The most significant single influence upon the translation is the set of "Arguments" which
introduce the fifty psalms, except 1, 21, and 26.(note) The theme
Argument finds in a psalm is almost invariably the same theme that the translator will emphasize,
sometimes by expanding his translation of the most pertinent verses, and sometime by frankly
adding concepts which are not in the original. The following paragraphs will demonstrate this
habit of the translator's first through a study of several psalms
48), then by looking at some noteworthy
individual renderings from a variety of psalms, then by studying
how the translator harmonizes
differences between the Arguments and their Latin source,
and finally by looking at some large thematic concerns that pervade the translation: the
balance between hope and consciousness of sin,
the nature of the psalmist's enemies
and his own innocence,
and finally the nature of Will.
Psalm 39 illustrates well the influence of the Arguments on the Paris Prose. Its first section is translated into language and concepts which can be explained only by the Argument:
Argument: David sang þysne nigan and þritigoþan sealm, gylpende on þam sealme þæt he nauht idel nære þa he anbidode Godes fultumes, forþam he on þæm ærran sealme ahsode God hwæt his anbid wære oððe hwæs he anbidode. And eac he witgode be þam gehæftan folce on Babylonia þæt hy sceoldon þone ylcan sealm singan. . . .
Psalm: 2] Expectans expectavi Dominum, et respexit me, 3] et exaudivit deprecationem meam, et eduxit me de lacu miserie et de luto fecis.
2] Næs ic on nauht idlum anbide, þeah hit me lang anbid þuhte, þa ða ic anbidode Godes fultumes, forþam 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.
The translation carefully follows the Argument's exposition of the confidence with which one may expect God's help. That theme helps the translator to get through some of the psalm's more difficult passages. The verbs in videbunt multi (v. 4) and Domine, ne tardaveris (v. 18), for example, have no complements; but the translator fills them out by falling back on his primary theme (manege geseoð hu þu hæfst ymbe us gedon, and ne yld þu þæt þu me arie). Furthermore, the translator has taken to heart the Argument's statement that Ps. 39 forms a pair with Ps. 38 ( . . . gebyreð ælcum Cristnum menn þas twegen sealmas to singanne, þone ærran on his earfoðum and þone æftran syþþan he genered byð).(note) He thus expands on verses where he can emphasize the speaker's previous sufferings. Cor meum dereliquit me (v. 13) becomes min heorte and min mod me forleton, to þam þæt ic me nyste nænne ræd. And qui dicunt michi: Euge euge is expanded to þa þe cweþað be me þonne me hwylc ungelimp becymð: Is þæt la well (v. 16).
The Argument to Ps. 36 is echoed by the language of the first and thirteenth verses.
Argument: David . . . lærde ealle geleaffulle þæt hy ne onhyredon þam yfelwillendum þeah him þuhte þæt hi gesælige and orsorge wæron, forþam hyra orsorgnes swiðe hraðe aspringð.
Psalm: 1] Noli emulari inter malignantes, neque emulatus fueris facientes iniquitatem.
13] Dominus autem inridebit eum, quoniam prospicit quod veniet dies eius.
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.
13] Ac Drihten hine gebysmrað, forþam he gesyhð hu hraðe his ende cymð.
The unspoken corollary of hyra orsorgnes aspringð is of course that the just have a different sort of prosperity, and that it does not diminish. It is apparently with this in mind that the translator goes beyond his original in adding . . . and his fultumes anbidiað to his translation of qui vero expectant Dominum (v. 9), and in drawing bletsunge on genihte from verse 26, benedictione.
The translator tends to ignore Christological interpretations in the Arguments (see below), but he does draw upon them whenever they are stated with sufficient force. Of the three brief sentences in the Argument to Ps. 23, the second is And eac he witgode be Cristes sigefæstnesse þa þa he on heofonas astah æfter his æriste. This interpretation fits so well with verses 7 and 9 (both of which read Tollite portas, principes, vestras, et elevamini porte eternales, et introibit rex glorie) that the translator decides to set aside his normal scruples about Christological translation. In order to remain faithful to both the spirit of the Argument and the letter of the psalm, he makes rex glorie (who is clearly God himself; the intervening verse is Quis est iste rex glorie? Dominus fortis et potens.) into the more Trinitarian kyning þe God gewuldrod hæfð and geweorðod; and the closing verse's rex glorie is similarly converted to se gewuldroda kyning.(note)
The first sentence of the Argument notes another theme in the psalm, saying that David rehte mid hwylcum geearnungum gehwylc man hine mæg alysan of his earfoðum. If the translator noticed a whiff of Pelagianism about this statement, it does not seem to have bothered him. Whereas the psalmist asks in the third verse, Quis ascendit in montem Domini? and answers Innocens manibus et mundo corde in the fourth, the translator makes it Hwa is þæs wyrðe þæt [he] astige on Godes munt? and answers, He byð þæs wyrðe þe unscæðfull byð mid his handum. The next clause continues this emphasis on works, a concept which suffuses many of his interpolations and which may in this case reflect the Argument's geearnungum: se þe ne hwyrfð his mod æfter idlum geþohtum, and him mid weorcum ne fulgæð (for qui non accepit in vano animam suam).(note)
The English of Ps. 47 dwells continually on words used in the first sentence of the Argument, which has David mycliende þone wundorlican sige Godes þe he þa and oftor ær dyde, hu hrædlice he oferswiðde swa ofermode kyningas. The intensity of mycliende and wundorlican leads to a large number of intensifying words in the translation. Mycliende, which fits the opening words of the Latin and English (Magnus Dominus / Mycel ys se Drihten), is reflected in sio mycle burh for mons (v. 3) and in the translation of verse 9: Sicut audivimus, ita et vidimus in civitate Domini virtutum, in civitate Dei nostri. / 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. (note)
This same sentence also demonstrates a second lexical pattern deriving from the Argument, for the translator has managed to use wundor words six times in the psalm. (The Latin has nothing more than the admirati of verse 6, which itself generates two wundor words: Ipsi videntes, tunc admirati sunt / sona swa he gesawon Godes wundru, hy wæron wundriende . . . ) Narrate in turribus eius gives secgað his wundru on þam torrum (v. 13), and ponite corda vestra in virtute eius . . . ut enarretis in progenie altera (v. 14) is rendered fæstniað eower mod on his wundrum . . . and secgað swylc wundru eowrum gingrum, þæt hy hy mægen eft secgan of cynne on cynn.
The latter part of that sentence also involves a pattern we have already seen in the be urum fæderum of verse 9. Apparently influenced by and oftor ær in the Argument, the translator emphasizes the speaker's kinship with ancestors and progeny. The same wonders flow to each generation. This concern has also appeared in Ps. 43, where patres nostri / ure fæderas, in the opening verse, is the object of the Argument's comment that David myngode þæra gyfa þe he his fædrum and his foregengum sealde and hiora eaforum gehet. With this concept in mind, the translator is careful to use ure foregengan for eos in verses 3 and 4, and to expand verse 5, Tu es ipse rex meus, et Deus meus, to Hu ne eart þu min cyning and min Drihten, swa ylce swa þu hiora wære . . . ?
The translation of the 28th Psalm also draws a number of micel- words from the Argument:
Argument: David sang, bebeodende þam folce þæt hi gelæston heora gehat and heora ælmesan sealdon Gode for swa myclum gifum swa he him geaf.
Psalm: 3] Vox Domini super aquas, Deus maiestatis; intonuit Dominus super aquas multas.
4] Vox Domini in virtute, vox Domini in magnificentia.
3] Godes word is ofer wætrum and hy gehæft. He is mægenþrymmes God, and he þunrað ofer mænegum wæterum and mycelum.
Godes word is on mycelum mægene, and mycelu þing deð.
The translator is thus faithful to both the letter and the spirit of the Argument, the words and hy gehæft adding to the psalm a reminder of the continuing activity of Creation. (This detail, though not found in the exegetical tradition concerning the verse, would presumably be familiar enough to readers of Boethius' Consolation. See the close of Meter 5, Bk. I.) He is also faithful to the idea that the psalm recommends keeping the covenant. Thus, he takes the first word of the psalm, Adferte (Domino, filii Dei, adferte Domino filios arietum), to be a reflexive, and translates . . . bringað eow sylfe (Gode, and bringað him eac eowera ramma bearn). And, apparently for similar reasons, he adds ofer us when he translates Dominus rex in eternum (v. 10).
The Argument to Ps. 49 says that David composed it be ægþrum tocyme Cristes. Accordingly, the translator casts the first verse as a prophecy of Christ's first mission and the remainder as a description of the Second Coming. In verse 1, Deus deorum Dominus locutus est is expanded to . . . wæs sprecende þæt he wolde cuman to eorðan swa he eft dyde. And when the third verse of the Latin changes to the future, the English future-marker þonne seems intended to refer to the last day: Deus manifeste veniet . . . et not silebit / And eft cymð se ylca God swiðe openlice . . . and he þonne naht ne swugað. Moreover, the translator puts the sanctos eius of verse 5 on þa swyðran hand. In the second half of the psalm, God chastizes the wicked; and the translator uses the occasion both to intensify one's impression of their evil (as when per os tuum giveson þinne fulan muð, v. 16) and to dwell upon the 21st verse's passing explanation of why God permits evil:
Haec fecisti et tacui; existimasti iniquitatem [Gallican: inique] quod ero tibi similis.
Arguam te, et statuam illam contra faciem tuam.
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.
Ic þe þreage nu and stæle beforan þe and þe cyðe eal þas yflu.
The last word in the translation of 40:12, gif nan minra feonda ne fægnað mines ungelimpes (quia non gaudebit inimicus super me), does not reflect the Latin and seems to have been remembered from the Argument, where David is said to relate hu he hæfde afandod ægðer ge his frynd ge his fynd on his earfoðum and on his ungelimpe. This clause has also influenced the relatively lengthy expansion of the opening verse. The Latin simply blesses the man who intellegit super egenum, but the English makes the verse into a statement of the standard by which one measures false friends and true: Eadig bið se þe ongyt þæs þearfan . . . and him þonne gefultumað gif hine to onhagað; gif hine ne onhagað, þonne ne licað him þeah his earfoðu. This division of good conduct into occasions when assistance is and is not feasible might be due to the Latin rubric (Vox Christi de passione sua . . .), the Passion exemplifying rather well an occasion where the sufferer cannot be helped by men, and where the wicked are distinguished from the just by their rejoicing at the event. In any case, the translator again emphasizes the pleasure of the enemies in the sufferer's troubles in verse 7, where ingrediebantur gives And þeah hy þæs lyste, þeah hy eodon in to me. . . . Curiously, the seventh verse continues with . . . and fandodon min. These words are appropriate to the Latin (ingrediebantur) ut viderent vana, but it is odd that the translator would choose the verb fandian, which the Argument associates with the way the enemies, not the speaker, are tested.
The translator has set down very expansive equivalents for many of the verses of Ps. 34. Usually, however, these expansions remain within the bounds of the literal meaning of the Latin. The translation of verse 3, for example, is twice as long as the Latin because frameam, conclude, and salus have each been diffused into several English words.
Effunde frameam, et conclude adversus eos qui me persequuntur. Dic anime mee: Salus tua ego sum.
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 gehælde.
Of course, such diffusions are common throughout the fifty psalms, but in Ps. 34 they are more pervasive than usual. It might be the Latin rubric (Totus psalmus est ex persona Christi) which has elicited this special zeal from the translator. There is one passage, at least, which appears designed to make the psalm more amenable to the voice of Christ: qui volunt iustitiam meam (v. 27) gives þa þe willon me þancian minre rihtwisnesse.(note)
The Argument to Ps. 38 explains that, in the latter part of the psalm, David wilnode . . . þæt him God sealde sume frofre and sume rothwile on þyssum andweardum life ær his ende. The translation of the last two verses follows the thought and the wording of this sentence. Ne sileas a me (v. 13) becomes Ne swuga wið me, ac andswara me mid þine fultume. And verse 14, Remitte michi ut refrigerer priusquam eam et amplius non ero, is expanded to Forlæt me nu . . . to sumre rothwile on þisse weorulde ær ic hire swa of gewite þæt ic eft an ne sy. Further, the sternness of verse 6, universa vanitas omnis homo vivens, is softened in the English, where it is man's power and wealth that are called vain: ælces libbendes mannes mægen and anwald is idelnes. This change seems to reflect the Argument's statement that David was criticizing ealle men þe worulde welan gaderiað mid unrihte, and nytan hwam hi hine læfað.
The danger of worldly wealth is especially important in the translation of Ps. 48. The psalm itself is addressed to qui confidunt in virtute sua, quique in abundantia [divitiarum] suarum gloriabuntur (v. 7), and warns that, when they die, they relinquent alienis divitias suas (v. 11), and also that hec via eorum scandalum ipsis (v. 14). The Argument summarizes these warnings, saying that David cautioned men þæt hy hy upp ne ahofen for heora welum, and þæt hy ongeaton þæt hi ne mihton þa welan mid him lædan heonon of weorulde.
Following this cue, the translator takes pains to focus the blame for damnation on wealth itself. The psalm says twice that homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit (verses 13 and 21); he translates in honore as on welan and on weorðscipe (v. 21) and on are and on anwealde (v. 13). In the same way, hyra anweald is added to the translation of the auxilium eorum which shall grow old in Hell (v. 15); and the sapientes of v. 11 become þa welegan and þa weoruldwisan. The speaker may have escaped these dangers, but the translator, wanting us to understand that it was a close call, uses þeah ic þyder cume þonne he me underfehð in verse 16 (Deus liberavit animam meam de manu inferi dum acceperit me).
Although the Argument merely dismisses wealth as something insignificant, something that you cannot take with you to Heaven, the translator insists that the things of this world form a definite impediment to salvation. He finds in the nineteenth verse an opportunity to work out his explanation of why wealth is so dangerous:
Quoniam anima eius in vita ipsius benedicetur, et confitebitur tibi dum beneficeris ei.
Forþæm he hæfde his heofonrice her on eorðan, þa him nanes willan næs forwyrnd her, ne nanes lustes on þysse weorulde, forðam he nyste him nænne þanc, ne Gode ne mannum, þæs ðe [he] him sealde, syððan he hit hæfde, butan þa ane hwile þe hit him man sealde.It is man's ruin, then, to have his Heaven here on earth, because it hardens him against gratitude. It also leads one away from good works, as the translator emphasizes in v. 14:
Hec via eorum scandalum ipsis, et postea in ore suo benedicent.
Ac þes weg and þeos orsorgnes þyses andweardan lifes him fet witu on þam toweardan, forþam heo on last tiliað to cwemanne Gode and mannum mid wordum næs mid weorcum; ne furþum gearone willan nabbað to þam weorce.
This strong emphasis on the value of works, which recurs often in the Paris prose, (note) is at the heart of the remarkable translation of verses 7-10, which the translator forms into a single ms. block, more than three times as long as the Latin. He appears to have thought of this passage as a précis of the psalm as a whole, for he opens it with Ongitan nu . . . , which does not translate the opening verse 7 but does recall the first words of the psalm: Audite hec / Gehyrað nu þas word. The chief concern of the passage is to deal satisfactorily with verse 8, Frater non redemit . . . Non dabit Deo placationem suam. The translator's response to these words is to say that one's brother will not wish to save one from Hell, and that even if he did, he would nevertheless be incapable of doing so if one has not himself done good while on earth (gif he sylf nanwuht ne ne deð to goode þa hwile þe he her byð).
The translator then associates deð to goode with the pretium redemptionis which each man must pay for his own salvation, a salvation not available gif he sylf na ne onginð to tilianne þæt he þæt weorð [i. e. pretium] agife to alysnesse his sawle. Further, the Latin's subsequent et laboravit in eternum leads him to consider the irony that, rather than trying to tilianne þæt he þæt weorð agife, almost everyone tiolað . . . hu he on ecnesse swincan mæge.
The passage thus provides an eloquent complement to the thought of the Argument; though worldly wealth cannot follow you from this world, there is yet a "price" which you can pay if you "endeavor" to do good.
Many individual passages in other psalms can be understood in the light of the Arguments. Swa he me dyde, which the translator adds to 33:8 (Inmittit angelum Dominus in circuitu timentium eum, et eripiet eos.(note)), may reflect the Argument's statement that David is, first, thanking God for past gifts and asking that he sende his godcundne engel on his fultum, and secondly, enjoining those who live after him to do the same. Thus, swa he me dyde assumes that God has already sent his angel to the speaker, and that the speaker is asking the same assistance for those who live after him.
Similarly, the translator uses . . . on Godes gifum to translate 32:1, Gaudete . . . in Domino, following the Argument's suggestion that the psalm teaches us to thank God ealra þæra gooda þe he him dyde.
The fourth psalm's Argument leads the translator to work against the exegetical tradition, which stresses the worthlessness of the wine and oil in verse 8, a tempore frumenti vini et olei sui multiplicati sunt. The tradition takes sui to refer to the wicked, their wine and oil being as nothing beside the real wealth of the just.(note) The Argument's point, however, is that David fægnode Godes fultumes; and the translator chooses to include the wine and oil among the good gifts for which his people should (but do not) thank the Lord: þin folc [þu] gemicladest, and him sealdest geniht hwætes and wines and eles, and ealra goda, þeah hi his ðe ne ðancien.
These short examples testify to the translator's readiness to accommodate the English to that sense of the Latin which has been declared by the Argument.
In Psalm 18, according to the Argument, David sings Gode to þancunga his mislicra and manigfealdra gesceafta, ðe he gesceop mannum to ðeowianne, forðy þæt þa men sceoldon him ðeowian. This language is echoed in the translation of verse 4, non sunt loquele neque sermones quorum non audientur voces eorum / Nis nan folc on eorðan ne nan mennisc geþeode þe ne gehyre mistlica Godes gesceafta. More importantly, the translator also stresses the point that God created the world mannum to þeowianne. The precise nature of this service is made clear in the Argumentum introducing Ps. 18 in Manegold's Exegesis: Approbatur in hoc psalmo providentia Dei, qui ex hoc ipso multam hominum curam se habere monstravit, cum ita elementa a se creata componit, ut post ipsa possit cognosci.(note) Man is served by Creation, then, because it enables him to perceive the Creator, and the translator stresses the perceptual element in the psalm. Inluminans oculos (v. 9) gives onliht þa eagan ægþer ge modes ge lichaman; and he adds to Gode where the Latin has Lex Domini . . . convertens animas (v. 8).
This perceptual emphasis leads the translator to a fine and pragmatic solution of the difficulties in verse 14, si mei non fuerint dominati, tunc inmaculatus ero, et emundabor a delicto maximo. How does liberation from one's enemies cleanse one of sin? For the translator, the answer is that a dominatus will be distracted from meditation: Gif hi me abysgiað, þonne ne mæg ic smeagan mine unscylda, ne eac ðinne willan ne mæg smeagan to wyrcanne.
The eighteenth is not the only psalm whose translation can be explained in the light of the Latin Argumenta found in Manegold. The English Argument to Ps. 29, for example, announces merely another case of David's gratitude for liberation from his enemies, and finds another parallel with the liberation of the Jews from Babylon. The translated psalm, however, lays heavy stress on the presumptuousness of the speaker's former sins, an emphasis which answers well to the Latin argument: Elevatus Ezechias victoriæ tam gloriosæ proventu, ægrotatione correptus est, ut suæ fragilitatis admonitione deponeret arrogantiam.(note) Thus the translator intensifies the simple ira of God (v. 6) to open wracu, and shows us a speaker who is painfully aware of both the sinfulness of his arrogance and the precariousness of his present situation. In the English of verse 8, for example, sona heightens the sense of the speaker's vulnerability: Avertisti faciem tuam a me, et factus sum conturbatus / þa awendest þu þinne andwlitan fram me, þa wearð ic sona gedrefed. And in the tenth verse, the speaker's mental state brings forth the word byrgenne twice, with no Latin sepulchrum for either of them.
It is also worth noting that the translator, upon seeing dixi in mea habundantia: Non movebor in eternum (v. 7), remembers that those same words were ascribed to the wicked at Ps. 9:27, for he re-uses precisely the same words to render it: Ne wyrð þises næfre nan wendincg.
There is a disparity between the English Argument's fairly sanguine account of Ps. 24 (according to which David prophesied the release of the Jews from Babylon, and also prayed when he to þære reste becom þe he ær wilnode), and the rather more gloomy description in the Latin argument, which says the psalm is ex persona populi in Babylone degentis.(note) The translator finds it possible to reconcile these differences epistemologically, by making the speaker's rest an attribute of his expectation rather than a literally accomplished fact. This tactic first appears in verse 5, where te sustinui gives ic anbidige þines fultumes. God's assistance is brought to the surface of the statement because it is no less real and certain when it is the content of one's expectation than when it is in the form of a visible outcome. In the same vein, the innocentes et recti of verse 21 share in and amplify the speaker's certainty that his prayers will be answered:
Innocentes et recti adheserunt michi, quoniam sustinui te, Domine.
Þa unsceðfullan and þa rihtwisan, þa þe begangað coman to me, wendon þæt me sceolde cuman sum fultum and sum frofor fram þe, forþam ic symle þæs anbidode and wilnode and wende æt þe, Drihten.
Having reconciled the Latin and English arguments in this way, the translator can allow himself to echo the spirit of the English Argument when it is appropriate, and he puts His sawl hi gerest softe on monegum goodum, and his sæd on ece yrfeweardnesse gesit eorðan (v. 13) for Anima eius in bonis demorabitur, et semen eius hereditate possidebit terram.
The third verse of Ps. 13 (Dixit insipiens) says of the insipientes that Non est timor Dei ante oculos eorum. The Explanatio prefatory to Manegold's exegesis of the psalm emphasizes this insouciance rather than their lack of knowledge: Dicit inani eos trepidatione confundi, qui fructuosum timorem Domini cognoscere nolunt.(note) The English Argument, however, is more impressed by the word insipiens, and has David lamenting that there should be in this world swa lytle treowa, and swa lytel wisdom. The translation seems to owe more to the Explanatio's perception than to that of the Argument. The word insipiens itself (v. 1) gives se unrihtwisa. In the Latin, such men only "become" worthless (inutiles facti sunt, v. 3); in the English they actively seek idelness ( . . . secað and lufiað þæt hy syn idle and unnytte). The way of peace is "unknown" to them in the Latin (viam pacis non cognoverunt, v. 3); in the English, it is "unsought" (ne secað hi nane sibbe). Nor is the fool allowed to plead ignorance of anything so obvious as the existence of God, for his self-justifying Non est Deus (v. 1) becomes Nis nan God þe þis wite oððe wræce.
Indeed, the translation of Ps. 13 may be characterized by an unusual sternness throughout. Finding that interrogatives open the fourth and seventh verses of the Latin, the translator constructs the second half of the psalm as a ringing series of parallel questions:
Hwi ne ongitað ealle þe unriht wyrcað . . . ? (v. 4)
Hwi ne ongitað hi þæt . . . ? (v. 5)
Hwy ne ongitað hi þæt . . . ? Hwi gedrefe ge . . . ? (v. 6)
Hwa arist elles of Syon . . . ? (v. 7).
It is possible that these rigorous condemnations have been inspired by the Explanatio's suggestion that, in this psalm, the Church is chastizing the Jews, qui viso Christo minime crediderunt.(note) To the psalmist's sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum, the translator adds . . . seo byð utan fæger and innan ful.(note) I have not found this detail in the commentaries, but it fits rather well with Christ's characterization of the Pharisees.(note)
It seems clear, then, that the translator approaches each verse with the intention of rendering not only the letter of the Latin but also the chief continuing themes of the psalm in question. In the cases we have studied to this point, those themes can be learned from the English Argument or from the summaries which introduce Manegold's commentaries. But when these sources fail to give the translator what he wants, he is quite capable of finding the theme himself.
One example of this is in psalm 41. The misery which the speaker relates in this psalm is summarized in the Argument without any compensating remark about the hope of divine assistance. The Explanatio which precedes Manegold's comments on the psalm, however, forbids the reader to see unallayed sorrow in the psalm. On the contrary, one is to learn that: Omne Psalterium sagaci mente perlustrans, nusquam invenio quod filii Core aliquid triste cantaverint; semper enim in psalmis eorum læta sunt et jucunda; and one is reminded that, at the end of the psalm, the speaker will address his own soul, dicens eam in hoc sæculo non debere turbari, quia Deus est ipsius fixa deliberatione suffugium.(note)
In order to remain faithful to this warning, the translator adopts the same epistemological tactics we have seen above in Ps. 24, and the first two thirds of his translation are suffused with a confidence which leads the reader naturally to the optimism of verse 9, In die mandavit Dominus misericordiam suam et nocte declaravit. Throughout the early verses, the speaker's pain is set off against the certain hope of that mercy. In verse 5, ingrediar in locum tabernaculi admirabilis becomes ic geare wiste þæt ic sceolde cuman for Godes mildheortnesse to þam wundorlican temple. Similarly, Ubi est Deus tuus? (v. 4) gives Hwær is þin God, þe þu to hopast? In verse 5, the speaker remembers haec, presumably the taunts of his enemies; but haec becomes þine ærran gyfa.(note) And he uses gyt to remove the future in Spera in Deum, quoniam confitebor illi (verses 6 and 12): Hopa to Drihtne, forþam ic hine gyt andette. Thus, when readers come to the ninth verse, they are ready for the great joy which the speaker is about to recommend to their soul: 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.(note)
The translator uses the same kind of tactic to give the 27th psalm a more sanguine outlook. In the first verse, he puts To þe ic hopige for Ad te . . . clamabo; and Da illis secundum opera eorum (v. 4) becomes Ic wat þæt þu sylst. . . . (note)
Ps. 21, the translator amplifies the speaker's self-abnegation and his sense of helplessness, apparently relying less on the Argument than on the tone of the psalm itself.(note) For the language of the psalm is more than usually penitential, and this translator is not one to ignore the rigor of such a verse as Ego autem sum vermis et non homo, obprobrium hominum et abiectio plebis (v. 7: Ic eam wyrme gelicra ðonne men . . . ic eom ut aworpen fram him of heora gesomnunga swa þes wyrm). In this spirit, he expands on such passages as non est qui adiuvet (nis nan oþer þe wylle oððe mæge me gehelpan, v. 12), and explains the vituli and tauri of verse 13 as the different kinds of fynd who are oppressing the speaker. He also uses verse 3, non ad insipientiam michi, as the occasion for a lengthy apology for having cried out at all: Ac ne understand þu hit me to unrihtwisnesse, forðæm ic þe na ne oðwite þæt þu me ne gehyrst, ac minum agnum scyldum ic hit wite. The speaker's sorrow is balanced by the joy of the last ten verses, in which a resolve to praise the Lord (verses 23-26) prepares for the promise that He will answer their prayers (verses 27-32).(note) The translator seems a little less zealous about emphasizing the joy than he was about stressing sorrow, but he does include in verse 27 a clause which balances the feeling of helplessness in the earlier verses: vivet cor eorum in seculum seculi becomes heora heortan onfoð mægenes, and libbað a worlda world.
Most of the Arguments put the psalms into a historical context, ascribing them to David and saying that they prophesy the events of the Babylonian captivity and Christ's life. Many of them are fairly specific about the historical events to which a psalm refers. The translator has responded to these historical comments, not so much by changing the meaning of his original as by extending that meaning so as to make it amenable to the recommended historical interpration.
The translation of in hoc ego sperabo (26:3) by to þam Gode ic hopie þe me ær gefreode, for example, aligns the verse more closely to what Manegold's Explanatio says of the title (Psalmus David priusquam liniretur): that David was anointed on three separate occasions, and that this title would refer to the second (which occurred in Hebron a tribu Juda, post mortem Saul), rather than the third (which followed the death of Saul's son).(note) The interpolated þe me ær gefreode, then sits well in a psalm whose speaker is both thanking God for past assistance and hoping for more in the immediate future.
Similarly, historical details in the Argument to Ps. 45 induce the translator to brush aside the metaphorical language of 45:4:
Argument: [David] witgode þæt þæt ylce sceoldon don þa men þa þe twa scira [beoð], þæt ys Iude and Beniamin, þæt hy sceoldon þam Gode þancian þe hy gefriðode fram þære ymbsetennesse . . . þara twega kynincga, Sacces, Rumeles suna, and Rasses, Syria cyncges. . . . þa twegen kyningas wæron adrifene fram Assyria cyncge.
Psalm: 4] Sonaverunt et turbate aque sunt eius; conturbati montes in fortitudine eius.
4] Ure fynd coman swa egeslice to us þæt us ðuht for þam geþune þæt sio eorþe eall cwacode. And hy wæron þeah sona afærde fram Gode swyþor þonne we. And þa upahafenan kynincgas, swa þa muntas, wæron eac gedrefde for þæs Godes strenge.
The English Argument to Ps. 15 has David singing be his earfoðum, and does not note the impression given by the psalm itself that these difficulties are mostly behind him. The Latin argument, however, says that Ezechias in vitæ suæ reparatione gratulatur.(note) Ignoring the English Argument's interpretation, the translator expands on passages which stress the help that God has already brought. For bonorum meorum non indiges, he puts þu me eall þa good sealdest þe ic hæbbe, and þe heora nan nydþerf nis eft on me to nimenne (v. 2); and he adds minre blisse to Dominus pars . . . calicis mei (v. 5). The third verse opens with Drihten gefylde ealne minne willan, which translates nothing in the Latin, and continues with a paraphrase surely composed with Ezechias in mind: Sancti qui in terra sunt eius; mirificavit omnes voluntates meas inter illos / . . . and me forgeaf þæt ic moste ofercuman þa þeoda þe me ungeðwære wæron, and heora hergas toweorpan æfter minum agnum willan. It may be specifically the Babylonian Captivity which has induced this expansive interpretation of Sancti, for the next verse also sets the speaker apart from aliens and their gods: Non congregabo conventicula eorum de sanguinibus, nec memor nominum illorum / Ne gaderie ic nan folc to unrihtum gewinne, swa swa hi doð, ne ic ne clypige to heora godum, ne to heargum ne gebidde. . . .
In the 46th psalm, he returns to this emphasis on the idolatry and alienness of the enemies, this time because the Argument sees in the psalm a prophecy of the Macchabees' victory and (in the Latin argument(note)) the rededication of the Temple. Here, the translator finds it necessary to take some liberty with his original, and he makes over the opening, Omnes gentes plaudite manibus, into Wepað nu and heofað, eall orlegu folc, forþam ure God eow hæfð ofercumen. This willingness to make the gentes seem inimical enough to resemble the defilers of the Temple also operates in the closing verse: Principes populorum convenerunt cum Deo Abraham, quoniam dii fortes terre nimium elevati sunt / þa ealdormen ealre eorðan becumað to Abrahames Gode, and beoð him underðydde, forþam he oferswiðde þa strangan kynincgas ofer eorðan, þa þe wæron upahæfene swa þas godas (v. 10).
By contrast with this historical interest, the translator is in most cases reluctant to stretch the psalms far enough to fit the New Testament; he usually ignores the Arguments' frequently repeated and swa dyde Crist. Occasionally, however, when the Argument is especially precise and emphatic about Christological interpretation, the translator will follow suit. We have already seen how he did this in Psalms 49 and 34. In the 44th psalm, the Argument departs from the usual formulas entirely, saying that David, oferdrenct mid þy Halgan Gaste, speaks of the Father and the Son. The translator follows the suggestion of the Argument's last sentence, Sona on þam forman ferse se Fæder spræc þurh David be Cristes acennesse, and gives a frankly Christian version of the opening verse: Min heorte bealcet good word, þæt ys good Godes bearn; þæm cyncge ic befæste anweald ofer eall min weorc. (Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum; dico ego opera mea regi.) With the literal meaning of the psalm thus rejected, he sets forth a version heavily influenced by the exegetical tradition -- taking gladium (v. 4) as gastlicu lar, seo ys on ðam godspelle, adding þæt ys Crist, se ys word and tunge God-Fæder to calamus scribe (v. 2), and explaining at length the tropology of verses 9-11.
One of the most common statements in the Arguments is that David is singing about his own enemies (and, prophetically, the enemies of Ezechias and Christ). Throughout the fifty psalms, the translator follows this stream of cues by bringing the speaker's enemies to one's attention far more often than the Latin does. The translator is especially careful about keeping the enemies in view in the seventeenth psalm.(note) For torrentes iniquitates (v. 5), he gives . . . stream unrihtwisnessa minra wiðerweardra; for nec potuerunt stare (v. 39), . . . gestandan ongean me; and for das vindictam michi (v. 48), me sealdest þæt ic meahte swylc wite don minum feondum. In the psalm, God is angered when He hears the speaker's outcry against his enemies; the earth shakes and fundamenta montium conturbata sunt (v.8). The twelfth- century Enarrationes in Psalmos that Migne ascribed to Remigius sees the mountains as the superbi whose fundamenta are spes terrenarum rerum,(note) but in following this interpretation the translator is also determined that we should think of these superbi as enemies: se grundweall þara munta wæs tohrered, þæt is þæt mægen minra ofermodena feonda.(note) As in Psalms 15 and 46 (see above), he continues to be concerned with the foreignness and idolatrousness of the enemies, explaining claudicaverunt (v. 46) with . . . forþam hi hyra willum ne heoldon Iudea æ, and changing clamaverunt . . . ad Dominum (v. 42) to hy clypodon to heora godum.(note)
One finds a similar concern for bringing the enemies to the surface of the translation throughout the fifty psalms, whenever the Arguments have prepared the way.(note) Mine fynd supplies the absent subject of nequando rapiat at 7:3, and of 21:16, in pulverem mortis deduxerunt me.(note) In ore eorum (5:10) gives on minra feonda muðe. In Ps. 9, the sinner is not even allowed to have ira, a word usually associated with the Lord, so that in verse 25 multitudinem ire sue becomes þære menigu his unrihtes. And the 33rd verse of Ps. 9 adds to exaltetur manus tua the specification, ofer ða unrihtwisan. The translator is especially watchful about words which lose their pejoration in English, such as gentes and homo.(note)
Further, he tends to be faithful to Arguments which describe the speaker's innocence relative to his enemies. In Ps. 16, according to the Argument, David hine unscyldigne cyðde wið þa his fynd þe his ehton butan scylde. Accordingly, he turns verse 1, non in labiis dolosis, to þu wast þæt ic butan facne to þe cleopige. Whereas the Latin of verse 3 says that the speaker has no iniquitas, the English has nan unriht wiþ hi; and opera hominum (v. 4) becomes eal þa earfoða þe hi me dydon. The translator even constructs, in the last two segments of the psalm, a lexically balanced contrast between the speaker and his enemies, by repeating gefyllan where the Latin has a variety of words. The first of the two segments calls for the punishment of the enemies: Gefyl hie nu mid þære witnunga, etc. The other rejoices that [ic] beo þonne gefylled ealles goodes.(note)
Similarly, the translation of Ps. 25 is influenced by the Argument's statement that its subject is David's unscyldignesse wið his sunu and wið his geþeahteras. Verse 1, in innocentia mea, then gives unscyldig wið þas mine fynd; and conplacui in veritate tua (v. 3) is expanded to ic symle tilode mid rihtwisnesse þe and him to licianne. And, lest anyone miss the point, he adds to his translation of Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas (v. 6) the explanation, þæt is þæt ic wære unscyldig betwuh him.
The Paris interpretation of 7:12-14 is very different from the exegetical tradition. The latter assumes Deus iudex to be the subject of all the verbs, but our translator has interpolated se deofol into the thirteenth verse:
12] Deus iudex iustus, fortis et longanimis. Numquid irascitur per singulos dies? Nisi convertimini gladium suum vibravit;
Arcum suum tetendit; et paravit illum; 14] et in ipso vasa mortis sagittas suas ardentibus effecti.
12] þe Drihten þe is rihtwis dema, and strang and geþyldig. Hwæðer he yrsige ælce dæge? 13] Bute ge to him gecyrren, se deofol cwecð his sweord to eow.
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.
The English verses themselves present a problem of interpretation. Who is the antecedent of he in the sentences which follow se deofol cwecð his sweord? Are we to refer the pronoun to the devil, or should we re-assign the verbs to the Deus iudex which the exegetes (and common sense) take as their subject?(note) Nothing in the meaning of these English sentences prevents us from assuming that it is God who is about to shoot down the wicked with his flaming arrows, but the translator does not usually play such tricks with antecedents. Indeed, he often takes pains to straighten out such ambiguities when he finds them in his original.
Instead, there seems to be firm evidence for assuming se deofol to be the antecedent if we note the expression, he teohað þæt he scyle. This same formula is also applied to the speaker's enemies at 11:5: þa þe teohhiað þæt hi scylen hi sylfe weorðian (dixerunt: Linguam nostram magnificabimus).
Indeed, if we turn from Ps. 7 to the nine other appearances of teohhian in the translation (see under teohhian in the Glossary), we find that seven of them apply the word to the speaker's enemies. Again and again, the enemies teohhiað , intend or prepare, some harm to the speaker, who is nevertheless confident of God's help. And even on the one occasion when God is the subject of this verb, the point of the sentence is the false and wicked intentions of enemies who wilniað þæs þe hi magon þæt he toweorpen þæt God geteohhod hæfð to wyrcanne (10:4). The structure of that sentence seems calculated to express the vanity of the enemies' intention, which is stated in a noun clause within anouther noun clause which itself depends on wilniað.
In fact, wilnian (with other will- words) joins teohhian as part of a whole complex of words which the translator associates with vain or wicked intentions. Me adflixerunt (16:9) gives wilniað þæt he me fordon; rapiens (21:14), gefehð þæt þæt he wyle; malignantes (36:1), yfelwillendra;(note) gentium (32:10), yfelwillendra kynna; dixerunt mala (40:6), wilnodon and spræcon betwuh him. He also interpolates the noun willa into accounts of the enemies, leaving the impression that what is chiefly wicked about them is their will. Thus, adversos eos qui tribulant me (22:5) becomes wið þara willan þe me hatedon; inimicos meos (5:9) gives minra feonda willan; and the speaker assures his Lord at 25:5 (cum impiis non sedebo) that he ne teolade sittan on anum willan mid þam arleasum.
Further, the structure of 25:5 resembles the way the translator uses geþeaht at 9:29 (sedet . . . cum divitibus / syt . . . on geþeahte mid þam welegum) and at 25:4 (cum iniqua gerentibus / on þæt geþeaht unrihtwyrcendra). Geþeaht is thus as it were a communal willa for the wicked--invariably so when the word has no lemma, and normally so when the lemma is consilium.(note) It is in fact made equivalent to willa at 13:3: venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum / heora geþeaht and heora willa . . . byð swylce . . . nædran attor. And the enemies' framea (9:7) is their redelse and . . . geþeaht.(note)
On the other hand, God's will is also an important theme in the translation. He cwæð his willan, says the English at 32:9, þa wæs he geworden (for ipse dixit et facta sunt). It is against the will of God that these willful enemies struggle: þa þe winnað wið þinne willan (16:8, resistentibus dextere tue). And the rectos who praise the Lord in 32:1 are conceived of as ealle rihtwillende. In the fifth psalm, the conflict of wills is played out against the eschatological background provided by the Argument and the exegetical tradition. Its fifth verse has mane adstabo tibi et videbo quoniam non volens Deus iniquitatem tu es. Manegold interprets mane as the Second Coming, at which time the just will come to understand what God's will has been with respect to wickedness: Videbo, id est cognoscam . . . quod tu Deus qui in præsenti videris velle iniquitatem, quia pateris malos permisceri bonis, non tamen vis iniquitatem.(note) The Paris translator adds to videbo an explanation which seems to place the speaker among those who will come to this understanding: seo þe, þæt is þæt ic ongite þinne willan butan tweon, and eac þone wyrce.(note) In contrast to the speaker's perception of God's will, the enemies have a will of their own, comparable to a bottomless pit: Heora mod and heora wilnuncg ys swa deop swa grundleas pytt (v. 11, sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum).
To return to Ps. 7, then, the deofol of verse 13 takes part in a great conflict of wills which suffuses the Paris prose. Even as he performs God's will, by shooting down the wicked, the devil's intention to do so is intrinsically vain (he teohað). The vanity of unrighteous wishes is a theme in the psalm itself: incidit in foveam quam fecit (v. 16). The notion that crime is its own punishment has made a lasting impression upon the translator. Sin is a closed circle, in which the devil prepares arrows of fire for those who are already burning in sin, and where he who cenð ælc unriht finds immediately that hit cymð him sare and his geferum. For the translator, this devil and his companions are only automata, impotent actor-sufferers in the circular experience of evil.
But the verses that deal with the just and their Lord are handled quite differently. When the psalmist puts his case in God's hands, saying that he should deserve punishment if in fact he has wronged his enemies, the translator converts his statement into the strongest possible terms: decidam merito ab inimicis meis / þonne ofslean me mine fynd orwigne, næs þæs þe mine frynd beon sceoldon (v. 5). The added clause is in tune with the pathos of the story which is said to be the psalm's context: he seofode . . . þa Absalon his sunu hine adrifen hæfde of ðam rice.(note) And in its openness to God's judgment, it is also a fitting prelude to the translator's anagogical reading of verses 7-8:
Exsurge, Domine Deus meus, in precepto quod mandasti, 8] et synagoga populorum circumdabit te.
Et propter hanc in altum regredere.
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.
And þu upp astihst and hi mid þe lætst to heofonum.
On the one hand, then, the translator sees the wicked locked impotently into a closed circle of fiery unþeawas; while on the other the just, in acknowledging their impotence before Deus iudex, receive from Him the power to leave this world and rise with Him to Heaven.
There is a similar effort in Ps. 9 to contrast the apparent power of the wicked with the strength which the just, though themselves impotent, derive from God. At first, the translator expands on the sinner's power to set his willa against righteousness. He receives praise þær he his yfelan willan wyrcð (in desideriis anime sue, v. 24); he can rixian and wealdan ealra his feonda, and don him to yfele þæt þæt he wylle (omnium inimicorum suorum dominabitur, v. 26); and he insidiatur ut rapiat pauperem (v. 30): sætað þæt he bereafige þone earman, and þæs wilniað. As we near the end of the translation, however, the impression of his power is diminished not only by God's intervention (which is what the psalmist is saying) but also by his own sins. The wicked man's reluctance to admit guilt hardens into a moral aphasia like the dying Dr. Faustus': þeah hine hwa ahsode for hwi he swa dyde, þonne ne mihte he hit na gereccan, ne geþafa beon nolde þæt he untela dyde (v. 36, requiretur delictum eius nec invenietur). In contrast to this rise-and-fall pattern, the just man consistently acknowledges that what power he has comes from God. The translator amplifies fecisti iudicium meum et causam meam (v. 5) to þu demst minne dom and mine spræce and eall for me dydtest þæt ic don sceolde, and adds ðe þu me sylest after in salutari tuo (v. 16).
This same contrast underlies some of the translator's alterations of Ps. 11. In the fifth verse, the questions of the wicked are formed on the contrasts between moton, mæg, and wyllað, willan:
Qui dixerunt: Linguam nostram magnificabimus; labia nostra a nobis sunt; quis noster est dominus?
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?
Perhaps it is significant, in view of the word muðfreo, that the psalmist interpolates gefriþian into the last two verses of the psalm. Multiplicasti filios gives þu us tobrædst ongean hy and wið hi gefriðast, while servabis nos et custodies becomes gehælst us and gefreoðast. In neither case does gefriþian answer exactly to the lemma, but they do suggest the translator's response to Hwi ne synt we muðfreo? The just are made free by their lord, and the wicked are left to ask why they too should not be free.
Jump to the first section, on the characteristics of the translation, or go back to the previous section on the relationship to the Roman and Gallican psalters, or return to the main menu.
Dick Stracke, Augusta College, email@example.com
Note: This is also the point of the Explanatio which prefaces Manegold's commentary on Ps. 39 (col. 692).
Note: Christological readings also affect the translation of Psalms 34, 44, and 49. See below, pages xxii, xxxiv, and xx.
Note: This is not the first time the translator has passed on intensifying language. The Argumentum to Ps. 8 (in Migne 93, col. 524) says Propheta . . . gratias agit quod tantus creator hominis memoriam sit habere dignatus. The first memory- word in the psalm is accordingly intensified with myclum: memor es eius / þu swa myclum amanst (v. 5). Further, when the verse continues with aut filius hominis quoniam visitas eum, Paris gives oþþe hwæt is se mannes sunu þe þu oft rædlice neosast.
Note: Compare the translator's concern with the ingratitude of those to whom God has given wheat, wine, and oil, at Ps. 4:8 (þeah hi his ðe ne ðancien).
Note: As we have seen in Ps. 23 above. Weorc renders via three times the way of the just at 5:9 (Se weg ys min weorc) and 36:23 (viam eius cupiet / . . . hine lyst his wega and his weorc), and the unclean path of the wicked at 9:26 (pulluuntur vie eius / beoð his wegas and his weorc . . . unclæne). Similarly, the translator considers it effectively equivalent with one's thoughts or counsel: heora geþeaht and heora willa and heora weorc byð . . . , 13:3; cogitationibus tuis / þine geþohtas, þæt ys þin weorc, 39:6. The wicked fail to call upon God mod godum weorcum (13:5), and iniquity is in þæra handa and þæra weorc (25:10). But the just in Deo laudabimur, that is, we wæron . . . geherede fram oþrum þeodum for his weorcum (43:9).
Note: Paris has -tit. Most PR texts have -tet.
Note: For example, Manegold writes, A fructu vini sui, scilicet, id est terreni, quod dementat et inebriat corpus non tui [i.e. Christi] vini, quod dementat animam, et a fructu olei sui, non tui. Vinum Christi est calix passionis Christi, id est, imitatio ejus, quod dementat animam, quia facit eam sitire mortem, et non sentire tormenta eius. (Col. 505)
Note: Col. 579.
Note: Col. 625.
Note: Col. 604.
Note: Col. 552.
Note: Col. 552.
Note: Verse 3. Fæger is repeated in the next sentence of the verse: Linguis suis dolose agebant. / Heora tungan wyrcaþ mycel facn, þeah hi fægere sprecon.
Note: Matt. 23:27. The translator also abandons the suggestion of the English Argument in Ps. 15.
Note: Col. 701.
Note: Compare Manegold, col. 703: Ipsi quidem taliter me despexerunt, ego autem nonoblitus, sed recordatus sum, id est, firmiter in memoria habui hæc, scilicet, non esse ab illis, sed esse fixum et constitutum apud te. Perhaps fixum et constitutum also explains gestaðelode on me mine sawle for effudi in me animam meam.
Note: þæt we sceoldon singan his sang reflects the Gallican canticum eius.
Note: At 27:5, Destrue illos nec edificabis eos gives þu hi towyrpst and hi eft getimbrast. Weber notes no text lacking nec, but it still seems more likely that a mistake has been made than that the translator's optimistic outlook has led him to contradict the Latin so flatly.
Note: The Argument has been left out of the ms., and is known only through Bright and Ramsay's reconstruction of Cot. Vit. E XVIII, which says no more than that David sang biddende to Dryhtne and seofigende be his earfoðum and be his feondum. Conceivably, the translator's emphasis on the speaker's helpless vulnerability might have been inspired by the suggestion, reported unenthusiastically in the Latin Argument, that the psalm represents Esther's intercession for her people (Migne 93, col. 589).
Note: It might be in anticipation of this ending that the translator specifies inre gymenne in v. 11: In te iactatus sum / inre gymenne ic wæs beboden.
Note: Col. 612.
Note: Col. 557.
Note: Col. 727.
Note: The Argument: David sang. . .lytle ær his ende, ymb swyðe lang þæs þe hine God alysed hæfde ægðer ge æt Sawle ge æt eallum his feondum. . . .
Note: Migne 131, col. 227.
Note: Compare the first sentence of the verse: Et commota est et contremuit terra / And astyred wæs and acwacode seo eorðe minra feonda.
Note: Compare 18:14, ælðeodegum feondum for alienis. Some other details in the translation of Ps. 17 also seem influenced by the Argument. The addition of me on fultum to descendit (v. 10) may reflect the Argument's hine God alysed hæfde; and the addition of ofer folcum to v. 51, regis, could be an attempt to make the psalm more amenable to the Argument's christological interpretation. He seems to have a specific historical event in mind at v. 30 when he gives ic utgange ofer minre burge weall, þeah heo sy utan behringed mid minum feondum for transgrediar murum perhaps David's timely escape from Ceila (I Sam. 23) or from Jerusalem (II Sam. 15).
Note: Or even when the Argument is silent on the matter, as when iniquitates meae (39:13) gives mine fynd; gentium (32:10), yfelwillendra kynna; and principum (ibid.), yfelra ealdormanna.
Note: In both cases, the Latin suppresses the subject because it has been suggested in an earlier verse: persequentibus in 7:2 and vituli multi, tauri pingues in 21:13.
Note: Gentes alone gives þa ðeoda þe us ðreatigað at 9:6, ða ðeoda þe min ehtað at 9:16, and þa synfullan at 9:37. Se awyrgeda translates homo at 9:39.
Note: As usual, the translator is especially emphatic about the wickedness of the adversaries. He adds swyðe forsewenlice to v. 11, circumdederunt me; and swiþe orsorhlice to concluserunt, v. 10.
Note: See Manegold, col. 521.
Note: Compare yfelwillendum in the Argument to Ps. 36.
Note: See 1:1,5, 12:2, 13:3,6, 19:5, 32:10,11. Compare Argument 25, on David's unscyldignesse wið his sunu, and wið his geþeahteras þe hine on woh lærdan.
Note: Redelse derives from exegesis. See notes to text.
Note: Col. 507-508. Also note Mane, id est, in secundo tuo adventu. . . . Unde dictum est: Vigilate quia nescitis qua hora etc., col. 507.
Note: And eac þone wyrce, though consistent with the translator's continuing emphasis on works (see n. 53 above), may have been inspired by the exegetical tradition that sees in mane adstabo a reference to the wise and foolish virgins. Manegold has: Invenies me stantem et vigilantem, non jacentem et dormientem, in illo mane. (Col 507)
Note: It is perhaps even more appropriate to the Latin Argument: Ezechias ab hostibus calumniatus, et a suis proditus, Domino supplicat, imprecatus ejus judicium in eos qui mendaciter innocentem accusabant. (Col. 515)
Jump to the first section, on the characteristics of the translation, or go back to the previous section on the relationship to the Roman and Gallican psalters, or return to the main menu.
Dick Stracke, Augusta College, firstname.lastname@example.org