Job 21:33 | KD | STEP | Job 21:32-34 32 And he is brought to the grave, And over the tomb he still keepeth watch. 33 The clods of the valley are sweet to him, And all men draw after him, As they preceded him without number. . . . . . . 34 And how will ye comfort me so vainly! Your replies are and remain perfidy. During life removed at the time of dire calamity, this unapproachable evil-doer is after his death carried to the grave with all honour (יוּבל, comp. ), and indeed to a splendid tomb; for, like משׁכנות above, קברות is also an amplificative plural. It is certainly the most natural to refer ישׁקד, like יוּבל, to the deceased. The explanation: and over the tomb one keeps watch (Böttch., Hahn, Röd., Olsh.), is indeed in itself admissible, since that which serves as the efficient subject is often left unexpressed ( ; 2Ki 9:21; ; comp. supra , on ); but that, according to the prevalent usage of the language, ישׁקד would denote only a guard of honour at night, not also in the day, and that for clearness it would have required גּדישׁו instead of גּדישׁ, are considerations which do not favour this explanation, for שׁקד signifies to watch, to be active, instead of sleeping or resting; and moreover, the placing of guards of honour by graves is an assumed, but not proved, custom of antiquity. Nevertheless, ישׁקד might also in general denote the watchful, careful tending of the grave, and the maqâm (the tomb) of one who is highly honoured has, according to Moslem custom, servants ( châdimı̂n ) who are appointed for this duty. But though the translation “one watches” should not be objected to on this ground, the preference is to be given to a commendable rendering which makes the deceased the subject of ישׁקד. Raschi’s explanation does not, however, commend itself: “buried in his own land, he also in death still keeps watch over the heaps of sheaves.” The lxx translates similarly, ἐπὶ σωρῶν, which Jerome improperly, but according to a right sentiment, translates, in congerie mortuorum. For after the preceding mention of the pomp of burial, גּדישׁ, which certainly signifies a heap of sheaves in , is favoured by the assumption of its signifying a sepulchral heap, with reference to which also in that passage (where interment is likewise the subject of discourse) the expression is chosen. Haji Gaon observes that the dome (קבּה, Arab. qbbt , the dome and the sepulchral monument vaulted over by it) erected over graves according to Arab custom is intended; and Aben-Ezra says, that not exactly this, but in general the grave-mound formed of earth, etc., is to be understood. In reality, גדישׁ (from the verb גדשׁ, cumulare, commonly used in the Talmud and Aramaic) signifies cumulus , in the most diversified connections, which in Arabic are distributed among the verbs jds , kds , and jdš , especially tumulus , Arab. jadatun (broader pronunciation jadafun ). If by grave-mound a mound with the grave upon it can be understood, a beautiful explanation is presented which accords with the preference of the Beduin for being buried on an eminence, in order that even in death he may be surrounded by his relations, and as it were be able still to overlook their encampment: the one who should have had a better lot is buried in the best place of the plain, in an insignificant grave; the rich man, however, is brought up to an eminence and keeps watch on his elevated tomb, since from this eminence as from a watch-tower he even in death, as it were, enjoys the wide prospect which delighted him so while living. But the signification collis cannot be supported; גדישׁ signifies the hill which is formed by the grave itself, and indeed directs us to the wady as the place of burial, not to the hill. But if גדישׁ is the grave-mound, it is also not possible with Schlottm. to think of the pictures on the wall and images of the deceased, as they are found in the Egyptian vaults (although in we recognised an allusion to the pyramids), for it cannot then be a גדישׁ in the strict sense that is spoken of; the word ought, like the Arabic jdṯ (which the Arab. translation of the New Testament in the London Polyglott uses of the μνημεῖον of Jesus), with a mingling of its original signification, to have been used in the general signification sepulcrum . This would be possible, but it need not be supposed. Job’s words are the pictorial antithesis to Bildad’s assertion, , that the godless man dies away without trace or memorial; it is not so, but as may be heard from the mouth of people who have experience in the world: he keeps watch over his tomb, he continues to watch although asleep, since he is continually brought to remembrance by the monument built over his tomb. A keeping watch that no one approaches the tomb disrespectfully (Ew.), is not to be thought of. שׁקד is a relative negation of the sleep of death: he is dead, but in a certain manner he continues to live, viz., in the monument planting forward his memory, which it remains for the imagination to conceive of as a mausoleum, or weapons, or other votive offerings hung upon the walls, etc. In connection with such honour, which follows him even to and beyond death, the clods of the valley ( est ei terra levis ) are sweet (מתקוּ is accentuated with Mercha , and לו without Makkeph with little- Rebia ) to him; and if death in itself ought to be accounted an evil, he has shared the common fate which all men after him will meet, and which all before him have met; it is the common end of all made sweet to him by the pageantry of his burial and his after-fame. Most modern expositors (Ew., Hirz., Umbr., Hlgst., Welte) understand the ימשׁך, which is used, certainly, not in the transitive signification: to draw after one’s self, but in the intransitive: to draw towards (lxx απελεύσεται), as Jdg 4:6 (vid., Ges. Thes .), of an imitative treading of the same way; but כּל־אדם would then be an untrue hyperbole, by which Job would expose himself to the attack of his adversaries. In Job concludes his speech; the Waw of ואיך, according to the idea (as e.g., the Waw in ואני, ), is an inferential ergo . Their consolation, which is only available on condition of penitence, is useless; and their replies, which are intended to make him an evil-doer against the testimony of his conscience, remain מעל. It is not necessary to construe: and as to your answers, only מעל remains. The predicate stands per attractionem in the sing.: their answers, reduced to their true value, leave nothing behind but מעל, end in מעל, viz., באלהים, , perfidious sinning against God, i.e., on account of the sanctimonious injustice and uncharitableness with which they look suspiciously on him. Job has hitherto answered the accusations of the friends, which they express in ever-increasingly terrible representations of the end of the godless, presenting only the terrible side of their dogma of the justice of God, with a stedfast attestation of his innocence, and with the ever-increasing hope of divine vindication against human accusation. In him was manifest that faith which, being thrust back by men, clings to God, and, thrust back by God, even soars aloft from the present wrath of God to His faithfulness and mercy. The friends, however, instead of learning in Job’s spiritual condition to distinguish between the appearance and the reality in this confidence, which comes back to itself, see in it only a constant wilful hardening of himself against their exhortations to penitence. It does not confound them, that he over whom, according to their firm opinion, the sword of God’s vengeance hangs, warns them of that same sword, but only confirms them still more in their conviction, that they have to do with one who is grievously self-deluded. Zophar has painted anew the end of the evil-doer in the most hideous colours, in order that Job might behold himself in this mirror, and be astonished at himself. We see also, from the answer of Job to Zophar’s speech, that the passionate excitement which Job displayed at first in opposition to the friends has given place to a calmer tone; he has already got over the first impression of disappointed expectation, and the more confidently certain of the infallibility of divine justice he becomes, the more does he feel raised above his accusers. He now expects no further comfort; careful attention to what he has to say shall henceforth be his consolation. He will also complain against and of men no more, for he has long since ceased to hope for anything for himself from men; his vexation concerns the objective indefensibility of that which his opponents maintain as a primeval law of the divine government in the world. The maxim that godlessness always works its own punishment by a calamitous issue, is by no means supported by experience. One sees godless persons who are determined to know nothing of God, and are at the same time prosperous. It is not to be said that God treasures up the punishment they have deserved for their children. The godless ought rather to bear the punishment themselves, since the destiny of their children no longer concerns them after they have enjoyed their fill of life. That law is therefore a precept which human short-sightedness has laid down for God, but one by which, however, He is not guided. The godless who have lived prosperously all their days, and the righteous who have experienced only sorrow, share the common lot of death. One has only to ask persons who have had experience of the world: they can relate instances of notorious sinners who maintained their high position until death, and who, without being overtaken by divine judgments, and without human opposition and contradiction, were carried in honour to the grave, and their memory is immortalized by the monuments erected over their tomb. From this Job infers that the connection into which the friends bring his suffering with supposed guilt, is a false one, and that all their answers are, after all, reducible to an unjust and uncharitable judgment, by which they attack (מעל) God. Job has more than once given expression to the thought, that a just distribution of prosperity and misfortune is not to be found in the world, ; Job 12:6. But now for the first time he designedly brings it forward in reply to the friends, after he has found every form of assertion of his innocence unavailing, and their behaviour towards him with their dogma is become still more and more inconsiderate and rash. Job sins in this speech; but in order to form a correct judgment of this sinning, two things must be attended to. Job does not revel in the contradiction in which this lasting fact of experience stands to the justice of divine retribution, he had rather be ignorant of it; for he has no need of it in order, in spite of his affliction, to be able to hold fast the consciousness of his innocence. No indeed! if he thinks of this mystery he is perplexed, and shuddering comes over him, Job 21:6. And when he depicts the prosperity of sinners, he expresses his horror of the sins of such prosperous men in the words: The counsel of the ungodly be far from me! ( ), in order that it may not be erroneously imagined that he lusts after such prosperity. If we compare Zophar’s and Job’s speeches one with another, we are obliged to say, that relatively the greater right is on the side of Job. True, the Scriptures confirm what Zophar says of the destruction of the evil-doer in innumerable passages; and this calamitous end of one who has long been prosperous and defiant, is the solution by which the Old Testament Scriptures (Ps. 37, 73; ; Hab. 1:13-2:1) remove the stumbling-block of the mysterious phenomenon of the prosperity of the evil-doer. But if we bear in mind that this solution is insufficient, so long as that calamitous end is regarded only outwardly, and with reference to the present world, - that the solution only becomes satisfactory when, as in the book of Ecclesiastes, in reply to a similar doubt to that which Job expresses ( ; ), the end is regarded as the end of all, and as the decision of a final judgment which sets all contradictions right, - that, however, neither Zophar nor Job know anything of a decision beyond death, but regard death as the end whither human destiny and divine retribution tend, without being capable of any further distinction: we cannot deny that Job is most in the right in placing the prosperous life and death of the godless as based upon the incontrovertible facts of experience, in opposition to Zophar’s primeval exceptionless law of the terrible end of the godless. The speeches of Zophar and of Job are both true and false, - both one-sided, and therefore mutually supplementary. The real final end of the evil-doer is indeed none other than Zophar describes; and the temporal prosperity of the evil-doer, lasting often until death, is really a frequent phenomenon. If, however, we consider further, that Job is not able to deny the occurrence of such examples of punishment, such revelations of the retributive justice of God, as those which Zophar represents as occurring regularly and without exception; that, however, on the other hand, exceptional instances undeniably do exist, and the friends are obliged to be blind to them, because otherwise the whole structure of their opposition would fall in, - it is manifest that Job is nearer to the truth than Zophar. For it is truer that the retributive justice of God is often, but by far not always, revealed in the present world and outwardly, than that it never becomes manifest. Wherein, then, does Job’s sin in this speech consist? Herein, that he altogether ignores the palpably just distribution of human destinies, which does occur frequently enough. In this he becomes unjust towards his opponent, and incapable of convincing him. From it, it appears as though in the divine government there is not merely a preponderance of what is mysterious, of what is irreconcilable with divine justice, but as though justice were altogether contradicted. The reproach with which he reproaches his opponents: Shall one teach God understanding? is one which also applies to himself; for when he says that God, if He punishes, must visit punishment upon the evil-doer himself, and not on his children, it is an unbecoming dictation with regard to God’s doing. We should be mistaken in supposing that the poet, in , brings forward a concealed contradiction to the Mosaic doctrine of retribution; nowhere in the Old Testament, not even in the Mosaic law, is it taught, that God visits the sins of the fathers on the children, while He allows them themselves to go free, , comp. ; ; Jer 31:29. What Job asserts, that the sinner himself must endure the punishment of his sins, not his children instead of him, is true; but the thought lying in the background, that God does not punish where He ought to punish, is sinful. Thus here Job again falls into error, which he must by and by penitently acknowledge and confess, by speaking unbecomingly of God: the God of the future is again vanished from him behind the clouds of temptation, and he is unable to understand and love the God of the present; He is a mystery to him, the incomprehensibility of which causes him pain. “The joyous thought of the future, which a little before struggled forth, again vanishes, because the present, into the abyss of which he is again drawn down, has remained perfectly dark the whole time, and as yet no bridge has been revealed crossing from this side to that.”

‏ Job 21:33

Job 21:32-34 32 And he is brought to the grave,

And over the tomb he still keepeth watch. 33 The clods of the valley are sweet to him,

And all men draw after him,

As they preceded him without number. . . . . . . 34 And how will ye comfort me so vainly!

Your replies are and remain perfidy.

During life removed at the time of dire calamity, this unapproachable evil-doer is after his death carried to the grave with all honour (יוּבל, comp. Job 10:19), and indeed to a splendid tomb; for, like משׁכנות above, קברות is also an amplificative plural. It is certainly the most natural to refer ישׁקד, like יוּבל, to the deceased. The explanation: and over the tomb one keeps watch (Böttch., Hahn, Röd., Olsh.), is indeed in itself admissible, since that which serves as the efficient subject is often left unexpressed (Gen 48:2; 2Ki 9:21; Isa 53:9; comp. supra, on Job 18:18); but that, according to the prevalent usage of the language, ישׁקד would denote only a guard of honour at night, not also in the day, and that for clearness it would have required גּדישׁו instead of גּדישׁ, are considerations which do not favour this explanation, for שׁקד signifies to watch, to be active, instead of sleeping or resting; and moreover, the placing of guards of honour by graves is an assumed, but not proved, custom of antiquity. Nevertheless, ישׁקד might also in general denote the watchful, careful tending of the grave, and the maqâm (the tomb) of one who is highly honoured has, according to Moslem custom, servants (châdimı̂n) who are appointed for this duty. But though the translation “one watches” should not be objected to on this ground, the preference is to be given to a commendable rendering which makes the deceased the subject of ישׁקד. Raschi’s explanation does not, however, commend itself: “buried in his own land, he also in death still keeps watch over the heaps of sheaves.” The lxx translates similarly, ἐπὶ σωρῶν, which Jerome improperly, but according to a right sentiment, translates, in congerie mortuorum. For after the preceding mention of the pomp of burial, גּדישׁ, which certainly signifies a heap of sheaves in Job 5:26, is favoured by the assumption of its signifying a sepulchral heap, with reference to which also in that passage (where interment is likewise the subject of discourse) the expression is chosen. Haji Gaon observes that the dome (קבּה, Arab. qbbt, the dome and the sepulchral monument vaulted over by it) ^{▼▼Vid., Lane’s Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (translated by Zenker).} erected over graves according to Arab custom is intended; and Aben-Ezra says, that not exactly this, but in general the grave-mound formed of earth, etc., is to be understood. In reality, גדישׁ (from the verb גדשׁ, cumulare, commonly used in the Talmud and Aramaic) signifies cumulus, in the most diversified connections, which in Arabic are distributed among the verbs jds , kds , and jdš , especially tumulus, Arab. jadatun (broader pronunciation jadafun). If by grave-mound a mound with the grave upon it can be understood, a beautiful explanation is presented which accords with the preference of the Beduin for being buried on an eminence, in order that even in death he may be surrounded by his relations, and as it were be able still to overlook their encampment: the one who should have had a better lot is buried in the best place of the plain, in an insignificant grave; the rich man, however, is brought up to an eminence and keeps watch on his elevated tomb, since from this eminence as from a watch-tower he even in death, as it were, enjoys the wide prospect which delighted him so while living. ^{▼▼“Take my bones,” says an Arabian poem, “and carry them with you, wherever you go; and if ye bury them, bury them opposite your encampment! And bury me not under a vine, which would shade me, but upon a hill, so that my eye can see you!” Vid., Ausland, 1863, Nr. 15 (Ein Ritt nach Transjordanien).}

But the signification collis cannot be supported; גדישׁ signifies the hill which is formed by the grave itself, and Job 21:33 indeed directs us to the wady as the place of burial, not to the hill. But if גדישׁ is the grave-mound, it is also not possible with Schlottm. to think of the pictures on the wall and images of the deceased, as they are found in the Egyptian vaults (although in Job 3:14 we recognised an allusion to the pyramids), for it cannot then be a גדישׁ in the strict sense that is spoken of; the word ought, like the Arabic jdṯ (which the Arab. translation of the New Testament in the London Polyglott uses of the μνημεῖον of Jesus), with a mingling of its original signification, to have been used in the general signification sepulcrum. This would be possible, but it need not be supposed. Job’s words are the pictorial antithesis to Bildad’s assertion, Job 18:17, that the godless man dies away without trace or memorial; it is not so, but as may be heard from the mouth of people who have experience in the world: he keeps watch over his tomb, he continues to watch although asleep, since he is continually brought to remembrance by the monument built over his tomb. A keeping watch that no one approaches the tomb disrespectfully (Ew.), is not to be thought of. שׁקד is a relative negation of the sleep of death: he is dead, but in a certain manner he continues to live, viz., in the monument planting forward his memory, which it remains for the imagination to conceive of as a mausoleum, or weapons, or other votive offerings hung upon the walls, etc. In connection with such honour, which follows him even to and beyond death, the clods of the valley (est ei terra levis) are sweet (מתקוּ is accentuated with Mercha, and לו without Makkeph with little-Rebia) to him; and if death in itself ought to be accounted an evil, he has shared the common fate which all men after him will meet, and which all before him have met; it is the common end of all made sweet to him by the pageantry of his burial and his after-fame. Most modern expositors (Ew., Hirz., Umbr., Hlgst., Welte) understand the ימשׁך, which is used, certainly, not in the transitive signification: to draw after one’s self, but in the intransitive: to draw towards (lxx απελεύσεται), as Jdg 4:6 (vid., Ges. Thes.), of an imitative treading of the same way; but כּל־אדם would then be an untrue hyperbole, by which Job would expose himself to the attack of his adversaries.

In Job 21:34 Job concludes his speech; the Waw of ואיך, according to the idea (as e.g., the Waw in ואני, Isa 43:12), is an inferential ergo. Their consolation, which is only available on condition of penitence, is useless; and their replies, which are intended to make him an evil-doer against the testimony of his conscience, remain מעל. It is not necessary to construe: and as to your answers, only מעל remains. The predicate stands per attractionem in the sing.: their answers, reduced to their true value, leave nothing behind but מעל, end in מעל, viz., באלהים, Jos 22:22, perfidious sinning against God, i.e., on account of the sanctimonious injustice and uncharitableness with which they look suspiciously on him.

Job has hitherto answered the accusations of the friends, which they express in ever-increasingly terrible representations of the end of the godless, presenting only the terrible side of their dogma of the justice of God, with a stedfast attestation of his innocence, and with the ever-increasing hope of divine vindication against human accusation. In him was manifest that faith which, being thrust back by men, clings to God, and, thrust back by God, even soars aloft from the present wrath of God to His faithfulness and mercy. The friends, however, instead of learning in Job’s spiritual condition to distinguish between the appearance and the reality in this confidence, which comes back to itself, see in it only a constant wilful hardening of himself against their exhortations to penitence. It does not confound them, that he over whom, according to their firm opinion, the sword of God’s vengeance hangs, warns them of that same sword, but only confirms them still more in their conviction, that they have to do with one who is grievously self-deluded.

Zophar has painted anew the end of the evil-doer in the most hideous colours, in order that Job might behold himself in this mirror, and be astonished at himself. We see also, from the answer of Job to Zophar’s speech, that the passionate excitement which Job displayed at first in opposition to the friends has given place to a calmer tone; he has already got over the first impression of disappointed expectation, and the more confidently certain of the infallibility of divine justice he becomes, the more does he feel raised above his accusers. He now expects no further comfort; careful attention to what he has to say shall henceforth be his consolation. He will also complain against and of men no more, for he has long since ceased to hope for anything for himself from men; his vexation concerns the objective indefensibility of that which his opponents maintain as a primeval law of the divine government in the world. The maxim that godlessness always works its own punishment by a calamitous issue, is by no means supported by experience. One sees godless persons who are determined to know nothing of God, and are at the same time prosperous. It is not to be said that God treasures up the punishment they have deserved for their children. The godless ought rather to bear the punishment themselves, since the destiny of their children no longer concerns them after they have enjoyed their fill of life. That law is therefore a precept which human short-sightedness has laid down for God, but one by which, however, He is not guided. The godless who have lived prosperously all their days, and the righteous who have experienced only sorrow, share the common lot of death. One has only to ask persons who have had experience of the world: they can relate instances of notorious sinners who maintained their high position until death, and who, without being overtaken by divine judgments, and without human opposition and contradiction, were carried in honour to the grave, and their memory is immortalized by the monuments erected over their tomb. From this Job infers that the connection into which the friends bring his suffering with supposed guilt, is a false one, and that all their answers are, after all, reducible to an unjust and uncharitable judgment, by which they attack (מעל) God.

Job has more than once given expression to the thought, that a just distribution of prosperity and misfortune is not to be found in the world, Job 9:22-24; Job 12:6. But now for the first time he designedly brings it forward in reply to the friends, after he has found every form of assertion of his innocence unavailing, and their behaviour towards him with their dogma is become still more and more inconsiderate and rash. Job sins in this speech; but in order to form a correct judgment of this sinning, two things must be attended to. Job does not revel in the contradiction in which this lasting fact of experience stands to the justice of divine retribution, he had rather be ignorant of it; for he has no need of it in order, in spite of his affliction, to be able to hold fast the consciousness of his innocence. No indeed! if he thinks of this mystery he is perplexed, and shuddering comes over him, Job 21:6. And when he depicts the prosperity of sinners, he expresses his horror of the sins of such prosperous men in the words: The counsel of the ungodly be far from me! (Job 21:16), in order that it may not be erroneously imagined that he lusts after such prosperity.

If we compare Zophar’s and Job’s speeches one with another, we are obliged to say, that relatively the greater right is on the side of Job. True, the Scriptures confirm what Zophar says of the destruction of the evil-doer in innumerable passages; and this calamitous end of one who has long been prosperous and defiant, is the solution by which the Old Testament Scriptures (Ps. 37, 73; Jer 12:1-3; Hab. 1:13-2:1) remove the stumbling-block of the mysterious phenomenon of the prosperity of the evil-doer. But if we bear in mind that this solution is insufficient, so long as that calamitous end is regarded only outwardly, and with reference to the present world, - that the solution only becomes satisfactory when, as in the book of Ecclesiastes, in reply to a similar doubt to that which Job expresses (Ecc 7:15; Ecc 8:14), the end is regarded as the end of all, and as the decision of a final judgment which sets all contradictions right, - that, however, neither Zophar nor Job know anything of a decision beyond death, but regard death as the end whither human destiny and divine retribution tend, without being capable of any further distinction: we cannot deny that Job is most in the right in placing the prosperous life and death of the godless as based upon the incontrovertible facts of experience, in opposition to Zophar’s primeval exceptionless law of the terrible end of the godless. The speeches of Zophar and of Job are both true and false, - both one-sided, and therefore mutually supplementary. The real final end of the evil-doer is indeed none other than Zophar describes; and the temporal prosperity of the evil-doer, lasting often until death, is really a frequent phenomenon. If, however, we consider further, that Job is not able to deny the occurrence of such examples of punishment, such revelations of the retributive justice of God, as those which Zophar represents as occurring regularly and without exception; that, however, on the other hand, exceptional instances undeniably do exist, and the friends are obliged to be blind to them, because otherwise the whole structure of their opposition would fall in, - it is manifest that Job is nearer to the truth than Zophar. For it is truer that the retributive justice of God is often, but by far not always, revealed in the present world and outwardly, than that it never becomes manifest.

Wherein, then, does Job’s sin in this speech consist? Herein, that he altogether ignores the palpably just distribution of human destinies, which does occur frequently enough. In this he becomes unjust towards his opponent, and incapable of convincing him. From it, it appears as though in the divine government there is not merely a preponderance of what is mysterious, of what is irreconcilable with divine justice, but as though justice were altogether contradicted. The reproach with which he reproaches his opponents: Shall one teach God understanding? is one which also applies to himself; for when he says that God, if He punishes, must visit punishment upon the evil-doer himself, and not on his children, it is an unbecoming dictation with regard to God’s doing. We should be mistaken in supposing that the poet, in Job 21:19-21, brings forward a concealed contradiction to the Mosaic doctrine of retribution; nowhere in the Old Testament, not even in the Mosaic law, is it taught, that God visits the sins of the fathers on the children, while He allows them themselves to go free, Exo 20:5, comp. Deu 24:16; Eze 18:1; Jer 31:29. What Job asserts, that the sinner himself must endure the punishment of his sins, not his children instead of him, is true; but the thought lying in the background, that God does not punish where He ought to punish, is sinful. Thus here Job again falls into error, which he must by and by penitently acknowledge and confess, by speaking unbecomingly of God: the God of the future is again vanished from him behind the clouds of temptation, and he is unable to understand and love the God of the present; He is a mystery to him, the incomprehensibility of which causes him pain. “The joyous thought of the future, which a little before struggled forth, again vanishes, because the present, into the abyss of which he is again drawn down, has remained perfectly dark the whole time, and as yet no bridge has been revealed crossing from this side to that.”