Halporn, 'Explanation of the Psalms'
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-v2n04-halporn-explanation

2.4.16, Cassiodorus.  *Explanation of the Psalms*.  Translated and
Annotated by P.G. Walsh.  2 vols.  Volume I:  Psalms 1-50 [Psalms
1-51 (50)]. Volume II:  Psalms 51-100 [Psalms 52 (51)-101 (100)]. 
New York/Mahwah, NJ:  Paulist Press, 1990-1991.  Ancient Christian
Writers Nos. 51-52.  ISBN 0-8091-0441-5 (v. 1); 0-8091-0444-X (v.
2).  Volume III:  Psalms 101-150.  NYP.  ISBN 0-8091-0445-8.
     Rev. by J.W. Halporn

     The comment by Ernst Robert Curtius in his influential
*European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages* that Cassiodorus'
commentary on the Psalms is the richest of his works has made the
absence of any translation into a modern language most surprising. 
This work of Walsh will help many medievalists understand what
Curtius meant, and makes available in English the only complete
Latin commentary from antiquity.  
   The translation is accompanied by a brief but informative
preface. As Walsh states, "Cassiodorus deploys the psalms not only
for the purposes of instruction in theology and hermeneutics, but
also to inculcate a general education in eloquence.  In this sense
his later work, the *Institutiones*, with its two books on
Christian learning and secular knowledge respectively, can be seen
to correspond with the *Expositio Psalmorum* as theory to practice,
as a theoretical outline of the discipline of Christian eloquence
for which the psalm-commentary serves as the ideal text" (14).  
Ursula Hahner's careful study which emphasizes how Cassiodorus
treats each Psalm like an ancient oration would have been a great
help to Walsh, both in understanding the structure of the work and
the art of the commentary itself.  The editorial decision, for such
I assume it was, not to include the marginal "notae" which
Cassiodorus attached to his work as a guide to using the
commentary, is unfortunate.  It creates for the reader a totally
incorrect perception of the organization and method of this kind of
ancient commentary.  I also regret the lack of specific references
in the running-heads.  
   The notes accompanyint the translation are meagre, most of them
referring to Biblical passages cited in the commentary.  The Psalm
text itself is the Douai-Rheims translation adjusted to fit the
context and thrust of Cassiodorus' annotations.  There is a set of
appendices in the first volume:  variations in the citations of the
Latin text of various Psalms (it is unclear what this list is doing
here);  rhetorical devices mentioned by Cassiodorus; etymologies
offered by Cassiodorus (most of them reflecting ancient
*eruditio*); figures of speech and thought referred to (referenced
in the notes to Martin).   Besides the index to the Biblical
passages cited, there are two disappointing indices to authors,
ancient and modern, and a general one, covering a variety of topics
that deserved fuller treatment.  
   The textbook nature of the work and the prolix way in which
Cassiodorus pursues his aims present challenges to any translator
to make the work inviting.  Walsh tackles this labor with
considerable skill.  Some of that quality of Cassiodorus, which I
have called his talent as a creator of mosaic, appears.  Had the
notes been fuller, the reader could have seen how Cassiodorus takes
a bit of grammatical lore from Marius Victorinus, a bit of
Rufinus's translation of a sermon of Origen, and pieces of
Augustine and Jerome and builds it all into a new and coherent
structure.<<1>>

James W. Halporn    
Indiana University

Note

1.  In an undertaking of this size, there are bound to be errors. 
In Psalm 21.7 there is a sentence missing in the translation.  
   Walsh's statement that "The *Institutiones* provide us with a
detailed catalogue of the manuscripts contained in the monastic
library at Vivarium," for which he cites P. Courcelle as his
authority is patently untrue.  Courcelle makes no such statement on
the page Walsh refers to, nor does he anywhere else.  As I have
said ("Methods of Reference"), Cassiodorus is more a collection
development librarian than a cataloguer.  *Institutiones* Book 1
mentions books that ought to be available to the Christian scholar,
*some* of which happen to be to be available to the Christian
scholar, *some* of which happen to be in Cassiodorus' collection. 

   At Psalm 86.[1] Cassiodorus could hardly have said a certain
writer (*quidam*) called Josephus "the buffoon of the Jews
(*vernaculus Iudaeorum*)."  Walsh has been misled by the OLD
secondary meaning of *vernaculus*.  The *quidam* referred to by
Cassiodorus, as I pointed out in my study of this passage
("Pandectes"), is Jerome in one of his letters, and the meaning of
*vernaculus* is "native-born." The shade of Cassiodorus, who called
Josephus "paene secundus Livius" (*Instit*. 1.17.1), would be
pained.

Works Cited

Courcelle, P.  *Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources*. 
Trans. H.E. Wedeck.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard UP, 1969.  

Curtius, Ernst Robert.  *European Literature and the Latin Middle
Ages*.  Trans. W. R. Trask.  London:  RKP, 1953.  

Hahner, U.  *Cassiodors Psalmenkommentar:  Sprachliche
Untersuchungen*.  Munich:  Arbeo-Gesellschaft, 1973.  

Halporn, J.W. "Methods of Reference in Cassiodorus." *Journal of
Library  History* 16.1 (1981): 71-91.  

---. "Pandectes, Pandecta, and the Cassiodorian Commentary on the
Psalms."  *Revue Benedictine* 90 (1980): 290-300.  

Martin, J.  *Antike Rhetorik*.  Munich: Beck, 1974.