HEBREW HUMOUR
AND
OTHER ESSAYS

BY
J. CHOTZNER, Ph.D.
LATE HEBREW TUTOR AT HARROW

LONDON
LUZAC & CO., 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET
(PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO)
1905

OXFORD : HORACE HART
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

TO MY WIFE

PREFACE

The present volume contains a collection of essays, the majority of which were read as papers before various literary societies, such as the International Congress of Orientalists, the Biblical Archaeological Society, and the Jews' College Literary Association. Several of them have already appeared in various periodicals, such as the Imperial Asiatic Review, the Jewish Quarterly Review, and the Jewish Chronicle, and are now reproduced, with some slight modification, by the courtesy of the editors. Translations of some of the essays have also been published in Hebrew, French, and German periodicals.

The essays, it may be remarked, deal somewhat extensively with the humour and satire that is not infrequently to be found in the works both of ancient and modern Hebrew writers; and, as this subject has hitherto attracted but little attention, I am not without hope that these pages may be of interest to the general reader.

J. C.

London, June, 1905.

CONTENTS

I
ERRATA

[Page 34, line 28], read Philo instead of Plato.

[Page 37, line 27], read conjux instead of coniux.

[Page 79, line 14], read פירוש . . . ופירוש instead of פרוש . . . ופרוש.

[I]
[HUMOUR OF THE BIBLE]

The Hebrew Bible rightly deserves to be termed the Book of Books in the world of letters: it is distinguished from other literary productions by the richness of its sentences, its charm of style and diction, its pathos, and also by the flashes of genuine humour, which here and there illuminate its pages. Naturally its humour differs materially from the broad, rich humour of Sterne, Cervantes, Voltaire or Heine, but it has a stamp of its own, which is in some respects akin to that found in certain passages of the ancient classics. One or two examples will serve.

In the first book of the Iliad, Homer describes a scene on Mount Olympus, in which the Greek gods and goddesses are represented as seated at a banquet, and waited upon by the lame Hephaestus. Observing his halting gait, they burst into peals of laughter. Comparable, perhaps, with this is the description of the well-known scene on Mount Carmel, when Elijah, the true prophet of God, gathered round him the false prophets of Baal. After they had leapt on the altar from morning unto even, crying incessantly, “Oh, Baal, hear us,” Elijah stepped forth, and exclaimed mockingly, “Cry ye louder, for he is a god; perhaps he talketh or walketh, or is on a journey; or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked” (1 Kings xviii. 27). The Aristophanic punning on proper names is paralleled not infrequently in the Bible. Thus, for example, the Hebrew word Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 3), which means “rogue,” is well applied as the proper name of a man, who was noted for the baseness of his character. Characteristic, too, is the name of one of Job's fair daughters, Keren-happuch (Job xlii. 14), which literally means “a horn (or box) of cosmetics,” suggesting the means by which the owner of that name may occasionally have embellished her charms. To the same class belongs the term Tsara (צרה), which has the double designation of “a rival wife,” living in a country where polygamy is in vogue, and also of “misery.” The humour hidden in these three words is certainly not brought into prominence in the authorized English version, where they are respectively translated by “folly,” “Keren-happuch,” and “adversary.” From these examples it will be seen that an acquaintance with the idiom of the Hebrew tongue is essential to the thorough understanding of the Bible, and as Biblical critics have hitherto paid but little attention to this particular subject, the remarks to be offered on it in the present essay may, perhaps, be of some interest.

A careful perusal, in the original Hebrew of certain orations in the Bible cannot fail to impress the reader with the force of the sarcasm which the authors, acting on the proverb, Castigare ridendo mores, have used in their attacks on the shortcomings and follies of their own, and sometimes also of other nations, with whom they happened to come into political contact. The greatest satirist among them was undoubtedly the prophet Isaiah, whose orations combine the pungency of satire with the charm of an exquisite poetical style. Somewhat in the manner of Demosthenes and Cicero, Isaiah often wages war against the vices which prevailed among the higher and lower classes of his people. He frequently derides princes and leaders for not preserving and upholding that true spirit of patriotism, which generally helps to make a country secure from external invasion. “Ye are,” he exclaims with bitter irony, “Ye are only mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to pour out strong drinks” (Isa. v. 22). Isaiah's orations frequently contain graphic and satirical descriptions of how things will be when that fatal day—the dies irae, dies illa—comes, on which the enemy will reign supreme within the capital of the Judaeans, bringing with them the suffering of famine, sickness, and pestilence. These poorly clad and careworn men will surround the lucky owner of a decent garment, saying: “Thou hast still clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thine hand.” But he will decline the proffered honour with the humiliating remark: “I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people” (ibid. iii. 6 and 7). The then prevailing need and distress will not be less felt by the Jewish women, most of whom the disastrous war will have deprived of their husbands and natural protectors. The consequence of this will be that “On that day seven women will take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, and thus take away our reproach” (ibid. iv. 1).

The extravagance, wantonness, and luxurious habits of the fair daughters of Zion, Isaiah denounces in the following drastic lines:—“Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton (or, deceiving[^[3-1]]) eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet . . . it shall come to pass that instead of sweet smell there shall be bad odour, and instead of a girdle a rent, and burning instead of beauty” (ibid. iii. 16–24). And just as Isaiah reproves the Hebrew women for their pride and arrogance, so he censures the cowardice and effeminate habits of the men of Zion, whose motto, he says, was “Let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die” (ibid. xxii. 13).

The burlesquing of idols and idolatry always afforded a ready mark for the sarcasm of the prophets. As Aristophanes in The Birds ridicules the Greek gods and goddesses, so Isaiah satirizes the sham gods of his country, which were held in great estimation by not a few of his own people. His description of the origin and manufacture of an idol is certainly full of humour. “He” (the pious idolater) “heweth down a tree (he says) and burneth part thereof in a fire; one part serves him as firewood, by means of which he roasteth meat and is satisfied; yea, he warmeth himself therewith, and saith: Aha, I am warm; I have seen the fire. And out of the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down before it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith: Deliver me, for thou art my god” (ibid. xliv. 14–17).

With equal humour Isaiah makes merry over the false prophets of Israel, whom he compares to blind watchmen and to dumb dogs. “His (Israel's) watchmen,” he says, “are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot even bark; they lie down as if dreaming, and are fond of slumber” (ibid. lvi. 10).

Sometimes the butt of Isaiah's sarcasm were persons of high standing, who belonged to nationalities other than his own, such as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Moabites, and others. Highly diverting is the sarcastic address which he directed to one of the Babylonian kings who, after making an unsuccessful attempt to conquer Palestine, had been ignominiously defeated in his own country. It is to be found in the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah, a short extract from which runs as follows:—“The whole earth is now (after thy fall) at rest and quiet; people break forth into singing. Yea, even the fir-trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is astir at thy coming; it rouseth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? . . . how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

In an equally amusing and drastic manner is Babylon's fall described by Isaiah. “And Babylon,” he says, “the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . . neither shall the Arabian pitch his tent there, nor shall the shepherds make their fold in that place. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant places” (ibid. xiii. 19–23).

Next to Isaiah, no other author of any part of the Bible is so prolific of satirical remarks as the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes. For the present purpose it matters very little whether the writer of the book in question was King Solomon, to whom the authorship of the Book of Proverbs is commonly ascribed, or some one unknown, who had assumed the pseudonym of “Koheleth.” But this is certain that he does not belong to that class of writers whose humour is but a mixture of bitterness and melancholy, and who, like the authors of Faust and Manfred, speak bitingly of humanity at large. His humour is mostly of the cheerful order; and far from weeping over the foibles and follies of the human race, he makes merry over them. The gist of his philosophy may be said to be embodied in that frequently quoted line from Amphis (Gynaecocratia, p. 481), which runs thus:—

Πῖνε, παῖζε· θνητὸς ὁ βίος.

ὀλίγος οὑπὶ γῇ χρόνος

(Drink and chaff, for life is fleeting; short is our time on earth). Or, to quote Koheleth's own words: “Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all the labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for this alone is his portion” (Eccles. v. 17).

The objects of Koheleth's satire are of a varied description. High functionaries of state, foolish kings, scribblers, tedious preachers, bookworms, idlers, sceptics, fools, drunkards, women—they all come under his scrutiny. His sympathies are always with the poor, helpless, and oppressed, rather than for the rich and affluent, whose “abundance of wealth does not suffer them to sleep[^[6-1]].” Koheleth once met a poor man, who had long and vainly tried to obtain, in the High Court of Justice, redress for wrongs done to him, and he put down in writing: “If thou seest oppression of the poor, and violence done to justice and righteousness in the provinces, do not feel astonished at that: for one that is high watches over the high, and over them are yet higher ones” (Eccles. v. 7). Elsewhere he condemns a land, “whose king is childish, and whose princes feast already in the morning,” but he praises such a one “whose princes eat at a proper time for strengthening sake, and not for the sake of gluttony” (ibid. x. 16, 17). In the same chapter (5, 7) he makes the following ironical remark: “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun: folly is set in high places, and the rich (in intellect) sit in lowness. I have seen servants on horses, and princes walking like servants on the ground.”

What Koheleth thought of scribblers and tedious preachers may be gathered from the following: “But more than all these, my son, take warning for thyself: avoid the writing of endless books, as well as much (dull) preaching, which is a weariness of the flesh” (ibid. xii. 12). The bookworm, too, was no great favourite of his, for he refers to him with, as it were, a pitiful smile: “Where there is much study, there is much vexation, and he that increases knowledge, increases pain” (ibid. i. 18). And again: “The wise have (as a rule) no bread, nor the man of understanding riches, nor the man of knowledge power” (ibid. ix. 11).

Women were to some poets of antiquity, just as they are to many a writer of modern times, a favourite subject for sarcasm, and Koheleth has also made a few remarks about them which, in point of satire, resemble somewhat those made by Hesiod, Simonides, and others. Though he does not compare woman to a hog, an ape, and an ass, as several ancient writers have done, yet the opinion he expresses about a certain class of women is by no means flattering to the fair sex generally. “I find,” he says, “more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are bonds: he that is deemed good before God will escape from her; but the sinner will be caught by her.” And again: “One (perfect) man among a thousand did I find; but one perfect woman among all these did I not find” (ibid. vii. 26 and 28). In the Book of Proverbs, which is commonly ascribed to the same author, there are several references to women, in one of which a quarrelsome woman is compared to “the continual downpour on a very rainy day.” The husband of such a woman, the author adds, would as little succeed in hiding his wife from the outer world, as if he were trying “to hide a wind, or the perfume of scented oil” (ibid, xxvii. 15, 16).

In the same book (xxiii. 29–35) there is a humorous description of a drunkard, which ought not to be omitted, when examples are quoted to prove the existence of light humour in the Bible. It runs as follows: “Who hath woe? who hath pain? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of the eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed drinks. . . . Thine eyes shall behold strange things, and thine heart shall utter nonsensical words. Yea, thou shalt be as one that lieth down in the midst of the sea, as one that reposeth on the top of a mast. Oh, how they have stricken me (thou shalt say), how they have beaten me, and I felt not; when shall I awake? I shall yet seek it (the drink) again.”

The greatest satirists among the minor prophets of the Bible were Hosea and Amos, and their short orations abound in flashes of rich humour and biting sarcasm. The former, for instance, when reproaching his people with their faithlessness to their God and their king, remarks sarcastically: “For now they say, We have no king; as we were not (even) afraid of God, what can a (mortal) king do to us?” (Hos. x. 3). Whatever they did under the pretension of honouring God was, in Hosea's opinion, nothing but hypocrisy, for “although Israel has forgotten his maker, yet he buildeth temples” (ibid. viii. 14). Those of his people, who fancied they would obtain atonement for their sins by merely offering sacrifices, he derided, saying: “They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices, and eat it (themselves)” (ibid. viii. 13).

On another occasion, Hosea ridicules certain persons who, like the inhabitants of Samaria, worshipped the calves of Beth-aven, though they were otherwise not very anxious to uphold and respect the common rights of man. And referring to them, he says with biting irony: “Concerning them, one may (aptly) say, They slaughter man, but kiss the calves” (ibid. xiii. 2)[^[8-1]]. Continuing to deride those credulous men, who expect pardon for their sins by the offer of sacrifices, Hosea remarks with crushing sarcasm: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifices; and the knowledge of God, more than burnt offerings” (ibid. vi. 6)[^[8-2]].

One would have expected that the priests at least would set a good example to the people; but they were as bad as the people themselves. “They were eating up the sin offerings of the people, and looked out even longingly for their (the people's) iniquity” (ibid. iv. 8), so that they might materially profit by it. Speaking of the king and the ruler of the people, Hosea considered him not a bit better than his profligate courtiers, who spent the greater part of the day in feasting and debauchery. There was especially no end to their orgies at the celebration of the king's birthday, and the same prophet described their behaviour on that day in the following sarcastic terms: “It is our king's day! The princes are already sick with the fever of wine; he himself (meaning the king) stretches out his hands with the scoffers” (ibid. vii. 5).

Amos, too, makes a good many droll remarks on the follies and misdoings of his people. Addressing the fat judges of the people of Samaria, who were noted for their pompous gravity and effeminate habits, he calls them, most appropriately, “kine of Bashan[^[9-1]].” These worthies were always thirsty; and their constant cry when dealing with the poor was: “Provide for us that we may have something to drink” (Amos iv. 1). The patricians of his people followed the bad example of the judges. They lived an easy and luxurious life, indifferent to the approaching common danger with which they were threatened—the loss of their freedom and independence. Speaking of them, Amos says bitterly: “Woe to them that put off the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near, that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches; . . . that sing to the sound of the harp; they invent for themselves instruments of music like David; that drink wine out of bowls, and anoint themselves with the best ointments, but are not grieved for the ruin of Joseph (Israel). Therefore now shall they go at the head of the captives” (ibid. vi. 4–7).

The hypocrites among his people, who, notwithstanding their dishonest dealings with their neighbours, were exceedingly strict in their observances of the holy seasons appointed by the Jewish law, were rebuked by Amos in the following manner: “Hear ye,” he says, “that swallow up the needy, and destroy the poor of the land, saying, When will the new moon be over, that we may sell again corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances for deceit? That we may buy the poor for money, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell even the refuse of the wheat?” (ibid. viii. 4–6).

These quotations may have already sufficiently supported the argument stated in the introduction to this essay concerning the existence of genuine humour in the Bible. The following are intended to show that even some of the most austere Biblical personages, such, for instance, as the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Moses himself, possessed a vein of light humour, which they sometimes used with considerable effect.

Jeremiah addresses the hypocrites among his people in the following caustic terms: “How, will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense, and walk after other gods whom you know not; and (then) come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are now delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” (Jer. vii. 9).

He elsewhere recommends his people to try an experiment in the streets of Jerusalem, which, by a curious coincidence, was once put into practice by the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who went about the streets of Athens in the daytime carrying a lighted lantern in his hand in search of a perfect man, saying: “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and seek in the broad places thereof, if you can find a (perfect) man . . . if there be any that seeketh the truth, and I shall pardon it” (ibid. v. 1).

The idols, the great plague of Judaea, also received at this great prophet's hand their proper share of ridicule. He describes them with genuine humour, as follows: “They are upright as the palm-tree, but speak not; they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do any evil, neither can they effect any good” (ibid. x. 5).

Of Ezekiel's humour no specimens can be given here. It is, like Swift's, rather coarse, and not altogether palatable. The curious may be referred to the sixteenth and twenty-third chapters of the Book of Ezekiel.

Moses, though of stern and austere disposition, is also sometimes fond of indulging in ironical remarks with pleasing propriety. So, for instance, when he once admonished his people to give the soil of their possession a year of rest periodically, he gave them at the same time to understand that unless they did so willingly, they would have to do it later on by the force of circumstances. “When,” he says, “you shall be in your enemies' land, then shall the land rest and enjoy her sabbath” (Lev. xxvi. 34). And again: “Because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart, while there was (around) an abundance of all things; therefore shalt thou serve thy enemies, whom the Lord shall send out against thee, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in want of everything” (Deut. xxviii. 47, 48). The messengers sent out by Moses to search the land of Canaan are reported by him (Num. xiii. 32) to have given the following description of it: “It is,” they said, “a land that eateth up its own inhabitants,” a sufficiently ironical definition.

In his last famous address to his people, which is commonly called his swan-song, Moses recalled to their mind the happy days, when God led them “as the eagle stirreth up his nest, fluttereth over his young, spreadeth abroad his wings, seizeth them, beareth them aloft on his pinions” (Deut. xxxii 11–13). But at the same time he foresaw with the far-seeing eye of a prophet, that, as soon as they will have grown “fat, thick, and fleshy” they would forsake the God of their fathers, and worship idols. And, in consequence, he gives them God's divine message, which is couched in the following sarcastic terms: “They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God . . . and I will provoke them to anger by a roguish nation” (ibid. xxxii. 21).

There are a good many more fragments of delightful humour to be found in the Bible, which, for lack of space, must be omitted here. Yet a brief reference should be made to some of the witty puns and plays on words (ludus verborum, or Wortspiele) that occur in the same sacred volume. In his well-known short poetical strain (comp. Book of Judges xv. 16), Samson, the noted wit of the Bible, purposely uses, as it would seem, the Hebrew term Chamor (חמור), because it has two meanings, namely, an ass and a heap. The humour of the Hebrew lines in question will at once be noticeable by the following rendering of them:—

With the jaw-bone of an ass

Have I plenteous asses slain:

Smitten thus it came to pass

Fell a thousand on the plain.

A good pun may also be detected in the word Ropheïm (physicians) and Rephaïm, which latter word signifies “corpses”; or in שׁפֵט “a judge,” and טִפֵּשׁ, meaning “the stupid one.” Such and similar puns abound in the Bible as well as in the Talmud, as, for instance, the phrase found in the latter work: אֱכוֹל בָּצֵל וְשֵׁב בְּצֵל “Be satisfied with a meal of onions, and enjoy living under the shadow of thy own trees” (comp. Talmud, Babyl. Pesachim, 114 a); but no further specimens can be given here.

These remarks will, it is hoped, help to show the wealth of hidden meaning contained in the Bible, which can only be detected by the study of the original Hebrew text, and which the translators, either through oversight or inability, have failed to reproduce.

Footnotes:

[3-1] The Hebrew term משקרות is probably derived from שקר, meaning “false” or “deceiving.”

[6-1] Cp. Eccles. v. 11.

[8-1] Cp. Juvenal, Satire 15:—

“A sheep or goat they may not eat, but human flesh they may.”

[8-2] Cp. Horace, Carm. iii. 23. 17:—

Immunis aram si tetigit manus,

Non sumptuosa blandior hostia

Mollivit aversos Penates

Farre pio et saliente mica.

[9-1] Cp. Amos iv. 1.

[II]
[THE BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT CLASSICS]

For several centuries past, previous to the middle of the eighteenth century, a general notion used to prevail that the contents of the Hebrew Bible consisted entirely of purely theological matter. This idea originated from the circumstance that most of the commentators of the Bible living in those times had treated it as a book that was full of religious mysticism, which theory had commonly been accepted by their readers as the only correct and plausible one.

These commentators have gone so far as to declare most emphatically that even the “Song of Songs,” that masterpiece of Hebrew poetry, and one of the few ancient literary gems extant in the world of letters, was but a mystical allegory with much religious colouring about it. They thus altogether ignored its many poetical charms, just as they disregarded those to be met with here and there in other parts of the Bible. Fortunately, however, a book appeared about the middle of the eighteenth century, which brought about a great modification in these ideas. It contained a number of lectures which Bishop Lowth (1710–87) had delivered in Latin at the University of Oxford on “Ancient Hebrew Poetry[^[13-1]],” and in which he essayed to prove that the Old Testament contained, besides much theological matter, several other highly interesting things. In his opinion its contents were of a varied description, and of such a nature that they could not fail to attract the attention of religiously inclined people, as well as of all those readers who had a taste for poetry, history, philosophy, or oratory.

These lectures at once attained great popularity, and were eagerly read in England and on the Continent, so much so that the ideas expressed therein concerning the actual contents of the Bible were soon adopted and further enlarged upon by several English and foreign Biblical scholars. Some of them, and more especially Herder (1744–1803) and Sir William Jones (1746–94), devoted their earnest attention to the study of the sacred volume. Sir William, who was one of the most eminent Orientalists of the day, wrote about it as follows: “I have regularly and attentively perused the Old Testament, and am of opinion that this book, independently of its divine origin, contains more true sublimity, more exquisite beauty, more important history, and finer strains of poetry and eloquence than can be collected from all other books that may have been written[^[14-1]].” One of the most interesting parts of Bishop Lowth's book is that which deals with the metaphors and similes of the Hebrew Bible, and the object of the present essay is to attempt to show that there is a striking similarity between them and several of those employed by some of the classical writers. As the subject is too extensive to be fully discussed within the limits of a short essay, a radical and minute investigation cannot be expected. The result, however, may be sufficient to conduce to a wider and more careful study of the contents of the Bible in their relation to the ancient classics.

At the outset, it will be necessary to show that the ancient Greeks and Romans had come in contact with the Hebrews of old, and that they thus may have had an opportunity of getting to know something about the existence and the contents of the Bible. Now, in the latter volume, as well as in Josephus (comp. Gen. x. 2–5; Isa. lxvi. 19; Josephus, Apion, i. 22), this intercourse is fully recorded as an historical fact. Particularly interesting is the passage in the Book of Joel (iv. 6), in which it is stated that the Ionian Greeks living on the west coast of Asia Minor (Ἰωνία) were in the habit of buying Hebrew slaves. Thus it is a curious coincidence that the district is commonly known as the very place in which the two most famous epic songs of the ancient Greeks, the Iliad and the Odyssey, were written[^[15-1]].

As regards the Romans, there are likewise certain historical records which go to show that in the year 50 A. D. they had already swayed the sceptre over the Hebrews. There are, moreover, several allusions to them in the works of some of the best-known Roman writers, such as Tacitus[^[15-2]], Cicero[^[15-3]], Juvenal[^[15-4]], Horace[^[15-5]], and others. Now, if in addition to these facts, another important circumstance is taken into consideration, namely, that the famous Greek translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, had in olden times circulated widely in various countries, what objection can be raised to the assumption that it attracted the attention of some Greek and Roman writers, and influenced them to a certain extent in the composition of several of their beautiful metaphors and similes? It is almost universally admitted that later and more modern versions of the Bible have exercised a perceptible influence upon modern writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Racine, Goethe, Schiller, and others, and in the same way a connexion between the Bible and some of the ancient classics might reasonably be established.

Coming now to the main subject under discussion, we notice that metaphors are found everywhere in the Bible, but that they especially abound in its poetical parts. The way in which they are there employed varies greatly, and they derive their inspiration from both animate and inanimate life. Space, however, will not permit of more than a few illustrations, and these will, for convenience' sake, be specially selected from Hebrew nouns that occur here and there in the first few chapters of Genesis.

The third verse in the first chapter of Genesis, which, by the way, is one of the most effective sentences in the whole Bible, contains twice the term “light” (or, אור). Now, this word was frequently employed by some authors of the Bible as a metaphor. Thus, for example, using the term “light” in a spiritual sense, and making it signify favour and grace, they applied it, in the first instance, to God, as the Psalmist puts it, “For with thee (O Lord) is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light” (Ps. xxxvi. 10). The same term is frequently employed by the prophet Isaiah as the emblem of enlightenment as well as that of joy and exultation. In fact, some of Isaiah's most beautiful metaphors are taken from this very word, one of which runs thus:—“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death upon them has a light shined” (Isa. ix. 1). In another place (ibid. xlii. 6) he says: “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness . . . and given thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations.” It is interesting to note that some of the authors of the New Testament have often employed the term “light” in a number of striking metaphors, tacitly borrowed, it may be observed, from the Old Testament. Martin Luther, too, failed to acknowledge his obligation to his Hebrew tutor, Nicolaus de Lyra, who helped him greatly in the preparation of the famous German version of the Bible[^[16-1]].

Turning now to some parallels found in the Greek and Latin classics, we meet one in the fifth ode of the fourth book of Horace, in which the latter implores the absent Emperor Augustus to return speedily to the Roman capital, where his noble presence was anxiously looked for by his loving subjects. The stanza in question runs thus:—

Lucem redde tuae, dux bone, patriae;

Instar veris enim vultus ubi tuus

Affulsit populo, gratior it dies,

Et soles melius nitent.

Restore, Great Sir, your country's light;

For, as in spring the sun is softly bright,

So, when on us thy countenance's beams arise,

Fairer days appear, and smile o'er the skies[^[17-1]].

Homer, too, often uses light and fire as metaphors, which are in some instances quite of a Biblical type. Take, for instance, the following lines that occur in the eleventh book of the Iliad:—

As the red star shows his sanguine fires

Through the dark clouds, and now in night retires:

Thus through the ranks appear'd the godlike man,

Plunged in the rear, or blazing in the van;

While streamy sparkles, restless as he flies,

Flash from his arms, as lightning from the skies.

Again, in the nineteenth book of the Odyssey (35–41), Homer has a metaphor from fire, from which it may be seen that in his time a notion was prevalent among the Greeks that a miraculous light was a sure token of the presence of some divinity. The lines in question run as follows:—

What miracle thus dazzles with surprise;

Distinct in rows the radiant columns rise!

The walls, wherein my wondering sight I turn,

And roofs amidst a blaze of glory burn.

Some visitant of pure ethereal race

With his bright presence, deigns the dome of grace[^[17-2]].

Not less prolific in metaphors of the same description is Virgil.

But particularly interesting is one of his metaphors that occurs in the eighth book of the Aeneid (409–13), inasmuch as it seems to be a poetical imitation of another found in the last chapter of the Book of Proverbs, in which the model housewife—the Esheth Chayil—is so beautifully described, who rises early in the morning, wakes her housemaids, and prolongs the day with the help of a lamp. It runs thus:—

Now, when the night her middle race has rode,

And his first slumbers had refreshed the god,

The time when early housewives leave the bed;

When living embers on the hearth they spread,

Supply the lamps, and call the maids to rise;

With yawning mouth, and with half-opened eyes

They ply the distaff by the winking light,

And to their labour add the night[^[18-1]].

We pass now to another fruitful subject, from which the writers of the Bible have often taken metaphors, viz. the sea, the torrent, and the waters, generally that mostly serve to typify calamity. So Job (vi. 15) has a long and quite Homeric metaphor, formed from a torrent, which begins with the words: “My brothers have dealt deceitfully as the torrent, nay, as a channel of torrents that pass away.”

Sometimes roaring waters are used in the Bible as symbols of a battle cry, or of the tumult of an invading army. Thus we find in the eighth chapter of Isaiah the following description of the invasion of Palestine by the king of Assyria: “Behold, the Lord bringeth up upon thee the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks . . . he shall overflow and go over and shall reach even to the neck.” A similar metaphor is contained in the seventeenth book of the Iliad (263), which runs thus:—

Like a mountain billow that foams and raves,

Where some swoll'n river disembogues his waves;

Full in the mouth is stopp'd the rushing tide,

The boiling ocean works from side to side,

The river trembles to his utmost store,

And distant rocks re-bellow to the roar:

So fierce to the charge great Hector led the strong,

Whole Troy embodied rush'd with shouts along.

Metaphors of a similar kind are also now and again employed by Virgil, and once he uses both fire and the torrent at the same time as similes of uproar and destruction, which usually take place on the battlefield. The simile in question, which occurs in the Aeneid (xii. 760), reads thus:—

As flames among the lofty woods are thrown

On different sides, and both by winds are blown;

The laurels crackle in the sputtering fire;

The frighted sylvans from their shades retire:

Or as two neighbouring torrents fall from high,

Rapid they run; the foamy waters fry;

They roll to sea with unresisted force,

And down the rocks precipitate their course:

Not with less rage the rival heroes take

Their different ways; nor less destruction make.

An equally wide field for Biblical metaphors is supplied by the world of trees, flowers, and plants. Man is often compared with them, but, strange to say, in two opposite directions: sometimes, inasmuch as he is like them, liable to decay and death; sometimes because unlike them, he does not revive again after death. As instances, the beautiful metaphor in the 103rd Psalm may be quoted: “As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone: and the place thereof knoweth it no more.” To this may be added a similar, but shorter, metaphor, the author of which was the often-quoted Ben-Sira. Of this only a small part has been preserved in the Talmud (Erubin, p. 54), which runs as follows: “Rab said to Rab Hammuna: My son if thou hast (aught) enjoy it, for there is no enjoyment in the nether world (Shéol), and death does not tarry. And if thou sayest, I will leave (aught) to my children, who will declare to thee the law in the nether world? The sons of men are like the grass of the field; some of them blossom, and some wither away.”

Homer has a striking parallel to it in the sixth book of his Iliad (190), which runs thus:—

Like leaves on trees the race of man is found,

Now green in youth, now withering in the ground.

Another race the following spring supplies,

They fall successive, and successive rise:

So generations in their course decay,

So flourish these, when those are passed away.

Speaking about metaphors from vegetation mention should be made of an exceedingly pretty simile composed in German by the late Ludwig August Frankl, of Vienna, and probably borrowed from the beautiful lines occurring towards the end of the fifty-fifth chapter of the Book of Isaiah, viz. “As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not hither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater,” &c. In his simile Frankl compares the heaven with a bridegroom who weds the earth in springtime as his bride, and she late in the summer season bears lovely fruit. The English version runs somewhat as follows:—

The Beautiful Month of May.

This charming month is like a kiss,

Given by heaven to his bride, the earth;

Telling her with a hidden blush

That a mother's joy will soon be hers.

Another word occurring at the beginning of the first chapter of Genesis that is now and again used in the Bible as a metaphor, is Ruach (רוח), meaning sometimes “wind,” and sometimes “spirit,” or divine inspiration. It is so commonly used in the latter sense that no comment is necessary here. What is, however, worth mentioning in connexion with it is that Homer also used it in the same sense, whenever he referred to the influence which his deities exercised on the human mind. There are likewise several fine Biblical metaphors modelled on Ruach (“the wind”), when it is employed either in its ordinary sense or as the emblem of punishment and calamity. So Jeremiah (iv. 11): “A dry wind blows from the high places in the wilderness toward the daughters of my people, not to fan, nor to cleanse; a powerful wind it is that shall come from those places unto me, and now I will hold judgment upon them.”

Isaiah's simile, “As the trees of the wood are moved with the wind” (Isa. vii. 2), has found a pretty parallel in Virgil's Aeneid (iv. 638), which runs thus:—

As when the winds their airy quarrel try,

Justling from every quarter of the sky;

This way and that the mountain oak they bend;

His boughs they shatter, and his branches rend;

With leaves and fallings most they spread the ground;

The hollow valleys echo to the sound;

Unmoved, the royal plant their fury mocks,

Or shaken, clings more closely to the rocks.

The following is another metaphor of a somewhat similar kind, employed by Homer in the Iliad (xvii. 57), which bears a great resemblance to the lovely one found in the 103rd Psalm, to which reference has been made above. It runs as follows:—

As the young olive in some sylvan scene,

Crowned by fresh fountains with eternal green,

Lifts the gay head, in snowy flowerets fair,

And plays and dances to the gentle air;

When lo! a whirlwind from high heaven invades

The tender plant, and withers all its shades;

It lies uprooted from its genial bed:

A lovely ruin, now defaced and dead.

Passing now from inanimate nature to animate things, there are in the Bible a good many metaphors based thereon. Here, again, it is the prophet Isaiah who furnishes us with the largest number of instances. One of them is the bee that symbolizes an invading army, working all kinds of mischief. Thus we read in Isaiah (vii. 18):—“On that day will the Lord hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the river of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria, and they shall all come and rest in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorn-bushes, and upon all the pastures.” A fine parallel occurs in Homer's Iliad (ii. 87), which runs as follows:—

As from some rocky cleft the shepherd sees

Clustering in heaps on heaps the driving bees,

Rolling and blackening, swarms succeeding swarms

With deeper murmur and more hoarse alarms;

Dusky they spread, a close embodied crowd,

And o'er the vale descends the living cloud:

So from the tents and ships, a lengthened train

Spreads all the beach, and wide o'ershades the plain:

Along the region runs a deafening sound;

Beneath their footsteps groans the trembling ground.

Towards the end of the Book of Ecclesiastes (xii. 5) a comparison is made between an old man who gradually loses his white locks and an almond-tree that sheds its white blossoms. Anacreon has in one of his Odes (the eleventh) a few exceedingly pretty lines, which recall the foregoing figure. They run as follows:—

Oft I am by women told,

Poor Anacreon! thou grow'st old;

Look how thy hairs are falling all:

Poor Anacreon! how they fall!

The Biblical story found in the fourth Book of Moses (xiv. 2–11) seems to have been known and partly reproduced by Virgil in the first book of the Aeneid, 148. There the following lines occur, which offer a most striking parallel:—

As when in tumults rise the ignoble crowd,

Mad are their motions, and their tongues are loud;

And stones and brands in rattling volleys fly,

And all the rustic arms that fury can supply:

If then some grave and pious men appear,

They hush their noise, and lend a listening ear:

He soothes with sober words their angry mood,

And quenches their innate desire for blood[^[23-1]].

The few observations offered here will no doubt give some idea of the importance attaching to a closer investigation of the whole subject[^[23-2]]. Many volumes are annually devoted to the study of the Old Testament, but these are almost exclusively written from a religious point of view. Surely, it could not but gain in popular estimation if its great literary worth attracted more general attention.

Footnotes:

[13-1] De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum, Goettingae, 1758.

[14-1] The words here quoted were found on the fly-leaf of Sir William's Bible.

[15-1] Lecky, in his History of European Morals, vol. I, p. 366, refers to a modern writer, who maintains that Homer derived the noblest conception of his poetry from the Old Testament; and that its contents have greatly influenced Demosthenes and Plato.

[15-2] Annales, ii. 85.

[15-3] Pro Flacco, §§ 66–70.

[15-4] Satirae, iii. 10.

[15-5] Satirae, i. 4.

[16-1] This omission of common courtesy is recorded in the following jocular Latin lines:-

Si Lyra non lyrasset

Lutherus non saltasset.

“Had Lyra not furnished the music,

Luther could not have danced.”

[17-1] Almost all the English translations of the extracts from Greek and Latin poetical writings quoted in this essay are from the renderings of Pope and Dryden. Space will not allow to give here more than a few quotations from the originals.

[17-2]

Ὦ πάτερ, ἦ μέγα θαῦμα τόδ' ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρῶμαι.

ἔμπης μοι τοῖχοι μεγάρων καλαί τε μεσόδμαι

εἰλάτιναί τε δοκοὶ καὶ κίονες ὑψόσ' ἔχοντες

φαίνοντ' ὀφθαλμοῖς ὡς εἰ πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο.

ἦ μάλα τις θεὸς ἔνδον, οἳ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν.

[18-1]

Inde ubi prima quies medio iam noctis abactae

Curriculo expulerat somnum; cum femina primum

Cui tolerare colo vitam tenuique Minerva,

Impositum cinerem et sopitos suscitat ignes,

Noctem addens operi, famulasque ad lumina longo

Exercet penso.

[23-1]

Ac veluti magno in populo quum saepe coorta est

Seditio, saevitque animis ignobile vulgus;

Iamque faces et saxa volant; furor arma ministrat;

Tum, pietate gravem ac meritis si forte virum quem

Conspexere, silent arrectisque auribus adstant;

Ille regit dictis animos et pectora mulcet.

[23-2] An interesting article on the same theme written by Mr. C. G. Montefiore appeared in the Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. III, No. 12.

[III]
[ART AMONG THE ANCIENT HEBREWS]

The ancient Hebrews were an art-loving people, and occupied a fair position among those Eastern nations of antiquity, who attained some success in the production of works of artistic merit. Their success in Music and Poetry was undoubted, and becomes even more striking when it is remembered that it had been won by the Jewish nation at a time when in Greece, for instance, the cultivation of these arts was still in its infancy. The period of their artistic activity extended from the days of Moses to the time of the destruction of the last Temple in Jerusalem by Titus (70 A. D.). It is proposed in the present essay to deal, first with the Architecture, then with the Music, and finally with the Poetry of the ancient Hebrews.

Just as among other nations of antiquity architecture had its origin in religion, and owed its development to religion, so it was among the Jews. The first feeble attempt at architecture, though it is perhaps incorrect to call it by that name, was the erection of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. This was certainly nothing more than a large-sized movable tent, and had no special beauty about it, but the fact that the original design was retained and used on a larger scale at the construction of the subsequent Temples of Jerusalem, invests it with more than ordinary importance. From this it may also be seen that the Jewish architect, even in those early times, had in the drawing up of its ground-plan some glimmering of symmetry and purity of form. Noticeable also is the great skill manifested at that time by the Jewish artisans in the manufacture of the furniture of the Tabernacle, the beautiful covers and curtains with their inwoven cherubims, the seven-branched golden candlestick of beaten work, and the circular-shaped laver made by them from the metallic mirrors presented by the women of the community (Exod. xxxviii. 8). The erection of the Tabernacle was followed by some centuries of architectural and artistic barrenness. This epoch includes the time of their sojourn in the Arabian desert, and the period during which they were governed by the Judges, and subsequently by King Saul. Those years were marked by internal and external struggles, and consequently did not admit of the free development of any of those arts which, generally speaking, flourish only in times of undisturbed peace, and under the protection of a strong government. In the reigns of David and Solomon, however, when the Jews began to enjoy the first-fruits of peace and national prosperity, the general spread of culture and architectural skill at once became manifest. The sacred and royal buildings erected by the various Jewish kings, and particularly the Temple of Solomon, show the pitch of artistic excellence which they had attained.

There is no doubt much exaggeration in the statement made by some writers that classical antiquity was largely indebted to the Temple for many details of art, and that throughout the Middle Ages the form and shape of all Christian churches were modelled after its design. Considering, however, the attention and interest which the Temple has excited, there can be little doubt of its extraordinary artistic value. Its original form and mode of structure have already been so often and so minutely described by learned men of all ages and countries that there is hardly anything new left to be said about it. A few observations, however, concerning the builders, and the difficulties encountered by them at its erection, may not be out of place here. Some writers are of opinion that the fame and magnificence of the Temple were entirely due to the skill of Phoenician artisans, and not to the proficiency of Jewish workmen. The soundness of this theory is, however, very questionable. In the first place, we have it on the authority of the Biblical memorials that the assistance given by the Phoenicians to the Jewish workmen at the erection of the Temple consisted mainly in felling cedar-trees on Mount Lebanon, and in manufacturing the artistic metal-work of the building. Next, the fact already mentioned that the original Mosaic model of the Tabernacle had been retained, and used on a larger scale in the construction of the Temple, proves at once its purely Jewish character. We must also come to the same conclusion when we consider that its internal and external decoration consisted mostly of flowers and plants that only grew on Palestinian soil.

As for the structure itself, it may be mentioned that many difficulties had to be overcome before the actual building operations began. The summit of Mount Moriah, on which King David had decided to erect the Temple, was too narrow to permit of large buildings being established thereon. Thus gigantic supports and walls had to be erected, which, owing no doubt to their great strength and durability, have been preserved to the present day. They bear a great similarity to the Cyclopean walls built by the oldest races of Greece in Asia Minor, and the immensity of each block of stone is such that it has excited the wonder of various modern travellers (cp. Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 62). These enormous stones were, strange to say, put together without the aid of tools. The latter, made as they were out of a material from which weapons of war are manufactured, were used as little as possible at the erection of a building which was intended, in conformity with the true spirit of Judaism, to serve as a symbol of Peace. There is another noticeable feature in connexion with the building, namely, that all its bronze works were cast in earthen moulds in the valley of the Jordan. This spot was specially selected for the purpose, on account of its fine clay soil. Thus it will be seen that even at this early period in the history of architecture the Jews must have had some knowledge of mining. Later on, at the time when the Romans were the masters of the land, the mines of Phaino enjoyed a very great reputation (cp. Ewald, History of Israel, ed. Carpenter, vol. IV, p. 192). A modern writer of note (James Fergusson), in referring to the Temple of Solomon, expresses himself thus:—“Whatever the exact appearance of its details may have been, it may safely be asserted that the triple Temple of Jerusalem—the lower court, standing on its magnificent terrace—the inner court, raised on its platform in the centre of this—and the Temple itself, rising out of the group and crowning the whole—must have formed, when combined with the beauty of its situation, one of the most splendid architectural combinations of the old world” (cp. Smith's Bible Dictionary, sub Temple).

In connexion with the Temple two other branches of architecture may be mentioned here—the water conduits and bridges, or rather viaducts, built by King Solomon. The former must have been of some importance; they are quoted by Tacitus, who speaks of Fons perennis aquae, cavati sub terra montes (cp. Hist. vol. 12). As for the bridges or viaducts, it is said that they were four in number, and of a peculiar construction. One led over the valley of Gihon; another, called by Josephus gerupha, connected Mount Zion with Mount Moriah, and served as a viaduct for the king on his visiting the Temple (cp. Ant. xv. 11. 5). The third and fourth are referred to in Talmud Jer. Shekalim, 4. 4, and in Yomah, 4 b.

In subsequent times two more Temples were built after the design of Solomon's—one by Zerubbabel with the permission and assistance of the Persian king Cyrus (558 B. C.), and another by King Herod (16 B. C.), who, next to Solomon, was the most art-loving monarch the Jews ever had. During his reign the influence of Greek taste began to make itself felt in Palestine, and we are told that, in addition to the temple, he also built colonnades, theatres, and castles (cp. Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 1). According to the same authority (Bell. Jud. 5. 44), the beauty of King Herod's residential palace was beyond all description. It consisted of a block of various marble buildings, with artistically formed roofs, each building having magnificent halls and colonnades. Pleasure grounds, tiny forests, and gardens of every kind surrounded it, and elaborate waterworks were built to give these grounds a never-failing freshness of appearance. The Greek style did not, however, altogether supersede the Phoenician, for even as late as the Mishna, mention is made of Tyrian windows and porches (cp. Talmud, Baba Bathra, p. 36).

It would not be easy to describe here all the other architectural works of Solomon and the rest of the Jewish kings. The former's palace ought not, however, to be passed over unnoticed, especially as in splendour and architectural beauty it rivalled the Temple itself. It consisted of a row of large buildings, among which the king's private residence, that of the Egyptian princes, and the so-called house of the forest of Lebanon, were the most prominent. With the aid of his great waterworks in the neighbourhood of the city, Solomon laid out all kinds of gardens and pleasure-grounds, the beauty of which was enhanced by the addition of fountains and artificial lakes (cp. Cant. iv. 13–15). At Etam he had a magnificent park and gymnasium, which he occasionally visited. Not far from Lebanon he erected some lofty towers ornamented largely with gold and ivory (Cant. viii. 11; Ant. iii. 7. 3).

That the Greeks used ivory for the ornamentation of houses and public buildings, may be seen from the passage in Eurip. Iph. Aul., where ἐλεφάντινοι δόμοι (houses made of ivory) are mentioned.

Referring to the great taste for landscape culture displayed by the Hebrews of old, Humboldt says that nowhere in antiquity, and not even among the Greeks, is so much sense for the beauties of nature met with as in the Bible. With regard to sculpture it ought to be mentioned that the ancient Hebrews did not to any great extent cultivate this art. This was in consequence of the law which forbade them to introduce any kind of graven image in their places of worship. A few monuments, however, are mentioned as having been erected by them, such as the one built by Absalom, which, according to Josephus (Ant. vii. 10. 3), was a marble column. Another, erected in memory of Queen Helena, consisted of three small pyramids, and was considered a beautiful work of art (ibid. xx. 4. 3).

The tools that were used in those times by Hebrew artisans were, in addition to the more common ones, such as the axe, saw, and others, the compass (Mechugah) (Isa. xliv. 13), the plumb-line (Anach) (Amos vii. 7), and the measuring-reed (Kav) (cp. Job xxxviii. 5).

As for the artisans' position it may be said that they were not merely servants and slaves as among the Greeks and Romans, but men holding some rank in society. For instance, of Bezaleel and Aholiab, the principal architects of the Tabernacle, it is said that “they were filled with the spirit of the Lord” (Exod. xxxvi. 1), and had they not been classed among the wisest men of their time, and held in high esteem by the community at large, no respect would have been paid to them by the Biblical memorials. The number of Jewish artisans of every description appears to have been considerable, and this was specially the case during the time when the national prosperity was advancing (Jer. xxix. 2). Even during the Captivity, and later on when the Jews were finally scattered over the world, their Rabbis urgently recommended them to teach their children some art or handicraft.

The same exaggeration in respect of the achievements of the ancient Hebrews in the art of architecture is also found in reference to the perfection which they attained in science and the art of music. However that may be, it can hardly be denied that they were, on the whole, an eminently musical people. This can be seen from the comparatively large number of Hebrew words denoting song and chanting, as well as from Hebrew poetry, a considerable portion of which has been conceived in the form of psalmody or sacred lyric song. As among the Greeks, Jewish tradition ascribes the invention of the first musical instrument to shepherds. Jubal is designated in the Bible as the father of all such as handle the harp or organ (Gen. iv. 21). Other passages in the same book relating to musical instruments and to their use, are found in connexion with Laban, Miriam, and Jephthah. But a real and systematic cultivation of the art of music did not begin before the days of Samuel and Saul; the former of whom seems to have been the founder of a regular school of music (1 Sam. x. 5). There a great number of students received their training, and the most able among them were subsequently selected for the choir of the Temple. Already in the time of David 4,000 singers, mostly Levites, assisted in the service of the Lord, being presided over by the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun. In subsequent ages their services are recorded in connexion with the laying of the foundation of the second Temple (Ezra iii. 10), and again, after the great victory of the Maccabean army over Gorgias (1 Macc. iv. 24).

The instruments used by the ancient Hebrews were of three different kinds—percussion instruments, such as tambourines, drums, and cymbals; wind instruments, such as trumpets, horns, and flutes; and stringed instruments, such as harps, psalteries, and guitars. Another peculiar instrument is mentioned in the Talmud (Erachin, ii a) as having been used in the Temple service, which was called Magrepha (מגרפה). This is said to have had about a hundred different tones, and was audible at a very long distance. These instruments seem to have been used in the Temple service after a pause in the singing. Such a pause was perhaps notified by the word Selah (סלה), which is so often met with in the Psalms, and is translated in the Septuagint by diapsalma (διαψάλμα) (cf. Bötticher, De inferis rebusque post mortem futuris Hebraeorum et Graecorum opiniones, Dresden, 1868, p. 198). That the Temple music must have exercised a vast influence on the cultivation and development of the Church songs and music can hardly be doubted. Martini, who was a great authority on such matters, maintains that the first Christian choral songs were taken from the songs of the Temple. It is quite natural, he says, that the Apostles should have introduced into the Church services only those melodies that had been familiar to them from their earliest infancy (cp. Storia della Musica, p. 350).

But it was not in the service of religion alone that music was performed among the ancient Hebrews: it permeated their whole public and private life. Following the example of David and Solomon, who had attached to their courts “singing men and singing women” (2 Sam. xix. 36; Eccles. ii. 8), the rich men in Israel often, employed music and song at their banquets (Amos vi. 4–6). When bridal processions passed through the streets, they were accompanied with music and song (Jer. vii. 34). The same was the case when victories were celebrated, or when the Jewish armies went to battle (Exod. xv. 20; xx. 19). There seems also to have existed a kind of Jewish troubadours, who sang love-songs before the windows of their chosen ones (Ps. xlv, title). The harvest was gathered in to the tunes of merry songs (Isa. xvi. 10), and at funeral processions mournful music was played (Jer. ix. 17–20).

That a high position must have been assigned by the ancient Hebrews to those who were skilled in song and music, may be seen from the term applied to them in the Hebrew writings. There they are frequently called Nebiim (נביאים), “Prophets,” and of Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, it is said that “the spirit of the Lord came over him” (2 Chron. xx. 14). Thus the art of music was looked upon by the Hebrews as being the outcome of divine inspiration, and its disciples were consequently held in great esteem by them. But music and song only flourished among them so long as they were masters in their own country, and were free men in a free land. When their nationality had ceased to exist, and they were led into captivity, they hung their harps on the willows by the streams of Babylon, and uttered those memorable and touching words: “How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land?” (Ps. cxxxvii. 4).

The third branch of the arts to which I now pass is Hebrew Poetry. Martin Luther, in his Table Talk, compares it with the sweet melody of a nightingale, and it is frequently admitted that, the Greeks and Romans perhaps excepted, no nation of antiquity has produced anything in the shape of poetry that can be compared with that of the Hebrews. There are three kinds of poetry in the Hebrew literature—dramatic, gnomic, and lyrical. The latter occupies the most prominent position. The drama is represented by two pieces, the Book of Job and the Song of Songs. The Book of Job is considered by many as the masterpiece of Hebrew poetry. Its fine introduction with its double scene in heaven and on earth, in which Satan plays so prominent a rôle, was imitated by Goethe in his “Faust.” Equally grand, though in a different style, is the Song of Songs. Herder, in referring to it, says that it is the most beautiful piece of poetry that has ever been produced by any poet of ancient or modern times. He is of opinion that in no other poem has love been so charmingly depicted as there, and even now, in spite of its great age, it has lost none of its freshness of colouring and beauty of diction. It is a true monument of genuine pastoral and idyllic poetry.

The gnomic poetry comprises that section of Hebrew literature which contains pithy maxims or proverbs. To this class of poetry belong the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Proverbs of Jesus ben Sirach, better known under the name of Ecclesiasticus. Though the religious element is not entirely excluded from these books, yet they chiefly treat of worldly subjects. Some passages therein contain humorous descriptions of various human characters. The bookworm, the scribbler, the miser, the dull preacher, the quarrelsome woman, the drunkard—they are all referred to, and spoken of with good-natured humour and irony[^[33-1]].

The lyric poetry of the Jews is almost entirely of a religious nature. To this class belong the Psalms, which are confessedly the peculiar product of Hebrew Art. They have never been surpassed in any other literature in simplicity of diction and originality of sentiment. Being the classical expression of the speech of the religious mind, they have naturally become a treasure-house for the language and thought of the Christian world. The Christian liturgy and the songs of the Church abound with beautiful sentences borrowed from them.

The Book of Psalms contains 150 songs, most of which are said to have been composed by King David. Psalms occur also here and there in other parts of the Bible, such as those of Samuel's mother (1 Sam. ii), of Isaiah (chap. xii), of Hezekiah (ibid. xxxviii. 9), and of Habakkuk. There are also Hebrew songs which are similar to the Psalms in respect of form, but not of subject. To this class of Psalms belong, for instance, Jacob's last blessing, Balaam's prophecies, the Song of Deborah, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. In the Psalms songs are also met with which are of a joyful nature, such as wedding songs, love songs, and wine songs.

Hebrew poetry has many characteristics of its own, the most prominent of which are national and local colouring, and, secondly, its profound humility and reverence. Its writers never lose sight of the grand idea of their nation, which subordinates all and everything in the universe to one supreme power called God, the Creator of heaven and earth. Even man, the crown of the creation, is, according to them, only an Adam or Enosh (אדם, אנוש), an insignificant, helpless being, in comparison to Eloha (אלוה, Arab. Allah), the most powerful Lord of the universe. Thus man is compared by them to a flower that withers, to a shadow that passes by, and to a cloud that vanishes in the air; while at the same time they call the thunder “the voice of the Lord,” the wind “his messenger,” the clouds “the cover of his brightness,” the lightning “his servant,” and the sun “the herald of his majesty.” But though they let Nature be subservient to and dependent on God, yet they preserve a loving attachment to it, and endow it, as it were, with life and animation. They let it share man's sentiments; it rejoices and trembles with man, and it laughs and weeps with him.

Every extraordinary event in the life of the nation affects Nature as it does the human mind. So, for instance, when the Hebrew exiles are described by the prophet as returning to the land of their nativity, the desert rejoices and changes into a beautiful garden filled with rose blossoms, and fragrant with the perfume of sweet plants. The mountains and the hills break forth into song, and the trees of the fields clap their hands. In those happy days, neither the light of the sun nor the brightness of the moon will be required by the liberated exiles, for the Lord will be unto them an everlasting light (Isa. xxxv. 1; lv. 12; lx. 20). On the other hand, when God sits in judgment, and a great catastrophe is imminent over the inhabitants of the land, then the earth shakes and trembles, and the foundations of the hills move. The heaven becomes clouded, and the brightness of the sun disappears; the moon and the stars shine no more (Ps. xviii. 8; Ez. xxxii. 7).

The form of Hebrew poetry has been widely discussed. Some writers, such as Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and others, maintain that in some Biblical poems the Iambic, Alcaic, and Sapphic metres were used, and that in others the heroic metre was employed. Others, again, are rather inclined to think that the Hebrews wrote in no regular metrical periods, but only preserved a kind of parallelism of sentences. No one will deny that the Greeks and the Romans have produced literary works, which in elegance of expression and symmetry of form are much superior to those of the Hebrews. But at the same time it will be conceded by those who have a taste for genuine poetry, that in the freshness of colouring, depth of thought, and vivacity of representation, the poetical pieces of the Bible stand very high. Though written thousands of years ago, they still preserve their sway over the human heart, and afford consolation and hope to the afflicted and oppressed.

From what has been said it will be seen how unfounded the charge is, so often made in certain quarters against the Jews, that they have never rendered any particular service to the nations with whom they have come in contact. Surely, if they had done nothing else but given them the sacred volume, the Book of Books, which contains so many golden rules for the cultivation of the human mind and heart, they would, for that reason alone, be entitled to expect acknowledgment and gratitude, not only from the present but also from all future generations.

Footnotes:

[33-1] Cp. above, [p. 5].

[IV]
[THE LIFE OF THE HEBREW WOMEN OF OLD]

An erroneous notion has long prevailed regarding the place assigned to the Hebrew woman at home and in society by the Mosaic law. Even now the idea obtains that the law placed the Hebrew woman almost on the same footing as the low-born slave, and denied her all mental and spiritual enjoyments; that, because polygamy was silently tolerated by the law, and because it gave fathers and husbands a certain amount of authority over their wives and daughters, the position of the Hebrew woman must therefore have been exceedingly low. But the student who closely examines the Old Testament passages relating to her domestic and social life, will soon see that this assumption is without foundation. A consideration of her life during Biblical times will, in fact, show that she enjoyed more freedom than other Oriental women of that or even of the present time, and that in some respects her position was not much inferior to that of her modern descendants.

The Old Testament gives two distinct periods in the history of the Hebrew woman. The first extends from the times when the Israelites became established in Palestine, and the second from that date to the building of the second Temple. The most prominent feature of the first period is an extreme simplicity of manners in both sexes, occasioned by their living in the open air or in tents. It resembles in many respects the heroic age of the ancient Greeks, and especially with regard to the social position of the female sex. But while in the Hebrew world the woman is known as “Ish-shah” (אשה), “wife,” being equal in moral as well as in literal etymology to “Ish” (איש), “man,” the Greeks had separate words for man and wife, namely, ἀνήρ, γυνή, suggesting, perhaps, the inferior rank of the weaker sex among them. Again, while the Greeks called their first woman Pandora as the bringer of all evil to man, the first woman of the Bible, Eve, is introduced to us as a part of her husband's being, and as having been created to be “a helpmeet for him” (עזר כנגדו) (Gen. ii. 18). Except Eve, who seems to have lived with her family in the open air, the women belonging to that period dwelt in tents. Such a tent was called in Hebrew ohel (אהל), and sometimes baït (בית)[^[37-1]], and consisted of a walled-in enclosure covered with curtains of a dark colour (Cant. i. 5). It was divided into two or more apartments, one being always reserved for the females of the family; but sometimes each female had a separate tent (Gen. xxxi. 33; cp. also Homer, Iliad, vi. 247–9). When travelling the women's tents were fastened on a broad cushion (כר), and placed on the backs of the riding camels (Gen. xxxi. 34). The occupations of the married woman were multifarious. She rose early in the morning, and spent the day in attending to her children, distributing food at meal times, and weaving various textures for the use of her family (Prov. xxxi. 15). Cp. Homer, Odyss. x. 221; and Virgil, Georg. i. 293–5:—

Interea longum cantu solata laborem

Arguto conjux percurrit pectine telas.

The cooking was also done by the mistress of the house, and even women of rank did not consider it beneath their dignity to help in culinary work (Gen. xviii. 5). Sometimes a nurse was kept for the younger children of the family, and was held in great estimation by her employers (ibid. xxxv. 8). The surplus of their manufactures was usually sold to merchants (Prov. xxxi. 24), but was sometimes given away for religious purposes (Exod. xxxv. 22).

The unmarried women had, besides their share of the domestic duties, the daily task of tending the flocks and of taking them to the well, where the neighbouring shepherds met them and indulged in gossip and hilarity (Gen. xxix). On these occasions they moved about freely, and could even dispense with the veil usually worn out of doors by Oriental women (ibid. xii. 14). These diversions ended when they entered upon the matrimonial state, which they did between the ages of twelve and eighteen years (Buxtorf, Synag. VII, 143). Sometimes courtship preceded marriage, as in the cases of Jacob and Samson; but the mediation of a third party was usual in marriage negotiations (Gen. xxiv. 4). When the parents approved of the bridegroom's proposals, the bride was sometimes asked for her consent; but when she was of a higher rank than the bridegroom, the father offered her hand to him as a mark of special favour. Thus Jethro did to Moses, Caleb to Othniel, and Saul to David. The wedding itself had no definite ceremonies connected with it. At the wedding of Rebekah and of Ruth only a blessing was pronounced by those present. At a much later period an oath was added in ratification of the union (Ezek. xvi. 8). Indeed, marriage was always considered among the Hebrews as an institution proceeding from God (Gen. xxiv. 50; Judges xiv. 4); and the name given to it in post-Biblical times and retained to the present day is Kiddushin (קדושין), i.e. “sanctification.” The Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, called it συζυγία and coniugium respectively, meaning “yoking together of two persons,” and emphasizing essentially the civil nature of the union.

Though polygamy was not actually forbidden by the Mosaic law, yet it appears from the phraseology employed at its first institution that monogamy was the only legitimate practice. In Gen. ii. 24 it is said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife,” and not his “wives.” Elkanah's second wife is, quaintly enough, called in 1 Sam. i Tsara, which term in Hebrew also means “misery.”

The simplicity manifested in the manners of the Hebrew women found its counterpart in their attire. This was generally of a primitive order. On festive occasions, however, apparel of a more elaborate character was used (Gen. xxiv. 53). Personal ornaments were also sometimes worn; these were mostly articles of gold, and, perhaps, even jewels, since precious stones are mentioned in the Pentateuch. While in Egypt, the Hebrew women learnt the use of mirrors, which were then made of a mixture of copper and tin. These mirrors they gave freely for the fabrication of the laver of the Tabernacle (Exod. xxxviii. 8). At that time they appear also to have acquired some proficiency in singing, dancing, and playing on musical instruments; for on the shore of the Red Sea we find them singing an ode together with Miriam. Later on, they shared with the men the privilege of being summoned to hear the reading of the law (Deut. xxxi. 12). An old Sanscrit proverb says: “Women are instructed by nature, but men obtain learning by books”; nor are illustrations wanting in the Bible to prove the truth of this saying. The Hebrew women had already cultivated a taste for flowers (Gen. xxx. 14), song, and music; they were active in their households, charitable to the poor and needy (Prov. xxxi. 20); and, above all, they were sensible of the blessing of freedom and independence.

During the second period of Biblical history, from the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine to the rebuilding of the second Temple, a remarkable change occurred in the life, habits, and social standing of the Hebrew woman. The simplicity of manners which had characterized the first period gave place in course of time to luxurious living—the result of residing in large towns and in permanent dwelling-houses, and of closer social intercourse with men of their own and foreign nations. The females of the poorer and middle classes occupied the same room or rooms with their husbands; but the wives of the rich and nobles had a separate set of apartments for themselves, called harmon (הרמון) (Amos iv. 3), most probably derived from harem (חרם) (forbidden), and akin to the modern Harem.

Yet the seclusion of women among the wealthy Hebrews was at that period much less strict than with the modern Mohammedans, or the ancient Persians and Greeks. As among the Greeks (Homer, Odyss. i. 329–331), the Jewish females occupied the upper part of the house, as instanced in 2 Sam. vi. 16, and 2 Kings ix. 31–33, in connexion with Michal and Jezebel. But, while the former were not allowed to see any one but their nearest relations (cp. Wieland, Attisches Museum, II, 131), the latter moved about freely, and sometimes took an active part in public life. As instances of this may be mentioned Jephthah's daughter, Deborah, Jezebel, Athalia, Huldah, Esther, and Noadiah. Deborah and Hannah, as composers of excellent odes, have the honour of being the first poetesses in history. Women were also hired to chant doleful songs at the funerals of persons of high rank (Jer. ix. 16). Sometimes they were even employed to plead causes at the royal courts (2 Sam. xiv. 2; 1 Kings i. 11). Then, again, there are instances of women who, by their bravery and oratorical powers, saved a whole town from destruction (Judges ix. 53; 2 Sam. xx. 18–23).

Their recreation consisted chiefly in paying visits to their relations and friends, on which occasions refreshments were served (Cant. viii. 2), and in attending at public festivals. These were of frequent occurrence: religious celebrations, or weddings, when the women assembled in the streets to watch the gay procession of the guests (Jer. xxv. 10); vintage festivals and harvest festivals where, amidst merriment and laughter, men and women danced to the strains of sweet music (Judges xxi. 21; Isa. xvi. 10; Jer. xxxi. 3,4). Recreation-houses[^[40-1]] also existed, and were frequented by women of rank (Micah ii. 9), but their exact nature is not clearly defined. The prophet Isaiah devotes a whole chapter to the description of the dresses and trinkets worn by the Hebrew women of his time; and even as far back as the days of King Saul, women wore rich dresses of scarlet and gold. David, when bewailing Saul's death, says: “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon your dresses” (2 Sam. i. 24). This extravagance in women's attire continued to the time of Christ; and according to Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus), a lady could then get in Jerusalem “from a false tooth to an Arabian veil, a Persian shawl, or an Indian dress.” The Jewish women, like the Egyptian, the Greek, and the Roman, used precious ointments and perfumes for their heads and dresses (Cant. i. 3). The cost of a moderately-sized bottle of those perfumes is stated to have been equal to £6 of our money. Women of rank also used cosmetics for the eyelashes (2 Kings ix. 30; Jer. iv. 30). Isaiah, deriding this practice, says that the women of his time were “lying with their eyes” (משקרות, from שקר, Isa. iii. 16). The Hebrew term for this paint is puck (פוך), being equivalent in etymology to φῦκος and fucus of the classics. The Hebrew women must generally have been of great natural beauty, for many such are found in the Old Testament. According to Canticles (ch. ii), pet-names were often given to women, such as rose of the valley, dove, Aurora, sister, sun, and star.

If the character of a nation is reflected in its proverbs, the passages in the Bible relating to the worth of women prove the high estimation in which the Hebrew women were held by their husbands. They joined the latter at meals (Job i. 4), and took part in their social life—a privilege withheld from other Oriental women even at the present day.

It is, therefore, evident that the common idea as to the low position of the ancient Hebrew woman is incorrect. She enjoyed, at all events, much greater freedom than was permitted to the wives of the highly-cultured ancient Greeks. She was held in higher regard than the women that lived in the time of Luther, who in his Table Talk quotes, and as it seems approvingly, the old Latin proverb: Tria mala pessima: ignis, aqua, femina. And finally, the liberty granted by the Mosaic law to the Hebrew women was never condemned by contemporary poets or prophets, while modern writers and philosophers, such as Hartmann, Schopenhauer, and others, do not hesitate to inveigh against the privileges granted to them in modern life. In the book Über die Weiber (On Women, vol. VI, P. 549), Schopenhauer says that the low position of the Oriental women suits them better than their freedom in the West.

It is true that the Old Testament has its share of gossiping, over-curious, quarrelsome, and superstitious women, but they only form a small proportion to the large number of model women that appear in its pages. The esteem in which the Hebrew woman was held is shown throughout the Bible, as the following few quotations from it will prove:—“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord” (Prov. xviii. 22). “A gracious woman retaineth honour, as the hand of the industrious increaseth wealth” (ibid. xi. 16). “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband” (ibid. xii. 4). “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: but a prudent wife is from God” (ibid. xix. 14).

Footnotes:

[37-1] In Arabic the term baït has the same signification as in Hebrew.

[40-1] The original Hebrew term means “houses of pleasure.”

[V]
[CURIOSITIES OF CERTAIN PROPER NAMES IN THE BIBLE]

Shakespeare, in one of his plays, asks “What's in a name?” That he himself believed that there was a good deal in a name is shown by his fondness for reading certain characteristics into the personality of the possessors of certain names. Thus, for example, in the dialogue between King Richard and Gaunt (cp. Richard II, Act 2), the former says:—

What comfort, man? How is it with aged Gaunt?

Gaunt. Oh, how that name befits my composition!

Old Gaunt indeed, and gaunt in being old!

With this may be compared Falstaff's remark in 2 King Henry IV, Act 3, Scene 2, where he says:—“I told you John a Gaunt he beat his own name; for you might have thrust him and all his apparel into an eel-skin.”

In Greek literature, too, several names occur which are even more striking, inasmuch as they foreshadow the future fate, and sometimes also the mental or physical disposition of their bearers[^[43-1]]. Similarly, certain Hebrew proper names are found in the Old Testament, which are attended with peculiar significance. So, for instance, in the name of the first man Adam (אדם, from אדמה, “the earth”), the final destiny of man seems to have been predicted. At a subsequent period in Adam's life, this hidden allusion to his future fate is made even more clear by the words: “For dust art thou, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. iii. 19).

Something similar is noticeable in connexion with the first woman, Eve. She was first called Ish-shah (אשה, from איש) “because she was taken out of man,” but subsequently, after she had tasted of the “tree of knowledge,” her name was changed into חוה = “Eve” (from חיה, “living”), which is evidently a name showing that she was destined to become “the mother of all living.” In the name of one of her sons, Abel (הבל, signifying “breath” or “nothingness”), a prophetic prediction of his brief life seems to have been expressed; and the names of the descendants of her second son Cain, viz. Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal (יבל, יובל, תובל), indicated their respective occupations after reaching manhood.

At a later period in Biblical times, we meet with the names Noah (נח, meaning “rest” or “comfort”), Abram (אברם, “the exalted father”), and Sarah (שרה, “the princess”), and it is interesting to notice how these names foretold the future fate of their owners. There are three more proper names in the Pentateuch, which belong to the same category, viz. Korah, Balaam, and Balak. Kerah signifies in the original Hebrew “coldness,” exemplified by his apathy to divine ordinances, when he brought about a rebellion against the authority of Moses. It has also another meaning in Hebrew, viz. “baldness,” and it is curious to observe that it gave some ardent followers of the Church of Rome a ready handle with which to banter Calvin (Lat. Calvus, Calvinus = “bald”) as being homonymous with his predecessor (קרח) in schism (cf. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, sub Korah).

In the names of Balaam and Balak, some of the old Jewish and Christian commentators on the Bible have detected a particular meaning. In Balaam (בלע־עם) they saw a future “devourer,” or “destroyer of the people,” and in Balak (בלק) a representation of “incompetence,” illustrating their subsequent conduct towards the Jewish people. Similarly, too, the name of Achan or Achar (עכר) (1 Chron. ii. 7), which latter word means “to cause trouble,” and Machlon and Chillion (מחלון, כליון) “the sick, the perishing,” seem to be foretokens of the subsequent fortunes of their owners.

Interesting, again, is the name David (דוד), which means “the beloved one,” or “the friend,” and was given to the child that subsequently became the sweet singer in Israel. In connexion therewith a play on words may be mentioned here, which seems to have hitherto been overlooked by students of the Bible. When King Saul, who hated David after his victory over Goliath, missed his presence at the royal table, he asked his son Jonathan, “Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat?” (אל הלחם). Thereupon Jonathan ironically replied: “David has asked leave of me to go to Beth-lehem” (בית לחם). By this play on words Jonathan seems to have intended to tell his father that David had a home of his own where there was plenty of food (לחם), and he could therefore readily dispense with the hospitality of the royal palace.

This play on words is found elsewhere in the Bible, in connexion with proper names, viz. בתי אכזיב לאכזב, “The houses of Achzib (from כזב) shall be a ‛lie’” (Mic. i. 14); and עקרון תעקר, “Ekron (from עקר) shall be destroyed” (Zeph. ii. 4). It is noticeable that the idol which the inhabitants of the latter town used to worship was ignominiously called in the Bible “Baal-Zebub”—“The Lord of Flies.” It is said in 2 Kings i. 2, not without a slight touch of irony, that King Ahazia had sent messengers to this impotent deity to inquire about the issue of his protracted illness.

There are four other proper names in the Bible which have seemingly foretold the future characteristics of their respective possessors. These are: Solomon (שלמה), being a name which signifies “Peace” (from שלום); Malachi (מלאכי), “My Messenger,” the future Jewish prophet; Ezra (עזרא), “The Helper”; and Nehemia (נחמיה), “God's Comforter.” The subsequent history of the two latter in leading back to Palestine the bulk of the Jewish exiles from the Babylonian captivity shows that their names were not ill-bestowed.

There are also a few female proper names in the Bible of similar interest. Besides the names of Eve and Sarah, to which reference has already been made, there is the name Miriam (מרים, from מרי, “rebellion”), which suggests her and her brother Aaron's revolt against Moses on the occasion of his marrying the Cushite woman. Jacob's only daughter was called Dinah (דינה, from דין), signifying “judgment,” and that name seems to have foreshadowed punishment for her unprotected wanderings. Deborah (דבורה), “The Bee,” made the enemies of her race feel her sting in the great battle that she fought against them. Another Biblical heroine, Hannah (חנה, from חון, “to pray,” or חנן, “to be favoured”), afterwards received that favour which her name prognosticated. She longed and prayed for a son, whose life was to be wholly devoted to the service of God, and her prayer was favourably received. She subsequently became the mother of Samuel, who was the first of the regular and unbroken succession of prophets.

Footnotes: