jpirde.cation97.ru

People Sex text chat java

People love to watch home live amateur sex in which they can participate and encourage partners, until they get a strong orgasm. Adria Cams video chat portal for adults is a place where you can relax and start conversations with beautiful and friendly girls, enjoy sex through the camera, meet new friends or even discover secrets of your sexy horny neighbors. Join us in a hot chat and start a conversation with us.
Guys were mocking at her calling her a bookworm and a frigid bitch. She helped him with classes so thanks to her assistance he managed to get As and Bs at many classes. According to her plan, they had to have their first sex on the date they met, it was so romantic. All he really desperately wanted was to penetrate her slit and erupt a huge cumload inside it. Elmer was always really careful and gentle, it was basically the only thing she really liked about sex with him. She was too squeaky clean to masturbate though sometimes she really wanted to touch her vagina with her fingers. He tossed her on the bed and gave her a painful slap across the face.

Dating fanda

Rated 4.21/5 based on 630 customer reviews
Japan webcam poornos unzensiert Add to favorites

Online today

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). The manuscript’s format of narrow columns with even margins created difficulties for the scribe. 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. 130, “Canticum graduum; Vox Ecclesie regnantis uel sancte Mariae,” combines the Arg. [27 ] For other striking examples of dependence on Theodore, see Commentary on Pss. 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. [32 ] Thus, the Milan Commentary lacks Julian on Ps. This priority is evidenced by the absence from Ps(P) of numerous instances of metaphor, hyperbole, and figurative language present in the Latin. witu fulneah anlic helle witum”; elsewhere it is retained but clarified by an additional translation, as in Ps. 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. I am grateful to both libraries for generously permitting me full access to their collections. There are frequent corrections, apparently all by the scribe of the manuscript. Sometimes he erased words on the right margin whose letters ran over the boundary; for example, forsyhst (Ps. (b), “Vox Ecclesiae regnantis,” with the corresponding Carolingian reading of the Columban Series, “vox sanctae Mariae” (the main textual tradition has “Vox ecclesiae rogantis”). 10v in favor of the Latin form, but occasional examples occur later, e.g., on fols. 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. [28 ] In the quotations from Julian and the Epitome, reference is to page and line of De Coninck’s editions of both works. 16.12a-15, from which Ps(P) apparently borrows; likewise, for their introduction to Ps. [33 ] Lucas De Coninck, ed., Incerti Auctoris Expositio Psalmorum I:1-XVI:11A iuxta litteram, 2 parts (Kortrijk, 1989). De Coninck for providing me with a copy of this privately printed edition. [35 ] For a full account of Ps(P)’s dependence on Alfred’s works, see Chap. Presumably the paraphrast chose not to reproduce such tropes because they might mislead his Old English audience. 17.6 the metaphor of dolores inferni circumdederunt me is changed (and clarified) into a simile, “Me ymbhringdon . 38.12, “For þær[e] strenge þinra handa and þinre þreaunga” (Ro. The first, occurrences of hapax legomena, was treated by J. 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. 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. 186 (after the prayers and colophon; probably blank). 12.5), about 20 occurrences; of words, as in parauit (Ps. 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. 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. Arguably, it was passed over because of its proximity to Ps. 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. 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. 70 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. Discenza concludes that in CP, his earliest translation, Alfred was “establishing his own translation solutions” to Lat. C’est un pseautier latin avec une version angloise de six ou sept cens ans. 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. 97);20 and the beginning psalm of a weekly cycle for Vespers (Ps. Transposition of letters.34 For example, litegu (Ps. 7.14), altogether 22 occurrences; of phrases, as in et rex magnus (Ps. 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. Indeed, the absence in the Paris litany of a petition for an abbot, which was obligatory in monastic litanies, tells against it. Toswell, “The Format of the Bibliothèque Nationale MS lat. [18 ] Noted, but not adequately explained, by Wormald in Facsimile, p. 51, which marks the first part of the tripartite division. 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. 68 ]] not at all found in the others, for example, ætiewan, oþþe twega oþþe . More challenging to explain is the apparent disagreement between Ps(P) and Alfred’s works in the rendering of 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? In both the Latin and Old English the basic syntactical unit is the psalm verse, and punctuation is designed to serve this unit. Double accents occur in the same contexts in both translations: (1) over double vowels representing an etymologically long vowel, for example, good- (Pss. 3.6, 17.40, 103.4 (altogether 12x), and over that of sitt (Ps. Martial of Limoges among the Apostles makes a date before 1030 unlikely. Thus, Ps(P)’s use of cræft is consistent with Alfred’s.

||

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). The manuscript’s format of narrow columns with even margins created difficulties for the scribe. 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. 130, “Canticum graduum; Vox Ecclesie regnantis uel sancte Mariae,” combines the Arg. [27 ] For other striking examples of dependence on Theodore, see Commentary on Pss. 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. [32 ] Thus, the Milan Commentary lacks Julian on Ps. This priority is evidenced by the absence from Ps(P) of numerous instances of metaphor, hyperbole, and figurative language present in the Latin. witu fulneah anlic helle witum”; elsewhere it is retained but clarified by an additional translation, as in Ps. 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.

I am grateful to both libraries for generously permitting me full access to their collections. There are frequent corrections, apparently all by the scribe of the manuscript. Sometimes he erased words on the right margin whose letters ran over the boundary; for example, forsyhst (Ps. (b), “Vox Ecclesiae regnantis,” with the corresponding Carolingian reading of the Columban Series, “vox sanctae Mariae” (the main textual tradition has “Vox ecclesiae rogantis”). 10v in favor of the Latin form, but occasional examples occur later, e.g., on fols. 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. [28 ] In the quotations from Julian and the Epitome, reference is to page and line of De Coninck’s editions of both works. 16.12a-15, from which Ps(P) apparently borrows; likewise, for their introduction to Ps. [33 ] Lucas De Coninck, ed., Incerti Auctoris Expositio Psalmorum I:1-XVI:11A iuxta litteram, 2 parts (Kortrijk, 1989). De Coninck for providing me with a copy of this privately printed edition. [35 ] For a full account of Ps(P)’s dependence on Alfred’s works, see Chap. Presumably the paraphrast chose not to reproduce such tropes because they might mislead his Old English audience. 17.6 the metaphor of dolores inferni circumdederunt me is changed (and clarified) into a simile, “Me ymbhringdon . 38.12, “For þær[e] strenge þinra handa and þinre þreaunga” (Ro. The first, occurrences of hapax legomena, was treated by J. 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.

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. 186 (after the prayers and colophon; probably blank). 12.5), about 20 occurrences; of words, as in parauit (Ps. 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. 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. Arguably, it was passed over because of its proximity to Ps. 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. 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. 70 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. Discenza concludes that in CP, his earliest translation, Alfred was “establishing his own translation solutions” to Lat.

C’est un pseautier latin avec une version angloise de six ou sept cens ans. 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. 97);20 and the beginning psalm of a weekly cycle for Vespers (Ps. Transposition of letters.34 For example, litegu (Ps. 7.14), altogether 22 occurrences; of phrases, as in et rex magnus (Ps. 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. Indeed, the absence in the Paris litany of a petition for an abbot, which was obligatory in monastic litanies, tells against it. Toswell, “The Format of the Bibliothèque Nationale MS lat. [18 ] Noted, but not adequately explained, by Wormald in Facsimile, p. 51, which marks the first part of the tripartite division. 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. 68 ]] not at all found in the others, for example, ætiewan, oþþe twega oþþe . More challenging to explain is the apparent disagreement between Ps(P) and Alfred’s works in the rendering of 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?

In both the Latin and Old English the basic syntactical unit is the psalm verse, and punctuation is designed to serve this unit. Double accents occur in the same contexts in both translations: (1) over double vowels representing an etymologically long vowel, for example, good- (Pss. 3.6, 17.40, 103.4 (altogether 12x), and over that of sitt (Ps. Martial of Limoges among the Apostles makes a date before 1030 unlikely. Thus, Ps(P)’s use of cræft is consistent with Alfred’s.

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). 28.10), in the latter case Print Edition Page No. Thus, the cumulative evidence points to a date after 1030, perhaps ca. Also uncertain is the manuscript’s place of origin. [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. Campbell’s Old English Grammar (abbreviated Cpb), and Karl Brunner’s Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers neubearbeitet (abbreviated S-B).

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. 186r) that identifies the scribe as “Sacer Dei Wulfwinus .i. 139.5) for rapum; others are best explained by lack of familiarity with a word or construction: for example, wlitehrægl (Ps. 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. Elphege, Archbishop of Canterbury, martyred in 1012, whose name appears in English litanies and Calendars after this date. 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. 5), which follow the Pater Noster, are as follows:75 All are commonplace. Animę suę expetiat uotum.” This colophon fills the remaining space of this page and marks the end of the written texts. 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. 19 In addition there are three Latin glosses within the main texts, not mentioned by Ker:80 fol. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. Likewise, the Latin rubrics reveal serious errors such as ad (Ps. 1-7 recited at Lauds on successive days of a weekly cycle; nos. Earlier attempts to identify Wulfwinus with Wulfi, the scribe of the West-Saxon Gospels (London, BL, MS Cotton Otho C. 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. 30.14 circumhabitantium, “þe me ymbutan budon.” For a similar characteristic in Alfred, see Brown, “Method and Style,” p. [8 ] The most striking example of this technique is Ps. þa,” where the much shorter text of the Introductions has five occurrences. 8.4) instead of “normal” gestaþelian; gebrysan (Ps. 9.26 and 28, 34.21) instead of symle; eþnes (Introd. 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),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. 9, 10, and 12 recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline, respectively. 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. 14 ]] Textually, the Paris Psalter canticles reveal a close conection with those of the Bosworth Psalter57 in a shared group of variant readings rarely or not attested among other English witnesses:58 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. 8), a non-biblical canticle, is lodged between two biblical canticles (nos. Sawyer, “Charters of the Reform Movement: The Worcester Archive,” in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. [1 ] See relevant Commentary, under “Interpretation.” [2 ] Note how in introducing Ps. rex meus et Deus meus; “oninnan me,” translating Ps. 44.9-11, where a series of allegorical interpretations are syntactically subordinated to the translation of the main text. [11 ] Perhaps also indicative of stylistic difference is the absence from the paraphrase proper (one exception) of correlative “þa . [12 ] A feature of Ps(P) first pointed out by Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 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. 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. 4.6 the scribe wrote mon, then corrected it to man, perhaps an indication of how he treated other instances of mon in the exemplar.

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. 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. 132v; (2) thirteen pencil-and-ink drawings inserted into blank spaces in the Latin text, the last (at Ps. 54.15, the Metrical Psalms (PPs) has “on godes huse,” where the parallel Latin text in the manuscript lacks the corresponding Ro. 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). 104.2), the addition of Domine after memineris (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. 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. 79, some thirteen rubrics contain readings from another series of Christian tituli, the so-called Columban Series (Salmon’s Series I). [31 ] For a somewhat similar use of accent marks in London, BL, MS Cotton Otho A. 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. [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. 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. [37 ] For examples in the Introductions, see O’Neill, “Introductions,” p. 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. 32.14), rather than geseon, beseon, or (ge)locian, as a play on the immediately preceding wlitegan. 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. Ingvar Carlson, The Pastoral Care: Edited from British Museum MS. 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.

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). The frequency of these corrections as well as the survival of many uncorrected errors suggests that the scribe was copying material unfamiliar to him. But more often than not he tolerated faulty or unusual divisions of syllables. 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. 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

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. 186r) that identifies the scribe as “Sacer Dei Wulfwinus .i. 139.5) for rapum; others are best explained by lack of familiarity with a word or construction: for example, wlitehrægl (Ps. 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. Elphege, Archbishop of Canterbury, martyred in 1012, whose name appears in English litanies and Calendars after this date. 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. 5), which follow the Pater Noster, are as follows:75 All are commonplace. Animę suę expetiat uotum.” This colophon fills the remaining space of this page and marks the end of the written texts. 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. 19 In addition there are three Latin glosses within the main texts, not mentioned by Ker:80 fol. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Likewise, the Latin rubrics reveal serious errors such as ad (Ps. 1-7 recited at Lauds on successive days of a weekly cycle; nos. Earlier attempts to identify Wulfwinus with Wulfi, the scribe of the West-Saxon Gospels (London, BL, MS Cotton Otho C. 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. 30.14 circumhabitantium, “þe me ymbutan budon.” For a similar characteristic in Alfred, see Brown, “Method and Style,” p. [8 ] The most striking example of this technique is Ps. þa,” where the much shorter text of the Introductions has five occurrences. 8.4) instead of “normal” gestaþelian; gebrysan (Ps. 9.26 and 28, 34.21) instead of symle; eþnes (Introd. 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),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. 9, 10, and 12 recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline, respectively. 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. 14 ]] Textually, the Paris Psalter canticles reveal a close conection with those of the Bosworth Psalter57 in a shared group of variant readings rarely or not attested among other English witnesses:58 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. 8), a non-biblical canticle, is lodged between two biblical canticles (nos. Sawyer, “Charters of the Reform Movement: The Worcester Archive,” in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. [1 ] See relevant Commentary, under “Interpretation.” [2 ] Note how in introducing Ps. rex meus et Deus meus; “oninnan me,” translating Ps. 44.9-11, where a series of allegorical interpretations are syntactically subordinated to the translation of the main text. [11 ] Perhaps also indicative of stylistic difference is the absence from the paraphrase proper (one exception) of correlative “þa . [12 ] A feature of Ps(P) first pointed out by Bately, “Authorship,” pp. 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. 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. 4.6 the scribe wrote mon, then corrected it to man, perhaps an indication of how he treated other instances of mon in the exemplar. 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. 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. 132v; (2) thirteen pencil-and-ink drawings inserted into blank spaces in the Latin text, the last (at Ps. 54.15, the Metrical Psalms (PPs) has “on godes huse,” where the parallel Latin text in the manuscript lacks the corresponding Ro. 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). 104.2), the addition of Domine after memineris (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. 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. 79, some thirteen rubrics contain readings from another series of Christian tituli, the so-called Columban Series (Salmon’s Series I). [31 ] For a somewhat similar use of accent marks in London, BL, MS Cotton Otho A. 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. [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. 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. [37 ] For examples in the Introductions, see O’Neill, “Introductions,” p. 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. 32.14), rather than geseon, beseon, or (ge)locian, as a play on the immediately preceding wlitegan. 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. Ingvar Carlson, The Pastoral Care: Edited from British Museum MS. 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. 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). The frequency of these corrections as well as the survival of many uncorrected errors suggests that the scribe was copying material unfamiliar to him. But more often than not he tolerated faulty or unusual divisions of syllables. 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. 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. All three share (1) variant readings, for example, iuxta for iusta (Ps. Moreover, the Paris readings point to a specifically Carolingian recension of this series.50 Thus, the Paris rubric to Ps. [30 ] Those of the Metrical Psalms are listed in Krapp, The Paris Psalter, pp. Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Dublin, 2001), pp. [26 ] For the full text of the quotations and their identification, see relevant Commentary. Yet rhetorical effect never comes at the expense of clarity. 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. 399; Angelika Lutz, “Spellings of the waldend Group—Again,” ASE 13 (1984): 51-64. 184-87, who argues that it could be late West Saxon. [21 ] Cpb §216; Karl Luick, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1921-40), §357; C. The most that can be conjectured is that the missing illuminated leaves were removed between 14 by someone who had ready access to the manuscript, possibly a member of the community at Sainte Chapelle. 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). 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. 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. Champollion-Figeac et Aime Champollion fils, 4 vols. 4, plate CCXXXI and accompanying text, and Delisle, “Notes,” pp. 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. vi, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS 180—and in CP (16x), with single occurrences in Ps(D, E, H, I).