WILLIBRORD

Apostel der NiederlandeGrunder der Abtei Echternach

Gedenkgabe zum 1250. Todestagdes angelsachsischen Missionars

Herausgegeben von Georges Kieselund Jean Schroeder

im Auftrag des Institut d'Echternach

EARLY ECHTERNACH MANUSCRIPTFRAGMENTS WITH OLD IRISH GLOSSES

BY DAIBHi 0 CROINiN

Among the manuscripts listed by E.A. Lowe in his great Codices Latini Antiquiores (CLA) asbelonging to the monastery of Echternach was a fragmentary volume, of which two folios survive inParis, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. lat. 10399, (Suppl. lat. 1894) fols 35+36.1 This manuscript is amiscellany of various bits and pieces recovered from the bindings of other codices, brought togetherto form what a note on the flyleaf describes as Fragmenta variorum codicum ad theologiam et ad jusspectantium. The two leaves that concern us are badly worn in places and have lost parts of their textsas a result of the activities of the binder's knife. Enough survives, however, to enable a partialreconstruction of their former contents, together with a discussion of their possible provenance.Because the fragments contain a number of Old Irish glosses not previously noticed/ they have animportance belied by their present sorry state.

The principal reason for Lowe's ascription of our fragments to Echternach is the fact that theywere recovered from the binding of a later codex from that monastery. He described the script (CLAV 585) as being a "mixed Anglo-Saxon majuscule and minuscule, saec. VIII ... written presumablyin England, or possibly at Echternach, where the fragments were later used for binding purposes".Here, however, the Bibliotheksheimat may have influenced Lowe's judgement of the Schriftheimat,for Professor Bernhard Bischoff has written more recently that "Die Bestimmung von CLA V 585 als.angelsachsisch' war unvorsichtig wegen des eigenartigen Schriftcharakters ... Es laBt sich nichtsgegen irische Entstehung vorbringen, im Gegenteil (z. B. spelling). ,,3 Lowe in his plate reproduced apart of the Paris fragments containing an Old Irish gloss - but without any comment. This single OldIrish gloss, however, was enough to awaken the suspicion that perhaps the manuscript was written byan Irishman rather than by an Englishman." Further firsthand examination of the two Paris leaves hasrevealed the presence of five (possibly six) other Old Irish glosses (one of them a double-gloss). Thisbeing the case, it is time to look again at the manuscript and its contents in order to see how this newevidence can be brought to bear on the problem of establishing its provenance and authorship. Ourfindings will have obvious implications for the continuing debate about the earliest Echternachscriptorium and its personnel.

Lowe stated that the Paris fragments contain the text of Pseudo-Anatolius De Pascha. This was awork well-known to the Irish,' and is cited as an authority by Columbanus in his letters to Rome AD

I CLA V 585. Lowe was, I think, mistaken in his belief that the single folio of Easter tables bound up with Paris, Bibl. Nat.,MS. lat. 9527, as f 201, was part of the same manuscript. The dimensions of that single folio must have been quite differentfrom those of the other two folios, and besides, the script is, in my view, by a different hand. See figs. 13-16.

, They are not mentioned by Lowe, who in fact passed over one of them without comment, although he reproduced it in hisCLA plate .

.1 In a letter to the writer dated 22 January 1982.• The suggestion was first made in Daibhi 0 CROINfN, Pride and Prejudice, Peritia 1 (1982) 360-361; cf. IDEM, RathMelsigi, Willibrord, and the earliest Echternach manuscripts, Peritia 3 (1984) 17-49: 26-28.

5 For the text, see Bruno KRUSCH (ed), Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie [1). Der 84jahrige Ostercyclusund seine Quellen (Leipzig 1880) 311-327. For commentary, see C.W. JONES (ed), Bedae opera de temporibus. MedievalAcademy of American Publications 41 (Cambridge, Mass. 1943) 82-87, and Maura WALSH & Daibhi 0 CROINfN (eds &

135

OAIBHi 0 CROINiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

600 and to the Gallican bishops AD 603. t> Pseudo-Anatolius is also cited by the southern Irish clericCummian in his letter on the Easter controversy addressed to abbot Segene of Iona, c. AD 632.7 Inaddition, the work is quoted (often at length) in every early Irish computistical collection known tome." The great Bruno Krusch demonstrated over a century ago that the work is probably an Irishforgery of the sixth century, whose manuscript transmission is almost exclusively Irish or derivedfrom Irish exemplars. Hence the nature of the text itself provides additional grounds for suspectingan Irish involvement in the production of the Paris manuscript.

In fact, however, the Paris leaves, fragmentary though they are, contain not just one text (asLowe's description would suggest) but six, all of which I have been able to identify. Three of themare works usually regarded as Irish computistical forgeries (Pseudo-Athanasius, Pseudo-Anatolius,and Pseudo-Theophilus)," while the three others are excerpts from Augustine, De Genesi ad litteramII 14, Gaudentius, De paschae obseruatione, and an excerpt from the Book of Numbers, alsoconcerned with Easter. Hence the contents of the original manuscript, insofar as they can bereconstructed, seem to have dealt exclusively with the Paschal question.

The presence in the Paris fragments of a solitary Old Irish gloss - as was thought up to now -need have implied no more than that some Irishman at Echternach had glossed the text while readingthrough it. Now, however, with the realisation that there were many more glosses in Old Irish, atleast six of which are still to be seen on the surviving folios, and that the contents of the manuscriptwere heavily biased in favour of Irish texts, there are surely much stronger grounds for believing thatthe manuscript itself was penned by an Irishman. All the glosses are apparently written by the primamanus and the orthography of the Old Irish ones suggests a very early date for the text. There is onesmall indication that the Old Irish glosses were copied from an earlier exemplar (one seems to bemisplaced), and this would suggest on even older date for the archetype.

The present shorn and damaged state of the Paris fragments makes an accurate reconstruction ofthe original manuscript impossible, but the surviving evidence does suggest that the originalmeasurements may have been c. 330 x c. 230 mm; the text was apparently written in two columnsthroughout. The quality of the texts is relatively good; what surprises is the unusual attributions ofsome: the Gaudentius excerpts are ascribed to Origen (Originis) while the tract known as Pseudo-Athanasius is here ascribed (uniquely) to Sulpicius Seuerus (ut alii dicunt}. 10 The first few lines ofPseudo-Anatolius are lost, so we cannot say whether it was correctly identified or not, but theAugustine excerpts certainly were (Augustinus hucusque).

The known contents of the fragments allow some guesswork about the original extent of themanuscript. The two surviving folios have been inverted in the binding, so that f 35v should precedef 35r, and f 36v should precede f 36r. Following this revised order, the first text encountered is theend of Pseudo-Theophilus, De Pascha. The bulk of this text is now missing, however, but estimatesbased on the measurements (c. 330x230 mm) suggest that a full folio would have been required toaccommodate the rest of the tract. Hence the present f 35 must have been preceded by at least oneother folio.

Following the end of Pseudo- Theophilus on the present f 35v are the excerpt from Nm 9.1-11 andGaudentius (,Originis') Tractatus 1 in Exodum (De Paschae obseruatione), which fill col. a of that

transl), Cummian's Letter De controversia paschali together with a related Irish computistical tract De ratione conputandi,Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts 86 (Toronto 1988) 32-35.

• Wilhelm GUNDLACH (ed), Columbae sive Columbani abbatis Luxoviensis et Bobbiensis epistolae, MGH EpistolaeMerovingici et Karolini Aevi 1 (Berlin 1892) 154-190: 156-158, 162; G.S.M. WALKER (ed & transl), Sancti Columbaniopera, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 2 (Dublin 1957) 2-59: 1 and 18.

7 See WALSH & 6 CR6INtN, Cummian's Letter, 84-86.• Daibhi 6 CR6INfN, A seventh-century Irish computus from the circle of Cummianus, Proceedings of the Royal IrishAcademy 82 C II (1982) 405-430.

• It is perhaps more than a coincidence that Aldhelm, in his letter to the British king Gerontius, has a confused reference toSulpicius as author of the British/Irish 84-year tables; see Rudolf EHWALD (ed), Aldhelmi opera. MGR AA 15 (Berlin1919) 480-486. For discussion of the work, see C.W. JONES, Bedae opera, 51-5!, and Claude BARLOW (ed), Martini Ep.Bracarensis opera omnia (New Haven 1950) 259-263.

136

D.4IBHf 6 cR61NiN Early Echtcrnach manuscript fragments

page; col. b sees the opening of Pseudo-Anatolius, De Pascha, §1. Pseudo-Anatolius then continueson f 35r a-b with §§1-3. The text then breaks off and is renewed on f 36v a with §§12-13, ending withthe last section, §14, on f 36v b. This implies the loss of almost nine full sections of the printededition, or approximately 200 lines of text. Reckoning on the basis of c. 35 lines per column, thisimplies the loss of at least six columns or one full plus one half-folio.

The present f 36r begins with Augustine, DGAL, which is then followed by Pseudo-AthanasiuslPseudo-Martinus of Braga, De ratione pasch ali. If this text were transcribed in full into the originalmanuscript, we could reckon on the loss of four full columns, or one folio.

The upshot of these calculations is the probability that the surviving two folios were onceaccompanied by at least four others.

Although the bulk of Pseudo-Anatolius De Pasch a has been lost in P enough of the text survivesto enable a comparison with other manuscripts. The readings in P at several points agree with thosein the so-called Sirmond codex of Bede's computus(S), which I have elsewhere demonstrated isderived from an Irish exemplar dated AD 658.10 The relevant textual readings are as follows(reference is to Krusch's edition, cited by paragraph plus page and line-number):

§1 (317.36): et (ter) om. SP§1 (318.1): delucidii K stiIIicidii SP§1 (318.1): eloquiae K eloquentiae S aeloquentiae P§1 (318.1-2): sapientiae K scientiaeque S scientiae P§2 (319.6): luna soli K luna om.SP§13 (326.11): excedisset K excedens S excidens P§13 (326.21): Ab viii. kl. ap. K Et ab viii.kl.ap. SP§13 (326.24): sole discindente K d. s. S discendente s. P§13 (326.26): simili numero dierum K dieTUmom.SP

The texts in Sand P are not identical, however. P sometimes has unique readings:§1 (317.2): contexerunt, for construxerunt K§1 (317.4): conprobandam, for probandam K§1 (317.12): ieurum, for Hieronymum K§2 (318.21): ex planiada, for ex Spaniada K§2 (318.24): praeponenti, for proponenti K§13 (326.3): Caeterum + est, for Caeterum K§13 (326.4): discensumque om.§13 (326.4): qui + in aequinoctio§13 (326.9): ex xii partibus, for ex xii partiunculis§13 (326.13): vii diebus conmedes, for s. d. comedetis K

In drafting his statements about the earliest Echternach manuscripts Lowe, as it seems to me,sometimes failed to appreciate the significance of some of the evidence. This case has already beenmade regarding the famous calendar known to have been in Willibrord's possession, and in particularthe single-leaf Easter table which was bound in with the Calendar from an early date." There seemsnow to be a general consensus emerging that this table must have been written e.c. AD 684, in whichcase it represents the earliest example of an Eehternach hand, but one which must have received itstraining in the Irish monastery of Rath Melsigi. 12 The close relationship between the script of theEaster table and the hand that wrote the main entries in the Calendar, and also the Augsburg (olimMaihingenlHarburg) Gospels, has likewise led to the realisation that the first generation ofEchternach scribes must have acquired their familiarity with this hand either in Ireland itself or frommasters trained in Ireland.

10 See Daibhf 6 CR6INfN, The Irish provenance of Bede's computus, Peritia 2 (1983) 229-247.II See 6 CR6INfN, Rath Melsigi, Willibrord, and the earliest Echternach manuscripts, 28-30.12 See Bernhard BISCHOFF, Palaographie des romischen Altertums und des lateinischen Mittelalters, 2nd ed (Berlin 1986)

126 n 75.

137

DAIBHi 0 CROINiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

That Rath Melsigi may have been the home of a thriving scriptorium, with Irish and Anglo-Saxonmasters and pupils, is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility. It is certainly significant thatamong the first generation of Echternach scribes are the names of at least two Irishmen, Laurentiusand Virgilius, whose names are preserved in Echternach charters from the years AD 704 to AD 721122.13 To the weight of that evidence can now be added the newly-discovered Old Irish glosses in theParis fragments. Bilingual glossing (Latin and Old Irish) is, of course, a distinctive feature of Irishmanuscripts from the earliest period, and the glosses on Pseudo-Anatolius follow, therefore, in along line of such practices developed in the Irish schools. We cannot say from the fragmentaryevidence of the Paris leaves, however, whether text and glosses were written in Ireland or atEchternach. What we can say, on foot of the new evidence, is that the Irish input into Echternachmanuscript production remained strong even after the transfer from Rath Melsigi. The orthographyof the Old Irish glosses suggests an Irish presence at the very beginning, since spellings like drem.condo and tolae represent a stage of the language c. AD 700 (i.e. roughly contemporary with theoldest stratum of the Wurzburg glosses on St Paul), while the technique of writing Old Irish wordswith horizontal dashes over most syllables likewise represents an early stage in the glossing practicesof Irish scribes."

All in all, therefore, the new Paris discoveries add more evidence for the argument that theearliest Echternach manuscripts and their scribes represent a thorough integration of Irish andAnglo-Saxon techniques and interests. In their choice of texts, in their bilingual glossing of thosetexts, and in their script, the Paris fragments provide important corroborative evidence that thegenesis of Hiberno-Saxon cultural relations is to be sought not just in Northumbria but in Ireland aswell.

TEXTS

The texts that follow are reproduced as they appear in the Paris fragments. I have printedbetween square brackets those letters and words that are no longer visible, but which can be safelyrestored since the texts have been identified. Manuscript abbreviations and contractions have beensilently expanded, and minimal capitalisation has been introduced, to facilitate the reader.Punctuation is that of the manuscript, except where retention of it might confuse. The spelling of thefragments has been retained without change; where the text is lost I have assumed a certainconsistency on the part of the scribe and used his spelling in preference to that of the editions.

Letters and words added between two diagonal slashes (/I) indicate words or letters added by thescribe above the line. Words added between arrow brackets «» were omitted by the scribe, and Ihave restored them where necessary. The Latin and Old Irish glosses, with their lemmata, areprinted following the six texts. Roman numerals are printed with a stop on either side, for clarity. Avertical line is used to mark line-ends.

PARIS, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. lat. /0399, ff 35-36

I

35va) ... [Has ergo .uii. lunas) similiter in P[ascha tenendo co[nsta)t [fuisse, con)lsecrata sunt.Quando ergo Ifit! intra I[suum Iimitem ab .x]i. KI. Ap[e). <usque in .xi. KI. Mai.> diesdominicus et luna I [ex illis sanctifica]ta sunt, Pascha nobis [iussum] est celebljrare], Finit amen.[Deo gra]ti[as].

[Pseudo-Theophilus, De ordinatione feriarum paschalium MPL 90, 607-610: 609-610]

13 For a full description of the Echternach documents, see Camille WAMPACH, Geschichte der Grundherrschaft Echternachim Friihmittelalter. 2 vols. Publications de la section historique de l'Institut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg 63 (Luxembourg1929-1930).

14 See Daibhi 0 CROINfN, Mo-Sinu maccu Min and the computus at Bangor. Peritia 1 (1982) 281-295: 200.

138

DAIBHi 0 CROINiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

II

[In nom]ine diuino I [Dei summi.][Loqutus est Dominu]s ad [Moysen] in [deserto] Sinai. anno I [secundo postqua]m egressi suntde terra Aegipti mense I [primo dicens: Faciant] filii Israhel fasse in tempore suo I [.xiiii. diemensis huius ad uesper]am iuxta omnes queremol[nias et iustificationes eius.] Et precipitMoyses fills Israhel ut I [facerent fasse.] Qui [fecerunt] tempore suo .xiiii. die I [mensis ad 5

uesperam in monte Sinai iuxta omnia quae mandauerat Dominus Moysi fecerunt filii Israhel.Ecce autem quidam] inmundi super [animam] I [hominis qui non poterant] facere phasse in [die]ill]o accedentes] I [ad Moysen et Aaron,] qui dixerunt eis: [inmundi sum]us I [super animamhomin]is. [Quare] fraudimur ut non [u]aleal[mus oblationem] in tempore suo offer[re] interfilios [Israhel. Quibus respondit] Moyses: State ut consulam quid I [precipiat Dominus de] III

uobis. [Lo]qutus estque Dominus ad Moysen dil[cens: Loquere filis] Israhel: homo qui fueritinmundus sui [per anima si]ue in uia procul in gente uestra, faciat I [phasse Domino mensesecundo, .xi]iii. die mensis ad uesperam:.[Numbers 9.1-11]

III

Originis dicit: I [In exodo libro pariter nunc au]diuimus obersuatio paschae describitur [etseptem diebus eiusdem] sollempnita/tils azema comedenda mandatur. I [Precipit tamen deus eth]oc ut si quis primo mense uel in anima linmundusl hominis I [id est mortui attractu pOl]lu[t]us.Vel extra electum sacrificis. hirul[solimae locum in lonqui]nquo itenere constitutus. pascha non[potuerit celebrare] .ii. mense celebraret uidens quippe deus genl[tium populos tunc adjhuc 5

hominum mortuorum simulacrisl [inmundos et extra sanctum l]ocum sanctae aecclesiae. inlonquinquo posl[itos - utique nos] qui eramus longe. Et facti sumus propel [in sanguine Christida]t liquentiam ut si primo mense non occurl[rit et dies domini]cus et congruus lunae numerus.ii. I[mense celebremus.]:. Et ideo nee ante .xiiii. lunam. nee ultra I [uicesimam primamcelebrare po]ssumus. Quia .uii. sunt dies azemorum I [in quijbus querimus dominicum diem: 10

Vult I [enim nos Christus promulga]tor legis et gratiae. Neque ligiti[mos] iuxt[a] I [lunae cursumcomp]ut[a]tos praeterire dies. Neque diem suael [resurrectionis otio in]gr[ato] transcendere:Nam .ui. feria qua [hominem fecerat pro e]od[em] pasus. et die dom[i]nica quae dicitur in scrip(turis prima sabbati in qua sumpserat mundus] exordium resur(rexit ut qui prima die creauitcaelum et terram unde postea hominem propter quem fecerat mundum. Haec breuiter dixerim 15

de ratione paschali.]

[Gaudentius, Tractatus I in Exodum. Ambrose Gluck (ed), CSEL 68 (1936) 10-20]

IV

35v b) [De ratione ordinationis tempo rum ac uicissitudinum mundi dicturi diuersorumcomputariorum scita ponemus qui lunae tan tum modo] cursu c[onpu]tat(o] so(lis ascensumdiscensumque I relinquentes diue[rsos circulos sibi contrarios] I e[t] in calculo uere comp[uta]-tionis [numquam in]luentos a[die]ctfs quibusdam pro[blesmatibus] I contexe[r]unt c[um] certumsit [computationis] I rationem [ab]sque his [am]bobus [simul concur]lrentibus non esse 5

conprob[an]d[am. Nam et in] I ue[t]er[ibus] exemplaribus [id est Hebraeis et] I [Greets]uoluminibus non tantum l[unae cursum] I sed et[iam] solis non solum gre[ssus sed per singula] Iac min[utissi]ma horarum momenta [que in suo] I tempore cum ratio poposcerit (proferimus Iin]uenimus conputata. E q[uibu]s Hyppolitus] I .xui. annorum circulum qu[ibusdam ignotis] Ilunae cur[sib]us conp[os]uit. Alii .xxu. alii .xxx.] I nonnulli .lxxxiiii. [anno]rum cir[culum IU

computan]ltes numquam ad uer[am] Pascha[e conponendi] I rationem per[uenerunt.] Verum[maiores nostril I Hebreorum et Grecorum librorum [peritissimi Isijldorum et Heurum etClementum dico [Iicet dissimilia] Imensium principia pro d[iuersitate linguae sense runt] I tamenad unam eandemque Paschae [certissimam rati]lonem die et luna et tem[p]ore [conuenientibus]I summa ueneratione dominicae res[ urrectionis con ]senserunt. Sed et Originis omnium 15

[eruditissimus] I et calculi conpon[en]di perspicacis[simus] I qu[ippe qui et calcenterus uocatus]

139

DAIBHi 6 cR61NiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

est l[ibellum de] I P[ascha luculentissime edidit in quo adnuntians in die Paschae non solumlunae cursum et equinoctii transitum intuendam sed et solis transcensum omnium tenebrarumtetras insidias et offendicula auferentis et lucis aduentum ac tot ius mundi elimentorum uirtutemet inspirationem adferentis esse seruandum ita dicens:J (35r a) [I]n die inquid Paschae non d[ic]o 20

obserl [uandum ut] dies dominica inueniatur et lunae I [.uii. tantu]m dies non transeundi sed utsol diuisl[ionem] ill[a]m lucis scilicet ac tenebrarum in exl[ordio] mundi domini dispensationeaequaliter coni [positam] transcendat et cl .i. in .ii. a [.ii.] in I [.iii. et a .i]ii. in .iiii. a .iiii. in .u. cl.u. in .ui. horas I [luce iJn solis ascensu crescente tenebrae I [decres Jcant cl [.c.] et .xl. numeriadiectione conl[pleta] .xii. partes in uno eodemque die suppleanl[tur.] Sed et ego si aliquid 25

stillicidii post quoruml[tam] exuberantia aeloquentiae ac scientiae I [flumi]na temptasseminferre quid aliud esset I [credenJdum nisi iectantiae et ut uerius dicam I [dementiae] ab omnibusesset credendum luel scribenduml nisi nos I [paulisper] orationum tuarum pullicitatumanil[mauerit] auxilium, quia credimus orationibus I [et fidei tua]e nihil esse inpossibile. Quaconfil[dentiae ro [burati profundissimum obscuratissimae I [conputa]tionis et inprouissum 30

pylagus consurl [gentibus] undique questionibus ac problesmal [tibus in]tumescentibus ingredi-mur uerecondia I [contempJta:. Est ergo in primo anno initium I [primi m]ensis quod est .x. et.uiiii. annorum I [circuli] principium secundum Aegiptios quidem I [mensis] Faminoth .xxui. diesecundum uero I [MacedonJes Distri m[enJsis .xx[ii. die secundum R]omanl[os uero Martiimensis .xxu. die id est .uiii. KI. Apr]l. I [In qua die inuenitur sol non solum conscendisse 35

primam partem uerum etiam quadram iam in ea die habere, id est in prima ex .xii. partibus.Haec autem particula prima ex .xii. uernale est aequinoctium et ipsa est] I [initium mensium et]capu(t] circu(li et absolutio cur]lsus stellarum quae plane[tae id est uagae] Idicuntur ac finis .xii.par[ticulae et totius] circuli terminus. Et ideo nun p[arum delinque]re dicimus eos qui anteiniti[um hoc noui anni] I Pascha putant esse celebra[ndum. Sed nec] I Ii nobis primfs exordium 40

sumit [haec ratio] I antiquis Iudeis fuisse conpr[obata monstra]ltur: et ante aduentum Christiob[seruata. sicut] I euidenter edocent Filo et Iose[phus sed et] I eorum antiquiores Agathobo-l(us et ab eo eru]lditus Aresthobulus ex Planiad[a qui] I un us ex illis .lxx. senioribus [fuit quimissi] I fuerant cl pontificibus ad T[holomeum regem] I Ebreorum Iibros interpr<et>ari inGrecum ser]lmonem. Quique multa ex trad[itionibus Moysi] I praeponenti regi percunctan[ti- 45

que responderunt.] I Ipsi ergo cum questiones Exodi [exponerent dixer]lunt. Pascha non priusesse [immolandum.] I quam equinoctium uernale [transiret.] I Aresthobulus uero etiam ho[caddit: in die]] Paschae non solum obersuandu[m esse ut sol] I aequinoctium uernaletra[nscendat uerum] I etiam et luna.

Cum duo sunt a/e/q] uinoctia inquid] I ueris et autumpni aequfs spatfs [derempta et] I .xiiii. die 50

mensis primi sit statuta [sollempnitas] I post uesperam. quando luna sol]i obposita e re]lgionedepraehenditur sicut e[tiam oculis probare] I licet. inuenitur utique uer[n]al[is aequinoctii] Ipartem. sol obteniens luna uer[o] e[contrario autum]lpnalis. Et ideo ... (text breaks off).36v a . . . [nouissima pars uincitur .xiiii. die mensis primi qui non die sed lunae cursi]bus[con]putatu[r Pasc]ha I [immoletur. Quod qui[d]em ut domini [iussio]ne sanl[citum est et] 55

catholicae fidei conueniens. oml[nibus annis anlticip[ar]i inlicitum I lac periculo]sum esse omnisa[p]ienti non est [dubium. Et i]deo hoc solum satis est omnibus I [sanctis et cathol]icis uiriscustodire ut pluril[bus et diuer]sis opin<ion>ibus lac sen]ten[t]is prael[termissis intr]a terminosquos expossuimus I [sollempnitajtem domin[ic]ae resurrectiol[nis concludjant., Caeterum lest!quod tuae I [epistolae s]ubieceras ut solis ascensum I qui in aequinoctio in diminuti[one dierum] soac noctium confi[cit]ur huic I [opusculo in]sinuare con[arer hoc] modo inl[choatur a]cconsumitur. P[er] .xu. dies et I [horae dime]dium sole ascend[en]te per singul[la momenta] idest per .iiii. in una die ab I [.uiii. KI. Ian. in] .uiii. KI. ApI. hora diminuitur. I IN quaconsummuntur .xii. I [horae et a]ssin id est prima pars. et ex ea I [inchoatur] particula prima ex.xii. partibus I [In qua die] ad uesperum si luna .xiiii.ae I [aduenisset a]gnus apud Iudeos 65

immolabatur. I [Si autem e]xcidens numerum .xu. et .xui. lul[na fuisse] inuenta: in uespera eiusdiei I [in .xiiii. die se]cundae lunae eodem mensae I [natae ad] uesperum Pasch[a c]eleb[ratur.]I[.uii. die]bus con<m>edet!el [az]ema usque I [in diem .xxi. in uesperum. Nobis ergo similiter sieueniat ut .uiii. KI. ApI. et dies dominica et luna .xiiii. inueniatur Pasch a celebrandum est. Sedsi .xu. uel .xui. usque ad .xx. lunam fuerat inuenta pro reuerentia dominicae resurrectionis] I 70

140

DAIBHi 6 cR61NiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

q[u]e [in die] dom[inica] f[acta est nobis similiter celeb] 1ra[ndu]m est. I[ta tam ]en ut[pr]inc[ipium Paschae finem] 1so[llempnitatis eorum.] id est .xx. [Iunam non excidat. et ideo] 1non paruum di[lin ]quisse eos dilx/[imus qui anticipare] I uel excedere hunc numerum [diuinaeinsertum scrip]lturae [au]si sunt. Et ab .uiii. KI. ApI. in .uiii. KI. lulii per]1 .xu. dies [et] duashoras hora d[iminuitur per duo mom]lenta et dimedium. et .ui. parte[m momenti per singulos] 175

dies sole ascendente. Et ab [.uiii. Kt. lulii in .uiii. Kt. Oct.]1 similiter per .xu. dies et .iiii. hor[ashora diminuitur des]lcendente sole in unaquaque dire per eundem numerum] 1momentorum.Et spatium quo[d super est usque in .uiii. Kl.] 1 Ian. simili numero dierum at [horarum acmomentorum]1 finitur. Ita ut in .uiii. Kt. lulii hora et horae dimejldium hora habeat. Et .uiii.Kt. [Ian. dimedi]lum hor[ae et] horam habea[t. Eo usque namque dies] 1et nox diminuitur ut80

.xii. ho[rae que in uernale] 1aequinoctio in pri[n]cipio [domini dispensatione consti]ltutae sunt.in .uiii. Kt. lulii n[octe diminuta sole ascenjldente per singulos quo [supra diximus gradus] 1.xuiii. in .xii. longiore spa[tio reperiantur adiunc]ltae. Et iterum .xii. horae [que in autumpnale]I aequinoctio solis discens[u repleantur in .uiii. Kl.] 1Ian .. ui. horae in .xii. diuisa[e inuenianturdisiunc]ltae. Nocte .xuiii. in .xii. [diuisas tenente quae] 1in .uiii. [Kl.] Iulii similiter .ui. [in .xii. 85

partitas tenebat.] I Hoc autem non [ignores quod ista .iiii. quae supra]1 prae[diximus temporumconfinia]1 sci[licet mensium se]quentium kalendfs ad[proximantur unumquodque 1 ta]menmedium temporis [id est ueris et estatis]I et autumpni et chemis [teneat et non exinde] 1temporum principia inch[oantur unde mensium] 1 kalendae initiantur. Sed ita [unumquodquetempus inchoandum est ut a primo die ueris tempus aequinoctium diudat et estatis .uiii. Kt. lulii 90

et autumpni .uiii. Kt. Oct. et chern is .uiii. Kl. Ian. similiter diuidat.]

[Pseudo-Anatolius, De Pascha. Bruno Krusch (ed.), Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichenChronologie. Der 84jiihrige Ostercydus und seine Quellen (Leipzig 1880) 316-327: 316-319,325-327.]

V

36r a) [Itaque si hoc modo intellegamus] tem[pora] et dies et 1[annos ut articul]os quosdam quos[per horologiam computamus] 1rue] in caelo notissimos cum ab oriente usque in] 1[meridian am]sol altitudinem insurgit. Atque inde 1[rursus usque in occi]dentem uergit. Uti possit deinceps 1[aduerti uellunam] uel aliquod sidus ab oriente statim 1[post occasum solis] emergere:. Quoditem cum ad medilam caeli uenerit alti]tudinem. medium noctis indicet. Tunc 1 [scilicet 5

occasurum] cum sole radiente: fit mane: Dies 1 [autem totos solis] ab o[riente usque adoccidentem]1 [circuitus annos uero uel] istos ussitatos solis [anfra]ctus non I [cum ad orientemquod] cotidie [facit sed cum ad eadem] loca 1 [siderum redit - qu]od non facit nisi peractis[.ccc.tis] 1 [.lxu.] diebus. Et tribus horis, [i]d est 1 [quadrante totius] diei quae [pars quater]ducta 1[cogit interponi ujnum diem. quod Romani bissexl[tum uocant ut ad e]undem circuitum 10

redeatur:. Vel I [etiam maiores et] occultiores annos. Nam conplel]tis aliorum side rum spatisma]iores anni fieri dicuntur: -I [... ]Iogus phinicis: - Augustinus hucusque. 1

[Augustinus, De Genest ad litteram II 14. loseph Zycha (ed.), CSEL 28 iii 2, 55]

VI

IDe ratione <Paschae> uel Sulpici Se/ue/ri ut alii dicunt..zl [Plerique mister]ium Paschaenarrare uoluerunt. I [simulque degerere] de ratione subputationis. In I [mense et die et lu]na.siue scientiae:. siue sermonis 1[inpossibilitate o]bscurius id relinquerunt. Tanl[ ... ? quasi nihilinde] dixissent. Scio enim multos scruI [pulosius interro]gare solitos. Quare secundum I [moremludeorum] ad lunae conputationem diuersis I [generibus Pas]cha celebremus. dicentes rectius. I 5

[sibi uideri si do]minicae passionis commemoral[tio agatur ut unum] anniuersarium [na]talem[di]em obl[seruemus sicut] et <a> [pler]isque Gall[iaru]m aepiscol[pis est] usque ante nonmultum tempus 1 [custoditum ut semper .u]iii. Kt. Aprl. diem Paschae c/a/elebljrarent in quofacta Christi resurrectio traditur. Placuit autem et mihi inquirenti curiose quid maiores nostri

i essent aperte exponere.] 10secutr essent aperte exponere.

141

DAIBHi 6 cR61NiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

36r b) (Passio Christi redemptio est creaturae de qua apostolus ait quod s[u]b[i]ect[a] I [fueritseruituti non sua sponte] sed propter [eu]m I [qui subiecit earn in sp[em] quia et [u]os creatura I[ ... ] a curruptella interitus cum /omni/ libertatl[e filiorum Dei.] Haec creat[ura est] spiritusuitae qui crl[eauit omnia] terrena corporatura /[u]t corpora iam/ subiectus in I [earn spem ut decur]ruptella interitus. Cum filiorul[m gloriae] liberetur:. Quae utiquae [in] eo die [subiecta est 15

ser]luituti in quo mundus eff[ectu]s est I [quam cum Christ us] I per passionem suam liberareueniss[et seruauit ut] I in eo tempore [c]um patiretur. [in quo creatural I subiecta fueratseruitut[i ut] qui I [dies ilJe tris [ltitiae fuerat. i[t]em laetitiae r[edderetur.] Quoniam uero huiussacramenti m[agni tanta ut] I esset ueritas. ut ueritatis ipsius [etiam umbra] I proficeret. adsalutem. liberandis. [ludeis de] seruitute Pharaonis. Quasi iam [libe]lratio creaturae. de 20

seruitute cor[ruptellae] I figuraretur. Futurae passionis [Christi imago] I in aduentum salutisoper[ata] est. [et ideo dictum est] ad Iudeos. ut in primo mense an[ni .xiiii. luna] agnusinmaculatus anniculus im[molaretur] I de cuius sanguine domus suae sup[er limina] Iconsignarent. ne [a uas]tatore an[gelo tanJgerentur. at/que/ in [m]e[dio] [n]octe cones[to perdomos] I agno. Quod esset Paschae /daelebra[tio.] I Tamen secundum figuram acciperunt 25

ser[uitutem.] I Non obscura est figura. agnum i[nmacula]tum esse Ihesum Christum. huiusymmola[tione a] I serui[tu]te nos interitus li[ber]au[it. Nam sig]lno crucis eius [q]uassiaspersione /sanguinis/ [signati usque] I quo ad consum[mationem mundi a uastatoribus angelisuindicabimur. Hoc breuiter et strictim dixisse sufficiat, ut id quod quaerere propositum est,rationem obseruationis et Paschae et mensis et lunae et diei, sine molestia muItiloqui 30

aperiamus.] (36r b ends)

[Pseudo-AthanasiusiPseudo-Martinus Bracarensis, De Pascha. Claude Barlow (ed.), MartiniBrae. ep. opera (New Haven 1950) 270-271

LATIN GLOSSES

35r a 1035r a 1635r a 25

35r a 2735r b 1035r b 2435r b 2736v a 2136v a 22

36v a 2436v a 2536v b 1636v b 2136r a 30

35v b 10 non tantum lunae cursum sed etiam solis, gl. id .xxx. diebus in ascensu solis35v b II minutissima horarum momenta, gl. id [siJngul[aJ35r a 9 tenebrae decrescant, a .c. et .xl. numeri adiectione conpleta, .xii. partes in uno eodemque die suppleantur, gl. (1)

id m[o]mentis; (2) ac .cxx. id bis l= bissexti];(3) id horaenisi nos paulisper orationum tuarum pullicitatum animauerit auxilium, gl. id est postule(?) nost")quod est .x. et .uiiii. annorum circuli principium, gl. et eius circulisecundum Aegiptios, gl. id Marti. id .uii. KI. Parmothisecundum uero Macedones, gl. id Marti. id .xi. KI. Fa[rmothi(?)]sicut euidenter edocent Filo et Iosephus, gl. [... J numerato[r]ut sol aequinoctium uernale transcendat uerum etiam et luna, gl. id .xiiii.sicut etiam oculis probare Iicet, gl. id in di[e]id est prima pars. gl. id de bis [= bissexto]et ex ea inchoatur particula prima, gl. diesparticula prima ex .xii. partibus, gl. id hensexcidens numerum, gl. id .xiiii.in uespera, gl. id aequi l= aequinoctio]Et .uiii. KI. Ian. dimedium horae et horam habeat , gl. id in noclte]sole ascendente per singulos, quos supra diximus, gradus, .xuiii., gl. [aequi(?)]noc[tio(?)]si dominicae passion is commemoratio agatur ut unum anniuersarium, gl. id [... ]st

OLD IRISH GLOSSES35v b 3 et in calculo, gl. 'arem: ,counting, reckoning'; vn. of ad-rimi. Royal Irish Academy, Dictionary of the Irish

Language [OIL] A 197. Note the retention of --e- in the unstressed final syllable. The later spelling is aram; cf.Rudolf THURNEYSEN, A grammar of Old Irish (Dublin 1946) 105 § 169.

35v b 26 Origenis omnium eruditissimus et calculi conponendi perspicacissimus, gl. condo: archaic gen. of coin, (latercuairt): .circle , circuit'. OIL C 57-71. The spelling -td- for -d- is unusual (cf. OIG 23 §3Id), while theundiphthongised first syllable and the retention of the gen. sg. ending -0 are evidence of archaism.

142

DAIBHi 0 CROINiN Early Echternach manuscript fragments

35r a 21 problesmatibus (with ref. mark connecting this to .pylagus'), gl. IOrae: .flood': vn. of "to-uss-lin or "to-fo-lin. OIL T238. Note retention of +ae in the second, unstressed syllable (later tala).

35r b 20 utique uernalis aequinoctii partem sol obteniens, gl. id for matin. id gue: .i.e.. in the morning. i.e., (the)brightness'; for = prep. .on' + acc.ldat. matin (nom. maten <Latin matutina.); OIL M 69. gill', OIL G 82.

36r a 32 usque ante non multum tempus, gl. cogiiir: ,until recently'. Not the adverbial construction with prep. co but aslavish rendering of the Latin: co = usque, gair = non rnulturn tempus.The general impression given by the language of these glosses is that they represent a date in the early eighthcentury, perhaps even the seventh. The archaismes (undiphthongised long vowels, vowels between consonants inunstressed position not yet reduced to schwa, retention of full value in final vowels, absence of glide vowels) aresuch as are found in the oldest Irish texts: the Cambrai Homily, the prima manus of the Wiirzburg glosses, and theoldest stratum in the Book of Armagh Patrician texts. A date no later than AD 72S would seem appropriate.(I wish to thank Dr Liam Breatnach, School of Irish, Trinity College, Dublin, for discussing these glosses with me.)

I 2II 4

II 7II 9II 9II 11III

III 3IV 68

V 3V 12VI 1

VI 2VI 3VI 12VI 13VI 14

NOTES ON THE TEXTSQuando ergo fit intra: the scribe first wrote Quando ergo intra, then added above the words sit inter, as a correction.Et precipit: Not attested in Henri QUENTIN et al. (eds), Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem 3. Numeri-Deuteronomium (Rome 1936). Most MSS have praecipitque, though G' omits the -que.phasse: pascha is the preferred reading in the Rome edition, though numerous MSS in fact have phasse or a variant.fraudimur: fraudamur is the preferred reading in the Rome edition; MS 0 has our reading.in tempore suo offerre: the Vulgate text is offerre oblationem Domino in t.s.; our reading is not attested.Loqutus estque: a peculiar reading; most MSS have either locutusque est or loqutus est.Originis: an interesting ascription; the same spelling is found in MSS of Pseudo-Anatolius (KRUSCH, Studien I,317).in anima inmundus hominis: the CSEL ed. reads: immundus in anima hominis..uii. diebus con<m>edete azema: the scribe seems to have written conedetis (though the last two letters are no longerclearly visible, due to damage of the parchment. Above the second I' was added the letter n. and above the final -is(?)was added e (both additions are clearly visible; the initial con- was written out in full, not abbreviated.uergit: there is a p added above the first letter, though uergit is, in fact, correct.[... ]logus phinicis: I am unable to explain these words.<Paschae>the title is added between the lines, with the word ratione above the second Paschal'. perhaps with theintention of incorporating the word in the title. The ascription of this work to Sulpicius Severus is. to my knowledge.unique.de ratione: above -ne is written -ni, perhaps as a correction.relinquerunt. Tanl] ... J: the editions have nothing added between relinquerunt and quasi.quia et uos: the editions read: quia et ipsa liberabitur a seruitute interitus cum libertate filiorum Dei (= Rm 8: 20-21).cum omni libertate: omni not in the editions.ut corpora iam: not in the editions, perhaps a gloss.

PALEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTIONThe two surviving folios measure 330x230 mm, but these have been trimmed by the binder. The writing area is c. 315 mmlong, and the estimated breadth is c. 250 mm. Allowing for an average of c. 351ines per page, with loss of 2-3lines at the top ofthe page and 5-6 at the foot of the page, the original dimensions were probably in the region of c. 360 x c. 260 mm. The writingis in two columns, enclosed by single bounding lines.Punctuation: the medial point is used for pauses; stops are indicated by the use of three dots(:.). Omissions are marked bysignes de renvoi. Monosyllables and long -is in final syllables are accented. There is an extensive repertoire of construe-marks(though their use is not always clear). Abbreviations: besides the usual forms b:, q: = bus, que, dr, diit = dicitur, dicunt , etc.,some less regular forms occur: e.g. temp, = tempus. Insular abbreviations are frequent: :> = con/com (comedenda); 3 = eius;+ = est; id = id est; q:. = quaet -l = uel. Not noted by Lowe is the distinctively Irish f = secundum.Spelling: Insular spellings are common: pylagus [pelagus), problesma, lonquinquo, chemis (hiemis), sol/empnitas, but on thewhole the orthography is good.Script: described by Lowe as a .majuscule verging on minuscule', who noted also that the script changes into a crowdedminuscule for the Gaudentius text on f 35v a. Uncial d is the rule; half-uncial n rand r are regular, though the uncial forms dooccur. Lowe described the bow of q as ,disproportionately large' and noted the stubbed, short descender of that letter.Ligatures are common: ti, hi, mi, ni, fi, gn; nt, with subscript t occurs once (36r a). The ink is now brown. and according toLowe the vellum was ,prepared in the Insular manner'.

143

D.O. CROINiN Echtcrnach Manuscript Fragments

r . 'I.\I1o- ~ ..~h('u;- tlOry.)- .. ":'" ~

. /.

1tllM, Irt:'CU 1'\. •

~t

13. - Paris, BN lat. 10399, f. 35.

319

D.D CRDlNiN Echternach Manuscript Fragments

14. - Paris, BN lat. 10399, f. 35v

320

D.OCROlNiN Echternach Manuscript Fragments

15. - Paris, BN lat. 10399, f. 36

321

D.6cR6INiN Echternach Manuscript Fragments

16. - Paris, BN lat. 10399, f. 36v

322