270 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academ;/. 



heading. But it is very probable, nevertheless, that it came from a. In such 

 cases as this there is always a presumption that the longer reading is the 

 earlier ; and E does not seem prone to enlarging headings, while A is 

 certainly in some places shorter than a. In the present case E is supported 

 byF. 



Ps. cxx^•ii. A : propTieta de cJinsto et de ecdesia died. 

 E puts propheta after dicit. 



In headings of this form the word propheta usually stands fii-st. A, 

 therefore, probably gives the text from which E has accidentally deviated.' 



Ps. cxxxviii. See above, Ps. xciii. 



This comparison establishes some important conclusions. In the first 

 place, it is clear that the rubrics of E were not derived from A, but from an 

 ancestor of A : a (see Pss. ii, x\iii, xxx^^, xliv, xlv, Ixxxiii). Again, in every 

 case but two (Pss. v, cxxvii) in which it is possible to form an opinion (see 

 Pss. XXXV, xxxix, 1, xciii, ex, cxxxnii), there is a probability greater (Pss. ii, 

 xviii, xxxvi, xliv, xlv, bcxxiii or less (Pss. cx\dii Bctli, cxxv) in favour of 

 the hypothesis that H retains the reading of a where A departs from it. In 

 other words, in spite of the fact that A was the work of a more careful scribe 

 than E, and in spite of the fact that it is earlier than E by at least two 

 centuries, its text, apart from clerical errors of the most superficial kind, 

 is distinctly inferior to that of E. 



"We now pass to the Psalmorunt Hxeyesis (B). In this work we find for 

 each jjsalni (1) the titvliis, (2) a paragraph headed Argmneutum, (3) a para- 

 graph entitled Explanatio, and (4) the Commentariu-s, in which the psalm is 

 expounded verse by verse. The first of these di\'isions need not be considered, 

 and the last is probably of much later date than Bede.' But a good case has 

 been made out for regarding the Argumcida smd U.cplanatioiics as having come 

 from his pen.' If this conclusion is correct, they were compiled between 

 731 and 735. The work of Bede is by no means an original contribution to 

 the interpretation of the psalms. His LVplauaiiones are drawn from 

 Cassiodorus ;' and the lai^er part of the Argunieuta, which have more 

 immediate interest for us, have their ultimate source in the commentary of 

 Theodore of Mopsuestia,* though Bede was certainly unaware of this fact. 



' See p. 269, note 1. 



-See D. G. Morin, " Le Pseudo-Bede snr les^ Psaumes et VOpius super Psalterium de 

 INIaitre Manegold de Lautenbach " in " Revue Benedictine," xxviii. 331. 



•^R. L. Kamsay, "Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Columban on the Psalms," and 

 ''ThuoJore of Mopsuestia in England and Ireland," in ZCP, viii. 421, 452. 



^ From his "divisio psalraoruin.'' Sometimes they are borrowed from St. Jerome, 

 once (Ps. ixxvi) from St. Columbanus. Ram.say, I.e., p. 459. 



^ J. D. Bruce, " The Anglo-Saxon Version ••! the Book of Psalms, commonly known 

 as the Paris Psalter,'" Baltimore, 1894 ; reprinted from the Publications of the Modern 

 Luuguage A;ssociation of America, vol. is, no. 1. 



