CHAPTER XVI

THE PROPHETS AND THE HISTORY OF SEMITIC STYLE

WRITTEN SPECIALLY FOR THE PRESENT WORK

BY DR. D. H. MÜLLER

Professor in the University of Vienna; Member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, etc.

The Prophets prophesied in a far-off land, many, many hundred years ago. They prophesied to a small nation that dwelt in a small country and established a petty kingdom. The petty kingdom has been crushed under the iron heel of the world’s advance, the nation scattered to every quarter under heaven; but the writings of the prophets remain; they have come down to us in the original text; they have been translated into every language and are read by every nation.

To this day the words of the prophets resound from every pulpit, in admonition and menace, for comfort and salvation. The substance of the prophetic discourses is sufficiently familiar, and these words spoken thousands of years ago do not fail of their effect to-day. From the depths of the heart they welled forth, divine inspiration was their source, they were addressed to men burdened with passions and frailties; and hence they have kept their power through centuries and tens of centuries.

We will not at present concern ourselves with the substance of the prophetic books nor with the development of prophecy; we will consider the form of the prophetic discourses. Men prized the substance so highly that they neglected to examine the form. Are they prose or poetry? Even this question has not been answered. A Greek oration is minutely analysed; we know the rules of rhetoric, and divide each oration into its component parts. A Greek or Latin poem is classed as drama, epic, lyric, etc., and its metre is studied and criticised. What rules govern the composition of the prophetic books?

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF STYLE

On the basis and in pursuance of my previous researches I advance the thesis that “the main characteristics of the style of the prophetic writings are strophic composition and responsion.” What a strophe is every one knows; nevertheless I will expressly state that by “strophe” I mean a group of lines or verses, standing in relation to other verses, and yet forming in and by themselves a compact whole.

In Semitic poetry or rhetoric, in so far as we may speak of it, the “responsion” has hitherto been an unknown quantity; but we are familiar with it in classical literature, the best examples being the choruses of the Greek dramas. The strophe and antistrophe correspond in metre, in form, and in the division of the periods; they frequently correspond in substance also; and this correspondence is often marked by _verbal consonance or assonance_. This peculiarity, which seems to be of infrequent occurrence and trifling importance in Greek literature, has been recognised and named by the exact observation and penetrative criticism of classical philology; in Semitic poetry, where the responsion, combined with the strophic structure, to which it serves as the element of crystallisation, must be regarded as of the very essence of the poem or discourse, it has neither been explained nor named.

AN EXAMPLE FROM AMOS

I will take an example of the responsion from Amos, the first prophet who cast his discourses into literary form, Chaps. vii.-viii.

1) Thus the Lord God shewed me: And, behold, he formed locusts in the beginning of the shooting up after the latter growth; And, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.

2) And it came to pass that when they made an end _of eating_ the grass of the land, Then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: How shall Jacob stand? for he is small.

3) The Lord repented concerning this: It shall not be, saith the Lord.

4) Thus the Lord God shewed me: And, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire; And it devoured the great deep, And would have _devoured_ up the land.

5) Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee: How shall Jacob stand? for he is small.

6) The Lord repented concerning this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord God.

7) Thus he (the Lord God) shewed me: And behold he stood beside a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.

8) And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then the Lord said, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel; I will not again pass them by any more:

9) And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste. And I will _rise against_ the house of Jeroboam with _the sword_.

1) Thus the Lord God shewed me: And, behold, [there was] a basket of summer [ripe] fruit.

2) And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer [ripe] fruit.

3) Then said the Lord unto me, The end [ripeness] is come upon my people Israel; I will not again pass by them any more. And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day. The _dead bodies_ shall be many; in every place have they cast them forth: be silent.

This vision of Amos sets forth a series of punishments which have overtaken or threaten to overtake the land. “The first two refer to dangers already past at the time of the discourse, the last two to the future.” In form, again, the first two and the last two exhibit a close affinity with one another. All four strophes have eight lines apiece and begin with the same phrase; in all four the second line begins in the same fashion, but proceeds differently even in the verses of each couple. In the third line the couples diverge entirely, the twin strophes alone remaining in close correspondence.

This method of working on a definite plan was a favourite one with the prophets. The change of picture in the same framework produces a lasting impression, and the repetition of the same form with a different substance fixes the mind on the thing seen, which is in danger of vanishing all too quickly. The responsion in verses apparently different is very noteworthy; as are lines 7 and 8 respectively, where the desolate places of Isaac correspond to the songs of the temple changed into howlings, and the _rising with the sword_ of the third strophe to the _many dead bodies_ of the fourth.

AN EXAMPLE FROM EZEKIEL

I take another example of correspondence between the strophes from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chap. xxi.

1) _And the word of the Lord came 6) _And the word of the Lord unto me, saying,_ came unto me, saying_, 2) _Son of man_, 7) _Son of man_, _Set thy face_ toward the South. _Set thy face_ toward Jerusalem _And drop thy word_ toward the _And drop thy word_ toward the South, Sanctuaries, _And prophesy against_ the forest _And prophesy against_ the land of the field in the South; of Israel;

3) _And say to the_ forest of the 8) _And say to the_ land of Israel: South:

Hear the word of the Lord; _Thus saith the Lord God:_ _Thus saith the Lord:_ Behold I will _kindle a fire_ Behold I am against thee, in thee And will _draw forth_ my _sword_ from its sheath And it shall _devour_ every _green_ And will _cut off from thee_ the tree in thee and every _dry_ tree. _righteous_ and the _wicked_.

9) Seeing that I will _cut off from_ thee the _righteous_ and the _wicked_. The flaming fire _shall not be Therefore shall my _sword_ go quenched_, forth out of its sheath And all faces shall _be burnt against all flesh thereby_. _From the north to the south._ _From the north to the south._ 4) _And all flesh shall see_ 10) _And all flesh shall know_ _That I, the Lord_, have _That I the Lord_ have drawn _kindled_ it: forth my _sword_ out of its _sheath_; _It shall not be quenched._ _It shall not return any more._

THE SONG OF THE SWORD

One of Ezekiel’s grandest poems is the Song of the Sword. The sword from the North in the hand of Nebuchadrezzar comes forth against Jerusalem and destroys the last remnant of life in the perishing city. The introduction to the Song of the Sword is an allegory such as Ezekiel loves; he looks in prophetic trance towards the south and sees a fire approaching from thence which seizes upon the forest of the south and devours the green tree and the dry. Then he solves the riddle, thus interpreting the vision. By placing the riddle and the interpretation in parallel columns, we obtain a classic example of strict responsion.

As a third example of the responsion I select Matthew vii. 13, 14,

Enter ye in by the narrow gate:

For _wide_ is the _gate_, For _narrow_ is the _gate_, And _broad_ is the _way_, And _straitened_ the _way_, That _leadeth to destruction_ That _leadeth unto life_, And _many_ be they that enter in And _few_ be they that find it. thereby.

In order to grasp the fundamental idea, that of the responsion, let us once more clearly define that of the strophe and antistrophe.

STROPHE AND ANTISTROPHE DEFINED

The strophe consists of a number of verses combined so as to form a larger whole; it contains a sheaf of ideas which express a _single_ idea, just as a sheaf of rays unites to form a single light.

The antistrophe represents an analogous or contrasting idea, which is, like the former, the sum or product of _another_ sheaf of ideas, and answers to the former _in some or all of its component parts_.

Accordingly the responsion, thus conceived of, is the formal expression of this relation of two or more strophes to one another. Where the principle of the responsion is strictly carried out each line of the first strophe corresponds to the corresponding line of the second, either _verbally_ or _substantially_, and in the latter case either by _parallelism_ or _antithesis_. The similarity of the majority of lines which thus correspond throws the differences at certain points into strong relief and renders them all the more forcible and impressive.

The highest organic structures have been analysed and found to be built up from a single cell. All the preliminary conditions which enable the cell to form organisms lie dormant in it already, but the germ cannot become an organic being except by a slow process of development. What we now have to do is to find the germ from which the responsion has developed; and the germ of this phenomenon is the _parallelismus membrorum_ which constitutes the vital element of apothegm and verse in the Semitic languages, and more particularly in Hebrew. But two things may be parallel one with another not only by analogy but by contrast. The _parallelismus membrorum_ places side by side two or more ideas, analogous but not identical, and adapted by their slight diversity to give an image of what the poet desires to convey. Such sentences abound in the prophetic discourses, as in Isaiah i. 3,

The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: But Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

And Amos ix. 2,

Though they dig into hell, thence shall my hand take them; And though they climb up into heaven, thence will I bring them down.

The idea, being presented under a different figure, is repeated without producing an effect of tedium or monotony.

What the _parallelismus membrorum_ is to the verse or sentence, that the responsion is to the strophe or discourse.

By slight variations on the responsion two literary forms were evolved to supply an æsthetic want. When two strophes stand in such a relation that the conclusion of the one answers to the beginning of that which succeeds it, the result is the _concatenation_, which unites two strophes with one another and leads the way from one field of thought to another. Again, if the beginning of one strophe or group of strophes corresponds with the conclusion of the same, the result is the _inclusion_, the object of which is to emphasise the logical and æsthetic unity of the said strophe or group of strophes.

An example of concatenation may be cited from Isaiah, Chap. i.

One column begins--

_Hear_, O heavens, and _give ear_, O earth, for the _Lord hath spoken_--

and ends--

We should have been as _Sodom_, we should have been like unto _Gomorrah_.

The second strophe-column begins--

_Hear the word of the Lord_, ye rulers of _Sodom_; Give ear unto the Lord our God, ye people of _Gomorrah_.

Here, as we see, the beginning of the second column answers to the beginning of the first and is linked with its conclusion.

Habakkuk (ii. 11) affords another example,

(end of strophe)

For the _stone_ shall cry out of the _wall_, And the _beam_ out of the _timbers_ shall answer it.

Herewith the image of a building rises before the prophet as before the reader. A thought flashes through the prophet’s mind, and he proceeds,

(beginning of strophe)

Woe to him that _buildeth_ a _town_ with blood And _stablisheth_ a _city_ by iniquity.

And as an example of the inclusion we may quote Jeremiah xlvi. 20-24:

(beginning of strophe)

_Egypt_ is a very fair heifer; but destruction out of the _north_ is come, it is come.

(end of strophe)

The daughter of _Egypt_ shall be put to shame, she shall be delivered into the hand of the people of the _north_.

In the second chapter of Zephaniah, we find an example of the two-lined inclusion:

(beginning of strophe)

8) I have heard the _reproach_ of Moab, and the _revilings_ of the children of Ammon, Wherewith they have reproached _my people_ and _magnified_ themselves against my border.

(end of strophe)

10) This shall they have for their _pride_, Because they have _reproached_ and _magnified themselves_ against the people of the Lord of hosts.

Thus the three literary forms, besides the strophic measure, which govern the composition of the prophetic books are--the _responsion_, the _concatenation_, and the _inclusion_.

If the responsion is the expression of the outward and inward symmetry--of substance and form--proper to two strophic organisms which, though they may be far apart, show their relation one to another by similarity of character and structure, and correspond to each other more or less, either by analogy or antithesis, the _concatenation_ may be regarded as the complement and counterpart of the responsion, inasmuch as it unites the two strophic organisms by an outward and inward bond--of substance and form. By this means the two are combined to constitute a greater whole. For this reason the _concatenation_ does not run parallel to the responsion, but joins the _end_ of one strophe to the _beginning_ of a second, and leads from one field of thought to another. The _inclusion_ may be regarded as, in a certain sense, the reverse of the concatenation. As the concatenation brings about the conjunction of two strophes, so the inclusion constitutes the boundary line that cuts one strophic organism off from the next. The concatenation obliterates the distinctive character of two separate strophic organisms, the inclusion rounds off and defines a strophe, or group of strophes, and emphasises its distinctive character.

AN EXAMPLE FROM ISAIAH

I cannot refrain from giving at least one example from Isaiah of a strophe-column, which corresponds with a parallel column of similar structure. I select the famous vision of Chapter vi. for the purpose. It may be regarded as one of the earliest prophecies of Isaiah, in conception perhaps the earliest of all. The _Tesetes_ tradition gives the passage as a single whole, without break or paragraph. In dealing with a prophet of Isaiah’s rank, and one so pre-eminent in the composition of these prophetic discourses, we naturally seek to discover a definite plan in the composition of this vision, and such a plan does, as a matter of fact, become manifest to the critical student. The vision begins, “And I saw the Lord,” and the continuation and complement opens with the words (verse 8), “And I heard the voice of the Lord.” The passage, accordingly, falls into two parts, one describing what the prophet saw, the other what he heard. If we examine the two parts more closely we are struck by the phrase, “Then said I,” occurring in the one after he had seen all, and in the other after he had heard all. Hence it appears that the grand vision consists of two images, which correspond with each other exactly.

1) _And I saw the Lord_ 8) _And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying_, Sitting upon a throne, high and Whom shall I send, and who will lifted up, go for us? And his train filled the temple. Then I said, Here am I, send me.

2) Above him stood the Seraphim: Each one had six wings; 9) And he said, Go, and tell this people With twain he covered his face, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; And with twain he covered his And see ye indeed, but perceive feet, not. And with twain he did fly.

3) And one cried unto another, and 10) How fat is the heart of this said, people Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord And their ears how heavy, of hosts. And their eyes as it were shut. The whole earth is full of his Else might they see with their glory. eyes 4) And the foundations of the And hear with their ears thresholds were moved at the And understand with their heart, voice of him that cried, And turn again, and be healed. And the house was filled with smoke.

5) _Then said I_, Woe is me! 11) _Then said I_, Lord, how long? Because I am a man of unclean And he answered, Until the lips, etc. cities be waste, without inhabitant, etc.

Besides these two-column discourses, of which we have just seen an example, we find three-column discourses, especially in Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. They frequently consist of three parallel parts, each divided into two or three strophes. The strophes of each column correspond on the one hand, the corresponding stanzas of each part on the other, so that we have, if we may so express it, a _vertical_ and a _horizontal_ responsion. The double responsion gives, as it were, the fixed points between which the network of the strophes is outspread. A classic example of this method is the great discourse in the ninth chapter of Jeremiah, which belongs to the best period, and the authenticity of which is unreservedly admitted by Biblical criticism. Lack of space unfortunately forbids me to give it here arranged according to the principles I have laid down.

It is time to observe that the same laws may be shown to prevail in cuneiform inscriptions and the works of the prophet Mohammed.

AN ASSYRIAN EXAMPLE

As an example of responsion I give a passage from the great inscription of Sargon (L. 186-194).

That city and that palace, (But) its ruler, Asshur, the father of the gods, Its royal architect, In the glory of his shining countenance May he attain to old age, May he obtain power Graciously may he look upon it, _For ever and ever_, _To days far hence_ _May_ its _maker_ grow _old_. May he proclaim its _renewing_. _With his shining mouth may he decree_: _With his sounding lips may he speak_: The protecting genius, He who dwelleth in them, The rescuing God, In health of body, Day and night And joy of heart, Let them rule therein, And gladness of spirit, Nor let their power cease. May he rejoice therein, May he taste the joy of life.

A BABYLONIAN EXAMPLE

A very instructive example of the strophe combined with responsion is afforded by the second Babylonian version of the Creation, which has been for the first time translated and published by T. G. Pinches. It consists of forty lines, and is arranged in _four_ strophes of ten lines each. The responsion is clear and vivid to the last degree, the end harks back to the beginning with manifest intention. The concatenation constitutes, as it were, a rivet between the strophes. I will confine myself at present to quoting the beginning of the first three and the ending of the last two strophes.

Str. I (beginning),

The _glorious house_, the _house of the gods_, in a glorious place had not been made, A plant had not been brought forth, a tree had not been created, etc.

Str. I (end),

(As for) the _glorious house, the house of the gods_, its seat had not been made, The whole of the lands were _sea_.

Str. II (beginning),

When within the _sea_ there was a stream In that day Eridu was made, Ê-sagila was constructed, etc.

Str. II (end),

The _gods_ were to be caused to sit in a _seat of joy of heart_, _He made mankind._

Str. III (beginning),

Aruru _had made the seed of mankind_ with him. He made the beasts of the field and the living creatures of the desert; etc.

The age of this Babylonian story of the Creation probably goes back to at least the middle of the second millennium of our chronology, and in this very ancient specimen of Semitic poetry we find this poetic form fully developed.

EXAMPLES FROM THE KORAN

It seems hardly possible to believe that the Arab prophet, who regarded it as an insult to be described as a poet, should have employed definite literary forms, and more particularly the strophe combined with the responsion, in his revelations. Yet such is the fact. In most cases the strophes rise and fall in harmony with his abrupt and agitated style (similar strophes occur in the prophetic books), but regular strophes are to be found, and in those that rise and fall we can trace a definite law which altogether excludes the idea of chance. The occurrence of the strophe combined with the responsion in the _Koran_, is a point of the utmost importance to the hypothesis of strophic composition, because the correctness of the arrangement of the _Koran_ in lines seems to be assured both by the rhyme and by tradition. I will bring to your notice in this place an example of the regular strophe from the _Koran_. In the thirty-sixth _surah_ we come upon a passage framed, as it were, between two verses, which form the inclusion.

v. 28. There was only one _cry_ (of Gabriel from heaven), and behold, they became utterly extinct. v. 49. They only wait for one _sounding_ (of the trumpet), which shall overtake them while they are disputing together.

Between these two lie five strophes of four lines each.

Str. I, begins (v. 29),

Oh, the misery of men! no apostle cometh unto them but they laugh him to scorn.

Str. II, begins (v. 33),

_One sign [of the resurrection] unto them_ is the dead earth, we quicken the same, etc.

Str. III, begins (v. 37),

_The night also is a sign unto them_, we withdraw the day from the same, etc.

Str. IV, begins (v. 41),

_It is a sign also unto them that_ they carry off their offspring in the ship filled with merchandise, etc.

Str. V (v. 45), takes up the burden of the first, and begins,

And if it is said unto you, Fear that which is before you and that which is behind, It may be ye shall find mercy, etc.

I will also subjoin an example of the falling strophe combined with the responsion, from _sura_ 56, vv. 57-72.

57) _We have created you_, will ye not therefore believe.…

58) _What think ye?_ _The seed_ that ye emit. 59) _Do ye_ create the same or are we the creators thereof? 60) We have decreed death unto you all, and we shall not be prevented. 61) We are able to substitute others like you in your stead, and to produce you again in the condition or form which ye know not. 62) Ye know the original production by creation; will ye not therefore consider.…

63) _What think ye_ the grain which ye sow? 64) _Do ye_ cause the same to spring forth, or _do we_ cause it to spring forth? 65) _If we pleased, we could render_ the same dry and fruitless, so that you would not cease to wonder, saying, 66) Verily we have contracted debts for seed and labour, but we are not permitted to reap the fruit thereof.

67) _What think ye?_ The _water_ which ye drink, 68) _Do ye_ send down the same from the clouds, _or are we_ the senders thereof? 69) _If we pleased we could_ render the same brackish: will ye not therefore give thanks?

70) _What think ye?_ The _fire_ which ye strike, 71) _Do ye_ produce the tree whence ye obtain the same, _or are we_ the producers thereof?

72) _We have ordained_ the same for an admonition, and an advantage to those who travel through the deserts.

This passage, which is complete in itself, consists of four stanzas, of 5-4-3-2 verses, all of them diverse presentations of the same idea and alike in construction.

The whole group is enclosed between two single verses which correspond to one another, and form, as it were, a frame to it.

An exact observation of the _Koran_ shows that strophes of the most varied structure occur in it, often combined with the responsion, and held together by all kinds of other literary forms. The principal characteristic of the strophe is still unity of idea, which, being in its nature relative, is subject to great variation. Nor is the strophe the final and greatest unit. As the strophe is formed by the combination of several lines or sentences, so a group is formed of a number of strophes and a great systematically constructed discourse of several groups. The same laws which govern the sentence and the verse prevail in the structure of the strophe and the formation of the group. Parallelism and antithesis are the principal elements of form in sentence and verse; they are likewise the forces that struggle for expression, and assert themselves in the structure of the strophe and the formation of the group.

The question may be raised: How did Mohammed come to adopt this form of composition? For the present, I can only advance a hypothesis in reply. Mohammed received the first impulse to meditate upon matters of religion from various wise and learned men, and through them became acquainted with the principal doctrines of Judaism and Christianity; and in like manner he must have acquired from them the tradition of this form of poetry, a form which, unlike the poetry of the heathen, was not devoted to the delight and joy of life, but to religious meditation and to ancient and pious legend. This form of composition may have been practised and preserved by the old soothsayers (_Kahin_) after it had been generally superseded by the new-fangled and rigidly metrical poetry. Mohammed may possibly have acquired the secret of this form of composition from such a Kahin, who had meditated upon the nature of religion. He therefore rightly rejected the title of _poet_, and with equal right called himself the “Seal of the Prophet”; for he spoke and wrote in the style of the prophets of old.

THE PREVALENCE OF STROPHIC FORM AND RESPONSION EXPLAINED

A careful consideration of the laws of strophic form and responsion which can be shown to exist, though in unequal measure, in the three great Semitic literatures, leads us to the conclusion that there are only three possible explanations of their occurrence. Either we have to do with a phenomenon evolved independently in different parts of the world, or these literary forms were invented by one nation and borrowed and imitated by the others, or, lastly, they must all be referred to a common origin.

The three nations among whom we find these literary forms are so widely separated in space and time that there can be no question of borrowing between them. But, again, phenomena so original and complicated could not appear in different places without something of a common origin.

Accordingly, the only possible assumption is _that they may all be referred to a common origin, and that even in primitive times religious poetry was governed by these literary forms_. They have been preserved in the Bible, the cuneiform inscriptions, and the _Koran_.

The establishment of the fact that strophic composition combined with responsion is to be found in all three Semitic literatures naturally drew my attention to a similar phenomenon in the choruses of Greek tragedy, a phenomenon noted and recognised by classical philology, though not treated with the consideration it deserves. Too much stress has been laid on the metrical uniformity of the strophes, too little on their substantial correspondence, and more especially on the way in which the latter is interwoven with assonance and verbal responsion. A certain amount of critical acumen is required for the recognition of these subtly concealed and delicate allusions and antitheses, but when once they are recognised, we cannot doubt that in their choruses the Greek tragedians employed the same artistic methods as the prophets. Strophe and antistrophe are modelled on the same pattern, not in rhythm and syntax alone, but in idea. Now and then the correspondence may be seen and shown to exist line for line, but in most cases it is found only in single lines, though almost always in such as occur in the same place, a circumstance that proves that the correspondence is not due to chance, but that a definite artistic intention was at work to create a certain symmetry between the two strophes.

EXAMPLES FROM THE GREEK TRAGEDIES

I subjoin a few examples in support of this assertion. From the _Prometheus_ of Æschylus, 397-414.

_Strophe_

I _mourn_ thy grievous fate, Prometheus! From my tender eyes pours forth a flood of _tears_, Wetting my cheeks from the springs of weeping. 400 For thus harshly Zeus, Ruling in the law of his own will, displays An imperious sceptre to the _gods_ of old.

_Antistrophe_

And now all the earth _mourns_, And for that grand and ancient sway she _weeps_, With mourning for the empire thou and thy brothers held. 410 And all who have abodes On holy Asia’s borders, in thy loud mourned woes Those _mortals_ suffer with thee.

The curious responsion of these two strophes is very interesting, interwoven as it is with most of the lines, now by verbal similarity (as in στένω and στονόεν), now by similarity of sense (_tears_ and _weeps_), now by antithesis (_gods_ and _men_), and lastly, by an etymological play upon words (νόμος and νέμονται). In addition we have the contrast of ideas in the last lines, in the one strophe _Zeus constrains_ the _gods_, in the other _men mourn complaining_. Again in the _Œdipus Rex_ of Sophocles, 1, 863-910:

_Strophe I_ _Antistrophe I_

Beginning.

863) Be it my lot to keep 873) ’Tis _insolence_ begets the That _reverent purity_ of tyrant, _Insolence_, word and deed, etc. foolishly puffed up, etc.

Conclusion.

870) Ne’er shall forgetfulness 880) Rivalry that brings lull them to rest: Weal to the state I ask not God to end: A great _god_ in them dwells, Never shall I depart from nor ever waxeth old. _God_ my champion.

_Strophe II_ _Antistrophe II_

Beginning.

883) But a man who walks in 897) Never shall I more in reverence haughty _insolence_ of go to Delphi’s holy place word or deed, Fearing not the hand of Nor the _shrine_ of Abæ, nor Justice, nor revering Olympia. _shrines_ of gods.

Conclusion.

895) But if such deeds as these 909) No longer in Apollo’s worship are held in honour manifest, What offerings need I bring But honours to the _gods_ go the _gods_? all unpaid.

This form of strophic construction is worthy of note, because not only do the strophe and antistrophe correspond, but the couples of strophes answer to one another; in other words, besides the vertical responsion we find a _horizontal_ responsion (as in Jeremiah ix.), expressed sometimes by the use of identical words, sometimes by antithesis.

Euripides, _Bacchæ_.

_Strophe._ 862-870

All night in choric dances my white foot shall beat The Bacchic rout; my head I will toss in the dewy air, As the fawn that sports among the pleasures of green fields, _When in fear it flees_ the chase, Escaping the trap, overleaping the well-wrought toils.…

_Antistrophe._ 882-890

Slowly, yet surely moves the power divine, It punisheth mortals who go the way of folly, And madly fail to reverence the gods. But _subtly the gods still_ wait _Long time in hiding, and hunt down_ the impious man.…

In the strophe we have the shy and timid fawn which takes flight from the pasture and rejoices at her escape from the pursuit of the hunters, in the antistrophe the presumptuous man who transgresses the laws of nature and custom. In the one the _timid flight_, in the other the _subtle (ποικίλος) lying in wait_ of the gods; the fawn escapes the huntsman, man escapes not the gods. The antithesis in lines 4-5 is most striking. The last lines of both strophes are identical.

A careful study of the responsion in all the wonderful variety of form it presents will suffice to show, even from these few examples, that they bear an amazing resemblance to the forms exhibited by Semitic poetry, particularly by the prophetic writings.

SEMITIC INFLUENCE AND THE GREEK CHORUS

Instead of attempting to prove here that the Greek chorus came into being under Semitic influences I will subjoin the opinion of a classical philologist who has studied the question more minutely than any one else. I refer to D. P. Thomas M. Wehofer (_Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Epistolographie_, p. 16).

“For the rest, long before the Christian era Greek literature had received a strong admixture of Semitic art-forms. For, as has been convincingly proved, in my opinion, by Dr. D. H. Müller (_Die Propheten_, p. 244 _seq._), the Greek choruses, those splendid productions of Greek poetry, must be referred for their origin to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, whither (according to the tradition preserved by Euripides in the _Phœnissæ_) ‘chosen Phœnician virgins were sent from Tyre to conduct the service of the god.’ It is evident that the Greek chorus, the germ from which Greek tragedy was destined to be evolved, followed the same path as Greek painting and plastic art.

“The Greek spirit took possession of all the elements of beauty it encountered, not to preserve them in a petrified state, but by its own working to shape and perfect them, and bring them to the highest conceivable pitch of development.”

The genius of Greece recognised the power of Semitic poetry; it gladly left it its soaring flight, but brought into it the noble feeling for form which was its own peculiar gift, and to ideas and responsion added metrical symmetry. The choruses present a happy combination of the Semitic spirit and the Greek sense of beauty.

The assumption that the Greek chorus, with its strophe and antistrophe, is a Semitic invention is not without bearing on the history of the earliest ages of Semitic poetry. If the Greeks borrowed the chorus, it must have been in use in the religious worship of the Phœnicians. If, in connection with this fact, we consider the responsion in the strophes of the prophetic writings, which exhibit precisely the same method of composition and literary form as the Greek choruses, we are forced upon the hypothesis that the earliest form of prophetic composition must be regarded as a chorus with strophes and antistrophes.

AUTHORITIES.--_Die Propheten in ihrer ursprünglichen Form. Die Grundgesetze der ursemitischen Poesie erschlossen und nachgewiesen in Bibel Keilinschriften und Koran und in ihrer Wirkung erkannt in den Chören der griechischen Tragödie_, by D. H. Müller. 2 vols. Vienna, 1896.

_Strophen und Responsion._ Neue Beiträge. By D. H. Müller. Vienna, 1898. (Cf. also Felix Perles in the _Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes_, X, 112, 71; and J. Zeenner in the _Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie_, XX, p. 378.)

_Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Epistolographie_, by D. P. Thomas M. Wehofer. Vienna, 1901.

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]