ence, like the Semitic sentence in general, is normally short, and simply constructed. Because of the principle of parallelism, with its repetition, one double line is ordinarily not enough for the expression of an idea. We should be left with the impression of abruptness, of a thing half constructed and left unfinished. The quatrain is naturally suited to embody the short sentences which are so numerous; and is likely to be employed again and again, quite involuntarily (italics mine). There is this amount of truth, but no more, in the postulate of Vierzeiler poems which plays such an important part in the modern German treatment of Hebrew verse. The period consisting of two double lines is by far the most common logical division of any Hebrew poem. It becomes a vicious unity only when it is insisted upon.' * In this paragraph we are informed why it is that the thought divisions very frequently fall into quatrains. The reason is an aesthetic one, found in the genius of the Hebrew language for the short sentence, and in the principle of Hebrew poetry, namely parallelism. The double line alone would leave us aesthetically unsatisfied. The abruptness and unfinished character of the thought-formulation would not be pleasing. The quatrain is employed 'again and again' to relieve this. But why 'involuntarily'? This word reminds us of Torrey's contention that the most of the thoughtmaterial in Is. 53 just happens to fall into quatrains. Why should an arrangement which admittedly has a very definite aesthetic value and which occurs so frequently in Hebrew be accidental ('happen'), quite ‘involuntary' ? Why should the aesthetically pleasing quality of a poetic structure such as the quatrain not be intended by the poet ? • Here, again, the frequency of the quatrain is admitted. But there is a significant recurrence, at the end of the paragraph, of the phrase, “logical division," with which it began. Why not poetical division, or stanza or strophe? Is it because Professor Torrey has a subconscious feeling that if he uses the word stanza, he will run the risk of having his contention challenged that the quatrain is not an intended poetical figure but only an involuntary, though natural, thought division? If stanza or strophe is used, this would imply that the Hebrew poets were quite conscious of the poetical significance of the quatrain. But this is an inference which Professor Torrey seems reluctant to admit. And the reason for this reluctance is clear. If the Hebrew poets realized the poetical possibilities of the quatrain, we would expect them to make extensive rather than only occasional use of it. In the above paragraph the frequency and aesthetic significance of the quatrain in Hebrew poetry are admitted. The theory that it was an involuntary 'logical division' rather than an intentional poetical figure does not, for the reasons given in the annotations, seem to me to be at all probable. But the question remains, how far the stanza is regular in any given poem. It is quite conceivable that the quatrain, if a natural poetical division, is considerably more dominant than Torrey would have us believe and less dominant than Duhm imagines. It is undoubtedly true that the impression of regularity in Hebrew poetry which modern commentaries often suggest is only "achieved," to use Torrey's expression, by drastic textual criticism, and Professor Torrey insists that "there is a difference between occasional surgery and habitual butchery." But unfortunately, at this point taste enters in, and de gustibus non est disputandum. Surgery at times is almost as bloody business as butchery. The difference between them lies mainly in the results. The results which appeal to us we are likely to ascribe to surgery, and the results we do not like we impute to butchery. Undoubtedly there has been much butchery practised upon the ailing Hebrew text, but on the other hand the text is ill, at times very ill, as I believe, and the attempt to restore to symmetry a twisted and distorted text appeals to me as surgery rather than butchery. It all depends upon how it is done, with reverence for the sanctity of the body operated upon and with skill, or with indifference to the marvelous character of this textual corpus and with crude means. Granted the frequency of the quatrain (and Torrey does grant it); granted its aesthetic and not simply logical significance (and Torrey would seem compelled to grant that also); and granted that such significance was appreciated and intended by the Hebrew poets themselves (a probability which Torrey seems to be disinclined to admit but which I think it is very difficult to avoid conceding); it follows that the stanza or strophe is a more appropriate word for these poetical figures than logical or thought divisions. This is not a mere strife about words. Torrey uses 'logical division' instead of stanza because he has something in mind essentially different from the stanza and its function. But if these quatrains are once recognized as stanzas, the question may fairly be raised whether Hebrew poets may not be thought of as experimenting with this poetical figure. Is it not probable that at times they may have thought that a regular arrangement in quatrains would achieve a desirable literary effect? Professor Torrey himself seems to feel the theoretical probability of such a thing when he says: "The Semitic feeling for number and symmetry is a well-recognized characteristic of the race, and we might well expect that in such liturgical compositions as make up the Hebrew Psalter would be found, if anywhere, poetry in strophic forms."10 This theoretical probability is much strengthened by another consideration which at the same time tends to offset the presumption against the existence of strophical regularity in Hebrew poetry drawn from its absence from other Semitic literature. I think it may be taken as a generally admitted fact that the poetry of the Hebrews as a whole is far and away superior to the poetry of either Egypt or Babylon." The refining quality of a higher ethical religion naturally expressed itself in more beautiful poetic forms. Furthermore, the very fact that the Hebrews did not seem able to express themselves adequately in other forms of art-painting, sculpture, architecture-resulted in a concentration of their energies upon the one form of art in which they did find a vent for their great genius, that is, upon writing. They became the creators of one of the world's greatest literatures. In view of this, is it unreasonable to suppose that they may have developed the aesthetic quality of symmetry beyond their contemporaries? I grant at once that my argument has been a speculative one. All that I have intended to accomplish by means of it is to show that, on the basis of Professor Torrey's own formulation of the problem, it would be a very natural thing for the Hebrew poets to take advantage of the 10 P. 176. 11 The magnificent hymn of Akhnaton is, perhaps, the one outstanding hymn that may challenge comparison with the best in Hebrew poetry. genius of their language and the fundamental principle of their poetry to express their ideas at times in a regular strophical arrangement. Whether they actually did do so or not becomes thus simply a question of fact, to be determined by patient investigation. A renewed study of the subject in the light of Professor Torrey's rather drastic criticism of current methods can alone decide. All I plead for is that his criticism of the attempts of other scholars to find symmetrical arrangements in Hebrew poetry should not check such experiments too hastily. Their legitimacy is certainly not to be called in question by Torrey's parody of them in which he seeks to reduce Tennyson's "Crossing the Bar" to rhythmical regularity, clever though that parody is. Caricature is an easy way of disposing of any experimental work, but it has its limitations. It may show at times the folly of a method when misapplied, but this does not necessarily disprove the soundness of the method itself. I cannot claim that my experiments in Hebrew poetry (I fully admit their experimental nature) have had as wide a range as Professor Torrey's. I must therefore be prepared to admit the charge of insufficient induction. All I can testify to is that these experiments were originally undertaken in an exegetical rather than a literary interest, and that again and again I have been surprised to find how, when an exegetical difficulty is cleared up in Hebrew poetry, a rhythmical difficulty is at the same time solved, and a regular stanza arrangement seems often to emerge through which the meaning and beauty of a poem become more evident. I realize the danger, however, to which all students of ancient texts are exposed, to discover things that are not there-Glozel finds! The modern ear is in many respects attuned to a different scale of values from that to which the ancient ear was keyed. It is difficult for us to catch the overtones of beauty which charmed the ear of the early poet, and we may be tempted to substitute for them the overtones which delight our own ears. On the other hand, to affirm that the quatrain arrangement into which much of Is. 53 admittedly falls just 'happened' seems to be going far beyond the probabilities of the case, especially in view of the fact that this 12 poem is the finest in a "suite of twenty-seven lyrics" which Torrey Was the Hebrew poet tied only to the quatrain as a means of developed poetic expression? Professor Torrey remarks in his discussion of Hebrew rhythms, as distinguished from stanzas, that "we are not here dealing with the easy-going productions of unlettered men."13 In that case it would be the most natural thing in the world for these Hebrew poets, beginning with the quatrain, to go on to experiment with other forms of the stanza. Torrey admits that the tristich is such another form, though he again denies its frequency or regularity.14 I have ventured to call attention in this JOURNAL15 to the very clearly marked tenline division in Ps. 104. I cannot admit that this arrangement is simply an illusion of my own imagination. It has an objective verification in the very remarkable and beautiful relationship of this Psalm to Gen. 1, which becomes obvious when once the ten-line division is recognized, and in the exegetical difficulties which are cleared up by means of it. It is perhaps rather unfair 12 P. X. This is a rather sweeping statement, though anyone who has sought to plumb the depths of the fifty-third chapter would be disposed to pardon it. Yet for sheer intellectual and poetical power I would be strongly inclined to rank the author of Job above the author of Second Isaiah. But, again, such judgments are matters of taste, not of dogma. 13 P. 166. 14 Pp. 158, 178. It is interesting to remember that the earliest of the Vedas are composed in three- and four-line stanzas. 15 Vol. XL (1921), Part. II, pp. 43ff. ! |