Medieval Academy Books, No. 104
The Medieval Academy of America
Copyright © 2001
By The Medieval Academy of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2001 132139
Printed in the United States of America
In preparing this edition of the Prose Psalms I have incurred debts to a number of people and institutions. It is a pleasure to acknowledge their help without implicating them in my errors.
I am grateful to the University of Pennsylvania for a Penfield Research Fellowship (1979-80), which allowed me to work on the Prose Psalms for my dissertation, and to the late Professor James Rosier who directed that dissertation. Also very helpful in the early stages of the edition was a printed concordance to the Prose Psalms provided by the Dictionary of Old English Project (University of Toronto). Subsequently, my own institution, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, provided a Junior Faculty Development Grant (Summer 1982) to examine manuscripts of the Prose Psalms at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris) and the British Library (London). I am grateful to both libraries for generously permitting me full access to their collections. Over many years the Department of English at Chapel Hill supported my work with generous computer and secretarial help.
A number of scholars helped enormously with advice, moral support, and professional expertise; in particular, Janet Bately, David Dumville, Allen Frantzen, David Ganz, George Kane, Malcolm Parkes, Ellie Roach, Fred Robinson, Eric Stanley, Patricia Stirnemann, Joseph Wittig, and several anonymous readers of the manuscript.
For her patience and skill in typing (and retyping) the manuscript I am indebted to Frances Coombs; for help with making last-minute changes, to Fiona Sewell. I was also very fortunate to have a patient and meticulous copyeditor, Deborah A. Oosterhouse.
Lastly, I thank Richard Emmerson, Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, for expediting the publication of this edition.
Patrick P. O’Neill
2 March 2001
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Fonds latin 8824, known to Old English scholars as the Paris Psalter, contains the only attested copy of the Old English Prose Psalms (Pss. 1-50),2 aside from fragments preserved in another manuscript.3 It also has, conjoined to the Prose Psalms, an Old English metrical version of the psalms (Pss. 51-150), the two together providing a full vernacular translation side by side with a text of the Latin Romanum psalter.
The earliest mention of the manuscript occurs in the inventory of goods belonging to Jean, Duc de Berry (1340-1416), made in August 1402, which describes it as “un tresancien psaultier long ystorie d’ovrage romain: et au commencement de David jouant de la harpe: et sur les fueillez peinct des armes de France et de Boulongne; couvert de vielle soie a deux tixuz̄, donc en l’un n’a point de fremouer.”4 This description broadly agrees with its present condition except for the different binding and the loss of the Davidic picture. Moreover, Jean’s ownership is confirmed by his signature “Jehan” at the bottom of fol. 186r after the words “Ce liure est au duc de Berry,” a formula
[[ Print Edition Page No. 2 ]]
found in other manuscripts owned by him.5 Subsequently, it was donated to his favorite foundation, the Sainte Chapelle de Bourges, as attested by its appearance in a list of manuscripts received there in July 1406.6 More than a century later, an inventory of Sainte Chapelle manuscripts, drawn up in November 1552, lists a “Psalterium Davidicum,” which should probably be identified with the present manuscript since all of the other psalters mentioned are described as glossed.7
It was still there in 1708 when the Benedictine scholar Dom Martène singled it out for comment:
L’un des plus curieux manuscrits de la sainte Chapelle, est celui qu’on appelle les heures du duc Jean. C’est un pseautier latin avec une version angloise de six ou sept cens ans. Ceux qui me la montrerent, croyoient que c’étoit de l’allemand ou de l’hebreu. Mais sitôt que l’eus vû, je connus le caractere Anglo-saxon. J’en fus encore plus convaincu, lorsqu’examinant les litanies qui font à la fin, je trouvai que la plûpart des Saints étoient d’Angleterre. Ce livre est conserve dans le chartier.8
In 1752 the canons of Sainte Chapelle presented the manuscript to the Bibliothèque du Roy (the precursor of the Bibliothèque nationale), where it was rebound and numbered Supplement latin 333.9 A description of it from that time10 matches the present contents; it mentions the pencil drawings, but no illumination. Subsequent descriptions of the manuscript by Silvestre (1841) and Delisle (1856) add no new information, except evidence about the nineteenth-century pencil and ink foliations.11
Notably absent from the post-medieval accounts of the manuscript is any mention of the Davidic picture or of illumination (traces of which still survive on two folios); presumably, they were already missing by this time.12 But when
[[ Print Edition Page No. 3 ]]
and in what circumstances they were removed is not known. Bruce13 and earlier scholars attribute their loss to the sack of Bourges in 1582, but pillaging soldiers are hardly likely to have taken the time to single out the illuminated leaves. Equally unconvincing is Bromwich’s theory14 that they were lost in the general neglect of the library witnessed by Martène, since the latter expressly mentions that the manuscript was kept separately in the charter room and implies that because of its strange language and script it was an object of curiosity and special attention. The most that can be conjectured is that the missing illuminated leaves were removed between 1406 and 1752 by someone who had ready access to the manuscript, possibly a member of the community at Sainte Chapelle.
Fols. iv+186+iii are of parchment; the first and last pairs of flyleaves are of the eighteenth century; the remaining leaves are medieval.15 Originally there were twenty-five quires of eight leaves each, but fourteen leaves are now missing (see section D below). Written leaves are of good quality, measuring on average 526 × 188 mm.; written space 420 × 95 mm., divided into two narrow columns of 45 lines each. These dimensions give the manuscript the shape of a modern ledger.16
There is no medieval foliation or quire signatures. There are two nineteenth-century foliations:17 the earlier, in pencil, foliates the 186 written leaves, numbering them 1-196 by including missing leaves (discussed in the next section); the other, in ink, foliates the written leaves and a final medieval flyleaf, 1-187, and is the foliation still used.
Fourteen leaves are now missing:
in Quire 1, the first leaf, before fol. 1 (before Ps. 1)
in Quire 3, the sixth leaf, after fol. 20 (before Ps. 21)
in Quire 4, the fifth leaf, after fol. 26 (before Ps. 26)
in Quire 7, the first leaf, before fol. 46 (before Ps. 38)
in Quire 9, the fourth and fifth leaves, after fol. 63 (before Ps. 51)
in Quire 11, the sixth leaf, after fol. 79 (before Ps. 68)
in Quire 14, the first leaf, before fol. 98 (before Ps. 80)
in Quire 16, the second and third leaves, after fol. 113 (before Ps. 97)
in Quire 18, the seventh leaf, after fol. 132 (before Ps. 109)
in Quire 24, the third leaf, after fol. 175 (before the canticles)
in Quire 25, the seventh and eighth leaves, after fol. 186 (after the prayers and colophon; probably blank).
With the exception of those belonging to Quire 25, the missing leaves coincide with important structural or liturgical divisions commonly attested in medieval psalters.18 Those missing from Quires 1, 9, and 24 marked points of a tripartite division of the 150 psalms (the expected division before Ps. 101 may have been omitted because a major liturgical division occurred soon after, at Ps. 109).19 The missing leaves of Quires 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 occur at points that mark, respectively, the last psalm of Matins for Sunday (Ps. 20); the beginning psalms of Matins for Monday (Ps. 26), Tuesday (Ps. 38), Thursday (Ps. 68), Friday (Ps. 80), and Saturday (Ps. 97);20 and the beginning psalm of a weekly cycle for Vespers (Ps. 109), all reflecting the cursus of the Roman Office.21 Such divisions were usually highlighted in medieval psalters by some type of decoration, and there is evidence that the Paris Psalter in its original state reflected this practice. Thus, the first missing leaf in Quire 1 had a portrait of David playing the harp, the missing fifth leaf in Quire 4 had “Winchester” acanthus decoration, traces of which are still visible on its surviving stub, and the seventh leaf of Quire 18 left blots of decoration (offset) on the verso of the preceding fol. 132. Since the remaining missing leaves in the Paris Psalter mark similar types of division, it is reasonable to conclude that they also were decorated and that all were stolen for their decoration.
The entire manuscript is in a single hand, including a colophon (fol. 186r) that identifies the scribe as “Sacer Dei Wulfwinus .i. cognomento Cada.”22 Although it cannot be conclusively established that the colophon is an autograph, there is no good reason to doubt its authenticity.23 It is in the same hand and ink as the surrounding text, although in smaller form. As for the identity of this Wulfwinus, it would be tempting to link him with the entry “Obit’ Wulfuuini sac’ ” in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 113, written in Worcester during the third quarter of the eleventh century, the obit itself dating after 1062.24 But the name Wulfwinus (Old English Wulfwine) is common in eleventh-century English documents,25 and the cognomen Cada is otherwise unattested. Recently, Richard Emms26 has argued that Wulfwinus Cada should be identified with a certain Wulfwinus scriptor who is commemorated in a martyrology and obit book written originally at St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury in the late eleventh or early twelfth century. While acknowledging that the name Wulfwinus was fairly common, he points out that “the number of men called Wulfwinus who were also scribes must have been limited.” He also adduces significant circumstantial evidence linking both this Wulfwinus and the Paris Psalter to Canterbury.27
Unlike earlier eleventh-century bilingual manuscripts, which have the Latin text in Caroline minuscule and the Old English in insular script, the Paris Psalter presents both texts in round English Caroline minuscule, of a type commonly found in English manuscripts of the middle and second half of the eleventh century. However, the Old English is distinguished from the Latin by
[[ Print Edition Page No. 6 ]]
the presence of special letter forms for a, d, e, f, g, h, r, s,29 and by the use of the letters æ, þ, ð, and p, borrowed from vernacular (insular) script. Rustic capitals (in red) are used for the Latin rubric preceding each psalm, and uncials for the opening line of each Latin psalm.
In both the Latin and Old English the basic syntactical unit is the psalm verse, and punctuation is designed to serve this unit. Thus, to mark the end of a verse the punctus and the symbol ; are used, the latter predominating; for a pause in mid verse, the punctus and the symbol : (only in the Latin). A new verse is indicated by a large colored initial. In the Prose Psalms, punctuation is found only at the end of the verse (except for some six occurrences of the punctus within the introductions). In this position the punctus is used almost exclusively up to Ps. 21 (fol. 23r); thereafter the ; heavily predominates. Judging by numerous instances of large spaces between the end of a verse and the ; punctuation mark, the latter seems to have been mechanically supplied.
Acute accents occur in both Old English translations, though proportionally more frequent in the Metrical than in the Prose Psalms.30 Generally, they are found in the same positions in both works: (1) predominantly accompanying monosyllabic words and their inflected forms, over a vowel that is etymologically long, for example, æ (Pss. 1.2, 77.12), gehyr (Pss. 4.2, 83.7), hus(e) (Pss. 22.6, 51.7), min (Pss. 4.2, 61.6); (2) occasionally over a short vowel in a syntactically important word, for example, him (Pss. 36.37, 71.5), mæg (Pss. 2.9, 74.2); (3) also over stressed prefixes, for example, onliht (Ps. 33.6), unrihtes (Ps. 9.25), unhydig (Ps. 52.1). Double accents occur in the same contexts in both translations: (1) over double vowels representing an etymologically long vowel, for example, good- (Pss. 16.15, 77.6), tiid (Ps. 22.6), aare (Ps. 78.9); (2) occasionally over the double consonant of upp (either as an independent adverb or a verbal prefix), for example, Pss. 3.6, 17.40, 103.4 (altogether 12x), and over that of sitt (Ps. 28.10), in the latter case
[[ Print Edition Page No. 7 ]]
to indicate perhaps that it is unrelated morphologically to the immediately following on (which has a single accent over n).31
A similar system is employed in both Old English translations:
Both Old English texts reveal a considerable number of copyist’s errors, especially omissions.
3. Misreading of letters. Some probably resulted from the scribe’s difficulties with reading insular letters in his exemplar: for example, foðfæstnes (Ps. 11.2) for soðfæstnes, hine (Ps. 15.2) for þu me, hemneð (Ps. 106.41) for nemneð, rawum (Ps. 139.5) for rapum; others are best explained by lack of familiarity with a word or construction: for example, wlitehrægl (Ps. 29.12) and hwitehrægl (Ps. 34.13) for witehrægl, swa þes/þas (Introd. 10, Ps. 21.7) for swa þer/þær.
The accuracy of the Latin texts is no better. Thus, omission of the initial letter, as in [N]equando (Ps. 12.5), about 20 occurrences; of words, as in parauit (Ps. 7.14), altogether 22 occurrences; of phrases, as in et rex magnus (Ps. 46.3), in domo Domini (Ps. 54.15); of clauses, as in paene moti sunt (Ps. 72.2), deduxisti me (Ps. 72.24), et seruierunt sculptilibus eorum (Ps. 105.36). Errors of transcription occur frequently, as in Dominus (Ps. 9.25) for Dominum, innocentes (Ps. 26.2) for nocentes, Urientes (Ps. 57.10) for Uiuentes, Et (Ps. 77.7) for Ut. Likewise, the Latin rubrics reveal serious errors such as ad (Ps. 23) for de, auri (Ps. 44) for austri, patrem (Ps. 102) for populum; the omission of De (Ps. 1) and Babylone redito (Ps. 66); the dittographies of Pss. 13 and 113.
There are frequent corrections, apparently all by the scribe of the manuscript. They consist mainly of (1) letters written over erased or partly erased letters, for example, to (Ps. 2.2) with t corrected from g, oþ (Ps. 9.19) with þ corrected from n; (2) letters or words supplied above the line with a small comma inserted on the line at the relevant point in the text, for example, sang (Introd. 14), wið (Ps. 60.2); (3) subpunctuation or (usually in the case of more than one letter) underlining of letter(s) to be omitted, for example, ç ic (Ps. 15.4), þoliaðn (Ps. 102.6), beymbhringdon (Ps. 16.9), siblisse (Ps. 62.10). The frequency of these corrections as well as the survival of many uncorrected errors suggests that the scribe was copying material unfamiliar to him.
The manuscript’s format of narrow columns with even margins created difficulties for the scribe. Sometimes he erased words on the right margin whose letters ran over the boundary; for example, forsyhst (Ps. 5.7), feondum (Ps. 17.4), gefehð (Ps. 21.14). But more often than not he tolerated faulty or unusual divisions of syllables. Although such unconventional syllabification is occasionally found in other Old English manuscripts, its frequency in the Paris Psalter, as shown by a recent study,36 is unparalleled; for example, þisse/-s (fol. 8v), þur/-h (fol. 34r), m/-an (fol. 118v).
Decoration originally consisted of three types: (1) illumination, now lost except for traces of “Winchester” acanthus on the stub of the leaf missing after fol. 26 and, as offset, on fol. 132v; (2) thirteen pencil-and-ink drawings inserted into blank spaces in the Latin text, the last (at Ps. 7.14) inspired by the Old English paraphrase before the artist;37 (3) colored initials for each verse, both Latin and Old English, supplied after the writing of the main texts, in gold, green, and blue, with gold always used for the initial of each Old English Introduction and each psalm, and green or blue for other initials,38 the latter color much more common in the Latin than the Old English.
Pss. 1-50.10, each psalm (except Ps. 1) preceded by an introduction.
Pss. 51.9-150.3; part of a complete translation of the psalms composed about the middle of the tenth century.39 The translation is based on the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 10 ]]
Romanum, but not that in the Paris Psalter. For example, at Ps. 54.15, the Metrical Psalms (PPs) has “on godes huse,” where the parallel Latin text in the manuscript lacks the corresponding Ro. in domo Domini; at Ps. 108.29 PPs “þe me tælnysse teonan ætfæstan” (cf. Ro. qui detrahunt mihi reuerentiam) does not accord with qui detrahunt michi aput dominum reuerentia, the text in the Paris Psalter.40 That the scribe did not have recourse to the Metrical Psalms until he reached Ps. 51, although presumably a text of Pss. 1-50 was available to him,41 suggests that he preferred the version of the Prose Psalms.
Pss. 1-150.3, entered as a continuous text parallel to A and B, though not directly related to either. For example, contrast at Ps. 12.6 its reading, psallam nomini Domini altissimi, with Ps(P), “lofie þinne naman, þu hehsta God” (based on the reading altissime); at Ps. 13.6, Deus in generatione iuxta est, with Ps(P), “God byð mid þam rihtwisran folce” (based on the reading iusta).42 A collation of the Paris Psalter and six other roughly contemporary English Romanum psalters43 with Weber’s critical edition of the Romanum for Pss. 1-35, 68-77, 106-10, 118, and 136-42 shows that the Paris Psalter is closest textually to the Bosworth and Harley Psalters (respectively, London, BL, MSS Additional 37517 and Harley 603). All three share (1) variant readings, for example, iuxta for iusta (Ps. 13.6), hominum for eorum (Ps. 77.4), fructum for
[[ Print Edition Page No. 11 ]]
faenum (Ps. 104.35); (2) the omission of ei after psallite (Ps. 104.2), the addition of Domine after memineris (Ps. 24.7) and of nam et after ea (Ps. 74.4); and (3) a relatively high proportion (about one third) of Gallicanum readings among these variants.44 A notable feature of the Paris Psalter text are some thirty instances where the scribe began to write or wrote the Gallicanum reading and then corrected it to the corresponding Romanum, which suggests that the former was his psalter of daily use. For example, at Ps. 9.23, he first wrote con- of Ga. consiliis, then corrected it to Ro. cog-(itationibus); at Ps. 37.2, first fu- of Ga. furore, then Ro. ir-(a).45
Rubrics are written across the double column before each psalm (for Pss. 2-50, after the Old English Introductions) in red rustic capitals. They were entered after the completion of A-C, as shown by instances where they are written on the margin (Pss. 13 and 67), squeezed into a confined space (Pss. 117 and 140), or never entered (Pss. 22 and 32). The nature of their frequent errors (see section I.J.4) suggests that they were copied from an earlier exemplar, while the fact that they indiscriminately cover two discrete vernacular works indicates that their association with them belongs to the period between the mid-tenth and the mid-eleventh century.46 Similar rubrics are commonly found in medieval psalters, often, as in the Paris Psalter, replacing the biblical tituli that normally preceded individual psalms. Called “Christian tituli” by their most recent editor, these rubrics served to make the Hebrew psalms relevant to a Christian audience by presenting them as spoken by Christ.47 Those of the Paris Psalter derive in the main from an eighth-century compilation of psalter Argumenta, doubtfully attributed to Bede.48 This work usually provides for each psalm three brief interpretations, historical, allegorical, and moral (distinguished as Argumentum a, b, and c). The allegorical interpretation
[[ Print Edition Page No. 12 ]]
provides the main source for the Paris rubrics, though it is quite often combined with the corresponding historical interpretation, as in Ps. 15, “Uox Christi ad Patrem; Ezechias orauit Dominum in egritudine.”49
Earlier scholars did not realize that the Paris rubrics show evidence of dependence on other sources. Beginning at Ps. 79, some thirteen rubrics contain readings from another series of Christian tituli, the so-called Columban Series (Salmon’s Series I). Moreover, the Paris readings point to a specifically Carolingian recension of this series.50 Thus, the Paris rubric to Ps. 130, “Canticum graduum; Vox Ecclesie regnantis uel sancte Mariae,” combines the Arg. (b), “Vox Ecclesiae regnantis,” with the corresponding Carolingian reading of the Columban Series, “vox sanctae Mariae” (the main textual tradition has “Vox ecclesiae rogantis”). Additionally, this rubric contains the biblical titulus to Ps. 130, “Canticum graduum,” an arrangement found also in Carolingian psalters, which frequently have biblical and Christian tituli combined as a single entry before each psalm. While such psalters could in theory have been available in England from the early ninth century onwards, in practice they did not gain currency until the Benedictine Reform brought widespread liturgical use of Carolingian (Gallicanum) psalters in the second half of the tenth century.51 The English witnesses to this “Carolingian” combination in individual rubrics of biblical and Christian tituli are the Vitellius, Tiberius, and Stowe Psalters, all dated approximately to the mid-eleventh century and all from Winchester.52 Significantly, all three also contain “Carolingian” readings in their Christian tituli.53 The presence of the same combination of characteristics in certain rubrics of the Paris Psalter argues for ultimate dependence on a Winchester exemplar.
The canticles are introduced collectively with the heading Incipiunt Cantica and individually as follows:
|1.||Canticum Isaie Prophete||(Is. 12.1-6)|
|2.||Canticum Ezechie Regis||(Is. 38.10-20)|
|3.||Canticum Anne||(1Sm. 2.1-10)|
|4.||Canticum Moysi||(Ex. 15.1-19)|
|5.||Canticum Abbacuc Prophetae||(Hab. 3)|
|6.||Canticum Moysi ad Filios Israhel||(Dt. 32.1-44)|
|7.||Ymnus Trium Puerorum||(Dn. 3.57-89)|
|8.||Ymnus ad Matutinas Dominica Die||(Te Deum)|
|9.||Canticum Zachariae Prophete||(Lk. 1.68-80)|
|10.||Canticum Sancte Mariae||(Lk. 1.46-56)|
|11.||Fides Catholica Athanasi Episcopi||(Quicumque Vult)|
|12.||Canticum Simeonis||(Lk. 2.29-33)|
This sequence of canticles and the mixed character of its biblical texts (Vulgate for canticles 1-3, Vetus Latina for 4-7, 9, 10, 12) reflect Roman usage for the recitation of the Divine Office:54 nos. 1-7 recited at Lauds on successive days of a weekly cycle; nos. 9, 10, and 12 recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline, respectively. Nos. 8 and 11 are part of a series of “new,” non-biblical, canticles that first appears in Carolingian psalters appended to the biblical canticles.55 In English psalters this “new” series is first attested in full (six canticles) in Gallicanum psalters from the last quarter of the tenth century; contemporary Romanum psalters, from the second half of the tenth and early eleventh centuries, the Regius, Bosworth, and Arundel 155 (in its uncorrected state), have only two “new” canticles each, suggesting an early stage in a gradual process of acceptance.56 The Paris Psalter, with only two “new” canticles (the same two found in Bosworth and Arundel 155), probably used an exemplar representative of this early stage.
|Is. 38.13||a uespere added after sperabam59|
|Is. 38.18||ipsi added after expectabunt|
|Is. 38.19||facies for faciet|
|Hab. 3.3||et de laude for et laude|
|Hab. 3.10||aspergens for aspargans|
|Hab. 3.19||supra sceptra for super sceptra60|
|Hab. 3.19||consummationem for consummatione|
|Dn. 3.88||spiritum sanctum for sanctum spiritum|
|Quicumque, 1||enim added after opus61|
|Quicumque, 39||ac for et.62|
These agreements, as well as those in the number and identity of “new” canticles, suggests that the Paris Psalter canticles may well derive from a Christ Church Canterbury exemplar such as the Bosworth Psalter.63 Also suggestive of Canterbury influence are two divergences in the sequence of the Paris Psalter canticles. Its Te Deum (no. 8), a non-biblical canticle, is lodged between two biblical canticles (nos. 7 and 9), a location attested also in the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 15 ]]
Eadwine Psalter from Christ Church Canterbury.64 Furthermore, the Canticum Simeonis (no. 12), normally located before the “new” canticles, is found in the Paris Psalter at the very end and with Vulgate readings—not those of the Vetus Latina, which might be expected if it had come from the same source as the previous canticles; thus, parasti not praeparasti, gloriam not gloria. Arguably, this canticle had to be supplied from another source because it was lacking in the main exemplar. Significantly, the Vespasian Psalter from Christ Church Canterbury lacks the Canticum Simeonis, a feature that may reflect the old Roman usage once observed there.65
The former is headed Incipiunt Letaniae,66 the latter (individually) (Alia) Oratio. The overall framework of this section—(1) invocation of saints and petitions rounded off with the kyrie, (2) Pater Noster, (3) preces (four) and Collect, and (4) orationes—recalls the type of enlarged litany recited with the Seven Penitential Psalms after Prime in late-tenth- and eleventh-century English monasteries, as described in the Regularis Concordia (ca. 965): “. . . subsequatur letania quam universi, more solito prostrati humiliter nullo excepto, signo pulsato compleant. Qua expleta, post orationem dominicam [Pater Noster] intercanitur psalmus In te domine speraui (ii), consequentibus precibus et orationibus.”67
This resemblance does not necessarily mean, however, that the Paris litany had a monastic provenance, since the devotion of the Seven Penitential Psalms was also popular among the secular clergy and devout laity. Indeed, the absence in the Paris litany of a petition for an abbot, which was obligatory in monastic litanies, tells against it.
In contents the Paris litany closely agrees with a litany for the Visitation of the Sick in the Lanelet Pontifical68 of St. Germans in Cornwall (dated ca. 1031-46), as indicated by the following table:69
|Nos. 16-22||(Angelic Powers)||general invocation of angels|
|Nos. 23-44||(Apostles)||23-44 (lacks one)|
|Nos. 45-56||(Martyrs)||45-56 (lacks one)|
|Nos. 57-61||(English Martyrs)||. . .|
|No. 62||(invocation of Martyrs)||62|
|Nos. 69-81||(English Confessors)||(five agreements, nine disagreements)|
|Nos. 82-94||(Virgins)||82-94 (lacks one)|
|Nos. 95-106||(Virgins)||. . .|
|No. 107||(invocation of Virgins)||107|
|Nos. 122-32||(Petitions)||Petitions for the dying|
|Nos. 133-34||(Closing Petitions)||133-34|
Both lists have the same nucleus of saints and petitions in the same sequence. More importantly, differences are not substantive. Thus, the additional categories in the Paris litany of Angelic Powers and English Martyrs are frequently omitted from English litanies; likewise, its fuller lists of Virgins and Petitions involve no more than the ready insertion (or removal) of blocks of items, the absence of which in the corresponding Lanelet categories is understandable in an abbreviated litany for the dying; and the differences in English Confessors probably reflect tailoring of a basic list to local needs. Moreover, both litanies share significant correspondences: (1) a list of Apostles based on Luke, but with two variations, one (the location of John before James Zebedee) common to all English litanies,70 the other (the location of James Alpheus between Bartholomew and Matthew) found only in a few;71 (2) full agreement in names and their sequence for the categories of Universal Martyrs and of Virgins; (3) similar agreements for the ab (nos. 108-14) and per (nos. 115-18) petition clauses, which usually vary from one litany to another.
Although neither litany can have derived immediately from the other, as shown by the presence in each of material not in the other, their essential similarities suggest a common archetype. That archetype may well have been composed at Winchester, given that the Lanelet Pontifical has close links with Winchester72 and that the Paris litany has names of saints associated with Wessex.73 As for the date of composition of the Paris litany, a terminus a quo of the late tenth century is suggested by the appearance of St. Dunstan (d. 988) among its list of Confessors. A less certain terminus ad quem could be adduced from the absence of St. Elphege, Archbishop of Canterbury, martyred in 1012, whose name appears in English litanies and Calendars after this date. The presence of St. Martial of Limoges as an Apostle, which points to a date later than 1030,74 is best explained as a later addition to the original litany, as suggested by its location at the very end of the list of Apostles. Thus, the original litany was probably composed between 988 and 1012, perhaps at Winchester.
The preces (nos. 1-4) and Collect (no. 5), which follow the Pater Noster, are as follows:75
All are commonplace. The preces are found associated with the recitation of the Office in penitential seasons; the Collect comes from a prayer at the beginning of Mass.76
The eight orationes are as follows:
Collections of such prayers are a regular feature of devotional psalters from the Carolingian period on, though none of the Paris prayers has yet been identified elsewhere. The number of prayers may have been designed to provide one for each of the eight daily canonical Hours. The subject matter of the prayers is supplication for forgiveness of sin (nos. 1, 7, 8), for the gift of tears (no. 2), for a holy death (nos. 3, 4), for a virtuous life (no. 5); only no. 6 looks beyond the reciter’s immediate spiritual needs. Thus, their predominantly penitential and private character would harmonize well with private recitation of the psalms.
“Hoc psalterii carmen inclyti regis dauid.77 Sacer dī wulfwinus. (.i. cognom̄to. cada.) manu sua conscripsit. Quicumq: legerit scriptū. Animę suę expetiat uotum.” This colophon fills the remaining space of this page and marks the end of the written texts. All of the colophon is in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript, though with smaller and thinner letters.78
Notes and glosses are written in various hands on the empty leaves after fol. 186r: on fol. 186v, “iii Flor. 6 gr.,” in a fourteenth-century hand, perhaps a contemporary estimate of the value of the manuscript;79 on the verso of the folio following, “psalterium in ydiomate peregrino” and “istud psalterium dicitur romanum esse etiam in ydioma barbarum,” both eighteenth-century.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 19 ]]
In addition there are three Latin glosses within the main texts, not mentioned by Ker:80
fol. 182v, col. a, line 8 (marginal): [i]n unitate, written in a twelfth-century hand and intended to supply words missing in the main text of the Quicumque, as indicated by the signe de renvoi in the latter after trinitatem.
fol. 185r, col. a, line 29 (interlinear): caritas, written underneath (fraternae) delectationis (prayer no. 1), in a fourteenth-century French cursive hand.
fol. 185r, col. b, line 17 (interlinear): veniam, written between domine and tribuente (prayer no. 2) above a caret mark, in the same fourteenth-century French hand.
The final two glosses confirm that the manuscript was in France during the fourteenth century. Unfortunately, the first gloss is not so specific; its place of writing could be England or France.
In attempting to answer questions about the purpose and audience of Ps(P), certain possibilities can be eliminated. For instance, the total absence of glosses and commentary rules out use as a study or classroom book.81 Equally, the Paris Psalter lacks the liturgical Calendar and hymns required to make of it a service book for secular clergy, a fortiori for monks, who would have needed in addition a text of the monastic canticles.82 The absence in the Paris Psalter litany of an intercession for an abbot supports the same conclusion. Its layout of the long alphabetical Ps. 118 in eleven sections (each headed by the name of a Hebrew letter), instead of the normal twenty-two sections, suggests a deliberate accommodation to the Roman Office, which divided this psalm into eleven sections for recitation during the minor Hours of Prime, Terce, Sext, and None. Likewise, its distributio psalmorum (as
[[ Print Edition Page No. 20 ]]
evidenced by the missing illuminated leaves) reflects the Roman Office, not the Benedictine.83
That such evidence for the observance of the Roman Office should be found in a psalter from the mid-eleventh century is remarkable, since by this time the Benedictine Office, which had been promulgated in the Regularis Concordia (ca. 965), was probably universal among English clergy, both monastic and secular. The only group who might have followed the Roman Office and used a Romanum psalter at such a late date would be pious laity who recited the psalms as a daily devotional exercise. Psalters for such use are attested from as early as Carolingian times and their general contents of psalms, canticles, litany, and prayers are those of the Paris Psalter.84 Moreover, the omission in the Paris Psalter of the biblical tituli in favor of Christian tituli, which present the psalms as personal prayers, suggests an audience more interested in devotional than in textual use of the psalms.85 Such an audience would have been well served by the parallel Old English translations, which make the Paris Psalter “a reading-book for private use, not a service-book.”86 Precisely who this audience was, it is not possible to say. The deluxe character of the manuscript suggests a wealthy lay patron, but not necessarily a woman as commonly claimed, since the scribe is careful to provide masculine above the feminine pronouns in the Latin prayers. The incomplete set of “new” canticles and the rather inferior psalter text,87 in a version obsolescent or obsolete by the time the manuscript was written, suggest older lay readers out of touch with contemporary psalter developments.
The manuscript cannot be dated with any precision. Its script resembles that found in English manuscripts of the middle and second half of the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 21 ]]
eleventh century,88 while its drawings may represent an intermediate stylistic stage between other drawings dated at lower and upper limits of 1023-1050.89 In the litany the presence of St. Martial of Limoges among the Apostles makes a date before 1030 unlikely. Thus, the cumulative evidence points to a date after 1030, perhaps ca. 1050.
Also uncertain is the manuscript’s place of origin. A Malmesbury origin was proposed by Karl Wildhagen,90 but most of his evidence, notably the identification of the scribe Wulfwinus with Wulfi of the West-Saxon Gospels (London, BL, MS Cotton Otho C. i) and his claim for unusual similarities between the Paris and the Cambridge Psalter (which he located at Winchcombe in the same diocese as Malmesbury),91 is either incorrect or speculative. The internal evidence of the Paris Psalter also tells against this attribution. Although its rubrics and litany point to Winchester, the influence is neither pervasive nor necessarily direct. Moreover, the possibility that a Romanum psalter would have been copied there almost a century after that version had been abandoned in favor of the Gallicanum is remote.
Christ Church Canterbury was recently suggested by Temple on the evidence that the Paris drawings closely resemble those added by “Hand E” in the second quarter of the eleventh century to a psalter written at that center, London, BL, MS Harley 603.92 Evidence in conflict with her attribution, notably the intercession in the Paris litany for a bishop rather than an archbishop, she explains by hypothesizing that the Paris Psalter, although produced at Canterbury, was tailored to the needs of someone not connected with the archdiocese.
A Canterbury origin, specifically St. Augustine’s, has also been proposed by Richard Emms.93 He points out that the drawings in the Paris Psalter show influence from the Utrecht Psalter, which was then at Canterbury; that two
[[ Print Edition Page No. 22 ]]
other manuscripts known to have been at St. Augustine’s in the eleventh century have the same odd proportions of length and width that give the Paris Psalter its ledger appearance; and that the script of the Paris Psalter shares with a St. Augustine’s copy of the Regula Benedicti an unusual open-topped a resembling a u. Emms argues that the scribe Wulfwinus of the Paris Psalter colophon should be identified with the Wulfwinus scriptor commemorated in a St. Augustine’s necrology as frater noster.
Internal evidence from the Paris Psalter lends some support to the Canterbury attribution. The Paris text of the Latin psalms shows close textual affinity with the Bosworth Psalter and Harley 603, both from Canterbury. Even closer is the relationship between the Paris Psalter and Bosworth Psalter texts of the canticles, though the value of this evidence is somewhat tempered by the limitation that textual evidence on the canticles all comes from Canterbury. The presence in the Paris Psalter of drawings similar to those in certain Canterbury manuscripts is also telling, yet it could be alternatively explained as the work of an artist visiting from there, perhaps the same one who, as implied by Ker, replaced the illumination on the first page.94
Other doubts remain. The absence in the Paris Psalter’s two Old English texts of Kentish phonological or lexicographical features is somewhat puzzling if the manuscript was written at Canterbury.95 And Emms’s characterization of Wulfwinus as a professional scribe working under commission at St. Augustine’s96 is hard to reconcile with his frequent, uncorrected, mistakes in both the Old English and Latin texts, failures that seem incompatible with the expertise in producing Romanum psalters and the generally high scribal standards of that scriptorium. Nevertheless, of the numerous proposals for the place of origin of the Paris Psalter so far made97 his is undoubtedly the most plausible.
[1 ] Items A-F of this section rely heavily on the preface to the facsimile edition, The Paris Psalter (Copenhagen, 1958), general ed. Bertram Colgrave, hereafter referred to as Facsimile preceded by the name of the relevant contributor. For other descriptions of the manuscript, see Leroquais, Les Psautiers, 2:76-78; Ker, Catalogue, no. 367; Vezin, “Manuscrits,” pp. 291-92; Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 99-100; and François Avril and Patricia D. Stirnemann, Manuscrits enluminés d’origine insulaire, VIIe-XXe siècle (Paris, 1987), pp. 18-19 (no. 25).
[2 ] The numbering of psalms and verses throughout the present work, for both the Latin text and the corresponding Old English, follows that of the Gallicanum (Vulgate) psalter.
[5 ] See Delisle, “Notes,” pp. 151, 155, 158.
[6 ] A contemporary list drawn up for the Sainte Chapelle repeats verbatim the description of the psalter given in Jean’s inventory; see Alfred Hiver de Beauvoir, La Librairie de Jean duc de Berry au château de Mehun-sur-Yèvre, 1416 (Paris, 1860), p. 92.
[7 ] Printed by Delisle, “Notes,” at p. 145.
[8 ] Voyage Littéraire de deux Religieux Bénédictins de la congregation de Saint Maur (Paris, 1717; repr. 1969), p. 29.
[11 ] Joseph B. Silvestre, Paléographie universelle . . . accompagnés d’explications historiques et descriptives par mm. Champollion-Figeac et Aime Champollion fils, 4 vols. (Paris, 1841), vol. 4, plate CCXXXI and accompanying text, and Delisle, “Notes,” pp. 147-51; see also Bromwich in Facsimile, p. 12.
[13 ] See The Anglo-Saxon Version, pp. 13-17.
[14 ] In Facsimile, p. 11.
[15 ] The manuscript was recently repaired as indicated by a note on the lower margin of the inside rear cover, “BN restauration 1979, sous No. 1658.” Presumably at this time were added the slips of modern parchment that have been inserted where leaves are missing.
[16 ] As noted by Vezin, “Manuscrits,” p. 291. For a possible reason for this format, see Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín and David Ganz (Cambridge, 1990), p. 26 and n. 50. See now M. J. Toswell, “The Format of the Bibliothèque Nationale MS lat. 8824: The Paris Psalter,” Notes and Queries 241 (1996): 130-33.
[17 ] On which see Bromwich in Facsimile, p. 12.
[18 ] Noted, but not adequately explained, by Wormald in Facsimile, p. 15.
[20 ] The missing member of the series is Wednesday, whose first psalm for Matins (Ps. 52) remains unmarked and intact in the Paris Psalter. Arguably, it was passed over because of its proximity to Ps. 51, which marks the first part of the tripartite division.
[21 ] For a detailed account of the distributio psalmorum of the Roman Office, see Johann M. Hanssens, ed., Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, 3 vols., Studi e Testi 138-40 (Vatican City, 1948-50), esp. 3:139-43. For other evidence of Roman usage in the Paris Psalter, see section III below.
[23 ] See Ker in Fascsimile, p. 14. Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon Version, pp. 11-12 and 47, speculated that the cognomen (suprascript) was added by a later scribe who wished to identify more precisely the Wulfwinus whose work he had just copied.
[25 ] See, e.g., P. H. Sawyer, “Charters of the Reform Movement: The Worcester Archive,” in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. David Parsons (London, 1975), p. 91; also Liber Eliensis, ed. Ernest O. Blake, (London, 1962), which mentions three different people with this name. Earlier attempts to identify Wulfwinus with Wulfi, the scribe of the West-Saxon Gospels (London, BL, MS Cotton Otho C. i) are unconvincing; see further n. 93 below.
[28 ] For a detailed account of the script, see Ker in Facsimile, p. 13, and Catalogue, no. 367; also Vezin, “Manuscrits,” pp. 291-92.
[29 ] According to Ker, in Facsimile, p. 13, Wulfwinus abandoned the insular e after fol. 10v in favor of the Latin form, but occasional examples occur later, e.g., on fols. 21r, 23r. Conversely, the Latin (Caroline) a occasionally replaces insular a in the Old English; likewise with Caroline r (once); see apparatus to present edition under Pss. 3.6, 19 (Introd. 3°), 39 (Introd. 3°), and 42.4.
[30 ] Those of the Metrical Psalms are listed in Krapp, The Paris Psalter, pp. xxvi-xxxiii, altogether about 700. The Prose Psalms contain about 170 occurrences.
[31 ] For a somewhat similar use of accent marks in London, BL, MS Cotton Otho A. vi, see Krapp, The Paris Psalter, p. xli. Cf. the use of single accents in þǽra ára (Introd. 22), perhaps to warn against haplography.
[32 ] Obviously the letters and words supplied here are conjectural.
[33 ] The Introductions (the word is capitalized to distinguish those proper to PsP) are numbered according to the psalm that they introduce.
[34 ] See also Fred C. Robinson, “Metathesis in the Dictionaries: A Problem for Lexicographers,” in Problems of Old English Lexicography, ed. Alfred Bammesberger (Regensburg, 1985), pp. 245-65.
[36 ] Claus-Dieter Wetzel, Die Worttrenung am Zeilenende in altenglischen Handschriften, Europäische Hochschulschriften 96 (Frankfurt on the Main and Bern, 1981), which includes a detailed study of the Paris Psalter, pp. 24, 473-95.
[37 ] As shown by Robert M. Harris, “An Illustration in an Anglo-Saxon Psalter in Paris,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes 26 (1963): 255-63. For a list of the drawings, see Wormald in Facsimile, pp. 14-15, and T. H. Ohlgren, Anglo-Saxon Textual Illustration: Photographs of Sixteen Manuscripts with Descriptions and Index (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1992), no. 4 (pp. 3-4).
[38 ] This combination of colors for initials is otherwise unattested in decorated Anglo-Saxon manuscripts; see further Ker, Catalogue, p. xxxviii.
[39 ] See C. and K. Sisam in Facsimile, pp. 16-17, and Krapp, The Paris Psalter, pp. xix-xx.
[40 ] Another example occurs at Ps. 77.60, where PPs used the reading Selom, not Silon of the Paris Psalter; see Patrick P. O’Neill, “The Lost Tabernacle of Selom: A Proposed Emendation in the Paris Psalter 77:60,” Notes and Queries 229 (1984): 296-97. Unfortunately, the examples given by Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon Version, pp. 124-26, to demonstrate the same point are worthless because he used the Latin text supplied in Thorpe’s edition of the Paris Psalter, which, as shown by C. and K. Sisam in Facsimile, p. 15, is unreliable. Also to be treated with caution is Ramsay’s “The Latin Text,” pp. 147-76, esp. 169-75, since he did not have available to him critical texts of the Romanum and Gallicanum; see further, the criticisms of C. and K. Sisam in Facsimile, p. 15.
[41 ] See James M. Ure, ed., The Benedictine Office: An Old English Text, Edinburgh University Publications in Language and Literature 11 (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 18-19.
[42 ] For a similar lack of direct correspondence with the Metrical Psalms, see the previous subsection.
[43 ] On these six psalters, see C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, p. 48 (sigla BCDEL and London, BL, MS Harley 603). Omitted from the collation were two eleventh-century Romanum psalters, London, BL, MS Arundel 150, and Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preuss. Kult. MS Theol. lat. fol. 358 (the Werden Psalter), which was probably copied ca. 1025-50 in Germany from an English Romanum exemplar (see Hermann Knaus, ed., Werdener Psalter [Graz, 1979], p. 23). The former lost its Romanum readings when it was converted to a Gallicanum text; the latter has only a small proportion (one third) of variants in common with the Paris Psalter, as indicated by a collation of the two for the same selection of psalms listed above.
[44 ] The proportions are Paris 43:147, Bosworth 54:166, Harley 38:168. Contrast the early-tenth-century Junius Psalter (B), which for the same psalms has a proportion of 14:139.
[45 ] See also C. and K. Sisam in Facsimile, p. 15, n. 54.
[46 ] As argued by Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” p. 488.
[47 ] Salmon, Les Tituli, p. 29: “ils font appel, et très largement, à l’exégèse spirituelle et voient surtout dans les psaumes des prophéties de l’œuvre rédemptrice du Christ.”
[48 ] As first shown by J. Douglas Bruce, “Immediate and Ultimate Source of the Rubrics and Introductions to the Psalms in the Paris Psalter,” Modern Language Notes 8 (1893): 36-41, and The Anglo-Saxon Version, pp. 17 ff, where (p. 120) he suggests that these rubrics owe their presence in the Paris Psalter to a redactor who recognized their close correspondence with the Old English Introductions. See further Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” pp. 488-91. The Argumenta are edited in Bright and Ramsay, The West-Saxon Psalms, and in PL 93, 483-1098. On their authorship and provenance, see Fischer, “Bedae de Titulis,” pp. 94-95.
[49 ] Similar combinations of Arg. (a) and (b) are found in a set of rubrics in the Lambeth Psalter (I), though there is no direct relationship to the Paris rubrics; see Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” pp. 491-96; and Patrick P. O’Neill, “Latin Learning at Winchester in the Early Eleventh Century: The Evidence of the Lambeth Psalter,” ASE 20 (1991): 143-66, at pp. 155-59.
[50 ] On the Carolingian recension, see Salmon, Les Tituli, pp. 49-51. Other Carolingian readings in the Paris Psalter rubrics are at Ps. 112 “cum laude Christi” (contrast Arg. [b] and main Columban Series, “de fidelibus suis”), Ps. 116 “Vox Apostolorum ad gentes” (Arg. [b] and Columban Series, “Vox Apostolorum”), Ps. 141 “Vox ad Deum” (Arg. [a] and Columban Series have no titulus).
[51 ] See C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, pp. 48-49.
[52 ] On the date and provenance of these psalters, see C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, p. 48; and Hofstetter, Winchester Sprachgebrauch, pp. 68-74.
[53 ] Those of the Tiberius and Stowe Psalters (H, F) are printed by Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” p. 496, though he was unaware of their significance and misinterpreted them as corrupt witnesses to the Arg. (b).
[54 ] For the distinguishing features of the Roman series of canticles, which was probably introduced into England by Augustine of Canterbury, see Heinrich Schneider, Die Altlateinischen Biblischen Cantica, Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron 29-30 (Beuron, 1938), pp. 78-79. Unfortunately, Schneider deals only with the early textual history of these canticles in Anglo-Saxon England. For the later period, see the comments of Helmut Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter, Buchreihe der Anglia, Zeitschrift für englische philologie 12 (Tübingen, 1968), pp. 252-56.
[55 ] See James Mearns, The Canticles of the Christian Church Eastern and Western in Early Medieval Times (Cambridge, 1914), pp. 52-53.
[56 ] See O’Neill, “Latin Learning at Winchester,” pp. 149-51.
[57 ] Originally written as an official psalter of Christ Church, Canterbury, in the first decades of the eleventh century. See Ker, Catalogue, no. 135, esp. p. 151; C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, p. 49, n. 1; and Andrew G. Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts . . . in . . . The British Library, 2 vols. (London, 1979), 1:90, who dates it between 1012 and 1023.
[58 ] These readings were identified by collating the Paris canticles and those from fourteen other contemporary English psalters (the ten with an Old English interlinear gloss listed by Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, p. 46, plus London, BL, MSS Arundel 155 and Harley 863; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 296; and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 391) with the corresponding biblical texts from which they derive: nos. 1-3 from the Vulgate; nos. 4-7, 9, 10, and 12 from the Vetus Latina. The two non-biblical canticles, the Te Deum and Quicumque (nos. 8 and 11), were collated with their respective editions in John Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology, 2nd ed., (London, 1907), pp. 1120-21, and C. H. Turner, “A Critical Text of the Quicumque vult,” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1910): 401-11.
[59 ] A conflation of the main reading sperabam with the variant a uespere that occurs in a few early manuscripts.
[60 ] This reading may have originated from contamination of super by (scept)-ra.
[61 ] Also in the Regius Psalter (D), where it is reinforced with a corresponding Old English gloss soþlice, found also in the Bosworth Psalter.
[62 ] Also in Douce 296.
[64 ] This location is also attested in the Regius Psalter and Douce 296, as well as in certain continental psalters.
[65 ] See David H. Wright, ed., The Vespasian Psalter, Early English Manuscripts in Facsmile 14 (Copenhagen, 1967), p. 52.
[67 ] Thomas Symons, ed., Regularis Concordia: The Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the English Nation (London, 1953), p. 15. See also his “Regularis Concordia: History and Derivation,” in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, pp. 37-59, at pp. 48-49, 52-53.
[68 ] Established after comparing the Paris litany with the other tenth- and eleventh-century litanies edited in Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies.
[69 ] To facilitate comparison, the individual invocations of the Paris litany are numbered in sequence. In the Lanelet list a corresponding agreement receives the same number, a disagreement is noted, and a deficiency is indicated by three dots.
[70 ] Noted and discussed by Sisam, Studies, p. 8, n. 2, who could not explain it. However, the sequence John-James is characteristic of the Mozarabic liturgy and occurs also in the Gallican rite; see F. Probst, Die abendländische Messe vom fünften bis zum achten Jahrhundert (Munster in Westfalen, 1896), pp. 52-53, and Klaus Gamber, Ordo Antiquus Gallicanus (Regensburg, 1965), pp. 35, 49.
[71 ] The Titus (Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies, no. xxi), Galba (Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies, no. xvi), Bury St. Edmunds (Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies, no. xlv), and Robert of Jumièges (Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies, no. xl) litanies, the first two of which are from Winchester.
[73 ] See Wormald in Facsimile, p. 18, who also noted the similarity between the Paris and the Lanelet litanies in their lists of virgins.
[74 ] In 1031 the Council of Limoges declared him an Apostle, a decision subsequently confirmed by Pope John XIX (1024-33). The implications of this decision for the dating of English litanies that list Martial as an Apostle were first pointed out by Wildhagen, “Studien,” pp. 467-68, subsequently by Francis Wormald, “The English Saints in the Litany in Arundel 60,” Analecta Bollandiana 64 (1946): 72-86.
[75 ] The portions of text in square brackets have been supplied.
[76 ] See André Pflieger, Liturgicae Orationis Concordantia Verbalia (Rome, 1964), p. 44.
[77 ] Compare the dedicatory verse in a late-ninth-century psalter from Eichstatt, “Rex pius et fortis bellator siue propheta / David psalmorum inclitus auctor erat . . . ,” Psalterium adbreuiatum Vercellense, ed. Pierre Salmon et al., Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis, 47 (Turnhout, 1991), p. 36.
[79 ] See Facsimile, p. 12 and n. 21.
[80 ] For help in deciphering and dating these notes and glosses, I am grateful to Dr. Eleanor Roach, and to Dr. Patricia Stirnemann and her colleagues at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
[82 ] On which see Korhammer, Monastischen Cantica, passim.
[83 ] E.g., the missing illuminated leaf before Ps. 26 in the Paris Psalter coincides with the first psalm for Matins on Monday in the Roman Office, where the corresponding Hour in the Benedictine Office begins with Ps. 32.
[84 ] See Leroquais, Les Psautiers, 1: v-xii and 48.
[85 ] Note the frequency in the Paris tituli of the Vox-formula (which makes the psalm more “personal”) even when it was lacking in the source, e.g., “Christus,” borrowed from the Arg. (b), is reformulated as “Vox Christi” in Pss. 2, 4, 65, and 129, and “Vox Dauid” is independently supplied in Pss. 50 and 56.
[86 ] C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, p. 49, n. 1.
[87 ] E.g., for a selected group of psalms (see p. 10 above) the Paris text has 197 variant readings, of which 51 are unique (unrecorded elsewhere and therefore probably errors), as against only 20 unique variants out of a total of 189 in MS Harley 603 from Christ Church Canterbury.
[88 ] See Ker in Facsimile, p. 13.
[89 ] See Wormald in Facsimile, p. 15.
[90 ] “Studien,” pp. 470-71. Also proposed by Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon Version, pp. 9-12, Charles Plummer, Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1902), p. 15, and James W. Bright, Gospel of St. John (Boston, 1904), p. xix, n. 2, but convincingly refuted by Kenneth Sisam, “An Old English Translation of a Letter from Wynfrith to Eadburga (A.D. 716-7) in Cotton MS. Otho C.1.,” Modern Language Review 18 (1923): 253-72, at p. 253, n. 1.
[91 ] See now Michael Lapidge, “Abbot Germanus, Winchcombe, Ramsey and the Cambridge Psalter,” in Words, Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Michael Korhammer et al. (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 99-129, who suggested that the Cambridge Psalter “may have been written at St. Augustine’s, Canterbury.”
[92 ] Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 99-100. The same conclusion was reached by Francis Wormald, English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952), p. 43, who noted similarities between the Paris Psalter drawings and those of BL, MS Arundel 155, a Canterbury manuscript.
[93 ] “The Scribe of the Paris Psalter,” pp. 179-83.
[94 ] In Facsimile, p. 14.
[95 ] See Helmut Gneuss, “The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold’s School at Winchester,” ASE 1 (1972): 63-83, at p. 81. For the identification of Kentish linguistic features, see Elmar Seebold, “Kentish- and Old English Texts from Kent,” in Words, Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Korhammer, pp. 409-34.
[96 ] “The Scribe of the Paris Psalter,” pp. 181-82.
[97 ] For other proposed locations (besides Winchester), see Max Förster, “Die altenglischen Texte der Pariser Nationalbibliothek,” Englische Studien 62 (1927): 113-31, at 129-30, who suggests that the Paris Psalter “in einem kleineren, südenglischen Kloster (jedenfalls aber nicht den Kulturzentren Canterbury und Winchester) geschrieben ist”; and Mearns, Canticles of the Christian Church, p. 52, who attributes (with a query) the Paris Psalter to Shaftesbury in Dorsetshire, but gives no reason.
Excepting Ps. 1, each prose psalm is preceded by an Introduction1 that states a guiding theme for the psalm, expressed in multiple levels of interpretation. Thus, the Introduction combines two characteristic features of medieval biblical exegesis, an argumentum and a structured scheme of interpretations. Take, for example, Introd. 14:2
The guiding theme for this psalm is the appeal to God for relief in time of trouble. It finds concrete application in the following: 1° a historical, specifically Davidic, interpretation; 2° a second historical interpretation,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 24 ]]
applying the psalm to another Old Testament event, the Babylonian Captivity; 4° a moral interpretation, applying the theme of the previous interpretation(s) to any contemporary man who finds himself in an analogous situation; 3° a Christological interpretation, applying the psalm to Christ on earth enduring similar sufferings. Such schemes of multiple interpretation were widely used in medieval biblical exegesis, the best known being St. Augustine’s fourfold scheme of historical, allegorical, anagogical, and moral interpretations. Broadly corresponding to Augustinian interpretations are the 1°, 4°, and 3° clauses of Introd. 14, but its 2° clause has no counterpart in the usual fourfold schemes of the Western Church.4
What makes this second historical interpretation unusual is its application of the psalms to Old Testament figures and events other than David, the traditional subject of historical interpretation. Its origins go back to the exegetical school of Antioch, perhaps even to Jewish exegesis.5 But its use in the West as part of a fourfold scheme that also incorporated another historical (Davidic) interpretation can be traced to Ireland. A number of psalters and psalter commentaries either from Ireland or from centers of Irish influence abroad, dating from the eighth and ninth centuries, have the scheme with two historical interpretations.6 One such commentary, the Old-Irish Treatise on the Psalter (ninth century), directs how the scheme should be applied:7
There are four things that are required [to be discerned] in the psalms, that is, the first historical interpretation and the second historical interpretation, the mystical meaning and the moral meaning. The first historical interpretation [refers] to David and to Solomon and to the above-mentioned persons, to Saul, to Absalom, to the persecutors generally. The second historical interpretation [refers] to Ezechias, to the [Jewish] people, to the Maccabees. The mystical meaning [refers] to Christ, to the earthly and the heavenly Church; the moral meaning to every holy person.8
These interpretative directions and specific applications are exactly those found in the Old English Introductions.
However, not all of the Introductions follow this fourfold scheme. Fifteen have a threefold scheme and four others have only one interpretation. These are not exceptions but accommodations of the composer to reconcile
[[ Print Edition Page No. 25 ]]
the fourfold scheme with his main source. To understand these accommodations it is necessary to examine his normal modus operandi. His main source was the pseudo-Bede Argumenta,9 a seventh- or eight-century Latin commentary, which provided for each psalm two or three discrete interpretations: a historical, the Arg. (a), which applies the psalm to David or to some other Old Testament figure or event; an allegorical, mainly Christological, the Arg. (b); and a moral, the Arg. (c), which is frequently lacking, however. Normally, the composer was able to construct his fourfold scheme for the Introductions from the Arg. (a) alone. Take, for example, the Arg. (a) for Ps. 14, “Uerba populi in captiuitate Babylonia optantis reditum ad patriam enumerantisque quibus meritis quis ad hanc peruenire queat.” Although its reference to an event after the time of David, the Babylonian Captivity, made it chronologically unsuitable for a first historical interpretation, this did not prevent the composer from retroactively applying its idea to David, presenting him as an exile who desired, as did the Jews in captivity, to return home. The same Arg. (a) provided a perfect match for the second historical interpretation, though in using it the composer modeled his phrasing on the first historical interpretation. Likewise, for the final two interpretations: he simply took the generalized theme of the first historical interpretation and with suitable modifications applied it to every just man (moral) and to Christ (Christological).10
Such was his normal method of composition, which produced the fourfold scheme found in the majority of the Introductions. But where the Arg. (a) was specifically Davidic or had a moral theme that did not offer suitable matter for a second historical interpretation, he omitted the latter, leaving the Introduction by default with a threefold scheme.11 For example, the Arg. (a) for Ps. 10, “Uerba Dauid quando Saulem fugiens in desertis est habitare compulsus,” is clearly Davidic. Its contents provided suitable matter for the first historical interpretation; by the same token they were unsuited to a second historical. Consequently, Introd. 10 has (1) a first historical interpretation describing how David fled from Saul; (2) a moral interpretation modeled on (1), presenting the just man as also oppressed by enemies; and (3) a Christological interpretation presenting Christ as oppressed by the Jews; but no second historical interpretation.
Why did the composer not use the idea of the Arg. (a) to construct a second historical interpretation as he had done mutatis mutandis for the first historical or Davidic interpretation?12 The answer lies in his choice of the latter as the dominant interpretation, as indicated by its location at the beginning of the Introduction,13 its relatively greater length and detail, its direct formulation of the theme for the other interpretations, and its agreement with the interpretation of the paraphrase, over the other three clauses.14 Because of its preeminence, the first historical (Davidic) clause was always provided, no matter how unsuitable the source, whereas the same necessity did not apply to the second historical. Finally, four other Introductions provide only a single interpretation,15 presumably because the Arg. (a) had a generalized moral or Christian theme that did not lend itself to further application.16 Thus, the number of interpretations in any individual Introduction was mainly determined by the contents of the corresponding Arg. (a).
There are a few exceptions. In three instances the Arg. (a), though suited to the composition of a fourfold scheme, was passed over, twice (Introds. 3, 7) in favor of a biblical titulus that mentioned David, once (Introd. 23) in favor of a moral interpretation from a Latin commentary.17 Quite frequently the composer used additional sources: for the Davidic interpretation, the biblical titulus preceding each psalm, the psalm itself, and psalter commentaries, especially that of Theodore of Mopsuestia;18 for the second historical interpretation, other books of the Old Testament that provided background information;19 for the moral and Christological interpretations, the Arg. (b) and (c),20 though not as frequently or heavily as claimed by Bright and Ramsay.
That the Introductions are by the same author who composed the paraphrase can be demonstrated from their shared use of distinctive interpretations similarly phrased in both. Take, for example,
|Introd. 36||“Dauid . . . lærde ealle geleaffulle þæ[t] hy ne onhyredon þam yfelwillendum, þeah him þuhte þæt hi gesælige and orsorge wæron. . . .”|
|Ps. 36.1||“Ne wundrie ge þæra yfelwillendra and þæra orsorgra, ne him na ne onhyriað”21 (Ro. Noli aemulari inter malignantes).|
Not only do both passages display verbal similarities in their common use of the verb onhyrian and its object yfelwillende, more significantly both additionally qualify the latter as orsorg. Arguably, the verbal similarities could be the product of different translators working out of a common glossarial tradition, but this can hardly be the case with the interpretative addition orsorg, the source of which is Theodore of Mopsuestia’s psalter commentary (in Latin translation), “noli aemulari, siue mirari eos qui, cum sint mali, tamen in diuitiis sunt et rerum omnium abundantia constituti.” Likewise, in Ps. 39 the paraphrase of the opening words Expectans expectaui Dominum, “Næs ic on nauht idlum anbide, þeah hit me lang anbid þuhte, þa ða ic anbidode Godes fultumes,” has its exact counterpart of interpretation and phrasing in the Introd., “Dauid . . . gylpende on þam sealme þæt he nauht idel nære, þa he anbidode Godes fultumes,” both based on the pseudo-Bede Arg. (c) for this psalm.22
Also indicative of common authorship is the consistent agreement between the interpretations proposed in the Introductions and those expressed or implied in the paraphrase. For example, in Introd. 37 the portrayal of David “andettende Drihtne his scylde, and seofigende his ungelimp þæt he ær mid his scyldum geearnode” explains a variety of departures from literal translation in the corresponding paraphrase: the addition “þa earfoðu þe ic nu þolie” (v. 3); the rendering of Latin perfect tense verbs in the description of the psalmist’s sufferings by the present in Old English; and the additions nu (four times) and gyt, all of which harmonize with the contemporaneity of
[[ Print Edition Page No. 28 ]]
the present participles andettende, seofigende in the Introduction.23 The same author not only composed Introductions and paraphrase, he intended them as complementary parts of a single translation.
A second copy of the Old English Introductions survives in the Vitellius Psalter (London, BL, MS Cotton Vitellius E. xviii), though so badly damaged in the Cottonian fire of 1731 that only fragments are now legible.24 This Gallicanum psalter with interlinear Old English gloss was written ca. 1060 at Winchester. The Introductions were entered on the margins beside the relevant psalm by the same scribe who wrote the Old English gloss. That he had a full copy of Ps(P), psalms and Introductions, is suggested by his gloss on pestilentiae (Ps. 1.1), where instead of cwyldes, the normal rendering in the glossarial tradition, he enters the unusual gloss wolberendra corresponding to wolbærendum of Ps(P).25 Broadly speaking, the language of the Vitellius Introductions is standard late West Saxon with an admixture of later, and possibly some early, Old English forms.26
A comparison between the readings of the Vitellius (Vi) and Paris (Pa) Introductions demonstrates that “there was no contact between the two manuscripts,”27 since Vi contains readings for which Pa has no equivalent and vice versa;28 for example, Introd. 41.4°, Vi’s “þara þe geswence<...> wære” as against Pa’s defective “þara geswenced”; conversely, Introd. 28.1°, Pa’s “heora ælmesan sealdon Gode for swa myclum gifum swa he him geaf” as against Vi’s, “hyra <...>san Gode swa mic<...> swa him geaf,” which lacks the verb of the first clause and the subject of the second.
Overall, even allowing for Vi’s damaged condition, Pa preserves a better text. Compare in Introd. 10.1° its reading “swa þer [MS þes] spearuwa” with Vi, “<...>wa deð hine,” the latter’s reflexive usage apparently an
[[ Print Edition Page No. 29 ]]
attempt to clarify an unfamiliar early West Saxon usage; likewise, Pa’s use of the adverb swa ylcelilce (Introds. 24.4°, 28.4°, 31.4°, 39.4°) where Vi has swa þæt ylce accords with Alfred’s use of swa ilce in Bo and Solil.29 Elsewhere, Pa has preserved essential words missing in Vi, for example, the initial Þa of Introd. 11 and oþþe hine of Introd. 17.4°, both first elements of correlative constructions; witegode (Introd. 20.2°); he (Introd. 43.1°[ii]), standing for God, the absence of which in Vi leaves the verb sealde without a defining subject.30 Rarely does Vi have an unambiguously superior reading such as the example given from Introd. 41.31
|Introd. 28.1°||eahta 7 twentigoðan||.xxuiii35|
|Introd. 9.4°||on þa ylcan gerad||on ðæt ylce <...>|
[[ Print Edition Page No. 30 ]]
|Introd. 3.4°||ælc þæra manna þe||ælc þæra þe|
|31.4°||7 he wit(e)gode||7 wit(e)gode|
|Introd. 29.4°||be ælcum rihtwison men||be ælcum <...>sum·|
|Introd. 37.3||he wolde þæt ylce don||he wolde þæt <...> on his|
|Introd. 46.1°||7 lærde||7 he <...>e|
Admittedly, any one of these differences could be explained as a change made by one or the other scribe to a common exemplar, but their collective weight, as well as the variety of types of differences (especially those of the final four categories) recall similar variations in the manuscript transmission of Alfred’s CP and Wærferth’s GD indicative of a long process of diffusion.40 It seems more likely that the Old English Introductions—and by extension, the rest of Ps(P)—survived into the eleventh century in at least two distinct lines of textual transmission.
[1 ] In the Paris manuscript two other Introductions (21, 26) are now lost through missing leaves, but their existence is verified from the independent copy in the Vitellius Psalter, on which see section III below.
[2 ] The layout and the numbering of interpretations is provided for clarification. The numbering follows that laid down in Ps(P)’s putative source, the Old-Irish Treatise on the Psalter, on which see p. 24.
[3 ] “(1) David sang this fourteenth psalm when he was expelled from his own country—he desired that he be allowed to return to it; (2) and likewise did the people of Israel when they were led in captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon; (3) and likewise does every just man when he sings this psalm—he desires for himself some period of comfort in this world and eternal tranquillity after this; (4) and likewise did Christ when he sang it—he lamented his difficulties to the Lord” (my translation).
[4 ] For a fuller treatment, see O’Neill, “Introductions,” pp. 26-27.
[5 ] See Fischer, “Bedae de Titulis,” p. 107.
[6 ] See McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 364-66, 375-77, and O’Neill, “Introductions,” pp. 27-30.
[7 ] As discovered by Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” p. 468.
[8 ] Kuno Meyer, ed., Hibernica Minora, being a Fragment of an Old-Irish Treatise on the Psalter (Oxford, 1894), p. 30. The translation is my own.
[10 ] Failure to recognize this economy in method of composition is the major weakness in the otherwise excellent analysis of the Introductions in Br. “Introds.” See Commentary on Introds. 2.4°, 20.3°, 41.4°.
[11 ] The threefold scheme is found in Introds. 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, 23, 34-36, 38, 47, and 48.
[12 ] Although occasionally moral in content (e.g., Introds. 11, 36), this interpretation is always spoken by David.
[13 ] For the two exceptions, see Commentary on Introds. 22.2°, 23.4°; see also Commentary on Introd. 2.1°.
[14 ] This can be certainly or probably established for at least twenty-seven psalms; see Commentary (under “Interpretation”) on Pss. 2, 9-11, 24-26, 40-43. The main exceptions are the paraphrases of Pss. 13, 19, 22, 29, all of which follow the interpretation of the second historical clause.
[15 ] Introds. 8, 18, 44, 49.
[17 ] See relevant Commentary.
[19 ] See, e.g., Commentary on Introds. 12.2°, 13.2°, 19.2°, and 25.2°.
[20 ] See, e.g., Commentary on Introds. 3.3°, 11.3°, 50.3°, and O’Neill, “Introductions,” p. 33. See also n. 10 above.
[21 ] “David . . . advised all believers not to emulate wickedly disposed people, even though it seemed to them [sc. the believers] that they were blessed and prosperous,” and “Do not admire the wickedly disposed and the prosperous, nor imitate them at all” (my translation). For other such correspondences between the Introductions and paraphrase, see O’Neill, “Introductions,” pp. 20-26.
[22 ] For a full identification of the Latin sources cited here, see relevant Commentary.
[23 ] For other examples, see Commentary (under “Interpretation”) on Pss. 18, 21, 31, 44.
[24 ] See Ker, Catalogue, no. 224. The Vitellius Psalter is edited by James L. Rosier (see Select Bibliography IA2 under PS[G]), though without the Introductions. The latter are partially edited in Bright and Ramsay, The West-Saxon Psalms, and in the apparatus of the present edition. For a complete edition, see Pulsiano, “Old English Introductions,” pp. 13-35.
[25 ] As noted by C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, p. 60, n. 1.
[26 ] See n. 36 below
[27 ] C. and K. Sisam in Facsimile, p. 16.
[29 ] On both of these early West Saxon usages, see Bately, “Authorship,” p. 89 and nn. 130-31.
[31 ] See also Commentary on Introd. 37.3°.
[32 ] Pulsiano, “Old English Introductions,” p. 14, suggests “a single exemplar.”
[33 ] These lists are selective.
[34 ] Here, and throughout, angled brackets enclosing three dots indicate an indeterminate number of missing or indecipherable letters.
[35 ] A similar pattern for the treatment of numerals occurs in Introds. 34, 37, 38, 47, and probably also Introds. 17, 23, 24, 27, 29, 40.
[37 ] These differences are discussed in the relevant Commentary.
[38 ] Discussed by Bately, “Authorship,” p. 78, n. 63.
[40 ] See D. M. Horgan, “The Relationship between the O.E. MSS. of King Alfred’s Translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care,” Anglia 91 (1973): 153-69, and David Yerkes, The Two Versions of Wærferth’s Translation of Gregory’s Dialogues: An Old English Thesaurus, Toronto Old English Series 4 (Toronto, 1979).
The main source of Ps(P)’s paraphrase was the Romanum psalter, an Old Latin version of the psalms probably introduced by Augustine of Canterbury to England in the late sixth century, which remained in general use there until the mid-tenth century.1 This dependence is evident in the consistent agreement between Ps(P) and the Romanum, especially where the latter differs from its main rival, the Gallicanum. For example,
|Ps.||4.2||gehyrdest þu = Ro. exaudisti (Ga. exaudiuit)|
|16.14||swynen flæsc = Ro. porcina (Ga. filiis)|
|46.3||ofer ealle oðre godas = Ro. super omnes deos (Ga. super omnem terram).|
It is difficult to be more precise about the type of Romanum that served as exemplar for Ps(P) because potential evidence in the form of unusual or variant readings admits of other explanations.2 Thus, in Ps(P) translations such as ac, and, Drihten, which correspond to variants in Weber’s critical edition of the Romanum, could have been independently supplied to improve readability; likewise with the numerous alterations in the number of nouns and in the tense and mood of verbs.3 Other variants in Ps(P) could have come from psalter commentaries based on the Romanum, such as Cassiodorus.
Granted these caveats, Ps(P) seems to be based on a text that has its closest affinities with an early group of English Romanum psalters dating from before the ninth century.4 Negatively, this is shown by the absence of readings found in the later Romanum psalters.5 For example,
|Ps. 17.24||and ic me behealde = Ro. et obseruabo (later Romanum psalters, si obseruauero)6|
|25.8||temples = Ro. tabernaculi (habitationis)|
|39.5||to idelnesse = Ro. in uanitatem (in uanitates)|
|46.9||Dryhten rixað = Ro. regnauit Dominus (in aeternum added).|
|Ps. 17.50||on þinum naman ic singe sealmas = early variant, in nomini tuo psalmum dicam (critical text omits in)|
|21.30||cumað = procedunt (procident)|
|29.13||þæt ic . . . gedrefed = ut non conpungar (et non conpungar)|
|31.9||þu scealt . . . geteon = constringes (constringe).|
The presence of these variants and the consistent absence of variants associated with the later family of psalters suggests that Ps(P) is based on an early text of the Romanum.
Although firmly based on the Romanum, Ps(P) shows some 140 agreements with the Gallicanum,8 where these two versions differ. Even when the majority of these agreements are rejected because they admit of other explanations, some 40 instances of clear dependence remain. For example,
|Ps. 9.30||gefangen = Ga. adtrahit (Ro. abstrahit)|
|30.22||fæstan byrig = Ga. ciuitate munita (Ro. ciuitate circumstantiae)|
|38.8||mid þe is eall min æht = Ga. substantia mea apud te est (Ro. substantia mea tamquam nihil ante te est)|
|41.9||bebead . . . his sang = Ga. declarauit canticum eius (Ro. declarauit).9|
That the paraphrast might have unwittingly picked up these Gallicanum readings as contaminations present in his Romanum exemplar, or from psalter commentaries based on the Gallicanum, is unlikely for several reasons. First, none of these readings is an attested variant in extant English Romanum psalters. Second, the majority occur precisely at places where the Romanum reading is difficult or obscure, suggesting that the paraphrast deliberately chose them as “better” readings. Third, at least twelve of them occur in Ps(P) side by side with the corresponding Romanum reading, a combination that implies conscious collating of the two versions of the psalter.10 For example,
|Ps. 11.4||þa oferspræcan and þa yfelspræcan = Ga. magniloquam + Ro. maliloquam|
|24.17||tobræd and gemanigfealdod = Ro. dilatatae + Ga. multiplicatae|
|39.18||friðiend . . . gescyldend = Ro. liberator + Ga. protector|
|47.3||he tobrædde . . . is aset = Ro. dilatans + Ga. fundatur.|
This practice of deliberately choosing “better” readings from rival versions of the psalter may also explain the occasional correspondences between Ps(P) and the Hebraicum (He.),11 Jerome’s scholarly translation of the psalms, which was not used in the liturgy, as in
|Ps. 15.10||beforan = He. ante (Ro. cum)|
|16.5||aslide = He. labentur (Ro. moueantur)|
|34.15||hi blissedon . . . on minum ungelimpe = He. in infirmitate mea laetabantur (Ro. aduersum me laetati sunt).|
Five correspondences between Ps(P) and the Vetus Latina (VL), the oldest version of the Latin psalter, most likely originated as readings in Latin commentaries on the psalms or as contaminations in a Ro. psalter:12
|Ps. 18.7||oð . . . heanesse = VL ad summum (Ro. a summo)|
|33.14||forbeode his tungan = VL (..)hibeat linguam suam . . . labia eius (Ro. cohibe linguam tuam . . . labia tua)|
|36.14||besyrian = VL decipiant (Ro. deiciant)|
|39.14||ne lata þu = VL intende (Ro. respice)|
|43.16||beforan me and ongean me = VL ante me + Ro. contra me.|
In translating the Latin psalms, the paraphrast added numerous explanations and interpretations, which derive mainly from Latin psalter commentaries current in the Western Church during the early Middle Ages. These commentaries present two distinct types of exegesis: (1) the allegorical (including Christological), first developed at Alexandria, practiced by Augustine, Cassiodorus, Jerome, et al., and representing the orthodox trend in Western psalter exegesis; (2) the literal and historical, cultivated at Antioch, available in the West (though with limited circulation) mainly through two Latin translations of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Greek commentary on the psalms.13 Although containing both types of exegesis, Ps(P) is remarkable in favoring the second.
The influence of the allegorical commentaries, although widespread in Ps(P), is rarely decisive or even systematic, tending towards the interpretation of individual words (a notable exception is Ps. 44). That influence is
[[ Print Edition Page No. 35 ]]
often difficult to trace to a specific Latin source, not only because the Old English paraphrase precludes verbal comparison but also because the allegorical commentaries then current shared a common body of interpretation.
1. Cassiodorus. Cassiodorus’s Expositio Psalmorum (written ca. 548) emerges as the most influential source of allegorical interpretations.14 This work, which was known in England from an early date, offered the advantages of verse-by-verse commentary and a Romanum psalter as its base text.
2. Jerome. Second in importance as a source of allegorical interpretations were the two commentaries of Jerome, the Commentarioli and the Tractatus (though addressing only Pss. 1, 5, 7, 9, 14). However, some of this influence was almost certainly transmitted to Ps(P) through an intermediary, the Breviarium in Psalmos (no. 3).
3. Pseudo-Jerome Breviarium in Psalmos (Brev.).15 This work, which enjoyed great popularity during the early Middle Ages, is a conflation of Jerome’s two genuine commentaries with other works of allegorical exegesis.16 As a result, it is impossible to decide in some twelve instances whether Ps(P) borrowed from Jerome directly or through the medium of the Brev.17 Another ten instances are unambiguous (at least in regard to dependence on Jerome) because the correspondence between Ps(P) and the Brev. is lacking in Jerome.18 Conversely, Ps(P) sometimes has interpretations found in Jerome but lacking in the Brev. For example, at Ps. 7.13 Ps(P) follows Jerome, Tractatus (25.171-90), who identifies the Devil as the subject of gladium suum uibrauit, where Brev. (col. 886A/B) has God;19 likewise, Ps. 38.10, “ic ongeat þæt þu hit geðafodest” (Ro. tu fecisti me), is based on Jerome, Commentarioli 207, “Ideo patienter fero, quia te scio ad probationem me temptationibus reliquisse,” where the Brev. lacks this comment.
4. Augustine. The third of the three great Western allegorical commentators is the least well represented in Ps(P), probably because the diffuse style and lengthy comments of his work, Enarrationes in Psalmos, made it unsuitable
[[ Print Edition Page No. 36 ]]
as a source for interpretations.20 Nor does Ps(P) reveal any discernible dependence on other allegorical (patristic) commentators such as Ambrose, Arnobius, and Hilary.
5. Glosa Psalmorum ex traditione seniorum. The influence of the Brev. has already been noted both as a conduit for Jerome’s exegesis and also for commentary not found in the corresponding parts of Jerome. In addition to ten examples of the latter noted above, there are twenty-six other instances where Ps(P) agrees with the interpretations of the Brev. Such interpretations, since they had no obvious parallels in the known commentaries, were assumed to be original to the Brev., but the recent discovery of another Latin commentary on the psalms, the Glosa Psalmorum ex traditione seniorum, has demolished that supposition. This work, composed in a Benedictine monastery in southern Gaul during the first half of the seventh century, has now been shown to have been the main source of the Brev.’s reputed originality.21 For the thirty-six instances where Ps(P) has interpretative matter agreeing with both the Brev. and the Glosa it does not seem possible to determine which is the immediate source.22 That Ps(P) might have depended directly on the Glosa is suggested by its treatment of Ro. exaltare inimicorum tuorum (Ps. 7.7), where the unusual translation “geweorða þe sylfne þara” has its closest parallel in the comment “ut tu magnificatus sis in illis,” found only in the Glosa.
1. Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Latin translations of Julian of Eclanum and the Epitome. The dominant influence on Ps(P) was the historical exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore (ca. 350-428) wrote his commentary on the psalms in Greek, probably in the last quarter of the fourth century.24 His exegesis was unusual in applying the psalms almost exclusively to David or to events within the Old Testament period, for example, the Babylonian Captivity, the reign of Ezechias; in rejecting the traditionally accepted Messianic interpretation of certain psalms; and in using literary criteria when selecting readings from other versions of the psalter (especially the Hebrew and Syriac) to establish a critical text. As a result of his condemnation by the Three Chapters (548) and the Second Council of Constantinople (553), most of Theodore’s original Greek commentary was lost. It survived in the West, however, thanks to a Latin translation by the Pelagian bishop, Julian of Eclanum, made sometime after 421. Subsequently, an anonymous author produced a Latin epitome of Julian.25 The latter, in turn, was used by the composer of the pseudo-Bede Argumenta (a), which, as a primary source of the Old English Introductions, provided another conduit of Theodorean exegesis to Ps(P).
Theodorean influence in Ps(P) is most readily discernible in the bias towards literal and historical interpretations, specifically in the application of the psalms to David’s life and to later Old Testament events, where the orthodox commentators apply them to Christ or to the Church. For example, Ps. 17.42, clamauerunt . . . ad Dominum, which the orthodox commentators interpret as the wicked calling out to God (Dominum), became for Theodore David’s gentile enemies appealing to their gods, “subauditur [sc. dominum] suum, hoc est idola,” an interpretation reflected in Ps(P), “hy clypodon to heora godum.”26 In Ps. 41.5, haec recordatus sum, where Cassiodorus interprets haec as the psalmist’s sins, Theodore read it as the former, pre-Exilic prosperity (“status prioris”) of the Jewish people now in the Babylonian Captivity, as did Ps(P), “Ac þonne gemunde ic þine ærran gyfa.”27
Ps(P) also depends heavily on Theodore’s paraphrases and emendations of obscure and difficult passages in the psalms. For example, Ps. 28.6, uitulum Libani, Ps(P) translated as “þa lytlan onwæstmas” on the basis of Theodore’s textual emendation, “uitulum in hoc loco uoluit dicere pro uitulamine: ita namque et Hebraeus habet sicut uitulamina Libani. Vitulamina uero Libani dicuntur parua uirgulta.” Likewise, Ps. 47.9, sicut audiuimus, ita et uidimus, Ps(P) expanded to “Swa swa we geogeare hyrdon þæt God dyde be urum fæderum, swa we geseoð nu þæt he deð be us,” corresponding to Theodore’s historical application to the Jews, “similia sunt quae nunc gesta gratulamur illis uirtutibus, quae patrum nostrorum memoria impletae referuntur.”
|Ps. 18.14||et ab alienis parce seruo tuo si mei non fuerint dominati|
|Ps(P)||“from ælðeodegum feondum. . . . Gif mine fynd ne ricsiað ofer me”|
|Julian (102.63-65)||“Alienos ergo in hoc loco hostes uocat. . . . si me non presserit hostium metus” [Epitome 103.104-5 interprets alienis and dominati allegorically as temptations to sin].|
Conversely, the influence of the Epitome, as against Julian, is apparent in instances such as
|Ps. 33.9||gustate et uidete|
|Ps(P)||“Fandiað nu, þonne ongite ge”|
|Epitome (149.34-35)||“A similitudine earum rerum, quae gustu intelleguntur. Et uidete: Probate, neque enim gustu uidemus” [Julian does not have the Epitome’s pedantic explanation of uidete].29|
At first sight such correspondences suggest that the paraphrast had access to full versions of both Julian and the Epitome, but the reality of the manuscript evidence indicates otherwise.30 No full text of Julian has survived, while all copies of the Epitome begin at Ps. 16.11b, suggesting derivation from the same defective exemplar. Significantly, there exist two Hiberno-Latin psalter commentaries that conflate parts of Julian and the Epitome,31 thus providing a possible model for the type of Theodorean source used by Ps(P). But neither commentary’s combination of Julian and Epitome would account for all of Ps(P)’s Theodorean matter.32 Given the incomplete nature of the evidence, it is not possible to determine the exact degree of Ps(P)’s dependence on either Latin version of Theodore.
2. Expositio Psalmorum. Since the Epitome was transmitted incomplete (it lacks commentary on Pss. 1-16.11a), some Hiberno-Latin psalter commentaries filled the lacuna from another commentary, recently identified by De Coninck, which he calls the Expositio Psalmorum.33 Judging by its sources, it was composed sometime between the early seventh and the mid-eighth century, though its place of origin remains unknown. Although drawing on Theodore, the Expositio is more radical in its literal and historical approach than his commentary. Thus, it ignores the Messianic interpretations of Pss. 2 and 8, which even Theodore conceded. Remarkably, Ps(P) also interpreted these two psalms literally. Moreover in Ps. 15, Ps(P) again has historical interpretations that agree with the Expositio against the historical interpretations of Theodore. Thus, at Ps. 15.4, Ps(P) adopted the Expositio’s interpretation of Ro. (nominum) illorum as referring to false gods (heora godum . . . heargum) rather than the surrounding gentiles (as in Theodore). Likewise at Ps. 15.10, Ps(P) translated Ro.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 40 ]]
sanctum as an anointed person (gehalgodan) in accordance with Expositio, “regi unctione . . . Dauid,”34 where Theodore interpreted sanctum as the Jewish people who could claim some holiness by comparison with their gentile neighbors (Th. 81.215-16, “Sanctum autem uocat populum in comparationem gentium”). On this evidence it seems likely that Ps(P) drew on a source that for Pss. 1-16.11 contained the Expositio and thereafter a mixture of Julian and the Epitome.
The influence of other sources is apparent in instances where Ps(P) contains an interpretation unattested in, unrelated to, or even at variance with the psalter commentaries. The most influential of these other sources is King Alfred’s Old English works,35 especially his translations of Pope Gregory’s Cura Pastoralis (CP) and Boethius’s De consolatione Philosophiae (Bo). For example, Ps(P)’s elaboration of conpungimini (Ps. 4.5) as a process that involved both repenting of sins and abandoning of them comes from CP; likewise, the idea expressed in Introd. 18 that God provided man with created things in order that he might use, not worship, them comes from Bo. That these ideas come directly from Alfred, not his Latin originals, is indicated by close verbal similarities between Ps(P) and Alfred in their expression of these ideas in Old English. Another, though minor, source used for Ps(P) is the Bible, especially the historical books of the Old Testament, which provided supplementary information for the historical clauses of the Old English Introductions.36 Finally, Ps(P) contains a considerable number of clarifications, elaborations, and interpretations that have no known source.37 Since they harmonize for the most part with the interpretative guidelines of the Old English Introductions, it may be surmised that they are the independent work of the paraphrast.
A study of Ps(P)’s sources reveals much about how the work was composed. Although firmly based on the Romanum, it used the Gallicanum
[[ Print Edition Page No. 41 ]]
as a source of alternative readings in what must have been a process of active collation. At the same time it drew heavily on Latin psalter commentaries, most of all on the two Latin versions of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Greek commentary. This dependence inevitably raises the question of how the paraphrast gained access to works that were outside the mainstream of Western psalter exegesis.
One recent suggestion is that Ps(P)’s Theodorean exegesis came from Malmesbury, where it was preserved from the time of Aldhelm who, in turn, had learned it from Theodore of Tarsus at Canterbury.38 But the theory is built on a framework of suppositions, notably the unsubstantiated claim that Theodore of Tarsus (and Aldhelm) taught Theodorean exegesis. In fact this claim flies in the face of what little is known about Theodore of Tarsus. As the Pope’s representative to the English Church, he presided at the Council of Hatfield (680), which reiterated the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s works originally proclaimed by the Second Council of Constantinople (553); and as a Greek scholar he must have known that that council had singled out for condemnation passages from Theodore’s Greek commentary on the psalms.
In fact, Theodorean exegesis was known from an early date in Anglo-Saxon England, as evidenced by a Latin psalter commentary written in Northumbria in the eighth century (preserved in Vatican Library, MS Palatinus latinus 68), which contains excerpts from the Epitome.39 Although the Northumbrian commentary cannot have been Ps(P)’s source, since it does not have the Julian material attested in the latter,40 as an English witness to Hiberno-Latin psalter exegesis it is symptomatic. Of fourteen extant Latin psalters and psalter commentaries that carry Theodorean exegesis, all but three can be traced either to Ireland or to centers of Irish influence.41 Since the Irish were the main transmitters of Theodore during the early Middle Ages, there is a strong presumption that Ps(P) drew on a Hiberno-Latin psalter commentary.
This presumption is strengthened by other kinds of evidence. The fourfold scheme of the Old English Introductions with its two historical clauses is most likely an Irish invention;42 and the pseudo-Bede Argumenta, which provided the matter for these Introductions, may also have been composed in Ireland—at least the historical part, the Arg. (a), the primary source for
[[ Print Edition Page No. 42 ]]
these Introductions.43 Likewise, Ps(P)’s historical treatment of Pss. 2 and 8, which other commentators (including even Theodore) interpreted as Messianic, has its only Western parallel in certain Irish psalter commentaries that incorporated the anonymous Expositio Psalmorum for Pss. 1-16.11.44
Besides these major influences Ps(P) occasionally contains explanatory matter that does not belong to Psalter exegesis but seems to derive from other Hiberno-Latin sources. At Ps. 45.5, the translation of Ro. fluminis impetus laetificat ciuitatem Dei by “Þa wæs geblissod seo Godes burh on Hierusalem for þam cyme þæs scures þe hy geclæsnode,” with its reference to torrential rain cleansing the streets of Jerusalem, is best explained by reference to a Hiberno-Latin work, De Locis Sanctis, composed by Adomnan, abbot of Iona, ca. 700.45 Significantly, the same explanation of Ps. 45.5 occurs in the Northumbrian Psalter commentary mentioned above (Vat. Pal. lat. 68).46 At Ps. 44.16, Ps(P)’s elaboration of Ro. uirgines et proximae eius with a threefold classification of the souls who will be saved almost certainly derives from Irish eschatology.47
Also consistent with, though not exclusive to, Irish exegetical practice are the dependence on the pseudo-Jerome Breviarium in Psalmos, which in its extant form may be an Irish compilation;48 the use of readings from the Gallicanum, “the Irish Psalter par excellence”;49 and the division of the 150 psalms into three fifties, implicit in Ps(P)’s surviving structural unit of fifty psalms.50 Nor does the presence in Ps(P) of allegorical interpretations side by side with Theodore’s literal exegesis prejudice the claim for dependence on an Irish commentary; if anything, it strengthens the claim, since many Irish psalter commentaries combine the two types of exegesis without concern for consistency.51
Some of these arguments, though with far less evidence, were made by Robert L. Ramsay, who went so far as to propose a specific source for Ps(P), the ninth-century Old-Irish Treatise on the Psalter.52 Two obvious objections, the linguistic barrier and the fact that only a fragment of commentary on Ps. 1 has survived from this work, he anticipated by hypothesizing that Ps(P) might have used a Hiberno-Latin version of this Old Irish work, either in commentary form or in gloss. As evidence for the existence of the latter, he pointed to the Latin glosses in a late-tenth-century Irish psalter, the Southampton Psalter (Cambridge, St. John’s College, MS C.9).53 But these glosses cannot be the source of Ps(P), since after Ps. 1 they contain only sporadic Theodorean exegesis and certainly none of the sustained commentary on which Ps(P) drew.54 For example, Ps. 3.8 dentes, which Ps(P) (following Theodore) interprets as physical strength (mægen), the Southampton Psalter (fol. 6r) reads as “sensus eorum qui ruminant omnia mala”; Ps. 10.5 palpebrae, Ps(P) interprets as rihta dom (Julian, diiudicat), but the Southampton Psalter (fol. 10r) as “angeli uel sensus”; Ps. 28.6 uitulum Libani, Ps(P) translates as þa lytlan onwæstmas (Julian, uitulamina), but the Southampton Psalter (fol. 20r) as “multi uituli ceruorum.”
A more promising parallel is a recently discovered compendium of Irish biblical exegesis called the “Reference-Bible” (Paris, BnF, MS Fonds lat. 11561, fols. 53r-63r),55 composed ca. 800, which includes a commentary on the psalms. The latter has a general introduction with guidelines (by example) for the “Irish” fourfold scheme of interpretations,56 followed by a commentary that combines Theodorean (exclusively from the Epitome) with allegorical exegesis. Although it cannot be Ramsay’s putative single source, it does provide a model of the type of Hiberno-Latin commentary on which the author of Ps(P) might have drawn.57
To sum up: Ps(P) depended heavily on the commentaries of Julian and the Epitome, as well as the Expositio Psalmorum (for Pss. 1-16.11a) and the Arg. (a), a combination found only in certain Hiberno-Latin psalter commentaries. Ps(P) also used passages that derive ultimately from at least two other Hiberno-Latin works. Rather than claim individual borrowings from these several sources, it seems more reasonable to posit that Ps(P) drew them all from a single source of Hiberno-Latin origin, perhaps a heavily glossed (Gallicanum) Psalter.
How such a Hiberno-Latin psalter commentary reached the author of Ps(P) may never be explained, though his identification with King Alfred58 suggests possible channels. It could have come from the Continent with the clerical scholars who helped implement Alfred’s educational plan, since such Hiberno-Latin commentaries were to be found in Continental libraries, though increasingly neglected after 800.59 Alternatively, it could have been already available on the British mainland (from earlier contacts with Ireland), possibly either in Mercia or Wales, to be passed on to Alfred by helpers from these areas. Another possible conduit is direct contact between Alfred’s Wessex and Ireland, such as is attested by Asser’s biography of the king.60
A more central question, however, is why the author of Ps(P) chose to follow Theodorean exegesis in preference to the allegorical and Christological interpretations that then dominated Western biblical exegesis. Arguably, what attracted him was its realistic approach, its explanations of the difficult text of the psalms in concrete and historical (Old Testament) terms. Nor is dependence on this exegesis incompatible with his recourse to allegorical interpretations, if one sees him as a pragmatic paraphrast with didactic concerns, choosing whichever interpretation, literal or allegorical, best clarified the meaning of the immediate passage while harmonizing with the guiding first clause of his Introduction. His choice of a work condemned as heretical is hardly significant, since presumably he would no more have known of its condemnation than he would have read Theodore’s name in his source. In fact, judging by the Irish evidence, he may have found his Theodorean material attributed to that most orthodox of commentators, St. Jerome.61
[1 ] On this and other versions of the Latin psalter used in Anglo-Saxon England, see C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, pp. 47-50; and Richard Marsden, The Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 15 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 27-28, 69-70, and 141-42.
[2 ] Many of the problems encountered in reconstructing the Latin psalter on which Ps(P) is based are similar to those identified in the reconstruction of the Greek Bible behind Ulfilas’s Gothic translation, and the caveats entered on the latter are instructive; see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, 1977), pp. 388-93.
[3 ] See further n. 27, below.
[4 ] A group identified by Weber, Le Psautier, p. ix.
[5 ] Psalters that date from the second half of the tenth century and after. Their readings are recorded in Weber’s apparatus at the bottom of the page under the sigla B, C, D, N2. Here and throughout this chapter the abbreviation “Ro.,” unless otherwise qualified, stands for Weber’s critical text of the Romanum.
[6 ] A reading probably taken from the Benedictine Rule (Chap. 7.18), as suggested by Wildhagen, “Studien,” p. 452.
[7 ] Given in Weber’s edition under the sigla A, H, M, N, S.
[8 ] Gallicanum readings taken from Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem, vol. 10.
[9 ] See also Commentary on Pss. 7.7, 30.22.
[10 ] For other instances see Commentary on Pss. 17.5, 29.4, 34.26, 36.24, 37.11, 39.9, 43.4, 49.17.
[11 ] Hebraicum readings taken from Weber, Biblia Sacra, 1:771 ff (see Select Bibliography, IB4).
[12 ] Vetus Latina readings taken from Weber, Le Psautier; see pp. x-xi, xxii. The most likely sources of VL readings would have been the commentaries of Cassiodorus and Augustine. For useful guidelines on tracing VL influence in Old English works, see Richard Marsden, “Old Latin Intervention in the Old English Heptateuch,” ASE 23 (1994): 229-64.
[13 ] On Alexandrian exegesis, see Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952), pp. 1-14; on Antiochene exegesis, ibid., pp. 14-20, M. L. Laistner, “Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe,” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947): 19-32, and McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 340 ff. Failure to realize that Theodorean exegesis permeates Ps(P)’s interpretations vitiated the source study of Wichmann, “König Aelfred’s Übertragung,” esp. pp. 41-49, and the lexical study of Tinkler, Vocabulary.
[14 ] For significant parallels with Cassiodorus, see Commentary on Pss. 21.14, 23.3-4, 38.14, 41.3, 44 (passim), 48.14-15, 50.8.
[15 ] See Eligius Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 2nd ed. (Steenbrugge, 1961), no. 629; Bonifatius Fischer et al., eds., Der Stuttgarter Bilderpsalter II (Exegetische Erklarungen) (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 254-56; and McNamara, “Psalter Text,” p. 225, n. 61. All suggest that the Brev. in its extant form is an Irish compilation.
[16 ] Most notably, the seventh-century Glosa Psalmorum, discussed below.
[17 ] In these cases my policy in the Commentary is to identify Jerome as the source.
[18 ] See Commentary on Pss. 8.3, 23.4, 29.6, 33.17, 36.33, 44.9 and 12, 48.11, 49.18 and 21.
[19 ] Cited in relevant Commentary. Interestingly, the Anglo-Saxon artist who drew the illustration in the Paris Psalter adjacent to the corresponding Old English paraphrase portrays the Devil as the archer.
[20 ] For possible borrowings, see Commentary on Pss. 17.38, 34.11, 44.10, 48.18, 49.20.
[21 ] Helmut Boese, Anonymi Glosa Psalmorum ex traditione seniorum, 2 vols. (Freiburg, 1992), and idem, Die Alte “Glosa Psalmorum ex traditione seniorum” (Freiburg, 1982).
[22 ] In such cases the Commentary cites the Glosa as (ultimate) source.
[23 ] As listed by Robert E. McNally, The Study of the Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Westminster, Md., 1959), pp. 100-101. Claims made by Br. “Introds.” and Tinkler, Vocabulary, for Ps(P)’s dependence on the pseudo-Bede Commentarius (PL 93, 483-1089) and a pseudo-Remigius psalter commentary (PL 131, 133-844) are untenable. Both works are twelfth-century compilations; on the first, see Germain Morin, “Le Pseudo-Bède sur les Psaumes et l’opus super Psalterium de Maître Manegold de Lautenbach,” Revue Bénédictine 28 (1911): 331-40, Heinrich Weisweiler, “Die handschriftlichen Vorlagen zum Erstdruck von Pseudo-Beda In Psalmorum librum exegesis,” Biblica 18 (1937): 197-204, and Fischer, “Bedae de Titulis,” p. 90; on the second, see Alberto Vaccari, “Il Genuino Commento ai Salmi di Remigio di Auxerre,” in Scritti di erudizione e di filologia, 2 vols. (Rome, 1952), 1:283-329.
[24 ] For an account of Theodore and his psalter exegesis, see Robert Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste, Studi e Testi 141 (Vatican City, 1948), esp. pp. 55-78.
[25 ] Both Latin versions are discussed and edited by De Coninck, Theodori Mopsuesteni. For evidence that the Epitome might have been composed in southern Gaul, see Pádraig Ó Néill, “Irish Transmission of Late Antique Learning: The Case of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Psalms,” in Ireland and Europe: Texts and Transmission, ed. Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Dublin, 2001), pp. 68-77.
[26 ] For the full text of the quotations and their identification, see relevant Commentary.
[27 ] For other striking examples of dependence on Theodore, see Commentary on Pss. 7.5, 9.18, 15.3. Theodore frequently emends the mood or tense of verbs, but it is uncertain whether corresponding changes in Ps(P) are borrowed from him or are the independent work of the paraphrast.
[28 ] In the quotations from Julian and the Epitome, reference is to page and line of De Coninck’s editions of both works.
[29 ] As shown by De Coninck, Theodori Mopsuesteni, pp. xxvii and 149, from comparison with Theodore’s original Greek. For other examples of Ps(P)’s dependence on the Epitome rather than Julian, see Commentary on Pss. 16.15, 17.12, 21.11, 32.15; for the opposite, see Commentary on Pss. 16.11 and 14, 17.8 and 46, 18.14, 21.3, Introd. 45.2°.
[30 ] See De Coninck, Theodori Mopsuesteni, pp. ix-xv, xxxvii-xlv, and McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 360-61.
[31 ] The first preserved in Milan, Biblioteca ambrosiana, MS C 301 inf. (“The Milan Commentary”); the second at St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 261 (Eclogae tractatorum in Psalterium). On the first, see Robert Devreesse, ed., Le Commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes (I-LXXX), Studi e Testi 93 (Vatican City, 1939), p. xxvi; McNamara, “Psalter Text,” pp. 221 ff.; and De Coninck, Theodori Mopsuesteni, pp. xv-xvii. On the second, see McNamara, “Psalter Text,” p. 227 and Appendix III (excerpts).
[32 ] Thus, the Milan Commentary lacks Julian on Ps. 16.12a-15, from which Ps(P) apparently borrows; likewise, for their introduction to Ps. 45, both the Milan Commentary and the Eclogae use only the Epitome, where Ps(P) has the original Theodorean material, as verified from a comparison with the surviving Greek fragments; see Br., “Introds.,” p. 554, and Commentary on Introd. 45.2°.
[33 ] Lucas De Coninck, ed., Incerti Auctoris Expositio Psalmorum I:1-XVI:11A iuxta litteram, 2 parts (Kortrijk, 1989). I am indebted to Dr. De Coninck for providing me with a copy of this privately printed edition.
[34 ] For quotations, see relevant Commentary.
[36 ] See, e.g., Commentary on Introds. 7, 12, 13.
[37 ] For examples in the Introductions, see O’Neill, “Introductions,” p. 37; in the paraphrase, see Commentary on Pss. 8.5, 10.7, 21.13, 34.3, 50.10.
[38 ] G. T. Dempsey, “Aldhelm of Malmesbury and the Paris Psalter: A Note on the Survival of Antiochene Exegesis,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 38 (1987): 368-86.
[39 ] Edited by McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos.
[40 ] See ibid., pp. 73-75.
[41 ] See McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 343-46.
[44 ] See McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 371-72.
[46 ] See p. 41 and n. 39; also McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos, pp. 55-56 and 102.
[47 ] See relevant Commentary.
[48 ] See n. 15, above.
[49 ] McNamara, “Psalter Text,” p. 263.
[50 ] Although this triple division is mentioned in the psalter commentaries of Hilary and Cassiodorus (see Marc Milhau, “Sur la division tripartite du Psautier [Hilaire de Poitiers, tr. Ps. instr. 11],” in Le Psautier chez les Pères, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 4 [Strasbourg, 1994], pp. 55-72), its application to psalters (especially in decoration) probably originated in Ireland, whence it spread to England and the Continent. On its use in Ireland, see McNamara, “Psalter Text,” pp. 269 ff; in England, see Kathleen Hughes, “Evidence for Contacts between the Churches of the Irish and English from the Synod of Whitby to the Viking Age,” in England before the Conquest, ed. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 49-67, at p. 60.
[51 ] See, e.g., McNamara’s analysis of the sources used in the Northumbrian commentary, Glossa in Psalmos, pp. 48-56.
[52 ] “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” pp. 481-85.
[53 ] Described by Françoise Henry, “Remarks on the Decoration of Three Irish Psalters,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 61C (1960): 23-40. See also Pádraig De Brún and Máire Herbert, Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in Cambridge Libraries (Cambridge, 1980).
[54 ] I have examined the sources of the Southampton Psalter glosses fully as part of an edition in progress.
[55 ] See Bischoff, “Turning-Points,” pp. 88 and 100; McNamara, “Psalter Text,” pp. 227-29, 291-98 (Appendix IV, which has an edition of the introduction); and Martin McNamara, “Plan and Source Analysis of Das Bibelwerk, Old Testament,” in Irland und die Christenheit: Bibelstudien und Mission, ed. Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Stuttgart, 1987), pp. 84-112, at 100-103.
[56 ] For evidence that the Old English paraphrast also used guidelines, rather than fully developed interpretations, in composing the Introductions, see Chap. 2 above, and O’Neill, “Introductions,” pp. 35-37.
[57 ] For a discussion of the fundamental similarities shared by Hiberno-Latin psalter commentaries, see McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 363-77.
[59 ] See Bischoff, “Turning-Points,” pp. 93-94. One possible conduit could have been Alfred’s advisor, Grimbald, who was trained at Rheims, which housed Hiberno-Latin psalter commentaries.
[60 ] Asser’s Life of King Alfred, ed. William H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1959), §§76, 91, and 102 (pp. 60, 76-77, and 89, respectively); translated by Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 91, 101, and 102, respectively. See also Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 302. For evidence of such contacts, see Hughes, “Evidence,” (as in n. 50, above), pp. 58 and 66.
[61 ] See McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos, p. 51.
Among Old English translations of the psalms Ps(P) is unique in presenting a prose paraphrase. Although this method of translation was admirably suited to the author’s didactic purpose, its application to the psalms posed special problems. Of these the most serious was textual: the psalms contain many difficult and obscure passages, and the relationship between verses within a psalm is often ill-defined. In a literal, word-for-word translation, such as those found in the Old English interlinear glossed psalters, these textual difficulties could be (and were) simply transposed to the Old English, or ignored, but in a paraphrase they had to be confronted. The author of Ps(P) dealt with them as follows.
Structurally, he treated each psalm as an independent unit, providing for it an individual introduction, which sketched the historical circumstances of its composition and stated its guiding theme.1 Within each psalm he worked from verse to verse, guided by the verse division found in English Romanum psalters. A striking example of this dependence is found in Ps. 44, which has a verse beginning, “utan beslepte and gegyrede . . . mid gyldnum fnasum,” corresponding to Ro. in fimbreis aureis. Whereas in continental Romanum psalters this Latin phrase ends v. 14, in English Romanum psalters and in Ps(P) it begins v. 15. This method of working from verse to verse,2 which found confirmation among psalter commentators such as Cassiodorus, would have eased the task of translation; at the same time it made possible ready comparison with the parallel Latin text.
For clarifications and interpretations of problematic words, clauses, and verses, he drew heavily, and eclectically, on Latin psalter commentaries. Yet despite the variety of sources used, he achieved a degree of coherence by superimposing on his paraphrase the guiding interpretation from the Introduction (usually historical), with which different interpretations and textual difficulties were forcibly reconciled. For example, in Ps. 8 he used Theodore of Mopsuestia’s explanations of individual verses, but rejected his Messianic interpretation of the psalm in favor of the interpretation about
[[ Print Edition Page No. 46 ]]
God’s continuing providence stated in the Introduction. In Ps. 40, although depending on the detailed comments of Theodore (Epitome), he rejected the latter’s identification of Ezechias as the persona of the psalm in favor of David, again following the Introduction.
Syntactically, he replaced the characteristic asyndetic parataxis of the Latin psalms with hypotaxis and syndetic parataxis. The hypotaxis is mainly causative and adversative,3 establishing logical relationships between clauses and thereby combining them into larger units of meaning somewhat resembling a modern paragraph.4 For example, the addition for ðam at the head of Ps. 9.4 makes this and the next verse the explanation for the preceding two verses in which the psalmist declares that he will praise God; the result is four verses constituting an opening paragraph for the psalm. The syndetic parataxis, usually effected by the addition of connectives such as and, ac, ne, and adverbial markers of time such as þa and þonne, smooths the flow of verses, especially in narrative passages. For example, Ps. 36.36, “And ic þa þanon for and eft ðyder com; þonne næs he. And ic acsode æfter him and hine sohte, and hine ne funde, n[e] furþum þa stowe, þe ic hine ær on geseah, gecnawan ne mihte,” where the corresponding Latin, transiui et ecce non erat quaesiui eum et non est inuentus locus eius, merely has coordinating et twice. Using such techniques he achieved a syntactically coherent if not entirely consistent translation.
A second problem for the paraphrast was how to reconcile the natural tendency to elaborate and clarify with the need to respect the textual integrity of the biblical book that he was translating.5 As a rule he honors the latter, not by attempting a slavish, word-for-word translation but by accounting for each idea of the Latin. One negative reflection of this method of translation is the omission of non-essential words, notably words that repeat or parallel concepts already expressed in the same verse(s). For example, Ps. 2.5 in ira sua et in furore suo is translated “on his yrre”; Ps. 34.8 adprehendat eos et in laqueum incidant in idipsum is not translated, presumably because the same idea has already been expressed (and translated)
[[ Print Edition Page No. 47 ]]
in the opening words of the verse, ueniat illis laqueus quem ignorant.6 Less frequently, he omits words that he apparently regarded as superfluous or awkward to translate; for example, in Ps. 4.5, quae dicitis in cordibus uestris et in cubilibus uestris conpungimini, no translation is given of in cubilibus uestris; Ps. 17.16 ab inspiratione spiritus irae tuae is translated “for þinum yrre.”
Conversely, when faced with textual difficulties the paraphrast employed a variety of expository techniques. At the simplest level an important or difficult concept in the Latin is rendered by an Old English collocation, the elements of which are complements to a full meaning or combine a literal with a contextual or interpretative translation; for example, Ps. 6.6, “andetað ne ne heriað” (Ro. confitebitur); Ps. 4.2, “on minum earfoðum and nearonessum” (Ro. in tribulatione; cf. dilatasti in the same verse); Ps. 44.10, “for þinre lufan and for þinre weorðunga” (Ro. in honore tuo; cf. complacentiam from commentary). Biblical names or concepts are explained by an appositional title or an explanatory clause; for example, Ps. 13.3, uenenum aspidum, “þære wyrrestan nædran attor, þa mon ‘aspis’ hæt”; Ps. 16.14, saturati sunt porcina, “hi eton swynen flæsc (þæt Iudeum unalyfedlic ys to etanne)”; Ps. 28.5, Libani, “on Libano, þam myclan munte”; Ps. 47.8, Tharsis, “þære byrig þe Tarsit hatte (seo is on þam lande þe Cilicia hatte).”
Within the individual sentence or clause the relationship of elements is frequently clarified by the addition of demonstratives and pronouns. Take, for example, Ps. 13.2, “Drihten locað of heofenum ofer manna bearn, and hawað hwæðer he geseo ænigne þæra þe hine sece oþþe hine ongite” (Ro. Dominus de caelo prospexit super filios hominum ut uideat si est intellegens aut requirens Deum), and Ps. 48.2, “Gehyrað nu þas word, ealle þeoda, and onfoð heora mid eowrum earum, ealle þa þe eorðan buiað” (Ro. Audite haec omnes gentes auribus percipite qui habitatis orbem). Both paraphrases clarify the relationship between verbs and their objects with additional personal pronouns (ænigne þæra, hine, heora); the second has adjectival and demonstrative clarifications, þas word (haec), ealle þa (qui), and eowrum. Also characteristic is the expansion in the first passage of the Latin present participle requirens into a relative clause with clearly defined subject, object, and verb, “ænigne þæra þe hine sece.”7
Yet these numerous expository additions do not overwhelm or distort the basic text because the paraphrast subordinates them to or coordinates them with the main idea.8 Take, for example, Ps. 16.14, saturati sunt porcina, “Weorþen hi swa geðræste mid hungre, þæt hi eton swynen flæsc (þæt Iudeum unalyfedlic ys to etanne),” where the basic translation is cast as the primary (result) clause, elaborated not only by the preceding obligatory causal clause but also by a following parenthetic clause. Or consider the adjectival clauses that explain Pss. 13.1, non est Deus, “Nis nan God þe þis wite oððe wræce,” and 24.21, recti, “þa rihtwisan, þa þe begangað.” Even when cast as principal clauses, these additions do not prejudice the basic translation. For example, in Ps. 2.4, “Hwæt forstent heora spræc (cwæð se witega) þeah hi swa cweðen, for þam se God þe on heofonum ys hig gehyspð,” although considerably expanded, presents the literal translation of Ro. qui habitat in caelis inridebit eos in the two, prominently located, final clauses.
The cumulative effect of the paraphrast’s expository style is best appreciated from longer passages viewed in context. Take, for example, Ps. 11.7:
Godes word (cwæð Dauid) beoð swiðe soð and swiðe clænu; hy beoð swa hluttur swa þæt seolfor þe byþ seofon siðon amered syþþan se ora adolfen byð.
(Ro. eloquia Domini eloquia casta argentum igne examinatum terrae purgatum septuplum.)
Besides supplying a linking verb, beoð, the paraphrast adds cwæð Dauid to indicate a change of speaker from God (in the previous verse) back to the psalmist; he clarifies the dense collocation of past participles in examinatum terrae purgatum by expanding the first into a relative clause and the second into a temporal clause; and he transforms metaphorical argentum into a simile, supplying the implied quality of the metaphor.
Another example is his paraphrase of Ps. 7.4-6:
Drihten, min God, gif ic to þisum þe me nu swencað þæs geearnod hæbbe, þæt hi nu doð, oððe ænig unriht wið hi gedon hæbbe, oþþe furðum him gulde yfel wið yfle, swa swa hi hit geworhton, þonne ofslean me mine fynd orwigne—næs þas þe mine frynd beon sceoldon—and secan mine fynd mine sawle, and þa gefon, and oftreden on eorðan min lif, and minne weorðscipe to duste gewyrcen.9
[[ Print Edition Page No. 49 ]]
(Ro. Domine Deus meus si feci istud si est iniquitas in manibus meis si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala decidam merito ab inimicis meis inanis persequatur inimicus animam meam et conprehendat eam et conculcet in terra uitam meam et gloriam meam in puluerem deducat.)
He has expanded the eight clauses of the Latin into thirteen of Old English. Yet clarity is assured because the framework for the passage is an “If . . . Then . . .” construction, beginning with an If-clause (“gif ic . . . þæs geearnod hæbbe”), followed by two parallel, syndetic clauses (“oððe . . . hæbbe, oþþe . . . yfle”), and concluding with the correlative Then-clause (“þonne . . . orwigne”) followed by its four parallel, syndetic clauses, which complete the sentence. At the same time numerous pronouns and demonstratives serve to clarify the relationship between subject and object both within and between clauses. Thus, the additions me and mine highlight the main subject (the psalmist) in relation to the other agents (his enemies) of the sentence; þæs (Ro. istud), the object of the second clause, is both clarified by and the object of the third clause; hit, the object of the sixth clause, is defined by the previous clause. But most striking is the use of the substantival demonstrative þas: as þisum in the first clause it is defined by the second clause (“þe me nu swencað”); replaced by hi, it is subject of the third clause (“þæt hi nu doð”), indirect object of the fourth and fifth (“oððe . . . hæbbe” and “oþþe . . . yfle”), and subject of the sixth (“swa swa . . . geworhton”); it reappears as þas in the eighth clause (“næs þas”), the latter defined by a relative clause (“þe . . . sceoldon”), which clarifies that the psalmist is referring, not to his general enemies (mine fynd), but to a specific part—those who ought to have been his friends (Absalom et al.). Other expository techniques in evidence here are the expansion of the participial retribuentibus into a clause (“swa swa . . . geworhton”), the omission of the figurative Hebraism in manibus meis, the switch of subject from psalmist to his enemies, and the translation of decidam with a more concrete verb ofslean to make the main clause (“þonne . . . orwigne”) more vivid.
A third problem for the paraphrast was aesthetic. The psalms, both in their original Hebrew and in the Latin translations used for the recitation of the Divine Office, are hymns, ornamented with poetical imagery and diction and structured in rhythmical, balanced verses. The paraphrast could, of course, have chosen to ignore these literary characteristics; instead, he tried to capture something of them in his translation.10 That he consciously strove
[[ Print Edition Page No. 50 ]]
for stylistic effect is suggested by the contrast between the paraphrase proper and the Introductions, between the polished style of the one and the mechanical and highly elliptical language of the other. For example, the Introductions are frequently repetitive, as in “ælc rihtwis man þe hine singð: he hine singð be him sylfum” (Introd. 25.4°), or elliptical, as in “and swa dydon þa Apostolas and eall þæt Cristene folc, Cristes æriste” (Introd. 22.3°), where “þancað Gode” from the previous clause must be supplied before “Cristes” to complete the sense.11
Stylistic awareness is also revealed in deliberate variations in word choice, where the paraphrast departs from his normal translation of a concept in favor of one that offers the euphonic advantages of alliteration or assonance;12 for example, Ps. 15.10, “gefylst me mid gefean,” where his regular translation of laetitia, bliss, is replaced by alliterating gefean, the word he normally uses to translate gaudium. Likewise, at Ps. 47.14, “fæstniað eower mod on his wundrum, and dælað hire weorðias swiðe rihte,” the paraphrast departs just this once from his normal translation of domus (the Ga. reading), hus, to supply alliterating weorðias. A more common reason for such variations is to avoid the stylistic awkwardness of repeating a word that has been used just before.13 For example, clamare/inuocare the paraphrast normally translates with clypian (26x); the sole exception, cigan (Ps. 17.7), avoids repetition of clypian, which occurs immediately before; likewise, ongemang (Ps. 25.9), to translate comitative cum, forestalls repetition of his normal translation, betwuh (14x), which occurs immediately after. Occasionally, he chooses a word to provide figura etymologica or wordplay. For example, to translate alienis (Ps. 48.11), instead of his “normal” word, elþeodig, he uses substantival fremde, which echoes adjectical fremde, ‘estranged from’, in the same verse.14
He also exploits the sound and rhythm patterns of Old English in ways that recall the contemporary Old English translator of Orosius,15 both anticipating similar experiments by Ælfric in his earliest prose.16 He uses rhythm to enhance meaning, as in Ps. 2.6, “And ic eam, þeah, cincg geset fram Gode ofer his ðone halgan munt Syon, to þam þæt ic lære his willan and his æ,” where the solemn, measured pace and the translation of Ro. praedicans by a purpose clause appropriately convey a sense of David’s divine mission. At Ps. 14.5, “Se þe þus deð, ne wyrð he næfre astyred ne scynd on ecnesse,” the moral of this final, summating verse is reinforced by a slow, deliberate rhythm, an effect achieved mainly by the addition of tautological he and næfre and by the collocation of alliterating verbs. In Ps. 1.1, “. . . ne on þam wege ne stent synfulra, ne on heora wolbærendum setle ne sitt,” an exact correspondence of alliterating consonants (w, s, s) mirrors the parallelism of meaning in the two clauses.
The parallelism that characterizes the Latin psalms17 probably inspired the balanced structure of Ps(P). At the simplest level it finds expression in a collocation of synonymous nouns, adjectives, or verbs; for example, Ps. 5.11, “Heora mod and heora wilnuncg” (Ro. guttur eorum), Ps. 9.26, “rixian and wealdan” (Ro. dominabitur). Elsewhere it is synthetic, the parallel members completing the thought; for example, Ps. 24.21, “ic symle þæs anbidode and wilnode and wende æt þe, Drihten” (Ro. sustinui te Domine), where shared end rhyme and a common genitival object enhance the parallelism of the three verbs. In imitating the parallelism of his original, the paraphrast often embellishes it; for example, Ps. 9.35, “hwylc broc and hwylc sar we þoliað and þrowiað” (Ro. laborem et dolorem); Ps. 36.16, “[B]etere ys þam rihtwisan lytel þonne þam synfullan mycel wela” (Ro. melius est modicum iusto super diuitias peccatorum multas); and, with chiasmus, Ps. 1.1, “ne gæð on geþeaht unrihtwisra, ne on þam wege ne stent synfulra” (Ro. non abiit in concilio impiorum et in uia peccatorum non stetit).
Other rhetorical figures and modes of discourse in the Latin are not only reproduced but even embellished in translation. Thus Ps. 36.21, “Æfre borgiað þa synfullan and næfre ne gyldað,” preserves the epigrammatic quality of Ro. mutuatur peccator et non soluit while strengthening its universality by adding the constrasting and parallel pair of adverbs æfre and næfre. Ps. 18.6-7, which describes the daily course of the sun (Ro. et ipse
[[ Print Edition Page No. 52 ]]
tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo exultauit ut gigans ad currendam uiam a summo caelo egressio eius et occursus eius usque ad summum eius), is enhanced as a narrative by temporal and locative adverbs: “seo sunne arist swiðe ær on morgen up, swa swa brydguma of his brydbure. And heo yrnð swa egeslice on hyre weg, swa swa gigant yrnð on his weg. Heo stihð oð þæs heofenes heanesse, and þanon astihð, and swa yrnð ymbutan oð heo eft þyder cymð.” Ps. 10.7, pluit super peccatores laqueos ignis sulphur et spiritus procellarum pars calicis eorum, an enumeration of God’s punishments for sinners, reads more vividly in translation: “Drihten onsent manegra cynna witu swa swa ren ofer ða synfullan and hi gewyrpð mid grine; and he onsent fyr ofer hig and ungemetlice hæto þære sunnan and wolberende windas; mid þyllicum and mid manegum þyllicum beoð heora drincfatu gefyldu.” The effect is achieved mainly by means of hyperbole (manegra cynna witu, ungemetlice hæto, wolberende windas), repetition (onsent, maneg-, þyllicum), alliteration, and inflectional rhymes.
Yet rhetorical effect never comes at the expense of clarity. This priority is evidenced by the absence from Ps(P) of numerous instances of metaphor, hyperbole, and figurative language present in the Latin. Presumably the paraphrast chose not to reproduce such tropes because they might mislead his Old English audience. For example, at Ps. 17.6 the metaphor of dolores inferni circumdederunt me is changed (and clarified) into a simile, “Me ymbhringdon . . . witu fulneah anlic helle witum”; elsewhere it is retained but clarified by an additional translation, as in Ps. 38.12, “For þær[e] strenge þinra handa and þinre þreaunga” (Ro. a fortitudine enim manus tuae), or it is omitted, as in Ps. 30.21, “Þu [hi] gehydst and gehyldst hale and orsorge” (Ro. abscondes eos in abditu uultus tui). Likewise, hyperbolic descriptions of the psalmist in dire straits are deflated in the Old English by the qualifier fulneah, as in Ps. 21.16, in puluerem mortis deduxerunt me, “to deadum duste fulneah . . . me geworhton,” or by hwilum, as in Ps. 6.7, lacrimis stratum me rigabo, “hwilum min bedd wæte mid tearum.” At Ps. 26.2 the literally implausible ut edant carnes meas is translated as the hypothetical “swylce hi woldon fretan min flæsc.”
How far from literal translation the paraphrast’s stylistic concerns carried his work is exemplified by a comparison between Ps(P) and CP in their translation of a shared psalter verse:
|Ps. 37.9||Incuruatus sum et humiliatus sum usquequaque.|
|CP 67.18-19||Ic eom gebiged, and æghwonon ic eom geh[i]ened (Gregory 24D)|
|Ps(P)||Ac ic eom gesæged and gehnæged and swiðe geeaðmed.|
Except for some minor differences in word order, CP has the same literal translation found in the Old English interlinear glossed psalters.18 By contrast, Ps(P) reveals a few but highly significant stylistic adjustments: incuruatus sum is translated with a collocation of verbs, gesæged and gehnæged, bound by inflectional rhyme and assonance as well as a similar morphology. This choice of verbs also prevents repetition, since gebiged (the paraphrast’s normal translation of incuruatus) occurs just before, while at the same time it enhances the stylistic effect with words normally found only in poetry.19 By substituting swiðe (based on Ga. nimis) for æghwonon (Ro. usquequaque), and by omitting a translation of the second sum, the author of Ps(P) reduces the number of unstressed syllables in the final clause. The result is a translation with balanced structure (reinforced by three assonating and rhyming verbs) and tight rhythm, one that captures the meaning of the Latin while imitating its style.
[1 ] See relevant Commentary, under “Interpretation.”
[3 ] Ps(P) has some 150 instances of causal for þæm/þam and some 25 of adversative þeah, though most of the former could have been suggested by the Latin. Causative and adversative hypotaxis are also the predominant syntactic patterns of Alfred’s Bo; see Otten, König Alfreds Boethius, pp. 217 ff.
[4 ] On the use of these larger syntactical units in Alfred’s prose, see Mitchell, Syntax, §1881.
[5 ] See Robert Stanton, “The (M)other Tongue: Translation Theory and Old English,” in Translation Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages, ed. Jeanette Beer (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1997), pp. 33-46, at p. 39, where he theorizes about the tension between “the subservient function of replication” and “the creative tendency . . . which actually displaces the source text.”
[6 ] See also “Drihten,” translating Ps. 5.2-3 Domine . . . rex meus et Deus meus; “oninnan me,” translating Ps. 21.15 in medio uentris mei; “on mycelre gesamnunge,” translating Ps. 34.18 in ecclesia magna in populo graui.
[9 ] “O Lord, my God, if I have deserved from these people who now afflict me that which they now do, or have done any injustice against them, or so much as paid them back evil in return for evil (just as they did), then let my (proper) enemies kill me without my resisting—not those who ought to have been my friends—and let my enemies pursue my soul and seize it, and trample my life into the ground and reduce my dignity to dust” (my translation).
[10 ] For possible influences of Old English poetry on Alfred, see Peter Clemoes, “King Alfred’s Debt to Vernacular Poetry: The Evidence of ellen and cræft,” in Words, Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Michael Korhammer et al. (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 213-38.
[11 ] Perhaps also indicative of stylistic difference is the absence from the paraphrase proper (one exception) of correlative “þa . . . þa,” where the much shorter text of the Introductions has five occurrences.
[12 ] A feature of Ps(P) first pointed out by Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 79-82. For other examples, see astellan (Ps. 8.4) instead of “normal” gestaþelian; gebrysan (Ps. 36.24) instead of gedrefan; ealneh (Pss. 9.26 and 28, 34.21) instead of symle; eþnes (Introd. 40) instead of frofor.
[13 ] First noted by Bately, “Authorship,” p. 83 and n. 82. See also bysnian (Ps. 36.8) instead of “normal” onhyrian; fulian (Ps. 37.6) instead of (for)rotian; gemot (Ps. 39.11) instead of gesamnung; pæð (Pss. 24.4, 26.11) instead of weg; gescendan (Ps. 24.3) instead of (ge)sceamian.
[14 ] Other examples are hering (Ps. 47.13), instead of lof, to translate laus, presumably to echo the preceding heriað; nemnan (Ps. 48.12), rather than hatan or cweþan, in response to nama in the same verse; wlitan (Ps. 32.14), rather than geseon, beseon, or (ge)locian, as a play on the immediately preceding wlitegan.
[15 ] See Bately, Orosius, pp. cii-civ.
[16 ] See Pope, Homilies, 1:109 ff.
[17 ] See Matthew Britt, A Dictionary of the Psalter (New York, 1928), pp. xxix-xxxii.
[19 ] Apart from Ps(P), gesægen occurs only in poetry (Beo, Jud); gehnægan occurs mainly in poetry (14x; only 3x in prose). On the latter word, see R. J. Menner, “The Anglian Vocabulary of the Blickling Homilies,” in Philologica: The Malone Anniversary Studies, ed. Thomas A. Kirby and Henry B. Woolf (Baltimore, 1949), p. 62, n. 26.
The analysis that follows is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it focuses on those features of language (under the headings of spelling and phonology, accidence, and vocabulary) that provide potential evidence for establishing the date and place of composition of Ps(P) its authorship, and its later provenance.
1. Vowels in stressed or semi-stressed syllables.
2. Vowels in unstressed position.
1. Vowels in stressed or semi-stressed position.
2. Vowels in unstressed position.
(The treatment of unstressed vowels in inflectional syllables is discussed below under “Accidence.”)
With the exception of weoruld-, the occurrences are sporadic.
The leveling of adjectival inflections characteristic of standard late West Saxon (Ælfric) does not generally occur in Ps(P). Thus,
Forms earlier than those characteristic of late West Saxon and late Old English predominate:
They predominantly reflect West Saxon usage.66
Judged simply by spelling and phonology, the language of Ps(P) is clearly West Saxon. Within that broad category, however, it is not easy to decide between the early and late periods of that dialect. Features of spelling and phonology traditionally identified in the standard grammars as either “early” (from Alfred’s time) or “late” (from Ælfric’s time and after) no longer admit of such certainty, as shown by recent research on the “Fonthill Letter,” a document of the early tenth century from Wessex, which contains many of the so-called late West Saxon features.79 More concretely, the evidence from Ps(P) betrays much inconsistency. It certainly has many of the spellings (especially of stressed vowels) associated with late West Saxon, yet it lacks or scarcely manifests such characteristically late West Saxon features as smoothing (only four doubtful occurrences)80 and the spellings mage,81 (ge)sugian,82 and (s)wur-.83 On the other hand, while by no means similar in orthography and phonology to the early West Saxon manuscripts, it has such typically early West Saxon spellings as meahte, na(w)uht, and nyle.
The determining factor may well be Ps(P)’s inflectional system, which is predominantly early West Saxon, as shown by (1) the preservation of inflections proper to the rare noun declensions; (2) the distinctive inflections -u and -a in the strong adjectives, -an in the dative singular (masc. and neut.), and -ena in the genitive plural, of weak adjectives; (3) the marked preference in the present subjunctive for sy(n) (38x) over beo(n) (4x)84; (4) the almost exclusive use in the ordinal suffix (for numbers 20-50) of -tigoþa.85 Overall, the conflicting linguistic evidence is best reconciled by regarding the surviving text of Ps(P) as a late West Saxon recasting of an early West Saxon text, in which the spelling has been modernized by obvious substitutions such as late WS i and y for early WS ie, but the inflectional system (which would be harder to modernize) has remained essentially intact. The occasional non-West Saxon (Anglian) features in phonology and inflections are entirely compatible with an early West Saxon origin.86
Before addressing the main topic, vocabulary as evidence for date and authorship, two other aspects of Ps(P)’s vocabulary deserve mention. The first, occurrences of hapax legomena, was treated by J. D. Tinkler,87 but his list of such words omits nine genuine and includes six false hapax.88 Altogether Ps(P) has some thirty-one hapax. A few are borrowings from Latin, with the addition of native inflections; thus, cama and gecoronian.89 Some may be “loan translations,” attempts to express the ideas of the Latin psalms or commentaries with an Old English compound; thus, æfgrynde, anspræce, gebeorhstow, ealdspræc, eorðgemære, feohland, muðfreo, nifara, rædeman, rihtandswaru, rothwil, rynewæn, snædingsceap, unleahtorwyrðe.90 Others are hapax by virtue of their unique combination of (familiar) morphemes, beþerscan, facnesfull, scyldere, unscyld, wincettan, ymbsetennes.91 Finally,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 65 ]]
the group clemman, earsling, gehrespan, gehrop, myscean, sæweg, gestæn, stenan, geswære, although hapax in Old English, are attested in their corresponding simplex or compound form or in later reflexes.92 Some of these hapax may have been chosen for alliterative or rhythmical effect or to avoid repetition.93
Another noteworthy aspect of Ps(P)’s vocabulary is its lack of relationship to other Old English translations of the psalms, especially the continuous interlinear glosses. Although such glossing was probably already well established by the ninth century and over the next two centuries exercised great influence on Old English, Ps(P) shows no evidence of that influence. Thus, absent from Ps(P) are translations typical of the glossarial tradition such as gebegian/gehelmian (Lat. coronare), cyðnes (testamentum, testimonium), efne/geseh ðu (ecce), (ge)fyll(ed)nes (plenitudo), soþlice (autem, enim, uero), sped (substantia), ungesælignes (infelicitas).94 Nor does Ps(P) share with that tradition the tendency to gloss the same Latin word mechanically with the same Old English.95 For example, where the glossed psalters consistently translate Latin adfligere by (ge)swencan, Ps(P) has (for the eight occurrences in Pss. 1-50) eight different translations: gebigan, dreccean, earm geweorðan, ehtan, wilnian fordon, myscean, swencan, and geþræstan; for suscipere, where Ps(A) always has onfon, Ps(P) has aweccan, gefriðian, fultumian, onfon, sætian and sittan, and underfon; for exultatio, in addition to the traditional translation wynsumnes, Ps(P) has bliss, fægnung, frefrend, and wynsum. Some of this variety may
[[ Print Edition Page No. 66 ]]
reflect difficulty in finding an exact translation,96 but for the most part it appears to be based on considerations of context, interpretation, and style.97
Inevitably, scholarship on Ps(P)’s vocabulary has focused on the evidence that it provides for date and authorship. The conclusion, as argued most convincingly by Bately,98 is that the work is early West Saxon and Alfredian. Negative evidence is furnished by the total absence of words now identified as late West Saxon or late Old English, including those associated with Æthelwold’s “Winchester School.” Thus, absent from Ps(P)99 are afeormian (geclænsian), angsumnes (nearones), geefenlæcan (onhyrian), forswælan (forbænan), galnes (wrænes), hæfenleas (earm, þearfa), hlaford for God/Christ (drihten only), leahtor for Lat. uitium (unþeaw), lofsang for Lat. canticum (sang), mærsian (gemiclian), modig- (ofermod-), gerihtlæcan (betan, þreagan), werod (swete), wuldorbeag/cynehelm (heafod-/kyne-gold).100 The absence of such words is complete: Ps(P) does not have the mixture characteristic of transitional works such as Æthelwold’s translation of the Benedictine Rule (ca. 970) and Ps(D) (ca. 950).101
Also absent from Ps(P) is a considerable body of words and usages regarded as Anglian:102 ac/ah ne (hu ne), fæs (fnæs), for hwon (for hwi), forcuman (ofercuman), inwit (facen), (ge)leoran (faran heonan etc.), mægwlite (wlite), medmicel (lytel), nænig (nan), nemne/nymþe (buton), oferhygd (ofermod), sada (gryn), scua (sceadu), smirness (ele), snyttru (wisdom), soðfæstnes for Lat. iustus/iustitia (rihtwisnes), strynd (cyn), tan (hlyt), þæcele (leohtfæt), þeostrig (þystre), unsoðfæst for Lat. iniustus (unrihtwis), western (westen), westig (weste), wohful for Lat. malignus (yfelwillend-etc.), (ge)winn/winnan for Lat. labor/laborare (swinc/(ge)swincan etc.), ymbsellan (behringan, ymbhringan, etc.).
Positive evidence is found in Ps(P)’s use of specifically West Saxon words such as ealneh, eaþmetto, (ge)fægnian, fnæs, for hwi, miltsung, offrung, ongemang, rihtwis, (ge)swincan, getruma.103 Moreover, Ps(P) has other West Saxon words that normally occur only in the early West Saxon works comprising Alfred (CP, Bo, Solil), Or, and the 890-Chronicle, namely, bismer, broc, cræft, gefea, morgen, ofermodlice, tohopa, unþeaw, swa þer, (eac) swa ylce.104 Within this body of works, Ps(P) shows closest agreement with Alfred in using (1) all these words, where Or and the 890-Chronicle have different synonyms for some; (2) certain words and constructions rarely or
[[ Print Edition Page No. 68 ]]
not at all found in the others, for example, ætiewan, oþþe twega oþþe . . . oþþe;105 (3) a limited range of words for concepts represented in the other two works by a wider range, for example, for ‘to fight’, Ps(P) and Alfred use only winnan and feohtan, where the others also have gewinnan and gefeohtan.106
Other significant agreements shared by Ps(P) and Alfred are as follows:
Since the concepts denoted by the words in these different categories of agreement are common in Old English prose translations, the correspondences between Ps(P) and Alfred cannot be dismissed as coincidental agreements arising out of a scarcity of occurrences.
Nor does a small number of differences between Ps(P) and Alfred in word choice prejudice the claim for common authorship.133 Thus, Ps(P)’s consistent translation of ciuitas with burg, where Alfred uses burg and ceaster,134 can plausibly be explained by its bias towards a historical interpretation of ciuitas in the psalms as the fortified city of Jerusalem. More challenging to explain is the apparent disagreement between Ps(P) and Alfred’s works in the rendering of Lat. uirtus. A recent study of Alfred’s usage by Nicole G. Discenza concludes that in CP, his earliest translation, Alfred was “establishing his own translation solutions” to Lat. uirtus, sometimes using mægen (20x) and the collocation mægen and cræft (7x), but more often cræft (31x, and independently 10x), but that in his later work, Bo, Alfred used cræft almost exclusively (15x, and independently 36x), with only one occurrence of mægen.135 She argues that in so doing Alfred was adding to the traditional meanings of cræft “a rarer usage, spiritual merit, and his own usage, virtue.”136 The same study also addressed the use of mægen and cræft as translations of uirtus in Ps(P), stating that because of uncertainties about when it was completed and what version of the psalms it used “no conclusion can be drawn about Alfred’s usage from this text.”137
As for these two “uncertainties,” I have argued elsewhere in the present edition that Ps(P) is based on a Roman psalter of the English family, with an admixture of Gallican readings, which seem to have been deliberately incorporated,138 and that the work probably postdates CP and Bo, since it reveals the verbal influence of both.139 If these conclusions are accepted, then Discenza’s findings raise another question: should we not expect to find some influence of Alfred’s “new” translation of uirtus as cræft in Ps(P), especially since the latter is a moral work?
First the evidence: in Ps(P), uirtus is translated by mægen (8x), by mægen and cræft (2x), and by cræft (1x). Clearly, this pattern of usage is very different from that of CP and quite the opposite of Bo, yet it does not necessarily prejudice the case for Alfredian authorship of Ps(P). Whereas Alfred’s translation of uirtus by cræft in Bo was developed in the context of a Christianized rendering of Boethius, the author of Ps(P) worked in an
[[ Print Edition Page No. 71 ]]
exegetical context, which interpreted uirtus in the psalms literally and historically as ‘power’, ‘might’, and (in the plural) ‘armies’, and translated it by mægen. That he was deliberative in this word choice, not merely translating mechanically (in the manner of the glossed psalters), is indicated by two instances where he translated uirtus by wundor.140 The one instance where he translated uirtus by cræft (Ps. 32.17) can be plausibly explained as a stylistic pis aller—mægen occurs twice in the preceding sentence.141
Indeed, it could be argued that Ps(P)’s avoidance of cræft to translate uirtus (which in a literal rendering of the psalms had no moral meaning) shows a sensitivity to that word’s moral implications and therefore a usage similar to Alfred’s in Bo. Significantly, that awareness is positively implied in at least two occurrences of cræft in Ps(P) that carry moral connotations: at Ps. 24.14, “Drihten is mægen and cræft ælces þæra þe hine ondræt, and he him getæcð eallum his willum” (Ro. firmamentum est Dominus timentibus eum et testamentum ipsius ut manifestetur illis), the paraphrast’s rendering of manifestetur by getæcð suggests that cræft should be read here in a context of moral teaching; at Ps. 37.11, “min mægen and min strengo and min cræft me hæfð forlæten, and þæt leoht and seo scearpnes minra eagena” (Ro. deseruit me fortitudo mea et lumen oculorum meorum), the first three nouns form a collocation (note the singular verb)—the third noun was probably suggested by uirtus of the corresponding Gallican reading—which has a parallel collocation in the next two nouns, leoht and scearpnes. And since the latter collocation consists of a literal member (physical light) and a moral (discernment of personal sin), so, arguably, the first collocation has a literal (mægen and strengo) and a moral component (cræft). Thus, Ps(P)’s use of cræft is consistent with Alfred’s.
[1 ] Throughout sections I and II, for each cited word or form the number of occurrences in Ps(P) is usually given immediately after; where no number appears, one occurrence is understood. References (by section) are mainly to A. Campbell’s Old English Grammar (abbreviated Cpb), and Karl Brunner’s Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers neubearbeitet (abbreviated S-B). Throughout this chapter Old English works are referred to by the standard abbreviations given in Bruce Mitchell et al., “Short Titles of Old English Texts,” ASE 4 (1975): 207-21.
[4 ] See Bately, Orosius, p. li, and Gretsch, “Fonthill Letter,” p. 60.
[6 ] Nawuht occurs mainly in Alfred (CP 16x, Solil 3x), with sporadic instances in Ps(E) (3x) and VercHom. Likewise, nauht occurs primarily in the two tenth-century manuscripts of Bo (77x in prose, 4x in Meters)—London, BL, MS Cotton Otho A. vi, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS 180—and in CP (16x), with single occurrences in Ps(D,E,H,I). Naht, rare in Alfred (CP 3x, Bo 2x, Solil 6x), is the almost exclusive form in tenth- and eleventh-century West Saxon works such as Ps(B), WS, BenR (A), and Ælfric. See S-B §172 and Cpb §393.
[19 ] Cpb §§143 and 338; C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, §60; E. G. Stanley, “Spellings of the Waldend Group,” in Studies in Language, Literature, and Culture of the Middle Ages and Later, ed. E. Bagby Atwood and Archibald A. Hill (Austin, Tex., 1969), pp. 38-69, at p. 66; Bately, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. cxxxiv-cxxxv and n. 399; Angelika Lutz, “Spellings of the waldend Group—Again,” ASE 13 (1984): 51-64. On halsa, see Hallander, Old English Verbs, pp. 184-87, who argues that it could be late West Saxon.
[20 ] See A.1.b above.
[21 ] Cpb §216; Karl Luick, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1921-40), §357; C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, §62 (i). Ingvar Carlson, The Pastoral Care: Edited from British Museum MS. Cotton Otho B. ii, 2 vols. (Stockholm, 1975-78), 1:47, describes the spellings ew and ewre in London, BL, MS Cotton Otho B. ii as “miswritings.”
[22 ] Cpb §316; and Pamela Gradon, “Studies in Late West-Saxon Labialization and Delabialization,” in English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien, ed. Norman Davis and Charles L. Wrenn (London, 1962), pp. 63-83.
[28 ] See A.2.b above.
[29 ] See A.2.a above.
[32 ] See A.3.e above.
[33 ] See A.3.b above.
[50 ] Pope, Homilies, 1:182.
[55 ] See Sauer, Theodulfi Capitula, pp. 193-94.
[56 ] Pope, Homilies, 1:183.
[58 ] Ibid.
[60 ] See Pope, Homilies, 1:184.
[67 ] See Commentary on ðeowian[ne], Introd. 18.1°.
[79 ] See Gretsch, “Fonthill Letter,” esp. pp. 72-74, 76-77.
[80 ] See B.l.f, above.
[83 ] Altogether only 4x, as against 31x of earlier (s)weor-.
[86 ] On the occurrence of non-West Saxon forms in early West Saxon texts see Bately, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. cxxxviii-cxxxix and n. 411.
[87 ] Vocabulary, pp. 62-69. See also Norman O. Waldorf, “The Hapax Legomena in the Old English Vocabulary: A Study Based upon the Bosworth-Toller Dictionary” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1953).
[88 ] Omitted by Tinkler are clemman, earsling, facnesfull, gehrop, myscean, rihtandswaru, scyldere, geswære, ymbsetennes; incorrectly included are bewrixlan, fileðe, foreþancolnes, onlihtend, owæstm, unþearfes. Bately, “Authorship,” p. 83, identifies frefrung as a hapax, but it also occurs in Gen 37.35 and Ps(I) 93.19. A doubtful hapax in Ps(P) is gehyldnes; cf. gehilnessum, Ps(E) 105.39.
[90 ] On æfgrynde, anspræce, ealdspræc, eorðgemære, feohland, see Tinkler, Vocabulary, pp. 58, 62, 34, 16, 64, respectively; on gebeorhstow, Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 59, and Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 82-83; on muðfreo, Tinkler, Vocabulary, pp. 43-44, and Commentary on Ps. 11.5; on nifara, Tinkler, Vocabulary, pp. 60-61 and Commentary on Ps. 38.13; on rædeman, Tinkler, Vocabulary, pp. 44-45, and Commentary on Ps. 32.17; on rihtandswaru, Commentary on Ps. 37.15; on rothwil, Commentary on Ps. 38.14; on rynewæn, Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 61, and Bately, “Authorship,” p. 80; on snædingsceap, Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 19, and Commentary on Ps. 43.22; on unleahtorwyrðe, Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 19, and Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, no. 132. Tinkler’s choice of psalter commentaries to elucidate these compounds was unfortunate, both because it included pseudo-patristic works actually composed in the twelfth century and because it neglected the apposite comments in the two Latin versions of Theodore’s commentary on the psalms. See Chap. 3, n. 23 above.
[91 ] Beþerscan is unique in having the intensive prefix be-; facnesfull in its inflected root (elsewhere facnfull); scyldere in its combination of scyld with the masculine agent morpheme -ere; unscyld in using the intensive prefix un-; wincettan in combining the root winc- with frequentative -ettan; ymbsetennes in combining the past ptc. ymbseten with the abstract suffix -nes (see Bately, “Authorship,” p. 78, n. 63).
[92 ] On clemman, see OED s.v. Clem; on earsling, see OED s.v. Arseling(s); with gehrespan, cf. OE gehresp and OHG hrespan (Holthausen, Wörterbuch, p. 173); with gehrop, cf. hrop, and see Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 80-81; with myscean cf. OE gemiscan/gemyscan; on sæweg, see OED s.v. Seaway and Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 19; on gestæn, see BT s.v.; with stenan, cf. Dutch stenen (Holthausen, Wörterbuch, p. 319; El 151 has stenan, but the editor, George P. Krapp, The Vercelli Book, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 5 [New York, 1932], p. 139, emends to secan; see also E. G. Stanley, “Studies in the Prosaic Vocabulary of Old English Verse,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72 : 385-418, at p. 414); with geswære, cf. swære.
[93 ] As argued by Bately, “Authorship,” for gehrop (pp. 80-81), wincettan (p. 81), and gebeorhstow (p. 83); see also Bately, “Old English Prose,” pp. 130-31.
[94 ] A selection of which are discussed in Gneuss, Lehnbildungen. See also Frank-Günter Berghaus, Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der altenglischen Interlinearversionen des Psalters und der Cantica, Palaestra 272 (Göttingen, 1979), passim.
[95 ] An exception is Ps(I), which, with its multiple glosses and alternative readings, suggests a scholarly compendium for psalter study. See C. and K. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, pp. 71-73.
[96 ] See, e.g., Commentary on Pss. 4.5, 11.8, 23.8, 36.38, 48.11.
[98 ] In “Authorship.” Earlier statements by Otto Heinzel, Kritische Entstehungsgeschichte des ags. Interlinear-Psalters, Palaestra 151 (Leipzig, 1926), p. 115, and Hildegard Rauh, Der Wortschatz der altenglischen ubersetzungen des Matthaeus-Evangeliums untersucht auf seine dialektische und zeitliche Gebundenheit (Berlin, 1936), p. 9, that Ps(P) is late West Saxon have been convincingly disproved. For scholarship on individual words or concepts of Ps(P)’s vocabulary (other than words discussed by Bately, “Authorship”), see Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, passim, esp. nos. 21, 133, 134, and p. 160; Hans Schabram, Superbia: Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz (Munich, 1965), p. 50; Tinkler, Vocabulary, passim (see nn. 87-90 above); Bately, “King Alfred and Orosius,” pp. 454-55; Elmar Seebold, “Die ae. Entsprechungen von lat. sapiens und prudens,” Anglia 92 (1974): 291-333, at 305-9, 322; Kirschner, Die Bezeichnungen, pp. 174-76; Grinda, Arbeit und Mühe pp. 260-61; Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, p. 150; Bately, “The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” pp. 117-23; and Hofstetter, Winchester Sprachgebrauch, pp. 296-97.
[100 ] On galnes, see Hans Schabram, “Kritische Bermerkungen zu Angaben über die Verbreitung altenglischen Wörter,” in Festschrift für Edgar Mertner, ed. Bernhard Fabian and Ulrich Suerbaum (Munich, 1969), pp. 89-102, at p. 98; on hlaford, see Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, no. 1; on wuldorbeag/cynehelm, see Kirschner, Die Bezeichnungen, pp. 174-76; on the remaining words, see Helmut Gneuss, “The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold’s School at Winchester,” ASE 1 (1972): 63-83, at pp. 76-80. For other examples of late West Saxon and “Winchester” words absent from Ps(P) see Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 71-72 and nn. 17 and 18.
[101 ] See Gneuss, “Standard Old English,” pp. 78-79.
[102 ] The word(s) in parentheses represent(s) Ps(P)’s corresponding choice. On the Anglian origin of these words (and relevant scholarship), see Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, passim, and Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 73-76.
[103 ] On ealneh, see R. J. Menner, “The Vocabulary of the Old English Poems on Judgement Day,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 62 (1947): 583-97, at p. 587; on eaþmetto, see Menner, “Vocabulary of the Old English Poems,” p. 587, and Menner, “Anglian and Saxon Elements in Wulfstan’s Vocabulary,” Modern Language Notes 63 (1948): 1-9; on (ge)fægnian, see Franz Wenisch, “(Ge)fægnian: zur dialektalen verbreitung eines altenglischen wortes,” in Problems of Old English Lexicography, ed. Alfred Bammesberger (Regensburg, 1985), pp. 393-426; on fnæs, see Richard Jordan, Eigentumlichkeiten des anglischen Wortschatzes (Heidelberg, 1906); on for hwi, see Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, pp. 155-56; on miltsung, see Hallander, Old English Verbs, p. 442 and n. 5; on offrung, ongemang, rihtwis, see Sauer, Theodulfi Capitula, pp. 257, 253, 258-59, respectively; on (ge)swincan, see Grinda, Arbeit und Mühe, pp. 173 ff. (but qualified by Sauer, Theodulfi Capitula, p. 261); on getruma, see Günther Scherer, Zur Geographie und Chronologie des angelsächsischen Wortschatzes . . . (Leipzig, 1928), p. 23.
[104 ] This list is based on Bately, “Authorship,” p. 89, with the addition of bismer (see Ingegerd Lohmander, Old and Middle English Words for “disgrace” and “dishonour,” Gothenburg Studies in English 49 [Gothenburg, 1981], p. 87), broc (see Grinda, Arbeit und Mühe, pp. 260 ff.), and morgen (see Korhammer, Monastischen Cantica, pp. 163-64), but omitting cigan and hatian, since the former is common in Anglian, the latter in later West Saxon (see Sauer, Theodulfi Capitula, pp. 233, 238, respectively).
[105 ] See Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 88-90.
[106 ] Ibid., pp. 90-93.
[107 ] Figures based on Antonette diPaolo Healey and Richard L. Venezky, comps. A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The List of Texts and Index of Editions (Newark and Toronto, 1980).
[108 ] All three occur in Bo; æht and wela in CP; sped and wela in Solil. Contrast Ps(I), which has æht, edwist, and sped (see Ps(I), edition, 2:48).
[109 ] Bo has gesamnung, gegaderung, gemot; CP has predominantly gesamnung and cyrce, with gemeting (1x); Solil has gemot and gadorung. Contrast Ps(I), gesamnung and gelaðung.
[110 ] For Alfredian translations of exultare and gaudium, see Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 75 and 84, and 89 (n. 124), respectively.
[111 ] All three occur in CP. See further Bately, “Authorship,” p. 74 and n. 36.
[112 ] Both occur in CP.
[114 ] See Seebold, “Die ae. Entsprechungen,” p. 309, and n. 131 below.
[115 ] Occurs also in Bede, RitGl, GD, and PPs.
[116 ] See Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, no. 21 and p. 160.
[117 ] Occurs also in poetry (6x), Rune, and HlGl (origins uncertain; see Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, p. 82).
[118 ] Occurs also in Bede, GD, LibSc (origins uncertain; see Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, p. 70); see also Bately, “Authorship,” p. 93.
[119 ] Occurs also in HomS, GD.
[120 ] See Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, nos. 133, 134, and his comment (p. 160): “Für Alfreds Verfasserschaft von P1 [Ps(P)] mögen zwei Dingen sprechen . . . das Auftreten von ae. unsceðfulnes nur in [Ps]ABCEGJP1 und ABo, ACP.” See also Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, pp. 211 ff.
[122 ] Occurs also in GD and in poetic works (8x, including 2x in Met).
[127 ] See Bately, “Authorship,” p. 89 and n. 130.
[128 ] Ps(P) 17.19, 20.2, 37.9, 45.2; CP 199.13 and 16, 387.31; Bo 51.8, 107.31, 111.27, 125.8, 127.5; Solil 16.1, 25.10, 34.8, 69.22. See Bately, “Authorship,” p. 94 and n. 162, though I can find no evidence for her claim that the collocation occurs in Ælfric.
[130 ] See OED s.v. Apple (of the eye). Besides Ps(P) 16.8, æppel with this meaning is attested only in Bo 121.12 and 133.13, and in CP 68.2, 4, and 17 (Gregory 25A/B, pupilla). The normal Old English translation of pupilla is seo.
[131 ] On the translation of prudentia with the root word normally used to render prouidens etc., see Seebold, “Die ae. Entsprechungen,” pp. 309, 322, who also notes (p. 295) a single occurrence in Rul. For the Solil attestation, foreþanculne, Carnicelli (Soliloquies 56.7) emends to foreþancfulne, but the manuscript reading is upheld by Seebold (p. 309 and n. 29) and E. G. Stanley, (Review of Carnicelli, Soliloquies), Notes and Queries 215 (1970): 109-12, at p. 110.
[133 ] Other apparent differences are discussed in Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 78-86.
[134 ] See Korhammer, Monastischen Cantica, pp. 202-3.
[136 ] Ibid., p. 107.
The earliest potential evidence about the authorship of Ps(P) comes from William of Malmesbury who included among the works that he attributed to King Alfred a translation of the psalms: “Psalterium transferre aggressus, vix prima parte explicata, vivendi finem fecit.”1 Although not always a reliable guide to Alfredian authorship, William here carries some conviction with his specific reference to an incomplete translation.2 More significantly, his words accurately describe Ps(P), both as a paraphrase (explicata) and as the first part (prima parte) of a tripartite division of the 150 psalms.3 Following this clue, a number of scholars, notably Wichmann and Bromwich,4 tried to prove Alfred’s authorship of Ps(P) by demonstrating similarities in content and phrasing that it shares with his known works. But they failed to make a convincing case, partly because of their faulty definition of the Alfredian canon,5 but mainly because they did not take into account dissimilarities as well as similarities between Ps(P) and Alfred and, in noting similarities between the two, made no reference to the respective Latin sources. Clearly, these deficiencies must be addressed in making the case for Alfredian authorship.
One type of supporting evidence are the Latin works identified as sources for Ps(P). Although in theory these sources could have been available throughout most of the Old English period, in practice the most important ones enjoyed currency in the period before the tenth century. Thus, the version of the Romanum psalter on which Ps(P) is based is textually akin to the early family (pre-800) of English psalters.6 Likewise, the putative Hiberno-Latin commentary, which provided for Ps(P) the plan of its Introductions and the Theodorean matter for its interpretations, was a type displaced by Carolingian commentaries in the ninth century; after this time its use outside Ireland became increasingly unlikely.7 While not offering any direct proof of authorship, this evidence suggests a date of composition for Ps(P) compatible with Alfred’s time.
Also compatible with Alfredian authorship is the pragmatic approach to translating Scripture evident in Ps(P).8 Broadly, it can be described as literal translation of straightforward passages with paraphrase of difficult passages, a combination that recalls Alfred’s dictum of translation in his preface to CP, “hwilum word be worde, hwilum andgit of andgi[e]te,”9 and that finds expression in his translations of scriptural passages in that work.10 This approach even permitted altering the literal meaning for the sake of the argument, a license evident for Ps(P) in numerous modifications of the Latin psalms to make them harmonize with the Introductions,11 and for Alfred in his translations of excerpts from Exodus in the Introduction to the Laws of Alfred.12 The attempt in Ps(P) to make the psalms more comprehensible and relevant to a contemporary audience by treating them primarily in historical and moral terms resembles the pragmatism demonstrated by Alfred in interpreting Boethius’s Consolatio and Augustine’s Soliloquia in accordance with contemporary learning.13 In all of this Ps(P)
[[ Print Edition Page No. 75 ]]
contrasts sharply with other Old English biblical translations, with the word-for-word interlinear glosses to the psalms and Gospels, with the closely literal rendition of the West-Saxon Gospels,14 and with the conservatism of Ælfric in the preface to his translation of Genesis, warning that “we ne writaþ na mare buton þa nacedan gerecednisse.”15
In specific methods of translation Ps(P) shares with Alfred’s works some noteworthy similarities: (1) adding stock connective phrases to smooth the transition from one idea to the next; for example, “Nis hit/þæt nan wundor” (Ps[P] 50.7, CP 275.12-13, Bo 131.14), “Gif þu swa (ne) dest” (Ps[P] 27.1, LawAfEl [E] 36), “(þeah) hit gebyrige” (Ps[P] 4.5, CP 215.8, Bo 57.10, Solil 47.14);16 (2) rendering the Latin substantival adjectives bonum (-a), malum (-a), when objects of active verbs, by corresponding Old English adverbs; for example, Ps(P) 4.6, “Hwa tæcð us teala” (Ro. Quis ostendit nobis bona), and 13.1, “wel do” (Ro. faciat bonum), CP 57.23, “wel don” (Gregory 22B bona agere), and 193.12, “tela læran” (Gregory 54D bona dicere), Bo 137.10, “him leanige þæt he ær tela dyde” (Boethius IV.7.3 [causa] remunerandi . . . bonos); (3) retaining a key Latin word or title in the Old English translation, introduced by the formulae hatte, ðe mon hæt, is gehaten/genemned;17 for example, Ps(P) 13.3, “þa mon ‘aspis’ hæt,” and 28.6, “þe ‘unicornus’ hatte,” CP 7.18-19, “ðe is genemned on Læden Pastoralis,” and 77.9, “ðe mon hæt rationale,” Bo 41.23 and 140.8-9, “on þære bec þe Astralogium/Fisica hatte,” Solil 2.14, “þa bec sint gehatene: Soliloquiorum”; (4) translating the Latin connective particles autem, (et)enim, quidem, quippe, vero, etc. by þonne and ac, or not translating them at all,18 in marked contrast to the Old English glossed psalters,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 76 ]]
the West-Saxon Gospels, and Ælfric, all of which sedulously translate with words such as soðlice and witodlice.
The linguistic evidence of Ps(P)’s phonology, accidence, vocabulary, and syntax is consonant with early West Saxon origins and Alfredian authorship.19 Although broadly late West Saxon in its phonology, as might be expected from a text found in a mid-eleventh-century manuscript, Ps(P) contains a stratum of early West Saxon spellings such as meahte, na(w)uht, and nyle, and the spelling scold- in the Vitellius copy of the Introductions. Ps(P)’s inflectional system is consonant with early West Saxon usage, especially in its general preservation of the distinctive plural inflections of strong adjectives and in the predominance of -ena for the genitive plural of weak adjectives.20 Such evidence suggests that Ps(P) was originally composed in early West Saxon.
For common syntactical constructions Ps(P) and Alfred frequently agree in their choice of formula.21 Generally speaking, and allowing for differences in subject matter and sources, both (especially in Alfred, Bo) prefer hypotaxis over parataxis, with a predilection for causative (for þæm) and adversative (þeah) clauses.22 Specifically, for “Clauses of Duration” both prefer the formula þa hwile þe,23 not mid þy þe or on þære hwile þe or
[[ Print Edition Page No. 77 ]]
swa lange swa; for “After” clauses, syþþan,24 not æfter þæm þe or þæs þe; for causal clauses, for þæm/þam rather than the instrumental for þan/þon/þy;25 in purpose clauses, the same range of alternatives to the predominant formula þæt—to þæm/þam þæt, for þæm/þam þæt, for þi/þy þæt;26 for concessive clauses, þeah rather than þeah þe.27 Both Ps(P) and Alfred have an unusually low proportion of “expanded” to “normal” verbal forms.28 Finally, both share certain early, rare, or otherwise unattested usages: (1) þy/þe læs without an appended þe;29 (2) swiðe hraðe þæs þe, found only in Ps(P) 36.20 and Bo 133.23;30 (3) for þæm/þy þæt introducing a purpose clause, a rare construction found in Ps(P) Introd. 18 and
[[ Print Edition Page No. 78 ]]
CP 451.4;31 (4) hreowsian with a genitive object, attested only in Ps(P) and CP.32
In vocabulary Ps(P) consistently agrees with Alfred’s works against a variety of Old English works from different periods and dialects.33 For a large range of common concepts for which synonyms were available, both choose, reject, and prefer the same words. Moreover, in the case of words that are found severally in other early West Saxon works (Or, the 890-Chronicle), only Ps(P) and Alfred share them in the same combination. Differences in vocabulary between the two can be plausibly explained by different stylistic or thematic concerns or by the absence of the concept in one or the other.
Before considering the last type of evidence, the numerous agreements between Ps(P) and Alfred’s works in content and phrasing, a long-standing issue needs to be addressed. Alfred’s CP contains a number of individual passages from the psalms, translated from Gregory’s original citations in the Cura Pastoralis. It might be expected that these translations would share distinctive features or at least be very similar to the corresponding translations of Ps(P) if the two works were composed by the same author. But a study of the two sets of translations by Albert S. Cook34 concluded that since there is no strong resemblance—indeed there are notable discrepancies—between them, the claim for their common authorship is doubtful. However, Cook neglected two important considerations. First, the shared translations reflect very different contexts: those from CP are polemical, used by Gregory to bolster an argument, to illustrate a point of doctrine or morals; those from Ps(P) belong in each instance to a paraphrase of an individual psalm, shaped by the literal, historical interpretation proposed in the Introduction. Second, they reflect different concerns in translation: in CP, an overriding concern with clarity, with conveying the sense of Gregory;35 in Ps(P), an attempt to enhance sense with a style appropriate to a biblical book of sapiential poetry. Thus, context and method of translation must be considered in the comparison between the two works.
Of the ten translations of the psalms in common, two (Pss. 1.1 and 22.4) are very similar in both works and need not be discussed here. Four others are basically similar, with readily explainable differences.36
|(1)||Ps. 33.20||multae tribulationes iustorum|
|Ps(P)||“Monigu synt earfoðu þara rihtwisena”|
|CP 253.5||“Suiðe monigfalde sint ryhtwisra monna earfoðu” (Gregory 68A).|
In the three instances here where CP translates differently from Ps(P), the different translation of the former is attested elsewhere in Ps(P): the addition of suiðe (at Pss. 7.8 and 9.9); ryhtwisra as adjective rather than substantive (Ps. 44.10, Introd. 48); and manifealde rendering multa (Ps. 31.10), an unusual use of a word that normally translates plurimus, multiplex and multi- compounds.37
|(2)||Ps. 37.9||The differences, mainly stylistic, are discussed in Chap. 4, pp. 52-53.|
|(3)||Ps. 39.13||cor meum dereliquit me|
|Ps(P)||“min heorte and min mod me forleton”|
|CP 273.13-14||“Min mod & min wisdom me forlet” (Gregory 72B).|
The only significant difference, the translation of cor, admits of a contextual explanation. Discussing the necessity of good thoughts, Gregory (72A/B) cites three scriptural passages: the first (Prov. 5.1) contains the word sapientiam, which Alfred translates with wisdom (CP 273.9); the second is the psalter quotation above; the third (2Sm. 7.27) contains the word cor, which he again translates with wisdom (CP 273.16). Thus, the overall context of the Latin determined the choice of wisdom as a translation of cor in CP. In Ps(P)’s translation, which reflects the interpretation of the Introduction (the huge number of his enemies has so
[[ Print Edition Page No. 80 ]]
terrified the psalmist that he has almost lost his reason), the collocation heorte and mod to translate cor denotes the loss, respectively, of physical and moral courage.
|(4)||Ps. 50.5||delictum meum coram me est semper|
|Ps(P)||“mina synna beoð symle beforan me on minum gemynde”|
|CP 413.18-19||“Mine misdæda bioð simle beforan me” (Gregory 107C).|
CP’s misdæda to translate delictum is probably a deliberate variation from its normal translation, synna, to avoid repetition of the latter, which occurs immediately before (413.18) and after (413.20). Thus, Alfred uses a stylistic technique commonly attested in Ps(P). The other difference, Ps(P)’s addition on minum gemynde, has its counterpart in the fuller context of CP, “ða gedonan synna gelæden beforan hira modes eagan” (413.14-15), “gemun ðu hiora” (413.22), “ælce synne geðencen ðæra ðe hi gemunan mægen” (413.23). Arguably, the latter quotations are the source of Ps(P)’s addition.
The remaining four shared quotations reveal significant differences that require fuller explanations.
|(5)||Ps. 29.7-8||Ego autem dixi in mea abundantia non mouebor in
aeternum (8) . . . auertisti faciem tuam a me et factus sum conturbatus38
|Ps(P)||CP (465.15-17, 19-20; Gregory 126B/C)|
|Ic cwæð on minum wlencum and on minre orsorhnesse: “Ne wyrð þises næfre nan wendincg.” . . . Þa awendest þu þinne andwlitan fram me, þa wearð ic sona gedrefed.||Ic wende on minum wlencum & on minum forwanan, ða ic wæs full ægðer ge welona ge godra weorca, ðæt ðæs næfre ne wurde nan ende. . . . Dryhten, ðu ahwyrfdes ðinne ondwlitan from me, ða wearð ic gedrefed|
The main difference, CP’s additional clause, “ða ic . . . weorca,” reiterates Gregory’s theme in the corresponding chapter (55) of the Cura, that preachers are apt to become puffed up because of their success and virtue. Otherwise, CP and Ps(P) translate very similarly. Thus, both translate abundantia with a collocation of which the first member is wlencum; the difference in the second reflects CP’s literal as against Ps(P)’s moral interpretation. (In any case, Ps(P)’s collocation is attested in CP 83.16-17 [Gregory 29A], “ne ðyrfe bion to upahæfen for nanum wlencum ne for
[[ Print Edition Page No. 81 ]]
nanre orsorgnesse.”) For the remainder of verse 7, both agree in their rendering of non mouebor in aeternum with impersonal weorðan + demonstrative (referring to the speaker’s prosperity) + næfre + nan ende/wendincg, in marked contrast with, for example, Ps(A), “ic soðlice ic ceð in minre genyhtsumnisse ne biom onstyred in ecnisse.” Likewise, in verse 8 superficial differences conceal underlying similarities of method and ideas. CP’s addition of Dryhten and its translation of auertisti by ahwyrfdes are both attested elsewhere in Ps(P), which here probably preferred awendest for its alliterative effect. More significantly, Ps(P)’s additions of sona and a correlative þa . . . þa construction imply an interpretation best explained by reference to CP’s alternative paraphrase of the Latin passage, “ic ongeat swiðe hraðe, siððan ðu me forlete, hu untrum ic wæs” (465.22). That is, the speaker’s reversal followed immediately after God’s turning away from him—precisely the idea underlying Ps(P)’s modifications.39 The fact that Gregory does not mention the swiftness of divine retribution enhances the agreement between CP and Ps(P).
|(6)||Ps. 31.5||dixi pronuntiabo aduersum me iniustitias meas Domino et tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei|
|Ps(P)||CP 419.7-10 (Gregory 109C)|
|Þa cwæð ic on minum mode þæt ic wolde andettan and stælan ongean me sylfne mine scylda, and þa Gode andetan; and þu me þa forgeafe þæt unriht minra scylda.||Ic wille secgan ongean me selfne min unryht, Dryhten, forðæm ðu forgeafe ða arleasnesse minre heortan. Ða he hæfde befæst Gode his synna, ða he getiohchod æfde ðæt he him ondettan sceolde.|
First, the differences in vocabulary. For Lat. pronuntiabo, CP gives a literal translation, ic wille secgan; Ps(P) characteristically provides a pair of verbs, andettan and stælan, to emphasize the key concept of the psalmist’s guilt. (In fact, andettan occurs in CP’s second sentence, a similarity all the more significant because Gregory does not mention this concept.) Ps(P)’s scylda translating iniustitias is a deliberate variation from “normal” unriht to avoid repetition—the latter was used in the preceding clause—and to echo scylda of the Introduction and verses 2, 3, and 5 (1°). Likewise, CP’s arleasnesse (unique in that work) is probably also a deliberate variation to avoid repetition of unriht (its normal translation of impietas), which Ps(P) has here. Finally, Ps(P)’s rendering of cordis by scylda, rather than CP’s literal heortan, probably reflects its interpretative emphasis on scylda (cf.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 82 ]]
also Ga. peccati); in any case a literal translation of cordis would have been redundant, since the previous verses had emphasized the interiority of the psalmist’s sin.
Next, the differences in content and interpretation. Conceivably, CP’s source, Gregory, contained the variant Domine (a Vetus Latina reading found in early Romanum psalters), hence its vocative Dryhten; whereas Ps(P) probably used a Romanum psalter with the primary reading Domino, which was treated as indirect object of pronuntiabo, hence “þa Gode andetan.” (Compare CP’s explanatory “he him ondettan sceolde.”) As a translation of et tu remisisti, CP’s causal “forðæm ðu forgeafe” reflects Gregory’s interpretation that the psalmist decided to acknowledge his sins because he knew that God had already cleansed his impiety; whereas Ps(P)’s temporal “þu me þa forgeafe” culminates a process of self-knowledge and repentance (developed in vv. 3-5) whereby, once the psalmist decides to acknowledge openly his hidden sin, God forgives him. Significantly, the same interpretation is given in a subsequent comment in CP 419.11-12 (Gregory 109C), “hio [sc. the premeditated sin] him sona forgiefen wære swa he geðoht hæfde ðæt he hi ondettan wolde.” Other agreements between CP and Ps(P), which imply a fundamentally similar interpretation of Ps. 31.5, are (1) interpreting dixi as a mental process, “ða he getiohchod æfde” and “Þa cwæð ic on minum mode”; (2) rendering pronuntiabo by “ondettan” (in CP’s second sentence); and (3) emphasizing the speaker’s guilt with reflexive self.
|(7)||Ps. 39.10-11||. . . ecce labia mea non prohibebo Domine tu cognouisti
(11) iustitiam tuam non abscondi in corde meo ueritatem tuam et salutare tuum dixi
|Ps(P)||CP 381.10-12 (Gregory 97B)|
|. . . minum weolorum ic ne forbeode ac bebeode þæt hy þæt sprecon symle. Drihten, þu wast þæt ic ne ahydde on minum mode þine rihtwisnesse, ac þine soðfæstnesse and þine hælo ic sæde.||Dryhten, ðu wast ðæt ic ne wyrne minra welera, & ðine ryhtwisnes[se] ic ne diegle on minre heortan; ðine hælo & ðine ryhtwisnesse ic secgge.|
In CP’s Latin source this psalter quotation would have been presented as a continuous passage without verse division, so that Domine tu cognouisti could be read as forming a single sentence with the preceding clause ecce labia mea non prohibebo; in Ps(P)’s source, an English Romanum psalter, Domine tu cognouisti marks the beginning of a new verse and sentence, and ecce . . . prohibebo the last clause of the preceding verse. Consequently, both translations have the same clause “Drihten þu wast” but governing different noun clauses: in CP, “ðæt ic ne wyrne minra welera”
[[ Print Edition Page No. 83 ]]
(labia mea non prohibebo); in Ps(P), “þæt ic ne ahydde on minum mode þine rihtwisnesse” (iustitiam tuam non abscondi in corde meo). Thus, the difference between the two translations arises from the different physical layout of their respective sources. The other major difference, Ps(P)’s expansion of the first Latin clause into two of Old English, probably reflects the influence of psalter commentary and the paraphrast’s striving for rhetorical effect with word play between negative forbeode and positive bebeode.40 The disagreements between the two passages in verbal tense result from different contexts: in CP David speaks of immediate events; in Ps(P), in accordance with the guidelines of the Introduction, he focuses on actions of the past. Finally, both share unusual similarities: omitting a translation of ecce; rendering perfect cognouisti with the present of a verb, þu wast, which normally translates scire; and (CP only) translating ueritatem with ryhtwisnesse, a treatment well attested elsewhere in Ps(P).41
|(8)||Ps. 48.8-9||. . . non dabit Deo placationem suam (9) nec pretium redemptionis animae suae . . .|
|Ps(P)||CP 339.9-12 (Gregory 88A)|
|nan broðor . . . ne deð to goode þa hwile þe he her byð. Gylde for þy him sylf and alyse his sawle þa hwyle ðe he her sy, for þam se broðor oþþe nyle oððe ne mæg, gif he sylf na ne onginð to tilianne þæt he þæt weorð agife to alysnesse his sawle.||He ne sealde Gode nanne metsceat for his saule ne nænne geðingsceat wið his miltse. Ðæt is ðonne se medsceat wið his saule ðæt he him gielde god weore for ðære|
Although the two passages present such fundamentally different interpretations as to preclude meaningful comparison, both find the same meaning in placationem suam, the necessity of good works to save a man. In any case, Ps(P)’s interpretation probably derives directly from Alfred’s Solil.42
Thus, a comparison between the shared psalter translations in Ps(P) and CP shows that the differences between them do not necessarily indicate different authorship; all could be explained as the work of a single author adjusting his translation to different sources and contexts. In fact, underlying the differences are agreements in word choice, in methods of translation, and in interpretation, which can be added to the numerous agreements in content and phrasing about to be discussed.
I. Ps(P) and the works of Alfred show numerous agreements in phrasing. The following are noteworthy because they depart from a literal, word-for-word, translation of their respective Latin sources:
|(1)||Ps(P) 9.22||“to þære tide þe us nydþearf wæs” (Ro. in oportunitatibus
|CP 89.20||“on ðæm dæge ðe him niedðearf wæs” (Gregory 30B:
“in die Domini” = Ez. 13.5).
|(2)||Ps(P) 10.7||“hi gewyrpð mid grine” (Ro. pluit super peccatores
|CP 309.17-18||“hit ða gewearp mid synne grine” (Gregory 81B: “in
peccati laqueo strinxit”).
Distinctive in both is the perfective use of geweorpan, ‘to throw and catch’,43 and the instrumental mid grine for which neither Latin source has an equivalent.
|(3)||Ps(P) Introd. 14||“Dauid . . . þa he adrifen wæs of his earde” (Arg. [a]: “in
|CP 37.3-4||“Se ilca Dauid . . . ðone kyning ne yfelode, ðe hine
. . . of his earde adræfde” (Gregory 17B: “ferire
deprehensum persecutorem noluit”)
|Bo 63.14-15||“gif hwelc swiðe rice mon wyrð adrifen of his earde”
(Boethius III.4.11: “si qui multiplici consulatu functus
in barbaras nationes forte deuenerit”).
|(4)||Ps(P) 24.7||“Þa scylda . . . þe ic wende þæt nan scyld nære” (Ro.
delicta . . . ignorantiae meae)
|CP 39.5-6||“he wende ðæt hit nan syn nære” (Gregory 17C:
“Neque enim peccare se Ezechias credidit”).
|(5)||Ps(P) 41.8||“Seo neolnes cliopað to þære neolnesse, and heo oncwyð
for þære stemne eorðan wæterædra” (Ro. abyssus
abyssum inuocat in uoce cataractarum tuarum)
|Bo 57.19-20||“þincð him wynsumre þæt him se weald oncweðe 7
hi gehiran oðerra fugla stemne” (Boethius III. m.
2.26: “siluas dulci uoce susurrat”).
Common to both passages is the imaginative addition of the echo (oncweðan).44
II. More significantly, Ps(P) and Alfred have in common additions to their respective Latin sources, which agree in both content and phrasing.
|(1)||Ps(P) 35.13||“þa þe unriht wyrcen and him þæt licað” (Ro. qui
|Bo 103.17-19||“swa hwa swa mid fulle willan his mod went to ðæm
yflum ðe he ær forlet, 7 hi ðonne fullfremeð, 7 hi him
þonne fullice liciað” (Boethius III. m. 12; no immediate source).
Both passages define wicked behavior as both doing evil and taking pleasure in it.
|(2)||Ps(P) 40.2||“him þonne gefultumað gif hine to onhagað; gif hine ne
onhagað, þonne ne licað him, þeah, his earfoðu” (no
immediate source; see relevant Commentary)
|Bo 142.19-20||“Gif men to goodum weorce ne onhagie, hæbbe goodne
willan; þæt is emngood” (Boethius V.3; no immediate source).
The central idea of both is that a man genuinely unable to provide alms (ne onhagian) can adequately compensate with good will towards his neighbor. This idea almost certainly derives from Augustine’s Enchiridion (Bk. XIX.72-73), 88.38-89.46: “Multa itaque genera sunt eleemosynarum. . . . Sed ea nihil est maius. . . . ut tuum quoque inimicum diligas, et ei qui tibi malum uult et si potest facit, tu semper bonum uelis faciasque quod possis.” Furthermore, both observe that this attitude earns God’s temporal favors: in Ps(P) material help (“þone . . . becymð”), in Bo (142.18-19) a longer life (“oð oreldo hi hine hwilum gelettað”).45
|(3)||Ps(P) 48.8-9||“nan broðor oþres sawle nele alysan of helle, ne ne
mæg . . . gif he sylf . . . ne deð to goode . . . se broðor
oþþe nyle oððe ne mæg, gif he sylf na ne onginð to
tilianne” (Ro. frater non redemit redemit homo . . . nec
pretium redemptionis animae suae)
|Solil 69.5-14||“Ða yfelan þanne ne magon nawðer ne heora
freo[n]dum, ne heom selfum nane goode [ne beon]. . . .
Ac hym byð þonne swa swa þam mannum þe her beoð
on sumes kincges carcerne gebrohte, and magon geseon
ælc[e] dæge heora freond, and geahsian be heom þæt
þæt hy willað, and ne magon heom þeah na nane gode
[[ Print Edition Page No. 86 ]]
ne beon. Ne hi hym þe ma oððe nellað, oððe ne
magon” (no immediate Latin source).
Ps(P)’s theme of the evil man’s unwillingness and inability to save his brother’s soul from Hell’s torments does not derive from psalter commentary;46 it can only be fully understood by reference to the Solil passage, part of a long elaboration of the parable of Lazarus and Dives. There the folly of Dives’s request that a message be sent to his wicked relatives still living is compared to that of a man in prison who apparently maintains close contact with his friends outside, but in reality “they have neither the wish nor the ability” to help him. The inability of one’s friends to help is the commonplace patristic interpretation of the Lazarus and Dives parable, but the idea of unwillingness to help is apparently original to Solil.47 Both Ps(P) and Solil combine the two ideas with the same phrasing, “nele/nellað . . . ne mæg/magon.”
Since these correspondences did not originate in the respective Latin sources, they would have to be explained as (1) independently composed by two different Old English authors, or (2) independently borrowed from the same external sources by these putative authors, or (3) borrowed by one author directly from the other, or (4) composed by the same author. The first alternative would require an improbable coincidence; the second is hardly more credible since it involves accepting that two different authors not only borrowed exactly the same additions from the same external sources but also expressed them with the same phrasing; the third alternative is possible, though it presupposes a complicated nexus of borrowing among three texts—either the author of Ps(P) borrowing from both Bo and Solil, or Alfred borrowing from Ps(P) for these two works on three different occasions.
III. Moreover, the latter possibility can be ruled out by another type of correspondence: Ps(P) has phrases and passages, with no basis in the Latin psalms or commentaries, that agree in thought and phrasing with translation passages in Alfred.
|(1)||Ps(P) 4.5||“Þeah hit gebyrige þæt ge on woh yrsien, ne scule ge
hit no þy hraþor þurhteon, þe læs ge syngien” (Ro.
irascimini et nolite peccare)
[[ Print Edition Page No. 87 ]]
|Ps(P) 23.4||“se þe ne hwyrfð his mod æfter idlum geþohtum and
him mid weorcum fulgæð (þeah hi him on mod
cumen)” (Ro. qui non accepit in uano animam suam)
|CP 71.13-15||“Mennisclic is ðæt mon on his mode costunga ðrowige
on ðæm luste yfles weorces, ac ðæt is deofullic ðæt he
ðone willan ður(h)teo”
(Gregory 26A: “Humanum
quidem est tentationem in corde perpeti, daemoniacum
vero est in tentationis certamine et in operatione superari”).
|(2)||Ps(P) 4.5||“forlætað and hreowsiað þæs” (Ro. conpungimini)|
|CP 419.21-22||“ða ðe hi fo(r)lætað, & swaðeah no ne hreowsiað”
(Gregory 109D-110A: “qui deserunt, nec tamen
|(3)||Ps(P) 10.6||“Se ylca Drihten ahsað rihtwise and unrihtwise, þæt
heora ægðer secge hwæt he dyde; þæt he him mæge
gyldan be heora gewyrhtum” (Ro. Dominus interrogat
iustum et impium)
|Bo 141.7-9||“is an ælmihtig God . . . se gesihð ælces monnes
geþoht, 7 his word 7 his dæda toscead, 7 gilt ælcum
æfter his gewyrhtum” (Boethius V.2.11: “ille ab
aeterno cuncta prospiciens prouidentiae cernit intuitus
et suis quaeque meritis praedestinata disponit”).
The theme of future reward and punishment proportionate to one’s merits occurs frequently in Bo and Solil.
|(4)||Ps(P) 13.2||“Drihten . . . hawað hwæðer he geseo” (Ro. Dominus
de caelo prospexit ut uideat)
|Solil 27.12-15||“forðam ælc man ðara þe æagan hefð, ærest hawað þæs
ðe he geseon wolde oð ðone first þe he hyt gehawað.
Þonne he hyt þonne gehawad heafð, ðonne gesyhð he
[[ Print Edition Page No. 88 ]]
hit” (Augustine, Soliloquia, 20.1-4: “Non enim hoc est
habere oculos quod aspicere aut item hoc est aspicere
quod videre. Ergo animae tribus quibusdam rebus opus
est: ut oculos habeat, quibus iam bene uti possit, ut
aspiciant, ut videat”).
The process of perception explained in Solil is implied in Ps(P): looking (aspicere) precedes seeing (videre). Both works use the same verbs (hawian, geseon) for the two stages of perception.
|(5)||Ps(P) Introd. 34||“Dauid sang þysne . . . sealm . . . ma witgiende þonne
wyrgende oððe wilniende” (no immediate source)
|CP 29.8-11||“se sealmscop cuæð: Sien hira eagan aðistrode ðæt hi
ne geseon. . . . Ne cuæð he ðæt forðyðe he ænegum
men ðæs wyscte oððe wilnode, ac he witgode sua sua
hit geweorðan sceolde” (Gregory 15B: “Hinc
Psalmista non optantis animo, sed prophetantis
ministerio denuntiat, dicens . . .”).
In both passages the imprecatory force of the psalms is mitigated by presenting David as simply prophesying, rather than willing, the harsh sentiments he expresses.
|(6)||Ps(P) 49.21||“ic swugode and þolode swylce ic hit nyste” (Ro. tacui)|
|CP 151.22||“ic suugode, suelce ic hit ne gesawe” (Gregory 44C:
“quia ego tacens et quasi non videns” = Is. 57.11).
In both passages, tacere is translated to mean that God simulates indifference to flagrant sin.
Since these elaborations in Ps(P) have no parallels in psalter (and other Latin) commentaries, it may reasonably be assumed that they derive from either Alfred’s translations or the Latin sources of the latter. Of the two possibilities, the first seems more likely, judging by the close verbal similarities in the phrasing of shared ideas, including the unusual usage of hreowsian with a genitival object.50 In that case, the borrowing agreements resulted either from one author, the paraphrast of Ps(P), borrowing from another, Alfred, or from the same author drawing on his own previous works.
IV. What makes the latter alternative likely are certain passages in Ps(P) that have close correspondences in Alfred, where the respective Latin originals differ significantly from each other.
|(1)||Ps(P) 9.36||“þæs synfullan . . . þeah hine hwa ahsode for hwi he swa
dyde, þonne ne mihte he hit na gereccan, ne geþafa beon
nolde þæt he untela dyde” (Ro. requiretur delictum eius nec
|CP 207.1-3||“Ða scamleasa nyton ðæt hie untela doð, buton hit
mon him secge, & ðeah hit mon him secge, hie his ne geliefað,
buton hie monige menn forðy tælen” (Gregory 57C: “Illi
se delinquere nesciunt, nisi etiam a pluribus increpentur”).
Both passages describe the obdurate sinner, blind to the evil of his sin and, when it is pointed out to him, unwilling to admit it.
|(2)||Ps(P) 13.3||“Hi synt byrgenum gelice: seo byð utan fæger and innan
ful” (Ro. sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum)
|CP 449.6-8||“Be swelcum monnum cwæð Dryhten ðæt hi wæren
gelicost deadra manna byrgennum, ða bioð utan oft swiðe
wlitige geworhte, & bioð innan swiðe fule gefylde”
(Gregory 119D/120A: “Quos recte sepulcra dealbata
speciosa exterius, sed mortuorum ossibus plena Veritas vocat”).
Whereas the Latin psalter commentaries interpret patens as the physical corruption of the tomb (Cassiodorus, for example, describes its fetidos odores), Ps(P) expresses the opposite idea: the tomb is outwardly beautiful, inwardly (and secretly) corrupt. The idea ultimately derives from Mt. 23.27, but the similar phrasing of it in Ps(P) and CP, including the clarification of the sepulchral metaphor as a simile, points to a direct relationship between the two works.
|(3)||Ps(P) Introd. 18||“. . . gesceafta, ðe he gesceop mannum to ðeowian[ne],
ne for ðy þæt þa men sceoldon him ðeowian”
(Arg. [a]: “elementa a se creata componit ut per ipsa
|Bo 32.8-12||“ge ne ongitað hu micelne teonan ge doð Gode
eowrum scippende, forþamþe he wolde þætte ealle
men wæran ealra oþerra gesceafta wealdendas; ac ge
underþeodað eowre hehstan medemnesse under þa
eallra nyðemestan gesceafta” (Boethius II.5.26-27:
“nec intellegitis quantam conditori uestro faciatis
iniuriam. Ille genus humanum terrenis omnibus
praestare uoluit, uos dignitatem uestram infra infima
Although taking from the Arg. (a) its basic idea that God made creatures for a specific purpose, Ps(P) rejects its explanation of that purpose to present a different concern: created things were meant to serve, not enslave, man—precisely the theme of the Boethian passage.
|(4)||Ps(P) Introd. 35||“he genam his ceac and his spere on his getelde on
niht to tacne þæt he inne mid him slæpendum wæs”
(Arg. [a]: “eum necare ualens scyphum tantum pro
signo fidei hastamque subripuit”)
|CP 197.21-22||“forcearf his mentles ænne læppan to tacne ðæt he
his gewald ahte” (Gregory 55D: “oram chlamydis
Although referring to two different episodes in the biblical story of David’s flight from Saul (1Sm. 26.6-16 and 24.1-15, respectively), Ps(P) and CP find in their respective event the same significance: David’s power over Saul. Moreover, in both works that idea is similarly phrased (“to tacne þæt he . . . wæs/ahte”), even though neither is a literal rendering of its source.
|(5)||Ps(P) 44.10||“stent cwen þe on þa swyðran hand . . . þæt ys, eall
Cristnu gesamnung” (Ro. adstetit regina a dextris tuis)
|CP 381.19-21||“ðonne wilnað se brydguma, ðæt is Crist, ðæt he gehire
ða stemne ðære bryde, ðæt is Cristenra monna
gesomnung” (Gregory 97B/C: “Ecclesia quippe in
hortis habitat . . . quam videlicet vocem sponsus audire
Despite the fact that the two passages refer to different biblical books, the Psalms and the Song of Songs, their agreement covers not only the allegorical interpretation of cwen/bryd as the Church (the assembly of all Christians) but also her marriage to Christ (þe/brydguma).
|(6)||Ps(P) 48.9-10||“fullneah ælc mann þæs tiolað fram þæm anginne his
lifes oþ þæne ende, hu he on ecnesse swincan mæge”
(Ro. laborauit in aeternum et uiuet in finem)
|CP 239.20-23||“Ða ðe meahton Godes friend beon butan gesu[i]nce,
hie suuncon ymb ðæt hu hie meahton gesyngian. . . . he
wile geearnian mid his gesuince his agenne deað”
(Gregory 65A: “cumque vivere simpliciter renuunt,
laboribus exigunt ut moriantur”).
The same basic idea governs both passages: mankind’s perversity in toiling for its own damnation.
Discussing the same type of correspondence between passages in Solil and Bo, Frank G. Hubbard51 argued that it is not very probable that two different translators rendering the same Latin original would use the same form of expression; even less probable that they would use “the same expression to render Latin passages differing widely in expression”; and “in the highest degree improbable, if not impossible, that a translator would borrow expressions from the translation of a different work by another man.”52 Yet, this last possibility cannot be ruled out. Arguably, the author of Ps(P) could have been someone so familiar with Alfred’s translations and their Latin originals that “remembering that Alfred had previously translated the same idea that now confronted him, he . . . checked . . . to see how Alfred had phrased it.”53 Or, conceivably, he might have borrowed all these expressions (already combined) from Alfred’s handbook, in which (according to Asser) the king recorded memorable passages from biblical and patristic sources.54 In answer to these arguments, there is the evidence of a fifth category of agreements.
V. Ps(P) shares with Alfred idiosyncratic translations of certain Latin words and phrases. Not only do these shared translations differ significantly from the conventional translations of such words, they imply a personal interpretation or preference.
|(1)||Ps(P) 1.1||“on heora wolbærendum setle” (Ro. in cathedra
|CP 435.19||“on ðæm wolberendan setle” (Gregory 115B: “in cathedra
pestilentiae” = Ps. 1.1).
Peculiar in both is the translation of the noun pestilentiae by an attributive adjective wolberende and the choice of the latter, which properly translates pestifer. In CP this choice was probably determined by an immediately preceding occurrence of wolberende (415.12) translating pestifer (Gregory 108B).
|(2)||Ps(P) 7.16||“He adylfð þone pytt, and he hine ontynð” (Ro.
lacum aperuit et effodit eum)
|LawsAfEl 22(E)||“Gif hwa adelfe wæterpyt oððe betynedne ontyne 7
hine eft ne betyne” (= Ex. 21.33 si quis aperuerit
cisternam et foderit et non operuerit eam).
Both passages not only translate aperire and (ef)fodere with the same verbs (ontynan and adelfan, respectively), they also present them in inverted order, presumably a reflection of the translator’s commonsense view that digging a pit precedes the (re-)opening of it.
|(3)||Ps(P) 14.1 (and passim)||“on þinum temple” (Ro. in tabernaculo tuo)|
|CP 101.24||“Moyses oft eode inn & ut on ðæt templ” (Gregory 33B,
“Moyses crebro tabernaculum intrat et exit”).
In the Vulgate Old Testament the dwelling of Yahweh is called either tabernaculum or templum, the former denoting the tent that temporarily housed the Ark of the Covenant, the latter the permanent home of the Ark, the Temple at Jerusalem.55 Old English translations of these two words are as follows: tabernaculum, whether it means the home of the Ark or any tent, is normally translated by geteld or sele(ge)sceot; templum by tempel.56 The sole exceptions are Ps(P) and CP, which diverge from this predictable pattern as follows: where tabernaculum refers to the tent containing the Ark, they translate with tempel; in all other instances with geteld.57 Underlying this curious usage is the pious attitude of a translator unwilling to describe God’s earthly dwelling as a tent.
|(4)||Ps(P) Introd. 16||“Dauid . . . his fynd þe his ehton butan scylde”
(Arg. [a]: “Dauid . . . quem inimici gratis impugnabant”)
|Ps(P) 34.19||“mine fynd . . . me hatiað butan scylde” (Ro. qui
oderunt me gratis)
|CP 355.14-15||“Ic lufode ða ðe sibbe hatodon, & ðonne ic him
cidde, ðonne oncuðon hie me butan scylde” (Gregory
91C: “Cum his qui oderunt pacem, eram pacificus,
cum loquebar illis, impugnabant me gratis” = Ps. 119.7).
Gratis, as found in all three Latin sources above, means ‘without cause, unjustly’ and is normally translated in Old English by butan gewyrhtum/geearnungum or be ungewyrhtum. But in the above Old English passages it is translated by butan scylde, the phrase normally used for Latin sine culpa. All three, although from different contexts in the psalms, present the same theme of David as the innocent victim of persecution at the hands of those whom he tries to love.58 This thematic emphasis on David’s innocence presumably caused the translator to mentally shift the adverbial modifier gratis from the verb denoting the hostile action (impugnabant/oderunt) to its object and victim, David, hence the translation butan scylde. Significantly, outside of this special context, both Ps(P) and CP observe the normal usage of butan gewyrhtum scylde translating sine culpa.59
|(5)||Ps(P) 16.8||“Geheald me, Drihten, and beorh me, swa swa man
byrhð þam æplum on his eagum mid his bræwum” (Ro.
custodi me Domine ut pupillam oculi)
|Bo 133.11-13||“sum wis mon cwæð þæt se godcunda anwald gefrioðode
his deorlingas . . . 7 hi scilde swa geornlice
swa (swa) man deð þone æppel on his eagan” (Boethius
IV.6; no immediate source).
Distinctive in Ps(P) is the translation of Latin ut pupillam oculi (which admits of several syntactical interpretations)60 as a simile with an exact syntactical correspondence of elements with the preceding clause, so that God protecting the psalmist is paralleled by man protecting the pupil of his eye.61 The same comparison, with the same treatment of its elements, is
[[ Print Edition Page No. 94 ]]
found in the Bo passage, with the addition of the quality of comparison, geornlice. Furthermore, the use in Ps(P) and Bo of æppel to translate pupilla is otherwise attested only in CP.62
|(6)||Ps(P) 17.29||“For þam þu onælest min leohtfæt, Drihten, min God,
onlyht mine þystru” (Ro. quoniam tu inluminas lucernam
meam Domine Deus meus inlumina tenebras meas)
|CP 259.11-13||“Æresð he hiene onlieht mid his leohtfæte, ðonne he
hiene gelieffæsð, & eft he hine onlieht, ðonne he hiene
onælð mid ðæm tapure ðæs go(d)cundan lieges”
(Gregory 69B: “Lucerna Domini . . . Divini afflatus
illuminatio, cum in mentem hominis venerit, eam
sibimetipsi illuminans ostendit”).
The lamp as a metaphor of divine illumination is commonplace; what is unusual is the expansion of the metaphor to include kindling (onælan) of the lamp. In order to incorporate this idea, the translator in both passages has done violence to the Latin root illumina-. Thus, in Ps(P) onælest replaces what should have been a translation of inluminas; in CP he hiene onælð . . . lieges translates Divini afflatus illuminatio. Arguably, what underlies these unusual translations is authorial interest in the operation of the lamp, a concern that recalls Asser’s account of how King Alfred devised a lamp for his personal use.63
|(7)||Ps(P) 17.43 “herestrætum” (Ro. platearum)|
|CP 373.13 (and passim) “herestrætum” (Gregory 95C, “plateis”).|
Lat. platea is normally translated in Old English by stræt, in accordance with its Classical (and patristic) Latin meaning ‘a broad way in a city, a street’. The distinctive translation herestræt, ‘a highway’,64 which reflects the medieval Latin meaning of platea,65 is found among Old English works only in Ps(P) and CP, thus suggesting a common translator.
The agreements between Ps(P) and Alfred’s works in ideas, in the phrasing of these ideas, and in idiosyncracies of translation are best
[[ Print Edition Page No. 95 ]]
explained by common authorship.66 Nor do occasional dissimilarities between the two in translating the same Latin sources prejudice this claim, since they reveal, in fact, a similar underlying method of translation. When to these fundamental agreements are added many other types of evidence (especially that of word choice), which, despite their disparate nature, harmonize as to time, place, or person, the only reasonable conclusion is that Alfred was the author of Ps(P).
Granted this claim, where does Ps(P) fit in the chronology of his works? One clue is provided by the evidence just discussed, which shows that while Ps(P) contains many ideas and expressions formulated in CP, Bo, and Solil, they, in contrast, reveal no trace of Ps(P)’s distinctive exegesis, a lack especially noticeable in the ten psalm quotations that CP shares with Ps(P). And whereas the shared ideas can be accounted for in these three works by reference to their respective Latin sources, either as direct translation or paraphrastic elaboration, in Ps(P) they are manifestly additions. Moreover, some of the latter are sufficiently awkward in their new context to suggest the activity of an author superimposing on his paraphrase of the psalms favorite ideas developed in his earlier works.67 Chronologically, this conclusion is consistent with William of Malmesbury’s statement that Alfred was engaged in a translation of the psalms at the time he died (899).
A final question is Ps(P)’s place in the Alfredian canon.68 Should it be regarded as a product of his ambitious plan of translations? Certainly it deserves to be described as one of the books “ðe niedbeðearfosta sien eallum monnum to wiotonne” (CP 7.7). The psalter was the book of the Old Testament most widely used in the Middle Ages: it was the school book from which the beginner learned to read and write Latin, a concern that Alfred specifically addressed in his preface to CP,69 and it provided the basic text for both private devotions and the liturgical observance of the Divine Office. Moreover, the markedly didactic character of Ps(P) in style and content reveals an author with pedagogical concerns similar to those stated in the preface to CP and implied in Alfred’s other translations. At the same time personal considerations cannot be ignored. As attested by Asser,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 96 ]]
his biographer and confidant, Alfred had a special devotion to the psalms, reciting them daily.70 In sum, there were weighty reasons, public and private, why Alfred would have undertaken the translation that has survived as the first fifty Prose Psalms in the Paris Psalter.
[1 ] William Stubbs, ed., Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis Regum Anglorum Libri Quinque, 2 vols. (London, 1887-89), 1:132.
[2 ] See Dorothy Whitelock, “William of Malmesbury on the Works of King Alfred,” in Medieval Literature and Civilization: Studies in Memory of G. N. Garmonsway, ed. Derek A. Pearsall and Ronald A. Waldron (London, 1969), pp. 78-93, at p. 89.
[4 ] Wichmann, “König Aelfred’s Übertragung,” pp. 39-96; Bromwich, “The Translator,” pp. 289-303. For criticisms of Wichmann, see Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon Version, passim, esp. pp. 5-6, 108-19, Bromwich, “The Translator,” pp. 292-93, and Bately, “Authorship,” p. 86; for criticisms of Bromwich, see C. and K. Sisam in Facsimile, p. 16.
[5 ] Now generally accepted as CP, Bo, Solil, and probably LawAfEl. See Whitelock, “The Prose,” pp. 67-103, and Bately, “Old English Prose,” pp. 95-96.
[9 ] CP 7.19-20, repeated in the Proem to Bo (1.2-3): “Hwilum he sette word be worde, hwilum andgit of andgite.” See further Bromwich, “The Translator,” p. 299, n. 1.
[10 ] See Brown, “Method and Style,” pp. 672-80. Whitelock’s claim (“The Prose,” p. 95) that Ps(P) resembles CP in giving “different renderings of identical [biblical] passages,” while true for Ps(P), cannot be proved or disproved by the scant evidence in CP.
[12 ] See Whitelock, “The Prose,” p. 95.
[13 ] Though opinion differs as to how much these changes are the conscious work of Alfred. See, most recently, M. McC. Gatch, “King Alfred’s Version of Augustine’s Soliloquia: Some Suggestions on its Rationale and Unity,” and W. F. Bolton, “How Boethian is Alfred’s Boethius?” in Studies in Earlier English Prose, ed. Paul E. Szarmach (Albany, 1986), pp. 17-45, 153-68, respectively.
[14 ] M. Grünberg, The West-Saxon Gospels: A Study of the Gospel of St. Matthew with Text of the Four Gospels (Amsterdam, 1967), pp. 271-314, lists from WS “a fairly large number of deviations from the standard Latin text,” but they are not substantive. See now R. M. Liuzza, The Old English Version of the Gospels, EETS 314 (Oxford, 2000), esp. pp. 1 and 50-51.
[17 ] See also Gustav Wack, Über das Verhältnis von König Aelfred’s Übersetzung der Cura Pastoralis zum Original (Greifswald, 1889), p. 49.
[18 ] Thus uero, which occurs 8x in the first fifty psalms, Ps(P) translates only 1x with soþlice, otherwise with ac (2x), þeah (1x), or no translation (4x); likewise, CP uses soþlice to translate quippe and uero only 2x (29.12 and 71.3), preferring ac (e.g., 27.11, 53.6), ðonne (e.g., 71.15, 73.3), or no translation (e.g., 71.13-14, 73.8-9); Bo has no occurrence of soþlice; Solil has 3x, but all modify verbs. For typical usage in the Old English interlinear glossed psalters, see Kuhn’s edition of Ps(A), s.v. soðlice; on WS, see Grünberg, The West-Saxon Gospels, p. 297, and Liuzza, The Old English Version, pp. 109-11 and s.vv. soðlice, þa, þeah, and witodlice; on Ælfric, Pope, Homilies, 1:102, and Karl Jost, “Unechte Ælfrictexte,” Anglia 51 (1927): 177-219, at p. 177. Apparently, Alfred regarded soþlice as asseverative and used it sparingly.
[21 ] The categories of constructions and most of the statistics on Alfred are taken from Liggins, “Authorship.” However, certain categories in the latter have been omitted because the number of occurrences in Ps(P) is too small to carry statistical weight; e.g., “Before” clauses with ær (4x), “Immediate Sequence” with sona swa, swiðe hraðe þæs þe (1x each), “Until” with oþ (1x). Also omitted are “Clauses of Duration” with þa and þonne because they are not strictly alternatives and because Ps(P)’s two-part structure of narrative Introductions and discursive paraphrase presents an unbalanced picture. Unfortunately, no systematic study of Alfred’s syntax exists. Wülfing, Die Syntax, deals mainly with the grammatical aspects of syntax, while Borinski, Der Stil König Alfreds, is primarily a psychological study. Both include in their discussion works no longer considered Alfredian, and Borinski omits Ps(P).
[23 ] Þa hwile þe occurs in Ps(P) 5x, CP 13x, Bo 22x, Solil 14x; there are no alternatives in Alfred except swa lange swa, CP 1x, Bo 2x. See Liggins, “Authorship,” pp. 295-96, and Mitchell, Syntax, §§2626-47.
[25 ] For þæm/þam occurs in Ps(P) 131x as against for þan/þi 9x (approximately 15:1). The corresponding numbers and ratios for Alfred are CP 198x and 40x (5:1), Bo 201x and 19x (11:1), Solil 56x and 3x (19:1). In avoiding the alternative forms with þe, Ps(P) agrees with Solil (8x), both differing markedly from CP (112x) and Bo (104x), perhaps for rhythmical reasons. See Liggins, “Authorship,” pp. 302 ff., and Mitchell, Syntax, §§3007 ff.
[26 ] To þæm/þam þæt occurs in Ps(P) 12x, CP 6x, Bo 2x, LawAfEl 1x (figures on the latter three works from Shearin, Expression of Purpose, p. 136); for þæm/þam þæt, Ps(P) 2x, CP 16x, Bo 3x (see Shearin, Expression of Purpose, p. 71); for þi/þy þæt, Ps(P) 1x, CP 1x (see Shearin, Expression of Purpose, p. 70). Moreover, the high proportion in Ps(P) of to þæm/þam þæt in relation to þæt (12:15) suggests an early stage of prose (see Mitchell, Syntax, §2891), as does the occurrence of þæm (5x) rather than þam (7x) in the compound form (Mitchell, Syntax, §2902). See Liggins, “Authorship,” pp. 307-8 (no figures), and Mitchell, Syntax, §§2889 ff., though the latter’s statistics (in §2892) apparently do not include Ps(P).
[27 ] Þeah occurs in Ps(P) 21x, never þeah þe; the corresponding ratios for Alfred are CP 51:5 (based on Liggins’s sampling), Bo 152:5, Solil 45:1. See Liggins, “Authorship,” p. 309, and Mitchell, Syntax, §§3399 ff.
[28 ] In the terminology of Gerhard Nickel, Die Expanded Form im Altenglischen (Neumünster, 1966), esp. pp. 149, 206, the incidence of occurrence (“K”) for the expanded verb in Ps(P) is 32, very close to that of Alfred (K=38), both markedly different from the general norm for Old English prose of K=80-90.
[29 ] For figures, see Shearin, Expression of Purpose, p. 95 and appendix I, and Mitchell, Syntax, §2929. From among these occurrences Shearin, Expression of Purpose, pp. 98-99, singles out Ps(P) 9.20, 37.17, and CP 327.14 as examples of a rare usage of þy læs introducing a periphrastic (auxiliary + infinitive) rather than an inflectional subjunctive, the only other occurrences being in Ælfric and Wulfstan (3x altogether). On the “periphrastic subjunctive,” see Commentary on Ps. 22.6.
[30 ] Cited by Mitchell, Syntax, §2709.
[31 ] According to Shearin, Expression of Purpose, p. 70, this formula is otherwise found only in Ælfric.
[32 ] See Hallander, Old English Verbs, p. 355.
[34 ] Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers (London, 1898), pp. xxxvi-xl, which numbers quotations from Ps(P) according to the Authorized Version. Bromwich, “The Translator,” pp. 294-95 and n. 5, explains the differences between Ps(P) and CP as stemming from (1) the former’s dependence on Gallicanum readings and (2) authorial variation. But the first explanation can only account for a few differences and the second merely begs the question.
[35 ] See Brown, “Method and Style,” pp. 678-79.
[36 ] Quotations (and page references) from Latin sources refer to the following editions: for the Romanum (Ro.) psalter, Weber, Le Psautier; for the pseudo-Bede Argumenta (Arg.), Bright and Ramsay, The West-Saxon Psalms; for Gregory’s Cura Pastoralis (referred to as “Gregory”), PL 77, 13-128; for Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae (Boethius), Bieler’s edition; for Augustine’s Soliloquia, Hörmann’s edition; for biblical quotations, Weber, Biblia Sacra. For the works of Alfred, quotations are from Sweet’s edition of CP, Sedgefield’s of Bo, Endter’s of Solil, and Liebermann’s of LawAfEl (see Select Bibliography, section IA3 for full citations).
[38 ] The first part of verse 8 has been omitted here and in the quotation from Ps(P), because it has no equivalent in either the Cura Pastoralis or CP. In quotations from the latter, I have italicized certain words for emphasis.
[39 ] For a different explanation, see Bately, “Authorship,” p. 77, n. 60.
[40 ] Cf. Norman F. Blake, The Phoenix (London, 1964), p. 26, who notes as characteristic of this poem the rhetorical device of “first stat[ing] a negative, and then its opposite.”
[41 ] E.g., Pss. 14.3 and 24.10, altogether 11x.
[42 ] See II (3), below.
[45 ] On this theme in Bo, see Otten, König Alfreds Boethius, pp. 50-51.
[47 ] Carnicelli, Soliloquies, p. 106 (note on 96.11-13), points to Gregory’s Homiliae in Evangelia Bk. II, Hom. 40 (PL 69, 1308), and (pseudo-) Jerome’s Expositio Quatuor Evangeliorum (PL 30, 575) for parallels to the Solil passage. But Gregory (1308B) discusses only the possibility that certain souls are willing but unable to help the damned, and pseudo-Jerome makes no mention of this theme at all.
[48 ] On Gregory’s distinction between unavoidable and voluntary sin, see F. Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2 vols. (London, 1905), 2:391-92.
[49 ] Ibid., 2:419-24.
[51 ] “The Relation of the ‘Blooms of King Alfred’ to the Anglo-Saxon Translation of Boethius,” Modern Language Notes 9 (1894): 161-71, at p. 171; see also Carnicelli, Soliloquies, p. 32.
[52 ] Hubbard, “Relation of the ‘Blooms,’ ” p. 166.
[53 ] Carnicelli’s words, Soliloquies, p. 31.
[54 ] As described in Asser’s Life of King Alfred, ed. William H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1959), §§24, 88-89 (pp. 21, 73-75); translated in Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 75, 99-100.
[55 ] See entries on “Tabernacle” and “Temple” in Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia: Old Testament, ed. John E. Steinmueller and Kathryn Sullivan (New York, 1956), and in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, rev. Frederick C. Grant and H. H. Rowley (New York, 1963).
[56 ] For other (rare) Old English translations of tabernaculum, see Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, no. 65.
[57 ] Thus tabernaculum, which in the psalms almost always refers to God’s dwelling, is translated in Ps(P) by tempel (11x); even habitaculum (Ps. 32.14) with the same meaning is translated by tempel. Of the three instances where Ps(P) translates tabernaculum by geteld, one refers to Saul’s tent (Introd. 35) and one to the dwelling of the foolish rich (Ps. 48.12); the third (Ps. 26.5), although referring to God’s dwelling, is probably a deliberate variation in word choice to avoid repeating tempel, which occurs just before, and in any case is collocated with templ. In CP all occurrences of tabernaculum are translated by templ: some, 101.24, 103.4 and 5 (Gregory 31A, 33B), refer to the home of the Ark; the others, 133.10 and 12 and 135.6 (Gregory 40A-C), to the Temple at Jerusalem. CP has no instance of geteld, because Gregory does not use tabernaculum in any other than a religious sense.
[58 ] Thus, in Introd. 16 David is presented as the victim of Saul (see Commentary), and in Ps. 34.14 as persecuted by those to whom he “tilode to licianne and to cwemanne,” while in CP the theme is explicit.
[60 ] E.g., the Old English interlinear glossed psalters treat it as a phrase; thus Ps(C): “geheald me drihtyn swa swa seon eagan undyr sceade.”
[63 ] See Asser’s Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, pp. 89-91 (§§103-4); translation (and notes) by Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 107-9.
[65 ] See J. F. Niermeyer, ed., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden, 1976), s.v. 1.
[66 ] For numerous other agreements between Ps(P) and the works of Alfred, see Commentary on Pss. 5.5, Introd. 8, 9.35, 10.7, 13.1 and 3, 15.10, 16.5, 17.43, 22.4 and 5, 24.7, 26.14, 28.6, 30.21, 32.14 and 17, 34.14, 35.11, 37.2 and 11, 38.7 and 14, 44.4 and 10, 48.13, 49.21, 50.4 and 10.
[67 ] See especially IV (2) and (3), above.
[68 ] See also Janet M. Bately, The Literary Prose of King Alfred’s Reign: Translation or Transformation? An Inaugural Lecture . . . at University of London King’s College (London, 1980); Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 31-32; and Frantzen, King Alfred, pp. 101-5.
[69 ] CP 7.13-15: “lære mon siððan furður on Lædengeðiode ða ðe mon furðor læran wille & to hieran hade don wille.”
[70 ] See Asser’s Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, p. 59 (§76); Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 91.
The layout of the Old English text reflects that of the manuscript: for each psalm its Introduction followed by the paraphrase of the psalm proper, the latter arranged according to the verse division of the manuscript. Within each Introduction different levels of interpretation are identified as follows: 1° historical/Davidic, 2° second historical, 3° Christological, 4° moral. Within the paraphrase proper, the manuscript convention of marking a new verse with a large illuminated letter is replaced by a system of simple arabic numerals in sequence. This system allows ready reference to the two previous editions of the Prose Psalms (Thorpe; Bright and Ramsay),1 to editions of the interlinear Old English glossed psalters, and to the Microfiche Concordance to Old English and the Toronto Dictionary of Old English, all of which follow basically the same numbering.2
A second numbering system, arabic numerals in round brackets, has been supplied to mark the division and numbering of verses according to the Gallicanum (Vulgate) psalter. The second system makes possible comparisons between the Prose Psalms and the Latin psalters and commentaries, especially Weber’s critical edition of the Romanum. All references to Ps(P) in all parts of the present edition (including the textual apparatus, the Introduction, Commentary, and Glossary) follow the second system.
Omitted are the two Latin texts accompanying the Old English in the manuscript, the individual rubrics entered between the Introductions and the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 98 ]]
paraphrase, and the parallel Romanum. Supplied in square brackets is the nineteenth-century pagination of the manuscript, which was also used in the recent facsimile.
The aim of the present edition is to restore as completely as possible the text of the Prose Psalms as it is preserved (in somewhat modernized, late West Saxon, form) in the Paris Psalter. Emendation has been attempted only where the text does not make good sense or violates the normal rules of grammar (which does not include mere spelling or phonological variants) and then only if the Latin sources or paleographical considerations offer supporting evidence.3 Editorial emendations in the form of additions are marked by square brackets. Other emendations are indicated by italicizing the relevant (or nearest) word. In the latter instances the manuscript reading is given in the apparatus, preceded by the emended form introduced by a single square bracket. Emendations proposed by earlier scholars and editors, but only those that involve issues of translation and interpretation, are discussed in the relevant Commentary.4
The editorial decision to supply modern punctuation (despite criticisms of the practice)5 is guided by several considerations. The punctuation of the manuscript, which merely marks the end of an individual verse, is altogether inadequate. In any case, this punctuation is effectively reflected in the present edition, which marks the beginning of each new verse with an arabic numeral, and can be readily consulted in the facsimile edition. More importantly, not to provide punctuation would mean ignoring the numerous interpretative issues raised by the text itself. Although the present edition cannot pretend to have resolved all of these, it does at least address them in the Commentary.
A sequence of widely spaced asterisks indicates missing line(s); a sequence of three uninterrupted dots in angled brackets, missing word(s) that cannot be supplied with any certainty. Abbreviations (listed in Chap. 1.I.I) are silently expanded, except for unconventional and arbitrary ones, which are noted in the apparatus. The Tironian 7, both when it occurs independently as a conjunction and when it forms the first element of a compound word, is always expanded to and. Accent marks are omitted.
Word division is generally that found in J. R. Clark Hall’s A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (4th ed.). Additionally, the following practices are observed: up(p) occurring immediately before forms of the verbs (a)hebban, aræran, arisan, astigan is combined with them; likewise, in(n) before gan and on before steppan; the elements of prepositional conjunctions/adverbs are printed as separate words, for example, for þam þe, to þam þæt; likewise with the collocations eac swa (ilce), ealne weg, se þe, swa þer; and Domesdæg is treated as a compound.
The apparatus accompanying each psalm has two parts, the first covering the Introduction, the second the paraphrase proper. The need for a separate apparatus for the Introductions is to allow for the recording of variant readings from the other surviving manuscript witness, the Vitellius Psalter (Vi). Since the latter’s readings are usually fragmentary, the following policy is adopted in recording them: angled brackets enclosing one or two dots indicate a corresponding loss of letters, three dots the loss of three or an indeterminate number of letters. Also included in this apparatus are readings proposed by Bright and Ramsay (B-R) in their edition of Ps(P) that are no longer visible.6 Reference is also made to Pulisano’s (Pul.) edition of the Vitellius Introductions,7 but only in those rare instances where his readings differ from my own transcription (done in June, 1982).
Both parts of the apparatus record the following: (a) damage or loss in the manuscript where it affects the reading; (b) scribal alterations (apparently all done by the scribe of the manuscript, W); (c) the manuscript reading, where an emendation is present in the edition; and (4) emendations made (and incorrect readings given) by B-R. In the apparatus to the Introductions all of these records are footnoted; in the apparatus to the paraphrase they appear under the number of the verse (Gallicanum numbering) in which they occur. A (1°), (2°), (3°), or (4°) after a reading indicates, respectively, the first, second, third, or fourth occurrence of that word.
1. (1) Eadig byð se wer þe ne gæð on geþeaht unrihtwisra, ne on þam wege ne stent synfulra, ne on heora wolbærendum setle ne sitt;
2. (2) ac his willa byð on Godes æ, and ymb his æ he byð smeagende dæges and nihtes.
3. (3) Him byð swa þam treowe þe byð aplantod neah wætera rynum,
4. þæt sylð his wæstmas to rihtre tide; and his leaf and his blæda ne fealwiað ne ne seariað. Swa byð þam men þe we ær ymbspræcon: eall him cymð to gode þæt þæt he deð.
5. (4) Ac þa unrihtwisan ne beoð na swylce, ne him eac swa ne limpð; ac hi beoð duste gelicran þonne hit wind toblæwð.
6. (5) Þy ne arisað þa unrihtwisan on Domesdæg, ne þa synfullan ne beoð on geþeahte þæra rihtwisena,
7. (6)for þam God wat hwylce weg þa rihtwisan geearnedon, ac þa unrihtwisan cumað to witum.
1° Ðæs æfteran sealmes1 capitul is gecweden “psalmus2 [1v] Dauid,” þæt ys on Englisc, “Dauides sealm,” for þæm3 [he is]4 hys5 sealm gecweden for þi6 he seofode on þæm sealme7 and mænde to Drihtne be his feondum, ægðer ge inlendum ge utlendum, and be eallum his earfoðum;
3° and swa dyde Crist be Iudeum.
1. (1) Hwy ryð ælc folc, and hwi smeagað hi unnytt?
2. (2) And hwy arisað eorðcynincgas, and ealdormenn cumað tosomne wið Gode and wið þam þe he to hlaforde geceas and gesmyrede? Hi cweðað:
3. (3) “utan tobrecan heora bendas and aweorpan heora geocu of us.”
4. (4) Hwæt forstent heora spræc (cwæð se witega) þeah hi swa cweðen, for þam se God þe on heofonum ys hig gehyspð, and Drihten hyg gescent;
5. (5) and he clypað to him on his yrre and gedrefð heora geþeaht.
6. (6) And ic eam, þeah, cincg geset fram Gode ofer his ðone halgan munt Syon, to þam þæt ic lære his willan and his æ.
7. (7) For þan cwæð Drihten to me: “Þu eart min sunu; nu todæg ic ðe acende.
8. (8) Bide me and ic þe sylle þeoda to agnum yrfe, and þinne anwald ic gebræde ofer ðeoda gemæro.
9. (9) [2r] And ic gedo þæt þu heora wylst mid isernre gyrde, and hi miht swa eaðe abrecan swa se croccwyrhta mæg ænne croccan.”
10. (10) Ongytað nu, kyningas, and leorniað ge domeras þe ofer eorðan demað.
11. (11) Þeowiað Drihtne and ondrædað hine, blissiað on Gode, and ðeah mid ege.
12. (12) Onfoð lare þy læs eow God yrre weorðe, and þy læs ge wendon of rihtum wege,
13. (13) for þæm þonne his yrre byð onæled, þonne beoð eadige þa þe nu on hine getrywað.
1° Ðysne1 þriddan sealm Dauid sang þa he fleah Absalon his sunu, and seofode þa yrmðe to Drihtne;
4° swa deþ ælc þæra manna2 þe þisne sealm singð, his sylfes earfoðu, ægðer ge modes ge lichaman, he seofað to Drihtne;
3° swa dyde Crist þonne he þysne sealm sang: be Iudeum he hine sang and be Iudan3 Scarioth þe hine læwde.
He seofode to Drihtne:
1. (2) Eala, Drihten, hwi synt swa manige minra feonda, þara þe me swencað; for hwi arisað swa mænige wið me? (3) Monige cweðað to minum mode þæt hit næbbe nane hæle æt his Gode.
2. (4) Ac hit nis na swa hy cweðað, ac þu eart butan ælcum tweon [2v] min fultum and min wuldor, and þu ahefst upp min heafod.
3. (5) Mid minre stemne ic cleopode to Drihtne and he me gehyrde of his þam halgan munte.
4. (6) Þa ongan ic slapan, and slep, and eft aras, for ðam þe Drihten me awehte and me upparærde.
5. (7) For ðam ic me nu na ondræde þusendu folces, þeah hi me utan ymbþringen. Ac ðu, Drihten, aris and gedo me halne, for þam þu eart min God.
6. (8) For ðam þu ofsloge ealle þa ðe me wiðerwearde wæron butan gewyrhton, and þara synfulra mægen þu gebryttest,
7. (9) for ðam on ðe ys eall ure hæl and ure tohopa; and ofer þin folc sy þin bletsuncg.
1° Þe feorða sealm ys gecweden “Dauides sealm” and “Dauides sang,” for ði ælc þæra sealma þe swa gecweden byð—þæt he sy ægðer ge “Dauides sealm” ge “Dauides sancg”—ælcne ðæra he sancg be sone mid weorode, ac ða he þysne sealm sancg, þa gealp he and fægnode Godes fultumes wið his feondum;
4° and swa deð ælc welwillende man þe þisne sealm singð;
2° and swa2 dyde Ezechias þa he wæs ahred æt his feondum;
3° and swa dyde Crist ða he wæs ahred æt Iudeum.
1. (2) [Þ]onne ic cleopode to þe, þonne gehyrdest þu me, Drihten, for ðam þu eart se ðe me gerihtwisast, [3r] and on minum earfoðum and nearonessum þu me gerymdest.
2. Gemiltsa me, Drihten, and gehyr min gebed.
3. (3) Eala, manna bearn, hu lange wylle ge beon swa heardheorte wið gode, and hwi lufige ge idelnesse and secað leasuncga?
4. (4) Wite ge þæt God gemyclade his ðone gehalgodan, and he me gehyrð þonne ic him to clypige.
5. (5) Þeah hit gebyrige þæt ge on woh yrsien, ne scule ge hit no þy hraþor þurhteon, þe læs ge syngien; and þæt unriht þæt ge smeagað on ewerum mode, forlætað and hreowsiað þæs.
6. (6) Offriað ge mid rihtwisnesse, and bringað þa Gode to lacum, and hopiað to Drihtne.
7. Manig man cwyð: “Hwa tæcð us teala, and hwa sylð us þa god þe us man gehæt?” (7) And is, þeah, geswutelod ofer us þin gifu, þeah hi swa ne cweðen.
8. Þæt ys, þæt þu sealdest blisse minre heortan, (8) and þin folc gemicladest, and him sealdest geniht hwætes and wines and eles and ealra goda, þeah hi his ðe ne ðancien.
9. (9) Ac gedo nu þæt ic mote on þam genihte and on þære sibbe slapan and me gerestan, (10) for ðam þu, Drihten, [3v] synderlice me gesettest on blisse and on tohopan.
4° and ælc mann þe þisne sealm singð, he hine singð be his sylfe[s]3 frofre;
2° and swa dyde Ezechias, þa he alysed wæs of his mettrumnesse;
3° and swa dyde Crist, þa he alysed wæs fram Iudeum.
1. (2) Drihten, onfoh min word mid þinum earum, and ongyt mine stemne and min gehrop, (3) and ðenc þara worda minra gebeda,
2. (4) for ðam ic gebidde on dægred to ðe. Ac gedo þæt þu gehyre min gebed, Drihten.
3. (5) Ic stande on ærmergen beforan ðe æt gebede and seo þe (þæt is, þæt ic ongite þinne willan butan tweon and eac þone wyrce), for ðam þu eart se ylca God þe nan unriht nelt.
4. (6) Ne mid þe ne wunað se yfelwillenda, ne þa unrihtwisan ne wuniað beforan þinum eagum.
5. (7) Þu hatast ealle þa þe unriht wyrcað and þæt ne forlætað ne his ne hreowsiað; and þu fordest þa þe symle leasinga specað.
6. And þa manslagan and þa swicolan þu [4r] forsyhst.
7. (8) Ic þonne hopiende to þinre þære myclan mildheortnesse, ic gange to þinum huse, Drihten, and me gebidde to þinum halgan altare, on ðinum ege.
8. (9) Drihten, læd me on þine rihtwisnesse fram minra feonda willan; geriht minne weg beforan þinre ansyne (se weg ys min weorc),
9. (10) for ðam on minra feonda muðe is leasuncg, and heora mod is swiðe idel.
10. (11) Heora mod and heora wilnuncg ys swa deop swa grundleas pytt, and heora tungan sprecað symle facn; ac dem him, Drihten.
11. And gedo þæt hy n[e m]ægen don þæt yfel þæt hy þencað and sprecað; ac be þære andefne heora unrihtwisnesse fordrif hi, for þam hy ðe gremiað and þine þeowas, Drihten.
12. (12) And blissian ealle þa þe to ðe hopiað, and fægnian on ecnesse—and, þu, wuna on him—and fægnian þin, ealle þa þe lufiað þinne naman,
13. (13) for þam þu eart se Drihten þe gebletsast and geblissast rihtwise. Þu us gecoronadest and ge[4v]weorðadest and us gescyldst mid þam scylde þinre welwilnesse.
1° Dauid sang þysne syxtan sealm be his mettrumnesse and be his earfoðum, and eac be þam ege þæs domes on Domesdæge;
4° and swa deð ælc þæra þe hine singð;
3° and swa dyde Crist, þa he on eorðan wæs, he hine sang be his earfoðum;
2° and eac Ezechias be his untrumnesse.
1. (2) Drihten, ne þrea þu me on þinum yrre, ne on þinre hatheortnesse ne swenc me.
2. (3) Ac miltsa me, Dryhten, for þam ic eom unhal; and gehæl me for þam eall min mægn and eal min ban synt gebrytt and gedrefed, (4) and min sawl and min mod ys swyðe gedrefed.
3. Eala, Drihten, hu lange wylt þu þæt hit on ðam sy? (5) Gehwyrf la, Drihten, to me and alys mine sawle, and gedo me halne for ðinre mildheornesse.
4. (6) For ðam þa deadan þe on helle beoð, þin ne gemunan, ne ðe andetað ne ne heriað, swa swa we doð.
5. (7) Ic swince on minre granunge, and ælce niht on minum bedde ic sice and wepe, and hwilum min bedd wæte mid tearum.
6. (8) Mine eagan synt gedrefede for yrre [5r] and ic eom forealdod betweoh eallum minum feondum.
7. (9) Gewitað fram me ealle þa þe unriht wyrcað, for ðam þe Drihten hyrde mine wependan stefne, (10) and God gehyrde mine healsunge, and Drihten onfeng min gebed.
8. (11) Sceamian heora for ði and syn gedrefede ealle mine fynd, and gan hy on earsling, and sceamien heora swiðe hrædlice.
1° Þysne seofoðan sealm Dauid sang þæ2 he seofode his ungelimp to Drihtne (þæt wæs þa Absalon3 his sunu hine adrifen hæfde of ðam rice)—þa hine teonode [and] wyrde4 Chus Geminis5 sunu, þa seofode he þæt to Drihtne;
4° and swa deð ælc mann þe þysne sealm singð, mænð his earfoðu to Drihtne;
3° and swa dyde Crist, þa he on eorðan wæs.
1. (2) Drihten, min God, to þe ic hopige: alys me fram eallum þam þe min ehtað, and gefriða me,
2. (3) þæt næfre mine fynd ne gripen mine sawle swa swa leo, for þam ic nat ealles hwa me ahredde and gehæle butan þu wylle.
3. (4) Drihten, min God, gif ic to þisum þe me nu swencað þæs geearnod hæbbe, þæt hi nu doð, oððe ænig unriht wið hi gedon hæbbe,
4. (5) oþþe furðum him [5v] gulde yfel wið yfle, swa swa hi hit geworhton, þonne ofslean me mine fynd orwigne—næs þas þe mine frynd beon sceoldon—
5. (6) and secan mine fynd mine sawle and þa gefon, and oftreden on eorðan min lif, and minne weorðscipe to duste gewyrcen.
6. (7) Aris, Drihten, on þinum yrre, and ræs on minra feonda mearce, and geweorða þe sylfne þara.
7. Aris, Drihten, to þinum gehate, and do swa swa þu gehete—þæt wæs, þæt þu woldest helpan unscyldegum. (8) Gif þu swa dest, þonne cymð swiðe mycel folc to þinum þeowdome,
8. and þu uppastihst and hi mid þe lætst to heofonum. (9) Drihten, dem folcum and dem me.
9. Drihten, dem me æfter minum gewyrhtan, and dem me æfter minre unscæðfulnesse.
10. (10) Geenda nu þæt yfel þæra unrihtwisra, and gerece and geræd þa rihtwisan, þu, Drihten, þe smeast heortan and ædra and manna geþohtas.
11. (11) Mid rihte we secað fultum to þe, Drihten, for ðam þu gehælst þa heortan rihtra geþohta.
12. (12) Þe Drihten þe is [6r] rihtwis dema and strang and geþyldig, hwæðer he yrsige ælce dæge? (13) Bute ge to him gecyrren, se deofol cwecð his sweord to eow.
13. And he bende his bogan; se is nu gearo to sceotanne. (14) He teohað þæt he scyle sceotan þæt deaðes fæt (þæt synt, þa unrihtwisan). He gedeð his flan fyrena þæt he mæge mid sceotan and bærnan þa þe her byrnað on wrænnesse and on unðeawum.
14. (15) He cenð ælc unriht; and hit cymð him sare and his geferum.
15. (16) He adylfð þone pytt, and he hine ontynð, and on þone ylcan befylð.
16. (17) Gehweorfe his sar on his heafod, and on his brægn astige his unriht.
17. (18) Ic þonne andette Drihtne æfter his rihtwisnesse and herie his ðone hean naman and lofige.
1° (i) Þysne eahteoðan sealm sang Dauid þa he wundrade Godes wundra, se wylt eallum gesceaftum;
1° (ii) and eac he witgode on ðam sealme be þære wuldorlican acennednesse Cristes.
1. (2) Eala, Drihten, ure God, hu wundorlic þin nama ys geond ealle eorðan,
2. for þam ahefen ys [6v] þin myclung ofer heofonas. (3) Ge furðum, of ðæra cilda muðe þe meolc sucað, þu byst hered.
3. Þæt hi doð to bysmore þinum feondum, for ðam þu towyrpest þine fynd and ealle þa þe unrihtwisnesse ladiað and scyldað.
4. (4) Ic ongite nu þæt weorc þinra fingra; þæt synd, heofonas and mona and steorran þa þu astealdest.
5. (5) Drihten, hwæt is se mann þe þu swa myclum amanst, oþþe hwæt is se mannes sunu þe þu oftrædlice neosast?
6. (6) Þu hine gedest lytle læssan þonne englas; þu hine gewuldrast and geweorðast, and him sylst heafodgold to mærðe, (7) and þu hine gesetest ofer þin handgeweorc.
7. (8) Ealle gesceafta þu legst under his fet and under his anwald: sceap and hryðera and ealle eorðan nytenu;
8. (9) [f]leogende fuglas; and sæfiscas þa farað geond þa sæwegas.
9. (10) Drihten, Drihten, ure God, hu wuldorlic þin nama ys geond ealle eorðan.
1° On ðam nigoðan1 sealme Dauid hine gebæd to Drihtne, and him þancode þæt his sunu and eac oðre [7r] fynd him ne mihton eall þæt yfel don þæt hi him geteohod hæfdon;
4° and on þa ylcan2 gerad hine singð ælc rihtwis mann be his sylfes feondum;
3° and be þam ylcan hine sang Crist, þa Iudeas hine woldan don mare yfel ðonne hig3 mihton;
2° and swa dyde eac Ezechias, ða his fynd hine ne meahton ateon swa hy4 woldon.
1. (2) Ic andete Drihtne on ealre minre heortan. And ic bodige ealle ðine wundra,
2. (3) and ic blissige and fægnige and herige þinne naman, ðu hea God,
3. (4) for ðam þu gehwyrfdest mine fynd underbæc, and hi wæron geuntrumode and forwurdon beforan ðinre ansyne;
4. (5) for ðam þu demst minne dom and mine spræce, and eall for me dydest þæt ic don sceolde. Ðu sitst on ðam hean setle, þu ðe symle demst swiðe rihte.
5. (6) Ðu ðreast and bregst þa ðeoda þe us ðreatigað, and ða unrihtwisan forweorðað; and ðu adilgas heora naman on woruld a woruld.
6. (7) Seo redelse and þæt geþeaht urra feonda geteorode, ða hi hit endian sceoldan, and heora [byrig] þu towurpe ealla.
7. And heora gemynd onweg gewat mid þam myclan hlisan, (8) and Drihten þurhwunað on ecnesse.
8. [7v] And he gearwað his domsetl, (9) and he demð ealre eorþan swyðe emne.
9. He demð folcum mid rihte; (10) he ys geworden friðstow ðearfendra.
10. And gefultumend þu eart, Drihten, æt ælcere ðearfe. (11) For ðy hopiað to þe ealle þa ðe witan þinne naman,
11. for ðam þu ne forlætst nanne þara þe ðe secð. (12) Heriað for ði Drihten, þone ðe eardað on Sion,
12. and bodiað betweoh folcum his wundru, (13) for ðam he nis na ofergeotol þara gebeda his þearfena, ac he is swyþe gemyndig heora blod to wrecanne.
13. (14) Gemiltsa me, Drihten, and geseoh mine eaðmetto (hu earmne me habbað gedon mine fynd), (15) for ðam þu eart se ylca God þe me uppahofe fram deaðes gatum, to þam þæt ic bodade eall þin lof on ðam geatum þære burge Hierusalem.
14. (16) Ic fægnie on þinre hælo ðe þu me sylest; and ða ðeoda þe min ehtað syn afæstnode on ðam ylcan earfoðum þe hi me geteohhod hæfdon; and heora fet synt [8r] gefangene mid þy ilcan gryne þe hi me gehyd and gehealden hæfdon.
15. (17) For þam byð Drihten [cuð] on his rihtum domum, and on his handgeweorce byð gefangen se synfulla;
16. (18) and þa unrihtwisan beoð gehwyrfede to helle and ælc folc þæra ðe God forgyt;
17. (19) for þam God ne forgyt his ðearfan oð heora ende, ne heora geþyld ne forweorð oþ ende.
18. (20) Aris, Drihten, þy læs se yfelwillenda mæge don þæt he wille, and gedo þæt eallum folcum sy gedemed beforan ðe.
19. (21) Gesete, Drihten, ofer hy sumne anwald þæt hig gelære þæt hy witon þæt hi men synt.
20. (22) Drihten, hwi gewitst þu swa feor fram us, and hwi noldest þu cuman to us to þære tide þe us nydþearf wæs?
21. (23) Þonne se unrihtwisa ofermodegað, þonne byð se earma ðearfa onæled and gedrefed and eac geunrotsod—ac weorðon þa unrihtwisan gefangene on þam geþohtum þe hi geþoht habbað—
22. (24) [8v] for þam se synfulla byð hered þær he his yfelan willan wyrcð, and hine bletsiað þa yfelan for his yfelan dædum.
23. (25) Se synfulla bysmrað Drihten, and for þære menigu his unrihtes he ne geðencð þæt God hit mæg gewrecan.
24. (26) For þam he ne deð God beforan his modes ansyne, for þam beoð his wegas and his weorc ealneh unclæne.
25. For þam he næfð nan gemynd Godes doma beforan his ansyne, þæt he mæge rixian and wealdan ealra his feonda and don him to yfele þæt þæt he wylle.
26. (27) And he cwyð on his mode: “Ne wyrð þisses næfre nan wending butan mycelre frecennesse minra feonda.”
27. (28) His muð byð symle full wyrignessa and bitera worda and facnes and searuwa,
28. and under his tungan byð ealne weg oþera manna sar and geswinc. (29) He syt symle on geþeahte mid þam welegum dygollice to þam þæt he mæge fordon þa unsceðþendan;
29. (30) and þreatað þone earman mid his eagum, and sætað his digollice swa swa leo det [9r] of his hole.
30. He sætað þæt he bereafige þone earman and þæs wilnað; and þonne he hine gefangen hafað mid his gryne, (31) þonne genæt he hine; and þonne he hine hæfð gewyldne, þonne aginð he sylf sigan, oððe afylð.
31. (32) He cwæð ær on his mode: “Ne geþencð God þyllices, ac ahwyrfð his eagan þæt he hit næfre ne gesyhð.”
32. (33) Aris, Drihten, min God, and ahefe upp þine hand ofer ða unrihtwisan, and ne forgit þone þearfan oð ende.
33. (34) For þam bysmrað se unrihtwisa Drihten, for ðam he cwyð on his mode: “Ne recþ God þeah ic þus do.”
34. (35) Gesyhst þu nu (cwæð se witega to Drihtne) hwylc broc and hwylc sar we þoliað and þrowiað? Nu, hit wære cyn þæt þu hit him wræce mid þinre handa. Ic þearfa eom nu to ðe forlæten; þu eart fultumiend þara þe nabbað nawðer ne fæder ne modor.
35. (36) Þu forbrycst þone earm and þæt mægen þæs synfullan for þy, þeah hine hwa ahsode for hwi he swa dyde, þonne ne mihte he hit na gereccan, ne geþafa beon nolde þæt he untela dyde.
36. (37) [9v] Drihten rixað on ecnesse on þisse worulde ge on þære toweardan; for þæm weorðað aworpene þa synfullan of ægðrum his rica.
37. (38) Drihten gehyrð þa wilnunga his þearfena, and heora modes gyrnesse gehyrað þine earan.
38. (39) Dem nu, Drihten, þearfe þæs earman and þæs eaðmodan, þæt se awyrgeda ne ece þæt he hine leng myclie ofer eorðan.
4° and swa ylce þa4 rihtwisan þe hine singað, hi seofiað be heora feondum, ægðer ge gesewenlicum ge ungesewenlicum;
3° and swa dyde Crist be Iudeum þa he þysne sealm sang.
1. (2) Hwy lære [ge] me þæt ic fleo geond muntas and geond westenu swa spearwa, for þam ic getrywe Drihtne?
2. (3) Ic wat, þeah, for þam þe þa synfullan bendað heora bogan and fyllaþ heora coceras mid flanum: to þam þæt hi magon sceotan þa unscyldigan heortan dygollice þonan hi læst wenað;
3. (4) for þam hi wilniað—þæs þe hi magon—þæt hi toweorpen þæt God geteohhad hæfð to wyrcanne. [10r] Hwæt dyde ic, unscyldega, wið hi, oþþe hwæt mæg ic nu don?
4. (5) Drihten ys on his halgan temple, se Drihten se, þæs setl ys on heofenum.
5. His egan lociað on his earman þearfan; his bræwas (þæt ys, his rihta dom) ahsað manna bearn.
6. (6) Se ylca Drihten ahsað rihtwise and unrihtwise, þæt heora ægðer secge hwæt he dyde; þæt he him mæge gyldan be heora gewyrhtum, for ðam se þe lufað unriht, he hatað his agene sawle.
7. (7) Drihten onsent manegra cynna witu swa swa ren ofer ða synfullan and hi gewyrpð mid grine; and he onsent fyr ofer hig and ungemetlice hæto þære sunnan and wolberende windas; mid þyllicum and mid manegum þyllicum beoð heora drincfatu gefyldu.
8. (8) For þam God ys swyðe rihtwis, and he lufað rihtwisnesse, and heo byð symle swyðe emn beforan him.
4° and swa deð ælc rihtwis mann:6 þonne he þysne sealm singð, þonne mænð he to Drihtne þæt unriht þæt on his dagum bið;
3° and swa dyde Crist: þa he hine sang, þa mænde he to Drihtne Iudea ungeleaffulnesse.
1. (2) [10v] Gehæl me, Drihten, for þam haligdom is nu on þisum tidum fullneah asprungen, and soðfæstnes ys swyðe gelytlod.
2. (3) Idla spræca hi sprecað to heora nyhstum, facen hi sprecað mid heora weolorum, for þam hi nabbað on heora mode þæt hi on heora muðe sprecað, ac þencað yfel, þeah hi hwilum tela cweðen.
3. (4) Ac Drihten towyrpð ealle þa facnesfullan weoloras and þa oferspræcan and þa yfelspræcan tungan.
4. (5) Þa þe teohhiað þæt hi scylen hi sylfe weorðian mid idelre spræce, hy cweðað: “Hwi! ne synt we muðfreo? Hu! ne moton we sprecan þæt we wyllað? Hwæt ondræde we? Hwylc hlaford mæg us forbeodan urne willan?”
5. (6) Ac Drihten cwyð: “for yrðum þæra wædlena and for granunge þæra þearfena ic arise,
6. and hi sette on mine hælo; and ic do swyðe treowlice ymb hy.”
7. (7) Godes word (cwæð Dauid) beoð swiðe soð and swiðe clænu; hy beoð swa hluttur swa þæt seolfor þe byþ seofon siðon amered syþþan se ora [11r] adolfen byð.
8. (8) Þu, Drihten, gehælst us and gefreoðast fram heora yfle on ecnesse.
9. (9) Ðeah þa unrihtwisan us utan began on ælce healfe, and heora sy mycle ma þonne ure, þeah þu us tobrædst ongean hy, and wið hi gefriðast.
4° and swa deð ælc þæra4 þe hine singð;
3° and swa dyde Crist be Iudeum and be deoflum;
2° and swa dyde Ezechias se cyng5 be Assiriam, þa hi hine ymbseten hæfdon on þære byrig.
1. (1) Hu lange wilt þu, Drihten, min forgitan; hwæðer þu oð minne ende wylle; oððe hu lange wilt þu ahwyrfan þinne andwlitan fram me?
2. (2) Hu lange sceal ic settan on mine sawle þis sorhfulle geþeaht and þis sar æt minre heortan; hwæþer ic ælce dæge scyle?
3. (3) Hu lange sceal min feond beon uppahafen ofer me? (4) Beseoh to me, Drihten, min God, and gehyr me.
4. Onliht mine eagan þæt hi næfre ne slapan on swylcum deaðe,
5. (5) [þ]y læs æfre min feond cweðe, “Ic eom [11v] streng[r]a þonne he.”
6. Þa þe me swencað, hy fægniað gif ic onstyred beo; (6) ac ic þeah on þine mildheortnesse gelyfe.
7. Min heorte blissað on þinre hælo, and ic singe þam Gode þe me eall god syleð, and lofie þinne naman, þu hehsta God.
3° and swa dyde Crist be Iudeum;
1. (1) Se unrihtwisa cwyð on his mode: “Nis nan God þe þis wite oððe wræce.” Þonne byð þæt folc for þam cwyde gewemmed and gescynded on heora won willan.
2. Nis nan þe eallunga wel do—ne forðon anlepe.
3. (2) Drihten locað of heofenum ofer manna bearn, and hawað hwæðer he geseo ænigne þæra þe hine sece oþþe hine ongite.
4. (3) Ac hi hine fleoð ealle endemes, and secað and lufiað þæt hy syn idle and unnytte; nis heora furðum an þe [12r] eallunga wel do.
5. Hi synt byrgenum gelice: seo byð utan fæger and innan ful. Heora tungan wyrcaþ mycel facn, þeah hi fægere sprecon; heora geþeaht and heora willa and heora weorc byð swylce þære wyrrestan nædran attor, þa mon “aspis” hæt.
6. Ðara muð byð symle full wyrignessa and bitera worda; heora fet beoð swiðe hraðe blod to ageotanne unþearfes for yflum willan.
7. And heora wegas beoþ symle gedrefede. Hie wilniað ealle mægne oþera manna unsælþa, and him cymð sylfum þæt ylce. Ne secað hi nane sibbe,
8. ne Godes ege ne byð beforan heora modes eagum. (4) Hwi ne ongitað ealle þe unriht wyrcað—
9. þa þe wilniað fretan min folc swa ænne hlaf, (5) þa ne clypiað to Gode mid godum weorcum—hwi ne ongitað hi þæt him cymð, þonne hi læst wenað, ege and ungelimp?
10. (6) Hwy ne ongitað hi þæt God byð mid þam rihtwisran folce? Hwi gedrefe ge min yrmingæs geþeaht, for þam God ys min geþeaht?
11. (7) Hwa arist elles of Syon [12v] to þæm þæt he sylle Israelum hælo, butan þu, Drihten, þe afyrst hæftnyd of þinum folce?
12. [B]lissie nu Iacobes cyn and fægnian Israele.
1° Dauid sang þysne1 feowerteoðan sealm, þa he adrifen wæs of his earde—wiscte þæt he moste eft to cuman;
2° and swa dyde Israela folc þa hie on hæftnyde gelædde wæron of Hierusalem2 to Babilonia;
3° and swa dyde Crist þa he hine sang6—seofode his earfoðu to Drihtne.
1. (1) Drihten, hwa eardað on þinum temple, oððe hwa mot hine gerestan on þæm halgan munte?
2. (2) Þa andswarode Drihten þæs witgan mode þurh onbryrdnesse þæs Halgan Gastes; and cwæð se witga: “Ic wat, þeah ic ahsige, hwa þær eardað: se þe ingæð butan wamme and wyrcð rihtwisnesse;
3. (3) and se þe sprycð rihtwisnesse mid his tungan and næfð nan facn on his mode;
4. ne his nyhstan nan yfel ne deð, ne nan edwit ne underfehð wið his nyhstan;
5. (4) and se þe þone awyrgdan for nawuht hæfð; and se þe þone rihtwisan weorþað, þone þe Godes [13r] ege hæfð;
6. se þe his nyhstan swereð, and hine mid treowum ne beswicð; (5) and se þe his feoh to unrihtum wæstmsceatte ne syleð, ne nanes feos ne wilnað æt þam unscyldigan onfon.
7. Se þe þus deð, ne wyrð he næfre astyred ne scynd on ecnesse.”
1° Þone fifteoðan sealm Dauid1 sang be his earfoðum, ægðer ge modes ge lichaman;
3° and swa dyde Crist þa he hine sang.
1. (1) Gehealde me, Drihten, for þam ic hopige to ðe. (2) Hu, ne sæde ic þe, Drihten, þæt þu eart min God, for þam þu me eall þa good sealdest þe ic hæbbe, and þe heora nan nydþerf nis eft on me to nimene.
2. (3) Drihten gefylde ealne minne willan and me forgeaf þæt ic moste ofercuman þa þeoda þe me ungeðwære wæron, and heora hergas toweorpan æfter minum agnum willan.
3. (4) Heora unmiht and heora untrymð is swiðe gemanifealdod; nu swyðe hraðe hi forwurðað.
4. Ne gaderie ic nan folc to unrihtum gewinne, swa swa hi doð, ne ic ne clypige to heora godum, ne to heargum ne [13v] gebidde mid mine muðe,
5. (5) for þam þu, Drihten, eart se dæl mines yrfes and se calic minre blisse, and þu eart se þe me geedniwodest min rice.
6. (6) Þu gedydest þæt we mætan ure land mid rapum, and min hlyt gefeoll ofer þæt betste; for þam is min land nu foremære and me swyðe unbleo.
7. (7) Ic bletsige þone Drihten þe me sealde andgit. Ac þeah he me þara uterrena gewinna gefreode, þeah winnað wið me þa inran unrihtlustas dæges and nihtes, þæt ic ne eom, þeah, eallunga orsorh.
8. (8) Ic ongite Drihten, and he byð symle beforan þære ansyne mines modes. For þæm he bið symle on minum fultume, þæt ic ne beo eallunga oferswiðed.
9. (9) For þæm þingum min mod is gelustfullod and ic cyðe þa blisse on minre tungan, and on þæm tohopan ic me syððan gereste,
10. (10) for þæm þu ne forlætst mine sawle ne min mod to helle, ne þinne gehalgodan ne lætst forrotian ne forweorðan.
11. [14r] Þu me gedydest lifes wegas cuðe, and gefylst me mid gefean beforan þinre ansyne; for ælc riht lustbærnes cymð þurh þinne fultum þæm þe heo cimð on ecnesse.
1° Dauid sang þysne syxteoþan sealm, and hine geornfullice gebæd on þisum sealme to Drihtne, and hine unscyldigne cyðde wið þa his fynd þe his ehton butan scylde;
4° and swa doð ealle þa rihtwisan þe þisne sealm singað, ymb þæt ylce hi hine singað;
3° and swa dyde Crist be Iudeum.
1. (1) Gehyr, Drihten, min gebed and ongit mine rihtwisnesse,
2. and onfoh mid þinum earum min gebed, for þon þu wast þæt ic butan facne to þe cleopige. (2) Beforan ðe sy se dom betwuh me and him; geseon mine eagan þone rihtan dom betwuh us.
3. (3) Þu hæfst afandod min mod, and þu come to me on niht and me gemettest unrotne, and me sude mid þam fyre monegra earfoða, swa swa gold oþþe seolfor; and þu ne fundest on me nan unriht wiþ hi.
4. (4) Ne ic furðum nanum menn ne sæde eal þa earfoða þe hi me dydon; for þam wordum þinra weolora ic geþolode hearde wegas and manigfald earfoðu.
5. (5) Geriht, Drihten, [14v] mine stæpas on þine wegas, þæt ic ne aslide þær þær ic stæppan scyle.
6. (6) For þam ic clypige symle to þe, for þam þu symle me gehyrdest. Onhyld nu þine earan to me and gehyr min word.
7. (7) Gewundra nu and geweorða þine mildheortnesse on me, þu þe symle gehælst þa þe to ðe hopiað, and hi gehyldst (8) wið þa þe winnað wið þinne willan.
8. Geheald me, Drihten, and beorh me, swa swa man byrhð þam æplum on his eagum mid his bræwum; gehyd me under þinra fiðera sceade (9) wið þara unrihtwisena ansyne, þe wilniað þæt hi me fordon.
9. Mine fynd me ymbhringdon utan on ælce healfe, (10) and hi habbað ealle heora fætnesse and heora tohopan and heora weolan swiþe orsorhlice utan bewunden, and sprecað nu for þi swiðe ofermodlice.
10. (11) Hy habbað me swyðe forsewenlice utan ymbstanden; þa eagan heora modes habbað geteohhad þæt hi me gebygen oð eorðan.
11. (12) Hy sætiað min, and sittað swa gearwe swa [15r] seo leo deð to þam þe he gefon wyle, and swa swa his hwelp byð gehyd æt þære sæte.
12. (13) Aris, Drihten, and cum to me ær, ær hie cumen, and gehwyrfe hi fram me, and ahrede mine sawle æt þam unrihtan wisan, (14) and of þære wræce mi[n]ra feonda alys me mid þinre handa and mid þine mægene.
13. Drihten, gedo þæt heora menigo sy læsse þonne ure feawena nu is, and tostence hi geond eorþan, libbende, of þis lande.
14. Gefyl hie nu mid þære witnunga þe þu lange gehyd hæfdest, and þeah him geteohhod. Weorþen hi swa geðræste mid hungre, þæt hi eton swynen flæsc (þæt Iudeum unalyfedlic ys to etanne) and þæt þæt hi læfon, healdan heora bearnum and heora bearna bearnum.
15. (15) Ic þonne rihtwis me oðywe beforan þinre ansyne and beo þonne gefylled ealles goodes, þonne me byð æ[t]eawed ðin wuldor.
1. (2) [15v] Ic þe lufige, Drihten, for þæm þu eart min mægen. (3) Drihten, þu eart min trymenes and min friðstow.
2. Þu eart min alysend and min God and min gefultumend; to þe ic hopige.
3. Þu eart min scyldere and se horn minre hælo; þu eart min fultumen. (4) Herigende ic clypige to þe, Drihten, and fram minum feondum ic weorðe ahredd.
4. (5) Me ymbhringdon sar and sorga and granung fulneah oð deað, and geotende stream unrihtwisnessa minra wiðerweardra me gedrefdon.
5. (6) Me ymbhringdon sar and manigfeald witu fulneah anlic helle witum, and deaðes grynu me gefengon. (7) And on eallum minum earfoðum ic clypige to Drihtne, and to minum Gode ic cige.
6. And he gehyrde of his þam halgan temple mine stemne, and min gehrop com beforan his ansyne, and eac on his earan hit eode.
7. (8) And astyred wæs and acwacode seo eorðe minra feonda, and se grundweall þara munta wæs tohrered (þæt is, þæt [16r] mægen minra ofermodena feonda). Hy wæron astyrede, for þam him wæs God yrre.
8. (9) For þam astah smec for his yrre and fyr blysede beforan his ansyne.
9. Gleda wæron onælde fram him. (10) He onælde heofonas and astah me on fultum, and seo eorðe wæs gesworcen and aðystrod under his fotum.
10. (11) And he astah eft ofer Cherubin, and he fleah; and he fleah ofer winda fiðeru.
11. (12) And let [þystru] betwuh him and minum feondum þæt he [nære] næfre gesewen fram him, and he wæs, þeah, swiðe leoht on his temple. Þa hangode swiðe þystru wæter on þam wolcnum and on þære lyfte.
12. (13) And þa [wolcnu] urnan swa swa ligetu beforan his ansyne, and he gemengde hagol and fyres gleda,
13. (14) and worhte þunorrada on heofonum; and se hyhsta sealde his stemne.
14. (15) He sende his stræ[las] and hi tostencte, and gemanigfealdode his ligeta and gedrefde hig mid þy.
15. (16) And eorðan wæter ut fleowan, and seo eorðe wæs astyred and on manegum [16v] stowum gehroren,
16. for þinum þrean and for þinum yrre.
17. (17) Drihten sende of his heanesse and ahredde me æt þam ofermætum wæterum,
18. (18) and of minum strengestum feondum and from eallum þam þe me hatedon, for þam hig wæron gestrangode ofer me.
19. (19) Hie me bregdon swiðe swiðlice on þam dagum þe ic geþræsted wæs. And Drihten wæs geworden min scyld, (20) and he me gelædde on rymet of minum nearonessum and gedyde me halne, for þam he me wolde.
20. (21) And he me geald æfter minre rihtwisnesse, and æfter þære unscæðfulnesse minra handa he me geald,
21. (22) for þam ic heold Godes wegas and his bebodu, and ic ne dyde arleaslice ne unhyrsumlice wið minne Drihten.
22. (23) For þam ealle his domas beoð symle beforan minre ansyne and his rihtwisnessa ic ne awearp fram me,
23. (24) [17r] for ði ic weorðe unwemme beforan him, and ic me behealde wið min unriht.
24. (25) And me gylt Drihten æfter minre rihtwisnesse and æfter þære unscæðfulnesse minra handa beforan his eagum.
25. (26) Ac beo þu halig, Drihten, wið þa halgan, and unsceðfull wið þa unsceðfullan, (27) and gecoren wið þa gecorenan, and hwyrf þe wið þa forhwyrfdan,
26. (28) for þam ic wat þæt þu symle eadmod folc gehælst, and þa eagan þara ofermodena ðu geeaðmetst.
27. (29) For þam þu onælest min leohtfæt, Drihten, min God, onlyht mine þystru.
28. (30) For þam ic weorðe fram þe alysed æt costingum; and þurh mines Godes fultum ic utgange ofer minre burge weall, þeah heo sy utan behringed mid minum feondum.
29. (31) Drihten, min God, unwemme synt þine wegas; Godes word synt amered on fyre; he is gefriþiend ælces þara þe him to hopað.
30. (32) Hwylc ys God, butan [17v] uran Gode, oððe hwylc Drihten, butan urum Drihtne?
31. (33) Se God me gegyrde mid mægnum and mid cræftum and gesette mine wegas unwæmme.
32. (34) He gedyde mine fet swa geræde swa swa heorotum, and me gesette ofer heanesse.
33. (35) He gelærde mine handa to gefeohte, and he gedyde mine earmas swa strange swa ærene bogan.
34. (36) And þu, Drihten, sealdest me gescyldnesse þinre hælo, and þin swiðre hand me underfeng, and þin lar me getyde.
35. (37) Þu gebræddest mine stæpas under me, þæt mine fet ne slideredon.
36. (38) Ic ehte minra feonda, and ic hie gefend, and ic ne geswac ær hie forwurdon; (39) ic hie gebigde þæt hie ne mihton gestandan ongean me,
37. ac feollon under mine fet. (40) Þu me begyrdest mid mægenum and mid cræftum to wige.
38. Þu gedydest me [18r] underþeodde þa þe wið me upparison; (41) and minra feonda bæc þu onwendest to me, and me hine gesealdest; and þu tostenctest þa þe me hatedon.
39. (42) Hy clypodon, and næs [nan] þara þe hig gehælde; hy clypodon to heora godum, and hy noldon gehyran.
40. (43) For þam ic hi todælde swa smæle swa swa dust beforan winde, and hi adilgode swa swa wind deð dust on herestrætum.
41. (44) Gefriða me, Drihten, wið þises folces unhyrsumnesse, for þam þu me gesettest him to heafde, and eac oðrum ðeodum.
42. (45) And þæt folc me þeowode þæt ic næfre ne cuðe; hy onhyldan heora earan to minum wordum and gehyrdon me.
43. (46) Ac þa ælðeodgan bearn me oft lugon; and þeah hi forealdedon on minum ðeowdome, hy healtodan on heora wegum, for þam hi hyra willum ne heoldon Iudea æ.
44. (47) Min Drihten leofað symle, and he byð symle gebletsad, and he is upahafen, Drihten, min hælend.
45. (48) Þu eart soð God, þu þe me sealdest þæt ic meahte swylc wite don [18v] minum feondum, and me swylc folc underþydes.
46. Þu eart min alysend fram þam þeodum ðe wið me yrsiað, (49) and me uppahefst ofer ða þe arison wið me; and fram þam unrihtwisan were þu me alysdest.
47. (50) For þam ic ðe andette, Drihten, beforan folcum, and on þinum naman ic singe sealmas.
48. (51) Gemycla nu and gemonigfealda þa hælo þæs cynges ðe ðu gesettest ofer folcum, and do mildheortnesse þinum gesmyredan Dauide and his cynne on ecnesse.
1° Ðysne eahtateoðan sealm Dafid2 sang, Gode to þancunga his mislicra and manigfealdra gesceafta, ðe he gesceop mannum to ðeowian[ne], ne for ðy þæt þa men sceoldon him ðeowian. Be þæm he cwæð:
1. (2) Heofonas bodiað Godes wuldor, and his handgeweorc bodiað þone rodor.
2. (3) Se dæg segð þam oðrum dæge Godes wundru, and seo niht þære nihte cyð Godes wisdom.
3. (4) Nis nan folc on eorðan ne nan mennisc geþeode þe ne g[eh]yre mistlica Godes gesceafta.
4. (5) Ofer ealle eorðan færð heora stemn, [19r] [o]fer ealle eorðan endas heora word.
5. (6) Drihten timbrede his templ on þære sunnan; seo sunne arist swiðe ær on morgen up, swa swa brydguma of his brydbure.
6. And heo yrnð swa egeslice on hyre weg, swa swa gigant (.i. ent) yrnð on his weg. (7) Heo stihð oð þæs heofenes heanesse, and þanon astihð, and swa yrnð ymbutan oð heo eft þyder cymð; ne mæg hine nan man behydan wið hire hæto.
7. (8) Godes æ is swiðe unleahtorwyrðe, for þæm heo hwyrfð manna mod and heora sawla to Gode; Godes bebod is swiðe getrywe.
8. (9) Godes rihtwisnessa synt swiðe rihta, for ðæm hy geblissiað manna heortan; Godes bebod is swiðe leoht: hit onliht þa eagan ægþer ge modes ge lichaman.
9. (10) Godes ege is swiðe halig: he þurhwunað a worlda world. Godes domas synt swiðe soðe: hi synt gerihtwisode on him sylfum.
10. (11) [19v] Hy synt ma to lufianne þonne gold oððe deorwurðe gimmas, and hi synt swetran ðonne hunig oððe beobread.
11. (12) For þæm ðin ðeow hi hylt—on heora gehyldnesse is mænig edlean.
12. (13) Hwa ongyt his uncysta? From þæm ðe me beholen synt, geclænsa me, Drihten; (14) and from ælðeodegum feondum spara me, þinne ðeow, Drihten.
13. Gif mine fynd ne ricsiað ofer me, þonne beo ic unwemme and beo geclænsod from þæm mæstum scyldum; ac gif hi me abysgiað, þonne ne mæg ic smeagan mine unscylda, ne eac ðinne willan ne mæg smeagan to wyrcanne.
14. (15) Gif ðu me þonne fram him alyst, ðonne sprece ic þæt þe licað, and mines modes smeaung byð symle beforan ðinre ansyne.
15. Drihten, þu eart min fultum and min alysend.
2° and eac Ezechias4 folc gebæd for hine, þa he wæs beseten mid his feondum on þære byrig;
1. (2) [20r] Gehyre ðe Drihten on þæm dæge þinra earfoða. Gefriðie þe se nama Iacobes Godes,
2. (3) and onsende þe fultum of his þam halgan temple, and of Sion gehæle ðe.
3. (4) Gemyndig sy Drihten ealra þinra offrunga, and þin ælmesse sy andfengu.
4. (5) Gylde ðe Drihten æfter ðinum willan, and eall ðin geðeaht he getrymie,
5. (6) þæt we moton fægnian on ðinre hælo, and on ðæm naman Drihtnes ures Godes we syn gemyclade.
6. (7) Gefylle Drihten eall þin gebedu. Nu we ongitað þæt Drihten wile gehælan his þone gesmyredan and ðone gehalgodan, and he hine gehyrð of his þam halgan heofone; swiðe mihtig is seo hælo his ðære swyð[r]an handa.
7. (8) On rynewænum and on horsum ure fynd fægniað, and þæs gilpað; we þonne on þæm naman [20v] Drihtnes ures Godes us micliað.
8. (9) Hy synd nu gebundne, and hi afeollon, and we soðlice arison and synt uppahafene.
9. (10) Drihten, gehæl urne kyning, and gehyr us on ðæm dæge þe we ðe to clypiað.
1° Ðysne twentigoðan sealm Dauid sang be him sylfum;
3° and ealra mæst Dauid witegode6 on þæm sealme be Criste.
1. (2) Drihten, on ðinum mægene nu blissað ure kyning, and for þinre hælo he fægnað swiðe swiðlice.
2. (3) For ðæm þu him sealdest his modes willan, and þæs þe he mid his weolorum wilnade, þæs þu him ne forwyrndest.
3. (4) Mid þære swetnesse þinra bletsunga þu wære hrædra to his fultume þonne he wende: þu sendest [on] his heafod kynegold mid deorwyrþum gimmum astæned.
4. (5) He þe bæd langes lifes, and þu hit him sealdest a worlda world.
5. (6) Swiðe micel is his wul<...>
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
1. (2) [21r] Drihten, Drihten, min God, beseoh to me; hwi forlete þu me swa feor minre hælo?
2. (3) Ic clypige dæges and nihtes to ðe, and andette mine scylda and seofige min ungelimp, and þu hit ne gehyrst. Ac ne understand þu hit me to unrihtwisnesse, for ðæm ic þe na ne oðwite þæt þu me ne gehyrst, ac minum agnum scyldum ic hit wite.
3. (4) Ðu wunast on halgum stowum, Drihten, Israela lof. (5) To þe hopedon ure fæderas; hi hopedon to þe and þu hi alysdest.
4. (6) Hy clypodon to ðe and hi wurdon for ði gehælde; hi hopedon, and hi þæs ne sceamode.
5. (7) Ic eam wyrme gelicra ðonne men, for þam ic eom worden mannum to leahtrunge and to forsewennesse, and ic eom ut aworpen fram him of heora gesomnunga swa þer wyrm.
6. (8) Ælc þæra þe me gesyhð, he me for[21v]syhð and onscunað. Hi sprecað mid heora welerum and wecgað heora heafdu and cweðað:
7. (9) “He hopode to Drihtne alyse he hine nu he gealp þæt he hine lufode.”
8. (10) Drihten, þu eart se þe me gelæddest of minre modor innoðe; þu wære min tohopa syþþan ic fram minre modor breoston gelæd wæs. (11) Þinre gymenne ic wæs beboden, syððan ic of hire innoðe eode, þu wære min God.
9. (12) Ne gewit þu fram me, for þam me synt earfoðu swyðe neh, and nis nan oþer þe wylle oððe mæge me gehelpan.
10. (13) Me ymbhringdon swiðe mænige calfru (þæt synt, lytle and niwe fynd), and þa fættan fearas me ofsæton (þæt synd, strengran fynd).
11. (14) Hi todydon heora muð ongean me, swa swa leo þonne he geonað and grymetað and gefehð þæt þæt he wyle. (15) Eall min mægen is tostenged and to nauhte worden, swa swa þæt wæter þæt þe byð ut agoten.
12. [22r] Min heorte and min mod is gemolten swa þær weax oninnan me,
13. (16) and min mægen ys forsearod swa swa læmen crocca; and min tunge ys gecleofod to minum gomum, and to deadum duste fulneah mine fynd me geworhton,
14. (17) for ðan me ymbhringdon swiðe mænige hundas, and seo gegaderung þara awyrgedra me ofsæton.
15. Hy þurhdulfon mine handa and mine fet (18) and gerimdon eall min ban (þæt ys, min mægn). And mine getrywan frynd, þam ic getruwode swa wel swa minum agenum limum,
16. hy min hawodon and me beheoldon, (19) and gedældan him min hrægl and þæt tohlutan.
17. (20) Ac, la Drihten, ne afyr þinne fultum fram me, ac loca to minre generennesse.
18. (21) Ahrede mine sawle æt heora sweordum, and of þæs hundes handa min lif.
19. (22) Gefriða me of þæs [22v] leon muðe, and of þam hornum þara anhyrna gefriða me, yrming.
20. (23) Ic þonne bodie þinne naman minum broðrum; on midre heora gesomnunge ic þe herie and cweþe to him:
21. (24) “Se þe Drihten ondræde, herie hine, eall Iacobes cynn.
22. (25) Ondræde hine eall Israela cynn, for þam he na forsyhð ne ne awyrpð earmra manna gebeda; ne he his andwlitan ne awende fram me, ac þonne ic clypode to him, þonne gehyrde he me.”
23. (26) Beforan þe byð min lof on þære myclan cyrcan; ic gylde min gehat Drihtne beforan þam þe hine ondrædað.
24. (27) Þonne etaþ þa þearfan and hi beoð gefyllede; and heriað þonne Drihten þa þe hine secað,
25. and heora heortan onfoð mægene and libbað a worlda world. (28) Þonne gemunan þæt eall eorðgemæru and gecyrrað ealle to Drihtne,
26. [23r] and gebiddað hy to him ealle þeoda and ælc cynn, (29) for þam ðe Drihtnes synd þa ricu, and he wylt ealra þeoda.
27. (30) Hy etað and hy gebiddað, ealle þa welegan geond þas eorþan; beforan his ansyne cumað ealle þa ðe on eorðan astigað.
28. (31) And min sawl him leofað, and min sæd him þeowað.
29. (32) And hy bodiað Drihten, ure cyn þæt æfter us cymð; and heofonas bodiað his rihtwisnesse þam folcum þe þonne beoð acende, þa worhte Drihten.
2° Dauid sang þysne twa and twenteogeþan sealm, þa he witegode be Israela folces freodome, hu hy sceoldon beon alæd of Babilonia þeowdome, and hu hi sceoldon Gode þancian þæra ara þe hi be wege hæfdon1 hamweardes;
1° and eac be his agenre gehwyrftnesse of his wræcsiðe;
4° (i) and ælc þæra ðe hine singð, he þancað Gode his alysnesse of his earfoðum;
3° and swa dydon þa Apostolas and eall þæt Cristene folc, Cristes æriste;2
1. (1) Drihten me ræt: ne byð me nanes godes wan. (2) And he me geset on swyðe good feohland,
2. [23v] and fedde me be wætera staðum, (3) and min mod gehwyrfde of unrotnesse on gefean.
3. He me gelædde ofer þa wegas rihtwisnesse for his naman.
4. (4) Þeah ic nu gange on midde þa sceade deaðes, ne ondræde ic me nan yfel, for þam þu byst mid me, Drihten.
5. Þin gyrd and þin stæf me afrefredon (þæt is, þin þreaung, and eft þin frefrung).
6. (5) Þu gegearwodest beforan me swiðe bradne beod wið þara willan þe me hatedon.
7. Þu gesmyredest me mid ele min heafod. Drihten, hu mære þin folc nu is: ælce dæge hit symblað.
8. (6) And folgie me nu þin mildheortnes ealle dagas mines lifes,
9. þæt ic mæge wunian on þinum huse swiþe lange tiid oð lange ylde.
3° and eac he witgode be Cristes sigefæstnesse, þa þa he on heofonas astah æfter his æriste;
1° and eac he witgode be him sylfum: hu his ealdormenn sceoldon fægnian his cymes of his wræcsiðe.
1. (1) [24r] Drihtnes ys eorðe and eall þæt heo mid gefyld is; and eall mancynn þe þæron eardað is Drihtnes.
2. (2) He gesette þa eorþan ofer þære sæ, and ofer ðam eam he hi gestaðelode.
3. (3) Hwa is þæs wyrðe þæt [he] astige on Godes munt, oþþe hwa mot standan on his halgan stowe?
4. (4) He byð þæs wyrðe þe unscæðfull byð mid his handum and clæne on his heortan; se þe ne hwyrfð his mod æfter idlum geþohtum and him mid weorcum fulgæð (þeah hi him on mod cumen), ne nænne að ne swerað to biswice his nyhstan.
5. (5) Se þe swylc byð, he onfehð bletsunge fram Gode and miltse æt Drihtne hælende.
6. (6) Þyllic byð þæt cyn þe God secð, and þa þe secað þone andwlitan Iacobes Godes.
7. (7) Undoð nu eower geatu, ge ealdormen, and onhlidað þa ecan geata, for þan þe ingæð se kyning þe God gewuldrod hæfð [24v] and geweorðod. Þa andswarode þæt folc and cwæð:
8. (8) “Hwæt is þes wuldorfæsta kyning? Hit is ure hlaford, strang and mihtig, se þe hæfde anweald on gefeohte.”
9. (9) Gedoð nu, ealdormen, eowru geatu, and onhlidað eow, ge ecan geatu, for þam þær inngæð se kyning þe God gewuldrod hæfð and geweorðod.
10. (10) Hwæt is se gewuldroda kyning? Hit is se wuldorfæsta, se þe God fore wyrcð swylc wundru.
1. (1) To þe ic hæbbe, Drihten, min mod and mine sawle. (2) Drihten, min God, to þe ic hopige, and ic þæs næfre ne sceamige;
2. (3) ne mine fynd me næfre for ðy ne bysmrian, ne nan þæra þe to þe hopað ne wyrð gescended.
3. (4) Scamien heora ealle þa unrihtwisan þe idelnesse wyrcað. [25r] Drihten, gedo me þine wegas cuðe, and lær me þine paðas.
4. (5) Geræd me and gerece on þinre soðfæstnesse, and lær me, for þam þu eart, Drihten, min hælend; ælce dæge ic anbidige þines fultumes.
5. (6) Gemun, Drihten, þinra miltsunga and þinre mildheortnesse þe fram fruman worlde wæs.
6. (7) Þa scylda mines iugoðhades ne gemun þu, Drihten, ne huru þa þe ic ungewisses geworhte (þæt synt, þa þe ic wende þæt nan scyld nære), ac for þinre myclan mildheortnesse beo þu min gemyndig, Drihten.
7. For þinre godnesse, (8) Drihten, þu eart swete and wynsum and eac rihtwis.
8. For þam gesette God æ scyldiendum on heora wegum, (9) and geriht þa manðwæran on domum, and him getæceð his wegas.
9. (10) Ealle Godes wegas syndon mildheortnes and rihtwisnes ælcum þæra þe his æ secað and his bebodu lufiað.
10. (11) Drihten, for þinum [25v] naman beo þu forgifende mina synna, for þy hi synt swyðe mycele.
11. (12) Swa hwylc mann swa Drihten ondræt, he him geset þa æ, and him sylð þæt geþeaht on þone weg þe heora ægðrum licað, ge Gode ge eac þam men.
12. (13) His sawl hi gerest softe on monegum goodum, and his sæd on ece yrfeweardnesse gesit eorðan.
13. (14) Drihten is mægen and cræft ælces þæra þe hine ondræt, and he him getæcð eallum his willan.
14. (15) Symle lociað mine eagan to Gode, for þam he alysð mine fet of gryne.
15. (16) Geloca to me, Drihten, and gemiltsa me, for þam ic eom ana forlæten, yrming.
16. (17) [A]nd þa earfoðu minre heortan synd swyðe tobræd and gemanigfealdod; gedo for þi, Drihten, þæt þu me gefriðie æt minre nydþearfe.
17. (18) Geseoh mine eaðmetto and mine earfoða, and forgif ealle mine scylda.
18. (19) And geseoh eac mine fynd, for þam hi synt [26r] swyþe gemanigfealdode, and geseoh hu unrihtlice hi me hatiað.
19. (20) Geheald mine sawle and gefriða me, þæt me ne sceamie þæs þe ic to þe clypige.
20. (21) Þa unsceðfullan and þa rihtwisan, þa þe begangað, coman to me, wendon þæt me sceolde cuman sum fultum and sum frofor fram þe, for þam ic symle þæs anbidode and wilnode and wende æt þe, Drihten.
21. (22) Gefriða me, Drihten, Israela God, of eallum minum nearonessum.
1° Dauid sang þisne fif and twentigoðan sealm be his unscyldinesse2 wið his sunu and wið his geþeahteras þe hine on woh lærdan;
2° and eac he witgode on þam sealme be þære unscyldignesse Israela folces wið Asirie, þa hi hy læddan on hæftnyd to Babilonia;
4° and eac swa ylce ælc rihtwis man þe hine singð: he hine singð be him sylfum and be þam þe hine unscyldigne dreccað;
3° and swa dyde eac3 Crist be Iudeum.
1. (1) Dem me, Drihten, for þam ic eom unscyldig wið þas mine fynd; and ic hopige to Drihtne, and ic ne weorðe for þi geuntrumod.
2. (2) Fanda min, Drihten, and smea mine geþohtas,
3. (3) [26v] for þan þin mildheortnes ys beforan minum eagum, and ic symle tilode mid rihtwisnesse þe and him to licianne.
4. (4) Ne sæt ic na on þære samnunge idelra manna and unnytra, ne ic ineode on þæt geþeaht unrihtwyrcendra,
5. (5) ac ic hatode þa gesamnunge unrihtwisra. For þam ic næfre ne teolade sittan on anum willan mid þam arleasum,
6. (6) ac ic wilnode symle þæt ic aðwoge mine handa betwuh þam unscæððigum (þæt is, þæt ic wære unscyldig betwuh him), þæt ic meahte hweorfan ymb þinne þone halgan alter, Drihten,
7. (7) and þær gehyran þa stemne þines lofes, and þæt ic mæge cyþan eall þin wundru.
8. (8) Drihten, ic lufode þone wlite þines huses and þa stowe þines wuldorfæstan temples.
9. (9) Ac ne forleos mine sawle ongemang þam arleasum, ne min lif betwuh þam manslagum, (10) þæra handa and þæra weorc syndon fulle unrihtwisnesse.
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
1. (1) Drihten is min onlyhtend and min hælend: hwæt þearf ic ondrædan?
2. Drihten is scyldend mines lifes: hwy sceal ic beon afærd?
3. (2) Þonne me togenealæhton mine fynd me to derianne, swylce hi woldon fretan min flæsc, þa þe me swencton, hi wæron sylfe geuntrumode and gefeollon.
4. (3) Þeah hi nu gyt wyrcen getruman and scyldridan wið me, ne byð min heorte nawuht afæred; þeah hi arisan ongean me to feohtanne, to þam Gode ic hopie þe me ær gefreode.
* * * * * * * * * *
5. (4) . . . and geseon Godes willan, and þone ongitan; and he me gefriðie on his þam halgan temple.
6. (5) For þam he me gehydde on his temple—on þam yflan dagum he me gefriðode on þam sceade his geteldes and his temples—(6) and he me ahof upp on heane stan,
7. and huru nu hæfð [27v] min heafod uppahafen ofer mine fynd, for þæm ic ymbhweorfe þi[n] þæt halige tempel, Drihten, and þær offrige on þinum huse þa offrunga <...>; sangas ic singe, and secge Gode lof.
8. (7) Gehyr, Drihten, mine stefne, mid þære ic clypige to þe; gemiltsa me and gehyr me.
9. (8) To þe cwyð min heorte: “Ic sohte þine ansyne; ic sece gyt symle, Drihten.”
10. (9) Ne awend þu þine ansyne fram me, ne þe næfre yrringa acyr fram þinum þeowe.
11. Þu eart min fultumend, Drihten: ne forlæt me, ne ne forseoh me, Drihten, min hælend.
12. (10) For þam min fæder and min modor me forleton, ac Drihten me ne forlet.
13. (11) Gesete me æ, Drihten, on þinum wege, and gerece me on rihtne pæð fore minum feondum,
14. (12) and ne syle me to þara modes [28r] willan þe min ehtað, for ðam arison ongean me lease gewitnessa, and heora leasung wæs gecyrred to heom sylfum.
15. (13) Ic gelyfe þæt ic geseo Godes good on libbendra lande. (14) Hopa nu, min mod, to Drihtne, and gebid his willan, and do esnlice, and gestaþela and gestranga þine heortan, and geþola Drihtnes willan.
1° Dauid sang þisne seofon and twentigoþan1 sealm; on þæm2 sealme he wæs3 cleopiende4 to Drihtne, wilnode þæt he hine arette and gefriðode wiþ eallum earfoðum,5 ægðer ge modes ge lichaman, and wið ealle his fynd gescylde, ge wið gesewene ge wið ungesewene;
2° and eac Ezehias6 on þam ylcan sealme hine gebæd þæt hine God alysde, ægðer ge æt his mettrumnesse ge æt his feondum (swa he þa dyde);
3° and swa ylce dyde Crist, þa þa he þysne sealm sang.
1. (1) To þe ic hopige, Drihten, min God; ne swuga, ac dem and miltsa me. Gif þu swa ne dest, þonne beo ic gelicost þam þe afylð on pytt.
2. (2) Ac gehyr þa stemne mines gebedes, for þam ic nu to þe clypige and mine handa upphebbe [28v] to þinum þam halgan temple.
3. (3) Ne syle me, ne ne send, mid þam synfullan, and mid þam unrihtwyrcendum ne forleos me,
4. ne me ne fordo mid þam þe luflice sprecað to heora nyhstum and habbað, þeah, facn on heora heortan.
5. (4) Ic wat þæt þu sylst him edlean be heora gewyrhtum, and æfter þam unrihte þe hi an swincað, þu heom gyldest.
6. Ðu heom sylst edlean, (5) for þam hy ne ongitað þin weorc ne þa ne geseoð.
7. Þu hi towyrpst and hi eft [ne] getimbrast. (6) Gebletsod sy Drihten, for þam þe he gehyrde þa stemne mines gebedes.
8. (7) Drihten is min fultumend and min gescyldend; on hine gehyht min heorte, and he me gefultumað.
9. (8) Drihten is strengo [29r] his folces and gescyldend þære hælo his gesmyredan.
10. (9) Gehæl, Drihten, þin folc, and gebletsa þin yrfeland, and gerece þa þe þæron eardiað, and hi uppahefe on ecnesse.
4° and eac swa ilce12 he witegode be eallum þam þe æfter him gebrocode wæron and eft arette, þæt hi eac þæs Gode þancodon æfter heora bysne;
3° and eac he witegode be Criste, þæt he sceolde beon alysed æt Iudeum. He cwæð:
1. (1) Ge Godes bearn, bringað eow sylfe Gode, and bringað him eac eowera ramma bearn.
2. (2) And bringað eac Drihtne wuldor and weorðmynd, and bringað wuldor Drihtnes naman;
3. and gebiddað eow to Gode on his halgan ealle. (3) Godes word is ofer wætrum, and hy gehæft. He is mægenþrymmes God and he þunrað ofer manegum wæterum and mycelum.
4. (4) [29v] Godes word is on mycelum mægene and mycelu þing deð.
5. (5) Þæs Godes word brycþ cedortreowu, and symle se God brycð þa hean cedertreowu on Libano, þam myclan munte (þa treowa tacniað ofermodra manna anweald). (6) Drihten forbrycð and forbryt þa myclan cedertreowu, emne swa þa lytlan onwæstmas. Þa owæstmas beoð swa mycle and swa fægere swa swa þees deores bearn þe “unicornus” hatte.
6. (7) Godes word adwæscð fyres lig. (8) Drihten ahrysode þa westan eorðan and astyrede þa westan stowe þe is gehaten Cades.
7. (9) And he gedyde þæt þa fynd flugan swa heortas, and he onwreah þa eorðan þe ær wæs oferþeaht mid feondum. Cumon nu for þi ealle to his temple and secgon him þæs lof.
8. (10) Drihten us gedyde þæt we moston buian æfter þam folce. Se Drihten is ure kyning, se sitt on [30r] ecnesse ofer us.
9. (11) Drihten sylþ his folce mægen and gebletsað his folc on sibbe.
4° and þæt ylce he witegode be ælcum rihtwison6 men þe þysne sealm singð oþþe for hine sylfne oþþe for oðerne, Gode to þancunge þære blisse þe he þonne hæfð;
3° and eac he witegode on þam sealme be Criste, hu he sceolde alysed beon, ægðer ge fram7 Iudeum ge of ðy deaðe.
1. (2) Ic fægnige, Drihten, and þe herige, for þam þu me gefriðadest, and þu ne lete mine fynd min fægnian.
2. (3) Drihten, min God, ic clypode to þe, and þu me gehældest, (4) and atuge mine sawle of neolnessum and of helle, and me gehældest fram þæra geferscipe þe feollon on pytt.
3. (5) Heriað nu Drihten ealle his halige, and andetað þæt gemynd his halignesse,
4. (6) for þam open wracu ys on his yrsunga, and soð lif on [30v] þam, þæt man wrece his willan.
5. Þeah we wepon on æfen, he gedeð þæt we hlihhað on morgen.
6. (7) Ic cwæð on minum wlencum and on minre orsorhnesse: “Ne wyrð þises næfre nan wendincg,”
7. (8) for þam þu me sealdest on ðinum goodan willan wlite and mægen. Þa awendest þu þinne andwlitan fram me, þa wearð ic sona gedrefed.
8. (9) Þa clypode ic eft to þe and gebæd me to minum Drihtne and cwæð: (10) “Drihten, hu nyt is þe min slæge, oþþe min cwalu, oððe min rotung on byrgenne?
9. Hwæðer þe þæt dust herige on þære byrgene, oþþe hwæðer hit cyðe þine rihtwisnesse?”
10. (11) Þa gehyrde Drihten þa word and gemildsade me; he wearð me to fultume.
11. (12) Drihten, þu gehwyrfdest minne heaf and mine seofunga me to gefean; þu totære min witehrægl, and þu me begyrdst mid gefean. (13) For þam hit ys [31r] cyn þæt min wuldor and min gylp þe herige, þæt ic ne wurðe gedrefed.
12. Drihten, min God, on ecnesse ic þe herige.
2° and eac he witgode be þære wræce þe æfter him wurðan sceolde3 þæm folce (þæt wæs, þa hi4 to Babilonia gelædde wæron), he witgode þæt hi sceoldon5 gebiddan on þa ylcan wisan þe he dyde, and hyra6 ungelimp þær seofian swa he dyde;
1. (2) To þe ic hopige, Drihten; ne gesceamað me næfre þæs. On þinre rihtwisnesse alys me and gefriða me.
2. (3) Onhyld to me þine earan, and efste þæt þu me gefriðie.
3. And beo min God and min gefriðiend, and beo min friðstow, and gedo me halne,
4. (4) for þam þu eart min trymnes and min gebeorth; and on þinum naman ic þe healsige þæt þu beo min ladþeow and me fede.
5. (5) And alæd me of [31v] þysum grynum þe her gehydde synt beforan me, for þam þu eart min gescyldend, Drihten; (6) an þine handa ic befæste mine sawle.
6. Þu me ahreddest, Drihten, rihtwisnesse God. (7) Þu hatodest þa þe beeodon idelnesse, and eac þa þe unnyt worhton.
7. Ic þonne symle hopige to Drihtne, (8) and fægnie and wynsumige and blissige on þinre mildheortnesse,
8. for þam þu gesawe mine eadmodnesse, and þu gedydest hale æt nydþearfe mine sawle, (9) and me ne clemdes on minra feonda handa,
9. ac asettest mine fet on swyðe brad land. (10) Gemiltsa me nu, Drihten, for þam ic swince.
10. Mine eagan wæron gedrefede and afærde for þinum yrre, and eac swa ilce min mod and min maga,
11. (11) for þam fullneah on þam sare geteorode and geendode min lif, and min gear wæron on sicetunga and on gestæne.
12. And geuntrumod [32r] wæs for wædle and for yrmðum min mægen, and min ban wæron gedrefedu and fullneah forod.
13. (12) Ofer ealle mine fynd ic eom geworden to edwite, and minum neahgeburum swiðost; ic eom worden him to ege and eallum þam þe mecunnon.
14. Þa þe me gesawon, hi me flugon. (13) Fulneah ic afeoll swa swa se þe byð dead on his heortan and on his mode, and ic wæs swylce forloren fæt and tobrocen,
15. (14) [f]or þam ic gehyrde manegra manna edwit, þe me ymbutan budon,
16. and swa hwær swa hi hi gegaderodon ealle togædere to þam þæt hy þeahtodon hu hi mihton geniman mine sawle.
17. (15) And ic, þeah, Drihten, to þe hopode and sæde þæt þu wære min God; (16) on þinum handum synd þa lenga minra tida.
18. (17) Alys me and gefriða me of minra feonda handum and fram þam þe min ehtað,
19. and onliht þinne [32v] andwlitan ofer þinne þeow, and gedo me halne for þinre mildheortnesse. (18) And gedo þæt me ne gesceamige, for þam ic cleopode to þe.
20. Ac þeah sceal gescamian þa unrihtwisan, and hi beoð gelæd to helle. (19) And adumbiað þa facnfullan weoloras, þa þe sprecað wið þone rihtwisan unriht on heora ofermettum and on heora leahtrunga.
21. (20) Eala, Drihten, hu micel and hu manigfeald is seo mycelnes þinre swetnesse þe þu hæfst gehyd and gehealden þam þe þe ondrædað. Þa swetnesse þu him ne lætst næfre aspringan nanum þæra þe to þe hopað beforan manna bearnum.
22. (21) Þu [hi] gehydst and gehyldst hale and orsorge, ægðer ge modes ge lichaman, butan ælcere gedrefednesse þe menn þrowiað.
23. Þu hi gescyldst on þinum temple wið ælcere tungan leahtrunge.
24. (22) Gebletsod sy Drihten for þam he swa wuldorlice gecyd[33r]de his mildheortnesse me on þære fæstan byrig.
25. (23) Ic cwæð on minre fyrhto þæt ic wære aworpen of þinra eagena ansyne,
26. and þu þa for þi gehyrdest þa stemne minra gebeda, þa ic to þe cliopode.
27. (24) Lufiað nu for þan Drihten, ealle his halgan, for þam rihtwisnesse God lufiað and secð, and forgylt be fullan ælcum þe ofermetto doð.
28. (25) Ac doð esnlice, and gestrangiað eowere heortan and eower mod, ælc þæra þe to Gode hopige.
1° (i) Dauid sang þisne an and þrittigoðan sealm, wundriende þære unaseccgendlican gesælignesse þæra manna þe him God forgifð ealle heora scylda and him ælc geswinc aferþ, swa swa he him oft dyde;
1° (ii) and he ætwat eac him sylfum, þæt he ne hreowsode his synna ær he hæfde witnunga;
3° and he witgode eac be Criste, þæt he swa ylce wolde herian swylce menn.
1. (1) Eadige beoð þa þe him beoð heora unrihtwisnessa for[33v]gifene and heora synna beoð behelede.
2. (2) Eadig byð se wer þe him God ne oðwit his scylda, ne on his mode ne byð facen.
3. (3) For þam þe ic sugode and hæl mine scylda, eal min ban and min mægen forealdode. Þa ongan ic clypian ealne dæg,
4. (4) for þam ægðer ge on dæg ge on niht wæs swyðe hefig ofer me þin hand and þin yrre; ic wæs gehwyrfed on ælce yrmðe swylce me wære se hrycg forbrocen.
5. (5) Ic þa gedyde mine scylda þe swyþe cuþe, and min unriht ic na ne helede wið þe.
6. Þa cwæð ic on minum mode þæt ic wolde andettan and stælan ongean me sylfne mine scylda, and þa Gode andetan; and þu me þa forgeafe þæt unriht minra scylda.
7. (6) For þæm gebiddað ealle halige to þe on tilne timan; for þæm þonne and for eallum heora goodum dædum ne genealæcð him na þæt flod þæra myclena wæterena (þæt synt, þas andwear[34r]dan earfoþa and eac þa [to]weardan).
8. (7) Þu eart min gebeorhstow on minum earfoþum, þa me habbað utan behringed; ac þu þe eart min frefrend, ahrede me æt þam þe me habbað utan bestanden.
9. (8) Þa andswarode God þam witegan þurh þæne Halgan Gast and cwæð: “Ic þe sylle andgit and þe getæce þone weg þe þu onsteppan scealt, and ic locie to þe mid minum eagum.
10. (9) Ne beo ge na swylce hors and mulas, on þam nis nan andgit,
11. þæra cinban þu scealt mid bridle and mid caman to þe geteon.” Swa ylce þu scealt þa men þe heora gelican beoð, for þam hi elles ne genealæceað þinum willan.
12. (10) Swiþe manifealde synt synfulra manna swingelan, ac þa þe to Gode hopiað beoð ymbhringde mid swyþe manegre mildheortnesse.
13. (11) Blissiað for þæm on Gode and wynsu[34v]miað, ge rihtwisan, and fægniað and wuldriað, ealra rihtwillenda heortan.
1° (i) Dauid sang þisne twa and þrittigoþan sealm, herigende Drihten and him þanciende þæt he hine swa wundorlice of eallum his earfoþum gefriðode, and hine swa weorðlice gesette ofer his rice;
4° and be ælcum þæra þe þysne6 sealm singð;
3° and eac be Criste he witgode þæt he sceolde7 æfter his æriste ealle men þæt ylce læran.
1. (1) Blissiað, ge rihtwisan, on Godes gifum; rihte hit gerist þæt hine ealle rihtwillende emnlice herian.
2. (2) Heriað hine mid hearpum and on þære tynstrengean hearpan.
3. (3) Singað him niwne sang, and heriað hine swyþe wel mid heare stemne,
4. (4) for þæm his word synd swyþe riht and ealle his weorc synt getreowe.
5. (5) He lufað mildheortnesse and rihte domas; mid his mildheortnesse he gefylð ealle eorðan. (6) Mid his worde synt getrymede heofonas, and þurh þone [35r] gast his muðes synt eall heofona mægn.
6. (7) He gegaderode eall sæwætru tosomne swylce hi wæron on anum cylle; he gesette þone garsecg on his goldhorde.
7. (8) Ondræde hine eall eorðe: fram him beoð onstyred ealle gesceafta and ealle þa þe on eorðan buiað.
8. (9) For þæm he cwæð his willan, þa wæs he geworden. He bebead his willan; þa wæron ealle gesceafta gesceapene.
9. (10) Se Drihten tostencð þa geþeaht yfelwillendra kynna, and he forsyhð þa geþohtas þara folca, and eac yfelra ealdormanna geþeaht he forsyhð.
10. (11) Ac Godes geþeaht wunað on ecnesse, and geþoht his modes a weorulda weoruld.
11. (12) Eala, eadig byþ þæt kynn þe swylc God byð heora God, and eadig byð þæt folc þe se Drihten gecyst him to yrfeweardnesse.
12. (13) Drihten locað of heofonum and gesihð eall manna bearn. (14) Of his þam wlitegan temple [35v] he wlit ofer ealle þa þe ealre eorðan ymbhwyrft buiað,
13. (15) for þam he gesceop heora heortan, ælces synderlice, and he ongit heora ealra weorc.
14. (16) Ne wyrð nan kyning næfre gehæled þurh his agen mægen, ne se gigant ne wyrð na gehæled on þære mycelnesse his mægenes.
15. (17) Þi byð swiðe dysig se þe getruwað on his horses swiftnesse, for þæm hit is swiðe leas tohopa; for þæm nawþer ne ðam horse ne þæm rædemen ne wyrð geborgen of his agnum cræftum.
16. (18) Symle beoð Godes eagan open ofer þa ðe hine ondrædað, and ofer þa þe hopiað to his mildheortnesse, (19) for þam þæt he gefriðie heora sawla fram deaðe and hi fede on hungres tide.
17. (20) Hopiað nu to Drihtne ure sawla, for þam he ys ure friðigend and ure gescyldend, (21) and on hine blissiað ure heortan and to his halgan naman we hopiað.
18. (22) Sy, Drihten, þin [36r] mildheortnes ofer us swa swa we gehyhtað on þe.
1° Dauid sang þysne þreo and þrittigoðan sealm, gehatende Drihtne þæt he hine symle wolde bletsian for þæm gifum þe he him geaf, and he wilnode on þæm sealme þæt him God sende his godcundne engel on his fultum;
4° and he lærde eac on þæm sealme ælcne man þe æfter him wære, þæt he þæt ylce dyde
3° and þæt ylce he witgode4 be Criste, þæt he þæt ylce don wolde, and eac oðre læran.
1. (2) Ic bletsige Drihten on ælce tid; symle byð his lof on minum muðe.
2. (3) On Gode byð geherod min sawl. Gehyren þæt þa manþwæran and blissien for þy.
3. (4) Micliað Drihten mid me, and uppahebben we his naman betwuh us.
4. (5) Ic sohte Drihten and he me gehyrde, and of eallum minum earfoðum he me gefriðode.
5. (6) Cumað nu to him and genealæcað him, and he eow onliht, and eowerne andwlitan na ne gesceamað.
6. (7) Þes þearfa clepode to Drihtne, and [36v] Drihten hine gehyrde, and of eallum his earfoþum he hine alysde.
7. (8) Onsende he his engel ymbutan þa þe hine ondrædað, þæt he hi gefriðige, swa he me dyde.
8. (9) Fandiað nu, þonne ongite ge þæt Drihten is swyðe sefte; eadig byð se wer þe to him cleopað.
9. (10) Ondrædon hine ealle his halige, for þæm þæm ne byð nanes goodes wana þe hine ondrædað.
10. (11) Þa welegan wædledon and eodon biddende, and hi hingrode, ac þa þe God seceað ne aspringeð him nan good.
11. (12) Cumað nu, bearn, and gehyrað me; ic eow lære Godes ege.
12. (13) Se þe libban wylle, and wilnige þæt he geseo goode dagas, gehyre hwæt ic secge.
13. (14) Forbeode his tungan ælc yfel and his weolorum, þæt hi ne sprecon nan facn.
14. (15) Onwende hine fram yfele and wyrce good; sece sibbe and folgie þære,
15. (16) for þæm Godes eagan beoð ofer þa rihtwisan ontynde, and eac his earan to [37r] heora gebedum.
16. (17) Ac Godes andwlita and his yrre byð ofer þa þe yfel wyrcað, to þæm þæt he forleose heora gemynd ofer eorðan.
17. (18) Þa rihtwisan cleopodon, and Drihten hi gehyrde, and of eallum hiora earfoðum he hi alysde.
18. (19) Swiþe neah is Drihten þam þe beoð gedrefede on heora heortum, and þa eaðmodan on heora gaste he gehælð.
19. (20) Monigu synt earfoðu þara rihtwisena, and of eallum þæm hi alysð Drihten.
20. (21) Drihten gehylt eall heora ban (þæt ys, eall heora mægen), þæt heora ne wyrð furðon an tobrocen.
21. (22) Ac þæra synfullena deað byð se wyrsta; and þa þe þone rihtwisan hatiað, þa agyltað.
22. (23) Drihten gefriðað þa sawla his þeowa, and ne forlæt [37v] nænne þæra þe him to hopað.
1. (1) De[m] me, Drihten, and þæm þe me swencað; feoht wið þa þe wið me feohtað,
2. (2) and gefoh wæpn and scyld, and aris me to fultume.
3. (3) Geteoh þin sweord and cum ongean hy, and beluc heora wegas mid þinum sweorde, þara þe min ehtað. Cweð to minre sawle: “Ne ondræd þu þe: ic eom þin hælo, and ic þe gehealde.”
4. (4) Geleahtrode syn mine fynd, and sceamien heora þa þa secað mine sawle to fordonne.
5. Syn hi gecyrde on earsling and scami[38r]en heora, þa þe me ðenceað yfeles.
6. (5) Syn hi tostencte swa swa dust beforan winde, and Godes engel hi geþræste.
7. (6) Syn heora wegas þystre and slidore, and Godes engel heora ehte,
8. (7) for þam hi butan gewyrhtum teldedon gryne and þa gehyddon, to þam þæt hi woldan me an gefon; and idle hi wæron, þa hi me tældon.
9. (8) Gefo[n] hi þa grynu þe wið hy beheled synt, and eac þa þe hi wið me beheled hæfdon.
10. (9) Þonne blissað min sawl and min mod on Drihtne, and hit byð gelustfullod on his hælo.
11. (10) Eall min ban (þæt is, min mægen) cwyð: “Eala Drihten, hwa is ðin gelica, for þam þu generest þone earman of þæs strengran anwealde, and þone wædlan and þone þearfan ahredst æt þæm þe hine swencað.”
12. (11) [38v] Þonne wið me arison lease gewitan and stældon on me þæt ic nawþer ne nyste ne ne worhte; (12) ac guldon me yfel wið gode and
[[ Print Edition Page No. 140 ]]
woldon me gedon unwæstmbærne swa swa se þe butan ælcum yrfewearde byð.
13. (13) Ic, þa þa hi me swa hefige wæron, dyde me witehrægl an, and gebigde min mod to fæstenne, and min gebedo wendon eft to me on minne agenne bosm, for þam heora nolde onfon se dema, þe ic hi to sende.
14. (14) And ic, þeah, þeah hi me swa hefige wæron, hy lufode and him tilode to licianne and to cwemanne, swa swa minum nyhstum oððe minum breðer; and hy me gedydon swa unrotne and swa wependne swa se byð þone þe he lufað.
15. (15) Hy wæron bliðe wið me on heora gebærum, and þeah on heora mode hi blissedon micle swyðor on minum ungelimpe; and hi comon ongean me and gegaderodon swyðe manega swingellan ofer me, and ic nyste [39r] hwæt hi me witon.
16. (16) And hy wurdon, þeah, tostencte, and hy, þeah, þæs na ne hreowsedon, ac fandodon eft min and bysmredon me mid ælcere bysmrunga, and grisbitedon mid heora toþum ongean me.
17. (17) And þa cwæð ic: “Drihten, hwænne gesyhst þu þis, oððe hwænne gefriðast þu mine sawle wið heora yfelum dædum, oþþe hwænne ahredst mine angan sawle æt þæm leoum?”
18. (18) Gif þu me æfre alyst, ic þe andette on mycelre gesamnunge and þe þær herige,
19. (19) for þæm þæt mine fynd ne blissien æfter me, þa þe winnað mid unrihte ongean me and me hatiað butan scylde, and wincettað mid heora eagum betwuh him.
20. (20) Þeah hi gesibsumlice hwilum wið me sprecen, hy þenceað, þeah, swiðe facenlice.
21. (21) Hy geopenodon ealne[h] heora muð for leahtre, to þæm þæt hi me bysmredon, and cwædon: “Hit is [39v] la ful good þæt æfre ure eagan moston geseon þæt we wilnodon.” (22) Nu þu gesyhst, Drihten, hwæt hy doð. Ne geþafa þu hit leng; ne gewit fram me.
22. (23) Aris, Drihten, and beseoh to me, and geseoh hu unscyldig ic eom wið þa þe min ehtað. Drihten, min God, aris to minum þinge and to minre þearfe.
23. (24) Drihten, Drihten, min God, dem me æfter þinre mildheortnesse, þæt mine fynd ne gefeon mines ungelimpes; (25) ne hy cweþan on heora mode, “wel la wel is urum modum;” ne hy ne cweðen, “we hine frætan.”
24. (26) Ac sceamien hy heora and him eac ondrædon (ægðer endemes), þa þe fægniað mines ungelimpes; beslepen hi on hy bysmor and gegyrion hy mid sceame, þa ofersprecan þe me yfel cweðað.
25. (27) Fægnien þa and blissien þa þe willon me þancian minre rihtwisnesse, and þa þe symle cweðað, “gemyclad sy [40r] Drihten,” and þa þe willon sibbe wið his ðeow.
26. (28) Þonne smeað min tunge þine rihtwisnesse and ealne dæg þin lof.
4° and swa deð ælc þæra þe þysne sealm singð for his earfoþum:
1. (2) Se unrihtwisa cwyþ on his mode þæt he wylle syngian. For þam Godes ege nis beforan his eagum,
2. (3) for þæm he deð swiðe facenlice beforan his ansyne; ac his unriht and his feoung wurð, þeah, swiðe open.
3. (4) Þa word his muðes beoð unriht and facen; he nyle ongitan þæt he cunne wel don; (5) unriht he byð smeagende on his cliofan.
4. He stent on ælcum yflum wege; ne hatað he nan yfel.
5. (6) [D]rihten, þin mildheort[nes] is on heofonum, and þin rihtwis[nes] is upp oð þa wolcnu.
6. (7) [40v] Þin rihtwisnes is swa heah swa þa heofonlican muntas, and þine domas synt swa deope swa swa æfgrynde oþþe seo deoposte sæ.
7. Menn and nytenu þu gehælst, Drihten. (8) Hu wundorlice þu gemanigfealdodest þine mildheortnesse, Drihten.
8. Manna bearn soðlice symle hopiað to þæm sceade þinra fiðera, (9) and hy beoð oferdrencte on þære genihte þines huses, and on þære æ þines willan þu hy drencst,
9. (10) for þæm mid þe is lifes wylle, and of þinum leohte we beoð onlihte.
10. (11) Læt forð þine mildheortnesse þam þe þe witon, and þine rihtwisnesse þam þæ synt rihtes modes.
11. (12) Ne læt þu me oftredan þa ofermodan under heora fotum, and þara synfullena handa me na ne styrien,
12. (13) ac under heora fet and under heora handa gefeallen ealle þa þe unriht wyrcen and him þæt licað; hy synt aworpene, þæt hi ne ma<...>
[41r] 1° Dauid sang þysne syx and þritigoðan sealm, on þæm he lærde ealle geleaffulle þæ[t]2 hy ne onhyredon þam yfelwillendum, þeah him þuhte þæt hi gesælige and orsorge wæron, for þam hyra orsorgnes swiðe hraðe aspringð;
4° and ælc þæra ðe gyt þysne sealm singð, be þam ylcan he hine3 singð;
3° and eac Crist þæt ylce lærde and witgode, þonne he þysne sealm sang.
1. (1) Ne wundrie ge þæra yfelwillendra and þæra orsorgra, ne him na ne onhyriað, ne eow ne ofþince þeah eow ne sy swa swa him þam þe unriht wyrcað,
2. (2) for þæm swyþe hraþe forseariað swa fileðe, and hy gefeallað swiðe hrædlice swa swa wyrta leaf oþþe blostman.
3. (3) Ac þu, hopa to Drihtne and do good, and buwa eorðan, and fed þe on hyre welum,
4. (4) and blissa on Drihtne; þonne syleð he þe þæt þu bidst on þinum mode.
5. (5) Onwreoh Gode þine wegas and hopa to him; he þe gedeð fultum,
6. (6) and he gedeð þine rihtwisnesse mannum swa sweotole swa sunnan, and þinne dom he gedeð swa sweotolne swa [41v] sunne byð to middes dæges.
7. (7) Beo þu Gode underþyd and halsa hine, and ne onhyre þam þe byð orsorh on his wege, and wyrcð, þeah, unriht.
8. (8) Forlæt yrre and hatheortnesse; ne bysna þe be nanum þæra þe yfel don,
9. (9) for þæm þa þe yfel doð and þæt ne betað, hy beoð awyrtwalode of eorþan; ac þa þe to Gode hopiað and his fultumes anbidiað, hy gesittað on yrfeweardnesse eorþan.
10. (10) Gebid ane lytle hwile, þonne ne byð se synfulla; þeah þu þonne sece his stowe, þonne ne findst þu hy.
11. (11) Ac þa manþwæran gesittað eorþan and fægniað þære myclan sibbe.
12. (12) Se synfulla sætað þæs rihtwisan and gristbatað mid his toþum ongean hine, (13) ac Drihten hine gebysmrað, for þam he gesyhð hu hraðe his ende cymð.
13. (14) Þa synfullan teoð [42r] heora sweord and bendað heora bogan to þæm þæt hi mægon besyrian þone earman and þone wædlan, and þurhsceotan þa unscæðfullan heortan;
14. (15) ac heora sweord gað innon heora heortan and heora bogan forberstað.
15. (16) [B]etere ys þam rihtwisan lytel þonne þam synfullan mycel wela,
16. (17) for þam se earm and þæt mægen þæra synfulra byð forbrocen, ac Drihten gestrangað þa rihtwisan,
17. (18) for þæm he wat þa wegas þæra unsceðfulra, and heora yrfeweardnes byð on ecnesse.
18. (19) Ne gesceamað hy na on þære yflan tide, ac on hungres tide hy beoð gefyllede, (20) þonne þa synfullan forweorðað.
19. Þa Godes fynd, swiþe hraðe þæs þe hy beoð gearode and uppahefene, beoð gedwæscte swa ðer smec.
20. (21) Æfre borgiað þa synfullan and næfre ne gyldað; þa rihtwisan syllað [42v] ægþer ge to borge ge to gife.
21. (22) Þa þe God bletsiað beoð eorðan yrfeweardas, and þa þe hine wyrgeað forweorðað.
22. (23) Fram Gode byð gereht se weg þæs rihtwisan, and hine lyst his wega and his weorca swiðe.
23. (24) And þeah se rihtwisa afealle, ne wyrð he gebrysed, ne his nan ban tobrocen, for þam God gefehð his hand and hine upparærð.
24. (25) Ic wæs geo geong, and nu ic ealdige, and ne geseah ic næfre rihtwisne man forlætenne, ne his sæd þæt wære hlafes wædla.
25. (26) Ac se rihtwisa ælce dæge miltsað and syleð oþrum to borge, and his sæd byð on bletsunge on genihte.
26. (27) [G]ecyr for þæm fram yfele and do good, þonne wunast þu on weorulda weorld.
27. (28) For þæm God lufað ryhte domas and ne forlæt næfre his halge, ac he gehylt hy on ecnesse.
28. He witnað þa scyldigan, and þæt sæd þæra unrihtwisra forwyrð.
29. (29) [43r] [Þ]a rihtwisan gesittað eorðan on yrfeweardnesse, and hy buiað on hyre a weorulda weoruld.
30. (30) Se muð þæs rihtwisan smeað wisdom and his tunge sprycð rihte domas.
31. (31) Seo æ his Godes bið on his heortan, and ne aslit his fot.
32. (32) Se synfulla hawaþ symle þæs rihtwisan, and secð hine to fordonne, (33) ac Drihten hine ne forlæt on his handa to þam þæt he hine mæge fordon; and Drihten demð hym bæm.
33. (34) Gebid Drihtnes and heald his bebodu, and he þe uppahefð to þæm þæt þu bust eorðan, and þu gesyht hwær þa synfullan forweorðað.
34. (35) Ic geseah þone unrihtwisan swiðe upahafenne swa swa sum cedertreow on Libanus munte.
35. (36) And ic þa þanon for and eft ðyder com; þonne næs he. And ic acsode æfter him and hine sohte, and hine ne funde, n[e] furþum [43v] þa stowe, þe ic hine ær on geseah, gecnawan ne mihte.
36. (37) Heald for ðy rihtwisnesse and efnesse, for þæm se gesibsuma læfð symle yrfeweard æfter him.
37. (38) Ac þa unrihtwisan symle forweorþað ealle ætsomne mid hyra yrfeweardum.
38. (39) Ac seo hæl þæra rihtwisena cymeð symle fram Gode, and he byð heora gescyldend on geswinces tide.
39. (40) And Drihten him gefultumað and hy alysð, and hy ahret æt þam synfullum, and hy gedeð hale, for þæm hy hopiað to him.
1° (i) Dauid sang þysne seofon and þrittigoðan1 sealm, andettende Drihtne his scylde, and seofigende his ungelimp þæt he ær mid his scyldum geearnode;
1° (ii) and he eac healsode Drihten on ðæm sealme þæt he hine on swylcum earfeðum ne lete his life geendian;
2° and he witegode eac be Ezechie þam kyncge þæt he sceolde þæt ylce don on his earfoðum;
3° and eac be Criste he witegode, þæt he wolde þæt ylce don.5
1. (2) [44r] Drihten, ne þrea þu me, ne ne þrafa on þinum yrre, ne on þinre hatheortnesse ne witna ðu me,
2. (3) for þam þine flana synt afæstnad on me (þæt synt, þa earfoðu þe ic nu þolie), and þu gestrangodes þine handa ofer me.
3. (4) Nis nan hælo on minum flæsce for þære andweardnesse þines yrres, ne nan sib ne nan rest nis minum banum beforan þære ansyne minra synna,
4. (5) for þæm min unriht me hlypð nu ofer heafod, and swa swa hefig byrðen hy synt gehefegode ofer me.
5. (6) Mina wunda rotedan and fuledon for minum dysige.
6. (7) Ic eom swiðe earm geworden, and ic eom fulneah gebiged to ende; ælce dæge ic gange inn unrot.
7. (8) For þæm eall min lichama is full flæsclicra lusta, [44v] for þam nis nan hælo on minum flæsce.
8. (9) Ac ic eom gesæged and gehnæged and swiðe geeaðmed; and ic grymetige and stene swiþe swiðlice mid ealle mode. (10) Drihten, Drihten, þu wast nu eall hwæs ic wilnie; eall hit ys beforan ðe, and min granung þe nis na forholen.
9. (11) Min heorte is gedrefed and min mod oninnan me, for þæm min mægen and min strengo and min cræft me hæfð forlæten, and þæt leoht and seo scearpnes minra eagena, þe ic ær hæfde, nis nu mid me swa swa ic hy geo hæfde.
10. (12) Mine frynd and mine magas and mine neahgeburas synt nu gemengde wið mine fynd, and standað nu mid him ongean me, and synt me nu toweardes; and þa þe me nyhst wæran, þa ic orsorgost wæs, standað me nu swiðe feor
11. (13) and wyrceað woh. Þa þe me hefigiað and mine sawle seceað—hu hy magon yfel don—sprecað idelnesse and smeagað [45r] facn ælce dæge.
12. (14) Ic, þonne, swa swa deaf, dyde swylce ic hit ne gehyrde, and swugode swa swa se dumba þe næfre his muð ne ontynð.
13. (15) Ic wæs geworden swylce se mann þe nanwuht ne gehyrð, ne on his muðe næfð nane rihtandsware.
14. (16) For þam ic hopode to þe, Drihten, and cwæð to þe: “Gehyr ðis, Drihten, and andswara him.”
15. (17) For þæm ic symle bæd þæt næfre mine fynd ne gefægen æfter me, þy læs hi mægen sprecan [un]gemetlico word ongean me, gif hy geseon þæt mine fet slidrien.
16. (18) For þæm ic eom nu to swingellan gearu, and min sar ys symle beforan me,
17. (19) for þæm ic andette Gode min unriht and ic þence ymbe mine synna.
18. (20) Gyt libbað mine fynd and synt [45v] strengran þonne ic, and synt swiðe gemanigfealdode þa þe [me] mid unrihte hatiað.
19. (21) Þa ðe me gyldað yfel mid goode, hy me tælað for þy ic sece riht.
20. (22) Ne forlæt me, Drihten, min God, ne ne gewit fram me, (23) ac beseoh me to fultume, Drihten God, min hælend.
1° (i) Dauid sang þysne eahta and þrittigoþan1 sealm seofigende to Drihtne mid hu manegum unrotnessum he wæs ofðrycced under Sawle;
1° (ii) on þæm sealme he lærde and tælde ealle men þe worulde welan gaderiað mid unrihte, and nytan hwam hi hine læfað;
4° and eac he witgode þæt ælc þæra þæt ylce don sceolde, þe þysne2 sealm æfter him sunge;
3° and eac he witgode be Criste, þæt he wolde seofian swa ylce his nearonesse3 þe he hæfde under Iudeum.
* * * * * * * * * *
7. Þæt ys, þæt hy gaderiað feoh, and nyton hwam hy hyt gadriað. (8) Hwæt ys þonne min tohopa, hwæs anbidie ic butan þin, Drihten, for þam mid þe is eall min æht.
8. (9) Ac of eallum minum unrihtwisnessum gefriða me. Þu me sealdest to bysmrianne þam unrihtwisan.
9. (10) Þa geswugode ic and ne ondyde na minne muð, for þæm ic ongeat þæt þu hit geðafodest. (11) Ac awend nu fram me þine witnunga, for þam ic eom nu geteorod for þæm. (12) For þær[e] strenge þinra handa and þinre þreaunga ic geteorode on þære þrowunga.
10. Ælcne man þu þreast for his agenre scylde and gedest þæt he aswint on his mode [46v] and wyrð swa tedre swa swa gangewifran nett,
11. for þam byð ælc man gedrefed and abysgod on idlum sorgum and on ymbhogum. (13) Drihten, gehyr min gebed and mine healsunga; onfoh mid þinum earum minne wop and mine tearas; ne swuga wið me, ac andswara me mid þine fultume,
12. for þam ic eom nifara hider on eorþan beforan ðe and ælðeodig swa swa ealle mine fæderas wæran.
13. (14) Forlæt me nu, Drihten, to sumre rothwile on þisse weorulde, ær ic hire swa of gewite þæt ic eft an ne sy.
1° Dauid sang þysne1 nigan and þritigoþan2 sealm, gylpende3 on þam sealme þæt he nauht4 idel nære, þa5 he anbidode6 Godes fultumes, for þam he on þæm7 ærran sealme ahsode God hwæt his anbid wære oððe hwæs he anbidode;
2° and eac he witgode be þam gehæftan folce on Babylonia8 þæt hy sceoldon9 þone ylcan sealm singan and þæt ylce seofian,10 and eft fægnian þonne hy on genere wæron, and þysne sealm singan swa he dyde;11
1. (2) Næs ic on nauht idlum anbide, þeah hit me lang anbid þuhte, þa ða ic anbidode Godes fultumes, for þam he beseah wið min (3) and gehyrde min gebed and alædde me fram þam pytte ælcra yrmða, and of þam duste and of þam drosnum ælces ðeowdomes and ælcere hæftnyde.
2. And he asette mine fet on swiðe heanne stan (þæt ys, on swyðe heah setl and on swyðe fæstne anweald), and he gerihte mine stæpas, (4) and sende on minne muð niwne sang (þæt is, lofsang urum Gode).
3. Manege geseoð hu þu hæfst ymbe us gedon, and for þy to þe hopiað and þe ondrædað.
4. (5) Eadig byð se wer þe his tohopa byð to swylcum Drihtne and ne locað næfre to idelnesse ne to leasungum ne to dysige.
5. (6) Drihten, min God, [47v] þu gemanigfealdodest þin wundru and þine geðohtas (þæt ys, þin weorc); nis nan þæra þe þe gelic seo.
6. Ic spræc and þæt sæde, for ðam hy wæran gemanigfealdode ofer ælc gerim. (7) Noldest þu na ofrunga and oflata[n] nane, ac hyrsumnesse þu me bebude for ofrunga.
7. Ne bud þu me na ælmesan to syllanne for minum synnum, þa þa ic hy næfde. (8) Ac ic cwæð: “Ic eom gearu, ic cume and sylle þæt þu ær bebude” (þæt ys, hyrsumness).
8. On forewardre þyssere bec ys awriten be me—and eac on manegum oþrum—(9) þæt ic sceolde þinne willan wyrcan, and swa ic eac wylle don. Drihten, mid God, ic hæfde geteohhod, and gyt hæbbe, þæt ic scyle healdan þine æ symle on minre heortan.
9. (10) Ic cyðe þine rihtwisnesse on micelre gesamnunge, and minum weolorum ic ne forbeode ac bebeode þæt hy þæt sprecon symle.
10. [48r] Drihten, þu wast (11) þæt ic ne ahydde on minum mode þine rihtwisnesse, ac þine soðfæstnesse and þine hælo ic sæde.
11. Ne ahydde ic na þine mildheortnesse and þine rihtwisnesse on myclum gemotum.
12. (12) Ac ne do þu, Drihten, þæt þin mildheortnes sy me afyrred, for þam þin mildheortnes and þin soðfæstnes me symle underfengon.
13. (13) For þam me ymbhringde manig yfel þær[a] nis nan rim; me gefengan mine agene unrihtwisnessa, and ic hy ne meahte geseon ne ongytan.
14. Mine fynd wæran gemanigfealdode, þæt heora wæs ma þonne hæra on minum heafde, and min heorte and min mod me forleton to þam þæt ic me nyste næne ræd.
15. (14) Ac licige þe nu, Dryhten, ic þe bidde, þæt þu me arige, and ne lata þu to minum fultume.
16. (15) Sceamien hiora [48v] and ondræden him endemes, þa þe ehtað mine sawle; and hy teohhiað me to afyrranne.
17. Syn hy gehwyrfde underbæc and ondræden him, þa þe me yfeles unnon.
18. (16) Beren hi swiðe raþe heora agene scame, þa þe cweþað be me, þonne me hwylc ungelimp becymð: “Is þæt la well!”
19. (17) Blissien þa and fægnien, þa þe þinne willan seceað, and cweðen þa þe hopiað to þinre hælo: “Gemyclad sy se Drihten þe swylc deð.”
20. (18) Ic eom yrming and þearfa, and þeah Dryhten min gymð.
21. Þu, Drihten, eart min friðiend and min gefultumend and min gescyldend; Drihten, min God, ne yld nu þæt þu me arie.
1° (ii) and he sæde eac on þam sealme hu he hæfde afandod ægðer ge his frynd ge his fynd on his earfoðum and on his ungelimpe;
3° and eac be Criste he witgode on þæm9 sealme and be Iudeum, hu hy hine swencton and hu hine God eft arette.
1. (2) Eadig bið se þe ongyt þæs þearfan and þæs wædlan, and him þonne gefultumað gif hine to onhagað; gif hine ne onhagað, þonne ne licað him, þeah, his earfoðu. Þone gefriþað Drihten on swylcum dæge swylce him swylc yfel becymð.
2. (3) Drihtne hine gehylt and hine geliffæst and gedeð hine gesæligne on eorðan, and ne sylð hine na on his feonda han[da and an]weald.
3. (4) Drihten him bringð fultum to his bedde þe he an lið, and eall his bedd he onwent of untrumnesse to trymðe.
4. (5) Ic cweðe, Drihten, to þe: “Gemildsa me and gehæl mine sawle, for ðon ic gesyngode wið þe.”
5. (6) Mine fynd me cwædon yfel and wilnodon, and spræcon [49v] betwuh him and cwædon: “Hwonne ær he beo dead, oþþe hwænne his nama aspringe?”
6. (7) And þeah hy þæs lyste, þeah hy eodon into me and fandodon min and seofodon min sar.
7. And þonne hy ut eodon from me, þonne worhton hy heora gemot; (8) and wæran ealle anspræce þonne hy me leahtrodon and læðdon.
8. Ealle mine fynd, hy þonne gegaderodon ongean me and þohton me yfeles and spræcon me yfeles, (9) and spræcon unriht wið me, and cwædon on bysmor:
9. “Nis him nan lað: he rest hine; eaðe he mæg arisan, þeah he slape and liccete untrymnesse.” (10) Ge furðon, þa spræcon þæt ylce mid him, þe ic betst truwode, and þa þe ær æton and druncon mid me.
10. (11) Þu, þonne, Drihten, nu gemiltsa me and arære me to þam þæt ic him mæge forgyldan þæs lean.
11. (12) Þonne ongyte ic on þam þæt þu me [50r] lufast, gif nan minra feonda ne fægnað mines ungelimpes.
12. (13) Þu me underfenge for minre unsceðfulnesse and me gestrangodest beforan þinre ansyne on ecnesse.
13. (14) Gebletsod sy se Drihten, Israela God, on weorulda weoruld; sy swa!
1° Dauid sang þysne an and feowertigoþan sealm, þa he wilnode to hys eðle to cumanne of his wræcsiðe;
2° and þæt ilce he witgode be Israela folce gehæftum on Babilonia, þæt hy sceoldon þæt ylce don;
3° and eac be Criste and be Iudeum he witgode: hu he wilnode þæt he wurde gedæled wið hy and wið heora yfelnesse.
1. (2) Swa heort wilnað to wætre þonne he werig byð oþþe ofþyrst, swa wilnað min sawl and min mod to þe, Drihten.
2. (3) Mine sawle þyrst and lyst þæt heo mæge cuman to Gode, for þam he is se libbenda wylle. Eala Dryhten, hwænne gewyrð þæt, þæt ic cume and ætywe [50v] beforan Godes ansyne?
3. (4) Me wæran mine tearas for hlafas, ægþer ge on dæg ge on niht, þonne ic gehyrde mine [fynd] cweþan: “Hwær is þin God þe þu to hopast?”
4. (5) Ac þonne gemunde ic þine ærran gyfa, and gestaðelode on me mine sawle, for þy ic geare wiste þæt ic sceolde cuman for Godes mildheortnesse to þam wundorlican temple (þæt ys, Godes hus). Þyder ic sceal cuman mid mycelre wynsumnesse stemne and mid andetnesse, swylce symblendra sweg byð and bliðra.
5. (6) For hwi eart þu þonne unrot, min sawl and min mod; hwi gedrefe gyt me?
6. [H]opa to Drihtne—for þam ic hine gyt andette, for þam he ys min hælend (7) and min God.
7. Wið me sylfne wæs min sawl and min mod gebolgen and gedrefed; for þæm ic eom gemyndig þin, Drihten, be Iordane staðe, and on þam lytlan cnolle þe Ermon hatte.
8. (8) [51r] Seo neolnes cliopað to þære neolnesse, and heo oncwyð for þære stemne eorðan wæterædra (þæt ys, þin yrre). Eall heah witu and hefug coman to me, and þine yþa me oferfleowon.
9. (9) On dæg bebead God his mildheortnesse cuman to me, me to gefriþianne wið þyssum yrmðum; and on niht he us bebead þæt we sceoldon singan his sang.
10. Mid me beoð symble gearo gebedu to þam Gode þe me libbendne þanon gelædde. (10) Ic cweðe to þam Gode: “Þu eart min andfengend.
11. Hwy forgits þu min, and hwi awyrpst þu me fram þe, oððe hwy lætst þu me gan þus unrotne, þonne me mysceað mine fynd;
12. (11) and þonne hy tobrecað eall min ban; and þonne me hyspað þa þe me swencað; and huru swiðost þonne hy cweðað ælce dæge: ‘Hwær ys þin God?’ ”
13. (12) For hwy eart þu [51v] unrot, min mod and min sawl, and hwy gedrefst þu me?
14. Hopa to Drihtne—for þam ic gyt hine andette, for þam he is min hælend and min God.
2° and he eac witgode be þam gehæftan folce on Babylonia,3 þæt hy sceoldon þæt ylce don;
4° and be ælcum Cristnum menn þe þysne sealm singð, he witgode þæt hy hine sceoldan4 be þam ylcan singan;
3° and eac Crist be Iudeum.
1. (1) Dem me, Dryhten, and do sum toscead betwuh me and unrihtwisum folce, and from facenfullum menn and unrihtwisum gefriða me,
2. (2) for þam þu eart min God and min mægen. For hwy awyrpst þu me, and hwi lætst þu me gan unrotne, þonne mine fynd me drecceað?
3. (3) Send þin leoht and þine soðfæstnesse, þa me geogeara læddon, þæt hy me nu gyt gelædan to þinum halgan munte, inon þin halge templ,
4. (4) þæt ic þonne gange to þinum altere and to þam Gode [52r] þe me bliðne gedyde on minum geogoðhade.
5. Ic þe andette, Dryhten, mid sange and mid hearpan. (5) Hwy eart þu unrot, min sawl, oþþe hwi gedrefest þu me?
6. Hopa to Drihtne, for þam ic hine gyt andette; for þam þu eart, God, min hælend and min Dryhten.
2° and eac he witgode on þam sealme be Mathathia and be his sunum, þa we Machabeas hatað,10 þæt hy sceoldon þæt ylce seofian on hiora earfoðum under Antiochus þam kynge;
4° and eac he witgode be ælcum Cristnum men þe to Gode hopað, þæt he sceolde þæt ylce don;
3° and eac be Criste, þæt he wolde þæt ylce don be Iudeum.
1. (2) Drihten, we gehyrdon mid urum earum and ure fæderas hit us sædon:
2. þa weorc þe þu worhtest on hiora dagum and on hiora foregengena dagum.
3. (3) [Þ]æt wæs, þæt þin hand [52v] towearp þæ elðeodegan folc and plantode and tydrede ure foregengan. Þu swenctest þa elðeodgan folc and hy awurpe.
4. (4) Ne geeodon ure foregengan na ðas eorðan mid sweorda ecgum, ne hy mid þy ne geheoldon, ne heora earmas hy ne geheoldon ne ne gehældon,
5. ac þin swiðre hand and þin earm and þæt leoht þines andwlitan, for þam hy þe þa licodon, and þe licode mid him to beonne.
6. (5) Hu! ne eart þu min cyning and min Drihten—swa ylce swa þu hiora wære—þu þe bebude hælo cuman to Iacobes cynne?
7. (6) Þurh þe we b[e]þurscon ure fynd and awindwedan, and for þinum naman we forsawan þa þe stodon ongean us.
8. (7) Ne getruwode ic næfre on minne bogan, ne min sweord me ne gefriðode ne ne gehælde.
9. (8) Ac þu us ahreddest æt þam þe ure ehton, and þa ðe us hatedon þu gebysmrodest.
10. (9) And we þa heredon God ælce dæge, and [53r] we wæron eac geherede fram oþrum þeodum for his weorcum, and his naman we andettað a weoruld,
11. (10) þeah þu, Drihten, us nu adrifen hæbbe fram þe and us gebysmrod, and mid us ne fare on fyrd, swa þu geo dydest.
12. (11) Ac þu hæfst nu us gehwyrfde on bæclincg and us forsewenran gedone þonne ure fynd; and þa þe us hatiað, hy us gegripað and him sylfum gehrespað.
13. (12) Þu us geþafodest him to metsianne swa swa sceap, and þu us tostenctest geond manega þeoda.
14. (13) Þu us bebohtest and bewrixledest, and nan folc mid us ne gehwyrfdest.
15. (14) Þu us gesettest to edwite and to bysmre urum neahgeburum, and to hleahtre and to forsewennesse eallum þam þe us ymbsittað.
16. (15) Þu hæfst us gedon to ealdspræce, þæt oðra þeoda nyton hwæt hy elles sprecon buton ure bysmer, [53v] and wecggeað heora heafod ongean us on heora gesamnuncge.
17. (16) Ælce dæge byð min sceamu beforan me and ongean me, and mid minum bysmre ic eom bewrogen,
18. (17) for þara stemne þe me hyspað and tælað, and for þara ansyne þe min ehtað.
19. (18) Eall þas earfoðu becoman ofer us, and ne forgeate we þeah na þe, ne þæt woh ne worhton þæt we þine æ forleten, (19) ne ure mod ne eode on bæclincg fram þe.
20. And þeah þu geþafodest þæt ure stæpas wendon of þinum wege, (20) for þam þu woldest us geeaðmedan on þære stowe ure unrotnesse, þær we wæron bewrigene mid deaþes sceade.
21. (21) [G]if we ofergeotole wæron Drihtnes naman, ures Godes, and gif we ure handa upphofon to oþrum gode,
22. (22) hu, ne wræce hit þonne God, for þan he wat ealle dygelnessa ælcere heortan?
23. [F]or þam we beoð ælce dæge for ðe geswencte; hy teohhi[54r]að us him to snædincgsceapum.
24. (23) Aris, Drihten, for hwi slæpst þu? Aris and ne drif us fram þe oð urne ende.
25. (24) For hwi wendst þu þinne andwlitan fram us, oððe hwy forgytst þu ure yrmða and ure geswinc?—
26. (25) for þam synt nu fullneah to duste gelæd ure sawla, and ure wamb lið on þære eorðan.
27. (26) Aris, Drihten, and gefultuma us, and alys us for þinum naman.
1° Dauid witgode on þissum1 feower and feowertigoþan sealme, þa he2 wæs oferdren[ct]3 mid þy Halgan Gaste; and on eallum þam sealme he spræc ymb Fæder and ymb Sunu and ymb þa halgan gesamnuncga Cristenra manna geond ealre4 eorðan.
Sona, on þam forman ferse se Fæder spræc þurh Dauid be Cristes acennesse and cwæð:
1. (2) “Min heorte bealcet good Word (þæt ys, good Godes bearn); þæm cyncge ic befæste anweald ofer eall min weorc.
2. Min tunge ys gelicost þæs writeres feþere þe hraðost writ.” (Þæt ys, Crist se ys word and tunge Godfæder; þurh hine [54v] synt ealle þincg geworht.)
3. (3) He ys fægrostes andwlitan ofer eall manna bearn. Geondgotene synt þine we[le]ras mid Godes gyfe,
4. for þam þe gebletsode God on ecnesse. (4) Gyrd nu þin sweord ofer þin þeoh, þu mihtiga. (Þæt ys, gastlicu lar seo ys on ðam godspelle; seo ys scearpre þonne æni sweord.)
5. (5) Geheald nu þinne wlite and þine fægernesse, and cum, orsorg, and rixsa.
6. For þinre soðfæstnesse and for þinre ryhtwisnesse, þe gelæt swyðe wundorlice þin seo swyþre hand and þin agen anweald to þæm.
7. (6) Þina flana synt swyþe scearpa on þam heortum þinra feonda; folc gefeallað under ðe (þæt ys, þæt hy oþer twega oþþe an andetnesse gefeallað oþþe on helle).
8. (7) Þin setl is, Drihten, on weorulda weoruld; swiðe ryht is seo cynegyrd þines rices, seo gerecð ælcne mann oþþe to þinum [55r] willan oððe to wite.
9. (8) Þu lufodest rihtwisnesse and hatodest unryhtwisnesse, for þam þe gesmyrede Dryhten, þin God, mid þam ele blisse ofer ealle oþre menn.
10. (9) Myrre and gutta and cassia dropiað of þinum claðum and of þinum elpanbænenum husum on þæm þe gelufiað (10) cynincga dohtor, þa þær wuniað for þinre lufan and for þinre weorðunga. (Þa wyrtgemang tacniað mistlicu mægen Cristes; and þæt hrægl tacnað Cristes lichaman; and þa elpanbænenan hus tacniað rihtwisra manna heortan; þara kynincga dohtor tacniað rihtwisra manna sawla.)
11. And þær stent cwen þe on þa swyðran hand, mid golde getu[n]code and mid ælcere mislicre fægernesse gegyred (þæt ys, eall Cristnu gesamnung).
12. (11) Gehyr nu, min dohtor (þæt ys, seo gesamnuncg Cristnes folces), geseoh, and onhyld þin eare, [55v] and forgit and alæt þin folc (þæt synd, yfelwillende menn and unðeawas) and þæt hus and þone hired þines leasan fæder (þæt ys, Deofol),
13. (12) for þam se cyncg wilnað þines wlites. For þam he ys Drihten þin God, gebide þe to him and weorþa hine. And swa ylce doð eac (13) þa dohtor þære welegan byrig Tyrig: hi hine weorðiað mid gyfum (þæt synt, þa sawla þe beoð gewelgoda mid goodum geearnuncgum).
14. Gif þu þus dest, þonne weorðiað þe ealle þa welegastan on ælcum folce, (14) and habbað him þæt to mæstum gylpe þæt hy geseon kyninga dohtra inne mid him:
15. (15) utan beslepte and gegyrede mid eallum mislicum hrægla wlitum and mid gyldnum fnasum (þæt synt, mistlica geearnunga fulfremedra manna).
16. Eala kynincg, hwæt! Þe beoð broht manega mædenu, and æfter þam þære seo nyhste, þe we ær ymbespræcon. (16) Mid blisse and mid fæg[56r]nuncge hy bioð gelædde into þinum temple (þæt synt, þa sawla þe heora mægðhad gehealdað; and þa hreowsiendan; and þa þe gewitnode beoð for hiora scyldum, oþþe heora willum oððe heora unwillum).
17. (17) For þinum fædrum þe bioð acennedu bearn (þæt synt, Apostolas wið þam heahfædrum and wið witgum), and þu hy gesetst to ealdormannum ofer ealle eorþan,
18. (18) and hy beoð gemyndige þines naman, Dryhten, on ælcere cneorisse.
19. And þonne for þy þe andett ælc folc on ecnesse and on weorulda weoruld.
1° Dauid sang þysne fif and feowertigoþan sealm, þanciende Gode þæt he hine oft alysde of manegum earfoðum;
2° and eac he witgode þæt þæt ylce sceoldon don þa men,1 þa þe Twa Scira [hatte]2 (þæt ys, Iude and Beniamin), þæt hy sceoldon þam Gode þancian þe hy gefriðode3 fram þære ymbsetennesse and fram þære her[eg]unge4 þara twega kynincga,5 Facces,6 Rumeles suna, and Rasses, Syria cyncges—næs þæt na gedon for þæs cynincges geearnuncga Achats, ac for Godes7 mildheortnesse and for his yldrena gewyrhtum hit gewearð þæt þa twegen kyningas8 wæron adrifene fram Assyria cynge;9
4° and eac þæt ylce he witgode10 be ælcum rihtwisum menn þe ærest geswenced byð and eft ge[56v]arod;
3° and eac be Criste and be Iudeum he witgode þæt ylce.
1. (2) Dryhten ys ure gebeorh and ure mægen and ure fultumend on earfoðum þa us swiðe swiðlice oft on becomon.
2. (3) For þam we us ne ondrædað, þeah eall eorðe sy gedrefedu, and þeah þa muntas syn aworpene on midde þa sæ.
3. (4) Ure fynd coman swa egeslice to us þæt us ðuhte for þam geþune þæt sio eorþe eall cwacode; and hy wæron, þeah, sona afærde fram Gode swyþor þonne we, and þa upahafenan kynincgas swa þær muntas wæron eac gedrefde for þæs Godes strenge.
4. (5) Þa wæs geblissod seo Godes burh on Hierusalem for þam cyme þæs scures þe hy geclæsnode; se hyhsta gehalgode his templ inon þære byrig. (6) For þam ne wyrð seo burh næfre onwend, þa hwile þe God byð unonwendedlic on hire midle.
5. God hyre gehealp swyþe ær on mor[57r]gen. (7) And gedrefed wæron þa elðeodgan folc, and hiora rice wæs gehnæged; se hyhsta sende his word, and gehwyrfed wæs ure land and ure folc to beteran, and hi and heora land to wyrsan.
6. (8) Drihten, mægena God, ys mid us, and ure andfengend is Iacobes God.
7. (9) Cumað and gesioð Godes weorc and his wundru þe he wyrcð ofer eorðan.
8. (10) He afierð fram us ælc gefeoht ut ofer ure landgemæru, and forbrycð ura feonda bogan, and eall heora wæpn gebryt, and heora scyldas forbærnð. Þa andswarode God þæs witgan mode and cwæð eft þurh þone witgan:
9. (11) “Geæmetgiað eow nu, and gesioð þæt ic eom ana God and me nu upahebbe ofer ða elðeodegan folc, and eac on þysum folce ic beo nu upahæfen.”
10. (12) Dryhten, mægena God, ys mid us, and ure andfengend ys Iacobes God.
1° Dauid sang þysne syx and feowertigoþan sealm [57v] and 1 lærde on þam sealme ealle þeoda þæt hy2 heredon þone God mid him, mid ælcum þæra cræftum þe man God mid herian mihte, þone God þe hine swa arlice gefriðode on eallum his earfoðum, and ealle his fynd gebrytte;
2° and eac he witgode be Machabeum, þæt hy sceoldon þæt ylce don, þa hy alysde wæron æt elðeodegum folcum;
4° and eac he witgode be ælcum ryhtwisum, geswenctum and eft alysdum;
3° and eac be Criste and be Iudeum.
1. (2) Wepað nu and heofað, eall orlegu folc, for þam ure God eow hæfð ofercumen; and eac, ge Israhela, hebbað upp eowre handa and fægniað, and myrgað Gode mid wynsumre stemne,
2. (3) for þam he ys swyþe heah God and swyþe andrysnlic, and swiþe micel cynincg ofer ealle oðre godas.
3. (4) He us underþeodde ure folc, and orlega þeoda he alede under ure fet.
4. (5) He us geceas him to yrfeweardnesse and Iacobes cynn þæt he lufode.
5. (6) Drihten astah mid wynsume sange and mid bymena stemne.
6. (7) Ac singað urum Gode and heriað hine; singað, singað, and heriað urne cyning; [58r] singað, and heriað hine,
7. (8) for þam he ys God and cynincg ealre eorðan; singað and heriað hine wislice.
8. (9) Dryhten rixað ofer eall cynrynu; Drihten sit ofer his ðam halgan setle.
9. (10) Þa ealdormen ealre eorðan becumað to Abrahames Gode, and beoð him underðydde, for þam he oferswiðde þa strangan kynincgas ofer eorðan, þa þe wæron upahæfene swa þas godas.
1° Dauid sang þysne seofon and feowertigoþan1 sealm, mycliende þone wundorlican sige Godes, þe he þa—and oftor ær—dyde: hu hrædlice he oferswiðde swa ofermode kyningas;
4° and eac he lærde ælcne man þe geswære [wære]2 and ofercumen and eft gefriðod, þæt he swa ylce Gode þancode and his anweald herede;
3° and þæt ylce he witgode be Criste, þæt he þæt ylce sceolde cweðan to his Fæder æfter ðære æriste.
1. (2) Mycel ys se Drihten ure God, and swyþe to herianne on þære byrig ures Drihtnes and on his þam halgan munte.
2. (3) He tobrædde blisse ofer ealle ure eorþan. Sio mycle burh þæs myclan kynin[58v]ges is aset on þa norðhealfe þæs muntes Syon.
3. (4) Se God ys cuð on þære byrig, for þam he hire symle fultumað.
4. (5) Eala, hwæt! Ge sawon hu egeslice gegaderode wæron eorðkyningas, and hu hi togædere comon.
5. (6) And sona swa hi gesawon Godes wundru, hy wæron wundriende and wæran gedrefde, and wæran styriende and onwende, (7) for þam ege and fyrhto þe hi gegripon,
6. For þam him com swa hrædlic sar and wracu swa þam cennendan wife cymð færlic sar; (8) and hy wæron gebrytte swa hrædlice swa swa hradu yst windes scip tobrycð on þam sandum, neah þære byrig þe Tarsit hatte (seo is on þam lande þe Cilicia hatte).
7. (9) Swa swa we geogeare hyrdon þæt God dyde be urum fæderum, swa we geseoð nu þæt he deð be us on þæs Godes byrig, þe myclu wundru wyrcð, þæt ys, on ures Godes byrig þe he gestaþelode on ecnesse.
8. (10) [59r] We onfoð, Drihten, þinre mildheortnesse on middum þinum temple.
9. (11) Swa swa þin nama is tobræd and gemyclad geond ealle eorðan, swa ys eac þin lof; þin swiðre hand is full rihtwisnesse.
10. (12) Blissie nu Syon se munt, and fægnie Iudea cyn, for þinum domum, Drihten.
11. (13) Hweorfað ymb Sion and gað ofer þone weall Hierusalem and ymbutan; heriað God mid ælces cynnes heringe and lufiað hine; and secgað his wundru on þam torrum and on þam wighusum þære byrig; (14) and fæstniað eower mod on his wundrum, and dælað hire weorðias swiðe rihte; and secgað swylc wundru eowrum gingrum, þæt hy hy mægen eft secgan of cynne on cynn,
12. (15) for þam he is ure God on ecnesse and on weorulda woruld; and he ræt us and recð on weorulda weorld.
1° Dauid sang þysne eahta and feowertigoðan sealm, on þam he lærde ealle men, ge on his dagum ge æfter his dagum, þæt hy [59v] hy upp2 ne ahofen for heora welum, and þæt hy ongeaton þæt hi ne mihton þa welan mid him lædan heonon of weorulde, and eac he lærde þæt þa ðearfan hy ne forðohton, ne ne wenden þæt God heora ne rohte;
4° and eac he witgode þæt ealle rihtwise menn sceoldon þæt ylce læran;
3° and eac þæt Crist wolde þæt ylce læran þonne he come.
1. (2) Gehyrað nu þas word, ealle þeoda, and onfoð heora mid eowrum earum, ealle þa þe eorðan buiað,
2. (3) and ealle þa þe þæron acende synt, and eall manna bearn, ægðer ge welige ge heane.
3. (4) Min muð wile sprecan wisdom and seo smeaung minre heortan foreþancolnesse.
4. (5) Ic onhylde min earan to þam bispellum þæs ðe me innan lærð, and ic secge on þys[sum] sealme hwæs ic wylle ascian,
5. (6) and hwæt ic ondræde on þæm yflan dagum, þæt is, unrihtwisnes minra hoa and ealles mines flæsces, sio me hæfð utan behrincged.
6. (7) Ongitan nu, þa þe truwiað heora agenum mægene, and þære mycelnesse hiora speda gylpað and wuldrað:
7. (8) þæt nan broðor [60r] oþres sawle nele alysan of helle, ne ne mæg (þeah he wylle), gif he sylf nanwuht nyle, ne ne deð to goode þa hwile þe he her byð. (9) Gylde for þy him sylf and alyse his sawle þa hwyle ðe he her sy, for þam se broðor oþþe nyle oððe ne mæg, gif he sylf na ne onginð to tilianne þæt he þæt weorð agife to alysnesse his sawle. Ac þæt ys wyrse þæt fullneah ælc mann þæs tiolað (10) fram þæm anginne his lifes oþ þæne ende, hu he on ecnesse swincan mæge,
8. (11) and næfð nænne forðanc be his deaðe, þonne he gesyhð þa welegan and þa weoruldwisan sweltan. Se unwisa and se dysega forweorþað him ætsamne,
9. and læfað fremdum heora æhte. (Þeah hy gesibbe hæbben, hy beð him swyðe fremde þonne hi nan good æfter him ne doð.) (12) Ac heora byrgen byð heora hus on ecnesse,
10. and heora geteld of cynne on cynn; and [60v] hi nemnað hiora land and hiora tunas be heora naman.
11. (13) Þa hwile þe mon on are and on anwealde byð, næfð he fullneah nan andgyt nanes goodes, ac onhyred dysegum neatum; swa hi eac beoð him swyðe gelice.
12. (14) Ac þes weg and þeos orsorgnes þyses andweardan lifes him fet witu on þam toweardan, for þam heo on last tiliað to cwemanne Gode and mannum mid wordum næs mid weorcum, ne furþum gearone willan nabbað to þam weorce.
13. (15) Mid swylcum monnum byð hell gefylled swa swa fald mid sceapum, and se deað hy forswylcð on ecnesse.
14. And sona on þam ylcan morgene þa rihtwisan heora wealdað, and hyra fultum and hyra anweald forealdað on helle, for þæm hy beoð adrifene of heora wuldre.
15. (16) Ac God, þeah, alyst mine sawle of helle handa; þeah ic þyder cume, þonne [61r] he me underfehð.
16. (17) Ne wundrige ge na, ne ne andgiað on þone welegan, þeah he welig seo geworden, and þeah gemanigfealdod sy þæt wuldor his huses,
17. (18) for þam þe he ðyder ne læt þæt eall mid him, þonne he heonan færþ, ne hit him æfter þyder ne færeð.
18. (19) For þæm he hæfde his heofonrice her on eorðan, þa him nanes willan næs forwyrnd her, ne nanes lustes on þysse weorulde; for ðam he nyste him nænne þanc, ne Gode ne mannum, þæs ðe him [man] sealde syððan he hit hæfde, butan þa ane hwile þe hit him man sealde,
19. (20) for þæm he færð þær his foregengan beoð, þæt is, to helle, þær he næfre nan leoht ne gesyhð.
20. (21) Ac þas spræce ne ongit na swylc mann, þonne he byð on welan and on weorðscipe, and onhyreð þonne dysegum neatum, and byð him swiðe gelic [61v] geworden.
1° Dauid sang þysne nigen and feowertigoðan1 sealm be ægrum2 tocyme Cristes; on þam sealme3 he cydde hu egeslice4 Crist þreatode Iudeas, and ealle heora gelican þe þæt ylce doð þæt hy dydon: for þam hy5 sealdon ælmesan6 and ofredon Gode heora nytenu, næs hy7 sylfe.
1. (1) Dryhtna Drihten wæs sprecende þæt he wolde cuman to eorðan—swa he eft dyde—and cliopode eorðlice men to geleafan.
2. Fram sunnan upgange oð hire setlgang, (2) of Sion aras se wlite his andwlitan.
3. (3) And eft cymð se ylca God swiðe openlice (þæt ys, ure God), and he þonne naht ne swugað.
4. Fyr byrnð for his ansyne, and ymb hine utan strange stormas.
5. (4) And he cleopað to þæm heofone; hæt hine þæt he hine fealde swa swa boc; and he bebyt þære eorðan þæt heo todæle hyre folc,
6. (5) and gegadrie on þa swyðran hand his halgan, þa þe heoldon his bebodu ofer ælcere offrunga.
7. (6) Heofonas bodiað his rihtwisnesse, for þam se God is demend and þonne cwyð to him:
8. (7) [62r] “Gehyrað nu, min folc. Ic sprece to eow Israelum, and ic eow secge soðlice, for þam ic eom Drihten eower God.
9. (8) Ne þreage ic eow na æfter offrunga, for ðam eowra offrunga synt symle beforan minre ansyne.
10. (9) Ne onfo ic na of eowrum huse cealfas, ne of eowrum heordum buccan,
11. (10) for þam min synt ealra wuda wildeor, and ealra duna ceap and nytenu, and oxan.
12. (11) Ic can ealle heofones fugelas, and eall eorþan wlite is mid me.
13. (12) Gif me hingreð, ne seofige ic þæt na to eow, for ðam min is eall earðan ymbh[w]yrft and eall hyre innuncg.
14. (13) Wene ge þæt ic ete þæra fearra flæsc, oþþe þara buccena blod drince?
15. (14) Ac ofriað Gode þa offrunge lofes and gyldað þam hyhstan eower gehat,
16. (15) and cleopiað to me on þam dagum eowra earfoða. Þonne gefriðie ic eow, and ge weorðiað me.”
17. (16) [62v] Ac to þam synfullan cwyð God: “For hwy bodast þu mine rihtwisnesse, oððe for hwy onfehst þu on þinne fulan muð mine æ,
18. (17) for þæm þu hatodest symle leornunga and forwurpe min word symle underbæc fram þe?
19. (18) Gif þu gesawe þeof, þu urne mid him, næs na ongean hine; and þu dydest þe to þam wohhæmendum.
20. (19) Þin muð wæs symle ful unrihtes, and þin tunge ontynde facn.
21. (20) Þu sæte ongean þinne [broðor] and tældest hine, and worhtest wrohte betwuh þe and þinre modor suna oðrum.
22. (21) Eall þis yfel þu dydest, and ic swugode and þolode swylce ic hit nyste. Þu ræswedest swiðe unryhte þæt ic wære þin gelica, swylce ic ne meahte þe forgyldan swylces edlean.
23. Ic þe þreage nu, and stæle beforan þe, and þe cyðe eal þas yflu.” (22) Gehyrað nu ðiss and ongytað ealle þa þe Godes forgytað, þy læs he eow gegripe, [63r] for þam nys nan oþer þe eow mæge gefriðian of his handa:
24. (23) “Seo ofrung lofes me licað swiðost and me eac swyðost weorþað, and on þære offrunga is se rihtwisa weg; on þære ic getæce Godes hælo eallum þam þe swa doð.”
1° Dauid sang þysne1 fiftigoðan sealm, hreowsiende2 for ðam ærendum þe Nathan se witga3 him sæde, þæt wæs,4 þæt he hæfde gesyngod wið Ureus þone Cyðþiscan,5 þa he hine beswac for his wifes þingum, þære nama wæs Bersabe;
3° and eac be Sancte Paule þam Apostole;9
4° and be ælcum rihtwisum men he witgode, hu hy sceoldon syngian and eft hreowsian. He cwæð:
1. (3) Miltsa me, Drihten, æfter þinre mycelan mildheortnesse,
2. and æfter þære menigu þinra mildheortnessa, adilega mine unrihtwisnessa.
3. (4) And aðweah me clænran from minum unrihtwisnessum þonne ic ær ðysse scylde wæs, and of þysse scamleasan scylde geclænsa me,
4. (5) [63v] for þam mine unryhtwisnessa ic ongyte, and mina synna beoð symle beforan me on minum gemynde.
5. (6) Wið þe ænne ic gesyngode, and ic dyde yfel beforan ðe; wið þe ænne ic sceal þæt betan, for þæm þu ana eart rihtwis, and oferswiðest ealle þonne ðu demst.
6. (7) Nis hit nan wundor þeah þu sy god and ic yfel, for ðam þu wast þæt ic wæs mid unrihtwisnesse onfangen, and mi[n] modor me gebær mid synne.
7. (8) Ic wat þæt þu symle lufast rihtwisnesse and me sealdest mænega gyfa ðines wisdomes. Þa gyfa synt beheleda and uncuþa manegum oðrum.
8. (9) Ac bespreng me nu mid þinum haligdome swa swa mid ysopon, þæt ic beo geclænsod; and aðweah me þæt ic sy hwitra þonne snaw.
9. (10) Syle minre gehyrnesse gefean and blisse, þæt ic gehyre þæt ic wylle, and eac oðre gehyron be me þæt þæt ic wilnige, swa swa hy ær gehyrdon þæt þæt ic nolde, þæt þonne mæge unrote mod blissian.
* * * * * * * * * *
[1 ] The editions of Thorpe and Bright-Ramsay depart from the division and sequence of verses of the Paris manuscript as follows: at Ps. 12, v. 5 (here identified by the verse sequence of the manuscript) they combined vv. 5 and 6; at Ps. 16, v. 13 they combined the first sentence of v. 14 with v. 13; at Ps. 17, v. 36 they combined the first clause of v. 37 with v. 36; at Ps. 18, v. 7 they combined vv. 7 and 8 (thus their number of verses is one short); at Ps. 24, they combined vv. 7 and 9 as v. 8, and labeled v. 8 as v. 7 (their numbering of vv. 10-21 is one verse short); Ps. 37, v. 8 they divided into vv. 8 and 9 (their numbering of subsequent verses is one too many); Ps. 38, v. 6 they divided into vv. 6 and 7, Ps. 38, v. 7 into vv. 8 and 9, and Ps 38, v. 11 into vv. 13 and 14 (their numbering thereafter is off by three); at Ps 44. v. 4 they incorporated its first clause in v. 3, likewise at Ps. 44, v. 16 they combined its first sentence with v. 15; and at Ps. 49, v. 8 they began with the final clause of v. 7.
[2 ] The Microfiche Concordance to Old English cites Bright-Ramsay’s edition; the Toronto Dictionary of Old English uses Thorpe’s edition.
[3 ] E.g., at Ps. 18 (Introd.), “he gesceop mannum to ðeowian[ne], ne for ðy . . . ,” although the addition of the inflection ne is arguably unnecessary since examples of the uniflected infinitive occur sporadically in Old English, I emended because the immediately following ne suggests a scribal haplography. See relevant Commentary.
[4 ] Consequently, the fairly frequent (West Saxon) normalizations introduced by both Thorpe and Bright-Ramsay in their editions are ignored in the Commentary, though recorded in the Apparatus. A noteworthy feature of Bright-Ramsay’s edition is its dependence on Thorpe’s edition, including many errors of the latter. See, e.g., note 1 above and the Commentary on Ps. 20.5.
[5 ] See, e.g., Bruce Mitchell, “The Dangers of Disguise: Old English Texts in Modern Punctuation,” Review of English Studies 31 (1980): 385-413, and “The Dream of the Rood Repunctuated,” in Words and Works: Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour of Fred C. Robinson, ed. Peter S. Baker and Nicholas Howe (Toronto, 1998), pp. 143-57, though Mitchell’s primary concern was with poetic texts. On the editing of prose texts, see Helmut Gneuss, “Old English Texts and Modern Readers: Notes on Editing and Textual Criticism,” ibid., pp. 127-41.
[6 ] Bright’s collation was made before the manuscript was repaired and rebound (1954).
[7 ] Phillip Pulsiano, “The Old English Introductions in the Vitellius Psalter,” Studia Neophilologica 63 (1991): 13-35.
[(2) ] ac, a (capital) blotted;
[2 ] salm’;
[3 ] ðam;
[7 ] ðam psealme;
[8 ] p<...>;
[9 ] singð.
[3 ] iudeum.
[(5) ] cleopode, de added above line;
[(6) ] ðam, curved stroke above a, beginning of caroline a;
[(10) ] synderlice, lice added above the line.
[5 ] Geminis] Geniminis.
[(10) ] geþohtas, squeezed in at end of line;
[(9) ] fleogende, decorated initial missing
[4 ] hi.
[(16) ] synt, written underneath fet at end of line and page;
[(22) ] nydþearf, r added above the line;
[(25) ] geðencð, c added above the line;
[(33) ] oð] on;
[(35) ] fæder, de added above the line;
[(36) ] þæt (1°), þ written over part of another letter; þeah, h added above the line.
[2 ] þer] þes;
[6 ] <...>an.
[3 ] ægðer;
[4 ] þara;
[2 ] sco<...>;
[3 ] Pa, second minim of u written over part of another letter;
[5 ] Pa, between e (1°) and z, the stroke of another letter;
[(1) ] cwyð, two dots over y;
[(2) ] geseo, e (2°) added above the line;
[(7) ] of (1°), f written over beginning of another letter; hæftnyd] hæftAnyd, decorator mistakenly inserted a colored initial A before -nyd, the opening syllable of a new line and consequently did not supply an initial capital before -lissie of the next line.
[4 ] <...>sse;
[6 ] Pa, added above the line.
[(3) ] underfehð, the loop of first e written over the horizontal stroke of another letter;
[5 ] Pa, ð added above the line.
[(5) ] yrfes, yr subsequently added to the preceding word at the end of a line.
[(2) ] MS þon̄, dō for þone, dom (2°), respectively, probably because of lack of space;
[(8) ] eagum, e added above the line;
[(9) ] before ymbhringdon, be underscored for deletion;
[2 ] Vi’s limited space suggests the use of Roman numerals;
[3 ] Pa, a-ligature written over another letter;
[5 ] swiðe;
[6 ] hwilcum;
[10 ] þa.
[(7) ] earfoðum, after this word the first stroke of a discontinued letter, perhaps m; to (2°), added above the line;
[(16) ] gehroren] gehropen; þinum (2°), vertical stroke of þ written over another vertical stroke;
[(18) ] from] for;
[(26) ] unsceðfullan, c added above the line;
[(43) ] swa swa (1°)] 7 swa swa;
[2 ] þam;
[3 ] <...>bæd;
[4 ] ezechies;
[5 ] þisne;
[6 ] cyn<...>;
[2 ] <...>am;
[3 ] cynge;
[5 ] cyng;
[6 ] witigade.
[(6) ] fol. 20v ends with wul- (and parallel Ro. gloria); the folio following, now missing, presumably contained on its recto the Para. (and parallel Ro.) of the remainder of this psalm (vv. 6-14), and on its verso, decoration, followed by the Introd. and the Latin rubric to Ps. 21.
[1 ] In Pa the folio lost between fols. 20 and 21 presumably contained the missing Introd. (see note on Ps. 20.6 in the Apparatus); Vi (fol. 31r) reads Ðisne an a<...>guþan sealm <...> biddend<...> dr<...>figende <...>m <...> his f<...> d<...>c man þ<...> singð be his feo<...> he hine singð 7 <...> dyde cris<.> be iudeu (for B-R’s reconstruction, see Commentary).
[(14) ] gefehð, after ge- at end of line, the beginning of an abandoned letter, f(?);
[(18) ] gerimdon] gerimde;
[(28) ] eorð-, eo stained.
[2 ] æristes;
[4 ] þysan;
[(6) ] mines, s added later at end of line.
[2 ] Vi’s limited space suggests the use of Roman numerals;
[3 ] reahte.
[2 ] Vi’s limited space suggests the use of Roman numerals;
[4 ] on;
[5 ] þa þa;
[6 ] hy;
[7 ] <...>a þæt;
[8 ] <...>feðum;
[(5) ] fultumes, a hook (abbreviation for final s) above e, and a final s added on the line;
[(7) ] geworhte, short stroke above r, perhaps beginning of an abandoned letter; (7)-(8) in the MS For þinre godnesse . . . rihtwis misplaced after For þam . . . his wegas (the parallel Latin is in proper sequence), B-R followed the MS sequence;
[(12) ] Swa] Hwa;
[(14) ] cræft] cræftig;
[(15) ] immediately after to initial curve of an abandoned letter, probably g;
[(21) ] sceolde, o added above the line.
[1 ] Vi’s Introd. (fol. 34v) has no visible variants;
[3 ] Pa, added above the line.
[(6) ] ymb, b added above the line;
[(7) ] cyþan, cy apparently added later at end of line;
[(10) ] fol. 26 ends with unrihtwisnesse (Ro. iniquitates sunt); the folio following, containing the rest of v. 10 and vv. 11-12, presumably on the recto, is now lost.
[1 ] In Pa, the lost folio after fol. 26 probably contained on its verso decoration, followed by the missing Introd. at the bottom of the page (see note on Ps. 25.10 in the Apparatus); Vi (fol. 35r) reads, <...>eoran w <...>e witegode <...> be ezechie þam c<...> he scolde gode þa<...> þære blisse þe he h <...> ylce deð ælc þæ<...> singð oððe for hi<...> oððe for oðerne <...>cað þære bliss <.> þ <...> 7 eac witegode <...>me be criste h<...> beon alyse<...> (for witegode [1°] Pul. reads witgode; for B-R’s reconstruction, see Commentary).
[(1) ] lifes, vertical descender of f written over a shorter descender;
[(9) ] after yrringa, the small vertical stroke of an abandoned letter;
[(11) ] rihtne, n added above the line.
[(5) ] geseoð, o added above the line;
[10 ] scolde;
[(5) ] cedertreowu] cecedertreowu;
[(10) ] gedyde, dot over g.
[2 ] Vi’s limited space suggests use of Roman numerals;
[3 ] þe;
[7 ] from.
[(3) ] Drihten, n squeezed in on line afterwards;
[4 ] <...>y;
[5 ] hy scoldon;
[6 ] heo<...>;
[10 ] oððe;
[11 ] þæra;
[12 ] oððe;
[(14) ] for, decorated initial missing;
[2 ] scolde;
[3 ] micclan;
[2 ] hy;
[5 ] Pa, c added above the line;
[7 ] scolde.
[(7) ] gesette, ge added at end of the preceding line in smaller letters;
[(10) ] tostencð, c added above the line;
[2 ] cyning<.>;
[3 ] scolde;
[2 ] xxx with iiii above;
[3 ] seo<...>de;
[4 ] for the part corresponding to Pa yrmða . . . ungelimp, Vi has a space of almost two lines of which only <...>ða 7 þ<...> fæ<...>geli<...> is now visible, which B-R reconstructed as [yrm] /ða and þ[æt ylce he eft ?] /fæ[gnode and tealde his (?) un] /geli[mp] (see Commentary);
[6 ] oððe;
[(12) ] unwæstmbærne, n (2°) added above the line;
[(28) ] smeað, sm- written over ink blot.
[(1) ] orsorgra, dot above r (3°);
[(3) ] on, dot over n;
[(16) ] Betere, decorated initial missing;
[(27) ] Gecyr, decorated initial missing;
[(29) ] Þa, decorated initial missing;
[(32) ] hawaþ] hopaþ;
[3 ] scolde;
[(9) ] gehnæged, dot under æ;
[(10) ] ic, stroke after c at end of line, probably beginning of an abandoned word;
[(21) ] tælað] lætað.
[2 ] þisn<...>;
[3 ] nearunesse;
[5 ] Pa, dot over s;
[6 ] B-R read in Vi [þys]sum, no longer visible, and em. accordingly in their edition.
After the Introd., the remainder of fol. 45v, equivalent to nine lines, is left blank; a folio between fols. 45 and 46, now missing, may have contained decoration on its recto, and on its verso the Latin rubric to Ps. 38 and the parallel Latin and Para. of Ps. 38.2-6a;
[4 ] naht;
[5 ] þa þa;
[6 ] anbidude;
[7 ] þam;
[8 ] babiloni<...>;
[9 ] scoldon;
[10 ] <...>gean;
[13 ] criste<...>;
[15 ] curved stroke over æ, probably beginning of a caroline a;
[2 ] Vi’s limited space suggests use of Roman numerals;
[3 ] earfeð<...>;
[4 ] eac;
[5 ] <...>ninge;
[6 ] scold<...>;
[9 ] þam.
[(8) ] and spræcon me yfeles, perhaps a dittography (see Commentary);
[3 ] lichom<...>.
[(6) ] Hopa, decorated initial missing;
[2 ] hal<...>;
[3 ] <...>ilonia;
[(3) ] me] þe;
[4 ] þara;
[5 ] gifa;
[7 ] heora;
[8 ] hi;
[9 ] þam;
[(21) ] Gif, decorated initial missing;
[(23) ] slæpst, a stroke before initial s, perhaps beginning of abandoned ascender.
[2 ] Pa, two dots above h;
[(17) ] synt, n added above the line; Apostolas, MS Apt̄as;
[6 ] Facces] Sacces;
[9 ] cyn<.>nge;
[10 ] <...>itigod<...>.
[(2) ] on (1°), short vertical stroke over o, perhaps beginning of another letter;
[(10) ] eft, t added above the line;
[(11) ] God, g written over another letter.
[2 ] hi.
[(8) ] þæt, vertical shaft of þ written over another letter;
[(14) ] willan, stroke under i;
[4 ] in Vi the space between <...> eges<...> (read egeslice) and the preceding decipherable letters <...>istes (read Cristes) seems significantly smaller than the equivalent in Pa (about twenty letters);
[2 ] <...>gende;
[3 ] witiga;
[4 ] he wæs;
[8 ] israhela;
[(10) ] þæt (4°), added above the line; blissian at the bottom of fol. 63v, marks the end of v. 10; the remaining eleven verses of Ps. 50, now missing, probably occupied the recto of the first of the two folios lost after fol. 63.
The Commentary on each psalm is divided into three sections.
Interpretation: identifies the interpretation(s) followed in the paraphrase, relating it to the introduction.
Introduction: analyzes the scheme of interpretations proposed in each Old English Introduction, identifying them individually according to the numbering convention of the edition, whereby 1° indicates the Davidic (first historical), 2° the second historical, 3° the Christological, and 4° the moral interpretation.
Paraphrase: discusses individual passages or words, typically those that pose textual problems, depart from a literal translation of the corresponding Latin psalm, or reveal parallels with other, identifiable sources. Reference is made to the editions of Thorpe and of Bright and Ramsay where their readings differ in substance from those of the present edition. The frequent citing of Romanum readings (from Weber’s critical text) is meant for comparison; it does not necessarily indicate the immediate source of the Old English. Likewise for quotations from Latin psalter commentaries (normally cited by page [and section] and line, or by column and lettered section, or simply by page, of the edition). The citing of more than one such commentary means that all have a claim to be considered as possible sources. Where several commentaries offer similar interpretations—as is often the case with the allegorical exegetes—normally only one of them is cited, usually Cassiodorus. Quite frequently reference is also made to certain early medieval psalter commentaries, notably the recently identified Glosa Psalmorum ex Traditione Seniorum, as well as a group of commentaries with Irish connections: the anonymous Expositio Psalmorum, the Mondsee Psalter, the Psalter of Charlemagne, the Eclogae tractatorum in Psalterium (Eclogae), the “Reference-Bible,” and the Southampton Psalter (see the Select Bibliography IB2 and 3 for manuscript citations and editions). All references to the Old English paraphrase and to the Latin psalter follow the psalm numbering and verse division of the Gallicanum.
The paraphrast (P) treats this psalm as purely moral; cf. Th. 6.40: “Est ergo moralis psalmus.” This interpretation is implied in the absence of any reference to Christ (traditionally the subject of this psalm) and conveyed by rendering Latin perf. tense vbs. abiit, stetit, fuit by Old English pres., thus making the actions of the psalm applicable to contemporary readers; see also Commentary on v. 3.
The absence of an Introduction admits of several explanations. It could have been written on the preceding page with the miniature of David now lost; alternatively, it could have been deliberately omitted by the scribe so as not to interfere with the visual impact of the initial “B” of Beatus, the opening word of the psalter. More likely, P never composed an Introd. for Ps. 1, as suggested by a corresponding lack in the independent copy, Vi. If so, he may have been influenced by the absence of a biblical titulus for Ps. 1 and by patristic commentary (Cass. 27.2-4; Jerome, Comm., 178.1-3) that argued that Ps. 1 needed no titulus because it represented the introduction to the psalter.
(1) heora wolbærendum setle: The addition of heora implies an interpretation of Ro. cathedra pestilentiae as referring equally to Ro. impiorum and peccatorum; likewise, the rendering of the Ro. conjs. non, et, et with three correl. negatives ne . . . ne . . . ne unifies v. 1 under a single subject. Cf. Th. 7.122-8.126: “Quod uero impiorum consilia posuit, peccatorum uero opera, satis ad utrumque respexit. . . . Tertium . . . utrisque subiecit.”
Swa byð . . . ymbspræcon: This addition serves to smoothe the transition of subject from treowe to men and to highlight the latter as subject of the psalm; cf. Th. 8.158: “Superioribus dictis omnes ad uirtutis studium prouocauit.”
(4) Ac þa . . . limpð: This double translation of sic in Ro. non sic impii non sic is apparently P’s addition.
þonne hit wind toblæwð: With a similar paraphrase of Ro. quem proicit uentus as a temporal clause, cf. Cass. 36.344: “quando inflatur” etc. With P’s omission of a translation of Ro. a facie terrae, cf. Ga. where the phrase is sub obelo.
(6) hwylce weg . . . geearnedon: Ro. uiam iustorum; cf. Th. 9.196-97: “placitam sibi et acceptam esse remunerationis testimonio perdocebit” and Expositio Psalmorum 5.62-63: “. . . considerat secundum utri[. .]que merita, illis conuenientia reddet.” The manuscript reading, hwylce weg, Thor. (p. 441) proposed to emend to either instr. hwylce wege or acc. hwylcne weg; B-R favored the latter. The former would leave geearnedon without an object, is at variance with the Lat. acc. uiam, and would require an emendation; consequently the latter seems preferable, though in the present edition hwylce is retained and read as an instance of late Old English weakening of the acc. inflection (see Sauer, Theodulfi Capitula, p. 196, §23[d]).
Historical, in accordance with Introd. 1°, as suggested by the literal interpretation (and conflation) in v. 1 of Ro. gentes and populi as ælc folc, where the psalter commentaries interpret these respectively as the gentile and Jewish enemies of Christ. Likewise, the explanation of christum as an anointed king (see Commentary on v. 2) and the identification of the speaker as se witega (v. 4) indicate a Davidic interpretation. This unorthodox interpretation of Ps. 2 (almost all the commentators, including Th., interpreted it as Messianic) occurs also in the Arg. (a), in the Latin argumenta of the Mondsee Psalter, in the Psalter of Charlemagne, and most fully in the probable source of all three, the anonymous Expositio Psalmorum. See further McNamara, “Tradition and Creativity,” pp. 371-72.
P supplies only three interpretations, omitting the second historical, his normal procedure when his source, the Arg. (a), is specifically Davidic (see Chap. 2.I). But first he comments on the heading to Ps. 2, Psalmus Dauid, probably because it marks the first occurrence of a biblical titulus.
1° Ðæs . . . earfoðum: With explanatory for þæm P establishes on the authority of the titulus the primacy of the Davidic interpretation, a primacy implied in the position of this clause and understood for the remaining Introds. (see Chap. 2.I). For the matter of the clause, cf. Arg. (a), “Generalem Dauid querimoniam facit ad Deum quod . . . et gentes et populi Israel inuiderint . . . ,” with the addition be eallum his earfoðum supplied, where the Latin source lacks specific historical information on David.
The emendation he is, originally written in the manuscript but subsequently erased (presumably because the scribe W, in reviewing his work, erroneously perceived a dittography with the immediately following he ys), provides both a required subject (he, with sealm as antecedent) and an auxiliary verb for gecweden and is supported by the Vi reading, he is. On the other hand, W’s own correction of he ys to hys is acceptable, not merely because of the punctum delens under e, but because it makes good contextual sense. Arguably, W’s difficulties with the two readings arose from a combination of two factors: the potentially confusing sequence he is his in his exemplar and the fact that in the Paris manuscript he is ends a line. Thor. and B-R’s for þæm he ys sealm gecweden makes sealm the predicate when, in fact, the context indicates the more specific psalmus Dauid/Dauides sealm; hence the need for his sealm.
4° and swa . . . feondum: Here and throughout, the opening words, and swa, mark the beginning of a new level of interpretation. They also refer the reader to the preceding interpretations, in this instance establishing David (occasionally Ezechias or the subject of 2°) as a model for the contemporary Christian and, with the latter in mind, switching to the pres. tense. Also characteristic throughout Ps(P) is the elliptical style of this and the next interpretation, which depend for their content on the preceding clauses.
3° and swa . . . Iudeum: According to Br., “Introds.,” p. 528, this Christological clause derives from the first part of Arg. (b), “Aliter, Christus de passione et potestate sua dicit,” but the resemblance is not very close. More likely, P supplied Iudeum as a parallel to feondum of 1° and 4°, as he did throughout the Introds.
(2) hwy arisað: With this interrogatory formulation of Ro. adstiterunt and the choice of vb., cf. Th. 11.58-61: “Eadem, qua superius, interrogationis figura magnitudo . . . furoris exprimitur . . . exciuerat.”
þam þe . . . gesmyrede?: The literal definition of Ro. christum and the addition he to hlaforde geceas (cf. 1Sm. 16), where hlaford stands for a secular lord (see Commentary on Ps. 23.8), indicate that David, not Christ, is meant. Cf. Mondsee 75: “aduersus xpm eius ipsum dauid, quia omnis unctus xps appellabatur” and Expositio Psalmorum 6.28: “Omnis rex ‘christus Domini’ uocatur.”
(4) Hwæt forstent . . . cweðen: With this addition, cf. Th. 12.113-13.118: “Qui habitat in caelis irridebit eos et Dominus subsannabit eos. . . . Etsi desideria, inquit, eorum atque opera uideantur impleta, uana tamen eorum est omnis intentio.”
Historical, in accordance with Introd. 1°, as suggested by the rubric at the end of the Introd., which introduces the speaker of the paraphrase, and by the absence in the latter of allegorical interpretations.
The Introd. has no second historical interpretation, although suitable matter was available in the Arg. (a), probably because the latter’s historical details could not be reconciled with the equally specific Davidic situation of the biblical titulus that inspired the first interpretation. If so, the omission confirms the priority of the Davidic clause.
1° Ðysne . . . Drihtne: Cf. Ro. titulus, “Psalmus Dauid cum fugeret a facie Abessalon filii sui,” and, for the second clause, Arg. (a), “Ezechiae . . . Dominum inuocauerit,” but with David replacing Ezechias as subject—a substitution effected throughout the Introds. Pace Br., “Introds.,” p. 531, there is no evidence here that P drew directly on Th. for this clause.
4° swa . . . Drihtne: Cf. Explanatio 494C, “vel corporaliter . . . vel spiritaliter,” though the phrase occurs elsewhere in Ps(P) independent of a Latin source.
3° swa . . . læwde: Cf. Arg. (b): “Aliter, uox Christi ad Patrem de Iudaeis” and Explanatio 494C: “. . . Judam Iscarioten, a cujus facie Christus fugit”; also Glosa 14.2.2: “uox Christi. . . . contra Christum . . . toti Iudaei et . . . Iudas.” Vi’s be Iudeum probably reflects confusion of Iuda, ‘Judas’, and Iud(e)as, ‘the Jews’. The specific mention of Judas’s treachery has an interesting parallel in Liebermann’s observation (Laws, 3:34), “verdammen Asser und Ælfreds Einleitung [LawsAfEl] den Herrenvorrat, als das von Judas gegen Christus begangene Verbrechen, aufs tiefste.”
He seofode to Drihtne: Speaker’s rubric, its verbal echo of Introd. 1° confirming David as the original composer/speaker of the psalm.
(4) Ac hit . . . tweon: With these additional asseverations, cf. Th. 18.33-38: “Tu autem, Domine susceptor usque caput meum. . . . ego uero id, semel quod credidi, sperare non desinam” and Mondsee 77: “confidenter dicit: tu autem domine” etc.
(6) eft aras: Ps(A,B) translate Ro. resurrexi with eftarisan, which Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, no. 25, treats as a compound vb. with an exclusively Christian meaning; he also reads eftarisan for Ps(P) (likewise Wenisch, Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut, p. 92). But eft here is an independent adv. marking a temporal transition from the previous vb. slep in a narrative sequence that ends with P’s literal translation of Ro. suscepit by awehte.
(7) ymbþringen: Si. (pp. 474-75), noting that P’s regular rendering of Ro. circumdantis is ymbhringan (e.g., Pss. 16.9, 17.6) and pointing to the possibility that W confused þ and h, suggests emending to ymbhringen. But P is not a mechanical translator, and ymbþringen makes perfectly good sense: hostile crowds “crowd about” the psalmist.
for þam þu eart min God: Although there is no corresponding Ro. to support Thor.’s emendation of mid to min, it makes good contextual and grammatical sense.
(8) mægen: Ro. dentes; cf. Mondsee 78: “dentes uirtutes corporis significat.”
Historical and Davidic, but not as directed in Introd. 1°. Instead, P follows Th. in interpreting the psalm as David’s reproach to his people for their refusal to acknowledge God’s gifts to them. This theme is developed in vv. 6-10, disconnected and obscure in the Latin, but here skillfully shaped into a single syntactical unit centering on the theme of God’s gifts. Thus, vv. 6b and 7a, 7b and 8a are linked by the conjunctions and, þeah; vv. 7b and 8 explain the key word gifu of v. 7a; and all five vv. are linked by the repetition of other key words: genihte (v. 8 to v. 9), blisse (vv. 7b and 8 to v. 10) and ealra goda (v. 6 to v. 8).
The Introd. begins with an explanation of the Ro. titulus: “In finem psalmus cantici Dauid” (cf. also the “English” variant “In finem psalmus Dauid canticum”). The collocation of psalmus and canticum is taken by P
[[ Print Edition Page No. 171 ]]
to mean that David combined his customary singing of the psalm with its rendition aloud in choir; cf. Cass. 56.16-18: “haec ideo uidentur esse sociata, quia et instrumentis musicis et choris psallentium, sacrificiis caelestibus consona uociferatione canebantur.” Be sone, mistranslated by Br., “Notes,” p. 473, as ‘according to the music or antiphonally’, means ‘with full voice’; cf. BTS s.v. Son for examples of this phrase glossing sonore, sonoriter with reference to singing the Divine Office aloud, and Regularis Concordia, 38-39. The second clause, for ði . . . byð, implies that P anticipated further instances of the same type of titulus, the next of which occurs at Ps. 67, and consequently that he probably planned a translation of the whole psalter.
1° ac ða . . . feondum: Cf. the first part of Arg. (a), “Ezechias contra aemulos suos de auxilio Domini gloriatur,” with substitutions in subject and object.
2° and swa . . . feondum: Based on Arg. (a), but phrased according to 1°.
(3) heardheorte wið gode: Ro. graues corde; cf. Th. 22.61: “a cognitione ueritatis nimis alieni.” It is unclear whether gode should be translated as ‘God’ or ‘good’; Th.’s quotation and the parallel clause of v. 3 suggest ‘good’, although normally W is at pains to distinguish such subst. use of the adj. from the noun God by doubling its vowel or writing an accent mark over it.
(4) his ðone gehalgodan: Ro. sanctum suum; here gehalgoda, ‘the one consecrated (in kingship)’, refers to David (see also Commentary on Ps. 15.10). Cf. Th. 22.69-70: “sanctum se [sc. David] appellare non timuit” and Mondsee 79: “Dauid . . . haec dicunt.”
(5) Þeah hit . . . þurhteon: This unusual interpretation of Ro. irascimini et nolite peccare has its closest parallel in CP; see Chap. 6, III (1). BT’s translation (s.v. Hraðe), ‘none the sooner shall ye accomplish it’, misses the point; translate: ‘Though it may happen that you improperly become angry, you should not, all the more [sc. because your anger is wrong] give effect to it’. See BTS s.v. Hraþe V.2.
þæt unriht . . . þæs: Ro. quae dicitis in cordibus uestris et in cubilibus uestris conpungimini; cf. Jerome, Comm., 185.19-20: “Quod in die cogitando peccatis” etc. P’s interpretation of conpungimini as a twofold process of abandoning and being sorry for sin probably derives from CP; see Chap. 6, III (2).
(6) bringað þa: Ro. sacrificate sacrificium iustitiae; þa stands for the “sacrifices” of abandoning and repenting of sin, as suggested by the parallel, appositional pl. lacum immediately following; cf. Mondsee 79: “qui paenitentiam agit, non animalia immolare debet deo, sed opera iustitiae.”
Hwa tæcð . . . gehæt?: A double interpretation of Ro. quis ostendit nobis bona; in the first, ostendit is translated by tæcð and bona as an adv. (teala); in the second, bona is treated as subst., ‘the good things of life’ (þa god), and ostendit as a vb. of giving, as in Th. 23.114-24.117: “non pauci sint qui . . . audent dicere: si est ratio quae mundum regat . . . quae munera suae bonitatis impertit?”
(7)-(8) þeah hi swa ne cweðen. . . . þeah hi his ðe ne ðancien: With these two additions, cf. Th. 24.134-51: “Dedisti laetitiam in corde meo usque multiplicai sunt . . . cur uos ad agnitionem eius caecos oculos admouetis ac dicitis: quae autem ab eo bonorum documenta suscipimus?”
(8) þin folc gemicladest: Presumably by bestowing his gifts; cf. Th. 24.122-23: “certis et expressis documentis tua in nos cura signetur.”
(9) on þam genihte: Ro. in idipsum, referring to the gifts of v. 8.
Moral, the struggle of the just against the wicked, yet paraphrased so as to be equally applicable to all four personae and interpretations of the Introd. Other modifications strengthen the moral interpretation: pres. gremiað (Lat. perf. exacerbauerunt, v. 11) suggests an ever-present problem; pres. subjunctive fægnian (v. 12) and imps. gedo, wuna (vv. 4, 12) imply a desire for blessings—they are assured in the corresponding Lat. fut. vbs.—in harmony with secað of the Introd.
1° has two parts, (i) Ðe . . . frofre: cf. the idea of Arg. (a), “Ezechias post infirmitatem gratias agit Domino . . . ,” with P’s customary modifications; (ii) and be . . . ðinga: an allegorical application of the Ro. titulus, “In finem pro ea [VL his] quae hereditatem consequitur psalmus Dauid,” to the just seeking their reward in Heaven (cf. Aug. 19.1.2-3, “Intellegitur ergo ecclesia, quae accepit hereditatem uitam aeternam,” for a typical allegorical
[[ Print Edition Page No. 173 ]]
comment), with in finem interpreted as Christ (cf. Cass. 55.6-7: “Finis legis est Christus . . . qui est omnium bonorum gloriosa perfectio”).
4° sylfe[s]: Thor. and B-R’s emendation; the final s may have been lost through scribal confusion with the immediately following and similarly shaped f of frofre.
(4) for ðam ic gebidde on dægred to ðe: Ro. quoniam ad te orabo domine mane; this treatment of Ro. mane as modifying Ro. orabo rather than the following Ro. et exaudies was criticized by Jerome, Tract., 13.54-56: “Quidam simplicius interpretantur, hoc est: consurgo diluculo ad orandum, et deprecor te.”
seo þe . . . wyrce: Ro. uidebo; a similar supplying of the object occurs in Jerome, Tract., 14.70: “Subauditur, te uidebo.” None of the commentaries have P’s explanation of uidebo, but cf. Solil 26.1-4: “hweðer þu nu wilnige þæt þu hine geseo and swytole ongyte? . . . heald þonne hys bebodu.”
for ðam . . . nelt: Probably P’s own clarification of Ro. quoniam non uolens deus iniquitatem tu es, but cf. also Moz. tu es deus qui non uis iniquitatem, and Ps(E): “þu eart god na willende unrihtwisnesse.”
(7) and þæt . . . hreowsiað: A similar clarification of Ro. operantur occurs in Jerome, Tract., 15.103-5: “Non dixit, qui operati sunt iniquitatem; sed qui operantur iniquitatem. Qui perseuerant in peccato.” For P’s two vbs., see Commentary on Ps. 4.5 (conpungimini).
se weg ys min weorc: This interpretation of Ro. uiam is commonplace; cf. Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon Version, p. 108.
hy n[e m]ægen . . . sprecað: Ro. decidant a cogitationibus suis; cf. Th. 29.144-45: “Ea quae moliuntur contra nos non sortiantur effectum.” The latter lends support to B-R’s emendation of the manuscript reading hy
[[ Print Edition Page No. 174 ]]
næ/gen to hy n[e m]ægen. W probably confused n with m, causing him to omit simultaneously the e of ne and the m of mægen. The break in writing as he passed from one line to the next would have reinforced the error.
(13) Þu us . . . welwilnesse: Ro. ut scuto bonae uoluntatis tuae coronasti nos; gecoronadest is a hapax legomenon based on coronare; see Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 21, and Kirschner, Die Bezeichnungen, pp. 174-75, who regards gecoronadest and geweorðadest as a Bild+Begriffs-Paar composed to explain the abstract symbolism of coronasti. See also Th. 30.174-75: “ualde nos decreti auxilio communisti, ut et honorabiles apud te simus et nullo hostium laedamur incursu.”
The paraphrase is couched in such general terms as to be applicable to any of the four interpretations given in the Introd.
1° Dauid . . . Domesdæge: Combines three topics: (1) David’s mettrumnesse, borrowed from Arg. (a), “Ezechias infirmatus”; (2) his earfoðum, the usual topic of this clause; and (3) his prophecy about Judgement Day, cf. Cass. 70.3-5: “Pro octaua [from Ro. titulus] . . . Domini significatur aduentus, quando finita saeculi hebdomada, ad iudicandum uenerit mundum” and Arg. (c): “resurrectio iudicii pertimescitur.”
(3) mægn . . . ban: Ro. ossa; cf. Glosa 26.3.7: “omnes uirtutes, quae ossa appellauit” and other commentaries.
(4) Eala . . . sy: Ro. et tu Domine usquequo?; cf. Th. 31.30-31: “Interrogantis specie quaerit quando Dominus malorum eius terminum ponet” and other commentaries. Hit could stand for either sawl and mod or the situation outlined in vv. 3-4.
(6) ðe andetað . . . doð: Ro. confitebitur; cf. Jerome, Comm., 187.25-26: “Non enim mortui laudabunt Dominum, sed nos qui uiuentes sumus.”
(1) Historical, vv. 2-7, (2) allegorical, vv. 8-18; cf. Cass. 88.366-67 who regarded the first part of the psalm as applicable to David and Absalom, the second to God’s promise of salvation for the just. The historical interpretation, in agreement with Introd. 1°, is evidenced in the additional reference to David’s enemies, mine fynd (v. 3); in the choice of Ga. meorum (Ro. tuorum, v. 7); and, most significantly, in the additions þisum and þas . . . sceoldon (vv. 4-5), demonstratives that specify a particular group of David’s enemies—those who betrayed him for Absalom. Part 2, which contrasts the just and the wicked, begins with allegorical interpretations of Ro. synagoga as the mycel folc of believers and of Ro. altum as Heaven. P includes David among the just—thereby connecting parts 1 and 2—by rendering references to him in the Lat. (iustum and meum) with OE pl. forms, þa rihtwisan (v. 10) and we (v. 11).
1° Þysne . . . þæt to Drihtne: Cf. Ro. titulus: “Psalmus Dauid quem cantauit Domino pro uerbis Chusi filii Iemini.” The identification of Chusi with Semei filius Iemini who cursed and stoned David while he was fleeing from Absalom (see 2Sm. 16.5-14) derives, according to Br., “Introds.,” p. 534, from Arnobius (PL 53, 333D; more recently ed. Klaus-D. Daur, Arnobii Iunioris Commentarii in Psalmos, CCSL 25 , p. 8, lines 1-7); but it also occurs in Aug. 36.1.54-55, Glosa 28.1.6-9, and Eclogae, pp. 173-74. For the references to Absalom, see 2Sm. 15-16. The emendation of the manuscript reading teonode wyrde to teonode 7 wyrgde (first suggested in BT s.v. Teonian) accords well with P’s fondness for verbal collocations and with the sense of the biblical maledicens (2Sm. 16.13); however, wyrde can stand, since the loss of medial g in a consonantal cluster is attested elsewhere in Ps(P). It is not clear why the scribe underscored the od of teonode as if for deletion; perhaps with the conjunction and missing, he tried to make sense of the collocation by reading wyrde as the only verb and teone as an instrumental noun. The manuscript reading Geniminis (retained by Thor. and B-R) with dittography of -ni- was probably caused by confusion of minims in an unfamiliar biblical name and has been emended accordingly. See Olbrich, Laut- und Flexionslehre, p. 117.
(4) gif ic . . . doð: P’s expansion of Ro. si feci istud. Wülfing’s translation (Die Syntax 1:12), “wenn ich es durch Sünde erzielt, d.h. verdient habe,” incorrectly applies þisum to David’s sins; it refers to those of
[[ Print Edition Page No. 176 ]]
David’s enemies who joined Absalom’s revolt, as evident from P’s clarification of the same dem. in the form þas (v. 5) as ‘those who ought to have been my friends’. Translate: ‘If I have deserved from these who now persecute me that which they now do. . . .’ With the addition þe . . . swencað, cf. Th. 33.26-27: “si feci quod nunc patior.”
(5) furðum: This addition implies that the hypothetical action that it introduces is more justifiable than that of the immediately parallel clause; cf. Th. 33.31-34: “Si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala. Ea quae merito prima sunt in relationis ordine secunda ponuntur: amplioris enim uirtutis testimonium est iniuste in se agentem alterum sustinere patienter quam ipsum non agere aliquid inique.”
(7) on þinum yrre, and ræs: Si.’s (p. 475) emendation of the manuscript reading of to on is supported by Ro. in ira tua. BT’s emendation (s.v. Sær) of the manuscript reading sær to rær, although in harmony with Ro. exaltare and scribally plausible (confusion of insular r and s in the exemplar) is not entirely satisfactory, since altogether in twelve translations of exaltare this vb. is never used by P and in attested examples elsewhere is transitive. Arguably, sær represents a transposition of ræs, ‘rush, attack’; cf. Th. 34.59-60: “sollicite in uindictam mei ac propere commouere.”
geweorða þe sylfne þara: An alternative translation, based on the corresponding Ro. exaltare in finibus inimicorum tuorum. The double rection of geweorða with refl. acc. and gen. obj. is otherwise unattested; see Wülfing, Die Syntax, 1:44, and Visser, Historical Syntax, §679, who categorizes it as geweorðian + direct [acc.] obj. + “causative” [gen.] obj., though he admits that “the meaning is not clear.” Perhaps the meaning is ‘make yourself respected by them’ or ‘at their expense’ (see BTS s.v. Geweorþian II, and Mitchell, Syntax, §1092, s.v. [ii]); cf. Glosa 31.7.8: “et ibi exaltare, ut tu magnificatus sis in illis.”
(8) Gif þu swa dest: Probably P’s addition, but cf. Expositio Psalmorum 18.59-60: “Congregatio populi tui te laudabit cum ista feceris.”
and hi . . . heofonum: An alternative translation of Ro. in altum regredere; cf. Stuttgart 237: “a sinagoga dominus circumdatus est . . . post resurrectionem ad credendum.”
manna geþohtas: With the same interpretation of Ro. corda et renes, in a direct address of God, cf. Th. 36.117-18: “Cum profunda cogitationis inspicias et mentium secreta rimeris . . .” and Expositio Psalmorum 18.79-80: “Ut uidisti meas et illorum cogitationes, sic iudica.”
(13) se deofol cwecð his sweord: Only in Jerome is the Devil, rather than God, made the subject of Ro. gladium suum uibrauit; cf. Tract. 25.171-90: “Multi enim putant de Deo dictum . . . Necessitate ergo conpellimur . . . non intellegere in Deo, Nisi conuersi fueritis . . . Conueniunt personae diaboli.” This interpretation inspired the drawing that accompanies the Latin text in the Paris Psalter; see further Chaps. 1.I.M and 3.II.A.3.
(14) He gedeð . . . unðeawum: Ro. sagittas suas ardentibus effecit; Jerome also has ardentibus qualifying sagittas and figuratively representing sinners, Tract. 26.195: “Dicit et apostolus ardentes habere diabolum sagittas” and ibid. 25.190-92: “Pulchre dixit, ardentibus: quorum enim corda ardent libidine et passionibus, isti uicti sunt a diabolo.”
his ðone hean naman: Ro. nomini Domini altissimi; with a similar treatment of altissimi as if qualifying nomini, cf. Rudolph Vleeskruyer, ed., The Life of St. Chad (Amsterdam, 1953), p. 195, n. on line 95.
Davidic, in accordance with Introd. 1°(i). That P did not follow the Messianic interpretation of Introd. 1°(ii) is indicated by his literal translation of filius hominis by se mannes sunu, whereas all of the commentators (including Th.) interpret it as Christ, the son of man. Likewise, the additions nu and oftrædlice (see notes on vv. 4, 5) and the rendering of Latin perf. (vv. 6-8) with Old English pres. vbs. imply divine intervention at all times, not merely at the Incarnation. This unusual interpretation also occurs in
[[ Print Edition Page No. 178 ]]
Expositio Psalmorum, which also regards David as the subject of the psalm; thus at 20.40-41, “HOMO. Uel Dauid. RECORDARIS. Ordinasti eum in regnum.” (See comments on vv. 3 and 5, below.)
This Introd. is one of four (also 18, 44, 49) that do not offer a three- or fourfold scheme of interpretations, presumably because neither the Arg. (a) nor the titulus contained suitable matter on which to build the scheme.
1° (i) Þysne . . . gesceaftum: cf. first part of Arg. (a): “Admiratur propheta Dei potentiam per quam gubernat cunctam mundi molem” and, for a close verbal parallel, Bo 79.10-12: “þu ðe ealle þine gesceafta . . . gesceope 7 gesceadwislice heora welst” (Boethius III, m. 9: “O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas”).
(ii) and eac . . . Cristes: cf. Th.’s prologue, 37.1-2: “beatus Dauid prophetali repletus spiritu de Domini incarnatione praeloquitur.”
(3) þu byst hered: With this expansion of Ro. propter inimicos tuos, cf. Th. 39.76-79: “Laudem . . . ob hanc causam dicit Deum perfecisse, ut inimicorum suorum . . . impudentiam confutaret” and Brev. 887D: “Ad confusionem Judaeorum.”
Þæt . . . feondum: Apparently P’s clarification of Ro. propter inimicos tuos, but cf. also Expositio Psalmorum 20.28-29: “Ut desinant ultra resistere et ut appareat inimicis tuis tua potentia.” Thor.’s he for hi does not make good contextual or grammatical sense.
(4) Ic ongite nu: Ro. uidebo; cf. Th. 40.87-88: “pro intellegam atque cognoscam posuit uidebo” and Jerome, Comm., 191.13-15: “Videbo . . . cognoscam.” The addition of nu suggests present action in accordance with Introd. 1°.
oftrædlice: This addition indicates that P cannot have intended the single, unique visit of the Incarnation; with a similar non-Messianic interpretation and the notion of frequent divine visits, cf. Expositio Psalmorum 21.52-53: “Sepe enim angeli et Deus ipse uisitauit homines.”
(6) gewuldrast . . . mærðe: See Commentary on Ps. 5.13.
(7) gesetest: Ro. constituisti; Gr., p. 186, emends to pret. gesettest, but the context suggests a pres. tense, in harmony with the five Old English pres. vbs. immediately preceding and following, all rendering Latin perfs.
(8) his fet . . . anwald: A commonplace interpretation of Ro. pedibus; cf. Stuttgart 240: “Sub pedibus, id est sub potestatem illius.”
(1) Historical (vv. 2-21) and (2) moral (vv. 22-39), though both parts are attributed to David; cf. Th. 43.10-15: “in primis quidem psalmi partibus sermo fit de hostibus . . . in posterioribus uero mala domestica describuntur, id est quod gemere pauperes populi diuitum iniquitas et rapina compelleret.” The historical interpretation agrees with Introd. 1° and Th., as demonstrated by modifications in vv. 4, 6, 7, and 20; the moral interpretation with Th., as shown by the explicit equating of the psalmist with pauper (v. 35). Other modifications reinforce the moral theme: the addition of symle (vv. 28, 29), the rendering of Latin perf. with Old English pres. vbs. (vv. 25-27, 34, 37-38), and the allegorical interpretations in v. 37.
1° On . . . hæfdon: Cf. first part of Arg. (a): “Orat Dominum Dauid pro dolosis cogitationibus filii sui, gratias agens quod eas non sequeretur effectus” and v. 4 of the psalm for the reference to other enemies.
4° and on þa ylcan gerad . . . feondum: Vi apparently had on ðæt ylce [gerad], acc. sg. neut., the reading adopted by B-R. See also Pulsiano, “Old English Introductions,” p. 13, and n. 8, who characterizes ðæt ylce as “the more common reading” in Old English and treats Pa’s gerad as plural. However, although commonly neut., gerad sometimes has fem. inflection, so Pa’s reading could be taken as acc. sg. fem. See BTS s.v. Gerad, and Mitchell, Syntax, §3667.
3° and be þam . . . mihton: As noted by Visser, Historical Syntax, §698, don here takes a double acc., unless hine (second) is a scribal slip for him.
2° and swa . . . woldon: Modeled on 1°, although a more explicit source was available in the second part of Arg. (a): “. . . potest et Ezechiae congruere gratias agenti post Assyrii exercitus interitum.”
(4) þu gehwyrfdest . . . forwurdon: With this treatment of Ro. infirmabuntur and perient as historical vbs., cf. Th. 44.35-36: “Temporum est hic commutatio: nam pro praeterito posuit futurum.” Likewise, v. 15.
(5) eall for . . . sceolde: Apparently P’s addition.
(6) þa ðeoda . . . ðreatigað: Ro. gentes; cf. Expositio Psalmorum 22.34-36: “regem superbum per suos filios occidi rediuntem fecit; uel ad Abisolon cum hoste suo conuenit” and Th. 44.45-46: “pro his quae in nos peccauerunt.”
(7) Seo redelse . . . sceoldan: Ro. defecerunt framea in finem; cf. Th. 44.60-65: “Aduersarii quidem nostri omnes contra nos bellorum machinas
[[ Print Edition Page No. 180 ]]
admouerunt . . . sed . . . uacuos conatus eorum casosque fecisti.” Thor.’s geleorode for geteorode of the manuscript (repeated in BT s.v. Geleoran) is unnecessary. On the evidence of Ro. ciuitates and the fem. pl. adj. ealla, byrig is supplied, following Gr., p. 187. Thor. (p. 441) and B-R supply ceastra, which, although grammatically and contextually suitable, does not accord with P’s word choices.
heora gemynd . . . hlisan: Ro. periit memoria eius cum sonitu; BTS (s.v. Hlisa I ) translates, ‘the memory of them passed away, along with the great fame’, but an alternative translation of the prepositional phrase mid þam myclan hlisan, ‘accompanied by the great report (of their downfall)’, is supported by Th. 44.68: “ut interitus eorum ad omnium notitiam perueniret.”
(16) ða ðeoda . . . geteohhod hæfdon: Ro. infixae sunt gentes in interitu quem fecerunt; cf. Th. 46.134-35: “Hostes, inquit, nostri traditi sunt malis quae nobis conabantur inferre. . . . ” On syn as an indicative, see Dorothy Whitelock, ed., Sermo Lupi ad Anglos (New York, 1966), lines 73, 109, 147, and S-B §427, n. 2.
byð Drihten cuð: Ro. cognoscitur Dominus; Br.’s (“Notes,” p. 473) addition, preferable to Si.’s (p. 475) oncnawen, since cuþ is attested in Ps(P) at Ps. 31.5, translating cognitum; but Si.’s positioning of the missing word after, rather than before, Drihten reads better.
(18) þa unrihtwisan: Ro. peccatores; this apparent exception to P’s normal practice of translating peccator with synfull, using instead his translation of impius, is best explained by reference to Th. 47.149-50: “in hoc loco uidetur quod pro impiis peccatores posuerit.”
beoð gehwyrfede: For a similar translation of Ro. conuertantur in the Old English glossed psalters, see Ps(C), edition, p. 16, n. 3.
(20) þy læs . . . wille: This paraphrase of Ro. non praeualeat homo repeats the theme of Introd. 1°, evil contemplated but not effected.
(21) sumne anwald . . . gelære: Ro. legislatorem; cf. Th. 48.185-87: “illata supplicia docebunt eos, ut seruos et subditos Domino esse se nouerint.” Gelære could be either 2 or 3sg. (pres. subjunctive), though in the absence of a pron. the latter (with anwald as its subj.) seems preferable.
(24) þa yfelan: With this additional subj., cf. Glosa 45.24.2: “peccator peccatorem laudat.”
(25) for þære . . . gewrecan: Ro. secundum multitudinem irae suae non inquiret; cf. Th. 49.241-44: “Dum diripiendi auidus est . . . neque intellegit quod possint conditori suo quae fecit opera displicere.” But P’s rendering of secundum by for is his own.
(26) he ne . . . ansyne: Ro. non est Deus in conspectu eius; translate: ‘he does not place God before his mind’s eye’, rather than ‘he does not do good in his [God’s] sight’. On this use of don, see Leonard Bloomfield, “Notes on the Preverb ge- in Alfredian English,” in Studies in English Philology, ed. Kemp Malone and Martin B. Ruud (Minneapolis, 1929), pp. 79-102, at 95-96. With P’s use of the phrase modes ansyn here and elsewhere, cf. CP 68.15: “on his modes eagum” (no Lat.), 467.4: “ures modes eagan” (Gregory 126D: “mentis oculus”); Bo 82.12: “beforan ures modes eagum” (Boethius III, m. 9, line 24: “animi . . . uisus”); Solil 27.9-10: “ðæt mod byð þære sawle æge” (Augustine, Soliloquia, 19.20-21: “Nam mentis quasi sui sunt oculi sensus animae,” a variant reading); and see Otten, König Alfreds Boethius, pp. 167-69.
For þam he næfð . . . wylle: Ro. auferuntur iudicia tua a facie eius omnium inimicorum suorum dominabitur; cf. Th. 50.261-63: “quoniam nihil de iudiciis Dei cogitat, ideo dominationi suae subicere omnes nititur, et inique cunctos opprimere non ueretur.”
(27) Cf. Th. 50.266-71: “Dixit enim in corde suo usque malo. Hoc sibi, inquit, cogitatione persuasit quoniam a prosperitate praesenti nullis aduersitatibus deducatur, neque commutationem aliquam ita sustineat, ut in locum felicitatis eius aduersa succedant. Dicendo autem a generatione in generationem continuationem uoluit temporis indicare.”
Ne geþencð God þyllices: Ro. oblitus est Deus; cf. Th. 51.320-23: “ita enim sibi persuaserat . . . quasi Deum curam rerum talium non haberet nec aliquid horum in memoriam suae cognitionis admitteret.”
oð ende: This emendation of the manuscript reading on to oð is supported by five instances in Ps(P) where the same Ro. words, in finem, are similarly translated (e.g., Pss. 9.19, 43.23) and by the contextual consideration that the poor man needs God’s material help throughout, not at the end of, his life.
(35) cwæð se witega to Drihtne: This addition serves to indicate a change of speaker from sinner to psalmist; cf. Th. 52.364-66: “intulit: Vides quoniam tu laborem et furorem consideras, quasi ad Deum prophetae sermo dirigatur” and Glosa 47.35.1-2: “Propheta loquitur ad deum.”
broc . . . sar: Ro. laborem et dolorem; cf. CP 259.16-17: “ðæt broc ðæs lichoman, & ðæt sar innan ðære wambe” (Gregory 69B: “Livor ergo vulneris . . . plagae in secretioribus ventris”).
hit wære . . . handa: According to Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” p. 482, a misinterpretation of Ro. ut tradas eos in manibus tuis as the psalmist’s immediate wish. In fact, the pret. subjunctive wære implies a hypothetical, retrospective wish.
þeah hine . . . untela dyde: Ro. requiretur delictum eius nec inuenietur; cf. Th. 53.389-92: “si peccati sui ab eo ratio postuletur, nullam inuenire possit nec ualeat uel paululum in sui assertionem defensionemque consistere aut aliquo peccatorum suorum multitudinem colore uelare.”
Historical, as directed in Introd. 1°. The immediacy of David’s words to his followers is reinforced by adding the connective Ic wat (v. 3), by translating iustus (v. 4) in the first person, and by changing Latin perf. into Old English pres. vbs. (v. 4).
1° Ðysne . . . spearuwa: Cf. Arg. (a): “Uerba Dauid quando Saulem fugiens in desertis est habitare compulsus”; with the additional clause, þa his . . . spearuwa, cf. v. 2 of the paraphrase. Þes of the manuscript is probably a misreading of insular r as s in the collocation swa þer (introducing a simile) by a scribe unfamiliar with this early West Saxon construction, and is emended accordingly; see Wülfing, Die Syntax, 1:286-87, and Bately, “Authorship,” p. 89, n. 131. Likewise, Vi’s <...>wa deð hine can be regarded as an attempt to rewrite this unfamiliar collocation by supplying an elliptical deð and a refl. obj. to parallel the clause he hine . . . hydde preceding swa.
4° and swa . . . ungesewenlicum: Vi’s addition of doð parallels its addition of deð in 1°.
(3) þa unscyldigan: Ro. rectos; with this departure from P’s normal translation of rectus by riht-, cf. Th. 56.66-67: “Rectos autem corde appellat . . . qui non sint sibi culpae ullius conscii.” The form here could be either adj. acc. pl. qualifying heortan, or substantival, qualified by descriptive gen. (or dat.) sg. heortan, though Ro. rectos corde suggests the latter.
bræwas . . . dom: Ro. palpebrae eius; cf. Glosa 51.5.9-10: “Palpebrae . . . iudicia dei occulta in quibus nos interrogat” and Th. 57.110-11: “ita sollicita examinatione omnium facta diiudicat.” The lack of concord
[[ Print Edition Page No. 184 ]]
between ahsað and its grammatical subj. bræwas probably resulted from the influence of the “real” subj. rihta dom.
(7) Drihten onsent . . . witu: With this addition, cf. Th. 57.124-25: “Pluit super peccatores laqueos usque procellarum. Varia perditionis genera dicuntur a Deo peccatoribus inferenda” and Expositio Psalmorum 29.51-52: “Per ‘laqueos’ uindicta[e] cautelam, per pluuiam habundantiam demonstrat.” With the present tense of onsent, cf. Ga. pluet (Ro. pluit).
ungemetlice hæto þære sunnan: Ramsay, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” p. 483, suggests that P read or etymologized Ro. sulphur as sol feruens or sol furens; cf. the corresponding reading solfur in the Southampton Psalter, fol. 10r (Irish, late 10th c.).
wolberende windas: Ro. spiritus procellarum; in the glossarial tradition wind is regarded as a carrier of disease and pestilence; cf. James L. Rosier, “Ten Old English Psalter Glosses,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 63 (1964): 1-6, at pp. 1-2, and Sisam, Studies, p. 85.
mid þyllicum . . . gefyldu: Ro. pars calicis eorum; cf. Th. 57.126-29: “Poenarum enumerata diuersitas erit, inquit, pars calicis, ut totus profecto ac plenus intellegatur continere grauiora.” For similar phrasing, see Bo 54.20-21: “Be ðisan 7 be mænegum þillicum.”
Moral, as in Introd. 1°, which presents the psalm as David’s comment (see speaker’s rubric in v. 7) on the immorality of his times. This theme is emphasized by changing Latin perf. into Old English pres. vbs. (e.g., vv. 3, 5, 9), by the addition nu . . . tidum (v. 2), and by drawing on Th.’s moral interpretations.
1° Þa . . . alegen: Cf. Arg. (a): “Ex persona David canitur, quod in tempore eius omnis defecerit sanctus et deminutae sint ueritates a filiis hominum.” Vi omits the initial, correlating Þa, probably because the scribe (or his exemplar) had grown accustomed to seeing the word Dauid in initial position. For seofode, Vi has geo[mro]de (B-R’s reconstruction), which would accord well with Th. 58.1, “Deplorat”; the word is also attested in CP and Bo. But since Pa frequently has seofode in this clause and never geomrode, the former has been retained.
(2) Both didum and foðfæstnes of the manuscript are probably misreadings of insular letters, t and s, respectively, in the exemplar.
(3) for þam . . . cweðen: Ro. in corde et corde locuti sunt mala; cf. Glosa 53.3.8-9, “aliud dicunt, et aliud retinent,” though the concessive þeah hi . . . cweðen is P’s addition.
(4) þa oferspræcan and þa yfelspræcan: Cf. Ga. magniloquam and Ro. maliloquam, respectively. The former suggests for oferspræca the meaning ‘extravagant in speech’ not, as in BT, ‘saying more than is just or true’, a definition incorrectly based on the Ro. lemma.
Hwi! . . . willan?: Ro. labia nostra a nobis sunt quis noster est dominus; for muðfreo, Tinkler, Vocabulary, pp. 43-44, points to Cass. 119.91, “quare non sunt garruli,” but a full parallel to these four rhetorical questions occurs in Th. 60.75-78: “Libertatem, inquiunt, quae inest nobis, uolumus linguae licentia comprobare; nullius dominationis timore comprimimur, ut non, quae libuerint, uerba proferamus; nostro iuri in loquendo, non alieno seruimus imperio.” BTS (s.v. Hwy II) treats hwæt as interjectional and ondræde we as the main vb. having as object the clause following it. But the absence in the latter of dependent þæt and of a subjunctive vb., and the evidence of the corresponding Ro. quis Dominus, indicate an independent question.
(6) and hi: As a conj. linking two vbs. with a common subject and purpose, the emendation and makes better sense than Ac of the manuscript, which is probably a dittography of the preceding initial Ac. Thor. and B-R retain Ac. The corresponding Ro. has no connective.
(7) cwæð Dauid: This addition indicates a switch of speaker from God back to the psalmist.
(8) gehælst: Wildhagen, “Besprechung,” p. 102, treats this as 2sg. pres. indic. of gehealdan, pointing to a similar translation of Ro. seruabis in the Old English interlinear glossed psalters. But given P’s fondness for contextual translation and the close semantic connection between gehealdan and gehælan (at Ps. 41.4 he translates saluabit with a collocation of the two
[[ Print Edition Page No. 186 ]]
vbs.) there is no good reason for treating gehælst as other than a form of gehælan.
(9) With the recasting of the verse as adversative and concessive, the identification of Ro. filios hominum as nos (OE us, ure), and the alternative translation of Ro. multiplicasti as gefriðast, cf. Th. 62.156-63: “Secundum altitudinem tuam eleuasti [Ro. multiplicasti] filios hominum. Etsi impiorum nos agmen includat . . . tu . . . nos de impiorum medio, uelut in edito positos, possis eripere. . . . eleuasti nos super eos qui nos sua numerositate cingebant. Filios autem hominum posuit, ac si diceret, nos.”
P’s literal rendering could equally well apply to all four interpretations of the Introd.
1° Ða . . . lichamlicum: Cf. the idea of Arg. (a): “Ezechiae preces ab Assyriis obsessi”; the distinction between physical and spiritual enemies parallels that of 3°.
3° and swa . . . deoflum: Modeled on 1° with the additional object be deoflum probably suggested by de diabolo of Arg. (b): “Aliter, uox Christi ad Patrem de diabolo dicit. . . .”
2° and swa . . . byrig: Based directly on Arg.(a), the additional reference to the city (Jerusalem) probably supplied from 4Rg. 18-19.
(1) hwæðer þu oð minne ende wylle: Ro. in finem interpreted as ‘until death’ and formulated as a parallel question.
(5) streng[r]a: Loss of r in consonantal clusters is attested in late Old English, though not usually in inflections; hence the emendation. Ro. praeualui aduersus eum indicates that the comparative is intended.
hy fægniað gif . . . beo: There does not seem to be any way of deciding whether beo is indic. or subjunctive. Both Ro. exultabunt si motus fuero and the context suggest an indic. (fut.), but see Mitchell, Syntax, §3557, for examples of the subjunctive in such contexts.
lofie þinne naman, þu hehsta God: Perhaps a conflation of Ro. psallam nomini tuo Altissime with Ga. psallam nomini Domini Altissimi, such as occurs in the ninth-century Book of Cerne; cf. A. B. Kuypers, ed., The Prayer-book of Aedeluald the Bishop, Commonly Called the Book of Cerne (Cambridge, 1902), p. 176, line 20.
Historical, as in Introd. 2° and Th. P draws heavily on the latter, as in se unrihtwisa (Ro. insipiens), referring to Rapsacen’s blasphemy, þæt folc to those Jews seduced by him, and ungelimp (v. 5) to the sudden catastrophe suffered by the Assyrians.
4° and swa deð . . . tidum: Apparently Vi, [he seo]fað to [Drihtne ?] be his ti[dum], supplies an indirect, where Pa has a direct, object. Either reading is acceptable, though Pa’s þæt ylce, referring to the interpretative substance of 1°, provides a more precise statement. That the original might have combined the two readings, *he seofað þæt ylce to Drihtne (the sequence *he seofað to Drihtne þæt ylce runs counter to P’s habit of locating the direct object immediately before or after seofað, followed by the indirect object; e.g., Introds. 3.1° and 4°, 7.1°, 14.3°), is unlikely since it would require hypothesizing that on two different occasions different words were omitted in copying.
2° and Ezechias . . . cyninge: Cf. Arg. (a): “Haec Ezechias contra Rapsacen loquitur.” The description of Rapsacen as Assyria cyninge (recte ‘messenger of the Assyrian king’) may have resulted from a misreading of misit rex Assyriorum Rabsacen (Is. 36.2), where Rabsacen is object. The unusual position of this interpretation immediately before the paraphrase probably reflects its close connection in P’s mind with the latter.
(1) Se unrihtwisa: On the basis of Ro. insipiens, Si. (p. 475) proposed emending to unwisa. But the words spoken by the one characterized as insipiens, Nis nan God þe þis wite oððe wræce, imply willful insouciance, hence unrihtwisa of the manuscript can stand. Cf. Th. 65.14-15: “per quae credi uolebat [sc. Rapsacen] quod potentiae eius neque Deus posset obsistere.” Wite here probably means ‘knows’ rather than ‘imputes’; see “cognitione” in the next quotation. Despite its vocalism, wræce is pres. subjunctive as shown by its collocation with wite.
cwyð on his mode: Ro. dixit; cf. Expositio Psalmorum 33.15: “DIXIT. Id est, mente.”
Þonne byð . . . cwyde: With this addition, cf. Th. 66.23-25: “Corrupti sunt et abominabiles usque suis. Consequens est, ut qui uacuus a cognitione sui fuerit conditoris, omnibus uitiorum sordibus impleatur” and Expositio Psalmorum 33.21-22: “Qui hoc cogitant corrupti sunt Dominum denegando, ac per hoc abhominabiles illi sunt.” With P’s new subject, þæt folc, cf. Expositio Psalmorum 33.13: “illa gens.”
on heora won willan: Ro. in uoluntatibus suis; BTSC’s (s.v. Wanwilla) definition of wonwillan as a compound meaning ‘wilfulness’ is incorrect, since wan compounded with willa should give the meaning ‘devoid of will’; read won as acc./dat. sg. of adj. woh, qualifying willan, hence ‘in their evil desire’. Because of the wicked man’s statement, the people persevere in their evil desires and become corrupt. Cf. Bo 70.9, “þe ðone won willan hæfð,” referring to one corrupted by carnal pleasures.
secað and lufiað: With this addition to Ro. inutiles facti sunt, cf. Bo 146.8: “secað þæt hi lufiað” (Boethius VI.5.3: “inesse . . . appetendiue”) and Solil 7.2: “se se þe lufað, se þe sæcð” (Augustine, Soliloquia, 6.4: “quem adtendere hoc est quod amare”). Elsewhere in Ps(P) this collocation translates requirere (Pss. 24.10, 30.24).
þeah hi fægere sprecon: According to Thor. and B-R’s punctuation, this addition is dependent on the clause following it, heora geþeaht . . . attor; in support, cf. Cass. 129.116-17: “dum blanda carmina dicantur, illa semper minatur exitium.” On the other hand, the punctuation of the present edition would allow a more balanced division of the long sentence into two parallel clauses, both beginning with heora, and has a close parallel in Ps. 11.3: þencað yfel, þeah hi hwilum tela cweðen.
heora geþeaht . . . weorc: This elaboration of Ro. sub labiis eorum echoes the well-known triad of “thought, word, and deed,” though with willa instead of “word.” See Patrick Sims-Williams, “Thought, Word and Deed: An Irish Triad,” Ériu 29 (1978): 78-111.
unþearfes for yflum willan: This elaboration of Ro. ad effundendum sanguinem Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. 47, explains as a misreading of “immanitas” (from Cass. 129.126) as “inanitas,” hence unþearfes. But cf. Th. 67.84-85: “ad strages faciendas non proelii necessitate impelli sed solo furore raptari.”
(5) mid godum weorcum: P’s addition to Ro. inuocauerunt; on the importance of this concept in CP, see Grinda, Arbeit und Mühe, p. 64.
(6) With the repetition of Hwy . . . hi, cf. Th. 68.100-103: “Propter metri custodiam hyperbaton fecit. Nam consequentia dictorum hunc ordinem poscit: Nonne scient qui operantur iniquitatem . . . quoniam Deus in generatione iusta est?” With the use of comparative rihtwisran (folce) for Ro. (generatione) iusta, cf. Th. 68.111-13: “in genere populi Israel. Iustos autem uocat non uirtutis studio, sed ad comparationem Assyriorum.” With gedrefe ge, cf. Ga. (and Th.) confudistis (Ro. confudisti).
min yrmingæs: B-R’s original emendation mine[s], qualifying yrmingæs, would make the latter someone other than the speaker and thus would contradict the final clause of the sentence, which identifies geþeaht as the counsel of the psalmist himself; Br., “Notes,” p. 473, subsequently restored the manuscript reading mine without explanation. The present emendation, min, gen. sg. of independent pers. pron., qualified by geþeaht (‘the counsel of mine’), with yrmingæs in gen. apposition, accords with Th. 69.141-46 who equates Ro. consilium inopis with the counsel of Ezechias: “Inopem uocat Ezechiam. . . . consilium Ezechiae, quod ab illis dicit esse derisum?”
(7) butan þu, Drihten: Cf. Th. 69.162-65: “Quis dabit ex Sion salutare Israel? . . . ut subauditur Deus, manifeste indicans neminem esse alium nisi Deum.” On hæftnyd, see Apparatus.
In agreement with Introd. 4°, as suggested by the treatment of Latin perf. as Old English pres. vbs. (e.g., næfð, deð, underfehð, syleð) to reflect the unchanging code of conduct proposed by the psalmist.
1° Dauid . . . cuman: Cf. exilic theme of Arg. (a).
2° and swa . . . Babilonia: Cf. Arg. (a): “Uerba populi in captiuitate Babylonia optantis reditum ad patriam. . . .”
4° and swa . . . þisum: The desire for Heaven is modeled allegorically on the exilic theme, the desire for earthly tranquillity perhaps on v. 1. B-R’s emendation ece does not take account of the gen. required after wilnað; hence, read ec[re], the final -re probably lost through haplography with initial re- of reste. Wichmann, “König Aelfred’s Übertragung,” p. 55, retains ec as a smoothed form of adv. eac, but the Introd.’s contrasting parallelism between this world and the next indicates that the adj. ece is intended.
(2) Þa andswarode . . . witga: This addition smooths the abrupt transition from psalmist speaking on his own behalf to speaking as inspired messenger of God, in agreement with most commentators who treat vv. 2-5 as an answer to v. 1; cf. Jerome, Tract., 31.40-42: “Quod ergo interrogauit propheta, nunc respondet Spiritus sanctus” and Expositio Psalmorum 35.16: “Deus [sc. respondet] profetae.”
Ic wat . . . eardað: With this addition, cf. Th. 72.22-26: “uelut sollicitam consultationem admouet Deo, dicens: Domine quis habitabit in tabernaculo, aut quis requiescet in monte sancto tuo, ut, post attentam inquisitionis curam, sententiam Dei respondentis inducat.”
(5) to unrihtum wæstmsceatte: Ro. ad usuram; the addition of unrihtum seems to imply recognition of lawful interest and, if so, a bold interpretation of a passage traditionally used by Carolingian canonists to support an absolute ban on the exacting of interest. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen, no. 146, regards wæstmsceatt as a Lehnbedeutung for an unfamiliar concept, but see LawAfEl 35 (Liebermann, Laws, 1:38), which forbade the exacting of interest from one’s gefera, the implication being that one may exact interest from others.
ne nanes . . . onfon: Ro. et munera super innocentem non accepit; a departure from the traditional interpretation that the just man does not accept bribes for judgements against the innocent. Cf. Asser’s Life of King Alfred, ed. William H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1959), §106 (p. 93): “ipsos iudices . . . interrogabat [sc. Alfred], quare tam nequiter iudicassent, utrum . . . aut etiam pro alicuius pecuniae cupiditate.”
scynd: According to Wülfing, Die Syntax, 1:245, a form of scyndan ‘to hurry, incite’ but more likely it is scendan ‘to confound’, since it collocates with astyred (Ro. commouebitur).