Lawi.or — The Cathach of St. Columba. 247 



by a margin over 1 6 mm. in width. In that case the height of the pages was 

 not less than 235 mm., and the breadth not less than 155 mm. But the inner 

 measurements of the box which originally contained the manuscript cannot 

 have been greater than those of the present lining of the cumdach, i.e. 

 220 X 165 mm. The box, therefore, conld not have held the manuscript in 

 its original state ; still less the boards in which it seems to have been bound. 

 Thus we once more reach the conclusion that the Psalter was already 

 mutilated when it was placed in the shrine. 



Nearly three-quarters of the leaves of the Cathach ajjpear to have been 

 ruled with horizontal lines for the guidance of the scribe,' and probably most 

 of these had also vertical lines separating the margins from the text.* The 

 rules were heavily drawn on the recto pages with a pointed instrument ; and 

 thus for each sunk rule on the recto there was a raised rule on the verso. 

 Consequently, if we allow for a curious tendency of the scribe to write a httle 

 above the rule on the recto, and a little below it on tlie verso, the lines of 

 script on the two sides of a ruled leaf closely corresponded with each other. 

 On the other hand, there are certain leaves in which there can be detected 

 no trace, or only very uncertain traces, of ruling,' and in most of which the 

 lines of writing on verso and recto do not correspond.* It is almost certain 

 that they were unruled. Among these, again, a few have marks such as we see 

 in other leaves of the MS., indicating the ends of horizontal rules :' in spite of 

 this the rules were not drawn.' It is plain, then, that the vellum used by 

 the scribe was of three sorts. Some of the leaves were fully prepared for 

 writing ; on some the process had gone as far as the ticking of the ends of 



but no trace can be found of the other edge. It is evident that the binder, in separating 

 f. 32 from its conjugate, cut away a wide strip of the vellum. 



It may be remarked that there were some errors in the numeration mentioned above. 

 Thus ff. 10, 12, 14 were reversed, the numbers being in each case on the verso. The 

 binder has corrected the error in fF. 10, 14 ; but he did not notice it in f . 12, which stUl 

 has its verso to the front. Similarly, ff. 35, 36 were transposed, and still remain so. On 

 ff. 42, 43 the numbers are correctly placed, but the binder has transposed the leaves. 

 There are no numbers on ff. 1-3 ; in the manuscript as bound, they are all reversed, and 

 ff. 2, 3 are, in addition, transposed. Thus ff. 1', 1', 2', 2% 3', 3% 12', 12'-, 35, 36, 42, 43 

 are in the manuscript numbered respectively 1', 1', 3', 3', 2\ 2', 12% 12"', 36, 35, 43, 42. 

 These errors are corrected in the text as printed below. 



1 Clear traces of the rules are visible on fl". 1-5, 9-11, 13, 19-23, 29-34, 36, 39-45, 

 49-52, 55, 56. They are more doubtful on ff. 6, 12, 14, 38, 46, 54, 57. In all these 

 leaves, 41 in number, the script on the recto corresponds -nath that on the verso. 



2 Visible on ff. 1, 3, 9, 10, 19-23, 29-34, 39-45, 48(?), 49-52, 55. The mutilation of 

 the MS. would cause many of these marginal notes to disappear. 



^ None on ff. 7, 8, 16-18, 24-28 ; and apparently none on ff. 15, 37, 47, 48, 53, 58, 



* The exceptions are ff. 16, 24, 25, 48, 58. 



' ff. 24, 26, 28, 53 (?). 



'' Moat evidently so on f , 88, where the points do not tally with the script. 



