number of syllables varies, if we count the two separated lines of the Hebrew arrangement as one, usually from twelve to sixteen syllables, seldom more and seldom less. There are certainly no dactyls in the book of Job. It is quite possible to arrange the book of Job like Ps. 18 and Deut. 32; for the book of Job has the same measure as these ancient poems, and so presents the appearance of hexameters to those who think these other poems hexameters. The truth that underlies the statement of these ancient authors, which they received from Hebrew tradition, is that there are trimeters, tetrameters, pentameters, and hexameters in Hebrew poetry. The measurement, however, is not of feet or of syllables, but of words or word accents, just as in ancient Egyptian and Babylonian poetry. If the hexameter is regarded as six measures, Hebrew poetry has six measures, that is, six words or word groups, just as truly as Greek and Latin poetry has six measures consisting of so many feet of varied arrangement as to quantity. III. MODERN THEORIES OF HEBREW POETRY More recent attempts have been made to explain and measure Hebrew verses after the methods of the Arabic and Syriac. Thus William Jones 2 endeavoured to apply the rules of Arabic metre to Hebrew poetry. But this involves the revolutionary proceeding of doing away with the Massoretic system entirely, and in its results is far from satisfactory. The Arabic poetry may be profitably compared with the Hebrew as to spirit, characteristics, figures of speech, and emotional language, as Wenrich has so well done, but not as regards metres; for these, as the best Arabic scholars state, are comparatively late and were probably preceded by an earlier and freer poetic style. Saalchütz endeavoured to construct a system of Hebrew metres, retaining the Massoretic vocalization, but contending that the accents do not determine the accented syllable, and 1 See p. 378. 2 Com. Poet. Asiat. curav., Eichhorn, 1777, pp. 61 seq. 3 De Poeseos Heb. atque Arabic. orig. indole mutuoque consensu atque discrimine, Lipsiæ, 1843. 4 Von der Form der Hebräischen Poesie, 1825. so pronouncing the words in accordance with the Aramaic, and the custom of Polish and German Jews, with the accent on the penult instead of the ultimate. Bickell1 strives to explain Hebrew poetry after the analogy of Syriac poetry. His theory is that Hebrew poetry is essentially the same as Syriac, not measuring syllables, but counting them in regular order. There is a constant alternation of accented and unaccented syllables, a continued rise and fall, so that only iambic and trochaic feet are possible. The Massoretic accentuation and vocalization are rejected, and the Aramaic put in its place. The grammatical and rhythmical accents coincide. The accent is, like the Syriac, generally on the penult. The parallelism of verses and thought is strictly carried out. Bickell has worked out his theory with a degree of moderation and thoroughness which must command admiration and respect. Not distinguishing between long and short syllables, and discarding the terminology of classic metres, he gives us specimens of metres of 5, 7, 12, 6, 8, 10 syllables, and a few of varying syllables. He has applied his theory to the whole of Hebrew poetry,2 and arranged the entire Psalter, Proverbs, Job, Lamentations, Song of Songs, most of the poems of the historical books, and much of the prophetic poetry in accordance with these principles. He has also reproduced the effect in a translation into German, with the same number of syllables and strophical arrangement. The theory is attractive and deserves better consideration than it has thus far received from scholars; yet it must be rejected on the ground (1) that it does away with the difference between the Hebrew and the Aramaic families of the Shemitic languages, and would virtually reduce the Hebrew to a mere dialect of the Aramaic. (2) It overthrows the traditional accentuation upon which Hebrew vocalization and the explanation of Hebrew grammatical forms largely depend. Doubtless the Massoretic system is artificial and designed 1 Metrices Biblica, 1879; Carmina Veteris Testamenti Metrice, 1882. 2 Zeitschrift d. D. M. G., 1880, p. 557; Carmina Veteris Testamenti Metrice, 1882. 8 Dichtungen der Hebräer, 1882. more for rhetorical rendering than for speech; yet it must have a real basis in ancient usage. I cannot think that the accent on the ultimate was the invention of the Massorites or the Sopherim. There seems rather to be just this original difference between the great groups of the Shemitic family, that the Hebrew accents on the ultimate, the Aramaic on the penult, and the Arabic on the antepenult. The change of the accent to the penult among the more ignorant Jews was more natural than an artificial change from the penult to the ultimate. (3) Furthermore, Bickell is forced to make many arbitrary changes in the text to carry out his theory. He makes many wise suggestions, however, and it is somewhat remarkable how constantly his arrangements of the poetry in lines and strophes correspond with those which I have made on the simpler principle of measurement by word instead of measurement by syllable. Hebrew poetry, as Ewald has shown, may, on the Massoretic system of accentuation and vocalization, be regarded as generally composed of lines of seven or eight syllables, with sometimes a few more or a few less, for reasons that may be assigned.1 This is especially true of the ancient hymns, which are chiefly trimeters, and of the major part of the Psalms, which are either trimeters or double trimeters, and so hexameters. Yet even here we must regard Hebrew poetry as at an earlier stage of poetic development than the Syriac. The poet is not bound to a certain number of syllables. While in general making the syllabic length of the lines correspond with the parallelism of the thought and emotion, he does not constrain himself to uniformity as a principle or law of his art; but increases or diminishes the length of his lines in perfect freedom in accordance with the rhythmical movements of the thought and emotion themselves. The external form is entirely subordinated to the internal emotion, which moves on with the utmost freedom, and assumes a poetic form merely as a thin veil, which does not so much clothe and adorn, as shade and colour the native beauties of the idea. This movement of emotion gives rise to a general harmony of expression in the parallelism of structure in lines 1 Dichter, I. pp. 108 seq. and strophes a parallelism which affords a great variety and beauty of form. Sometimes the movement is like the wavelets of a river flowing steadily and smoothly on, then like the ebbing and flowing of the tide in majestic antitheses, and again, like the madly tossed ocean in a storm, all uniformity and symmetry disappearing under the passionate heaving of the deepest emotions of the soul. IV. LOWTH'S DOCTRINE OF PARALLELISM The first to clearly state and unfold the essential principle of parallelism in Hebrew verse was Bishop Lowth,1 although older writers, such as Rabbi Asarias, and especially Schöttgen,2 called attention to various forms of parallelism. Lowth distinguishes three kinds : Bishop Lowth also saw that there was some kind of metre in Hebrew poetry. He said: " "Thus much, then, I think, we may be allowed to infer from the alphabetical poems; namely, that the Hebrew poems are written in verse, properly so called; that the harmony of the verses does not arise from rhyme, that is, from similar corresponding sounds terminating the verses, but from some sort of rhythm, probably from some sort of metre, the laws of which are now altogether unknown, and wholly indiscoverable." 1 De Sacra Poesi Hebr. XIX., 1753; also Preliminary Dissertation to his work on Isaiah, 1778. 2 Hora Heb., Diss. VI., De Exergasia Sacra. • Prov. 101. 8 Ps. 211.2. 5 Ps. 1487.8. 6 Isaiah, Preliminary Dissertation, p. vii. Bishop Lowth's views have been generally accepted, although they are open to various objections; for the majority of the verses are synthetic, and these in such a great variety that it seems more important in many cases to classify and distinguish them than to make the discriminations proposed by Bishop Lowth. There is a general mingling of the three kinds of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, so that seldom do the synonymous and antithetical extend beyond a couplet, triplet, or quartette of verses. The poet is as free in his use of the various kinds of parallelism as in the use of rhyme or metre, and is only bound by the principle of parallelism itself. 4. Bishop Jebb1 added a fourth kind, which he called the introverted parallelism, where the first line corresponds with the fourth, and the second with the third, thus: My son, if thine heart be wise, My heart also shall rejoice; This is a difference in the structure of the strophe and in the arrangement of the parallelism, rather than in the parallelism itself. We may add two other kinds of parallelism, — the emblematic and the stairlike. 5. The emblematic parallelism is quite frequent in Hebrew poetry: For lack of wood the fire goeth out: And where there is no whisperer, contention ceaseth. Coal for hot embers, and wood for fire; Take away the dross from silver, And there cometh forth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king, And his throne shall be established in righteousness.* 6. An unusual but graphic kind of parallelism is the stairlike movement, especially characteristic of the Pilgrim Psalms : 5 I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains-from whence cometh my help: My help is from Yahweh - Maker of heaven and earth. 1 Sacred Literature, § iv., 1820. 8 Prov. 2640-21 4 Prov. 254-5 2 Prov. 2315. 16 5 Ps. 120-134. |