The manuscript Bern Burgerbibliothek A 95.2, the oldest witness to the oïl vernacularization of Lanfranc of Milan’s Chirurgia parva, is undoubtedly remarkable for its antiquity. Indeed, it is mutilated at the beginning and at the end. Additionally, it is lacunar in chapter XII and XV. Moreover, despite the elegance and regularity of the handwriting, the copying shows clear signs of carelessness and haste. The copyist continually demonstrates a lack of expertise in the field of medical terminology. Nonetheless, it deserves credit for preserving a version of the treatise that has already been undergone reworking compared to initial vernacularization. This earlier version’s semantic and syntactic, if not linguistic, features are echoed in the much later Sainte-Geneviève codex, which has preserved a text that accurately reproduces the Latin original corresponding to the editio princeps. In fact, it contains words or phrases embedded within the argumentation that have no counterpart in the treatise. These are short utterances, sometimes presented as simple explanatory notes, sometimes aimed at facilitating comprehension, and sometimes supplementing the subject matter with additional information or observations that appear to be drawn from the author’s personal experience. The Bern manuscript was therefore not copied about twenty-five years after the composition of the Chirurgia parva, based on an antigraph, which, as will be seen below, did not precisely correspond to the version of the first vernacularization preserved in the Sainte-Geneviève codex, but was a (partial) reworking of it. The existence of at least one codex interpositus, unfortunately lost, between the original Oitanic (also lost) and the older witness, allows us to infer that the vernacular translation was made directly around the time of the treatise’s composition. Immediately recognized for its potential to introduce new methodologies to surgical practice, the treatise was translated into a new language to ensure its content could reach a broader audience, including layci, empirici, who provided medical-surgical care outside of any academic institutions.
Il volgarizzatore, l’interpolatore, il copista: la versione oitanica della Chirurgia parva di Lanfranco da Milano tradita dal ms. Bern, Burgerbibliothek A 95.2
Maura Sonia Barillari
2024-01-01
Abstract
The manuscript Bern Burgerbibliothek A 95.2, the oldest witness to the oïl vernacularization of Lanfranc of Milan’s Chirurgia parva, is undoubtedly remarkable for its antiquity. Indeed, it is mutilated at the beginning and at the end. Additionally, it is lacunar in chapter XII and XV. Moreover, despite the elegance and regularity of the handwriting, the copying shows clear signs of carelessness and haste. The copyist continually demonstrates a lack of expertise in the field of medical terminology. Nonetheless, it deserves credit for preserving a version of the treatise that has already been undergone reworking compared to initial vernacularization. This earlier version’s semantic and syntactic, if not linguistic, features are echoed in the much later Sainte-Geneviève codex, which has preserved a text that accurately reproduces the Latin original corresponding to the editio princeps. In fact, it contains words or phrases embedded within the argumentation that have no counterpart in the treatise. These are short utterances, sometimes presented as simple explanatory notes, sometimes aimed at facilitating comprehension, and sometimes supplementing the subject matter with additional information or observations that appear to be drawn from the author’s personal experience. The Bern manuscript was therefore not copied about twenty-five years after the composition of the Chirurgia parva, based on an antigraph, which, as will be seen below, did not precisely correspond to the version of the first vernacularization preserved in the Sainte-Geneviève codex, but was a (partial) reworking of it. The existence of at least one codex interpositus, unfortunately lost, between the original Oitanic (also lost) and the older witness, allows us to infer that the vernacular translation was made directly around the time of the treatise’s composition. Immediately recognized for its potential to introduce new methodologies to surgical practice, the treatise was translated into a new language to ensure its content could reach a broader audience, including layci, empirici, who provided medical-surgical care outside of any academic institutions.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
