INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
the Soc ciences and Humanitie Research Council of C
CHAPTERS ON THE BOOK OF MULLING
Printed by NeM & Company, Edinburgh
FOR
DAVID DOUGLAS
LONDON . . . SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO., LIM. CAMBRIDGE . . MACMILLAN AND BOWES. GLASGOW. . . JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS.
Printed by Neill & Company, Edinburgh FOR
DAVID DOUGLAS
LONDON . . . SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO., LIM. CAMBRIDGE . . MACMILLAN AND BOWES. GLASGOW. . . JAMES MACLEHOSB AND SONS.
v^r^w^^TH "
^U^0Wti«v«ij(^p^H
^C*W fctrej* «™tenu*u»*Hl: ^
,,
' **
BOOK OF MULLING, f. 48 r. (S. Matt. xxvi. 58-xxvii. 10).
CHAPTERS
ON THE
BOOK OF MULLING
BY
H. J. LAW LOR, B.D.
SENIOR CHAPLAIN OF 8T MARY'S CATHEDRAL, EDINBURGH, AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF EDINBURGH
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS 1897
[All rights reserved.]
I X PIAM MEMORIAM
CARISSIMORUM
K. A. H. L.
J. H. L.
A. S. K. S.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY, ........ 1
CHAPTER II. THE COLOPHON, ....... 6
CHAPTER III. THE SECTIONS, ........ 30
CHAPTER IV.
THE BIBLICAL TEXT, . . . . • . . .42
CHAPTER V.
THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES, . . . . . .76
CHAPTER VI. AFFINITIES OF THE IRISH OLD LATIN TEXT, . . .129
CHAPTER VII. THE LAST PAGE.— I. THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT, . . .146
CHAPTER VIII. THE LAST PAGE.— II. THE CIRCULAR DEVICE, . . .167
APPENDIX A.
THE OLD LATIN PORTIONS OF "THE GARLAND OF HOWTH," . 186
APPENDIX B. THE SCRIBES OF THE BOOK OF MULLING, . . . .202
INDEX, ... 204
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
CHAPTEE L
INTRODUCTORY.
M. BERGER, in his account of the early Irish Biblical Texts,1 gives special prominence to two manuscripts which he describes as among the most important of the national manuscripts of Ireland. The first of these is the celebrated Book of Armagh, the other is that which is the subject of this essay, the Book of Mulling. The principal contents of this book are the four Gospels in Latin, but it has also the prefaces of Jerome, the table of the Eusebian Canons, an Office for the Visitation of the Sick, and other matter of which some account will be given in succeeding chapters. The book can scarcely be dated later than the third quarter of the ninth century, for an incidental notice in the Annals of the Four Masters'* of the monastery in which it was beyond doubt written, proves that shortly after that time it had become a Danish settlement. Palaeographers, judging from the character of the script, assign it to that, or the previous century.
Notwithstanding the interest and importance of our manuscript it has received but little attention from students of the ancient lore of Ireland. To Archbishop Ussher it appears to have been unknown. There is no reference to it, so far as I can discover, in the many volumes of his works.
The first author in whose writings I have found a notice of the book is the well-known Irish antiquary General Vallancey. For him, however, that which was of main interest was not the book, which he seems to have examined in the most cursory fashion, but its ancient case or cumdach, of which, under the name of the Liath
1 L'Histoire de la Vulgate pendant Us premiers sticks du Moyen Age, par Samuel Berger, Paris, 1893, p. 31.
2 A.D. 888. "A battle was gained by Riagan, son of Dunghal, over the foreigners of .... Tech-moling."
A
2 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
Meisicith, he gives a lengthy description.1 All that is really known of this shrine is that it was in existence — possibly even then a venerable relic — in the year 1402.2 Vallancey ascribed to it a much greater antiquity, and was persuaded that it had come down from the ancient Druids. Of its contents he briefly and not very correctly writes : —
"It contains a number of loose sheets of vellum, on which are written extracts of the gospel and prayers for the sick, in the Latin language, and in the Irish character. There are also some drawings in water colours of the apostles, not ill executed ; these are supposed to be the work of Saint Moling, the patron of that part of the country." 3
When Vallancey wrote (17834), the Book of Mulling was still, as It had been for many centuries, in the charge of the family of Kavanagh, and was seen by him at their family seat at Borris Idrone, only a few miles from the site of the monastery founded by St Moiling of Ferns, known as Tech Moling, or in its anglicised form, St Mullins. But a few years later it was deposited, with its cumdach, and the Charter Horn of the Kavanaghs, in Trinity College, Dublin. It thus became more accessible to scholars.
Among those who subsequently inspected it in its new resting place was the indefatigable entomologist and student of ancient manuscripts, Mr J. 0. Westwood, to whom Trinity College owes so much for making generally known many of the priceless literary treasures which it possesses. Westwood's Palceor/raphia Sacra Pictoria appeared between 1843 and 1845, and in it5 a description (unfortunately not very accurate) of the Book of Mulling,6 together with facsimiles of a few lines of its writing.
Some years later our manuscript was incidentally mentioned by Professor O'Curry in his Manuscript Materials, and the Appendix to that work was enriched with two facsimiles of its script, one being taken from Jerome's Preface to St John's Gospel, the other from Matt. vi. 9 sqq. (the Lord's Prayer), accompanied by a brief description.7
But about this time the attention of liturgical students was drawn
1 Vallancey, Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, Dublin, 1786, vol. iv. no. xiii. pp. 13-21.
2 See Professor Abbott's "Note on the Book of Mulling" in Hermathena, viii. 89.
3 The Rev. J. F. M. ffrench, in his article entitled "St Mullins, Co. Carlow," in the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 5th series, part iv. vol. ii. p. 379, repeats almost verbatim this description of Vallancey.
4 This is the date appended to the dedication of his thirteenth number, which is inscribed to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
5 " Irish Biblical MSS.," Plate II. (Letterpress, p. 4 sq.). Some account of the book is given also in his later work, Facsimiles of the Miniatures and Orna- ments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish Manuscripts, London, 1868, p. 93.
6 "Westwood's descriptions are the basis of that given by Miss M. Stokes in Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 24 sq.
7 0' Curry's Lectures on the Manuscript Materials of Ancient Irish History, Dublin, 1861, pp. 23, 335 sq., App., pi. 5, p. 653.
INTRODUCTORY. 3
to the Office for the Visitation of the Sick which is found at the close of St Matthew's Gospel. The late Dr William Reeves, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, whose loss Irish antiquarians still mourn, supplied a transcript of this Office to Bishop A. P. Forbes of Brechin, by whom it was printed in the preface to his edition of the Arbuthnott Missal.1 The Visitation Office was again printed by Mr F. E. Warren in 1881.2
After an interval of five years from the publication of the Arbuthnott Missal (in 1869) two works appeared almost simultan- eously, in which attention was called to the character of the Biblical text contained in our manuscript. The first in order of time was the first volume of Haddan and Stubbs' Councils? In an appendix to this work the attempt was made to prove the existence of a dis- tinct Irish recension of the Latin Scriptures, and to trace the general history of the text of the Bible in that country in the centuries following the introduction of Christianity. Among other codices collated for this purpose was the Book of Mulling ; and once more the hand of Dr Reeves was engaged in the task. Later in the same year Dr John Stuart edited for the Spalding Club the remarkable relic of the early Scottish Church which had been discovered in the Cambridge University Library, twelve years before, by Mr Henry Bradshaw.4 At the end of his preface,5 Dr Stuart printed, in parallel columns, collations of the fourth chapter of the Gospel according to St John as given in the principal Irish codices — and one of the columns is assigned to our book.
In the Introduction to the first part of Gilbert's great collection of Facsimiles of National Manuscripts of Ireland, published in 1874, our manuscript is once more described,6 unfortunately in the most meagre fashion. But what specially distinguishes this notice of the book is the fact that three complete pages are given in facsimile, together with one of the drawings of the evangelists alluded to by Vallancey and Westwood. The reproduced pages are f. 42 r and v (Matt, xviii. 8— xix. 16), and f. 94 r (John xxi. 13-25 and colophon).7 On the opposite pages of Gilbert's work the text of these passages is printed line for line, contractions being expanded. It is strange that, with Westwood's Palceographia before him, Gilbert has read only fourteen words of the colophon, and of these, at least two incorrectly.
Finally, in 1893, was published the epoch-making work of M.
1 Liber Ecclesie Beati Terrenani de Arbuthnott. Missale secundum usum Ecclesioe Sancti Andrece in Scotia, Burntisland, 1864, pp. x, sq., xx, sqq.
2 Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, Oxford, 1881, p. 171 sqq.
3 Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i., Oxford, 1869, Appendix G. (pp. 170-198).
4 G. W. Prothero, Memoir of Henry Bradshaw, London, 1888, p. 69.
5 The Book of Deer, edited for the Spalding Club, by John Stuart, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1869, p. xxxiv, sqq.
6 National MSS. of Ireland, i. p. xiii.
7 Ib., pi. xx., xxi.
4 THE BOOK OF MULLING
Berger, to which reference was made at the beginning of this chapter. It gives a description of our manuscript, with some interesting obser- vations on its text.1
This is an enumeration as complete as I have been able to make it — though doubtless the learned reader will observe some omissions — of the principal notices of the Book of Mulling up to the present time.
The latest event in its history is the satisfactory settlement of a controversy which had been for some time pending between the representatives of its former owners and the authorities of Trinity College. The point in dispute was whether, when towards the close of the last century it was deposited in the College, it was placed there merely for safe keeping during the troublous times preceding the Union, or was conveyed to the University of Dublin as a gift by the then head of the family of Kavanagh. In accordance with the agreement finally reached, the manuscript has been definitely acknow- ledged to be the property of the College, while its ancient shrine has been restored to Walter Kavanagh, Esq., D.L., and now once more rests in Borris House.
It remains to pen a few words about the purpose and aim of the present essay. Let it be at once said that the design of the writer is not to give an exhaustive account of the book. He is quite conscious that many things have been left unsaid upon which students might desire to have information. He is conscious also that the subjects upon which, in the pages now offered to the public, he has touched have been but imperfectly treated. But his aim throughout has been rather to stimulate the interest of others far more competent than himself for such investigations, than to give a complete account of the manuscript. He has, therefore, contented himself with selecting one or two features of the book which had been scarcely noticed by previous writers, and discussing them as best he could. Much remains for other better equipped workers in the same field.
It is a pleasant task to enumerate here those to whose kind assist- ance I have been most beholden while conducting the researches, the results of which are now set forth. Professor Gwynn first introduced me to the study which has proved a constant source of pleasure. Abundant help and encouragement have been given by him, by his colleague, Professor Bernard, and by the Eev. Thomas Olden. It is scarcely likely that, without the help of these three friends, this book would have been undertaken. But not to these alone must gratitude be expressed. The Rev. J. M. Harden has spent much valuable time in examining, with care and accuracy, many of the manuscripts preserved in the libraries of Trinity College and the Royal Irish Academy, a change in my residence having made it impossible for me to consult them, except at rare intervals ; and the
1 Op. cit., pp. 33, 380.
INTRODUCTORY. 5
Rev. J. A. MacCulloch has performed the wearisome task of reading the proofs. To them it is due that the errors in these pages are much fewer than they would otherwise have been. Mr J. H. Cunningham, F.S.A. Scot., has also given me valuable help, which is acknowledged at p. 183. I take this opportunity of thanking the Provost and Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, for their kind assistance in defraying the cost of publication.
Chapters IV. and VI. have already appeared in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, and Chapters VII. and VIII. are founded on a communication to the same Society.
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
CHAPTEE II,
THE COLOPHON.
THE colophon of the Book of Mulling is written on the concluding page of St John's Gospel (f. 94 r). It occupies the four last lines of the first column, and the first few lines of the second. Several attempts have been made to read it, and a portion has been repro- duced in facsimile by Westwood in his PalxograpMa Sacra. But as mistakes have crept into all the published transcripts which I have seen, I give it here in full, so far as I have been able to decipher the faded letters.
col. a. $INIT amen *INIT 6 tv quicuq: Scripseris 1 scrutatus fueris 1 etia
uideris H uolumin dm ora a
col. b. -- — - — — — — — p - — — — —
— — — - — — - [mi]ssericordia sua
— - - — — s p cliuosu mondi in —
— — — efrisq : altissinium : — [NJomen n scriptoris mulling dicitur Finiunt quatuor euan gelia
This colophon is to form the text of our discourse in the present chapter. If the discourse does not always adhere very strictly to the limits suggested by the text, it does no more than many other discourses have done. My excuse must be that there are some things which I feel ought to be said about our book, and that I know of no place more fitting for saying them than the present.
§ 1. The Form of the Book.
" 0 tu quicumque scripseris uel scrutatus fueris uel etiam uideris haec uolumina." Such is the opening address of the colophon of Mulling. Incidentally, it presents us with a description of the book, meagre but worth noting, " haec uolumina." These two words have not, indeed, so far as I am aware, been hitherto so read. Mr West- wood printed them "h( = hsec) uolumen," others, more grammatically, but less correctly, "hoc volumen.'3 There can, I believe, be no doubt that " haec uolumina " is correct, though the final letter easily escapes notice, being much faded and written below the line.
THE COLOPHON. 7
The author of the colophon then describes his book as consisting of several distinct fasciculi or volumina. That this is true of the Book of Mulling as we have it I now propose to show. It is not applicable, be it observed, to what is handed to the student who asks for our manuscript in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. This is a large quarto volume of paper leaves, in each of which is inserted, with all the skill which marks the work of the binders employed by the British Museum, a leaf of vellum. The volume is duly described on the back, " Book of Mulling," and its contents are arranged in the following order : (1) ff. 1-17, Gospel according to St Mark ; (2) ff. 18- 28, Jerome's Epistle to Damasus, the Arguments of the Gospels, and the Eusebian Canons ; (3) ff. 29-50, Gospel according to St Matthew, and other matter ; (4) ff. 51-53, three portraits ; (5) ff. 54-81, Gospel according to St Luke ; (6) ff. 82-94, Gospel according to St John, colophon and other matter; (7) ff. 95-98, fragments of St Matthew and St Mark ; (9) f. 99, blank. It may perhaps be a relief to learn that some of the folios here brought together do not belong to our book, and that for the rest the peculiar arrangement indicated above has no other source than the ingenuity of the binder.
In the year 1892 I undertook to make a collation of the Biblical text of the so-called "Book of Mulling," now included in this volume. I will describe the condition in which it was on the 18th of February 1893, the day on which my collation was completed. In doing so, I am obliged to depend on notes made without any intention of publication, and much less complete and satisfactory than they might have been had I known that I should have no opportunity in the future of revising them by comparison with the manuscript in the state in which it then was.1
There lay, in February 1893, in the library of Trinity College, where it had rested for more than a century, an ancient cumdach, inscribed with the name of "Arthurus rex dominus lagenie," better known as Art MacMurrough Kavanagh (•(• 1417), the opponent of Richard II.,2 and containing, unstitched and unbound, five fasciculi of vellum leaves, six loose leaves, and one pair of conjugate leaves, the contents and arrangement of which will, I trust, be made clear by the accompanying diagrams and the following description. In the diagrams each leaf is indicated by a line, those which have been lost by dotted lines, and each is connected with its conjugate by a line. Where con- jugates had been dismembered when I examined the manuscript, a
1 I may note that my reconstruction does not seem to agree with that of M. Berger, who must have examined the manuscript some little time before it fell to my lot to do so. He notes (L'Hisioire, p. 380), " Cahiers de 12, 22, 17, 1, 28, 14 et 4 ff. ; 98 ff. Les 4 ff. de la fin contiennent un fragment de Matth. xxvi. et xxvii., et de Marc, i.-vi. ; ils sont etrangers au ms. " He had already re- marked (p. 34), "Les feuillets etant detaches, il a ete quelque peu difficile de reconstituer les cahiers." If I understand his figures they must involve some error. The actual number of leaves now bound together is 99, not 98. If lie includes lost leaves (as he seems to do in at least the first gathering), the total would be increased.
2 See Professor Abbott in Hermathena, viii. p. 90.
8 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
row of dots is substituted for the connecting line. The figures in thick type indicate the numbers given to the folios by the British Museum binders ; those in ordinary type, numbers which correspond more nearly with the intention of the scribes.
I. The first " volumen," or gathering, at present consists of five pairs of conjugate leaves and one single leaf. There are from twenty-three to twenty-six lines on each page, written all across the page, and about forty letters in each line.1 It contains (1) f. 18 r, Jerome's Epistle to Damasus (the earlier part); (2) f. 19, the arguments of the several Gospels (the first portion of that of St Matthew being lost), ending in the middle of f. 21 v with the rubricated subscription, partly retraced in black, " finit [argum]en- [tnm euangeliorum] " ; and (3) f. 22, the Eusebian Canons (part of the 10th Canon being lost). The hand appears to be the same as that in which the Gospels are written, if indeed we may assume that they were penned throughout by a single scribe. Vermilion appears in the headings to the arguments of the several Gospels (" de iohanne" etc.), in the subscription to that of St John, and in the Eusebian Canons. Large ornamental initials (uncoloured) are prefixed to the epistle and the several arguments. The leaves measure about 16'5xll'8 cent.
The original contents of this gathering may be inferred from the following considerations. The portion of the epistle (" Novum Opus ") contained in f. 18 ends with the words " quod in," p. 3, 1. 9, of Bishop Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate, and is thus represented by 37 lines of that work. The lost portion of the epistle is therefore the equivalent of 24 of Bishop Wordsworth's lines. The earlier portion of the argument of St Matthew, also lost (all before "resurgens," Wordsworth, p. 16, 1. 9), = 13 lines. The two together would therefore make 37 lines, or exactly the same amount as f. 18 of our MS. From this we may infer that one leaf intervened between the present Iff. 18 and 19, and that it contained the remainder of the epistle and the opening part of the first argument. It is more difficult to determine the contents of the pages which have disappeared at the end. If neither the first nor second (lost) leaf was without conjugate, there must have been at least two of them, as represented in the diagram. On the recto of the first of these was the second half of Canon 10 (all after § 94), which may have filled about one-third of the page. The remainder of these two leaves would have sufficed for the "Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum " (Wordsworth, p. 11, where it fills 64 lines = nearly 3^ pp. of our book). This fact in itself, in the absence of conflicting evidence, justifies the assumption that both f. 18 and the lost leaf following it had conjugates, as represented in the diagram. Fol. 18 has no marks of stitching, but its inner edge is much worn. Its present width is 11 '35 cent. That this gathering was written by the same scribe as those that follow appears to be the opinion of all palaeographers who have examined the book. It is one which it seems safe to accept. The hand no doubt differs in some respects from that found in the Gospels, as may be seen from Professor O'Curry's facsimile (Lectures on the Manuscript Materials of Irish History, Appendix, pi. 5). But it differs no more from the writing of any part of the Gospels than the writing of one of their pages frequently differs from another. Any one who will compare the exquisite script of the early chapters of St Matthew or St Lnke with that of the last pages of St John, will 1 This, of course, does not apply to the Canons.
THE COLOPHON. 9
be sufficiently impressed with, this fact. Indeed, a glance at two consecutive pages will sometimes enable us to detect striking variations in the character of the hand. Thus the writing of f. 62 r (Luke vii. 4-27) is manifestly inferior to that of f. 61 v (Luke vi. 36 — vii. 4), and in passing from the latter to the former we meet with several changes in the form of the letters, etc. — e.g., -^ is used for -f- ( = est), 5 for fj (g), dix for dx (=dixit), etc., and the form of the letter t (that which is commonly used throughout the MS.) differs from that found in the immediately preceding pages. It will be evident to the student who compares them together, that the writing of this leaf closely re- sembles that of the first fasciculus. The peculiarities now mentioned are gradually dropped on the verso of the leaf, and the normal type of writing reappears on f . 63.
II. The second gathering consisted, as the diagram shows, of eleven pairs of conjugate leaves. Two, originally conjugate, after- wards became dismembered (ff. 29, 50). This quire contained St Matthew's Gospel, ending in the middle of the second column of f. 49 v, with the subscription "linit amen finit." The remainder of this column and the following leaf were left blank. On the vacant portion of f. 49 ?;, and on f. 50 r, was subsequently written by another scribe1 the Office for the Communion of the Sick,a f. 50 v still remaining blank. The writing is bi-columnar, and better executed than that of the preceding fasciculus. The number of lines iu a column varies from 25 to 41, being greater towards the end of the Gospel. The average size of a page in this and the three succeeding gatherings is at present 16'4xll'9 cent. Elaborate initials, finely drawn and coloured, are found at the beginnings of the Gospels, and at St Matt. i. 18. They have the usual rows of red dots, double in St Matthew and St Mark, single (apparently) in St Luke and St John.
An examination of the Office for the Communion of the Sick (ff. 49 v, 50 r) appears to justify the statement just made that it is by a different hand from the Gospel. (1) The writing is neater here than anywhere else in the manu- script. (2) The use of large and carefully formed initial letters is much more frequent than usual. (3) Here — one might almost say here alone — the page is divided by lines ruled with a pointed instrument for the guidance of the scribe. Elsewhere, the points at which the lines of writing are intended to begin are occasionally marked, but these marks are but little attended to in practice. (4) Here alone the margins are ruled with two parallel lines, one to serve as a boundary for the ordinary writing, the other for the large initials which stand outside it. It seems improbable that a scribe would expend so much more care on a liturgical office, which is evidently only an addendum to his real work, than on the sacred text itself. (5) The form of several of the letters is peculiar to this part of the book. Such, for example, are d, r, <7, and the diphthong ce, elsewhere represented commonly by^, here by g. And lastly (6) some of the compendia scribendi used by the writer of these pages are very rare in the manuscript, if they occur elsewhere at all. As instances, we may refer to u for ut or usque, the symbols for per (g, else-
1 Westwood(PaZ. Sac., " Irish Biblical MSS.,"ii. p. 4) says emphatically: "The original scribe had " written this Office (the italics are his). But emphasis does not necessarily imply accuracy. In the very next line he declares, with a like use of italics, that the ornamental initials at the beginnings of the Gospels are ' ' not^ coloured. " This is an extraordinary mis-statement. But, indeed, Mr West- wood's account of the Book of Mulling is very inexact throughout.
2 Printed in Warren's Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 171 sqq., and Forbes' Arbuthnott Missal, p. x, .s-j.
10 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
where p) and pro (p : elsewhere <p), and the abbreviations oia for omnia, and scla for scecula. The page is ruled for 33 lines of writing.
III. The third " volumen " contains St Mark's Gospel, and consists of at least six (ff. 8, 9 probably once formed a seventh) conjugate pairs of leaves, and three (or five) single leaves (IF. 4, 15, 16), two of which, it will be noticed, immediately precede the final leaf of the gathering — in all 17 leaves. The writing is again bi-columnar, and there are from 26 to 32 lines in a column. The subscription "finit" is written at f. 17 va, 1. 19, the remainder of the page being left blank.
IY. Here, for St Luke's Gospel, as the diagram again shows us, we have 13 conjugate pairs, and two single leaves (ff. 76, 79) inserted near the end of the quire — altogether 28 leaves. There are from 27 to 39 lines in a column. The Gospel ends on f. Slvb, with the subscription " finit amen finit," the part of the column following this being left blank.
V. St John's Gospel is written in a gathering of 13 leaves, the last of which (f. 94) had no conjugate. The remainder of the fasciculus consists of six pairs of leaves, five of which, and probably the sixth (ff. 83, 92), were conjugates. The inner edges of ff. 84, 91 are quite fresh, so that these leaves must have been recently parted from one another. The Gospel ends on f. 94 r a, and is immediately followed by the colophon. The greater part of the second column of this page is blank. The verso of the leaf is occupied with matter which will be considered at some length in subsequent chapters. The writing of this gathering is distinctly inferior to that of those which have been already described. It is bi-columnar, except in f. 93, both recto and verso of which have three columns.1 Towards the end the writing becomes smaller, and the number of lines in a column much greater. The number of lines ranges from 26 on the recto of f. 82, to 50 on f. 93 r.
We have now come to the end of the matter which, as I believe, has a clearly established claim to have formed part of the Book of Mulling in its final shape. We have gone far enough also to see that the expression of the colophon is absolutely accurate — "hsec volumina." These "volumina" were never (till these later days) bound together : but that each was separately stitched was, if my memory does not deceive me,2 vouched for by holes made for the purpose, in such of the sheets (making pairs of leaves) as time and rough usage had left in anything approaching their original condition. They may still be seen in at least three of the six inserted leaves (ff. 4, 16, 79, and perhaps 15, 76). Where these holes are found their distance from the outer edge of the leaf is about the width of an ordinary page. We may remark that the scribe was evidently most anxious to confine each Gospel to its own fasciculus, though he makes grievous
1 This temporary lapse into tri-columnar writing finds a parallel in the Book of Armagh : Stokes, Tripartite Life, p. xc.
2 Even now enough can be discerned to convince me that my recollection is not altogether at fault.
rv
|
i is i n. - |
29 15 III. |
|
|
i ir 2 |
91 .„ |
|
|
i 20 4 |
01 17 i 32 18 |
|
|
21 5 |
33 19 |
|
|
22 6 |
r 1*S IT |
|
|
| 23 / |
||
|
ATX O | 9^ o |
36 22 |
|
|
1 26 10 |
37 23 . 38 24 |
|
|
27 ii 1 28 12 |
r— 39 25 M— 40 26 |
|
|
'3 |
- 41 27 |
|
|
14 |
40 yn |
|
|
54 54 |
- 44 30 |
|
|
55 55 |
- 45 31 |
|
|
56 56 |
' 46 32 |
|
|
&7 57 |
- 47 33 |
|
|
58 5s |
- 48 34 Ar. „,. VI. |
|
|
59 59 1 fifl 60 |
49 35 - — ^ifi 76 |
|
|
61 61 I 62 62 |
||
|
63 03 ^ |
I 82 82 |
|
|
64 64 |
oo c, VII. |
|
|
65 65 |
||
|
1 66 66 67 67 |
84 84 |l| 85 85 ! r 86 86 |
|
|
68 68 69 69 |
|! |r— 87 87 vin. - 88 88 |
|
|
70 70 |
: : 89 89 |
|
|
71 yi |
- 90 90 |
|
|
72 72 |
! : ni |
|
|
73 73 |
91 91 92 92 |
|
|
74 74 |
||
|
" 93 93 |
||
|
75 75 |
||
|
94 94 |
||
|
76 76 |
||
|
77 77 |
||
|
78 78 |
||
|
79 79 |
||
|
80 80 |
51 (95)
52 (96)
53 (97)
99 (98)
I 95 (99)
j r— (100) | jr— 96(ioi) j 1 1 — 97 (102)
(103) I 98 (104)
To face page 10.
THE COLOPHON. 11
miscalculations as to the space required. Thus in St Matthew, he begins in a fine bold hand with 26 lines to a page. As the work advances he seems to become afraid that the quire is too small for what he had designed that it should contain. He accordingly writes more closely, lengthens the lines, and increases the number of lines in each column to 35 or 40, finally ending the Gospel with more than a leaf in hand. In St Mark he miscalculates again, and is obliged to insert two leaves at the end. The same fate awaits him in St Luke. In St John, write as small and as closely as he will, the Gospel runs over its allotted space, and the last thirteen verses demand a special leaf for themselves.
This appears to be the best place to remark that the method of writing here exemplified, each Gospel having a separate gathering, seems not to have been uncommon in the early Celtic Churches. The same arrangement is found in the manuscript known as " St Patrick's Gospels" (Royal Irish Academy, 24. Q. 23).1 The familiar portraits of the evangelists again, each holding a book (of which the drawings formerly preserved in the cumdach of the Book of Mulling are a specimen), indicate that the Gospels were usually regarded as consisting of four volumes, and not one. In later times the several Gospels were sometimes provided -with sepa- rate shrines or cumdachs. Witness the pictures of the evangelists in the Book of Deer, depicted with books, in cases, suspended from their shoulders.2 So again at Banchory-Ternan was preserved, in the early part of the sixteenth century, the Gospel according to St Matthew, written by St Ternan. Both it and the remaining Gospels, written by his hand, were said to have been enclosed in metal cases, adorned with gold and silver.3 And in like manner St Patrick is represented as bestowing, in one instance,4 the "libri seuanguelii " ; in another, the "likeness of the case of the Book of John,"5 upon churches founded by him, while he and St Brigid are spoken of as " sowing the four books of the Gospel with a sowing of faith, and belief, and piety."6 A further illustration will be found in the next chapter, where it is proved that the Gospels of our book are copied from at least three different exemplars. And indeed, several examples are known of single Gospels being copied apart.7
1 J. H. Bernard, Trans. R.I. A., xxx. 307 sq.
2 Such at least seems to be the probable explanation. See Stuart, Book of Deer, p. xx.
3 Martyrology of Aberdeen (Proceedings of Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, ii. p. 264) : " Pridie Idus Junij. — In Scotia natalis sancti Terrenani Pictorum
archipresulis apud ecclesiam de Banquorefterny sepultus Euuangel-
istarum quoque quatuor voluminibus metallo inclusis argento auro texto in superficie fabricates remuneraretur quorum Mathei euuangeliste volumen adhuc apud Banquory."
4 Muirchu Maccu-Mactheni's notes in the Book of Armagh, f. 8 b. 2. Cf. Whitley Stokes, Tripartite Life, i. p. cxcvii.
8 Stokes, Tripartite Life, i. p. 87.
6 Stokes, Lives of Saints from Boole of Lismore, p. 193.
7 The Stonyhurst St John (Berger, UHistoire, p. 39), the St Gall St John
12 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
"We must now examine the remaining leaves formerly preserved in the cumdaeh of our book, and now bound up with it. To begin with the set numbered VIII. in our diagram. This contains St Matt. xxvi. 42 — xxvii. 35 mittentes (f. 95) ; St Mark i. 1 — iv. 8 dabit (ff. 96, 97); and St Mark v. 18 nauem — vi. 35 eius (f. 98). These leaves appear to have formed part of a single manuscript, and, if so, they may have been two sheets of a quire as shown in the diagram. The writing is not columnar. The size of the leaves varies slightly, the length being from 15 '4 to 15*9 cent., and the breadth from 12 to 12-3 cent.; if. 95, 96, 98 have 36 lines in a page; f. 97 has 33. These fragments, of course, formed no part of our book.
It is scarcely worth while to discuss the blank leaf (f. 99), num- bered here VII. It is smaller (15 '2 X 1 1'8 cent.) than any of the four leaves just mentioned, and considerably smaller also than the leaves of the Book of Mulling. It is possibly an accidental intruder.
Of more importance is VI. (ff. 51, 52, 53), the three leaves on the rectos of which we find portraits, presumably of evangelists. They have been described by Mr Westwood in his PalcBograpliia ; and by him, as well as by others, are regarded as having formed part of our book.1 This has, perhaps, been too hastily assumed. Their connec- tion with our book is not proved by the fact that they were kept in the same case with it ; for the fragments of St Matthew and St Mark, which we have just examined, were enshrined in St Mulling's cumdaeh also. And this is not the only instance of a manuscript having found its way into a shrine that was not meant for it.2 Nor is their claim established by the near coincidence in the size of these pictorial leaves with those which undoubtedly belong to our book, for they agree in measurement even more closely with the leaves of St Matthew and St Mark already referred to. They measure, in fact, about 16 X 12 '2 cent. In other words, they fall short of the average height of the pages of Mulling's book by nearly half a centimetre, while they exceed the average breadth by more than a quarter of a centimetre. The difference in breadth may indeed have been less originally than it is now, but for similar reasons the difference in height was probably greater.
(ib., 56), and apparently at least one other copy of the same Gospel, which was in the St Gall Library in the ninth century (Keller, Bilder u. Schriftziige, p. 61),
and (this, of course, is not a Celtic MS.) the Chartres St John (Berger, p. 89).
A cop of St Matthew's Gospel, apart from the others, is mentioned in the story of the
Not, however, the Stowe St John (Bernard, Trans. R.I.A., xxx. 314). A copy
invention of St Barnabas, written in the sixth century. See AA.SS., Jun. 11, ii. pp. 422, 450. Whatever may be thought of the historical character of the narrative, the reference seems to prove that the writer was aware that such a manuscript existed. M. Berger remarks (ib., 69) that St John was the only Gospel so copied in the early Middle Ages. But the statement seems to need some modification.
1 Westwood, Pal. Soc., " Irish Manuscripts," pi. ii. p. 5. Of other writers who accept this view I shall mention only one, M. Berger (op. cit., p. 380). His knowledge of the Book of Mulling stands in striking contrast to that of some others who have written about it. It has been derived at first hand from an inspection of the manuscript itself.
2 J. H. Bernard, Trans. R.I.A., xxx. 305 sg., 313.
THE COLOPHON. 13
On the other hand, they are in exact agreement as to size with one of the leaves of the fragment — f. 98. But what makes the supposi- tion that they belonged to our book specially doubtful is this. They have evidently no conjugates among the genuine pages of our book. Now the inserted leaves, which have the appearance of having suffered little injury, are, as we might expect, wider than the ordinary leaves of the manuscript;1 and, moreover, they have, at a little distance from the inner edge, the marks of the stitching by which they were attached to their respective Gospels. This is not true of the leaves now under consideration. It seems, then, that if these pictures really belonged to our book, they must have lain loose in the case in which it was kept, without any mark to indicate the Gospels to which they severally belonged. When we add that analogy points to the belief that the Book of Mulling had no metal box such as that in which it was in later centuries preserved, for a considerable time after it was written, the improbability of the sup- position becomes manifest.2 It seems, on the whole, likely that these three pictures (connected quite possibly with some unknown manuscript) were put for safe keeping into the cumdach of the Book of Mulling. They were put there, we may suppose, for no better reason than that, being nearly of the same size and shape as the inside of the box, they fitted it easily • just as, for the same reason no doubt, some other odd leaves of a Gospel book found their way into the same shrine, and as, owing to a similar agreement in size, the Stowe St John and the Stowe Missal were placed together in a single cumdach, and ultimately bound together in one volume.3
§ 2. The Date.
What data have we for determining the period at which our manuscript was written ?
Many scholars have been content to answer that question by quoting the words of the colophon, " [Njomen hautem scriptoris mull- ing dicitur." The Mulling here mentioned, it has been urged, can be no other than Moiling, Bishop of Ferns, who died in the year 69 6.4 The book is therefore expressly stated to have been penned by him, and must be dated in the latter part of the seventh century.
Let me at once say that I believe there is much force in this
1 The average width is about 12 '2 cent, which is identical with that of the pictorial pages.
2 All that is certain about the date of the cumdach of the Book of Mulling, as has been already remarked, is that it existed before A.D. 1402. Whether it was originally made as a shrine for our book we can never know, though its size and shape agree with this supposition (inside measurement, 18 '2 x 13 -3 cent.). The Book of Durrow (not later than the eighth century) was not enshrined till the end of the ninth ; the Book of Armagh, written in 807, not until the following century. The shrine of the Cathach of St Columba, though the Psalter itself certainly belongs to a much earlier period, is dated 1084 (Miss M. Stokes' Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 89 sqq.). That of the Stowe Missal may be contemporary with the later writing of the manuscript enclosed in it.
3 Bernard, Trans. R.I.A., xxx. 313.
4 Annals of Four Masters, Annals of Ulster, A.D. 696; Annals of Clonmac- noise, 692 j Trip., p. 519, A.D. 693.
14 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
argument. In the first place, Moiling is a name of extreme rarity. The seventh century bishop is the only person mentioned by it, so far as I have been able to discover, in the Irish annals.1 This is the more remarkable on account of his celebrity. He was reckoned as one of the four prophets of Ireland. Now it is very common to find the names of great saints adopted by others of lesser note. Columba, for example, is very frequently met with. That Moiling occurs but once appears to be accounted for by the fact that it is not in the strict sense a " name " at all. The true name of the saint was Daircell, and he was called " Moiling," the leaper, on account of his athletic prowess.2 It is as much, therefore, a descriptive epithet as " Coeur de Lion " applied to Richard I. of England, or " le Chauve " applied to Charles II. of France. It is unlikely that it should be given to another. It may thus be regarded as highly probable that our " scriptor " was the famous Moiling of Ferns.
And this probability becomes greater when we recall the history of the manuscript which bears the name. It was, until the end of the eighteenth century,3 in the custody of the family of Kavanagh, of which St Moiling was a member, and whose family seat at Borris Idrone is within a few miles of Tech Moling or St Mullins, the site of the monastery over which he presided. This fact leaves little room for doubt that, by whomsoever penned, every part of our book was written in the monastery of St Moiling at St Mullins.4
But a further confirmation is found in the fact that St Moiling was actually famed as a scribe. Keating, writing in 1 630,5 tells us that "when the Senchas had been purified, the Irish nobles decreed that it should be given into the charge of the prelates of the Irish Church. These prelates gave orders to have it copied out in their principal churches. Some of the old books so written, or rescripts of them, sur- vive to the present day, such as the Book of Armagh, the Psalter of Cashel, the Book of Glendaloch, the Book of Ua Congbala, the Book of Clonmacnois, the Book of Fintann of Cluain Aidnech, the Yellow Book of Moling, and the Black Book of Molaga."
The " Yellow Book of Moling " to which he refers, appears, indeed, to have contained a collection of historical documents, and he does not mention a copy of the Gospels as transcribed by him. But it is almost incredible that an eminent Irish scribe of the seventh century should not have written at least one Gospel book, or that Gospels written by the hand of a saint of great renown would not be among the treasures of his own monastery.
1 An earlier Moiling, however, is mentioned in the Book of Leinster, Moiling Luath (the swift), son of Fiacha, as distinguished from our Moiling Luachra (of Luaehair), son of Faelan, Revue Celtique, xiii. pp. 45, 101.
2 Diet, of National Biog , xiii. p. 380.
3 Vallancey's words, quoted above, p. 2, are sufficient to prove that the contents of the cumdach were the same in 1783 as in 1893.
4 Mr Warren appears to overlook the importance of this consideration when he
6 History of Ireland, O'Mahony's translation, p. 412.
THE COLOPHON. 15
It seems, therefore, almost beyond question, that the assertion of the colophon is that the book to which it belonged was written by Daircell or Moiling, the celebrated bishop and scribe of the seventh century.
On the other hand, the almost unanimous testimony of palaeo- graphers ascribes our manuscript to a later period. M. Berger,1 than whom no one is more competent to give judgment, refers it to the ninth, and apparently not to the beginning of the ninth century. Others assign to it a slightly earlier date ; 2 but all agree in placing it at least a century after the time of St Moiling.
It may, of course, be urged that one of the most difficult problems of palaeography is the determination of the dates of Irish manuscripts.3 Irish scribes appear to have been strongly conservative, and to have closely imitated older forms of writing and ornament. But, though this fact may move us to push back the date of the manuscript by a few decades, we can hardly place it within the lifetime of Moiling if we are to be guided by palaeography at all.
The evidence, therefore, of palaeography and that of the colophon appear at first sight to be directly opposed. Is it possible to reconcile them ? Or is the problem of our manuscript insoluble ? What appears to me to be its true solution is suggested by a paper con- tributed by Professor T. K. Abbott to Hermathena on the colophon of the Book of Durrow.4 The colophon of this copy of the Gospels states that it was written by one Columba, who has been identified with the Apostle of the Picts (f 597).5 Paleography, on the contrary, pleads for the seventh century.6 Here is Dr Abbott's way of recon- ciling the two. The colophon, he says, was copied from the arche- type. It contains, therefore, the name of the scribe of the archetype, not of the scribe of the manuscript at the end of which it is now found. The archetype, to which it was originally appended, was therefore written, as the colophon states, in the space of twelve days [and therefore probably " in smaller and more cursive characters " than the Book of Durrow] by a scribe named Columba, who may very well have been the founder of Hy.
It is unnecessary to recapitulate here the arguments by which Pro- fessor Abbott seeks to establish this conclusion. To prevent mis- conception, however, it may be well to say how far, as it appears to me, the inference from them is justified.
The state of the case seems to be this. Reasons of some weight have been given for believing that St Columba could not have written a codex with errors so numerous and of such a kind as are
1 L'Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 34.
2 Scrivener's Introduction, 4th ed., ii. p. 78.
3 Thompson, Greek and Latin Paleography, p. 236 sq.
4 Vol. viii. p. 199 sqq.
6 The colophon is given in full in the paper referred to in the text, and also in Professor Abbott's JEvang. Versio, p. xix.
6 Berger, op cit., p. 41. In Scrivener's Introduction, 4th ed.. ii. 78, it is still described " [end of vi]" ; but in an earlier work (Old Latin Biblical Texts, iii. p. viii) Mr White had dated it " seventh or eighth century."
16 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
found in the Book of Durrow. It has been proved, moreover, that the copy to which the colophon refers must have been written in less elaborate style and in a more cursive character, and that the writer of that copy was named Columba. And finally, arguments falling little short of demonstration have been adduced to show that the colophon was transcribed from another document, which we may reasonably assume to have been that which served as the model for the Gospel text. All this is matter of practical certainty.
But what about the further and most interesting question, Was St Columba the scribe of the archetype to which the colophon belonged? As Dr Abbott truly remarks, there is nothing against this supposition in the fact that the text of the Book of Durrow is Vulgate. St Columba, as he says, may have habitually used an old Latin version, and yet have come across a copy of Jerome's trans- lation and transcribed it for the purposes of private study.1 We may, in fact, go further, and assert that there is absolutely no direct evidence as to what the version may have been from which St Columba habitually made his quotations. For all that can be proved it may have been just such a text as we find in the Durrow Gospels.
But Professor Abbott really gives us no evidence in favour of the archetype having been penned by St Columba, except the words, " Columbae scriptoris qui hoc scripsi himet (1) euangelium." And he warns us that Columba is a very common name. Thus, as he leaves it, the thesis is " not proven."
Now there is one piece of evidence which he has not mentioned, and which may be thought to tell against the supposition that the Book of Durrow was copied from an autograph of the great saint. It is the wording of the colophon itself : " Rogo beatitudinem tuam sancte praesbiter patrici." Here is a direct invocation of a departed saint. Is it possible that St Columba should have made use of it? It does not seem probable. Less than a century after his death, indeed, such a colophon would not have been surprising. It may be illus- trated by several parallels from Adamnan.2 But if we may judge from the evidence before us, the practice of invoking the departed did not come into vogue till after St Columba had passed away.
Our conclusion then is that the Book of Durrow, including its colophon, is a copy from an earlier codex written by one Columba,3 whose date cannot with probability be placed earlier than the opening years of the seventh century.
Now, it will be seen that the Book of Mulling presents a problem very similar to that which arises in the case of the Book of Durrow. Palaeography and the colophon are much more certainly at variance
1 This supposition is confirmed by the very interesting remarks on St Finnian of Movilla and the introduction of the Latin ,Bible into Ireland, which will be found in Miss M. Stokes' Six Months in the Apennines, London, 1892, p. 25 sqg.
2 Dowden's The Celtic Church in Scotland, pp. 225, 233.
3 If so, Bishop Reeves' assertion (Life of St Columba, p. xiv), "that the colophon in Irish manuscripts is always peculiar to the actual scribe, and likely to be omitted in transcription," is scarcely justified by the facts.
THE COLOPHON. 17
here than in the Durrow Gospels. May not a similar solution be found ? True, in our book the colophon bears no mark, on the face of it, that it is not original. But analogy has made it possible that it may have been transcribed from an earlier exemplar. The possibility is converted by palaeographical considerations into a strong probability. And if it be once conceded that this is a fact, few will be found to question the identity of Mulling. Our manuscript, in short, will be admitted to have been transcribed, or at least ultimately derived, from an autograph of St Moiling of Ferns. St Moiling, we may suppose, wrote a copy of the Gospels ; a century or more after his death an anonymous scribe made a transcript of this book, including the colophon ; and this transcript is the " Book of Mulling " which has survived to the present day.
To this hypothesis I can think of only one objection. It scarcely indeed deserves to be so described, but I must not altogether pass it over. The colophon, as we have already seen, speaks of Mulling's book as consisting of several " volumina." This description applies accurately to the five fasciculi of the present book. If our theory is correct the later scribe must have, in this matter, imitated the form of his exemplar as well as copied its text. This in itself presents no difficulty. For we shall find that in the much less striking feature of the division into sections he has strictly adhered to the model of his archetype. But what is here in point is the further fact that he has had some difficulty in confining each Gospel to a single " volumen," and has miscalculated in every case the number of leaves required. What could be easier, it may be urged, if he had before him a manuscript arranged in this particular way, than to estimate beforehand how many sheets of vellum he should assign to each gathering? The answer is, first, that we have no measure of the stupidity, or of the incapacity for arithmetical calculation, of Irish scribes ; and, secondly, that the requisite calculation was not very much more difficult if his exemplar was constructed on a different principle. A difference in the size of the pages might, perhaps, confuse him in one case ; it may equally have done so in the other. His very determination, notwithstanding all mistakes, to adhere to his design may possibly rather indicate that the arrangement was commended to him, not merely by his own sense of fitness, but by some authority whom he desired to imitate closely. Such an authority would be the founder of his monastery.
§ 3. The Order of tlw, Gospels.
It has been already remarked that the colophon is found at the end of St John's Gospel. This furnishes conclusive proof that in the conception of the scribe, St John was, as we are accustomed to regard it, the fourth Gospel. Hereafter reasons will be given for the further belief that the order of the Gospels in his view was identical with that of our modern Bibles, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
B
18 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
John. For the present I content myself with remarking that this fact is one which we have no right to assume without evidence.
It is true, indeed, that only one Irish manuscript is at present known in which the sequence is different. I refer, of course, to the Codex Usserianus, edited by Professor Abbott.1 This copy exhibits the usual " Western " order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. This arrange- ment appears to have been superseded by the introduction of the Vulgate into Ireland. But there is ground for holding that the older tradition did not give way at once, but that, on the contrary, it exercised considerable influence centuries after the version of St Jerome had gained currency.
This influence comes out very clearly with reference to the evangelical symbols. A little space may be given to the examina- tion of this subject.
The first Christian writer who explains the four forms of the Cherubim in the vision of Ezekiel (i. 10) or the four living creatures of the Apocalypse (iv. 7) as referring to the fourfold Gospel is Irenseus.2 Each Gospel presents a different aspect of the life of Christ; and accordingly St Matthew is symbolised by the Man, proclaiming as he does the human descent of the Saviour and the humility of his human life ; St Mark by the Eagle, which signifies the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church, on account of his opening quotation from the prophets, and his prophetic style of writing; St Luke, who begins his narrative with the story of Zacharias the Priest, by the Calf — the sacrificial victim ; St John by the Lion, because he dwells upon the kingdom of Christ and opens his record with the statement of His divine generation.
For two centuries we hear no more of speculations of this kind, and then we come upon evidence which appears to show that the exegesis of Irenaeus was not generally received. In the fourth and fifth centuries the assignment of the symbols to the several Gospels is discussed by several writers, the most important of whom was Jerome. He accepts the view of Irenseus as to the symbols of the first and third Gospels, but gives the Lion to St Mark and the Eagle to St John. It is worthy of special remark that in this he claims no originality. He discusses no rival theory. He professes to have derived his opinion on this subject from older writers.3 And these
1 Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronymiana ex Codice Usseriano (Dullinc etc., Dublin, 1884.
2 Irenseus, Adv. Hcer., III. xi. 8 (Harvey, ii. p. 48).
3 " Quidam quattuor evangelia, quos nos quoque in procemio commentariorum Matthsei sequuti sumus, horum animalium putant nominibus designari," Vallar- sius, v. 9, 10. This sentence is sufficient to disprove the statement made in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v. "Evangelists," i. p. 633 : "Nor was it till long alter the four creatures had been taken as prefiguring the four evan- gelists, that a special application was made of each symbol to each writer, This may be referred to St Jerome on Ezekiel i." It is strange that the writer of the article should have overlooked, not only the words which we have quoted, but the evidence of Irenoeus and that of Ambrose and Augustine.
THE COLOPHON. 19
writers, he tells us, had stated their views quite definitely:1 St Matthew is denoted by the Man, because he commences his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ ; St Mark is symbolised by the Lion, because at the beginning of his Gospel he speaks of the voice crying in the wilderness (in quo vox leonis in eremo rugientis auditur : " Vox clamantis in deserto," etc.) ; St Luke brings us back to Zachariah the priest, and accordingly to him the Calf is appro- priate ; St John, taking a higher flight than the rest, proclaims " In the beginning was the Word," he, therefore, is the Eagle (qui assumtis pennis aquilse, et ad altiora festinans, de Verbo Dei disputat). In the age preceding Jerome and the Vulgate we see that the four sym- bols were allotted, one to each of the evangelists, and that in the manner to which Jerome himself gave the weight of his authority.
But the witness of Jerome does not stand alone. The language of his contemporary, Ambrose of Milan,2 is not indeed free from ambig- uity, except when he speaks of St Matthew and St Luke, about whom we have hitherto found no difference of opinion. Having expressed his own belief as to the symbols of these Gospels, he goes on to state the accepted opinion.3 And here it is that his meaning is less clear. His language with reference to the Gospel to which the Lion is to be assigned suggests rather St John than St Mark. " Alius," he says, " a potentise coepit expressione divinse, quod ex Rege Rex, fortis ex forti, verus ex vero, vivida mortem virtu te con- tempserit." But that St Mark arid not St John is intended, is made sufficiently plain by what he says about the meaning of the Eagle. Christ, according to most interpreters, he declares, is the Eagle, be- cause He is the resurrection. And then he proceeds, " Quartus (sc. liber) copiosius cseteris divinse miracula resurrectionis expressit." These words apply to the Gospel according to St John, and to it alone of the four.4
Jerome, then, and others whom he followed, Ambrose and the majority of interpreters known to him, were of one mind. The Man belonged to St Matthew, the Lion to .St Mark, the Calf to St Luke, and the Eagle to St John. This was, it would seem, the prevalent view in the middle of the fourth century.5
It is not necessary to cite more than one other literary witness. That witness is Augustine of Hippo. He writes as follows6 : —
1 Com. in Ezelc., i. (Vallarsius, v. 9, 10, 13) ; Com. in Matt. Frocem. (Vallarsius, vii. 6, 6) ; Adv. Jovinianum, i. 26 (Vallarsius, ii. 280).
2 Expositio Evang. Sec. Lucam, Prsef., 7, 8 (Migne, xv. 1532).
3 Plerique tamen putant, etc.
4 It ought, however, to be mentioned that in later times St Mark was regarded as especially the evangelist of the resurrection, and that this was one of the reasons given for the appropriateness to him of the symbol of the Lion. Durandus, Rationale, vii. 44, 4.
5 Juvencus, the Spanish Presbyter, has indeed been cited as adhering to the opinion of Irenseus. But the verses in which his views have been supposed to be expressed, and of which more hereafter, are spurious. This is shown by Marold in his edition of Juvencus (Leipzig, 1886), p. vii. sq.y and by Huemer in the twenty-fourth volume of the Vienna Corpus, p. xxiv sq.
6 De Consensu Evangelistavum, I. vi. (9) (Migne, xxxiv. 1046).
20 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
" Unde mihi videntur, qui ex Apocalypsi ilia quatuor animalia ad intelligenclos quatuor Evangelistas interpretati sunt, probabilius aliquid attendisse illi qui leonem in Matthaeo, hominem in Marco, vitulum in Luca, aquilam in Joanne intellexerunt, quam illi qui hominem MatthaBO, aquilam Marco, leonem Joanni tribuerunt. De principiis enim librorum quamdam conjecturam capere voluerunt, non de tota intentione Evangelistarum, quse magis fuerat perscru- tanda," etc.
St Augustine here mentions two views of the symbols — his own, which agrees with that of Jerome as regards the third and fourth Gospels, and another which is identical with that of IrenaBiis.1 Taken literally, his language implies that each of these opinions had supporters in his own or a previous age. But the forms of literary speech must not be pressed too strictly. It seems at least as likely that he was simply controverting (and, we must add, not very fairly 2) the interpretation of Irenseus, and maintaining his own private gloss.3 If he had meant to review the main opinions current on .the subject, it is inconceivable that he should have passed over that held by Ambrose and Jerome, of which he cannot have been ignorant.
On the whole, the evidence before us is sufficient to convince us that the majority of fourth-century divines were, in this matter, in agreement with Jerome. And our conclusion is corroborated from an unexpected quarter. A small bronze coin, of uncertain proven- ance, which has been assigned to the time of Justinian, is described and figured by various writers.4 On one side it has, to the left, the head of a man ; on the right, that of an eagle, each surmounted by a star, the two figures being separated by a cross. Underneath are the words, in characters half Greek, half Latin : —
NAGEOC IOHANNIS
On the other side, similarly disposed, are the heads of a lion and
1 It is curious to find Mr J. R. Allen, in a passage in which he actually refers to St Augustine ( Christian Symbolism, p. 265), affirming : " In the first instance the application of the symbolic beasts to the Four Evangelists was general . . . . but we have evidence in the Fathers of the fourth century of their being individualised. There appears, however, to have been a difference of opinion as to the appropriation of the symbols of St Matthew and St Mark, although there is none with regard to the other two Evangelists. " Like some other writers on the sub- ject, he appears to have been unaware of the passage in which Irenseus discusses the symbols.
2 For Irenaeus does not confine himself to observing the opening words of the Gospels. Of St Matthew he writes : ' ' Propter hoc et per totum euangelium humiliter sentiens et mitis homo seruatus est " ; and of St Mark, Sia rovro 5e icai (TVVTOIJ.OV Kdl Trapa,Tpfxov(rav T^V Karayy^\ia.v TreTro/rjTcu' 7rpo07jTt/c^s yap 6 xa.pa.K- r)jp OUTOS.
3 So Westcott appears to understand him, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 4th ed., p. 245, note 2.
4 P. M. Paciaudi, De Cultu S. Johannis Baptistae, etc., Rome, 1755, p. 162 ; Miinter, SinnUlder d. Alten Christen, Altona, 1825, i. p. 45 and pi. i. fig. 15. See also Louisa Twining, Symbols and Emblems of Early and Mediaeval Christian Arty London, 1852, p. 92 (pi. xlv. fig. 10); Did. of Christ. Ant., i. 634.
THE COLOPHON. 21
an ox, and beneath them T y n A s , wn^e to tne left of tne lion's
head is the letter V, and to the right of the ox's head the letter S. The designer of the coin, whoever he may have been, had not come under the influence of the great Italian doctor : his semi-Greek letters, and his adoption of the " Western " order of the Gospels, may suffice to produce conviction on that point. It is no less clear that he allotted the symbols to the evangelists in the way which received the imprimatur of Jerome and the later Western Church.
This, then, was probably the tradition which was imported into Ireland when St Patrick and his successors brought thither the pre-hieronymian Latin version of the Holy Scriptures. We shall not be held to make a very violent assumption if we suppose that in Ireland, in the days when this Old Latin version was still current, the symbols were represented in the Gospel books, placed each in immediate connection with its own Gospel. But since the order of the Gospels was then Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, the order of the symbols must have been Man, Eagle, Ox, Lion. Let us suggest another hypothesis, which may, perhaps, seem a little more daring. Suppose that a scribe copied his text from a Vulgate, and the illu- minator who completed his work copied his symbols (and it is certainly unlikely that they were, in the majority of cases, altogether original compositions) from an Old Latin exemplar, without observing the transposition in the text of the second and fourth Gospels. In such a case the result would be a manuscript in which the following order was presented : —
1. Miniature of a Man.
2. Gospel of St Matthew.
3. Miniature of an Eagle.
4. Gospel of St Mark.
5. Miniature of an Ox.
6. Gospel of St Luke.
7. Miniature of a Lion.
8. Gospel of St John.
The hypothesis, after all, scarcely deserves to be so called. This is, in fact, the order which obtains in the Book of Durrow.1 And I do not know what explanation of the fact can be given, except the one which I have ventured to suggest — that the text was taken from a manuscript with a Vulgate text (as it certainly was), and the
1 "These emblems of the evangelists," writes Bishop Westcott (Introduction to Study of Gospels, p. 245), "are not found [i.e., apparently in artistic repre- sentation] before the Mosaics of the 15th century." Can " 15th " be a misprint for " 5th " ? Otherwise the statement is incomprehensible. Representations are found in Biblical manuscripts such as the Book of Durrow, in metal work (e.g., the shrine of St Molaise's Gospels in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy), and in architectural ornament from the seventh century onwards, and perhaps from an earlier period. See Mrs Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, 7th ed. (1874), vol. i. p. 133; L. Twining, Symbols and Emblems, pp. 90, 92 ; Garrucci, Storia delV Arte Cristiana, vi. pi. 425.
22 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
illuminated pages from one with an Old Latin text. It might perhaps be thought that the explanation is rather to be found in the vagaries of a binder who has misplaced some of the leaves. But this is easily put out of court. The scribe- has left sufficient guid- ance for the binder, and it has been followed. On the recto of the leaf, the verso of which is occupied with the Lion, the words are written in vermilion: "Explicit euangelium saecundum Lucam, incipit saecundum iohannem." One thing is clear, and it strongly confirms our theory, that if the archetype of the Burrow text was an autograph of St Columba (or, indeed, of anyone else), executed in twelve days,1 that archetype could not have been adorned with elaborate pictorial representations. The illuminator must have gone elsewhere for suggestions. And why not to what may well have been near at hand, an Old Latin manuscript ? 2
It seems, moreover, quite clear that the Book of Durrow was no solitary example of the confusion between the symbols of St Mark and St John. It became, in the course of time, so common to place the Eagle before St Mark's Gospel, and the Lion before St John, that men forgot that this collocation had its root in a confusion. It came to be the accepted arrangement, with some at least, and reasons were given (quite as good, one doubts not, as those of Jerome for the other view) why the Lion was appropriate to St John, and the Eagle to St Mark.
Before giving proof of this assertion, we may remind our readers that in early Latin manuscripts are sometimes found verses in which the evangelists are commemorated in connection with their symbols. IS'ot the least common of these are the following, which were com- posed by Sedulius3 in the fifth century : —
Hoc Mattheus agens hominem generaliter implet, Marcus ut alta fremit uox per deserta leonis, Jura sacerdotis Lucas tenet ore iuuenci, More uolans aquilse uerbo petit astra loannes.
1 See Abbott, "On the Colophon of the Book of Durrow" (HermatJiena, viii. 199), above, p. 15.
2 A patriotic Scotsman, named John Forrest, published in the year 1701 an edition of the works of Sedulius, moved thereto apparently by the supposition that the author of the Carmen Paschale was Sedulius Scotus, and that the latter cognomen proved him to be a native of North Britain ! In one of his notes (p. 20) he declares, " Grseci Marco aquilam, loanni Leonem tribuunt," a state- ment which may suggest to those who are fond of referring everything in the early Irish Church to an Eastern source a different origin for the phenomena of the Book of Durrow from that which I have proposed. But no proof of the assertion is given, nor have I succeeded in finding any.
3 Carmen Paschale, i. 355-358. The lines are found in at least two British Museum MSS., Add. 11,848 (9th century) ; Cott. Tib., A. II. (early 10th century). We shall shortly have occasion to quote a similar set of verses from an Irish codex. Compare also those cited from the ' ' Gospels of Beneventum " below, p. 26. The verses are also inscribed on scrolls on an ancient baptistery at CiviJale, in Frioul (Garrucci, uU sup.). See also Ciainpini, Vetera Monimenta, Rome, 1690, i. p. 135.
THE COLOPHON. 23
It is quite obvious to remark that such verses are not likely to be found in any considerable number of manuscripts unless the tradition which they embody was of old standing and widespread.
And now, this inference being accepted, for our proof of the state- ment made on the last page. The verses just cited connect the evan- gelists and the symbols in the orthodox and approved fashion. But there are rival lines. About the same time that some of the manuscripts containing the verses of Sedulius just cited were written, an Irish scribe, MacRegol by name (said to have been an abbot of Birr, King's County, Ireland, f820), wrote a book which now rests on the shelves of the Bodleian Library (Auct. D. 2, 19). It is known as the Rush worth Gospels. MacRegol also gives us mnemonic lines on the symbols.1
Matheus instituit uirtutum tramite moras bene uiuendi iusto dedit ordine leges
Marcus amat terras inter celumque uolare et uehymens aquila stricto secat omnia labsu
Lucas uberius descripsit proelia christi
iure sacrato uitulus quia uatum moenia fatur
Johannis fremit ore leo similisque rudenti intonat intonate terne pandens misteria uite
We recognise at once a faulty transcript of lines, by some editors attributed to Juvencus, and printed as a first preface to his Historia Evangelical St Mark appears as the Eagle, St John as the Lion, in full agreement with the Book of Durrow. The lines can scarcely have been introduced in this Gospel book merely as an idle embel- lishment. They point rather to an actual tradition as to the arrangement of the symbols in ancient Irish manuscripts. And this tradition must have been of long standing in the early years of the ninth century. For let us notice that the tradition was, as far as MacRegol was concerned, already dead. There is nothing in the I(ushworth Gospels which corresponds to the lines, or which could have suggested their use. The portrait of St Mark is surmounted by a winged Lion,3 that of St John by an Eagle,4 and in the latter case, to make assurance doubly sure, the word "iohannis" is written across the figure. The Eagle appears once more in the decoration of the opening page of the fourth Gospel.
It was impossible that these verses should remain long unaltered in such alien surroundings. A century later we find their form slightly, but significantly, changed. The tenth century Irish Gospels
1 Gilbert, National MSB. of Ireland, Pt. i. pi. xxiv.
2 See above, p. 19, note 5.
3 Westwood, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, p. 54. * Ib., pi. xvi.
24 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
of MacDurnan are one of the treasures of Lambeth Palace Library. Here again the conventional symbols are represented. The first page of St Mark has an unmistakable Lion's head in the top right-hand corner of the decorated border,1 and another in the centre of the page, while on the verso of the last leaf of St Matthew " is the winged Lion, with head not unlike that of a sheep," as Mr Westwood informs us,2 These facts are conclusive, both as to the order of the Gospels, and as to the symbol assigned to each. Now over what was originally the outside leaf of the manuscript, another leaf is pasted, on which are written the following lines in a modern hand : —
Hoc Mattheus agens hominem generaliter implet Marcus ut alta fremit vox per deserta leonis Jura sacerdotis Lucas tenet ore juventi More volans aquile verbo petit astra Johannes Mattheus instituit virtutum tramite mores Et bene vivendi justo dedit ordine legem Marcus amat terras inter coelumque volare Atque volans aquila stricto secat omnia lapsu Lucas uberius describit prelia Christi Jure sacer vitulus qui menia fatur auita.
These verses Mr Westwood supposes to have been copied from the page over which they are pasted. And this seems highly probable, the more so as on the verso are found the four symbols to which they refer. Now let us look at them more closely. In the first four lines we have another copy of the verses of Sedulius. The last six are old friends. They are the lines ascribed to Juvencus which we have just now found in the Rush worth Gospels. But we observe one important difference. The final lines on St John have disappeared. What has become of them ? They were illegible, says Mr Westwood, in the exemplar from which our modern scribe copied, and which he has so carefully concealed from us.3 One is tempted to offer a different account of the matter. They were not written, we should say, by the seventeenth-century scribe, because they did not exist in the writing of his tenth-century predecessor. And why omitted by him ? Because they were distinctly at variance with the tradition which he held. When they were withdrawn, the lines, with a little forcing, were easily squared with the accepted view. Lions, as we know them, are not, it is true, accustomed " terras inter coelumque volare " : but what may not a winged lion of the very rare species found in Irish manu- scripts do ? Line 7, therefore, applies well enough to St Mark and his lion. Line 8 is excellent for St John. And so, by the omission of lines 11, 12, all is made right.
It may be urged that we have done violence to the seventh and
1 Westwood, Anglo-Saxon MSS., pi. xxii.
2 Pal. Sac., " Gospels of Maeiel Brith MacDurnan," p. 12.
8 Anglo-Saxon MSS., p. 69 ; Pal. Sac., " Gospels of Mseiel Brith MacDurnan,' p. 8.
THE COLOPHOX. 25
eighth lines hy giving them this strained interpretation. No doubt we have. But it is plain that, if the verses relating to St John were omitted, some strange method of interpretation must have "been used by those who regarded the remainder as a description of the four symbols. And that MacDurnan was not singular in giving them in this incomplete form we have sufficient proof. Witness the eighth century manuscript1 known as the Gospels of St Boniface, preserved at Fulda, in which they run as follows2 : —
Mathius instituit virtutum tramite mores, Et bene vivendi justo dedit ordine leges. Marcus amat terras inter coelumque volare. Et vehemens aquila stricto secat omnia laphsu. Jure sacer vitulus, qui habitat moenia Patris ; Lucas uberius describit proelia Christi.
It will not be maintained that in this manuscript, as well as in the Gospels of MacDurnan, the last two lines were omitted because they were illegible in the exemplar.
We may refer briefly, in the last place, to another manuscript, which contains the lines of Ps. - Juvencus, the celebrated Codex Sangermanensis.3 This Bible was not penned by an Irish scribe. It is French in origin, having been written, according to M. Berger, in the neighbourhood of Lyons. But manifold traces exist, in its Gospel text, of Irish influence. Possibly from an Irish source came the lines in question, which were, in all likelihood, in the exemplar, accompanied by drawings of the evangelical symbols. The manu- script itself is almost entirely devoid of ornament. The first four of our verses are found immediately before the opening words of St Mark's Gospel, the fifth and sixth before St Luke, the remaining two before St John. As in most of the other cases which we have examined, they are altered in such a way as to adapt them to the customary allocation of the symbols. But the process by which this
1 Mr H. J. White kindly informs me that, judging from Schannat's facsimile, this was probably the date of the codex. The scribe, Vidrug by name, was apparently a companion of St Boniface (f 755).
^ Schannat, Vindemiae Literariae Fuldae et Lipsise 1723 p. 224 sqq. West- wood (Anglo Saxon MSS. p. 55), who does not appear to have seen the manu- script, commits a curious blunder with reference to these lines. He implies that they occur twice in the Fulda Gospels, in slightly different forms. But the first set of verses which he quotes, are simply a mis-reading of the lines by Brower, which Schannat cites for the purpose of correcting it. Brower's punctuation (as Schannat represents it) is a proof that strained exegesis was not confined to Irish scribes :
Matheus, instituit virtutum tramite mores. Et bene vivendi justo dedit ordine leges Marcus. Amat terras inter coelumque volantem Joannes aquilam. Sancto regit omnia lapsu Lucas, uberius describit proelia Christi.
3 My knowledge of this manuscript (gl : Paris, B.N. 11,553) is derived from Bishop Wordsworth's Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. I., and from Berger's Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 65-72.
26 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
is accomplished is different from that which we have observed else- where. The names of the second and fourth evangelists are inter- changed, and the lines referring to them transposed, the verses being otherwise unaltered except by mistakes of the transcriber. These facts point to the inference that one of the Irish ancestors of the codex was a manuscript with the symbols arranged as in the Book of Durrow. That is to say, either its Gospels followed the Vulgate order, while the symbols adhered to that of the Old Latin, or, more probably, the order of the Gospels was " Western," that of the symbols Vulgate. The lines in the Saint Germain manuscript run as follows : —
Mattheus instituit uirtutum tramite mores Et bene uiuendi iusto dedit ordine legis
Marcus fremit ore leo similisque rudenti Intonaet eternae pandens misteria uitae
Lucas uberius describit proelia xpi
lure sacer uitulus quia uatum munia fatur
loannes amat terras intra caelumque uolare. Et uehemens aquila stricto secat omnia lapsu.1
The evidence passed under review will have demonstrated, if I mistake not, that at one time there must have existed a large number of Irish manuscripts in which, while the text followed the Vulgate order, the symbols adhered to that of the older versions. The old and the new sequence were thus brought into direct conflict. The conflict could only issue in one or other of three results.
1. The tradition as to the connection between the evangelists and their symbols might give way, and the accidental juxtaposition of St John with the Lion and St Mark with the Eagle become permanent, and be transformed into a new tradition. This, as we have seen, did to a certain extent actually happen.
1 I think it better to give in a footnote than in the text the apparently unique verses found in the so-called Gospels of Beneventum (century viii. or ix., Brit. Mus., Add. 5463). Whether or not M. Berger is right in his contention (UHistoire, p. 91 sq.} that this is a French codex, it is certain that it bears marks, in its readings, of Irish influence. The following lines, extracted from it, are plainly founded on those of Sedulius. But some of the words (I have printed them in italics) are not derived from this source. They are inappropriate as they stand, and bear witness, as I cannot doubt, to the influence of the rival theory of the symbols upon the scribe : —
Primus Mattheus hominem generaliter implens
Marcus leonis uocem rugiens intonans celse
lure Lucas tenet sacerdotii simulque more iuvenci
Johannes instar aquilse uolans in principio intonans uerbum.
" Rugiens intonans " in line 2 may, perhaps, recall "rugienti intonat " in Ps.- Juvencus ; the more readily since neither verb occurs in the lines of Sedulius.
THE COLOPHON. 27
2. The older tradition as to the appropriation of the symbols might remain. In this case it is natural to suppose that the order of the symbols would give way to that of the Gospels themselves, and so there would ensue a complete victory for the Vulgate. This we know to have taken place in the great majority of Irish Gospel manuscripts now remaining. But another alternative is possible, though less probable. For
3. The order of the Gospels might have been altered to suit that of the symbols, and thus, so far as arrangement is concerned, the victory would lie with the Old Latin. This possibility is sufficient to make us pause before assuming without examination that the order of the Gospels in a given Irish manuscript is identical with that of Jerome's Vulgate.
But an objection may be made. If the arrangement of the Book of Durrow was not altogether exceptional, why is this copy the only one now known in which it is found 1 And if the possibility just suggested is one that ought seriously to be reckoned with, why has no single Irish Vulgate manuscript been reported in which the Gospels follow the older sequence ?
In answering these questions, let us call to mind that very few indeed of the extant Irish manuscripts date further back than the ninth or perhaps the eighth century. The Book of Durrow is the earliest which we possess, and can scarcely be put later than the closing years of the seventh century.1 In other words, all other copies belong to a period when the victory for the Vulgate had been practically won. The strange thing really is, that traces of the con- test should remain in their pages even so late as the tenth century. Had we a few more Vulgate manuscripts ranging from the sixth to the eighth century, we should probably find others exhibiting the same phenomenon in the matter of the symbols as the Book of Durrow.
But even late copies are not without traces of the older arrange- ment in their illuminations. We may be allowed to mention two cases in point. Wattenbach describes a copy of the Gospels now deposited in the German museum at Nuremberg, but belonging to the library of the Princes of Oettingen-Wallerstein at Mottingen.2 It is written in half-uncials of unmistakably Irish character, and is ascribed by Wattenbach to the seventh, if not to the sixth, century.3 Now the last page of this manuscript has, above the versified colophon, a rude miniature of a lion, surmounted by the words (probably a more recent addition), " Ecce leo stat super euangelium." It does not appear from the description whether St John's Gospel ends on this or the preceding page. But in either case the picture
1 Scrivener, Introduction to Criticism of N. T., 4th ed., ii. 78 ; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 41.
2 Wattenbach's account of this manuscript appeared in the Anzeigerfur Kunde des Deutschen Vorzeit (Oct. 1869), and in the Revue Celtique, i, p. 27 sqq.
3 The reader may perhaps suspect that this date is somewhat too early.
28 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
may be assumed to be connected with that Gospel, and to be a reminiscence of the days when the lion was regarded as the ap- propriate symbol of St John. And this, although in the Mottingen MS. the Gospels follow the now usual order, and although inscribed on the verso of the first leaf it has verses which begin thus : —
Quam in speciosa quadriga, Homo, leo, vitulus et aquila.
Our second example shall be an early ninth-century manuscript first made known to students of the Vulgate by M. Samuel Berger,1 the Book of the Confraternities of Pfaffers. It contains extracts from the Gospels, for reading in the ecclesiastical offices, in an Irish text. The ornamentation is also in part Irish. Each Gospel has its symbol, but the Lion of St Mark is distinguished by having two eagles below it. It is right to add, however, that the origin of these eagles may be merely the fancy of an illuminator desirous of producing a page more richly adorned than usual. The Calf of St Luke, for example, has in like manner below it two lions ; and the symbols of all four evangelists are surmounted 'by figures of animals which have no appearance of being symbolic.
But further, if most of our copies were probably written not before the eighth century, they have certainly all been bound at a more recent date.2 And binders have little scruple in following their own whims as to the arrangement of the leaves of the books which are left to their mercy. The binders of our Irish codices knew no order of the Gospels, and no system of arranging the symbols, but one : and we need scarcely doubt that in their hands the manuscripts would, as far as possible, be made to suit it. Not much ingenuity would be required if the several Gospels were written in separate fasciculi and the symbols on detached leaves, one side of which was left blank. This may possibly have been not so uncommon as one might imagine.3
And finally, if scribes and binders were biassed by the tradition of later centuries, no less so are modern paleographers. There is scarcely any instance in which the " make-up " of Irish manuscripts, of which descriptions have been published, has been examined with care, in order to discover whether the binder has adhered to the intention of the original scribe as to the order of the books and the position of the illuminated symbols. And even where the arrange- ment as it now exists is exceptional, the prevailing tradition has been strong enough to blind the eyes of observers to the anomaly. To take but one instance. Mr Westwood no doubt examined the Book of Durrow with much care. Yet in his Palxographia, Sacra, though he refers to the symbols, he never mentions that they are
1 ISHistoire de la Vulgate, pp. 57 sq., 419.
2 " Les anciens Irlandais ne paraissent pas avoir connu 1'art de la reliure," Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 34.
s See above, p. 13.
THE COLOPHON. 29
misplaced. In his Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts he goes further. The symbol which in the manuscript precedes St John is spoken of (p. 21) as the "Lion of St Mark,"1 and when (pis. iv., v.) reproduc- tions are given of the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, the two former are described as the " symbols of St Matthew and St Mark,'' the two latter as those " of St Luke and St John" This is a warning not to accept, without examination, the statements of palaeographers on such matters as those which are now before us. We may well suspect that a more careful scrutiny will bring to light in our libraries Irish Gospels, in which the order of either symbols or evangelists is different from that which is now received.
But some who have followed me thus far may now protest, You have caused us to wade through pages of argument, and at the end we are treated to an exhortation to caution and accuracy, which has no very close relation to the Book of Mulling. Benevolent reader, the charge is true. I crave pardon, and hasten to another subject whose relevance is indubitable. That the labour expended on the last few pages has not been altogether in vain may perhaps appear in the sequel.
1 Compare also J. Romilly Allen, Early Christian Symbolism in Great Britain and Ireland before the Thirteenth Century, London, 1887, p. 383.
30 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
CHAPTEE III.
THE SECTIONS.
M. BERGER has more than once 1 directed the attention of students of the Vulgate to the importance of certain accessories to the Biblical text found in many manuscripts. Among these are what he calls the " Summaries " (sonimaires) of the Gospels, more usually known as capitula or breves causce, which appear to have taken their origin in very early times from the lectionary system of the Western Church.
The Book of Mulling has no summaries. But in it the Synoptic Gospels, and to a certain extent St John also, are divided as originally written 2 into paragraphs or sections. It is the purpose of the present chapter to investigate the nature of these sections. The inquiry may be thought to be trivial ; and to remove this impression it will be well to state at once the conclusion to which it leads us in the case of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke. The sections of these Gospels are not mere arbitrary divisions of the scribe : they will be found to have been, at least approximately, reproduced by him from his exemplar, and to correspond pretty closely to the divisions marked in the Book of Durrow and Ussher's manuscript, which in the main agree with the capitulatio of the Gospels pre- served in the Books of Durrow and Kells, and elsewhere.
The easiest way to make good this assertion in the case of St Luke's Gospel is to place in parallel columns the beginnings of the sections in the Books of Mulling and Durrow and Ussher's Codex. The striking agreement between the three systems of division will thus immediately appear. Only those sections of the Book of Durrow which are numbered are represented in the table, and each is accom- panied by the number which appears opposite it in the manuscript — similarly the numbers in Ussher's manuscript are added whenever they are legible.3 In the left column are given the numbers of the
1 Revue Celtique, vi. 356 ; ISHistoire de la Vulgate, pp. 307 sqq., 343 sqq.
2 The corrector of the manuscript has adopted a different system of division, as we shall see hereafter. With this we are not concerned in the present chapter.
3 The numbers given are those of the first hand. They have been altered by a corrector as follows. The indication of the beginning of the section (iii. 1) which should have been numbered v. was omitted. Hence two consecutive sections were numbered respectively iv. and vi. This had the appearance of a blunder, which was remedied by depressing the sectional numbers above vi. (not apparently, however, vi. itself) by one. Similarly §§ 9, 10 were written together, the next section being numbered xi. Hence the numbers from xi. onwards were depressed by two. A
THE SECTIONS.
31
corresponding capitula as found in the summary in the Book of Durrow. The explanation of the asterisks and obeli I reserve for the present. The table, it is hoped, independently of its more immediate purpose, may prove useful to those who are engaged in studying the ancient sections of the Gospels.
|
CAPITULA. |
BOOK OP MULLING. |
BOOK OF BURROW. |
CODEX USSERIANUS. |
|
[I.] |
*i. 1. |
i. i. |
|
|
*i. 5. |
i. 5. |
||
|
i. 19 |
|||
|
ti. 20 |
|||
|
i. 23 |
|||
|
ti. 34 |
|||
|
i. 46 |
|||
|
/ |
i. 56. |
||
|
i |
i. 59. |
||
|
II. -c |
ti. 68. |
||
|
( |
*ii. 1. |
I[L] (? ms.) ii. 1. |
|
|
III. | |
*ii. 21. ii. 25. |
ii. 21. |
|
|
ii. 36. |
|||
|
ii. 38. |
|||
|
IIII. |
IIII. ii. 42. |
IIII. (ms.) ii. 42. ii. 43. "Et dixit" (?) |
|
|
V. |
*iii. 1. |
V. iii. 1. |
|
|
iii. 3. |
|||
|
iii. 7. |
|||
|
iii. 10. |
|||
|
t'iii. 16. " Ego." |
|||
|
t iii. 17. |
|||
|
iii. 19. |
|||
|
VI. |
*iii. 21. |
VI. iii. 21. |
VI. iii. 21. |
|
* iv. 1. |
iv. 1. |
||
|
iv. 14. |
|||
|
VII. |
*iv. 16. iv. 22. |
VII. iv. 16. |
VII. iv. 16. |
|
VIII. { |
* iv. 33. |
VIII. iv. 33. |
VIII. iv. 31. |
|
iv. 38. |
|||
|
iv. 41. |
|||
|
iv. 42. |
|||
|
VIIII. |
*v 1. |
VIIII. v. 1. |
VIIII. v. 1. |
|
v 4. |
|||
|
v 10. " Et dixit." |
|||
|
X. |
*v 12. |
||
|
v 15. |
|||
|
XI. |
*v 17. |
XI. v. 17. |
XI. v. 17. |
|
v 18. |
|||
|
XII. |
*v 27. ,. 0*3 |
XII. v. 27. |
v. 27. |
|
XIII. |
V rfO. *vi. 1. |
XIII. vi. 1. |
XIII. vi. 1. |
|
XIIII. |
* vi. 6. |
||
|
XV. |
XIIII. vi. 13. |
vi. 12. |
|
|
tvi. 20. "Beati." |
|||
|
t vi. 21. |
|||
|
tvi. 21. "Beati"sec. |
|||
|
t vi. 22. |
|||
|
XVI. | |
vi. 39. |
XV. vi. 41. |
XV. vi. 41. |
|
XVII. |
* vii. 1. |
XVI. vii. 1. |
|
|
tvii. 9. "Amen." |
|||
|
XVIII. |
XVII. vii. 11. |
XVII. vii. 11. |
|
|
XVIIII. |
XVIII. vii. 18. |
XVIII. vii. 19. |
|
|
t vii. 28. |
|||
|
vii. 31. |
|||
|
XX. |
* vii. 36. |
XVIIII. vii. 36. |
XVIIII. vii. 36. |
few numbers seem to have been overlooked by the corrector, and in at least two instances three instead of two has been subtracted (Abbott, pp. 603, 613). Dr Abbott's account of this, though substantially correct, is expressed in terms some- what too general (p. iv).
32
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
|
CAPITULA. |
BOOK OF MULLING. |
BOOK OP BURROW. |
CODEX USSERIANUS. |
|
XXI. | |
* viii. i. viii. 4. |
XX. viii. 1. |
XX. viii. 1. |
|
viii. 11. |
|||
|
viii. 16. |
|||
|
XXII. |
*viii. 22. |
XXI. viii. 22. |
XXI. viii. 22. |
|
XXIII. |
viii. 32. |
XXII. viii. 26. |
XXII. viii. 26. |
|
viii. 37. "ipse." |
|||
|
XXIIII. |
* viii. 40. |
XXIII. viii. 40. |
XXIII. viii. 40. |
|
viii. 42. " Et." |
|||
|
XXV. |
XXIIII. ix. 1. |
X[XIIII.] ix. 1. |
|
|
ix. 6. |
|||
|
XXVI. |
ix. 12. |
XXV. ix. 10. |
XXV. ix. 10. |
|
XXVII. |
* ix. 18. |
XXVI. ix. 18. |
|
|
ix. 21.1 |
|||
|
XXVI. ix. 28. |
|||
|
ix. 33. |
|||
|
* ix. 37. |
XXVII. ix. 37. |
XX[VII]. ix. 37. |
|
|
XXVIII. |
XXVIII. ix. 51. |
XXVIII. ix. 51. |
|
|
XXVIIII. |
* ix. 57. |
XXVIIII. ix. 57. |
XXVIIII. ix. 57. |
|
XXX. |
XXX. x. 1. |
x. 1.2 |
|
|
tx. 7. "Dignus." |
|||
|
x. 10. |
|||
|
x. 16. |
|||
|
XXXI. |
*x. 17. |
XXXI. x. 17. |
|
|
XXXI. x. 21. |
|||
|
XXXII. |
*x. 25. |
XXXII. x. 25. |
XXXII. x. 25. |
|
Tx. 28. |
|||
|
x. 31. |
|||
|
XXXIII. |
*x. 38. |
XXXIII. x. 38. |
x. 38. |
|
XXXIIII. |
*xi. 2. "Pater." |
XXXIIII. xi. 1. |
XXXIIII. xi. 1. |
|
xi. 5. |
|||
|
xi. 9. |
|||
|
XXXV. / |
xi. 11. |
||
|
i |
XXXV. xi. 14. |
XXXV. xi. 14. |
|
|
XXXVI. |
*xi. 27. |
XXXVI. xi. 27. |
|
|
XXXVII. |
xi. 35. |
XXXVI. xi. 37. |
XXXVII. xi. 37. |
|
XXXVIII. |
xi. 43. |
||
|
*xi. 44. |
|||
|
XXXVIIII. |
*xi. 53. |
XXXVIIII. xi. 53. |
|
|
xii. 4. |
|||
|
xii. 8.3 |
|||
|
xii. 11. |
|||
|
X[L]. { |
xii. 15. xii. 16. |
XL. xii. 13. |
XL. xii. 13. |
|
XLI. |
*xii. 22. |
||
|
xii. 27. |
|||
|
XXXVIII. (sic ms. |
XLI. xii. 32. |
||
|
xii. 40.4 |
[xii. 32 |
||
|
XLII. a. |
* xii. 49. |
XLII. xii. 49. |
|
|
xii. 54. |
|||
|
t xii. 56. |
|||
|
XLIII. |
XLIII. xiii. 1. |
||
|
XLII. b. (xiii. 6). |
* xiii. 6. |
||
|
fxiii. 7. "Etecce." |
|||
|
XLIIII. |
*xiii. 10. |
XLIIII. xiii. 10. |
XLIIII. xiii. 10. |
|
xiii. 18.5 |
|||
|
XLV. |
XLV. xiii. 22. |
XLV. xiii. 22. |
|
|
t xiii. 28. "uos." |
|||
|
XLVI. |
*xiii. 30. |
XLVI. xiii. 31. |
|
|
XIVII. |
*xiv. 1. |
XLVI. (ms.) xiv. 1. |
XLVII. xiv. 1. |
|
xiv. 12.6 |
|||
|
XLVIII. |
*xiv. 25. |
XLVIII. xiv. 25. |
XLVIII. xiv. 25. |
|
xiv. 34 (?). |
|||
|
XLVIIII. |
*xv. 1. |
XLVIIII. xv. 1. |
XLVIIII. xv. 1. |
|
xv. 4 (?). |
|||
|
fxv. 6. "Congratu |
|||
|
lamini " (?). |
|||
|
L. |
*xv. 11. |
L. xv. 11. |
XV. 11. |
|
xv. 20. "Cum au- |
|||
|
xv. 29. [tern." |
1 AT
Apparently a iresn capitulum begins here (or at v. V6) in tne HOOK or Armagn.
This division does not appear in Dr Abbott's edition. But above the word "hsec" in what he numbers 1. 1 (p. 497) are distinctly visible the marks , , , indicating the termination of one and the commencement of another section.
3 Apparently the beginning of a capitulum in the Codex Epternacensis.
4 A capitulum begins here in the Codex Aureus.
5 Begins a fresh section in the Codex Epternacensis.
6 Beginning of a fresh capitulum in the Book of Armagh and the Codex Epternacensis.
THE SECTIONS.
33
|
CAPITULA. |
BOOK OP MULLING. |
BOOK OF BURROW. |
CODEX USSERIANUS. |
|
LI. |
*xvi. l. |
LI. xvi. i. |
LI. xvi. 1. |
|
LII. |
* xvi. 13. |
LII. xvi. 13. |
LII. xvi. 13. |
|
T TTT |
xvi. 14. |
||
|
-LIII. |
*xvi. 19. |
LIII. xvi. 19. |
LIII. xvi. 19. |
|
txvii. 1 " U»." |
|||
|
LIIII. |
* xvii. 3. |
LIIII. xvii. 3. |
LIIII. xvii. 3. "Si |
|
txvii. 8 " Et post." |
autem peccauerit." |
||
|
LV. |
* xvii. 11. |
LV. xvii. 11. |
LV. xvii. 11. |
|
LVL |
*xvii. 20. |
LVI. xvii. 20. |
LVI. xvii. 20. |
|
xvii. 28.1 |
|||
|
xvii. 34. |
|||
|
LVII. |
* xviii. l. |
LVII. xviii. 1. |
LVII. xviii. 1. |
|
LVIII. |
* xviii. 9. |
LVIII. xviii. 9. |
LVII[I]. xviii. 9. |
|
xviii. 15. |
|||
|
t xviii. 17. |
|||
|
LVIIIL |
* xviii. 18. |
LVIIIL xviii. 18. |
|
|
"Magister." |
|||
|
xviii. 23. |
|||
|
* xviii. 31. |
LX. xviii. 31. |
LX. xviii. 81. |
|
|
xviii. 34. |
|||
|
LX. |
* xviii. 35. |
||
|
LXI. |
*xix. l. |
LXI. xix. 1. |
LXI. xix. 1. |
|
LXII. |
*xix. il. xix. 12. |
LXII. xix. 11. |
LXII. xix. 11. |
|
txix. 26. |
|||
|
LXIII. |
*xix. 28. |
LXIII. xix. 28. |
LXIII. xix. 29. |
|
xix. 37. |
|||
|
LXIIII. |
*xx. 1. |
LXIIII. xx. 1. |
LXIIII. xx. 1. |
|
LXV. |
*xx. 9. |
LXV. xx. 9. |
LXV. xx. 9. |
|
txx. 13. |
|||
|
LXVI. |
LXVI. xx. 20. |
LXVI. xx. 20. |
|
|
LXVII. |
*xx. 27. |
LXVII. xx. 27. |
LXVII. xx. 27. |
|
LXVIII. LXVIIII. | |
*xx. 46. xxi. 7. |
LXVIII. xx. 45 (ms.). LXVIIII. xxi. 5. |
LXVIII. xx. 45. LXVIIII. xxi. 5. |
|
LXX. | |
xxi. 23. |
LXX. xxi. 20. |
LXX. xxi. 20. |
|
LXXI. |
xxi. 34. *xxi. 37 |
LXXI. xxi. 37. |
|
|
LXXII. |
*xxii. 7. |
LXXII. xxii. 7. |
LXXII. xxii. 7. |
|
*xxii. 24. |
LXXIII. xxii. 24. |
LXXIII. xxii. 24. |
|
|
LXXIII. |
*xxii. 31. |
LXXIIII. xxii. 31. |
LXXIIII. xxii. 31. |
|
[LXXIIII.] |
*xxii. 39. |
LXXV. xxii. 39. |
LXX[V]. xxii. 39. |
|
[LXXV.l LXXVI. |
*xxii. 47. |
LXXVI. xxii. 47. LXXVII. xxii. 66. |
xxii. 47 (?). LXXVII. xxii. 66. |
|
( |
xxiii. 17. |
||
|
LXXVII. J |
* xxiii. 26. |
LXXVIII. xxiii. 26. |
LXXVIII. xxiii. 26. |
|
( |
xxiii. 34. |
||
|
xxiii. 38. |
|||
|
( |
xxiii. 44. |
||
|
xxiii. 47. |
|||
|
LXXVIIII. (sic). \ |
*xxiv. 1. xxiv. 10. |
xxiv. 1 (?). |
|
|
xxiv. 12. |
|||
|
\ |
xxiv. 13. |
||
|
xxiv. 36. |
|||
|
xxiv. 50. |
In the above table an obelus (f) indicates that though the place thus signalised has indications which generally betoken the beginning of a section (i.e. in most cases a large letter, sometimes set out in the margin, and preceded by a mark of punctuation), it is yet not so to be regarded. The large letters, etc., in such places are obviously due to the fancy of our scribe, or of the writer of a manuscript from which his is derived. He shows, for example, his fondness for symmetrical
1 Either this verse, or verse 34, seems to be the first of a fresh capitulum in the Book of Armagh and the Codex Epternacensis.
C
34 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
writing at vi. 20-22, he exhibits elsewhere a propensity to write such words as "dixit," "dicebat," etc., in the margin without any apparent purpose (xix. 26, etc.), and he is prone to give similar promin- ence to " Et ecce " (v. 18. xiii. 7). With more reason he de- taches a remarkable saying (i. 68. iii. 16, etc.) or even a portion of a saying to which he wishes to give emphasis (xii. 56, etc.) from the context by writing the first letter in the margin. Omitting all such cases we have not more than 142 sections in St Luke's Gospel. Of these, 65 begin at the same places (or within a verse thereof) as sections of durm or rlt or are distinctly supported in opposition to these manuscripts by the summary. These are marked with aster- isks (*). In 6 other places mull, differing from durm and rv is consistent with the summary (vi. 39, ix. 12, xi. 11, 35, xii. 15, xxi. 7).1 These 71 sections are all satisfactorily explained on the supposition that mull was copied from an exemplar having divisions similar to rx and durm. We come now to consider some cases which might be held to point in another direction.
There are in the first place divisions omitted in mull (vi. 12, vii. 11, ix. 51, x. 1, xiii. 22, xx. 202). These omissions, numerous though they be, need not surprise us, for similar omissions are frequent in durm, and occur also in rlt as is proved by the numbers 3 or by comparison with the other authorities (iii. 1, v. 12, vi. 6, ix. 18, xviii. 35), and perhaps also in the summary (ix. 37, xviii. 31, xxii. 24). In other cases we cannot be sure whether a division has been omitted, or wrongly placed (ii. 38, vii. 31, ix. 6) : but if we may trust the summary, misplacements are met with also in rx (ix. 28, xii. 32). On the whole we may say that the sectional divisions of durm and rv reappear in mull as accurately as could be expected on the supposition that the latter is copied, or descended from an exemplar in which these sections were preserved. There remain, however, about 50 or 60 divisions to which nothing corresponds in the other manuscripts. What is to be said of these ? They will be found in almost all cases to be perfectly natural divisions of the text, a good many of them being in fact marked as paragraphs in printed editions. Some may correspond to sections the indication of which has been omitted in the other authorities, for all alike have been shown to be guilty of omissions.4 Some again may be accounted for by the ambiguity of the summary, which now and then leaves it uncertain at which of two or more places a section is intended to begin. Our scribe in such cases may combine the testimony of
1 A vinculum connecting two or more references indicates that the summary leaves it uncertain at which of these places the section was intended to begin.
2 The capitulum (66) which begins at this verse is, however, part of the preceding in the summary in the Book of Armagh and the Codex Epternacensis, as in our manuscript.
s See above p. 30 note 3.
4 Such may be the paragraphs beginning at ix. 21, xii. 8, 40, xiii. 18, xiv. 12, xvii. 28. See above.
THE SECTIONS. 35
several witnesses. See for example ii. 21, 25 ; xi. 11, 14 ; xii. 13, 15, 16 ; xix. 11, 12 ; xxi. 34, 37 ; xxiii. 17, 26, 34. But probably the majority are to be regarded as sub-divisions of the sections,1 due either to our scribe or to the scribe of his archetype. It will be observed, as might be expected, that these extra divisions are most numerous where the older sections are longest, that is, at the begin- ning and end of the Gospel. At these places also, the indications in the summary are unusually ambiguous and inadequate.
A good illustration of the way in which extra sections would have appeared and some divisions been omitted in a manuscript written as we suppose the Book of Mulling to have been, is found in the case of the Codex Sangermanensis (g^. The Gospel according to St Matthew in this manuscript is divided into 74 numbered sections,2 which are further sub-divided. The first words of each section are written in uncial rubric, and in the case of all but two (60, 61) the beginnings of the sections are the beginnings of paragraphs. There are in all about 163 paragraphs. Now if a transcript were made from this manuscript, preserving with absolute fidelity its divisions, but with the numbers omitted and the uncial writing copied in the ordinary hand of the scribe, two of the sectional division marks would be omitted, and there would be left no less than 9 1 indications of division not corresponding to recognised capitula — quite as large a proportion as we actually find in Mulling's St Luke. If the fancy or the stupidity of the copyist were exercised, the proportion would of course be still further increased. The Gospel of St Luke, in fact, in our book would appear to have been copied by a careful scribe from an archetype in which the sections were given less accurately than in glt while the sub-divisions were less numerous.
The evidence in the case of St Matthew's Gospel for the connection of the sections of the Book of Mulling with the ancient divisions is exactly parallel to that just given for St Luke.
In the following table will be found marked the beginning of each section of the first Gospel in our book. Durm and rx being almost useless here for our purpose, I have had recourse to the Codex Sangermanensis (g^). This manuscript contains a " capitulatio " and the corresponding sections are indicated in the text of the Gospels. The numbers to the left are those found in the text and capitulatio of the St Germain manuscript. In some cases our book agrees with the text of this codex against the capitulatio : this is indicated by the letters marg., enclosed in brackets after the numeral. At other times a section in the Book of Mulling is consistent with the sum- mary, but at variance with the marginal number in gv When this happens the letters (cap.) are added. In some instances of this kind the summary and the text of gl contradict one another. Finally it
1 Many of them are mentioned as separate headings in the Capitula. Kg., ii. 36, v. 36, xi. 5, 9, xii. 27, xiv. 12, 34, xviii. 15, xxiii. 34, xxiv. 13, 50.
2 The numeral has in one case (§ 60) been accidentally omitted.
36
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
happens pretty frequently that our manuscript has two marks of division either of which would accord with the commencement of the section as described in the summary. This is marked by the use of a vinculum. Thus, for example, a division is marked in our book at vii. 7, and again at vii. 13. Either of these may be the beginning of § 16 according to the capitulatio, though in the text of gl the corresponding numeral is found at the latter place.
|
CODEX SANGER- MANENSIS. |
BOOK OP MULLING. |
CODEX SANGER- MANENSIS. |
|
|
[I. (marg.)]. |
i. |
1. |
XXXIIII. |
|
I. (cap). |
i. |
18. |
XXXV. |
|
II. |
ii. |
1. |
XXXVI. |
|
III. (cap). |
ii. |
17. |
XXXVII. |
|
IIII. |
iii. |
1. |
XXXVIII. |
|
iii. |
5. |
XXXVIIII. |
|
|
iii. |
10 " Om- |
XL. |
|
|
nis." |
|||
|
V. |
iv. |
1. |
|
|
iv. |
5(?). |
||
|
VII. |
iv. |
17. |
XLII. |
|
iv. |
21. |
||
|
iv. |
23. ) |
XLIII. |
|
|
VIII. |
V. |
1- J |
|
|
tv. |
3-10.1 |
||
|
V. |
13. |
XLVI. |
|
|
V. |
14. |
||
|
V. |
21. > |
XLVII. |
|
|
X. |
V. |
26(?>. ; |
XLVIII. |
|
XI. |
V. |
44. |
|
|
XII. |
vi. |
2. |
LI. |
|
tvi. |
9 "Pater." |
LII. |
|
|
tvi. |
14. |
||
|
XIII |
vi. |
16. |
LIII. |
|
vi. |
23. |
||
|
xim. |
vi. |
24. |
LIIII. |
|
XV. |
vii. |
3. |
LV. |
|
vii. |
7. \ |
LVI. |
|
|
XVI. |
vii. |
13. |
|
|
XVII. |
vii. |
21. |
|
|
XVIII. |
vii. |
28. \ |
LVII. |
|
vii. vii. |
29 (?). 29 " Noil V |
LVII. (marg.). LVIII. |
|
|
enim"(?). I |
LVIIII. |
||
|
viii. |
1 (?)• ) |
LX.4 |
|
|
XVIIII. |
viii. |
6. |
LXI. |
|
tviii. |
11 (?). |
||
|
XX. |
viii. |
14 |
LXII. |
|
XXI. |
viii. |
18. |
|
|
viii. |
23.2 |
LXIII. |
|
|
XXII. |
viii. |
28 (?). |
LXIIII. |
|
XXIII. |
ix. |
2 "Et |
LXV. |
|
uidens." |
XLVI. |
||
|
XXIIII. |
ix. |
10. |
LXVIII. |
|
XXV. |
ix. |
14. |
|
|
XXVII. |
ix. |
27. |
LXVIIII. |
|
XXVIII. |
ix. |
35. |
|
|
X. |
5. |
LXX. |
|
|
X. |
16. \ |
LXXI. |
|
|
YYT |
X. |
23. } |
LXXII. |
|
X. |
25 "Et si |
LXXIII.5 |
|
|
patrem" (?). |
|||
|
XXXI. (cap). |
X. |
34. |
|
|
XXXII. |
xi. |
1. |
|
|
txi. |
10"Ecce." |
LXXIIII. |
|
|
XXXIII. |
xi. |
16. \ |
|
|
xi. |
20. ) |
BOOK OP MULLING.
|
xi. |
25. |
|
xii. |
1. |
|
xii. |
9. |
|
xii. |
38. |
|
xii. |
46. |
|
xiii. |
1. |
|
xiii. |
24. |
|
xiii. |
31. |
|
xiii. |
33 (?). |
|
xiii. |
36. |
|
xiii. |
53. \ |
|
xiv. |
1- 1 |
|
xiv. |
23 " Ues- |
|
pere." |
|
|
XV. |
15. |
|
XV. |
21 (?). |
|
XV. XV. |
32! |
|
xvi. |
13. |
|
xvii. |
|
|
xvii. |
24. " f |
|
xviii. |
1. |
|
xviii. |
8. |
|
xviii. |
15, |
|
xviii. |
19. |
|
xviii. |
23. |
|
xix. |
1. |
|
xix. |
13. |
|
xix. |
16.3 |
|
xix. |
22. |
|
xix. |
27. |
|
XX. |
1. |
|
XX. |
17. |
|
XX. |
29. |
|
xxi. |
l"Tunc." |
|
xxi. |
17. |
|
xxi. |
23 (?). |
|
xxi. |
33 |
|
xxii. |
11. |
|
xxii. |
15. |
|
xxii. |
23. |
|
xxiii. |
1. |
|
xxiii. |
13. |
|
xxiv. |
1. |
|
xxiv. |
14 (?). |
|
XXV |
1. |
|
XXV. |
30 (?). ) |
|
XXV. |
31. |
|
xxvi. |
1. |
|
xxvi. |
17. |
|
xxvi. |
31. |
|
xxvii. |
11. |
|
xxvii. |
45. |
|
xxvii. |
62. \ |
|
xx viii. |
1. / |
|
xxviii. |
16. |
1 First letter of "beatus " always written as if beginning a section. .
2 A capitulum begins here in the Codex Epternacensis.
3 This, rather than xix. 13, is probably the true beginning of the section. See the authori- ties in Wordsworth's Vulgate, i. 33.
4 The numeral is omitted in margin.
5 Numbered Ixxii. in margin by an error.
THE SECTIONS. 37
This table seems to need little comment. It does not appear to leave room for doubting that the divisions of our manuscript were ultimately founded on those represented in the summary and text of gv A good many of the ancient divisions are indeed omitted or misplaced (6, 9, 26, 29, 41, 44, 45, 49, 50, 67), but the coincidence of those which remain with the sections of gl is most marked.
It is worth while to remark that, whether the arguments just used are sound or not, it is quite certain that the divisions of St Matthew and St Luke in our manuscript have nothing to do with the Eusebian sections. These number 324 in St Luke, Mulling's paragraphs are about 160, and only about 100 of them begin at the same point as a Eusebian section. In St Matthew the number of paragraphs is less than 110, the Eusebian sections 355. The beginning of paragraph and section coincide in about 60 places.
When we turn to St Mark we discover that all is changed. This Gospel was most undoubtedly derived from an exemplar in which the principle of division was that of Eusebius. The proof is easy. The Eusebian sections marked in the first ten chapters of St Mark in Tischendorfs edition of the Codex Amiatinus are 116 in number. Of these at least 97 (more probably 102), coincide with Mulling's paragraphs, not more than 11 (probably 6) are omitted, and 6 are differently placed, while no sub-divisions are discernible. It is diffi- cult to fix the numbers exactly, owing to the worn state of the manuscript, but those which I have given may be regarded as very nearly exact, and they tell their own tale.
It seems almost impossible to find order or system in the numer- ous divisions of St John. But punctuation marks (usually one or two points, . or . . ) which elsewhere are used sparingly, are here so frequent, and capitals are used in such arbitrary fashion, that one is led to surmise that the text of this Gospel had as a not very remote ancestor a copy written per cola et commata. We may take as an example chap. xxi. vv. 19-23, which appear thus (the vertical lines indicating the ends of the lines of writing) : —
Hoc hautem dixit significans qua morte clari | ficaturus esset deum. et hoc cum dixis | set. dicit ei.sequere me* conuersus | petrus uidit.1 ilium discipulum quern dilegebat. ihs | sequentem qui recubuit in coena | supra pectus eius. et dicit quis domine | qui tradit t^ . . Hunc ergo cum uidisset petrus dicit ihu Domine | quid hie Dicit ei ihs Sic eum uolo | manere donee ueniam quid ad to" | tii me* sequeris exiuit ergo sermo iste | inter fratres quia discipulus ille | non moriretur Sed sic uolo ma | nere donee ueniam. quid ad t^ | Hie etc.
Better passages than this might have been chosen for exhibiting the punctuation of the manuscript. One reason for preferring this one will appear presently. We see at once that the scribe copied the marks mechanically from his exemplar, omitting some — and these not the least important from the point of view of the reader. Assuming
1 The point here is doubtful.
38 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
that each of those which he preserves represents the close, and each capital letter the beginning, of a line, and guessing where such guid- ance is not forthcoming, we may write the passage " stichometrically " as follows : —
Hoc hautem dixit
significans qua morte clarificaturus esset deum
et hoc cum dixisset
dicit ei
sequere me
conuersus petrus uidit ilium discipulum
quern dilegebat ihs
sequentem
qui recubuit in coena supra pectus eius
et dicit
quis domine qui tradit te
Hunc ergo cum uidisset petrus
dicit ihu
Domine quid hie
Dicit ei ihs
Sic eum uolo manere donee ueniam
quid ad te
tu me sequeris
exiuit ergo sermo iste inter fratres
quia discipulus ille non moriretur
Sed sic uolo manere donee veniam
quid ad te
Hie, etc.
We perceive that the marks have guided us correctly (except in one case) in the few places where they occur. We may now point out another fact. The scribe has omitted a few words before " sed sic uolo." We may suppose them to have run
et non dixit illud ihs quia non moriretur,
and to have been passed over through homosoteleuton. They would naturally form a single line (or perhaps two complete lines) of the exemplar, if it was written as I have supposed ; and so the error would be completely explained.
This is indeed only one of a number of similar cases. The fourth Gospel is written carelessly, and the scribe has been guilty of many omissions. The most notable are the following: iv. 23, 24 (qui adorent...deus et); v. 37 (et qui me misit) ; vi. 54 (amen anien dico uobis); vii. 8 (hunc...festum); 28 (docens...ihs et) ; 42 (de bethleem...dauid); viii. 13 (testimonium perhibes) ; 39 (dixit eis ihs); 46; ix. 20 (et quia...est); 21 (nos nescimus) ; 23 (setatem habet) ; xi. 3; 25, 26 (etiamsi... credit in me); xii. 16 (tune re- cordati...de eo); 34 (quis...hominis) ; xv. 16 (fructum afferatis et) ;
THE SECTIONS. 39
22-24 (nunc autem...haberent); xvi. 17, 18 (et non... modicum, apparently); xx. 6 ; xxi. 23 (see above).
Many, but not all, of the omissions are due to homoeoteleuton. It is natural to suppose that the majority of them consist of one or more complete lines of the archetype. But if so it is quite certain that the lines must have varied very much in length. All, except per- haps those at vii. 28, viii. 13, would have formed lines or groups of lines in a manuscript correctly written per cola et commata. In one of them (viii. 46) our manuscript is in company with Codex Bezse, where the omission is doubtless due to the cause which has been suggested.
One other reading may be mentioned in confirmation of our hypothesis. At v. 44 two clauses are inverted, namely " quomodo potestis uos credere qui gloriam ab inuicem accipitis," and " et gloriam quse a solo est [deo] non quseritis." One or other had probably been, omitted in the text of archetype, and had been restored in the margin. Does then either clause make a complete line or set of lines ? The reading is at once explained if they do. Evidence is hardly needed, but the witness of d is here no doubt true, and it is on our side —
quomodo potestis uos credere gloriam abinuicem accipientes et gloriam ab unico deo non queritis. nolite arbitrari
The point in the last line probably marks (see Harris, Codex Bezaer p. 241 sq.) a division of lines in the archetype.
We pause now to consider somewhat more carefully the sections into which the Book of Mulling is divided in St Matthew and St Luke, and to ascertain, if we may, what conclusion may be drawn from the presence of these sections as to the history of the manu- script.
First let us remark that in many copies we have not merely the sections, but also a summary or capitulatio at the beginning of the Gospels, indicating their contents. Now summaries of the type found in the Book of Durrow are almost confined to old Latin manu- scripts of the European family, and Vulgate texts which have a considerable Old Latin mixture. x Their antiquity is thus assured. We are in fact warranted in the inference that in any manuscript in which the summary occurs it has been ultimately derived from an old Latin exemplar. The text, on the other hand, may bear unmistakable signs of derivation from a Vulgate archetype. But this does not make our conclusion as to the summary less certain. It only shows that at some step of the process by which the copy under consideration came into being, a scribe had two exemplars
1 Berger, op. cit., pp. 311, 353 sqq.
40 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
before him, from one of which he took his text, and from the other his capitulatio.
In some cases we may feel fairly confident that we have before us a manuscript, not merely ultimately derived, but actually copied in this fashion from two exemplars. Take for example the Book of Durrow. In this manuscript we have a summary. The text on the other hand is so slightly mixed that we may feel sure that it was transcribed or derived from a Yulgate. To increase our assurance we note the fact that in the body of the text the division into paragraphs does not agree with the capitula. But there is something more. The numbers of the capitula are in many cases entered in the margin, and copied in such a way that it is frequently difficult to discover the exact point at which the section indicated by a number was supposed to begin.1 We may conclude that these numbers were taken, not from the copy which furnished the text, but from that which sup- plied the summary : and we are thus brought by another route to the opinion to which the consideration of the evangelical symbols has already led us, that the scribe of the Book of Durrow had before him two manuscripts, a Yulgate, from which he transcribed his text, and an Old Latin copy, from which he took the summary, the numbers just mentioned, and his conception of the symbols of the Evangelists,
This supposition is confirmed by another consideration. The summaries of St Matthew and St Mark in this codex precede the Gospels. Those of St Luke and St John are written (apparently in a different hand) after St John.2 How did this come about ? We can only guess, but our guess seems to have some likelihood of being correct. It is this. The summaries preceded the Gospels in the Old Latin exemplar from which they were copied, and came in the order : St Matthew, St John, St Luke, St Mark. The Durrow scribe wished to bring the order into conformity with that of his Vulgate " arguments " and Gospels. After transcribing the summary of St Matthew he therefore turned over to St Mark. This finished he had come to the end of the preliminary matter in his pre-hierony- mian exemplar, and so, forgetting that he had omitted two of the summaries, he laid it aside and went on with his Yulgate copy. It may be said that this indicated great stupidity on his part, but we have many proofs that the scribe of the Book of Durrow was singu- larly wanting in intelligence.3 His error was subsequently observed by another, who repaired it as best he could by writing the capitu- latio of St Luke and St John at the end of the Gospels.
Turning now from the summary to the sections themselves we come to something which is of even more venerable antiquity. The sections are not only found in Old Latin texts : their origin can be traced to a Greek source. They are nearly identical with those of
1 Abbott, Evang. Vers., p. v. 2 Abbott, op. cit., p. xxvi.
3 Abbott in Hermathena, viii. 200 ; Evang. Vers. Anteh., p. xx, sq.
THE SECTIONS. 41
the Codex Vaticanus (B), the oldest copy of the original text of the Gospels in existence. Wherever then we find these divisions not merely marked in the margin of a Latin Gospel, but actually im- bedded in its text, we may be assured that it is ultimately descended from a copy of an Old Latin version, however far removed its present text may be from the Old Latin type.
To apply all this to our book. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke are divided into the ancient sections, the marginal numbers having disappeared. These Gospels therefore have been derived from a manuscript of the Old Latin. The present text, indeed, as we shall see hereafter, is not for the most part pre-hieronymian. It must, therefore, in the course of time, have taken into itself many Vulgate readings. St Mark, on the other hand, is divided into Eusebian sections ; and the preliminary matter is, so far as it remains, such as properly belongs to Jerome's Version. The text therefore of the second Gospel and of the first volumen is derived in the long run from one or more1 Vulgate manuscripts. While finally St John, with neither system of division, gives no indication of the ultimate source from which it was taken. But as one of its ancestors was written per cola et commata, and as the other Gospels bear no trace of this arrangement, it was probably ultimately derived from an exemplar different from that of the other parts of the book. Our conclusion is that the Book of Mulling, or one of its immediate ancestors, was com- piled from at least two, probably from a greater number of separate exemplars.
1 It appears more likely that St Mark and the preliminary matter were derived from different archetypes. For it will be argued hereafter (p. 71 sqq.) that the marginal numbers which appear in the former were copied from the same manu- script as the Eusebian Canons. But the divisions indicated by the numerals not seldom differ from those implied by the paragraphs of the text itself. Sections, for example, indicated by marginal signatures, begin without capitals at Mar. ii. 23, vi. 46, viii. 32 (Et adpraehendens), ix. 43, xiv. 36. At iii. 7 the number is placed opposite the beginning of the verse, while the second " Et " is written in the margin ; numbers are assigned to viii. 30, x. 28, xii. 28, xiv. 38, xiv. 64 (quid), while the corresponding capitals are found at viii. 29 (Eespondens), x. 29, xii. 22, xiv. 37, xiv. 63 (Quid) respectively. Other instances might be added, but these may suffice.
42 THE BOOK OF MULLING,
CHAPTEE IV.
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
THE purpose of this chapter is to direct attention to two portions of the text of the Synoptic Gospels preserved in the Book of Mulling, which appear to be in themselves of considerable interest, and to have some bearing on the history of the manuscript, and on that of the Irish recension of the Latin Bible.
§ 1. Corrections.
It is necessary, however, by way of preface, to notice one of the palseographical features of the manuscript. It will be at once perceived by any one who inspects it, that the hand of a corrector has been busy on its pages. Corrections, it is true, are in some places much more frequent than in others ; but there is scarcely a page in the entire book which is altogether free from them.
The existence of a large number of these corrections is easily explained. The manuscript, as originally written, was not supplied with the numbers in the margin referring to the so-called Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke, moreover, were divided into paragraphs, which, whatever may have been their origin, certainly had no relation to these sections. When, therefore, the numbers were subsequently added, an attempt was made to indicate the exact point at which each section began. This was effected in various ways. Usually the end of a section was denoted by a punctuation mark, resembling a colon followed by a comma (:,). The following word was sometimes marked with the sign /!, and a similar sign was placed over the corresponding number in the margin (e.g. Mark viii. 30, f. 43 v b). More commonly, how- ever, the first letter or two of the section were altered in such a way as to make them more prominent. Sometimes they were simply re-traced, as we may see, for example, in line 15 of the second column of f. 48 r.1 At other times they were re-written in a larger character. Examples of this may be found in line 8, where the sign for 'et' ("]) has been transformed into 6y, and line 23 of col. a, where, in the space occupied by e, the letter 6 has been written, the original letter being left otherwise unaltered. Occasion- ally, when the first word of a section happened to be also the first word of a line, the scribe has placed one or more dots under it,
1 A facsimile reproduction of this page will be found facing the title page.
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 43
re-writing the same word in the margin (f. 46 r b, 11. 3, 23). But not infrequently he has actually erased the original word and written it afresh, either in the margin (as in f. 48 r, col. a, 1. 36), or in the space occupied by the erasure, or partly in one, partly in the other (f. 46 r a, 11. 15, 16). This is frequently done when it is desired that a section should begin with the first word of a line, where the original writing does not admit of its doing so. In this case the last word or two of the previous section are also erased, and transferred to the right margin opposite the preceding line. In such cases as those last mentioned, we can, of course, usually have no absolute certainty as to the original reading of the manuscript ; but obviously we have no right to assume, in the absence of indica- tions pointing in that direction, that it differed from that which the corrector has put in its room.
But besides the corrections made with the object of adapting the manuscript to the division into sections, there are very many others the purpose of which is undoubtedly to change the reading. Much the same methods are used in this as in the former case. A word has a dot placed under each of its letters, and that which is to be substituted for it is written above it (f. 48 r a, 1. 20) or in the margin ; a word to be omitted is marked with a group of three dots above it, or with single dots above or below, or in both positions (f. 48 r a, 11. 25, 36); and in the case of a whole sentence so dealt with, a punctuation mark precedes and follows the omitted portion, and a wave line is drawn down the margin (f. 46 r a, 11. 29-31) • a word to be supplied is written above the line or in the margin, with a mark indicating its place in the text (f. 46 r &, 11. 20, 35 ; f. 48 r 6, 1. 23) ; or, finally, a word is erased, and the resulting space is either left blank, or something else written in it (e.g. f. 48 r a, 1. 30, where u = uero is written over a partially erased li = hautem, f. 48 r b, 1. 20). Where we find a word written over an erasure not at the beginning or end of a section we are plainly warranted in the inference that the displaced word of the original text was different, and we can often conjecture with high probability what the original word actually was.
§ 2. General Character of the Text.
It is now our task to make an attempt to ascertain the general character of the text of the Gospels in the Book of Mulling as originally written (which we shall henceforth designate by the letter yu). This we shall most easily do by collating a few passages with the Codex Amiatinus (A). In parallel columns with the collation of these selected portions of /*, we shall place, for com- parison, collations of the same passages as they are found in three other Irish manuscripts. We take first the Book of Durrow (Dur- mach), which may be regarded as the ancient Celtic manuscript of
44 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
the Gospels which approaches most nearly to the ordinary Vulgate text. The Book of Kells (Q) is a good example of the usual type of Irish text, — having a Vulgate base, but with a large contingent of old Latin readings. While, as an example of pre-hieronymian Irish texts, we give in the fourth column the readings of Codex Usserianus (r^. This manuscript is in a fragmentary state, and by this circumstance I have been mainly guided in selecting the passages to be collated. It is essential that all four texts should be approxi- mately complete in the passages presented, and I have therefore chosen those places in which the Codex Usserianus is practically intact for at least two or three consecutive verses.
No complete collation or edition of the Book of Mulling has been published. The text of the Codex Usserianus has been printed by Professor Abbott, with collations of the Books of Kells and Durrow and another manuscript (r2), which will be referred to lower down. I have re-collated all these texts, so far as it appeared necessary for my purpose, and where the reading of any of the manuscripts differs, in my judgment, from that given by Dr Abbott, I have indicated this fact by inserting the letters ' ms/ in brackets after the reading in question. Mere differences of spelling I have neglected, but a few readings which might perhaps have been included under this description I have retained, marking them, however, with an obelus (f ), and building no argument upon them. Readings in which JUL and r^ agree are indicated by asterisks (*).
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
45
A 1.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (ri). |
|
Matt. xxi. |
|||
|
22. |
|||
|
23. |
|||
|
om. docentem. |
|||
|
aut pro et tert. |
|||
|
(ms.l |
|||
|
24. |
eis pro illis. |
uerbumpro sermonem. |
|
|
* dicite' mihi quern si dixeritis mihi |
* q[uem dicit]e mihi pro quern si d. m. |
||
|
pro quern si dix- |
|||
|
eritis mihi. |
|||
|
25. t intra pro inter. |
t intra pro inter. |
[f u]it pro erat. de cselo pro e caelo. illi autem pro at illi. |
A 2.
|
Marc. vii. |
|||
|
29. |
dix[it] pro ait. |
||
|
illi+iesus. |
iesus pro illi (vd illi |
||
|
+iesus). |
|||
|
sermonem hunc |
uade propter hunc ser- |
||
|
pro hunc ser. |
monem pro p. h. |
||
|
s. uade. |
|||
|
a pro de. |
|||
|
30. abisset+ad. |
abisset+ad. |
abisset+ad. |
tien[is]set pro abisset. |
|
om. suam. |
|||
|
t super pro supra. |
|||
|
31. |
Tyri+et. |
||
|
t medicos pro me- |
|||
|
dios (ms.). |
|||
|
32 deprecabantur pro |
adferuntpro adducunt. depraecantes pro et |
||
|
deprecantur. |
inponant pro in- |
deprecantur. inponeret pro inponat. |
|
|
ponat. |
|||
|
ei pro illi. |
|||
|
33. |
suscipi[e]ns pro adpre- |
||
|
heudens. |
|||
|
deorsum pro seor- |
|||
|
suni. |
|||
|
conspuens [mi]sit digi- |
|||
|
tos suos in auriculas |
|||
|
auriculas +eius. |
eius et pro misit d. s. |
||
|
in a. et expuens. |
|||
|
Marc. viii. |
|||
|
2. hanc turbam pro |
t turbam pro turba. |
turbam istam pro |
istam turbam pro |
|
turba. |
turba. |
turba. |
|
|
quoniam pro quia. |
|||
|
om. ecce. |
|||
|
ttraditio pro tri- |
triduum iam pro iam |
||
|
duo. |
triduo. |
||
|
est ex quo hie sunt pro |
|||
|
sustinent me. |
46
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
A 2 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS O-i). |
|
Marc. viii. |
|||
|
3. |
dimittere pro si dimi- |
||
|
sero. |
|||
|
domus suas pro |
om. suam. |
||
|
domum suam. |
|||
|
nollo ne f atigentur pro |
|||
|
deficient. |
|||
|
quia quidam pro quidam euim. |
q[uo]niam quidem et aliqui pro quidam |
||
|
enim. |
|||
|
his pro eis. |
|||
|
4. respondentes pro |
|||
|
responderunt. |
|||
|
sui+dicentes. |
|||
|
quis p[os]sit pro po- |
|||
|
terit quis. |
|||
|
om. hie. |
|||
|
5. f interrogabit pro |
|||
|
interrogauit. |
t quod (ms.)pro quot. |
dixerunt+ei (ms.). |
t quod pro quot. |
A3.
|
Luc. iii. |
|||
|
19. |
f aciebat pro fecit. |
||
|
20. |
et adiecit pro adiecit |
||
|
et. |
|||
|
*t super pro supra. |
*t super pro supra. |
||
|
om. et sec. |
om. et sec. |
om. et sec. |
|
|
t carcerem pro car- |
t carcerem pro car- |
t carcerem pro car- |
|
|
cere. |
cere (ms.). |
cere. |
|
|
21V |
baptizatus esset pro |
||
|
baptizaretur. |
|||
|
populus+ab iohanne. |
|||
|
curnque et iesus bapti- |
|||
|
zatus esset pro et |
|||
|
iesu baptizato. |
|||
|
+ab eo ante et sec. |
|||
|
orante+ipso. |
|||
|
aperti sunt caeli pro |
|||
|
apertum est caelum. |
|||
|
22. |
quasi pro sicut. |
||
|
t columbam pro co- |
|||
|
lumba. |
|||
|
eum pro ipsum. |
|||
|
films meus es tu pro |
|||
|
tu es f. m. |
|||
|
om. dilectus. |
|||
|
te+bene. |
te+bene. |
te+bene (ms.). |
ego hodie genui te pro in te complacuit |
|
mihi. |
|||
|
23. * putabatur pro pu- taretur. |
putabatur pro pu- taretur. |
putabatur pro pu- taretur. |
qui* putabatur pro ut putaretur. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
47
A 3 — continued.
|
LIBEE MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (n). |
|
Luc. xv. |
|||
|
5. * earn pro illam. |
* earn pro illam. |
||
|
*t iuponet pro im- |
*t inponet pro imponit. |
||
|
ponit. |
|||
|
inp.+eam. |
|||
|
* super pro in. |
* super pro in. |
||
|
cum gaudio pro |
|||
|
gaudens. |
|||
|
6. om. et. |
amicos +SUOS. |
||
|
domui pro domum. |
|||
|
uicinos+suos. |
|||
|
gratulamini pro |
|||
|
congrat. |
|||
|
quod pro quia. |
|||
|
7. dico+autem. |
dico+autem. |
inuenerim pro inueni. in pro super. |
|
|
unum peccatorem |
unum peccatorem |
||
|
pro uno pecca- |
pro uno pecca- |
||
|
tore. |
tore. |
||
|
(Mat M.) |
t habentem pro ha- |
t habentem pro ha- |
agente pro habente. |
|
bente. |
bente. |
||
|
(Mat p.) |
istos pro iustis. |
iustos pro iustis. |
iustos pro iustis. |
|
(Mat M.) |
t paenitentiam pro |
t penitentiam pro |
egent pro indigent. |
|
8. (hiatfi.) |
paenitentia. |
paeniteutia. |
quae+est. |
|
decem+et. |
|||
|
om. dragmam. |
|||
|
uertit pro euertit. |
uertit pro euertit. |
scopis mundat pro |
|
|
euertit. |
|||
|
domum +suam. |
domum +suain. |
||
|
inueniat+eam. |
|||
|
9. |
amicos et uicinos |
||
|
(ms.)pro arnicas |
|||
|
et uicinas. |
|||
|
quod pro quia. inueuerim pro inueni. |
A 4.
|
Joh. i. |
|||
|
16 t accipimus. 17. (hiat M.) * gratia +autem. 18. * umquam+nisi. |
acc.+et (ms.). |
t accipimus (ms.). acc.+et(ms.). umquam + nisi |
quoniam pro et. quoniam pro quia. * gratia +autem. * umquam+nisi. |
|
(ms.). |
|||
|
19. *hoc+est. |
hoc+est. |
hoc+est. |
* hoc+[es]t. |
|
cum i nisi sent pro |
|||
|
miserunt+ei. |
quando miserunt. |
||
|
om. ad eum. |
ilium pro eum pri. |
||
|
eum sec.+diceiites. |
|||
|
qui pro quis (ms.). |
48
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
A 4 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS |
|
Job. i. |
|||
|
20. om. et confessus |
om. et tert. |
||
|
cst see* |
[eg]o non sum pro non |
||
|
sum ego. |
|||
|
21. eum +* iterum' tu |
* eum+it[erum]. |
||
|
dicentes pro quid ergo. |
|||
|
om. et sec. |
|||
|
dixit pro dicit. |
, |
ait pro dicit. sum+numquid. |
|
|
22. |
+et ad init. |
||
|
(dixerunt [ms. ] = Am. ) |
|||
|
om. ei. |
|||
|
es+dic nobis. |
es+tu. |
||
|
nos miserunt pro mi- |
|||
|
serunt nos. |
|||
|
23. |
+qu[i ei]s ad init. |
||
|
om. ego. |
essaias profeta |
ergo pro ego. |
|
|
dixit (ms.) pro |
|||
|
dixit e. p. |
|||
|
24. aS pro erant. |
om. erant. |
om. erant. |
om. erant. |
|
a pro ex. |
|||
|
iudaeis pro pharisaeis. |
|||
|
25. om. et (sed spat. |
ut interrogarent pro et |
||
|
relict.). |
interrogauerunt. |
||
|
ilium pro eum. * +ei ante quid. |
+ei(m».)onfeqaid |
+ei ante quid. |
(Mat r^) * +ei ante quid. |
|
Joh. xi. |
|||
|
30. * hautem pro enim. |
autem (ms.) pro enim. |
* au[tem] pro enim. rnonumentum pro cas- |
|
|
tellum. |
|||
|
hie pro erat adhuc. |
eo pro illo. |
||
|
quo pro ubi. |
|||
|
obuiauerat (ms.) pro |
|||
|
occurrerat. |
|||
|
31. * ea pro ilia. |
ea (ms.) pro ilia. |
ea pro ilia. |
[a]utem pro igitur. * ea pro ilia. |
|
ut consulentur pro |
|||
|
etconsolabantur. |
|||
|
ut uiderunt pro cum |
|||
|
uidissent. |
|||
|
om. quiapn". |
quod pro quia pri. f estina[nt]er pro cito. |
||
|
surrexisset pro sur- |
|||
|
rexit. |
|||
|
t exit pro exiit. |
om. et exiit. subsecuti pro secuti. |
||
|
quoniam pro quia. |
|||
|
32. * hautem pro ergo, uidissetprouenis- set. |
uero pro ergo. |
uero pro ergo. |
* autem pro ergo, et uidissetpro uidens. procidit pro cecidit. |
|
dicit pro et dixit. |
dicens pro et dixit. |
||
|
om. ei. |
|||
|
*f uisset' frater meus |
* fuisset pro esset. |
||
|
mortuus pro es- |
|||
|
set m. f. meus. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
49
A 4 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMAOHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS to). |
|
Job. xi. |
|||
|
33. om. ergo, uidisset pro uidit. |
uero pro ergo. |
autem pro ergo. |
|
|
flentem pro plorantem. |
|||
|
flentes qui uenerant |
|||
|
cum ea pro qui u. |
|||
|
cum e. plorantes. |
|||
|
f remit pro fremuit. |
infremuit pro fre- |
infremuit pro fremuit. |
|
|
muit. |
|||
|
t turbabit (me.) pro turbauit. |
semet (ms.)pro se. |
+in ante spiritu. |
|
|
34. |
|||
|
35. |
|||
|
36. +et ad init. : |
|||
|
dixerunt+ergo. |
dixerunt+ergo. |
dixerunt+ergo. |
dixerunt+ autem. |
|
ilium pro eum. |
|||
|
37. |
eis pro ipsis. |
eis pro ipsis. |
|
|
om et. |
ne hie pro ut et hie non. |
||
|
autem pro ergo. |
|||
|
38. t rursus pro rursura. |
om. rursum. |
||
|
intra semet ipsum pro |
|||
|
in semet ipso. |
|||
|
ant em + quasi. |
t 'apis pro lapis. |
A mere glance over these four collations will enable us, so far as they go, to form a tolerably correct notion of the characters of the texts represented by them. Durmach approaches very closely to A, the best manuscript of the Vulgate : rx widely diverges therefrom. Midway between these two come //, and Q. And when we actually count the variants, this general impression is confirmed. The second column gives us 18 variants of Durmach',, the fourth, 120 of rx ; while the first and third give respectively 43 (perhaps one or two more) of /UL, and 37 of Q. The text of /x. is therefore in these pas- sages of the same general type as that of Q. It would, of course, be more than rash to make any inference as to the text of the entire manuscript from a few cases taken at random. But after working through a large part of the text I see no reason to alter the con- clusion to which these passages appear to lead. In every chapter which I have tested — with certain exceptions to which I shall ask attention immediately — the result has been the same. The numbers of various readings in /x and Q are almost the same ; the preponder- ance, when it exists, being for the most part on the side of /*. In St Mark the amount of variation from the Amiatine text in a is perhaps less than elsewhere, in St John greater.
50
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
§ 3. The Old Latin Passages.
I now come to deal with the exceptions just mentioned. They occur in the latter chapters of St Matthew and the earlier of St Luke. Following the same method as before, I append collations of a few
B 1.
|
LIBER MDLLINQ. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (n). |
|
Matt. xxiv. |
|||
|
16. * in pro ad. |
* [fugia]nt (ms.) in pro f. |
||
|
ad. |
|||
|
17. *tecto+sunt. |
* tecto+sunt. |
||
|
* discendent pro de- |
* [descendant pro de- |
||
|
scendat. |
scendat. |
||
|
t domu pro domo. |
t domu pro domo. |
||
|
18. * agro+erit. 19. *t pregnantibus pro praegnatibus. |
t praegnantibus pro praegnat. |
t praegnantibus pro praegnat. |
* agro+erit. • t praegnan[tibus] pro praegnat. |
|
20. •21. * saeculipro mundi. |
t net pro fiat (ms.). |
[u]e pro ut non. om. tune. |
|
|
* saeculi pro mundi. |
|||
|
(fiet=A.[ms.]). |
|||
|
22. t brebiati pro brev. |
|||
|
t flerit pro fieret. f brsebiabunturtur |
om. illi. |
||
|
pro breviabuntur. |
|||
|
23. |
hic+est. |
||
|
aut+ecce. |
|||
|
24. *exurgent pro sur- |
* exsurgent pro surgent. |
||
|
gent. |
|||
|
om. magna. |
|||
|
om. ut. |
t errore pro errorem. (f[ieri potest]=A[ms.].) |
||
|
inducant pro indu- |
t induantur pro in- |
||
|
cantur. |
ducantur. |
||
|
electos pro electi. |
|||
|
26. t penitrabilibus pro penetralibus. |
t penetrabilibus pro penetralibus |
t penitrabilibus pro penetralibus. |
|
|
(ms.). |
|||
|
credere pro exire. |
|||
|
27. |
ergo pro enim. |
t exiit pro exit. |
(hfatri.)\ |
|
* ad pro in. |
apparet pro paret. |
* ad pro in. |
|
|
om. et sec. |
om. et sec. |
||
|
28. fillicproilluc. aquilse+et. |
t +ali ante aquilsc |
(Mat »i.) |
|
|
(ms.). |
|||
|
29. +et adinit. |
|||
|
eorum pro illorum. |
|||
|
obscurabuntur |
|||
|
(ms.) pro ob- scurabitur. |
|||
|
eorum pro caelo- |
|||
|
rum. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
51
B 1 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS |
|
Matt. xxiv. |
|||
|
30. * apparebit pro par. |
apparebit pro par. |
apparebit pro par. |
* apparebit pro par. |
|
t ftli pro fllii. |
|||
|
plangent+se. |
plangent (ms.) |
lamentabun[t] pro |
|
|
super se pro |
plangent. |
||
|
plangent. |
|||
|
t iiubus (ms.) pro |
|||
|
nubibus. |
|||
|
:51. t mlttit pro mittet. |
congrega[n]tur (?) pro |
||
|
congregabunt. |
|||
|
suos pro ems. |
|||
|
« angulis uentorum |
uentis +et. * angulis uent[o]rum pro |
||
|
pro uentis. |
uentis. |
||
|
summo pro sum- |
|||
|
mis |
|||
|
summ[a] illorum pro |
|||
|
terminos eorum. |
|||
|
* ad fin. vers. + cum |
* ad fin. vers. + cum coe- |
||
|
coeperereut (sic) haec fieri respi- |
perint autem haec fle[ri r]espicitae et |
||
|
cete et leuate ca- |
leuate capud quia |
||
|
put quoniam ad- propeat redemp- |
adpr[opinquet] re- demptio uestra. |
||
|
tio uestra. |
|||
|
Matt. xxvi. |
|||
|
24. Ad init. vers +et. |
Ad init. vers.+et. |
(hiat ri.) |
|
|
hominis quidem |
|||
|
(ms.) pro qui- |
|||
|
dem hominis. |
|||
|
tradetur pro uadit. |
t uadet pro uadit. |
||
|
om. de illo. xt tradetur pro tradi- |
j eo pro illo. t tradetur pro tra- t tradetur pro tra- |
eo pro illo. *t tradetur pro traditur. |
|
|
tur. |
ditur. ditur. |
||
|
non nasci homini |
om. ei. non natus pr« na- * non nasci hom[ini ill]i |
||
|
illi pro ei si na- |
tus non. |
pro ei si natus non |
|
|
tus non fuisset |
fuisset homo ille. |
||
|
homo ille. |
|||
|
08 |
respondit pro re- |
||
|
spondens. |
iudas+scarioth. |
||
|
* traditurus eum |
traditurus erat * tr[adi]turus eum erat |
||
|
erat pro tradidit |
eum pro tracli- pro tradidit eum. |
||
|
eum. |
dit eum. |
||
|
eum+et. |
|||
|
dixit+ei. |
|||
|
* illi+iesus. illi+iesus. |
* illi+iesus. |
||
|
26. * ipsis hautem man- |
* ipsis autem mandu- |
||
|
ducantibus pro |
can[ti]bus pro cen- |
||
|
cenantibus au- |
autibus autem eis. |
||
|
tem eis. |
|||
|
t accipitproaccepit. t accipitproaccepit. |
iesus accepit pro ace. |
||
|
iesus. |
|||
|
om. etpri. |
|||
|
et pro ac. |
|||
|
et dedit pro dedit- |
(hiat rj.) |
||
|
que. |
|||
|
* dicens pro et ait. dicens pro et ait. 'manducate pro editeexhocomnes |
* dicens pro et ait. * ma[nduc]ate pro co- |
||
|
comedite |
pro et comedite. |
medite. |
|
|
" est+enim. |
est+enim : |
* est+enim. |
|
|
ad fin. wrs.+quod |
|||
|
confringiturpro |
|||
|
saeculi vita. |
52
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
B 1 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (ri). |
|
Matt. xxvi. |
|||
|
27. f bibete pro bibite. 28. |
t effundetur (ms.) |
effundetur pro |
t effundetur pro effun- |
|
pro effunditur. |
uobis et pro mul- |
ditur. |
|
|
tis pro pro mul- tis effunditur. |
|||
|
*t remisione pro re- missionem. |
t remisione (ms.)pro remissionem. |
*t remissione (ms.) pro remissionem. |
|
|
29. * uobis+quia. |
uobis+quia. |
* uobis+quia. |
|
|
t gemine (ms.) pro |
ac creatura pro hoc |
||
|
diem ilium cum |
diem ilium cum |
genimine. diem ilium quo |
genimine. illud diem cum iUud |
|
illud pro diem cum ilium. |
ilium pro diem cum ilium. |
illud pro diem cum ilium. |
pro diem cum ilium. |
|
30. |
|||
|
31. |
om. illis. |
||
|
Matt, xxvii. |
(ista=A[ro*.].) |
||
|
20. |
principesproprin- |
principes^ro prin - |
principes pro princeps. |
|
ceps. |
ceps. |
||
|
* populopropopulis. hauteni pro uero. |
* populo pro populis. autem pro uero. |
||
|
21. * de duobus dimit- |
om. uobis (ms.). |
dimittam pro di- |
* [d]e duobus uobis di- |
|
tam uobis pro uobis de duobus |
mitti. |
mittam pro uobis de duobus dimitti. |
|
|
dimitti. |
|||
|
22. t qui pro quid. |
|||
|
* ergo pro igitur. |
* ergo pro igitur. fa[cia]mus pro faciam. |
||
|
om. de. |
|||
|
23. om. illis. |
|||
|
pilatus^ro praeses. |
t praessit (ms.) pro |
||
|
praeses. om. magis (ms.). |
|||
|
clamauerunt pro |
|||
|
clamabant. |
om. dicentes. |
||
|
24. proficit pro pro- |
se nihil [pr]oflcere pro |
||
|
ficeret. |
quia n. proflceret. |
||
|
t fierit pro fieret. |
tumultum fieri pro |
||
|
tumultus fieret. |
|||
|
fier.+inpopulo. |
|||
|
[ac]cepit aquam pro |
|||
|
accepta aqua. |
|||
|
t lauauit pro lauit. |
|||
|
* manus+suas. |
* manus+suas. |
||
|
dicens coram po- |
coram+omni. |
||
|
pulo pro coram |
|||
|
p. d. |
|||
|
ego innocens pro |
sum ego pro ego sum. |
||
|
innoc. ego. |
|||
|
* om. iusti. |
* om. iusti (e spat.). |
||
|
25. |
respondit pro re- |
||
|
spondens. |
|||
|
omnis turba pro uni- |
|||
|
uersus populus. |
|||
|
* huius pro eius. |
* huius pro eius. |
||
|
uestrospro nostros. |
|||
|
26. |
uero pro autem. |
||
|
flagellis caesum pro |
|||
|
flagellatum. |
|||
|
eum crucifigeret jm> cruciflgeretur. |
* eum cruciflgerent pro cnicifigeretur. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
53
B 1 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (ri). |
|
Matt, xxvii. 27. * duxerunt pro sus- cipientes. * prsetorium pro praetorio. * prset. +et. |
* duxerunt pro suscipi- entes. * praet[orium] pro prae- torio. * prset. +[et]. |
B2.
8.
Luc. v.
ut pro cum. multitudineui pis- ciumpro pis. m.
* ita ut rumperentur
pro rumpebatur autem.
* retia pro rete. tune pro et pri.
* socis+suis. quicumproetfer?. om. et quart.
* repleberunt pro
impleuerunt.
hoc uiso pro quod cum uideret.
* om. Petrus.
t procedit pro pro- cidit.
* dicens+rogo te.
* tiinor pro stupor.
* inuasserat pro cir-
cumdederat.
* ilium pro eum.
10.
11.
lu.
dixit pro ait.
eris homines pro horn. eris.
nauiculis in terrain #roadt.nauibus. eum pro ilium.
Luc. viii. ait pro dixit. scire pro nosse. autem + non est
datum sed. similitudinibus pro
parabolis.
t procedit pro pro- cidit.
ita ut rumpeba- tur hautem pro rump, autem.
uidisset.pro uideret.
t procedit pro pro- cidit.
me+domine. om. domine.
ita ut ru[m]perentur pro rump, autem.
retia pro rete.
innuerunt pro annu. sociis+suis.
repleuerunt pro impl.
utsec.+paene. uidisset pro uideret.
om. Petrus.
* dicens+rogo te. quoniam pro quia.
* timor pro stupor.
* inuaserat pro circum-
dederat.
* ilium pro eum.
t capturam pro captura. autem+et.
* dixit pro ait.
iesus ad simonem pro ad s. iesus.
* eris homines pro horn.
eris. uiuificans pro capiens.
* nauiculis in terrain pro
ad t. nauibus.
* eum pro ilium.
54
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
B 2 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODBX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS <n). |
|
Luc. viii. |
|||
|
11. hsecesthautempro |
autem + uerbum. |
haec autem pro est |
|
|
est autem haec. |
autem haec. |
||
|
* similitude pro pa- |
* similitudo pro para- |
||
|
rabola. |
bola. |
||
|
4-qui seminat est films |
|||
|
hominis ante semen. |
|||
|
semen + autem. |
|||
|
12. quod pro qui. |
|||
|
autem +cecidit. |
|||
|
uiam+seminati sunt. |
|||
|
* hii sunt pro sunt hi. * audiunt+uerbum. |
* hi sunt pro sunt hi. audiunt+* uerbum' in |
||
|
cordibus suis. |
|||
|
uenit hautem pro |
|||
|
deinde uen. |
|||
|
tulit pro tollit. |
tulit pro tollit. |
||
|
* de corde eoruni |
* de corde illurum uer- |
||
|
uerbum pro u. |
bum pro u. de c. |
||
|
de c. eorum. |
eorum. |
||
|
uti ne credaut etpro ue |
|||
|
credentes. |
|||
|
13. |
qui autem pro nam |
||
|
_ |
qui. |
||
|
petrosam pro pet- |
|||
|
ram. |
|||
|
» | |
petram + sem inati sunt. |
||
|
* +hi sunt ante qui. |
* + hi sunt ante qui. |
||
|
audiunt pro audi- |
|||
|
erint. |
|||
|
* -f uerbum ante cum |
* + uerbum ante cum |
||
|
sec. |
sec. |
||
|
* accipiunt pro susc. |
accipiunt (MS.) pro |
accipiunt pro susc. |
* accipiuut pro susc. |
|
susc. |
|||
|
* illud pro uerbum. |
* illud pro uerbum. |
||
|
ipsi pro hi. |
|||
|
non habent* radi- ces pro radicem |
radices (ms.) pro radicem. |
radices pro ra- dicem. |
* radices pro radicem. |
|
non h. |
|||
|
*t quia pro qui. |
t quia pro qui. |
;t quia pro qui. |
|
|
om: et sec. (ms.). |
|||
|
tribulationis pro |
tribulationis pro |
(et in tempore temta- |
|
|
temtationis. |
temtationis. |
tionis recedunt=A |
|
|
[ms.l) |
|||
|
14. audiunt pro audi- |
cum audierintpro audi- |
||
|
erunt. |
erunt. |
||
|
aud.+ uerbum. |
|||
|
om. etpri. |
|||
|
per sollicitudinem |
a sollicitudinibus |
a sollicitudinibus |
in sollicitudinibus pro |
|
pro sollicitudini- |
(ms.) pro soil. |
pro soil. |
soil. |
|
bus. |
|||
|
diuitiarum pro et |
|||
|
diuitiis. |
|||
|
dulcidinis pro uol- |
uoluutatibus (ms.) |
t uolumptatibusprouol- |
|
|
uptatibus. |
pro uolupt. |
uptatibus. uitae+huius saeculi. |
|
|
* om. euntes. |
* om. euntes. |
||
|
* adferuntprorefer- |
* adferentpro referunt. |
||
|
unt. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 55
A cursory inspection of these collations reveals immediately a re- markable difference between them and those with which we were previously occupied. Two facts at once strike us. The column which stands in closest relation to the first is no longer the third, but the fourth ; and the number of asterisks in the first and fourth columns in proportion to the total number of readings has increased. Once more our first impression is borne out by a count. The number of various readings recorded for //, is 95, for i\ 99, for Durm 16, for Q 39. And of the 95 variants in /u. and 99 in rv 51, or more than half, are marked with an asterisk. This suggests that the part of ^ with which we are now concerned has a text substantially Old Latin with Vulgate mixture, rather than, as the remainder, a text sub- stantially Vulgate with Old Latin readings. The relative number of variants in Dunn, Q, and i\ has not materially changed, while that in //, has been almost trebled. Again, the number of asterisks has advanced from 14 in 43, to 51 in 95. This is what we might expect to find if the text before us is really Old Latin. For the variations of any Irish Biblical codex from the Vulgate fall into two classes-— errors of transcription and Old Latin readings. The number of the former would be about equal in two copies written under similar con- ditions ; the latter will of course vary in proportion to the remoteness of the manuscript from the Old Latin type. Assuming, therefore, that there was one Old Latin recension in Ireland, the number of agreements in variation from the Vulgate between any two copies of that recension will be greater in proportion to the whole number of variations than between two manuscripts, one of which is mainly Vulgate and the other mainly Old Latin.
Now the passages of /x, which have just been collated with A do not stand alone. The same test applied to the two passages, extend- ing— to speak roughly — from the middle of St Matthew xxiv. to near the end of the Gospel, and in St Luke from the beginning of chap. iv. almost to the end of chap, ix., brings to light exactly similar phen- omena. The text of these two passages is absolutely different in type from that which appears throughout the remainder of the Synoptic Gospels. It is essentially Old Latin.
It is naturally difficult to determine, within a verse or two, the exact points at which these Old Latin portions of our Book begin and end. It can be done, however, with more precision than might have been anticipated, as my third series of collations will demonstrate.
56
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
C 1.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS |
|
Matt. xxiv. |
|||
|
1. accesserunt + ad |
accesserunt + ad |
||
|
eum. |
eum. |
||
|
aedificationem pro |
aedificationem pro |
structuram pro aedi- |
|
|
aediflcationes. |
aedificationes. |
ficationes. |
|
|
2. illis pro eis. |
illis (ms.) pro eis. |
illis pro eis. |
[e]isdixitprodixiteis. |
|
om. hie. |
|||
|
3. |
owi. eo. |
||
|
in monte pro super |
|||
|
montem. |
|||
|
discipuli+eius. |
discipuli+eius. |
||
|
4. |
(Mat usque -educat r\.) |
||
|
5. |
(Mat usque meo et a |
||
|
christus usque -ent |
|||
|
dicentes+quia. |
ri-) |
||
|
6. * audietis, hautem pro audituri |
autem (ms.) pro enim. |
audietis enim pro audituri enim |
* audietis enim pro audi- turi enim estis. |
|
enim estis. |
estis. |
||
|
pugn[as] pro proelia. |
|||
|
proeliorum+sed. |
|||
|
7. |
contra (ms.) pro in |
exsurgetpro consurget. contra pro in (bis). |
|
|
sec. |
|||
|
om. pestilentiae et. |
|||
|
8. |
enim pro autem. |
o[mnia] haec pro haec |
|
|
autem omnia. |
|||
|
9. t tribulationem pro |
t tribulationem pro |
t tribulationem pro |
|
|
tribulatione. |
tribulatione. |
tribulatione. |
|
|
10. * inuicern pri+se. |
inuicem pri+se. |
* iuuicem pri+se. |
|
|
occid[ent . . ] pro odio |
|||
|
habebunt. |
|||
|
11. insurgent pro sur- |
insurgent (ms.)pro |
exsur[geut] pro surgeut. |
|
|
gent. |
surgent. |
||
|
multos seducent pro |
|||
|
sed. mult. |
|||
|
12. |
quia^roquoniam. |
||
|
iniquitas+et. |
|||
|
*t refrigerescet (sic) |
t refriget(ms..p. m.) |
*t refrigerescit pro refri- |
|
|
pro refrigescet. 13. permanserit pro perseuerauerit. 14. * per totum orbem pro in uniuerso |
pro refrigescet. permanserit pro perseuerauerit. t orbe regni in uni- uerso (ms.) pro |
permanserit pro perseuerauerit. |
gescet. * per totum (ms.) orbem pro in uniuerso orbe. |
|
orbe. |
regni in uni- |
||
|
uerso orbe. |
|||
|
(Mat ab hoc usque |
|||
|
[reg]ni et ab in sec. |
|||
|
usque -bus et ueniet |
|||
|
consummatio r\.) |
|||
|
15. hautem pro ergo. |
(Mat usque -tumetab -st |
||
|
usque intellegat ri). |
|||
|
per danielum pro- |
[quod dicjtum e[st] pro quae dicta sunt. aliqua uerba omissa |
||
|
fetam pro a dani- |
sunt (e spat.). |
||
|
helo propheta. |
I
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 57
Taking first the early part of St Matt, xxiv., it will probably be agreed that there is no sign of an Old Latin base up to the end of v. 11. The variants in i\ number at least (see vv. 4, 5) 17, in fji only 7, in Q 8, and in Durm 3 ; of the seven readings in the first column, no more than two have an asterisk. Here, then, we have the ordinary mixed text. From verse 16 onwards, on the other hand, the text is Old Latin, as we have already shown. About the intervening verses it is impossible to speak with confi- dence. In vv. 1 2-1 4, fjL has three variants as against two in i\ -} Durm and Q have one each. This gives us little to go upon. It must be observed, moreover, that only a portion of v. 14 remains in 7-j ; and that in the portion that is wanting the Codex Usserianus Alter (r2) has an important reading — " finis " for " consummatio " — while, on the other hand, the reading " permanserit " in v. 13 (//, Durm Q) has every appearance of being an Old Latin survival, though unsupported by either r^ or rz. In v. 15 our difficulties increase : ju. registers two variants, one of which is supported by ?*2 ; Durm Q give none at all ; rv in the few letters that remain, two (one of which is an inference from the insufficiency of the space to con- tain the words of A). On the whole, I am inclined to think that the Old Latin text begins with v. 12; but if not, then certainly somewhere between the end of v. 11 and the beginning of v. 1 6.
What seems important to observe is, that the change in the type of text takes place suddenly. There is no gradual increase of Old Latin mixture, culminating in the almost total disappearance of the Vulgate element. We may fairly conclude from the facts that if i\ were not so fragmentary just where we need its help most, in vv. 14, 15, we could fix, within a line or two of our manuscript, the place where the Vulgate and the Old Latin texts meet.
So much, then, for the starting-place of the Old Latin text in St Matthew. Where does it end? A collation of 25 verses of chapter xxvii. (vv. 40-64), which it would occupy too much space to print here, shows that the relation between the texts of rx and //, remains much the same as in the previous chapter. At the same time, however, we notice a considerable numerical increase in the variants of Q. The numbers are: readings in p 43, in i\ 36 or more, in Q 33, in Dunn 12, asterisks 23 or more. Our manuscript has therefore still an Old Latin text, while the Old Latin element in Q has become more marked. Let us now, therefore, collate the passage extending from xxvii. 65 to xxviii. 15, in order that we may determine, if possible, how far the Old Latin character of /JL is maintained.
58
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
02.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
I CODEX USSERIANUS fa). |
|
Matt, xxvii. |
|||
|
65. * milites pro custo- |
milites pro custo- |
* milites pro custodiam. |
|
|
diam. |
diam. |
||
|
ite+et. |
|||
|
-Hpsi ante scitis. |
|||
|
66. om. abeuntes. |
abeuntes + cum |
||
|
custodibus. |
|||
|
* et sigiiauerimt pro |
* et signaueruut pro sig- |
||
|
signantes. |
nantes. |
||
|
lapidem + et dis- |
lapidem + et dis- |
||
|
cesserunt. |
cesserunt. |
||
|
om. cum custodi- |
|||
|
Matt, xxviii. |
bus. |
||
|
1. |
|||
|
2. |
de caelo discendit |
||
|
pro descend, de |
|||
|
c. |
|||
|
3. hautem pro enim. * uestimeiita pro |
autem pro eiiim. |
autem pro enim. |
et erat pro erat enim. * uestimenta pro uesti- |
|
uestimentum. |
mentum. |
||
|
* eius sec. + Candida. |
eius sec. + candi • |
* eius sec. +[ca]ndida. |
|
|
dum. |
|||
|
4^ |
a pro prae. |
||
|
uel moltui (ins.) |
sicut pro velut. |
||
|
pro uelut mor- |
|||
|
tui. |
|||
|
5. |
q[uaeritisq]ui cruciflxus |
||
|
est pro qui c. est q. |
|||
|
6. |
hic+sed. |
||
|
dixerat pro dixit. |
|||
|
* uenite+et. |
uenite+et (ins.). |
uenite+et. |
* uenite+et. |
|
(Mat ab -ocum usque ad |
|||
|
fin. vers. rj.) |
|||
|
7. surrexit + a mor- |
surrexit + a mor- |
||
|
tuis. |
tuis. |
||
|
ite [et] pro euntes. |
|||
|
om. eccepri. |
|||
|
sicut prsedixit pro |
om. ecce praedixi |
sicut dixit pro |
(hiat ab [et] usque ad |
|
ecce praedixi. 8. * gaudio magno pro magno gaudio. |
uobis(ms.). gaudio maguo pro mag. gaud. |
ecce praedixi. gaudio magno pro mag. gaud. |
timore v. 8 r^.) * gaud[io magno] pro mag. gaud. |
|
* et current pro cur- |
* [et curreu]t (ms.) pro |
||
|
rentes. |
currentes. |
||
|
(nuntiate [ms.] = A.) |
|||
|
suis pro eius. |
|||
|
t aduerunt (ms. |
|||
|
p. m.) pro ado- |
|||
|
rauerunt. |
|||
|
9. t habete pro hauete. |
|||
|
t ille pro illae. |
|||
|
om. autem. |
|||
|
accesserunt + ail |
|||
|
eum. |
|||
|
anplexerunt pro teuu- |
|||
|
erunt. |
|||
|
10. timere+sed. |
timere+sed (ms.). |
||
|
quia praecedo uo[s] |
|||
|
pro ut eant. galilaeam+et. |
|||
|
11. |
t et+et (ms.). |
||
|
aduuutiauerunt |
|||
|
(ms.)pro mint. |
|||
|
12. |
sunt pro f ueraut. consilium acceperun[tj |
||
|
pro consilio accepto. |
|||
|
<>in. copiosam. |
|||
|
13. ueneruutnocte.2>/-0 |
|||
|
nocte uen. |
|||
|
14. |
pers[uade]bimus pro |
||
|
15. instruct! ^rodocti. |
edocti pro erant |
(htet'r!). |
|
|
docti. |
|||
|
t deuulgatum (int.) |
t deuulgatum (»«•».) |
t deuulgatum pro diu. |
|
|
pro diu. |
pro diu. |
||
|
hoc pro istud. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 59
It will be seen at once that there is a sudden change in the relation between //, and i\ after xxviii. 3. For xxvii. 65 — xxviii. 3 the colla- tion yields the following figures : //, 8, r^ 6, Q 7, Durm 1, asterisks 4. The ratio of these numbers agrees pretty closely with that of those already given for xxvii. 40-64. But for xxviii. 4—15 the result is different. Here we get //, 11,^ 16 or more, Q 10, Durm 3, asterisks 3 or more. The sudden decrease in the number of readings in //, and the almost more notable disappearance of asterisks are remarkable. Our conclusion is that the Old Latin text ends with xxviii. 3. This conclusion, however, could not, with the evidence now given, be held with absolute confidence, for the proportion of the variants of //, to those of rl is considerably larger than in the greater part of the manuscript. This might perhaps be accounted for by the specially imperfect state of r^ just here, or by a greater amount than usual of Vulgate mixture in its text. But to place the matter beyond doubt, let us apply another test. The Clermont manuscript in the Vatican Library (h) agrees more closely than any other Old Latin manuscript of St Matthew with the Irish text. We may use it, then, in place of r^ in these verses. Now let us examine the following collations of /*,, Durm, Q, and h for St Matt, xxviii. 4-20.
60
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
Co O.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DUKMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX CLAROMONTANUS (h). |
|
Matt, xxviii. |
|||
|
4. |
a pro prae. |
||
|
uel moltui (ms.) |
|||
|
pro uelut mor- |
|||
|
tui. |
|||
|
5. 6. |
quia pro quod, dixerat pro dixit. |
||
|
hic+sed. |
|||
|
* uenite+et. 7. |
uenite+et (ms.). |
uenite+et. |
* uenite+et. sed pro et pri. |
|
ite et pro euntes. |
|||
|
surrexit + a mor- |
surrexit + a mor- |
||
|
tuis. |
tuis. |
||
|
* om. ecce pri. |
* om. ecce pri. |
||
|
t praecedetj?ropraecedit. |
|||
|
sicut prsedixit pro ecce praedixi. 8. * gaudio magno pro magno gaudio. et current pro cur- |
om. ecce prsedixi uobis (ms.). gaudio magno pro magno gaudio. |
sicut dixit pro ecce praedixi. gaudio magno pro magno gaudio. |
dixi pro praedixi. * gaudio magno pro mag- no gaudio. occurrentes pro cur- |
|
entes. |
rentes. |
||
|
9.*t habete pro hauete |
suis pro eius. |
*t habete pro hauete. |
|
|
om. autem. |
|||
|
accesserunt + ad |
|||
|
eum. |
|||
|
amplexauerunt pro |
|||
|
tenuerunt. |
|||
|
10. timere+sed. |
timere+sed (ms.). |
||
|
ite+et. |
|||
|
quia praecedo uos|?ro |
|||
|
ut eant. |
|||
|
galileam+et. |
|||
|
11. |
uidebitispro uidebunt. t ciuitate pro ciuitatem. |
||
|
t et+et (ms.). |
|||
|
adnuntiauerunt |
|||
|
(m$.) pro uun- |
|||
|
tiauerunt. |
|||
|
suut pro fueraut. |
|||
|
12. |
consilium acceperunt |
||
|
et pro consilio ac- |
|||
|
cepto. |
|||
|
magnam pro copiosam. |
|||
|
13. |
et dixerunt pro dicen- |
||
|
tes. |
|||
|
+iUis ante dicite. |
|||
|
uenerunt nocte pro |
|||
|
nocte uenerunt. |
|||
|
14. |
audierit praesis pro |
||
|
atiditum fuerit a |
|||
|
praeside. |
|||
|
persuademus pro sua- |
|||
|
debimus. |
|||
|
15. * instruct! jwodocti. |
edocti pro erantl * instructi pro docti. |
||
|
docti. |
|||
|
hoc pro istud. |
|||
|
t deuulgatum (ms.) pro diuulgatum. |
t deuulgatum (ms.) pro diuulgatum. |
||
|
16. |
discipuli + eius |
||
|
(ms.). |
|||
|
t consituerat (ms.) |
|||
|
pro constit. |
|||
|
17. |
cum uidisaent pro ui- |
||
|
dentes. |
|||
|
18. |
(iesus=.4m [ms.].) |
t est+est. |
|
|
19. |
om. ergo. |
||
|
* +nunc ante do- |
+nunc ante do- |
* +nunc ante docete. |
|
|
cete. |
cete. |
||
|
20. obseruare pro ser- |
obseruare pro ser- |
||
|
utre. |
uare. |
||
|
om. amen (m$.). |
om. amen. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 61
It is not too much to say that our inference is completely estab- lished by the foregoing table. The Codex Claromontanus yields 28 variants against 4 in Durm, 1 2 in //, and 1 3 in Q, while the asterisks have dwindled to five. The Old Latin fragment of St Matthew therefore begins at or a little after xxiv. 1 2 and ends at xxviii. 3.
Now let us turn to St Luke. That the portion upon which the genealogy immediately follows (iii. 19—23) is mixed Vulgate will be evident from the collation A 3. Omitting the genealogy, an examina- tion of which would be valueless for our purpose, we next collate the early verses of chapter iv.
62
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
D 1.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (ri). |
|
Luc. iv. |
|||
|
1. |
repletus pro plenus. |
||
|
* deserto pro deser- |
reuersus pro regressus. * deserto pro desert um. |
||
|
tum. |
|||
|
2. +in ad init. vers. |
+in ad init vers. |
||
|
per dies pro diebus. |
|||
|
(ettem.[ms.] = A.) |
|||
|
* illis diebus pro |
* illis diebus pro diebus |
||
|
diebus illis. |
illis. |
||
|
his pro illis sec. |
his pro illis sec. |
||
|
t esurit pro esuriit. |
|||
|
+postea ante esuriit. |
|||
|
3. |
ut lapides [i]sti panes |
||
|
fiant pro lapidi huic |
|||
|
ut panis flat. |
|||
|
4. |
om. et. |
||
|
illi pro ad ilium. |
|||
|
iesus+dicens. |
|||
|
t \ ' ^ ' |
om. quia. |
||
|
t uiuit pro uiuet. |
t uiuit pro uiuet. |
||
|
w. 5-8 post vv. 9-12. |
|||
|
5. * ilium -fiterum. . |
illum+iterum. |
||
|
* diabolus+in mon- |
zabulus+in mon- diabulus+[in montem |
||
|
tem excelsum |
tern excelsum |
aljtissimum. |
|
|
ualde. |
(ms.). |
||
|
ei pro illi. |
|||
|
mundi pro orbis |
|||
|
terrae. |
|||
|
6. |
dixit pro ait. |
||
|
illi pro ei : |
|||
|
+diabolus. |
|||
|
ipsorum pro illo- |
|||
|
rum. |
|||
|
* uoluero pro uolo. |
uoluero pro uolo. |
uoluero pro uolo. |
* uo[l]uero pro uolo. dabo pro do. |
|
till am (ms.) pro ilia. |
|||
|
7. |
uero (ms.) pro |
uero pro ergo. |
|
|
om. procidens. |
ergo. om. procidens. |
si cadens pro pro- cidens si. |
si procedens pro pro- cidens si. |
|
* om. corarn. |
* om. coram. |
||
|
omnia tua pro tua |
|||
|
omnia. |
|||
|
8. |
dixit illi iesus pro iesus |
||
|
d. i. |
|||
|
iesus + uade post me |
|||
|
satanas. |
|||
|
est+enim. |
|||
|
diliges dominum deum |
|||
|
tuum pro d. d. t. |
|||
|
adorabis. |
|||
|
om. soli. |
|||
|
9. eum pro ilium. |
ilium +diabolus. |
||
|
ei pro illi. 10. quoniam pro quod. *t mandauitpro man- dabit. |
t illis pro iUi. t mandauitproman- dabit. |
t maudauit woman - dabit. |
*t mandauit pro man- dabit. |
|
custodiantprocon- |
te conseruent pro cons. |
||
|
servent. |
te. |
||
|
11. om. et. |
om. et. |
om. et. |
|
|
om. quia. |
|||
|
raanibus+suis. |
manibus + suis |
manibus +tuis. |
|
|
(ms.). |
|||
|
t tollant pro tollent. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
An analysis of this collation makes it clear, as I believe, that a sudden change in the character of the text takes place at the end of verse 4. For vv. 1-4 the numbers are, //, 4, Dunn 0, Q 2, r^ 1 1, asterisks 2 ; while for vv. 5-1 1 we have yu, 1 7, Durm 5, Q 6, i\ 1 5, asterisks 4. The beginning of the Lucan Old Latin fragment is therefore to be placed at verse 5. Its close may with no less confidence be assigned to ix. 54. Scarcely any part of the manuscript agrees so closely with i\ as Luke ix. 45—54. As our collations of passages in this Gospel have not been numerous, we give a comparison of the four texts for these verses and a few which follow them in full, in order that the complete change which occurs in fjb at v. 54 may the more easily appear. The number of variants are, for vv. 45-54, //, 27, Durm 6, Q 9, r^ 29 or more, asterisks 17 ; for vv. 55-62, p 11, Durm 8, Q 7, rx 23, asterisks 3. Our second Old Latin fragment therefore includes Luke iv. 5 — ix. 54.
D 2
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (n). |
|
Luc. ix. |
|||
|
45. * hoc uerbum pro uerbum istud. |
*hoc uerbum pro uer- bum istud. |
||
|
* erat hautem pro et |
* erat autem pro et erat. |
||
|
erat. |
|||
|
* coopertum pro ue- |
* coopertum pro uela- |
||
|
latum. |
tum. |
||
|
illis pro ante eos. |
illos pro eos. |
||
|
* intellexerent (sic) |
* intellegerent pro sen- |
||
|
pro sentirent. |
tirent. |
||
|
om. illud. |
|||
|
om. et see. |
om. et see. |
||
|
tenebantpro time- |
|||
|
bant. |
|||
|
46. * in eis cogitatio pro |
*in eos cogitatio pro |
||
|
cog. in eos. |
cog. in eos. |
||
|
om. maior. |
|||
|
47. * iesus hautem pro |
• iesus autem pro at |
||
|
at iesus. |
iesus. |
||
|
* eorum pro illorum. |
eorum (ms.) pro |
• eorum pro illorum. |
|
|
illorum. |
|||
|
adpnehendit pro |
|||
|
adprehendens. |
|||
|
puerurn+et. |
|||
|
* om. eum. |
* om. eum. |
||
|
48. * om. illis. |
* om. illis. |
||
|
* acciperit pro sus- |
* acceperit pro suscep- |
||
|
ceperit. |
erit. |
||
|
t recipitpro recepit : * -fnon me recipit |
t recipit pro recepit. |
t recipit pro recepit : +non me recipit |
receperit pro recepit : * +no[n me recipit |
|
sed. |
sed. |
sed]. |
|
|
* om. omnes. |
inter uos est pro eat |
||
|
inter omnes uos. |
|||
|
* (nm. omnes). |
64
THE BOOK OF MULLING.
D 2 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS |
|
Luc. ix. |
|||
|
49. respondit pro re- |
|||
|
spondens. |
|||
|
dicens pro dixit. |
(hiat n.) |
||
|
dixit+ad iesum. |
|||
|
* magister pro prae- |
* magister pro praecep- |
||
|
ceptor. |
• • |
tor. |
|
|
nomine. |
|||
|
t qui pro quia. |
|||
|
50. eum pro ilium. + iesus + sinite eum |
iesus + sinite eum |
om. ad ilium. * iesus + sinite eum et. |
|
|
et. |
et. |
||
|
om. qui enini. |
|||
|
t aduersum pro ad- |
|||
|
uersus. |
|||
|
ad fin. vers.+nemo est |
|||
|
autem qui faciatuir- |
|||
|
tutem in nomine |
|||
|
meo et poterit male |
|||
|
loqui de me. |
|||
|
51. i cum pro dum. |
cum pro dum. |
||
|
conpleretur pro |
|||
|
complerentur. |
|||
|
t et ipse+et ipse |
|||
|
(ms.). |
|||
|
* iret+in. |
iret+in. |
iret+in. |
* iret+in. |
|
52. |
euntes +nuntii. |
||
|
illi+csenam. |
illi+cenam. |
||
|
53. |
ilium pro eum. |
||
|
* euntis+in. |
t euntes pro euntis. |
* euntis+in. |
|
|
eunt.+in. |
|||
|
64. |
uidentes pro cum ui- |
||
|
dissent. |
|||
|
* uidissent+hautem. |
uidissent+ autem. |
uidissent+ autem. |
* uid.+autem. |
|
iohannes+et. |
|||
|
dixerunt+ad iesum. |
|||
|
t dicemus pro dici- |
(hiat ri a vis usque et |
||
|
mus. |
CO-.) |
||
|
t igni (ms.)pro ignis. |
|||
|
eos pro illos. |
|||
|
ad fin. vers. + sicut |
|||
|
helias fecit. |
|||
|
55. |
c[onue]rsus autem pro |
||
|
et conu. |
|||
|
om. cuius spiritus estis (vide p. 34). |
om. et dixit usque estis. |
om. et dixit usque estis. |
+iesus ante increpauit. quali spiritu pro cuius spiritus. |
|
56. om. fllius . . . salu- |
om. fllius usque |
om. fllius usque |
animas +hominum. |
|
are (vide p. 34). |
saluare. |
saluare. |
|
|
t alium pro aliud. |
|||
|
57. |
et factum est pro f . est i |
||
|
autem. |
|||
|
euntibus pro ambulan- |
|||
|
tibus. |
|||
|
eum pro ilium. |
|||
|
58. |
t uiam pro uia. om. illi. |
||
|
t foueant (ms.) pro |
|||
|
foueas. |
|||
|
* nidos+ubirequies- |
nidos+ubi requi- |
* nidos+ubi requiescant. |
|
|
cant. |
escent. |
||
|
t capud+uiu (ms.). |
caput+STium. |
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
65
D 2 — continued.
|
LIBER MULLING. |
CODEX DURMACHENSIS. |
CODEX KENANENSIS. |
CODEX USSERIANUS (ri). |
|
Luc. ix. |
|||
|
59. |
et ait pro ait autem. |
||
|
t alterutrumproalterum. |
|||
|
me pro mi hi. |
|||
|
60. * dixitque+et. |
iesus+ei. |
dixitque+ei. |
et dixit pro dixitque : +*ei. |
|
am. ut mortui se- |
om. ut. |
om. ut. |
|
|
peliant. |
|||
|
t sepelient (ms.) pro |
t sepelient pro se- |
||
|
sepeliant. |
peliant. |
||
|
uade+et. |
|||
|
adnuntiare (ms.) |
adnuntiare pro au- |
||
|
pro annuntia. |
nuntia. |
||
|
61. |
ait autem pro et ait. |
||
|
alter pro illi. |
alter pro illi. |
alter pro illi. |
alius pro illi. |
|
om. sed. |
|||
|
mihi+ire. |
mihi+ire et. |
||
|
* nuntiare pro re- |
nuntiare pro re- |
* nuntiare pro renunt. |
|
|
nunt. |
nunt. |
meis pro his. |
|
|
qui+in. |
in domo pro domi. |
||
|
62. |
dixit autem pro ait. illi pro ad ilium. |
||
|
om. suara. |
|||
|
super pro in. |
§ 4. A Hypothesis.
It may be well here to suggest a question which is not without interest. Granted that we have imbedded in Mulling's mixed text of the Gospels two fragments of genuine Old Latin,1 how are we to account for this fact 1
1 The Book of Mulling is not unique in presenting the problem which we are attempting to solve. Readers of M. Berger's great work, L'Histoire de la Vulgate pendant Us premiers siedes du moyen age, will have observed many parallels. Such are the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Vulgate, except chaps, x., xi.)in Brit. Mus. Harl. 1772 (Berger, p. 51) ; the Book of Job in St Gall 11, in which the text of Jerome's first revision of the Old Latin gives place to another in the middle of a word at xxxviii. 15, the handwriting changing at the same time (p. 122) ; the Chartres St John, Paris, B.N. 10,439 (Old Latin chaps, i.-vi., approaching to Vul- gate chaps, vii.-xv., adhering still more closely to the Vulgate chaps, xvi.-xxi. : Berger, p. 89) ; the Sapiential Books in Metz 7 (Vulgate up to the middle of Wisdom, thenceforth "an exceedingly mixed text, abounding in passages taken from the ancient versions : " p. 101) ; the text of Acts in the Rosas Bible, Paris, B.N. Lat. 6 (Vulgate, except xi. 1-xii, 8, which is European : p. 25) ; and, most striking of all, the text of Acts in Paris B.N. 321. This is so closely analogous to our manuscript that M. Berger's words (p. 77) may be quoted: " Le livre des Actes des Apotres est compose de deux parties fort differentes. Le premier tiers, jusqu'au verset 7 du chapitre xiii., represeute un texte mele dans lequel les Elements anciens tiennent une si grande place, que Ton peut a peu pres le con- siderer comme un texte ancien. Le texte anterieur a saint Jer6me reprend a xviii. 15 et occupe le fin du livre. Malheureusement les lemons anciennes out etc" le plus souvent corrigees par grattage, de sorte qu'il est quelquefois difficile de les retrouver. Entre ces deux limitcs, le texte semble etre uu texte meridional," etc. The change of a few words would make this an accurate description of the text of St Matthew in our Book. Other parallels are mentioned in the text.
66 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
It will conduce to clearness if, before giving what we believe to be the most probable answer to this question, we state a theory which is obviously suggested by the facts, and which for some time appeared to the writer sufficient to account for them.
Let us suppose that the scribe — the writer, that is, either of the manuscript actually before us, or of one from which it was copied — had before him a codex from which a few pages were missing. The text of this was mainly Vulgate. When he reached the lacunae, the deficiencies of the primary exemplar were supplied from another, the text of which was pre-hieronymian.
The truth of this hypothesis is, of course, incapable of proof. Bat it accounts for the facts by which it is suggested, and it is confirmed by various considerations.
It supposes, be it observed, that the main exemplar of the scribe was an imperfect copy of the Vulgate. This is proved to have been the case in another instance — the Stowe St John. In the Stowe manuscript the lacunse of the exemplar are not supplied in the copy.1
It supposes, again, that our scribe used two exemplars, preferring the Vulgate, but having recourse to the other, an Old Latin manu- script, in case of need. That two different types of text should be current side by side in Ireland in early times, and that copies of both should be found in the library of a single monastery, will not surprise those who have studied Mr Haddan's account 2 of the gradual progress of the Vulgate in these Islands, or M. Berger's abridgment of the story.3 And more direct proof in the shape of parallel cases is not wanting. The scribe of the Book of Durrow had in his hands, in like manner, two manuscripts — one of the Vulgate, another of the Old Latin.4 So, again, had the scribe of Ussher's Codex. Its text is pre-hieronymian, and so lacked the Pericope Adulterae. This sup- posed deficiency is supplied from a Vulgate manuscript.5 And, more- over, a similar hypothesis will be found to explain some of the phen- omena of the Codex Usserianus Alter (r2). This manuscript Professor Abbott regards as preserving an Old Latin text in St Matthew. In the latter chapters it certainly does so, but I venture to think the fact is not so clearly made out in the earlier portion of the Gospel. I must not encumber these pages with needless collations. It will suffice therefore to say that of the first half of St Matthew's Gospel only three fragments remain — i. 18-ii. 6, iv. 24-v. 29, and xiii.7— xiv. 1. In the two latter of these passages the variants of Q are almost identical in number with those of r2 ; in the first there is a decided preponderance on the side of the latter manuscript. Now the exist- ing portions of chapters iv., v., and xiii. are quite long enough to
1 J. H. Bernard in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, xxx. p. 316.
2 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i. p. 180 sqq.
3 Berger, L'Histoire, p. 30.
4 See above pp. 21, 39.
0 Abbott, Evangeliorum Versio, p. vii.
THE BIBLICAL TEXT.
67
enable us to come to a satisfactory judgment as to the character of the text of which they are fragments, and the fact just mentioned leaves no room for doubt that it was Vulgate with Old Latin mixture. When we reach chap, xvi., and more especially when v. 19 is passed, we at once perceive a change. The variants of r% in xvi. 20-28 are nearly four times as numerous as those of Q.1 May we not conclude that in r2 part of St Matthew's Gospel was copied from a mixed text, the remainder from a manuscript of an Old Latin version ?
The hypothesis, therefore, which we have provisionally assumed to account for the phenomena of />c, receives confirmation from the fact that a similar hypothesis serves to explain the textual features of the only other Irish Old Latin manuscripts of the Gospels known to exist.2 And if we go a little further afield we shall find other parallels. Mr White 3 tells us, for example, that the Codex Palatinus (e) of the Old Latin, though mainly African, must have been copied from an ordinary European MS. in the last few chapters of St Luke ; and he subjoins the remark that other similar instances of vacillation in the text of Old Latin manuscripts might be added. Dr Sanday, in like manner, suggests 4 that the last leaf of the archetype of a was lost or worn, and the text of this portion taken from some other copy. And a most interesting case of the same kind has recently been brought to light. The Earl of Crawford possesses a Syriac manu- script of the entire New Testament containing a version of the Apocalypse of which the only other known copy is a fragment in the British Museum. This version is akin to the Philoxenian rendering of the other New Testament books ; but the exemplar from which the Crawford manuscript was copied had lost a leaf at the beginning, and the lacuna has been supplied from a manuscript of the later re- cension, akin to the Harkleian version, the editio princeps of which was published by De Dieu at Leyden in 1627, and which is now usually bound up with the Peshitto.5
1 The numbers of the variants in the three MSS. Durrn,, Q, r2 for the passages mentioned in the text may be exhibited in a table. Mere variations of spelling and unmistakable blunders are not reckoned. Several readings of r2, however, are counted, which are almost certainly errors of the scribe.
|
i. 19-ii. 6. |
iv. 24-v. 29. |
xiii. 8-58. |
xvi. 13-19. |
xvi. 20-28. |
|
|
Durm |
5 |
7 |
21 |
2 |
3 |
|
Q |
6 |
14 |
57 |
10 |
10 |
|
r2 |
15 |
18 |
61 |
15 |
36 |
2 Excluding, of course, the St Gall fragment (p).
3 Scrivener's Introduction, 4th ed., ii. p. 56.
4 Old Latin Biblical Texts, ii. p. clxxv.
6 Full proof of this fact is given by Professor Gwynn in his paper " On a Syriac MS. of the New Testament belonging to the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and on an in-edited version of the Apocalypse therein contained " : Trans. R.I.A., vol. xxx. part x., App. E, p. 414. See also The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version hitherto unknown, edited by John Gwynn, Dublin, 1897, part ii. p. 37.
68 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
Our hypothesis is therefore well supported by parallel cases. We have next to remark that it seems to account sufficiently for two curious readings, one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Lucan fragment. To begin with the latter. It is found in St Luke ix. 55, 56. Our Lord's answer to the question of the two disciples is there cut down by our scribe to the single word " Nescitis." In many Greek MSS. the entire answer and the two preceding words " et dixit " are omitted, and this reading is followed by the Books of Armagh, Kells, and Durrow, Ussher's second Codex, and other Irish Vulgate manuscripts. The scribe of the Book of Mulling is conscious that there is something wrong in his (apparently unique) reading. For immediately after writing "Nescitis" he adds in his text the letter " d " ( = " desunt ") and places in the upper margin the remain- ing words of the sentence, reading the last five words, if not the whole clause, as they are found in rv which here differs from the Vulgate. It is not difficult to suggest an explanation. After copy- ing v. 54 from his Old Latin exemplar, the scribe turns once more to the manuscript whose text he preferred, and which now again becomes available. But his memory of the other codex is still fresh, and so he writes "et dixit nescitis" before he observes that these words, with those that follow them, are absent from the text which he is transcribing. He allows the words which he has written to stand in his text, inserts after them the mark indicating omission, and relegates the remainder, which he takes from his Old Latin manuscript, to the margin.
We turn now to St. Luke iv. 5 — the first verse, as we have already seen, of the fragment. It opens with the words " Et duxit ilium iterum diabulus." What is the antecedent of "iterum"? Plainly neither " Agebatur in spiritu" (v. 1), nor "Dixit autem illi diabulus" (v. 3). " Iterum " is in fact meaningless as the text stands. But re- arrange the narrative according to the order of rlt in which the third temptation, according to the Vulgate, precedes the second, and all becomes clear. We now have "Et duxit eum in hierusalem" (v. 9) . . . "Et duxit ilium iterum" (v. 5). What has happened is evident. The scribe was copying from an exemplar in which the temptations were given in the order in which they are found in all European Old Latin manuscripts.1 He transposed the last two, but in other respects preserved the text unchanged. Now what prompted this clumsy dislocation of the text ? The answer which the hypothesis under consideration suggests is this. The scribe has before him a Vulgate text. Suddenly at v. 5 it deserts him ; but enough remains
1 So b, c,f, I, q, TV The Vercelli manuscript (a) is no exception, for, in the first place, its text is not European in St Luke (Scrivener's Introduction, ii. 56) ; and moreover, though it here follows the African and Vulgate order, the marks of transposition in it are even clearer than in p. The opening words of v. 5 in it are, " Et adduxit eum hierusalem et statuit eum supra pinnam templi et ostendit illi," etc. I know of no MS. except /* which reads "iterum " in v. 5 while follow- ing the Vulgate order ; e> however, has "secundo."
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 69
to indicate that what immediately followed v. 4 in it was v. 5, and not, as in his secondary exemplar, to which he now turns, v. 9. It breaks off, let us suppose, with the words "Et duxit ilium diabolus et ostendit illi omnia "... This is sufficient as a cue. Following it as well as he can, he transcribes vv. 5-8 exactly as they stand in his second copy, before turning to v. 9, not perceiving that in so doing he deprives " iterum " of all meaning.
In spite of the many arguments by which our preliminary hypo- thesis may be supported, it lies open to one objection, not indeed ab- solutely fatal, but sufficiently serious. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke are in our Book divided into sections, according to a system found in many Old Latin texts.1 These divisions embrace the Old Latin as well as the mixed portions of the text. This fact in itself makes it probable that these Gospels were ultimately derived not from two copies, but from a single exemplar of the Old Latin text, altered by the hands of successive copyists to its present state.
This is not, it is true, a necessary inference. The Old Latin exem- plar would most probably have these sections. But experience shows us that quite possibly a mixed copy might have them also ; and so, on the supposition that our scribe used two exemplars, we are not absolutely prohibited from believing that both of them had sections such as we have mentioned. Probability, however, is against the supposition ; and so we come to suggest another hypothesis, or rather a hypothesis which is that already proposed, but in a slightly modified form. It is this : Our scribe copied from an Old Latin exemplar, which we may call x. This manuscript had, however, been previously corrected by means of an imperfect copy of the Vulgate, y. Where y failed, the pre-hieronymian text remained ; where it was available, the resulting text was mixed.
This hypothesis is supported by all the parallel instances which have been adduced above, It supposes, as before, in the hands of a scribe an imperfect Vulgate, y, evidently regarded as giving the better text, and an Old Latin, x. It explains, moreover, the reading " iterum " at iv. 5, just as readily as the other hypothesis. It accounts, too, though not so easily, for "et dixit nescitis" at ix. 56. The passage may have been expuncted in x by the corrector, though our scribe did not perceive the marks of deletion till he had written its first three words, or he may have mistaken the meaning of marks over the final words of the saying ascribed to Christ. It is, more- over, supported by the fact that in St Matthew and St Luke alone, the division into sections of the type referred to occurs. For these Gospels, therefore, and probably for these alone, we are obliged to suppose an ultimate Old Latin archetype. It will not, then, surprise us to find in them, and in them alone, a few pages passed over by the corrector, exhibiting an Old Latin text. And finally, it is sup- ported by the fact that the Matthean Old Latin fragment is actually 1 See above, p. 30 sqq.
70 THE BOOK OF MULLING.
corrected into conformity with the Vulgate, exactly in the way we have supposed x to have been corrected by means of y. But this will be seen more clearly in our next section.
§ 5. The Corrector.
We turn, then, to these corrections of the text with which our fragments are so thickly studded. These corrections are, so far as I can judge, all written by the same hand — the hand of him who added the marginal numbers. They were certainly in some cases made concurrently with or before the insertion of the numbers. This may be seen, for example, by an inspection of f. 47 r a, 1. 25 (St Matt. xxvi. 1). Here the words " omnia verba haec" have been erased, and in their room "sermones hos omries " has been written. The correction extends, however, so far into the margin, that the number referring to the Eusebian Canon, which had to be inscribed opposite the corresponding line of the second column (1. 24, Matt. xxvi. 26), is placed more to the right than is customary; while, at the same time, the number of the section (cclxxiii.) is begun too high and written in a slanting direction, so that the last letter composing it is in its proper position.1 Thus the correction of the first column was completed before the numbers of the second were written. And in the second column the first words of this section, as originally written, were " et manducantibus." The word "et" is erased, a punctuation mark set in its place, and "Et (in prominent character) edentibus " written above the line. The text is altered in the very act of marking the beginning of the section. Thus it is quite clear that the corrector was identical with the numerator,2 and that he did both parts of his work concurrently. It is important to note this fact, because it appears to lead us to a further inference. The emendations and the numerals must have been taken from the same exemplar. The large number of these emendations shows us how thoroughly (too thoroughly) the corrector accomplished his task in St Matthew's Gospel. His purpose seems to have been to assimilate the text of jj, to that of the copy which he had in his hands. He was unsparing in the performance of this work, and we may be pretty confident that, except by oversight, he omitted to alter no word which differed from his codex. What, then, was the character of the manuscript from which the corrections
1 Similar phenomena are found at Matt. xxii. 46 (xxiii. 23), xxiv. 26 (40), 27 (42), Luke xix. 25 (39), etc. Specially interesting is Matt, xxvii. 3 (fac- simile page, col. b, 11. 16, 17). Here the corrector wished to transpose "eum tradidit." He therefore wrote a double stroke under "eum," and a single stroke over "tradidit" in the usual way. The latter was found to interfere with the signature, belonging to "Tune." Hence it was replaced by a single stroke under " tradidit." Obviously the signature was written after the first and before the second of these single strokes.
2 It may be remarked, in confirmation of this conclusion, that there is no perceptible difference of hand between words introduced with the sole purpose of emending the reading, and those by which the beginnings of sections are marked.
THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 71
were drawn? Any copy of the Latin Gospels which is furnished with the Eusebian Sections and Canons may be expected to contain a substantially Yulgate text. That this was the character of the text of the corrector's manuscript is proved by collating our first fragment, as it left his hands, with the Codex Amiatinus. In a very few instances an Amiatine reading is replaced by another : now and then one reading gives way to another, neither of which is Amiatine ; but in the vast majority of cases, readings which differ from those found in A are obliged to make way for rivals which it supports. Let us take, for example, St Matt. xxiv. 21-31, which has been collated above (B 1). It occupies lines 1—31 of the first column of f. 46 r. In this passage //, varies from A 16 times. In two cases the corrector introduces non-Amiatine readings, and in nine he brings our text into agreement with the Amiatine. He leaves therefore 7 variants. Q, in the same passage, has also 7. Examining in the same way St Matthew xxvii. 20-26, we find the 13