« AnteriorContinuar »
things which most occupy our thoughts, it denotes, also, to talk, to speak. This sense, though not in use in the other Oriental tongues, Michælis confesses cannot well be dispensed with.—Suppl. No. 2432.
23. For the commandment, &c.]—“ Ut in tenebris lucerna, aut fax ostendit nobis, quâ eundum sit: in ignorantiæ humanæ caligine, quæ nos, per hanc totam vitam, cingit, revelatio divina nos docet, quid sit faciendum, quid vitandum.”—Le Clerc. Compare Ps. cxix. 105.
- And the reproofs of instruction]-i. e. those reproofs which the voice of instruction gives; “ et quæ disciplinam afferunt.”--Mercer.
25. Desire not]—799 properly means to desire, and it may be questioned whether it ever strictly means to lust after : but see Dindorfii Lex. Heb.
– Neither let her beguile]—ynon, from nps, to take, i. e. to allure, to beguile. Propertius, l. i. Eleg. 1, has an exactly parallel expression,
“ Cynthia prima suis miserum me cepit ocellis.” Many more examples may be found in the edition of Passeratius.
— with her eyes]-Literally, “ with her eyelids," a metonymy for the eyes, or rather the glances of the eyes; for the eyelids are chiefly instrumental in those amorous glances, by which a lewd woman fascinates the heart of the gazer. “ The eye of an harlot is the snare of her lover,” says St. Ambrose; and it is well known that Eastern women were very curious in painting and beautifying their eyelids, which was supposed to add a wonderful brilliancy and expression. See some entertaining remarks on this custom in Burder's Oriental Customs, No. 752, Lond. 1816. “ Nec capiaris
nutibus illius,” Vulg.-Compare Job, xxxi. 1. The classical scholar will find a beautiful passage, allied to this, in Musæus, Her. et Leand. and another in Paradise Lost, b. xi. I. 620.
26. For by means, &c.]--By frequenting the houses of lewd women a man is brought to poverty and degradation ; “he that keepeth company with harlots spendeth his substance.”
-(Ch. xxix. 3 ; see also ch, v. 9, 10.) The clause is elliptical, and must be supplied, as E. T. “ a man is brought,” “ devenitur.” In this way a good sense is produced, without violating grammar, or altering the usual signification of the words; and it is so construed by Pagn. Muns. Tig. Jun. Trem. Piscat. Merc. Clar. Grot. Mont. Geier, Le Clerc, Schult. Storr: but the LXX give it another turn, Tipn yap ropyns oon Kai evoç aprov, and so the Vulg.“ Pretium enim scorti vix est unius panis.” So Dathe. The Syr. and Targ, depart still more widely from the original.
- layeth snares]— Together with illicit intercourse with lewd women, Solomon here joins the aggravated offence of adultery, declaring the pernicious effects of it to be certain and enormous, in so much that the polluter of the marriage bed “ destroyeth his own life,” (ver. 32.) It is not, however, to be inferred from this, that, in ch. ii. 16, and other passages in which the word “harlot" is used, he includes in that term every woman who violates the laws of chastity, whether married or single. 77017 , 1777 Own, and 07973 denote an unmarried woman addicted to licentious habits; but nord, nonIn hwn, and w'N OVN (an Hebraism for a faithless wife) are the proper terms for an adultress.—(See Gussetü Lex.983.) The verb 718 means to hunt, to catch beasts, birds, or fishes; and is applied, in a spiritual sense, to catching souls, namely, inveigling or ensnaring them; (Ezek. xiii. 18, 20, 21;) and “ to hunt the precious soul,” as Taylor observes, (Concord. in voc.) is “ to use all artifices to draw it into sin and perdition.” Solomon frequently employs images taken from the arts of the hunter, to describe the seductions of sin and the allurements of sinners.
27. Can a man take]-ann occurs, in the sense of taking, Isaiah, xxx. 14; Ps. lii. 7, Heb. In ch. xxv. 22, our translators render it “ thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, (owpevous, LXX, which is retained by the apostle, Rom. xii. 20,)“ hoc est, accipiendo ponis seu coacervas super caput,” as Glass remarks (Phil. Sac. p. 186.) But see Parkhurst and Cocceius on the word.
29. So it is with him, &c.]—A man can no more have criminal intercourse with bis neighbour's wife, without suffering for it, than he can walk upon hot coals without being burnt. The expressions “goeth in,” and “ toucheth,” will be illustrated, if compared with Gen. vi. 4, xix. 31, xxxviii. 9, xx. 6, 1 Cor. vii. 1.
— shall not be unpunished]—Mp3 often means poena vacuus, exempt from punishment, ch. xi. 21, xvi. 5, xvii. 5, xix. 5, 9; Jer. xxv. 29.
30. Men do not disregard, &c.]— Theft, even when committed to satisfy the cravings of hunger, is not disregarded, is not treated as a matter of indifference, but is punished; much more severe is the punishment which the adulterer shall receive, by whatever pretexts he may varnish over his crime. This is the argument which the Paræmiast proposes in this and the three following verses: Doederlein's note is excellent; “ non spernunt in fure furta, i. e, non negligunt, non tractant ut levia; nec impunitum dimittunt furem, dura famis necessitate compulsum, ut furaretur: quanto minus impunitatem
sperabit, qui vagæ libidinis restinguendæ causa conjugem alterius furtivo amore rapit.”-Scholia in loc. See Le Clerc;
31. shall restore seven-fold]— Theft, by the Jewish law, was punished by making restitution; (Exod. xxii. 1–4;) and if the offender was unable to make such restitution, he was ordered to be sold for a slave.—(Levit. xxv. 39.) It has been maintained that theft, instigated by extreme want, and committed to appease the calls of hunger, is justified by necessity; (Grotius, de Jure Bel. et Pacis, l. ii. c. 2, $6; Puffendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent. I. ii. c. 6, § 5;) but others consider this doctrine unwarrantable and subversive of the security of property.—(Blackstone's Commentaries, 1. iv. c. 2, § 4.) Such an excuse for theft, in this country at least, is wholly inadmissible, as the Constitution has established a legal provision for the poor, and none need ever be reduced to the necessity of stealing to support nature. Such likewise appears to have been the case under the Mosaic dispensation.—(Deut. xxiv. 19–22, xiv. 28, 29, xv. 7; Levit. xxv. 35; Deut. xv. 11.) He who reflects upon these laws, which, for the sake of brevity, I have only referred to, will see that it was scarcely, if at all, possible to be reduced to such a state of indigence as to be compelled to steal to support life; Moses, therefore, made no ordinance for such a case. Michælis thinks, that a theft committed from pure hunger would have been overlooked; (Commentaries, Art. 284;) but it is more probable, as no exception is made in the Mosaic law for such a case, that, should it be supposed ever to occur, it would have been subjected to the usual punishment.—(See Selden, de Jure Nat. et Gent. 1. vi. c. 6.) The passage of Proverbs under consideration is not a case in point, as Puffendorf and Michælis observe, (ut supra citati,) for the second hemistich
mentions “ the substance of his house;" he must, therefore, have possessed some property, and could not steal through absolute necessity.
– seven-fold]—Indefinitely, for a full and complete satisfaction and restitution. Geier says, “ hæc vox (Dinyaw) nullibi in sacris ponitur pro numero definito.”
32. destroyeth his own life]-Adultery was a crime punishable with death by the Levitical law.—(Levit. xx. 10.) njwp is rendered by Durell, “ he that embraceth her, or hath commerce with her;" and so Duport (Greek metrical version,) and Reiske (Conjecturæ in loc.) Ezek. xxiii. 3, 8, 21, is appealed to, but it does not make this interpretation satisfactory. The feminine is, as usual, put for the neuter.—Storr, Observat. ad Anal. et Synt. p. 247.
33. Hurt and dishonour, &c.]-So Horace's fine lines, I. i, Sat. 2, 37.
Audire est operæ pretium, procedere recte
34. When jealousy, 8c.)—Durell renders this clause, “ When the rage of a man (or rather, of a husband) is moved by jealousy.” Dathe's is to the same purpose; but Doederlein considers asjp as the preterite of Piel, and renders it, “ quum ira viri incitata est.”