Page images
PDF
EPUB

because he could not find words appropriate, stood with his hand laid on Marsaut's shoulder, while the Commander, who had somehow dragged himself there, held on by the rails of the bridge above.

Early next morning, when the coal and sundries had been brought on board again, the four white men stood side by side at the steamer's gangway, the Commander leaning on Marsaut's arm as he said, "The nations is not good friendly in this part of Africa, but what you have done in saving the poor Senegali, soldier of France he is, she will not forget."

"Yes," said Fleming, who was rash The Gentleman's Magazine.

in speech, "and I'm very glad. It gave me something to do. If the nation tries to monopolize too much of this river, we'll probably meet you another way; but when we find you in a tight placepestilence, poison or savages-we'll do our very best for you-quite unofficially and beside the question, you know. Your papers sometimes are not civil, but we're white men all of us."

Then there was a grasp of hands all round, and Fleming hurriedly withdrew-for he feared an embrace-the canoe paddles splashed, and the little gunboat steamed away down river, while the traders and their Krooboys turned back towards the lonely factory. Harold Bindloss.

"O YE OF LITTLE FAITH."

A Sower sowed his seed, with doubts and fears;
"I dare not hope," he said, "for fruitful ears:
Poor hath the Harvest been in other years."
Yet ere the August moon had waxen old
Fair stood his fields, a waving sea of gold:
He reaped a thousand-fold!

In a dark place one dropt a kindly word;

"So weak my voice," he sighed, "perchance none heard,

Or if they did, no answering impulse stirred."

Yet in an hour his fortunes were at stake:

One put a life in peril for his sake,

Because that word he spake!

"Little I have to give, O Lord," one cried,
"A wayward heart that oft hath Thee denied;
Couldst Thou with such a gift be satisfied?"

Yet when the soul had ceased its mournful plaint,
God took the love that seemed so poor and faint,

And from it made a Saint!

The Sunday Magazine.

Christian Burke.

TINKERING THE BIBLE.

There has been a notion abroad in recent years that the language of the Bible, as we have it in the Authorized Version of 1611, needs to be modernized in order that it may make a lively appeal to modern minds. But the efforts made in this direction have not been very hopeful. Even the Revised Version was, for most people, a gigantic bubble, which burst as soon as born; and the small private attempts which have been made since, have burst as quietly in its wake. The latest product of this well-meaning crusade is Dr. Henry Hayman's work, entitled "The Epistles of the New Testament: an Attempt to Present Them in Current and Popular Idiom." (A. & C. Black.) We propose to examine Dr. Hayman's aim and execution with some care, for we believe that such enterprises as his are at least useful in demonstrating the impregnability of a work of literary art like the Authorized Version; and that they exhibit certain fallacies which it is well to dissipate. Dr. Hayman's professed aim in re-wording the Epistles has been "to present them in current and popular idiom." That he presents them in no such garb is the first conviction that is forced upon the reader. Dr. Hayman employs neither the words nor the constructions of everyday life. The mere retention of "thou" and "thee," of "art" and "hast," of "couldest" and "wouldest," is a clear breach of the design, these words forming no part of current and popular idioms. It is quite a common thing for Dr. Hayman to replace clear English by difficult English, and a familiar construction by a rare one. Thus Paul's simple sentence, "For he that is dead is freed from sin," becomes, in Dr. Hayman's version, "For the dead to sin is en

franchised from its power"-a change surely, in the very opposite direction to that proposed in the author's plan. Again, the words in Romans x, 21: "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people," become: "All day long I stretch forth my hands towards a people refractory and recusant." Here, again, the change seems to be precisely antagonistic to the aim announced. Two adjectives are latinized, and the idiom which, in the Authorized Version, places them before the noun they qualify, is exchanged for an idiom, certainly less current and certainly less popular, which places them after that noun. Concerning the purely literary effect of the changes we need say nothing. An astonishing example of Dr. Hayman's work is afforded by a comparison of the two versions of a passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, which every one knows by heart:

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

DR. HAYMAN.

Finally, brethren, let every principle of truth, reverence, rectitude, purity; all that is endearing, all that is auspicious; whatever there be that is excellent and praiseworthy dwell in your thoughts.

Here Dr. Hayman substitutes long words for short, and a faulty construction for a good; and he simply underpins and brings down the rhetorical scheme of the passage which he pro

fesses to improve. For that Dr. Hayman hopes to improve every sentence he alters seems clear. Otherwise he would not expressly declare in his Preface that some phrases in the Authorized Version cannot be improved upon, and will, therefore, be retained unaltered in his own version. However, this admission prepares the reader to witness Dr. Hayman's courage rather than his discretion, for there are few passages on which he does not exercise his skill. Even Paul's entreaty to the believers at Corinth, "Greet one another with an holy kiss," becomes, "Exchange a kiss of sanctity with one another," leaving us astonished by the moderation which did not impel him to write: "Exchange osculations of sanctity with one another." Dr. Hayman's handling of the Authorized Version is seen at its boldest when he alters the words "encompassed about with SO great a cloud of witnesses" into "encircled with SO vast cloud a of attesting spectators." "Encompassed" is not necessarily "encircled," and "witnesses" means (precisely) "attesting. spectators," with the obvious advantage that it is a comely English word instead of two words of Latin complexion and little charm. The sacrifice of charm is the unvarying feature of modernized versions of the Bible. Take this example:

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

DR. HAYMAN.

Charity is long suffering, is kindly, is void of envy, is no braggart, is not in

flated, preserves decorum, avoids selfseeking, is not irritable, imputes not the evil done, has no joy at evil doing, but rejoices on the side of the truth; puts up with all things, gives credit for all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Sometimes the flight is nearly from the sublime to the ridiculous. Thus:

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

DR. HAYMAN.

I accordingly so run as if I meant to win; and so plant my hits not as idly sparring; but I hit home at my own fleshly frame, and tame it into subserviency; for fear I, who proclaim the contest to others, should come to be rejected myself.

These examples of an effort to modernize the Bible language are so surprising, that it may be well to seek further light on Dr. Hayman's actual intentions. The most significant sentence in his Preface is this: "I have striven to answer to myself the question, How would these fathers of our faith have expressed themselves, if the vernacular English of our own day had been their medium of expression?" This calls for thought. The vernacular should mean the whole vernacular, or it is nothing. To credit Paul, Peter and James, in imagination, with a knowledge of only those English words of today which approximately reproduce the meanings of their own words, will be to beg the question. It would be to raise the question of correct translation, whereas the question raised by Dr. Hayman is clearly that of expression in its largest sense. If we really

are to inquire how Paul would have expressed himself in the English vernacular of to-day, we must begin by imagining that he possessed as full a knowledge of that vernacular as ourselves his readers. We must also-it is inevitable-impute to him a knowledge not only of all our words, but of all they stand for; in a word, we must credit him with the same heritage of knowledge as we ourselves enjoy, including (oh, confusion!) our knowledge of himself derived from the Authorized Version. We might then-pace all absurdities-receive Paul's Epistles from his hand in the English vernacular of to-day, and hear him draw his illustrations from such vernacular facts as the rotundity of the earth, wireless telegraphy, forbidden incense and the proselytizing zeal of Mr. Mallock. And a daring writer might conceivably endeavor to personate this modern St. Paul, and re-think and re-write his Epistles for men and women of to-day. This would be, at any rate, a logical attempt to show-what Dr. Hayman proposes to show, but does not-how Paul of Tarsus would have expressed himself "if the vernacular English of today had been his medium of expression." But the result would not be the Bible. The Bible was written in certain periods and in certain languages, and all that can be done is to translate a given portion from the language in which it was first written into the language in which it is proposed to be read, taking verbal equivalents as we find them, and submitting to the disadvantages arising from differences in the knowledge, tastes and ideals of the two periods. The Authorized Version was a supremely good example of translation, because it not only did this task work, but took on a rare beauty and energy of its own. Moreover, it carried out Dr. Hayman's own plan; it presented the Bible in "current and popular idioms." That the need for

such presentation was infinitely greater in 1611 than it is in 1900 does not need to be demonstrated to any one acquainted, however slightly, with the development of the English language. Since 1611 the language has grown enormously, but has altered little; and it is certain that Shakespeare, in the Elysian Libraries, reads "The Ring and the Book" with far greater ease than he reads "The Romaunt of the Rose." But granting that the Authorized Version presents the Bible in an English form which has been devitalized by the changes that have come over the language in the interval of nearly three centuries, and that these changes justify an attempt to present the Bible in the "current and popular idioms" of to-day, still the mere substitution of new idioms for old is a very small part of the matter. Language is inseparable from thought, and the thought of the few is warmed and colored by the thoughts of the many, and things possible in one age are impossible in another. In 1611 English faith was at its strongest. The language had passed triumphantly out of its old inflectional stages, and had fulfilled itself in Shakespeare's Plays. It had reached, as far as we know, its utmost serviceableness to literature, and literature had reached its utmost power to employ the language. The beauty of words was felt, and verbal melody was a habit rather than a secret. As the child of his age, Shakespeare wrote his plays. As children of their age, the translators of the Bible produced the Authorized Version. They had the perceptions and immunities which belong to a great literary epoch. We cannot wholly account for their success; the wind bloweth where it listeth. But it is as unwise to tamper with a Bible which our age could not have produced as it is to meddle with cathedrals which our age could not have built. The value of a Version is

[blocks in formation]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »