« PrécédentContinuer »
of the most various kinds induces him sometimes to quote more than the subject requires; and now and then to set before us opinions, for nothing else than to show us how ridiculous those of learned men can sometimes be. He cites for instance these remarks of Ainsworth: "the parting of the hoof signified the right discerning of the word and will of God, the difference between the law and the gospel, and the walking in obedience to the word of God with the right foot. The chewing of the cud signified the meditating in the law of God night and day," &c. This, he says, is extending the reasons of the Mosaic precepts "to the borders of mysticism:"-we presume he means the further borders. At any rate, there is something amusing in such instances when introduced sparingly: and on such an opportunity no one ought to be displeased, that the most absurd side of a question should be allowed to say its two or three words.
We now come to the articles of the work itself, arranged in their alphabetical order. We have first the name of the animal or vegetable, the fossil, or other substance, as it stands in our common translation: next to it is the Hebrew word, from which it was translated; or the Greek one if the original is in that language. Connected with the Hebrew is the correspondent name, when it is of a similar sound, in the kindred or derived languages, the Chaldee or Syriac, Aethiopic or Phenician, Arabic, or Turkish, or Persian; the Greek or Latin name is added, when it appears to have descended from the Hebrew; and every word in the Oriental languages is expressed in the letters of our own alphabet, so that the most common reader can judge in some degree of the resemblance. We are then told, if it is of consequence, in what passages the term in question occurs. If there has been any controversy respecting its meaning, either generally, or in any particular connexion, the authorities on each. side are fairly stated. A description is also added,--a scientific one whenever the case requires or easily admits of it, of the subject of the article; and the whole is illustrated with a great variety of references. The places, in which the word is used, are often critically examined; and many passages of scripture are either explained by allusion, or presented in a new translation. This is the form of the work. Of the manner, in which the author has executed his task, we have already offered a cursory judgment. Too much praise cannot be given to the fidelity and diligence, with which he has elaborated almost every part. He has extracted honey where there was no smell of flowers: and even "Scripture illustrated" has been compelled to contribute something not undeserving of attention. The
fruits of much and various reading are to be seen throughout. Indeed we have been sometimes ready to complain at the profusion to think we have too much of the speculations of others, and to wish that the author had exercised a little more freely his own good judgment. Under the article "Fox," for instance, we might have been content to dispense with several of the pages that relate to the story of Samson's fox tails, and after reading patiently through more opinions about them than we care to remember, one is disappointed, to be sent away with the declaration, that the compiler has no opinion to give on the subject. This is being too diffident of himself: and in many places, we fear that the partiality of friendship and the reverence for high authorities have induced him to ascribe more value to the suggestions and theories, which have been furnished him, than they can fairly claim.
The longest and one of the most interesting articles in the book, is "LEVIATHAN." We fully agree to the assertion, that there is now no reasonable doubt of the kind of animal described under that appellation: it is certainly the crocodile of the Nile. The 41st chapter of Job is a noble description of him: the whole of which is presented by Dr. Harris, in a new translation. This version is in many points much finer than that which is in common use. A clearer and more correct meaning is given to several passages, and the language altogether is more striking. We cannot but think, however, that in the first verse the author has been misled by a bad authority; and one which, in other places, he himself disregards. We mean that of Mr. Vansittart, who published "Remarks critical and philological on Leviathan described in the 41st chapter of Job," at Oxford in 1810. He found, it seems, in his Herodotus, that it was common in some parts of Egypt to bring up a single crocodile with the utmost care, to feed him with sacred food, and to set off his uncouth form with bracelets and rings, regarding him as the emblem of the Divinity. He endeavoured to show, therefore, that reference was here had to the state of Leviathan, as he was actually to be seen in the hands of the priests, decked with his holy ornaments. Dr. Harris it would also scem, had been consulting Herodotus, and discovered that the crocodile was sometimes to be taken with a hook and bait; adding this, then, to the notion of Mr. Vansittart, that the leading about of a tame crocodile was intended, he renders:
1. “Behold Leviathan! whom though leadest about with a hook, Or a rope, which thou fastenest to his snout.
2. Hast thou put a ring in his nose,
Or pierced his cheek through with a clasp ?"
The first glance at these verses shows us how ill, when thus represented, they agree together. Why is the first verse without the interrogative form, which belongs to the six following verses? The language is ironical from first to last and to understand any part in any other way is to destroy the whole pertinency and effect. The object of the description is to show how vain is human strength, when employed against the tremendous "king over all the sons of the fierce:" and the poet begins with the taunting question: "Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a hook, with a rush ?" This was as it appeared in Dr. Harris's first edition, and his second thought is certainly, in this instance, not the best. We have but to read on to be perfectly convinced of this.
"Has he made many supplications to thee?"
Hast thou played with him as a bird?
Wilt thou encage him for thy maidens ?" &c.
We hear evidently the tone of disdainful sarcasm throughout. Indeed how preposterous would it be to introduce such a sublime description of the might and terror of a formidable monster, by pointing to a tame creature, subdued with hook and line, or tricked out for a superstitious pageant! The style soon after rises from derision to a terrific majesty.
"None is so resolute that he dare rouse him;
At his rising the mighty are alarmed.
Like stubble is the battle-axe reputed,
And he laugheth at the quivering of the javelin."
Immediately preceding the account of Leviathan in the book of Job, is that of BEHEMOTH, which is contained in the ten last verses of the 40th chapter. The article that relates to him is composed with ability; perspicuously, and with greater singleness of thought than that which we have just mentioned. The author maintains after Bochart, and we think successfully, that the river horse is here designated his reasons are assignedsimply; and without any of that distraction, which we think is now and then produced by the multiplicity of the writers whom he has consulted. The following verses in his translation are very beautiful:
"He sheltereth himself under the shady trees,
The branches tremble as they cover him,
We willingly accept two good English names, which convey some meaning to us, instead of Leviathan and Behemoth: but we cannot help observing, that there is a contrary tendency in the books, which Dr. Harris most cites and prizes;-to give us hard foreign words instead of those that are plainly intelligible. Besides that the Hebrew name is sometimes held to, we have thought, a little too fondly, we are presented with modern words of very doubtful sound and awkward appearance. It is perhaps natural enough that travellers, and they who glean from travels in the East, should fall into this way of employing their knowledge but they should be careful that the scriptures are not ma red by their imaginary improvements. What are we to think, when that fine passage in Proverbs: So shall thy poverty rush on like an invader, and thy want as an armed man,' becomes in the hands of the continuator of Calmet, 'So shall thy poverty advance as rapidly as an express; and thy penury as a strong and swift aâshare rider.'? In a similar taste, though much more defensible, are the following lines in Joel's sublime description of the devastation produced by an army of locusts, as they appear in Dr. Harris's version:
'What the GAZAM leave, the ARBEH devour ;
The use of these Hebrew names is only an imposing way of confessing that their import is not understood: and though the author, at the outset of his observations under the head 'LOCUST,' says he shall endeavour to give an explanation of each of these names, with the aim to identify the several species, and elucidate the passages of scripture in which they are mentioned;' it is evident from the contradictory opinions which he cites that the learned have arrived at no certainty on the subject. His translation virtually acknowledges the same thing. Our common version is much to be preferred; for 'palmer-worm,' 'locust,' 'canker-worm,' and caterpillar,' whether right or wrong, have the advantage of meaning something, and of being English. But we are inclined to think, that while we know so little of the several species here designated, the words of the Prophet cannot be better represented than thus:
What one locust has left, another has eaten :
We cannot agree with the learned author in the last remark which he makes under this article. He cannot think that John the Baptist ate locusts in the wilderness, because they would need smoking and salting at least, which would seem but a troublesome and unspiritual operation for the Baptist to attend to; though he grants that these insects were eaten in the East, and were common food for the poorer class of people. The word in the original' he says, signifies also buds or pods of trees, as several learned men have proved.' We confess we know of no such proof. Axeides means locusts: and as for Henry Stephens' conjecture of Axgades, wild pears, we have never heard that it has been adopted by any critic.
While we are on the subject of hard words, transferred from eastern tongues, it may not be out of place to remark, that the charge of being obscure and singular, if not unintelligible, will apply to some of the English sentences, which have gained admission among Dr. Harris's illustrations. How, indeed, was it to be expected, that from such a crowd of books, something of this kind should not occasionally have eluded his vigilance and found its way into his work? What idea could the translator of Hafiz think he was expressing by lines like these?
'Tell to that tender fawn, O zephyr! tell
O'er rocks, o'er desert hills, she makes me dwell.
The author of 'Scripture Illustrated,' who is a frequent offender in this way, furnishes us with another example, in his translation of that very doubtful passage, Psalms lxviii: 12, 13. In the received version we read: Kings of armies did flee apace and she that tarried at home divided the spoil. Though ye have lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, &c.' The following is the lucid language of the writer referred to:
'Kings and armies did flee, did flee,
And the homestead of their pursuers divided the spoil,
He is perhaps right in supposing that by the dove' is here intended the military ensign of the Syrians: but this conjecture, if true, which is yet not fully established, is no discovery of his own. It was suggested first, as Dr. Geddes tells us, by Mr. L'Advocat. The whole passage, in connection with what follows it, remains still one of the most obscure in the Old Testament; and such a critic as the author of 'Scripture Illustrated,' we can
New Series-vol. II.