صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

AN

ESSAY

ON THE

CONDUCT OF DAVID

AT THE

COURT OF ACHISH, KING OF GATH,

IN A

LETTER OF MR. DUMONT

PASTOR OF THE FRENCH CHURCH AT ROTTERDAM, AND PROFESSOR OF THE ORIENTAL LANGUAGES, AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

ΤΟ

MR. SAURIN, AT THE HAGUE.

TRANSLATED BY ROBERT ROBINSON.

ADVERTISEMENT.

GABRIEL DUMONг, author of the following essay, was born at Crest, in Dauphiny, August 19th, 1680, and died at Rotterdam, January 1st, 1748. He was a refugee for religion, pastor of the Waloon church at Rotterdam, and professor of Oriental languages and Ecclesiastical history. He published nothing himself during his life; but, after his decease, Mr. Superville, his colleague, published, with a short preface, one volume of his sermons, containing twelve discourses, the most plain, artless, and edifying that I have ever had the happiness of reading; not so disputatious as those of Amyraut, not so grave as those of Superville, not so stiff as those of Torne and Bourdaloue, not so far-fetched and studied as those of Massillon, nor so charged with colouring as those of Saurin: but placid, ingenious, gentle, natural, and full of evidence and pathos: just as "wisdom from above" should be, "pure, peaceable, mild-full of mercy and good fruits-sown in peace to make peace," James iii. 17, 18. The public owe this volume to Mademoiselle de Heuqueville, the pious patroness and friend of the author, who had, as it were, extorted them from him before his death.

Mr. Saurin, who published this essay in his dissertations on the Bible, says, "I follow our version, and the general sense of interpreters. A learned man (Mr. Dumont,) has investigated the subject at large, and, if he does not furnish us with demonstrations in favour of the system he proposes, yet his conjectures are so full of erudition, and so very probable, that we cannot help admiring them, while we feel an inclination to dispute them."

For my part, I own, if I may venture a conjecture, I think Mr. Dumont has placed his opinion in a light both beautiful, and, in a very high degree, probable. To sum up his meaning, he would read the passage thus:

1 SAMUEL, chap. xxi.

Ver. 10. And David fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish, the king of Gath.

11. And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?

12. And David was struck to the heart with these words, and was sore afraid of Achish, king of Gath.

13. And he changed countenance before them, and fell convulsed into their hands, and he hurt and marked himself against the posts of the gate, and he frothed on his beard.

14. Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, you see the man is epileptic: wherefore then have you brought him unto me?

15. Have I need of epileptics, that ye have brought this man to fall into convulsions in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?

AN ESSAY

ON

THE CONDUCT OF DAVID AT THE COURT OF ACHISH,

KING OF GATH.

SIR, I MAY venture to call the letter I have the honour to write you, "An apology for the conduct of David at the court of king Achish," for my design is to prove three things: First, that if David had counterfeited madness on the occasion mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of the first book of Samuel, he would not have committed any sin. Secondly, that David did not feign himself mad, as is generally supposed. And thirdly, tha this heir apparent to the crown of Israel, had not, at the court of Gath, the least degree of madness, either real or feigned.

I. If you were a man who decided a point of morality by human authority, I might allege, in favour of this first article, the following distich of Cato:

Insipiens esto, cum tempus postulat, aut res; Stultitiam simulare loco, prudentia summa est.* Independently of this author, of whom we hardly know either the true name, the religion, the country, or the age, every body will allow that there is a good deal of wisdom required to play the fool properly. Madness is no sin, it is a disease of the mind, or rather of the brain. David, it is to be observed, during his pretended madness, said nothing criminal. He did a few apparent acts of a person insane. Why might he not be allowed to free himself from imminent danger by this prudent dissimulation? To treat of this question fully and accurately, it would be necessary to go to the bottom of the subject, and examine the grounds and principles of the obligations men are under to speak and act sincerely to one another. It might not be improper to investigate this matter by inquiring, whether, in this reciprocal engagement, there be any difference between deceiving by words known and agreed on between mankind, and misleading, by actions, the natural signs of the sentiments of our hearts. Particularly, it should be examined, whether there be no cases in which this kind of contract is in a sort suspended, and whether David were not in one of these cases, in which he was not obliged so to act, as to convey to king Achish his true and real sentiments. But as I know, sir, you have examined this subject in the case of Samuel, I will confine myself to two arguments, supported by a few facts, relative to the conduct attributed to David in order to justify him.

First, his life was in danger; and will not a

* Disticha de moribus, lib. ii. Dist. 18. VOL. II.-17

man give all that he has for life? Have we not a right do every thing except sin to avoid death? Blame, and welcome, the cruel policy of Dionysius of Sicily, who sometimes spread a report that he was sick, and sometimes that he had been assassinated by his soldiers, with a design to discover, by the unguarded conversation of his subjects, how they stood affected to his government, that he might have a pretence for proscribing such as were ill affected to his despotism. Censure, if you please, the king of Ithaca, and the astronomer Metont for pretending to have lost their senses, the first for the sake of his continuing with his dear Penelope, and the last to avoid accompanying the Athenians in an expedition against Sicily. Pity, if you will, the two monks Simeon and Thomas, who affected to play the fool, lest the extraordinary holiness of their lives should not be perceived. I freely give up these tyrants and hypocrites to the most severe criticism; and I am inclined to be of the opinion of Cicero,§ who calls the finesse of Ulysses, non honestum consilium, a disingenuous conduct. Form, if you think proper, the same opinion of the stratagem of the famous St. Ephraim,|| who, understanding that he was chosen bishop, and that they were going to force him to be ordained, ran into a public place, walked irregularly, let fall his robe, went eating along the streets, and did so many actions of this kind, that every body thought he had lost his senses. He watched his opportunity, fled and concealed himself, and continued to do thus till they had nominated another bishop. I will not pretend to say, whether this proceeded from his contempt of vain glory, as Sozomen pretends, or from his great love of retirement, for he was xxx

a spa. For my part, I make no scruple to say of this artifice, as well as of the trick o layed Apollinaris,** non honestum consilium But you, sir, who are such a good citizen, will you condemn the wise Solontt for counterfeiting distraction, in order to divert his fellow-citizens of Athens from their resolution to abandon Salamin, his country, to the inhabitants of Megara? You, sir, who are no

*Polyænus Stratag. 1. v. cap. 2. S. 15, 16. Ælian variar. historiar. lib. xiii. cap. 12. Evagrius. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 34. Cic. de officiis. lib. iii. cap. 26. Sozomen Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 16. ¶ Soz. ibid.

**Greg. de Nyssen Paneg. de S. Ephr. tt Diogenes Laert. lib. i. in Solone."

enemy to prudence, will you disapprove the | like a man disordered in his senses. Sebasopinion given of Lucius Junius Brutus,*

Brutus erat stulti sapiens imitator.

He affected to be stupid, lest he should become suspected by Tarquin the proud, who had put to death his father and his eldest brother, for the sake of seizing their great wealth. It should seem, that on supposition David acted a part when he was in danger of his life, in a place where he had fled for refuge, it would be a sufficient justification of his character to say, that he thought he might innocently make use of such a stratagem.

2. If the danger of losing his life be not sufficient, let it be observed farther, that the deception was directed to the Philistines, with whom the Israelites were then at war. This is a second argument to justify the conduct of David. When was it ever unlawful to use stratagems in war? Did not God, himself, order the Israelites to "lie in ambush" and "to flee" before the inhabitants of Ai, in order "to draw them from the city?" Is there any less evil in affecting cowardice than there is in pretending to be deprived of reason? Where is the general, who would not be glad to take cities at the same price as Callicratidas of Cyrenet took the fort of Magnesia, by introducing four soldiers, who pretended to be sick? You have observed, sir, in Buchanan's excellent history of Scotland, the manner in which king Duncan defeated the army of Swen king of Norway, who was besieging him in Perth. He sent the besiegers a great quantity of wine and beer, in which some herbs of noxious qualities had been infused, and while this soporific was taking effect, he went into the camp, and put the whole arny to the sword, except the prince of Norway, and ten soldiers, who had suspected the present made them by the enemy, and had not tasted the beverage. The herb is supposed to be the solanum or strychnos of Pliny,§ the night shade, which in a certain quantity stupifies, in a greater quantity distracts, and if more than two drachms, causes death. For these two reasons, then,

[ocr errors]

tian Schmidt, a celebrated Lutheran divine, proposed as a kind of problem, whether Providence might not permit David to be terrified into a momentary delirium, in order to effect his deliverance. Mr. John Christian Ortlob, a learned man of Leipsic published a dissertation, in 1706, on the delirium of David before king Achish, in which he shows, that the whole of the sacred text in Samuel naturally leads us to judge that David was so struck with the fear of sudden death, that for a few moments his understanding was absent. As this thesis is little known in this country, and as it is curious in itself, you will not be displeased, sir, if I give you here a sketch of what he says.

1. Mr. Ortlob shows, that dissimulation was impracticable in David's condition. Either he affected to play the fool the moment he was seized by the servants of the king, or only while he was in the presence of Achish. The text is contrary to the first, for it expressly assures us that this madness of David was in consequence of the conversation that passed between Achish and his officers in the presence of David. The second supposition is not at all likely, for it would have been very imprudent for him to begin to act his part in the presence of Achish; his officers would have discovered the artifice, and would have informed their master: beside, it is inconceivable that David should continue from his being first taken to that moment as mute as a fish, in order to conceal a design which required a state of mind more tranquil than that of David could be, in a danger so imminent.

2. Next, Mr. Ortlob proceeds to prove, that David had a true and natural alienation of mind.

The first proof is, his fear of danger. David, says the twelfth verse, "laid up the words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath." The terror that seized his soul affected the organs of his body, and disconcerted the fibres of his brain. There are inany examples of persons affected in like

I conclude that my first proposition is suffi- manner with sudden fear. Our learned auciently clear. I said, if David had counter-thor relates the case of a girl of ten years of feited madness, and played the fool, he would | age, who was so terrified with thunder and not have committed any sin: first, because lightning in a furious tempest, that she was his life was in danger: and secondly, because the Philistines were at war with his country.

II. If any continue obstinately to maintain that the dissimulation of David was criminal, and opposite to sincerity and good faith, I have another string to my bow, to defend this illustrious refugee. I affirm that David did not play the fool, and act a part; but that, being seized with extreme fear at hearing the conversation of the ministers of state, in the court of king Achish, he fell under a real absence of mind, and behaved, in a few instances,

* Dion. Halicarn. Antiquitat. Roman. lib. 4. Polyænus Stratag. lib. ii. cap. 27, S. I.

Buchanani Hist. Scotica.-Rem. This tale is not credited by some historians, and indeed it appears highly improbable in itself. Mr. Guthrie calls it an infamous and improbable story.-Hist. of Scot. Vol. I. p. 234.

Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. xxi. cap. 31.-Salmas ad Solin.

P. 1086.

[ocr errors]

seized with violent convulsions in her left arm and her left leg. Though she did not lose her senses, yet she was constrained to flee on the other foot along the wainscot of the chamber, and the company could not stop her.

The next proof is taken from the expressions of the inspired writer, which simply and literally explained, signify a real madness.

"David changed his behaviour." It is in the Hebrew, his taste, that is his reason, for reason is, in man, what taste is in regard to aliments.

"And he became mad." The Hebrew verb halal, in the conjugation hithpael, as it is here, always signifies in Scripture real, and not

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

feigned madness; and there is nothing in the text which obliges us to depart from a sense that perfectly agrees with the simplicity of the history. The French and English versions render it, he feigned himself mad; but they are wrong, for the original says nothing about feigning.

and the real signification of Hebrew words and
idioms. I am fully persuaded we ought to
prefer these versions in the present case.
David, said the sacred historian, changed his
behaviour, or his taste. The Septuagint reads
it ÀCIWσE TO #POσWTON, AUTO, and the Vulgate,
immutavit os suum, he changed countenance. I
think this translation is better than that of Mr.
Ortlob, his reason was changed: because it is
added, before them, or in their sight, and in the
thirty-fourth psalm, before Abimelech, or in his
presence. It is well known, that the counte-
nance of a person taken with an epilepsy is
suddenly changed. But should we retain the
word reason, we might with equal justice say,
that the reason, or the taste is changed in an
epileptic fit, because for a few moments reason
is absent.

"He scrabbled on the doors of the gate." Cornelius a Lapide thinks he wrote the letter tau to form the figure of the cross. Rabbi Schabtai, in a German_book_entitled Esrim Vearba,* was better informed, and he says David wrote on the gates of the palace, "The king owes me a hundred thousand guilders, and his kingdom, fifty thousand." Mr. Ortlob, learned as he is, does not know so much as the Rabbi and the Jesuit. He contents himself, with observing, that David, all taken up with his delirium, and having no instrument in his 2. Our version adds, he feigned himself mad hand to write, scratched the gate with his in their hands. The Septuagint seems to me fingers, like people in a malignant fover. He to have rendered the words much better, observes also, that the indecent manner in To THIS ZIOTIV RUTOY. He struggled or which David "let his spittle fall down upon tossed himself in their hands. (For I think the his beard," is a natural and usual consequence preceding words in this version, "in that day of a delirium. he feigned," is one of those interpolations, which passed from the margin to the text; and that the words, και ετυμπανίζεν επί ταις θύραις

His third proof is taken from the connexion of the whole history, which supposes and indicates real madness. "David changed his behaviour:" the sacred author explains first in what this change consisted, it was in becoming mad in the presence of the king and his officers; and he adds two actions of madness, the one scratching and writing on the gates with his fingers, and the other drivelling on his beard.

The last proof our author takes from the consequences. Achish gives David his life and liberty, as a man beneath his resentment. He was angry with those who brought a madman to him. David, on his side, escaped the danger, recovered his spirits, and becaine himself. There is no reason to question whether he observed the precept given by himself in the thirty-fourth Psalm, which he composed, as well as the fifty-sixth, to praise God for his deliverance, keep thy lips from speaking guile," ver. 13.

[ocr errors]

My second proposition was, that David did not feign himself mad, as is usually supposed; and Mr. Ortlob, in this treatise, has justified David from the charge of every kind of dissimulation, and so far it gives me pleasure to follow him; for this is an opinion more tolerable than the former, but I must beg leave to dissent from this learned writer, and to state in the next place my own opinion, for I do not think, as Mr. Ortlob does, that David had any degree of madness.

III. I think the whole passage ought to be understood of an epilepsy, a convulsion of the whole body, with a loss of sense for the time. Judge, sir, of the reasons on which I ground this third proposition.

1. My first reason is taken from the original terms, which perfectly agree with an epilepsy. This is not easy to discover in our modern versions; but it is very plain in the Septuagint, and in the old Latin version, which our interpreters often very injudiciously despise. The authors of both these versions were in a better condition than we are, to understand the force

* Printed in 1703.

As, are of some other version, and have got into the text as the former.) The Hebrew word halal is a general term, which signifies to agitate one's self, to shake, either by twinkling like the stars, or by applauding like some one, or by boasting of any thing of our own, which the Latins call jactare, jactare se: or by moving ourselves involuntarily, as a paralytic man does, or a madman, or a person in convulsions, or one in excessive joy. The Septuagint could not translate the word here better than by caps, because рçopos among the Greeks is put for a distracted person, a demoniac, and because a body irregularly and involuntarily agitated is said apae5221. Aristotlet uses it in the same sense. Having said that there seems something in the soul of an intemperate man beside reason, and opposite to it, he adds, he is like a paralytic body, the patient aims to move the right hand or the right foot, and the left hand and the left foot move TAPTION BIS TO agiσTogα Tapapapata.. The only difference is, we perceive irregular motions of the body, whereas those of the soul are invisible. The Vulgate translates in a manner more favourable still to my opinion, et collabebatur inter manus eorum, he fell into their hands. The term collabi, as well as cadere, and corruere, are applied to the epilepsy, which the Hebrews, like us, called the falling sickness. All these Latin words may be seen in this sense in the first apology of Apuleius.t He addresses himself to Emilianus, his adver sary, to justify himself from the accusation of having bewitched one Thallus, who was fallen extremely ill with an epilepsy. Imo si verum velis, Emiliane, tu potius caducus qui jam tot calumniis, cecidisti, neque enim gravius est corpore quam corde collabi, pede potius quam mente corruere, in cubiculo despui, quam in isto splendidissimo cætu detestari.

*Phavorinus in voce propoε.

Aristot. Ethicor. ad Nichomacum, lib. 1. cap. 13.
Apuleius Apol. pro se ipso prima.

« السابقةمتابعة »