244 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



150, 12 me ntafaan Sheke, "hatL he made us poor?" ne nnus 

 a-t-il pas ileves ? 



157,8 me nanwk nhwo eroi, "art thou better than I?" ne 

 veux-tu etre plus bon pour moi ? 



167,7 me nta pnwte eratcom, " was God powerless?" Lieu 

 n' a-t-il pas semble impuissant ? 



174,6 me nta pnwte . . . hise, "has God become wearied 

 out?" est-ce que Dieu . . . n^a pas souffert? 



179, II me ntaklibe, "hast thou'gone mad?" n'es-fupas devenu 

 fou ? 



207,6 me ntaksorm, "hast thou gone astray?" vDes-tu pas 

 egare ? 



225, 13 me ntok wdiakonos, " art thou a deacon ? " n'es-tupas 

 diacre ? 



The negatives are wrong in his version of [221, 8], si je ne I'avais 

 pas voulu, je vH aurais pas laisse DiocUtien te condamner dans ta ville ; 

 for the meaning is, " if I had wished, would I not have let D. give 

 sentence upon thee in thy own town without sending thee away to 

 Egypt". The very point was that Diocletian had not condemned 

 Victor in his own town ; butM. Bouriant's treatment of the negatives 

 is most reprehensible. The text is me ene ntaiwos mitre D. 

 tiapophasis erok hn tekpolis nftmtnnowk &c,, where the jxiq 

 does not go with the ene , but belongs to the mei - tre clause ! 



And just after, "if I had wished I would have caused thee to be 

 separated from Armenios," is rendered si je ne Vavais pas voulu, je ne 

 f aurais pas laisse separer d'A., whereby he demonstrates that he does 

 not understand the particle ene, nor the imperf. fut. nei-na, which 

 is certainly not negative ! It is exactly the opposite : 



not, " I did wish, so I did cause &c." 

 but, " I did not wish, so I did not cause." 



37. This page [150, 12] again suggests strange ideas: me nta 

 pnwte enwost naf mmene alasse? le Dieu que nous adorons 

 chaquejour n'est-ilpas misericordieux ? 



Then what on earth is alasse? misericordieux ! The phrase meant : 

 has he changed ? for it was the Greek verb dXXacro-etv. 



38. The text continues: me ntafaan nheke para nensber 

 matoi? 'hath he made us poor beyond our fellow-soldiers ? ' But 

 M. Bouriant translates : ne nous a-t-il pas eleves^ nous, miserahles, 

 Gu dessus des soldats nos compagnons ? 



Let any person read the text of these two passages and see whether 



