Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

he is now chiefly known and remembered. Of his Religious Treatises, we have seen his Communion of Saints, and an Arrow against Idolatry. They have been published three or four times. The last edition was published at Edinburgh, 1789, superintended, we have understood, by Dr Charles Stuart, and introduced with an account of the life and writings of the author, more satisfactory than any yet given to the world.

Most of his Treatises relate to disputes with the church of England, or those of his own party, and have now lost all interest. Some of those which he printed before he left his native country may be occasionally picked up; but those which were printed beyond seas are of very rare occurrence. None of his writings are of much value, except his translations and commentaries. Into these it is impossible to look without a conviction of their excellence. On these his fame entirely rests, though it has always been more widely spread on the Continent than this island. His translation of the Hebrew text into English is faithful to the original, though rather literal. It resembles the Latin versions of Pagninus and Montanus, though we question whether their translations be as good as Ainsworth's. Often, to be sure, his translation is rather to be reckoned an explanation in English of the original terms, than a translation; but that is when a literal translation of the original is impossible. A literal translation of scripture is more defensible than a literal translation of a profane author. The original of scripture we consider as the word of God, and when it appears in our language, it would derogate greatly from its authority, if the paraphrases of men should be substituted for an exact translation.

In many passages, the elegance and fidelity of Ainsworth's translation are astonishing. One is surprised how he could have contrived to translate phrases into our language, which seem altogether untranslateable; phrases highly figurative, and conveying a pun or play upon words, which is more or less common to original languages, before those who speak them have made great progress in civilization, or been much addicted to abstract inquiries.

In general, his translation is too literal, to be a fair representation of the original. Sometimes his desire of translating literally inclines him to retain Hebraisms, inconsistent with the English idiom, and betrays him into absurdity. Archbishop Newcome has more than once quoted this instance from Ainsworth. Psal. xcv. 2. "Let us prevent his face with thanksgiving;" which is thus clearly expres→ sed in the common translation, "Let us come before his face with thanksgiving."

Whether Ainsworth's translation is formed on that authorized by King James, or on prior translations, as that of King James confessedly was, must be ascertained by comparing all these translations. Certainly Ainsworth's and King James's are very similar; and when they differ, it is in those passages, in which Ainsworth gives a more literal translation. King James's translation was published at London, in folio, 1611, and Ainsworth's translation of the Psalms and Song of Solomon, in 1612; so that he was not very likely to see the royal translation of these books. The two translations of the Psalms at least differ considerably, but in both, the Song of Solomon is almost word for word, except when Ainsworth chooses to be more literal. As his translation of the Pentateuch was later, he might, while employed upon it, have had a better opportunity of consulting the royal translation.

It may be worth while to compare these two translations in a few instances, first quoting the Royal Translation, then Ainsworth's. Genesis i. 11. Royal Translation. "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so." Ainsworth's. "God said, Let the earth bud forth the budding grass, the herb seeding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so."

Genesis xlix. 9. Royal Translatim. "Judah is a lion's whelp. From the prey, my son, thou art gone up. He stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion, who shall rouse him up?” Ainsworth's. “Judah, a renting lion's whelp. From the prey, my son, thou art gone up. He stooped down,

Preface to Minor Prophets, p. xx.

he couched as a renting lion, as a courageous lion, who shall rouse him?” Genesis xlix. 6. Royal Translation. "My soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united; for in their anger they slew a man; and in their self-will they digged down a wall." Ainsworth's. "My soul, come not thou unto their secret; my glory, be not thou united unto their assembly; for in their anger they killed a man; and in their self-will houghed the ox."

Levit. xi. 3. Royal Translation. "Whatever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, shall ye eat." Ainsworth's. "All that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth asunder the cleft of the hoofs, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that shall ye eat."

Psalm xxiii. 1, 2, 3. Royal Translation. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside the still waters; he restoreth my soul; he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake." Ainsworth's." Jehovah feedeth me, I shall not lack. In folds of budding grass he maketh me to lie down; he easily leadeth me by the waters of rests; he returneth my soul. He leadeth me in the beaten path of justice for his name's sake."

Song of Solomon, ii. 7. Royal Translation." I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please." Ainsworth's. "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, or by the hinds of the field, if ye stir, and if ye stir up the love, till it please."

From the comparative view of Ainsworth's and King James's translation of these and similar passages, we may form a pretty just idea of the former, though we possess little or no knowledge of the original. Both translations are literal, but chiefly that of Ainsworth; and how difficult this kind of translation is, in poetical or highly figurative passages, no one accustomed to translate need be informed.

Such translations are valuable to those who wish to understand the original, and are to be studied night and day, if they would read the original with ease and pleasure, or even with certainty of the meaning. Every man must translate literally before he

can translate freely, if he would be faithful to the original.

Equally valuable to the pious and industrious student are the commentaries annexed to the translation, especially those which accompany the Pentateuch. No where is the Jewish ritual better explained, or the explanation given supported by more ju dicious extracts from the Rabbis, whose authority in these matters is not to be despised.

Along with excellent illustrations, from the Rabbinical writings, of the customs and usages mentioned by Moses, criticisms on the original are interspersed every where through the annotations, and the phrases and sentiments accounted for by parallel passages from the Old and New Testa ments; especially every thing relating to the Messiah, promised to the Israelitish nation.

As the commentaries and translation of Ainsworth are the very best helps which can be used for acquir ing a knowledge of the original, it is matter of regret that they are not printed in a form that can readily be consulted. The quartos, when to be had, are manageable enough; but that is far from being the case with the folios. The most commodious form is octavo; and certainly he that could conveniently study the translation and commentaries for a month or two along with the text, would be a much better Hebrew scholar than if he had studied them for so many years with only the masoretic points.

Whenever, in his treatises, Ainsworth quotes from difficult or disputed passages of scripture, he translates from the original, and it has sometimes occurred to me, that with a little diligence and patience, his translations of these passages might be collected from his writings. Of course, such a task could only be important to those who valued the manner and spirit of Ainsworth, as a translator of Hebrew and Chaldee, or respected his authority in those points, about which others equally skilful disagree.

He was not destitute of imagination, and even attempted poetry; but his essays of this nature we do not admire. In our judgment, he would have acted more wisely, if he had confined himself to prose; and he would have excelled in it, had he studied the rules of good writing, and composed

with care. Whoever reads his Treatise on the Communion of Saints, and especially his Arrow against Idolatry, must be convinced that his powers of composition were not defective. Had his subjects been judiciously chosen, he was perfectly able to illustrate then whatever were his ideas, he could clothe them in clear and forcible language. This, however, was a matter of indifference to him. His genius was not of that order which selects a subject, "unattempted yet in prose or rythm." The word of God controlled his judgment, and subdued his feelings. He encouraged no conceptions which had the air of originality, or delighted in imagery, which fancy created. His ideas were invariably the ideas of scripture, and his language that which scripture supplied. As a literary man, his highest ambition was to understand thoroughly the Hebrew and Chaldee scriptures; and he was most indefatigable in their study, and anxious to transfuse their true meaning into his own language. That he has succeeded in every instance, we will not assert. Writings so ancient and so little studied in their originals, present difficulties not easily to be surmounted; but those who really wish to master the languages in which they are written, cannot do better than dedicate a portion of their time to Ainsworth. His labours on the Old Testament enable us to read, with advantage and satisfaction, Pocock, Lowth, Blaney, Newcome, Horsley, Michaelis, and all those who have been most eminent for biblical learning.

CHARACTER,

ABU. ALMAMON.

PRINCIPLE, WITH

OTHER GRAVE MATTERS. Let them cant about decorum Who have characters to lose.

Burns.

Ir is obvious to the merest novice in the science of human life, that the characters of men vary with their fortunes. The insolence of the prosperous towards their equals and bosom friends when in humble circumstances; the cold reserve and the galling commiseration with which the affluent hear the complaints of the unfortunate, these topics form the favourite themes of sentimental phi

VOL. IX.

losophy with tea-drinking laundresses, and gambling bankrupts. But there is an error into which those disinterested moralists generally fall on this subject. They forget that the mutual relations of the fortunate and unfortunate are like those of scales in a balance. While the levity of success buoys the one above the equipoise of sober thought and consideration, the pressure of misfortune sinks the other to the earth. The chagrin of disappointment, and the irritable jealousy of fallen fortunes, contribute fully more to such complaints and lamentations than the natural affection and respect of men for prosperity and good humour. But this is not the view of character designed for the present essay.

Character has two properties in common with money. It is difficult to lay hold of a respectable quantity of it, but that quantity once obtained, it accumulates with great ease and rapidity. A great accumulation of character begets caution and timidity.

In the senate and at the bar no sight is more familiar than the apparent accession of talent from increase of reputation. The consciousness that he has been successful, and that he now possesses the attention and excites the expectation of his hearers, inspires the orator with an energy of thought and expression, which, in other circumstances, could never be commanded. The operation of success embraces both the orator and the audience: he effects more than would be otherwise possible, and they appretiate what he effects beyond its natural value. The influence of success upon genius is quite prodigious. Many of the effects of genius are closely allied to those of madness. "The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact." The man of genius magnifies immeasurably the difficulty of his task, and disparages indefinitely the efficiency of his own powers. He who is to ravish the minds of listening thousands feels apprehensions that his ideas are those of an idiot, and that his performances can call forth nothing but ridicule or pity. He imagines himself walking, not on the level and firm road, but over gulfs profound on the " steady footing of a spear." In his imagination every mind that regards

D d

un

him is full of intelligence, and every eye that looks at him is loaded with reflection and philosophy. Yet such is the happy inconsistency of genius, that, against all probability of success in its own estimation, it essays and aspires. It apprehends that there is scarcely a possibility of any other result but sinking; it imagines the waves all tempestuous and devouring, yet it commits itself to the agitated element. There are exceptions; there are minds eminently fitted to delight and to instruct mankind, whose sensibility is too morbid, and who recoil irretrieva bly from the first fearful effort for distinction. How numerous this class may be we know not:

Ah! who can tell how many a soul sublime

Has felt the influence of malignant star! But, happily for the world, the ambition of genius is generally irrepressible in proportion as its timidity is extravagant. Its timidity arises from over-rating the distance from the goal. Yet the same feelings which cause this misapprehension encircle success with indescribable charms; he begins the race with an impetus adapted to the imaginary distance, and he gains the goal more easily than he had calculated, and long before him who had formed a just estimate of the distance, and who had adapted his efforts to the sober reality of things. One instance of success ensures a series. The inspiring deception is never removed, but the vigour and deter mination of experience take the place of tremulous, calm, and embarrassing apprehension. Thus the character of genius and talent expands itself indefinitely when it once acquires a living principle in the consciousness of its possessor. With the spectators it enlarges itself without limitation or restraint. The multitude of readers or hearers look confidently for excellence to him who has once excelled. This again has a tendency to animate the object of general confidence with increased power. There is a reciprocal action and reaction carried on between genius and fame. Possunt quia posse videntur.

But this glorious delusion is unknown to the uninspired, and its influence and power increase or diminish with the increase or diminution of

the inspiration of genius. Character is power where there is no genius, but that power consists chiefly, not in the increased energy of its possessor, but in the diminished resistance of its spectators. A horse prances with the same grace and spirit under the groom and under my lord, though in the latter station his character is higher, and his grace and spirit are more marked and admired.

From these observations, we may infer that genius is an unfortunate encumbrance where the field of display is limited. The splendid infinities which dazzle the imagination, and inspire the impetuosity of genius, would be most embarrassing in the fantastical modes of courts and cabinets. March a horse in presence of all that is dignified in rank, or overpowering in beauty, and he will never make a false step. But a man, sensitive and ambitious, will exhibit all inconceivable awkwardnesses. We have heard of ten thousand poets and orators who missed the prize through insufficiency; never of one statesman, unless, perhaps, Mr Addison. Mr Perceval was insignificant till he became prime minister, and then he was the ablest and most eloquent man alive. Lord Castlereagh was-God knows what, till he became the first man in the House of Commons, and then behold a full disclosure of all the

[ocr errors]

gems of purest ray serene," which "the dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear." We mean no disparagement to the Noble Marquis; he has his talents, and they have their reward; but we congratulate him on his entire freedom from the delusions and miscalculations which we apprehend Mr Canning to have been once guilty of. Londonderry's Brutus would be curious, and would form a rare contrast to Cicero's.

Now for caution and circumspection of character. Moral character, in its greatest accumulation, is a very good thing, and we willingly adopt the judicial style of the Old Bailey, and say to every one who has got the treasure, "Take care of it." But the character now under consideration, when consummated and seeurely hoarded, is a questionable sort of commodity. Entailed estates in land are reprobated by the best economists as nurseries of imbecility, and

fraud in individuals, and nuisances to the industry and commerce of society. What if a finished and completed reputation be the same? The original acquisition of money benefits society, by enriching it with the fruits of that industry by which money was acquired. The mere hoard of money may gratify its owner, and obtain for him the attention and respect of the world, but it is at best useless to society. So it is with character, considered as professional reputation. When it ceases to grow, it becomes a nuisance. You would not fasten mellow apples by strings to their native boughs, so as to keep them dangling all the year round. The application of this doctrine is obvious to all. Mark the difference between the humble and unknown curate, and the lordly and celebrated prelate, arguing points of faith; or between the rational and learned parish priest, and the shallow, but confident favourite of the mob. The one is sensible, patient, convincing; the other arrogant, irritable, dogmatical. Mark the difference between the young, ardent, unpraised barrister, and the distinguish ed, lauded, and respectable leading counsel. To whom will you trust your cruel, oppressive, but disreputable cause? To the latter surely, for he can command attention to its merits, and enforce redress of its grievances. But he will not sully his fine reputation with it. The inquiry might he further pushed into the deeply important, though stormy provinces of politics and patriotism, but it is unnecessary. If the doctrine is intelligible, it requires no further illustration. The well known story in Horace is too apt, however, to be omit

ted.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Ibit

Ibit eò, quò vis, qui zonam perdidit, inquit.

And what, then, is principle? How proudly great and inflexible is the principle of conduct professed by the ancient stoics! Consistency, character, reputation, wealth, honour, were all indifferent to the virtuous stoic. The excellent Hooker recognises and elevates the same principle as that of Christian righteousness. The celebrated Edmund Burke acknowledged great obligations to the schoolmen, for his acuteness in making distinctions, and his readiness in catching the spirit of a proposition. We think the most refined moralist may derive benefit from the heavenly theory of disinterested integrity, daring selfdenial, and magnanimous contempt of the world, which Calvin, Knox, and others, advocated and explained. We say nothing of their personal conduct. It might, perhaps, be maintained, that they were quite different men as the unknown propounders of an excellent system, and as the venerated oracles of popular resort. This is the deficiency of principle which we wish here to point out. Men who have acquired a name, as men of principle, act on every given occasion, as their good name, not as their first principle dictates. Hence the proverbially correct remark, that every society, religious or civil, is purest in its first stage, or that "new besoms sweep clean." The Scottish clergyman is much more apt to view the standard of rectitude erected in the General Assembly Aisle, than that originally set up in Nazareth. The English candidate for orders pays more attention to the manners of my Lord the Bishop, than to those of St Peter or St Paul. We say so, not for the purpose of animadversion, (that is not lustration. In his outset in life, every our province,) but for the sake of ilupright person acts according to truth and right reason. Unfortunately, he gets great applause for this conduct. His character is established as a good man, a respectable man, an honour

« AnteriorContinuar »