unhesitatingly chastise any breach of faith committed against the Assyrian or Chaldean oppressor, e.g., Isa 28:15; Isa 30:1; Eze 17:15; cf. Jer 27:12. However, although we understand mělěk not of the heavenly, but of an earthly king, yet אשׁמר does not recommend itself, for Koheleth records his experience, and derives therefrom warnings and admonitions; but he never in this manner presents himself as an example of virtue. The paraenetic imper. שׁמר is thus not to be touched. Can we then use ani elliptically, as equivalent to “I say as follows”? Passages such as Jer 20:10 (Elst.), where לאמר is omitted, are not at all the same. Also Eze 34:11, where הנני is strengthened by ani, and the expression is not elliptical, is not in point here. And Isa 5:9 also does not apply to the case of the supposed ellipsis here. In an ingenious bold manner the Midrash helps itself in Lev 18 and Num 14, for with reference to the self-introduction of royal words like פרעה אני it explains: “Observe the I from the mouth of the king.” This explanation is worthy of mention, but it has little need of refutation; it is also contrary to the accentuation, which gives Pashta to ani, as to ראה, Ecc 7:27, and לבד, Ecc 7:29, and thus places it by itself. Now, since this elliptical I, after which we would place a colon, is insufferably harsh, and since also it does not recommend itself to omit it, as is done by the lxx, the Targ., and Syr., - for the words must then have a different order, המלך פי שׁמר, - it is most advisable to supply אמרתּי, and to write אם אני or אני אם, after Ecc 2:1; Ecc 3:17-18. We find ourselves here, besides, within an I section, consisting of sentences interwoven in a Mashal form. The admonition is solemnly introduced, since Koheleth, himself a king, and a wise man in addition, gives it the support of the authority of his person, in which it is to be observed that the religious motive introduced by ו explic. (vid., Ewald, §340b) is not merely an appendix, but the very point of the admonition. Kleinert, incorrectly: “Direct thyself according to the mouth of the king, and that, too, as according to an oath of God.” Were this the meaning, then we might certainly wish that it were a servile Alexandrian court-Jew who said it. But why should that be the meaning? The meaning “wegen” because of, which is usually attributed to the word-connection עלדברת here and at Ecc 3:18; Ecc 7:14, Kleinert maintains to be an arbitrary invention. But it alone fits these three passages, and why an arbitrary invention? If על־דּבר, Psa 45:5; Psa 79:9, etc., means “von wegen” on account of, then also על־דברת will signify “propter rationem, naturam,” as well as (Psa 110:4) ad rationem. שׁב אל is, as elsewhere שׁב יה, e.g., Exo 22:10, a promise