^{Note 1 page 44} There are, also, facsimiles from the Paris Psalter (1) in Appendix B to Mr. Coopers's Report on Rymer's Foedera (undated). He reproduces Ps. 150, verses 2 and 3, also a portion of the last page of the volume in which the Psalter is preserved, including the scribe's note at the end and the Duke of Berry's signature. (2) Paleographia Sacra Pictoria by J. O. Westwood, London, 1843–45, Plate No. II, illustrating Anglo-Saxon Psalters, contains a reproduction of Ps. 45, verse 1 (in part), together with signature of the Duke of Berry. The different impression as to the handwriting of the MS. which is produced by these different facsimiles makes one despair.

^{Note 1 page 48} This comparison was kindly made for me at the British Museum by Edward Scott, Esq., with the result indicated in the text.

^{Note 1 page 49} They are not more singular, however, than those which Sievers enumerates Anglia, XXII, 311 f., from the Rule of St. Benet, srig for frig, fers for reps, and many others. Even more to the point are the many senseless forms due to the copyist which are found in the Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter, edited by Karl J. Bülbring, London, 1891, E. E. T. S., No. 97, Preface, IX.

^{Note 1 page 50} Before quitting the subject of the identity of this scribe, I must enter a protest against the wholly arbitrary manner in which Wichmann (p. 64, f.) seizing-upon the name of Bishop Wulfwi mentioned in the Abingdon Chronicle for the year 1053, and Florence of Worcester (Monumenta Historica Britannica, 624) has assumed that he was identical with our scribe. His only reason for doing so seems to have been that the Index of the Monumenta supplied him with the name of no other Wulfwi or Wulfwius. Surely there must have been more than one person bearing this name in Anglo-Saxon times besides the above mentioned bishop. As a matter of fact, Wulfwig, which is identical with it, is found in the Anglo-Saxon Genealogies (s. Sweet, Oldest English Texts, p. 631). It may be remarked in passing that there was no “Kloster Leogorensis” as Wichmann (p. 65) interprets Florence of Worcester. The Praesules Leogorenses of this writer were the Bishops of Dorchester in Oxfordshire, the seat of the Episcopal See which was removed to Lincoln about the year 1086. No abbey was founded in Dorchester till about the year 1140 (s. Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, new edition by Caley, Ellis and Bandinel, London, 1830. Vol. VI, Part I, p. 323).

^{Note 1 page 52} This Latin inventory haa been published by M. Delisle, Bibliothéque de l'École des Chartes, 4^c série, Tome II, pp. 144–146. The Paris Psalter is to be identified with the entry “Psalterium Davidia.”

^{Note 1 page 53} It had already been enumerated among those promised in still another inventory of 1404 (see Hiver, Memoire, p. 97). This inventory was not known to the authors of the descriptive text.

^{Note 1 page 54} The occasion of Gley's reference to the Paris Psalter, entirely incidental, does not appear from Thorpe's quotation but is curious. It is in connection with the idea which he expresses cautiously that the Normans did not abandon entirely the Norse language, even after they had become familiar with French, and so were able to read the cognate dialect, Anglo-Saxon—“comprenaient sans doute l'Anglo-Saxon aussi facilement que l'ancien normand.” The Psalter, then which was found in a French library, probably came from the Dukes of Normandy.—Langue et Littérature des anciens Francs, pp. 275–6.

^{Note 1 page 57} As two of the three works which enter especially into the following discussion show the Vulgate numbering of the Psalms, I shall cite according to that numbering throughout.

^{Note 1 page 62} It only remains to inquire, In the cases of divergence noted above are the interpretations—mystical in character—which are supplied by the transcriber, original with him or not?

When the transcriber of the rubrica desired interpretations of the character just mentioned, yet failed to find them in his accustomed source—the argomenta of Exegesis—nothing would seem more natural than that he should have resorted to the succinct exegetical introductions to the Psalms entitled Explanationes, which in oar Commentary follow immediately upon the Vulgate titles, preceding the Commentary proper. These Explanationes are exclusively devoted to a mystical interpretation of the Psalms.

^{Note 1 page 64} I accept the order of the find edition of Exegasix (viz, that in the Basel edition of Bede's works, 1663) as reflecting, no doubt, most accurately the order in the MSS. The same order is retained in all subsequent editions of the commentary till Migne's reprint in which the Vulgate superscriptions are made to come first.

^{Note 1 page 68} The formala of repetition may appear in the modified form, viz., “and he (i. e., David) prophesied concerning any man (good, righteous or Christian) that he would do the same thing” (Ps. 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 46, 50),—or again, “and he instructed each man to do the same thing” (Ps. 38, 47).

^{Note 1 page 71} I do not think it can be doubted that the Latin interpretations just cited, and the division of our translator which is under discussion spring from the same tradition of interpretation. That there is any closer connection than this, however, as I was once disposed to believe (Modern Language Notes, VIII, 76 f.), I no longer regard as possible for the following reasons : (1) There is no other evidence, as we shall find, that the translator of the Paris Psalter used the commentary proper of Exegesis. This being the case, the above interpretations being embedded in that commentary appear too few and scattered to have suggested such a systematic division as that which we find in the Anglo-Saxon introductions. (2) If the division of the introductions under discussion were, indeed, suggested by the passages from Exegesis cited above, we should expect the expressions œle rihtwis man (e. g-, Ps. 9), ealle rihtwisan (e. g., Ps. 16), and their equivalents to occur from the beginning under the influence of the corresponding expressions, alicujus fidelis (e. g., Ps. 3), perfecta anima (e. g., Ps. 7), etc. As a matter of fact the paraphrast seems only to have felt his way to this fuller expression. We find the simple swa de [manna] sealm sing used in the introductions to Ps. 2, 3 (the introduction to Ps. 1 is wanting). In the case of Ps. 4, we have this expanded to œle welwillende mann. There is, then, a recurrence to the simpler phrase until Ps. 9, when we have for the first time œle rihtwis mann, corresponding to the perfecta anima above. From Ps. 9 on, this phrase or its equivalents prevail. (3) The above conception which appears with particular frequency in Exegesis is by no means absent from the other patristic commentaries, Breviarium in Psalmos, p. 849 (Ps. 12), p. 949 (Ps. 41), p. 951 (Ps. 42), p. 1177 (Ps. 114), p. 1207 (Ps. 121), p. 1210 (Ps. 125), p. 1214 (Pa. 129),—compare, also, St. Augustine, p. 98 (Pa. 7), and frequently Haymo.

^{Note 1 page 96} The encomium of M. Rénan in a similar sense with reference to Theodore's critical attitude towards the Song of Solomon may also be of interest in this connection. (Theodore anticipated modern criticism by more than a thousand yean in rejecting this book from the Bible as a profane work.)

“Une seule voix, avant le XVI^e siècle, s'éleva pour maintenir les droits de la saine exegése; ce fut celle de Theodore de Mopeueste” (Le Cantique da Cantiques, par E. Rénan, Paris, 1860, p. 130).

In marked contrast to the above an the expressions from the Catholic point of view on the same subject by the author of the article on Theodore in Migne's Dictionaire de Patrologie, IV, 1521. “Ces fragments (i. e., of Theodore on the Song of Solomon) font horreur. Theodore ne voulait pas même que l'on mît ce livre au rang des écritures canoniques ni qu'on y cherchât aucun sens spirituel et prophétique.”

^{Note 1 page 97} We shall see later on that portions of them circulated there under another name.

^{Note 2 page 97} See Kurzes Verzeichniss der Sachauchen Sammlung Syrischer Handschriften, von E. Sachau, Berlin, 1885, p. 20, together with the same author's Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 359 f.

^{Note 1 page 98} See the argument quoted from Corderius by Baethgen, Z. a. W., VI, 267, Note 2.

^{Note 1 page 111} In the case of Ps. 85, 107 an alternative interpretation is given besides the one in which Exegesis coincides with N. In each instance the alternative salt Corderius we find (II, 757) the evidence of N as to the interpretation of Ps. 85 confirmed, namely, that it was spoken solely in the person of Hezekiah. The passage is set down in the Catena under the name of Diodorus, but like other passages of the kind in Corderius, is, no doubt, due to Theodore. It is curious that the double interpretation of Exegesis,—connecting the psalm with both David and Hezekiah,—should be found in the Commentarius [Theodori] Heracleotae (Corderius, II, 755). There is no means of applying a test similar to the above in the case of Ps. 107.

What has just been remarked with regard to alternative interpretations of Ps. 85, 107 is true also of Ps. 9, 141, 142, 143, but as it will be proved that the arguments in these cases are spurious, there is no use of considering them in detail.

^{Note 1 page 116} It may be worth noting that the three Psalms, 15, 21, 68, Theodore's interpretations of which according to the theory of types which he later developed were anathematized by the Fifth General Council, appear interpreted historically in Exegesis just as in N (s. Baethgen, Z. a. W., V, 77). We have seen already, however, that the interpretation of Ps. 15 in Exegasis is not correct.

^{Note 1 page 118} It is confirmatory of this view that in the four cues, Ps. 39, 58, 92, 121, where verses of the psalms are quoted in the arguments, the readings of these verses are different in two instances (Ps. 39, 92) from those which appear in the commentary proper. On consulting P. Sabbatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinœ Versiones Antiquœ, Vol. II, Rheims, 1743, I find that the reading Eripe me de inimicis meis, Deus meus (Ps. 58) was common to both Itala and Vulgate. Similarly, the reading Dominus custodiat introitum tuum et exitum tuum (quoted Ps. 121) is the same in each, with possible transposition of Dominus. On the other hand, the reading of the argument for Ps. 39 coincides with that of the Roman Psalter, deprecationem meam for preces meas, and the reading of the argument for Ps. 92, Quoniam inhabitata est terra (only with quando instead of quoniam) is common both to the Roman Psalter and the Itala. The commentary proper (like the Vulgate title) has quando fundata est terra. It is hardly probable that these differences would have remained unchanged, had the author of the commentary, himself, prefixed the arguments. Furthermore, to be considered is the frequent occurrence in the arguments of directions like Lege apud Lucam (Ps. 2), Legendus ad Esaiam (Ps. 6) et passim, inserted obviously with reference to the liturgical use of the psalm. It is hardly probable that the author of the commentary would have inserted practical directions of this nature—and not with perfect regularity—in the arguments to his work. At least, I can find nothing similar in the other medieval commentaries.

Liturgical scholars will, no doubt, recognize at once the meaning of these directions. The following explanation, however, of Cardinal Tomasi's has been of service to me:—Cæterum cum in his [argumentis Psalmorum] anim-adverterit lector, Lege ad Evangelium Matthaei, ad Genesim, ad Esaiam, etc., meminerit oportet priscæ consuetudinis, qua inter solemnia post lectiones veteris vel novi Testamenti, ante lectionem vero Evangelii, integer psalmus a toto Ecclesiæ cœtu respondebatur; propterea nuncupates ab anti-quis Psalmus Responsorius. Qui sane mos per totum Occidentem ad VI usque sæculum perduravit; quem et in Romana item Ecclesia fuisse constat ex Serm. I. S. Leonis Papæ. Respondebatur autem Psalmus (ut loquitur S. Ambrosius) hoc ritu. Lector stans in Ambonis gradu, Psalmi titulo præmisso, mox Psalm um ipsum præcinebat quem per singulos quosque versus totus Ecclesiæ cœtus respondebat, hoc est, repetebat, etc., Thomasii Opera Omnia II, Ad Lectorem, Section XIII, Rome, 1747-1754.

^{Note 1 page 120} I have not seen the first collective edition of Bede's works in 8 vols, issued by Francisons Jameticus, Paris, 1554, bot I believe I may rely upon the silence of those who have seen it and on the expression of the title-page to Vol. VIII of the Basel edition to make this statement. The Paris edition of 1554, of which the British Mnseum possesses no copy, is the only edition of any part of Bede's theological writings which I have not consulted.

^{Note 1 page 123} All these mystical rubrics will be found in the Colleetio argumentorum in Psalmos of the eminent liturgist of the last century, Cardinal Tomasi : s. Thomasii Opera Omnia, II, p. xlvi, Rome, 1747. This collection is headed Ex dictis Origenis, which would lead one to suppose that they were due to Origen. The examples cited, however, show that this is not the case. Tomasi means, no doubt, “in accordance with Origen's allegorical principles of interpretation,” and this would be correct. He obtained them, no doubt, direct from the pseudo-Bede.

^{Note 1 page 123} C. Oudin (already quoted) Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiœ antiquis, I, 1706, Leipsic, 1722.—H. Gehle, Disputatio Historico-Theologica de Bedœ Venerabilis Presbyteri Anglo-Saxonis vita et scriptis, Preface II, and pp. 100 f., Lugduni-Batavorum, 1838.—K. Werner, Beda der Ehrwürdige und seine Zeit., pp. 228 ff., Vienna, 1875.

^{Note 2 page 123} The suggestion of Nicholas Rigault, one of the seventeenth century editors of Tertullian (quoted Migne, I, 634, note e.), that it was a work of St. Jerome may be at once dismissed, since not only are the works of this Father frequently quoted in the commentary (e. g., 517, A, 759, D, et passim), as has been already pointed out, but the commentary itself is largely drawn from the Expositio of Cassiodorus whose birth occurred nearly half a century after the death of Jerome.

^{Note 1 page 125} May not the peculiarly close connection of the pseudo Bede with the Expositio of Caasiodore, which has already been remarked on more than once, be due to the proximity of the respective monasteries in which the works were composed? Cassiodore's monastery of Vivien was situated in the ancient province of Southern Italy, known as Bruttium, and his influence may be reasonably supposed to have been especially strong in his native land.

^{Note 1 page 129} It is undesirable to burden the discussion more than is necessary with matter which must be more or less conjectural in its nature. I should like, however, to call attention to an obscure hint, occurring in the argument to Ps. 95 (Migne, XCIII, 990), which might assist us in fixing the date at which the arguments of Theodore became attached to the pseudo-Bede. This argument appears in full, as follows :

“Ob reditum de Babylone gratiarum actio celebratur. Aliter vox Ecclesiae vocantis. Item quae in praecedente psalmo destructam domum nostram flevimus, id est, regulam disciplinae, hic de reparata gratulemur.”

The first sentence embodies the usual Theodorean interpretation of the psalm, but it is the last to which I would especially call attention. The words contain an application of the psalm by the scribe to some recent restoration of discipline, whether in a particular monastery or general order, it is perhaps impossible to say. The term, regula disciplinae, however, would seem to apply better to the rule of an order and is used regularly in that sense. On consulting the Excerpta Chronici S. Vincentii de Vulturno (André and Francois Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, III, 672–700, Paris, 1641), I have been unable to discover any event in the history of the monastery, in which Ambrose Autpert resided which might accord with the above reference, as the devastation of the monastery by the Saracens in the year 843 would scarcely be spoken of simply as a destruction of the regula disciplinae. It seems hardly more likely that it should be the question here of the conclusion of the strife between Potho and Autpert concerning the dignity of abbot (Duchesne, III, 788–790), since this occurred through the accident of the latter's death (a. d. 778). If anything is to be made out of this obscure passage, I should prefer to interpret it as a reference to some general reform of the Benedictine order—the order with which Autpert was united and to which a copyist of his commentary would also be most likely to belong. The only reform which could be taken into consideration for so early a period as that with which we are dealing is the first great reform of the Benedictine order which took place through the action of the council at Aix-Ia-Chapelle in the years 816–817 in the reign of Louis le Debonnaire (Histoire des ordres Monastiques, V, 146–154, Paris, 1718). If this is a correct interpretation, the above passage must have been written, of course, very shortly after the event referred to.

^{Note 1 page 137} I do not speak here of partial commentaries like those of Alcuin and Pope Gregory I. on the Penitential Psalms or of St. Hilary on select psalms, although I have also made the comparison for these works with sufficient exactness to assure myself that the works in question, also furnished no aid to our translator.

^{Note 2 page 137} References for the expositions of Cassiodore and Haymo have already been given. Rémi's Enarrationes will be found, Migne, CXXXI, 133–844, Bruno's Expositio, Migne, CXLII, 39–530. Wichmann (p. 46) cites Smaragdus among the authors of the Psalm commentaries, but no work of this description has come down to us under his name.

This error is committed, also, by J. Bochins, whose Psalmorum Davidis Parodia Heroica, Antwerp, 1608, contains the best list I have seen of the ancient commentators on the Psalms.

^{Note 1 page 138} Before discovering the connection of the Paris Psalter with the pseudo. Bede, I had been inclined to suspect that the expansions which are found in the body of the Anglo-Saxon translation were due to what is, perhaps, the most widespread of all sources of corruption in texts—namely, the taking over into the translated text of glosses from the MS. which the translator had before him. Glossed Latin Psalters were of such common use in the had before him. Glossed Latin Psalters were of such common use in the Middle Ages that it is a priori not improbable that the translator should have selected one for his work. I was all the more strongly inclined to this suspicion, inasmuch as the Middle English prose version of the Psalms is known to have suffered corruption through just this influence of a glossed original (s. The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter, edited by Karl I). Bülbring, London, 1891, E. E. T. S., No. 97, Preface, XI). Acting on this supposition, I examined the only specimens of Latin glossed Psalters antedating the Paris Psalter accessible to me, namely, Royal MS., 2BV. and Additional MS. 18043, of the British Museum. Neither of these, however, contained the originals of our expansions. I made a collection of parallels from glosses in these MSS, to expanded passages in the Anglo-Saxon texts, but a more intimate acquaintance with the ancient commentaries later on taught me that the glosses in question were obviously drawn from the best known of the patristic expositions of the Psalms. For instance, Additional 18043 is especially dependent on Breviarium in Psalmos and Royal 2BV. on Augustine and Cassiodore. I may say, in conclusion, that a comparison with the Glossa Ordinaria of Walafridus Strabo was unexpectedly quite barren to results.

^{Note 1 page 153} I will refrain from discussing the laborious comparison of the vocabulary of our text with that of King Alfred's various translations which Wichmann has made, pp. 71–79. It seems to me impossible to draw any conclusion from such comparisons—at least, I can recall no instance where the vocabulary test as distinguished from that of phraseology has been found to prove anything. This so-called test has never enjoyed any favor outside of Germany and I think the signs are not wanting that its popularity there is on the wane. At any rate, in the present instance, after all his labor, Wichmann, himself, has not made the slightest attempt to point out in what respect the results of his comparisons tell in favor of Alfredian authorship. One may say, also, of the points of phraseology and diction discussed on pp. 66–71, 80, 83 f., what Fritsche observed in a similar case many years ago, Anglia, II, 453, that, if they prove anything, it is simply that the text was composed in the same period as those with which it is compared. As a matter of fact, there are none of the words and phrases or peculiarities of translation cited by Wichmann which do not, also, occur—in many cases, abundantly—outside of the works of Alfred.

^{Note 1 page 159} I have not considered in the above the external evidence regarding the date of composition of the prose version, since the only limits which are to be gained from this evidence are too wide to be of any value. The commentary of Ambrose Autpert which furnished the source of the intro-

^{Note 1 page 164} I purposely exclude the numerous examples where the Anglo-Saxon seems to demand the perfect form of a verb of the First Latin Conjugation, 3d. person singular, instead of the Alture, or ¸ versa, because the spelling -avit in the Old English MSS. seems to hare been used regularly to represent the ending -abit. Hence the endings of future and perfect in the 3d. person singular were open to confusion. See H. Sweet's Oldest English Texts, p. 185. Not only in Old English MSS, for s. Monitum in Psalmos, p. 1, which introduces Sabatier's Second Volume.