How to gloss a manuscript : the view from Milan ( Bobbio )

Howtogloss a manuscript: theviewfrom Milan (Bobbio) Aaron Griffith University of Vienna

Introduction I • Fact: There is extensive Old Irish glossing of Latin texts. • This fact presents an opportunity: • Each language can inform our understanding of the other. • This fact also presents a challenge: • How do we determine what is “real” Old Irish? • How do we determine what is “real” (Hiberno-)Latin?

Introduction II • Some recent work focuses on glossing as a phenomenon in its own right: • Jacopo Bisagni (Galway): examining code-switching between Latin and Old Irish. • AlderikBlom (Oxford): examining Psalm glossing in Northwestern Europe (Germanic and Celtic)

My intended contribution here • My intention here is to: • present various techniques used to gloss Latin in the Milan MS (Bibliotheca Ambrosiana C. 301 infra). • compare (when relevant) these techniques to native grammatical use. • I hope to offer: • “rules” the scribes employed when glossing. • some thoughts on how they thought when glossing.

Preliminaries: the Milan glosses • The Manuscript: • from the early to mid 9th century. • a psalm commentary together with several prefaces. • The commentary: • Julian of Eclanum’s (c. 386 – c. 455) translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s (c. 350 – 428) Greek commentary (to Ps. 16 v. 10). • summary of Julian’s translation of Theodore (to Ps. 16 v. 11). • The Glosses: • text is fairly heavily glossed in both Latin and Old Irish.

Some general observations on glosses • Gloss types: • Translational / Clarificational Glosses • single word • short phrase or sentence • Interpretative / Explanatory Glosses • generally somewhat longer (at least a clause or sentence) • On interpretative / explanatory glossing: • grammatical • theological (see McNamara, The Psalms in the Early Irish Church. Sheffield (2000).) • very frequently a historical interpretation of the psalms • sometimes concerned with variant textual readings

Glossing techniques to discuss (see Thes I xxi) • Various single word / case glosses: • e.g. Latin ablative by OIr. prep. ó • e.g. Lat. alligo (=allego) by OIr. con·rig / as·indet • Latin Participles • Present active • Future and perfect passive • Latin Infinitives • indirect discourse • other contexts • Relatives • Gender of items not mentioned explicitly in Old Irish (e.g. Adjectives) • Note: Treatment of quotations not discussed here (see L. Breatnach, “On the citation of words and a use of the neuter article in Old Irish”Ériu 41, 1990)

Various single word / case glosses • OIr. ó as catch-all gloss for Latin ablative: • 55b8 INDUANTUR CONFUSSIONE8horuccu“by disgrace” • 48a5 qua oratione infirmitatis suæ tempore sit Ezechias ussurus5honerberad biuth “which he would use” • cf. regular (?) OIr. construction 86d12 .i. sechip ed arabera biuth “i.e. whatever it is that a man consumes” • Latin alligo“bind” (= allego“adduce, allege”) • glossed con·rig “binds” in 21b7-8, 23c12 • glossed as·indet“relates” in 23c12, 101a3, 111c5 • glossed ad·fét“relates” in 118d10 • see Griffith “Varia I”Ériu 59, 2009 (153-154) for brief discussion

Latin Participles I: Present active Participles • glossed with a relative form: • 26b9 psalmum stupentis9 uoce conclusit dicendo mothaigedar“which is amazed” (cf. 96b12, 102b11, 122a12, 140b5) • glossed with aN“when”: • 2d3 quia igitur nuper cum Ebreo disputans3 arrucestaigser frissinnebride “when you (sg) disputed with the Hebew” (cf. 14d8, 15d10, 17b16…)

Latin Participles II: Future active (gerundive) • Usually glossed with copula (usually in past subj.) and verbal of nec.: • 79c1 profanamque prosperitatem emitandam1 non putetis bed n intamaltai “that it should be imitated” • 64c3 quanta etiam perficiat miranda3innahi ata adamraigthi “the things that are to be admired” • Minor patterns (with lase / aN“when”, prep. doL, coL + full verb, vn.): • 15d7 non discutiendi7 anambetecailsi“when they will not be to be examined” (also 61b1, 63c3, 72b13) • 53c5 quia ad gustandum5 prouocauerat .i. dumlassacht etarcni dǽ “i.e. to taste the knowledge of God” (also 63a10) • 54d14 ad interficiendum mé14 celerabant coetardamdibitisse“in order that they might destroy me” (also 55b2, 60c6) • 62a19 ad inpetrandi19 autem facilitatem loichtho“of obtaining” (also 62c11)

Latin Participles III: Past passive participle • usually glossed with OIr. past passive participle: • 14c13 in malorum fuga uedeatur exposita13 latharde “expounded” • 18c14 temporis quo Abisolón inuasso14 ambanindrisse“when it was invaded”

Latin infinitives (according to Thes I xxi) • indirect discourse: glossed by an indicative with nasalizing relative • 36d10 etiam per id uoluit adprobare quod Deo dicit persequente suos aduersarios interisse10asind·bathatar “that they died” (also 25c15) • other infinitives: glossed by subjunctive with nasalizing relative • 30b12 uult {dauid} autem indicare12 quod eo qui in templo habitet defensore utatur infé“that he might point out” (also 15a10, 20a9)

Indirect discourse in Old Irish • general case: introduced by a simple nasalizing relative (GOI p 318 §503(g)) • 24d25 asberat immurgu heritic asned dechur tabadar [leg. tadbadar] isindísin “heretics, however, say that this is the difference that is shown therein” (cf. 57c4) • 49b13 .i. durumenar romsa dia “i.e. I thought I was a god” • special case: introduced by nasalizing subjunctive when required by subord. clause (GOI p 330 §518 (e), p 333 §520, 2) • 125c2 .i. asrubart dia hi recht ón arasechitis athimnae “i.e. that is, God had said in the Law that they should follow His commandments”

OIr. glosses of Latin infinitives in indirect discourse • Thes assumes indicative is regular. Basically correct: • 25c15 nam Dominus in Euangelio quæ inter principia psalmi dicta sunt præsentis sibi competere15 demonstrat immindaircet“that they are appropriate” • 36d10 etiam per id uoluit adprobare quod Deo dicit persequente suos aduersarios interisse10asind·bathatar“that they died“ (also 54c21, 54c24, 60a3) • However, they note: • 14d16 cui etiam beatitudinem credit15 rite competere16 • 15erbaid “he entrusts” • 16 immandairi “that it might be appropriate” • Probably to be explained through the occasional use of the subjunctive in such clauses, as noted by Thurneysen.

Other Latin infinitives glossed by Old Irish • These are regularly found with the subjunctive: • 56a4 hominem rationis ussu et tui notitia præstare4 fecisti doroscea “that he is pre-eminent” • 56b39 noli emulari siue mirari39 adnamraigther .i. nonetaigther.i. adcosnae son no no carae “that you admire i.e. that you emulate i.e. that is, that you strive after or love” • 62b12 ferre12 uix possum follós “that I endure” (also 25a5, 61a11, 62a12) • Frequently, the form is ambiguous: • 63c4 cupimus gloriari4 nundan mórthar “that we be magnified”

Other Latin infinitives • Infrequently, the indicative is used: • 24c14 ut uelut degito extento Achitofel indicare14 uideatur incoisged“he used to indicate” • 61a16 ab hís qui in terra sunt eum faciet honorari16 arammuinfetar feid huili doini talman trissa nadamrae sin “i.e. that all men of the earth will be honored through that marvel” • The explanation for the indicative in these examples is unclear.

Old Irish versions of “other” Latin infinitives I: • Most often such constructions appear with a verbal noun: • 27b15 ad cobratsidi cumscugud fercæ dæ dothabairt digle taranési “they desire the stirring of the anger of God to inflict vengeance for them”; • 98a4 intan as n accubur linn ní duthabairt do neuch “when we have a desire to give something to some one”; • 51a19 arnatomnad nech aepert do som bed necen donaib hulib anglanad“i.e. that no one might suppose him to say that it was necessary for all to be purified” • 23a5 ní cumcat aithirgi ndodenum“they cannot work repentance”

Old Irish versions of “other” Latin infinitives II: • Less often, such constructions take an embedded verb: • 21b9 isecen dam són nondages daitsiu “it is necessary for me that I ask You (sg) for them” • 24d14 ɔnicdomberthar forceill dintitul “a testimony about the title may be given” • The verb is subjunctive in these cases. This does not help explain the anomalous uses of the indicative when glossing the Latin.

Relatives and interrogatives I • Direct cases (nom. / acc.): • As interrogative: • 34d5 “quis dabit ex Sion salutem Israhel?”…ut subaudiatur5 intan asmbeirsom cia dobera íc dosión when he says, “who will give salvation from Zion?” • 35a6 quid nos ad hæc adferemus6?cidasindisem “what shall we declare?” • As relative: • 14b1 qui templum Dei spoliauit1 dochoimarraig “who has stripped” • 20c8 quæ munera suæ bonitatis inpertit8 fundali “which he distributes”

Relatives and interrogatives II • Oblique cases in Latin are usually translated with Latinisms (GOI p 288 §460): • 16a9 ad quem9ciaduneuch “who is it to whom” (also 33a9, 93a16) • 17b23 quomodo23ciachruth asrobar… “what is the manner in which it can be said…” • 23b2 in quibus malis2 cia inolcaib “in which evils” • Sometimes such examples are corrected to native Grammar: • 97a5 cuius temporis facta5 • cisi aimser hiforcomnactar ingnimai ón “that is, what is the time in which the deeds took place”

Reference to items not mentioned in the OIr. (esp. Adjectives) • Thes I xxi notes 73d14: • unde citum14 et efficax sperat auxilium dēin “swift” • déin (acc. sg. fem. of dían) must refer to OIr. fortacht (f ā) not Lat. auxilium (n o) • Thes claims this is found in isolated adjectives. • Question: how regular and wide-spread is this phenomenon?

Matches between Latin and OIr. • Adjective reflects the Latin case: • 36b4 admota4 percunctatione roitiu “set in motion” • 61b13: fictís13 uerbís doilbthib “feigned” • 80c11: casatís11 insidiís fochrataib .i. madachaib “shaken, i.e. ineffectual” • 90d6: remisa6 studia laxa “lax” • also 31c13, 32b12, 36b9, 38c17, 80b8 • Adjective does not reflect the Latin case: • 19a2 (?): ereptum2 restituasinerchelltae “the one taken away” • 59d4: omni cura4 abiecta domondae “worldly”

Mismatches between Latin and Old Irish I • Words that show the gender of the (unnamed) OIr. word: • 16c11quando sol reuocatus est per ea spatia quæ fuerat emensus11 • ithesidi dorumadirsi“it is these that it (fem.) had measured” • sol is masc., but OIr. grían is fem.; hence –si “it” • 36b9 insperata9 morte subduci • nephfrescestu “unexpected” • mors (fem.), but OIr. bás (nt.), hence dat. sg. masc. –frescestu • 63a16 ultor uiuolate [leg. uiolatae]16Legis • éillidi “corrupted” • lex is fem., but OIr. recht is masc., hence gen. sg. masc. éillidi • also 29c1 and 36b4

Mismatches between Latin and Old Irish II • There are ambiguous cases, where the Latin and OIr. have the same gender. • 50c3 salutem daturus3 an dundaberae “when You (sg) will give it” (salus and ícc both feminine); see also 131c7 • Most cases are formally ambiguous: • 132c9 fribulas [leg. friuulas]9 fabulas cuitbedcha “ridiculous” • acc. pl. nt. (OIr. scél n o) or fem. (Lat. fabula f ā); cf. 35b20 and 86b3, where scél glosses fabula • see also 40c9, 42c9, 51b26, 57d16, 58b7, 59b13, d4, 60b10, 66d20, 71d3, 74c2, 75a14, 15, 87b13a, b, 89c6, 94d26, 27, 94c6, 105d1, 116c4, 118b9, 121c15, 122b4, 125b5, 125d6, 126a12, 13, d7, 127a4, 12, 130b9, d6, 130d12, 134d4, d6, 138c16

Conclusions from the glossing techniques • It seems that the scribe’s frame of reference was Old Irish (especially clear from adjectives). • The scribe matched the OIr. to the Latin syntax when possible. Something slightly ungrammatical sometimes resulted. • This scenario fits with work on code-switching as discussed by Bisagni (“Code-switching in the Würzburg glosses?” paper presented at Bilingualism and text transmission in medieval texts; Utrecht, 31 May 2013.)

Code-switching in the glosses I • Bisagni shows that in the glosses Irish is most usually the matrix language into which Latin is embedded (~94%; opposite in ~5%). • He also notes that the Matrix Language in such contexts is often the first language (which is not necessarily the one with higher prestige) (C. Myers-Scotton, 1998: ‘Structural uniformities vs. community differences in codeswitching’, in R. Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching Worldwide, Berlin/New York, 91–108.) • Bisagni observes that Milan has relatively low rates of intra-clausal code-switching (~2%) relative to Würzburg (~21%)

Code-switching in the glosses II • This low figure may simply be due to the nature of the Milan glosses, which have a very high rate of single word / phrase glosses. • Perhaps the code-switching in Milan occurs not on the page, but rather in the scribe’s mind, i.e. before he writes. • This seems quite clear in the case of adjectives agreeing with their (unexpressed) Old Irish noun, but it is also visible in the glossing of infinitives and relatives.

The take-away • I have exemplified various techniques used to gloss the Latin in the Milan glosses • The techniques are mostly outlined in Thes I xxi. • For adjective glossing I have provided a more detailed examination, since this is a particularly revealing area. • These techniques seem to confirm a “high level of functional bilingualism” with Old Irish as the primary language. • (P. Russell, ‘What was best of every language: the early history of the Irish language’, in D. Ó Cróinín (ed.), A New History of Ireland: I. Prehistoric and Early Ireland, Oxford 2005, p. 447)

Thank you!

How to gloss a manuscript : the view from Milan ( Bobbio )