viii. 16, 17) we meet with a sentence which would certainly not have

passed an author’s final revision. The most obvious hypothesis surely is that from chap. iii. onwards we have before us the imperfectly worked-up meditations of an otherwise unknown writer, found after his death in proximity to a highly finished fragment which apparently professed to be the work of king Solomon. The meditations and the fragment were circulated in combination (for which there was much excuse, especially as some parts of the notes seemed to be in the narrative and even autobiographic style), and were received with much favour by the students of ‘wisdom,’ more, I should think, owing to the intrinsic interest of the book than to the literary fiction of Solomonic authorship. If this hypothesis be correct, we need not be surprised either at the author’s inconsistencies in opinion, or at the general roughness of his style. The book may not even be all one man’s work. Luther has already brought Ecclesiastes into connection with the Talmud.[295] Now the proverbial sayings which interrupt our thinker’s self-questionings on ‘vanity of vanities’ are like the Haggadic passages which gush forth like fountains in the weary waste of hair-splitting Talmudic dialectics. No one has ever maintained the unity of the Talmud, and no one should be thought unreasonable for doubting the absolute freedom of Ecclesiastes from interpolations.[296]

The third and last excuse which I have to offer is that the meditations of Koheleth partake of the nature of an experiment. He may indeed (as I have remarked) be a member of a school of writers, but his strikingly original manner compels us to regard him as a master rather than a disciple. No such purely reflective work had, so far as we know, as yet been produced in Hebrew literature. Similar moral difficulties to those which preoccupied our author had no doubt occurred to some of the prophets and poets, but they had not been sounded to their depths. Even in the Book of Job the reflective spirit has very imperfect scope. The speeches soon pass into a lyric strain, and Jehovah Himself closes the discussion by imposing silence. But the author of Ecclesiastes was a thinker, not a lyrist, and was compelled to form his own vehicle of thought. He ‘sought,’ indeed, ‘to find out pleasant words’ (xii. 10), but had to strain the powers of an unpliant language to the uttermost, to coin (presumably) new words, and apply old ones in fresh senses, till he might well have complained (to apply Lucretius) ‘propter egestatem linguae et rerum novitatem.’[297] He deserves great praise for his measure of success; Luzzatto in his early work failed to do him justice. He is not ambitious; as a rule, he abstains from fine writing. Once indeed he attempts it, but, as I venture to think, with but ill success—I refer to the closing description of old age (xii. 4-9), which has a touch of the extravagant euphuism of late Arabic literature.[298] From a poetical point of view, the prelude (i. 4-8) is alone worthy to be mentioned, though not included either by Renan or by Bickell among the passages poetical in form (for a list of which see below[299]). Let us mark this fine passage, that we may return to it again in another connection.

Footnote 286:

The ‘many books’ spoken of in xii. 12 were probably less orthodox than Ecclesiastes, but in so far as Ecclesiastes, especially in its uncorrected state, is sceptical, it may be grouped with them.

Footnote 287:

In common with most interpreters, I regard Ecclesiastes as a Judæan work.

Footnote 288:

Following the precedent of the Epilogue (xii. 9), I designate the author by the name which he has invented for his hero.

Footnote 289:

There is a touch of humour in the expression, which can perhaps best be reproduced in our northern Doric, ‘Be not unco’ guid.’

Footnote 290:

I follow Sept. and Dr. Merx. The received reading is very harsh.

Footnote 291:

_Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael_, iii. 30.

Footnote 292:

Renan, _L’Antéchrist_, p. 228.

Footnote 293:

On the rhythm, comp. Bickell, _Der Prediger_ (1884), pp. 27, 46-53.

Footnote 294:

_Die alttestamentliche Literatur_, p. 173.

Footnote 295:

‘Dazu so ist’s wie ein Talmud aus vielen Büchern zusammengezogen.’ Luther’s _Tischreden_, quoted in Ginsburg, p. 113.

Footnote 296:

See Supplementary Chapter.

Footnote 297:

_De rerum naturâ_, i. 140 (appositely quoted by Mr. Tyler).

Footnote 298:

See the passage quoted from Chenery’s translation of Hariri by Dr. Taylor (_Dirge of Coheleth_, p. 55); comp. Rückert’s rhyming translation (_Hariri_, i. 104-5).

Footnote 299:

Renan’s list is i. 15, 18; ii. 2, 14; iii. 2-8, iv. 5, 14; v. 2; vii. 1-6; 7, 8; 9_b_; 13_b_; 24; viii. 1, 4; ix. 16, 17; x. 2, 12, 18; xi. 4, 7; xii. 3-5; 10; 11, 12. Bickell’s, i. 7, 8; 15; 18; ii. 2; v. 9; vi. 7; iv. 5; ii. 14; viii. 8; ix. 16-x. 1; vii. 1-6, vi. 9, vii. 7-9; vii. 11, 12; vii. 20; v. 2; x. 16-20; xi. 6; xi. 4; viii. 1-4, x. 2, 3; x. 6, 7; x. 10-15; ix. 7; xi. 9, 10, xii. 1_a_; xii. 1_b_-5; 6. (The order of these passages arises out of Bickell’s critical theory; on which see Chap. XII.)