The Forms of Hebrew Poetry

(Joyce) #1

VARIETIES OF RHYTHM 177


The position of the caesura in the first line
here is unmistakable and equally unmistakable
is the greater length of the second than of the
first part of the line. But unless rhythm demands
it, there is no ground for transposing the two
parts, though sense would clearly admit of such
transposition.^1
Another clear case of the shorter preceding the
longer section is Isaiah i. 23 (from Mvty) if, as


the dominant rhythm suggests, this is a five-
stress rather than a six-stress period.^2 Again


1 The transposition was suggested by Haupt and adopted by Cheyne
in his critical Hebrew text in Haupt's edition of The Sacred Books
of the Old Testament ("The Polychrome Bible"). Stade in his edition
of the Books of Kings for the same work, which was published later,
declined to admit the transposition ; but Haupt still maintained his
opinion, and remarked that, if the transposition were made, the first
hemistich of the first line became parallel to the first hemistich of the
second line. This remark is correct, but if it is intended as an argument,
it is precarious: the parallelism between the two lines in the existing
text may be represented thus
a. b | c. d2
c'2. d' | e. f
Adopting the transposition, it becomes
a. b2 | c. d
a'2. b' | e. f
But in view of what has been said in Chapter II., and especially on
pp. 64 ff., the former of these schemes cannot be regarded as abnormal,
though it is of a less frequent type than the second. As a matter of
fact Lam. i. 11 a, b, 20 a, b present two schemes similar to that of the
existing text of Isa. xxxvii. 26. The 1 transposition was suggested
afresh by Sievers (Metrische Studien, p. 441): some considerations
against it are offered by Stade (op. cit. p. 280).
2 Sievers treats the line as 2 : 2 : 2, for which (or rather for 2 : 4) in
another connexion there would be much to be said. Should we per-


chance read UbriyA for Mhylx xvby? The LXX does not clearly correspond


to the present Hebrew text. If we read UbriyA the line is unmistakably


2 : 3—unless we transpose its parts.

Free download pdf