Lawlok — The Cathach of St. Columba. 271 



He seems to have learnt what he knew of Theodore's opinions through a 

 Bobbio Psalter, perhaps the work of St. Oolumbanus, now preserved at 

 Milan.' 



But in each argunioitum, following the part derived from 'J'heodore, we 

 find, as a rule, another sentence or two, introduced by some such word as 

 item or aliter, which cannot have emanated from Theodore or any one of his 

 school. These additions are, in fact, of the same character as the rubrics 

 of C, and comprise iai each case a heading, or a liturgical note, or both. We 

 may, for the sake of brevity, call them (inaccurately) the rubrics of B. 



Whence came these rubrics ? Mr. R. L. Ramsay' can suggest no more 

 definite hypothesis than that they were taken from a lost coUectio similar to 

 " that preserved in the works of Cardinal Thomasius," but differing from it 

 in detail. But the CoUectio Argumentoruni of Cardinal Tommasi, to which he 

 refers, is merely a collection of rubrics compiled by Tommasi himself from 

 many sources :' he did not preserve, but made, a coUectio ; and it is extremely 

 unlikely that any such repository of rubrics was in existence in Bede's time. 

 It is, indeed, probable that Bede selected his rubrics from more than one 

 source. But we can point to one manuscript, an exemplar of which, imme- 

 diate or remote, he must almost certainly have used. It is the Codex 

 Amiatinus, which we have already compared with R. It was written, as we 

 have seen, in Bede's monastery of Jarrow, or in the sister house at Wearniouth, 

 while he was a young man, some thirty or forty years before he ]iut together 

 his Argumeiita Fscdmoriom. He cannot but have known an exemplar from 

 which it was derived ; and it is unlikely, if it contained rubrics such as he 

 preserves for us, that he did not use it. Now that an ancestor of A^ did 

 contain such rubrics is clear. The facts are as follows. In 75 cases the 

 rubrics of a are identical with those of B, viz., in Pss. iv, ix, xv, xvi, xix, 

 xxiv-xxvi, xxxiii, xxxv, xl, xlvi, li, lii, Iv-lvii, lix, Ixv, Ixviii, Ixx-lxxii, 

 Ixxiv-lxxvii, Ixxix-lxxxii, Ixxxiv-lxxxvi, Ixxxviii, xci, xcii, xcv, xcvii- 

 xcix, ci, cii, civ-cvii, cix-cxi, cxv-cxvii, cxx-cxxvi, cxxviii, cxxix, 

 cxxxi, cxxxiii, exxxvi, cxxxvii, cxxxix, cxli, cxlii, cxliv-cl.° In 18 



'Ramsay, I.e. ^l.c, p. 457. 



^ I. M. Tliomasii Opera omnia, ed. A. F. Vezzosi, vol. ii (Romae, 1747), Veil. Card. 

 Thomasius ad lectorem, sig. b, fol. 1 : " CoUectio argumentoruni in Psalmos, quae liinc 

 illincque praesertira ex MSS. Codicibus excerpta, Jie antiquitatis fragmenta perirent, 

 oollegimus." 



■* By this I mean a source from which A derived its rubrics. As we shall see, it is not 

 to be assumed that its text came from the same source. 



' I have included some cases in which the clauses containing the headings and the 

 references to the lectionary are transposed, some in which there are slight verba 

 differences in the latter, not affecting the sense ; four in which both a and B are without 

 headings or liturgical notes (Pss. xxiv, xcii, cxli, cxlii), and one in which it agrees with R 

 against A (ex). See above, p. 269. 



