Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Ruth 1:1 - 1:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rth_1:1-6
Distress in a Foreign Land
[2 Rth_1:2.— ðָòֳîִé : Noomi, as the name should be written. Sept. Íùåìßí ; Vulg. Noemi.—Tr.]
[3 Rth_1:5.—Better: “Then died they two also, Mahlon and Chilion.”—Tr.]
[4 Rth_1:5.— åַúִּùָּׁàֵø : not, “was left from, i. e. was bereaved of,” as Wright (with the Vulgate) interprets,—on the ground that the îִï changes the simple meaning of the verb as found in Rth_1:3. îִï has its proper partitive meaning, and points out the whole of which Naomi is now the only part left, cf. Deu_3:11; Neh_1:2-3. The enumeration of the whole is so far incomplete that it does not expressly include Naomi herself. In Rth_1:3 the verb is used without îִï because there is there no direct reference to the whole, but only the statement that at the death of her husband, she and her sons were left behind.—Tr.]
There was a famine in the land. No rain fell, and the crops did not prosper. Notwithstanding good and diligent cultivation, with which that at present observed in those parts is not to be compared, no harvests were reaped from those extensive grain-bearing plains which in good years produce abundant supplies. In such seasons of scarcity, southern Palestine naturally resorted to importations from Egypt, as, the history of Joseph has already shown. The increased prices, however, necessarily resulting from a failure of the home crops, pressed with two-fold weight on the less affluent among the people. And if, by hostilities on the part of the Philistines, or for any other reason, they were also cut off from the granaries of Egypt, nothing remained but to look for supplies to eastern countries. Even ancient Rome suffered famine whenever its connections with Egypt were interrupted, an occurrence which sometimes, as under Vespasian (Tacit. iii. 48, 5), involved serious political consequences.
The famine extended to the most fertile parts of the land, for it visited Bethlehem. The very name, “House of Bread,” bespeaks a good and fertile district. Even yet, notwithstanding poor cultivation, its soil is fruitful in olives, pomegranates, almonds, figs, and grapes (Ritter, xvi. 287 [Gage’s transl. iii. 341]). The region was “remarkably well watered in comparison with other parts of Palestine.” On this account, the name Ephratah, applied to Bethlehem and the country around it, is perhaps to be explained as referring to the fruitfulness insured by its waters.
And a man went. The man left Bethlehem with his family in the time of famine, in order, during its continuance, to sojourn in the fertile territories of Moab, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, whither the calamity did not extend. For this the Jewish expositors rightly blame him. He left his neighbors and relatives in distress, in order to live in the land of the enemy; forsook his home, in order to reside as a stranger in Moab. If what he did was right, all Bethlehem should have done the same! The case stood very different, when Abraham for a like reason went to Egypt (Gen_12:10); for Abraham went with all his house, left no one behind, and was everywhere a stranger. But Isaac is already forbidden from adopting the same method of relief (Gen_26:2), and Jacob removes to Egypt, not on account of the famine, but because his lost Joseph has been found again. But this man undertakes, by his own strength and in selfish segregation from his fellows, to change the orderings of divine providence. The famine was ordained as a chastening discipline; but instead of repenting, he seeks to evade it by going to a foreign land. Whether this can be done, the ensuing narrative is about to show.
Rth_1:2. And the name of the man was Elimelech. His family was of importance in the tribe of Judah (cf. chaps. 2 and 3), well known in Bethlehem (Rth_1:19 ff; Rth_4:1 ff.), and by no means poor (Rth_1:21). The names of its members may be held to testify to the same effect. In accordance with the spirit of Israelitish life, they may be supposed to reflect those obvious peculiarities which popular discernment remarked in the persons of those who bore them. The man is named Elimelech, “my God is King.” All names compounded with “melech,” king, with which we are acquainted, Abimelech, Ahimelech, etc., are borne by distinguished persons. Now, it was precisely in contest with a king of Moab, Eglon, that Israel had experienced that God is king; and yet, here an Elimelech withdraws himself from the favor of God in order to live in Moab! His wife’s name was Naomi, “the lovely, gracious one.” The name unquestionably corresponded to the character. Whoever is loved as she was, and that by daughters-in-law, is most certainly worthy of love. As to the names of the sons, Mahlon and Chilion, the derivations which make them signify “sickly” and “pining,” suggested perhaps by their subsequent fate, are undoubtedly erroneous. For, surely, they bore them already when in Bethlehem, after leaving which they continued in life over ten years in Moab. It is much more likely that by these names, bestowed at birth, the parents expressed the feeling that these sons were their “joy” and “ornament.” Mahlon (properly Machlon) may then be derived from îָçéì , machol, “circle-dance,” Greek choros. Comp. 1Ki_4:31, where Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, are called sons of Machol; and in Greek, Choregis or Chorokles, from choros. In like manner, Chilion (or rather Kilion), may, like ëַּìָּä , kallah, a bride, be referred to ëָּìַì , to crown. The name would thus signify coronatus, just as kallah (bride) signifies a coronata. It is particularly stated that they are “Ephrathites” of Bethlehem-judah. Ephratah was the ancient name of Bethlehem and the region around it. Accordingly, Ephrathites are natives of the city, persons properly belonging to the tribe of Judah, not mere residents in Bethlehem from other tribes (cf. Jdg_17:7). So David also, by a use of the word in obvious accord with this passage, is spoken of as the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem-judah (1Sa_17:12); and the prophet, when he announces Him who in the future is to come out of Bethlehem, expressly speaks of Bethlehem-Ephratah (Mic_5:1). For the same reason, the full name Bethlehem-judah is constantly used, in order to prevent any confusion with Bethlehem in Zebulun (Jos_19:15; cf. Com. on Jdg_12:8), and also to make it impossible to think of Ephrathites of the tribe of Ephraim.
Rth_1:3-5. And Elimelech died. Probably not long after his arrival in Moab. This appears not only from the connecting “and”: “they came to Moab, were there, and Elimelech died” (cf. the Com. on Jdg_1:1), but may also be inferred from the circumstance that the sons did not marry while he was yet living.
The death of the father is the beginning of the sad catastrophe; but notwithstanding its occurrence the sons are unwilling to return. On the contrary, they proceed, in violation of the Mosaic law, to take Moabitish wives (cf. Com. on Jdg_3:6 f.). That such marriages fall within the prohibition of Deu_7:3 is not to be doubted. The restrictions of that passage apply to all who serve false gods, and the idolatry of Ammon and Moab is as strongly abominated as any other. That Moab and Ammon are not expressly named in the passage, is owing to the fact that it speaks with reference to the country on this side of the Jordan. In other passages, the worship and fellowship of Moab are rejected in the same way as those of the other nations (cf. Jdg_10:6). The question is not what name a people bears, but what its religion and worship are. No doubt, however, the old Jewish expositors are right when they maintain that the law which forbids the entrance of an Ammonite or Moabite into the congregation of Jehovah, even to the tenth generation (Deu_23:3), does not bear on the case of Ruth. For this can apply only to men, who from their sex are enabled to act independently, not to women, who are selected and taken. A woman founded no family in Israel, but was taken into one. For that reason, also, there is no connection whatever between this law and that in Deu_7:2 ff. Israel was forbidden to take wives for their sons from among the neighboring nations, not because these entered into the congregation or founded strange families, but because marriage is a covenant, and involves the danger of becoming mixed up with idolatry.
Inapplicable, likewise, to the present case is the passage in Deu_21:10 ff., adduced by Le Clerc in defense of Naomi’s sons. Doubtless, the fact that a woman was a captive taken in war gave marriage with her an altogether different character. In that case all the presuppositions which underlie the enactment in Deuteronomy 7 were wanting. The woman, moreover, must first bewail her kindred as dead, before she is allowed to be married. But Ruth and Orpah were not captives. Marriage with them was in all respects such as Deuteronomy 7 provided against. Nor does the narrative seek to hide the sin of the young men. It is precisely, as we shall see, the most striking beauty of the thought of our Book, that the wrong which has been done is overcome, and turned into a stepping-stone to a great end. The Midrash makes a daughter of king Eglon out of Ruth. Her heart at least is noble and royal as any king’s daughter could be, and her exterior was doubtless such as to correspond with it.
The name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth. The designation of girls by names borrowed from pleasing animals or flowers is common to all nations. The conjecture that Orpah, or Orpha, as the LXX. pronounce it, like Ophra, signifies a hind, is therefore undoubtedly in accordance with Moabitish usage. A comparison might apparently be made with cerva, Celtic carv (cf. Benfey, ii. 174). The name of Ruth would gain in interest, if the derivation which I propose, were approved. Singularly enough the name of the rose is not mentioned in the Scriptures, although this flower to this day adorns the ruins of the holy land with wondrous beauty. The Mishna and Talmud speak of it under its Greek name, ῥüäïí (cf. my Rose und Nachtigall, p. 19). Now it seems to me that in øåּú we have the ancient form of the word ῥüäïí , rosa, undoubtedly derived from the redness of the flower, ἐñõèñüò , rutilus, Sanskrit rudh-ira, Gothic rauds (Benfey, ii. 125). That even the so-called Semitic and classical languages have many words and roots in common, especially such as denote common objects, as colors, animals, plants, is manifest from numerous instances, as e. g. ἀëöüò , albus, ìָáָï . At all events, the thought of Ruth as the Moabitish Rose is in itself, apart from the philological probability, too attractive to refrain from giving expression to the conjecture.
And they dwelt there about ten years. The selection of such maidens as the sequel shows Ruth and Orpah to be, and the peaceful relations which must have existed between all parties concerned, may perhaps be allowed to reduce the offense of Naomi’s sons against the marriage law to its mildest form. But the distance at which they keep themselves from their native land and people when these are in distress, in order to find happiness and rest for themselves elsewhere, does not prove productive of blessings. The lot that befalls them is very sad. The father, who feared lest he should not be able to live at home, had scarcely reached the strangers’ land before he died. The sons founded their houses in Moab, and Moab became their grave. They were probably determined not to return home before the famine was over; and when it was over, they themselves were no more. The father had emigrated in order to have more and to secure his family; and now his widow had neither husband, nor sons, nor property. Mahlon and Chilion had died childless; “joy” and “ornament” had given way to mourning and the signs of bereavement—Naomi stood alone in a foreign land. Then she arose with her daughters-in-law.
Rth_1:6. For Jehovah had visited his people to give them bread. Believing Israel sees the government of God in everything. Everything comes from Him and is designed to discipline and instruct mankind. In Deu_28:47-48, it is written that in case Israel shall apostatize from God and cease to serve Him, it shall serve its enemies, and that in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and want. That the famine which had at this time befallen Bethlehem was the consequence of one of those military tyrannies which, as the Book of Judges relates, chastised the people, there is not the least indication. But a chastisement it certainly was, even though this is not asserted. And doubtless, the people, as it usually did under such circumstances, turned with penitence and prayer to its God. Then the years of famine came to an end. God remembered his people. It is a judgment of God when He allows men to go their own ways and help themselves in their necessities and sufferings (cf. the ὑðåñéäþí , Act_17:30); but in his mercy He remembers them, as he remembered Israel in Egypt (Exo_2:24). The word ôָּ÷ַã here used, occurs repeatedly for such a return of divine remembrance. God remembered ( ôָּ÷ַã ) Sarah, silently mourning over her childlessness (Gen_21:1). After Moses had performed wonders before Israel in Egypt, the people believed, and when they heard that God had observed ( ôָּ÷ַã ) the sufferings of the people, and had looked upon their affliction, they bowed down and worshipped (Exo_4:31).
From the turn of the language that God “remembered” to “give bread” to his people, more particularly to Bethlehem, the “House of Bread,” it may properly be inferred that the famine was not the result of war, but of drought.
Note on Bethlehem and the grave of Rachel. “No one,” says Robinson (Bibl. Res. i. 471), has ever doubted, I believe, that the present Beit Lahm, ‘House of Flesh,’ of the Arabs, is identical with the ancient Bethlehem, ‘House of Bread,’ of the Jews. The present distance of two hours from Jerusalem corresponds very exactly to the six Roman miles of antiquity.” Schubert justly calls it the most attractive and significant of all the world’s birthplaces.
This Bethlehem, where Rachel died, where Boaz married Ruth, where David was born, and Jesus Christ entered the world, is to-day, as Ritter remarks, a little city or village “hardly worthy of mention on its own account, having scarcely a single noteworthy characteristic, except the unchanging carpet of green, and the beautiful sky from which once the glory of the Lord shone round about the shepherds.”
Bethlehem lies two short hours south of Jerusalem, on two moderate-sized hills, on whose northern and eastern declivities the dwelling-houses of the place are built. It is bounded on the south by the Wady et Taamirah. During the reign of the emperor Justinian it flourished greatly for a season, which, however, did not prove long. Its present inhabitants are mostly Christians. They are a strong and energetic race. During the Middle Ages, warlike feuds seem to have given the place a better title to be called Bethlachem, House of War, than Bethlehem.
Toward the west, there is a succession of irregular hills and valleys as far as the chapel over Rachel’s sepulchre. The Jews considered this as an especially sacred spot. The monument is described by Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Palestine somewhere between a. d. 1160 and 1173, is consisting of “eleven stones, according to the number of the sons of Jacob, with a cupola resting on four pillars over them; and all passing Jews write their names on the stones of the monument” (ed. Asher, p. 40). The Jewish traveller Petachia (circa a. d. 1175–80), writes as follows: “Eleven stones lie on the grave of Rachel, according to the eleven tribes, for Benjamin was only born as his mother died. The stones are of marble; and the stone of Jacob, also marble, covers all the others, and is very large, so that it requires many persons to move it.” This induces the author to add the following legend: “The monks who live a mile away, once took the stone from the grave, and deposited it by their church; but the next morning they saw it again at the grave as before” (ed. Carmoly, p. 97).
The author of Jichus ha Abot gives a description of the cupola as it was in his time (cf. Hottinger, Cippi Hebraici, p. 33, Carmoly, Itineraires, etc., p. 436). The Arabian traveller Edrisi (about a. d. 1150; ed. Jaubert, i. 345) and another anonymous writer (Fundgruben des Orients, ii. 135; Carmoly, p. 457) also speak of it.
Buckingham’s description (a. d. 1816) is as follows: “We entered it on the south side by an aperture through which it was difficult to crawl, as it has no doorway, and found on the inside a square mass of masonry in the centre, built up from the floor nearly to the roof, and of such a size as to leave barely a narrow passage for walking around it. It is plastered with white stucco on the outer surface, and is sufficiently large and high to enclose within it any ancient pillar that might have been found on the grave of Rachel. Around the interior face of the walls is an arched recess on each side, and over every part of the stucco are written and engraved a profusion of names, in Hebrew, Arabic, and Roman characters.” (Cf. Palestine, i. 336.)
Results like these should also be contemplated by many who undertake to emigrate in our days. Not many go as Abraham went to Canaan, or as Jacob went to Egypt; the majority follow in the steps of Elimelech.
Continue in thy land, and support thyself honestly. “To many”—says a book called Sabbatliche Erinnerungen,—“it may be a necessity to leave their native land, for the relations of life are manifold and often strange; but most of those who in these days seize the pilgrim-staff, are not driven by distress. It is not hunger after bread, or want of work that urges them, but hunger after gain, and the want of life in God.”
Starke: Dearth and famine are a great plague, and we have good reason to pray with reference to them, “Good Lord, deliver us!”
It is true, indeed, that Elimelech emigrated to a heathen land, where the living God was not acknowledged, while emigrants of the present day go for the most part to lands where churches are already in existence. But, on the other hand, Elimelech, notwithstanding his unbelieving flight, became after all no Moabite. The emigrant’s grand concern should be not to have the spirit of a Moabite when he leaves his native land. Many have ended much more sadly than Elimelech, and have left no name behind. Elimelech’s kindred was yet visited with blessings, because the faithful, believing spirit of an Israelitish woman, Naomi, worked in his household.
Starke: Husband and wife should continue true to each other, in love and in sorrow, in good and evil days.
“And the name of his wife was Naomi.” Naomi means, “pleasant, lovely.” As her name, so her character. Her name was the mirror of her nature. And truly, names ought not to be borne in vain. [Fuller: Names are given to men and women, not only to distinguish them from each other, but also,—1. To stir them up to verify the meanings and significations of their names. Wherefore let every Obadiah strive to be a “servant of God,” every Nathaniel to be “a gift of God,” Onesimus to be “profitable,” every Roger “quiet and peaceable” (?) Robert “famous for counsel” (?), and William “a help and defense” to many. 2. To incite them to imitate the virtues of those worthy persons who formerly have been bearers and owners of their names. Let all Abrahams be faithful, Isaacs quiet, Jacobs painful, Josephs chaste; every Lewis, pious; Edward, confessor of the true faith; William, conqueror over his own corruptions. Let them also carefully avoid those sins for which the bearers of the names stand branded to posterity. Let every Jonah beware of frowardness, Thomas of distrustfulness, etc. If there be two of our names, one exceedingly good, the other notoriously evil, let us decline the vices of the one, and practice the virtues of the other. Let every Judas not follow Judas Iscariot, who betrayed our Saviour, but Judas the brother of James, the writer of the General Epistle; each Demetrius not follow him in the Acts who made silver shrines for Diana, but Demetrius, 3 John, Rth_1:12, who had “a good report of all men;” every Ignatius not imitate Ignatius Loyola, the lame father of blind obedience, but Ignatius, the worthy martyr in the primitive church. And if it should chance, through the indiscretion of parents and godfathers, that a bad name should be imposed on any, O let not “folly” be “with” them, because Nabal is their name.…. In the days of Queen Elizabeth, there was a royal ship called “The Revenge,” which, having maintained a long fight against a fleet of Spaniards (wherein eight hundred great shot were discharged against her), was at last fain to yield; but no sooner were her men gone out of her, and two hundred fresh Spaniards come into her, but she suddenly sunk them and herself; and so “The Revenge” was revenged. Shall lifeless pieces of wood answer the names which men impose upon them, and shall not reasonable souls do the same?—Tr.].
[Bp. Hall: Betwixt the reign of the judges, Israel was plagued with tyranny; and while some of them reigned, with famine. Seldom did that rebellious people want somewhat to humble them. One rod is not enough for a stubborn child.
Fuller: The prodigal child complained, “How many hired servants of my father have bread enough, and I die for hunger!” So here we see that the uncircumcized Moabites, God’s slaves and vassals, had plenty of store, whilst Israel, God’s children (but his prodigal children, which by their sins had displeased their Heavenly Father), were pinched with penury.
The same: Let us not abuse strangers, and make a prey of them, but rather let us be courteous unto them, lest the barbarians condemn us, who so courteously entreated St. Paul, with his shipwrecked companions, and the Moabites in my text, who suffered Elimelech, when he came into the land, to continue there.
The same: “And Elimelech died.” I have seldom seen a tree thrive that hath been transplanted when it was old.
The same: “And she was left, and her two sons.” Here we see how mercifully God dealt with Naomi, in that He quenched not all the sparks of her comfort at once, but though He took away the stock, He left her the stems. Indeed, afterwards He took them away also; but first He provided her with a gracious daughter-in-law.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Rth_1:1.—Prop. fields, plains. The form ùְׂãֵé is variously explained. Bertheau regards it as another mode of writing ùְׂãִä , which occurs in Rth_1:6 of this chapter, and in Rth_4:3, and according to Wright is in many MSS. found here also. The original é of nouns derived from ìØä stems frequently reappears before suffixes (Ges. Gr. 93, 9, Rem.), and Berth. thinks that the same change is occasioned by the close connection of the word with the following genitive (cf. Ges. 89, 1). Ewald also takes ùְׂãֵé to be singular, but derives it from the ancient form ùָׂãַé , the construct of which might be ùׂãֵé after the analogy of äַé const. ãַּé , úֵé , const. ãֵּé , etc. But ùָׂãַé is not found in Ruth, unless it be in the disguise of the construct, while ùָׂãֶä occurs not less than nine times. Better, therefore, with Gesenius, Fürst, and others, take ùְׂãֵé as plural construct of ùָׂãֶä . Keil proposes to make ùְׂãֵé plural const. of ùׂãַé , pl. ùָׂãַéִí (which however is not found anywhere); for what reason does not appear, unless it be that the plural of ùָׂãֶä is usually feminine, whereas ùְׂãֵé is masc. But such irregularities are not uncommon; see Green, Gr. 200, c. The interchange of the singular and plural is readily accounted for from the meaning of the word, which, according to the more or less definite conception in the mind of the writer at the moment, may represent the territory as one great field or as made up of many smaller fields.—Tr.]
[Rth_1:2.— ðָòֳîִé : Noomi, as the name should be written. Sept. Íùåìßí ; Vulg. Noemi.—Tr.]
[Rth_1:5.—Better: “Then died they two also, Mahlon and Chilion.”—Tr.]
[Rth_1:5.— åַúִּùָּׁàֵø : not, “was left from, i. e. was bereaved of,” as Wright (with the Vulgate) interprets,—on the ground that the îִï changes the simple meaning of the verb as found in Rth_1:3. îִï has its proper partitive meaning, and points out the whole of which Naomi is now the only part left, cf. Deu_3:11; Neh_1:2-3. The enumeration of the whole is so far incomplete that it does not expressly include Naomi herself. In Rth_1:3 the verb is used without îִï because there is there no direct reference to the whole, but only the statement that at the death of her husband, she and her sons were left behind.—Tr.]
Ritter (Erdkunde, xiii. 458) states, on the authority of Burkhardt, that in Nejd, in Arabia, similar famines recur at intervals of from ten to fifteen years.
Which even Benjamin of Tudela (Asher’s edit. p. 40) particularly notices.
àֶôְøָúָä , àֶôְøָú , from ôָּøָä , to bear, sc. fruit, cf. ôְּøָä , Phrath, in its Greek form Euphrates, an àֶôְøָú , as it were.
Sept. ×åëáéþí , Josephus ×åëëßùí . The magnificence of the names might rather seem to contrast with the unhappy issue. For Elimelech Josephus puts Abimelech, probably also in consequence of some allegorical exposition.
Some of the older Jewish teachers not inappropriately render “Ephratim” by åí ̓ ãåíÝóôáôïé , high-born, or Palatini (Ruth Rabba, 29, etc.).
The Targum justly brings it into full relief. [It paraphrases: “and they transgressed the command of the Lord, and took foreign wives from among the daughters of Moab.”] The answers of Le Clerc are misunderstandings, which have been repeated down to Bertheau. Rambach’s excuses for the brothers are already offered by older Roman Catholic expositors. “But,” says one of these (cf. Serarius, p. 690), “why make excuses for them? for Scripture does in no way represent them as holy men.”
[ øåּú is usually regarded as a contraction either of øְàåּú , vision, appearance, or better, of øְòåּú female friend. The explanation of òָøְôָä as hind, rests on the supposition that it is the same with òָôְøָä , the two middle letters being transposed. Gesenius derives it from the Arabic ’Orphun, a mane; cf. the Heb. òֹøֶó , neck. “It may, however, be more suitable,” says Wright, “as the name of a female, to regard it as identical with the Arabic ’Orphun in the sense of liberality.”—Tr.]
[They do still. Dr. Hackett, who visited the tomb in 1852, says: “The Jews, as would be expected, regard the spot with peculiar interest. One of them filled a bag with earth collected near the tomb, and gave it to one of my travelling companions to bring home with him to this country, as a present to a brother of the Jew residing here.” See Scripture Illustrations, Boston, 1855, p. 102, where a small engraving of the present exterior of the sepulchre is also given.—Tr.]
[Compare the Introduction, Sect. 6, for some general Homiletical Hints on the whole Book.—Tr.]
[Without questioning the correctness of the foregoing remarks, it may nevertheless serve a good purpose to call attention to the following sentences from Dr. Thos. Fuller (1654), which read to-day suggest the great need of that caution in “application” which they also exemplify: “Now If any do demand of me my opinion concerning our brethren which of late left this kingdom to advance a plantation in New England; surely I think, as St. Paul said concerning virgins, he had ‘received no commandment from the Lord;’ so I cannot find any just warrant to encourage men to undertake this removal; but think rather the counsel best that king Joash prescribed to Amaziah. ‘Tarry at home.’ Yet as for those that are already gone, far be it from us to conceive them to be such to whom we may not say, “God speed,” as it is in 2 John verse Ruth 10: but let us pity them, and pray for them; for sure they have no need of our mocks, which I am afraid have too much of their own miseries. I conclude therefore of the two Englands, what our Saviour saith of the two wines, Luk_5:39 : ‘No man having tasted of the old presently desireth the new for he saith, The old is better.’ ”—Tr.]