Theme and Variation in Jonah 2:
A Generative-Metrics Approach to Biblical Versification1
Vincent DeCaen, University of Toronto
draft 3.3 (2003-09-16), bibliography incomplete
There are seventy-five phonological words in the Danklied of Jonah 2. Further,
there are seven verses of fifteen lines (six couplets and a final triplet; see appendix); the
average word-count per line, therefore, is exactly five: a robust pentameter based on the
word-foot. This finding is consistent with the claims of Josephus and other ancient
authorities that biblical psalms were written in pentameter (among other meters),2 but
curiously at odds with the three-C consensus (Collins 1978, O’Connor 1980, Kugel 1981)
that there is no meter of any kind (see further Vance 2001).
But this is not all. Counting iambic feet, as explained below, gives a global count
of ninety feet. Dividing ninety feet by fifteen lines gives, exactly, six feet per line: a
robust iambic hexameter based on the metrical foot. Regular totals of twenty-four feet
are obtained over every four lines; a total of eighteen feet is obtained over the final
triplet. The two counts combined—pentameter (word-foot) and hexameter (prosodic
foot), serve to rigidly constrain the metrical structure in Jonah 2.
1
I would like to thank Nila Friedberg and Elan Dresher, the convenors of the international conference held
at the University of Toronto, “Formal Approaches to Poetry and Recent Developments in Generative
Metrics” (8-10 October 1999). They cordially invited me to participate, and I presented a paper entitled,
“On the Biblical Pentameter in Jonah 2” (10 October), a version of which is presented here. I followed this
up with a presentation in the Jewish Studies Colloquia, “The Linguistic and Musical Reality behind the
Tiberian Hebrew Accents” (2 February 2000).
My work is made possible in part by a generous donation from the nonprofit GRAMCORD
Institute.
“David, being now free from wars and dangers, and enjoying profound peace from this time on,
composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters—some he made in trimeters, and others in
pentameters” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books V-VIII, Loeb Classical Library).
2
This paper is divided into three sections. The first section takes up the question of
counting words. A definition of the “phonological word” is accordingly provided. The
value of the Tiberian Hebrew (TH) hyphen (or maqqef) is discussed in this context.
Having “determined and calculated” the word-count for the “whole poem”
(Freedman 1987: 27), we devote the bulk of this paper to the consideration of the
hierarchical organization of these words. In this light the regular asymmetry at all
phonological levels is found to be rule-governed. Variation is rigidly constrained by
three simple principles: hierarchy, dichotomy, and asymmetry.
In the third section, we examine instead the prosodic organization below the
phonological word. We take up here the question of regularizing the syllable count by
introducing the organizing unit “foot”. It will be shown how the variable syllable-counts
can be derived from permissible gaps and hypermetrical syllables. The foot-count is
regular at the level of strophe, thus deriving “both its regularity, or normality, and its
random aspects, or its freedom, at one and the same time” (Freedman 1987: 12).
These conclusions provide a basis for further study—specifically, of those psalms
identified by allusions within Jonah 2 (especially Psalms 31, 42, and 120; see further
Sasson 1990: 168-201, Limburg 1993: 63-64) and also of those compositions that, like
Jonah 2, are conventionally said to be governed by the so-called qinah meter (see further
Garr 1983).
2
1. Counting Word-Feet
1.1. A Critical Note on the Text
A decided advantage in studying the todah or thanksgiving psalm in Jonah 2—the
“Canticle from the Depths” as Sasson (1990) styles it, is that it is free from substantial
textual corruption. That said, we must mention the common tendency among
commentators to “prune” line 2:4a, “almost completely motivated by metrical
adjustments” (Sasson 1990: 175). The editor of Jonah (K. Elliger) in the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS) is representative in this respect. The BHS deletes
lâ at this
point, or perhaps instead bilbab yammîm, explaining gl—i.e., that one phrase is a gloss on
the other, giving rise to the putative redundancy. It is interesting that the editor does not
explicitly invoke the infamous m cs (metri causa, “for the sake of meter”); but we can
only presume that this is the underlying motivation for the deletion (cf. Limburg 1993:
63, n. 85).
The deletion in 2:4a is of course question-begging. In any case, we should prefer
from first principles a metrical analysis that preserves the traditional text (confirmed by
all versions). But the common tendency to emend 2:4a metri causa does serve to focus
our attention on a methodological weakness: conventional metrical analysis is restricted
to the line. The conventional perspective is local vs. global—in short, conventional
analysis tends to myopia.
In explicit opposition, we adopt here a poem-global perspective. The global
word-count is seventy-five, distributed across fifteen lines for an average word-count of
exactly five: no “mistaken activity of an editor or accidental alteration on the part of the
scribe” (Freedman 1987: 23) need be posited.
3
1.2. The Phonological Word in Tiberian Hebrew Phonology
Counting “words” is notoriously difficult, for there are conflicting linguistic
criteria at distinct linguistic “levels” (cf. Culley 1970: 16, Watson 1995: 90, 104; see also
Fabb 1997: especially §5.1.1. “What counts as a word?”).
The simplest approach would be to count the morphological words or “lexical
words” (W), indicated by white space in the consonantal text. No-one adopts such a
simplistic approach, however, for nowhere does such an approach give a regular wordcount. In Jonah 2, there are 81 W, unevenly distributed over the lines.
Tiberian Hebrew (TH) phonology provides an alternative approach to counting
with its “clitic group” or “phonological word” (ω). The essential function of the TH
notation is to assign a musical trope—a so-called “accent”—to each ω. Every W may be
assigned such an accent in the traditional reading; however, for a variety of reasons, a W
may be deprived of an accent and instead assigned the TH hyphen or maqqef by default.
As a first approximation, counting “accented words” as indicated by the TH hyphen gives
an appropriately reduced and, crucially, more regular word-count. The word-count is
thereby reduced to 73 words in Jonah 2: close by not correct.
The naïve counting of hyphens (e.g., Watson 1995: 101-102), however, fails to
take into account the different reasons for the deployment of the hyphen. In Jonah 2 we
observe two distinct uses of the hyphen associated with two distinct classes of
monosyllabic clitics. Distinguishing between the two classes permits us to refine the
definition of “phonological word” (ω) for the purposes of this study.
The principal class of clitics is the proclitic. These monosyllables are the true
clitics in the TH system, and they are generally recognized as such (this morpho-
4
phonological analysis is not vitiated by secondary rules that may occasionally assign
them accents). There are six instances of proclisis in Jonah 2: five monosyllabic
prepositions; and one token of the clitic kol “all”.
The other class represented in Jonah 2 is the enclitic. In this case, we are dealing
with independent, monosyllabic words that are regularly assigned accents. However,
because there is a TH prohibition against stress-clash (back-to-back stressed syllables),
these monosyllables induce postlexical adjustments in the preceding words when phrased
together. Typically stress is retracted on the preceding word by one syllable (nesigah
“retraction”) to enforce the regular TH iambic foot; the accent consequently appears on
this stressed syllable (see further Dresher 1994: “The Rhythm Rule”, §3.2.3; Revell
1987).
The TH rhythm rule operating within the phonological phrase φ (marked out by
the so-called disjunctive accents) is complicated by the secondary consideration of
syllable type: a musical trope may never be assigned to a short vowel, presumably from
musical considerations. In such cases, no accent is assigned, and the TH hyphen surfaces
by default. A near-minimal pair is given in (1) by way of illustration.
(1)
(a)
mis s ārấ lî́ → mis s ā́ râ lî́
(b)
hablế šā́ w
→ hablê—šā́ w
(2:3a)
(2:9)
The claim, therefore, is that there is a real distinction among TH clitics embodied
in (2). By introducing this nuanced distinction and discounting only the “true clitics” (κ),
we arrive at the regular word-foot count of 81 – 6 = 75.
5
(2)
(a)
(b)
TRUE CLITIC
PSEUDO-CLITIC
ω
κ
φ
ω
ω
σ—
ω
—σ
It should be emphasized that such a distinction is a commonplace in crosslinguistic perspective: “grammatical” or “functional” words such as prepositions,
complementizers (i.e., subordinating conjunctions), negative particles, etc., are regularly
treated as prosodic clitics and incorporated into the word-level phonology; whereas,
“lexical” clitics arising from stress-clash demotion are not so treated, but participate in
phrase-level phonology.
A particularly striking contrast in this regard is observed among Czech proclitics.
The functional words such as prepositions (3a) and negatives (3b) are incorporated into
the Czech stress-initial word phonology: these are the true clitics. In contrast, lexical
words such as jak “how” in (4) are not so incorporated, but show the same sort of
context-sensitive variation as do TH pseudo-clitics.
(3)
(a) ve škole “in school”
(b) nemám “I don’t have”
[ve] + [škole] → [veškole]ω
[ne] + [ma:m] → [nema:m]ω
(a) jak žije “how’s he doing”?
[yak] + [žiye] → [yak žiye]φ
(b) jak se máte “how’re you doing?” [yak] + [se] + [ma:te] → [yakse
ma:te]φ
(4)
6
1.3. Heterometric Lines and the Verse
There is in verse 2:4 an anomalous 6-4 word-count instead of the regular 5-5
maintained throughout. That there is a coherent couplet here licensing the anomaly is
clear: the couplet analysis is independently motivated on literary grounds—both specific
and general.
One might treat the situation in 2:4 as a species of enjambement or “run-on”,
consistent with traditional approaches (see further Watson 1995: §11.15). Such an
approach would enforce isometric lines by rearrangement. However, there is a strong
generalization that the end of the line should be associated with TH pause.
Rearrangement would incorrectly assign prosodic pause.
The view adopted here, preserving end-stopped pause, is that lines may be
heterometric—“individual lines … vary considerably in length” (Freedman 1987: 19),
consistent with the principles enunciated below. On this view, the line is no longer the
largest constituent over which metrical generalizations may be stated; rather, word-count
regularity is defined over the bilinear verse.
It is the Hebrew verse, therefore, that determines the word-count at 2  5 = 10.
This conclusion might be explained by invoking the metron (M), the dipodic organizing
unit familiar from Classical Greek meter. The biblical “pentameter” might be defined in
terms of the “pentametric verse” diagrammed in (5). The placement of the major caesura
(indicated by upward arrows) could be constrained by necessarily being associated with
the medial metron (normally placed, then, as a “counterpoint” to the metrical structure:
see further Fabb 1997: §5.2.1).
7
(5)
M
ω
M
ω
ω
M
ω
M
ω
ω
↑
ω
M
ω
ω
ω
↑
2. Prosodic Constraints on Biblical Verse
The regular word-count is relatively trivial; however, the intermediate prosodic
organization, from word to verse, shows theme and variation throughout. Our attention is
drawn in the first instance to 2:4b as the short line, presumably meeting the bare
minimum of structure. A prosodic parse is provided in (6).
(6)
I
φ
ω
kol— mišbārêkā
φ
ω
wəgallêkā
ω
ω
‘ālî
‘ābārû
The claim advanced here is that (6) embodies the two fundamental prosodic
constraints governing the organization of words in Hebrew verse: hierarchy and
dichotomy. Possible variations from this prototypical line are strictly regulated by a third
principle of head-dependent asymmetry. These three principles are taken up in turn in
the following sections.
8
2.1. Prosodic Hierarchy
The brief account here is founded on the seminal work of Dresher (1983, 1994).
TH phonology operates in three separate prosodic domains: the clitic group or
phonological word ω (stress assignment, vocalism), the phonological phrase φ (sandhi
rules), and the intonational phrase I (pausal phenomena). The global organizing unit, the
utterance U, is assumed to be equivalent to the TH verse.
The claim is that the conventional prosodic hierarchy, summarized in (7), is also
the fundamental principle governing biblical meter: all levels are implicated in rules of
versification.
(7)
U
“utterance”
I
“intonational phrase”
φ
“phonological phrase”
ω
“phonological word”
F
“foot”
σ
“syllable”
2.2. Continuous Dichotomy
An essential feature of the TH accent system is its strictly binary branching: also
known as “continuous dichotomy”—an expression conventionally attributed to Wickes
(Price 1990: 36-40). This principle, in combination with the prosodic hierarchy, defines
the bare minimum of structure in biblical versification. The underlying skeleton of the
9
biblical line, not unlike the structure of Germanic “four strong-stress” accentual meter
(Fabb 1997: §3.4.2.), is shown in (8).
(8)
U
I
I
φ
ω
φ
ω
ω
φ
ω
ω
φ
ω
ω
ω
2.3. Head-Dependent Asymmetry
Here we present a simplified account of the strong principle of “head-dependent”
asymmetry (for the full technical treatment, see Dresher & van der Hulst 1998). In an
earlier tradition the same phenomenon was explained in terms of “anceps” positions:
rules and constraints appear to fail in “superweak” positions. Consider the equivalent
diagrams in (9): (9a) employs a conventional strong (s) vs. weak (w) notation; in (9b)
the system of TH accent gradation is employed (following Cohen 1969). The anceps
positions are indicated by an asterisk.
(9)
(a)
s
(b)
w
w*
0
s
s
w
1
s
2*
10
0
1
1
0
Variation in the biblical line can be formulated to apply to nodes of a given grade.
The skeleton in (8) is annotated accordingly in (10). The striking asymmetry between the
a-line and the b-line of the verse fall outs from first principles. The rule governing
possible branching (at least in Jonah 2) is straightforward: no branching on nodes 0-1;
branching is possible (indicated by asterisk) on nodes graded 2-3. This rule is rigidly
enforced in Jonah 2.
(10)
U0
I1
I0
φ2
3*
φ1
2*
2*
φ1
1
2*
φ0
1
1
0
3. Foot Counting
There are two very good reasons, beyond current phonological theory (e.g., Roca
and Johnson 1999), for introducing the prosodic unit “foot” (F) into the study of Hebrew
verse. First, it has long been recognized that syllable (σ) counts vary within a specifiable
range, hovering around distinct statistical averages and modes (see esp. Culley 1970).
The most natural assumption is there is a “higher” organizing unit that licenses “extra
syllables and missing syllables” (Fabb 1997: §3.6.).
11
Second, TH is characterized by the same phenomena that makes the iambic
rhythm natural in English poetry (cf. Steele 1999: 8-13). Both TH and English have
heavy primary and secondary word-stresses with concomitant “shewa syllables”. Their
phonologies are characterized by alternating weak-strong stresses (e.g., the “rhythm rule”
above). Their words tend to an iambic shape. They have similar histories of moving
from synthetic and inflected to comparatively analytic and uninflected systems; as a
result, both have many weakly stressed monosyllabic particles and pronominals.
3.1. TH Footing
We assume as a first approximation that binary branching (or, continous
dichotomy) is optional in both the TH word and foot, as diagrammed in (11). We assume
that TH footing is quantity-insensitive, right-headed (iambic), constructed from right-toleft, and permits extrametricality. We exclude TH syllables arising from syllable-contact
anaptyxis (see further DeCaen 2003).
(11)
(a) WORD
(i) SHORT
(b) FOOT
(ii) LONG3
ω
F
(i) DEGENERATE
ω
F
(ii) BINARY
F
σ
F
F
σ
σ
We require two footing rules: one to license gaps, the other to admit
hypermetrical syllables. First, gaps (indicated in the appendix by “ø”) are licensed under
3
The concept of a TH “long word” is borrowed from Dresher (1983, 1994).
12
weak nodes by phonological word boundaries. Second, post-tonic and shewa vowels are
necessarily weak syllables and must match weak nodes only, else they are treated as
hypermetrical (indicated in the scansion by “(x)”).
Two complications are encountered in Jonah 2. First, we expect the half-line or
hemistich to have a maximum of four prosodic feet, consistent with the maximum of four
word-feet permitted by the branching rule above. However, we encounter two cases of
five-foot hemistichs (2:4a, 2:8b). The anomaly arises because of “long words” in the
anceps position; but it is precisely this pattern that can be explained by invoking the rule
of asymmetry above. (The scansion treats these long words as if one foot.)
Second, we posit an optional caesura rule for a final trimetric hemistich.
Normally, word and foot boundaries align; but a word boundary can also create an
interesting counterpoint (cf. Fabb 1997: §5.2.). The proposed rule, expected to have
some currency elsewhere in biblical poetry, is given in (12). Crucially, the foot-count
remains trimetric: the final hemistich of Jonah 2 is so treated.
(12)
TRIMETRIC COUNTERPOINT
F
x
F
/ x
F
/ x
F
/
→
x x
13
F
/ x x
F
/
3.2. Foot-Count and the Strophe
Foot assignment in light of the foregoing qualifications is applied to Jonah 2 in
the appendix. The foot-count in (13) shows how the lines pattern (the “+” indicates
where the anceps rule has been applied).
(13)
VERSE
FOOT-COUNT
3
4
7-5
7+-5
5
6
6-6
7-5
7
8
5-5
7+-7
9-10
6-6-6
The count is almost a regular 2  6 = 12 per couplet, 3  6 = 18 per triplet.
Regularity is improved by imposing a quatrain or four-line stanza. Verses 7-8 then
conform to a regular hexametric strophe (4  6 = 24). It is on this basis that the breaks
have been introduced into (13) and the appended scansion. It may be that the opening
quatrain establishes the 7-5-7-5 theme at the outset, providing a basis for variation
subsequently.
14
Conclusion
This paper began by considering factors related to the word-foot count. By
rejecting emendation and introducing nuances in the definition of the phonological word,
we were able to arrive at the average of five “words” per line.
The word-count, however, is only half the story, for there is prosodic organization
above and below the level of phonological word. Three prosodic principles were
sufficient to constrain the prosodic superstructure: hierarchy, dichotomy, and asymmetry.
These three principles regulated variation across the lines and verses of Jonah 2.
The foot-count revealed an additional prosodic constraint. Verses generally and
strophes always conform in Jonah 2 to an average hexametric foot-count. Thus larger
units are implicated in biblical metrics. “There is quantity, but there isn’t meter in the
usual sense of the word. Quantity can only be determined and calculated for large
structures, whole poems, or large units; whereas there is considerable freedom and
irregularity in small units, especially lines and cola. Both sets of facts seem
indisputable” (Freedman 1987: 27, italics added).
However, there remains the interesting question as to why there are two metrical
systems working together in Jonah 2. The answer, I believe, is at least twofold. First,
there is the mapping of feet to words that was not explored here. It may be that some sort
of correspondence-rule system is reconciling the two systems. Notice, e.g., that in Jonah
2 a 0-grade-node permits only one foot; whereas, a 2-grade-node consistently dominates
two feet. This asymmetry may be reflected in the TH cantillation system itself: grade 2
accents are known to display an exceptional amount of variation and sensitivity to
numbers and types of syllables (see Price 1990 on his “Hierarchy IV”). The foot-to-word
15
mapping in the four-word line 2:4b may not be accidental; rather, it may be a reflection
of an obligatory branching rule for the 2-node.
Second, the parallels between TH and English may be pushed further. We know
that English poetry went through a radical shift from the Germanic accentual meter to the
characteristic foot-counting (classically and primarily iambic) meter, induced presumably
by language change. We might suspect that Hebrew poetry made a similar shift: from a
primitive accentual meter, the foundation of the liturgical chant, to an iambic meter
employed in structuring more sophisticated strophic arrangements. If so, various types of
interaction between the two regulating principles (top-down and bottom-up) might be
indicative of a progressive development in Hebrew versification, perhaps diagnostic of
different strata in the biblical corpus.
16
Appendix: Transcription of Jonah 2 with Metrical Scansion
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
6a
6b
7a
7b
8a
8b
9
10a
10b
x / (x) x / x / ø / x / ø / x / (x)
qārā’tî mis s ārâ lî | ’el-YHWH wayya‘ănēnî
x / (x) x / x
/ (x) x / (x) x /
mibbet en šə’ôl šiwwa‘tî | šāma‘tî qôlî
x
/ (x) (x) x / x /
x
/
(x) x / x / x / (x)
wattašlîkēnî məs ûlâ bilbab yammîm | wənāhār yəsōbəbēnî
x / x / (x) (x) x / (x) x / x / (x)
kol-mišbārêkā wəgallêkā | ‘ālî ‘ābārû
ø / x / x / (x) x / (x) x / (x) x / (x)
wa’ănî ’āmartî | nigraštî minneged ‘ênêkā
ø / x / (x) x / ø / x / x / (x)
’ak ’ôsîp ləhabbit | ’el-hêkal qodšekā
(x) x / x / x
/ ø / (x) x /
x / x / (x)
’ăpāpûnî mayim ‘ad-nepeš | təhôm yəsōbəbēnî
ø / x / (x) x / (x) x / x /
sûp h ābûš lərôšî | ləqis bê hârîm
x / (x) x / (x) (x) x / (x) x / (x) x /
yāradtî hā’āres | bərīh êhā ba‘ădî lə‘ôlām
x / (x) x / (x) x /
x / (x) x /
watta‘al miššah at h ayyay | YHWH ’ĕlōhāy
x / x / x / x / ø / x /
x / (x)
bəhit‘at t ēp ‘ālay napšî | ’et-YHWH zākārtî
x
/ x / (x) x / x / ø / x / x / (x)
wattābô ’ēlêkā təpillātî | ’el-hêkal qodšekā
x / x / ø / x /
x /
x / (x)
məšammərîm hablê-šāw | h asdām ya‘ăzōbû
ø / x / x / x / ø / (x) x /
wa’ănî bəqôl tôdâ | ’ezbəh â-llāk
x / x / (x)(x) x / (x) x x / (x) x x /
’ăšer nādartî ’ăšallēmâ | yəšû‘ātâ laYHWH
17
Bibliography (documentation not yet complete)
Cohen, Miles B. 1969. The System of Accentuation in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis:
Milco.
Collins, Terence. 1978. Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry: A Grammatical Approach to the
Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets. Studia Pohl, Series Maior, no. 7. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press.
Culley, R.C. 1970. “Metrical Analysis of Classical Hebrew Poetry.” Pp. 12-28 in
Essays on the Ancient Semitic World. Edited by J.W. Wevers and D.B. Redford.
Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
DeCaen, Vincent. 2003. “Hebrew Sonority and Tiberian Contact Anaptyxis: The Case
of Verbs Primae Gutturalis”. Journal of Semitic Studies 48.1: 35-46.
Dresher, B. Elan. 1983. “Postlexical Phonology in Tiberian Hebrew.” Pp. 67-78 in
Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Edited by
Michael Barlow et al. Stanford CA.
Dresher, B. Elan. 1994. “The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of
Accents.” Language 70.1: 1-52.
Dresher, B. Elan, and Harry van der Hulst. 1998. “Head-dependent asymmetries in
phonology: complexity and visibility.” Phonology 15: 317-352.
Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and Literature: Language in the Verbal Arts of the
World. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, no. 12. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kugel, James L. 1981. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Limburg, James. 1993. Jonah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library.
Louisville: Westminster.
O’Connor, M. 1980. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
Price, James D. 1990. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. Studies in
the Bible and Early Christianity, no.27. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.
Revell, E. J. 1987. Nesiga (retraction of word stress) in Tiberian Hebrew. Textos y
estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la biblia políglota matritense. Madrid: Instituto
de filología, CSIC.
Roca, Iggy, and Wyn Johnson. 1999. A Course in Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sasson, Jack M. 1990. Jonah. Anchor Bible 24B. New York: Doubleday.
Vance, Donald R. 2001. The Question of Meter in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Studies in
Bible and Early Christianity, no. 46. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1995. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. 2d
corrected ed. JSOT Supplement Series, no. 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
18