354 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



similar to those of L. See nos. 4, 43, 47, 48, 50 (49) ; and compare nos. 5 

 (a false correction in B of the note in L)/ 21. They seem, therefore, to go 

 back to a common ancestor of LYBO. And, finally, some peculiarities of the 

 text of YBO are most easily explained on the supposition that the editor of 

 their common archetype had read the notes in L : see, for example, nos. 6 

 and 26-29.2 



The second question now to be dealt with is two-fold. What is the date 

 of the original List ? and, When did the recitation of the diptychs cease at 

 Armagh ? The note on no. Sti, as we have remarked, was penned while the 

 diptychs were stQl in use. But it follows the name of Eogan, who died in 834, 

 and it refers to incidents which in that year were still recent.' Thus, the 

 recitation of the names of the dead cannot have been discarded before 835. 

 But if we assume that the diptychs were the basis of the List up to 835, we 

 may carry the date further forward. For we have noted that the method of 

 using them was such as to produce the result that the periods of office of 

 some abbots named in the diptychs were includeil in those of olhere who 

 appear with ihem in the List. That method is continued certainly up to 879 

 (nos. a7, 38, 40, 4 1 ). and probably to 888 (no. 42).* After that year, therefore, 

 we may place both the drawing up of the original List and the abolition of 

 the recitation of the diptychs. In a latter part of the List, where the incum- 

 bencies of Dub da Lethe III and Cumniasach are recorded (nos. 52, o'5), this 

 method is dropped, the periods of office assigned to them being exclusive of 

 each other. Thus we may affirm that the original List was compiled before 

 the death of Dub da lyt-the in 1U64, though we cannot affirm that the reading 

 of the diptychs at Mass had fallen into desuetude by that year But it is 

 certain that it did not lost much more than half a century longer. For it had 

 no place in Komau usage. It must therefore have been cast aside, if it was 

 still in existence, when the ecclesiastical customs of Armagh were Romanized 

 under Cellach, in 1120 or earlier.* It seems, then, that the original List is 

 to be dated between 888 and 1064, and the abolition of the recitation of the 

 names of the dea<l between 888 and 1120. But the dates may be defined 

 more closely. For the framing of the original List cannot be much later 

 than the death of the last coarb named in the earliest form of the List now 

 known. Now ends with Mael Muire. This shows that the List was drawn 

 up, at the latest, before the death of his successor, Amalgaid, in 1041*. But O 

 offers us not only a (fnninvs ad qitem, hut a terminus a quo. This manuscript 

 has immediately after Mael Muire thi-ee names which, as we have already 



* Or poanbly a correction in L of the not« in B. 



' Commented on pp. 339, 345. ' See j.. 347. * See p. 360 f. 



' St. Bernard, Vita S. MaUukiae, j 7. 



