404 CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
ee ee EEe—E—E—— — ————eE rr rae
CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
eo ee a ed eee ae
marked by curious divisions of the text. They ‘present a recension quite peculiar, which cannot be confounded with any other family of text, and which can confidently be called Languedoc.’ _ It is important to remember that these Latin MSS belong to the beginning of the 13th century. Now, the earliest of the Provencal MSS is in the library at Lyons, and is dated by P. Meyer in the third quarter of the 13th century. This translation is based on the local Latin text just mentioned (as in the long interpolation found in a few Latin MSS at Mt 20°8), and that a glossed text in which the Latin was written above the Provengal. Another Pro- vencal MS (Bibl. Nat. MS jr. 2425) is not earlier than the beginning of the 14th cent., and Meyer regards the version as not much older, while its linguistic peculiarities indicate an origin in the south or south-east of Provence. The translation is more free than that found in the Lyons MS, but is not independent of that MS, with which it agrees in some misreadings or misrenderings of the Latin. The two MSS exhibit ‘the greatest differences, and striking resemblances.’ Thus, in St. Mark the texts differ widely, in St. John the resem- blances and differences are both great; on the other hand, in the Epistle of St. James and those of St. Paul the text seems to be the same. A third MS (Bibl. Nat. MS fr. 6261) of the Provencal belongs to the 15th century. The version is ‘free, often abridged, sometimes paraphrased or accom- panied by glosses.’ The Latin text on which the translation rests is ‘ that which was in use through- out France from the 9th to the middle of the 13th cent.,’ and there is hardly any trace of the local Languedoc readings already mentioned. There are other indications that the translation is earlier than the end, and perhaps than the middle, of the 13th century. In Romania, xviii. 430, Meyer men- tions another fragment of the 14th cent. containing the same translation, on the whole, as that found in the MS just mentioned —a translation inde- pendent of that in the first two MSS, and bearing inarks of having its origin among the sect of the Cathari. Another Provencal MS of the 15th cent. (Bibl. Nat. MS fr. 2426) contains the historical books of the OT. This translation was made not from the Latin, but from the French. Berger thus sums up (Romania, xix. 559-561) the history of the Provencal Bible: ‘The first Provencal translation comes to us from Limoges. It consists of five chapters of St. John. The MS which contains it was copied in the 12th cent., perhaps in the Abbey of St. Martial. There is no reason to think that it is a fragment of a more complete translation, for it is a liturgical section. About one hundred years after, in the south of Languedoc, and very probably in the department of Aude, an interlinear version of the NT was made over the text then used in that district. This version, preserved for us in the Lyons MS, was the official translation of the Cathari, and undoubtedly exercised a great influ- ence in the south. It is difficult to believe that the Vaud version and the second Proveneal version (MS fi. 2425) have not been, to some extent, influ- enced by it. ... Finally, in the 15th cent., beyond a doubt, the Provencal Bible was completed by a translation of the historical books of the OT... . ‘This new sacred history was not derived from the Latin, but from a French compilation, a composite work due to several translators.’
3. Another group of MSS contains a text cer- tainly used by the inhabitants of the Vaud, but there is nothing at all to prove that the translation was their work. Five of these MSS have been carefully examined by Berger. The oldest is the Carpentras MS, No. 22, in the Municipal Library, which dates from the 14th cent., and contains, besides the NT, the Sapiential books. Another
MS closely allied to the preceding is a Dublin MS, dated 1522, which ‘would seem to be a re- production of the MS of Carpentras,’ only that it contains eight chapters of Ecclesiasticus not found in the latter. Two other MSS, one at Grenoble and another at Cambridge, are closely related. The first is particularly interesting because of a liturgical point, implying a con- nexion with Bohemia; and both have a curious translation of the latter part of the Acts derived from an Italian version. The last MS of this family, at Ziirich, belongs to the 16th cent., and has been influenced by the text of Erasmus.
Of the relation of this group to the Provencal, Berger writes (Romania, xviii. 405) that ‘it is not possible to give a decided answer. There are in- numerable differences of all kinds between the two families, and the most important perhaps is that their Latin text is not absolutely the same... . It is not impossible that the relation of the Vaud and Provencal texts may be thus explained. After the first edition [7.e. of the Provencal text], repre- sented by the Lyons MS, a redaction of the inter- linear Provencal text might have been made into more modern language, and one which the trans- lator believed to be more in accord with the Latin. Into this work variants of every kind, even of the Latin text, might have found their way.’