"regulated by some observation of harmony or cadence, "of measure, numbers, or rhythm. For it is not at all probable, in the nature of the thing, or from examples "of the like kind in other languages, that a portion of mere prose, in which numbers and harmony are totally "disregarded, should be laid out according to a scale "of division, which carries with it such evident marks of "study and labour; of art in the contrivance, and exact"ness in the execution."- Prelim. Dissert. to Isaiah, p. vii. This argument is then analogically extended to the poems imperfectly alphabetical; and further, in like manner, to those compositions which, though not alphabetical, have, in all other respects, the same characteristic features with those that are alphabetical. The fairness of the analogical reasoning employed in this case cannot properly be questioned: that is, if the argument be cogent respecting the alphabetical poems, we must needs allow its cogency respecting the non-alphabetical; but what I mainly doubt, is, the validity of the argument in the first instance; and, if it fail there, it must fail altogether. Let us then consider, whether there be not, in the terms employed, a kind of ignoratio elenchi.

"It is not at all probable," the Bishop says, "that a "portion of mere prose, in which numbers and harmony "are totally disregarded, should be laid out according "to a scale of division that carries with it such evident "marks of study and labour: of art in the contrivance, "and exactness in the execution." Now is there not, in these words, a departure, unintentional I am sure, but still a departure, from the real state of the case? For, do the opponents of a strictly metrical system assert, that the Psalms, for instance, are "mere prose"? And, while they reject poetical numbers, do they also maintain, that "harmony is totally disregarded?" If they do not thus assert, and thus maintain, his lordship's argument falls to the ground; and that they do not so assert, and so maintain, is probable, on a two-fold account: first, because that

very "scale of division," and that "studious, elaborate, "artificial, and exact contrivance and execution," to which his Lordship refers, and which, on all hands, are admitted, are, in themselves, sufficient to take the composition out of the sphere of prose, and place it in the sphere of poetry; and, secondly, because the rejection of poetical numbers, properly so called, by no means implies the assertion, that 66 harmony is totally disregarded."

But I am willing to meet the Bishop's argument on broader ground: I am ready to enquire, whether the phenomena do not, not only authorise, but powerfully suggest, and I could almost say compel, a course of reasoning diametrically the reverse of that employed by his lordship; whether, to come directly to the point, a highly artificial, and, in all books except the Scripture, unparalleled species of regular, pointed, sententious, and elaborate construction, does not furnish a strong argument against the probable co-existence of metre? It is certain, that, throughout the works and word of God we do not commonly observe a redundancy of means; and we are assured, that the peculiar and unquestionable artifices of what is called Hebrew poetry, abundantly distinguish it from ordinary prose; while we may learn, both from our own feelings and from the testimony of all competent judges, that these artifices, in combination with the excellence of the subject-matter, have, in numerous instances, the effect of giving to the composition all that commanding and delightful interest which attaches to poetry of the noblest kind. This is all undeniable fact: why then have recourse to the hypothesis, (for it can be no more; proof is out of possibility) of an additional artifice? This would seem, in contradiction to all known analogy, a gratuitous waste of means; and till some undeniable, and, as matters stand at present, inconceivable necessity be produced for its adoption, the inference must lie decidedly against it. But I will go further: such additional artifice not only seems to have been unnecessary; it may be reasonably argued, that it would have been positively injurious;

that its tendency must have been, to counteract the peculiar and distinguishing excellence of Hebrew poetry; namely, its transfusibility, by mere literal translation, into all languages; an excellence, not only unattainable in classical poetry, but prevented by classical metre. Classical poetry is the poetry of one language and of one people: the words are, I will not say chosen, (though this be sometimes the case) but arranged, with a view, not primarily to the sense, but to the sound; in literal translation, therefore, especially if the order of the original words be preserved, not only the melody is lost, but the sense is irreparably injured. Hebrew poetry, on the contrary, is universal poetry; the poetry of all languages, and of all peoples: the collocation of the words, (whatever may have been the sound, for of this we are quite ignorant) is primarily directed to secure the best possible announcement and discrimination of the sense: let, then, a translator only be literal, and, so far as the genius of his language will admit, let him preserve the original order of the words*, and he will infallibly put the reader in possession of all, or nearly all, that the Hebrew text can give to the best Hebrew scholar of the present day. Now, had there been originally metre, the case, it is presumed, could hardly have been such; somewhat must have been sacrificed to the importunities of metrical necessity; the sense could not have invariably predominated over the sound; and the poetry could not have been, as it unquestionably and emphatically is, a poetry, not of sounds, or of words, but of things. Let not this last assertion, however, be misinterpreted: I would be understood merely to assert that sound, and words in subordination to sound, do not

* On the advantage of literal translation, and of preserving the original order of the words, something additional will be found towards the close of Section IV. and in note (5) upon that Section: but, in the first instance, reference should be made to Bishop Lowth's "Preliminary Dissertation," p. xxxv-xxxvii.

in Hebrew, as in classical poetry, enter into the essence of the thing but it is happily undeniable, that the words of the poetical Scriptures are exquisitely fitted to convey the sense; and it is highly probable, that, in the life-time of the language, the sounds were sufficiently harmonious : when I say sufficiently harmonious, I mean so harmonious, as to render the poetry grateful to the ear in recitation, and suitable to musical accompaniment; for which purposes, the cadence of well-modulated prose would fully answer; a fact, which will not be controverted by any person with a moderately good ear, that has ever heard a chapter of Isaiah skilfully read from our authorised translation; that has ever listened to one of KENT's anthems well performed, or to a song from the Messiah of HANDEL.

it

If the reasoning of this note be satisfactory to the reader, may throw some additional light on the poetry of the Old Testament: it may also serve to establish, that if all other requisites be there, the mere absence of poetical numbers, cannot defeat the claim of any passage in the New Testament, so qualified, to rank with the poetical portions of the Old.

(10) Compositions undeniably poetical, which do not rise above the ordinary tone of just and clear conceptions, calmly, yet pointedly delivered.] "There are passages," says Bishop Lowth," and those not inelegant, which possess "little more of the characteristics of poetry than the versi"fication" (which must go for nothing, as it is admitted to be undiscoverable) " and that terseness and adaptation of the "sentences, which constitutes so important a part, even "of the harmony of verse. This is manifest in most of "the didactic Psalms, as well as in some others, the mat"ter, order, diction, and thoughts of which, are clearly "historical; but the conformation of the sentences wholly "poetical." Lect. iv. Dr. Gregory's Translat. vol. i. p. 99. Now, if the same terseness, the same adaptation, the same conformation of the sentences be plainly and obviously

apparent in many passages many passages of the New Testament, in what respect can such passages be justly said to differ from the didactic and historical poetry of the Old?

(11) Parallelism.] A brief description of the poetical parallelism is given, after Lowth and Herder, in Dr. Gerard's "Institutes of Biblical Criticism:" Part i. ch. v. sect. 1. A more satisfactory compend may be found in the "Hermeneutica Sacra" of Professor Bauer, p. 168174; a work, which, on account of its daring and licentious scepticism, is wholly unfit for the commencing student, and should be read with caution even by the proficient. It is to be regretted, that the writings of this foreigner, have been recommended to the academical youth of our country, without a single note of reprehension, from one of our most distinguished professorial chairs. A far better analysis of the parallelism than either of those just mentioned, is inserted in Mr. Horne's useful "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of "the Holy Scriptures." vol. i. p. 318-324. His first example is St. Luke i. 52, 53. "This parallelism of "members of sentences," he, however, immediately adds, "does not occur very frequently in the New Testament." Though I hope to shew cause, why, in future editions, the word "NOT" should be expunged from Mr. Horne's text, I am not sorry to meet even this partial admission, in a compilation which deserves, and which probably will attain, much popularity as an elementary treatise.