Essays and Dissertations in Biblical Literature

if they were trimmed of every thing that is good for nothing.(c)

As to the charge of 'grammatism,' the critical PERE SIMON can hardly have been in earnest, when he found fault with the grammatical learning of our author. Whether he were or not, the defence of BOCHART by VILLAMANDY, the editor of his collected works, is well enough. "It is true," says he, "that the numerous explanations of Hebrew, Rabbinical, Greek, and other words, which occur in his works, display much grammatical knowledge. But it is that kind of knowledge which relates to the true force and signification of words, and to their genuine origin and use; and which is gained only by an accurate perusal of the best writers in the language. Such is not the knowledge of the mere grammatist who trifles with the endless genealogies and forms of grammar, and is for ever involved in doubt by the intricacy of his own disputations." (d)

The assertion that BOCHART was indebted to dictionaries' for his multifarious learning deserves a contemptuous denial. Every page of his works shows that he derived his knowledge of the languages in which he was so eminently skilled, from the fountain heads. He is continually correcting errors, or supplying deficiencies, of modern lexicographers, especially the Arabic. It would be difficult to adduce a single instance in which he has depended on the authority of a dictionary, except it be one written in the language itself, as those of JAUHARI in Arabic, or HESYCHIUS in Greek, to which no sober critic would object.

But as to trifling, and, so to speak, conglomeration of unnecessary learning, it is impossible to justify our author. Occasionally we cannot avoid imagining that he selects the least obvious interpretations of a passage, that he may bring his

(c) SIMON, Reponse aux Sentimens de quelque Theologiens de Hol lande, Liv. m p. 18. ed. Roterd.-Reponse a la Defense des Sentimens, &c. p. 72, p. 74.

(d) Such is the substance of p. 5, ¶ 4. of Praef, in Tom. 111. Opp.

BOCHARTI

immense erudition to bear, in its establishment. (e) Elsewhere he dallies, through whole pages, with the most absurd hypotheses, that he may enjoy the Titanic pleasure of heaving a mountain to crush a mouse. (f) The warmest admirer of BOCHART must allow, that his voluminous writings would well admit of much retrenchment.

Another serious charge against BOCHART, which must be admitted to have some foundation, is, that he indulged to an

(e) For example. In ISA. VI. 6. he would render, a heated stone; relying on ancient authorities (neither numerous nor strong) for that meaning of the word; and then brings vast quantities of historical reading to show that heated stones were used in ancient times for cooking, &c., and therefore might have been upon the altar for the purpose of consuming flesh put there. But after all he fails in showing the very point to be proved-that it was customary to use heated stones in sacrifices, or to place them on altars; and he does not perceive that his farfetched rendering takes away a great deal of the beauty of the bold figure of the prophet. It is astonishing that SIMON, Döderlein, Dathe, and even GESENIUS, should have admitted implicitly this rendering.HIEROZ. P. 1. L. n. c. xxxiii.

(ƒ) An egregious instance of such trifling occurs in the HIEROZOICON, P. II. B. II. c. xi., entitled 'GoD's providence towards crows.' In the first place he states the allegorial interpretation given to certain passages of Scripture relating to 'young ravens' by some of the early fathers, who made the 'ravens' Gentiles, the 'young ravens' The Christian church, formed principally from among the heathen. This he gravely refutes at some length. Then follows a literal exposition given by SOLOMON JARCHI, KIMCHI, and other Jewish, and many Arabian writers. They say that ravens, on the first hatching of their young, are so disgusted with the appearance of the little animals, as to fly away and leave them; and that the young birds uttering their plaintive cries upon being pressed with hunger, the Deity, in pity on them, creates from their dung in the nest, great abundance of lice, which run into the open mouths of the nestlings. With all possible seriousness our author girds himself for the work of showing this to be an untenable exegesis. The authorities by which it is supported are quoted, to the number of three citations in Hebrew, four in Arabic, two in Greek, and three in Latin. In answer, he undertakes to prove that it is not the habit of birds to foul their own nests;-that it is not likely that the ravens think their young ones ugly ;—and that there is no unquestionable evidence of their leaving them in their vexation. During this process he makes eleven more quotations from EPICHARMIUS, CICERO, Aristotle, PLINY, ÆLIAN, CHALPHOLACHMAR, and SERVIUS. The whole occupies three large folio pageɛ.

excessive degree in conjecture and unwarranted hypothesis. Much may be said in palliation of this fault, if such it be. The subjects of his books were such as seldom to admit even of the moral demonstration of probability; and in many cases, the best guesser is the wisest man. Many of his conjectures have since been fully confirmed. Others are as near the truth as the scanty data in existence will permit us to arrive. Even of those which are palpably incorrect, no few command our admiration by their ingenuity and the learning displayed in their support. (g)

The only remaining objection which has been made against our author, is, his overweening attachment to etymology. StMON passes some bitter jests upon this foible, undertaking to show, by some of BOCHART's irrefragable proofs, that the Borak, or winged animal on which Mahomet's followers feign that their Prophet rode, was nothing else than a she-ass,' in French bourrique. (h) It is true that BOCHART did place too much reliance upon etymological reasoning; and he was even reprehended for it by some of the most eminent of his contemporaries. (i) In his work on Animals, this is easily accounted for by his opinions respecting the derivation of Hebrew names of animals from ADAM, and their consequent ne

(g) His explanation of the Egyptian mythological history of Osiris and Typho, from the history of Moses, is a splendid instance. There is scarcely room for a doubt that the whole will, in the more thorough knowledge of Egyptian antiquity which is now dawning on the world, appear to be a mere offspring of fancy. Yet, as given by BOCHART (HIEROZ. P. 1. L. 11. c. 34.) and as well epitomized by WITSIUS (Egyptiacarum Lib. 1. c. v. p. 216. 216. ss.) there is hardly a part which does not seem highly probable, or an inference which does not possess a show of adequate support by historical and most ingenious etymologi· cal argument.—This tracing events of Jewish history in heathen mythology was a favourite employment of our author. He finds Moses in Bacchus, Deborah in the Sphinx, &c., &c. This fault was common in his age. HUET is well known to have carried it to excessive lengths.

(h) Reponse a la Defense des Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande. p. 72.

(i) HUET is said to have addressed a letter to him, containing very sensible remarks on the subject. AIKIN'S Memoirs of HUET. 11. 492,

immense erudition to bear, in its establishment. (e) Elsewhere he dallies, through whole pages, with the most absurd hypotheses, that he may enjoy the Titanic pleasure of heaving a mountain to crush a mouse. (ƒ) The warmest admirer of BOCHART must allow, that his voluminous writings would well admit of much retrenchment.

Another serious charge against BOCHART, which must be admitted to have some foundation, is, that he indulged to an

(e) For example. In ISA. VI. 6. he would render 987, a heated stone; relying on ancient authorities (neither numerous nor strong) for that meaning of the word; and then brings vast quantities of historical reading to show that heated stones were used in ancient times for cooking, &c., and therefore might have been upon the altar for the purpose of consuming flesh put there. But after all he fails in showing the very point to be proved-that it was customary to use heated stones in sacrifices, or to place them on altars; and he does not perceive that his farfetched rendering takes away a great deal of the beauty of the bold figure of the prophet. It is astonishing that SIMON, DÖDERLEIN, Dathe, and even GESENIUS, should have admitted implicitly this rendering.HIEROZ. P. I. L. n. c. xxxiii.

(f) An egregious instance of such trifling occurs in the HIEROZOICON, P. 11. B. 11. c. xi., entitled 'God's providence towards crows.' In the first place he states the allegorial interpretation given to certain passages of Scripture relating to 'young ravens' by some of the early fathers, who made the 'ravens' Gentiles, the 'young ravens' The Christian church, formed principally from among the heathen. This he gravely refutes at some length. Then follows a literal exposition given by SOLOMON JARCHI, KIMCHI, and other Jewish, and many Arabian writers. They say that ravens, on the first hatching of their young, are so disgusted with the appearance of the little animals, as to fly away and leave them; and that the young birds uttering their plaintive cries upon being pressed with hunger, the Deity, in pity on them, creates from their dung in the nest, great abundance of lice, which run into the open mouths of the nestlings. With all possible seriousness our author girds himself for the work of showing this to be an untenable exegesis. The authorities by which it is supported are quoted, to the number of three citations in Hebrew, four in Arabic, two in Greek, and three in Latin. In answer, he undertakes to prove that it is not the habit of birds to foul their own nests;—that it is not likely that the ravens think their young ones ugly ;—and that there is no unquestionable evidence of their leaving them in their vexation. During this process he makes eleven more quotations from EPICHARMIUS, CICERO, ARISTOTLE, Pliny, Ælian, CHALPHOLACHMAR, and SERVIUS. The whole occupies three large folio pages.

The only remaining objection which has been made against our author, is, his overweening attachment to etymology. StMON passes some bitter jests upon this foible, undertaking to show, by some of BOCHART's irrefragable proofs, that the Borak, or winged animal on which Mahomet's followers feign that their Prophet rode, was nothing else than a‘she-ass,' in French bourrique. (h) It is true that BOCHART did place too much reliance upon etymological reasoning; and he was even reprehended for it by some of the most eminent of his contemporaries. (i) In his work on Animals, this is easily accounted for by his opinions respecting the derivation of Hebrew names of animals from ADAM, and their consequent ne

(g) His explanation of the Egyptian mythological history of Osiris and Typho, from the history of Moses, is a splendid instance. There is scarcely room for a doubt that the whole will, in the more thorough knowledge of Egyptian antiquity which is now dawning on the world, appear to be a mere offspring of fancy. Yet, as given by BOCHART (HIEROZ. P. 1. L. 11. c. 34.) and as well epitomized by WITSIUS (Egyptiacarum Lib. 1. c. v. p. 216. 216. ss.) there is hardly a part which does not seem highly probable, or an inference which does not possess a show of adequate support by historical and most ingenious etymological argument.—This tracing events of Jewish history in heathen mythology was a favourite employment of our author. He finds Moses in Bacchus, Deborah in the Sphinx, &c., &c. This fault was common in his age. HUET is well known to have carried it to excessive lengths. (h) Reponse a la Defense des Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande. p. 72.

(i) HUET is said to have addressed a letter to him, containing very sensible remarks on the subject. AIKIN'S Memoirs of HUET. 11. 492.

« Previous Continue »

Books