Lawloi{ — The Cathach of St. Columba. 329 



" book " in a later writer, it is less likely that " book " would be substituted 

 for " Gospel." 



This might suffice as an answer to the objection. But there is another 

 solution of the difficulty which may be offered for consideration. Apart 

 from the fact that the Cathach is actually a Psalter, a good case might be 

 made out for the view that the exemplar of the Durrow Gospels was the book 

 mentioned in O'Donnell's story as written by Columba. And Professor Lindsay 

 forcibly argues that the subscription " transferred from the original into the 

 Book of Uurrow connects the original very definitely with the story of 

 St. Finnian and St. Columba." Moreover, if St. Finnian imported portions of 

 St. Jerome's translation into Ireland, it is inconceivable that they would not 

 include the Gospels. And any Irish ecclesiastic who desired to have a copy 

 of the new version would certainly, above all, wish to possess the Gospels and 

 the Psalter : but the Gospels first. Is it not, then, possible that when he was 

 at Dromin Columba transcribed both ? His copy of the Psalms, we may 

 suppose, passed to the O'Donnells, and was venerated by them as their 

 Cathach. The copy of the Gospels became the property of the community of 

 Durrow, and found its way into the story as told in the Book of Molaga. If 

 this is what actually happened, tho two libelli had an identical origin : 

 O'Donnell's tale applies to both. It was quite natural that he should ignore 

 the copy of the Gospels, no longer in existence, and probably never associated 

 with his clan, which shared with the Cathach the distinction of having been a 

 cause of the famous battle of Cul Dremhne. , 



If O'Donnell's narrative of Finnian's book and his statement about 

 the Cathach be assumed as correct, there can be no doubt as to the 

 date of our Psalter. It was written shortly before the battle of Cul 

 Dremhne, about the year 560. 



Conclusion. 

 The Cathach Psalter has been little studied. It is true that there are 

 many references to it in the pages of writers on the history and antiquities 

 of Ireland, some of which have been cited in this introduction. But very 

 few of them show signs of having examined it with care, and we may suspect 

 that the majority had never seen it. To Sir William Betham belongs the 

 credit of having made it known. ^ In the " Palaeographia Pictoria Sacra " 

 of J. 0. Westwood (1843-5), there was published a description of the manu- 

 script, only a few lines in length, accompanied by a facsimile of two lines 

 (f. 48).'' Some thirteen years later, in 1857, appeared a very brief notice of 



1 His facsimile (pi. viii, part of f . 54') is useless. 



^ "Pal. Sac," Irish Biblical MSS., plate ii, fig. 8, and p. 3. 



K.I. A. PKOC, VOL, XXXIII., SECT. C. [47] 



