St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 904
Ajouts:
Glosses
Priscian's text in MS G is elucidated by a commentary consisting of 9412 glosses. Ca. 3478 of these glosses are in Old Irish, i.e. 36.95 % of the total number. Most glosses are in the same hand, that of glossator A. Examples of his handwriting can be found in all plates in this edition. In some places, all indicated in the notes to the edition with the comment 'A at a later date', glosses seem to have been written in a different hand, using a finer pen. The letter forms in these glosses, however, show the same characteristics as the glosses certainly attributable to glossator A, and from several columns (
e. g. cols.
184a and
202ab) it is clear that glossator A was responsible for such glosses. Occasionally another monk, glossator B, took over his job, and entered the glosses in a few columns, just like the second main scribe was sometimes helped by a colleague. Thus, glossator B is responsible for gl. 65b30 p and all glosses from 65b34 down to the end of col.
67b (except for 67b43
3 bb and 67b42
4 ee), as recorded in
Thes.: XIX, but he also wrote glosses 75a10 f - 75a27 o, and two other glosses, 77a32 o and 77b30 m. An example of his handwriting is given in Pl. 1. The main glossators wrote cursive minuscule as defined by
Brown (1993), of a smaller type than that used for the main text, often closely resembling current minuscule. For the glosses a finer pen was used, as is clear from the occasional corrections of the main text in the hand of glossator A. For these corrections he used the same pen as for the glosses, but he accommodated the size of the letters to the size used for the main text. The effect is that the aspect of letters belonging to the main text, but written in his hand, is thinner than that of the main scribes. From the ductus in these corrections it is at once clear that glossator A must have been another person than any of the main scribes.
This is the right place to discuss a remark entered in the lower margin of p.
194a, "do inis maddoc dún .i. meisse 7 choirbbre" (we are from Inis Maddoc, I and Coirbbre). Since this remark occurs in the column written by
Donngus,
Lindsay (1910: 41) concluded that it indicated his birthplace, 'though written with a finer pen and in more cursive style than the text itself'.
15
On the basis of this assumption he identified "meisse" with '
Donngus' and proposed tentatively the name '
Coirbbre(?)' for the second main scribe. This name has been adopted by most scholars discussing MS G; the less careful ones omitted the question-mark. But why should
Donngus, who wrote a single column only, use a finer pen for one entry? In fact, the finer pen and the ductus in the entry, which is exactly the same as the ductus in the glosses, clearly indicate that not
Donngus, but glossator A and a brother monk, who perhaps was not at all involved in the production of MS G, came from Inis Maddoc.
16
Where Inis Maddoc should be located is not clear. From the preface of Sanctán's Hymn (ed.
Bernard and
Atkinson 1898: LVI, 47-8, 129-32, 206-8) it was west of Clonard,
17
perhaps it was Inch in Templeport Lake (cf.
Kenney 1929: 675).
Glossators A and B probably worked shortly after the main text of Priscian had been finished, in the same scriptorium as did the main scribes. Marginal entries in the hand of the main scribe (on pp.
50,
226) as well as in the hand of glossator A (p.
150) can be linked with Nendrum (cf. below). The glosses were copied from an exemplar which was similar in layout to the extant MS G, i.e. written in two columns, as is clear from several displaced glosses, which were subscript glosses in the exemplar but which are entered in the wrong place in MS G.
18
It seems likely that glossator A corrected the main text when copying the glosses from the same exemplar that was used by the main scribes. A last argument is that Priscian MSS possibly did not circulate in great numbers.
Probably it was not the scribes' or glossators' intention that MS G should be separated from its exemplar. Thirteen glosses are abbreviated, offering a few
words followed by the statement "reliqua (ut) in alio", once "reliqua in alio lo-" (probably to be expanded "libro" rather than "loco").
19
As longer versions of five of these abbreviated glosses are found in the other 'Irish' Priscian MSS, the references obviously mean that another glossed copy of Priscian, the exemplar of G, contains the full versions of these glosses, and that the glossator assumed that this other copy was accessible to the users of MS G. Later glossators added glosses to the main body written by glossators A and B. Their contribution will be evaluated below, in the section
Later History.
Origine du manuscrit:
Localization
The question where the St Gall MS was written, in Ireland or by Irish scholars on the Continent, must be addressed.
Lindsay (1910) detected continental influences in script and abbreviations of the Leiden and Karlsruhe 'Irish' Priscian MSS, but not in the St Gall MS. He states (1910: 41) that this does not necessarily mean that the MS was written in Ireland, but he remarks later (1915: 485) that the MS was written in Ireland 'between 844 and 869'. Distinguished palaeographers such as
Traube (1898: 347),
Bischoff (1981: 45) and
Brown (1993: 219) localize the St Gall MS in Ireland on strictly palaeographical grounds. Other considerations support their view. It could be argued that the omission of
puncta delentia where one would expect them (
e.g. indicating lenition or over nasals between a nasalizing final and the following initial) points to scribes who were not familiar with their usage. However, in MS G these
puncta delentia occur more often and more systematically than in the (earlier) Milan and Würzburg glosses, which were certainly written in Ireland (
Thurn.,
Gramm., § 33). Omission of them therefore does not imply that the St Gall MS is not Irish. An important innovation, first attested in MS G, is the introduction of a
punctum delens over "ṡ, ḟ" to denote lenition (cf.
Thurn.
Gramm. §§ 33.3, 231.7, but cf. also
Lambert 1996: 191). The introduction of this new practice was probably inspired by the use of a similar symbol in Latin MSS, where it indicated that the letter so marked should be deleted, i.e. should be pronounced. As there is no proof that the use of a
punctum delens in Latin MSS was restricted to Latin MSS outside Ireland, the introduction of this new practice seems an argument supporting the Irish origin of MS G. Samchasc or Summer Easter, mentioned above, was not celebrated outside Ireland. In marginal prayers (cf. appendix, also edited in
Thes.: XX-XXII), the Biblical names Christ, the Holy Virgin, Job and Aaron are mentioned, and the names of several Saints. Apart from St Martin, the Saints invoked are Irish, and most of them were not worshipped on the Continent, as Marc Schneiders observes. Among the marginal notes are three Old Irish poems (cf. the
Appendix, edited in
Thes.: 290). In one of these the author (scribe?) announces:
IS acher in gáith innocht . fufuasna fairggaefindḟolt
ni ágor réimm mora minn . dond láechraid lainn ua lothlind
20
This poem was written in the upper margin of p.
112a, that is in the margin of that part of the MS for which the first scribe
Máil Patricc was responsible, but is in the hand of the second main scribe (so also
Nigra 1872: 18). It is tempting to take this as evidence that MS G was written in an Irish scriptorium accessible to the Vikings. However,
Lindsay (1910: 41) rightly suggests that 'it may as well have been composed by an Irishman on the Continent as by an Irishman at home'.
In one marginal entry (p.
203a), glossator A refers to a superior. From wording of the entry it can be concluded that he probably was the head of scriptorium, who listened to the Irish name
Máel Brigte. Although at least one Irishman,
Martinus of Laon, was head of a scriptorium on the Continent in 9th century (cf.
Contreni 1978
passim
), this piece of information also points to Ireland as the country where glossator A was working:
Martinus probably 'latinized' his name;
Máel Brigte felt no need to do so.
Two further arguments, the number of glosses in Old Irish and the sources used by the glossators, also suggest that text and commentary in MS G originated in Ireland. In all 'Irish' Priscian MSS glosses in Old Irish occur. The mere presence of Old Irish glosses does not prove that a MS was written in Ireland. But the number and character of the vernacular glosses in MS G is significant. The Karlsruhe MS has 104 Old Irish glosses, the Paris MS ca. 65, the Leiden MS 19, but the St Gall MS has ca. 3478 glosses in Old Irish. With the exception of some glosses in MS K, all vernacular glosses in the MSS written on the Continent consist of one or two words. In the case of MSS LK, the Irish scribes probably omitted many of the longer Old Irish glosses present in their exemplar out of consideration for their continental readers. In the case of MS E, the Breton scribe obviously understood very little of the Old Irish present in his exemplar, and simply decided to copy the Latin glosses only, with a few exceptions (cf. below, § 2.4). The presence of so many and such very long Old Irish glosses can be explained only by supposing that the MS was written in an environment where thorough knowledge of Irish could be taken for granted, i.e. in Ireland. In their commentary, the glossators use many different sources, most of them dating from late Antiquity (cf. ch. 4). The relatively small number of these sources and their character is fully in accordance with what we know of the ancient sources available in Ireland. Besides, unlike some of the later glossators who demonstrably worked on the Continent, the main glossators do not use any source compiled or written by contemporary continental authors.
None of these arguments is conclusive by itself. But the cumulative evidence of all arguments taken together certainly supports the assumption that MS G was a home product meant for home use, in Ireland.
If MS G was written in Ireland, can we then specify more precisely where it was written? What can be said in this respect, is essentially a repetition of Count Nigra's arguments (1872: 11-27), culled from the marginal entries (the 59 glosses), with slight modifications. Count Nigra observed that most names mentioned in the margins cannot be easily linked to historical figures, with the exception of the names of
Ruadri (p.
159, in the hand of glossator A) and
St Mochaoi of Nendrum (p.
226). Whether
Ruadri can really be identified with
Ruadri, son of
Mermin, King of Wales (844-78), must remain doubtful (cf. Kenney 1929: 675). But the name of
Mochaoi (d. 497-9), founder of the monastery of Nendrum (
Gwynn-Hadcock 1970: 42) on what was in those days a small island in Strangford Lough (Co. Down), is perhaps more significant.
Mochaoi is not one of the principal Saints of Ireland, and he must have been worshipped only locally. Secondly, an ogham inscription at the foot of p.
50 announces "feria Cai hodie" (today is the Feast of 'Cai'). Nigra took "Cai" as a Latin gen. sg., and proposed to identify the person celebrated as Pope 'Caius' or 'Gaius', (
Félire Óengusso, 20 February,
Stokes 1905: 61), but a liturgical cult of this Saint is not attested for the 9th century, neither in Ireland nor on the Continent. Marc Schneiders therefore proposes to identify "Cai" with "Mochaoi", with loss 'of the hypocoristic prefix "Mo-" (cf.
DIL,M,152,1-31 for parallels). An argument in favour of Nendrum as the monastery where MS G was written is the entry "Vinniane fave" (written in the hand of glossator A, part of the letters cut in binding, according to the probable restauration of Count Nigra) on p.
150.
Nigra (1872: 19) associates the latinized name "
Vinnianus" with
St Finnen Maige Bile, disciple of
Mochaoi, and an early abbot of Nendrum.
Several secondary arguments support localization in Co. Down, either in Nendrum or in Bangor. The cursive minuscule of the second scribe is of a northern Irish type, unlike the script of the Karlsruhe Priscian (cf. below). Nendrum and Bangor suffered severely under Viking attacks. Nendrum was totally destroyed by the Vikings in 976. The report of the excavations led by the enthusiastic amateur archaeologist Lawlor mentions a 'school' (1925: 107, 143-8), but unfortunately it contains hardly any further clues about a scriptorium or scribal activities in Nendrum. In two glosses (
Thes. 183b3 and 213al0), the authority of an Irish scholar M.G. is invoked. Stokes and Strachan (
Thes.: XXIII) expand M.G. as
Máel Gaimrid,
21
and identify the scholar quoted in MS G with '
Mailgaimrid' quoted in the Milan glosses (46b12, 56b33, 68c15, 85b11, 14, cf.
McNamara 1973: 259), written early in the 9th century in Ireland, perhaps in Bangor (
Brown 1993: 218-9, cf. 187-8; cf., however,
Best 1936: 37). As
Máelgaimrid is a very uncommon name, he must be the
Mailgaimrid who died in 839 as abbot of Bangor according to the
Annals of Ulster (cf.
McNamara 1973: 222,
Best 1936: 36-7,
Thes. I: XVI). If M.G. really is
Mael Gaimrid, this would support the claims of Bangor, but also of Nendrum: the distance between Nendrum and Bangor is 17.5 km. as the crow flies, 25. km. on foot. Contact between the two monasteries was certainly not impossible. Another indication of links between Bangor and the scriptorium where MS G was produced is the Feast of
Diarmait ua hÁedo Róin, founder of the monastery in Castledermot, mentioned in the upper margin of p.
221-
3 (cf. above). Probably because of these invocations
Byrne (1984: XIX) suggested that MS G was written in Castledermot. But
Diarmait was an Ulster prince and alumnus of
Bangor, as Byrne also observes (cf.
O Dwyer 1981: 43-5 for further links between Bangor and Castledermot). And since he was known as 'anchorite and religious teacher of all Ireland' soon after his death (
Best 1936: 37), his worship probably was not restricted to Castledermot. In view of the other indications for a scriptorium in northern Ireland it is perhaps wiser to link the invocations with Bangor, not with Castledermot. A further argument supporting localization of MS G in the northern part of Ireland could perhaps be derived from the fact that
McCone (1985: 96-7) suggests 'a northern locale for development of a written Old Irish standard'.
So far, I have assembled all evidence suggesting that MS G was written in Ireland and perhaps in Nendrum or Bangor. I cannot, however, offer conclusive proof for my suggestion. Nendrum seems possible, as I see no reason why
Mochaoi would be worshipped in Bangor. On the other hand, the existence of a scriptorium in Bangor is well attested, and the number of sources used in the Priscian commentary suggests a monastery wealthy enough to afford a sizeable number of books. It seems to me likely that future scholarship will find further arguments linking MS G with either of these two monasteries.
Later history
On the last half-leaf of the fifth quire (p.
89) which was originally empty, a poem in praise of Archbishop
Günther of Cologne (ed. L.
Traube,
MGH Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini 3, 1896: 238sqq.) was written by 'eine plumpe und derbe karolingische Hand', corrected by 'eine grobe irische Hand - nicht Sedulius' Scottus (
Bischoff 1981: 45).
Archbishop Günther (850-863) is addressed in several poems composed by
Sedulius Scottus (
carmina 68-70, cf. 75, 82, App. 2, discussed in
Düchting 1968, see also
Traube 1898,
Hellmann 1906). The poem in MS G testifies to the presence of the MS on the Continent in the circle of
Sedulius between 855 (the year in which
Sedulius left the court of
Hartgar of Liege
) and 863 (the year in which
Günther, addressed as "pacifer egregius presul" in l. 27, was deposed).
Bischoff (1981: 45) excluded MS G from the list of MSS which
Traube (1898: 347sqq.) associated with
Sedulius.
Nigra (1872: 8-10) suggests that the most likely date for the composition of the poem is ca. 860, as the author commemorates
Gunther's victories in battle, which probably did not take place in the first years of his episcopacy.
Apart from the main body of glosses entered by glossators A and B, the MS transmits also glosses entered in later hands. Thurneysen (quoted in
Thes.,' XIX- XX) points out that these glosses are not all in the same hand. Five different later hands (C-G) have entered glosses, four other ones (H-L) occasionally enter lexical glosses, but usually suggest emendations or add variant readings from other (Continental?) Priscian MSS. One Carolingian hand (Z) has written one remark, "bene est hic", in the upper margin of col.
5a. Because glosses in other hands are usually meant as corrections of glosses in the hands of A and B, it seems reasonable to assume that the other glossators all worked later than glossators A and B. The late Professor Bischoff, who kindly responded to my request for information (Letter, 27 February 1990), confirmed the observations on handwriting presented below and wrote to me that the other hands can all be assigned to the 9th century on palaeographical grounds. As all other hands entered a few glosses only, it cannot be determined in most cases in which order these later hands worked.
Glossator D 'kann ein festländisch beeinflußter Ire sein'; he worked on the Continent, since he probably used
Liber Glossarum (cf. § 4.3.2), later than A.
22
Glossator H (Pl. 6) is 'wohl karolingisch, aber nun mit "u, en, er" wohl irisch beeinflußt'. Glossator C (Pl. 4) is Irish, as he writes Irish minuscule and is responsible for a number of Old Irish glosses enumerated in
Thes., XX; one gloss (16a10 o) suggests that he may have been influenced by Romance Vulgar Latin. He twice erased a gloss in the hand of D
23
, and also supplemented a remark in the hand of H in the upper margin of col.
31a (cf. Pl. 6 and 31a5 i and note). He therefore worked later, necessarily also on the Continent.
24
Glossator G (Pl. 5; Thurneysen's 'likewise not C', cf.
Thes., XX) wrote glosses in Old Irish, but his hand is carolingian. He supplemented a gloss in the hand of C, and therefore worked later than D, H, and C.
It is not possible to establish a relative chronology for the remaining hands, E, F, I, K, L. Glossator F (Pl. 1, 4) resembles glossator D in his handwriting, and also is 'ein festländisch beeinflußter Ire'. The remaining hands are responsible for a very small number of glosses, and all write 9th-century carolingian minuscule.
