been employed by older and approved writers. Of somewhat
later date is the well-known Hesychius, whose often-edited
Λεξικόν superseded all previous works of the kind; Cyril, the
celebrated patriarch of Alexandria, also contributed somewhat
to the advancement of glossography by his Συναγωγὴ τῶν πρὸς διάφορον σημασίαν διαφόρως τονουμένων λέξεων; while Orus,
Orion, Philoxenus and the two Philemons also belong to this
period. The works of Photius, Suidas and Zonaras, as also the
Etymologicum magnum, to which might be added the Lexica
Sangermania and the Lexica Segueriana, are referred to in the
article Dictionary.
To a special category of technical glossaries belongs a large and important class of works relating to the law-compilations of Justinian. Although the emperor forbade under severe penalties all commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) on his legislation (Const. Deo Auctore, sec. 12; Const. Tanta, sec. 21), yet indices (ἴνδικες) and references (παράτιτλα), as well as translations (ἑρμηνεῖαι κατὰ πόδα) and paraphrases (ἑρμηνεῖαι εἰς πλάτος), were expressly permitted, and lavishly produced. Among the numerous compilers of alphabetically arranged λέξεις Ῥωμαΐκαί or Λατεινικαί, and γλῶσσαι νομικαί (glossae nomicae), Cyril and Philoxenus are particularly noted; but the authors of παραγραφαί, or σημειώσεις, whether ἔξωθεν or ἔσωθεν κείμεναι, are too numerous to mention. A collection of these παραγραφαί τῶν παλαιῶν, combined with νέαι παραγραφαί on the revised code called τὰ βασιλικά, was made about the middle of the 12th century by a disciple of Michael Hagiotheodorita. This work is known as the Glossa ordinaria τῶν βασιλικῶν.[1]
In Italy also, during the period of the Byzantine ascendancy, various glossae (glosae) and scholia on the Justinian code were produced[2]; particularly the Turin gloss (reprinted by Savigny), to which, apart from later additions, a date prior to 1000 is usually assigned. After the total extinction of the Byzantine authority in the West the study of law became one of the free arts, and numerous schools for its cultivation were instituted. Among the earliest of these was that of Bologna, where Pepo (1075) and Irnerius (1100–1118) began to give their expositions. They had a numerous following, who, besides delivering exegetical lectures (“ordinariae” on the Digest and Code, “extraordinariae” on the rest of the Corpus juris civilis), also wrote Glossae, first interlinear, afterwards marginal.[3] The series of these glossators was closed by Accursius (q.v.) with the compilation known as the Glossa ordinaria or magistralis, the authority of which soon became very great, so that ultimately it came to be a recognized maxim, “Quod non agnoscit glossa, non agnoscit curia.”[4] For some account of the glossators on the canon law, see Canon Law.
In late classical and medieval Latin, glosa was the vulgar and romanic (e.g. in the early 8th century Corpus Glossary, and the late 8th century Leiden Glossary), glossa the learned form (Varro, De ling. Lat. vii. 10; Auson. Epigr. 127. 2 (86. 2), written in Greek, Quint, i. 1. 34). The diminutive glossula occurs in Diom. 426. 26 and elsewhere. The same meaning has glossarium (Gell. xviii. 7. 3 glosaria = γλωσσάριον), which also occurs in the modern sense of “glossary” (Papias, “unde glossarium dictum quod omnium fere partium glossas contineat”), as do the words glossa, glossae, glossulae, glossemata (Steinmeyer, Alth. Gloss. iv. 408, 410), expressed in later times by dictionarium, dictionarius, vocabularium, vocabularius (see Dictionary). Glossa and glossema (Varro vii. 34. 107; Asinius Gallus, ap. Suet. De gramm. 22; Fest. 166b. 8, 181a. 18; Quint. i. 8. 15, &c.) are synonyms, signifying (a) the word which requires explanation; or (b) such a word (called lemma) together with the interpretation (interpretamentum); or (c) the interpretation alone (so first in the Anecd. Helv.).
Latin, like Greek glossography, had its origin chiefly in the practical wants of students and teachers, of whose names we only know a few. No doubt even in classical times collections of glosses (“glossaries”) were compiled, to which allusion seems to be made by Varro (De ling. Lat. vii. 10, “tesca, aiunt sancta esse qui glossas scripserunt”) and Verrius-Festus (166b .6, “naucum ... glossematorum ... scriptures fabae grani quod haereat in fabulo”), but it is not known to what extent Varro, for instance, used them, or retained their original forms. The scriptores glossematorum were distinguished from the learned glossographers like Aurelius Opilius (cf. his Musae, ap. Suet. De gramm. 6; Gell. i. 25. 17; Varro vii. 50, 65, 67, 70, 79, 106), Servius Clodius (Varro vii. 70. 106), Aelius Stilo, L. Ateius Philol., whose liber glossematorum Festus mentions (181a. 18).
Verrius Flaccus and his epitomists, Festus and Paulus, have preserved many treasures of early glossographers who are now lost to us. He copied Aelius Stilo (Reitzenstein, “Verr. Forsch.,” in vol. i. of Breslauer philol. Abhandl., p. 88; Kriegshammer, Comm. phil. Ien. vii. 1. 74 sqq.), Aurelius Opilius, Ateius Philol., the treatise De obscuris Catonis (Reitzenstein, ib. 56. 92). He often made use of Varro (Willers, De Verrio Flacco, Halle, 1898), though not of his ling. lat. (Kriegshammer, 74 sqq.); and was also acquainted with later glossographers. Perhaps we owe to him the glossae asbestos (Goetz, Corpus, iv.; id., Rhein. Mus. xl. 328). Festus was used by Ps.-Philoxenus (Dammann, “De Festo Ps.-Philoxeni auctore,” Comm. Ien. v. 26 sqq.), as appears from the glossae ab absens (Goetz, “De Astrabae Pl. fragmentis,” Ind. Ien., 1893, iii. sqq.). The distinct connexions with Nonius need not be ascribed to borrowing, as Plinius and Caper may have been used (P. Schmidt, De Non. Marc. auctt. gramm. 145; Nettleship, Lect. and Ess. 229; Fröhde, De Non. Marc. et Verrio Flacco, 2; W. M. Lindsay, “Non. Marc.,” Dict. of Repub. Latin, 100, &c.).
The bilingual (Gr.-Lat., Lat.-Gr.) glossaries also point to an early period, and were used by the grammarians (1) to explain the peculiarities (idiomata) of the Latin language by comparison with the Greek, and (2) for instruction in the two languages (Charis. 254. 9, 291. 7, 292. 16 sqq.; Marschall, De Q. Remmii P. libris gramm. 22; Goetz, Corp. gloss. lat. ii. 6).
For the purposes of grammatical instruction (Greek for the Romans, Latin for the Hellenistic world), we have systematic works, a translation of Dositheus and the so-called Hermeneutica, parts of which may be dated as early as the 3rd century A.D., and lexica (cf. Schoenemann, De lexicis ant. 122; Knaack, in Phil. Rundsch., 1884, 372; Traube, in Byzant. Ztschr. iii. 605; David, Comment. Ien. v. 197 sqq.).
The most important remains of bilingual glossaries are two well-known lexica; one (Latin-Greek), formerly attributed (but wrongly, see Rudorff, in Abh.. Akad. Berl., 1865, 220 sq.; Loewe, Prodr. 183, 190; Mommsen, C.I.L. v. 8120; A. Dammann, De Festo Pseudo-philoxeni auctore, 12 sqq.; Goetz, Corp. ii. 1-212) to Philoxenus (consul A.D. 525), clearly consists of two closely allied glossaries (containing glosses to Latin authors, as Horace, Cicero, Juvenal, Virgil, the Jurists, and excerpts from Festus), worked into one by some Greek grammarian, or a person who worked under Greek influence (his alphabet runs A, B, G, D, E, &c.); the other (Greek-Latin) is ascribed to Cyril (Stephanus says it was found at the end of some of his writings), and is considered to be a compilation of not later than the 6th century (Macrobius is used, and the Cod. Harl., which is the source of all the other MSS., belongs to the 7th century); cf. Goetz, Corp. ii. 215–483, 487–506, praef. ibid. p. xx. sqq. Furthermore, the bilingual medico-botanic glossaries had their origin in old lists of plants, as Ps.-Apuleius in the treatise De herbarum virtutibus, and Ps.-Dioscorides (cf. M. Wellmann, Hermes, xxxiii. 360 sqq., who thinks that the latter work is based on Pamphilus, q.v.; Goetz, Corp. iii.); the glossary, entitled Hermeneuma, printed from the Cod. Vatic. reg. Christ. 1260, contains names of diseases.
Just as grammar developed, so we see the original form of the glosses extend. If massucum edacem in Placidus indicates the original form, the allied gloss of Festus (masucium edacem a mandendo scilicet) shows an etymological addition. Another extension consists in adding special references to the original source, as e.g. at the gloss Ocrem (Fest. 181a. 17), which is taken from Ateius Philol. In this way collections arose like the priscorum verborum cum exemplis, a title given by Fest. (218b. 10) to a particular work. Further the glossae veterum (Charis. 242. 10); the glossae antiquitatum (id. 229. 30); the idonei vocum antiquarum enarratores (Gell. xviii. 6. 8); the libri rerum verborumque veterum (id. xiii. 24. 25). L.
- ↑ See Labbé, Veteres glossae verborum juris quae passim in Basilicis reperiuntur (1606); Otto, Thesaurus juris Romani, iii. (1697); Stephens, Thesaurus linguae Graecae, viii. (1825).
- ↑ See Biener, Geschichte der Novellen, p. 229 sqq.
- ↑ Irnerius himself is with some probability believed to have been the author of the Brachylogus (q.v.).
- ↑ Thus Fil. Villani (De origine civitatis Florentiae, ed. 1847, p. 23), speaking of the Glossator Accursius, says of the Glossae that “tantae auctoritatis gratiaeque fuere, ut omnium consensu publice approbarentur, et reiectis aliis, quibuscumque penitus abolitis, solae juxta textum legum adpositae sunt et ubique terrarum sine controversia pro legibus celebrantur, ita ut nefas sit, non secus quam textui, Glossis Accursii contraire.” For similar testimonies see Bayle’s Dictionnaire, s.v. “Accursius,” and Rudorff, Röm. Rechtsgeschichte, i. 338 (1857).
