258 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



Yallarsi has no mark. C is right. 



Ps. Lsxxix. 17. Caihach: -=- et opera manuiim noslrarum direge super 

 TIGS : et opus manuum nostrarum direge. 



Yallarsi : et opera manuiun nostrarum dirige super nos * et opus manuum 

 nostrarum dirige : 



The Heb. has both clauses : LXX (MS. B) omits the second. C is wrong. 



Ps. sei. 10. Cathach : -=- quoniam : ecce inimici tui domine -;- quoniam : 

 ecce inimici tui peribunt. 



Yallarsi : * quoniam ecce inimici tui domine : quoniam ecce inimici tui 

 peribunt. 



Several MSS. of LXX read as C : while St. Jerome's Heb. diflers only in 

 omitting quoniam twice. Thus C is apparently right. But Yallarsi is not 

 without justification : the Hebrew as now read has quoniam in both places, 

 while IjXX (MS. B) omits the whole of the firet clause. 



Ps. xciv. 9. fatluuh : probauerunt — me : et uiderunt. 



Vallarsi has an asterisk; rightly, since I^XX (ms. B, &c.), against Hei'., 

 omits me. 



Ps. xc^ii. 5. Cafhach : Psallite domino in cythara — in cythara : 



Yallarsi has again an asterisk; no doubt rightly, though in cijthara is 

 repeated in LXX as well as in Hebrew. Cp. above on liiL 3. 



Ps. ciii. 7. Cathach : a uoce tonitrui * tui: formidabunt. 



Yallarsi has no mark : C is probably right, though both LXX and Heb. 

 have tui. 



In seven of these twelve cases our verdict has been given in favour of 

 C against Yall., in four against in favour of Yall. ; and in two of the latter 

 C has merely misread the asterisk of his exemplar as an obelus. Once 

 both C and Yall. are slightly astray. Thus it would seem that C has gone 

 astray only five times, and its exemplar only twice or thrice out of forty-six. 

 This is a fairly good record. 



The Cathach is by no means a pure Gallican I'salter. It has some mixture 

 of Old Latin readings. Sufficient proof of this may be gathered from an 

 examination of the text of Pss. xc-xciii. I have selected these psalms at 

 random from the latter part of the manuscript, in which investigation is less 

 impeded by lacunae than elsewhere. Excluding mere variations in orthogiaphy,' 

 we find in them the following readings, which difi'er from the Clementine 

 A^ulgate : — 



xc. i in scapidis* ; te. 9. wn. es. 1(». accedent ad te mala*; fl^illam. 



' Among these I include obumbraiiit (ic. 4) and clnmamt (xc. 15), though the first 

 occurs in Sabatier's Old Latin, 



