” Un traducteur et un humaniste (n. 1 above) 308
314; and G. Ouy, “À propos des orthographes du moyen français,” Variations sur l ’orthographe et les
systèmes d ’écriture. Mélanges en hommage à Nina Catach, ed. Cl. Gruaz and R. Honvault, Lexica. Mots et
Dictionnaires 8 (Paris 2001) 195-206. “Orthography” has been used to confirm or disprove the autography
of other manuscripts in Middle French: G. Parussa, “Autographes et orthographe. Quelques considérations
sur l’orthographe de Christine de Pizan,” Romania 117 (1999) 143-159, esp. 157; G. Parussa et R.
Trachsler, “Or sus, alons ou champ des escriptures. Encore sur l’orthographe de Christine de Pizan:
l’interprétation des grands corpus,” Contexts and continuities. Proceedings o f the IVth International Collo-
qium on Christine de Pizan (Glasgow 21—27 July 2000), ed. A. J Kennedy (Glasgow 2002) 3, 621-643; G.
Parussa, “Espelant lettres de mondaine clergie. Les graphies du manuscrit personnel de Charles d’Orléans
(Paris, BnF fr. 25458),” Charles d ’Orléans. Une aventure poétique. Journées d ’études, Cahiers textuel 34
(2011) 91-105.
306 OLIVIER DELSAUX
the contrary is not true. The pitfall of Ouy’s demonstration is that was based solely on
original manuscripts. Indeed, in analyzing the complete manuscript tradition of
Premierfait’s translations of Cicero’s De senecute and the De amicitia, I have been
able to isolate three non-original manuscripts whose scribes have respected these
forms35. This linguistic approach seems then to lead to a new deadlock.
In 1995, in his introduction to the critical edition of Premierfait’s translation of the
Decameron (based on the Vatican manuscript considered as an autograph by P.
Durrieu and G. Ouy), G. Di Stefano was quite skeptical about the autography of his
base-manuscript. The behavior of its transcriptor, in particular the semantic errors he
makes in copying some words that are complex, encyclopedic, technical, or historical
in nature, and his difficulties in reading and understanding perfectly the probably
autograph exemplar (cf. the blanks non-corrected in the text),36 would be incompatible
with the hypothesis that the scribe could be the author. Di Stefano comes back to an
argument37 already advanced by H. Martin to discuss the autography of the manuscript
Arsenal 5193, copied by a scribe who evidently did not recognize the forms of some
proper names (for instance Daut for Dant (IX, §23) or Gueus for Gneus (VI, §9; the
right “spelling” appears in the other manuscripts of the text)).38 More recently, the art
35 If the original manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 7789 contains 96% of gerundives forms —end/—and in en +
gerundive structures, the manuscripts London, BL, Add. 17433 and Saint-Omer, BL, 368 contain respec
tively 80% and 40% of them. I note that the manuscript Aberystwyth, NLW, 5021C of his translation of
Cicero’s De amicitia includes 95% of these forms, but no original manuscript preserved can be used as a
point of comparison; see O. Delsaux, “Apports des traditions mixtes en moyen français. Le cas du Livre de
vieillesse de Laurent de Premierfait,” Revue belge d ’histoire et de philologie, forthcoming. For the second
translation of the De casibus (my survey was limited to Book VI, the only Book available in electronic
form, thanks to the generous assistance of C. Guillot-Barbance), the original manuscripts Arsenal 5193,
Geneva, BPU, fr. 190 and Vienna, ÖNB, NS 12766 present the following proportions of forms in —and/—
end: 90%, 91% and 87%. Some non-original manuscripts contain very similar proportions: 92% (Paris, BnF,
fr. 226), 64% (Paris, BnF, fr. 131), and 64% (Paris, BnF, fr. 16994).
36 Nevertheless, it can be observed that in many other parts of the text the scribe has been able to copy
difficult words. The scribe could have copied an unknown word photographically, without understanding it.
Moreover, Book VIII is the only Book of the Decameron with blanks in the text (ed. cit., pp. 873, 876, 891,
900, 936, 960, 966, 967, 973). As this Book has no distinctive codicological feature, these lacunae corre
spond no doubt to blanks in the l’exemplar; they represent problems of redaction and not of transcription.
37 It is possible to requalify this demonstration. As G. Di Stefano admits himself (Laurent de Premierfait,
Decameron, Bibliothèque du moyen français 3 [Montréal 1998] xix-xx), somes errors he noted seem to
come from the exemplar that the scribe had in front of him, as several manuscripts of the text contain it; See
the examples Champroral (VII, §10) and Chose tresmanifeste et (VII,1) cited in the Introduction. In
addition, it can be suggested that the author was not always able to detect and then correct, during the
transcription process, some usual errors of his model (for instance, l ’eglise de Saincte Marie Vierge (VI, §2,
p. 706 [no variant in the critical apparatus] for Santa maria Ughi). In fact, the transcription of this
manuscript written in high-quality calligraphy could have been a passive and mechanical copying process;
however it was the author himself who transcribed it. Likewise, the incompatibility between a particularly
incorrect reading of the Vatican manuscript and our modern representation of the translator (for instance la
Rue for l ’A rne in Firenze at the VI, §2, fol. 185r [reading shared with manuscripts WIE et BN1]) must be
put into perspective with the facility to make some copying errors (for instance, the reading laine for l ’Arne
at the VIII, §7 fol. 244v and l ’A rne correctly transcribed in VIII, §7, fol. 249v). Lastly, the incorrect
readings are limited in quantity, with respect to the length of the text; I counted about 240 copying errors for
about 52 000 lines in the manuscript, that is to say one error per 215 lines.
38 Martin, Le Boccace de Jean sans Peur (n. 5 above) 10-11. Usually, the letters u et n are clearly distin
guished in Premierfait’s original manuscripts. See A. Rochebouet, “Une confusion graphique fonction
nelle ? Sur la transposition du U et du N dans les textes en ancien français,” Scriptorium 63 (2009) 206-219.
On the contrary, the hesitation cited by H. Martin between Evetratides (VI, §6, table, fol. 228v) and Eutra-
dites (text, fol. 247r) must correspond to an error in the exemplar, as it appears in the manuscripts Arsenal,
Geneva and BnF, fr. 226 (but not in the manuscript Paris, BnF, fr. 131 in possession of G. Col).
historian A. D. Hedeman suggested that the transcriptor of the Geneva original manu
script of the Des cas of 1409 could not be the author, as this hand has mechanically
reproduced some notes for the illuminator written in the exemplar and not intended to
be transcribed as the text itself.39
Although a complete survey of the Latin and French manuscript traditions of texts
published by Laurent de Premierfait could lead to the construction of a more precise
“profile” of the transcriptors of these original manuscripts, the presence of errors
seems to me a criterion of exclusion and not of identification of an autograph manu-
script;40 an intelligent scribe can intervene in the text as would the author himself and
a particularly scrupulous scribe can reproduce the exemplar word for word, without
making a single error.41 Moreover, except in the case of a “codex descriptus,” it is
often difficult to make a distinction between the errors of the author as copyist and the
errors of the author as writer of his text.
Since the investigations conducted by Ouy and Di Stefano, the autography of
Premierfait’s manuscripts has not been “put to the question”: no new clues have been
discovered and no more extensive assessment has been attempted.42 As the textual
criterion seems to have reached a deadlock and has generally been based on presuppo
sitions (in particular about the quality of a manuscript copied by an author-transcriptor
of his own works43), I have decided to start again from the sole certainty: the auto
graph of Premierfait’s vidimus. Before examining the “Rosetta Stone” of the
Premierfait file, it will be necessary to reassess a presupposition at the core of the
autography problem: there is not one hand responsible for transcribing the Arsenal and
Vatican manuscripts,44 but two.
39 Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 59. Three times, on the line that precedes the miniature,
in the blank between the end of the text and the ruling line, we can observe the words, written in red ink,
“histoire du tiers chapiltre” (fol. 10r), “histoire” (fol. 47v) and “histoire” (fol. 49v). However, as they give
no precision and as they are not numbered, it is difficult to understand the purpose of these notes for the
effective completion of the miniatures. Moreover, it is probable that the scribe intended to suppress a blank
in the manuscript. Contrary to his practices in other parts of the codex and contrary to the layout of other
manuscripts of the text, this hand adds an explicit before the miniature of fol. 164 (vol. I), in order to fill a
blank, similar to the indications histoire cited by Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 39: “Cy fine le
xviije chapiltre.” This scribe has, indeed, a “horror vacui.” On folio 149v, he also adds an explicit in red ink,
to fill the gap due to the completion of the miniature on the next column (fol. 150r) and not just below the
end of the preceding chapter; see also fol. I, 44v; I, 153r; II, 15v.
40 In her recent critical edition of Premierfait’s translation of Cicero’s De senectute, S. Marzano, Texte,
Codex & Contexte 6 (Turnhout 2009) 17-19, makes clear that nothing in the textual quality of her original
base-manuscript could invalidate the autography of the manuscript. About errors of copy in autograph
manuscripts, see Reeve, “Errori in autografi,” Gli autografi (n. 13 above) 37-60.
41 G. Di Stefano, “La première traduction française du Decameron: le ms. Paris, BNF, fr. 239 et la
nouvelle de Iancofiore (VIII, 10),” Romania 117 (1999) 160-185; G. Ouy & Chr. Reno, “Manuscrits copiés
en série: les quatre témoins contemporains du Livre des fais et bonnes meurs du sage roy Charles V
d ’icelluy nom,” Cahiers de recherches médiévales 16 (2008) [http://crm.revues.org//index10922.html]
42 Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 104, cautiously confines herself to citing the demonstra
tion of G. Ouy; and Tesnière, Boccaccio visualizzato (n. 4 above) 211, considers the autography probable,
given the intervention of Premierfait’s contemporaries in the transcription of their own texts.
43 On this issue, see Olivier Delsaux, Manuscrits et pratiques autographes chez les écrivains français de
la fin du Moyen Age (Genève 2013).
44 Martin, Le Boccace de Jean sans Peur (n. 5 above) 12; Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 28; Tesnière,
Boccacio (n. 4 above) 211.
308 OLIVIER DELSAUX
Th e Sc r ib e s o f t h e O r ig in a l M a n u s c r ip t s
In 1999, M.-H. Tesnière suggested, in her codicological description of the manuscript
Arsenal 5193, that the text had been copied by several hands;45 in 2008, Hedeman
identified only two hands.46 Even if this distinction is crucial for the demonstration of
the autography, it was not supported by any pictures or by the confrontation of these
hands with the hand of other original manuscripts.
Hand T: In my opinion, this hand has transcribed fols. 1-30 of the manuscript Arse
nal 5193 (ca. 120 columns of text), Geneva, BPU, fr. 190 (ca. 1450 cols.), Vatican,
BAV, pal. lat. 1989 (ca. 1300 cols.) and the manuscript—hitherto excluded from the
corpus of original manuscripts, as a first or medieval possessor was unknown—
Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12776 (ca. 1460 cols.),47 as shown below:
Ars., 17r [fols. Ars., 6r [fols. 1-30] Ars., 21r [fols. 1 Ars., 14r [fols. 1 Ars., 13r [fols.
1-301 301 301 1-301
ncûcs pîûlcçiic tmm aula» dtofei

Geneva, I, 15r Geneva, I, Ir Geneva, I, 20r Geneva, I, 12v Geneva, I, 6v
.(rettesi piolfljlic attìnta munte djofc

Vienna, 9v Vienna, 70r Vienna, 10 lv V ienna, 7r Vienna, lv
UclKS piologuf tuiltttfi eftofia

Vatican, 7 Ir Vatican, lr Vatican, 15v Vatican, 2v Vatican, 185r
ndya rpiologti cuhöttt duina Ctjoftl

I have designated this scribe as “Hand T” due to the very recognizable “trefoil” that he
uses at the end of certain chapters and at the end of certain titles:
Geneva, I, 128v et II, 69r Burney 257, 4v 7907A, 144r, 144v

J* .
\ 9> >jp F
Vatican, 25r / 291v Arsenal, 6r, 24v Vienna, IV. 7 et II. 24]
j rA t : i f ! .to
© Geneva, BPU / Paris, BnF / Vienna, ÖNB / London, BL / Vatican, BAV
45 Tesnière, Boccaccio visualizzato (n. 4 above) 80.

46 Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 57-58 (which limited the identity to the fols. 1-30 of the
Arsenal manuscript).
47 On this manuscript, see Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 128-129; O. Pächt & D. Thoss, Die
Illuminierten Handschriften und Inkunabeln der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Französische Schule I
(Vienna, 1974) n° 131; C. Bozzolo, “Notice,” Boccacio visualizzato n° 22; codicological description availa
ble on-line: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/AL00094473. Several miniatures stolen from the Vienna manuscript
are now in Pavia (Museo Civico, Sezione Arti Minori, n° 921-926 (M.-H. Tesnière,” Boccaccio visual
izzato 23).
This trefoil appears at the end of a title, of an explicit or of a chapter,48 and more rarely
for material reasons (at the end of a column or at the end of a line to fill a blank or to
avoid the transcription of the isolated first letter of a word at the end of a line).49 The
use of this trefoil at various crucial junctions in the manuscript, in particular close to
the signature “Laurent” or “Laurencius” in the samples cited above, confirms its role
as “trademark” (copied in a particularly noticeable and strategic location of the codex),
more than its role as scribal tic or final punctuation mark. In any case, its presence is
not systematic. For instance, in the Vatican Decameron, only eleven tales contain a
trefoil at the six main locations where it is likely to appear in the transcription of a
tale.50
I have found a small “seing manuel” (in form of a treble clef) at the end of the
catchword of folio 168v of the manuscript Burney 257. This could help to identify
other manuscripts copied by this hand:
Fol. 168v © Londres, BL [only reproduction available]
The work of Hand T is not limited to manuscripts of Premierfait’s French texts. I have
found this hand in a manuscript of Premierfait that has never been included in the
corpus of the original manuscripts, due to lack of evidence: MS London, BL, Burney
257 (Achilleid and Thebaid of Statius and Summary and Commentary by Premierfait,
ca. 496 cols. of text), manuscript dated from the end of the fourteenth century by its
decoration and its writing, which would be a reproduction “in facsimile” from the
author’s exemplar51. Here is a comparison between Burney and Geneva:
Bumey, fol. 4v Bumey, fol. 4v Bumey, fol. 4v
ïautttmus dictes. poetai

Geneva, I, fol. 5v Geneva, I, fol. 15r Geneva, I, fol. llv
Irntm is. tteics. fpoco»

Geneva. I. fol. 37r Geneva, I, fol. 31r Geneva, I, fol. 19r
pattas nnfr$ dôtaOue

48 In the Geneva Des cas, we have found 112 occurrences for 176 chapters (that is to say about 30% of
the less than 352 locations where a trefoil can appear in the peritext), including 50 at the end of a title; in the
Vienna Des cas, 92 occurences (at the end of a chapter or of a title); for the about 660 locations where a
trefoil can potentially appear in the Vatican Decameron (for each tale, the trefoil can appear at the end of the
title of the abstract, the abstract, the title of the introduction, the introduction, the title of the tale, the tale),
we have found 431 occurrences (65%), appearing on a regular basis; 4 in the 11 chapters of the Arsenal Des
cas copied by Hand T; 13 at the end of a chapter, in Terence BnF, lat. 7907A; 3 in Statius Burney 257.
49 See about 20 occurrences of this kind in the Geneva Des cas.
50 That is to say the tales 26, 35, 44, 59, 65, 66, 67, 78, 86, 87, 88, 91, 100.
51 Jeudy and Bozzolo, “Stace et Laurent de Premierfait,” Un traducteur et un humaniste (n. 1 above)
117-143; C. Jeudy and Y-Fr. Riou, “L ’Achilléide de Stace au Moyen Âge: abrégés et arguments,” Revue
d ’histoire des textes 4 (1974) 143-180, esp. 157.
310 OLIVIER DELSAUX
Burney, fol. 13v Burney, fol. 13v Burney, fol. 59v
paratos. m ïc ahîaoo
© Geneva, BPU / London, BL
Another Latin manuscript has been copied by Hand T: Paris, BnF, lat. 7907A of
Terence (318 cols. of text); until now, only the intelligence of the iconographic pro
gram suggested the intervention of Premierfait:52
BnF, 7907A, fol. 148v BnF, 7907A, fol. 148v 7907A, fol. 154r 7907A, fol. 155r
aholcfcn anjum cutt tguur [Prolog

Geneva, II, fol. 41v Geneva, II, fol. 37r Geneva, I, fol. Geneva, I, fol. 1r
39r
atolcfccnt a t ç iu n a u tgituri piolfijuc

BnF, 7907A, fol. 142v BnF, 7907A, fol. 143v 7907A, fol. 3r 7907A, fol. 3r
ptcceôcui içuoiâta abii

Geneva, I, fol. 26v Geneva, I, 6r Geneva, I, fol. Geneva, I, fol. 2r
33r
piCfCÖflUÖ iiguotaiicc atouti itfpont

BnF, 7907A, fol. 4r BnF, 7907A, fol. 5r 7907A, fol. 104v 7907A, fol. 61v
ptniofopt) em u p h n u »Itato
Geneva, II, 31r Geneva, II, 32r Geneva, II, 37r Geneva, I, 125v
phuofoptw cmuptc. c o u g - habeo.

© Geneva, BPU / Paris, BnF
Thus, this identification of the scribe of the manuscripts Burney 257 and BnF, lat.
7907A allows us to confirm the identification of Premierfait as author of the Com
mentaries on Statius and Terence copied in these two codices, an identification hith
erto regarded as probable but not certain.5253
Hand S: In the Arsenal manuscript, as we have just noted, Hand T limited his work to
the first quires of the manuscript (stopping at the end of a quire, in the middle of
chapter I, §12, fol. 30v); the rest of the manuscript (ca. 1500 cols. of text) has been
transcribed by another hand. This hand appears in another original manuscript of
Premierfait: in folios 8-104 of the manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 7789 of Cicero’s De
senectute (ca. 200 col. of text). I call it “Hand S” due the very particular shape of his
“s” at the end of a line. Here are the samples of his writing for the two French manu
scripts he transcribed:
52 Jeudy and Bozzolo, “Stace et Laurent de Premierfait” (n. 1 above) 141; Hedeman, “Laurent de Prem-
ierfait and the Visualization of Antiquity” (n. 3 above).
53 Jeudy and Bozzolo, “Stace et Laurent de Premierfait,” (n. 1 above); Jeudy and Riou, “L ’Achilléide de
Stace au Moyen Âge” (n. 51 above); Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence” (n. 6 above).
Latin 7789, fol. 64r Latin 7789, fol. 38r Latin 7789, fol. 56v
mmumtam mttttts
Arsenal, fol. 72v Arsenal, fol. 40r Arsenal, fol. 32r
wmuromw aultu» tonne *

Latin 7789, fol. 81v Latin 7789, fol. 85r
lhutln imxûutc gememUr

Arsenal, fol. fol. 40r Arsenal, fol. 84r
tonila» tmrfraregaueaitu
Latin 7789, fol. 56r Latin 7789, fol. 56r et 104r
JaW.Ä'i ^ c*?
Arsenal, fol. 72v Arsenal, fol. 32r et 34v
ft0“?
© Paris, BnF
This hand has also transcribed the Terence plays and their Commentary by Premierfait
in fols. 1-56 of Paris, BnF, lat. 7907 (ca. 112 cols. of text), a manuscript hitherto
wrongly dated to 1440 and thus largely subsequent to the author’s death and to the
corpus of the original manuscripts.54 In addition, the two-step transcription process of
the manuscript, by two different hands, explains why the Commentary by Premierfait
stops at folio 56 and is followed by another commentary:
Lat. 7789. fol. 17r Lat. 7789. fol. 20v Lat. 7789. fol. 24v Lat. 7789. fol. 80r
Î M Ï f a m m i a l t a t t i r a
Lat. 7907. fol. 52r Lat. 7907, fol. 52r Lat. 7907. fol. 20v Lat. 7907. fol. 44r
» U ilA U . ■
© Paris, BnF
54 Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence” (n. 6 above) 151; Cl. Villa, “Laurencius,” Italia medioe
vale e umanistica 24 (1981) 123-136, esp. 127; G. Ouy, “Un Catalogue d’un type nouveau,” Bibliothèque
de l'école des chartes 122 (1964) 273-291, esp. 291. The fols. 57-184 are heterogeneous in regard to the
begining of the manuscript (writing datable to the 15th c.; thicker parchment; different dimensions of the
ruling frame; disposition of the commentary on both sides of the text; distinction of the protagonists’ inter
ventions by their name in red ink); only the decoration is the same, and contemporary with the transcription
of fols. 57-184 (hence the error in the common dating of the codex). It can be noted that fols. 1-56 form a
codicological unit, constituted by six quaternions. The presence of a catchword on fol. 56v could indicate
that Hand S has copied the six plays and its commentary. No evidence of old provenance: ancien Regius
5074 (“Codex Bigotianus 152,” guard-leaf Ir).
312 OLIVIER DELSAUX
Several forms of writing by this hand are quite characteristic and permit rather easy
recognition: ascender of the initial d turned-down towards the left in a very thin line; v
whose upper line is curved; x of which the second stroke is particularly thin; a with as
sharp upper belly; final s whose inferior belly is particularly curved; g whose tail folds
up immediately under the belly; h whose inferior ascender line cuts across the inferior
part of the downstroke.
Lastly, we can recognize this scribe by his use of two distinctive marks: first, two
dots surmounted by a loop, at the end of some chapters or to fill space at the end of a
line; second, at the end of a chapter or of a title, a sort of trefoil with four dots.
BnF, lat. 7789, fols. 16r / 27v / 33v / 55 v / 62r (end of a title or of a page)
/
Ars., fols. 111v / 136v (end of chapter [highlighted with saffron ink; some other occurrences at the end
of a linei)______________________________________ ____________________________________
I ti i +J £ $ 2' £
/
t / +•> ♦ * '• 2$ &

BnF, lat. 7907, fols. 9v / 12v / 51v / 36r [at the end of a chapter (37 occurences) or at the end of a title or
of an explicit (28 occurences)]
BnF, lat. 7789, fols. 33v / 36v / 39r / 47v (7 occ. [end of chapter])
Arsenal 5193, fols. 37v / 389r /46v [the last three samples are in pink ink] (6 occurences, all at the end of
a chapter)_____________________________________________________________________________
. / ■ /
BnF, lat. 7907, fols. 52r / 27v (end of chapter)
© Paris, BnF
The confrontation below confirms that hands S et T are two different hands (see, in
particular, the calligraphy of the final s and of the initial stroke of v and d):
BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 55v BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 79v BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 55r
t o r te ß p rrfo ie inflow#
Geneva, I, fol. 30v Geneva, I, fol. 109r Geneva, I, fol. 30d
ropKs perfetti • in c ite s

© Geneva, BPU / Paris, BnF
The “trademark” they use and their working methods are quite different; for instance,
Hand S copies the titles during the transcription of the text itself and with the same
brown ink, while Hand T copies the titles with red ink after transcribing the text itself.
It seems unlikely that Hand T or Hand S was the transcriptor of the Arsenal 664
Terence manuscript, generally also regarded as an original manuscript, since it shares,
or even copies, the iconographic program of BnF, lat. 7907A and as the Master of
Luçon, principal illustrator of the Geneva manuscript, and the Master of Flavius Jose
phus and the Orosius Master, both specialized in the illustration of classical texts, took
part in the illustration of these two Terence manuscripts:55
BnF, lat. 7907A, fol, 7v
fr te rtg p in u p n ta c ittc
BnF, lat. 7907, fol. 12v
Arsenal 664, fol. 11v

a n n o im i
1c r i w r i t p a t r r i i i i p m c n i t t u i
Lat. 7907, fol. 26v
Arsenal 664, fol. 46v
facumt hoTui ttrprmofrans

© Paris, BnF / Geneva, BPU
Thus, we can confirm the presumption of some art historians: the manuscript Arsenal
664 is not directly connected with BnF, lat. 7907A.56
Another paleographic issue is the identity of the other scribe of the manuscript
BnF, lat. 7789 (mainly copied by Hand S), who copied the Oratio pro Marcello (fols.
1-7), added to the manuscript at a second stage.57 The writing of this scribe shares
some features with Hand T:
55 On these illuminators, see H. Martin, Le Térence des ducs (Paris, 1907) 13-14; Meiss, French Paint
ing (n. 3 above) 393-400; Fr. Avril, “Gli autori classici illustrati in Francia dal XIII al XV secolo,” Vedere i
Classici (1996) 87-98.
56 Villela-Petit, “Notice,” Paris 1400 (n. 6 above) n° 145.
57 The transcription of the text is heterogeneous with regard to the rest of the codex. The text has been
transcribed in a ruling frame drawn with a different instrument (light brown ink and not pink or grey as in
the other parts of the manuscript) and within two independent quires (bifolio consisting in the inside cover +
a senion). Nonetheless, the craftsmen tried to maintain a certain homogeneity between the Oratio pro Mar
cello and the rest of the manuscript. For instance, the dimensions of the ruling frame are close to those of the
quires containing the De senectute (fols. 8-33), even if the frame presents more lines by page due to a
smaller unit of ruling: 175 x 99 mm (UR of 0,6; 27/28 lines per page) for the Oratio versus 176/177 x
10/101 (UR of 0,7; 26 lines per page) for the Senectute. Moreover, if the ornemanist of fol. 1r is not identi
cal to the decorator of the rest of the manuscript, he is a member of the same workshop “aux échancrures.”
Besides, the solidarity of fol. 1 with the top inside cover and the unity of fol. 104 with the bottom inside
cover shows that the addition of the Oratio was very fast, and in any case took place before the original
binding (which is probably the current binding in red velvet). It can be confirmed by the fact that the Oratio
has been checked with a saffron ink as the rest of the manuscript. Lastly, it would be delicate to insist too
314 OLIVIER DELSAUX
BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 6r BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 3v BnF, lat. 7789, BnF, lat. 7789, fol. 2v
fol. 6r
|a t u m u 6 | im d n tette. pictntc
Geneva, I, fol. 85v Geneva, I, fol. 69r Geneva, I, fol. Geneva, I, fol. 60r
125v
la tu m u s . mirini Mit». jpicmtr.

© Paris, BnF
The correspondence of these two hands is possible, but not certain.

The confirmation that two hands exist does not permit to confirm or disprove that
we are dealing with autograph manuscripts. But it does show that the author did not
work alone. Also, this double identification supports the confirmation that every sig
nature we find in the original manuscripts is not the copyist’s signature and that is
does not identify the person in charge of its preparation. Considering their respective
role in the manuscripts, can we determine which of these hands might be the author’s?
Hand T seems to have had a privileged position with respect to Hand S. Hand T
intervened in all the manuscripts regarded as original, except, perhaps, in the very
short BnF, latin 7789 and in the partially preserved BnF, latin 7907; Hand S inter
vened in only two manuscripts, and each time partially (fols. 8-104 of BnF, lat. 7789
and fols. 31-405 of Arsenal 5193). In addition, Hand T intervened for a longer period
in the Premierfait manuscripts, from the Burney manuscript at the beginning of the
fifteenth century until 1414 Vatican Decameron. In the Arsenal and Geneva manu
scripts, Hand T transcribed, in an independent quire, the dedication prologue of the
Des cas of 1409 to the duke of Berry.58 It can be recalled that Hand S never used red
ink (he transcribes the titles while copying the text itself); thus, Hand S could limit his
interventions to one working campaign. In addition, in the Des cas of 1409 manu
scripts, in the cases where there is a large blank at the end of a column (due to the
placement of a miniature at the beginning of the next column), sole Hand T inserts
additional text, for instance an explicit—insertion that can attest a certain authority on
the text or/and an “horror vacui.” Moreover, the irregularity of the letters transcribed
much on the codicological independence of the Oratio, as the fols. 8-33 of the De senectute are also inde
pendent from fols. 34-104 of Vieillesse: the dimensions of the ruling frame of Vieillesse (165 x 95 (UR of
0,6/0,7)) are different of those of De senecute; the ink used to draw the ruling frame of the two first quires
of the French text is pink and not grey (fols. 34-49); the folios of the De senectute consist in a specific
codicological unit (3 quaternions + 2 folios on stub).
58 In the prologue to the Duke Jean de Berry, the translator makes clear that he has added this text to his
initial prologue: “ je, au surcroiz de tout ce livre, ay mis fiablement ce prologue afin que chascun
congnoisce que vous n ’estes pas seulemant nez pour vous, mais pour proufiter à tous en ouvrend la voie
d’eschaper les cas de Fortune muable et aveuglesse” (Arsenal, fol. 6a). The first prologue of the Arsenal
manuscript has been transcribed on a senion and not a quaternion, as it is the case for the other quires of the
manuscript; in fact, it is the only quire without running titles. In addition, the prologue begins without any
sort of title (the second prologue opens by the title “Prologue du translateur,” without any indication that it
has been preceded by another prologue) and it ends in col. 6b; thus, two columns and an half are blank,
before the beginning of the second prologue at col. 7a; in the manuscript, the transition from one part to
another does not show any disruption of this sort. The second prologue of the Geneva manuscript has also
been transcribed in a separate quire (fols. 1-5, incomplete quaternion), also without any running title, but
with an opening title written in red ink (“Premier prologue sur le livre des cas des nobles hommes et
femmes translaté de latin en françois”).
by Hand T, which sometimes seem to knock against one another, and the variations in
some ductus (for instance the a) could indicate that it is not the hand of a professional
scribe, but the author’s own.59 Nevertheless, Hand T had no authority over Hand S;
apart from one case,60 he did not intervene in the quires transcribed by this hand.
The fact that the work of transcription was shared by a relatively limited number of
scribes during twenty years is remarkable. It could indicate the existence of a network
mobilized at several times for the transcription of Premierfait’s texts; it is probable
that Premierfait was satisfied with these scribes, no doubt for the aesthetic or philo
logical quality of their work.61 Furthermore, the fact that the transcription of these
original manuscripts was under authorial scrutiny and was non-delegated to a third-
party (libraire or professional craftsman) could be confirmed by the fact that there
remains no record of payment to a craftsman for the preparation and completion of
one of these manuscripts.62
59 Since the original manuscripts have been transcribed by two hands, it could be tempting to identify
them with Laurent de Premierfait and his brother Guillaume Guillot, as both were notaries and were thus
able to calligraph a document. That could explain the morphological proximity between these two hands.
On Premierfait’s brother, see Famiglietti, “The Career” (n. 1 above) 32-33.
60 At chapter II, §2 of the Des cas of 1409, Hand T has erased and corrected the two blanks appearing in
the manuscripts of Geneva and Arsenal, respectively copied by Hand T and Hand S for this Book (Geneva,
I, fol. 47r and Arsenal, fol. 49r).
61 Concerning the other craftsmen, their identification is quite remote from the question of the author’s
intervention in the transcription, as they worked independently of the transcriptors of the text. By the nature
of their work, groups of illuminators did intervene in corpus of manuscripts larger and less circumscribed
than those written by scribes and they did not really limit their manuscript production to one author or one
sort of texts; sometimes, several groups of illuminators intervene in the same manuscript, for limited parts.
Besides, the scribes were the only craftsmen able to work directly at an author’s home, in view of the more
restricted material infrastructure they needed to work. On these questions, see R. H. Rouse and M. R. Rouse,
Manuscripts and their Makers. Commercial Book Producers in Medieval Paris. 1200-1500 (London and
Turnhout 2000) passim; É. Cottereau, “Les contrats de copistes en France aux XIVe et XVe siècles et
l’influence des formules notariales bolonaises,” Mélanges de l ’Ecole française de Rome. Moyen Âge 119
(2007) 415^45; É. Cottereau, “Le travail des copistes: entre idéaux, contraintes et choix,” Du scriptorium à
l ’atelier. Copistes et enlumineurs dans la conception du livre manuscrit au Moyen Âge, ed. J.-L. Deuffic,
Pecia 13 (Turnhout, 2010) 105-150; K. Fianu, “Les professionnels du livre à la fin du XIIIe siècle:
l’enseignement des registres fiscaux parisiens,” Bibliothèque de l ’Ecole des chartes 150 (1992) 185-222; K.
Fianu, “Métiers et espace: topographie de la fabrication et du commerce du livre à Paris (XIIIe-XVe
siècles),” Patrons, Authors and Workshops. Books and Book Production in Paris around 1400, ed. G.
Croenen and P. Ainsworth, Synthema 4 (Louvain 2006) 21—45. In any case, it seems possible to identify the
ornemanist of the major part of the initials and borders in the manuscripts copied by Hands S and T with
those of the “Atelier aux échancrures” (typology of Villela-Petit for the original manuscripts of Christine of
Pizan) / and with “Hands A et B” of the Psalter of the Duke Jean de Berry Paris, BnF, fr. 13091 (typology
of S. Nash). I. Villela-Petit, “Introduction sur les enlumineurs ornemansites,” Album Christine de Pizan,
Texte, Codex & Contexte 14 (Turnhout 2012) 52; S. Nash, “De la main maistre André Beaunepveu. Le
Psautier de Jean de Berry,” “Sans égal en aucun pays.”André Beauneveu artiste des cours de France et de
Flandre, ed. S. Nash (Bruges, 2007) 136-140. This workshop completed the decoration of several manu
scripts intended for the Duke Jean de Berry.
62 The only indications relative to contemporary manuscripts of Premierfait concern BnF, lat. 7907A and
the Geneva manuscript, both mentioned as gifts to the duke Jean de Berry by Martin Gouge, bishop of
Chartres, treasurer and counsellor of the duke (1402-1416) and receveur des finances et conseiller of the
king of France Charles VI (ca. 1403-1409): “lequel livre fu donné à mondit Seigneur, ou mois de janvier
l’an mil CCCC et VII par monseigneur Martin Gouge, lors son tresorier general et à present evesque de
Chartres.” J. Guiffrey, Inventaires de Jean duc de Berry (1401-1416) (Paris 1894-1896) I n° 969]); “lequel
monseigneur l’evesque de Chartres donna à Monseigneur aux estraines, le premier jour de janvier mil
CCCC et X”; Guiffrey, Inventaires I n° 993, (in 1411, that is to say two years after the date mentioned by
the author in the explicit).
316 OLIVIER DELSAUX
At this stage, I cannot postulate that these scribes were working under the direct
supervision of Premierfait.63 They could have worked for a libraire specialized in the
production Premierfait’s manuscripts, but independently from him.64 To get a better
idea of their relationship, it would be necessary to know if Hand T and/or Hand S
copied other manuscripts of texts not written or edited by Premierfait. If such were the
case, the identification of one of these two hands with Premierfait would become more
improbable. On the basis of a short survey,65 I have been able to find a hand similar to
Hand S in a manuscript of Livy’s Ab urbe condita translated by Pierre Bersuire (Paris,
BnF, fr. 263), illustrated by the Master of Virgil, decorated by the “Atelier aux
échancrures” and bought by Jean de Berry.66 The way these two scribes fill the gap at
the end of a line is very similar:
BnF. lat. 7789. fol. 56r. 104r BnF. fr. 263. fol. 15Or. 173r
g f * ■' - Æ
7 ’ 1 -c* V r V 4
BnF. lat. 7789. fol. 55v. 62r BnF, fr. 263, fol. 27r, 80r, 113r, 163r, 167r
% » ♦ç \V '\ V P -
© Paris, BnF
As for the writing, it is close, but not identical:
63 About this kind of supervision by contemporaries, see G. Ouy, “Autographes calligraphiés et scriptoria
d’humanistes en France vers 1400,” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’à 1610) du Comité des
travaux historiques et scientifiques. Année 1963. Actes du 88e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes tenu
à Clermont-Ferrand (1966) 891-898. On the miniature production during Premierfait’s activity, see P. de
Winter, “Copistes, éditeurs et enlumineurs à la fin du XIVe siècle. La production à Paris de manuscrits à
peintures,” Actes du 100e Congrès national des sociétés savantes. Section d ’archéologie. 1975 (Paris
1978) 173-198; Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts and their Makers (n. 62 above); G. Croenen and P. Ains
worth, eds., Patrons, Authors and Workshops. Books and Book Production in Paris around 1400 (Leuven
2006).
64 I join Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 58 and 262, when she suggests that the presence, in
the Geneva and Arsenal manuscripts, of corrections whose reading is absent from other manuscripts of the
text can be explained by the fact that Premierfait proofread the manuscripts without his exemplar or, less
probably, that he had two exemplars. But, these corrected readings only visible in Geneva and Arsenal do
not suggest that these manuscripts were prepared and completed under Premierfait’s personal scrutiny. We
cannot observe any clues of an author’s intervention during the transcription process, as it is possible to see
in some manuscripts supervised by Christine de Pizan. Actually, to get a better insight into the working
methods of Hands S and T (in particular their relation with Premierfait), the collaboration of Premierfait
with a libraire and the authorial supervision of these manuscripts, we need an exhaustive textual and mate
rial study of the Geneva and Arsenal manuscripts and a collation of the three original manuscripts with
several scribal manuscripts, in particular those contemporary with Premierfait.
65 I have limited the survey to manuscripts whose reproduction is available on line, in art history books
or in exhibition catalogues; I started with the manuscripts in possession of Premierfait’s patrons and with
those illustrated by the Masters who intervened in the original manuscripts.
66 On this manuscript, see L. Delisle, Recherches sur la Librairie de Charles V roi de France, 1337—
1380 (Paris 1907) II.233, 310; Meiss, French Painting (n. 3 above) 313.
Lat. 7789. 34r Fr. 263. 62r Lat. 7789. 49v Fr. 263, 33r
iîWWf jmue graute gannite

Lat. 7789. 89v Fr. 263. 33r Lat. 7789. 94v Fr. 263, 33v
a g i r a i ajltdh compatçp rompu gri

Lat. 7789. 81r Fr. 263. 34r Lat. 7789. 41r Fr. 263, 35r
djpcaal 1 ’ieùxat
. ^ d n tfttu djtiftun © Paris, BnF
This hand could be a more mature version of Hand S (BnF, fr. 263 is not precisely
datable) or the work of a scribe from his circle, both specialized in the production of
“humanist” texts.
Hand L (Laurent de Premierfait): In 1983, in an article reconsidering the biography
of Laurent de Premierfait, the historian R. C. Famiglietti cited an account mentioning
that Premierfait had been paid in 1410 by the dauphin Louis de Guyenne for signing
several copies of a nomination letter.67 Fortunately, Famiglietti was also able to iden
tify one of these original copies. It contains a first-person subscription and an “seing
manuel” of Laurent de Premierfait, both autograph; I designate it “Subscription I” :
Et ego Laurentius de Primofacto clericus Trecensis diocesis publicus apostolica et imperiali

auctoritate notarius quia superscriptas imperiales litteras originales michi ad exemplandum
per perfatum honnorabilem et circumspectum virum Johannem Chanteprime ... et per me de
eodem ad predictas originales litteras una cum notario superscripto et testibus pernotatis
facta collatione diligenti ipsum cum eisdem litteris concordare . huic presenti exemplo seu
transcripto signum meum proprium unacum signo et subscriptione dicti notarii superius
appositi hic me manu mea subscribens apposui rogatus in fidem et testimonium omnium et
singulorum (copy authenticated of a letter written in the name of the Emperor Charles IV
and nominating king Charles VI of France, imperial vicar of the kingdom of Arles, Paris,
AN, J612, n° 46bis [autograph for this sample]).
Likewise, Bozzolo pointed out two other autograph subscriptions by Premierfait (des
ignated here as “Subscriptions II and III”).68 These appear in a collection of copies of
letters exchanged between Henry III king of Castille and Charles VI, on which, be
tween 1397 and 1400, two notaries “publici apostolica et imperiali auctoriate” affixed
a first-person subscription and their autograph “seing manuel” :
[Subscription II] Nos vero Michael Lalouyer, magister in artibus, et Laurentius de

Primofacto, clerici rothomangensis et trecensis diocesis, notarii publici auctoritate apostolica
et imperiali quia persnobilem et prudentem virum Johannem Chanteprime domni nostri regis
Francie consiliarium et ipsius regis privilegiorum et cartarum thesaurarium, fuimus cum
instancia requisisti et rogati ut de eisdem literis regiis in lingua vulgari ispanica superius per
67 “Maistres Jehan François et Laurens de Premier Fait, notaires, pour avoir signé [sic]
pluseurs transcrips, par lequel l’empereur Charles 4 roy de Bohene [?] institue le roy qui ors est, vicaire
imperial au Royaume d’Arles vj livres xv sous”; Paris, BnF, fr. 32511, fol. 4v, extract from the account of
Dauphin’s maison; reference in Famiglietti, “The Career” (n. 1 above) 44.
68 Bozzolo, “Introduction à la vie et à l’œuvre d’un humaniste” (n. 1 above) 21.
318 OLIVIER DELSAUX
dominum Femandum de Pace ... Ideo eisdem transcriptis suscriptiones nostras ac signa
nostra manualia in fidei et veritatis robustius firmamentum descripsimus et apposuimus
(Paris AN, J916, n° 16 [subscription and seing manuel, on the right, autograph]69
[Subscription III] Nos vero Laurentius de Primofacto, et Michael Lalouyer, magister in
artibus, clerici Trecensis et Rothomangensis diocesum, publici apostolica et imperiali
auctoritate . Idcirco eidem transcriptis suscriptiones nostras ac signa nostra manualia in
fidei et veritatis robustius firmamentum descripsimus et apposuimus (ibidem, n°19
[subscription and seing manuel, on the left, autograph]
See also:
Nos vero Michael Lalouyer, magister in artibus, et Laureucius [sic] de Primo Facto, clerici
Rothomagensis et Trecensis diocesis notarii publici autoritate apostolica et imperiali ... Ideo
eidem transcripto subscripciones nostras et figurorum nostrorum apposiciones in fidei et
veritatis robustius firmamentum descripsimus et apposuimus (ibidem, n° 18 [seing manuel
autograph, on the rigth]
Nos vero Michael Lalouyer, magister in artibus, et Laurencius de Primo Fatto, clerici
Rothomagensis et Trecensis diocesis publici autoritate apostolica et imperiali notarii .
Idcirco eidem transcripto subscripciones nostras ac signa nostra manualia in fidei et veritatis
robustius firmamentum descripsimus et apposuimus (ibidem, n° 17 [seing manuel autograph,
on the rigth]
Nos vero Michael Lalouyer, magister in artibus, et Laurentius de Primo Facto, clerici
Rothomagensis et Trecensis diocesis publici apostolica et imperiali auctoritate notarii .
Ideo eidem transcripto subscriptiones nostras ac signa nostra manualia in fidei et veritatis
robustius firmamentum descripsimus et apposuimus ~ (ibidem, n° 20 [seing manuel auto
graph, on the rigth]
Given their recent discovery, these vidimus were not scrutinized by G. Ouy; neverthe
less, we can affirm that they are in same hand as that of the subscription discovered by
R. Famiglietti:
J612, n° 40bis et J916, n° 16 et n° 19 © Paris, AN
The hand transcribing these three subscriptions will be designated as Hand L, due to
his particular shaping of this letter (it has two crossing lines) and due to its probable
identity with Premierfait’s hand. Indeed, although some medieval first-person sub-
69 Ibid. 21; cf. also L. Suarez, Castilla, el Cismay la Crisis conciliar (1378-1440) (Madrid 1960) 200-
204.
scriptions were delegated to a scribe and that autography was limited to the signature
(here the “seing manuel”),70 I consider these three subscriptions as genuinely auto
graph in their entirety: 1. the delegation of a subscription to a scribe was a privilege of
the richest notaries and those occupying the highest posts in the chancellery71; 2. I
have found no clues of this kind of delegation for vidimus and certifications of colla
tion by apostolic notaries;72 3. the insistence of subscription I on the autography of the
subscription probably prevents its identification as the work of a scribe;73 4. there is no
ink difference between the seing manuel, impossible to delegate, and the subscription;
5. in subscription I, the hand of Premierfait’s subscription is clearly different from the
hand of the subscription that precedes and the one of the scribe who has copied the
rest of the text; 6. the autograph subscriptions II and III appear in a series of five
copies collated by two notaries: the three others subscriptions have been subscripted
by another hand, clearly the one of the notary who has collated the documents with
Premierfait (the writing of the name in the seing manuel and that of the subscription
are identical); if a scribe had completed the subscriptions, he would have completed
all of them;74 7. the main purpose of subscriptions II and III was precisely to testify
that the subscriptor had checked the copy (collating it by his own hand) and authenti
cated it as conform (cf. some erasures visible in these documents, by the hand of the
subscriptor). In my judgment, Hand L is that of Laurent de Premierfait. Unfortunately,
due to the types of writing used, I have not be able to confirm or disprove a material
correspondence between his hand and Hands S or T. It is true that the lettre de forme
used in the original manuscripts gave little chance of finding any link while the great
care taken to erase all preparations of correction in the majority of the manuscripts
prevents any comparison between the cursive writing of the “proof-reader” and Hand
L.
Fortunately, I have had an opportunity to identify Hand L in two manuscripts that
were not included in the corpus examined by G. Ouy; these manuscripts were not
regarded as contemporary with Premierfait and a fortiori as original manuscripts.
Indeed, this hand appears in some preparations of correction in the folios of the manu
script Paris, BnF, lat. 7907 (Terence’s plays) transcribed by Hand S (fols. 1-56); the
fact that this copy is incomplete explains that preparations have not been erased:
70 A. Giry, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris 1894) 567, 601-607; A. de Boüard, Manuel de diplomatique
française et pontificale. I. Diplomatique générale (Paris, 1929) 176-177, 330-331; H. Millet & E. Poulle,
Le vote de la soustraction d ’obédience en 1398. Tome I. Introduction. Edition et fac-similés des bulletins du
vote, Documents, Etudes et Répertoires publiés par l ’IRHT (Paris 1988) 32-33.
71 O. Morel, La grande chancellerie royale et l ’expédition des lettres royaux de l ’avènement de Philippe
de Valois à la fin du XIVe siècle (1328—1400), Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’École des
Chartes 3 (Paris 1900) 45.
72 Cf. Procès en nullité de la condamnation de Jeanne d ’Arc, ed. P. Duparc (Paris 1986) 4, 230.
73 “Et ego Laurentius de Primofacto clericus Trecensis diocesis publicus apostolica et imperiali auctori
tate notarius ... transcripto signum meum proprium unacum signo et subscriptione dicti notarii superius
appositi hic me manu mea subscribens apposui rogatus in fidem et testimonium omnium et singulorum.”
(J612, n° 40bis.)
74 Except if the collation of this copy with the original has been completed separately by each of the two
notaries, whose subscription would have been completed by their respective collaborator.
320 OLIVIER DELSAUX
So. I Fol. 12v So. 43r So. I 12v So. I 12v So. I 11v
I
r*Y 1V* v t* i9c . 4-
So. I 12v So. 12 So. I 23v So. I 43r So. I 12v

I V
ß1 V'
© Paris, BnF / Paris, AN
These preparations emend copying errors:
Fuit olim quidam senex ° patrem recepisse orbam parvam fabule ! Michi quidem hercle non
fit verisime atque ipsis commentum placet. Sed Misis ab ea egreditur. At ego hinc me ad
forum ut conveniam Pamphilum (Andria, I, 3, v. 221-222, text, BnF, lat. 7907, fol. 12v) ^
marginal correction: mercator . navem is fregit apud Andrum insulam / Is obii mortem.
Ibitum hanc ejectam Crhisidis.75
Hand S, transcriptor of the text, has completed all the corrections prepared by Hand L,
in particular the corrections on erasure. That could indicate that Hand L was probably
the proof-reader and the correction preparer of all other original manuscripts, tran
scribed or corrected by Hands S and T and where the preparations of correction have
been erased and pounced.76
I have also identified Hand L in the correction preparations in a Premierfait manu
script which has been neglected by scholars due to its relatively recent acquisition by a
public collection (1971) and due to the fact that it is not illustrated. This manuscript
Brussels, KBR, IV 920 contains the first version of the translation of the De casibus, c.
1400 (c. 454 cols. of text).77 Along with the manuscript Paris BnF, fr. 24289 (= Bn1),
75 See also: Andria, I, 2, fol. 11r; I, 5, fol. 16r; Andria, II, 4, fol. 20v; II, 5, fol. 23v; II, 6, fol. 25v; V, 1,
fol. 43v; V, 2, fol. 44r.
76 In the Vienna manuscript, I found no evidence of a proofreading posterior to the transcription. It could
explain why this manuscript, written by Hand T, as were Geneva and Arsenal (partially for the last), did not
receive some of the corrections completed in these two manuscripts. As suggested by Hedeman, Translating
the Past (n. 3 above) 137-145, V, §5 & §9, this can also explain the confusion in the placement of the
miniature of two chapters which begin with the same incipit, which was probably used to direct the place
ment of miniatures.
77 This manuscript was pointed out by S. Marzano, “La traduction du De casibus virorum illustrium de
Boccace par Laurent de Premierfait (1400): entre le latin et le français,” in T. Van Hemelryck and C. Van
Hoorebeeck, eds., L ’écrit et le manuscrit à la fin du Moyen Âge (Turnhout 2006) 229-238, who did not,
however, consult it for her edition. The end of the closing title (copied by the scribe, but a little bit after the
copy of the text itself) has been erased and replaced by droit latin: “Cy fine le livre de Jehan Boccace des
cas des nobles hommes et femmes translaté en françois selon le droit latin.” According to the part of letters
that we can now observe, it was probably a text similar to the end title of the Baltimore manuscript: “selond
le droit latin par moy Laurent de Premierfait. Deo gracias” (Baltimore, WAG, 315, fol. 291v). The arms of
the Rochechouart appear on the second guard-leaf; it could be François of Rochechouart, chambellan of
Duke Louis II of Orléans (future Louis XII) and seneschal of Toulouse; about him and his manuscripts, see
L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale (Paris 1868-1881) 2.398. The fact that
he commissioned a copy of the Demandes by Pierre Salmon copied from a dedication manuscript presented
to Charles VI or to the Dauphin Louis de Guyenne, Geneva, BPU, fr. 165 (A. D. Hedeman, O f Counselors
and Kings. The Three Versions o f Pierre Salmon’s "Dialogues” [Chicago 2001] 76-79) could show that in
it is the sole manuscript of this work contemporary with the author. The Brussels
manuscript, or one very similar, was probably the model of the codex descriptus Paris,
BnF, fr. 597 (that is to say the manuscript Bn2 of the edition of this text by S. Mar-
zano).78
The scribe of KBR IV 920, which was copied in lettre courante and corrected by
Hand L, is neither S nor T. He is recognizable by the mark used at the end of some
chapters79 or some titles80 and by the paraph (seing manuel) of his catchwords:
Fol. 134v Fol. 135r Fol. 48V Fol. 36r J916.n° 20
K* î ~ :'.S?
♦
© Brussels, KBR / Paris, AN
I have not been able to identify him with any certainty. Nevertheless, the same
“trademark” appears at the end of the autograph subscription of the apostolic and im
perial notary who collated the vidimus copies with Premierfait (Michel Lalouyer).81
Now, this collation took place between 1397 and 1400, at the request of Jean
Chanteprime, keeper of the charters of the chambre des comptes, that is to say at the
very moment when Premierfait completed his first translation of the De casibus, for
this same Jean Chanteprime, perhaps at his home, as his “familier et clerc.”82 The hand
the case of KBR IV 920, he also had access to a royal or ducal manuscript. On KBR IV 920, see Sotheby &
Co. Bibliotheca Phillippica. Medieval Manuscripts. New Series. Part VI, Catalogue o f Manuscripts on
Papyrus, Vellum and Paper o f the 7th to the 18th Century. Day o f Sale. Tuesday 30th November 1971 n°
506; Cinq années d ’acquisitions 1969—1973. Exposition organisée à la Bibliothèque royale Albert I e du 18
janvier au 1er mars 1975 (Bruxelles, 1975) n° 18.
78 All the variants of the KBR manuscript for Book I appear in this manuscript, even errors of copy and
some corrections of them. As the manuscript Bn2 was produced for Charles of Bourgogne, count of Nevers
(son of Philip the Good), and his wife Marie of Albret, daughter of Charles of Albret (son of Charles of
Albret, connestable of Bourbon), we can estimate that the KBR manuscript circulated in the high nobility.
On this manuscript, see Bozzolo, Manuscrits (n. 4 above) 77-78.
79 IV, §4, §8, §14, §15, §19; V, §1, §2, §4, §8, §11, §12, §14, §17, §18, §19, §20; VI, §1, §3, §4, §11,
§12, §13, §14; VII, §1, §2, §5, §6, §7, §8, §9; VIII , §2, §9, §12, §14, §15, §16, §19; IX, §3, §4, §8, §9, §19.
80 I, §6, §19; II, §1; III, §9; IV, §11, §15, §18; VII, §7.
81 Bozzolo has identified him among the maistres de la nation of Normandy at the University of Paris
submitting their petition in 1403; H. Denifle and E. Chatelain, Chartularium universitatis parisiensis (Paris
1897) 4.100. I have found one mention of an autograph subscription at the end of a copy of the hommage of
the John Duke of Bretagne to the king of France Charles VI (in 1403), with his seing manuel: “Et ego
Michael Lalouyer, clericus rothomagensis diocesis oriundus, magister in artibus, et apostolica auctoritate
notarius publicus ... ideo idem quod per prius in notam per alterum nostrum redactum fuerat in scriptis me
subscripsi et signum meum apposui consuetum, requisitus in testimonium veritatis omnium et singulorum
praemissorum.” Th. Godefroy, Le ceremonial françois II (Paris 1649) 661. There is also the mention of a
cure given to Michel Lalouyer in 1401, in Notre-Dame de Franqueville; Ch. de Robillard de Beaurepaire,
“Notes et documents concernant l’état des campagnes de la haute Normandie dans les derniers temps du
Moyen Âge,” Recueil des travaux de la Société libre d ’agriculture, sciences, arts et belles-lettres de l ’Eure
8 (1862-1863) 347-790, esp. 573.
82 See the closing title of the shortening of this translation completed by Jean Lamelin: “fu translaté de
latin en franchois par Laurent, famillier et clerc de noble et saige homme Jehan Chanteprime, consillier du
roy de France nostre sire, le samedi XIIIejour de novembre l’an mil IIIIc. Et lesdits extrais fais et acomplis
par moy Jehan Lamelin, conseiller en parlement, le XXIIIe jour du mois de ottobre l’an mil IIIIc
XXXI.” (Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 3880, fol. 133r). On this version of the text, see S. Marzano, “Traductions
de Laurent de Premierfait. Le texte après le texte,” Le moyen français 63 (2008) 73-82.
322 OLIVIER DELSAUX
of KBR IV 920 and the hand of the autograph subscriptions of Michel Lalouyer seem
very similar:83
KBR IV 920, J916, n° 20 KBR, fol. 38r J916, n° 20 KBR, fol. 12v J916, n° 20
fol. 16r
Uct*
*-■ - 4* iX
(>
KBR. fol. 27r J916. n° 20 KBR. fol. 5r J916. n° 20 KBR. fol. 12r J916. n° 20
■ lent >n\i
KBR. fot lr J916. n° 20 KBR. fol. 4r J916. n° 20 KBR. fol. 55v J916. n° 20
KBR. fol. 145v

liä
J916. n° 20
&
KBR. fol. 7r J916. n° 20
|f X
Hi___
l
© Paris, AN / Bruxelles, KBR
Twenty preparations of correction, in margin and in cursive writing, seem to be writ

ten by the Hand L:
KBR IV 920, fol. 9r
Sscr. I fol. 4r Sscr. I fol. Ssc fol. Sscr. II fol. 54v Sscr. fol. 9r
F ITT
9r r. I 12v
N
II
Sscr. I
Sscr. II
fol. 9r
fol. 9r
S'
I
Sscr. I
Sscr. I
fol.
9r
fol.
Ssc
r. I
Ssc
fol.
9r
fol.
Sscr. II
Sscr. II
fol. 9r
O )
fol. 10r
Sscr.
i
Sscr.
9r
fol. 12r
83
f 11 1£■ 9r r. I 9r ii
4 r
If this identification was true, we could confirm, if needed, the importance of notaries in the transmis
sion of texts and knowledge in the Paris of Charles VI. We could also confirm that the rewriter of the first
translation of the text was Jean Lamelin and that he had shortened the version supported by Jean Chan-
teprime.
Sscr. I fol. 61v Sscr. II Sscr. fol.

III 61
V
Vvj
1 lib
© Paris, AN / Brussels, KBR
The preparations of corrections (in margin) and the corrections (in subscription or by
erasure) by Hand L are redactional and linguistic corrections that seem clearly com
pleted by the author rereading the manuscript, pen in hand; these corrections are par
ticularly present at the beginning of the manuscript (Books I to III) and some have
been made in a certain hurry, without taking time to let the ink dry (see the “printing”
of the correction preparation of fol. 161v on fol. 162r).
In addition to corrections of errors of copy, there are preparations that emend incor
rect readings of the varia lectio indicated in S. Marzano’s edition and that were proba
bly present in the first phase of the exemplar. As these corrections bring the French
translation closer to the Latin source, I can confirm that Hand L, proof-reader of this
manuscript is the author and not merely a particularly well-informed reader:84856
et puis qu’il ot laissié Polipus, malgré lui, vint Edipus en l ’isle de Thirus et prinst response
des dieux qu’il trouveroit son pere en la montaingne Phocis, et au derrenier prendroit sa mere
a femme = in Cyrram veniens85 (I, §8, KBR IV 920, fol. 9v + Bn1 [= BnF, fr. 24289], Bn3
[= BnF, fr. 132]) ^ 86 lui vint Edipus en la Cité Cyrra et prist (fol. 9v);
lequel thoreau avoit bareté aucunefoiz et endurcis = juventutis attice vires mira virtute
superavit (I, §9, fol. 12v + Bn1, Bn3)] ^ bar. aucuns fors et end.;
la partie trop tenue par maigresse estendre en groisseur par viandes enmielees et par souppes;
la grasse elles rendent ° par jeunes ou par viandes agues = pinguem jejuniis aut acetis
junceam reddere (I, §18 Bn1)] rendent muchie (Bn3), rendent m*** par j. (KBR) ^
menues;
Si comme après elle l’oy dire. ° Après ce, tandiz que Cadmus, devenu plus meschans, selon
toute opinion, garde sa vie a plus grant misere, non mie selon son opinion mais par
l’ordonance de Dieu = Dura equidem toleratu etiam in miseriis nato. Sane cum Cadmus, ex
quacumque factus miserior, vitam non opinione sua ... (I, §6, fol. 7v + Bn1, Bn3)] ^ mar
ginal addition : dire Certes ces choses furent dures à souffrir mesmement à home ne en
miseres. Après ce;
en l’erreur et mesprinson que fist Edipus = Edipi infelicis errorem ! (I, §9, fol. 11r + Bn1,
Bn3)] ^ suscription : fist le meschant Edipus (fol. 12r).
Some corrections have a stylistic aim, as this suppression of a pleonasm illustrates:

après qu’il ot fait un grant pont de si grant grandeur = ponte inaudite magnitudinis (III, §6,
fol. 61v) ^ de sifaicte grandeur.
Hand L cares about precision:
84 A correction at chapter VI, §5 corrects a blank absent from the manuscripts studied by Marzano’s
critical edition: Lequel royaume comme il eust reffusé restituer a son roy, avec la depriance des legatz des
Rommains, ce fu t la premiere cause de guerre a faire contre les Rommains (p. 227)] refusé restituer ***
[blank of six words] avec la depriance (KBR) ^ erasure and addition: refusé restituer au roy illeuc regnant
et ami des Rommains avec la depriance (fol. 137r [latin: suo regi restituere negasset]).
85 Ed. P. G. Ricci et V. Zaccaria, in V. Branca, Tutte le opere di Giovanni Boccaccio (Milan 1984).
86 ^ indicates that the reading that follows is the reading of the KBR manuscript after correction.
324 OLIVIER DELSAUX
le peuple lui eust plus adjousté de clarté se il eust restraint autretant de la raige entee = si
tantum pressisset rabiei insite (IV, §1, fol. 82v + Bn1, Bn3)] ^ raige qui en son cuer estoit
entee;
mesmement est moult à recommander es femettes non nobles, elle est souveraine à garder es
roynes (IV, §12; que, etsi multum etiam in plebeis mulierculis commendanda sit, in reginis
summe servanda est, cum credatur, es deperdita, nil apud eas decoris regii restitisse.)] ^ es
roynes et es nobles fammes (fol. 93v);
and adds clarification :
c’est assavoir de richesses, desqueles Acerbas habondoit (II, §10, fol. 36r + Bn1, Bn3)] ^
desqueles ledit Acerbas;
le dit Scipion abatu de toute esperance de sa desconfiture affricaine querist Espaingne par
navire avec Damasipus Corquatus et Plettorius Scipion demené par diverses tempestes en
soubdainneté se apporta à Ypone royal et il environné du navire (VI, §11, fol. 145v + Bn1,
Bn3)] ^ se apporta à la cité de Yponne qui est cité royale en Afrique et il env. [Des cas
1409, Geneva, II, fol. 64r : au port de la cité Ypone];
I make this assertion in particular when he adds preparations of side-notes intended to

facilitate the distinction between several Scipios:
Entre lesquelz Scipion Aysian se complaignoit .... et apres l’avoient tué par veninz. Après
venoit Scipion Nasica tout plourant avec courrouceuse (V, §9, 116v-117r + Bn1, Bn3) ^
Scipion Asian ... Scipion Nasica;
Aprés venoit Scipion complaignant que comme il fait successeur de Pompeius (VI, §11, fol.
145v)] ^ Scipion Africain;
or when he adds a geographical precision:
oncques ne fut oÿe de l’isle Abidus jusques en l’isle Sestus (III, §6, fol. 61v + Bn1, Bn3)] ^
add. marg. : Abidus et Sestus .ij. isles de mer voysines (fol. 61v87)
Hand L deletes a development that was present in his source, perhaps to censure what
could be considered as a reference to incest or even a desire of incest prior to the birth:
Ceste pour certain eng endree de noble sang en la premiere fleur de son aage joincte par
mariage à Layus roy de Thebes, apperceut soy avoir conceu de son mari un filz dont elle ot
souveraine leesce. T Quant le ventre de Jocasta engrossissoit, Layus demanda conseil à
Appollo de l’enfant à naistre = Layo, Thebanorum regi, primo sue etatis flore coniugio
iuncta, summa cum alacritate ex viro concepisse filium percepit. (I, §8)] ^ roy de Thebes °
T Quant le ve. (fol. 9r) [reading of Bn2]
This suppression will be preserved in the version of 1409:
Ceste Jocasta donques qui certes fut engendree de noble lignie, en la premiere flour de son
eage fut conjoincte par mariage à Layus roy de Thebes. Aprés que le ventre de Jocasta fut
engroissie d’enfant, Layus ala au temple d’Apollo et lui demenda conseil de l’enfant encores
à naistre (Geneva, I, fol. 18r).
87 The version of 1409 proposes quite a different gloss: “ne fut oye ne veue si grant des l’isle Abidus
jusques en l’isle Sestus, il avec tout son ost passsa par mer à pié sec de Asie en Europe, car l’un des bouts
du pont commençoit en l’isle Sestus qui est en Asie et l’aultre bout fenissoit au pié de l’isle Abidus, qui est
en Europe.” (Geneva, I, fol. 100d.)
At I, §9, Hand L corrects awkwardly an historical word wrongly translated and which
will become the reading in the second version of the Des cas in 1409:88
Aprés Theseus fait compaignon du mariage avec Jason s’en rectourna de Colchos chargié de
praie et de gloire = Hinc ex Argonautis factus cum Jasone (I, §9, fol. 12v + Bn1)] ^ du
navire (KBR, Bn2), du navaige (Bn3)
There are also linguistic corrections:
Ceulx qui congnoissoient nule chose estre plus belle en femmes que chastee (IV, fol. 93v,
§12 Bn1, Bn3)] ^ Nule chose plus belle n ’est en femmes que chastee
In particular, there are corrections of morphological and syntactic elements that do not
really modify the meaning of the text. Some corrected readings are present in Bn3:
occuperent lieux de leesce (I, §1, fol. 3r + Bn1) ^ oc. les lieux de le. (Bn3);
ilz virent un de leur deux enfans murtriz par la felonnnie de l’autre (I, §1, fol. 3r + Bn1) ^
murOy (Bn3);
virent un autre de leurs enfans fuitiz (I, §1, fol. 3r) ^ fuitif (Bn3);
lequel pour la grande estature de corps comme pour la force de ses membres il fut maistre
des veneurs et entre eulz ot seignourie (I, §3, fol. 4v) ^ lequel tant pour la gr. (Bn3);
la pestilence ne cesseroit se murtrier de son pere et le ribault de sa mere n’estoit deposé de
son royaume (I, §8, fol. 9v) ^ se le murtrier (Bn3);
Ainsi la clarté de la gloise royale convertie en fians se evanuit avec vent (I, §8, fol. 10v +
Bn1) ^ avec le vent (Bn3);
elle appella la cité Cartaige, de “carta” qui signiffie peau courroiee pour escripre. Et la tour
d’icelle cité appella Byrsa : le cuir d’un beuf, lequel cuir les Tyriens appellent en leur
langaige “birsa” (II, §10, fol. 39r + Bn1)] ^ grattage : By. du c. (Bn3).
Others are not:
seulement constrains d’une loy et aians plaisirs l’un de l’autre (I, §1, fol. 1v + Bn1, Bn3) ^
et eulx ayans;
se elle n’eust souvent esté crollee par les tresfors horions de Fortune et se derrenierement
elle n ’eust esté abatue (IV, §12, fol. 93v + Bn1, Bn3)] ^ derr. elle n ’en eust;
Certes il n’est aucune chose plus cruelle de femme courroucee (IV, §12 + Bn1, Bn3)] ^
cruel. que de fem. (Bn2 uniquement);
commanda iceulz estre enseveliz l’un emprés l’autre (VI, §15, fol. 153r + Bn1, Bn3)] ^
estre enseveliz l’unpres de l’autre (Bn2, Bn3)
There are also lexical modifications, towards the form that we can read in Bn3 and in
the original manuscripts of the Des cas of 1409:
n’est mestier que je die les fains embrassemens, les desloiaux baisiers, les larmes plourees
par leesse (I, §9, fol. 11r + Bn1) ^ : les feintifz embr. (Bn3) [reading of the Des cas de 1409,
ed. P. Gathercole, p. 141];
il leur semblast dure chose de laissier la terre naturele (II, §10, fol. 36r + Bn1)] ^ la terre
nativele (Bn3) [reading of the Des cas of 1409, Geneva, I, fol. 57c89].
88 “Theseus fut compaignon avec Jason du navire que les Gregois menerent en l’isle de Colchos”; Lau
rent de Premierfait’s Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes, Studies in the Romance Languages and Liter
atures 74, ed. P. M. Gathercole (Chapel Hill 1968) 147.
89 It is also the reading of the original manuscript of Vieillesse in Paris, BnF, lat. 7789: “desir et inclina
tion de retourner à vostre pays nativel qui est le celestial palais” (prologue of the translator, fol. 35r).
326 OLIVIER DELSAUX
Hand L completes spelling corrections, whose corrected reading is sometimes quite

atypical, but always corresponds with spelling habits, seldom etymological, of the
manuscripts copied by the scribes S and T, in particular propost for propos, lignie for
lignee, sang for sane, finé for fini :
le sane ^ sang (I, §1, fol. 4r; I, §9, fol. 8v; I, §9, fol. 11v; II, §10, fol. 38v; II, §11, fol. 39r);
de la louenge (I, table, fol. 2r)] ^ louange; les sacs plains d’areine (II, §10, fol. 36r)] ^
pleins;
il appert assez (I, §3, fol. 5r) ^ appart;
Et affin qu’elle ne cheist en viellesce sens lignee (II, §10, fol. 37r)] ^ a fin [...] lignie;
le saint propos (II, §10, fol. 37r; II, §11, fol. 39r) ^ proposi90;
esquielz iii mois (II, §10, fol. 38v)] ^ grattage : esquelz;
aucuneffoiz eust fini en honte (II, §11, fol. 39r)] ^ finé en (fol. 39r); tu as fini les labours (II,
§11, fol. 39r)] finé les la.91;
les Capadociens par espace de tempson rebellens (VI, §5, fol. 137r)] ^ rebellans.
Some spelling corrections tend to suppress a homonym:
regarder (I, §1)] ^ resgarder (fol. 2r); regardant (II, §10)] ^ resgardant (fol. 38v);
lesquielx Adam et Eve, faiz seigneurs de si haultain lieu (I, §1, fol. 2r) fais; vielesce
piteable et pesante de son proprefais (I, §1, fol. 3r) ^ faiz
Corrections also concern names of persons:
de Aguemenon, de Menalaus roy de Grece (I, table) ^ Menelaus [form of the Des eas of
1409 in Geneva and Arsenal];
les roys et princes des Medianitez (I, §7, fol. 8v) ^ Madianites [idem];
De Sardenapalus roy des Assiriens (II, §12, fol. 39r) ^ Sardanapalus [idem].
Twice, Hand L changes the grammatical suffix of the gerundive, respecting the forms
that will be the preferred ones in manuscripts copied by Hands S and T:
leur demanda la royne en mariage menacent mettre en ruyne la cité (II, §10, fol. 37v 92)] ^
menacend;
ne vouldroit en laissent son païs approuchier à un roy si cruel (II, §10, fol. 37v)] ^ laissend.
In some cases where the reading before the erasure is not visible (in the text cited
below, the elements in italics are on erasure in the manuscript), it seems possible that
it was a form -end/-and overcorrected, that is to say used outside a proper gerundive
structure (en -end/-and):
Ou presentant sacrefice aux dieux d’enfer selon les traciens et mesmes en presentant
sacrefice aux dieux (I, §9, fol. 11r);
de toutes choses cuidant que (II, §10, fol. 36v);
d’illeuc moyennant (II, §10, fol. 36v);
doncques Dido ayant son desir (II, §10, fol. 37r);
elle resplendissant de vertus ou rivage de Afrique (II, §10, fol. 37r);
un roy si cruel et vivant si estrangement (II, §10, fol. 37v);
90 See the 16 occurences of propost in the Vatican Decameron, ed. Di Stefano (versus 2 occ. of propos,
p. 1114) and one in the Des cas of 1409, ed. Gathercole (n. 88 above) 150 (Geneva and Arsenal).
91 See Vatican Decameron, ed. G. Di Stefano, 52, 176, 319, 874.
92 In this chapter, the proof-reader maintains en lui signifiant (fol. 36v) and enplourant (fol. 37r).
par ainsi elle mourant (II, §10, fol. 38v);

enchâssant les amittiez et esmouvant les chiens (III, §1, fol. 54r).
The aim of this kind of correction could have been, in certain case, to delete the ety
mological distinction between -ant (from the verbs of the first conjugation) vs -ent of
present participles (from other conjugations), which is a source of misunderstanding
(present participle vs third-person plural of the French indicatif présent); that is the
case with two corrections where the reading before correction is still visible:
l’eaue effacent espargnent à aucune chose (I, §5, fol. 6r)] ^ effaçant;
qui esplendissent vers les Boeciens avoit vesqu en chaiere (I, §6, fol. 7v)] ^ esplendissant.
Finally, Hand L adds punctuation signs or modifies them when they are not suffi
ciently accurate (the scribe uses only the colon and the virgula), in particular with the
addition of a punctus interrogativus (.~) or of a periodus (;), to mark a contrast or the
end of a proposition; [ ] indicates a correction:
Avecques ce quelles pensees cuides tu qu’ilz eussent quant ilz virent un de leurs deux enfans
murtry par la felonnie de l’autre la charoigne senz ame le corps gisant et baignié de chaut
sang ou quel n’avoit aucun sententement [sic] . Quelz pleurs [ 0 ^ .~] quelles larmes [ 0 ^
.~] quelles douleurs [ 0 ^ .~] quelles horreurs [ 0 ^ . ~] et paours eurent ilz [ 0 ^ . ~] (I,
§1, fol. 3r);
Quelle chose est plus avenant que de croire un vray Dieu et le honnorer devant toutes choses
et lui amer de ton desir de la pensee [. ^ .~] ^ Quelle chose est plus avenant que de honnorer
ses parens [ 0 ^ ;] et de garder ses amis par amours semblable [. ^ .~] ^ Quelle chose est
plus saincte ou plus legiere que de soy abstenir de estranges richesses. d’amours
desordenees. despendre sang humain. de mensoinges. et de telz pechiez [. ^ .~] (I, §2, fol.
4r);
Adonc advint une oeuvre divine sicome il appart assez et merveilleuse à dire [ / ^ ;] Les
ouvriers de celle tour qui touz parloient un langaige / ainsi comme se ilz eussent fait complot
entre eulx parloient divers langaiges . Et legier est à croire que ces ouvriers changerent
courage avec Nembroth leur roy pour la nouvelletteté du chois de la tour [ 0 ^ ;] (I, §3, fol.
5r).
Most of these corrections are clearly auctorial and some could not have been dictated
to a collaborator. These corrections confirm the paleographical identification of Hand
L with Premierfait. They also give an invaluable insight into the writing practices of
Laurent de Premierfait; this testimony is all the more invaluable given the fact that no
draft of this author has ever been discovered. In this regard, we can suggest that the
manuscript was kept in the author’s hands, as witnessed by the not erased title prepa
rations in margin; the fact that current titles have been prepared but not completed; the
several corrections in margin, non-inserted in the text; the fact that decorated para
graph marks do not appear after the end of the third quire (fol. 36v); the auctorial cor
rections not passed on in the later manuscripts. Its similarities with the layout and the
mise en livre of the manuscript Paris, BnF, fr. 24289 (text copied by long lines; lettre
courante; same group of decorators93) could confirm that, just as the Parisian manu-
93 Nevertheless, the dimensions of the ruling frame are quite different: 215/222 x 158/160 mm (BnF, fr.
24289) versus 140 x 220 (KBR IV 920); 37 lines versus 34 lines per page. These features are very similar to
those of the manuscript Chantilly, Bibliothèque du Château, 857 of the second translation of the Des cas.
328 OLIVIER DELSAUX
script, the Brussels manuscript was intended to be published, but that the author held
on to it in order to rework his text.94
Lastly, the identification of Hand L in KBR IV 920 enables us to identify the only
original manuscript of the Des cas of 1400. This codex would be a perfect base manu
script for a critical edition.95 Moreover, given the absence of a translator’s prologue
for this version of the translation and the instability of the authorial presence in the
ending title, this identification confirms the attribution of the text to Laurent de
Premierfait, still regarded as doubtful in the Jonas Database of the IRHT.96
On the basis of these confrontations enabled by these relatively long preparations, I
have tempted to identify Hand L in some preparations, much shorter and much rarer,
observable in the manuscripts copied by Hands S and T, and which by themselves
could not prove identity between L and the hand of the proof-reader of these manu
scripts.
It seems that Hand L was in charge of some indications, in cursive writing, in the
manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 7907A of the six Terence plays and their commentary by
Premierfait:
BnF, lat. 7907A, fols. 152r, 19v, 79r9

----------- ----------------- — T ---------------~ — 0 ---------------------------
fai * % I 't ■__ -a '

BnF, lat. 7907A, fols. 48r, 47v, 53v, 47v
U
I t- » îft
______
© Paris, AN / Paris, BnF
These notes written by Hand L seem intended to prepare a public reading of the text.
In several parts of the manuscript, L adds secum to distinguish some asides in the
plays98, in contrast with cum alio (fol. 48r):
Chre \Secum/ Ab Andria est ancilla hec quantum intelligo. Da. Adeon videmur vobis esse
ydonei . / In quibus sic illudatis Chre \Secum/ Veni in tempore Da. Propera adeo (Andria, v.
756-759, fol. 19v).
We can also observe that some punctuation marks have been corrected or added dur
ing the same reading/proof-reading of the manuscript, with a black ink, quite likely by
94 Hedeman, Translating the Past (n. 3 above) 113-116, has supposed the existence of two exemplars
for the Des cas of 1409.
95 S. Marzano, “Édition critique du Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes par Laurent de Premierfait
(1400)” (PhD diss., Toronto 2008), chose the older manuscript (BnF, fr. 24289) as the base-manuscript.
96 Section romane, “Notice ‘Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes, Laurent de Premierfait,’” Base Jo-
nas-IRHT/CNRS ( http://jonas.irht.cnrs.fr/oeuvre/3699). See also Gathercole (n. 88 above) 28-29.
97 Identical indication at fols. 20v, 86r, 87r, 89v, 95v, 113v, 122r, 132r, 134v, 137v.
98 Fols. 19v, 20v, 79r, 86r, 87r, 89v, 95v, 113v, 122r, 132r, 134v, 137v, 152r.
Hand L (the marks between brackets have been added afterwards; ^ distinguishes
marks modified by L):
Ex meo [secum] propinquo rure hoc capio commodi [.]

Neque [ut] agri [.] neque urbis sodium me umquam percipit [;]
Ubi satias cepit fieri . commuto locum .
Sed est ne ille parmeno [. ^ .~] et certe ispus est;
Quem [cumalio] prestolare 9 Parmeno hic ante ostium .~
par Quis homo est [.~] ehem saluum te advenisse gaudeo 9 here;
lach Quem prestolare [.~] par. perii [.] lingua heret metu [;]
lach Hem quid est quid trepidas [.~] satin salue dic mihi [.~]
par Here primum te arbitrari id quod res est velim .
Quicquid huius factum est [.] culpa non factum est mea [;]
lach Quid [.~] par recte sane interrogasti [;] oportuit (Eunuchus, vv. 971-978, fols. 47v-48r).
As Bozzolo has already noted, in one of his epistles, Jean de Montreuil, Premierfait’s
friend, mentions that Terence had been publicly read in Paris and that the text had
been explained by a master able to answer all the questions; she suggests that it could
have been Laurent de Premierfait.99
In the manuscript Burney 257, the sole correction preparation still visible is too
short to identify the hand responsible for it (fol. 216b). Nevertheless, the aim of some
annotations of the text completed with black ink was similar to the goal of corrections
observed in the manuscripts proof-read by Hand L. These “corrections” intend to
make the reading easier, in particular by the addition of punctuation marks and
didascalies (for instance ait):
Pignora [.] quando nouos dabit haec michi turba nepotes [.~] / Dixerat [.] et sollers arrepto
tempore Vlixes alt [.] / Haut spernenda cupis [.] quis enim non visere gentes / In muneras [.~]
clares (Achilleid I, vv. 783-786, fol. 242r); see also Thebaid VII, v. 676, fol. 118v and XI, v.
396, fol. 185v.
Finally, the sole correction that appears in the Decameron of the Vatican manuscript
(IX, §2) seems also written by Hand L:
Vatican, BAV, pal. lat. 1989, fol. 71a |

\
_
Subscr. I Subscr. II
© Vatican, BAV / Paris, AN

W 4 Xr
As the completion of the corrections in the manuscripts copied by Hand S and Hand T
is the same (always by the hand of the transcriptor of the text and mainly on erasure)
99 “Non falleris, vir egregie, non falleris, ni prius Petrarche ac Tullius sapientumque aliorum falsa fuerit
turba multa, in audiendo Therentium, ab illo potissime qui potest, si que orirentur sententiarum difficultates
aut dubia, protinus depellere, et de antiquissimi autoriste instruere luculenter grammatica, ac facile accomo-
datas reddere dictiones.” Epistle 147, 1-5; cf. Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence” (n. 6 above)
177.
330 OLIVIER DELSAUX
and as Hand L is the sole hand identifiable in the non-erased preparations of correc
tion, we think that it is very likely that all the manuscripts copied by S and T have
been proof-read by Hand L, that is to say by the author himself, Laurent de
Premierfait.
At this stage of the investigation, I consider that Hand L is Premierfait and that this
hand has checked several original manuscripts of this author. Undoubtedly, the identi
fication of Premierfait’s intervention as proof-reader of his manuscripts is invaluable
for understanding the way these manuscripts have been produced and also to assess
the quality of the text they transmit. However, it does not allow us determine if S or T
is the author’s hand. A last characteristic of Hand L could give us some crucial clues
to identify these hands.
Indeed, in the autograph vidimus of Premierfait, we can find a small mark consist
ing of three wavelets intended to distinguish the end of the subscription (I and II); the
autograph subscription of Michel Lalouyer shows another sort of mark (cf. J916,
n°20).100 This mark appears, drawn in an identical way, in five manuscripts copied by
S or T as in KBR IV 920:
Subscr. I Subscr. II J916, n° 20
♦ ^
Ars. 5193, fol. 7v Burney 257, fol. 36v Fat. 7907A, fol. 145r
ÈL « ------------- tu tv -"
BnF, lat. 7907, fol. 50v BnF, lat. 7907, fol. 53r
m
KBR IV 920, fol. 4r101 KBR IV 920, fol. 5v KBR IV 920, fol. 5r
^
KBR IV 920, fol. 10v KBR IV 920, fol. 55v KBR IV 920, fol. 7v
T1
K f ------- üH 5< k~ — '
KBR IV 920, fol. 39r KBR IV 920, fol. 39r
© Paris, AN / Paris, BnF / Brussels, KBR
100 This does not appear among the “signes conventionnels” gathered by A. Cappelli. On punctuation
marks in charters, see N. Mazziotta, Ponctuation et syntaxe dans la langue française médiévale. Étude d ’un
corpus de chartes originales écrites à Liège entre 1236 et 1291 (Tübingen 2009). On the other hand, the
sole wavelet is a usual scribal mark intended to identify the end of a chapter or to fill the end of a line when
the scribe want to avoid a word-breaking; see, for instance, the manuscript Brussels, KBR, 10366 copied by
Christine of Pizan.
101 In this manuscript, 58 chapters finish without any mark (or just a colon), 50 contain a sole wavelet
and 55 a more complex mark, consisting in a double dot along with a double wavelet, which in 6 cases is
similar to the triple wavelet of the proof-reader; in all of these cases, this mark seems to have been written
by the scribe, during his transcription. In 8 cases, a proofreader using a darker ink has added a mark con
sisting of three wavelets, sometimes by using the wavelet already drawn by the scribe (4 cases).
In the examples cited above, the mark has clearly been drawn after the transcription of
the text, with another ink; it appears at the end of a title or of a chapter. Several clues
show that it could be a verification mark intended to ensure the completion of the
proof-reading or collating operations: this mark is used at the end of two vidimus sub
scriptions; the ink used to draw this mark is identical with the ink of the correction
preparations (black ink); in KBR IV 920 and Arsenal 5193, the chapters distinguished
by this mark have been meticulously proof-read (clearly by Hand L for the KBR);
three of these marks were followed by the mention “correctus.”102 Like Petrarch,103
Premierfait would have transferred some production techniques from administrative
and notarial writing to the manuscript production of his own texts.
The use of this mark by Hand L could be crucial for the identification of
Premierfait with S or T. Indeed, S and T employed a respective specific “trademark.”
Now, this mark is different from the mark of Hand L (see below). Therefore, it would
seem that there are three different scribes involved in the production of Laurent de
Premierfait’s manuscripts. Nevertheless, I can also suggest that the author has em
ployed a different mark when he copied and when he corrected the text and that this
particular mark was not a personal “trademark,” but an indication, shared and com
mon, of verification. Moreover, in some of Premierfait’s manuscripts, this mark ap
pears quite clearly executed with the same ink as the text’s ink and drawn in the same
movement; it appears to be a mark used by the transcriptor of the text. This mark ap
pears only in pages transcribed by Hand T, an observation which is particularly rele
vant for the Arsenal manuscript where T copied only fols. 1-30. Here are all the ex
amples of marks contemporary to the copy I could gather:
Vatican, fol. 34r BnF. lat. 7907A. fol. 146r Bumey 257, fol. 4v
tlien; 10$;*—
BnF. lat. 7907A. fol. 143v
© Vatican, BAV / Paris, BnF / British Library Board

The fact that this mark was copied by the scribe seems to be confirmed by this page of
the Vatican manuscript of the Decameron (fol. 34r) where Hand T used his personal
trademark four times (three dots) and once this mark with three wavelets; the drawing
of these marks during the transcription of the text can be confirmed by the completion
of line-fillers with red and blue ink after their transcription:
102 We can seldom find these wavelets to fill the blanks caused by a suppression by erasure; see, for in
stance, KBR IV 920, fols. 145v, 162r; BnF, lat. 7907A, fols. 52v, 59v, 60v, 106v, Vatican, BAV, pal. lat.
1989, fol. 228b).
103 E. H. Wilkins, The Making o f the ‘Canzoniere’ and Other Petrarchan Studies, Storia e Letteratura 38
(Rome 1951).
332 OLIVIER DELSAUX
© Vatican, BAV
If we could be sure that this mark was specific to Hand L and to Hand T, it would be
possible to identify both with Laurent de Premierfait.104 A paleographical connection
could be a better way to identify the Hand T with L. But, as I have already noted, it is
impossible to compare the cursive writing of L and the lettre de forme of T.
Nonetheless, we can find some examples of an intermediary writing that can be seen
as a bridge linking the two.
On the one hand, in the margins of BnF, lat. 7907, where I have found preparations
of correction by Hand L in side-notes in this intermediate writing:
Memor essem ? o Missi, Missi, etiam nunc michi [in margin : Epizeulis] ... Hanc michi in
manum dat mors continuo ipsam occupat. Accepi : acceptam seruabo [in margin :
Bracologia] (Andria I, 5 Paris, BnF, lat. 7907, fol. 15r);
Simo. Quid dicitur. Misis. Firmauit fidem [in marge : interruptio] ... Nam quod peperisset
iussit tolli. [in margin : generentis] (Andria III, 1 ibidem, fol. 25r).
BnF, lat. 7907, fol. 15r © Paris, BnF
On the other hand, in the Statius manuscript Burney 257, there are occasional interlin
ear glosses (syntactic, lexical and encyclopaedic) drawn in an identical semi-cursive
writing:
104 Or, if the autograph subscriptions I, II et III are regarded as the work of a scribe, we could consider
that Hand T was a very close collaborator, who was used to this kind of mark because he had completed
several transcriptions for Premierfait in a professional context.
Deprendi fortuna [6] deos [;] sic fatus est . et ambos (Thebaide I, v. 510, fol. 16r);
Finis carmmlserat [;] differt auidas audire sorores musas (Thebaide VI, v. 365, fol. 92v)
Temolus mons te Nisa mons ferax . Thesea quam Naxos insula/ Et thebana metu juratus in orgia
Ganges fluius(Thebaide VII, vv. 686-687, fol. 114r);
Equor mare . et incesti predonis paridis vela profunda / Tempestate sequi persequi . cunctasque
inferre sorores [.’] / Nunc possum quoque sed tardum est . iam plena iniuria rapte helene [.’]
(Achilleide I, v. 46, fol. 227r);
see also : fols. 19v (Thebaide I, v. 679), 28r (II, vv. 346, 352, 359), 35v (II, v. 682), 40v (III,
vv. 177, 180), 92v (VI, v. 365), 227r (Achilleide I, vv. 25-47), 241r (II, vv. 743-744).
These samples are very short and it is difficult to propose a perfect identification of
their transcriptor. Nevertheless, we can suggest some links between this hand and
some ductus of Hand T:
BL, fol. BL, fol. 227r BL, fol. 16r, BL, 28v, 52v BL, fol. 16r
227r (gloss) 227r (gloss) (gloss)
(gloss) (gloss)
[ r \
iff erf-
BnF, lat. Lat. 7907, Lat. 7907,
.g"
Lat. 7907, Lat. Lat. 7907, Lat. 7907A,
7907, fol. 15r fol. 15r f. 15r (L) 7907, fol. 15r fol. 14r (L)
fol. (side-note) (side-note) fol. 15r (L)
15r (side- (L)
■
note)
Geneva, I,
fol. 42a
Geneva,
fol. 42a
I, Geneva,
fol. 42a
I,
i A ri
Geneva,
fol. 42a
I,
1 ■
Geneva,
I, fol. 42a
Geneva, I,
fol. 42a
Geneva, I, fol.
43 c
1
19 |P Ctt b| *
e f t
The semi-cursive interlinear or marginal notes were written with the same ink and
apparently at the same time as the correction preparations by Hand L (for the BnF
manuscript) or the addition of signs of punctuation, probably by Hand L (for the Bur
ney). Two hypotheses could explain these interventions of another hand along with
interventions by L. First, Hand L and Hand T are one and the same, Premierfait’s.105
Secondly, Hand T worked in close collaboration with Hand L.
Nevertheless, if Hand T is that of the author, it is quite difficult to understand why,
in some folios of the manuscripts Arsenal 5193 (fols. 7-9106) and Geneva, both copied
by Hand T for this part, Hand L107 executed in black ink several corrections of the
punctuation (additions and modifications) in a section that would have been copied by
the author’s hand (actually Hand T):
105 I could suggest that the choice of a semi-cursive writing is due to the fact that these notes were not
preparations intended to be calligraphed but were notes intended to be preserved as they were.
106 Thus, without fols. 1-6, which contain the first prologue of the translator and which has been added
afterwards.
107His triple wavelets mark appears, added in a black ink, in the title of fol. 7v.
334 OLIVIER DELSAUX
C’est la translation du prologue Jehan Boccace ou livre des cas des nobles hommes et
femmes . Commençant ou latin . Exquirenti michi . Et envoie son livre à ung sien compere
chevalier appellé messire Magnard des chevalchans de florence [.] seneschal de sicile . Ainsi
comme il appart par une epistre sur ce faicte par ledit boccace [.] en la quele il blasme et
reprend ouvertement et à cause tous les princes crestians [signe de collation de la main L]
Quant je enqueroie quel proufit je peusse faire à la chose publique par le labour de mon
estude [.] je tournai mon engin à considerer les maintiens [.] et les meurs des nobles hommes
. et femmes [/ ^ .] qui principalment se presenterent devant les yeulx de mon
entendement [;] Et quant je les apparceu ordoiez en vains deliz [.] et en plaisir deshonneste .
Je considerai iceulx estre desroiez et sanz freins [;] ainsi comme se ilz eussent endormie
fortune par herbes ou par enchantement . ou ainsi comme se ilz eussent fermees leurs
seignories à crocs de fer en roche de aymant [;] ^ Et pour ce que ilz cuidoient leurs
seignories estre fermes [.] et du[7v]rables . Ilz par leurs forces soubsmerchoient non pas
seulement les aultres moindres hommes [. ^ .’] mais je les resgardoie en orgueillir . et
rebeller comme folz [.] et oultrageux [.] contre dieu le faiseur de toutes choses . dont je me
esmerveillay [;] PM Et quant je coudempnoie l’enragee follie de ces nobles hommes [.] et
femmes [.] et je comme esbaÿ consideroie la longue patience de dieu le pere debonnaire [.
^ ;] celle chose me vint en courage que je queroie [;] PM Certes ce dis je en mon cuer [.]
aulcune chose n’est plus profitable [.] ne plus charitable à la communauté des hommes [.] et
au salut pardurable [.] que de rappeler au droit chemin ceulx qui sont desvoiez se je puis [.
^ ;] Ou quel ravoiement combien que aulcuns hommes bien enlangaigez [;] et nobles par
saintes [.] et doulces paroles y aient traveillié jusques cy [.’] toutevoies je pense que c’est
chose proufitable se je me essaie oster telz hommes du somme qui est samblable à la mort [.]
et à les reveiller pour vitement ouvrer [. ^ ;] combien que je ne soie mie pareil aux ancians
historians [. ^ ;] PM Et certain est que comme telz hommes desvoiez soient accoustumez de
ensuir ordes delectations [.] ilz accoustumeront àpeines leurs courages à oir les clers
enseignemens de vertu . mais puiz que ilz ont accoustumé de voulentiers oir la doulceur des
histoires . J’ay pensé en mon cuer de demener mon livre aulcune foiz par exemples [.] et
descrire quele puissance ait dieux contre les orgueilleux qui [7b] appellent dieu fortune . ^ Et
afin que l’en ne doubte de quel temps ou de queles personnes nous tractions en ce livre .
nous respondons que des le commencement du monde jusques à nostre temps nous voulons
briement demener [.] et descrire en apert [.] les fortunes et les cas d’aulcuns roys ducs et de
aultres nobles hommes et femmes [.] lesquelz fortune communement a abbaissiez de leurs
haultains estatz . ^ Et si ne di pas que je escrive de tous roys / ducs / et aultres nobles
hommes . car il n’est aulcun engin sigrant qui souffisist à si grant labour et peine . mais des
nobles hommes et femmes il me souffit prendre aulcuns des plus nobles . a fin que quant les
hommes verront par escript les princes du monde estre floibles et vains . et les roys ferus et
quotiz jusques à la terre par le jugement de dieu . Ilz aient congnoissence de la puissence
divine . et de la floiblesse . et muableté de l’estat de fortune . et que ilz aient mesure et
attrempence entre les bieneurtez mondaines . Et a fin que par le peril ja advenu aux aultres
ilz puissent pourveoir à leur mesme prouffit (fols. 7b-7c; the punctuation marks within
brackets indicate an addition by the Hand L; the capital letters have been transcribed as they
appear in the manuscript);
[;] Et si vueil proposer que tu advise[z ^ s] et juges se par droite sentence aulcun peust ester
dit plus cruel que Atreus mon frere [.] et mon annemi [;] ^ Thiestes roy de Micenes ja finoit
ses paroles . quant son frere Atreus cruel homme [.] et eschaufé de courroux / au visaige
traversain vint devant moy [.] et se arresta [.] et me dist encriant [;] Pour quoy est ce dist
atreus / que thiestes ce gentil accuseur et vieil ribault respant et seme ses mauvaises paroles
contre moy et aultrui . Je confesse de plein gré que je sui maleureux . et Thiestes est homme
desloyal [.] et cruel ^ Et a fin que je ne compte toutes les choses qui affierent à mon cas
maleureux . saiches mon amy Jehan boccace se ja tu ne le scés . que moy estant puissant en
eage et en beaulté de corps espousay la noble europa . de la quele mon frere Thiestes
corrumpi la chasteté [.] et l'entiere pensee par les admonnestemens /.\ et flateries de lui qui
couloure et agense mauvaistiez et baratz . Et aprés que mon frere thiestes eut deceue ma
femme Europa / qui estoit chaste [.] et entiere [.] il corrumpi et ordoia mon lit . et eut enfans
de ma femme . lesque[Wlz] je cuidoie estre miens . pour ce que je estoie simple honnie [.]
et n'estoie point souspeçonneux de mon frere . Et me dist Atreus . Mon ami jehan boccace
ne te esmerveille pas de ce que je t'ay dit . Car Thiestes porc voulentif et eschaufé de luxure
à son esciant et de sa voulenté despucella et corrumpi sa fille Pelopia [.] la quele conceut de
Thiestes son pere [.] et enfanta ung filz appellé Egistus . par qui fut destruit et gasté tout le
lignaige de Tantalus roy de Frige qui fut tres avaricieux . et qui ne eut onques soing ne
diligence de la chose publique [;] ^ Cestui Egistus filz de thiestes . et de la dicte pelopia . si
tost qu'il fut né . on le porta es forests pour estre devoré des bestes sauvaiges . Afin que
Thiestes couvrist son diffame et de Pelopia [.] sa fille et sa ribaulde [;] Par ordonnance de
Dieu . ou de fortune [.] Egistus ne fut pas devoré . ains le nourri par aulcun temps une
chievre sauvaige (Genève, BPU, fr. 190, fol. 21a).
The proof-reader diversifies the punctuation marks and adds some marks to the sen
tences punctuated by Hand T with only a colon followed by a capital letter or a pied-
de-mouche. He also deletes some virgula, whose utilization is normally limited to
manuscripts transcribed in lettre courante108 while Geneva and Arsenal have been
written in lettre de forme; in Geneva, he makes two spelling corrections. The punctua
tion, before correction, of these two samples is the same as that observable in the Ge
neva or/ Arsenal and Vienna manuscripts, both transcribed by Hand T.
Finally, another argument against the identification of Hand T with Hand L lies in
the fact that, among the variants that are specific to the Vatican manuscript of the
Decameron and seem to be scribal modifications or errors from Hand T, I have found
some linguistic modifications that are quite surprising if we consider that it was the
author who transcribed his own text and who had to reproduce his own linguistic for
mulas:
son amour il caichoit à chascun (II, §7, equivalent to ed. G. Di Stefano, p. 213)] ^ caich. de
cha. (Vatican);
en celle chose elle lui feist faveur (III, §6, p. 362)] ^ elle ° fe. (Vatican);
les deux espousees avec maintes aultres femmes ja estoient à tables (V, §1, p. 586)] ^ table;
qu’il souffre que en aprés aulcun peril ° s’ensuive par quoy je le perdray (V, §9, p. 677)] ^
peril ne s’en;
des mondains plaisirs l’omme en a aultretant comme il en prent (V, §10, p. 685)] ^
mondains biens;
et elle ainsi commença: “Combien que le prompt [...]” (VI, §4, p. 714)] ^ ainsi dist;
elle delivra soy mesme des laqz de mort honteuse (VI, §7, p. 727)] ^ me. de la.;
eschapper les mains de ° dame Beatrix (VII, §7, p. 816)] ^ de la dame
The same phenomenon appears in the Des cas of Geneva, also copied by Hand T—in
this case, the comparison with the original manuscripts of Arsenal and Vienna makes
it easier to identify errors of copy:
en laissant son hostel royal gasté (I, §6, equivalent to ed. P. Gathercole, p. 123)] en
delaissant (Geneva);
comme aultres historians dient (I, §8, p. 135)] com. aulcuns hi.;
ja soit que nous condempnons et blasmons les enfans que nous gendrons (I, §8, p. 136)]
condempnions et blasmions;
108 G. Ouy, “Orthographe et ponctuation dans les manuscrits autographes des humanistes français des
XIVe et XVe siècles,” Grafia e interpunzione del latino nel medioevo. Seminario internazionale. Roma, 27—
29 settembre 1984, ed. A. Maierù (Rome 1985) 167-206.
336 OLIVIER DELSAUX
disant le dit Thiestes que il n’estoit pas moins digne de memoire ne que est ° Edipus ou °
Jocasta (I, §9, p. 140)] est de Ed. ou de Joc.;
se mon frere me eust souffert ° y aller (I, §9, p. 141)] souf. à y aler;
il me admonnestoit ° reposer (I, §9, p. 141)] adm. à repo.;
lequel souleil estant lors ou plus hault point du ciel et à heure de midi (I, §9, p. 142)] ciel ° à
he.;
Hercules donques comme caut et subtil le tira hors de son royaume (I, §12, p. 162)] Herc. °
com.;
tans de sources qu'il degastoit le païs et gastoit les labouraiges champestres (I, §12, p. 165)]
le pa. et aussi les lab.;
une grant quantité de busches et mist le feu dedans (I, §12, p. 165)] de busche;
la terre serra et restreingny ses vaines (I, §12, p. 165)] et estr.;
sanz aulcun mal penser (I, §12, p. 165)] sanz nul mal;
il n’est pas merveilles se aultres hommes en sont prins (I,§18, p. 211)] merveille;
The transcription, by Hand S, of some clear errors from the exemplar seems to suggest
that he is not the author, which could have been more careful about the accuracy of the
text he copied:
Car ilz desirent et serchent flateurs et vont à l’au devant de ceulx qui par leurs flateries ont
entrepris de leur hostel congnoissance et raison (I, §11 Geneva, BPU, fr. 190, I, fol. 25d and
Arsenal, 5193)] leur oster co. (varia lectio and reading of the manuscript after erasure in the
Arsenal manuscript).
Finally, it seems that there are many more linguistic deformations in the parts of the
Arsenal’s De cas transcribed by Hand S:
une chose me samble estre vraye si ne la vouldroie mie (I, §12, p. 170)] voul. jamaiz
(Arsenal);
Cestui Paris fut mors en champ (I, §13, p. 182)] fut tué;
devant par l’indignation (I, §13, p. 180)] par dev.;
afin que ne compte chascune chose l’une après l’aultre et par soy (I, §13, p. 182)] chascune
des choses;
se ilz considerent les cas du roy Priam et des siens (I, §14, p. 188)] le cas;
cellui qui s ’enorgueillit pour ses nobles parens (I, §14, p. 88)] se ° orgueillit;
Agamenon selon la vraye hystoire fut filz de Phistenes (I, §15, p. 190)] selon lequel la vra.;
Sampson prommist trente draps de saye pour manteaulx et aultretant pour robes à celle
personne qui souldroit cestui probleume (I, §17, p. 203)] à cellui qui.
Co n c l u s io n
In my judgment, Hand L can surely be identified with Laurent de Premierfait. Its
identity with the Hand T or, less probably, with Hand S seems to me, at this stage of
the investigation, quite doubtful. The table below gathers the identifications I propose.
They permit one to clearly identify the original manuscripts, on the basis of a “pro
duction” criterion (manuscript produced by the author’s usual scribe and/or checked
by the author) rather than a “reception” criterion (manuscript in possession of the
patron of the text, an author’s acquaintance or a common patron of manuscripts):
Shell number Text Date of Miniaturist Decorator Scribe Proof

confection reader
Brussels, KBR, Des cas [1400 ?] 0 aux échancrures ? L
IV 920 1400
Londres, BL, Stace ? Cité des aux échancrures T L?
Burney 257 dames,
Orose et
Virgile
Paris, BnF, lat. Vieillesse 1405 Cleres aux échancrures T ?+S
7789 femmes of
Berry
Paris, BnF, lat. Terentius ? 0 aux échancrures S L
7907, fols. 1-56
Paris, BnF, lat. Terentius ? Flavius aux échancrures T L
7907A Joseph,
Orose
Paris, B. de Des cas 1411 ? Cité des aux échancrures S+T L
l’Ars., 5193 1409 dames (fols. 1
30)
Geneva, BPU, Des cas 1411 ? Luçon aux échancrures T
fr. 190 1409
Vienne, ÖNB, Des cas 1411 ? Cité des ? T
s.n. 12766 1409 dames
Vatican, BAV, Decameron 1414 ? Cité des aux échancrures T L?
pal. lat. 1989 dames
To the manuscripts generally regarded as original manuscripts of Laurent de

Premierfait, I have been able to add the manuscripts Brussels, KBR, IV 920; London,
BL, Burney 257; Paris, BnF, lat. 7907; and Vienna, ÖNB, SN 12776. I have also been
able to confirm the identification of Premierfait as author of the De casibus translation
of 1400 and of the commentaries on Statius and Terence.
Concerning the autography of the original manuscripts, the answers seem now as
numerous as the questions. Nevertheless, in reframing the issue, it would be easier to
give a final answer in the future. For instance, we have demonstrated that there was
not one, but two hands, who both could be author’s hand and that the scribal behavior
of the author as copyist of his own texts must be regarded from a different perspective
according to the manuscript or the part of the manuscript considered. Above all, we
have shown that it is important to check the presence of the author’s hand in the cor
rections and the margins of a manuscript. During the Middle Ages, the “autograph
phenomenon” cannot be reduced to the sole cases of the transcription of a text by the
author himself; the textual, and even esthetic, value of a manuscript copied by a col
laborator and then checked and corrected by the author could be the same as that of a
totally autograph manuscript.109 This autography cannot be limited to the stage of
redaction (witnessed, indirectly, by some corrections of Hand L).
My investigation cannot be seen as the end point of the study of the hands which
copied and corrected the original manuscripts of the most important French translator
of the fifteenth century. These identifications must lead to a more thorough investiga
tion of Premierfait’s manuscripts, which would permit a better understanding of the
roles of the different hands, their working methods and the location of their activity. In
109 Delsaux, Manuscrits et pratiques autographes (n. 43 above).

338 OLIVIER DELSAUX
the end, a full description of the original manuscripts of Laurent de Premierfait could
be proposed, as it has recently been completed for his contemporary Christine of Pi-
zan.110
The interest of autograph manuscript identification goes well beyond the fields of
paleography and codicology. This kind of investigation has several invaluable im
pacts: on linguistic history, as these original manuscripts give a direct insight on au
thor’s linguistic choices and on his punctuation and reduce as far as possible the “in
terference” and the interactions between the authorial linguistic system and the scribal
one; on literary history, as our identifications assure the attribution of anonymous texts
and the observation of the author’s work in progress; on the study of textual transmis
sion, as these manuscripts authorize a comparative approach of the scribal profiles and
an assessment of the loss of information due to the transmission of texts out of au
thor’s control; last, but not least, on the establishment of critical texts, as we have been
able to isolate potential base manuscripts and assess the quality of the transcription
and of the proof-reading of a manuscript. Nonetheless, autograph and original manu
scripts are often considered as an epiphenomenon in Medieval Studies. One ambition
of my article was to show that it is far from being the case.
110 Chr. Reno, G. Ouy et I. Villela-Petit, Album Christine de Pizan, Texte, Codex & Contexte 14 (Turn-
hout 2012).

Delsaux - Textual and Material Investigation On The Autography of Laurent de Premierfait's Original Manuscripts PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delsaux - Textual and Material Investigation On The Autography of Laurent de Premierfait's Original Manuscripts PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEXTUAL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION ON THE AUTOGRAPHY

OF LAURENT DE PREM IERFAIT’S ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS*

The French poet and translator Laurent de Premierfait (1360/1370?-1418) is one of

Fonds national de la Recherche scientifique-FNRS (Belgium) / Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-

Viator 45 No. 3 (2014) 299-338. 10.1484/J.VIATOR.5.102930

Et que il conduye ma plume diligemment escrivant sanz langoreuse peresse au commun

and in original manuscripts of his Latin texts:

20 Durrieu, “Découverte de deux importants manuscrits” (n. 5 above) 66.

Therefore, the presence of the “signature” Premierfait in a manuscript gives no clues

23 “Cy fine le livre de Tulle, De vieillesse, translaté de latin en françois du commandement de

manuscript.30 If signatures appear scarcely in non-original manuscripts of Premierfait,

ncûcs pîûlcçiic tmm aula» dtofei

.(rettesi piolfljlic attìnta munte djofc

UclKS piologuf tuiltttfi eftofia

ndya rpiologti cuhöttt duina Ctjoftl

Geneva, I, 128v et II, 69r Burney 257, 4v 7907A, 144r, 144v

45 Tesnière, Boccaccio visualizzato (n. 4 above) 80.

Fol. 168v © Londres, BL [only reproduction available]

ïautttmus dictes. poetai

Irntm is. tteics. fpoco»

pattas nnfr$ dôtaOue

Burney, fol. 13v Burney, fol. 13v Burney, fol. 59v

aholcfcn anjum cutt tguur [Prolog

atolcfccnt a t ç iu n a u tgituri piolfijuc

ptcceôcui içuoiâta abii

piCfCÖflUÖ iiguotaiicc atouti itfpont

phuofoptw cmuptc. c o u g - habeo.

wmuromw aultu» tonne *

lhutln imxûutc gememUr

t / +•> ♦ * '• 2$ &

ropKs perfetti • in c ite s

BnF, lat. 7907A, fol, 7v

Arsenal 664, fol. 11v

Arsenal 664, fol. 46v

facumt hoTui ttrprmofrans

la tu m u s . mirini Mit». jpicmtr.

The correspondence of these two hands is possible, but not certain.

As for the writing, it is close, but not identical:

iîWWf jmue graute gannite

a g i r a i ajltdh compatçp rompu gri

Et ego Laurentius de Primofacto clericus Trecensis diocesis publicus apostolica et imperiali

[Subscription II] Nos vero Michael Lalouyer, magister in artibus, et Laurentius de

J612, n° 40bis et J916, n° 16 et n° 19 © Paris, AN

r*Y 1V* v t* i9c . 4-

So. I 12v So. 12 So. I 23v So. I 43r So. I 12v

These preparations emend copying errors:

Fol. 134v Fol. 135r Fol. 48V Fol. 36r J916.n° 20

KBR. fol. 145v

Twenty preparations of correction, in margin and in cursive writing, seem to be writ­

KBR IV 920, fol. 9r

Sscr. I fol. 61v Sscr. II Sscr. fol.

© Paris, AN / Brussels, KBR

Some corrections have a stylistic aim, as this suppression of a pleonasm illustrates:

Hand L cares about precision:

I make this assertion in particular when he adds preparations of side-notes intended to

or when he adds a geographical precision:

This suppression will be preserved in the version of 1409:

There are also linguistic corrections:

Others are not:

Hand L completes spelling corrections, whose corrected reading is sometimes quite

Some spelling corrections tend to suppress a homonym:

Corrections also concern names of persons:

par ainsi elle mourant (II, §10, fol. 38v);

rY 1V v t* i9c . 4-

Twenty preparations of correction, in margin and in cursive writing, seem to be writ

Shell number Text Date of Miniaturist Decorator Scribe Proof