THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH LITERATURE
It is no exaggeration to say that the English Bible is, next to
Shakespeare, the greatest work in English literature, and that it will
have much more influence than even Shakespeare upon the written and spoken
language of the English race. For this reason, to study English literature
without some general knowledge of the relation of the Bible to that
literature would be to leave one's literary education very incomplete. It
is not necessary to consider the work from a religious point of view at
all; indeed, to so consider it would be rather a hindrance to the
understanding of its literary excellence. Some persons have ventured to
say that it is only since Englishmen ceased to believe in the Bible that
they began to discover how beautiful it was. This is not altogether true;
but it is partly true. For it is one thing to consider every word of a
book as the word of God or gods, and another thing to consider it simply
as the work of men like ourselves. Naturally we should think it our duty
to suppose the work of a divine being perfect in itself, and to imagine
beauty and truth where neither really exists. The wonder of the English
Bible can really be best appreciated by those who, knowing it to be the
work of men much less educated and cultivated than the scholars of the
nineteenth century, nevertheless perceive that those men were able to do
in literature what no man of our own day could possibly do.
Of course in considering the work of the translators, we must remember the
magnificence of the original. I should not like to say that the Bible is
the greatest of all religious books. From the moral point of view it
contains very much that we can not to-day approve of; and what is good in
it can be found in the sacred books of other nations. Its ethics can not
even claim to be absolutely original. The ancient Egyptian scriptures
contain beauties almost superior in moral exaltation to anything contained
in the Old Testament; and the sacred books of other Eastern nations,
notably the sacred books of India, surpass the Hebrew scriptures in the
highest qualities of imagination and of profound thought. It is only of
late years that Europe, through the labour of Sanskrit and Pali scholars,
has become acquainted with the astonishing beauty of thought and feeling
which Indian scholars enshrined in scriptures much more voluminous than
the Hebrew Bible; and it is not impossible that this far-off literature
will some day influence European thought quite as much as the Jewish
Bible. Everywhere to-day in Europe and America the study of Buddhist and
Sanskrit literature is being pursued not only with eagerness but with
enthusiasm--an enthusiasm which sometimes reaches to curious extremes. I
might mention, in example, the case of a rich man who recently visited
Japan on his way from India. He had in New Zealand a valuable property; he
was a man of high culture, and of considerable social influence. One day
he happened to read an English translation of the "Bhagavad-Gita." Almost
immediately he resolved to devote the rest of his life to religious study
in India, in a monastery among the mountains; and he gave up wealth,
friends, society, everything that Western civilization could offer him, in
order to seek truth in a strange country. Certainly this is not the only
instance of the kind; and while such incidents can happen, we may feel
sure that the influence of religious literature is not likely to die for
centuries to come.
But every great scripture, whether Hebrew, Indian, Persian, or Chinese,
apart from its religious value will be found to have some rare and special
beauty of its own; and in this respect the original Bible stands very high
as a monument of sublime poetry and of artistic prose. If it is not the
greatest of religious books as a literary creation, it is at all events
one of the greatest; and the proof is to be found in the inspiration which
millions and hundreds of millions, dead and living, have obtained from its
utterances. The Semitic races have always possessed in a very high degree
the genius of poetry, especially poetry in which imagination plays a great
part; and the Bible is the monument of Semitic genius in this regard.
Something in the serious, stern, and reverential spirit of the genius
referred to made a particular appeal to Western races having certain
characteristics of the same kind. Themselves uncultivated in the time that
the Bible was first made known to them, they found in it almost everything
that they thought and felt, expressed in a much better way than they could
have expressed it. Accordingly the Northern races of Europe found their
inspiration in the Bible; and the enthusiasm for it has not yet quite
faded away.
But the value of the original, be it observed, did not make the value of
the English Bible. Certainly it was an inspiring force; but it was nothing
more. The English Bible is perhaps a much greater piece of fine
literature, altogether considered, than the Hebrew Bible. It was so for a
particular reason which it is very necessary for the student to
understand. The English Bible is a product of literary evolution.
In studying English criticisms upon different authors, I think that you
must have sometimes felt impatient with the critics who told you, for
example, that Tennyson was partly inspired by Wordsworth and partly by
Keats and partly by Coleridge; and that Coleridge was partly inspired by
Blake and Blake by the Elizabethans, and so on. You may have been tempted
to say, as I used very often myself to say, "What does it matter where the
man got his ideas from? I care only for the beauty that is in his work,
not for a history of his literary education." But to-day the value of the
study of such relations appears in quite a new light. Evolutional
philosophy, applied to the study of literature as to everything else, has
shown us conclusively that man is not a god who can make something out of
nothing, and that every great work of genius must depend even less upon
the man of genius himself than upon the labours of those who lived before
him. Every great author must draw his thoughts and his knowledge in part
from other great authors, and these again from previous authors, and so on
back, till we come to that far time in which there was no written
literature, but only verses learned by heart and memorized by all the
people of some one tribe or place, and taught by them to their children
and to their grandchildren. It is only in Greek mythology that the
divinity of Wisdom leaps out of a god's head, in full armour. In the world
of reality the more beautiful a work of art, the longer, we may be sure,
was the time required to make it, and the greater the number of different
minds which assisted in its development.
So with the English Bible. No one man could have made the translation of
1611. No one generation of men could have done it. It was not the labour
of a single century. It represented the work of hundreds of translators
working through hundreds of years, each succeeding generation improving a
little upon the work of the previous generation, until in the seventeenth
century the best had been done of which the English brain and the English
language was capable. In no other way can the surprising beauties of style
and expression be explained. No subsequent effort could improve the Bible
of King James. Every attempt made since the seventeenth century has only
resulted in spoiling and deforming the strength and the beauty of the
authorized text.
Now you will understand why, from the purely literary point of view, the
English Bible is of the utmost importance for study. Suppose we glance for
a moment at the principal events in the history of this evolution.
The first translation of the Bible into a Western tongue was that made by
Jerome (commonly called Saint Jerome) in the fourth century; he translated
directly from the Hebrew and other Arabic languages into Latin, then the
language of the Empire. This translation into Latin was called the
Vulgate,--from _vulgare_, "to make generally known." The Vulgate is still
used in the Roman church. The first English translations which have been
preserved to us were made from the Vulgate, not from the original tongues.
First of all, John Wycliffe's Bible may be called the foundation of the
seventeenth century Bible. Wycliffe's translation, in which he was helped
by many others, was published between 1380 and 1388. So we may say that
the foundation of the English Bible dates from the fourteenth century, one
thousand years after Jerome's Latin translation. But Wycliffe's version,
excellent as it was, could not serve very long: the English language was
changing too quickly. Accordingly, in the time of Henry VIII Tyndale and
Coverdale, with many others, made a new translation, this time not from
the Vulgate, but from the Greek text of the great scholar Erasmus. This
was the most important literary event of the time, for "it coloured the
entire complexion of subsequent English prose,"--to use the words of
Professor Gosse. This means that all prose in English written since Henry
VIII has been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the prose of
Tyndale's Bible, which was completed about 1535. Almost at the same time a
number of English divines, under the superintendence of Archbishop
Cramner, gave to the English language a literary treasure scarcely
inferior to the Bible itself, and containing wonderful translations from
the Scriptures,--the "Book of Common Prayer." No English surpasses the
English of this book, still used by the Church; and many translators have
since found new inspiration from it.
A revision of this famous Bible was made in 1565, entitled "The Bishops'
Bible." The cause of the revision was largely doctrinal, and we need not
trouble ourselves about this translation farther than to remark that
Protestantism was reshaping the Scriptures to suit the new state religion.
Perhaps this edition may have had something to do with the determination
of the Roman Catholics to make an English Bible of their own. The Jesuits
began the work in 1582 at Rheims, and by 1610 the Roman Catholic version
known as the Douay (or Douai) version--because of its having been made
chiefly at the Catholic College of Douai in France--was completed. This
version has many merits; next to the wonderful King James version, it is
certainly the most poetical; and it has the further advantage of including
a number of books which Protestantism has thrown out of the authorized
version, but which have been used in the Roman church since its
foundation. But I am speaking of the book only as a literary English
production. It was not made with the help of original sources; its merits
are simply those of a melodious translation from the Latin Vulgate.
At last, in 1611, was made, under the auspices of King James, the famous
King James version; and this is the great literary monument of the English
language. It was the work of many learned men; but the chief worker and
supervisor was the Bishop of Winchester, Lancelot Andrews, perhaps the
most eloquent English preacher that ever lived. He was a natural-born
orator, with an exquisite ear for the cadences of language. To this
natural faculty of the Bishop's can be attributed much of the musical
charm of the English in which the Bible was written. Still, it must not be
supposed that he himself did all the work, or even more than a small
proportion of it. What he did was to tone it; he overlooked and corrected
all the text submitted to him, and suffered only the best forms to
survive. Yet what magnificent material he had to choose from! All the
translations of the Bible that had been made before his time were
carefully studied with a view to the conservation of the best phrases,
both for sound and for form. We must consider the result not merely as a
study of literature in itself, but also as a study of eloquence; for every
attention was given to those effects to be expected from an oratorical
recitation of the text in public.
This marks the end of the literary evolution of the Bible. Everything that
has since been done has only been in the direction of retrogression, of
injury to the text. We have now a great many later versions, much more
scholarly, so far as correct scholarship is concerned, than the King James
version, but none having any claim to literary importance. Unfortunately,
exact scholars are very seldom men of literary ability; the two faculties
are rarely united. The Bible of 1870, known as the Oxford Bible, and now
used in the Anglican state-church, evoked a great protest from the true
men of letters, the poets and critics who had found their inspirations in
the useful study of the old version. The new version was the work of
fourteen years; it was made by the united labour of the greatest scholars
in the English-speaking world; and it is far the most exact translation
that we have. Nevertheless the literary quality has been injured to such
an extent that no one will ever turn to the new revision for poetical
study. Even among the churches there was a decided condemnation of this
scholarly treatment of the old text; and many of the churches refused to
use the book. In this case, conservatism is doing the literary world a
service, keeping the old King James version in circulation, and insisting
especially upon its use in Sunday schools.
We may now take a few examples of the differences between the revised
version and the Bible of King James. Professor Saintsbury, in an essay
upon English prose, published some years ago, said that the most perfect
piece of English prose in the language was that comprised in the sixth and
seventh verses of the eighth chapter of the Song of Songs:
Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine
arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave;
the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement
flame.
Many waters can not quench love, neither can the floods drown it:
if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it
would utterly be condemned.
I should not like to say that the Professor is certainly right in calling
this the finest prose in the English language; but he is a very great
critic, whose opinion must be respected and considered, and the passage is
certainly very fine. But in the revised version, how tame the same text
has become in the hands of the scholarly translators!
The flashes thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord.
Now as a description of jealousy, not to speak of the literary execution
at all, which is the best? What, we may ask, has been gained by calling
jealousy "a flame of the Lord" or by substituting the word "flashes" for
"coals of fire"? All through the new version are things of this kind. For
example, in the same Song of Songs there is a beautiful description of
eyes, like "doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly
set." By substituting "rivers" only for "rivers of waters" the text may
have gained in exactness, but it has lost immeasurably, both in poetry and
in sound. Far more poetical is the verse as given in the Douai version:
"His eyes are as doves upon brooks of waters, which are washed with milk,
and sit beside the beautiful streams."
It may even be said without any question that the mistakes of the old
translators were often much more beautiful than the original. A splendid
example is given in the verse of Job, chapter twenty-six, verse thirteen:
"By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the
crooked serpent." By the crooked serpent was supposed to be signified the
grand constellation called _Draco_, or the Dragon. And the figure is
sublime. It is still more sublime in the Douai translation. "His obstetric
hand hath brought forth the Winding Serpent." This is certainly a grand
imagination--the hand of God, like the hand of a midwife, bringing forth a
constellation out of the womb of the eternal night. But in the revised
version, which is exact, we have only "His hand hath pierced the Swift
Serpent!" All the poetry is dead.
There are two methods for the literary study of any book--the first being
the study of its thought and emotion; the second only that of its
workmanship. A student of literature should study some of the Bible from
both points of view. In attempting the former method he will do well to
consider many works of criticism, but for the study of the text as
literature, his duty is very plain--the King James version is the only one
that ought to form the basis of his study, though he should look at the
Douai version occasionally. Also he should have a book of references, such
as Cruden's Concordance, by help of which he can collect together in a few
moments all the texts upon any particular subject, such as the sea, the
wind, the sky, human life, the shadows of evening. The study of the Bible
is not one which I should recommend to very young Japanese students,
because of the quaintness of the English. Before a good knowledge of
English forms is obtained, the archaisms are apt to affect the students'
mode of expression. But for the advanced student of literature, I should
say that some knowledge of the finest books in the Bible is simply
indispensable. The important books to read are not many. But one should
read at least the books of Genesis, Exodus, Ruth, Esther, the Song of
Songs, Proverbs,--and, above all, Job. Job is certainly the grandest book
in the Bible; but all of those which I have named are books that have
inspired poets and writers in all departments of English literature to
such an extent that you can scarcely read a masterpiece in which there is
not some conscious or unconscious reference to them. Another book of
philosophical importance is Ecclesiastes, where, in addition to much
proverbial wisdom, you will find some admirable world-poetry--that is,
poetry which contains universal truth about human life in all times and
all ages. Of the historical books and the law books I do not think that it
is important to read much; the literary element in these is not so
pronounced. It is otherwise with the prophetic books, but here in order to
obtain a few jewels of expression, you have to read a great deal that is
of little value. Of the New Testament there is very little equal to the
Old in literary value; indeed, I should recommend the reading only of the
closing book--the book called the Revelation, or the Apocalypse, from
which we have derived a literary adjective "apocalyptic," to describe
something at once very terrible and very grand. Whether one understands
the meaning of this mysterious text makes very little difference; the
sonority and the beauty of its sentences, together with the tremendous
character of its imagery, can not but powerfully influence mind and ear,
and thus stimulate literary taste. At least two of the great prose writers
of the nineteenth century, Carlyle and Ruskin, have been vividly
influenced by the book of the Revelation. Every period of English
literature shows some influence of Bible study, even from the old
Anglo-Saxon days; and during the present year, the study has so little
slackened that one constantly sees announcements of new works upon the
literary elements of the Bible. Perhaps one of the best is Professor
Moulton's "Modern Reader's Bible," in which the literary side of the
subject receives better consideration than in any other work of the kind
published for general use.