I entirely agree with the eminent scholar, whose unprogressive theology could not entirely extinguish his literary and philological sense. But I see no sufficient reason for adopting what in itself, I admit, would add a fresh laurel to the poet’s crown. Merx indeed assures us[[77]] that the meaning of the name ‘Job’ is so redolent of allegory that it must be the poet’s own invention, especially as the name occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. He adds that the story of Job is so closely connected with the didactic part of the book that it would be lost labour to separate the legendary from the new material. All was wanted; therefore all is fictitious. This is not, however, the usual course of procedure with poets whether of the East or of the West, whose parsimony in the invention of plots is well known. As for the name Job (Iyyób) it may no doubt be explained (from the Arabic) ‘he who turns to God,’[[78]] and in other ways, but there is no evidence that the author thought of any meaning for it. When he does coin names (see Epilogue), there is no room for doubting their significance. Ewald may, certainly, have gone too far in trying to recover the traditional element: how difficult it would be to do so with Paradise Lost, if we had not Genesis to help us! But the probability of the existence of a legend akin to the narrative in the Prologue, is shown by the parallels to it which survive, e.g. the touching Indian story of Harischandra,[[79]] given by Dr. Muir in vol. 1. of his Sanskrit Texts. The resemblance may be slight and superficial, but the sudden ruin of a good man’s fortunes is common to both stories. Had we more knowledge of Arabic antiquity, we should doubtless find a more valuable parallels.[[80]]
The story of Job had a special attraction for Mohammed, who enriched it (following the precedent of the Jewish Haggada) with a fresh detail (Korán, xxxviii. 40). To him, as well as to St. James, Job was an example of ‘endurance.’ The dialogue between Allah and Eblis in Korán, xv. 32-42, may perhaps have been suggested by the Prologue of our poem.
‘Did then, Job really live?’ That for which we most care comes not from ‘Tradition, Time’s suspected register,’[[81]] but from an unnamed poet, who embellished tradition partly from imagination, partly (see next section) from the rich and varied stores of his own experience.
2.
The Autobiographical Element in its Bearing on the Purpose of the Poem.
A German critic (Dillmann), in speaking of Job, has well reminded us that ‘the idea of a work of art must reveal itself in the development of the piece: it is not to be condensed into a dry formula.’ Least of all, surely, is such formulation possible when the work of art is an idealised portraiture of the author himself, and such, I think, to a considerable extent is the Book of Job. Those words of a psalmist,
Come and hear, all ye that fear God,
and I will declare what he hath done for my soul
(Ps. lxvi. 16, R. V.)
might be taken as the motto of Job. In short, the author is thoroughly ‘subjective,’ like all the great Hebrew and especially the Arabian poets. ‘In the rhythmic swell of Job’s passionate complaints, there is an echo of the heart-beats of a great poet and a great sufferer. The cry “Perish the day in which I was born” (iii. 3) is a true expression of the first effects of some unrecorded sorrow. In the life-like description beginning “Oh that I were as in months of old” (xxix. 2), the writer is thinking probably of his own happier days, before misfortune overtook him. Like Job (xxix. 7, 21-25) he had sat in the “broad place” by the gate and solved the doubts of perplexed clients. Like Job, he had maintained his position triumphantly against other wise men. He had a fellow-feeling with Job in the distressful passage through doubt to faith. Like Job (xxi. 16) he had resisted the suggestion of practical atheism, and with the confession of his error (xlii. 2-6) had recovered spiritual peace.’
The man who speaks to us under the mask of Job is not indeed a perfect character; but he does not pretend to be so. How pathetic are his appeals to his friends to remember the weight of his calamity—‘therefore have my words been wild’ (vi. 3)—and not to ‘be captious about words when the speeches of the desperate are but for the wind’ (vi. 26). He was no Stoic, and had not practised himself in deadening his sensibility to pain. Strong in his sense of justice, he lacked those higher intuitions which could alone soothe his irritation. But he was throughout loyal to the God whom his conscience revered, and, even in the midst of his wild words, he let God mould him. First of all, he renounced the hope of being understood by men; he ceased to complain of his rather ignorant than unfeeling friends. He exemplified that Arabic proverb which says, ‘Perfect patience allows no complaint to be heard against (human creatures).’ Then he came by degrees to trust God. There is a kernel of truth in that passage of the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhoth, cix. 5) where, among the seven types of Pharisees, the sixth is described as ‘he who is pious from fear, like Job,’ and the seventh, as ‘he who is pious from love, like Abraham.’ Job’s religion was at first not entirely but still too much marked by fear; it ended by becoming a religion of trust, justifying the title borne by Job among the Syrians, as if in contradiction to the Talmud, of ‘the lover of the Lord.’[[82]]