A study of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic verse

Order Number 9229461

A study of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic verse Dickens, O w e n Pruett, Ph.D. Brandeis University, 1992

UMI 300N.ZeebRd. Ann Atbor, MI 48106

A STUDY OF RHETORICAL DEVICES IN UGARITIC VERSE

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Owen P. Dickens May 1992

This dissertation, directed and approved by the candidate's Committee, has been accepted and approved by the Graduate Faculty of Brandeiq University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the decree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Dean, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Dissertation Committee

MAY 2 4 1992

ABSTRACT A Study of Rhetorical Devices in Ugaritic Verse (A dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts) by Owen P. Dickens The rhetorical shape of Ugaritic verse has been the object of scholarly interest since the discovery of the city and its epigraphic remains more than sixty years ago.

This

attention has been disproportionally high due to the affinities it shares with Biblical Hebrew verse.

Among

these affinities are a number of rhetorical figures or devices formed through the manipulation of lexical, syntactic, and/or phonological elements of verse.

Although

there have been studies of some individual rhetorical devices in Ugaritic, no one has yet examined them in a systematic and comprehensive manner.

The present study

seeks to remedy that deficit while also examining the role of rhetorical devices as a constituent part of Ugaritic verse. Four steps were pursued in order to accomplish this goal:

First is a survey of the pertinent literature in the

fields of Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse.

The purpose

2 is to draw from previous achievements and to set the present study in the context of the discipline.

Next a taxonomy of

rhetorical devices is developed based upon the principle of repetition and the avoidance of repetition.

Third, three

Ugaritic texts comprising approximately 500 lines of verse are examined with particular attention to their rhetorical devices.

For comparison, three Biblical Hebrew texts

comprising some 170 lines are also examined in a similar manner.

The final step consists of an analysis of the data

gathered in the previous step. The results of this study show that rhetorical devices were a primary component of Ugaritic verse, quite possibly as significant as word pairs, and element which has been the object of a great deal of examination.

Only a small

percentage of verse units contain no rhetorical devices. Almost two thirds of the units contain three or more rhetorical devices. Other data, including the relative frequencies of these rhetorical devices, is presented, leading to the conclusion that the three Ugaritic texts of the study represent a largely homogeneous rhetorical tradition.

Table of Contents Introduction

. . . . page 1

Chapter One:

Studies of Ugaritic Verse

Chapter Two:

Recent Studies of Hebrew Verse

Chapter Three:

Ugaritic and Biblical Texts

Chapter Five:

Analysis of the Texts

Appendix:

. . . page 46

A Taxonomy of Rhetorical Devices

Chapter Four:

Chapter Six:

page 8

. . . . page 171

Conclusions

Rhetorical Features in Larger Units

Bibliography

. page 91

page 337 page 385 . . page 406 page 430

Introduction The complex nature of Ugaritic verse is well known to those who attempt to read and understand the texts.

During

the six decades scholars have spent studying Ugaritic many of the characteristics of this literature have been established, but other significant issues remain unclear. Some of these may forever remain beYond the grasp of modern scholarship, but new approaches and methods developed in recent Years have provided an impetus for further research. One of the more important questions about Ugaritic is the issue of defining the basic nature and genius of its verse structure.

Although some have attempted to discover a

single "key" which will unlock the mYsteries of Ugaritic verse, it increasingly appears that it cannot be defined by any single descriptor.

Rather it seems that many components

combine to form Ugaritic verse. In view of this situation, the present studY will attempt to extend our understanding through an investigation of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic verse.

The study will

identify various rhetorical devices and classify them typologically.

It will also examine the distribution and

frequency of rhetorical devices in a selected corpus of Ugaritic verse.

In this manner the study will attempt to

2 demonstrate how rhetorical devices comprise an essential structural component of Ugaritic verse.

Although there have

been studies of individual rhetorical devices in Ugaritic, no one has attempted to examine this phenomenon comprehensively.

The present study will attempt to address

this deficit. The term "rhetorical devices" is used rather loosely in most studies of verse.

For example, it is one of the

primary foci of a monograph on biblical verse by W.G.E. Watson, but he never defines the term (Watson 1984a). scholars use it with a variety of nuances.

Other

MY use of the

term derives from the following definition of "rhetorical figures": The effective organization of words for the purpose of influencing or persuading an audience. Rhetorical figures differ from figures of speech or tropes in that they do not attempt to change the usual meaning of words, but rather change their usual order or arrangement (Myers and Simms, 259). There are two main features of this definition which deserve elaboration:

First, it emphasizes the organization and

arrangement of words above their meaning.

Most of the

rhetorical devices categorized in this study are characterized bY distinct ordering of words.

A second

aspect of the definition is that it highlights the rhetorical nature of these devices.

There can be virtually

no doubt that Ugaritic poetry was intended to be heard rather than read.

As a result, rhetorical devices are

3 figures which make an impression upon the oral rather than the visual dimension of verse. Some, such as M. O'Connor, use the term "trope" to include at least some of the figures I term rhetorical devices (O'Connor, 140). In order to more precisely distinguish between rhetorical devices and tropes, note the following definition of trope:

"A general term for

figurative language, that is, language whose semantic meaning must be taken in a metaphorical or figurative sense rather than its literal sense" (Myers and Simms, 328). Because they employ figurative language, figures such as metaphor, simile, metonomy and synecdoche are usually considered tropes.

Thus tropes primarily involve the use of

nonliteral or figurative language whereas rhetorical devices (as I employ the term) use language in its usual sense but vary the expected syntax, phonology, and choice of words for poetic effect. Therefore, I define rhetorical devices as the intentional arrangement of syntax, phonology, and/or lexical elements in verse in order to accentuate the singer's message.

Although tropes and other figurative devices may

act in a similar way, they utilize nonliteral or figurative language to achieve their effect whereas in rhetorical devices the poet has manipulated the order of words, syntax, and sounds in order to accomplish this effect.

I have

adopted the term rhetorical device rather than rhetorical

4 figure because this term seems more commonly used in the discipline. Some examples should serve to demonstrate how the ancient bards exploited language for its rhetorical effect. The following passage from CTA 6 ii 15-17 demonstrates anaphora, the practice of repeating an initial word in successive cola: kl ġr.lkbd.ars. kl.gbc lkbd.šdm.

Every mountain in the heart of the earth, Every hill in the heart of the fields

Next is an example of ellipsis from CTA 23:33-34.

The verb

in the first colon, tirkm, is not paralleled in the second colon, yet there is no difficulty in ascertaining the singer's message. tirkm.yd.il.kym wyd il.kmdb

The hand of El grew long like the sea, And the hand of El like the flood

A final example illustrates how the order of syntactic constituents can be varied for rhetorical effect.

In this

passage from CTA 17 v 31-33, partial chiasmus is achieved by inverting the order of verb and subject in the second colon: tbc.ktr lahlh. hyn.tbc.lmšknth

Kothar departed to his tent, Heyan departed to his dwelling

In all three of these examples other rhetorical devices are also involved in the respective passages.

These include the

repetition of words, similar syntactic structure, and semantic correspondence.

In addition to describing each of

these rhetorical devices, the present study will also attempt to take into account the use of several devices within individual passages.

5 In order to establish a foundation for this study, the first two chapters survey the literature in the field. Chapter One examines works on Ugaritic verse which have appeared since the inception of the discipline.

To a

certain extent this chapter represents a history of the study of Ugaritic verse, but the focus is on a synthetic understanding of the major developments in the field.

This

survey will provide a clearer understanding of the major issues in Ugaritic verse.

Because of the close linguistic

and literary relationship between Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse, Chapter Two will explore some of the most significant works on biblical verse which have appeared in the last decade and a half.

Some of these studies examine

both biblical and Ugaritic verse, whereas others deal only with the biblical idiom.

These studies are important

because they have introduced significant new methods to the studY of ancient Semitic verse. Chapter Three offers a taxonomy of rhetorical devices found in the Ugaritic corpus. sections:

It is arranged in two main

The first consists of rhetorical devices which

employ some form of repetition.

There are four sub-

divisions of this section, comprising devices which utilize various forms of lexical, semantic, syntactic, and phonological repetition.

The second section examines

rhetorical devices which do not utilize repetition.

Some of

these devices, in fact, seem to have been used bY the poets

6 in order to avoid repetition.

As each device discussed, it

is defined, relevant literature is cited, and examples of the device are presented.

To my knowledge there have been

no previous attempts to compile such a taxonomy.

An

appendix at the end of the study lists other examples of these rhetorical devices found elsewhere in Ugaritic verse. The purpose of Chapter Four is to provide material for an examination of the distribution of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic texts.

This chapter presents three Ugaritic texts

comprising approximately 500 lines of verse, analyzed according to the rhetorical devices used in the individual verses.

Attention is also focused upon line length and

syntactic structure.

The results of this analysis are

utilized in the Conclusion.

Because Ugaritic verse is

comparable to biblical Hebrew verse in many respects, portions of three biblical texts comprising approximately 170 lines are also analyzed in this chapter.

Since the

corpus of biblical verse analyzed in this study is rather limited, these texts will be used only for comparison and there will be no attempt to reach conclusions concerning the distribution of rhetorical devices in Biblical Hebrew. The final chapter attempts to synthesize the results of the analysis of the Ugaritic texts and to suggest overall conclusions concerning the use of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic verse.

Since the analyzed texts represent only

about a third of the extant verse from Ugarit, firm

7 conclusions embracing the entire canon cannot be proffered, but the results do point to some basic conclusions which hold true within the larger corpus. Because poetic structures transcend the verse level, an appendix focuses upon rhetorical features which bind larger units together.

In view of the fact that few scholars have

attempted to investigate this aspect of Ugaritic verse, this chapter represents, in many respects, a trial attempt to appraise the ways the poets of ancient Ugarit employed rhetorical techniques to unify their compositions.

Although

this is an area which lies outside the main purpose of this study, it is one which deserves further attention.

Studies

Chapter One: of Ugaritic

Verse

Introduction Advances in any field of study are always built upon the achievements of previous scholars, and this is nowhere more true than in a field as intricate and complex as Ugaritic verse.

For this reason it is necessary to survey

the studies of Ugaritic verse which serve as a foundation for the present work.

In a broader sense, however, a survey

of scholarship can serve as an opportunity to focus the debate and set the agenda for further investigations. Although significant advancements have been made toward understanding Ugaritic verse, one goal of this survey is to show that there remains a great deal to be done. This chapter will cover several aspects of the study of Ugaritic verse which form the background for the present work.

Initially it will examine the contributions of early

scholars of Ugaritic verse in order to provide a historical perspective for subsequent studies.

The rest of the chapter

will be devoted to some of the key issues which have occupied Ugaritic scholars in recent years. include:

These issues

meter, stichometry, word-pairs, verse structure,

parallelism, and rhetorical devices.

The intention is to

9 both survey and critique these studies in order to set the stage for further work.

Early Studies of Uqaritic Verse The study of the language of Ugarit began almost as soon as the first tablets were unearthed in May of 1929 by C.F.A. Schaeffer and G. Chenet.*

Although the first tablet

was only a list of names, many hundreds of literary texts have since come to light, prompting the attention of a wide spectrum of scholars.

In only a matter of months after the

initial discoveries, this previously unknown language, written in an unparalleled alphabetic cuneiform script, had been deciphered by several scholars working independently.2 The earliest studies of Ugaritic focused upon establishing the basic phonology, morphology and syntax of the language.

As these issues became clearer, increased

attention was paid to the literary features of the texts, especially affinities shared with Biblical Hebrew.

One

reason for this was that most of those involved were accomplished biblical scholars who utilized their existing skills on the new discipline of Ugaritic. Four scholars stand out as pioneers among those who have sought to understand the structure of Ugaritic verse:

1

The excavator relates the account of the initial epigraphic discovery in Schaeffer 1956, 161-68. 2

For a brief account o f the decipherment o f Ugaritic with additional references, see Craigie 1983, 7 f .

10 H.L. Ginsberg, U. Cassuto, W.F. Albright, and C.H. Gordon. They were all aocomplished semitists and recognized biblical scholars.

This enabled them to make rapid advances in the

study of Ugaritic verse. Only a few years after the first texts were excavated from the soil of Ras Shamra, H.L. Ginsberg published an article describing several rhetorical features in Ugaritic which are paralleled in the Hebrew Bible (Ginsberg 1936; a revision of an earlier study published in 1932 in Tarbitz IV).

He began with Albright's earlier suggestion that most

of the texts from Ugarit could be scanned as parallel bicola (Albright 1932, 207) and went on to note a number of variations.

Among these are monocola and tricola,

anacrusis, enjambment, and apocopated end-lines.

Ginsberg

also noted a number of phrases and formulas shared by Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew and was among the first to point out the phenomenon of word-pairs (Ginsberg 1936, 172; also see Ginsberg and Maisler, 248f.). Ten years later, in his translation of the Keret epic, Ginsberg made further observations concerning rhetorical style.

He observed stylistic differences in the texts when

he said, "its style is sensibly less solemn and stilted than that of the other two epics" (Ginsberg 1946, 7-8). Although he did not produce a systematic study of Ugaritic verse, Ginsberg can be credited with setting the stage for much of what has followed.

11 In 1946-1947 U. Cassuto published an important study which compared the literary traditions of Ugarit and ancient Israel (Cassuto 1975a, 16-59).

Cassuto was convinced that

the Israelites derived much of their literary technique not from Mesopotamia or Egypt, but from the Canaanites. He states this hypothesis succinctly when he saYs, "Biblical literature was but the continuation of the antecedent Canaanite literature" (Cassuto 1975a, 17; italics are his). This, he believes, explains the polished nature of the earliest biblical literature produced soon after the formation of the Israelite nation. In support of his thesis he lists a number of literary features common to both traditions.

These include formulas

of transition and other stereotyped formulas, number parallelism, repetition of blocks of material, the seven day formula, common metaphors and similes, shared word pairs, and the use of the same verb in parallel cola in different conjugations or verbal stems.

This long list of

similarities leads him to conclude that there is "no doubt that from the aspect of form, the two literatures are only two branches of a single linguistic tree" (Cassuto 1975a, 59). Cassuto buttressed his thesis in a brief article which expanded his observations on fixed word pairs, giving additional examples and remarking on their significance (Cassuto 1975b).

In this same article he further noted the

12 use of gender matched parallelism in both Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew and offered examples.

Cassuto summarized

these arguments in his comprehensive work, The Goddess Anath (Cassuto 1971), which, as the title suggests, treats the texts relating to the Canaanite goddess, Anat. W.F. Albright also included Ugaritic in his repertoire of scholarly interest from the inception of the discipline. His first relevant article actually antedates the discovery of the Ugaritic texts.

In 1922 he had published a study of

Judges 5, comparing its repetitive poetic style with several Old Akkadian poems, suggesting there was a connection (Albright 1922).

Albright developed this idea in later

publications, arguing that Ugaritic served as the intermediary tradition. In 1945 he advanced the thesis that there was a common tradition of repetitive parallelism in Old Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Biblical Hebrew verse (Albright 1945).

He

also observed that there is more diversity of verse forms in Ugaritic than in Biblical Hebrew, probably due to the preservation of case endings, allowing greater flexibility in word order.

Albright also used this article to make

proposals concerning the presence of meter in Ugaritic, advocating an accentual system similar to what is often applied to Biblical Hebrew.

He also suggested that syllable

counting might be of value for establishing scansion.

13 Albright refined his views in a study of Habakkuk which includes an important study of the tricolon and repetitive parallelism (Albright 1950).

In it he documented the use of

tricola in Ugaritic and noted their relative frequency there vis-à-vis later Hebrew verse.

He also observed differences

in the use of tricola in the Baal epic versus Keret and Dan'el, prompting him to comment that the Baal epic is "more archaic" (Albright 1950, 4 ) . His suggestion that stylistic criteria can be utilized to date verse has influenced several other scholars. In one of his final major publications, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Albright 1968), Albright summarized his work on ancient Canaanite verse.

There he argued that a typology

of stylistic changes can be developed and applied to date Biblical Hebrew verse.

The primary characteristic of early

Canaanite verse was its repetitive parallelism which Albright traced back to the "hymnal-epic dialect" of Old Akkadian, ca. 2300-2000 B.C.

He argued that "there are

enough specific parallels in diction between this poetry and that of Canaanite literature from Ugarit and the early parts of the Hebrew Bible to make ultimate dependence reasonably certain . . . " (Albright 1968, 9 ) . He further maintained that changes brought about by the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age produced changes in the Canaanite tradition as well.

The frequency of repetitive

parallelism gradually diminished and was displaced by

14 paronomasia and figura etymologica. These typological change led Albright to suggest possible dates for biblical texts based on their rhetorical style. C.H. Gordon was the first to produce a textbook of the Ugaritic language, one which extended into three editions (Gordon 1947; 1955; 1965).

In the grammars of these

successive works Gordon treated the syntax and rhetorical structure of Ugaritic, building upon previous treatments and contributing his own findings. lists and describes include:

The rhetorical devices he

chiasmus, ellipsis, ballast

variants, tricola, and variations of word order (Gordon 1965, 132-44). BY 1949, only twenty years after the discovery of Ugarit, scholars such as Ginsberg, Cassuto, Albright, and Gordon had alreadY recognized and catalogued the major rhetorical features of Ugaritic literature. have paved the waY for the

Their efforts

more technically sophisticated

studies, which have appeared in the years since.

Yet all of

these more recent works stand upon the foundation established in the first two decades.

The early scholars

could be criticized for their over-reliance upon parallels from biblical studies, but that kind of cross-fertilization is only natural given the similarities between the Bible and the language, literature, and culture of ancient Ugarit. Had Ugaritic been a language similar to Hurrian, the kind of scholars attracted to it would !?ave doubtless been

15 different.

The close association between Ugaritic and

biblical studies has been both a bane and a blessing:

a

blessing because of the intense interest generated bY the real and imagined parallels between the two literatures; a bane because scholars too often have restricted their field of inquiry to only seeking parallels between Ugarit and the Bible.

Today this situation has changed somewhat as

Ugaritic scholars are availing themselves of the tools of other disciplines and the resources of other cognate literatures.

The result is that advances have been achieved

in many areas.

Line Measurement and Stichometry A clear understanding of the organizing principles of Ugaritic verse is one of the most important issues currently facing Ugaritic studies.

Almost all Ugaritic specialists

agree that the literary texts, such as the epics of Baal, Krt and Aqhat, as well as the hymns and incantations, are verse, but

there is no consensus concerning the qualitative

and quantitative elements which constitute this literature. Since verse usually embodies a rhythmical quality, there has been a persistent search for a metrical system which embraces Ugaritic verse. The terms "rhythm" and "meter" tend to be used virtually as synonyms by some scholars, but a distinction between them is necessary.

The following definition of

16 meter helps establish this distinction: More or less regular poetic rhythm; the measurable rhythmical patterns manifested in verse; or the 'ideal' patterns which poetic rhythms approximate. If 'meter' is regarded as the ideal rhythmical pattern, then 'rhythm' becomes 'meter' the closer it approaches regularity and predictability . . . . meter is what results when the rhythmical movements of colloquial speech are heightened, organized, and regulated so that pattern emerges from the relative phonetic haphazard of ordinary utterance (Preminger, 496-97).3 This definition highlights the regular, patterned, predictable nature of meter vis-â-vis the more random and offhand qualitY of rhythm.

As a result, it is entirely

possible that Ugaritic verse could be rhythmical but not necessarily metrical.

In the following survey it will be

seen that students of Ugaritic verse have not always recognized this distinction.

In fact, the scholarly debate

has centered almost exclusively upon whether meter exists in Ugaritic verse while almost nothing has been done to address the issue of rhythm. The most enduring view has been that Ugaritic verse, like Biblical Hebrew, is characterized bY an accentual meter.

Accentual verse is generally defined as, "poetry in

which the metrical scansion takes into account only the stressed syllables" (Myers and Simms, 3, 187; also see Preminger, 296-97).

Systems of accentual meter usually

assign a primary accent to each word or phrase, with the

3

Note a similar distinction in Myers and Simms, 188: "While meter can be described as a concept, intellectually conceived, rhythm is a precept, experientially felt."

17 meter of a line representing the number of accents in parallel lines. t

R. Dussaud was among the first: to apply

his method to the Ugaritic texts.

the t

Based upon his study of

e x t III AB (CTA 2 iii) he concluded that "Chaque stique

est: généralement: constitué par

tr

ois mesures rythmiques,

plus rarement: quatre, déterminées chacune par un accent: tonique" (Dussaud, 196). Albright: also followed this method and scanned Ugaritic bicolon as primarily 3 + 3, 3 + 2, and other similar patterns (Albright 1945, 21). The strongest contemporary advocate of accentual meter in Ugaritic has been B. Margalit.

In a study of Ugaritic

verse, he presented his metrical system for Ugaritic which he called, "word-meter" (Margalit 1975).

Based upon the

word-meter system developed by J. Ley for Biblical Hebrew, Margalit developed six principles or rules of Ugaritic scansion.

These rules serve to define "verse units," the

basic building blocks of Ugaritic verse.

Once the number of

verse units has been defined, there are further rules which determine their distribution into cola.

Verses in turn are

combined in certain conventional ways to form "strophes," the highest structure in Ugaritic verse (Margalit 1975, 300).

Strophes exhibit regular rhythmic structures which

Margalit calls its "theme."

A strophe's theme varies only

for stylistic reasons. Z. Zevit has published a reaction to Margalit's system which accepts his basic word-meter thesis but attempts to

18 refine the rules of scansion and place the entire enterprise on a firmer linguistic basis.

He defines a verse-unit as

"an independent semanto-syntactic unit consisting of no less than two nor more than five syllables . . . " (Zevit 1983, 195).

He argues that in addition to this syllabic

constraint, stress also played a role in shaping verse units.

Words of five or less syllables bear only a single

stress and count as a single verse-unit, but longer words have both a primary and secondary stress and count as two verse-units.

Since unit measurement reflects both the

number of syllables and stress, Zevit calls it "nondistinctive stress." Several questions emerge from the work of Margalit and Zevit.

First, is word-meter really meter or merely a means

to observe an element of regularity in Ugaritic verse?

When

this method is applied one quickly finds that no regular patterns characteristic of meter can be found.

There is

certainly nothing predictable about word-meter. are 3 + 3, some 3 + 2, others 4 + 3, etc.

Some verses

In short, word-

meter argues more strongly that Ugaritic verse was rhythmical rather than that it had meter.

A related

question which should be raised is, what have Zevit's refinements of Margalit's approach accomplished?

Although

Zevit has sharpened the definition of word-meter by including stress, the result is little different than Margalit's.

The patterned predictability expected of a

19 metrical system is not found, once again arguing that Ugaritic verse was primarily rhythmical. Accentual or word-meter has been eclipsed in some circles during the past decade bY syllable counting, a more strictly phonological approach.

W.F. Albright was one of

the first to suggest counting syllables as a means of establishing scansion (Albright 1945, 21), but his students have developed the method more fully.

F.M. Cross, for

example, advocated syllable counting as a means of demonstrating the symmetry and regularity of Ugaritic verse (Cross 1974).

He does admit, however, that there are

problems in establishing syllabification due to imperfect knowledge of Ugaritic vocalization and questions about the use of case endings on nouns in the construct state.

D.N.

Freedman, another of Albright's students, has also championed syllable counting (Freedman 1980a; 1980b; 1980c). He was cautious, however, stressing that syllable counts are descriptive, not prescriptive, and should not be employed to emend the text (Freedman 1980d, 48-50). The chief advocate of syllabic meter is D.K. Stuart, who has gone beyond the positions of Albright, Cross, and Freedman in applying syllable counting to Ugaritic and biblical verse.

He argues that poets of both literary

traditions were governed by the constraint of composing lines which had the same number of syllables in the successive cola of a verse (Stuart, 9f.). Stuart defines

20 his purpose as follows: The present study builds upon and expands recent research into syllabic meter. It is a surveY of Ugaritic and early Hebrew poetry designed to demonstrate that the newer system of scansion is even more precise than those which have preceded it (Stuart, 9 ) . Since Stuart's thesis hinges upon the vocalization of Ugaritic, this is among the most important aspects of his approach.

One of his assumptions is that the presence of

final vowels on nouns in the construct state is variable, depending upon the meter. By this he means that the poet would include or delete final case vowel endings in order to achieve syllabically balanced lines.4

He clearly states his

position when he says: The most significant problem in vocalization is perhaps that presented by the case ending in a construct chain. When composed poetically the language must have allowed for variability. The case ending, containing a minimum amount of semantic information precisely when part of a construct chain, would have been liable to omission metri causa (Stuart, 51; italics his). A thoroughgoing critique of this position has been offered by G.A. Tuttle, whose examination of every example of nouns with a final 'aleph in the construct leads him to conclude that final case vowels were always retained on singular nouns in the construct state (Tuttle, 253-68). Stuart also adopts textual emendations to corroborate his thesis.

As a result, Stuart has been criticized by

several scholars for employing circular reasoning (Pardee

4

Stuart seems to have taken this idea from F.M. Cross who reflects this approach in Cross 1973, 33, 184, and passim.

21 1981, 113-30; Cooper, 75-76).

They argue that he emends the

text and adopts singular theories of vocalization in order to fit his theory of syllabic regularity within lines. Although it is clear that all systems of metrical analysis must allow for variation, it seems that Stuart's method involves a higher degree of subjectivity than is reasonable to expect.

Further, the present study will show that there

are a number of verses in Ugaritic which do not come even close to conforming to Stuart's thesis.

Yet it is true that

the vast majority of Ugaritic verses do contain lines with the same or nearly the same number of syllables. Perhaps the key question with regard to Stuart's thesis is, in what respect is syllable counting is a measure of meter?

Although Stuart asserts that it does measure meter,

he does not define meter nor does he demonstrate how syllabic regularity in parallel lines qualifies as meter. Even if Stuart's methods of vocalization and emendation are accepted, all he has shown is that parallel lines generally have the same number of syllables.

Even in his own results,

no regular, predictable patterns of line lengths emerge which could be considered meter.

The most which can be said

is that Stuart's work has revealed rhythmical regularity in Ugaritic verse which might be a precursor of meter. Alongside the debate between accentual and syllabic meter, other scholars have argued that there is no measurable meter of any kind in Ugaritic.

G.D. Young

22 advocated this position in an a rt icle published almost: fo rt y years ago.

He states his basic premise when he says, "If

there is any metric system in Ugaritic, it should show itself in some regular manifestation observable in the texts themselves without trying to fit any system into them" (G. Young 1950, 124). From his analysis of the texts he concluded that there is no discernable metrical pattern in Ugaritic.

He ruled out both accentual meter and syllable

meter when he asserted that Ugaritic verse does not show "any evidence of an accentual metric system, or syllabic metric system.

Variation is the norm, not the exception"

(G. Young 1950, 132). Similarly, he found no evidence of regular strophic structure.

He concluded that parallelism

is the single distinguishing mark of Ugaritic verse, not meter. The rekindling of the metrical debate by Margalit, Zevit, Cross, Freedman, and Stuart has prompted several scholars to assert once again that there is no meter in Ugaritic.

For example, S. Segert, like Young, found

parallelism to be the most distinguishing factor in Ugaritic verse.

He recognized that Ugaritic verse consists of cola

of approximately equal length, but dismissed syllable counting as, at best, "secondary" (Segert 1979, 730). D. Pardee has been much more strident in his criticisms of recent attempts to discover meter in Ugaritic.

After

examining several standard definitions of "meter," all of

23 which emphasize the consistent, measurable nature of meter, he states, "I wish to argue that it is this regular, predictable, or at least observable recurrence which is lacking in Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry and that it is this lack which renders usage of the term 'meter' inappropriate" (Pardee 1981, 116). He then offers critiques of the metrical systems of both Stuart and Margalit, suggesting that our limited knowledge of Ugaritic phonology make all such attempts fruitless.

Rather, like Young and Segert, he

argues that "parallelism was the primary structural principle of Ugaritic poetry . . . " (Pardee 1981, 126). Meter and stichometry are closely intertwined in the study of Ugaritic verse.

Since both accentual and syllabic

meter are measured on the basis of verse lines, the division of a text into cola is of fundamental importance.

The

problems involved in determining lineation of the Ugaritic texts have been especially vexing to scholars because the ancient Canaanite scribes seemingly had little regard for copying texts according to the Akkadian scribal tradition. In that tradition each line of writing usually corresponds to a line of verse.

In contrast, biblical manuscript's were

only occasionally copied with attention to stichometry (on this point see Kugel, 118-126).

Ugaritic texts reveal a

similar lack of lineation, although there are exceptions. W.G.E. Watson notes that some Ugaritic texts "coincide uncannily with the lineation proposed by modern

24 interpreters" (Watson 1982, 311). Although he notes texts which seem to preserve good lineation, none of the major mythological texts are among them. In 1975 O. Loretz proposed a simple method to assist: in determining the stichometry of texts.

Since it: is generally

recognized that parallel lines are of approximately the same length, he suggested counting the oonsonants in each line (Loretz 1975a, 265-69).

Although this method could be

oonstrued as similar to the syllabic meter system of Stuart, Loretz made no claims for consonant: counting other than as an aid to establish lineation. B. Margalit's study deserves to be mentioned again in connect:ion with the issue of stiohometry because he proposed several rules or oonstraints upon the formation of Ugaritic: verse (Margalit 1975, 298f.).

He claimed that a verse

always oonsists of between two and twelve verse units,^ and that verses contain only one, two, or three lines. Furthermore, verse patterns are quite stereotyped, allowing for few variations and following a set of conventionalized rules.* The effect of Margalit's methodology is not to

^Margalit's definition of a verse-unit is rather involved, consisting of six principles explained in seven pages of text. Basically a word is a verse-unit, but there are many exceptions. See Margalit 1975, 292-298. *It should be noted that Z. Zevit's critique of Margalit's method extends to the formulation of rules of scansion (Zevit 1983). Overall, however, Zevit is in basic agreement with Margalit's approach.

25 prescribe stichometry, but: to reduce the possible permutations. In a comprehensive article on Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse structure, M.C.A. Korpel and J.C. de Moor also considered the problems associated in determining stichometry. t

They acknowledge the inherent: problems when

hey say, "the re-establishment of the colometric division

intended by the ancient poets is often a hazardous undertaking.

Evert the most conscientious researcher would

do well to recognize this in all fairness" (Korpel arid de Moor, 176). They propose the systematic application of four approaches to assist the modern reader:

1) attention to

internal parallelism, 2) the witness of the Masoretic cantillation, 3) recognition of the rhythmic balance between cola, arid 4) a comparison of parallel passages. Two other articles with implications for stichometry may be mentioned briefly.

The first is a study of anaphora

and line initial alliteration in Ugaritic by W.G.E. Watson (1980b).

He notes that, "it is remarkable how often

consecutive lines in the Ugaritic texts tend to begin with the same letter or group of letters. This is achieved either by repeating the same word (anaphora), or by using an identical initial letter."

Watson maintains that these

rhetorical devices are important for recognizing lineation in Ugaritic.

The other article is an analysis of word order

in the Krt text by G.H. Wilson (Wilson 1982).

His study is

26 valuable for stichometric analysis because it describes the most frequent syntactic structures in Ugaritic verse. The preceding survey has shown that the problems associated with meter and stichometry in Ugaritic verse are complex and, to a certain extent, possibly insoluble.

At

the present time no one has been able to conclusively demonstrate a consistent metrical pattern in Ugaritic verse, either accentual or syllabic.

The most which can be said

with any confidence is that most parallel lines are of approximately the same length.

In view of these

uncertainties it seems best to leave the metrical issue open.

Other facets of Ugaritic verse such as word-pairs,

analyses of the types parallelism, and studies of rhetorical devices may be of use in resolving some of the remaining difficulties associated with Ugaritic stichometry.

Word-Pairs Word-pairs constitute another area of intense interest for students of Ugaritic verse.

Perhaps due to the

uncertainties concerning meter, some regard word-pairs as the single most significant factor in Canaanite verse.

For

these, the poets' use of "fixed" word-pairs is the primary feature which defines Ugaritic verse. H.L. Ginsberg was the first to observe the phenomenon, which he defined as, "certain fixed pairs of synonyms that recur repeatedly, and as a rule in the same order, in these

27 texts and (or) are shown by their presence in Hebrew poetry as well to have belonged to the regular stock-in-trade of Canaanite poets" (Ginsberg 1936, 172). About a decade later U. Cassuto further explored word pairs, calling them "correlated parallel words" (Cassuto 1975a, 43f.).

Cassuto

described it as "a kind of established convention that when a given word occurred in the first hemistich of a verse, it drew after, in the second hemistich, a certain other word of equivalent meaning" (Cassuto 1975a, 43). A monograph on early biblical verse published by S. Gevirtz in 1963 advanced the idea that mastery of word-pairs constituted one of the basic skills in the repertoire of Canaanite poets, one of the "essentials of his craft" (Gevirtz 1963, 11). He called them "fixed word pairs," arguing that, "These form the foundation for the theory of a traditional poetic diction common to Syro-Palestinian literatures" (Gevirtz 1963, 8 ) . Gevirtz also applied to Canaanite verse the oral composition theories Milman Parry had developed in his study of Homeric epic.

He suggested

that whereas the Greek poet had structured his verse around formulaic phrases, the Canaanite poet utilized fixed word pairs as his structural principle (Gevirtz 1963, 12). This orientation toward word-pairs has culminated in what may be called the "Canaanite thesaurus" view of M.

28 Dahood and some of his students.^

Whereas Gevirtz and his

predecessors had identified only about sixty word-pairs, Dahood isolated hundreds of fixed word-pairs which he asserted were common to Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew (Fisher 1972; 1975; Rummel 1981).

The consequence has been that

word-pairs, a meaningful facet of Ugaritic verse, have been made by some the most important feature of Canaanite prosody. The Canaanite thesaurus thesis has come under fire in recent years from different quarters.

P.C. Craigie has used

several arguments against the position of Dahood and his followers.

His first argument is based upon the lexicon.

He notes that many words have only a limited number of synonyms or antonyms in a given language, thus reducing the possibilities for a variety of word-pairs (Craigie 1971, 141).*

He also questions the assertion that word-pairs are

fixed, since many words are paired with several different terms.

There is also the matter of sequence, the order in

which word-pairs appear.

Contrary to what some have

claimed, the sequence of word-pairs is more variable than might be imagined, leading Craigie to assert that, "The

^Dahood referred to "the Canaanite thesaurus from whose resources Ugaritic and Hebrew poets alike drew" (Fisher 1972, 74). *For example, he observes that in both Ugaritic arid biblical Hebrew the only words for "head" are qdqd/raš arid qodqod/ro'š respectively.

29 large number of examples of the reverse sequence in Hebrew makes it: highly improbable that both Hebrew and Ugaritic drew on the resources of a supposed common Syro-Palestinian tradition" (Craigie 1971, 142).* t

Finally he suggests that

here may have been phonetic reasons for the primary

sequence of word-pairs.*° In subsequent: articles, Craigie further attacks the thesis of a common Ugaritic and Hebrew "poetic thesaurus." In a study of Judges 5 he argues that of the twenty-two alleged word-pairs common to Ugaritic and Hebrew, only five are tenable (Craigie 1977a, 22). 13 a similar study of Ps. 29 he determines that, "t:here is no single, unambiguous parallel word pair common t:o Ugarit:ic poet:ry in Psalm 29 . . . which is not: also at:t:est:ed in t:he poetry of ot:her languages" (Craigie 1979, 139).** A. Berlin has also offered an innovat:ive approach t:o word-pairs, arguing against: t:he idea of a st:ock of fixed word-pairs, or, as she t:erms it:, a "poet:'s dict:ionarY," from

*Wat:son list:s inst:ances of reversed word-pairs within Ugarit:ic itself, although he admits that it is uncommon. Like Craigie, Watson suggests that this phenomenon implies "a certain loss of continuity between the two traditions, resulting in imitation of form but lack of understanding as regards function" (Watson 1981b, 192). *°With this suggestion Craigie treatment of word-pairs. See below. 11

48-58.

anticipated

A.

Berlin's

For a summary of approach to this topic see Craigie 1977b,

30 which bards drew as they orally composed verse (Berlin 1983, 7-16; 1985, 66f.).

Instead, she explains word-pairs as

th

e

product: of normal word associations performed by all native speakers of a language.

She finds support: for her view in

the field of psycholinguistics which has developed rules to account: for the formation of word associations.

She asserts

that: the theory of word association is a "unified theory" which can explain other parallelistic phenomena as well: It: shows that the pairing of words in parallel lines is no different from the pairing in juxtaposition, collocation, and construct. And it shows that the poetic pairings are the same as those in prose (Berlin 1983, 16). This leads her to the conclusion that word-pairs were not: a special invention of Canaanite poets to enable them to compose parallel lines.

Rat:her, she assert:s, "It: is not:

word pairs t:hat: create parallelism.

It: is parallelism t:hat:

act:ivat:es word pairs" (Berlin 1983, 16; 1985, 79). Thus Berlin att:empt:s t:o explain t:he format:ion of word-pairs in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew as t:he result: of t:he linguist:ic affinities of t:he two languages and t:hrough t:he t:heories of word association, rat:her t:han wit:h t:he idea of a "poet:'s dictionary".

Z. Zevit:, among others, has expressed his

endorsement: of her approach when he says, "Berlin's research removes the magic aura that has tended to surround this aspect of parallelism by demonstrating that the generation of word pairs was a matter of poetic competence" (Zevit 1986, 98).

31 Such criticisms of the Canaanite poetic thesaurus theory are not intended to suggest that word pairs are unimportant for understanding Ugaritic and Hebrew verse. Indeed, word pairs have been shown to be an integral part of both traditions.

What Craigie, Berlin and others have

argued is that word pairs are not "fixed," not: are they part: of a "dictionary" or "thesaurus."

They have maintained that

word pairs could be used in a variety of ways subject to the poet's own skill and purposes, and that they were generated through a complex phonological and psychological process. By far the most comprehensive catalog of word-pairs to date has been published by Y. Avishur (1984).

He presents a

history of the discipline together with an exhaustive list of word-pairs in Hebrew, Ugaritic Phoenician, Aramaic, and Akkadian literatures.

The final part of his study deals

with some of the implications word-pairs present for textual study, especially for textual emendation. Avishur does not directly deal with the issue of a fixed Canaanite thesaurus, but he does argue that Ugaritic is the most likely source of direct influence upon the biblical poets: Since there are no existing data on Western Semitic literature which antedates Ugaritic, it is therefore clear that Ugaritic is that literature representative of the Canaanite literature prevalent in this area (with form and style differences) from which Hebrew literature of the Biblical period drew its style and form (Avishur 1984, 439). Avishur's work does show, however that word-pairs,

32 especially in the Bible, were not "fixed" in the sense that some seem to imply. The intent of above discussion is not to diminish the significance of word-pairs in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse.

Rather, it attempts to show that the prominence of

word-pairs may be overestimated, especially by Dahood. Whether or not Craigie, Berlin, and other critics are entirely correct, their critiques cast doubt upon the position which considers word-pairs the single most important interpretative key of Canaanite verse.

Other

features of verse such as parallelism and rhetorical devices are of equal consequence.

Verse Structure and Parallelism For more than a century and a half Semitic verse has been described using the categories advanced by Bishop R. Lowth (1829).

This situation has changed dramatically

during the past fifteen years as scholars have published a number of studies of verse structure and parallelism employing new methods inspired by linguistics.

These have

shed new light upon the complexities of both biblical and Ugaritic verse.

Those which pertain directly to Ugaritic

will be examined in this section whereas those which deal more specifically with Biblical Hebrew verse will be surveyed in the next chapter.

S.B. Parker's 1974 article is

among the first in this recent group, and he has been

33 followed by other scholars, principally J.C. de Moor, S. Segert, and D. Pardee. Parker's article breaks new ground because it has served to refocus scholarly investigation of Ugaritic verse structure (Parker 1974).

He begins with a review and

critique of several early studies of Ugaritic verse, focusing particularly upon the various metrical systems which have been proposed.

Although he recognizes the

problems inherent in the traditional accent-meter systems, he is unconvinced by Young's absolute denial of meter.

He

then evaluates the studies which argue that parallelism is the only significant component of the Ugaritic poetic tradition.

Because he finds them less than persuasive he

proposes an approach which might be described as a via media.

Parker suggests that parallelism and meter are not

mutually exclusive but can be combined to describe verse. His own statements make this clearer: It seems most appropriate to approach the question of 'meter' through the morphology of parallelism. . . . What is attempted here is a demonstration of the formal significance of the length of cola in terms of units defined initially by the structures of parallelism (Parker 1974, 287). Utilizing the concept of parallel "elements," Parker attempts to show that every colon of Ugaritic verse contains two or three elements, identified through the parallelism (Parker 1974, 289). For example, in CTA 14 i 8-9 the term ahm is paralleled by bn um.

The parallelism thus shows bn

urn to be an "element" (Parker 1974, 289). By his definition

34 parallel cola have one, two or three elements which are semantically parallel.12

His analysis of the Krt text shows

that in one-half of the parallel bicola there are three parallel elements (which he designates 3 // 3 ) , and in one quarter there are two parallel elements (either 3 // 2 or 2 // 2). Parker's study is significant in several respects. His is one of the first of a new series of articles investigating the nature of Ugaritic verse.

The emphasis

upon semantic parallelism is, at the same time, its strength and weakness.

He has shown both the pervasive presence of

semantic parallelism, but in so doing he highlights the need for more comprehensive analyses which include those elements which are not semantically parallel. Another criticism of Parker is that he does not provide a clear definition of his basic unit of verse, the "element".

He himself recognizes this shortcoming but

argues that the basic units of Ugaritic verse cannot be defined solely from linguistic: categories because these categories have proved to be too rigid (Parker 1974, 290). He thiitks that a more flexible approach is better suited to the nature of Ugaritic verse.

The rest of his paper

presents all the parallel bicola in Krt with their "metrical" patterns.

12

Parker suggests that semantic: parallelism most often involves synonymy of terms, although it may also embrace lexical identity or evert antinomy (1974, 288).

35 J.C. de Moor and his colleagues at: Kampen, the Netherlands, have published a series of articles which a t t emp t to describe Ugaritic verse at every level, from the smallest:, the

"foot", to the largest, the "canto" (de Moor

1978a; 1978b; 1980b).13

They support the view of Cassuto

and others that "there existed an unbroken poetic tradition between Canaan and Israel" (Korpel and de Moor, 173). Further, they reject attempts to impose a metrical system upon Ugaritic, either accentual or syllabic.

Instead, these

articles concentrate upon delimiting the building blocks of Ugaritic verse. The smallest poetic unit, the "foot," is defined as "a word containing at least one stressed syllable" (Korpel and de Moor, 173). A foot can be as small as a monosyllable or as large as eight syllables.

Next is the "colon,"

consisting of between one arid five feet, although most cola contain three feet.

Since individual cola are often

incomplete sentences or dependent clauses, they are usually combined with other cola to form a "verse," the next unit in de Moor's hierarchy.

Unlike those who argue that a verse

can contain only one, two, or three cola, de Moor finds verses of one to nine cola.

A variety of factors can bind

individual verses together to form an even larger poetic

13

An overall summary of de Moor's approach is presented in Korpel and de Moor 1986, 173-212.

36 unit:, t he "strophe."1*

Similarly, individual strophes can

be linked together to form the "canticle," although he admits t h a t the boundaries of a canticle are not always easy to define.

Beyond the canticle they speak of structures

called the "sub-canto" and "canto."

These are recognized

through devices such as inclusio and other indications of external parallelism. The Kampen approach to Ugaritic and Israelite verse posits a "fundamental law" that, "Within certain limits every structural unit could be expanded or contracted, as the singers saw fit" (Korpel and de Moor, 174). This principle is based upon the observation that parallel passages within a single work are often altered by either adding or deleting material, indicating that the poet enjoyed a significant degree of flexibility in the composition of a poem.

Within this flexibility, however,

there were limitations and

constraints.

A foot, colon, or

verse might be expanded or contracted only to a certain point before it became the next larger or smaller unit (de Moor 1978b, 216-17).

This quality leads Korpel and de Moor

to characterize Ugaritic and Israelite verse as "a breathing universe, expanding and contracting according to the mood and skill of the singers" (de Moor 1978b, 212).

**For a detailed description of their method of strophic isolation, see Korpel and de Moor, 194f. These include; markers of separation, external parallelism, and run on sentences.

37 S. Segert: has also worked extensively with Ugaritic verse structure and parallelism, publishing two germane articles.1^

The first: attempted to outline the basic

character of Ugaritic verse, especially its pervasive parallelism.

Segert: stated his basic view when he said,

"The most prominent: feature o f Ugaritic poetry is its parallelistic structure.

It can be said that no other

literature of the ancient Near East, Semitic or non-Semitic, exhibits such a consistent application of this structure" (Segert 1979, 731). Segert recognized that parallelism involves more than merely semantics when he defined parallelistic structure as, "a correspondence between both the semantic and syntactic characteristics of the words forming the cola" (Segert 1979, 731). Syntax is also involved, as well as other dimensions of parallelism. Segert also briefly notes the use of rhetorical devices such as metaphors, synecdoche, and number parallelism. Segert's second article develops his ideas on parallelism.

He first accentuates the importance o f syntax

when he says, "Ugaritic prosodic units coincide—with very f

ew exceptions—with syntactic units.

Therefore, syntactic

analysis of prosodic units, cola and verses, provides a reliable basis for their delimitation arid characterization"

^Unfortunately his grammar, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Segert 1985), does riot treat poetry in arty comprehensive way.

38 (Segert 1983, 297). He then suggests that in a bicolon the first colon is the primary clause and the second colon provides "additional information of lower syntactic rank" (Segert 1983, 297). The bulk of this article is then devoted to outlining the various types of syntactic structures in monocola and bicola, together with a description of semantic parallelistic relationships. He also presents a basic taxonomy of non-parallel bicola, a much neglected aspect of ancient Canaanite verse. In these two articles Segert has done a great deal to highlight the basic issues facing the careful reader of Ugaritic verse.

To his credit he has considered a wide

range of topics and has presented a basic method of analysis.

What he has failed to do is to apply his approach

to the texts themselves.

Fortunately, this deficit has been

recently addressed by Pardee. In 1988 D. Pardee published a monograph presenting close studies of two passages; one Ugaritic, the other from the Hebrew Bible (Pardee 1988b).

In it he attempted to

apply the analytic methods of four scholars who have worked primarily with Biblical Hebrew verse, T. Collins, S. Geller, M. O'Connor, and A. Berlin.

Pardee set the agenda for his

work when he stated, The present work should, at the least, be useful to students of Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry in that I utilize, explain, compare, and criticize several of the most important systems of analysis! of the3e poetries which have been proposed in the last decade and it can be used as a sort of companion to or further illustration of those methods. In addition to this

39 descriptive aspect:, I propose a systematic analysis of parallelism as a structural device which permeates all levels of a Ugaritic or Hebrew poem (Pardee 1988b, xiii). The first: study, that of the Ugaritic passage, KTU 1.3, is of the most: importance for the present: dissertation. The t

ex t is presented with a vocalization and translation,

followed by various t ypes of analysis.

Pardee successively

applies the methods of Collins, Geller and O'Connor to the t

ex t as an indication of their relative value for Ugaritic.

He compares the results obtained from his limited Ugaritic sample with their overall conclusions and then discusses the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method.

The text

is then analyzed according to his own categories of "types of parallelism" and "distributions of parallelism."**

The

same procedure is then applied to a Hebrew text. Proverbs 2, before he offers conclusions and prognostications about the future of poetic analysis. Pardee provides the theoretical basis for his studies in two previously unpublished articles which are added as appendices to the monograph.

In the first (Pardee 1988c) he

responds to his own prior call for increased attention to parallelism (Pardee 1981) by offering an analysis of three types of parallelism together with a catalogue of neglected aspects of parallelism.

His three types of parallelism are

repetitive, semantic, and grammatical.

1

*For an explanation of these terms, see below.

40 Repetitive parallelism includes both verbatim repetition and the use of the same root in parallel cola, often called paronomasia or figura etymologica. Analysis of semantic parallelism, the repetition of meaning, suffers from a lack of precision.

Pardee applauded the efforts of

Geller and others to offer more precise categories to describe semantic relationships.

Grammatical parallelism,

the repetition of syntactic structure, is one of the most recent areas of research in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse.

After evaluating the analytical systems of Collins

and Geller, Pardee concluded that no single method can deal with all the intricacies of verse.

Therefore he advocates

the use of several different, but complementary, approaches. The final part of his paper deals with five aspects of parallelism which Pardee feels deserve further attention. These include the parallelism of minor elements, that is, particles which are not usually included in systems of analysis.

A second aspect he call3 "positional

parallelism," referring to the relative position of each element in the line.

Thirdly, he accents the role of

phonetics in parallelism, but admits that modern researchers are handicapped by a host of enigmas, principally the vocalic system.

A fourth area Pardee thinks worthy of

further research is "length compensation," also termed "ballast variants" by C.H. Gordon.

Finally, and most

emphatically, he calls for study of the ways in which

41 parallelism is used in units larger than the verse level. He says, "I have become convinced that any analysis of the parallelistic structure of a text must include an analysis of parallelism at all distances" (Pardee 1988c, 187). Pardee develops the last neglected aspect of parallelism in the second article in the appendix of his monograph.

Little has been done, he argues, toward

recognizing and analyzing how the various types of parallelism are distributed within larger verse structures. He asks, "How do these micro-structural devices contribute to macro-structure?" (Pardee 1988a, 198). To provide a matrix to facilitate analysis, Pardee suggested four levels over which the various types of parallelisms may occur: 1) within a single colon,** 2) between the two cola of a bicolon, 3) between two contiguous bicola, and 4) between bicola separated by at least one complete bicolon (Pardee 1988a, 198). The effect of this approach is to broaden the task of analysis.

Pardee made further observations

concerning the relative strengths of the types of parallelism and their distribution over the four levels. He summarizes his research by saying, "The conclusion to which this study of distributions has led me to date is that any notion that a poem may be studied, as a piece of poetry,

^Others who have investigated parallelism within a single colon include Watson (1984b; 1986); Y. Avishur (1984, 53-63); and S. Segert (1983, 289-99).

42 only by reference to the bicolon or the tricolon must be abandoned" (Pardee 1988a, 201). Pardee's exhaustive study of two relatively short: poems from Ugarit: and the Hebrew Bible is significant: for several reasons.

He is the first: to have independently applied

recent: methods of analysis to both Hebrew and Ugaritic texts.

For this reason, Pardee is able to offer a detailed

critique of these methods.

He concludes that while each is

useful for analyzing specific aspects of verse, none can claim to be a comprehensive analytical tool.

He states this

explicitly when he says, "no one system of notation can encompass the manifold nuances of linkage that occur at every level of analysis" (Pardee 1988b, 167). This conclusion is important because many have considered these methods mutually exclusive. Pardee has shown that they can and should be used in concert. Further, Pardee has demonstrated the need for greater precision in categorizing the various aspects of parallelism.

He has also sought to broaden the focus of

analysis from a myopic concern with individual verses to the realization that parallelism affects every level of a poem. Finally, Pardee has shown that analysis of verse is a complex endeavor, involving a variety of methods and skills. Whereas studies of meter and word-pairs have reached something of an impasse in recent years, the study of parallelism in Ugaritic and biblical verse is, in many

43 respects, still in its infancy. t

Pardee has demonstrated

h a t cross-fertilization with biblical studies has provided

significant impetus to the study of parallelism in Ugaritic verse.

Important progress has been made, but much remains

to be done.

Present procedures can be improved and there is

room for new approaches, such as the analysis of rhetorical devices, the goal of the present study.

Studies of Rhetorical Devices Another area of contemporary research in Ugaritic verse concerns the analysis and use of rhetorical devices. Scholars such as W.G.E. Watson (1984a) and M. O'Connor (1980) have shown that an important aspect of parallelism involves the use of what may be called rhetorical devices.1* The final section of this chapter could appropriately survey the literature which has appeared, mostly in the past twenty years, dealing with individual rhetorical devices in Ugaritic.

This literature has been extensive, dealing with

both Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse. Because the purpose of the present work is to analyze the use of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic literature, a discussion of the primary

1

*The term "rhetorical device" is employed in this dissertation in some measure to be more inclusive than other terms might allow. O'Connor, for example uses the word "trope" in roughly the same way as rhetorical device is used here. But "trope" bears certain connotations which may not be appropriate for ancient Canaanite verse. In the Introduction I have addressed the problem of defining the term, "rhetorical device".

44 works in this area will be reserved for detailed discussion in Chapter Three.

Conclusion In this chapter I have surveyed studies of Ugaritic verse spanning nearly six decades in an attempt to outline the progress which has been made and to find those areas where further work is needed.

The scholarly debate

continues with regard to several key issues.

The quest for

a metrical system, at least in the usual sense of the term, which embraces Ugaritic verse continues to spark debate. This is not surprising in view of the problem vocalizing Ugaritic and the uncertainties regarding stress.

There are,

of course, similar problems with Biblical Hebrew verse. Similarly, the view that word-pairs are the constitutive hallmark of Ugaritic verse is no longer as universally embraced as it was previously.

Critics such as Craigie and

Berlin have offered alternatives to the theory of a "Canaanite thesaurus," suggesting other explanations for the phenomenon. In view of these unresolved issues it is not surprising that some scholars are pursuing other lines of research.

In

the last decade the characteristics of parallelism have come under closer scrutiny resulting in an increased understanding of this basic component of Ugaritic prosody. Lowth's tripartite division of parallelism, long since

45 deemed inadequate, is finally yielding to more sophisticated methods of analysis.

Studies such as those by de Moor,

Segert, and Pardee, as well as others who have concentrated on biblical verse, have shown parallelism to be a multifaceted phenomenon affecting every aspect of language. There is every reason to expect further progress in future studies of parallelism.

The present study, by concentrating

upon rhetorical devices and their role in creating parallelism, seeks to add to this body of knowledge.

Recent

Chapter Two: S t u d i e s of H e b r e w

Verse

Introduction When the texts from Ugarit were first deciphered almost sixty years ago scholars immediately recognized affinities between Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew.

These similarities

include common vocabulary, grammatical structure, and verse structure.

These affinities make studies of biblical verse

especially important for the present investigation of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic.

For this reason the present

chapter will review several recent studies of biblical verse which are significant for the study of Ugaritic. Umberto Cassuto has been one of the most eloquent proponents of the view that both Ugaritic and biblical verse are different manifestations of a common Canaanite tradition.

He argued in several publications that "the

Bible is but a continuation of Canaanite literature," and that "Hebrew literature is heir to the Canaanite literary tradition" (Cassuto 1971, 19). He cited numerous examples of literary expressions shared by the two literatures in order to demonstrate his thesis.

These include common

metaphorical expressions, similes, word-pairs, stereotyped attributes and formulas, fondness for full repetition, and

47 special nominal and verbal forms (Cassuto 1971, 21-48). Cassuto's evaluation has been echoed by other scholars in the field, among them, M. Held, C. Gordon, M. Dahood, and others. Such efforts have attained epic proportions in the multi-volume work, Ras Shamra Parallels, which seems to have the intent of divining every possible contact between the two traditions (Fisher 1972; 1975; Rummel 1981).

Despite

excesses, there can be no doubt that there is a close relationship between the two literary traditions, leading to the conclusion that one can legitimately be utilized to elucidate the other if this is done with appropriate caution.1

One must constantly keep in mind that the

languages and literature of Ugarit and the Bible originated in distinct chronological, geographical, religious and cultural settings.

Their similarities cannot blind us to

their differences. In general there have been three main approaches which have characterized recent studies of Hebrew verse.

Some,

such as Freedman and Stuart, have maintained that meter is its most basic constituent.

Others, such as Kugel, Geller,

and Berlin, argue that parallelism is the key toward understanding Hebrew verse, although their understanding of parallelism differs.

Finally, there are several who have

sought to break the impasse between meter and parallelism by

*For a critical evaluation of progress (or regress) in this area, see Craigie 1981, 99-112.

48 suggesting a third means of analYsis.

Collins attempts to

show that syntax is the primary characteristic of Hebrew verse, whereas O'Connor suggests a system of "constraints" and "tropes" in the place of meter and parallelism.

Watson

opens another window through which to view biblical verse by stressing the importance of the form and function of rhetorical devices.

Their methods of analysis, together

with other approaches, have served to refocus attention upon the intricacies of Hebrew verse and in the process have suggested new means to study the Ugaritic texts. This chapter will survey the most significant works on biblical verse of the past three decades.

This time period

represents a renaissance of interest in biblical verse after more than a century of relative disinterest.

The approach

and analysis established by Bishop Lowth have been challenged and new methods offered in their place.

In this

chapter these new methods will be examined and evaluated. This survey will, of necessity, be selective and not comprehensive. added.

Many other articles and monographs could be

The attempt is to deal with those which have had the

greatest impact and/or have advanced significant theories and methods of study.

Gevirtz S. Gevirtz published a monograph in 1963 which stimulated renewed interest in Hebrew verse (Gevirtz 1963).

49 His work consists of five individual text studies, each of which examines one aspect of fixed word pairs.

Gevirtz

focused upon word pairs in part because of their prominence in Ugaritic verse.

In his view the discovery of Ugaritic

has been a landmark for the study of Biblical Hebrew verse primarily because of the common rhetorical devices shared by both traditions.

He emphasizes the similarities between

Ugaritic and biblical verse, noting that, "the parallelistic structures evident in the Ugaritic poems were in all significant respects virtually identical with those known from Old Testament poetry" (Gevirtz 1963, 2-3). Gevirtz regards fixed word pairs as a compositional, rather than an aesthetic, rhetorical device.

He traces the

origin of fixed word pairs to oral composition techniques. He argues that, The poet had to construct his verses 'on his feet,' as it were, and to retain them in his memory. He was therefore forced to rely upon some mnemonic device, in this case upon a conventional diction and traditional patterns of composition (Gevirtz 1963, 10). I n this way, word pairs provided the poet with art easily remembered framework around which to construct his verse. Therefore, Gevirtz considers a vocabulary of word pairs to have been one of the fundamental requisites for the ancient poet of the Levant (Gevirtz 1963, 11). In addition to the simple fixed word pair, Gevirtz examined several related patterns, such as number parallelism and epithetic word pairs.

There, too, he found

50 the form of these devices in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse remarkably similar. Although word pairs had been previously studied by Ginsberg, Cassuto and others,2

Gevirtz was among the first

to demonstrate the importance of this rhetorical device for the interpretation of individual biblical texts, utilizing them as an hermeneutical tool. illustrate his approach.

Several examples will

In I Sam. 18:7, the women's

victory chant after victory over the Philistines, Gevirtz suggests that "ten thousands" is simply the appropriate number parallel to "thousands."

Therefore he argues that

the women are not lauding David's military prowess over that of Saul (Gevirtz 1963, 24). Another example is his study of 2 Sam. 1:18-27 where he attempts to resolve several textual enigmas by reconstructing fixed pairs obscured by the present corrupt state of the text. Gevirtz went beyond the phenomenon of word-pairs when he made another important observation about the nature of parallelism.

He noted that since the work of Lowth,

parallelism had been treated almost exclusively in terms of the semantic correspondence of one line to the next.

Rather

than such a restricted focus, Gevirtz proposed investigating syntactic parallelism, the syntactic correspondence of cola (Gevirtz 1963, 8 ) . He did not exploit his own suggestion.

2

See the discussion of word pairs in Chapter 1.

51 but in the past fifteen years there have been many studies which have used Gevirtz' idea as a basis for analysis.

Freedman David Noel Freedman has written a number of articles treating various aspects of Biblical Hebrew verse, most of which were published in the 1970's.

These are to some

extent summarized in his Prolegomenon to a republication of G.B. Gray's classic, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (Freedman 1980d).

This Prolegomenon provided Freedman with a forum to

set forth many of his own conclusions about the nature of Hebrew verse. Among Freedman's most basic assertions is that, contrary to Gray and many others, the most fundamental characteristic of Hebrew verse is not parallelism, but rhythm (Freedman 1980d, 37). His primary argument to support of this view is the fact that there are many cola which exhibit little or no parallelism at all.

Although

Freedman does not define parallelism, it is clear from the context that he is referring to semantic parallelism. Because he concludes that rhythm is the most fundamental characteristic of biblical verse, Freedman goes on to suggest that parallelism is in reality no more that a "stylistic device." If in fact rhythm, with all its deliberate variety and irregularity, is the fundamental criterion of Hebrew verse, then parallelism maY be regarded as a stylistic device, the use of which has been influenced, in part at least, by metrical considerations. Thus the poet

52 could use parallel expressions to fill out a line according to the metrical requirements. Such a factor could explain both the presence and the absence of parallelism, as well as the degree or extent of its use in given lines (Freedman 1980d, 37). Although he argues that rhythm is the primary characteristic of biblical verse, Freedman is aware of the pitfalls involved in the approaches to metrical scansion. These problems are posed by the late tradition of the Masoretic vocalization and cantilation, the uncertainties concerning original stress, and the problems in determining stichometry.

He does not deny the validity of methods which

seek to quantify stressed syllables, but he recognizes the myriad of problems inherent in the task.

Therefore, he

advocates syllable counting as the most descriptive and precise method of analyzing cola.

He clearly expresses his

view when he says: We are persuaded that unstressed syllables played a role in Hebrew poetry along with stressed syllables, and that counting the total number of syllables in lines and larger units produces a more reliable picture of the metrical structure than any other procedure now in use (Freedman 1980d, 42). Freedman vigorously opposes the practice of emending texts metri causa, a method which has been utilized by advocates of accentual meter and syllabic meter.

His

primary objection to such emendations is that they employ circular reasoning. The same texts used to derive the metrical theory are then emended to conform to the theory (Freedman 1980d, 48). Because conjectural emendations are reflections of the state of scholarship at the time they are

53 advanced, Freedman suggests such emendations are "more likely to be remembered as exercises in scholarly ingenuity than as serious contributions to the recovery of the original reading" (Freedman 1980d, 50). In an article published the same year as his Prolegomenon to Gray, Freedman utilized acrostic poems as a test-bed for his syllable counting method of analysis (Freedman 1980a).

The advantage in using acrostic poems is

the elimination of the subjective element in determining the beginning and end of each cola.

The results of his analysis

suggest that, for acrostic poems at least, contiguous cola do indeed exhibit a measure of syllabic uniformity.

But

Freedman cautions that such statistics are descriptive and not prescriptive.

Ancient poets were fully capable of

deviating from such set patterns. Freedman published a more comprehensive article in 1977 which restated and refined many of his views (Freedman 1980c).

As a part of this article he evaluates the state of

metrical studies, asserting that all attempts to formulate a single, quantitative approach to Hebrew metrics are doomed to failure.

He articulates his position as follows:

The quest for the key to Hebrew metrics may have reached a turning point. Hitherto the search and the struggle among scholars have been to uncover that governing principle or universal truth that not only would encompass all cases, but would also recover the fundamental patterns adopted by the biblical poets. Needless to say, the quest has proved futile . . . no magic key has ever been found, or is likely to be. No regular, fairly rigid system will work with any large sample without extensive reshaping of individual poems and verses (Freedman 1980c, 6 ) .

54 Since Freedman can find no single, comprehensive solution to Hebrew metrics, he proposes a descriptive approach which he hopes will yield "an adequate description of the phenomena" (Freedman 1980c, 7 ) . He suggests three considerations which should be taken into account in any description:

1) The

Hebrew poets did not deliberately utilize any metrical system, 2) the poet's work was as much intuitive as conscious, arid 3) the debate over oral versus written composition has riot shed light on the compositional process (Freedman 1980c, 7-8). For these reasons he regards syllable counting as the most precise means of delineating lines. Another difficult issue is the question of differentiating verse and prose.

Freedman proposes a

mechanical test to resolve the issue, a count of the density of the particles ha- (the definite article), 'et (the object marker), and 'ašer in verse vis-â-vis prose (Freedman 1980c, 2-3).

He contends that prose exhibits a high density of

these particles whereas in verse they are relatively infrequent.

He does issue a caveat to deter wholesale

excision of these particles from poetic texts: It would be irresponsible to conclude that these particles were never used in poetry and that all such occurrences in the present text are the result of editorial revision or scribal error. At the same time, some contamination has occurred, and the elimination of intrusive particles will be justified in specific cases, especially where supporting data are available (Freedman 1980c, 3 ) .

55 Dating verse through an analysis of typological change has been another topic of interest for Freedman.

He was

inspired, no doubt, by his teacher, W.F. Albright, who had previously explored this possibility Albright (1968, 1-28, 42-52).

In an article first published in 1976 Freedman

argues that a chronology of early Hebrew verse can be established through examination of the divine names and epithets employed in various texts (Freedman 1980b).

The

following year he suggested that because verse, like all products of human endeavor, is subject to typological change, it should be possible to create a typology of many different aspects of verse, including stylistic features (Freedman 1980c, 4-6). Freedman has not compiled such a typology, but his suggestion does raise the possibility of a typological analysis based upon rhetorical style. Freedman also considered the questions of whether or not the ancient poets were conscious of creating lines of approximately the same length, and if they intended to produce the stylistic devices observed by modern readers. Freedman suggests that while much of the ancient poets' work was intuitive, there was undoubtedly a conscious element which cannot be minimized. It is difficult if not impossible to draw the line between the conscious intention of the poet and what the attentive reader finds in a poem. On the whole, I think we have given insufficient credit to the poet for subtleties and intricacies in his artistic creation, and it is better to err on that side for a while. If we find some clever device or elaborate internal structure, why not assume that the poet's ingenuity, rather than our own, is responsible? (1980c, 8 ) .

56 Freedman's articles are important for the present study in two respects. First, he developed an empirical approach to the issues of line length and rhythm, among the most insoluble problems of biblical verse.

Although his syllable

counting method is subject to misunderstanding and misuse, it has, nevertheless, cast new light upon these questions. Second, Freedman has investigated important issues relating to the definition of verse and the possibility of typological dating.

No conclusive solutions can be claimed,

but his work has stimulated other scholars to investigate these questions.

Robertson and Stuart Freedman's work has inspired several studies, among them an attempt by D. Robertson to date Hebrew verse by linguistic changes (Robertson, 1972) and the previously mentioned study of Hebrew and Ugaritic meter by D. Stuart (1976).

Robertson's investigation is characterized by

caution and rigorous methodology whereas Stuart's, as noted in Chapter One, is open to several methodological critiques. Robertson states that the purpose of his study is "to determine if any of the poetry in the Old Testament can be dated by linguistic evidence to the early phase of Israelite political, cultural literary development, the period beginning in the 13th century . . . " (Robertson, 1 ) . Methodologically he establishes two linguistic benchmarks

57 against which to compare biblical poems considered early by some commentators.

Roberston chose prophetic verse of the

8th century to the post-exilic period for his first bench mark, because these texts can be dated with relative certainty.

The linguistic characteristics of this verse he

calls "standard" poetic Hebrew.

The other bench mark is his

reconstruction of "early" poetic Hebrew, based upon Ugaritic verse and the Canaanite glosses in the Amarna texts. These two benchmarks are similar in most linguistic features, but their significance for dating lies in those few features wherein they differ. Roberston compares the linguistic features of several biblical poems with his two benchmarks in order to determine which they most resemble.

He concludes that only Exodus 15

shows unequivocal signs of early poetic Hebrew with few if any signs of the later language.

Other texts, by virtue of

mixture of forms and/or the use of archaisms, belong to a period of transition between early and standard poetic Hebrew.

These include Jud. 5, Deut. 32, 2 Sam. 22 (= Ps.

18), Hab. 3, and Job.

Genesis 49 and Deut. 33 are poems

which are often asserted to be early but show no linguistic evidence of antiquity. Robertson's cautious approach has precluded a sustained critique of his method.

Instead, one reviewer has

questioned the overall enterprise while another has offered a single caveat.

R. Tournay doubts that linguistic data can

58 be utilized to date literary material.

He adduces several

examples to refute Robertson's results and then concludes by saying, "On voi t . . . que 1'argument linguistique ne suffit pas pour štablir une chronologie" (Tournay, 464). N. Sarna approves of Robertson's methodology, but thinks he overlooked one important consideration, the possibility that dialectal variations may be responsible for some of the differences between the poems (Sarna, 126-29). In light: of these comments and the tenuous nature of any a tt empt to date biblical t exts, one must: treat Robertson's conclusions circumspectly.

Yet:, if such an

undertaking has any validity, then it seems that Robertson has done an excellent: job of evaluating the linguistic evidence and drawing conclusions.

His work will be utilized

in a later part: of the present: study. Stuart's dissertation was written as an attempt to prove the usefulness of syllable counting as a means of metric scansion, stating his thesis as follows: The present study builds upon and expands recent research into syllabic meter. It: is a survey of Ugaritic and early Hebrew poetry designed to demonstrate that the newer system of scansion is even more precise than those which have preceded it (Stuart, 9 ) . He begins with the premise borrowed from the work of Parry and Lord on Greek poetry (Parry 1932; Lord 1960) that the poets of Ugarit and early Israel composed orally using

59 relatively fixed formulae.3

This leads Stuart to assert

that the poets composed cola which contained the same number of syllables in each of the parallel lines.

Some cola have

short lines of 3-5 syllables each, denoted colum breve, whereas others have longer lines of 8-13 syllables, colum longum (Stuart, 12). 4 It is important to note that Stuart does not claim that line lengths between the individual verses in a poem are regular; rather, the lines within bicola, tricola, etc. have the same, or nearly the same, number of syllables.. Stuart deals with the problems involved in obtaining syllable counts in several ways. question.

First is the text-critical

He finds the Ugaritic texts far more reliable

that the biblical, suggesting that with regard to the latter, "Textual emendation may be required, sometimes on a major scale" (Stuart, 20). The most vexing problem is, of course, the vocalization of the texts since it is impossible to count syllables without an accurate knowledge of how Ugaritic and early Hebrew were pronounced.

Stuart does

admit that there is "a certain degree of subjectivity" (Stuart, 24) involved in the task, but he believes that careful attention to orthography can reduce uncertainties.

3

Gevirtz (1963, 11-12) had, almost a decade earlier than Stuart, acknowledged his debt to Milman Parry for his own ideas of oral composition and the use of fixed word pairs. 4

He credits Cross with this terminology.

60 Toward this end he sets forth a list of guidelines for his reconstruction of Ugaritic and early Hebrew vocalization (Stuart, 25f.).

The most controversial of these is that

Ugaritic nouns in the construct state may or may not preserve case endings, depending upon the poet's metrical needs.*

He further argues that certain prosaic elements

were not part of early Hebrew verse and should be excised as intrusive when they are found in the text.

These include

the conjunction waw when used at the beginning of a cola, the particles ki, 'et, 'ašer, the definite article, and often kol. The bulk of Stuart's study presents an analysis of several hundred lines of Ugaritic and Hebrew verse using his syllable counting method. several conclusions.

From this analysis he draws

First, he argues that Ugaritic and

Hebrew verse spring from the same well: A continuity is evident from Ugaritic to early Hebrew poetry. Both apparently descend from a common poetic tradition and thus share the following features: predominantly balanced couplets and triplets; thoroughly mixed meter; the free variation of couplets and triplets without discernable pattern; similar length of cola . . .; no formal indication of strophic composition; and oral composition, with frequent use of formulae (Stuart, 215). A second conclusion is that although it is rare to find the same number of syllables per line between bi- and tricola, within bi- and tricola lines almost always have the same

*For a critique of this view see Chapter One.

61 number of syllables.

Thirdly he asserts that the bicolon

was the basic unit of early poetic tradition; the tricolon was relatively infrequent and used somewhat haphazardly. Finally, although acknowledging that some uncertainties remain, he believes that his method is a key toward understanding the meter of early Canaanite verse:

"It is

now likely . . . that the method of composition used by the ancient musical poet is within our grasp, and that we may with more confidence reproduce the rhythm of his songs" (Stuart, 217). Several criticisms of Stuart's work were presented in Chapter One.

The most serious of these is that he employs

circular reasoning, emending the text and using a variable method of vocalization in order to fit his theory of syllabic regularity within lines.

Further, even if his

thesis of syllabic uniformity is correct, one must ask what he has demonstrated other than the fact that the cola in parallel lines contain approximately the same number of syllables.

In Chapter One meter was defined as "the

measurable rhythmical patterns manifested in verse." Stuart's approach does meet the criterion of measurability, but because he makes no provision for the element of stress there seems to be no rhythmical quality to syllable counting.

62 Collins T. Collins' study of prophetic verse, which was published in 1978, is of more importance for the present investigation.

In it he attempts to bypass the debate over

whether meter or semantic parallelism is the most important principle which orders Hebrew verse.

Rather, he attempts a

fresh approach, advocating "an analysis of lines based on grammatical structures" (Collins, 7 ) . He applies a simplified form of transformational grammar to the text in order to reveal its characteristic syntactic patterns.

This

is done with the conviction that, "A poet's syntax is the most fundamental aspect of his effort to produce the ordered unity of words which is his poem" (Collins, 11). Drawing upon recent linguistic theory on syntax he suggests that syntax has three main roles:

1) its controlling function,

2) its expressive capability, and 3) its determination of "line measurement" (Collins, 15-16).

He further amplifies

this idea when he says: Thus, one of the main results of this study will be to show that in Hebrew poetry syntax is 'poetic' in the strictest sense of the word, since it contributes to the aesthetic pleasure of appreciating a well formed line which satisfies instinctive expectations already set up through familiarity with the same pattern in other known lines (Collins, 16). In view of the complex syntax of verse, Collins developed a four step method for analyzing lines: a) First he classifies each statement in the line as one of four "basic sentence types."

b) Next each line is categorized

63 according to four "general line-types."

c) When the

analysis of basic sentience and general line-type is combined Collins arrives at: a "specific line-type" which indicates t

he constituents in the line.

d) The final step is the

generation of "line-forms" which designate the order of the constituents in the line. For example, Collins' most frequent line-form is designated by his formula, III D: ii)le. The formula is contains the following information: The Roman numeral "III" indicates that the line contains two basic sentences of the same kind, but one or more constituents of the second halfline are missing.

The basic sentence is denoted as "D,"

which consists of NP1 (subject noun phrase) V (verb phrase) NP 2 (object noun phrase) and M (modifiers).*

The specific

line-type, III D, can be further subdivided depending upon whether or not the subject (NP1) is attested.

The

abbreviation "ii)" indicates that the subject is not found in the basic sentence.

The final information contained in

the formula, "le," indicates the ordering of constituents within the two parallel lines.

Among the 49 examples of

this line-form from his corpus Collins cites Isa. 1:26. w'sybh šptyk kbr'šnh wycsyk kbthlh

"And I shall restore your judges as formerly, And your counselors as the beginning"

*For an explanation of these abbreviations see Collins, 23-24.

64 The syntactic structure of this verse is V NP 2 M // NP 2 M.^ This final formula, the line-form, is the main focus of Collins' study.

The statistical data generated from his

analysis of line-forms serves as a basis for comparing the preferences of various prophetic poets for specific lineforms.

This information can then be used for further

analysis, as Collins suggests: It will help us decide to what extent convention and tradition determined a poet's choice of line structure. Finally, it will enable us to isolate unusual LineForms and to say in specific terms how they are unusual, thus providing a basis for the stylistic discussion of a given line (Collins, 30). Collins concludes that there were established conventions and traditions followed by all of the prophets. Yet at the same time individual preferences can be discerned among the prophets for certain line-forms.

He also claims

that line-forms are as much a measure of a line of verse as is its meter: On the basis of our study so far, it is not unreasonable to put forward the hypothesis that in Hebrew poetry the permanent frame of reference is provided by the grammatical structure and the ordering of constituents. In other words, the line-types and line-forms can be looked on as a system of measurement, determining what is a well formed verse-line and thus performing the same function as the more familiar systems of metre (Collins, 251). He goes further to suggest even more comprehensive results from the study of line-forms.

He submits that attention to

^For other biblical examples of this line type, III D: ii)le, see Collins, 152-53.

65 grammatical structure can assist: the demarcation of verse from prose, the stichometry of verse lines, and can be used as a means of analyzing larger structures within a poem (Collins, 280-82). Though they do not: vitiate the value of his work, several critiques can be noted with respect: to Collins' study.

The chief criticism of his method is its limitation.

By his own admission Collins is able to classify only about: 40% of prophetic verse into line-forms.

By extending his

method he can handle another 20%, but: this still leaves a large amount: of material with which he cannot: deal.

A more

comprehensive method is clearly needed. I also question Collins' claim that: line-forms can serve as a "system o f measurement . . . performing t:he same f

unct:ion as t:he more familiar syst:ems o f met:re" (Collins,

251).

This claim manifest:s several short:comings:

Chief

among t:hem is t:he quest:ion o f what Collins' line-forms act:ualiY measure.

In light o f t:he discussion of meter in

Chapter One, one can hardly f ind any regular, predictable patterns of syntax emerging from Collins' study.

Collins'

method does measure, to some extent, the frequency of syntactic structures, but this cannot be equated with meter. He seems to be confusing meter, a phonological phenomenon, with syntax, a grammatical phenomenon.

His case is also

weakened because he nowhere attempts to demonstrate the existence of similar systems of so-called syntactic meter in

66 other literature.

Therefore, on the basis of his initial

study it is highly doubtful that line-forms cart claim to "perform the same function as . . . metre." Despite these criticisms, Collins has produced art important study of Hebrew verse which has broadened the sphere of inquiry into new and productive areas.

Chiefly he

has demonstrated that one can approach Semitic verse syntactically as well as semantically and metrically.

He

has also shown that there are stylistic differences between individual poets and that these differences may be hermeneutically significant.

Geller A year after Collins' work appeared S. Geller published his own incisive study of Hebrew verse utilizing a method which employs both semantic and grammatical analysis. He states the purpose of his study: This study aims at establishing a method for the analysis of major aspects of parallelism, with emphasis on grammatical and semantic parallelism, applying this method to a number of early poetic texts and then listing and studying the results (Geller 1979, 4 ) . He regards the couplet as the basic unit of early Hebrew verse because it can be demarcated by "semantic parallelism or repetition" (Geller 1979, 5 ) . Lines which do not feature semantic parallelism or repetition also occur but conform to the pattern established by parallel lines. He maintains that the tricolon is not "a compositional unit"

67 like t he couplet:, but rather is considered "a sequence of interlocking couplets" (Geller 1979, 14). Larger units display even less structural unity. One of the most important features of Geller's method is his concept of the "reconstructed sentence."

He argues

that couplets are basically binary expansions of an original unitary statement.

Therefore it should be possible to

reconstruct this original unitary statement which underlies the existing couplet.

This is made clear when he says:

Parallelism in all cases involves a primarily binary relationship, that between the A and B Lines of the couplet. . . . In all cases o f strict parallelism (and repetition) it should be possible to reduce the couplet to a single statement which lay behind the couplet (Geller 1979, 15-16). To illustrate the concept Geller o ff ers 2 Sam. 22:14: yrcm mn šmm yhwh (w)clyn ytn qlh

"YHWH thundered frorn heaven; Elyon sent forth his voice."

He presents the reconstructed sentence with semantically and grammatical constituents in parallel position: yrcm

yhwh mn šmm

ytn qlh

c

lyn

Although yrcm and ytn qlh are "grammatically incongruent," they occupy the same position in the reconstructed sentence and are thus "congruent" (Geller 1979, 17). The reconstructed sentence serves as the basis f or comparing the semantic and grammatical parallelism o f the two lines o f the couplet.

As each couplet is analyzed

Geller represents its grammatical structure with a complex

68 system of grammatical notation. An important aspect of Geller's approach is his attempt to establish a means of categorizing semantic parallelism (Geller 1979, 31f.).

Even when parallel lines can be

compared there is no adequate method for classifying the shades of semantic relation. To meet this need he proposes "a relatively simple, but flexible, method for dealing with semantic parallelism which will isolate poetically significant patterns" (Geller 1979, 31). His classification system is based upon two ideas:

"the concept of the

semantic paradigm and the combination of this concept with that of what may be termed 'rhetorical relationships'" (Geller 1979, 31). This allows Geller to create a list of different types of semantic relationships. Geller's method for the analysis of parallel couplets involves eleven steps.

The first six steps are preparatory,

the next four comprise the analysis itself, and the final step presents the results, which he calls the "unit formula" (Geller 1979, 43-52).

The unit formula reduces all of the

information gleaned from the analysis into "a symbolic presentation of the relationship of the B Line of the parallel or repetition couplet to its A Line" (Geller 1979, 51).

These unit formulae are then collected and classified

according to their frequency and the type of semantic and syntactic relationships they represent.

69 The careful and thorough study which Geller has produced is more comprehensive than Collins'.

His method is

capable of dealing with verse lines which display no recognizable parallelism and is also able to classify semantic parallelism.

The most serious drawback of Geller's

work is its complexity and, hence, its limited usefulness as a working tool.

Another deficit is his method's inability

to deal with parallelism on a level larger than the bicolon or tricolon.

Geller's awareness of this need is seen in his

final remarks where he cautions the reader that although his method is one means studying some of the basic building blocks of Hebrew verse, it does not attempt to reveal how all the rhetorical devices employed intertwine to form the overall structure of the poem (Geller 1979, 366).

Geller

has attempted to address this issue in articles published since his dissertation (Geller 1982a; 1984).

O'Connor Perhaps the most exhaustive study of Hebrew verse yet to appear was published in 1980 by M. O'Connor.

His inquiry

is founded upon the conviction that, despite its problems, Bishop Lowth's classic description of Hebrew verse was essentially correct on one primary point.

Lowth recognized

that there are two essential characteristics of biblical verse, meter and parallelism.

He believed meter had been

lost but that parallelism could be described under three

70 main categories:

synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic.

O'Connor, however, finds the situation much more complex. His analysis of biblical verse leads him to argue that meter is not: a phonological phenomenon, nor is parallelism a pa tt ern of semantic correspondence.

Rather, what: is called

meter is a system of syntactic regularities he terms "constraints on line shapes," and parallelism is a "congeries of phenomena" which he classifies as a series of "tropes."

The interaction of these constraints and tropes

comprises Hebrew verse.

Syntactic constraints operate over

the range of a single line, whereas tropes extend over two or more lines.

He presents his position more fully when he

says: We shall argue that the regularities he ELowth] and his successors have regarded as phonological are in fact syntactic. Descriptions of the relation between clause and phrase distribution and line shape are more precise and account for a wider range of features of the verse than any phonological treatment proposed. The other construct of Lowth's description, parallelism, we will show to be a congeries of phenomena. Some of these admit of precise description and these, along with other syntactic phenomena, we group together as the tropes and offer as a replacement, in the description, for the broader and partly overlapping notion of parallelism. The syntactic regularities, which take the form of constraints on line shapes, along with descriptions of dominant syntactic constellations, and the tropes act together in structuring Hebrew verse (O'Connor, 4-5; italics are his). O'Connor recognizes the regularities inherent in Hebrew verse and accepts Freedman's syllable counting as a measure of it.

This regularity, however, was occasioned not by an

accepted phonological standard, but rather "by a series of

71 syntactic requirements, i.e., by a system of syntactic constraints" (O'Connor, 65). O'Connor's system of constraints is based upon three grammatical levels: the "unit," individual verbs and nouns and any particles associated with them; the "constituent," nominal and verbal phrases; and the "clause predicator," the clause itself. For example, Ex. 15:12a, ntyt ymynk, "You stretch out your right hand," consists of a single clause predicator with two constituents.

In contrast, Ex. 15:14a, šmcw cmym yrgzwn,

"The peoples hear.

They tremble," has two clause

predicators and three constituents (O'Connor, 183). His study of some 1200 lines of biblical verse from all periods leads him to formulate the constraints upon lines, giving the minimum and maximum number of units, constituents and clause predicators which can be found in any given line of verse (O'Connor, 87). He also describes the dominant line form:

"Most lines

€ Hebrew verse contain one clause

and either two or three constituents of two or three units. A lineation which yields lines of these constellations is preferred to other lineations" (O'Connor, 87). Under the rubric of "tropes" O'Connor considers two types of

parallelistic phenomena.

Those which operate

within a single line are called line level tropes, whereas those which involve several lines are supralinear level tropes.

These tropes include repetition, ellipsis,

matching, and coloration.

All the tropes are considered

72 structural in that they are instrumental in establishing the shape of the poem.

Non-structural devices are called

"ornamentation" or "figuration."

Among the ornaments are

rhyme, assonance, alliteration, paronomasia, and ambiguity. But he comments that they "are never necessary and do not constitute a closed, definite class of phenomena . . . " (O'Connor, 142). Figuration, on the other hand, does contribute to the fine structure of a poem, and is, he suggests, worthy of further study.

This area includes

anaphora, epiphora, ploke, anadiplosis, and palindromy. Although O'Connor's book is both fascinating and quite impressive in its range of scholarship, several criticisms should be offered.

Aside from his stilted, complex style of

writing,* O'Connor's choice of the single line (i.e. the colon) as the basis for his study is, as Geller argues, his "essential weakness" (Geller 1982b, 71). Such a foundation flies in the face of practically everything which has been written about Hebrew and cognate Semitic verse, ignoring the essential "binary" nature of Hebrew verse as recognized by those of such diverse orientation as Geller and, as will be seen, Kugel.*

"Noted by Ap-Thomas 1982, 224-25; and Berlin 1982, 392-93. *J. Kugel echoes this same critique when he says, "To deal with only half the true line is to overlook a good deal about syntax and to join as equals highly dissimilar elements" (Kugel, 320).

73 Another criticism advanced by Geller is directed at O'Connor's devotion to empirical description on the one hand and his exclusion of aesthetics, perception and ultimately meaning on the other.

Geller, not one to eschew empirical

methodology, rightly questions the possibility of defining verse without attention to aesthetics and meaning:

"The

exclusively descriptive method is headed for dangerous reefs if it attempts to deal with other aspects of poetry unaided by attention to matters of perception" (Geller 1982b, 69). As a final criticism, both Geller and Kugel have argued that O'Connor's system of syntactic constraints is, in the final analysis, little different from the traditional method of accentual meter which it seeks to replace. Geller notes this when he says, "O'Connor's 'constriction' is, despite his protests, a kind of simple meter" (Geller 1982b, 70). Kugel says as much when he suggests that O'Connor is selfcontradictory.

At one point O'Connor asserts that there is

no meter in Hebrew verse, yet his system of constraints serves as a "quasi-metrical prescription" (Kugel, 316). These criticisms aside, O'Connor's massive tome has served to refocus and extend the study of biblical verse. His grasp of modern linguistic theory and his effort to apply it to the Bible serve as an example for those who follow.

By transcending the categories of meter and

parallelism O'Connor has demonstrated the value of fresh approaches to the traditional questions.

74 Kuqel The debate concerning the fundamental character of Biblical Hebrew verse entered a new phase in 1981 with the publication of J. Kugel's, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. This book is, in many respects, a reaction against: both the longstanding approach of Lowth and his successors and the more recent: methods of analysis.

If Geller and O'Connor's methods are complex and

empirical, Kugel's is their antithesis, being decidedly anti-empirical and reductionist. Kugel not only dismisses the

tr

adi t ional view that meter and parallelism are the

genius of biblical verse, he also calls into question the whole idea of biblical verse and methods designed to quantify it:. His book consists of two unequal parts:

The first:,

chapters one and two, presents a comprehensive descript:ion of t:he concept of parallelism in Biblical Hebrew, whereas t:he second part:, chapters t:hree t:hrough seven, is a hist:orY of the idea of parallelism.

The second part provides a

hist:orical basis for t:he first:, t:hus int:errelat:ing t:he t:wo part:s. In t:he first chapter Kugel present:s his basic description of biblical parallelism.

He argues t:hat: Hebrew

verse was not characterized by meter, rhyme or alliteration. Instead, its fundamental feature is its pattern of brief clauses separated by short or long pauses.

He schematizes a

75 bicolon as follows: /

//

The single slash marks a short: pause between the two clauses, the double slash indicates a long final pause before t he next bicolon (Kugel, 1 ) . A tricolon follows this same pa tt ern but with two short: pauses separating the three clauses. Kugel believes a basic mistake was made by Lowth (and most: who have followed him) when he advanced the idea that: the pause between clauses is essentially an indication that the two clauses are equivalent:: "The medial pause all too often has been understood to represent: a kind of 'equals' sign.

It: is not; it: is a pause, a comma, and the unity of

the two parts should not be lost for their division" (Kugel, 8).

The B line has various relations to the A line.

It may

particularize, define, expand, strength, or reinforce. Kugel uses the term "sharpness"

to describe the

relationship between the A and B lines:

"'Sharpness'

represented the potential subtleties hidden inside juxtaposed clauses. . . . it is the highest advantage taken of parallelism, one might say the genius of the form" (Kugel, 12). Another term Kugel uses to describe the relationship between the A and B lines is "differentiation."

He points

out that in a significant number of instances the B line clearly does not parallel the A line.

This he calls

76 differentiation.

He further explains his terminology as

follows: To the extent that B identifies itself as A's 'mere parallel,' it asserts A = B; while to the extent that it differentiates itself from A in meaning and morphology, it asserts A + B to be a single statement. B becomes A's complement or completion. Differentiation, in a word, integrates the sentence, asserts its unity (Kugel, 16; italics are his). Differentiation can be expressed in a variety of ways. These include: using morphologically differentiated verbs, chiasmus, singular and plural forms in parallel, changes in grammatical person, ellipsis, and others.

Kugel disputes

the commonly held view that such devices are merely "elegant variations."

Rather, he argues that they are employed

specifically to draw attention to the "afterwardness" of the B line (Kugel, 23). Even when discussing such traditional devices as word-pairs and "ballast variations" Kugel argues that they are utilized to heighten differentiation, not to mark equivalence (Kugel, 30f., 46). To summarize, Kugel asserts that the second colon in a couplet (the B line) does not merely restate the first colon (the A line) in different terminology.

Rather, his thesis

is that the B line reinforces or seconds the A line. Another way he expresses this point is his phrase, "A, and what's more, B" (Kugel, 13). He argues that the genius of parallelism lies not synonymity, but in differentiation. His idea is expressed perhaps most clearly when he says: To state the matter somewhat simplistically, biblical lines are parallelistic not because B is meant to be a parallel of A, but because B typically supports A,

77 carries it further, backs it up, completes it, goes beyond it. This is a slight, but very important, nuance, for it will explain why paralleling is so inconsistent, so untended: it was riot in itself the point (Kugel, 52; italics are his). Kugel's second chapter is, in many ways, as controversial arid radical as the first.

In it he seeks to

undermine the idea that biblical verse is distinct from prose.

He argues that because there is no biblical word for

"poetry" or "parallelism," to use these terms is to impose a foreign concept.

He sees a similar situation in the

attempts to discover a regular metrical system in biblical verse when, he asserts, none exists. These and other considerations have led Kugel to question the traditional definitions of biblical verse. He argues that the distinction between prose and verse is an artificial "Hellenistic" imposition.

Rather than two

distinct categories he suggests that there are shades of difference between these two poles which are characterized by different aspects of style and organization.

The primary

features of poetic style are terseness, "a form of heightening in biblical style," and ellipsis (Kugel, 88). He summarizes his view as follows: What is called biblical 'poetry' is a complex of heightening effects used in combinations and intensities that vary widely from composition to composition even within a single 'genre.' No great service is rendered here by the concept of biblical poetry, since that term will, if based on the various heightening features seen, include compositions whose genre and subject are most unpoetic by Western standards, and since it will imply a structural regularity and design that are simply not there (Kugel, 95).

78 The rest of Kugel's work is devoted to a historical survey of the idea of parallelism.

In addition to its

intrinsic interest, this part of the book is important because in it Kugel seeks historical corroboration for the conclusions he drew in the first two chapters.

His basic

point is that the ideas of verse and parallelism were unknown to the Rabbis.

They thought that the B line was

always distinct in meaning from the A line. Since every detail of the Bible was there to teach, there could be no superfluous verbiage.

In contrast, early Christian writers,

inspired by Philo's interest in Greek poetry and allegory, sought to interpret biblical verse exclusively from a Hellenistic frame of reference. Kugel sees his own approach as a via media between the Rabbis who found only differentiation in verse and Christian interpreters who saw only reiteration. Due to his radical position and approach Kugel has been subjected to some intense criticism; much of it, in my opinion, justified.

Two main critiques have been offered:

The first concerns his simplistic and altogether too comprehensive definition of parallelism.

He is certainly

correct when he asserts that biblical parallelism is a complex and varied phenomenon, yet to describe it only with the statement, "A, and what's more, B," is to virtually give up on the task of defining biblical verse.

Geller points

out this weakness when he says of Kugel's description, "Its

79 comprehensiveness is not its glory but its ruin" (Geller 1982b, 75). Kugel's description of parallelism further displays a disavowal of the methods of analysis which have been recently applied to the Bible, prompting the charge by Geller that Kugel is afraid of scientific methodology (Geller 1982b, 76). Geller goes further, suggesting that Kugel's method is, in reality, an "anti-method," exchanging the objective for the subjective (Geller 1982b, 76). Although Geller's accusations seem extreme, he does raise the question of Kugel's methodology.

In fact, Kugel's

method is almost exclusively historical rather than linguistic.

His rejection of previous models is drawn from

the interpretative differences between the Rabbis and the Church Fathers.

Similarly, his own description is based

upon the historical survey which constitutes the bulk of his monograph.1**

Kugel has provided a significant historical

corrective to scholars who have ignored the history of interpretation, but he has at the same time made the mistake of claiming too much for his own approach. A second critique concerns Kugel's effort to exclude the category of poetry from the Bible and his concomitant denial of meter.

He is certainly correct when he asserts

that biblical verse differs markedly from modern Western poetry, but this hardly proves the ancient Israelites had no

Kugel acknowledges this in his introduction. See p. vii.

80 concept of poetry.

Even if there is "no precise distinction

in the Bible" between prose and poetry (Kugel, 302), this does not mean that there is no difference.

Cognate

literatures such as Ugaritic and Akkadian shows distinctions between what most consider prose and poetry.

Although the

literary conventions of the Bible may not conform to modern definitions of poetry, this does not mean that it is not poetry.

Furthermore, while there is no question that the

issue of meter is at best a difficult one, and is quite possibly insoluble, yet, to dogmatically assert that there is no such thing is overstating the case.

Given our

ignorance of ancient phonetics the agnostic position is probably the best.

There is the possibility that future

discoveries and/or methods may elucidate this enigma. Despite these problems, Kugel has made several positive contributions.

First, he has highlighted the great

diversity in biblical verse.

It is a complex phenomenon

which admits to no simple categories and solutions. The failure of analytic methods over the centuries has been their inability to fully deal with this diversity.

Second,

Kugel has forced scholars to reexamine the idea of parallelism.

Although Geller may be correct that Kugel's

definition is too comprehensive to be of use, Kugel has demonstrated some deficiencies in earlier views.

Third, he

has shown that defining verse and differentiating it from prose is no simple task.

This fact has been increasingly

81 recognized in recent: years, but: Kugel has made it: undeniable.

Recourse to vague statements about parallelism

will no longer suffice.

Finally, he has introduced a

historical dimension into the debate which cannot be ignored.

Those who deal with biblical verse should employ

modern methods of linguistic analysis but: must: also take two millennia of interpretation into account:.

Berlin The final work of major importance is Adele Berlin's study, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, published in 1985.

Although its title indicates that it: is primarily a

study of parallelism, in reality its focus is upon biblical verse in general, reflecting her conviction that parallelism is "the constructive principle on which a poem is built:" (Berlin 1985, 6 ) . This monograph expands upon an earlier article (Berlin 1979) and attempts t:o place t:he study of biblical parallelism on a sound linguist:ic base. Drawing upon t:he work of Roman Jakobson, she argues t:hat: because parallelism is a linguist:ic phenomenon, it: must: be st:udied in t:erms of all it:s linguist:ic aspect:s. To accomplish t:his goal she devot:es chapters t:o several dist:inct: aspect:s of parallelism: semant:ic, and phonological.

grammat:ical, lexical and

Her met:hod is somewhat

eclectic, utilizing the results of several linguistic disciplines, including transformational grammar,

82 psycholinguistics, and textlinguistics. Like Kugel, Berlin stresses the multifaceted intricacy of biblical parallelism.

This is evident when she says,

"The purpose of this book has not been to reduce parallelism to a simple linguistic formula, but rather to show the enormous linguistic complexity of parallelism" (Berlin 1984, 129). In response to Kugel's work, Berlin recognizes the need to carefully define biblical verse and distinguish it from prose.

She agrees with Kugel that not all verse is

parallelistic and not all parallelism is verse, but still she asserts that parallelism is one of the key elements in biblical verse.

She suggests that verse is characterized by

an elevated style which is created by two primary factors: Elevated style is largely the product of two elements: terseness and parallelism. Where these two occur to a high degree we have what would be called (by everyone but Kugel) poetry; where they are largely (but never entirely) lacking, we have less-poetic expression, which corresponds to what we call prose (Berlin 1985, 5). She comments further that, "It is not parallelism per se, but the predominance of parallelism, combined with terseness, which marks the poetic expression of the Bible" (Berlin 1985, 5 ) . Her definition of terseness is similar to Kugel's:

"A poem distills and condenses its message,

removing 'unnecessary' words and leaving only the nucleus of the thought" (Berlin 1985, 6 ) .

83 She further argues that because parallelism is a highly complex phenomenon it must be studied on several different levels, but the primary reason for the study of parallelism is to understand poetic texts: If, indeed, parallelism is the constructive device of poetry, then we cannot comprehend a poem's structure, its unity, until we have discovered which things it equates and which it contrasts. And related to the unity of a poem is its message, its meaning. The poetic function—the "focus on the message for its own sake"—is achieved through parallelism; and so parallelism becomes our entrše into the message (Berlin 1985, 17). The first aspect of parallelism she investigates is grammatical parallelism.

She subdivides it into two parts,

viz., 1) syntactic parallelism, "the syntactic equivalence of one line with another line," and 2) morphological parallelism, "the morphologic equivalence or contrast of individual constituents of the lines" (Berlin 1985, 31). Throughout her survey she asserts that grammatical correspondence of lines is just as much parallelism as is semantic correspondence. She next deals with lexical and semantic parallelism. Lexical parallelism operates on the word level whereas semantic parallelism is a "line-level phenomenon" (Berlin 1985, 65). Berlin utilizes psycholinguistics to explain word pairs, arguing that they "are nothing more or less than the products of normal word associations that are made by all competent speakers" (Berlin 1985, 67). She further suggests that word pairs were not specially invented as a

84 poetic thesaurus, but: rather are natural component's of speech which were utilized by poets to heighten the sense of poetry:

"It: is not: word pairs that create parallelism.

It

is parallelism that activates word pairs" (Berlin 1985, 79). Semantic parallelism concerns the relationship of one colon with its parallel colon.

Berlin uses the word

"equivalence" to describe this relationship, but by it she does not mean the identity or synonymity of two lines.

She

defines semantic equivalence as either paradigmatic or syntagmatic: We usually think of semantic parallelism only as paradigmatic—that is, one thought can substitute for the other. But we should not exclude the possibility of a syntagmatic semantic relationship where the two lines contain a semantic continuation, a progression of thought. This may be independent of the grammatical relationship of the lines, and of the relationship between word pairs. A semantic syntagm may be expressed in grammatically paradigmatic or syntagmatic lines, using paradigmatic or syntagmatic word pairs (Berlin 1985, 90). By utilizing these two categories Berlin embraces both the traditional concept of semantic parallelism and Kugel's "A, what's more B" concept.

She also employs textlinguistics

and generative semantics to explain how the ancient poets created semantically parallel lines. The final aspect Berlin investigates is the phonological level of parallelism, which she calls "sound pairs."

She defines a sound pair as "the repetition in

parallel words or lines of the same or similar consonants in any order within close proximity" (Berlin 1985, 104). She

85 focuses upon consonance rather than assonance in general due t

o uncertaintY of the vocalic tradition.

She admits that

recognizing sound pairs is somewhat: subjective, but: she thinks that they are significant: both for creating parallelism and for increasing the perceptibility of other forms of parallelism. Dividing parallelism into these primary aspects is not intended to suggest that ancient poets thought in such discrete categories and attempted to compose their poems accordingly.

On the contrary, Berlin stresses the enormous

variety and complexity of biblical parallelism.

One way of

expressing this characteristic is through the idea of "disambiguation and ambiguity."

On the one hand, the second

line of a colon may help the audience to resolve any ambiguity in the first line, but on the other hand it may introduce an element of ambiguity to an already perspicuous first line.

She expresses her view when she says,

"Parallelism is constituted by redundancy and polysemy, disambiguation and ambiguity, contrast within equivalence" (Berlin 1985, 98). Berlin summarizes her definition of biblical parallelism and her methodological approach as follows: Parallelism, then, consists of a network of equivalences arid/or contrasts involving many aspects and levels of language. Moreover, by means of these linguistic equivalences and contrasts, parallelism calls attention to itself and to the message which it bears. Parallelism embodies the poetic function, and the poetic function heightens the focus on the message (Berlin 1985, 141).

86 The above quote represents what may be the most serious deficiency in Berlin's approach to biblical verse.

By

defining parallelism so broadly she has rendered it almost impossible to quantify.

Since parallelism may entail a

plethora of components, there is no end to its possible permutations.

As a result it is possible to find

parallelism and hence, verse, almost anywhere.

Berlin

herself recognizes this when she speaks of "prose parallelism" and discusses several examples (Berlin 1985, 30).

P.D. Miller highlights this problem in his review of

her book, noting that her definition applies to many prose passages as well as verse.

He accents this difficulty when

he asserts that her acknowledgment of prose parallelism "is not very helpful when parallelism is the defining term for poetry" (Miller, 736). Another critique centers upon her treatment of syntactic parallelism.

Z. Zevit disagrees with her view

that two lines are syntactically parallel when their deep structures are the same even though their surface structures differ (Zevit 1986, 99). He argues that differences in surface structures are poetically meaningful but should not be considered parallelism.

S. Porter strikes a similar

chord when he criticizes Berlin for over-reliance upon transformational grammar (Porter, 503). In spite of these criticisms, Berlin's book is a valuable contribution to the rapidly expanding list of

87 studies of biblical verse.

She recognizes the complexities

in biblical parallelism and does not attempt to reduce it to a simple equation. Equally important is her interest in the meaning of the text, driven by her conviction that poetic analysis finds its significance only when it assists our understanding of the text.

Finally, her division of

parallelism into three primary components will prove useful for the present study in devising the taxonomy of rhetorical devices which is presented in Chapter Three.

Summary and Evaluation These recent studies of biblical verse are significant for their contribution to biblical interpretation, but they are also significant for their impact upon the study of Ugaritic verse.

Although riot every recent work is included,

those which are represent the major trends in the field. Gevirtz deserves primacy of place in the survey riot only because his was chronologically the first in this new emphasis, but because he broadened the field of study to include the concept of syntactic parallelism as well as semantic parallelism.

I think that this is one of the most

important contributions which have been made to the current discussion of biblical verse.

No one studying the field

today can ignore the syntactic element of biblical verse. Freedman and his students have followed different lines of inquiry but each have furthered our understanding of

88 biblical verse.

Although I disagree with Freedman's

insistence that rhythm rather than parallelism is the central feature of biblical verse, he has performed a vital service by demonstrating that rhythm and metrical considerations cannot be ignored. He has also helped put the measurement of rhythm on a more objective basis. Stuart, despite weaknesses in his conclusions, has shown that parallel lines within a verse usually have approximately the same number of syllables.

This fact has

obvious implications for establishing the stichometry of texts, and it further suggests that more or less equal line lengths are a contributing factor to the rhythmic quality of biblical verse. Gevirtz' suggestion that syntax is a vital component of biblical parallelism has borne its most fruit in the work of Collins and Geller.

Collins devised a method which

demonstrates that some syntactic structures are more common than others in biblical verse.

Although I think that

Collins has claimed too much for his method, his focus upon syntax is productive and should be considered in any study of biblical and cognate literature such as Ugaritic. Geller's approach is significant because his method is much more comprehensive than Collins', allowing analysis of both syntactic and semantic relationships between parallel lines. The complexities inherent in Geller's method have reduced its general usefulness, but they do not impinge its value.

89 Whereas Collins and Geller represent: similar approaches to biblical verse, O'Connor and Kugel represent: quite different: programs.

The former is noteworthy for his

a t t emp t to replace meter and parallelism with a system of syntactic constraints and tropes.

Although this approach

has earned him criticism, O'Connor is to be commended and emulated because he has shown that biblical verse can be accessed through new and different: categories.

In contrast:,

Kugel's study represents an anti-empirical backlash to the recent methods of linguistic analysis.

Although I disagree

with much of what Kugel has said, he has introduced a much needed balance to recent methods which tend to be overly technical and thereby run the risk of loosing sight of the text and its meaning. The final scholar surveyed, Berlin, was able to draw from the previous studies and respond to them.

Perhaps the

primary contribution her study has made to the recent renaissance of interest in biblical verse is her typology of parallelism.

In it she finds four different components:

grammatical, lexical, semantic, and phonological parallelism.

She also recognizes the complexities of

biblical verse and the need for sensitivity in evaluating how the various facets of parallelism contribute to the meaning of the text.

In this way Berlin attempts to keep in

balance the various facets which comprise biblical verse.

90 The diversitY of method and approach employed in these studies underscores the complexity of biblical verse.

It: is

not: a simple phenomenon subject: to rudimentary methods of analysis.

Any fresh examination of it: and/or related

literature such as Ugaritic must: take this complexity into account.

It is my conviction that each of these studies has

contributed to a better understanding of biblical verse. None of them is a complete tool or approach in itself, but each reveals individual aspects of biblical verse which, when conjoined, provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Because biblical and Ugaritic verse have been shown to share many similarities, there is every reason to believe that these methods can be usefully employed with Ugaritic texts.

This, in fact, has already been demonstrated by

Pardee when he applied several of the analytic methods surveyed above to Ugaritic verse (Pardee 1988b).

For this

reason I will utilize various aspects of the methods of Collins, Geller, O'Connor, and Berlin in the analysis of Ugaritic texts in this study.

The present work has no

pretensions of achieving an overall synthesis, or of finding the "key" to Ugaritic verse, but it does aspire to open windows through which to better see the whole.

Chapter Three: Taxonomy of Rhetorical

A

Devices

Introduction The purpose of t his chapter is to present: a taxonomy of t

he most: common rhetorical devices employed by the Ugaritic

poets.

Such a classification is preliminary to a

description of the function and distribution of these rhetorical devices in Ugaritic verse, which will be the focus of the final chapters of this study. The taxonomy will also provide a basis for comparison of the use of rhetorical devices between Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse. In his study of grammatical parallelism, Roman Jakobson recognized the need for a categorization of verse structures.

After reviewing studies of Ugaritic and

biblical parallelism, Jakobson set an agenda for further investigation when he stated: Now, in the light of the work done, the structure of parallelism which underlies biblical and Ugaritic poetry requires a rigorous linguistic analysis, and the seemingly infinite variety of extant parallels must yield to a precise and comprehensive typology (Jakobson 1966, 400-401). As was seen in Chapter 2, Jakobson's article has inspired scholars such as Berlin and others to apply his insights on grammatical parallelism to biblical verse.

At present,

however, there has been minimal carryover into the field of

92 Ugaritic. Therefore, this part: of the present study will present a synopsis of the major rhetorical devices which were used in Ugaritic verse.

Each device will be defined, pertinent

literature examined, and examples offered.

Most of these

rhetorical devices operate within individual verses, or what may be termed the micro level.

Only a few, such as refrain,

operate over larger boundaries, corresponding to the macro level. In the taxonomy presented below this definition will be further delineated into several different categories of rhetorical devices.

Examples will be drawn from the entire

body of Ugaritic literary texts, but most will come from the following texts: KTU 1.100.

CTA 4, CTA 6, CTA 14, CTA 15, CTA 16, and

Altogether this corpus consists of approximately

1300 lines of verse, not including passages which are too broken to reconstruct. Several criteria were employed for the selection of these texts.

Each is relatively well preserved and offers a

degree of context and continuity absent in some Ugaritic texts.

These texts have also been the object of continuing

scholarly attention and are reasonably well understood.

CTA

4 and 6 are part of the Baal Cycle, CTA 14-16 deal with the story of King Keret, and KTU 1.100 is usually considered an

93 incantation for the cure or prevention of snakebite.*

It

also has the distinction of being an almost perfectly preserved tablet, a rarity among the epigraphic remains from Ugarit. Examples of the various rhetorical devices are given in transcription and translation.

The text of CTA 4, 5, and

14-16 is cited from Herdner (1963) and KTU 1.100 is from Ugaritica V (Schaeffer 1962).

Translations are my own, but

since the primary purpose is to illustrate rhetorical devices, justification for the translations have been provided only where recognition of the device depends upon the translation.2 The variety of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic can be subsumed under two primary categories, viz., those devices which employ some form of repetition, and those which seek to avoid repetition. The first category, repetition, can be further subdivided according to the various types of parallelism employed in each. The analysis of A. Berlin suggests that four types of repetition can be distinguished: lexical, semantic, syntactic, and phonological (Berlin 1985).

These categories will provide the structure for the

1

In contrast to the majority view, D. Young (1977; 1979) and Tsevat (1979) both regard it as part of a fertility rite, quite possibly a sacred marriage. translations consulted (1978); and Caquot (1974).

include:

Gibson

(1977);

Coogan

94 following discussion.

Devices Employing Repetition The first subcategory of rhetorical devices in the taxonomy consists of devices which are categorized by repetition.

In order to establish a basis for this division

it is necessary to consider the nature of repetition arid distinguish it from parallelism.

Although repetition arid

parallelism are not identical, they do involve common elements. Repetition is characteristic of all poetic traditions, and was utilized by the Ugaritic poets to a high degree. The following definition of repetition serves as a starting place toward understanding what it involves and how it is employed in verse: A fundamental aesthetic, structural, and rhetorical element in poetry that can occur in rhythm, form, sonic structure, and syntax and which affects predictability, unity, coherence, emphasis, and surprise. Repetition is the basis of any form of variation in the poem. It is the mnemonic device common to every form of poetry (Myers and Simms, 251). Two elements in this definition are important with respect to Ugaritic verse.

The first concerns those

elements which are subject to repetition. Rhythm, is, as we have seen, an aspect of Ugaritic verse which is difficult to define, but both the systems of accentual and syllabic meter suggest that Ugaritic verse had a strong element of rhythmic

95 repetition. Syntactic repetition is also quite evident as will be seen below.

If by "sonic structure" the definition

means phonological repetition, such as alliteration, assonance, consonance, and rhyme, then it will likewise be apparent that this was an important aspect of Ugaritic verse.

The most ambiguous element in the definition is

repetition of "form."

I understand this to refer to

repetition of words and/or phrases in a discernable structure which produces continuity and emphasis. This feature is also common in Ugaritic verse. A second significant aspect of the above definition is the emphasis upon the effects of repetition. As I will attempt to demonstrate in the taxonomy, repetition in Ugaritic verse is an important factor with regard to the poem's "predictability, unity, coherence, emphasis, and surprise."

It also seems apparent that repetition served as

a powerful mnemonic device.

In the taxonomy I will attempt

to highlight these qualities of individual rhetorical devices. Making a clear distinction between repetition and parallelism is a difficult task due to the problems inherent in defining parallelism.

As we have seen in Chapters 1 and

2, parallelism is defined in quite different: ways by different: scholars.

On can, as has Geller, even question

the application of the term to ancient: Semitic verse: The term 'parallelism' is misleading because it: registers only a superficial aspect: of that phenomenon. In Euclidean geometry, from which the word is derived,

96 parallel lines continue along the same plane, but: never meet. In contrast:, one of the essential characterist ics of literary parallelism is the constant interpretation of the A and B Lines in the nuclear couplet: (Geller 1982, 35 n. 1 ) . Geller suggests that the binary nature of biblical verse makes a term like "binarism" more accurate, but: acknowledges the scholarly tradition for retaining "parallelism." In order to differentiate between repetition and parallelism some basic definitions of parallelism are necessary: In poetry a state of correspondence between one phrase, line, or verse with another. Parallelism seems t:o be t:he basic aesthetic principle of poetic utt:erance (Preminger, 599). A rhet:orical device of grammar in which words, phrases, or ideas of equivalent: value share a similar grammat:ical st:ruct:ure, t:hus creat:ing an inherent: comparison among t:hem (Myers and Simms, 223). These two definit:ions reflect: t:he problems involved in defining parallelism. imprecise.

The first: definit:ion is vague and

All would agree t:hat parallelism involves a

correspondence bet:ween unit:s, but t:he problem is t:o specify t:he nat:ure of t:hat correspondence.

Geller highlights this

issue when he says, If by 'parallelism' one means only some basic 'similarity' between lines, the term remains objectionable. The most confusing and inconsistent aspect of the study of the device since Bishop Lowth is precisely the determination of the degree and type of 'similarity' between parallel lines (Geller 1982, 35 n. 1 ) . The second definition transcends this deficiency by providing more specificity, but its very specificity raises

97 the question of where to locate the nature of parallelism's correspondence.

Is, as this definition asserts, parallelism

to be found exclusively in grammatical correspondence?

The

survey presented in the previous chapters has shown grammatical correspondence to be very significant, but Berlin and others have demonstrated the importance of other aspects of parallelism.

On the other hand, when parallelism

comprises too many features the danger is that virtually anything* including prose, becomes parallelistic. In the discussion above I have endeavored to show that parallelism and repetition are not synonymous.

Repetition

involves identity, the iteration of the same word, root, structure, pattern, or the like, whereas parallelism is defined more broadly with terms such as correspondence and similarity.

While repetition may occur within a single

colon* between cola, or over an extended range of lines, parallelism is generally conceived as operating between juxtaposed lines.

From this it follows that lines can be

parallel without necessarily utilizing repetition, and, conversely, that repetition may be employed in prose and other non-parallelistic literature.

Repetition is an

important and frequent component of parallelism, but parallelism and repetition are not the same.

Therefore, the

emphasis in this taxonomy is upon the ways repetition is employed in Ugaritic verse.

98 Rhetorical devices which employ repetition fall into four main categories.

Lexically, a word or words may be

repeated in successive cola, producing a sense of continuity between lines.

Semantically, the meaning of part or all of

one colon may be mirrored in the next.

Syntactic repetition

occurs when the poet reproduces the grammatical structure of one colon in the next.

Finally, phonological repetition

involves the recurrence of sound patterns within a limited context.

Each of these types of repetition are manifested

in a variety of forms.

A.

Lexical

Repetition

The recurrence of a word or words in successive cola is the most easily recognized rhetorical device in the Ugaritic corpus.

It is also one of the most pervasive.

Albright

observed it in Ugaritic verse and compared it to both Old Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew verse (Albright 1945, 5-31; 1922, 69-86; 1968, 2-45).

Lexical repetition may be found

in a number of different devices.

1. Anaphora Anaphora may be defined as "a figure of repetition that repeats the same word or phrase at the beginning of lines, clauses, or sentences" (Myers and Simms, 16; cf. Pi-emingei*, 37).

The definition above, formulated with languages such

as English in mind, specifies that anaphora always involves

99 distinct words which are repeated.

The large number of

inseparable prepositions and particles in Ugaritic raises the question of whether or not these elements can define anaphora.

The basic issue is, did the Ugaritic poets think

of inseparable particles as independent linguistic components or merely as part of the word to which they were attached?

If they were considered independent units, then

it is reasonable to think that their repetition at the beginning of successive lines would be meaningful and perceptible to the listeners.

As will be shown later in

this chapter, the poets often elided these inseparable elements in Ugaritic (see Ellipsis, below), suggesting that they were considered independent units.

Therefore, it seems

justifiable to consider them as elements which can define anaphora. Anaphora is quite common in the texts examined for this study, but there have been no systematic studies of it in Ugaritic.

Only one scholar, W.G.E. Watson (1980b; 1984a,

195-96, 276), has dealt with it to any degree, citing some sixteen examples.

He considers anaphora together with line-

initial alliteration, a device which I will examine with other forms of phonetic repetition. Anaphora occurs in several forms.

Both lines of a

bicolon may begin with the same word. iy.aliyn.bcl iy.zbl*bcl.ars

Where is mightiest Baal? Where is the prince, the lord of the earth? CTA 6 iv 28-29

100 c lh.ţrh.tšcrb c c

lh.tš rb.zbyh

Unto him she caused his bulls to enter, Unto him she caused his gazelles to enter. CTA 15 iv 17-18

Similarly, every line of a tricolon may begin with the same word: c m.ġr.trġzz c

m.^r.trmg cm.tIm.gsr.ars

Toward Mount Trgzz, Toward Mount Trrng, Toward the twin hills which bind the underworld. CTA 4 viii 2-4

The first two lines of a tricolon may begin with the same word while the third breaks the pattern: kt.il.dt.rbtm kt.il.nbt.bksp šmrgt.bdm.hrs

A divine pedestal of 20,000 (pieces), A divine pedestal adorned with silver, Overlaid with a plating of gold. CTA 4 i 31-33

pcdb.an.cnn.atrt

Then am I a slave, an attendant of Athirat, Then am I a slave, who takes the trowel, Or is Athirat a slave girl who makes bricks? CTA 4 iv 59-61

pcdb.ank.ahd.ult hm.amt.atrt.tlbn lbnt. "

Similarly, the last two lines of a tricolon may exhibit anaphora while the first line is unique: an.itlk wasd. kl gr.lkbd.ars. kl.gbc lkbd.šdm.

I was walking-and-hunting, On every mountain in the midst of the earth, On every hill in the midst of the fields. CTA 6 ii 15-17

Longer series of seven (CTA 6 v 11-19) and even eight successive lines (CTA 4 vi 47-54), all beginning with the same word or words, are attested in the corpus.

Sometimes

in a long series of lines anaphora may be broken up by a single colon beginning with another word.

This was probably

101 done to add variety and interest: to the passage. mtb il.mzll.bnh mtb rbt.atrt.ym mtb.klt knyt mtb.pdry.bt.ar mzll.tly bt rb mtb.ars.bt ycdbr

The dwelling of El is the shelter of his son, The dwelling of Lady Athirat of the sea, The dwelling of the noble brides, The dwelling of Pdry, daughter of mist, The shelter of Ţly, daughter of showers, The dwelling of Arsy, daughter of Ycdbr CTA 4 iv 52-57

Similarly, a slight variation might be introduced to avoid complete anaphora: klb.arh.lcglh. klb tat.limrh. km.lb cnt.atr.bcl.

Like the heart of a cow for her calf, Like the heart of a ewe for her lamb, So was the heart of Anat for Baal. CTA 6 ii 28-30

Finally, particles or prepositions which could easily be elided without loss of meaning may be repeated at the beginning of a line in order to produce anaphora: khy.aliyn.bcl kit.zbl bcl ars

For Mightiest Baal is alive, For the Prince, the lord of the earth is exists. CTA 6 iii 20-21

bhlm.ltpn.il.dpid bdrt.bny.bnwt

In a dream of Ltpn, god of mercy, In a vision of the creator of creatures. CTA 6 iii 4-5

2. Epistrophe Epistrophe resembles anaphora except that the repeated word or words come at the end, rather than at the beginning, of successive lines.

It is defined as "the ending of a

series of units of discourse with the same word or words" (Preminger, 34). Epistrophe is much less common than anaphora in the texts of this study.

Watson (1984a, 276-77)

102 notes only three examples of epistrophe in Ugaritic verse, commenting that, "Evidently end-repetition is comparatively rare and not much used."

Perhaps epistrophe is less common

than anaphora in these Ugaritic poems because epistrophe was less perceptible than anaphora, thus reducing its effect in the poem. In most examples of epistrophe in the corpus the repeated element is a pronominal suffix or other morpheme rather than an entire lexical unit.

Examples of repeated

words include: wrd.bt hptt ars. tspr.byrdm.ars

blt.nmlk.cttr.crz ymlk.cttr.crz

And descend to the house of "freedom" in t he earth, You will be counted among those who descend into the netherworld. CTA 4 viii 7-9 Should we not: make Athtar the terrible king? Let: Athtar the terrible be king! CTA 6 i 54-55

Successive lines which end with the same pronominal suffix are much more frequent : lysc.alt tbtk. lyhpk.ksa.mlkk lytbr.ht.mtptk

[llh]m.lšty.shtkm [wldbh l]krt.bclkm

He will indeed pull up the platform of your sitting, He will indeed overturn your royal throne, He will indeed shatter the scepter of your judgment. CTA 6 vi 27-29 To eat, to drink, I have called you, Even to sacrifice for Krt, your lord. CTA 15 iv 27-28

The recognition of epistrophe can be significant for stichometry, especially a passage such as the enigmatic

103 KTU 1.100 65-67: c c

r rm.yncrnh ssnm.ysynh. c dtm.ycdynh. ybltm.yblnh.

The The The The

tamarisk, he shook it, date cluster, he removed it, reed-center, he made it pass away, produce, he carried it off

3. Symploce Symploce is the combination of anaphora and epistrophe: "A rhetorical figure of repetition that represents a combination of anaphora and epistrophe in that the first and last words (or phrases) in a clauses or sentence are repeated in successive clauses or sentences" (Myers and Simms, 299). There are no examples of symploce from the corpus in which complete word3 (rather than particles) are repeated.4 Only a few verses repeat particles.

Examples

include: lqr.tigt.ibrh lql.nhqt.hmrh

tntkn.udmcth km.tqlm.arsh km hmšt.mtth

For the sound of the roaring of his bulls, For the noise of the braying of his asses. CTA 14 iii 120-23 His tears poured forth, Like shekels to the ground, Like five-pieces to the bed. CTA 14 i 28-30

3

For various interpretations of this verse see, inter alia, Pardee 1978; Tsevat 1979; Young 1977; 1979. 4

Watson (1984a, 277) mentions only one example, CTA 17 vi 38, but in it the line-initial element is the copula, w-.

104 4. Simple Repetition By simple repetition I refer to the repetition of a word or root: in the same colon or in consecutive cola. Since such repetition is found in anaphora, epistrophe, staircase parallelism, and anadiplosis (see below), by simple repe t i t io n I designate verses which do not involve arty of those devices. t

Although it could scarcely be argued

ha t simple repetition required a high level of skill, the

widespread use of this device in Ugaritic suggests that it was considered art essential element of poetic style.

A few

examples will suffice to illustrate this pervasive rhetorical device. thmk.il.hkm. hkmt cm clm. hyt.hzt.thmk c

dbt.bht[h bc]l ycdb. hd.cdb [cd]bt hklh

Your decree, O You are wise to A life of good CTA 4

El, is wise. eternity. fortune is your decree. iv 41-43

The arrangement of his house Baal arranged, Hadad arranged the arrangement of his palace. CTA 4 vi 38-40

Another common aspect of this device is the repetition of a word/root within a single colon.

The second example

above illustrates this device through the repetition of the root cDB in each of the cola. krtn.dbh dbh. mlk. cšr 'šrt.

A similar example is:

Our Krt has offered a sacrifice, (Our) king has prepared a banquet. CTA 16 i 39-41

There are several instances when a word or phrase is repeated immediately without any intervening material. Watson (1984a, 277-78) calls this "immediate repetition" and

105 cites two examples.

There is only one in the corpus:

wqbr.tsr. q[br] tsr.

And a grave you must fashion, A grave you must fashion. CTA 16 ii 87-88

5. Staircase Parallelism This rhetorical device, in contrast to many others, has been the subject of a number of articles, perhaps because of its distinctive form.

The name used here, staircase

parallelism, derives from the fact that the verse proceeds in steps.

Watson (1984a, 150) defines it as follows:

"A

sentence is started, only to be interrupted by an epithet or vocative.

The sentence is then resumed from the beginning

again, without the intervening epithet, to be completed in the second or third line."

Although this definition seems

straightforward, both the name of the device arid its defi n itio n have been hotly contested. H.L. Ginsberg (1936, 171f.; 1935, 327) recognized the device in the early days of Ugaritic study, but did no more than to note the pattern and parallels in the Hebrew Bible. The first full treatment of the device in Ugaritic was published in 1969 by S.E. Loewenstamm (1969) who credits Rashbam (died c. 1174 C.E.) as the first to identify the pattern in the Bible.

Loewenstamm called the device the

"expanded colon" because the poet has taken a single colon and, through repetition, expanded it into a bicolon or a tricolon.

He argued that the original form was the bicolon

with the tricolon form developing later.

He notes, for

106 example: ht.ibk bclm. ht.ibk.tmhs. ht.tsmt.srtk

Lo, your enemies, Baal, Lo, your enemies you will smite, Lo, you will destroy your oppressors. CTA 2 iv 8-9

Loewenstarnrn made three observations about this structure:

1) It begins with a repetitive formula of two

words, ht ibk, 2) next is an intervening formula of one word, bclm, in most eases a vocative, and 3) there is a complementary formula of one word, tmhs (Loewenstarnrn 1969, 180).

He further notes that in most tricola which exhibit

this pattern the third line of the tricolon is synonymously parallel with the second line.

He presented a number of

examples of the device from both Ugaritic and the Hebrew Bible, commenting that the biblical poets were more innovative than their Ugaritic counterparts, developing many more variations than are seen in Ugaritic verse.

Three

years later Y. Avishur (1972) provided further examples of this device in both Ugaritic and biblical verse, and generally concurred with Loewenstamm's analysis. Several years later E.L. Greenstein (1974) published an article dealing with several aspects of grammatical parallelism in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, one of which was staircase parallelism.

Greenstein defined the device in

much the same way as Loewenstarnrn, but more restrictively. He insisted, contrary to Loewenstarnrn, that its original use was in tricola, arguing that the examples of staircase parallelism in bicola were a late development (Greenstein

107 1974, 96 n. 48). Greenstein's article evoked a response from Loewenstamm who defended his own position on the form and use of the device and, at the same time, leveled his own criticisms at Greenstein (Loewenstamm 1975).

Loewenstamm staunchly

maintained his looser definition of the "expanded colon," and argued that the device has onlY one function:

"In all

verses of this structure the repetition has the onlY function to suspend the giving of information, thus creating a certain tension" (Loewenstamm 1975, 261). Not to be outdone, Greenstein in turn responded to Loewenstamm several years later (Greenstein 1977).

He

clarified his own definition of the device by presenting three characteristics: 1) the initial two words of the first line are reproduced in the second line, 2) the last word(s) of the first line is (are) either the grammatical subject noun-phrase (NP) of the first two lines or a vocative, 3) the second and third lines are parallel either synonymously or synthetically (Greenstein 1977, 77). He again argued that the original form of the device was the tricolon since all examples of staircase parallelism in Ugaritic are tricola. Two other scholars who have entered the debate are C. Cohen and W.G.E. Watson.

Cohen agreed with Greenstein,

maintaining that the tricolon form of staircase parallelism is distinct from other the forms of repetitive parallelism which Loewenstamm and Avishur had considered (Cohen, 13). The primary purpose of his article was to demonstrate a

108 previously unrecognized example of this rhetorical device in Ex. 15:6-7a.

If his suggestion is accepted there would be

two such tricolon staircases in the Song of the Sea and only one bicolon staircase.

Since tricolon staircases are common

in Ugaritic but not in biblical verse, Cohen's proposal would reinforce an early date for the poem, which is maintained by many scholars. Watson included a brief note on staircase parallelism in a 1977 article (Watson 1977) and then dealt with the device more extensively in his monograph on Hebrew verse (Watson, 1984a, 150-56).

Like Cohen, he adopted the term

"staircase parallelism," because he thought it more descriptive than Loewenstamm's designation.*

Concerning the

typology of staircase parallelism, Watson noted both the two and three line forms, but refused to side with either Loewenstamm or Greenstein regarding which was most likely to have been primary (Watson 1984a, 151). He also offers his own analysis of the characteristics and functions of staircase parallelism.

He agrees with both Loewenstamm and

Greenstein that the primary function of the device is to suspend information, thus creating tension in the listener, anticipating the conclusion of the verse.

*Watson rejected Loewenstamm's appellation, "expanded colon," because it "has unfortunate medical overtones and is too wide for the specific pattern it is intended to designate" (1977, 284, n. 94).

109 Within the corpus there are ten instances of staircase parallelism, six of them in the Baal texts (CTA 4 and 6 ) . The only examples of two line staircases are outside the corpus. tb ly.laqht.ġzr. tb ly wlk [atlb

Turn to me, O hero Aqht, Turn to me and to you I will turn. CTA 17 vi 42-43

ytb ly.tr.il [aby] ytb.ly.wlh.[argm]

He will answer me, Bull El, my father, He will answer me and to him I will speak. CTA 3E iv 7-8

Three line staircases are the most common and include the following examples: ^/bd.an.cnn.atrt pCbd.ank.ahd.ult hm.amt.atrt.tlbn lbnt.

Then am I a servant, Athirat's attendant, Then am I a servant, who handles the trowel, Or Athirat's maid, who makes bricks? CTA 4 iv 59-62

ytbr hrn.ybn. ytbr.hrn rišk ttrt.šm.bcl qdqdk.

May Horon smash, O son, May Horon smash your head, Athtart, name of Baal, your crown. CTA 16 vi 54-57

irš hym.laqht.gzr irš hym.watnk blmt wašlhk.

Request life, O hero Aqht, Request life and I will give (it) to you. Immortality and I will send (it) to you. CTA 17 vi 26-28

pth.bt.mnt pth.bt.wuba. hkl.wistql

Open the house of incantation, Open the house arid let me enter, The palace and let me come in. KTU 1.100 71-72

6. Anadiplosis Another form of repetition in Ugaritic verse is the terrace pattern, also called anadiplosis.

This device

110 occurs when the final word(s) of one colon is repeated at the beginning of the next colon, thus linking the two cola. More formally it is defined as, "a figure of repetition that repeats the last word of a clause, line or sentence in the first word of the next unit so that the two are united" (Myers and Simms, 14). Watson (1984a, 208-12) is one of the few scholars to study the use of this rhetorical device in Ugaritic, although it is emploYed some twenty-five times in the corpus. Anadiplosis occurs both in bicola and tricola.

In the

following examples of two line anadiplosis note the repetition of two words in each line. ib.hd.lm.thš lm.thš.ntq.dmrn

Enemy of Hadad, why are you dismayed, Why are you dismayed at the weapon of Dmrn? CTA 4 vii 38-39

yšu yr.šmmh. yr.bšmm.csr.

He raised, he shot heavenward, He shot in the heavens a bird. CTA 23:37-38

a[t]tm.att.il. att.il.w lmh.

The two women are the wives of El, The wives of El even forever. CTA 23:42

In other examples onlY one word may be common to each line. lymm.lyrhm lyrhm.lšnt.

From days to months, From months to years. CTA 19 iv 175-176

hn.spthm.mtqtm. mtqtm.klrmn[t]

Behold, their lips were sweet, Sweet as pomegranates CTA 23:50

The pattern may be combined with chiasmus (see below).

In

the first example the word order is object verb // verb object, whereas the second is partially chiastic, subject

Ill object: verb // verb subject: object:. hlk.ktr kycn. wycn.tdrq.hss

The coming of Kothar he indeed saw, And he saw the approach of Hasis. CTA 17 v 10-11

mt.uhryt.mh.yqh mh.yqh.mt.atryt.

A man, as his fate, what: does he get:? What: does he get:, a man, as his destiny? CTA 17 vi 35-36

The

te

rrace pattern is also found in tricola:

hlm ilm.tphhm. tphn.mlak.ym. t dt.tpt [nhr]

Behold, the gods saw them, They saw the messengers of Yam, The embassy of Judge Nahar. CTA 2 i 21-22

tbrk.ilm.tity tity.ilm.lahlhm dr il.lmšknthm

The gods blessed, they went:, The gods went: to their tents, The circle of El to their divine homes. CTA 15 iii 17-19

Very commonly it: is combined with staircase parallelism: wyšu.cnh.aliyn.bcl wyšu.cnh.wycn wycn.btlt. nt

Aliyn Baal raised his eyes, He raised his eyes and saw, He saw virgin Anat. CTA 10 ii 13-15

qrn.dbatk.btlt.cnt

The horn of your strength, O virgin Anat, The horn of your strength may Baal anoint, May Baal anoint ? CTA 10 ii 21-23

qrn.dbatk bcl.ymšh bcl.ymšh.hm.bcp [bnt] bhtk.yilm. bnt bh[t].a[l tšlmh al.tšmh.br[m hlklk

(In) the building of your house, O El, (In) the building of your house don't rejoice, Don't rejoice in the raising of your palace. CTA 3E v 27-29

There is one example in the corpus in which the terrace pattern is expanded to include an additional line.

Note the

repetition of aymr in lines 1 and 2, and the repetition of mr ym in lines 2 and 3.

112 smk.at.aymr. aymr.mr.ym. mr.ym lksih. nhr lkht.drkth.

Your very name is Chaser, Chaser, chase away Yarn, Chase away Yarn from his throne, River from the seat: of his dominion. CTA 2 iv 19-20

7. Refrain This device and the next:, inclusio, differ from those discussed up to this point: in that they involve repetition over a broader range than the single bicolon or tricolon. These devices use repetition to bind verses into larger units and thus operate on the macro rather than micro verse level. Repetition of an entire colon or verse at: close intervals can be utilized to bind a section tightly together.

This effect: is called refrain, and may be defined

as "a line, or lines, or part of a line, repeated at intervals throughout a poem, usually at regular intervals, and most often at the end of a stanza" (Preminger, 686). Refrain can serve structurally to unify units of verse (Preminger, 687). Once again, Watson (1984a, 295-99) is the only one who has dealt with this device comprehensively in Ugaritic.

The only clear example of refrain in the corpus

is found in the description of the construction of Baal's palace.

There the verse, tikl išt bbhtm, nblat bhklm, "Fire

consumed in the mansion, flames in the palace," is repeated three times within fourteen cola (CTA 4 vi 22-33).

This

refrain serves to unify the climactic section of the composition.

113 The only other possible examples of refrain operate over a much more constricted scope.

In the following

examples the repeated line occurs every other line, much more frequently than expected in refrain. ttbh.šbcm rumm. kgmn.aliyn [b]cl. tthh.šbcm.alpm [kg]mn.aliyn.bcl [tt]bh.šbcm.sin [kgm]n.aliyn.bcl

She slaughtered seven wild oxen, As an oblation for Mightiest Baal. She slaughtered seven oxen, As an oblation for Mightiest Baal. She slaughtered seven sheep, As an oblation for Mightiest Baal. CTA 6 i 18-29

(The above pattern may be repeated several more times after these lines, but the tablet is broken at this point.)

ytcn.kgmrm mt.cz.bcl.cz. ynghn krumm. mt. z.bcl C z . yntkn.kbtnm mt.cz.bcl.cz. ymshn klsmm. mt.ql bcl.ql.

They butted each other like hippos, Mot was strong, Baal was strong. They gored like wild oxen, Mot was strong, Baal was strong. They bit each other like serpents, Mot was strong, Baal was strong. They kicked each other like racers, Mot fell, Baal fell. CTA 6 vi 16-22

8. Inclusio Inclusio, also called the envelope pattern, is defined as "a structural pattern of repetition in which a line or stanza repeats itself in order to enclose other material and enrich its meaning" (Myers and Simms, 98). It is similar to the refrain, but in inclusio the repeated element occurs only at the beginning and end of a unit, whereas refrain usually does not begin a section, and it recurs at more

114 frequent intervals. The effect: is to bracket: or frame the intervening material with the repeated element producing a sense of completion.

This device seems to be rather

infrequent in Ugaritic.

Examples of inclusio include:

ybk.laqht ġzr.

They weep for hero Aqht,

ybk.laqht.ġzr.

They weep for hero Aqht. CTA 19 iv 173-178

[mlt.dm.ht. šctqt dm li.

Death, truly be shattered, Shctqt, truly be victorious.

mt.dm.ht. šctqt dm.lan.

Death truly was shattered, Shctqt truly was victorious. CTA 16 vi 1-14

mn.ib.ypc.lbcl. srt lrkb.crpt.

What enemy has arisen against Baal? (What) foe against the Cloud Rider?

mnm.ib.ypc.lbcl. srt.lrkb.crpt

What enemy has arisen against Baal? (What) foe against the Cloud Rider? CTA 3D iii 34-iv 48

B.

Repetition

Seina^ntic

Ugaritic poets also made extensive use of semantic repetition, the recurrence of an idea through the use of synonymous words or phrases in successive cola (see Berlin 1985, 64f.).

The most common form of semantic repetition is

word-pairs.

1. Word-Pairs The phenomenon of pairing semantically similar words in parallel cola is well known and has been discussed extensively in Chapter One of the present study.

There it

was argued that word-pairs are not formulaic, constituting a

115 fixed poetic dictionary, but could be composed by any competent speaker of the language.

As a result, they are

ubiquitous in Ugaritic, occurring in almost every verse.

A

great deal of effort has been expended toward classifying and listing all word-pairs in Ugaritic and their parallels in the Hebrew Bible.*

There is no doubt that word-pairs

were an important aspect of verse composition in Ugarit as well as elsewhere in the Levant, but because word-pairs have been examined so extensively in Ugaritic, emphasis in this study will be placed upon several variations of the basic word-pair.

2. Binominalization Binominalization occurs when a proper name in one colon is paired with an epithet or another proper name in the following colon.*

This is fairly frequent in Ugaritic, yet

only a few scholars have noted the device.*

Most frequent

are epithets of the god El: wbhlmh il.yrd. bdhrth ab adm

And in his dream El came down, And in his vision the father of man. CTA 14 i 35-37

*See criticisms of much of this work outlined in Chapter 1. ^The term "binominalization" is adopted from O'Connor (112f.). *Watson (1984a, 133) briefly mentions the device, but he confines it to the pattern, PNi // son of PNa*

116 t^pp.tr.il.dpid ^ġ3y.bny.bnwt

She fluttered (her eyes) at the Bull, the god of mercy, She winked at the creator of creatures. CTA 4 ii 10-11

Epithets of Baal are also common: šmc.laliyn bcl bn.lrkb.crp^

Hear, O Mightiest Baal, Understand, O Cloud Rider! CTA 4 v 121-122

Baal can also be paired with other proper names, such as Hadad and Son of Dagon: ib.bcl.tihd yc rm. The enemies of Baal seized the forests, šnu.hd.gpt ġr. The haters of Hadad the edges of the mountains. CTA 4 vii 35-37 šrd.bcl bdbhk. bn.dgn bmsdk.

Bring Baal down by your sacrifice, Dagon's son by your game offering. CTA 14 ii 77-79

Other examples of binominalization describe Athirat, Anat, Mot, Krt, and Krt's daughter, Hry. mgn.rbt.atrt ym mgz.qnyt.ilm

A present for Lady Athirat of the sea, A gift for the creatress of the gods. CTA 4 i 22-23

dll.al.ilak.lbn ilm.mt. c dd lydd il.gzr.

A messenger I will surely send to the son of the gods, Mot, A herald to the beloved of El, the hero. CTA 4 vii 45-47

krt.yht.whlm c bd.il.whdrt

Krt awoke and it was a dream, The servant of El and it was a theophany. CTA 14 iii 154-155

The pattern can be further expanded with a double epithet. In the following example Keret is described with two epithets, ncmn and glm il.

117 mat krt.kybky ydmc.ncmn.ġlm il.

What is the matter with Krt, that he weeps, That the gracious one, the lad of El, sheds tears? CTA 14 i 38-40

3. Number Parallelism Number parallelism consists of the pairing of a number in one colon with a higher number in a following colon. This is most commonly manifested by the formula:

x//x+l.

Other patterns are also used, such as 10(x//x+l) or ll(x//x+l).

Number parallelism is usually regarded as a

development of synonymous word-pairs.

Since numbers do not

have synonyms, a number is paired with the next higher digit.

The use of this device in Ugaritic was noted by

Cassuto (1975a, 26f.; 1971, 138-39) in support of his thesis that Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse are heirs of a common literary tradition.

Although Cassuto stated that

number parallelism was only used in Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew and late Aramaic verse, Freedman arid others have shown that it antedated these traditions, appearing in Sumerian arid Akkadian verse (Freedman 1971; Watson 1984a, 144f.).

Number parallelism is quite rare, however, except

i n Ugaritic arid Hebrew, and the similarity of form in these poetries shows evidence of a common tradition. The basic pattern, x//x+l, is represented in the following examples.

Note that the number pairs include:

2//3, 3//4, 5//6, and 7//8.

118 dm.tn.dbhm.šna.bcl. Truly, two banquets Baal hates, tltrkb. rpt. Three, the rider of the clouds. CTA 4 iii 17-18 tlt.yrhm.km[rs] arbc.kdw.k[rt]

Three months he has indeed been sick, Four that Krt has been ill. CTA 16 ii 84-85

yip.lhm.dhmš mġd tdt.yrhm

Let him bake bread for the fifth, Provisions for the sixth month. CTA 14 ii 83-84

dšbc [alhm.lh. tmnt.bn Mm

Who had seven brothers, Eight sons of a mother. CTA 14 i 8-9

As was mentioned, the basic numeric pattern can be varied. Examples of the 10(x//x+l) and ll(x//x+l) patterns include: sh.šbcm try tmnym.[z]byy tt.lttm.ahd.cr šbcm.gbc.pdr

Call my seventy bulls, My eighty gazelles. CTA 15 iv 6-7 Sixty-six cities he seized, Seventy-seven towns. CTA 4 vii 9-10

The common pair, "thousand"//"ten thousand," represents a further variation of the pattern, x//10x.

Gevirtz took a

slightly different approach to this pair, arguing that in Biblical Hebrew it is lexical word-pair (Gevirtz 1963, 1524).

In the corpus there is the following example:

alp.šd.ahd bt rbt.kmn.hkl

Let the house cover a thousand tracts, The palace ten thousand spaces. CTA 4 v 118-119

4. Extended Series Several devices, all of which expand a basic verse into a longer verse or interconnected series of verses, can be considered under a single head. tours, lists, and sorites.

These devices include

Patterns such as these are more

119 characteristic of prose than verse, but: are included because t

hey are found within verse and because they may include

other rhetorical devices. Wa tt ers defines the tour as "a series of one or more verses where t he poe t lists pairs of from three to t en words all meaning roughly the same thing, or having something to do with t he same subject:, or being in some way related" (Watters, 96). Watson puts it: more succinctly when he says that a tour is "an extension of the word-pair" (Watson 1984a, 350). He offers t:he following example: bhrb tbqcnn. bhtr.tdrynn. hl3t.tšrpnn brhm.tthnn. bšd tdrnn.

Wit:h Wit:h With With In a

a sword she split: him, a sieve she winnowed him, fire she burned him, millstones she ground him, field she sowed him. CTA 6 ii 31-35

The list, a more general classification, is simply a catalogue of related items which have less intrinsic connection.

As an example note the following catalogue of

the gifts made by the craftsman god, Kothar-wa-Hasis, for Athirat:

120 kt.i l.dt.rbtm kt.il.nbt.bksp šmrgt.bdm.hrs kht.il.nht bzr.

A divine pedestal of 20,000, A divine pedestal adorned with silver, Overlaid with a veneer of gold, A divine throne, a resting place at the back, A divine footstool of ? with ? , hdm.il dprša.bbr A divine sandal having straps, ncl.il.d.qblbl c Upon it he plated them with gold, ln.yblhm.hrs A divine table which he filled tlhn.il.dmla mnm.dbbm.drnsdt.ars With creeping species of the foundations of the earth, A divine bowl whose handle is like sc.il.dqt.kamr Amurru, sknt.khwt.yman Whose appearance is like the land of Yman, dbh.rumm.lrbbt On which there are wild oxen by myriads. CTA 4 i 31-44 Another example presents a list of Krt's citizens who go out to war in response to his call for a campaign against Udm. yhd.bth.sgr almnt.škr tškr. zbl.cršrn yšu. c

wr.rnzl yrnzl.

wysi.trh hdt. ybr.ltn atth. lrn.nkr rnddth.

The single man will close his house, The widow will hire a hireling, The sick will carry his bed, The blind will surely stumble along, The newly married will even go forth, He will entrust his wife to another, To a stranger his beloved. CTA 14 ii 96-103

Finally, there are several passages which list body parts, such as this description of Athirat's reaction to the approach of Baal and Anat. bh.pcnm [ttt bc]dn.ksl [tţbr c ln plnh t d r ] tġs [pnt ks]lh anš.dt.zr[h]

At that she stamped her feet. Behind, she shattered her loins, Above, her face sweated, She convulsed the joints of her loins, The muscles of her back. CTA 4 ii 16-20

Sorites differ from tours and lists in that each colon is logically connected with the previous one.

H.A. Fischel

defines sorites as "a set of statements which proceed, step by step, through the force of logic or reliance upon a

121 succession of indisputable facts, to a climactic conclusion, each s t a t emen t picking up the last: key word (or key phrase) of t he preceding one" (Fischel, 119). As an example of the sorite in Ugaritic, Watson (1984a, 213; 1975, 485f.) cites CTA 4 vii 9-12: tt.lttm.ahd.cr šbcm.šbc.pdr tmnym.bcl.m[ ] tšcm.bcl.mr[ ]

Sixty-six cities he seized, Seventy-seven towns, Eighty Baal ? , Ninety Baal ?

Another example, outside the present corpus, is CTA 5 vi 1214. yrd.lksi. ytb lhdm [wll.hdm.ytb lars

C .

Synta^ctic

He descended from the throne, He sat on the footstool, And from the footstool he sat on the ground.

Repetition

Studies of the syntax of verse are a relatively recent phenomenon, appearing during the past two decades.

More

recently scholars such as A. Berlin (1985), E.L. Greenstein (1974), and D. Pardee (1988b), have attempted to incorporate these studies into comprehensive theories of parallelism. They argue that repetition of the syntactic structure of parallel cola is a form of parallelism on it own and can strengthen the effect of other types of parallelism. Therefore, this phenomenon is usually called "grammatical parallelism."

In the taxonomy of rhetorical devices

presented in this chapter I have avoided the term "parallelism" due to the lack of consensus regarding what it is.

In an effort to be as descriptive as possible, I use

122 here t he term, "syntactic repetition," because it adequately describes the phenomenon, and because it conforms to the t

erminology used elsewhere in the taxonomy.

Further, I will

deal only with syntactic repetition of the surface structure and not: repetition of the deep grammatical structure. Greenstein defines grammatical parallelism as "that pattern in which the syntactic structure of one line of poetry is replicated in the following line(s)" (Greenstein 1974, 87). Although syntactic repetition may be combined with semantic repetition, the grammatical structure alone is sufficient to create a sense of parallelism.

Greenstein

accents this characteristic when he states, "Thus grammatical parallelism serves the function of associating and dissociating lines of poetry according to similarity and dissimilarity of syntactic construction, thereby facilitating the listener's perception of (especially) oral poetry" (Greenstein 1974, 89).

1. Complete Syntactic Repetition Syntactic repetition can be complete or partial.

When

repetition is complete the syntactic structure of one colon is exactly matched by the next.

Sometimes such exact

repetition will be present when there is little or no semantic parallelism.

For example, in each colon below the

syntax is identical, with a structure of PVO.

(The

following abbreviations will be used to designate syntax:

123 S = subject noun, O = predicate noun, V = verb, P = prepositional phrase, A = any other adverbial.) bh.pcnm [ttt bc]dn.ksl [ttbr c ln p]nh td[ ]

At that, (her) feet she stamped, Round about, (her) loins she burst, Above, her face she sweated. CTA 4 ii 16-18*

The same is true in the following example where the syntax is repeated (VO), but the semantic relationship is not identical. ttbh.šmn.[m]rih t[p]th.rhbt.yn

She slaughtered the fattest of her fatlings, She opened a flask of wine. CTA 15 iv 15-16

Syntactic repetition may also reinforce the semantic parallelism already present in a verse.

Note the syntactic

repetition, VS, in these two examples. Both also exhibit binominalization. y[t]b.aliyn.bcl ytdd.rkb.crpt

Mightiest Baal replied, The Cloud Rider responded. CTA 4 iii 10-11

yru.bn ilm <m>t. ttc.ydd.il.ġzr

Divine Mot was afraid, The beloved of El, the Hero, was in dread. CTA 6 vi 30-31

In each colon of these verses the syntax is VO: grnn.crm šrnn.pdrm

He attacked the cities, He encamped against the towns. CTA 14 iv 212-213

*For this translation see J.C. De Moor 1980a, 425-26.

124 ltdn.dn.almnt lttpt.tpt.qsr.nps

You do not try the case of the widow, You do not judge the disposition of the importunate. CTA 16 vi 33-341"

The following example repeats the word order, OPV. yd.bsc.t[šl]h [hrb b]bš[r].tštn

A hand into the bowl she extended, A knife in the meat she put. CTA 15 v 7-8

A particularly interesting as well as difficult example of syntactic repetition is KTU 1.100 65-67.

Each colon begins

with a noun followed by a verb with object suffix.11 c c

r rm.yncrnh ssnm.ysynh. c dtm.ycdynh. ybltm.yblnh.

The The The The

tamarisk, he shook it, date cluster, he removed it, reed-center, he made it pass away, produce, he carried it off

Complete syntactic repetition may be augmented by adding another word or particle to the beginning of the second colon.

In the following examples the cola are joined by hm,

rġb.rġbt.wtgt hm.ġmu.ġmit.wcs[t]

bt.arzm.ykllnh hm.bt.lbnt.ycmsnh

Are you indeed hungry, since you wandered afar, Or are you indeed thirsty, since you traveled by night? CTA 4 iv 33-34 A house of cedar may he complete it, Or a house of bricks may he construct it. CTA 4 v 72-73

1c

*For this translation see Gibson 101.

11

The translation follows Pardee 1978, 85, though the passage is translated variously. The syntactic repetition is evident regardless of the translation adopted.

125 2. Partial Syntactic Repetition In addition to complete syntactic repetition, Ugaritic poets could replicate part of the syntactic structure of one colon in the next without repeating every element.

Such

partial syntactic repetition is frequently found in verses which also exhibit ellipsis.

Since in ellipsis one

syntactic unit is elided from the second colon, the syntactic pattern is not repeated in full.

But, if at least

two elements are repeated then I consider this pattern partial syntactic repetition.

In the following example the

syntax is VOP//OP, with the pattern of line 1 repeated in line 2 except for the elision of the initial verb.

Many

other similar examples could be cited from the corpus. ahdt.plkh [bydh] plk.t lt.bymnh

She took her spindle in her hand, The spindle of nobility in her right hand CTA 4 ii 3-4

Another type of partial syntactic repetition occurs when the syntactic structures of parallel lines are identical except for the addition of an element to one of the lines.

Both lines of the following example have the

same basic syntax, VO, but: the first: line adds a noun phrase, il dpid, in apposition to the direct: object:, tr: tcpp*tr.il.dpid tġzy*bny.bnwt

She fluttered (her eyelids at) the Bull, god of mercy, She entreated the creator of creatures CTA 4 ii 10-11

Yet: a third type of of partial syntactic repetition is found in the following example.

In these two consecutive

126 bicola each cola begins with a verb, followed by an object. In the first and last lines the object is indirect whereas in the second and third lines it is a direct object. The syntax is similar, though riot identical. wcly lzr.mgdl. rkb tkmm.hmt.

Arid he went up to the top of the tower, He mounted the shoulder of the wall.

nša [y]dh.šmmh. dbh ltr.abh.il. ' '

He lifted his hands heavenward, He sacrificed to the Bull, his father El. CTA 14 iv 165-169

The common denominator of these examples is the repetition of at least two syntactic elements in the same order in parallel lines.

Verses in which the syntactic

structure is repeated but with a different order of elements will be considered below under chiasmus. 3- Gender-Matched Parallelism Gender-matched parallelism is a form of partial syntactic repetition in which noun gender is the key element for establishing parallelism.

In this device a pair of

nouns in one colon is linked to another pair in the following colon according to gender.

These examples from

the corpus illustrate two of the possible gender patterns. bph.rgm.ly{.)sa. bšpth hwt[h]

From his mouth (m.) his speech (m.) had just come forth, From his lips (f.) his word (f.). CTA 19 iii 113

bl.ašt.urbt.bbh[tm] Shall I not put an opening (f.) in the mansion (m.), hln.bqrb.hklm A window (f.) in the midst of the palace (m.)? CTA 4 v 123-124

127 In the first example both nouns in the first colon are masculine and are paralleled by two feminine nouns in the second colon.

The second exhibits a variation by pairing a

feminine and masculine noun in each cola.*2

Other patterns

are also attested. U. Cassuto (1971, 44-46) was the first to identify this rhetorical device in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, and he has been followed by J. Gray (1954, 204), M. Tsevat (1958, 111 n. 4 ) , and S. Gevirtz (1975, 111*).

The two most

complete studies have been published by W.G.E. Watson, one focusing upon the device in the Hebrew Bible, the other on Ugaritic (Watson 1980a; 1981a; also see 1984a, 123-28).

In

these articles Watson presented numerous examples of the device from both literary traditions and suggested several possible functions.

He also deals with the matter of

whether poets deliberately tried to match the gender of parallel nouns.

Based upon several criteria he argues that

the device was used consciously by the poets in most if not all instances (Watson 1980a, 328). Therefore, he maintains that recognition of this device can be important for textual criticism and exegesis. Finally he argues that gendermatched parallelism is more frequent and more developed in biblical verse than in Ugaritic and suggests that the

12

It may be that the gender of hln was variable in Ugaritic, if its use in the Hebrew Bible is any indication. See Eze. 40:16ff. and 41:16 where it is used as both a feminine and a masculine noun.

128 pattern originated in Ugarit (Watson 1981a, 186). The results of the present study do not: serve to support: Watson's contention that gender-matched parallelism was a deliberate device in Ugaritic verse.

In the first:

place, there are very few examples of the device in the corpus, suggesting that coincidence rather than intent is involved. Of the few instances which can be advanced, most, such as the second one presented above, are somewhat dubious.

This further leads one to suspect that the

Ugaritic examples suggested by Watson are more than likely fortuitous.

Because Ugaritic has only two genders, nominal

patterns are bound to appear purely by chance.

For this

reason, gender-matched parallelism will not be included in the analysis presented in the next section.

D.

Phonological

Repetition

The third category of repetition found in Ugaritic verse is phonological repetition, the iteration of sound patterns.

Objectively identifying phonological repetition

in Ugaritic is a difficult task in view of the uncertainties concerning Ugaritic phonology, especially the vocalic system.

The primary areas of study include alliteration,

assonance, and rhyme.

129 1. Alliteration/Consonance Alliteration is defined as, "Any repetition of the same sound(s) or syllable in two or more words of a line (or line group), which produces a noticeable artistic effect" (Preminger, 15). The last phrase in this definition is important in the present context, because it asserts that alliteration, however one may quantify it, should be perceptible.

In this study it will be argued that

alliteration is so ubiquitous that its perceptibility and, hence, its effect are somewhat minimal. The term alliteration is commonly used in Ugaritic studies, but, due to our uncertainty concerning the vocalic system, it should, perhaps, be called consonance. Consonance refers to "the close repetition of similar or identical consonants of words whose main vowels differ" (Myers and Simms, 64). Since such studies in Ugaritic are almost always concerned with the repetition of consonants alone, the term "alliteration" is in reality a misnomer. Nevertheless, in light of general scholarly usage, the term alliteration will also be used in the present study. Alliteration can be subdivided into several subcategories:

Pure alliteration refers to the repetition

of the exact consonant, whereas partial or near alliteration involves the iteration of similar consonants (Watson 1984a, 225 makes this distinction).

These are consonants which

have the same point of articulation but differ with respect

130 to voicing, such as the bilabials /b/ and /p/.

Yet: another

form of alliteration is the repetition of consonantal clusters whose force can bind several lines together.

Yet:

another form is line initial alliteration, in which successive lines begin with the same consonant:. The importance of the alliterative factor in verse was highlighted by R. Jacobson more than twenty-five years ago when he cited an anonymous Russian author who asserted that "two natural harmonic principles, PARALLELISM and ALLITERATION, were perhaps the universal basis of songcraft:" (Jakobson 1966, 406; emphasis is his). This fact: has been largely ignored by students of North-west Semitic verse, especially Ugaritic verse as can be seen by t:he deart:h of st:udies. B. Margalit is t:he only scholar t:o explore allit:erat:ion in Ugaritic in any detail.

His first treatment of the

subject was part of a more comprehensive article on Ugaritic verse (Margalit 1975).

There his primary purpose was to

establish a system of metrical analysis, but he appended a discussion of alliteration because of his conviction that, "Alliteration has enormous implications for structural analysis and philology" (Margalit 1975, 311). He defined alliteration as, "the repetition of a consonant with a frequency significantly higher than those consonants in the immediate environment . . . " (Margalit 1975, 311). He proposed three criteria to determine if the repetition of a

131 consonant is significant:

It should recur, 1) at least

three times in seven verse-units,13 or 2) twice within a word or once each in successive words, or 3) as a repeated sequence of two or more adjacent letters. Margalit regards alliteration as second in importance only to meter for determining the shape of Ugaritic verse.

He further

suggests that even grammar and syntax may be conditioned by alliteration. Margalit expanded this initial study in a later article (Margalit 1979) in which he offered a refined definition of alliteration and distinguished between full and partial alliteration (Margalit 1979, 538). He also defined "alliterative sequences," essentially alliterative clusters, and "linkage," the idea that verses can be linked together by alliterative patterns common to both.

The primary goal

of the article was to demonstrate the implications of alliteration for understanding Ugaritic verse.

Margalit

suggested two main ways that alliteration influenced the poet as he composed.

First, he asserts that rare words or

forms were sometimes chosen rather than more common words in order to heighten alliteration.

He calls this phenomenon

alliterationis causa (Margalit 1979, 540). Further, he argues that the choice of synonyms in parallel lines was often determined by alliteration.

13

He defines verse-units in Margalit 1975, 291-98.

132 Watson (1984a, 225-29) accepted much of Margalit's work somewhat uncritically in his monograph on biblical verse and goes on to suggest several possible functions alliteration fulfilled in Northwest Semitic verse.

Chief among them is

the "cohesive" function, whereby alliteration served to bind together individual parts of a line, verse, or larger structure.

He also notes that alliteration could serve to

assist memorization and to arrest the listener's attention. D. Pardee is much more critical of Margalit's approach to alliteration (Pardee 1988b, 51f.).

Although Pardee

agrees that alliteration is an important rhetorical device which deserves more intense study, he argues that Margalit does not use of the term "alliteration" as is commonly accepted in studies of verse and that his rules defining alliteration are arbitrary at best.

Pardee attacks the

foundation of Margalit's work when he states, "Alliteration in the strict sense of the term (repetition of consonants in initial and/or accented syllables) does not appear to be a structural device of Ugaritic poetry" (Pardee 1988b, 52). He bases this assertion on the fact that, although he finds a great deal of consonantal repetition, he can discover no clearly discernable pattern or distribution of this repetition in Ugaritic or biblical verse. In addition to his critique of Margalit, Pardee offers an assessment of the problems involved in analyzing phonetic parallelism in Ugaritic.

He first observes that the

133 Ugaritic consonants are in reality graphemes and do not: necessarily represent distinct individual phones.

Not only

is their original pronunciation unknown, but it is easily demonstrable that some consonants had more than one phonetic value.

This fact, combined with the possibility of

allophonic variations which are completely unknown today, renders structural analysis and textual restoration based upon alliteration highly speculative.

For these reasons,

Pardee doubts his own abilities to properly deal with alliteration in Ugaritic (Pardee 1988b, 51-52). Much of what Pardee has said is correct and should be heeded with respect to alliteration in Ugaritic verse.

Our

basic uncertainties concerning vocalization and stress in Ugaritic make anything more than an examination of the repetition of consonants a highly speculative enterprise. The repetition of consonants was probably significant, but it is difficult to say to what extent it enhanced the rhetorical impact of a poem.

To engage in textual

emendation on the basis of alliteration, as Margalit has done, is to transcend the available evidence. Another problematic area concerns the criteria for determining the presence of alliteration in Ugaritic verse.

In other words,

how many times must a consonant be repeated within what context in order to be considered noticeable?

This decision

is subjective at best, based upon an individual scholar's approach to the material.

134 For these reasons a cautious approach to alliteration in Ugaritic is requisite. There will always be a subjective element: with respect: to alliteration, but for the present: study I have basically adopted Margalit's definition with some modifications.

Alliteration will be indicated if any

of the following conditions is met::

(a) A consonant: is used

four t imes in contiguous lines, or (b) a consonant: is used three times in a single line, or (c) a sequence of two or more consonants occurs within a line or in contiguous lines. The following example illustrates both (a) and (b) above. Here /l/ is repeated four times in the first colon and twice more in the second, and /b/ is found three times in the bicolon. ncl.il.d.qblbl c ln.yblhm.hrs

A divine sandal having straps, Upon it he put gold CTA 4 i 37-38

The alliterative pattern described in (b) above can be illustrated by the following verse.

Note the repetition of

/m/ at the end of each word in the first colon. lhm.hm.stym. lh[m] btlhnt.lhm

Eat or drink! Eat food from the tables! CTA 4 iv 35-36

The final example illustrates (c) above. In the second colon the sequence of the consonants bn recur in successive words. mgntm tr.il.dpid. Have you entreated the Bull, the god of mercy, hm.ġztm bny.bnwt Or have you sought the favor of the creator of creatures? CTA 4 iii 30-32

135 Line initial alliteration is not: infrequent: in the corpus of the present study.

Since anaphora, the repetition

of the initial word(s) in successive lines, is also well attested, the result is that the repetition of a consonant at the beginning of successive lines is a common device in Ugaritic verse.

This device may serve to further the

listener's perception that the lines of a verse are closely bound together.

Note the following examples of line initial

alliteration: y[t]b.aliyn.bcl yt^dd.rkb.crpt

Mightiest Baal answered, The cloud rider responded CTA 4 iii 10-11

nmgn [ulm.rbt.atrt. ym [nġ]z.qnyt.ilm

We entreat the mother, Lady Athirat Yammi, We seek the favor of the creatress of the gods CTA 4 iii 33-35

mtltt.ktrm.tmt mrb^t.zblnm mhmgt.yitsp ršp mtdtt.glm ym. mšb thn.bslh ttpl.

By By By By By

tlu.ht.km.nhl tplg.km.plg

Life became strong like a wadi, It flowed like a stream KTU 1.100 68-69

threes the healthy ones dies, fours the young princes, fives Raspu gathered (them), sixes the lads of Yam, sevens they fell L^ the sword CTA 14 i 16-21

2. Assonance Assonance is defined as, "The repetition of identical or similar vowel sounds—especially in stressed syllables— in a sequence of words close to one another" (Myers and Simms, 24). The problems discussed above with regard to assessing alliteration in Ugaritic verse are multiplied when

136 dealing the assonance. r

As is well known, vowels are

epresented in Ugaritic only in connection with the glottal

stop, t he three 'alephs. Even here there is substantial disagreement: concerning the length and quality of vowels. There are also several possible instances of matres lectiones in Ugaritic, but these are disputed and open to various interpretations.1^

This necessitates reconstruction

of t he vowels in any given text on the basis of comparative studies.

Therefore, Pardee has correctly warned that "it: is

extrernely speculative to carry out a phonetic analysis on the basis of a reconstructed text" (Pardee 1988b, 51). For these reasons, assonance will not: be considered in the present: study.

3. Rhyme Rhyme is a form of phonetic repetition which does not seem to have been a conscious component: of Ugaritic poetic technique.

Rhyme is defined broadly, as "a metrical

rhetorical device based on the sound-identities of words" (Preminger, 705). More narrowly it refers to the harmony of final sounds in lines of verse, particularly in relation to final stressed syllables (Simpson and Weiner, 871). By either of these definitions it is difficult find clear cases of intentional rhyme in Ugaritic verse.

There are many

**For a careful analysis of the issue see Blau 1979, 55-62; Blau and Loewenstamm, 19-33.

137 examples of similar sounding words in close association, but the patterning usually associated with rhyme is not evident. Few scholars have explored the possibility of rhyme in Ugaritic.

Pardee comments that, "True rhyme . . . only

appears in complete repetitive parallelism, where, of course, all the forms of parallelism come together" (Pardee 1988b, 56). Watson examines it more fully, but concludes that it is only "incidental" in Semitic verse and thus is difficult to differentiate from other forms of repetition (1984a, 229-33). development.

It seems clear that rhyme is a much later

For these reasons rhyme will not be included

in the present study of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic.

Devices

Which

Avoid

Repetition

In addition to rhetorical devices which utilize repetition, there are also devices which avoid repetition. The functions of these devices vary, but the primary reason poets avoided repetition was to introduce variety into their compositions.

Similarity and diversity are strong elements

in Ugaritic verse which simultaneously counteract and complement each other.

These devices are not limited to

verse, but they become more perceptible within the context of devices which utilize repetition, since they offset the impact of pervasive repetition. Devices which avoid repetition may involve several aspects of parallelism, such as semantics, syntax, and phonology.

Chiasmus, for example,

138 may entail all three of these dimensions.

In view of their

diversity, these rhetorical devices will be treated individually, according to their relative frequency in the corpus.

1. Ellipsis Ellipsis, also called gapping, is one of the most common devices in Ugaritic verse.

Virtually any syntactic

element is subject to elision, but verb gaping is by far the most common in Ugaritic.

Ellipsis is defined as:

A figure of speech and a grammatical device in which words of a sentence are left out for the sake of brevity, emphasis, grace, or ambiguity. The omitted words can easily be inferred from their previous context and from their grammatical compatibility (Myers and Simms, 94-95). Functionally, ellipsis serves to add variety to verse and counteract the pervasive effect of repetition.

Watson

highlights this aspect when he says: Poetic technique includes the ability to control and balance redundancy and economy in language. Redundancy is built into everyday prose while incomplete phrases and sentences are common. Such redundancy and economy, though are bound bY definite norms. Poetry, on the contrary, is to a large extent freer; a certain amount of repetition (refrains, parallelism, epithets etc.) is expected; at the same time terse writing is indicative of skilful composition. It is the poet's task to use redundancy and ellipsis to their fullest effect (Watson 1975, 491). Ellipsis in Ugaritic verse has not attracted a great deal of scholarly attention despite its ubiquity.

C.H.

Gordon devoted a page to it in the last edition of his Ugaritic grammar and commented that it "deserves a special

139 study" (Gordon 1965, 130). He observes that "the most common type of ellipsis is the omission of a word in the second member of a parallelistic combination, when the meaning is clear from the fuller statement in the first member."

He further remarks that the device is found in

other ancient literatures including Egyptian.

Gordon's

primary interest in ellipsis, however, was in the subset of ellipsis he called "ballast variation," which will be dealt with below in the section on length compensation. M. Dahood has commented on the use of ellipsis in Ugaritic verse on several occasions.

In his compendium of

notes on Gordon's Ugaritic Textbook, he referred to ellipsis as the "double-duty" use of specific parts of speech (Dahood 1965, 38-41).*^

For example, ellipsis of the interrogative

in the second line of a bicolon is called a "double-duty interrogative," indicating that the interrogative in the first line serves for both lines.

Similarly he provides

examples of double-duty suffixes, prepositions and conjunctions.

In the third volume of his Psalms commentary

Dahood extended his treatment of the device to biblical Hebrew by comprehensively listing examples of ellipsis in the Psalter (1979, 429-44).

^Although I find nothing particularly objectionable about the term "double-duty" in reference to this device, I use the term "ellipsis" because it is a standard poetic term and because it is commonly used in studies of Ugaritic poetry.

140 Several years later E.L. Greenstein devoted part of an article to the most common type of ellipsis in Ugaritic, verb gaping in the second line of a bicolon (Greenstein 1974, 89-95).

He remarks that ellipsis is largely peculiar

to Ugaritic and biblical verse, being only rarely attested in Akkadian.

In his examination of the Ugaritic corpus he

was unable to find any instances in which the verb was gapped in the first colon only to be supplied in the second. Rather, in every case the verb was elided in the second line.

He explains this phenomenon by reference to

psycholinguistics:

"Recent psycholinguistic investigations

have demonstrated that when we process speech, we assign a syntactic analysis to a sentence clause by clause according to the deep structure of the sentence" (Greenstein 1974, 94).

As a result, verb elision in the second colon poses no

problem to the listener because he has retained the meaning and structure of the first colon in his memory, allowing him to process the second, elliptical colon accurately. M. O'Connor has presented the most extensive examination of ellipsis in biblical verse (O'Connor, 122-29, 401-407).

He deals with the linguistic theory of the device

more fully than any other study and also provides brief comparative material from other Semitic traditions. Greenstein's study of Ugaritic verse only found examples of verbs elided in the second of two cola, but O'Connor argues that in biblical verse gaping can and does occur in the

141 first colon.

He calls this "leftward," as opposed to

"rightward," gaping, but admits that it is much rarer than rightward gaping in Biblical Hebrew, offering only two examples from his corpus (O'Connor, 129). Because verb gaping is the only form of ellipsis which may "obscure the structure of one of the clauses involved," O'Connor limits his analysis to it (O'Connor, 126). Ellipsis of conjunctions and other particles are surveyed, but are not regarded as structurally significant.

a. Verbal Ellipsis As noted, verb gaping is the most frequent form of ellipsis in the corpus.

Ugaritic word order is variable,

but the verb is most often the first constituent in a clause.**

Therefore, it is no surprise that a line-initial

verb is the element most frequently gapped.

The simplest

form of verb-initial gaping is VO//O: sh.šbcm try tmnym.[2]byy

Call my seventy bulls, My eighty gazelles. CTA 15 iv 6-7

al.tsr udm.rbt. wudm trrt

Don't beseige Great Udrn, Even well-watered Udrn. CTA 14 iii 133-134

One of the most common forms of verb-initial gaping has the structure, VOP//OP:

**The most comprehensive study of word order in Ugaritic is G.H. Wilson (1982).

142 stt.hptr.list hbrt.lzr.phmm

She put a pot on the fire, A cauldron on top of the coals. CTA 4 ii 8-9

sh.hrn.bbhtk 'dbt.bqrb.hklk

Call a caravan into your house, Materials in the midst of your palace. CTA 4 v 75-76

Examples could be easily multiplied,

Less frequent is the

variation, VPO//PO: ?[? bgll.htt yn. bgl [hlrs.nbt

Pour into a silver bowl, wine, Into a golden bowl, honey. CTA 14 ii 71-72

ybcr.ltn atth. lm.nkr mddth.

He will entrust!?) to another his wife, To a stranger his beloved. CTA 14 ii 101-103

ydy.bcsm.crcr wbšht.^s.mt

He cast out from the trees a tamarisk, Even from the shrubs, the tree of death. KTU 1.100 64-65

Ellipsis in the word order, VSO//SO, is attested, though not frequently.*^ tblk.^rm mid.ksp. gbcm.mhmd.hrs.

The rocks will yield you much silver, The hills choice gold. CTA 4 v 93-95

On the other hand, the structure, VSP//SP, is common. tikl išt bbhtm. nblat bhk[l]m.

Fire consumed in the mansion, Flames in the palace. CTA 4 vi 24-26

st.alp.qdmh. mra wtk.pnh.

An ox was placed before him, A fatling even before his face. CTA 4 v 107-108

Other variations of verb-initial ellipsis are also attested, but these are the most common.

Note the following patterns:

^Standard treatments of Ugaritic word order suggest that VSO is the most common word order. But Wilson's study of the Krt text contests this, arguing that VOS is more common.

143 widf'.khy.aliyn bcl And I will know that Mightiest Baal is alive, kit.zbl.bcl.ars That the prince, the lord of the earth exists. CTA 6 iii 8-9 lk.ym.wtn. tlt.rbc ym hmg.tdt.ym.

Go a day and a second, A third, a fourth day, A fifth, a sixth day. CTA 14 iii 106-107

tbh.imr wilhm. mgt.witrm

Slaughter a lamb that I may eat, A fatling that I may dine. CTA 16 vi 17-18

rj.lmlk.amlk

Come down from (your) kingship that I may be king, From your seat of dominion that I may sit on it. CTA 16 vi 37-38

ldrktk atb.nn

Although there are fewer instances of gaping when the verb is medial or final in a clause, there are, nonetheless, a variety of patterns evidenced.

Examples of verb-final

ellipsis include: hlk.bcl.at/t]rt kt'n. hlk.btlt cnt tdrq.ybmt [limm]

The coming of Baal, Athirat indeed saw,

kbh.btt.ltbt wbh.tdmmt.amht

For in it shame is surely seen, And in it the lewd behavior of slave girls. CTA 4 iii 21-22

ym.ymm.y'tgn. lymm lyrhm.

A day, days passed, From days to months. CTA 6 ii 26-27

att.sdqh.lypg mtrht.ysrh

His lawful wife he did not find, His rightful spouse. CTA 14 i 12-13

mlk [t]r abh yars.

The kingship of the Bull, his father, does he desire, Or dominion like the father of mankind? CTA 14 i 41-43

hm drk[t] kab.adm

The corning of Virgin Anat, The fast approach of the Sister-in-law of the peoples. CTA 4 ii 13-16

144 dbhlmy.il.ytn bdrty.ab.adm

That which in my dream El granted, In my vision the father of mankind. CTA 14 iii 150-151

tnh.kspm atn. wtlth.hrsm

Twice her (value) in silver I will give, Even three times her (value) in gold. CTA 14 iv 205-206

npšh.llhm.tpth brlth.ltrm

His throat to eat, it opened, His appetite to dine. CTA 16 vi 11-12

Likewise a medial verb may be elided, resulting in verses such as the following: dm.tn.dbhm.šna.bcl tlt'rkb.'rpt.

Truly, two sacrifices Baal hates, Three, the Cloud Rider. CTA 4 iii 17-18

alp.šd.ahd bt rbt.km.hkl

A thousand measures may the house cover, Ten thousand spaces, the palace. CTA 4 v 118-119

ptr.ptm zbln.cl.rišh

Baal's mountain will weep for you, father, Sapon, the holy district. CTA 16 i 6-7 Moreover is Krt the son of El, The offspring of Ltpn and the Holy One? CTA 16 i 9-11 The sickness escaped (his) temples, The disease out of his head. CTA 16 vi 8-9**

Both of Geller's compensation types are used in the following verse.

One term is lengthened (yd//usbct) and

another unit (cd) is added to the second colon. rhp [yldk.amt usb[ctk] c d [t]km

Wash your arm (to) the elbow, Your fingers to the shoulder. CTA 14 ii 63-64

One aspect of length compensation not considered by Geller is what may be called double compensation.

Rather than

compensate for ellipsis by lengthening a single unit in the second line, there are instances in which two units are lengthened in order to achieve relative balance between the cola.

Examples include:

išt//nblat and b//bqrb tikl ist.[b]bhtm. Fire consumed in the mansion, nblat b[qrb hkllm. Flames in the midst of the palace. CTA 4 vi 29-31 k//km and šd//pat mdbr kirby [tlskn.sd Like locust that inhabit the field, km.hsn.pat.rndbr Like hoppers at the edge of the steppe. CTA 14 ii 103-105

**For this reading and translation cf. CTA 16 v 50-51 and see Gibson, 101.

154 ks//krpn and byd//bm ymn ks.yiAd [il blyd. A cup El took in (his) hand, krpn.bm [ymn] A flagon in (his) right hand. CTA 15 ii 16-18 ilm//dr il and ahl//mšknt tity.ilm.lahlhm The gods went to their tents, dr il.lmsknthm The circle of El to their sanctuaries. CTA 15 iii 18-19 Finally, attention should be drawn to the common use of proper names and epithets to create length compensation in parallel lines.

As might be expected, the unit in the

second line is lengthened by compounding.

This aspect of

compensation is closely linked with binominalization (see above). il//ab adm wbhlmh il.yrd. bdhrth ab adm bcl//bn dgn šrd.bcl bdbhk. bn.dgn bmsdk. krt//cbd il krt.yht.whlm c bd.il.whdrt

And in his dream El descended, In his vision, the father of mankind. CTA 14 i 35-37 Bring Baal down with your sacrifice, Dagon's son with your game offering. CTA 14 ii 77-79 Krt awoke and (it was) a dream, The servant of El, and (it was) a theophany. CTA 14 iii 154-155

3. Pivot Pattern Yet another form of ellipsis, the pivot pattern, has been discussed by M. Dahood and W.G.E. Watson.

Dahood

called this pattern the "double-duty modifier," although he admitted that the label might be misleading.

He defined it

as "a phrase, sometimes just a divine name or title in the vocative case, suspended between the first and third cola of

155 a verse and simultaneously modifying both of them" (Dahood 1967, 574). To illustrate the pattern Dahood offered several dozen examples, all from the Psalms. Watson advanced Dahood's work in several articles and his monograph on Hebrew verse (Watson 1975; 1976; 1984a, 214-21).

He prefers the term "pivot pattern" because, he

suggests, the verse pivots upon the word suspended between the two lines. Watson demonstrates the device with examples from biblical, Akkadian, and Ugaritic verse.

The primary

function of the pivot pattern, he argues was to assist the poet in oral composition, allowing him time for thought in order to complete his verse (Watson 1976, 251). There are only sixteen examples in the present corpus of Ugaritic verse which seem to conform to Dahood and Watson's definition of the pivot pattern.

These three

examples serve to illustrate: ym.ymm.y'tqn. lymm lyrhm.

A day, days passed, From days to months. CTA 6 ii 26-27

att.sdqh.lypqr mtrht.y^rh

His lawful wife he did not find, His rightful spouse. CTA 14 i 12-13

npšh.llhm.tpth brlth.ltrm

His throat was opened for food, His appetite for a meal. CTA 16 vi 11-12

In each case it is a verb which stands "suspended" between the lines,** whereas in most of Dahood and Watson's

**It should be noted that in all but one of the Ugaritic examples Watson cites in his studies of the device this is also the case; a verb is the "suspended" element. The single exception,

156 biblical examples the suspended element is a noun in the vocative.

Each of the Ugaritic examples cited above are

easily analyzed as verb-final ellipsis without length compensation.

Although the absence of length compensation

is unusual, it is attested in verses which do not conform to Watson's definition of the pivot pattern.

For these

reasons, there seems to be no metrical or formal reason to regard the pivot pattern as a device distinct from ellipsis in Ugaritic.

Therefore, the pivot pattern is not considered

a separate device in this taxonomy.

4. Chiasmus Students of the Bible and other ancient literature have long noted the rhetorical device now named for the Greek letter chi.

It may be defined as "the criss-cross placing

of sentence members that correspond in either syntax or meaning, with or without word repetition" (Preminger, 116). This definition suggests that either syntax or meaning may be the constituent factor in the chiastic pattern, but most of the examples in the present corpus entail both syntactic and semantic correspondence.

This fact probably assisted

audience recognition of chiastic structures in Ugaritic verse.

CTA 3E v 27-28, is actually an example of staircase parallelism, not the pivot pattern.

157 Watson defines chiasmus in somewhat different terms as "a series (a, b, c, . . .) and its inversion (. . . c, b, a) taken together as a combined unit" (Watson, 1984a, 201). The definition from Preminger focuses upon chiasmus at the verse level, whereas Watson's definition includes chiastic patterns found in larger contexts.

Although chiasmus can be

found on both the macro and micro levels, in this section the focus will be upon its use on the micro, or verse level. On this level there can be both complete chiasmus and partial chiasmus. There are only a few examples of complete chiasmus in the Ugaritic corpus used in the present study, but partial chiasmus is fairly common.

The following example

illustrates partial chiasmus involving the first two syntactic elements: ysq.ksp lalpm. hrs.ysqm.lrbbt

He cast silver into thousands, Gold he cast into ten thousands. CTA 4 i 27-29

The syntactic elements in the above verse are identical, but the order of the first two units is reversed in the second colon:

VOP//OVP.

Although there are many studies of chiasmus in the Hebrew Bible, there are relatively few of Ugaritic verse. Gordon included it in his grammars, offering several examples.^°

Dahood also noted examples of chiasmus in

^"Gordon 1965, 137. It is worth noting that none of his examples display complete inversion: a, b, c // c, b, a.

158 several publications (Dahood 1965, 117, 123; 1969, 24-36). The most comprehensive study of chiasmus in Ugaritic is that of J.W. Welch, but he devotes only a few passing comments to chiasmus at the micro or verse level, concentrating upon chiasmus in larger, multiple-verse structures (Welch, 42136).

He discusses various forms of such macro level

chiasmus and makes several comparisons between its use in Ugaritic, Akkadian and biblical verse. The only other study devoted to chiasmus in Ugaritic is by Watson (1983).

He presents a number of examples of

chiasmus from the corpus, and subdivides them into several categories, such as full, partial, and nominal chiasmus, as well as chiastic patterns in tricola and larger structures. Through a distribution chart he attempts to show that chiasmus is most frequent in the Baal Cycle, whereas it is relatively rare in the Krt Epic.

Finally, Watson catalogues

some possible rhetorical functions of chiasmus and their relationship to other rhetorical devices. There are several types of chiasmus in the present corpus.

There are only three unambiguous case of complete

inversion.

Two involve only two syntactic elements, SV//VS:

ktr.whss.yd ytr.ktr.whss

Let Kothar-and-Hasis drive (him) out, Let Kothar-and-Hasis drive (him) away. CTA 6 vi 51-52^1

^Another possible example of complete inversion, CTA 16 vi 57-58, is complicated by uncertainty in translation. Syntactically its structure is VP//PV.

159 hlk.ktr kycn. wycn.tdrq.hss

The coming of Kothar he indeed saw, He even saw the swift approach of Hasis CTA 17 v 10-11^

The other instance of complete inversion is a verse with three parallel syntactic elements in each colon: qlh.qds b[cl yltn ytny.bcl.s[at šlpth

OSV//VSO.

His holy voice Baal uttered, Baal repeated the issue of his lips. CTA 4 vii 29-30

Elsewhere when one line of a verse contains more than two syntactic elements chiasmus is always partial.

Partial

chiasmus includes all patterns other than a, b, c // c, b, a.

Examples include:

SOV//SVO: klnyn.q[š]h n[bln] klnyn [nlbl.ksh VSP//SVP: sb.ksp.lrqm. hrs nsb.llbnt. OSV//SVO: c dbt.bht[h bc]l ycdb. hd.cdb [cd[bt hklh. VSO//OVP: yihd.bcl.bn.atrt rbm.ymhs.bktp

POV//PVO: c lh.trh.tšcrb c lh.tšcrb.zbyh

Both of us should carry his chalice, Both of us should carry his cup. CTA 4 iv 45-46 The silver turned to plates, The gold was turned to bricks. CTA 4 vi 34-35 The arrangement of his mansion Baal arranged, Hadad arranged the arrangement of his palace. CTA 4 vi 38-40 Baal seized the sons of Athirat, The great ones he smote on the shoulder. CTA 6 v 1-2 Unto him his bulls she caused to enter, Unto him she caused his gazelles to enter. CTA 15 iv 17-18

^^Cited by Welch (422). anadiplosis.

This verse is also an example of

160 OPV//VO: p'nh.lhdm.ytpd. wykrkr usbcth.

His feet on the footstool he placed, And he snapped his fingers. CTA 4 iv 29-30

Partial chiasmus is combined with ellipsis in this example: OVP//PO: bhty.bnt [dt ksp dtm] hrs hk[ly]

My mansion I built of silver, Of gold my palace. CTA 4 viii 35-37

Another form of chiasmus involves the repetition of two pairs of identical roots in a chiastic pattern.

This

pattern was first recognized by Dahood (1969, 25), and has been explored more fully by A.R. Ceresko (1975).

He lists

more than forty examples of the device in Ugaritic, but few of these seem to clearly exemplify the A:B::B:A pattern. One of the few which does is CTA 15 iii 17-18: tbrk.ilm.tity tity.ilm.lahlhm

The gods blessed, they went, The gods went to their tents.

5. Variation of Tense and Voice Another way the poets of Ugarit avoided repetition in parallel lines was by varying the tense or "voice" of identical verbs in successive cola. Variation of tense involves the use of the prefix tense in the first colon followed by the same verb in the suffix tense in the next colon, or visa versa.

Variation of voice utilizes the same

principle except that it is the "voice" or stem conjugation which varies. U. Cassuto was the first to notice this rhetorical device in Ugaritic and the Hebrew Bible (Cassuto 1975a, 57-

161 58; 1971, 46-47).

He cited examples of both variations in

Ugaritic and Hebrew to further support his thesis that "the two literatures are only two branches of a single linguistic tree" (Cassuto 1975a, 59). M. Held is the only other scholar who has investigated this phenomenon to any degree. In two articles he cited examples of the device in both literatures, arguing, like Cassuto, that its use is evidence of a common Canaanite literary tradition (Held 1962, 281-90; 1965, 272-82). Variation of tense and voice is a minor rhetorical device in Ugaritic in comparison to other devices.

In the

corpus there are only two examples of tense variation and five examples of voice variation. YQTL// QTL: c The arrangement of his mansion Baal dbt.bht[h bc]l arranged, ycdb. hd.cdb [cd]bt hklh. Hadad arranged the arrangement of his palace. CTA 4 vi 38-40 QTL// YQTL: stt p[ l.btlhny. qlt bks.ištynh

I drank ? from my table, Disgrace from (my) cup I drank it. CTA 4 iii 14-16'

Active/ZPassive: hš.bhtm.k[bn] h&.rmm.hk[lm] hš.bhtm.tbn[nl }?š.trmmn.hk[lm]

Hasten, Hasten, Hasten, Hasten,

sb.ksp.lrqm. hrs nsb.llbnt.

The silver turned into plates, The gold was turned into bricks. CTA 4 vi 34-35

surely build a mansion, erect a palace, let a mansion be built, let a palace be erected. CTA 4 v 113-116

^The translation of this verse is uncertain. translations could preclude this poetic device.

Other

162 Reflexive/ZActive: yrths.wyadm yrhs.ydh.amth

He washed and roughed himself, He washed his hands (to) his elbows, CTA 14 iii 156-157

6. Interrupted Sequence Another rhetorical device utilized to avoid repetition is the interrupted sequence.

An extended series of

successive cola which begin with the same word may be interrupted by altering the word order, using a synonym, or through ellipsis.

Watson has commented on this device,

noting several examples in Ugaritic and the Bible (Watson 1984a, 280-81).

There are only a few examples of this

device in the corpus.

In the first example a synonym for

mtb is used in the fifth line, and in the second the word order is altered in the third line. m[t]b il.mzll bnh. mtb.rbt atrt.ym. mtb klt.knyt mtb.pdry.b ar mgjl.^ly.bt rb mtb.a rsy.bt.yc bdr

The dwelling of El is the shelter of his son, The dwelling of Lady Athirat of the sea, The dwelling of the noble brides, The dwelling of Pdry, daughter of mist, The shelter of Tly, daughter of rain, The dwelling of Arsy, daughter of Ycbdr CTA 4 i 13-19

ysq.ksp.yslh.hrs. y?q.ksp lalpm. hrs.ysqm.lrbbt ysq.hym.wtbth

He poured out silver, he cast gold, He poured out silver into thousands, Gold he poured out into ten thousands, He poured out ? and ? CTA 4 i 26-30

7. Enjambment Most lines of Ugaritic verse are "end-stopped."

This

is the effect when "a line ending . . . completes the line's

163 syntax, meaning, and rhythm and thus stops the movement into the next line" (Myers and Simms, 97). Thus, in most instances clause boundaries correspond to the end of lines, but when a clause boundary transcends the line, enjambment is present.

It may be defined as:

The completion, in the following poetic line, of a clause or other grammatical unit begun in the preceding line; the employment of 'run-on' lines which carry the sense of a statement from one line to another without rhetorical pause at the end of the line (Preminger, 241). Although enjambment typifies prose, it can be used effectively in verse:

"Enjambment evokes suspense and

anticipation in the reader, furthers the smooth development of the poem, and allows for variation in rhythm, syntax and semantics" (Preminger, 241). At present, no scholarly work on enjambment in Ugaritic has been published.

It is not

common in Ugaritic verse, but there are few examples of enjambment in the corpus.

The following illustrate its use:

umlk.ubl mlk ars.drkt.ystkn

Should either a king or a non-king Establish for himself a land of dominion? CTA 4 vii 43-44

apnk.cttr.crz y^l.bsrrt.spn

Thereupon Athtar the terrible Went up into the recesses of Sapon. CTA 6 i 56-57

idk.pnm lytn. c mm.pbl mlk.

Then they set their faces Toward King Pbl. CTA 14 vi 301-303

apnk.gzr ilhu [mlrhh.yihd.byd [g]rgrh.bm.ymn

Thereupon hero Elhu Took his spear in his hand, His lance(?) in (his) right hand. CTA 16 i 46-48

164 The limited use of enjambment in Ugaritic verse shows that prosaic features are not an aberration in early Canaanite verse.

This same phenomenon is also evidenced in

the frequent use of monocola, which are by nature nonparallelistic, in texts such as CTA 4.

To an extent this

fact might be construed as support for Kugel's contention that the difference between prose and verse (at least in the Hebrew Bible) is only slight.

On the other hand, the

infrequent use of such prosaic features serves to powerfully accent the parallelism inherent in the vast majority of verses.

Furthermore, it may be that the composition of epic

verse virtually necessitated the use of devices such as enjambment.

8. Anacrusis Anacrusis is defined as, "the extrametrical or unaccented syllables that occur at the beginning of a line in order to introduce the regular metrical rhythm" (Myers and Simms, 9 ) . In the present study it refers to the use of an initial word, often a vocative or an adverb, which is not repeated in subsequent cola and lies outside the syntactic and semantic parallelism.

There have been no studies of

anacrusis in Ugaritic and only one, more than fifty years ago, of the device in Biblical Hebrew (Robinson). Two criteria can be advanced to identify anacrusis. The first occurs when recognition of anacrusis assists in

165 determining stichometry.

The most straightforward example

is found when separation of the pre-metrical word results in a stichometry in which each colon begins with the same word, in other words, anaphora (see the first three examples below).

Similarly, anacrusis may be indicated if the result

is line initial alliteration (see the fourth example below). A second criterion can also be useful, when recognition of anacrusis results in more balanced line lengths.

In the

last example below separation of the initial word, hm, results in two lines which are sernantically and syntactically parallel and are also syllabically balanced (see the treatment of this verse in Chapter Four). bkm. tcr[b cl abh] tcrb.h[zr krt]

Weeping, She entered unto her father, She entered the court of Krt. CTA 16 ii 112-113

ahdy. dymlk.cl .ilm. dymru ilm.wnsm. dysb[c].hmlt.ars.

It is I alone, Who is king over the gods, Who fattens gods and men, Who satisfies the multitude of the earth. CTA 4 vii 49-52

widc. khy.aliyn bcl kit.zbl.bcl .ars

And I know, That Mightiest Baal is alive, That the prince, the lord of the earth exists. CTA 6 iii 8-9

dm. tn.dbhm.šna.bcl. tlt rkb.crpt.

Truly, Two banquets Baal hates, Three the Cloud Rider. CTA 4 iii 17-18

hm. yd.il mlk yhssk. ahbt.tr.tcrrk

Or, Does the love of King El excite you, The love of the Bull arouse you? CTA 4 iv 38-39

166 In CTA 4 I have identified five instances of anacrusis in which the extrametrical word falls between two cola.

In

each of these cases the extrametrical word is the conjunction, hm.

Note the following examples:

rgb.rgbt.wtgt hm. gmu.gmit.wcs[t]

mgntm tr.il.dpid. hm. gztm bny.bnwt

Are you indeed hungry, that you wandered afar, Or, Are you indeed thirsty, that you traveled at night? CTA 4 iv 33-34 Have you entreated Bull, god of mercy, Or, Have you sought the favor of the creator of creatures? CTA 4 iii 30-32

Since the use of anacrusis in Ugaritic is subject to debate, there is no doubt that these examples of inter-cola anacrusis can be questioned.

I have included them because

they meet the criteria set forth above for pre-metrical anacrusis.

In the first example regarding hm as

extrametrical results in two lines which have identical syntax as well as balanced line lengths.

The second example

yields lines which are syntactically similar and in which there is one syllable difference in line lengths.

I do not

think that this proves inter-cola anacrusis in Ugaritic, but I think there is adequate evidence to entertain the possibility.

9. The AXB Pattern The name of this device was coined by D. Tsumura (1983; 1986) although he was not the first to notice the

167 phenomenon.

Tsumura uses the term to describe a

parallelistic pattern in which a syntactic unit, AB (usually a genitive construction), is "broken" by the insertion of another element, X.

He defines the pattern:

In the AXB Pattern, two items A and B constitute a composite unit even after the insertion of X between them, thus violating the normal grammatical rule of adjacency. In this stylistic phenomenon X is not simply interrupting the A-B linkage but grammatically governs or is governed by the A-B complex as a whole (Tsumura 1986, 352). Other scholars, such as Gordon, Dahood, and Freedman had observed

this principle, calling it janus parallelism, the

broken construct phrase, or the break-up of composite phrases, but Tsumura argues that these are all instances of "a larger stylistic phenomenon of 'literary insertion' AXB Pattern" (Tsumura 1986, 352). Tsumura cites a number of examples from Ugaritic, such as KTU 1.17:1:3-4:^* uzr.ilm.ylhm. [uzr yšqy] bn.qds.

He eats the offering of the gods, He drinks the offering of the deities.

In this example he regards uzr bn qd^ in the second colon as a composite, genitive phrase which has been broken by the insertion of X, the verb yšgy.

An example from the corpus

of the present study is CTA 6 ii 17-19: nps.hsrt bn.nsm. nps.hmlt.ars.

The appetite of men was lacking, The appetite of earth's multitudes.

The following example demonstrates the use of the AXB pattern in monocola as well as bicola.

^*The translations are Tsumura's.

168 [wytbl.tr.abh.il

And his father Thor El replies. KTU 1.14:11:6

This pattern is found on a larger scale, wherein an Xline is inserted between two parallel lines, A and B.

In

this example from the Aqht epic the second colon is inserted between the parallel adr.qrnt.byclm. mtnmbcqbt.tr. adr.bgl il.qnm

first and third cola: The mightiest horns from wild goats, The nerves from the hocks of a bull, The mightiest reeds of gl il. KTU 1.17:VI:22-23

Tsumura concludes his study by arguing that although the AXB pattern may seem "ungrammatical," it is actually the result of a basic principle of verse, the tension between similarity and adjacency.^^

He further elucidates his view

when he says: In poetic parallelism the principle of correspondence and repetition, with variation, between two lines is a basic factor of its syntax and style. Therefore two elements of a composite unit, A and B, are sometimes polarized within a poetic line with a loss of their grammatical adjacency as far as the unit as a whole keeps its correspondence to the other line. This polarization of two elements with a colon supports the view that in poetic parallelism the basic grammatical unit is not a word or phrase but a line (or colon) (Tsumura 1986, 361, italics are his). The present study has not produced any new examples of the AXB pattern other than those cited by Tsumura.

On this point see Jakobson 1960, 350-77.

169 C o n e 1 ins i o n In the preceding taxonomy I have endeavored to demonstrate two primary principles employed by the ancient poets from Ugarit.

First and foremost is their extensive

use of repetition in a variety of permutations.

The

repetition of individual lexemes, semantic ideas, syntactic structures, and the sounds of the language were all incorporated to varying degrees.

It will be shown in

Chapter Four that repetition is so pervasive that there are few verses in the Ugaritic corpus of this study which do not contain at least one repetition device. One effect of such pervasive repetition was to enhance the sense of unity in their verse, binding together individual cola and verses.

This cohesive function of

repetition is doubtless responsible for its widespread use. Another characteristic of repetition was that it would aid the poet in the composition of a poem and the listener who must process both words and structures as he attempts to understand the poet's message.

Thus the iteration of

familiar words, ideas, structures and sounds would have served as an essential feature of oral verse.

The mnemonic

function of repetition was also important, again benefitting poet and audience.

Yet, at the same time, too much

repetition results in monotony and predictability.

To

counteract this tendency the Ugaritic poets incorporated rhetorical devices which deliberately avoided repetition.

170 The devices which avoid repetition illustrate the principle of diversity.

The ancient bards of Ugarit

recognized the need for variety in their compositions in order to stimulate the interest of their audience and thereby convey their message more effectively.

Yet it

should be borne in mind that rhetorical devices which avoid repetition are effective only because of principle of repetition is so dominant in Ugaritic.

Ellipsis, for

example, would be ineffective but for the semantic and syntactic repetition which renders a verse intelligible. Similarly, chiasmus, tense and voice variation, and interrupted sequence depend upon the regular, repetitive patterns of Ugaritic verse for their impact.

Only within

the context of repetitive parallelism are these rhetorical devices which avoid repetition effective.

Chapter Fomr: Ugaritic and Biblical

Texts

Introduction This chapter presents six texts; three from the Ugaritic corpus and three from the Bible.

These texts are

intended to serve as representatives of both literary traditions.

The Ugaritic texts, CTA 4, CTA 14, and KTU

1.100, were chosen with several criteria in mind.

First,

each is fairly well preserved and have a minimum of lacunae. Second, although there are many differences in detail, there is general agreement on the stichometry and interpretation of most passages.

Third, the three texts are somewhat

different literarily.

The first, CTA 4, fits within the

category of myth since it deals exclusively with the interplay between various divine beings and their relationship to the natural order.*

CTA 14, on the other

hand, is primarily a human drama in which the gods play only a secondary role, and therefore may be broadly considered an epic^

The nature of KTU 1.100 is unsure, but it is

*Note Gaster's definition of myth: "A story about gods or other superhuman beings . . . told to account for a custom, institution, or natural phenomenon" (Gaster 1962, 481). ^Epic is defined as "narrative poetry which celebrates the achievements of some heroic personage of history or tradition" (Onions 1955, 621).

172 generally considered either an incantation to prevent snakebite or a sacred marriage drama. The biblical poems were chosen chiefly because they are considered by some scholars to be among the earliest examples of biblical verse.

If this is true then they are

chronologically somewhat proximate to the Ugaritic texts. The first of these texts, the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15), is considered by some the earliest verse in the Bible.

The

Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is likewise thought to be early, but its many textual difficulties render it difficult to evaluate.

Finally, the Oracles of Balaam (Numbers 23-24)

have elicited a variety of opinion.

Some find evidence of

an early composition, others of a mixed text or even a late composition. Without surveying all of the literature on the poem, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Song of the Sea is one of the oldest poetic compositions in the Bible.

Albright

and several of his students have supported an early date, basing their view primarily upon a comparison of the poem's poetic style with Ugaritic verse (Albright 1968, 8f.). Typical is the opinion of Cross and Freedman: In its metrical style and strophic structure, the poem fits precisely into the pattern of old Canaanite and early Hebrew poetry. The repetitive parallelism, mixed meter, and the complex makeup of the strophes suggest an early date of composition. At the same time, the unity of the pattern and the symmetry of the strophic structure indicate that the poem is substantially a single, unified composition (Cross and Freedman 1975, 45-46; see also 1955, 237-38).

173 Other approaches to dating verse have yielded similar results.

Freedman studied the use of divine names and

titles in early biblical verse and concluded that the original form of the Song of the Sea dates from the twelfth century, although he dates its present expanded and revised form to the tenth century (Freedman 1980b, 81). In a study utilizing linguistic criteria for dating Hebrew verse, Robertson concluded that only Exodus 15 exhibits both a significant number of the characteristics of early verse and at the same time does not evidence the typical features of standard poetic Hebrew.

Thus he concludes, "Ex 15 is the

only poem which unambiguously resembles early poetry" (Roberston, ix; cf. 138)

Even Coats, who argues from a

form critical basis that it is not a unity and contains later elements, agrees that the kernel of the poem is early (Coats 1969). The text of Exodus 15 is not without problems but has, in comparison with other early compositions, relatively few textual difficulties.

Most of the generally accepted

emendations are minor and do not greatly affect the overall shape of the present analysis.

For this reason the MT will

be followed fairly closely in this study. Like the Song of the Sea, the Song of Deborah is often regarded as an early poem.

Albright dated the Song of

Deborah about a century later than Exodus 15 because of what he considered its "marked deterioration in the form of

174 repetitive parallelism since the Song of Miriam" (Albright 1968, 13). Freedman's analysis of divine names concluded that both compositions date from the twelfth century (Freedman 1980b, 83). Although Robertson could not unequivocally attribute an early date to Judges 5, he does conclude that the linguistic evidence points to a probable early date (Robertson, 153f.). Unlike the Song of the Sea, however, the Song of Deborah presents interpreters with a host of textual and hermeneutical difficulties.

These problems are so acute

that Cross and Freedman omitted verses 4-16, almost one-half of the poem, from their study of early Hebrew verse, due to its "many textual and linguistic difficulties" (Cross and Freedman 1975, 17).^ Some have accounted for these problems by positing a long compositional history involving many additions to the poem.

Others argue for its unity and have

attempted to deal with the problematic verses together with those which fit the normal canons of Hebrew prosody.*

In

the present study I will analyze as many verses as possible, omitting only those which seem to present insuperable difficulties.

^Geller (1979) demonstrates even more caution toward the text and treats fewer verses in the poem than did Cross and Freedman. *These commentators include Coogan (1978b), Gerleman (1951), and Globe (1974a; 1974b; 1975a; 1975b).

175 The date of the Oracles of Balaam is quite uncertain. Albright consistently championed an early date of about 1200 (Albright 1944; 1968, 15-16), but Freedman placed them later, in the eleventh century (Freedman 1980b, 88-90). Others have preferred a time during the united monarchy (Budd, 263). Robertson regards the linguistic evidence in the Oracles unclear.

Although he concludes that they

resemble early verse in some respects, he also finds evidence of archaizing, a mark of late composition and/or editing (Robertson, 145). As a result he does not include the Oracles in his list of texts which resemble early verse. I have included the Balaam Oracles in the present study in part because of the uncertainty regarding their date. Similarities or differences between these poems and the others in the corpus could have a bearing upon their date. Of the four Oracles in Numbers 23-24, the text of the first two presents interpreters with few problems.

The

third and fourth, though not impossible, preserve some difficult passages in the MT.

Therefore, scholars have

proposed many emendations in an attempt to restore the text to a form consistent with the other oracles.

Some of these

have been adopted in the present study. Since the primary focus of this study is upon Ugaritic verse, these comprise the bulk of the material analyzed. The study includes a total of 668 lines of verse, 498 from the Ugaritic texts (75% of the total) and 170 lines from the

176 biblical texts (25% of the total).

Each of the Ugaritic

poems are analyzed according to the following method: 1) The text is given in transliteration.

The primary

sources are Herdner (1963) and Schaeffer (1962) in comparison with the subsequent collation of Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartin (1976a). the notes.

Alternate readings are indicated in

Not every passage in CTA 4 or CTA 14 is included

in the study.

In an attempt to be as objective as possible,

several criteria were employed in the selection:

Passages

which exactly repeat a previous passage are included only once.

This is particularly important in CTA 14 where some

passages recur three or more times and in KTU 1.100 which repeats the first section twelve times.

By deleting

repeated material I have attempted to avoid skewing the relative frequencies of rhetorical devices found in duplicated passages.

Secondly, badly broken passages are

included only if they can be restored with confidence from parallel passages.

The intent here, of course, is to reduce

the subjective element inherent in reconstructing a passage. 2) Adjacent to the text is a proposed vocalization of the Ugaritic text.

The highly conjectural nature of any

vocalized Ugaritic text is, of course, obvious.

Although

based upon sources as indicated in the notes, there are many places where the vocalization is simply guesswork.

I have

made the attempt to vocalize the text because there are several advantages offered by a vocalized text:

First, it

177 is a means for the interpreter to express an understanding of the grammatical structure of the text.

Second, a

vocalized text provides an approximation of the phonetic aspects of the text and its syllabic structure.^

Although I

will use data derived from the vocalized text in my conclusions, I fully recognize the tentative an uncertain nature of this exercis. 3) Following the consonantal and vocalized text is a translation.

Since the primary aim of the present work is

poetic analysis and not a new philological study, the translation of each passage draws upon a consensus of previous interpreters.

These sources are noted throughout.

In passages where my analysis suggests an unusual understanding of the text, I will defend the translation with further notes.

The primary aim is an accurate

interpretation which is consistent with the poetic structure of the text and takes the major textual studies into account. 4) The section entitled "Line Length" presents a count of the consonants and syllables in the parallel lines. Loretz has advocated the method of counting consonants as an aid for lineation (Loretz 1975a), whereas syllable counting is the forte of Freedman and Stuart.*

These counts are

^On these points see Pardee 1988b, 1 n. 5. *See the discussion of syllable counting in chapter 1 above.

178 given only as a means of comparing the relative lengths of parallel lines.

Such relative line lengths are useful for

establishing stichometry and for evaluating the various metrical theories which have been applied to Ugaritic verse. Once again, I realize the limitation of using syllable counts, based upon their inherent subjectivity. 5) The grammatical structure of each passage is described by employing two methods:

the fairly simple

method of Collins (1978, 26) and Geller's more complex notational system (Geller 1979, 55-56).

An explanation of

their notational systems are given at the end of this introduction.

Both of these methods are utilized because

each provides a different window through which to view the syntactic structure.

Collins' provides a broader overview

of the structure of a verse, whereas Geller's allows more detailed analysis.

Although I have tried to follow both

methods as closely as possible there are doubtless instances where the authors of these methods would differ from my analysis.

Since the purpose of this study is quite

different from that of Collins or Geller, I do not derive or make use of their respective systems of line formulae. Rather, I use their notational methods simply to express my understanding of the syntactic structure of each line. 6) The heart of the present study is reflected in the section labeled, "Devices."

Rhetorical devices observed in

the passages are listed and, where appropriate, explicated

179 by brief notes. lists.

There is no particular order to these

All of the devices are collected and analyzed in the

concluding chapter. 7) The final section, when deemed necessary, consists of various notes which indicate textual difficulties, defend the vocalization or translation, or credit scholars who have previously observed the rhetorical devices in the passage. The notes are not exhaustive but do attempt to trace the primary ways the passage in question has been interpreted. In contrast, the analysis of the biblical texts is more succinct.

There is no attempt to revocalize the MT, as

Stuart does, in an effort to recapture the early phonetic tradition.

Stuart has already done this for most of the

texts in this study, so I would only duplicate his work. Instead, the syllable counts are derived from the MT following the guidelines established by Freedman (1980e, 265-67; 1980h, 304-306).

Since no claim of "syllabic meter"

is made, the method used to count syllables in not highly significant so long as it is applied consistently.

Because

the present text of the MT represents various levels of the use of matres lectiones it seems profitless to include a consonant count of the parallel lines.

As the

bibliographies will reveal, only the major studies of these texts have been consulted, resulting in a much more cursory treatment than was the case with the Ugaritic texts.

The

other sections of the analysis correspond to what is found

180 with the Ugaritic texts. In view of the overall purpose of this study I will deal with the biblical texts basically as they stand in the MT.

This is not to suggest that the MT necessarily

preserves the original poems.

Indeed, many of the

emendations suggested by commentators may restore the text to a more pristine state.

But methodological questions

arise with respect to an approach which first emends the text and then subjects it to an analytical method.

There

are few controls to prevent a prejudicial selection of emendations in order to fit the basic presuppositions of the study.* For this reason the biblical text presented below is essentially that of the MT.

The few instances where I

depart from the MT usually involve revocalization or redivision of consonants and are emendations which have received wide support among commentators.

The number of

emendations is small, and these deviations from the MT are justified in the notes. One final matter concerns the inclusion of obscure texts.

In both the Ugaritic and biblical texts there are,

of course, passages which are quite enigmatic and pose formidable interpretive problems.

One approach to such

texts is to omit them from the analysis, and, indeed, this

*I have argued in Chapter One that this is a problem with D.K. Stuart's study of syllabic meter.

181 has been the approach of several scholars such as Cross and Freedman (1955) and Geller (1979).

In the present study,

however, many of these problematic passages will be included in the analysis.

This is not to suggest that these texts

are not problematic, however there are several reasons for retaining them.

In the first place, many rhetorical devices

such as alliteration, anaphora, and simple repetition can be observed in texts even if the passage is obscure.

The

second reason centers upon the desire to be as comprehensive as possible.

If a significant number of passages are

omitted from the analysis then the overall picture of the distribution of rhetorical devices could be skewed. Therefore, if the stichometry of a passage seems fairly certain and if its translation is not too obscure, it will be included in the analysis to follow. There are different sets of problems associated with the text of the Ugaritic and the biblical poems.

On the one

hand, the date of the Ugaritic texts can be established with some sense of certainty,* even though the composition of these texts may have been centuries earlier. In contrast, the biblical poems are extremely difficult to date in view of their long history of transmission.

On the other hand.

*The scribe of both CTA 4 and CTA 14 is doubtless Ilimilku who worked in the time of Niqmadu (most likely Niqmadu II, a contemporary of Shuppiluliumash, ca. 1375-1335). The scribal practices of Ilimilku and other Ugaritic scribes are discussed by Horwitz 1979.

182 the Ugaritic poems are the only exemplars of these texts and there are no other sources of the text to assist the interpreter in correcting scribal errors or explicating obscure passages.

In contrast, the biblical texts are

preserved in the Masoretic tradition, the Septuagint tradition, as well as other ancient versions.

I have

endeavored to keep these factors in mind in my analysis of these texts. Finally, because there is no consensus in the scholarly literature on Ugaritic and biblical verse with regard to basic terminology, it is necessary to define some of the term employed in the following study. Line.

The line is the basic unit of Ugaritic verse.

It

may be defined as "a structural unit of measurement in verse that, by its length and rhythm, adjusts the reading speed and overall cadence of a poem" (Myers and Simms, 162). The line is usually determined by the number of metrical feet, accents, or syllables it contains.

Since these quantities

are largely undeterminable for Ugaritic verse, in the present study the line will generally, though not always, be delimited by clause boundaries.

This correspondence between

clause and line is termed "end-stopping."*

Although there

are lines with more than one clause as well as lines in which the clause extends through the following line, the

^End-stopping is discussed and defined enjambment in the previous chapter.

in the section on

183 preponderance of end-stopping establishes the basic shape of the line.

Line boundaries for passages which are not end-

stopped are established by analogy.

Some commentators use

the term "colon" to refer to what I call a line, but the emphasis upon metrical measurement in the colon makes this term less appropriate to Ugaritic. Verse.

If the basic unit is the line, then it seems clear

that larger units consist of one or more such lines.

For

want of a generally accepted term, I will refer to the next largest unit as a verse. °

By this term I mean a unit of

one or more poetic lines which are linked together by some form of semantic, syntactic, and/or phonologic parallelism. Rhetorical devices are often employed on the verse level to accentuate the sense of parallelism and distinguish verses from the preceding and following lines.

In some instances

there may be little or no parallelism linking lines together, but rhetorical devices may create a sense of unity (see CTA 4 ii 28-29 below) indicative of a verse. Mbnocolon. Bicolon.

A verse which consists of only one line.

A verse consisting of two lines.

Tricolon.

A verse consisting of three lines.

Quatrain.

A verse consisting of four lines.

*°Standard definitions of "verse" are so imprecise as to render the term almost useless. Note, for example, this definition from Myers and Simms, 334: "A line in a poem; a stanza, a refrain, or a section of the Bible; an entire poem based on regular meter."

184 Collins' Notational System NP* NP^ V M

Subject Noun Phrase Object Noun Phrase Verb Modifier of the Verb

Geller's Notational System 1 2 3 a b c part. 5 P pr -s ,-R rel.pr. inf.abs. inf.cs. -C pn ptcl neg 6 prep ! ? ,,

Subject of the verbal sentence (Direct) object Adverbial relationships (adverbs, prep, phrases) Transitive verb Intransitive verb Intransitive which has been produced by transformations to passive and reflexive conjugations Participle Subject of the nominal sentence Predicate of the nominal sentence Independent pronoun Pronominal possessive and object suffix Relative phrase or clause Relative pronoun Infinitive absolute Infinitive construct Nomen rectum of the construct relationship Proper noun Particle Negative particle Coordinating conjunction Preposition After vocatives, precatives, imperatives and emphatic particles After interrogative particles and pronouns Before attributives Before elements in apposition

185 CTA

.hrs dm.csm.

lahaml hima šatiylma lahaml bitulhanâti lahma šati bikarpanlma yena bikâsi hurâsi dama cissima

212 Translation:

Eat or drink! Eat food from the tables! Drink wine from flagons, The blood of trees from cups of gold

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

r.: Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9 :12: 10 :11 9 :10::9: 11

Geller a! & aJ a! 3 2 ai 3 2 3-C 2--C

Collins V V V M NP^ V M NP" M NP^

Anaphora (lhm) Repetition of Root (LHM, line 2) Ellipsis (št, V-Initiâl, lines 3-4) Length Compensation (yn//dm csm, lines 3-4) Syntactic Repetition (lines 2-3) Alliteration (m, l, bk)

Notes: For the vocalization of dm and csm, see Huehnergard (1987, 119, 161). For krpn, cf.Akk. karpu. 52. CTA 4 iv 38-39 hm. yd.il mlk yhssk. ahbt.tr.tcrrk

hima yuddu 'ili malki yahassisukl 'ahabatu tori tacârirukl

Translation:

Or, Does passion for El, the King, excite you, Does love for the Bull arouse you?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

(2):12:11 (1):11:11

Geller 1-C ,=C a-: 1-C a-s

Devices:

Collins M NP^ V-NP^ NP* V-NP^

Anacrusis (hm) Epistrophe (-ki, suff.) Binorninalization (il//tr) Alliteration (r) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: The translation regards yd as a noun from the root YDD, parallel to ahbt. These two words are used together in the same order in CTA 3 C 3-4. Others (eg. Caquot, 205) find a euphemistic reference to

213 the god's penis as his "hand." Perhaps it is an intentional word-play. In either case the syntactic structure and the rhetorical devices are unaffected. Epistrophe is enhanced by the final pattern, CiCukl, in both lines. 53. CTA 4 iv 40 wtcn.rbt.atrt ym

watacnl rabbatu 'atiratu yammi

Translation:

And Lady Athirat Yarnrni answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Devices:

13 12

Geller & b 1 ,=1-C

Collins V NP*

Alliteration (t)

Notes: This is a monocolon opening a new section (Watson 1984a, 183). 54. CTA 4 iv 41-43 thmk.il.hkm. hkmt cm. lm. hyt.hzt thmk.

tahumuka 'ilu hakamu hakamtâ cimma calami hayyatu hazzati tahumuka

Translation:

Your decree, El, is wise, You are wise to eternity, A life of fortune is your decree

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9:9:10 9:8:10

Geller s si ,-P b 3 P-C s

Collins NP* NP* NP^ V M NP^ NP*

Anadiplosis (hkrn//hkmt, lines 1 & 2) Ploke (thmk) Alliteration (h, m, t, k)

Notes: The translation follows van Zijl (74). De Moor (1979, 643) translates the third line, "Long live the excellence of your judgment;" regarding hyt as a verb and h^t a noun. Caquot (205) translates, "la vie est le lot de ta parole." thm is vocalized according to Syr. tehumâ.

214 All words in this verse contain h except il, cm, and c lm. 55. CTA 4 iv 43-44 mlkn.aliy[n] bcl tptn.win.dclnh

malkunu 'al'iyanu baclu tapitunu wa'ena du'alenahu

Translation:

Our king is mightiest Baal, Our ruler and there is no one who is above him

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:12 9:12

Geller P-s S ,=Spn P-s & "b" ,-R

Collins NP= NP* NP* V M

Repetition (-nu, suff.)

Notes: Caquot (205) includes tptn in the first line. Meter and parallelism argue for the above stichometry. 56. CTA 4 iv 45-46 klnyn.q[š]h nb[l] klnyn nbl.ksh

kullaniyanu qaššahu nabilu kullaniyanu nabilu kâsahu

Translation:

All of us shall bear his chalice. All of us shall bear his cup

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:11 11:11

Geller 1-s 2-s a 1-s a 2-s

Collins NP^ NP^ V NP* V NP*

Anaphora (klnyn) Partial Chiasmus (SOV//SVO) Repetition (nbl) Alliteration (n, l)

57. CTA 4 iv 47-48 [anly lysh.tr il.abh [ill.mIk.dyknnh.

'anâya luyaslhu tôra 'ila 'abâhu 'ila malka dâyakâninuhu

Translation:

Groaning, He calls (to) Bull El, his father, El, the king who created him

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

(3):11:11 (3):11:10

Geller 3 pt. b 2 ,=2-s ,=2 ,-R(rp. a-s)

Collins M V NP* NP^

Anacrusis (any) Ellipsis (lysh, V-Initial) Length Compensation (abh//dyknnh) Epistrophe (-hu, suff.) Binominalization (il//tr, ab, mlk) Alliteration (l)

Notes: Both the reading and translation of [an]y are conjectural. For a discussion see van Zijl (161). Anacrusis is uncertain here, but the stichornetry is more straightforward if it is recognized. Others (eg. Caquot, 205; Gibson, 60) include any with the first line. 58. CTA 4 iv 48-50 ysh atrt.wbnh. ilt.wsbrt aryh.

yasihu 'atirata wabanlhâ 'ilata wasibbirati 'aryihâ

Translation:

He calls (to) Athirat and her sons. The goddess and her company of offspring

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:12 11:10

Geller a 2 & 2-s 2 & 2-C-s

Collins V NP* NP*

Ellipsis (yph, V-Initial) Length Compensation (wbnh//wsbrt aryh) Epistrophe (-hâ, suff.) Binominalization (atrt//ilt) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: The translation follows Gibson (60) and Caquot (205).

216 59. CTA 4 iv 50-51 wn.in.bt.lbcl km.ilm. whzr.kbn.atrt

wana 'ena betu libacla kamâ 'ilima wahazlru kabanl 'atirata

Translation:

But there is no house for Baal iike the gods, Or court like the sons of Athirat

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

15:11 14:11

Geller & "b" 1 3 "3" & 1 "3"-Cpn

Collins "V" NP* M M NP* M

Anaphora (w-, conj.) Ellipsis (in, "V"-Initial; lbcl, P-Medial) Length Compensation (bt//hzr; km ilm//kbn atrt)

Notes: The line lengths in this verse are noticably different. Both wn and km lengthen the first line, and had they been repeated in the second line the line lengths would be virtually identical. Further, the presence of the conjunction, w-, at the beginning of both lines makes it difficult to argue that wn in should be regarded as extra-metrical. hzr is vocalized according to BH hâser; also note Arab, hazlrat. 60. CTA 4 iv 58 wy^n.ltpn il dpid

waya'ni latipanu 'ilu dupa'idi

Translation:

And Latipanu, god of mercy, answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

14 13

Geller

Collins

& b 1 ,=1-C

V NP*

Binominalization (ltpn//il dpid)

Notes: This is a monocolon opening a new section. 61. CTA 4 iv 59-62 p'bd.an.^nn.atrt

pa'abdu

'anâ 'ananu 'atirata

p'bd.ank.ahd.ult

pa'abdu

'anâku

hm. ^ amt.atrt.tlbn lbnt.

hima 'amatu 'atiratu talabbinu labinâti

'âhidu

'ulati

Translation:

Then am I a slave, the attendant of Athirat, Then am I a slave, who takes the trowel, Or, Is Athirat a slave girl who makes bricks?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

13:13:(2)15 12:12:(2):15

Grammatical Str.: Geller & P S ,=P-Cpn & P S ,-R(a 2) (&) P Spn ,-R(a 2) Devices:

Collins NP* NP* NP* NP* NP* NP* (M) NP* NP* NP*

Anaphora (pcbd an(k), lines 1 & 2) Staircase Parallelism Repetition (an/ank, lines 1 & 2; atrt, lines 1 & 3) Repetition of Root (LBN, line 3) Anacrusis (hm) Alliteration (n, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: As noted above, anacrusis between lines is uncertain. Staircase Parallelism is noted by Watson (1984a, 151). For the vocalization of ank, see Huehnergard (1987, 108). Van Zijl (98) emends pcbd to pcdb and, consequently, translates the passage quite differently. 62. CTA 4 iv 62- v 63 ybn.bt.lbcl km ilm. whzr.kbn.atrt

yibbanl betu libacla kamâ 'illma wahazlru kabanl 'atirata

Translation:

Let a house be built for Baal like the gods, Even a court like the sons of Athirat

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

14:11 13:11

Grammatical Str.: Geller c 1 3 "3" 1 "3" Devices:

Collins V NP=* M M NP* M

Ellipsis (ybn, V-Initial; lbcl, P-Medial) Length Compensation (bt//hzr; km ilm//kbn atrt) Alliteration (b) ^ Partial Syntactic Repetition

218 Notes:

This verse is similar to 4 iv 50-51. For the vocalization of ybn as an N-stem, see Verreet (1985, 335).

63. CTA 4 v 64 wtcn.rbt.atrt ym

watacni rabbatu 'atiratu yarnmi

Translation:

And Lady Athirat Yarnmi answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

13 12

Geller

Collins

& b 1 ,=1-C

V NP*

Alliteration (t)

Notes: This is a monocolon opening a new section. 64. CTA 4 v 65-67 rbt.ilm.lhkmt sbt.dqnk.ltsrk rhntt.d[ l.lirtk

rabbâtâ 'iluma luhakimtâ sebatu daqnika lutasiruka rhntt . . . li'irtika

Translation:

You are great. El, you are truly wise. The grey hair of your chin truly instructs you, . . . from your breast

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:12:? 10:11:?

Geller b 1! pt. b 1-C-s pt. a-s 3-s

Collins V NP* V NP* V-NP a M

Epistrophe (-ka, suff., lines 1 & 3) Repetition (lu-, li-) Alliteration (t)

Notes: Because the first word of line 3, rhntt, is unknown, it is not vocalized or translated. Caquot (207) suggests the third line be read, rhnt td[y] lirtk, and translated, "Tu [fais sortirl de ta poitrine une voix douce." The vocalizations of dqn and irt are based on Syr. daqna and Akk. irtu, respectively.

65. CTA 4 v 68-69 wn ap. c dn.mtrh bcl.ycdn. c dn.tkt.bglt

wana 'apa c adanna mitrihu baclu yacdun c adanna takati bigalti

Translation:

And moreover, Let Baal appoint the time for his rain, The time of flowing in flood

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Notes:

(4):14:10 (4):10:9

Geller & pt. 2-C lpn a 2-C 3

Collins M NP* NP* V NP*

Anacrusis (wn ap) Anaphora (cdn) Ellipsis (bcl, N-Medial; ycdn, V-Final) Length Compensation (+ bglt) Repetition of Root (cDN, line 2)

Caquot (207) also recognizes anacrusis here. For the translation of line 3, see Coogan (1978a, 101) and Caquot (207). See de Moor (1971, 149) and van Zijl (107f.) for a full discussion. Smith (1986, 314) gives a very different interpretation. The vocalizations of cdn and mtr are based upon Akk. adannu and mitru, respectively.

66. CTA 4 v 70-71 wtn.qlh.bcrpt srh.lars.brqm

watinu qâlihu bicurapâti šaruhu li'arsi baraqima

Translation:

And the sounding of his voice from the clouds, The loosing of lightning to the earth

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:11 11:10

Geller & inf. 2-s 3 inf. 3 2

Collins "V" NP^ M "V" M NP*

Partial Chiasmus (VOM//VMO) Alliteration (r)

220 Notes: I regard both wtn and šrh as infinitives of YTN and ŠRY respectively. Tsumura (1979, 781), however, suggests that wtn is G passive of a root, WTN = YTN, "to give." 67. CTA 4 v 72-73 bt.arzm.ykllnh hm. bt.lbn[t].ycmsnh

beta 'arzlma yakallilunahu hima beta labinâti yacammisunahu

Translation:

A house of cedar, let him complete it, Or, A house of bricks, let him construct it

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.

12:(2):12 11:(2):12

Geller 2-C a-s

Collins NP* V-NP^ (M) NP* V-NP*

(&)

2-C a-s Devices:

Anacrusis (hm) Anaphora (bt) Epistophe (-nahu, suff.) Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of arzm, see Huehnergard (1987, 109). Both verbs are vocalized a D-stern with suffixes, strengthening the epistrophe and producing assonance. The unusual syntax of these two lines, "frontal extra-position" (Young 1977, 293), is found in four parallel lines in KTU 1.100 65-67. 68. CTA 4 v 74 lyrgm.laliyn bcl

luyargumu li'al'iyani bacla

Translation:

Let them indeed say to mightiest Baal

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Devices:

14 11

Geller pt. b 3 ,=3pn

Repetition (l-) Alliteration (l)

Collins M V M

Notes:

This monocolon opens a new section.

69. CTA 4 v 75-76 sh.hrn.bbhtk