Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/2498

pressed too much into the foreground as the special obj. of the reuth (therefore Ginsburg introduces “how that”); thus better to render this clause with ki gam, as establishing the fact that there is 'inyan, self-tormenting, restless labour on the earth. Thus also איננּוּ is easier explained, which scarcely goes back to laadam, Ecc 8:15 (Hitz.), but shows that the author, by )inyan, has specially men in view. וּבלּ ... גּם is = גם בי גם בל: as well by day as by night, with the negat. following (cf. Num 23:25; Isa 48:8): neither by day nor by night; not only by day, but also in the night, not. “To see sleep” is a phrase occurring only here; cf. Terence, Heautontim. iii. 1. 82, Somnum hercle ego hac nocte oculis non vidi meis, for which we use the expression: “In this whole night my eyes have seen no sleep.” The not wishing to sleep, and not being able to sleep, is such an hyperbole, carrying its limitation in itself, as is found in Cicero (ad Famil. vii. 30): Fuit mirifica vigilantia, qui toto suo consulatu somnum non vidit.
With ור, “Then I have seen,” begins the apodosis: vidi totum Dei opus non posse hominem assequi. As at Ecc 2:24, the author places the obj. in the foreground, and lets the pred. with ki follow (for other examples of this so-called antiposis, vid., under Gen 1:4). He sees in the labour here below one side of God's work carrying itself forward amid this restless confusion, and sets forth this work of God, as at Ecc 3:11 (but where the connection of the thoughts is different), as an object of knowledge remaining beyond the reach of man. He cannot come to it, or, as מצא properly means, he reaches not to it, therefore “that a man wearies himself to seek, and yet finds not,” i.e., that the search on the part of a man with all his endeavours comes not to its aim. אשׁר בכל Ewald's emendation, instead of the words of the text before us: for all this, that quantumcunque (Ewald, §362c), which seems to have been approved of by the lxx, Syr., and Jerome, is rightly rejected by Hitzig; beshel asher is Heb., exactly equivalent to Aram. בּדיל דּ, e.g., Gen 6:3; and is rightly glossed by Rashi, Kimchi, Michlol 47b, by בּשׁביל שׁ and בּעבוּר שׁ. The accent dividing the verse stands on yimetsa, for to this word extends the first half of the apodosis, with vegam begins the second. Gam im is = εἰ καί, as gam ki is = ἐὰν καί. יאמר is to be understood after אם אח, Ecc 7:23 : also if (although) the wise man resolves to know, he cannot reach that which is to be known. The characteristic mark of the wise man is thus not so much the possession as the striving after it. He strives after knowledge, but the highest problems remain unsolved by him, and his ideal of knowledge unrealized.