Page:Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy vol XXXIII.djvu/586

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
258
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

Vallarsi has no mark. C is right.

Ps. lxxxix. 17. Cathach: ÷ et opera manuum nostrarum direge super nos: et opus manuum nostrarum direge.

Vallarsi: et opera manuum nostrarum dirige super nos * et opus manuum nostrarum dirige:

The Heb. has both clauses: LXX (ms. B) omits the second. C is wrong.

Ps. xci. 10. Cathach: ÷ quoniam : ecce inimici tui domine ÷ quoniam : ecce inimici tui peribunt.

Vallarsi: * quoniam ecce inimici tui domine : quoniam ecce inimici tui peribunt.

Several MSS. of LXX read as C: while St. Jerome's Heb. differs only in omitting quoniam twice. Thus C is apparently right. But Vallarsi is not without justification: the Hebrew as now read has quoniam in both places, while LXX (MS. B) omits the whole of the first clause.

Ps. xciv. 9. Cathach: probauerunt ÷ me : et uiderunt.

Vallarsi has an asterisk; rightly, since LXX (ms. B, &c.), against Heb., omits me.

Ps. xcvii. 5. Cathach: Psallite domino in cythara ÷ in cythara :

Vallarsi has again an asterisk; no doubt rightly, though in cythara is repeated in LXX as well as in Hebrew. Cp. above on liii. 3.

Ps. ciii. 7. Cathach: a uoce tonitrui * tui: formidabunt.

Vallarsi has no mark : C is probably right, though both LXX and Heb. have tui.

In seven of these twelve cases our verdict has been given in favour of C against Vall., in four against in favour of Vall.; and in two of the latter C has merely misread the asterisk of his exemplar as an obelus. Once both C and Vall. are slightly astray. Thus it would seem that C has gone astray only five times, and its exemplar only twice or thrice out of forty-six. This is a fairly good record.

The Cathach is by no means a pure Gallican Psalter. It has some mixture of Old Latin readings. Sufficient proof of this may be gathered from an examination of the text of Pss. xc–xciii. I have selected these psalms at random from the latter part of the manuscript, in which investigation is less impeded by lacunae than elsewhere. Excluding mere variations in orthography,[1] we find in them the following readings, which differ from the Clementine Vulgate:—

xc. 4 in scapulis*; te. 9. om. es. 10. accedent ad te mala*; flagillam.

  1. Among these I include obumbrauit (xc. 4) and clamauit (xc. 15), though the first occurs in Sabatier's Old Latin.