Читать книгу Post-Biblical Hebrew Literature - Benzion Halper - Страница 3

Table of Contents

Although the Hebrew language ceased to be the vernacular of the majority of the Jewish people during the last years of the second temple, it has, throughout the various periods, with but few exceptions, persisted as the medium for the noblest literary productions of the nation. Irrespective of the language spoken by the people in the countries of their adoption, the best thoughts of the Jewish writers found expression in the holy tongue. The Gemara, which is preponderately in Aramaic, can hardly be regarded as an exception, for it consists, in the main, of records of oral discussions and arguments, which were naturally carried on in the vernacular, and as such it is not to be classed among works of literature in its narrower sense. On the other hand, it is very significant that the Midrash and some of the midrashic elements in the Talmud are mostly in Hebrew, and it is just these parts which may claim to be regarded as literature. Then the prayers, many of which date from the early centuries of the present era, and the piyyutim are practically all in Hebrew.

When the centre of Jewish literary activity was transferred to Arabic-speaking countries, the Hebrew language still continued to be employed by a good many of the writers. The treatises with a practical purpose, intended for the edification of the people at large, were, it is true, written in the vernacular, but the literary productions were composed in Hebrew. Lexicographical, grammatical, and philosophical books appealed to the general public, and had therefore to be expressed in the language spoken by the people. But Hebrew was employed for the literary compositions, poems, and piyyutim. Sa’adya, Ibn Gebirol, and Judah ha-Levi wrote their philosophic works, which undoubtedly had a didactic aim, in Arabic, but their poems and hymns are invariably in Hebrew. Moreover, the popularity of books written in Arabic was short-lived. For shortly afterwards the centre of Jewish learning was shifted to other countries, and the vast Jewish-Arabic literature inevitably became a sealed book. While the Hebrew translations of Sa’adya’s Faiths and Creeds, Bahya’s Duties of the Heart, Judah ha-Levi’s Khazarite, and Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed have been repeatedly printed, the Arabic originals of these books had been moulding in the various libraries until scholars in comparatively recent years unearthed them and published them for the use of the few scientific investigators. A similar fate has befallen the grammatical treatises of the brilliant grammarians of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The works written in Arabic, in spite of their intrinsic merit, have almost entirely been forgotten, having been superseded by Hebrew manuals of an inferior character. In this case the Hebrew translations did not save them from oblivion to which they have been condemned for centuries. For the Hebrew writers of the subsequent periods, who knew Arabic, borrowed from their predecessors, and presented the material in a manner acceptable to their readers.

The continuity of the Hebrew language as a literary medium is, accordingly, unbroken, and to illustrate this fact by examples is one of the aims of this Anthology. Incidentally a study of the numerous extracts incorporated into this volume will establish the truth, which has too often been ignored, that the Hebrew genius did not become stagnant with the conclusion of the biblical Canon. It is true that the literary quality of post-biblical works cannot approach the sublimity and beauty of the Bible; but this verdict may justly be applied to other literatures. During the last two thousand years no literature which could rank with the canonical books of the Bible has been produced.

Apart from the literary criterion, there is another aspect which differentiates post-biblical Hebrew literature from the Bible: the former is the product of men, who, with the exception of Ben Sira and possibly the teachers of the Mishnah, did not speak Hebrew as their mother-tongue. Their style, as a consequence, bears the marks of artificiality, and in many cases lacks spontaneity. Hebrew was for them a dead and foreign tongue, and this circumstance involved numerous obstacles and disadvantages. Some of the medieval Hebrew poets had to confine themselves to the vocabulary preserved in the Bible, and rarely ventured to employ expressions occurring in the Talmud or to coin new words which were needed for their poetic compositions. They were thus denied that freedom of expression which is essential to the creative genius, and were compelled to fit their work to the frame. It is due to these considerations that some of the hymns appear like strings of biblical verses or phrases, more or less skilfully put together. The original and daring spirits among these writers, in order to express their new ideas and sentiments, were driven to invest the biblical words and phrases with new significations, and thereby developed a novel style, which, though interesting in itself and doing credit to the ingenuity of the authors, could not have been conducive to literary creativeness. For while in quest of a biblical phrase which should serve as a vehicle for his newly-conceived thought, the poet could not give free rein to his fancy. And yet, despite all these disadvantages, we have before us masterly compositions which cannot fail to arouse our interest and admiration. On the other hand, the philosophers, grammarians, lexicographers, historians, and geographers have freely introduced new words and expressions, and have thereby enriched the volume of the Hebrew vocabulary. These new coinages, which, to a great extent, have been sanctioned by the usage of centuries, are of vital interest to us at present owing to the widespread movement to revive the Hebrew language. Instead of beginning with a tabula rasa, as is done by some of the leaders of this movement, it would be more advisable, and certainly more scientific, to explore our old treasures. There is ample material in post-biblical Hebrew works for the reconstruction of the language.

This volume of translations is a companion to the Hebrew texts printed in a separate book, and in the case of some extracts the reason for their inclusion in this Anthology may not be quite apparent. For, in preparing the selections, I have been guided by two principles: the literary merit of the extract and its pedagogic value. The latter quality would be entirely lost in a translation. A passage whose literary value is not very high, but which is pedagogically important, would naturally be welcomed by the student desirous of familiarizing himself with the style of post-biblical Hebrew. Such a passage, however, may appear cumbersome in translation. At the same time it is hoped that the reader will derive æsthetic pleasure from the beauty or quaintness, as the case may be, of the great variety of passages. In order to give an idea of the diversity and extensiveness of post-biblical Hebrew literature, practically all branches have been incorporated into this Anthology, and great care has been taken to select representative authors. Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, liturgy, poetry, philosophy, ethics, history, geography, folk-lore, travel, philology, epistles, ethical wills, and general compositions are represented in this volume. It is to be regretted that two branches, which have been and are the most potent factors in shaping Jewish intellectual life, could not be included. I refer to Halakah and biblical exegesis, which had to be excluded for the simple reason that the representative passages of these branches scarcely possess literary value. At the same time I have excerpted sections from Maimonides’ Code, Eleazar of Worms’ Rokeah, and Abravanel’s commentary on the Pentateuch. These extracts, however, do not represent Halakah or exegesis, though they happen to have been incorporated into halakic and exegetical works. For a similar reason Kabbalah is not represented here, although there is a mystical strain in the extract from the Rokeah and in Nahmanides’ epistle. While in point of time Ben Sira belongs to the biblical period, it has been deemed advisable to incorporate passages from his Wisdom, because it is outside the Hebrew Canon. Moreover, in the Hebrew text of the extracts selected for this Anthology at least two Hebrew verbs, not occurring in the Bible, have been rescued from oblivion.

The texts are arranged chronologically as far as possible. The method of arranging extracts according to subjects, which other writers may prefer, presents numerous difficulties which are now obviated. Some passages defy classification, while others can be placed in more than one group. Moreover, the chronological arrangement has the advantage of presenting a complete picture of the growth and development of the various branches of Hebrew literature. Although some branches synchronize, as, for instance, poetry and philosophy, few of them persist throughout the various periods. In the majority of cases each age has produced a mode of literary expression peculiar to itself. The eleventh century may be regarded as the Golden Age of Hebrew poetry. A few gifted poets have arisen during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but we meet with no great talents until we reach the modern renaissance, the beginnings of which are incorporated here. The philosophic activity extended over a much longer period, but the best works have been produced in a limited number of generations.

The translations are obviously based upon the Hebrew volume of this Anthology. A reader comparing my translation with other editions of the extracts will therefore come across some discrepancies. A few examples may suffice to illustrate this point. The printed editions of the Mishnah have a word denoting “silver” which is here rendered by “golden” (II, 2, l. 7). Of course, my edition has the correct word which is found in the famous Munich manuscript. In the Pesikta extract there is an additional sentence not found in any of the editions that have hitherto appeared: A messenger came and said unto me: “Thy husband died in the city across the sea” (V, 1, l. 10). My reading, however, is derived from the Parma manuscript. In Judah ha-Levi’s poem entitled “Meditations in Mid-Ocean” (XVIII, 2, l. 6 from end) my translation reads: The waters and the sky are like brilliant and bright ornaments on the night. The word “ornaments” does not occur in any of the printed editions, and, instead, they all read two words which signify “until the sea,” which are entirely unsuitable for the context. My rendering is the result of a slight emendation involving merely the joining of the two words into one and a change in the vocalization. In the notes to the Hebrew volume the reader will find ample justification for the rather numerous variants. In order not to render this volume cumbersome, those notes have been omitted here.

Wherever possible, I have attempted to retain the flavor of the original, and the translation is literal as far as the English idiom would allow. In a number of cases, notably Judah ha-Levi’s letter (XVIII, 3), a free rendering would, I fear, be meaningless. To my mind, only a literal translation is capable of doing justice to a literature of this kind. The King James’ Version of the Bible owes part of its charm to its literalness. Those translators were fortunate in writing during the formative period of the English language, before the various idioms became fixed. But even in more recent times the superiority of Burton’s Arabian Nights must be partly ascribed to its quaint literalness. This method has been wisely followed by Chenery and Steingass in translating Al-Hariri’s Assemblies, though they lacked Burton’s artistic skill. The average reader is probably not aware that the literal translator imposes upon himself a much severer task than the writer who merely gives a free rendering. The former, if he is a conscientious worker, attempts to reproduce everything, while the latter often allows himself to omit or vary difficult expression which task the translator’s skill. The unchary reader finds the free translation smooth and easy, and is liable to condemn the literal one, which is necessarily rugged.

Some of the extracts had been previously translated in a satisfactory manner, notably Ben Sira, Kalir, Ibn Gebirol’s Royal Crown, Benjamin of Tudela, Judah ha-Levi’s Khazarite (by H. Hirschfeld), and Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed (by M. Friedländer). But in all cases I found it necessary to subject the passages to a thorough revision, partly because my aim was different from that of my predecessors. This revision was especially necessary in the two last-named extracts. Hirschfeld and Friedländer translated the Arabic originals, while I wished to illustrate the style of the Hebrew translators. This fact will also explain another difficulty which may puzzle a reader of this volume: Extracts XXIII and XXVI are listed under Judah b. Saul Ibn Tibbon and Samuel b. Judah Ibn Tibbon, and not under Judah ha-Levi and Moses b. Maimon, respectively. In an anthology of philosophy these sections would naturally be credited to their original authors, but the Hebrew translations must be given under the Ibn Tibbons. And obviously the arrangement of this volume ought to follow that of the Hebrew texts.

Doctor Cyrus Adler has kindly read the manuscript and proof-sheets of this volume, and I am indebted to him for a number of valuable suggestions, especially in connection with the style. My thanks are also due to Professor Israel Davidson and Doctor Isaac Husik for going over the proof-sheets of the poetic and philosophic sections, respectively.

B. Halper.

Dropsie College, February, 1920.