Page images
PDF
EPUB

force of the reproof consist in making David his own accuser; and the more the prophet leaves for the monarch's conscience

to

therefore suggests some idea of the same kind here; and in proportion as it does that, it makes Nathan bear harder, and lean more heavily, on the application of his parable, by which he weakens the spring and elasticity of David's conscience, and diminishes both its velocity and its force. The Arabic uses a word not less descriptive or demonstrative, for man, to which it prefixes the article; and then, by means of the relative, it straps on the additional luggage which both itself and the old Italic have evidently taken from the Septuagint.

In the subsequent examples from what are called the modern versions, we preserve the orthography of the edition from which the specimen is taken. The first of these that was printed, we believe, was the Catholic Italian version by Malermi, which issued from the press in 1471 in two volumes folio. Iu an edition printed in folio at Venice, 1507, his version of the passage in question stands thus: Tu sei quel bomo che hai facto questa cosa. Antonio Bruccioli's Italian version, which is also Catholic, in his first edition printed at Venice, 1532, folio, is Tu sei l'huomo; and Diodati's Protestant version, first, printed at Geneva 1607, small folio, Tu sei quell' buomo.

In the Catholic Latin version by Pagninus, 1527, Lugd. 4to., remarkable for its being so extremely literal, for its being the guide to all those Protestants who afterward in the infancy of the Reformation translated, as they said, from the Hebrew, and for its being the first Christian Bible in which the Jewish division into verses was adopted, we have Tu es vir. The Latin Protestant version by Sebastian Castalio, at Basil, 1551, folio, has, Tu ille es. That of the Zurich Divines in 1544, 8vo., Tu es vir talis, which they afterward altered in 1564 to Tu es vir ille. Tremellius and Junius, in their first edition, 1576, folio, Francof. ad Man., have Tu vir ille es, which is also the rendering of Le Clerc in 1708; and lastly Schmidt, 1696, 4to., Argentorat. has Tu es iste vir.

Of the French Catholic versions, the oldest within our reach at present is one printed at Lyons for Jacques Sacon in 1518, folio. It is a sort of Bible historiale, and seems to contain Jean de Rely's correction of Guiart des Moulins' version, which was made about the end of the 13th, and first printed about the end of the 15th century. The passage in question is given in our copy in these words: Tu es ung homme qui ci as fait.-Jacques Le Fevre d'Estaples's version, Anvers, 1530, folio, is Tu es cest homme icy qui a fait telle chose.-That of the Louvain Doctors first made in 1550, and reprinted many times since, in the edition 1631, folio, is Tu es cet homme. In the Protestant version of Robert Olivetan, which is the standard Bible, or versio recepta, as we may say, of the Huguenots, or French Calvinists, this passage, in the first edition, printed at Neufchatel in 1535, folio, atands thus, Tu es cest home la; and so it has been continued, in the subsequent editions as improved by H. Stephens, by Sam. and Hen. Desmarêts in 1669, folio, and by David Martin, in 2 volumes folio, 1707. The first of these editors, in his impression printed at Geneva,

to do, the more that beauty and that force are increased; while, on the contrary, the more the prophet takes on himself, the more the

1565, folio, has the following addition in the margin; Asça (i.e. à sçavoir) qui a prins la brebis du pauvre homme. Lastly, Sebastien Chasteillon, (Castalio) in his version printed at Bâle, 1555, folio, has, C'et toi.

In Coverdale's Bible, 1535, folio, which is the oldest of the English printed versions, the words are, Thou art even the man.— In Matthew's Bible, 1537, folio, Thou art the man in Taverner's Bible, 1539, folio, Thou art the selfe man, which is copied by Becke in his edition printed by John Day in 1551, folio. The Catholic version printed at Doway in 1609, 4to, has, Thou art that man. All the other copies, whether varieties of the translation made in the reign of Henry VIII. or of the Bishops' and the Geneva versions in the reign of Elizabeth, or of that made in the reign of James I., which has now continued in use exactly two centuries, having been first published in 1611, agree with the above mentioned edition of Matthew's Bible, 1537; and so likewise do Purver in 1764, folio,

and Geddes in 1797, 4to.

The Spanish Protestant version by Cassiodoro de Reyna in 1569 4to. has, Tu eres aquel varon, with which the second edition, or revisal, by Cypriano de Valera, Amst. 1602, folio, agrees, with this addition in the margin, Nathan uso do gran prudencia para reprehender à David. The Spanish version literally rendered by the Jews, palabra por palabra, from the Hebrew, in the edition 1630 (or, according to the Jewish computation, 5390.) which was corrected by Menasseh Ben Israel from that of Ferrara 1553, has, tự

el varon.

Luther's German version, which originally came out in separate parts between the years 1522 and 1532, was revised and first published altogether in 1534. In an edition of the year 1540, the passage under consideration stands thus: Du bist der mann. With this agrees the German version made by the Zurich Divines for the use of the Zuinglians, which was first printed by Froschover at Zurich in 1529 and 1530, in 5 volumes 16to., and which is known by the name of Leo Juda's Bible.

In the Dutch versions that were in use before the synod of Dort, which met in 1618, some variation occurs. These were made from the German of Luther. In two editions published at Dort, one in 1612, another in 1625, folio, the demonstrative is used, Ghy zyt die (that) man; to which is added in the margin, die het schaep den armen man ontnomen heeft, which is exactly the same as Henry Stephens's marginal addition annexed to his (1565) edition of Olivetan's French version. It is probable that the note came from Calvin, who was the first reviser and corrector of Olivetan's Bible, In a Dutch version printed at Arnhem in 1616, folio, the article is used, Ghy zyt de (the) man. The version which was made from the Hebrew by order of the synod, and which was first published at

[blocks in formation]

the beauty and the force are impaired and diminished. As the case stands at present, he does nothing more than merely make David a definite man: leaving him to determine in what way he was definite, which, in consequence of what had previously passed, he could not possibly mistake. No demonstrative could have been used without the prophet taking on himself to point out how David was definite, without his saying that he was definite in that particular way which had been previously described.

The article then always makes its object definite, but never does any thing more; it never points out the particular way in which it is definite: which it always leaves to be determined by the nature and circumstances of the case. It always limits, but, if we may be allowed the expression, it limits in the most unlimited way. The demonstrative not only makes its object definite, but does more: it points out or demonstrates the way in which it is definite; and from doing this it appears to us to have derived its name. It is not called demonstrative because it defines or limits, but because it points out, or shews the way, in which things are limited.-The utility of the article consists in its comprehensive conciseness, not in its precision: while the utility

Leyden in 1637, folio, has the demonstrative die, which has been followed by all the subsequent editions.

The Danish version, in an edition printed at Copenhagen, 1607, 8vo. is, Du est manden: - The Finnish version, made by order of Queen Christina, and printed at Stockholm in 1642, folio, has, sina glet se mies:-The Swedish, in a copy printed at Amsterdam, 1688, 8vo. Tu ast then mannen : — The Livonian, Lettish, or Esthonian, printed at Riga, 1689, 2 vols. 4to. Tu esti tas wihrs; and lastly, the Welsh made by Wm. Morgan, first printed in 1588, folio, and afterward considerably altered and improved in 1620 by Richard Parry, has, in a subsequent edition, published at Oxford in 1690, folio, Ti yw'r gwr.

[ocr errors]

When we said that all these renderings are inferior in beauty to the original, we made an exception in favour of one. Our readers, we think, will be at no loss to discover that the one intended is the French version of Chasteillon; the c'et toi of which is, in our opinion, equal, if not superior to the original.

These specimens will clearly point out, to every reader of taste, the great difference between the effect produced by the article and that which is produced by the demonstrative, in cases in which some persons are apt to suppose it to be a matter of no importance whether the one or the other be used;-and this difference of effect arises from a difference in the nature of the two words, the article merely indicating that its object is definite, and leaving it to the reader to discover from the nature of the case the way in which it is so; while the demonstrative not only declares the object to be definite, but also points out, or demonstrates, the circumstance that makes it so.

of

of the demonstrative, on the contrary, consists in its precisions and not in its comprehension. Where the demonstrative is useful and is used once, the article is useful and is used a thousand times. The artificial contrivance of genus and species saves us from multiplying words when we do not want to point out, or make known, any difference in our ideas. (See Rev. Vol. lxii, p. 279. and 286.) So the article often saves us from multiplying words in many cases in which we do want to make known some difference in our ideas. A mechanic, or an artist, when he calls for the tool, or the instrument, is perfectly well understood by his attendant without giving any description of the particular tool or instrument which he wants; or with out making any the least bodily motion or sign whatever. The nature of the work about which he is employed, and the know. lege and habitual services of the attendant, supply all that the article wants in point of precision: nay, we can sometimes make ourselves sufficiently understood by merely saying "give me the," without adding any other word or making any sign whatever.

It is this circumstance which discriminates between the article properly so called, and all those other words which Harris terms pronominal articles; and which he, and Beauzée, and some others, would rank with the article. (See Rev. vol. Ixii. p.72.) These words all specify in different ways the limit ing circumstance, which the article never does; and this it is which draws the line of distinction between them,—and a broad line it is.

We say, the article never specifies the limiting circumstance. This we have already shewn, in our account of Dr. Middleton's book, with regard to most of those circumstances which are comprised in his twenty canons, and which Mr. Veysie reduces to his eight cases; and we intended to have shewn it distinctly of all Dr. Middleton's canons, but were obliged to omit a part of what we had written, by want of room. We will take this opportunity, then, of laying before our readers the observations which we had drawn up with respect to those powers which both Dr. M. and Mr.V. suppose the article to have, of expressing the possessive pronoun, and of shewing, or demonstrating, that a neuter adjective is used in an abstract sense. The first of these powers, which constitutes Dr. Middleton's fourth canon, and Mr. Veysie's third case, the latter gentleman considers as very important; and this is the reason which induces us to make some remarks on it.

Before, however, we offer our opinion on the possessive relation in particular, we will say a few words on the subject of relation in general, as far as it respects the article; because,

though

though the examples by which Mr. Veysie illustrates his third case are almost wholly confined to the particular relation, yet the position which he lays down at the beginning of that case, viz. that the article marks relation,' is general.

pos

Now it cannot be doubted that the relation which one thing bears to another is often the cause of its being definite: but the article only marks the effect; it takes no notice of the cause. It does not even mark its existence, much less its nature. It does not point out that there is any relation, except that of the thing being numbered and definite among other things: still less does it specify that relation so as to shew whether it be sessive, or of any other kind. In this, as in every other instance, the article leaves it to the nature and circumstances of the case to determine the particular way in which the thing is definite. It merely declares the fact, without having any thing to do with the cause. The business of the article is simple, uniform, and every where the same, being merely that of declaring whether things are definite or indefinite: while the circumstances which render them so are infinitely

various.

Mr. Veysie is right, however, in saying that relation will serve to explain the use of the article in many passages where it. is otherwise inexplicable; that is, it serves to make things de finite which would otherwise be indefinite. It sometimes does this in cases in which the relation is so slight, (perhaps nothing more than that of a person, or thing, being the agent, or patient, in some action mentioned at the time, or that of the mutual connection of two things with each other,) that it is apt to be overlooked; and the oversight has contributed to the error of supposing that the article is sometimes used indefinitely.

Plutarch, in his Conjugalia Præcepta, (Vol. i. p. 249. edit. Steph. 8vo. 1752.) has given us the following little anecdotes: Η μεν γαρ ωδίνεσα και δυσφόρεσα προς τις κατακλινοντας αύτην ελεγε, πως δ' αν ἡ κλίνη ταία θεραπεύσειεν δις επι της κλίνης πε ριέπεσον ; and Ὁ τον δραπέτην ιδων δια χρονο, και διωκων, ως καλε φύγε φθάσας εις μυλων, πε δ' αν, έφη σε μαλλον ευρειν εξεληθην nalauda. These, Hoogeven, in his notes on Vigerus, (edit. Herman. 1802, p. 19.) produces as instances of the indefinite use of the article: but they are not so. It is true that they may be translated by, a man, seeing his run-away slave, &c. and a woman in labour,' &c.. but this, though a very proper, would not (to borrow Mr. Veysie's words on a former occasion) be a 'a strict translation." "The two expressions are not exactly equivalent. The English does not determine whether any man and any woman, nor whether a certain man and certain woman, be meant, but leaves this to be ascertained by

the

« PreviousContinue »