按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
the wedding of great ideas to worthy expression。 From one point of view
this early seventeenth century was an opportune time for making such a
classic。 Theology was a popular subject。 Men's minds had found a new
freedom； and they used it to discuss great themes。 They even began to sing。
The reign of Elizabeth had prepared the way。 The English scholar Hoare
traces this new liberty to the sailing away of the Armada and the releasing
of England from the perpetual dread of Spanish invasion。 He says that the
birds felt the free air； and sang as they had never sung before and as they
have not often sung since。 But this was not restricted to the birds of
English song。 It was a period of remarkable awakening in the whole
intellectual life of England； and that intellectual life was directing itself
among the common people to religion。 Another English writer； Eaton； says
a profounder word in tracing the awakening to the reformation； saying that
it 〃could not fail； from the very nature of it； to tinge the literature of the
Elizabethan era。 It gave a logical and disputatious character to the age and
produced men mighty in the Scriptures。〃＇1＇ A French visitor went home
54
… Page 55…
Study of the King James Bible
disgusted because people talked of nothing but theology in England。
Grotius thought all the people of England were theologians。 James's chief
pride was his theological learning。 It did not prove difficult to find half a
hundred men in small England instantly recognized as experts in Scripture
study。 The people were ready to welcome a book of great ideas。 Let us
pass by those ideas a moment； remembering that they are not enough in
them… selves to give the work literary value； and turn our minds to the
style of the English Bible。
＇1＇ T。 R。 Eaton； Shakespeare and the Bible； p。 2。
From this point of view the times were not perfectly opportune for a
piece of pure English literature； though it was the time which produced
Shakespeare。 A definite movement was on to refine the language by
foreign decorations。 Not even Shakespeare avoids it always。 No writer of
the time avoids it wholly。 The dedication of the King James version shows
that these scholars themselves did not avoid it。 In that dedication； and their
preface； they give us fine writing； striving for effect； ornamental phrases
characteristic of the time。 Men were feeling that this English language was
rough and barbarous； insufficient； needing enlargement by the addition of
other words constructed in a foreign form。 The essays of Lord Bacon are
virtually contemporaneous with this translation。 Macaulay says a rather
hard word in calling his style 〃odious and deformed；〃＇1＇ but when one
turns from Bacon to the English Bible there is a sharp contrast in mere
style； and it favors the Bible。 The contrast is as great as that which Carlyle
first felt between the ideas of Shakespeare and those of the Bible when he
said that 〃this world is a catholic kind of place； the Puritan gospel and
Shakespeare's plays： such a pair of facts I have rarely seen save out of one
chimerical generation。〃＇2＇ And that gives point to the word already quoted
from Hallam that the English of the King James version is not the English
of James I。
＇1＇ Essay on John Dryden。
＇2＇ Historical Sketches； Hampton Court Conference。
Four things helped to determine the simplicity and pure English
unornamented Englishof the King James version； made it； that is； the
English classic。 Two of these things have been dealt with already in other
55
… Page 56…
Study of the King James Bible
connections。 First； that it was a Book for the people； for the people of the
middle level of language； a work by scholars； but not chiefly for scholars；
intended rather for the common use of common people。 Secondly； that the
translators were constantly beholden to the work of the past in this same
line。 Where Wiclif's words were still in use they used them。 That tended to
fix the language by the use which had already become natural。
The other two determining influences must be spoken of now。 The
third lies in the fact that the English language was still plastic。 It had not
fallen into such hard forms that its words were narrow or restricted。 The
truth is that from the point of view of pure literature the Bible is better in
English than it is in Greek or Hebrew。 That is； the English of the King
James version as English is better than the Greek of the New Testament as
Greek。 As for the Hebrew there was little development for many
generations； Renan thinks there was none at all。 The difference comes
from the point of time in the growth of the tongue when the Book was
written。 The Greek was written when the language was old； when it had
differentiated its terms； when it had become corrupted by outside
influence。 The English version was written when the language was new
and fresh； when a word could be taken and set in its meaning without
being warped from some earlier usage。 The study of the Greek Testament
is always being complicated by the effort to bring into its words the
classical meaning； when so far as the writers of the New Testament were
concerned they had no interest in the classical meaning； but only in the
current meaning of those words。 In the English language there was as yet
no classical meaning； it was exactly that meaning that these writers were
giving the words when they brought them into their version。＇1＇ There is
large advantage in the fact that the age was not a scientific one； that the
language had not become complicated。 So it becomes interesting to
observe with Professor March that ninety…three per cent。 of these words；
counting also repetitions； are native English words。 The language was new；
was still plastic。 It had not been stiffened by use。 It received its set more
definitely from the English Bible than from any other one workmore
than from Shakespeare； whose influence was second。
＇1＇ Trevelyan； England under the Stuarts； p。 54；
56
… Page 57…