Dauid). The note was probably based on the Explanatio, which comments as follows on the association here of the terms psalmus and canticum:

'Psalmus autem est organum musicum, capite sonorum, quo diuina praeconia canebantur; canticum, quod supernas laudes humanis uocibus personabat ; sed haec ideo uidentur esse sociata, quia, et instrumentis musicis et choris psallentium, sacrificiis coelestibus consona uociferatione canebantur.'

The Explanatio in its turn has borrowed from Cassiodorus (Expositio in Psalterium, P. L. lxx); and with it may be compared the definitions of psalmus, canticum, psalmocanticum, and canticum psalmi given by Cassiodorus in his Praefatio (p. 15), definitions which reappear in the Commentaries of Remi (P. L. cxxxi) and Bruno (P. L. cxlii), and, somewhat modified, in the Commentarius of the Exegesis for this Psalm. At a later date, the definitions of the same terms given by Aelfric in his Glossary come also from Cassiodorus (Padelford Old English Musical Terms Bonner Beitr. iv p. 25). We may compare also the Old Irish commentary (Hib. Min. p. 30), which says: the word psalmus applies to what was invented for the harp and is practised on it. Canticum applies to what is practised by the choir and is sung with the harp. Psalmus cantici applies to what is taken from the harp to the choir. Canticum psalmi applies to what is taken from the choir to the harp.'

The Davidic interpretation depends on the title and, by a characteristic transference of details from Hezekiah to David, upon Arg. (a). The transference here involved no difficulty, but in later Psalms, as Bruce has pointed out (p. 65 f), the reconciliation of Vulgate title and Theodorean views, as might be expected, was sometimes accomplished only by a tour de force. For the tropological clause no source is to be found in the immediate neighbourhood of this Psalm, but it is an essential part of the fourfold scheme which is evidently in the translator's mind, and it is not only in harmony, as Bruce has shewn (p. 70 f) with orthodox mediaeval commentators, but is also quite in the spirit of Theodore (see below, Ps. xii and xxxii). The prophetic clause is of course from Arg. (a), which here gives a spurious and non-Theodorean interpretation (see Ps. ii above). Finally, the mystical clause comes from Arg. (b) and (c).

Arg. The Hezekiah interpretation differs totally from that of Asc., Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 84), and Cord. (see Bruce, p. 115), which demonstrate the genuine Theodorean interpretation here to have been 'Providential'.

v, Introd. (DTPM). Again we have the fourfold interpretation, headed, as in the preceding Psalm, by an explanatory note on the Vulgate title, which this time comes rather from G, In finem, pro ea quae haereditatem consequitur, psalmus Dauid, than from R, In

finem, pro haereditate, psalmus Dauid. Most of the commentators explain ea of this title as referring to Ecclesia, which pursues an inheritance which is either Christ, or, as here, Heaven (cf. Augustine, 'Intelligitur ergo Ecclesia, quae accipit haereditatem uitam aeternam per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum '). The translator also adopts the usual mediaeval explanation of the words In finem in the Vulgate titles (G and R passim; but in H Victori; cf. A. V., 'To the Chief Musician') as referring to Christ; cf. the Explanatio for Ps. iv, where the phrase first occurs, Finis legis est Christus, ad iustitiam omni credenti, qui est omnium bonorum gloriosa perfectio'; and see also Augustine, Cassiodorus, pseudo-Jerome, Remi, Bruno, and the Commentarius. Of the four interpretations which follow, the Davidic is from the title, the tropological is original with the translator, the prophetic is from Arg. (a), and the mystical from Arg. (b).

Arg. Instead of the Hezekiah interpretation of Arg. (a), the genuine Theodorean interpretation, according to the evidence of Asc., Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 94; Bruce 112), must have been Exilic.

vi, Introd. (DTM P). The Davidic sentence draws upon the Vulgate title, (R) In finem, in hymnis, pro octaua, Dauid, and also upon sections (a) and (c) of Arg. David's sickness is borrowed from Hezekiah's; cf. Bruce, p. 76, 'We have, of course, no memorable sickness recorded in the life of David as in that of Hezekiah, but the paraphrast carrying out his method in a perfectly mechanical way does not concern himself about the facts of history.' The reference to the day of Judgement is to be connected not only with Arg. (c), but also with the words pro octaua of the title; cf. the Explanatio, 'Pro octaua Domini significat aduentus, quando, finita saeculi hebdomade, ad iudicandum uenerit mundum.' The tropological sentence is doubtless original, although Asc. shews that it was also given in the genuine Theodorean heading. The mystical sentence is from Arg. (b), and the prophetic, here put last, from Arg. (a).

Arg. Theodore's interpretation appears from Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 61, 92), and a fragment in Migne, to have been Davidic, a penitential Psalm for his sin with Bathsheba; Asc. adds a tropological application, which was without doubt also present in the original Greek, cf. below, Ps. xxxv, xxxvii.

vii, Introd. (DTM). In no one of its three interpretations does the Introd. shew the influence of the Hezekiah interpretation of our present Arg., whereas it is in harmony with the Davidic explanation which we know to have been originally given by Theodore. If this, as we have assumed above (Notes, ii, Introd.), was in some form before the translator, he must have drawn from it, together with the Vulgate title, Psalmus Dauid, quem cantauit Domino pro uerbis Chusi filii Iemini,

the first clause of his Introd. Whether he likewise derived from Theodore his tropological clause we cannot tell; but we know from Theodore's own words in one of the recovered Hypotheses (see Ps. xxxv, below) that he regarded all the Psalms that he classed as Davidic as also especially intended for moral edification and instruction. third or mystical clause of the Introd., however, certainly found a source in the Arg. that lay before the translator; for the (b) section that gave it has been preserved to us in the Rubric.

It must, however, be noted that in one point the writer of Introd. fails to follow Theodore. As represented by Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 92), and Asc., Theodore seems to have identified Chusi of the title with David's friend and counsellor Chusai Arachites (A. V., Hushai the Arkite; see 2 Sam. xvi and xvii), a view which was also taken by Augustine, Cassiodorus, Remi, and Haymo. From this identification pseudo-Jerome, Bruno, the Explanatio, and the Commentarius vehemently dissent, preferring to find in the name an epithet of King Saul. But neither of these opinions can have been accepted by the translator, whose words shew that he must either have adopted a third mediaeval view, that of Arnobius (‘Cum nuntiassent pueri Dauid quod possent Absalom occidere, et diceret Dauid, Parcite ei, et fugeret ipse Dauid a facie eius, apparuit super eum Semei, qui erat de cognatione Saulis, et iactans post eum lapides clamabat eum esse uirum sanguinum,' &c.), which identified Chusi with Semei filius Iemini (A. V., Shimei the Benjamite), 2 Sam. xvi II (cf. the reference to this opinion in pseudo-Jerome and in the modern commentary of Neale and Littledale), or must have regarded Chusi, in anticipation of a common modern view (cf. the edition of A. F. Kirkpatrick, Cambridge Bible, 1903), as an elsewhere unnamed slanderer of David.

Arg. The heading of Sach. and Barh. is translated by Baethgen as follows, 'Gesprochen von David, als er hörte, dass Achitophel sich erhängt hatte' (Bthg. v 92). Asc. reads:

'Psalmus hic conuenienti titulo praenotatur, cum enim a Chussi Achitofel fuisset sententia dissoluta, reuersus Achitofel in domum suam, dolorem repudiati consilii sui suspendio pauplicauit; quo audito, beatus Dauid, id quod factum fuerat adscribens Deo, psalmum istum pro gratiarum cecinit actione.'

viii, Introd. (Dogmatic). Here we have the last and most striking of the three cases (Ps. iii, vii, and viii) in which the Introd. diverges from the present form of Arg. to agree with the genuine interpretation of Theodore. A more than usual degree of interest attaches to Theodore's interpretation of this Psalm, for it is not only one of the four Psalms alone admitted by him to be Messianic, but also one of those for which he was condemned by the Council of 553. To this circumstance we owe the preservation of a large fragment of the

original Hypothesis in the Acts of the Council, cap. xix (cited also in the original Greek by Leontius, see Migne, p. 1004, and also Kihn, p. 400, Bruce, p. 115; and given in Latin in Vigilius and Mansi), which, together with a smaller fragment in Migne (p. 651), the headings of Sach. and Barh. (Bthg. v 69), and the fairly complete Latin version of Asc., enable us to be certain of Theodore's exegesis. This may be summarized as follows: "The Psalm is a direct prophecy by David of the incarnation (cf. Asc., 'In hoc psalmo beatus Dauid, profetali repletus spiritu, de Domini incarnatione praeloquitur'). The wicked denial of this by the Jews is confuted by Christ's application of the Psalm to Himself in Matt. xxi 16. The double nature of Christ is the key to the contrast in tone between the first and last part of the Psalm ; vv. 1–4, as shewn by the passage in Matthew, apply to the Divine Nature, or "God the Word" as Creator of all, object of wonder in all the earth (τεθαυμαστῶσθαι ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ); ν. 5-8, as shewn by the Apostle's use of them in Heb. ii 6-9, apply to the "assumed Man". The Jews, on the contrary, explain the Psalm as referring to the contrast between God and man in general.' Up to this point it seems that Theodore was perfectly orthodox, and his interpretation is the one universally accepted by mediaeval commentators; but he went on to emphasize the distinction he found in the Psalm between the two natures' to such an extent that, as it seemed to the Council, he made two 'persons', and so fell into the heresy afterwards known as Nestorian. But this part of the Hypothesis is cut short in Asc., and probably had disappeared altogether in the version before the A.-S. translator.

The Arg. in its present form is widely different, and suggests the very interpretation stigmatized by Theodore as Jewish-the usual modern interpretation-which finds in the two parts of the Psalm merely the contrast between divine omnipotence and human weakness. It seems plain that the translator had access to a fuller and more Theodorean form. As does Theodore, and as both do again in the case of Theodore's next Messianic Psalm, Ps. xliv, he has adopted a special method of treatment. The fourfold scheme is dropped altogether, and both here and at Ps. xliv we find practically but one interpretation, the Messianic or 'dogmatic' (so also in Ps. xviii and xlix; cf. Theodore's classification, Ps. xxxvi, below). There was also, no doubt, influence from the Vulgate title, In finem, pro torcularibus, psalmus Dauid, and perhaps also from the Explanatio, 'Sic Domini Christi ex duabus et in duabus naturis inconfusis atque distinctis una persona salubriter et indubitanter agnoscitur.' But the attempt of Bruce to find a source for the reference to the Incarnation in the present form of Arg. can hardly be accepted.

Arg. The curious adoption in Arg. of the Judaizing interpretation must have taken place in perfect innocence of Theodore's express rejection of it. Doubtless in inventing it Bede simply drew upon the Psalm itself (cf. vv. 3, 4, 5).

ix, Introd. (DTMP). The ninth Psalm comprises the ninth and tenth of the A. V. The two are distinct in the original Hebrew, Jerome's Hebraic version, and the A. V., but united in the LXX, G, and R. In Barh. and Isod. they are distinct; but in Sach., Asc., Arg., and certainly in the commentary of Theodore, who used the LXX, they are united, as also in all other mediaeval commentaries. In this article the Vulgate numbering has been used throughout. The Introd. here resumes the fourfold form, and draws upon both sections of Arg., upon the Vulgate title, In finem, propter occulta filii, psalmus Dauid, and upon the Psalm itself (cf. v. 14).

Arg. Here again the Arg. in both its interpretations, of David and of Hezekiah, is probably entirely independent of Theodore, although it chances that Theodore's interpretation is also to be classed as Davidic. But the Davidic clause of Arg. is clearly based on the Vulgate title, whereas Theodore, as shewn by Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 56, 86, 92), and Asc., seems to have ignored the title and explained the Psalm as spoken by David in the person of his people praying for national victory over the surrounding nations. Nothing of this reappears in Arg., and the Hezekiah alternative, which is entirely novel, is added in the same hesitating manner as at Ps. cxli, cxlii, cxliii.

The occurrence of alternative interpretations in Arg. at Ps. lxxxv and cvii is hardly to be classed with the four cases here cited, as is done by Bruce (p. 111); it is due, not as here to a loss of the original Theodorean headings, but to an effort which frequently appears to reconcile Theodore with the Vulgate titles (cf. Ps. xxix below).

x, Introd. (DT M). Here, in addition to the Vulgate title, In finem, psalmus Dauid, and Arg., the translator draws upon the first verse of the Psalm itself. The prophetic interpretation is absent from the Introd. and Arg. alike.

Arg. For the first time since Ps. i, the genuine Theodorean interpretation is preserved, and Sach., Barh. (Bthg. v 92), and Asc. agree with Arg. in explaining the Psalm as spoken by David about his own experience during the pursuit of Saul.

xi, Introd. (D) T M). The threefold interpretation is again from the Vulgate title, In finem, pro octaua die, psalmus Dauid, the Arg. (a and b), and the first verse of the Psalm itself.

Arg. It is difficult to say whether the Arg. here is or is not independent of Theodore. There is nothing in its wording that might not be drawn from the title and v. 1 of the Psalm. Theodore, as shewn