{"collection":"Northern European Mythology","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/neu/celt/vob/vob01.htm","path":"neu/celt/vob/vob01.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/vob/vob01.htm","text":"THE old-Irish tale which is here edited and fully translated 1 for the first time, has come down to us in seven MSS. of different age and varying value. It is unfortunate that the oldest copy (U), that contained on p. 121a of the Leabhar na hUidhre, a MS. written about 1100 A.D., is a mere fragment, containing but the very end of the story from lil in chertle dia dernaind (\u00a7 62 of my edition) to the conclusion. The other six MSS. all belong to a much later age, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries respectively. Here follow a list and description of these MSS.:--\nBy R I denote a copy contained in the well-known Bodleian vellum quarto, marked Rawlinson B. 512, fo. 119a, 1-120b, 2. For a detailed description of this codex, see the Rolls edition of the Tripartite Life, vol. i. pp. xiv.-xlv. As the folios containing the copy of our text belong to that portion of the MS. which begins with the Baile in Sc\u00e1il (fo. 101a), it is very probable that, like this tale, they were copied from the lost book of Dubd\u00e1lethe, bishop of\n[paragraph continues] Armagh from 1049 to 1064. See Rev. Celt. xi. p. 437. The copy was made by a careful and accurate scribe of the fifteenth or possibly the fourteenth century. The spelling is but slightly modernised, the old-Irish forms are well preserved, and on the whole it must be said that, of all MSS., R supplies us with the best text. Still, it is by no means perfect, and is not seldom corrected by MSS. of far inferior value. Thus, in \u00a7 4 it has the faulty cethror for cetheoir; in \u00a7 25 dib for the dissyllabic diib; in \u00a7 61, the senseless namna instead of namm\u00e1. The scribe has also carelessly omitted two stanzas (46 and 62).\nThe MS. which comes next in importance I designate B. It is contained on pp. 57-61 of the vellum quarto classed Betham 145, belonging to the Royal Irish Academy. I am indebted to Mr. P. M. MacSweeney for a most accurate transcript of this MS. When I had an opportunity of comparing his copy with the original, I found hardly any discrepancies between the two. B was written in the fifteenth century, I think, by a scribe named Tornae, who, though he tells us in a marginal note 1. that he had not for a long time had any practice in writing, did his task remarkably well. He modernises a good deal in spelling, but generally leaves the old-Irish forms intact. Thus we owe to him the preservation of such original forms as the genitives fino (13), datho (8. 13), glano (3. 12), of \u00e9tsecht (13), etc.\nH denotes a copy contained in the British Museum MS. Harleian 5280, fo. 43a--44b. For a description of this important MS., which was written in the sixteenth century, see Hibernica Minora (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Medi\u00e6val and Modern series--Part VIII.), pp. v and vi. In this copy the spelling and forms are considerably, but by no means consistently, modernised. In a few cases H has preserved the original reading as against the corruptions of all or most of the other MSS. Thus it has cetheoir (4), muir glan (35), moitgretha (8), etc.\nE is a copy contained on fo. 11b, 2--13a, 2 of the British Museum MS. Egerton 88, a small vellum folio, written in the sixteenth century. The text is largely modernised and swarms with mistakes and corruptions. By sheer good luck the scribe sometimes leaves the old forms intact, as when he writes \u00f3rdi 14, adig 21, Ildadig 22, mrecht 24.\nS is contained in the Stockholm Irish MS., p.p. 2-8. I am indebted to Mr. Whitley Stokes for a loan of his transcript of the whole MS. S is deficient at the end, breaking off with the words amhal bid atalam nobeth tresna hilcetaib bliadan (65). It is of very inferior value, being modernised almost throughout in spelling and forms, and full of corrupt readings, which I have not always thought it worth while to reproduce in ray footnotes.\nL is the copy contained in the well-known MS. belonging to Trinity College, Dublin, marked H. 2. 16, and commonly called the Yellow Book of Lecan, col. 395-399 This MS. dates from the fourteenth century. It is of most unequal\nvalue. The scribe, in his endeavour to make the original, mostly unintelligible to him, yield some sense, constantly alters in the most reckless and arbitrary manner. At other times he puts down whole lines of mere gibberish. A good instance of his method is the following rendering of the 34th quatrain:\nAs in the case of S, I have not thought it necessary to give all the variants of L. Yet in a few instances even L has by a mere chance preserved original readings abandoned by the other scribes, e.g. isa t\u00edr (6a), ind nathir (45), bledhin (62).\nThe six MSS. here enumerated, though frequently varying in details, offer on the whole an identical text, and have clearly sprung from one and the same source. For even the vagaries of L turn out on closer inspection to be mere variants of the same original text. Under these circumstances it was a comparatively easy task to reconstruct a critical text. In nearly every case the original reading was preserved by one MS. or another. Thus almost every form in my edition is supported by MS. authority. In the very few cases where I have thought it right to deviate from all the MSS., this has been pointed out in the notes. Still I am far from flattering myself that I have succeeded in restoring\nthe text to its original purity. In some cases, fortunately not many, the readings of all the MSS. seemed hopelessly corrupt. See e.g. my remarks on dorearuasat, 48; aill erfind, 22; cach \u00e1gi, at s\u00e1ibsi ceni, 45. In other cases it is doubtful whether I have preferred the right reading. Thus, in to, I may have been too rash in adopting the reading of L, cen indg\u00e1s instead of fri indg\u00e1s of the rest. Considering the tendency of L to alter a less common expression into a familiar one, as well as the consensus of all the other MSS., I would now retain fri and translate it by 'with.' For this use of the preposition, cf. fri im\u1e1fochid, p. 85, 3. Again, I cannot claim that the text, as it now stands, represents the actual language of any particular period, containing as it does middle-Irish forms by the side of old-Irish ones. Such a mixture of linguistic forms is, however, not of my own making, but is an inherent peculiarity of most of our older texts, fully explained by the way in which they have been handed down.\nBut before I speak of this, I will try to determine as nearly as possible the time at which the Voyage of Bran was originally written down.\nIf we had any investigations into the history of the Irish language besides the excellent history of the Deponent lately published by Professor Strachan, it would probably be possible to determine with accuracy the time in which a particular text was composed. At present we must be content with much less certain and definite statements, often leaving a. margin of a century on either side.\n[paragraph continues] In the case of old-Irish, it is mainly by comparing the language of a given text with that of the continental glosses that we arrive at anything like a trustworthy conclusion, and this I propose to do in the present case.\nThere are a large number of forms in the Voyage of Bran as old as any to be found in the W\u00fcrzburg glosses. The oldest part of these glosses, Professor Thurneysen, the most careful and cool-headed of observers, does not hesitate to ascribe to the seventh century. 1\nI now subjoin a list of these oldest forms, leaving aside anything of a doubtful or unexplained nature.\nFirst. as to sounds and their representation, the following archaic forms and spellings are noticeable:\nFinal e, early broadened to \u00e6, ae, later a: sube, 8; comamre, so: m\u00f3ramre, 29: labre, 29: bl\u00e9dne (later bl\u00edadna), 55, 58.\nFinal i, early broadened to ai: adamri, cadli, 11; \u00f3rdi, 14; cr\u00e9dumi, 14; also bl\u00e9din (later bliadain), 62; adig (later adaig), 24; athir, 45, 57; i for infected a: Ildadig, 24.\nInitial m before r: mrath, 9; mrecht, 23, 24; mruig, 9, 23, 24, 54.\nld for later ll: meld, 14, 39; inmeldag, 41.\n\u00e9u for \u00e9o: c\u00e9ul, 9, 18, etc.\n\u00f3i for later \u00f3e: cr\u00f3ib, 3; \u00f3in, 13 tr\u00f3ithad, 30.\nAlso, perhaps, b for f in graibnid, 23; airbitiud, 18; and oa for \u00faa: sloag, 17 (R), cloais, 9, etc.\nIn the declension, notice the neuter nouns a r\u00edgthech, 1; a c\u00e9ol, 2; am-mag, 5; am-muir, 12; muir glan, without nasal infection later added by analogy with neuter o-stems, 17, 28, 30; fris\u2019 t\u00f3ibgel tonnat, 2; cusa cluchemag, 20; isa t\u00edr, 62, etc. The following genitives sing. of i-stems occur: glano, 3, 12; mora, 37; of u-stems: betho, 27; fedo, 42; fino, 13: datho, 8, 13; the datives sing. of o-stems: l\u00e1ur, 1; Braun, 2; the accusatives plural: r\u00fana, 52; nime, 28: muire. 48; tedman, 21; the genitive plural: d\u00fale, 44.\nIn the article the full form inna is of constant occurrence. In the poetry it is twice shortened to \u2019na in the gen. plur. (26, 30).\nAmong prepositions, notice such a form as d\u00f3u, 29, 32, 51; the use of \u00edar with the dative. 26, 32; the careful distinction between di and do.\nBut it is in the verbal system that the archaic character of the language appears to greatest advantage. The distinction between conjunct and absolute as well as between dependent and independent forms is preserved throughout.\nPresent indicative, sg. 1: atch\u00edu, 15--sg. 2: immer\u00e1i, 37; forsn-aicci, 38; nad aicci, 19; nofethi, 49--sg. 3: mescid, 16: canid, 18; graibnid, 23; forsnig, 6, 12; dosnig, 12, 22; com\u00e9rig, 17; tormaig, 18: foafeid, 22; immar\u00e9id, 33; frisbein, 16; frisseill, 59; forosna, 16; consna, 5; immustimerchel, 19; taitni (dep.), 6; tibri (dep.), 35; donaidbri; 17--pl. 3: lingit, 38; bruindit, 36; taircet (dep.), 14, 40; n\u00ed frescet, 18, 23 immataitnet, 4; taitnet (dep.), 40; taitnet\n[paragraph continues] (independent!), 8, 36; congairet, 7; forclechtat, 5; foslongat, 4; frisferat, 21; forsngairet, 7.\nPresent subjunctive, sg. 3: tr\u00f3ithad, 30; imraad, 60 ; \u00e9tsed, 29.\nT-preterite, sg. 3: dor\u00faasat, 27 ronort, 46.\nReduplicated preterite, sg. 3: ruch\u00faala, 20.\nS-future, sg. 3: silis, 55; conlee, 51; adf\u00ed, 52. Secondary s-fut., sg. 2: rista, 30.\nReduplicated future, sg. 1: fochicher, 56; arung\u00e9n, 57--sg. 3: g\u00e9bid, 26; adndidma, 51; timg\u00e9ra, 59.\nE-future, sg. 2: ricfe, 60--sg. 3: glanfad, 28; dercfid, 55; ticfa (independent!). 26, 48; rothicfa, 49; m\u00f3ithfe, 52; fugl\u00f3isfe, 48; \u00edcfes, 28.\nImperative, sg. 2: tuit, 30; tinscan, 30.\nVerbal nouns: \u00e9tsecht, 13, 24; \u00f3ol, 13; imram, 17; airbitiud, 18.\nThe following passive forms occur: pres. ind. pl., agtar, 54; sec. pers. sg., atchetha, 12, 39; red. fut. sg., g\u00e9bthir, 57; g\u00e9rthair, 51; pret. sg., adf\u00e9t, 29; atfess, 29; s-fut. sg., festar, 26.\nAs to old syntactic usage, notice the adjective and substantive attributes placed before the noun, 4, 13, 19, 29, 43.\nLastly, I would draw attention to the use of the following words as dissyllabic, though as most of them continue to be so used as late as the tenth century, such use is not in itself proof of great antiquity.\nb\u00edi, 9; b\u00edaid, 50, 53, 55; b\u00edas, 27. Cf. Salt. na Rann, ll. 8021, 8202; Trip. Life, pp. 70, 22; 222, 4, 6, etc. But\ntheir use as monosyllables is far more frequent in Salt. na Rann. See ll. 835, 1076, 1599, 1951, 1952, 2043, 2047, 3275, 3320, 3353, 5046, 6255, 6325.\nc\u00eda, 'mist,' 11.\ncriad, gen. of cr\u00e9, 'clay,' 50, as in the dat. criaid, Salt. 7683, 7769. Monosyllabic in Salt. 394 (leg. criaid), 8230.\nd\u00eda, 'God,' 48. Cf. l. 18 in Sanct\u00e1n's hymn:\nand Salt. 1905, 2013, 2685, 5359, 7157, 7969, 8074. Monosyllabic in Salt. 649, 1917, 1950, 2742, 3121, 3308, 7976.\ndiib, 'of them,' 25; as in Salt. 375 (sic leg.), 437. But monosyllabic in Salt. 4975, 4985, 5461, 5417, 5869, 7704.\nfia, 11.\nf\u00f3e, 'under her,' 6.\n\u00f3ol, 'drinking,' 13. Cf. oc \u00f3ul in the Milan glosses (Ascoli); d\u2019\u00f3ol, Salt. 1944.\n\u00faain, 'lambs,' 38.\nIt will be observed that the above forms are taken almost exclusively from the poetry. The prose, though it preserves a large number of undoubtedly old-Irish forms, also contains a good deal of what is clearly of middle-Irish origin, more particularly in the verbal forms. The use of preterites without the particle ro has been recognised by Thurneysen, 1 whom I mainly follow here, as a decidedly later phenomenon. It occurs in birt, 31; asbert, 62, 63 (bis), 64, instead of old-Ir. asrubart, and in a large number of\ns-preterites such as f\u00f3idis, 61; gabais, 63; scr\u00edbais, 66; celebrais, 66; sloindsi, 62. We find dobert 2, instead of old-Ir. dorat, and dobreth 62, instead of doratad. The late cachain occurs three times (2. 32, 65), for old-Ir. cechuin.\nSuch Middle-Irish forms, which all MSS. without exception contain, show that the original from which our MSS. are in the first instance derived, cannot have been written much earlier than the tenth century. Bearing this in mind, together with the occurrence of the seventh century old-Irish forms side by side with these later ones, as well as with the fact that the poetry contains none of the latter, we arrive at the following conclusions as to the history of our text.\nThe Voyage of Bran was originally written down in the seventh century. 1 From this original, sometime in the tenth century, a copy was made, in which the language of the poetry, protected by the laws of metre and assonance, was left almost intact, while the prose was subjected to a process of partial modernisation, which most affected the verbal forms. From this tenth century copy all our MSS. are derived.\nIn conclusion, I would draw attention to the loan-words occurring in our tale. These are all of Latin origin. 2 They naturally fall into two groups, an older one of words\nborrowed at the period of the first contact of the Irish with Roman civilisation, before the introduction of Christianity; a later one of words that came into Irish with Christianity. To the first group belong aball, 'abella'? 23; arggat, 'argentum,' 23, 14, 22; drauc. 'draco.' 13; dracon, 'dracontium.' 12. 58; f\u00edn, 'vinum,' 13, 14; fine, 'ab eo quod est vinea.' Corm., 43; port, 'portus,' 62.\nOf words of the second group we find: c\u00f3r, 'chorus,' 18; corp, 'corpus,' 46, 50; l\u00edth, 46, through Welsh llith from Lat. lectio; m\u00edas, 'mensa,' with the meaning 'dish,' 62; peccad, 'peccatum,' 41; praind, 'prandium,' 62; oceon, 'oceanus,' 25; scr\u00edbaim, 'scribo,' 66.\nIt remains for me to express my gratitude to those who have taken a friendly interest in the production of this little book, and who have in various ways given me advice and assistance; above all to Mr. Whitley Stokes, to whom I am indebted for many weighty suggestions, as well as for the loan of valuable transcripts; to the Rev. Richard Henebry, Mr. Alfred Nutt, and Mr. P. M. MacSweeney, and to my kind friends and colleagues, Mr. John Sampson, and Prof. John Strachan.\nKUNO MEYER.\nUNIVERSITY COLLEGE,\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0LIVERPOOL.\nvii:1 An abstract and partial translation of the Voyage of Bran was given by Professor Zimmer in the Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsches Alterthum, vol. xxxiii. pp. 257-261.\nviii:1 This note is found at the bottom of p. 57 and runs thus: Messe Tornae 7 ni fetur ca fad o doscriuhus oenlini roime sin, i.e. I am Torre, and I do not know how long ago it is since I wrote a single line.\nxii:1 'Die Vorlage der W\u00fcrzburger Glossen kann unbedenklich ins 7. Jahrh. datiert werden.'--Rev. Celt. vi. p. 319.\nxv:1 See Rev. Celt. vi., pp. 322 and 328.\nxvi:1 Prof. Zimmer also claims our text for this century. His words are (l.c., p. 261): 'Der Text geh\u00f6rt zum \u00e4ltesten was uns von irischer profanlitteratur erhalten ist: seine sprache ist sicher so alt wie die \u00e4ltesten altirischen glosses; er kann also noch dem 7. jh. angeh\u00f6ren.'\nxvi:2 With reference to Prof. Zimmer's well-known theory as to the Norse origin of Ir. f\u00edan and its derivatives, I may mention that the word f\u00e9nnid occurs in 56.","title":"The Voyage of Bran: Introduction","type":"page"}