Слике страница
PDF
ePub

when at Carisbrook Castle, ends with the following Latin sentence: 'Vota dabunt quæ bella negarunt,' and with this same sentence the Icon Basilikè also concludes. The poem and the book were written at the same time, and, in accordance with the King's usual practice, have this motto attached to them, a motto applicable to the subject of both compositions. This testimony, eminently satisfactory in support of the royal authorship, affords another proof of the falsity of Gauden's claim, for what can be more improbable than that he should hit upon the same words as those which had been used by the King at the close of a poem never seen by Dr. Gauden, and not known to the world till many years after his death? Nor do we find that Gauden had any such opportunity of studying the King's character or temper of mind as to enable him to imitate exactly and reproduce his habits of thought. Thus the argument as to the Icon Basilikè being the work of a 'court parasite' or 'household priest' falls to the ground. Once only was Gauden in the King's presence, when he preached a sermon before him in 1641. There is no record of Gauden's having had any private communication with him at that time; and how little his sermon would conciliate him we may imagine when we hear that Gauden had shortly before received a silver tankard as an honorarium for a sermon contrary to the royal cause, which won him the favour of the Parliament, before whom it was preached.

I took it once from the

It is in the study of Gauden's own character that we find the best means of accounting for a forgery so shameless and so daring as his claim to the Icon Basilikè. We learn from Bishop Kennet's Register that 'Gauden was capable of under-work. mouth of a very eminent primate that there was, in 1662, a declaration for liberty of conscience extending to Papists drawn up, and some printed copies of it worked off in a press, within Somerset House, though presently called in. And, what was the worst circumstance, the draught of it was framed by a bishop of the Church of England, even Dr. Gauden, the Bishop of Exeter, who had made himself the tool of the Court by the most sordid hopes of greater favour in it.'2 And several other instances are quoted by Dr. Wordsworth from Gauden's writings to prove his time-serving nature. After the Restoration he speaks of the King (Charles I.) 'as the greatest glory and most illustrious example of piety that sat on Christian throne, the most unspotted person, the wisest prince,' &c. &c. Before it he coldly says of him,

1 It was first published by Burnet in his Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton. 2 Tracts on the 'Icon Basilikè,' p. 377.

'Whatever his sin may be, yet I think him not criminal,' &c.1 But the most flagrant instance of double-dealing is his poem In Martyrium Caroli Primi (January 30, 1648), which contains an actual reference to the Icon Basilikè as the King's book. Which are we to believe, the statement in the poem or that contained in the letter to Lord Clarendon? These and similar discrepancies are sufficient to show that Gauden was not a man whose character conciliates confidence. Dr. Wordsworth has certainly proved that upon his unsupported word rests the whole external evidence for his authorship of the book.

Long as Dr. Wordsworth's researches have been before the world, we think it in no way superfluous to bring their result once more before our readers now that renewed attention seems to be directed to the events and characters of the Caroline period. We do not forget the controversy which Dr. Wordsworth's publications roused, or the ingenuity of Dr. Todd, first in invalidating one or two points in the external evidence, and next in producing parallels between the Icon and known writings of Dr. Gauden's. But these were answered in Dr. Wordsworth's Tracts named at the head of this article, so that Dr. Wordsworth's evidence remains untouched, and we may well believe that the Icon is the genuine self-portraiture of the character of the unfortunate King. Many an historian has described the outline of that character, and each has put in the broad lights and shadows as they appeared in his eyes, but none but the individual himself could fill in those finer details of the mind, showing the stamp of solitude and suffering, those inward communings of the heart when he was 'in his chamber' and was 'still.' The closer study of the picture so portrayed would soften many a harsh judgment, and bring many a slander face to face with truth. More than two centuries have elapsed since this passage was written, and yet it continues to plead as with a living voice :

'If I had not my own Innocencie and GOD'S protection, it were hard for Mee to stand out against those stratagems and conflicts of malice, which by Falsities seek to oppress the Truth, and by Jealousies to supplie the defect of Real causes which might seem to justifie so unjust Engagements against Mee. . . . For I can more willingly lose My Crown than My Credit; nor are my Kingdoms so dear to Mee as My Reputation and Honour. Those must have a period with My Life, but these may survive to a glorious kind of Immortalitie when I am dead and gone: A good Name being the embalming of Princes, and a sweet consecrating of them to Eternitie of Love and Gratitude among Posteritie.'2

1 Tracts on the Icon Basilikè,' p. 389. 2 Icon Basilikè, ch. xv. p. 122.

ART. IV. THE TITLES OF THE PSALMS.

1. The Psalms Translated from the Hebrew, with Notes chiefly Exegetical. By WILLIAM KAY, D.D. (London. 1871.)

2. The Holy Bible, with Commentary. Edited by F. C. Cook, M.A. Vol. IV. the 'Poetical Books.' (London,

1873.)

3. The Psalms Chronologically Arranged. By FOUR FRIENDS. Second Edition. (London, 1870.)

4. The Psalms, with Introductions and Critical Notes. By A. C. JENNINGS, M.A. Assisted in parts by W. H. LOWE, M.A. (London, 1877.)

5. The Book of Psalms: a New Translation, with Introductions and Notes Explanatory and Critical. By J. J. STEWART PEROWNE, D.D. Fourth Edition, revised. (London, 1878.)

To judge from the volumes that lie before us, there seems to be something like a consensus among modern English critics that the Titles of the Psalms, whatever value may be attached to them, form no integral part of the text of Holy Scripture. Dr. Kay alone is consistent in upholding their authority throughout; in the Speaker's Commentary they are usually treated with considerable respect, though the editor appears to consider that they have no claim to be regarded as fixed portions of the Canon, and accordingly we find doubts expressed concerning their accuracy in some few places; while the Four Friends,' who, in their chronological arrangement of the Psalter blindly follow the guidance of Ewald; and Messrs. Jennings and Lowe appear substantially to agree with the verdict expressed in the popular Commentary of the Dean of Peterborough :—

[ocr errors]

The Inscriptions cannot always be relied on. They are sometimes genuine, and really represent the most ancient tradition. At other times they are due to the caprice of later editors and collectors, the fruits of conjecture or of dimmer and more uncertain traditions. In short, the Inscriptions of the Psalms are like the Subscriptions to the Epistles of the New Testament: they are not of any necessary authority, and their value must be weighed and tested by the usual critical processes.'

'1

1 Vol. i. p. 103.

When, therefore, we find that, with but few exceptions, our modern English Commentators (following, as usual, the lead of the Germans), are agreed upon their right to treat the titles as no integral parts of the Psalms to which they are prefixed, we may fairly inquire what are the facts of the case, and what are the grounds that have led them to this conclusion.

1

And first, what are the facts of the case? To begin with, the comparison of the inscriptions with the subscriptions of the Epistles made by the Dean of Peterborough, and repeated with approval by the 'Four Friends' and Mr. Jennings,2 is wholly misleading. The subscriptions to the Epistles are wanting in the oldest MSS. and Versions; and are probably due to the conjecture of Euthalius, Deacon of Alexandria (A.D. 458), and in the MSS. in which they occur there is often considerable variety of form, as may easily be seen by a reference to the digest of various readings in any of the critical editions. In the earliest MSS.' writes Dr. Scrivener, the subscriptions as well as the titles of the books [sc. the Gospels], were of the simplest character. . The same

[ocr errors]

is the case throughout the New Testament. After a while, the titles become more elaborate, and the subscriptions afford more information, the truth of which it would be hardly safe to vouch for.' 3

Passing now to the Titles of the Psalms, all this is changed. Against them, as a class, not a tittle of external evidence can be brought their form is identical in all MSS. and (with the slightest exceptions) Versions, whatever their date may be. In fact, we may say that as regards external evidence, they stand on exactly the same footing as the Psalms themselves; and in favour of their genuineness, we point (1) to the consent of MSS. and Versions, and (2) to the fact that they were un1 p. 438. 2 Introd. p. 9.

3 Introd. to Criticism of the New Testament, p. 60.

4 This has been already pointed out by Mr. Armfield (Gradual Psalms, c. ii.), to whose argument the Dean of Peterborough replies in a note. 'Our earliest MS. of the Old Testament, of which the date is certain, is of the tenth century, whereas, we have MSS. of the New Testament of the fourth, a century earlier than the date at which the subscriptions were added. If the MSS. of the Old Testament were of corresponding antiquity, we might, in the same way, be able to trace the addition of the inscriptions. And this is rendered almost certain when we observe the variations of the LXX. and the Syriac, and when we further bear in mind that the historical inscriptions are prefixed only to David's Psalms.' What this last remark has to do with the subject, we confess that we are unable to see. The case of the LXX. and Syriac is considered in the text and we would only add, that no reasonable man can doubt that the inscriptions were read by Origen and Jerome in their Hebrew MSS. exactly as we have them in our own.

intelligible to the translators of the LXX., and therefore considerably more ancient than that version.

(1) The consent of MSS. and Versions. There are absolutely no Hebrew MSS. in which they are omitted as a class. Of course, here and there, a particular title may be wanting in some few MSS., just as a word or a verse elsewhere may be, but there is nothing in the MSS. in the very least degree parallel to the variations in the subscriptions of the books of the New Testament. Nor are the Versions much less unanimous. It is true that the editor of the Speaker's Commentary can write, 'The variations of the inscriptions in the LXX. and other ancient Versions sufficiently prove that they were not regarded as fixed portions of the Canon, and that they were open to conjectural emendation;' but the case is surely overstated, and a reference to the Versions themselves rather leads to the opposite conclusion. The LXX. certainly often gives us additional titles, not found in the Hebrew, but in only two instances is a title existing in the Hebrew undoubtedly absent from the LXX., viz. cxxi.1 and cxxiii. (Heb. cxxii. and cxxiv.); in three other Psalms (cxxvi., cxxx., cxxxii.) the balance of evidence seems in favour of the insertion of the titles in the LXX., though they are absent from the Roman text; 2 while the title prefixed to cxxxvii. (Heb. cxxxviii.) gives a remarkable instance of the reverence with which the translators regarded the Hebrew text before them. The title runs as follows: ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυὶδ ̓Αγγαίου καὶ Ζαχαρίου. Even in this case, where the translators evidently referred the Psalm to the time of the Return from the Captivity, they have not ventured to expunge the title claiming David as its author. Nor are the translators of the LXX. alone in this reverence for the titles they were treated as portions of the Psalms by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, in all of whose versions they find a place: they are interpreted and explained in the Targum: prefixed in every case in the Latin Versions, from the LXX. of course in the Gallican Psalter, and so in the Vulgate; but translated anew from the Hebrew in Jerome's later version, which gives us convincing evidence that there has been no growth in the titles, standing as it does midway between the date of the LXX. and that of the oldest existing Hebrew MS. In fact, the only ancient translations in which

1 The LXX. may here claim the support of the Targum, which also omits the title.

2 The Vatican MS. is unfortunately wanting in this part. The Alexandrian has the titles in cxxx. and cxxxii., but not in cxxvi. For the evidence, see further Field's Hexapla.

« ПретходнаНастави »