Date of origin: a. 851

Support: Vellum, rather fattish, now and then with holes

Extent: ff. II + 120

Format: 390 x 285

Foliation: paginated 1-78, 88-9, 90-249, in the hand of Ildefons von Arx, Stiftsbibliothekar ca. 1827-1832.4 (Note: Personal communication by Prof. Peter Ochsenbein, currently Stiftsbibliothekar.)

Collation: 18-68, 710(-2), 810(-2), 98-158, quire signatures always on the verso of the last folium of a quire, in the centre of the lower margin in the hand of the main scribe (Qₓ I, Qₓ ii, etc.)

Page layout: consistently written in two columns of 36-55 lines, copied from an exemplar written in columns (cf. note at 26a14 r), dry point ruling, pricks small horizontal strokes rather than points.

Writing and hands: The text was written by two scribes.

• The first one wrote the first 156 pages, that is, the text in quires 1-9 and on the first 6 folia of quire 10. The name of the first scribe is revealed in the upper margin of p. 157 (f. 79r), where the second scribe has paid him tribute by writing “hucusque calvus patricii depinxit”, ‘Máil Patricc has written until here’. Specimens of his handwriting are published in the plates accompanying this edition, and by Nigra (1872: Tav. 1,1, 1,B), Lindsay (1910: Pl. 10), Micheli (1939: Pl. 54-5), Duft-Meyer (1953: Taf.39-41), Draak (1967: Pl. 1), Alexander (1978: Ill. 318, cf. 85), O' Neill (1984: 19, 67), Ahlqvist (1988: Pll. 17-22), Ochsenbein-Schmuki-Von Euw (1990: 23), Brown (1993: Pl. 61). The last two folia of quire 10 and quires 11-15 were written by the second main scribe.8 (Note: On the name 'Coirbbre', very tentatively proposed for this scribe by Lindsay (1910: 41), cf. below.) Specimens of his handwriting are published by Nigra (1872: Tav. 1,2, 1,5, 1,A-C), Steffens (1929: Taf 50, right hand col.), Ahlqvist (1988: Pl. 23). He occasionally received help of a colleague. Thus, col. 182b (GL 2,528,9-529,11 "exeunt ... preteritum") was written by a monk called Finguine, who wrote his name at the top of the col. (for an illustration of his handwriting cf. Lindsay 1910: Plate X, Nigra 1872: Tav. 1,4, 1,A). Finguine was more conscientious than the second scribe, he makes fewer errors and does not follow the example of the second scribe, who has a habit of omitting the source references which Priscian adds to his quotations. Such omissions therefore are the responsibility of the second scribe. Similarly, another monk, who identifies himself as Don(n)gus in the upper margin of the first two passages in his hand, wrote four small portions of the main text, col. 194b (2,567,13-569,6 "tam ... esse videtur sic MS)"), col. 207a and the first ten lines of col. 207b (3,9,9-11,15 "accam ... ostendunt"), lines 240a21-9 (3,115,23-116,5 "de ordinatione ... Sicut") and finally col. 243b (3,126, 13-128,3 "similiter ... adiunguntur"; for an illustration of his handwriting cf. Nigra 1872: Tav. 1,3, 1,A, Steffens 1929: Pl. 50, Suppl. Pl. 25). Throughout the MS short omissions were supplemented in a hand very similar to, but probably not identical with the hand of Donngus. This hand, who also corrected the main text as written by the other scribes, was baptized “amicus Donnguso”, ‘Donngus friend’, in this edition. He worked before any of the glossators was active, as glosses in the hands of glossators A and B gloss corrections in his hand in the entire MS.9 (Note: Cf. notes at 7a32 bb; 26a m.s. mm-oo; 41b34 p; 43b42 e; 52a144, 52a m.d. tt-xx; 70a m.i. u, w; same conclusion for 92b22 n; 96a m.s. f; 97a27 (symbol gl.); 97b40-1 l, m; 100b5 c; 101b21 h; 103b9 e; 108a13-6; 109a31 n; 117a33; 122b41-2 o, q, r; 138b1 a; 139b m.s. b.) Glossed omissions and corrections are mentioned in the app. cr. For many other corrections glossator A was responsible. He entered corrections later than the glosses. (Note: Cf. notes at 30b34 rr, 59b22 r; same conclusion for 138b1O. Symbol gll. seem to have been entered before lexical gll., cf. note at 31a37.) In two instances he added a comment to his correction, "ut in aliis" in 22a23 dd, and "vel in aliis libris" in 34b21 p. It cannot be determined whether he copied these additions from the exemplar. Errors in the main text, whether corrected or not, are indicated in the margin by various symbols, such as ., , oₓ, and .. These symbols indicate that the text is corrupt. This is clearly shown in gl. 40b41 bb (cf. note). Elsewhere, the symbol . occurs over a word which has been crossed out as well as in the margin in 211a7 (GL 3,20,26) and 216b20 (GL 3,36,5). It is not possible to determine which user of the MS entered such symbols. In general, these symbols have been omitted in this edition. In three instances a variant reading which is offered as an alternative by the second main scribe is preceded by a letter "l" with subscript "a" (to be expanded as "aliter"?).11 (Note: Cf. Hertz's app. cr. for 545,15 (same variant transmitted by Ms. L); 3,124,8; 3,124,19.)
• The second scribe writes simplified Phase I cursive minuscule as defined by Brown (1993: 212-3, cf. 219), the script of Máil Patricc is set minuscule (Brown 1993: 20.1, 219). The two colleagues responsible for shorter portions both certainly write set minuscule. Greek is written in majuscule by all scribes, Greek words are identified by means of a horizontal stroke over the word(s) (on the spelling of Greek, cf. Schulze 1894, on the knowledge of Greek, cf. Laistner 1957: 238-50). Some words in Incipits are occasionally written in Greek. As Brown (1993: 219) observes, the likeness of the initials (published in Nigra 1872: Tavv. 2-4) to those in the Book of Armagh (dated 807) suggests that MS G was written in Ireland early in the 9th century. A further link with the Book of Armagh is the quotation in gloss 12b4 b from the Vita Martini written by Sulpicius Severus, a text for which the Book of Armagh is an important witness.
• One group of glosses, in this edition classified as gloss type 59, is not connected with the main text of Priscian. Glosses belonging to this type are the vehicle of personal observations (cf. Gougaud 1911: 103sqq., Plummer 1926, Hughes 1972: 201-2 for parallels from other MSS). 71 such observations occur in the manuscript, excluding the frequent invocations "χb-" (Christe, benedic). 56 observations and all "χb-" entries are in the hand of the main scribe, 12 in the hand of glossator A, and 3 in other later hands, obviously users of the MS. They are all printed in the Appendix. Especially the second scribe has entered many personal observations in the upper and lower margins of the MS, collected and edited by Nigra (1872: 15-27) and, less accurately, by Stokes and Strachan (Thes.: XX-XXII).12 (Note: For "Patricie" (pp. 175a, 178b) leg. (χρε (χριστε); for "fuerat" (p. 236) leg. "fuerat, fit", cf. Lambert (1986: 82).) In many of these the help of Saints is invoked, or a Saint's day is commemorated. Some observations can be used to date and/or localize the MS, and this was indeed done more than a century ago by Güterbock (1895: 92, fn. 2), who proposed the year 845 as the date for the MS. He based his demonstration on the entries on pp. 221-3, commemorating the 'Feast of Diarmait', p. 226, mentioning "Mochoe Noiṅdrommo", and p. 233, announcing "satharnn samchasc" (Saturday preceding Summer Easter, the Sunday six weeks after Whit Sunday). This feast is celebrated on different days in different years, depending on the date of Easter, but always between 20 June and 24 July. He also used "Iob", mentioned on p. 240a, and "Aaron", mentioned on p. 242a, and took as point of departure for his reckoning the assumption of 'eines gleichmässigen pensums von zwei seiten pro tag'. How risky this is, is shown by the fact that p. 237 is a clear caesura in the MS, with which Güterbock did not reckon: the second scribe finished Book 16 halfway down the second col. of p. 236, left p. 237 empty, and started Book 17 on a new recto, p. 238. Nevertheless, the entries on pp. 221-3, 226 and 233 can be used to date the MS, when combined with the other entries in his hand occurring on the intervening pages, and with a peculiarity in his handwriting.13 (Note: The computistical data and Saints' Days were supplied by Marc Schneiders (Utrecht), whose help I gratefully acknowledge.) The second scribe starts writing in a regular hand, but it tends to become sloppy at the end of the day, so much so that Nigra attributes his hand to two scribes, nrs. 2 and 1 5 in is specimens. The cornerstone of the demonstration is the Feast of Mochaoi, 23 June according to Félire Oengusso ( Stokes 1905: 142, 158-9). The Feast of Diarmait must have taken place shortly before this date, as it is commemorated on p. 223a. The Feast of one Diarmait only is in June (21), viz. Diarmait ua hÁedo Róin, who founded Disert-Diarmata (Castledermot) in 812.14 (Note: Félire Oengusso (ed. Stokes 1905) commemorates 'Diarmait of Inis Clothrann' (Island in Lough Ree, Co. Longford) on 10 January, and 'Diarmait of Glenn Uissen' (near Carlow town in Co. Laois, Gwynn-Hadcock 1988: 39) on 8 July. The Martyrology of Tallaght (ed. Best and Lawlor 1931) mentions other Diarmaits on 6, 15, 16 January, 24 April, 21 June, 28 September, 12 and 21 October, 20 December. I owe this information to Marc Schneiders.) As he died in 825 ( Gwynn-Hadcock 1970: 31), the terminus post quem for the St Gall MS. is at least a little after 825. The mentioning of his Feast (21-06) on p. 223a and of Mochaoi's Feast (23-06) on p. 226 is in accordance with the data to be gleaned from the deteriorating handwriting, however subjective such evidence may seem to be, viz. that the second scribe wrote about two pages a day. The entries on pp. 221 and 222, "in nomine sancti diormitii" and "sanctus diormitius oret pro nobis", may have been written on 20-06, caused by the preparation of the Feast. On 21-06 the scribe wrote colls. 223ab-224a and half of 224b, to judge by his handwriting. On 22-06 he wrote pp. 224-5, on 23-06 (Mochaoi's Feast) pp. 225-6, on 24-06 pp. 227-8. In col. 228b the handwriting is very bad again, thus indicating the end of the day's work. The clue offered by the deteriorating handwriting is perhaps supported by an entry written in the hand of the main scribe in the lower margin below col. 228b, "tempus est prandii" (it's time for dinner). Although "prandium" usually designates 'lunch' in classical Latin, it is attested in the sense 'dinner' in later medieval Latin ( Baxter 1934 s. v. ), and the Old Irish calque "proind" generally refers to the chief meal of the day (cf. DIL s.v. ). "Prandium" in the marginal entry in MS G should therefore probably be taken as 'dinner'. On 25-06 he wrote coll. 229ab-230a and a small part of 230b, on 26-06 the remainder of col. 230b, coll. 231ab, and part of 232a, to judge by his handwriting. That his handwriting is a reliable guide for this days at least is proved by an entry in the upper margin over col. 231a, "medon lai" (mid-day), occurring halfway his task for the day. The remainder of p. 232 and p. 233 were written on 27-06, "satharnn samchasc", and "samchasc" or 'Summer Easter' therefore took place on 28-06 in the year in which the codex was written. In the 9th century, 'Summer Easter' was on 28-06 in the years 845 and 856 only. Since Brown (1993: 219) prefers a date early in the 9th cent. for MS G on palaeographical grounds, it seems not unlikely to propose 845 as the year in G was written. Close scrutiny of all relevant data therefore does not invalidate Güterbock's conclusion.

Additions:
Glosses
Priscian's text in MS G is elucidated by a commentary consisting of 9412 glosses. Ca. 3478 of these glosses are in Old Irish, i.e. 36.95 % of the total number. Most glosses are in the same hand, that of glossator A. Examples of his handwriting can be found in all plates in this edition. In some places, all indicated in the notes to the edition with the comment 'A at a later date', glosses seem to have been written in a different hand, using a finer pen. The letter forms in these glosses, however, show the same characteristics as the glosses certainly attributable to glossator A, and from several columns (e. g. cols. 184a and 202ab) it is clear that glossator A was responsible for such glosses. Occasionally another monk, glossator B, took over his job, and entered the glosses in a few columns, just like the second main scribe was sometimes helped by a colleague. Thus, glossator B is responsible for gl. 65b30 p and all glosses from 65b34 down to the end of col. 67b (except for 67b433 bb and 67b424 ee), as recorded in Thes.: XIX, but he also wrote glosses 75a10 f - 75a27 o, and two other glosses, 77a32 o and 77b30 m. An example of his handwriting is given in Pl. 1. The main glossators wrote cursive minuscule as defined by Brown (1993), of a smaller type than that used for the main text, often closely resembling current minuscule. For the glosses a finer pen was used, as is clear from the occasional corrections of the main text in the hand of glossator A. For these corrections he used the same pen as for the glosses, but he accommodated the size of the letters to the size used for the main text. The effect is that the aspect of letters belonging to the main text, but written in his hand, is thinner than that of the main scribes. From the ductus in these corrections it is at once clear that glossator A must have been another person than any of the main scribes.
This is the right place to discuss a remark entered in the lower margin of p. 194a, "do inis maddoc dún .i. meisse 7 choirbbre" (we are from Inis Maddoc, I and Coirbbre). Since this remark occurs in the column written by Donngus, Lindsay (1910: 41) concluded that it indicated his birthplace, 'though written with a finer pen and in more cursive style than the text itself'. 15 (Note: Nigra (1872: 21) 'Scrittura n. 2, quindi probabilmente di Dongus' is unclear; 'Scrittura n. 2' refers to the handwriting of the second main scribe, Dongus' hand is called 'scrittura n. 3' by Nigra.) On the basis of this assumption he identified "meisse" with 'Donngus' and proposed tentatively the name 'Coirbbre(?)' for the second main scribe. This name has been adopted by most scholars discussing MS G; the less careful ones omitted the question-mark. But why should Donngus, who wrote a single column only, use a finer pen for one entry? In fact, the finer pen and the ductus in the entry, which is exactly the same as the ductus in the glosses, clearly indicate that not Donngus, but glossator A and a brother monk, who perhaps was not at all involved in the production of MS G, came from Inis Maddoc.16 (Note: I am grateful to Prof. Dr dr h.c. dr h.c. J. Duft (Sankt Gallen), who verified my supposition and confirmed my conclusion.) Where Inis Maddoc should be located is not clear. From the preface of Sanctán's Hymn (ed. Bernard and Atkinson 1898: LVI, 47-8, 129-32, 206-8) it was west of Clonard,17 (Note: "Episcopus Sanctáin dorónai inn immun-sa 7 icdul o Chlúain Iraird do inis matóc doróne he" (Bishop Sanctán made this hymn, and he made it when he went from Clonard to Inis Madoc), quoted from Nigra (1872: 21).) perhaps it was Inch in Templeport Lake (cf. Kenney 1929: 675).
Glossators A and B probably worked shortly after the main text of Priscian had been finished, in the same scriptorium as did the main scribes. Marginal entries in the hand of the main scribe (on pp. 50, 226) as well as in the hand of glossator A (p. 150) can be linked with Nendrum (cf. below). The glosses were copied from an exemplar which was similar in layout to the extant MS G, i.e. written in two columns, as is clear from several displaced glosses, which were subscript glosses in the exemplar but which are entered in the wrong place in MS G.18 (Note: Cf. notes at 26a14 r, 35a3 e, 68a13 d, 70b11 c.) It seems likely that glossator A corrected the main text when copying the glosses from the same exemplar that was used by the main scribes. A last argument is that Priscian MSS possibly did not circulate in great numbers.
Probably it was not the scribes' or glossators' intention that MS G should be separated from its exemplar. Thirteen glosses are abbreviated, offering a few words followed by the statement "reliqua (ut) in alio", once "reliqua in alio lo-" (probably to be expanded "libro" rather than "loco").19 (Note: Lambert (1987: 219) suggests to expand "lo-" as "loco", and to interpret the phrase as 'in another place <sc. in MS G>', but admits that the expansion "libro" (in another book, i.e. in another copy of Priscian, perhaps the exemplar) is possible also. In five instances a full version is transmitted in one of the other 'Irish' Priscian MSS: 22a17 r (abbreviated quotation from "cic-", full version in L); 30b24 z (abbr. quot. from "bed-", full version in K); 52b18" g (untraced, but clearly an abbr. quot. from a glossary, full version in E); 61b3 h (abbr. quot. from Is.? or Don. (Virg.)?, full version in K); 106b25 x (Thes. 106b12, abbr. quot. from Is., full version in L, discussed in Hofman 1996: 172). In six other instances the lemma which is glossed is not discussed elsewhere in the IG, which means that "lo-" cannot stand for "loco": 26b29 hh (abbr. quot. from Diom., comparable to the first five instances); 54b3 c; 59b30" z; 65b3 c; 93a33 m, on 207,15 "nemo/ nullus" (abbr. quot. from Char., comparable to the first five instances); 106b22 q, on 256,7 "ἀρχή". This leaves two instances where "lo-" could stand for "loco", 22a34 rr and 68b31 p. 22a34 r: the lemma "oggannio" occurs in one other place in P., 48,13, where the word is not explained. "Lo-" could refer to another codex, which contained the explanation of "gannio" entered as a marginal gl. (22a34 ss). 68b31 p: abbrev. from Is., comparable to the first five instances in layout, but "lo-" could refer to another place in P., cf. note at 68b31 o.) As longer versions of five of these abbreviated glosses are found in the other 'Irish' Priscian MSS, the references obviously mean that another glossed copy of Priscian, the exemplar of G, contains the full versions of these glosses, and that the glossator assumed that this other copy was accessible to the users of MS G. Later glossators added glosses to the main body written by glossators A and B. Their contribution will be evaluated below, in the section Later History.

Binding: Rebound s. XIII in St Gall, brown leather; for the new binding the original (?), Carolingian (?) 9th-cent. wooden boards were reused.5 (Note: Personal communication by Prof. J. A. Szirmai.)

Origin of the manuscript:
Localization
The question where the St Gall MS was written, in Ireland or by Irish scholars on the Continent, must be addressed. Lindsay (1910) detected continental influences in script and abbreviations of the Leiden and Karlsruhe 'Irish' Priscian MSS, but not in the St Gall MS. He states (1910: 41) that this does not necessarily mean that the MS was written in Ireland, but he remarks later (1915: 485) that the MS was written in Ireland 'between 844 and 869'. Distinguished palaeographers such as Traube (1898: 347), Bischoff (1981: 45) and Brown (1993: 219) localize the St Gall MS in Ireland on strictly palaeographical grounds. Other considerations support their view. It could be argued that the omission of puncta delentia where one would expect them (e.g. indicating lenition or over nasals between a nasalizing final and the following initial) points to scribes who were not familiar with their usage. However, in MS G these puncta delentia occur more often and more systematically than in the (earlier) Milan and Würzburg glosses, which were certainly written in Ireland (Thurn., Gramm., § 33). Omission of them therefore does not imply that the St Gall MS is not Irish. An important innovation, first attested in MS G, is the introduction of a punctum delens over "ṡ, ḟ" to denote lenition (cf. Thurn. Gramm. §§ 33.3, 231.7, but cf. also Lambert 1996: 191). The introduction of this new practice was probably inspired by the use of a similar symbol in Latin MSS, where it indicated that the letter so marked should be deleted, i.e. should be pronounced. As there is no proof that the use of a punctum delens in Latin MSS was restricted to Latin MSS outside Ireland, the introduction of this new practice seems an argument supporting the Irish origin of MS G. Samchasc or Summer Easter, mentioned above, was not celebrated outside Ireland. In marginal prayers (cf. appendix, also edited in Thes.: XX-XXII), the Biblical names Christ, the Holy Virgin, Job and Aaron are mentioned, and the names of several Saints. Apart from St Martin, the Saints invoked are Irish, and most of them were not worshipped on the Continent, as Marc Schneiders observes. Among the marginal notes are three Old Irish poems (cf. the Appendix, edited in Thes.: 290). In one of these the author (scribe?) announces:
IS acher in gáith innocht . fufuasna fairggaefindḟolt
ni ágor réimm mora minn . dond láechraid lainn ua lothlind20
(Note: 'Bitter is the wind tonight: it tosses the ocean's white hair: I fear not the coursing of a clear sea by the fierce heroes from Lothlend'. fairggae: corrected from "faircae" in the same hand; minn: over the line in the same hand; ua: corrected from "oa" in the same hand.)
This poem was written in the upper margin of p. 112a, that is in the margin of that part of the MS for which the first scribe Máil Patricc was responsible, but is in the hand of the second main scribe (so also Nigra 1872: 18). It is tempting to take this as evidence that MS G was written in an Irish scriptorium accessible to the Vikings. However, Lindsay (1910: 41) rightly suggests that 'it may as well have been composed by an Irishman on the Continent as by an Irishman at home'.
In one marginal entry (p. 203a), glossator A refers to a superior. From wording of the entry it can be concluded that he probably was the head of scriptorium, who listened to the Irish name Máel Brigte. Although at least one Irishman, Martinus of Laon, was head of a scriptorium on the Continent in 9th century (cf. Contreni 1978 passim ), this piece of information also points to Ireland as the country where glossator A was working: Martinus probably 'latinized' his name; Máel Brigte felt no need to do so.
Two further arguments, the number of glosses in Old Irish and the sources used by the glossators, also suggest that text and commentary in MS G originated in Ireland. In all 'Irish' Priscian MSS glosses in Old Irish occur. The mere presence of Old Irish glosses does not prove that a MS was written in Ireland. But the number and character of the vernacular glosses in MS G is significant. The Karlsruhe MS has 104 Old Irish glosses, the Paris MS ca. 65, the Leiden MS 19, but the St Gall MS has ca. 3478 glosses in Old Irish. With the exception of some glosses in MS K, all vernacular glosses in the MSS written on the Continent consist of one or two words. In the case of MSS LK, the Irish scribes probably omitted many of the longer Old Irish glosses present in their exemplar out of consideration for their continental readers. In the case of MS E, the Breton scribe obviously understood very little of the Old Irish present in his exemplar, and simply decided to copy the Latin glosses only, with a few exceptions (cf. below, § 2.4). The presence of so many and such very long Old Irish glosses can be explained only by supposing that the MS was written in an environment where thorough knowledge of Irish could be taken for granted, i.e. in Ireland. In their commentary, the glossators use many different sources, most of them dating from late Antiquity (cf. ch. 4). The relatively small number of these sources and their character is fully in accordance with what we know of the ancient sources available in Ireland. Besides, unlike some of the later glossators who demonstrably worked on the Continent, the main glossators do not use any source compiled or written by contemporary continental authors.
None of these arguments is conclusive by itself. But the cumulative evidence of all arguments taken together certainly supports the assumption that MS G was a home product meant for home use, in Ireland.

If MS G was written in Ireland, can we then specify more precisely where it was written? What can be said in this respect, is essentially a repetition of Count Nigra's arguments (1872: 11-27), culled from the marginal entries (the 59 glosses), with slight modifications. Count Nigra observed that most names mentioned in the margins cannot be easily linked to historical figures, with the exception of the names of Ruadri (p. 159, in the hand of glossator A) and St Mochaoi of Nendrum (p. 226). Whether Ruadri can really be identified with Ruadri, son of Mermin, King of Wales (844-78), must remain doubtful (cf. Kenney 1929: 675). But the name of Mochaoi (d. 497-9), founder of the monastery of Nendrum ( Gwynn-Hadcock 1970: 42) on what was in those days a small island in Strangford Lough (Co. Down), is perhaps more significant. Mochaoi is not one of the principal Saints of Ireland, and he must have been worshipped only locally. Secondly, an ogham inscription at the foot of p. 50 announces "feria Cai hodie" (today is the Feast of 'Cai'). Nigra took "Cai" as a Latin gen. sg., and proposed to identify the person celebrated as Pope 'Caius' or 'Gaius', (Félire Óengusso, 20 February, Stokes 1905: 61), but a liturgical cult of this Saint is not attested for the 9th century, neither in Ireland nor on the Continent. Marc Schneiders therefore proposes to identify "Cai" with "Mochaoi", with loss 'of the hypocoristic prefix "Mo-" (cf. DIL,M,152,1-31 for parallels). An argument in favour of Nendrum as the monastery where MS G was written is the entry "Vinniane fave" (written in the hand of glossator A, part of the letters cut in binding, according to the probable restauration of Count Nigra) on p. 150. Nigra (1872: 19) associates the latinized name "Vinnianus" with St Finnen Maige Bile, disciple of Mochaoi, and an early abbot of Nendrum.
Several secondary arguments support localization in Co. Down, either in Nendrum or in Bangor. The cursive minuscule of the second scribe is of a northern Irish type, unlike the script of the Karlsruhe Priscian (cf. below). Nendrum and Bangor suffered severely under Viking attacks. Nendrum was totally destroyed by the Vikings in 976. The report of the excavations led by the enthusiastic amateur archaeologist Lawlor mentions a 'school' (1925: 107, 143-8), but unfortunately it contains hardly any further clues about a scriptorium or scribal activities in Nendrum. In two glosses ( Thes. 183b3 and 213al0), the authority of an Irish scholar M.G. is invoked. Stokes and Strachan ( Thes.: XXIII) expand M.G. as Máel Gaimrid,21 (Note: The identification might well be correct; the observations of Mailgaimrid in the Milan glosses are of a grammatical nature (McNamara 1973: 259), and in both Ml. 85b11 and Sg. 183b3 the transitional stage between day and night is mentioned.) and identify the scholar quoted in MS G with 'Mailgaimrid' quoted in the Milan glosses (46b12, 56b33, 68c15, 85b11, 14, cf. McNamara 1973: 259), written early in the 9th century in Ireland, perhaps in Bangor ( Brown 1993: 218-9, cf. 187-8; cf., however, Best 1936: 37). As Máelgaimrid is a very uncommon name, he must be the Mailgaimrid who died in 839 as abbot of Bangor according to the Annals of Ulster (cf. McNamara 1973: 222, Best 1936: 36-7, Thes. I: XVI). If M.G. really is Mael Gaimrid, this would support the claims of Bangor, but also of Nendrum: the distance between Nendrum and Bangor is 17.5 km. as the crow flies, 25. km. on foot. Contact between the two monasteries was certainly not impossible. Another indication of links between Bangor and the scriptorium where MS G was produced is the Feast of Diarmait ua hÁedo Róin, founder of the monastery in Castledermot, mentioned in the upper margin of p. 221-3 (cf. above). Probably because of these invocations Byrne (1984: XIX) suggested that MS G was written in Castledermot. But Diarmait was an Ulster prince and alumnus of Bangor, as Byrne also observes (cf. O Dwyer 1981: 43-5 for further links between Bangor and Castledermot). And since he was known as 'anchorite and religious teacher of all Ireland' soon after his death ( Best 1936: 37), his worship probably was not restricted to Castledermot. In view of the other indications for a scriptorium in northern Ireland it is perhaps wiser to link the invocations with Bangor, not with Castledermot. A further argument supporting localization of MS G in the northern part of Ireland could perhaps be derived from the fact that McCone (1985: 96-7) suggests 'a northern locale for development of a written Old Irish standard'.
So far, I have assembled all evidence suggesting that MS G was written in Ireland and perhaps in Nendrum or Bangor. I cannot, however, offer conclusive proof for my suggestion. Nendrum seems possible, as I see no reason why Mochaoi would be worshipped in Bangor. On the other hand, the existence of a scriptorium in Bangor is well attested, and the number of sources used in the Priscian commentary suggests a monastery wealthy enough to afford a sizeable number of books. It seems to me likely that future scholarship will find further arguments linking MS G with either of these two monasteries.
Later history
On the last half-leaf of the fifth quire (p. 89) which was originally empty, a poem in praise of Archbishop Günther of Cologne (ed. L. Traube, MGH Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini 3, 1896: 238sqq.) was written by 'eine plumpe und derbe karolingische Hand', corrected by 'eine grobe irische Hand - nicht Sedulius' Scottus ( Bischoff 1981: 45). Archbishop Günther (850-863) is addressed in several poems composed by Sedulius Scottus (carmina 68-70, cf. 75, 82, App. 2, discussed in Düchting 1968, see also Traube 1898, Hellmann 1906). The poem in MS G testifies to the presence of the MS on the Continent in the circle of Sedulius between 855 (the year in which Sedulius left the court of Hartgar of Liege ) and 863 (the year in which Günther, addressed as "pacifer egregius presul" in l. 27, was deposed). Bischoff (1981: 45) excluded MS G from the list of MSS which Traube (1898: 347sqq.) associated with Sedulius. Nigra (1872: 8-10) suggests that the most likely date for the composition of the poem is ca. 860, as the author commemorates Gunther's victories in battle, which probably did not take place in the first years of his episcopacy.
Apart from the main body of glosses entered by glossators A and B, the MS transmits also glosses entered in later hands. Thurneysen (quoted in Thes.,' XIX- XX) points out that these glosses are not all in the same hand. Five different later hands (C-G) have entered glosses, four other ones (H-L) occasionally enter lexical glosses, but usually suggest emendations or add variant readings from other (Continental?) Priscian MSS. One Carolingian hand (Z) has written one remark, "bene est hic", in the upper margin of col. 5a. Because glosses in other hands are usually meant as corrections of glosses in the hands of A and B, it seems reasonable to assume that the other glossators all worked later than glossators A and B. The late Professor Bischoff, who kindly responded to my request for information (Letter, 27 February 1990), confirmed the observations on handwriting presented below and wrote to me that the other hands can all be assigned to the 9th century on palaeographical grounds. As all other hands entered a few glosses only, it cannot be determined in most cases in which order these later hands worked.
Glossator D 'kann ein festländisch beeinflußter Ire sein'; he worked on the Continent, since he probably used Liber Glossarum (cf. § 4.3.2), later than A.22 (Note: Cf. note at 8b9-10 m; in 49b25 p, glossator D had to enter his gl. in space not yet occupied;, by gl. o, in the hand of A; in 302,14 an omission caused by homoeoteleuton (cf. Hertz's app. cr. ); was reentered by D, who had to evade a symbol-gl. present already (cf. 120a9 e, f and note): In 227b32 p on 3,72,25 "utro" he adds a variant reading transmitted in Continental Mss. only (cf. Hertz's app. cr. ).) Glossator H (Pl. 6) is 'wohl karolingisch, aber nun mit "u, en, er" wohl irisch beeinflußt'. Glossator C (Pl. 4) is Irish, as he writes Irish minuscule and is responsible for a number of Old Irish glosses enumerated in Thes., XX; one gloss (16a10 o) suggests that he may have been influenced by Romance Vulgar Latin. He twice erased a gloss in the hand of D23 (Note: Cf. note at 70a3 d, e; in 141a18' e, f on 379,8 "comminiscor" the room over the lemma is occupied by a gloss in the hand of D, and C had to enter his supplement in the margin (cf. Pl. 4).), and also supplemented a remark in the hand of H in the upper margin of col. 31a (cf. Pl. 6 and 31a5 i and note). He therefore worked later, necessarily also on the Continent.24 (Note: It must be stressed, however, that some glosses attributed to C in this edition were perhaps entered not in his hand, but in a different hand. Thus, the small carolingian letters in Pl. 3 were ascribed to C by me, but Prof. Bischoff contested this attribution.) Glossator G (Pl. 5; Thurneysen's 'likewise not C', cf. Thes., XX) wrote glosses in Old Irish, but his hand is carolingian. He supplemented a gloss in the hand of C, and therefore worked later than D, H, and C.
It is not possible to establish a relative chronology for the remaining hands, E, F, I, K, L. Glossator F (Pl. 1, 4) resembles glossator D in his handwriting, and also is 'ein festländisch beeinflußter Ire'. The remaining hands are responsible for a very small number of glosses, and all write 9th-century carolingian minuscule.

Acquisition of the manuscript: When MS G arrived in Sankt Gall is unknown, but it was certainly after 888, as the MS is not mentioned in the list of 'libri scotice scripti' enumerated on a separate page preceding the oldest catalogue of the monastery, compiled 884 x 888 (St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 728, p. 4, ed. Lehmann 1918: 71, cf. Duft 1982: 921-5; Ochsenbein e.a. 1990: 18-20, with Plate). The omission in the list of Irish MSS indicates that Hertz's conjecture (GL 2: XVI, cf. Traube 1981: 50-7) cannot be right that MS G was brought to St Gall by the Irish peregrini Marcus and Moengal/ Marcellus, who settled in the monastery ca. 850, ( Ochsenbein e.a. 1990: 16-7, with bibliographical reff. 20). The St Gall binding proves that the MS was in St Gall in the 13th century. Since no traces of use later than those entered in the 9th century occur in the MS, it is likely that the comparatively good state of preservation is due to the fact that the Irish minuscule script discouraged potential readers in later centuries (cf. Duft 1982: 925).