_Gallican Psalter_, because it was adopted by the churches of Gaul. When
he, later on, translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, he published
his third edition of the Psalms, the _Hebraic Psalter_. This version was
a good one, but the faithful were so familiar with the old Itala psalter
that the Church, in her wisdom, thought best to keep it in the editions
of the Vulgate according to the Gallican form.... Our official version
of the psalms is then in many ways defective. It is frequently
incorrect and barbarous in style, obscure in places, and even fails at
times to give the exact sense of the original. Although our Vulgate is
not perfect, it possesses admirable strength and conciseness, joined to
an agreeable savour which gives it the greatest value and causes the
words of the sacred singers, under this form of the Latin spoken by the
people, to strike the mind and become engraved upon the memory much
better than if they were clothed in all the elegance of a modern tongue"
(Vigouroux; _Manuel Biblique_, tom. ii., 663-664).

The following replies by the Biblical Commission (May, 1910) may not be
deemed out of place:--

I. Whether the appellations, Psalms of David, Hymns of David, Davidical
Psaltery, employed in the old collections and in the Councils themselves
to designate the Book of the one hundred and fifty Psalms of the Old
Testament, as well as the opinion of many Fathers and Doctors who held
that absolutely all the psalms of the Psaltery are to be ascribed to
David alone, have so much force that David must be regarded as the sole
author of the entire Psaltery?

ANSWER: In the negative.

II. Whether it may rightly be argued from the concordance of the Hebrew