6 There are thus at least three different possible levels of transmissions of the glossed text: at the levels of the central text, the lemma, and the gloss’s content. Unlike the Biblical gloss, 5 which achieved a high level of standardization, the Oxford gloss is quite variable across the manuscripts, which show different levels of transmission between text and gloss as well as changes in the marker-lemma which appears at the head of the gloss.
6 For a typology of the concept of lemma in medieval glosses, see Morard (2017a).ĦFrom the researcher’s point of view, this material is remarkably complex. 5 About the Biblical gloss, see the Glossae Scripturae Sacrae-electronicae (Gloss-e) program: the blo (.). As a matter of fact, and with the meaning of marginal commentary in medieval manuscripts, scholium is a modern term, not used in this way in medieval lexicon and bibliotheconomy scholia were then designated by the terms notulae, glossae, or sometimes distinctiones (Morard 2017b). It seems that the meaning of explanation of an individual word, which was attached to the term glossa in the High Middle Ages as a continuation of the meaning inherited from the Greek, gradually dissolved into the larger meaning of “marginal and interlinear commentary” in the Late Middle Ages, as can be witnessed in the case of the Glossa ordinaria or of the Oxford gloss, which both designate a corpus of notes, both marginal and interlinear, attached to a central text, and for which the term scholium is seldom found in the literature. Tov (2020, 41) states, the term glossa or gloss is not used in the same way in Greek studies, because the Greek term γλῶσσα designates a word in a foreign language or dialect which needs an explanation. It is nevertheless possible to distinguish types of glosses: lexical, translation-related, paraphrasing, variant readings, or commentary (some of which are lengthy, and quote from one or more other authors). Some interlinear glosses in one manuscript are marginal in another, and one version of a gloss might be short in one manuscript but in another it might be lengthy. In the Oxford gloss, it is difficult to differentiate between glosses and scholia along the lines proposed by scholars for other corpora, such as position or length. In glossed Bibles, scholia would be notes added in the margins for teaching purposes, but not pertaining to the Glossa ordinaria, the corpus of glosses on the Biblical text standardized in the twelfth century (Morard 2017b). 
Glosses can be assembled in a separate commentary, and one can distinguish them according to a typology: prosodic, lexical, morphological, etc. Other scholars treat a scholium as a specific kind of gloss that is longer than average, and has an interpretative or explanatory nature. Tov lists even other types of additions, like interlinear and marginal corrections, exegetical elements, variant readings, or scribal remarks, but in the end he admits that it is difficult to distinguish between them. For most scholars, a gloss explains a particular word through synonyms or a brief definition, whereas a scholium treats a larger part of the text and provides part of a general commentary (Tov 2020, 41–42). Both designate marginal or interlinear notes. 1.1 Gloss or Scholion?ģThe term gloss is sometimes distinguished from the term scholion or scholium. Either an attachment sign was copied above the lemma and reproduced beside the gloss, or the lemma was repeated at the beginning of the gloss. Different techniques were used, even on the same page, to link a marginal gloss to its lemma, the word or phrase in the central text. Each manuscript therefore has both marginal and interlinear annotations, which are referred to universally as glosses, no matter the length or content.
Most of the gloss was copied in the margins, which were designed to accommodate several columns of those notes, but a significant portion was placed between the lines.
2The Aristotelian text was written in the middle of the page, in a large module.
0 kommentar(er)
