220.127.116.11. Citations and examples
Reuchlin's Vocabularius breviloquus, which is based on medieval compilations, often refers to Papias, John Balbi, Hugutio, as well as the Bible. He also often cites authors such as Sidonius, Horace, Virgil, and so on.
Citations and references to authorities are found only rarely in the CA. One of the few examples is:
References in the VN/EV are not numerous, and many of them are biblical. For example:
Calepino is entirely different, of course. His work abounds in citations, drawn mainly from classical authors. Brandon (1904: 39) notes that Estienne did not inaugurate the trend to using citations of good Latinity; however, he accelerated it. Estienne adopted some of Calepino's citations in T1531, as we see in Exhibit 37, and he added many others. Terence, Plautus and Pliny were among his favorite sources, as well as Cicero, Columella, Varro, Festus and others. His concern was always to select those which best explain the lemma or sub-lemma in question. As we noted in 7.3., Estienne omitted the names of sources from the first edition of the DLG, and from the DFL.
18.104.22.168. Grammatical and similar information
Johannes Reuchlin divided his dictionary into three parts: Nomina, Verba and Indeclinabilia, which simplifies identification at the first level. Parts of speech are usually identified - nomen, adverbium, participium, prepositio, etc. - and often qualified as well - adverbium quantitatis, coniunctio affirmativa, and so on. Reuchlin uses a system of abbreviations to provide grammatical information about nouns and verbs. The initials (which are not those which we are accustomed to see in the Aalma and its successors) follow the lemma, e.g. Utor, uteris, usus sum. d.t.i. or Vulgo .gas. a.p.i.
The system of abbreviations located against the right-hand text margin which is found in Aalma and DLV, is also found in all editions of the CA. In the Prologue to Series 2 of the CA, particular attention is drawn to this method (see 22.214.171.124.). The system of marginal abbreviations is not found in VFC. Indicators for gender often (although by no means always) follow the lemma: Amadrias.dis feminini generis... Parts of speech are identified in VFC and frequently qualified as well: Amplissimum, adverbium suppellativi gradus.
As we have noted earlier (see 6.1.3.), Guillaume Le Moine adopted the marginal abbreviation system in his editions of the VN/EV. The editions which we have examined identify parts of speech such as adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions. However, they rarely provide the genitive form of nouns, and often omit the inflected forms of the verb.
In the Thesaurus and the DLG, Estienne identifies some parts of speech, e.g. adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions, participles, etc. and specifies the gender of nouns. He provides fully inflected forms of adjectives and of verbs  and thus does not need to add other identification. All of this grammatical information is omitted from the DFL of 1539 (see Exhibit 39), because this text was meant to be a key to DLG 1538. Individual owners often bound the two dictionaries together.
Phonetic and orthographic information is rare in the CA, as it was in Aalma. As far as we have found, it is not included in the VN/EV. In VFC it is included occasionally, as it was in DLV:
At times, Calepino and Estienne include phonetic information:
Eripio.is. pe.cor. ... (Calepino)
We have not found internal references in the VN/EV, and only rarely in the CA. Le Talleur's markers indicating the location of an internal reference include: Vide in (lemma); Vide in suo loco; In suo loco dicitur, etc.
In Bade's 1516/1517 edition of Calepino, the markers are Vide in (lemma), Vide loco suo. Both expressions are used by Estienne in the Thesaurus and the DLG. The DFL does not contain internal reference markers.
126.96.36.199. Techniques of definition
Definitional techniques used in the CA, VFC and VN/EV differ very little from those in the manuscript lexica which we reviewed in 188.8.131.52.5. Lemmata and sub-lemmata are glossed by synonyms, syntagms, short definitions, and so on.
We do not feel it is particularly helpful to present more examples of these methods, and look instead at Estienne's approach. In the Thesaurus and DLG simple equivalents occur at times, with or without a supporting citation:
One of the obvious results of this procedure is that, in addition to a considerable number of single equivalents, a large quantity of French locutions appear as sub-lemmata in the DFL.
Brandon (1904: 68, n.1) reminds us that the principal if not the exclusive objective of the first edition of the Dictionaire Francoislatin was the advancement of the study of Latin. He adds (1904: 69) that we must always keep in mind that Estienne regarded his lexicographical work as a unit. The different lexica are only the different manifestations of a single effort whose point of departure is the Latin language.
Almost imperceptibly, the status of French in dictionaries begins to change during the period covered in this study. The change manifests itself first in the search for greater precision in French translations for Latin terms. Lépinette (1992: 252) notes that the result of this research effort may be observed on two levels. On the lexicographical level, it led to establishment of a system of interlingual equivalencies consisting of two terms, which led toward progressive normalization of the articles of bilingual dictionaries. Kibbee (1986: 143) also remarks that the use of synonyms to gloss entries in the DFL is a first step toward definitions.
On the linguistic level (that of French), the search for adequate translations for Latin entries led to the enrichment of French, thanks to gradual precision in the meanings and uses of the lemmata.
Further evidence of the change in the status of French is related to the increased use of French in Estienne's dictionaries. Although Estienne's purpose is to facilitate access to Latin, it is clear from his abundant translations that he considers French adequate to express all nuances of Latin.
In speaking of the character of Estienne's French, Brandon (1904: 54) points out that it is important to distinguish the translation of words and the translation of locutions. In the translation of words, we see little difference between early printed bilingual dictionaries and the DLG, as illustrated in the following Exhibit. 
|Exhibit 40: Article Macer in Catholicon abbreviatum, Vocabularius familiaris et compendiosus and Dictionarium Latinogallicum|
The quantity of French in locutions, Brandon explains, is much greater, and it stems entirely from the author. Estienne translated Latin locutions into the vigorous French of the sixteenth century.
Our corpus does not include any lexica falling into the second group. Calepino's Dictionarium represents the third group. Calepino attempts to purify the Latin by eliminating some lemmata and by citing classical sources rather than earlier lexica such as Papias and Hugutio. However, Estienne's criticism of the Dictionarium (see note 94) goes straight to the heart of the matter: its low degree of consultability. Alphabetical order is followed only to the third letter, while examples and citations follow one another in long strings.
With the Thesaurus of 1531, Estienne created a truly new dictionary: macro-articles consisting of a root lemma, followed by members of the word family, set out one below the other; strict alphabetical arrangement for lemmata; each lemma and sub-lemma followed by examples, citations and/or French definitions; and the whole distinguished by typographical techniques. The process, in particular the typography, would be slightly altered in later dictionaries, but the basic framework was in place.
The Dictionaire Francoislatin of 1539 followed the same principles, although much of the text - grammatical information, authors' names, and citations - was omitted. A first attempt at creating a French-Latin dictionary, it was the foundation-stone of a long line of bilingual dictionaries, leading in time to the first monolingual French dictionary. 
[Next] -- [Table of Contents]