emphasis. Suffice it to say: that in this Bible these forms have been sacredly reproduced whenever possible—so long, that is, as the English remained easily intelligible and was not too constrained.
7. But Idiom alone would have been utterly inadequate to the attainment of the object in view. In many instances the endeavour to preserve in English the order of the words in the original would have resulted in obscurity; or, worse still, would have conveyed the very opposite of the meaning intended. In the following passage from the Book of Lamentations, it could have been wished that, for the sake of preserving the exact rhythm of the Hebrew, it had been perspicuous English to say—
For this cause hath sickened our heart,
For these things have darkened our eyes;[1]
inasmuch as there is some little weight naturally resting on the paired words (ending words in the Hebrew) "heart" and "eyes" which, if that position could have been preserved in English, would have secured a fine cadence and a satisfying ending to each line of the couplet. But the construction would in two or three ways have been ambiguous—in fact a wrong meaning to some of the terms would have been favoured. Therefore, inasmuch as a clear conveyance of the sense is rightly the first requirement, the Hebrew arrangement can only in part be followed, and we have to be content with some such approximation as this—
For this cause hath our heart´ sickened,
For these things have our eyes´ darkened.
An acute accent on "heart´" and "eyes´" may be allowed as a slight compensation for loss of position; and, to anticipate for a moment, if our angular sign be then attached to the two opening phrases ("For this cause" and "For these things"), those words will be instinctively caught as adverbial clauses, strongly emphasised by their commanding position, and so gathering up into themselves the whole stream of the prophet's foregoing lament—
<For this cause> hath our heart´ sickenpd,
<For these things> have our eyes´ darkened.
This illustration may stand for thousands, and evince beyond a doubt the impossibility of mechanically giving idiom for idiom in translation: hopeless obscurity would frequently be the inevitable result. And as a sufficient proof that in some cases idiom for idiom would cause the translation to express the very opposite meaning to its original, it is enough to cite one instance.
Elijah calleth this man[2]
is the order of the words in the Greek; yet "this man" is the nominative (that is, the caller) and "Elijah" the objective (that is, the person [supposed to be] called upon) and the true rendering is—
This man calleth Elijah;
though rightfully a decided stress should be laid, where indicated, on "Elijah."
8. That, notwithstanding this risk of overdoing, a very free use of Emphatic Idiom has been made in this Bible will soon appear upon examination. Few sympathetic readers will complain of this. Such readers will perceive and bear in mind that inversions in the language of The Emphasised Bible are always intentional—always
