A Manx sermon from 1696

A Manx sermon from 1696* Zusammenfassung Dieser Artikel umfasst eine Ausgabe und englische Übersetzung des zweitältesten bekannten manx-gälischen Prosatextes, einer handgeschriebenen Predigt aus dem Jahre 1696 von John Woods (von 1696 bis zu seinem Tod im Jahre 1739 Pfarrer von Malew im südlichen Teil der Insel Man), sowie eine historische und linguistische Einführung und Anmerkungen. Die Predigt ist vor allem deshalb von Interesse, da sie gewissermaßen als „fehlendes Glied‟, der Sprache und Orthographie bezüglich, zwischen dem Früh-Manx des von Bischof John Phillips übersetzten Book of Common Prayer der anglikanischen Kirche und dem klassischen Manx der gedruckten religiösen Texte des 18. Jahrhunderts gelten kann, und auch aufgrund der Einsicht, die sie zum Gebrauch und der Überlieferung des Phillips-Manuskripts und des Predigtkorpus gibt. The present article presents the text of a manuscript sermon in Manx Gaelic composed in 1696 by John Woods (c. 1665–1739), Vicar of Malew, together with notes, a translation and a discussion of its linguistic and historic context. So far as is known, it is the only surviving continuous Manx prose text written in the seventeenth century apart from Bishop John Phillips’ translation of the Book of Common Prayer (c. 1610), and also the only text apart from Phillips which predates the 1707 publication of Coyrle Sodjeh (The Principles and Duties of Christianity; henceforth CS), a bilingual edition of a catechism by Bishop Thomas Wilson.1 The corpus of manuscript sermons in Manx held in the archives of Manx National Heritage in Douglas has recently been catalogued by Fiona McArdle, with funding from the Friends of Manx National Heritage. The bulk and potential linguistic importance of this body of material has been noted before,2 but only a single specimen, from 1815, has previously been published in an academic context.3 There are 722 individual items in Manx in the catalogue, mostly sermons but also related items such as prayers and treatises, of which the majority are in Manx only and 45 are bilingual in Manx and English. In addition, 22 of Wilson’s English sermons were posthumously published in a Manx translation in 1783,4 and parts of the Book of Homilies were published in pamphlet form in the early nineteenth century.5 Most of the manuscript sermons have annotations giving dates of composition or the first time they were preached, and often dates and sometimes places when they were preached subsequently are also given. Most date from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, the earliest (apart from the specimen edited in this paper) being composed in the 1720s. They would have served as scripts for the Sunday sermons during a period * This is a draft (with minor revisions November 2017) of an article published in Zeitschrift fur celtische Philologie 62 (2015) pp 45–96, available at <https://doi.org/10.1515/zcph.2015.004>. I am grateful to George Broderick, University of Mannheim, and Michael Hoy, University of Liverpool, for helpful discussion in the preparation of this article, mostly on linguistic and historical points respectively. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for suggestions on specific points. Any errors that remain are my own. The text and images are reproduced courtesy of Manx National Heritage. 1 WILSON 1707a. 2 THOMSON & PILGRIM 1988: 15. 3 KAVANAGH 1947. 4 LEWIN 2011. 5 THOMSON 1997. 1 when many parishes had Manx services at least three times a month,6 and a large proportion of the population knew little English. The present sermon is by John Woods, Vicar of Malew from 1696 until his death in 1739. He also served as Episcopal Registrar.7 Woods received ‘academical learning’ at the Castletown grammar school8 under Gilbert Holt, as one of the two scholars funded by Bishop Barrow’s Academic Trust, beginning in 1686,9 the first to be educated on the island rather than being sent to Oxford, Cambridge or Dublin. Both he and his fellow student, Henry Halsall, are described as being ‘of the Town of Castletown’.10 In 1695 Governor Sacheverell appointed him chaplain of Castletown and master of the grammar school, with a combined salary of £35 per annum.11 After his appointment at Malew he apparently continued simultaneously as chaplain and schoolmaster until 1700, when James Makon was appointed.12 In 1716 he helped to catalogue the public library in Castletown.13 It is likely that he was in his late teens in 1686; the parish registers have two baptisms of persons named John Woods in the 1660s which would fit with this timeframe, both in Malew; the first on 14 November 1665 to John and Mary and to the second on 2 May 1668 to George and Ellin[or].14 Three of Woods’ sermons are listed in the MNH catalogue, two of them in English. The Manx sermon is in a small 26-page notebook, bound with green thread, catalogued as MNHL MS 13221/2/1 in envelope MS 13221/2/1–3 in box MS 13221. The two English sermons are in the same envelope. The earliest date on the front page of the manuscript is ‘March 20th [16]96’. Further dates record the sermon as being preached at Malew a further 22 times between 1698 and 1724. Judging by dates recorded on other sermons in the corpus, such repetition is not atypical. The sermon is entirely in Manx, apart from the dates in English and a dedication in Latin, In nomine Dei, Amen. The text given at the head of the first page of the body of the sermon is Deuteronomy 11, but this is struck through and another text, Deuteronomy 32:6, inserted on the inside front cover. The orthography appears to incorporate elements of that found in Phillips’ Prayer Book (henceforth referred to as the PB orthography) and that of later texts such as CS and the Bible. The language 6 GILL 1866: v. GELLING 1998: 242. 8 For a contemporary description (1681) of the school cf. WOOD 1900: 440: ‘…there is a large chappell in ye Town and a school at the west end thereof. The School-master hath £60 a year Sallery allowed by ye Earl of Darby for reading prayers every morning at 11 of ye Clock and teaching a Grammar School, and for reading Logick and phylosophy to four Accademick Scollars, who are habited in black wide sleeved goons and square caps and have lodging in the Castle and a sallery of £10 a year a piece by a new foundation of ye present Earl and Lord of Man’. 9 MNHL MS 01507C. GELLING (1998: 242) must, therefore, be mistaken in stating that he was Vicar of German from 1680 to 1682. 10 MNHL MS 01507C. 11 MNHL MS 10194, 21 June 1695. 12 MNHL MS 00810C, pp. 88, 135. 13 The catalogue (MNHL MS 828A) contains entries in two different hands one of which appears to be that of Woods, and his name is on the front cover. The other hand is probably that of William Ross, one of Woods’ successors as schoolmaster, whose name appears at the head of the accounts of donations and expenses for the refurbishment of the library in 1710 (MNHL MS 829A). Woods himself is recorded as donating 5 shillings. There is also a document, signed ‘Exd. per me, J. Woods, Reg. ep.’, from 1703, ordering all the parish clergy to make enquiries about missing books and giving a deadline for their return ‘under penalty of incurring the severest punishment the law provides in such cases.’ (CUBBON 1927: 127). 14 Malew parish register MNHL MS 09767/1/2. Given that the registers are not complete for all the parishes, the possibility also exists that he was baptized in a different parish without surviving record, although ‘of the Town of Castletown’ would suggest a childhood in Malew. 7 2 is also in some respects archaic and similar to that of Phillips. These features of the orthography and language of the sermon represent the chief points of interest, and will be discussed in greater details below and in the notes. The original text is written in a clear hand with only sporadic emendations. However, there are a large number of interpolations in at least one later hand, the spelling being close to the later orthography. There appear in fact to be two hands, although in many places this is difficult to discern. In addition, the nature of the emendations made and the orthography are similar in all of these interpolations. Many of them are modernizations of orthography and forms, or corrections of grammar and idiom; however, frequently readings are altered or expanded apparently according to the interpolator’s own taste without any obvious grammatical or orthographical rationale. This would suggest that the alterations were made with the intention of preaching the sermon, and continuation of use may be the reason that this manuscript has survived when other Manx sermons from the author or the period have not, so far as is known. It should be noted, however, that there are no dates of preaching recorded on the manuscript which post-date Woods or are in the later hands. The ascription on the front of the notebook ‘J Woods 1696 – 1739’ is in a later hand. The two English sermons also contain interpolations in the same hand as one of the later hands in the Manx sermon, and one of them, MS 1322/2/3, has the following note on the final page: ‘Bradan Octr. 19. 1783’. This would suggest that the interpolator was Thomas William Joseph Woods, Vicar of Braddan from 1768 to 1786, and John Woods’ grandson. This would explain the transmission of the manuscript, as well as the orthographic and grammatical differences between the original text and the interpolations. The father of Thomas and son of John Woods, also named John, born in 1695, was also a clergyman. Thomas Woods was succeeded in Braddan by his nephew Julius Cosnahan.15 Such clerical dynasties were not unusual in the Isle of Man.16 One might tentatively postulate that John Woods junior was responsible for the rest of the interpolations in the Manx sermon. Orthography and language Attested written Manx is generally divided into Early, Classical and Late periods, roughly corresponding to the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries respectively.17 Although the earlier eighteenth-century texts, such as CS and the first edition of Matthew’s Gospel (printed 1748, but translated earlier),18 display certain archaic linguistic features when compared with the completed Bible translation of the 1770s, the greatest linguistic differences are between the early seventeenth-century text of Phillips on the one hand and all the eighteenth century texts on the other.19 The changes which were presumably in progress in the language during the period of approximately one hundred years between the translation of Phillip’s Prayer Book between 1604 and 1610 and the publication of CS in 1707 have hitherto remained obscure so far as attested textual evidence is concerned. Furthermore, the relation of the PB orthography to that of the later texts, and the degree to which the former was accepted and in wider use outside Phillips’ text, as well as the origin of 15 GELLING 1998: 226, 242. CRAINE 1952. 17 BRODERICK 2010: 306. 18 THOMSON & PILGRIM 1988: 14. 19 Although it should be stressed that the differences between any period of Manx and any other are not vast by any means. 16 3 the two orthographies, have been matters of considerable uncertainty and debate.20 With regard to both orthography and language, Woods’ sermon may be regarded as something of a “missing link” between Early and Classical Manx. It is not argued that this text on its own answers all the linguistic questions or elucidates the full historical relationship between Phillips’ and the later orthography, but it certainly contributes to a better understanding of these matters. It will be noted that the sermon predates CS by only eleven years, and if THOMSON’s guess that William Walker was responsible for the latter text is correct,21 then the author of the present sermon was only a decade or so older than the author of CS. Nevertheless, the affinities between Woods’ language and that of Phillips would seem to allow a classification of the former as ‘Late Early Manx’. The PB orthography and that of Classical Manx are alike in that their representation of the consonants is based largely on the spelling of English, with certain differences of detail between the two systems; however while in the later system the representation of the vowels too depends on English (e.g. the representation of /iː/ by <ee> and /uː/ by <oo>), the PB orthography largely has the ‘continental’22 values of the vowel symbols (i.e. those of Latin, Italian, Spanish etc., or English before the Great Vowel Shift), supplemented by the apparently Welshderived usage of <w> for /u(ː)/ and <y> for /ə/. The orthography used in Woods’ sermon has a good deal of features in common with Phillips. These include: • infrequent use of <ey> for final /ə/, with <e>, <y>, or <a> used instead (e.g. quilleena for cooilleeney, hickraghe and higgraghy for hickraghey, tasta for tastey, hesha for heshey, trimshe for trimshey) • absence of the final redundant or length-marking <e> so prevalent in later Manx orthography (e.g. grays and graas for grayse, layn for lane) • absence of the digraph <ie> for the diphthong /ai/, with <y> (not Phillips) or <ei> used instead (e.g. ly for lhie, ghy for hie,23 mei for mie) • use of initial <g> for both /ɡ/ and lenited /ɣ/ (e.g. gwyne for ghooinney, gâ for ghaa), and the use of initial <gh> for /x/ (later <ch>) (e.g. ghané for cha nee, ghy for (c)hie) • use of <i> and <ii> for /iː/ in certain words, instead of <ee> and other spellings (e.g. miin for meen, bwiis for booise, erbi for erbee, Chriist for Chreest, riist for reesht) • use of the <æ> ligature for /e/, /eː/ or /ɛː/ in certain words (e.g. hæyn for hene, chædyn for cheddin, læid for lheid, æym for eam, ænmysit for enmyssit, sh’ægin for shegin) • use of <ae> for /eː/ or /ɛː/ in certain words (e.g. aer for ayr, cordael for cordail) 20 See especially MOORE & RHŶS 1895: xi–xii; RHŶS 1895: 165–180; THOMSON 1953: 7–12, 1960a: 116–118, 1969: 180–182; WILLIAMS 1994: 703–706, 2010: 90-91; Ó hIFEARNÁIN 2007: 163–164; BRODERICK 2010: 306. 21 THOMSON (undated typescript lecture ‘The Clergy and Their Writings in Manx’, MNHL MS 13047). Walker was born in 1679 (GELLING 1998: 241). 22 THOMSON 1953: 8; BRODERICK 2010: 306. 23 For lhie, Phillips has lyei, lei and lyi. For mie, Phillips has mostly mei, and also mi, mai and mæi. Throughout this article, information on spellings and forms in PB is derived from the glossary in THOMSON (1953), which is the same as that published in THOMSON (1954–1957) except that the former has the advantage of showing diacritics and giving etymologies. 4 • use of <w> for /u(ː)/ in certain words (e.g. dwyne for dooinney, dwin and dwynin for dooin and dooinyn, hwyn for hooin) • use of <yy> for G. <ao> in syyl and syyltagh for later seihll and seihltagh (G. saoghal and saoghalta(ch)) • use of <gn> for initial /nʲ/ in gniart (later niart) • use of <f> or <ff> for /v/ in lifreit (later livreit) and diff (later diu) • confusion between <s> and <sh> in certain forms (e.g. shiustel for sushtal, servaynt for sharvaant, riist for reesht) • use of <k> for later <c>, (e.g. kaggey for caggey, kall for coayl, korâ for coraa) On the other hand, conventions of the later system, such as <ee> (which is almost entirely absent for /iː/ in Phillips), are also frequent in the text. The greatest resemblances between the orthography of the sermon and that of Phillips are at the level of individual common words, many of which are very consistently written in their most frequently-occurring spelling in Phillips. Examples include Jih (Jee), hæyn (hene), dwyne (dooinney), jaghyn (jeeaghyn), syyl (seihll), ayn (ain), ayd (ad), aer (ayr), dygh ullu (dy chooilley), ullu (ooilley), agge (echey), rayd (raad), mei (mie), meid (mayd), erna (er ny), é (eh), chædyn (cheddin), sho (shoh), gniart (niart), noidg (noid), Shiustel (Sushtal). On the other hand, a great deal of words appear in exactly or almost the orthography of the Bible, such as fegooish (Phillips fæguish etc.), wheesh (Phillips ghúish, ghuæ̂ ish etc.), jarrood (Phillips jarrud, jarúd etc.). Wheesh (G. a choibhéis) is particularly striking, as it agrees with later texts against chooish in CS. Other spellings resemble those of early eighteenth-century Manx such as CS against the Bible, such as jallow for jalloo (Phillips jallou, jallu, jalu, jiallu) and tallow for thalloo (Phillips talu, tallu, tally).24 Still others resemble neither Phillips nor the later orthography closely, such as lyawr (Phillips liór, lior, lióyr, lóyr; later lioar), denya (Phillips dene, deney, later deiney), daow (Phillips dau, later daue), laow (Phillips lau, later laue). The overall impression is of a hybrid orthography. It is to some extent an embryonic version of the system used in CS and developed further in the Bible and other later texts, but shows a strong and undeniable influence from Phillips at the level of individual words, without, however, fully incorporating the principles of the PB orthography such as the continental value of the vowels. Examination of the PB manuscript,25 which is the only known surviving copy, reveals that the later hand responsible for the ‘abundance of ‘corrections’ and alternatives, mostly much later, throughout the Gospels, Epistles and Offices’ which are briefly mentioned by THOMSON,26 appears to be that of Woods; and the orthography used in the PB interpolations closely matches that of the sermon (Fig. 2). Most probably he encountered the MS during his time at the Grammar School or afterwards. His detailed study of the PB text would explain his accurate memorization 24 The spelling ow was frequently used in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century texts to represent /u/, particularly in Manx place-names, e.g. Manowle (19th cenury Manoul) /man'uːl/ (now Granite Mountain) (cf. PNIM VI: 143) and Barrowle, Barroole for later ‘Barrule’ /bə'ruːl/ (cf. PNIM VI: 64, PNIM IV: 63). 25 MNHL MSS 3 and 4. 26 THOMSON 1953: 2. THOMSON refers to these interpolations only in the context of criticizing Moore for including them in his edition ‘though the older version is often quite clear underneath them’. The potential value of the interpolations themselves, which appear on almost every page in the Gospels, Epistles and Offices, for the study of pre-1707 Manx language and orthography, does not seem to have been realized, and a fuller study of Woods’ emendations to the Phillips MS is surely a desideratum. 5 and usage of the spellings of certain common words which he writes consistently; but he has not assimilated the whole system, and the occasional appearance of spellings like wheesh may suggest prior familiarity with a version of the later orthography. However, it seems he considered the PB text to be an authority, and attempted to conform to its orthography as far as possible. The possibility cannot be entirely excluded that a version of the PB orthography was in use throughout the seventeenth century, but the contemporaneous comment casts doubt on this, and the PB-style spellings in Woods’ text seem in most cases to show close and direct imitation of the spellings in the PB rather than an organic development of the PB orthography through different generations and authors. In February 1610–11, the Vicars General, William Norris and William Crowe, were asked by the Governor of Man for their opinion on Phillips’ translation of the Prayer Book: ‘[T]hey answered that they have seen the Book translated by the new Bishop of Sodor into Mannish. And Sr Wm Norres for his part further answereth that he could not read the same Book perfectly but here and there a word. And Sr Wm Crowe for his part answereth that having the same Book a day or two before he could upon deliberate perusall thereof read some part upon it, and doth verily think that few else of the clergy can read the same Book for that it is spelled with vowells wherewith none of them are acquainted.’27 The reference to the vowels presumably concerns the continental values and the use of <w>; it suggests that the clergy were familiar only with the English qualities of the vowels, from English itself and Latin pronounced in the non-reformed English fashion, and possibly from Manx written in an English-based system similar to the later orthography.28 Later, in 1702, Sacheverell in his Account of the Isle of Man refers in similarly unfavourable terms to the Phillips text, which he claims ‘is scarce intelligible to the clergy themselves, who translate it off-hand more to the understanding of the people’,29 and in 1720 Bishop Wilson dismissed it as ‘no use to the present generation’,30 a verdict which may have been that of James Wilkes, then owner of the manuscript.31 The generally unfavourable reception of the Phillips text and its orthography by those who would have been expected to use it does not, however, mean that Woods as an individual was bound to share this opinion. In the preface of CS, Bishop Wilson makes the following comment: 27 MOORE & RHŶS 1895 I: xii. If continuous Manx texts were being written at all at this period outside Phillips’ translation; something of which we have no evidence today. It is not impossible that sermons and the like were being written in Manx at this period (cf. BRODERICK 2010: 306), although the comment of Bishop Barrow in 1663 that ‘there is nothing either written or printed in their language, which is peculiar to themselves; neither can they who speak it best write one to another in it, having no character or letter of it among them’ (BUTLER 1799: 305) would cast doubt on the existence of such activity in the midseventeenth century. BRODERICK (2010: 306) further suggests that a version of the later spelling system may have pre-existed Phillips (which could be another factor in the poor reception of his orthography), and that it may have grown out of the system used to render place-names from the fifteenth century onwards (cf. also RHŶS 1895: 175). 29 CUMMING 1859: 15. This would seem to imply ex tempore translation from the English Prayer Book, rather than use of Phillips (THOMSON 1953: 9). There is evidence from 1669 of the reading of the service in Manx in Lonan (CRAINE 1952: 379). 30 HARRISON 1871: 100. 31 The suggestion of THOMSON 1953: 7. BRODERICK (1999: 17), however, prompted by THOMSON, notes that the English version of the Prayer Book was significantly revised in 1662, which meant that a new Manx translation was necessary, and this may be another explantion for Wilson’s comment on Phillips. 28 6 They that have had the Trouble of Translating it, are very Sensible that the Liberty which every Man takes of Writing after his own Way, will expose them to some Censure: But then he must be a very ill Man, who, for so little Reason, will go about to hinder so much Good as is intended by this Book, since this would have been the Case, whoever should have undertaken it.32 Two things may be inferred from this: firstly, that ‘every Man’ (presumably, various clergy) spelled Manx as they saw fit at this period (which also suggests that the custom of writing in Manx was established to some degree by this date), and secondly, that there was such significant disagreement about the orthography, or at least Wilson feared that there could be, that he felt called upon to include this disclaimer and rebuke to any potential quarrel. Is it possible that this disagreement was between two rival camps, one supporting a Phillips-style orthography and one a version of the later system? The evidence is too scanty to allow us to do any more than speculate in the most general terms on these questions, but the existence of this sermon does oblige us at least to qualify THOMSON’s assertion ‘[n]either does the old orthography [i.e. Phillips’] survive as a competitor to the new’.33 Whether it is the case that the PB orthography ever stood a real chance of becoming accepted for general use around the turn of the eighteenth century, or that the orthography of Woods’ sermon merely represents the antiquarian taste of an individual, the present text nevertheless represents an attempt to use Phillips’ system, or at least elements of it, at the cusp of the Classical Manx period. THOMSON is probably right, however, to say that ‘[t]he two systems seem to be quite distinct… one might suppose that we have two different attempts to write down Manx, which largely coincide in consonantism, having taken the same model, but diverge in vocalism, having chosen different standards’.34 It is not the impression of the present author that the spelling in Woods’ sermon represents a mid-way point in the sense of a gradual evolution from the PB orthography to that of Classical Manx; rather that it is a somewhat incongruous mixture at the level of the spelling of individual words between two orthographical systems which do not really fit well together.35 As far as the language of the sermon is concerned, the chief similarities with Phillips as against later texts are as follows: use of ra as the verbal noun ‘to say’, without the later permanent prefixation, even in the lenited form, of g-; consistent use of the preposition rish instead of lesh for ‘with’ in the instrumental meaning and certain other contexts; use of the simple preposition dy ‘of’, ‘to’ instead of jeh and da; use of the emphatic demonstrative shenoni; one instance of preservation of the consonantal pronunciation of final G. <bh> in diff (later diu, Sc.G. duibh); use of the verbal noun toyrt (G. tabhairt) alongside the later hybrid form coyrt; lenition of dooin in the periphrastic second person imperative lhig dooin (if that is what Ligg win represents); use of er ý ghon for er y hon ‘for it’ (G., ar son, perhaps influenced by do-chum / chun); use of bennelt ‘touching, concerning’ for bentyn (Sc.G. beantainn, beanailt). Certain other features such as the use of varayd and vadayr ‘they were’ cannot be classified as archaic as they still occur in nineteenth-century texts 32 WILSON 1707: ii. THOMSON 1953: 8. 34 THOMSON 1953: 8. 35 That is to say, the two elements jar to an even greater extent than the various disparate conventions, or rather tendencies, of the Classical orthography. 33 7 (including dialogues representing colloquial speech); nevertheless, the later hand amends them to the more usual v’ad, presumably in accordance with idiolectal or dialectal preference or out of a desire for standardization.36 In certain other features, the language agrees with later forms against Phillips: for example dy is usual for Phillips gy (for the preverbal particle), and the change /sk/ /ʃkj/> /st/ /ʃtj/ is apparent in forms such as masty ‘among’ (where /sk/ survives in CS in maskey), and shiustel ‘gospel’ for Phillips shiuskel etc. Even late features such as generalization of the third person singular masculine possessive in idioms and fixed expressions are found, as in the passage ta meid er reey gowr ý ghing ‘we have run headlong’ (G. i gcomhair a chinn) which the later hand amends to …nyn ging (G. i gcomhair ár gcinn). Certain features of the original text are idiosyncratic, such as the frequent use of the preposition dys (G. go) instead of dy, da (G. do) in passages such as Yn payg hugg Yuaas dys Creest ‘the kiss which Judas gave to Christ’, and use of possessives together with forms of ec, e.g. nan saintyn ayn hæyn ‘our own lusts’ (G. *ár sainnt againn féin),37 and the later hand(s) evidently agree, since such usages are frequently amended. It is possible that features such as these represent haste in composition, although some may simply be idiolectal, and there is considerable fluctuation in usage of prepositions in later texts as well. A few passages which seem rather awkward in Woods’ Manx text may suggest translation from English, or else that the author, being more used to composing written material in English, was thinking in that language.38 These passages will be pointed out in the notes. Edition and translation Two paginations are given in the top outside corners of the pages in the manuscript. One, in Woods’ hand, begins on the first page of the body of the sermon and runs from 1 to 22; the second, in pencil in another hand, starts on the front cover and runs from 1 to 26. The page numbers in the present edition will be given according to the second pagination, because it includes the Biblical texts at the beginning and end of the sermon. The text is unevenly divided into paragraphs in the manuscript, the boundaries of which become increasingly difficult to discern as the sermon progresses. Clear paragraph boundaries are preserved in the edition, but no new ones introduced. Because of the uneven length of the paragraphs, references in the notes and apparatus criticus are given according to the pages of the manuscript and line numbers of the edition. Most pages in the manuscript have catchwords, and these are shown in the edition in brackets, as in some cases they differ in spelling or emendation from the first word of the following page. The text given in the edition is that of Woods’ original, with all emendations, whether by John Woods (JW) or the interpolator(s), given in the apparatus criticus. Unmarked interpolations (the vast majority) are in the later hand(s). A number of passages in the manuscript are in brackets; sometimes it is difficult to tell whether 36 For full discussion of all the linguistic features mentioned in this paragraph, see the notes. Unless this is an Early Manx feature; see notes to p. 19. 38 The possibility also exists that Woods learnt Manx as a second language, if it is supposed that a significant degree of anglicization obtained in the capital owing to the English administrative and military presence; but in the absence of any detailed information on his upbringing and family background and the linguistic situation of Castletown in the seventeenth-century, nothing further can be said on this point. However, leaving aside the idiosyncratic features noted above, Woods’ command of natural and idiomatic Manx seems secure. 37 8 these brackets are Woods’ hand or interpolated. All such brackets, as well as various other lines and marks, are silently omitted unless they seem directly relevant to the reading of the original text. Suspension marks representing <m> and <n> are expanded and printed in italics, as are the few passages where the original is not entirely clear under overwriting. All insertions, unless otherwise noted, are to be understood as coming after the cited passage. The translation is a literal one of Woods’ text. The interpolations which are commented upon in the linguistic notes are translated there. 9 Fig. 1: pp. 2–3 of MNHL MS 13221/2/1 (John Wood’s Manx sermon). © Manx National Heritage. 10 Fig. 2: p. 250 of MNHL MS 3 (Bishop Phillips’ translation of the Book of Common Prayer), with interpolation in John Woods’ hand and orthography: Je doony sho cheet bee Kriisteaght ayn, ayns wheesh… ‘This coming Sunday there will be a Communion, inasmuch…’. © Manx National Heritage. 11 Text [2] In Nomine Dei, Amen. Deuteronomy. 32. c 6. verse Vel shiu quilleena yn Chairn mar sho, O sley ammijagh, as gun tushta? nagh nee Eshin tdy Aer, ta er tdy chianaghey? nagh nee Eshin ren oo, as te er tdy hickraghe? [3] Ta nan Sawaltagh erna higgraghy shin, rayd ta Jih curr ummady gy red erbi, vei shen bee ummady erna hirre. As ta shin hæyn curr tasta dys sho, ayns redyn syyltagh: erson, ta dygh ullu gwyne jaghyn ’son bondeish, cordael rish yn cost, as ý cherayl agge. [Ta] [4] Ta yn Irriinagh dy yaghin ’son trawyr, cordael rish ý rass, as ý láboragh: as er yn aght chædyn fod meid ve shigger, dy vel Jih jaghin ’son layn craweeaght vowsyn, te er varael berchys, as palchey orrow. Agh, ta Jih curr dowi dawsyn, nagh vel curr bwiis da: Erson, dy geddyn grays, na bannaght erbi veisyn, as gun bwiis ý hoyrt er ý hon, te pecca erskin dygh ullu phecca. Yn payg hugg Yuaas dys Creest ren é quyid smoo dy hrimshey er, ny ullu ny lottyn, hugg ny sajooryn da, tra ghy é erna chrosse. As ta shin leiy [ayns] [5] ayns Lyawr ny Psalmyn, dy row Ree David feer trimshagh, erryfa, dy ny yn charre agge hæyn ren agayr da. Ghané my noidg (as eshin) ren mish y gortaghy; erson, eisht oddin ve er goyl dy miin é: agh, she us dy jarrow my Hesha va on, as my gwyne munjer hæyn. Tra hoar ny Philistiny yn barryaght harrish Ree Saul ayns kaggey, hugg ayd fyss magyrt, dy churr æym ayns Kialtý nin nyn jallownyn graynt. As ny Hanchriistyn ullu, tra erbi [varayd] [6] varayd lifreit vei gaow, nana bannaght erbi erna hoyrt daow, va ny Altaryn lughtit rish owrellyn. Ta yn Shiustel dy hoilshaghe dwin, aydsyn ren Creest ý slaynaghy, vadayr gha layn dy vwiis, dy jinch ayd ny myryltyn va erna yannow, ’son ullu yn warning hugg é daow, gun vegg ý inch. Agh, cre fâ ta shin tagloo michian denya, fackin nagh [vel] beyn ý vaghyr hæyn gun bwiis. Ta yn Scripture dy ra, Dy vel yn dow curr enn er ý vainchtyr, as yn Assel er Cratch yn [fferr] [7] ffer s’lesh é. Nay, gha vel yn Tallow hæyn dy rially yn rass kinjagh; agh te dy churr back é, rish bisshagh. Va ny Israelytyn sley gun bwiis: wheesh shen, mar smoo dy vannaghtyn hugg Jih daow, shen mar smoo ren aydsyn pecca, as girree neoy agge. Ren ayd beggan ý hoiagha dy læid ny bannaghtyn, as (yarragh shiw) dy row ayd able dy hunda creeaghyn dy chlagh. Marshen, dy vel yn Chairn Jih forcit ayns sho dy vrishe magh, liorish yn servaynt agge, Moses, Vel shiuish quilleena yn [Chairn] [8] Chairn marsho, O Sley ammijagh, as gun tushta? nagh ne Eshin tdy Aer, ta er tdy chianaghe? nagh ne Eshin ren oo, as ta er tdy higgraghe? Fod meid ny goyn shenoni ý reng ayns dâ ayrn. 12 Hossiagh, ta kyndylys Yih gys Clawn Israel. fackin dy row é ny Aer daow, ren aydsyn ý chianaghe. 2. Ta yn quilleena, hugg Clawn Israel da er ý ghon: as ta sho ænmysit ayns y verse roish sho: viz. Ta rad er sollagh ayd hæyn, she drogh shillôgh ayd, ta goll [er] [9] er shaghran. Gowym tossiagh rish graij, as kyndylys Yih gys Israel: as dy vod fyss ve ayn, cre wheesh ren é, ’son ý Cheer shenoni, fod meid tasta y choyrt, dy ren é stowal orrow 1. Bannaghtyn syyltagh, as 2. Bannaghtyn fflawnyssagh. Ny cheyrtyn, ta seaghyn, as trinlays curr orrin fannaghtyn ayns rayd mei; as ma she shen, dy jagh shin er shaghran ayns olkys; tarayd dy mennick dy hunda shin gys bea crawee. Tra ta boughtynyd, nana chingys ly orrin, ta agney ayn dy goyl paidjer dys Jih grasoyl, ta able, [as] [10] as agindagh dy goyl ayd weinyn. Agh, dy jinnagh shin curr tasta, ta oaryn ella ayn dy yannow shin servayntyn firrinagh. viz. ta Jih curr bannaghtyn hwyn. Just marsho, va ny Israelytyn; heyr ayd foer erskin towys vei yn Chairn Jih: 1. Ve ny Aer daow, fackin dy row é tilga ny ghowr, as goyl kerayl ju, fodda roish ma daink ayd stiagh ayns ý Tyyl. Tra va Abram kied blien dy æish; as Sarah ý ven, kayr feed blien as jey, as gun lianow erbi eddyr ayd: [Jey] [11] Jei Jih er magh, as dooyrt é, Jagh seas dys neaw, as coont ny roltáegyn; marshen bee yn sliught ayds. Marsho, ve ny Aer feer grayagh daow, fackin, dy hrogg e seas clawn dys Abraham, tra ve shan: as haink ayd dy ve ghilleen, as roltáegyn yn aer. 2. Ren é aydsyn ý ghianaghy riist. Tra varayd slavyn, as trinlaysit ayns Egypt, erskin kayr chied blien fwa Pharaoh, yn Ree dowyll shen: tra varayd eagnit dy yannow breekyn fegooish coonlagh, as erryfashen, forcit dy phlucca stubble fwyd ý vagher. Tra varayd skee [d’yn] [12] d’yn tyyl: eish ghoone Jih er ý Chonaynt, va jeant rish Abraham, as varayd lifreit magh as Tallow Egypt. 3. Tra varayd ayns yn asaught, driall é ayd, marragh yn sooyl agge hæyn. Gow eshin imnæ, as kerayl ju, tra ghy ayd truyd meyn yn ’arkey, as hugg é Bee daow neas vei neaw. Hugg é ley daow, ta shen dy ra, ny jey annaghyn, scruit rish ý laow agge hæyn. Eg ý jerre, erryfa, nagh beagh leshchel erbi ack ’son miveyelys, na mihushta d’yn churrym; [haink] [13] haink é ayns fackin dy mennick gys ny Haeraghyn acksyn, as dys Moyses, dy inch daow, cre lissiagh ayd é yannow: erryfâ, dy ny aydsyn ve erna rey ’son y phobbyl agge hæyn. As nish (mar dooyrt Moses) O Israel, cre ta yn Chairn tdy Yih dy hirrey woid, agh dy goyl aggul royshin, dy churr grayi as ammys dasyn, rish ullu tdy chree, as ullu tdy annym, as ullu tdy gniart? Agh, neyey, ta yn Chairn forcit dy phlaint kinjagh; er leish ullu yn kerayl; ren ayd ayd hæyn y sallaghy, as varayd drogh shiloagh. [As] [14] As ta sho curr stiagh ayrn stieri dyn Text; ta shen d’ra, Yn quilleena hugg Clawn Israel dys Yih. Nish, ’son quilleena, ta yn Scripture dy inch dwin, Ren ayd loyrt neoy Moyses as Aaron; as gha row ayd 13 bweeagh rish ý Manna, bee ny Hangelyn; bee haink neas vei Neaw hæyn. As ta shin dy mennick clashtyn, dy row [ayd] chunda ersuil vei Jih, jarrood yn foer aggesyn, as curr ammys dys jallownyn. [Ta] [15] Ta mee cheet nish dy hoilshaghey diff, cre yn aght, ta yn text shenoni bennelt roonyn. Dy firrinagh (ta Ree David d’ra) va Jih grayiagh er Israel; as marshen te er ve gha grayiagh, as doowee dwynin. She Eshin ren shynin ý chroo, as ý ghianaghey riist: erson she Eshin ren shin, as ghanee shin hæyn Ta shin cummit lurg y jallow aggesyn, as ta shin bashtit dy yannow shin Chriistý nin firrinagh, dy vod meid curr [ammys] [16] ammys dasyn, ayns kayrys, as kraweeaght ullu laghyn nan Syyl. As te erna seeaghy as higgraghy shin ayns crediu, shee, as cordael. Va shin lifreit mish kied blien ed y henna, vei Ree ny Spaynya, tra hugg é fleett woar dy Longan, dy churr yn Crediu aynin mow: Hugg ayd shen lew, chainyn as Kippan dy yarn, dyn gerraghy shin. Agh, ren Jih ý skelya ad dy liayn; as gha daink rew jiis dy valley quidjaght. [Nay] [17] Nay, gha lissiagh shin jarood dy vel yn Aglish as yn credue ayn lifreit kinjagh. Lissiagh sho hæyn curr orwin dy ve ammysagh as dy churr bwiis dys nan Chairn myghinagh. Agh, er lew je sho; s’koan ta peccagh ny masty shin (abber dy vel é ny cheyrtyn gleck rish seaghyn) agh sh’ægin da goyl rish, dy vel oaryn ny gâ agge dy volley yn Jih graysoil, ’son ý chomry as arran gygh lâ; as foddy ayrn vei dyn gyrjagh yn tyyl shenoni; as higgal dy [row] [18] row shin lifreit, as ren shin scapail dangear enniagh, nana drogh-haghort, nagh row ullu yn tushta ayn, ny warning ý tyyl able dy rially shin wei. She Jih ny graas ta jannow sho, as Eshin ny lomarkyn fod læid ý choyrt magyrt. O dy jennagh denya, erryfâ shen, molley gys ý Chairn, ’son ý kyndylys, as soilshaghe ny yentysyn moara, te dy yannow ’son Clawn denya! Agh gha vel shynin erna yannow marshen, ga dy row shin kainlt rish; agh ta [19] shin erna yannow pecca, ny smoo, as ny smoo. Gha row shin gha keraylagh shen, as dy yannow kayrys: gha row shin crawee er grayi yn gloyr shen, ta gialit dys ý Munjer crawee; agh liorish geyrt er nan saintyn ayn hæyn, ta meid er reey gowr ý ghing dys newchayrys. She yentyss é, dy n’ægin dy pheccagh ve braegit dys ý chosney, as ý vondeish agge hæyn. She yentyss é, ’son ullu ny bannaghtyn ta gialit dys sley unrick; as ullu yn trimshe, as kerragh, ta kowyr yn [drogh] [20] drogh sley; gha vel bondeish, na bannaght erbi ayns ý Tyyl shenoni; nana gloyr ayns ý tyyl ragh heet, able dy hunda shin. Ta yn gea, as yn arkey, as ny beyn feiy curr beyilys dys Jih, as goyl aggul roish ý ghorâ aggesyn; She dwyne na-lomarkyn, ta stappal y ghleishyn, as ta cur dwi dys coryl vei. Agh, ne sho yn quilleena, ta shiu curr dys ý Chairn, O sley ammijagh, as gun tushta? [Gun] [21] Gun tushta dy jarrow nagh goagh koyrl erbi, na warning erbi vei Goo Yih, agh ta seeaghey beggan je, dys yn kallanmy ack hæyn. Tra higg Lâ ny Bruynys, eisht sh’ægin dwin cheet kianfænish Yih; as sh’ægin dwin eisht fraggyrt, cre yn aght hugg shin bwiis dâ, ’son dygh ullu vannaght, te erna churr dwinyn ayns sho. Erson, hossiagh, va shin jeant je gan vegg; as ta shin nish gygh lâ, as dygh ullu ooyr erna rially liorish [ý phooer] [22] ý phooer aggesyn. Tra nee Eshin feinaght, cre ta shin erna yannow ’son sho, bee meid fagit gun korâ; as s’fardaylagh, fardálagh bee é dwin, dy émagh dys ny slejin, dy hwittym orwin, as ny creggan, dy ghootaghy shin, vei yn eddyn aggesyn, ta see ayns fflawnys, erson dybragh, as dybragh. 14 Cre nee meid eisht; nay, cre nee meid nish, dy scapail kall-anmy dybragh-farraghtyn? Ligg win, [tilga] [23] tilga ersuill yn marvaynid sho ta ly orwin. Ligg win tilga shin hæyn shiis ag cassyn Yih, as prayel hugga dy now meid nan kerragh ayns ý tyyl sho. As, ag ý jerre, ligg win goyl kerayl dy hunda dys Jih, as dy leidjeal bea crawee, ghowd as ta ærish ayn dy yannow é. Erson shen nylomarkyn yew eiraght dwinyn ayns fflawnys. Gys shen (Hiarn vei!) curr shin ullu ’son grayi Yesy Chriist [nan] [24] nan Jairn. Huggasyn (marish yn Aer, as y Spyrryd Noo) dy row oneyr, as gloyr, erson dybragh as dybragh, Amen. [25] Isaiah V. 4. Cre oddagh ve erna yannow ny smoo ayns my gara ffeena nagh vel mee er yannow on: shen ny fa tra yagh mee dy yinnagh ee immerky meass y villey feena; nagh jimmerky drogh veass? 15 Apparatus [2] Vel shiu] Nee sho myr ta shiu dy mar sho] struck through sley] phobble gun tushta] mee-cheeaylagh Aer] Ayr, y written over e ta er tdy] ren dty oo] dty chroo te er tdy hickraghe] dty niartaghey [3] shin] doin. The whole clause is amended to Ta shin er ny higraghey ayns Goo Yee, of which shin er ny higraghey ayns Goo Yee is further amended to Goo Yee gymerkey fenish Jih] eshin ummady] lane gy] jeh ummady] lane hæyn] inserted by JW redyn] coishyn ’son] cosney as inserted bondeish] vondeish, v written over b yn] e cost] chost, h inserted; yn cost / e chost then amended to shen te cur magh agge] echey, agge struck through; te dy ghoal inserted [4] yn Irriinagh] eshin ta laboraght y Talloo, in which eshin is amended to doiney dy yaghin] te jeaghyn trawyr] cooileen láboragh] obbeyr layn] cairys as inserted berchys as palchey] Tushtey, coid as soiljey y Thustal dowi] dowai, ai written over i. reading uncertain owing to overwriting. cur bwiis] bioosal te] ta shen phecca] elley inserted; after this Jee followed by an obscure word which looks like inpa is written dys] da er] da erna] er leiy] lhaii [5] Lyawr] Lioar agge] amended to egge by writing e over a, apparently by JW da] rish mish y gortaghy] mish amended to mee; whole phrase amended to agair rhym she us] uss hoar] the oa appears to be written over an original ?ae, ee, or ea, cf. heyr p. 10 Philistiny] ashioonee barryagh] barryaght, t added harrish] y inserted kaggey] smudged and partially rewritten by interpolator? nyn jallownyn graynt] nyn Jeeaghyn fardailagh varayd] va’d [6] varayd] vad Altaryn] oc inserted owrellyn] as chebalyn inserted vadayr] va’d myryltyn] myryllyn, l written over t warning] raue 16 vel] inserted by JW ra] gra [7] rially] real rish] lesh, le written over ri bisshagh] bisshaghey, ey added ny Israelytyn] yn pobble Israel neoy] seose noi beggan] beg dy læid] jeh læid yn Chairn] y Chairn yn servaynt agge, Moses] y Phadeyr Isaiah Vel shiuish quilleena…er dty higgraghe] The first three words are first amended to Nee sho myr ta shiu cooileeney (Deuteronomy 32:6), then the whole quotation is replaced with one from Isaiah 5: 4, 7: Cre oddin ve er nianoo ny smoo ayns my gara feena nagh vel mee er nianoo ayn, as dy hoiljagh doin, quoi er te cheet, te gra ayns y 7.oo Ver. Ta gaara feena y Chiarn Thie Israel, as Deney Judah, agh cre ny messyn ren ad gymerkey magh, te ginsh doin ayns y cabdyl chedyn; Dy rou ad laane dy hranlaase, meechairys neuglenid, meecraueaght, as dy choiley olkys. [8] shenoni] sho ta] struck through kyndylys] kenjalys Clawn] pobble Ta] struck through Ta rad] Tad sollagh] sollaghey, ey added ta goll er shaghran] roonagh as camlaagagh [9] ayn] eu Cheer] pobble syyltagh] y Vea sho 2.] as inserted fflawnyssagh] y Vea ta roi heet trinlays] surransyn fannaghtyn] tannaghtyn, t written over f rayd] raydyn, yn added tarayd] ta’d bea] mie as inserted ly] dy lie agney ayn] shin aarloo grasoyl] ny graase [10] curr tasta] ghoail eh gys nyn Gree servayntyn] bialagh as inserted ta] son dy vel bannaghtyn] e vanaghtyn ny Israelytyn] yn Pobble Israel erskin towys] as kenjallys er skin earoo ny ghowr] nynghowr, second n inserted ju] jeu, eu written over u ayns] er kied] queg feed lianoo] sliught, but struck through Jey] Jeii, which is struck through and replaced by Deiee [11] Jagh] Jeagh, e inserted roltáegyn] rolláegyn, l written over t ghilleen] w inserted supra by JW between g and h roltáegyn] rolláegyn, l written over t aer] ayns earoo inserted 17 aydsyn] ny sodjey ad varayd] va’d slavyn] ayns bondiaght trinlaysit] tranlaysit, a written over i Pharaoh] struck through shen] Pharaoh varayd] vad forcit…stubble] currit gys laane seaghyn varayd] va’d [12] ghoone] ren Jih] coinaghtyn inserted varayd] vad as] y inserted ayns yn] at this point a word is completely struck through, probably a form of the following asaught driall] d written over what appears to be f marragh] myr ju] jeu neas] the n appears to be written over an s neaw] dy chumal ad seose inserted ley daow] Leiaghyn as slattysyn daue ta shen dy ra, ny] ny eer rish] lesh dyn] jeh nyn churrym] gurrym, c made into g and h struck through [13] fackin] shilley acksyn] oc dy ny] dy nee erna] er goyl] yn inserted JW royshin,] struck through by JW and amended to aggesyn; the reading royshin is uncertain dasyn] da JW rish] lesh, le written over ri ullu yn] ullu y kerayl] echey inserted kerayl;] at this point a line and half’s worth of text is struck through by JW, as is the original catchword, forcing him to write the section ren ayd…drogh shiloagh. in the bottom margin. Between the crossed out lines, one of the later hands writes the following: Cre oddagh &c. See the end [14] As] Before this two words are struck through, part of the crossed out section at the end of the previous page. stiagh] yn inserted dyn] jehn Yih] Jih JW, J written over Y Aaron] as ny Phadeyryn inserted rish] lesh, le written over ri ayd] inserted JW dys] da [15] shenoni] oni inserted JW Dy firrinagh (ta] Dy firrinagh (ta’n Ree] Phadeyr doowee] cha doiee erson] myr ta’n Psalmist gra inserted ren shin] ren shinyn cummit] jeant written over cummit by JW jallow] Chumma written over jallow by JW firrinagh] cairagh curr] something, perhaps the beginning of ammys, is struck out here 18 [16] nan Syyl] nyn Mea erna] er seeaghy] hoiaghey seeaghey as] er inserted ayns] y inserted shee, as cordael] crawee firrinagh as er varail Orrin banaghtyn er lia erskyn dy choilley phobble. In this section dy choilley phobble is further amended to ymmodee ashioonyn elley fud y Theil Va shin lifreit…dy valley quidjaght] This section is put in square brackets, presumably by the amender for deletion, and contains no emendations [17] ayn] er ve menic inserted lifreit] vei deylys nyn Noidjyn kinjagh] menic ayns aght yndysagh er skyn poar, as roshtyn Doiney dy hauail e vei Toyrt-mou: erbe son myghin moar Yee. Lishagh ve grasoil. Reading here obscure. credue] a very faint and partially illegible interpolation the length of a line and beginning myr ve… is inserted below this word peccagh] yn persoon shen masty] vud shin] ain abber] abberji, ji inserted oaryn] oar volley] vouley graysoil] myghinagh ý chomry] reddyn ymyrtsagh y Vea chomry] the o appears to be written over what is possibly u chomry as] y inserted vei] loual dyn] jeh yn] y shenoni] shoh marish shen higgal] foddee, written both abovee and below the line and both struck through row] vel shin higgal dy row] after striking through the emendation foddee dy vel shin the interpolator writes fegooish doot va part ain, in which va is amended to ta, and part to fer ny ga [18] row shin] er ve, to fit the reading foddee dy vel shin er ve lifreit from the previous page; er ve is then struck through for the reading fegooish doot va part ain lifreit, and presumably reinstated for fegooish doot ta fer ny ga er ve lifreit, as er scapail… ren] line above, presumably signifying deletion shin] struck through; er supra also struck through ayn] echey tyyl] seihl dy rially shin] y realey eh wei] woish fod] oddys gys ý ] yn gha] vel yn cooish myrshoh roin. The intended reading of the interpolations here is obscure. vel yn cooish myrsho is written above the line and roin below it but by the size and form of the pen strokes they seem to go together. To the right of myrsho is written ain. erna yannow] janoo ga] followed by ta in JW’s hand, struck through in favour of dy row row] vel rish] whilleen aght, uncertain whether this goes with the previous passage or the following agh ta shin…as ny smoo] Ta pecca rou venic gedin laue yn uighter harrin [19] row] vel shin] inserted JW gha keraylagh] gha booisal, ny shen, as] struck through 19 kayrys] aigney Yee row] vel shen] hene inserted Munjer] Vooinjer crawee] cairal nan] nyn, y written over a saintyn] brogh inserted, amended to meereiltagh ayn] struck through meid] shin er reey] roiee ý ghing] nyn ging newchayrys] Kaul anmey yentyss] yendyss, d written over t dy pheccagh] da cretooryn resoonagh braegit] coyrlit cha menic vondeish] as y vaynrys inserted agge hæyn] oc hene dys] da’n sley unrick] Voinjer crauee trimshe] Treiys ta kowyr yn] ta focklit magh noi yn [20] gha] nagh bondeish] Vondeish, V written over b Tyyl] Seihl shenoni] sho nana] ny yn ’arkey] y faarkey dys] da dwyne] doiney dwi] dwoai, oai written over i dys] da vei] mie which is struck through vei] as ynsagh inserted tushta?] a whole line is struck through below this, and the later hand inserts son oilley ny bannaghtyn te er stowal erriu. [21] goagh] vel goal Goo] JW begins to write J, presumably for Jih, then overwrites Goo ta] inserted JW beggan je] beg jeh ny baggyrtyn echysyn Lâ ny Bruynys] ny replaced by aglagh, then whole phrase by yn Laa moar dy choilleeney Yih] Jee dwin] inserted JW hugg shin] ta shin er hirveish e, as er chur erna] na struck through churr dwinyn] varail orrin sho] Verse inserted gan vegg] yn Joan nish] inserted JW erna rially] freilt [22] aggesyn] struck through sho] oilley ny foaryn echysyn orwin, as] gys inserted see] soiee win] My charjyn inserted [23] ta ly orwin] ta laadey shin 20 win] dooin; the words lig doin chea are written to the left of this as if to replace Ligg win tilga…, but they do not seem to fit into the sentence Yih] y Chiarn goyl] on what would have been the line below this about half a line’s worth of words are struck through rendering them illegible crawee] as mie inserted ærish] as caa inserted Erson] she inserted Gys shen] y vaynrys gerjoil shen son] er JW [24] nan] nyn, y written over a Jairn] Ferkionee grasoil row] dy choiley gloyr] bialys, mouley, as Toyrt-booise inserted [25] erna yannow] jeant yannow on] nianoo ayn yagh] yeagh yinnagh] jenagh immerky] gymerkey jimmerky] reading unclear, appears to be jimmyrky with the first y written by the amender over what is probably an e 21 Translation In the Name of God, Amen. Deuteronomy 32. 6. Do you repay the Lord like this, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not thy Father, who has bought thee? Is it not He who made thee, and who has established thee? Our Saviour has assured us, where God gives much of anything, thence much shall be sought. And we ourselves pay heed to this in worldly things: for every man looks for advantage according to the cost, and his intention. The farmer looks for crops according to the seed and the labour: and in the same way we may be certain that God looks for much holiness from those on whom he has bestowed wealth and plenty. But God hates those who do not give him thanks: for, to receive grace, or any blessing from him, and not to give thanks for it, is a sin above every sin. The kiss that Judas gave to Christ gave him more sorrow than all the wounds the soldiers gave him when he was crucified. We read in the book of Psalms that King David was very sorrowful because it was his own friend that wronged him. It was not my enemy (he says) who hurt me, for then I could have borne it patiently: but it was thou indeed, my companion, and my own kinsman. When the Philistines defeated King Saul in battle, they put word about to make a proclamation in the churches of their graven idols. And all the infidels, whenever they were delivered from danger, or any blessing was given to them, their altars were laden with sacrifices. The Gospel tells us that those whom Christ healed were so full of thanks that they told the miracles which were done, for all the warning that he gave them not to tell anything. But why are we talking about men, seeing as the very beasts of the field are not without thanks? The Scripture says that the ox will recognize his master, and the ass the crib of the one to whom he belongs. Nay, the earth itself does not keep the seed forever, but gives it back with increase. The Israelites were a thankless people: so much so that the more blessings God gave them, the more they sinned and rebelled against him. They thought little of such blessings, and (you would say) they were able to turn hearts to stone, so that the Lord God is forced here to exclaim, by his servant, Moses, Do you repay the Lord like this, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not thy Father, who has bought thee? Is it not He that made thee, and who has established thee? We can divide these words in two parts. Firstly, there is the kindness of God towards the Children of Israel, seeing as he was a father to them who bought them. 22 2. There is the repayment that the Children of Israel gave him for it: as this is named in the preceding verse: viz. They have corrupted themselves, they are an evil generation, which go astray. I will begin with the love and kindness of God towards Israel: and that we may know how much he did for this country, we may note that he bestowed upon them: 1. Worldly blessings, and 2. Heavenly blessings. Sometimes, sorrow and oppression make us stay in a good course; and if we have gone astray in evil, they often turn us to a holy life. When poverty or sickness lie upon us, we have a mind to pray to a gracious God, who is able and willing to take them from us. But if we paid heed, we have other reasons to make us true servants, viz. God gives us blessings. Just so were the Israelites; they received favour beyond measure from the Lord God: 1. He was a Father to them, seeing as he provided for them and took care of them long before they came into the world. When Abram was a hundred years old, and Sarah his wife ninety, and there were no children between them, God called him out and said, Look up to heaven and count the stars; so will your descendants be. So he was a very loving father to them, seeing as he raised up children to Abraham when he was old: and they came to be as many as the stars of the sky. 2. He redeemed them. When they were slaves and oppressed in Egypt, over four hundred years under Pharaoh, that cruel king; when they were forced to make bricks without straw, and therefore forced to pluck stubble throughout the field; when they were tired of life: then God remembered the Covenant, which was made with Abraham, and they were delivered out of the Land of Egypt. 3. When they were in the desert, he preserved them, as if with his own eye[?]. He took care of them when they went through the middle of the sea, and he gave them food down from heaven. He gave them a law, that is to say, the Ten Commandments, written by his own hand. At last, so that they would have no excuse for disobedience, or ignorance of their duty, he appeared often to their Fathers, and to Moses, to tell them what they should do: because they it was he had chosen to be his own people. And now (as Moses said) O Israel, what does the Lord thy God seek from thee, but to fear, love and honour him, with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy might? But, nevertheless, the Lord is forced to complain constantly; after all his care [?], they corrupted themselves, and they were an evil generation. And this brings us to the last part of the text, that is to say, the repayment which the Children of Israel gave to God. Now, for repayment, the Scripture tells us, they spoke against Moses and Aaron, and they were not happy with the manna, the food of the angels; food which came down from heaven itself. And we often hear that they were turning away from God, forgetting his favour, and worshipping idols. I come now to explain to you how this text pertains to us. 23 Truly (King David says) God loved Israel; and likewise he has been so loving and kind to us. It is He that created and redeemed us: for it was He that made us, and not ourselves. We are made in his image, and we are baptized to make us true Christians, that we may honour him, in righteousness and godliness all the days of our life. And he has established and secured us in faith, peace and accord. We were delivered about a hundred years ago from the King of Spain, when he sent a great fleet of ships to destroy the Faith in us. They brought chains and whips of iron to punish us; but God scattered them wide, and two never came home together. Nay, we should not forget that our Church and faith are delivered always. This alone should make us obedient and thankful to our merciful Lord. But consider henceforth [?]; there is scarcely a sinner among us (say that he sometimes struggles with misfortune) but that he must admit that he has several reasons to praise the gracious God: for his clothes and daily bread, and maybe a good portion of the comforts of this world; and perhaps we were delivered, and we escaped some danger, or an accident, that all our intelligence, or the warning of the world, were not able to preserve us from. It is the God of grace who does this, and He alone who can bring such about. If only men, therefore, would give praise to the Lord, for his kindness, and displaying the great wonders which he does for the children of men! But we have not done thus, though we were obliged to; but we have sinned, more and more. We were not so careful as to do righteousness: we were not righteous for the sake of that glory which is promised to the righteous; but by following our own lusts, we have run headlong into iniquity. It is a wonder that a sinner must be persuaded to his own gain and advantage. It is a wonder, for all the blessings that are promised to righteous people, and all the sorrow and punishment which are for the evil; no advantage or blessing in this world, nor glory in the world to come, is able to turn us. The wind, and the sea, and the wild beasts obey God, and fear his voice; it is man alone who stops his ears, and despises good advice. But, is this the repayment which you give to the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Unwise indeed are they who would accept no advice, nor any warning from the Word of God, but who set it at nought, to their own damnation. When the Day of Judgement comes, then we must come before God; and we must then answer how we thanked him for every blessing that he has given us here. For, firstly, we were made of nothing; and we are now every hour sustained by his power. When He asks what we have done for this, we will left without voice; and vain, vain will it be for us to call to the mountains to fall on us, and the rocks to cover us from his face, who sits in heaven, forever and ever. What shall we do then; nay, what shall we do now, to escape everlasting damnation? Let us cast away this mortality which lies upon us. Let us throw ourselves down at the feet of God, and pray to him that we may receive our punishment in this world. And, finally, let us take care to turn to God, and to lead a godly life, as long as we have time to do it. For that alone will get us an inheritance in heaven. Thither, good Lord, bring us all for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. To him, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, be honour and glory for ever and ever, 24 Amen. Isaiah V. 4. What more could be done in my vineyard that I have not done in it: therefore when I looked whether it would bear the fruit of the vine, did it not bear bad fruit? 25 Notes p. 2 tushta: Phillips tuiskey. Woods regularly has the change /sk/, /ʃkj/ > /st/, /ʃtj/, even updating the PB spelling shiuskel ‘gospel’ (sushtal, G. soiscéal) to shiustel. This suggests that he was not using Phillips’ orthography in a mechanical or antiquarian way, but adapting it to represent the language as he heard it. The survival of maskey in CS and in the Manx translation of Paradise Lost39 suggests that this change was not complete in the eighteenth century, but Woods favours the progressive forms. The /sk/ cluster survives in the later language in myskid ‘malice’ (Sc.G. miosgais), askaid ‘boil, ulcer’ (Sc.G. neasgaid) and yskid ‘ham’ (Sc.G. iosgaid),40 possibly in order to avoid the near approximity of two dentals.41 On the other hand, the change is already apparent in some spellings in Phillips, such as káyst ‘Easter’ (later caisht, G. cáisc), alongside kaisk, káisk, kaysk, káysk. tdy: One of the spellings of the 2 sg. possessive in Phillips, and consistent in the present text. The idiosyncratic spelling of the initial consonant in tdy (also dy, tdy, thy, dthy, t’ in Phillips), and in the usual form in the later orthography dty, may possibly be prompted by the two pronunciations still found in Ir. and Sc.G., /də/ before a following consonant and /t/ prefixed to a following vowel, cf. Sc.G. do thaigh ‘your house’ but t’ aodann ‘your face’ (also d’ aodann).42 The prevocalic form is usually spelt t(’) in Phillips (e.g. tagnys ‘thy will’, later dty aigney’s. How long this distinction continued in Manx is unclear, as in the later language it seems it was usual to retain the syllabic schwa in my and dty with hiatus before following vowels: this is suggested by the evidence of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century texts, where e.g. dty eddin seems to be decidedly commoner than dt’eddin (cf. tdy Aer, tdy annym in the present text), and it is noteworthy that in the numerous recordings of the terminal native speakers reciting the Lord’s Prayer, dty ennym ‘thy name’ and dty aigney ‘thy will’ are never pronounced with the non-syllabic form of the possessive, but as e.g. [ðə ˈenəm] [də ˈaːɡʹnʹə].43 Another reason for the spelling dty may be simply to distinguish the possessive from the numerous homophonous particles and prepositions dy. For the digraph <td> cf. the spelling getdyn in Phillips of geddyn ‘to get, find’. p. 3 erna higgraghy shin: The spelling with medial -gg- suggests the Late Manx pronunciation e.g. /ʃiɡər/, with voicing of /k/, as against the Classical Manx spelling shickyr, shickraghey. The inclusion of the possessive (here the generalized third person singular masculine) in the perfect with a pronominal object is characteristic of 39 THOMSON 1995: 128. RHŶS 1895: 117; JACKSON 1955: 92; HLSM III: 91; THOMSON 1998: 91. 41 The anonymous reviewer suggests that the change is less developed in non-palatalized clusters (cf. certain Scottish Gaelic dialects where /ʃtj/ is found in items such as uisge ‘water’ but not in iasgach ‘fishing’, SGDS V: 426–431, IV: 116–117). Phonetically, we might expect the assimilation to have originated in palatalized clusters (since the places of articulation of [ʃ] and [kj] are in closer proximity than [s] and [k]) and to have spread to non-palatalised clusters; words in which there was morphological variation between /sk/ and /ʃkj/ could have provided the impetus for the introduction of the change to the /sk/ cluster. 42 GILLIES 2010: 265; Ó CURNÁIN 2007 II: 1284. 43 HLSM I: 352; for further exx. cf. pp. 310, 314, 322, 336, 378, 388, 392. 40 26 Phillips,44 but unusual in Classical Manx, where we would expect er shickraghey shin or er hickraghey shin.45 gy red erbi: the use of gy is unexpected here, as it seems that dy ‘of’ (G. de) is meant, and the later hand amends to jeh. G. do and de come out in Manx as dy (leniting),46 while G. go is Manx gy or dy (not leniting).47 Some confusion may be allowed for, or hypercorrection, but in the rest of this text the form dys is preferred to gys so it is unclear where the impetus to use a form with /ɡ/ here comes from, and in general the tendency in Manx seems to be in the opposite direction. Realization of historical de with /ɡ/ is found in certain dialects of Irish,48 but has not otherwise been noticed in Manx. Both dys and gys are found in Phillips. This substitution of /d/ for /ɡ/ is found in a number of other unstressed or lightly stressed elements in Manx; cf. dyn and gyn ‘without’ (Ir. gan), dy and gy ‘that’ (conjunction introducing subordinate clauses) (Ir. go), dagh and gagh ‘each’. Cf. also the 2 pl. imperative suffix -jee (Ir. -(a)igí, PB (i)gi, occasionally -ji), and the nouns juys ‘fir’ (Ir. giús) and PB jallyn, jallu ‘sparrow’ (Sc.G. gealbhonn). Note that dyn and gyn and dys and gys are found interchangeably at all periods of Manx, while the conjunction dy has entirely replaced gy by the Classical Manx period and gagh is seemingly only found with laa ‘day’. Cregeen claims (s.v. gys) that dys is used in ‘colloquial’ language, and gys in ‘sacred and solemn’, but both are found in native speech.49 Phillips has both, Edward Faragher has only gys,50 and both are found in 19th-century Manx texts in the newspapers.51 Gys is usual in the Bible, but there are a handful of examples of dys, e.g. goym’s shiuish er my raad dys y Spainey ‘I will come by you into Spain’ (Romans 15: 28). It is therefore difficult to draw any conclusions about gys / dys as a marker of register or dialect. hæyn: This spelling, which is the usual one in Phillips, is used consistently in this text. It presumably represents a pronunciation /hɛːnj/ or /heːnj/ like Sc.G. fhèin, although the attested pronunciation in Late Spoken Manx is [hiːn],52 cf. Sc.G. fhìn. In certain dialects of Scottish Gaelic, fhìn is found after first person pronouns, and fhèin in the other persons; assimilation to the vowel in mi and sinn would seem a likely explanation for this, as OFTEDAL suggests,53 although no person-based distribution of the two realizations is attested in Manx. The later spelling hene is ambiguous; perhaps deliberately so. The Manx translation of Paradise Lost, from the late eighteenth century, has rhymes with lhean, soilshean, beiyn, veain etc. but also with lieen, whilleen, cooilleen, pian, grian etc.,54 suggesting that both pronunciations were current. curr tasta dys: Woods often uses the preposition dys (Ir. go, Sc.G. gu) where Manx more commonly has da (G. do). The usual difference in meaning is that da is used when the transfer of ownership or possession is emphasized, and gys / dys when the 44 THOMSON 1953: 62–63. BRODERICK 2010: 346. 46 Or jeh (generalized 3 sg. m. form) before the article and later more generally, except in the partitive sense with indefinite nouns, where leniting dy is retained. 47 Before the article, and generally in Classical and Late Manx, the forms gys or dys are found, except in fixed phrases such as cur gy / dy baase ‘put to death’, veih thie gy / dy thie ‘from house to house’. 48 Ó CURNÁIN 2007 I: 134. 49 HLSM II: 138, 217. 50 BRODERICK 1981b. 51 LEWIN 2014. 52 HLSM II: 220. 53 OFTEDAL 1956 : 67. 54 THOMSON 1995: 116. 45 27 emphasis is on motion from one place to another, whether literal or figurative. The senses of the verb cur, for example, which means both ‘give’ and ‘send’, are distinguished by the use of da in the former sense and gys / dys in the latter. The phrasal verb cur tastey ‘to notice’ (‘give notice’) is usually followed by da. Cf. Yn payg hugg Yuaas dys Creest ‘the kiss which Judas gave to Christ’, where the use of dys could give rise to the odd interpretation ‘…sent to Christ’. syyltagh: Syyl and syyltagh are the consistent spellings in this text and in Phillips of seihll ‘world, life-time’ and seihltagh ‘worldly’, G. saoghal and saoghalta(ch). The spelling <yy> for G. <ao> presumably represents a sound similar to realizations found sometimes in Late Spoken Manx (particularly in the south), namely ‘a rounded or unrounded high back, or rounded high front vowel’.55 erson: This phrasal preposition (G. ar son) is always found with er in Phillips. In Classical and Late Manx, er is usually omitted, except in the pronominal forms (er my hon etc.). In the present text there are several examples with and without er, but where it is omitted an apostrophe is written showing an awareness of the elision (’son). dygh ullu: Woods follows Phillips in showing the historic division of what in the later orthography is written dy chooilley (G. gach uile, cf. Ir. ’chuile, Sc.G. a h-uile). The spelling ullu represents a pronunciation frequently attested from the last native speakers, e.g. [ulʹu] (cf. G. variants uilibh, uileadh).56 jaghyn: Woods consistently spells what in the later orthography is jeeaghyn as jaghyn or jaghin, following PB (which also has jeagh-, although this would represent [eː] rather than [i:] or [iə]). This may represent a non-diphthongalized pronunciation of Sc.G. deuchainn in Early Manx. Manx shows ‘breaking’57 in many cases, e.g. beeal ‘mouth’ (PB bial), G. béal, but resists it in others, e.g. faiyr ‘grass’, G. féar. bondeish: A borrowing from Anglo-Norman avantage, with preservation of final stress and elision of the initial syllable. Phillips and the later language have permanent initial v- (and the interpolator amends to vondeish in this text), but the form here represents radicalization on the pattern of native words, as in Ir. buntáiste. Cf. the variation between voalley and boalley ‘wall’, and also vaghey and baghey ‘to live’,58 although in the latter case the variation cannot be explained by borrowing. For other cases of radicalization of initial /v/ or /w/ in loanwords, cf. barrant ‘warrant’, booishal ‘to wish’, buitch ‘witch’, and Manx English barge ‘verge’ (at the end of a roof).59 There is another occurrence of bondeish on p. 20, also amended to vondeish by the interpolator. In dys ý chosney, as ý vondeish agge hæyn (p. 19), the lenition may be accounted for by the presence of dys which puts both of the following noun phrases into the prepositional case. ý : The accute accent is regularly written on y when it stands as an individual word, whether it is the definite article, the 3 sg. possessive or the particle before the verbal noun, but it is not written over y in the other forms of the article yn and ny. Elsewhere it seems to be intended to show vowel length, as in the 3 sg. m. pronoun é, láboragh ‘labour’ and fardálagh ‘vain’, but in ý its function is perhaps simply to distinguish it from y at the beginning and end of other words. 55 HLSM III: 161–162. HLSM II: 135, 341. 57 cf. JACKSON 1968. 58 THOMSON 1960b: 539; 1981: 13, 129. 59 Told to the present author by John Crellin of St. Judes, Andreas. Examples with other initial consonants include jokal ‘yoking’, queeyl ‘wheel’ (cf. G. cuibhle), and Manx English quistle ‘whistle’, quip ‘whip’ etc. (MOORE, MORRISON & GOODWIN 1924: 144; BRODERICK 1997: 131). 56 28 p. 4 dy yaghin: We would expect the simple verbal noun (or rather progressive participle, with elided ag) here, as in the preceding sentence ta dygh ullu gwyne jaghin ’son bondeish…The element dy would be expected only if there were a following pronoun object, or perhaps a nominal direct object with a proleptic possessive. However, the present editor has noted about thirty examples of this apparently redundant dy in the Bible, and all share the characteristic that they express an action which is either habitual or gnomic, rather than referring to a particular occasion; e.g. Ta keeayll dooinney dy chastey e chorree ‘The discretion of a man deferreth his anger’ (Proverbs 19:11), Ta maarderys, as feeyn, as feeyn noa dy chleayney yn cree ‘Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart’ (Hosea 4:11). It may be, then, that dy here is an aspectual marker, i.e. emphasizing that farmers in general, rather than a particular farmer at a particular time, look for crops according to the seed. As far as is known, this usage is not attested in Late Manx, perhaps owing to confusion with the Englishderived deliberative construction.60 ý hoyrt: In Manx the G. verbs cuir ‘put’ and tabhair ‘give’ fall together. The resulting single verb has two interchangeable verbal nouns cur and coyrt, the latter being a hybrid form of cur and toyrt (G. tabhairt).61 However, in Phillips the earlier toyrt is found, coyrt is absent, and the two verbs are kept distinct throughout the paradigm.62 In Classical Manx toyrt survives only in fixed nominal phrases such as toyrt-mow ‘destruction’ and toyrt-booise ‘thanksgiving’, while in its use as a non-finite verb it is entirely supplanted by cur and coyrt.63 In this text hoyrt (the lenited form of toyrt), choyrt and c(h)urr are all found. ghy é erna chrosse: This is a mixture of the two passive constructions hie eh er crossey (cf. Sc.G. chaidh a cheusadh, though the Manx construction is slightly different, i.e. *chaidh e air ceusadh) and v’eh er ny chrossey (Sc.G. bha e air a cheusadh). The interpolator amends erna to er in accordance with the former construction. Mixtures of the two constructions are occasionally found in other texts, e.g. Liorish y chliwe as y ghortey hed ny phadeyryn shoh er nyn stroie ‘By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed’ (Jeremiah 14:15). Crossey is usual in Manx for ‘crucify’; G. céasadh being attested only in a fossilized genitive form in the phrase Jy-heiney Cheast ‘Good Friday’ (PB ji heny ghayst, Ir. Aoine an Chéasta).64 This was sometimes confused with Caisht ‘Easter’.65 p. 5 dy ny: This spelling of the present dependent copula with affixed pronoun, like Phillips ghani, ghanii, ni, nii, and the later standard spelling nee, presumably represents a pronunciation /n(j)iː/. For Late Spoken Manx, both [ni(ː)] and [neː] (Phillips næ) are recorded,66 whereas for she and re (the alternative dependent present form of the copula, used optionally after dy and nagh) only forms with the vowel [e:] are attested. A similar variation is found in the Sc.G. of Leurbost, Lewis: ‘The form 60 THOMSON 1952: 288–289. THOMSON 1981: 71–72. 62 THOMSON 1953, glossary, s.v. coyrt and cur. 63 LEWIN 2011: 194. 64 THOMSON (undated typescript lecture ‘The Clergy and Their Writings in Manx’, MNHL MS 13047). 65 HLSM II: 58. 66 HLSM II: 320. Broderick gives Sc.G. an i as cognate. Also RHŶS 1895: 54. 61 29 Nʹı͂ does not seem to contain the feminine personal pronoun as might be suspected; I have heard it repeatedly without reference to feminine nouns. There is apparently free variation between Nʹe͂ :, Nʹı͂ : and Nʹɛ͂:; the first is the most common. Unstressed Nʹe͂ , Nʹı͂ .’67 Vowel raising in proximity to a nasal consonant is a likely cause,68 although THOMSON suggests generalization of the feminine pronoun, or influence from the unattested negative preverb ní (not attested in Manx)69 as possible explanations. Other occurrences of this form in the present text are spelled nee, ghanee. yn charre: The lenition here is unexpected, unless this is an early example of loss of lenition of velars with resultant orthographic fluctuation.70 hoar: The <oa> here is written over what appears to be <ae>, <ee> or <ea>; presumably the same pronunciation is intended as heyr (p. 10). This represents a development of G. fhuair parallel to that in cuairt > keayrt, cuan > keayn, buan > beayn etc. The more commonly attested forms are hooar and dooar, preserving the G. vowel, but a pronunciation [hę ːr]71 is attested in native speech, and spellings such as dhere and deayr are found in song MSS.72 Phillips has heyr, hæyr, foyr, dear, deyr, dyyr, duoer, dueyr. For the variation cf. the pronunciations of feayr as [fuːər] or [fiːər].73 yn barryagh: Barriaght ‘victory’ is feminine in Cregeen’s Dictionary and the Bible so the lenited form varriaght would be expected after the singular definite article. p. 6 lughtit rish owrellyn: The instrumental sense of ‘with’ (i.e. ‘by means of’) is covered by rish in Phillips (cf. DIL s.v. fri, sense VIII), e.g. tdy phobyl ta us erna ghiannaghy riist rish túils ýasyl ‘thy people, whom thou hast redeemed with thy most precious blood’, where the later language uses lesh (cf. 1765 version dty phobble, t’ou er chionnaghey reesht lesh dty uill smoo ooasle). This partially parallels the replacement in Irish, and some Sc.G. dialects, of ri by le, although the shift only affects certain uses of rish, the preposition remaining in frequent use in other senses in Classical and Late Manx. In the present text rish is used as in Phillips; in the instrumental sense e.g. scruit rish ý laow agge hæyn ‘written with his own hand’ (p. 12), rish ullu tdy chree ‘with all thy heart’ (p. 13). It is also found in less easily classified idioms where the later language would use lesh, e.g. Gowym tossiagh rish graij ‘I will begin with love’ p. 9, bweeagh rish ý Manna ‘content with the manna’ (p. 14). For later usage cf. beejee booiagh lesh lheid as t’eu ‘be content with such things as ye have’ (Hebrews 13:5). In Phillips there is some variation between the two prepositions, cf. my ta duyne buiagh lesh na ta agge ‘if a man is content with what he has’,74 but Eish bîi us bûiagh rish oúrel ny hynrikys ‘Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifice of righteousness’.75 For ‘loaded with, laden with’ cf. jeih assylyn laadit lesh cooid 67 OFTEDAL 1956: 246. For an account of the cross-linguistic phenomenon cf. BEDDOR, KRAKOW & GOLDSTEIN (1986); in a Goidelic context, cf. O’RAHILLY 1932: 194–196. 69 THOMSON 1953: 72. 70 BRODERICK 1999: 86–87. 71 HLSM II: 221. 72 BRODERICK 1981a: 118. 73 HLSM II: 160. For the suggestion that the difference may have been dialectal, cf. HLSM I: 161–162. 74 MOORE & RHŶS 1895: 350. 75 MOORE & RHŶS 1895: 464. 68 30 chostal Egypt ‘ten asses laden with the good things of Egypt’ (Genesis 45:23), but also with G. de: va ee lughtyt dy caajey ‘she was laden with cheese’.76 Shiustel: The interchangeability of the spellings <s> and <sh> for both /s/ and /ʃ/ in Phillips, which continues in the present text in certain words such as shiustel ‘gospel’ (later sushtal, G. soiscéal), servaynt ‘servant’ (later sharvaant, G. searbhónta), riist ‘again’ (later reesht, Sc.G. a-rithist), is difficult to account for, unless Thomson is right in his suggestion that it reflects the historically non-phonemic nature of the contrast in Welsh.77 myryltyn: Cf. Phillips mirylt, myrilt; pl. miriyltyn, miryltyn, myriltyn, miryltchyn. The later form is mirril, mirrilyn. Excrescent /tj/ is also found in the Sc.G. mìor(bh)ailt (more usually mìorbhail).78 warning: This word occurs three times in the text. It is unclear why this English word is used when a commonly-used native equivalent exists, which the interpolator inserts (raue, G. rabhadh). However, cf. Late Spoken Manx warlin (HLSM II: 474) with dissimilation, ScG. bàirlinn. dy ra: In Classical and Late Manx the g- of the progressive participle becomes permanently attached to this verbal noun,79 being lenited after dy, but in the present text, as in Phillips, the historically expected form, G. do rádh, is found. At all periods raa ‘phrase, saying’ exists as an ordinary noun. yn Assel…é: The quotation is from Isaiah 1:3. Assyl is feminine (as in Sc.G. and Donegal Ir.),80 but the masculine pronoun would be modelled on the English of the AV: ‘The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib’. The same is true of the Manx Bible rendering, though with a different construction: Shione da’n dow yn er s’liesh eh, as yn assyl cratch e vainshtyr. p. 7 Nay: This word is found three times in the text, and may represent a genuine borrowing of the English (cf. the use of the English interjection well in the translation of Wilson’s sermons),81 although generally the native cha nee would be expected and nay does not seem to have been common in the later language. Cf. Just marsho, p. 10. beggan ý hoiagha dy: This phrasal verb meaning ‘think little of’ is usually soiaghey beg jeh in Classical Manx, and the interpolation alters beggan to beg (for inversion cf. As bannit ta eshyn nagh jean beg y hoiaghey jeem’s (Matthew 11:6)). Phillips has both seiaghe began and soiaghey beg dy. forcit: This English borrowing is found three times in the text, along with one occurrence of the native eagnit. Cf. Late Spoken Manx foarst, which is used with the force of ‘must, have to’.82 dy vrishe magh: The literal translation of this passage is ‘So that the Lord God is forced here to break out, by his servant Moses, “Do you repay the Lord like this…”’. The wording and use of dy vrishe magh does not seem to be native idiom, but rather an attempt to render something like English ‘exclaim’. 76 BRODERICK 1981b: 138. THOMSON 1953: 10. 78 DWELLY s.v. miorailt; SGDS IV: 336–337. 79 MACLENNAN 1963; THOMSON 1967. For further discussion cf. my note on diff (p. 15). 80 DINNEEN, DWELLY s.v. asal. 81 WILSON 1783: 4, 63, 81, 132, 265, 390, 459; LEWIN 2014: ix. 82 HLSM II: 170. 77 31 p. 8 shenoni: A form of the demonstrative more usually found as shoh ‘this’, apparently having some emphatic force. In Phillips both the forms shenoni and sheneni ‘that’ are found. In Classical and Late Manx shoh and shen are usual, and in the present text shenoni is three times changed to sho(h) by the interpolator. Shonone / shononee is attested in the Manx Traditionary Ballad (15th or 16th century, but transmitted in later manuscripts).83 In the later language similar forms, apparently with a degree of reanalysis, are occasionally attested, e.g. Agh cha vel y leigh noa shoh ennee fooast er ve lowt jeh liorish y ree ‘But this particular new law has not yet been approved by the king’ (Mona’s Herald 28.09.1833); adshen-enne, ren liorish saaseyn molteyraght goaill feeaghyn orroo-hene, as nagh jean geek nyn lhiastynys, ga dy vel palchey fort ayns nyn laue ‘those who by deceitful methods took debts upon themselves, and will not pay their debt, though they have plenty of means in hand’ (Manx Sun 20.12.1845). Cregeen gives the definition ‘identical’ for ennee, and gives the example yn dooinney shen ennee ‘that identical man’. Cf. also the semantically and phonologically similar construction shen hene (G. sin féin). The origins of shenoni and sheneni are obscure. The anonymous reviewer suggests a connection with the formant -in (with variants -an, -ana, -amhain) found in certain adverbials in Irish.84 reng: There is a tendency in Manx for final, and sometimes medial, palatalized fortis N to become [ŋ(j)(ɡ)],85 e.g. ching ‘ill’ (G. tinn), bing ‘melodious; jury’ (G. binn). The standard spelling in Classical Manx of G. roinn ‘divide, share’ is rheynn, representing the attested pronunciations [reːn], [rę idʹnʹ], [raidn] while the spelling in this sermon would represent the pronunciations [riŋ], [riŋɡa ̣ð] (rheynn ad ‘divide them’).86 Phillips spellings include reyn, reynn, renn, reygn and also rǽ ing, reyng, ræyng, suggesting both pronunciations were current in the seventeenth century. The change [ɲ] > [ŋ] is also found in other Gaelic dialects.87 er ý ghon: This spelling is found in Phillips, alongside hon; this may simply be another way of writing /h/, perhaps with a greater level of friction (cf. the realization of ó shoin as /oː xinʹ/ in Conamara Irish),88 or may represent confusion with G. do chum etc. Ta rad: The synthetic 3 pl. forms of the substantive verb tadyr (Ir. tádar) and vadyr (Ir. bhíodar, bhádar) are attested as late as the 19th century in folksong and carval MSS and newspapers (including in dialogues representing colloquial speech), alongside the more common analytic forms t’ad and v’ad (Sc.G. tha iad, bha iad).89 Phillips has analytic t’ayd; v’ayd, vayd and synthetic t’aydyr, ta aydyr, t’adyr, t’ayder, t’ayd er; v’aydyr, vaydyr, v’adyr, v’ayd er. Forms showing metathesis of d and r (probably under the influence of the pronoun ad) are also attested in the 19th century.90 The metathesized forms (ta rad, tarayd; varayd) are usual in the present text, there being only one instance of vaydyr and none of the analytic forms. Eight out of ten of these forms are amended to the analytic forms in the interpolations. 83 THOMSON 1960b: 528, 539. BREATNACH 1976. 85 JACKSON 1955: 111, HLSM III: 110. 86 HLSM II: 367. 87 Ó SIADHAIL 1989: 94. 88 Ó CURNÁIN 2007 I: 187. 89 BRODERICK 1981a: 118. 90 LEWIN 2014: 4. 84 32 p. 9 fannaghtyn: The form in Phillips (Ir. fanacht, Sc.G. fantainn, fantail), but in Classical and Late Manx the form tannaghtyn (perhaps from otherwise unattested do-an?), with inflected forms such as preterite hannee, is usual. ma she shen, dy jagh: My she shen dy is an expanded form of the conjunction my ‘if’; cf. English ‘if it is the case that’ or Early Modern English ‘if so be’, Sc.G. mas e ’s gu(n). A Biblical example: cha vel shiuish ayns yn eill, agh ayns y Spyrryd, my she shen dy vel Spyrryd Yee baghey ayndiu ‘ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you’ (Romans 8:9). bea crawee: The lack of lenition of the adjective after a feminine noun is unexpected, unless it again reflects loss of the lenition of velar consonants, cf. yn charre (p. 5). p. 10 tilga ny ghowr: This idiom, meaning ‘provide, prepare for’ (G. *tilgeadh ina chomhair), is also attested in the prayers appended to CS, As bannit dy row Jee…t’er hilgey nyn gouyr ny share ny oddagh nyn obbraghyn y hoilchin ‘And blessed be God who…hath provided for us better than all our works can deserve’,91 and with slightly different phrasing in the Manx translation of The Christian Monitor, tilgey-ro-laue son nyn gloan, ‘providing for their children’,92 and in the Bible, Nish ta mee er hilgey ro-laue lesh ooilley my phooar gour thie my Yee, yn airh son ny siyn airhey ‘Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for things to be made of gold…’ (1 Chronicles 29:2). We would expect pl. nyn gour here, and the interpolation supplies the second <n> of the possessive. roish…stiagh ayns y Tyyl: This may be a literal rendering of Eng. ‘entered / came into the world’, whereas the interpolator by changing ayns into er brings the phrasing closer to the Manx idiom cheet er y theihll ‘be born’, lit. ‘come on the world’; e.g. nee ymmodee boggey y ghoaill tra hig eh er y theihll ‘many shall rejoice at his birth’ (Luke 1:14). p. 12 asaught: G. fásach ‘desert, wilderness’. The tendency in Manx is to elide the /t/ in the G. final cluster /xt/, which gives rise to confusion in spelling between <ght> and <gh>, e.g. Doonaght ‘Sunday, Sabbath’ (G. Dómhnach),93 cooidjagh and cooidjaght ‘together’ (G. cuideacht). However, all the spellings of this word in Phillips have final -t, suggesting it may be original in Manx in this word. marragh yn sooyl agge hæyn: This passage is obscure. Marragh would appear to be Cregeen’s myrragh ‘adv. as like, as would, as were’, attested in Metrical Psalm 147: Myr ollan vane, ta’n sniaghtey gial, / Cheet neose as sheebit fo; / As myrragh garmad chiow yn ooir, / Lesh meeaylys y lieh-rio ‘As white wool the bright snow comes down and is swept under; and as a garment warming the earth, with the fat of the hoarfrost’. The interpolator inserts the more usual myr ‘as’ for marragh, but otherwise offers no elucidation of the reading. If sooyl is sooill ‘eye’ (though as it is feminine we would expect yn tooill), then the sense would seem to be something on the lines of ‘When they were in the desert, he preserved them, as if with his own eye’, although a 91 WILSON 1707b: 18. THOMSON 1998: 64. 93 THOMSON 1981: 67–68. 92 33 preposition would appear to be wanting to express the instrumental. Myrragh / marragh may be an emphatic form of myr, cf. the emphatic forms of the following adverbs given in Cregeen’s dictionary: reeshtagh ‘again’ (reesht), eishtagh ‘then’ (eisht) (both in the Manx Paradise Lost),94 nishtagh ‘now’ (nish), and perhaps Sc.G. dialectal sineach ‘that’ (for sin, Manx shen), unless it contains ragh ‘would go’ or veagh ‘would be’? p. 13 er leish: The sense of this passage seems to be something like ‘But, nonetheless, the Lord is forced to complain constantly; after all his care, they defiled themselves, and they were an evil generation’. To produce this reading, we would have to read what appears to be er leish as erreish ‘after’ (for use of erreish, Ir. thar éis, with a nonverbal noun, cf. John 21:15 tra v’ad erreish bee ‘when they had dined’, lit. ‘were after food’), but it looks more like er lesh ‘thinks, supposes’ (Sc.G. ar leis, Ir. dar leis).95 Er lew (p. 17) is similarly difficult to interpret, and may be the same construction, and it is notable that neither passage is elucidated by later interpolations, so we may be dealing with an unknown idiom. There is also a struck through passage directly after kerayl, which may have shed light on the matter if it had been legible. ayd hæyn y sallaghy: The non-lenition of sallaghy is unexpected. p. 15 diff: In Phillips, the orthographic evidence is that palatalized non-initial G. <bh> and <mh> had generally not yet vocalized, at least in stressed syllables and monosyllables, although their non-palatalized counterparts had; e.g. dou, dáou ‘ox’ (G. damh), but pl. deyf, dǽ f etc. (G. daimh); lau, láu ‘hand’ (G. lámh), but er læyf stei etc. ‘inside’ with fossilized dative (G. láimh). In unstressed syllables vocalization is found, and THOMSON suggests that ‘it seems that unstressed bh and mh always became non-palatal’.96 In unstressed syllables resulting from svarabhakti, original palatal <bh> and <mh> may be either vocalized or remain as consonants, e.g. maru, marru ‘dead’ (G. marbh), pl. meirif, but also meriu, meiriu, maeru, merru (G. mairbh). Although palatal <bh> generally remains a consonant in Phillips, only shiu is found for G. sibh; in Sc.G. also this item is often realized as /ʃu/ in dialects which would not otherwise vocalize final <bh>, <mh> in stressed monosyllables.97 RHŶS98 holds that the vocalization of <bh> and <mh> in stressed syllables had already taken place before Phillips’ time, that his orthography is archaic and based on a pre-existing system found by Phillips in the archives at Bishopscourt, and that the spellings showing vocalization are slips reflecting contemporary vernacular pronunciation; however, there seems no reason to suppose that the variation in writing does not rather reflect contemporary variation in pronunciation and/or in phonological environment, and a change in progress. The same reply can be given to RHŶS’s99 suggestion that the spelling in Phillips of the historical clusters /kn/ /mn/ /ɡn/ and /tn/ 94 THOMSON 1995: 59, 89. Cf. Ó hUIGINN 1997. 96 THOMSON 1960a: 123. 97 OFTEDAL 1956: 209; BORGSTRÖM 1940: 100, 187, 1941: 52. 98 RHŶS 1895: 170. 99 RHŶS 1895: 33–34. 95 34 with <n> rather than <r> was an archaism.100 THOMSON points out further historiographical weaknesses in RHŶS’s theory: Rhys argued that the PB orthography was an archaism, resurrected by Phillips from the archives at Bishopscourt, that it may go back directly to the Goidelic system, that it has affinities with the book of the Dean of Lismore and the Fernaig MS, with Norse runic inscriptions in Man, with late Roman epigraphy, and the orthography of early northern Old English—the name given to this astonishing mixture being “Northumbrian”… All this is to forget our original witnesses, and who they were. The Vicars-General exercised the judicial and disciplinary functions of the absent Bishop and Archdeacon. Since Phillips, before his elevation, had been Archdeacon, and as Chaplain to the Lord of the Isle was probably by necessity frequently absent from Man, the Vicars-General must for long periods have had virtual control of the diocese. It is unlikely that the episcopal archives had any secrets from them. And as they were the principal learned natives, to suggest that a traditional orthography could exist without their being aware of it is simply fantastic.101 WILLIAMS102 is inclined to agree with RHŶS that Phillips did not invent his system but based it on a pre-existing archaic orthography, specifically one found in putative ‘cáipéisí dlí sa teanga’ which were ‘ar caomhnú san oileán nuair a tháinig Phillips go Manainn’.103 He does not, however, answer THOMSON’s objections to such suppositions. WILLIAMS criticizes THOMSON’s arguments in support of the position that the PB orthography was largely invented by Phillips on the basis of alleged internal evidence. Firstly, he objects to the argument that some of the features of the PB orthography betray Welsh influence, and that this therefore points to Phillips as originator of the system, on the grounds that ‘[i]s ar éigean is féidir a mhaíomh go bhfuil rian láidir na Breatnaise lena léamh ar litriú Phillips… Is láidre go mór rian an Bhéarla ar an gcóras’.104 But THOMSON does not argue that the Welsh influence on the system was strong, or stronger than the English influence, only that certain features resembling Welsh conventions and difficult to explain otherwise are likely indicators that a Welshman had a primary role in the devising of the orthography. WILLIAMS notes the use of the graphemes <w> and <y>, but fails to consider THOMSON’s105 suggestion that the confusion of <s> and <sh> might reflect Welsh influence (cf. notes on Shiustel p. 6), and in fact WILLIAMS notes the use of <sh> for /ʃ/ as an English convention (which it is), without taking cognizance of the fact that both <sh> and <s> are used interchangeably for /s/ and /ʃ/. WILLIAMS also claims that certain features of Phillips’ orthography are reminiscent of Middle Scots, especially the use of <y> and <i> to signify a long vowel,106 and suggests that ‘Gaeil an Oirthir’, i.e. in Scotland and the Isle of Man, commonly used a Scots-based orthography to write Gaelic in the middle ages, especially legal documents; that such a system could have been introduced into the Isle of Man when the island was under Scottish rule between 1266 and c. 1340; that it was used in the ecclesiastical courts; and that if the Bishop of Man had law-courts in the middle ages, legal documents in Gaelic must have existed 100 Cf. THOMSON 1969: 181–182. THOMSON 1953: 9. 102 WILLIAMS 1994: 704–706. 103 WILLIAMS 1994: 705. 104 WILLIAMS 1994: 704. 105 THOMSON 1953: 10. 106 Cf. KNIEZSA 1997: 40. However, according to THOMSON (1969: 182) ‘Phillips’s spelling can be recognized as having distinctly Middle English features in opposition to the equally distinct Middle Scots features of the Dean’s Book, and…there is no probability of their belonging in any sense to the same school or having a common origin’. 101 35 (‘caithfidh go raibh’) and been preserved in the island until Phillips’ time.107 WILLIAMS does not explain why such documents would be in Gaelic, rather than in Latin, French or English; nor does he give a reason for being so confident that mediaeval Gaelic documents would have survived to the seventeenth century; and the evidence that the PB orthography is derived specifically from Scots, rather than English (and Welsh) and Phillips’ own invention, does not seem compelling. THOMSON’s note of caution in this connection should be borne in mind: On this question it is impossible to argue merely from the non-Gaelic appearance of the Dean [of Lismore]’s book, the Fernaig MS. and the PB to the conclusion that they are related. If the Gaelic system of spelling is once given up, all the systems which supplant it must have a strong likeness to one another. There cannot be an infinity of different ways of writing the same language.108 Finally, WILLIAMS109 argues, in a similar vein to RHŶS’s claims regarding phonology, that from the use of rá (G. rádh) ‘say’ after the preposition / particle dy in the PB rather than dy ghra with permanently prefixed g-, as in the later language, it necessarily follows that Phillips’ Manx is archaic, on the grounds that this feature is shared with Scottish Gaelic. Firstly, as with the phonological features discussed above, it may have been the case that both forms co-existed, that Phillips happened to use the more conservative form, but that the progressive form had become usual by the Classical Manx period. Secondly, what Manx and Scottish Gaelic actually share is the preservation of the /ɡ/ of ag before rádh (with other verbal nouns it is elided before consonants). It seems quite likely that this is an old shared feature, as WILLIAMS suggests, and indeed, Phillips does regularly have grá as the progressive participle, when ag would be historically expected. On the other hand, the generalization of ’g ràdh in other constructions, with the /ɡ/ regarded as an integral part of the verbal noun, and the lenition of the /ɡ/ after do / a, is only found marginally in Sc.G., in certain dialects geographically distant from one another.110 It 107 WILLIAMS 1994: 705. In WILLIAMS (1998, 2010: 90–91), he proposes a different theory: that the standard Manx orthography of the Bible etc. predates Phillips’ (cf. fn. 28 and BRODERICK 2010: 306) and is based on a Scots-based orthography imported from Galloway. While the possibility of such Scottish influence cannot be definitively excluded, the grounds given for this theory by WILLIAMS do not seem compelling. Firstly, he argues that because the word baatey is pronounced with a medial fricative [ð] in Late Manx, this points to an original pronunciation [beːdə] with a medial voiced stop, i.e. G. *báda. The Manx spelling with <t>, he alleges, must therefore reflect the Scottish form bàta, rather than the native Manx variant of the word. This ignores the fact that medial unvoiced stops, as well as voiced stops, can end up as voiced fricatives—or even glides or zero—as a result of secondary lenition in Manx, and this process is well attested and well understood (cf. note on yentysyn p. 18 and JACKSON 1955: 65; HLSM III: 71–72). WILLIAMS himself describes the phenomenon accurately, noting a fricative realization of original /k/ in peccah ‘sin’ (WILLIAMS 1994: 712). Secondly, he argues for Scottish influence on the basis of an alleged leaning towards ‘calvinism’ in Manx religious culture, citing a preoccupation with the Fall and human sinfulness in the carval literature (cf. MOORE 1891: iv– v). However, these themes are pervasive in all branches of Western Christianity, and in any case, there were plenty of calvinist and puritan currents in Anglicanism and, later, Methodism. 108 THOMSON 1960a: 117–118. Cf. also MACPHARLANE’s comment (1923: 288) on the Fernaig manuscript: ‘Duncan Mac Rae began his manuscript eleven years prior to that date [1699], and could not have been influenced by printed Manx; and it is not likely that he was influenced by manuscript Manx. It is clear, in any case, after a comparison of both systems, that he borrowed little or nothing from Manx. There are a few agreements of a kind between Mac Rae’s spellings and those of the Manx; but they appear to be due to the English spelling system of the time being the root of both; and there is no reason to believe them to be other than accidental.’ 109 WILLIAMS 1994: 705–706. 110 MACLENNAN 1963: 251. 36 seems plausible, and given the evidence from the PB and the later texts, likely, that this generalization occurred independently in Manx and in these dialects. The ’g, being an irregularity not found before consonants in other verbal nouns, would be particularly vulnerable to reanalysis. bennelt: This is the verbal noun of benn ‘touch, pertain to’ in Phillips (cf. Sc.G. beanailt alongside more usual beantainn, and other variants beanail, beantail),111 but in Classical and Late Manx bentyn is usual. Bennalt has a special sense in the later language: ‘to fan, to winnow, to hover, to move the wings as a bird’, ‘a fanning; the motion of a bird’s wing’.112 In the Manx Paradise Lost, it describes the motion of flags and standards, e.g. gys haink ayns e hilley / flag ree ny cairys bennalt ard, ny s’gilley / na grian souree ‘until there came into his sight the flag of the king of justice fluttering high, brighter than a summer sun’,113 but it is also used in the usual senses of bentyn, alongside incidences of that form. The original verbal noun survives as Ir. béim, Sc.G. beum, Manx beam, where it has the specialized senses ‘what is cut by a sickle at once in reaping; a mark cut in the ear of a sheep’;114 similar senses are found in Sc.G. ‘gash, cut’, ‘handful of corn cut at one stroke of the reaping-hook’,115 Ir. ‘notch’ (inc. in ear).116 p. 16 Va shin lifreit…dy valley quidjaght: This passage is a reference to the failure of the Spanish Armada in 1588. ed y henna: In the later orthography this is er-dy-henney, ‘since, since then’. However, the form without <r> (PB ada) is historically correct; cf. Ir. ó do shine.117 Cf. erskyn ‘above’, Ir. ós cionn. chainyn: This borrowing is also found in the Bible, (Isaiah 3:19) Ny chainyn sollys, as beadyn ny roihaghyn, as ny breidyn ‘The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers’; but the native geuley pl. geulaghyn is usual. p. 17 er lew mwee je sho: Perhaps ‘consider henceforth’, although er lhiu (Sc.G. ar leibh) would not normally have imperative force. Mwee je sho (G. *amuigh de seo) for more usual maghey shoh (G. *amach as seo) or veih shoh magh (Ir. uaidh seo amach). s’koan ta peccagh…agh sh’ægin da goyl rish: This appears to imitate usage Early Modern English usage ‘there is scarcely a sinner but (that) he must admit’.118 ny masty shin: In Phillips the complex prepositions whose pronominal forms follow the pattern simple preposition + possessive + noun may be disambiguated by adding the emphatic augentia -syn, -ish etc. or by adding a simple pronoun, e.g. Phillips nan masky shiu ‘among you’, m’an gian shius ‘about you’.119 Woods follows the PB construction, but the interpolator changes shin to ain, conforming to the usual practice 111 DWELLY s.v. bean. KELLY s.v. bennalt. 113 THOMSON 1995: 30. 114 CREGEEN s.v. beam. 115 DWELLY s.v. beum. For the meaning of a mark in a sheep’s ear, see DASG ‘Folklore Archive’ s.v. beum. 116 Ó DÓNAILL s.v. béim. 117 HLSM II: 148. 118 OED s.v. ‘but’, 15.b. 119 THOMSON (1953: 9) suggests that this construction in Phillips may be due to Welsh influence. 112 37 in Classical and Late Manx of attaching the pronominal forms of ec ‘at’ to the complex prepositions. abber: The plural imperative ending ji is added, although since it is cramped in the space between words the hand is unclear. The plural would be expected in addressing a congregation, and would agree with the plural pronoun, if that is what it is, in er lew. However, the preacher may be addressing each person present individually (although even so the plural of politeness might be expected). In Wilson’s sermons, both singular abbyr and plural abbyr-jee are found in similar contexts. oaryn ny gâ: It appears there is a difference in sense between ny ghaa and ny jees, the latter meaning literally ‘or two’, and the former having the looser sense of English ‘a couple, a few, some, several, many a’, e.g. Agh mannagh n’eaisht eh rhyt, eisht gow mayrt fer ny jees elley ‘But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more’ (Matthew 18:16), t’ou uss er n’yannoo oainjyrys rish maarderagh ny ghaa ‘thou hast played the harlot with many lovers’ (Jeremiah 3:1). However, the noun is generally in the singular in accordance with the literal meaning; the use of the plural here may suggest influence of English ‘several reasons’ or the like. dyn gyrjagh yn tyyl: The double article perhaps reflects English usage ‘of the comfort of the world’. The interpolator amends to usual Manx syntax by inserting jeh for dyn. higgal: Sc.G. theagamh ‘perhaps’. Spelled hoiggal in later texts. Foddee (Sc.G. faodaidh) is more common, but there are nonetheless eight instances in the Bible, e.g. hoiggal dy vod smooinaghtyn dty chree v’er ny leih dhyt ‘perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee’ (Acts 8:22). The later spelling suggests an influence from toiggal ‘understand’, and this may be the source of the ending. Phillips has higge, higgo, higg. For the change of ending, cf. also the use in Phillips of kreidiu, kreidiu, kredju (G. creideamh) as a verbal noun ‘believe’, for later credjal. p. 18 fod: We would expect the relative oddys here, as supplied by the interpolator. The expected present / future forms are independent foddee and dependent vod / nod, but for a suffixless independent form cf. HLSM II: 172. Unlenited foddys and conditional foddagh are occasionally attested in nineteenth century texts, e.g. saggyrt…foddys soilshagey yn raad dy haualtys da’n Manninagh nagh vel toiggal baarle ‘a priest who can show the way of salvation to the Manxman who does not understand English’,120 ve ghoaill eeastyn cha thappee as foddagh eh ‘he was taking fish as fast as he could’.121 læid ý choyrt magyrt: The calque cur / coyrt lesh mygeayrt ‘bring about’ is attested in the later language, e.g. chiare Jee eh son bannaght, dy chur lesh eh mygeayrt, myr te er y laa t’ayn jiu, dy hauail mooarane pobble bio ‘God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive’ (Genesis 50:20). Here it appears without lesh, and there are other examples of cur / coyrt (G. tabhairt) meaning ‘bring’ without the preposition, as in Ir. and Sc.G. usage. e.g. As ta sho curr stiagh ayrn stieri dyn Text ‘and this brings in the last part of the text’ (p. 14), Gys shen (Hiarn vei!) curr shin ullu ‘thither [to heaven], Good Lord, bring us us’ (p. 23). In the later language the preposition lesh is generally required; e.g. t’eh er chur lesh shin magh ass Egypt ‘he…hath brought us forth out of Egypt’ (Numbers 20:16). 120 121 Mona’s Herald 30.12.1846. BRODERICK 1981b: 166. 38 O dy jennagh denya…molley gys ý Chairn: The interpolator changes gys ý to yn, taking jennagh as the conditional of jannoo ‘do’ in its auxiliary function and molley as non-finite verb, i.e. ‘O that men would praise the Lord’; however, the original phrasing can be understood as ‘that men would give praise to the Lord’, with jennagh, as frequently in Manx, standing in for the conditional of cur / coyrt ‘to give’.122 For a plausible explanation of the substitution of jinnagh for derragh, see BRODERICK (1981a: 117). yentysyn: In the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, the ongoing process of secondary lenition (i.e. voicing of medial voiceless stops and spirantization of medial stops)123 or assimilation to neighbouring voiced sounds is less established than in the later language, as shown by this spelling for later yindys ‘wonder’ (Phillips ientys(s), Sc.G. iongantas), and the following in CS: balchyn ‘towns’ (later baljyn, Sc.G. bailtean) and foilchin ‘faults’ (Phillips foilchyn, later foiljyn Sc.G. foill + -tean). p. 19 dys ý Munjer crawee: Another example of failure of lenition marking the feminine gender, here in both the noun and the adjective. nan saintyn ayn hæyn: Usually, in Early Manx and in later periods, the choice is between using the possessives my, dty etc. on their own or using the definite article + pronominal forms of ec ‘at’. However, Thomson notes a few examples in Phillips of the blending of the two constructions, e.g. nan ríi áin ‘our king’.124 p. 20 ragh heet: This represents what is written in later Manx as ry heet ‘to come’, cf. Sc.G. ri teachd, Ir. le teacht. The lenition which is often found after ry, e.g. thie ry hie ‘house to house’ (Isaiah 5:8), famman ry amman ‘tail to tail’ (Judges 15:4), may have spread from the homphonous ry + 3sg.m. possessive found before transitive verbal nouns, e.g. ry akin ‘to be seen’ and in ry cheilley ‘to/with one another, together’; cf. Sc.G. r’a fhaicinn, r’a chéile. But with historically expected non-lenition: beeal ry beeal ‘mouth to mouth’ (Numbers 12:8), ry foddey dy hraa ‘for a long time’, ry bleeantyn foddey ‘for many years’ (Nehemiah 9:30). Compare also the variant forms ry hoi ‘for the purpose of, in order to/that’ (i.e. ri h-aghaidh) and r’oi (ri aghaidh). The gh in the present spelling may represent a palatal fricative [ç] in the initial of heet. For the vowel <a>, compare Phillips ra hiit and especially an occurrence with length marking râ hiit; this may represent Early Modern Ir. ré, re. An expanded form ry-hoi cheet is sometimes found (e.g. John 6:14), and a mixture of this and the form with the simple preposition may be seen in the interpolation y Vea ta roi heet ‘the life which is to come’ (p. 9). yn ’arkey: The interpolator amends this to y faarkey, but both lenition and nonlenition are found in the Bible, suggesting uncertainty about gender, perhaps influenced by the variation in the gender of the originally neuter mooir (G. muir). coryl: Transposition of the letters <y> and <r>; cf. koyrl on the next page. A svarabhakti vowel would not be expected between /r(j)/ and /lj/. p. 21 122 THOMSON 1960b: 524, BRODERICK 1981a: 117. JACKSON 1955: 65; HLSM III: 71–72. 124 THOMSON 1953: 41. 123 39 kianfænish Yih: The tendency in Manx is for complex prepositions which historically take the genitive to be treated as simple prepositions, especially ones such as son, mastey etc. where the nominal element of the preposition does not exist independently. However, where the nominal element and its meaning are transparent, the genitive is often maintained, as with kionfenish ‘in the presence of’, where the noun fe(a)nish ‘presence, witness’ (G. fiadhnaise) exists independently, e.g. ayns fenish Yee ‘in the presence of God’ (Hebrews 9:24), gymmyrkey feanish ‘bear witness’. Nevertheless, the interpolator amends Yih to Jee. There are four instances of kionfenish Yee in the Bible, and one of kionfenish Jee. dygh ullu vannaght, te erna churr: The preceding object construction is usual with all verbal noun constructions in Early Manx, but seems to fall out of use in the perfect tenses during the early eighteenth century, earlier than in the progressive and infinitival constructions.125 jeant je gan vegg: This appears to be an attempt to render English ‘made of nought, nothing’. The interpolator prefers yn Joan i.e. ‘made of the dust’. Cf. the idiom (red) gyn veg ‘nothing, insignificance, a trifle’, e.g. Ta dy chooilley ashoon myr red gyn veg kiongoyrt rish ‘All nations before him are as nothing (Isaiah 40:17); fardail ad ooilley, dyn veg ta nyn obbraghyn ‘they are all vanity; their works are nothing’ (Isaiah 41:29); Ny-yeih hug eh eh-hene gyn veg, as ghow eh er cummey sharvaant, as v’eh er ny yannoo ayns caslys deiney ‘But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men’ (Philippians 2:7). p. 22 s’fardaylagh, fardálagh bee é dwin: We would expect the relative form vees in a cleft construction of this kind, e.g. s’eunyssagh vees eh dhyt ‘pleasant it will be for thee’ (Proverbs 22:18), s’mooar vees laa Yezreel! ‘great shall be the day of Jezreel’ (Hosea 1:11). However, the absolute form, rather than the relative, was usual in O.Ir.126 dy émagh dys ny slejin…erson dybragh, as dybragh: A paraphrase of Revelation 6:16 ‘And [the kings of the earth etc.] said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb’; also Luke 23:30 ‘Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us’. ghootaghy: The medial <t> in this word (PB kudaghghy, kudaghey, kudyghe, later coodaghey, Sc.G. còmhdachadh) is unexpected; possibly it is a hypercorrection in reaction against incipient secondary lenition. Ligg win: In Classical and Late Manx the pronominal forms of the preposition da, dy (G. do) ‘to’ are invariably unlenited. In Phillips both lenited and unlenited forms are found, with a wide variety of spellings (e.g. for 2 sg. duit, duitt, duitch, uit, guit, guitt, uitt, uitch, uitch, uittch, uich; G. duit, dhuit); most examples of the unlenited forms follow dental consonants, the lenited forms being found elsewhere, as is the case in older Sc.G. (though there are with a few exceptions e.g. dy ve na ourel resúnagh, kásserick, as biô dûitch ‘to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee’).127 In many other G. dialects the move is towards a generalization of the lenited forms,128 whereas in Manx the opposite is true. In the present text, unlenited forms only are 125 THOMSON 1981: 43; BRODERICK 2010: 346. GOI: §506. 127 MOORE & RHŶS 1895: 372. 128 Ó SIADHAIL 1989: 134. 126 40 found, except in this fixed phrase, of which there are three occurrences. In CS, even this phrase appears only as Lig dooin.129 p. 23 ærish: The present spelling of this word, which means ‘time, season, weather’, along with that of the later orthography earish, and some of those of the PB (ierish, errish, pl. ierishyn, iærishyn, ierishsyn, eirishyn) may suggest a pronunciation of the first syllable resembling Ir. aireas ‘tryst’ or oireas, oiris ‘history’, whereas the recorded Late Manx pronunciations [i.riʃ], [ɪrɪʃ], [iːriʃ]130 suggest the Modern Ir. form iris. In Irish, a number of separate words seem to have fallen together as iris, perhaps under the influence of O.Ir. iress ‘faith, belief’.131 In Manx cf. also the pronunciation [ɪru] recorded for earroo ‘number’ (G. áireamh).132 son grayi: Woods first writes son grayi, perhaps influenced by the English ‘for the sake of’, but then amends son to er, in accordance with the more usual Manx idiom, although instances of both are found in later texts. dy yinnagh: The quotation is from Isaiah 5:4. We would expect the dependent form after dy, and the interpolator accordingly supplies jenagh. In the Manx Bible the simple verb is used rather than the periphrastic construction: tra yeeagh mee dy n’ymmyrkagh eh berrishyn-feeyney ‘when I looked that it should bring forth grapes’. immerky: The use of the bare verbal noun, rather than the progressive participle with initial affixed g-, in the periphrastic construction with jannoo is historically correct, but by the eighteenth century the progressive form has spread to all infinitival and gerundial uses of the verbal noun.133 In Phillips both forms with and without g- are found,134 and the present example may be an instance of the older usage. 129 WILSON 1707a: 108. HLSM II: 139. 131 GREENE 1962: 112–113. 132 HLSM II: 139. 133 THOMSON 1981: 57; 1992: 116; BRODERICK 2010: 344. 134 THOMSON 1953: 53. 130 41 Abbreviations CS: Coyrle Sodjeh (WILSON 1707a) G.: Gaelic, i.e. form in Classical Early Modern Irish where later differences between Ir. and Sc.G. are not pertinent to the point of discussion. Ir.: Irish. MNHL: Manx National Heritage Library. O.Ir.: Old Irish. PB: Bishop Phillips’ (c. 1610) translation of the Book of Common Prayer. Sc.G.: Scottish Gaelic. 42 References BEDDOR, Patrice Speeter, KRAKOW, Rena Arens & GOLDSTEIN, Louis M., 1986: ‘Perceptual constraints and phonological change: a study of nasal vowel height’, Phonology Yearbook, 3, 1986, 197–217. BORGSTRÖM, Carl Hj., 1940: The Dialects of the Outer Hebrides. Oslo: Oslo University Press. BORGSTRÖM, Carl Hj., 1941: The Dialects of Skye and Ross-shire. Oslo: Oslo University Press. BREATNACH, R. A., 1976: ‘The Formant -in’, Éigse 16, 1976, 232–234. BRODERICK, George, 1981a: ‘Baase Illiam Dhone’, Celtica 14, 1981, 105–123. BRODERICK, George, 1981b: ‘Manx Stories and Reminiscences of Ned Beg Hom Ruy’. ZcP 38, 1981, 114–178. BRODERICK, George, 1997: ‘Manx English: An Overview’. In: Hildegard L. C. TRISTRAM (ed.), The Celtic Englishes. Heidelberg: Winter, 123–134. BRODERICK, George, 1999: Language Death in the Isle of Man. Tübingen: Niemeyer. BRODERICK, George, 2010: ‘Manx’. In: Martin J. BALL & Nicole MÜLLER (eds), The Celtic Languages. London: Routledge, 305–356. BUTLER, Weeden, 1799: Memoirs of Mark Hildesley, D.D. Late Lord Bishop of Sodor and Mann; and Master of Sherburn Hospital, under whose auspices the Holy Scriptures were translated into the Manks language. London: J. Nichols. CRAINE, David, 1952: ‘Manx clerical life 1600–1800’, Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society Proceedings 5, 1952, 368–384. CREGEEN, Archibald, 1835: A Dictionary of the Manks Language. Douglas: Quiggin. CUMMING, J. G. (ed.), 1859: An Account of the Isle of Man. Douglas: Manx Society. DASG: Ó MAOLALAIGH, Roibeard (director): Fieldwork Archive, Digital Archive of Scottish Gaelic. University of Glasgow. <http://dasg.ac.uk/fieldwork> [accessed 9 March 2015] DINNEEN, Patrick S., 1927: Foclóir Gaedhilge agus Béarla: An Irish–English Dictionary. Dublin: Irish Texts Society (reprinted 1996). DWELLY, Edward, 1911: The Illustrated Gaelic Dictionary. Herne Bay: the author. <http://www.cairnwater.co.uk/gaelicdictionary> GELLING, John, 1998: A History of the Manx Church 1698–1911. Douglas: Manx Heritage Foundation. GILL, William (ed.), 1859: A Practical Grammar of the Antient Gaelic, or language of the Isle of Man, usually called Manks. Douglas: Manx Society. GOI: THURNEYSEN, Rudolf, 1946: A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (reprinted with supplement 1975). GREENE, David, 1962: ‘Varia. I.’ Ériu 19, 1962, 111–113. HARRISON, William, 1871: The Old Historians of the Isle of Man. Douglas: Manx Society. HLSM: BRODERICK, George, 1984–1986: A Handbook of Late Spoken Manx. 3 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. JACKSON, Kenneth, 1955: Contributions to the Study of Manx Phonology. Edinburgh: Nelson. JACKSON, Kenneth, 1968: ‘The breaking of original long ē in Scottish Gaelic.’ In: James CARNEY & David GREENE (eds), Celtic studies. Essays in memory of Angus Matheson, 1912–1962. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 65–71. KAVANAGH, Séamus, 1947: ‘A Manx Sermon’. In: Séamus PENDER (ed.), Féilscríbhinn Torna .i. Tráchtaisí léanta in onóir don Ollamh Tadhg Ua 43 Donnchadha, D.Litt., in am a dheichiú bliana agus trí fichid, an ceathrú lá de mhí Mheán Fhómhair, 1944. Cork: Cló Ollscoil Chorcaí, 90–100. KELLY, John, 1866: Fockleyr Manninagh as Baarlagh [Manx–English and English– Manx dictionary]. Douglas: Manx Society. <http://mannin.info/MHF/index3.htm> KNIEZSA, Veronika, 1997: ‘The Origins of Scots Orthography’. In: Charles JONES (ed.), The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 24–46. LEWIN, Christopher, 2011: ‘A Sermon in Manx translated from the work of Thomas Wilson: text and commentary’, Scottish Gaelic Studies 28, 2011, 175–210. LEWIN, Christopher (ed.), 2014: Lioar-lhaih Ghaelgagh: Original Manx Gaelic Prose 1821–1907. Douglas: Culture Vannin. MACLENNAN, Gordon, 1963: ‘An Eastern Gaelic Feature’. Celtica 6, 1963, 250–252. MACPHARLANE, Malcolm (ed.), 1923: A Handful of Lays written by Duncan Mac Rae, 1688, in two booklets presently lying in the Library of the University of Glasgow, revealed here according to Duncan’s own spelling and the standard spelling of the present day. Dundee: Malcolm C. MacLeod. MOORE, A. W. (ed.), 1891: Carvalyn Gailckagh, Chyndaait ayns Baarl, Marish Goan-Foshlee Giare: Manx Carols, Translated into English, With A Short Preface. Isle of Man: John Christian Fargher. MOORE, A. W., MORRISON, Sophia & GOODWIN, Edmund, 1924: A Vocabulary of the Anglo-Manx Dialect. London: Oxford University Press. MOORE, A. W. & RHŶS, John (eds), 1895: The Book of Common Prayer in Manx Gaelic. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ó CURNÁIN, Brian, 2007: The Irish of Iorras Aithneach County Galway. 4 vols. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ó DÓNAILL, Niall, 1977: Foclóir Gaeilge–Béarla. Dublin: Oifig an tSolá thair. <http://breis.focloir.ie/en> OED: Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. <http://www.oed.com> OFTEDAL, Magne, 1956: The Gaelic of Leurbost, Isle of Lewis. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press. Ó hIFEARNÁIN, Tadhg, 2007: ‘Manx orthography and language ideology in the Gaelic continuum’. In: Jean-Michel ELOY & Tadhg Ó hIFEARNÁIN (eds), Langues proches–Langues collatérales / Near Languages–Collateral Languages. Paris: Harmattan, 159–170. Ó hUIGINN, Ruairí, 1997: ‘Dar le’. In: Anders AHLQVIST & Věra ČAPKOVÁ (eds), Dán do Oide: Essays in Memory of Conn R. Ó Cléirigh 1927–1995. Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann, 545–558. O’RAHILLY, T. F., 1932: Irish Dialects Past and Present. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (reprinted 1972). Ó SIADHAIL, Mícheál, 1989: Modern Irish: Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PNIM: BRODERICK, George, 1994–2005: Place-Names of the Isle of Man. 7 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. RHŶS, John, 1895: The Outlines of the Phonology of Manx Gaelic. Appendix in MOORE & RHŶS (eds.), The Book of Common Prayer in Manx Gaelic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. II. 44 SGDS: Ó DOCHARTAIGH, Cathair (ed.), 1997: Survey of the Gaelic Dialects of Scotland: questionnaire materials collected for the Linguistic Survey of Scotland. 5 vols. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. THOMSON, Robert L., 1952: ‘The syntax of the verb in Manx Gaelic’, Études celtiques 5, 1952, 260–292. THOMSON, Robert L., 1953: Early Manx: A Contribution to the Historical Study of Manx Gaelic arranged as a supplementary volume to the Moore-Rhys edition of the Phillips Prayer Book (1610). University of Glasgow (unpublished B.Litt. dissertation). THOMSON, Robert L., 1954–1957: ‘A Glossary of Early Manx’, ZcP 24, 1954, 272– 307; 25, 1956, 100–140, 264–308; 27, 1957, 79–160. THOMSON, Robert L., 1960a: ‘Svarabhakti and some associated changes in Manx’. Celtica 5, 1960, 116–126. THOMSON, Robert L., 1960b: ‘The Manx Traditionary Ballad’. Études Celtiques 9, 1960, 512–548. THOMSON, Robert L., 1967: ‘Commentariola Mannica’. Studia Celtica 2, 1967, 125– 130. THOMSON, Robert L., 1969: ‘The Study of Manx Gaelic. Sir John Rhys Memorial Lecture’. Proceedings of the British Academy 55, 1969, 177–210. THOMSON, Robert L., 1981: Lessoonyn Sodjey ’sy Ghailck Vanninagh. Douglas: Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh. THOMSON, Robert L. 1992: ‘The Manx language’. In: Donald MACAULAY (ed.), The Celtic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 100–136. THOMSON, Robert L. (ed.), 1995: Pargys Caillit. An abridgement of John Milton’s Paradise Lost By Thomas Christian with the anonymous translation of Thomas Parnell’s The Hermit. Douglas: Centre for Manx Studies. THOMSON, Robert L. (ed.), 1997: Paart dy homileeyn ny sharmaneyn oikoil Agglish Hostyn. Douglas: Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh. THOMSON, Robert (ed.), 1998: Yn Fer-raauee Creestee (1763) The Christian Monitor (1686): A Bilingual Edition with Notes and Introduction. Douglas: Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh. THOMSON, Robert L., undated: ‘The Clergy and Their Writings in Manx’, (typescript lecture, MNHL MSS 13047). THOMSON, Robert L. & PILGRIM, Adrian J., 1988: An Outline of Manx Language and Literature. Douglas: Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh. WILLIAMS, Nicholas, 1994: ‘An Mhanainnis’. In: Kim MCCONE, Damien MCMANUS, Cathal Ó HÁINLE, Nicholas WILLIAMS & Liam BREATNACH (eds), Stair na Gaeilge. Magh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, 703–744. WILLIAMS, Nicholas, 1998: ‘Vel oo toiggal Gaelg? Aspects of the history of Manx’, (unpublished lecture). WILLIAMS, Nicholas, 2010: ‘Gaelic Texts and English Script’. In: Marc CABALL & Andrew CARPENTER (eds), Oral and print cultures in Ireland, 1600–1900. Dublin: Four Courts, 85–101. WILSON, Thomas, 1707a: The Principles and Duties of Christianity: Being A Further Instruction for Such as have Learned the Church Catechism, For the Use of the Diocese of Man. In English and Manks [Coyrle Sodjeh Son leid as ter ny risagh (sic.) yn Credjue Creestee]. London: Benjamin Motte. WILSON, Thomas, 1707b: Plain and Short Directions and Prayers. In the Language, and for the Use of the Diocese of Man. Appendix in WILSON, Thomas, 1707a: The Principles and Duties of Christianity… London: Benjamin Motte. 45 WILSON, Thomas, 1783: Sharmaneyn, liorish Thomase Wilson, D. D. Chiarn Aspick Sodor as Vannin; dy kiaralagh chyndait veih Bayrl gys Gailk. Bath: R. Cruttwell. WOOD, G. W., 1900: ‘Description of the Isle of Man and its customs. From an old manuscript by Thomas Denton, dated 1681’, Yn Lioar Manninagh 3, 1900, 435–444. Edinburgh Christopher LEWIN cpleviom@gmail.com 46