Page images
PDF
EPUB

of that rhyme might have taken a pod from one of the "Innisfree" "beanrows." Yet, in spite of this disadvantage, if we are still to cry

L'œuvre sort plus belle D'une forme àu travail

Rebelle,

Vers, marbre, onyx, émail .

Lutte avec le carrare,

Avec le paros dur

Et rare,

Gardiens du contour pur,

-if we are still to accept that as anything like a working theory, what poem of all the decadents of all kinds in England can be compared for one moment-not only in sincerity of feeling but also in pure workmanship and faultless finish-with Longfellow's "Hymn to the Night"? Here, indeed, is classical precision, power, beauty, and something very like what Arnold called the "grand style":

Peace! Peace! Orestes-like I breathe this prayer!

Descend in broad-winged flight, The welcome, thrice-prayed-for, the most fair,

The best-beloved Night.

In another kind of verse Longfellow was always on the verge of a supreme success which-perhaps because his ear was defective, and in spite of himself something always "remained undone" he never quite attained. Yet for perfect simplicity-not the scholar's, but the child's,-for tender truth of absolutely unaffected feeling, for beauty and enchantment of the kind that only a true poet can summon up from the rich wells of memory rather than attempt to forge them by trick or artifice, is there anything very much better or more genuine in the language than that exquisite poem, "My Lost Youth"? It could only have been written by a man who loved Nature intensely, whose whole soul had been suffused

with the sunsets of that beautiful old town where his youth was passedwho was saturated, as it were, with the color and glow of its "far-surrounding seas," and was really haunted, as he wrote, by the verse of the Lapland song

A boy's will is the wind's will, And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.

Even in technique, the unrhymed line at the end of each stanza, at the time when Longfellow wrote, suggested new metrical possibilities in English verse; and indeed it is full of suggestion even at the present day. But the sweetness and truth of the poem can scarcely be praised too highly. Nothing is here exaggerated, wrenched, or over-stated. It is an absolutely true and yet ideal impression of the past. The remembered town is no more than "dear" and "old" and "beautiful"; the streets are merely "pleasant"; and yet what a glamor there is thrown over it all by the sheer beauty of a simple and heartfelt love!

I can see the shadowy lines of its trees,
And catch, in sudden gleams,
The sheen of the far-surrounding seas,
And islands that were the Hesperides
Of all my boyish dreams.

And the burden of that old song, It murmurs and whispers still: "A boy's will is the wind's will, And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts."

I remember the black wharves and the slips,

And the sea-tides tossing free; And Spanish sailors with bearded lips, And the beauty and mystery of the ships,

And the magic of the sea.

And the voice of that wayward

song

Is singing and saying still: "A boy's will is the wind's will, And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts."

Poetry of that kind disinclines one

from attacking even one's brother-decadents-only they must not scoff at Longfellow. He was born a hundred years ago, and when his bicentenary comes his work will still be vital.

Blackwood's Magazine.

Who knows but that when time has mellowed his language he may occupy a throne, some way below Wordsworth, Tennyson, and Swinburne, on Parnassus itself.

HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE KORAN.

In the discussion of the late Education Bill there is a point which appears to have escaped notice, but which, had the Bill become law, would have proved to be a matter of the first importance, and have given rise to more serious controversy and to more permanent and deep-seated differences than have yet occurred. No one now attempts to deny that the Bible-both the Old Testament and the New-is full of what appear to us Westerns to be inconsistencies and contradictions. One has only to mention the employment of the variant names for the Supreme Being God, Jehovah, Jehovah-God-in Genesis and the following books, the discrepancies in the numbers given in the books of Chronicles and those given in the earlier narratives of Samuel and Kings, or the different accounts of the Resurrection of our Lord offered by St. Paul, by the Synoptists and by St. John, to start a stone rolling which it would be difficult to stop. Even with the most literal and simple Bible teaching such points as these are sure to give rise to questions on the part of intelligent scholars, and to demand some solution from the teacher. Hence a problem at once arises, How are these difficulties to be faced? Is the teacher to be left entirely to his own guidance, or is he to have the help of instructions from headquarters? However the case be met, it is obvious that the problem is one which will have to be solved either by each individual teacher for himself and his class, or

by the Department for the country as a whole.

only

To the teacher who finds himself face to face with these apparent contradictions and inconsistencies, three courses are open. In the first place, he may limit himself to merely stating the difficulty to his scholarsfor example, that the apparition of God to Jacob at Bethel is said in one place (Gen. xxviii. 10-22) to have occurred when Jacob was on his way to Mesopotamia, in another (Gen. xxxv. 9-15) on his return-without attempting any solution. In the second place, he may deem it to be his duty in every instance to explain away the apparent discrepancy, as, indeed, may in many cases be done easily enough. But, thirdly-and this course would no doubt be followed by a large majority of thinking and reading men-he may accept in toto the conclusions of modern literary criticism as applied to the Bible as the only clue by which the mazes of that labyrinth become intelligible to the Western mind-the master-key by which alone its secret chambers can be unlocked. So universal has been the acceptance of this criticism amongst Bible, especially Old Testament, scholars, and so complete the surrender to it, that its hypotheses are now regarded as demonstrated theories, and as being so firmly established that they may safely be introduced into text-books intended for the religious instruction of the young, and may even be taught in Sunday schools. In such circumstances it is obviously

of the first importance that the truth and validity of these doctrines should if possible be made a mathematical certainty, or, at any rate, that the foundations upon which they rest should be made as broad and as sure as can be. It must be admitted that all has not been done in this direction which might have been done. Indeed, the basis upon which the building stands is no broader than the superstructure itself. The present theories as to the composition and authorship of the books of the Bible may have been demonstrated beyond dispute, but they have been demonstrated out of these very books themselves. Any parallel instances which may have been brought forward in support of the critical analysis have been drawn from the literatures of Greece or Rome or of modern Europe. What one misses, and what one would very much like to see, is an attempt to apply those principles of literary criticism, to which the books of the Bible have been subjected, to some other Semitic book as to the authorship and composition of which there is no room for two opinions. In the latter case we should know definitely whether the results of the critical process were true or false, and we could infer the correctness or otherwise of the same method when applied to books, like those of the Bible, as to the origin and authorship of which we have no independent and reliable information.

The question is a very large one and a full discussion of it would run into volumes. Here it is not possible to do more than examine the critical position from one side only, by selecting a particular book of the Bible and stating briefly the results which have been arrived at in regard to its composition and authenticity, and, finally, comparing this book with some other Semitic work exhibiting the same phenomena,

[blocks in formation]

The element of the new Biblical criticism which may be most conveniently examined and tested in the way proposed is the analysis of the historical books of the Old Testament, of which the results are remarkably well defined and have won universal acceptance; and the portion which lends itself in an especial degree to the analytical process is found in the Books of Samuel.

It is almost a truism of criticism that the earlier books of the Old Testament have been pieced together from ancient narrative, hortatory and legal documents. Two historical works especially are believed to twine round one another from Genesis to Judges, or even to the Books of Samuel. As each of these covered the same ground, beginning, like most Semitic, especially Arab, histories, at the Creation and coming down to the author's own day, duplicate accounts are often given in these books of one and the same event. Thus, if we take the Books of Samuel, we find (1) that Eli is twice warned of the impending ruin of his house, first by an unnamed "man of God" (ii. 27 ff.), and afterwards through Samuel (iii. 18). (2) Three motives are given for the change in the form of government from a republic to a monarchy-the misrule of Samuel's sons (viii. 5), the Philistine oppression (ix. 16), and an incursion of the Ammonites (xii. 12). (3) There are two accounts of the election of the first monarch (in x. 1-16, where he is anointed by Samuel, and in x. 17-27, where he is chosen by lot) and (4) of his deposition (in xiii. 7-15, for sacrificing at Gilgal before the arrival of Samuel; in chapter xv., for sparing the Amalekite king); (5) of David's in

troduction to Saul (in chapter xvi., as a minstrel, who becomes Saul's armor-bearer; in xvii., through his defeat of Goliath in single combat, although too little to bear arms); (6) of his betrothal to a daughter of Saul (in xviii. 17-19, to Merab, as the promised reward of the death of Goliath; in xviii. 20-23, to Michal); (7) of his flight from court (in xix. 18-24, to Ramah; in xxi. to Ahimelech at Nob); (8) of the origin of the proverb, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (x. 11; xix. 24); (9) of David sparing the king's life (in xxiv., at En-gedi; in xxvi., in the waste land of Ziph); (10) of his stay with Achish of Gath (xxi. 11-16, when he feigned madness and did not remain; and again in chapter xxvii., when he served under Achish and remained a year and four months); and, lastly, (11) of the death of Saul (in 1 Sam. xxxi., by his own hand; and in 2 Sam. i., by the hand of an Amalekite).

This is indeed a formidable list, and, if cumulative evidence count for anything, the duplication of narratives in the Books of Samuel may be taken as proved. If, however, we go through the indictment count by count, we may find that it can be considerably reduced. In the first place one of the duplicate narratives in items five and six is wanting in the Greek text. In the first count (the warning of Eli) the latter of the two narratives explicitly refers back to the former (iii. 12). The double account of David's simultaneous flight to Ramah and to Nob has only arisen because the critics have struck out verse 1 of chapter xx., in which we are told that he continued his flight from Ramah to Nob. In the last count of the bill, the second narrative of the death of Saul is, of course, that of the Amalekite, and the whole point of the story lies in the fact that the Amalekite is lying, and reaps the just reward of

his knavery (2 Sam. iv. 10). The critics, however, maintain that the narrator in that case should have pointed that out to the reader. But, if this is unnecessary for the average English child, it would have been doubly superfluous for an Oriental reader. Again, in chapters xxiv. and xxvi. there are only six expressions common to both-namely, that Saul went "with the three thousand picked men of Israel to look for David," that he stopped "by the way," that David was told that God had given "his enemy that day into his hand," that his reply was "God forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lord's anointed," that Saul said, "Is this thy voice, my son David?" and that David asked Saul why he "chased one flea." In all other respects the two narratives are wide asunder, and the one ground for seeking to identify them is that in each David spares the king's life. Even in the apparently divergent accounts of the institution of the monarchy the reconciling point may be the wise diplomacy of Samuel in obtaining the election of the very man whom he had himself already anointed as king.

By way of general observation it is hardly necessary to mention that the Hebrew language suffers from poverty of vocabulary, and that it is impossible to describe similar events in it without employing identical expressions, and so great is the Hebrew's love of assonance that this is accounted the reverse of a blemish. Moreover, the style of the classical Hebrew historian has all the simplicity and naïveté of that of the professional story-teller in the markets of Cairo or Damascus. His every second sentence begins with "so." and is a repetition of the last but one. "So the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. So the Philistines took the ark of God,

and brought it into the house of Dagon" (1 Sam. v. 1, 2).1

Enough has perhaps been said to show that the duplication of narratives in the Books of Samuel is at leastto use the Scots term-"not proven," and that, in Sir Roger de Coverley's classic phrase, much may still be said on both sides of the question. Yet, after all, it must be confessed that the "two source theory" appeals strongly to the logically constituted and scientifically trained Western mind by the drastic fashion in which it cuts those knots which the learning and ingenuity of generations have been expended in attempting to untie. The difficulties, inconsistencies and contradictions in the Old Testament are so numerous and so hard to account for on any other hypothesis that this theory has proved a veritable harbor of refuge to the exegete. It has become the most valuable weapon in his armory, and the most indispensable of his tools.

In order, however, that he may use this Damascus blade with least danger to himself, it behooves him to observe the manner of its operation in other Semitic literatures besides that of the Hebrews; and in looking about for illustrations of Biblical phenomena we turn naturally to Arabic, and, first of all, to the Korán.

In the Korán we find all the literary phenomena which meet us in the Old and New Testaments. It abounds with repetitions and duplicate narratives and laws, with anachronisms and inconsistencies. As a persecuted prophet, Muhammad loved to dwell on the ill usage and rejection of earlier apostles by the peoples to whom they were sent. In their afflictions he saw a reflection of his own sufferings at the hands of his unbelieving fellow

1 Wellhausen appears to have been tempted to strike out one of these clauses, "aber das ist die Art hebräischer Erzählung," he adds.

townsmen. "They do not say to thee ought else than was said to the apostles before thee." "If they have made thee a liar, apostles before thee have been called liars." "The apostles before thee were laughed to scorn." The stories of these apostles and prophets are told over and over again. Hence we find in the Korán duplicate accounts of Abraham, of Húd the apostle of the tribe of Ad, and of Jesus, and the rest. But of all others the prophet whose case Muhammad felt most nearly resembled his own was Moses "he who talked familiarly with God." The result is that the story of Moses is reiterated, with more or less detail, some thirteen times in the Korán. These narratives do not all cover identical ground, some enlarge upon one period of Moses' life, others upon another. If we combine them so as to form one continuous narrative, we obtain in outline the familiar story of the Book of Exodus.

He

Pharaoh, with his vezír Haman, tyrannizes over the Israelites, killing their male children. God befriends the oppressed. Moses is committed to the Nile in an ark of bulrushes and found by the daughter of Pharaoh, who begs for him as he will "cool the eyes" of her father and herself. refuses to suck the breasts of the Egyptian women, and his sister, offering to find a Hebrew nurse, brings their own mother. One day when grown up he finds an Egyptian misusing an Israelite and kills him. next day the same Israelite is quarrelling again. Moses rebukes him and receives the retort, "Wilt thou kill me as thou tookest a life yesterday?" the same moment Moses is warned that the magistrates are about to arrest him, and he flees and takes refuge in Midian. There he assists two women to water their sheep. Their father offers one to Moses as wife in return for eight or ten years' service.

The

At

« PreviousContinue »