Page:Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus 2.djvu/34

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread.
Description of the MSS.

points of change, or how far the differences are due to progressive deteri- oration on the part of a single scribe. The latter part of the treatise, however, appears to be certainly by a different hand from the beginning of it. There is also to be distinguished the hand of a corrector, Moelcaich[1], whose signature appears on fo. 37, where his activity ends. As to the rubrics, up to fo. 23 inclusive only the words lethdirech sund on fo. 18 appear to be in the hand of Moelcaich. From fo. 24 Canon dominicus papae Gilasi onwards they appear to be all in his hand, except the Irish notes inserted in a small hand on fo. 34. After Moelcaich disappears there are at least two hands apparent in the titles, one on ff. 38 and 47, the other on ff. 42 and 44b. The title and prayer on fo. 46b, before the Ordo Baptismi, are in a hand resembling that of Moelcaich, and may be his. The Irish treatise on the Eucharist and the Spells are written in different rough hands.

With regard to the date of the script, Dr Kenyon would assign that of Moelcaich to the tenth century. If that be so, he would assign the original hands (A¹, A², B) to the beginning of the tenth century or possibly the end of the ninth, but not earlier. The Irish treatise and spells are written in rough hands which are difficult to date. According to Dr Kenyon they can hardly be earlier than the eleventh century, and they might well be later[2].

If the codex is to be put so late, there is evidence from the language that the texts have been transcribed from a much older original, Noteworthy is cache Mass § 18 by cacha Wb. 13b 28, Sg. 26b 9, 198a 14, cecha Ml. 56b 22, 96b 7, 134a 3. Further in the tract on the Mass the preposition to before verbs remains to‑: toresset, tanaurnat, tocing, totét, cf. tofasci in the Spells[3], while before nouns it has become do. to ‘thine’ appears in the Mass § 19, and in the Spells; what weight is to be laid on these isolated cases is not clear. The preposition di before a noun has not yet become do: diobli, deobli, Mass § 16. In § 19 amail still appears by amal. On the other hand there are instances of later phenomena, which may be put down to the chances of transcription; such as dana = dánae, Mass § 16, by anmæ, oblæ, menme, menmæ, nd for nn in brond § 3, colind § 11, the expression of aspirated f and s by a dot over the letter. As peculiarities of orthography may be noted: forsen Mass § 5, insen § 10, hoṡen[4] § 18; cælech § 4, rosaegeth § 19, cf. saele Spells[5]; fuel Spells[6]; coer[7] Mass § 19 ; tuib[8] Mass § 15.

  1. Cf. Warren, Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, 201, note 1.
  2. Dr Kenyon gives these results with diffidence, and thinks there is far more hope of arriving at an approximate date on liturgical or linguistic grounds than on palaeographical considerations alone.
  3. But in the Rubrics doberar fo. 50a.
  4. Cf. vol. i. p. 4.
  5. Cf. Dun Cuaer Ann. Ul. 803, 804, 817, Aedhaein 806, Iellaen 825, Aerdd 835, Cluaen, 844, Tommaen 870.
  6. Cf. Maileruen in the list of saints fo. 32a, Cluen, Ann. Ul. 817.
  7. Cf. moer = móir Ann. Ul. 745, 755, 759, 778, 780, 782, 813, 827, 832, 834, 839, 841, 844, 850, 855, 872, Roes = Roiss 746.
  8. Cf. fruich Philargyrius.