Page:Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus 2.djvu/23

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread.
Codices Philargyrii.

hūasal. That they are earlier than the bulk of the glosses in Wb. seems to be indicated by the fact that the gen. sg. of ‑i- and ‑u- stems is always in ‑o: folo, gléso, senso, spirto. After a non-palatal consonant i is regularly expressed by i: gabis, fodil, samil, delbich, grádich, æclis, dālire, dāldi, etc.[1] After a non-palatal consonant final ‑e is expressed by e: derbensde, tarsende, or by æ: rúnæ, sechtæ, etc.[2] The diphthong oe does not yet appear.

9. Codices Philargyrii[3].

Two series of excerpts from Iunius Philargyrius’ scholia on the Bucolics are preserved in three manuscripts:

P. (= N. Hagen) = Codex Parisiacus Lat. 7960, saec. x. In this MS. the second series of excerpts is found fo. 1a–14a, the first series of excerpts on fo. 14'b–41b.

L. = Codex Laurentinus, Plut. xlv. Cod. 14, s. x. According to Hagen the manuscript was brought from France. The colophon to the first series (Rheinisches Museum, N. F. xv. 119) seems to contain a Latin rendering—Fatosus—of the name of the Irish excerptor, which may have been Toicthech: see The Academy for July 28, 1894, Rev. Celt. xvi. 123.

P². (= P. Hagen) = Codex Parisinus 11308, s. ix.

With regard to the relations of the three manuscripts the following may be noted. P and L are very closely related and come from a common source, but P was not copied from L nor L from P. P² is fuller and more correct than P and L, but is not the source from which they have been copied. Errors common to the three MSS. indicate that they go back to a common source, into which many mistakes had already crept through the transcriber’s ignorance of the Irish language and his unfamiliarity with the script. The three codices are all in a continental hand. It is not improbable that the archetype from which all the three MSS. finally came was written by a continental scribe.

The Irish of the glosses is of the same archaic character as that of the Book of Armagh. Its peculiarities have been discussed by Thurneysen, Celt. Zeitschr. iii. 52 sq.[4]

  1. Hence we should write in 171a2 ruminiged, in 176b frisintomaltid, in 182a2 siltid.
  2. Hence in 170b1 adamra should be corrected to adamre. In 177a2, as Mr Edward Gwynn informs us, the last half of the last letter of etalacda has been lost by the cutting of the margin; etalacdæ should be restored.
  3. A few of the glosses were published by Thilo, Rhein. Mus., Neue Folge, xiv. 132, and were reprinted by Zimmer, Gloss. Hib. Supplementum 5, with the addition of two from the same codices contributed by Hagen. The glosses in P were printed by W. S. in the Academy for Jan. 17, 1891, and again in the Rev. Celt. xiv. 226 sq. The glosses from L were published by W. S., KZ. xxxiii. 62 sq. The glosses from P² did not come to our knowledge till after the sheet of the Thesaurus containing the other glosses had been printed off. They are published in Appendix I. from a transcript kindly made for us by the late M. L. Duvau. Both the Latin text and the Irish glosses have now been edited by Hagen, Serv. Gram. vol. iii. Fasc. ii. Appendix Serviana; to this edition we are indebted for some additions and corrections. Cf. also Servius ed. Thilo iii. i. v.
  4. As to coennich, P² shews that the archetype had coinnich.