The University of Chicago
EELSES
SS
Libraries
E
i n | e
; ;
; f f f H ; YA f % A ; f f A - f Z f f f f f p
SS
THE
OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF THE
VULGATE GOSPELS
oded nd a TUATI , ; haeeereeuomirgs
rg
E E
St Gall MS 1395 (Ioh. xvi 30-xvii 8)
About ł of natural size
* LEEA EN S ; Fa 9h Bakte ILI Gaels dotia Mas de. Gall ma. M l d
THE
OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF THE
VULGATE GOSPELS
DECIPHERED AND EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX BY CUTHBERT HAMILTON TURNER, M.A.
late Dean Ireland’s Professor of Exegesis and Senior Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford
OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1931
St Gall MS r395 (Ioh. xvi 30-xvii 8)
About 2 of natural size
Babe N.I. Goafiela platim. Was, Aë. hdl ma = THE
OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF THE
VULGATE GOSPELS
DECIPHERED AND EDITED WITH 'AN INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX BY CUTHBERT HAMILTON TURNER, M.A.
late Dean Ireland’s Professor of Exegesis and Senior Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford
OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1931
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AMEN HOUSE, E.C. 4 LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW LEIPZIG NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPETOWN BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS SHANGHAI HUMPHREY MILFORD PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
SEBY OPY $ m “ S t— LIBRARIFS
eae
a N aS ~aeo,
i A Pu-
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
PREFATORY NOTE
ON 24 July 1930, Professor C. H. Turner wrote to me thus : ‘At Llandrindod I hope more or less to complete the intro- duction to my edition of the St. Gall Gospel fragments. It will be a change of work and rather light work.
This hope was not fully realized at the time of his death on 10 October. He succeeded in completing the greater part of it, particularly the first and second chapters. Most of the other material has survived in a more or less satisfactory shape, including a rough plan of the complete Introduction, which has enabled me to present it in something like the form he intended. He had been busy with the St Gall MS at intervals since 1905, and the greater part of the text was printed off some twenty years ago. He had never had occasion to discuss the intro- duction with me, but my twenty-seven years’ friendship with him, my membership of the same College, and my occupation with kindred studies suggested that I should bring out the work. Probably no scholar could clothe it with that exquisite literary expression which was one of Turners many remarkable gifts, and I can make no pretension to have done so. It is to be regretted that only some of his opinions about the true Vulgate text, expressed in chapter VI, have been preserved: I have pre- sented them as they stood ; I have in no way tampered with these or other opinions, but have merely corrected a few errors, supplied a few omissions, and added one or two notes (with my initials}.
The Durham fragment was intended to be accompanied by an introduction and some discussion of its charactèr, For this part there were no materials in a shape fit for publication, and I must let the text speak for itself. Nor is there any mention among Professor Turners papers of the Autun palimpsest of the . Vulgate Gospels, fully described by Monsieur A. Royet in the Revue Biblique, t. xxxi (1922), pp. 518-51, t. xxxii (1923), PP. 39-58, 213-37, 372-82.
I am indebted to the Dean of Bocking (Very Rev. H. N. Bate) for his careful revision of the proofsheets.
ABERDEEN A. SOUTER. 2 May 1931.
St Gall MS 1395 (Ioh. xvi 30-xvii 8)
CONTENTS
Frontispiece ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA ix INTRODUCTION: Chapter I. The Gospels in the Western Church . xi § ii. The History of the Vulgate xiv Chapter II. The St Gall Fragments or X xxi § 2. Description of 3 . XXİV $ ii. The Palaeography of 3.
1. The Nomina Sacra xxvi 2. Abbreviations other than the Nomina Sacra xxviii § iii. Work of Later Scholars and Correctors XXX
Chapter III. Singular and Sub-singular Readings of the St Gall MS in Matthew and Mark xxxi Chapter IV. § x. Jerome’s assimilation to the Hebrew XXXV § 2. Jerome’s fondness for vernacular idiom. xXxv § 3. Jerome’s faithfulness to the Greek XXXVİ Chapter V. The Orthography of the Vulgate . Xxxvili (a) Vowels . . XXXİX (5) Consonants xl
(c) Reduplication of Consonants i in Old- Latin forms of Greek Words . xli
(d) Insertion of additional consonant for euphony in O.L., removed by Jerome xlii
- (e) Accusative of Greek proper names in -as
-es: -am or -an, -em o7 -en ?
Hebrew spellings xliii
Assimilation of prepositions (or before verbs in -b or -p the substitution of m forn) xliv
Chapter VI. Collation with the Text of Wordsworth and
White
(ï) Variations of Text xlvii (ii) Variations of Orthography lvii
The oldest manuscript of the Vulgate Gospels .
viii CONTENTS Appendix. An Early Durham Fragment (A. II. 17)
Introductory Note . Durham Cathedral A. II. 17 (Luc. xxiii 5—1 r) photo- graph of one page . . ; fain É An Early Durham Fragment .
Liturgical Notes in Durham A. II. r6 and A. 1. 17.
197 198
199 199 217
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
(MOSTLY THE RESULT OF RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL IN 1922 AND 1927)
p. 76 add 15 before ‘tes retia ’ p. 96 a l. 16 read ‘pharesaei ’ p. 150 41. 19 read post quam p- 185 ò 1l. 14-15 read cclgxviiii read Zentral for Stadt, and so 186, 187, 188 p. 187 a l. 14 read spm 1.8 after ‘second’ add ‘or later’ p. 188 a top, read cxxxi l 17 a slight gap should be indicated between ‘formidet’ and ‘audistis’ p. 1804a1.5 perhaps ‘non ma’ preceded net’ p 181al.8 read ‘quis’ I. io „ ‘si’and ‘dico’ 1.16 „ ‘Responderunt’ L117 „p ʻe l.2I1 ,„ ‘respondzź L5 »„ amen l.9 „ ergo iudaei l. 10 , nunc cognouimus lrr „ habes lL 1ī4 „ sermonë l. 15 ,„ seruauerit non 1.22 ,„ respondit l. 24 nihil l. 21 rte’ is doubtful . 17 separate ‘ male’ and ‘ dixerunt’ p. 185 a is difficult to make out l. 3 read ‘Dicit’ and ‘quod’ l.ọ read dzcit l 15 ,„ cellam l.25 ,„ modicū b from 1. 14 onwards is bad l. 5 read modo L6 , nouum L7 „ diligazis L9 „ diligatis l I4 ,„ perus dřñē cclxxviii lL r5 possibly clxx ought to be clxi l. 21 read meā note on 1. r excise ‘ much ’
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
p. 185 1.21 note on Il, 17, 18 add, ‘1. 17 with success, l. 18 probably worse than before?’ p- 186a]. 4 for‘um’ read ‘trum’ l. rx read locū 1. 16 the space should be rather less b note on l. 9 add :—‘ It was written by m. I1 q! as usual, but he went on by mistake not q'i but qa, then (apparently m 1) he added a small i, qĉ%uidit’ p. 187 a1. 23 read modicūù p. 188 æ top, „p Cxxxi Add to note on I, i1 &c., ‘Perhaps the q, becomes more common to save space and finish in 24 gatherings?’ p igoal. 5 read‘ Ad’ i I9 „ mexfi] add note 1. 6 ‘ dire’ perhaps phonetic, Z/a}. dire L6 read ‘non?’
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I THE GOSPELS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH.
CuristTIANITY made its first appearance in the West in Greek- guise. Rome was the gate of the Western world, and in Rome Greek was understood, and to a large extent spoken, at both ends of the social scale.
From Cicero's time onwards educated Romans were increasingly affected by Greek language and literature. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek, and the upper classes, alike in polite society and in intellectual coteries, probably talked Greek when they met, even if only as a fashion. At any rate they could all understand Greek: even in Proconsular Africa, a generation later than the Emperor Marcus, the high-born lady Vibia Perpetua and her bishop are represented in the vision of Saturus, recorded in the Acts of Perpetua, as talking Greek to one another, whether because it was their natural method of communication with one another, or because they did not want what they said to be intelligible to the bystanders—just as our parents talked French at the dinner-table to conceal their conversation on occasions from servants and children. It is no matter for surprise then that Christianity in its first half-century at Rome made converts like the consul Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla,
But far larger and far more important for the history of Christianity was the Greek-speaking population of quite an opposite type, aliens of all sorts from the East, native Greeks, Syrians, and especially Jews. Here was the special seed-plot for the Gospel preaching: of all this vast congeries many, one would suppose, hardly understood Latin. Literature that was addressed to the Roman Church was necessarily Greek, since it came from churches that were themselves Greek-speak- ing; and the converse is true also—it is not sufficiently realized that one reason for the long persistence of Greek as the language of theo- logians in the West was that only in Greek could they address the theological public of the Church at large. It was only when Greek ceased to be the ngua franca, so to say, of theology that the Eastern and Western. Churches began to draw apart.
It was only by slow stages, and at first by very slow stages, that the process of the Latinization of the Roman .Church made way. Hermas
xii INTRODUCTION
still addressed his Roman fellow-Christians in Greek somewhere about A.D. 140. A little later Justin addressed his 4po/ogies to the Emperors in the same language. The names of the popes are predominantly Greek till pretty well the middle. of the third century, That their sepulchral inscriptions in the Catacombs are Greek suggests that Greek was the official language of the Roman Church till at least A.D. 250, and it cannot be doubted therefore that the language of worship was Greek also, and the Gospel at the pope’s mass must have been read in Greek.
Are we then entitled to conclude that the Roman Church down to the middie of the third century possessed no rendering of the Gospels in the vernacular, and that the African version, to-which at that period witness is borne by St Cyprian and the Bobbio Gospel-fragment known as Å, was the earliest Latin rendering of the text of the four Gospels ?
I think not: for however true it may be that theologians wanting to address the learned Christian public of the Church‘at large long con- tinued to write in Greek, or that the official worship of the Roman Church continued to use what was the sacred language, so to say, of the Church (just as Hebrew in our Lorđ’s time was the sacred language of the_Jews), I añ convinced that the Greek aspect of Roman Chris- tianity has been a good deal exaggerated in recent times, and that for practical purposes the Church was a Latin-speaking Church from about A.D. 200 onwards. Novatian wrote in Latin ; the Roman and Cartha- ginian Churches in St Cyprian’s day—bishops, clergy, confessors alike— corresponded with one another in Latin; the Latin tract de montibus Sina et Sion appears to me to be Roman of the early third century ; and I cannot believe that there was no version at least of the Gospels extant in Rome for the use of the Latin-speaking Christian population. I wonder whether Hippolytus was not a bit of an anachronism, the last
-representative of the Greek-speaking tradition of the Roman Church. Anq the Gospel must have spread through central and perhaps northern Italy from Rome as the source and in Latin as its medium,
Or again, look at the matter from the African side. Whence did the churches of Proconsular Africa derive their Christianity, if not from Rome? There is, so far as I know, no evidence in Christian times of any such connexion of Carthage and the East as there undoubtedly is between the churches of the Rhone valley and Asia Minor. On the other hand, nothing emerges more clearly from the Cyprianic corre- spondence than the intimate, frequent, and speedy exchange of news between Rome and Carthage. I cannot doubt that African Christianity was primarily an off-shoot of Roman Christianity, and I suppose for my own part that the Latin Gospels as known to St Cyprian had reached
THE GOSPELS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH xiii
Carthage from Rome. It is exactly what we should expect when we examine the characteristics of this ‘ African’ version of the Scriptures. They bear all the marks of the Latin of the people: we have not to do, it would seem, with anything like an official version ; not a version read in church so much as a version studied at home, which made its way from the bottom upwards, till, beyond the sea at any rate, it finally established itself in official and liturgical use.
But a century and a half, if not two centuries, separated this primitive, rendering into the vernacular from the revision undertaken by Jerome. Just because it betrayed at every turn its popular and non-literary origin, so, as Latin Christianity began to penetrate into literary and educated circles, the instinct for revision asserteđ itself. The version, being only a version, had none of the sacrosanct element that attached to the apostolic originals. The first rendering may well have been a private venture by individual Roman Christians : the efforts at im- proving it may have been local, partial, sporadic, sometimes aiming at the improvement of the Latin, sometimes at a closer assimilation to whatever Greek MS this or that reviser happened to possess. It must not be forgotten that such Greek MSS were probably later in date, and not necessarily better in type, than those which lay behind the first efforts. Depravation of texts was going on in the Greek East as well as in the Latin West.
It was to meet a real need, then, that at the bidding of the aged and masterful pope Damasus, Jerome, the most learned presbyter of the Roman Church, undertook in 383 the commission of providing a new version of the Four Gospels: for Latin readers. Few scholars have comė better equipped to their task. Born in Dalmatia, Eusebius Hieronymus, to give him his full name, had received the best possible Latin educa- tion in Rome, where he sat at the feet of the celebrated grammarian Donatus. Butit was not only knowledge of Latin, it was the flower and style of Latin literature at its best, that he imbibed: his letters, marred though many of them are by grave faults of taste and temper, are an exquisite model of Latin writing, and one may almost say that no one who has not read them, knows of what-the Latin language is capable.! We may confidently expect that the Revised Latin Gospels are written in good Latin, and that however closely they follow the Greek it is not to the neglect of Latin idiom and the genius of the Latin.
But Jerome was beyond most other men, uzríiusgue linguae peritus. For some four centuries the higher education of a promising lad in Rome had included a training in Greek: Jerome. followed that up by
1 The Letters are, by the way, a very mine of Latin proverbs.
xiv INTRODUCTION
a prolonged residence in the Greek-speaking provinces of the East. He had studied in the principal centres of Greek learning, and knew by personal contact the most distinguished scholars and theologians of the day, such as Didymus at Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen at Con- stantinople, and, by intensive knowledge of their books, the illustrious representatives of the school of Palestinian Caesarea, Eusebius Pam- phili and Origen himself, still to Jerome at this period of his life the ‘ Master’. Doubtless many of Jerome’s Western contemporaries were acquainted with Greek ; but few, if any, had Jerome’s command of it, and just because of that he was prouder of the accomplishment than of his even more unique capacity for writing Latin. The Vulgate Gospels (I shall henceforward use the familiar term which later on came to be applied to St Jerome’s revision) were so edited, then, as to preserve a much closer correspondence to the Greek text he had before him than the now quite literal, now simply paraphrastic, Old Latin. That closeness to what he selected as the right Greek text to follow is the primary and dominant characteristic of St Jerome’s work.
It is obvious that for the final appraisement of the value of the Vulgate revision of the Gospels, one crucial question will be of what sort was the Greek text of his choice. We may be certain that the choice was not lightly made. We may be fairly certain a priori that much weight would be attributed by him to the Origenian and Eusebian tradition of Biblical text at Caesarea. We cannot tell how far Greek Bible MSS survived in Rome, or, if they did, what use he made of them. But instinct would have been in favour of the Greek tradition of the East as against Rome, and further of the texts of Alexandria and Caesarea, the two homes of Origen, rather than of any texts of the rival school of Antioch. These anticipations are in fact borne out by examin- ation of the true Vulgate text. On the whole Jerome based his altera- tions on the Greek texts now preferred by editors; that is, on the NB type, and, as Wordsworth was first to show, especially on the type of N.
§ ii. THE HISTORY OF THE VULGATE.
In sharp contrast to the later attitude of the Roman Church to the version of St Jerome, neither pope Damasus nor his immediate successors made any attempt, so far as we know, to recommend, still less to enforce, the acceptance of the new revision of the Gospels for official and public use: it was left to make its way unaided save by its intrinsic merits, and in St Gregory’s time, two centuries later, the old and the new version still existed in Rome side by side. Partly no doubt this reticence was due to the prerogative position still enjoyed by the
THE GOSPELS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH xv
original Greek : as between translations it could only be a question of better or worse, not of one right and many wrong. More decisive was the difficulty of over-riding by any act of authority the innate conserva- tism of Christian congregations in the matter of the form of Scripture well known to them and well loved by them. All of us have heard the story of the African church-folk who revolted against the substitu- tion of Jerome’s new-fangled cucurbita for their familiar edera as the rendering of ‘gourd’ in the story of the prophet Jonah. Inteli- gent people like Augustine might defer to Jerome’s scholarship and his intimate knowledge of the original languages of Old and New Testa- ment, exactly as happened with us after the appearance of the Revised Version of 188r. And at least Jerome with his fine ear for rhythm and sense of the niceties of language improved on the Latinity of the exist- ing versions, while it can hardly be claimed for our own Revisers that they improved on the English of the Authorized Version. As a trans- lator of the New Testament Jerome stands unrivalled, exactly because he was utriusque linguae peritus: the Reyisers knew their Greek (at least their classical Greek) well enough—it was in their own language that, unlike Jerome, they were at fault.
Yet, spite of that, the Old Latin, during the first generations after the publication of the Vulgate Gospels, exerted still a vast influence to the detriment of the pure Hieronymian tradition. Every scribe who was busy over a copy of the new translation was himself better acquainted with some form of the Old Latin. At every point even the most careful of them was liable, for the most part no doubt unconsciously, to allow his pen to reproduce this or that feature of the version familiar to him in his youth. Now it was the older spellings, now it was the text of familiar passages, that re-appeared. Fortunately no two scribes were affected in just the same way, or introduced exactly the same alterations from the Old Latin into the Vulgate, and so the attempts to restore the-true text of St Jerome were not so complicated as they might have been. But at intervals during the fifteen hundred years which separate us from the first publication scholars have busied themselves, in face of existing discrepancies between one -Vulgate MS and another, with the task of deciding which is the original and which the adventitious reading. l l
Of all these ‘editions’, as we may rightly call them, the earliest- is perhaps also the most important. About the middle of the sixth century, CassroporUs, the erstwhile minister of the Gothic king Theodoric, retired to the monastery which he had founded at Vivarium in the extreme south of Italy, and devoted himself to the instruction and higher education of his monks in Biblical and patristic learning ;
xvi INTRODUCTION
the details of his work and of the library which he installed there for this purpose, he has described in the De institutione diuinarum litterarum, Naturally the first place was taken by. the Bible: and in the Biblical department the first place was taken by the ‘new translation’ of St Jerome.
By a happy chance we still have at our command to-day a complete MS of the Cassiodorian edition. The huge Amiatine Bible in the Laurentian library at Florence is not indeed of the date to which older scholars (including I believe Bishop Wordsworth himself when he began to work on the Vulgate) ascribed it, the sixth century : nothing shews better the advance of palaeographical studies among us than that till half a century ago it should have been possible to confuse the imitative uncial hand of the codex Amiatinus with the firmer uncial hands of the genuine uncial period. The historical discovery which enables us to fix a precise date for the great MS is due in the first instance to de Rossi, in the second to Hort. It might indeed have been guessed that a MS unique in its size among MSS written in the first thousand years of our era would have left some mark in history ; anå such has turned out to be the case. The dedicatory verses at the 'head of the MS purport to record the gift of the MS to the monastery of the Saviour by the abbot Servandus ‘from the farthest extremities of Latium’. But that this expression of a gift to the monastery of the Saviour on Monte Amiata is an alteration of the original form of the gift is clear, for ‘Saluatoris? does not scan—it has replaced a two- syllabled word in the last foot of a hexameter—not to say that no one in his senses would write of a gift to Monte Amiata in Tuscany by an abbot coming from ‘the extremities’ of the not very distant territory of Latium. De Rossi detected that certain letters of the altered inscrip- tion were original, and for the unmetrical
Culmen ad eximii merito uenerabile Saluatoris proposed the much more intrinsically probable and metrically correct Corpus ad eximii merito uenerabile Petri,
Further he noted that Bede did actually record that Abbot Ceolfrid of Jarrow and Monk Wearmouth, successor of Benedict Biscop, died at Langres in 715, while on his way to Rome to offer a Bible, written
1 An adequate text of this treatise is lacuna will soon be filled, and the de- one of the greatest desiderata of Latin sired edition be achieved, at the hands literature, as well as of the companion of my friend Mr, R. A, B. Mynors of book De institutione saecularium littera- Balliol College. rum. I am glad to believe that the
THE GOSPELS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH xvii
under him in Northumbria, to the Pope: and so, for ‘ Servandus Latii ’ proposed to substitute
Ceolfridus Britonum extremis de finibus abbas.
Hort clinched the discovery by pointing out that the Historia Abbatum, unlike the Historia Ecclesiastica of Bede, not only mentioned the fact of the gift, but also quoted the dedicatory verses: de Rossi’s restoration was brilliantly justified, save that, in ignorance of our ancestors’ true character of Englishmen not Britons, he had wrongly restored ‘ Ceolfridus Britonum’ instead of ‘ Ceolfridus Anglorum’.
This new date and place for the Amiatinus has historically the impor- tant consequence that we have to deal with a Northumbrian MS, and the ancestry of a Northumbrian MS written under Ceolfrid is naturally to be sought in the Italian MSS which he and his predecessor Benedict Biscop had brougbt back from their travels., And all arguments, general and particular, converge on the conclusion that Amiatinús has points of intimate contact with the school and neighbourhood of Cassio- dorus. Now sincè Wordsworth’s edition is primarily based on the Amiatine MS, it follows, as I believe beyond possibility of doubt, that the text which that edition gives us is not so much the text of Jerome as the text of Cassiodorus.
A palmary argument in favour of this conclusion is the presence in the codex Amiatinus, as in Wordsworth’s edition, of the arrangement in sense lines, per cola et commata ; for this arrangement, admittedly found in certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament, is no part, I am convinced, of St Jerome’s text of the Vulgate Gospels. On this head I shall have more to say when I go on to speak in detail of the St Gall fragments.
If Wordsworth’s text correctly represents the details of the Amiatinus in the reproduction of the Eusebian Canons, a further argument for connecting the MS with Cassiodorus rather than directly with Jerome emerges at once ; for Jerome's own letter to Pope Damasus implies, if I rightly understand it, that a fuller apparatus was provided in the margin of the text of the Gospels than just the section number in black and ` the canon number in red. Certainly our St Gall MS adds at each new ‘section the parallels in the other Gospels. Thus ifa section in Matthew belongs to canon I—that is, is found in all four Gospels—the section numbers in the other three Gospels follow immediately on the canon number. But again, the further discussion of the rival systems of incor- porating the Eusebian Canons will most profitably follow when the characteristics of the St Gall MS come up for treatment. It is enough here to emphasize the close and intimate connexion between Cassiodorus, the Amiatine MS, and the edition of Bishop Wordsworth,
PPA ba)
xviii . INTROĐÐUCTION
To the same Northumbrian-Cassiodorian group belongs the Lindis- farne Gospels, Y, written a few years earlier than the Amiatinus for Eata, bishop of Lindisfarne, copied in all probability from an Italian MS, of which a fragment is still preserved in Durham, and is printed below pp. 199-216, as an appendix to my edition of the St Gall MS.
Geographically too a neighbour, chronologically a contemporary, is the celebrated MS written for, and corrected by, Victor, bishop of Capua, in A.D. 546, and now preserved at Fuldà, whence known as F. But the MS, though its text is a Vulgate text throughout, is not a MS of the Four Gospels, but of the Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four, as arranged by Tatian in the second century. What were the stages that intervened between Tatian’s Greek and Victor's Vulgate Latin we do not know, nor whether there is any direct connexion between the text of the Vulgate Harmony of Victor, and Cassiodorus’ edition. But at least F is a South Italian text, like that of Cassiodorus, and, Harmony though it be, its text is so good that it is to be classed among the very best witnesses to tbe Vulgate. Even if not actually Cassiodorian, F ranks with AY as constituting together the S. Italian group : to be set, as we shall see later on, over against the N. Italian group of M and 3, the Milan and the St Gall MSS.
We pass over two centuries and a half, and we move from Italian to Gallic ground before we come to the recensions or editions of the two Carolingian scholars, Alcuin and Theodulf. Down to the reign of Charles the primacy of learning was still held by Italy ; in the fifth and sixth, and even in the seventh century, Italian MSS can be generally distinguished from those written in Gaul by their superior calligraphy ; and just as Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid at the turn of the seventh and eighth centuries scoured the parts of Italy most accessible to them for Italian books, so the Merovingian founders or foundresses filled the libraries of their monasteries with treasures from the same source.! But with the accession of Charles the Great all that was changed: it would not be easy to exaggerate the importance of the literary movement initiated by the learned men he collected round him. For something like 1,000*years—of course with exceptions like the work of Erasmus and the first printers on the Rhine, and of Aldus and his German pre- decessors in the art of printing in Italy—Gaul or France stood out above other European countries as the home of books and of Latin
1 An instance to hand is one ot the when exactly we do not know, to oldest and most beautiful MSS in the enrich the monastry founded about 667 Bodleian, Justel’s MS of Canons, e Mus. a.p. by Queen Bathildis at Fleury near ro0o-102, written certainly in Italy Orleans. about 600 A.D, and fetched from there,
THE GOSPELS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH xix
learning ; and the impetus and the tradition went back to men like
Alcuin. In the Carolingian minuscule Alcuin developed a script, which,
as revived in the Italian Renaissance, was the ancestor of the printed
type now in use throughout Western Europe. By unearthing specimens,
often unique, of earlier MSS and reproducing and circulating them in
the new script, countless works of classical and patristic» antiquity were
rescued from danger of perishing and saved for the knowledge and study
of succeeding generations. The early Latin version of the Shepherd
of Hermas is preserved in a considerable body of medieval copies, but
all go back to a single original, perhaps of the sixth century, though
none of the copies is older than the ninth. Even of the greater : writers, it was the Carolingian movement which substituted the study and circulation of the works of Augustine and Jerome and dethroned in
their interest the favourite writer of the seventh and early eighth cen-
turies, Pope Gregory the Great. ' ,
Naturally the Bible took the first place in this revival of learning. But four hundred years had passed since Jerome issued his Vulgate text, and it is not likely that either Alcuin or Theodulf, in their homes at Tours or Orleans, had access to MSS of the same or anything like the same value as Cassiodorus two and a half centuries earlier with. the resources of Italy instead of Gaul at his command. The apparatus . to Bishop Wordsworth’s text records the readings of two Alcuinian MSS, K and V, and of one Theodulfian MS, ©. They contribute to our knowledge of the history of the Vulgate, but that is all. Where the reading of Jerome's text is doubtful, their evidence is negligible : it must be settled on earlier testimony.
A fortiori is this the case for the Middle Ages. Interest in the Bible of the Western Church never quite died out, especially in France : a text of the scholars of Paris had a more or less official recognition. Even in England individuals like Prior Senatus of Worcester or Bishop Grandisson of Exeter busied themselves with the text or history of the Vulgate. But Italy, the proper home of scholarship, contributed nothing. The condition of the Vulgate went from bad to worse. When' in the middle of the fifteenth century Lorenzo Valla,.a canon of the Lateran basilica, took up the study of the text of Scripture, the Greek movement of the Renaissance was already beginning to be dominant ; the most«corrupt copy of the inferior text that prevailed in Constanti- nople was assumed to be of superior value to anything extant in Latin. Valla’s attitude was inherited by Erasmus, and in only one of Erasmus’s five editions of the Greek Testament was a place allowed to the Vulgate translation. The services of Erasmus to sacred learning in popularizing the knowledge of the New Testament in its original language were of
ha
xx o INTRODUCTION
incalculable value ; but it never occurred to him that a purer text of the version he despised would have brought Western Christianity to a closer acquaintance with the sense of the New Testament documents than the depraved Greek text of which he was so proud.
So the defence and purification of the Latin Vulgate was left to the scholars of the Roman obedience: with the queer result that throughout the sixteenth century the greatest contributions to the improvement of the text of Scripture were. not made by Protestants but by Roman Catholics. Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot was an infinitely better text of the New Testament, whether Greek or Latin, than were the editions of Erasmus. The Sixtine edition of the Septuagint, published under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V in 1587, is a splendid monument of scholarship. The Vulgate texts of the Stephanus family at Paris, the work of the Louvain savants like Hentenius and Lucas of Bruges, and finally the official Roman editions of Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VITI constitute between them a record of which the Roman Church has no reason to be ashamed.*
But the inevitable result of the publication of an official Roman edition, meant to supersede all private and independent texts, was that nothing was done on the Vulgate for three hundred years within the Roman Church. The Benedictines of St Mgur produced indeed the most elaborate undertaking ever devoted to the study of the Latin Bible, Dom Pierre Sabatier's Bibliorum Sacrorum Versiones Antiquae in three enormous folio volumes, 1743-9 ; but this, as its name implies, was limited to the collection of pre-Vulgate material. All that was done on the Vulgate was done by non-Roman scholars, of whom the two most important were Englishmen, worthy successors of the English Alcuin, Richard Bentley and John Wordsworth.
BenrTLEY had planned an edition of a Graeco-Latin New Testament in which were to appear side by side an improved Greek text (the Textus receptus being at last dethroned) and a critical text of St Jerome’s Vulgate. His basic principle was that these were not two texts but one : the true Jerome and the true texts of the apostolic writers. would be found to be in such close agreement that there would not be, he asserted, twenty places in which they differed, throughout the whole New Testament, .
Bentleys plan never came to fruition: all that remains of it are numerous notes and collations, preserved in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. The idea of a parallel Graeco-Latin edition, with the Vulgate representing the Latin, was carried out in LACHMANN’S
t See the admirable chapters in Dom ment du Texte de la Vulgate, Ière Partie, Henri Quentin’s Mémoire sur Vétablisse- Octateuque (Rome and Paris, I922),
THE GOSPELS IN THE WESTERN CHURCH xri
editio maior, Berlin 1842-1850. It was, however, not till Bishop John WORDSWORTH that the scholar was found to prepare, and the Clarendon Press to publish, a really critical text, after 1500 years, of St Jerome’s revised translation of the Vulgate.
Wordsworth was in the fullest sense a pioneer, and in the work of a pioneer it is inevitable that scholars of the next generation should find it comparatively easy to pick a certain number of holes. But it must never be forgotten that we who follow build on the foundations laid by him : and whatever criticisms are embodied in the succeeding pages of this Introduction not only would have been meaningless with- out his edition, but are trivial in comparison with the benefit which Western Christianity has reaped from his book. I wish to make this clear ¿n Jimine: all that I can claim to perform is to do some gleaning in the field which he made his own. l
If I am to set down frankly what seems to me the only fundamental criticism of Wordsworth’s work that can be ventured on, it is thať'he has perhaps given too much consideration to the history of the Vulgate and too little to the effort to get behind the history to the original. I would gladly have exchanged all collations of Alcuin’s and Theodulfs Caro- lingian texts for more knowledge of the earliest MSS. The Claromon- tane MS (Vat, lat. 7223}, though suspect from its giving St Matthew in an Old-Latin form, has Vulgate texts ofthe other three ; and though it is Gallican, it is of very early date. The St Gall fragments do not contain more than about half the whole matter of the Gospels, and it is not to be denied that in questions of orthográphy they often present a tendency to replace the Hieronymian standard by a reaction to Old-Latin practice. But in spite of that, in all questions of text its witness is of the highest value: there are not wanting occasions in which it is right against the combined testimony of all our other MSS, and throughout it gives, and especially when it is reinforced by the sixth cèntury Milan MS, M (Ambros. C. 39 Inf.), a North-Italian tradition, which is an invaluable check upon an exclusive reliance on the South-Italian or Cassiodorian tradition, in substance reproduced by Wordsworth. Iam sure that the pains taken in transcribing and editing X (so I call the St Gall fragments) have not been in vain.
CHAPTER II THE ST GALL FRAGMENTS, OR 3
(Sangall. 1395 with a few leaves elsewhere)
About the year a.D. 500, to judge by the extraordinary beauty of the gemi-uncial script in which it is written, what one may call from its slender size a pocket copy of the Four Gospels according to St Jerome’s revision was written in Italy—'‘unbedingt italienisch? was Ludwig Traube’s verdict—and at some early date became the property of the monastery founded about a century later than the writing of the manu- script by St Gall, one of the Irish companions of St Columban, near the southern shore of the lake of Constance. Like the contemporary foundation of Bobbio in the nearest parts of the Apennines, and the later foundation of Reichenau or Augia dives, situated on an island of the Rhine where that river emerges from the leke near Constance, the monastery of St Gallen or Gall was for the first centuries of its history one of the principal centres from which Irish monks radiated the traditions of Latin, and not only Latin, learning in districts that other- wise would, from their historical and geographical conditions, have lost touch with the older culture altogether. Not a trace, indeed, now remains there of medieval, still less of original, buildings: as in other of the earliest Christian settlements on the fringe of the Empire, as at Würzburg, for instance, yet even more completely than at Würzburg, the ecclesiastical builders of the eighteenth century spared as. little of the relics of the past as any destroying Goth or Vandal. Only the library, rococo though the building be, still gives a home to treasures a thousand years, or but little less, older than itself. Within its walls you may still see and handle pages of a Virgil written in capital letters by a scribe of the fourth century, or a Graeco-Latin MS of the Gospels, known as A, written as late as the ninth century but primitive in type and highly regarded by scholars who work on the New Testament texts.
In the palmy days of the library one likes to believe that our MS of the Four Gospels had an honoured place on its shelves. The earlier centuries have left their mark on it: one contemporary or nearly con- temporary scribe has inserted numerous corrections of the text from a MS of, it would seem, quite dissimilar type; a scholar of the sixth or seventh century has jotted down at the foot of the page a few notes of high interest, mainly the fruit of an attentive study of St Jerome’s writings; here and there, especially in St Mark, a word or two in the
THE ST GALL FRAGMENTS OR 3 xxiii
original Greek appears in the.margin, and the script would not disgrace a professional Greek master of calligraphy; an occasional liturgical note serves to show that the MS was still used, or at any rate read, in the eighth century.
Very different was the tragic fate which befell it some time in the Middle Ages. Some reforming librarian, more interested maybe in the covers of his books than in their contents, conceived the idea of rebinding his books on a systematic scale, and of using up one of his older, perhaps dilapidated books as guard-leaves for the new bindings. Unfortunately he fixed upon one of the oldest and most valuable of the
relics of antiquity in his library for this purpose, though to him I daresay ` it seemed a superannuated copy of a common book. But it is easy to throw stones: and the record of twentieth century Oxford in the care and conservation of the treasures of its College libraries is not impeccable. l l
So ends one chapter in the history of our MS. We do not know how far the whole MS was used up in this way, or whether when so much of it had been used as was wanted, the rest was consigned to thè waste- paper basket. Anyhow the process of reconstruction, so far at any rate as it has yet gone, has not recovered more than just half the pages of which it once consisted.
To Ildefons von Arx, librarian of St Gall at the extreme end of the eighteenth century, belongs the credit of the resuscitation of the dis- membered MS. Noticing that many of the MSS under his charge had guard-leaves of the same ancient type, he made it his business to detach them from their surroundings, to mount them, and to arrange them in their original order in a volume now catalogued under the number St Gall 1395. Many of the pages are as easily legible now as on the day they were written ; but of those that had the ill fortune to be on the under side when the leaves were pasted in to the binding of this or ` that volume, few have survived the work of detachment without any injury and the condition of some is deplorable. I have done my best to decipher everything, I hope with a certain amount of success; and I own I am proud of the upexpected results which on some pages followed on the simple expedient of holding up lines otherwise undeci- pherable to strong sunlight and so reading them off—the ink had entirely perished, but so deep was the impression made by the pen on the very delicate vellum employed for writing the MS that, when held up to the light, whole words and lines stood out as paler and whiter than the surrounding material: the right-hand column, on pp. 58, 149, and the whole of p. r81, are instances ; while on a second visit (in 1920, I think) to the Town Library or Vadiana, I detected, by the use of this
INTRODUCTION
xxiv
method, several corrections between the lines which I had otherwise not noticed just because I was not on the look-out for anything except the text. .
But in the centuries that intervened between the medieval dismem- berment and its reconstruction by von Arx, the history of the library of St Gall had not been without its episodes. Sometimes by direct gift, sometimes by less direct methods, gaps appear from time to time in all great collections. Of the volumes in which guard-leaves from our MS were incorporated, one has found its way into the Town Library, the Vadiana, a library which commemorates the sixteenth-century scholar, Joachim Vadius (von Watt); see pp. 77-80, 85-86, 91-92, 95-100, below, from the eighth and ninth quaternions of our MS. An- other has found a remoter home, the Benedictine house of St Paul in Carinthia: see pp. 47, 48, 147, 148, photographs of which I owe to the late Dr Traube,? who not only laid anew himself the foundations of the historical science of palaeography, but never spared any opportunity of helping other workers in his field. Finally the fortunes of war were responsible for the loss of a third MS : in 1720, the canton of Zürich, as the fruit of a successful campaign against its neighbours of St Gall, carried off a third MS containing leaves from our Gospel-book; see pp. 185—188, 193-196, in its twenty-third quaternion.
Anyhow, enough has luckily survived or been recovered to enable us to construct a pretty complete picture of the St Gall MS of the Four Gospels as it existed when first written.
§ 2. Description of $.
A page of 3X measured about o4 inches in beight by 7 in breadth. These rather unusual proportions are owing to the two columns to a page which characterize 3% as they do almost all MSS of the same remote date: for some two or three centuries after the vellum book
1 I must record here the ever-ready kindness of my friend Prof., A, Souter of Aberdeen in verifying the readings on some of the most difficult pages for me when visiting St, Gall in rgo9 or 1913: and at a still earlier date the liberality of the Craven Trustees in enabling me to procure photographs of all the pages that it appeared worth
both methods, photographs and per- sonal reading of the MS, is better in a case of this sort than the use of either alone.
. 2 Of course the two pages were enough to serve Traube’s purpose, which was to trace yet another home of leaves from our St. Gall MS. I do not think that I ever asked him whether
while to photograph. Our MS is a good illustration of the truth that the eye de- tects more sometimes in the photograph, sometimes in the actual MS, The use of
the St. Paul MS did not contain more than the two pages of which he had photographs from our MS: I now strongly suspect that it does,
THE ST GALL FRAGMENTS OR ¥ xxv
began to supersede the papyrus roll, the habit persisted of writing books (codices) in the same narrow columns which had been used for rolls, in spite of the fundamental change of the system of arrangement : for the columns of a roll were written across the roll, and the columns of a codex were written down the page. Thus the Greek Bible MS B is written with three columns to a page, and N even with four ; a MS of modest size like X is content with two. Each column contains 24 lines, though where there is opportunity by adding a few words to arrive at a break in the sense without the need of turning over the page, a half- -line is added, making 25 in all, at the foot of the second column; see p- 3, and the notes to p. 13 col. ó, p. 30 col, ġ& However, towards the end of the book, the scribe must have calculated, it would seem, that by using 25 lines on the page, he could finish his task without embarking on a fresh quaternion to complete the Gospel according to St John: see the note to p. 185 col. a.
In the original state of the MS every gathering was signed 'on the lower right-hand margin, below the text, of the last page. Fortunately just enough of the signatures are preserved to enable us to say that all the gatherings were quaternions, and that there were twenty-four in all, i.e. if the last gathering was a complete quaternion, 192 leaves or 384 pages: for on p. 18 we have one certain signature, I1, and on p. 184 another, XX1, while on pp. 46, 74, 148, r96, the signatures v, VII, XVIIL XXII, are at least partly visible. As the third quaternion ends at Matt. xiii 51, it is practically certain that 3 had little or no prefatory matter before the text, just as it is quite certain that there was no pre- fatory matter other than a title before the Gospel of St Mark (p. 74) or the Gospel of St Jobn (p. 157}.
Further aid in the arrangement of the quaternions and the identifica- tion of the place occupied by individual leaves is afforded by the head- lines. These are found, according to the practice of the most ancient MSS, only on alternate leaves : on foll. 2 å, 4%, 6ġ, 8 ġ, of each quater- nion we expect to see the word secund(úm), and on the opposite pages, foll. 3a, 54, 7 a, and ra ofthe next quaternion, the name of the par- ticular evangelist, matth(eum), marc(um), lucan, iohan(nem), but since in many or most cases the top of the page was cut away when the MS was dismembered in the Middle Ages it is only in a certain number of cases that the key-words are left. Where, however, the page is pre-
` served complete, the word wanted is always found. Only one exception can be detected to the rule~——on p. r02, where the headline is secund(um), and I have marked the reference as fol, 3 of the eleventh quaternion. This must be a mistake (I hope and believe, a solitary one) of my own : it should have been not fol, 3 4, but fol. 2, and the references at the
xxvi INTRODUCTION
foot of pp. 1o1-tr2 should consequently all be altered and Marc. xiii 29- xvi 3 must correspond, not to foll. 3a-8ġ of quaternion x1, but to foll. 2 @-7 b, the two outer leaves, the first and last, of the gathering being lost, not the first and second? Except in this one gathering there does not seem to be throughout the MS any real difficulty in fixing not only the quaternion but the position of the leaves within the qua- ternion ; and it has seemed worth while to note at the foot of each page, in the left-hand corner the present home of the leaf, in the right-hand corner what I judge to have been its position in the MS as it was originally written, It was just a plain text of moderate size, presumably intended rather for personal rather than public use: but for a person of high office of some importance, if we may judge by the care taken of it and the pains devoted to it in the earlier centuries of its history. But before we speak of the work of the later scholars and correctors who have been concerned with the MS, something more must be said of the _ palaeographical characteristics of the MS itself.
§ ii. THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF J 1. The Nomina Sacra.
Perhaps Ludwig Traube’s greatest service to the palaeography of specifically Christian MSS was that he shewed us once for all that the motive for the abbreviation of the Sacred Names was not the saving of space in the MS or of time for the scribe—though it may well be that these considerations underlay the extension of abbreviations to cover the more common terminations and then the more common words--but the desire to emphasize the sacredness of the Names, as the Jews had emphasized the unutterable name of ILAHWEH. The essential difer- entia from the first of the Christian system from the Jewish was that the names Jesus and Christ were no less sacred than the names God and Lord : Greek Christian writing, fr from the first moment to which we can trace back its usage, wrote OC, KC, IC and XC, for @eds, Kýpios,
'Iņooîs and Xpiorós,
1 The problem indeed does not quite end there : for on the new assumption that p. ror corresponds to q. xi fol, 2 a there are nine leaves only—the eight leaves of q. x and the first leaf of q. xi— to cover the material intervening be- tween q. viji fol, 8b (Marc. ix 18, see p. 100) and q. xi fol, 2q (Marc. xiii 29, pe 101) Now Mce. ix r8—xiii 29 is just a few lines over 12 pages in the editio minor of Westcott and Hort: a quaternion of our MS corresponds to
When Latin Christian writing first followed suit,
something over ro pages, and a leaf of it to a page and a quarter: nine leaves, therefore, ought to be equivalent to something between rr} and rr} pages of the editio minor, But in fact those nine leaves represent three-quarters of a page more than that. What is the explanation? I confess myself wholly at a loss: there is nothing in the rest of the MS, so far as I know, that offers any parallel to such an aberration from the normal,
THE ST GALL FRAGMENTS OR 3 xxvii
these were the only universal and essential symbols :- but the Latins could not take over without modification the simplicity of the Greek system, since Deus and Dominus both began with the same letter, and if d5 was reserved for Deus, some form of three-lettered symbol had necessarily to be invented for Dominus. If the process of develope- ment from the Greek system to the Latin had been carried out under some central authority, a definite choice would have had to be made from the first between dms and dūs5, but it was only by slow degrees that what was certainly the more convenient symbol became the symbolin uni- versal use. Indeed it seems likely that the abbreviation which made use of m, dms, was originally the more popular, and most MSS of the Old Latin Gospels write dms, not dñs. But dņms was subject to one difficulty from which dñs was free : namely, what should be the form of the accusative case? By analogy with the other cases, it should be dmm: but that does not look tolerable, and in fact dom is generally found, less commonly dmn. ` On the contrary, dñs declines quite easily, and the accusative is naturally and necessarily dñm.
The form of abbreviation of Dominus with n is I think universal in all Vulgate MSS, and I cannot help supposing that St Jerome made up his mind definitely between the two alternatives, and that it is to him that we owe the final supremacy of dns. Anyhow, so far as our MS is concerned, I think that dë and dñ5 occur without any variant.
From the three-lettered abbreviation for Dominus came, as I suppose, by ánalogy the three-lettered abbreviations iħs xps rather than I5 XS as the analogy of the Greek would have suggested.* And for the fifth and last of the Sacred Names the three-lettered abbreviations dñ5 or dims, iħs and xps, even if the ultimate original was Greek, dictated sps ' scs, But the abbreviation of the adjective was in itself a Latin inven- tion: mvua (Tva) alone was abbreviated in Greek, not &yiov.
Now from the original conception of the use of compendia for the Sacred Names just because thėy were sacred, it follows almost neces- sarily that unless they were used in a sacred connexion they were not abbreviated. The plural of deus, dominus, spiritus was written in full; so was the singular, if it were question of a false god or an evil spirit, of a human lord, of the spirit of man, of Joshua ('Inooîs) [, of Jesus called Justus, A. S.], of holy things other than the Holy Spirit. These distinc- tions were no doubt all instinctively observed by the earliest scribes ; some of them held their ground for a time; but the tendency to slur them over and use the abbreviations without exclusive reference to the
[? There is some evidence thatīis was ed, C. H. Beeson (Leipzig, 1906), really tried, cf. Hegemonius Acta Archelai, p. xxix. A. S.]
xxviii INTRODUCTION
sacred connexion began early and spread widely. Our MS is probably one of the most correctly written of Vulgate MSS in this matter.
(a) sanctus. Abbreviated to scs only in the phrase sp5 sc5: e.g. pp. Ixa l. 1x, 7341. 20, 75l. 13. Not abbreviated in other con- nexions: e.g. pp. 70a 1, 24 ‘multa corpora sanctorum’, 70 l. 5 ‘in sanctam ciuitatem ’,.76 å 1l. ri ‘qui sis, sanctus ° (d1). Exceptionally not. abbreviated even in the phrase ‘sp5 sanctus °’, p. 188a 1. 6.
(b) srrrrus. Always abbreviated to sps when the reference is to the Holy Spirit, In other references our scribe’s usage is not quite- uniform: we have sp5 for the human spirit of Christ, p. Joa 1. 16 ‘ emisit spi ’, or of men, p. 62a 1. 4 ‘sp8 quidem promptus’, and even of unclean spirits, whether in the singular, pp. 1241.5, 76% l. 16, 88% 1l. 24, 89 Ż l. 1, 9841. 8, rīga l. 22, or in the plural, pp. 82% 1. 13, 891. x9. More correctly in the dative plural (where of course abbre- viation is not quite so easy) p. 76 1. 24 ‘spiritibus’.
_ (c) pomrnus. For ‘dominus?’ meaning Lord, whether of God or Christ, dñs is invariable; when used of human masters in the singular, the usage varies, but the explanation of the variety is perhaps that in the parables it is not always easy to decide whether ‘the lord’ should be regarded primarily as an analogy from human conditions or primarily as representing the Divine Master. Our MS regularly abbreviates in these cases: e.g. pp. 16a l 17, 31å 1. 13, 36% l. 16, 122a 1. 15, the. parables of the good seed and the tares, of the reckoning with the debtors, of the men hired for the vineyard, of the unfruitful fig-tree. But it rightly gives the word in full, wherever it is used in the plural, pp. 2a l. 23 ‘no man can serve two masters’, 23 ġ 1. 7 ‘the crumbs that
’ fall from their masterg’ table’, or wherever in the singular the reference, is to a particular individual, p. yrë l. 2 ‘domine’ of the Phariseps’ request to Pilate.
Z, then, represents on the whole a definitely early position in regard to the abbreviations of the Sacred Names. The only qualification to be made regards the word ‘spiritus’: the usage there is not so early as it is with ‘dominus’, and I imagine there are few Vulgate MSS which confine the use of the abbreviation of ‘sanctus’ to the one phrase ‘sps sc3 ’.
2. Abbreviations other than the Nomina Sacra,
Save at the end of the line there are, speaking generally, no abbre- viations other than the Nomina Sacra. The few exceptions to this rule have always some special reason to account for them.?
[© e.g, pp. 55 b l 22, 1o26 l, 2, abbreviation in such cases prevents the
103 b l. 16, 104 æ and reference, breakin a word at the end of the line. TII & and references: the use of the A, S.J
THE ST GALL FRAGMENTS OR 3 xxix
But at the end of the line there was an insistent need for abbrevia- tions which did not apply to the line as a whole. With lines as short as an average of twenty letters, on the one hand, and on the other hand the strict rules which prevailed wherever the classical tradition still survived in vigour, as to the division of words—see for instance the note on regnum, p. 10%, and cf. note on p. 28a l. 7—various expedients had to be brought into use to ensure that no line should far exceed or far fall short of the average.
a. At the end of the line, but not elsewhere, the last two letters or the last three letters may be written in ligature, and an appreciable amount of space saved. The commonest ligatures are -nt and -unt: the letter t has the cross-stroke not on the line but above it, so that the t takes no more space in the line than i would do, and the n—always, in semi-uncial script, of the shape of capital N—merges its final upright stroke in the upward stroke of the t, Final s is also quite commonly putinto ligature with the preceding letter : -us and -ns are often found, -ens on p. 88a 1.24, -es on pp. 16a l. 6, 56a l 18, 94a l. x2. Penultimate u (besides -us just mentioned) combines with 1, pp. 15 a 1.4, 45 Ž 1. 18, 82 Ž 1. 8, 87a 1. 6; with m, pp. 2a l. 16, 74a l. 15; and with r, p.47 a L r9. Isolated instances occur of -on, p, 42% l. 12; of -ag, p. 69% 1. 23, and -at, p.538 l. 12; and of-ni, p. 8341.6. The last instance is the single case of ligature of other than the final letters of a line, but it is in the last line of a paragraph, where there was therefore special advantage in not over-running the line.
b. If the vowel u occurs in the last syllable of the line (very excep- tionally at an earlier point, p. 16a l. ro c"m aute7, p. 69 @ 1. 24 filius di es), it may be written above and not on the line; generally after the con- sonant q but by no means always—see p. roå l x13 igitur, p. 37 ò L x15 tra- detur, p. 40 a 1. g arboribus, ġ1. ro scribtum, p. 56 å l.r2 munjdi, p. 1102 l. 23 mur|ratum, etc.
c. Commonest of all àbbreviations is of course the substitution for m and n at the end of the line—whether the final letter of a word or the final letter of a syllable—of a superposed line. That line may be entirely to the right of the final vowel, or it may begin over the vowel and be prolonged to the right: I doubt whether there is any ground of principle fot distinguishing between the longer and the shorter line. Whether.there is any rule of difference as between abbreviation of m and abbreviation of n is more difficult to say: but I am inclined to think that the evidence suggests rather strongly that, even when full allowance is made for the greater frequency in Latin words of final m over final n, the scribe abbreviated the one more instinctively and regularly than he abbreviated the other; see the note on p. 24% 1. 20,
XXX INTRODUCTION
Any reader can see for himself how frequent are the abbreviations of final m ; of final n there are enough cases to make it clear that the abbre- viation was allowable—such as pp. 34 1. 17, 6a l. 12, 248 l. 20, 2851. 8, 314 1. 13 (assuming that the spelling intended was uenundari}; 55 é 1. 9— but too few to suggest that it was quite normal,
The instances where this abbreviation of m (or n) occurs elsewhere than at the end of a line are so rare that it is obvious that in each case we must ask whether there is not some special explanation (cf. p. 7351 7).
d, Examples occur of the very early b- = -bus of dative and ablative plural, but rarely (pp. 30 a, 73%, 103 b), and of q: = -que (pp. 33 4, 41 å, 49%, 59%, 75%, roxa).
şii. Work or LATER SCHOLARS AND CORRECTORS,
(1) Corrections by a contemporary diorthota, or more probably by the scribe himself are found on pp. 364, 42 a, 504, 61 å.
(2) There are corrections by a nearly contemporary m z, presumably from another MS, since they are mostly of the nature of genuine variant readings. As a rule the variants are inferior to the text readings: m 2 is right on r5 a, but wrong on 39 å, 72 b.
(3) There are some very interesting notes at the foot (or margin) of the page, drawn from a study of St Jerome’s other works, pp. 1, 7, 66 from the Commentary on Matthew; p. 83 from the commentary on Daniel; from a MS of the Old Latin, pp. 49, t6r; from the Old Testament, p. 74; there is a critical note.on p. 17a.
(4) Greek words are found in the margin in St Mark, perhaps from a Graeco-Latin MS of St Mark: p. 75 å evõoryoa, p. 80 er BAnpa, Tepopa, p. 82 paoreyas flagella, p. 101 owvrpupasaro aħaßasrpov, p. 105 a cpaws
(3) and (4) may conceivably be by the same scribe.
(5) Accents are added, perhaps by an Irish scribe: pp. 8 a, 23%, 32 a, 394, 404, Č, 54%, 594, 6o ġ, 6s a, 66 å, 73%, 78%.
(6) An eighth-century (?) hand rewrote some of the references to the Eusebian Canons in the margin. This may be the hand which inserted a lection reference on p. 71, ‘in vigiliis paschae’.
(7) Corrections are indicated by slanting lines drawn through : pp. 234, 25 ò (= original scribe), 40 å, 46 a (corrector ?), 72 ġ (corrector), 1302.
Inversions are indicated by double and single line over words (= 2-1), = —, PP. 244, 89%, 130, 138 b, 178 a, 192 a.
CHAPTER II
SINGULAR AND SUB-SINGULAR READINGS OF THE ST GALL MS IN MATTHEW AND MARK
z. Matt. xi 4 à åkońere kai BAémere ga 11, X quae auditis et uidetis 3? audistis with C R audistis et uidistis W W
35 alone of all Vulgate MSS preserves the reading which corresponds to the Greek of St Matthew, while the text of the other MSS corresponds to å ebere kal ğkoúrare of Luc. vii 22, I cannot but believe that we have here a correction of Jerome’s to make his text agree with the Greek, and that X alone reproduces what he wrote, while the rest are conflate with Luke. :
2. Matt. xiv 2 ai ĝuvápers êvepyoðow év adt 194 21, 22 inoper(antur in eo)
In the parallel passage in Mc. vi r4 the Greek is identical, save in the order of the words, êvepyoðoww ai ŝvvánes èv aùr@. There Words- worth rightly reads ' inoperantur uirtutes in illo ° with @* Z* (inopinantur AX’ Y). Here he should have done the same with OY. I do not doubt that Jerome* coined the Latin verb inoperari to represent the Greek compound èvepyeĉ®r, and fortunately enough is preserved of the word in X to show that it gave the true reading against W ordsworth’s ‘operantur’.
3. Matt. xvi 9, ro roùs mévre dprovs TÊv Tetak yi lwv . ©. TOÙS ÊTTÒ ÄpTOUS TÖV TETPAKIT XIN OV. 2513, 17 quinque pan(ijum quinque milium hominum . . . septem panum quattuor milium hominum The reading of Z agrees with the reading of Wordsworth ; but as no one of his MSS gave it, he placed ‘milium’ on both occasions in his text within daggers tmiliumt. His best MSS gave ‘quinque milia’, the rest ‘in quinque milia’ With true sagacity Wordsworth saw that Jerome must have written ‘milium’ with the Greek, and was courageous enough to throw over the MSS. Butif he had known of X, he could have dispensed with the daggers. Once more $ is alone? among our MSS in the right reading.
- [ This is an error, as Tertullian used [? But the Autun palimpsest (Revue it in 4dv. Marc, v 17 : Rufinusalso uses Biblique, t. xxxi p. 535) also has milium. it repeatedly. A, S.] A.S]
xxxii INTRODUCTION
4. Matt. xvii 26 eimóvros ôé årò rõv åňorpiwv
28 ò 12 at ille dixit
Wordsworth, with all his best MSS and good Old Latin support, reads ‘et ille dixit’. Every one, I think, must realize that'‘at? better than ‘et’ reproduces the eèrdvros ô&é of BC LI; but if the reading of N, ó è čġy, was what lay before Jerome, then ‘at ille dixit’ was inevitable. And that Jerome worked on a Greek text resembling the text of Ñ was suggested by Wordsworth in 1897, and the suggestion is developed above, p. xii. Again 3J is alone, and quite possibly right.
5. Matt. xviii ọ povóġðaňuov 29% 24 unum oculum
Wordsworth rightly restored ‘unoculum’ to the text, following the lead of Bentley. The word is known in Latin, but is rare enough to have been a rock of stumbling to scribes: the nearest approaches to the. true reading are the ‘uno oculum’ of H, and the ‘unum oculum’ of 3 E*, because they remain ungrammatical, while the ‘uno oculo’ of AO@Y is translatable, and the further stage ‘cum uno oculo’ seemed to put everything straight. Note that here 3 is keeping new company : its alliance with E is puzzling, but recurs not infrequently.
6. Matt. xxvi 45 mapaðíðora 62% 2 traditur with FY One of the cases which ilustrate the very large number of small changes which Jerome introduced for the more exact rendering of the Greek. Butas it belongs to a group of nine or ten connected instances in the Passion story where he substituted the present for the future in translating mapaðlðora, ô rapaðıðoús etc., the force of the argument for accepting them as his is cumulative, and the passages are set out together at a later point (p. xxxvii). īt need only be said here that X heads the list of our MSS for the number of times for which it rightly gives the present tense in these passages—nine out of ten,
7. Matt. xxvi 47 öxÀos moús . .. årò tôv àpxiepéwv 62% 12 turba multa . . . a principibus sacerdotum with FM
3 and its two allies agree strictly with the Greek text : the other MSS and the Old Latin insert ‘missi’ before the rendering of årò tôv åpyxiepéwv, rightly as far as the sense goes, and of course Jerome might easily have left standing an addition which does make the sense clearer, But the combined witness of three of our best authorities, South and North Italian, for an omission which tallies with the Greek, seems quite decisive.
THE ST GALL MS IN MATTHEW AND MARK xxxiii
8. Matt. xxvii 5o èverúMčev aùrò [èr] owõóvı ` qxa 9, 10 inuoluit illut sindone
Š is apparently alone among Vulgate MSS in omitting ‘in’ before ‘sindone’, and it is only the balance of the Greek and Old Latin evidence that makes the testimony of ¥ potentially significant. For on the one band the Old Latin has ‘in’, and on the other hand NACL omit it. But in Luc. xxiii 53 owôóvı is unquestionably right in the Greek and ‘sindone’ in the Vulgate, so that the ‘sindone’ of 3 here may be due to assimilation to the other Gospel, Alternatively ‘in’ may have dropped out at the end of the line after ‘illut’. I have little doubt that év ewôóvı is correct in the Greek of Matthew with BD, and omòóv in Luke; but it does not follow that Jerome may not have followed here the inferior reading of Ñ.
9. Matt. xxviii xı eis uiay saß bárov 724a 1, 2 in primam sabbati i 3 is once more alone among Vulgate MSS, this time (as I think) with much more chance of being right than on the last occasion. The alteration of ‘in prima’ into ‘ in primam ’, in conformity with eis plav, seems to me quite after St Jerome’s manner.
10. Marc. iv 7 kal gvvérviéav aùró. 85 a 24 et offocauerunt illud with M and Clar.
'‘ Suffocauerunt’ is the reading of the Old Latin in all three Gospels, and of the Vulgate in Matthew and Luke, whether the Greek is rviyo, åmrorvíyw, or cuvmvíyw. But it is characteristic of Jerome to try to vary the rendering in such cases from time to time, perhaps in order to shew that Latin was as rich in compound verbs as was Greek. So here, when we find X supported by M and the Vatican Clarómontanus in the use of the unusual word 'offocare’, there can in my opinion be no doubt that it is what Jerome wrote.
11. Marc. iv xı ópiy rò pvorýpiov ŝédorat
835 r6 uobis datum est mysterium Perhaps the most striking proof of the pre-eminence of 3, for it at once brings the text of the Vulgate into harmony with the true Greek text as preserved in WAB(C)L sah. Matthew and Luke insert yvôva, ‘to you it has been given to know’, and almost all Greek MSS of Mark follow them: and similarly in Latin, only that the co-existence of three renderings of yrôvan ‘scire’ ‘nosşe’ ‘cognoscere’, suggests that they are variant efforts to supply what was supposed to be a Jauna. It is abundantly clear that ¥ is right against all the rest, and the excellence
of Jerome’s Greek text, and his faithfulness in following it, is once more illustrated,
xxxiv INTRODUCTION
12, Marc. vi 33 kal mein rò rasôv rôv róňcwv 94a 6 et pedestre et de omnibus ciuitatibus For reči there is a Greek variant meloi, but it is so poorly supported that it is in the last degree unlikely that Jerome should have consciously followed it. He may no doubt håve simply taken it over from the Old Latin: but I suspect that the ‘pedestre’ of 3 (with which only d and ï of the Old Latin concur) may be right as an idiomatic rendering of
mreč, devoid though it be of support from any other known Vulgate MSS.
13. Marc. xiv 21 xaħòv aùrĝ e 103% 14 bonum ei si The substantive verb is present in all Greek authorities in Matt. ; but omitted by BL in Mc, : in the same way in the Vulgate it is present in
Matt., but in Mc. is omitted by CDJR with 3. I cannot doubt that in both languages omission is right.
CHAPTER IV § I. JEROME’S ASSIMILATION TO THE HEBREW
Gesemani for Gethsemani, Matt. xxvi 36, Me. xiv 32.
Our Greek MSS, in both Matthew and Mark, give with some approach to unanimity’ the spelling Teĝoņpavei. But the word of course is Semitic, and Jerome in his Commentary on Matthew ad loc. prefers the explanation gesemani, ‘valley’ rather than ‘vat’. And there is good reason to suppose that he introduced the form that he preferred into the
' text of his Vulgate. Wordsworth, it is true, presents the ordinary text gethsemani in both Gospels: but gesemani is the reading in Matt. of APFHO*Y, in Mc. of AHMY. The only other alternative would be that Cassiodorus introduced gesemani from Jerome's commentary into Jerome’s Vulgate text: but then how to account for the support of F in Matthew and of M in Mark? So, in spite of the gethsemani of Z in both Gospels, I suspect that Wordsworth was wrong in deserting for once the reading of cod A.
See also under Chapter V.
§ 2. JEROME’S FONDNESS FOR VERNACULAR IDIOM
TIdárep pov Matt. xxvi 39
The Greek here (alone among the three Synoptists) has the possessive pronoun, In the Old-Latin it is represented by ‘pater meus’: the Vulgate MSS are divided between pater, pater mi, and mi pater. Wordsworth reads the first with AFLR*X*?Y: but in spite of the authority for it, it does not correspond to the reading of the best Greek MSS, and what is more it leaves the other readings unexplained. As between pater mi and mi pater I decide without hesitation for mi pater. It is unexpected, and one can hardly conceive of it as the invention of scribes: it is tbe reading of 3M : and it is characteristically Hieronymian, as witness Jerome’s letters of the period of the Vulgate (a.D. 382-385), eġŻ. xxii 2 ‘mi domina Eustochium’, 29 ‘mi catella’, 38 ‘mi virgo’; xxxviii 2 ‘mi Marcella’; xxxix ı ‘mi Blaesilla’, 2 ‘mi Paula’ j>xlv 6 ‘mi domina Asella’. No doubt it sourds familiar, but I think that was just what Jerome wanted it to be : he wanted to press, as against márep, the emphasis of rárep pov, mi pater, ‘ Father mine’.
In v. 42 the Greek has once more marep pov, and all Wordsworth’s
1 Cod, Bezae has T'eðoapavei (Matt.), Tyoapavei (Me.).
P
XXXVi INTRODUCTION
MSS as well as $ agree on pater mi. Wordsworth is quite right in not taking this verse into account when dealing with v. 39. - Jerome is simply varying the rendering of the same Greek with a different Latin phrase. Like A.V. in English, he is quite free from ány pedantic pre- judice in favour of uniformity of rendering in the version wherever there was uniformity in the original. In Matt. xxv 21, 23 the Greek repeats Sode åyalé, and Wordsworth follows the Greek order on both occasions : butin v. 2r he has against him the whole mass of the better MSS, ACPFOJTXYZ with 3 (ef. M), and we must quite certainly read bone serue. Itis more difficult to say what we should read in v. 23, since ICEPFOJOXZ serue bone are set against bone serue of AHTY ; but I incline to believe that Jerome deliberately varied the order on stylistic grounds, and that 3F are in both cases right. An even more striking illustration is in Mc. xv 20, in the Greek of which aùróv, aùroò with reference to Christ recurs after five different verbs. Jerome’s rule is to use eum, not illum, of Christ : but purely for the sake of avoiding monotony he`has introduced illum twice and written ‘et post quam inluserunt ei exuerunt illum purpura(m) et induerunt eum uestimentis suis, et educunt illum ut cruci figerent eum’. Of course he would not have so rendered if there had been any real ambiguity : as it is, he has found place for every aòróv by ringing the changes on eum and illum. Never let it be forgotten that Jerome set it before himself to combine the style of a Latinist with the accuracy of a Graecist. If the results are occasionally bizarre, the effort was worth the making,
ô ðé, kai = qui in Jerome, but not in f+ Matt, ii x4; iv 4; xii 39; xiii 1r, 37; xiv 18; xv 23 (but 26 =f); Xvi 23; XİX 4, 11 (but 17 =f); xx 2x1; Mc. vii 27; vii 5, 28, 33
(but ix 12 = f); ix 19; X 22, 26 ; xi 6 [xii r5 def. f, notin aġļ; xiv 11, 20 [xvi 6 def. omn.].
$ 3. JEROME'S FAITHFULNESS TO THE GREEK
1. The present tenses mapaðiðoran, ó mapaððoús (roð mapaðıóvros), rò èkyvvvóuevov, in the Passion story
The evidence seems to me to justify the conclusion that these present tenses of the Greek were regularly rendered by present tenses in St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,
To this rule (if I may call it so by anticipation) there is one excep- tion and one variation. The exception is Matt. xxvi 25, where ô mapa-
[ Which Turner was inclined to re- Latin text Jerome chose as the basis o! gard, wìth Wordsworth, as the type of bis revision. A. S.)
JEROME'S ASSIMILATION TO THE HEBREW xxxvii
Sısovs is rendered ‘ qui tradidit’ by practically all authorities: but this exception is so early in the order of its occurrence in the group that it may well be that Jerome had not yet hammered out a consistent method of translation. The variation is Lc. xxii 2r, where roð mapaĝiôóvros pe is rendered ‘tradentis me’ by all authorities : but it is probable that the use of the participle instead of the finite verb is simply owing to the . oblique case, it being obviously easier to say ‘manus tradentis me ' than it would be to render ó mapaðtdoús pe by ‘tradens me’.
There remain ten cases, four in Matthew, four in Mark, and two in Luke, in all of which I believe that Jerome used the present tense in correspondence with the present forms of mapaðlôorar, ó mapaðıðoús, rè èkyvvvóuevov. In all ten cases the Clementine text gives the future tense : Wordsworth restored the present in six cases out of the ten: bùt
` cod A has the present seven times out of ten, cod M and cod Y eight times out of ten, X} as many as nine times out of ten. l
Mt. xxvi 24 traditur XACFMOTX?YZ* ~ 28 effunditur AFHMOY [not 3] 45 traditur 3FY tradetur W.W, 46 qui me tradit 3AHMX’Y Mc, xiv 21 traditur JACGMTYZ 24 effunditur ZAB*GMQY. l 41 traditur ZACHJMORTX’YZ 42 qui me tradit JACY tradet W.W. Le. xxii 20 funditur SBCPMOT fundetur W.W. 22 traditur ZXGMTZ ` tradetur W.W.
2. Orthography of words.
Such forms as żkesaurus, propheta, in pre-
ference to zkensaurus and profeta, which prevail in Old-Latin MSS, seem to show a deliberate intention to get nearer to the Greek spelling. The same seems true of Caíapkas for the Old-Latin Caifas, Yet Jerome does not appear to have used the ultra-Greek prophetes.
3. The word čnoperarť is referred to in chap. iii. The Greek attrac- tion is reproduced in de omni re guacumgue = mep mavtòs mpáyparos ob èv Matt. xviii 19 BRXZW : the Greek plural in avaritiae = mħeovećiat Mc. vii 22.
~
CHAPTER V THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF THE VULGATE
St Jerome was a scholar, utriusque linguae peritus, and proud of his scholarship. - We should therefore expect that among the changes which he introduced into the Old-Latin text that lay before him, improve- ments in spelling would not be forgotten. . More especially the accurate representation of the Greek form of proper names and other words transliterated from the Greek would have been a subject for his special care, for the earlier translators had allowed themselves a wide freedom in that matter. Perhaps Jerome with the carelessness habitual to him, and indeed inseparable from his rapid methods of work, did not carry out his principles with precise regularity: perhaps too some spell- ings were so firmly established by two centuries of usage as to defy cor- rection. Anyhow the very defects of our MS, for its orthography is its weakest point and is far below the standard of its text, afford us a good opportunity for estimating the difference in this respect between the traditional orthography of the Old-Latin and the orthography conformed by St Jerome to the Greek—or occasionally the Hebrew—forms of per- sonal names.
While Jerome ruled out of consideration everything but the exact reproduction of the Greek, letter by letter, in his Latin version, the original translators rendered Greek names and words according to their sense of the idiom of their language, or perhaps we ought rather to put it, of the language as it was spoken in the less literary and cultured circles where the Latin Gospels were first current. Hebrew names (and most of the New Testament names are only Greek representations of Hebrew or Aramaic originals) in particular seemed to them incapable of transliteration without some concession to render them palatable to Latin taste. Two consecutive vowels, especially the repetition of the same vowel, were to them intolerable. ‘Aapórv, 'Icadx, 'AßBpadu, Bnôheéu, were Latinized either by dropping one of the repeated vowels, or by the insertion of h between them. Aron and Aharon, Isac and Isahac are all-found, but the standard Old-Latin forms from St Cyprian’s Bible onwards were Aron and Isac. So, too, Bethlem and Bethlehem both occur, but in the end, as we all know, Bethlehem ousted its rival. Abram was impossible, for it would have invalidated the distinction between °A ppadp and °A fpáu, and therefore Abraham was the necessary alternative. Where the successive vowels were different from one
THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF THE VULGATE xXxİx
another, as in "Tedvvys, the insertion of h was the inevitable expedient and Iohannes was as unquestioned as Abraham.
Up to a certain point Jerome’s procedure is clear, He wrote with the Greek Aaron and Isaac, and Western Christian usage has obediently followed the Vulgate ever since. He also wrote Bethleem, as the evidence of the MSS—set out in Wordsworth and White on Matt. ii x, g, 6, 8, 16; Le. ii 4, r5—shews to demonstration: such divergent witness as there is supports not bethlehem but bethlem.* But herė was a case where tradition was too strong even for Jerome, and Bethlehem in the sequel triumphantly reasserted itself alike in the Clementine Vulgate and in the English Bible. In names that were even more familiar, Abraham, Israhel, and Johannes, Jerome himself renounced (as regards the h) any attempt to interfere with the Old-Latin tradition : Ioannes is a freak of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, and the forms John, Jehan, Johann, Giovanni, all testify to the persistence of the original insertion of h. :
So far there is only one of these names which gives us- opportunity for testing the faithfulness of our MS to the orthography of the Vulgate, and that is Isaac : on 1244 2, r36a 9 (Lc. xiii 28, xx 37} In both cases we find Isac with the Old-Latin : it is probably, pure accident that this form (found also in {P among Vulgate MSS} has Greek authority,
N*DL in the first instance, N* in the second. But there is also one name, Nathanael (161% 20, 24: 1624 5, 9, 15), where our MS gives the name in the form that Jerome according to his principles ought to have given, yet Wordsworth prints each time Nathanahel with the majority of good MSS ; Nathanael in Io. i 45 is supported by E, in 46 by E, in 47 by EFG, in 48 by EG, in 49 by EG. Did Jerome here desert his own principles? Or should we rather with our MS restore Nathanael to his text ? .
Other changes made by Jerome i in the direction of assimilating Latin
forms to their Greek originals must be summarily enumerated :
(a) Vowels.
-ae for -e (-oe for -e). Forms like Iudei Pharisei Sadducei Galilea Idumea demonium Syrophenissa are regularly replaced by Iudaei Phari- saci Sadducaei Galilaea Idumaea daemonium Syrophoenissa ('Iovôaĉot Papiraãor Zaðõovkalor TaMàaia Tõovpaia õuuóviov Zupopoivora). Our MS normally adopts Jerome’s rule in respect of such words: neverthe- less sporadic instances of -e survive in 82a 21 (Idumea), 25% 23 (con- trast 26a s5), 113a 9 (phariseus : in the last passage with P); 14729
Luk 1 The divergent witness is negligible in Matthew, but rather definitelystronger in uke.
xl INTRODUCTION
(Iudeorum: once more with P); 984 12 (Syrophenissa, with C®X*). Only in the case of the name Mattheus did Jerome, as it seems, bow to popular usage: Matthaeus hardly occurs in the whole range of MSS (twice however in J}, and so the Matheus of 83a 16 is no departure from the true Vulgate text.
-e for -i Our MS gives Iohannis (nom.) not indeed universally, but regularly (42% 21: 74% 12, 24: J5% 13: 158a 17: 10a 5, 18, 20: 160% 9: r6ra 1), with the support ordinarily of EtP’O and sporadically of G;? so also Herodis (124 18: 148a 5,21: 148b 1, 17), again with the support of E and P* or P?, and once apieceof Gand X: paraclitus (187a 12: 1884 6: 189a 7: not however r8g ġ 16) with E.J. Jerome, there can be no doubt, wrote Iohannes, Herodes, paracletus. The constant agreement of E with our MS is a feature to be borne in mind,
-y for -i. Greek words with v are represented by Jerome with y in Latin. But vernacular Latin knew nothing of such a letter, and the Old-Latin used i. So our MS has azima (ror å ro) with now much larger support, GHJXZ*, and chlamidem (68a 2x: 68% 13) with, as far as -i is concerned, GEPFH*YZ*. Wordsworth rightly spells throughout with -y.
-o for -u, Lastly there are some Greek words of which the -o was or might be represented in Latin. Such are spungia (Joa 8: x1r1Ġ 5)and parabula (19a rı: 44% 6: 86a 3,5: 87% 13?: 88a4, 7: 1304 19: but parabola is the commoner use in our MS): and of these spungia is also read in Matt. by O*T, in Mark by PĪ, parabula regularly by 1P or P}, in St Mark by G, and once by F. Butin Jerome (and Wordsworth cor- rectly follows him) the Greek o is -o in Latin as well.
(b) Consonants.
-ph, not -f, for ġ. The earlier Latins made a habit of representing by -f the $ of the Greek: Jerome consistently transliterated by -ph. Therefore when we find in our MS Cafarnaum (76a 20: 1664 24: 171 a24: but not 78% 7, nor 163% 4), cofinus (21% 9: 25 14), fantasma (22a 13: 95% 5) fylacteria (48% 24), gazofylachium or gazofilacium (1378 4: 178% 12), and especially profeta, profetia, profetare, profetizare (though not without exceptions, such as 746 4: 124% 3: 170a 6), we do not doubt that these are wrong—spite of the support of M for cofinus and gazoflachium—and that Wordsworth has correctly given -ph as Jerome’s orthography on each of these occasions. In Matt. xxi 1,
1 Contrast conareand ceaenare, where Of course the word is not from the Wordsworth, regularly but wrongly, Gręek, [In Le. xxii 12 Wordsworth prints caenare, while our MS (and rightly crosses over to cenare. ]
I am sure rightly) has cenare : 49a 4 2 And also of the very early Claro- with FMXY, 6oa 18 with AFMXY. montane- MS in the Vatican.
THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF THE VULGATE xli
and Le. xix 29, indeed, he prints bethfage, where he should, I think, have printed bethphage with AHOJX in Le., FOX in Matt.
-th, not -t, for 0. The Old-Latin preference of -t or -d as a rendering of 06—whether due to a dislike of -th as alien to Latin usage, or to genuine difference of pronunciation—is again rejected by Jerome: -th ` must replace -t in sabachtani (69b 25) Betsaida (161% 17), anetum (50% 5), with Wordsworth and practically all the best MSS.
-c, not -ch, for x: -ch, not -c, for y. There is more reason to doubt Jerome’s accuracy or consistency here : for Wordsworth is supported by practically all MSS in reading clam(ydem) clam(yde) in Matt. xxvii 28, 31, against the chlamidem of our MS (68a 21: 68 b 13) supported only by Z, where the Greek is yAauúða, and corazain in Lc. x 13 against the choraza(in) of our MS (11r7å 8) for the Greek yopageív! But Jerome preserves the right distinction between the Xavavaía of the Syrophe- nician woman in Matt. xv 22, and the Kavavatos of Simon the Zealot in Matt. x 4, Mo. iii r8, mulier chananaea, Simon cananaeus, though i in Matt. x 4 the evidence is rather nicely balanced, A and M being on oppo- site sides. Our MS has the ch- for both the Canaanite woman and the Zealot apostle (23a 6: 83a 20). Three things must always be borne in mind about the Vulgate N.T.: (1) Jerome's habitually hasty work laid him open to such inconsistencies as the chorazain of Matt. xi 21 as against the corazain of Le. x r3; (2) in so far as he may have made use of an amanuensis, his intention may not always have been carried out in his text; (3) a considerable interval of time divided his work on the Gospels from his much later work on the O.T.
(c) Redupiication of consonants in Old-Latin forms of Greek Words.
camellus, cymminum, Channanaeus, euuangelium, hyppocrita, are regular or constant in our MS, but camelus, cyminum, Chananaeus, euangelium, hypocrita, are Jerome’s readings and are evidence of his desire, wherever he could? to reproduce the spelling of the Greek, káunàos, kúmwvov, Xavavala, Kavavaios, eùayyéMov, brokpirýs. camellus 35a 16: 50o 1s: 5a 1: r31% 24: with Œ each time and thrice with J. Channanaeus 23a 6: 83a 20: -nn- both times with ®. cymminum go% 6: with ER, hyppocrita (usually) 46a 17: 49% 5, 13: 50% 3 18: 5ra6: 534a 18: 1234 3: almost always with EP. euuangelium, euuangelizare 5a 18: 59a 6:74 1:75% 15,21; 102%
1 Jt should be said that in Matt. xi 21 2 Ot course not even Jerome repro- Wordsworth reads chorazain with AM duced the yy of ã&yyeños or eùayyérov. XY.
xlii INTRODUCTION.
3: 114% 1: with no support from other MSS, and I have only included the word in this list on the hypothesis that the scribe of our MS treated the vowel as in effect a consonant. , Italian though our MS undoubtedly is, we seem to be brought into the sphere of Teutonic influence, for.what is -uu- but the Northern w?
(d) Insertion of additional consonant for euphony in O-L., removed by Jerome.
Two examples show clearly enough Jerome’s work of throwing over deeply-rooted usages of the Old-Latin in favour of a stricter adherence to Greek models. Thensaurus is constant alike in purely Old-Latin MSS andin our MS: 2a 7: 11% 5, 7: 18a 13: 19a 7: supported twice by J, one each by X and Z, but Jerome obviously copied Oyoavpós with thesaurus. Similarly in 'Ispańà the earlier translators not only inserted h between -a and -„—even Jerome retained this and wrote Israhel though he did not write Bethlehem—but regarding c- followed by -p'as intolerable to Latin ears, inserted t or d, istrahel (isdrahel): so our MS in rrra 8, alone among Vulgate MSS. Probably most of us under- estimate the number of small changes introduced under such heads as these in the course of Jerome’s revision of the Gospels.
(e) Accusative of Greek proper names in -as -es: -am or -an, -em or -en ?
In this matter Jerome followed, it would seem, no absolute rule. If we follow Wordsworth’s text, his custom must have been, I think, to write the accusative in -n (-en) for non-Christian names, such as Iordanen, Caiaphan, Barabban, but in -m for any names that had a Christian value, Iohannem, Thomam, Heliam, Bethaniam. In some of these cases there are no variants: but it has to be noted, not only that our MS has a special fondness for -an, -en (Messian 16r 4: Thoman 83a 17: Helian, once only, rrr 3: Iohannen 83a 10, 99% 2, but Iohannem 26a 13), but that some of Wordsworth’s best MSS are found from time to time in opposition to his text. Thus A gives Iohannen in Matt. xvi r4, Me. xiv 33, Le. iii 2, ix 28, while M. has some leaning to forms in -am, -em, Caipham in Io. xviii 24, Iordanem in Matt. iii 13, Mc. iii 8, Io. i 28, iii 26, while in three of these four cases of Iordanem it is supported by G, and the combination GM is of quite special value. I have some suspicion that the truth is that Jerome tended to use the forms in -am, -em, in all words of at all common occurrence. But of course it has to be remembered that at the end of a line (and our oldest MSS were either written in very short lines or copied from exemplars so written, so that instances would be not infrequent) any of these names might be abbreviated into a7, e7, and when written in full in the copy
THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF THE VULGATE xläi
the scribe would be destitute of guidance and might follow his own in- clination. It has also to be remembered that a scholar like Cassio- dorus, however faithful to Jerome’s zexż, might have his own rules of orthography.
(F) Hebrew spellings
An exception to Jerome’s general rule of assimilating the proper names in the Gospels to their Greek forms is provided by Hebrew names. He was inordinately proud of his knowledge of Hebrew, and in certain cases he has allowed it to influence his translation of the Greek. E
Beelzebub is the most salient of these cases. Beefeßoúà is the reading of Westcott and Hort on every occasion where the word occurs in the Gospels : and the final A at any rate is beyond question. But Jerome knew that in the Hebrew of O.T. the form is Beelzebúb, ‘god of flies’, and he consistently corrected the Greek of N.T., represented also by the Old-Latin, into agreement with the Hebrew. Our MS happens to be extant in Matt. xii 24, 27, Mc. iii 22, Lc. xi r9, and on the first three occasions (roa 18: roġ 8: 83% 11) it reproduces cor- rectly Jerome’s Beelzebub. In Le. xi rọ (trge r)a clause, as it happens, has been omitted by žomoeoteleuton in the text-and is supplied at the foot of the column, ‘si autem ego in Belzebub eicio daemonia’ : the first hand writes Belzebub (following the Old-Latin custom of dealing with repeated vowels, -ee-) and the second hand superposes the other -e, so bringing the spelling once more into accordance with St Jerome. But every time that the name occurs, though there is no doubt of the true text, some MSS give Belzebub; and in Le. xi 18, rọ the dissentients are reinforced by cod Amiatinus.
Salomon is regularly offered in Wordsworth’s text, Matt. vi 29, xii 42, Lc, xi 31, where Westcott and Hort with equal regularity have Xoħopöv, and our MS (12% 2; 3: 120a 18, 19) Solomon. The prima facie interpretation would be that our MS is following the Old-Latin and Jerome the Hebrew of'O.T. And in Matt. the Vulgate MSS are practically unanimous. But in Le. Solomon is the reading of PM ?/, and of G ?/,, followed by Bentley: while in the Old-Latin there is some ambiguity in the tradition. If the name were less familiar, we might have supposed that Jerome was not consistent and used different forms in Matt. and Le.: or if our MS was as valuable in orthography as in text, the hypothesis that it has alone preserved the true form in Matt. would be worth considering.
Moses is regular in Jerome, Movoĝs in W-H. Our MS (48% 6:
xliv INTRODUCTION
78a 19: 155a 9: etc.) agrees with Jerome, the Old-Latin form Moyses with W-H. As Jerome’s form is nearer to the Hebrew, that is presum- ably the reason for his making the change. But though there is no doubt about the form of the nominative, there is some doubt about the oblique cases. The Old-Latin genitive is Moysi, and Mosi is read in Matt. xxiii 2 not only by our MS (48% 6) but by all the best MSS of the Vulgate: yet Jerome's habitual use is Mosis, and that is obviously the natural form for a scholar to use. Was he inconsistent? Or are all the best MSS wrong?
(g) Assimilation of prepositions (or before verbs in -b or -p the substitution of m for n)
On this subject Plater and White (4 Grammar of the Vulgate $ 61, p. 44) say that ‘The tendency of the later MSS is towards assimilation ; the earlier the MS, as a rule, the more frequent are the unassimilated forms,
As a general statement, embracing the whole field of the manuscript tradition of Latin literature, this is beyond question correct. But I want to ask the question whether we should not be right in ascribing to St Jerome in this matter the same sort of decisive influence as in the stabilization of the abbreviations of the Nomina Sacra (supra, pp. xxiv ff.). Our MS, it is true—and the argument to be drawn from it is so far a corroboration of Plater and White that it is the oldest Vulgate MS of the Four Gospels that we possess——habitually leaves prepositions unas- similated. But I interpret that characteristic as the most glaring example of its reproduction of traits of the Old-Latin of which we have seen already so much evidence in its orthography. And apart from our MS, I should judge it to be quite contrary to facts to say that, the earlier a MS of the Vulgate Gospels, the less does it assimilate its pre- positions. For the sake of argument I will put aside the Northumbrian group, for it would be possible to urge that they reflect the use not of Jerome but of Cassiodorus. But I have examined, I will not say all, but a very large number of the unassimilated compound verbs in our MS with the text and apparatus of Wordsworth, and the cases are very rare where those of the older MSS that are in other matters our best authorities—F and M—fail to assimilate. The evidence I am going on to accumulate has convinced me that the most probable interpretation of the daža as a whole is that the ørinciple of assimilation of compound verbs—not necessarily carried out with rigorous exactness—goes back
to the authority, and was propagated through the influence, of no other than Jerome himself.
THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF THE VULGATE xlv
The St Gall MS gives unassimilated compound verbs in the following cases : '
adferre 15% 18: 21a 18: 27% 15: 85% 5: 130% 24: 16544 adficere 1334 23: 138% 9 adfirmare 1464 18 adfligere II16& 12 adinplere : see inplere adponere ITIJa@ I2 adpr(ajehendere 17542 5,20: 176a 20 adpropinquare 62% 5: 75% 18 ' adsumere I2Ď I5: 37]Č II: 52ġ22: 61% 3: 1294 10,14, 16: 132 %1 adtuli 93% 7: 165a 4 conburere 16% 12: 17% 21 : conparare 87% 14 conplacui 75% 2 conponere 6a 14 conpr(a)ehendere 1o64 I0: 145% 19: 1580 14: 193b 11 conprimere 82b 7: 91ġ8: 11517: rr6a r2 inplere 17a 17: I8% 11: 396 13: 45% 1: 66% 6: Joa 8:
75% 17: 88a 22:1394 7,21: 1424 10: 156% I3: 1634X, 2; 1734 14: 189a 2: 189% 11: 193a 18: 195% 12
adinplere 99: r4ġ8: ro6a 14: rroś% 15
submittere 78% 20
This list, though it does not pretend to be exhaustive, is of itself a sufficient proof that the normal use of our MS is against the assimila- tion of prepositions, just as a comparison of these cases with Words- worth’s text is a sufficient proof (one would have thought) that Jerome’s habit was in favour of it. Nevertheless as there ìs a residuum of excep- tions on both sides, it will be wise to suspend judgement until these have been considered. There are some compound verbs for which assimilation is universal alike in our MS and in Wordsworth, There are one or two where, to our surprise, our MS is found to assimilate, yet Wordsworth does not. And again there are perhaps a few cases where Wòrdsworth’s decision should be reversed when he has assimilated,
and certainly some where he has not assimilated when (I think) he should have done so. `
1 To which add the noun conpedes 89 d 6, and the adjective conplures 91 4 9,
xlvi INTRODUCTION
a. There are verbs like colligo and alligo where assimilation may be said to be the invariable use of writers and scribes. Conligare and adligare, if they occur at all, occur very rarely ; never, so o far as I have noticed, in our MS.
b. In the case of twò verbs our MS assimilates when Wordsworth does not: in one of the two I am sure that our MS represents what Jerome wrote, in the other the evidence is perhaps insufficient to warrant a clear conclusion. ommutescere. The word occurs in Matt, xxii r12, Mc. i 25, iv 3ọ,
Lc. iv 35: the Matthew and Mark passages also in our MS 45% 12,
76% 13, 88% 7. Our MS always gives omm, Wordsworth always
obn, but against the testimony, in every single instance, of the Milan
MS, M. For the assimilated ommutescere is supported in Matt.
xxii 12 by HM, in Mc. i 25 by M'OXY, in Mc. iv 39 by FHOMXY,
in Le. iv 35 by AHMXYZ. As the usage of the St Gall MS is
against assimilation, its evidence for it here seems to me in combina- tion with M, decisive.
uenumdari: 58% r3, Matt. xxvi ọ. Wordsworth uenundari, without variant.
cî adponere. Le. x 8 (117a 12): Wordsworth should have given with AOMXY (def. F) apponere. inponere. Again Wordsworth should have followed AJMXY in Matt. xix 13, AFMXY in xix 15, and read imponere. adpropinguare Matt. xxvi 45 (62% 5)}- Mc. i r5 (75% 18) is more doubtful.
d. In the case of the three verbs obmutescere, adponere, inponere Wordsworth then should have extended his own rule of assimilation. Are there any cases of the converse, ie. where he has assimilated against the weight of evidence ?
I have collected the following instances where one or more of the three MSS AFM fails to assimilate : adferre A 1/5: M 1⁄4 adprehen- dere F '/,, M'/⁄, adsumere A °/,, F'/⁄, conpedes F +/⁄, con- prehendere F ”/,, M 1, conprimere F !/,, M Y, In the single case of adprehendere Wordsworth has, rightly or wrongly, followed FM : in the four cases of conprehendere he elected on the other hand to assimilate. If he has erred anywhere, I think it is in not printing apprehendere.
1 My friend the Very Rev. H. N. x922; and though there are very few
Bate collated for me the opening leaves corrections to be made in consequence, of M with Wordsworth’s text in June this is one of them.
ITO
I2
CHAPTER VI
COLLATION WITH THE TEXT OF WORDSWORTH AND WHITE
(i) VARIATIONS OF TEXT
, col, line b 17, 19 [ab]sconso O-L a 20o |ipsae] tenebrae Fyom reasons of space b xrı4 plus est quam uestimentum AFH® MOY Surely right to avoid ambi- guilty 23 magļis plujres [? orthography) AU good MSS; an original scribe's error a 1g [audj]ietis = D b x cadit = DEPOR I4 quiin caelis est = DEPLOR 16 me negauerit [= R]: def. D a ọ patrem (+ suum m 2 = 0) 15 etnonaccipit: et qui n. a. m 2 Slip a faai et uidetis [= Gr. ] Right audistis m2 = CR 9* b 17 ecce m[itto] = Gr. Z b 8 qui abscondisti = DETZ* 22 laborabis „Slip a 8 onusmeum leue = CDJLOR = Gr. not O-L ? Right 9 abt=Q 21 quid fecit = Gr, Wrong ?0O-L b 3 recessit = CJMZ [north Italian) ? Right i - a 1x7] daemonia [but not colb Ul. 8, 13 vu, 27, 28] i9 daemoniorum a4 desolabitur b 19 ni(nisi?m2 Slip a 8 et tribus (+ noctibus m2) Slip b x14 mundatam (+ ornatam m2) Ship by homoeot, 15 uadit(+etm2) Slip 18 intrant et (intrantes m 1) Slip a 9 ipse Right, I think
Mt. vi 18 abscondito - 23 tenebrae (sine ipsae) AFM OXY w. Gr. 25 quam uestimentum
26 magis pluris
x 27 auditis = Gr, 29 cadet = Gr. ? Orthography 32 qui est in caelis ?? qui in caelis 33 negauerit me = Gr. order. Vulg. 37 patrem = Right w. Gr, 38 et qui non accipit xi 4 audistis et nidistis
10 ecce ego mitto = best MSS of vg. om. iy WH in Me. 1?
25 quia abscondisti = Gr.
28 laboratis
30 onus meum leue est WH
xii r abiit 3 quid fecerit Right. Jeromes subjunctive 15 secessit
24 daemones best MSS | butnotGr. daemonum a5 desolatur = PMO*Z* = Gr, Right 29 nisi
40 et tribus noctibus 44 mundatam et ornatam
45 uadit et intrantes = Gr, Right ` 48 ille = ADFY'
© xlviii
$. col, line
13
15
I6
I7
18
I9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
a
aSa SR
14
20
17
INTRODUCTION Mt, xii in discipulos suos = Gr, and O-L 49 in discipulos = ACHMO l QY. ? Right frater (et frater m2) = Gr. DEK 50 et frater = O-L But for LOZ clearness
in nauicula { from reasons of space) = DEHOLQR super (supra m 2) = PLOR ? Slip seminatus est ( + hic est m 2) om. by homoeot. Slip suscipit ? Slip from Le. in terra bona = ACHOJXYZ Right as v, 22 seminatus est (+hic est mm2). where Gr. has accus. audit ( + uerbum m2) =T Slip dormissent (dormirent m2) Slip fasciculis = E 17 parabolam projpolam proposuit Slip ilis Alone omnibus (+ seminibus cum autem creuerit maius est omnibus m 2) holeribus Slip om. by homoeot, inpleretur Good = Gr. BFMXZ Hieron. ad loc, Right
si (sic m2) Slip patris eorum
inoperantur cf. Me. 64 = OY and Gr, Righi `
in carcere = HOQT and Gr. ? Right
capud ( +eius?) Slip
benedixit ac fregit [from 2626] Wrong
discipulis suis = DELQRJ
in nauicula = APFMXYZ ? Righi
in monte = FH Right
ambulare ? Latin idiom
in navicula (~am?) = EM
I9 respondit eis
in monte = HY
iam triduo (corr. triduo iam) = E = Gr,
panium (panum?) = EP!
milium alone. Right
milum alone. Right
quem m. 1 (quem me m 2 = BE*JL ORTZ*)
äixerunt (+alii?) = [Bezae. O-L]
xiii 2 innauiculam = Gr, Right
20 supra seminatus est hic est Right
accipit 23 in terram bonam = Gr,
seminatus est hic est
audit uerbum 25 dormirent = Gr. Right 30 fasciculos = Gr. Right 31r parabolam proposuit
eis ? Right 32 omnibus seminibus cum autem creuerit malus est omnibus holeribus
35 adimpleretur AJYDPLR. Jerome uses both for mànpow, adim- more com- monly
40 sic
43 patris su = APFMOY grammar. Right
xiv 2 operantur
3 in carcerem TI caput eius = Gr. 19 benedixit et fregit discipulis = Gr. Right 22 in nauiculam cf xiii 2 23 in montem 26 ambulantem = Gr. 32 in nauiculam = Gr. xv 24 respondens ait = Gry. 29 in montem = Gr. 32 triduo iam
xvi 9 panum + milium } to + milium 4 13 quem = WH
14 dixerunt alii Right
“OLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT xlix
. col,
6 a
7 Ò
28 b
3a a
42 a
line r5 alii hieremiam (alii uero h,?)
23 dixit ei [= Gr,] = CJMZ ete. ete, ? Right
To aduersus eam (aduersum eam?) = F. ? Euphony 7
13 genibus pro(uoluti)s m, ı (genibus
pro(uolut)usm2) = ACPFMOXY
? Right cf. genu flexo Me. 110!" 2,3 fili mei = AEPTO+YZ*. Why not
right? Hier, uses miserere nostri 16 increpauit ei alone
12 atile dixit N o õe epn. ? Right though alone 24 ascenderunt (accesserunt?) 5%) 12 in regno = ÀY but O-L 24 unum oculum Nearly right 3 in gehenna 5 ex pusillis (ex his pusillis?) $2% tr filius hominis ( + saluare?) Skip cf, E 13 lucratuses= CQRTandGr. ? Right O-L divided 13 abit (abit) ? Orthography 6 oportuitte Slip 15 honorapatrem( + tuum?) m? wrong 20 haecomnia =E and WH I4 in regno =AHY ? Wrong: see above ' 19 miì(sit) et eos ut uid 3 iterum (+autem’) = R and WH mg 12 om: alone 13 ecceenim alone 2r eis = FJMZ ete. ete. contr. xiii gI 18 mansuetus sedens ?F eta 15 fli (filio?) = DELZ 3 intra (+uit® 12 uobis (delet?) uocabitur I4 eam 23 clamantes (+ in templo?) xı tolle et iactare 16 omnes (+enim?) 20 at (ait) 23 facio 1 homo quidam 15 nouissimus 20 in regno 10 saepem d
Mt. xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
XX
xxi
I4 alii uero hieremiam = Gr. Right
17 dixit = [Bezae] AP*FHOO* XY
18 aduersum eam = besi MSS
14 genibus prouolutus
15 filio meo ? Wrong
18 increpauit eum Right 26 et ille dixit
I accesserunt . 3 inregnum = MXZ etc, Right 9 tunoculum} Good in gehennam Right Io ex.his pusillis Ir filius hominis saluare I5 lucratus eris
30 abiit[
33 oportuit et te
I9 honora patrem
20 omnia haec = WH mg.
. 23 in regnum *
2 misit eos 5 iterum autem = WH text
17 secreto
18 ecce
29 illis = AEHY Prob. right Jor eum follows
5 mansuetus et sedens = Gr, 9 flio = Gr, Right 12 intrauit 13 uocabitur illam
15 clamantes in templo 21 tolle et iacta te 26 omnes enim 27 ait faciam Right. Jeromes sub- junctive 28 homo = Gr. Right 31 primus in regnum
33 saepe
£. col, line
43 45
46
47
48
a b
a
49 a
50
5I
oag
52 a
54
(o
55 4
57 4
59
60o a
22 14
II
18
D w Oon DUMA
Cn R a
EUD n OA OH
fai
à INTRODUCTION
seruis ( + eius?)
pedibus et manibus (pedibus eius et m?)
uideatur (uidetur?)
aut non [so 134 b 13]
uxorem [possibly without suam] uiuorum
[pharisaei audientes (om autem by
'homoeoarchy ®)
ex toto
ad turbas et discipulos
fimbrias suas
nolite uocare
in templum
in aurum 16 in altare
quicumque ( + autem?)
debet (debitor est?)
quae super illud ( + sunt?)
qui decimatis
, 7 ct reliquistis et reliquistis
quod (+ intus?) egressus (regressus?) fiço l [fu]erimus ([fu]erit?)
21,22 om[nia hae]c omnia
13 I5
[nub]tu traden{tes]
[in itroiuit
nostraextinguntur (nostrae ext.?)
proficiscens
ecce
bone serue ? Jerome's instinct for variety
super multa
metis
[c]ooperúiimus ( + te?)
quando (= quandiu?)
paratus ? Right dicitur =0-L illum `
in ciuitate (+m?)
in parabsidem respondit (-dens?) Slip illum
effundetur
xxiii
Mt, xxi 35 seruis eius xxii r3 pedibus eius et manibus =
Gr, 17 uideatur ` Righi. Jerome. subjunctive
an non [so. Lc, 20??] 25 uxorem suam 32 uiuentium 34 pharisaei autem audientes
37 in toto I ad turbas et ad discipulos 5 fimbrias 9 nolite uocare uobis 16 per templum in auro 18, 20 in altari 18 quicumque autem debet 20 quae super illud sunt 23 quia decimatis et reliquistis 26 quod intus xxiv I egressus 32 fici fuerit 34 omnia haec 38 nuptum tradentes intrauit 8 nostrae extinguntur I4 peregre proficiscens ' 20 et ecce 21r serue bone
XXV
supra multa 24 et metis 38 cooperuimus
40 quamdiu
4I praeparatus
I4 dicebatur Right. Le. 22 (228) 220? ?an idiom c Jerome's
15 eum Right
I8 in ciuitatem Right
23 in parapside Right
25 respondens
eum Right
28 effunditur Right so preseni Tn XXVİ 24, 28, 45, 46, Me 1471, % 4l, 42, Loe, 221 ?
xxvi
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT li
p. col, line
6r b
70
7E
a
>a
aa oS
I
15
discipulis (+ suis?) = P*H* = Gr. Right
mi pater = M ete. = Gr, = Hier- onym. idiom Right
traditur = FY Right
a principibus = FM = Gr. Right
an (pu}ta is (putatis uż uid.) = So f (? 0-L)
duode{c]im milia = JOXZ = O-L Respectable, but wrong
et hic (+ erat?) ? Slip
quia ?0-L
tunc
fli dicunt
autem =R Sip
princeps = ACFH*MXY. Right even ifa slip of Jerome's
ili ?w. princeps or a slip
et filios nostros S3p
chlamidem abl, acc. ?Right w. Gr.
dicentes = ACY ete. = Bezae. ? Right
si uult = most MSS with A [cf. N BL 33] ? Right
fixi ACHTXYZ Certainly right
dā d5 meus ( + meus?) St G*= JQZ
me dereliquisti
sindone =Ñ and WH mg. I think right , ,
in primam alone, but = Gr, es pav, Right
(uenite et uidete?)
gaudio magno
ibi enim me (ibi me?)
in monte (-tem?)
eius lucustas (eius et 1.2) = Clar in synagogam = Gr.
levauit (ele-2) = ER et abiit
exeamus?
ut ibi (ut et ibi?) aut ut uid, = CEG aufert
eftundetur
dicebant ( + ei?)
xxvii
xxviii
Mt xxvi
36 discipulis suis = 0-L 39 pater
45 tradetur . . 47 missi a principibus = O-L 53 an putas = Gr..
duodecim Right
71 et hic erat
3 quod Right
9 et tunc = N* Right, I am sure
a filiis Right
13 dicant Righi, Jerome's sub- Junctive
19 ergo Right
20 principes
21 ilis 25 et super filios nostros 31 clamyde
41 dicebant 43 si uult eum = 0O-L
44 cruci fixi
46 deus meus deus meus Right tr dereliquisti me
59 in sindone = O-L
1 in prima
[6 uenite uidete = St G*] 8 magno gaudio AFHMY Right 10 ibi me 16 in montem Mc. ì 6 eìus et lucustas 2r synagogam ? idiom 3r eleuauit 35 abiit 38 eamus ut et ibi ii ọ an 2r auferet 22 effunditur 24 dicebant ei
best MSS.
li
£. col. line
8I
82
83
85
86
87 89
100 Ior
T102
103
104 a
a 2I b io 12 18 a 4 20
INTRODUCTION l Mce. ii in domum 26 domum dominus ( + est?) 28 dominus est synagogam ìji r in synagogam eum 2 ilum `
super caecitatem ? m2 ab hieros. (praem, et?)
b 5,6 utin nauicula . . deseruirent (uti n.
22
deseruiret? ° *) ilis eo et mitteret (et ut m. 1 2) d(aejmoniorum offocauerunt ascendentem (+ et crescentem?) datum est seminatur (-atum est?) in corde arca (super?) radices (-cem?)
18-20 7m 2 has tricensimum ete. w. BGOT
22
aSa a ST Y [e]
© tat EN
in terra
dixit
mihi nomen (nomen mihi?)
in ciuitate
de finibus
a daemonio
misertus est
discipuli illins
pedestre
et
illis ( + date illis?)
manducauerant ut uid,
aut ciuitat(es)
mandata),
fecistis
(anaritija
non enim bonum est
oportet ut uid,
quia
transiet
die . . . illa `
ueniri = ACHJMRY Clarom. Why not right? 1
in uniuersum mundum = GJLQR TX? and Gr. Right?
in ciuitate = MY Abl. ace.
add illis? om* Silip?
bonum ei = CDJR = Gr, Right
in monte Abl. ace,
5 super caecitate 8 et ab hieros. o ut nauicula . . deseruiret
12 eis x4 illo et ut mitteret 22 daemonum iv 7 suffocauerunt 8 ascendentem et crescentem 11 datum est scire 15 seminatum est in corda 16 super 17 radicem 20 triginta etc. 26 in terram v 7 dicit 9 nomen mihi 14 in ciuitatem 17 a finibus 18 daemonio 19 misertus sit 3r discipuli sui 33 pedestres om, 37 ilis date eis 44 manducauerunt 56 aut in ciuitates 1] praecepta 9 facitis 22 auaritiae 27 non est enim bonum ix rr oporieat xiii 29 quod 30 transibit 32 die . . illo xiv 5 uenundari
=.
V
ms
vi
9 in uniuerso mundo
13 in ciuitatem 16 illis
21 bonum est ei 26 in montem
[! Because not Latin; Latin would require umre, A.S.]
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT liü
p. col. line
(04 a 17
105
106
109
IIO
III
TI2
113 115
Ir6 117
118
119 122
a
b
E -a~ >)
24 3
resurrexero
dico ( + tibìt®) ? Slip .
(possi)bilia tibi = BCJOZ = Gr. ? Right
tradit = ACY = Gr, Right
turba = JX*Z Clarom. = Gr. of Me. (NBL) Right
ducite = CJRTZ (and F) Righi, though not final
Wum Difficult
usque intro in atrium = COJOTZ = Gr. Right
aduersum ( + eum?) A portmanteau
fecerat (fecerant? P1) St G? = H* MO = Gr, St@ right
ascendissent turba Grammar § 105. But?
respondit eis dixit = O Slip
uultis faciemus (faciam?)
intro in atrium CJATZ ete. = Gr. ? Right
purpuram ... IIO & Q9 purpuram = CGJX etc. CGJM = Gr. Righi
deducunt alone. Rather attractive
quod est ( + interpraetatum?) ? slip
lama, lema? rosibly1 Jema = CJM XZ Clar. =N. ? Right
sine = Matt, xxvii 49
in aduerso ?
in hierosol.=Gr., though alone. Why not right?
-solym-
petit Orthography
dixit
gerassenorum
abit (? abít)
factum ( + est?)
eran(t) autem
a tu(r)ba `
annis duodeci(m)
ipse
adpropiauit
in (infer)num
uos nocebit -
quae ( + uos?) uidetis inueniens dicens dixit ( + autem?)
in una synagoga sursum aspicere uideret
Mc. xiv
28 surrexero Right 30 dico tibi 36 tibi possibilia
42 tradet 43 turba multa
44 ducite caute
5r eum I° 54 usque in atrium = O-L
56 aduersus eum Right xv 7 fecerat
8 ascendisset turba
9 respondi eis et dixit 12 uultis faciam 16 in atrium = O-L
I7 purpura . .. 20 purpura
20 educunt 22 quod est interpretatum 34 lama
36 sinite Right 39 ex aduerso 41 hierosol, (síne in)
-solyma 43 petiit
Lc. vii 43 dixit ei
viii 37 regionis gerasenorum 39 abiit 40 factum est erant enim 42 a turbis 43 ab annis d. 43 at ipse x| 9 adpropinņquavit II n 15 ad infernum 19 uobis nocebit 24 quae uos uidetis xi 24 inueniens dicit xiii ņ dixit autem to in synagoga 11 sursum respicere 12 uidisset
liv
$. col, line
INTRODUCTION
123 æ 10 aligauerat
124 125
I26 128
129
130
I3I 132
134
135
139
140
14I
~a SA S
b a
owa SeA
aod Sao
a
24 IQ 75 23
2I
simile existimabo
ecce sunt
relinquetur
cum intrasset [lup. xiv 12] et cum (ue)nerit
quì rex
mittens rogans [g O-L] saluare
qui
in illa nocte? not *
illic (illuc?)
7, t9 uerebatur ., . uereor
Ir
dicit iniquitatis (7. ut uid)
ceteri homines
(ajutem iis
post ( + quam?)
intellexerunt = 0-L
illa hora
aut non
sunt caesaris
cuius erit uxor so N* [corr. N°] ? Right (cuius eorum e. u. m. tert.)
ili autem
poterint [conirast 2115]
terrae motus
in synagogis
tradentes
tradimini
tr. hierusalem ab exercitu [corr °)
supra terram
eleuate
quoniam
inhabitant (Gr. raðnpevovs]
in omni tempore
cognominatur
in domo
in qua
quod . funditur [cf. Mt. and Me.] traditur
factus est in agonia magistratum [but contrast 148b 7) quod dicis
ium [of X2]
creditis
respondetis
ab eo fieri (corr,?)
b 2 tuss qn ipsa
3
ante
Lc, xüi
xiv
xvii
xviii
XX
=.
XX!
xxii
xxiii
16 alligauit
18 simile esse existimabo
30 et ecce sunt
relinquitur
xı cm intraret
ut cum uenerit
quis rex
mittens rogat
saluam facere
quicumque
34 Illa nocte
37 illuc
2, 4 reuerebatur . . . reuereor 6 iniquitatis dicit
1r ceteri hominum
rg autem ei ils
33 postquam
34 intelegebant
t9 in illa hora
23 an non
25 caesaris sunt
33 cuius eorum erit uxor
35 illi uero
36 poterunt
Ir et terrae motus
12 in synagogas trahentes
16 trademini
20 ab ex, hier,
23 super terram
28 leuate
32 quia
35 sedent
36 omni tempore
8 cognominabatur read uoca-
batur
I0 in domum in quam
20 qui fundetur
22 tradetur
44 factus in agonia
52 magistratus
6o quid dicis
63 eum
67 credetis
68 respondebitis
8 uidere ab eo fierì
r2 tus in ipsa antea
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT lv
p. col. line
149 150 15I 152
153
154
155 156
159 160
I6I
162
166
167
168 169
170 171 172
173
b
b a a
a o
RSA Sa DD
aooo
8 7
24 II
in carcere (-em?)
exspectans
nonam horam
petit [see Wordsworth on Jo. 5%]
et ecce
egres(sae)
uidet
sola posita
illorum
summi sacerdotum est (esset?)
etiam . . . uidisse [çf next note] se finxit-
ostende (ns?) (bat ?) autem (+ illis?)
quem dixi
hoc testimonium
ante me (praem, qui?) manifestaretur sequentes
die ila?
erat andreas
filius iona
amen ( + amen?)
ibi et ih§
haurierant
oues et boues (47.1) nescitis
frumentum
alius est (praem, et?) in labore (in labores?) iuit
ei (eius?)
dixit
in illo die dicebant iudaci
facere a se
da ( +nobis*) panem autem ih5
qui ueniet
(eu)m ego
nobis carnem suam eu(m e)sset traditurus
? (et) ex hoc
illis duodecim duodecim (praem. uos?) enim
quid facit
in diem festum [?0-L : Gr, e«s] in galilaeam
Le. xxiii
25 in carcerem 35 spectans 44 horam nonam 52 petiit xxiv 4 ecce Q regressae I2 uidit posita `16 eorum 20 summi sacerdotes 21 esset 23 se etiam . . . uidisse 28 finxit / 40 ostendit 41 autem illis 15 quem dixi uobis 19 hoc est testimonium 27 qui ante me 31r manifestetur 38 sequentes se 39 die illo 40 erat autem andreas 42 filius iohanna 51 amen amen ii 2 etiħs 9 hauserant I4 boues et oues iv 32 non scitis 36 fructum 37 et alius est 38 in laborem 43 abiit 47 eius 5o dixit ei
lo. i
v Io in illo die. dicebant ergo
iudaei I9 a se facere vi 34 da nobis panem 35 autem cis iħis qui uenit 40 ego eum 52 carnem suam nobis . 64 traditurus esset eum 66 ex hoc 67 ad duodecim 7o uos duodecim ` 4 quippe aliquid facit 8 ad diem festum 9 in galilaea
vii
lvi INTRODUCTION
$. col. line lo. vii 173 b 1 erat de eo [corr, m.p. ut uid.] x2 de eo erat 174 a 1 gloriamsuam (O-L) 18 gloriam propriam b 24 non (scitis) 28. nescitis 175 æ 14 fecit 3r facit b 14 non potestis 36 uos non potestis 176 a 4 sp 39 sps datus 15 et bethleem 42 et de bethleem 177 È 5 ineam viii 7 in illam 178 a 20 misit me [corr. m.p.) 16 me misit b ī7 quaeretis ch r85br. 2r quaeritis r80 b 15 ille misit (me misit?) 42 ille me misit cf. 18° i81 a o arguet 46 arguit 182 a 6 qui(quia?) 55 quia b o manifestetur opera ix 3 manifestentur opera 19 limit - 6 leuit 183 a r9 dixerunt ergo ei 12 dixerunt ei b Io qui 16 quia 24 qui uiderant 18 qui uiderat 184 b 2 erat 24 fuerat 185 b 20 sequi te xiii 37 te sequi 186 b r3 egoin patrem xiv 10 ego in patre 187 b 3 egoin patre 20 ego sum in patre- 23 mansionem (-es?): 23 mansionem 188 b xı loquor 30 loquar , r4 tollit xv 2 tollet 189 a 13 perhibebitis 27 perhibetis 2I se obsequium xvi 2 obsequium se 190o a 3 huius mundi rr mundi huius I0 in omnem ueritatem 13 omnem ueritatem 22 accipit r5 accipiet b 2 quia uado 17 et quia uado 13 quid loquatur [corr.!}?] 18 quid loquitur I91 æ rr in mundo 21 in mundum 18 non rogabitis 23 me non rogabitis b yo petitis 26 petetis 192 æ 9 est mecum [corr.t?] 32 mecum est 13 habetis 33 habebitis b I5 hi xvii 6 tui 24 quiate 8 quia a te 193 a 2 quid quaeritis xviii 4 quem quaeritis b 19 consilium dedit 14 consilium dederat 195 & r4 ad caiphan 28 a caiapha b ọ ergoiudaeí 3r ergo ei iudaei 196 a 8 utique decertarent [w, år] 36 decertarent 11 meum regnum regnum meum 18 et hoc or ex hoc 37 et ad hoc 25 exiwt iterum 38 iterum exiuit b 10 o[mnes] rursum? 40 rursum omnes
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT lvii
(ii) VARIATIONS OF ORTHOGRAPHY
p. col, line
1
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21T
22 23 24
25
26
a b
a a
b
a
14 tempta[tiojnem - I2 ungue
7q then{sauru]s
8 exspectamus 167% 1 18 euuangelizantur 14 [pro]fetam 16 scribt[um]
I [b]abtista rır profetae
5 hiis
9 adinpleretur Ir profetam 5,7 thensauro . .
b3 4 profetae 2, 3 solomonis . . . solomon 8-ro [cent]ensimum . . . [sexag]ensi- . mum .. . [trice}nsimum 8 adinpletur 9 profetia 5 profetae [and so regularly] 8 adfert zezania [but not in il. il. 3, 10]
ad conburendum inpl. eructuabo ` hii conburuntur thensauro [so regularly : 19a7] inpleta parabulas [by exception] 7 capud i saepelierunt hiic adferte 9 cofinos fantasma 6 channanaea quod panes 23 temptantes 134 b 16, 177 4@ 20 I4, 18 quod... quod T14 cCofinos
. thensauro 131
9, 20, col. b
18 23
sumpsistis phariscorum et sadduceorum
7] caesaraeae
Mt. vi 13 temtationem 17 unge 21 thesaurus 3 expectamus Io. 53 5 euangelizantur 9 prophetam ro scriptum Ir baptista 13 prophetae 4 his 17 adimpleretur prophetam . 35 thesauro... thesauro Le, 182
xi
xii
39 prophetae 42 salomonis ., . salomon 8 centesimum, .. sexagesimum .. . tricesimum x4 adimpletur prophetia 17 prophetae 23 affert - 26 zizanja
xiii
. 30 ad comburendum - 35 adimpl. eructabo
38 hi
40 comburuntur
44 thesauro
48 impleta -
53 parabolas
Ir caput
12 sepelierunt
17 hic
18 afferte
20 cophinos
26 phantasma
22 chananaea
34 quot panes
t temtantes Le. 30? -
9, I0 quot... quot
9 cophinos xxi xı bethfage =39a22 But bethphage FOX must be right
1o sumsistis
12 pharisaeorum et sadducaeo- rum
13 caesareae
xiv
XV
xvi
lviii
$. col, line
27b 7
29 BI 32 33
34
ioa
35 4
36 37
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
5I 52
o~
i > E ~
I5 5 I0 II 23 4
INTRODUCTION l Mt, xvii obtuli 46a 19, 148b9, 156%b3 16 optuli xxii rg, Le. 231 248 adferte 17 afferte a scandalis xviii 7 ab scandalis thalenta 24 talenta rederet
trans iordanem temptantes 46a 16, 47b I3
I 9 t adolescens
6 16 21
2 6 6
1o, 13 nubtias
camellum 5o% 15, 131 b24 hiis
operaris (-riis?)
hiic
hii
xii: (omiserat*]
hii
decim
hiis
inpleretur and 45b1
alí
scribtum
n.b. ó sanna w, À
iohannis 158417, 160 a5, I8, 20,
bo, 16ra 1 noilisgas adprapinguaset (-asset?)
in scribturis capud in parabulis [so rarely] 135ġ17, 162 b3, 44 b X0, 13, 21 ; 454 13 exerj]tibus ommutuit hyppocritae 5ra6 superseribtio hiis fylacteria cenis cluditis circuitis anctum cymminum gluttientes parabsidis (et 8 ut uid.) saepul[chra] [com]medentes
49 b5, 13, 503, 18,
xxiii
34 redderet I trans iordanen 3 temtantes xxii 18, 35 [38 b 19 redemptionem)
Xix
adulescen . g2 d ens
24 camelum xxiii 24 25 his XX 2 operariis
6 hic 12 hi 17 duodecim 21 hi 24 decem
xxi 3 his 4 impleretur and xxii 1o but
adpropinquasset xxi 34
8 alii 13 scriptum
32 iohannes
34 adpropinquasset and 35, 39 adprehensis xxii 6 adfectos xxii 34 inposuisset 42 in scripturis ` caput xxii ı in parabolis 2, 3; 4 nuptias. 8, 9; 10, IL, 12, Le. 20% q exercitibus 12 obmutuit 18 hypocritae xxii 13, 15, 23, 25; 27 20 suprascriptio 40 his 5 phylacteria 6 caenis 13 clauditis 15 circumitis 23 anethum cyminum 24 glutientes 25 parapsidis 29 sepulchra
xxiv 38 comedentes
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT lix
£. col, line
52 b 20 53 a 18
68
69
70
JI
Sao >S
aoa ora S
223
24 8
6
4 22
fili
hyppocritis 123a3 [one excep- tion in Me. 7°]
decim and 56 a 5
lampadas ut uid.
sumpserunt 132 b r, 6r b3 ad- sumpto
alí {non autem l. 7] 183 a 6, 7, b 11
obtulit
pecuniam mea“num ] (se. mea*)
hiis 57a x5, 18 (b 22 hís), 65a 19,
qob Ir
hii
unguenti 5941
uenumd(ari)
saepeliendum 66 a24 saepulturam JIa 20, b7, 12; 72 a 5 saepul- chrum
euuangelium 2I
aput
parabsid,
scribtum b23, 698 13, 7403
J4 b I1; 750b 15,
cenantibus
genime (-mine?)
dispargentur
hiic (and prob. hic b r1) J2b2
temptationem 75 b8
caiph(an)
illut 69 a 23,7109
respondis
expuerunt (exspuerunt?) erunt 68 b 8; 182 b 17
caeciderunt
alí: ali 173 b4, 176 a 9 [not 195
. b a2]
profetiza 66 b8 [not Me. 1?]
retulit
xxx 6óbg
inpletum 70 @8, 75 b 17
exuentes (exsuentes?)
chlamidem ġ 13
capud 69a 12
cyrinaeum
saluua [xot 69 b6)
confidet
sabachtani
spungiam [rrr b5]
iosef
petit
exspu-
XXV
xxvi
xxvii
Mt. xxiii
39 filii 52 hypocritis Le. 13
r decem and verse 28 lampades 3 sumserunt Le. 185! xxvig7 adsumto I5 alii 20 optulit 27 pecuniam meam num ... 34 his 40, 41, 45; XXVİ J1; xxvii 54 46 hi 7 ungenti 12 9 uenundari I2 sepeliendum xxvii 7, 61, 64, 66; zxviii r
13 euangelium Me. rl; 14, 15
18 apud
23 parapsid.
24 scriptum 3I Me. ie
26 caenantibus
29 genimine
3r dispergentur
36 hic (38) xxviii 6
41 temtationem Mce. r!
57 caiaphan
6r illud xxvii 40, 59
62 respondes
67 expuerunt xxvii 30
xxvii 37
ceciderunt alii
68 prophetiza xxvii 9 3 rettulit triginta xxvii 9 9 impletum 48 Me. r 28 exuentes clamydem gı 30 caput 37 32 cyreneum 40 salua 43 confidit 46 sabacthani 48 spongiam [Mce. 1586] 56 ioseph 58 petiit
lx
INTRODUCTION $. col. line Mt. xxvii 71 a 15 osteum 6o ostium 73 b 19 fili 13642,3 xxviii 19 filii Le. 2038 J4 b 12 iohannis 74 b 24,75 b13 Me. i 4 iohannes `vi 14 q5 a ıı camelli 6 cameli b 2 conplacui
7% a
6,7 xl
I4 conponentes 8o a 6 conpedibus 82 b 7 conprimerent gr $8, r15% I7, 116a I2, 87 b 14 conparabi- mus, 91 & ọ conpluribus r06 æ ro conprehendere 158 g 14, 193 Ò IE
20 cafarnaum 166 @ 24, 19]I @ 24, conirast 18b7, 163 b4 b 13 ommutesce 8867 18 exiuit 71 b 1o deluculo q8 b 20 sub(miserunt) 80o b 5 filii 83 a13, 135 b 15, 180a 21 nubtiarum 12644, 162b3,8 serib- tum 96 ġ 22, 103 b 10, 104 A 14, IIB & 23, 134 4 2, 135 & 13; 1394 t 8, 156 b 14, 21, 161 b21, 16445, 170 4 5, 178 a 217, 189 a 3 scrib- turae 1064 15, IIO È I5; 155 812, b 12, 156 b 19, 164 b 4, 175 b 22, 176 4 13 8r & r2 introiuit 82 a 2r idumea (-maea?) b 12 quodquod 83 a 16 matheum 17 thoman 20 channan... um 85 a 1r illut (oftener illud) 86a 21, 87 b 14, IZI 4 I5, 1644 2I aliut aput ro6a I1, 11783, ï30b1 [zot 158 a 5), 171 È 6, 187 a 19, 188 a 5, 187 b 23, 192 b 9, 12 b 5 adferebat adtulit 165 a 4 13 hii 86a 8, 15, b 5, 13 86 a 3,5 parabul. 87b 13, 88a 4,7 88 æ 22 inpleretur 106 a 14 adinpleantur, Iro È 15, III ò 5inpl. 139 8 7, 21, 142 8 I0, I§Ó6 b 19, 163 4 1, 2 173 & I4, 189 a 2, b 11, 193 8 18, 195 b 12 g1 a q xii 9583, 102b 9, 105b 10, 167% 3, 17202 . 93 b 7 adtulit 95 &@ I4 abit 182b23
22 Et circa... [new paragraph]
TI complacui 13 quadraginta
t9 componentes Lc, 8%, Mc. v 4 compedibus iii 9 comprimerent v 31 iv30
comparabimus . v 26 com- pluribus xiv 48 compre- hendere
2r capharnaum
25 obmutesce iv 39
26 exiit
35 diluculo
ii 4 summiserunt t9 filii iii 17, Le. 20% nuptiarum Lc, 148, scriptun
Me, vii 6 Le. 10% 201 Mce xiv 21, 27, scripturae xiv 4i xv 28
iii zr introiit
8 idumaca
Io quotquot
18 mattheum thomam cananaeum
iv 4 ilud 16, 30, Le. 18!
5 aliud apud xiv 49 Le. rc 184
8 afferebat attulit Io. 433 tro hi 15, 16, 18, 20 13 parabol. 30, 33, 34
37 impleretur xiv 49 xv28, Le, 21?
v 25 duodecim vi 43, XÌV 10,
vi 28 attulit 46 abiit 48 et circa
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT hi
p. col, line
5b 5
96
102
105
106
110
113
a
b
a
a
22 1$ 16 10 20
20
fantasma
adplicauerunt
quodquod
pharesaei
orceorum [xot 97 a 8]
prof(etauit) [not 132 b 7]
eseļićas)
syrophenissa
ad
iohannen
azima
unguenti r02 a 6, 8, 112 b 17, II3 4A I, J, 8, 1144 1, 152b 5
capud II3 b24
euuangelium 114 b1
scariothes
dispargentur
temptationem 144 b 4, 145 4a 6, 105 & 14 promptus
aduersum 20 aduersum (0m, eum), contrast 119 @ 19 aduersus
respondis 194 b15
exsuerunt
cyrineum 149 ò 13 cyrinensem
istrahel
helian
expirauit (exsp-?) [exsp. Le. 236]
exspectans 115b 4, 139b 7, 1528 8, exsultavit 118 b 1, 182 & II
a(r)cessito
b 3 syndonem {not line 4} 8,21 monimenti a 9 phariseus [ġy exception]
12
23
profeta 118 b22 (not 124 b3, 12507, 1554 5, IO, I§6 ò 16, 159 b 21, 170 a 6), 125 a 4, 146 b 16, 1548 18, 159 b 12, I60 & 4, I6I b 22, 166 a 10, 176 a 9, b 24, 181b 13, 20, 183 b 19, but St G always kas blasphem,
feneratori
114 ò 6 aspiritibus . 116 a 12 (a)d(f)ligun(t) (Io. xviiizzadsistens,
Io. xviii 29 adfertis, xix 2 in- posuerunt, Io. i o inluminat, Io. xvi I4 adnuntiabit, Le. xxiii 54 in- lucescebat, xi 24 inmundus, xi 26 adsumit, xiii 13, xxiii 26 inposuit, xiv 4 adprehensum, xxiii 26 ad- pr(ajehenderunt Io. vii 30, 32, 44,
Me. vi 49 phantasma 53 adplicuerunt 56 quotquot vii r pharisaei 4 urceorum 6 prophetauit esaias 26 syrophoenissa 28 at ix 2 'johannem xiv I azyma 3 ungenti 4, 5, xvi 1, Le. 757, 38, 46, agö6 caput Le. 7" 9 euangelium Le. 8! Io scariotis 27 dispergentur 38 temtationem promtus _ 55 aduersus Le. r1” aduersum
xv 4 respondes 20 exuerunt 21 cyreneum Le. 23% cyrenen- sem 32 israhel 35 heliam 37 exspirauit but çf. expecto 43 expectans Le, 81% 102b 2126
44 accersito 46 sindonem 46b monumenti xvi 2 Le, vii 39 pharisaeus propheta x 24 xiii 33
- 4I faeneratori viii 2 ab sp. 45 affligunt
INTRODUCTION
xii f. col. line viii 20, xix 1, Le. xviii 27 inpos- sibilia, xviii 32 inludetur, xviii 35 adpropinquaret, xx 27, xxiii 36 accesserunt, Xx 46, xxi 34 atten- dite, xxiii 21 succlamabant Did Jerome not assimilate inl-) I1] a 12 adponuntur b xı extergemus 8 chorazaą(in) 118 a 5 Ìxxíij, r21 b rı xvii b 8 parudlis rrg a (foot) belzebub (beel-?) b 23 quippeni 120 a 18, r9 solom, b 6 absconso r32 b 18 12r b 3 hii 122b 22, 136 b23, 137 4 19, 139 a 6, b 16, 150 b 23, 154 & 4, I4, 158 b 15, 163 ġ 23, 167 & 21I [hi 145 a 17, 153 b 19, 194 b 9] 122 b 5 decim 128%b7 124 b 2 isac [so N*] 136 a ọ [so N D] 126 b 6 cenam 12748 4, J, 142 b 3 [T41 b 19 = Le. xxii 12 wik WW] 128 b 23 sterculinum right 129 b 23 suggilet 130 a 19 parabulam [but ke has parabolam earlier and 133 a7) b 24 adferebant 133 a 23 adficientes, 138 b ọ adficient, 146 a 18 adfir- mabat I131 b 24 (came)llum 134 b 20 inscribtionem 136 b 5 scabillum 137 a 4 gazofylach(i)um,178 b r2 gazofilacio 140 b 22 azimorum, I4īI 4 21 141 b o amforam t45 b ıı dexteram 13 cottidie ' ī19 conpraehendentes 147 b 9 iudeorum 148 a 21 herodis b1, 17 ıso b 19 superseribtio inscribta 158 b r2 quodquod 160 a 14 corigiam 161r b 4 messian o caephas 17 betsaida 20,24 nathanael 162 45,9, 15 166 a 6 exit 167 a 23 clodorum 171 b 6 aput
xviii
xxii
xxiii
Io. i
Le. viii
x 8 adp. [why?]
Irr extergimus
I3 corazain
17 septuaginta duo . xiii 4 21 paruulis
19 beelzebub
28 quippini
31 bs salom.
33 abscondito xviii 34
2 hi XxXx47
m.
x xiii
Ir decem xiv 3r 28 isaac xiv r2 caenam 16, 17
35 sterquilinium 5 suggillet 9 parabolam
15 afferebant Xx II, XXi 16, xxii 59
25 camelum xx 24 inscriptionem 43 scabellum 1 gazophylacium Io. 82 1, 7 azymorum ro amphoram, 50 dextram 53 cotidie 54 compreh. 3 ludaeorum Tr, 12, 15 herodes 38 superscriptio inscripta i2 quotquot 27 corrigiam 41 messiam 42 cephas 44 bethsaida 45 nathanahel iv 43 exiit v 3 claudorum vi 61r apud
me
XX
COLLATION WITH WORDSWORTH AND WHITE'S TEXT lxii
p. col, line
92 a
5 5 14 12
15
adpraehendere [see 145 b 19] deluculo
scisma
aegenis
exiit
22,24 clarificauit
12
14
6 13 15
paraclitum 188 æ 6, 189 a 7 [not
189 b x6] scariothis dispargamini confidete Mt. xxvii 43 (69 b 11) caiphae 193% 18, 194 b 22, 1958 I4
vii 30 adprehendere viii 2 diluculo ix 16 schisma xiii 29 egenis 30 exiuit 32 clarificabit xiv I6 paracletum
22 scariotis xvi 32 dispergamini 33 confidite xviii 13 caiaphae, etc,
'THE OLDEST
MANUSCRIPT
OFE THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt, vi r1=15
vi 16-19 m nostrum cotidi ubstant tes amen hogíe et quia recep, ' s debita mercedem -> £ et nos Tu autem c l debitori ungue s nostzís et ne nos et faciem ducas in. æmpta ne uidear nem sed &bera nos bus ieiun malo tri tuo q im dimiseritis ho sconso bus peccata qui uidet imittet et uo so reddet t ater uester cae Nožte th is delicta uestra re uobis th tem non dimise in terra hominibus ne dinea de r uest dimitit fures ef
TIOYCION
nterpreta
lis ac si super
ereuseo dt prae
sym: achus ac p in teris testamenti
cit super
This page and its verso are a fragment of a detached leaf—the only leaf in the whole collection whose precise position in the MS cannot be determined.
For the proof that the note below the text on êmoúgioyv is based on Jerome’s Commentary on St Matthew ad loc., and for the conjectural restoration of some
St Gall 1395
of the missing or mutilated words, sée Introduction, supra. There are simìlar notes on pp. 7, 49, 66, 74, 161: and to the same very early scholar (sìxth or seventh century?) may be due some of the marginal notes, e.g. the Greek words on pp. 75; 80, 82, 101, 105.
1,23, de[molitur ubi]: no room for et.
Q. ii fol xr? a
I0
10
15
20
Mätt. vi 21-24
nim est then s tuus ibi est et um a corporis est fuerit ocu implex totu” tuum lucidu” utem oculus quam fuerit m corpus tuum rosum erit si men quod in enebrae sunt tenebrae qan unt otest duobus nis seruire aut unum odio ha
l. 16. tuum: -um in ligature.
lL 19. sunt: -nt in ligature.
l. 20. Attention may be called once for all to the superposed u: it is not a correction, but a regular means of abbreviating the last syllable of a line, if there is any need to save space, just
- like the mark for final m,
1. 23. nis: both the number of missing letters (4 or 5) and the absence of any mark of abbreviation over n, shew that dominis is here correctly written in full: so pp. 23 col, b 1. 7,71 col, b 1 2 : but for the parables see on p. 3r col. b L 22.
aut: -ut in ligature.
S Gall 1395
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
vi 25-27
ı q Ideo dico uo
liciti sitis an
` trae quid m tis neque tro qui nonne anim -quam esca et co plus est quam ue mentum res te uolatilia cae niam non seruz que metunt ne congregant in
~ rea et pater ue caelestis pasc? nonne uos mag res estis illis
Quis autem ues
L 7. I could see no trace of the marginal v, denoting the Eusebian canon. The canon number was, according to Euse- bius’ own practice, distinguished in'our MS by being written in red; in many cases the red numeral has disappeared, where the parallel sections fromthe other Gospels, being in black ink; have survived. St Jerome's letter to Da- masus Nouum opus makes it clear that
"one distinguishing mark of his own
edition of the Gospels'was the use of the Eusebian section-numbers in black, and of the canons in red, ink,
Q. üifol r? è
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt. x 25-29
:m: familias- be b uocauerunt o magis domes us: ne ergo. ti tis eos im opertum on reuelabi occultum qod ietur o uobis in te dicite. in lu t quod in au ietis praedi uper. tecta et timere eos idunt corpus am autem no t occidere us eum time otest et ani corpus-per „ehennam ` uo passeres „eunt et unus
There are faint traces of the head-line matth : in our MS, as in some other old MSS, head-lines were given only on alternate pairs of pages, and. are there- fore absent from pp. 4, 5 (foll. 1 $, 2a), present on pp. 6,7 (foll. 2-b, 3a), and so on,
-L x be(elzebu)b: ‘the b in 1, 2 is clear,
and the classical rules for division of
words are still observed in our MS
(see on p. 10 col. b 1. 6}, so that the
reading of m. 1 ìs certain, cf, p. I0
col, a1, 18 ; possibly bel(zebu)b m. 2. l2. uocauerunt : -nt in ligature,
1. 16. corpus : -us in ligature.
Jl 34 nnne e ne in bontuira
X 29-34
matih
ex illis non cadit su -per terram. sine-pa - -tre uestro uestri au tem et capilli capitis omnes numerg : „sunt nolite -ergo . mere. mul ribus meliores estis uos l Omnis ergo qui confi _tebitur, me coram hominibus confite . bor et ego eum cora patre meo qui in cae Ixliiii lis est ii _ Qui autem me negaue mebaxd rit coram hominibus negabo et. ego-eum co ram patre meo qui wiy ESt in caelis DA Nolite.arbitrari quia uenerī mittere pa ; cem in terram non „ueni pacem mittere . sed gladiu `
l
l. 16 margin. Our MS always writes go-as Ìxl, not xc.
The cypher for Luke ought apparently to have been 146, not 147.
l. 17. hominibus: -us in ligature.
l. 22. Note the unusual abbreviation of ï in the middle of a line; no doubt the scribe originally wrote uenerimittere by a blunder,
1.25. A twenty-fifth half-line is added wherever, as here, a small addition would complete a sentence at the end of a page: see on pp. 13 and 30.
10
15
20
25
Io
20
t cłxxxii
fxivi
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
Matt. x 35-40
ueni enim separare hominem aduersus patrem suum et fi lam aduersus ma trem suam et nuru”
aduersus socrum sua `
et inimici hominis domestici eius
suu—
E ‘Qui amat patrem aut
matrem plus quam
me non est me dignus
et qui amat filium aut filiam super me ` non est me dignus
u
qi . et non accipit cru cem suam et sequi tur me non est me
, dignus
ii ` Qui inuenit anima™
L ccxi j cy
suam perdet illam. et qui perdiderit
' animam suam prop
Ixlviii i
mr lxlvi
l- cxvi
F Exx
ter me inueniet ea” Qui recipit uos me re
L 9. aut“ -ut in ligature.
suum added above the line: this` and the next correction may perhaps be by the original scribe,
l 11. dignus: -us in ligature. L 15. qui added above the line,
St Gall 1395
X 40-Xxi I
cipit et qui pit recipit e isiyi ME MISIE x Qui recipit p in nomine mercedem accipiet et - pit iustum ne iusti me iusti accipi Et quicumq dederit un mis istis ca quae frigid
vi
mR iklviii
tum in no cipuli ame uobis non «q - Mercedem x Et factum es summasse cipiens duo 'cipulis suis inde ut doc praedica
In this column half of each line is lost; but calculations of space make it clear that in H. 4, 5, 6 the spelling profeta was used, as elsewhere in our MS. Excel- lent as its text is, its orthography is not so good: thensaurus, profeta, &c. are Oid Latin, for which St Jerome substi-
tuted the Greek spelling,
Q. ii Jo? 1b
THE VULGATE GOSPELS 5
Matt, xì 1-7 xi 7-H uitatibus eorum hanne y Iohannis autem cu™ . in deser t Ixväii audisset in uincu harun lis opera xpi mittens to agit duos de discipulis quid ex suis ait illi tu es qui homin uenturus es an aliū l uestit exspectamus E mollib Et respondens ih5 ait tur in illis euntes renun gum su, tiate iohanni quae existis S auditis et uidetis . tam e caeci uident claudi ~ bisetp ambulant leprosi cii fetam mundantur surdi m Hic enim audiunt mortui re tlx seribt surgunt pauperes . ecce m euuangelizantur meum et beatus est qui tuam non fuerit scanda rabit u lizatus in me > n antet Tllis autem abeunti y Amen d bus coepit ih3 dice kixi surrex re ad turbas de io tos mu l. 4. mittens; -ns in ligature, - ' 1. 17. The letter after ecce is certainly
]. 12, auditis : the correction to audistis m and not e: our MS therefore read is early, but apparentlynot bythe original ecce mitto not ecce ego mitto—unless scribe. Our MS stands alone in giving indeed it read ego | ecce mitto. the present tense with the Greek of St Matthew (and the two O, L. MSS b k) against Luc. vii 22, I cannot doubt thatit restores the true textof St Jerome: cf, e g, pp. 25 col, & I-13 17, 72 col, a l. 1, 85 col, ól. 16,
l, 18. euuangelizantur: the double u is constant in our MS.
St Gail 1395 l Q. ii fol 2a
vı
10
20
6 THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT. OF
Matt. xi 11-17
t
xi 17-21:
secund
abtista minor
o caelo
r est illo em iòhan- ae usde um cae patitur rapiunt
profetae e ad iohā tauerunt cipere ip qui uėn ui habet endi au
milem genera
: msimilis edertibus claman
alibus di
L r. babtista has been altered to baptista; but not by a correction made, as elsewhere, above the line,
l. g. rapiunt: -nt in ligature,
1. 12, usque is not abbreviated to usq: as a rule in our MS.
l 13. -tauerunt: -unt in ligature,
1. 14. There ìs hardly room for et si uultis re-, for in no other line in the
. column are twelve letters lost, and even
eleven only once (in l, 15): our MS must have omitted et with a few of the best MSS.
L 22. edentibus : -us in ligature.
Si Gall 1395
cunt cecinimus uo: bis et-non-saltastis. lamenzauimus et non planxisistis -ue nit enim iohannes“ neque manducans neque bibens et di cúnt daemonium habet uenit filius hominis manducans et bibens et- dicunt ecce homo uorax et potaťor uini pub licañoórum et pecca torum amicus et iustificata est sapi
„entia a flis suis evili
v Tunc coepit expro L cxv P p
brare ciuitatibus in quibus factae sunt plurimae uirtutes eius quia non egissent paenitentiam
Vae tibi chorazain
l 4. planzisistis by dittography.
1. 20, sunt: -unt in ligature. 1l, 22. egissent; -ntin ligature.
Q. ii fol 2b
THE VULGATE GOSPELS. ` 7
Matt. xi 21-24
xi 24-29
matth
uae. tibi bethsaida., quia si in tyro et-sř done factae essent. uirtutes quae fac.
tae sunt in uọþis, olim źz cilicio et;cine re paenitentiam. egissent uerum ta men dico uobis tyro et sidoni remissius erit in die iudicii qua uobis ,
Et, tu, capharnaum. numquid usque in cąelum exaltabe ris usque in inferny descendes
Quia si in sodomis fac tae fuissent uirtu: tes quae factae sunt in te forte mansis- sent, usque in hunc. diem uerum tamen, dico uobis quia ter.
n ueteri ita repperimus exemplum et tu cafarnaum dae {usque in caeiu } exaltata es usde ad infernúm (descendes)
l. 3, essent :! -nt in ligature.
1.6; I cannot reconcile ‘in cilicio’ alone. with space or ductus litterarum : perhaps ‘in in cilicio’.
L 20. sunt: -nt in ligature.
l. 25. A note of three lines has been deciphered, as above printed, by some previous scholar : but ìt is not all legible now. It comes froin Jerome’s commen- tary în loc. ‘in altero exemplari repperi- mus Et tu’ etc, See further in the Introduction,
St Gall 1395
j: lxxxiiii
rae sodomorum rẹ ` missius erit in die iu dicii quam tibi, ex In illo tempore re r exvii spondens ibš dixit. confiteor tibi pater dūe caeli et terrae qui-abscondisti haec a sapientibus et pru dentibus eż reuelas ti ea paruulis ita pa ter quoniam sic fu . it placitum ante te Hi Omnia mihi tradita. l cxviii jaxx, Sunta patre meo qui Ez nemo nouit filiu evii Aisi pater neque pa. trem quis nouŭiź ni si filius et cui- uolue rit filius reuelare x Venite ad me omnes qui laborabis et oxe rati estis et ego ref ciam uos, tollite
L4. The marginal.canon number should
be v.
l. 16. The marginal section for St John
should. be lxxxvii, not lxxxiiii: the mistake may be my own. l
l. 21. The marginal section number should. be cxiii,
l 22, laborabis appears to be certain.
Q. iii jol 3a
10
20.
10
15
by
8o THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT. OF
Matt. xi 29-xii 4
iugum meum super uos et discite a me quia mitis sum et hu milis corde et inue nietis requiem ani mabus uestris iugu™ enim meum suaue est „„Ţ” et onus meum leue “i. In illo tempore abít nL ib sabbato per sata discipuli autem elus esurientes coeperunt uellere spicas et man ducare pharisaei autem uidentes di xerunt ei ecce disciÌ - puli tui faciunt quod no” licet eis facere sabbatis At ille dixit eis non legistis quid fecit dauid quando esuriit et qui cum eo erant quomodo intrauit
l], ọ. abit: i apparently accented, ae- cording to a custom not infrequent with Irish scribes, In our MS the accent is found (1) to distinguish monosyllables, such as ó and uís, p. 23 col, b Il. 10, 125 (2) to indicate the contracted form i for ji, as in ali p. 40 col, a 1, y, fili (whether nom. pl. as p. 66 col, b l. 13, or gen. sing. as p. 73 col, b L 19), or the perfects petit (p. 112 col. a 1. 18), abit (here and p. 32 col, a 1, 13; (3) heli helí p. 6ọ col. bi. 24. writing alone to say that the accents are not prima manu. Cf. p.4ocol a h 7
l. 12. coeperunt; -unt in ligature,
St Gall 1395
It is impossible from the hand- >
xii 4-10
in domum dei et pa nes propositionis co medit quos non lice bat ei edere neque hiis qui cum eo erant nisi solis sacerdotibus “x Aut non legistis in le ge quia sabbatis sacer - dotes in templo sab batum uiolant et sine crimine sunt dico autem uobis quia templo maior est hic si autem scire tis quid est misericor diam uolo et non sa crificium numquā condemnassetis in - nocentes dñs est enī filius hominis etia . sabbati Y Et cum inde transisset kev uenit in synagoga eorum et ecce homo
1]. 6. sacerdotibus : -us in ligature.
l. 22, The ordinary texts give for section cxvi the following equivalents: ji mr xxv L xlü, clxv, cxxviii, But our MS here is clear, and presumably the scribe’s eye had wandered back to p. 6 col, b1. 18.
Q. üi fol 3%
cxvii iiii
MR XXVI j Ixlv
THE VULGATE GOSPELS 9
Matt. xii 10-14
manum habens ari dam et interroga bant eum dicentes si licet sabbatis cura re ut accusarent eu™ ipse autem dixit illis
Quis erit ex uobis homo
qui habeat ouem unam et si ceciderit haec sabbatis in fo ueam nonne tene bit et leuabit eam quanto magis me lior est homo oue itaque licet sabbatis bene facere - tunc ait homini exten
- de manum tuam et
extendit et restitu ta est sanitati sicut altera
Exeuntes autem pha
risaei consilium fa ciebant aduersus
S? Gall 1395
xii 14-20
eum quomodo eum evi; perderent ,
x Ih autem sciens re .- cessit inde et secuti sunt eum multi et
curauit eos omnes et praecepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent ut adinple retur quod dictum est per esaiam profe tam dicentem ecce puer meus quem elegi dilectus meus in quo bene placuit animae meae pona spm meum super eu” et iudicium gentibus nuntiabit non con tendet neque clama bit neque audiet ali quis in plateis uocem eius harundinem qas, satam non confringet
1. 9. adinpleretur : the evidence of the best MSS is overwhelming for assimila- tion'of the n, adimpleretur, Perhaps St Jerome consistently assimilated the prepositions, though the practice. of the O. L. MSS goes the other way, and in orthography our MS goes with them, Cf. pp. 14 col. b 1. 8, 17 col. a l. 17: and for other verbs pp. 121. 15; 1581.18; 16 b l. r2; &c.
1}. 13. On this occasion there are no marginal quotation marks for the passage from Isaiah : contrast below, p. 39 col. b.
Q. ii fol 4a
10
20 .:
1a
w kaa
20.
I0
Matt. xii 20-25
et linùm.fumigans non extinguet. donec eici, at ad uictoriam iudi cium etin nomine eius <a gentes sperabunt chviti ` v Tunc oblatus est ei dae 1] cxxvi . monium habens cae cus et mutus et cura ujt eum ita ut loque retur et uideret- CXX. pai Et: stupebant-omnes * IXXXIL . I turbae et dicebant numquid hic est fili us dauid cxxi . . i Pharisae/ autem au maxi dientes dixerunt hic non eicit daemo nia nisi in. beelzebub principe daemonioru” exx ` . i Ib5 autem sciens co me} xxxiii s, e b) cxxviii gltationes eorum dixit eis omne regnu” diuisum contra se desolabitur et omnis The top.of this page is cut away just above. the. text, so, that- the ‘secund’ which. ought to stand there has dis- appeared. L 4, eius: -us in ligature. 1. f) margin. Here and at lines.15, 20 the outside cyphers- or letters haye been cut away with the edge of the page.,
Sé Gall 1395
THE‘ OLDEST: MANUSCRIPT: OF
xii 25-30
ciuitas uel domus di uisa contra se non stabit:et-si satanas satanan eicit aduer sus-se-diùisus est quo `’ modo ergo stabit re gnum eius et si ego in beelzebub eicio dae mones filii uestri in quo eiciunt ideo ipsi iudices erunt- uestri si autem ego in spu di eicio daemones igitr peruenit in uos regnu™ di aut quomodo potest quisquam in trare in domum for tis et uasa eius diripe re ni prius alligaue tit fortem et tunc onii domum illius diripiat. ii Qui non est mecum con Mei tra me est et qui non congregat mecum -1.6. Note the division regnum. The rules for the. division. of words at the end of lines in our MS are: first, avoid it entirely if possible; where division is necessary, then, if the vowel is followed by one consonant, always transfer the consonant to the next line; if it is followed by two consonants, transfer one only—but to this latter rule there are exceptions, and both are sometimes transferred, as e.g. p. 7 col, b 1. 4 and here,
lL r9. ni: there is a mark above the following letter, which appears to be a minute indication of the missing letters tsi’,
Q. ii fol 4Ġ.
THE VULGATE. GOSPELS: 1I
Matt.-xii -30-34
spargit: ideo-dico uo bis omne peccatum et. blasphemia remit tetur hominibus sps:autem blasphemia non remittetur Et. quicumque .dixerit.
uerbum contra filiu hominis:remitte tur ei qui autem di xerit contra spm sêm non remittetur ei neque in hoc saecu
aiii lo neque in futuro
x Aut facite arbore”
bonam: et. fructum. eius bonum aut fa. cite: arborem: ma: lam et fructum eius malum si quidem ex fructu arbor agnos citur progenies uiperarum quomo do potestis bona lo
Again the top margin is cut so close that no trace of ‘ matth’ remains. -L 1r, sēm: abbreviated only in the
phrase ‘ Holy Spirit’. In the first stage -
of the abbreviations of the nomina sacra, sanctus is not abbreviated at all; in the second, represented. by our MS, it is only abbreviated in the one case, but is written in full for ‘corpora sanctorum’ p. 70 col, a l. 24, ‘san(ctam) ciuitatem’ ib, col. ó l. g, sanctus (dei) p. 76 col, 1. 11. Both theśe stages fall very early : most MSS abbreviate the word in any con- nexion,
S Gall 1395
xii:34+39.
qui cum sitis mali: ex: abundantia enim. cordis:os loquitur CXXV ` NN Bonus- homo. de:bono; -Ixu thensauro-profert - 5 bona et malus. homo. de malo.thensauro: profert mala CXXVI e e. x Dico autem uobiš quo . niam omne uerbu”™ 10 otiosum quodď locu ti fuerint homines reddent rationem de co in die iudicii ex uerbis enim tuis ius I5 tificaberis. et.ex uer: „bis tuis condemnaberis CxxvVil v.. Tunc responderunt. lb cxxviii ©, . a ei quidam de scribis et pharisaeis dicen 20 tes magister uolumus. „a te signum uidere cxxviii . i o ae v _ Qui respondens ait illis
l cxxxii : generatio mala et
l. 5. thensauro: the Old Latin spelling is consistently retained by our MS (so p. 2 col. a 1, 7), but St Jerome carried through the principle of restoring the Greek orthography of Greek words and wrote thesaurus. Cf. p. 5o col. bl. 15.
1.21, uolumus : -us in ligature.
Q. iiil 5a
an
10
15
20
12
Matt, xii 39-42
adultera signum` quaerit et signum non dabitur ei nisi signum ionae profe tae sicut enim fuit ionas in uentre ce ti tribus diebus et tri
noctib»
bus-sic erit filius ho
` minis in corde ter rae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus
Viri nineuitae surgent in iudicio cum gene ratione ista et con demnabunt eam quia paenitentia ™ egerunt in praedica
tione ionae ét ecce
plus quam iona hic Regina austri surget
in iudicio cum gene
ratione ista et con
demnabit eam quia
uenit a finibus terrae
1. 8. The correction appears to be m. p. : the dot between tribus and sic is presum- ably connected with the correction rather than with punctuation, The omission of noctibus, like the omission of et ornatam in col, b 1, 14, is of course due to homoeoteleuton,
l. 12. surgent; -nt in ligature,
St Gall 1395
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
xii 42-46 `
audire sapientiam solomonis et ecce „plus quam solomon exxviiii >, : v hic cum autem b exxx - . inmundus sps exie rit ab homine am bulat per loca arida
quaerens requiem
et non inuenit tunc dicit reuertar in do mum meam. unde exiui et ueniens in uenit uacantem scopis mundatam et
ornatam
et tunc uaditadsumit septem alios sps secu™ nequiores se et in
S trant et habitant ibi et fiunt nouissi ma hominis illius pe iora prioribus sic erit et generationi huic pessimae CXXX . ii Adhuc eo loquente
MR XXXV
L ixxxii
ll, 5, 16. spiritus should properly have been written in full, for. deus dominus spiritus are in early MSS only abbre- viated when used as nomina sacra. And our scribe violates the rule elsewhere, e.g. pp. 62 col. al, 4, 76 col. b 1. 16, 82 col, b 1. 13, 88 col. b l. 24, 89 col, b IL 1 19, 98 col. 1, 8 (but spiritibus in full p. 76 col. b l 24).
Il, 14, 15. et ornatam, et; added ap- parently m, p.
ll. 17, 18. intrant et, corrected to
intrantes, . Q. ii Jol 5%
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt, xii 46-xiii 2
ad turbas ecce ma ter eius et fratres stabant foris quae rentes loqui ei dixit autem ei quidam ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te
At ipse respondens dicenti sibi ait quae est mater mea et qi sunt fratres mei et extendens manu™ in discipulos suos di xit ecce mater mea et fratres mei qui- cumque enim fece rit uoluntatem pa tris mei qui in caelis
et est ipse meus frater . et soror et mater est cĮxxxi . . - a- In illo die exiens ihg de domo sedebat se cus mare et congre
ME xxvi b Ixxvi
L y. stant: -nt in ligature. 'l 20. The correction, if not m.p., is
contemporary : Greek authority for the `
et is weak, but it is certainly the true Vulgate reading, and is probably one of Jerome’s minute improvements of the translation in the direction of clearness and idiomatic Latin.
l. 22. The margin should add ii as the canon number, and give xxxvi as the section number for St Mark. But the latter is certainly xxvi in our MS.
SE Gal 1395
13
xiii 2-6
gatae su ` turbae ut in na dens se nis tur litore e eis mulz lis dicen qui sem re et du quaeda secus uf runt u2 meder autem in petr habeb multa exort
habeb
nem te. em or unt eban
L 17. The length of the line suggests t habebant terram ’ rather than ‘habebat terram’ : but it is of course impossible to be sure.
l. 24. As the first line of the verso-
10
20
(see next: page) must by calculation of..
space have begun with alia autem, it follows that aruerunt must have bren below the latter part of the line here., as
in several other cases when only ione `
word remained to complete a sentence at the end of a page : see pp. 3, 30 {and note), 41, 59 69, 73; 83, 85, 89, 93 95r
97, 105, 113, Sc. Q. iii fo? 6 b . 4 E
10
T4
Matt, xiii 7-12
ideruz t creue ae et suffo
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
-xiii 12-16
bet et quod habet
caxxiii AUferetur ab eo
i1 _ Ideo in parabolis‘ lo
MR xxxvii
tea eciderunt bonam
t fructu ensimž ensimu™ ` nsimum ures ax iat
tes discipu ei quare äs loque spongezs a uobis nosse mys aeloru™ on est
etd ndabi non ha
l. 1. ceciderunt: apparently -unt in ligature,
l. 5. ceciderunt : -nt or -unt in ligature.
p.316. ris [eiṣ] qui respondens: I do ne think we can venture to decide wh. her our MS read eis with the Greek and ¿1l thë North Italian witnesses or
omitted it with some of the best MSS of
the South Italian group.
I.1, 32. The second half of |, 21 would: bë blank, as only datum remained to coraplete the paragraph after ]. 20.
DAs
/ Gall 1395
nmd
cxxxijii . . y Vestri autem beati . CXX
lxxv quor eisquia úiden j cviiii
tes non uident et au dientes non audiunt neque intellegunt
et adinpletur eis profeta esaiae dicens auditu audietis et non intellegetis et uidentes uidebizs
et non uidebitis z% crassatum est eni” cor populi huzxs et auribus grauzžey audierunt et oczlos suos cluserunt:ze quando oculis uide ant et auribus au diant et corde in tellegant et conuer tantur eź sanem eos
l. 6. audiunt : -unt in ligature.
l. ọ. dicens : -ns in ligature.
l. 10. The page is too imperfectly preserved to say for certain whether or no the quotation marks were correctly inserted in the margin.
- Q. ü fo 6d
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt, xiii 16-21
oculi quia uident et aures 'uesttáe qia audiunt ainën quip
pe dico 'uobis ġuia mul
ti profetac et: iusti cupierunt uidere quae uidetis et non uiderunt et audire quae auditis et non audierunt CXXXV er oge i i Vos ergo audite para XXXVIII s- . .ixxvii bolam seminantis omnis qui audit uer bum regni et non in tellegit uenit malus
et rapit quod semiha
tum est in corde eius hic est qui secus uiā seminatus est
a Qui autem supẹr petro SE hic est sa seminätus est qui - uerbum aŭdit et con tinuo cum gaudio
suscipit illud non ha
l. 4. mul: -ul in ligature.
1l. 20, 21. The corrections, both here and in col. b l. 16, seem to be probably by the second hand. I suppose that the omission of hic est is in both cases due to komoeoteleuton ; but it is odd that the same mistake should have been made twice. Supra of m. 2 is also right.
-1L 24. suscipit is a unique reading ; accipit here and in Mc. iv 16 is the Vulgate version of Aapßávov, while in the Lucan parallel, viii 13, ðéxovra is rendered by suscipiunt,
St Gall 1395
15
xiii 21234
matth
bet autem in'se radi cem seđd-est tempora lis facta:autem tri bulatione et pérse cutione přóptėťůėr bum continuo scan dalizatur Qui autem est semina -~ tus in spinis hic est qui uerbum audit-et sol - licitudo saeculi istius et fallacia diuitiaru ` suffocat uerbum et sine fructu efficitur Qui uero in terra bona . _ hic est, serninatus est qui ‘uerbu™ - audit et intellegit et- fructum adfert et facit:aliud quide centtim aliud autēë sexagřńta porro _ aliud zriginta "Z Aliam paraboláin: proposuit illis dicens
l. 18. adfert: in this word the unas- similated form is supported by the North Italian MSS, yet even so is probably wrong, see p. 21 col. a 1. 18.
1.21. porro aliud: Gr, ð pèr ... 80è... ò õé, and when St Jerome characteristi- cally wrote ‘aliud quidem .. . aliud autem . . . porro aliud’, he was not going t against the Greek? (see W, W., in loc.), but rendering it idiomatically. Porro is definitely Hieronymian, and is- never found in O, L.
Q. ii olja
10
. 20
n
10
15
20
16
Matt. xiii 24-28
Simile factum est regnum caelorum homini qui semina uit bonum semen in agro suo cum aute”
dormişşent homines uenit inimicus eius et superseminauit , zizania in medio tri tici et abiit ĉn aute™ creuisset herba et fructum fecisset tunc apparuerunt et zezanja’ Accedentes autem ser uj patris familias di xerunt ej dñe non ne bonum semer se minasti in agro’ tuo unde ergo habt zi zania et ait-{lis ini micus homo hoc fe cit serui autem dixe
runt ei uis imus et
1.6. The correction is apparently m. p.
homines : -es ín ligature,
L 13. apparuerunt : -nt in ligature,
l r4, zezania: it is interesting to find in our MS a spelling that only re- appears in two Irish MSS.
1. 17. dominus of the parables is in an intermediate position between the nomina sacra anà the strictly secular use, and in our MS is consistently abbreviated; see p. 2 col, a L 23, P B1 col, b1. 22.
St Gall 1395
exxyvij - ii Aliam parabolam pro
mR xliiii l» cixvii .
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF`
xiii 28-32
colligimus ea et ait non ne forte colli gentes zizania era dicetis simul cum eis et triticum sinite
utraque crescere usque ad messem et in tempore messis di cam messoribus col ligite primum ziza nia et alligate ea fas ciculis ad conburen dum triticum aute” congregate in hor reum meum
polam proposuit il lis dicens simile est regnum caelorum grano sinapis quod accipiens homo se minauit in agro suo quod minimum qui
. TA dem est omnibus ho
seminibus cum autem creuerit maius est omnibus
l 9, 11, colligere is one of the com- pound verbs in which in Iatin of all periods the preposition is generally, alligare one of those in which it is nearly always, assimilated.
ll. 16, 17. parabolam projpolam pro- posuit; a case of dittography, Had the exemplar a line of eight letters ?
lL. 24. The symbol */. refers to the addition below the column of the words omitted by komoeoteleuton, The correc- tion appears to be m. p.
Q. iii fol 7.2
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
è
Matt. xiii 32-36
lèribus et fit arbor ita ut uolucres cae
li ueniant et habi tent in ramis eius
Ažiam parabolam
locutus est eis simile est regnum caeloru”™ fermento quod accep tum mulier abscon
cļxxx[vijii
v b [e]Ixvitii
. . . ur dit in farinae satis satm . mensu tribus donec fermen rae uo cabulu—
cxxviii tatum est totum vi Haec omnia locutus melai est ihē in parabolis ad turbas et sine pa rabolis non loqueba tur eis ut inpleretur quod dictum erat per profetam dicen tem aperiam in på rabolis os meum eruc’ tuabo abscondita aê constitutione mndi x Tunc dimissis turbis
ll. 4-9. A jagged hole in the vellum ,
has destroyed some letters ìn the text and some cyphers in the margin,
l. 5 margin. The section-number for St Luke is certainly clxviiii, not clxviii,
lL ro. Note the lexical information, about the meaning of in farinae satis, added in the margin. St Jerome transliterated the Greek såra, the name of a Hebrew measure with no Latin equivalent.
1. 20. Apparently quotation marks are wanting in the margin.
St Gall 13905
17
xiii 36-41
uenit in domum et accesserunt ad eu™ discipuli eius dicentes dissere nobis para
' bolam zizaniorum agri qui respondens ait qui seminat bonu” semen est filius homi
-nis ager autem est mundus bonum uero semen hii sunt filii reg ni zizania autem fi lii sunt nequam ini micus autem qui se minauit ea est diabo lus messis uero consu™ matio saeculi est mes sores autem angeli sunt sicut ergo colli guntur zizania et igni conburuntur si erit in consummatione saeculi mittet filius hominis angelos suos
], 6. respondens : -ns in ligature.
l. 16. consu“jmatio: abbreviation of m or n in the middle of a word is hardly ever found in our MS. I have noted also quaecu”jque p. 27 col. æ l. 14, uenu”|dari p. 31 col. b 1. 13, ioha”| p. 6 col. a l. I2.
Q. ii fol 8a
10
I5
1o
t5
20
18
Matt, xiii 41-45
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
G
xiii 45-5ť
matth
et colligent de regno eius omnia scanda la et eos qui faciunt iniquitatem et mit tent eos in caminu™ ignis ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium
Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno pa tris eorum qui habet aures audiat
Simile est regnum cae lorum thensauro abscondito in agro quem qui inuenit ho mo abscondit et prae gaudio illius uadit -~ - et uendit uniuersa quae habet et emit agrum ilum
Iterum simile est reg num caelorum ho mini negotiatori qae
. renti. bonas marga
At the top of the page the scribe has by mistake written not secund but matth : the latter also appears in its right place as the head-line of the opposite page, p- 19.
S Gall 1395
ritas inuenta aute™“ una pretiosa marga rita abiit et uendidit omnia quae habuiź: ‘et emit eam Iterum simile est reg num caelorum sage nae missae in mare et ex omni genere congreganti quam cum inpleta esset educentes et secus li e tus sedentes elegerunt bonos in uasa malos autem foras mise runt sic er*+it in con summatione saecu l exibunt angeli et separabunt ma los de medio iustorū et mittent eos in ca minum ignis ibi erit fletus. et stridor den tium intellexistis
IH
1L. 4-9. The same hole in the vellum mentioned on p. 17 col. a has caused the loss of occasional letters near the ends of these six lines.
l. r3. elegerunt: -unt in ligature.
1. 16. The scribe had written ‘erunt? but corrected to ‘erit’,
l. 24. Note the quaternion signature below this line: it is one of the few that can still be detected in our MS. By exception the whole of the sheet is pre- served (pp. 3-18, Matt. x 25-xiii 51).
Q. ii fo? 8%
° THE VULGATE ĠÓSPËLĖ. `
..s..
haec'omnia dicunt e? ” etiam, ażt illis ideo. omnis scriba doctus in regno caelorum: similis est homini pa tri familias: qui pro fer de thensauro ‘suo noua et uetera ` Et factum est cum con summasset ihš. pa raąbulas istas ran siit inde „Et ueniens in patriā suam docebat eos in synagogis eorum- ita x mira ren.
tur et dicere nt d une huic sapientia
haec et uirtuzes nonne hic est Jabri flus nonne mater eius dicitur maria et Jratres eius jacobus
et řoseph et simon et
l. 1. dicunt: -nt in Īigature.
Lax, tranjsiit: cf. p, 28 col, a l. 7.
1. 13. The margin should read cxli, 1, mR ], I xviii, j. Iviii,
iL 16, 17. A hole in the vellum, circular in shape, was here when the scribe wrote, and has caused the intervals represented in the text: cf. p. 20 col, b.
l. 18. The text seems to have unie or something like it, but I cannot say that the apparent i is really a letter.
l. 20, filius is added in smaller letters after the end of the line (with -us in ligature), but by the first hand.
St Gall 1395
(>
19
xiii 55-kiv 3 -
matth iud: imo -` no huic o scándali. cxlii în eo i Ihb5 autem. xxi non est p Haav honore sua et in ẹęt. non f tutes m ter incr illorum i [n illo tem mł diit hezo cha fam
cxliii
ait puey : iohann ` ipse suy : tuis eż íd iü inopey a Herodes miii ohann l. y margin. The rissing cypher should be mR li. .,4. 22. Our MS clearly read inoperantur, for the Greek èvepyoðow, with Words- worths OY; cf. Marc, vi 14, where Wordsworth putsit in the text, and see his note there, I do not doubt it is right here also. The word is presum- ably a coinage of Christian Latin; in- tended to convey the force of the Greek preposition, l. 24. iohannem et alligauit eum : the last six or eight letters must have over- run on to a twenty-fifth line : see p. 13.
Q. iii Jol x1 æ
Qr
10
I5.
20.
J0
20
20
Matt. xiv 3-9
n carcere erodiadem ratris sui nim illi io on licet ti eam et uo
m occidere pulum dia etam eum
natalis he ault filia sin međio herodi un amento . est ei dare que postu o atilla ta a ma mihi in n disco.ca nis bap et contris ex prop ll, 1-24. From seven to nine letters are lost at the beginning of each line in this column, 1.1. carcere, The page is very well preserved, and I cannot see any traces of a stroke over the final e = carcerem :
our MS therefore with very few others represents accurately the Greek èv v-
Aare
l. 10. The edge of the t of habebant, which concludes a paragraph, seems to be just visible.
1,23. A small hole in the vellum, too small to conceal any letter but i, intervenes between r and s.
Sé Gall 1395
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
Xiv 9-14
ter iuramentum an tem et eos qui pariter recumbebant ius sit dari misitque et decollauit iohanne in carcere et allatu™ est capud in disco et datum est puellaè et tulit matri suae et accedentes discipu li eius tulerunt cor pus et saepelierunt illud et uenientes
ahi nuntiauerunt ihū
iii Quod cum audisset
bisli ~ o.‘ j xiv ih§ secessit inde
in naùicula in locum desertum se orsum et cum audis sent turbae secutae sunt eum pedestres de ciuitatibus et exi ens uidit turbam mul tam et misertus est
l. 6. allatum (and accedentes l, t0}: assimilated with all the best Vulgate MSS according to Vulgate use; in the next line capud and in l. 12 saepelierunt illustrate the weak side of our seribe’s orthography.
l. 7. eius apparently by a later hanå, and at any rate in a different ink.
Il 16, 17. A hole in the vellum ; com- pare previous page, col, a.
Q. iii fol rå
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt. xiv 14-19
eius ct curauit lan guidos eorum ! Vespere autem facto accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius dicentes desertus est locus et hora iam praeteriit dimitte turbas ut euntes in castella emant sibi escas Ih autem dixit eis non habent neces se ire date illis uos manducare respon derunt ci non habe mus hiic nisi quinge panes et duos pisces qui ait eis adferte illos mihi huc . Et cum iussisset tur bam discumbere su pra faenum acceptis quinque panibus et duobus piscibus aspi 1.18. adferte: though supported by good MSS, this is not St Jerome’s reading ; cf. p. 15 col b l. 18, but the best (apart from our MS) of the North Italian group, the Milan MS M, herẹ
joins the MSS that assimilate the pre- position,
exlvii ÜR Ixiii
l Ixliii } xlviiii
Sf Gall 1395
- xiv 19-23
ciens in caelum be nedixit ac fregit et dedit discipulis suis panes discipuli aúte ~ turbis et manduca uerunt omnes et sa turati sunt et tule runt reliquias duo decim cofinos frag mentorum plenos manducantium au tem fuit numerus quinque milia uiro rum exceptis mulie ribus et paruulis Noa ‘Et statim iussit disci pulos ascendere in na uicuta et praecede re eum trans fretu™ donec dimittere xlviii turbas Et dimissa turba ascen MR Hi xlii ditin monte solus orare ll. x, 2, benedixitac fregit: all Words- worth’s MSS read et fregit, and our scribe has no doubt been influenced by a liturgical reminiscence of Matt, xxvi 26 ‘accepit panem et benedixit ac fregit’. l, 3. suis : an addition to the true text shared by our MS with the sixth- century Friuli MS (J) and the Irish group. The affinities of the Irish text ofthe Vulgate are with the North Italian andnot with the South Italian authorities. 1. 9. cofinos : our MS harks back, as for profeta, to the f of O.L. in these Greek words, where St Jerome restored ph as the equivalent of ọ.
Q. iii fol2a
2I
(Sii
I0
15
20
“an
13
20
-22
Matt. XİV 23—29
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
o; xiv 29-35
secun ii Vespere autem facto dens petrus de naui mr lavi solus erat ibi nauicu cula ambulabat su la autem in medio per aquam ut ueni mari iactabatur ` ` ret ad ihñ uidens ue fluctibus erat enim 7 ro uentum ualidum contrarius uentus ` timuit et cum coepis Quarta autem vigilia ` set mergi clamauit noctis uenit ad eos dicens dñe saluum ambulans supra ma me fac et continuo re et uidentes eum ihš extendens manu” supra mare ambu adprehendit eum lare turbati sunt et ait illi modicae fi dicęntes. quia fantas cii “dei quare dubitasti ma est et prae timọ me rah Et cum ascendissent re clamaverunt in nauicula cessauit statimque ih5 locu uentus qui autem in tus est eis dicens ha nauicula erant ue ` bete fiduciam ego ṣu” nerunt et adoraue a; PONte timere — runt eum dicentes x Respondens autem uere filius dies . petrus dixit dñe si SE Et cum transfretassent tu es iube me uenire mpaii uenerunt in terra”
ad te super aquas at īpse ait ueni et descen
1. 17. ambulare has ne support from other MSS, and the Greek mepiraroĝvra is represented exactly by ambulantem, so that the infinitive is probably' an accidental assimilation to the preceding word mare: otherwise ‘one might be tempted to regard it as a stylistic i im- provement of St Jerome’s.
1l. 13. fantasma: cf. note on cofinos p. 21 cdl. blo.
l. 24. The margin is cut away at the bottom, and withit much of the làst line : but the top of every letter save the -e in ipse is clearly visible, i
St Gall 1395
gennesar et cum cog nouissent eum niri
‘l xy. adprehendit: the unassimi- lated form has here the support of Wordsworth’s text; nevertheless I doubt whether even kere it is right,
lL i5. nauicula™: but the line after the final a is either secunda manu or secundis curis, anà the rule against ab- breviating in the middle of the line was observed. Note that ascendere is fol- lowed by the ablative in our MS, p. 21 col, b ll 17, 23, p. 23 col. b 1. 17, &c.
l. 21. transfretassent; -nt in ligature,
Q. iii fol 2%
elviii
T ccxx
clviiii
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt. xy 20-26
-dugare non coinġi
nat hominem
Et egressus inde ih se
cessit in partes tyri et sidonis et ecce mu lier channanaea a finibus illis egressa clamauit dicens ei miserere mei dñe fli dauid filia mea ma le a daemonio uexa tur ` qui non respon dit ei uerbum et ac cedentes discipuli eius rogabant eum dicen tes dimitte eam ġia clamat post nos
Yi Ipse autem respondit
eis non sum missus nisi ad oues quae peri erunt domus israhel
vi, At illa uenit et adora
mr lxxiii
l.r3. accedentes, and col. b l. 18 accesserunt; one of the compounds in which the preposition is always assimi-
uit eum dicens dñe adiuua me qui respon
XV 26-31;
dens atit non est bonu™
sumere panem filioru7 et mittere canibus
At illa dixit etiam dñe
nam et catelli edunt de micis quae cadunt de mensa dominoru™ suorum tunc respondens ih5 ait
illi 6 mulier magna est fides tua fiat tibi sicut uís et sanata est filia illius ex illa hora
vi Et cum transisset inde
ih5 uenit secus mare galilaeae et ascendens in monte sedebat ibi
-et accesserunt ad eu” ' turbae multae haben
tes secum multos clo dos caecos debiles et alios multos et proie
23
cerunt eos ad pedes eius
et curauit cos ita ut
L 5. edunt: -nt in ligature. l 7. dominorum: see on p. 2 col. a
lated, cf. p. 16 col. b 1, 9.
l., 14. eius : -us in ligature,
St Gall 1395
li, 10, 12. The accents on ó and ufs are very slight, and it would be hardly possible to say by the handwriting alone whether.they were by the first hand or no, See above, note on p. 8 col. a1. 9.
l. 16. ascendens : -ns in ligature.
l. 20. 1 in multos has been cancelled by a slanting line drawn through it.
l. 23. eius: -us in ligature.
Q: iii fol 4a
10
m an
20
IQ
20
pi
24
Matt. xv 31-35
THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
Xv 35-xvİ I
secund
- tarbae mirarentt uidentes mutos lo quentes clodos am bulantes caecos ui dentes et magnifica bant dñ israhel
Thë autem conuoca tis discipulis suis dixit misereor turbae quja iām triduo per seuerant mecum et non habent quod manducent et dimit tere eos ieiunos no lọ ne deficiant in uia
Et dicunt ei discipuli unde ergo nobis in
` deserto panes tantos ut saturemus turbã ~ tantam ,
Et ait illis ihë quod pa nes habetis atili dixerunt septem et paucos pisciculos et
l. 10, The lines above the two words, iam triduo, are meant to invert their order, (2) (1) :, compare pp. 89 col. ġ l. 5, 130 col. æ l. 1, 138 col. b ll. 19, 20, 163 col. bl. 13, 178 col, æ l, 20, 192 col al.g. Ido not think that I have seen this device exactly reproduced in any other MS.
1.21. quod: so three or four other good MSS, but it is probably O. L, rather than Jerome,
St Gall 1395
praecepit turbae ut discumberet super terram et accipiens septem panes et pisces et gratias agens fre git et dedit discipulis suis et discipuli dede runt populo et come derunt omnes et sa turati sunt et quod superfuit de fragmen tis tulerunt septem sportas plenas erant autem qui manduca uerant quattuor milia hominum extra paruulos et mulieres et dimissa turba as cendit in navicula” axi Et uenit in fines mageda iii Et accesserunt ad eu”
mR xxvii
j xxiii pharisaei et saddu caei temptantes et rogauerunt eum ut
l. 13. erant: -nt in ligature.
l. 20. magedā` : abbreviation of final n is very rare in our MS (compare how- ever p. 3 col, æ l. 17, p. 28 col, ġ1. 8), and seems to be usually confined to the end not only of the line but of the word (yet pp. 6 col, a l. 12, 101 col. a l, 7): the symbol for abbreviation does not apparently vary from that for m.
l. 23, temptantes (and sumpsistis p. 25 col. ó ll. 14, 18): Wordsworth pre- fers temtantes (and sumsistis), but the p has equal support in the oldest MSS. Cf. pp. 33 col. al. 4, 47 colp b 1. 13.
Q. ii fol 4b
THE VULGATE GOSPELS
Matt. xvi 1-6
signum de caelo'os „ tenderet eis clxii . . v At ille respondens ait Pelxi . . eis facto uespere di citis serenum erit ru bicundum est enim caelum et mane hodie tempestas rù tilat enim triste cae lum faciem ergo cae li diiudicare nostis signa autem tempo „rum non potestis cłxiii f vi, Generatio mala et mr lxxviii . . u adultera signum qe rit et signum non dabitur ei nisi signu” ionae et relictis il lis abiit et cum uenis sent discipuli eius trans fretum obliti wiii sunt panes accipere cixun . e », gys o ` ` ìi Qui dizit illis intúemi mR Ixxviiii __ > . . ii niet cauete a fermen
lI cxliiii
l. 3. The sectional numbers in the margin have partly to be read from the take-off on the opposite page, as damp or stain has injured the first few letters of the first ten lines.
L 10o. W., W. begin the new section here, and not at 1. 14: but, as it would seem, wrongly. `
l. 19. et cum uenissent: the reason why the new subject which commences here is run on without break to the pre- ceding clauses is simply that for the whole matter of this 164th section (lines 14~22) there is parallel matter in the 8th section of St Mark.
St Gall 1395
25
xvi 6-12
matth
to pharisaeorum d sadducaeorum
me At illi cogitabant in ter se dicentes quia panes non accepimus sciens autem ih5 dixit quid cogitatis inter uos modicae fidei qia panes non habetis nondum intellegitis neque recordamini quinque panium qin que milium hominu” et quod cofinos sump sistis neque septem panum quattuor’ milium hominum et quod sportas sump sistis quare non in tellegitis quia non de pane dixi uobis caue te a fermento phari seorum et sadduceoru™ tunc intellexerunt
l. g. accepimus: -us in ligature.
l. 12. panium ; -i cancelled by a line drawn through it, and since panum follows in l, 16 there is perhaps some presumption that these cancels by slant- ing line are due to the original scribe.
ll. 13, 17. milium : our MS alone pre- serves the right reading, W.W. re- stored it by conjecture to the text.
l. 23. phariseorum et sadduceorum :
our MS regularly uses the spellings, as in Il, 1, 2 of this column, and in N. 4, 5 over the page, pharisaei and sadducaei, and it looks as though the a had been dropped here in order to get the words
into the line. Q. iii l 5a
n
10
15
20
Matt. xvi 1 2-17
quia non dixerit ca uendum a fermento panum sed a doctrina pharisacorum et
5 cxvi sadducacorum i Venit autem ihS in par mR lxxxii
I-Ixħii tes caesaraeae phi l Pi Yopi et interrogabat discipulos suos dicens
me 10 quem dicunt hori nes esse filium homi nis at illi dixerunt aii iohannem baptistā alii autem helia
uero
15 alii hieremiam aut unum ex profetis- Dicit illis uos autem quem me esse dicitis Respondens simon pe 20. trus dixit tu es xps cxvii filius di uiui x Respondens autem ih dixit ei beatus es si mon bar iona quia
1. 10. me ìs apparently not m. p.
lL 12. alii added at the end of the line in smaller characters, but m. p.
l. rg. uero is perhaps not m. $., as the letters are slightly less even than those of the original seribe,
Sż Gall 1395
THE OLDEST. MANUSCRIPT OF
xvi 17-21
caro et sanguis non reuelauit tibi sed pater meus qui in cae lis est et ego dico ti
_ bi quia tu es petrus et super hanc petra aedificabo ecclesia
. meam et portae in feri non praeuale
bunt aduersus eàm et tibi dabo claues regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaue ris super terram erit
ligatum in caelis et
quodcumque solue
ris super terram erit
solutum in caelis
mar leai Tunc praecepit disci
tixlv pulis suis ut nemini
dicerent quia ipse es set ih5 xps exinde coe pit ih§ ostendere dis cipulis suis quia opor
cixviii
1. ro. The correction to aduersum may be mm, p., but Iam not sure. The general rule is obvious that aduersus is used if an accusative in -m follows, aduersum in other cases : exceptions in the Vul- gate Gospels are Mt, xii 26 aduersus se, Mc. xiv 55 (aduersum ihñ the best MSS with our MS), Le. ix ṣo (aduersus uos the best MSS), see pp. 10 col, b1. 5, 106 col, & ll. 14, 20. Here too the best MSS are for aduersum: and perhaps objection to aduersum was only fatal, before -um, not before -am,
Q iii o7 5 a
> THE VULGATE. GOSPELS
Matt, xvii 10-14:
clxxiii vi mR lxxxviiii
Et interrogauėrunt: eum discipuli dicen tes quid ergo scribae dicunt quod heliam oporteat primum . uenire .
. At ille respondens ait . eis helias quidem uen turus est et restitu
et omnia dico autem - uobis quia helias ia™ uenit et non cogno uerunt eum sed fe cerunt in eo quaecuT . que uoluerunt sic et filius hominis pas surus est ab eis tunc intellexerunt dis cipuli quia de iohan ne baptista dixisset clrzxiiii eis l . ii Et cum uenisset ad t7 mR lxli . k Ixiviii bam accessit ad eum homo genibus pro The two columns of this and the succeeding page are preserved sepa- rately. L 1. interrogauerunt : -nt in ligature,
l. 22. A hole in the vellum has injured the final letters.
SZ Gail 1 395
- pare on p. 28 col, æ.
: xvii 14-20
“s ante eum di - cens dñe miserere fili mei quia lunaticus est et male patitur nam saepe cadit in ignem et crebro in aquam et obuli eu” discipulis tuis et non potuerunt curare eu”
Respondens ih5 ait-ó generatio incredy la et peruersa quo us que ero uobiscum us que quo patiar uos adferte hxc illum ad me et increpauit ei ih5 et exżżt ab eo dae monium et curatus est puer ex illa hora Tunc accesseryat dis cipuli ad ihz secreto
unt quare nos
non potuimus eicere illum dicit e
The left margin is slightly cut away all down this column, and the first half of the first line has entirely gone : com- Moreover the column has been patched together out of two or three fragments, and the threads used for patching from time to time hide letters,
dl. 1. As the corrector reads (prouo- lut)us, it is obvious that, the original reading was prouolutis,
l. 20. The marginal cyphers would
` have been clxxv V L cc.
L 24. dicit: illis would probably be enough to fill up the line without adding
ih, Q. iiio 7a
2J
I0
28 THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPT OF
Matt. xvii 20-24
propter inc tatem uestram Amen quippe dico uo bis si habueritis fid 5 sicut granum sina pis dicetis monti hu transi hinc et tran sibit et nihil inpos bile erit uobis hoc a 1o tem genus non eici nisi per orationem et ieiunium
Agi Conuersantibus au mW eis in gallaea dixi 15 illis ihš filius homi tradendus est in m nus hominum et o