Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:31:04.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lisbon ‘Vita sancti Brandani abbatis’: A Hitherto Unknown Navigatio-Text and Translation from Old French into Latin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Carl Selmer
Carl Selmer*
Affiliation:
Hunter College, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the medieval hagiographical writings derived from the British Isles none enjoyed greater popularity throughout the Middle Ages than the Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis (= NB). This celebrated prose work, a typical product of the Othonian period, has come down to us in more than a hundred MSS in various versions. It embodies the adventurous sea-story of the Irish Abbot St. Brendan, one of the great sixth-century founders of monasteries. In structure, the NB consists actually of three parts: a brief introduction comments on St. Brendan's descent, youth, ascetic life, and early monastic foundations; the main body reports some twenty-six adventures which he and his fourteen companions encountered in their search for the terra repromissionis or paradisum terrestre, the tír tairgirne of the ancient Celts; finally, a terse epilogue narrates his life after his return and subsequent happy death. While the main body of the NB, the sea-voyage proper, is uncompounded and has been modeled after Old Irish sea-tales, known in Celtic literature as immrama, both the introduction and epilogue, necessary to give the story the appropriate frame, represent incidents culled from the Vita Sancti Brendani (= VB), which has come down to us in various Irish and Latin recensions. These two narratives have over the centuries been combined by several medieval compilers into a single story in a more or less artistic way. Consequently, the student of the NB is ultimately confronted with that much feared and confusing type of Brendaniana, called conflated texts, which in view of the absence of clearly drawn lines between the contents of the VB and NB, have for centuries offered vexing problems to researchers. One of the minor, but nevertheless irritating, results of these fusions is the misleading caption ‘Vita’ Sancti Brendani, exhibited by a goodly number of NB-MSS, which has misled many cataloguers, medieval and modern, to list the Navigatio as a Vita. Thus, not less than half of all NB-MSS sail in the maelstrom of medieval literature under a false flag. A most peculiar Latin NB-MS, showing the same misleading caption Vita Sancti BrendaniAbbatis, is codex 256 of the Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. This MS, hitherto unavailable to research, is of signal importance for the history of the Vita, the Navigatio, and above all, for the Old French translations of the Navigatio with their re-translations into Latin, so unique in medieval literature.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 13 , 1957 , pp. 313 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The following abbreviations will designate the various texts and MSS, Latin as well as Old French, used in the present edition:Google Scholar

L = Latin MS of the (modified type of the) Navigatio Sancti Brendani: MS 3496 of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, ff. 213–26r (formerly Bodl. e Musaeo 3) ed. E. G. R. Waters, The Anglo-Norman Voyage of St. Brendan by Benedeit (Oxford 1928) 3–94 (pari passu with the OF text), cited by page and line of the Latin text. For other edition cf. VVSS.

M = The Lisbon Vita Sancti Brandani Abbatis, quoted by fol. and col.

NB = Navigatio Sancti Brendani, ed. Carl Schröder, Sanct Brandan, ein lateinischer und drei deutsche Texte (Erlangen 1871) quoted by page and line; for its history and other editions cf. J. F. Kenney, The Sources for the Early History of Ireland (New York 1929) I 408–18.

NBa = Modified type of the Navigatio Sancti Brendani, as shown in MSS L, M, and P; cf. comment by Carolus Plummer, ‘Some New Light on the Brendan Legend,’ Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 5 (1905) 124–141.

P = Old French (Anglo-Norman) text of the modified type of the Navigatio Sancti Brendani, ed. E. G. R. Waters op. cit. 3–94 (vv. 1–1840), cited by verse; in the designation of the French MSS (A, B, C, D, E), their groupings (α, β, x), and the Latin translations derived from the OF texts (L, λ, R, ϱ), Waters’ abbreviations have been retained in preference to those of other scholars. Concordance of the OF MSS mentioned in related studies: Waters ABCDE = Vising C. BDA, Birkenhoff L.O.P., Hammer and Wien LAOYP, Brekke LTOYA, and Calmund LAOYArs.

VB = Vita Sancti Brendani Clonfertensis e codice Dubliniensi, ed. P. P. Grosjean in Anal. Boll. 48 (1930) 103 ff; for its history and other editions, cf. J. F. Kenney, op. cit. 412–14.

VVSS = Latin MS of the (modified type of the) Navigatio Sancti Brendani: MS 3496 of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, ff. 213–26r (formerly Bodl. e Musaeo 3), ed. Carolus Plummer, Vita Secunda sancti Brendani Abbatis de Cluain Ferta in Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae (Oxford 1910) II 270–92; quoted by section and page; cf. L.

2 Cf. Carl Selmer, ‘A Study of the Latin Manuscripts of the Navigatio Sancti Brendani,’ Scriptorium 3 (1948) 181–182.Google Scholar

3 About the difference between Brendanus and Brandanus cf. Carl Selmer, ‘Brendanus versus Brandanus,’ Scriptorium 10 (1956) 256–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Sincere thanks are due to the Director of the Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, Lisbon, for his kindness in putting the manuscript at the disposal of the editor and furnishing information about its history. Google Scholar

5 Cf. Catal. Libr. Manuscript. qui in Bibl. Lusitaniae asservantur (Leipzig 1830) 1022. Google Scholar

6 For the occurrence of similar peculiarities in MS L cf. Plummer's edition of VVSS: sc=c (fornascis = fornacis xxxii 281), s=c (senties = centies lvii 292), and c=s (consentu = concentu xxi 277) etc. Google Scholar

7 For details see Plummer, C., ‘Some New Light on the Brendan Legend,’ op. cit. 138 Waters, E. G. R. op. cit. lxxxiii-xcix, and Calmund, H., Prolegomena zu einer kritischen Ausgabe des ältesten franz. Brandanlebens (Bonn 1902) 152–207.Google Scholar

8 For the differences between P and L cf. Waters op. cit. cvii ff. Google Scholar

9 Cf. the replacement of the OF prologue vv. 1–18 by L 3.1–4, 3. MS E replaces it by the following couplet: Seignor, oies que io dirai/ Dun saint home vos conterai / Dyrlande estoit, brandans ot non / Molt ert de grant religion. Google Scholar

10 E.g. pulchre … festum celebrant (M 34ra, P 443); celebrant ibi honestissime festum (M 36ra, P 842); suauiter et honeste nauem intrauerunt (M 36ra, P 849–50). Google Scholar

11 In his discussion of the metrical Latin version R (MS. Cotton, Vesp. D IX, ff. 2–10v) Waters, op. cit. cxix, regards this confusion as a sign of French influence; for examples cf. section I. Google Scholar

12 Cf. Waters, , op. cit. lviii ff.Google Scholar

13 The occurrence of this homoeoteleuton supports Waters’ suggested reading s'en fuieit against se luigneit of MS A despite the reading elongari of L (26.4); cf. Waters, op. cit. 108. Google Scholar

14 Rugitus or vox taurorum is unknown to the NB; a far-away echo, however, can be found in the Cod. Salmanticensis (AA.SS.Hib. edd. C. de Smedt and J. de Backer), Acta Sancti Brandani 137.14: ‘(gripha) erat autem veluti bos.’Google Scholar

15 Barut (L Barrus) appears in MSS B and D as Barrins and Barins; the scribe of MS D has the habit of writing -z for final t or d (cf. Waters, p. xvii); thus, by reverse process, resolving, latinizing and corrupting an OF barinz he may have arrived at the above corrupt form of Barut. The corruption may have been facilitated by the actual occurrence of the name Barrus in Irish hagiography (cf. AA.SS.Hib. De sancto Lasario 796: ‘Beatus enim Barrus …’.Google Scholar

16 This corrupted name seems to be the result of a faulty resolution of noc in which an original -er- had been abbreviated by a horizontal bar. MS D here offers the reading mēnoc (P 85 and 98). For the use of identical symbols in the contractions re and er (and Lat. prae- = ) in MSS D and E, cf. Waters xvi and xix, respectively. On Mernoc's (Barfind's) name cf. Plummer, C., ‘Some new Light …’ op. cit. 129 n. 1.Google Scholar

17 Cf. Erich Pfitzner, Das Anglonormannische Gedicht von Brendan als Quelle einer lateinischen Prosafassung (Halle 1910); also in Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 35 (1911) 31–66. He suggests (p. 30) Tref (acc. sgl.) de fin or go susteneit. Google Scholar

18 Cf. Waters, , op. cit. 119.Google Scholar

19 MS C (for description cf. Waters xiv), a fragment of only 310 verses, is of little use for the study of the original text; nor is MS R, a metrical Latin version (= Cotton. Vesp. D IX; Waters cxv-cxxv). Google Scholar

20 A controversy was waged between Chas. Plummer who believed in the primary character of the Latin text L (cf. ‘Some new Light on the Brendan Legend,’ op. cit. 140) and the Romanists Suchier-Pfitzner who regarded text L as a translation of the OF text. While some important questions still remain unanswered, the argument seems at present to be decided in favor of the latter (cf. Kenney, J. F. op. cit. 416). However, the new material presented in this edition, viz. the conclusive evidence of the translation of M from P, combined with the marked differences between L and P and its antecedents will no doubt suggest a new approach to this controversial question. By extending L's direct relationship to P back to a common source Z, a compromise between the above contradictory views can be reached. Reopening this controversy, however, does not lie within the province of the study here given.Google Scholar

21 The text of this edition is a faithful transcription of the manuscript with all its peculiarities and oddities; only obvious scribal errors have been corrected and relegated to the footnotes. All nomina propria and nomina sacra have been resolved and capitalized. The editor also had to follow modern usage in punctuation, since the scribe was inconsistent in the use of punctuation marks. Google Scholar

22 To facilitate the comparison of this MS with the OF and Latin editions, the English captions of the 30 chapters in Waters’ Anglo-Norman edition have been inserted in the text, with their numbers of verses in the footnotes; the beginning of the corresponding passage of Waters’ Latin edition of L is given by page and line; in like manner, Plummer's Latin edition of L, conveniently divided into 58 sections, has been referred to in the footnotes (= VVSS i-lviii). Google Scholar

23 As vv. P 1–18, L 3.1–4.3 and VVSS i form the prologue of P and L respectively, the text of the main body of the Navigatio begins here (P 19; L 4.4; VVSS ii). Google Scholar

24 MS ulla. Google Scholar

25 P 39–70; L 5.6. Google Scholar

26 P 71–102; L 7.1; VVSS iii 271. Google Scholar

27 P 103–56; L 8.4. Google Scholar

28 VVSS iv 271; L 9.4. Google Scholar

29 P 157–84; L 11.3; VVSS v, p. 272. Google Scholar

30 P 185–202; L 12.5; VVSS vi 272. Google Scholar

31 P 203–64; L 13.6; VVSS vii 272. Google Scholar

32 MS ueloces. Google Scholar

38 VVSS viii 272; L 14.5. Google Scholar

34 VVSS ix 273; L 15.4. Google Scholar

35 VVSS x 273; L 16.7. Google Scholar

36 P 265–306; L 17.1. Google Scholar

37 VVSS xi 273; L 17.8. Google Scholar

38 P 307–54; L 19.4; VVSS xii 274. Google Scholar

39 VVSS xiii 274; L 20.4. Google Scholar

40 MS fama. Google Scholar

41 P 355–76; L 21.7; VVSS xiv 274. Google Scholar

42 VVSS xv 274; L 22.4. Google Scholar

43 P 377–434; L 22.8; VVSS xv 274. Google Scholar

44 MS approparate. Google Scholar

45 VVSS xvi 275; L 24.1. Google Scholar

46 P 435–80; L 25.8; VVSS xvii 275. Google Scholar

47 VVSS xviii 276; L 26.3. Google Scholar

48 MS quanto uidebitis. Google Scholar

49 P 481–580; L 28.1. Google Scholar

50 VVSS xix 276; L 28.2. Google Scholar

51 VVSS xx 276; L 29.3. Google Scholar

52 VVSS xxi 277; L 31.7. Google Scholar

53 P 581–622; L 33.1; VVSS xxii 277. Google Scholar

54 VVSS xxiii 277; L 34.1. Google Scholar

55 P 623–780; L 35.3; VVSS xxiv 278. 57 Omitted in MS. Google Scholar

56 VVSS xxv 278; L 37.1. Google Scholar

58 VVSS xxvi 278; L 37.11. Google Scholar

59 VVSS xxvii 279; L 39.6. Google Scholar

60 MS experte. Google Scholar

61 P 781–822; L 42.7; VVSS xxviii 279. Google Scholar

62 VVSS xxix 280; L 43.4. Google Scholar

63 P 823–96; L 44.9; VVSS xxx 280. Google Scholar

64 VVSS xxxi 280; L 46.3. Google Scholar

65 P 897–968; L 48.4; VVSS xxxii 281. Google Scholar

68 VVSS xxxiii 281; L 50.3. Google Scholar

67 P 969–1004; L 52.1; VVSS xxxiv 282. Google Scholar

68 P 1005–34; L 54.1; VVSS xxxv 282. Google Scholar

69 MS illam. Google Scholar

71 MS begnino. Google Scholar

70 MS aërem. Google Scholar

72 P 1035–66; L 55.8; VVSS xxxvi 283. Google Scholar

73 P 1067–1106; L 57.5; VVSS xxxvii 283. 75 P 1107–86; L 59.9; VVSS xxxix 284. Google Scholar

74 VVSS xxxviii 284; L 58.8. Google Scholar

76 MS quantummodo. Google Scholar

77 MS proprius. Google Scholar

78 MS aëra. Google Scholar

78 MSprofundissimus. Google Scholar

80 VVSS xl 284; L 61.1. Google Scholar

81 MS piscis ardebat; P 1161 iloeches art; NB 29.1 mare estuabat; source perhaps peiz (pitch)? Google Scholar

83 P 1187–1214; L 63.3; VVSS xli 285. Google Scholar

82 MS aëra. Google Scholar

84 P 1215–1498; L 65.4; VVSS xlii 285; beginning of xlii (serui to tutiores) = P 1177–86 Google Scholar

85 Omitted in MS; supplied from L (65.4). Google Scholar

86 VVSS xliii 286. Google Scholar

87 MS adds sed. Google Scholar

88 Omitted in MS. Google Scholar

89 VVSS xliv 287; L 70.1. Google Scholar

90 MS iusta; cf. section IV. Google Scholar

90a MS merrabilis. Google Scholar

91 MS omitted vv. 1335–36; grauior should be levior (P 1337 li plus legiers.) Google Scholar

92 MS ignem. Google Scholar

93 VVSS xlv 287; L 71.8. Google Scholar

94 VVSS xlvi 287; L 73.6. Google Scholar

95 MS mouantur; this mistake in all probability is due to the misreading of m- for n-, rather than to identifying this verb with Old French muveir. Google Scholar

95a MS euomospem, copying mistake (euomerem?). Google Scholar

96 VVSS xlvii 288; L 75.8. Google Scholar

97 VVSS xlviii 288; L 76.9. Google Scholar

98 p 1499–1510; L 78.4; VVSS xlix 289. Google Scholar

99 P 1511–1612; L 78.8. Google Scholar

100 VVSS 1 289; L 80.4. Google Scholar

101 VVSS li 289; L 82.1. Google Scholar

102 P 1613–40; L 83.7; VVSS lii 290. Google Scholar

103 MS illud for bonum (P 1634 tant bons e beals). Google Scholar

104 P 1641–1808; L 84.9; VVSS liii 290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105 The preceding sentence (P 1659 Ne vus targez) is left untranslated. Google Scholar

106 VVSS liv 291; L 86.4. Google Scholar

107 VVSS lv 291; JL 88.3. Google Scholar

108 Nauem appears in MS abbreviated as n.Google Scholar

109 In omitted in MS; supplied from L (88.5).Google Scholar

110 VVSS lvi 291; L 89.5. Google Scholar

111 Sunt omitted in MS; supplied from P 1755 (sunt).Google Scholar

112 VVSS lvii 292; L 91.3. Google Scholar

112a MS longuam. Google Scholar

113 MS aduentum. Google Scholar

114 MS nil; P 1797 cent milie, L 92.4 centies milies. Google Scholar

115 P 1809–40; L 93.1. Google Scholar

116 VVSS lviii 292; L 93.5. Google Scholar

117 MS redditu. Google Scholar

118 MS redditu. Google Scholar