|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
The Book of Job: Its Place in Literature
| Article
# : |
12051 |
|
|
Section : |
BOOK WORLD
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1987 |
1,708 Words |
| Author
: |
Lionel Abel
Lionel Abel is professor emeritus at the State University of
New York at Buffalo and the author of Metatheatre and The
Intellectual Follies. |
I must cast a dissenting vote against the favorable judgment made by certain critics and reviewers (including the reliably intelligent John Gross) on Stephen Mitchell's just-published translation (in fact, an adaptation) of Job. I do not care for Mr. Mitchell's translation and much prefer the King James version. My objection points to something more than verbal infelicities in the Mitchell text, some of which John Gross noted in his New York Times review. I am especially put off by the monotony of Mitchell's rhythmic schema, so much less interesting than the robust cadences of the King James text, cadences that have entered so importantly into American and British eloquence. I am thinking of Lincoln's and Webster's oratorical flights, to be sure, but also of poetic passages in D.H. Lawrence's novels, short stories, and travel books. The eloquence of The Man Who Died and of Mornings in Mexico is right out of the King James Bible. Ezra Pound hated these rhythms, and this particular - though purely literary - dislike of his was not without consequences, I think, to his political judgment. For my own part, I find the King James rhythmic schema an invaluable set of rhetorical devices, comparable in quality to those of English blank verse and of the French alexandrine. The Spanish dramatists, as Mario Praz has pointed out, suffered even during their Golden Century because they lacked a comparable poetic measure.
Take the renderings of Job's very first outcries. Here is the Mitchell version:
God damn the day I was born
and the night that forced me from the womb.
On that day - let there be
... (1950 of 9066 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
