possible to make them tally by a violent and imaginative exegesis.
Among the transpositions (to which I have no theoretic objection[1]) are the following:
v. 9-16 placed after ii. 11,
viii. 9-14 " " iii. 8,
vi. 8-12 " " x. 1,
iv. 9-16 " " vii. 20,
x. 16-xi. 6 " " v. 8,
xi. 6 " " xi. 3.
Bickell's theory that the passages which assert or suggest Solomonic authorship in i. 1, 12, 16, ii. 7, 8, 9, [12], are due to an interpolator,[2] is plausible; it throws a new light on the statement of the Epilogue (xii. 9) that 'Koheleth was a wise man,' and a motive for the interpolation can be readily imagined—the desire to obtain ecclesiastical sanction for the book. It is, however, incapable of proof.
II.
There are in fact few books on Ecclesiastes so stimulating as Bickell's, though it needs to be read with discrimination[3] (comp. p. 241). Putting aside the author's peculiar theory, it must be owned that he has enabled us to realise the inherent difficulties of the text as it stands, and contributed some very happy corrections. All critics will admit the need of such emendations. The text of Koheleth is even more faulty than that of Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. We cannot wonder at this. Meditations often so fragmentary on such a difficult subject were foredoomed to suffer greatly at the hands of copyists. A minute study of the various readings and of the corrections which have been proposed would lead us too far, interesting as it would be (compare Renan's remarks, L'Ecclésiaste, p. 53). Cappellus (Louis
