Ube Xttnlversits of Chicago ANT0N1US RHETOR ON VERSIFICATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OE OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION IN THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL MARTIN SPRENGL1NG Private Edition, Distributed By THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Reprinted from The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures TJ548I S76 Vol. XXXII, No. 3, April 1916 Ube 'dniv’ersitis ot Gbtcago ANTONIUS RHETOR VERSIFICATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION IN THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL /BY MARTIN SPRENGLING Private Edition, Distributed By THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Reprinted from The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. XXXII, No. 3, April 1916 ANTONIUS RHETOR ON VERSIFICATION WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND TWO APPENDICES By Martin Sprengling University of Chicago Ephrem Syrus is not a great poet to everybody’s taste. Singing a simile to death in praise of a saint or applying strong epithets to dead-and-gone heretics in long, carefully numbered series of syllables will not impress many modern, occidental readers as good poetry. Yet, such as he is, in the very bulk of his works, in the variety of topics treated and of legitimate meters and strophic structures employed, in a kind of facile inventiveness, in the esteem in which he was held by a great number of his contemporaries and a still greater number of his countrymen of succeeding generations, Ephrem is the Syriac poet par excellence; and perhaps it is, as Duval (Lit. Syr3., p. 13) says, that the Syrians “saw excellences, where we find faults.” As Ephrem is the first of Syriac poets whose works have been preserved to us in quantity, so he became a kind of Syriac Homer, the type and model of classic Syriac poetry. A new, sumptuous edition of Ephrem’s complete works, as pre¬ served in the original tongue and in translations, is in process of publication, as the first fasciculus of the first volume, dated Rome, » 1915, shows.1 The former attempt at a similar edition, made at 1 The full title is: S. Ephraem Syri Opera. Textum Syriacum Graecum Latinum ad fldem codicum recensuit, prolegomenis notis indicibus instruxit Sylvius Ioseph Mer- cati. Tomus primus, Fasc. primus. Sermones in Abraham et Isaac, In Basilium Magnum, In Eliam .... Komae, Sumptibus Pontiflcii Instituti Biblici, 1915. It forms in turn Vol. I of a larger series: Monumenta Biblica et Ecclesiastica. 145 146 The American Journal of Semitic Languages Rome under papal auspices, was good enough in its day, the end of the first half of the eighteenth century, but has long since become superannuated. Both flow through the channel of papal munificence. The former was a gift of the Orient to the Occident; it was brought out by that brilliant Maronite family, who laid in Europe the founda¬ tions of an adequate knowledge of Syriac literature, the Assemanis ( as-Simdni ), and by their friend Father Benedictus (i.e., Mubar- rak). In the present edition the Occident returns the favor with interest. Not only will the text of Ephrem here published have the benefit of all the improvements modern technique can supply, but it is avowedly the intent of this whole edition with all the labor therein involved to furnish a reliable basis for the exact study of classical Syriac poetics and versification and its supposed influence on the new turn taken by Byzantine and Latin verse in the early Middle Ages. It is a significant fact that the chief interest of the new editor of Ephrem is centered in the laws of Syriac and Byzantine and mediaeval Latin versification. Mercati is a pupil and evidently a thoroughgoing follower of W. Meyer of Speyer (Mercati, op. cit., Proem passim , and especially p. xiv). W. Meyer is an expert pioneer and explorer in the field of mediaeval Latin, and incidentally also of Byzantine, versification, as his two volumes of Gesammelte Abhand- lungen zur mittellateinischen Rhythmik (Berlin, 1905) amply demon¬ strate. He is interested in Syriac versification in general and in Ephrem and the Greek translations of his works in particular as in one of the influences which gave rise to the Christian poetry of Byzantium and Rome, and through these to some of the peculiarities of our own modern poetry, Germanic and Romance. For his knowledge of Syriac and Hebrew versification he seems to have depended chiefly upon Hahn and, perhaps, Bickell, and was accord¬ ingly misled in several particulars. One of these faulty assump¬ tions, a supposedly rigid disposition of accents at the close of each Syriac verse, he has since retracted upon the advice of Noldeke (op. cit., I, 11). On the matter of rhyme Meyer is still somewhat * at fault, and Eduard Norden ( Antike Kunstprosa, 810-908; Nach- trage, 11-13) is fuller and nearer right, though Meyer’s presentation (op. cit., II, 122-26) is neither so one-sided nor so hopeless as would Antonius Rhetor on Versification 147 appear from Norclen’s statements. For the rest, in his supposition that Semitic models had much to do with the prevalence of the acrostich and with the principle of syllable-counting in mediaeval Christian poetry, Meyer has in matter and manner a better case than Norden and others seem willing to admit.1 It is largely to furnish a trustworthy text as a basis for the demonstration of this theoiy that Mercati has undertaken the new edition of Ephrem. The undertaking is praiseworthy enough, and the object is not unworthy. It is to be hoped, however, that the theory will not bias the restitution of the text. For Ephrem after all is of some value in other directions, and his works contain, besides much mere verse-making of more than Victorian length and tiresomeness, some poems2 and passages of great beauty, as the opinion and the loans of the great Byzantine poet Romanos testify (Krum- bacher, loc. cit.). And for our better knowledge of classical Syriac versification also one of the prime requisites is a text of Ephrem resting upon sound general text-critical principles not unduly influenced by any special theory on the history of versification. As does this introductory resume,3 so must every examination and exposition of classical Syriac verse take Ephrem for its starting- point. It is one of the merits of Hubert Grimme,4 for which he has been unduly criticized, that he recognized this and acted upon it. If Becq de Fouquieres was justified in basing his fundamental treatise 1 Cf. Krumbacher, “Die Griechische Literatur des Mittelalters” in Kultur der Gegenwart, Griechische und Lateinische Literatur und Sprache, 1905, pp. 259 and 262; also Baumstark, Die chr. Lit. des Orients, I (Sammlung Goschen, No. 527), Leipzig, 1911, p. 16. 2 Cf., e.g., the sprightly hymn on the Virgin Mary, Lamy, II, 538 ff., No. 6, and the stately and impressive 11th hymn on the holy martyrs, Lamy, III, 711 ff. 3 This sketch of the work hitherto done on Syriac prosody, written partly in appre¬ ciation of Mercati ’s new edition of Ephrem, partly as an introduction to the publication of a portion of the Harvard manuscript of Anthony of Tagrit, covers the ground with some fulness, because nothing of the sort, accessible to English students and readers, seems to be in existence. The only thing of the kind of which I have found any trace is a treatise by Lamy On Syriac Prosody, said by Duval, Journal asiatique, 9e Serie, t. X (1897), 65, n. 1, to be “dans les Actes du Congres des Orientalistes de Londres de 1891.’’ A diligent search of the Harvard College Library failed to bring to light this essay, which from Duval’s statement must have formed an intermediate stage between Lamy’s first effort in the Prolegomena of Vol. Ill of his Ephraem Syri Hymni et Ser- mones in 1889 and his finished presentation of the final results attained by him in Vol. IV of the same work (1902), coll. 469-96 (but see also the Foreword of this latter volume, p. vii). In any case, whatever Lamy did does not conflict with the present sketch, nor does the one make the other unnecessary. 4 On Grimme’s work in this field see pp. 157 ff. 148 The American Journal of Semitic Languages on French versification for the classical period upon Racine alone — and his results would seem to have amply justified the brilliant Frenchman's procedure — then the needful refoundation of our knowl¬ edge of Syriac prosody will have to proceed from a thorough investi¬ gation of just such a text of Ephrem as Mercati intends to give us. It should be Ephrem and no other. In the facility wherewith he molded the Syriac language into a variety of rhythmical forms, Ephrem represents the finished product of a developmental process of considerable length and intensity. Of what preceded him only the smallest remnants are preserved. The Carpentras stele (CIS, II, 141; with an English translation, in Cooke, N orthsemitic Inscrip¬ tions, pp. 205 f. ; photogravure in Lidzbarski, Nordsem. Epigraphik, Vol. II, Plate XXVIII, 3), in Egyptian Aramaic of the fourth or fifth century b.c., is almost certainly composed in verses of seven syllables each or thereabouts. Though not found in any extant document, yet of more significance than a mere accident, is Professor Charles C. Torrey's unforced retranslation of the Lukan Lord's Prayer into the Jewish Aramaic of Jesus' time, which fell naturally and without seeking under Professor Torrey’s skilled hands into the same meter.1 Coming thence to the two old gnostic hymns in the acts of Judas Thomas, the Soul’s Wedding and the Song of the Apostle Judas Thomas in the Land of the Hindus, the latter often called the Hymn of the Soul, we are somewhat nearer the home of Edessene Syriac and on rather firmer ground.2 The exact date of neither is known, but the time of Bardaisan, to whom they have by some scholars been assigned, the turn of the second and third centuries a.d., will not be far wrong. Both are composed in distichs of six-syllable verses. As to whether these beautiful rhapsodies belong to Bardaisan or not, no conclusive evidence has yet been offered. Very eminent authorities in various related fields — Noldeke, Burkitt, Preuschen — have expressed their opinion in the affirmative. The present writer's feeling inclines in the same direction. This 1 Cf. Torrey in ZA , XXVIII, 2-4 (March, 1914), 312-17. The more important literature on the Carpentras stele is named by Professor Torrey in this article. 2 First published by W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, London, 1871, I. PP- f. and ; English translation, II, 150 ff., 23S-45; cf. also Bevan’s text of the Hymn of the Soul with translation in Robinson’s Cambridge Texts and Studies, Vol. V, No. 3. The best edition of the texts is that published with German translation by G. Hoffmann, in ZNTW, IV, 4 (1903), 273-309. See also Baumstark, op. cit., p. 41. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 149 is not the place to argue the question in detail. The pitiful shreds which the parsimonious hand of Ephrem has preserved for us (five fragments constituting in all ten lines of five syllables, one of eight, and two of six each, is the sum total)1 are all that we can be abso¬ lutely sure of. A six-syllable line, quoted by Philoxenus (see Appen¬ dix I, 1), is certainly Bardaisan’s property, probably a poetic verse. Though much too little to give us any adequate idea of Bardaisan’s style or thought, and though culled and presented with all the fairness and honesty of a modern war censor or hostile headquarters, they are yet sufficient together with the comment of Ephrem and Rabbula to give the impression of poetic powers distinctly greater than Ephrem’s. Clearly and flagrantly, now wilfully, more often stupidly, Ephrem misunderstood Bardaisan, and a better basis for just such misunderstanding could hardly be furnished than just such songs as those in the Acts of Thomas. Moreover, Bardaisan’s fame as a poet rests upon fairly good evidence (cf. Appendix I, 2). It seems hardly in accord with the principle of the economy of documents, since we are restricted to supposition, to assume another unknown author for the ‘‘gnostic” hymns of the Acts of Thomas. In any case Bardaisan’s is the earliest name of any Syriac poet preserved to us, and, aside from the few lines positively known to be his, the hymns of the Acts of Thomas are the earliest extant Syriac verse. And these two constitute about all the pre-Ephraimite Syriac verse in our possession, upon which, manifestly, no very extensive treatise on Syriac versification may be based.2 Those who follow Ephrem within the classical period of Syriac poetry, i.e., before the dominance of Arabic and Islam, or, from an inner-Syriac 1 The 55th Hymn against Heresies of Ephrem, which contains all of Ephrem’s direct quotations from Bardaisan’s verse, in English translation preserving the form of the original, will be found in Appendix I, 1. The Philoxenus fragment is printed there also. 2 The syllabic construction of the Bardaisanite fragments is clearly set forth in Appendix I ; all that may safely be said will be found there. The hymns of the Acts of Thomas exhibit six-syllable verse throughout, gathered into distichs by a Hebraic yaral- lelismus membrorum for the most part unmistakably clear; larger strophic structure has not been successfully demonstrated. With the elimination of the Sozomenus tradition it becomes increasingly clear that with our present resources nothing can be known except by inference concerning pre-Ephraimite strophic structures. Lest the unwary think them forgotten, it is distinctly stated here that the Odes of Solomon have been deliberately omitted from this review ; though it may still be possible to doubt that they are translations, no doubt is possible to the knowing that they follow no known methods of versification, Syriac or otherwise. Sooner or later they will be claimed to represent a stage preceding Bardaisan’s introduction of vowel-counting verse and regular strophes. 150 The American Journal of Semitic Languages point of view, before Anthony of Tagrit, tread no great distance beside Ephrem’s footsteps. Even the most renowned of them, Balai, Cyrillona, Isaac of Amid, Isaac of Antioch, Narses, James of Sarug, acknowledge Ephrem as their master and do not appreciably remove from the well-trodden paths by him approved as good and safe. And if a late1 “ tradition” connects the name of Balai with a five-, that of Narses with a six-, that of James of Sarug with a twelve-syllable meter, as that of seven syllables is named after Ephrem, then on the one hand this tradition is not in every case corroborated by known facts, on the other it means no more than that such a meter was the favorite of such an author, in which he excelled, not by him invented. It is Ephrem, therefore, who must furnish the basis and by far the greatest amount of material for any investigation of the laws of classical Syriac verse. But it must be a corrected, carefully edited text of Ephrem. The insufficiency of the editio princeps in this respect is notorious. Overbeck in his Ephraemi Syri aliorumque Opera Selecta, Oxford, 1865, published for the most part simply the text of his manu¬ script, mistakes and all, and that not always faultlessly; he gives no hint, e.g., of the manifest superfluity of , end of line 12, p. 3, i.e., the very first page of text printed by him. Lamy, too, leaves something to be desired.2 The best work in this direction yet done is that of Bickell in his Carmina Nisibena. Grimme’s statement, ZDMG, XL VII (1893), 278, that scarcely a single Syriac poem, though it be of the simplest form, exhibits the regular number of syllables in all its verses, may not in its entirety be ascribed to exaggeration; it is in no small part due to bad texts. A text which constantly necessitates conjectural emendation by the reader will not do ; one of the next necessary steps in the investigation of Syriac verse is the production of a reliable text of Ephrem, such as the Vatican contemplates in its new edition (see above). What has just been said, not only expresses one of the needs of modern scholarship in this field, but it also uncovers one of the sources of error, one of the reasons for the insufficiency of the work hitherto done by moderns in the investigation of Syriac poetry and 1 It can be traced to Antonius Rhetor, at least. 2Cf. Noldeke, GGA (1882), 1505-14; (1887), 81-7; WZKM, IV, 245-51; XVII, 19(5-203. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 151 poetics. It is, however, by no means the only point at which this work needs correction and completion in fundamentals as well as in ultimate detail, as a brief review will speedily show. The foundations of all knowledge on the subject were laid in Europe by the writings and teachings of Maronites. George Amira, a Maronite teacher of Syriac grammar in Rome, was the first to publish in Europe a crude and insufficient statement of the elements of Syriac poetics, as a sort of an appendix to his Syriac grammar (Rome, 1596). He was rediscovered by Lamy, Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, t. IV, coll. 496 ff., upon whom this statement is based, as Amira’s grammar is found neither in the Harvard nor in the Chicago libraries, nor, indeed, so far as I know, in America. Amira taught, briefly, that Syriac verse is not quantitative; that Syriac liturgical books contain many different kinds of verses (he calls them cannina), the heptasyllabic being named after Ephrem, that of twelve syllables, subdivided into three groups (significantly called pausae) of fours, after James of Sarug; that he considered most elegant distichs of six pausae, ornamented with various species of artificial rhyme; and that certain synizeses and diaereses were perihissible to bring about the requisite number of syllables. The fragment of Petrus Metoscita’s Syriac grammar, published by Martin from the Vatican manuscript, No. 435, p. 168, in Metrique chez les S yriens, p. 18, n. 1, is not very clear, being separated from its con¬ text. Its meaning can hardly be other than: There are two kinds of verse, that which counts vowels or syllables, as do we, the Syrians, and that which measures their length or brevity. Assemani, quoted ibidem from the Vatican manuscript, No. 389, adds the distinction between simple and composite meter, and names of the former, in addition to those mentioned by Amira, that of Mar Balai. From Petrus Mubarrak (Beneclictus) we learn ( Ephr . Syr., Opp. Syr.-Lat., t. II, Praef. ad lectorem, p. xxvi) that this Balaean measure was the pentasyllabic. He adds further the information that Syriac tunes, named by hirmi or model strophes, are often given at the head of hymns (as our “Old Hundredth/’ and sometimes the count of musically valid syllables, is printed over our hymn. tunes), and the misinformation that Hebraic meter is exactly like the Syriac, and that the Greeks possess but eight hymn tunes, whereas the Syrians 152 The American Journal of Semitic Languages have 275. Al. Assemani, Codex liturgicus Ecclesiae universae, Rome, 1756, t. IX, Praef. xciv, adds some information on the denotation and use of hymn tunes, which need not be quoted in detail. J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, I, 61, explains the naming of some meters after poets, makes a faulty distinction between Sermones (Mimre) and Hymni ( Madrashe ) and calls attention to the acrostics used by Ephrem. To complete our enumeration of modern works on the subject by native Syrians, wholly or partially published, mention must be made of two further authors. The first is Stephanus Petrus Aldoensis, patriarch of the Maronites in the second half of the seventeenth century. His work, referred to by Mubarrak and Hahn, quoted by Al. Assemani, was described in more detail by Pius Zingerle, in ZD MG, XVII, 687 ff.; XVIII, 751 ff. As pre¬ served in manuscript in the Vatican (Angelo Mai’s catalogue, No. CCCCXLI), it is a full and explicit list of hymn tunes, named after first lines; together with this the first strophe is written out in full, the number of verses and of syllables in each verse (set out in red before each verse) being specially noted. It is not, therefore, a scientific book on verse or versification at all, but rather a book intended for practical use in churches. From it are derived the statements of modern Syrians concerning the many hymn tunes of the Syrians; his own enumeration is probably not wholly original, but goes back through whatever intermediate stages to the funda¬ mental work of Antonius Rhetor of Tagrit. The other author, chronologically the last, who must not be forgotten in this list, is Gabriel Cardahi (al-Qardahi) . Of his three books, Liber thesauri de arte poetica Syrorum, Rome, 1875; AV Yhkam seu linguae et artis metri- cae Syrorum institutiones, Rome, 1880; and Al-Manahegh seu syntaxis et rhetoricae Syrorum institutiones, Rome, 1903, the latter has been inaccessible for this review. The other two, in Arabic, present the author’s ideas on Syriac poetry and poetics. They are marred by an untrustworthiness, which one is inclined to designate as oriental, though it is by no means limited to the Orient. In AVYhkavn, p. 72, he definitely ascribes (on what authority ?) the introduction of rhyme into Syriac poetry to Yuhannan bar Khaldun, whom he places in the fifth century a.d.; he lived in the tenth (cf. Duval, Lit. Syr., p. 18, n. 1; “Vie du moine Rabban Youssef Bousnaya,” Revue de V Orient Antonius Rhetor on Versification 153 chretien, 1897-98). His distinction of ten kinds of meter, to each of which he assigns a fanciful name in Arabic and Syriac, is valuable only as it exhibits to us a modern native’s feeling of what constitutes a verse and its subdivisions in Syriac. He distinguishes, e.g., three kinds of twelve-syllable verse, one divided into three equal groups, one into two, and one without subdivision. His Thesaurus offers a valuable collection of Syriac poems, ranging in time from Ephrem to the present; the historical notes are very unreliable throughout. Starting from such printed and similar oral instruction, European scholars began to study the subject of their own accord. The first of these to make public his lucubrations was August Hahn in his noteworthy book, Bardesanes Gnosticus Syrorum Primus Hymnologus (Leipzig, 1819; especially Part I, § 4, pp. 28-51). Some of the erroneous conclusions in historical matters arrived at by Hahn in this brilliant study, as pointed out in Appendix I, were due to the insufficiency of his means and sources rather than to any lack of acumen or honest diligence on his part. He was similarly handi¬ capped in his work on Syriac meter; the faulty text of the editio princeps , than which he had no other, led him to the assumption of unnecessary and incorrect synizeses and diaereses. In spite of this, his real contributions to a scientific knowledge of the subject were of no mean order. He was the first to pay any attention to accent, which, it seems, must play a rather important role in the rhythm of non-quantitative verse. Reading as he did in the manner of modern Syrians, with a stress-accent prevailingly placed on the penult (on what authority? orally taught? by whom?), the scansion of Syriac verse seemed to him in the main quite self-evident, much easier than Greek. With a word of three syllables frequently closing the verse, an accent on the next to the last syllable of the verse was natural, and he records it as obtaining in other cases as well. He noted the similarity of Syriac to Greek Christian ecclesiastical poetry, being careful not to express too decided an opinion as to priority. The Syriac manner of slurring together the words of a phrase, like the Arabic and the French, did not escape his notice. Besides the five-syllable verse with which he began, he discovered and pointed out hymns in verses of four, six (the Bardaisan distich translated in Appendix I), and seven syllables, and some in mixed meters. 154 The American Journal of Semitic Languages Faulty ascription of the model to Bardaisan did not prevent Hahn from perceiving the strophic form of the hymns Adv. Scrut., 49-65 (eleven five-syllable verses), nor yet from discerning, wherever possible, the refrains: no small feat considering the text he had to work with. In the chrestomathy which he edited together with Siefert in 1825, Hahn further correctly defined the strophe of Adv. Scrut., 67 (five four-syllable verses). If in the attempt to classify and describe the wide and apparently loose Syriac nomenclature for a variety of poetic forms he was not fully successful, this is no crush¬ ing demerit; for neither wras he wholly unconscious of his short¬ comings, nor has a full and exact definition of these terms been attained even at the present day. All in all, the pioneer labors of August Hahn, as compared with the advances made since his day, merit rather more attention and credit than it has been customary to give them.1 Following Hahn five other German scholars under¬ took to make such contribution as they might to the work in this field. The first of these, Pius Zingerle, has been mentioned above, in connection with his work on Stephanus Petrus Aldoensis, one of the native writers enumerated in the previous section. In addition to this and other editorial and translation work, Zingerle published an extensive, and, in its day, valuable study of strophic structures (now absorbed by Grimme, and especially by Lamy), the beginning and end of which appeared in Lassen’s short-lived Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, VII, 1-25, 185-97, while the middle went with the rest of Lassen’s journal into the pages of the ZDMG, X, 116-26. Of Fr. Uhlemann it need only be said (with Lamy, op. cit., t. 4, col. 472) that he appended to the second edition of his Grammatik der syrischen Sprache, Berlin, 1857, a brief section on versification based wholly on the work of August Hahn. This appears to be the only grammar in print, besides Amira (and Cardahi’s Manahegh?) , which has ventured on this ground. Gustav Bickell represents on the one side a distinct advance, on the other an aberration. His greatest single contribution made 1 Praetorius in his little note, ZDMG, LIII (1899), 113, is fairer to Hahn than most others. Joh. Christian Wm. Augusti, De Hymnis Syrorum Sacris, 1814, quoted by Hahn, Bardesanes, p. 29, does not deprive Hahn of pioneer’s honors. Augusti accepted Hahn’s corrections in his D enkwiirdigkeiten aus der christl. Archaologie, V (Leipzig, 1822), 350—77. For the best descriptions and definitions of Syriac poetic forms now obtainable see Baumstark, op. cit., pp. 98-106. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 155 to the subject directly is his edition of Ephrem’s Carmina Nisibena (Leipzig, 1866). In this book Bickell has edited, better than any¬ thing previously published of Ephrem’s, 73 songs on various places and themes, the whole collection being named after 21 songs at the head, which treat of Nisibene men and matters. In the introduction sec. VII, De re metrica, describes correctly a number of strophic Structures with their denotations, expatiates upon the refrains and their Syriac origin, and gives a classified list of diaereses and syn- aereses (Bickell’s term), with criticism and correction of Hahn’s errors. Thus far Bickell’s work represents a notable advance toward the securing of trustworthy material and a firm foundation for the study of Syriac meters and metrics. From this point onward Bickell walks on uncertain or wholly unsafe ground. It is signifi¬ cant that henceforth his observations on Syriac verse are found in books and articles on Hebrew metrics, a list and description of which is given in W. H. Cobb’s Systems of Hebrew Metre (Oxford, 1905), pp. 108-28. He believed himself to be following and elaborating a brilliant and original conjecture of Cardinal Pitra (found in the Hymnographie de Veglise grecque, 1868), but actually he and Pitra were simply accepting at far beyond its real value a piously patriotic supposition made public in Europe by Petrus Benedictus (Mubarrak) in the preface to Vol. II of Ephrem’s Opp. Syro-Lat. (how far original with him, is hardly worth while investigating), when they assumed a far-reaching identity in the fundamentals of Syriac and Hebrew versification. In a brief summary from one of Bickell’s articles in the ZDMG, printed in English translation by Cobb {op. cit., p. 113), these fundamentals are enumerated. Of the six listed, the counting of syllables, the disregard of quantity, the coincidence of the verse- lines ( stichoi ) with the divisions of the sense, and the connecting of homogeneous stichoi into symmetrical and mutually equivalent strophes are in no sense new ; the identity of metrical and grammatical accent was assumed by Hahn without express statement (the term 1 “grammatical” is not very apt; what is meant is modern everyday speech); the regular interchange of toned and untoned syllables, producing trochaic measure in verses of an even and iambic in those of an odd number of syllables, is wholly Bickell’s owm, wholly un¬ founded, and probably wholly wrong, for Syriac as well as Hebrew. 156 The American Journal of Semitic Languages The greatest improbability of all, as Grimme ( ZDMG , XLVII, 278) has pointed out, lies in the further assumption that in strophes com¬ posed of dissimilar verses all must be read after the manner estab¬ lished by the first verse. A name, which is scarcely ever, or rather never, mentioned in such a survey as this, is that of K. Schlottmann. The reason for this is twofold. First and foremost, his work is hidden away in the older volumes of the ZDMG (XXXII, 187-97 and 767 f.; XXXIII, 252-91, more especially 279-84) under the title “Zur semitischen Epigraphik,” with the subtitle in Vol. XXXIII, “Nebst Unter- such ungen fiber die verschiedenen Grundprinzipien- der Metrik im Arabischen, Hebraischen und Aramaischen.” Secondly, the great, but rather embittered De Lagarde overspread it with scathing criticism, which was meant to annihilate, but which, as is now per¬ fectly clear, in this as in other cases, went beyond De Lagarde’s evidence. In spite of this, Schlottmann’s work stands forth today as one of the most significant expositions (in the writer’s opinion the best to date) of the fundamental principles of Aramaic and in par¬ ticular of Syriac prosody. Assuming as proved (as well he might) the counting of syllables with disregard of their quantity and extensive use of parallelismus membrorum, he makes the observation that under the circumstances, even with the aid of music, the use of the accent was indispensable to the production of a rhythmic movement. Touching briefly upon similar phenomena in Byzantine-Greek and Bactrian poetry, he enters more extensively upon a comparison of Aramaic with French prosody. Neither the French nor the Syriac lays nearly as much stress upon accent as do the Germanic peoples. Both French and Syriac count syllables. . Both French and Syriac are largely, if not wholly, limited to quasi-iambic and trochaic rhythms and experience serious, if not insurmountable, difficulties in the creation of anapaests and dactyls. French (and Syriac, — I JL also?) does not suffer strict iambic scansion, e.g., “Oui je viens dans 1 1 ,_3_ son temple,” etc., “la fameuse journee,” etc.; but rather suggests and sustains a general iambic rhythm by certain heavier accents, regularly recurring at the end of hemistichs, e.g., “Oui je viens dans 1 2 1 son temple adorer l’eternel, Je viens selons l’usage antique et Antonius Rhetor on Versification 157 2 1 2 l_ solennel Celebrer avec vous la fameuse journee, Ou sur le mont Sina 2 la loi nous fut donnee.” Read in this wise the French Alexandrine exhibits the graceful and vivacious beauty native to it. At this point we find that with similarities French and Syriac also exhibit great dissimilarity in their essential structure. The very reason for the similarities in prosodic phenomena found in the two languages lies in a fundamental dissimilarity. French syllables are evenly light and the accent suspended and hovering, making impossible the thoroughgoing use of other verse measure than the count of syllables. Syriac and Aramaic, with its multitude of greatly or utterly reduced vowels, is brought to the same pass by the evenly massive weight of its syllables, which makes its iambus and trochee a mere spondee with the accent on the first or second syllable. Thus each language must be understood from the peculiarities native to it. Thus far Schlottmann, who is manifestly more than a precursor of Duval and Grimme. Grimme is the fifth of those German scholars who labored inten¬ sively and wrote extensively on the problem of Syriac metrics. His results are summed up in two treatises, the “Grundziige der syrischen Betonungs-und Verslehre,” ZDMG, XLVII, 276-307, and Der Strophenbau in den Gedichten Ephraems des Syrers ( Collectanea Friburgensia , fasc. II), MDCCCXCIII. As Bickell was at least stimulated by Cardinal Pitra, so Grimme took up and elaborated a suggestion of W. Meyer of Speyer (see above, p. 146). And his contribution to our knowledge of the subject is not unlike that of Bickell. On the one hand he has added greatly. In the discovery of EphrenFs strophic structures he is surpassed only by the consum¬ mate master in this field, Lamy. No one has been more acute than he in the discernment of the acrostics that mark out the madrashas of Ephrem. These madrashas he has correctly defined as songs of varied strophic structure with a refrain, intended to be sung by alternating choirs, or by a soloist alternating with a choir, in contra¬ distinction to the mimras, really metrical homilies, much more limited in strophic structure (in Ephrem four or six verses of equal length only), to be spoken by a single performer in a sort of recitative. But these things would be counted by Grimme himself as scarcely 158 The American Journal of Semitic Languages more than chips and by-products of his labors. He no doubt con¬ siders his best work and his real contribution to be the attempt to establish once for all the part played by accent in the rhythmization of Syriac verse. Since his attempt is the most pretentious and his system the most fully elaborated of any yet undertaken, though it is far from being generally accepted, it is only fair that it should be presented with sufficient accuracy and completeness to enable the reader to judge for himself. We shall try to reproduce his ideas as nearly as may be in his own words in translation, since they are in the main beautifully simple and clear. With Hahn and Bickell he assumes for poetry the same accent as for prose and for everyday speech, and for the earliest extant poetry practically the same accent as that which obtains in modern spoken Syriac, namely a strong stress prevailingly on the penult, the only difference between the ancient and the modern being the treatment of certain monosyllables as enclitics. The specific rules formulated by Grimme are as follows: (1) All words of two or more syllables (even foreign loan-words are included) are accented on the penult. Initial yodh may constitute a metrical syllable both accented and unaccented; with initial aleph pethoho and revoso are mere Shewas, all others full vowels; Ul is usually monosyllabic, cu^| A marginal note, which closes the book, is translated below. The Karshuni colophon on fol. 5a reads as follows: Now is this valuable book completed by the kindness of God, exalted is he, the one, the eternal, in the j^ear 1895 a.d., which corresponds to the year 2207 Greek, in Tishri II, by the weak and lowly deacon Matthaeus, son of Bulus, of old Syrian [faith]. And he wrote it in the city of Mosul, the famous, in Assyria, whose capital is Niniveh. And we toiled exceedingly, when we found this book, entitled the Book of Anthony of Tagrit, of which mention is made in the book of the History of Mar Gregory Barhebraeus Abu-’l-Farag. It was in the days of Alar Dionysius the Tellmahrensian, in the year 1136 Greek [ = 825 a.d.], at that time lived this chaste monk and excellent priest, “ there was the excellent mo7ik and priest, Mar Anthony the Antonius Rhetor on Versification 173 Tagritensian, Rhetor,”1 of good repute and well known in his time, as Mar Gregory writes of him. And as for the book from which we copied, it was damaged [read >00,^0 for 90,^0, “counted”!] by the rain and water and eaten by mice and of ancient date and worn with time and old age. He who wrote it was named Dioscoros in Tur Abdin ’Arbaya, son of Shimeon, in the year 1714 Greek [ = 1403 a.d.]. And as for the places which were damaged and destroyed by the gnawing of mice, we have left blank space in their stead, in the hope that perhaps another, supplementary manuscript might be found, whence we might supply the gaps. As for this manuscript, we found it in the monastery of the holy, the excellent, the famous [monas¬ tery of]2 Sheikh Mattai in Mt. ? Aloof, 3 and as we found it, so we carefully copied it. And now we humbly beg of every father and teacher who hap¬ pens upon this writing, let him not cast blame upon us, but let him seize the opportunity for meritorious works and say: Oh God, oh thou, who spreadest out the earth and raisest up the heavens, forgive thy servant, the deacon Matthew, the writer of these ugly characters. And if he discover error or oversight, let him correct them, for no one is perfect save God alone. “ And let Mary, the mother of God, remember and all the saints” Amen. At the end of the table of contents is given the reference: “The dating of the ancient book from which we made this copy is on fob 83,” and under this, in Arabic letters and numerals, is repeated the date of the present copy: 1895 a.d. On fob 87 (old count 83) b, 11. 21-25, at the end of Book 4, are found the. following notes: (1) in red, 1. 21, Karshuni: “This is the dating of the book from which we copied”; (2) in black, small and cramped, beginning of h 22: “The dating of the ancient book, thus is it”; (3) in black, 11. 22-24, in Syriac: 904? . ]G wic 090-0102..* 9 hoo_**.o 0^0; -*.«] o| Tgr.',. AX*. U^o U-o i-M-c-.A ](3l-43c ❖ b*Jo_o j-ai^z\-£9|o ; (4) in black, 1. 35, in Arabic: “ 1714 Greek year.” At the very end of the book is written a marginal note, similar to many others accompanying the lacunae throughout, fob 107a: “From here until its end the book from which we copied is wanting; for it was an old book.” The note is in Syriac. 1 Words in italics and inclosed in quotation marks both here and below are written in Syriac. 2 The words in square brackets are an interlinear “correction.” 3 Jebel ’Aloof should be read Jebel ’Alfaf, i.e., Jebel Al-Maqloob; cf. Duval, Or. Stud. Th. Moldeke gew., I, 486. On the monastery and mountain cf. Georg Hoffmann, “ Ausziige aus syr. Akten pers. Mart.,” Abh. f. d. Kunde des Morg., VII, 3, p. 19, n. 142; p. 175, n. 1371; p. 194, n. 1533; Felix Jones, “Notes on the Topography of Niniveh” in Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government , No. 43 (1857), p. 599; Badger, The Nestorians arid Their Ritual, I (1852), 95; Ritter, Erdkunde, 9, 572; Yaqut, 2, 694. 174 The American Journal of Semitic Languages The following collation with the portions of Duval's copy pub¬ lished in the Or. Stud. Th. Noldeke gew. will show that the Harvard text is, to say the least, not inferior to Duval's. Parallels between Antonius Rhetor and Severus bar Shakko, i.e., unacknowledged quotations of Severus bar Shakkofrom Antonius, occur as follows:1 A(ntonius) 92a, 11-14 = S(everus), 11, 11-13; A 92a, 15—926, 8 = S 11, 15—13, 1 (A 92a, 20, cf. S 11, 9f.; A 926, 5, cf. S13, 1,2); A 926, 17-19 = S 11, 9-11; A926, 23, 24 = S13, 4-7; A 93a, 1-18 = S 13, 10—14, 6; A 93a, 21 =S 13, 5; A 93a, 22 = S 13, 7 f.; A 93a, 23f.=S 14, 8 f . ; A 936, 1-3=S 14, 10-12; A 94a, 24 = S23, n. 2, 11. 6f.; A 946, 1 =S 23, 3; A946 2 = S58, 1; A946,4-7 = S 24, n. 7; A 946, 7 = S 58, 2 (cf. n. 1); A 946, 12 = S 25, If A 946, 14-16 =S 26, 2-4; A 95a, 1=S 25, 10; A 95a, 14, 15 = S 26, 1; 956, 6+ 956, 11 =S 14, 18; 956, 12-19 =S 14, 19—15, 2 (Antonius’ text, as used by Severus, seems to have been already defective); 96a, 23, 24, 966, 1-4 = S 27, n. 3; 966-996 are in general parallel to S 27-31, but in detail little or no verbal agreement is to be found; 996, 13/14 =S 31, 5, 6; 996, 17— 100a, 4=S 31, 7-32, 15; 100a, 5 = S 34, 13 (100a, 5, 6 = S 33, If. ?); 100a, 6-23 = S 34, 15-35, 14; 1016, 4/5 = S 36, 13; 1016, 7-14 =S 36, 14-20; 102a, 16 = S 37, 1; 102a, 18, 19 = S 37, 2; 102a, 22, 23 = S 37, 2, 3. COLLATION OF HARVARD MS OF ANTONIUS RHETOR TAG- RITENSIS WITH DUVAL’S TEXT The symbol H is used for the Harvard manuscript. -f- Above the title is written, in red like the title: oi - * In title, : H i-szL= ; jjost h--*-**r H add. . ; post H add. • .* • •• • ; post H add. : H H ; : H ; H om. . ^*.v) . chap, i: ha-d : H j-M . chap, ii: |Zoj-£cn* : H jZoj4u*si9 (and so throughout, unless otherwise noted) . •• • chap, iv: : H ; - iftNnio: H . chap, v: . H • 1 Severus is quoted by page and line of Martin’s edition; Antonius by page and line of the Harvard manuscript. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 175 chap, ix: post H add. . chap, x: : H v sa ; 001 : H c£5 . chap, xxii: ante «--»i ,ms H add. ? . chap, xxiii: jcn^ea^: H IcnL^cu* ; the list of examples given by Duval under this chapter is not exhaustive; this is misleading, since Duval’s list covers but one of five methods of the use of names. Duval’s translation is faulty, resting upon his reading of the sg. joiioa-* ; not “qui a lieu par la denomination tiree des faits,” but “which through names proceeds to facts.” / • chap, xxv : U-d : H U*d . • / V chap, xxvi: ante H add. ?; >»ru.jZa o-^: H H om. (2). chap, xxx : ante jZ-AZjZ© H add. Uv=©; this will again change Duval’s translation for better sense in view of the “double exhortation,” which one is led to expect; not “instructive sous forme de recit,” but “sous forme de recit et par procede instructif.” This corresponds to the facts in chap. xxx. Closing formula of Book 1 : post H add. 90^*9 ; post / 5 • II add. (-1-03-2 ; II om. . jl^v] a- f-i v $ Ijj j 4 i5>l - t ^ ? ~?3 i f- ttfSlWU Jfi *Ml *’Tuw wMw nuiiifhmi t i T Wf 1 178 The American Journal of Semitic Languages Antonius Rhetor on Versification 179 i * 4 A \ /u 1 ^ s ^ •i V0 *■ ’ r 1 4 AA i:/yi f-a‘i -0- — A i 3 “T <4 -1 l | 1 S 5 I; •* \ 4' A* i- $ i 4 '-1 ^ |^V If 4 o ‘J.-i 5L s- A"q’ ^ A rj J Vo a ^ •] -> HHJU iJJ 1 1 l! 4 1 3 ,v \A jAi1 . * o , — v* * ? ' y' 4 i*$ J'nj 4. O I 4i! — N 'i- A" $ *■< • ■ 4 -a •ill 2 1 *1 tu j. 3>AJ-1 jktit tin U \s £ 180 The American Journal of Semitic Languages « Antonius Rhetor on Versification 181 U t j T- 1: \ t 7 i l * -i a JT'A ' 1* 1 • I* -vr i i ^ ^ 0-1 tJ* -I ?J j.4 -fa M'l-fll | J -?4 s'4 i|j 4 f*;;i }»] 4.a iJ i-1| ■ i 4 * -! _ t-j 3 T s ir, j 1 s t J- V illiJilla {J • * * * * ^ c* 1 i 0 j i M. '• j .j- li t 4 I 4 i. ! .% t Til'll J -f yj -s j Ti. J Iflli i.'t SS .4 1 1 t j i "5.vJ tJ ^ J iy A 2 'r -J %.a- -?4^ ^ U 3 d % i ^ ^ ^ 1 I' -1 a 4 f ^ 4 j p%-%- A \) jl S & a ?j4.t ! a i.i J? U-i^l ^ 1 2 * r-=. | \A \i ] * 4 -.' 4 -i ,|5 J -a i -:^ 5, W?«J| * 4 4, •} -a a ? j l * -i ~l i id 1 4 i) T. 1 ° '-1 i ^. 196 The American Journal of Semitic Languages APPENDIX I I In order to give English readers, who are not specialists in Syriac, an adequate idea of the poetic fragments of Bardaisan preserved to us and of the manner of their preservation, it has been thought best to append here an English translation of the only one of his extant works in which Ephrem Syrus makes direct quotations from the poems of Bardaisan, the 55th Mad- rasha or Hymn against Heresies ( Opera Omnia , Syr.-Lat., t. II, 557 f.). The only other place where what seems to be a line of poetry is quoted from the works of Bardaisan is the fragment of a Philoxenus letter printed by Cureton in the introduction to his Spicilegium Syriacum , which will be found both in Syriac and in translation following Ephrem’s madrasha in this appendix. The attempt has been made to preserve in the English the five-syllable verse of the original, maintained throughout except in vss. 29 f. and vs. 61, on which see the footnotes. The exact contents of each line could not, of course, be transferred into English in anything worthy the name of trans¬ lation. The number of lines, however, both for the whole poem, and for the larger logical sections, such as would be closed by a period, interrogation, or exclamation point, have been scrupulously maintained. The sense- divisions do not at all points bear out Lamy’s classification of this hymn O V V 7 (IV, 494, No. 74) under the strophic model of , i.e., its fellow, Adv. Haer. 56, 1 which exhibits a strophe of 11 five-syllable verses. This may be due to a corrupt text, printed in the Roman editio princeps, which certainly omitted or, at least, failed to distinguish from the body of the poem the refrain which almost certainly belongs there. We cannot but follow the printed text, numbering the verses consecutively, and marking the logical sense-divisions, which in most cases do fall naturally into eleven¬ line strophes. The translation follows: Pray, oh my brethren, For Bardaisan’s sons, That no more they rave, Saying, like infants, 5 Something went forth, came Down from life’s father; And a mystic son The mother conceived 1 It was a note concerning this “tune” which was misread by the Roman editor, zc 0 V V V 0 «s Father Benedict ( Opera O mnia, Syr.-Lat. t. Ill, 128 AB) : ^ - *’ r ~ ^ , which in somewhat halting Hebraic Syriac would mean: “ Finished are seventeen hymns according to the tunes of the songs of Bardaisan.” The able Hahn ( Bardesanes Gnosticus, 32 f.) was misled by this reading to find here corrective corroboration of the statement of Sozomenus referred to below (pp. 199 ff.), which makes the songs of that mysterious son of Bardaisan, Harmonius, models for those of Ephrem. Lamy has shown (op. cit.. Ill, Proleg., IV, 475/6, n. 4) that the correct reading merely states that the seventeen hymns, Nos. 49-65, Adversus Scrutatores, follow P A A m A the tune and strophic model of 01^^ , “Sect of Bardaisan,” the opening words of hymn No. 56, Adversus Haereses. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 197 And bare, called life’s child. 10 O holy Jesus, Praise to thy father! (11) He says, in no wise May one alone bud, Be fruitful, and bear. 15 Our Lord’s own nature He claims born of two By mystic union. Our Lord, whose body Of two was not born! 20 How spotless must be His divine nature, Which is light from light! (11) Who would not stop his Ears, not to hear them 25 Say, the Holy Ghost Brought forth two daughters. Their words make her1 2 say To these in deep love: “Be she that follows thee 30 My daughter, thy sister . ' Shame were it to tell, How she waxed pregnant. Jesus, cleanse my mouth! (11) Lo, my tongue defiled 35 Their secret’s telling! (13) Two daughters she bare: One, the dry land’s shame; One water’s image.3 See, how they blaspheme! 40 No mean demon’s form In water appears; How shall it mirror Forth the pure, mystic Holy Ghost’s nature, 45 Which even in mind Cannot be pictured?4 (11) He says: “When again Shall we see thy feast,5 And behold the maid, 50 The daughter, to whom On thy knee thou croon’ st” ? (or .) He proves by his songs, Vile in lullabies, Womanish in lilts, 55 That he soils the fair Holy Spirit’s name, Which is alway pure. (11) Enough of reproach Is their secret song 60 Of her now, who says : “My God and prince, hast left me lone f” (or .)6 Ashamed of his vice He clothes his song in A psalm’s beauteous form, 65 Chaste, holy— -which spake Our Lord: “God, my God, Why hast thou left me?”7 (10, or counting 61 as 2, 11) Professing to teach From Moses, the law, 70 He scoffs Moses’ words: / “ The chief est delight Whose gates by command To mother are oped.” In a place of shame 75 He puts paradise. The clear law reproves 1 The word for “ghost” or “spirit” is in Syriac feminine; used of the Holy Ghost it is later commonly masculine, in this context consistently feminine. 2 A distich of six-syllable verses ; cf . following note. 3 Nau, Patrologia Syriaca, II, 504, footnote, says of verses 29-38: “Auctor trans¬ lation^ latinae ilia verba non intellexit. Hilgenfeld [pp. 40-42] credit se intellegere. Cer- tum ne est ipsummet Sanctum Ephrem versus Bardesanitarum [p. 557C] intellexisse et expressisse? .... legi potest: Filia pedis tui (femoris tui) erit mihi Alia et tibi soror . Genuit duas Alias: aliam terram miserabilem et alteram conAgurationem (congregationem) aquarum.” Cf. Gen. 1:9—10. 4 Cf. II Cor. 3:18; Hymn of the Soul, distich 76-78, and G. Hoffmann’s remarks on the latter in ZfNTW, IV (1903), 4, 288. 6 Or “ We shall”; “thy" is feminine. « One eight-syllable verse, or distich of four-syllable verses. 3 Ps. 22:2; Mark 15:34 and parallels. 198 The American Journal of Semitic Languages As in a mirror Their hateful teaching. (11) He hates paradise, SO The blest, of the saint,1 And lauds another, A place of reproach, Which gods have laid out, Father and mother 85 In union planted, By footsteps seeded. In the par’dise tale Their judge2 is Moses, For he wrote not so. (11) 90 In Eden there placed The Lord paradise.3 But one4 Moses preached; Two this one proclaims, Which gods have laid out 95 In a place I blush To mention by name. The snake that seduced Adam in the tree Deceived this man in The Philoxenus passage, in which a line, probably poetic, of Bardaisan’s is quoted, is one of several fragments published by Cureton in his Spicile- gium Syriacum (London, 1855, pp. vf.), from a manuscript in the British Museum No. 12164. Further than these few fragments nothing has ever been published of this treatise. The third of the quotations reads in Cure- ton’s edition as follows: ooi lloi. ]?si ^>j giZn ]Znl VojL ti _ — | ooi W , or > into * in a sentence very like that of the Vatican Acts of Ephrem, p. li, 11. 15 ff., followed 200 The American Journal of Semitic Languages naturally by the insertion after it of , perhaps supposed to be omitted by haplography, and by the “correction” of the preceding verbal form, to the right gender, not improbably under the impression that its final ^ (Estrangelo) was a miswriting for initial ci of Harmonius. Mistranslation of some epithet of Bardaisan’s formed by means of bar , or inner-Greek corruption, Hos dp/xWa? becoming vios 'Ap/xovios, may or may not have helped the “discovery.” That the “one of them” of Ephrem’s Adi. Haer. No. 54 (vide supra) had any influence in the matter is highly improbable, though it shows us, what we might have expected, that Ephrem knew more than one Bardesanite poet. It is hardly to be supposed that Sozomenus himself committed this error (if error it be), which his writings introduce to us. Sozomenus, born and reared near Gaza, probably knew Syriac too well for such misreading or mistranslation. Schoo (Quellen des Sozomenus, Berlin, 1911, p. 142) is almost certainly at fault when for the chapter of the church history quoted above he assumes oral or written native Syriac sources, except for a little section dependent on Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca. Sozomenus depends, as did Gregory of Nyssa1 before him, on Acts of Ephrem, written and pub¬ lished, and without much doubt translated into Greek no long time after Ephrem’s death, as Gregory’s use of them would show. If a year ago so speedy a growth of legend might have seemed improbable to many of us, recent events have shown to him who will not close his eyes that, in this most modern of worlds, myth, legend, and pure fable do grow contempo¬ raneously with or even before the event upon which they fasten themselves. To the regular stock of these Acts belonged a section on heresies at Edessa with mention of Bardaisan as Ephrem’s chief adversary, and of his songs. Gregory omits the name of Bardaisan altogether, as of no concern to himself, and coolly substitutes therefor that of his own pet opponent, Apollinarius of Laodicea, whose name is in turn not mentioned by Ephrem, though his doctrines are said to be referred to in the hymns Adversus Scruta- tores, Opera Omnia Syr.-Lat., t. Ill, 1-208.2 And it is in this section, just where the Vatican Acts ( loc . cit.) expatiate upon the impetus given to Bar- daisan’s heresy by his poetic activity, that Sozomenus out of a clear sky introduces the son Harmonius, who immediately displaces his illustrious father and speedily grows out of all bounds. The place, therefore, and the manner, in which the Harmonius fiction comes to light, indicate that it is the Greek translator of such acts, or the redactor of such a translation, who 1 Encomium, on Ephrem , in Migne, PG, 46, 819-50. He already knew a day dedicated annually to the memory of Ephrem (col. 821D). For this festive occasion Gregory composed his encomium, and on such a day some biographical account of the hero would, as a matter of course, be read, wherever the festival was kept, as the Nyssene’s own homily, decked out in the colors of the Metaphrast, is read to the present day. The writer of this essay is not unaware of the fact that Gregory also made liberal use in this homily of the s. c. Testament of Ephrem. 2 On the life and teachings of this Apollinarius we are much in need of more light. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 201 served Sozomenus as a source — a man, probably, to whom the early history of the Edessene church meant little — who is responsible for the Athenaean birth of the mysterious Harmonius and for the impetus toward his inordi¬ nate growth. With some e/«£pao-is of his own, it is probably merely this man’s error which Sozomenus has been the means of perpetuating. Upon Sozomenus rests Theodoret of Cyrrhus ( Haer . Fab., I, 22; H.E., IV, 29 j1 Epist ., 145; cf. Giildenpenning, Theodoret von Kyrrhos (Halle, 1889), p. 41; Rauschen, Jahrbucher der christl. Kirche unter Theodosius d. Gr., Freiburg, 1897, p. 7; Leon Parmentier, “Theodoret, Kirchenge- schichte,” in Griech. christl. Schr., Leipzig, 1911, Einleitg., esp. pp. lxxxiii-xc). But as he goes beyond Sozomenus to Eusebius and to Greek translations of original Syriac sources(?) for his information on Bardaisan, so he seems to have gone directly to the source of Sozomenus for his state¬ ment of the history of Harmonius. True, he adds to Sozomenus only one detail: that Harmonius received his Greek education at Athens; and that might be only a shrewd guess, if not of Theodoret himself (note the -^) a to 102 (^*^, 4a) a; and Mlmra 3, on poetics, foil. 1026-134 (X^o) a. Under the index, names and dates of Severus together with a bibliographical note on his writings are given from the Chronicon Ecclesiasticum of Barhebraeus. 204 The American Journal of Semitic Languages Colophons are found as follows: fol. 33 (^a) b: “The book from which we copied was written in the year 1938 of the Greeks ( = 1626 a.d.), and its writer’s name was Barsauma”; fol. 50 (oio) b: “Finished by the mean and sinful deacon, the Jerusalemite Matthaeus, son of Paul, deceased, in the city of Mosul on the third of Kanun I, 1895 Christian; in the days, when [an erasure has here blotted out a word, probably ‘Moslems’] rose against the Christians and killed them without mercy in the city of Amid [i.e., Diarbekr] and the surrounding towns and villages”; fol. 102 a mentions merely the date 1895; the longest and most important colophon closes the main body" of the book on fol. 134 (^>-0) b: Finished and ended is this precious book called The Book of the Dialogues of our Father, celebrated among celibates and a saint among bishops, Mar Severus, i.e., Jacob bar Talia, the Syrian; in which are contained various sciences; in the year 2207 of the Greeks and 1895 Christian, in the middle of the month Kanun I, in the days of our Fathers elect, filled with wisdom and truth, Maran Mar Ignatius, Patr, servant of Christ; and Mar Dionysius, Metre opolitan>, Behnam of Mosul; and Mar Cyrillus, Metre opolitan>, Elias in the monastery of Mar Mattai; with the rest of the fathers. May the Lord prolong their lives and by their prayers guard their flocks! Amen. And it was written by the mean and sinful deacon, the Jerusalemite Matthaeus, son of Paul, deceased, in the city of Mosul, surnamed Asshur and Niniveh, in the quarter [hostelry ?] of the church of Mary, Mother of God, in the quarter of the carpenters; and we copied it from an ancient book, which Barsauma wrote in the year 1938 Gr; and this book was written in the days, when [another erasure; read “the Moslems”] rose up against the Christians and massacred them in the city of Amid and the villages round about, and in Melitene, and in Se'erd and Batlis; and in all the countryside and cities and villages, where there were Syrians and Armenians, they killed them without mercy; and in Severak. If one became [a Moslem: partly legible Through an erasure] he was safe, but a Christian was slain. And their wives and children were led away captive; and they killed them [and despoiled them in their houses: this by the cramped hand in the lower margin]. This is that which happened: [corrector as before: In this] [the flowing hand now continues in the right-hand margin :] an admonition for the generations [this last word stands in place of another erasure] who shall come after.1 1 A note of no small interest in the present. The excited, broken sentences at the end are eloquent. Of the places mentioned Amid-Diarbekr is well enough known. Melitene is probably better known by that name than by its modern equivalent Mala- tiyeh. For Se'erd, written also Se'ert, Se'ort, Sse'ort, Sa'irt, Si'ird, and Is'Irt, now So ord, JAS, X serie, 15 (1910), p. 107, cf. Ritter, Erdkunde, IX, 99, 534; Shiel, Jour. Roy. Geogr. Soc., VIII (1838), 81 f.; Fr. B. Charmoy, Cheref oud-din (Petersburg, 1868-75), 1,463; Socin, “Tur Abdin,” ZDMG, XXXV (1881), 240; Prym und Socin, Dialekt des Tur Adbin, p. 418; G. Hoffmann, Ausz. aus syr. Akten ( Abh . f. d. Kunde des Morg., VII, 3), p. 5, 259, and n. 1359. Batlis, Badlis, more usually Bitlis, Ritter, Erdkunde, IX, 93, 1004; Southgate, Narrative of Tour through Armenia (1840), I, 218; Layard, Discoveries in .... Niniveh (1853), p. 37; Prym und Socin, op. cit., pp. v and 416; Severak or Sewerak, also written Suverak, Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, 4th ed. (1906), p. 389, Map of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia, west of Diarbekr, a little east of the Euphrates. See also LeStrange, Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, pp. 108, 113 f., 120. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 205 Of this work of Severus bar Shakko portions not contained in this manu¬ script have been published in some form by J. Ruska, Das Quadrivium aus S. b. S. Buck der Dialoge, Leipzig, 1896 (inaccessible to the writer); cf. ZA, XII; of the portions contained in the Harvard manuscript, Merx published an analysis of the grammatical sections in his Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros (Leipzig, 1889) (Abh.f. d. Kunde des Morg., IX, 2); and eleven chapters of the third Mlmra with a few pages of the first were published in full, together with a French translation, by M. l’abbe Martin in De la Metrique chez les Syriens (Leipzig, 1879) (Abh.f. d. Kunde des Morg., VII, 2), cf. Jour. As. (1872, Avril-Mai). Up to the present time this publication of Martin’s represented the oldest, most extensive, and pretentious work on Syriac versification by a native author yet published. It is of especial importance for the present publication, though the text published by Martin is bound thereby to lose in intrinsic value, since, as Duval (Or. Stud. Th. Noldeke gew., loc. cit.) has pointed out, Severus has in this portion of his work made extensive use, often verbatim, of the work of Anthony of Tagrit, published in the foregoing pages (a list of parallel passages in the Introduction, p. 174). This is a discovery doubly welcome to us, since this particular part of Anthony’s work seems, so far as yet known, to be very poorly preserved. As Martin’s work is subject to improvement,1 this col¬ lation with notes of the Harvard manuscript with Martin’s text will be found of some use. It is hoped that the remaining ten chapters of this treat¬ ise may be made public at a date not too far in the future. COLLATION The symbol H is used for the Harvard manuscript. The numbers fixing the location of variants refer to the lines of pages and notes (n.) in Martin’s edition. H fol. 1026; Martin p. 8 H add. w£oZ at the beginning of the title (8:1). •* V H om. l*fc^O|-o in the title, with 0; it vocalizes (8:1). • •• 8:3, : H ; 8:4, : H r. * ; 8:6, cf. n. 3. H = 0; 8:8, )j -axo: H Vj-aio; 8:11, : H •• 8:12, [.]]&. * riAfl-ioVs : H = 0,ci.n.8. 9, n. 1, H — O; 9:1, : H 9, n. 5, H — O; 9:3/4, no indication of any lacuna after in H, which has full stop: ❖ . 9 : 5, flic? : H l^iJzLs^co U^c?; H fol. 103a (^), init. i Cf. Noldeke, ZDMG, XXXIV (1880), 569-78. 206 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 9:8, j Vi a : H jAnon:| ; post i^.i H add. ; 9:9, |-aA-i2^Z: H -^in red); i : H ; 9, n. 10, H = L ; 9:11,. > : H : ; • • • 9:12+71. 11, H |Zc+^oj>2? ; om. H = 0; 9, n. 12, H . 10, 7i. 1, H = L ; 10, n. 2, H — O; 10:3, H ^©| , slightly indistinct in the text, is written by another hand, distinctly, in the margin; 10:4,. H ^ nqift^o ; 10, n. 3, H = 0; 10:8, I©--*.-- : H jin ; n. 5 • • H = 0; H fol. 1036 init. ^0; 10:9, ^r^|c : H , a aa]o ; 10,77.6, H = 0; 10: 11, j?ciA^ : H ; 10, n. 8, H — O; 10, 77. 9, H om. ; 10:13, A-4.A-Ars.A*oic2l*| : 14, n. 3, H bkZc* ; 14, n. 4, oi^£-aZso wicj^u^Jaic? ; 14, n. 5, H iJj-Laxc; i.e., “the first genus is that which is formed by the first placing of Munitas and is named from them Su'rana zexura (the small category) ”; cf. Antonius Rhetor, Canon II fin., H fol. 93a 11. 23 f.; 14, n. 6, • • H = 0, a mere scribal error; 14:14, ^-3 H .-i * (scribal error); • • 14: 15, wnoA-d* : Ii ; 14: 17, ^ . • • • • • • 15, n. 1, H = 0 ; 15:1, csio : H o.iaszz.^.z : H ^AjaLft^z ; 15, n. 8, H = L (a mere scribal error, repetition, in O); 15, n. 10, H = 0; H fol. 1066 indp. 15:16, : H o,_oo : H jiZZiCj^c . 208 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 22, n. 1, 77 = 0; 22, n. 2, 77 = 0; was the name of the scribe of that text to which 0 and 77, and 77 ’s immediate predecessor at Mosul may be traced back, Peter ( ?) ; 22, n. 3, 77 om. . 23, n. 1, 77 = L; 23, n. 2, l. 2, : 77 |Zc^ig| > ; |i^2zz ,-^Z: 77 a2zz „_^z ,—*’Z; 23, n. 2, l. 3, 77 om. locnJ ; Iz-s'^lo (2): 77 L^| ; jzanicl ^z* : 77 kiaicl ; 23, n. 2 , d, 77 = 0; 77 fol. 107a, , indy. psViArso ; 23, n. 2e, 77 = 0; 23, n. 2, l. 6, 77 jJZL^cn? ; 77 om. ; |ooi : 77 0(71 ; 23, n. 2, l. 7, jZal mIILc? : 77 jzo-i4^iZo> ; 23, n. 3, 77 = 0. * • • 24, n. 1, H = 0; 24, n. 2, H=0; 24:6, H U|Z=? ; 24:9, iic| : H |J-»l ; 24, n. 5, H = 0; 24, re. 7, iA.i H - m. ; 24, n. 7 (p. 25), iZZ (1): i/U^Zo; ,_=o: H^=. 25, re.. 1, H = 0; 25, re. 2, H = 0; 25, re. 3, 11 = 0; 25:9, : H ZoL^c; 25, n. 4, 77 = 0; 77 fol. 1076, indy, yost >a*»= uo; 25:12, : 77 ; 25, ?z. 5, 77 = 0. • • 26, n. 2, 77 ; 26:3, Lei : 77 Lcjo; 26, n. 4, 77 = 0; 26:5, 77 om. • • wZ? , add. yost jJ ; 26:9, : 77 ; “that thy son, who is of thee, will stab” or “ yierce thee,” not “te perdra”; 26: 11, ]i|o : 77 PI ; 26, n. 5, 77 ^ . 27:1, “If thou ask as much as a little drop of water, he is harsher than poison” (but cf. also Noldeke), not “Faire boire de beau melee a de l’urine e’est pis que donner du poison”; 27, n. 1, 77 = 0; 27:2, >aZ : 77 ; 27, n. 3a, 77 = 0; 77 fol. 108a, ,-d, indy. ; 27, n. 36, 77 = 0; 27 , n. 3, 7 5, o4 (all three correct). • • 28, n. 1, 77 = 0, exc. yro Zz»-a ; 28:5, j-cZAJ : 77 ; jjaZ : 77 jjiz ; • • • • n.2H — L (all three correct); 28, n. 3, 77 = 0; 28:6, >oZ: 77 (probably Antonius Rhetor on Versification 209 also the reading intended by Martin); 28:7, : H * nxo.\ ; post • • H add. ; 28, n. 5, H Ao (correct); 28, n. 6, H = 0; 28:10, qi \ a\ : • • H qii iV. (Martin’s translation needs correction; “The tongue of the man who is wise speaks all manner of fair things of those good hoards, which are hidden in his heart ”) ; 28 : 13, l : H ; H fol. 1086, incip. o| |JclLd ; 28, n. 7, H jjca^oJo ppDoso (correct) ; 28:16, : H Ul-^f30 • 29:2, H n. 1, H ; 29:4, ©izA : H ^?; 33, n. 5, H = 0; 33, n. 7, H ^+-t.r>Lu±o ; 33, n. 8, H — 0; 33 : 14, : H ; j^a^s : H j-lcu^ws (as Martin intended); 33, n. 9, H = 0; 33, n. 10, H = 0 ; H fol. • • 110 6 incip. |j-d Vs; 33:18 — 34:1, should be translated: “And then we fashion and weave upon it any thought-content whatsoever. First, then, we test it and bring it to ‘the tune’ as to a crucible; and if the tune fit, then you may well chant (and employ) and write and read (it); but if not, then we must,” etc.; 33:20, z, Vi V>zzj? : H z,LaIzz|? . 34:1, I : H j^ai. ; n. 1 H = 0; n. 2 H = 0; 34:2, : H >ooov3 : H >ca^J (intended by Martin?); 34:4, H om. •• • • • ocnj]o . ; 34:5, ]ZzZ>Oj*LZo : H jZZya^*ZZiC ; ft. 5 H iSJQn.hon.l.^ 34:6, '-^Zzs? : H llo^Zzs?; 34, n. 6, H ]z] ; 34:8, jiaZas: : H | LI a.-. : H ; 34, n. 8, H >C95 : U-**^s.LaIz ; 34, n. 9, H = 0; 34:9, H om. cZs?; 34, n. 10, H — O ; 34:11, o^.s : H ; 34, n. 11, H = 0, sed 0 o : H ?Lsjo; 0 >0^: H H fol. 111a, yo , • • incip. 1*1 a vz hlcuk. (in red) ; 34 : 14, ) Vunmj? : H j.Vina:|? ; 34 : 15, ^cn2zs >9 : H om. ?; 34, n. 12, H = 0; 34, n. 13, H :r-i-^2z; 34:17, : H (correct) ; 34 : 18, jznlsjr] : H Ivna?) (so consistently, unless otherwise noted). 35:1, H ; 35, n. 2, H = 0; 35, n. 3, H = 0; 35, n. 4, • • • H = 0 (so consistently henceforth, unless otherwise noted); 35:6, ,-*ZZ*1o : H ^Zz^o ; ]L^jo : H jL^o ; 35 : 7, |jzs|zz4. : H ; H fol. 1116, incip. om ©|~c . H fol. 1126, incip. q c? f om. (37: If.); ^7, n.l, H ❖ >©-*jcZA J; 37:3, jJ^Loxc: H jJjAaiff; 37:4, 37:7, coi? : H 05i ; 37, n. 6, H = L; 37:11, ovo : H eve ; 37, n. 8, H ; 37:15, H om. —i ; 37:16, H without abbrev.; H fol. 113a, , incip. Ilius (37:18). - — • : 38:1, H . e-jA©iA© . c'-jU ; 38:2, vuai-iA©? . ^ji^a© ; H (incorrect); 38:7, oiAVun*] : H giAAa-^j; 38, n. 6, H UKL«Jo|^a3|^ ; 38:11, • • .* • • • s : H oflAioiajl-c (correct); 38: 12, H without abbrev.; iauaaAoo : • • • H j (correct); H fol. 1136, incip. j-a^AA; 38:14, gagi^aX : H • • • • s-£0al,A,r.\ ; 38: 18, H A^oen . A^oci . A^oai . join . jooi . jooi ; 38:20, ante .cJj I / — — — • • • ' H om. . 39 : 2, ,-Ac : H ,-Ac ; )ZcZ], : H \ZoZ]i ; 39:5, jAA^Ao : H ] AA^Aoa ; 39:7, 212 The American Journal of Semitic Languages : H ; H fol. 114a, , incip. (39:9); 39:10, H • • • • • ❖ AicjAoZ] . . A-OjAcZj ; 39:17, H om. jJiZa^c . • • 40:4, post H add. ; 40, n. 5, H 551Z; 40:5, » mV : H • •• (correct); H fol. 114 b, incip. (40:7); 40:13, aV) : • • • • • H (correct) ; 40: 17, 18, . ) .© ^ . bocuaio : H llO-ie . I • • • ^ ^ •• • • • • • ❖ ) ~~ . 41:1, ante r s H add. ^oci? (Martin’s notation for 0 is unclear, ,* • but probably means the same); 41:3, llooj^ : H ; ©] : H jjo©a4u:| ; 41:4, — : H — a!.c&^o ; H fol. 115a l— *— s , ttt, • • ' • • incip. ; 41:5, H without abbrev.; 41:7, : H ; 41:8, |A ; H (misprint in Martin?); 41:14, H without abbrev.; not “en plagant au premier vers de chaque strophe une lettre,” but “at the beginning of every line in the same strophe ”; 41, n. 7, H ; 41:17, : H s* , incip. (48, n. 3, p. 49, l. 2); 48, n. 3, p. 49, l. 3, 5iZaAo|AAao : • • H |ZalAo|£Aa5 ; n.b H . Z . >©L, . 49, n. 3, fa©- : H ji *> ; 49, n. 4, l. 1, . 1© ,-J : H . | . ; 49, n. 4 a = H; 49, n. 5, H ; 49, n. 6, H=L. 50, n. 1, l. 1, : H ^slo ; 50:7, P : H JJo ; 50:8, |-*ooi : H i-*o5i . Antonius Rhetor on Versification 213 H fol. 1166, indy, (51, n. 1, l. 1); 51, n. la, H ILoJo; 51, n. 1, l. 7, j-L^Z^as : H U-»-*£Zc ; 51, n. Id, H .ooi a i (intended for 0 by • • ' Martin?); 51, n. 1, l. 8, H om. 51:4, : H ■*■- ? ; 51:5, ^-£oZ: oZo; 51, n. 3, H ns^zjo ; 51, n. 7, ^aJo : Hx Jo; 51 ,n.8,H = L; 51:9, r-DQ : H i-^,-00 . • • • 52, n. 1, -= ; z.,-*; H ^j-*; 55, n. la, H |?oizj; 55, n. 3, Zouz.i: II A^oi,?; H • • • • • * fol. 118a, fduo , indy. (55:3). 56:3, ^ZoXos} ^oi * H vuZoIx— i* s*oi Mai.; H |j MQffl • • .* 56:4, Za2z: H ^Zo^; _^o: H ,-Zo?; 56:5, >*oio2M : H ©A-*j; 56:10, ' » • ooi jzx] : H ooi jJLx] ; 56, n. 7, H IjZolz] . • • 57, n. 1, l. 1, Izs: H U^; a H ^rcSn\ ; 57, n. 16, H ^ ^ • • • •• Vil^zj . ^ \\sz) ; 57, n. 1, l. 5, yost IZoZj H add. . I . ; 57, n. 1, l. 7, H om. |jDj£ (at this point begins L fol. 736); 57, n. 1, l. 8, ooi : H ooi ; 214 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 57, n. 1, l. 9, wicoj n »\gi? H (and Of) should be included in note c; H fob 1186, incip. (57, n. 1, l. 9); not: “Tous les vers n’ont qu’une seule mesure”; but “all (the verses) begin and end with one and the same letter.’ ’ 58:6, I’r^?: H 58:11, : // jJVZa-*; 58:13, • •• • H 58:15, ante H add. H-\-* 59 : 4, ^ aIsto : II ; 59:5 , H om. ; 59, n. 3, l. 3, H without • •• • ^ abbrev.; H fol. 119a, ci^o, incip. •• U^cn ,-JLkj^lo (59, n. 3 fin.); 59:10, : H jv.LT\r:o ; Uzz : II . 60:1, UP: SM; 60:6/7, H .Nmuo; 60 : 7/8, U41o ~= . ^ / • • • 60, n. 2, w-a. : II . ^ . ; 60:10, cij^a^ : H en^c^o; 60:11, oiA^on^^ : H ; 60:13, H incip. © . 61, n. 1, : H 61:8, H om. c; 61, n. 3, H without • • abbrev.; 61:9, 1 ViSsn^A. : H . i-ViI— 4. .• (thus repeating the word thrice). H fob 1196, incip. (62:1); 62:1, i-N^io : H ; 62:2, • • • • • •• • i^uo : H post H add. . 1j-^; 62:4, oen IL* : H ooi IL*; • • • • •• 62:10, 13, H without abbrev.; 62:11, ooi : H ooi ; 62:15, H 62:17, : H • 63:1, >^oi zzizm : H ; 63:3, : H i-ia^os ; 63, n. 3, init. : H ; 63, n. 3, l. 3, AJ| y\ * w » : H £J| >©au* ; H fob 120a, a^-s , incip. (63, n. 3, l. 4); 63, n. 3, l. 4, fin., ; H ; 63, n. 3, • • p. 64, l. 2, fZ.o : H r— o ; 63, n. 3, p. 64d, H 1hiocl^uj|o (probably intended by Martin for 0 ); hereafter resolutions of abbreviations in H will not be noted. v : 64, n. 1, . jloob^ : H i va.\l ** (in red). • • • 1 The writer would seem to want the last three verses of this example read in reverse order. Antonius Rhetor on Versification 215 65, the numbers after the colon, pp. 65, 66, refer to lines of the Syriac text continuing n. 1 of p. 64; 65: 2, ^s| : H ws| ; : H ; 65:4, 1-aaJI : H ; 65, n. c, H : |Za-axa-so oj . o| jZn ; • • •• • • • •• • •• » 65:5, 7, iia-A* : H (but with plural adjectives); 65:6, H om. wn ^ ; 65:8, »r.i 3)-s : H ; i-BaioJ : H ; 65:5-8, “ Thirdly, (one must : • avoid the use) of short and long vowels, e.g., susep(p)a, aupa; bas(s)im, h9slm; tuk(k)e, masuke. Therefore, either let him take like vowels,” etc.; H fol. 1205, incip. ; (65:9); 65:10, H om. a\\ ^ • •• » • ^*oi (homoioteleuton) ; 65:13, (1): H : H 1-a.as ; • • : H ; 65 : 14, j. » * a : H . 66:1, ?■ a i : H j tRnjw ; 66, n. 1, H ^ ; 66:2, >5^ H\^; • • 66:5, |?ci : H ^cn |?ai ; : H giZo ; 66, n. 4 = // (probably text of 0 ) ; 66 : 4/ 5, translate : “These, because doubled, destroy the essence of Aleph; Aleph preserves its full value, when doubled upon itself,” i.e., when it serves as the starting- or turning-point of the syllable, as the examples show. 67:1, \U: H : H H fol. 121a, }-»~o , incip. • •• • • 0 • • (67:1 Jin.); 67:2, ^l.ll : H 67:3, Uam?o: H Usaa?o; 67:8, ILoAie : H ilaiiAs ; 67:11, Ul: H ill. ; 67:12, -so: • • • H r-^sio ; 67 : 13, jj? : H Usnja^ ; 67 : 14, : H ; 67 : 15, : H ; 67 : 16, |1 ~>n ra\ : H ii-saai!^ ; 67:18, ^ojo: H ; H fol. 1215, incip. (67:18). Martin’s “Appendix” is found in H fol. 495 (oiio), l. 7 to 505, l. 15. The collation follows: 68:1, : H |Zo?qi isar; ; 68:5, ^2^3 : H 68:6, ws| IjJffio : H ljjs| ws|c ; 68, n. 3, H = L ; H fol. 50a, a^> , incip. Uvcu 1^, jA^^as 216 The American Journal of Semitic Languages (68:11); 68:12, UoiZ: H 68:13, (1): H 68, n. 7, H [j- LlIc^d!) , i.e., deleting the second; 68:14, 1-^1 : H 69:1, |?oi>: £H?oi; 69:2, : H i-ii ; 69:3, ^coZ: oZo; 69:4, VV~, r.Jk, : H .oio. ; 69:6, ** riVt .nn • • • • 77 oil^o nnN, co (sic!)] H fol. 506, incip. (69:7); 69:7, H om. ; • • 69:9, cno : H ; 69:10, A,rav,iz ; H ; 69:12, ou-JqJ-do • • • • • t-$J : H oi * 3n a lo (sic/) ; 69, n. 5, 77 pro ^*oi2^ ovl> ; 69 : 18, : • .* • H ; 69:19 , H without abbreviation. In H follows a colophon of four lines; cf. p. 204. 1 Brackets designate words expunged by the writer of the manuscript or his cor¬ rector. i ' DATE DUE 2nr,/r GAYLORD #3523PI Printed in USA PJ5481 .S76 Antonius Rhetor on versification ... Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00032 8072