Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
a metri causa approach which freely emends the text solely on the basis of meter.1 Why have scholars so tenaciously pursued the concept of meter in Hebrew poetry? There are at least five reasons for this approach. First, metrical features in poetry are perceived as a language universal. Turner and Poppel state, "Metered poetry is a highly complex ____________________ also unperceptively boxes O'Connor as a Bloomfieldian "that tries to exclude 'meaning' as much as possible from the study of language." One wonders, as well, whether Geller has also poorly read Bloomfield (Leonard Bloomfield, Language [New York: Henry Holt, 1933]). O'Connor's point in Hebrew Verse Structure was not to show us how to read poetry, but to specify the constraints and parameters which determine the poetic line. This writer has had the priviledge of observing O'Connor read poetry and has witnessed his astonishing acuity and sensitivities to the thought forms, devices, and meanings of poetry.
emendations approach has generally fallen into desuetude, yet Douglas Stuart, still acquiesces: "Emendation may rarely be attempted metri causa alone" (Studies in Early Hebrew
cf. Gottwald, "Poetry, Hebrew," p. 834). One wonders on what basis it is ever admissible.
this is marshalled from two quarters: (1) meter does appear in the poetry of all cultures from which we have poetry (interestingly enough, he cites Hebrew as an example of metrical poetry);2 and (2) metrical patterns reflect biological factors, since the brain is essentially "rhythmic." The right hemisphere of the brain is triggered by rhythmic sequences, which is why poetry is so memorable.3 Second, the regularity of line shape suggests that metrical considerations are involved. Mere parallelism ____________________ 1Turner and Poppel, "The Neural Lyre: Poetic Meter, the Brain, and Time," pp. 277, 285-86. 2They cite Wimsatt's Versification: Major Language Types, which has reference to Western systems (French, Italian, Spanish, English, German, Slavic and Celtic); Oriental systems (Japanese and Chinese) and Uralic (Hungarian, and Moravinian from Central Russia), and J. Rothenberg's Technicians of the Sacred (New York: Doubleday Co. Inc., 1968), which contains samples from over 80 different cultures. O'Connor responds to this by allowing for the possibility of meter in Hebrew poetry but notes that the real constraints which determine line regularity are not metrical but syntactic. This does not negate the presence of meter, but merely places regularity on a descriptive syntactic base, rather than on an impossible-to-implement phonological base (Hebrew Verse
Meter, the Brain, and Time," pp. 277, 281, 290. Stress and pitch patterns are a phenomenon of all language and one wonders if brain-poetry links should not be extended to the brain-language connection in general. Moreover, syntax, as it functions in all realms of language, may be provide a patterning basis upon which metrical considerations may be built.
descriptions of line length note 2:2, 3:3, 3:2 (qinah), as well as the less common 2:3, 2:4, 4:2, 4:3, and 4:4 line shapes.2 Third, the association of Hebrew poetry and music lends support in favor of a metrical feature. Indeed, many of the early poems were explicitly called "songs." Since it is not known precisely what type of music was practiced in ancient Israel, two schemes have been suggested by metricists: (1) songs were chanted (older metricists opted for this view); and (2) songs were sung with melody and meter "which were more precise than those of a chant."3 The chant does not provide an adequate reason to sustain a metrical scheme, however, as present Jewish synagogues chant both prose and poetry. Indeed, the Talmud records R. Yohanan as having said, "Whoever reads Scripture without melody and the Mishna without chant, to him applies the biblical verse: 'I gave them ____________________ 1O'Connor aptly points out that this is the faux pas of the Gordon-Young approach (Hebrew Verse Structure, p. 65).
Structure and Stylistic Techniques," pp. 45-48; also Robinson, The Poetry of the Old Testament, pp. 30-39; Gottwald, "Poetry, Hebrew," p. 834; and R. G. Boling, "'Synonymous' Parallelism in the Psalms," JSS 5 (1960):222.
18-19.
music's inability to provide a proper footing for a scientific metrical analysis. It is obvious that many metrical poems are not and have not been adapted to musical form and many prose statements have accommodated musical expression.2 Rather, music may cover metrical inequities via lengthening or contracting the line when necessary. Turner and Poppel point out that musicality actually "diminishes the importance of the line."3 Fourth, recent studies have used the orality and formulaic patterns of poetry to support a metrical approach.4 Cross uses the alleged formulaic character of Ugaritic poetry as providing for the regularity in the verse system. He maintains that this system can be monitored best by a syllable counting approach. O'Connor ____________________
the idea that "not good" means that they will be forgotten. He then proceeds to stress the mnemonic value of chanting. For an excellent study on the phenomenon of memory and orality in former times see, B. Gerhardssohn, Memory and
Gleerup, 1961). 2O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, pp. 40-41. 3Turner and Poppel, "The Neural Lyre: Poetic Meter, the Brain, and Time," p. 289. 4F. M. Cross, "Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit," HTR 67 (1974):1. Biblical work on oral aspects of poetry have been fascinating and helpful: Robert Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms, Near and Middle East Series 4 (Toronto: University again points out weaknesses in this model. Cross is able to gain a reprieve by allowing for "prose" intrusions into poetic texts, which would explain variant counts. O'Connor shows that the parallels between oral research and the biblical texts are not exactly analogous.1 Fifth, while not used as a basis for argumentation today, the historical witness of Philo and Josephus, followed by the church fathers who studied Hebrew--Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, inter alia--has been used to suggest that there is meter in Hebrew poetry.2 Kugel observes that the concept of meter was introduced by Hellenized Jews. He acridly concludes: "There is indeed an answer to this age-old riddle: no meter has been found because none exists."3 The rationale for modeling Hebrew poetry on a metrical basis has been presented and its weaknesses pointed out. Perhaps the most telling observation is that, after over two millennia of commenting on the ____________________ of Toronto Press, 1976); and William R. Watters, Formula Criticism and the Poetry of the Old Testament, BZAW 138 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976). 1O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, pp. 42-47. 2Gottwald, "Poetry, Hebrew," p. 830; and Dominic Crossan, "The Biblical Poetry of the Hebrews," Bible Today 13 (1964):833-34. Kugel presents the best analysis of these men and others from a historical perspective (The Idea of Biblical Poetry, pp. 128 [Philo], 140f. [Josephus], 147 [Origen and Eusebius], 152 [Jerome]. Cf. also Cooper, "Biblical Poetics: A Linguistic Approach," pp. 12-14.
discovered. The following discussion will summarize four methods which have been employed in counting meter.
quantifying metrical line constraints. Since these approaches have been explained and executed in numerous places, the discussion of the various types will not be developed.1 The traditional approach is the one developed by Ley-Budde-Sievers. This method counts the number of stresses and ignores the number of unstressed syllables. Margalit provides a recent example of this method in his attempt to find meter at Ugarit. His plethora of qualifications as to what gets counted and what does not demonstrates the conjectural nature of this endeavor.2 ____________________ 1From a multi-language approach, Lotz gives a helpful chart of the types of meter which exist in the various languages (John Lotz, "Elements of Versification," p. 16). Perhaps the best survey is by R. C. Culley, "Metrical Analysis of Classical Poetry," in Essays on the
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970), pp. 12-28. Other helpful summaries may be found in O'Connor, Hebrew
Linguistic Approach," pp. 20-32 (who notes, that while Ley rejected the concept of a metrical foot, Sievers believed the feet to be typically anapests [uu-] p. 23); and, of course, Stuart, Studies in Early Hebrew Meter, pp. 1-10. T. H. Robinson, "Basic Principles of Hebrew Poetic Form," pp. 440-50. For a useful chart comparing the counts of three schools vid. Stuart, Studies in Early Hebrew Meter, pp. 220-29.
(1882), Hoelscher (1924), and Mowinckel. This method alternates stressed and unstressed syllables. Bickell held the idea that Hebrew poetry was iambic (u-: short, long) or trochaic (-u: long, short) with occasional anapests (uu-: short, short, long). This results in more accents per line, although extensive emendations are often required.1 A third group, working from a parallelism type base, suggests that thought units are the items which should be counted. Consequently they count major content words. Again, which "words" count and which do not, how words and ideas interconnect, as well as the irregularity of the line itself, have posed problems for this method. The numerical results of this are close to the Ley-Budde-Sievers approach.2 O'Connor correctly labels this view as a fusion of the two elements of the standard description (parallelism and meter).3 ____________________ p. 291; and G. D. Young, "Ugaritic Prosody," JNES 9 (1950):132-33.
5-6.
2Gordis, Poets, Prophets, and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), p. 65; Robinson, "Basic Principles of Hebrew Poetic Form," p. 444; Cooper, "Biblical Poetics: A Linguistic Approach," p. 1; Kosmala, "Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry (A New Approach)," VT 14 (1964):423-45; and Kosmala, "Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry," VT 16 (1966):152-80.
strictly descriptive syllable count. It is interesting that Kugel culls from history a comment by Marianus Victorius that Hebrew poetry is based solely on the number of syllables, not on feet as Greek and Latin. However, elsewhere he goes on to "confirm" Jerome's statement about Hebrew hexameter by observing spondees [--: long, long] and dactyls [-uu: long, short, short].1 Turner and Poppel, in their studies in various languages, conclude: "The average number of syllables per LINE in human poetry seems to be about ten." They attribute it to the limitations and patterns of the human mind.2 Freeman suggests that syllable counting is the first step in scansion and metrical analysis and has "priority of application."3 Syllable counting has been done from two different perspectives, which see: (1) syllable counts are used to reveal the existence of Hebrew syllabic meter; and (2) syllable counts simply describe "the order or structure which exists in Hebrew verse, without being ____________________ 1Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, p. 251.
2Turner and Poppel, "The Neural Lyre: Poetic Meter, the Brain, and Time," p. 298. They provide parameters of 4-20 syllables for a line, with 7-17 as the most common in non-tonal languages (p. 286). Culley notes that 8-10 syllables is the normal line in Hebrew and charts his data ("Metrical Analysis of Classical Hebrew Poetry," pp. 26-27).
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970), associated with a metrical pattern."1 O'Connor notes that Culley and Freedman (and this writer would add Geller) use syllable counts in the second manner simply as a descriptive tool, while Cross and Stuart incorrectly use them in the first manner. Stuart's categories of mixed meter (juxtaposing couplets of various lengths, viz. 7:7, 8:8, etc.); irregular meter (uneven lengths within a colon, viz. 7:6, 9:7; 7:8, etc.) and unbalanced meter (couplets having different counts but constituting a pattern, viz. 7:5::5:7) demonstrate the non-uniformity of this approach.2 O'Connor points out that Stuart systematically emends the text to fit his system by "the deletion of ky, 't, 'sr, and other particles.3 Cooper demurs for similar reasons, particularly noting that Stuart's countings are not as regular as he suggests and that he does not prove his syllabic meter.4 Stuart ____________________ p. 319. Also vid. pp. 309-10 for an interesting perspective on metrics.
14. Geller notes that in his corpus 24% was syllabically asymmetrical (imbalanced by two or more syllables). He specifically lists lines manifesting a four-two syllable variation (Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry, pp. 371-72.
3O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, pp. 35-36. 4Cooper, "Biblical Poetics: A Linguistic Approach," pp. 29-30. ironically castigates Freedman for not emending the text.1 This writer thinks that the strict syllable count may be a beneficial monitor of line length or mass which is based on syntactic constraints and manifests itself in phonological patterns. Non-metrical Approaches G. D. Young, in an influential article, supported C. Gordon's idea "that regular meter can be found in such poetry is an illusion."2 Kugel also opts for this position, which has been labeled "metrical nihilism."3 O'Connor properly points out that they fail to account for the regularity which is present in the line.4 Due to the almost universal presence of meter in the poetic structures throughout the world, such pessimism seems misplaced. Perhaps more in order is a return to Lowth's position of metrical agnosticism. This proposal holds that most likely there is a metrical pattern in Hebrew prosody, but it is, as yet, undiscovered. Yoder notes ____________________
8.
2G. D. Young, "Ugaritic Prosody," p. 133; cf. C. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, Analecta Orientalia 38 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), pp. 130-31.
297.
4O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, p. 65. Cf. also Pierre Proulx, "Ugaritic Verse Structure and the Poetic Syntax of Proverbs" (Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1956), pp. 16-17. four reasons why this is still a good alternative: (1) emendations are required to make present metrical systems "work"; (2) present metrical models often disregard parallelism and syntax; (3) rules which make meter work are also appropriate in the description of prose (he notes Sievers' application of his metrical patterns to Genesis); and (4) the various systems are contradictory.1 Gevirtz also acquiesces to this position.2
intended to heighten the sensitivity toward metrical considerations, which are often totally ignored in evangelical circles as synonymous with metri causa textual emendation. It was also intended to prepare the ground for O'Connor's solution, which will replace metrical considerations by syntactic constraints in an attempt to monitor and to specify the linear regularity observed in Hebrew prosody. It has been shown, although not in detail, that the pursuit of a phonological base for metrical considerations has been a rather futile one. ____________________ 1Yoder, "Biblical Hebrew," in Versification: Major Language Types, p. 58. 2Stanley Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 32 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 2. Indeed, the problems of the evolution of the Hebrew language with vowel shifts, case ending problems, and various anacrusis or lengthenings, which may have occurred at the time of poetic composition are no longer available for analysis. Many have concluded with Pardee that "meter, in the strictest sense of the term at least, was not the constitutive feature of Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry."1 Cooper makes a brief comparison of a syllabic count and syntactic unit approach in the Son of Lamech (Gen 4:23-24). By using a syntactic approach (2:2), he demonstrates linear equality on lines which by the syllable counting method are unequal (9:9:7:7:7:7).2 Geller, in his description--which is one of the most complete and complex in existence--has observed the regularity of syntactic line lengths (with 2:2, 3:3 and 4:4 as the most common, and other being 3:2; 4:2; 2:3; ____________________
Parallelism," p. 1. Cf. also his "Types and Distributions of Parallelism in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry," Communication prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (New York, December 21, 1982), in which he faults Geller for including metrical considerations in his description of Hebrew poetry (pp. 3, 4). Cf. Geller's statement for ranking meter over semantic and grammatic parallelism in Parallelism in Early Biblical
Approach," pp. 33-34. Cf. also pp. 105-9 where he systematizes line types similarly to what Collins and O'Connor have done. Also vid. W. K. Wimsatt, Hateful Contraries, Studies in Literature and Criticism (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1965), pp. 142-43. 4:3; 2:4; 3:4 and 4:5) and has provided a complete list of syntactic line lengths in his corpus.1 O'Connor goes to the heart of the matter by objecting to a phonological base for meter. He suggests that a syntactic base provides the constraints which determine line length.2
Paronomasia and Onomatopoeia While the question of meter continues to be a subject of debate, other phonological schemes should not be neglected. Though these features are phonaesthetic in character, it is obscurantic to ignore such features with which the poets themselves so meticulously adorned their texts.3 Indeed, the audiences would expect such. ____________________
10.
2O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, pp. 56, 60-61, 138, 147. If this writer is not incorrect, this is the major thesis of O'Connor's book and it provides, for the first time, a basis for determination of the line which has for so long eluded scholars. Without a definition of the line it is no wonder such difficulties have accrued in Hebraic poetic studies. O'Connor's constraints and emphasis on syntax provide a foundation upon which the works of Collins, Cooper, Berlin, Greenstein and Geller may be appreciated. The thesis of O'Connor's book was strictly Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|