« ElőzőTovább »
her text as she intended, and as she probably would have done, and certainly ought to have done, had her life been spared. We infer this, in the first place, from the negligence manifested in the use, sometimes of the old English termina. tion of verbs in the third person singular, and sometimes of the modern termination ; a negligence which runs through the whole of the poem, ard gives us about equal instances of each form. Thus Ch.i. 16, the fire of God has fallen from heaven :' while in Ch. ii. 5, it runs - all that a man hath he will give for his life.' So Ch. v. 2.
• For the stupid rich Man anger kills,
And the silly poor one dies of envy.'
Who setteth the lowly on high,
And exalteth the mourners in safety.' We have another proof of the truth of this assertion, in the different and opposite meaniugs ascribed to the Hebrew 772 in different verses of the first two chapters. In Ch.i. 5, it is rendered to bless'; in Ch. ii. 5, to curse'. In Ch. i. 11, the writer is doubtful which way to render it; and hence, as though determined to be right, has given it both ways: for the text occurs thus, whether to thy face be will not bless thee? [curse thee]'. In Ch. ii. 10, it is again rendered decidedly bless, in a very correct translation taken from Mr. Parkhurst blessing God and dying.' We are aware that something of the same kind of inconsistency occurs in our established version, yet by no means to so great an extent. There is no reason, however, for its occurring at all. Nothing is so absurd as to suppose that the very same term can ever have been made use of to express ideas so diametrically opposite ; nor is the subterfuge that 700 occasionally means to bid farewell to,” xapely, valedicere, and hence “ to take leave of, or renounce,” in any respect necessary. It denotes " to bless” simply, and in as single a sepse as the English term itself. With a little care and dexterity of construction, it might, in all the above passages, have been confined to this sense alone; and in a version boldly asserted to be more clear and satisfactory, more grammatically accurate, more closely expressive of the literal meaning than any other known translation,' it not only might, but ought to have been thus limited and explained.
This remark might be extended to a great variety of instances, if we had time. Thus we dip at random into Ch. xxxvi. 26, and find the expression yna xbo rendered, “beyond our kvowledge:' but in the ensuing chapter, V.5. and we understand not. The repetition of the phrase has
to takeanis a cosite; her made
an intrinsic beauty in the original, and forms an anaphora which is peculiarly characteristic of its diction : and hence, whatever might have been the rendering in the former place, it ought carefully to have been retained in the latter. So, dipping again at random, we find in Ch. xiji. 13, 14, the phrase on by, or ne sy, rendered in the first instance · whatsoever come,' and in the second, 'on the chance.'
• Be silent and I will speak,
And pue my soul in my hand.' The passage, indeed, has not been fully understood by our fair translator; and hence another of its beauties, the very forcible repetition of the pronoun, has been omitted. The original text is as follows,
The direct and literal version of which is,
Hold ye your peace, for I will speak,
And put my life in my hand. In Ch. vii. 22, 1977701, 5 and thou shalt seek me,” is erroneous'y rendered, they shall seek me:' the word and being outled. Ch. ix. 3, 179 2095, “ to contend,” or rather, " to argue with him" is given to contend with us. This change or confusion of one person for another occurs very frequently. But we have occasionally worsę errors to encounter; direct false concords, as plural verbs joined to singular nouns, or masculine nouns to feminine adjectives. Thus, passing forwards once more incidentally, Ch. xxxvii. 10, in the expression the wuters run the author writes a verb singular in the original to a pominative plural. So, in Ch. Xxxviii. 20, she first misunderstands 58 as meaning God, and then conples it as a nominative with non, a verb in the secoud person. In this verse, aiso, the pronouii 10 is altogether omitted in the first line of the version, and the two words 13-1 in the second. In V. 10 of the next chapter (xxxix) we have errors of every kind, both of onission and commission, inay" his rope" ir " bis band” as it is in our common version, is here rendered ' a rope', the pronoun his being omitted : and rope is then made the nominative case to noon, a verb in the second person singular, ' wla rope keep him?' In the more correct language of our established lection “canst thou biod, or keep the UNICORN?”—not bind or keep him ;'--for here again we meet with a singular omission; the word so, “unicorn or rhinoceros,” being tota ly left out, and the pronoun him substituted for it. At this proneness to omit substantives we have been often astonished. It commences with the very first chapter, where, in V. 5, the word Job is wholly suppressed, and the expressior “ for Job said,” 518 728 s, is rendered with the verb alone, "for he said.'·
We are far from inclining to be severe upon these sorts of blemishes. We are ready to ascribe them to inattention, if not to rapidity of composition alone; and to regard them as maculæ quas incuria fudit, and which the fair writer intended to have corrected, upon a subsequent revision of her text. They sufficiently prove, however, that her text never did receive such revision; and consequently that, (although in spite of these blemishes it possesses a large portion of general merit) it is in no respect intitled to tue praise of unrivalled accuracy, and adherence to the literal meaning of the original, which the very respectable editor has so lavishly passed upon it.
Let us, however, take a passage of some length, that the beauties of the version, as well as the defects, may appear to full advantage The following is a part of the sublime and admirably descriptive speech of Elihu : Ch. xxxvi. 26Ch. xxxvii 13.
26 Behold! God is great, beyond our knowledge;
His years are numerous beyond our search. . 27 For he maketh small the drops of water,
They are strained off (for) the rain of his vapour ;
And drop on man abundantly.
The high abo«les of his silence.
He giveth food in abundance. .
And he commandeth it concerning him that prayeth ;
CHAP. XXXVII. '... 1 Verily, for this my heart flutters,
And beats beyond its place.
2 Hark! hear the thundering of his voice,
And the muttering that issues from his mouth. 3 His Aash is beneath the whole heaven
And his light on the extremities of the earth. 4 After it roars the thunder,
He thunders with the voice of his majesty,
And he will not stay them, for his voice shall be heard.
He doeth mighty wonders, and we understand not.
That all may know his works.
And in their dens do they abide.
And from condensed air, ice.
And the waters run wide in the thaw.
Its light breaks through the cloud:
Or on his land, or for abundance. pp. 122–124. This passage contains great elegance and simplicity of diction. In some parts we prefer it to the established versionbut not generally. It is less regularly correct, and at times far inferior. But that it may be duly appreciated, let us examine it seriatim.
V. 26. The pronounour,' not found in the original, is unnecessarily introduced into both lines; and this being omitted, surpassing would be a better word than • beyond.'
V. 27. For.' This should have been lo! or behold ! ' is not here an adverb of causation, but of exclamation. The Arabic form is repeatedly used in this sense; and the present poem abounds with this and other Arabisms. It is however a sense, by no means uncommon to ') as a Hebrew term, not only in the book before us, but especially in the Psalms. ' They are strained off,' is better than in our established version, “they pour d. wn," Dr. Stock has it, « they are refined." It refers to the process of vaporization : they throw of would be as correct and more simple than either. For kas vapour,' should be for his tempest; as 1983 is here used
in the sense of 99485, which is indeed the actual rendering of not less than fifty one of Dr. Kennicott's codices.
V. 28. «Which the hearens let fall.' "Which, wx, is here an adverb of time, and should be rendered then. bin all its senses implies lavishness or profusion. The image correctly given is peculiarly beautiful,--down flow the heavens.
And does not occur in the second line: it should be they drop, or rather, pour, &c. .
V. 29. This verse is supposed by all the critics to be intractable. Schultens gives it up in despair, and Reiske oniy attempts to make sense of it by altering the text. Dr. Stock renders it,
“ Yea—can any understand the spreadings of the cloud?
« The rattlings of the tabernacle?” The grand error of all the interpreters consists, in giving to the passage an interrogatory cast, to which it has no pretensions; and in deriving '94 from ya, " to discern or understand," instead of from 733, “ to build up, pile up, heap, multiply." Jy is not exactly expressed by our word cloud : it means rather the web, vapour, or woof of which the cloud is composed-nimbus rather than nubes. This first part of the couplet should therefore, be, But if he heap up the spreadings of his cloudy-woof.
Dixon "noise" in our common version, and “ rattlings” in Dr. Stock's, is rendered high abodes' by Miss Smith, from nws instead of from 1780. The proper word is tapestry-pictured representations of things. nku, observes Reiske very correctly, “est picta, variegata, idea rei.”
1.31.'' For by them.' This should belo! or behold, by these things; i.e. these fearful phenomena. The real meaning of the second line has never yet been entered into. 538 does not mean food,' but sintence, judgement, decision, from 50:he passeth or giveth sentence amain.
V. 32. We have here, and in almost every one of the verses of the ensuing chapter, an instance of the negligence we have already pointed out, of employing indiscriminately the ancient and the modern termination of the third person singular of our verbs; as 'overspreads in the first line, and commandeth' and pray eth' in the second. The first period is not quite correctly rendered, either in this or our common version; but we have not space to point out every defect. The second period is of far more consequence, and has given much more trouble to the critics. Miss Smith has followed her guide, Mr. Parkhurst, and is hence not personally amenable for her error; though neither here nor in any other place is - the smallest acknowledgement given, or reference made, to