The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-03-12

at this point. NJ. Roman thinks that. on the
whole. and allowing. OF course, for tho minor
alterations which all ancient manuscripts have
undergone In the process VI repeated transcript
ton, the text has boon preserved intact. 1t
seems clear that the words put I'm the mouth of
Cohoct end with the 9Th verse Of the last chap
tor. The discourse IL thus closed dosigncdly.
rs 1t had boon begun. with the eXciamn-
ton. "Vantics OF vanitCs." Tho 9TH
and 10th vorscs also, in the opinion OF NJ.
Roman arc the authentic utterancc Of the an
thor, and constitute n sort Of epiloRuc, com
plotting tho fiction which forms the framework
OF the book, and by which the writer chooses to
put his own ideas In the mouth Of Solomon. 1t
IL certain that these verses serve no dogmatic
or scctarian purpose, and reveal no motive Tor
Interpolation. II IL otherwise with the nth
and 18th verses. which have no direct rcla-
ton to the work, and manifcstly serve ~ u
sort oi cpigraph or clamp to n compilation or
canon OF writings which the reader IL in
vitcd 10 regard as definitely closed.
Not only are these two verses not by
tho author Of Ecrlesiastca, but they
never formed u portion Of the book. They are
n species Of note Inserted on the fly leaf Of the
volume of sncrod documents at n time when the
Cohclet occupied the last pages OF the col
lection. Tho last two verses 18th and
14th) have been supposed by some critics
10 be n late addition made after the supple
mental note had, by the bundcr of II copyist.
been Incorporated in the text, and intended to
redeem by pious reflection the heterodoxy OF
the discourse. II Ia more reasonable to con
slider these Inst two verses a. Il part of the sup
pIcmental note in which. after the manner OF
the Rabbits an attempt was made to sum UP the
whole Bible in u few words.
The text OF Ecclesiastes is corrupted by many
q tIp all tu htth h,,n hnn Hs.f
down to us with literal fidelity IT would still
present great difficulties. The authors ideas
are simple enough and require no mctaphysi
cal analysis ia order to be understood. But in
his dicton he seems to labor under singular
embarrassment He develops his thought by
successive light touches. Instead OF the grand.
synthetic style Of Plato and Aristotle his He
brow Is like heap Of dry, uncomcnted stones.
The authors is cultivated mind. which finds
at hand only an idiom rebclous TO the end
he has in view. The Hebrew in the
eighth, seventh. and sixth centuries before
Christ had produced mastor works which
mankind was to adopt us the outcome
of Divine inspirations; but this classical lit
ersture was extremely cirrumscrbcd. 1t in
Guided nothing which could he termed science
or philosophy. Admirable for the expression
of passion the Hebrew has no subtle adnpta-
tions for the reasoning faculty. The Arabic. in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries of our era.
encountered the same deficiency. ltwas forced
TO reproduce ideas for which II had not been
constructed. whence an excessive awkward
ness experienced. IL We except the mo-
mCnts when they escape into mysticism the
Arabic philosophers are poor writers. The
Semitic languages do not lend themselves lay
any means to the CNurcssion Of concatcnat"d
ideas; they seek the lively stroke. the
spark: they decompose piece Of reasoning
and hold up its parts To view We cannot con
ccivc Of Dcseartcs or SpinoZa, or Kant com
passing their achievements in philosophy by
| the aid Of such an instrument. According TO
| VI. RGnan, the author Of Ecclesiastcs had n
! philosophical mind. but not q philosophical
language. at his disposal. His desperate efforts
TO accomplish syilogism are compared TO the
| tortures OF u great musician forced to execute
| n complicated symphony with an unframed or
| chestra.
, An observation Of III, Derenbourg is thought
! TO throw much light on the authors meth
| cd of writing, and on the rules which gov
crn the evolution of his thought. 1t appears
| that one of the characteristic features Of
| tho moral poetry Of India and Of
Persia with which Ecclcsastes offers Il
good many analogics, is the custom
! Of stitching verses into tissue of
|
quotations from well-known poets, and
sometimes being composed by the author
| himself. Every reader Of Ecclesiastcs
! has remarked the proverbs almost disconnect-
led with the context, with which the author
sows thickly his defamation with view, II
seems. to break its monotonous current.
| We arc told that here the Colcet has
only anticipated the type Of composition
for which the Persian poet Saadi was a.
furnish the perfected model, AS regards
tho general tenor the diction of Eccle-
siastes is prose. but the sequence of ide0s il
often interrupted by metrical iutercalatons,
| by little rhythmical parentheses, which
take away from the prose too pro-
tracted gravity, and divest the reader OF the
false idea that rigorous line Of argument if
| hidden beneath these slight embroderics Ii
ia hard for the translator TO render sensible
| this transition from prose to poetical quota
| tons In the translation Of Ecclesiastes which
will shortly follow the present essay. NJ. Roman
has tried he tclls US. to represent the rhythm OF
the Hebrew verses cited by recurring to the
old-iashioned metres Of French poetry such M
were exhibited In the Quatrains of the old No
| ralities or tho rhymed couplets In which the old
| Cattle proverbs were imbedded. He finds that
rhyme. after all is the best device TO indicate tho
effect Of the poetica Intersections which tighten
|
writer-of the neat words flung into the air
tumblng back. and caught up again with giddy
velocity. In such case you feel. he says
that literal translation would be the worst Of
trcasons. Is this choice literary morsel, devoid
Of any dogmauc purpose, TO be transformed
| pedantically into heavy theological prose. the
better to satisfy grammarians2 What u repul-
sve inoongruityl As we'll turn Beranger into
u homily. or the sermons OF Bossuet into mad
rgals.
| III
What was the purpose of the author In as
signing the strange discourse preached In
Eeclesiastes to Solomon Should we class this
book among the purely apocryphal writings
in that vast pseudepigraphio literature which
during long period OF Jewish history was 1t
fecund in literary impostnresp Not precisely
When Hebrew author Of tho centuries neal
our own ora assumed, in order 10 enforce some
strong thought on his contemporaries, the
mantle Of some ancient prophet or celebrated
man, like Moses Enoch, or Baruch, he un