And I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.’
And such ‘elegies’ recur in v.74, Ezk 197-14 2617 (‘How art thou destroyed,’ etc.) 275% ° 288. 3278. 16. 198. See, further, art. POETRY, vol. iv. p. 5. 3. The structure of the other poetical parts of the OT (ef. ‘vy ‘my works,’ car’ é&. Ps 451) is not easy to determine. But certain conclusions may be affirmed with confidence, and the first of these is that the rhythm of ancient Hebrew poetry does not consist in the alternation of short and long syllables. W. Jones held, indeed (Poeseos Asiatice Com- mentarit, London, 1774, cap. ii.), that the poems of the OT exhibit a regular succession of syllables of different quantity, such as we find in Arabic poems. But he was able to prove his point only by altering the punctuation and by allowing the Hebrew poets great freedom in the matter of prosody. The con- clusion on this subject reached by the present writer in Stilistik (p. 341) is maintained also by Sievers (§ 58): ‘Hebrew metre is not quantitative in the same sense as the classical.’ Hence it is now admitted in all the more recent literature on Hebrew poetry, that the rhythm of the latter is based upon the alternation of unaccented and accented syllables. Still there are various nuances to be observed in the views held by those who have investigated this subject. G. Bickell (Metri- ces Biblice Regula, ete., 1879, etc.) holds that ‘ the metrical accent falls regularly upon every second syllable.’ But, in order to make this law apply to the Psalms, he has either removed or added some 2600 vowel syllables and proposed some 3811 changes, as is pointed out by J. Ecker in his brochure, ‘ Professor G. Bickell’s Carmina Veteris Testamenti metrice das neueste Denkmal auf dem Kirchhof der hebriischen Metrik’ (1883). Nevertheless, Bickell has adhered to his principle, and gives us his transcription, for instance, of Job 32° thus—
‘ Za‘iy’ani leyamim ’ W’attém sabim yeshishim ‘Al-kén zahalt wa’tra’ Mehavvoth dé‘i ’éthkhem.’
STYLE OF SCRIPTURE 167
That is to say, he makes Elihu speak in Iambic Tetrameter atalectic. But, in order to reach this result, he introduces in v.*¢ the superfluous word sdbim ‘ grey-headed,’ while in v.»« he robs zahalt? of its ending -?, which in Hebrew is the characteristic of the lst person singular. In spite of such objections, Duhm in his Commentary on Job (Kurzer Hdcom. 1897, p. 17) accepted without reservation Bickell’s theory of the rhythm of ancient Hebrew poetry. Afterwards, however, he rightly abandoned it (in his Commentary on the Psalms in the same series, 1899, Einleit. § 24), The falsity of Bickell’s view is demonstrated by the present writer in Stilistik (p. 339f.), and in like manner Sievers (§ 55) declares, ‘I can take no further account of Bickell’s system.’—A preferable view of the rhythmical character of OT poetry is that which is represented especially by J. Ley. According to this theory, the ancient Hebrew poets paid regard only to the accented syllables (cf., on this point, Stilistik, pp. 330-336). But even the advocates of this view are divided into two schools. The majority (¢.g. Duhm, Psalmen, 1899, p. xxx) hold that the Hebrew poets aimed at an equal number of ‘rises’ in the corresponding lines. To this group belongs also Sievers (cf. §§ 52 and 88 of his Metrische Studien, 1901, Bd.i.). But Budde and still more the present writer have come to the conclusion that a Hebrew poet aimed at nothing more than the essential symmetry of the lines that answer to one another in his poem. This may be observed, for instance, in the follow- ing four passages: ‘Be instructed, ye judges of the earth’ (Ps 2), ‘and rejoice with trembling’ (v.4>), ‘and ye perish from the way’ (v.>), and ‘blessed are all they that put their trust in him’ (v.222), Our conclusion is confirmed also by the poetical compositions which are sung by the in- habitants of Palestine at the present day (see Stilistik, pp. 337, 348). Cornill (Die metrischen Sticke des Buches Jeremia, 1901, p. viii) supports the same view, so far at least as the Back of Jeremiah is concerned: ‘For Jeremiah an exact correspondence of the various stichot was not a formal principle of his metrical system.’ Duhm, it is true, in his Commentary on Jeremiah (Kurzer Hdcom. 1901) remarks on 2?>: ‘In all Jeremiah’s poetical compositions the s¢ichoi contain three and two ‘‘rises” alternately.’ But, to make good his theory, he has to deny to Jeremiah a passage like 24-13 because ‘ the metre of Jeremiah is wanting’ in it. Such aconclusion, however, would be valid only if he were able to adduce other, independent, reasons for the excision of this passage. He urges, indeed, that v.4 contains a fresh notice of the Divine com- mission to Jeremiah. But this is nothing strange ; such notes occur very frequently in Jeremiah and the later Prophets (see the passages in Stilistik, p. 174). Moreover, vv.”-*” of the same chapter are allowed by Duhm himself to be Jeremiah’s, and yet v.%% is followed by a fresh call, ‘O generation, see ye the word of the LoRD,’ quite in the manner in which v.4 follows upon v.** Further, Duhm thinks himself entitled to deny 2+! to Jeremiah because the people of the LorpD are addressed in v.* as ‘house of Jacob,’ a designation which Duhm believes to be unused except by later writers. But ‘house of Jacob’ occurs also in Is 2° and 8”, both of which passages are regarded by Duhm himself (in Nowack’s Hdkom.) as Isaianic; and the same expression is found in Am 3% and Mic 27 3%, passages which cannot be attributed to ‘later writers.’ Finally, Duhm’s view of Jer 2*” raises the difficulty that Israel is treated in v.** as a feminine, but in v.\4 as a masculine, subject. But, if v.14 is the sequel of v.?’, Israel is naturally treated as masculine, because it has just been designated in v.38 by the masculine word ‘am ‘people.’ In