Proverbial poetry: its settings and syntax
Yüklə 6,58 Mb.
|
|
to observe other connections which may surface. If new connections come to light, they, too, must be formalized and systematically scrutinized in light of the text. Such a methodology allows one to read creatively and deictically as one hunts for known patterns and suspects that new ones may appear. Concerning repetitional items, several levels were employed by the wise men. Van Parunak, recently developing the concept of cohesion in terms of transitional techniques, writes that the similarity which binds a section together may be a result of phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactical, logical or rhetorical
First, phonologically, proverbs may be linked via a common alphabetic letter (Prov 11:9-12b; 20:7-9, 24-26).2 While the common letter is most easily recognized when it is initial, it may also be found in an anadiplotic sense at the end of one line and the beginning of the next (cf. Prov 10:17-18). The repetition may link bi-colon to bi-colon (Prov 10:25-26) or it may join a single stich to its pair (Prov 11:10a, 10b). Sometimes the repetition may be within the stich (Prov 11:15a, where the high frequency of ר's bonds the stich together as a phonetic unit). Sometimes it may be the similar phonetic sound, rather than an equivalent alphabetic symbol, which is the repeated and cohesive feature (cf. 10:18 and the repetition of sibilants ס, שׂ, שׁ). Methodologically, it may be asked how one knows when the repetition of a letter ____________________
the Bible," JBL 102 (1983):528. Cf. M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman, 1976).
2Crenshaw, "Prolegomena," p. 14. Crenshaw has a very helpful list of seven structuring principles which he has observed. He writes, "Various means of linking several proverbs occur: a common letter (Pr. 11:9-12b; 20:7-9; 24-26); the same introductory word (Pr. 15:13-14, 16-17); the same idea (Pr. 16); the use of an acrostic (Pr. 31:10-31); paradoxical unity (Pr. 26:4-5); and numbers (Pr. 30:24-28). Thematic units characterize later proverbs (Pr. 1-9) and Sirach . . . ." Our study will merely develop the potential of this statement in terms of Proverbs 10-15. is significant or insignificant (note in the preceding eight words the ten-fold repetition of the letter "i"; yet one should not be tempted to treat this text as reflecting a tacit tendency toward alliteration). Bostrom, in his superb attempt to expose the cohesiveness of Proverbs 10-15, notes many letter repetitions which provide the individual proverbs and the proverb clusters with their cohesion.1 Margalit, as cited above, provides some parameters which, although these may still seem somewhat speculative, will at least provide some minimum requirements.2 Features of alliteration (consonance and assonance) and rhyme should be examined since they may serve to bind together single proverbs as well as proverbial clusters. While the phonetic repetition itself is objective, whether it is significant or not will be a subjective evaluation which may be stated only in terms of ____________________
manifested great insight but in some cases he may have overstated his point.
310-13. "To be significant, a letter should occur: (a) at least three times per seven verse-unit verse; and/or (b) twice in a single word or once in each of two adjacent words (especially at the beginning); and/or (c) as repeated sequence of two or more adjacent letters, not necessarily in the same order, and not necessarily in the scope of a single word" (p. 311). This writer will use this as a minimum guideline and feels that the positioning of letters should be more accounted for (initial, medial, and final). varying degrees of probability.1 The second repetitional feature is the repetition of lexical units. While Brown has correctly noticed that such repetitions may provide cues for determining larger structures, they may also be a means of binding a stich, bi-colon, proverbial pair or string together. As noted above, classical rhetoric has provided some terminology for describing such repetitions: (1) anaphora (units with the same start; e.g., Prov 10:2, 3; 11:5, 6); (2) epiphora (units with the same final words; e.g., 11:10a, 11a); (3) ploke (the first starts the same as the second ends); and (4) anadiplosis (the first ends the same as the second begins).2 It has been observed that in both Egypt and Mesopotamia the sages frequently used a catch-word principle by which they bound proverbial pairs and strings together (e.g., Prov 26:20, 21). Numerous writers have noted this phenomenon in Proverbs (Murphy being the most thorough and easily accessed).3 This feature is particularly striking when the word is in the same ____________________ 1E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 13-22. Hirsch has a nice discussion on conscious and unconscious authorial intent and the relationship of these to verbal meaning.
analysis of cohesive features is the most complete in the English language.
(e.g., Prov 10:14, 15 [מְחִתָּה (ruin)]; 10:32; 11:1 [רָצוֹן (delight)]). If the analysis were to be complete, one should monitor not only the fact that the repetition exists, but also how it functions. Numerous variations may be seen in the way the scribe creatively used repetition to bind. Quite frequently he repeated an item--thereby binding the proverb together--yet linked it to its opposite (e.g., Prov 10:5 בֵּן מַשְׂכִיל (wise son); בֵּן
righteous]; פִי רְשָׁעִים [mouth of the wicked]). Another feature to be included in the catch-word or word repetition category is the repetition of larger units (phrases, clauses, stichs and even whole proverbs). Often the repetitions are with variation (e.g., 10:2a; 11:4a) or they may be exact repetitions (10:6b, 11b; and 10:8b, 10b). One should not ignore variational techniques which accompany the repetition. Often the repeated lexical root will be found in a different syntactical position (note
accomplished by morphological shifts in person, gender or number (e.g., יְכַסֶּה / תְּכַסֶּה [conceal], Prov 10:11, 12). The use of word pairs should be mentioned at this point, as they provide a close parallel to exact repetition. The sage often used word pairs to bind his proverb together (e.g., שִׂנְאָה [hatred]/ אַהֲבָה [love], Prov 10:12). Frequently the paired word is in construct with a word which turns the pair into an antithesis (e.g., כַף־
A third area of repetition is on a syntactic level--whether in terms of deep or surface structure. Proverbs 10:1b has been shown to echo syntactically 10:1a via a nominalizing transformation which accounts for the surface structure differences. Proverbs 10:5 can be shown to be a perfect isomorphic syntactical match. So, too, one may detect syntactic parallels between proverbs (e.g., Prov 10:31a, 32a; and 10:6, 7 with some variation). Variations may include changes in person, gender, number (Prov 10:2, 3, רֶשַׁע [wicked, singular] and רְשָׁעִים [wicked, plural]). Most frequently in narrative there is the continuity of pronominal markers which indicate unity (cf. Prov 10:22). A final area of repetition is topical--where one proverb is thematically cohesive with its neighbor. While it has been noted above that many writers recognize the topical chaos of Proverbs 10-15, there are points of topical coherence. Proverbs 10:2 and 3, for example, both talk about wealth. Proverbs 10:18-21 comment on the proper/improper use of speech. Generally three types of proverbial clustering have been observed. Though the proverbs are often atomic
relationships. Proverbs 26:4, 5 is notorious because it presents a paradoxical pair. Proverbs 10:2, 3 and 10:15, 16 (cf. also Prov 11:5, 6) are clear examples of proverbial pairs about wealth. The second type shall be designated as a proverbial string, which is a group of three or more proverbs linked by any of the above cohesional devices. A string may cohere on the basis of topic (Prov 10:18-21) or by one of the above repetitional features (Prov 11:9-11). Finally, several broken or detached string elements have been noticed which may provide a "hinging" effect between the string and its context (Prov 11:9-11, 14; and Prov 10:23, 25-26).1 Thus, repetitional features may take the form of sounds/letters, lexical units, phrases, clauses, or whole proverbs. Particularly frequent are catch-words. In addition to topical similarities, syntactical repetitions and cohesions may also bind the text. To each of these elements of equivalence (semantic, syntactic, phonetic) there may be variations either from within the category itself (repetition of a sibilant by the use of various letters ס, שׂ, שׁ) or from another category (repetition of a lexical root which is fitted to another syntactical or morphological class). ____________________
Bible," pp. 540-46. Sequential features may also provide unity for a passage. The acrostic is a classic example of this on a phonological level. The numerical proverbs are sequentially bound by a numerical phenomenon (Prov 30:18-19). There may be a logical progression as a case is argued or an event narrated, although such will not occur explicitly in the corpus. Hence, many elements of sequence and equivalence will be monitored to determine if indeed this proverbial collection was crafted according to principles or whether it is merely a haphazard agglomeration of atomic proverbs with no molecular inter-proverbial bonds. Still remaining is to examine the text of Proverbs 10 itself, which will provide the specimen for this experiment. Cohesional Features in Proverbs 10 In order to facilitate a lucid discussion, there will be a verse-by-verse monitoring of both intra- and inter-proverbial cohesions. Concluding the discussion will be the structural diagrams synthesizing these cohesive factors. Because of the clarity of the diagrams, it may be of benefit to refer to the diagrams as the verses are discussed. One may wish to consult Bostrom concerning letter/sound repetitions1 and Murphy for catch- ____________________
carefully exposed the intra-proverbial syntax, these features will not be mentioned at this point. Proverbs 10:1 בֵּן חָכָם יְשַׂמַּח־אַב A wise son brings joy to his father,
but a foolish son grief to his mother. Proverbs 10:1 is bound together syntactically and via the familial terms (the repeated use of בֵּן [son]) and the pairing of אַב (father) and אִמּוֹ (his mother). Each stich seems to manifest an inclusio effect, by being framed with familial terms (בֵּן, אַָב; and בֵּן, אִמּוֹ) thereby foregrounding--by juxtaposition--the close nexus between חָכָם and יְשַׂמַּח, and כְּסִיל; and תּוּגַת. It is possible that this inclusio effect is further ameliorated by the repeated consonants in 10:1a-- ב, ח, מ, מ, ח, ב. While this may not be significant it does fit Margalit's standards for alliteration. The repetitions of the letters and the chiastic ordering have been previously noted by ____________________
analysis reflects insights gained from the present writer's extended exposure to linguistics, not from the work of Bostrom (a copy of which was obtained only after the analysis had been completed), or Murphy (whose work was published after the following analysis was completed). This writer does view their works as somewhat mutually exclusive since Bostrom focuses on sound patterns and Murphy on semantics. They are confirmatory to the general thesis proposed here, i.e., that there is evidence of collectional construction. Bostrom.1 The repetition of the word בֵּן (son) in the second stich results in the second stich's beginning with a as well. While such sound/letter patterns may be of no significance, they should be monitored since sometimes they are clearly intentional. Intentionality most likely was not involved in 10:1, however. Proverbs 10:2 לֹא־יוֹעִילוּ אוֹצְרוֹת רֶשַׁע Ill-gotten treasures are of no value,
but righteousness delivers from death. Bostrom suggests that Proverbs 10:2 (cf. 11:4) exhibits assonance.2 Note the four-fold repetition of the וֹ ("o" sound) in the first stich. Also between the first and second stichs is the יל sequence with a in the immediate vicinity. The thrice-repeated fits the alliteration standards, although it seems rather weak. The semantical play on אוֹצְרוֹת (riches) being of no
are drawn together both positionally and semantically for contrast. Deliverance from death provides the benefits that wealth, whether good or evil, could never attain. Thus, the pragmatic value of צְדָקָה is unique. Again one sees how well-crafted the sayings are. ____________________
Proverbs 10:3 לֹא־יַרְעִיב יְהוָה נֶפֶש צַדִיק The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry
But he thwarts the craving of the wicked. Proverbs 10:3 obviously forms a pair with 10:2. The introductory לֹאo followed by a Hiphil imperfect unquestionably syntactically binds the two verses together. The similarity does not stop there, however. There is also a common thematic element, in that both address the issue of the relationship of the wicked/righteous to material possessions. This pair provides an example of complex chiasm, as the initial negations plus the imperfect verb would render the verbal structure AB/AB, contrasting the wealth of the wicked, whose wealth is valueless, with the righteous/ righteousness who receive material blessings from Yahweh (לֹא־יוֹעִילוּ, תַּצִיל // לֹא־יַרְעִיב, יֶהְדֹף). In the person being discussed, however, an AB/BA pattern (רֶשַׁע, צדָקָה;// צַדִּיקa, רְשָׁעִים). Thus the repetition of righteous/righteousness and wicked semantically binds these two sayings. They are both concerned with a similar topic and similar character qualities. Notice that the semantic elements of equivalence (righteous/wicked) are varied morphologically (רֶשַׁע, רְשָׁעִים, and צדָקָה;, צַדִּיקa). Bostrom notices the repetition of the letter and particularly the sequence
stich, which YHWH does (יֶהְדֹף). Another linking feature is the presence of the divine name in the first stich and the pronominal reference back to it in the second. This morphologically binds the proverbial bi-colon together through one actor (יְהוָה), whose actions vary based on the character of the individuals involved. A chiastic effect is also contained in Proverbs 10:3 via the juxtaposing of the characters (נֶפֶש צַדִיק / הַוַת רְשָׁעִים) with the imperfect verbs framing the proverb (לֹא־יַרְעִיב, יֶהְדֹף). So there is an AB/BA structure in the sequence: imperfect verb describing God's actions/person involved//person involved/imperfect verb describing God's actions. One also wonders whether there is a play between נֶפֶש ("soul" or "passion") and הַוַת (desire). Therefore, the inner coherence, as well as, in this case, the bond with the neighboring proverb, demonstrates the intricate craftsmanship manifested in this saying and its pair (10:2). Proverbs 10:4 רָאשׁ עֹשֶׁה כַף־רְמִיָּה Lazy hands make a man poor,
but diligent hands bring wealth. This verse continues the theme of material possessions and suggests how wealth is properly accrued. Bostrom well notes the alliteration with the "r" sounds, as ר is repeated four times in the proverb.1 The proverb ____________________
begins and ends with r. It may be significant that both verbs have an Wf sequence (עֹשֶׁה / תַּעֲשִׁיר). There is a conspicuous chiastic structure with the inner elements contrasting the character and the outer elements the resultant economic status (poor/lax hand//diligent hand/gets wealth). The middle terms are bound in that and יַד are a standard word pair and are used here in a synonymous manner. The contrast comes in the constructed elements (רְמִיָּה / חָרוּצִים, cf. 10:1). Thus, the proverb itself is a tightly-knit unit. Perhaps Bostrom is right when he suggests that there is a word play in the sound-echoing effect of חָרוּצִים with the word for gold (חָרוּץ).1 Proverbs 10:5 אֹגֶר בּקָיִץ בֵּן מַשְׂכִּיל He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son,
but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. Proverbs 10:5 continues the theme of the acquiring of wealth through diligence, thus indicating that 10:4 and 5 are also a proverbial pair. Again, as in 10:2, 3, there is a bi-proverbial chiasm AB/BA (lax hands/diligent hands//working wise son/otiose shameful son). Syntactically, 10:5 is a total isomorphism and manifests a strong syntactic cohesion within the proverb itself. The word play between קַיִץ (summer) and קָצִיר (harvest) is an obvious sonant-semantic play which further binds the stichs together (cf. Prov 26:1; Amos 8:1-2). The ____________________
five-fold repetition of is significant, especially when it occurs four times in the word initial position. The word repetitions of the preposition בְּ (in) and בֵּן (son) engender the feeling of sameness. Bostrom makes a contribution at this point by noticing that the order of the sounds ר, בק, בן, and מ-שׁ in both stichs demonstrates the genius of the sage who provides such a sonantally, semantically, and syntactically perfect match.1 The Qal active participle עֹשֶׂה (make) in 10:4a may assonantally tie to the Qal active participle אֹגֵר (gathers) which begins 10:5a.
One may at this juncture reflectively suggest that Proverbs 10:2-5 forms a quatrain centering on the theme of Yüklə 6,58 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|