are among the instances (few, it is true,) in Claudian, of the happy effect of a single well-chosen word.

This is followed by the two books against Eutropius, which some critics have considered as Claudian's chef-d'oeuvre. It is certainly written with unusual energy, and the ingenuity with which he varies the topics of abuse displays his invention in a higher point of view than even his panegyrics. His blows fall "thick and threefold." All his wealth of language and imagery, all the varieties of grave invective and cutting irony, all that art, fancy, or historical recollection can suggest to him, are expended in aggravating vileness, and making contempt itself more contemptible. Claudian had a strong propensity to the sarcastic; and his Roman predilections, as well as his party spirit, are called into full play on the present occasion. The unheard-of enormity of an eunuch-consul is the burden of his song, upon which he rings all imaginable changes. His object was to make Eutropius supremely hateful and ridiculous, and he has certainly succeeded beyond his intentions. The picture of unmixed deformity, after a time, becomes wearisome. This attempt to impart an abiding interest to a subject purely disgusting, is one which has baffled greater powers than Claudian's. We need only refer to the tenth satire of Juvenal, Churchill's "Times," and Gifford's" Epistle to Peter Pindar." There is also in some parts of the poem a mixture of the pure heroic, which does not harmonize with its general character. The latter part of the second book is interesting as the earliest remaining instance (with the exception of Juvenal's third satire, which however is inferior to Claudian's in burlesque pomp and sustained gravity) of that species of composition which has been cultivated with such signal success in modern times under the title of mock-heroic. For this Claudian was peculiarly well fitted by his ordinary habits of style, which, even on serious subjects, sometimes betray him to the verge of burlesque.

239

REMARKS ON

The English Translation of the Bible; with some suggestions for an improved form of the Text in a revision of its numerous Italic interpolations; and of its pointing, and marginal additions.

THE English Translation of the Bible, published in the reign of King James the First, is deservedly acknowledged a lasting monument of the learning of that age. The various attempts and essays of individuals towards any new and improved Translation of the whole or parts of the Sacred Volume, in English, since that period, have only proved the general integrity and fidelity of the former translators, and added lustre to the character of their work.

Subsequent editions of the Bible have improved the orthography of the language in proportion to the improvement of the English tongue, and this is the only change the Translation has undergone for the long period of two centuries, including the exchange of the old Black letter for the Roman.

With respect to the punctuation, it may be difficult to pronounce on any considerable improvement: the elements of this part of the work are few, but important, and in some cases difficult: the division of chapters into paragraphs, the right placing of capital letters and distinguishing words, and the reading points, constitute these elements.

The most material and glaring defect in our English Translation is the introduction of Italic words in the body of the text in almost every verse; as if all those words so marked and distinguished were interpolated and surreptitious, or additions of the translator to supply the defect of the Sacred Original. This consideration leads to an inquiry into their description and use.

All the words printed in Italics are reducible to two classes: 1. Grammatical; 2. Explanatory. To the first class belong all the auxiliaries of verbs and pronouns, which are by far the more numerous: and to the second class belong all words designedly introduced by the translator to explain the sense and meaning of the original, and to prevent ambiguity.

The editions of the Latin Vulgate Bible do not afford the least example or precedent for the numerous Italic interpolations objected to in the English editions, and in the Versions which "VOL. XXIX. NO. LVIII.

CI. JI.

R

have emanated from them in the Welsh, Irish, Gaelic, and Manks dialects; thus, as our translators seem to have followed the rule of Theodore Beza in his Latin Version, so the moderns have followed them in foisting into the text these numerous Italic additions.

It would be important to know what has been the rule of foreign translators in this respect, particularly the German, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and other continental nations, in their Versions of the Bible; and whether they have followed the like practice, and to what extent: and also how far the same has been adopted in modern Translations into the languages of the East and other parts of the world.

It is certain, that the example of antiquity is avowedly against the practice, and that all the ancient Versions make no such distinctions, but do fully and absolutely express the text as text without reserve: an examination into the languages and Versions published in the several Polyglott Bibles will amply explain the practice of the ancient interpreters as to this matter.

The Greek Translation of the Old Testament, and the Latin Versions of that text, declare against the practice of such interpolation, as unmeaning and unknown; and certainly, so high a precedent as the Greek Version is an authority not to be despised; from whence not only the Latin Vulgate has obtained its rule, but has set the example for all succeeding Translations in all languages.

The Psalter Psalms published with the English Common Prayer, as also the Epistles and Gospels, are all, and altogether uniformly printed without interpolation; there are no Italic words introduced to fill up and make good the supposed want of sense and meaning, and the reading has everywhere the advantage of a complete and perfect text, without the appearance of human intrusion or addition.

The numerous interpolated words in the Bible Psalms and other poetical books are highly derogatory to the majesty, brevity, and simplicity of the original Hebrew, which, if it be allowed an absolute and perfect text, should likewise be allowed an absolute and complete Translation; and if that Translation is not made, nor can be effected, without the supposed auxiliaries. and interpolations here objected to, then it follows, that either the original text is defective and imperfect, or the translator is. incompetent to the work, or that the blameable scrupulosity of the translators, in attempting an absolute accordancy in words and phrases, has driven them to the opposite extreme of introducing into the text words which have no foundation

in the original, but are necessary to give the sense and meaning of it; thus in avoiding one error they have fallen into another, and whilst on the one hand they maintain the integrity of the Hebrew text, they on the other impeach it as deficient and wanting.

The text of the Church Bibles is the authentic text: from this text the Word of God is read in all churches, and the word of man is not admitted in it; but if the reader should be tenacious, and equally scrupulous with the translators who have devised these interpolations, how shall such a reader consult with his conscience, should he pass over those Italic insertions sub silentio, as not being the Word of God, or read them in the audience of the people as the Word of God, knowing them to be devised by men? Certainly he cannot but read the whole text as he there finds it written or printed, and no such reserves and distinctions can in this case be admitted.

That alone is denied to the Bible, which is allowed to all the learned books of the ancients in the translations of their works, if such interpolations are to be persisted in; and that which is allowed in the translation of common Hebrew books is denied to the Bible.

Having remarked, that all the interpolary words may be resolved into two classes, Grammatical and Explanatory, I shall now offer some pertinent examples; and first of the former of these two:

1. Joseph says to his brethren, "I am Joseph your brother," Gen. xlv. 4. The interpolated word is here marked in Italics, as if it had no warrant in the original; but here a manifest violence is done to the original in excluding the avowed sense in all similar cases, granted according to the rule of the Hebrew tongue; and therefore, when Joseph thus addresses his brethren, he positively and without reserve says, "I am Joseph your brother." The rule of the original language has no other form of expression for the present tense in this construction of speech, and that translation is not justified in the interpolation which excludes the affirmation contained in it. But of how much greater consequence are those repeated affirmations of the Almighty in sealing his word to his precepts in the most solemn form, "I am the LORD!" Surely the testimony of the whole Hebrew tongue can never justify any translator for interpolating in forms of speech like these, and rendering them imperfect. In like manner the Almighty affirms himself to be the Saviour and Deliverer of the Israelites, in that form of words so often repeatrepeated in the Pentateuch, "I am the LORD your God." "I am

the LORD thy God." Exod. xx. Prayer Book Version, “ I am the LORD thy God," &c. By the same rule as the Prayer Book Version translates, ought the Bible Version to be revised, and these objections would cease.

The Prayer Book Version of Joel, ii. 12-17. Isa. Ixiii. 1.5-11. Jer. xxiii. 5-8. Mal. iii. 1-5. Isa. vii. 10-15. xl. 1—11. affords no example of interpolated words by Italics, but renders the original text and Bible Translation complete and entire, after the ancient manner.

Now the reason why the translators have introduced the Italic among the Roman letter of the text, is the Hebrew ellipsis of the verb to be, and hence they have so commonly and perpetually supplied the text in the words am, are, art, is, was, were, &c. whereas the construction of the language in the Hebrew always directs to the words called elliptical by the noun or pronoun, and by the verb or participle with which it is found; and unless this rule be made a principle in a Translation, as it is in the original, the Translation cannot but be defective. These remarks extend to the grammatical construction only, and to such interpolated words as come under this head.

All the Italic words in the first chapter of Genesis in the English Translation should be revised and printed in the textletter, excepting those which come under the second class, or are Explanatory: viz. he made, ver. 16. I have given, ver. 30. land, ver. 9, 10.

The words "dry land" in some editions, and in others with Italics, "dry land," ver. 9, 10. show a want of uniformity in the printing, and we shall see that the earlier editions have the advantage.

Barker's Bible,

Basket's Bible,

Oxford Bible,

ibid. ii. 10. dry land

dry land

dry land

dry land

Hence the words "dry land" ought to be restored in these

verses of Genesis, and the present Italics exchanged.

The Italics in verse 16th expose a defect, not in the original,