Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: February 27
Today is: Friday, April 19th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of February: (Show All Months)
Some of the older writers persuaded themselves that they could find, in the Hebrew poetry, hexameter, pentameter, alcaic and other meters; and some of later date have entertained us with their discoveries as to the rhythm of Hebrew verse. Lowth, although he derides these pretensions, yet admits the existence of something like measure in the Hebrew poetry, and endeavors to prove it, by pointing to certain licenses of poetry which he thinks that only the existence of meter could authorize or exact—such as the equal dimensions of the verses in the alphabetic Psalms and poems; the introduction of foreign words, and words little in ordinary use; the peculiar employment of certain poetical particles, and so on. But it will be observed, that Lowth does not suppose we can discover the Hebrew meter or rhythm, but only argues from these indications, that, although now lost, it once existed. How the knowledge of this might become lost, may be felt by any one who attempts, in reading aloud an old English poem—say one of Chaucer’s—to give it the rhythm and meter which he knows it to possess; and still greater becomes the difficulty of preserving these more transitory qualities of poetry, when like the Hebrew, it was originally written without the vowels, which, in the usage of pronunciation, determine the rhythm and the meter of any poetry—such vowels as we now find to the Hebrew, and which declare to us the pronunciation of the words, having been inserted in a later and comparatively modern age.
But this opinion, that the Hebrew verse ever did possess meter, has to some good judges seemed extremely hazardous. The late celebrated French orientalist, M. de Sacy—than whom there could not perhaps be a better authority on a question of this nature—has produced various considerations, which he regards as rendering it most certain that the poetical books of Scripture never contained any meter, properly so called; but that it presented only to the ear certain propositions cadenced and harmonious, in which noun answered to noun, and verb to verb—so that these grammatical forms being reproduced in the same places, presented the sense under a regular parallelism. This appears to be also the view of Herder, who may be regarded as the greatest of the German writers on this subject. He does not find in the Hebrew poetry cadenced and measured syllables, but simply periods artificially constructed and balanced, resembling a well-tressed garland, or a row of pearls arranged in just proportions.
We may conclude, then, that under the circumstances we have described, it would be impossible to re-establish the meter, and still less the rhythm, of the Hebrew verse, if it ever had either. And without absolutely denying that the Hebrew verse had some kind of meter, it is tolerably certain that such meter could not have been very rigorous, and consisted rather in a certain proportion and symmetry of equal sentences, than in anything analogous to the regular measures of Greek and Latin verse.
Our great poems in blank verse, the Ossianic poetry, and such as the Thalaba of Southey, with the absence of anything like rhyme in those portions of Scripture which strike even the dullest sense as far other than prose, render us more familiar than many European nations with the idea of poetry without rhyme. Nevertheless there are some who may find it difficult to recognize the poetical character of a kind of verse, which has neither syllabic meter, rhyme, nor even verbal rhythm; and who reconcile the matter to their own understandings, by assuming the probability that the original possessed these common qualities of poetry, but has become divested of them in the process of translation. But it is not so. Ancient Hebrew had too much simple majesty, and too much gravity, for the jingling play of rhyme. Rhyme is in fact entirely foreign to the genius of ancient Hebrew poetry; and although a rhyme may here and there be met with, it may safely be pronounced to be the result of accident rather than design, or any part of poetical contrivance. It is of the more consequence to notice this, because later Hebrew poetry has both rhyme and meter—simply because the power in the use of the language, and the vigor of poetical conception, had so much waned, that the Spanish Jews of the middle ages resorted to these props to give to their effusions a poetical character.
We have thus indicated the characteristics which are not to be sought in Hebrew poetry, and have also pointed out wherein its true distinction lies—namely, in the form in which the thoughts themselves are produced.
This form has usually in this country, since the time of Lowth, been called parallelism—or the parallelism of members—that is, in the parallelism or juxtaposition of several parts of the verse or sentiment in relation to each other. But recent continental writers seem more disposed to use the very significant designation of thought-rhythm, which we take to be much better, as well as more intelligible.
Into the curious subject of this thought-rhythm, which thus constitutes the distinguishing characteristic of Hebrew poesy, it is not our purpose to enter fully, but it may be satisfactory to the reader to indicate its general nature by examples, as well as to define the different kinds into which it has been resolved.
First, there are what Bishop Lowth distinguished as Synonymous Parallels—being those in which the parallel lines correspond to each other by expressing the same sentiment in different, but nearly equivalent, terms. Bishop Jebb, who wrote a very interesting book on parallelism, under the title of Sacred Literature, objects to this designation, and calls them Cognate Parallels; while Dr. T.H. Horne, in his turn, adopts the title of Parallel Lines Gradational, from a periodical publication. One celebrated German writer Note: De Wette, Commentar über die Psalmen. Heidelberg, 1836. would rather call this Original Parallelism; while another of equal name Note: Ewald, Die Poetischen Bücher. Gottingen, 1839. The large introduction on Hebrew Poetry is translated in Vol. i. of the Journal of Sacred Literature. distinguishes it by the name of Iterative. We know not but that Horne’s designation may be most exactly correct; but it is cumbersome, and we incline to prefer Jebb’s, as, in this species of parallelism the parallel members, although closely allied, are seldom more than in part synonymous, or even iterative. “That fact appears to be,” says Jebb, “that (with the exception of those rare instances, where, for the sake of emphasis, not only the same sense is repeated, but the same words) in the parallels commonly termed synonymous, the second or responsive clause invariably diversifies the preceding clause, and generally so as to rise above it, forming a sort of climax to the sense.”
Speaking of this class of parallels or rhyme-thoughts, Ewald says, “The most powerful and beautiful concord is that produced by the echo of the whole sense, where the same sense which has been poured forth as a complete proposition in the first member, mounts up again in the second in order to exhaust itself more thoroughly.” This is so far from being an empty repetition, that on the contrary, the sense itself is always poured forth with greater completeness and force.
We may not enter into the precise classification of the different species of parallelisms under each genus, which some recent writers have proposed, but only indicate their general aspect. Bishop Jebb has clearly shown how the idea requires strength in the process of what some have regarded as iterative or synonymous expression; and that even by reference to Lowth’s own examples of synonymous couplets.
“O Jehovah, in thy strength the king shall rejoice;
And in thy salvation how greatly shall he exult:
The desire of his heart Thou hast granted him;
And the request of his lips Thou hast not denied.”
Here, certainly, the rise of the sense is undeniable. “Salvation” is an advance upon “strength,” and, “how greatly shall he exult,” an advance upon “he shall rejoice.” Again, “the request of his lips,” is something beyond “the desire of his heart”—it is desire brought into act. The gradation in the last numbers of the last two lines may not seem so plain, but are not less certain, it being a received canon of Biblical criticism, that a negative so expressed becomes a most strong affirmative. So “Thou hast not denied,” is much stronger than simply “Thou hast granted.” It means, “Thou hast most abundantly or most assuredly granted.” It is an emphatic affirmative, just as, “The Lord will not hold him guiltless,” means that he will assuredly hold him guilty.
The same principle of progress in the sense, under what, at the first view, may appear to be iterative expression, is instanced in each of the couples of parallel lines which compose the celebrated passage, Isa_55:6-7.
“Seek ye Jehovah while He may be found;
Call ye upon Him while He is near
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts:
And let him return to Jehovah, and He will compassionate him,
And to our God, for He aboundeth in forgiveness.”
Here we perceive that men are invited to seek Jehovah, not knowing where He is, and on the bare intelligence that He may be found; in the second line, having found Jehovah, they are encouraged to call upon Him, by the assurance that He is near; in the third line, “the wicked,” the positive and presumptuous sinner, is warned to forsake his way, or habitual course of iniquity; in the fourth line, the unrighteous—the negatively wicked, is called to renounce the very thought of sinning; while, in the last line, the appropriate and encouraging title of Our God, is substituted for the awful name of Jehovah, and simple compassion is heightened into overflowing mercy and forgiveness.
The very commencement of the Book of Psalms affords a striking example of this process of composition in Hebrew poesy.
“O, the happiness of that man,
Who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly;
And hath not stood in the way of sinners;
And hath not sat in the seat of the scornful.”
In this instance, the exclamation with which the Psalm opens belongs equally to each line of the succeeding triplet. In the triplet itself, each line consists of three members; and the lines gradually rise, one above the other, not only in the general sense, but specially throughout the correspondent members. To walk, implies no more than casual intercourse; to stand, closer intimacy; to sit, fixed and permanent connection—the counsel, the ordinary place of meeting or public resort; the way, the select and chosen footpath; the seat, the habitual and fixed resting-place—the ungodly, negatively wicked; sinners, the positively wicked; the scornful, scoffers at the very name or notion of piety and goodness.
The sequel of the same Psalm is a further and equally striking illustration of this process. The reader may find numerous instances which evince the rise of the sense, or rather its enforcement and development, in even very simple propositions, where the sense is completed in two members, the second of which may seem, at the first view, to be merely iterative. Such abound in the Proverbs. For instance—
“My son, hear thy father’s reproof,
And forsake not thy mother’s law,”—Pro_1:8,
where, in prose, father and mother would be more concisely mentioned together, in some such comparatively frigid sentence as, “My son; take heed to the instructions of thy father and mother.”