208 



Proceediii.gfi of the Royal Irish Academy. 



texts which. Perdomnach himself acknowledges in § 40 by the notes 

 reliqua usque dicit saeculi and reliqua simt exempla. 



At the end of § 20, in his eagerness to abridge a text, the scribe 

 omits the first part of the sentence following ; and we have inquit 

 Bominus, non uo8 estis. Midtos adhuc capturam dedi for inquit : In ilia 

 die, Dominus testatur, '■^ Non uos estis qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris 

 uestri qui loquitur in uolis^ Et iterum postan nos nmltos adhuc 

 capturam dedi. 



The omissions in § 54 are best shown by quoting them, bracketed, 

 in their context. 



Ncque ut sit occassio \_adidatio7iis uel auaritiae scripserini] uohis, 

 neque ut honorem spero ab aliquo uestro. Sufficit enim honor qui 

 non\_dtwi uidetur sod corde creditur. Fidelis autem qui 2^forfiisit, 

 oiunquam~\ mentitur. 



Less remarkable are : Dominus praestare § 3, et inuisihilia . • . 

 ad Patreni receptum § 4, prodessem § 13, q^uo § 17, nocte § 20, dies per 

 § 22, ah extremis terrae § 38, certissime quod mihi § 55, Dei placitum § 62. 



In these cases there can be no reasonable doubt that A is wrong, 

 and in only two instances, viz., in§§ 20 and 62, does the scribe 

 indicate, by writing Z in the margin, that he was conscious that his 

 exemplar was at fault. There are besides some sixteen or seventeen 

 other places in which clauses are omitted in A, in cases where the 

 omission does not make nonsense. 



On the other hand, there are only four instances in which A 

 inserts clauses that are absent in the other mss. These are : quid 

 peterem uel § 10, ipse est qui loquitur i7i te § 24, et ah austro et ah 

 aquilone § 39, and et docet § 40. Of these insertions, the only one 

 which is possibly wrong is the first. The conclusion, then, at which 

 we naturally arrive, is that the fact that A omits certain words and 

 clauses is not strong evidence against their genuineness, though some 

 of A's omissions do commend themselves on consideration. 



In truth, although we cannot acquit the scribe of A of the charge 

 of carelessness and haste, yet such is the relative antiquity of the 

 text that, save as regards its omissions, it seems the safest course 

 to follow it, except when it is absolutely unintelligible. It frequently 

 happens that where A is against all the other mss., their reading, 

 although at first attractive, is found on mature consideration to be 

 merely a plausible emendation. 



Eefore we deal with the affinities of the other mss. with A and 

 with each other, it may be well to say a word about their respective 

 peculiarities. 



