A CONTRIBUTION TO ITS INTERPRETATION: CONTAINING AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK; AN EXEGETICAL BY THOMAS TYLER, M.A., PRIZEMAN IN HEBREW AND NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON; להבין משל ומליצה דברי חכמים וחידתם Prov. i. 6. London WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, Preparing for publication. By T. TYLER, Esq., M.A. THE PHILOSOPHY OF "HAMLET:" An Enquiry into the Meaning of Hamlet's Conduct, and the Aim of the Tragedy. Page 26, line 19 from top, for wаρnкoλov@hoavres read παρακολουθήσαντας. 30, line 2 from bottom, for exegelisches read exegetisches. 37, last line, for a read 7. 123, line 2 from bottom, for sun read heavens. 140, line 4 from bottom, for Expression read Expressive. PREFACE. ESVEUX, in the preface to his book on Ecclesiastes, DE tells us that about thirty years had elapsed since he had first planned the work, and nearly five-and-twenty since he had published a sketch of his plan; that the work had cost him a hundredfold the time and study which he had at first imagined would be necessary; and that he had been obliged again and again to remould the work, casting it into a form different from that which he had before intended. I might, with reference to the work now submitted to the public, repeat, to a considerable extent, what was said by Desvœux. I cannot, it is true, say that thirty years have passed since I planned my work; but still, not only is it a very long time since I attained some of the conclusions concerning the interpretation of particular passages in Ecclesiastes, which I still hold, and which I have now for the first time printed; but a good many years have elapsed since I prepared for a society, with which I was at the time connected, a paper on Ecclesiastes containing and expressing those conclusions. Afterwards I rewrote and enlarged this paper, with a view to its being published. Other work and other engagements, however, demanded attention; and my paper in its improved form was laid aside. Subsequently, my attention being for a time less occupied with other pursuits, I took up the work anew, and again enlarging it, it assumed that tripartite form which it now presents; the paper above mentioned becoming, to a considerable extent, the basis of the Exegetical Analysis. When the work was now, as it seemed to me, just ready for the press, I began to perceive the peculiar relation of Ecclesiastes to the post-Aristotelian philosophy. This being seen, I tried to adapt my work, by comparatively inconsiderable alteration; and I gave some account of the fact I had discovered in a pamphlet entitled Some New Evidence as to the Date of Ecclesiastes, London, 1872. I found, however, that the adaptation of my work which I had attempted was unsatisfactory. The relation of Ecclesiastes to the post-Aristotelian philosophy was too fundamental to be thus dealt with. Much of the work was accordingly written anew, and a good deal of illustrative matter introduced. The work has certainly cost me an expenditure of time and labour, such as I could not have at all anticipated when my attention was first directed to the subject. Apart from certain circumstances, it is likely that the work would not now have been published: I might not unreasonably have hesitated before diverting from other pursuits so very considerable an amount of time and thought as was necessary even for the final preparation of the work for the press. Of late, much has been said, and no doubt with justice, of the grave discouragements which attend upon original research in various departments of natural science. But— in England, at least the discouragements connected with such research in the field of Biblical science are probably, on the whole, far more severe than those which must be encountered by the physicist or the physiologist. This result is caused, in part, by the generally low condition" of Biblical and Oriental learning, and, in part, by various other causes, which I need not here particularly mention. I may be pardoned for alluding to this matter, on account of the probability that changes will be made, especially in relation to the Universities, which may, at least in the next generation, greatly facilitate original research in natural science. And I should certainly desire that this result may be attained. But there is some danger lest suitable provision should not be made for independent, faithful, and thorough Biblical investigation. I hope, however, that the necessity for such provision will be seen, since there are multitudinous problems in relation to the Biblical books which still await solution, and which will probably not be solved without prolonged labour on the part of many in |