Lawlor — The Catlwch of St. Cohimha. 357 



It has not, however, a complete series of the symbols. I have noticed 

 only 21 asterisks and 25 obeli, a mere fraction of .tjlie number in Vallarsi's 

 edition.' As to the position of the symbols our scribe differs in no less than 

 twelve instances from Vallarsi, and not always for the worse. The passages 

 are the followmg : — 



Ps. xxxvi. 40. Cathach: et adiunabit eos dominus H- et liberabit eos: et 

 eruet eos a peccatoribus. 



Vallarsi has no mark. But C rightly obelizes the second clause ; for 

 though it is in the Hebrew as now read, St. Jerome's version from the Hebrew 

 omits it : " et" auxiliabitur eis dominus et saluabit eos ab impiis." 



Ps. liii. 3. Cathach : * et : in uirtute tiia iudica me. 



Vallarsi has no mark, and both Heb. and LXX liave ef. But C is pro- 

 bably right. It is difficult to believe that the asterisk would be inserted 

 without reason; and the LXX as read by Jerome may have lacked et. 



Ps. liii. 5. Cathach : * et : non propossuerunt deum. 



Vallarsi has no mark. C is right : Heb. has ef, while LXX omits it. 



Ps. Ixv. 7. Cathach : qui dominatur in uirtute sua * in aeternum. 



Vallarsi : qui dominatur in uirtute sua -f- in : aternum. 



LXX (MS. E) : TOO of(T7ro^ovri iv rij Svt'aaTia avTOV tuv attoVOQ. 



The Latin correctly represents the Hebrew (though in the version from the 

 Hebrew St. Jerome renders the word olam by .srtec;(/o), while the LXX would give 

 uirtzde sun aeterna,. On the a,nalogy of other passages this would be indicated 

 by uirtute sua * in : aeternum. Thus both Vallarsi and C are wrong, the 

 former in substituting an obelus for an asterisk, the latter in misplacing the 

 points. 



Ps. Ixx. 8. Cathach : Eepleatur os meum laude * tua : ut cantem gloriam 

 tuam. 



Vallarsi : repleatur os nieum laude -r- ut cantem gloriam : tuam. 



The LXX read as Yallarsi: Jerome's Hebrew has "impleatur os meum laude 

 tua." These facts are correctly represented in Vallarsi. They would have 

 been more conveniently represented by the insertion (as in 0) of an asterisked 

 tua, but then the following clause should have been obelized. 



Ps. Ixxxiv. 12. Cathach : -^ et : ueritas de tej.Ta orta est. 



Vallarsi, with Heb. and LXX, omits et. But (1) it is unlikely that a word 

 would be wrongly inserted, and at the same time obelized ; and (2) words 

 obelized by St. Jerome are often omitted in the mss. Hence it is more pro- 

 bable than not that C is right. 



Ps. Ixxxviii. 45. Cathach : * et : sedem eius. 



' Allowing for lacunae, C may have had about a quarter of the number of such marks 

 found in Vallarsi. 



R.I. A. I'ROC, VOIj. XXXIII, SECT. C. [38] 



