Lawlor — The Gathach of 8i. Coliimba. 277 



established that among the direct ancestors of A there were two manuscripts, 

 sources respectively of E and B, which was the earlier ? Was a an ancestor 

 of /3, or /3 of a ? It is important for our purpose that this question should 

 be answered. But it is not easy to answer it, on account of the difficulty of 

 discovering the text of j3. Bede did not always follow j3, and in the printed 

 text of B, even when emended with the help of S, we are very far from having 

 a correct copy of what Bede wrote. Consequently, where B has, in any instance, 

 a reading which has the appearance of having been derived from a, we cannot 

 at once conclude that a was prior to j3. The fact may be that j3 was identical, 

 or nearly identical, with «, while the printed text of B differs from both. 

 Under such circumstances it is reasonable to give much more weight to 

 evidence which points to the greater originality of the B text over that of a 

 than to evidence which points in the contrary direction, or, in other words, 

 to have more regard to the merits than to the defects of B. 



To take an example. Thirteen psalms which have rubrics in a are 

 without them in B, as printed. This would be a strong argument against 

 the theory that a was derived from j3, if our text of B accurately represented 

 Bede's autograph. But we know that in the S text of B at least four of these 

 psalms had rubrics similar to those of o.' It would be unreasonable to 

 assume, because our scanty evidence carries us no further, that the remaining 

 nine had no rubrics in Bede's manuscript, still more so to conclude that they 

 were without them in /3. The constant tendency of scribes was to omit all 

 matter added to the titidi. 



As the first indication of the priority of /3 to a we may take the lectionary 

 notes. The conclusion which we have reached regarding them may be stated 

 thus. Apparently /3 had all the lectionary notes of a, while « lacked one of 

 those which B took from j3. If this is true, it is impossible that /3 should 

 have been derived from a ; but there is no difliculty in supposing that a was 

 derived from J3. 



I now proceed to mention some rubrics in which the text of j3 seems to 

 be more original than that of «. I avoid those in which we have found reason 

 to believe that Bede did not follow /3, including all in which the lectionary 

 note is not cast in the form used in a. 



Ps. xiii. uerla cliristi ad diuitem se interrogaiitem et de populo iudaico. 



So the heading runs in the S text, of B. In a the word et is omitted, to the 

 detriment of the sense. The a heading, therefore, seems less original. But we 

 must admit that the form in both cases is unusual : uerha (uox) cliristi ad is 

 almost always followed by patrevi, and the few exceptions to tlie rule (Pss. li, 

 civ, cxxvi, cxlv, cxlvii) do not supply a close parallel to uerba christi ad diuitem. 



'Seep. 273. 



