“With That, You Can Grasp All the Hebrew Language”:

Hebrew Sources of an Anonymous Hebrew-Latin

Grammar from Thirteenth-Century England

Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

This paper contains a preliminary study of the Hebrew sources of a hitherto

unpublished Hebrew-Latin grammar book preserved in the private collection
of the Marques of Bath as a part of MS Longleat House 21 (henceforth LH 21).1
This short grammar (only twelve parchment folios measuring 255 × 180 mm,
out of a composite volume of 204 folios) is the most accomplished work of this
genre known to us authored by medieval Christian scholars. It was probably
written in the Benedictine Abbey of Ramsey in East Anglia in the 13th century.2
Composed of four self-contained and short units, the grammar provides suffi-
cient tools for mastering the basics of the Hebrew language. This pedagogical
ambition is best conveyed through the sentence ‫ּוֿכל ְל ַה ִֿבין ּכֺל ְלשו ֺן ִע ְֿב ִרי‬
ַ ‫ּבזֵ ה ּֿת‬,
ְ
“with that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language”, which figures on fol. 200v.
This grammar is indeed the most accomplished aid for the study of Hebrew
elaborated by medieval Christian scholars that we know today. Far from being
an isolated accomplishment, it actually belongs to a distinct tradition of
Christian Hebraism in medieval England, probably related to the Benedictine
Abbey of Ramsey, tradition which elaborated other linguistic works, such as a
trilingual Hebrew-Latin-Old French biblical dictionary3 and a detailed philo-
logical gloss on the Hebrew Psalter, both kept today bound in the same volume
as the grammar. The Hebrew grammar in MS LH 21 together with the other
works of Christian Hebraists contained in this bound volume is an expression
of the growing interest in Hebrew studies in the 13th century. Most impor-
tantly, it is the evidence of interest of these scholars in Jewish grammatical
and lexicographical works in particular and of their ability to consult them.

1 The full critical edition and study of this text is in print.

2 The manuscript does not mention a date or place where it was written. Its possible origins
are proposed on the basis of paleographical and historical comparison with other Hebrew-
Latin works held with the grammar. The origins of these other works were discussed in
Olszowy- Schlanger et al. (2008: xvi–xxiii).
3 Ed. Olszowy-Schlanger et al. (2008).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi 10.1163/9789004277052_011

180 Olszowy-Schlanger

The Grammar LH 21 and 13th-Century Christian Hebraism in

England

“The knowledge of languages is the first doorway to wisdom . . .”—as banal as

they may seem today, these words of Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1292) in his Opus
Tertium herald a relatively new approach which makes the study of languages
a necessary condition for the advancement of learning and sciences, both sec-
ular and religious.4 Linguistic ignorance on the other hand is explicitly vilified
as a major impediment for all. Roger Bacon devoted a great deal of attention to
the question of the knowledge of languages, especially in his later works such
as Opus Maius (1268), Opus Tertium (1268), Compendium Studii Philosophiae
(1272), Grammatica Graeca (c. 1268 ?) and a short note on Hebrew (one folio
in MS Cambridge, UL Ff. 6. 13).5 He advocated the study of Greek, Aramaic,
Arabic and above all Hebrew. The reasons advanced by Bacon of why Latin
scholars should turn to the study of these languages are manifold, and echo
intellectual preoccupations of his time.6 Hebrew was essential because of its
theological role as one of the three “languages of the Cross”, as a practical and
pacific way of converting Jews through the power of their own mother-tongue,
or as a tribute to the Christian forefathers, ancient and more contemporary,
who mastered Hebrew and other languages. Hebrew had to be studied because
it was the first and the most ancient step of the translatio philosophiae, the
chain of transmission of knowledge first from God to his saints in Hebrew, and
subsequently renewed in Greek by Aristotle and in Arabic mostly by Avicenna.
Most importantly, however, Hebrew had to be mastered because the found-
ing texts of Christianity were written in this language, and the proper under-
standing of these texts involved the comprehension of the proprietas or inner

4 Ed. Brewer (1859, XXVII: 102): Notitia linguarum est prima porta sapientiae, et maxime apud
Latinos, qui non habent textum theologiae nec philosophiae, nisi a linguis alienis; et ideo omnis
homo deberet scire linguas, et indiget studio et doctrina harum, eo quod non potest ea cogno-
scere naturaliter, quia fiunt ad placitum hominis et variantur secundum hominum voluntatem.
5 Opus Maius: ed. Bridges (1900), Opus Tertium: ed. Brewer (1859), Compendium Studii
Philisophiae: ed. Brewer (1859), Grammatica Graeca: ed. Nolan (1902), short note on Hebrew:
ed. Hirsch (1902). Another work attributed to Roger Bacon or to someone of his circle (such
as William de Mara) consists of Hebrew notes and correspondence in MS Toulouse 402 (see
Grévin (2001) who argues in favour of the attribution to Roger Bacon, already proposed by
Samuel Berger). As to the Grammatica Practica in MS London, Brit. Lib. V A IV (fols 135–174),
Roger Bacon’s authorship was only recently rejected by I. Rosier who has shown that the
manuscript was actually copied well before Bacon’s times, in the twelfth century (see Rosier-
Catach (1998: 97)).
6 See esp. Rosier-Catach (1997).
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 181

meanings of their original words. The major incentive to take up Hebrew was
the corrupt state of the existing Latin translations of the Hebrew Bible.
Given these theoretical premises as well as his pedagogical contribution
as an author of the aforementioned grammatical notes on Hebrew, it is not
surprising that Roger Bacon became somewhat of a paradigmatic Christian
Hebraist of the medieval period. Bacon’s works have attracted a consider-
able scholarly attention and until recently he, his master Robert Grosseteste
(c. 1175–1253) and their mostly Franciscan milieu were considered the only
identifiable scholars involved in the study of Hebrew in 13th-century England.7
However, as I have argued on a previous occasion, a renewed interest in the
subject reveals a more complex picture.8 The grammar LH 21 is an example
of a different strand in Christian Hebraism, which surpasses all the previously
studied works. It seems indeed that, in parallel or even prior to the Franciscans’
interest in Hebrew, there existed other groups of Christian scholars in England
who were successfully involved in the study of Hebrew and whose relationship
with Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste requires a clarification.
This scholarly milieu is closely related to the production and use of a cor-
pus of bilingual Hebrew-Latin manuscripts in the course of the 12th and 13th
centuries. This corpus, which includes some twenty-six items, is composed of
Bible manuscripts conceived and copied as bilingual books laid out in corre-
sponding columns with facing Hebrew and Latin texts, of Hebrew manuscripts
annotated in Latin and often provided with an interlinear Latin translation
different from the Vulgate (superscriptio) and finally of Hebrew-Latin linguis-
tic works.9 When Beryl Smalley and later Raphael Loewe studied the bilin-
gual Hebrew-Latin Bible manuscripts from medieval England, they argued for
their relationship with Robert Grosseteste and his circle on the basis of Roger
Bacon’s remarks on Hebrew and Grosseteste’s interest in it, on the mention by
Henry Cossey, in 1336, of a Psalter of the Lincolniensis (Robert Grosseteste was
the bishop of Lincoln) which contained a new interlinear Latin translation10
and on the basis of a textual analysis of a Latin preface to a bilingual Psalter MS

7 See Smalley (1939). Robert Grosseteste did not know any Hebrew himself, but was helped
by competent scholars (see Wasserstein (1995)). See also Loewe (1957).
8 See Olszowy-Schlanger (2009).
9 Berger (1893); Smalley (1939, 1964); Loewe (1957, 1958); Beit-Arié (1993); Olszowy-
Schlanger (2003); Olszowy-Schlanger et al. (2008).
10 The Franciscan Henry Cossey’s Expositio super Psalmos, written in 1336, is preserved in
MS Cambridge, Christ’s College, Dd. I. 11 (see Hirsch (1911–1915: 10); Smalley (1939: 5);
Loewe (1957: 212)).
182 Olszowy-Schlanger

Oxford, Corpus Christi College 10.11 They further considered that all the identi-
fied bilingual Hebrew-Latin manuscripts must emanate from the same milieu.
However, a more detailed paleographical and textual analysis of the corpus has
shown that, although sharing a similar approach and objectives—and nota-
bly the task of a systematic comparison of the Latin Vulgate with its Hebrew
Vorlage—these manuscripts may have different origins and dates.12
Among this corpus of bilingual manuscripts one specific group can be iden-
tified that shares the same Latin and Hebrew handwritings as well as a cer-
tain intellectual approach and vocabulary. The grammar LH 21 belongs to this
specific group of manuscripts. The group includes also a trilingual Hebrew-
Latin-Old French dictionary in the volume MS LH 21. The production of
these linguistic tools—grammar and dictionary—is closely related to further
five Biblical Hebrew manuscripts containing a Latin translation written as a
superscriptio between the lines of the Hebrew text, and marginal glosses of
a philological nature. These manuscripts are MS Longleat House 21 (Psalter);
MS Oxford, Bodl. Or. 46; MS Oxford, Bodl. Or. 62; MS Oxford, Corpus Christi
College 9; MS Oxford, St. John’s College 143; and MS Oxford, Corpus Christi
College 6, which contains Rashi’s commentary on the Prophets and
Hagiographa. These six manuscripts predate the creation of the dictionary and
grammar, and were probably used as their sources.13
This corpus of related Hebrew-Latin manuscripts reveals a well defined
school of English Hebraists.14 The activity of this school culminates with
the production of the trilingual dictionary sometime in the third quarter of
the 13th century. But the work on the dictionary and grammar builds upon
much earlier endeavours: the superscriptio translation in these manuscripts
can be dated, on paleographical grounds, to the first half of the 13th century,
and parts of our grammar were most probably copied at the beginning of the
13th century. It is difficult at our present state of knowledge to trace back this
approach with more certainty. The work of twelfth century scholars such as
Herbert of Bosham, as well as the relationship of his Commentary on Jerome’s
Hebrew Psalter with the bilingual Hebrew-Latin Psalter produced around 1150
in Canterbury (MS Leiden, Or. 4725) and with the Psalter Oxford, MS Corpus
Christi College 10 and Psalter and dictionary LH 21, analysed recently by Eva de

11 Smalley (1964: 343).

12 Olszowy-Schlanger (2003).
13 Olszowy-Schlanger et al. (2008: xcii–xcviii).
14 Olszowy-Schlanger (2008).
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 183

Visscher, shows that the tradition behind the bilingual manuscripts in England
may well go back to the mid-twelfth century.15
The most important and distinctive aspect of this specific group of manu-
scripts is their reliance on Jewish sources. The sources of the dictionary LH
21 and the superscriptio manuscripts have been analysed elsewhere and have
shown an impressive knowledge and use of a broad range of explicitly referred
to exegetical and grammatical Jewish works, such as the commentaries of
Rashi and the dictionary Maḥberet he-ʿAruḵ of Solomon ibn Parḥon.16 The
grammar itself does not mention by title any Jewish source but its terminol-
ogy and grammatical approach reflect the classical Jewish grammatical tradi-
tion. It is remarkable that the method of language description in our Christian
Hebrew grammar is that of Jewish grammarians, and there is no attempt to
describe the Hebrew language according to the categories of the Latin gram-
mar. The use of Latin (or French vernacular used in some translations) appears
only as a pedagogical means of explanation. In this respect, the grammar LH 21
differs from the other Christian works, and notably from the aforementioned
grammar attributed to Roger Bacon who, faithful to his ideal of the universal
grammar, attempted to make Hebrew nouns fit into the case system, or to look
for the five ‘Latin’ vowels (a e i o u) among Hebrew consonants (identifying
alef, he, ḥet, yod, waw and ʿayin with the vowels). As we shall see, the adherence
to the Hebrew models and methodology in the grammar LH 21 is complete.
This raises the important question of the capacity of the Christian scholars
to consult and comprehend Jewish linguistic texts, as well as that of the spe-
cific Jewish tradition or text which may have been the source for our Christian
grammarians.

The Contents of the Grammar LH 21

Before looking for possible Jewish sources of our grammar, let us summarize
the contents of the grammar book. It is composed of four short independent
parts. From the point of view of their codicology, these are heterogeneous
booklets, but they were kept and studied together already in the Middle Ages.
This is indicated by the same handwriting of medieval annotations attested in
several units. From the point of view of the text, the four codicological units
correspond to four independent textual units (hitherto TU):

15 De Visscher (2009: 129).

16 Rothschild (2008).
184 Olszowy-Schlanger

TU 1 Hebrew Grammar Transliterated in Latin Characters

( fol. 193r.–196r.)
This unit is written in Latin characters, but its language is Hebrew and Latin—
for interlinear translation of Hebrew words on fol. 193v. and fol. 195r., l. 15 to
fol. 196r. This unit deals with the Hebrew verbal conjugation. It contains two
sections: one is a conjugation of the verb ‫ רדף‬according to five binyanim (the
term bineian for ‫ ִּבנְ יָ ן‬appears indeed several times), in the following order: qal,
piʿel, puʿal, huphʿal and hithpaʿel (niphʿal and hiphʿil are not included), and the
other is a conjugation of a qal verb with object suffixes. Every form is labeled
using Hebrew grammatical terminology.

TU 2 Tractate on Hebrew Pronunciation, in Latin ( fol. 196v.–197r.)

This unit contains a short work in Latin dealing with Hebrew vowels and
accents. Codicologically speaking, this unit which covers blank versos of the
Unit 1 and Unit 3, was inserted when the two parts were brought together.
From the text itself, we gather that the immediate aim of TU 2 was to comment
on the list of vowels and accents at the end of TU 3 written in Hebrew: the
list of the vowels in this Latin TU 2 opens with a reference to TU 3: hii omnes
soni et apices sonorum nominaque apicum patent per ordinem in pagina prec-
edente. TU 2 contains a detailed list of the twelve Hebrew vowels. The vowels’
description contains their Latin equivalents, their phonetics and examples of
vernacular words to illustrate their pronunciation as well as an explanation of
the etymology of the name of each letter. For example,

ḥiriq: Vocatur autem hirek, quod gallice dicitur rechiner, quia quando pro-
fertur i, os aperitur et labia contrahuntur sicut quando sit rictus, unde ab
hoc ebreo dicitur fremere et frendere, ut S. 34 . . .17

It is called ḥiriq, which means in French ‘rechiner’, because, when [i] is

pronounced, the mouth is open and lips stretched as if for a grin; hence
in Hebrew it means ‘to rustle’, ‘to grind (one’s teeth)’, as in Ps. 34:16.

TU 3 Hebrew Grammar in Hebrew Characters ( fol. 197v.–202v.)

This unit is written in Hebrew characters, from right to left, like a Jewish book.
It is incomplete at the beginning. Its preserved part opens with the conjuga-
tion of verbs in binyan qal. The forms are listed first according to the tense and
then according to the person. For each person, several so-called weak verbs—

17 Ps. 34:16 (MT: Ps. 35:16) ֺ ‫ ָחר ֺק ָע ַלי ִׁשּנֵ ימו‬frenduerunt super me dentibus suis.
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 185

or verbs presenting a certain irregularity—are conjugated simultaneously.

The verbs in question are: ‫עשה‬, ‫אכל‬, ‫הלך‬, ‫בוא‬, ‫ישן‬, ‫שכב‬, ‫חמם‬, ‫לבש‬, ‫יצא‬, ‫ישב‬.
Their particular irregularity is not described or theorized in any more detail.
TU 3 focuses on the binyan qal only. The other verbal patterns are described
briefly, without mentioning explicitly to which binyan they belong. They are
described as forms with additions: ‫“ ויש דברים ששמותם נוסף‬and there are
forms whose name is ‘additional’ ”, and illustrated with examples of what cor-
responds to hiphʿil, i.e. forms with an additional he (‫)והנה ההי נקרא הנוסף‬, e.g.,
‫האביד כמו אבד‬, and forms with an additional mem, corresponding to the piʿel
participle (‫)ויש נוסף שבמם נוספת‬, e.g. ‫מדבר כמו דובר‬. There is also a distinc-
tion between verbs that are qal ‘light’ and kaved ‘heavy’, whose examples cor-
respond to piʿel. After this section, there is a section of the conjugation of the
verb ‫ שמר‬in qal and some forms in piʿel with object suffixes. Despite the lack of
a strict order and due to various omissions, these paradigms are of particular
interest: the Hebrew verbs are translated into French written in Hebrew char-
acters and vocalised with Hebrew vowels. As such, the TU 3 contains not only
paradigms of the Hebrew verb, but also a very early example of the paradigms
of the French verb ‘garder’. The forms of piʿel follow immediately the corre-
sponding qal forms, and are translated as causative or factitive verbs, with the
French auxiliary ‘faire’.

TU 4 Paradigms of Hebrew verbs, in Latin Characters

( fol. 203r.–204v.)
The 2 folios at the end of the grammar contain a Hebrew alphabet followed by
simple Hebrew verbal paradigms written in columns. Qal in the past, future,
imperative and the past participle is followed by piʿel in the past followed by
the past of puʿal, the future of puʿal, the past and future of huphʿal, the past of
the hybrid binyan huthpaʿal followed by the future of hithpaʿel. The first col-
umn of the verso contains the ‘passive’ binyan ithpaʿal, followed again by qal
in the past, future, past participle, present (active participle), followed again
by qal in the past and future and past participle—this time for the feminine
(even if most of the forms are identical for the masculine and feminine). This is
followed again by piʿel: present, past, future, imperative, and then again the
same forms for the feminine, followed again by puʿal: participle, past and
future, again separately for masculine and feminine. However, the tables for
puʿal are interrupted by forms of the infinitive construct with prepositions
inserted between the puʿal participle and the past. The forms of the puʿal are
followed by hithpaʿel in the order: present (participle), past and future.
As stated before, these four textual units constituted a whole and were
transmitted together already during the Middle Ages, as attested notably by
186 Olszowy-Schlanger

the fact that TU 2 was inserted, still in the 13th century, on the blank folios
at the meeting point between TU 1 and TU 3. This TU 2 makes in addition an
explicit reference to the text of TU 3. Moreover, TU 1, 2 and 3 contain additions
by the same ink/hand. In addition to this common history of transmission,
these originally independent four codicological units are also related as far as
their Hebrew grammatical terminology and approaches are concerned.

Hebrew Grammatical Terminology and Its Origin

Grammatical terms used in the three units concerned with grammar and espe-
cially verbal morphology, i.e., TU 1, TU 3 and TU 4, can be divided into three
groups: 1. terms commonly found in Jewish grammatical (and other) literature
of various traditions (Oriental and Spanish); 2. terms reflecting one specific
tradition of the Hebrew grammar: the Jewish grammatical tradition of the
classical type as elaborated by Spanish grammarians of the early 11th century;
3. unusual terms and expressions that cannot be traced to a Jewish source.

1 General Grammatical Terms Used in All Traditions of Hebrew

Grammatical Thought
To the first group belong terms such as ‫‘ זכר‬masculine’, ‫‘ נקבה‬feminine’, ‫תיבה‬
‘word’, ‫‘ עבר‬past’, ‫‘ עתיד‬future’, ‫‘ ִציּווי‬imperative’, all quoted in Hebrew in TU 3.
Analogous terminology was used in TU 1, in Latin characters. The gender is
expressed by zachar (for ‫‘ )זכר‬masculine’ (Lat. masculinum) and nekeuah (for
‫‘ )נקבה‬feminine’ (Lat. femininum). The number is very rarely referred to by a
separate term: in most cases, it is inherent in the description of the grammati-
cal person: e.g. nisetar (for ‫‘ )נסתר‬third person masculine singular’, lit. ‘hid-
den’ versus nisetarim (for ‫‘ )נסתרים‬third person masculine plural’. But there are
some rare cases of the use of specific terms, such as iahid (for ‫‘ )יחיד‬singular’
(Lat. singularis) and rabim (for ‫‘ )רבים‬plural’ (Lat. pluralis) (e.g., fol. 196r.). The
tense can be hauar (for ‫‘ )עבר‬past tense’—perfect (Lat. preteritum), hadtid or
hatid (for ‫‘ )עתיד‬future’ (Lat. futurum)—imperfect, and houeh (for ‫‘ )הווה‬pres-
ent’ (Lat. presens)—participle. Siwi or siuui (for ‫ )ציווי‬designates the impera-
tive (Lat. imperatiuum).

2 Terms Reflecting a Specific Tradition: Classical Hebrew Grammar

from Spain
This second group of grammatical terms is particularly relevant because they
belong to one specific Hebrew grammatical tradition. It appears indeed that
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 187

the LH 21 grammar, TU 3, but also TU 1 and TU 4, reflect a linguistic approach

first proposed by Judah Ḥayyūj in Spain around 1000 CE.18 One of its main
characteristics is the classification of verbs into conjugational patterns: bin-
yanim ‘structures’ (sometimes called mišqalim). Only two binyanim are
referred to explicitly in TU 3, with the use of the root ‫פעל‬, in conformity with
the Spanish tradition of Hebrew grammar: ‫( ַּפ ַעל‬for ‫)ּפ ַעל‬ ָ paʿal and ‫ ִפּ ֵעל‬piʿel
(‫ּומ ְש ַקל ַקל ַּפ ַעל ְכמו ֺ ִפ ֵעל‬
ִ ‫)וְ יֵ ש ְד ַב ִרים ֵשנִ ְק ַר ִאים ִמ ְש ַקל ַּכ ֵבֿד‬, but three others appear
in TU 1, referred to as bineian. Four binyanim (out of five described in TU 1) are
called by their transliterated Hebrew name: pihel (for ‫)ּפ ֵעל‬, ִ puhal (for ‫)ּפ ָעל‬,
ֻ
hupehal (for ‫)ה ְפ ָעל‬ ֻ and hitepahel (for ‫)ה ְת ַּפ ֵעל‬. ִ There is no attempt to trans-
late the names of the binyanim into Latin. TU 3 further differentiates between
the ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ patterns—‫ משקל קל‬lit. ‘light verbal pattern’ and ‫משקל‬
‫ כבד‬lit. ‘heavy verbal pattern’—and verbal patterns which contain additional
prefixes: ‫“ וְ יֵ ש ְד ַב ִרים ֵש ְשמו ַֺֿתם נו ַֺסף‬and there are forms (lit. ‘things’) which are
called ‘addition’ ”. Two such forms are listed, but without a detailed discussion
or examples: ‫“ וְ ִהנַ ה ַה ֵהי נִ ְק ַרא ַהנו ַֺסף וְ יֵ ש נו ַֺסף ֵש ַה ֵמם נו ֵֺס ֵפֿת‬and behold the he
called ‘additional’, and there is ‘addition’ in which there is an additional mem”.
Moreover, the terms that designate the grammatical person reflect the clas-
sical Spanish tradition:

Gram. person TU 1 Hebrew term Equivalent TU 3 Translation in TU 1

1s medaber behasemo ‫מדבר בעצמו‬ sermo pro se ipso

2ms nochah ‫נוכח‬ probatus
2fs nochahat ‫נוכחת‬ probata
3ms nisetar ‫נסתר‬ absconditus
3fs niseteret ‫נסתרת‬ abscondita

1pl medaberim behasemam ‫מדברים בעצמם‬ sermo pro se ipsis

2mpl nochahim ‫נוכחים‬ probati
2fpl nochahot ‫נוכחות‬ probate
3mpl nisetarim ‫נסתרים‬ absconditi
3fpl nisetarot ‫נסתרות‬ abscondite

18 For a general presentation of Judah Ḥayyūj’s approach, see for example, Sáenz-Badillos
(2001).
188 Olszowy-Schlanger

These terms are used both for the description of the conjugated forms of the
verb and for the object suffixes. In the description of the relationship between
a verb and an object suffix, the TU 1 uses expressions such as (fol. 195r.): dauar
seiaheseh nisetar lenisetarim for ‫ דבר שיעשה נסתר לנסתרים‬lit. ‘an action that a
third person masculine singular does to third person masculine plural’, trans-
lated in Latin as uerbum quod faciet absconditus ad absconditos (iredefem for
‫)ירדפם‬, or medaberim behasemam ministar aehad for ‫מדברים בעצמם מנסתר‬
‫ אחד‬lit. ‘first person plural of third person masculine singular’, i.e., the suffix
of first person plural attached to third person masculine singular (redafanu
for ‫)רדפנו‬.
The approach to Hebrew phonetics in TU 2 is also marked by an almost
exclusive reliance on Jewish phonetics. It differs from other Christian descrip-
tions of Hebrew vowels, such as Roger Bacon’s grammar and the Paris manu-
script which attempt to find perfect equivalence between Latin and Hebrew,
and thus propose to consider some Hebrew consonants as vowels. TU 2 opens
the discussion by introducing the Hebrew term for vowels found in Hebrew
grammatical tradition—heuaroth (for ‫ )הברות‬translated wrongly as iunctu-
ras or iungentes (‘jointure’ or ‘joining’). It states clearly that in Hebrew there
are no vowels similar to those in Greek and Latin, but rather strokes (apices),
points (puncti) and lines (linee) which render vowel sounds. These are twelve
in number. Although the Latin equivalents given to the twelve vowels amount
in total to the five Latin vowels, it is stated that six out of twelve have an inter-
mediary sound. The ensuing enumeration and description of the vowels fol-
lows the list in TU 3: hii omnes soni et apices sonorum nominaque apicum patent
per ordinem in pagina precedente. The order of the vowels is: šuruq (‫)אּו‬, qamaṣ
gadol (‫)א‬,
ָ ḥiriq (‫)א‬,
ִ qamaṣ qaṭan (= ṣere, ‫)א‬, ֵ ḥolam (ֺ‫)א‬, melo pum (= qubbuṣ.
‫)א‬,
ֻ pataḥ gadol (‫)א‬, ַ šewa (‫)א‬,
ְ pataḥ qaṭan (= segol, ‫)א‬, ֶ ḥaṭaf qamaṣ (‫)א‬,ֳ ḥaṭaf
pataḥ (‫)א‬,ֲ ḥaṭaf pataḥ qaṭan (= ḥaṭaf segol, ‫)א‬. ֱ The order corresponds, with
a few minor differences, to the list in TU 3, which also includes the division
of the vowels into two groups of six, the first six having a frenum ‘brake’ (cor-
responding to the Hebrew ‫)מתג‬, and the other six “without the brake, because
these are short vowels”.

3 Unusual Terms and Expressions that cannot be Traced to a Jewish

Source
While a large part of the linguistic terminology reflects the Spanish and more
precisely Joseph Qimḥi’s grammatical approach, some terms are unusual. Such
is the case of the expressions designating singular and plural for both genders:
‫ לאחד‬lit. ‘for one’ for masculine singular, ‫ לאשה אחת‬lit. ‘for one woman’ for
feminine singular, ‫ לשני אנשים‬lit. ‘for two men’ for masculine plural (alongside
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 189

the more traditional ‫ )לרבים‬and ‫ לשתי נשים‬lit. ‘for two women’ for feminine
plural. These expressions are not part of the Jewish grammatical terminology.

Jewish Sources of the Grammar LH 21

The Hebrew terminology used in all four units of the grammar LH 21 and the
concept of binyan used and explicitly mentioned in the description of the ver-
bal morphology were borrowed for their major part from the Jewish grammati-
cal tradition of the classical Spanish type. A closer examination shows that
this Hebrew terminology is close to that attested in the works of Joseph, Moses
and David Qimḥi. This source of inspiration is particularly interesting when we
consider that this classical Spanish approach was very slow to be accepted by
Ashkenazi Jews, and was little known in Northern Europe in the 13th century.
This school of Hebrew grammar was initiated by Judah Ḥayyūj around
1000 CE. The main characteristics of this grammatical school are to consider
that the morphological derivational base for all Hebrew verbs is an abstract
root composed of three consonants, which can, in some verbs, ‘disappear’ or be
assimilated in some conjugated forms. Verbal morphology is described through
a rigorous system of analogical patterns or ‘structures’ named binyanim. Before
this grammatical innovation of Ḥayyūj, Hebrew grammarians in the Muslim
East and Spain (chiefly Menaḥem ben Saruq and Dunash ben Labrāṭ in the
10th century) believed that the root can be composed of a varying number of
consonants: only consonants remaining through the entire conjugation were
considered as ‘radicals’. The concept of a binyan was not used. The grammati-
cal theory of Ḥayyūj was expressed in works written in Arabic, which were,
however, translated or adapted in Hebrew, especially in the 12th century, when
many scholars from Spain emigrated to Southern France and Italy. The most sig-
nificant stage of transmission of the classical Spanish approach through origi-
nal works written in Hebrew is related to Spanish émigrés Abraham ibn ʿEzra
(c. 1089–1164, author of such grammatical works as Sefer Mozne Qodeš, Safa
Berura and Sefat Yeter),19 Solomon ibn Parḥon (author of Maḥberet he-ʿAruḵ,
116),20 and members of the Qimḥi family: Joseph ben Isaac (c. 1111–c. 1170,

19 For an analysis of Abraham ibn ʿEzra’s grammatical works and theories see e.g. Bacher
(1882); Del Valle Rodríguez (1977); Charlap (1999). For the chronology of his works, see
Sela and Freudenthal (2006).
20 Ed. Stern (1844).
190 Olszowy-Schlanger

author of Sefer Zikkaron21 and Sefer ha-Galuy)22 and his two sons, Moses (died
c. 1190, author of Mahalaḵ Ševile ha-Daʿat)23 and David (c. 1160–1235, author
of the grammar Sefer Miḵlol 24 including a dictionary Sefer Šorašim,25 written
around 1205).
Despite the existence of these works in Hebrew, the Spanish grammati-
cal approach as proposed by Ḥayyūj and his followers was little known in
Northern European Jewish communities. Indeed, at least since the develop-
ment of the literalistic exegetical school in 11th century Northern France,
Ashkenazi Jews followed their own grammatical approach.26 Rashi of Troyes
(c. 1040–1105) used linguistic arguments in his Bible commentaries. His gram-
matical approach is reminiscent of the Eastern and Spanish pre-Ḥayyūj school
of Menaḥem ben Saruq and Dunash ben Labrāṭ especially in his view that
verbal roots can be composed of one to five consonants.27 The grammatical
works of Rashi’s two grandsons, Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir, c. 1080–after 1158,
author of Dayyqot (or Dayyaqut) le-R. Shemuel)28 and Rabbenu Tam (Jacob
ben Meir of Ramerupt, c. 1100–1171, author of Haḵraʿot (Decisions),29 though
still indebted to Menaḥem and Dunash, developed an independent approach
(already hinted at by Rashi) which considers some verbs with consonants ‘dis-
appearing’ in conjugation as tri-literal.30 These works were the basis for the
early Ashkenazi grammar of Hebrew. The Spanish tradition, however, gradu-
ally began to penetrate the Ashkenazi world in the 12th century: the works
of Solomon ibn Parḥon were quoted by Yequtiel ha-Kohen, the author of ʿEin
ha-Qore of the second half of the 12th century31 and, judging from the numbers
of manuscripts preserved today, Ibn Parḥon’s dictionary Maḥberet he-ʿAruḵ was
the most frequently copied grammatical work in Ashkenaz.32 The work of the
Qimḥis working in Narbonne is less frequently quoted, except for the father,

21 Ed. Bacher (1888).

22 Ed. Mathews (1887).
23 Editio princeps (1488).
24 Ed. Rittenberg (1862).
25 Ed. Lebrecht and Biesenthal (1847).
26 For an overview of Ashkenazi grammatical tradition, see Eldar (1991).
27 See esp. Eldar (2010).
28 Ed. Merdler (1999).
29 Ed. Filipowski (1855).
30 Eldar (2010).
31 Eldar (1991: 10–11).
32 See Olszowy-Schlanger (2012): five preserved manuscripts from the 13th century and five
from the 14th century. For the same period, there are no known manuscripts of Maḥberet
he-ʿAruḵ from Italy and only two from Spain.
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 191

Joseph, whose ideas reach the North apparently through polemical channels:
Joseph Qimḥi’s Sefer ha-Galuy (c. 1165) contained criticisms of Rabbenu Tam’s
Haḵraʿot, and was in turn criticised by Tam’s disciple Benjamin of Canterbury
(or Cambridge).33 Thus, some Ashkenazi manuscripts of the works of Joseph
Qimḥi from the 13th century are known to us, while for the same period
we have no preserved Ashkenazi manuscripts of the works of his two sons.
Moses and David are also less frequently quoted in works of Ashkenazi gram-
marians. However, the exception was medieval England: the dictionary Sefer
ha-Šoham of Moses ben Isaac ha-Nessiah written c. 1260, probably in London
is the first Ashkenazi grammatical work which quotes not only Joseph but also
David Qimḥi.34
It is therefore this interest in the works of the Qimḥis in medieval England—
unusual for the Ashkenazi world—that seems to be the background of the
Christian dictionary LH 21. However, while the classical Spanish and even
Qimḥian origins of its grammatical terminology is beyond doubt, it is more
difficult to pinpoint a particular source of the grammar LH 21. Designations of
the grammatical persons, for example, are in most cases—but not always—
consistent with those found in the Sefer Zikkaron of Joseph Qimḥi. The simi-
larity with this particular grammarian is further stressed by the choice of the
verb ‫ שמר‬as the model of the conjugation with object suffixes: ‫ שמר‬is indeed
the model used in the Sefer Zikkaron. The verb ‫ שמר‬was also used as the par-
adigmatic verb by Abraham ibn ʿEzra, while Moses Qimḥi used mostly ‫פקד‬.
The use by TU 3 of the term ‫ שם דבר‬lit. ‘name of the thing’ to designate the
noun, and maybe in particular the name of action, as well as of the root ‫דבק‬
‘to cling, adhere’ to express the status constructus of the nouns is also found in
the Sefer Zikkaron.35 The influence of Joseph Qimḥi rather than Abraham ibn
ʿEzra can be argued on the basis of the classification of the vowels in TU 3 (and
TU 2). While, following the Masora, earlier grammarians including Abraham
ibn ʿEzra distinguish seven vowels (‫‘ שבע מלכים‬seven kings’: ḥolam, šuruq
(and its variant qubbuṣ), ḥiriq, pataḥ gadol, pataḥ qaṭan, qamaṣ gadol, qamaṣ
qaṭan),36 Joseph Qimḥi is the first author to describe the Hebrew vocalic sys-
tem as composed of ten vowels. These ten vowels have five qualities (a, e, o,
u, i) but two quantities each (long a/short a, etc.), and constitute five cor-
responding pairs: qamaṣ gadol—pataḥ gadol, ṣere—segol or pataḥ qaṭan,
ḥolam—ḥaṭaf qamaṣ, šuruq—qubbuṣ, ‘long’ ḥiriq (followed by a yod)—‘short’

33 See Jacobs (1893: 54, 281–282).

34 Ed. Collins (1882); Klar (1947); see Olszowy-Schlanger (2012).
35 Ed. Berliner (1888: 14).
36 Moznayim, 2b.
192 Olszowy-Schlanger

ḥiriq (not followed by a yod). The list of vowels in the grammar LH 21, in TU 3,37
is similar but not identical to the list of Joseph Qimḥi. It contains all the vowels
from the Qimḥi’s list except for the ‘short’ ḥiriq. But it adds to the list of the
vowels the šewa and the ḥaṭaf pataḥ, which are not considered as full vowels
by Qimḥi. TU 2 which translates and describes in Latin the list in TU 3 distin-
guishes 12 vowels: the 11 vowels of TU 3 plus ḥaṭaf pataḥ qaṭan (= ḥaṭaf segol)
which was obviously forgotten in TU 3. The description of the vowels in TU 2
contains the information about their length, and thus confirms the Qimḥian
origin of the vowel classification. However, the inclusion of the šewa and the
ḥaṭafs, as well as the different names of some vowels (Qimḥi’s ṣere appears in
LH 21 as qamaṣ qaṭan, and qubbuṣ as melo pum, in Aramaic), show that Joseph
Qimḥi was not the exclusive model for our grammar.
The structure of the two more detailed units—TU 1 and TU 3 differs from
that of Sefer Zikkaron. Indeed, as far as its discussion of the verbal morphol-
ogy is concerned, Sefer Zikkaron contains detailed discussions concerning the
binyanim, their form and their function, while our grammar contains merely
an organized list of conjugated paradigms. Such lists of paradigms are the
basis of the genre of pedagogical grammars such as Mahalaḵ Ševile ha-Daʿat of
Moses Qimḥi, and other grammars of the Provençal school: the Agudat Ezov of
Meshullam ha-Ezovi of Béziers composed in Segovia in 1279 for Meshullam’s
pupil Daniel38 (MS BNF hébr. 992/4, by an Italian hand) or anonymous 13th
century abridgements of the Miḵlol of David Qimḥi, such as MS BNF hébr. 1242,
written in Provence c. 1300. Our grammar shares with these pedagogical works
an interest for the verbal paradigms which constitute the bulk of these texts.
However, the differences are manifold. These pedagogical grammars make
a clear distinction between the regular verb discussed first, according to the
various binyanim, and the so-called weak verbs discussed according to the
gezarot—the sub-groups according to their irregularity. TU 1 of our grammar
discusses regular verbs only, and chooses for that a root, ‫רדף‬, which is not used
as a model by any of these Jewish grammars. It is limited to five out of seven or
eight binyanim. TU 3 does list forms of some basic irregular or weak verbs, but
with no distinction of subgroups: they are listed together, under grammatical
persons. Regular verbs, illustrated by ‫‘ שמר‬to guard’, are conjugated here only
in qal and piʿel. The other binyanim are mentioned vaguely as “forms which
have an addition”. TU 3 contains an idiosyncratic part: the conjugation of ‫שמר‬
with object suffixes translated into French. Also expressions formulated as a
dialogue of the author with the reader, such as the aforementioned expression

37 The list in TU 3 is slightly confused: some of the vowels are mentioned twice.
38 See Del Valle (2003).
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 193

‫ּוֿכל ְל ַה ִֿבין ּכֺל ְלשו ֺן ִע ְֿב ִרי‬

ַ ‫“ ְּבזֵ ה ּֿת‬with that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language”,
indicate an individualistic nature of this grammar.
To conclude, the grammar LH 21 cannot be considered as a copy (TU 3) or a
Latin transliteration (TU 2) of any known specific Jewish work. Closely based
on the classical grammatical school as represented by the Provençal works
of the Qimḥis, it is nonetheless an independent composition. The TU 2 and
TU 4 are Latin works, and as such, of course, different from the Jewish gram-
mars, even if they are inspired by them. The tabular arrangement of the trans-
literated paradigms in TU 4 is quite exceptional in Hebrew grammar books.
Both TU 1, written mostly in Hebrew in Latin characters, and TU 3, written in
Hebrew characters, present Hebrew verbal paradigms and, in TU 3, the discus-
sion of other parts of speech, in a way which is simplified in respect to the
already simplified Jewish abridgements. The presence of the vernacular trans-
lations of the verb ‫ שמר‬with object suffixes in TU 3 is a further response to the
pedagogical needs of the readers. All this indicates an author who is familiar
with Jewish grammatical texts, but writes for a specific public: Christian schol-
ars ready to learn Hebrew using categories of Hebrew rather than the familiar
Latin classifications and terminology.

References

Bacher, W., 1882, Abraham Ibn Ezra als Grammatiker, Strassburg.

——— (ed.), 1888, Sepher Sikkaron. Grammatik der hebraïschen Sprache von R. Joseph
Kimchi, Berlin.
Beit-Arié, M., 1993, “The Valmadonna Pentateuch and the problem of pre-expulsion
Anglo-Hebrew manuscripts—MS London, Valmadonna Trust Library 1: England
(?), 1189” (first published in 1985), in Beit-Arié, M. (ed.), The Makings of the Medieval
Hebrew Book. Studies in Palaeography and Codicology, Jerusalem, pp. 129–151.
Berger, S., 1893, Quam notitiam linguae hebraicae habuerint Christiani medi aevi tempo-
ribus in Gallia, Nancy.
Brewer, J. S. (ed.), 1859, Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera quaedam hactenus inedita (Rerum
Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, 15), London.
Bridges, J. H. (ed.), 1900, Opus Majus, London.
Charlap, L. R., 1999, Rabbi Abraham Ibn-Ezra’s Linguistic System, Beer-Sheva. [in
Hebrew]
Collins, G. W., 1882, A Grammar and Lexicon of the Hebrew Language entitled Sefer has-
soham by Rabbi Môseh ben Yitsḥak of England, London.
De Visscher, E., 2009, “Cross-religious learning and teaching: Hebraism in the works of
Herbert of Bosham and contemporaries”, in Van Boxel, P., S. Arndt (eds), Crossing
Borders: Hebrew Manuscripts as a Meeting-place of Cultures, Oxford, pp. 123–132.
194 Olszowy-Schlanger

Del Valle Rodríguez, C., 1977, La obra grammatical de Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra, Madrid.
———, 2003, “Nova et vetera in grammaticae hebraicae historia (III): La gramática
hebrea de Segovia, Aggudat ha-Ezob (‘El manojo de hisopo’) de Meshul.lam
Ha-Ezobi”, Helmantica 54, pp. 191–205.
Eldar, I., 1991, “The grammatical literature of Medieval Ashkenazi Jewry”, Massorot 5–6,
pp. 1–34. [in Hebrew]
———, 2010, “The concept of root among Early French sages”, Leshonenu 72, pp. 487–
502. [in Hebrew]
Filipowski, H., (ed.) 1855, Sefer Teshubot Dunash ben Labrat ʿim Hakhraot Rebbenu
Yaʿaqob Tam, London – Edinburgh.
Grévin, B., 2001, “L’hébreu des Franciscains. Nouveaux éléments sur la connaissance
de l’hébreu en milieu chrétien au XIIIe siècle”, Médiévales (La rouelle et la croix.
Destins des juifs d’Occident), pp. 65–82.
Hirsch, S. A., 1911–1914, “Presidential address”, Transaction of the Jewish Historical
Society of England 7, pp. 1–18.
Jacobs, J., 1893, The Jews of Angevin England, London.
Klar, B. (ed.), 1947, The Sepher ha-Shoham (The Onyx Book) by Moses ben Isaac
Hanessiah, I, London.
Lebrecht, F., J. Biesenthal (eds), 1847, Sefer ha-Shorashim . . . Rabbi Davidis Kimchi
Radicum Liber sive Hebraeum Bibliorum Lexicon cum animadversionibus Eliae
Levitae, Berlin.
Loewe, R., 1957, “The Medieval Christian hebraists of England. The superscriptio lin-
colniensis”, Hebrew Union College Annual 28, pp. 205–252.
———, 1958, “Latin superscriptio MSS on portions of the Hebrew Bible other than the
Psalter”, Journal of Jewish Studies 9, pp. 63–71.
Mathews, H. J., 1887, Sefer ha-Galui, Berlin (repr. Jerusalem 1967).
Merdler, R., 1999, Dayyaqut MeRabbenu Shemuel [Ben Meir (Rashbam)]. Critical Edition
with an Introduction and a detailed Table of Contents, Jerusalem. [in Hebrew]
Nolan, E., 1902, The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon and a Fragment of his Hebrew
Grammar, Cambridge.
Olszowy-Schlanger, J., 2003, Les manuscrits hébreux dans l’Angleterre médiévale: étude
historique et paléographique, Collection de la Revue des études juives, Paris-
Louvain.
——— et al., 2008, Dictionnaire hébreu-latin-français de la Bible hébraïque de l’Abbaye
de Ramsey (XIIIe s.), Turnhout.
———, 2009, “Christian Hebraism in Thirteenth-century England: the Evidence of
Hebrew-Latin manuscripts”, in Van Boxel, P., S. Arndt (eds), Crossing Borders:
Hebrew Manuscripts as a Meeting-place of Cultures, Oxford, pp. 115–122.
———, 2012, “Sefer ha-Shoham (Le Livre d’Onyx), dictionnaire de l’hébreu biblique de
Moïse ben Isaac ben ha-Nessiyah (Angleterre, vers 1260)”, in Baumgarten, J. et al.
(eds), En mémoire de Sophie Kessler-Mesguich, Paris, pp. 183–198.
“ With that, you can grasp all the Hebrew language ” 195

Rittenberg, I. (ed.), 1862, Sefer Mikhlol, Lyck (reprinted, Jerusalem 1966).

Rosier-Catach, I., 1997, “Roger Bacon and grammar”, in Hackett, J. (ed.), Roger Bacon
and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays, Leiden, pp. 67–192.
———, 1998, “La Grammatica practica du ms. British Museum V A IV. Roger Bacon, les
lexicographes et l’étymologie”, Lexique 14, pp. 97–125.
Rothschild, J.-P., 2008, “Les sources du dictionnaire”, in Olszowy-Schlanger, J., et al.,
2008, Dictionnaire hébreu-latin-français de la Bible hébraïque de l’Abbaye de Ramsey
(XIIIe s.), Turnhout pp. lxi–lxxxvi.
Sáenz-Badillos, A., 2001, “Hebrew Philology in Sefarad: the state of the question”, in De
Lange, N. (ed.), Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World, CUP, Cambridge, pp.
38–59.
Sela, S., G. Freudenthal, 2006, “Abraham ibn Ezra’s scholarly writings: a chronological
listing”, Aleph 6, pp. 13–55.
Smalley, B., 1939, “Hebrew scholarship among Christians in 13th century England as
illustrated by some Hebrew-Latin Psalters”, Lectiones in Vetere Testamento et Rebus
Iudaicis 6 (Society of Old Testament Studies), London.
———, 1964, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Notre Dame IN.
Stern, S. G. (ed.), 1844, Mahberet he-Arukh, Salomonis ben Abrahami Parchon
Aragonensis Lexicon Hebraicum, Pressburg.
Wasserstein, D., 1995, “Grosseteste, the Jews and Medieval Christian Hebraism”, in
McEvoy, J. (ed.), Robert Grosseteste: New Perspectives on his Thought and Scholarship,
Instrumenta Patristica 27, Turnhout, pp. 357–376.
 A Universal Art.
Hebrew Grammar across
Disciplines and Faiths

Edited by

Nadia Vidro
Irene E. Zwiep
Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

LEIDEN | BOSTON