8. The highest testimony of this period is that of Walton. From the editor of the Polyglot, the few words " inter omnes eniinet" meant a good deal {Pref). With the reign of Anne the tide of glowing panegyric set in. It would be easy to put together a long catena of praises stretching from that time to the present. AA'itli many, of course, tliis has been only the routine repetition, of a traditional lioast. "Our un- rivalled Translation" and " our incomparable Litur- I gy" have been equally phrases of course. But there 1 have been witnesses of a far higher weight. In nro-
ENGLISH VERSIONS
219
ENGLISH VERSIONS
portion as the English of the 18th centiirj' was infect- ed with a Latinized or Gallicized style, did tiiose who had a purer taste look with reverence to the strength and purity of a better time as represented in the A. V. Tiius Addison dwells on its ennobling the coldness of modern languages with the glowing phrases of He- brew (Spectator^ No. 405), and Swift confesses that "the translators of the Bible were masters of an Eng- lish style tar fitter for that work than any we see in our jiresent writings" {Letter to Lord Ojjvrd). Each half century has naturall}' added to the prestige of these merits. The language of the A. V. has inter- twined itself with the controversies, the devotion, the literature of the English people. It has gone, wher- ever they have gone, over the foce of the whole earth. The most solemn and tender of individual memories are, for the most part, associated with it. ISIen leav- ing the Church of England for the Church of Rome turn regretfully with a yearning look at that noble "well of English undefiled" whicli they are about to exchange for the uncouth monstrosities of Rheims and Douaj'. In this case, too, as in so many others, the position of the A. V. has been strengthened, less by the skill of its defenders than by the weakness of its as- sailants. While from time to time scholars and di- vines (Lovvth, Newcomc, Waterland, Trench, Ellicott) have admitted the necessit}'^ of a revision, those who have attacked the present version and produced new ones have been, for the most part, men of narrow knowledge and defective taste (Purver, Harwood, Bel- lamy, Conquest, Sawj'cr), just able to pick out a few obvious faults, and committing others e(jually glaring. Tliey have also generally entered on the work of translating or revising the whole Bible single-handed. One memorable exception must not, however, be pass- ed over. Hallani {Lit. of Lurope, iii, ch. ii, ad fin.) records a brief but emphatic protest against the "en- thusiastic praise" which has been lavished on this translation. " It may, in the eyes of many, be a bet- ter English, but it is not the English of Daniel, or Raleigh, or Bacon. ... It abounds, in fact, espe- cially in the O. T., with obsolete phraseology', and with single words long since abandoned, or retained only in provincial use." The statement maj', how- ever, in some sense be acce|)ted as an encomium. If it had been altogether the English of the men of let- ters of James's reign, would it have retained, as it has done for two centuries and a half, its hold on the mind, the memory, the affections of the English peo- ple?
XII. Schemes for a Revision. — 1. A notice of the at- tempts which have been made at various times to bring about a revision of the A. V., tliough necessarily' brief and imperfect, may not be witliout its use for future laborers. The first lialf of the 18tli century was not favorable for such a work. An almost solitary Essaij for a New Translation by II. R. (Ross), 1702, at- tracted little or no notice (Todd, Life of Walton, i, 1.34). A Greek Testament, with an English transla- tion, singularly vulgar and oft'cnsive, was published in 1729, of which extracts are given by Lewis {Hist, of Transl. ch. v). With the slight revival of learning among the scholars of the latter half of that period the subject was again mooted. Lowth in a visitation ser- mon (1758), and Seeker in a Latin speech intended for Convocation (17G1), recommen<led it. INIatt. Pilking- ton, in his Remarhs (1759), and Dr. Thomas Brett, in an Essaif on Ancient Versions of the Bible (17(50), dwelt on the importance of consulting them with reference to the O. T. as well as the N. T., with a view to a more accurate text than that of the Mnsoretic Hebrew, the former insisting also on the obsolete words which are scattered in the A.V., and giving a useful alpha- )>etic list of them. A folio new and literal translation Of the whole Bible by Anthony Purver, a Quaker (1764), was a more ambitious attempt. He dwells at some length on the "obsolete, uncouth, clownish" ex-
pressions which disfigure the A. V. He includes in liis list such words as "joyous," "solace," "damsel," "day-spring," "bereaved," "marvels," "bondmen." He substitutes "he hearkened to what he said" for " he hearkened to his voice ;" " eat victuals" for " eat bread" (Gen. iii, 19) ; " was in favor with" for " found grace in the eyes of;" "was angry" for "his wrath was kindled." In sj)ite of this defective taste, how- ever, the work has considerable merit, is based upon a careful study of the original and of many of the best commentators, and maj' be contrasted favorably with most of the single-handed translations that have fol- lowed. It was, at an}' rate, far above the depth of degradation and folly which was reached in Harwood's LJteral Translation of the N. T. "with freedom, spirit, and elegance" (17G8). Here, again, a few samples are enough to show the character of the whole. "The j'oung lady is not dead" (IMark v, 39). "A gentle- man of splendid family and opulent fortune had two sons" (Luke xv, 11). "Ihe clergj'man said, You have given him the only right and proper answer" (Mark xii, 32). " We shall not pay the common debt of nature, but by a soft transition," etc. (1 Cor. xv, 51).