Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
____________________
One must be extremely careful to avoid using such datum as a sole criterion for authorship determination since content and genre may also play important roles in the shaping of syntactic features of the poetic line.
poetry has provided a benchmark against which other genres may now be measured in terms of similarities and differences. It will be shown that Collins' assumption that his prophetic corpus provided a representative sample of poetry was incorrect. A more discerning approach was taken by O'Connor who took samples from the various genres and periods of Hebrew poetry, thereby providing a broader and more satisfying "representative sample" of Hebrew
Collins on the structure of the prophetic bi-colon and by O'Connor on the line itself (from a more representative sample--1200 lines), a comparison of the results obtained from Proverbs and these corpora will provide interesting similarities and contrasts. Three sets of analysis will be performed in this study. First, there will be a comparison, via charts and discussions, of Collins' results in the prophets and the structural patterns found in Proverbs 10-15. Although the magnitude of Collins' prophetic corpus (1900 lines) dwarfs the proverbial analysis, the convergence of the results in Proverbs will be able to support a comparison, although certainly no claims of conclusiveness will be made because only 88 of the 184 verses analyzed allowed for a direct collation with Collins' line types.2 A second comparison ____________________ poetry (contra Barr's review of Hebrew Verse Structure JJS, 84 (Spring 1983), p. 118).
syntactic line-type with a semantic set. This would suggest another alternative to explain variations rather than postulating that sectional variations are as indicative of changes of authorship. He fails to develop the influence of content as grounds for stylistic variation in the different sections of Isaiah, for example.
comprehensiveness of Collins' approach, particularly in his sparse treatment of nominal clauses. Of the 184 verses treated in Proverbs, 80 were nominal in character (cf. 88 of his A, B, C, D type). Thus, if nominal clauses are included 168 verses allow for assimilation with Collins' work.
was able to handle all lines in the corpus. Finally, an analysis of matching, isomorphisms, and homomorphisms as well as specific examples of the creative use of syntax and syntactical transformations by the sages will demonstrate the value of the tagmemic approach taken above. It is obvious that all of the interesting syntactic features cannot be elaborated on within this paper. Thus, one further goal of this study is to suggest other directions which could be pursued from the data base provided in the corpus.
several charts which summarize his findings and which provide a convenient point of analogy with the results compiled from the proverbial corpus.1 These charts are descriptive in nature--compiled in an attempt to discover poetic patterns of equivalence and variation. Since they provide mere distributions of line types, they should not be understood in a prescriptive manner as determinative ____________________
line types found in Proverbs 10-15 along with the frequency and locations of each type. This list could be used to discover if there are syntactic-semantic sets in Proverbs similiar to those found by Collins in the prophets.
all conclusions are tentative and given in terms of probabilities--thus reflecting the limited size and varied character of the data bases themselves. This should not minify the value of the results, for it is important in any appreciation of literature to recognize what patterns are "normal" and which are "supra-normal." The following analysis will provide a scientifically- specified basis for the determination of archetypical patterns, thereby removing it from the realm of vague intuition.1
Collins' line types (1943 lines) in his prophetic corpus with what was found after examining 184 lines of proverbial poetry.2 The chart is divided into three sections. The top gives the broad results which Collins ____________________ 1Pedagogically this data may help those students who have dull intuitional perceptions to be guided deictically to significant features they should look for and which are not as consequential. This type of analysis then provides an analytic foundation for a better intuitional reading of the text. 2Cf. Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, p. 195. One should recall: Line I = contiguous line, Line II = where the two cola match syntactically, Line III = gapped matching, Line IV = two different syntactic configurations in the two cola [A = SV; B = SVM; C = SVO; D = SVOM]. Thus Collins' system specifies both single and bi-colonic syntax into an easily accessible format. CHART 10.1 Comparison with Collins' "General Statistical Survey" [Collins, p. 195] Line - Type I II III IV Totals A B C D A B C D A B C D Collins Totals 7 193 47 253 89 151 124 121 20 201 85 165 487 1943 Collins % 0.4 9.9 2.4 13 4.6 7.8 6.4 6.2 1 10.3 4.4 8.5 25.1 100%
Collins % 25.7% 25% 24.2% 25.1% 100% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0 1.1 0 1.1 5 4.6 26.2 0 0 8.1 9.2 1.1 43.2 100% Prov Line-Types without nom. 2 31 16 38 87 % 2.3% 35.6% 18.4% 43.7% 100% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prov 10-15 Totals for nom. type 3 29 5 43 % 80 % 3.8% 36.2% 6.2% 53.8 100% Line-Type totals for Prov 10-15 including nom. 5 60 21 81 168 % 3% 35.9% 12.6% 48.5% 100% found according to Line-Type [I,II,III,IV] and then divided into Basic Sentence type [A,B,C,D]. He found a very stable distribution over the Line-Types in that there were 500 (25.7%) type I, 485 (25%) type II, 471 (24.2%) type III, and 487 (25.1%) type IV. A significant difference is observed when these results are juxtaposed to Proverbs 10-15 (type I, 2 [2.3%]; type II, 31 [35.6%]; type III, 16 [18.4%]; and type IV, 38 [43.7%]). It is interesting that when the nominal (nom.) Basic Sentence type is added, doubling the size of the sample, the results are similar (type I, 3 [3.8%]; type II, 29 [36.2%]; type III, 5 [6.2%]; and type IV, 43 [53.8%]). The bottom line of the chart provides a sum of the total of the nominal plus Collins' basic sentence types-- revealing that there is a substantial contrast between the prophets and what was found in Proverbs (Line type I: prophets [25.7%]//proverbs [3%]; Line type II: prophets [25%]//proverbs [35.9%]; Line type III: prophets [24.2%] //proverbs [12.6%]; and Line type IV: prophets [25.1%]// proverbs [48.5%]). Note that Proverbs' line type distribution is very uneven, with line types II and IV dominating and line type I being virtually ignored. Proverbs 10-15 seems to prefer syntactic repetitions (matching), as demonstrated by the frequent use of line type II. The fact that Proverbs avoids line types I and III may show that it favors each colon's being a separate, independent and complete unit, rather than, as in the prophets, frequently employing syntactic contiguity between the cola, as in line type I, or in a relation of gapping between the lines, as in line type III. The prevalence of line type IV would confirm that the sages favored two separate, independent, and complete syntactical units in their proverbial cola, as opposed to the prophets, who allowed for more continuity and syntagmatic relationships between the cola. What has just been suggested by the data is that the difference between the prophets and the proverbial-using sages can be to some extent syntactically specified.
employed [A = SV; B = SVM; C = SVO; D = SVOP; nom. = SPsc]. Note that in all of Collins' line types, D is used rather frequently (Line type I, 253 [13%]; Line type II, 121 [6.2%] and Line type III, 165 [8.5%]). This is not true in Proverbs 10-15, where in Line type II it was not found at all and in Line type III it was found only once (1.1%). Thus, what is being suggested is that the basic sentence type D (SVOM) was avoided by the proverbial sage although the prophets utilized it frequently. It may be that the lengthiness of D was not well-suited to proverbial tastes. Line weight, however, will be able to be determined better via O'Connor's line constraint matrix. It is also significant that A is not heavily used either in the prophets or in proverbs. Two types of basic sentences seem to dominate in Proverbs--C (SVO; Line type II, 23 [26.5%]; Line type III, 8 [9.2%] and as will be shown later in Line type IV) and nominal (SPsc) types (80 examples--almost as many as A, B, C, and D combined). Thus, the nominal clause is characteristic of Proverbs 10-15 with C dominant, but trailing somewhat behind. The prophets, on the other hand, do not seem to be so dominated by nominal clauses, as Collins gives but scant treatment of these types.1 A Comparison of Syntactically Matching Lines The next three charts will allow for the scrutiny of patterns of lines which syntactically match (Line Type II).2 Comparisons will be for basic sentences of types A, B, and C, with no matches of D found in the proverbial corpus. In type II A (chart 10.2) four arrangements are possible (1,1 = SV/SV; 2,1 = VS/SV; 1,2 = SV/VS and 2,2 = VS/VS). Collins found SV/VS rare and repeated patterns ____________________ 1Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, pp. 215-18.
2Cf. O'Connor's discussion in Hebrew Verse Structure, pp. 391-400. He states that "somewhat over a third of the lines" of his corpus manifested this trope. This is about 8% over Collins' findings (25%) and more in line with Proverbs' 36%. CHART 10.2 Line Type II A Collins and Proverbs [Collins, pp. 94, 195] 1,1 (SV/SV) 2,1 (VS/SV) Collins 22 Collins 20 % 24.7% % 22.5% Prov 4 Prov 0 100%
1,2 (SV/VS) 2,2 (VS/VS) Collins 3 Collins 44 % 3.4% % 49.4% Prov 0 Prov 0 CHART 10.4 Occurrences of Type II C: i) [Collins, p. 210] A Comparison of Collins and Proverbs results C. = Collins, P. = Prov
SVO/SVO SOV/SVO VSO/SVO VOS/SVO OSV/SVO OVS/SVO C. 9 - 33.3% 1 - 3.7% 5 - 18.5% 0 0 0 P. 14 - 60% 0 1 - 4.3% 2 - 8.7% 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,2
SVO/SOV SOV/SOV VSO/SOV VOS/SOV OSV/SOV OVS/SOV C. 2 - 7.4% 2 - 7.4% 2 - 7.4% 0 0 0 P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,3 SVO/VSO SOV/VSO VSO/VSO VOS/VSO OSV/VSO OVS/VSO C. 0 0 3 - 11.1% 0 0 0 P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,4
SVO/VOS SOV/VOS VSO/VOS VOS/VOS OSV/VOS OVS/VOS C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. 0 0 0 2 - 8.6% 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,5 SVO/OSV SOV/OSV VSO/OSV VOS/OSV OSV/OSV OVS/OSV C. 0 0 1 - 3.7% 0 1 - 3.7% 0 P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,6
SVO/OVS SOV/OVS VSO/OVS VOS/OVS OSV/OVS OVS/OVS C. 0 0 1 - 3.7% 0 0 0 P. 3 - 13% 0 0 0 0 1- 4.3% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Collins 27 (note Collins has 83 II C ii) types whereas Proverbs has none) CHART 10.3 Occurrences of Type II B: i) [Collins, p. 209] A Comparison of Collins and Proverbs C. = Collins, P. = Proverbs
SVM/SVM SMV/SVM VSM/SVM VMS/SVM MSV/SVM MVS/SVM C. 10 - 12.3% 1 - 1.2% 7 - 8.6% 3 - 3.7% 1 - 1.2% 1- 1.2% P. 1 - 25% 0 1 - 25% 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,2
SVM/SMV SMV/SMV VSM/SMV VMS/SMV MSV/SMV MVS/SMV C. 2 - 2.5% 7 - 9.8% 10 - 12.3% 8 - 9.9% 0 5- 6.2% P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,3 SVM/VSM SMV/VSM VSM/VSM VMS/VSM MSV/VSM MVS/VSM C. 0 0 7 - 8.6% 1 - 1.2% 0 1- 1.2% P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,4
SVM/VMS SMV/VMS VSM/VMS VMS/VMS MSV/VMS MVS/VMS C. 0 2 - 2.5% 1 - 1.2% 3 - 3.7% 0 0 P. 0 1 - 25% 0 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,5 SVM/MSV SMV/MSV VSM/MSV VMS/MSV MSV/MSV MVS/MSV C. 1 - 1.2% 0 1 - 1.2% 0 0 1- 1.2% P. 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 25% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,6
SVM/MVS SMV/MVS VSM/MVS VMS/MVS MSV/MVS MVS/MVS C. 0 1 - 1.2% 0 4 - 4.9% 0 3- 3.7% P. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Collins 81 (note Collins has 70 II B ii types, whereas Proverbs has none) SV/SV (24.7%) and VS/VS (49.4%) predominate. Notice the clear prophetic preference for V initial forms. In proverbs, only four examples of II A were found--all of which were of the 1,1 (SV/SV) type. Proverbs does not favor the V initial, but fronts the S element, although this will have to be substantiated later since four examples do not provide a sufficient sample. Proverbs does corroborate Collins' idea that poets favored the repeated patterns, i.e. the SV elements in the same order (SV/SV). With II B types (SVM/SVM; chart 10.3), Collins makes the following observations:
emerged which can be tentatively proposed as norms for Hebrew line construction: a) initial V in the first hemistich, b) initial NP1 in the second hemistich, c) direct repetition of pattern. Where any two of these tendencies coincide we get "strong" line-forms, . . . Lines in which none of these tendencies appear are unusual and have to be considered as stylistic deviations.1
which appear on the diagonal line of Collins' analysis (top left to bottom right). He boxes off areas where these three features do not occur; hence the boxed areas are lower frequency and are considered stylistic variances ____________________ 1Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, p. 105. Cf. also p. 212 for similar conclusions. which may be significant.1 Proverbs 10-15 provides only four examples of II B line types, two of which fall in Collins' alleged low frequency, stylistically significant boxes. Four of the eight hemistichs contain an S initial while only one has a V initial sequence. This points again to the prophets' V initial and proverbial S initial syntactical difference. Other conclusions should not be forced from only four examples. Chart 10.4 examines II C (VS0/VS0) type lines. Collins makes the following observations on this chart: (1) verb initial position is favored; (2) repetition of pattern (diagonal line) is frequent; (3) the S is often initial in the second hemistich; and (4) if, after a verb, two nouns are found in a row the first should be taken as the subject and the second as the object.2 There is a marked preference in Proverbs for the form SVO/SVO (60%) as compared to the prophets (33.3%). The prophets use more variety in their ordering of elements. It is interesting that four (13%) out of the 23 examples were found to violate Collins' principle that in V + N + N sequences the first noun is the S and the second the O. Thus column 4 (4,1 VOS/SVO and 4,4 VOS/VOS) provides another contrast. The low frequency stylistic box finds ____________________ 1Ibid., p. 213. 2Ibid., pp. 112, 213. three examples in Proverbs (1,6 SVO/OVS) while in the prophets this order was not found. Clearly this form is stylistic as it is a perfect chiasm. Both Proverbs and the prophets favor a repetitional ordering, as may be seen in SVO/SVO (1,1) and OVS/OVS (6,6) on the diagonal line. The strength of the SV0/SV0 (60%) and the fact that 73% of the lines have SVO as a member suggest that the SVO is rather normative for Proverbs, while the prophets employed a wider and more frequent variation of orderings. The stricter ordering in Proverbs 10-15 may reflect genre constraints which are not as stringent in the prophetic literature. The prophets are much freer in the type of genre and style they can employ in the communication of their message. Hence more syntactic variational patterns are acceptable. Thus what is being proffered is that genre should be looked at from a syntactic base in tandem with the semantic and structural approaches of Crenshaw and others as discussed above. One final observation, as in II B, the strong S initial position is found in Proverbs while the prophets favor a V initial. One wonders if the prophets are closer to narrative, which clearly favors a V initial, while the sages are more poetically free from narrative constraints so they prefer an S first line as normative. CHART 10.5 Collins' Summary of Statistics for Type IV [Collins p. 163]
A/C 9 2 12 - 23 A/D - - 6 - 6
% 5.8% 0.4% 7.6% 0% 13.8% B/A 28 3 4 10 45 B/C 24 36 25 2 87 B/D 5 26 16 1 48 (57) (65) (45) (13) (180) % 11.4% 13.0% 9% 2.6% 36%
C/B 21 20 11 8 60 C/D 3 15 14 2 34 (30) (37) (26) (18) (111) % 6% 7.4% 5.2% 3.6% 22.2%
D/B 1 31 5 19 56 D/C 3 56 3 10 72 (5) (89) (11) (36) (141) % 1% 17.8% 2.2% 7.1% 28.1%
% 24.2% 38.5% 23.9% 13.4% 100% Total Number of A's = 144 (14.4%); B's = 336 (33.5%); C's = 293 (29.3%); D's = 229 (22.8%) CHART 10.6 Summary of Statistics for Type IV in Proverbs i) ii) iii) iv) Totals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A/B 2 0 0 0 2 A/C 2 0 0 0 2 A/D 0 0 1 0 1 Total (4) (0) (1) (0) 5 % 10.6% 0% 2.6% 13.2%
Totals (5) 0 1 0 (6) Total % 6.2% 0% 1.2% 0% 7.4%
B/A 6 0 0 0 6 B/C 4 1 0 0 5 B/D 0 0 0 0 0 Total (10) (1) (0) (0) (11) % 26.3% 2.6% 0% 0% 28.9% B/nom. 7 0 0 1 8 Totals (17) (1) (0) (1) (19) Total % 21% 1.2% 0% 1.2% 23.4%
C/A 10 0 0 0 10 C/B 3 0 2 0 5 C/D 1 0 0 0 1 Total (14) (0) (2) (0) (16) % 36.8% 0% 5.3% 0% 42.1% C/nom. 13 0 2 0 15 Totals (27) (0) (4) (0) (31) Total % 33.3% 0% 5% 0% 38.3%
D/A 0 0 0 0 0 D/B 1 0 0 0 1 D/C 2 0 1 2 5 Total (3) (0) (1) (2) (6) % 7.9% 0% 2.6% 5.3% 15.8% D/nom. 0 1 0 0 1 Totals (3) (1) (1) (2) (7) Total % 3.7% 1.2% 1.2% 2.5% 8.6% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Totals 31 1 4 2 38 % 81.6% 2.6% 10.5% 5.3% 100% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Totals
+ nom. 64 2 10 5 81 % 79% 2.5% 12.3% 6.2% 100% CHART 10.6 Summary of Statistics for Type IV in Proverbs 10-15 nom./A 6 0 0 1 7 nom./B 1 0 1 0 2 nom./C 5 0 2 1 8 nom./D 0 0 1 0 1 Total (12) (0) (4) (2) (18) % 14.8% 0% 4.9% 2.5% 22.2% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of A's = 21 (27.7%); B's = 19 (25%); C's = 28 (36.8%); D's = 8 (10.5%)
C's = 51 (31.5%); D's=10 (6.2%) nom.'s = 43 (26.5%) A Comparison of Syntactically Mixed Bi-Cola The next charts provide data for an analysis of line type IV which is a bi-colonic mix of basic sentences (e.g. A/B, C/D etc.). Proverbs had 48.5% of its bi-colon with this line type (prophets had 25.1%). Collins' Summary shows that there is distribution of A/X = 13.8%; B/X = 36%; C/X = 22.2%; and D/X = 28.1%. Note that Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|