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


My mansion I have built of silver. My palace of gold. CTA 4 vi 36-38

tt.lttm.ahd.cr šbcm.šbc .pdr

Sixty-six cities he seized, Seventy-seven towns. CTA 4 vii 9-10

ib.bcl.tihd ycrm. šnu.hd.gpt ġr.

The enemies of Baal seized the forests, The haters of Hadad, the hollows of the rocks. CTA 4 vii 35-37

nps.Asrt bn.nsm. npš.hmlt.ars.

My appetite has lacked the sons of men, My appetite the multitudes of the earth. CTA 6 ii 17-19

šnt.tluan wyškb.

Sleep prevailed over him and he lay down. Slumber and he curled up. CTA 14 i 33-35

nhmmt wyqms.

145 kirby [tlskn.Sd km.hsn.pat.mdbr

Like locust that inhabit the steppe, Like hoppers the edges of the wilderness. CTA 14 ii 103-105

hzk.al.tâcl qrth, abn.ydk mšdpt.

Your arrows don't shoot at his city, Stones from your hand at his citadel CTA 14 iii 116-118

ks.yihd [il b]yd. krpn.bm [ymn]

A cup El took in his hand, A flagon in his right hand. CTA 15 ii 16-18

[mlrhh.yihd.byd [g]rgrh.brn.ymn

His spear he took in (his) hand, His lance(?) in (his) right hand. CTA 16 i 47-48

lpnk ltšihm.ytm.

In front of you, you don't feed the orphan, Behind your back, the widow. CTA 16 vi 48-50

bcd kslk.almnt.

b. Ellipsis of Particles It was noted above that verb-gaping is the dominant form of ellipsis in the corpus, and for this reason it has been explored most extensively.

Other elements, such as

pronominal suffixes, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, and substantives are also subject to elision.

Dahood refers

to this phenomenon as "double-duty" parts of speech and has cited numerous examples (Dahood 1965, 38-41).

Although this

term can usefully describe the elision of particles, it is not comprehensive enough to cover the variations of ellipsis.

Examples from the corpus will supplement his

list. In the following examples prepositional phrases have been elided in the second colon.

146 lp'n il.thbr.wtql tšthwy.wtkbdnh

At the Feet of El she bowed and fell, She prostrated herself and honored him. CTA 6 i 36-38

dšbc [alhm.lh. tmnt.bn um

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

*m il.mbk nhrm.

To El (at) the source of the two rivers, (At) the confluence of the two deeps. KTU 1.100 2-3

bcdt.thmtm

The preposition alone is gapped in the following verses.

in

the first example the omission of the preposition, l-, both interrupts the line-initial alliteration/anaphora and it renders the fourth line shorter syllabically.

It is

difficult to imagine that these effects were not intended by the poet. lqr.tigt.ibrh lql.nqht.hmrh lg't.alp.hrt. zgt klb.spr. tk aršh.rbt warsh.trrt.

Because of the roaring noise of his bulls, Because of the braying sound of his asses, Because of the lowing of his plow oxen, The whining of his hunting dogs. CTA 14 iii 120-123 The midst of the great Tigris, Even the well-watered Tigris. KTU 1.100 63-64

Interrogatives are gapped in the following examples: ik.tmgnn.rbt atrt. ym. tġzyn qnyt.ilm.

How is it that you entreat Lady Athirat of the sea, You seek the favor of the creatress of the gods? CTA 4 iii 28-30

mat krt.kybky ydmc.ncmm.ġlm il

Why does Krt weep, The gracious one, the lad of El shed tears? CTA 14 i 38-41

ikm.yrgm.bn il krt sph.ltpn wqdš.

How is it said that Krt is a son of El, The offspring of Ltpn and the holy one? CTA 16 i 20-22

147 my.bVilm ydy] mrs. grš[m zbln]

Who among the gods will drive out the sickness, Expel the disease? CTA 16 v 14-15

The conditional particle, hm, is gapped in the following verse.

Note also the chiastic structure.

b-t.hry.bty iqh. ašcrb.glmt hzry.

If Hry (in) my house I take, (If) I cause the maid to enter my court. CTA 14 iv 203-205

The existential particle can also be elided: i itt.atrt.prm wilt.sdnym

As Athirat of Tyre exists, Even Elat of the Sidonians. CTA 14 iv 201-202

The relative particle, d, serves double duty in the verse below: dfkncm.cnt ncmh. km.tsm cttrt.tsmh

Whose grace is like the grace of Anat, Like the beauty of Athtart is her beauty. CTA 14 vi 291-293

c. Ellipsis of Substantives Though infrequent, nouns and adjectives are also subject to elision in Ugaritic verse.

In the following

example the indirect object, lbcl, is gapped along with the verb, ybn: ybn.bt.lbcl km ilm. whzr.kbn.atrt

Let a house be built for Baal like the gods, Even a court like the sons of Athirat. CTA 4 v 62-63

Since the subject of a verbal sentence is inherent in the verb itself, one can only rarely speak of it being elided. The following examples exhibits what O'Connor (123) calls "leftward" gaping; that is, the elided element is missing in

148 the first colon but then supplied in the second. brkm.ybrk [cbdh] ybrk.il.krt [tc]

He indeed blessed his servant, El blessed noble Krt. CTA 15 ii 18-20

mn.yrh.km[rs] mn.kdw.kr[t!

How many months that he has been ill, How many that Krt has been sick? CTA 16 ii 81-82

Substantives are more likely to be elided in nominal sentences. udh.ytnt.il wušn ab.adm.

Udm is a gift of El, Even a present of the father of mankind. CTA 14 iii 135-136

wld.sph.lkrt wglm.l bd.il

A child (as) a family for Krt, Even a lad for the servant of El. CTA 14 iii 152-153

ap [klrt.bnm.il. šph ltpn.wqds.

Moreover is Krt the son of El, The offspring of Ltpn and the Holy One? CTA 16 i 9-11

'n lars.m[t]r.bcl wlšd.mtr.cly

A spring for the earth is the rain of Baal, Even for the fields is the rain of the Most High. CTA 16 iii 4-6

iant.ntk.nhš. gmrr.nhS qšr.

My incantation for the bite of a snake, The venom of the scaly snake. KTU 1.100 4-5

These examples demonstrate the various forms ellipsis takes in Ugaritic verse.

Typologically almost every

variation is found in the corpus:

verbs, substantives, and

every kind of particle can be elided.

Positionally the

elided element often is first in the clause, but other positions are well represented.

All of this suggests that

ellipsis was not a recent innovation, but must have been long accepted in the literary tradition.

Because elision

149 created imbalance in the length of parallel lines, a further development, length compensation, is quite frequent in Ugaritic verse.

2. Length Compensation Elision of a syntactic unit from the first colon of a verse often results in parallel lines of varying syllable length.

Although such imbalance may be tolerated, more

frequently the line from which the unit was elided will be lengthened to compensate for the gapped element.

One of the

first to notice this rhetorical device in Ugaritic was C.H. Gordon who called it the "Ballast Variant," defining it as follows:

"If a major word in the first stichos is not

paralleled in the second, then one or more of the words in the second stichos tend to be longer than their counterparts in the first stichos" (Gordon 1965, 135). He cites more than a dozen examples in his Ugaritic Textbook. The most extensive study to date of this rhetorical device in biblical verse is that of S. Geller (1979, 299318).

Recognizing its intrinsic connection with ellipsis,

he terms it "deletion-compensation," and defines it as follows: An essential feature of all replacement formulae is compensation, that is, compensatory lengthening. Syllabic compensation is, of course, the purpose of replacement in such formulae. A grammatical element having been deleted from the A Line, its approximate number of syllables should be replaced in the B Line to maintain the general syllable symmetry which most couplets display (Geller 1979, 199).

150 The texts presented in Chapter Four and the analysis in Chapter Five will demonstrate the basic accuracy of Geller's statement.

In these texts nearly 90% of the instances of

ellipsis are compensated in the B line.

The examples in

which there is no compensation may be a result of the poets' desire to offset the pervasive tendency to compensate. Geller subdivides compensation into two primary types: 1) the lengthening of a unit in the B Line which is parallel to a unit in the A Line, and 2) the addition of another grammatical unit in the B Line while still maintaining grammatical and semantic compatibility with the A Line.

In

his analytical system he indicates the positions of both the elided and the compensated unit, as well as the grammatical function of both units. This information then allows him to present charts detailing the phenomenon in his corpus of early biblical verse. Among his conclusions Geller notes that ellipsis of nouns is slightly more frequent in his corpus than verbal ellipsis.

This result contrasts with the data cited above

for the Ugaritic corpus of the present study.

He also finds

that the deleted units tend to be positioned at the beginning of the A Line, whereas the compensated units are most often at the end of the B Line.

In this instance his

results are in accord with the Ugaritic evidence adduced above.

151 In his assessment of Ugaritic and Hebrew verse, D. Pardee listed this device as an aspect of parallelism which warrants more attention, calling it "length compensation" (Pardee 1988b, 58-60; 1988c, 185-87).

Although he

appreciates Geller's work on the device, he also offers several criticisms of Geller's methodology.

These are

primarily directed at Geller's notation system which Pardee thinks is too complicated and too overburdened to adequately deal with the data.

In its place Pardee proposes an

independent system designed solely for noting deletion and compensation (Pardee 1988c, 186). Pardee also argues that the device of compensation is not designed to produce "absolute quantitative uniformity" between lines.

He admits

that parallel lines tend to be approximately equal in length, but finds no evidence for any kind of syllabic meter. In the present corpus there are numerous examples of Geller's first type of length compensation, the lengthening of an element in the B line.

This category is further

subdivided into two sub-types:

1) addition of syllables to

a non-elided term in the B Line, and 2) lengthening a term in the B Line by compounding.

The following examples

illustrate the first type: l//lzr štt.hptr.lišt hbrt.lzr.phrnrn

She put a pot on the fire, A cauldron on top of the coals. CTA 4 ii 8-9

152 b//bqrb sh.hrn.bbhtk 'dbt.bqrb.hklk

Call a caravan into your mansion, Materials in the midst of your palace. CTA 4 v 75-76

šnt//nhmmt Snt.tluan wyškb. nhmmt wyqms.

Sleep prevailed over him and he lay down, Slumber and he curled up. CTA 14 i 33-35

Geller's other sub-type, lengthening by means of compounding, can be seen in these verses: qdmh//wtk pnh št.alp.qdmh. mra wtk.pnh.

An ox was placed before him, A fatling even before his face. CTA 4 v 107-108

ahm//bn um dgbc [alhm.IA. tmnt.bn um

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

nhsm//bn btn ytt.nhsm.mhrk. bn btn itnnk

I will give snakes as your bride price, Serpent's offspring as your bridal gift. KTU 1.100 75-76

Geller's second major type of length compensation, the addition of one or more grammatical units, is less frequent in the corpus.

Some examples include:

Adding ysmsmt: ystn.atrt.lbmt.cr lysmsmt.bmt.phl Adding dyknnh: [anly lysh.tr il. abh [ill.mlk.dyknnh.

He put Athirat on the back of the donkey, On the comfortable back of an onager. CTA 4 iv 14-15 Groaning (?) he surely calls to the Bull, El, his father, El, the king who established him. CTA 4 iv 47-48

153 Adding hlm qdš: tbkyk.a-).^r.bcl spn.hlm.qds Adding wqdš: ap [klrt.bnm.il. sph ltpn.wqds. Adding c l: <mrs>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

<4

Te^ct

a^nd

Analysis

1. CTA 4 i 13-19 m[t]b il.mzll bnh. mtb.rbt atrt.ym. mtb klt.knyt mtb.pdry.b
motabu 'ili mazlalu binihu môtabu rabbati 'atirata yammi môtabu kallâti kuniyâti mBtabu pidraya bitti 'âri mazlalu tallaya bitti rabbi matabu 'arsaya bitti ycbdr

Translation:

The The The The The The

dwelling of El is the shelter of his son, dwelling of Lady Athirat Yarnrni, dwelling of the noble brides, dwelling of Pidraya, daughter of mist, shelter of Tallaya, daughter of showers, dwelling of Arsaya, daughter of Ycbdr

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:12::10::11 :11:14 11:12::10::10 :10:?

Geller S-Cpn P-Cs P-Cpn ,=P-C P-C ,-C P-Cpn ,=C-C P-Cpn ,=C-C P-Cpn ,=C-C

Collins NP* NP= NP 2 NP 22 NP NP 2 NP 2

Anaphora (mtb) Interrupted Sequence (mzll in line 5) Lists (inhabitants of El's house) Repetition (bt, lines 4-6) Alliteration (l, b, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Although these six lines form an unusually long verse, the use of anaphora and repetition argue against dividing them into bi- or tricola. For the vocalization of mtb and rbt, see Huehnergard (1987, 135, 176). kit is vocalized on the basis of Akk. kallatu. For mzll, see Kuhne (257). 2. CTA 4 i 20-21 ap.mtn.rgmm argmk. Translation:

'apa mathâ rigamima 'argumuka

Also, another matter I will tell you

186 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

14 12

Geller pt 2-C a-s

Collins NP^ V-Np3

Devices: Repetition of Root (RGM) Alliteration (m) Notes: For the vocalization of mtn, see Huehnergard (1987, 187). rgmm and argmk are derived from Akk. ragâmu. 3. CTA 4 i 21-23 šskn mc mgn.rbt.atrt ym mgz.qnyt.ilm

šaskin maca maggana rabbati 'atirata yammi magza qâniyati 'illma

Translation:

Prepare, A gift (for) Lady Athirat Yarnrni, A present (for) the creatress of the gods

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

(6):12:10 (4):12:9

Collins Geller V a! NP^ M 2 "3" ,-3-C NP^ M 2 "3"-C Devices: Anacrusis (šskn mc) Binorninalization (rbt atrt ym//qnyt ilm) Ellipsis (sskn mc, V-Initial) Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Grammatical Str.

Notes: Anacrusis is by no means certain in this verse, but the alternative ways of dealing with the passage present other more difficult problems. Gibson (55) takes it as a tricolon with mgn part of the first line. While this produces better syllabic balance it ignores the syntactic and semantic parallelism revealed by the stichometry adopted above. Caquot (194) regards it as a bicolon, šskn mc mgn rbt atrt ym // mgz qnyt ilm, resulting in two extremely unbalanced cola. Both the length of the extrametrical element and the fact that it is a verbal form might argue against the stichometry I have adopted, but these difficulties seem less problematic than the alternatives.

187 4. CTA 4 i 24-25 heyanu caliya limappihemi bide hasisa masbitemi

hyn.cly.lmphm bd.hss.msbtm Translation:

Heyan went up to the bellows, In the hands of Hassis were (a pair of) tongs

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:10 11:9

Geller 1 b 3 3-Cpn S

Collins NP* V M M NP*

Devices: Epistrophe (-emi, dual) Binorninalization (hyn//hss) Alliteration (m) Notes: Though neither semantically nor syntactically parallel, these two lines are linked by the rhetorical devices, both the sound repetition of epistrophe and especially binorninalization which divides the divine name into two parts. The result may be considered a type of fake parallelism. The vocalization of the prepositions l- and b- have evoked a great deal of discussion since the publication of the bilingual lexical text in Ugaritica V. Because these prepositions were transcribed in cuneiform as le-e and bi-i respectively, many scholars assumed they were to be vocalized as l^ and bî in Ugaritic. More recently, however, Huehnergard (1987, 53, 112, 142) and others (eg. Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartin 1973, 86) have argued quite convincingly that: 1) the vowels are short rather than long, and 2) the vowel of l- in Akkadian transcription has been influenced by the environment of the sonorant consonant /l/. For these reasons the prepositions will be vocalized liand bi- in this study. 5. CTA 4 i 26-29 ysq.ksp.yslh.hrjy. ysq.ksp lalpm. hrs.ysqm.lrbbt Translation:

yasiqu kaspa yišlahu hurâsa yasiqu kaspa li'alaplma hurâsa yasiquma lirababâti

He cast silver, he made plates of gold, He cast silver into thousands (of pieces), Gold he cast into ten thousand

188 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.

13:11:12 11:10:12 Collins V NP= V NP 2 V NP 2 M NP 2 V M

Geller a 2 a 2 a 2 3 2 a 3

Devices: Anaphora (ysq, lines 1 & 2) Interrupted Sequence (hrs ysqm, line 3) Partial Chiasmus (VOM//OVM,lines 2 & 3) Number Parallelism (alpm//rbbt) Syntactic Repetition (line 1) Repetition (li-, prep.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: For this translation see Dietrich-Loretz (1978, 58). The vocalization of nouns of the qatl-/qutl-/qitltype in the plural is uncertain. Some evidence points to a plural stem, ie. qataluma, but it is also possible that plurals were derived from the singular stem, ie. qatluma (see Huehnergard 1987, 281; Sivan, 81 n. 6 ) . Stuart forms plurals in both ways (note tiqallma, "shekels" (55), but 'alp? hariti, "plow oxen" (58)). In this study plurals of this type will be vocalized as from a plural stem; thus 'alapima. hrs is vocalized according to Akk. hurâsu rather than BH hârus. 6. CTA 4 i 30-33 ysq. hym. wtbth kt.il.dt.rbtm kt.il.nbt.bksp šmrgt.bdm.hrs

yasiqu hayima watabtâha kuta 'ili data rabbatemi kuta 'ili nubata bikaspi šarnrigata bidammi hurâsi

Translation:

He cast a tent and a couch, A divine pedestal of twenty thousand, A divine pedestal covered with silver, Overlaid with a veneer of gold

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

r.: Grammatical Str.:

11:10:11: 11 10:10:10::10

Geller a 2 &2 2-C ,-R (rp 3) 2-C ,-R (c 3) ,-R (c 3-C)

Collins NP^ M NP^ M M

189 Devices: Anaphora (kt il, lines 2 & 3) Ellipsis (y?q, V-Initial) Alliteration (t) Notes: This verse is full of unknown terms, rendering the translation uncertain and the vocalization dubious at best. It is retained because the rhetorical devices seem clear despite the problems. For this translation of hym, see Van Selrns (1975, 471) and Dietrich-Loretz"(1978, 59). tbth is likely an Akkadian loan, tapšahu; as is kt, kutu. On nbt and šmrgt see de Moor and Spronk (1982a, 155). See Sanrnartin (1980a, 336) for dm, who derives it from Arab, damma. 7. CTA 4 i 34-36 kht.il.nht bzr. hdm.il dprsa.bbr Translation: electrurn Line Length:

kahta 'ili nehta biyri hadama 'ili daparsa'a biburri

A divine throne, a seat of fine gold, A divine footstool which is covered with Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.

11:13 8:12

Geller 2-C 2-C 2-C ,-R (c 3)

Collins NP* NP= NP^ M

Devices: Repetition (il) Alliteration (b-r) Epistrophe (-ri) Notes: For this translation and Akkadian and Hebrew cognates, see Van Selms (1975, 473f.) and DietrichLoretz (1978, 58). The final words of both lines have a rhyme-like quality. For the vocalization of br, "bright metal," see Huehnergard (1987, 115). kht is vocalized from the Amarna word, kahšu. 8. CTA 4 i 37-38 ncl.il.d.qblbl c ln.yblhm.hrs

nacla 'ili dâqibalbala c alena yabiluhuma hurâsa

190 Translation:

A divine sandal having straps. Upon it he put (them) gold

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:11 9:11

Geller 2-C ,-R(rp. 3) 3 a-s 2

Collins NP* M M V-NP^ NP^

Devices: Alliteration (l, b-l) Notes: A difficult passage. For this translation see Caquot (196). Dietrich-Loretz (1978, 58) and van Selms (1975, 473) give other possibilities. 9. CTA 4 i 39-41 tlhn.il.dmla mnm. dbbm.dmsdt.ars

tulhana 'ili damali'a minima dabbablma dâmesadâti 'arsi

Translation:

A divine table which was filled with every kind, Beasts of the earth's foundation

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:12 12:11

Geller 2-C ,-R(rp. a 2) 2 ,-R(rp. 3-C)

Collins M M

—-^ NP* a NP=

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Alliteration (l, d, m) Notes: This is basically the translation of Dietrich-Loretz (1978, 58). Van Selms (1975, 473) adopts a different stichometry. dbbm is vocalized from Arab. dabbâb, "beast". 10. CTA 4 i 42-44 sc.il.dqt.kamr sknt.khwt.yman dbh.rumm.lrbbt Translation:

sâca 'ili dâqatta ka'ammiri sikânata kahuwwati yam'ana dâbihâ ru'umfma lirababâti

A divine bowl whose handle is like a lamb. The base was like the land of Yam'an, In which are wild oxen by myriads

191 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:12:12 11:11:12

Geller Collins 2-C ,-R(rp. S 3) NP^ M ,-R(S 3-C) M ,-R(rp. 3 S 3) M

Devices: Alliteration (b) Notes: For the vocalization of sc, sknt, and hwt see Huehnergard (1987, 170, 157, 123). qt is vocalized from Aram., qattâ', "handle". The translation follows Caquot (196-97). In view of the context it is best to regard dqt as the relative pronoun with a noun cognate to Aramaic qattâ; contra Aartun (1984, 3 ) , Dietrich-Loretz (1978, 58) and van Selms (1975, 475). 11. CTA 4 ii 3-4 ahdt.plkh [bydh] plk.t lt.bymnh

'ahadat pilakkahâ biyadiha pilakka taclati biyaminihâ

Translation:

She took her spindle in her hand, The spindle of nobility in her right hand

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:12 11:11

Geller a 2-s 3-s 2-C 3-s

Collins V NP^ M NP^ M

Ellipsis (ahdt, V-Initial) Length compensation (+ tclt) Repetition (plk) Alliteration (by) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of plk see Huehnergard (1987, 168). With Gibson (56, 159) I regard tclt as an abstract noun from the root, cLY. Caquot (197) reads it qlt (suffix tense of QYL), which is possible since the signs for tc could be read as q. He translates, "Le fuseau est tombs." If this reading is adopted there would be no ellipsis, but there would be partial chiasmus.

192 12. CTA 4 ii 5-7 npynh.mks.bsrh tmtc .mdh.bym. ţn npynh.bnhrm

napiyanahâ makse bašarihâ timtacu maddahâ biyammi tane napiyanahâ binaharemi

Translation:

Her garment, the covering of her flesh, She carried her robe into the sea, Her two garments into the two rivers

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12:10:12 11:9:12

Grammatical Str.: Geller 2-s ,=2-C-s a 2-s 3 2-C-s 3 Devices:

Collins NP^NP** V NP^ M NP" M

Ellipsis (tmtc, V-Initial; lines 2 & 3) Length Compensation (mdh//tn npynh; ym//nhrrn) Repetition (npyn, lines 1 & 3; -h, pron. suf.) Alliteration (m, n) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: This passage presents many difficulties, especially the first line. It is possible that these three lines should be joined with the previous bicolon. The repetition of npynh seems to bind the three lines together as a tricolon, but the meaning of the verse is ellusive. My translation, with reservations, follows Gibson (56). Caquot translates it quite differently (197-98). 13. CTA 4 ii 8-9 štt.hptr.lišt hbrt.lzr.phmm

šatat haptara li'islti hubruta lizâri pahamlma

Translation:

She put a pot on the fire, A cauldron on top of the coals

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Geller a 2 3 2 3-C Devices:

11:11 9:10 Collins V NP" M NP^ M

Ellipsis (stt, V-Initial) Length Compensation (lišt//lzr phmm) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

193 Notes: For the vocalization of hptr see Caquot (198). For the vocalization of išt see Huehnergard (1987, 63, 110). The vocalization of phmm is based on BH, peham. 14. CTA 4 ii 10-11 tcpp.tr.il.dpid tgzy.bny.bnwt

tacapipu tora 'ila dapa'idi tagziyu bâniya banuwâti

Translation:

She fluttered her eyelids at the Bull, god of mercy, She entreated the creator of creatures

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Notes: 287).

12:11 12:10

Geller a 2 ,=2-C a 2-C

Collins V NP" V NP^

Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (tr il dpid//bny bnwt) Alliteration (p) For the vocalization of bnwt see Huehnergard (1987,

15. CTA 4 ii 12 bnši.cnh.wtphn

binašâ'i cenehâ wataphlna

Translation:

When she lifted her eyes she looked

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Devices:

12 11

Geller 3(inf.) 2-s & b

Collins M V

Alliteration (n)

Notes: Watson (1984a, 170) notes that this is a monocolon used to open a stanza. There are several examples of this in both CTA 4 and CTA 14, suggesting that it acted almost as a rhetorical device.

194 16. CTA 4 ii 13-16 hlk.bcl.at{t)rt ktcn. hlk.btlt ^nt tdrq.ybmt [limrn]

halâka bacla 'atiratu kitacInu halâka batulti Janata tadraqa yibarnati [limml

Translation:

The corning of Baal Athirat indeed saw, The corning of virgin Anat, The fast approach of the daughter-in-law of the peoples.

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

14:10:? 13:9:?

Geller 2-Cpm 1 pt. 2-C ,=C 2-C-C

Collins NP= NP* V NP 2 NP 2

Anaphora (hlk, lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (ktcn, V-Final) Length Compensation (bcl//btlt Cnt//ybmt limm) Binominalization (btlt Cnt//ybmt limrn) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Recognition of anaphora helps establish this stichornetry against that of Caquot (198), as does the use of the emphatic particle, k-, before the verb, tcn in line 1 (see Gordon 1965, 76). 17. CTA 4 ii 16-18 bh.pcnm [ttt] [bc]dn.ksl [ttbr] [cln plnh td[c]

bihu paci/&mi tattutu bacdana kisla tatburu c alena panuhâ tedacu

Translation:

At that she stamped (her) feet, Round about she broke (her) loins, Above her face sweated

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller 3 2a 3 2a 3 1-s a

9:11:9 8:8:9 Collins M NP= V M NP 2 V M NP 1 V

Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 1 & 2) Lists (body parts, from foot to head) Line Initial Alliteration (b, lines 1-2)

Notes: This tricolon and the following bicolon are reconstructed on the basis of CTA 3 D 29-32. My analysis is based upon Caquot (166f.), although it is possible to regard ksl in line 2 as the subject of the verb, ttbr, which would then be vocalized in the N-stem. ksl is vocalized according to BH, kesel; pcnm from BH pcm. 18. CTA 4 ii 19-20 tgs [pnt ksllh an^.dt.zrVh]

taggusu pinnâti kislihâ 'anša data zârihâ

Translation:

She convulsed the joints of her loins, The muscles of her back

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:8 9:7

Geller a 2-C-s 2-C-s

Collins V NP* NP^

Ellipsis (tg?, V-Initial) Length Compensation (+ dt) Epistrophe (-h, suff.) Lists (body parts) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: This is a difficult verse which is related to the previous tricolon semantically and lexically (note the repetition of ksl), it but exhibits a different syntax. The word pnt is vocalized according to BH, pinnâh. 19. CTA 4 ii 21 tsu.gh.wtph

tissa'u gahâ wataslhu

Translation:

She raised her voice and shouted

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Devices:

9 9

Geller a 2-s & b

Collins V NP^ V

196 Notes: This is a monocolon used to introduce a speech (cf. No. 15 above). 20. CTA 4 ii 21-24 [i]k mgy.aliyn b[cl] ik.mgyt.b[t]lt c nt.

'eka magiya 'al'iyanu baclu 'eka magiyat batultu canatu

Translation:

Why has mightiest Baal arrived, Why has virgin Anat arrived?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

13:13 11:11

Geller pt.? b 1 ,=1 pt.? b 1 ,=1

Collins M V NP* M V NP*

Anaphora (ik) Repetition of Root (MGY) Syntactic Repetition

21. CTA 4 ii 24-26 mâhisaya hima mâhisa baniya hima mukalliyâ sibblrati 'arylya

mhsy hm [m]hs bny. hm [mkly slbrt aryy Translation:

(Are they) smiting me or smiting my sons, Or, (Are they) destroying the company of my

kinsmen? Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller P-s & P-C-s &

P-C-C-s Devices:

12:(2):12 11:(2):11 Collins NP* NP* M NP*

Anacrusis (hm) Epistrophe (-y, suff.) Repetition (hm, -y) Inter-Colon Repetition (line 1) Alliteration (m, y)

Notes: For the vocalization of sbrt and ary see Huehnergard (1987, 169, 288). The participles are vocalized as duals. Margalit (1983b, 113) gives a different translation.

197 22. CTA 4 ii 26-28 [zl].ksp.[a]trt ktcn. zl.ksp.wn[ 1 hff*

zilla kaspi 'atiratu kitacInu zilla kaspi wan. . . hurâsi

Translation:

The covering of silver Athirat indeed saw, The covering of silver and the ? of gold

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

13:? 12:?

Geller 2-C 1 pt. a 2-C & 2-C

Collins NP* NP* V NP^ NP^

Anaphora (zl ksp) Ellipsis (atrt, N-Medial; ktcn, V-Final) Length Compensation (+ wn[ ] hrs)

Notes: Caquot (199) reads pcl, "les ouvrages," for ^l and translates wn[ ], "1'šclat." sbrt is vocalized according to MH sîbbur. 23. CTA 4 ii 28-29 šmh.rbt.at[rt] ym. gm.lglmh.k[tsh]

šamâhu rabbatu 'atiratu yammi gama ligalmiha kltasuhu

Translation:

Lady Athirat Yarnrni rejoiced, Aloud to her servant she indeed called

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:11 12:10

Geller b 1 ,-1-C 3 3-s pt. b

Collins V NP* M M V

Alliteration (m)

Notes: Although these lines could be analyzed as individual monocola, the common subject of the verbs and the narrative progression suggest that they were perceived by the audience as a bicolon. šmh is vocalized as an infinitive (see de Moor 1971, 143).

198 24. CTA 4 ii 32-33 qh.rtt.bdk [qdš] rbt. l.ydm [amrr]

qaha ratta bidika qidšu rabbata c a l e yademi 'amruru

Translation:

Take a net in your hand, Qidshu, A great one upon (your) two hands, Amruru

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:12(?) 9:11(?)

Geller a! 2 3-s 1! 2 3 1!

Collins V NP" M NP* NP^ M NP1

Ellipsis (qh, V-Initial) Length compensation (bdk//cl ydm) Number Parallelism (yd//ydm, sg.//du.) Alliteration (r-t, r) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: The restoration of the divine name, Qidshu-andAmruru, is possible but not certain (see de Moor 1971, 143). If accepted then the verse also contains binominalization. rtt is vocalized from BH reget. 25. CTA 4 iii 10-11 y[t]b.aliyn.bcl ytdd.rkb.crpt

yatubu 'al'iyanu baclu yitcâdadu râkibu curapâti

Translation:

Mightiest Baal answered, The cloud rider responded

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller b 1 ,=1 b 1-C

11:12 9:11 Collins V NP* V NP*

Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (aliyn bcl//rkb crpt) Line Initial Alliteration (y)

Notes: For the vocalization of ytcdd, see Huehnergard (1986, 402; also see van Zjil, 86-87). The vocalization of of crpt follows Akk. urpatu rather than BH cârâpel.

199 26. CTA 4 iii 12-14 [ ].ydd.wyqls?n yqm.wywptn. btk p[h]r.bn.ilm.

Translation:

. . . yiddâdu wayaqallisuni yaqumu Wayawappitunl bitoki puhri banl 'ilima

. . . he stood and abased me, He arose and spat upon me In the midst of the assembly of the divine

ones Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

?:9:11 ?:9:10

Geller b & a-s b & a-s 3-C-C

Collins V V-NP* V V-NP^ M

Epistrophe (-n, suff., lines 1 & 2) Enjambment (lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (y) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Lines 1 and 2 are closely parallel semantically and syntactically, whereas line 3 augments both. Huehnergard (1987, 166) gives another possible vocalization of phr in construct. For tk, see Huehnergard (19877 185). The translation follows Tropper-Verreet (246). 27. CTA 4 iii 14-16 štt p[ l.btlhny. qlt bks.istynh

sutat p[ ] batulhaniya qallata bikâsi 'istayunahu

Translation:

. . . was put on my table, Disgrace in the cup from which I drink

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

?:12 ?:11

Geller c 1 3-s 1 3 ,R(a-s)

Collins V NP* M NP* M M

Ellipsis (stt, V-Initial) Length Compensation (btlhnyV/bks istynh) Alliteration (t)

200 Notes: With Verreet (1985, 329), štt is vocalized as a G passive from the root SYT, rather than STY (Watson 1984a, 280). The translation follows Caquot (200). 28. CTA 4 iii 17-18 dm. tn.dbhm.šna.bcl. tlt rkb.crpt.

dam tine dabhemi šani'a baclu talâta rakibu curapati

Translation:

Truly, Two sacrificial banquets Baal hates, Three, the cloud rider

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

(2):12:10 (1):10:10

Geller pt. 2-C a 1 2 1-C

Collins M NP 2 V NP 1 NP 2 NP 1

Anacrusis (dm) Ellipsis (dbhm, N-Initial; šna, V-Medial) Length Compensation (bcl//rkb crpt) Number Parallelism (tnV/tlt) Binominalization (bcl//rkb crpt) Line Initial Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of dbh, see Huehnergard (1987, 117). The numbers are vocalized as suggested by Gordon (1965, 44). 29. CTA 4 iii 18-21 dbh btt.wdbh {wdbh} dnt. wdbh.tdmm amht.

dabha butati wadabha dunati wadabha tadamrnirna 'arnahâti

Translation:

A banquet of shame and a banquet of baseness, Even a banquet of the abuse of slave girls

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:12 11:11

Geller 2-C & 2-C & 2-C-C

Collins NP* NP= NP 2

201 Devices:

Anaphora ((w)dbh) Repetition (dbh) Alliteration (d, m, t)

Notes: Most commentators omit the second wdbh as dittography since this word ends the line on the tablet. The line length also argues for its omission. The translation follows Dietrich-Loretz (1986b, 448). Verreet (1984, 318) understands tdmrn as an imperfect and translates the second line, "und ein Opfermal, auf dem die Magde sich schlecht benehmen." The line lengths argue against Dijkstra's (563) division into a tricolon. 30. CTA 4 iii 21-22 kbh.btt.ltbt wbh.tdmm{t}.amht

klbihu butata lutabbutu wabihu tadammima 'amahâti

Translation:

For in it shame is indeed seen, And in it the abuse of slave girls

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:12 10:11

Geller pt. 3 2 pt. a & 3 2-C

Collins M NP* V M NP*

Anaphora (kbh//wbh) Ellipsis (ltbt, V-Final) Length Compensation (btt//tdmm amht) Alliteration (b, m) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization and analysis of ltbt I have followed Verreet (1985, 327) who regards it as an active impersonal verb, translating, "Weil man darin die Schande ja sieht." It is also possible to regard it as a passive and vocalize, tubbatu. The final letter of tdmmt is omitted on the basis of the previous bicolon, although it may be an intentional variation. 31. CTA 4 iii 23-24 ahr. c mgy.aliyn.b l c mgyt.btlt. nt

'ahra magiya 'al'iyanuc baclu magiyat batultu anatu

202 Translation:

Afterwards, Mightiest Baal arrived, Virgin Anat arrived

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

(3):11:11 (2):9:9

Geller pt. b 1 ,=1 b 1 ,=1

Collins M V NP* V NP*

Anacrusis (ahr) Anaphora (m<%y//mgyt) Syntactic Repetition Repetition of Root (MGY) Alliteration (t)

Notes: Recognition of anacrusis reveals anaphora and more balanced lines syllabically. 32. CTA 4 iii 25-26 tmgnn.rbt [altrt ym t^zyn.qnyt ilm

tamgununa rabbata 'atirata yammi tagziyuna qaniyata 'illma

Translation:

They entreated Lady Athirat Yarnrni They sought the favor of the creatress of the gods

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

14:12 13:11

Geller a 2 ,=2-C a 2-C

Collins V NP* V NP^

Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (rbt atrt ym//qnyt ilm) Line Initial Alliteration (t) Alliteration (t, n)

33. CTA 4 iii 27 wtcn.rbt.atrt ym

watacnl rabbatu 'atiratu yammi

Translation:

And Lady Athirat of the sea answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

13 12

Grammatical Str.:

Devices: Notes:

Geller

Collins

& b 1 ,-1-C

V NP*

Alliteration (t) This is a monocolon used to open a new section.

34. CTA 4 iii 28-30 ik. tmgnn.rbt atrt.ym. tgzyn qnyt.ilm.

'eka tamgununa rabbata 'atirata yammi tagziyuna qâniyata 'illma

Translation:

Why Do you entreat Lady Athirat Yarnrni, Do you seek the favor of the creatress of the gods?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

(2):14:12 (2):13:11

Geller pt.? a 2 ,=2-C a 2-C

Collins M V NP^ V NP^

Anacrusis (ik) Binominalization (rbt atrt ym//qnyt ilm) Line Initial Alliteration (t) Alliteration (n, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: See 4 iii 25-26, above. to BH 'ekâh.

ik is vocalized according

35. CTA 4 iii 30-32 mgntm tr.il.dpid. hm. gztm bny.bnwt

magantumâ t&ra 'ila dapa'idi hima gazitumâ bâniya banuwati

Translation:

Have you entreated the Bull, the god of mercy, Or, Have you sought the favor of the creator of creatures?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

13:(2):11 12:(2):11

204 Grammatical Str.:

Geller a 2 ,=2-C (&)

a 2-C Devices:

Collins V NP* (M) V NP3

Anacrusis (hm) Partial Syntactic Repetition Binorninalization (tr il dpid//bny bnwt) Alliteration (bn, m)

Notes: The particle, hm, could be included with line 2, but this analysis highlights the syntactic parallelism. Anacrusis of an element between lines is uncertain, but there are three other examples of the same phenomenon in CTA 4 (iv 33-34, iv 59-62, and v 7273). 36. CTA 4 iii 32-33 wtcn btlt.cnt.

watacni batultu canatu

Translation:

And Virgin Anat answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Devices: Notes:

11 9

Geller & b 1 ,=1

Collins V NP*

Alliteration (t)

This is a monocolon used to open a new section.

37. CTA 4 iii 33-35 nmgn [ulm.rbt.atrt.ym namgunu 'umma rabbata 'atirata yammi [n]gz.qnyt.ilm nagzi qâniyata 'ilima Translation:

We entreat the mother, Lady Athirat Yammi, We seek the favor of the creatress of the gods

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

15:10 14:9

Geller a 2 ,=2 ,=2-C a 2-C

Collins V NP* V NP^

205 Devices:

Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (urn rbt atrt ym//qnyt ilm) Line Initial Alliteration (n) Alliteration (m, n)

Notes: This bicolon is unusual because of its unbalanced line length. In this case the expanded epithet of the goddess Athirat is responsible for the imbalance. Since most parallel lines are balanced, it may be that inbalanced lines such as these may have been intentional in some instances. In this case it may be to emphasize the divine epithet. The reading [u]m is uncertain and may only represent an enclitic on the verb. See Caquot (202). 38. CTA 4 iv 8-9 yšmc.qd<š>.wamr[r] mdl.cr.smd.phl

yišmacu qidšu wa'amruru madala cera samada puhala

Translation:

Qidsu-and-Arnruru obeyed, He saddled an ass, he yoked an onager

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:11 9:11

Geller b 1 & 1 a 2 a 2

Collins V NP* V NP* V NP*

Syntactic Repetition (line 2) Alliteration (m)

Notes: On the internal parallelism, see Watson (1984b; 1986). Huehnergard (1987, 173) argues for this vocalization of qdš rather than qudšu as would be expected from Biblical Hebrew. The vocalization of phl follows Akk. puhalu. 39. CTA 4 iv 10-12 st.gpnm.dt.ksp dt.yrq.nqbnm c db.gpn.atnth Translation:

šata gapnemi data kaspi data yarqi niqbanemi c adaba gapne 'atânatihâ

He put on reins of silver, Trappings of yellow gold, He prepared the reins of her she-ass

206 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:10:11 9:8:10

Geller a 2 ,-R(rp. 3) ,-R(rp. 3) 2 a 2-C-s

Collins V NP* M M NP^ V NP^

Ellipsis (št, V-Initial) Partial Chiasmus (VOM//MO, lines 1 & 2) Repetition (gpn, lines 1 & 3; dt, lines 1 & 2)

Notes: The translation basically follows Caquot (203) and Dietrich-Loretz (1986a, 102). The vocalization of gpnm and yrq follow BH gepen and Akk. arqu, respectively. 40. CTA 4 iv 13-15 yhbq.qds.wamrr ystn.atrt.lbmt.cr lysmsmt.bmt.phl

yahbuqu qidšu wa'amruru yasltuna 'atirata libamti ceri liyasamsamti bamati puhali

Translation:

Qidsu-and-Arnruru embraced (her), He put Athirat on the back of an ass, On the comfortable back of an onager

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:15:13 9:13:11

Geller a 1 & 1 a 2 3-C 3-C-C

Collins V NP* V NP' M M

Devices: Ellipsis (y^tn, V-Initial; atrt, N-Medial; lines 2 & 3) Length Compensation (lbmt/Zlysmsmt bmt) Repetition (bmt) Line Initial Alliteration (y) Alliteration (m, r) Notes: This verse could be analyzed as a monocolon and a bicolon, but the use of the same subject in lines 1 & 2 and the narrative progression suggest it is a tricolon. The meaning of ysmsmt is uncertain. Caquot translates, "richernent ornše" (p. 203). bmt is vocalized according to Akk. bamtu, "back".

207 41. CTA 4 iv 16-17 qds.yuhdm.sbcr amrr.kkbkb.lpnm

qidšu yu'huduma sabcara 'amruru kakabkabi lipanemi

Translation:

Qidsu took a torch, Amruru was like a star in front

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:13 9:11

Geller 1 a 2 1 "3" 3

Collins NP* V NP* NP* M M

Binominalization (qdš//amrr) Alliteration (k)

Notes: The translation follows Caquot (203), who also notes the binominalization. For other possible renderings see Dietrich-Loretz (1984, 62), Dietrich-LoretzSanmartin (1975, 554), and Watson (1978, 399). Van Zijl (95) adopts a different stichometry. 42. CTA 4 iv 18-19 atr.btlt.cnt wbcl.tbc.mrym.spn

'attaru batultu canatu wabaclu tabaca mariyama sapâni

Translation:

Virgin Anat proceeded, While Baal departed to the heights of Sapan

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:14 9:13

Geller b 1 ,=1 & 1 b 3

Collins V NP* NP* V M

Partial Chiasmus (VS//SVM)

Notes: atr is vocalized as a D-stem infinitive (cf. 4 ii 28), although it could be a preposition, "behind" (Watson 1978, 398). Watson (1978, 398) and Dietrich-Loretz (1984, 62) connect the first line with the previous bicolon as a tricolon, leaving the second line a monocolon.

208 43. CTA 4 iv 20-22 idk.lttn.pnm c m.il.mbk.nhrrn

c

'iddâka lutatinu panemi imma 'ili mabbaka naharemi

qrb.apq.thmtm

qirba 'apiqi tahamatemi

Translation:

Thereupon she indeed set her face Toward El at the source of the two rivers, In the midst of the spring of the two deeps

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

10:11:11 10:11:10

Grammatical Str.: Geller pt. pt. a 2 3 3-C 3-C Devices:

Collins M V NP=* M M M

Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Epistrophe (-emi, dual) Ellipsis (cm il, P-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (+ qrb, line 3) Alliteration (m)

Notes: For the vocalization of thmt, see Huehnergard (1987, 185). The vocalization of apq follows Arab, 'afiqu. Epistrophe is strengthened by the syllable structure at the end of each line, viz. -CaCerni. The line lengths argue against Caquot's (204) stichornetry. 44. CTA 4 iv 23-24 tgly.dd.il. wtbu qrš.mlk.ab.šnm

tagliyu dada 'ili wataba'u qarša malki 'abl šanlma

Translation:

She penetrated the tent of El, She entered the abode of the king, the father of years

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

8:15 7:13

Grammatical Str.: Geller a 2-C a 2-C ,=2-C Devices:

Collins V NP* V Npi

Binominalization (il//mlk ab šnm) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: This stichornetry of this verse is vexing. Semantic and syntactic parallelism support the scansion

209 above, as do Caquot (204) and others. Against this is the fact that it produces quite unbalanced lines, so much so that Coogan (1978a, 99) includes wtbu in line 1. If his suggestion were adopted enjambment would be involved. The verbs, tgly and tbu, are vocalized by Verreet (1984, 312). For the vocalization of mlk, see Huehnergard (1987, 147). On dd, "tent," see Margalit (1983a, 89). 45. CTA 4 iv 25-26 lpcn.il.thbr.wtql tsthwy.wtkbdh

lipacne 'ili tahburu wataqllu taštahwiyu watakabbiduhu

Translation:

At El's feet she bowed and fell down, She prostrated herself and honored him

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

14:12 12:10

Geller 3-Cpn b & b b & a-s

Collins M V V V V-NP*

Ellipsis (lpcn il, P-Initial) Length Compensation (thbr//tšthwY; wtql//wtkbdh) Alliteration (l, t)

46. CTA 4 iv 27-28 hlm.il.kyphnh

haluma 'ilu kiyapuhunahâ

yprq.lsb.wyshq

yapruqu

lisba

wayishaqu

Translation:

Then El indeed saw her, He unwrinkled his forehead and laughed

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:12 11:9

Geller pt. 1 pt. a-s a 2 & b

Collins M NP* V-NP* V NP* V

Alliteration (h)

Notes: The translation is from Caquot (204). hlm is vocalized according to BH hâlôm, and lsb according to Arab, lisbu.

47. CTA 4 iv 29-30 pcnh.lhdm.ytpd. wykrkr usbcth.

pacnehu lihadâmi yatpudu wayakarkiru 'usbucâtihu

Translation:

He stamped his feet on the footstool, And he snapped his fingers

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:12 10:10

Geller 2-s 3 a & a 2-s

Collins NP" M V V NP^

Partial Chiasmus (OMV//VO)

Notes: For the translation of ytpd, see Caquot (204). The vocalization of usbcth contrasts with BH 'esbac. 48. CTA 4 iv 30 yšu.gh.wys[h]

yissa'u gâhu wayaslhu

Translation:

He raised his voice and cried

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9 9

Geller

Collins

a 2-s & b

V NP* V

Devices: Notes:

This is a monocolon used to open a new section.

49. CTA 4 iv 31-32 ik.mgyt.rbt.atr[t y]m ik.atwt.qnyt.i[lm]

'eka magiyat rabbatu 'atiratu yammi 'eka 'atawat qâniyatu 'ilima

Translation:

Why has Lady Athirat Yarnrni arrived, Why has the creatress of the gods come?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

15:13 14:12

Geller pt.? b 1 ,=1-C pt.? b 1-C

Collins M V NP* M V NP*

Devices:

Anaphora (ik) Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (rbt atrt ym//qnyt ilm) Alliteration (t)

Notes: Compare with 4 ii 21-24 where the verb mgy is repeated in both lines. 50. CTA 4 iv 33-34 rgb.rgbt.wtgt hm. gmu.gmit.wcs[t[

ragâbu ragibtf watagltf hima gama'u gami'tl wacassâtl

Translation:

Are you indeed hungry, that you wandered afar, Or, Are you indeed thirsty, that you traveled at night?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:(2):11 10:(2):10

Geller "3" b & b (&)

"3" b & b Devices:

Collins M V V (M) M V V

Anacrusis (hm) Syntactic Repetition , ^ Repetition of Root (RGB, line 1; GM^, line 2) Alliteration (t, g)

Notes: The words wtgt and w c s [ t [ are problematic. For this translation see Gibson (59). Pope (1981, 321) offers another possibility. Anacrusis is not certain, especially in the middle of a verse, but isolating hm as extra-metrical highlights the syntactic parallelism. 51. CTA 4 iv 35-38 lhm.hm.stym. lh[ml btlhnt.lhm št bkrpnm.yn. bk<s>.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
slh harrana bibahâtika idbati biqirbi hekalika

Translation:

Call a caravan into your mansion, Materials in the midst of your palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:12 9:10

Geller al 2 3-s 2 3-s

Collins V NP* M NP* M

Ellipsis (sh, V-Initial) Length Compensation (b-//bqrb) Epistrophe (-ka, suff.) Alliteration (b) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Dietrich-Loretz (1986c, 110) translate cdbt, "Karawane," parallel to hrn. For a further discussion of these terms, see van Zijl (122f.). hrn is vocalized according to Akk. harrânu. cdbt may be related to BH cizbonîm, "stores". 70. CTA 4 v 77-79 tblk.grm.mid.ksp gbc m. mhmd. hrs yblk.udr.iTqsm

tabiluka guruma ma'da kaspi gibacuma mahmadT hurasi yabiluka 'udura 'ilqasima

Translation:

The rocks will yield you much silver, The hills choice things of gold, They will yield you precious gems

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:11:12 11:10:11

Geller a-s 1 2-C 1 2-C a-s 2-C

Collins V NP* NP* NP* NP* V NP*

222 Devices: Ellipsis (tblk, V-Initial, line 1; gbcm, N-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (mid ksp//mhmd hrs) Repetition (ybl + -ka, suff., lines^l & 3) Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: This verse is repeated in 4 v 93-95 with the omission of the third line. For the vocalization of mid, see Huehnergard (1987, 144). The vocalization is possible if the sign, i, can represent a vowelless aleph (Gordon 1965, 19; Verreet 1983). gr and mhmd are vocalized according to BH sur and mahmad, respectively. Caquot (208) translates line 3, "Que les charneaux t'apportent des pierres pršcieuses." He regards udr as cognate to Akkadian, udru. 71. CTA 4 v 80-81 wbn.bht.ksp.whrs bht.thrm.iqnim

wabanf bahâti kaspi wahurâsi bahâta tuhurlma 'iqnl'ima

Translation:

And build a house of silver and gold, A house of the purest of lapis-lazuli

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

13:12 12:11

Geller & a! 2-C & C 2-C-C

Collins V NP=* NP*

Ellipsis (wbn, V-Initial) Length Compensation (ksp whrs//thrm iqnim) Repetition (bht) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of thrm, see Huehnergard (1987, 131). On iqnim, compare Akk. uknu. The translation of thrm iqnim follows Dijkstra-de Moor (186). 72. CTA 4 v 82-83 šmh.btlt.cnt. tds pcnm.wtr.ars Translation:

šamâhu batultu canatu tidcasu pacnemi watarru 'arsa

Virgin Anat rejoiced, She planted her feet and it shook the earth

223 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:14 10:11

Geller b 1 ,=lpn a 2 & P-C

Collins V NP* V NP* NP*

Alliteration (t)

Notes: Although these lines could be analyzed as individual monocola, the common subject of the verbs and the narrative progression suggest that they were perceived by the audience as a bicolon. See CTA 4 ii 28-29 above. smh is vocalized as an infinitive. The translation of line 2 and treatment of wtr follows Aartun (1986, 41). 73. CTA 4 v 84-86 idk.lttn.pnm c m.bcl.mrym.spn balp.sd.rbt.kmn

'iddâka lutatinu panemi imma bacla mariyama sapâni bi'alpi giddi rabbati kumâni c

Translation:

Thereupon she indeed set her face Toward Baal at the heights of Sapan, In a thousand tracts, ten thousand spaces

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:12:12 10:11:11

Geller pt. pt. a 2 3 3-C 3-C 3-C

Collins M V NP* M M M M

Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Number Parallelism (alp//rbt) Alliteration (m) Epistrophe (-âni, lines 2 & 3)

Notes: The identification and vocalization of sd and kmn are discussed by Margalit (1983a, 74). The epistrophe in lines 2 & 3 produces a rhyme-like effect. 74. CTA 4 v 87-88 shq.btlt.cnt. tsu gh.wtsh.

sahâqu batultu canatu ti&ga'u gâhâ watasihu

224 Translation:

Virgin Anat laughed, She raised her voice and called

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:9 9:9

Geller b 1 ,=lpn a 2-s & b

Collins V NP" V NP* V

Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Again, these could be regarded as monocola, but see CTA 4 v 82-83 above. shg is vocalized as an infinitive. 75. CTA 4 v 88-89 tbšr bcl bsrtk.yblt.

tabašsir baclu bišârataka yabaltu

Translation:

May you be glad, Baal, I bring you good news

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

7:9 5:8

Geller b lpnt 2-s a

Collins V NP* NP* V

Repetition of Root (BSR) Alliteration (b, b-l)

Notes: This is a difficult passage which could be interpreted as a monocolon (Dietrich-Loretz 1982, 304) or a bicolon. Since it contains two distinct clauses and because there are other lines this short, it seems more likely that the poet intended this verse as a bicolon. This translation follows Caquot (209). I vocalize tbšr as a D-stem jussive, although it could be a Dp, tabušsar. Van Zijl (116f.) regards it as a tD-stem imperative, whereas Dietrich-Loretz (1982, 304) argue that it is a noun. There is an alliterative correspondence between tbšr and bšrtk, and between bcl and yblt.

225 76. CTA 4 v 89-91 y[b]n bt.lk.km.ahk. whzr km.aryk.

yibbani betu lika kamâ 'ahhika wahazTru kamâ 'ariyika

Translation:

A house will be built for you like your brothers, Even a court like your kinsmen

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:10 12:9

Geller c 1 3 "3"-s & 1 "3"-s

Collins V NP* M M NP* M

Ellipsis (ybn, V-Initial; Ik, P-Medial) Length Compensation (bt//whzr; ahkV/aryk) Epistrophe (-ka, suff.) Alliteration (k)

Notes: KTU reads yt*n* for y[b]n. For the vocalization of y[b]n, see Verreet (1985, 335). 77. CTA 4 v 97-98 smh.aliyn bcl.

samâhu 'al'iyanu baclu

Translation:

Mightiest Baal rejoiced

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11 9

Geller b 1 ,=lpn

Collins V NP*

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon used to open a new section. šmh is vocalized as an infinitive on the analogy of CTA 4 ii 28-29 (also see iv 18-19, v 82-83, and v 87-88) where it must be an infinitive. Here it could, of course, be analyzed as the suffix tense. 78. CTA 4 v 103 yak.lktr.whss Translation:

yil'aku likotara wahasisa

He sent for Kothar-and-Hasis

226 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12 11

Geller b 3 & 3

Collins V M

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon used to introduce the standard description of the dispatch of servants (see the rubric in lines 104-105). For the vocalization of ktr, see Huehnergard (1987, 141). 79. CTA 4 v 106 ahr.mgy.ktr.whss

'ahra magaya kotaru wahasisu

Translation:

After Kothar-and-Hasis had arrived,

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13 12

Geller

Collins

3 b Ipn & lpn

M V NP*

Devices: Notes:

This is a monocolon opening a new section.

80. CTA 4 v 107-108 st.alp.qdmh. mra wtk.pnh.

šata 'alpa qadmahu mari'a watôka panihu

Translation:

He placed an ox before him, A fatling even before his face

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9:9 7:9

Geller a 2 3-s 2 & 3-s

Collins V NP=* M NP* M

Ellipsis (št, V-Initial) Length Compensation (qdmh//wtk pnh) Epistrophe (-hu, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Both the meter and the use of epistrophe argue against Caquot's stichometry (210) which renders 4 v

227 107-110 a tricolon rather than two bicola. On the waw before tk, see Pope (1953, 96). 81. CTA 4 v 108-110 tcdb.ksu wyġtb. lymn.aliyn b l.

ticcadibu kussa'u wayatotibu liyamlni 'al'iyana bacla

Translation:

A seat was prepared and he was seated At the right hand of mightiest Baal

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:12 12:10

Geller c 1 & a 3-C ,=Cpn

Collins V NP* V M

Enjambment Alliteration (l)

Notes: For the vocalization and anaylsis of tcdb and wyttb I have followed Verreet (1985, 328). Also see Dietrich-Loretz (1986c, 105). 82. CTA 4 v 113-114 [h]š.bhtm.k[bn] hs.rmm.hk[lm]

huš bahâtima kfbanl hu3 râmim hekalama

Translation:

Hasten, surely build a mansion, Hasten, erect a palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9:9 8:7

Geller b! 2 pt. a! b! a! 2

Collins V NP^ V V V NP*

Anaphora (hš) Partial Chiasmus (VOV//VVO) Alliteration (m)

Notes: This bicolon is closely connected to the following tricolon by vocabulary and syntax.

228 83. CTA 4 v 115-117 huš bahâtuma tibbanuna huš turâmimna hekaluma bitoki surrati sapâna

hš.bhtm.tbn[n]

hs.trmmn.hk[lm]

btk.srrt.spn Translation:

Hasten, let a house be built, Hasten, let a palace be erected In the midst of the stronghold of Sapan

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:11:10 9:9:9

Geller bî 1 c bî c 1 3-C

Collins V NP* V V V NP* M

Anaphora (hš) Partial Chiasmus (VSV//VVS) Enjambment (lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (m)

Notes: For the translation of line 3, see Dietrich-Loretz (1980d, 394). The final words of lines 1 & 2 almost produce epistrophe. 84. CTA 4 v 118-119 'alpa šidda 'âhidu betu rabbata kumâna hekalu

alp.šd.ahd bt rbt.kmn.hkl Translation:

A thousand measures the house covers, Ten thousand spaces the palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller 2-C a 1 2-C 1

10:9 9:9 Collins NP" V NP* NP* NP*

Ellipsis (ahd, V-Medial) Length Compensation (šdV/kmn; bt//hkl) Number Parallelism (alp//rbt) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: ahd is vocalized as a participle (Caquot, 211), although de Moor (1971, 153) argues that it is a "precative perfect."

85. CTA 4 v 120 wayacnl kotaru wahasisu

wycn.ktr.whss Translation:

And Kothar-and-Hasis answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11 10

Geller

Collins

& b lpn & lpn

V NP 1

Devices: Notes:

This is a monocolon used to begin a new section.

86. CTA 4 v 121-122 šmc.laliyn bcl bn.lrkb.crpt

šamac lu'al'iyanu baclu bin lurâkibu curapâti

Translation:

Hear, mightiest Baal, Understand, Cloud Rider

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:10 9:9

Geller bi pt. 1! ,=lpn bi pt. 1-C

Collins V NP 1 V NP 1

Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (aliyn bcl//rkb crpt) Repetition (lu-, ptc.) Alliteration (l)

87. CTA 4 v 123-124 bl.ašt.urbt.bbh[t] hln.bqrb.hklm

bal 'ašitu 'urubbata bibahâti hallâna biqirbi hekalima

Translation:

Shall I not put a lattice in the mansion, A window in the midst of the palace?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:11 12:10

Geller neg. a 2 3 2 3

Collins V NP 2 M NP 2 M

230 Devices:

Ellipsis (bl ašt, V-Initial) Length Compensation (b-//bqrb) Alliteration (b, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of urbt, see de Moor (1971, 153) and Huehnergard (1987, 275). 88. CTA 4 v 125 wycn.aliyn bcl

wayacn? 'al'iyanu baclu

Translation:

And mightiest Baal answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12 9

Grammatical Str.: Geller

Collins

& b 1 ,=lpn

V NP*

Devices: Notes:

This is a monocolon used to open a speech.

89. CTA 4 v 126-127 al.tšt.urbt.b[bht] [hl]n.bqrb.hk[lm]

'al tašltu 'urubbata bibahâti hallâna biqirbi hekalima

Translation:

Do not put a lattice in the mansion, A window in the midst of the palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

13:11 12:10

Grammatical Str.: Geller neg. a 2 3 2 3 Devices:

Notes: 87).

Collins V NP^ M NP^ M

Ellipsis (al tšt, V-Initial) Length Compensation (b-//bqrb) Alliteration (t, b) Partial Syntactic Repetition This passage is almost the same as 4 v 123-124 (No.

231 90. CTA 4 vi 1-2 wycn.k[tr wh]ss ttb.b'l.l[hwty]

wayacni kôtaru wahasisu tatubu baclu lihuwâtiya

Translation:

And Kothar-and-Hasis answered, You will return, Baal, to my words

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:11 10:10

Geller & b lpn & lpn b 1! 3-s

Collins V NP* V NP* M

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: Although these lines could be analyzed as individual monocola, the narrative progression suggest that they were perceived by the audience as a bicolon. For the vocalization of hwt, see Huehnergard (1987, 120). 91. CTA 4 vi 3-4 tn.rgm.kVtr] whss šmc.mc.lal[i]yn bcl

tane ragima kôtaru wahasisu §amac mac lu'al'iyanu baclu

Translation:

Kothar-and-Hasis spoke again, Hear, O mightiest Baal

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:14 12:10

Geller 3 b lpn & lpn bî pt. 1! ,=lpn

Collins M V NP* V NP*

Alliteration (l)

Notes: See the note on No. 90 for a reason to regard these lines as a bicolon. 92. CTA 4 vi 18-19 y[tl]k.llbnn.wcsh l[š]ryn.mhmd.arzh Translation:

yittaliku lilibanâna wacisslhu liširiyâna mahmadi 'arazlhu

He went to Lebanon and its trees, To Sirion (and) its choicest cedars

232 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

13:13 13:12

Geller b 3 & 3-s 3 3-C-s

Collins V M M M M

Ellipsis (ytlk, V-Initial) Length Compensation (wcsh//mhmd arzh) Epistrophe (-s/zlhu) Repetition (li-, prep.) Alliteration (l) Partial Syntactic Repetition

93. CTA 4 vi 22-23 tšt.išt.bbhtm nb[l]at.bhklm

tašftu 'išfta bibahâtima nabla'ati bihekalima

Translation:

Fire was set in the mansion, Flames in the palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller a 2 3 2 3

11:10 11:9 Collins V NP= M NP* M

Ellipsis (tšt, V-Initial) Length Compensation (išt//nblat) Epistrophe (-ma, enclitic) Repetition (bi-, prep.) Alliteration (št, bh, b, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of išt, see Huehnergard (1987, 110). Verreet (1985, 327) regards tst as an impersonal plural, "Man legte ein Feuer an in den Hâusem." The vocalization of nblat follows Akk. nablR. 94. CTA 4 vi 24-26 hn ym.w^n. tikl išt bbhtm. nblat bhklm. Translation:

hinne yômu watâni ta'kulu išltu bibahâtima nabla'atu bihekalima

During a day and a second The fire consumed in the mansion, Flames in the palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

7:12:10 7:11:9

Geller pt. S & S b 1 3 b 1 3

Collins M NP* V NP* M NP* M

Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (tikl, V-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (išt//nblat) Epistrophe (-ma, enclitic, lines 2 & 3) Repetition (bi-, prep, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (b, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3)

Notes: For the vocalization of ym, see Huehnergard (1987, 133). 95. CTA 4 vi 31-33 mk bsbc y[mm]. td.ist bbhtm. n[bl]at.bhklm

maka bišâbici yômlma taddu 'išltu bibahâtima nabla'atu bihekalima

Translation:

Then, on the seventh day The fire departed from the mansion, Flames from the palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller pt. 3-C b 1 3 1 3

9:10:10 9:10:9 Collins M M V NP* M NP* M

Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (td, V-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (išt//nblat) Epistrophe (-ima, enclitic, lines 1, 2 & 3) Repetition (bi-, prep, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (b, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3)

Notes: This verse repeats the same syntactic structure and rhetorical devices as the previous verse. For mk, see Caquot (213). Tropper-Verreet (346) derive td from the root ndd, while Aartun (1984, 51) suggests NDY.

96. CTA 4 vi 34-35 sb.ksp.lrqm. hrs nsb.llbnt.

sabba kaspu liraqqima hurasu nasabba lilabinati

Translation:

The silver had turned to plates, The gold was turned to bricks

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9:11 8:11

Geller b 1 3 1 c 3

Collins V NP* M NP* V M

Partial Chiasmus (VSM//SVM) Variation of Voice (G-stem//N-stem, sb//nsb) Repetition (li-, prep.)

Notes: rqm is vocalized on the basis of Akkadian, raqqu. 97. CTA 4 vi 35-36 šmh aliyn.bcl.

šamâhu 'al'iyanu baclu

Translation:

Mightiest Baal rejoiced

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11 9

Geller b 1 ,=lpn

Collins V NP*

Devices: Notes:

This is a monocolon beginning a new section. šmh is vocalized as an infinitive. See CTA 4 v 97-

98. 98. CTA 4 vi 36-38 hty bnt dt.ksp. hkly dtm hrs.

bahatiya banetu data kaspi hekaliya dâtama hurâsi

Translation:

My mansion I have built of silver, My palace of gold

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12:10 11:10

235 Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller 2-s a ,-R(rp. 3) 2-s ,-R(rp. 3)

Collins NP 2 V M NP 2 M

Ellipsis (bnt, V-Medial) Length Compensation (dt//dtm) Repetition (-ya, suff.; dt(m), rel. pron.) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition

99. CTA 4 vi 38-40 c

dbt.bht[h bc]l y'db. hd.cdb [Cd]bt hklh.

C

adabata bahâtihu baclu yacdubu haddu Cadaba Cadabata hekalihu

Translation:

The arrangement of his house Baal put in order, Hadad ordered the arrangement of his palace

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

15:13 13:13

Geller 2-C-s lpn a lpn a 2-C-s

Collins NP^ NP* V NP1 V NP 2

Partial Chiasmus (OSV//SVO) Variation of Tense (prefix/Zsuffix, ycdb//cdb) Binominalization (bcl//hd) Repetition (cdbt, noun; -hu, suff.) Repetition of Root (cDB, both lines) Alliteration (b, c, d)

Notes: Dietrich-Loretz (1986c, 105) give a slightly different translation and discuss the possible interpretations of cdbt. A large number of rhetorical devices are used in this verse, perhaps to emphasize the completion of the palace. 100. CTA 4 vi 40-42 tbh.alpm [ap] sin. tabaha 'alapfma 'apa sa'na sql.trm [w]mria.il<m> šaqlla tarima wamari'a 'elima Translation:

He slaughtered oxen, also sheep, He felled bulls and fatling rams

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

13:14 10:13

236 Grammatical Str.:

Geller Collins a 2 & 2 V NP^ a 2 & 2-C V NP* Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Lists (animals for banquet) Alliteration (m, ') Notes: The stichometry follows Caquot (213), Gibson (63), and Dietrich-Loretz (1986c, 113). De Moor (1971, 155) and Watson (1984a, 351) divide it into four short lines. For this vocalization of the difficult term mria, see Huehnergard (1987, 300). ilm is vocalized following BH 'ayil. 101. CTA 4 vi 42-43 c

c

glm.d[t] snt. imr.qms.l[l]im

igallma data šanati 'immiri qamâsa lali'Ima

Translation:

Calves a year old, Lambs, an abundance of kids

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9:10 9:10

Geller 2 ,-R(rp. 3) 2 2

Collins NP^ NP*

Lists (animals for banquet) Alliteration (m)

Notes: The word qmp is problematic. I follow the analysis of Caquot (213) and de Moor (1971, 155). Also see Loretz (1987, 468). The vocalization of cglm follows BH cegel; imr and llim follow Akk. immeru and lalu, respectively. 102. CTA 4 vi 44-46 sh.ahh.bbhth. sâha 'ahhlhu bibahatihu aryh^bqrb hklh. 'ariylhS^biqirbi hekalihu c sh šb m.bn.atrt sâha šabcIma banl 'atirata Translation: He called his brothers into his mansion, His kinsmen into the midst of his palace, He called the seventy sons of Athirat

237 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

10:12:12 10:11:11

Grammatical Str.:

Geller Collins a 2-s 3-s VNp2"M^ 2-s 3-s NP2 M a 2-C-Cpn V NP 2 Devices: Ellipsis (sh, V-Initial, line 1) Length Comp. (ah//ary, b-//bqrb, lines 1 & 2) (ah//šbcm bnatrt, lines 1 & 3) Anaphora (s?h, lines 1 & 3) Epistrophe*(-hu, suff., lines 1 & 2) Repetition (-hu, suff., Ins 1 & 2; srh, Ins 1 & 3) Alliteration (h, b) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: Epistrophe is strengthened by the vowel pattern of the last two words of lines 1 & 2, -CaCihu. 103. CTA 4 vi 47-54 špq.ilm.krm.yn spq.ilht.hprt [yn] špq.ilm.alpm.y[n] spq.ilht.arht [yn] spq.ilm.khtm.yn špq.ilht.ksat [yn] špq.ilm.rhbt yn špq.ilht.drkt [yn]

šapiqa šapiqa šapiqa šapiqa šapiqa šapiqa šapiqa šapiqa

'ilima karrima y^ni 'ilahâti huparâti yeni 'ilima 'alpima yeni 'ilahgti 'arhâti ySni 'ilima kihtima ygni 'ilahati kussa'ati yeni 'ilima rahbâti yeni 'ilahati darkâti yeni

Translation:

He supplied He supplied He supplied He supplied He supplied He supplied He supplied He supplied wine

the the the the the the the the

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

11:13:12:13:12:13:12:13 11:13:11:12:11:13:11:12

Grammatical Str.: Geller a 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 etc.

gods with goddesses gods with goddesses gods with goddesses gods with goddesses

lambs, wine, with ewes, wine, oxen, wine, with cows, wine, thrones, wine, with chairs, wine, casks of wine, with vessels of

Collins V NP^ NP 2 NP 2 V N P 2 NP2NP2 etc.

238 Devices:

Anaphora (špg) Epistrophe (yn) Symploce (Anaphora and Epistrophe) Syntactic Repetition Gender-matched Parallelism Lists (banquet fare)

Notes: Although these lines could be divided into four bicola, the consistent parallelism suggests they should be considered together. Caquot (214) derives špq from PfY)Q, a S-causative. He also questions the restoration of yn at the end of the first six lines. The following terms suggest the appropriate vocalization: krm, BH kar; hprt, Akk. huraptu; arht, Akk. arhu; ksat, Hurrian kishu; and drkt, Akk. dakiru. 104. CTA 4 vi 55-57 c

d.lhm.šty.ilm Hpq mrgtm.td bhrb.mlht.qs [mr]i

c

ade lahamu šatiyu 'iluma wapiqu muraggituma tada biharbi maluhati qissa marl'i

Translation:

While the gods ate and drank, Sucklings even obtained a breast, With a salted (?) knife (they obtained) slice of fatling

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:10:13 11:10:12

Geller 3 b b 1 & a 1 2 3 ,-3 2-C

Collins M V V NP' V NP* NP^ M NP^

Ellipsis (wpg, V-Initial;rnrgtrn,N-Medial, line 2) Length Compensation (+ bhrb mlht, line 3) Alliteration (m)

Notes: Although this passage recurrs several times in the Ugaritic myths, its meaning is very unclear. The translation above is based, in part, upon Pardee (1988b, 2, 17) and the parallel passage in CTA 3 A 7-8. The vocalization of td follows BH sôd, and hrb follows BH hereb.

239 105. CTA 4 vii 7-8 c

br.l[cr].crm tb.lpdYr pldrm

c

abara licIri cIrima taba lipadri padarima

Translation:

He passed from city to city, He turned from town to town

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

9:10 9:9

Geller b 3 3 b 3 3

Collins V M V M

Syntactic Repetition Epistrophe (-rlma, enclitic) Repetition (li-, prep.; cr//crm, pdr//pdrm) Alliteration (c, r)

Notes: KTU reads cd*r for cbr. The translation follows de Moor (1971, 156). 106. CTA 4 vii 9-10 tt.lttm.ahd.cr šbcm.šbc.pdr

titta litittima 'ahada cIra gab^Ima gab^a padra^

Translation:

Sixty-six cities he captured, Seventy-seven towns

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller 3 a 2 3 2

11:10 11:7 Collins M V NP^ M NP^

Ellipsis (ahd, V-Medial) Number Parallelism (66/Z77) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: The counted nouns, cr and pdr, appear to be singulars rather than plurals, which, according to Gordon (1965, 46) is the normal practice in Ugaritic. This same convention is found in Biblical Hebrew with numbers above twenty (Lambdin, 228). The length of these two lines are quite uneven due to the lack of compensation for the ellipsis of the verb.

240 107. CTA 4 vii 11-12 tmnym.Jb'l.mf ts'm.Jb'l.mrf

7 7

Translation:

Eighty Baal . . ., Ninety Baal . . .

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

tamanaylma Jba'lu . . . tis'Ima Jba'lu . . .

? ?

Geller 2 lpn a? 2 lpn a?

Collins NP= NP* V? NP 2 NP1 V?

Repetition (bcl) Number Parallelism (80//90) Alliteration (m)

Notes: De Moor (1971, 156) restors m[hs], "beat," in the first line; and mr[r], "expelled," in the second. 108. CTA 4 vii 13-15 b[km c]rb bcl.bqrb bt. bikima caraba baclu biqirbi beti wycn.aliyn bcl wayacni 'al'iyanu baclu Translation:

Then Baal entered into the house, And mightiest Baal answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

15:12 13:9

Geller 3 b 1 3 & b 1 ,=lpn

Collins M V NP1 M V NP*

Repetition (bcl) Alliteration (b) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: Although these lines could be analyzed as individual monocola, the common subject of the verbs arid the narrative progression suggest that they were perceived by the audierice as a bicolort. See CTA 4 ii 28-29 above. 109. CTA 4 vii 15-16 astm.ktr bn ym. ktr.bnm.cdt

'asituma kotaru banu yammi kotaru banuma cidati

Translation:

I will do it, Kothar, son of the sea, Kothar, son of the assembly

Line Length:

Consonants 11:9 Syllables 11:9

Grammatical Str.: Geller a lpn! ,-1-C lpn! ,-1-C Devices:

Collins V NP* NP*

Ellipsis (aštm, V-Initial) Length Compensation (bn//bnm; ym//cdt) Repetition (ktr, bn(m)) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: De Moor (1971, 160-61) discusses the many proposals dealing with the difficult phrases, bn ym and bnm c dt. Also note Caquot's treatment (216). 110. CTA 4 vii 17-18 ypth.hln.bbhtm urbt.bqrb.[h]klm

yippatih hallana bibahâtima 'urubbata biqirbi hekalima

Translation:

Let a window be opened in the mansion, A lattice in the midst of the palace

Line Length:

Consonants 12:12 Syllables 11:11

Grammatical Str.: Geller c 2 3 2 3 Devices:

Collins V NP^ M NP^ M

Ellipsis (ypth, V-Initial) Length Compensation (b-//bqrb) Alliteration (b) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: ypth is vocalized as an N-stem jussive (see de Moor 1971, 161). 111. CTA 4 vii 19-20 c wy[p]th.bdqt. rpt c l h[wt].ktr.whss

Translation:

wayippatih bidqata curapâti ale huwati koţara wahasisa

c

And let a cloud-breach be opened According to the word of Kothar-and-Hasis

242 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

13:12 11:12

Geller & c 2-C 3-Cpn & Cpn

Collins V NP" M M

Enjambment Alliteration (t)

Notes: This bicolon is linked with the previous one by the repetition of the verb pth. The reading, hwt, is not certain, although both CTA and KTU agree. De Moor (1971, 159) reads pkm, "your counsel." bdqt is vocalized according to BH bedeq. 112. CTA 4 vii 21-22 shq.ktr.whss y&u gh wysh

sahâqa kotaru wahasisu yi&5a'u gâhu wayaslhu

Translation:

Kothar-and-Hasis laughed, He raised his voice and cried

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9 10:9

Geller b lpn a 2-s & b

Collins V NP* V NP^ V

Devices: Notes: These are monocola paired together, shq is vocalized as an infinitive. 113. CTA 4 vii 23-25 lrgmt.lk.laliyn.bcl. ttbn.bcl lhwty.

lâragamtu lika lu'al'iyanu baclu tatubuna baclu lihuwâtiya

Translation:

Did I not tell you, mightiest Baal, You will return, Baal, to my words

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

16:12 13:11

Geller b 3 pt. H b lpn! 3

,-lpn

Collins V M NP* V NP1 M

Devices:

Partial Chiasmus (VMS//VSM) Repetition (bcl, li-, prep.) Alliteration (l)

Notes: The semantic parallelism in this verse is weak, but repetition and other rhetorical devices create a sense of unity in it. 114. CTA 4 vii 25-28 ypth.hln.bbhtm.

yiptahu hallâna bibahâtima

urbt bqrb.hk[lm yplth bcl.bdqt [crp]t

'urubbata biqirbi hekalima yiptahu baclu bidqati c urapâti

Translation:

He opened a window in the mansion, A lattice in the midst of the palace, Baal opened cloud-breaches

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12:12:15 11:11:11

Grammatical Str.: Geller a 23 2 3 a 1 2-C

Collins V NP=* M NP^ M V NP* NP^

c Devices: Ellipsis (ypth, V-Initial; b l, supplied in line 3) Length Compensation (b-//bqrb) Anaphora (ypth, lines 1 & 3) Alliteration (b, t) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 1 & 2)

Notes: This verse is similar to 4 vii 17-19 (No. 110). Note the "left-ward" gapping (O'Connor, 123f.) of the subject, bcl, in line 3. 115. CTA 4 vii 29-30 qlh.qds b[cl yltn ytny.bcl.s[at šlpth

qâlahu qadâša baclu yatinu yatniyu baclu si'ata šaptehu

Translation:

His holy voice Baal uttered, Baal repeated the issue of his lips

Line Length:

Consonants 12:14 Syllables 11:11

244 Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller 2-s ,-2 lpn a a lpn 2-C-s

Collins NP=* NP* V V NP1 NP 2

Chiasmus (OSV//VSO) Repetition (bcl, -hu, suff.)

Notes: The phrase, qlh qdš, begins this and the following bicola. The vocalization of spt follows Akk. šaptu, rather than BH šâpah. Van Zijl (143) notes the chiasmus. 116. CTA 4 vii 31-32 qlh.q[dš tlr.ars [sat špth] ġrm

qâluhu qadâšu tarra 'arsa si'atu šaptehu ġurima

Translation:

His holy voice shook the earth, The issue of his lips the rocks

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:10 10:9

Geller 1-s ,-1 a 2 1-C-s 2

Collins NP* V NP 2 NP 1 NP 2

Ellipsis (tr, V-Medial) Length Compensation (qlh qdš//sat špth; ars//ġrm) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: This bicolon is linked with the previous one by the repetition of qlh qdš and sat spth. For this reconstruction and translation see de Moor (1971, 162). 117. CTA 4 vii 35-37 ib.bcl.tihd ycrm. snu.hd.gpt ġr.

'ebu bacla ti'hadu yacarima sani'u hadda gappâti guri

Translation:

The enemies of Baal seized the forests, The haters of Hadad the hollows of the rocks

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:10 11:10

Geller 1-Cpn a 2 1-Cpn 2-C

Collins NP* V NP 2 NP* NP 2

Devices:

Ellipsis (tihd, V-Medial) Length Compensation (ycrm//gpt gr) Binorninalization (bcl//hd) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of ib, see Huehnergard (1987, 106). The vocalization of ycrm follows BH yacar. The word, gpt, is uncertain, but see de Moor (1971, 166) and Caquot (217). 118. CTA 4 vii 37-38 wycn.aliyn bcl.

wayacnf 'al'iyanu baclu

Translation:

And mightiest Baal answered

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12 9

Geller

Collins

& b 1 ,=lpn

V NP*

Devices: Notes:

This is a monocolon used to introduce a speech.

119. CTA 4 vii 38-39 ib.hd/t}.lm.thš lm.ths.ntq.dmrn

'ebu hadda lama tahlsu lama tahlsu natqa dimrana

Translation:

Enemies of Hadad, why are you dismayed, Why are you dismayed (at) the weapon of Dimran?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices: Notes:

9:12 9:10

Geller 1-Cpnl pt.? b pt.? b 3-Cpn

Collins NP* M V M V Npi

Anadiplosis (lm thš) Binorninalization (hd//dmrn)

Note repetitiion of ib from previous bicolon. The meanings of the verb, thš, and the noun, ntq, are uncertain, but on the latter I follow BH nešeq (see 1 Kgs 10:25). The translation follows Caquot

246 (217). For a different approach, see de Moor (1971, 164, 166). 120. CTA 4 vii 40-41 c

n.bcl.qdm.ydh kt^d.arz.bymnh

c

enu bacla qadma yadihu kataggudu 'arzu biyaminihu

Translation:

The eye of Baal is before his hand As the cedar shakes in his right hand

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:12 9:11

Geller S-Cpn 3-s b 1 3-s

Collins NP* M V NP* M

Epistrophe (-hu, suff.) Enjambment

Notes: The translation of this bicolon is very uncertain. For the meaning of ktgd, see de Moor (1986, 221). See Sanmartin (1978b, 448) and Van Zijl (151) for different interpretations. Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern in the final words of each line, -Cihu. 121. CTA 4 vii 42 bkm.ytb.bcl.lbhth

bikima yatubu baclu libahâtihu

Translation:

Then Baal returned to his mansion

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Devices:

14 13

Geller pt. b 1 3-s

Collins M V NP* M

Alliteration (b)

Notes: Caquot (218) translates differently. concludes the unit.

This monocolon

122. CTA 4 vii 42-44 umlk.ubl mlk ars.drkt.ystkn

'umalku 'ubala malku 'arsa darkati yištakinu

247 Translation:

Will either a king or a non-king Establish for himself a land of dominion?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:12 8:9

Geller & S & neg. S 2-C a

Collins NP* NP* NP* V

Enjambment Repetition (mlk; 'u-) Alliteration (l, k)

Notes: yštkn is vocalized as a Gt-stern of SKN. See de Moor (1971, 168). drkt is uncertain, but may be related to Arab, darku. 123. CTA 4 vii 45-47 dll.al.ilak.lbn ilm. mt. c dd lydd il.gzr.

dalila 'al 'il'aku libini 'ilima mota c

adada liyadidi 'ili gazri

Translation:

A messenger I will indeed send to El's son, Mot, A herald to the beloved of El, the hero

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

17:12 15:11

Geller 2 pt. a 3-C ,=3 2 3-C ,=3

Collins NP* V M NP* M

Ellipsis (al ilak, V-Initial) Binominalization (mt//bn ilm//ydd il/Zgzr) Repetition (il(m); li-, prep.) Alliteration (d, l) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: The imbalance in line lengths is the result of the lack of length compensation in line 2. This is unusual in the corpus. Although the words dll and cdd are uncertain, the basic translation is followed by most. See, for example, Caquot (218). For the vocalization of dll I follow Arab, dalîl. For the meaning of cdd, see Becking (445).

248 124. CTA 4 vii 47-49 yqra.mt bnpšh. ystrn ydd.bgngnh.

yiqra'a motu binapšihu yasturana yadidu bigungunihu

Translation:

So that Mot invites (him) into his throat, The beloved hides him in his insides

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:14 9:12

Geller a 1 3-s a-s 1 3-s

Collins V NP* M V NP* M

Partial Syntactic Repetition Epistrophe (-hu, suff.) Binominalization (mt//ydd) Repetition (bi-, prep.) Line Initial Alliteration (y) Alliteration (n, gn)

Notes: yqra is vocalized as a G subjunctive (see Verreet 1986, 378). De Moor (1971, 168-69) argues that it is jussive, although his translation is similar. I have vocalized ystrn as a G-stem from the root STR, although it could be a D-stem. gngn may be related to Arab. JMnjun, "heart". Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern in the final word of each line, -Cihu. 125. CTA 4 vii 49-52 ahdy. dymlk.cl.ilm. dymru ilm.wnsm. dyšb[c l.hmlt.ars.

'ahadaya duyamluku cale 'ilima duyamarri'u 'illma wanašlma duyasabbicu hamullâta 'arsi

Translation:

It is I alone, Who is king over the gods, Who fattens the gods and men, Who satisfies the multitudes of the earth

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

(4):10:12:12 (4):9:12:11

Geller S ,R(rp. b 3) ,R(rp. a 2 & 2) ,R(rp. a 2-C)

Collins NP^ V M V NP* V NP*

249 Devices:

Anacrusis (ahdy) Anaphora (du-, rel. pron.) Repetition (ilm, lines 2 & 3) Epistrophe (-Ima, plural, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (ym, l, m) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3)

Notes: For the vocalization of ahd and nšm, see Huehnergard (1987, 105, 155). For hmlt note BH hamullâh. Watson (1984a, 196) recognizes anacrusis here. The three lines are more balanced syllabically if ahdy is included in line 1, but if it is separated the resulting anaphora argues for anacrusis. 126. CTA 4 vii 52-53 gm.lg[lm]h.bcl.kysh.

g^n^ ligalmâhu baclu klyaslhu

Translation:

Aloud Baal indeed calls to his pages

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

14 12

Geller 3 3-s 1 pt. b

Collins M M NP* V

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon beginning a speech. glm is vocalized as a dual to reflect Baal's two pages, gpn wugr (see CTA 4 vii 54). 127. CTA 4 viii 1-4 idk.al.ttn.pnm c m.gr.trgzz c m.gr.trmg c m.tlm.gsr.ars

'iddaka 'al tatinâ panemi guri targiziza guri ^arumaga imma tillemi gasara 'arsa

c imma c imma c

Translation:

Then you shall surely set your face Toward Mount Tarigziz, Toward Mount Tharurnag, Toward the two hills which limit the earth

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

11:9:8:11 10:8:8:10

250 Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller 3 pt. a 2 3 ,=3 3 ,=3 3 ,-R(a 2)

Collins M V NP* M M M

Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Anaphora (cm, lines 2-4) Repetition (gr, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (g-r, m)

Notes: The speculative vocalization of the names of the two mounts is that of Gibson (66). Also note Tsevat (1974). See Caquot (219) for the translation of gsr. The vocalization of tlm follows Akk. tallimu. 128. CTA 4 viii 5-6 ša'â gura cale yademi halba lizâri rahatemi

sa.gr. l.ydm hlb.lzr.rhtm Translation:

Lift up the mountain on (your) two hands, The hill on the top of (your) two palms

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller a 23 2 3

9:10 9:9 Collins V NP" M NP* M

Ellipsis (ša, V-Initial) Length Compensation (cl//lzr; ydm//rhtm) Epistrophe (-emi, dual) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of hlb, see Huehnergard (1987, 240). For rhtm I follow Arab, râhat. Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern of the final word in each line, -CaCerni. 129. CTA 4 viii 7-9 wrd.bt hptt ars. tspr.byrdm.ars Translation:

warida beta huptiti 'arsi tissapira biyaridima 'arsi

And descend to the sanitarium of the underworld, That you may be counted with those who descend into the earth

251 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

12:12 10:11

Geller & a 3 3 c 3 3

Collins V M V M

Enjambment Epistrophe (ars) Alliteration (r)

Notes: tspr is vocalized as an N-stem subjunctive (see Verreet 1985, 328). On the vocalization of hptt see BH hopsît, 2 Kgs 15:5. The translation follows Coogan (1978a, 106). 130. CTA 4 viii 10-12 idk.al ttn.pnm

'iddâka 'al tatinâ panemi

tk.qrth hmry.

toka qarftihu

hamariya

Translation:

Then you will surely set (your) face In the midst of his miry city

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

11:10 10:10

Geller 3 pt. a 2 3-s ,-3

Collins M V NP^ M

Enjambment Alliteration (t)

Notes: For the vocalization of qrth, see Huehnergard (1987, 175). The translation of hmry follows Gibson (66). 131. CTA 4 viii 12-14 mk.ksu tbth.

makku kussi'u ţibtihu

hh.ars

hahhu

nhlth.

'<3rsi

nahlatuhu

Translation:

A sunken place is the throne of his sitting, A hole in the earth is his inheritance

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

9:10 8:8

252 Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller P S-C-s P-C S-s

Collins NP" NP* NP* NP*

Partial Syntactic Repetition Epistrophe (-hu, suff.)

Notes: For the vocalization of nhlt, see Huehnergard (1987, 152). On hh see 1 Sam 13:6, hawahim. The translation of mk and hh largely follows Caquot (220). 132. CTA 4 viii 14-20 Wngr C nn.ilm. al tqrb.lbn.ilm mt. al.ydbkm kimr.bph klli.btbrn qnh.thtan

wanagara cananâ 'ilima 'al tiqrabâ libini 'illma mota 'al ya dubukama ka'immiri biplhu kalali'i bitabrani qanihu tihhati'anna

Translation:

And watch, attendants of the gods, Don't approach divine Mot, Don't let him make you like a lamb in his mouth, Lest you be crushed like a kid in the breach of his wind pipe

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

r.: Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

10:14:15 :17 9:12:13: 16

Geller & a 1-C! neg. b 3 ,-3pn neg. a-s "3" 3 "3" 3-C-s c

Collins V NP* V M V M M M V

Anaphora (al, lines 2 & 3) Binominalization (rnt//bn ilrn) Repetition (ilm, lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (al ycdbkm, V-Initial, lines 3 & 4) Length Compensation (bph//bibrn qnh, line 4) Repetition (ka-, bi-, preps., lines 3 & 4) Alliteration (n, b)

Notes: The verbs are all vocalized as subjunctives, thtan as an N-stem (Verreet 1986, 374). The translation follows Dietrich-Loretz (1986c, 109). Line 4 is significantly longer than the others in the verse. It is of interest that each line in this verse is longer than the previous one. It may be that this

253 structure served to heighten the drama of this warning to Baal's pages. 133. CTA 4 viii 21-24 nrt.ilm.sps shrrt. nurtu 'illma šapšu sahrarat la smm.byd.mdd.ilm.mt. la'a šamuma biyadi medadi 'illma mota Translation:

The lamp of the gods, Shapshu, burned, The heavens became weary because of El's beloved, Mot

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

14:16 10:16

Geller 1-C ,=lpn b b 1 3-C-C ,=Cpn

Collins NP* V V NP* M

Partial Chiasmus (SV//VSM) Binominalization (špš//nrt ilm; mt//mdd ilm) Repetition (ilm) Alliteration (r, m, d)

Notes: For the vocalization of špš, see Huehnergard (1987, 183. The translation of shrrt follows Diest (69). Note the imbalance in line lengths. Del Olmo Lete (1978, 39) divides the bicolon into a tricolon. 134. CTA 4 viii 24-29 balp.sd.rbt.kmn. lpcn.mt hbr.wql tsthwy.wkbd hwt.

bi'alpi šiddi rabbati kumâni lipacne mota habarâ waqllâ tištahwiyâ wakabbidâ huwata

Translation:

In a thousand measures, ten thousand spaces, At the feet of Mot bow down and fall, Prostrate yourself and honor him

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:12:13 11:11:11

Geller 3-C 3-C 3-Cpn b & b b & a 2

Collins M M M V V V V NP*

254 Devices:

Ellipsis (lpcn mt, P-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (hbr//tšthwy; + hwt) Number Parallelism (alp//rbt) Alliteration (t)

Notes: The spelling of the imperative, tsthwy (cf. tny in line 30), suggests that the verbs associated with Baal's pages, Gupn-and-Ugar, are duals. 135. CTA 4 viii 29-32 wrgm lbn ilm.mt tny.lydd il.gzr.

warugumâ libini 'illma môta taniyâ liyadjdi 'ili gazri

Translation:

And speak to El's son, Mot, Repeat to the beloved of El, the hero

Line Length:

Consonants 12:12 Syllables 12:11

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller & b 3-C ,=3pn b 3-Cpn ,=3

Collins V M V M

Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (mt//bn ilm//ydd il//gzr) Repetition (il(m); li-, prep.) Alliteration (m, l)

136. CTA 4 viii 32-35 thm aliyn.bcl [hw]t.aliy.q[rdm]

tahurnu 'al'iyani bacla huwâtu 'al'iyi qurâdima

Translation:

Message of mightiest Baal, Word of the mightiest of warriors

Line Length:

Consonants 11:11 Syllables 9:10

Grammatical Str.:

Devices:

Geller S-C ,=Cpn S-C-C

Collins NP* NP*

Binominalization (aliyn bcl//aliy qrdm) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Notes: For the vocalization of qrdm I follow Akk. quradu.

255 CTA

l^t:

Text

andL

Analysis

1. CTA 14 i 6-8 umt [krt c]rwt. bt mlk.itbd.

'ummatu kirta 'arawat betu malki 'ittabada

Translation:

The family of Kirta is destroyed, The house of the king perished

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:9 8:8

Geller 1-Cpn b 1-C b

Collins NP* V NP* V

Devices: Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (krt//mlk) Alliteration (t) Notes: The reading, [c]wrt, is now accepted by most contemporary sources rather than rpat (see de MoorSpronk 1982a, 154). itbd is vocalized as a Gt-stem of the root 'BD, following Verreet (1987, 318f.). For the vocalization of umt, see Huehnergard (1987, 107), and note Arab, 'ummat. 2. CTA 14 i 8-9 dsbc [alhm.lh. tmnt.bn um

dušabcu 'ahhuma lihu tamanetu ban! 'ummi

Translation:

Which had seven brothers, Eight sons of a mother

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:8 8:8

Geller ,R(rp. S-C 3) ,R(S-C-C)

Collins NP* M NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (du-, Ptcl-Initial; lh, P-Final) Length Compensation (šbc//tmnt; ahm//bn um) Number Parallelism (7//8) Notes: Length compensation works in tandem with number parallelism in this verse.

256 3. CTA 14 i 10-11 krt.htkn.rs krt.grds.mknt

kirta hatakunu rašša kirta gardaša makânati

Translation:

Kirta, his progeny was crushed, Kirta was stripped of place

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:11 8:9

Geller lpn ,=l-s c lpn c 3

Collins NP* V NP* V M

Devices: Anaphora (krt) Alliteration (k, t, r-š; note htkn and mknt) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: This is a difficult passage (cf. 14 i 21-23). The primary problems are the words htkn, rš, and grdš. For a full discussion see, inter alios, de MoorSpronk (1982a, 154), Verreet (1987, 320f.), Badre (97), and Fensham (1971, 16). The translation above basically follows Caquot (504). 4. CTA 14 i 12-13 'atţata sidqihu luyapaqa muturrihata yušrihu

att.sdqh.lypq mtrht.ysrh Translation:

A wife of his Tightness he indeed found, His legally betrothed spouse

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:9 10:8

Geller 2-C-s pt, 2-C-s

Collins NP* V NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (lypq, V-Final) Length Compensation (att//mtrht) Repetition (-hu, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The point of debate on this passage concerns the particle, l-, in line 1. Some suggest it is the negative, lâ; others that it is an asseverative, lu. The context, especially the next bicolon, argues for

257 the latter interpretation. yp^ is vocalized as a G perfect of a root, YPQ. Dietrich-Loretz (1980e, 201) and Verreet (1987, 335) join the next line with these to form a tricolon. 5. CTA 14 i 14-15 'attata taraha watabacat ta'aru 'ummi takunu lihu

att.trh.wtbct tar um.tkn lh Translation:

A wife he married but she departed, Descendents of a mother were his

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 2 a & b 1-C b 3

11:10 10:10 Collins NP^ V V NP* V M

Devices: Alliteration (t) Notes: Another problematic passage, especially the second line. The translation follows Caquot (505). For other suggestions see Gray (1955, 7 ) , de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 155f.), Dietrich-Loretz (1980e, 203), and Verreet (1987, 335). This bicolon is linked to the previous one by the repetition of att and the root, TRH, but the syntactic differences argue that tHey are separate verses. 6. CTA 14 i 16-21 m^ltt.ktrm.tmt mrb^t.zblnm mhmst.yi^sp rsp mtdit.glin ym. mšbcthn.bšlh ttpl

mutallatâta kâtiruma tamutu murabbacâta zubulânuma muhammašâta yi'tasipu ragpu mutaddatata galamu yamma mugabba^atahuna bisilhi tittapilu

Translation:

By By By By By

threes the healthy ones died, fours the young princes, fives Raspu gathered (them), sixes the lads of Yam, sevens they fell by the sword

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12:10:13:10:15 12:10:11:11:14

258 Grammatical Str.:

Geller 3 1b 3 1 3 a 1 3 a 1 3 3b

Collins M NP* V M NP* M V NP* M NP* M M V

Devices: Number Parallelism (3//4//5//6/Z7) Ellipsis (trnt, V-Final, line 1) Length Compensation (ktrm/Zzblnm, line 2) Ellipsis (yitsp, V-Medial, line 3) Length Compensation (rsp//glm ym, line 4) Line Initial Alliteration (m) Alliteration (t, t, m) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 1 & 2) Notes: This is one of the most discussed passage in the Krt epic. Margalit (1976, 137f.) reviews treatments up to 1976. More recent studies include de Moor (1979, 644f.), Dietrich-Loretz (1980e, 203-204), and Verreet (1987, 334). The above translation follows Verreet. For the translation of ktrm, see Caquot (505). Line 5 is somewhat longer than the others, perhaps to mark the end of this extended verse. 7. CTA 14 i 21-23 ycn.htkh krt ycn.htkh rš mid.grds.tbth

yacInu hatakahu kirtu yacInu hatakahu raššu ma'du gardagu tibtuhu

Translation:

He saw his progeny, did Kirta, He saw that his progeny was crushed, Completely stripped was his seat

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9:11 9:9:8

Geller a 2-s lpn a ,-R(S-s P) ,-R(3 P S-s)

Collins V NP= NP* V NP* NP^ M NP^ NP*

Devices: Anaphora (y'n) Staircase Parallelism Repetition (-hu, suff.) Alliteration (r-š) Notes: This verse shares many of the uncertainties of 14 i 10-11 (No. 3 ) . The translation and analysis follow Verreet (1986, 380; 1987, 335).

259 For the vocalization of mid, see Huehnergard (1987, 144). 8. CTA 14 i 24-25 wbtmhn.sph.yitbd wb.phyrh.yrt

wabitummihuna šaphu yi'tabidu wabi puhayyirihu yaritu

Translation:

And in their entirety the line perished, And in its totality the lineage

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

14:10 12:10

Geller 3-s 1 b 3-s 1

Collins M NP* V M NP*

Devices: Anaphora (wabi-, conj. and prep.) Ellipsis (yitbd, V-Final) Length Compensation (tmhn/Zphyrh; sph//yrt) Partial Syntactic Repetition" Notes: KTU reads wbk*l*hn for wbtmhn, although it does not radically affect the translation (see Verreet 1987, 335 who also suggests this vocalization of phyrh). For the vocalization of sph, see Huehnergard (1987, 183). For this translation of yrt, see de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 157). It is possible that the shorter length of line 2 helps to convey the message that Kirta's progeny was at an end. 9. CTA 14 i 26-27 ycrb.bhdrh.ybky btn.[r]gmm.wydmc

yacrubu bihadrihu yabkiyu bitanl rigamlma wayidmacu

Translation:

He entered his chamber, he wept, While repeating words he even shed tears

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:12 10:11

Geller b 3 b 3(inf.-C) & b

Devices: Alliteration (b, m)

Collins V M V M V

260 Notes: KTU reads cgmm for rgmm. Caquot (507) reads pgmm, "(ses) rnalheurs." The vocalization of hdrh follows BH heder. 10. CTA 14 i 28-30 tntkn.udmcth

tinnatikuna 'udma c âtuhu kamâ ţiqallma 'arsaha kamâ hamišati mittataha

km.tqlm.arsh

km hmšt.mtth Translation:

His tears poured forth, Like shekels to the ground, Like fivers to the bed

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:10:10 10:9:10

Geller b 1-s "3" 3 "3" 3

Collins V NP* M M

Devices: Anaphora (km, prep., lines 2 & 3) Epistrophe (-ha, loc. suff., lines 2 & 3) Syrnploce (lines 2 & 3) Syntactic Repetition (lines 2-3) Alliteration (t, m) Notes: KTU reads k mhmšt for km hmšt. Caquot (507-508) reads, tmh mšt, and translates, "elle est rnouillše, la couverture de son lit." The rhetorical devices argue against this view. tntkn is vocalized as an N-stern imperfect (Verreet 1985, 328). The vocalization of mtth follows BH mittah. 11. CTA 14 i 31-32 bm bkyh.wysn bdmc h. nhmmt

bima bakâyihu wayôšanu bidâmacihu nahamamatu

Translation:

While he weeps he falls asleep, While he sheds tears (there is) slumber

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 3-s & b 3-s P

10:10 10:10 Collins M V M NP*

261 Devices: Anaphora (b(m)) Repetition (-hu, suff.) Alliteration (m, b-m) Notes: Caquot (508-509) suggests that nhmmt is a verbal form. 12. CTA 14 i 33-35 šnt.tlunn wyškb. nhmmt wyqmp.

šinatu tal'ununa wayiškabu nahamamatu wayaqmusu

Translation:

Sleep overcame him and he lay down, Slumber and he curled up

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:10 11:9

Geller 1 a-s & b 1 & b

Collins NP* V V NP* V

Devices: Ellipsis (tlun, V-Medial) Length Compensation (snt//nhmmt) Repetition (wa-, conj.) Alliteration (m, n) Notes: CTA reads tluan for tlunn. See Verreet (1984, 314) for a possible analysis. Despite length compensation, the two lines are still unbalanced. 13. CTA 14 i 35-37 wbhlmh il.yrd. bdhrth ab adm

wabihalâmihu 'ilu yarada bidaharatihu 'abu 'adami

Translation:

And in his dream El descended, In his vision the father of man

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:11 11:11

Geller & 3-s lpn b 3-s 1-C

Collins M NP* V M NP*

262 Devices: Anaphora ((wa)bi-, prep.) Ellipsis (yrd, V-Final) Length Compensation (il//ab adm) Binorninalization (il//ab adm) Repetition (bi-, prep.; -hu, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The etymology of dhrt is uncertain, but the parallelism suggests its meaning. The vocalization of hlmh follows BH hâlom. 14. CTA 14 37-38 wyqrb bsal.krt.

wayiqrabu bisa'ali kirta

Translation:

And he approached while asking Kirta

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12 10

Grammatical Str.: Geller & b 3(inf.)-Cpn

Collins V M

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon introducing a direct speech. Tsumura (1986, 356) discusses the syntax of the line. 15. CTA 14 i 38-41 mat krt.kybky ydmc.ncmn.glm il.

ma'atta kirta klyabkiyu yidmacu nucmuna galmu 'ili

Translation:

What is the matter with you, Kirta, that he weeps, That the gracious one, the lad of El, sheds tears?

Line Length:

Consonants 11:13 Syllables 9:10

Grammatical Str.: Geller 3 lpn pt. b b 1 ,=1-Cpn

Collins M NP* V V NP*

Devices: Partial Chiasmus (MSV//VS) Ellipsis (mat, Ptcl-Initial) Length Compensation (krt//ncmn glm il) Binorninalization (krt//n'mn glm il) Alliteration (m, k)

Notes: For the translation of the first line see de MoorSpronk (1982a, 158). mat is understood as a combination of the interogative, mh, with the personal pronoun, at. 16. CTA 14 i 41-43 mlk tr abh yarš. hm.drkVt] kab.adm

mulka tori 'ablhu ya'rusu hima darkata ka'abl 'adami

Translation:

The kingship of the Bull, his father, does he desire, Or dominion like the father of man?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:12 10:11

Geller 2-C ,=C-s a pt. 2 "3"-C

Collins NP* M V NP* M

Devices: Ellipsis (yarš, V-Final) Length Compensation (+ hm, conj.; + ka-, prep.) Repetition (ab) Binorninalization (tr//ab adm) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: Although the derivation and meaning of yarš seems clear (Akk. erešu), its vocalization is uncertain. 17. CTA 14 ii 62-64 trhs.wtadm rhs [y]dk.amt usb[ctk] cd tkm

tirrahisu wati''adimu rahas yadeka 'ammata 'usbacâtika cade tikmi

Translation:

You will wash and rouge yourself, Wash your hands to the elbow, Your fingers to the shoulder

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller c & c a 2-s 3 2-s 3

9:9:11 9:8:9 Collins V V V NP^ M NP^ M

264 Devices: Variation of Tense (trhs//rhs, pref./Zimpv.) Ellipsis (rhs, V-Initiâî, lines 2 & 3) Length Compensation (ydk//usbctk; + cd) Repetition (-ka, suff., lines 2 & 3) Lists (parts of the arm) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Notes:

KTU reads tr*t*hs for trhs. trhs and wtadm are vocalized as N-sterns (de MoorSprônk 1982a, 159). The vocalization of amt and tkm follow BH 'ammâh and š^kem, respectively.

18. CTA 14 ii 65-68 c

rb [bzl hmt] qh.imVr byd]k imr.d[bh blm.yrnn lla.kl[atn]m

c

urub bizilli hummati qah 'immira biyadika 'immira dabhi bima yamini lal'a kil'atanemi

Translation:

Enter into the shelter of the pen, Take a lamb in your hand, A lamb of sacrifice in (your) right hand, A kid (in) both of them

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:9:11:9 8:8:10:7

Geller bî 3-C ai 2 3-s 2-C 3 2 3

Collins V M V NP^ M NP^ M NP^ M

Devices: Ellipsis (qh, V-Initial; -ka, Ptcl-Final, line 2) Length Compensation (+ dbh, line 3) Repetition (imr, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2-4) Notes: The lacunae are reconstructed from the parallel passage, CTA 14 iii 159-160. Stuart (56) divides these lines into separate two bicola. This stichometry does not adequately recognize the rhetorical devices which bind the four lines together. Lines 2 & 3 are clearly linked by all of the devices listed above. For hmt, "pen," see Caquot (513), who connects it to Arab. humm. Others refer to Arab, haymat, "tent". For the vocalization of dbh, see Huehnergard (1987, 117).

265 19. CTA 14 ii 71-72 sq [bgll.htt yn. bgl [hlrs.nbt

suq bigulli hattuti yena bigulli hurâsi nubta

Translation:

Pour into a silver bowl, wine, Into a golden bowl, honey

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9 9:8

Geller a 3-C 2 3-C 2

Collins V M NP= M NP*

Devices: Ellipsis (sq, V-Initial) Repetition (bgl) Partial Syntactic Repetition 20. CTA 14 ii 73-75 c

c

l lzr.m[g]dl. rkb tkrnm.hm[t]

all lizâri migdâli rikab tikmemi hâmiti

Translation:

Ascend to the top of the tower, Mount the two shoulders of the wall

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller b! 3-C a! 2-C

9:10 8:8 Collins V M V NP^

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Alliteration (l, m) Notes: Line 74, which repeats line 73, is omitted as dittography following most commentators. De MoorSpronk (1982a, 161) retain it, commenting that, "tautological parallelism was perfectly normal in the poetry of the Ancients." gl is vocalized according to BH guilâh, and htt with reference to Hittite hattus, "silver". 21. CTA 14 ii 75-76 sa.ydk smm. dbh.ltr abk.il.

ša'a yadeka šamlma dabah liţori 'ablka 'ili

266 Translation:

Lift your hands to heaven, Sacrifice to the Bull, your father, El

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

8:11 8:10

Geller a! 2-s 3 a! 3 ,=3 ,=3

Collins V NP* M VM

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Binominalization (il//tr ab) Notes: For the vocalization of šmm, see Huehnergard (1987, 182). The vocalization of mgdl and hmt follow BH migdol and homah, respectively. 22. CTA 14 ii 77-79 šrd.bcl bdbhk. bn.dgn bmsdk.

sorid bacla bidabhika bina dagani bimasldika

Translation:

Bring down Baal with your sacrifice, Dagan's son with your game offering

Line Length:

Consonants 11:10 Syllables 8:10

Grammatical Str.:

Geller a! 2 3-s 2-C 3-s

Collins V NP" M NP^ M

Devices: Epistrophe (-ka, suff.) Ellipsis (šrd, V-Initial) Length Compensation (bcl//bn dgn) Binominalization (bcl//bn dgn) Repetition (bi-, prep.) Alliteration (b, d) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: srd is vocalized as a S-stem imperative of YRD, although Gray (1955, 8, 32), inter alios, derive it from the root, ŠRD, "to serve." For msd see de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 162). Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern of the final word of each line, -Cika.

267 23. CTA 14 ii 79-82 wyrd krt.lggt. c db akl.lqryt htt.lbt.hbr

wayarid kirtu ligaggâti c udub 'akla liqiryati hittata libeti huburi

Translation:

And let Kirta descend from the roofs, Prepare food for the city, Wheat for Bet-Hubur

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:11:9 9:9:9

Geller & b 1 3 a 2 3 2 3-C

Collins V NP* M V NP^ M NP^ M Devices: Epistrophe (-ati, fern., lines 1 & 2) Repetition (li-, prep., lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (cdb, V-Initial, lines 2 & 3) Length Compensation (akl//htt; qryt//bt hbr) Binominalization (qryt//bt hbr) Notes: De Moor-Spronk (1982a, 163) suggest that cdb is a precative perfect. For the vocalization of qryt, see Blau (1979, 59). Badre (107) translates lbt hbr, "daughter of Hubur." 24. CTA 14 ii 83-84 yip.lhm.dhms mgd tdt.yrhm

ya'pi lahma dâhâmisi magida taditi yarahfma

Translation:

Let him bake bread of the fifth, Provisions for the sixth month

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:10 8:10

Geller a 2 ,-R(rp. 3) 2 ,-R(3-C)

Collins V NP* M NP^ M

Devices: Ellipsis (yip, V-Initial; du-, Ptcl-Final) Length Compensation (+ yrhm) Number Parallelism (6th//7th) Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: For the vocalization of the ordinals, hms and tdt I follow the Arabic pattern, although this is merely

268 guesswork. The form, tdţ, seems to preclude both Akkadian šeššu and Hebrew šišsi (see Gordon 1965, 49). In one sense it might also be possible to regard the absence of the expected yrhm in line 1 as "leftward gapping" (to use O'Connor's term). 25. CTA 14 ii 85-87 c

c

dn ngb.wysi sbu.sbi.ngb wysi!'cdn.mc

adânu nagabba wayasi' saba'u saba'i nagabba wayasi' cadânu macâ

Translation:

Let a multitude be supplied and let it come forth, Let a mighty army be supplied, And let the multitude go forth together,

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9:9 9:9:8 Collins NP* V V NP* V V NP* M

Geller 1 c & b 1-C c & b 1 3

Devices: Repetition (ngb, Ins 1 & 2; cdn, wysi, Ins 1 & 3) Repetition of Root (sbu, sbi, line 2) Partial Chiasmus (cdn, sbu, wysi) Notes: A difficult passage both in terms of stichometry and translation. The chiastic repetition of cdn and wysi argues for this stichometry. Although Wesselius (313-14) offers a very different translation, most other commentators generally agree in their renderings. The translation above basically follows de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 163). The vocalization of sbu follows BH sâbâ', and rnc follows Arab. macan, "together". 26. CTA 14 ii 88-89 sbuk.ul.mad tlt.mat.rbt

saba'uka 'ulu ma'du talâtu mi'atu rabbati

Translation:

Your army will be a great force, Three hundred myriads

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

9:9 8:8

269 Grammatical Str.:

Geller & b 1 3 S-s P ,-P Devices: Alliteration (m-a)

Collins V NP* M NP* NP^

Notes: This tricolon is linked to the previous bicolon by the repetition of sbu. The translation follows Dietrich-Loretz (1980a, 193). For the vocalization of mat, see Huehnergard (1987, 144). The use of mad and mat may be an intentional word play. This meaning and vocalization of ul may be suggested by Ps 73:4. 27. CTA 14 ii 90-91 hpt.dbl.spr tnn.dbl.hg

huptu dubali sipri tannanu dubali hagi

Translation:

Soldiers without number, Archers without reckoning

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:8 7:8

Geller S ,-R(pt. P) S ,-R(pt. P)

Collins NP* M NP* M

Devices: Syntactic Repetition Repetition (dbl) Notes: The terms hpţ and tnn are considered by almost all as categories of soldiers (see Caquot, 517; Gray 1955, 33-34). For the vocalization of tnn, see Huehnergard (1987, 187). hpt is vocalized according to Akk. hupsu. 28. CTA 14 ii 92-93 hlk.lalpm.hdd wlrbt.kmyr

halaku li'alaplma hadida walirabbâti kama yari

Translation:

They go by thousands (like) rain clouds. Even by myriads like the early rains

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

11:9 11:9

Grammatical Str.:

Geller b 3 "3" & 3 "3"

Collins VMM M M

Devices: Ellipsis (hlk, V-Initial) Length Compensation (+ wa-, conj.; + kama, prep.) Number Parallelism (alpm//rbt) Repetition (li-, prep.) Alliteration (l) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The translations of hdd and kmyr are conjectural. Caquot (517-18) discusses the problems and possible solutions. hdd is vocalized from BH hâzizîm. 29. CTA 14 ii 94-95 [altr.tn.tn.hlk atr.tlt.klhm

'atara tins tine halakâ 'atara talâtu kulluhumu

Translation:

After two, two march, After three, all of them

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 3 1b 3 1-s

10:10 10:10 Collins M NP* V M NP*

Devices: Anaphora (atr) Ellipsis (tn hlk, V-Final) Length Compensation (+ klhm) Number Parallelism (2//3) Alliteration (t, hlk-klh) Notes: The translation of this verse is uncertain. Most commentators (eg. Dietrich-Loretz 1981a, 193; Badre, 108) regard atr as a preposition rather than a verb (suggested by Albright 1936a, 29). 30. CTA 14 ii 96-97 yhd.bth.sgr almnt.škr tškr. Translation:

yahidu betahu sagara 'almanatu šakira taškir

Let the single man close his house, Let the widow give a generous contribution

271 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:12 9:9

Geller 1 2-s a 1 2 a

Collins NP* NP* V NP1 NP 2 V

Devices: Syntactic Repetition Repetition of Root (škr, line 2) Lists (citizens of Hubur, continued in next two verses) Notes: The second line is usually translated, "Let the widow hire a substitute." Badre (109), followed by de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 164), make a strong case for the above translation (see next bicolon). The use of sgr and škr in parallel lines may be an intentional word play. The vocalization of yhd and almnt follows BH yâh3d and 'almâh, respectively. 31. CTA 14 ii 98-100 zbl.cršm yšu. c wr.mzl ymzl.

zâbilu caršama yišša' c iwwiru mazâla yamzul

Translation:

Let the sick man carry (his) bed, Let the blind man donate very generously

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 1 2 a 1 2 a

9:10 8:8 Collins NP* NP* V NP1 NP 2 V

Devices: Syntactic Repetition Repetition of Root (rnzl, line 2) Alliteration (z-l) Notes: For the translation of the second line, see the note on the previous bicolon. The vocalization of cršm and cwr follow BH ceres and c iwwer, respectively. 32. CTA 14 ii 100-103 wysi.trh hdt. ybcr.ltn atth. lm.nkr mddth.

wayasi' târihu hadatu yibcaru litine 'attatahu lima nukri modadatahu

272 Translation:

And let the newly married man go forth, Let him entrust his wife to another, To a stranger his beloved

Line Length;

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:11:10 9:10:9

Geller & b 1 ,-1 a 3 2-s 3 2-s

Collins V NP* V M NP* M NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (ybcr, V-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (ltn//lm nkr; att//mddt) Epistrophe (-hu, suff., lines 2 & 3) Repetition (l(m), lines 2 & 3) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Notes: KTU reads a*ţt for atth. Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin (1975, 554) support the above translation of ybcr, rendering it, "verlassen." Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern of the final word in each line, -CaCahu. Note a similar pattern in the final word of line 1. nkr is vocalized from BH nokrî. 33. CTA 14 ii 103-iii 105 kirby [t]škn.šd km.hsn.pat.mdbr

ka'irblyi tiškanu šadâ kamâ hasini pi'ata madbari

Translation:

Like locusts, let them settle in the field, Like hoppers, the edges of the wilderness

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller "3" a 2 "3" 2

11:12 9:11 Collins M V NP* NP' M

Devices: Anaphora (k(m)) Ellipsis (tškn, V-Medial) Length Compensation (k//km, sd//pat mdbr) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: For the vocalization of irby and pat see Huehnergard (1987, 270, 165). hsn may be related to BH hâsll, "locust". The translation follows Dietrich-Loretz (1980a, 194).

34. CTA 14 iii 106-107 lk.ym.wtn. tlt.rbc ym hms.tdt.ym.

lika yoma watâni tâlita râbica yoma hâmiša tâdita yoma

Translation:

Go a day and a second, A third, a fourth day, A fifth, a sixth day

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

7:8:8 7:8:8

Geller b! 3 & 3 3 3-C 3 3-C

Collins VMM M M M M

Devices: Ellipsis (lk, V-Initial) Repetition (ym) Epistrophe (ym, lines 2 & 3) Number Parallelism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: 133).

For the vocalization of ym, see Huehnergard (1987,

35. CTA 14 iii 107-109 mk.špšm bšbc. wtmgy.ludm rbt. wl.udm.trrt

maka šapšuma bišâbici watamġiyu li'uduma rabbati wali 'uduma tararati

Translation:

Then, at sunset on the seventh (day) You will arrive at greater Udurn, Even at lesser Udurn

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:12:9 9:11:9

Geller 3 3 & b 3 ,-3 & 3 ,-3

Collins M M V M M

274 Devices: Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Anaphora (wa-, conj., lines 2 & 3) Epistrophe (-ati, fern., lines 2 & 3) Symploce (lines 2 & 3) Ellipsis (tmgy, V-Initial, line 2) Length Cornpenstation (rbt//trrt) Repetition (udm, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (m, s) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Notes: For the translation, "at sunset," see Gray (1955, 37) and de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 165). On the meaning of trrt, see Caquot (519-20), although Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 106) connect it with Akk. šerru, "small". 36. CTA 14 iii 110-111 c

wagarunana frlma šaruna padarlma

wgr.nn. rm. srn pdrm. Translation:

And attack the cities, Beseige the towns

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

8:7 8:7

Geller al 2 al 2

Collins V NP* V NP^

Devices: Syntactic Repetition Epistrophe (-rima, plural) Alliteration (r) Notes: The context calls for imperatives here, but in 14 iv 212-213 the same forms are clearly indicatives. Because perfect tense verbs do not bear energic nun endings, Caquot (520) and de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 166) argue that in both cases they may be infinitives (from the roots GRY and SRY, respectively) with energic nun. 37. CTA 14 iii 111-112 sct.bšdm htbt. bgrnt.hpst

sacat bišadima hâtibâti bigaranâti hâpisâti

275 Translation:

Sweep from the fields the women gathering wood, From the threshing floors the women gathering straw

Line Length:

Consonants 11:9 Syllables 10:9

Grammatical Str.: Geller a! 3 2 3 2

Collins V M NP= M NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (sct, V-Initial) Length Compensation (bšdm//bgrnt) Repetition (bi-, prep.) Epistrophe (-âti, fern.) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: Clines (23-26) presents a full discussion of this passage, although he translates it somewhat differently. I follow him in regarding htbt and hpšt as feminine plural participles. The primary crux is sct. Some (eg. Caquot, 521; Gray 1955, 38) regard it as a fern, participle, whereas others (eg. de Moor-Spronk 1982a, 167; Sauren-Kestemont, 198) argue it acts syntactically as an imperative. Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern in the final word of each line, -CiCati. 38. CTA 14 iii 113-114 sct.bn
mmlat.

sacat binapki šâ'ibâti bimaquri mumalli'ati

Translation:

Sweep from the well the women drawing water, From the spring the women who fill (buckets)

Line Length:

Consonants 11:9 Syllables 9:9

Grammatical Str.:

Geller a! 3 2 3 2

Collins V M NP* M NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (sct, V-Initial) Length Compensation (bnpk//bmqr, šibt//mrnlat) Repetition (bi-, prep.) Epistrophe (-âti, fern.) Alliteration (rn) Partial Syntactic Repetition

276 Notes: Most interpreters read bnpk for bnk, as well as bmqr for bbqr. For the vocalization of npk, see Huehnergard (1987, 151). Epistrophe is enhanced by the vowel pattern of the. 39. CTA 14 iii 114-116 dm.ym.wtn tlt.rbc.ym. hmŠ tdt.yrn.

damma yôma watâni tâlita râbica yôma hârniša ţ:adita yoma

Translation:

Wait a day and a second, A third, a fourth day, A fifth, a sixth day

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

7:8:8 7:8:8

Geller bi 3 & 3 3 3-C 3 3-C

Collins VMM M M M M

Devices: Ellipsis (dm, V-Initial) Length Compensation (lines 2 & 3 add a second numeral) Repetition (ym) Epistrophe (ym) Number Parallelism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: This verse is very similar to 14 iii 106-107 (No. 34). For the translation of dm, see Gray (1955, 39). 40. CTA 14 iii 116-118 hzk.al.tšcl qrth. abn.ydk mšdpt.

hizzaka 'al tašacli qaritaha 'abanf yadeka mašdapata

Translation:

Don't shoot your arrow into the city, Stones of your hand into the citadel

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:11 11:10

Geller 2-s neg. a 3 2-C-s 3

Collins NP= V M NP 2 M

Devices: Ellipsis (
wahinna šapšama bišâbici walâ yôšanu pabilu malku

Translation:

And then at sunset on the seventh (day) Even King Pabil will not be able to sleep

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:11 10:10

Geller & pt. 3 3 & neg. b lpn ,-1

Collins M M V NP*

Devices: Anaphora (wa-, conj.) Enjambment Alliteration (š, l) 42. CTA 14 iii 120-121 lqr.tigt.ibrh lql.nhqt.hmrh

liqari ta'igati 'ibblrihu liqâli nahaqati hamârihu

Translation:

For the noise of his stallions' roaring. For the sound of his asses' braying

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:11 11:11

Geller 3-C ,-C-s 3-C ,-C-s

Collins M M

278 Devices: Anaphora (li-, prep.) Epistrophe (-rihu, suff.) Symploce Syntactic Repetition Alliteration (l-q) Notes: This bicolon is similar to the next but differs in in syntax. Also note the absence of epistrophe in the next bicolon. For these reasons I regard them as individual verses. For the vocalization of ibr, see Huehnergard (1987, 269). hmr is vocalized from BH hamor. The initial words of each line, !lqr and lql, create a work play. The slight difference between them is only the two liquid consonants, /r/ and /l/. 43. CTA 14 iii 122-123 lgct.alp.hrt. zgt klb.spr.

ligacâti 'alapl harati zagati kalabl sapâri

Translation:

For the lowing of the plow-oxen, The whining of the watch dogs

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9 10:9

Geller 3-C-C (3)-C-C

Collins M M

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Ellipsis (li-, P-Initial) Interrupted Sequence (from previous bicolon) Notes: See de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 168) for the translation of klb spr. Caquot (523) suggests, "chien de berger." If my vocalization is correct then there is close vocalic repetition between the lines. 44. CTA 14 iii 123-125 wylak mlakm.lk. c m.krt mswnh.

wayil'aku mal'akTma lika imma kirta masawanihu

c

Translation:

And he will send messengers to you, To Kirta his delegates,

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12:10 10:9

Grammatical Str.:

Geller & a 2 3 3 2-s

Collins V NP" M M NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (wylak, V-Initial) Length Compensation (lk//cm krt) Partial Chiasmus (VOM//MO) Repetition of Root (l'k, line 1) Alliteration (m, l-k) Notes: For the vocalization of mlakm, see Huehnergard (1987, 82). The meaning and vocalization of mswnh are uncertain. Del Olrno Lete (1975, 94) presents arguments for the above translation. Caquot (523) discusses other views. 45. CTA 14 ii 125 thm.pbl.mlk

tahumu pabila malki

Translation:

The message of King Pabil

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9 8 Collins NP^

Geller S-Cpn ,=C

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon introducing a speech. 46. CTA 14 iii 126-127

qh.ksp.wyrq. hrs

qah kaspa wayarqa hurasa yade maqamihâ w a c a b a d l c âlami

yd.mqmh.

wcbd.clm

Translation:

Take silver and yellow gold, Gold in token of her value, Even eternal slaves

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:9:7 6:9:7

Geller a: 2 & 2 2-C-C-s & 2-C

Collins V NP* NP^ NP^ NP^

280 Devices: Ellipsis (qh, V-Initial) Length Compensation (wyrq//yd mqmh) Notes: These three lines and the next two constitute the most discussed yet least understood passage in the Krt epic, especially in light of its multiple occurrences (iii 137-141, v 250-254, vi 269-273, 282-287). Vervenne (362f.) presents a very detailed summary of the various approaches yet fails to present a convincing solution. The translation adopted above follows Caquot (523). See also Gray (1955, 10). For the vocalization of yrq, see Huehnergard (1987, 134). 47. CTA 14 iii 128-129 tlt.sswm.mrkbt btrbs.bn.amt

talâta susawima markabâti bitarbapi bina 'amati

Translation:

Bronze, horses, chariots, From the stable, a handmaid's son

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 2 2 2 3 2

12:10 11:9 Collins NP= NP* NP^ MNP^

Devices: Notes: As noted above, the passage is difficult; the stichometry and translation are conjectural. On the translation of tlt, see Dietrich-Loretz (1979, 19798). For the vocalization of trbp and mrkbt, see Huehnergard (1987, 176, 179). 48. CTA 14 iii 130-133 qh.krt.slmm šlmm. wng.mlk lbty. rhq.krt lhzry. Translation:

qah kirta šalâmima salâmima wanagl malku libetiya rahaq kirta lihazlriya

Take, Kirta, peace offerings, peace offerings, And depart, king, from my house, Be distant, Kirta, from my court

281 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:10:11 11:9:9

Geller a! lpnî 2 2 & a! 1! 3-s ai lpnl 3-s

Collins V NP* NP^ V NP^ M V NP^ M

Devices: Repetition (krt, lines 1 & 3; li-, lines 2 & 3) Inter-Colon Repetition (šlmrn, line 1) Binorninalization (krt//mlk) Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Epistrophe (-ya, suff., lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (m, r) Notes: The parallel passage, CTA 14 vi 274-275, shows that the repetition of šlmm is not dittography. De Moor and Spronk (1982a, 168) suggest that the repetition has a distributive force, translating, "as many peace-gifts as you want." For wng see Caquot (524) and Gray (1955, 41). 49. CTA 14 iii 133-134 al.tsr udm.rbt. wudm trrt

'al tasur 'uduma rabbata wa'uduma tararata

Translation:

Don't besiege greater Udurn, Even lesser Udurn

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:8 9:8

Geller neg. a! 2 ,-2 & 2 ,-2

Collins V NP" NP^

Devices; Ellipsis (al tpr, V-Initial) Length Compensation (+ wa-, conj.; rbt//trrt) Repetition (udm) ^ Epistrophe (-ata, fern.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: Most derive tsr from a root, SWR. De Moor-Spronk (1982a, 168) argue for SRR, "to vex, harass." 50. CTA 14 iii 135-136 udm.ytnt.il wušn ab.adm.

'udumu yatanatu 'ili wa'usnu 'abl 'adarni

282 Translation:

Udum is the gift of El, Even the present of the father of man

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:9 9:8

Geller 5 P-Cpn 6 P-C-C

Collins NP* NP* NP^

Devices: Ellipsis (udm, N-Initial) Length Compensation (il//ab adm) Binorninalization (il//ab adm) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The word ušn may be related to Arab, 'awš, "gift". 51. CTA 14 iii 136-137 wtţb mlakm.lh.

wataţib mal'akima lihu

Translation:

And send back messengers to him

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

11 9

Grammatical Str.: Geller & a! 2 3

Collins V NP^ M

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon introducing a speech. The vocalization of wttb is very uncertain, but I regard it as the S-stem imperative of TWB (see Gordon 1965, 88). 52. CTA 14 iii 137-140 lm.ank ksp.wyrq. hrs yd.mqmh. wcbd clm.

lima 'anâku kaspu wayarqu hurâsu yade maqâmihâ wacabadu câlami

Translation:

Why do I (want) silver and yellow gold, Gold in token of her value, Even eternal slaves?

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

12:9:7 10:9:7

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 3 pr. P & P-C-C-s & P-C

Collins M NP" NP 2 NP 2 NP 2

Devices: Ellipsis (lm ank, Ptcl-Initial) Length Compensation (wyrq/Zydmqmh) Notes:

See 14 iii 126-127 (No 46).

53. CTA 14 iii 142-144 padu cen bibetiya tatinu tin liya mâtata huriya nacmata šaphi bukraka

pd.in.bbty.ttn tn.ly.mtt.hry ncmt.šph.bkrk Translation:

And what is not in my house you will give, Give to me maid Huriya, The most gracious of (your) lineage, your first born

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:10:11 10:9:9

Geller & ,-R(pt. 3) a a! 3 2 ,=2pn 2-C ,=2-s

Collins M M V V M NP 2 NP 2

Devices: Anadiplosis (ttn/Ztn, lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (tn ly, V + P-Initial, line 2) Length Compensation (mtt hry//ncmt šph bkrk) Binorninalization (hry//ncmt šph bkrk) Alliteration (t) Notes:

Translation follows Caquot (524).

54. CTA 14 iii 145-146 dk.ncm.cnt.ncmh km.tsm.cttrt.ts[mh]

duka nacmi canata nacmuhâ kamâ tesimi cattarta tesimuhâ

Translation:

Whose grace is like the grace of Anat, Whose beauty is like the beauty of Athtart

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:14 11:12

Geller 3"-Cpn S-s rp, "3" 3"-Cpn S-s

Collins M NPY M NP1

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Epistrophe (-hâ, suff.) Ellipsis (du-, Ptcl-Initial) Length Compensation (cnt//cttrt) Repetition (ncm, line 1; tsm, line 2; k(m), lines 1 & 2) Alliteration (n, c ,rn,t) 55. CTA 14 iii 147-148 dcqh.ib.iqni. c p[ c p]h sp.trml.

duciquha 'ebu 'iqnl'i ap c apuhâ sappu tarmili

c

Translation:

Whose eyeballs are gems of lapis-lazuli, Whose eyelids are bowls of onyx,

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

10:11 9:9

Grammatical Str.: Geller rp. S-s P-C S-s P-C

Collins NP* NP* NP* NP*

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Ellipsis (du-, Ptcl-Initial) Length Compensation (cq//cpcp) Lists (minerals/gems, continued in next verse) Alliteration (i, c-p) Notes: For the vocalization of iqni, see Huehnergard (1987, c c 270). p ph is vocalized from BH capcapayim, and sp from Akk. sappu, "basin". The translation of this passage is uncertain. See the discussions of de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 168-169) and Caquot (525-26). 56. CTA 14 iii 148-149

thgrn [u]dm c

a3lw.b$p. nh

tahhagiruna 'udrma 'ažluwa bisapi cenehâ

Translation:

She has girded herself with rubies, Let me find rest in the gaze of her eyes,

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.: Geller c 3 b 3-C

8:10 8:9 Collins V M V M

285 Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: This is a very problematic passage. There seems to be little except the context which links the two lines into a bicolon. See the discussions of Caquot (526) and de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 169). For the vocalization and meaning of ašlw, see Verreet (1984, 313-14). sp is vocalized from Akk. sapu, "watch". 57. CTA 14 iii 150-151 dbhlmy.il.ytn bdrty.ab.adm

dâbihalamiya 'ilu yatinu bidâratiya 'abu 'adami

Translation:

Whom El granted in my dream, The father of man in my vision

Line Length:

Consonants 11:10 Syllables 11:10

Grammatical Str.:

Geller rp. 3-s lpn a 3-s 1-C

Collins M NP* V M NP*

Devices: Ellipsis (du-, Ptcl-Initial; ytn, V-Final) Length Compensation (il//ab adm) Binorninalization (il//ab adm) Repetition (-ya, suff.; bi-, prep.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: drt is translated ad sensum. It may be an alternate form of dhrt (see 14 i 36). It is tempting to separate the initial dâ- as anacrusis, resulting in both anaphora and syllabically balanced lines. I have not done so because the relative pronoun is always joined to the following word as an inseparable particle. In my view this fact makes it unlikely that anacrusis is present here. 58. CTA 14 iii 152-153 wld.sph.lkrt wiylm.l bd.il Translation:

waladu sapha likirta wagalma li'abdi 'ili To bear an heir for Kirta, Even a lad for the servant of El

286 Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

10:10 8:8

Grammatical Str.: Geller infin. 2 3 & 2 3-Cpn

Collins ^M" V NP* NP' M

Devices: Ellipsis (wld, V-Initial) Length Compensation (krt//cbd il) Binominalization (krt//cbd il) Repetition (li-, prep.) Line Initial Alliteration (w) Alliteration (l) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: wld is interpreted as an infinitive by Gray (1955, 43), Caquot (526), and de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 169). Tsumura (1979, 780) argues for an internal passive. Every word except sph contains the consonant /l/, and it is the key word in the verse. 59. CTA 14 iii 154-155 krt.yht.whlm c bd.ilJwhdrt

kirtu yihâtu wahalâmu c abdu 'iliwahadaratu

Translation:

Kirtu awoke and it was a dream, The servant of El and it was a theophany

Line Length:

Consonants 10:10 Syllables 9:9

Grammatical Str.: Geller lpn b & P 1-Cpn & P

Collins NP* V NP^ NP* NP'

Devices: Ellipsis (yht, V-Medial) Length Compensation (krt//cbd il, hlm//hdrt) Binominalization (krt//cbd il) Repetition (wa-, conj.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The etymology and vocalization of hdrt are uncertain, but note BH hâdâr. For this translation see Caquot (527). 60. CTA 14 iii 159-161 c

rb.bz1.hmt. lqh imr.dbh.bydh lla.klatnm

c

araba bizilli hummati laqaha 'immira dabhi biyadihu lal'a kil'atanemi

287 Translation:

He entered into the shade of the pen, He took a lamb of sacrifice in his hand, A kid (in) both of them

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:13:9 9:12:7

Geller b 3-C a 2-C 3-s 2 3

Collins V M V NP^ M NP^ M

Devices: Ellipsis (lqh, V-Initial, line 2; bi-, P-Final) Alliteration (b, l) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Notes: This passage almost replicates 14 ii 65-68 (No. 18), but line 2 here is a conflation of lines 2 & 3 in that passage. The disparate line lengths in this verse are unusual. 61. CTA 14 iv 194-195 tlkn ym.wtn.

talikuna yoma watâni

Translation:

They went a day and a second

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9 9

Geller v 3 & 3

Collins VMM

Devices: Notes: I consider this line a monocolon becasue the next verse interrupts the sequence from the parallel passage, 14 ii 106f (No. 34). 62. CTA 14 iv 195-199 ahr šp[š]m.b[t]lt ym[gy] lqdš a[trt] srm. wilt sdn[y]m.

'ahra šapšima bitâliti yamgiyu liqidši 'atirata surama wa'ilati sidoniyima

288 Translation:

Afterwards, at sunset on the third (day) He arrived at the sanctuary of Athirat of Tyre, Even the goddess of the Sidonians

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:15:9 9:13:9

Geller 3 3 3 b 3-Cpn-C & Cpn-C

Collins MM V M M

Devices: Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (ymgy, V-Initial; lqdš, N-Medial) Length compensation (srm//sdnym) Binorninalization (atrt//ilt) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Notes: KTU reads wlilt for wilt. For the vocalization of qdš, see Huehnergard (1987, 173). Considerable controversy exists concerning the words srrn and sdnym. Although most connect them with Tyre and Sidon, see Astour (1973) and Gray (1955, 43) for other proposals. 63. CTA 14 iv 199-200 tm yd[r

klrt.t'

tama yadduru

kirtu

Translation:

There noble Kirta vowed

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

tâCu

10 9

Geller 3 a lpn ,-1

Collins M V NP*

Devices: Notes: This is a monocolon introducing a speech. The title or attribute of Kirta, tc, is discussed by Caquot, (529), and may be connected to BH šô^c. 64. CTA 14 iv 201-202 i itt.atrt.^rm wilt.sdnyrn

'i 'itat 'a^irata surirna wa'ilatu sidoniyirna

Translation:

As Athirat of Tyre exists, Even the goddess of the Sidonians

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:9 10:9

Geller pt. "b" lpn-C & 1-C

Collins M V NP* NP1

Devices: Ellipsis (i itt, Ptcl-Initial) Length Compensation (srm//sdnym, + w-) Binominalization (atrt//ilt) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: For i itt, see de Moor-Spronk (1982a, 171) and Caquot 7530). 65. CTA 14 iv 203-205 hm.hry.bty iqh. ašcrb.glmt hzry.

hima huriya betiya 'iqqahu 'a&acribu galmata hazlriya

Translation:

If I take Huriya into my house, I cause the maid to enter my court

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:13 11:11

Geller pt. 2pn 3-s a a 2 3-s

Collins NP" M V V NP^ M

Devices: Partial Chiasmus (OMV//VOM) Ellipsis (hm, Ptcl-Initial) Length compensation (iqh//ašcrb) Binominalization (hry//glmt) Repetition (-ya, suff.) Alliteration (h-r) 66. CTA 14 iv 205-206 tnh.kspm atn. wtlth.hrsm

tinahâ kaspama 'atinu watalâtahâ hurâsama

Translation:

Twice her (weight) in silver I will give, Even three times her (weight) in gold

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

10:9 9:9

290 Grammatical Str.:

Geller 2-s 3 a & 2-s 3

Collins NP" V NP*

Devices: Ellipsis (atn, V-Initial) Length Compensation (tn//wtlt) Number Parallelism (2//3) Repetition (-hâ, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: De Moor-Spronk (1982a, 171) suggest that ţ:nh and tlth are cardinal numbers used as multiplicatives 67. CTA 14 iv 207-208 ylk ym.wtn. tlt.rbc.ym

yaliku yoma watâni tâliţla râbica yoma

Translation:

He went a day and a second, A third, a fourth day

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

8:8 8:8

Geller b 3 & 3 3 3-C

Collins VMM M M

Devices: Ellipsis (ylk, V-Initial) Repetition (ym) Number Parallelism (1, 2, 3, 4) Notes: This verse is very similar to 14 ii 106-107 (No. 34). 68. CTA 14 iv 209-211 ahr.špšm.brbc ymgy.ludm.rbt wudm [trlrt

'ahra sapsima birâbi i yarngiyu li'uduma rabbati wa'uduma tararati

Translation:

Afterwards, at sunset on the fourth (day) He arrived at greater Udurn, Even lesser Udurn

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

11:11:8 9:10:8

Grammatical Str.: Geller 3 3 b 3 ,-3 & 3 ,-3

Collins M M V M M

Devices: Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (ymgy, V-Initial; li-, P-Medial; line Epistrophe (-ati, fern., lines 2 & 3) Repetition (udm, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (rb) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: This verse is almost the same as 14 ii 107-109 ( 35). 69. CTA 14 v 227-229 [apnlk [p]bl [mlk] [g]m.latt[h k]y[sh]

'apanaka pabila malku gama li'attatihu kiyasihu

Translation:

Thereupon, King Pabil Aloud to his wife he indeed called

Line Length;

Consonants 10:11 Syllables 9:11

Grammatical Str.: Geller 3 lpn ,-1 3 3-s pt. b

Collins M NP* M M V

Devices: Enjambment 70. CTA 14 v 246-247 pn[m al ttn] c m.[krt msw]n

panemi 'al tatinâ imma kirta masawani

Translation:

Indeed you shall set (your) face to Kirta the peer

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

8:9 7:8

Grammatical Str.: Geller 2 pt. a 3 ,=3

Collins M V M

Devices: Enjambment Notes: This verse is uncertain due to the extensive reconstruction.

71. CTA 14 v 248-249 wr[gm lkrt] tc thm [pbl mlk]

waruguma likirta tâci tahumu pabila malki

Translation:

And say to noble Kirta, Message of King Pabil

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9 9:8

Geller & a! 3 ,-3 S-C ,=C

Collins V M NP^

Devices: Notes: The vowel patterns in the last two words of each line are quite similar. 72. CTA 14 vi 300-303 titbacâ mal'akami lâyatibâ 'iddâka panemi luyatinâ cimmama pabila malki

ttb'.mlakm lytb. idk.pnm lytn. ^rnm.pbl mlk. Translation:

The messengers departed, they did not stay, Then they indeed set their faces Toward King Pabil

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

13:10:9 11:10:8

Geller b 1 neg. b pt. 2 pt. a 3 ,-3

Collins V NP* V M NR* V M

Devices: Enjambment (lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (m) Notes: The descending line lengths of the tricola may have had a rhetorical effect, emphasizing the departure of the messengers. 73. CTA 14 vi 303-306 tšan ghm.wtyhn thm.krt.t[c] hwt.[n]cmn.[glm il]

tissa'ana gahemi wataslhana tahumu kirta tâci huwâtu nacmani galmi 'ili

Translation:

They lifted their voices and cried, The message of noble Kirta, The word of the gracious one, the lad of El

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:8:12 12:7:10

Geller a 2-s & b S-Cpn ,-C S-C ,=C-Cpn

Collins VNP* V NP^ NP^

Devices: Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Binominalization (krt//ncmn glm il) Line Initial Alliteration (t, lines 1-2) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: tšan and wtshn are vocalized as duals. The second line is much shorter than the other two.

294 ÎOO

KTU

Te^ct

a^nd

Analysis

1. KTU 1.100 1-2 um.phl.phlt. bt. n bt.abn. bt šmm wthm qrit.lsps.umh.

'ummu puhâli puhâlati bittu Sni bittu 'abni bittu šamima watahâmi qâritu lišapši 'ummihâ

Translation:

The mother of stallion (and) mare, Daughter of the spring, daughter of the stone, Daughter of the heavens and the deep Calls to Shapshu her mother

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:9:9:11 9:8:9:9

Geller S-C-C S-C S-C S-C-C part 3 ,=3

Collins NP^ NP* NP* NP^ V M

Devices: Anaphora (bt, lines 2 & 3) Repetition of Root (PHL, line 1) Repetition (bt, line 2) Alliteration (m, b) Enjarnbrnent (lines 3 & 4) Anadiplosis (špš urn, with line 1 of next verse) Notes: The translation and analysis of the first line as asyndetic coordination follows Tsevat (1979, 760), Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 154), and Kottsieper (1984, 104). For a further justification of this translation see Dietrich-Loretz 1986a, 99f. For the vocalization of thm see Huehnergard (1987, 184-85). phl/phlt are vocalized from Akk. puhalu. Line 4 could be considered a separate monocolon introducing the following speech. Pardee (1978, 7475) joins this line with the first line of the next tricolon to form a bicolon. Although the repetition of špš um might support his lineation, the enjarnbrnent which binds the following three lines together makes this unlikely. When line 4 is included in this verse the result is enjarnbrnent between lines 3 & 4 and what is usually called ploke, beginning and ending a verse with the same word, in this case, urn. Levine-Tarragon (494) suggest, contrary to others, that qrit is the perfect tense verb, 3rd fem. sg.

295 2. KTU 1.100 2-3 sp^.um.ql.bl. c rn il.rnbk nhrrn. bcdt.thrntrn

šapsu 'urnrnu qâla bill c imma 'ili mabbaki naharemi bicidati tahâmatemi

Translation:

Mother Sapsu, take a message To El at the source of the two rivers, At the confluence of the two deeps

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

9:11:9 8:11:9

Geller 12a 3 3 3

Collins NP* NP= V M M M

Devices: Enjambment (lines 1 & 2) Epistrophe (-emi, lines 2 & 3) Ellipsis (bi-, not in line 2, found in line 3; cm il, from line 2) Length Compensation (mbk nhrm//bcdt thmtm) Alliteration (m, t) Notes: Several commentators (Young 1979, 843; Tsevat 1979, 759; and Kottsieper 1984, 106) regard ql as having the first person singular suffix, i.e. "meine Rede." Although this is possible, the -y suffix is expected on a singular noun in the accusative (Gordon 1965, 36). I have followed Pardee (1978, 74) in interpreting nhrm and thmtm as duals, due to the mythological background. Others have merely regarded them as plurals. Epistrophe in lines 2 & 3 is enhanced by the vowel pattern of the final word in each line, -CaCaCemi. 3. KTU 1.100 4-5 mnt.ntk.nhs. šmrr.nhš

qsr.

manati nitka nahaši šamirira nahaši caqšari

Translation:

My lot is the bite of the serpent, The venom of the scaley serpent

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

9:11 8:10

296 Grammatical Str.:

Geller S P-C P-C

Collins NP* NP= NP*

Devices: Repetition (nhš) Ellipsis (mnt, from line 1) Length Compensation (+ cqšr, line 2) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The word, mnt, used here and in KTU 1.100 70, 71, is a major interpretive problem in this text. Many have associated it with Akk. minutu, "incantation." Tsevat (1979, 762), Young (1977, 297f.; 1979, 845), and Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 154) have argued convincingly for other derrivations. This is an important issue for the overall interpretation of the poem, but it is not as crucial for determining its structure. I have adopted the translation, "lot," for two reasons: 1) The lack of a preposition on ntk mitigates against the usual translation, "My incantation for snakebite," and 2) mnt appears with this meaning in CTA 17 i 33, ii 21. The problematic term, cqšr, translated by most following Astour (1968, 17), is also discussed by Bordreuil (299-300), and is usually associated with Arab, qišrat, "scale". The translation of šmrr is uncertain and is based upon the (possibly incorrect) assumption that ntk//šmrr. Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 154) argue that it is parallel to mnt and translate: "Mein Verlangen ist die beissende Schlange, rnein Geschenk die schuppige Schlange." The similar vowel pattern in the final words of each line and the exclusive use of the vowels /i/ and /a/ may heighten the magical quality of this verse. 4. KTO 1.100 5-6 lnh.mlhs abd. lnh.ydy hmt.

linahu mulahhisa 'abbid linahu yadiya himata

Translation:

From it, charmer, destroy, From it remove the venom

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:9 9:9

Geller 3 1a 3 a 2

Collins M NP* V M V NP^

297 Devices: Anaphora (lnh) Ellipsis (mlhš, from line 1) Length Compensation (+ hmt, line 2) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: I follow Tropper-Verreet (342) who regard 'bd as the D-stern imperative of 'BD, and ydy as a G-stem imperative of YDY with the "emphatic" ending (cf. BH -âh). Kottsieper (1984, 106) regards both as infinitive absolutes with jussive meanings. The vocalization of mlhš is influenced by BH m^lahâšim in Ps 58:8. hmt is vocalized from BH hemâh. 5. KTU 1.100 6-7 hlm.ytq.nhs. yšlhm. cqšr ycdb.ksa.wytb

halâma yaġuqu nahaša yašalhimu nahaša caqšara yacdubu kussi'a wayatibu

Translation:

Then he binds the serpent, He feeds the scaley serpent, He prepares a chair and sits

Line Length;

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 3 a 2 a 2 a 2 b

9:12:11 9:10:10 Collins M V NP" V NP* V NP* V

Devices: Repetition (nhš, lines 1 & 2) Line Initial Alliteration (y, lines 2 & 3) Ellipsis (hlm, from line 1) Length Compensation (+cqšr, In 2; + wytb, In 3) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: The restoration of nhš in line 2 is made from the parallel passages. The repetition of nhš in the first two lines and the line initial alliteration in lines 2 & 3, together with the similar syntax, combine to create the tricolon. The meaning and vocalization of yiq is very uncertain, although all are agreed that it is a verb. Astour (1968, 18) compares it to Arabic, wa^aqa, "to bind;" but Tsevat (1979, 762) to Arabic watiqa, "to trust." Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 160) refer to Akk. šaqu, "to be high," whereas LevineTarragon (496) prefer sqy, "to give drink."

6. KTU 1.100 61-62 bhrn.pnm.trgnfw) wttkl bnwth.

bihorani panima taruġan watatakkilu banuwatihâ

Translation:

To Horon she turns (her) face, Because she is bereaved of her offspring

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

11:10 10:10

Geller 3 2a & a 2

Collins M NP= V V NP*

Devices: Partial Chiasmus (MOV//VO) Alliteration (n, b-n) Notes: Although the syntax of line 1 seems clear, its meaning is elusive. The primary problem is trgn/w}, with the w deleted as dittography. I have followed Astour's interpretation of the line (1968, 22), connnecting trġn with Arabic, raġana, "to incline one's body." With Levine-Tarragon (496) I have vocalized ttkl as D-stem, the most frequent stem of the root in BH. For the vocalization of bnwt see Huehnergard (1987, 287). 7. KTU 1.100 62-64 yakkuru cIra dâqadmi 'idaka panima luyattinu toka 'araššihi rabbati wa'araššihi tarirati

ykr. cr.dqdm idk.pnm.lytn. tk arsh.rbt warsh.trrt. Translation:

He leaves the city of the east, Then he sets his face Towards greater Arassih, And lesser Arassih

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

r.: Grammatical Str.:

Geller a 2 ,-R 3 2a 3 & 3

9;:10;:9::9 8::10::9::9 Collins V NP=* M NP* V M M

299 Devices: Repetition (aršh, lines 3 & 4) Enjambment (lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (r, r-t) Ellipsis (tk, from line 3) Length Compensation (+ w-; rbt/Ytrrt; line 4) Epistrophe (-ati, fern., lines 3 & 4) Notes: The identity of aršh is unknown, but Astour (1968, 23) regards it as another name for the Tigris. The verb, ykr, is usually derived from NKR (see Pardee 1978, 89-90), but others (eg. Dietrich-Loretz 1980b, 106) suggest the root KRR, "to turn over, roll." The adjective (?), trrt, is equally dubious. Astour (1968, 23; also see*Kottsieper 1984, 105) derives it from Arabic tarra, but Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 161) and others argue for "small," from Akk. šerru. Also note Huehnergard (1987, 189). Emjambment between lines 2 & 3 argue that this is a quatrain rather than two bicola. 8. KTU 1.100 64-65 ydy.bcsm.crcr wbsht.cs.mt.

yadiyu bicisima carcara wabišlhâti ^isa môti

Translation:

He removes from the trees a tamarisk, Even from the shrubs a tree of death

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller a 3 2 & 3 2-C

11:9 10:9 Collins V M NP= M NP 2

Devices: Ellipsis (ydy, from line 1) Length Compensation (bcsm//wbšht;c r c r// cs mt) Repetition (cs;c bi-, prep.) Alliteration *( , cr) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: I follow Tropper-Verreet (342) in vocalizing ydy as a G-stern imperfect of YDY. Tsevat (1979, 764) derives it from a root, NDY, "to plant." Most interpreters translate the preposition, bi-, as above, but Kottsieper (1984, 105) suggests it is instrumental: "Er entferne mit Tamariskenholz, Und mit einem Strauch von Totenholz." The vocalization of crcr and šht follow BH carcâr and šî^h, respectively.

300 9. KTU 1.100 65-67 c c

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

c

arcarama yanaccirannahu sissinnama yassiyannahu c adattama yacaddiyannah
Translation:

The The The The

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

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

Geller 2 a-s 2 a-s 2 a-s 2 a-s

11:9:10:10 10:9:10:10 Collins NP" V NP^ V NP^ v NP^ V

Devices: Epistrophe (-annahu/â) Syntactic Repetition (OV) Alliteration (cr, n, s, cd) Repetition of Root (cDY, line 3; YBL, line 4) Notes: Alliteration is especially strong in this verse, with internal alliteration in each line. In line 1 note the threefold repetition of cr. This passage is, without doubt, the least understood in the text. There are as many translations of it as there are scholars who have made the attempt. The meanings of each of the verbs as well as the nouns in lines 3 & 4 are uncertain. I have followed Young (1977, 293) in regarding the syntax as "frontal extraposition" of the object noun which is resumed by the verbal suffix (see also Astour 1968, 22; de Moor 1988, 107). Others, such as Pardee (1978, 95-96), Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 157), and Kottsieper (1984, 105) understand the initial nouns as instrumental, while the suffixes on the verbs refer to the venom: eg. "Mit der Tamariske schuttelt er gegen es (:das Gift) . . . ." Despite these uncertainties, only one of the four rhetorical devices listed above. Repetition of Root, depends upon the above translation. In any event, it is likely that the root YBL is repeated in line 4. The vocalization of ssnm and cdtm follow Akk. sissinnu, "date cluster", and addattu, "reedcenter", respectively.

10. KTU 1.100 67-68 mgy.hrn.lbth. wystql.Ihzrh.

magaya horanu libetihu wayištaqilu lihazirihu

Translation:

Horon went to his house, He betook himself to his court

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

10:11 10:10

Geller b 1 3 b 3

Collins V NP* M V M

Devices: Ellipsis (hrn, from line 1) Length Compensation (m^y//wyštql; lbth//lhzrh) Repetition (li-, prep.) Epistrophe (-hu, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: For this vocalization and meaning of ystql, see Greenfield (325-27). Most commentators regard the suffixes on bt and hzr as masculine, but Young (1979, 844) argues they are feminine: "her house/court." 11. KTU 1.100 68-69 tlu.ht.km.nhl tplg.km.plg

tal'u hetu kamâ nahli tapligu kamâ palgi

Translation:

Life became strong like a wadi, It flowed like a stream

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller b 1 "3" b "3"

11:9 8:7 Collins V NP* M V M

Devices: Line Initial Alliteration (t) Repetition of Root (PLG) Repetition (km) Ellipsis (ht) Alliteration (l) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: There are two issues in this verse, both of which are in the first line: 1) the meaning of tlu, and

302 2) the reading and meaning of ht. The root L'W in Semitic languages displays what is called "polar" meanings, "to be weak," and "to be strong." The choice is generally conditioned by each interpreter's understanding of the genre and function of the text. Most regard ht as an error for hmt. Astour (1968, 22) and Young (1979, 844) do not emend and connect it with H^T\ "life, vitality." Tsevat (1979, 765), does not*emend and translates it, "das Getier." The relative line lengths could be construed as an argument in favor of not emending the text. The vocalization of plg follows BH peleg. 12. KTU 1.100 70-71 bdh.bhtm.mnt. bcdh.bhtm.sgrt bcdh.cdbt.tlt.

bacdahâ bahatima minuti bacdahâ bahatima sagarat bacdahâ cadabat talâta

Translation:

Behind her is the house of incantation, Behind her the house she closed, Behind her she prepared the bronze

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

Geller 3 P-C 3 2a 3 a 2

11:12:11 10:10:9 Collins M NP* M NP* V M V NP*

Devices: Anaphora (bcdh) Staircase Parallelism (lines 1 & 2) Partial Chiasmus (POV//PVO, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (t, b) Notes: This is another passage which exhibits clear stichometry but whose meaning is obscure. The translation above follows Pardee (1978, 84-85), but there are several other approaches. On the problems with the term, mnt, see KTU 1.100 45. It is, of course, not necessarily the same term here as in the other occurrences in the text. I regard both sgrt and cdbt as perfect, 3rd fern. sg. verbs, although others suggest nominal forms.

303 13. KTU 1.100 71-72 pth.bt.mnt pth.bt.wuba. hkl.wistql

patahi beta minuti patahi beta wa'ubu'a hekala wa'istaqila

Translation:

Open the house of incantation, Open the house and let me enter, The palace and let me come in

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

8:9:9 8:9:8

Geller 2-C a: 2 & b 2 & b

Collins V NP* V NP* V NP* V

Devices: Staircase Parallelism (lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (pth, from line 2) Length Compensation (bt//hkl/ wuba//wištql) Repetition (w-, conj., lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (t) Partial Syntactic Repetition Notes: I follow Verreet (1986, 378) in vocalizing uba as a G-stem imperfect subjunctive, with regressive vowel assimilation. Both Young (1977, 298) and Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 158) regard mnt as a noun meaning "beloved," comparing with Akk. men&. 14. KTU 1.100 73-74 tn.km.<mhry> nhšm. yhr.tn.km mhry. wbn.btn.itnny

tin kamâ muhriya nahašlma yahara tin kamâ muhriya wabini batni 'itnâniya

Translation:

Give snakes as my bride price, A lizard give as my bride price, Even the sons of serpents as my gift

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

Grammatical Str.:

12:11:11 10:9:9

Geller a! "3" 2 2 a! "3" & 2-C "3"

Collins V M NP=* NP* V M NP* M

304 Devices: Repetition (tn km mhry) Alliteration (m, n, b-n) Epistrophe (-ya, lines 2 & 3) Partial Chiasmus (VMO//OVM, lines 1 & 2) Ellipsis (tn, line 3) Length Compensation (yhr//wbn btn; mhry//itnny) Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3) Notes: All commentators are agreed that this passage is defective as it stands in the text. There are three ways it has been emended. The insertion of mhry and the lineation presented above is favored by Astour (1968, 27), Tsevat (1979, 760) and others. In its favor is the fact that it is the simplest way to produce a readable text by supplying only one missing word. It also produces balanced line lengths. Against this emendation is its somewhat awkward syntax in line 2 and the derivation of the word, yhr, "lizard." Dietrich-Loretz (1980b, 158) and Kottsieper (1984, 105) do more radical surgery, resulting in the following bicolon: tn km <mhry> nhšm yhr///tn km mhry}//wbn btn itnny, "Gib als rneinen Brautpreis Schlangen, o Horon/ZVipernjungen als rnein (Hochzeits-)Geschenk." This lineation is doubtful because it produces two very unbalanced lines, and KTU 1.100 is quite regular in it line lengths. Rhetorically the most satisfying is Young (1977, 303): tn /Am] nhsm yhr//tn km mhry// wbn btn itnny, "Give snakes, O Horan/ZGives snakes as my bridal price// Yea, viper's brood as my payment." This emendation results in a familiar form of staircase parallelism (cf. CTA 17 vi 26-28; vi 42; 3 E iv 7-8; v 27-28; 10 ii 21-23; 16 vi 54-57; etc.), and it produces balanced line lengths. Against it are the numerous additions and deletions necessitated. The vowel pattern at the end of each line are the same, -CiCa. It is also interesting that the phrase, tn km, is repeated in a different position in lines 1 & 2. 15. KTU 1.100 75-76 ytt.nhsm.mhrk. bn btn itnnk

yatattu nahašima muhraki binl batni 'itnânaki

Translation:

I will give snakes as your bride-price, The sons of serpents as your gift

Line Length:

Consonants Syllables

11:10 10:8

305 Grammatical Str.:

Geller a 2 "3" 2 "3"

Collins V NP* M NP* M

Devices: Ellipsis (ytt, from line 1) Length Compensation (?) (mhrk/Yitnnk) Epistrophe (-ki, suff.) Alliteration (n, b-n) Partial Syntactic Repetition

306 Exodms

15

Text

and

Analysis

1. Exodus 15:1b 'šyrh lyhwh ky g'h g'h sws wrkbw rmh byrn Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Let me sing to Yahweh for he is highly exalted, Horse and its charioteer he has thrown into the sea

11:9 Repetition of Root (g'h, line 1) Alliteration (')

Freedman (1980g, 199) finds no parallelism between or within these lines. Most (eg. Coats 5) consider this verse an introductory introit which was not an original part of the poem. The translation follows Cross and Freedman (1975, 50). As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the biblical texts are not vocalized, and syllable counts are derived using the method advanced by Freedman.

2. Exodus 15:2a c

zy wzmrt yh wyhy ly lyšwch Syllables: Devices: Notes:

My strength and support is Yah, And he has become salvation for me

6:6 Repetition (-y, suff.)

Cross and Freedman (1955, 243) omit the entire verse from their presentation due to its metrical structure and content. Freedman (1980f, 195f.) retains it, considering it the "Exordium" of the poem. I read wzmrt with the 1st person singular suffix which has some manuscript and versional support and is accepted by most commentators.

3. Exodus 15:2b zh 'ly w'nwhw 'lhy 'by w'rmmnhw Syllables:

7:10

This is my God and I praise him, The God of my father and I exalt him

307 Devices:

Notes:

Ellipsis (zh, Pronoun-Initial) Length Compensation ('ly//'lhy 'by) Epistrophe (-hw, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition Repetition (-y, suff.; *l//'lh) Alliteration (', h) Cross and Freedman (1975, 50; 1955, 243) correct the metrical imbalance of these lines by transposing w'nwhw and w'rrnmnhw. In view of the uncertainties in measuring lines, there is no necessity to adopt this emendation. The meaning for 'nwhw seems required by the context. Cassuto (1967, 174) compares it to Arab, nwh, "to be high."

4. Exodus 15:3 yhwh 'yš mlhmh

Yahweh is a man of war,

yhwh Smw

Yahweh is his name

Syllables: Devices: Notes:

6:4

Anaphora (yhwh) Partial Syntactic Repetition Cross and Freedman (1975, 55; 1955, 243) emend the first line to yhwh gbr, with the LXX and Syriac and for metrical balance. Freedman (1980g, 195f.), however, retains the reading of the MT.

5. Exodus 15:4 mrkbt prch whylw yrh bym * wmbhr šlSyw tbcw bym swp

Pharaoh's chariotry and his army he has thrown in the sea, Even his chosen troops are sunk in the Reed Sea

Syllables: 12:12 Devices:

Notes:

Repetition (bym; -w, suff.) Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition The syntax of the two lines is similar, but line 2 is a passive construction. Metrical considerations are behind suggested emendations. Cross and Freedman (1975, 50; 1955, 243) follow Albright in emending the line 1 to either mrkbt prc or prc whl (see also Stuart, 8 1 ) .

308 Freedman (1980g, 203) finds this unnecessary since both lines contain the same number of syllables. 6. Exodus 15:5 thmt yksymw yrdw bmswlt kmw 'bn Syllables: Devices: Notes:

The deeps covered them, They went down into the depths like a stone

7:9

Repetition (-mw, suff.) Alliteration (m)

Cross and Freedman (1975, 58; 1955, 244) suggest a word is missing from line 1. Stuart (81) supplies yama. It may be that the second line is intentionally longer in order to rhythmically convey the idea of sinking.

7. Exodus 15:6 ymynk yhwh n'dry bkh ymynk yhwh trcs 'wyb Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Your right hand, Yahweh, is fearful in strength, Your right hand, Yahweh, smashes the enemy

10:9 Anaphora (ymynk yhwh) Staircase Parallelism

Staircase Parallelism is noted by Cross and Freedman (1955, 245), Muilenburg (1966, 237), Freedman (1980f, 179) and Watson (1984a, 154), among others. Freedman (1980g, 204) considers the problematic n'dry an archaic infinitive. Also see Cross and Freedman (1975, 59).

8. Exodus 15:7 wbrb g'wnk thrs qmyk tšlh hrnk y'klmw kqš Syllables: Devices:

And in your great majesty you destroyed your adversaries, You sent forth your wrath, consumed them like chaff

12:12 Repetition (-ka, suff.) Alliteration (k)

309 Notes:

Many regard the initial waw in line 1 as intrusive, although Freedman (1980g, 205) suggests it is emphatic rather than conjunctive. In view of the diverse use of line-initial waw in this poem and elsewhere, it seems prudent to retain it until clear criteria for elision can be adduced.

9. Exodus 15:8 wbrwh 'pyk ncrmw mym nsbw kmw nd nzlym qp'w thmt blb ym Syllables: Devices: Notes:

And by the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up, Floods stood like a heap, The deeps congealed in the heart of the sea

10:9:9

Partial Chiasmus (VPS//VSP, lines 2 & 3) Alliteration (n, m)

Lines 1 & 3 end with words (mym and ym) which have a similar sound and meaning. Again, the initial waw is often deleted to produce metrical uniformity. The chiasmus in lines 2 & 3 is noted by Freedman (1980g, 206).

10. Exodus 15:9 'mr 'wyb 'rdp 'syg 'hlq šll tml'mw npsy 'ryq hrby twryšmw ydy Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

The enemy said, "I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my appetite will be full of them, I will draw my sword, my hand will dispossess them"

8:11:10 Repetition (-mw, suff., lines 2 & 3) Line Initial Alliteration Alliteration (', l) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Cross and Freedman (1975, 60; 1955, 246) note the alliteration in this verse, calling it "staccato style." They regard the suffix, -mw, not as a pronominal object suffix, but as an enclitic mem (see Stuart 82). Although this is possible, Freedman (1980g, 207) regards them as suffixes, noting the seven-fold use of this suffix with the imperfect in the poem.

310 Alliteration ('aleph) is unmistakable in line 1. The stichometry adopted above is supported by the line-initial alliteration. 11. Exodus 15:10 nspt brwhk ksmw ym

You blew with your wind, the sea covered them, They sank like lead in the mighty waters

sllw kcwprt bmym 'dyryrn Syllables: Devices: Notes:

10:11

Alliteration (m)

Freedman (1980g, 207) compares this verse in form and meter with 15:5.

12. Exodus 15:11 my kmkh b'lm yhwh my kmkh n'dr bqdš nwr' thlt c sh pl'

Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Who like you, among the gods, Yahweh, Who like you, is glorious among the holy ones, Feared for praisworthy acts, performer of wonders?

9:8:8

Anaphora (my kmkh) Staircase Parallelism Partial Syntactic Repetition

The translation of bqdš follows the LXX. See also, inter alios, Cross and Freedman (1955, 247). O'Connor (396) suggests that n'dr is a vocative parallel to yhwh. Freedman (1980f, 179) has noted the Staircase Parallelism.

13. Exodus 15:12-13 ntyt ymynk tblcmw 'rs nhyt bhsdk cm zw g'lt nhlt bczk 'l nwh qdsk Syllables:

11:12:13

You stretched out your right hand, the underworld swallowed them, You led with your kindness the people whom you redeemed, You guided with your strength to your holy abode

311 Devices:

Notes:

Partial Syntactic Repetition (lines 2 & 3 begin VP) Repetition (-k, suff.; b-, prep., lines 2 & 3) Line Initial Alliteration The rhetorical devices argue for the unity of this tricolon. Freedman (1980g, 209) observes that each line begins with a 2ms perfect verb which begins with nun. Each verb is followed by a noun with a 2ms suffix. The alternative is to regard line 1 independently as a bicolon of two short lines: ntyt ymynk/Ztbltmw 'rs.

14. Exodus 15:14 šmcw c mymyrgzwn hyl 'hz yšby plšt Syllables: Devices: Notes:

The peoples heard, they trembled, Fear seized the inhabitants of Philistia

8:8 Alliteration (m)

Stuart (90 n. 28) suggests that a colon may have fallen out of what was originally a tricolon.

15. Exodus 15:15 'z nbhlw 'lupy 'dwm 'yly mw'b y'hzmw rcd nmgw kl ysby kncn Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Then the chiefs of Edom were terrified, The rams of Moab, trembling siezed them, All the inhabitants of Canaan melted

9:9:9 Line Initial Alliteration (lines 1 & 2)

The desire to divide most cola into half lines has led Cross and Freedman (1975, 63; 1955, 248) and Stuart (82-83) to analyze kl as an adverb and revocalize the verbs of lines 1 & 2 as passives. Freedman (1980g, 212) suggests there is chiasmus in lines 1 & 2, but the syntax does not support this analysis. This and the previous verse end the the phrase, ysby GN.

312 16. Exodus 15:16a tpl clyhm 'ymth wphd bgdl zrwck ydmw k'bn Syllables:

Terror and dread fell upon them, Because of your great strength they are silent like a stone

10:10

Devices: Notes:

Cross and Freedrnan (1975, 63; 1955, 249) emend tpl to tappîl, "You have brought down upon them terror and dread."

17. Exodus 15:16b c d c

ycbr cmk yhwh dy c br cm zw qnyt

Syllables:

8:8

Anaphora ( c dy c br c m(k)) Staircase Parallelism Partial Syntactic Repetition

Devices:

Notes:

While your people crossed, Yahweh, While the people you created crossed

This is the third instance of Staircase Parallelism in the poem (see Cross and Freedrnan 1955, 249; and Freedrnan 1980f, 179).

18. Exodus 15:17 tb'mw wttcmw bhr nhltk mkwn lšbtk pclt yhwh mqdš 'dny kwnnw ydyk Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

You brought them and planted them in your hereditary mountain, The place for your enthronement which you made, Yahweh, The sanctuary, Lord, your hands have established

14:11:11 Repetition (-k, suff., all 3 lines) Inter Colon Repetition (-mw, suff., line 1) Binorninalization (yhwh//'dny) Alliteration (t, n) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Bothered by the metrical imbalance, Freedrnan (1980g, 213-14) argues that 17a was originally a bicolon and offers a reconstruction of it based upon Psalm 78:54. He also accepts, with Cross and Freedrnan (1975, 65; 1955, 249) and many manuscripts, the

313 reading yhwh for 'dny in line 3. O'Connor (373), however, regards this pair as an example of binominalization. 19. Exodus 15:18 yhwh ymlk lclrn wcd Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Yahweh rules forever

9

Alliteration (l)

Stuart (83) couples this line with the last line of verse 17 to form a bicolon. However, the rhetorical devices and the parallelism in 17 argue that it is a tricolon.

314 JAjudLges

5

Text

and

Analysis

20. Judges 5:2 bprc prcwt bysr'l bhtndb cm brkw yhwh Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

When men wholly dedicated themselves in Israel, When the people offered themselves willingly, Bless Yahweh!

9:5:5

Anaphora (b-, prep.) Repetition of Root (prc) Line Initial Alliteration This is a verse which has elicited a variety of interpretations. The translation above follows Craigie (1968, 399). Cross and Freedman (1975, 17) add n^dîbî to line 2 and translate, "When volunteered the great-hearted of the people." They consider the third line extra-metrical. Stuart (123; cf. O'Connor, 218) makes it part of the second line but reads, baruke yahwe, "the consecrated of Yahweh."

21. Judges 5:3a smcw mlkym h'zynw rznym Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Hear, kings, Give ear, rulers 5:6

Epistrophe (-ym) Syntactic Repetition (VS) Alliteration (m, z-n) Geller (1979, 156) joins these lines with the following to form a tricolon. The close syntactic and semantic parallelism in these lines favors the above lineation.

22. Judges 5:3bc 'nky lyhwh 'nky 'šyrh 'zmr lyhwh 'lhy ysr'l Syllables:

I, to Yahweh, I will sing, I will chant to Yahweh, The God of Israel 6:6:6:6

315 Devices:

Notes:

Anaphora (*nky) Staircase Parallelism (lines 1-2) Binominalization (yhwh//'lhy ysr'l) Repetition (lyhwh) Line Initial Alliteration

O'Connor (404) finds "leftward" verb gapping in lines 1 and 2, the only such example in his corpus Watson (1984a, 151) sees rather a two line staircase.

23. Judges 5:4a yhwh bs'tk mscyr , bscdk msdh 'dwm Syllables: Devices:

Yahweh, when you came forth from Seir, When you marched from the land of Edom

9:9 Ellipsis (yhwh, N-initial) Length Compensation (mscyr//msdh 'dwm) Partial Syntactic Repetition (SVP//VP) Alliteration (bs, d)

24. Judges 5:5b mpny yhwh zh syny mpny yhwh 'lhy ysr'l Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Before Yahweh, the One of Sinai, Before Yahweh, the God of Israel

8:11

Anaphora (mpny yhwh) Binominalization (yhwh//zh syny; yhwh//'lhy ysr'l) Syntactic Repetition There seems no need to emend these lines as does Stuart (123). The epithet, zh syny, is rendered according to Albright's (1936b, 30) suggestion.

25. Judges 5:6a bymy smgr bn cnt bymy ycl hdlw Syllables:

7:7

In the days of Sharngar, ben Anat, In the days of Jael they ceased

316 Devices:

Notes:

Anaphora (bymy) Staircase Parallelism Partial Syntactic Repetition The lineation and translation above follows (1978b, 147)

26. Judges 5:7 hdlw przwn bysr'l hdlw d šqmty dbwrh šqmty 'm bysr'l Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Warriors ceased in Israel, They ceased until you arose, Deborah, You arose, a mother in Israel

10:10:8 Anaphora (hdlw) Binorninalization (dbwrh//'m bysr'l) Repetition (šqmty) Epistrophe (bysr'l, lines 1 & 3)

Coogan (1978b, 147) and others suggest another stichornetry: hdlw przwn/Zbysr'l hdlw//cd šqmty dbwrh//šqmty 'm bysr'l. The frequent use of anaphora in this poem argues for analyzing it as a tricolon. The meaning of przwn (cf. 5:11) is uncertain. It is also possible that this verse should be joined with the previous bicolon* I have adopted this versification due to the absence of other verses longer than three lines in the poem, the disparate line lengths, and the rhetorical devices.

27. Judges 5:9 lby lhwqqy ysr'l hmtndbym bcm brkw yhwh Syllables: Devices: Notes:

My heart is with the commanders of Israel, Those who volunteer among the people, Bless Yahweh!

9:7:5 Ellipsis (lby, N-Initial) Refrain (brkw yhwh, see 5:2)

The translation above follows Coogan (148). Stuart (124) combines lines 2 & 3 (deleting bcm) to form a metrically balanced bicolon.

317 28. Judges 5:12a c wry cwry c

dbwrh wry cwry dbry šyr

Syllables:

7:8

Anaphora (cwry cwry) Inter-Colon Repetition (cwry cwry) Staircase Parallelism Alliteration (d-b-r) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Devices:

Notes:

Awake, awake, Deborah, Awake, awake, sing a song!

Watson (1984a, 151) notes the staircase parallelism. Stuart (124) deletes the second cwry in line 2. Repetition of the first two words in each line couplled with the near sound identity of dbwrh and dbry creates a strong phonological link between the two lines.

29. Judges 5:12b qwm brq wšbh &byk bn 'bynm

Arise Barak, And capture your captives, Ben-Abinoarn

Syllables:

Binorninalization (brq//bn *byncm) Alliteration (s-b, b-n)

Devices: Notes:

30.

3:6:4

The shortness of line 1 bothers Goodwin (262), who suggests that a phrase may have been lost. Coogan (1978b, 148) suggests vocalizing qwm, quma, metri causa.

Judges 5:14b

mny mkyr yrdw mhqqym wmzbwln mškym bšbţ spr Syllables: Devices:

From Machir the commanders went down, And from Zebulon those who Lead with a ruler's staff

11:11

Anaphora (mny//(w)m-) Ellipsis (yrdw, V-Medial) Length Compensation (mhqqym//mškym bšbt spr) Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition

318 Notes:

Coogan (149) suggests that the verb, yrdw, also governs the previous bicolon.

31. Judges 5:17a glcd bcbr hyrdn škn wdn lmh ygwr 'nywt Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Gilead encamped beyond the Jordan, And Dan, why did he serve on ships?

9:9

Variation of Tense (škn//yškwn in next verse)

Gray (1967, 287) derives 'nywt from Ugaritic 'an, "to be at ease," translating line 2, "And Dan abode at ease." Cross and Freedman (1975, 13, 17) argue that the names of the tribes here and in the following cola are extra-metrical. This and the next verse are linked by variation of tense (škn//yškwn).

32. Judges 5:17b 'šr ysb lhwp ymym wcl mprsyw yškwn Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Asher dwelt on the seacoast, And on its inlets he encamped

8:6 Ellipsis ('šr, N-Initial) Partial Chiasmus (SVM//MV)

Gerleman (174) notes the chiasmus. Geller (1979, 156-57) omits the tribal name, 'šr, which both balances the lines and produces complete chiasmus.

33. Judges 5:18 zblwn cm hrp npšw lmwt wnptly cl mrwrny sdh

Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Zebulon is a people who scorn its life to die, And Naphtali is upon the heights of the steppe

10:10

Alliteration (m, n-p) Cross and Freedman (1975, 17; followed by Stuart, 125) read cl in line 2 as a perfect verb, câlâ,

319 translating: field."

"Naphtali mounted the heights of the

34. Judges 5:19a b'w mlkym nlhmw 'z nlhmw mlky kncn Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

The kings came, they fought, Then fought the kings of Canaan

8:8

Repetition (nlhm, mlk) Partial Chiasmus (VSV//MVS, mlk nlhm//nlhm mlk) Length Compensation (mlkym/Zmlky kncn) Alliteration (n) Cross and Freedrnan (1975, 14) omit 'z in line 2, metri causa, but, as Geller (1979, 158) observes, the lines are syllabically balanced only with it.

35. Judges 5:19b btcnk cl my mgdw bsc ksp l' l
Notes:

At Taanach by the waters of Megiddo Booty of silver they did not take

8:6

Enjarnbrnent Line Initial Alliteration Alliteration (b-c)

Stuart (125) joins line 1 with the previous bicolon as a tricolon. He thinks the parallel to line 2 has been lost. Geller (1979, 158), however, notes the enjarnbrnent which links these lines.

36. Judges 5:20 mn ârnym nlhmw hkwkbym mmslwtm nlhmw cm sysr' Syllables: Devices:

From the heavens the stars fought, From their courses they fought with Sisera

10:12

Anaphora (mn, m-) Repetition (nlhmw) Ellipsis (hkwkbym, N-Final) Length compensation (+ c m sysr') Alliteration (m) Partial Syntactic Repetition

320 Notes:

Cross and Freedman (1975, 17) emend mslwtm to mazz^lotâm, "from their stations," in line 2. Coogan (1978b, 150) thinks this unnecessary.

37. Judges 5:21a nhl qyšwn grpm

Wadi Qishon washed them away,

nhl qdwmym nhl qyšwn

The ancient wadi, Wadi Qishon

Syllables: Devices:

6:7

Anaphora (nhl) Repetition (nhl qyšwn) Partial Chiasmus (both lines begin and end with

nhl qyšwn) Notes:

Cross and Freedman (1975, 14, 17) regard line 2 as conflate, revocalizing qdwmym as qidd^mâm, deleting the first nhl, and translating, "Wadi Kishon overwhelmed them." Others (eg. Boling, 103) revocalize but retain the consonantal text. The last line of 5:21 presents difficulties with regard to its meaning and its relation to the preceding and following cola. Some connect it with the next bicolon (Cross and Freedman 1975, 14), while others encase it in parentheses (Hauser, 32). For this reason I omit it.

38. Judges 5:23a 'wrw mrwz 'mr ml'k yhwh 'wrw 'rwr yšbyh Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

"Curse Meroz," says the messenger of Yahweh, "Utterly curse her inhabitants"

10:8 Anaphora ('wrw) Repetition of Root ('wr, line 2) Ellipsis ('mr ml'k yhwh, Clause-Final) Length Compensation (+ 'rwr) Alliteration (', r, '-r, m-r) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Cross and Freedman (1975, 14, 18) delete 'mr ml'k yhwh from line 1 as an interpolation and add 'rwr as in line 2.

321 39. Judges 5:23b ky l' b'w lczrt yhwh lczrt yhwh bgbwrym Syllables: Devices: Notes:

For they did not come to the aid of Yahweh, To the aid of Yahweh with warriors

9:9 Anadiplosis

Watson (1984a, 209) notes the anadiplosis. Cross and Freedman (1975, 19) read b^gibbôremo, "with their warriors," in line 2.

40. Judges 5:24 tbrk mnsym ycl *&t hbr hqyny mnsym b'hl tbrk Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Blessed among women be Jael, Wife of Heber the Kenite, Among women in the tent may she be blessed

8:5:8

Repetition (mngym, lines 1 & 3) Ploke (verse begins and ends with tbrk) Partial Chiasmus (VMS//MV, lines 1 & 3) Ellipsis (ycl, N-Final) Length Compensation (+ b'hl) Binominalization (ycl//'st hbr hqyny) Cross and Freedman (1975, 19; followed by Stuart, 126; and Geller 1979, 160) delete line 2 as a gloss. Boling (114) retains it due to the number of tricola in the poem and "our sketchy knowledge of early Hebrew prosody."

41. Judges 5:25 rnyrn s'l hlb ntnh bspl 'dyrym hqrybh hm'h Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Water he requested, milk she gave, In a magnificent bowl She presented curds

8:5:5 Syntactic Repetition (OV, line 1) Enjambment (lines 2 & 3)

This stichometry follows O'Connor (228).

322 42. Judges 5:26a ydh lytd tšlhnh wymynh lhlmwt cmlym Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Her hand to the tent peg she stretched out, And her right hand to the workman's hammer

8:9

Ellipsis (tšlhnh, V-Final) Length Compensation (lytd/Zlhlmwt cmlym) Alliteration (l, m) Partial Syntactic Repetition The translation above reflects the vocalizaton of tšlhnh as a singular verb with energic nun, rather than the MT's plural verb (see Cross and Freedman 1975, 19).

43. Judges 5:26b whlmh sysr' mhqh r'šw wmhsh whlph rqtw

Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

And she hammered Sisera, She smashed his head, And she struck and pierced his temple

7:5:11 Syntactic Repetition (VO, lines 1 & 2) Anaphora (w-, lines 1,3) Epistrophe (-w, lines 2-3)

The metrical imbalance of line 3 leads Cross and Freedman (1975, 19) to read the line as a bicolon, emending to mhs <ssr'>//hlp rqt; "She struck Sisera, She pierced his temple." The use of the root HLM in this and the previous verse link them together.

44. Judges 5:27 byn rglyh krc npl škb byn rglyh krc npl b'šr krc sm npl šdwd Syllables:

10:8:10

Between her feet he dropped, he fell, he lay, Between her feet he dropped, he fell, In the place he dropped, there he fell, slain

323 Devices:

Notes:

Anaphora (byn) Repetition (lines 1 & 2 are almost identical; krc, npl in line 3) Line Initial Alliteration Partial Syntactic Repetition Cross and Freedman (1975, 19) delete npl in line 1 as a conflation. They emend line 3 to read: šm krc npl šdd, "There he sank, he fell down slain." This is on the theory that the relative pronoun, 'šr, is late and prosaic. Boling (104), however, regards it as the noun, "place," and translates as above.

45. Judges 5:28a bcd hhlwn nšqph wtybb 'm sysr' bcd h'snb Syllables:

8:13 Repetition (bcd) Partial Chiasmus (PV//VSP) Alliteration (b)

Devices:

Notes:

Through the window she looked down, And Sisera's mother lamented through the lattice

The metrical imbalance has led Cross and Freedman (1975, 15, 19) to offer the following emendation: bcd hln nšqp 'm ssr'//tybb 'm ssr' bd 'šnb; "Through a window peered Sisera's mother, Sisera's mother cried out through a lattice."

46. Judges 5:28b mdwc bšš rkbw lbw' mdwc 'hrw pcmy mrkbwtyw

Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Why does his chariot delay in coming, Why do the hooves of his chariotry tarry?

8:11

Anaphora (mdwc) Repetition of Root (rkb) Alliteration (m, b) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Watson (1984a, 344) notes the length compensation.

324 47. Judges 5:29 hkmwt srwtyh tcnynh 'p hy' tsyb 'mryh lh Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

The wisest of her ladies answers her, Indeed, she returns her words to her

9:9

Epistrophe (-h, pron. suff.) Repetition (-h, pron. suff.) Alliteration (t) Cross and Freedman (1975, 19; and most other commentators) read hkmwt as singular rather than plural.

48. Judges 5:30a hl' yms'w yhlqw šll rhm rhmtym lr's gbr Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Have they not found, do they not divide the booty, One girl, two girls for each warrior?

11:7

Number Parallelism (rhm//rhmtym) Alliteration (m, r, l) Line 2 reflects gibbor (see LXX, Cross and Freedman 1975, 19), rather than MT, geber.

49. Judges 5:30b šll sbcym lsysr' gll sbcym rqmh sbc rqmtym lsw'ry sll Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Booty of dyed cloth for Sisera, Booty of dyed cloth, embroidered, Two pieces of embroidered dyed cloth for the neck of the plunderer

9:7:10

Anaphora (sll sbcym, lines 1,2) Ellipsis (lsysr', N-Final) Length Compensation (+ rqmh) Number Parallelism (rqmh//rqmtym) Repetition (sbc, all 3 lines; šll, all 3 lines) Alliteration (l, m, s) Partial Syntactic Repetition The translation above follows Boling (115; also see Coogan 1978b, 151), reading šôlel, "plunderer," for the last word in line 3. Cross and Freedman (1975,

325 19-20) and Hauser (38) propose different interpretations.^ Use of the root SLL at the beginning and end of this verse virtually constitutes the device ploke.

326 Nmmbers

2 3 —2<4:

Te^ct

and

Analysis

50. Numbers 23:7b mn 'rm ynhny blq mlk mw'b mhrry qdm Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

From Aram Balaq brought me, The king of Moab from the eastern mountains

8:7

Anaphora (m-) Partial Chiasmus (PVS//SP) Ellipsis (ynhny, V-Medial) Length Compensation (blq//mlk mw'b) Binominalization (blq/Zmlk mw'b) Alliteration (m, n)

O'Connor (374) notes the Binominalization, and Rouillard (211) the chiasmus and verbal ellipsis.

51. Numbers 23:7c lkh 'rh ly ycqb wlkh zcmh ysr'l Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Go, curse Jacob for me, And go, execrate Israel

7:9

Anaphora ((w)lkh) Partial Syntactic Repetition (VVPO//WO) Ellipsis (ly, P-Medial) Length Compensation (ycqb//ysr'l) Binominalization (ycqb//yšr'l) Alliteration (l) Stuart (110) deletes the conjunction at the beginning of line 2 to acheive syllabic balance.

52. Numbers 23:8 mh 'qb l' qbh 'l wmh 'zcm l' z c m yhwh Syllables:

7:9

How can I curse whom God has not cursed, And how can I execrate whom Yahweh has not execrated?

327 Devices:

Notes:

Anaphora ((w)mh) Repetition of Root (qbb line 1; z c m line 2) Variation of Tense (prefix, suffix) Syntactic Repetition (MVVS) Repetition (]') Binorninalization (*l//yhwh) Alliteration (l-*, m) Stuart (110) transposes the divine names in the two cola to equalize the number of syllables. Rouillard (219) comments upon the Syntactic Repetition. De Vaulx (276) divides these lines into a quatrain.

53. Numbers 23:9a ky mr'š srym 'r'nw wmgbcwt 'šwrnw Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

For, from the top of the mountains I saw him And from the hills I perceived him

8:9

Ellipsis (ky, line 1) Anaphora ((w)m-) Epistrophe (-ennu) Partial Syntactic Repetition (MPV//PV) Alliteration (', r)

Albright (1944, 212; followed by Geller 1979, 93) argues that the verbal endings are simply energic without object suffixes. I have followed the MT, but the use of rhetorical devices is the same in either case.

54. Numbers 23:9b hn cm lbdd yškn wbgwym l' ythsb Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Here is a people who dwell alone, And among the nations they do not reckon themselves

7:8 Ellipsis (hn cm, N-Initial) Length Compensation (+ l'; yskn//ythšb)

Hertz (524) observes that the HtD of HSB occurs nowhere else in the Bible. He utilizes the meaning of the HtD of the root in Talmudic literature to translate, "It does not conspire against the nations."

328 55. Numbers 23:10a Who can count the dust of Jacob, my mnh cpr ycgb wmy spr rb ysr'l And who can number the dust-cloud of Israel? Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

7:9

Anaphora ((w)my) Syntactic Repetition (MVO) Binorninalization (ycqb//ysr'l) Alliteration (r)

The second line is problematic. Most commentators emend the MT's wmspr to wmy spr. The use of the object marker is rejected by most as prosaic. Albright (1944, 213) emends 't rbc to trbct, from Akk. turbu'u, "dust-cloud." Guillaume (336) tries to derrive both rbc and cpr from Arabic. Hertz (524) and Budd (251) defend the MT but with different interpretations.

56. Numbers 23:10b tmt npsy mwt yšrym wthy 'hryty kmhw Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Let me die the death of a just man, And may my end be like his

8:9

Repetition (-y, suff.) Partial Syntactic Repetition (both lines begin VS) Repetition of Root (mwt, line 1) Alliteration (m, t) Albright (1944, 213) regards ysrym as a singular noun with enclitic mem, corresponding to the singular suffix on kmhw.

57. Numbers 23:18b qwm blq wsmc h'zynh cdy bnw ppr Syllables: Devices:

Arise, Balaq, and listen, Heed my testimony, son of Sippor

6:9 Binorninalization (blqV/bnw spr) Syntatic Repetition (both lines begin with imperative)

329 Notes:

Albright (1944, 214; followed by most) reads cedî, "my testimony," for cdy. O'Connor (375) notes the Binominalization.

58. Numbers 23:19a l' 'ys 'l wykzb wbn 'dm wytnhm Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

God is not a man that he should lie, Nor a son of man that he should change his mind

6:8

Ellipsis (l', Ptcl-Initial; 'l, N-Medial) Length Compensation ('y^//wbn 'dm; wykzb/Zwytnhm) Partial Syntactic Repetition Repetition (w-, conj.) Alliteration (') Stuart (112) deletes the initial conjunction in line 2, metri causa.

59. Numbers 23:19b hhw' 'mr wl' ycsh wdbr wl' yqymnh Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Does he speak, and not do, Or declare, and not perform?

8:9

Ellipsis (hhw', Pronoun-Initial) Length Compensation (+ w-; yc^h//yqyrnnh) Partial Syntactic Repetition Repetition (wl') Alliteration (')

Albright (1944, 214; followed by Stuart, 118, and Geller 1979, 97) regards the suffix on yqymnh as energic without suffix.

60. Numbers 23:21a l' hbyt 'wn byCqb wl' r'h cml bysr'l Syllables:

7:10

He has not looked upon trouble in Jacob, Nor has he seen distress in Israel

330 Devices:

Notes:

Anaphora ((w)l') Syntactic Repetition (VOP) Repetition (b-, prep.) Binominalization (yqb//ysr'l) Alliteration (', l) Stuart (112) transposes ycqband ysr'l to acheive syllabic balance. Albright (1944, 213; followed by Geller 1979, 98) regards both verbs as passives. O'Connor (188) calls them impersonal third person passives.

61. Numbers 23:21b yhwh 'Ihyw cmw wtrwct mlk bw Syllables: Devices: Notes:

Yahweh, his God, is with him, And kingly acclamation is with him

7:6

Epistrophe (-w, suff.) Binominalization (yhwh/Z'lhyw) Partial Syntactic Repetition For this sense of the phrase trwct mlk, see de Vaulx (280). The syntax of line 2 is repeated by line 2 in the next verse.

62. Numbers 23:22 'l mwsy'<w> mmsrym ktwcpt r'm lw Syllables: Devices: Notes:

It is God who brings him out of Egypt, The power of a wild ox is his

7:7

Repetition (-w, suff.) Alliteration (m) In view of 24:8, most commentators read the singular suffix on mwsy' rather than the MT's plural suffix. The translation of line 2 follows O'Connor (189). An interesting interpretation is made by de Valux (280) who translates: "Dieu, qui l'a fait sortit d'Egypte//est pour lui comme des comes de buffle." If this were adopted then Enjambment should be listed as a device.

331 63. Numbers 23:23a ky l' nhš by qb , wl' qsm Jbysr'l Syllables: 6:7 Devices:

Notes:

For, there is no enchantment against Jacob, And no divination against Israel

Ellipsis (ky, line 1) Length Compensation (ycqb//ysr'l) Anaphora ((w)l') Partial Syntactic Repetition (MSP//SP) Repetition (b-, prep.) Binominalization (ycqb//ysr'l) Alliteration (by) O'Connor (189) reads nhs and qsm as verbs.

64. Numbers 23:23b kct y'mr lycqb wlysr'l mh p l 'l Syllables:

8:8

Binominalization (ycqb//ysr'l) Repetition (l-, prep.) Enjambment Alliteration (l)

Devices:

Notes:

Now let it be said to Jacob And to Israel, What God has done!

Stuart (113) suggests that y'mr is a jussive. De Vaulx (280) notes the enjambment, although he regards the final phrase as a completion of the statement rather than an independent clause.

65. Numbers 23:24a hn cm klby' yqwm wk'ry ytns' Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Indeed, a people rises up like a lion, And it rouses itself like a lion

7:7 Ellipsis (hn ^rn, N-Initial) Length Compensation (+ w-; ygwm//ytns') Repetition (k-, prep.) Partial Syntactic Repetition (SPV//PV)

Albright (1944, 216) argues that goy, or a synomym, is required by the parallelism in line 2. O'Connor (189) adds l' yskb (from next bicolon) to line 2.

332 66. Numbers 23:24b l' yškb cd y'kl trp wdm hllym yšth Syllables:

7:7 Ellipsis (l* yškb, V-Initial; cd, Pr-Medial) Length Compensation (+ w-; trp//dm hllym) Partial Chiasmus (VPO//OV)

Devices:

Notes:

He does not lie down until he eats the prey, And drinks the blood of the slain

As noted above, O'Connor relocates l' yškb to the previous bicolon. I do not adopt his stichometry because it eliminates the ellipsis in the verse and because it creates two very unbalanced bicola in a poem marked by very regular line lengths.

67. Numbers 24:3b n'm blcm bnw bcr wn'm hgbr štm cyn Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

The oracle of Balaam, son of Beor, Even the oracle of the man whose eye is perfect

8:9

Anaphora ((w)n'm) Binorninalization (blcm//bnw bcr) Alliteration (n, m, b) Partial Syntactic Repetition The meaning of the MT's phrase, štm hcyn, is uncertain. Most (eg. Albright 1944, 216) follow Wellhausen's emendation, s-tmh cyn, "whose eye is perfect." Allegro's Arabic etymology (79) for štm has not found scholarly acceptance. The definite article on gbr is suspect to Stuart (113), but Albright suggests that it conveys its original demonstrative force here.

68. Numbers 24:4b 'šr mhzh šdy yhzh npl wglwy cynym Syllables: Devices:

Who sees the vision of Shadday, Who falls with eyes uncovered

8:7

Repetition of Root (HŽH, line 1)

333 Notes:

Albright (1944, 217) deletes 'šr from line 1 on the basis of 24:16. Stuart (113) deletes 'šr as late and prosaic, but substitutes sa.

69. Numbers 24:5 mh tbw 'hlyk ycqb mškntyk ysr'l Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

How pleasing are your tents, Jacob, Your encampments, Israel!

9:8 Ellipsis (mh tbw, V-Initial) Length Compensation ('hlyk//mškntyk; ycqb//ysr'l) Binorninalization (ycqb//ysr'l) Repetition (-yk, suff.) Line Initial Alliteration Partial Syntactic Repetition

Stuart (113) deletes mh from line 1 metri causa.

70. Numbers 24:6a Like valleys which stretch out. Like gardens beside a river

knhlym ntyw kgnt cly nhr Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

6:7

Anaphora (k-, prep.) Ellipsis (ntyw, V-Final) Length Compensation (+ cly nhr) Alliteration (n) This bicolon is linked to the next by Anaphora, their common syntactic structure, and repetition of the preposition, cly. De Vaulx (284; followed by Budd, 252; and O'Connor, 190) translates nhl, "palmeraie," based on an Arabic root, but there seems no advantage in this etymology.

71. Numbers 24:6b k'hlym ntc yhwh k'rzym cly mym Syllables: Devices:

Like aloes Yahweh has planted. Like cedars beside water

7:6 Anaphora (k-, prep.) Repetition (-ym, plural) Alliteration (m)

334 Notes:

Albright (1944, 217) transposes 'hlym and 'rzym because cedars don't grow beside bodies of water. Stuart (114) deletes the tetragrammaton from line 1 as "inappropriate."

72. Numbers 24:7b wyrm m'gg mlkw wtns' mlktw Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

And may his king be higher than Agag, And may his kingdom be exalted

8:7

Anaphora (w-, conj.) Epistrophe (-w, suff.) Repetition of Root (MLK) Alliteration (m) Albright (1944, 218) regards mlkw in line 1 as an abstract noun, "kingdom," with the LXX and Vulgate.

73. Numbers 24:9b mbrkyk brwk w'rryk 'rwr Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

Those who bless you are blessed, And those who curse you are cursed 7:7

Repetition of Root (BRK; 'RR) Syntactic Repetition (SV) Repetition (-yk, suff.) Alliteration (r) Albright (1968, 17) notes the Repetition of Root, which he calls "etymological assonance."

74. Numbers 24:17a 'r'nw wl' c th 'šwrnw wl' qrwb Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

I see him, but not now, I look on him, but not near

7:8

Syntactic Repetition (VM) Repetition (-nw, suff.; wl') Line Initial Alliteration

Albright (1944, 219; followed by Geller, 105) regards the suffixes on the verbs as the energic without pronominal suffix. Stuart (115) omits only

335 the second suffix in order to balance the syllables in the lines. 75. Numbers 24:17b drk kwkb mycqb wqm šbt mysr'l Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

A star has come forth from Jacob, And a tribe has arisen from Israel

7:7 Syntactic Repetition (VSP) Repetition (m-, prep.) Binorninalization (yqb//ysr'l)

This is probably the most discussed verse in the Oracles of Balaam. The translation above follows the MT. The primary alternative is offered by Albright (1944, 219) who regards the prepositions on ycqb and ysr'l as misunderstood enclitic mem on the preceding plural construct nouns. Connecting drk to Ugaritic drkt, "rule, dominion," he translates, "When the stars of Jacob shall prevail//And the tribes of Israel shall arise." Gevirtz (1968, 267f.) suggests that kwkb should be translated, "host."

76. Numbers 24:17c wmhs p'ty mw'b wq kl bny št Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

And he will strike the Moabites' foreheads, And the skulls of all the Bene-Shut

7:7 Anaphora (w-, conj.) Ellipsis (wmhs, V-Initial) Length Compensation (+ kl; mw'b//bny št) Binorninalization (mw'b//bny št) Partial Syntactic Repetition

Most commentators read qdqd with Jer. 48:45 and the Samaritan Pentateuch rather than the MT's qrqr. Albright's explanation of bny st (1944, 220) is followed by most.

77. Numbers 24:18a whyh 'dwm yrsh whyh yršh scyr

And Edorn will be conquered land, And Seir will be conquered land

336 Syllables: Devices:

Notes:

8:8

Anaphora (whyh) Partial Chiasmus (VSO//VOS) Repetition (yršh) Binominalization ('dwm//scyr) The order of verses 18 and 19 is reversed in IQM 11. The last word of line 2 in the MT, 'ybyw, is problematic. Albright (1944, 221; followed by Stuart, 115; and de Vaulx, 292) deletes it and moves it to 24:19.

Chapter Analysis of

Five : the Texts

In this chapter I collect and analyze the data gathered from the Ugaritic texts in Chapter Four.

Results from the

biblical texts are also included in order to provide a point of reference for the Ugaritic material.

The first section of

the chapter deals with verse structure and line length, and the second with individual rhetorical devices.

Verse Structure Because verse structure and line length are measures of the basic units of Ugaritic verse, they serve as an appropriate starting point for this chapter.

Data from the

texts in Chapter Four on verse structures and average line length is collected and presented because it is useful for establishing the contours of lines and verses in these poems and may have implications for other texts in the Ugaritic corpus.

This data is first presented in tabular form,

followed by a discussion highlighting several significant issues relating to the texts.

In the table below the first

figure in each box gives the raw data, while the number in parentheses indicates the percentage for that verse structure among the total verses in the text.

Thus there are 89 bicola

338 among the verses analyzed in CTA 4, constituting 65% of the verses in CTA 4. Totals

CTA 4

CTA 14

KTU 1.100

Total Verses

136

73

15

Monocola

19 (14%)

5 (7%)

0

24 (11%)

Bicola

89 (65%)

48 (66%)

7 (47%)

144 (64%)

Tricola

22 (16%)

18 (25%)

5 (33%)

45 (20%)

Larger

6 (4%)

2 (3%)

3 (20%)

11 (5%)

Exodus 15

Judges 5

Num 23-24

Totals

Total Verses

19

30

28

77

Monocola

1 (5%)

0

0

1 (1%)

Bicola

12 (63%)

20 (67%)

28 (100%)

60 (78%)

Tricola

6 (32%)

9 (30%)

0

15 (20%)

Larger

0

1 (3%)

0

1 (1%)

224

The tables show that verse structure in CTA 4 and CTA 14 is somewhat similar.

KTU 1.100 varies at several points, but

this might be solely a factor of the small number of distinct verses in this text.

The most common verse structure is the

bicolon, with almost two-thirds of the verses in both CTA 4 and CTA 14 composed of bicola.

In KTU 1.100, however, less

than half of its verses are bicola.

The tricolon is second

in frequency, representing 20% of the total verses, although there are significant differences between the texts.

In CTA

4 only 16% of its verses are tricola, whereas in KTU 1.100 the percentage is more than twice that.

CTA 14, at 25%,

339 represents a medial figure. the verses.

Monocola account for some 11% of

CTA 4 has twice as many monocola as CTA 14, but

this is doubtless due to the frequent divine speeches in CTA 4 which are usually introduced by monocola.

The fact that

KTU 1.100 has no monocola is notable because this poem does include a number of speeches.

Because there are no

introductory monocola it is often difficult to determine who is speaking at any given time, adding to the hermeneutical problems in the text.

Finally, verses with four or more

lines account for only 5% of the total, although these verses may contain as many as eight lines. Caution must be exercised with regard to the results from the biblical poems due to the limited number of verses analyzed, but some points of interest emerge from the data presented above.

As in the Ugaritic texts, the bicolon is

the predominant verse form.

In Exodus 15 and Judges 5

approximately two-thirds of the verses are bicola, a frequency very similar to CTA 4 and CTA 14.

Numbers 23-24,

on the other hand, is quite different, where bicola represent the only verse form among the verses which have been analyzed.

Tricola are also significant in Exodus 15 and

Judges 5, accounting for 31% of the verses analyzed.

This

represents a percentage somewhat higher than CTA 4 or CTA 14, but approximating that of KTU 1.100.

Monocola and verse

structures larger than tricola are relatively infrequent in the biblical poems, with only one example of each.

340 From this data some observations can be made.

Unless it

is purely fortuitous, the similarity in the verse structures of CTA 4 and CTA 14 suggest the authors and/or redactors of these two texts shared a common convention of verse patterning.

In this convention the bicolon is the primary

form, accounting for approximately two-thirds of the verses. Tricola are also well attested, although much less frequently.

Verses of only a single line or of more than

three lines are used, but their typical use is to introduce speeches.

On the other hand, the results from KTU 1.100 show

that Ugaritic poets could vary from this tradition and utilize other forms, such as tricola, more frequently.

The

small number of verses in KTU 1.100, however, precludes any more definitive description. The comparable verse patterns in CTA 4 and CTA 14 raise the question of the existence of a common tradition behind these texts.

In other words, was there a convention of verse

structure which the authors of these texts consciously followed in imitation of an accepted style?

Obviously there

is no way to be certain, but I believe that the evidence in this study points to an affirmative answer of this question. It seems hardly accidental that the verse structure of two texts which together comprise 209 verses is so similar.

The

evidence from KTU 1.100 suggests that this was not a fixed convention applicable to every type of Ugaritic text during every time period, but at least some texts followed this

341 basic pattern.

It should be noted, of course, that both CTA

4 and CTA 14 may have been copied by the same scribe, Ilmilku,*

raising the possibility that the scribe functioned

as an editor as well as copyist. When the limited sample of biblical texts is compared, it appears that Exodus 15 and Judges 5 have verse structures which are similar to the Ugaritic material.

The bicolon is

the major verse form, but the tricolon and other verse structures contribute to the overall composition of the poem. Numbers 23-24, on the other hand, represents a very different tradition, one in which the bicolon dominates the poem to the apparent exclusion of other verse forms.

In view of

questions concerning the date of the Balaam Oracles, it is tempting to suggest that the exclusive use of the bicolon in Numbers 23-24 is an indication of a later date.

Without more

data from other biblical poems, however, such a conclusion is only speculation. It is also possible that the literary type of the Balaam Oracles lent itself more readily to this verse structure.

It is also worth noting that in these biblical

poems there is only one verse which has four lines and none which exceed four.

This fact may be due to the nature of

these texts or to the small sample analyzed in this study.

*The colophon of CTA 16, the last tablet in the Kirta epic, notes that Ilmilku was the scribe. The text of the colophon of CTA 4 is broken, but the writing style of the tablet is usually attributed to Ilmilku.

342 Line Length Two means of measuring line length were employed in the analysis of the Ugaritic texts, consonant counts and syllable counts.

Consonant counts, first suggested by Loretz (1975a),

provide the most objective measure of line length, since stichometry is the only factor subject to the judgment of the interpreter.

The value of consonant counting can be

questioned, however, since meter and rhythm in verse are related to the number of syllables rather than the number of consonants.

Syllable counts, thus, give more valuable

information about the length of a line of verse, but they involve two subjective elements, stichometry and vocalization.

In view of the highly subjective nature of

vocalizing Ugaritic, the data on line length derived from syllable counts must be regarded as very tentative. Virtually every line could be vocalized differently, producing somewhat different results. The tables below present the consonant and syllable counts of the Ugaritic texts.

Since no consonant counts were

derived for the biblical texts, data is only available for the syllable counts.

The tables record how frequently lines

of different lengths occur in the texts.

In each entry the

first figure represents the raw number of lines of that length and the figure beneath it gives the percentage of that line length in the total for that text.

Thus in CTA 4, for

example, 80 lines have twelve consonants, representing 28.2%

343 of the lines in that text.

It might be noted that eight

lines of verse from the analysis have been deleted from these figures because their broken condition prevented reconstruction. Consonant Counts CTA 4

CTA 14

KTU 1.100

Totals

284

164

41

489

7 consonant lines

2 (0.7%)

5 (3.0%)

0

7 (1.4%)

8 consonant lines

3 (1.1%)

15 (9.1%)

1 (2.4%)

19 (3.9%)

9 consonant lines

25 (8.8%)

41 (25.0%)

16 (39.0%)

82 (16.8%)

10 consonant lines

45 (15.8%)

39 (23.8%)

7 (17.1%)

91 (18.6%)

11 consonant lines

65 (22.9%)

37 (22.6%)

14 (34.1%)

116 (23.7%)

12 consonant lines

80 (28.2%)

14 (8.5%)

3 (7.3%)

97 (19.8%)

13 consonant lines

30 (10.6%)

9 (5.5%)

0

39 (8.0%)

14 consonant lines

20 (7.0%)

2 (1.2%)

0

22 (4.5%)

15 consonant lines

10 (3.5%)

2 (1.2%)

0

12 (2.5%)

16 consonant lines

2 (0.7%)

0

0

2 (0.4%)

17 consonant lines

2 (0.7%)

0

0

2 (0.4%)

11.53

10.15

10.05

10.94

12

10

10

11

Total Lines

Mean consonants per line Median cons. per line

344 Syllable Counts CTA 4

CTA 14

KTU 1.100

Totals

284

164

41

489

5 syllable lines

1 (0.4%)

0

0

1 (0.2%)

6 syllable lines

0

1 (0.6%)

0

1 (0.2%)

7 syllable lines

5 (1.8%)

10 (6.1%)

1 (2.4%)

16 (3.3%)

8 syllable lines

13 (4.6%)

39 (23.8%)

8 (19.5%)

60 (12.3%)

9 syllable lines

65 (22.9%)

53 (32.3%)

15 (36.6%)

133 (27.2%)

10 syllable lines

56 (19.7%)

33 (20.1%)

16 (39.0%)

105 (21.5%)

11 syllable lines

82 (28.9%)

21 (12.8%)

1 (2.4%)

104 (21.3%)

12 syllable lines

38 (13.4%)

5 (3.0%)

0

43 (8.8%)

13 syllable lines

17 (6.0%)

1 (0.6%)

0

18 (3.7%)

14 syllable lines

3 (1.0%)

1 (0.6%)

0

4 (0.8%)

15 syllable lines

2 (0.7%)

0

0

2 (0.4%)

16 syllable lines

2 (0.7%)

0

0

2 (0.4%)

10.46

9.23

9.20

9.94

11

9

9

10

Total Lines

Mean syllables per line Median syll. per line

345 Exodus 15

Judges 5

Num 23-24

Totals

43

71

56

170

3 syllable lines

0

1 (1.4%)

0

1 (0.6%)

4 syllable lines

1 (2.3%)

1 (1.4%)

0

2 (1.2%)

5 syllable lines

0

8 (11.3%)

0

8 (4.7%)

6 syllable lines

3 (7.0%)

9 (12.7%

6 (10.7%)

18 (10.6%)

7 syllable lines

2 (4.7%)

8 (11.3%)

25 (44.6%)

35 (20.6%)

8 syllable lines

7 (16.3%)

15 (21.1%)

15 (26.8%)

37 (21.8%)

9 syllable lines

10 (23.3%)

12 (16.9%)

9 (16.1%)

31 (18.2%)

10 syllable lines

7 (16.3%)

8 (11.3%)

1 (1.8%)

16 (9.4%)

11 syllable lines

6 (14.0%)

7 (10.0%)

0

13 (7.6%)

12 syllable lines

5 (11.6%)

1 (1.4%)

0

6 (3.5%)

13 syllable lines

1 (2.3%)

1 (1.4%)

0

2 (1.2%)

14 syllable lines

1 (2.3%)

0

0

1 (0.6%)

Mean syllables per line

9.42

7.99

7.54

8.20

9

8

7

8

Total Lines

Median syll. per line

As noted above, one can rightly question the value of consonant counts for the analysis of verse.

Nevertheless,

this study has produced results which parallel those of the

346 syllable counts.

Among the Ugaritic texts 87% of the lines

contain from nine to thirteen consonants.

in CTA 4 almost

78% of the lines have from ten to thirteen consonants, and in CTA 14 more than 71% of the lines have nine, ten or eleven syllables.

In KTU 1.100 almost 79% of the lines are from

nine to twelve syllables in length.

As will be seen below,

this degree of consistency within the texts is similar to that of the syllable counts.

The difference in the median

number of consonants per line among the texts is also notable.

CTA 4 has the longest average with 11.53 consonants

per line, almost 14% longer than CTA 14.

KTU 1.100 has the

lowest average, but it is only slightly lower than CTA 14. Finally, it is not surprising that the consonants counts are higher than the syllable counts, in view of the fact that some syllables contain two consonants. The previously mentioned problems involved in vocalizing an ancient, primarily consonantal text such as Ugaritic makes it possible to offer only tentative observations concerning syllable counts.

In the three Ugaritic texts 90% of the

lines are from eight to twelve syllables in length, a range of five syllables.

When individual texts are examined the

variation is slightly less.

In CTA 4 almost 84% of the lines

are from nine to twelve syllables, whereas 89% of the lines in CTA 14 are of eight to eleven syllables.

The least

diversity is found in KTU 1.100 where 95% of the lines are of eight, nine or ten syllables in length.

Mean line lengths

347 also reveal some distinction between the texts.

CTA 4 has

the longest lines with a mean of 10.46 syllables per line. CTA 14 and KTU 1.100 are almost identical with approximately 9.2 syllables per line, some 12% shorter than the lines in CTA 4. Line length in the three biblical texts seems slightly more diverse.

Taken as a whole, 88% of the lines are from

six to eleven syllables, a range of six syllables.

As the

chart shows, both Exodus 15 and Judges 5 have lines representing a wide range of lengths.

Numbers 23-24 has the

least diversity; all but one of the lines are between six and nine syllables in length.

The mean line lengths also differ.

Exodus 15 has the longest with 9.42 syllables per line, Judges 5 has 7.99, and Numbers 23-24 has 7.54.

Thus the mean

in Exodus 15 is some 15% longer than the mean in Judges 5, and 20% longer than Numbers 23-24. This data suggests that there was no fixed convention for line length in Ugaritic verse.

The only point of

reference for these figures comes from an analysis of biblical acrostic poems by Freedman (1980a).

Using the same

method for counting syllables I have employed in this study for the biblical texts, he found that these acrostic poems range from six and a half syllables to more than nine syllables per line.

He also found a great deal of variation

within individual poems (Freedman 1980a, 76). Since the present study has found similar results, I would suggest

348 that, apart from adhering to broad parameters, both the Ugaritic and the Hebrew poets were free to compose poetic lines of lengths which were appropriate to their individual purposes.

For example, different line lengths might be

appropriate for different poetic genre.

Further, within a

given poem line lengths might vary according to the rhetorical purpose of a given section. One of the primary conclusions of Stuart's study of syllabic meter was that lines within a bi- or tricolon usually contain the same number of syllables.

The data

derived from this study permits an evaluation of this aspect of Stuart's thesis.

The following table presents an analysis

of the relative syllabic line lengths of contiguous lines within individual verses.

Thus, if the two lines in a

bicolon have the same number of syllables, then that fact is recorded under the heading "same" in the table.

Differences

of one, two, three, or more syllables between lines are recorded similarly.

In tricola or larger verse structures I

have counted the relationship only between contiguous lines. Thus, if a tricolon consists of lines of 10, 11, and 8 syllables, then the first relationship (between the 10 and 11 syllable lines) is recorded as a difference of one syllable, and the second relationship (between the 11 and 8 syllable lines) is recorded as a difference of three syllables.

349 Syllable Differences between Contiguous Lines CTA 4

CTA 14

KTU 1.100

Totals

91

26

267

38 (25.3%)

29 (31.9%)

9 (34.6%)

76 (28.5%)

1 syllable 48 difference (32.0%)

34 (37.4%)

12 (46.2%)

94 (35.2%)

2 syllable 40 difference (26.7%)

19 (20.9%)

4 (15.4%)

63 (23.6%)

3 syllable 13 difference (8.7%)

5 (5.5%)

1 (3.8%)

19 (7.1%)

4 syllable 8 difference (5.3%)

2 (2.2%)

0

10 (3.7%)

5 syllable 1 difference (0.7%)

2 (2.2%)

0

3 (1.1%)

6 syllable 2 difference (1.3%)

0

0

2 (0.7%)

Total No. Line 150 Relationships Same no. of syllables

This table shows that the vast majority of contiguous lines within a verse are quite similar in syllable line length.

In the three texts more than 87% of the contiguous

lines differ by no more than two syllables.

In both CTA 14

and KTU 1.100 more than 90% of the lines exhibit this degree of conformity.

In view of the uncertainties surrounding the

vocalization of Ugaritic, a difference of two syllables or less between contiguous lines can be considered fairly negligible and therefore would tend to affirm the basic principle enunciated by Stuart.

However, the fact that

contiguous lines can differ by as many as six syllables, together with the fact that almost 13% of the contiguous

350 lines differ by three or more syllables, strongly argues against any attempt to absolutize a principle of balanced line lengths.

While generally balanced lines do seem to be

the norm and are to be preferred over other scansions, the Ugaritic bards were not incapable of nor averse to composing parallel lines which were noticably unbalanced.

Rhetorical Devices This section collates data on individual rhetorical devices found in the Ugaritic and biblical texts of the study and makes observations concerning their use and frequency. Each device is treated in the same order as in Chapter Three. Data from the Ugaritic texts is presented first, followed by the biblical texts.

The columns marked "Instances" list the

number of occurrences of the devices within the texts and is followed by a percentage enclosed with parentheses which represents the relative frequency of the device within the texts.

It is calculated by dividing the instances of that

device by the number of verses in the text.

I. Devices which utilize repetition Anaphora As noted in Chapter Three, because words and particles are subject to elision in Ugaritic verse, I consider both the repetition of an initial word and the repetition of an initial particle in successive lines as anaphora.

It is

351 likely, however, that the repetition of a word was more perceptible by an audience than the repetition of initial particles.

In order to distinguish between these two types

of anaphora I have included in the tables below columns which record the instances of anaphora which are effected by repeated words or particles. Instances

Words

Particles

CTA 4

24 (17.6%)

19

5

CTA 14

11 (15.1%)

3

8

3 (18.8%)

__2

_2

Totals

38 (16.9%)

23

15

Exodus 15

4 (21.1%)

4

0

Judges 5

14 (46.7%)

11

3

Numbers 23-24

13 (46.4%)

_3

10

Totals

31 (40.3%)

18

13

KTU 1.100

The first table shows that, with respect to relative frequency, anaphora was used rather consistently in the three Ugaritic texts.

The frequency for each of the texts is quite

close to the average of all three.

The most noticeable

difference is found in the distribution of anaphora between initial words or particles.

CTA 4 stands out because 79% of

its instances involve repeated words.

In contrast, only 27%

of those in CTA 14 and 50% of those in KTU 1.100 are formed by repeating the initial word.

If, as I have argued, the

352 repetition of a word is more perceptible then this observation would suggest that anaphora would have been more noticeable in CTA 4 than in the other texts. The second table shows that anaphora is more common in the three biblical poems than in the Ugaritic texts.

Overall

these texts have a frequency which is twice that of the Ugaritic poems.

The relative frequency of anaphora in the

biblical poems is not as consistent as in the Ugaritic texts. Exodus 15 has a frequency of anaphora which is only slightly higher than the Ugaritic texts, whereas Judges 5 and Numbers 23-24 have a frequency which approaches three times that of the Ugaritic poems.

Also of note is the fact that all of the

instances of anaphora in Exodus 15 involve the repetition of the initial word.

Judges 5 is similar with 79% repeated

words, but Numbers 23-24 has only 23% of its instances of anaphora formed by repeated words.

These figures reflect the

same degree of diversity seen in the Ugaritic texts. Its frequent use in both poetic traditions coupled with its perceptibility indicates that anaphora was an important device for poet and audience alike.

It may heve aided the

poet in the process of oral composition, enabling him to create verses virtually "on his feet."

Structurally,

anaphora serves to unify and link successive lines into verses.

Anaphora doubtless appealed to the audience by

providing phonological clues which aided them in resolving

353 verse structures, thereby enhancing their understanding of the message.

Epistrophe Just as is the case with anaphora, a distinction should be made between the repetition of a word at the end of successive lines and the repetition of a suffix. Instances

Words

Suffixes

CTA 4

25 (18.4%)

2

23

CTA 14

14 (19.2%)

2

12

5 (38.5%)

_p_

__5

44 (19.6%%)

4

40

Exodus 15

1 (5.3%)

0

1

Judges 5

3 (10.0%)

0

3

Numbers 23-24

3_ (10.7%)

_0

_3_

Totals

7 (9.1%)

0

7

KTU 1.100 Totals

The first table above suggests that epistrophe is slightly more common in the three Ugaritic texts than anaphora.

The relative frequencies of the two main texts,

CTA 4 and CTA 14, are very similar.

Although KTU 1.100 has a

frequency of twice the others, the small number of verses in the text must, of course, be kept in mind.

The table also

shows that the repetition of a final word is relatively rare (only in CTA 4 vi 47-54, viii 7-9, CTA 14 iii 106-107, and

354 iii 114-116).

If epistrophe were limited to this form it

would be a rather insignificant device. Epistrophe is much less common in the biblical poems than anaphora.

Exodus 15 has only one example and the other

texts have only three instances each, yielding a relative frequency considerably less than the Ugaritic texts.

It is

also noteworthy that none of the seven examples of epistrophe in the biblical texts involves the repetition of a word. The data presented above on the relative frequency of epistrophe in the Ugaritic texts might suggest that because it is slightly more common than anaphora then it is just as perceptible and rhetorically important as anaphora.

However,

an important consideration tempers this conclusion.

In the

Ugaritic texts there are very few instances of epistrophe in which entire words are repeated (only 4 out of 44, or 9%). If, as I have argued, the repetition of words is much more perceptible than particles or suffixes, then the perceptibility of epistrophe is low despite its relative frequency. Another observation is that, unlike the Ugaritic texts, the relative frequency of epistrophe in the biblical material is much lower than the frequency of anaphora in these texts. Two possible explanations can be offered to account for this marked difference:

The first is that, for unknown reasons,

epistrophe was not as perceptible as anaphora to the biblical poets or their audience.

If epistrophe went unnoticed then

355 it is unlikely to have been deliberately produced.

The

second, and I think more likely, possibility is that epistrophe was just perceptible to the people of ancient Israel as it was to the people of Ugarit, but that it was not considered as rhetorically significant to poet and/or audience.

Symploce There are only four instances of symploce in the Ugaritic texts analyzed above and none in the biblical texts. The one example in CTA 4 (vi 47-54), though disputed by some, is the only example of repeated words at both the beginning and end of successive lines.

The three examples in CTA 14 (i

28-30, iii 107-109, and iii 120-121) entail the combination of an initial preposition or conjunction with a common suffix at the end of the line.

Such instances would be unlikely to

stand out to the audience.

As was suggested in Chapter

Three, it may be that these few examples are primarily due to chance rather than the poet's compositional skill.

Repetition Because repetition is so ubiquitous it is not surprising that a single verse may contain several instances of the repetition of individual words and/or particles.

In the

tables below I have attempted to account for this situation by presenting several columns of information.

The column

356 marked "Verses" lists the total number of verses which contain simple repetition and the relative frequency of these verses in the text in parentheses.

The next column,

"Instances," lists the total number of repeated words and/or particles within the text.

For example, in CTA 4 there are

39 verses which have repetition, but within these 39 verses there are a total of 52 individual instances of repetition. This figure is then broken down into the repetition of words and particles in the final two columns, marked "Words" and "Particles."

Thus in CTA 4 there are 28 instances of the

repetition of a word and 24 of a particle. Verses

Instances

Words

Particles

CTA 4

39 (28.7%)

52

28

24

CTA 14

31 (42.5%)

33

13

20

9 (56.3%)

10!

_6

__4

Totals

79 (35.1%)

95

47

48

Exodus 15

11 (57.9%)

11

1

10

Judges 5

14 (46.7%)

14

13

1

Numbers 23-2416 (57.1%)

16.

__1

1J5

Totals

41

15

26

KTU 1.100

41 (53.2%)

As the tables above show, repetition of a word in parallel lines is a common rhetorical device in both the Ugaritic and biblical texts.

Although the relative frequency

is least in CTA 4, that text has thirteen more instances of

357 repetition which, as explained above, are not included in the relative frequency.

When this factor is considered, the

frequency of repetition in CTA 4 is similar to that in CTA 14.

The highest frequency of the Ugaritic texts is found in

KTU 1.100.

If, as many argue, KTU 1.100 is an incantation,

it may be that frequent repetition was characteristic of this type of text.

On the other hand, the frequency of repetition

in KTU 1.100 is no higher than in the biblical texts. The relative frequency of repetition in the biblical texts is fairly consistent.

Exodus 15 and Numbers 23-24 are

almost identical while Judges 5 has a frequency of about 10% less.

The most striking feature is the distribution between

repeated words and particles.

Both Exodus 15 and Numbers 23-

24 each have only one instance of repeated words, whereas in Judges 5 all but one of the examples involve repeated words. In contrast, the distribution in the Ugaritic texts is relatively even.

If we assume that repeated words are more

perceptible than repeated particles, it stands to reason that this device was more noticeable to the audience of Judges 5 than the other two biblical texts.

Inter-Colon Repetition There are two instances of the repetition of the same word within a single colon in the Ugaritic texts (CTA 4 ii 24-26 and CTA 14 iii 130-33).

The only example in the

biblical texts is Judges 5:12a.

358 Repetition of Root As is the case with simple repetition, more than one root may be repeated within a single verse.

In order to

record this data the same approach has been taken as above. The last two columns distinguish between instances of root repetition which occur within the same poetic line and those which are found in parallel lines. Verses

Instances

Same Line

Par. Lines

CTA 4

9 (6.6%)

11

9

2

CTA 14

4 (5.5%)

4

4

0

KTU 1.100

3 (18.8%)

_4

_4

_p_

Totals

16 (7.1%)

19

17

2

Exodus 15

1 (5.3%)

1

1

0

Judges 5

3 (10.0%)

3

2

1

Numbers 23--24 5 (17.9%)

_7_

_6

_1

Totals

11

9

2

9 (11.7%)

Repetition of a root in the same or parallel lines is, as the table indicates, rather infrequent in CTA 4 and CTA 14 but is somewhat more common in KTU 1.100.

It is also of note

that all but one of the examples involve root repetition within a single poetic line rather than in parallel lines. The biblical texts reveal a somewhat similar situation, with a wide range of usage of this device, mostly within a single poetic line.

Exodus 15, with only one example, has the

359 lowest frequency, comparable to CTA 4 and CTA 14, whereas Numbers 23-24 has a frequency like KTU 1.100.

Yet even in

KTU 1.100 and Numbers 23-24 repetition of root is a relatively infrequent rhetorical device. One form of root repetition, the cognate accusative, is quite common in both prose and verse in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew.

Since it is a characteristic of both prose and

verse, it is necessary to determine to what extent root repetition is a specifically rhetorical device.

In the

corpus studied above most of the instances of root repetition are examples of cognate accusatives.

Of the 19 instances in

the Ugaritic texts, only five are not cognate accusatives, representing a relative frequency of only 2%.

In the

biblical poems five of the eleven are not cognate accusatives, but two of these involve the use of infinitive absolutes.

This results in a relative frequency in the

biblical texts of 4%.

When this additional information is

considered it becomes evident that Repetition of Root was not a significant rhetorical device in either the Ugaritic or biblical texts in this study.

Staircase Parallelism Chapter Three traced the extensive discussion this device has engendered in recent years, but the analysis presented in Chapter Four shows that the volume of discussion is out of proportion to its relative frequency.

Staircase

360 parallelism is certainly not a primary rhetorical device in the Ugaritic texts.

There is only one instance in CTA 4 (iv

59-62) and one in CTA 14 (i 21-23).

KTU 1.100 has two

examples (70-71 and 71-72), although Young's emendation of 73-74, if adopted, would add a third.

All four of these

instances of staircase parallelism are found in tricola. There are six instances of staircase parallelism in the three biblical texts, three in Exodus 15 (6, 11, 16b), three in Judges 5 (3b, 6a, 12a), and none in Numbers 23-24.

In

contrast to the Ugaritic examples, each of these are found in bicola.

Muilenburg (1966, 233-51) has argued that the three

examples in Exodus 15 serve to structure the poem.

Anadiplosis Like staircase parallelism, anadiplosis is relatively rare in these Ugaritic poems.

There are two instances in CTA

4 (iv 41-43 and vii 38-39), one in CTA 14 (iii 142-144), and none in KTU 1.100.

Of these three examples only CTA 4 vii

38-39 repeats more than a single word.

Anadiplosis is

equally rare in the biblical texts, found only once, Judges 5:23b, in which two words are repeated.

Refrain Refrain is not found in CTA 4 or CTA 14.

The twelve-

fold repetition of the first seven lines of KTU 1.100 could be construed as a refrain, but it does not fit the pattern as

361 defined and discussed in Chapter Three.

There is one example

of refrain in the biblical texts, Judges 5:2, 9.

Inclusio There are no examples of inclusio in either the Ugaritic or biblical texts analyzed in Chapter Four.

Binominalization Because a single verse in CTA 4 contains two instances of binominalization, I have presented the data in two columns in a manner similar to several other devices above. Verses

Instances

CTA 4

27 (19.9%)

28

CTA 14

17 (23.3%)

17

KTU 1.100

_p_

_p_

44 (19.5%)

45

Exodus 15

1 (5.3%)

1

Judges 5

6 (20.0%)

6

Numbers 23-24

14 (50.0%)

AA

Totals

21 (27.3%)

21

Totals

As the chart shows, the relative frequency in CTA 4 and CTA 14 is fairly uniform, differing only slightly.

Its

absence in KTU 1.100 is noteworthy, although there are two verses (2-3 and 62-64) which could be construed as containing

362 binominalization.

It is also worthwhile to note the proper

names which are involved in this device.

In CTA 4 all of the

proper names are, of course, divine names.

The names of

Baal, El and Athirat are each involved six times; Mot five times; Anat, Heyan, Qudshu, Shapshu, and Hadad one time each. In CTA 14 the name of the king, Keret, is the subject of binominalization six times; El five times; Athirat and Huray twice each; Baal once; and the city of Bet Hubur one time. The biblical texts exhibit a great deal of diversity in the use of binominalization.

Exodus 15 has only one example,

whereas Numbers 23-24 has the highest frequency of all the texts in the study.

The proper names involved also vary.

The one instance in Exodus 15 involves the tetragrammaton. Half of the six instances in Judges 5 are of the tetragrammaton and the other three are of human characters, Deborah, Baraq and Yael.

Seven of the fourteen instances in

Numbers 23-24 parallel the names Jacob and Israel, and two others involve Moab and Edom.

The tetragrammaton accounts

for two instances, king Balak for two, and Balaam for one instance. In Chapter Three I suggested that binominalization is a variation of word-pairs, paralleling a proper name with an epithet or another proper name.

From this it is reasonable

to assume that the frequency of binominalization will be influenced by the number of available personal names in any given text.

In a text which has a large number of personal

363 names the poet has more opportunity to create word-pairs from these names, and, conversely, a text with few personal names would offer limited opportunities for binominalization. In the Ugaritic texts of this study both CTA 4 and CTA 14 contain a large catalog of personal names.^

KTU 1.100

also has a long list of divine personal names, but most of them occur in the twelve-fold repetition of the text's first section.

Only three personal names are found in the non-

repeated part of the text which I have included in this study.

The relative frequencies presented in the table above

seem to support this general supposition, since the frequency of binominalization in CTA 4 and CTA 14 is about the same whereas there are no examples in KTU 1.100. The picture is somewhat similar for the biblical poems. Exodus 15 contains only three personal names and it has the lowest frequency of binominalization.

Judges 5 contains nine

personal names and has a relative frequency similar to the Ugaritic texts.

Numbers 23-24 has 10 personal names, and its

rather high frequency can be attributed to the repeated pairing of the names Jacob and Israel, as noted above. These considerations do not alter the conclusion that binominalization was an important device in both Ugaritic and biblical verse.

The poets utilized it fairly frequently for

composing parallel lines.

^CTA 4 has 17 different personal names, and CTA 14 has 13.

364 Number Parallelism Although not extremely common, number parallelism is attested in CTA 4 and CTA 14 but not in KTU 1.100.

In CTA 4

it is found eight times, representing a frequency of 5.9%. Half of these instances are the pair 1000//10,000 (alp//rbt). The other examples include:

2//3, 66/Z77, and 80//90.

The

final instance pairs a singular noun with the same noun in the dual (ii 32-33).

I have listed nine verses with this

device in CTA 14, although three do not conform to the normal pattern.

If all are included this would represent a

frequency of 12.3%, but if the three questionable examples are excluded the frequency would be 8.2%. include:

The number pairs

2//3, 3//4//5//6/Z7, 6//7, 77/8, and 1000//10,000.

The three questionable examples all involve the sequence of a seven day march in the epic.

In the biblical texts number

parallelism is found only twice, Judges 5:30a, 30b.

These

two examples pair a singular noun with the same noun in the dual. In theory the raw material available to the poet for the creation of number pairs is infinite since any number could be paired with its next higher integer.

In practice,

however, the pool seems to be much more restricted.

As noted

above, there are no examples of the X, X+l pattern among the Ugaritic texts in which X exceeds seven. other patterns are also limited.

Examples of the

This limited stock of

number pairs raises the same kind of considerations discussed

365 with respect to binominalization; that is, does a limited selection of pairs affect the frequency with which the device is used?

Here, however, the situation is somewhat different,

because all number pairs in common use would be available to every poet irrespective of the text's content.

In view of

this I would argue that the relative frequencies of number parallelism represent an accurate portrayal of the significance of the device.

All of this is to say that

number parallelism is not one of the most important rhetorical devices in the corpus of this study.

Lists There are six examples of this device in CTA 4, representing a frequency of 4.4%.

Three of these describe

the fare at Baal's climactic banquet, two enumerate features of Anat's anatomy, and the other lists the inhabitants of El house.

CTA 14 has two examples for a frequency of 2.7%. One

of these catalogues the citizens of Hubur and the other lists gems and minerals which are likened to the beauty of Huray. There are no examples in KTU 1.100 or in the biblical texts.

Syntactic Repetition The following table distinguishes between complete syntactic repetition and partial syntactic repetition.

366 Complete CTA 4

10 (7.4%)

Partial 56 (41.2%)

CTA 14

8 (11.0%)

KTU 1.100

1 (6.3%)

9 (60.0%)

19 (8.4%)

102 (45.5%)

Exodus 15

0

8 (42.1%)

Judges 5

4 (13.3%)

10 (33.3%)

Numbers 23-24

6 (21.4%)

11 (39.3%)

Totals

10 (13.0%)

29 (37.7%)

Totals

37 (50.7%)

The data presented above shows that complete syntactic repetition in parallel lines is used only occasionally in Ugaritic verse.

Its relative frequency in the three texts is

approximately the same.

The single example in KTU 1.100 is

notable, however, because the syntax is repeated exactly in all four lines of a quatrain (KTU 1.100 65-67).

The relative

frequency of complete syntactic repetition in the three biblical texts is more varied.

Exodus 15 has no examples

whereas Numbers 23-24 has a fairly high frequency.

Overall,

the biblical texts have a higher frequency than the Ugaritic texts. Partial syntactic repetition is, as the tables indicate, much more common in both the Ugaritic and biblical texts.

Its relative frequency ranks it as one of the most

common rhetorical devices in the Ugaritic texts, second only to alliteration.

Among the biblical texts its frequency

367 ranks only behind anaphora, simple repetition, alliteration, and line initial alliteration.

These results demonstrate the

propensity of the ancient bards to repeat synatactic patterns in parallel lines.

Yet it should be asked how noticeable

partial syntactic repetition would have been to the audience of these texts?

This is, of course, a virtually impossible

question to answer, but it is my opinion that most of the instances of this device listed in Chapter Four probably made little if any conscious impact upon the ancient audience. For this reason I doubt that partial syntactic repetition, despite its frequency, was a significant factor in the Ugaritic rhetorical tradition.

Alliteration Several types of information will be presented in the tables below.

The first table lists the number of verses in

which alliteration was identified, together with the total number of consonants and consonant clusters subject to alliteration. Verses

Total Consonants

CTA 4

93 (68.4%)

136

CTA 14

36 (49.3%)

57

KTU 1.100

11 (68.8%)

23

140 (62.2%)

216

Totals

368 Exodus 15

11 (57.9%)

15

Judges 5

13 (43.3%)

23

Numbers 23-24

17 (60.7%)

24

Totals

41 (53.2%)

62

The data presented above shows that alliteration, as defined in Chapter Three, is very common in both the Ugaritic and biblical texts of this study.

Its relative frequency in

CTA 4 and KTU 1.100 is almost identical.

The frequency in

CTA 14 is slightly less, but is still quite high, found in almost half of the verses.

The biblical texts present a

similar picture, with over half of the verses having alliteration. These results are subject to several caveats, however. First, as was noted in Chapter Three, there is no accepted criterion for identifying alliteration in general, much less in ancient Canaanite verse.

Had another standard been

adopted the results would have been different.

Second, as

the following tables will show, the consonants which are most frequently alliterated are those which are common morphological elements in the respective languages.

The fact

that consonants such as t and m are so often alliterated is more likely attributed to the nature of the languages than to the skill of the poets. The following tables catalogue the consonants which are alliterated in the individual texts.

The figure in each

369 column represents the number of times the individual consonant is subject to alliteration. Consonant CTA 4

CTA 14

KTU 1.100

Totals

m

28

15

3

46

t

30

9

3

42

l

17

5

1

23

Jb

18

2

2

22

n

8

2

4

14

r

7

2

1

10

^

4

3

0

7

J

4

1

0

5

^

0

4

0

4

<

2

1

1

4

A

2

0

0

2

$

1

1

0

2

s

0

2

0

2

y

2

0

0

2

p

1

0

0

1

h

1

0

0

1

s

0

1

0

1

Jud 5

Nurn 23-24

Totals

Consonant Ex 15 m

5

8

7

20

y

3

1

5

9

l

2

3

3

8

n

2

1

3

6

r

0

2

3

5

370 t

1

1

1

3

b

0

2

1

3

h

1

0

0

1

k

1

0

0

1

s

0

1

0

1

As was noted above, the consonants most often alliterated in the Ugaritic and biblical texts are those which are common morphemes.

In the Ugaritic poems m and t

are alliterated most frequently, two consonants which are often used as morphemes. consonants are l and b.

The next most commonly alliterated Again, this is not unexpected in

light of their use as prepositions.

Perhaps the only

surprise is that k and d, also morphemes, are alliterated so infrequently. In the biblical material, m is most frequently alliterated, doubtless due to its morphological use.

Next

are 'aleph and l, both of which are used as morphemes.

As

with the Ugaritic texts, the relative infrequency of t, b, h, and k are noteworthy. This study has shown that the role of alliteration in Ugaritic verse remains highly uncertain.

The lack of

generally accepted criteria for identifying alliteration is the primary difficulty.

Due to the uncertainties surrounding

the vocalization of Ugaritic, consonance has perforce been the focus of this and previous analyses.

The study has also

371 pointed out the problem of dealing with consonants which are common morphological elements.

For these reasons I do not

think that this or the other studies of alliteration can claim to have reached any definitive conclusions about this rhetorical device in Ugaritic.

New approaches may provide

insight into the problems, but it is likely that the inherent limitations will forever stifle advance in this area.

Line-Initial Alliteration The table below presents the number of verses which exhibit line-initial alliteration and their relative frequency together with the number of lines which are involved in those verses.

This table includes only instances

of line-initial alliteration not included under anaphora. Verses

Total Lines

CTA 4

8 (5.9%)

16

CTA 14

3 (4.1%)

9

KTU 1.100

2_ (12.5%)

_4

Totals

13 (5.8%)

29

Exodus 15

3 (15.8%)

8

Judges 5

4 (13.3%)

12

Numbers 23-24

2. (7.1%)

_4

Totals

9 (11.7%)

24

Although the data presented above might suggest that this device is infrequent in the texts analyzed in Chapter

372 Four, it must be remembered that all instances of anaphora are also examples of line-initial alliteration.

When these

examples are included the frequency of the device is much higher.

The following table combines the above data with

that of anaphora. Total Lines

Verses CTA 4

32 (23.5%)

75

CTA 14

14 (19.2%)

31

5 (31.3%)

11

Totals

51 (22.7%)

117

Exodus 15

7 (36.8%)

16

Judges 5

18 (60.0%)

41

Numbers 23-24

15 (53.6%)

30

Totals

40 (51.9%)

87

KTU 1.100

This cumulative table demonstrates how common was the practice of beginning successive poetic lines with the same consonant in both the Ugaritic and biblical traditions.

In

the Ugaritic texts almost one quarter (23.9%) of the lines exhibit line-initial alliteration.

The incidence is much

higher in the biblical texts, where over half (51.2%) of the lines involve this device.

To my knowledge this high

frequency of line initial alliteration in these biblical texts is not generally recognized.

Although I offer no

concrete evidence, I suspect that this device is also fairly

373 common elsewhere in biblical verse and that it may be related to the acrostic form, generally thought to be a late development.

Whether or not this is true, it seems clear

that this device was regarded as an essential element in both Ugaritic and biblical verse.

II. Devices which avoid repetition Ellipsis Because ellipsis involves several different aspects, it is necessary to present the data in several tables.

The

first presents the number of verses which exhibit ellipsis and their relative frequency.

Since some verses contain more

than one example of ellipsis, this table also includes a column which lists the total instances in each text. Verses

Instances

CTA 4

47 (34.6%)

56

CTA 14

43 (58.9%)

51

KTU 1.100

11 (68.8%)

12

101 (44.9%)

119

Totals

Exodus 15

1 (5.3%)

1

Judges 5

10 (33.3%)

10

Numbers 23-24

12 (42.9%)

14

Totals

23 (29.9%)

25

374 The table shows that ellipsis is quite common in the Ugaritic poems which comprise this study, occurring in almost half of the verses.

Its relative frequency is significantly

lower in CTA 4 than the other texts, but even there it is a common device.

The biblical texts present a quite mixed

picture due to the single example of ellipsis in Exodus 15. In Judges 5 and Numbers 23-24, however, its frequency approaches that of the Ugaritic texts. Other differences emerge when the elided elements are analyzed.

Ellipsis of verbs, substantives, prepositions, and

particles are distinguished in the table below.

The

percentages in parentheses represent the relative frequency of each type of ellipsis among the total instances of ellipsis for the text.

In other words, the 44 instances of

verbal ellipsis in CTA 4 represent 78.6% of the examples of ellipsis in CTA 4. Verb

Substantive

Preposition

Particle 0

CTA 4

44 (78.6%)

6 (10.7%)

6 (10.7%)

CTA 14

34 (66.7%)

2 (3.9%)

5 (9.8%)

4 (33.3%)

4 (33.3%)

3 (25.0%)

1 (8.3%)

82 (68.9%)

12 (10.1%)

14 (11.8%)

11 (9.2%)

1 (100%)

0

0

KTU 1.100 Totals

Exodus 15

10 (19.6%)

Judges 5

4 (40.0%)

6 (60.0%)

0

0

Num 23-24

5 (35.7%)

4 (28.6%)

2 (14.3%)

3 (21.4%)

Totals

9 (36.0%)

11 (44.0%)

2 (8.0%)

3 (12.0%)

375 The data in the table above demonstrates how pervasive verbal ellipsis is in the Ugaritic texts of this study. Overall almost 70% of the instances of ellipsis involve the elision of a verbal element.

In CTA 4 almost 80% of the

examples of ellipsis are verbal.

In contrast, elision of

other elements is much less common except in KTU 1.100 where verbal ellipsis is no more frequent than the ellipsis of substantives.

Verbal ellipsis is relatively less frequent in

the biblical texts overall, although it is the primary form of ellipsis in Numbers 23-24. As noted above, the frequency of verbal ellipsis in the biblical poems is almost half that of the Ugaritic texts. There are doubtless a number of factors which are responsible for this disparity, but word order preference should be considered an important one.

Wilson (1982, 24f.) has shown

that in CTA 14-16 verb-initial word order was the most common, accounting for slightly less than half of the lines. In the biblical poems presented in Chapter Four, however, only 35% of the lines begin with a verbal form.

As I will

show in the table below, the Ugaritic poets also showed a distinct predilection to elide initial verbs, whereas there is no such tendency among the biblical poems. These preferences may help account for the high frequency of verbal ellipsis in the Ugaritic poems. Another aspect of verbal ellipsis is the position of the elided verb, whether it is the initial element in the

376 line, medial, or final.

The table below details the

distribution of verbal ellipsis according to the position of the elided verb in the line. Initial

Medial

Final

CTA 4

34 (77.3%)

6 (13.6%)

4 (9.1%)

CTA 14

24 (70.6%)

3 (8.8%)

7 (20.6%)

KTU 1.100

3 (75.0%)

1 (25.0%)

61 (74.4%)

10 (12.2%)

11 (13.4%)

Exodus 15

0

0

0

Judges 5

0

1 (25.0%)

3 (75.0%)

Numbers 23-24

3 (60.0%)

1 (20.0%)

1 (20.0%)

Totals

3 (33.3%)

2 (22.2%)

4 (44.4%)

Totals

0

This table shows that verb-initial ellipsis is the most common position in the Ugaritic poetic tradition, accounting for almost 75% of the instances of verbal ellipsis in the texts.

The remaining instances are evenly distributed

between the medial and final verb positions.

As was

discussed in Chapter Three, this distribution is hardly surprising in view of the predominance of verb-initial clauses in Ugaritic.

The small number of instances of verbal

ellipsis in the biblical texts analyzed make it impossible to draw any conclusions about their distribution. The study has shown ellipsis to be among the most frequently employed devices among the Ugaritic texts

377 analyzed.

In the taxonomy of devices in Chapter Three I

distinguished between devices which employ repetition and those which avoid it, but, aside from Length Compensation, to which it is closely related, ellipsis is the only repetition avoidance device which has a high relative frequency.

For

this reason it is likely that ellipsis was especially important since it was the primary device employed by the Ugaritic poets to offset the pervasive use of devices which utilize repetition.

It is also possible that the

predominance of verbal ellipsis is significant in this regard since verb forms are prominent elements in clauses.

Length Compensation It was noted in Chapter Three that most instances of ellipsis are accompanied by length compensation.

For this

reason, the following table presents data on length compensation in relation to ellipsis.

The first column lists

the total instances of length compensation together with the percentage of cases in which length compensation is utilized to balance the loss of an elided element.

In other words,

the 52 examples of length compensation in CTA 4 represent 92.9% of the instances of ellipsis in that text. As was also discussed in Chapter Three, there are two types of length compensation:

"Addition" refers to

compensation by adding an additional element to the parallel line, whereas in "Replacement" an existing element in the

378 first line is replaced in the parallel line by a longer equivalent.

The last two columns of the table indicate which

type of length compensation employed.

In some cases both

addition and replacement are used in a single example. Instances

Addition

Replacement

CTA 4

52 (92.9%)

12

41

CTA 14

41 (82.0%)

12

31

KTU 1.100

11 (91.7%)

__4

_7

104 (87.4%)

28

79

Exodus 15

1 (100%)

1

0

Judges 5

7 (70.0%)

7

0

Numbers 23-24

13 (92.9%)

__9

__8

Totals

21 (84.0%)

17

8

Totals

Length compensation was clearly the normal practice for the Ugaritic poets.

Over 87% of the instances of ellipsis

are compensated in the parallel line.

So pervasive is the

practice that one might argue that the absence of length compensation is in itself a rhetorical device.

The table

also shows that in the Ugaritic texts replacement is the preferred method of compensation, used more than twice as often as addition. The biblical texts present a similar picture, with 84% of the examples of ellipsis compensated.

In contrast to the

Ugaritic material, however, addition is the preferred means

379 of compensation in the texts from the Bible.

It is not

readily apparent why the Ugaritic poets preferred replacement whereas the biblical poets preferred addition.

Since the B

word in a word-pair tends to be longer than the A word, it may be that the tradition of word-pairs at Ugarit influenced this tendency.

Chiasmus In Chapter Three a distinction was made between complete chiasmus, in which each element in the first line is mirrored in its parallel line, and partial chiasmus, in which at least two elements are mirrored.

The following table

presents the instances of each type of chiasmus together with their relative frequencies in the respective texts. Complete

Partial

1 (0.7%)

12 (8.8%)

CTA 14

0

4 (5.5%)

KTU 1.100

0

3 (18.8%)

CTA 4

1 (0.4%)

19 (8.4%)

Exodus 15

0

1 (5.3%)

Judges 5

0

5 (16.7%)

_0_

3 (10.7%)

0

9 (11.7%)

Totals

Numbers 23-24 Totals

Although chiasmus has elicited a good deal of scholarly interest, in the form analyzed in the present study it is

380 rather infrequent in these Ugaritic poems.

There is only one

example of complete chiasmus, CTA 4 vii 29-30.

Partial

chiasmus is better attested, but its overall frequency of 8.4% does not make it one of the more commonly used devices. One can also question whether these instances of partial chiasmus are the product of the poet's skill or are simply coincidental.

In view of the variability of word order, it

is possible that chiastic structures are simply fortuitous. The relative frequency of chiasmus in the biblical poems is similar to the Ugaritic material.

There are no examples of

complete chiasmus in this small corpus, but the overall frequency of partial chiasmus is slightly higher than in the Ugaritic texts. The results of this study of chiasmus at the verse level raise several important questions:

First, to what

extent was chiasmus the product of the poet's skill, and, second, in what sense is it especially rhetorical? Since there is but a single example of complete chiasmus in the present corpus and because partial chiasmus is so infrequent, it seems difficult to believe that the ancient poets of Ugarit purposefully manipulated syntax in order to produce chiastic structures.

Rather, it may be that what we call

chiasmus resulted from the poet's desire to avoid monotonous repetition of word order.

If this conclusion is correct,

that chiastic patterns are essentially unintended, then it also stands to reason that chiasmus is a rhetorical device

381 rise that it reduces the sense of repetition and a verse.

In any case, it is certainly not a

a the poems in this study.

rbal Form s heading I include all instances in which a repeated in parallel lines in a different or verbal conjugation.

Among the Ugaritic

^ four examples in CTA 4, one in CTA 14, and !00.

In CTA 4 two of the instances involve the

irallel lines.

In the first it is 3ms, and in

ts 3fs (ii 21-24; iii 23-24).

The third

els the verb sbb in the G and N stem vi 34-35), and the last pairs the verb cdb in î suffix tenses.

The only example in CTA 14

verb rhs in the prefix tense and the he relative frequency of this device in CTA 4 CTA 14 is 1.4%.

The overall frequency in the

is 2.2%, marking it as an uncommon device in ted. Lblical texts studies there are two examples of a single verse and another instance which us.

In Num 23:8 the verbs qbb and z c m are

^ in the prefix tense, then in the suffix nal example pairs the prefix and suffix tenses

382 of škn in Jud. 5:17a-17b.

The overall relative frequency in

the biblical texts is 2.6%, comparable to the Ugaritic texts.

Interrupted Sequence This is another rare device, found only three times in the Ugaritic texts. There are two examples in CTA 4 (i 1319; i 26-29) and one in CTA 14 (iii 120-123).

The overall

relative frequency for the Ugaritic texts is 1.3%.

Despite

this low frequency, the first instance in CTA 4 is quite noticeable in its context.

In this example the first four

lines of the six line verse begin with the word mj:b, the sequence is interrupted in the fourth line which begins with the word (mzll), and then the final line again begins with mtb.

There are no examples of this device in the biblical

texts of this study.

Enjambment The following table simply lists the instances of enjambment in each text together with the relative frequency. Instances

Frequency

CTA 4

12

8.8%

CTA 14

7

9.6%

KTU 1.100

__2

12.5%

Totals

21

9.3%

383 Exodus 15

0

0

Judges 5

2

6.7%

_1

3.6%

3

3.9%

Numbers 23-24 Totals

Although it is not among the most common devices, enjambment does occur throughout the Ugaritic texts of the study.

Its relative frequency is fairly consistent in the

three texts, occurring in just over 9% of the verses. Enjambment is somewhat less common in the biblical poems studied, with a relative frequency of approximately 4%. Since a number of difficult verses from those texts were excised from the study, it is possible that more examples of enjambment could be found in these texts.

Anacrusis In the Ugaritic poems I have identified anacrusis only in CTA 4, but there it occurs 13 times, a relative frequency of 9.6%.

Positionally, the extra-metrical element comes at

the beginning of the verse in eight of the instances, while it occurs between cola five times.

Syntactically, the

element is most often a particle (eight times), but verbs, prepositions, pronouns, and adverbs are also extra-metrical. As was discussed in Chapter Three, many of these examples could be analyzed differently, but the combination of line length and other rhetorical devices argues that this was a deliberate device utilized by the poet of CTA 4.

Anacrusis

384 does not appear in any of the three biblical poems in this study.

Chap ter S ix: Cone1msions Before any final conclusions are drawn it is necessary to issue appropriate caveats.

The analysis of rhetorical

devices which I have attempted above is fraught with uncertainties generated by the subjective nature of interpreting any ancient text.

For this reason alone it is

prudent to draw conclusions with care.

Furthermore, the very

nature of verse itself cautions against attempting to reduce a complex phenomenon to a rigid set of rules. Nevertheless, the foregoing study of rhetorical devices and the analysis of two Ugaritic and three biblical poems suggests the following conclusions:

1) By every measure it is clear that rhetorical devices were a key element in the literary tradition of ancient Ugarit.

The main goal of this study has been to identify and

analyze the primary rhetorical devices used in Ugaritic verse.

Due to the subjective nature of the analysis it is

possible that a few devices have been overlooked and that some individual examples have been incorrectly analyzed, but, nevertheless, the study has shown rhetorical devices to be a fundamental and pervasive component of this literature.

386 There are very few verses in the corpus which do not utilize at least one device, and most verses have several.

Of the

225 verses analyzed in the Ugaritic texts, all but 18 (92.0%) have at least one rhetorical device. have three or more devices.

Some 153 verses (68.0%)

Although the material analyzed

from the Bible is much smaller, it has similar characteristics.

Of the 77 verses analyzed all but one

(98.7%) have at least one rhetorical device, and 48 (62.3%) have three or more devices. This data is important in view of the fact that rhetorical devices are also used on occasion in prose material.

In response to Kugel's assertion that there is

little to differentiate verse from prose, I would argue that a text which exhibits a high concentration of rhetorical devices in individual verses and in the text as a whole more resembles verse than a text in which rhetorical devices are only incidental.

For this reason it seems clear that

rhetorical devices were an integral part of ancient Ugaritic verse.

2) The study has shown that some rhetorical devices are more significant than others.

On the basis of factors such

as relative frequency and listener perceptibility, one can distinguish between major and minor rhetorical devices. Devices which are used more often obviously play a greater role in the overall rhetorical shape of a composition than do

387 those which rarely occur.

In a similar way, devices which

are more easily noticed by the audience have greater impact upon the reception and understanding of the text.

At the

same time, however, it should be recognized that a device infrequently used in a text may be used to shape an entire passage.

The three-fold use of staircase repetition in

Exodus 15 illustrates this principle, serving to structure the entire poem. The table below presents the relative frequencies for each of the 24 rhetorical devices identified in the texts of this study.

As indicated, the first column lists the

relative frequency for the Ugaritic texts, and the second the biblical texts. Device

Ugaritic

Biblical

Anaphora

16.9%

40.3%

Epistrophe

19.6%

9.1%

Symploce

1.8%

0

35.1%

53.2%

Inter-Colon Repetition 0.9%

1.3%

Simple Repetition

Repetition of Root

7.1%

11.7%

Staircase Parallelism

1.8%

7.8%

Anadiplosis

1.3%

1.3%

0

1.3%

Refrain Binominalization

19.5%

27.3%

Number Parallelism

7.6%

2.6%

Lists

3.6%

0

388 Complete Syntactic Rep.8.4%

13.0%

Partial Syntactic Rep. 45.5%

37.7%

Alliteration

62.2%

53.2%

22.7

51.9%

Ellipsis

44.9%

29.9%

Length Compensation

39.2%

25.1%

Complete Chiasmus

0.4%

0

Partial Chiasmus

8.4%

11.7%

Var. of Verbal Form

2.2%

2.6%

Interrupted Sequence

1.3%

Enjambment

9.3%

Anacrusis

5.8%

Line Initial Allit.

0 3.9% 0

Among the Ugaritic texts nine devices have a relative frequency of 16.9% or higher:

anaphora, epistrophe, simple

repetition, binominalization, partial syntactic repetition, alliteration, line initial alliteration, ellipsis, and length compensation.

The same list of devices, less epistrophe,

have similarly high relative frequencies in the biblical texts.

In addition, three other devices in the biblical

texts which have a frequency of 11.7% or greater:

repetition

of root, complete syntactic repetition, and partial chiasmus. On the basis of relative frequencies alone, then, these devices would appear to be the major rhetorical devices used in this corpus of texts.

Yet it was argued above that

several of the most frequent devices, such as alliteration and partial syntactic repetition, were probably not noticed

389 by the ancient audience to any great extent.

If this is

true, then frequency alone cannot determine what devices are the most significant.

For this reason, devices such as

anaphora, simple repetition, binominalization, line intitial alliteration, ellipsis and length compensation should be considered the major rhetorical devices in these Ugaritic texts.

3) Despite individual differences, the three Ugaritic texts analyzed in this study share a large number of common rhetorical features.

With respect to verse structure, line

length, and use of rhetorical devices the poems are fairly uniform.

This basic affinity suggests that there were well

established literary conventions which influenced verse composition at Ugarit.

Although there is no evidence to

posit the existence of a rigid, inflexible tradition at Ugarit, in my opinion the similarities shared by these texts are too numerous to be explained simply on the basis of the general literary milieu of the ancient Levant.

There must

have been a shared understanding and acceptance of the basic forms and patterns which constituted appropriate verse. The two largest texts, CTA 4 and CTA 14, are remarkably similar.

Their verse structures are, despite slight

differences between monocola and tricola, almost identical. There is a difference in line length, but, as was argued earlier, there does not seem to have been an absolute

390 standard for line length in either Ugaritic or biblical verse.

With few exceptions the frequency of rhetorical

devices in the two Ugaritic poems is also quite similar.

The

primary differences occur in the use of lexical repetition, ellipsis and length compensation, and anacrusis. Apart from these devices the two texts exhibit similar rhetorical features despite their different subject matter. KTU 1.100 differs from the other two texts at several points, such as its higher frequency of tricola, epistrophe, repetition, and ellipsis, and its lack of some of the more common devices such as binominalization and number parallelism; but overall the similarities outweigh the differences.

Furthermore, there are several possible reasons

for these differences*

The first is the limited amount of

unique material in this text in comparison with CTA 4 and CTA 14.

Although it is a large tablet, the twelve-fold

repetition of the first section reduces the amount of material to analyze.

A second consideration is the different

subject matter and genre of this text in comparison to the other two.

While CTA 4 and CTA 14 are considered myths

and/or epics, KTU 1.100 is usually classified an incantation or, perhaps, a sacred marriage drama.

Liturgical intent and

use of a text certainly influence rhetorical form and this may well be reflected in the text. The implication from this limited sample is that there was a strong rhetorical tradition at Ugarit which transcended

391 subject matter and literary type.

It should be noted, of

course, that these Ugaritic texts, at least in their only extant form come from a single city and date to approximately the same time.

Furthermore, two of the three texts, CTA 4

and CTA 14, were both copied by the same scribe, Ilmilku. But, if Horwitz (1977; 1979) is correct, the scribes of Ugarit were copyists and not editors, thus making it unlikely that Ilmilku is responsible for the fairly uniform rhetorical tradition found in the texts.

A wider sample of texts should

be analyzed to test this conclusion.

Texts such as CTA 23

and CTA 24 may represent a slightly different tradition, but my preliminary examination of them reveals many of these same characteristics. At this point it would be useful to consider what role oral composition may have played in the rhetorical tradition of Ugarit.

Although a full discussion of oral literature is

outside the scope of this study, there are points where previous work on oral composition can make a contribution. The first task is to define the nature of oral literature as it is currently understood. In an article entitled "Oral Poetry," A.B. Lord offered the following definition:

"Oral Poetry is poetry composed in

oral performance by people who cannot read or write" (1974, 591).

The two points in this definition are that oral poetry

is composed orally, and that it is the product of a preliterate individual and/or society.

He further argues that

392 oral poetry was not as rigid and fixed as many had assumed, but was, in fact, quite fluid.

A singer might on different

occasions recite the same composition in noticeably different versions.

No two performances of an oral composition are

ever the same. factors:

This fluidity arises primarily from two

1) The interaction between singer and audience

leading to improvisation, and 2) the formulaic nature of oral poetry.

The first of these factors is fairly self-evident;

the second is less obvious but lies at the heart of Lord's approach. Lord's "formulaic" theory of oral composition is fairly well known, so I will offer only a brief summary.

For Lord

formulaic composition involves much more than simply sprinkling an assortment of stereotypical phrases, epithets or metrical units liberally throughout a poem.

Instead,

formulas refer to the overall rhetorical style of the composition, as he puts it, its "characteristic syntactic, rhythmic, metric, and acoustic molds and configurations"!1974, 592). Singers acquire this formulaic style as they learn the tradition of their craft, enabling them to compose verse in the midst of a performance.

One who

becomes especially proficient at this art can in turn create new formulas on analogy with the old formulas. For some years Lord's approach to oral poetry found a receptive audience among many students of Ugaritic and biblical verse, prompting a quest to isolate the

393 characteristic formulas in these texts. More recently, however, dissatisfaction with the results together with a reevaluation of Lord's theories have introduced a note of caution. Ruth Finnegan, although appreciative of much of Lord's work, has offered several critiques which have implications for this study of Ugaritic verse.

She calls Lord's

definition into question by arguing that oral poetry is much more complex and diverse than Lord's model would allow. Further, she finds oral poetry in both literate as well as pre-literate societies.

Instead, she suggests that three

criteria can be employed to distinguish oral from primarily written poetry:

1) its composition, 2) its mode of

transmission, and 3) its performance (16-17).

For each of

these criteria she asserts that the oral nature of a poem may well have co-existed with written forms:

"But, when all is

said and done, the concept of 'oral-ness' must be relative, and 'oral poetry' is constantly overlapping into 'written poetry'" (22). Another important aspect of Finnegan's work is her critique of Lord's oral-formulaic theory.

First, she argues

against the contention that a distinctive rhetorical style is characteristic of oral poetry, asserting that formulaic style is not necessarily a sign of oral composition (69-70). Second, she disputes the claim that oral poetry is always the product of oral composition.

She presents evidence to

394 suggest that in some traditions prior composition and rote memorization are part of oral poetry.

She summarizes this

point when she says: It is therefore clear that a single model of the relation of composition to performance will not cover all cases—perhaps not even all cases of narrative poetry. To accept uncritically Lord's dictum that what is important in oral poetry is 'the composition during oral performance' would blind us to the differing ways in which the elements of composition, memorization and performance may be in play in, or before, the delivery of a specific oral poem (79). The works of Lord, Finnegan, and others have several implications for the study of Ugaritic verse since most scholars agree that the written texts had oral antecedents. The first point concerns the compositional history of these texts.

Following Lord's model, one would conclude that the

rhetorical shape of these texts developed over a long period of time in accordance with the formulaic style of that particular tradition.

This process was essentially frozen

when the texts were reduced to writing.

The rhetorical

devices identified in this study would then be attributed solely to the techniques of oral-formulaic composition. On the other hand, Finnegan's study offers a somewhat different scenario.

If she is correct in suggesting that

oral and written poetry can co-exist and overlap within a literate society, then it is possible that the texts from Ugarit are not fossils of an oral tradition, but are part of a dynamic literary process which comprises characteristics of both oral and written composition.

In this case, the

395 rhetorical devices analyzed above may be conditioned by the conventions of written literature as much as oral literature. Although one cannot be dogmatic, it is possible that some devices are more perceptible and thus more effective when viewed in writing rather than heard orally.

Devices

involving syntax, such as complete and partial syntactic repetition and chiasmus, may be such devices. Another relevant point concerns Lord's thesis of oralformulaic composition.

If he is correct then rhetorical

devices would be regarded as one aspect of oral-formulaic style.

The poets of Ugarit learned, consciously or

unconsciously, to create these devices as a part of their rhetorical tradition.

Finnegan's position, on the other

hand, would suggest that the Ugaritic myths and epics became essentially fixed over a period of time with little variation.

Written forms of the text may have co-existed

with the oral version.

In this case, the type and frequency

of rhetorical devices could be influenced by the written as well as the oral dimension of literature. In view of the long history of written literature in the ancient world, it seems that Finnegan's reconstruction better accounts for the situation at Ugarit.

Although the

epigraphic remains from that city do not precede the Late Bronze age, Ugarit was a cosmopolitan city which was heir to a literary tradition more than a thousand years old.

Even

though archaeology has provided us with only single exemplars

396 of these texts it seems reasonable to suppose that there were various written forms of them over the centuries.

(A

Mesopotamian text such as Gilgamesh might serve as an example.)

Yet, in a society in which the general populace

was doubtless illiterate there is little doubt of the continued oral nature of these great stories.

For this

reason I would suggest that the type and frequency of the rhetorical devices examined in this study were conditioned by both oral and written literary considerations.

4) The uniformity of the Ugaritic tradition is not duplicated in the small sample of three biblical texts examined in the study.

These texts exhibit variation from

each other in almost all of the measurements examined above. The verse structure of Exodus 15 and Judges 5 is similar, but Numbers 23-24 is significantly different.

Line lengths are

also considerably different among the three texts, but the use of rhetorical devices presents the most variation.

The

frequencies of major devices such as anaphora, binominalization, syntactic repetition, ellipsis/length compensation, and enjambment vary considerably between the three texts.

Only simple repetition and partial chiasmus

have similar relative frequencies. This apparent hetrogeneity may simply be a product of the rather limited sample of texts which have been analyzed. On the other hand, if these conclusions are valid, several

397 factors could be responsible for this situation:

First, it

may be that, unlike the situation at Ugarit, there was no strong, unified rhetorical tradition in ancient Israel.

If

poets were unconstrained by convention then one should not expect uniformity in verse structure and the use of rhetorical devices.

The origins of Israelite society are

obscure and uncertain, but contemporary scholarship seems agreed that Israel's ethnic and cultural homogeneity depicted in the Bible is a later idealization.

Instead, most scholars

are convinced that early Israelite society was quite diverse. If this view is accurate then the societal situation could have contributed to the lack of uniform literary conventions. A second possibility is that there was a strong rhetorical tradition, but, like all human endeavors, it was subject to diachronic change.

Along these lines, Roberston

has attempted to assess linguistic changes over time as a means to date these and other biblical poems.*

If a case

could be made for diachronic change in the rhetorical tradition then the texts in this study might represent different periods in Israel's literary history. A third possibility is that regional differences may be responsible for the diversity in the texts.

Evidence from

epigraphic remains such as the Samaria Ostraca suggests that northern and southern Israel differed linguistically, and it may be that their literary traditions differed similarly.

*See Chapter Three, above.

If

398 linguistic and rhetorical differences between northern and southern Israel could be established more definitely it might be possible to posit the provenance of these three texts.^ A final possibility is that redaction during the history of transmission has altered the distinctive character of these texts.

For the sake of argument it might be argued

that all three were composed almost contemporaneously under the influence of a common rhetorical tradition, but in the course of transmission the texts were treated differently. One may have been left virtually untouched while another was extensively reworked.

If such a scenario were the case then

a study such as this would be complicated by the task of separating and evaluating the accumulated layers of tradition. It is impossible to determine which, if any, of these factors is responsible for the diversity in these biblical texts; all may be involved to some degree.

In view of

changes in later Biblical Hebrew verse it seems to me that diachronic change and the history of transmission are the most likely sources of the differences in these texts. Regional differences may have played a secondary role.

In my

opinion the least likely possibility is that there was no

^Although it is presently unavailable to me, a recently announced monograph by G.A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms, Scholars Press, argues that within the Psalter there is a group of Psalms which are of northern provenance. This conclusion is apparently based upon a set of grammatical and lexical criteria.

399 unified literary tradition in ancient Israel.

Although there

are differences, the similarities shared by the biblical and Ugaritic verse argue that there was a strong tradition in the Levant at the end of the Bronze Age of which Israel was an heir.

5) None of the biblical texts closely resembles the Ugaritic texts.

The verse structures of Exodus 15 and Judges

5 are similar in some respects to CTA 4 and CTA 14, but their use of rhetorical devices is quite different.

The Song of

the Sea has similar frequencies for anaphora, simple repetition, and syntactic repetition; but differs considerably in epistrophe, staircase parallelism, number parallelism, ellipsis and length compensation, and enjambment.

The Song of Deborah resembles the Ugaritic texts

in simple repetition, syntactic repetition, enjambment, and, to some extent, ellipsis/length compensation; but reveals sharp differences in the use of anaphora, epistrophe, staircase parallelism, and binominalization. Numbers 23-24 stands out as the text most dissimilar to the Ugaritic texts.

Its verse structure, line length and use

of anaphora, epistrophe, repetition of root, binominalization, number parallelism, and syntactic repetition are all very different.

Only in simple

repetition, ellipsis/length compensation, and chiasmus are the frequencies somewhat similar.

400 No apparent pattern emerges from these comparisons. Although the Oracles of Balaam are least like the Ugaritic texts, both of the other texts also exhibit significant differences from the Ugaritic tradition.

This fact raises

questions concerning theories which have postulated a linear relationship between the verse of Ugarit and early Israel. There are, as this study has confirmed, many similarities shared by the two traditions, and these similarities suggest a common background for the Ugaritic and Hebrew traditions, but the diversity within the biblical tradition and the absence of clearly traceable lines of development from the Ugaritic materials argue that the concept of linear development does not adequately account for the phenomena. Any attempt to explain the diversity between and within the two traditions must take into account factors such as diachronic change, geographical differences, and redactional history. Even if the Ugaritic and Hebrew literary traditions had a common ancestry, it is possible that they developed in different ways.

In a similar way, Joshua Blau has argued

that the family-tree model of language development is incapable of explaining the similarities and differences between the North West Semitic languages.

Instead he

suggests that dialectal contact and parallel development more adequately account for the situation (Blau 1978).

If this

model can be applied to rhetorical phenomena, then it may be

401 that the similarities and differences observed in the Ugaritic and biblical texts also may be the result of parallel development.

6) Although it was not a primary goal of this study, a large amount of data has been gathered concerning line length in Ugaritic verse.

This has shown, on the one hand, that in

most verses the individual cola have virtually the same number of syllables.

Further, within an individual text most

lines are of approximately the same length.

On the other

hand, there are a significant number of lines which are much shorter or longer than their parallel lines.

Resort to

emendation, unusual vocalization, or other means can hardly be embraced in all of these cases to achieve syllabic balance.

The implication, then, is that while balanced lines

were the norm in Ugaritic, imbalanced lines were both possible and permissible. Imbalanced lines may have been used in a variety of ways to enhance the rhetorical effect.

For

example, imbalanced lines might be used to interrupt the monotonous effect of a long series of balanced lines, thus arresting the attention of the audience.

A longer final line

in a verse might be used to signal the end of a unit, or a shorter final line might establish a link with the following verse.

Imbalanced lines might be employed simply because the

poet's message does not conform to the strictures of syllabically equal lines.

402 7) The taxonomy of rhetorical devices presented in Chapter Three was organized on the principle of repetition and its avoidance.

The study has shown that devices which utilize

repetition are far more common than those which avoid it. Of the sixteen repetition devices, seven have a relative frequency of 10% or more in the Ugaritic texts.

Five devices

are used with a frequency of almost 20% or higher.

The

frequency is even higher among the biblical texts.

Four of

the devices have a relative frequency higher than 40% and two others are greater than 20%.

In contrast, of the seven

devices which avoid repetition, only ellipsis and length compensation have a frequency of greater than 10% in the Ugaritic texts. texts.

The same situation is found in the biblical

They have very low frequencies of every repetition

avoidance device except ellipsis and length compensation. These considerations point to the conclusion that repetition in its various lexical, semantic, syntactic, and phonological forms is the most basic and fundamental component of Ugaritic verse.

Without its widespread

repetition Ugaritic verse would have an entirely different character.

It is possible that the devices which avoid

repetition were developed primarily to offset the pervasive influence of repetition.

Whether or not this is the case,

there is no doubt that repetition is a powerful principle in the Ugaritic texts of this study.

Finally, because

repetition is a basic component of parallelism, it is no

403 surprise that repetition is so ubiquitous in these texts. One of the issues this study has not considered is the origin and development of rhetorical devices. Almost nothing has been published specifically in this area, but it holds promise for future research.

A tool which should prove

useful in this area is psycholinguistics.

Several of the

scholars cited in Chapter Two used psycholinguistics for the analysis of verse as a whole or for the explanation of a single issue such as word pairs, but no one has applied it systematically to this area.

The possible role of

psycholinguistics can be seen in the fact that it deals with "how we acquire language, how we behave in perceiving and producing speech, whether memory and intelligence contribute to our linguistic performance, how language interrelates with thinking processes, etc." (Hartmann and Stork, 189). The field of psycholinguistics embraces a number of different sub-disciplines, but the area which may be most applicable to the origin of rhetorical devices is transformational-generative grammar with its concern for the relationship between the deep and surface structures of sentences.

Ducrot and Tzvetan describe this facet of

psycholinguistics when they say: A whole current of psycholinguistics has thus been devoted to the study of the mode of passage from deep structure to surface structure and to the effort to bring to light the psychological reality of transformations (by techniques that relate, for example, to the time it takes to produce and understand sentences; the time differentials depend upon the transformations imposed) (72-73).

404 Both Collins and Geller used transformational-generative grammar in their studies, but not in relation to rhetorical devices.

Because transformational-generative grammar

explores both the production and perception of the basic components of verse, I think that this field could be profitably utilized to investigate the origin and development of rhetorical devices.

The objective of this study has been to classify the rhetorical devices used in Ugaritic verse in an effort to demonstrate that these devices were primary components of the rhetorical tradition. achieved.

I believe that this goal has been

No claim has been made that a catalog of

rhetorical devices provides a comprehensive description of Ugaritic verse; clearly there are many other factors and elements which combine to shape its contours.

Ugaritic verse

is much more than a collection of devices, but I think that this study has shown rhetorical devices to be among the more significant of these factors. Further, the study has shown that the poets of ancient Ugarit had at their disposal many different means for creating and enhancing their verse.

Although repetition is

the principle employed in the majority of these devices, there was a counter tendency to avoid repetition through the use of other devices.

It may be that the ancient bards were,

at times, unaware of their use of some of these rhetorical

405 devices, but the tradition of which they were a part served to shape their compositions in a way which incorporated both uniformity and diversity. Finally, this study has implications for assessing the relationship between Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew verse.

The

limited corpus of biblical texts examined excludes any definitive conclusions, but the results do call into question theories which posit an unbroken literary tradition extending from Ugarit to ancient Israel.

On the basis of this study it

seems that the relationship is both complex and multifaceted.

Rhetorical

Appendix: Features in

Larger

Units

Introduction The primary focus of the present study has been on the use of rhetorical devices in Ugaritic literature at the verse level.

Although there are rhetorical devices such as

refrain which function across larger units, the analysis in Chapter Four has shown that these devices are not frequent in those texts. A major weakness inherent in this focus on verse level rhetorical devices is that there is no means to analyze and classify rhetorical features which bind individual verses into larger structures.

Unfortunately,

few scholars have attempted to study these macro rhetorical features in Ugaritic, doubtless due to the difficulty of the task. Pardee has provided one of the only models for this task, a study of the parallelism in CTA 3A i 2-25 (Pardee 1988b).

There Pardee employed the methods of Collins,

Geller and O'Connor to analyze and chart the various types of parallelism in the poem.

Although these methods focus on

individual verses, Pardee also attempted to expand his scope by charting lexical and phonetic repetition within the poem as a whole (Pardee 1988b, 47-63).

In order to measure the

407 effect of such repetition he uses the terms "near parallelism" and "distant parallelism."

Rhetorical features

which are repeated in adjacent verses are called near parallelism, whereas repetition in non-contiguous verses is termed distant parallelism. of near parallelism:

Pardee comments on the effect

"Near parallelism has the clear

function of binding weakly cohesive units into their context and of binding together sequences of bicola into larger rhetorical units" (Pardee 1988b, 66). The effect of distant parallelism is not as pronounced but is still important, serving to establish various types of "macrostructural links" (Pardee 1988b, 66). He further argues that lexical repetition exerts the strongest unifying force, semantic the next strongest, syntactic third, and phonetic parallelism has the least effect (Pardee 1988b, 66-67).

The following

will show that I have found Pardee's method useful for analyzing a passage from CTA 14.

The results will also

confirm Pardee's assertion that lexical repetition is a strong unifying force in this poem. This appendix will survey lexical repetition and the repetition of rhetoricalal devices in 138 lines of poetry from CTA 14.

This passage, CTA 14 i 6-iii 155, contains the

primary narrative thread of CTA 14 and is repeated almost verbatim later in the tablet.

This fact establishes it as

one of the primary segments of the narrative and also enables its lacunae to be restored with confidence.

In a

408 recent article K. Spronk has studied the structure of the Krt epic, and, based primarily upon narrative content rather than rhetorical form, he divides the present passage into two main units he calls "cantos."

Canto 1 (CTA 14 i 6-ii

62) consists of three sub-units or "canticles."

Canto 2

(CTA 14 ii 62-iii 155) is broken into five canticles (Spronk, 63-67).

On the basis of the study presented below,

I have modified Spronk's analysis somewhat, dividing the passage into seven "units."* Only in Canto 1 have I departed from Spronk's analysis.

I divide it into two units

rather than his three canticles.

A summary of the contents

of each unit is given below and further reasons for this division are offered after the analysis of lexical repetition. Unit One sets the stage for the epic by describing the present state of Kirta, bereaved of spouse and progeny.

In

Unit Two the narrative is advanced by recounting Kirta's troubled sleep in which he receives a theophany of El. The god's instructions to Kirta comprise the next five units, but they can be divided according to the focus of each. Unit Three details the cultic means Kirta must employ to insure the gods' favor, followed by Unit Four which gives instructions for mobilizing the populace for a military

*I use the term "unit" rather than canto, canticle, or some other term to avoid the uncertainty of these terms. Since such terms usually imply some measure of metrical structure they seem inappropriate for use with Ugaritic poetry.

409 campaign.

Unit Five informs Kirta that Udum is the object

of his campaign and describes how he is to beseige the city. In the last two units El tells Kirta how Pabil, king of Udum, will respond to the siege (Unit Six), and how he should answer Pabil's plea (Unit Seven). The passage from CTA 14 is presented twice.

The first

chart lists the repetition of words, roots and particles throughout the unit.

Repeated words are listed in lower

case type, whereas repeated roots are indicated by upper case letters.

Near repetition is indicated by a double line

connecting the elements, whereas distant repetition is designated with a single line.

There is also one instance

of two phonologically similar roots which are indicated by a dashed line.

The second chart presents the rhetorical

devices which are repeated within each unit.

Again, the

proximity of the devices will be indicated with a double line for near repetition and a single line for distant repetition.

410 Repetition

of

Words

and

Roots

Unit One umt 7 [k r t c]rwt

PM

kr

t

bt "mlkitdb

ABD

dšbc 9[a]hm lh

3RC

ţmnt bn um

lh

um

10 r

k t htkn rš

kr

t

11 r

kr

t

k t grdš mknt

htkrs grdš

KMV

12

att sdqh lypq

13

att

mt rh t y^rh

7KM

14

aţt trh wtbct

15

ţa

r

att

k

um t n lh

lh

um

KMV

16

mtlţt k ţrm tmt

17 r c

m b t zblnm

18

mhmšt yjtsp

mţdţt ġlm

19r

^p

20

ym

c

mšb thn bšlh 21ttpl ycn htkh

22kr

c

t

SBc kr

t

htk

r

htkrš

y n htkh š 23

mjd grdš ţbth

24

wbtmhn šph yjtbd

25

r

r

wb phy h y ţ

grdš

ABD

7R#

411 Unit Two 26 cr

y b bhdrh ybky

b-

BKY

27

bţn rgjnm wydmc

b!!

tntkn udmcth

28

29

km ţqlm arsh

30

km hmšt mţth

31

c

lWf

bdm h nhmmt

33

šnt tlunn 34wyškb

Hhmmt

b-

MW

bm bkyh wyšn

32

nhmmt

b-

yyw

35

nhrnmt

wyqms

il

wbhlmh ^il yrd

b-

abc^m Mhrth ^7ab adm

b-

krt wySfrb ^8bšal krt mat 3"krt kybky c

c

*°ydm n mn ġlm

mlk tr abh

krt

B^r

41

il

42

yarš

hm drkftj ^kab adm

ZW

kil

ab aba^m

k-

412 Unit Three *2trhs wtadm 'srhs fyVdk amt ^4usbfctk7 cd tkm

tkm

"5crb fbzl hmt7

hmt

"9h im/r byd7k

yd -k

?A

7

^ imr dfbh b7m ymn

dbh

Mlla klfatn7m

"klt lf

7nzl c

7 sr71dbh

TOghmsf

s? /bg7l htt

?h

dbh

72

yn

bgl fh7f?nbt 7 c

l-

^ l lzr mfg7dl

74

c

/w l lzr fmg7dl^ 75

rkb tkrnmhrnt ša ydk 7^šmrn dbh ltr

77

šrd bcl

78

bn dgn

ltkm

hmt yd -k

abk il

bdbhk

79

bmsdk

dbh

)l' -k -k

dbh

l-

413 Unit Four wyrd 80krt lggt c db 81akl lqryt 82 htt lbt hbr d

83

yjp lhm dhmš 4 * mġd tdţ yrhm

-

85cd

n ngb wysj sbu sbj ngb 87 wy si cdn mc

wysj s

86

bu

wysj s

88

sbuk ul mad 89 tlt mat rbt

bu

d

90

hpţ dbl s p r 91 tnn dbl h^

d

-

92

hlk lalpm hdd 93 wlrbt kmyr

hlk

94

hlk

aţ r tn ţn hlk 95 tr a tlt klhm

tn

96

yh d bth s g r 97 almnt škr 98 t^k r zbl cršm 99yšu C r w mzl 100ymzl wysj trh 101hdţ ybcr lţn 102aţth lm nkr 103 m dd th kirby 104tškn šd 105 km hsn pat mdbr

! llm

wysi

tn

Unit Five 106

lk ym wţn

ym wţn

r c

ţlţ b ym

ţlţrbcym

107

hmšţdţym

hmš ţdţ ym

mk špšm 108bšbc

špšmbšb*

109r

wtmġy ludm

bt

wludm ţrrt 110

!^r nn

cr

m

w-

111

šJH Sc

w-

pdrm

t bšdm 112htbt

sc

t

r

bg nthpšt 113sc

bmq

sc

t bn

k šJbt

r 114

mmlat

dmymwţn

ymwţn

115

ţlţrbcym

r c

ţlţ b ym

hmš 116ţdţ ym

hmštdţym

hzk al tšcl117qrth abn ydk 118mšdpt whn špšm 119bšbc wlyšnpbl

12 m

° lk

lqr ţjgt jbrh 121

lql nhqt hmrh

122

lgct alp hrţ zgt 123klb spr

špšmbšb*

ww-

t

415 Unit Six wylak 124mlakm lk c

r

w-

125 s

m kt

krt

m wnh

mlk

thm pbl mlk 126

qh ksp wyrq

?c

r

h š 727yd mqmh wcbd clm 128

ţlţ

129

ss

wwm mrkbt

btrbs bn amt

130

qh krt šlmiD m

wng lk

132

r

133

r

hq k t

al tsr

lbty

134

šlmm

r

kt udm

udm rbt

w-

udm

udm

u d m ytnt jl

wušn 136ab adm

^

mlk

w-

r

lhz y

wudmtrrt 135

krt

131

w-

Unit Seven wţţb 137m lak m lh lm ank hr

138 s

k p wyrq

139

s

w-

yd

m m

qh

wcbd140clm ţlţsswmmrkbt 141

btrbst bn amt

142

pd jn bbty ttn

143

tn ly mţt hry

144 cm

bkrk

n t šph

145 k

d ncm

c

nt ncmh

146

k m tsm

c

ţtrt tsmh

147 c

d qh jb jqnj

C

p[cp]h

148s

p ţrml

thgrn [u]dm ašlw bsp Cnh

149

15 d

° bhlmy Jl ytn

151

b dr ty ad

152

wl d šph lkrt

153

adm

^ l m lcbd jl

154 r

k t yht whlm

155C d

b

dr

Jl wh t

' w-

ww-

417 This analysis reveals a significant degree of lexical repetition in this passage from CTA 14.

In each of the

seven units there are a number of terms which, because they are repeated, serve to unify the composition.

Units One and

Two each have ten words, roots or particles which recur; Units Five and Seven have nine; Units Three and Four have six; and Unit Six, the shortest unit, has five recurring elements. Units One and Two are strongly unified by the repetition of several key terms, and this fact helps to establish the limits of each unit. section into three canticles:

Spronk divides this

Canticle 1 includes only 14 i

6-26a, Canticle 2 consists of 26b-35a, and Canticle 3 comprises 35b-43.

His division fails to take into account

the inclusio ABD, found in the first and last verses of Unit One.

Another unifying feature of this unit is the

repetition of htk rš and grdš, which recur in the third and seventh units.

Similarly, Unit Two is unified by the

repetition of BKY and DMc in the first and next to last verses.

On the other hand, Spronk's other divisions seem to

be confirmed by the lexical repetition observed in each of these units. Another significant result of this analysis is the fact that, apart from the personal name, Krt, and some basic particles, only one repeated word or root appears in more than one unit.

The imperative, qh, is found twice in both

418 units Three and Six.

This observation suggests that each

unit is characterized by its own set of key terms which are repeated within the unit.

It must be admitted, however,

that in some units the effect is more pronounced than in others.

In Unit Three, for example, the terms tkm and dbh

are used throughout the unit, but in Unit Six there are no terms which encompass the entire unit. A final observation concerns the effect of lexical repetition in this Ugaritic text.

From the present study I

would concur with Pardee (1988b, 66-67) and Berlin (1985, 130-34) who have suggested that several factors must be considered when evaluating the impression such repetition might have made upon the audience. (see Berlin 1985, 131-32).

The first is proximity

Proximate repetitions are more

likely to be remembered by the audience, thus rendering their unifying effect more pronounced.

For this reason,

near parallelism is clearly stronger than distant parallelism.

A second factor is frequency.

The more often

a word or root is repeated within a unit the stronger its impact upon the audience.

In Unit Three above, for example,

the word dbh occurs four times in seven verses, and in Unit Two the root DMc occurs four times in eight verses.

Such

repetition would hardly have been missed by the ancient audience.

The third factor concerns the relative strength

of the repetition of words versus roots and/or particles. Although Berlin does not address this issue, I think the

419 present study confirms Pardee's argument that the frequency and short phonetic duration of particles render them less significant for the rhetorical structure than longer words (Pardee 1988b, 47). In Unit Seven above, five of the nine repeated elements are particles.

They can hardly have the

same degree of cohesive effect as the nine repeated words and roots in Unit One.

420 Repetition

of

Rhetorical

Devices

Unit One umt 7[krt c]rwt bt8mlkitdb dšbc 9[a]hm lh ţmntbnum

Allit. (t) Ellip. &L.C.

10

krthtknrš krt grdš mknt

Allit. (k, t, r-š)

11

12

aţt sdqh lypq tyšrh

13mtrh

aţttrhwtb c t 15 tarum tknlh mţlţt kţrm tmt mrbct zblnm 18 mhmšt yjtsp 19ršp mţdţt ġlm20ym mšbcthn bšlh 21ttpl 17

Allit. (t) Ellip. & L.C. El lip. & L.C. I

ycn htkh 22krt ycn htkh rš 23 mjd grdš ţbth 24

wbtmhn šph yjtbd wbphy r hy r ţ

25

Anaph. (krt)

Ellip. &L.C.

14

16

Num. Par.

L.I. Allit. (m) Allit. (t, t, m) it I] Allit. (r-š)

El lip. &L.C.

] Num. Par.

Anaph. (ycn) I Anaph. (vb-)

421 Unit Two 26 c

y rb bhdrh ybky

27

btnrgmmwydm

c

Allit. (b, m)

!l 28

tntkn udmcth

Allit.

29

(t, m)

Anaph.

[]

(km) Anaph.

km ţqlm arsh

30

km hmšt mţth

31bm

bkyh wyšn

Allit.

32

c

(m, b-m)

bdm h nhmmt

33

šnt tlunn 34wyškb

Hhmmt

35wyqms

(b-)

Allit.

Ellip.

)

&L.C.

(m, H

i

I "

36

wbhlmh il yrd

Anaph.

Ellip.

Binom.

bdhrth 37ab adm

(b-)

& L.C.

(il/ab adm)

wyqrb

mat 40

38

bšal krt

39

krt kybky

c

c

41

ydm n mn ġlm il mlk ţr abh 42yarš hm drk[t] 43kab adm

{

Allit.

Ellip.

Binom.

(m, k)

& L.C. Ellip.

(krt/ncmn)

& L.C.

422 Unit Three 62

trhs wtadm

63

rhs [y]dk amt

64

c

c

usb[ tk] d ţkm

65c

rb [bzl hmt]

66qh i m [ r b y d [ k

imr d[bh b]m ymn

68

lla kl[atn]m

klt l[

70

(Impv.)

& L.C.

(Impv.)

[J J Ellip.

67

69

Ellip.

II Allit. (m)

(Impv.)

& L.C. I

]nzl

^l

Cs 71

qhms[

] r dbh

sq [bg]l htţ

72

yn

(Impv.) ! Ellip.

!) (Impv.)

bgl [h]rs Hbt 73c

I]

llzrm[g]dl

Allit.

74

{wcl lzr [mg]dl}

rkb

tkmm hmt

)

(Impv.)

76

dbh ltr

šmm

(Impv.)

77

(Impv.)

abk il

! c 78

(Impv.)

(m, l)

75

ša ydk

(Impv.)

šrdb l bdbhk bn dgn 79bmsdk

Ellip. & L.C.

! Allit. (b, b-d)

if (Impv.)

423 Unit Four wyrd *°krt lggt c db "akl lgryt Mhttlbthbr

"

*

8

^yip lhm dhms J3gdţdţyrhrn

84

Epist. (-ati) ]

Ellip. &L.C.

II Ellip. &L.C.

Allit. (m)

* 5 C dHH g b wysi *6sbusbingb ^7wysi c dHm c ^s b u k ul mad 89 ţlţmat rbt

Allit. (m-a)

90

hpţdblspr 91 ţHHd b lhg 9

2hlk lalpm hdd 9 swl rb tkmy r 94 9

r

aţ ţH ţH hlk ^aţr ţlţ kIAm

Ellip. &L.C.

Allit. (l)

I!

II

Ellip. & L.C.

Allit. (t, hlk-klh)

I

]

Num.Par. ![

II Num.Par. Anaph.

(aţ r)

96

yhdbthsgr 97 almHtšk r9 °tsk r

]

zbl cršm 99 yš u c r w mzl 100 yrnzl

Allit. (z-l)

vyf?i trh 101hdţ ybcr lţH 10^aţth lm Hkr 10^mddth

! Ellip. & L.C.

kirby ^ t š k n id ^ k m hsn pat mdbr

Ellip. & L.C.

ii

Root Rep. (SMH Root Rep. OMKJ

! Epist. (-atahu)

i Anaph. (k-)

424 Unit Five 10

'lk ym wţH ţlţ rbcym 107 hmšţdţym

Allit. (ţ) ]!

Ellip.

mk špšm 10^bšbc wtmgyludm10srbt wludmtrrt

Allit. (m,s)

Ellip. &L.C.

110wgr HH crrn sr-H^pdnn

Allit. (r) '

c

s t bšdm ^htbt bgrHthpšt 1^sct bHk šibt bmqr 114mmlat

Allit. (t) Allit. (m)

'

Epist. (yrn) J Epist. (-ati)

^

Ellip.

Ellip.

"

Epist. (-âti) Epist. (-âti)

li !

Ellip. &L.C.

] Epist.

hmš116ţdţyn?

]

[]

(ym)

122

lgct alp hrt zgtnsklbspr

Num.Par.

Ellip. &L.C. Allit. (š,l)

Enjam.

) l?r tigt ibrh 121 l?l ahqt hmrh

Syn.Rep. ]

!!

Allit. (ţ)

whnšpšm119bšbc wlj^Hj^M ^"mlk

En jam. ]

Epist. (-rima)

dmyrn wţH 115 tlţ r b c ym hzk al tšcl 117qrth abHydk^mšdpt

Num.Par. ]

l

Allit. (l-g)

Epist. (-hu) Ellip.

i Syn.Rep. ]! Syn.Rep.

425 Unit Six

wylak ^mlakm lk

Ellip.

Allit.

c

& L.C.

(m, l-k)

r

5

m k t ^ mswnh

thmpblmlk 1 6

El lip.

hrs i27yd mqmh

& L.C.

^ qh ksp wy^

(Irnpv.)

wcbd clm ^ 8 ţlţ sswm mrkbt ^ 9 b t r b s bH amt

^oqA krt sljnm ^ ^ l m m

Allit.

wng mlk ^ l b t y

(m,

r

hq krt ^ l h z r y

al tsr 1^udm

rb

rr

t

r)

(Irnpv.) Binorn. (mlk/krt)

Ellip. & L.C.

^ 5 u dm ytHt il

Ellip.

Binorn.

& L.C.

(il/ab adm)

wušn 1^^a adm

(Irnpv.)

(Irnpv.)

wudm t t

b

(Irnpv.)

426 Unit Seven

wţţb 137mlaRm lh

lm ank 138ksp wyrg

Ellip.

hrs 139yd mqmh

& L.C.

c

w bd1

140c

lm

]

tlt sswm mrkbt 141

btrbst bn amt

142

pd in bbty ttn

Allit.

143

Ellip.

144 c

& L.C.

tn ly mţt hry

n mt šph bkrk

145

dk ncm cnt Hcmh

146

c

km tsm ttrt tsmh

Ellip.

Allit.

& L.C.

c

'I 147 c

d qh ib iqHi p[cp]h 148sp ţrml

c

thgr

H

(t)

Ellip. & L.C.

Binom. (hry/ncmt)

Syn.Rep.

(n, , m, t)

]

!l Allit. (i, c - p )

Syn.Rep.

[u]d

m

149

ašlw bsp cnh

150

dbhlmy il ytH

151

bdrty ad adm

152

wldšphlkrt

15

c

3wġlm l bd il

154

krt yht whlm

155C

bd il whdrt

El lip.

Binom.

& L.C.

(il/ab adm)

.Ellip.

Allit. (l)

& L.C.

L.I. Allit.

Ellip. & L.C.

Binom. (krt/cbd il)

Binom. (krt/cbd il)

427 The preceding analysis of the distribution of rhetorical devices does not produce results as significant as the analysis of lexical repetition.

In each unit the

most frequently repeated devices are, predictably, those which are most common in the corpus as a whole.

In each

unit Alliteration and Ellipsis (usually accompanied by Length Compensation) are by far the most frequently repeated devices. repeated.

In Unit Three they are the only devices which are Overall, Ellipsis occurs 37 times in the seven

units and Alliteration is found 34 times.

It seems unlikely

to me that, due to their high frequency in Ugaritic poetry in general, the repetition of either Ellipsis or Alliteration would be especially perceptible to the audience.

For this reason it would hardlY serve to unify

the poem in any noticeable way. The following chart lists the distribution of all rhetorical devices which are repeated within any unit, in the order of their frequency.

428 UnitjQjp^

Two

Three Four

Five

Six

Seven Total

Ellipsis

5

4

4

6

7

4

7

37

Allit.

6

5

3

5

8

2

5

34

Epistrophe

0

0

0

2

7

0

0

9

Anaphora

3

3

0

2

0

0

0

8

Binominal.

0

2

0

0

0

2

4

8

Number Par. 2

0

0

2

2

0

0

6

Syn. Rep.

0

0

0

0

3

0

2

5

Rep. Root

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

Enjambment

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

Except for Ellipsis and Alliteration, onlY the sevenfold repetition of Epistrophe in Unit Five seems likelY to be rhetorically significant.

Apart from this there is

little in the chart which is suggestive of intentional patterning by the poet.

None of the devices occur more than

three times in any unit and none of them occur in more that three different units.

Since epistrophe combines both

morphological and phonological repetition, its use seven times in the ten verses of Unit Five would likelY have attracted the audience's attention.

Because lexical

repetition in this unit is not as strong as in other units, it may be that the varietY and frequencY of repeated rhetorical devices in it would have been used to enhance the sense of cohesion and unitY.

429 Conclusion The paucity of effective methods and approaches for identifying and analyzing rhetorical features in units larger than the verse highlight the need for more work in this a r e a .

The methods employed in this appendix show

promise, but they produce somewhat mixed r e s u l t s .

The

foregoing analysis suggests that the poets of Ugarit purposefully employed lexical repetition in order to create sub-units within their c o m p o s i t i o n s .

The repeated use of

words and roots within the seven units of the text studied above can hardly have been f o r t u i t o u s .

Further studies are

obviously needed to see if these results can be replicated in other Ugaritic t e x t s .

Less has been gained from the

analysis of the distribution of rhetorical d e v i c e s .

This

may be due to the fact that most of the rhetorical devices which have been defined and studied in the present work involve grammar and meaning at the verse l e v e l .

Since these

devices primarily operate within individual verses, it is not surprising that their influence between verses does not appear to be significant.

Perhaps further progress in this

area is contingent upon new approaches which can examine rhetorical devices in larger c o n t e x t s .

Bibliosraphy Aartun, K. 1984 1986

"Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon I." UF 16: 1-52. "Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon (II)." UF 17: 1-47.

Albright, W.F. 1922 "The Earliest Forms o^f Hebrew Verse." 69-86.

JPOS 2:

1932

"The North-Canaanite Epic of 'Al'eyan Bacal and Mot," JPOS 12: 185-208.

1936a

"New Canaanite Historical and Mythological Data," BASOR 63: 23-32.

1936b

"The Song of Deborah in the Light of Archaeology." BASOR 62: 26-31.

1943

"The furniture of El in Canaanite Myth." BASOR 91: 39-44.

1944

"The Oracles of Balaam."

1945

"The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature." CBQ 7: 5-31.

1950

"The Psalm of Habakkuk." In Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H.H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark.

1968

the

JBL 63: 207-53.

Yahweh

and

N.Y.:

Doubleday & Co., Inc.

Gods of Canaan.

Garden City,

Allegro, J.M. 1953 "The Meaning the the Phrase šetum Num. 24:3, 15." VT 3: 78-79. Ap-Thoma s , 1982

D.R. " R e v i e w o f M. O ' C o n n o r , JTS 3 3 : 2 2 4 - 2 5 .

Hebrew

hâcâyin

Verse

in

Structure."

431 Astour, M.C. 1968 "Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms." 1973 Avishur, Y. 1972 1984

"A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic?" UF 5: 30-31. "Addenda to the Expanded Colon in Ugaritic and Biblical Verse." UF 4: 1-10. Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical Ancient Semitic Literatures. AOAT 210. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Badre, L. et. al. 1976 "Notes ougaritiques. I. Keret." 125. Becking, B. 1986 Berlin, A. 1979 1982

JNES 27: 13-28.

Syria

"A Remark on a Post-Exilic Seal." 46.

and

53: 95-

UF 18: 445-

"Grammatical Aspects of Biblical Parallelism." HUCA 50: 17-43. "Review of M. O'Connor, Hebrew

Verse

Structure.

JAOS 102: 392-93. 1983

"Parallel Word Pairs: A Linguistic Explanation." UF 15: 7-16.

1985

The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelisms Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Blau, J. 1978

"Hebrew and North West Semitic: Reflections on the Classification of the Semitic Languages." Hebrew

1979

Annual

Review

2: 21-43.

"Zu Lautlehre und Vocalismus des Ugaritischen." UF 11: 55-62.

Blau, J. and S.E. Loewenstamm 1970 "Zur Frage der Scriptio Plena im Ugaritischen und Verwantes." UF 2: 19-33. Boling, R.C. 1975 Judges. Inc.

Garden City, N . Y . :

Doubleday & C o . ,

432 Bordreuil, P. 1983 "Venin de printemps, venin foudroyant." 299-300.

UF 15:

Bowman, C.H. and R.B. Coote 1980 "A Narrative Incantation for Snake Bite." UF 12: 135-39. Bream, H., R. Heim and C. Moore, eds. 1974 A Light Unto My Path. Philadelphia: University Press. Budd, P.J. 1984

Numbers

(WBC).

Waco, Texas:

Caquot, A., M. Sznycer and A. Herdner 1974 Textes o u g a r i t i q u e s . Paris: Cerf. Cassuto, U. 1967

Temple

Word Books. Les Editions du

A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Trans • by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

1971

The Goddess Anath. Trans, by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. This book first appeared in Hebrew in 1951.

1975a

"Biblical and Canaanite Literature." In Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. II. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Tarbitz XIII, 1946.

1975b

"Parallel words in Hebrew and Ugaritic." Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. II. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

In

C e r e s k o , A.R.

1975

"The A:B::B:A Word Pattern in Hebrew and Northwest Semitic with Special Reference to the Book of Job." UF 7: 73-88.

C h i l d s , B.H. 1974 The Book of Exodus. Press. Clifford, 1980

Philadelphia:

Westminster

R.J. "Rhetorical Criticism in the Exegesis of Hebrew Poetry" In Society of Biblical Literature: 1980 Seminar Papers. Chico, C a l i f . : Scholars Press.

433 Clines, D.J.A. 1976 "KRT 111-114 (I iii 7-10): Gatherers of Wood and Drawers of Water." UF 8: 23-26. Coats, G.W. 1969 Cohen, C. 1975

"The Song of the Sea."

CBQ 31: 1-17.

"Studies in Early Israelite Poetry I: An Unrecog-nized Case of Three-Line Staircase Parallelism in the Song of the Sea." JANES 7: 13-17.

Collins, T. 1978

Line-Forms

in

Hebrew

Poetry.

Rome:

Canaan.

Philadelphia:

Biblical

Institute Press. Coogan, M.D. 1978a

Stories

f r o m Ancient

The

Westminster Press. 1978b Cooper, A. 1979

"A Structural and Literary Analysis of Deborah." CBQ 40: 143-66. "Review of D.K. Stuart, Studies Meter."

of the Song

in Early

Hebrew

BASOR 233: 75-76.

Craigie, P.C. 1968 "A Note on Judges V 2."

VT 18: 397-99. TynB

1969a

"The Conquest and Early Hebrew Poetry." 20: 76-94.

1969b

"The Song of Deborah and the Epic of TukultiNinurta." JBL 88: 253-65.

1971

"A Note on 'Fixed Pairs' in Ugaritic and Early Hebrew Poetry." JThS n.s. 22: 140-43.

1972

"Some Further Notes on the Song of Deborah." 22: 349-53.

1977a

"Parallel Word Pairs in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5)." JETS 20: 15-22.

1977b

"The Problem of Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry." Semitics 5: 48-58.

1977c

"Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah." JSOT 2: 33-49.

VT

434 1978

"Deborah and Anat: A Study of Poetic Imagery (Judges 5)." ZAW 90: 374-81.

1979

"Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: A Critical Evaluation of their Relevance for Psalm 29." UF 11: 135-40.

1981

"Ugarit and the Bible." Ugarit

in Retrospect.

In G.D. Young, ed.,

Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns^ 1983

Ugarit

and the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans. Cross, F.M. 1973

Canaanite

Mass.: 1974

Myth and Hebrew Epic.

Cambridge,

Harvard University Press•

"Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit." HTR 67: 1-15.

Cross, F.M., ed. 1976

Magnalia Dei:

York:

The Mighty Acts

Cross, F.M. and D.N. Freedman. 1955 "The Song of Miriam." 1975

Studies

MT:

of God.

New

Doubleday & Co.

in Ancient

JNES 14: 237-5 0.

Yahwistic

Poetry.

Missoula,

Scholars Press.

Crown, A.D. 1967 "Judges V 15b-16."

VT 17: 240-2.

Dahood, M. 1965

Ugaritic-Hebrew

Philology.

Rome:

Pontifical

Institute Press. 1967

"A New Metrical Pattern in Biblical Poetry." CBQ 29: 574-79.

1969

"Ugaritic-Hebrew Syntax and Style." 36.

1979

Psalms III

York:

(Anchor Bible).

UF 1: 24-

Garden City, New

Doubleday.

Deist, F.E. 1971 "A Note on SHRRT in the Ugaritic Text 51:VIII:22.". JNWSL 1: 68-70. Del Olmo Lete, G. 1975 "Notes on Ugaritic Semantics I."

UF 7: 89-102.

435 1978

"Notes on Ugaritic Semantics IV."

UF 10: 37-46.

Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz. 1973a "Keret—Die Umklammerung von Traum und Leben. Ein Hinweis." UF 5: 271. 1973b

"Der Prolog des KRT-Epos. 5: 283.

1978

"Die Kunstwerke des Schmiedegottes in KTU 1.4 I 23-43." UF 10: 57-63.

1979

"Einzelfragen zu Wörtern aus den ugaritischen Mythen und Wirtschaftstexten." UF 11: 189-98.

1980a

"Der Ausmarsch des Heeres im Keret-Epos (KTU 1.14 II 27b - III 1 // IV 9b-31)." UF 12: 19397.

1980b

"Die Bannung von Schlangengift (KTU 1.100 und KTU 1.107)." UF 12: 153-70.

1980c

"Parallelen zur Beschreibung des Reichtums im Keret-Epos." UF 12 397-98.

1980d

"SRRT SPN--'Feste • •

1980e

"Das Porträt einer Königin in KTU 1.14 I 12-15." UF 12: 199-204.

1980f

"Zweifelhafte Belege für ugaritisch M(N) 'von.'" UF 12: 183-87.

1981

"Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (I)." UF 13: 63-100.

1982

"Ugaritisch BŠR 'Botschaft bringen, senden' und die Nomina BŠRT, TBŠR '(Froh-)Botschaft.'" UF 14: 303-306.

1983

"Philogische und inhaltiche Probleme im Schreiben KTU 2.17." UF 14: 83-88.

1984

Eine Ergänzung." UF

des • SAPANU'"

"Ugaritisch 'TR, atr,

atryt

UF 12: 394.

und atrt."

UF 16:

57-62. 1986a

"Die Akkadischen Tierbezeichnungen puhadu und puhalu

immeru,

im u g a r i t i s c h e n und

hebräischen."* UF 17: 99-103. 1986b

"Baals Ablehnung niedriger Gäste (KTU 1.4 III .7-22)." UF 18: 447-48.

436 1986c

"cDB und cDB im Ugaritischen."

1987

"Das Verbum YPQ im Ugaritischen." 406.

UF 17: 105-16. UF 19: 405-

Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin 1973 "Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (VII): Lexikogra-phische Einzelbemerkungen." UF 5: 79104. 1975

"Die keilalphabetischen Belege für BcR I und BcR II." UF 7: 554-56.

1976a

Die Keilalphabetischen Texts aus U g a r i t . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag.

1976b

"Zu WLD 'Gebären' und 'Knabe' im Keret-Epos." UF 8: 435-36.

Dijkstra, M. 1975 "Does Occur the Verb HBT in CTA 4:111.21?" 7: 563-65.

UF

Dijkstra, M. and J.C. de Moor 1975 "Problematic Passages in the Legend of Aqhatu." UF 7: 171-215. Ducrot, O. and T. Tzvetan 1979 Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language, trans, by C. Porter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dussaud, R. 1935

The

"Les éléments déchainés: une application des régies rythmiques de la poésie Phénicienne." Syria 16: 196-204.

Fensham, F.C. 1971 "Remarks on Certain Difficult Passages in Keret." JNWSL 1: 11-22. 3 972 1979

"Remarks on Keret 26-43."

JNWSL 2: 37-52.

"Notes on Treaty Terminology in Ugaritic Epics." UF 11: 265-74.

Finnegan, R.H. 1977 Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance, Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

and

437 Fischel, H.A. 1973 "The Use of Sorites in the Tannaitic Period." HUCA 44: 119-151. Fisher, L.R., ed. 1972 Ras Shamra P a r a l l e l s , vol. I. Biblical Institute• 1975

Rome:

Pontifical

Ras Shamra P a r a l l e l s , vol. II. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Freedman, D.N. 1960 "Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry." 101-107.

ZAW 72:

1971

"Counting Formulae in the Akkadian Epics." JANES 3: 65-81.

1980a

"Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew." In P o t t e r y , P o e t r y and P r o p h e c y . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 51-76. Originally published in HTR 65 (1972).

1980b

"Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry" In P o t t e r y , P o e t r y and Prophecy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 77-130. Originally published in Cross 1976.

1980C

"Pottery, Prophecy, and Poetry: An Essay on Biblical Poetry," in P o t t e r y , Poetry and Prophecy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1-22. Originally published in JBL 96 (1977).

1980d

"Prolegomenon to G.B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew P o e t r y , " in P o t t e r y , P o e t r y and P r o p h e c y . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2 3 - 5 0 . Originally published in 1972.

1980e

"The Refrain in David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan," in P o t t e r y P o e t r y and Prophecy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 263-74. Originally published in Ex Orbe Religionum, Studia Geo Widengren Oblata 1 (1972).

1980f

"The Song of the Sea," in P o t t e r y , P o e t r y and Prophecy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 17986.

1980g

"Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15," in P o t t e r y , P o e t r y and P r o p h e c y . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1 8 7 - 2 2 8 . Originally published in Bream, Heim and Moor 1 9 7 4 .

438 1980h

"The Structure of Psalm 137," in P o t t e r y P o e t r y and P r o p h e c y . Winona Lake, I n d . : Eisenbrauns, 3 0 3 - 3 2 2 . Originally published in Goedicke 1971.

Gaster, T.H. 1946 "A King without a Castle."

BASOR 101: 21-30.

1962

"Myth," in G. Buttrick, ed., Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. Ill, 481-87. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962.

1975

"Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth: A Canaanite Charm Against Snakebite." JANES 7: 33-51.

1980

"The Ugaritic Charm Against Snakebite: An Additional Note." JANES 12: 43-44.

Geller, S.A. 1979

Parallelism in Early Biblical

MT:

Poetry.

Missoula,

Scholars P r e s s .

1982a

"The Dynamics of Parallel Verse: A Poetic Analysis of D t . 32:6-12." HTR 75, 35-56.

1982b

"Theory and Method in the Study of Biblical Poetry." JQR 73: 65-77.

1984

"A Poetic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1-2." 413-20.

Gemser, B. 1925

"Der Stern aus Jacob (Num. 24:17)." 301-302.

HTR 77:

ZAW 37:

Gerleman, G« 1951 "The Song of Deborah in the Light of Stylistics." VT 1: 168-80. Gevirtz, S. 1963

Patterns in the Early Poetry of

Chicago:

Israel.

University of Chicago Press. JBL 87:

1968

"A New Look at an Old Crux, Amos 5:26." 267-76.

1975

"The Issachar Oracle in the Testament of Jacob." EI 12: 104*-112*.

Gibson, J.C.L. 1977

Canaanite Clark.

Myths

and Legends.

Edinburgh:

T.& T .

439 Ginsberg,

H.L.

1935

"The Victory of the Land-God Over the Sea-God." JPOS 15: 327-33.

1936

"The R e b e l l i o n and Death of Baclu." n.s. 5: 161-98.

1944

"Baal's Two Messengers."

1946

The Legend

of King

the Bronze

Age.

Orientalia

BASOR 95: 25-30.

Keret:

A Canaanite

New Haven:

Epic

of

ASOR.

G i n s b e r g , H.L. and B. Maisler (Mazar) 1934 "Semitised Hurrians in Syria and Palestine." JPOS 14: 243-67. Globe,

A.

1974a

"The Literary Structure and Unity of the Song of Deborah." JBL 93: 493-512.

1974b

"The Text and Literary Structure of Judges 5, 45." Biblica 55: 168-78.

1975a

"Judges V 27."

1975b

"The Muster of the Tribes in Judges 5:lle-18." ZAW 87: 169-84.

VT 25: 362-67.

Goedicke, H., ed. 1971

Near

Eastern

Studies

in

Albright. Baltimore: University Press. Goodwin, C. 1944

Honor of William

Foxwell

The John Hopkins

"The Meaning of Judges 5:8b-13." 62.

JBL 63: 257-

Gordon, C.H. 1947

U g a r i t i c Handbook. Institute.

1955

U g a r i t i c Manual. Institute.

1965

U g a r i t i c Textbook. Institute.

Gray, J . 1954

Rome:

Biblical

Pontifical Biblical

Rome:

Pontifical Biblical

"Review of A.S. Kapelrud, Baal Texts."

1955

Pontifical

Rome:

in the Ras Shamra

JNES 13: 2 0 1 - 2 0 4 .

The KRT Text in the Literature Leiden: E . J . B r i l l .

of Ras

Shamra.

440 1967

Joshua, Judges,

and Ruth.

London:

Thomas

Nelson and Sons. Greenfield, J.C. 1979 "The Root SQL in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Aramaic." ÜF 11: 325-27. Greenstein, E.L. 1974 "Two Variations of Grammatical Parallelism in Canaanite Poetry and Their P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Background."

1977

JANES 6: 87-105.

"One More Step on the Staircase."

ÜF 9: 77-86.

Guillaume, A.

1962

"A Note on Num. 23:10."

VT 12: 335-37.

Hartmann, R.R.K., and F.C. Stork 1972

Dictionary

of Language and Linguistics.

London:

Applied Science P u b l i s h e r s . Hauser, A.J.

1980

"Judges 5: 99: 23-41.

Held, M. 1962

Parataxis in Hebrew Poetry." JBL

"The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical V e r b s in B i b l i c a l Hebrew and in Ugaritic." Studies A.A. Neuwan. Leiden: E . J . B r i l l .

"The A c t i o n - R e s u l t

1965

In

(Factitive-Passive) Sequence

of Identical V e r b s in B i b l i c a l Ugaritic." JBL 84: 272-82.

Hebrew and

Herdner, A. 1963

Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Hertz, J . H . 1933/34

"Numbers 23:9b, 10."

Exprimes 45: 524.

Hillers, D.R. 1965

"A Note on J u d g e s 5 : 8 a . "

CBß 27: 1 2 4 - 2 6 .

Horwitz, W . J . 1977 "Our Ugaritic Mythological Texts: Dictated?" ÜF 9: 1 2 3 - 3 0 . 1979 Huehnergard,

1986

"The Ugaritic S c r i b e . "

Copied or

ÜF 11: 3 8 9 - 9 4 .

J.

"A Dt Stem in U g a r i t i c . "

ÜF 17: 4 0 2 .

441

1987

U g a r i t i c Vocabulary i n S y l l a b i c Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Transcription.

J a c k s o n , J . J . and M. K e s s l e r , e d s . 1974 Rhetorical Criticism: E s s a y s i n Honor o f James Muilenburg. P i t t s b u r g : Pickwick P r e s s . Jakobson, R. 1960 "Linguistics and Poetics." In T.A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1966

"Grammatical Parallelism and its Russian Facet." Language 42: pp. 399-429.

Korpel, M.C.A. and J.C. de Moor. 1986 "Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry." UF 18: 173-212. Kosmala, H. 1964

"Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry." VT 14: 423-45.

Kottsieper, J. 1984 "KTU 1.100--Versuch einer Deutung." 110. 1986 Kselman, 1980

Kugel, J.L. 1981 Kuhne, C• 1975

UF 16: 97-

"Die Bedeutung der Würz1en Csb und skn in Koh. 10,9." UF 18: 213-22. "Design and Structure in Hebrew Poetry." In Society of Biblical Literature: 1980 Seminar P a p e r s . Chico, CA: Scholars P r e s s . The Idea of Biblical Poetry: P a r a l l e l i s m and its H i s t o r y . New Haven: Yale University Press. "Mit Glossenkeilen markierte fremde Wörter in akkadischen Ugarittexten II." UF 7: 239-60.

Lambdin, T.O. 1971 Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Charles S c r i b n e r ' s Sons.

New York:

L e v i n e , B.A. and J.M. de Tarragon. 1988 "'Shapshu C r i e s out in Heaven': D e a l i n g w i t h S n a k e - b i t e s at Ugarit." R Bib 95: 481-518. Lipinski, E. 1970 "Banquet en l'honneur de Baal."

UF 2: 75-88.

442 1973 Lord, A.B. 1960 1974

Loretz, O. 1975a

"Envoi d'un messenger." The Singer of Tales. Univ. Press.

Syria 50: 35-37.

Cambridge, MA:

Harvard

"Oral Poetry," in A. Preminger, ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. "Die Analyse der ugaritischen und hebräischen Poesie mittles Stichometrie und Konsonantenzählung." UF 7: 265-69.

1975b

"Der Gott ŠLH, hebräische ŠLH I und ŠLH II." 7: 584-85. '

1975c

"Die Herausführungsformel in Num. 23:22 und 24:8." UF 7: 571-72.

1980

"Ugaritische und hebräische Lexikographie." 12: 279-86.

1987

"Review of W.G.E. Waston, Classical Hebrew Poetry." UF 19: 467-68.

UF

UF

Lowenstamm, S.E. 1969 "The Expanded Colon in Ugaritic and Biblical Verse." JSS 14: 176-96. 1971

"msd."

UF 3: 357-59.

*

1975 Lowth, R• 1829

"The Expanded Colon, Reconsidered." 64.

UF 7: 261-

Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.

Margalit, B. 1975 "Introduction to Ugaritic Prosody." 313.

UF 7: 289-

1976

"Studia Ugaritica II."

1979

"Alliteration in Ugaritic Poetry: Its Role in Composition and Analysis." UF 11: 537-57. "Lexigraphical Notes on the Aqht Epic (Part I: KTU 1.17-18)." UF 15: 65-103.

1983a

UF 8: 137-92.

443 1983b

"The Messengers of Woe to Dan1 el." 117.

1984

"Lexigraphical Notes on the Aqht Epic (Part II: KTU 1.19)." UF 16: 119-79.

M i l l e r , P. D. 1988 "Review of A. B e r l i n , The Dynamics Parallelism." JBL 107: 7 3 4 - 3 6 . Moor, J.C. de. 1971 The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Ba
UF 15: 105-

of

Biblical

Myth of Neukirchen

1978a

"The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel I." In Y. Avishur and J. Blau, eds., Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to S.E. Loewenstamm. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

1978b

"The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel II: The Formal Structure." UF 10: 187-217.

1979

"Contributions to the Ugaritic Lexicon." 639-53.

1980a

"The Anatomy of the Back."

1980b

"The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel III: Further Illustrations of the Principle of Expansion." UF 12: 311-315.

1986

"Ugaritic Smalltalk."

1988

"East of Eden."

UF 11:

UF 12: 425-26.

UF 17: 219-23.

ZAW 100: 105-111.

Moor, J.C. de and K. Spronk. 1982a "Problematic Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I)." UF 14: 153-71. 1982b Moore, G.F. 1923

"Problematic Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (II)." UF 14: 172-90. Judges.

New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons.

Muilenburg, J. 1966 "A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh." In Studia Biblica et Semitica, ed. by W.C. van Unnik and A.S. van der Woude. Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen. 1969

"Form Criticism and Beyond."

JBL 88: 1-18.

444 Müller, H.-P. 1966 "Der Aufbau des Deboraliedes."

VT 16: 44-59.

Myers, J. and M. Simms, eds. 1985

Longman Dictionary

York:

and Handbook of Poetry.

New

Longman.

O'Connor, M. 1980

Hebrew Verse Structure.

Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns. Okpewho, I• 1979

The Epic in Africa: Towards a Poetic of Oral Performance. New York: Columbia

the

University Press. Onions, C•T•, ed• 1955

The Oxford universal

Dictionary.

Oxford:

Clarendon Press. Pardee, D. 1978

1981

"A Philological and Prosodic Analysis of the Ugaritic Serpent Incantation ÜT 607." JANES 10: 73-108. "Ugaritic and Hebrew Metrics." ed., Ugarit

in Retrospect.

In G.D. Young,

Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns. 1988a

"Types and Distributions of Parallelism in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry." In Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic

1988b

Parallelism.

Leiden:

E.J. Brill.

ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut. (VT Supplements, vol. XXXIX). Lieden:

E.J. Brill. 1988c

"Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry: ugaritic

and Hebrew Poetic

Parallelism." In

Parallelism.

Leiden:

E.J. Brill. Parker, S.B. 1974 "Parallelism and Prosody in Ugaritic Narrative Verse." UF 6: 283-94. 1979

"The Vow in Ugaritic and Israelite Narrative Literature." UF 11: 693-700.

1989

The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition: Essays on the ugaritic Poems Keret and Aqhat. Atlanta:

Scholars Press.

445 Parry, M. 1932

Pope, M. 1953 1981

"Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral VerseMaking." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 43: 1-50. "Pleonastic Waw before Nouns in Ugaritic and Hebrew." JAOS 73: 95-98. "Review of B. Margalit, A Matter Death." UF 13: 316-21.

of Life

Porter, S.E. 1986 "Review of A. Berlin, The Dynamics Parallelism." JETS 29: 503-505.

of

and

Biblical

Preminger, A., ed. 1974 Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Renfroe, F. 1987

"The Transition from 'Army' to 'Enemy.1" 231-33.

Robertson, D.A. 1972 Linguistic Poetry.

Evidence in Dating Early Missoula, MT: SBL Press.

Robinson, T.H. 1936 "Anacrusis in Hebrew Poetry." Rouillard, H. 1985 La péricope de Balaam Librairie Lecoffre.

UF 19:

Hebrew

BZAW 66: 37-40.

(Nombres

22-24).

Rummel, S., ed. 1981 Ras Shamra Parallels, vol. III. Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Paris:

Rome:

Sanmartin, J. 1978a "Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (II)." 349-56. 1978b

"Die Lanze (KTGD) des B^L."

1980a

"Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (IV)." 335-39.

1980b

"Zu den cd(d)—Denominierungen UF 12: 345-48.

UF 10:

UF 10: 447-48. UF 12:

in Ugaritischen."

446 Sarna, N. 1976

"Review of D.A. Robertson, Linguistic in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry,"

Sauren, H., and G. Kestemont. 1971 "Keret, roi de Hubur."

Evidence

JBL 95: 126-29.

UF 3: 181-222.

Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1956

"La premiere tablette."

1962

Ugaritica

Segert, S. 1979 1983 1985

V.

Paris:

Syria

33: 161-68.

Paul Geuthner.

"Ugaritic Poetry and Poetics: Some Preliminary Observations." UF 11: 729-38. "Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry," JAOS 103: 295306. A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic

Berkeley:

Language.

University of California Press.

Selms, A. van 1975 "A Guest-room for Ilu and its Furniture." 469-76. 1979

UF 7:

"The root k-t-r and its Derivatives in Ugaritic Literature.""" UF 11: 739-44.

Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C. Weiner, eds. 1989

The Oxford English

Oxford:

Dictionary,

2nd edition.

Clarendon Press.

Sivan, D. 1984

Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of

the 15th-13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer. Smith, M. UF 16: 295-98.

1984

"Baal's Cosmic Secret."

1986

"Interpreting the Baal Cycle."

UF 18: 313-39.

Soggin, J.A. 1981 Judges. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Spronk, K. 1988 "The Legend of Kirtu (KTU 1.14-16)." In The Structural

Analysis

of Biblical

and Canaanite

Poetry, ed. by W. van der Meer and J.C. de Moor. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

447 Stuart, D.K. 1976 Studies in Early Scholars Press. Thomas, D.W. 1934/35 "The Word rôbac 285. Tosato, A. 1979

Tournay, R. 1974

Hebrew Meter.

Missoula, MT:

in Numbers 23:10."

ExpTimes

46:

"The Literary Structure of the First Two Poems of Balaam (Num. 23:7-10, 18-24)." VT 29: 98106. "Review of D.A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry." R Bib 81: 464.

Tropper, J. and E. Verreet 1988

"Ugaritische NDY, YDY, HDY, NDD und D(W)D."

UF

20: 339-50. Tsevat, M. HUCA 29: 109-134.

1958

"Alalahiana."

1979

"Der Schlangentext von Ugarit."

UF 11: 759-78.

Tsumura, D.T. 1979 "The verba primae waw, WLD, in Ugaritic." UF 11: 779-82. 1983 "Literary Insertion (AXB Pattern) in Biblical Hebrew." VT 33: 468-82. 1986

"Literary Insertion, A x B Pattern, in Hebrew and Ugaritic." UF 18: 351-61.

Tuttle, G.A. 1978 "Case Vowels on Masculine Singular Nouns in Construct in Ugaritic." In G.A. Tuttle, ed., Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of JV.S. LaSor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Vaulx, J. de 1972 Les Nombres. Verreet, E. 1983 1984

Paris:

Librairie Lecoffre.

"Das silbenschliessende Aleph in Ugaritischen." UF 15: 223-58. "Beobachtungen zum ugaritischen Verbalsystem." UF 16: 307-21.

448 1985

"Beobachtungen zum ugaritischen Verbalsystem II." UF 17: 319-44.

1986

"Beobachtungen zum ugaritischen Verbalsystem III." UF 18: 363-86.

1987

"Der Keret-Prolog."

UF 19: 317-35.

Vervenne, M. 1987 "Hebrew š a i i š — U g a r i t i c ţlţ." V i r o l l e a u d , Ch. 1968 Ugaritica V. Geuthner•

Paris:

UF 19: 3 5 5 - 7 3 .

L i b r a i r e o r i e n t a l i s t e Paul

Watson, W.G.E. 1975 "Verse-Patterns in Ugaritic, Akkadian and Hebrew Poetry." UF 7: 483-92. 1976

"The Pivot Pattern in Hebrew, Ugaritic and Akkadian Poetry." ZAW 88: 239-53.

1977

"Ugaritic and Mesopotamia!! Literary Texts." UF 9: 273-84.

1978

"Parallels to Some Passages in Ugaritic." UF 10: 397-401.

1980a

"Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the Old Testament." JBL 99: 321-41.

1980b

"Quasi-Acrostics in Ugaritic Poetry." 445-47.

1981a

"Gender-matched Synonymous Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry." UF 13: 181-87.

1981b

"Reversed Word-Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry." UF 13: 189-92.

1982

"Lineation (Stichometry) in Ugaritic Verse." UF 14: 311-12.

1983

"Strophic Chiasmus in Ugaritic Poetry." 259-70.

1984a

Classical Hebrew Poetry: Techniques. Sheffield:

1984b

"Internal Parallelism in Ugaritic Verse." epigrafici e linguistici 1: 53-67.

A Guide to JSOT Press.

UF 12:

UF 15:

its Studi

449 1986

"Internal Parallelism in Ugaritic Verse: Further Examples." UF 17: 345-56.

Watters, W.R. 1976

Formula Criticism

Testament.

and the Poetry of the Old

Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter.

Welch, J.W. 1974 "Chiasmus in Ugaritic."

UF 6: 421-36.

Wesselius, J.W. 1983 "Three Difficult Passages in Ugaritic Literary Texts." UF 15: 312-14. Wharton, J.A. 1959 "The Command to Bless: An Exposition of Numbers 22:41-23:25." Int 13: 37-48. Wilson, G.H. 1982 "Ugaritic Word Order and Sentence Structure in Krt." JSS 27: 17-32. Young, D.W. 1977 "With Snakes and Dates: A Sacred Marriage Drama at Ugarit." UF 9: 291-314. 1979 Young, G•D• 1950

"The Ugaritic Myth of the God Horan and the Mare." UF 11: 839-48. "Ugaritic Prosody."

Young, G.D., ed. 1981 Ugarit in Retrospect. Eisenbrauns. Zevit, Z. 1983

1986

JNES 9: 124-33. Winona Lake, IN:

"Nondistinctive Stress, Syllabic Constraints, and Wortmetrik in Ugaritic Poetry." UF 15: 29198. "Review of A. Berlin, The Dynamics Parallelism."

Hebrew Studies

of

Biblical

27: 96-99.

Zijl, P.J. van 1972

Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal Neukirchenin the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10).

Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag.