7 . /C . /. ^ PRINCETON. N. J. ^^ CHAPTERS ON THE BOOK OF MULLING Printed by Meill H: DAVID DOUGLAS 1897 [All rights reserved.] IN PIAM MEMORIAM CARISSIMORUM K. A. H. L. J. H. L. A. S. K. S. CONTENTS. CHAPTKK I. PAGE Iktrodvctory, ........ 1 CHAPTKK I I. Thk Colophon, ....... 6 CHAPTER 111. The Sections, ........ 30 CHAPTER IV. The Biblical Text, . . . .42 CHAPTER V. The Old Latin Passages, . . . . . .76 CHAPTER VI. Affinities of the Irish Old Latin Text, . . . 129 CHAPTER VII. The Last Page. -I. The Liturgical Fragment, . . .145 CHAPTER VIII. The Last Page.— II. The Circular Device, . . 167 APPENDIX A. The Old Latin Portions of "The Garland op Howth," . 186 APPENDIX B. The Scribes of the Book of Mullino, .... 202 Index, ......... 204 THE BOOK OF MULLING, CHAPTEE I. INTRODUCTORY. !M. Bbrger, in liis account of the early Irish Biblical Texts,i gives special prominence to two manuscripts which he describes as among the most important of the national manuscripts of Ireland. The lirst of these is the celebrated Book of Armagh, the other is that wliich is the subject of this essay, the Book of Mulling. The principal contents of this book are the four Gospels in Latin, but it has also the prefaces of Jerome, the table of tlie Eusebian Canons, an Office for the Visitation of the Sick, and other matter of wliich some account will be given in succeeding cliajtters. The book can scarcely be dated later than the third quarter of the ninth century, for an incidental notice in the Annah of the Four Masters " of the monastery in which it was beyond doubt written, proves that shortly after that time it had become a Danish settlement. Palaeographers, judging from the character of the script, assign it to that, or the previous century. K^ot withstanding the interest and importance of our manuscript it lias received but little attention from students of the ancient lore of Ireland. To Archbishop Ussher it appears to have been unknown. There is no reference to it, so far as I can discover, in the many volumes of his works. The first author in whose writings I have found a notice of the book is the well-known Irish antiquary General Vallancey. For him, however, that which was of main interest was not the book, which he seems to have examined in the most cursory fashion, but its ancient case or cumdach, of which, under the name of the Liath ' L'Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers si&clcs du Moycn Age, par Samuel Berger, Paris, 1893, p. 31. - A.D. 888. "A battle was gained by Riagan, son of Dungbal, over tlie foreigners of ... . Tech-moling." A 2 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Meisicith, he gives a lengthy description.^ All that is really known of this shrine is tliat it was in existence — possihly even then a venerable relic — in the year 1402.^ Vallancey ascribed to it a much greater antiquity, and was persuaded that it had come down from the ancient Druids. Of its contents he briefly and not very correctly writes : — "It contains a number of loose sheets of vellum, on which are written extracts of the gospel and prayers for the sick, in the Latin language, and in tlie Irish character. There are also some drawings in water colours of the apostles, not ill executed ; these are supposed to be the work of Saint Moling, tlie patron of that part of the country." ^ When Vallancey wrote (1783*), the Book of Mulling was still, as it had been for many centuries, in the charge of the family of Kavanagh, and was seen by him at their family seat at Eorris Idrone, only a few miles from the site of the monastery founded by St Moiling of Ferns, known as Tech Moling, or in its anglicised form, St ]\Iullins. But a few years later it was deposited, with its cumdach, and the Charter Horn of the Kavanaghs, in Trinity College, Dublin. It thus became more accessible to scholars. Among those who subsequently inspected it in its new resting place was the indefatigable entomologist and student of ancient manuscripts, ]\Ir J. 0. Westwood, to whom Trinity College owes so much for making generally known many of the priceless literary treasures which it possesses. Westwood's Paheo/p-aphia Sacra Pz>/c(r/a appeared between 1843 and 1845, and in it ^ a description (unfortunately not very accurate) of the Book of Mulling,^ together with facsimiles of a few lines of its writing. Some years later our manuscript was incidentally mentioned by Professor O'Curry in his Manuscript Materials, and the Appendix to that work was enriched with two facsimiles of its script, one being taken from Jerome's Preface to St John's Gospel, the other from Matt. vi. 9 sqrj^. (the Lord's Prayer), accompanied by a brief description.'^ But about this time the attention of liturgical students was drawn ^ Vallancey, Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, Dublin, 1786, vol. iv. no. xiii. pp. 13 21. "^ See Professor Abbott's "Note on the Book of Mulling" in Hermathena, viii. 89. ' The Rev. J. F. M. ffrench, in his article entitled "St Mullins, Co. Carlow," in the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 5th series, part iv. vol. ii. p. 379, repeats almost verbatim this description of Vallancey. ■• This is the date ap])ended to the dedication of his thirteenth number, which is inscribed to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. * "Irish Biblical MSS.," Plate II. (Letterpress, p. 4 sq.). Some account of the book is given also in his later work, Facsimiles of the Miniatures and Orna- ments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish Manuscripts, London, 1868, p. 93. " Westwood's descriptions are the basis of that given by Miss M. Stokes in Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 24 sq. ' O'Cnrrv's Lectures on the Manuscript Materials of Anci-cnt Irish History, Dublin, 1861, pp. 23, 335 sq., App., pL 5, p. 653. INTRODUCTORY. 3 to the Office for the Visitation of the Sick which is found at the close of St ISIatthew's Gospel. The late Dr William Reeves, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, whose loss Irish antiquarians still mourn, supplied a transcript of this Office to Bishop A. P. Forbes of Brechin, by whom it was printed in the preface to his edition of the Arbuthnott Missal.^ The Visitation Office was again printed by MrF. E. Warren in 1881. 2 After an interval of five years from the publication of the Arbuthnott Missal (in 1869) two works appeared almost simultan- eously, in which attention was called to the character of the Biblical text contained in our manuscript. The first in order of time was the first volume of Haddan and Stubbs' Councils.^ In an aj^pendix to this work the attempt was made to prove the existence of a dis- tinct Irish recension of the Latin Scriptures, and to trace the general history of tlie text of the Bible in that country in the centuries following the introduction of Christianity. Among other codices collated for this purpose was the Book of Mulling ; and once mors the hand of Dr Reeves was engaged in the task. Later in the same year Dr John Stuart edited for the Spalding Club the remarkable relic of the early Scottish Church which had been discovered in the Cambridge University Library, twelve years before, by Mr Henry Bradshaw.* At the end of his preface,^ Dr Stuart printed, in parallel columns, collations of the fourth chapter of the Gospel according to St John as given in the principal Irish codices — and one of the columns is assigned to our book. In the Introduction to the first part of Gilbert's great collection of Facsimiles of National ManuscrijAs of Ireland, pubhshed in 1874, our manuscript is once more described,^ unfortunately in the most meagre fashion. But what specially distinguishes this notice of the book is the fact that three complete pages are given in facsimile, together with one of the drawings of the evangelists alluded to by Vallancey and Westwood. The reproduced pages arc f. 42 r and V (Matt, xviii. 8— xix. 16), and f. 94 r (John xxi. 13-25 and colophon).'^ On the opposite pages of Gilbert's work the text of these passages is printed line for line, contractions being expanded. It is strange that, with Westwood's Pala;oijra})}na before him, Gilbert has read only fourteen words of the colophon, and of these, at least two incorrectly. Finally, in 1893, was published the epoch-making work of M. 1 Liber Ecclesie Beati Terrenani de Arbuthnott. Missale secundum us-uin Ecclesim Sancti Andrece in Scotia, Burntisland, 1864, pp. x, sq., xx, sqq. 2 Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, Oxford, 1881, p. 171 sqq. ^ Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i., Oxford, 1869, Appendix G. (pp. 170-198). •• G. W. Protlieio, Memoir of Henry Bradshaw, London, 1888, p. 69. ^ The Book of Deer, edited for the Spalding Club, by John Stuart, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1869, p. xxxiv, sqq. ^ National MSS. of Ireland, i. p. xiii. ^ lb., pi. XX., xxi. 4 THE DOOK OF JIULLING Berger, to which reference was made at the beginning of this chapter. It gives a description of our manuscript, with some interesting obser- vations on its text.^ This is an enumeration as complete as I have been able to make it — tliough doubtless the learned reader will observe some omissions — of the principal notices of the Book of Mulling up to the present time. The latest event in its history is the satisfactory settlement of a controversy Avhich had been for some time pending between the representatives of its former owners and the authorities of Trinity College. The point in dispute was whether, when towards the close of the last century it was deposited in the College, it was placed there merely for safe keeping during the troublous times preceding the Union, or was conveyed to the University of Dublin as a gift by the then head of the family of Kavanagh. In accordance with the agreement finally reached, the manuscript has been definitely acknow- ledged to be the property of the College, while its ancient shrine has been restored to Walter Kavanagh, Esq., D.L., and now once more rests in Borris House. It remains to pen a few words about the purpose and aim of the present essay. Let it be at once said that the design of the writer is not to give an exhaustive account of the book. He is quite conscious that many things have been left unsaid upon which students might desire to have information. He is conscious also that the subjects upon which, in the pages now offered to the public, he has touched have been but imperfectly treated. But his aim throughout has been rather to stimulate the interest of others far more competent than himself for such investigations, than to give a complete account of the manuscript. He has, therefore, contented himself with selecting one or two features of the book which had been scarcely noticed by previous writers, and discussing them as best he could. Much remains for other better equipped workers in the same field. It is a pleasant task to enumerate here those to whose kind assist- ance I have been most beholden while conducting the researches, the results of which are now set forth. Professor Gwynn first introduced me to the study which has proved a constant source of pleasure. Abundant help and encouragement have been given by him, by his colleague, Professor Bernard, and by the Eev. Thomas Olden. It is scarcely likely that, without the help of these three friends, this book would have been undertaken. But not to these alone must gratitude be expressed. The Rev. J. INI. Harden has spent much valuable time in examining, with care and accuracy, many of the manuscripts preserved in the libraries of Trinity College and the Koyal Irish Academy, a change in my residence having made it impossible for me to consult them, except at rare intervals ; and the 1 Op. cit., pp. 33, 3S0. INTRODUCTORY. 5 Rev. J. A. MacCiilloch has performed the wearisome task of reading the proofs. To them it is due that tlie errors in these pages are much fewer than they would otherwise have been. Mr J. H. Cunninf,diam, F.S.A. Scot., has also given me valuable help, which is acknowledged at p. 183. I take this opportunity of thanking the Provost and Senior Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, for their kind assistance in defraying the cost of publication. Chapters IV. and VI. have already appeared in the Proceedings of ihe SocAeiij of A7itiqnanes of Scot land, and Chapters VII. and VIII. are founded on a communication to the same Society. THE BOOK OF MULLING. CHAPTER II, THE COLOPHON. The coloplion of the Book of Mulling is written on the concluding page of St John's Gospel (f. 94 r). It occupies the four last lines of the first column, and the first few lines of the second. Several attempts have been made to read it, and a portion has been repro- duced in facsimile by Westwood in his Palseographia Sacra. But as mistakes have crept into all the published transcripts which I have seen, I give it here in full, so far as I have been able to decipher the faded letters. col. a. *INIT amen *init 6 tv quiciiq: Scripseris \ scrutatus fucris T etia uideris h uolumin dm ora a col. b. p - ~ ------- [mi]ssericordia sua — - - — — s p cliuosu mondi in — — — - (iusq : altissimum : — [N]omen h scriptoris mulling dicitur Finiunt quatuor euan gelia This coloplion is to form the text of our discourse in the present chapter. If the discourse does not always adhere very strictly to the limits suggested by the text, it does no more than many other discourses have done. My excuse must be that there are some things which I feel ought to be said about our book, and that I know of no place more fitting for saying them than the present. § 1. The Form of the Book. " tu quicumque scripseris uel scrutatus fueris uel etiam uideris haec uolumina." Such is the opening address of the colophon of Mulling. Incidentally, it presents us with a description of the book, meagre but worth noting, " hsec uolumina." These two words have not, indeed, so far as I am aware, been hitherto so read. Mr West- wood printed them "h ( = hi3ec) uolumcn," others, more grammatically, but less correctly, "hoc volumen." There can, I believe, be no doubt that " hoec uolumina " is correct, though the final letter easily escapes notice, being much faded and written below the line. THE COLOPHON. 7 The author of the colophon then describes liis buok as consisting of several distinct fasciculi or volumina. That this is true of the Book of Mulling as we have it I now propose to show. It is not applicable, be it observed, to what is handed to the student who asks for our manuscript in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. This is a large quarto volume of paper leaves, in each of which is inserted, with all the skill which marks the work of the binders employed by the British jMuseum, a leaf of velhim. The volume is duly described on the back, " Book of JMulling," and its contents are arranged in the following order : (1) ff. 1-17, Gospel according to St Maik ; (2) IT. 18- 28, Jerome's Epistle to Damasus, the Arguments of tbe Gospels, and the Eusebian Canons ; (3) tf. 29-50, Gospel according to St Matthew, and other matter ; (4) ff. 51-53, three portraits ; (5) If. 54-81, Gospel according to St Luke ; (6) fT. 82-94, Gospel according to St John, colophon and other matter ; (7) ff. 95-98, fragments of St Matthew and St Mark ; (9) f. 99, blank. It may perhaps be a relief to learn that some of the folios here brought together do not belong to our book, and that for the rest the peculiar arrangement indicated above has no other source than the ingenuity of the binder. In the year 1892 I undertook to make a collation of the Biblical text of the so-called "Book of Mulling," now included in this volume. I will describe the condition in which it was on the 18th of February 1893, the day on which my collation was completed. In doing so, I am obliged to depend on notes made without any intention of publication, and much less complete and satisfactory than they might have been had I known that I should have no opportunity in the future of revising them by comparison with the manuscript in the state in which it then was.^ There lay, in February 1893, in the library of Trinity College, where it had rested for more than a century, an ancient cumdach, inscribed with the name of "Arthurus rex dominus lagenie," better known as Art MacMurrough Kavanagh (f 1417), the opponent of Richard 11.,^ and containing, unstitched and unbound, five fasciculi of vellum leaves, six loose leaves, and one pair of conjugate leaves, the contents and arrangement of which will, I trust, be made clear by the accompanying diagrams and the following description. In the diagrams each leaf is indicated by a line, those which have been lost by dotted lines, and each is connected with its conjugate by a line. "NMiere con- jugates had been dismembered when I examined the manuscript, a ^ I may note that my reconstruction does not seem to at^rce with that of M. Berger, who must have examined the manuscript some little time before it fell to my lot to do so. He notes {Ullistoire, p. 380), " Cahiers de 12, 22, 17, 1, 28, 14 et 4 if. ; 98 ff. Les 4 ff. de la fin contiennent un fragment de Matth. xxvi. et xxvii. , et de Marc, i.-vi. ; lis sont etrangers au ms. " He liad already re- marked (p. 34), "Les feuillets ttant detach»''S, il a ('te quelque peu difficile do reconstituer les cahiers." If I understand his figures they must involve some error. The actual number of leaves now bound together is 99, not 98. If he includes lost leaves (as he seems to do in at least the first gathering), the total would be increased. '■^ See Professor Abbott in Ilermathena, viii. p. 90. 8 THE BOOK OF MULLING. row of dots is substituted for the connecting line. The figures in thick type indicate the numbers given to the folios by the British !RIuseum binders ; those in ordinary type, numbers which correspond more nearly with the intention of the scribes. I. The first " volumen," or gathering, at present consists of five pairs of conjugate leaves and one single leaf. There are from twenty-tliree to twenty-six lines on each page, written all across the page, and about forty letters in each line.^ It contains (1) f. 18 r, Jerome's Epistle to Damasus (the earlier part); (2) f. 19, the arguments of the several Gospels (the first portion of that of St Matthew being lost), ending in the middle of f. 21 v with the rubricated subscription, partly retraced in black, " finit [argumjen- [tum euangelioruni] " ; and (3) f. 22, the Eusebian Canons (part of tlie 10th Canon being lost). The hand appears to be the same as that in which the Gospels are written, if indeed we may assume that they were penned throughout by a single scribe. Vermilion appears in the headings to the arguments of the several Gospels (" de ioJtanne," etc.), in the subscription to that of St John, and in the Eusebian Canons. Large ornamental initials (uncoloured) are prefixed to the epistle and the several arguments. The leaves measure about 16'5 X ll'S cent. The original contents of this gathering may be inferred from the following considerations. The portion of the epistle (" Novum Opus ") contained iu f. 18 ends with the words " quod in," p. 3, 1. 9, of Bishop Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate, and is thus represented by 37 lines of that work. The lost portion of the epistle is therefore the equivalent of 24 of Bishop Wordsworth's lines. The earlier portion of the argument of St Matthew, also lost (all before " resurgens," Wordsworth, p. 16, 1. 9), = 13 lines. The two together would therefore make 37 lines, or exactly the same amount as f. 18 of our M.S. Fr(>ni this we may infer that one leaf intervened between the jiresent If. 18 and 19, and that it contained the remainder of the ejnstle and the opening part of the first argument. It is more difficult to determine the contents of the pages which have disappeared at the end. If neither the first nor second (lost) leaf was without conjugate, there must have been at least two of them, as rejireseiitcd in the diagram. On the recto of the first of these was the second lialf of Canon 10 (all after § 94), which may have filled about one-third of the page. The remainder of these two leaves would have sufficed for the "Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum " (Wordsworth, p. 11, where it fills 64 lincs = nearly 3i p]). of our book). This fact in itself, in the ab.-^ence of conflicting evidence, justifies tlie assumption that both f. 18 and the lost leaf following it had conjugates, as represented in tlie diagram. Fol. 18 has no marks of stitching, but its inner edge is much worn. Its present width is 11 '35 cent. That this gathering was written by the same scribe as thdse that follow a])i)cars to be the o])inion of all iJala-ographers who have examined the book. It is one which it seems sife to accei)t. The hand no dnul)t diflVrs in some rcs])ects from that found in the Gospels, as may l)e seen from Professor 0'Curry'.s fa&sitnile (Lectures on the Alaimscript Materials of Irish History, Appendix, pi. f)). But it differs no more from the writing of any jiart of the Gospels than tlie writing of one of their pages frequently differs from another. Any one who will compare the exquisite script of the early chapters of St Matthew or St Luke with that of the last jiages of St John, will ^ This, of course, does not apply to the Canons. THE COLOPHON. 9 be sufficiently impressed with this fact. Indeed, a glance at two consecutive j)ages will sometimes enable us to detect striking variations in the character of tlie hand. Thus the writing of f. 62 r (Luke vii. 4-27) is manifestly inferior to that of f. 61 V (L;ike vi. 36 — vii. 4), and in passing from the latter to the former we meet with several changes in the form of the letters, etc. — e.rj., y- is us(id for -^ ( = est), 5 for "^ (g), dix for dx ( = dixit), etc., and the form of the letter t (that which is commonly used throi;ghout the ]\IS.) differs from that found in the immediately jDreceding jjages. It will be evident to the student who compares them together, that the writing of this leaf closely re- semljle^s that of the first fasciculus. The peculiarities now mentioned are gradually dropped on the verso of the leaf, and the normal type of writing reappears on f . 63. II. The second gathering consisted, as the diagram shows, of eleven pairs of conjugate leaves. Two, originally conjugate, after- wards became dismembered (ff. 29, 50). This quire contained St Matthew's Gospel, ending in the middle of the second cohimn of f. 49 V, Avith the subscription " tinit amen finit." The remainder of this column and the following leaf were left blank. On the vacant portion of f. 49 v, and on f. 50 r, was subsequently Avritten by another scribe ^ the Office for the Communion of the Sick,^ f. 50 u still remaining blank. The writing is bi-columnar, and better executed than that of the preceding fasciculus. The number of lines in a column varies from 25 to 41, being greater towards the end of the Gospel. The average size of a page in this and the three succeeding gatherings is at present 16"4 X 1 1*9 cent. Elaborate initials, finely drawn and coloured, are found at the beginnings of the Gospels, and at St Matt. i. 18. They have the usual rows of red dots, double in St ^Matthew and St Mark, single (apparently) in St Luke and St John. An examination of the Office for the Communion of the Sick (ff. 49 i\ 50 ?•) appears to justify the statement just made that it is by a different hand from the Gospel. (I) The writing is neater here than anywhere else in the manu- script. (2) The use of large and carefully formed initial letters is much more frequent than usual. (3) Here — one might almost say here alone — the page is divided by lines ruled with a pointed instrument for the guidance of the scri1)e. Elsewhere, the points at which the lines of writing are intended to begin are occasionally marked, but these marks are but little attended to in practice. (4) Here alone the margins are ruled with two parallel hues, one til serve as a boundary for the ordinary writing, the other for the large initials which stand outside it. It seems improbable that a scrilje would expend so much more care on a liturgical office, which is evidently only an addendmn to his real work, than on the sacred text itself. (5) The form of several of the letters is peculiar to this part of the book. Such, for example, are d, r, g, and the diphthong ce, elsewhere represented commonly by^, here by ^. And lastly (6) some of the compendia scrihendi used by the writer of these pages are very rare in the maniLscript, if they occur elsewhere at all. As instances, we may refer to u for ut or usque, the symbols for per (^, else- 1 Westwood(Pa^. Sac, " Irish Biblical MSS.," ii. p. 4) says emphatically: "The original scribe had " written tiiis Office (the italics are his). But einjiliasis does not necessarily imply accuracy. In the very next line he declares, with a like use of italics, that the ornamental initials at the beginnings of the Gos})els are " not coloured." This is an extraordinary mis-statement. But, indeed, ilr West- wood's account of the Book of ^lulling is very inexact throughout. - Printed in Warren's Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 171 sqq., and Forbes' Arbuthnott Missal, p. x, .sq. 10 THE BOOK OF MULLING. where p) and jn'o (p : elsewliere {)), and the abbreviations oia for ornnia, and sold for sacula. The page is ruled for 33 lines of writing. III. The third " volumen " contains St Mark's Gospel, and consists of at least six (ff. 8, 9 probably once formed a seventh) conjugate pairs of leaves, and three (or five) single leaves (ff. 4, 15, 16), two of which, it will be noticed, immediately precede the final leaf of the gathering — in all 17 leaves. The writing is again bi-columnar, and there are from 26 to 32 lines in a column. The subscription " hnit " is written atf. \1va, 1. 19, the remainder of the page being left blank. IV. Here, for St Luke's Gospel, as the diagram again shows us, we have 13 conjugate pairs, and two single leaves (ff. 76, 79) inserted near the end of the quire — altogether 28 leaves. There are from 27 to 39 lines in a column. The Gospel ends on f. 81i7>, with the subscription " finit amen finit," the part of the column following this being left blank. V. St John's Gospel is written in a gathering of 13 leaves, the last of which (f. 94) had no conjugate. The remainder of the fasciculus consists of six pairs of leaves, five of which, and probably the sixth (ff'. 83, 92), were conjugates. The inner edges of 11'. 84, 91 are quite fresh, so that these leaves must have been recently parted from one another. The Gospel ends on f. 94 r a, and is immediately followed by the colophon. The greater part of the second column of this page is blank. The verso of the leaf is occupied with matter which will be considered at some length in subsequent chapters. The writing of this gathering is distinctly inferior to that of those which have been already described. It is bi-cohunnar, except in f. 93, both recto and verso of which have three columns.^ Towards the end the writing becomes smaller, and the number of lines in a column much greater. The number of lines ranges from 26 on the recto of f. 82, to 50 on f. 93 r. We have now come to the end of the matter which, as I believe, has a clearly established claim to have formed part of the Book of Mulling in its final shape. We have gone far enough also to see that the expression of the colophon is absolutely accurate — " hsec volumina." These "volumina" were never (till these later days) bound together : but that each was separately stitched was, if my memory does not deceive me,^ vouched for by holes made for the purpose, in such of the sheets (making pairs of leaves) as time and rough usage had left in anything approaching their original condition. They may still be seen in at least three of the six inserted leaves (ff. 4, 16, 79, and perhaps 15, 76). Where these holes are found their distance from the outer edge of the leaf is about the width of an ordinary page. We may remark that the scribe w^as evidently most anxious to confine each Gospel to its own fasciculus, though he makes grievous ' This temporary lapse into tri-columnar writing finds a parallel in the Book of Armagh : Stokes, Tripartite Life, p. xc. "^ Even now enougli can be discerned to convince me tliat my recollection is not altogether at lault. -18 I II. -19 -20 -21 m -22 23 7 24 8 -25 9 -26 lo -27 II -28 12 14 IV —54 54 — 55 55 -56 56 — 57 57 ^58 58 ■^ 59 59 — 60 60 — 61 61 — 62 62 — 63 63 — 64 64 — 65 65 — 66 66 — 67 67 — 68 68 — 69 69 — 70 70 — 71 7' — 72 72 — 73 73 74 74 75 75 — 76 76 — 77 77 78 7« 79 79 80 80 — 81 81 C E 29 15 30 16 31 17 32 18 33 19 34 20 35 21 36 22 37 23 38 24 39 25 40 26 41 27 42 28 43 29 44 30 45 31 46 32 47 33 48 34 49 35 50 36 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 III. VI. VII. VIII. 1 37 2 38 3 39 4 40 5 41 6 42 7 43 8 44 9 45 10 46 11 47 12 48 13 49 14 50 15 51 16 52 17 53 51 (95) 52 (96) 53 (97) 99 (98) 95 (99) r. (100) i ^ — 96 (loi) j L 97 (102) L... (103) I 98 (104) To face page 10. THE COLOPHON. 11 miscalculations as to the space required. Thus in St Matthew, he begins in a jfine bold hand with 26 lines to a page. As the work advances he seems to become afraid that the quire is too small for what he had designed that it should contain. He accordingly writes more closely, lengthens the lines, and increases the number of lines in each column to 35 or 40, finally ending the Gospel with more than a leaf in hand. In St ISIark he miscalculates again, and is obliged to insert tAvo leaves at the end. The same fate awaits him in St Luke. In St John, write as small and as closely as he will, the Gospel runs over its allotted space, and the last thirteen verses demand a special leaf for themselves. This appears to be the best place to remark that the method of writing here exemplified, each Gospel having a separate gathering, seems not to have been uncommon in the early Celtic Churches. The same arrangement is found in the manuscript known as " St Patrick's Gospels" {Royal Irish Academy, 24. Q. 23).i The familiar portraits of the evangelists again, each holding a book (of which the drawings formerly preserved in the cumdach of the Book of Mulling are a specimen), indicate that the Gospels were usually regarded as consisting of four volumes, and not one. In later times the several Gospels were sometimes provided with sepa- rate shrines or cumdachs. Witness the pictures of the evangelists in the Book of Deer, depicted Avith books, iii cases, suspended from their shoulders.^ So again at Banchory-Ternan Avas preserved, in the early part of the sixteenth century, the Gospel according to St Matthew, Avritten by St Ternan. Both it and the remaining Gospels, written by his hand, were said to have been enclosed in metal cases, adorned with gold and silver.^ And in like manner St Patrick is represented as bestowing, in one instance,* the '^lihri seuanguehi"; in another, the "likeness of the case of the Book of John,"^ upon churches founded by him, while he and St Brigid are spoken of as " sowing the fou7' books of the Gospel with a sowing of faith, and belief, and piety." ^ A further illustration will be found in the next chapter, where it is proved that the Gospels of our book are copied from at least three different exemplars. And indeed, several examples are known of single Gospels being copied apart. '^ 1 J. H. Bernard, Trans. E.I. A., xxx. 307 sq. ^ Such at least seems to be the probable explanation. See Stuart, Book of Deer, }). xx. * Martyrology of Aberdeen (Proceedings of Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, ii. p. 264) : " Pridie Idus Junij. — In Scotia natalis sancti Terrenani Pictoruni archipresulis apud ecclesiani de Banquorefterny sepultus Euuangel- istaruni quoque quattior voluminihus metallo inchisis argento auro texto in superficie febricatis reniuneraretur quorum Mathei euuangelisto volumen adhuc apud Banquory." ■* Muircliu Maccu-Mactheni's notes in the Book of Armagh, f. 8 h. 2. Cf. Whitley Stokes, Tripartite Life, i. p. cxcvii. * Stokes, Tripartite Life, i. p. 87. " Stokes, Lives of Saints from Book of Lismore, p. 193. ^ The Stonyhurst St John (Berger, UHistoire, p. 39), the St Gall St John 12 THE BOOK OF MULLING. "We must now examine the remaining leaves formerly preserved in the cumdach of our book, and now bound up with it. To begin with the set numbered VIII. in our diagram. Tliis contains St I\Iatt. xxvi. 42 — xxvii. 35 miitentes (f. 95) ; St Mark i. 1 — iv. 8 dabit (ir. 96, 97); and St Mark v. 18 nauem—w\. 35 eius (f. 98). These knaves appear to have formed part of a single manuscript, and, if so, they may have been two sheets of a quire as shown in the diagram. The writing is not columnar. The size of the leaves varies slightly, the length being from lo'-i to 15'9 cent., and the breadth from 12 to 12-3 cent.; ff. 95, 96, 98 have 36 lines in a page; f. 97 has 33. These fragments, of course, formed no part of our book. It is scarcely Avorth while to discuss the blank leaf (f. 99), num- bered here VII. It is smaller (15-2 X 11 "8 cent.) than any of the four leaves just mentioned, and considerably smaller also than the leaves of the Dook of jMulling. It is possibly an accidental intruder. Of more importance is VI. (flf. 51, 52, 53), the three leaves on the rectos of which we find portraits, presumably of evangeHsts. They have been described by i\Ir Westwood in his Pakeographia ; and by him, as Avell as by others, are regarded as having formed [»ait of our book.^ This has, perhaps, been too hastily assumed. Their connec- tion with our book is not proved by the fact that they were kept in the same case with it ; for the fragments of St Matthew and St jMark, which we have just examined, were enshrined in St IMulling's cumdach also. And this is not the only instance of a manuscript having found its Avay into a shrine that was not meant for it.^ Nor is their claim established by the near coincidence in the size of these pictorial leaves with those which undoubtedly belong to our book, fc»r they agree in measurement even more closely with the leaves of St Matthew and St Mark already referred to. They measure, in fact, about 16x12-2 cent. In other words, they fall short of the average height of the pages of Mulling's book by nearly half a centimetre, while they exceed the average breadth by more than a quarter of a centimetre. The difierence in breadth may indeed have been less originally than it is now, but for similar reasons the difference in height was probably greater. {ih., f)G), and apparently at least one other copy of the same Gospel, which was in the St Gall Library in the ninth century (Keller, Bildcr u. S hriftziigc, p. 61), and (this, of course, is not a Celtic MS.) the Chartres St John (Berger, p. 89). Not, however, the Stowe St John (l^ernard, Trans. R.I. A., xxx. 314). A copy of St Matthew's Gospel, ai)art from the others, is mentioned in the story of the invention of St Barnabas, written in the sixth century. See AA.SS., Jun. 11, 11. i)p. 42'J, 450. "Whatever may be thought of the historical character of the narrative, the reference seems to prove that the writer was aware that such a manuscript existed. M. Berger remarks {ib., 69) that St John was the only Gospel so copied in the early Middle Ages. But the statement seems to need some modification. » Westwood, Pal. Soc, " Irish Manuscripts," j.l. ii. p. 5. Of other writers who accei)t this view I shall mention only one, M. Berger {op. cit, p. 3S0). His knowledge of the ]?ook of Mulling stands in striking contrast to that of some others wlio have written about it. It has been derived at first hand from an inspection of the manu.scri])t itself. ^ J. n. Bernard, Trans. R.I. A., xxx. 305 sq,., 313. THE COLOPHON. 13 On the other hand, they are in exact agreement as to size with one of the leaves of the fragment — f. 98. But what makes the supposi- tion that they belonged to our book specially doubtful is this. They have evidently no conjugates among the genuine pages of our book. Now the inserted leaves, which have the appearance of having' suffered little injury, are, as we might expect, wider than the ordinary leaves of the manuscript;^ and, moreover, they have, at a little distance from the inner edge, the marks of the stitching by whicli they were attached to their respective Gospels. This is not true of the leaves now under consideration. It seems, then, that if these pictures really belonged to our book, they must have lain loose in the case in which it was kept, without any mark to indicate the Gospels to which they severally belonged. When we add that analogy points to the belief that the Book of JMuIling had no metal box such as that in which it was in later centuries preserved, for a considerable time after it was written, the improbability of the sup- position becomes manifest.^ It seems, on the whole, likely that these three pictures (connected quite possibly with some unknown manuscript) were put for safe keeping into the cumdach of the Book of INIulling. They were put there, we may suppose, for no better reason than that, being nearly of the same size and shape as the inside of the box, they fitted it easily ; just as, for the same reason no doubt, some other odd leaves of a Gospel book found their way into the same shrine, and as, owing to a similar agreement in size, the Stowe St John and the Stowe Missal were placed together in a single cumdach, and ultimately bound together in one volume.^ § 2. The Date. "What data have we for determining the period at which our manuscript was written ? Many scholars have been content to answer that question by quoting the words of the colophon, " [Njomen hautem scriptoris mull- ing dicitur." The Mulling here mentioned, it has been urged, can be no otlier than Moiling, Bishop of Ferns, who died in the year 696.* The l)ook is therefore expressly stated to have been penned by him, and must be dated in the latter part of the seventh century. Let me at once say that I believe there is much force in this 1 The average width is about ■12'2 cent., which is identical with that of the pictorial pages. - All that is certain about the date of the cumdach of the Book of JTulling, as has been already remarked, is that it existed before a.d. 1402. Whetlier it was originally made as a shrine for our book we can never know, though its size and shaf)e agree with this supj)osition (inside measurement, 18"2xl3'3 cent.). The Book ofUurrow (not later than tlie eighth century) was not enshrined till the end of the ninth ; the Book of Armagli, written in 807, not until tlie following century. Tlie shrine of the Cathach of St Columba, thongli the Psalter itsnlt" certainly belongs to a much earlier period, is dated 1084 (Jliss M. Stokes' -Early Christian Art in Ireland, ]>. 89 sqq.). That of the Stowe Missal may be contemporary with the later writing ot the manuscript enclosed in it. 3 Bernard, Tra7is. R.I. A., xxx. 313. * Annals of Four Masters, Annals of Ulster, A.D. 696 ; Annals of Clonmae- noise, 692 ; Trip., p. 519, A.D. 693. li THE BOOK OF MULLIXG. argument. In the first place, Moiling is a name of extreme rarity. The seventli century bishop is the only person mentioned by it, so far as I have been able to discover, in the Irish annals.^ This is the more remarkable on account of his celebrity. He was reckoned as one of the four prophets of Ireland. Now it is very common to find the names of great saints adopted by others of lesser note. Columba, for example, is very frequently met with. That Molhng occurs but once appears to be accounted for by the fact that it is not in the strict sense a " name " at all. The true name of the saint was Daircell, and he was called " Moiling," the leaper, on account of hia athletic prowess.^ It is as much, therefore, a descriptive epithet as " Coiur de Lion " applied to Richard I. of England, or " le Chauve " applied to Charles II. of France. It is unlikely that it should be given to another. It may thus be regarded as highly probable that our " scriptor " was the famous Moiling of Ferns. And this probability becomes greater when we recall the history of the manuscript which bears the name. It was, until the end of the eighteenth century,^ in the custody of the family of Kavanagh, of which St IMolling was a member, and whose family seat at Borris Idrone is within a few miles of Tech Moling or St Mullins, the site of the monastery over which he presided. This fact leaves little room for doubt that, by whomsoever penned, every part of our book was written in the monastery of St IMolling at St Mullins.* But a further confirmation is found in the fact that St Moiling was actually famed as a scribe. Keating, writing in 1630,^ tells us that "when the Senchas had been purified, the Irish nobles decreed that it sliould be given into the charge of the prelates of the Irish Cliurch. These prelates gave orders to have it copied out in their principal churches. Some of the old books so written, or rescripts of them, sur- vive to the present day, such as the Book of Armagh, the Psalter of Cashel, the Book of Glendaloch, the Book of Ua Cougbala, the Book of Clonmacnois, the Book of Fintann of Cluain Aidnech, the Yellow Book of Moling, and the Black Book of Molaga." The " Yellow Book of Moling " to which he refers, appears, indeed, to have contained a collection of historical documents, and he does not mention a copy of the Gospels as transcribed by him. But it is almost incredible that an eminent Irish scribe of the seventh century should not have written at least one Gospel book, or that Gospels written by the hand of a saint of great renown would not be among the treasures of his own monastery. ^ An earlier Moiling, however, is mentioned in the Book of Leinster, Moiling Luath (the swift), son of Fiacha, as distinguished from our Moiling Luachra (of Luachair), son of Faelan, Revue CcUiqne, xiii. pp. 45, 101. ■■^ Diet, of National Biog , xiii. p. 380. ' Vallancey's words, quoted above, p. 2, are suflScient to prove that the contents of the cumdach were the same in 1783 as in 1893. •* Mr Warren a))pears to overlook the importance of this consideration when he writes in the Academy, Jan. 26th, 1893, \\ 83: "But who is the 'Mulling Scriptor' of this volume ? and where was his civitas ? The ]>roposal to identify him with St Mulling of Ferns (who died 607) . . . must now be liually abandoned." <* History of Ireland, O'Mahony's translation, p. 412. THE coLornoN. 15 It seems, therefore, almost beyond question, that tlie assertion of the colophon is that the book to which it belonged was written by Daircell or Moiling, the celebrated bishop and scribe of the seventh century. On the other liand, the almost unanimous testimony of palseo- graphers ascribes our manuscript to a later period, M. Berger,^ than whom no one is more competent to give judgment, refers it to the ninth, and apparently not to the beginning of the ninth century. Others assign to it a slightly earlier date ; ^ but all agree in placing it at least a century after the time of St Moiling. It may, of course, be urged that one of the most difficult problems of palaeography is the determination of the dates of Irish manuscripts.^ Irish scribes appear to have been strongly conservative, and to have closely imitated older forms of writing and ornament. But, though this fact may move us to push back the date of the manuscript by a few decades, we can hardly place it within the lifetime of Moiling if we are to be guided by palaeography at all. The evidence, therefore, of palaeography and that of the colophon appear at first sight to be directly opposed. Is it possible to reconcile them 1 Or is the problem of our manuscript insoluble 1 What appears to me to be its true solution is suggested by a paper con- tributed by Professor T. K. Abbott to Henuathena on the colophon of the ]iook of Durrow.* The colophon of this copy of the Gospels states that it was written by one Columlia, who has been identified with the Apostle of the Picts (t 597).^ Palaeography, on the contrary, pleads for the seventh century.^ Here is Dr Abbott's way of recon- ciling the two. The colophon, he says, was copied from the arche- type. It contains, therefore, the name of the scribe of the archetype, not of the scribe of the manuscript at the end of which it is now found. The archetype, to which it was originally appended, was therefore written, as the colophon states, in the space of twelve days [and therefore probably " in smaller and more cursive characters " than the Book of Uurrow] by a scribe named Columba, who may very well have been the founder of Hy. It is unnecessary to recapitulate here the arguments by which Pro- fessor Abbott seeks to establish this conclusion. To prevent mis- conception, however, it may be well to say how far, as it appears to me, the inference from them is justified. The state of the case seems to be this. Reasons of some weight have been given for believing that St Columba could not have written a codex with errors so numerous and of such a kind as are ^ VHisloire de la Vulgate, p. 34. 2 Scrivener's Introduction, 4tli cd., ii. p. 78. ^ Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 236 sq. * Vol. viii. ]). 199 sqq. ** The colophon is given in full in the paper referred to in the text, and also in Professor Abbott's Evang. Versio, p. xix. ^ Berger, op cit., ]). 41. in Scrivener's Introduction, 4th ed., ii. 78, it is still described " [end of vi]" ; but in an earlier work {Old Latin Biblical Texts, iii. p. viii) Mr White had dated it " seventh or eighth century." 16 THE COOK OF MULLING. found in the Book of Durrow. It has been proved, moreover, that the copy to which the colophon refers must have been written in less elaborate style and in a more cursive character, and that the writer of that copy was named Columba. And finally, arguments falling little short of demonstration have been adduced to show that the colophon was transcribed from another document, which we may reasonably assume to have been that which served as the model for the Gospel text. All this is matter of practical certainty. But what about the further and most interesting question, AVas St Columba the scribe of the archetype to which the colophon belonged? As Dr Abbott truly remarks, there is nothing against this supposition in the fact that the text of the Book of Durrow is Vulgate. St Columba, as he says, may have habitually used an old Latin version, and yet have come across a copy of Jerome's trans- lation and transcribed it for the purposes of private study.^ We may, in fact, go further, and assert that there is absolutely no direct evidence as to what the version may have been from which St Columba habitually made his quotations. For all that can be proved it may have been just such a text as we find in the Uurrow Gospels. But Professor Abbott really gives us no evidence in favour of the archetype having been penned by St Columba, except the words, " Columbae scriptoris qui hoc scrips! himet (?) euangelium." And he warns us that Columba is a very common name. Thus, as he leaves it, the thesis is "not proven." Now there is one piece of evidence which he has not mentioned, and which may be thought to tell against the supposition that the Book of Durrow was copied from an autograph of the great saint. It is the wording of the colophon itself : " Rogo beatitudinem tuani sancte praesbitei patrici." Here is a direct invocation of a departed saint. Is it possible that St Columba should have made use of it? It does not seem probable. Less than a century after his death, indeed, such a colophon would not have been surprising. It may be illus- trated by several parallels from Adamnan.^ But if we may judge from the evidence before us, the practice of invoking the departed did not come into vogue till after St Columba had passed away. Our conclusion then is that the Book of Durrow, including its coloplion, is a copy from an earlier codex written by one Columba,^ whose date cannot with probability be placed earlier than the opening years of the seventh century. Now, it will be seen that the Book of jNluUing presents a problem very similar to that which arises in the case of the Book of Durrow. Palaeography and the colophon are much more certainly at variance ^ This supposition is confirmed by the very interesting remarks on St Finnian of Movilla and the introduction of the Latin Bible into Ireland, which will be found in Miss M. Stokes' Six Months in the Apennines, London, 1892, p. 25 sqq. ^ Dowden's The Celtic Church in Scotland, pp. 225, 233. " If so, Bisliop Reeves' assertion (Life of St Columba, p. xiv), "that the colophon in Irish manuscripts is always peculiar to the actual scribe, and likely to be omitted in transcription," is scarcely justified by the facts. THE COLOPHON. 17 here than in the Durrow Gospels. May not a similar solution bo found ? True, in our book the colophon bears no mark, on the face of it, that it is not original. But analogy has made it possible that it may have been transcribed from an earlier exemplar. The possibility is converted by palseographical considerations into a strong probability. And if it be once conceded that this is a fact, few will be found to question the identity of Mulling. Our manuscript, in short, will be admitted to have been transcribed, or at least ultimately derived, from an autograph of St Moiling of Ferns. St Moiling, we may suppose, wrote a copy of the Gospels ; a century or more after his death an anonymous scribe made a transcript of this book, including the colophon ; and this transcript is the " Book of Mulling " which has survived to the present day. To this hypothesis I can think of only one objection. It scarcely indeed deserves to be so described, but I must not altogether pass it over. The colophon, as we have already seen, speaks of MuUiug's book as consisting of several " volumina," This description applies accurately to the five fasciculi of the present book. If our theory is correct the later scribe must have, in this matter, imitated the form of his exemplar as well as copied its text. This in itself presents no difficidty. For we shall find that in the much less striking feature of the division into sections he has strictly adhered to the model of his archetype. But what is here in point is the further fact that he has had some difiiculty in confining each Gospel to a single " volumen," and has miscalculated in every case the number of leaves required. What could be easier, it may be urged, if he had before him a manuscript arranged in this particular way, than to estimate beforehand how many sheets of vellum he should assign to each gathering % The answer is, first, that we have no measure of the stupidity, or of the incapacity for arithmetical calculation, of Irish scribes ; and, secondly, that the requisite calculation was not very much more difficult if his exemplar was constructed on a different principle. A difference in the size of the pages might, perhaps, confuse him in one case ; it may equally have done so in the other. His very determination, notwithstanding all mistakes, to adhere to his design may possibly rather indicate that the arrangement was commended to him, not merely by his own sense of fitness, but by some authority whom he desired to imitate closely. Such an authority would be the founder of his monastery. § 3. The Order of the Gospels. It has been already remarked that the colophon is found at the end of St John's Gospel. This furnishes conclusive proof that in the conception of the scribe, St John was, as we are accustomed to regard it, the fourth Gospel. Hereafter reasons will be given for the further belief tliat the order of the Gospels in his view was identical with that of our modern Bibles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, B 18 THE BOOK OF MULLING. John. For the present I content myself with remarking tliat this fact is one which we have no riglit to assume without evidence. It is true, indeed, that only one Irish manuscript is at present known in which the sequence is different. I refer, of course, to the Codex Usserianus, edited by Professor Abbott.^ This copy exhibits the usual " Western " order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. This arrange- ment appears to have been superseded by the introduction of the Vulgate into Ireland. But there is ground for holding that the older tradition did not give way at once, but that, on the contrary, it exercised considerable influence centuries after the version of St Jerome had gained currency. This influence comes out very clearly with reference to the evangelical symbols. A little space may be given to the examina- tion of this subject. The first Christian writer who explains the four forms of the Cherubim in the vision of Ezekiel (i. 10) or the four living creatures of the Apocalypse (iv. 7) as referring to the fourfold Gospel is Irenseus.^ Each Gospel presents a different aspect of the life of Christ; and accordingly St Matthew is symbolised by the Man, proclaiming as he does the human descent of the Saviour and the humility of his human life ; St Mark by the Eagle, which signifies the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church, on account of his opening quotation from the prophets, and his prophetic style of writing ; St Luke, who begins his narrative with the story of Zacharias the Priest, by the Calf — the sacrificial victim ; St John by the Lion, because he dwells upon the kingdom of Christ and opens his record with the statement of His divine generation. For two centuries we hear no more of speculations of this kind, and then we come upon evidence which appears to show that the exegesis of Irenaeus was not generally received. In the fourth and fifth centuries the assignment of the symbols to the several Gospels is discussed by several writers, the most important of whom was Jerome. He accepts the view of Irenaeus as to the symbols of the first and third Gospels, but gives the Lion to St Mark and the Eagle to St John. It is worthy of special remark that in this he claims no originality. He discusses no rival theory. He professes to have derived his opinion on this subject from older writers.^ And these ^ Evangeliorum Versio Antehieronymiana ex Codice Vsseriano {Duhlinensi) etc., Dublin, 1884. - Iren.x'us, Adv. Hcer., III. xi. 8 (Harvey, ii. p. 48). 3 " Quidam quattuor evangelia, quos nos quoque in proccmio commentariorum Mattlia;i secjuuli sumus, horum aiiimalium putant nominibus designari,*' Vallar- sius, V. 9, 10. This sentence is sufficient to disprove the statement made in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v. " Evangelists," i. p. 633 : " Nor was it till long alter the four creatures had been taken as prefiguring the four evan- gelists, that a special application was made of each symbol to each writer. This may be referred to St Jerome on Ezekiel i." It is strange that the writer of the article should have overlooked, not only the words which we have quoted, but the evidence of Ircna'us and that of Ambrose and Augustine. THE COLOPHON. 19 writers, he tells us, had stated their views quite definitely,^ St Matthew is denoted by the Man, because he commences his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ ; St Mark is symbolised by the Lion, because at the beginning of his Gospel he speaks of the voice crying in the wilderness (in quo vox leonis in eremo rugientis auditur : " Vox clamantis in deserto," etc.) ; St Luke brings us back to Zachariah the priest, and accordingly to him the Calf is appro- priate ; St John, taking a higher flight than the rest, proclaims " In the beginning was the Word," he, therefore, is the Eagle (qui assumtis pennis aquilte, et ad altiora festinans, de Verbo Dei disputat). In the age preceding Jerome and the Vulgate we see that the four sym- bols were allotted, one to each of the evangelists, and that in the manner to which Jerome himself gave the weight of his authority. But the witness of Jerome does not stand alone. The language of his contemporary, Ambrose of Milan, ^ is not indeed free from ambig- uity, except when he speaks of St jNIatthew and St Luke, about whom we have hitherto found no difference of opinion. Having expressed his own belief as to the symbols of these Gospels, he goes on to state the accepted opinion.^ And here it is that his meaning is less clear. His language with reference to the Gospel to which the Lion is to be assigned suggests rather St John than St IMark. " Alius," he says, " a potentise coepit expressione divinae, quod ex Rege Rex, fortis ex forti, verus ex vero, vivida mortem virtu te con- tempserit." But that St Mark and not St John is intended, is made sufficiently plain by what he says about the meaning of the Eagle. Christ, according to most interpreters, he declares, is the Eagle, be- cause He is the resurrection. And then he proceeds, " Quartus (sc. liber) copiosius cseteris divinae miracula resurrectionis expressit." These words apply to the Gospel according to St John, and to it alone of the four.* Jerome, then, and others whom he followed, Ambrose and the majority of interpreters known to him, were of one mind. The Man belonged to St Matthew, the Lion to St Mark, the Calf to St Luke, and the Eagle to St John. This was, it would seem, the prevalent view in the middle of the fourth century.^ It is not necessary to cite more than one other literary witness. That witness is Augustine of Hippo. He writes as follows^ : — 1 Com. inEzck., i. (Vallarsius, v. 9, 10, 13) ; Com. in Matt. Procem. (Vallarsius, vii. 5, 6) ; Adv. Jovinianum, i. 26 (Vallarsius, ii. 280). 2 Kvpositio Uvang. Sec. Lucam, Prsef., 7, 8 (iligne, xv. 1532). ^ Pleriquc taineii putaiit, etc. 4 It ought, however, to be mentioned that in later times St Mark was regarded as especially the evangelist of the resurrection, and that this was one of tiie reasons given for the appropriateness to him of the symbol of the Lion. Duraudus, Rationale, vii. 44, 4. •'' Juvencus, the Spanish Presbyter, has indeed been cited as adhering to the opinion of Irenseus. But the verses in which his views have been_ sujiposed to be expressed, and of which more hereafter, are spurious. This is shown by Marold in his edition of Juvencus (Leipzig, 1886), p. vii. sq., and by Huemer in the twenty-fourth volume of the Vienna Corpus, p. xxiv sq. 8 Le Consensu Evangelistarum, I. vi. (9) (iligne, xxxiv. 1046). 20 THE BOOK OF MULLING. " Unde milii videntur, qui ex Apocalypsi ilia quatuor animalia ad intelligendos quatuor Evangelistas interpretati sunt, probabilius aliquid attendisse illi qui leonem in Matthaeo, hominem in Marco, vitulum in Luca, aquilani in Joanne intellexerunt, quam illi qui hominem JMatth-Tpo, aquilam Marco, leonem Joanni tribuerunt. De principiis enim librorum quamdam conjecturam capere voluerunt, non de tota intentione Evangelistarum, quae magis fuerat perscru- tanda," etc. St Augustine here mentions two views of the symbols — his own, which agrees with that of Jerome as regards the third and fourth , (rospels, and another which is idtmtical with that of Irenseus.^ Taken literally, his language implies that each of these opinions had supporters in his own or a previous age. But the forms of literary speech must not be pressed too strictly. It seems at least as likely that he was simply controverting (and, we must add, not very fairly ^) the interpretation of Irenseus, and maintaining his own private gloss.^ If he had meant to review the main opinions current on the subject, it is inconceivable that he should have passed over that held by Ambrose and Jerome, of which he cannot have been ignorant. On the whole, the evidence before us is suihcient to convince us that the majority of fourth-century divines were, in this matter, in agreement with Jerome. And our conclusion is corroborated from an unexpected quarter. A small bronze coin, of uncertain proven- ance, which has been assigned to the time of Justinian, is described and figured by various writers.^ On one side it has, to the left, the head of a man ; on the right, that of an eagle, each surmounted by a star, the two figures being separated by a cross. Underneath are the words, in characters half Greek, half Latin : — NAGEOC lOHANNIS On the other side, similarly disposed, are the heads of a lion and 1 It is curious to find Mr J. R. Allen, in a passage in which he actually refers to St Awguatine {Christimi Symbolism, p. 265), affirming : "In the first instance the application of the symbolic beasts to the Four Evangelists was general .... but we have evidence in the Fathers of the fourth century of their being individualised. There a])pears, however, to have been a difference of opinion as to the appropriation of tlie symbols of St Matthew and St Mark, althmujh there is none with regard to the other tivo Evangel ids." Like some other writers on the sub- ject, he a})])ears to have been unaware of the passage in which Irenteus discusses the symbols. 2 For Irenreus does not confine himself to observing the opening words of the Gospels. Of St Matthew he writes: "Propter hoc et })er totum euangelium humiliter sentiens et mitis homo seruatus est" ; and of St Aiark, 5ia tovto Si kuI ffvvTo^jiOV KoX Tro/jaTpe'xoi'traj' r^v KarayyiKlaf itiTrol-qrai' wpos, recall "rugienti intonat '' in Ps.- Ju venous ; the more readily since neither vcib occurs in the lines of Sedulius. THE coLoniON. 27 2. Tlie older tradition as to the appropriation of tlie symbols might remain. In this case it is natural to suppose that the order of the symbols would give way to that of the Gospels themselves, and so there would ensue a complete victory for the Vulgate. This we know to have taken place in the great majority of Irish Gospel manuscripts now remaining. But another alternative is possible, though less probable. For 3. The order of the Gospels might have been altered to suit that of the symbols, and thus, so far as arrangement is concerned, the victory would lie with the Old Latin. This possibility is sufficient to make us pause before assuming without examination that the order of the Gospels in a given Irish manuscript is identical with that of Jerome's Vulgate. But an objection may be made. If the arrangement of the Book of Durrow was not altogether exceptional, why is this copy the only one now known in which it is found 1 And if the possibility just suggested is one that ought seriously to be reckoned with, why has no single Irish Vulgate manuscript been reported in which the Gospels follow the older sequence 1 In answering these questions, let us call to mind that very few indeed of the extant Irish manuscripts date further back than the ninth or perhaps the eighth century. The Book of Durrow is the earliest which we possess, and can scarcely be put later than the closing years of the seventh century.-*^ In other words, all other copies belong to a period when the victory for the Vulgate had been practically won. The strange thing really is, that traces of the con- test should remain in their pages even so late as the tenth century. Had we a few more Vulgate manuscripts ranging from the sixth to the eighth century, we should probably hud others exhibiting the same phenomenon in the matter of the symbols as the Book of Durrow. But even late copies are not without traces of the older arrange- ment in their illuminations. We may be allowed to mention two cases in point. Wattenbach describes a copy of the Gospels now- deposited in the German museum at Nuremberg, but belonging to the library of the Princes of Oettingen-Wallerstein at Miittingen,^ It is written in half-uncials of unmistakably Irish character, and is ascribed by Wattenbach to the seventh, if not to the sixth, century.^ Now the last page of this manuscript has, above the versified colophon, a rude miniature of a lion, surmounted by the Avords (probably a more recent addition), " Ecce leo stat super euangelium." It does not appear from the description whether St John's Gospel ends on this or the preceding page. But in either case the picture 1 Scrivener, Introduction to Criticism of N. T., 4th ed., ii. 78 ; Berger, Histoire de la V'uhjatc, ]>. 41. 2 Wattenbach's account of this manuscript appeared in tlie Anzeiger filr Kunde des Dfiutschcn Vorzeit (Oct. 1869), and in the lievuc Ccltiquc, i, p. 27 sqq. * The reader may perhaps suspect that this date is somewhat too early. 28 THE BOOK OF MULLING. may be assumed to be connected with that Gospel, and to be a reminiscence of the days when the lion was regarded as the ap- propriate symbol of St John, And this, although in the Mottingen IMS. the Gospels follow the now usual order, and although inscribed on the verso of the first leaf it has verses which begin thus : — Quam in speciosa quadriga, Homo, leo, vitulus et aquila. Our second example shall be an early ninth-century manuscript first made known to students of the Vulgate by M. Samuel Berger,^ the Book of the Confraternities of Pfiiffers. It contains extracts from the Gospels, for reading in the ecclesiastical offices, m an Irish text. The ornamentation is also in part Irish. Each. Gospel has its symbol, but the Lion of St Mark is distinguished by having two eagles below it. It is right to add, however, that the origin of these eagles may be merely the fancy of an illuminator desirous of producing a page more richly adorned than usual. The Calf of St Luke, for example, has in like manner below it two lions ; and the symbols of all four evangelists are surmounted by figures of animals which have no appearance of being symbolic. But further, if most of our copies were probably icritten not before the eighth century, they have certainly all been hotmd at a more recent date.^ And binders have little scruple in following their own whims as to the arrangement of the leaves of the books which are left to their mercy. The binders of our Irish codices knew no order of the Gospels, and no system of arranging the symbols, but one : and we need scarcely doubt that in their hands the manuscripts would, as far as possible, be made to suit it. Not much ingenuity would be required if the several Gospels were written in separate fasciculi and the symbols on detached leaves, one side of which was left blank. This may possibly have been not so uncommon as one might imagine.^ And finally, if scribes and binders were biassed by the tradition of later centuries, no less so are modern palaeographers. There is scarcely any instance in which the " make-up " of Irish manuscripts, of which descriptions have been published, has been examined Avith care, in order to discover whether the binder has adhered to the intention of the original scribe as to the order of the books and the position of the illuminated symbols. And even where the arrange- ment as it now exists is exceptional, the prevailing tradition has been .«?trong enough to blind the eyes of observers to the anomaly. To take but one instance. Mr Westwood no doubt examined the Book of Durrow with much care. Yet in his Palxograpliia Sacra, though he refers to the symbols, he never mentions that they are 1 Ullistoire dc la Vulgate, pp. 57 sq., 419. - " Les ancicns Irlandais ne paraissect pas avoir conim I'art de la reliure," Bcrfrcr, Histoirc dc la Vulyatc, p. 34. » See above, p. 13. THE COLOPHOX. 20 misplaced. In his Anglo-Saxon Maniiscripts he goes further. The symbol which in the manuscript precedes St John is spoken of (p. 21) as the "Lion of St Mark," ^ and when (pis. iv., v.) reproduc- tions are given of the Man, the I,ion, the Ox, and the Eagle, the two former are described as the " symbols of St Matthew a7ul St Mark," the two latter as those " of St Luke and St John." This is a warning not to accept, without examination, the statements of palaeographers on such matters as those which are now before us. We may well suspect that a more careful scrutiny will bring to light in our libraries Irish Gospels, in which the order of either symbols or evangelists is different from that which is now received. But some who have followed me thus far may now protest, You have caused us to wade through pages of argument, and at the end we are treated to an exhortation to caution and accuracy, which has no very close relation to the Book of jNIuIling. Benevolent reader, the charge is true. I crave pardon, and hasten to another subject whose relevance is indubitable. That the labour expended on the last few pages has not been altogether in vain may perhaps appear in the sequel. ' Compare also J. Romilly Allen, Early Christian Symbolism in Great Britain and Ireland before the Thirteenth Century, London, 1887, p. 383. 30 THE BOOK OF MULLING. CHAPTEE III. THE SECTIONS. M. Bergbr has more than once ^ directed the attention of students of the Vulgate to the importance of certain accessories to the Bibhcal text found in many manuscripts. Among these are what he calls the " Summaries " {sonmiaires) of the Gospels, more usually known as capitula or breves causce, which appear to have taken their origin in very early times from the lectionary system of the Western Church. The Book of Mulling has no summaries. But in it the Synoptic Gospels, and to a certain extent St John also, are divided as originally written ^ into paragraphs or sections. It is the purpose of the present chapter to investigate the nature of these sections. The inquiry may be thought to be trivial ; and to remove this impression it will be well to state at once the conclusion to which it leads us in the case of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke. The sections of these Gospels are not mere arbitrary divisions of the scrilie : they will be found to have been, at least approximately, reproduced by him from his exemplar, and to correspond pretty closely to tlie divisions marked in the Book of Durrow and Ussher's manuscript, which in the main agree with the capitulatio of the Gospels pre- served in the Books of Durrow and Kells, and elsewhere. The easiest way to make good this assertion in the case of St Luke's Gospel is to place in parallel columns the beginnings of the sections in the Books of Mulling and Durrow and Ussher's Codex. The striking agreement between the three systems of division will thus immediately appear. Only those sections of the Book of Durrow which are numbered are represented in the table, and each is accom- panied by the number which appears opposite it in the manuscript — similarly the numbers in Ussher's manuscript are added whenever they are legible.^ In the left column are given the numbers of the 1 Revue CcUique, vi. 356 ; Ullistoire de la Vulgate, pp. 307 sqq., 343 sqq. _ 2 The corrector of the manuscript lias adopted a different system of division, as we shall see hereafter. With this we are not concerned in the present chapter. 3 The numbers given are those of the first hand. They have been altered by a corrector as follows. The indication of the beginning of the section (iii. 1) which should have been numbered v. was omitted. Hence two consecutive sections were numbered respectively iv. and vi. This had the appearance of a blunder, which was remedied by depressing the sectional numbers above vi. (not apparently, however, vi. itself) by one. Similarly §§ 9, 10 were written together, the next section being numbered xi. Hence the numbers from xi. onwards were depressed by two. A THE SECTIONS. 31 corresponding capitula as found in the summary in the Book of Durrow. The explanation of the asterisks and obeli I reserve for the present. The table, it is hoped, independently of its more immediate purpose, may prove useful to those who are engaged in studying the ancient sections of the Gospels. Capitula. Book op Mulling. Book of Durrow. Codex Usserianus. [I] 1 *i. 1. *i. 5. 1.19. ti. 20. i. 23. ti. 34. i. 46. i. 56. 1. 1. 1. 5. II. 1.59. ti. 68. *11. 1. I[I.] (? »ft«.) ii. 1. III. { *li. 21. 11. 25. 11. 36. 11. 38. ii. 21. nil. nil. ii. 42. nil. (ms.) ii. 42. ii. i6. "Et dixit" (?) V. * iii. 1. iii. 3. iii. 7. iii. 10. t'iii. 16. "Ego." t iii. 17. iii. 19. V. iii. 1. VI. *iii. 21. *iv. 1. Iv. 14. VI. iii. 21. VI. iii. 21. iv. 1. VII. \ { * iv. 16. iv. 22. VII. iv. 16. VII. iv. 16. VIII. Iv. 31. VIII. ♦iv. 33. VIII. Iv. 33. iv. 38. iv. 41. iv. 42. vim. *v. 1. V. 4. V. 10. "Et dixit." Villi, v. 1. Villi. V. 1. X. * v. 12. V. 15. XI. «v. 17. V. 18. XI. V. 17. XI. V. 17. XII. ♦v. 27. V.36. XII. V. 27. V. 27. XIII. * vl. 1. XIII. vi. 1. XIII. Vi. 1. XIIII. * vi. 6. XV. tvi. 20. "Beatl." t vi. 21. tvi. 21. "Beatl" sec. t vi. 22. XIIII. vi. 13. vi. 12. XVI. { vi. 39. XV. vi. 41. XV. vi. 41. XVII. * vii. 1. t vii. 9. "Amen." XVI. vii. 1. XVIII. XVII. vii. 11. XVII. vii. 11. XVIIII. t vii. 28. vii. 31. XVIII. vii. IS. XVIII. vii. 19. XX. *vii. 36. XVIIII. vii. 36. XVIIII. vii. 30. few numbers seem to have been overlooked by the corrector, and in at least two instances three instead of two has been subtracted (Abbott, pp. (503, 613). Dr Abbott's account of this, though bubbtantially correct, is expressed in terms some- what too general ^p. iv). 32 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Capitula. Book of MuLLiNa. Book of Durrow. C0I>EX USSERIANUS. { *viii. 1. viii. 4. viii. 11. viii. 16. XX. viii. 1. XX. viii. 1. XXII. * viii. 22. XXI. viii. 22. XXI. viii. 22. XXII. viii. 26. XXII. viu. 26. XXIII. \'iii. 32. viii. 37. "ipse." XXIIII. * viii. 40. viii. 42. " Et." XXIII. viii. 40. XXIII. viii. 40. XXV. ix. 6. XXIIII. ix. 1. X[XIIII.] ix. 1. XXVI. 1 ix. 12. XXV. ix. 10. XXV. ix. 10. XXVII. *ix. 18. Lx. 21.1 ix. 33. XXVI. ix. 18. XXVI. ix. 28. *ix. 37. XXVII. ix. 37. XX[VII]. ix. 37. XXVIII. XXVIII. ix. 51. XXVIII. ix. 51. XXVIIII. *ix. 57. XXVIIII. ix. 57. XXVIIII. ix. 57. XXX. tx. 7. "Dignus." X. 10. X. 16. XXX. X. 1. X. 1.2 XXXI. *x. 17. XXXI. X. 21. XXXI. X. 17. XXXII. *x. 25. t X. 28. x. 31. XXXII. X. 25. XXXII. X. 25. XXXIII. * X. 38. XXXIII. X. 38. X. 38. XXXIIII. *xi. 2. "Pater." xi. 5. xi. 9. XXXIIII. xi. 1. XXXIIII. xi. 1. XXXV. j xi. 11. XXXV. xi. 14. XXXV. Xi. 14. XXXVI. *xi. 27. XXXVI. xi. 27. XXXVII. ] xi. 35. XXXVI. xi. 37. XXXVII. xi. 37. XXXVIII. * xi. 44. xi. 48. XXXVIIII. *xi. 53. xii. 4. xii. 8.3 xii. 11. XXXVIIII. xi. 53. X[L]. { xii. 15. xii. 16. XL. xii. 13. XL. xii. 13. XLI. *xii. 22. xii. 27. XXXVIII. {sic ms.) XLI. xii. 32. xii. 40.4 [xii. 32. XLII. a. * xii. 49. xii. 54. t xii. 56. XLII. xii. 49. XLITI. XLIII. xiii. 1. XLII. b. (xiii. 6). * xiii. 6. txiii. 7. "Et ecce." XLIIII. * xiii. 10. xiii. 18.5 XLIIII. xiii. 10. XLIIIL xiii. 10. XLV. txiii. 28. "uos." XLV. xiii. 22. XLV. xiii. 22. XLVI. * xiii. 30. XLVI. xiii. 31. XLVII. *xiv. 1. xiv. 12.6 XLVI. (7ns.) xiv. 1. XLVII. xiv. 1. XLVIII. * xiv. 25. xiv. 34 (?). XLVIII. xiv. 25. XLVIII. xiv. 25. XLVIIII. *xv. 1. XV. 4 (?). txv. 6. "Congratu laniini " (?). XLVIIII. XV. 1. XLVIIII. XV. 1. L. *xv. 11. XV. 20. "Cum au- XV. 29. [tern." L. XV. 11. XV. 11. 1 Apparently a fresli capitulum begins here (or at v. 23) in the Book of Armagh. 2 Tliis division does not appear in Dr Abbott's edition. But above the word "hrec in what he numbers 1. 1 (p. 497) are distinctly visible the marks , , , indicating the termination of one and the commencement of another section. 3 Apparently the beginning of a capitulum in the Codex Epternacensis. * A capitulum begins here in the Codex .\urcus. 5 Begins a fresh section in the Codex Kptcmacensis. 6 Beginning of a fresh capitulum in the Book of Armagh and the Codex Epternacensis. THE SECTIONS. 33 Capitula. Book of Mulling. Book of Durrow. Codex Lts8eriands. LI. •xvi. 1. LL xvi. i. LI. xvi. 1. LIl. * xvi. 13. LII. xvi. 13. LII. xvi. 13. LIII. xvi. 14. *xvi. 19. txvii. 1 "Use." LIII. xvi. 19. LIII. xvi. 19. LIIII. *xvii. 3. txvii. 8 " Et post." LIIII. xvii. 3. Llin. xvii. 3. "SI autempeccauerit." LV. *xvii. 11. LV. xvii. 11. LV. xvii. 11. LVI. *xvii. 20. xvii. 28.1 xvii. 34. LVI. xvii. 20. LVI. xvii. 20. LAai. *xviii. 1. LVII. xviii. 1. L^^I. xviii. 1. LVIII. * xviii. 9. xviii. 15. i xviii. 17. LVIII. xviii. 9. LVII[I]. xviii. 9. LVIIII. * xviii. 18. xviii. 23. LVIIII. xviii. 18. "Magister." * xviii. 31. LX. xviii. 31. LX. xviii. 31. xviii. 34. LX. * xviii. 35. LXI. *xix. 1. LXI. xix. 1. LXI. xix. 1. LXII. { * xix. 11. xix. 12. t xix. 26. LXII. xix. 11. LXII. xix. 11. LXIII. *xix. 28. xix. 37. LXIII. xix. 28. LXIII. xix. 29. LXIIII. * XX. 1. LXIIII. XX. 1. LXIIII. XX. 1. LXV. *xx. 9. txx. 13. LXV. XX. 9. LXV. XX. 9. LXVT. LXVI. XX. 20. LXVI. XX. 20. LXVII. *xx. 27. LXVII. XX. 27. LXVII. XX. 27. IXVIII. * XX. 46. LXVIII. XX. 45 (ins.). LXVIII. XX. 45. LXVIIII. { xxi. 7. LXVIIII. xxi. 5. LXVIIII. x.xi. 5, LXX. { xxi. 23. LXX. xxi. 20. LXX. xxi. 20. LXXI. { xxi. 34. * xxi. 37 LXXI. xxi. 37. LXXII. *xxil. 7. LXXII. xxii. 7. LXXII. xxii. 7. *xxii. 24. LXXIII. xxii. 24. LXXin. xxii. 24. LXXIII. *xxii. 31. LXXIIII. xxii. 31. LXXIIII. xxii. 31. [LXXIIIL] * xxii. 39. LXXV. x.xii. 39. LXX[V]. xxii. 39. [LXX v.] *xxii. 47. LXXVI. xxii. 47. xxii. 47 (?). LXXVI. ( xxiii. 17. LXXVII. xxii. 66. LXXVII. xxii. 66. LXXVII. 1 * xxiii. 26. x.xiii. 34. xxiii. 38. xxiii. 44. xxiii. 47. LXXVIII. xxiii. 26. LXXVIII. xxiii. 26. LX X Villi, (sic). < *xxiv. 1. xxiv. 10. x.\iv. 12. xxiv. 13. xxiv. 36. xxiv. 50. xxiv. 1 (?). In the above table an obelus (f) indicate.s that though the place thus signalised has indications which generally betoken the l)eginning of a section (i.e. in most cases a large letter, sometimes set out in the margin, and preceded by a mark of punctuation), it is yet not so to be regarded. The large letters, etc., in such places are obviously due to the fancy of our scribe, or of the writer of a manuscript from which his is derived. He shows, for example, his fondness for symmetrical 1 Either this verse, or verse 34, seems to be the first of a fresh capituliun in tlie Book of Armagli and tlie Codex Epternacensis. C 34 ■ THE BOOK OF MULLING. ■writing at vi. 20-22, he exhibits elsewhere a propensity to write such words as " dixit," " dicebat," etc., in the margin without any- apparent purpose (xix. 26, etc.), and he is prone to give similar promin- ence to " Et ecce " (v. 18. xiii. 7). With more reason he de- taches a remarkable saying (i, 68. iii. 16, etc.) or even a portion of a saying to which he wishes to give emphasis (xii. 56, etc.) from the context by writing the first letter in the margin. Omitting all such cases we have not more than 142 sections in St Luke's Gospel. Of these, 65 begin at the same places (or within a verse thereof) as sections of durm or r^, or are distinctly supported in opposition to these manuscripts by the summary. These are marked with aster- isks (*). In 6 other places mull, differing from durm and r^, is consistent with the summary (vi. 39, ix. 12, xi. 11, 35, xii. 15, xxi. 1)} These 71 sections are all satisfactorily explained on the supposition that mull was copied from an exemplar having divisions similar to 1\ and durm. We come now to consider some cases which might be held to point in another direction. There are in the first place divisions omitted in mull (vi. 12, vii. 11, ix. 51, x. 1, xiii. 22, xx. 20^). These omissions, numerous though they be, need not surprise us, for similar omissions are frequent in durm, and occur also in ?\, as is proved by the numbers ^ or by comparison with the other authorities (iii. 1, v. 12, vi. 6, ix. 18, xviii. 35), and perhaps also in the summary (ix. 37, xviii. 31, xxii. 24). In other cases we cannot be sure whether a division has been omitted, or wrongly placed (ii. 38, vii. 31, ix. 6): but if we may trust the summary, misplacements are met with also in r^ (ix. 28, xii. 32). On the whole we may say that the sectional divisions of durm and r-^, reappear in mull as accurately as could be expected on the supposition that the latter is copied, or descended from an exemplar in which these sections were preserved. There remain, however, about 50 or 60 divisions to which nothing corresponds in the other manuscripts. What is to be said of these ? They wiU be found in almost all cases to be perfectly natural divisions of the text, a good many of them being in fact marked as paragraphs in printed editions. Some may correspond to sections the indication of which has been omitted in the other authorities, for all alike have been shown to be guilty of omissions.* Some again may be accounted for by the ambiguity of the summary, which now and then leaves it uncertain at which of two or more places a section is intended to begin. Our scribe in such cases may combine the testimony of 1 A vinculum connecting two or more references indicates that the summary leaves it uncertain at whicli of these places the section was intended to begin. 2 Thecapitulum (66) which begins at this verse is, however, part of the preceding in the summary iu the Book of Armagh and the Codex Epternacensis, as in our manuscript. 8 See above p. 30 note 3. * Such may be the paragraphs beginning at ix. 21, xii. 8, 40, xiii. 18, xiv. 12, xvii. 28. See above. THE SECTIONS. . 35 several witnesses. See for example ii. 21, 25 ; xi. 11, 14 ; xii. 13, 15, 16 ; xix. 11, 12 ; xxi. 34, 37 ; xxiii. 17, 26, 34. But probably the majority are to be regarded as sub-divisions of tlie sections,^ due either to our scribe or to the scribe of his archetype. It wiU be observed, as might be expected, that these extra divisions are most numerous where the older sections are longest, that is, at the begin- ning and end of the Gospel. At these places also, the indications in the summary are unusually ambiguous and inadequate. A good illustration of the way in which extra sections would have appeared and some divisions been omitted in a manuscript written as we suppose the Book of Mulling to have been, is found in the case of the Codex Sangermanensis (g^). The Gospel according to St Matthew in this manuscript is divided into 74 numbered sections,^ which are further sub-divided. The first words of each section are written in uncial rubric, and in the case of all but two (60, 61) the beginnings of the sections are the beginnings of paragraphs. There are in all about 163 paragraphs. Now if a transcript were made from this manuscript, preserving with absolute fidelity its divisions, but with the numbers omitted and the uncial writing copied in the ordinary hand of the scribe, two of the sectional division marks would be omitted, and there would be left no less than 9 1 indications of division not corresponding to recognised capitula — quite as large a proportion as we actually find in Mulling's St Luke. If the fancy or the stupidity of the copyist were exercised, the proportion would of course be still further increased. The Gospel of St Luke, in fact, in our book would appear to have been copied by a careful scribe from an archetype in which the sections were given less accurately than in r/^, while the sub-divisions were less numerous. The evidence in the case of St Matthew's Gospel for the connection of the sections of the Book of Mulling with the ancient divisions is exactly parallel to that just given for St Luke. In the following table will be found marked the beginning of each section of the first Gospel in our book. Dunn and r^ being almost useless here for our purpose, I have had recourse to the Codex Sangermanensis (7^). This manuscript contains a " capitulatio " and the corresponding sections are indicated in the text of the Gospels. The numbers to the left are those found in the text and capitulatio of the St Germain manuscript. In some cases our book agrees with the text of this codex against the capitulatio : this is indicated by the letters marg., enclosed in brackets after the numeral. At other times a section in the Book of Mulling is consistent with the sum- mary, but at variance with the marginal number in g-^^. When this happens the letters (cap.) are added. In some instances of this kind the summary and the text of g^ contradict one another. Finally it ^ Many of them arc mentioned as separate headin;:s in the Capitula. E.g., ii. 36, V. 36, xi. 5, 9, xii. 27, xiv. 12, 34, xviii. lf>, xxiii. 34, xxiv. 13, 50. '^ The numeral has iu one case {% 60) been accidentally omitted. 36 THE BOOK OF MULLING. happens pretty frequently that our manuscript has two marks of division eitlier of which would accord with the commencement of the section as described in the summary. This is marked by the use of a vinculum. Thus, for example, a division is marked in our book at vii. 7, and again at vii. 13. Either of these may be the beginning of § 16 according to the capitulatio, though in the text of g-^ the corresponding numeral is found at the latter place. Codex Sanger- Book op Mulling. Codex Sanger- Book of MCLLINQ. llANENSIg. KANENSIS. [I. (marg.)]. I. (cap). i. 1. XXXIIII. xi. 25. i. 18. XXXV. xii. 1. II. ii. 1. XXXVI. xii. 9. III. (cap). ii. 17. XXXVII. xii. 38. nil. iii. 1. XXXVIII. xii. 46. iii. 5. XXX villi. xiii. 1. iii. 10 • 'Om- nis." XL. xiii. xiii. 24. 31. V. iv. 1. xiii. 33 (?). iv. 5(?). xiiL 36. VII. iv. 17. XLII. xiii. 63. } iv. 21. xiv. 1. iv. 23. I XLIII. xiv. 23 " Ues- VIII. V. 1. i pere." tv. 3-10.1 XV. 15. V. 13. XL VI. XV. 21 (?). V. 14. XV. 28. V. 21. } XL VII. XV. 32. X. V. 26(?). XL VIII. xvi. 13. XI. V. 44. xvii. 22 (?). ) XII. vi. 2. LI. xvii. 24. ; tvi. 9 "Pater." LII. xviii. 1. tvi. 14. xviii. 8. XIII vi. 16. LIII. xviii. 15, vi. 23. xviii. 19. XIIIl. vi. 24. LIIII. xviii. 23. XV. vii. 3. LV. xix. 1. vii. 7. } LVI. xix. 13. XVI. vii. 13. xix. 16.3 XVII. vii. 21. xix. 22. XVIII. vii. 28. \ L^ai. xix. 27. vii. 29 (?). LVII. (marg.). XX. 1. vii. 29 " Nou > LVIII. XX. 17. enim" CO- LVIIII. XX. 29. viii. 1(?). j LX.4 xxi. l"Tunc." XVIIII, viii. 5. LXI. xxi. 17. i viii. 11 (?). xxi. 23 (?). XX. viii. 14. LXII. • xxi. 33. XXI. viii. 18. xxii. 11. viii. 23.2 LXIII. xxii. 15. XXII. viii. 28 (?). LXIIII. xxii. 23. XXIII. ix. 2 "Et LXV. xxiii. 1. uidens." XLVI. xxiii. 13. XXIIII. is. 10. LXVIII. xxi v. 1. XXV. ix. 14. xxiv. 14 (?). XXVII. ix. 27. LXVIIII. XXV 1. XXVIII. ix. 35. XXV. 30 (?> } X. 5. LXX. XXV. 31. X. 16. } LXXL xxvi. 1. XXX. X. 23. LXXII. xxvi. 17. X. 25 " Et si LXXIII.5 xxvi. 31. patrem" (?). xxra. 11. XXXT. (cap). X. 34. xxvii. 45. XXXII. xi. 1. xxvii. 62. } txi. 10"Ecce." LXXIIII. XX viii 1. XXXIII. xi. xi. 16. 20. } xxviii 16. 1 First letter of " beatus " always vrritten as if beginning a section. 2 A capltulum ))eRins here in the Codex Epternacensia. 3 This, rather than xix. 13, is probably the true beginning of the section. See the authori- ties in Wordsworth's Vulgate, i. 33. •• The numeral is omitted in margin, s Numbered Ixxii. in margin by an error. THE SECTIONS. 37 This table seems to need little comment. It does not appear to leave room for doubting that the divisions of our manuscript were ultimately founded on those represented in the summary and text of g^. A good many of the ancient divisions are indeed omitted or misplaced (6, 9, 26, 29, 41, 44, 45, 49, 50, 67), but the coincidence of those uliich remain with the sections of (j-^^ is most marked. It is worth while to remark that, whether the arguments just used are sound or not, it is quite certain that the divisions of St Matthew and St Luke in our manuscript have nothing to do with the Eusebian sections. These number 324 in St Luke, Mulling's paragraphs are about 160, and only about 100 of them begin at the same point as a Eusebian section. In St Matthew the number of paragraphs is less than 110, the Eusebian sections 355. The beginning of paragraph and section coincide in about 60 places. When we turn to St Mark we discover that all is changed. This Gospel was most undoubtedly derived from an exemplar in which the principle of division was that of Eusebius. The proof is easy. The Eusebian sections marked in the first ten chapters of St ]\Iark in Tischendorf's edition of the Codex Amiatinus are 116 in number. Of these at least 97 (more probably 102), coincide with Mulling's paragraphs, not more than 11 (probably 6) are omitted, and 6 are differently placed, while no sub-divisions are discernible. It is diffi- cult to fix the numbers exactly, owing to the worn state of the manuscript, but those which I have given may be regarded as very nearly exact, and they tell their own tale. It seems almost impossible to find order or system in the numer- ous divisions of St John. But punctuation marks (usually one or two points, . or . . ) which elsewhere are used sparingly, are here so frequent, and capitals are used in such arbitrary fashion, that one is led to surmise that the text of this Gospel had as a not very remote ancestor a copy written 2^^>' cola et conimata. We may take as an example chap. xxi. vv. 19-23, which appear thus (the vertical lines indicating the ends of the lines of writing) : — Hoc hautem dixit significans qua morte clari | ficaturus esset deum. et hoc cum dixis | set. dicit ei.sequere m^ conuersus | petrus uidit.^ iUum discipulum quem dilegebat. ihs | sequentem qui recubuit in coena | supra pectus eius. et dicit quis domine | qui tradit to . . Hunc ergo cum | uidisset petrus dicit ihii Domine | quid hie Dicit ei ihs Sic eum uolo | manere donee ueniam quid ad te | til me sequeris exiuit ergo sermo iste | inter fratres quia discipulus ille 1 non moriretur Sed sfc uolo ma | nere donee ueniam. quid ad te | Hie etc. Better passages than this might have been chosen for exhibiting the punctuation of the manuscript. One reason for preferring this one will appear presently. We see at once that the scribe copied the marks mechanically from his exemplar, omitting some — and these not the least important from the point of view of the reader. Assuming ^ The point here is doubtful. 38 THE BOOK OF MULLING. that each of those which he preserves represents the close, and each capital letter the beginning, of a line, and guessing where such guid- ance is not forthcoming, we may write the passage " stichometrically " as follows : — Hoc hautem dixit significans qua morte clarificaturus esset deum et hoc cum dixisset dicit ei sequere me conuersus petrus uidit ilium discipulum quern dilegebat ihs sequentem qui recubuit in coena supra pectus eius et dicit quis domine qui tradit te Hunc ergo cum uidisset petrus dicit ihii Domine quid hie Dicit ei ihs Sic eum uolc manere donee ueniam quid ad te tu me sequeris exiuit ergo sermo iste inter fratres quia discipulus ille non moriretur Sed sic uolo manere donee veniam quid ad te Hie, etc. We perceive that the marks have guided us correctly (except in one case) in the few places where they occur. We may now point out another fact. The scribe has omitted a few words before " sed sic uolo." We may suppose them to have run et non dixit illud ihs quia non moriretur, and to have been passed over through homceoteleuton. They would naturally form a single line (or perhaps two complete lines) of the exemplar, if it was written as I have supposed ; and so the error would be completely explained. This is indeed only one of a number of similar cases. The fourth Gospel is written carelessly, and the scribe has been guilty of many omissions. The most notable are the following: iv. 23, 24 (qui adorent. . .deus et); v. 37 (et qui me misit) ; vi. 54 (amen amen dico uobis) ; vii. 8 (hunc.festum); 28 (docens...ilis et) ; 42 (de bethleem...dauid); viii. 13 (testimonium perhibes) ; 39 (dixit eis ibis); 46; ix. 20 (et quia... est); 21 (nos nescimus) ; 23 (setatem habet) ; xi. 3; 25, 26 (etiamsi... credit in me); xii. 16 (tunc re- cordati...de eo); 34 (quis...hominis); xv. 16 (fructum alferatis et) ; THE SECTIONS. 39 22-24 (nunc autem...haberent); xvi. 17, 18 (et non... modicum, apparently); xx. 6 ; xxi. 23 (see above). Many, but not all, of the omissions are due to homoeoteleuton. It is natural to suppose that the majority of them consist of one or more complete lines of the archetype. But if so it is quite certain that the hnes must have varied very much in length. All, except per- haps those at vii. 28, viii. 13, would have formed lines or groups of lines in a manuscript correctly written per cola et commata. In one of them (viii. 46) our manuscript is in company with Codex Bezse, where the omission is doubtless due to the cause which has been suggested. One other reading may be mentioned in confirmation of our hypothesis. At v. 44 two clauses are inverted, namely *' quomodo potestis uos credere qui gloriam ab inuicem accipitis," and " et gloriam quae a solo est [deo] non quferitis." One or other had probably been omitted in the text of archetype, and had been restored in the margin. Does then either clause make a complete line or set of lines 1 The reading is at once explained if they do. Evidence is hardly needed, but the witness of d is here no doubt true, and it is on our side — quomodo potestis uos credere gloriam abinuicem accipientes et gloriam ab unico deo non queritis. nolite arbitrari The point in the last line probably marks (see Harris, Codex Bezae, p. 241 sq.) a division of lines in the archetype. We pause now to consider somewhat more carefully the sections into which the Book of ]\Iulling is divided in St Matthew and St Luke, and to ascertain, if we may, what conclusion may be drawn from the presence of these sections as to the history of the manu- script. First let us remark that in many copies we have not merely the sections, but also a summary or capitulatio at the beginning of the Gospels, indicating their contents. Now summaries of the type found in the Book of Durrow are almost confined to old Latin manu- scripts of the European family, and Vulgate texts which have a considerable Old Latin mixture. ^ Their antiquity is thus assured. We are in fact warranted in the inference that in any manuscript in which the summary occurs it has been ultimately derived from an old Latin exemplar. The text, on the other hand, may bear unmistakable signs of derivation from a Vulgate archetype. But this does not make our conclusion as to the summary less certain. It only shows that at some step of the process by which the copy under consideration came into being, a scribe had two exemplars ' Bergcr, op. cil,, pp. 311, 353 sqq. 40 THE BOOK OF MULLING. before him, from one of wliicli lie took his text, and from the other his cajntulatio. In some cases we may feel fairly confident that we have before us a manuscript, not merely ultimately derived, but actually copied in this fashion from two exemplars. Take for example the Book of Durrow. In this manuscript we have a summary. The text on the other hand is so slightly mixed that we may feel sure that it was transcribed or derived from a Vulgate. To increase our assurance we note the fact that in the body of the text the division into paragraphs does not agree with the capitula. But there is something more. The numbers of the cajntula are in many cases entered in the margin, and copied in such a way that it is frequently difficult to discover the exact point at Avhich the section indicated by a number was supposed to begin. ^ We may conclude that these numbers were taken, not from the copy which furnished the text, but from that which sup- plied the summary : and we are thus brought by another route to the opinion to which the consideration of the evangelical symbols has already led us, that the scribe of the Book of Durrow had before him two manuscripts, a Vulgate, from which he transcribed his text, and an Old Latin copy, from which he took the summary, the numbers just mentioned, and his conception of the symbols of the Evangelists. This supposition is confirmed by another consideration. The summaries of St Matthew and St Mark in this codex precede the Gospels. Those of St Luke and St John are written (apparently in a diiferent hand) after St John." How did this come about 1 "We can only guess, but our guess seems to have some likelihood of being correct. It is this. The summaries preceded the Gospels in the Old Latin exemplar from which they were copied, and came in the order : St Matthew, St John, St Luke, St Mark. The Durrow scribe wished to bring the order into conformity with that of his Vulgate " arguments " and Gospels. After transcribing the summary of St Matthew he therefore turned over to St ]\Iark. This finished he had come to the end of the preliminary matter in his pre-hierony- mian exemplar, and so, forgetting that he had omitted two of the summaries, he laid it aside and went on with his Vulgate copy. It may be said that this indicated great stupidity on his part, but we have many proofs that the scribe of the Book of Durrow was singu- larly wanting in intelligence.^ His error was subsequently observed by another, who repaired it as best he could by writing the capitu- latio of St Luke and St John at the end of the Gospels. Turning now from the summary to the sections themselves we come to something which is of even more venerable antiquity. The sections are not only found in Old Latin texts : their origin can be traced to a Greek source. They are nearly identical with those of ^ Abbott, Evang. Vers., p. v. 2 Abbott, op. cit., p. xxvi. ^ Abbott in Eermathciia, viii. 200 ; Evang. Vers. Antch., p. x.x, sq. THE SECTIONS. 41 the Codex Yaticanus (B), the oldest copy of the original text of the Gospels in existence. Wherever then we find these divisions not merely marked in the margin of a Latin Gospel, but actually im- bedded in its text, we may be assured that it is ultimately descended from a copy of an Old Latin version, however far removed its present text may be from the Old Latin type. To apply all this to our book. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke are divided into the ancient sections, the marginal numbers having disappeared. These Gospels therefore have been derived from a manuscript of the Old Latin. The present text, indeed, as we shall see hereafter, is not for the most part pre-hieronymian. It must, therefore, in the course of time, have taken into itself many Vulgate readings. St Mark, on the other hand, is divided into Eusebian sections ; and the preliminary matter is, so far as it remains, such as properly belongs to Jerome's Version. The text therefore of the second Gospel and of the first volumen is derived in the long run from one or more ■'■ Vulgate manuscripts. While finally St John, with neither system of division, gives no indication of the ultimate source from which it was taken. But as one of its ancestors was written j)er cola et commata, and as the other Gospels bear no trace of this arrangement, it was probably ultimately derived from an exemplar different from that of the other parts of the book. Our conclusion is that the Book of Mulling, or one of its immediate ancestors, was com- piled from at least two, probably from a greater number of separate exemplars. ^ It appears more likely that St Mark and the preliminary matter were derived from different archetypes. For it will be argued hereafter (p. 71 sqq.) that the marginal numbers which appear in the former were copied from the same manu- script as the Eusebian Canons. But the divisions indicated by the numerals not seldom differ from those implied by the paragraphs of the text itself. Sections, for example, indicated by marginal signatures, begin without capitals at Mar. ii. 23, vi. 46, viii, 32 (Et adprsehendens), ix. 43, xiv, 36. At iii. 7 the number is placed opposite the beginning of the verse, while the second " Et " is written in the margin ; numbers are assigned to viii, 30, x. 28, xii. 28, xiv. 38, xiv. 64 (quid), while the corresponding capitals are found at viii, 29 (Respondens), X, 29, xii. 22, xiv. 37, xiv. 63 (Quid) respectively. Other instances might be added, but these may suffice. 42 THE BOOK OF MULLING. CHAPTER IV. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. The purpose of this chapter is to direct attention to two portions of the text of the Synoptic Gospels preserved in the Book of IMulHng, which appear to be in themselves of considerable interest, and to have some bearing on the history of the manuscript, and on that of the Irish recension of the Latin Bible. § 1. Corrections. It is necessary, however, by way of preface, to notice one of the palaeographical features of the manuscript. It will be at once perceived by any one who inspects it, that the hand of a corrector has been busy on its pages. Corrections, it is true, are in some places much more frequent than in others ; but there is scarcely a page in the entire book which is altogether free from them. The existence of a large number of these corrections is easily explained. The manuscript, as originally written, was not supplied with the numbers in the margin referring to the so-called Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke, moreover, were divided into paragraphs, which, whatever may have been their origin, certainly had no relation to these sections. When, therefore, the numbers were subsequently added, an attempt was made to indicate the exact point at which each section began. This was effected in various ways. Usually the end of a section was denoted by a punctuation mark, resembling a colon followed by a comma (:,). The following word was sometimes marked with the sign /^, and a similar sign was placed over the corresponding number in the margin {e.g. Mark viii. 30, f. 43 v b). More commonly, how- ever, the first letter or two of the section were altered in such a Avay as to make them more prominent. Sometimes they were simply re-traced, as we may see, for example, in line 15 of the second column of f. 48 r.^ At other times they were re-written in a larger character. Examples of this may be found in line 8, where the sign for 'et' (1) has been transformed into 6^, and line 23 of col. a, where, in the space occupied by e, the letter C has been written, the original letter being left otherwise unaltered. Occasion- ally, when the first word of a section happened to be also the first word of a line, the scribe has placed one or more dots under it, ^ A facsimile reproduction of this page will be found facing the title page. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 43 re-writing the same word in the niargin (f. 46 r h, 11. 3, 23). But not infrequently he has actually erased the original word and written it afresh, either in the margin (as in f. 48 r, col, a, 1. 36), or in the space occupied by the erasure, or partly in one, partly in the other (f. 46 r a, 11. 15, 16). This is frequently done when it is desired that a section should begin with the first Avord of a line, where the original writing does not admit of its doing so. In this case the last word or two of the previous section are also erased, and transferred to the right margin opposite the preceding line. In such cases as those last mentioned, we can, of course, usually have no absolute certainty as to the original reading of the manuscript ; but obviously we have no right to assume, in the absence of indica- tions pointing in that direction, that it differed from that which the corrector has put in its room. But besides the corrections made with the object of adapting the manuscript to the division into sections, there are very many others the purpose of which is undoubtedly to change the reading. Much the same methods are used in this as in the former case. A word has a dot placed under each of its letters, and that which is to be substituted for it is written above it (f, 48 r a, 1. 20) or in the margin ; a word to be omitted is marked with a group of three dots above it, or with single dots above or below, or in both positions (f. 48?- a, 11. 2.5, 36); and in the case of a whole sentence so dealt with, a punctuation mark precedes and follows the omitted portion, and a wave line is drawn down the margin (f. 46 r a, 11. 29-31) ; a word to be supplied is Avritten above the line or in the margin, with a mark indicating its place in the text (f. 46 ?' ?>, 11. 20, 35 ; f. 48 r h, 1. 23) ; or, finally, a word is erased, and the resulting space is either left blank, or something else written in it {e.g. f. 48 r a, 1. 30, where u = uero is written over a partially erased ri = hautem, f. 48 r h, 1. 20). Where we find a word written over an erasure not at the beginning or end of a section we are plainly warranted in the inference that the displaced word of the original text was different, and we can often conjecture with high probabihty what the original word actually was. § 2. General Character of the Text. It is now our task to make an attempt to ascertain the general character of the text of the Gospels in the Book of jMulling as orifjinally ivritten (which we shall henceforth designate by the letter /a). This we shall most easily do by collating a few passages with the Codex Amiatinus (A). In parallel columns with the collation of these selected portions of /x, we shall place, for com- parison, collations of the same passages as they are found in three other Irish manuscripts. We take first the Book of Durrow (Dur- mach), which may be regarded as the ancient Celtic manuscript of 44 THE BOOK OF MULLING. the Gospels which approaches most nearly to the ordinary Vulgate text. The Book of Kells (Q) is a good example of the usual type of Irish text, — having a Vulgate base, but with a large contingent of old Latin readings. A^Hiile, as an example of pre-hieronymian Irish texts, we give in the fourth column the readings of Codex Usserianus {i\). This manuscript is in a fragmentary state, and by this circumstance I have been mainly guided in selecting the passages to be collated. It is essential that all four texts should be approxi- mately complete in the passages presented, and I have therefore chosen those places in which the Codex Usserianus is practically intact for at least two or three consecutive verses. No complete collation or edition of the Book of Mulling has been published. The text of the Codex Usserianus has been printed by Professor Abbott, with collations of the Books of Kells and Durrow and another manuscript (r.^, which will be referred to lower down. I have re-collated all these texts, so far as it appeared necessary for my purpose, and where the reading of any of the manuscripts differs, in my judgment, from that given by Dr Abbott, I have indicated this fact by inserting the letters ' vis.' in brackets after the reading in question. Mere differences of spelling I have neglected, but a few readings which might perhaps have been included under this description I have retained, marking them, however, with an obelus (■[■), and building no argument upon them. Readings in which fx and r^ agree are indicated by asterisks (*), THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 45 A 1. Liber Mulling. Codex durmachknsis. Codex Kenanensis. Codex Usserianus Matt. xxi. 90 23. om. docentem. 24. * diclte' mihi quem si dixeritis mihi aut pro et tert. (ms.). eis pro illis. uerbum pro sermonem. * q[uem dicit]e milii pro quem si d. m. pro quem si dix- eritis mUii. 25. t intra pro inter. t intra pro inter. [fu]it pro erat. de cailo pro e caelo. illi autem pro at illi. A 2. Marc. vii. 29. illi+iesus. sermonem hunc pro hunc ser. dix[it] pro ait. iesus pro illi {vel illi +iesus). uade propter hunc ser- monem pro p. h. s. uade. a pro de. 30. abisset+ad. t super pro supra. abisset+ad. abisset+ad. uen[is]set^ro abisset. om. suam. 31. Tyri+et. t medicos pro me- dics {ms.). 32 deprecabantur pro deprecantur. inponant pro in- ponat. adferunt pro adducunt. depraecantes pro et deprecantur. inponeretpro inponat. ei pro illi. 33. Marc. viii. deorsum pro seor- sum. auriculas +eius. suscipi[e]n3 pro adpre- heudeus. conspuens [mi]sit digi- tos suos in auriculas eius etpjomisitd. s. in a. et expuens. 2. banc turbam pro \ turbam pro turba. turbam istam pro istam turbam pro turba. t traditio pro tri- duo. tui-ba. turba. quoniam pro quia. om. ecce. triduum iam pro iam triduo. est ex quo hlc sunt pro sustinent me. 46 THE BOOK OF MULLING. A 2 — continued. Liber Mulling. Codex durmachensis. Codex Kenanensis. Codex Usserlinus (n). Marc. viii. 3. dimittere pro si dimi- sero. domus auas pro om. suam. dumum suam. nollo ne fatigentur pro deficient. quia quidam jno q[uo]niam quidam et quidam euim. alitiui pro quidam enim. his pro eis. 4. respondentes pro responderunt. sui+dicentes. quis p[os]sit pro po- tent quis. om. hie. 5. t interrogabit pro interrogauit. t quod {ins.) pro quot. dixerunt+ei (ms.). t quod pro quot. A3. Luc. iii. 19. faciebat pro fecit. 20. et adiecit pro adiecit et. *t super ino supra. *t super pro supra. om. et sec. om. et sec. om. et sec. t carcerem pro car- \ carcerem pro car- t carcerem pro car- cere. cere (ms.). cere. 21. baptizatus esset pro baptizaretur. populus-f-ab iohanne. cumque et iesus bapti- zatus esset pro et lesu baptizato. -fab eo ante et sec. orante-fipso. aperti suut caeli pro apertum est caelum. 22. t columbam pro co- lumba. quasi pro sicut. eum pro ipsum. Alius meus es tu pro tu es f. m. om. dilectus. te+bene. te-fbene. te-(-bene {ms.). ego hodie genui te pro iu te complacuit mihi. 23. • putabatur pro pu- putabatur pro pu- putabatur pro pu- qui' putabatur pro ut taretur. taretur. taretur. putaretur. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 47 A 3 — continued. Liber Mulling. Codex durmachensis. Codex Kenanensis. Codex Usserianus in). Luc, XV. 5. * earn pro illam. * earn pro illam. *t iupouet pro im- *t inponet pro iuiponit. ponit. inp.+eam. * super p^-o in. * super pro in. cum gaudio 'pro gaudens. 6. om. et. amicos +SU0S. domui jjro domum. gratulamini pro congrat. uicinos+suos. quod pro quia, iuuenerim pro inueni. 7. dico+autem. dico+autem. in pro super. unum peccatorem unum peccatorem pro uno pecca- pro uno pecca- tore. tore. {Mat fi.) t habentem pro ha- t habentem pro lia- agente pro habente. bente. bente. (Mat /i.) istos pro iustis. iustos pro iustis. iustos pro iustis. egent pro indigent. (Mat IX.) t paeuitentiam pro t peniteiitiam pro paeniteutia. paeniteutia. 8. (MatfjL.) quae + est. decem+et. 001. dragmam. uertit pro euertit. uertit pro euertit. scopis muudat pro euertit. domum +suam. domum +suam. inueniat+eam. 9. amicos et uicinos (?n.s.)p/'o arnicas et uicinas. quod pro quia, inuenerim pro inueni. A 4. Joh. i. 16 t accipimus. 17. (Mat (n.) * gratia-(-autera. 18. * umquam+nisi. ace. +et (ms.). t accipimus (ms.). acc.+et (ms.). umquam + nisi quoniam pro et. quoiiiam pro quia. * gratia +autem. * umquam+nisi. 19. * hoc+est. miserunt+ei. om. ad eum. hoc+est. hoc+est. qui pro quis (ms.). * hoc+[es]t. cum niisisent pro quando miserunt. ilium pro eum pri. eum aec. +dicentes. 48 THE BOOK OF MULLING. A 4 — continued. Codex Codex Codex Usseriands Liber Mulling. DURMACHENSIS. Kenanensis. (n). Joh. i. 20. mn. et confessus om. et (erf. est sec. [eg]o non sum pro non sum ego. 21. eum + * iterum ' tu . * eum+it[erum]. dicentes pro quid ergo. om. et sec. dixit pro dicit. ait pro dicit. sum+numquid. OTO. et tert. 22. +et ad j'm't. (dixerunt [ms.'i = Am.) om. ei. es+dic nobis. es+tu. nos miserunt pro mi- serunt nos. 23. +qu[i ei]s ad init. om. ego. essaias profeta dixit (ms.) pro dixit e. p. ergo pro ego. 24. an pro erant. om. erant. om. erant. om. erant. a pro ex. iudaeis pro pharisaeis. 25. om. et {sed spat. ut interrogarent pro et relict.). interrogauerunt. ilium pro eum. (Mat rj.) * +ei ante quid. +ei(»rts.)anroaccepit. taccipitproaccepit. iesus accepit pro ace. iesus. om. et pri. et pro ac. et dedit pro dedit- (}iiat ri.) que. ' dicens pro et ait. dicens pro et ait. * dicens pro et ait. ' manducate pro editee.xhocomnes ■ malnducjate 2^>''> co- comedite pro et comedite. medite. est+enim. est-l-enini : ad Jin. vers. +quod confringiturpro saeculi vita. ' est+enim. 52 THE BOOK OF MULLING. B 1 — continued. Liber Mulling. CODEX DURMACHENSIS. Codex Kenanensis. CODBX U8SERIANUS (n). Matt. xxvi. 27. t bibete pro bibite. 28. t effundetur (ni«.) effundetur pro t effundetur pro effun- pro effunditur. uobis et pro mul- tis pro pro mul- tis effunditur. ditur. ♦t remisione pro re- t remisione(ms.)^)'o *t remissioue {tm.) pro niissionein. remissionem. remissionem. 29. * uobis+qtiia. uobis+quia. ' uobis+quia. t gemine (ma.) jtro ac creatura pro hoc genimlne. genimine. diem ilium cum diem ilium cum diem ilium quo illud diem cum 'i'>"> illud prn cliein ilium pro diem illud pro diem 7)ro diem cum ilium. cum ilium. 30. 31. cum ilium. cum ilium. om. illis. (ista=A[?HS.].) Matt, xxvii. 20, principes pro prill - principespropriii- principes pro princeps. caps. ceps. * populopro populis • populo pro populis. liautem pro uero. autem pro uero. 21. * de duobus dimit- om. uobis (rns.). dimittam pro di- * [d]e duobus uobis di- tam uobis pro mitti. mittam pro uobis de uobis de duobus duobus dimitti. diraitti. 22. t qui 2fro quid. * ergo pro igitur. * ergo pro igitur. fa[cia]mus pro faciam. om. de. •23. om. illis. pilatusijropraeses. t praessit (ms.) pro praeses. om. magis {ms.). clamaueruut pro clamabant. om. dicentes. 24. proflcit pro pro- se nihil [prjoficere pro flceret. quia n. proticeret. t fierit pro fleret. tumultum fieri pro tumultus tieret. fler.+in populo. [ac]cepit acjuam pro accepta aqua. t lauauit pro lauit. » raanus+suas. • manus-l-suas. dicens coram po- coram+omiii. pulo pro coram p. d. ego innocens pro sum ego pro ego sum. innoc. ego. " om. iusti. ' nm. iusti {espat.). 25. respondit pro re- spondens. omnis turba pro uni- uersus populus. " liuius pro eius. uestros;)rouostros. ' huius 2>ro eius. 26. uero prn autem. flagellis caesum pro llagellatum. eumcruciflgeretpro * eum cruciflgerent pro crucifiReretur. crncifigeretur. THE BIBLICAL TEXT 53 B 1 — continued. B 2: Luc. V. ! 6. ut pro cum. multitudinem pis- ! cium pro pis. ni. * ita ut rumpereutur ita ut rumpeba- * ita ut ru[m]perentur pro rumpebatur tur hautem pro pro rump, autem. autem. rump, autem. * retia pro rete. * retia pro rete. 7. tunc pro et pri. iuuuerunt pro aimu. '■ socis+suis. "* sociis+suis. quicum^roettert. om. et quart. * repleberunt pro * repleueruut 2;co impl. impleuerunt. ut sec.-fpaene. 8. hoc uiso pro quod uidisset^jro uideret. uidisset pro uideret. cum uideret. * cm. Petrus. * om. Petrus. t procedit pro pro- t procedit pro pru- t procedit pro pro- cidit. cidit. cidit. * dicens+rogo te. me+domine. 0711. domine. * dicens+rogo te. quouiam pro quia. 9. ' timor pro stupor. * timor pro stupor. * inuasserat j>yo cir- * inuaserat pro circum- cumdederat. dederat. * illuui pro eum. * ilium pro eum. t capturam 2>ro captura. 10. autem +et. ' dixit pro ait. * dixit pro ait. iesus ad simonem pro ad s. iesus. • ciis liomiues pro * eris homines pro hom. horn. eris. eris. uiuiticans pro capiens. 11. * nauiculisinterram * nauiculis in terrampro l)ro ad t. nauibus. ad t. nauibus. * eum pro ilium. * eum pro ilium. Luc. viii. 10. ait pro dixit. scire pro nosse. autem + non est datum sed. similitudinibus pro parabolis. 54 THE BOOK OF MULLING. B 2 — continued. Liber Mulling. Codex durmachensis. Luc. viii. haec esthauteni;»/'o est autera haec. similitudo pro pa- rabola. 12. quod pro qui. autem+cecidit. " hii sunt pro sunt hi. * audiunt+uerbum. uenit hautem pro deinde uen. tulit pro tollit. * de corde eoruni ucrbuni pro u. de c. eorum. petrosam pro pet- ram. * -flii sunt ante qui. audiunt pro audi- erint. * -fueibumautecuui sec. ■ accipiunt pro susc. ~ illud pro uerbuni. non habent * radi- ces pro radicem non h. ' t quia pro qui. audiunt pro audi- erunt. per soilicitudinem pro soUicitudini- bus. diuitiarum pro et diuitiis. <1ulcidinis pro uol- uptatibus. om. euntes. adferunt pro refer- unt. autem+ uerbuni. Codex Eenanensis. Codex Ussekianus (n). tulit pro tollit. accipiunt (j)is.) pro i accipiunt pro susc. susc. • radices (ms.) pro radices pro ra- radicem. j diceni. nm. et sec. (ins.). tribulationis piv temtationis. a sollicitudinibus (ms.) pro soil. uoluutatibus (ms.) pro uolupt. t quia pro qui. tribulationis pro temtationis. a sollicitudinibus pro soil. haec autem pro est auteni haec. ■ similitudo pro para- bola. +qui seminat est filius hominis ante semen. semen+autem. uiam-f seniinati sunt, hi sunt pro sunt hi. audiunt-f* uerbum'in cordibus suis. de corde illorum uer- buni pro u. de c. eoruni. uti ne credaut etpro ne credeutes. qui autem 2>''o D^iQ qui. petram-t-seminatisunt. * + hi sunt ante qui. + uerbum atitc cum sec. accipiuut pro susc. illud pro uerbuni. ipsi pro hi. radices pro radicem. t quia pro qni. (ct in tempore temta- tionis recedunt=A [m^.].) cum auilierintproaudi- eruiit. and. -f uerbuni. om. et pri. in sollicitudinibus pro soli. * uolumptatibus pro uul- uptatibus. uitae-f huius saeculi. * om. euntes. * adferent pro referunt. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 55 A cursory inspection of these collations reveals immediately a re- markable difference between them and those with which we were previously occupied. Two facts at once strike us. The column which stands in closest relation to the first is no longer the third, but the fourth ; and the number of asterisks in the first and fourth columns in proportion to the total number of readings has increased. Once more our first impression is borne out by a count. The number of various readings recorded for fx is 95, for v-y 99, for Durm 16, for Q 39. And of the 95 variants in jj. and 99 in t\, 51, or more than half, are marked Avith an asterisk. This suggests that the part of [x witli which Ave are now concerned has a text substantially Old Latin with Vulgate mixture, rather than, as the remainder, a text sub- stantially Vulgate with Old Latin readings. The relative number of variants in Dunn, Q, and i\ has not materially changed, while that in fj, has been almost trebled. Again, the number of asterisks has advanced from 14 in 43, to 51 in 95. This is Avhat we might expect to find if the text before us is really Old Latin. For the variations of any Irish Biblical codex from the Vulgate fall into tAvo classes — ■ errors of transcription and Old Latin readings. The number of the former would be about equal in two copies written under similar con- ditions ; the latter Avill of course vary in proportion to the remoteness of the manuscript from the Old Latin type. Assuming, therefore, that there Avas one Old Latin recension in Ireland, the number of agreements in variation from the Vulgate between any tAvo copies of that recension Avill be greater in proportion to the whole number of variations than betAveen tAvo manuscripts, one of Avhich is mainly Vidgate and the other mainly Old Latin. Xow the passages of ju. which have just been collated Avitli A do not stand alone. The same test applied to the tAvo passages, extend- ing — to speak roughly — from the middle of St MattlicAV xxiv. to near the end of the Gospel, and in St Luke from the beginning of chap. iv. almost to the end of chap, ix., brings to light exactly similar phen- omena. The text of these two passages is absolutely different in type* from that Avhich appears throughout the remainder of the Synoptic Gospels. It is essentially Old Latin. It is naturally difficult to determine, Avithin a verse or tAvo, the exact points at which these Old Latin portions of oiu' Book begin and end. It can be done, hoAvever, Avith more precision than might have been anticipated, as my third series of collations Avill demonstrate. 56 THE BOOK OF MULLING. C 1. Liber Mulling. Codex durmachensis. Codex Eenanensis. Codex Usserianus Matt, xxiv. 1. accesserunt + ad accesserunt -f- ad eum. eum. aedificatioueni ;>ro aedificationeni pro structuram pro aedi- aedificationes. aedificationes. ficationes. 2. illis pro eis. \\\\i (ins.) pro eis. illis i»-o eis. [e]is dixit pro dixit eis. om. hie. 3. om. eo. in monte pro super 'moutem. discipuli-f eius. discipuU-f eius. 4. (Mat usque -educat /].) 5. {Mat usque meo et a christus usque -ent dicentes+quia. n-) 6. * audietis, hauteni autem (ms.) pro audietis enim p^-o * audietis enim pro audi- pro audituri enim. audituri enim turi enim estis. enim estis. estis. pugn[as] pro proelia. proeliorum-f sed. 7. exsurget pro consurget. contra (ms.);;)-oiu contra pro in {bis). S€C. om. pestilentiae et. 8. euim^jj-o autem. o[mnia] haec pro haec autem omnia. 9. t tribulationem pro t tribulationem pro t tribulationem pro tribulatione. tribulatione. tribulatione. 10. * inuicem^n+se. inuicem2'»'i-fse. inuiceni pri+&e. oLcid[ent . . ]pro odio habebunt. 11. insurgent ^j*o sur- insurgent ())is. )p/v' e,vsur[gent] pro surgent. gent. surgent. uuiltos seducent pro sed. mult. 12. quia 7)'-o quoniam. iniquitas+et. *t refrigerescet (sic) t refriget (?ns. p. m.) "t refrigerescit i^ro refri- pro refrigescet. pro refrigescet. gescet. 13. permanserit pro permanserit pro permanserit pro I perseuerauerit. perseuerauerit. perseuerauerit. 14. * per totum orbem t orbe regui iu uni- * per totum ()«s.) orbem pro in uniuerso uerso {ms.) pro pro in uniuerso orbe. orbe. regiii iu uni- uerso orbe. {Mat ab hoc usque [reg]ni et ab in sec. bisque -bus et ueniet consummatio rj.) 15. hauteni pro ergo. {Mat usque -tunicu1. ' et current /)/o cur- ' [et currenjt (ms.) pro rentes. t aduerunt {ms. p. m.) pro ado- rauerunt. suis pro eius. currentes. (nuntiate [)»w.] = A.) om. autem. accesserunt -1- ail eum. 10. timere-fsed. 12. IS. ucnerunt nocte^y/'o nocte uen. 14. 15. instructi j:>/'o docti. t et-|-et (wis.). timere-fsed (»«a-.). aduuiitiaueruut (ms.) pro nuiit. edocti pro erant docti. t deuulgatum (i/w.) t deuulgatum (ins.) pro din. pro diu. t illc pro iliac. anplexerunt pro touu- erunt. tjuia praecedo uo[sJ pro ut eant. galilaeam-fet. sunt pro f uerant. consilium acceperuu[tj pro cousilio accepto. iiiK. copiosam. pcrs[uade]bimus pro suad. (hiat ri). t deuulgatum pro diu. )»oc pro istud^ THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 69 It will be seen at once that there is a sudden change in the relation between ^ and i\ after xxviii. 3. For xxvii. 65 — xxviii. 3 the colla- tion yields the following figures : ^i 8, )\ 6, Q 7, Durm 1, asterisks 4. The ratio of these numbers agrees pretty closely with that of those already given for xxvii. 40-64. But for xxviii. 4-15 the result is different. Here we get /a 11, r^ 16 or more, Q 10, Durm 3, asterisks 3 or more. The sudden decrease in the number of readings in /x and the almost more notable disappearance of asterisks are remarkable. Our conclusion is that the Old Latin text ends with xxviii. 3. This conclusion, however, could not, with the evidence now given, be held with absolute confidence, for the proportion of the variants of //, to those of 1\ is considerably larger than in the greater part of the manuscript. This might perhaps be accounted for by the specially imperfect state of i\ just here, or by a greater amount than usual of Vulgate mixture in its text. But to place the matter beyond doubt, let us apply another test. The Clermont manuscript in the Vatican Library (h) agrees more closely than any other Old Latin manuscript of St Matthew with the Irish text. We may use it, then, in place of ?'j in these verses. Now let us examine the following collations of fjb, Dunn, Q, and /( for St Matt, xxviii. 4-20. 60 THE UOOK OF MULLING- C3. Liber Mvllino. Codex Codex Codex Claromontanus DURMACHENSIS. Kenanensis. (h). Matt, xxviii. 4. uel nioltui (iiin.) pro uelut mor- tui. a pro prae. 5. i.\u\-d pro <|UoJ. 6. bic + sed. dixerat pro dixit. * uenite+et. uenite+et (»ts.). uenite+et. * uenite+et. "• sed pro et pri. ite et 2»'o euntes. surrexit + a luoi - surrexit + a uior- tuis. tuis. ^ om. ecce pri. * om. ecce pri. t praecedet j»ro praecedit. sicut iiricdixit pm ij)n. ecce prajdixi sicut dixitp/o ecce dixi pro praedixi. ecce iii-ccdixi. uobis (?«s.). praedixi. S. ' gaudio niagno pre gaudio niaguo pro gaudio magno pro ' gaudio magnoyro mag- iiiagno gaudio. magno gaudio. magno gaudio. no gaudio. et current pro cui- occurrentes pro cur- i entes. suis pro eius. rentes. 9.*t habete jrro hauete t habete pro hauete. om. autera. accesserunt + ad eum. amplexauerunt pro tenuerunt. 1 10. timere+sed. tiniere+sed (ms.). ite+et. quia praecedo uoa pro ut eant. • galileam+et. uidebitis?)ro uidebunt. 11. t et+et(m«.). adnuutiauerunt (ms.) pro nun- tiauerunt. t ciuitate pro ciuitatem. suut pro fuerant. 12. consilium acceperunt et pro consilio ac- cepto. magiiam pro copiosam. 13. et dixerunt pro dicen- tes. +illis ante dicite. ueneruntnoctepro nocte uenerunt. 14. audierit praesis pro audituni fuerit a praeside. persuademus pro sua- debimus. 1.'). ' iiistructipj'odocti. edocti pro erant docti. « instructi pro docti. hoc pro istud. t deuulgatuiu (ins.) t deuulgatum (ms.) pro diuulgatuni. ^irodiuulgatuni. 16. t consituerat (ms.) pro constit. discipuli + eius (((IS.). 17. cum uidlssent pro ui- dentes. 18. (iesus=.4m [»ns.].) \ est+est. 19. om. ergo. * +nunc ante do- +nunc ante do- * +nunc ante docete. cete. cete. 20. obseruare pro ser- obseruare pro ser- uare. uare. om. anieu (m$.). om. amen. THE H115LIGAL TEXT, 61 It is not too much to say that our inference is completely estab- lished by the foregoing table. The Codex Claromontanus yields 28 variants against 4 in Dunn, 1 2 in yu- and 1 3 in Q, while the asterisks have dwindled to five. The Old Latin fragment of St Matthew therefore begins at or a little after xxiv. 1 2 and ends at xxviii. 3. Now let us turn to St Luke. That the portion upon which the genealogy immediately follows (iii. 19-23) is mixed Vulgate will be evident from the collation A 3. Omitting the genealogy, an examina- tion of which would be valueless for our purpose, we next collate the early verses of chapter iv. 62 THE BOOK OF MULLING. D 1. LIBER Mulling. Luc, iv. ^ (leserto jtro deser- tiini. 2. +in (!(' inH. vers. • illis diebus peo dicbus illis. t esurit ■pro esiiriit. iesus+dicens. t uiuit Tpro uiuet. * ilium +iteruni. * diabolus+in mon- tem excelsuni ualde. ei "pro illi. mundi pro orbis terrae. Ipsorum pro illo- rum. ■ uoliiero pro uolo. om. procidens. om. coram, omnia tua pro tua omnia. est+enim. owl. soli. 0. eum pro ilium. ei pro illi. 10. quoniam pro quod, 't mandauit/Jroman- dabit. custodiant pro con- servent. 11. vm. et. manibus+suis. Codex durmachensis. uoluero pro uolo. uero {mn.) 2 ergo. om. procidens. t illis pi'o illi. t mandauitproman dabit. om. et. manibus + suis Codex Eenanensis. +in ad init vera his pro illis sec. Codex Usserianus 1 uiuit pro uiuet. zabulus+in mon- tem excelsuni (ms.). uoluero pro uolo. uero pro ergo. si cadens pro pro- cidens si. t mandauitproman- dabit. mn. et. manibus -ftuis. repletus i>ro plenus. reuersus pro regressus. deserto pro desertum. lier dies pro diebus. (et tem.[wi«.]=A.) illis diebus pro diebus illis. his pro illis sec. -f postea ante esuriit. ut lapides [i]sti panes fiant pro lapidi huic ut panis fiat. om. et. illi pro ad ilium. om. quia. vv. 5-8 post vv. 9-12. illum+iterum. (liabulus+[in montem al]tissimum. dixit pro ait. illi pro ei : -fdiabolus. ■ HO[l]uero pro uolo. dabo pro do. t illani {ms.)pro ilia. si procedens pro pro- cidens si. om. coram. dixit illi iesus pro iesus d. i. iesus + uade post me satanas. diliges dominum deum tuum pro d. d. t. adorabis. ilium -(-diaboUis. 'tniandauit pro man- dabit. te conseruent pro cons, te. om. quia. t tollant pro tollent. THE BTBLICAT. TEXT. 63 An analysis of this collation makes it clear, as I believe, that a sudden change in the character of the text takes place at the end of verse 4. For vv. 1-4 the numbers are, /a 4, Durm 0, Q 2, i\ 11, asterisks 2; while for vv. 5-11 we have yu- 17, Durm 5, Q 6, i\ 15, asterisks 4. The beginning of the Lucan Old Latin fragment is therefore to be placed at verse 5. Its close may with no less confidence be assigned to ix. 54. Scarcely any part of the manuscript agrees so closely with i\ as Luke ix. 45-54. As our collations of passages in this Gospel have not been numerous, Ave give a comparison of the four texts for these verses and a few which follow them in full, in order that the complete change which occurs in yu, at v, 54 may the more easily appear. The number of variants are, for vv. 45-54, jjl 27, Dnrm. 6, Q 9, i\ 29 or more, asterisks 17; for vv. 55-62, /x 11, Dimn 8, Q 7, r^ 23, asterisks 3. Our second Old Latin fragment tlierefore includes Luke iv. 5 — ix. 54. D 2 Liber Mulling. Codex durmaohensis. Codex Kenanen.sis. Luc. ix. 45. * hoc uerbum pro uei'buni istud. ' erat hauteiu pro et erat. ' coopertiim pro ue- latum. illis prn ante eos. iiittlli;\ercnt {sic) pro sentirent. 46. * in eis cogitatio pro cog. in eos. om. maior. j 47. * iesus hauteni pro at iesus. * eorum pro illorum. I adprajhendit pro ' adprehendens. ; pueruni -fet. * om. eum. . * om. illis. * acciperit pro sus- ceperit. t recipit pro recepit : * +non me recipit sed. * cm. omnes. om. et sec. tenebant pro time- bant. t recipit jwo recepit. )»). et sec. eorum '{ms.) pro illorum. t recipitpro recepit : + non me recipit sed. OODEX USSERIANUS (n) '' hoc uerbum pro uer- bum isturo sen- tirent. erger, p. 89) ; the Sapiential Books in Metz 7 (Vulgate up to the middle of Wisdom, thenceforth "an exceedingly mixed text, abounding in passages taken from the ancient versions : " p. 101) ; the text of Acts in the Rosas Bible, Paris, B.N. Lat. 6 (Vulgate, except xi. 1-xii. 8, whicli is European : p. 25) ; and, most striking of all, the text of Acts in Paris B.N. 321. This is so closely analogous to our manuscrijit that M. Bcrgor's words (p. 77) may be quoted: " Lo livro des Actes des Ajiotrcs est compose de deux parties fort differentes. Le premier tiers, jusqu'au verset 7 du cliapitre xiii., re{iresente un texte mele dans lequel les elements anciens tiennent une si grande place, que I'on peut a pen pros le con- siderer comme un texte ancien. Le texte anterieur a saint Jerome reprend h. xviii. 15 et occupe le fin du livre. Malheureusement les le9ons anciennes ont ete le plus souvent corrigees par grattage, de sorte qu'il est (juehpiefois didicile do les retrouver. Entre ces deux limites, le texte somble etre un texte meridional," etc. The change of a few words would make this an accurate description of the text of St Matthew in our Book. Other parallels are mentioned in the text. E 60 THE BOOK OF MULIJXG. It will conduce to clearness if, before giving what we believe to be the most probable answer to this question, we state a theory which is obviously suggested by the facts, and which for some time appeared to the writer sullicient to account for them. Let us suppose that the scribe — the writer, that is, either of the manuscript actually before us, or of one from which it was copied — had before him a codex from which a few pages were missing. The text of this was mainly Vulgate. When he reached the lacunae, the deficiencies of the primary exemplar were supplied from another, the text of Avhich was pre-hieronymian. The truth of this hypothesis is, of course, incapable of proof. But it accounts for the facts by which it is suggested, and it is confirmed by various considerations. It supposes, be it observed, that the main exemplar of the scribe was an imperfect copy of the Vulgate. This is proved to have been the case in another instance — the Stowe St John. In the Stowe manuscript the lacunae of the exemplar are not supplied in the copy.^ It supposes, again, that our scribe used two exemplars, preferring the Vulgate, but having recourse to the other, an Old Latin manu- script, in case of need. That two different types of text should be current side by side in Ireland in early times, and that copies of both should be found in the library of a single monastery, will not surprise those Avho have studied Mr Haddan's account ^ of the gradual progress of the Vulgate in these Islands, or M. Berger's abridgment of the story.^ And moi'e direct proof in the shape of parallel cases is not wanting. The scribe of the Book of Durrow had in his hands, in like manner, two manuscripts — one of the Vulgate, another of the Old Latin.* So, again, had the scribe of Ussher's Codex. Its text is pre-hieronymian, and so lacked the Pericope AduUerae. This sup- posed deficiency is supplied from a Vulgate manuscript.^ And, more- over, a similar hypothesis will be found to explain some of the phen- omena of the Codex Usserianus Alter (r.,). This manuscript Professor Abbott regards as preserving an Old Latin text in St Matthew. In the latter chapters it certainly does so, but I venture to think the fact is not so clearly made out in the earlier portion of the Gospel. I must not encumber these pages with needless collations. It will suffice therefore to say that of the first half of St ^Matthew's Gospel only three fragments remain — i. 18-ii. 6, iv. 24-v. 29, and xiii.7-xiv. 1. In the two latter of these passages the variants of Q are almost identical in number with those of r^ ; in the first there is a decided preponderance on the side of the latter manuscript. Now the exist- ing portions of chapters iv., v., and xiii. are quite long enough to ^ J. H. Bernard in the Transadions of the Royal Irish Academy, xxx. p. 316. 2 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Irdand, vol. i. p. 180 sqq. * l^xM'gfr, L'Histoirc, p. 30. * Sec above pp. 21, 39. ^ Abbott, Evangeliorum Versio, p. vii. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 67 enable us to come to a satisfactory judgment as to tlie character of the text of which they are fragments, and the fact just mentioned leaves no room for doubt that it was Vulgate with Old Latin mixture. When we reach chap, xvi., and more especially when v. 19 is passed, we at once perceive a change. The variants of 1\ ^^ ^vi. 20-28 are nearly four times as numerous as those of Q.^ May Ave not conclude that in r^ part of St Matthew's Gospel was copied from a mixed text, the remainder from a manuscript of an Old Latin version ? The hypothesis, therefore, which we have provisionally assumed to account for the phenomena of jj., receives contirmation from the fact tliat a similar hypothesis serves to explain the textual features of the only other Irish Old Latin manuscripts of the Gospels known to exist.2 And if we go a little further afield we shall find other parallels. IMr White ^ tells us, for example, that tlie Codex Palatinus (e) of the Old Latin, though mainly African, must have been copied from an ordinary European MS. in the last few chapters of St Luke; and he subjoins the remark that other similar instances of vacillation in the text of Old Latin manuscripts might be added. Dr Sanday, in like manner, suggests ^ that the last leaf of the archetype of a was lost or worn, and the text of this portion taken from some other copy. And a most interesting case of the same kind has recently been brought to light. The Earl of Crawford possesses a Syriac manu- script of the entire New Testament containing a version of the Apocalypse of which the only other known copy is a fragment in the British JMuseum. This version is akin to the Philoxenian rendering of the other New Testament books ; but the exemplar from which the Crawford manuscript was copied had lost a leaf at the beginning, and the lacuna has been supplied from a manuscript of the later re- cension, akin to the Harkleian version, the ediiio inincejys of which was published by De Dieu at Leyden in 1627, and which is now usually bound up with the Peshitto.^ ^ The numbers of the variants in the three MSS, Durm, Q, r^ for the passages mentioned in the text may be exhibited in a table, ilere variations of spelling and unmistakable blunders are not reckoned. Several readings of r^, however, are counted, which are almost certainly errors of the scribe. i. 19-ii. 6. iv. 2-1-v. 29. xiii. 8-58. xvi. 13-19. xvi. 20-28. DitrjTi 5 7 21 2 3 Q 6 14 57 10 10 r'i 15 18 61 15 36 2 Excluding, of course, the St Gall fragment {j>). ^ ^cv'wfwtv' a Introduction, 4th ed. , ii. p. 56. "* Old Latin Biblical Texts, ii. p. clxxv. ' Full proof of this fact is given by Professor Gwynn in his paper " On a Syriac MS. of the New Testament belonging to the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and on an in-edited version of the Apocalypse tliereiii contained " : Traiis. 11. 1. A,, vol. XXX. part X., App. E, p. 414. See also 21ic Apocnhjpsc of St John in a Si/riac Version hitherto unknown,, edited by John Gwynn, Dublin, 1897, part ii. p. 37. 68 THE BOOK OF MULLING, Our hypothesis is tlierefore well supported by parallel cases. We have next to remark that it seems to account sufficiently for two curious readings, one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Lucan fragment. To begin with the latter. It is found in St Luke ix, 55, 56. Our Lord's answer to the question of the two disciples is there cut down ])y our scribe to the single word " Nescitis," In many Greek MSS. the entire answer and the two preceding words " et dixit " are omitted, and this reading is followed by the Books of Armagh, Kells, and D arrow, Ussher's second Codex, and other Irish Vulgate manuscripts. The scribe of the Book of Mulling is conscious that there is something wrong in his (apparently unique) reading. For immediately after writing "Xescitis" he adds in his text the letter "d" (= "desunt")aud places in the upper margin the remain- ing words of the sentence, reading the last five words, if not the whole clause, as they are found in i\, which here differs from the Vulgate, It is not difficult to suggest an explanation. After copy- ing V. 54 from his Old Latin exemplar, the scribe turns once more to the manuscript whose text he preferred, and wliich now again becomes available. But his memory of the other codex is still fresh, and so he Avrites "et dixit nescitis " before he observes that these words, with those that follow them, are absent from the text which he is transcribing. He allows the Avords which he has written to stand in his text, inserts after them the mark indicating omission, and relegates the remainder, which he takes from his Old Latin manuscript, to the margin. We turn now to St. Luke iv. 5 — the first verse, as we have already seen, of the fragment. It opens with the words " Et duxit ilium iterum diabulus." What is the antecedent of "iterum"? Plainly neither " Agebatur in spiritu " (v. 1), nor "Dixit autem illi diabulus" (v. 3). " Iterum " is in fact meaningless as the text stands. But re- arrange the narrative according to the order of i\, in which the third temptation, according to tlie Vulgate, precedes the second, and all becomes clear. We now have "Et duxit eum in hierusalem" (v. 9) , . . "Et duxit ilium iterum" (v. 5). What has happened is evident. The scribe was copying from an exemplar in which the temptations were given in the order in which they are found in all European Old Latin manuscripts.^ He transposed the last two, but in other respects preserved the text unchanged. Now what prompted this clumsy dislocation of the text? The answer which the hypothesis under consideration suggests is this. The scribe has before him a Vulgate text. Suddenly at v. 5 it deserts him ; but enough remains ' So h, c,f, I, q, rj. The Vercelli manuscript {a) is no exception, for, in the first place, its text is not European in St Luke (Scrivener's Introduction, ii. 56) ; and moreover, thouRli it here follows tlie African and Vulgate order, the marks of transposition in it are even clearer than in /a. The opening words of v. 5 in it are, " Et adduxit eum hierusalem et statuit eum siipra pinnam tcmpli et osteiuiit illi," etc. I know of no MS. except ^ which reads " iterum " in v, 5 whiie follow- ing the Vulgate order ; e, however, has "secuudo." THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 69 to indicate that what immediately followed v. 4 in it was v. 5, and not, as in his secondary exemplar, to which he now turns, v. 9. It breaks off, let us suppose, Avith the words " Et duxit ilium diabolus et ostendit illi omnia "... This is sufficient as a cue. Following it as well as he can, he transcribes vv. 5-8 exactly as they stand in his second copy, before turning to v. 9, not perceiving that in so doing he deprives " iterum " of all meaning. In spite of the many arguments by which our preliminary hypo- thesis may be supported, it lies open to one objection, not indeed ab- solutely fatal, but sufficiently serious. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke are in our Book divided into sections, according to a system found in many Old Latin texts.^ These divisions embrace the Old Latin as well as the mixed portions of the text. This fact in itself makes it prol)able that these Gospels were ultimately derived not from two copies, but from a single exemplar of the Old Latin text, altered by the hands of successive copyists to its present state. Tills is not, it is true, a necessary inference. The Old Latin exem- plar would most probably have these sections. But experience shows us that quite possibly a mixed copy might have them also ; and so, on the supposition that our scribe used two exemplars, we are not absolutely prohibited from believing that both of them had sections such as we have mentioned. Probability, however, is against the supposition ; and so we come to suggest another hypothesis, or rather a hypothesis which is that already proposed, but in a slightly modified form. It is this : Our scribe copied from an Old Latin exemplar, which we may call x. This manuscript had, however, been previously corrected by means of an imperfect copy of the Vulgate, y. Where y failed, the pre-hieronymian text remained ; where it was available, the resulting text was mixed. This hypothesis is supported by all the parallel instances which have been adduced above. It supposes, as before, in the hands of a scribe an imperfect Vulgate, y, evidently regarded as giving the better text, and an Old Latin, x. It explains, moreover, the reading " iterum " at iv. 5, just as readily as the other hypothesis. It accounts, too, though not so easily, for "et dixit nescitis" at ix. 56. The passage may have been expuncted in x by the corrector, though our scribe did not perceive the marks of deletion till he had written its first three words, or he may have mistaken the meaning of marks over the final words of the saying ascribed to Christ. It is, more- over, supported by the fact that in St Matthew and St Luke alone, the division into sections of the type referred to occurs. For these Gospels, therefore, and probably for these alone, we are obliged to suppose an ultimate Old Latin archetype. It will not, then, surprise us to find in them, and in them alone, a few pages passed over by the corrector, exhibiting an Old Latin text. And finally, it is sup- ported by the fact that the IMatthean Old Latin fragment is actually ^ See above, p. 30 sqq. 70 THE BOOK OF MULLING. corrected into conformity with the Vulgate, exactly in the way we have supposed x to have been corrected by means of y. But this will be seen more clearly in our next section. § 5. The Corrector. "We turn, then, to these corrections of the text with which our fragments are so thickly studded. These corrections are, so far as I can judge, all written by the same hand — the hand of him who added the marginal numbers. They were certainly in some cases made concurrently with or before the insertion of the numbers. This may be seen, for example, by an inspection of f. 47 r a, 1. 25 (St Matt. xxvi. 1). Here the words "omnia verba haec " have been erased, and in their room "sermones hos omnes " has been written. The correction extends, however, so far into the margin, that the number referring to the Eusebian Canon, which had to be inscribed opposite the corresponding line of the second column (1. 24, Matt. xxvi. 26), is placed more to the right than is customary; while, at the same time, the number of the section (cclxxiii.) is begun too high and written in a slanting direction, so that the last letter composing it is in its proper position.^ Thus the correction of the first column was completed before the numbers of the second were written. And in the second column the first words of this section, as originally written, were " et manducantibus." The word " et " is erased, a punctuation mark set in its place, and " Et (in prominent character) edentibus" written above the line. The text is altered in the very act of marking the beginning of the section. Thus it is quite clear that the corrector was identical with the numerator,^ and that he did both parts of his Avork concurrently. It is important to note this fact, because it appears to lead us to a further inference. The emendations and the numerals must have been taken from the same exemplar. The large number of these emendations shows us how thoroughly (too thoroughly) the corrector accomplished his task in St INIatthew's Gospel. His purpose seems to have been to assimilate the text of yu. to that of the copy which he had in his hands. He was uns]iaring in the performance of this work, and we may be pretty confident that, except by oversight, he omitted to alter no word which diliered from his codex. What, then, was the character of the manuscript from which the corrections * Similar phenomena are found at Matt. xxii. 46 (xxiii. 23), xxiv. 26 (40), 27 (42), Luke xix. 25 (39), etc. Specially interesting is Matt, xxvii. 3 (fac- simile page, col. b, 11. 16, 17). Here the corrector wished to transpose "eum tradidit." He therefore M-rote a double stroke uiuler "eum," and a single stroke over "tradidit" in the usual \\•aJ^ The latter was found to interfere with the signature, belonging to '"J^unc." Hence it was replaced by a single stroke under " tradidit." 01)viously tiie signature was written after the first and before the second of these single strokes. 2 It may be remarked, in conlirmation of this conclusion, that there is no perceptible difference of hand between words introduced with the sole purpose of emending the reading, and those by which the beginnings of sections are marked. TirE BIBLICAL TEXT. 71 were drawn 1 Any copy of the Latin Gospels whicli is furnished with the Eusebian Sections and Canons may be expected to contain a substantially Vulgate text. That this was the character of the text of the correct(n''s manuscript is proved by collating our first fragment, as it left his hands, with the Codex Amiatinus. In a very few instances an Auiiatine reading is replaced by another : now and tlien one reading gives way to another, neither of which is Amiatine ; but in the vast majority of cases, readings which ditfer from those found in A are obliged to make way for rivals which it supports. Let us take, for example, St Matt. xxiv. 21-31, which has been collated above (B 1). It occupies lines 1—31 of the first column of f, 46 r. In this passage fj, varies from A 16 times. In two cases the corrector introduces non-Amiatine readings, and in nine he brings our text into agreement with the Amiatine. He leaves therefore 7 variants. Q, in the same passage, has also 7. Examining in the same way St Matthew xxvii. 20-26, we find the 13 variants of /i reduced by a similar process to 6, while again Q has 7. If we extended our inquiry further, the result would be to prove that the manuscript from which the Old Latin fragment was corrected was of much the same character as Q or the greater part of JUL, — in fact, that it contained a mixed Vulgate text. In the Lucan fragment the work of correction does not seem to have been done in so thorough-going a spirit as in St Matthew. Thus, in the two passages collated above (B 2), /a has 45 variants, while there are only 6 corrections. ICvery one of tliese, however, is an assimilation to the Amiatine text. The manuscript, therefore, from which they were taken, if not the same, was at least probably of the same character as that which the diorthotes used in St Matthew. Who, then, was the corrector? I have already stated my belief tliat the scribe who added the marginal numbers, and at the same time divided the Gospels into sections, revised the text as he went along. I must now express the further conviction that this reviser was identical with the original scribe (or with one of them, if there were several) of the manuscript. It is true some slight difference may be detected in the writing of the text and of the corrections. But the difference is not greater than that which is found to exist in many cases l)etween two pages of the text itself. And, in- dependently of this fact, a difference in the script was to be expected, owing to the difference of the conditions under which it was executed. A man naturally writes better when his letters are penned upon a blank sheet of well prepared vellum, than when he inserts them where he can find space between closely written lines or over erasures. And so the writing of the text in our fragments is better than the ^^Titing of tlie emendations, but the difference extends, as I believe, no further. It is quite consistent with identity of hand. But, again, if we suppose that the corrections are not due to the first hand, we are driven to one or other of two conclusions. The 72 THE BOOK OF MULLING. I5ook of Mulling consists of five gatherings, forming what the colophon calls separate " volumina." The last four of these contain the evan- gelical text with some additions. The first is occupied with Jerome's letter to Damasus and other similar matter, including the Eusebian Canons. If we do not admit that our corrections and numerals are by the hand of the writer of the bulk of the manuscript, we are bound, tlierefore, to believe, either tliat the first gathering was penned by a diirerent scribe from the last four, — in other words, that it is not really part of the Book of jVlulling properly so called, — or that a manuscript, provided with a table of the Canons, was nevertheless unsupplied with the sections and marginal numbers, which were absolutely necessary if the table was to have either use or meaning. It must be admitted indeed that the latter alternative is neither impossible nor without example. The Book of Armagh, for example, has the table of canons without the marginal numbers. Not only so. Its Gospel text is divided into regular sections, the beginnings of which are usually indicated, as in our Book, by capitals set out in the margin : and these sections are clearly quite independent of the Eusebio- Ammonian division. The Book of Armagh is therefore an exact parallel to our manuscript, supposing the latter to have been left by its original scribe without indication in the text, by numbers or other- wise, of the Eusebian sections. But even though the phenomena of the Book of Mulling may be illustrated by those of one or two other codices, we are still entitled to assort that the supposition which we are now discussing is a priori improbable. jSTothing could be more natural than that a scribe who had added to his Gospel text the usual prefatory matter, should afterwards, when revising his Avork, bring the latter into agreement with the former in the way we have supposed. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the scribe of the first " volumen " was different from that of the other four, does not seem to have occurred to such palaeographers as Westwood and Gilbert. The writing of the first gathering does indeed present a dilferent appearance from that of the Gospels to a superficial observer ; it is larger, and it is written all across the page, instead of in coluinns. But the form and character of the letters are similar ; the abbrevia- tions used are, so far as I have observed, the same in both cases ; and I see, therefore, no reason to suppose a difference of hand.^ It may, then, perhaps be granted that it is at least the more probable view that the entire manuscript (with the exception of the office for the Visitation of the Sick), including prefatory matter, numerals, and corrections, was the work of a single scribe. Assuming this to be true, and assuming also ^ that this scribe was not the Mulling of the colophon, but one who copied from him, we are now in a position to construct a tentative and hypothetical history of the writing of the ' See above, p. 8 sq. But compare also Appendix B. ^ As has beeu already shown, p. 13 sqq. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 73 Evangelium. St Moiling of Ferns, in the latter half of the seventh century, wrote a copy of the four Gospels, in four gatherings of leaves, with a colophon in which this fact was stated. His exemplars were three in number/ including a mixed Vulgate text of St Mark, an Old Latin text of St Matthew and St Luke, and a copy of St John, written per cola et commata. The first and third Gospels were subse- quently corrected from an imperfect Vulgate, or mixed copy. In the ninth century a transcript of Molling's Evangelium, thus corrected, and including the colophon, was made by a scribe of his monastery. This scribe possessed another mixed Vulgate Gospel manuscript, from which he took the numbers of sections and canons now found in the margin of the copy which he made. At the same time he adapted the text to them, made many corrections of the text, wrote an ad- ditional page which will be described hereafter,^ and added a fifth " volumen" or gathering containing Jerome's prefaces and the Table of Canons, probably copied from the second manuscript just mentioned. The result was the Book of Mulling as we now have it. Whether I have made it probable that this is a true history I must leave to others to decide. At least one thing is certain. We have succeeded in laying our hand on the adulteration of the text in its actual process. A copy made from the corrected text of our first fragment would have differed essentially from its archetype. The latter was Old Latin, the former would have been mainly Vulgate with Old Latin mixture. It is worth at least a sentence to remark, that such a text is formed, in this case at least, not by adulteration of the Vulgate with reminiscences of the older text, as we might have assumed to be the usual order of things,^ but by the reverse process — by deliberately doctoring a pre-hieronymian text in order to bring it up to date. The text has in fact been constructed by exactly the same method as that which we have assumed to have given birth to that of the remainder of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke. It may be well to add here a list of the readings of the corrector which differ from those of the Codex Amiatinus. Matt. xxiv. 25. om. vers. Matt. xxvi. 36. gezamani. 27. apparet 2'>ro paret. 39. procedit pro procidit. 46. dominus eius. 42. iterum hautem aibiit pro 2. liis pro eis. iterum secundo abiit. 14. om. peregre. 48. ilium 2^t'o eum. 29. om. et sec. eis pro illis. 34. om. eius. 56. adinplerentur pro im- 36. carcere eram. plerentur. 37. om. ei (?). 58. finem iei pro finem. 39. [ . . •] pro et pri. 59. princeps pro priucipes. 14. dicitur jno dicebatur. 64. cuin pro in. 26. om. et comedite. 67. om. in pri. 28. effundetur pro effun- ditur. om. ei. See above, p. 41. ^ Chapters vii. and viii. Compare Westcott and Hort's New Testamciit, ii. 81. 74 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Matt. xxvi. 71. ovi. autem. 75. fleuit amarissime pro plorauit amare. xxvii. 1. aduersum pro aduersus. 3, tradidit eum pro eum trad, quia pro quod. 13. aduersus ^ro aduersum. 19. tibi sit pt'o tibi. ilium pro eum. 20. princepes pro princeps. 22. faciemus pro faciam (?). 23. om. dicentes. 24. liuius iusti pro iusti huius. 35. 07n. ut impleretur &c. 40. distruit . . refedificat pro destruebat . . reaedificabat. Matt, xxvii. 41. inludebant eum pro in- ludentes. 43. confidit pro confidet. domino p7-o deo, 46. hel. i. hel. i. 49. liberare pro liberans. Luke iv. 32. eius^ro ipsius. 33. sinagoga + eorum. 34. sis + tu es. Luke V. 15. om. autem. 16. deserto^ra desertum. 31. om. et. 37. ueteres uteres ^^/o uteres uet. vi. 35. disperantes pro inde sperantes. viii. 2. e[x] pro de. ix. 20. ait 2J»'o dixit. § 6. Value of the Text. We must now attempt to estimate the value of our fragments as witnesses to the text of the Gospels in Ireland before the influence of the Vulgate translation began to be felt. A rough and ready test at once suggests itself. For the greater part of the Matthew fragment we are able to compare our text with two others, rj^ and r^. There are in fact about 540 places in which one or more of the three Old Latin manuscripts vary from the Codex Amiatinus, where the evidence of all three is available.^ In about 140 of these /u, r^ rg agree in supporting a reading different from the Amiatine. In 17 all three vary from it, but without supporting each other. In 11, two vary independently, the third supporting the Amiatine reading. In about 50 cases fx alone differs from A, in 70 cases 7\, in 130 r^. Again in 65 readings /a supports the Codex Amiatinus against the combined testimony of the other two, r^ does the same 25 times, r^ 35 times. In all these latter cases we seem to have undoubted instances of Vulgate mixture in the several copies. Thus it will be seen that the Vulgate element in r, is more marked than in r^, while in pu it is much greater than in either of these. On the other hand, rg, as Mr Abbott remarks,^ is full of blunders. The value of its singular readings is to a great extent di-scounted by this fact, and by it also their large number, as compared with those of 7\ and fi, is at least partially accounted for. ^ The numbers given in this and the following paragraph are to be regarded as merely approximate, though I have taken pains to make tliem as accurate as possible. The general inference drawn from them is not likely, I believe, to be all'ected by any errors I may have made in the enumeration. * Evangeliorum Versio, p. xvi. THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 75 On the whole, therefore, r^ must be held to contain the purest Old Latin text, /j, the most corrupted, while r,^ — allowance being made for errors of the scribe — occupies a position midway between them. In the Lucan fragment, the relation between /m and r^ seems not to be quite the same as in St Matthew. In the former there are 1078 places in which one or other of the manuscripts varies from A, In 379 of these //- and i\ agree, or, though not yielding exactly the same text, support one another in opposition to A; in 87 they vary from it independently. In 345 cases fj, alone varies from A, in 267 cases rj alone. These figures point to the inference that /x has here an older type of text than r^ That the variation in character has taken place rather in /m than in r^ appears from the fact that while the number of variants in both manuscripts is greater than might have been expected, judging from the number found in St Matthew, the increase in variation is even more marked in /u. than in r^ The Lucan fragment is about half as long again as the Matthean, and the Codex Usserianus is here in a less fragmentary state. Now in St Matthew ?-j yields 336 variants; we might therefore expect rather more than 500 in St Luke. We have in fact 733, or about 50 per cent more. In /x, on the other hand, in St Matthew, there are nearly 275 variants, which warrants us in anticipating say 410 in St Luke. We actually find more than double the number — 831. There is no evidence, so far as I have observed, to show that either r^ or fj, has suffered more from transcriptional errors in the third than in the first Gospel : we may thus pretty safely infer that the text of /z, is in St Luke more ancient than in St Matthew, — more ancient indeed than that of r^ in either Gospel, and less adulterated with Vulgate mixture. THE BOOK OF MULLING. CHAPTER V. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. The purpose of the following line for line copy of the Old Latin portions of the Book of Mulling — St Matt. xxiv. 1 2-xxviii. 3 ; St Luke iv. 5-ix. 54 — is to reproduce these passages of the manuscript as nearly as possible in the form in which they were originally written. Contractions are indeed expanded, but letters which had to be supplied are printed in italics. The manuscript has throughout been corrected by a hand closely resembling, or, as I rather think, identical with that of the original scribe. All alterations of the text made in the course of this correction are recorded in the lower margin. In some cases the original writing has become, in consequence of erasure or other causes, illegible : where this is so, the text is conjecturally restored, and the letters by which the hiatus is filled are enclosed in square brackets. If the conjecture is not obvious, a note is added at the end of the chapter stating the grounds on which it is based. It has been already remarked that the corrector divided the book into Ammonian sections, and that in order to force the text into agree- ment with this division, he sometimes erased the opening letters of the sections and re- wrote them in bolder character, sometimes con- tented himself with re-touching the first letter or two, so as to make them more prominent. In a few instances, in order to make room for the fresh writing, the scribe was obliged also to erase the closing words of the preceding section and re- write them in the margin or wherever space was available. In such cases as these the prima facie presumption clearly is that the original text was iilentical with that which we now have. I have therefore simply copied it without comment, bracketing those letters which in the original script have been so successfully erased as to be now illegible. The end of a sec- tion is always indicated by an asterisk (*) and those places in which the sections of our manuscript do not coincide with those of Codex Amiatinus are mentioned in the notes. I may add that the abbreviations ihs xps xpc have not been expanded. Originally contractions of Greek words, they should be represented by Greek expansions if at all, but no doubt by our scribe they were regarded as merely conventional symbols. How he would have expanded the first it is impossible to say, for the word is not once (if we except iessus, Luk. iii. 29) written in full in the manu- script. The familiar symbol li I have ventured to expand \\autem. The word is frequently so spelt in Irish MSS. {e.g. Book of Kells at St Luke, V. 6), and it seems not impossible that this spelling gave rise to the customary abbreviation. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 77 S. Matt. xxiv. 12-20. f. 45 v. b. 25 tos et qworamm. habundabit imqmtas et refri gerescet caritas m.\x\iovuM q?a \\aiitem perman serit usqMe m fine??i hie saluus erit .— * Et pradicabitw hoc euangeliu??i regni ^p^'totum^ ^orbe['/M] i«testimonium omnibus gentibus 30 et time ueniet co??summatio * cum Hiautem uideritis abhominatione??i desolationis qute die taes^ per daniehim profeta??^ stante?M hi loco saricto qui legit i?«tellegat * tunc qui i7i iudea su7it fugiant hi montes et qui in tecto sunt non 35 discendent tollere aliq?iid de domu sua et qtii i?j agro crit non reuertat?w tollere tonica?>i sua?/i * uai hautem ^pregnantibus et nutrientibus iii illis diebus * orate h.aute7n utnowfiat fuga uestra hyeme uel sab 1-1 Expuncied : above the line, in un- iuerso. 2 The line over e (representing m) erased. ^ Expuncted : in margin, ergo. * Above tlie line [over e), i. THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Matt. xxiv. 20-34. [bato * erit enijm tunc tribulatio magna qualis now fuit ab initio ^s?eculi usque mo do nec[ue fiet * et nisi brebiati fuissent dies illi non fierit salua omnis caro 5 sed Tpropter electos ^ braebiabunt2i/'[t2i?-] dies [illi * tunc] si q^iis nobis dixerit ecce hie xps aut illic nolite credere * ^ [exjurgent enim seudoxpi et seudoprofetae et dab unt signa magna et prodigia ita ut in er 10 rore?H i?iducant si fieri potest et'iam '*elect[os] * ^ ecce prcedixi nobis ^ si e?'go dixerint nobis ecce in deserto est nolite ^ credere ecce in penitrabilibns nolite credere * sicM^ enim fulgor exit ab oriente et '' paret 15 usque ^ad occidente??? ita erit aduentws f[ilii hommis * ubi] cumque fnerit corpws ilHc con gregabunt? unu7?i talentum acciperat ait do?nme scio q?«"a homo durz^s es metis ubi non seminasti ef colligis ubi non sparsisti timui e7iim et abi et abscondi talentum tuu??i in terra ecce habes quod tnmn est Tes'gondens h.aute77i doyninus eius 10 dixit ei serue mala piger sciebas quia metuo ubi non semino et colligo ubi no7i sp arsi oportuit ergo te dare pecuni a?/i meam nu7?zmularis et ego ueniens recipisse7?i utiq^ie quod meuw est cum ussura 15 tollite itaq?ie ab eo talentu?/i et date ei qui habet -x- talenta * [o]mni eniin ha benti dabit?^^ et liabundabit ei hautem qui non habet ■'• etia??i quod - ^ habet auferetwr * ■* [ab eo et] seruuj/i ^ neqwam ^ proiecite ^ f oras 20 i?jtenebras exteriores illic erit fle tus et stridor dentin?/*., *ffet omnes CuTW, haidem uenerit filiMs \\07ninis in maiestate sua- angeli cum eo tunc sedebit supe?' sedem ma iestatis suse et co?igregabunt2«' ante 25 eu??i omwes gentes et sepeyabit ^ abiwuice^n quern ad modu?M separat pastor ones ab hedis et statuit quide7n ones ad extris suis hsedos haiitein asinistris iu7iQ, dicet rex his qui adextris ^ [ews] 30 ^^ simt uenite benedicti patris mei pe/'cipite regnu??i quod nobis ■paratwn est ab initio mundi essuriui ewm et dedistis m^7u manducare sitiui et dedistis mihi bibere hospis 35 eram et colligistis me nudus ef operuistis me iwfirmws et uisitastis ni6 in carcere ^^ fui et uenistis ad me tMWc Tespondebunt ^^ ei iusti dicentes dojnine quando te 1 Expuncted. '^ Added in margin, mdeiur. ^ The last letter exjnincted and re sub- stituted {above the line). * Erased : in margins and over erasure, ab eo:, | Et iwutilem. s Expuncted. ^ pro erased. 7 Expuncted. 8 Above the line, eos. 8 Erased : over the erasure and project- ing into margin erunt. 10 Erased. " Above the line, eram. 12 Apparm,tly expuncted. 82 THE BOOK OF MULLIXG. S. Matt. xxv. 37 — xxvi. 8. f. 47 r. a. [uiclini]z Expuncted : above the line, ait. •> In margin is added, eiivLin. '-'',8 Marked for transposition. " -9 Above line uiWam quce. 1" d expuncted. " Erased : over erasure Et. 12 ]j erased. 13 Ahm^e the line, ait. " Uaynmcted. 15 In margin, pro. 16 ci erased. 17-17 Erased : over erasure, Ueru>n, fol- lowed by space • iste is re-ioritten in margin after calix. 18 Expuncted : above the line, sicut (bis). 19 Erased : over erasure, Iteruw. 20 Erased : over erasure abiit, followed by space. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 85 S. Matt. xxvi. 44-58. f. 47 v. b. tertio eunde??i sermone?« * [tunc uenit ad discipulos] suos et dicit ^ eis dormite mm et reqwiescite ecce adpropinquauit hora et films hominis tradetwr in man?is -peccatoTum surgite 5 esLxnus ecce adpropinquauit qtd me tradet * adhiic ipso loquente ecce iudas un?is ex duodecim uenit et cumeo plurima mul titudo c?i??igladiis et fustibus misi aprinci pibus sacerdotu??! et senioribus populi * 10 qwi hautem tradidit ^ ewn dedit ^ illis signum dicens quern * osculates fuero ipse est tenete eum et cowfestim accedens ad iluli disiit ^ [h]aue rabbi et osculates est oxwi ^ cui d^x^Y ^ ihs am ice ad (\uod uenisti fc4,c iunc accesseiMwt 15 et maiiMS imecerwnt i?iibm e^tenuenmt eum * et ecce unMs ex his qz^i erant cumiYm exten dit manum et exemit gladiu7w suum et per cussit seruum principis sacerdotum et amputauit auricula?^ eius * tunc ait illi 20 ihs cowuerte gladiu??i tuu7?i iu \ocu)n suuwz omwes enim qui ^ accipiunt gladiu?« iri gladio peri bunt an putas quia non possum modo rogare patrem meum et exibet mihi modo plusquam xii milia legiones angeloru?ri 25 quomodo ergo iwplebuntw scribtMrpe quia sic oportet fieri * i?dlla hora dixit ihs ^ ad^^turbas quasi ad latronem uenistis cum gladfis et fustibus cowprcechendere me cotidie apud u6s sedebam iwtemplo 30 docens et non m.6 tenuistis * hoc \\autem totuw fac turn est ut ^^ iwpleretwr scribt^irae profetaru?7i tunc diBcijndi ^^ \eitis'\ omnes reHcto eo fugierunt ■* ^^ illi ^* \h.autem^ tenentes ihili perduxermit ad caif an principe/^ sacerdotu??i ubi scribae et 35 seniores ^^ conuenerM/jt * petrws hautem sequebatw eum alongue usq^e in atriu??^ p?'incipis sa cerdotu??? et i72"resus ^^ intus in ^^ atrio 1 A hove the line, illis. ' Above the line, ilium. 3 Above the line, eis. * Above the line, cumqwe. ^ h erased. * Expuncted. "> Added in margin, que illi. * Altered into acciper int by erasure. 8 Expuncted. "> Above the line (over &), i. " Above the line, ad, and {over et)n., the word being thus changed to adiw- plerentwr. 12 Erased. 13 In margin, At. I'l Erased. 15 Above the line {over last syllable) a ; the word being apparently intended to be read conuenerant. 1" us expuncted : above the line, tro. 1" Expuncted. 8G THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. :^^ATT. xxvl. 58-71. f. 48 r. a. [sedejbat cum miuistris utuideret ^ exitum ^ [rei * pri]ncip[e]s^ ^ sacerdotu??i et ^ uniuersum concilium querebant falsum testi moniu?7i ^ aduersus iluTi ut eu?/i morti tra 5 derent et now irauenerwnt ^in^ qo^ qwicqwam cwnimulti falsi testes accessisent * nouissimae hmitem nenevunt duo falsi testes et dixcvunt audiuim?is hunc dixisse possuwi distrupre templu?/* hoc del et ipost tridu 10 urn aedificare illud et surr^ens princeps sacerdotum ait illi nihil respondes ad ea quce isti testifican tur aduersus te ihs hautem tacebnt et res pendens princeps sacerdotum dixit 15 illi adiuro to -^nr deuni uiuu?«. utdi cas nobis si tii es xpc filius dei et d^c^t illi ihs tii dixisti * MQxumiamen dico nobis amodo uidebitis tiliu?w ho minis sedente7?^ '' ad ^ dextera?^ uir 20 tutis et ueniente?^ ^ \n nubibus cseli * tiino, princeps sacerdotu??^ scidit uesti menta sua dtcews ^^ blasfemat qwid ^^ nunc adhiic ^^ opMS est testibus * ecce nunc au distis blasfemeam qwid uobis uidetw?' '25 at illi ^^ responrienm^ ^ omrees ^ et dixerwrat reus est mortis * tunc expuerwit ^^ in facie?» eius et co laphis eu??z csederM?it ^^ ali hautem palmas in facic'W ^^ eius dederzmt dicentes prophe tiza nol^is xpe q?iis est qui t6 ^^ percusset * 30 petrws ^*^ \hautevi\ sedebat foris in atrio et accessit ad eum una ^ ex ^"^ ancellis ^^ dixit ^ illi et tii ciim ihu galileo eras at ille negauit cora??j omnibus dicens nescio qwid dicis ^ neqwe *^ iwtellego* [ex] 35 eunte "^ hautem illo ianuam uidit euw* alia ^ anc ella et ait ^^ illis q?ii erantibi 1 Above the line, finem. 2-2 The letters enclosed in brackets erased: in right margin, after I. 1, rei ; and over erasure, followed by s2Mce, Pri : the second i of principes is transformed into e and e erased, the vjord being thus clianged to prin- ceps. 3 A bove the line is inserted 'hautem. * Above the line, oniiie. 5 Above the line, contra. ^ Expuncted. "^ d erased. * am erased : over erasure, is. 8 Expuncted : above the line, cum. 10 Above tlie line, before t, ui. 11 Above the line, egemus. 12 In margin (indicated as follmoing n), tes : the intention being that the ambiguous respon should be read as a present particii^le respondentes. 13 Erased. i-* i added at end. 15 The second e expuncted, and above it, i. 16 Changed, partly by erasure, to ucro. 1'' is changed, partly by erasure, to a. 18 X transformed by partial erasure, into c : s added above the line ; the word being thus altered to dice7ia. 19 Expuncted : under the line, his. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 87 S. Matt. xxvi. 71-xxvii. 10. f. 48 r. b. et hie erat cum iliu nazareno ^ iterum nega uit cum iuramento ^ dixit quia non noui homine??^ et pos^ pussillu/M accessenmt q?d stabant et dixerwret petro uere tii ex ill is es wsun 5 et loquella tua manifestu??^ te facit tunc caepit detestare et iurare quia non nos set homine??i et ^ statim galliis cantauit * * et recordatws est petrus uerbi ihu quod dixerat pr'ms quam gallus cantet ter 10 me negabis egresus foras ^ama rissime ^ fleuit * mane hauieiii " [cm?«.] ^ factual "^ [e.«sclt consiliu?/i ^ [fe]cer?mt omnes principes sacer dotum et seniores ^'^ plebis ^^ aduersus ihui ut ewn morti traderent et uinctum ^ eum ^^ ^ adduxenmt * et tradiderawt pontic py lato praessidi * Umc ^- uedens iudas qui ^ eum ^tradidit ^^q?wwza[m] da??mat2is est penetentia ductus retulit trigenta argenteos principibus sacerdotu/?* et senioribus -^ dicens peccaui ^ quod ^* tradider[im] sangui ne?/i iustu??^ at illi dixerM?it qwid ad nos ti'i uideris et p?'oiectis argenteis in templo ^^ processit et ^^ laqueo ^ suspendit *^ se - Umc p?*incipes -^^ sacerdotu?« accepteis ar 25 genteis dixerimt r\07i licet eos mittere in curban ^ hoc ^ est " in ^ oblatione?^i quia praetiu??? san guinis est cowsilio hautem ^^ facto ^ iwters^ emerunt ex ilHs "hautem agrum figuli i?? sepnituram per igrinom??? propte?' hoc cognominatz^s est ager 30 ille acheldemath qicod est ager sangui nis usqwe iw hodiernu//i die/?i tu7ic ^^ [ad]i7qiletu?/?- est quod dictum est pe?* heremiam p?'ofetam dicen tern et acciperwret trigenta argenteos ])rcetimn adproetiati ^^ quod adprtetiauer2iwt -^fihis 35 isvahel et dederM?it eos in agruni figuli sicut co?istituit miJii do)iiinus ... * 1 Above the line, et. ^ Exjytinded. 3 Expn nd('(l : iihove the line, coutinuo. * Altered into Et. 5-6 Marked for inversion. "^ Erased. 8 The line representing m ei-ased ; u altered into o. 8 fee era.sed : over the erasure, ini. 1" Above the line, popiili. n A line drawn over second u, and s expuncted : the word being thus changed to aduersuwi. 12 The first e clmnged into i. 13 m and the mark of ahbreviatiou erased, and the remainder altered into quia. !■* di erased, ri altered to ns, the vmrd thus becoming tradens. If* pro expuncted : above tlui line, re. 16 Above tlie line, abieiis. 1'' Above the line, hautem. 18 Expuncted : above the line, inito. 18 ad erased. 20 Expuncted, above the line, queiii. 21 Above the line, a. 88 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Matt, xxvii. 11-26. f. 48 V. a. Tihls hautem stetit ante prpsidem et iwterrogauit eu??^ ^ proesis dicens tu es rex h\deoTU7n dicit ei ihs td dicis * et cum accussaretor ap?incipi bus sacerdotu??i et senioribus nihil resp fj ondebat iuno, dicit ^ ei pylatus now audis (quanta ^ aduersum te * testificantttr et non ^Tes'pondit ei *^ullu7?i uerbu??i ita utmira retur "^ pncsis ^ multu??i * pe?* die??t ^ sollemne?/i ^*^ consu etudo erat ^^ ^^prcesis dimittere populo 10 unu?« uinctum quem uoluissent * habebant hautejn tunc ^^ uintum i/zsignem qui dicebatw?' barabas cowgregatis ilHs dixit pylatws que?ft uultis nobis dimitta?w baraban an ililn qui dicituT xps sciebat eriim quod per iwuidiawi tra 15 didenmt eum * sedente hatitem illo p?'otribunali missit ad ^^ eum uxor eius dice7is nihil ^'^ sit ^^ tihi et iusto illi multa ^^ passa sum hodie per uisum propter ^^ eum * ^^ princeps haM^em sacerdotwra et seniores persuaserMwt populo utpe 20 terent baraban ihin hautem pe?'dirent respondens haute?}! prresis ait illi's que??i uultis de duobus dimittam nobis at illi dixer?mt ba raban * dicit illis pilat?3 Expuncted ; above the line, ilium, u, 15 Marked/or transposition. J6 Above line, enim. " Above line, ilium. 18 Aboi'e the line (after ep), e. 19-19 Altered into qicid igitur (see note). 20-20 am de erased : over erasure and in margin at beginning of next line, emus I de (see note). 21 Above tlie line, illis prases. 22 Exjmncted. 23 c erased (see note). 21 Above the line (over final syllable), er, 25 The second i altered into e. 26 Expuncted. 27 xxa, expuncted. 28-28 Expuncted. 29 Above line, dicews. 30 A bove the line, iusti. 31 Expuncted : above tlie line, eius. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 89 S. j\rATT. xxvii. 26-40. ut ^ emn ^ crucifigeret * tunc milites p/Yfcs[idis] ^ dwxenint ihiii in p/retoriu?/i ^ et cowgregauei'M/jt ad eum uniuersa??i. coliorte?/i ^ et uestier[w?it] euni tonica???. porporea??^ ^ et ^ calamidem 5 coccmia??i civciimdedevimt ei "^ plectentes coronam despinis possuemwt super capud eius et arundine/M in dexteram eius et genu flexu ante emu ^ adorabant dicentes Au4 rex iudeomm *■ ^ [et expuerwMt 10 in facie?«] eius ^ ^^ [et] acciperwwt arundinem et percutiebant capud eius et postq?tam in luserM?it ei exuerM?it eu??i calamide?/^ coc cinia??z. i7idueTuni eum uestimentis eius duxerM?it euwi ut crucifigerent ^^ eum * 15 exeuntes hautem iwuenertmt homine??? ^^ ciri nense??i ^^ ueniente»i obiam illi ^'^ nomine simone?/^ hunc angarizauerM?it ^* ^^ tollere crucem eius * et uenert^wt in locum <\ui dicituY golgotha qiiod est caluarie, Iocms * 20 ^^ et dederzwit ei uinu7?i. bibere citm f elle mixtu7?i et cum gustasset noluit bibe re * postq?iam ^"^ crucifixerMwt emn di uiserwit uestimenta eizis sortem mit tentes ^^ uti«pleret?ir quod dictu??i est per p?'o 25 fetam diuiserwnt sibi uestimenta mea et super ueste??i me&m miserww^ sortem ^^ et sedentes ^^ [objseruaba nt eum * et ^^ possuerwrat super capud eius causa?re ^^ illi?8 ex erased, ui altered to ns, t erased. 27 Expuncted. 28 Erased : over eras. Et. 29 Altered by erasure to terra. 30 MS erased: over eras, a ; above line, est. 31 Above tlie Utis, niulta. 32 Expuncted : above the line, qui dor- niierant. 33 Expuncted : above the line, eius. 3^ Above the line (over first 0), u. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 91 S. Matt, xxvii. 54-66. f. 49 r. b. custodientes ihm ^ cum uidissent terrse motu??i et ea ^ qme fiebant timuerw?it ualde dicentes uere dei filius erafc iste * erant hautem ibi mulieres multse a longe uiden 5 tes quce secute ^ fuerant ihm agalilia ministrantes ^ illi hiter qiias erat maria magdaleiice et maria iacobi et ioseph et mater Uliorum zebedei * ^ [cum sero hautem esset] * factu?« ^ uenit quidam homo diues ab ari 10 mathea nomine ioseph qui et ipse discipulus erat ihii hie ^ accesset ad piLitu??i et petit corpus ilm * [tunc py] latus iusit dari corp?is ^ ibii et Gn7n "^ ^ accipisset ioseph ^ corpus ihii ^ ireuol 15 uit ilkid in sindone muuda et possuit illud in monumeuto sue nouo quod exci derat in petra et aduohiit saxum magnum ad ^^ hostiu??i monumenti et ^^ dis cesset * erat hautem ibi maria * magda 20 lena et alte?'a maria sedentes contra sepulchrM?« * A Itera hautem die qute est post parasceuen con uenerMTit p?*incipes sacerdotu?/i et pha risei ad pylatu??^ dicentes doinine reme morati sumws quod seductor ille dixit 25 adhiic uiuens pos^ tres dies resurgam iube ergo custodiri sepulchrM??z usque in diem tertiu??i ne forte ueniant disciptdi eius et furentwr eu??i et dicant plebi sur rexit amortufs et erit nouissimws 30 error peior -"^^ priori ait illis pyla tus habetis ^^ mihtes ite custodite sicut ^•^ ipsi scitis ilH hautem ^^ munierunt saepul chvum ^^ [et] ^"^ signa[uer^^?^t] lapide?^ ^^ et disces serunt ^^ cum custodibus . . — * '-1 Expuncted : above I. 1, uiso terras motu et his. 2 fu expuncted. 3 Expuncted : above the line,e\- ■*-* Erased : over erasure, Cum sero hau- tem, fol/owed by space. 5 Above the line, esset. " Abme the line {over second e), i. ■'-'' Expuncted. 8 et before accip. in margin ; first i transformed into e; isset exp)uncted ; above line., to corpore. *-9 Expuncted. 10 b expuncted. 11 Expuncted: above the line, abiit. 12 Final i changed to e. 13 Above line, custodiam. 1-1 Expuncted. 15 Above the line, abeuntes. 16 Erased. 1^ ue altered into nt ; mni erased and replaced by &s followed by space. 18-18 Expuncted. * Altered to ma^Jalenae. 92 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Matt, xxviii. 1-4. f. 49 [Uesjpere h.aute7n sabbati quce lucescit in prima [sjabbati uenit maria magdalense [et] altera maria uidere sjepulch rum et ecce terrsR motus factws est magiiMs 5 angelus eiiim domini discendit decaelo et accedens reuoluit lapidem et sede bat super eum erat hautem aspectws eius sicut fulgor et uestimenta eivs Candida sicut nix prce timo THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 93 S. Luc. iv. 5. f. 58 r. b. 25 in omwi nerho dei et duxit illxim itetujn zabulus inmonte??i excelsum ualde et ^ ostendit ei omnia 1 e is vyritten above i 94 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. iv. 5-16. f. 58 v. a. regna mundi inmomento tem poris et ait ei tibi dabo potcsta tem hanc uniuersa?^^ et gloriam ipsorM?/i quia mild tradita sunt et cui 5 uoluero do ilia tu ergo si adora ueris me erunt omnisi tua et re spondens ihs dixit illi scriptu??ie.sf enim dominuxa deiim tunm adorabis et illi seruies et duxit enm in hirusale??i 10 et statuit ew7i supra -pmnam tem pli et dixit ei si iilius dei es mitte ti hinc deorsu7?i scriptu??i est enim quoniam. angelis suis mandauit dete ut custodiant to quia in 15 manibus suis tollent tu ne for te oflfendas ad lapidem pede?>i tuu?/^ et responf?ews ihs ait illi scrip tumes^ now temptabis dominuTo. deuva tuu7» et cowsummata omwi temptati 20 one zabulus recessit ab eo usque adtempus., *_/: ingalileam Et egressus est ihs inuirtute s^iritus et fama exit per uniuersam regi onem deillo, et ipse docebat 25 insinagogis Qoxum et magnifica batwr ab omnibus., */: tritus Et uenit nazareth ubi erat nu et intrauit secundum consuetudinem THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 95 S. Luc. iv. 16-24. f. 58 v. b. suawi die sabbati insinagogam et surrexit legere et traditus est illi liber esaiM profetse et utre uoluit Mhium inuenit locum ubies^ f) scriptu??i spw^'^MS dommi super me propter (\uod uncxit md euangelizare pauperibus misit me prcedicare captiuis remisionem et cecis ui su?n dimittere cowfractos inre 10 misione prsedire oxmum (iomim acceptu??i et diem retributionis et cowplicuit librwrn et reddidit ministro et sedit et omnium insi uagoga erant oculi intendentes 15 ineu?7i csepit hautevi dicere ad illos ia?/i hodie inpletaes^ scriptura h(ec in auribus uestris. — * Et omwes ^ illi ^ testimonium dabant et mirabantwr inuerbis gratiae 20 <\uce procedebant deore ipsius et dicebant nowne hie est fili?' illa?H impe?'auit febri et dimissit earn et co?itinuo surrexit et ministrabat eis occidente hautem sole omwes qui habe 20 bant infirmos uaris langori hus adducebant illos ad ewn at ille singulis manuvM inponcns curabat eos. — */: mantia et di Ex iebant hauteyn etiam demonia cla 25 centia qui tii es iilius dei et increpans eos now sinebat eis loqwi quia sciebant xpiiT ipsu/?i esse. — */: in desertum F acta hautem die proficiscens ibat 1 Above the line, te. I 3 Expunded. 2 Above the line, tu es, I 98 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. iv. 42— V. 8. locMm et twrba reqMirebant eum et uene xunt usqw ad ipsu?/? et retinebant Gum n6 discederet abei's q?iibus ille ait (\uia et aliis ciuitatibus oportet m6 5 euangelizare regnu??i dei ^ ad hoc enim ^ misus sa.m et erat prcedicans insinago gis galileffi. — * /\ ut audirent F actu7». ed hmdem cum twrbae inruerent in Qwn nerhmn dei et ipse stans secus stagnum 10 genezareth uidit duas naues stantes secus stagnum piscatores hautem exillis discenderant ut leuarent retia sua ascendens hautem inunam naue??z quce erat simonis rogauit 15 eum ut adduceret ate?'ra aliqua ntulu?/?- in altu?/? e^sedens denaui cula tm'bas. — *_/: diic in altum Ut cessaunt hautem, loqm dixit adsimonem et laxate retia uestra in captwram 20 et respont^ens simon dixit ei prceceptor pertota??z noctewi laborantes mhi\ coepimMS sec? in uerbo ^ tuo laxabo ^ retia et ^ ut hoc fecissent corecluse rM7it multitudinewz pisciu??i copi 25 osam ita utrMwiperentwr retia eorMm tunc adnuerMwt socis sui's qui erant in alia naui ut uenirent et ad iuuarent eos qui cum uenertwit reple berwnt ambas nauiculas ita 30 ^ utmer[e]gerentMr * '^ [hoc uiso simon] ^ f. 59 1-2 Expiinded : above the line, wel quia ideo. » Above the line, hautem. * Expuncted : above the line, rete. 5 Exfunoted ; above the line, cum. 6 The second e in meregerentj/r erased. 7-8 Erased : over the erasui-e. Quod cxim uidere, and beloiv the line, simon petrus. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 99 S. Luc. V. 8-16. procedit ad genua ihu dicens rogo t(j exi amii qtcia homo peccator sum doinine timor enwi inuasserat ilium et omnes qui cum illo erant in captora 5 pisciur/i <\uarii coeperant similite?* hautem ia cobu?«- et iohannem filios zebedei qui erant soeii simonis. — */: ex hoc ia-m eris Et ^ diyiit ad simone??i ills nolitimere homines capiens et subductis 10 nauiculis interra7?i relictis om nibus secuti swwt euw, — *f:et ecce uir Et factu/» est cum esset inuna ciuitatum plenus lepra et " ipse procedens inf acie??i ^ rogabat eum dicens, * si 15 uis * ^ dominc potes me mundare et extendens manu?^ ihs tetigit eum dicens, nolo mundare et conies tim lepra eius discessit ab ^ eo e^ ^ pros cipit illi ^ ihs utnemini diceret 20 ^ et dixit ^ ua de ^^ et ostende te sacer doti et offer pro emundatione tua sicw^ prcccipit moyses ut sit intestimoniu??z illis. — */•. de eo ^^ et PcT* ambulabat ^^ hautem magis sermo 25 cowuenebant t^^rbse multse ut audirent et curarentM/- ab in firmitatibws suis * ipse hautem ^^ se cessit in ^Mesertum et orabat * f. 59 V. b. 1 Expuncted : above the line, ait. 2 Expuncted: above the line, uidens ihm. =» ba expuncted : above the line, ui. *-■*, 5 Marked for transposition. * Expuncted : above the line, illo. 7 In 7nargin, ipse. 8 Expuncted. 9-9 Expuncted : above the line, sed. 10 Expuncted. 11 Expuncted. 12 Above the line, illo. 13 In inargin, ue\ secedebat. " \xm expuncted : above the line, uel o. 100 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. V. 17-25. f. 60 r. a. Et factumes^ inuna dierwm et ipse ^ do cens et crant f arisaei '^ et legis doctores qwi uenerant ex omui castello galilese et iudse et hi 5 erusalejft et uirtus erat do??w'ni ad sanandos eos. — * /: in lecto Et ecce uiri portantes homine?/i qwi erat paraliticns ^ quserebant eum * inducers et ponere ante (mm 10 et won inuenientes qua parte illuw. ponerent p/yetwrba ascenderunt supertectu/rt et pertegulas su?»miser?/wt eu»i ciim lecto ante ihm uidens Yiautem ihs fidem eoxum dixit homini remisa 15 sunt tibi peccata tua et coeperMwt cogitare scribae et farissei incordibws suis dicentes q^is est hie qwi loquitur blasfemia^i qwis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus 20 dews sciens hautem ihs cogitationes eoYum dixit ad eos quid cogitatis mala in cordibws uestris qtwd est facilius dicere remisa SMWt tibi peccata tua aut dicere 25 surge et ambula ut hautem, sciatis quia iiiius honiinis potestate/?j habet super terram dimittendi peccata dixit paralitico tibi dico surge et tolle grabatu??i tuum et uade 30 in domum tuam et confestim 1 Above the line, sedebat. I ' Above the line, et. '-i Above the line, sedentes. I ■* Above the line, ue\ iaferre. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 101 S. Luc. V. 25-35. surgens coram illis tulit in quo iacebat ef abit in dom nm suain magnificans dominum. et stupor adp/Yehendit omnes 5 et magnificabant deura et re pleti sunt timore dicentes qiiia uidimus hodie mirabilia * Et pos^ hcec exiit et uidit puplicanum nomine leui sedente?/^ adtylon 10 enm et ait illi sequere m6 et relic ti's omnib?vs * manducat et ^ bibit ^ magister ueste/- ^ *'^[et^ r]esponf?iY ihs ^ et dixit eis no?4 20 egent qwi sani sunt medico sed qwi male habent non ueni uocare iustos sed peccatores in penitentia at illi dixerwwt ei quare discipuU iohawms ieiunant frequenter similiter 25 et farisseorM??* et orationes faciunt tui hautem disci^wZi edunt et bibunt ait illis numqwz'd possent filii sponsi ieiuna re qua?/i diu ciim illis est sponsus 30 uenient ewm dies cum auferetwr abeis f. 60 r. b. 1 Above the line, surgens. 2 Expuncted : over the line, ei. '* In margin, uel cowuiuium mag. '' Above the line, at the end of the word, uel is (sic). * Above the line, over the final letter, u€\ is. 8-8 Expuncted. '^ et r erased : over erasure, R. 8 ^'1 1 the end of the word, above the line, ens. s Expuncted. 102 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. V. 35— vi. 4. f. 60 v. a. sponsus et tunc ieiunabunt i^iillis diebz^s iJlXlt hautem parabula?/i ad eos quia nemo cowmissura/» deuestimento no uo co??imittit in uestimentum 5 uetus alioqtan scindetm* et ueteri non conueuiet cowmisura noua et nemo mittit umuw nouum in ^ utres ^ ueteres alio qwin ^ rum pet uinum nouum utres ^ ueteres 10 et ipsum effundetwr et utres peri bunt sed uinu7?^ nouu?ri in utres nouos ponunt et utraqMe cowseruantMr et nemo bibens ue tus statim uult nouu??i dicit enira 15 melius uetus est., *f: primo F actu7?i est hautem in sabbato secundo cum transiret ilis per segitem uel lebant di&cipuU eius spicas et coniri ngentes manibus manducab 20 ant qwidam Yiautem ex farisaeis di cebant eis qwid facitis sab batis qv^d Ta.on licet et responf?^Y ihs ad eos nee hoc legistis quid fece rit da?i^d cum essuriret ipse et 25 qwi cumeo erant quomodo intrauit in domu?^ dei et panes propossi tionis sumpsit et manduca uit et dedit eis qMi cum eo erant 1. 2 Marked/or transposition. | * Expuncted. * Above the line {over e), i | THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 103 Luc. vi. 4-U. f. 60 T. b. quos now licebat manducare nisi solis sacerdotibus et dixit eis quia domimis est iilius hoininis etiavi sabbati * F actm/i est hautem in alio sabbato ut 5 intraret in sinagoga et doce ret et erat homo ibi havens manum arida?7i dextera??i obseruabant Yiautem scribae et farisaei si in sa bbato curaret ut inuenirent 10 accussare eu??t ipse uero sciebat cogitationes eoviwi et ait homwii qui habebat nianu??i arida?7i surge et sta in mediu??^ et surrexit et stetit ait hautem ad eos ihs inte?TOgo 15 uos s ilicet sabbatis bene facere aut male aut animam salua?/i facere aut perdere et cir c?i?/?spectis illis omnib2is dixit homini extende nianu??i tuam et extendens 20 manu?>^ restituta est manMS eius sicut et altera ipsi hautem repleti sunt insipientia et cowloquebantw?" ad inuice?w qwidnam facerent de ^ homine * factu?/i est hautem in illis diebiis exiit in nionte??i oilare 25 et erat peynoctans in oratione dei * [et] cu7n dies factus esset uocauit ad se discijmlos suos et elegit duodecim ex ipsis quos et apostolos nomi nauit simonem quern cognominauit I Expunded : above the line, ihu. 104 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. vi. 14-24. [petrum et andream] fratrem eius et iaco [bum et ioh] annem et philippu?jii et bar [th]alomeu?^i et thoma??i et matheum et iacobu??i alfei et simone»i q?i et sinagoga^Ti ipse sedi ficauit nobis ibat hautem cum ilUs 5 ihs et ctwi iam non longue esset ado mu missit adeum centorio ami cos dice7is domine noli uexari non enim dig nus sum ut intres . sub tec tum iwettvi -propter quod et me ipsum non 10 sum dignum arbitratus ut uenirem adte sed die ue7-bo tuo et sanabitwr puer mews. Ham et ego ho mo sum subpotestate cowstitus et habeo subme milites. et dico 15 uni uade et uadit et alio, ueni et uenit. et seruo meo dico fac hoc et facit. et hoc audito ihs mira tuses^ et coMuersus sequentibws se dixit A Men dico uobis innullo talem 20 fidem inueni inisra/iel * et reue?'si sunt in domum qzd misi erant et inuenerwwt seruum q^i langue bat sanum * [et] factum est de inceps ibat in ciuitatem quce uo 25 catur nauim et ibant cnm illo disci puli eius et turha copiosa cum ad p/opinquaret portam ciuitatis et ecce ferebatwr mortuus filius unicus matris suae 30 et hcec uidua erat etturha multa ciuitatis sequebatwr cum ea qua7n cum uidisset do7ninus mise ricordia motus dixit illfs nolite flere et accessit et 35 titigit loculum et qui porta b ant steterwwt. et ait ihs adu THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 109 S. Luc. vii. 14-27. f. 62 r. b. liscens tibi dico surge et vesedii pro tinus qui mortuus erat et coepit loqui et dedit matri suae, accepit hautem timor oranes et niagnificabant 5 dominum dicentes quia p/'ofeta niagnus sur rexit ire nobis et qzda uisitauit dews pie bem suam ^ in bono ^ * [et] exiit hie ser mo inuniuersam iudeam et in omnem regionem de eo * [et nuntiauerwwt io] 10 hanni discipuli eiua de omnibw*' his et cwniocauit duos de discipulis sm's iohannes et misit ad ihiTi d^'cews tii es qui uen turns es an ahum ex spectaraus ilia hautem hora cura 15 uit multos a langoribw*- et pla gfs et spiritib?/.'; inmundis et cae cis multi's dedit uisum et res pendens ihs dixit ite nuntiate iohanni qucs uidistis et audistis 20 caeci uident clodi ambulant leprosi mundantw/* sordi au diuiit mortui rosurgunt et pauperes euanguelizantwr et beatus qwi inme non fueritnow 25 scandalizatus. Et cum disces sissent nuntii iohannis coepit ihs dicere deiohanne babtis ta adtwybas. quod existis indeser to uidere harundinem auen 30 to moueri ^ed quod existis uidere hominem mollib?i,s' uestitum : . ecce qui inueste swret p7*rptiosa et in dilicii.s in domibus regum s?mt : ^ed - (luod existis uidere 35 pj'ofetam dico uobis etiam plus quam p/'ofeta?;i * hie est de quo 11 Expuncted. \ - Altered into q«id. 110 THE I'.OOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. vii. 27-38. f. 62 v. a. scriptumes^ ecce mitto anguelu?n tneum. ante faciem tiiam qui p?Yeparabit uiam tiiam ^ * dico - uobfs quia nemo uiai or est exnati's mulier?///; et amplior in pro 5 fetls quara iohannis babtista * D ico hautem nobis minor q?*bu/n ctim gaudio accipiunt illud ot hi nou ha Ijent radices quia ad tempus 10 credunt ef intempore temj) tationis recedunt quod hautem inspi nis cecidit hi s,imi qui audiunt et per sollicitudinem diuitiar«?/i et dulcidinis uitse soffocantrw 15 et non adferwwt fructuHi quod, hautem ceci dit intf'/Ta//i boiiam hii sunt qui in cor dc bono et obtinio audiunt uer bum et tenent et fructiftcant per patientiam ..,*/: uasso diUt subtMS 20 N emo - enim accensa?/* lucernam cooperit lectuJM ponit &ed supra cande labrum ut omnibw.s- hiceat * ^ [non] est enim absconsum qicud won manifestatwr woque ocultum quod non cognoscatw?- 25 et in pala?M ueuiat * ^ [uidete eygo] "^ quomodo ^ audietis qui enim hahet dabit?fr ci et qui cumque no7i habet et quod habet auierctiir ^ [ab eo] * uenerM7it hautem mate/- eius et fratres et non poterant uidere cum 30 p^ff' turha et nuntiatum est illi ' Above the line, ud parabula- ] ■' e expuncted. ' Above the line, 'hautem. 6 ab eo u erased : in margins, ab illo :, ^Erased: over erasure, 'Hon. \ | U, followed by space containing (he *-* Erased : over erasure, Uidete ; above I erasure, line, ergo. | 114 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. viii. 20-28. f. 63 v. a. quia mater tua et fratres tui stant foris uolentes te uidere atille res'pondit ranter et fratres mei hi swit qui MGvhwn dei audiunt et faciunt * 5 Et factu??i est in una dievmn et ipse as cendit innaue?M cum disciimtts sui's et uit adeos transeamus transfre twin et ascenderwit nauiganiibus hautein illis obdonniuit et discendit 10 tempcstas magna in stagnum et coniAehixtiir nauis fluctibus et lyri clitabantMr accedunt hmitein disciy^^^i suscitauerwit emu dicentes p/vc'cc]) tor perim?i neque 25 duas tonicas habueritis in quamcuiuque domu//6 intraueritis ibi manete et inde ne exea [tis * et] quicumque n.07i ■^ recipe/'it u6s I Above the line, hautein. '" Above tlie line (above t), n. - Above the line, illos. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 119 S. Luc. ix. 5-12. f. 64. v. b. exeuntes deciuitate ex[cuti] te puluere??^ depedibus uestris intcstimoniu??i illis. — * f: ella E gi'essi hatitem civcmn ibaut pe/- cast 5 ct cimfates euangelizantes et cu rantes ubiqwe * audiuit hautem he rodis tetracha omnia quce era nt facta ab eo et hesitabat eo qiiod diceret^o' aqwibws da//' q/^ta iohannis 10 surrexit amortuis ^ aqwibus uero quia helias apa ruit ab aliis hautem prol'otauii«s deantiqwi's su rrexisset et ait herodis - loliannem hautem ego de 15 collaui qriis haute w est iste de quo audio ^ talia d (\ues,\\\\t eu//i uidere * [et] reuersi a-posfoli dixen'o coepe/'at declinare et accesserti?tt xii disci2juli eius dixerwMt ei dimitte tw/'bas ut eant cir ca castella et uicos et lefici ant so ' At, end, in marr/in, da.vi. " Above Uie line, ego. - In margin, ncm. ^ Expuncted : above the line, hautem. 120 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. ix. 12-21. f. 65 [et inuejnient escas quia hie in loco deserto sumus ait hautem ad eos date illi's uos manducare at illi dixer^mt nmi s?/7it nobis plus 5 qiiain qtdnque panes cf duo pisces nisi nos eamiis et emamus in omnem banc tM?'ba?» escas erant eniiu fere <\umque milia nivovum ait \\autevi ad discipulot^ suos facite eos discum 10 bere \)f'r conuiuia qj^inquagenos et ita fecei'MMt et i\\s,cuui\)Qvuni om?ie.s accepti's hautem qwinqwe panibMS et duobus piscib2<6' respexit in caelum et be nedixit super illos et f regit dc 15 dit Ahcxpulis suis ut ponerent ante twl^as et manducanevMwt omwes et saturati Bunt et sublatu»i est quod superfuit illi's fragniento rum copliini xii. — * /: discijJM^t'd* suis. 20 Et factu??i est cum ^ solis Gssui orans cum interrogaiiit eos dicens que»^ mc esse dicnnt tM?-bae at illi dix erMwt iohannem babtista?/?. alii hautem lielia?H aut unu?/« ex profetis 25 prioribus ^ at hautem eis u6s hautem quew me dicitis esse responf?ews simon petrws d^x^Y xpm dei . — * At ille increpans illos prcecipit * i expuitdcd : above the line, u. | -Above the line [after a), i. THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 121 S. Luc. ix. 21-28. f. 65 r. b. ne cui dicerent h6c dicens quia oportet filiuw howiwis multa pati et reprobrari ap7incipibw,s- et senioribMs et scribi's et occidi 5 et posf tertiu??? diem resurgere * [djicebat hmdem ad omnes si quis uult post m(' iienire abnegat s(' ipsuw sibi p^tollat cruce?/^ sua??? etsequat?/r mc' qui enim uoluerit ani 10 mav// anani salnaiu facere per d[G]t earn Na??/ q«i perdiderit ani mam suam p?-opter me hie saluam faciet earn quod enim proficiet hom*ni SI ^ lueret?ir uniuersu???, munduni 15 se ipsu///. \mutem p^rdat et detrimen turn sui faciat * naw? qui mv eru buerit et meos sermones lumc et filius ho??u'rais erubescet cum ue nerit in maiestate sua et pa 20 tris sui et sandovum angeloruwj * [d]ico h.autem uobi's uere Buni hfc ali qui stantes qui non gustabunt mortem donee uideant liliu??; homms in gloria sua faetum 25 est hautem post hcec uerba fere post dies octo adsumpsit petrum et iohanne?/? et iacobum et ascen dit inmontem ut oraret 1 First e changed into c. 122 THE BOOK OF MULLING. S. Luc. i\. 29-36. f. 65 v. a. et duwi oraret factaes^ spe cies aspectus ems altera et iiestitiis eius allws pf refulgeiis et ecce duo uiii loquontes 5 cwn eo erant hautent moyses et lielias apparentes inmaiestate et dicebant excessu?n ems quern cowpletums erat in liiriisa lem petrus haitfem et qj/i amieo erant 10 grauati swwt sonino ^V eui<;e lantes uiderzmt maieptatcni eius et duos uiros qui adstabant cmmWo Et factum est cum discederent ab eo ait petrus ad ihm niagist^'/- 15 bonu??/ est hi'c esse nobis r't faci amus tria tabernacula unum tihi et namn moysi et unum helise nesciens qtwd dicerot hiec ^ eo loquente iactaest nubs 20 et inumbrauit eos ^/timue vunt intrantib?* ihs sinite emn et noli 20 te proliibere qui enim non est aduf/'sus uos pro nobis est * factum est hautem du?/i con-^lQX&iuv dies adsumptionis eius et ipse faciem sua?w firma uit ut iret in hierusalem 25 et missit nuntios ante corzspec iwm simm et euntes intrauerwwt in ciuitatem samaritanorw/zj ut pararent illi cnenam THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 125 S. Luc. ix. 53-56. f. 66 r. b. et now reciperwnt eum quia facies eitis erat euntis in h.ierusale?« cuni uidissent hautein disciptcU eius iacohtis et iohannis et dixenmt domine uis dicemus ut 5 ignis discendat decaelo et con sumat illos et connerHvis increpa uit illos et dixit nescitis d/* ^ et abi 1 The words [cuius sphitus esti]s hlius I um perdere sed eanare are supplied in hominis non uenit animas liomin- | upper margin. NOTES TO CHAPTER V. p. 77. 1. 15. The section in the Amiatine manuscript ends with traderent (1. 14). p. 77. 11. 27, 28. The punctuation mark, and Et in margin, are probably due to the corrector. p. 78. 1. 5. The second tur is not quite certain. p. 78. I. 7. The erased x appears to be legible. Exurgent is read by rj, exsurgent by rj h, insurgent by Q (wis.) R. p. 78. 1. 11. Traces of the final letter of electos remain. The section should have ended with nobis. But ecce prad. u. being rejected by the corrector, the mark indicating the close of a section is placed after electos. This appears to confirm the supposition that the corrector and the numerator were the same person. 126 THE BOOK OF MULLING. p. 78. 1. 21. The section ends with in cselo (1. 22) in Cod. Am. p. 78. 1, 34 sqq. A hole in the vellum extends from 1. 34 to I. 37, and is the cause of the space in the middle of ianuis. 1, 38. p. 79. 1. 3. Possibly et is a correction from ue\. p. 79. 1. 6. The space after in is not large enough to have contained illis : nor is there any appearance of erasure. p. 79. 1. 12. Apparently tur et unus is written over an erasure. Traces of et . . . r remain. p. 79. 1. 23. Some traces of cum remain. p. 80. 1. 36. The space after suus is due to a hole in the vellum. p. 81. 1. 18. The words ab eo are followed by the mark ( :,) indicating the end of the section. Here is a further proof that whoever divided the Gospels into sections revised the text as he went along. p. 81. 1. 19. Et is possibly due to the corrector. If so, ab eo (1. 18) may be written in part over the same word erased. p. 81. 1. 20. There is a mark before in, which may possibly be a partially erased letter. p. 81. 1. 29. eius is read by r^ r„h A etc., and suits the space. p. 81. 11. 34-37. A hole in the vellum extends down these lines. p. 82. 1, 1. te may be read as above, regarding the point above it as a mark of omission ; or possibly the line as well as the point is due to the corrector. In this case it should be printed te, the symbol /. being an indication of a marginal note now illegible. p. 82. 11. 25, 26. The conjecturally restored reading of the erased words (which exactly fits the space) is that of rj rg E *. p. 82. 1. 26. In A the section begins with the words (1. 25) Et factum est. p. 82. 1. 33. There is a mark above the first letter of forte. Possibly something was written here and afterwards erased, p. 83. 1. 1 sqq. A hole in the vellum extends down 11. 1-3. p. 83. 1. 7. The letters tis are plainly a correction. We therefore infer that habetis was not the original reading. In the absence of all trace of the original letters I substitute for those of the corrector bitis with r.2 (not r^) DELQR Durm, etc. Again, it seems clear that the word before unguentum cannot have been hac. Otherwise this word must have been erased, for no assignable reason, merely to be re- written. This sufficiently disposes of the claim of the reading of the corrector to represent the text as originally WTitten. No trace of the original writing remains. What I have substituted ibr it suits the space, and is supported by j-j r^ h (haec enim mittens). p. 83. 1. 26. Possibly the original reading was tradit, the final t being changed into tur by the corrector. p. 83. 1. 32. No trace of the erased words remains. The restored text is sup- ported by r, (L) (R*) etc. r^ is wanting. p. 83, 1. 33. 1 have followed the reading of r^ L (DQR). p, 83, 1, 35, The reading as restored is required by the space and supported by n L, p. 84. 11. 1 sqq. A hole extends from the top of the column to 1. 4. p. 84. 1. 5. No traces of quia remain : but there is a space which may have con- tained it. It is read here in rj h {vo is wanting) DE3'''i*5LQR. p. 84. 1. 20. dixit is uncertain. The word may have been dicit { = r^ L), per- haps corrected into dixit. p. 84. 1. 28. The space appears to be too small for iste ueru7n : sed is the read- ing of r,. p. 84. 11. 33, 34. I know of no other authority for the reading abiit hautem iterum. But both rj and ?'2 are unfortunately wanting at this place. The original reading was certainly not iterum hautem abiit ; for in that case abiit would not have been erased, merely to be re-written, and moreover the abiit of the corrector, though the letters are spread out, does not nearly occupy the space left by the erasure, iterum, if written in full would about fill it. Accordingly I have restored the reading on the analogy of v. 44 as read in r^ f (abiit iterum). The original reading, however, may have been abiit haute7n secundo. In any case hautem seems to belong to the original writing. A THE OLD LATIN PASSAGES. 127 p. 86. 11. 1, 2. exitu?n. rei, which is the reading of r^ r.j {ms.) h etc, suits the space. I have sometimes persuaded myself that I could read the erased e of rei, and pri of principes. Be that as it may the original reading of the manuscript can scarcely be regarded as doubtful. p. 86. 1. 17. The section ends in Cod. Am. at filius dei (1. 15). p. 86. 1. 23. In Cod. Am. the section ends with blasphemauit (see 1. 22). p. St). 1. 26. i», which suits the space, is supported apparently by all other MS. p. 86. 1. 30. ucro may possibly be original. p. 86. 1. 36. The space iu the middle of ancella is due to a rent in the vellum. p. 87. 1. 11. mane cum factum esset, is the reading oih; rj being here wanting. p. 87. 1. 12. fecerunt is the reading of Q ro. Traces of the first letter remain, p. 87. 1. 28, Is hautcm a scribe's blunder for /ioc? p. 87. 1. 31. ad supplied on the authority of rj h. These letters suit the marks which have siirvived, wliich, however, would rather have suggested ex. p. 87. 1. 34. For tiliis the correct reading may possibly be tili, the final is being added as a correction. p. 88. 1. 1, traces of the letters hs seem to be legible, p. 88. 1. 23. q7tid igituv may be original. A portion of the second a in faciam remains, transformed into e. Possibly us | de are original. p. 88. 1. 27. It is quite possible that the original reading may have been nullum, the second stroke of the lirst u being erased, 11 being changed into h, and ii into il. But as nullum seems otherwise unsupported I have put nichil into the text, J). 89, II. 9, 10. There can belittle doubt that the words enclosed in brackets are correct. They exactly suit the space, and are supported by r^ r^ : eius, though erased, is distinctl}^ legible, as is also the lower part of the first letter of faciem, which has escaped erasure. Thus in facie?ft eius is certain. The space remaining ill 1. 9 is too small for ct expuentes (A etc.), et expuebant {h etc) or ct con- Hpuentes [d), unless the writing projected considerably into the margin, but is quite sufficient for expuer(«it, p. 89. 1. 10. ct is most uncertain, but there appears to be room for it after eius, and it is required by the sense, and supported by h r^. p. 89. 1. 27. Some traces of ob remain. p. 89. 1. 30. In very good light the e in crucifixerunt seems legible. p. 89. 1. 31. alterum is the reading of h ; alium would suit the space equally well ; unum {=1\ r^) and unus are both excluded. There are some traces of the erased letters, but I have found it impossible to read them. p. 89. 1, 35. A rent in the vellum causes the space in reiBdificabas, p. 90. 1, 1, The horizontal lino over the final letter of the first word is legible. There is some writing above this line, of which only the two letters su (above temet) are legible. p. 90. 1. 6. That es has been altered to est is quite evident ; es would require descende, and the t in descendat has all the appearance of being inserted ; but a shows little trace of being due to the corrector. It exhibits, however, signs of compression as if to make room for the following t. p. 90. 1. 7. ei looks as if it had been written by the corrector. Perhaps it re- placed si, h reads cred. ei si confidet. p. 90, 1. 8, eum . i. 336." 31. n T*! rj (ms.) quattuor angulis uentorum . h quat. angulos caeli. fi rj r, ofZ j?;(. + cum coeperint autem {om. auteni /j.) haec fieri respicite et leuate caput quoniam (quia ?-j) adpropiat re- demptio uestra = 6 (caj)ita uestra) t^ (incipienlibus . . . his . . . capita uestra quia). 32. fi Tn {hiat r^) cognoscitis (-cetis n) pro sciti.s = rf c (-cite). IX r^ {hiat rj prope esse aestateni (aestas /n). 33. ft. r^ {Mat r{) sic ^jra ita. 11 r, {hiat r-^) quoniam joro quia = f? e. *^ rj (? 7ns.) /•„ prope est ianuis. 35. IX. 7*1 r^ {ms.) autem pro uero = a d ef. 37. II r-i r, {ms.) enim pro autem = (? e. 38. /u To manducabant ; rj manducantes : fx ro = a ; r^ — hdef. IX To bibebant = a. IX rj ^2 et {om. r-^ nubebant. IX Ti r^ uxores ducebant = a. [x Ti (? ms.) ro usque in = « df. u r^ om, eum =/. ju rj To noe in arcam = c?/. 39. IX rj ?'o non senserunt. 40. n r^ j'a erunt duo. H Ti alter relinquetur ; r„ alius rel. 42. */u Tj r„ qua die uel ( + qua yti) hora . e qua hora aut qua die. 45. Ti r.2 om. suus = a d e, IX ?2 super = a d e. 49. V r, conseruos suos percutere. IX Tj To ebriosis = (^/. 51. IX r-^ cum infidelibus. XXV. 1. rj rg similabitur = ci?. *ri rj prodierunt 2. r-j (? ?;is. ) rj sapientes=:f?. S. ju J-g {hiat rj) fatuae autem . d stultae ergo. 4. rj r^ sapieutes = d. rj rg (7ns.) autem pro uero=<^. Tj ?-o owi. suis. 9. IX To et (o?«. 72) dixerunt. IX Vi 7-2 ad eos qui uendunt. *?'i To emite uobis oleum. 11. IX rj (c spat. ) To postea pro nouissime=/. IX r„ {Mat rj [?ns.]) uenerunt (-iarunt r.^ = df. 12. IX r„ {ms.) {Mat ?-j) uobis -|- quia =/. 14. rj rj substantiam suam=c?/. 15. /1 7-1 rg-fquidem a?ii eram pro sedebam. rj r-o tenuistis me=a d. 56. V rg inpleretur. /a r*! J'a discipuli eius = a. 57. /A j-j rj illi autem =d. */a ri rg perduxerunt. 58. ya rj rg intus = o?. /a rj ^2 (??is. ) exitum rei pro finem = a . b d f finem rei. 59. /i ri r2 aduersus=a c?/. 60. p. r*! r'2 inuenerunt in eum (eo n*) quicquam (quiquam rj) . d in- uenerunt sequentia. *ri r2 o??i. cum . . . accessissent. 61. *ri (?) r^ dei hoc ; (jl hoc dei : (/. — b d. 63. /i r-j dixit pro ait=a d. 64. /n ?'i r2 + et acZ init. r■^ 7"2 dixit. 65. *ti {hiat rj) opus est 2}to egemus ; r^ opus uobis , d opus babemus. 69. fj, r-y r^ petrus autem. /i Tx ex (de r-^) anciUis=/. ii. r^ r.^ dixit ([.... ]t r^). 71. /li illis j^ro his ; rj ro eis : /* = « (illi). 72. fi dixit quia ; r-^ dicens quia ; r^ diciens : r-^ =/; r<^=^h. 74. ya rj statim. 75. /i r2 (/wa< rj) amarissime fleuit . / fleuit amare ; b amarissime plorauit. xxvii. 1. /u r2 (/wa< >'i) fecerunt p'o inierunt = a/. 2. /u T*! eum adduxerunt . a d eum duxerunt. 3. ii. Tj quoniam pro quod ; r2 quia : [x.r-y — d\ r^=ab f. 5. /u rj (e s;;a<. 7?is. ) om. abiens. 6. /a rj eos mittere =/. V I'l corb. hoc est in oblationem (locum r^) . b loculum. 7. fj. rj autem facto. 8. ii rj cognominatus est. 9. /a T-j adimpletum =/. (ji rj (Aiai rj) o?«. a=/. 13. /a rj ei. /i j'l testificantur=/. c? testantur. 14. V J*! multum pro uehementer. 15. */x ro om. autem. */x ri consuetudo erat. 17. yu yj uobis dimittam = fZ. rj r2 (7«5. ) aut 2)ro an = f^ 18. /It rj rj (?ns.) tradiderunt=/ , ab d tradiderant. AFFINITIES OF THE IRISH OLD LATIN TEXT. 133 Matt, xxvii. 19. ixr^ eump-o ilium = « d. 20. M rj rj {ms. ) autem iJro uero = f?. 21. /Lt rj rj de duobis dimittam uobis (u. dim. ri)=d ./ex d. dim. uobis ; b ,de duobus uobis dimittam ; a uobis de du. mit- tam. 24. /u. rj T-o ( ws. ) manus suas = c?. 25. /ti rj liuiusjJTO eius = f^/. 26. /i rj eum crucifigerent . a b cruci eum figerent ; d crucifigerent eum. 27. V ^1 ^2 duxerunt . . . et pro suscipientes. fi r^ {hied rj) praetorium = t^. 28. */a rj (c s^a<.) Vg uestiarunt eum (oni. eum rj tonicam pur- puream et. a 6/induerunt eum {om. eum b) tunicam pur- puream et ; d vestientes eum tunicam purpuream. 30. */a Ti Tn, expuerunt . . . et {om. et ro) . a. expuebant . . et. 31. *M rg om. et sec. 32. M 7'i cirinensem ([c]yr. Tj). V rj ro uenientem obuiam illi (sibi ro) . »'2=«; ^ d obiuam sibi uenientem. 35. */Li ro om. autem, 38. /i rj r2 crucilixerunt . / crucifixissent. M J-iraduos^/. /i rg {Mat rj) unum ;)ro unus pri. —f. rj r2 unum pro unus sec. =/. 40. M r^ saluum fac. 41. ri [eu]m cum ; rj eum : r-y—f. 43. /A r2 filius dei. 44. Vj rj crucifixerant (-runt rj). 45. ;u rj ab ora autem sexta=ei . a ab hora sexta. ri usque in ; ro in : ?-j=« Gyp. i. 91. 46. }x rj (? ??is.) om. meus^ri. 49. /i rj si uenit = a d f : ro, si ueuiat ; b si ueniet. /i et saluet ; rj et saluabit. V rg + ad fin. vers, alius hautem accipit lanciam et (accepta lancia r2) pupungit latus eius et exiit (exit ^u) aqua et sanguis. 50. V fi exclamauit . . . et ; rg exclamans. 54. */i rj r2 cum uidissent terrae motum . d uidentes t. m. II rj rj ea pro his = a {sic). 55. yu rj rg fuerant ^0 erant sec = a. fjL rj r2 illi pro ei. 57. »'i r2 autem sero =/. 58. ;u rj rj dari ^0 reddi =/. 59. fjL rj cum accepissot iosepli corpus =a. [hiat r^ usque fin,, ev.] 60. n rj discessit (-et fj.) pro abiit. 65. /a rj milites pro custodiam. 66. M >'i et signauerunt. Most of these readings may fairly claim to have found place in the Irish recension of the Old Latin, and about one-fifth of them have no other pre-hieronymian attestation so far as I have been able to discover. These I have marked with asterisks. Some few of them may seem to suggest that the Irish Old Latin recension was based to some extent on a study of the original Greek. Such are the omission (supported by the Greek cursives 24*, 39, 180, 198, etc.) of a part of xxvi. 60, and the narrative of the piercing of the Saviour's side, found in the uncials t< B C L T U and some cursives and versions at xxvii. 49. But M. Berger's caution (L'llistoire p. 34) on this subject must not be forgotten. Among the remainder, Dr Sanday's remarks on the St Gall frag- 134 THE BOOK OF MULLING. meut (p) ^ lead us to expect to find some of Italian origin. In the search for these we are indeed confined to a somewhat restricted area. The Italian origin of a reading cannot be proved, though it may be sometimes very probable, in the absence of opposing African testimony. Now, for the entire extent of our Matthew fragment the Codex Bobien- sis {k) is wanting, the Codex Palatinus (e) is available only for xxiv. 12-49, xxviii. 2 sqq., Cyprian's citations for xxiv. 12-31, xxv. 31- 46, xxvi. 28, 29, 39, xxvii. 3, 4, 45. Or, in other words, African evidence is forthcoming only for about one-quarter of the fragment. Keeping within the limits of these passages, a few readings, supported by / alone among the group a h e f Cyp., may be classed under this head. Upon several of them, indeed, no stress can be laid : but the more significant are xxiv. 38 usque in diem . . . noe in arcam, xxv. 43 sascepistis . . . cooperuistis. Far more important is the African element, of which no instances were brought to light by Dr Sanday's comparison of j) with r^. African readings are found in our passages from St Matthew at the following places : xxiv. 14, i^er totum orhem ; xxiv. 15, per danielum profetam ; xxiv. 30, lamentahuntur, or lamentahunt se ; xxiv. 32^ cog- noscitia; xxiv. 42, qua die uel (qua) liora; xxv. 2)i,regnimi quod uohis paratum est; xxv. 46, isti; and perhaps also at xj^v. 40, ex. We may be allowed also to add xxiv. 31, a quattuor angidis iientorum, and xxiv. 51, cum infidelibus, supported by m alone among old Latin authorities, and xxiv. 39, senserunt, found elsewhere in h m only. We shall perhaps not be wrong in concluding that African influences played a larger part in shaping the Irish text of St Matthew's Gospel than Italian. When, still keeping within the same limits, we come to look for coincidences with d, which appear so strikingly in j^», disappointment awaits us. Three only, and those of little importance, are found : xxiv. 12, quia; xxv. 45, eis ; xxvii. 45, ah ora aidem sexta. What, now, is the significance of these coincidences of reading 1 Are we to infer direct literary contact with the African and Italian texts and the text represented by d 1 By no means. M. Berger has remarked the resemblance of the text of the Codex Claromon- tanus (h) to that of r^ Of the 350 variants in our passage of St Matthew in which two of the three MSS. /x r-^ 1\ are together, it supports them in about 230, or in two-thirds of the entire number. Among the readings attested by it are both those which we have classed as Italian (one however only partially), the three in which it coincides with d, and seven of the eleven which we regard as African. The thought is thus suggested that the Irish recension may not be in the strictest sense indigenous. The version upon which it was founded, and from which its African, Italian, and d elements were derived, may have been imported from the region which gave birth to the text represented by li. If the provenance of li can be fixed, we shall ^ Old Latin Biblical Texts, ii. p. ccvi sqq. AFFINITIES OF THE IRISH OLD LATIN TEXT. 135 perhaps have advanced one step towards ascertiiining the local origin of the Irish Old Latin text. § 2. Individual readings of fi, r^, r^ in St Matthew. I now proceed to give a list of the individualisms of /u, — variants, that is, in which it stands apart from both r^ and r^. For the sake of completeness, I include those which appear to be mere scribe's errors, marking them, however, with an obelus. Opposite each read- ing is given a list of its supporters among the Old Latin MSS. abed ^ fffi il\ h n q 8. Where 1\ or Tg gives a rival variant, I have re- corded it with its Old Latin supporters. In all cases where this is not done, i\ and r^ agree with, or at least support, the Amiatine text. II. Readings in which /x staJids alone. Matt. xxiv. 13. permanserit = 6 c q . a remanserit. 15. hautem ^y?-o ergo {hiat rj). 24. inducant = c//i. electos = c d/ff^ h. 26. credere pro exire {hiat r]) = c ffi (sed et exire pro credere) . r., om. exire usque nolite . b om. nolite exire. 29. [et] statim hautem. eorura pro illorum. eorum 2n'o caelorum. 30. plangent se = a c m q . r^ lamentabuii[t . .] ; r., lamentabunt se — vide Slip. 31. a summo. 35. transibunt ^jro praeteribunt = rf (transient) e (transient). 41. om. molentes . fj om. in mola=a. tunus {bis) = q. 43. fur uenisset (hiat 1\) . r„ fur ueniet . a b cf h q fur uenit . c? e 5 fur ueniret. 45. om. quis putas est . r^ r.^ quisnam est = a b c f ff^lL m . d q quis enim est. XXV. 1. 07«. et sponsae (7i;'ffl< ri) = 5. 9. fnobis pro nobis sec. 15. talio {bis). 18. thabens ;jro abiens . rj r, ott;.. abiens = a h c dff^. 20. tradidisti mihi . rj niihi dedisti = b jff\ q. 21. tat 7)?-o ait. dominus suus {hiat r-^) = dffy h. om. in. {Mat r-^). 22. om. autem {hiat rj). \ acceperat + similiter. I dixit = (^/. I mihi tradidisti = c?j/,^ 5. rj mihi dedisti =jfi 5". I talio. ^,om.vx.22,2Zr., = a superlucratus (7a'a< ri) = rf/. j 23. serue bone = 6 c dfff-^ giq S. I om. in. I om. tui. / 26. tmala . r^ r., nequam {vide sup.), om. &t i)ri. tmetuo. 29. om. ab so {liiat r^). 136 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Matt. XXV. 30. seruum nequam . rj r.^ nequam seruum = ahch q. 32. om. eos. quemadmodum ^jro sicut = Cyp. i. 100, 112, 391. separat pastor . S pastor separat vel segregat. 33. quidem oues = S . r^ om. quidein = 6 c dfffi h Cyp. i. 100, 112, 391. 34. percipite ^ro possidete = Cyp. L 100, 112, 391, 430. ab initio joro a constitutione . rj ab origine=c d ff^ S Cyp. L 100, 112, 391, 430.1 38. 0771. auteiii = 5 Cyp. i. 100, 112, 391 . r^ aut pro quando autem te uidimus. 40. trespondit [Mat r-^). 43. nudus eram {Mat ri) = h , ?-o nudus fui = Cyp. i. 112. carcere fui.- XX vi. 6. iesus esset^jfj. 7. accedens. 9. om. istud . r^ [h]oc = d ; r., haec {ms. ) = h. 13. ut ubicumque. 21. me traditur pro traditurus est me (hiat r.,) . r^ tradet me = a d hS. 22. contristati sunt {hiat r^). 24. + et ad init. {hiant r^ r^) = c q. tradetur pro uadit {hiat r^) . r^ uadet. om, de illo {Mat r^ . r^ [de] QO — adfq. 26. om. et pri {Mat r2). etpro ac {Mai ?'2)=c h. et dedit {hiant r-^^r^ = a ef q d. 29. diem ilium cum illud {Mat r2) = b cfff^ h (ilium diem) q . r^ illud diem cum illud. 32. iovi. postquam autem {hiant r^ r^). 33. dixit {hiat r2) = a c d h . 5 ait uel dixit, om. illi {hiant r-^ r.2) = b c. si pro etsi {hiant r^ ro) = a b c d q S. ego enim nunquam {Mat jj) . h ego autem numquam. 35. si pro etiamsi {Mat r„). 38. + iesus ante tristis {hiant r^ r2) = afh S. 39. cecidit {Mat r2)=d. quod pro sicut {bis) {hiat r2) = Cyp. i. 133. 40. discipulos suos {Mat ro) = a b c dfff-^ g^ h q. dixit {Mat r„) = a g^ . ?-j ait = & cfq. 42. abiit hautem iterum {hiant rj r,). om. si {Mat rc^=a h. om. hie {Mat r^). transire a me {Mat r, ; r^ [? ms.] = A)=/g' 5. om. tua {Mat ro). 43. om. et 2m {hiat r^). 44. relinquens eos (Ai«< r2) = c?. om. dicens {hiat r2)—a, 45. e\& = d q. 47. ex^jro de = af. multitude pro turba. 48. quern pro quemcuraque = f?/^, Ji. 51. extendit . . . et {Mat 7\), 52. in gladio (/4ta< rj) = A S. 53. exibet . r, rg exiberet. 57. conuenerunt (Ami rj) = r7i 5. 58. in atrio sedebat. 59. om. autem. 61. templum hoc dei = b c d h . r^ (?) rj t. dei hoc. 62. testiticantur aduersus te. 64. ad dexteram = a 6 c / /i g. 1 So also Lebar Brecc, p. 450: Bernard in Trans. R.I. A., xxx. p. 323. '•^ So Lebar Brecc, p. 431 : Trans. R.I.A., xxx. 323. AFFINITIES OF TgE IRISH OLD LATIN TEXT. lo7 Matt. xxvi. 65. blasfemat. quid nunc adhuc. 67. crederunt {Mat r^) . r^ cedentes. eius irro ei=c h . r, om. ei (?) . ro om. alii usque dederunt = a h 3. 69. illi et tu . r^, ei et tu = n {corrector). 72. cm. et. iuramento + dixit . r^ rg dicens = 6 cfh. 75. out. et sec. {hiut r{), xxvii. 1. cum factum esset {Mat r-^) = h. 3. damnatus est {hiat ri) = h c d g^ q 5 . / a,d iudicium ductus est ; h iudicatus est. 5. processit . r^ ro secessit = ffi b c h q. suspendit se = d. 7. tex illis hautem. 17. om. ergo . Vi ?•., autem ^^ro ergo = a b c df g^h q. 19. ovi. enim {Mat r{). 22. tqui pro quid. 23. am. illis = 5. pilatus 2^ro praesis. 24. tier, in populo = 6. dicens coram populo. 28. om. exuentes eum {Mat r^) = ab c d q . r^ cum spoliassent eum. 29. om. et pri, adorabant ;jro inludebant . r„ deludentes . ab c h q deludebant. 31. calamidem cocciniam . h chlamydem et uestem purpuream. om. et tert.=d . r^ om. et duxerunt usque Jin. vers. + eum ad Jin. {Mat r^) . a b cruci eum figerent ; / eum cruci- figerent. 32, tollere pro ut tolleret. 36. obseruabant {Mat 7'i) = 5 . r, seruauearunt. 37. illius pro ipsius. inscribtam . Vn scriptum est. 38. alterum pro unus sec. . r^ r„ unum =/ /; q . a alter. 39. tunc euntes pro praetereuntes autem . r^ r, transeuntes autem = a b c dh q, 40. distruebas = 6 jf J A S . r-j distruas=/(-es. ) 42. es discende. 43. confidat. dominum . r, deo sue . r, deum — cdJg^S.ff^^ domino, iam liberet eum. 46. circa hautem horam {Mat r^) = c h ; r„ circa uero horam . d circa .... autem horam ; q 5 circa autem .... horam. om. nonam. 48. arundinem . r^ in harundin [. .] = a h. 49. sinete {Mat ri) = S. 51. usque ad. terrae motus factus est magnus = A. a terrae motum factum est magnum. 52. om. multa. 57. esset factum. 58. + iesu ad Jin. {Mat r„). 65. sicut ipsi scitis {Mat r.,). 66. 07n. abeuntes {hiat r^). lapidem + et discesserunt {Mat ro). xxviii. 3. hautem 2Jro enim {Mat r„) = a bed e/ff^ g^ n q S . ry et erat — A. An inspection of this list brings to light both Italian (xxiv. 24) and African (xxiv. 35 ; xxv. 32, 34, 38 ; xxvi. 39) readings, the latter bear- ing about the same proportion to the former as in the preceding table. The only reading supported by d alone of our selected INISS. is cecidit, xxvi. 39. IMoreover, we observe that nearly half the individual read- 138 THE BOOK OF MULLING. ings of yu. (60 out of 129) are supported by other Old Latin MSS., and may accordingly be probably assumed to be genuine readings, and not mere later corruptions of the text. This is in itself sufficient to show that even readings in which /i stands alone against, or at least without the support of, r^ r^ may be of high value. It is interesting, more- over, to mark that in a few instances (xxiv. 30 (43) ; xxv. 22, 23, 33, 43 ; xxvi. 40, 67 ; xxvii. 40, 43 ; xxviii. 3) readings of /a attested by other Old Latin texts are set over against rivals of r^ or r^ with similar support. This appears to suggest that there may have existed side by side in Ireland two or more recensions of the Evangelical text, closely similar, and yet appreciably differing from one another. Three of the individual readings of /x (xxiv. 15, aute7u = ^° L, etc.; xxvi. 42, om. hic = Y, etc. ; xxvii. 17, om. ergo = 243) have Greek support They may possibly be due to a revision of the text by the aid of MSS. of the original. It seems unnecessary to burden these pages with tables showing the individual variants of 9\ and r^. It will suffice to state results. In 7"j there are about 110 such readings. Of these about 55 have other Old Latin attestation : two bear marks of African origin, xxiv. 20, ne ( = e Gyp. i. 336), xxiv. ?>2,fuerit tener ( = e) ; one, in itself of but little account, is supported by / alone among the primary manu- scripts, xxvi. 29, quia ; while d alone countenances xxiv. 2)\,summum, for terminos, and xxv. 34, praeparatum. In rg we find about 175 individualisms, of which some 75 have Old Latin attestation; about 6 being African — xxiv. 2 1 , sed neque ( = e Gyp. i. 336), xxiv. 27, apparet ( = e Gyp. i. 336), xxiv. 28, uhi ( = e Gyp. i. 336), xxiv. 30, om. tunc ( = e), xxv. 43, nudus fui ( = Gyp. i. 112), uenistis ad ( = Gyp. i. 100, 112, 392); and perhaps xxv. 45, istis ( = Gyp. i. 101 [A]); one or two Italian — xxv. 36, co-operuistis (=/), and perhaps xxiv. 41, altera (J alia) ; while two are supported by d only, viz., xxiv. 34, generatio Iiaec, and xxv. 34, ah origine. § 3. Readings in tvhich fj. i\ agree {St LiiJie). The Lucan fragment gives less material than the j\Iatthean for such an inquiry as we have just now made, r., having here deserted us. Some results, however, may be obtained. The length of the passage and the largely increased deviation of /n from the Vulgate make it undesirable to give full lists of the readings. Of the 360 or 370 variants in which fi t-j^ are together, 45 coincide with e, which is fortunately available for nearly the entire passage, against b f, and may therefore be esteemed as African. They are the foUomng : — Luc. iv. 13. ab eo=a d e : ah illo h f. 36. quis est istesermo = c (quid): rfquis est hie sermo ; a J/quid(quod/) est hoc uerbum. 43. ad hoc enim ; d c in hoc enim : a quia ob hoc ; / quia ad hoc ; b quia ideo. AFFINITIES OF THE IRISH OLD LATIN TEXT. 139 Ltie. V. 14. om. ipse = e : a h fZ/ipse. 22. liiala = c : d iniqua ; om, a hf. ad eos = c : d eis ; abfa,d illos, 24. grabatum = rf : a b /Icctum ; om, e, sed in vers. sequ. add. gra- battum post tulit. 33. orationes = a e : h f obsecrationes ; d praecationes. 36. conueniet — a d e : J/conuenit. Luc. vi. 8. surrexit et = e : a b df surgens. 20. ad p7-o in—e-.ab df in. 29. ei = e : 6/eum ; a d a,h eo. 33. ipsud = e : a b dfom. 34. eis = a c : 6/ his ; ojn, d. 37. dimittetur uobis ; e dimittitur uobis : a h f?/dimittemiui. vii. 4. om. ad iesum^a d c : bf ad iesum. 6. ibat autem cum illis iesus = « d (eis) c (abiit itaque) : bf iesus autem abiit (ibat/) cum eis (illis/). 12. mortuus = a d (mortuum) e : &/defunctus. 30. doctores = rt d e : bf periti. 42. amabit (-auit p.) ; e amat : b dilexit ; a diliget ; df diligit. 43. respondit = c : a b rZ/respondens. 47. illi = ri. — e : ab dfet. eos = a d e : &/ilIos. vi. 9. aut^?-t. et tert.=d e : bf a,n; Mat a. 20. dixit {Mat r^) = e : ab (^/dicebat. 31. uobis faciaiit = e : a b rf/faciant (-clam d) uobis. 37. iudicetur de uobis = e ; b de uobis . , . iudicabitur ; a d f iudice- mini. ne condempnemini = e Cyp. i. 139 : a d ut non cond. ; b et noa condemn amini ; /et non condemnabimini. 45. bona = c : a b dfhonxixn.. 47. sit similis = « e -. d est similis ; ?)/similis (-e b) est. vii. 12. sequebatur cum ; c consequebatur : d cum . . erat ; a 6 /cum. 22. et tcrt.=e : om. a b df. 25, uestitum=c : a &/uestimentis indutum ; d uestimentis uestitum. 28. quia = c : d quoniam ; om. a b /. illo est = a d e : bf est illo. 36. recubuit — f^ e : a 6/discubuit. 40. dicere aliquod ; e dicere aliquid : a b / aliquid dicere ; d quod dicere. viii. 10. non est datum sed = e (nisi) : om. a b df. similitudinibus ; e similitudinem (sic) -. a b f^/parabolis. 14. per sollicitudinem ; e })er sollicitudinis {sic) : abd a sollicitudini- bus ; /a sollicitudine. 16. om, ponit sec. =e : a b dfponit. omnibus luceat = e : a b f intrantes uideant lumen ; d qui in- trant uideant lumen. 21. respondit = e : a b rf/respondens. 27. exit . . et ; <3 cum exisset ; d exierunt . . et : b f cum egressus esset ; a gresso . . . illo. 28. om. is = a d e : b is ; /qui. 29. alligabatur = « e : t^/ligabatur ; b uinctus. 49. om. ei = c : a bf ei ; d illi. 51. puellae et matrem = fi e : abfet matrem puellae. ix. 14. eos = d e : a 6/illos. 25. ipsum hautem = rf e : a/autem ipsum ; b autem. 41. om. et peruersa jaos< incredula = a e : b dfet peruersa. 47. adproehendit . . et = e : 6 tZ / adpraehendens ; a adpraehensum. African readings in r^. Luc. iv. 6. dixit = re f^ c : 6 / ait. 10. te conseruent = c : i/conseruent t& : a d custodiant te. 17. erat scribtum = a d e : t/scriptum erat. 23. ad illos = a e : 6/illis ; d ad eos. 35. et nihil = c : /* nihilque ; a df nihil. V. 7. paene = (i e : om. a bf. L 142 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Luc. V. 8. quod cum uidisset=e {om. quod) : bf quod cum uideret ; a hoc uiso ; om. d. quoiiiam = rf e : a &/quia. 12. om. rogauit eum (e spat.)=d e : b rogabat eum ; / rogauit eum ; a orabat ilium. 15. audire . . . curari = a d c : bfut audirent . . curarentur. 18. [injferre eum = e : b f eum inferre ; a inferre ilium ; d inducere eum. 28. surrexit et = e : a 6 rf/surgens. 38, seruantur = rt de : &/conseruantur. vi. 2. quid = « e : b a,d eos quid ; / illis quid ; d ei ecce quid. 3. ad iIlos = c : a i/ illis ; d ad eos. 21. et sitiunt iustitiam = e : b et sitiunt ; a et sititis ; om. df. 35. quo[niam] = a d e : &/quia. 46. me uocatis = a e : 6/uocatis me ; d mihi dicitis. 48. [est]enim = e : a b dfenim erat. 49. domum = a c? e : S/domum suam. vii. 6. dicens illi = e : a c?/dicens ei ; b dicens. 22. renuntiate = a e : 6/nuntiate ; d dicite. 34. uinarius = e : a J/bibens uinum ; d uinipotator. 37. uas=e : b d/alabastrum ; a ampullam. 42. ambobus = e : a b c?/utrisque. 43. et dixit = e : a b df dixit. dixit = 6 : a &/ dixit ei ; d dixit illi. 45. osculando=a e : 6/osculari ; d osculans. viii. 17. nihil = a e : b dfnon. 19. ad auxapri.—d e : a bf a,d ilium. 24. accesserunt . . . et = e : a b fZ / accedentes. magister=a e : 6/praeceptor ; d domine domine. 25. iesus = e : om. a b df. ix. 3. non calciamenta=e : a b neque cal. ; dfom. 4. et . . exite=a cZ e : 6 et . . . proficiscimini ; /donee exeatis. 11. excipiens = « e : 6/excepit . . et ; d suscipiens. 12. deserto loco = « d c : bf loco deserto. 22. quo[niam] — adc : b quod ; / quia. 32. cum eo sec. =d e : bf cum illo ; a ei. 39. subito = a e : d desubito ; bf et subito clamat. 50. 07ft. ad ilium = d e : af a.d ilium ; b ad illos. 54. eos=a d e : 6/illos. Italian readimjs w /x, Luc. iv. 5. in montem excelsum ualde ^ ; / in montem excelsum : d in montem altum ualde ; e supra montem ; om. b. ; a hierusalem. mundi = rf/: a orbis terrarum ; b c orbis terrae. 41. eos =/ : e ea ; om. ab d. 19. eum cum lecto=/ : a eum cum lectulo ; b ilium cum lecto ; c ilium . . . cum grabattum ; d grabattum cum paralytico. 24. dimittendi=/ : a remittendi ; b d dimittere ; e dismittere. 31. eis=/ : ab e ad illos ; d ad eos. vL 7. in sabbato=/ : a (e s^a<.) 6 c? c sabbato. 23. calumniantibus nobis =/: bd cal. uos ; a his qui calumniantur uos ; c eis qui nobis iuiuria faciunt. 42. persjucies {hiat r{) = af : b respicies ; d e uidebis. vii. 10. qui languebat=:/ : d aegrum ; om. a b e. 15. protinus {hiat r^)=f : om. a b d e. 21. om. in ad init. =af:bdein. 26. dico uobis etiam ; / ita d. u. etiam : a d etiam d. u. ; 6 utique d. u. et ; c ita d. u. et. a ' Here, as in other cases to be mentioned presently, we have a conflate reading, tI one member of which is found in d. vi. 38. viii. 14. ix. 13. 18. 19. 54. AFFINITIES OF THE IRISH OLD LATIN TEXT. 143 Luc. vii. 36. in domuin = rt df:be domum. 48. peccata + tua =/ : oin. b d e. viii. 2. ab sec. {Mat r^)=f : om. b d e ; claus. om, a, 11. haec est autem=/ : a b d est autemhaec ; e estautem . . . haec. 12. cecidit=/ : b seminati sunt ; e seminatum est ; om. a d. 15. cecidit {hiat r-^)=f : om. a b d e, 18. et sec. =a df : b etiam ; om. e. 29. enm^df : ab eillnm. 49. ad priucipem=/ -.aba, principe ; d ab archisynagogo ; e puer principis. ix. 5. excutite puluerem = f?/ : ab e puluerem . . . excutite. illis==«/ : b d supra (-per d) illos ; e super eos. 39. eum pri. =f : a b d e ilium. Italian readings in r^ Luc. V. 14. mundatione=/ : b e emundatione ; d purificatione ; a purga- tione. cumulatam = a/ : b confersam ; d inpletam ; otn. e. cum audierint =/ : a b audiunt et ; ^ e audierunt et. iesus=/ : o7)i. a b d e. discipuli eius=/ : b d e discipuli ; a discipuli sui. respondentes = « df:be responderunt. uidentes — adf:be cum uidissent. We must now give a list of individual readings of /i and r^ in which the d element appears. It will be found specially remarkable in //,. In this manuscript we observe in the first place a constant tendency to substitute the oblique cases of "is" for those of "ille." In many instances the resulting reading is found in d alone of the group ah d e f. Examples will be found at iv. 9, 39 ; vi. 7, 17 ; vii. 12, 36 ; viii. 18, 22, 30, 40; ix. 2, 3, 13, 33, 42. Omitting these, we dis- cover sixteen d readings. The list follows : — d readings in fjb. Luc. iv. 7. om. procedens : ab f procidens ; e prostratus. om. quia :b cf quia ; a quoniam. in omnes : 5/in omnibus ; a e super omues. inducere : a b c/inferre. utres ueteres sec. : om. ueteres ab e f. homines : a b e/ omnes homines. in domum : a b f/ domum. scire : b f nosse ; e cognoscere ; om. a. cooperit : a e/(-riet a) operit ; om. claus. b. rogauerunt autem : bfet rogauerunt ; a et rogauit ; hiat e. scio (sciui d) : a ?)/cognoui ; liiat e. magistrum : a e ilium ; /eum ; om. b (?). expauerunt' {hiat r-i) ; om. ab cf. ex profetis prioribus"; d ex profetis : ab f proplieta . . de prioribus ; e profetarum. filium hominis ( + uonientem d) in gloria sua : a b e/ reguum dei. conpleretur : a 6 / conplereutur ; c supplerentur. ;. iv. 7. 21. 36. V. 18. 37. vi. 26. vii. 10. viii. 10. 16. 37. 46. 49, 56. ix. 19. 27. 51. ^ Apparently a conflation in p.. ^ Again, it would seem, a conflation. Luc. iv. 24. vi. 14. 35. vii. 12. viii. 3. 39. ix. 10. 144 THE BOOK OF MULLING. The list for r^ is not so long. It comprises, in addition to substitu- tions of the parts of ' is ' for those of 'ille' at iv. 21, 38, viii. 45 (ws.), the following : — d readings in r^. amen amen ; a b e/amen. primum simonem : 07n. primum a b ef. [iniq]uos (Ims.) : a e nequas ; t/malos. adpropiasset (-aret d) : a b e adpropinquaret ; / adpropin- quauit. illis : a illi ; b ei; efeis. in sec. : a b f per ; Mat e. Ti seorsum + in uicum i ; d seorsum + in castellum {om. in locum desertum) : om. in uicum a b cf. 33. faciamus (facio d) hie : om. hie a b ef. Finally, a comparison of the lists now given for St Luke with those previously made for St Matthew brings to light the following facts. Allowing for the difference in length of the passages, and for the very small portion of the Matthean fragment for which African evidence is available, we find that the number of African variants in St Luke, attested by both /x and r^, is as nearly as possible what our experience of St Matthew might have led us to expect. The same remark may be made of the comparatively small group of d readings ; though the examples of this class of variants are more satis- factory in the third than in the first Gospel. As regards these two constituents, the Irish Old Latin text appears to be homogeneous in the two passages. On the other hand, we observe in St Luke a very remarkable increase in the number of Italian variants. When we consider those readings in which ju is unsupported by r^, or r^^ by fjt., our results are not quite identical. We find a large increase in the African element of m, while in r^ the African readings have increased even more notably, being about four times as numerous as might have been anticipated from St Matthew. The Italian element in ju has become very considerable, though still less important than the African ; in St Matthew it was very small indeed. The Italian element in r^ and the d element in both /n and r^ are insignificant in both Gospels. ^ A conflation. THE LITUKGICAL FRAGMENT. 145 CHAPTEE VII. THE LAST PAGE. — I. THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. "We have already seen, in the second chapter of this work, that the last few verses of St John, followed by the colophon, are written on the recto of the final leaf of our manuscript. "We have seen too that the task of deciphering the faded letters of the latter portion of the colophon is no easy one. "When we turn the leaf and enter upon the study of its verso, our difficulties increase. At the first glance no more than a word or two appear to be legible. After I liad spent some weeks upon it, however, some scarcely visible marks began to shape themselves into letters, and finally I have been able to read almost the whole page. It was obvious to hope that chemical re-agents might restore some letters which, without the use of restoratives, were illegible. I accordingly sought permission of the Board of Trinity College to apply sulphide of ammonium to the faded writing. My request was granted. Professor Emerson Keynolds brushed the page with this application — usually so potent — and Professor Gwynn kindly under- took to watch the effect. The result has been disappointing. Photographs taken for me by Mr Greenwood Pim have enabled me to read (somewhat doubtfully) four letters which had previously escaped me, and I was made confident of one reading, about which I had had some hesitation. But with these exceptions I have been obliged to content myself with what my eyesight could reveal to me, assisted only by good light and some little patience. Two facts at once strike us when we proceed to examine this page of the manuscript, — fir^tt, that the writing is in the same hand as the main portion of the IdooIc ; and secondly, that it follows the colophon. Combining these two facts, and assuming the correctness of the hypothesis which I have advanced as to the origin of the manuscript,^ we are entitled to infer that, unlike the biblical text, this page has no claim to represent an exemplar coeval with St IMolling of Ferns, but that it was written hy an inmate of his monastery, about the close of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. Of the contents of the page Mr "Westwood writes,- "There is (1) an inscription on the verso of the last page {sic), in the same hand as the text, containing the Magnificat, part of the Sermon on the Mount, Apostles' Creed, ' Patricius Epis', and (2) a circular table ' Above, p, 17. 2 Falceographia Sacra, Irish Biblical MSS., ii. p. 5, 146 THE BOOK OF MULLING. with inscriptions." The first of these we now proceed to examine, the other we reserve for the next chapter. Of the liturgical fragment Mr Westwood's words are an approxi- mation to a correct description, but they are no more. The document contains neither Magnificat nor Apostles' Creed, though both are referred to ; it does contain " Patricius Episcopus," though a word of explanation was needed in the case of this somewhat mysterious title ; and finally, it refers to several other pieces of interest which Mr Westwood has not mentioned. All this will be evident from the transcript which I now give. The document is written in one column of about thirteen or fourteen lines, each con- taining some thirty-five letters, towards the left of the page, as if room were left for a second narrower column to the right, which has not been added.^ The exterior margin is very narrow. In the transcript, I have italicised letters which are not distinct enough to be read with entire confidence. Those which have been conjecturally supplied are enclosed in square brackets. The title (if any existed) is illegible, with probably a line or so of text. sent, al . . — Magnificat. — oniornn. Benedictus usq ; ioh[annem babtisjfa pcursore dni] Uidens B. ihs turbas ascendit t [i montejm . b e n XPS ilium conrici [dead I] memoria cetna Patricius epis orat [pro nobis omnibus] ut deleantur protinus peccata [quae commisimus] INuitiata ^ feramus pec [tora Exaudi donee djicis peccata plurima. — [Maiesta]/[em]q ; imensam corici dead et cowgZu [ria Unijtrts [u]sq ; i finem. Credo i dm pat [noster ] . . — 1. 1. " al " perhaps = " alleluia." There are apparently two letters ui the right margin between II. 1 and 2. 1. 3. After " f " we seem to have either " o " followed by six, or " a " followed by five vertical strokes. The latter are some combination of the letters " i," '" r," " m," or " n." The letter " t " at the end of the line is in the margin, and does not appear to be part of the text. 1. 4. The line over " dni " and perhaps the " so " of " precursorem " are legible. 1. 10. The last letters are very difficult to read : see below. 1. n . There is possibly one letter between " [Unijtas " and " [ujsque " (? = "i": see below). For the benefit of those who, like myself, are ignorant of the Irish tongue, I may note that the Eev. T. Olden tells me that " conrici dead " = usque in (literally, 'donee attingat') finem. 1 The length of a line of writing is 5 '8 cent., the breadth of the page being about 10"5 cent. THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. 147 A glance through this document will suffice to show that it is liturgical in character, and that the ecclesiastical office which it repre- sents contained at least the following parts : (1) "Magnificat " ; (2) . onf . , . ; (3) " Benedictus", etc.; (4) " Uidens autem", etc.; (5) " Christus ilium", etc. ; (6) " [. .Jmemoria", etc.; (7) " Patricius episcopus", etc.; (8) " Inuitiata quod", etc.; (9) [. . .]icis peccata plurima ; (10) " [. . .]q; inmensam", etc.; (11) " [. . .]tas," etc.; (12) "Credo", etc. Can any of the parts thus described be identified 1 Some with the greatest ease. For example, that which is called " Magnificat " (1) is beyond doubt the hymn of the Blessed Virgin, as used at Vespers in the mediaeval Church of England, and at Evensong according to the Reformed Anglican usage. That this Canticle was used in the early Irish Church we need no further assurance than that which its pre- sence in the Liher Hymnorma^ affords. Again, " Uidens autem", etc., (4) is obviously a lection from St Matt, v., " Jesus " being in- serted after " autem " in agreement with the majority of MSS. of the Irish recension, including the Book of Mulling itself. Once more, " Credo", etc., (12) is the Apostles' Creed, which we know to have been commonly employed in Celtic worship. One word more before we leave 1. 11 as to its last word. It is natural to read "pat" as the fourth word of the Creed " patrem." And this is not impossible, for the abbreviations in our MS. are sometimes quite arbitrary. Thus " patrem " is represented by " pa " at Matt. XV. 4, 6, while the same letters stand for " patri " in the intervening verse, not to mention other instances. But, on the other hand, t is almost always used for " ter." I have therefore ventured to regard " pat " as the first word of the Lord's Prayer (13) and to conjecture " noster " as the first of the illegible words in 1. 12. That the Credo should be followed by the Pater Noster is just what we might expect. The same sequence occurs in the Book of Dimma, the Visitation of the Sick in the Book of Mulling, the Antiphonary of Bangor, and the Book of Hymns f. 30^•, i.e., apparently in all the Celtic offices, not strictly Euchar- istic in character, in which the Creed is found ; ^ the Book of ' The Book of Hymns of the Ancient Church of Ireland, edited from the original manuscript in the Library of Trinity College, JDuhlin, icith translation and notes, by James Henthorn Todd ; Uiiblin, Fasc. i. 1855, Fasc. ii. 1869. Dr Todd collated a second cojiy of the Book ofHyiiiiis, tlioii in the Library of St Isidore's at Rome, but the opportunity of doinj^ so did not occur till too late to enable him to make any considerable use of it in the two published fasciculi of his edition of the Book of Hymns. It is nowpreserved in the Fi'anciscau House, Merchants' Quay, Dublin, and I have occasionally referred to it as the " Franciscan Copy." A new and complete edition of the Libcr Ilymnortim is being prepared by Professors Bernard and Atkinson, and will, it is hoped, be shortly issued to members of the Henry Bradshaw Society. In the references to the printed editions of this book throutrh- out the present chapter 1 denote them by the letters L.If, The figures following these letters give the pages of Todd's edition. With them I supply (enclosed in brackets), by the kindness of the editors, the references to the corresponding pages of the Bradshaw Society edition. '^ Compare the old Irish Tract Vc Arrcis, edited by Mr Kuno Meyer {Ecv. 148 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Deer ^ being, of course, no exception. The "word " noster," especially if Avritten nf, would fill only a small part of the vacant space in 1. 1 2, which appears to have contained twelve or fourteen letters. \Miat may have followed we can only guess. But we sliall possibly guess correctly, if we take for our guide a hitherto inedited page (f. 30«) of the Liher Hpanorum to which Professor Bernard has called my attention,^ We there find the words " Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem. usque in finem. et pater noster., Ascendat oratio," etc. It is quite possible that the formula, here indicated by its first words " ascendat oratio," may have followed the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in our fragment as well as in the Book of Hymns, and that in it we have hit upon number (14). I therefore print it here, as it is found in the Stowe IMissal.^ Ascendat oratio nostra usque ad tronum caritatis tuae, domine, et ne uacua reuertatur ad nos postulatio nostra, per. After these, perhaps the piece most easily recognised is that com- mencing "Patricius episcopus orat" (1. oret) — (7). This was written in full, and enough remains legible to place beyond question its identity with one of the couplets added in the Antiphonary of Bangor (f. \bv), and in the copy of the Book of Hymns preserved in the Franciscan Monastery, Merchants' Quay, Dubhn, to the Hymn of Secundinus in honour of St Patrick. The couplet runs as follows ^ : — Patricius sepiscopus oret pro nobis omnibus ut deleantur protinus peccata quae commisimus. The identification of these lines leads to the anticipation that the Hymn of St Secundinus itself, to which they are subjoined as an appendix in the only other MSS. which are known to contain them, may form one of the earlier parts of the office. And this anticipation will be strengthened when we remember that we are dealing, pro- bably, with a monastic sei-vice and recall the contemporary words of the Book of Armagh,^ " Patricius scs eps honorem quaternum omni- bus monaste7'iis et aedessiis per totam hiberniam debet habere .... III. Ymnum eius per totum tempus cantare . . ." If this "Hymn of St Patrick " forms part of our office, it will most probably be " Christus ilium," etc. (5), or the following number. Now at first Celtiquc, Oct. 1894), in which the recitation of Paters is frequently enjoined without the Credo (capp. 1, 3, 10, 13, 20, 31, 33), while the Credo never stands alone, beiiiE; always either followed (14 {cet credo is here left untranslated], 26), or preceded (21) by a Pater. 1 Warren, The Liturgij and Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 166. 2 L. U. (i. 156). ^ Warren, op. cit. p. 227. * I quote from the Antiphonary, with which our MS. agrees. In the Franciscaii Book of Hymns there are some variations : — Patricius sanctus cpiscojius oret pro nobis omnibus et miseriatur protinus peccata qute commisimus. * F. 16. a. 1 (Stokes, Tripart. Life, ii. p. 333). THE LITUKGICAL FRAGMENT. 149 view it may appear impossible that it slioukl be (5) ; for on a reference to the Liber Hymnorum we discover that neither the Hymn of Secundinus, nor, indeed, any other poem in the whole collection com- mences with these words. The supposition, however, must not be at once set aside, for we find that the ildnl lad stanza of the hymn, which is alphabetical, begins Avith the very words of which we are in search. No other liturgical form which I have come across com- mences with the words " Christus ilium " ; these words occur in our office just at the very place where we might expect to have the Hymn of Secundinus, or possibly an extract therefrom ; we may feel fairly confident therefore that in the concluding stanzas of this hymn,^ which I now transcribe, we have discovered (5) of the office. Xps ilium sibi legit in terris uicarium qui de gemino captiuos liberat seruitio plerosque de seruitute quos redemit hominum innumeros de zabuli obsoluet dominio. Ymnos cum apocalipsi psalmosque cantat dei quosque ad edificandum dei tractat populum ^ quam legem in trinitate sacri credit nominis tribusque personis unam docetque substantiam. Zona domini precinctus diebus et noctibus sine inter raissione deum orat dominum cuius ingentis laboris percepturus premium cum apostolis regnabit sanctus super israel. "We must now pause for a moment to consider a possible ob- jection of a sceptical critic. Is it possible, at least is it likely, it may be asked, that the last three stanzas of a popular hymn should be chanted in an office such as that which we are considering, apart from the preceding portion ? The likelihood does not appear to be increased by the circumstance that the verses when separated from their context do not make very obvious or very good sense. A complete answer to this difficulty is found in a story given by Dr Todd, in his notes to the Liber Hymnorum, from the Lebur li. n., i. 21 (i. 44). 2 On the words "dei populum" the Lebar Brecc has the gloss " popuitrine," which Dr Todd, {L, H., i. 22) takes to mean " popuil trine, the people of the Trinity or the jieople of God, as in tlie Latin." This note receives confirmation h'om, while at the same time it illustrates, a phrase in the collect, " Creator natur- arum," preserved in the Book of Mullinj^ (Warren, p. 172), viz, : "has trinUatis populi tui . . . preces." In the Book of Deer (fol. 2Sb, Warren, p. 164) this runs " trementis populi tut.'' Probably the Book of Jlulling gives us the earlier form of the collect, composed by one who thought, if he did not \\Tite the rough draft, in Irish, and translated into too literal Latin an idiom of the vernacular speech, which has been removed in the recension given in the Book of Deer. The change would be facilitated by the close resemblance of tlie two words " tremen- tis " and " trinitatis " in the minuscule Irish character. 150 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Brccc.^ The story is interesting, albeit somewhat frivolous ; more- over, it not merely serves our immediate purpose of annihilating the sceptic, but throws out a hint which we shall find valuable by and by. I need scarcely apologise tlierefore for quoting it almost at full length. St Secundinus (or as the narrator calls him, Sechnall) had read his adulatory hymn to St Patrick, in whose honour it had been written. " When the recitation of the hymn was concluded, Sechnall said, ' I must have reward for it,' said he. * Thou shalt have it,' said Patrick, ' the number of days that are in a year, the same number of souls of sinners sliall go to heaven, for the making of this hymn.' ' I will not accept that,' said Sechnall, ' for I think that too little, and the praise is good.' ' Thou shalt have then,' said Patrick, * the number of the hairs that are on the casula of thy cowl, the same number of sinners to go to heaven, for the hymn.' ' I will not accept it,' said Sechnall, ' for who is the believer who would not take that number to heaven, although he were not praised by myself, nor by anyone, as thou art.' ' Thou shalt have,' said Patrick, ' seven every Thursday, and twelve every Saturday, to go to heaven, of the sinners of Erinn.' ' It is too little,' said Sechnall. ' Thou shalt have,' said Patrick, ' every one to go to heaven loho sings it lying down and rising uj).' ' I will not accept that,' said Sechnall, ' for the hymn is too long, and it is not every one that can commit it to memory.' ' Its loJiole grace then' said Patrick, * shall he upon the last three stanzas of it.' ' Deo gratias,' said Sechnall.^ "The Angel promised the same thing to Patrick upon the Cruach, viz., heaven to every one who shall sing the last three stanzas of it at lying doicn, and at rising uj), as is [said by the poet], " A Hymn, which, if sung when alive. Will be a protecting Lorica unto all." The interview of St Patrick with the Angel on Croagh Patrick, alluded to in the last sentence, is recovinted elsewhere in the Lebar Brecc,^ but, oddly enough, without the Avords here quoted from it. But when we turn to the eleventh century Trijmrtite Life we find both stories. The former is abbreviated, but the final saying attri- buted to St Patrick occurs in it in an even more extravagant form : "'Whosoever of the men of Ireland,' saith Patrick, 'if the three last chapters or the three last lines, or the three last words, shall come at death with a pure intention, his soul shall be prepared.' " * ^ L. H. i. 33. See also Whitley Stokes, Trifartite Life, ii. p. 398 sqq. - The introduction to the Hynm of Secundinus is wanting in tlie Trinity College Book of Hymns, a leaf having jirobahly been lost at the beginning of the MS. The Franciscan cojjy, however, has an introduction, in which this story is told in a somewhat abbreviated form — the latter portion, on which our argument is built, being identical with what we find in the Lobar Brecc (see Whitley Stokes, Tripartite Life, p. 382 sqq.) ^ Stokes op. cit., ]). 476 sqq. * lb. , i. ]). 246 sq. On the same page of the Tripartite Life demons are repre- sented as saying that a certain " rich countryman .... used to repeat two or three stanzas of Patrick's hymn .... it was rather a satire than a panegyric on Patrick. Nevertheless by this we have been vanquished." THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. 151 The other is given at full length, and in a form which satisfies the reference just cited.^ St Patrick had, by means of his bell, suc- ceeded in ridding Ireland from demons for " seven years and seven months and seven days and seven nights. Then the Angel went to console Patrick." His consolation consisted in offering him a num- ber of boons from heaven in order to induce him to leave the Rick (Croagh Patrick). The conversation between the Angel and the saint is much too long to quote, but a few sentences are here printed. '"Is there aught else He granteth to me ?' saith Patrick. 'There is,' saith the Angel : ' every one who shall sing thy hymn, from one vatch to the other, ^ shall not have pain or torture.' ' The hymn is long and difficult,' saith Patrick. ' Every one who shall sing it from Christus ilium to the end .... his soul shall not go to Hell.' " I do not guarantee the historical character of these tales. They demonstrate, however, two facts to which I ask special attention : — 1. That it was customary to substitute for the hymn of Secundinus its last three stanzas, exactly as appears to have been done in our office. 2. That the usual time for reciting the hymn, in whole or in part, was before retiring to rest at night, and after rising in the morning. We have now advanced so far as to have identified (5) and (7) with the hymn of Secundinus, and a supplementary stanza or antiphon added thereto in two manuscripts. It is natural to guess that the intervening number is another similar addendum to the hymn. Four such supplementary couplets are known,^ and one of tliem, found both in the Lebar Brecc and the Liber Hymnorum (T.C.D. MS.), is sufficiently attested by the few letters still remain- ing legible to liave stood at this place in our MS. The couplet is as follows : — In memoria eterna erit iustus ab audition e mala non timebit. The Book of Hymns has done us excellent service. We call it in to help us once more in identifying "Inuitiata quod," etc. (8). No hymn in the book has these for its first words. But we discover that of which we are in search in the three last stanzas of the hymn of St Cummain Fota,* which are as foUows : — Inuitiata quo {sic) feramus pectora regi regnanti ab aeuo in secula alleluia. 1 Stokes, Tripartite Life, p. 114 sqq. 2 A phrase which I do not venture to interpret. ^ The variety which exists among the five authorities for these four stanzas is remarkable. Numbering those in the Trinity College Book of Hymns 1, 2, 3 respectively, and " Patricius Episcopus " 4, thej' are given in the following various relative positions in the authorities. T. C. D. Book of Hymns, 1, 2, 3 ; Anti- phonary of Bangor, 2, 4 (the order here is not quite certain) ; Lebar Brecc, 1, 2 ; Franciscan Book of Hymns, 2, 3, 4 ; Book of Mulling, 1, 4. ^ L. H. i. 80 (i. 21). 152 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Gloria patri atqiie imigenito simul regnanti spiritu cum agio alleluia. Nimis honorati sunt amici tui deus ^ nimis confortatus est principatus eorum alleluia. Again, be it noticed, the last three stanzas stand in lieu of the whole hymn, — a striking confirmation of the conclusion which has been already reached in the case of St Secundinus' poem. Tlie most sceptical will scarcely take refuge in the supposition that three verses as a substitute for the whole was an indulgence permitted only in the case of a single lorica, and not extended to less famous com- positions. As to the identity of number (9) " [. . . .]icis peccata plurima," to which I now proceed, I have no doubt. Its position, following the concluding stanzas of the hymn of Cummain Fota, renders it probable, if any other indication is found pointing the same way, that it is one of the collects written at the end of this poem in the MSS. And such an indication we have in the words " peccata pliu^ima," which stand as the concluding words in the antiphon^ — Exaudi nos deus per merita apostolorum optima ut deleautur pessima nostra peccata plurima. Our only difficulty is to explain "icis." If my conjecture is correct, these must be the concluding letters of a phrase equivalent to " as far as." " Donee dicis " (a construction quite common in medieval Latin prose), seems a not improbable guess, though it would have been more satisfactory if it had fitted the space better. The traces of the letter preceding "icis," which still remain, suit " d," and I have therefore inserted these words in my transcript. How- ever the letters " icis," be explained, it is interesting to observe that our MS. here agrees with the Franciscan Codex in omitting the collect " Per merita," etc., which follows " Exaudi nos " m the T. C. D. Book, though the form of expression — " [. . .]icis peccata plurima," for " conrici dead," or " usque in finem " — seems to indicate a con- sciousness on the part of the scribe that in some copies a second collect or some other subsidiary matter, was found in addition to " Exaudi nos." \Vliy St Cummain's hymn should have been recited in St Molling's ^ Dr Todd points out {L. H,, i. 80) that the last stanza is unmetrical, and is merely Ps. cxxxviii. 17, with one various reading, and therefore cannot have been intended by the author as part of the hymn. It was certainly so regarded, how- ever, by the scribe of the Lih. Hyvi., as Dr Todd shows, and also, if I have reasoned correctly, by the scribe of the Book of Mulling, whose evidence is ])robably older by some centuries (see Whitley Stokes, Goidelica, 2nd ed., p. 61 ; Tripartite Life, p. ci. sq. ). 2 L. H. i. 80 (i. 21). THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. 153 monastery is not very clear, as there appears to be no notice in historical documents connecting him either with INIolling or with the district in which he lived. He was, however, famous throughout Ireland, and an elder contemporary of our saint (ob. 661. Annal. IV. MM.)} Number (10) — " [. . .]que imensam," etc. — has next to be con- sidered. We have to look for a stanza whose second word is "immen- sam," and we at once perceive that the stanza of which we are in quest cannot be the first of a poem. No hymn could have for its first Avord a substantive followed by the conjunction " que," and in this place q; can scarcely stand for the relative " quae." Thus we have one further proof, if such were needed, of the custom of reciting the last stanzas of a canticle in place of the whole. A search through the Book of Hymns will quickly convince us that number (10) is an extract from the jjoem " Ymnum dicat," ^ ascribed to Hilary of Poictiers.^ Here are its last three stanzas : — 1 We have here, it will be seen, a confirmation of the hyjjothesis that the page under review, and therefore also the Biblical ])ortion of the MS. as we have it, was written, not by St Moiling, but by a scribe who lived a century after Moll- ing's death. It is unlikely that the fame of Cummain should have led to the recitation of his lorica within thirty years of his death, in a monastery with which he had no direct connection ; still less likely that the principle of three stanzas for the whole should have been applied to his poem so soon. 2 This poem a])iiears to liave been used as a lorica. See Whitley Stokes, Lives of Saints from the Book of Lismore {Anecdota Oxoniensia, 1890), p. viii. sqq., a reference which I owe to Professor Bernard. Compare also the Book of Leinster, fol. 282a (quoted by Dr MacCarthy, Trans. R.I. A., xxvii. 183), smd the ancient tract De Arrets jmblished in the kevue Celtique for Oct. 1894, capp. 26, 32. In both these ]iassages from the Treatise De Arrets, the Hymn of St Hilary is enjoined for recitation with the "biait," which Mr Kuno Meyer (p. 492) takes to mean Ps. cxviii. (A.V. cxix.). In this he follows Mr Whitley Stokes {Book of Lismore, p. 406). But throughout this treatise the Psalms are regularly cited by their tirst words in Latin (capp. 10, 18 [Ps. 1., A. V.li.], 33, etc.) ; and to under- stand "biait " of this Psalm seems very unhappy in ca]).3 — " lauda "| biait ~I pater after each psalm." Here we should have Ps. cxviii. referred to by an Irish title in the same sentence with "lauda" and " pater," and the direction, in itself im- jirobable, that Ps. cxviii. should be recited after every psalm. If "biait" in capp. 26, 32 were equivalent to the Beatitudes of St Matt. v. (cf. Book of Lismore, p. 323), we should have "Ymnum dicat" in juxtaposition with this passage (together with Credo and Pater in cap. 261 as in our fragment. The "chapters" of the ^^h\a.\.i" De Arrets, 32, Book of Lismore, p. 180, may seem to favour the apiilication of the word to the psalm : but the " chapters " may mean either a verse of a {>salm or a single beatitude. Thus in the Preface to Ultan's Hymn {L. H. i. 60 [i. 14]), as frequently elsewhere, the word " chajiters" is applied to the stanzas of the poem — "There are three chapters in it, and four lines in each cha))ter." If this view of the meaning of "biait" be accepted, an even more remarkable parallel to ouv office than the passages just mentioned in the treatise De Arrets presents itself in the eleventh century "Second Vision of Adamnan" (Lebar Brecc ; see the Bev. Celt. xii. 433) : "In the time that is given to God for fasting and prayer it is wrong to think of aught save the benefit of the soul both by j)reaching and celebration, to wit, a hundred genuflexions with a Biait, a Magni- ficat, a Benedictus, and a Miserere moi Dominus, and a cross-vigil, with Patrick's Hymn, and the Hymn of the Apostles [i.e. the hymn given in the Bangor Anti- phonary, f. iv sqq., or that of Cummain Fota ? see L. H. i. 83 (i. 18)], and smiting of hands, and a Hymnum dicat, and Michael's Hymn, . . . and they strike their breasts . . . and all say, 'May mercy come to us.'" » L. H. u. 151 (i. 36). 154: THE BOOK OF MULLING. Maiestatemque immensam concinemus iugiter ante lucem nuntiemus christum regem saeculo. Ante lucem decantantes cliristo regi domino et qui in ilium recte credunt regnaturi cum so. Gloria patri ingenito gloria unigenito simul cum sancto spiritu in sempiterna secula. It will be observed that 'what we reckon — in this following both MSS. of the Book of Hymns and the majority of copies of the Ymnum Dicat — as the last stanza is a doxology. This doxology is in reality not part of the hymn, as the scribe of the Bangor Antiphonary seems anxious to hint to us by his punctuation (f, ^v). And indeed the same thing is evident from the fact that two other hymns in the Antiphonary close with the same words, namely, " Ignis Creator," 111 /•, ^ and " Media noctis," f. Wv. A St Gall manuscript of the Hymn, in fact, omits the doxology, as Professor Bernard, to whom I am indebted for much of my knowledge of this poem, has been good enough to inform me. To make up the customary three stanzas, however, it is necessary to include it ; and this appears to be the explanation of the words which I have read " et conglu[ria]." The letters are difficult to decipher partly because of imperfect formation in the case of the first two or three, and partly because of a rent in the vellum which crosses the last three letters of 1. 10. It is thus possible that for c we should read a or o, for o, a; n may just as well be ?*; g 1 had for some time read as i^, and u may be h. Nevertheless, I am pretty confident that the reading in my transcript is correct. By way of explanation it is only necessary to say that "con " = " with," '^ and that "gluria" = " gloria " by a common substitution of u for o.^ We have already seen that the Hymn of Secundinus is followed by two antiphons. In like manner the antiphon " Exaudi," etc., follows the Hymn of Cummain Fota. It may therefore be regarded as not improbable that number (11) is one of the antiphons belonging to the Hymn of Hilary (10). Now three such antiphons are known to exist, and all of them are preserved in the Trinity College Book of Hymns. They begin respectively, "Te decet ymnus," "Canticis spiritualibus,'' "Unitasin." The Franciscan copy has the first two of these, while, as Professor Bernard tells me, no other known MS. 1 Mr Warren writes {Ant. of Bangor, ii. 46), " It will be noticed that this doxology [to ' Ignis Creator'] is written in fresher ink and by a different hand from the rest of the hymn." If this be correct my argument is strengthened ; but it does not seem to be borne out by the facsimile. 2 Whitley Stokes, "Calendar of Oengus," (Transactions R.I.A., Irish Manu- scrijit Series, vol. i. ), j). ccxxxviii. 3 Cf. for this substitution Gilbert, National Manuscripts of Ireland, part i. p. vi. Many examples might be cited from the Book of Mulling, the most noticeable being the name of the scribe, the first syllable of which is elsewhere commonly written Mol. " Gluria " seems not to occur elsewhere iu the MS. THE LITUEGICAL FRAGMENT, 155 of the Hymn gives any antiphons. We may fairly expect — though, of course, it must not be assumed as certain — that number (11) is one of the three just mentioned. In deciding among them we have not much to guide us. The space before " usque '' is occupied with letters for the most illegible. However, the letter " t " is fairly dis- tinct, and is followed by (apparently) two letters, forming part of the same word. This last consideration disposes of the claim of " Te decet." Both the remaining antiphons have the letter " t " in a suit- able position, but the preference must be given to the latter, as the marks following "t" may well represent "as," but can scarcely be " icis." If, as is possible, another letter is obliterated between "[Unijtas" and "usque" it was probably "i" = in. I am inclined, therefore, to believe that number (11) is the antiphon which I now transcribe ^ : — Unitas in trinitate te deprecor Domine ut me semper trahas totum tibi uotum uouere. Of number (2) I can say no more than that it appears to be an Irish rather than a Latin formula. It has a parallel in " Don-fair trocaire" ("May mercy come to us") etc., of the Second Vision of Adamnan.'^ I have left for the last number (3) " Benedictus," etc., because I cannot be quite confident that my identification of it is correct. At first, one might feel inclined to assume that it is the canticle still usually designated by this name, and used in the ancient Irish Church.^ This supposition, however, is rendered untenable by the words "usque ioh . . . ," i.e., as far as the word "iohannes," or some case of this word, or the line beginning therewith. For, though the Benedictus has St John the Baptist for its subject, he is not men- tioned in it by name. I would suggest that what is meant by the words which I have noted is an extract from the Hymn, attributed to St Columba, beginning "Noli Pater," ^ It consists of seven stanzas, the fourth, fifth, and sixth of which I transcribe. Benedictus in secula recta regens regimina iohannes coram domino adliuc matris in utero Repletus dei gratia pro uino atque siccera Elizabeth et Zacharias uirum magnum genuit iohannem baptizam precursorem domini. The words of the last line, allowing for customary abbreviations, would about suit the spaces of lines 3 and 4 of my transcript, and, 1 L. IT. ii. 161. (i. 42). On the extreme rarity of this Antiphon see Warren, Antiphonary of Bangor, ii. p. 38. - See p. 153, note 2. Similar forms are found in the treatise De Arreis, 12, 21 {Eev. Celt., 1894, p. 49.'. sq.). 3 L. II. ii. 190 (i. r,7). * L. U. ii. 262 (i. 88). 156 THE BOOK OF MULLING. if tlioy are inserted there, we have an exact description of these stanzas. Again, as before, three stanzas for the whole is the principle of selection. All this points to the correctness of our hj'pothesis that we have in these stanzas the passage referred to in number (3).^ One difficulty only has to be met. In all the other cases in which three stanzas were chanted as a substitute for the entire hymn the three last were chosen ; and in the case of the hymn of St Secundinus, the legend to which I have already appealed implies that this was the regular and customary practice. Is it likely that the usage was different with the " Is^'oli Pater"? I answer that, whether a jjriori likely or not, a departure from this usage does appear to have taken place in the present instance. For the words " Benedictus usque ioh ..." imply that only a por- tion of a canticle was to be sung, and that this portion did not con- clude with the last verse of the hymn. Had it been so, the ordinary formula which occurs elsewhere in the office conrici decul, or its equivalent usque I finevi, would have been used.^ And, moreover, good reason can be given why precisely the portion of the hymn " Noli Pater " above quoted should be sung in preference to the last three stanzas. It is possible that for once the compiler of our office may have paid attention rather to the meaning of the words which he put into the mouths of those who used it than to traditional custom. At least this much is clear : the three stanzas just cited make good sense, and are in themselves a complete poem on St John the Baptist. They are, moreover, the only stanzas in which he is mentioned. Had the last three stanzas been chosen, the extract would have begun in the middle of a sentence and have been ab- solutely unmeaning as regards its first three lines, while the last stanza would have introduced an entirely new thought, apparently altogether unconnected with what immediately precedes it, and in the hymn itself (supposing that we have it in its original form) more closely associated in its idea with the opening verses. This last the MS. stanza runs thus : — Manet in meo corde dei am oris flamma ut in argenti uase auri ponitur gemma. I think, then, that the probability is that the hymn described as " Benedictus usque ioh . . . " is stanzas 4, 5, and 6 of St Columba's " Noli Pater." The probability will be either destroyed or transformed into certainty when (if ever) a few more letters of can be read. Meanwhile we must be content to guess. 1 It ought to he added that the comhination of letters ■which I have read as " ta" is not exactly similar to anything whicli I have observed elsewhere in the manuscript. For this reason no argument can be based upon it. I have not noticed any other ])lace in which "tarn" occurs at the end of a line : but cf. the combinations used for "tio," Mar. vii. 8, xv. 41 ; "triam," Mar. vi. 1 ; " tia," JIar. ix. 20; " tiam," Matt. xii. 42, Joh. i. 16; " sti," Matt. xxv. 24, xxvi. 25, etc. 8 Yet see p. 152. THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. 157 Assuming then, for the present, the correctness of our guess, we turn now to the introduction to "NoU Pater " ^ in the Liber Hymnorum, in order to discover what the compiler of this collection has to tell us of its origin and use. He ascribes it to the time when King Aedh granted to St Columba the site of a church at Derry. No sooner had the gift been presented than " the town was burned, with every- thing that was in it. . . . The fire, however, in consequence of its greatness, threatened to burn the whole Daire, so that it was to save it, at that time, that this hymn was composed. Or it was the day of Judgment he had in view, or the fire of the festival of John." Eather a liberal choice ! and none the less so because the only allusions to fire in the entire hymn are the word " fulgure " in the first, and " amoris flamma " in the last stanza. It is obvious that all this is mere criticism and guess-work. Clearly the only thing in it all which rests on tradition is the ascription of the poem to St Columba. But we stand on firmer ground in the next sentence, in which the writer tells us of the customs of his own day, and which quite accounts for his anxiety to discover or manufacture allusions to fire in the hymn. " And it is sung," he adds, " [as a protection] against every fire, and every thunderstorm, from that time forth ; and whosoever sings it at hed-ti)ae cmd at risijig, it protects him against lightning, and it protects the nine persons whom he desires [to protect]." It was, then, a lorica, and it was used night and morning. "We have now acquired some general information as to the character of the office which forms the sui)ject of our consideration — not such information as we might have desired, or as we may perhaps hope for in the future, but still sufficient to make a further question worth asking : What was the purpose of the office 1 when was it used 1 If we could restore the first line or two of the page, speculation would probably be needless. The title would supply us at once with the knowledge which we seek. Meanwhile, it will have been noticed that the story from the Lebar Brecc, which I have cited in connection with the hymn of St Secundinus (5), as well as the note with which it concludes, with regard to the angel at the Cruach, and the ])arallel passages from the Tripartite Life convey definitely the in- formation that the hymn was to be said, as a lorica, at bed-time and riising. A similar statement, as we have just seen, is made in the Liber Hijninorum about the"Xoli Pater" (3). These two hints are sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the office was said daily, either at bed-time, as was Compline in the medieval Churcli, or in the early morning, like Matins, or rather perhaps, at both these times." ' L. IL, ii. 259 (i. 87). The introduction in' the Franciscan copy is in some respects different. But it lias the im|iortaiit words, " Wliosoever re|ieats it on lying down and rising up it saveth him from every (ire " (Stokes, Tripartite Life, J), civ.). The story is preserved, with the mention of lying down and rising up as the special times of recitation, in the Edinburgh MS. of St Columba's Lile. Skene, Celtic Scotland, ii. p. 482 sq. '^ Possibly, however, in private. Mr Warren regards this as the more probable view. "I am iudioed to thiuk," he writes in the Academy, Jan. 2Gth, 1895, M 158 THE BOOK OF MULLING. For this conclusion we find some confirmation from the " Ymnum Dicat " of 8t Hilary (10). This hymn is marked off by its con- cluding stanzas as one eminently likely to have been used at an early morning service. The two immediately preceding the doxology, with their twice-repeated " ante lucem," have been quoted above. Before them come the following, not less appropriate for morning use : Ante lucem turba fratrum concinnemus gloriam qua docemur nos futuri sempiterna secula Galli cantus ^ galli plausiis proximum sentit diem nos cantantes et precantes quae futura credimus. It is therefore no more than one might expect that, in the Book of Cerne, the Ymnum Dicat is one of two poems which follow a collection of fourteen prayers and hymns, expressly stated to be in- tended for use in the morning. And that the hymn was used in the morning may further be implied by the rubric prefixed to it and "Aeterne rerum " in a manuscript cited by Thomasius, "Incipiunt hymni nocturni post mediam noctem ad primum gallicantum.'' ^ Evidence, however, which seems at first view to indicate that this poem was used at another time of the day, must not be overlooked. In the Trinity College Manuscript ^ two accounts of the composition of the poem are given. The first, which is somewhat obscure, is as follows : — "Hilarius . . . fecit hunc ymnum xpo in monte gargani, after eating dinner (naprainne = prandium) illic in the robber's house. And after giving thanks to God, the sons of life dwindled post till they were not bigger than infants, as that seemed unto the priest who was with them. An angel came and said to them, Nisi penitentiam egeritis in infernum ibitis. egerunt ergo penitentiam et dedit deus indulgentiam eis per istam laudem sic nobis conuenit canere post xjr and ium." The last words may seem to indicate that it was customary to sing this hymn, after the supposed example of Hilary of Poictiers, at the conclusion of a meal, rather than at bed-time or p. S3, "that we have here a collection of formul.T . . . intended for private use by a sick person as a sort of compound lorlca or charm." He thus connects our fragment with the Office of the Visitation of the Sick. Against this view I have given what appear to me decisive reasons in tlie Academy of Feb. 2nd, p. 106, viz. : that it is written at the end of St John's Clospel, the Visitatio following St Matthew, and being written by a dili'erent scribe. 1 may now add one or two words. It seems probable, as has just been pointed out, that the Office was intended for daily use. Tliis is scarcely consistent with its being said only by the sick. And we find in its various parts nothing specially appropriate to sick- ness. The hymn "Noli Pater" was a lorica against tire and liglitning. Why was protection against these more needed by a sick man than by one who was in good health '{ 1 On the meaning of this phrase see Warren, Antiphonary of Bangor, ii. p. 60. 2 "Warren, op. ciL, ii. p. 37. It must be remarked, however, that this rubric may suggest rather midnight than the early morning : see Warren as referred to in the last note. a Stokes, Goidelica, 2nd ed., p. 98. L. II., ii. 151, 102 (i. 35). THE LTTUKGICAL FRAGMENT. 159 in the early morning.^ Tliis, however, must not be too readily assumed, for several reasons. First, there can be no doubt tliat the passages already cited in connection with numbers (5) and (3) bear witness to an established usage. To me it seems that the sentence just quoted does not go so far as this. It does not so much justify Avhat is done, as state what, in the writer's opinion, ovrfht to be done (p.onuenit). It has rather the sound of an apology for the practice of a few persons of special piety, than of a defence of a settled monastic ride. Secondly, it is a little doubtful how we are to imder- stand the word " canere." It may seem natural to take it transitively and supply " istam laudem " {i.e., the hymn of St Hilary) from the preceding clause. It is, however, e(|ually possible that it is used intransitively, in which case no reference whatever is made to the recitation of our hymn. And so Dr Todd appears to render it.'^ Thirdly, it is to be noted that the Trinity College copy here lacks the support of the Franciscan manuscript. And lastly, admitting that we have here proof of the recitation of the hymn of St Hilary " post prandium," as a regular practice, this does not in any way conflict with the supposition that it was chanted at other times as well. And, in fact, we have definite proof that this was the case. The poem is mentioned in stanza xxiv of the metrical rule of Ailbe of Emly as follows ^ : — " The Hymnum Dicat should be sung At striking the bell for Canonical Hours, All wash their hands carefully. The brethren assume their habit." Thus the regular use of the hymn was not restricted to the con- clusion of meals. It does not, indeed, seem very likely that it was recited before every hour, as the first two lines here quoted seem to imply. The mention in the third and fourth lines of the monks performing their ablutions and donning their habit points rather to the first office of the day. And with this the context agrees. The stanza (xxii) next but one before that just quoted runs : — The perfect observance of the Canonical hours Is reckoned the chief rule ; Correct Matins, according to the Divines, End of night, beginning of day. '^ ^ It might be argued on similar grounds that the Hymn of Sccundinus was recited before meals. Trip. Life, ii. 399. - "Thus it is our duty to sing after dinner :" to which he apjwnds tlie note, " It {i.e. tlie story) does not appear to have much connection with the duty of saying grace after dinner, which, nevertheless, seems to be intended as its moral, from the words ' sic' etc." L. II., ii. 162. a Irish Ecclesiastical Record, vol. viii. p. 183. The rule is preserved in a 17th century manuscript at Brussels : Stokes, Martyrology of Gorman, p. x. * So, as ]\Ir Stokes kindly informs me, the last line should be rendered. The writer in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record has it, " Is at the close and the beginning of day." 160 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Then, in stanza xxiii, the direction is given that no one is to speak " till the hour of one." This leads us to interpret stanza xxiv as referring to the " striking of the bell " for the first Canonical hour, viz., Matins. And, in accordance with this, we have in stanza xxix, — It is not permitted to the brethren to depart Until the hour of Tierce, etc. "What seems to be meant is that, at the sound of the bell, the monks recited the Ymnum Dicat, and then assembled in the Oratory for Matins, and that they remained there till Tierce had concluded. Thus we have here further reason for believing that the hymn of St Hilary was iised after rising from bed in the morning. Would it be too much to draw the additional conclusion that our office was meant to be used by the monks in private, in their several cells, before they met in the Oratory for united worship at the first Canonical hour 1 However this may be, our conviction as to the time of recitation of our office, in spite of the statement in the T.C.D. manuscript, may remain unshaken. Setting aside the question of the time, there is one particular in which all the passages which have been cited agree. They all go to show that the office, whether used in the morning, after meals, or in the evening, was said daily. And this appears to receive some con- firmation from two considerations which I shall now mention. 1. Allusion is made by Adamnan {Vit. S. Col., ii. 9.) to a certain " hymnorum liber septimaniorum sancti Columbae manu descriptus." This according to Reeves (ad loc), was " a volume containing hymns for the various services of each day in the week." ^ If this be so, we may infer that the daily services consisted in lai'ge part of hymns or canticles. And the inference is borne out by another passage in the same work. St Columba, as is well known, died just after the bell for matins had rung. The service proceeded as usual. And then we are told (iii. 23; Eeeves, p. 239), — " hymim raatutinalibus termin- atis " — tlie body of the saint was borne to the hospice. Again it is implied that a daily service consisted mainly of hymns. Such is the character of the office which we are considering, and so far our sup- position is confirmed that it was intended for daily use in the mon- astery. 2. In the life of St Moiling, preserved in INIarsh's Library, Dublin, and dating, according to Reeves, from the 14th century, the following narrative occurs.'^ " The King [Fianachta, from whom St Moiling had procured the remission of the Lorromean tribute by a trick] sent ^ According to the Lebar Brecc Preface to the Alttis, St Columba received from Pope Gregory the Great " the Hymns of the week, that is [a book with] hymns for each night of the week" (Reeves' Vit. Col., p. 318 sq.), which is not witliout its bearing on the cjuestion of the time of day at which our office was used. The Preface in tlie Liber Hymnorum {L. U., ii. 221 [i. 63]) omits the latter clause. 2 I quote from The. Ancient Life of St Molyvg, being translation of an old Manuscript preserved at Marsh's Library, Ltiblin, tcith Notes and Traditions, by P. O'L. Dublin, James Dully and Sons, p. 19 sq. A description of the so-called THE LITURGICAL FEAGMENT. 161 the army with anger after St Molyng to kill him together with his people. The holy senior Molyng, knowing this, bade his own people to proceed more speedily on their way, praying to the Lord ; and he himself began a sacred poem in the Scotic (Irish) language, in which he named many saints, praying to them and singing their praises, commencing with a virgin and finishing with the same — that is, first making mention of the most Blessed Virgin Brigid, and at the end using the name of Mary the Mother." A little further on the writer adds, "That sacred canticle of St Molyng is always kept with honour in Ireland, and men of good will, undertaking a journey, sing it ; and through the favour of St Molyng, and the rest of the saints whose memory is sung in it, the Omnipotent God sets them free from divers dangers." ^ If the hymn was, as the writer of this Life asserts, kept in honour throughout the whole country, it must have been above all sung in St Molling's own monastery at St Mullins. Why, then, is no men- tion made of it, so far as can now be discovered, in our office 1 Perhaps because it was in the Irish tongue, which may have been sufficient to exclude it from the service of the Church.^ A more ju'obable reason, however, may be assigned. It was a lorica intended, not for daily, but for occasional use, namely, at the commencement of a journey. It would therefore be excluded from a daily office. Such then, we again infer, was the nature of the service which we have been considering. To sum up. We have recovered in these obscure, scarcely legible lines of the Book of Mulling a sketch of — or, to use a more technical word, a kind of directory for — what appears to have been a daily office used night or morning in the monastery of St Moiling of Ferns, in the early part of the 9th century. It is, I believe, the only sample of a daily service of the Ancient Irish or Scottish Church known to exist. It, is, undoubtedly, unlike the Irish Missal, of home manufacture. It certainly does not inspire us with much respect for the liturgical instinct of our fathers in the Faith, but it " Book of Kilkenny," of which this Life foiTns a part, may be found in a paper by tlie late Bishop K^eves, in the Pruceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, second series, vol. i. — Polite Literature and Antiquities, p. 339, "On a MS. volume of Saints — chiefly Irish — now in Primate Marsh's Library, Dublin, commonly called the Codex Kilkenniensis." See also his Life of St Columha, p. xxv. sq,, where it is dated "thirteenth century." ' The Hymn is given in tiie Book of Leinster (facsimile edition, p. 308) and has been printed by Mr S. H. O'Grady in his Silva Gculclica, vol. i. p. 389 sq. Mr "Whitley Stokes has published a translation of the first stanza in the Revue Cellique, t. xiii. p. 117, and the concluding stanza (misplaced in the Book of Leinster) ho has been good enough to put into English for me. These stanzas in their English dress are as follows : — Biigit, bless our way, that evil come not to us on our journey, nun fi'oni full Litfey, may we safely reach home by thine aid ! Come to protect us, Mary, Mother of the King [of heaven] E'mnat, sj)leiKlid Fidnal), fair Colmnat and Brig ! " Cf. ^Varren, Liturgy and Ritual, p. 155 sqq. 162 THE BOOK OF MULLI^'G. lias its interest as one of the not numerous examples of tlieir work in this department. It may be well to add a scheme of this service, so far as I have succeeded in restoring it. It consists of the following parts (folluw- ing an illegible portion at the beginning) : — 1 . The song of the B.V.M. {Magnificat). 2. ? 3. Stanzas 4, 5, and 6 of the Hjoiin of St Columha {Noli Pater). 4. A lection from the beginning of St Matthew v., followed ai)parently hj a formnla not Vet identifi(Kl. 5. The last three stanzas of the Hynm of St Secimdiuus {Axidite (hnnes). G and 7. Two stanzas supplementary to this hymn {In memoria and Fatriciua Episcojms). 8. The last three stanzas of the Hymn of Cummain Fota {Celebra Jiida). 9. The Antiphon "Exaudi," etc., appended to this hymn. 10. The last three stanzas of the Hymn of St Hilary of Poictiers {Ilijmnum dicat). 11. The Antiphon " Unitas in Trinitate," etc. 12. The Apostles' Creed. 13. The Lord's Prayer, followed possibly by 14. The Collect " Ascendat oratio," etc. All the parts of this office, so far as they have been identified (with the exception, of course, of 4), are found in the Libei- Hijmno- rwn, while, of 14 Latin Hymns in the two fasciculi of this book published by Todd, at least five are recited : a valuable proof of the use of the collection in Ireland at least a century or two before either of the MSS. of it now extant was written.^ At the same time, the copies used at St Mullins in the 9th century must have differed considerably from both of those which we now possess. Thus, our manuscript agrees with the Franciscan copy against its rival in the insertion of " Patricius episcopus " (though Avith a dill'erent text) after the Hymn of Secundinus, A\drile it sides with the T. C. D., and against the Franciscan copy, in adding " In memoria." Again, with the Franciscan copy it omits " Per merita," etc., after the Hymn of Cummain Fota, while it differs from both, but most widely from the Franciscan, in giving "Unitas in Trinitate '' as the o)iJ // Antiphon after the Hymn of St Hilary. One or two words may be added before leaving our Liturgical Fragment. It will be observed that I argue for the existence of a practice in the ancient Celtic Church of singing three, usually the last three, stanzas of certain hymns in place of the Avhole. And I imagine the proof already given is sufficient ; but I am tempted to conclude this chapter by quoting some further passages, which not merely corroborate my reasoning, but themselves receive a fresh meaning when the prevalence of the practice referred to is borne in mind. The first of these is from the Preface to the Hymn of Ultan ^ For their date see Stokes, Trip. Life, vol. i. p. ci sq^ THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. 163 in praise of Brigid.^ " Audite virgines laudes," says the writer, "is its beginning. The alphabetical order is in it. . . . Diciint alii, that this hymn was originally long, but (that) there remain here only four chapters of it, viz., the first chapter and the lad three chapters, causa brevitatis." ^ This is exactly as it should be. The first " chapter " would be cited, no doubt, as giving the title ; the last three as being, in some sort, equivalent to the whole. That this was actually the case we are further assured Avlien we glance at the hymn as printed by Dr Todd."^ First come three stanzas beginning respectively with the letters X (" Xps in nostra insola ") Y Z, and then the stanza — Audite uirginis laudes sancta quoque merita etc. etc. This stanza Dr Todd gives excellent reason for believing not to have belonged to the original poem, in spite of the assertion of the scholiast that some reported it to be the original first verse. How, then, are we to account for its presence here ? Most readily. The end of a poem in the Look of Hymns is regularly indicated by repeating under its last line the first word or two of its first stanza. Thus, after the stanza " Zona," etc., of the Hymn of Secundinus are written the words "Audite omnes,"'* separating the poem itself from the supplementary verses which follow. In like manner, the close of Ultan's Hymn would be marked in the MSS. by writing "Audite," with or without some of the following words of the first stanza, under the last line. When the custom of reciting only the last three stanzas produced its natural result, and the scribes only wrote, and finally only knew, these stanzas, in alllikelihood the words "Audite'' or " Audite virginis " would still be preserved as indicating the title of the hymn. Some scribe, seeing the words in his exemplar, and knowing another poem beginning with the same words^ (though not written with the same metre or assonances), supplied, as he supposed, the missing portion of the stanza by tacking on to the phrase which remained words from the other hymn. Dr Todd, it is true, will not admit this explanation. " The sug- gestion," he says (p. 58), " of the scholiast's preface, that the hymn ' L.n., i. 60 (i. 14). - In the Franciscan copy the first two sentences are found as here quoted, but the last sentence is omitted. Whitley Stokes, Tripartite Life, vol. i. p. civ. s^. •' L.H., i. 57 (i. 14) * The Franciscan copy has the one word "Audite." 5 Hymns beginning with "Audite" were not uncommon. Out of twelve poems in the Antiphonary of Bangor, two begin with this word, and another has it for the first word of its second verse, the first verse being prefatory (ff. 13 V, 15 V, 17 v). These three hymns are the only strictly alphabetical compositions in the book, for that on f. 36 v is scarcely an excej>tion. Cf. Mone, Lateinische Hymnen, iii. 242, " Mehrere irische Hymnen I'angen rait Audite an. S. Muratori anecdota 4, 136 fig., vielleicht nach Deuteron. 32, No. 671, 1." Other examples are given by Warren, Aniiph. of Bang., ii. p. 52. 1G4 THE BOOK OF MULLING. originally consisted of a capitulum for every letter of the alphabet, is unnecessary." He forgets that the sclioliast, by his " dicunt alii," informs us that he is not making a suggestion, but handing on a tradition. And the tradition, especially when supported by the con- siderations which I have already adduced, is excellent evidence for the fact. At the very least, the passage cited shows this, that to the writer of the Preface there was nothing strange in a poem being abbreviated by the very peculiar method which Ave know was applied to St Secundinus' Hymu.^ The statement^ that "Alphabetical poems containing stanzas for the last three letters of the alphabet only were common '' does not in the least invalidate this testimony, unless we liave direct evidence that these are complete, and not merely " abbre- viated " hymns. It is, indeed, very likely that many of them are in their original form ; but this is exactly what one might expect, for when it liecame fashionable in repeating the hymns to neglect all the stanzas but three, the fashion would very quickly follow among hymn- writers of economising labour by writing no more than the three stanzas which were all they could expect to be sung. The very existence, in fact, of a large number of hymns, such as Dr Todd refers to, is a signal confirmation of the thesis which I have en- deavoured to establish, rather than an argument on the other side. But Dr Todd's main proof, that the writer of the preface was incorrect in his account of Ultan's Hymn, is of much interest — none the less so because it completely breaks down in view of the results at which we have arrived. He appeals (p. 55) to the Basle MS. A. vii. 3,^ in which occurs what "is probably a part of an ancient office " in which St Ultan's Hymn was recited. After two hymns recited in the office have been given at full length, the words follow : — item xps in nostra insola que uocatur. ■ This is proof, according to Todd, that by the compiler of the office the line " Christus in nostra insula" was regarded as the beginning of the hymn. Those who have assented to my reasoning with reference ^ Todd seems to have been nearer the true explanation of the phenomena of Ultan's Hymn and others of the same class than he was himself aware. He remarks (p. 55, note 2), "The indulgence granted to the repetition of the Hymn of St Patrick was ultimately conceded to the last three verses of it," and then he asks, " Was it on this principle that the Hymn to St Brigid contained only the verses beginning with the last three letters of the alphabet ? " If for "contained" he liad written "was represented by" the question might have been answered in the affiiinative. '^ For the correctness of which some evidence would have been welcome. The only instance given by Dr Todd is a hymn which contains live stanzas. No i nstance, so far as I have observed, is met with in the Bangor Antiphouary or { with the exception of tliat now before us) in the Book of Hymns. ^ This manuscript is also described by F. Keller in his Bildcr und Schriftziige, published in the MUtheiluncjen dcr Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zurich, vii. t)d. iii. heft, p. 86, by Bishop Forbes, ArbiUhnott Missal, j). xli. sqq., and Iiy F. E. Warren, Liturgy and Ritual, p. 185. Some interesting remarks upon it wJl also be found in Berger's UUistoire de la Vidgate, p. 115. THE LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. 165 to the use of the hymns of SS. Secundinus, Columba, Cummain, and Hilary, in our office, will at once perceive that this argument is absol- utely worthless. All our experience tends to show that it is quite unsafe to assume that hymns, when used in the Offices, were recited in their entirety.^ And in fact we have here a fresh and most unex- pected instance of the principle for which I have been contending. The hymn of Ultan is represented in the Office preserved in the Easle ;MS. by its last three stanzas only. Having gone so far, it is worth while to notice how closely our Office and that of the Basle MS. agree in character. Both consist principally of hymns ; in both we find three stanzas of a hymn used instead of the whole ; in both the hymns are followed (in some cases at least) by appropriate collects ; and in both there are lections, in ours from Holy Scripture, in the other from the apocryphal Epistle of Christ to Abgarus. Our Office, however, is clearly the fuller and more elaborate of the two. Our second illustrative passage shall likewise be taken from a preface in the Book of Hymns. In that which is prefixed to the hymn of St Columba, written, as we are told, to supply the deficiencies of his celebrated " Altus " and beginning "In te Christe," our atten- tion is arrested by these words : — ^ Columcille made this hymn. . . . But some say that it was not Columcille at all that composed it, [except] from " Christus redemptor " to (?) [the words] " Christus crueem," and that is the reason why many repeat that part. The portion, which we are here informed was alone repeated by man}'' stands as follows ^ : — Christus redemptor gentium christus amator uirginum christus fons sapientium christus fides credentium Christus lorica militum christus creator omnium christus salus uiuentium et uita morientium Coronauit exercitum nostrum cum turba martirum christus crueem ascenderat christus mundum saluauerat. These three stanzas, therefore, according to the testimony of the scholiast, were in his day recited by many in place of the entire hymn. Once again, however, Dr Todd rejects the assertion of the writer of the preface. " Perhaps," he somewhat strangely remarks,'* " the meaning may be " the stanzas which we have copied, together with the two which follow them and form the conclusion of the poem. But when a man makes a plain statement, why should he mean some- 1 This applies also to Psalms. See the tract De Arrets {Rev. Celt., Oct. 1894), cap, 13, where the words " In manus usque veritatis" are doubtless a description of the single verse Ps. xxx. 6 (A. V. xxxi. 5). - L. H., ii. 252 (i. 84). W. Stokes, Goidclica, 2nd ed., p. 103. Square brackets enclose words the original of which is illegible in t'le nmnnscript. -^ L.H., ii. 207 (i. 85). ■» L. U., ii. 2o3. 166 THE BOOK OF xMULLlXG. thing entirely different? It will certainly be wiser to accept the scholiast's account of the customary practice with regard to the recitation of the hymn, while we feel quite at liberty to dispute the theory held by him or others as to the origin of this practice. It seems far from improbable that, according to prevalent usage, the three stanzas printed above were regarded as the equivalent of the poem, and that as a result of the special honour thus assigned to them they alone came to be regarded as St Columba's composition. But however this may be, there can be little doubt that we have here another instance of the substitution of three stanzas for the whole. And it is an instance of peculiar interest from the circum- stance that the three stanzas selected are not those with which the hymn concludes. This is a strong confirmation of our identification of the third element of our office with three stanzas — but not the last three — of the hymn " Noli Pater." In the case of the " In te Christe," the selection of three medial stanzas is established. And the coincidence is perhaps worth remarking, that for both of these poems Columban authorship is claimed by the scholiast. Finally, we may be allowed to add two or three extracts, the meaning of which certainly needs elucidation. The gloss which the investigation now brought to an end enables us to put upon them will, it may be hoped, be obvious. The first is from the Annals of the Fotir Masters'^ (a.d. 978) : — • Mugroin, Abbot of Hy, scribe and bishop, sldlled in the tliree^ verses [died]. The second is from the " Colloquy of the Ancients," a story preserved in several manuscripts, and among them the Book of Lis- more^ : — To stay him therefore came Finn, in whose manner of staying an dglaech were special properties, one of them being that if on the mutineer he made hut three quatrains he would incontinently become reconciled. With this sentence we may well compare the account of the battle of Ciiil Dremne in the same book, a portion of which is thus para- phrased by ]\Ir Whitley Stokes * : — The hostile armies meet at Ciiil Dremne, and Diarmait's wizard makes an airhe druad (" druid's fence ") between the two armies. Colomh cille chants three stanzas .... and one of his men overturns the druid's fence, leaps across it, and is at once killed. Battle is then joined, and Diarmait is beaten. 1 O'Donovan renders the italicized words " tlie most learned of the three divisions" : tlie " three divisions'' being Ireland, Mann, and Alba. 2 Reeves {Ecdesiaslical Antiquities of Down, etc., p. 134) supplies after " three " the words " kinds of." •' S. H. O'Grady, Hilva Gadelica, ii. p. 202. * Lives of Saints from the Book of Liimorc, p. xxviii. sq. XOTK TO CHAPTEK VIII. After these sheets had been printed otV the writer received a kind communication from ]\riss ^Margaret Stoker, avIio has recently exanuned the device treated of in the following chapter. Slic has discovered near the Cross of Christ and His Apostles what seems to he an indi- cation of the entrance to the cashel, reminding lis, as she remarks, of the words "I am the door." This is a signal conhrmation of Mv (Jlden's theory of the meaning of the device. A paper was lately read by Miss Stokes before the Royal Irish Academy on this device, and will appear, together with a facsimile (which will of course supersede the rough sketch on the opposite page), in the Pivceedinya of that Society, THE CIRCULAR DEVICK 1G7 CHAPTEE VIII. THE LAST PAGE— IL THE CIRCULAR DEVICE, " The circular device with inscriptions " mentioned by Mr West- wood in his description of the Book of MuUing is the subject of the chapter upon which we are now entering. It occupies the lower part of the page, the upper portion of which contains the fragment discussed in the last chapter. Let me premise that about this circular device I have little to say beyond describing it as accurately as possible, and suggesting one or two questions, which I shall be obliged to confess my inability to answer satisfactorily. cfOS yna-irc Unlike the Liturgical piece which we have been considering, this device was clearly intended to occupy the whole Avidth of the page, the common centre of the two circles, which are its most prominent feature, being only about ^ centimetre to the left of the middle of the page. In the diagram which I now give, the dimensions of the original are preserved. It must be understood, however, that it is only a diagram, and not a facsimile, though no duubt it w-ill be found 168 THE COOK OF MULLING. sufficiently accurate for pi'actical purposes. I have replaced tlie Irish characters by letters of a more familiar form, and in the writing outside the circles have inserted no lettprs or marks which I have not actually read, with more or less certainty. In the manuscript the diameter of the inner circle is 3 '6 centi- metres, of the outer, 4 "2 centimetres. I now transcribe the various lines of writing, numbering them for convenience of reference, and conjecturally supplying illegible letters where it seems certain that such letters existed. 1 . (Outer circle of writing). + cros mairc [andejs + matt aniar + crosrio]han [hjuaith -fcros lu[c ] [anoi]r 2. (Inner circle of writing). [anoJM-des + cros heremiaj et aniardes + daniel et aniarhiaid + eze[c]/i[iel -]tis[ — a.]n[o]irthu- aid +cros [esaite] Taking next the lines within the circles in their order we have — 3. + [c]ros I spirta [n]oib 4. gon danaib + 5. H oaingleib amias 6. U----t. 7. + [c]n"si conaapstalaib 8. h--s 1. 1. At the word [ande]s is a rent in the vellum, which the binders have remedied (?) by pasting a piece of paper over the word. It consists of about five letters and the tail of 1' (s) is distinct. In very good light the last five letters of [h]uaith are almost certain. 1. 2. There are five or six letters after " ezechiel," but " tis " is most uncertain, especially the two last letters ; t may be c. See further below. 1. 5. The correct reading of the legible words was first given by Mr Whitley Stokes in the Academy, August 1, 1896, p. 82. I think I can see the cross at the beginning of the line, followed by about three letters now illegible : but these must be regarded as very uncertain. The following is a translation : — 1 . + Cross of Mark south + Matthew west + cross of John north + cross of Luke east 2. On the south-east + cross of Jeremiah, and on the south-west -f- Daniel, and on the north-Avest-f Ezekiel [ ], on the north-east 4- cross of [Isaiah]. 3. + Cross of the Holy Spirit. 4. with gifts -l- T). -1- — with angels from above. 6. ? 7. -I- Christ with his apostles. 8. ? The most obvious thing to remark about this device is that it is a map or plan of some kind. This is made quite clear by the writing outside the circles, in the inner line of which the positions of the pairs of crosses are marked as south-east, etc., while in the outer the cardinal points are noted. That our figure, then, is a map or plan appears to be certain, and this is almost the only fact which one can THE CmrULAK DEVICE. 169 liold to have been establislied with any strong probability as to its purpose and character. I mention it here for the sake of its bearing on a problem which at once suggests itself. At what point ought we to begin to read the two outer circles of writing (11. 1, 2)1 In answer to this question, we observe, first of all, that two start- ing points are excluded : those, namely, which are marked as S.W. and N.W. respectively. The word " and," which in each of these cases precedes the designation of the position of the cross, at once disposes of their claim. Our choice, therefore, is limited to the S.E. and N.E. points. Taking the former, in reading line 1, we begin with the cross of Mark, and find the evangelists named in the order, Mark, jMatthew, John, Luke. In the other case the order will be Lvike, Mark, Matthew, John. Now in the Book of Mulling itself the Gospel of St John was certainly intended to be placed last, as we know from the fact that it is followed by the colophon. This may seem to decide in favour of beginning the reading with tlie cross of Luke, and it may appear, moreover, to yield evidence on the question of the order of the Synoptic Gospels in the Book of Mulling — of which, apart from this, we know nothing. On the other hand, it must be observed that if this conclusion be correct, the order of the Gospels in our manuscript is most unusual ^ — absolutely unique, I believe, among Irish codices, which, with the exception of the Codex Usserianus, agree in this particular, in all recorded cases, with the A.V. Again, we must bear in mind that tlie device under consideration is a plan, and that the crosses marked on it, no doubt, represent actual stone or wooden crosses erected on the ground. Now it is probable that these crosses were planted in the order which the person who erected them was accustomed to regard as the correct order of the evangelists after whom they were named. But it is quite possible that, in setting up his crosses, he proceeded from right to left, while the scribe who indicated their places on his map could only write from left to right. If we reckon from right to left we get the conventional order Matthew, ]\Iark, Luke, John, which appears much more likely than the other to have been that adopted by the scribe of our manuscript. The result of our argt;ment, then, is this : The question to which Ave addressed ourselves is left unanswered ; it is impossible to decide whether the scribe began 11. 1,2 at the S.E. or N.E. point ; but on the more importnnt pro- blem of the order of the Gospels in the Book of JMuUing we have shed some little light : it must either have been Luke, Mark, IMatthew, John, or Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and more probably the latter I shall presently adduce evidence which will, as I think, convert this probability into something very nearly approaching to certainty. One other fact may be noted with reference to 11. 1, 2. It is 1 Tlie order, Luke, Mark. I^Tattliew, John, is not mentioned by Gregory, Pro- legomena to Tischendorf s N.T., \k 137 sq. 170 THE BOOK OF MULLING. obvious tliat some sort of parallelism is suggested between the four evangelists and certain Old Testament worthies — probably the four greater prophets. It is not very easy to guess what may have been the special features which suggested a comparison between St Mark and Jeremiah, between St Matthew and Daniel ; but that the fashion of pairing together saints of different eras, " who were of one manner of life," was congenial to the Celtic mind is manifest from the lists preserved in the Book of Leinster and elsewhere.^ In these lists prominent Irish saints are compared with saints of the Universal Church, especially those mentioned in the New Testament.^ It is quite possible that similar comparisons may have been instituted between saints of the Old and New Covenants, and that of these comparisons the device before us supplies one example.^ Possibly those who are versed in the literature of the early Celtic Churches may be able to cite other similar instances. I must content myself with a reference to one passage for a due appreciation of the importance of which the preceding paragraphs will have prepared us. It is the prayer of Colga Ua Duinechda, given in the Yellow Book of Lecan (T.C.D. H. 2. 16), col. 336.^ This manuscript belongs to the fourteenth century, but the prayer is much older — probably contemporary with its reputed author, not long after whose death the Book of Mulling was written. This at least appears to be the view of Dr MacCarthy,^ who gives the fol- lowing translation ^ of its first two clauses : — I beseech with Thee, Jesus holy, thy four Evangelists who wrote thy Gospel divine, to wit, Matthew, jNIark, Luke, John. I beseech with Thee thy four chief prophets Avho foretold thy Incarnation, Daniel, and Jeremias, and Isaias and Ezechiel. The whole structure of the prayer makes it clear that, by naming in succession the evangelists and the major prophets, the writer intended to suggest a parallel between them. The prayer is, in fact, made up of a long series of pairings of the same kind. Thus, in the three following clauses we have the nine grades of the heavenly 1 First printed by Todd, L. H., i. 69 sq. Compare Olden, The Church of Ire- land, in the "National Churches" series, p. 425; Stokes, Martyrology of Gor- man, ]). xvii. " It is worthy of remark that one Old Testament saint — "Job of the Patience " — is mentioned. 3 It must not, however, be supposed that comparisons between the evangelists and the major prophets are peculiarly Celtic, Exam]iles are in fact numerous in mediaeval art. See Berger, UHistoire dc la Vtdgate, p]>. 210, 248, 296 ; and esjiecially Mrs Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, 7th ed., vol. i. p. 140. Cf. also Ebner, Qucllen und Forschungen zur Ueschichte und Kunstgeschichte des Missalc Ilomanum in Mittelaltcr ; Iter Ilalicum, p. 407, sqq. •* The Prayer is found also in the Brussels MS., 5100-4. Stokes, Martyrology of Gorman, ]i. ix. 5 Trans. R.I. A., xxvii. 156. 6 lb., p. 178. Mr Whitley Stokes {uh. sup.) translates the first clause somewhat difTerently : " I appeal to Thee, tliou holy Jesus, by the four evangelists," etc. But our argument is not affected by the variation in rendering. THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 171 and earthly churches set over against each other, and immediately afterwards the twelve patriarchs, the twelve minor prophets, and the twelve apostles, etc. Xext let us observe that the evangelists are named in the usual order, which we have already concluded to be probably that of the Book of Mulling, viz.: IMatthew, Mark, Luke, John. Moreover, the ]»rophets are named in the order, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel. This can only be because, the evangelists being compared individually Avith the prophets, jSIatthew corresponded to Daniel, Mark to Jeremiah, Luke to Isaiah, and John to Ezekiel ; or because, the two groups being compared together as groups, Daniel, Jeremiah, etc., was the customary order of the greater prophets in Bibles of the period. In either case, Daniel standing imder IMatthew in our figure and Jeremiah under Mark, we may safely infer that Isaiah stood under Luke and Ezekiel under John. When we turn back to the jMS. we find this conjecture verified in the case of Ezekiel (as shown above 1. 2), though none of the letters of this name could have been read without the assistance of the hint derived from Colga's Prayer. But further, this prayer helps us a good deal towards understand- ing the purpose of the exterior pairs of crosses. They must be equivalent to an invocation of prophets and evangelists. On the hypothesis that the device is a plan, we may well believe that the erection represented by the circles and the interior crosses was, as it Avere, placed imder their protection by planting round it crosses in their honour. And here it may not be amiss to quote, by way of illustration, the closing words of the Prayer of St John the Evan- gelist ^ : " amen matheus marcus lucas iohannes." On which Dr Todd remarks, "This is a curious example of the ancient custom of invocating the names of the Evangelists, as a protection against evil." Yet again, there can now remain no doubt as to the order in which the crosses were erected: whoever planted them proceeded "left- wise " — i.e., in a direction contrary to the diurnal course of the sun.^ AVe should certainly not have expected this. The Cathach of the O'Doniiells was to be "sent thrice right-wise round the army of the Cincll Conaill " in order that they might be assured of victory in battle.^ And, to take an instance which, as will presently appear, is even more to our purpose, when the angel Victor marked out the site of the future Church of Armagh " He Avent right-hand-icise roimd the rampart, and Patrick behind him with his Bachall Isu in his hand, and Ireland's elders a-chanting around him."'* But, indeed, refer- 1 L.ir., il 270 (i. 91). 2 A fact wliicli was pointed out to nie by tlie Hon. John Abercromby, 2 O'Donuell, quoted by Reeves, Vit. Col., p. 250. * Lebar Brccc Homily on St Patrick, Stokes, Tripartite Life, ii. p. 472 sqq. Mr Stokes' account of the ])ractice here exeni])]ified is scarcely justified by the evidence. He seems {op. cit., i. p. clxxii) to class it as a metliod of showing 172 THE BOOK OF lYULLIXG. ences to the right-hand turn in Irish Hterature are very numerous.-^ The left-hand turn is less frequently alluded to, but some examples may be cited. In the story of Cuchulainn's death ^ we are told that " Cuchulainn went to him (his horse). And thrice did the horse turn his left side to his master . . . Then Cuchulainn reproached his horse, saying that he was not wont thus to deal with his master . . . And Leborcham met him and besought him not to leave them . . . But he turyied his chariot to the right " and proceeded on his way. Further on, some- what similar omens of his api)roaching death are related. Again in the " Seel Baili Binnberlaig "^ we read : " They saw the horrible apparition (?) of a man coming towards them from the south . . . His left teas towards the la7id." Once more, the Book of Ballymote, f. 361a, has the following story*; — "Through pride, once on a time Boann (well knowing the well's virtue) said that there existed not any occult power able to deform her beauty, and so visited the spring : thrice she walked left- handed round it ; whereupon out of it three volumes of water spout forth over her and despoil her of a thigh, an arm, and one eye ; then to hide her disgrace she turned away and fled sea-ward, the water following her to the estuary of the Boyne." Fourthly, the Book of Kights ^ mentions as one of the five prohibi- tions of the King of Laighin (Leinster), " To go r(;uiid Tuath Laighean left-hand-wise on Wednesday." And lastly, in the narrative of the Siege of Huwtli ^ we find the reverence, and says that it consists in walking " with the right hand towards the pei'son or thing to be honoured." ^ Besides those mentioned in tlie text I have observed the following: The right-hand circuit of Ireland is mentioned mEgert. 1782 (0'Grady,6';7tia Gadelica, ii. 86), in the Book of Ballymote {0' Grady, ii. 374) in the poem " The Circuit of Ireland by Muircheartach MacNeill," and in the legendary tale prefixed to it in O'Donovan's Edition, p. 21 ; a saint walks right-wise round an army to give it victory, Stokes' Lives of Saints from Book of Lismore, p. 240 (c/. the hag's song in Egert. 1782, O'Grady, ii. p. 434, and that of Caeilte in the Book of Lismore, O'Grady, ii. 210) ; Senan and the angels consecrate an island b}^ going round it right-hand-wise (Stokes, op. cit., p. 214). While apparently the right hand turn, as distinct from the right hand circuit is referred to in the Yellow Book of Lecan, col. 690 sq. [licviic Ccltiquc, ii. 198), in the "Voyage of Snedgus and iVIacRiagla" from the same book {Ecv. Celt., ix. 19), in the " Colloquy of the Ancients" from the Book of Lismore (O'Grady, ii. 262), in the Life of Findchua from the same (Stokes, op. cit., p. 236), in the Tripartite Life of St Patrick (Stokes' Tripartite Life, p. S9) and in tiie jjarallel passage of the Lebar Brecc Homily on St Patrick (Stokes, op. cit.. p. 453). On the whole subject see Sir Samuel Ferguson, On the Ceremonial Turn called ^' Desiul" (Proceedings R. I. A., 2nd ser.. Ant. I. p. 35.5), and Stokes, Lives of Saints from Book of Lisrnore, pp. 348, 405 sq. Cf. also W. Simpson, Tli^ Buddhist Fraying Wheel. No doubt many other instances might be added. '- Abridged from the Book of Leinster by Mr W. Stokes, Revue Celtique, iii. 175. 3 From Harl. 5:iS0, f. 48a ; Rev. Celt., xiii. 224. * S. H. O'Grady, Silva Oadelica, ii. p. 520. The same story is narrated in the Bodleian Linnshenchas, 36 [Folk-Lore, vok iii. p. 34). 5 O'Donovan's Edition, p. 3. So in the Edinburgh Dinnshenchas, 68, one of the "three tabus of Tailtiu " is "looking at it over one's left shoulder when coming from it" (Folk-Lore, iv. 69). « From the Book of Leinster, pp. lHb-117a ; Revue Celtique, viii. 49. THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 173 following : " In Ireland there dwelt a hard, merciless man, to wit, Atherne the Urgent of Ulster . . . He was so called from going by Conor's coimsel, on a (bardic) circuit. This is the way he went at first, Ipft-hand-ioise about Ireland till he made the round of Con- naught," etc. These passages may suffice to show that the left-hand circuit was regarded as presaging evil. Our attempt, whatever it may be worth, to explain the fact that it is depicted in our manuscript must be post- poned to a later stage of the present inquiry. A slight difficulty remains to be noticed. The extract from Colga has enabled us to read the name of Ezekiel under that of St John ; but we might have expected to find the word Ezekiel without any addition, just as we have Daniel and Jeremiah. On the contrary, between " ezechiel " and " anoir '' there are about six letters, namely, ' t ' (or ' c ') and (but these are very doubtful) ' is ' — this group of three being preceded and followed by one or two wliicli are illegible. This may be the name of a second person coupled with Ezekiel, or more probably a descriptive epithet of the latter. What the epithet may be I am unable to guess. But to proceed. We have seen that the device under consideration is a map or plan. But a map, we at once ask, of what 1 To this question I can give no answer which, commends itself to me as altogether satisfactory. A suggestion, however, which has been made to me by INIr Olden is plausible, and at least deserves mention. He is inclined to think that the circles represent the Rath of St Moiling, within which were his ecclesiastical buildings ; the concentric circles perhaps indicating a double or even triple rampart, as in many royal residences. The settlement of an ecclesiastic, he says, his "city" (cathair, civifas), was exactly like that of a native chieftain, except that it would be furnished with crosses as an indication of its purpose. In support of this statement he kindly refers me to the Life of St Fintan or Munnu, in which we read that, when the Saint was in the woods (in the Barony of Forth, Co. Wexford), he saw three men, clothed in white garments, who told him, "Here will be your city," and they marked out in his presence seven places, in which afterwards the chief buildings of his city should be erected, and Fintan placed crosses there. ^ All this is very interesting. It suggests that the crosses in our diagram mark the sites of monastic buildings - at St Mullins ; and if this can be established, the diagram itself will, it would almost seem, lead to the further inference that the buildings within the rampart were dedicated, like modern churches, to the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, or to the Saints. 1 Diet, of National Blogrnphy, xix. p. 43, (/. Oldon, Cliurch of Ireland, p. 57, - It is no argument against this theory that one of the buiklings (represented by the cross in 1. 3) must have been actually in the vallum. See the curious \<\a.n of the monastery on Oilen-Tsenach in Lord Dunravcu's Notes on Irish Archi- tecture, vol. 1., p. 38. N 174 THE BOOK OF MULLING. Let us endeavour then to test the hypothesis by any evidence "which may be available in addition to the Life of St Fintan to which allusion has been just now made. The first remark to he made is that the theory whicli it suggests as to the meaning of the interior crosses is confirmed l^y several passages which appear to indicate that it was quite usual to mark the site of a church by a cross, either incised in stone, or erected in the ground, exactly as Fintan is represented to have done. According to the life in the Book of Lismore, this would seem to have been the ordinary habit of St Columba, though the sentences now to be quoted-"^ are not free from aml)iguity. It will be noticed that the number of crosses sained by him is exactly equal to the number of churches which he founded. " Many then were the churches he (Colum Cille) marked out, and the books he wrote, to wit, three hundred churches and three hundred books . . . Colomb founded a church in the place where Swords standeth to-day. And he left an ancient man of his household there, even Finan the Feeble, and he left the gospel which his own hand had written. Then he marked out the well named Sord, that is ' pure,' and sained a cross. For it was his wont to make crosses, and writing-tablets, and book-satchels, and other church-gear. Now he sained three hundred crosses, and three hundred wells and a hundred tablets, and a hundred croziers, and a hmidred satchels." St Patrick's practice, as early tradition represents it, appears to have been similar to that of the later Saint. Let us take for instance the following from Tirechan's collections in the Book of Armagh ^ : — " Et perrexit Patricius ad fontem qui dicitur Mucna, et fecit Cellam Senes quae sic uocatur. Et fuit Secundinus solus sub ulmo frondosso separatim. Et est sujnum crucis in eo loco usque in hunc diem." The last sentence seems to refer to a cross marked on the ground as an indication of the site of the church which was afterwards to be built. And in this interpretation of the words we are confirmed by several passages in the Tripartite Life and Book of Armagh, of which I quote one,^ giving the references to the others in the footnote.* " Then Patrick founded a cloister at A'th IMaigne in Asal. A merciless man resisted him there . . . Patrick marked out with his crozier a cross in the flagstone, and cut the stone as if it were soft clay." Sometimes, however, the Saint erected a standing cross. Witness this passage from Tirechan ^ : — " Et ecce quidam uir uenit ad illos, nomine Mace Dregin, cum filifs scptem gentilibus . . . et elegit unum filium ex ips^s cui nomen erat ^ Stokes, Lives of Saints from the Book of Lismore, p. 176 sq. ^ Stokes, Tripartite Life, ii, p. 321. The story is told also in the Tripartite Life (i. p. 111.). ^ Stokes, op. cit., i. p. 79. * Stokes, op. cit., p. 137, 337. ' Book of Armagh, f. 14 b. 2 (Stokes, op. cit, ii. p. 326). THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 175 Mace Ercae . . . Extendit manum et indicauit ei locum in quo sunt ossa eius procul, et digito suo signauit locum et crucem posuit ibi." To which may be added, perhaps, a passage in the Tripartite Lif e^ in which it is stated that in each of two places where St Patrick intended that monasteries should be established he " set a stake." Then, when we turn from the interior to the exterior crosses, we find, in the first place, evidence that crosses were actually planted without the rampart in ancient ecclesiastical establishments. Thus we learn from the late Sir W. E. Wilde^ that at St Kieran's Church, three miles from Kells. in the County Meath, there were five termon crosses remains of which are still preserved in situ, while tradition adds that there were originally eight. Four of those which survive are at the cardinal points, and we may infer that some store was set by this arrangement of the crosses, as that one which stood to the north of the Church was actually planted in the bed of the river. The Church of St Kieran must have presented a very remarkable analogy to that of St Moiling with its eight exterior crosses carefully set at such points of the compass as to divide the circular rath into quadrants — if indeed our circular device really represents the monastery at Tech Moiling. From the Four Masters (a.d. 1070) we gather that Clonmacnoise also, St Kieran's principal foundation, had its exterior crosses. And that the custom exemplied in these instances prevailed widely is shown by the direction of the Hihernensis : ^ " Terminus sancti loci habeat signa circa se . . . Ubicunque inveneritis signum crucis Christi, ne laeseritis." Once again, that some of these exterior crosses should have been dedicated to the Evangelists agrees exactly with what we know from other sources. I cannot indeed produce evidence of as early date as the Book of Mulling, but the last entry under the year 1225 in the Annals of Lough Ce * is worthy of our attention : " Maelbrighde O'Maicin, abbot of Tobur-Patraic, in Christo quievit. He was a virgin and sage ; and it was by him the church of Tobur- Patraic was begun, and its sanctuary and crosses were diligently finished, in honour of Patrick, and Mary, and the Apostle John." And so too at lona many crosses have been destroyed, and yet among the four which remain, two are named after the evangelists St Matthew and St John. ^ In one other respect these exterior crosses agree with the analogy supplied by the remains of a monastic establishment. There exist 1 Stokes, i. p. 149 sq. For a different explanation, see Olden, Church of Ireland, p. 57, and compare O'Curry, Lectures, p. 59. 2 The Beauties of the Boyne and Blackwater, p. 138 sq. This passage and several of those which are cited hereafter were brought under my notice by Mr Olden. 3 xliv. 3. Wasserschleben, Die Irischc Kanonensammlung, Leipszig. 1885, p. 175. * Hennessy, i. p. 291. * Reeves, Fit. Col., p. 419 sqq. 176 THE BOOK OF MULLING. in the island of Ardilaun or Ardoilean, off the coast of Galway, some very interesting ruins, surrounded by a cashel, unfortunately in a very imperfect state. Thirty years ago, however, when it was ex- amined and described ^ by Mr G. Henry Kinahan, it was much moi e nearly in its original condition, and Mr Kinahan has placed it on record that tlie rampart had three doorways, facing respectively south-east, north-east, and south-west.^ Of com'se it is possible, and one is inclined to think probable, that there had also been a north-west doorway, which in the broken state of the cashel Mr Kinahan was unable to observe. We return now to our diagram, and we find its four pairs of protecting crosses exactly at these points of the rampart. May Ave suppose that these also were the entrances to the enclosure ? Certainly nothing could be more natural than that at the very gates of the monastery should be placed the protecting crosses dedicated to the four evangelists and the four prophets. St Fechin of Fore was probably not singular in having a cross at the door of his church.'^ Up to this point all the evidence adduced has gone to support the hypothesis of Mr Olden. It has been shown that the external crosses are in their number, dedication, and position, just such as might have been f omid outside the rath of an ancient Celtic monastery. It has been shown too that there is nothing impossible in the suppo- sition that the interior crosses indicate the positions of the monastic buildings within the enclosure. Nevertheless, before producing what appears to us a further very striking and cogent argument in favour of it, we may be allowed to suggest a slight modification. In all that has been said we have assumed, or as Ave may perhaps rather affirm, by all that has been said we have proved that the exterior crosses do 7iot represent build- ings, but actual crosses of wood or stone erected on the ground. Now it must be regarded as prima facie likely that the crosses out- side and inside the circles denote similar objects. Vfhj then assume that those found Avithin the circle represent buildings? "We have certaurly proved that this is possible, but Ave have not proved that it is probable. It may just as Avell have been that they Avere simply standing crosses erected for any of the other purposes, for which in ancient times crosses were used — such as to mark a grave,* or to serve as a memorial of some striking event.^ That crosses stood thus in ancient monasteries Ave cannot doubt.^ And noAV, this being said, it remains to point out that Mr Olden's conjecture has received a very considerable accession of probability 1 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, x. p. 551 sqq. 2 So too Dundesert cashel had " two complete entrances, one north-west, the other south-east" : Reeves, Ecclesiastical Antiquities, p. 181. 3 See Colgan, as referred to in note 6. 4 Stokes' Tripartilc Life, p. 325 (Book of Armagh, f. 14 a. 1.). 6 Stokes, op. ciL, p. 276 (Book of Armagh, f. 3 a. 1.), Reeves' Vit. Col., pp. 88, 231. « See Colgan, AA.SS. Jan. 22, cap. 23, p. 135, quoted by Tetrie, Round Towers, p. 172 j Reeves' Fit. Col., p. 269; Stokes' Calendar of Oengus, p. 4. THE CIRCULAK DEVICE. 177 since it was first proposed. For at that time line 5 of the writing had not been read. Mr WHiitley Stokes, with an acuteness which one who has made many vain attempts to discover their meaning can thoroughly appreciate, informs us that the much worn letters spell the words " conaingleib aniias " = " with angels from above." I fancy I can now see before this phrase the traces of a few letters and the faint marks of a cross. At any rate, it is most reasonable to surmise that if, as we have shown, our device is a map, these words indicate the spot where an apparition of angels was seen. Fortunately we know of two visions of angels, both of which occurred in the very place which ex hy^wtliesi the device represents, and either of which was of quite sufficient importance to be dignified with a memorial cross if any tradition existed as to the spot where it occurred. In proof of this statement let me ask attention to two passages, the first translated by Mr Whitley Stokes from the Book of Leinster/ the other kindly rendered ft)r me by Mr Olden from the Brussels life of St Moiling. 2 They run thus : " Find \i.e. INIac Cumall] arose and his warriors along with him. And they set forward with their left hand to [the river] Barrow to the point of Eoss Bruicc^ over Barrow. The royal champion sat down on a ridge * over the wood {ross). He beheld a host melodious, floating, in bands ascending to heaven and descending (Gen. xxviii. 12). What host is yon? say the Fian. Those are angels (says Find) even the household of the King of heaven and earth, and shavelings (talcind) will come here in the place in which yon angels are." Subsequently a warrior named Enan has a vision in which he sees the clerics just referred to, namely " [Saint] Moiling with his community afterwards." " He (Moiling) went to Sliabh Mairge and from that went south- ward and beheld a watch of angels on the point of Ross Brocc over the stream pools of the Barrow." If cither of these visions of angels gives the key to the meaning of the fifth line of our inscription, we have proof that the structure of which a plan lies before us was situated on a ridge at St Mulhns, and that the spot to which this line refers was within the rath of St Molling's monastery. And indeed, apart from the passages quoted, a similar explanation of the words "with angels from above" might have 1 Rcvuc CcUique, xiii. 45, 49. - Cf. Did. of Nat. Biog., xiii. p. 380. ^ " The wood of the badger," another name for the place now known as St Mullins. * The expressions here used exactly describe the site of St Molling's monastery. It is situated in the angle formed by the junction of a small stream witli the Barrow. This is no doubt the "point of Ross Brocc." The existing ruins are crowded together on an elevation at a considerable height above the river and about 150 yards from it, litly described as the "ridge over Barrow." See Ordnance Survey Map, Co. Carlow, Sheet 26. It will be observed that almost identical phrases are found iu the two passages given in the text. 178 THE BOOK OF MULLING. been suggested, since stories of tlie places in which monasteries were to be erected being indicated by angelic visitations are not uncommon. An example Avhich readily occurs to one is the story of larlaithe, to whom the " place of his resurrection " was pointed out by St Brenainn. " Then," we are told,^ "the twain made this lay between them, while gazing at the grave-yard and the train of angels manifestly (rising) from it. And Brenainn spake the first five stanzas, and then larlaithe spake : " Lofty the grave-yard of the splendid angels." "We are now perhaps in a position to make some attempt to explain the left-hand circuit of St Moiling, or whoever else planted the crosses in honour of the evangelists, which has already attracted our attention as a difficulty to be solved. We have advanced so far as to be able to regard the supposition that our figure represents a monastery as at least on the level of a working hypothesis. That being so we might have expected St Moiling to proceed, like the Angel Victor and St Patrick at Armagh, " right-handwise round the rampart ; " why did he go in the opposite direction ? A sufficient answer may possibly be suggested by the able paper of Sir Samuel Ferguson " on the Ceremonial Turn called Dedul " already referred to.^ That writer quotes some perplexing words from the twenty- eighth book of Pliny's Natural Hidory, of the meaning of which commentators had failed to give a satisfactory account : " In adorando dextram ad osculum referimus totumque corpus circumagimTis, quod in Icevum fecisse Galli religiosus credunt." Are we to take this as a statement that the Gauls practised the left-hand turn in religious ceremonies, and so differed from the Romans? If so Pliny's evidence contradicts what we know from other sources. Accordingly, Sir Samuel Ferguson interprets the word " religiosus " in the sense of " unlucky, ominous, inauspicious, forbidden, uncanny," and translates : " which the Gauls deem it a direful thing to do left-hand ways." " In other words," he proceeds, " the turn which was usually practised towards the right by the Eomans, was sometimes, on occasions of imprecatory or malignant appeals to the gods, practised by the Gauls to the left.""* Perhaps this is the meaning of the left-hand circuit of St Moiling, The monastery is j^laced under the protection of the Apostles and Evangelists by the erection of the crosses, while venge- ance is called down upon those who may violate it by the procession ^ Stokes, Lives of Sahits from the Book of Lismore, p. 2.^)1 sq. Cf. also pp. 164, 285 sq. Anotlier iustanco will be found in the Prophecy of Art Sim of Conn (Proceedings of P. I. A., 1895, p. 533). Con sees " the going and coming of the angels up and down '' at Trevit. Following up this vision he predicts the founda- tion of a monastery there by St Lonan. - Above p. 172, note 2. ^ Compare Brown's Life and Legend of Sir Michael Scott, Edinburgh, 1897, p. 182. THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 179 against the course of the sun.^ But whether Sir Samuel Ferguson's explanation of Pliny's remark is correct or not, the remark itself may be cited as a parallel to that which has caused us difficulty, and so as removing the difficulty, so far as is necessary for our purpose that it should be removed. But now what appears to the writer a more serious difficulty must be dealt with. Is it probable, it may be asked, that the monastery would be exactly circular, as on the supposition that our diagram is its ground-plan it must have been ? Now, I am well aware that by many the difficulty here stated will not be felt to be a difficulty at all. Eminent and accurate writers have made the general assertion ^ that the vallum in Irish monas- teries " was of a circular figure." Those who accept this state- ment will, of course, reply to the question just now proposed that the circles in our diagram are exactly what might have been ex- pected. So far from being a difficulty to be overcome, they are an argument in favour of Mr Olden's hypothesis. It is necessary for us, therefore, at once to state, and to give some reasons for, our belief that in most cases Irish monasteries were not circular in shape. Literary evidence on such a subject is, naturally, not abmidant. And to examine with any degree of fulness that which is supplied by the remains still existing of ancient ecclesiastical establishments is, in the space at our command, impossible. It may suffice to accept the evidence adduced by the learned waiter of The JEcdesiastical Architecture of Ireiand. "It is clear," he says,^ "that in the earliest monastic establishments in Ireland, the abbot, clergy, and monks had each their separate cells, which served them as habitations, and that such other houses, as the house for the accommodation of strangers, the kitchen, etc., were all separate edifices, surrounded by a cashel or circular wall, and forming a kind of monastery or ecclesiastical town, like those of the early Christians in. the East, and known among the Egyptians by the name of Laura^ A few pages further on* he pro- ceeds, " In the western and southern portions of the island, in which the custom of building with stone seems to have prevailed far more generally [than elsewhere], we have still remaining abundant examples, not only of sucli detached monastic habitations, but of all the other buildings necessary in these early establishments." Several of the pages of the section of Mr Petrie's great work, from which these sentences have been extracted, are occupied with descriptions of some of the ancient monastic remains — five in number — which had come under 1 Comjiare the Annals of the Four Masters, a.d., 1162. " Caiscal-an-urlair was erected by tlie successor of Columcille, who pronounced a curse against anyone that should come over it. " 2 Reeves' Vit. Col., p. 361 ; Petrie, Ordnance Survey of the County of London- derry, i. 213 ; Stuart, Book of Deer, p. CXLV. 3 Petrie, Ecclesiastical Architecture, p. 416. * P. 418. 180 THE BOOK OF MULLING. his own observation. The first of these is the monastery on Ardoiledn, or High Island, an island in the Atlantic, about two miles from the coast of Connemara. " This monastery," says Dr Petrie,^ " is sur- rounded by an imcemented stone wall, nearly circular, enclosing an area of one hundred and eight feet in diameter." On the same page he speaks of it as " the great circular wall ; " and similar language has been used quite recently by INIr R. A. S. IMacalister."' Fortunately, however, the cashel had been inspected by Mr O'Dono- van, and his words,^ though somewhat contradictory inter se, have the merit of substituting accurate figures for general descriptions : " The large round wall .... is nearly an oblong, measuring in length from north to south 38 yards, and in breadth, from east to west, 23 yards .... The most perfect part of it [is] near the N. W. corner." (!) A wall with such measurements can be termed cir- cular only by an abuse of language. It certainly could not be repre- sented by a circle in a plan. Dr Petrie's second instance of a " circular enclosure," of which remains existed in the early years of this century, is that in the great island of Aran. Its shape he does not mention, possibly because at the time of his visit this could not be ascertained on account of the ruinous condition of the cashel. He next refers to the cashel surrounding the ecclesiastical estab- lishment of St Molaise in the island of Inishmurry. This, he tells us,* "is of an irregular round form, and nearly 200 feet in its greatest internal diameter." From this it is clear that it could not be represented in a plan by a circle. It is, in fact, more truly described as pear-shaped than as circular.''' Of the remains of the monastery at Glendalough, Dr Petrie says,*^ " Of the cashel, or wall itself, which enclosed the monastic estab- lishment, there are but slight vestiges remaining, but these are sufficient to show that it was built without cement, and of a very irregular figure, in consequence of the mequality of the surface along which it passed, and the great extent of the area which it enclosed." And he then passes to the establishment at Clonmacnoise, on which he remarks that " from a ground-plan preserved among Sir James Ware's MSS. in the British Museum, we find that the wall which surrounded the churches and cemetery at Clonmacnoise was equally irregular in its figure as that at Glendalough ; and from a similar cause, — the inequality of the sui'face over which it passed ; but as cement was used in its construction, there is little doubt that it was of much later age than that of Glendalough." 1 Op. ciL, p. 420. 2 Journal of Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland for 1896, p. 202. ^ Ordnance Survey MSS., quoted by Mr Macalister, \\ 209 sq. * Op. cit., p. 445. ® See the plan in Lord Dunraven's Notes on Irish Architecture, vol. i. p. 44. Lord Dunraveii remarks (p. Ah) that the irregularity in the shape of this cashel " is not to be accounted for by the nature of the ground." « Op. cit., p. 446. THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 181 Thus of the five examples of ancient cashels mentioned by Dr Petrie not one is proved to have been circular, and four were of a different figure. Other instances might be added, such as the monastery on Skellig Michael,^ but what has been said is sufficient to show that circular cashels were not so common as has been sometimes assumed to be the case.^ Are we then to infer that the circles in our figure cannot be supposed, after all, to represent the cashel of a monastery ? By no means. For, whatever view may be held as to the normal shape of the vallum, I believe that several instances of monasteries which were undoubtedly circular, may be cited. I do not care to press the case of the civitas of St Cuthbert, in Fame Island, which is described for us by Bede ^ in these words, — " Condidit civitatem suo aptam imperio, et domos in hac aeque civitati congruas evexit. Est autem aedificium situ pene rotundum " etc. It manifestly approximated to the round form, but whether closely enough to warrant its representation by a circle we cannot say. Not much more to our purpose is the description of the Ferta laid out by St Patrick at Armagh, preserved in the Tripartite Life : * " The enclosure was 140 feet, the great house 27, the kitchen 17, and the oratory 7." For, notwithstanding the acute remark of Dr Todd, that both enclosure and buildings were of a form for the measurement of which one dimension was sufficient,^ it scarcely follows that they were exactly circular. We must not attribute to the description the accuracy of an engineer's specification. But a more cogent instance is at hand. Adamnan, in the title of ^ Lord Dunraven's Notes, i. p. 30. Compare also the Cashel on Oilen-Tsenach, p. 38. Reeves {Ecclesiastical Antiquities, p. 196) mentions a triple oval cashel in Mahee Island, Strangford Lough, and (p. 182) the Cashel of Dun-Desert, which de])arted so far from the round form that it is described as only "nearly circular" by one who made his report sixty years after every trace of it had been swept away, and who does not seem to have been quite accurate in the few measurements which he gives. A Scottish example is the cashel in Skye, described by Dr J. Anderson in his Scotland in Early Christian Times, First Series, p. 94. - In dealing with this question I have preferred direct investigation of the evidence to an appeal to authority : none the less so since the opinion of experts must be admitted to be far from being unanimously favourable to the view which I have ventured to express. I cannot, however, refrain from quoting a sentence or two from the essay with which Miss Margaret Stokes' sumptuous edition of the Notes on Irish Architecture oi the late Earl of Dunraven concludes: "The re- semblance," she remarks (vol. ii. p. 136), "between the pagan and ecclesiastical fort is so strong and so significant of the same primitive condition of knowledge in the builders, that some comparative study of both monuments is required before those j)oints of difference are discovered which may prevent us from falling into the error of supposing that all the monastic forts were originally pagan and afterwards converted to Christian uses. ... In the first place, the pagan fortress is composed of two and sometimes three areas or wards, the interior, or fort proper, being either an oval, a circle, or half an elliiise, but with no sign of variation in the ground filan which would suggest that it was meant to enclose structures already in existence ; whereas the Christian fort deviates from the regular oval or circular form so as to take in the oratories and other buildings it is intended to protect." ^ Vit. Cidh., xvii. * W. Stokes, p. 237. ^ St Patrick, Apostle of Ireland, p. 478. 182 THE BOOK OF MULLING. the fifteenth chapter of the third book of his Vita Columlce, men- tions a certain brother who fell " de monasterii culmine rotundi ^ in Koboreti Campo," — from the roof of the round monastei-y atDiirrow. In the account of the incident in the text (which is taken from Cummian), the brother is said to have fallen " de snnimo culmine niagnte dumus . . . quae his in diebns in Roboreti Campo fabricatur." The two phrases evidently describe the same building. What was it 1 Petrie,'^ followed by Keeves and Fowler,^ has little doubt that it was the Round Tower of the Monastery. Mr Whitley Stokes,* on the other hand, and apparently with greater probability, identifies it with the tech mor or "great house." The three later writers, how- ever, in this advancing a step beyond Petrie, identify the " magna domus " with the " monasterium rotundum." This is, I venture to think, unnecessary and unwarranted. Nowhere else in Adamnan is the word " monasterium " apphed to a single building of the civitas, and du Cange gives no instance of the word used in this sense. Even at iii. 8 the " fratrum monasteria," which at first view might appear to mean the cells of the monks, are shown by the context to be several monasteries in the Island of Tiree, in one of which lived the " congregatio " of Baithene. " Monasterium," therefore, in the pre- sent passage must have the same meaning, unless it is impossible so to take it. I conclude that in " monasterii culmen rotundi," occur- ring as it does, in the heading of a chapter, where we might expect to meet compendious phrases, we have a short way of expressing " culmen domus quae in monasterio rotundo est." The building so described was certainly high ("magna," "major," " altissima," "enormis," so high that a fall from it meant almost certain death; see Reeves, ad. loc.) ; it was probably or possibly round ; but the thing which concerns us is, that the monastery at Durrow, with which it was connected, was round,^ like the monastery, if such it was, depicted in our manuscript. ^ With most unusual inaccuracy Reeves has in his glossar)^ " monasterii culmen rotundum." He was probably misled by Petrie's argument : "Not certainly that the monastery itself had a rotund roof," etc. Certainly not, but there is no mention of a "rotund roof" in the Latin. 2 Ecclesiastical Architecture, p. 382 sqq. * Adamnani Vita S. Columbac, Oxford, 1894, p. 144. * Tripartite Life, p. civ, Lives of Saints from the Book of LisTaore, p. 329. s A very kind and learned critic remarks, "You apjiear to take the ■word rotundum as descriptive of the ])articular monastery referred to. But as all monasteries were round, i.e. the Civitas or Fort, the word would convey no dis- tinctive meaning." To this I make answer ; (1) The argument for the circular form of the monastic buildings is as strong (one might rather say considerably stronger) as that for the circular form of the Civitas. If, therefore, " monasterium rotundum" indicates the tech mor, or the round tower, "rotuiulum" is at least equally devoid of meaning. But (2) whatever the usual form of the monasteries may have been, I think I have proved that they were not in a^/ cases round ; and (3) all that is im])lied by the use of the word "rotundum" is that the Durrow monastery was difl'erent in shape fi'om that in which Adamnan wrote, and with which his readers were familiar, or, in other words, that the monastery at lona was not exactly circular. This may well be granted, at least till contrary evidence is produced. k/' r»U«.l>.i OP RUINS AT St. MullinS; Co. Carlow. 189 6. Scale. Feet 10 5 Q 10 20 30 40 SJ 60 '10 30 90 lOO Feet. \\ wW \\\ I I I I I I I 1 i I THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 183 And we may perhaps place along with the " round monastery " of Adamnan that which is spoken of in the following passage of Tire- chan's Collections in the Book of Armagh : ^ "Et crediderunt in Deo. Et consumpti sunt dies ululationis filia- rum regis, et sepelierunt eas iuxta fontem Clebach, et fecerunt fossam rotundam (in) similitudinem/e?'^fe, quia sic faciebant (Scotici) hom- ines et gentiles. Nohiscum hautem reli(c) uocatu(r), id est reliquice, et feurt, Et immolata est {/erf a) Deo et Patricio cum sanctarum ossibus et haeredibus eius post (se in) saecula, et aecclessiam terrenam fecit in eo loco." But this discussion has already exceeded its due limits. It must be brought to a close with the consideration of a question which every reader will ere this have asked : Do the remains still existing on the site of St Mulling's monastery yield any evidence for or against the hypothesis advanced by Mr Olden 1 Does our supposed plan suit the topography of St Mullins 1 Can we point to probable sites of ancient buildings or sacred spots marked by the crosses of our scribe ? These questions occurred to me the moment I received from Mr Olden the suggestion which has been considered in this chapter. And I anticipated that in seeking an answer to them much help would be derived from an excellent paper entitled " St Mulhns, co. Carlow," with plans of the ruins as they were in 1892, published by the Rev J. F. M. fifrench in the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, part iv. vol. ii,, fifth series, p. 377. But actual trial quickly convinced me that this paper, by itself, does not supply sufficient material for our purpose. Very gladly, therefore, I availed myself of the kind invitation of Mrs Kavanagh of Borris Lodge to visit St Mullins and see with my own eyes the spot which has such interest for all students of the ecclesiastical history of Ireland. Shortly after Easter 1896, armed with Mr ffrench's paper and accompanied by my friend J. H. Cunningham, Esq., C.E., Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, I spent a few pleasant hours at Ross Brocc. Our time was short, but Mr Cunningham's presence enabled me to make good use of it. At my request he made some measurements, and drew the plan which is reproduced on the opposite page. It is founded on that made by IMr Cochrane for ]\Ir ffrench, but gives the results of excavations made since it was published, and marks some details which it did not record.^ It is so ^ Book of Armagh, f. 12, b. 1. Stokes' Tripartite Life, p. 317. We might add also, the cashels at Shankill in the Ards, and Killyhurragli in the ])arish of Ardclinis, Co. Antrim, mentioned by Reeves in his Ecclesiastical An- tiquities of Down, Connor, and Dromore, pj). 23, 299. But the degree of precision with which he uses the word "circular" applied to both these m\ist remain doubtful. ^ Such are the western doorway in the building with which the round tower is connected, another doorway in the wall which divides it into two parts, tlie lower part of an altar at the east end of the same building, and a piscina in its south wall. Also a small window slit in the south wall of the small church lying next to it on the south. 184 THE BOOK OF MULLING. placed that tho points of the comj)ass agree as nearly as possible with those indicated in the device reproduced from our manuscript on p. 167. The first remark to be made is that the ruins are situated on the level top of a ridge (no doubt that which is mentioned in two pas- sages which have been already cited ^) which descends abruptly on its eastern, northern, and southern sides.'^ The limits of the monastery on these three aides are therefore pretty clearly defined. The fence marked in the plan indicates the place at which this sharp declivity begins to descend. There is no sign of a rath, a circumstance which need cause us no surprise. Its absence, however, deprives us of the power of testing our theory in one important particular. But it should be observed that a circle of about 175 feet in diameter can be drawn lying almost wholly within the fence, and yet including all the existing ruins. Such a circle is indicated by the dotted line in the plan. A round monastery, therefore, of about the normal dimensions ^ may very well have at one time occupied the crown of the ridge. When we seek to identify the crosses in our manuscript with sacred spots on the ancient site at St Mullins we are at once met by difficulties. With one exception,* all the existing buildings are evidently of much later date than the ninth century. It might be argued that the more modern structiues were erected on the spots formerly occupied by buildings of the ancient civitas. But this is in itself disputable,^ and in any case these earlier buildmgs were probably smaller than their successors, and it is, therefore, impossible to decide where the crosses representing them should be placed. The exception to the modern character of the buildings is that which is marked as ' Above p. 177. 2 See the drawing of St Molling's Well which accompanies Mr ffrench's paper. 3 The rath of St Patrick at Armagh, which was regarded as the standard, measured 140 feet, see above p. 181. It may be remarked that a circle of about 150 feet diameter, concentric with that in the j)]an, would include the oratory of St James and all the other churches, with the exception of small portions of those to the north and south. On the supposition that these later buildings stood on the sites of smaller chapels of early date, the latter might well have been in- cluded within a rath of this measurement. * The building over the well with the antique appearance of which Mr ffrench was so much impressed (p. 384) does not appear to have any claim to be regarded as of very early date. The " inclining jambs " of its doorway both incline in the same direction, and the fact that its breadth at the sill is greater than at the top is due, not to the intention of the builder, but to the fact that the stone next the lintel on the right is not squared. These phenomena jwint to bad masonry, but all bad masonry is not old. And the projections of the side walls, on which Mr li'rench lays stress, are smaller than those described by Brash. B In one case — that of the present Parish Church — this supposition seems to be almost demonstrably incorrect. It stands outside the cemetery. I was told by the forester on the Kavanagh estate that his father had assisted at the building of the church. According to his account an attempt was made to build the church partly inside tho ancient graveyard. The peasantry, however, olfered violent resistance, and in consequence it was placed wholly without the boundary. It is unlikely that one of the old churches was outside the burying ground, or that the i)eople, who had already displayed such strong feeling, would have permitted such a building to be destioyed in order to make room for a Protestant church. THE CIRCULAR DEVICE. 185 the Oratory. This little chapel appears to correspoml in position t<3 the cross at the beginning of the seventh line of our device, while the fragmentary cross^ to the east of the Temnjml mor may answer to that which had its place (if we may suppose that this was so) at the beginning of 1. 8. But here we cannot speak with assurance : for another difficulty remains : tlie position of the ancient rath cannot be accurately determined, and we can therefore do no more than con- jecture, with whatever degree of probability, how the oratory and the cross stood with reference to it. To conclude, topographical evidence has not helped us much. It leaves Mr Olden's suggestion nearly as it was before — a hypothesis highly plausible in itself, not indeed altogether free from difficulties (more or less grave), but by no means improbable — yet still only a hypothesis : a theory which is not, perhaps cannot be, either proved or disproved. As a hypothesis it may well hold the field till some- thing more probable is proposed to occupy its place. And now the last line of tliis little book has been penned. To the writer its preparation has been a constant source of pleasure. It has for some years occupied hours of leisure snatched from the many cares of pastoral work in a large city. If it stirs up some student, with more time for research and greater skill for handling the subjects Avith which it deals, to keener interest in a too little known relic of the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland, its purpose will have been accom- plished. Laus Deo. "^ The sides of this cross are decorated with interlaced work, and not, as Mr ffreuch says, with '' a kind of lozenge pattern." 186 TUE BOOK OF MULLING. APPENDIX A. THE OLD LATIN PORTIONS OF ''THE GARLAND OF HOWTH." For a description of the manuscript of the four Gospels known as the " Garland of Howth " (T.C.D, A.4. 6), and usually designated by the symbol i\^ the reader may be referred to Professor Abbott's Evangeliorum Versio Antehiei'onymiana, Preefatio, pp. xiv.-xviii. I have already given reasons for my belief that the latter portion of St Matthew, printed in this appendix, is the only fragment of genuine Old Latin text which the manuscript preserves.^ Professor Abbott ^ regards the whole of the first gospel as pre-hieronymian in character. M. Berger, on the other hand, describes it as approaching nearer to the ancient version than, for example, the Book of Kells, but still only a mixed text.^ It may be that both Avriters have been misled by failing to observe the abrupt change which, as has been pointed out, takes place in the latter part of the sixteenth chapter. I have not thought it necessary to reproduce the text line for line from the manuscript, and for convenience of reference the numbers of chapters and verses have been added throughout. In expanding contractions I have printed the letters which had to be supplied in italics. XVI, I homines dicunt esse filium hominis ^* At illi dix[erunt io]- [f. 5 r. hannew babtiza??^ Alii \\autem helia??i ahi uero heremiam aut unum ex profetis ^^ dexiY ilHs ihs Uos \\autem que??* me essQ dicitis ^^ R[e- spondiens] simon petrus d^x^Y tu es xps filius d^i uiui ^"^ 'Respo7idiens hautem ihs d^x^Y ei beatus es simon bar iona o^uia caro et sangis now reuelauitibi &ed pater mens qui in caelis est ^^ Ideo dico tibi tu es petrus et super banc petram sedificabo sechsiam meam et porte inferni x\on pncualeabunt aduersus cum ^"^ et tibi dabo claues regni caelorw??* Et quicuj?iq?i uenire ^^ ipse respondit ait helias qu\dem uenturus est restitu[et] J uere [f. 6 r, omnia ^" dico \\autem nobis quod helias iam uenit Et won cog- wowQYunt eum et fecerwwt ei quanta uoluerw^t ^^ tunc intellexer?i ignis ^^ Uidete neconte??matis unum ex his pussillis istis qui in me credunt Dico enim nobis qMO?w'am angeli eorum in caelis uident facie??* patris mei qui in caeHs est ^^ Uenit filius hominis saluare (\uod peHerat ^^ quid nobis uidetur Si fuerint alicui -c- ones Et si errauerit una ex eis nonne relinquet nonagenta noem in montibw*^ et uadet qwerere eani ■^^Amen dico uobis (\uod gaudebit in ea?>i magis q?/a)?i nonagenta noem qiue non pe/'iant quid uobis uidetz^r ^^ Sic non est uoluntas ante patrem meum qui in caelis est ut periat \uius ex pussillis istis ^^ Quod si peccauerit inte frate?* tuus uade corripe eum inte et ipsum solum quodsi audierit te lucratus es fratrem tuum ^^ si hautem nowte audierit adibe tecum adhuc unu??i tiel duos ut inore duorum testium Mel triu?« stet omne uerbu??i ^^ Quod si now audierit eos defer feclisi^ Si uero nee aeclisia?/* audierit sit tibi sicut ethinus et puplicanus ■^^ Amen dico U(>[bis] qaicumqtie alligaueritis swper if nam erunt liga- I ta et in caelis Et quicu?»qMe solueritis super terra?;* soluta et [f. 7 v. in caelo ^^ Iterum dico uobis qwasi duobtts conuenerit inter uos de omni re qncecnmque petieritis fiet uobis apatre meo qui incaelis est ^^Ubi sunt duo Mel tres congregata innomvie meo ego in medio xviii. 13. In the right margin, opjiosite "magis," is written "ei[.]it" (? = "erit"). PORTIONS OF "THE GARLAKD OF IIOWTII." 189 eoruMi -^ Tunc accediens acleum petrus dicens ei do7nme si peccauerit in me frater mens quotiens demitta??i ei usque septies ^^ Dicit illi ihs non dico tibi usque septies set? usque septuagies etsepties ^^ IDeo dico uobis simile est regnum caelorum homini regi qui uolunt ratio- nem ponere cum seruis suis -■* et cum coepiset rationewi ponere oblat?^s est ei itnus qui debebat x- tallenta ^^ cum noii liaberet unde rederet iusit eum doininus uenundari et uxorem et filios eius Et omnia quce cumqwe habebat et reddi debitum ^"^ Procediens ergo seruus ille orabat euvi diciens patientiam habe in me domine Et omnia reddam ^^Missertus est haiitem domiuus serui illius dimisit eum et debitu??i dimisit ei ^^ Egresses hautem seruus ille inuenit unum ex conseruis suis qui debel)at eum -c- denarios Et adp^wchendiens et suffucabat eum diciens redde mihi quod debeo tibi ^'^ Procedens con- seruus eius rogabat eum diciens patientia?H habe innie reddaiii tib[i] '^^ Ille hautem noluit sed habiit et missit eum in carcere???. donee redderet debitum ^^ Uidentes cowserui X.IX. I possiuilia sM7jt ^'^ Tunc vQspondiens petrus d^x^7 ei quid er^i^o erit [f . 9 r. nobis ecce nos relincimus omwm et secuti sumus te '''^ihs hautem dix.it eis Amen dico uobis quod uos qui saecuti estis me ingeneratione ista Cu??i sedcrit filius hominis inmaiestate sua scdebitis et uos super xii tribw^ isra/j secus feci unam uenit adea??? E[t] n[ihil] inuenit ineam nissi folia tantiiin ait adea??^ [Xu]mqMa??i e[xte] fructus nasceretur in sempeternu?/* et aruit con- ti[nuo] ficulnia ^^ Et uidentes discipuli mirati simt quumodo [contijnuo aruit "^ i-esjwndiens hautem ihs dixit eis Amen dico nobis [si ha-] bueritis fidem et now essitaueritis now solum difi[cul]nia facietis sed mundi huic dxeritis tolle et iact[a te in] mare faciet ^^ omnia quaecumque petieritis inorat[ione] credentes accipietis -^ et cum ueniset intemp[lum] Accessiar?zwt adeu/». principes sacerdotu?H. [et seni]oris populi dicentis inqua potes[tate haec] facis Et quis tibi dedit haec potestatem ^'^ R[es2)07idiens ihs] | dixit [illis] inte?Togabo n6s [f. 8 v. et ego unum uerbu?w dicite m[ih]i Et ego uoWs dicam inqua potestate haec faci ^^babtismum iohannis unde uenit decaelo an ex [h]ominibMS illi hautem cogitabant intraso dicentes "^^si [di]xerimus decaelo dicet nobis quare ergo non crcdidistis [ill]i Sf dixerimus ex hominibMS timemus invhani omnes [etiim^ habebat iohannem simt p?•ofeata??^ -'' respondentes ad ihiTi dixetimt nescimus Ait illis ihs nee ego nobis dico in qua [p]otestate haec facio ^^ quid nobis uidet?« deus issac deus iacob non est deus mortuor sed uiuentiu??i ^^ Et cu??t audisset turbae mirabantwr indoctrinam eius ^^ farissei \iautem audientes quod silentium inpossuit saduceis coHgregatisw?it aduersws eum ^^ INteJTOgauit eum un?is exei's legis doctor temptans eum Et dici | ens ^^ magister [f . 1 2 v, quod mandatu7?t maximu/yj in lege. ^'' Et [a]it illi ihs dilegis domimim. deii,m. twmn ex toto corde tuo Et in tota anima tua et in tota mentatua ^^hoc est mag[num] et primum mandatu?/* ■^^ secundum uero simile huic dileges proximum tuu?yt tduinquam te ipsum ^^ IN hiis duob^s mandatis tota \6,x pendet et p?'ofete *^ Congregatis hautem. farissels intejTOgauit eos ihs ^^ diciens quid nobis uidetMr deoperibws fidelis est dicent ei dauid *^Ait illis ihs quoraodo ergo dauid d^'cit uocat eum dominuxn. diciens *^D'ixj^ dominus domino meo sede adextn's meis donee ponam inimicostuos scabellu?« pedu?y^ tuoru?/i ^^ Si evgo dauid insp^/■^Yu uocat eum domi- num qwomotZo filius eius est ^^ Et nemo poterat respondere illi uerbum ^ XIII. Nee auus est quisqua??^ exilladie quod eumamplius interrogare ^ Tunc locutus est turbis et discipulis suis -diciens super cathedra??i moysi sediarzmt scribe et farissei ^ Omnia er^o qwaecumqi/e dixexunt uobis facite et seruatae secundum uero facta eorum Nolite facere di'cmit enim et ipsi non faciunt '^^Alligant enim honorograuia et inportabilia et inponunt super humeros hominu??* digito suo noluit ea moueri ^ Omni uero sua opera faciunt ut uidiantz^r abominib2z caeloru??? ante homines Uos enim no?iintroitis Nee introiuntes sinitis introire ^'^ Ue nobis scribe et farissei chipochrite qui comeditis domum uidbarum occassione longa orantes p?'opter hoc accipietis amplius iudiciu??i ^^ Uae nobis scribe et farissei chypocrite (\uia cir- cuniitis mare et aridam ut faciatis unum pwsilitu?;* Et cum factus fuerit faciatis enm filn??? gechene duplo qna?/z nos ^^ Uae nobis duces ceci qui dicitis qui Q,mn(\ue inrauerat intemphi??z nihil est qui hautem inrauerit inaurum templi debitor est ^^ stulti et caeci quid enim [maiujs est au^u??^ an temphi?/? q?i Et cyminu/M et reliqnistis c^uae grauiora sunt legis indicium et missericordia?yi et fidem pace???, hautem oportuerat facere et ilia non omite?-e ^"^ duces caeci excolentes calicew camellum hautem glutientis ^^ Uae nobis scribae et farissei chipochrite qui mundatis quod deforis est calicis et parnpsidis intus hautem pleni rapina et iniquitate ^^ farissae caece munda primn???, quod intus est calicis ut fiat id qiiod deforis est mun- dum ^^ Uae nobis scribe et farisse quoniani simile estis dealbatis monnmentis quae aforis apparent hominibws speciossa intus nero pleana s?mt os[sibns] mortuoru??i Et omnes p[urcitia ^^sic et] uos qnide??i aforis par[etis hominibus] insti intus hautem pleni estis fi[cta simnlatione] et iniquitate ^^ Ue nobis s[cribae et farjissei chypocrite qui edificatis [sepnljchra p?'ofetaru/??. et ornatis monnmenta [i]ustoru??i ^^ et dicitis q?w'a si|fnissemus in dieb2'ope est ianuis ^*A[m]en dico uobis qumiiam non praeti??-ibit geueratio haec donee fiant [om?2ia] ^^ caelum et tenani transibuut Uerba haufem mea nmi praeteribu[nt] p" de die hautem [f. 17 v. ilia Mel hora nemo scit nissi pate?- solus ^^ <^\cut enim indieb«ia?/^. uirtutem Et profectus est eo?itinuo ^^ hautem ab hiis -u- tallenta acceperet et operatus est ineis Et lucratus POKTIONS OF "THE GARLAND OF IIOWTH." 197 est alia 'U- ^"similit et qui duo tallenta acciperat lucratus est alia duo ^^ Qui hautem unum acciperit fudit intetiam et abscondit ot peccunia?w domini sui ^^ Pumultum | tempus uenit dominus [f. 15 v, seruorum illoru??i Et cwu possuit rationem efe ^*^accessit qui •u- tallenta accipej-at Et obtullit alia 'U- diciens domme -u- tallenta mihi tradidisti. ecce alia -u* lucratus sum ^^ ait illi doniimis eius euge serue bone et fidelis quia supe?' j^auca lidelis fuisti super multate constituam intra ingaudiu??i tuum et domini tui '^■* Accedens hautem qui unum tallentum acciperat ait illi dojiiine scebam quia homo durus es metis ubi now seminasti ^^Timui ergo et abii Et abscond! tallentum tuum interra ecce liabes qwocZ tuum est ^*' et vespondiens hautem doininus eius dixit ei serue nequa7n et piger scebas quia meto ubi no?isemino et colligo ubi iionsparsi ^^ Oportuit ergo uenundari peccuriiaw* meam, numularis Et ego ueniens recipisscwi cum ussuris qtcod memu est -^ tollite itaqwe abeo tallentu??i et da ei qui habet -x- tallenta '^^ Omni e7ii7n habenti dabitw?- ei et habundabit ei qui non habet quod habet etia??i auferetwr abeo ^'^ Et nequam seruu?/* ieccitiw foras intenebras exteriores illic erit fletus Et stridor dentium ^^ Cum hautem uenerit filius hominis inmaiestate sua et oxane^ angeli cum eo tunc sedebit supe;* sede?^ maiestatis suae ^" Et co?zgregabuntii etsenioribws popuK '^^ qui \\autem tradet emn dicii dedit illis signuni diciens quern cwmque osculatws fuero ipse est tenets emn ^^ Et conf estim accessit ad ihm et d^'x^^ aue rabbi osculatws est eu?M ^^ cui diyi.it ihs amice ad quod uenisti fac Tunc accesser^mt et man?/.^ inecier?mt in ihm et tenuer?mt eu??i ^^ et wmis ex his, qui erant cum ihii Extendiens manu??« exemit gladiu7?i swxm et pTcussit senium principis sacerdotu??i et abscidit auricula??^ eius ^^Tunc ait ilh ihs co?merte gladiu?>z iMmn in \ocmn suum omwes enim qui accipiunt gladiu??i gladio peribunt ^^dMt won putatis possu??i me modo rogare patrewj meum. Et exiberet viihi plus quam xii milia legionis angelorM?» ^■* quorwodo cvgo inplebunttir scripture, qwasi oportet fieri ^^ in il[l]a hora di'xjY ihs ad turbas qwasi ad latro[nem] uenistis cmn gladis et fustibws conpraechendere me Cotidie a.pud uos exam intemplo dociens et no/itenuistis me ^^Hoc hautem totum factu??j est ut inpleret^^r I scripturae profetarwrn tunc discipuli eius reHcto fugerwit [f. 1 8 v. ^^illi hatitem tenentes ihin et pe?'duxer?wjt emn ad caifan princi pes sacer- dotuwi inq2i negauit eum iuramento diciens no?znoui hominem ''^ et po?^ pussillu;^ accipiar?«?t q?a ministrabant et dixer?«zt petro uere exillis es tii nam et loquella?/^. tuam manifestate "'"^ Tunc coepit deuotare sd et iurare (\uod non nouisset homine»i Et co?itinuo gallws cantauit "^^ Et recordatws est petr^is uerbi ihu quod dxerat priws quam galb^s cantet ter me negabis Et egressws foras amarissime fleuit ■"• Mane hautem facto corasiliu??i fecerM?it principes sacerdotu??i et seniores plebis aduers?/s ihiTi ut eu??i morti traderent ^ Et uinctu?», adduxer?mt eu???. et tradidia- r^^?^t pontio pylato praessidi ^ Uidiens ihs iudas qui eum tradidit qida damnat?i est quod dictu?9i erat per heremiam p?'0 feata//i dicentem et accipert xxx argenteos praetimn quod adp?'aetiatuerimt filius isra/;el ^^ et dederjwzt eos inagTUtn figuli sicut constituit mihi domimis ^^ ihs haufem stetit ante p7'aesside»i Et i?iterrogauit eu???. p/'aesses tues rex iudeor«7/i dicit ei ihs tu dicis ^" Et cum acesit d principil«/s sacerdotu??? et senioribMS nihil respondebat ^^ TUNc dicit illi pylatws non audis quanta aduersMs t^ dz'cwnt testimonia ^"^ Et non iesj)Ondit ei ullu?/i uerbu??i ita miraretwr praesis uechimenter ^^ per diem soUem nem COA^suerat praessis dimitere populu/zi unu//4 uinctum quern uoluisent ^*^ habcbant h.aute7n uinctu??i 200 THE BOOK OF MULLIXG. insigne7?i qui dicitur barabban ^'^ congregatiswnt hautem illfs diyiit pylatus (\uetn uultis dimittam uobi's baraban diUt ihiTi qui dicitur xps ^^ sciebat \\autem quod pe/" in uidia/H tradi | derwnteum [f. 20 r. ^^sedente hautem illo pro tribunali missit ad eiim uxor eius diciens nihil sit tibi et iusto illi diciens multa eiiim pasw-s sum hodie per uisu«^ propter ewn ~^ Principes hmdein sacerdotes et seniores populi persuaserwwt populo ut peteret baraban ihs \imdem. pe7'dider?i obiam sibi nomine simone»i hunc [anjgari auenmt uttoUerent cruce?>^ ^^et uenit inlocu?/* qui dicituv golgoda qtiod est caluarie locus ^* Et deder^Kt ei bibere uinu?M Et cu?/t felle mixtum et cum gustaret noluit bibere ^^ Vostquam, crucifixerw?it diuisiarwTit uestimenta sua miserwwt sortes ut inpleretzir o^uod dictum est per p?'ofeata?« Diuisiar?i7it siui uestimenta mea et super ueste?u mea??i miser«?it sorte/H ^et sedentes seruauear^mt ^^et inposuerw^it super capudems causa?« scriptu?;i est hie e*'^ ihs xps rex iudeor?^??* ^ tunc crucifixerMTzt cimieo duos latrones uuujm addextera??* et unu?/i adsin- istra??i ^^ Transseuntes hautem blasfemabant e\xm mouentes capita sua ^^ et dxer2f?it ei ua q^i distruas te??;plu??i dei et intriduo redificabas illud libera t^ ipsum si filiws dei es Et discende de cruce *^ similiter et principes sacerdotu??^ deludes emn Et scribis et farisseis dicebant '''^ alios saluos fecit se ipsu??* no?2 pote*-; saluu?» facere si ri^x israhel est discendat nunc decruce et credimws in eu»t ^'^ co«fidet indeuxo. Hbenter nunc si uult emn Dixit eiiim quia fili?^ dei su7n ^ id ipsu?n hautem et latrones qui crucifixer?mt cMm eo inproperabant ei *^et pos^ qua??i crucifixMS e*"^ Asexta haute^n hora tenebrae factae swwt supw uniuersa?7i te/Ta??i in horam nona?« ^ circa uero hora?M nona??i clamauit ihs uoce magna helii haelii labath sabathani hoc est deu^ mens deus nieus I quid me dereliquisti ^^ quida^t hautem illic stantes et [f . 2 1 r. xxvii. 45. " super " ends a line : " uniuersa?^ " is preceded by a space. PORTIOXS OF " THE GARLAND OF HOWTII." 201 audientes diciabant helia?^ uocat iste *^ Et continno surgiens nnus exefs &Qco\)tam spongia//? inpleuit aceto Et inpossuit arundini et dabat ei bibere ^*'* ceteri nero dixevzmt sine uidiamw.s- siueniat helias etliberauit enm Alius hmde/a accepta lancia pupungit lat?/.s' eius et exiit aqua et sanguis ^^ ihs liautem ite^'u.m exclamans uoce magna eniisit spiritum. ^^ et ecce uelum templi scisu?« est in duas partes assummo usqwe deorsum Et terra mota est et petrae scisesMwt ^^ et monumenta <4pertae stmt Et multa corpora sancfovum dormientiu?/i surrexiar?mt ^^et exiuntes demonumentis pos^ resurrextione//« ipsi?/s etuener2«it in sanc^aui ciuitate?/i et multis apparuit ^* CEntorio haiotem et q?a cti,m eo erant custodientes ibiTi cum uidissent terre motu??^ et ea (\tie fiabant timuar?mt ualde dicentes uere filii^s di erat iste ^° Erant liautem ibi mulieres multae alonge uidentes q?<«e secutae fuerant ihm agalilia ministrantes illi ^^ inter quas erat maria magda- leana Et maria iacobi et ioseph mater et mater filiorww sebedei ^^ Cum hautem sero factu??* esset uenit q?A 163, 164. Basle MS., A. vii. 3, 164. Barnabas, St, Copy of St Matthew written by, 12. Barrow, River, 177. Beatitudes, 153. Bede, Vita Cuthhcrti, 181. Benedictus, 153, 155. Benedictus in secula, 155 sq., 162. Beneventum, Gospels of, 22, 26. Bcrger, Samuel, 1, 4, 7, 12, 15, 25, 26, 28, 30, 39, 65, 66, 133, 164, 170, 186. Bernard, Professor J. H., 4, 11, 12, 13, 66, 131, 136, 147, 148, 153, 154. Biait, meaning of, 153. Biblical Text, General character of, in the Book of Mulling, 43 sqq. Biblical Text of the Book of Mulling, character of in latter chaj)ters of St Matthew and earlier of St Luke, 50 sqq. Binding, Art of, unknown among the ancient Irish, 28. Boann, 172. Boniface, St, Gospels of, 25. Book of Armagh, Ballymote, Cerne, Clonmacuoise, Deer, Dimma, Durrow, Finntann, Glendalough, Kells, Kilkenny, Lecan, Leinster, Lismore, Molaga, Mulling, Rights, Ua Cong- bala. See Armagh licc, Book of. Borromean Tribute, 160. Boyne, River, 172. Bradshaw, Henry, 3. Brenainn, 178. Breves Causae, 30. Brigid St, 11, 161, 163. Brower, 25. Brown, J. W., 178. Brussels MS., 5100-4, 159, 170; Life of St Moiling, 177. Caeilte, 172. Caiseal-an-urlair, 179. Canticis spi ritual ibus, 154, sq. Capitula, 30. Cashel, see Math. Cashei, Psalter of, 14. Cathach of the O'Donnells, 13, 171. Cathair, meaning of, 173 ; See also Bath. Cclebra Juda, 162. Cerne, Book of, 158. INDEX. 205 ' Chapters,' Meanirii; of, 153. Charisius. the Najiles, 20.'5. Charter Horn of the Kavaiiaghs, 2. Chartres copy of St John, 12, 65. Cliemical re-agents, 145. Christus ilium, 1 49. Christies in nostra insola, 163, sqq. Christiis rcdemplor, 165. Cianipini, J., 22. Circular device, 167, sqq. Circular Monasteries, 181 sqq. Cividale, Baptistery at, 22. Civitas, see Cathair, Rath. Clonmacnoise, 175, 180 ; Annals of, 13 ; J3ook of, 14. Cochrane, R., 183. Codex Amiatinus, 37, 43, sqq., 73, 76, 125 sqq. ; Aureus, 32 ; Beza^ 39, 129 ; Bobiensis, 129, 134 ; Brixianus, 129 ; Claromontanus, 59, sq., 134 ; Epter- naceusis, 32, sqq. ; Palatiiius, 67, 129, 134 ; Sangallensis, 67, 133 ; Sanger- luanensis, 25, sq., 35, sq. ; Usseri- anus, 18, 30, sqq., 44. sqq., 66, 74, sq., 169 ; Usserianus Alter, 44, 57, 66, sq., 74, sq., 129, 186, sqq. ; Vati- cauus (B), 41 ; Vaticauus {olim Claromontanus), 59, sqq., 134 ; Ver- cellensis, 67, 'o'S, 129; Veronensis, 129. Coin with symbols of Evangelists, 20, sq. Colga Ua Duinechda, Prayer of, 170. Colgan, J., Acta Sanctorum, 176. Colophon of Book of Durrow, 15, sq. ; of BookofMulling, 3, 6, 145, 169, 203. Columba, St, 160, 166, 174; Cathach of, 13, 171 ; Edinburgh, Life of, 157 ; Hymns of, 155, 162, 165. Corrections, 42 sq., 70 sq., 73, 126 sqq., 203, Crawford, Earl of, 67. Credo, 147 s?., 153, 162. Croagh Patrick (Cruach), 150 sq., 157. Cross at St MuUins, 184 ; used to mark site of Church, 174 sq. Crosses, 173 sqq. ; Exterior, 171, 175 sq. Cuil Dreinne, Battle of, 166. Cuchulainn, Death of, 172. Cunidach, See Shrine. Cummain Fota, 153; Hymn of, 151, 153, 154, 162, 165. Cunmiian the Fair, 182. Cunningham, J. II., 5, 183. Cuthbert, St, 181. Cyprianic Text, 129, 134. Dairchell, 14. Daire, Burning of, 157. Danes at Tech Moling, 1. Dc Arreis, Old Irish Tract, 147 sq., 153, 155, 165. Dedication of Monastic Buildings to Saints etc., 173. De Dieu L., 67. Deer, Book of, 3, 11, 148, 149. ' Dei populum,' Gloss on, 149. Deri'y, See Laire. Desiul, 172, 178. Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 18, 20. Dimma, Book of, 147. Jjiniishfiicliiis, The liodleian, 17'-. Dinnslienchus, The Edinburgh, 172. Don-fair trocaire, 155. Doorways in Monastic rath, 175 sq. Dowden, Bishop J., 16. Doxology of Ymnum Dicat, 154. rZ-readings, 134, 137, 138, 140, 143 s?, Druid's Fence, 166. Du Cange, 182. Dundesert, 176, 181. Dunraven, Earl of, ISO. Durandus, 19. Durrow, Book of, 13, 15 .sq., 21, 27, BO sqq., 40, 43 sqq., 66; Monastery at, 181 sq. Ebner, Dr A., 170. Enan, 177. Evangelical Symbols, 18 sqq. Evangelists, The Four, 170 sq. 175 ; Drawings of the, 2, 3, 12 sq. Exaudi nm, 152, 162. Exemplars, several used in preparing a single copy, 21 sq., 39 sqq., 66 sq., 73. Fechin, St, of Fore, 176. Ferguson, Sir Samuel, 172, 178. Ferta, 181, 183, 184. lliench, Rev. J. F. M., 2, 1S3, 1S5. Fianaehta, King, 160. Findchua, 172. Find Mac Cumall, 166, 177. Finnian, St, of Movilla, 16. Fintan, St, 173 ; Book of, 14. Forbes, Bishop A. P., 3, 9, 164. Forrest, John, 22. Forth, BaTony of, 173. Forts, Dilference between Pagan and Ecclesiastical, 181. Four Masters, Annals of, 1, 13, 153, 166, 175, 179. Fowler, Dr J. T., 182. ' Galli cantus,' Meaning of, 158. Garland of Howth, see Codex Usserianus Alter. Garrucci, R., 21, 22. Gilbert, J. T., Nat. MSS. of Ireland, 3, 23, 72, 154. Glendalough, 180 ; Book of, 14. Gos])els, Order of in Irish nianuscrijits, 17, sqq., 169; Single, in sejtarate fasciculi, 11, sj'. ; " Western" order of, 21, 26. Grace after dinner, 158, sq. 206 INDEX. Greek, Irish Old-Latin recension founded on a study ot the, 133, 138, 140. Gregory, G. R., 169. Gregory I. Pope, 100. Gwynn, Professor J., 4, 67. Haddan and Stubbs' Councils, 3, 66. Harden, Rev. J. M., 4. Harris, Professor J. R., 39. ' Hautem,' Spelling of, 76. Hibernensis, 175. High Island, 180. Hilary, St, Hymn of, 153, sg.,158, sqq., 162, 165 ; St Gall, MS. of the, 154. Howth, Garland of, see Codex Usscr- ianus Alter; Siege of, 172. Huenier, J., 19. Hymns. Book of, see Liber Ilymno- rum ; Sung at daily offices, 160. larlaithe, 178. Ignis Creator, 154. Ihs, Expansion of, 76. Individualisms of Xj rg ix, 135, sqq., 141, sqq. Initials, Ornamental, 8, 9 In memoria etcrna, 151, 162. Innislimurry, 180. In te Christe, 165. Inuitiata quod, 151, 162. Invocation of Saints, 16. lona, 175, 182. Irenaeus, St, 18, 20 Irish Ecclesiastical Record., 159. Irish Manuscripts, dilhculty of dating, 15. Irish Old-Latin Text based on a study of the Greek (?) 133, 138, 140 ; African, Italian, and rf-elements in, 134, sqq. ; Source of, 134 ; in St Matthew and St Luke, compared, 144. Irish recension of Latin Scriptures, 3. Italian text, 129 ; readings, 134, 137, 138, sqq., 142, sq. Jameson, Mrs, 21, 170. Jerome, St, 18, sq. ' Job of the Patience,' 170. John the Baptist, Festival of St, 157. John the Evangelist, Prayer of St, 171 ; Gosjiel according to St, frequently copied apart from the rest, 12. Juvencus (Pseudo-), 19, 23, 24, 25, 26. Kavanagh Family, 2, 7, 14. Keating, Dr G., 14, Keller, F., 12, 164. Kells, Co. Meath, 175 ; Book of, 30 sqq., 44 sqq., 186. Kieran, St, 175. Kilkenny, Book of (so-called), 161. Killyhurragh, 183. Kinahan, G. H., 176. Last Leaf, Contents of, 145 sqq. Lebar Brecc, 131, 136, 149, 150, 151, 153, 157, 160, 172. Lecan, Yellow Book of, 170, 172. Left-hand Circuit, 171 sq.; of St Moil- ing, Meaning of, 178. Leinster, Book of, 14, 153, 161, 172, 177. Liatli Meisicith, 1. Liber Hymnorum, The Irish, 147, 171, chap. vii. passim ; Franciscan Copy of th?, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 157, 162, 163 ; Testimouy to Early Use of, 162. Liber Septimaniorum, 160. Lindsay, W. M., 2(i3. Lismore, Book of, 11, 153, 166, 172, 174, 178. Liturgical Fragment, Purpose of office contained in the, 157 sqq. ; Scheme of office contained in the, 162. Lonan, St, 178. Lorica, 150, 153, 157, 15S, 161. Lough Ce, Annals of, 175. Macalister, R. A. S., 179. MacCarthy, Dr H. B., 153, 170. MacCulloch, Rev. J. A., 5. MacDurnan, Gos])els of, 24 sq. MacErc, 175. MacNeill, Muircheartach, Circuit of Ireland by, 172. MacRegol, Gospels of, 23. MacRiagla, Snedgus and. Voyage of, 172. Magnificat, 147, 153, 162. Mahee Island, 181. Maiestatcmqiic inmcnsam, 153 s^., 162. Marold, C, 19. Mark, St, the Gospel of the Resurrec- tion, 19. Matthew, Gospel according to St, copied apart from the rest, 12. Media Noctis, 154. Meyer, Professor K., 147, 153. Michael's Hymn, 153. Miserere mci Dominc, 153. ' Mixture' of text, how produced, 73. Molaise, St, of Devenish, Shrine of Gospels of, 21. Molaise, St, of Innislimurry, 1^*0. Moiling Luachra, St, 13 sq. ; Flight of, 160 sq. ; Hymn of, 161 ; Lives of, 160, 177 ; Rith of, 173 ; Spelling of the Name, 154 ; Yellow Book of, 14. Moiling, Meaning of, 14. ]\lolling Luath, 14. Alonasteries, Form of, 179 sqq. ' Monasterium Rotundum,' Meaning of, 181 sqq. INDEX. 207 Mone, F. J., Latcinischc Hymnen, 163. Alottingen Gosjiels, 27. Mugroin, Abbot of, Hy, 166. Muirchu Maccu-Mactheni, 11. ilullirig, the Book of, Antiphons to Hymn of Secundinus in, 151 ; Blank leaf and Gospel fragments bound up with, 7, 12 ; Character of Biblical text of, 3, 42 sqq. ; Colophon of, 3, 6, 145, 169, 203 ; Coloured initials in, 9; Contents of, 1, 7 sqq. ; Cor- rections in, 42, 70 sq., 73, 126 5^5'., 203; Date of, 1, 13 sqq., 203 ; Deposited in Trinity College, Dublin, 2 ; Derived from Auto- graph of St Moiling, 17 ; Drawings of Evangelists bound up with, 2, 3, 12 sq. ; Exemplars of, at least two in number, 41 ; History of, 1 sqq., 17, 72 sq. 153 ; John's (St), Gospel in, derived from a MS. written per cola et commata, 37 ; Invertion of clauses in, 39 ; Omissions in, 38 sq. ; Last Leaf of, 145 sqq. ; Mark's (St), Gospel fi'om a Vulgate copy different ft'om that from which I)reliminary matter is taken, 41 ; Mis- calculations of Scribe of, 11, 17 ; Notices of, 2 sqq. ; Old-Latin portions of, see Old-Latin portions of B. of M. ; Order of Gospels in, 17, 169, 171 ; Recent controversy concerning, 4 ; Scribes of, 202 sq. ; Sections of, 30 sqq., 69; Shrine of, 1 sq., ]2, 13 ; Stitched but not bound, 10 ; Tri- columnar writing in, 10 ; Variation of hand-writing in, 8 sq., 202 sq.; Visitation Office in, 3, 9, 147, 149, 158 ; Volumina of, 6 sqq., 17. Munnu, St, 173. Mtinter, F. C. C. K., 20. Noli Pater, 155 sqq., 158, 162, 166 ; Time when recited, 157. Nuremberg, Irish Gospels at, 27. O'Curry, Professor E., 2, 8, 175. O'Donnell's Life of St Columba, 171. O'Donnells, Cathach of the, 171. O'Donovan, Dr J., 166, 18U, O'Grady, S. H., 161. Oilen-Tsenach, Cashel on, 173, l^^l. Olden, Rev. T., 4, 146, 170, 173, 175, 176, 177. Old-Latin jiortions of the Book of Mulling, Existence of the, proved, 50 sqq. ; Extent of tlie, determined, 55 sqq. ; Hypotheses to account for the, 65 sqq. ; Text of the, 76 sqq. ; Value of the, as witnesses to Irish })re-hieronyniian text ; 74 sq. Old-Latin portions of other MSS., 65, Old-Latin Text, The Irish, Affinities of, 129 sqq. ; Source of, 134. O'Maicin, Maelbrighde, 175. Oratory at St Mullins, 185. Order of the Gospels, " Western" 18, 21 ; in the Book of Mulling, 17, 169, 171. Ordnance Survey, 177, 179, 180. Paciaudi, P. M., 20. Parallel lists of Saints, 170. Pater Nostcr, 147 sq., 153, 162. Patricius Lpiscopus, 148, 151, 162. Patrick, St, 11, 171, 174; Confession of, 129 sq. ; Gospels of, 11 ; Hymn of, see Secundinus, St, Hymn of; Lebar Brecc Homily on, 172 ; Quota- tion of Matt. xxiv. 14 by, 129 sq. ; Tripartite Life of, 11, 15U, 157, 172, 174, 175, 181. Per mcrita, 152, 162. Petrie, Dr G., 176, 179 sq., 181, 182. Pfati'ers, Book of the Confraternities of, 28. Pliny's Natural History, 178. ' Popuitrine,' 149. Prefaces to Hymns, 150, 157, 160, 162 sqq., 165. Prophets, the gi'eater, 170 sq. Psalms, single verses of, recited in the offices, 165. Rath at Dundesert, 176 ; at Killy- hurragh, 183 ; at Shankill, 183 ; Cir- cular, 179 sq., 181, 184 ; of St Moil- ing, 173, 184 ; of St Patrick at Armagh, 184 ; on Ardoilean, 176 ; represented by Circular Device, 173 sqq. Reading of St Luk. iv. 5, ix. 55, 56, 68 sq., 128 ; of St Matt. v. 1, 147 ; of St Matt. xxvi. 60, xxvii. 49, 133. Readings, see Variants. Reeves, Bishop W., 3, 16, 160, 161, 166, 171, 176, 179, 181, 182, 183. ' Religiosus,' Meaning of, 178. Resurrection, St Mark, the Gospel of the, 19. Ridge at Ross Brocc, 177, 183. Riglit-hand Circuit, 171 sq. ; Turn, 172. Rigiits, Book of, 172. Rosas Bible, 65. Ross Brocc, 177, 183. Rosslyn Missal, 203. Round Tower, 182. Ruins at St Mullins, 183 sqq. Rushworth Gospels, 23. Saints ' of one Manner of Life,' 170. St Gall, MSS. at, 11 sq., 67, 133, 154. St Mullins, 2, 14 ; Parish Church at, 184 ; Remains at, 183 sqq. 208 INDEX. Sanday, Professor W., 67, 133 sq. Sccl Baili Biniiberlaig, 172. Schaniiat, J. F., 25. Scribes of tlie Book of Mulling, 202 sq. Sechnall or Secundinus, see Sccundinus, Sections, Ancient, of Gospels, infer- ence to be drawn from their presence in a manuscript, 41 ; Eusebian, 37, 42, 71, 7(j ; of Book of Mulling, 30 sqq,, 69. Sccundinus, St, 174 ; Hymn of, 148 sqq., 152, 153, 157, 159, 162, 164, sq. ; Time of reciting the, 151. Sedulius, Verses of, 22, 24, 26. Senan, St, 172. Shankill in the Ards, 183. Shrine of Book of Armagh, 13 ; Book of Durrow, 13 ; Book of Mulling, 1 sq., 12, 13 ; Cathach Psalter, 13 ; St Molaise's Gospels, 21 ; Stowe Missal, 13. Shrines containing single Gospels, 11. Simpson, W., 172. Skellig Michael, 181. Skye, Cashel in, 181. Sliabh Mairge, 177. Snedgus and MacRiagla, Voyage of, 172. Stake, setting a, 175. Stanzas, Three, in place of an entire hymn, 149 sq., 151 sq., 153, 156, 162 sqq., 165 sqq. ' Stichometrical ' writing in archetype of St John, 37 sqq. Stokes, Dr W., 11, 152, 153, 154, 159, 161, 166, 168, 170, 172, 177, 182. Stokes, Miss M., 2, 13, 16, 181. Stonyiiurst Copy of St John, 11. Stowe Missal, 13, 148; St John, 12, 13, 66. Stuart, Dr J., 3, 11, 179. ' Summaries ' of the Gospels, 30, 39 sq. Swords, 174. Symbols of Evangelists, 18 sqq. Tech Moling, 1, 2, 14. Tech mor, 182. I'e dccet Ymnus, 154 sq, Ternan, St, Gospels written by, 11. Thomasius, Cardinal J. M., 158. Three Stanzas, 149 sq., 151 sq., 15.3, 156, 162 sqq. Tirechau's Collections, 174, 183. Tiree, Island of, 182. Tobur Patraic, 175. Todd, Dr J. H., 147, 149, 152, 159, 164, 165, 170, 171, 181. Topography of St Mullins, 183 sqq. Trevit, 178. Tripartite Life of St Patrick, 11, 150, 151, 157, 174, 181. Twining, Miss L., 20, 21, TJa Congbala, Book of, 14. Ulster, Annals of, 13. Ultan, Hymn of St, 153, 163 sqq. Un.Uas ill TrinUatc, 154 sq., 162. Ussher, Archbishop J., 1. Vallancey, General, 1 sq., 14. Vallum, see Rath. Variants, Individual, of ju Tj r,, 135 sqq., l^fisqq. ; in which two of these MSS. agree, 129 sqq., 138 sqq. Variations from Vulgate in Iri.^h Manuscripts, Causes of, 55, Victor, The Angel, 171, 178. Vidrug, 25. Visitation of the Sick, Office for the, 9, 147, 149, 158, Volumina, 6 sqq., 17. Vulgate, Imperfect Copies of the, 66. Ware, Sir James, ISO. Warren, Rev. F. E., 3, 9, 14, 154, 155, 157, 158, 161, 163, 164. Wattenbach, W., 27. Week, Hymns for the, 160. Well of St Moiling, 184. Westcottand Hort, 73. Westcott, Bishop B. F., 20, 21, Westwood, J. 0., 2, 3, 9, 12, 23, 24, 25, 28, 72, 145, sq. 167. White, Rev. H. J., 15, 25, 67. Wilde, Sir W. R., 175. Wordsworth, Bishop J., 25. Xps, Expansion of, 76. Y'innumdLcat,%QG Hilary, St, Hyninof. KEILL AND COMPANV, I'EINTEUS, EDINBURGH. DATE DUE ^^V CAYLORD PRINTED IN U ■ * BS2555.8.L41 Chapters on the Book of Mulling, Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00119 3368 . Ifil'" ■^' ■-^.-i^-LU— ....^-.