98 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



Yet his text showed a gap, which should be supplied, thus : 

 mpei rla[au], i.e. "I hare not done anything", corresponding 

 exactly to the Greek /cat iSov, eyw d-n-oOvrjo-KO), fxiqhlv Trpd^acra. The 

 most curious part of the matter is, that Prof. Eossi has translated 

 the last words, hut has placed them in italics to show that they are 

 not in the Coptic text ! 



The remainder of the Fasciculus is taken up with Fragments of 

 a Sermon on Christ's birthday. The condition of the papyrus is 

 lamentable, but Prof. Eossi has printed no doubt the largest portion 

 of what is at all legible. Still, the same remarks are to be made as on 

 the previous portions ; but my space and time are limited. 



200. At [49 y 11] he edits: 



kote e[j]6n volgetevi a not, 



pejaf nci pepsal[mo]dos disse il psalmista, 



ntetnholc eros unitevi a Lei. 



The Psalmist said no such thing as this: "turn to ms" ; for the 

 double reason that the Coptic text, as the editor has emended it, would 

 not mean that, and next, because the original words are to be found at 

 Ps. xlvii. 12, KVKXwcraTe ^luiv, koL TrepiXd/Sere avrrjv, showing of course 

 that his text should have been: kote e-sion, and was not the 

 impossible kote ejon of his conjecture. 



JSTor can there be any reason for omitting an attempt at least to 

 translate the words on [50 /? foot] : " they bring a musician, that he 

 may sing by his art", 



nte won niin that every one 



wohm nsof may repeat after him 



the words of the birth-day song, which immediately follow. 



His note, p. 104 (1), states that he has "limited himself to 

 the translation of those phrases only, about which there can be no 

 doubt". But I am afraid that is too optimistically said, for there 

 is much more than "doubt" of the accuracy of such a rendering 

 as Vangelo eletto ad annunziare la gioia, for the text [52 ^14] 

 esotp paggelos &c. It is quite impossible to make esotp into an 

 adjective (past ptcple) in agreement with the angel. The text has a 

 totally different construction, for it is preceded by ntaf ei , "who 

 hath come", which the editor has omitted altogether. 



Nor do I think that he has hit the mark, on [53 a] foot, where 

 he renders: "the Lord God is his old name. Do not cause that 

 they delay to lean on the staff &c.", for his text should stop 



