Text and translation I'm with @dasman66 in having a hard time translating the first one. Example B reads, "Blessed [literally: happy] is he who flees from the wicked, and the..." which, of course, is the first line of the first Psalm. Example A opens with the ornate woodcut letter Q and then "vi." It was common to use the letters v and u interchangeably in the early modern period since it made the printer's task easier (having one less letter to worry about). So example A begins "qui." The "n'a" seems to be a negative construction, in this case the subject of the sentence does not do whatever the verb is. I suspect "esté" is the past participle of être, with the circumflex accent of the modern orthography rendered here in the past as an "s" (much like "forêt" is "forest"). I wonder if the phrasing means "is not at." There's also a horizontal line that serves as a diacritic mark over the "o" in "coseil." That mark can represent an elongated sound of the letter underneath it but in this case it serves as a substitute for the letter "n." (This is something seen in other languages at that time). In other words, "coseil" is "conseil," as in council. I'd translate "des malins" as the "of the wicked". Here "malin" is a cognate of malign, from the Latin malignus, meaning tending to evil (and from "malus," as in "bad"). All this means that, speculatively, the text translates roughly as "who is not at the council of the wicked, who..." In both passages we see variations on the wording of the first Psalm, with different sequences to the phases: note that example A starts with "who," a relative pronoun, which means the subject of the sentence has yet to be identified. Example B, by contrast, begins with the subject: "Blessed is he who flees from the wicked." I'd wager that example A would read in translation something like "who is not at the council of the wicked, who... [he] is blessed." (We can tell that this is the beginning of the lyrics thanks to the musical notation, of course). Paper and Print and Markings Both pieces of paper seem to be in good condition. The first might be thinner paper, or the ink printed on it may have bled through the paper more. Thicker paper would imply better quality but then example A has the ornate woodcut initial letter, which would have been a more costly embellishment to the printed Psalter. I'm with @zottel about the use of movable type being clearly shown in the broken horizontal lines of example B. I suspect example A also uses movable type but that the printer has taken greater care to make the lines appear to be continuous. We already know that more care and expense was devoted to example A, thanks to inclusion of the fancy woodcut initial letter. Analysis The investment of time and expense in example A could tell us a few things. It would have either been commissioned by, or printed for, individuals of means or wealthy institutions, possibly the gentry, wealthy merchants, or priests. The simpler, less ornate example B may have been produced for a wider market - in other words, at a lower cost to enable more people of lesser means to buy it. This trend could be indicative of the time periods when the Psalters were produced. Another explanation might be the economic contexts in which the Psalters were printed, with example B being produced at a time of less affluence. It is well known that the seventeenth century was one of economic decline - and indeed crisis - in many parts of the world (thanks in part to the climate variations of the "little ice age," among other factors). I know from other parts of Europe that the sixteenth century tended to produce a good many books with the lovely, elaborate woodcut initial letters, which reflected a continuation of the embellishments of earlier hand-written and illuminated manuscripts. I'd date example A, then, to somewhere in the [edited to remove a mistake] mid-sixteenth century. Example B might well be from the seventeenth or the eighteenth century, especially as the orthography and printer's marks are closer in appearance to more modern texts. It may even be from the early nineteenth century. Conclusion Example A, with its less familiar language, with its complex marks (e.g. with diacritics), with its neater, solid lines of musical notation, and with its fancy initial letter, would have been printed in the sixteenth century in a limited run to be purchased by aristocrats or priests. Example B, with its rudimentary typeface, its more recognizable French (including orthography), and its relative simplicity, would have been produced for a larger market at a lower cost than example A. This is to say that example B was printed for a wider readership from among the literate, middle stratum of society, those higher status artisans and merchants as well as bankers, etc.. Their presence, as a market for buying such printed matter, speaks to a later period in European history. I'd date the second example to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. That was fun - thanks @GuySmiley'sMonkey! And now you can tell me I'm full of shit and completely wrong.