:

lows for when the three friends have ceased to dispute with Job, "because he seemeth just in his own eyes," that is, because he has uniformly contended, that there was no wickedness in himself which could call down the heavy vengeance of God; Elihu comes forward justly offended with both parties; with Job, because "he justified himself in preference to God,"8 that is, because he defended so vehemently the justice of his own cause, that he seemed in some measure to arraign the justice of God; against the three friends, because, "though they were unable to answer Job, they ceased not to condemn him :"9 that is, they concluded in their own minds, that Job was impious and wicked, while, nevertheless, they had nothing specific to object against his assertions of his own innocence, or upon which they might safely ground their accusation.

The conduct of Elihu evidently corresponds with this state of the controversy: he professes, after a slight prefatory mention of himself, to reason with Job, unbiassed equally by favour or resentment. He therefore reproves Job from his own mouth, because he had attributed too much to himself; because he had affirmed himself to be altogether free from guilt and depravity; because he had presumed to contend with God, and had not scrupled to insinuate, that the Deity was hostile to him. He asserts, that it is not necessary for God to explain and develope his counsels to men; that he nevertheless takes many occasions of admonishing them, not only by visions and revelations, but even by the visitations of his providence, by sending calamities and diseases upon them, to repress their arrogance and reform their obduracy. He next rebukes Job, because he had pronounced himself upright, and affirmed that God had acted inimically, if not unjustly towards him, which he proves to be no less improper than indecent. In the third place, he objects to Job, that from the miseries of the good, and prosperity of the wicked, he has falsely and perversely concluded, that there was no advantage to be derived from the practice of virtue. On the contrary he affirms, that when the afflictions of the just continue, it is because they do not place a proper confidence in God, ask relief at his hands, patiently expect it, nor demean themselves before him with becoming humility and submission. This observation alone, he adds very properly, is at once a sufficient reproof of the contumacy of Job, and a full refutation of the unjust suspicions of his friends. 10 Lastly, he

7 Chap. xxxii. 1.

9 Chap. xxxiii. 3.

8 Chap. xxxii. 2. Compare xxxv. 2. xl. 8.

10 Chap. xxxv. 4.

explains the purposes of the Deity in chastening men, which are in general to prove and to amend them, to repress their arrogance, to afford him an opportunity of exemplifying his justice upon the obstinate and rebellious, and of shewing favour to the humble and obedient. He supposes God to have acted in this manner towards Job; on that account he exhorts him to humble himself before his righteous Judge, to beware of appearing obstinate or contumacious in his sight, and of relapsing into a repetition of his sin. He intreats him, from the contemplation of the divine power and majesty, to endeavour to retain a proper reverence for the Almighty. To these frequently intermitted and often repeated admonitions of Elihu, Job makes no return.

The oration of God himself follows that of Elihu, in which, disdaining to descend to any particular explication of his divine counsels, but instancing some of the stupendous effects of his infinite power, he insists upon the same topics which Elihu had before touched upon. In the first place, having reproved the temerity of Job, he convicts him of ignorance, in being unable to comprehend the works of his creation, which were obvious to every eye; the nature and structure of the earth, the sea, the light, and the animal kingdom. He then demonstrates his weakness, by challenging him to prove his own power by emulating any single exertion of the divine energy, and then referring him to one or two of the brute creation, with which he is unable to contend-how much less therefore with the omnipotent Creator and Lord of all things, who is or can be accountable to no being whatever? On this Job humbly submits to the will of Providence, acknowledges his own ignorance and imbecility, and "repents in dust and ashes."

On a due consideration of all these circumstances, the principal object of the poem seems to be this third and last trial of Job, from the injustice and unkindness of his accusing friends. The consequence of which is, in the first place, the anger, indignation, and contumacy of Job, and afterwards his composure, submission, and penitence. The design of the poem is, therefore, to teach men, that having a due respect to the corruption, infirmity, and ignorance of human nature, as well as to the infinite wisdom and majesty of God, they are to reject all confidence in their own strength, in their own righteousness, and to preserve on all occasions an unwavering and

11 See Chap. xli. 2, 3.

unsullied faith, and to submit with becoming reverence to his de

crees.

I would wish it, however, to be carefully observed, that the subject of the dispute between Job and his friends differs from the subject of the poem in general: that the end of the poetical part is different from the design of the narrative at large. For although the design and subject of the poem be exactly as I have defined them, it may nevertheless be granted, that the whole history, taken together, contains an example of patience, together with its reward. This point not having been treated with sufficient distinctness by the learned, I cannot help esteeming it the principal cause of the perplexity in which the subject has been involved. (c)

I am not ignorant, that to those who enter upon this inquiry, some questions will occur, which appear to require a separate examination; since many of them, however, are chiefly connected with those passages which are acknowledged to be obscure, which have not yet been clearly explained, and which, whatever they may hereafter be found to import, are not likely to affect the truth of our conclusion, I have thought proper to omit them. Nor will I allow, that because many things yet remain ambiguous and perplexed, we are therefore to doubt of those which are more open and evident. In regard to certain more important doctrines, which some persons of distinguished learning have thought to be established by this extraordinary monument of ancient wisdom, as they either depend in a great degree on the obscure passages above-mentioned, or do not seem to contribute in the least to the main design of the poem, nor to be consistent with the object of it, which I just now pointed out, I thought it still more unnecessary to introduce them in this disquisition. What I have advanced, I conceived fully adequate to the purpose of this undertaking, and a sufficient introduction to a critical examination of the composition and beauties of the poem.

LECTURE XXXIII.

THE POEM OF JOB NOT A PERFECT DRAMA.

The poem of Job commonly accounted dramatic; and thought by many to be of the same kind with the Greek tragedy: this opinion examined.—A plot or fable essential to a regular drama; its definition and essential qualities according to Aristotle-Demonstrated, that the poem of Job does not contain any plot: its form and design more fully explained-Compared with the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles; with the Oedipus Coloneus; and shewn to differ entirely from both in form and manner-It is nevertheless a most beautiful and perfect performance in its kind: it approaches very near the form of a perfect drama; and, for regularity in form and arrangement, justly claims the first place among the poetical compositions of the Hebrews.

WHEN I undertook the present investigation, my principal object was to enable you to form some definite opinion concerning the poem of Job, and to assign it its proper place among the compositions of the Hebrew poets. This will possibly appear to some a superfluous and idle undertaking, as the point seems long since to have been finally determined, the majority of the critics having decidedly adjudged it to belong to the dramatic class. Since, however, the term dramatic, as I formerly had reason to remark, is in itself extremely ambiguous, the present disquisition will not be confined within the limits of a single question; for the first object of inquiry will necessarily be, what idea is affixed to the appellation by those critics who term the book of Job a dramatic poem and after we have determined this point (if it be possible to determine it, for they do not seem willing to be explicit) we may then with safety proceed to inquire whether, pursuant to that idea, the piece may be justly entitled to this appellation.

A poem is called dramatic, either in consequence of its form, the form I mean of a perfect dialogue, which is sustained entirely by the characters or personages without the intervention of the poet; and this was the definition adopted by the ancient critics or else, according to the more modern acceptation of the word, in consequence of a plot or fable being represented in it. If those who account the book of Job dramatic, adhere to the former definition, I have little inclination to litigate the point; and indeed the object of

the controversy would scarcely be worth the labour. Though a critic, if disposed to be scrupulously exact, might insist that the work, upon the whole, is by no means a perfect dialogue, but consists of a mixture of the narrative and colloquial style for the historical part, which is all composed in the person of the writer himself, is certainly to be accounted a part of the work itself, considered as a whole. Since, however, on the other hand, the historical or narrative part is all evidently written in prose, and seems to me to be substituted merely in the place of an argument or comment, for the purpose of explaining the rest, and certainly does not constitute any part of the poem, since, moreover, those short sentences, which serve to introduce the different speeches, contain very little more than the names; I am willing to allow, that the structure or form of this poem is on the whole dramatic. But this concession will, I fear, scarcely satisfy the critics in question; for they speak of the regular order and conduct of the piece, and of the dramatic catastrophe ; they assert, that the interposition of the Deity is a necessary part of the machinery of the fable; they even enumerate the acts and scenes, and use the very same language in all respects, as if they spoke of a Greek tragedy; insomuch, that when they term the poem of Job dramatic, they seem to speak of that species of drama which was cultivated and improved in the theatre of Athens. It appears, therefore, a fair object of inquiry, whether the poem of Job be possessed of the peculiar properties of the Greek drama, and may with reason and justice be classed with the theatrical productions of that people.

We have already agreed, that the greater and more perfect drama is peculiarly distinguished from the less and more common species, inasmuch as it retains not only the dramatic form, or the perfect dialogue, but also exhibits some entire action, fable, or plot. And this is perfectly agreeable to the definition of Aristotle; for although he points out many parts or constituents in the composition of a tragedy, he assigns the first place to the plot or fable. This he says is the beginning, this the end, this is the most important part, the very soul of a tragedy, without which it is utterly undeserving of the name, and indeed cannot properly be said to exist. A plot or fable is the representation of an action or event, or of a series

1 See CALMET, Preface sur Job. HARE, Not. ad Ps. cvii. 40. CARPZOVII Introduct. in Libros Biblicos, part ii.

p.

76.

2 ARIST. Poet. cap. vi.