plunder them of their crusts of bread. Worse than all, J ernsa.lem is I n rnins and uninhabited, and seems to have been so for an age, by the "pathetic fallacy" explained above. We have seen that the fifth elegy in the collection can hardly be the work of the Prophet Jeremiah, who was probably already in Egypt when the poem was written. Bnt we have also seen that, both in form and in contents, it differs from the other elegies, and we may now add that, lin- guistically, there is almost as little to connect it with its companions as with the Book of Jeremiah. The question, however, still remains whether at least some part of the Book of Lamentations (viz. either eh. i., ii., iv., or eh. iii. alone) may not be the composition of that gifted prophet. Let us first of all consider the internal evidence, and let us test the theory of Jeremiah's authorship by its applicability to the third chapter of the book, as the part which, upon the face of it, can most easily be claimed as Jeremiah's. It will be readily admitted that, if we take the poem literally, it points to Jeremiah more distinctly than to any other known individnal. The deep affection which the writer betrays for his people, his sensitive nature, and the bitter sufferings which he (apparently) describes himself to have undergone, correspond to peculiarities which we have already had to notice in the character and life of Jeremiah. Some of the characteristic expressions, thoughts, or images of J eremiah's have also been pointed out in this chapter; compare, for instance, eh. iii. 47, 48 with Jer. iv. 6, 20, v:i. 1, 14 ("breach" equivalent to "destruction"), ix. 1, xiii. 17, xiv. 17 (inces- sant teara); eh. iii. 64-66 with Jer. xi. 20 (appeal for vengeance). This comparison of expressions and ideas, however, is of very little worth. The parallels are but few in number, and, so far as they are valid (the last- quoted breaks down on examination), are easily accounted for on the theory of the writer's acquaintance with Jeremiah's prophecies, and they are alto- gether outweighed by the numerous expressious never found in the Book of Jeremiah (such will be found in all but three verses of the third chapter of Lamentations). .AB to the general suitability of this prolonged monologue to the character and life of the prophet, we need only refer to what has been said already in the Introduction to the Book of Jeremiah. Considering what a large body of literature there is, in which the spirit and even the expressions of Jeremiah may be recognized (e.g., besides Lamentations, Deuteronomy, Kings, Job, Isa. :tl.-lxvi., and certain of the psalms), it would be rash in the extreme to refer any part of it to that much-imitated prophet. There is certainly no direct statement in this elegy which compels us to regard either Jeremiah or any other prophet as the author. The case for ascribing the remaining elegies to Jeremiah is proportionally weaker. There are, no doubt, expressions and ideas familiar to us in Jere- miah. Compare e.g. oh. i. 2, 19 with Jer. xxx. 14; eh. i. 11 with Jer. xv. 19; eh. i. 16 and ii. 11 with Jer. ix. 1, etc.; eh. i. 15 with Jer. xiv. l 7 and x1vi. 11; oh. ii. 14 and iv. 13-15 with Jer. v. 30, 31 and xiv. 13, 14; eh. ii. 11, 13, iii. 47, 48, and iv. 10 with Jer. iv. 6, 20 and xiv. 17, etc. 'ri INTRODUOTION 'l'O
But these, again, are far outweighed by the expressions unknown to Jeremiah, which occur in almost every verse of these elegies (see the list.a in Neegelsbach's 'Jeremiah,' Introduction, § 3), and at least three pe.ssages militate rather strongly against the authorship of that prophet, viz. oh. ii. 9 ( where the writer regards the cessation of prophetic visions as a misfortune, oontrest Jeremiah's denunciations in Jer. xxiii.); iv. 17 (where the writer speaks of having formerly expected help from Egypt, contrast Jer. ii. 18, 36); and iv. 20 (where Zedekia.h is spoken of respectfully and hopefully as Jeremiah can hardly be supposed to have done). The external evidence for the authorship of Jeremiah oonsists of a tradi- tion, accepted, perhaps, by Josephus(' Antiquities,' x. 5, 1), and certainly by the Talmud (' Baba Bathra,' fol. 15, col. I) and the later Jewish and Chris- tian scholars. The earliest authority for it is a statement prefixed to the Septuagint (and repeated with a few additional words in the Vulgate) in the following terms:-" And it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremias sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said." This cannot, however, have formed part of the Hebrew text of Lamentations, else the Massoretio editors of the text ( who beyond reasonable doubt believed Jeremiah to be the author of the book) would certainly have handed it on to us. It has, indeed, been suggested that the compiler of Chronicles attributed the book to Jeremiah, because he reports that" Jeremiah lamented for Josiah," and that his words (apparently) "are written in the Lamentations" (2 Chron. xxxv. 25). If this view is correct, the compiler of Chronicles interpreted the words, " the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (eh. iv. 20), which really refer to Zedekiah, of Josiah. The view is not to be hastily rejected, although it is also possible that the statement in the Septuagint is due to a misinter- pretation of the passage in Chronicles. In any case, the traditiou cannot be traoed up to the time of Jeremiah, and is too evidently :fictitious-first, because Jeremiah was not an eye-witness of the sad ciroumstances described in the Lamentations; and secondly, because, even if he had been so, such a tender-hearted man (whose prophetic utterance is almost stifled by tears) oa.nnot be imagined as amusing himself, amid the ruins of Jerusalem, with inditing these highly artificial, not to say rhetorical, compositions in a style absolutely new to him. No; poems like these cannot have been produced till the worst misery of conquest had been partly mitigated by time. They are (from a literary point of view) the efforts of highly educated men to relieve their feelillgs by the help of art. They are more than this, no doubt; they are an evidence of the working of the Spirit of God on the minds of the more spiritually minded Jews, leading them to contrition and repentance. But we must before all things adopt a purely literary point of view in an inquiry a.s to date and author,,hip, and then we cannot but recognize that the first four Lamentations (which are a.lone now in question) are too elaborately artificial to have been the work of "Jeremiah sitting amid the ruins of Jerusalem." There i1, genuine feeling in them, however, only it has THE LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. vii