• Brittany (?)
• Loire Valley (?)
• Fleury (?)

Fleury

• Exegesis
• Patristica

• Glossae in Vetus et Nouum Testamentum (pp. 242–73, 274–301, 306–9, 316–17)
• Adrevald, De benedictionibus patriarcharum (incomplete) (p. 273)
• Bede, Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum (incomplete) (pp. 301–5)
• Glossae in epistolam Hieronymi ad Paulinum (Ep. 53) (pp. 309–13)
• Glossae in bibliae praefationes Hieronymi (pp. 312–13, 314–16)
• Jerome, Epistola ad Marcellam (Ep. 59, incomplete) (pp. 313–14).

• Possibly written in Brittany
• Probably written by Breton scribes
• Some contents certainly derive from a Breton exemplar / archetype

This manuscript appears in a miscellaneous Fleury codex, bound together in the twelfth century according to Mostert (LF BF0627); however, Pellegrin and Bouhot describe the binding as incomplete and date all existing evidence to the seventeenth century (Pellegrin et al. 2010: 216). Bischoff (Kat. §3717) dated the manuscript to between the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth centuries, as does Deuffic (PMSB 303, §56). Mostert (LF BF0627) and Pellegrin et al. (2010: 216) allocate it a tenth century date.

The origin of the manuscript is uncertain. Bischoff locates it broadly in Western France. Mostert repeats, though with a question mark, Carey’s (1923: 45) identification, without discussion, of the manuscript’s origin as Fleury.

The manuscript contains six Old Breton glosses, of which three are embedded in the main text, one is interlinear, and two are incorporated into exegetical material added in the margins by another, possibly later hand ( DGVB 6; Bisagni 2018). That the vernacular glosses embedded in the main text belonged to the archetype is evidenced by their inclusion in a twelfth-century copy of the same text in Rheims BM 395 (E. 278) (fols 114r–155v), a copy that does not derive directly from Orléans 182. In addition to the Breton role in the creation of the archetype, the supplementary layers of Breton glosses suggest the continued location of the manuscript in a Breton centre, or in a centre with Breton scribes. Furthermore, palaeographical features include those respectively classified as insular and continental. This includes the use of the distinctly insular abbreviations for autem and enim, both of which are on occasion glossed by a distinct annotating hand using more widespread continental abbreviations. Numerous other abbreviations and letter-forms are also regularly corrected or clarified by the annotating hand. A lacuna in the manuscript is preceded by the opening lines of the commentary on Genesis 49 by Adrevald of Fleury (fl. 850–875; cf. Wilmart 1920), entitled De benedictionibus patriarcharum (PL 20.715–32). The inclusion of this work in the archetype of the manuscript is confirmed by its presence in full in Rheims 395. This is of some significance as few early manuscripts of De benedictionibus survive (cf. Jullien et al. 1994–2015, vol. 1, pp. 37–8). The manuscript contains Fleury ex libris notes of uncertain date (pp. 303-4), as part of what appears to be a probatio pennae. Bisagni (2018: 147–9) also identifies evidence of insular influences on the compilation, comprising three Old English glosses in the main body of the text, as well as textual affinities with two Hiberno-Latin commentaries on Donatus's Ars Maior: the anonymous Ars Laureshamensis and In Donati Artem Maiorem by Murethach of Auxerre.

Bauer 2008: 150; Bisagni 2018; Corrigan 2022; Pellegrin and Bouhot 2010: 216–19; CCfr; CMD VII, 227; DGVB 6; Jullien et al. 1994–2015, vol. 1, pp. 37–8; Lemoine 1985: 290; LF BF0627; PMSB 303 (§56); Riché 2004: 20–1.

• https://mediatheques.orleans.fr/recherche/viewnotice/id_sigb/257855/id_int_bib/3