Bishop Lowth's "Shorter Confutation," annexed to his Prælections on Hebrew Poetry. - The Larger and Shorter Confutations of Bishop Lowth abundantly satisfied the learned public in general, that all efforts to discover the metre of Hebrew poetry must be fruitless. Some few writers, however, persevered in such attempts; nor have continental scholars given over the pursuit, even at the present day. Four authors, in particular, may be mentioned: 1. Conrad. Gottl. Anton, in his "Conjectures respecting the Ancient Metre of the Hebrews," Leipz. 4to. 1770; in his "Vindication" of those "Conjectures," against the animadversions of Professors Bauer and Schmidt, Leipz. 8vo. 1771, and 1772; in his "Specimen of the Psalms reduced to Metre, &c." Viteberg, 8vo. and in his edition of "Solomon's Song," Leipz. 8vo. 1800. 2. Sir William Jones, in his "Poëseos Asiatica Comment." Oxon. 1774. 3. E. J. Greve, in his "Last Chapters of the Book of Job, with a Treatise annexed respecting Hebrew Metres, &c." Davent. 1788; and in his " Metrical Edition of the Prophets Nahum and Habacuc," Amst. 1793. 4. Jo. Joachim Bellermann, in his "Treatise on Hebrew Metres," Berlin, 8vo. 1813. Sir William Jones and Greve aimed at the fabrication of an art of Hebrew poetry, from the Arabic, and other cognate oriental dialects; Anton and Bellermann resolved Hebrew metre into a system of accents. Herder, on the other hand, and De Wette, the former in his "Epistles on the Study of Theology," and his "Treatise on the Genius of Hebrew Poetry," - the latter, in the prolegomena to his "Commentary on the Psalms," Heidelberg, 1811, have, after Professor Michaëlis, adopted and illustrated the principles of Bishop Lowth. This catalogue, which might readily be extended, includes the more considerable writers, and works, on this obscure subject. In drawing it up, much aid has been de rived from the prolegomena to Bishop Hare's edition of the Psalms; from Buddeus' " Hist. Eccl. Vet. Testament." part ii. p. 291-297; from Weisius's Account of Bishop Hare's Metrical System; and from the additional notes to the Prælectiones of Bishop Lowth, in Rosenmüller's edition of that work, published at Leipzig in 1815. Besides the "Notæ et Epimetra" of Sir J. D. Michaëlis, this edition contains large annotations by Rosenmüller himself, together with the above noticed dissertation of Weisius, and another dissertation by C. F. Richter, on the age of Job. From thence, as the latest and the fullest edition of the "Prælectiones," I shall make my citations. On the subject of this note, further information may be had from Carpzov, "Intr. ad Libr. Can. Bibl. Vet. Test.” par. ii. c. i. p. 1-29. He gives a copious list of ancient and modern writers on Hebrew poetry. (4) Two or three rabbinical dissertations.] I allude particularly to the extracts from Abarbanel, and Rabbi Asarias, given by the younger Buxtorf, in the "Mantissa Dissertationum," annexed to his edition of the book COSRI. The latter of these dissertations may be considered the technical basis of Bishop Lowth's System of Hebrew Poetry. There is also another short, but very important treatise, which the Bishop does not appear to have known; at least, he makes no mention of it, either in his Prælections, or in his Preliminary Dissertation to Isaiah; nor have I seen it cited by any writer on the subject of Hebrew poetry. I mean the sixth treatise in the first volume of Schoettgen's "Hora Hebräicæ," p. 1249-1263. Under the title of "Exergasia Sacra," this learned writer, ably, distinctly, and, for the most part, accurately, lays down that very doctrine of parallelism, which it remained for Bishop Lowth to improve, to elucidate, and to invest with all the graces of attractive composition. Schoettgen exhibits ten varieties of parallelism, in ten canons; each canon is supported by three clear examples; and the canons thus established, are applied to the interpretation of perplexed and obscure passages of Scripture. The whole discussion affords a good model for the conduct of biblical enquiries; in fact, Schoettgen seems to have apprehended, more distinctly than most of our later critics, the interpretative value of the parallelism. See especially his seventh dissertation; in which he applies the doctrine of Exergasia, as he calls it, to the elucidation of Genesis, xlix. 10. (5) BISHOP LOWTH.] If it be questioned, that the Prælections and Isaiah of this eminent prelate gave rise to a new era in sacred literature, let the present sedate and intelligent agreement of the first biblical scholars on the subject of Hebrew poetry, be contrasted with that obscurity and unsettlement, which, during the seventeenth and the earlier part of the eighteenth century, perplexed the learned world on the same subject; and then, let it be remembered, that, at home and abroad, Bishop Lowth is almost universally appealed to, as the ultimate and classical authority in these matters. (6) The regularly alphabetical commencement of lines.] On the nature of the Hebrew acrostic, see Bishop Lowth, Præl. iii. p. 29. Prelim. Dissert. p. iv-vi. The alphabetical poems are, Psalms xxv. xxxiv. xxxvii. cxi. cxii. cxix. cxlv. Prov. xxxi. 10—31. Lament. i. ii. iii. iv. See Bishop Lowth, (7) The paragogic particles.] Præl. iii. p. 30-32. with Michaëlis's note, p. 430-432. It is remarkable, that, in the Preliminary Dissertation to Isaiah, no mention is made of these particles; whence may safely be inferred, how little stress the Bishop was disposed to lay on them, as characteristics of Hebrew Poetry: for, in that Dissertation, he gave his last, his fullest, and his most mature views of the subject.. (8) The rhyming termination of lines.] See Lowth; Metr. Har. Brev. Conf. p. 407.- Weisius; Har. Syst. Metr. p. 707. — and Hare; Proleg. to Psalms, pp. 3. 8.9. 10. 39. (9.) Strong reasons for believing that the Hebrew poets never used metre.] It is here my duty to dissent from Bishop Lowth; this duty cannot be other than a painful one; it is like resisting a benefactor. On this, and any future occasion, where I may be obliged to express a different opinion from this great man, I hope never to lose sight of the conviction, that, if He had not written on Hebrew poetry, the literary world must, probably, at this day, have been altogether in the dark upon the subject. On the question of Hebrew metre, Bishop Lowth is an unwilling writer. He terms it difficult, and exceedingly obscure; he owns, that he would gladly have avoided the discussion, could he have done so consistently with the design of his Lectures; he professes, that he will make the attempt with brevity and caution; and that, feeling himself embarked on an ocean dishonoured by the shipwreck of many eminent persons, he will only presume to coast along the shore. * Under such impressions, it is not extraordinary that he should speak with more than common hesitation. He begins by asserting, that certain of the Hebrew writings are not only animated with the true poetic spirit, but, in some degree, couched in poetic numbers †; yet, he allows, that the quantity, the rhythm, or modulation of Hebrew poetry, not only is unknown, but admits of no investigation by human art or industry‡; he states, after Abarbanel, that the Jews themselves disclaim the very memory of metrical composition ; he acknowledges, that the artificial conformation of the sentences, is the sole apparent indication of metre in these poems ||; he barely maintains the credibility + Ibid. p. 34. *Præl. iii. p. 28. Præl. xviii. p. 194. + Ibid. p. 29. of attention having been paid to numbers or feet in their compositions; and, at the same time, he confesses the utter impossibility of determining, whether Hebrew poetry was modulated by the ear alone, or according to any definite and settled rules of prosody*: language, in all its parts, indicative of much embarrassment; admissions, which, fairly put together, amount to a virtual surrender of the point that he labours to maintain. The occasion of the Bishop's embarrassment may be not improbably assigned. As Professor of poetry, it was his duty to deliver Prælections on poetry, properly so called; now his classical habits and predilections would naturally lead him to consider metre of some kind indispensable to poetry; while, at the same time, the disgraceful failure of all previous attempts to discover metre in the parts of Scripture accounted poetical, rendered him avowedly cautious, lest, in his own person, he might add one to the number of discomfited adventurers. From this mixture of prejudice and apprehension, I am inclined to account for the hesitancy, and, we might almost say, the self-contradiction, of his language. He might better have boldly stated, that the technicism of Hebrew poetry, though altogether different from the prosodical technicism of the classics, abundantly distinguishes the composition from simple prose; while the ardour and elevation with which that technicism is frequently accompanied, entitles many Hebrew compositions to rank with poetry of the highest class. He might thus, instead of "coasting along the shore," have at once landed in the country, and explored it. But it is proper to examine Bishop Lowth's only argument for the existence, in Hebrew poetry, of metre, or rhythmical composition. After describing the alphabetical poems, his Lordship thus proceeds: "In the first place, 66 we may safely conclude, that the poems perfectly alpha"betical consist of verses properly so called; of verses * Præl. xix, p. 225. C |