spective of the two concluding chapters, the express ref- erence to other sages (QlEQPI, in xxii, 17; xxiv, 23; comp. i, 6) indicates a diversity of authorship, while the difference of style between various divisions of the work strengthens the hypothesis. Indeed, a careful ob- server will find at the very outset an indication of the composite character of the book in the introductory verses which profess to give the contents and character (i, 1-7). These prepare us to find in it, not merely . ■•proverbs" and "eloquent speeches" (margin, A. Y. : '•interpretation"), but also such "words of the wise" as those we have just referred to, and "dark sayings" like those of Agur.
Are we. then, to discard the title, " the Proverbs of Solomon," and to consider that the designation has been given to the book erroneously? To us this appears rash in the extreme. We know from historical sources that Solomon was the author of a very large number of proverbs ; and nothing but that restlessness of specula- tion which discards old beliefs simply, as it would seem, because they are old, and seeks to unsettle all that has hitherto been held certain, can discover any sufficient reason for questioning that Solomon was the composer of the greater part of those contained in our present book, especially in the sections x-xxii, 1G; xxv-xxix. However much these collections may have been modi- fied in successive redactions, though too much has probably been conceded to this hypothesis, of which there is no definite trace, and by which a work may be made to assume any form that may suit the theory to be supported, we have no sufficient reason for doubting that Solomon was the originator of the peculiar style of poetry in which they are composed, and that, even if they are not all to be referred to him, the mass are his, and that they are all pervaded with his spirit, and may be assigned to his epoch. Even those attributed to "the ancients" may have been found by Solomon al- ready floating in a semi-gnomic form, and recast by him in a more distinctly proverbial dress. Eichhorn finds in them no trace of language or thought subsequent to the time of Solomon. Even Ewald, who insists most on the collection as we have it having suffered from abbreviations, transpositions, and unauthorized addi- tions, remarks that the proverbs all breathe the happy peace and growing civilization of Solomon's age; nor is there any epoch either earlier or later to which we could preferably assign them.
The proverbs in the later collection (ch. xxv-xxix), though they present some diversities, do not differ so essentially from the earlier ones as to give any sufficient grounds for questioning the accuracy of the superscrip- tion (xxv, 1). The title itself informs us that the com- pilation was not made till four centuries after Solomon, and the differences are not greater than might be looked for in sayings that had been so long floating about among the common people, and thereby subjected to disfigurement and change. The indications of an al- tered state of society and a decrease of confidence in the rulers, in which Ewald discovers such unmistakable proofs of a later date, are hardly so evident to others as to himself. We know too little of the internal economy of Solomon's reign to enable us to pronounce authorita- tively that such and such expressions are inconsistent with the state of the people and tone of thought at that period.
The objection brought by Eichhorn and others against assigning the proverbs in the two collections to Solo- mon, that the genius of no one man, not even one as di- vinely gifted with wisdom as Solomon, is sufficient for the production of so large a number, is puerile in the ex- treme. Those we possess are but a portion of the three thousand ascribed to him (1 Kings iv, 32), and scarcely give twenty for each of the forty years of his reign.
The general didactic tone of the book is asserted to be more consistent with the character of a prophet or priest than that of a king (Davidson). To this it is replied
PROVERBS
ro4
PROVERBS
that this is true of kings in general, bul nol of sucli a king as Solomon, to u hom God gave a « ise and under- standing heart, wbose proverbs arc eminent I \ dida :tii . and who ha~ in 1 Kings viii discoursed on tin- divine economy towards man in a way that no prophet or priest i mid well surpass. The praises of monogamy, and the strict injunctions against adultery, are urged by Bertholdt a> reasons why Solomon, a [wlygamisl himself, and Bathsheba's son, could nol be the author ■ ction. li is, however, a remarkable feature oi the Old Test, in general, and nol peculiar to this place, thai polygamy, however generally practiced, i~ never thai invariably where the married state isspo- ken of in terms of praise it is the union of one man to one woman thai is held up to honor. Besides, the force of this objection is considerably modified bj the reflec- tion that precepts arc here given for the mass of men, with whom m gamy is the general rule, though po- lygamy may be 1 imon among i he richer classes i Wil- kinson's Egypt, ii. 62); and also that the contrast lure drawn (Prov.v, 18, etc.) is not between monogamy aud polygamy, but between tlic marriage tic ami adulterous connection. As to the supposition that the repeated warnings against adultery could nol come from one whose own mother fell into that sin. no greal weight ■ an b ■ attached to it; for a moral and religious teacher must disregard considerations which would influence other men. The allusions to deeds of violence (i, 11 19; ii, 12, etc.) arc supposed by Ewald to indicate a