Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/39

 and the syllabic Syriac verse, is. The number of unstressed syllables between the beats is, however, not arbitrary, but the scheme of the verse is based on an irregular anapaest which may undergo rhythmical modifications (e.g. resolving the ictus into two syllables, or lengthening the arsis so as to give a double accent) and contraction, e.g. of the first two syllables. The foot always concludes with the ictus, so that toneless endings, due to change of pronunciation or corruption of the text, are to be disregarded, although as a rule the ictus coincides with the Hebrew word-accent. The metrical scheme consists of combinations of feet in (of 2, 3 or 4), and of these again in —double threes, very frequently, double fours in narrative, fives in Lamentations (see above) and very often elsewhere, and sevens. Sievers regards the last two metres as catalectic double threes and fours. Connected sections do not always maintain the same metre throughout, but often exhibit a mixture of metres.

It can no longer be doubted that in the analysis of purely poetical passages, this system often finds ready confirmation and leads to textual and literary results, such as the elimination of glosses. There are, however, various difficulties in carrying out the scheme consistently and extending it to the prophetical writings and still more to narrative: (1) not infrequently the required number of feet is only obtained by sacrificing the clearly marked parallelism, or the grammatical connexion (e.g. of the construct state with its genitive), and sometimes even by means of doubtful emendations; (2) the whole system assumes a correct transmission of the text and its pronunciation, for neither of which is there the least guarantee. To sum up, our conclusion at present is that for poetry proper some assured and final results have been already obtained, and others may be expected, from the principles laid down by Sievers, although, considering the way in which the text has been transmitted, a faultless arrangement of metres cannot be expected. Convincing proof of the consistent use of the same metrical schemes in the prophets, and a fortiori in narrative, can hardly be brought forward.

The great work of D. H. Müller, (2 vols., Vienna, 1896; cf. his, ibid. 1898, and , ibid. 1907), is a study of the most important monuments of early Semitic poetry from the point of view of strophic structure and the use of the refrain, i.e. the repetition of the same or similar phrases or words in corresponding positions in different strophes.

The arrangement of certain poetical passages in verse-form required by early scribal rules (, ;, ; ; : cf. also ; ; ) has nothing to do with the question of metre in the above sense.

Words are used in poetry, for which others are customary in prose, e.g. = ;  = ;  = ;  = ;  =.

To the poetic meanings of words belongs the use of certain poetic epithets as substantives; thus, for example, (only in constr, st. ) the strong one for God;  for bull, horse;  for ;  for.

Of word-forms, we may note, e.g. the longer forms of prepositions of place  =,  = ,  = ; the endings ,  in the noun ; the pronominal suffixes , ,  for , ,  ; the plural ending  for. To the belongs the far more sparing use of the article, of the relative pronoun, of the accusative particle ; the construct state even before prepositions; the shortened imperfect with the same meaning as the ordinary form ; the wider governing power of prepositions; and in general a forcible brevity of expression.