• Brittany (probably)
• Redon (?)
• Vannes (?)
• Western Francia (?)
• Saint-Julien of Tours (?)

• Abbey of Saint-Julien of Tours (s. X in.)
• Corbie
• Saint-Germain-des-Prés.

• Grammar
• Poetry

• Smaragdus, Liber in partibus Donati (1r-59v)

This MS also contains many interesting marginalia, added by several hands at various dates. These include:

• Albi bis bini procedunt (solution 3 of the arithmetical ludus of fol. 11v, mentioning two Irishmen—referred to as Hiberienses—named Dub and Find) (2r)
• Bis duo nam niuei praesunt et quinque nigelli (solution 3 of the arithmetical ludus of fol. 11v) (4r)
• Grammatical excerpt Vesper Vespere Vesperum Vespera (ultimately based on a passage from the Epitomae of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus) (9v)
• Grammatical passage, inc. Encleticae sunt quattuor partes, possibly based on Priscian's Institutiones Grammaticae (9v)
• Accessus excerpted from the commentary to Sedulius's Carmen Paschale by Remigius of Auxerre, inc. VII sunt periochae id est circumstantię (9v, inf. marg.)
• Presentation and solution 1 of the versus or ludus Scottorum inc. Quadam nocte niger Dub nomine Candidus alter, with the Irish names Dub and Find (cf. find interpraetatur candidus, dub niger at fol. 12r, inf. marg.) (11v-12r)
• Carmen 42 by Eugenius of Toledo, inc. Hęc sunt ambiguę (12r; other excerpts from works by Eugenius occur at fol. 28v)
• Carmen 8 by Alcuin, inc. Est mihi seruili scripulus, addressed to Samuel of Sens (12r)
• Blessings of possible Breton origin (17v-18r)
• Metrical epitaph of Louis IV Transmarinus (added around the middle of the 10th century) (18v)
• Letter of recommendation from Odger to Tetelo and Uualterius (probably written at Saint-Julien of Tours between AD 914 and 927) (19v)

Detailed descriptions of these marginalia can be found in Holtz and Lambert 1986: 174–6; Dubreucq 2017: 128–42.

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

This MS, which contains a copy of Smaragdus's Liber in partibus Donati, must have reached the area of Corbie at a relatively early stage, given that at least some of the numerous and important marginalia contained therein may have been added there (cf. Cinato 2012: 43, n. 66; cf. also Lemoine 2010: 219, n. 19, where the author points out that 'plusieurs mss bretons proviennent de cette grande abbaye royale', listing, in addition to the present codex, Paris, BnF, Lat. 12021 and Lat. 13386; to these we should add Lat. 13957 and, possibly, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 42). In relation to the marginalia, it should also be stressed that some of them present strong Irish affiliations (cf. esp. fols 2r, 4r, 9v and 11v-12r; for these arithmetical riddles, cf. Murphy 1942; Howlett 2010; Dubreucq 2017: 132–9; CLH §417; see also the entry for Valenciennes, BM, MS 413 in the present Handlist).

We can hardly doubt the Breton origin of this MS (which was indeed accepted by Bischoff in Kat. §4866), or at the very least of its exemplar. As has been pointed out by Holtz (in Holtz and Lambert 1986: 177), 'l'implantation des gloses bretonnes, l'étude des abréviations et de l'écriture sont autant de preuves convergentes que le manuscrit a été copié en Bretagne.' After all, the presence of Smaragdus's grammar in Brittany is also confirmed by Bili's use of this text as a source for his Life of Saint Malo (Holtz and Lambert 1986: 196).

Among the vernacular glosses, we should note in particular the Old Breton noun used at fol. 24v to render Lat. cumpotum, namely rim (cf. Holtz and Lambert 1986: 207), corresponding perfectly to OIr. rím. The presence of a Romance gloss (Lat. pumex, 'pumice stone', glossed .i. poins at fol. 7r, cf. Modern French ponce) suggests that this MS (or perhaps its exemplar, or at least some of its glosses) may have been produced in a centre close to Romance-speaking areas; indeed, the main scribe of Lat. 13029 was probably not Breton-speaking, so that either the scriptorium of Redon, or perhaps a foundation located in or near the Breton marca, should be considered as serious possibilities (cf. Holtz and Lambert 1986: 200, and the entry for Paris, BnF, Lat. 10289 in the present Handlist). In this context, it is also important to recall that Fleuriot, in addition to demonstrating that the language of the Celtic glosses in Lat. 13029 is Old Breton and not Old Cornish (Fleuriot 1960), also stated that the MS in question is similar in format and script to Angers, BM, 477, and that it 'provient certainement du même scriptorium' (DGVB 6; cf. also Fleuriot 1960: 189). However, this rapprochement has recently been called into question by Dubreucq (2017: 144), who has proposed instead that this MS was either (1) written in the diocese of Vannes and later brought to the abbey of Saint-Julien of Tours—a centre which it must have reached by the first third of the tenth century—, or (2) copied at Saint-Julien of Tours from a lost exemplar written in the area of Vannes (cf. Dubreucq 2017: 128–31, 142–4). In any case, the exemplar of Lat. 13029 must have already contained glosses in Old Breton (cf. Dubreucq 2017: 126, 128).

Bauer 2008: 129–30; BnF Archives et Manuscrits; Cinato 2012: 43 (n. 66), 59; CLH §417; DGVB 6; Dubreucq 2017; Fleuriot 1960: 183–9; Ganz 1990: 66; Holtz and Lambert 1986; Howlett 2010; Lemoine 1985: 290; Lemoine 2008: 192; Lemoine 2010: 219 (n. 19); Lindsay 1912: 265; Murphy 1942; Olson and Padel 1986: 39–40; PMSB 312 (§88); Schrijver 2011: 9; Smith 1992: 169 (n. 89); Springer 1995: 173.

• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10546785j