"PJ 
 
 4581 
 X>28 
 
 1/^.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 Aa/ •-^,'. ■«.,< 
 
 OUTLINES 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 PBOSE AISD POETICAL. 
 
 Eev. a. K. DAVIDSON, M.A. 
 
 Abkn Ezra. 
 
 AVILLIAMS AND NOBGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COYENT GAEDFA, LONDON, 
 
 AND 
 
 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 MDCCCLXl.
 
 OUTLINES 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 PROSE AND POETICAL. 
 
 Eev. a. b. dayidsox, m.a. 
 
 vpx J;»t^'n i6) "i"? nnxn i6 D^oycn l^-its hv i:)J^kc' c'ln^D ba 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COYENT GARDEN, LONDON, 
 
 AND 
 
 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 MDCCCLXI.
 
 HKKTFORD: 
 
 rRINTKD BY STKPHKN AUSTIN, 
 
 FORK STRKET.
 
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 The following tract was undertaken to supply a want 
 in most Hebrew Grammars that are current, — a want 
 especially felt in connection with the teaching in the 
 New College. It has always been the practice of Dr. 
 Duncan, the Hebrew Professor there, to give instruc- 
 tion in the whole Masoretic punctual system, vowels 
 and accents alike. This is the natural course for a 
 thorough scholar to take — the course, indeed, which a 
 thorough scholar must take ; for many parts of the 
 mechanism of the vocalic system cannot be understood, 
 without, at the same time, understanding the disturb- 
 ing influence of the accentual system upon it. This 
 natural way, however, w^as often practically not quite 
 successful, from the want of anything to which the 
 Student might refer when the Teacher's explanations 
 were forgotten or misunderstood. I thus thought that 
 a short tract on the question, containing the chief facts 
 or rules — without unnecessary attempt at rationale, on 
 a subject which some will deem wholly irrational — might 
 not be unwelcome to iStudents. To Dr. Duncan, who 
 urged me to undertake the thing, 1 am indebted directly 
 
 653133
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 for the prose table, p. 53, and for much more indirectly. 
 He is in no way responsible, however, for anything in 
 the tract, whether statement or theory ; much less for 
 any of the blunders. I am persuaded that had he 
 written it there would have been no blunders in it. 
 It is to the sad loss of learning, both in his own and 
 all other countries, that he cannot be induced to put 
 his own hand to something permanent. 
 
 I have treated of the poetic accents much more fully 
 than of those of prose. The chief reason of this was 
 that the poetic books are much more circumscribed, and 
 I was not launched upon an infinite sea, but could see 
 from shore to shore. I have read and scanned these 
 books several times ; but from my want of correct 
 Edd. — for I have not been able to purchase the dearer 
 Edd., and libraries are shamefully destitute of them — 
 this process has almost been useless, for conclusions 
 formed on the practice of one f]d. have been often 
 overturned by the practice of another. The Ed. of 
 Michaelis, and, later, the beautiful print of Baer (on 
 whose Hebrew tract, Toratk Emeth, because condensed 
 out of the native masters, I have chiefly relied), have 
 been mostly used by me ; but I have occasionally given 
 references to the Edd. of Theile and Hahn, because these 
 are cliiefly in the hands of Students. 
 
 So far as I know, the present tract, with the excep- 
 tion of Cross's Treatise, is the only separate composition 
 on the accentual question in our language. It will be 
 found, I fear, to contain many mistakes ; but the sub-
 
 PREFACE. T 
 
 ject is peculiar, and the aids not very numerous ; and, with 
 all its deficiencies, I think it might contribute to some 
 understanding of the elements of the accentual system, 
 the understanding of which I am persuaded would con- 
 tribute much to the fuller understanding and deeper 
 feeling of the Scriptures. 
 
 Being averse to risking anything of my own on the 
 subject, I thought first of translating Ewald's exhaustive 
 treatise from his Lehrbuch ; but, like all that author's 
 works, it is too cunning and abstruse for beginners. 
 Some may demur to certain of Ewald's speculations ; 
 but to him belongs the commanding merit of having 
 first speculated. I should still like to put his treatise 
 into an English form. 
 
 Edinburgh, 
 
 March, 1861. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Introd. p. XV., for DK read Di? 
 p. 40, for inS^D read inDS^O
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 IBCI. PAGB. 
 
 Introduction vii 
 
 1 Accent. Uses 1 
 
 2 Antiquity and Authority 18 
 
 3 Accentual Signs 28 
 
 4 Interpunction 35 
 
 5 Table of Prose Accentuation 53 
 
 6 Clause of Silluq 66 
 
 7 „ Athnach 58 
 
 8 „ Sgolta 60 
 
 9 „ Zaqeph 63 
 
 10 „ Tippecha 66 
 
 11 „ Rbliia 68 
 
 12 „ Tbhir, Zarqa, and Pashta 70 
 
 13 „ Geresh, Pazer, etc 72 
 
 POETIC ACCENTUATION. 
 
 1 Poetic Accentuation • . 75 
 
 2 Interpunction 83 
 
 3 Metrical Table 85 
 
 4 Clause of Silluq 88 
 
 5 „ Rbhia Mugrash 96 
 
 6 „ Athnach 98 
 
 7 „ Olehveyored 101 
 
 8 „ Dechi, or Tip. Anterior 104 
 
 9 „ Zinnor or Zarqa 106 
 
 10 „ Rbhia 108 
 
 11 „ Pazer 110 
 
 12 „ Legarmeh Ill
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 BuxTORF, the younger, when introducing a quarto 
 of nearly five hundred pages on the accents and vowels, 
 gracefully apologizes for making so much noise about 
 the point, to which the children of the mathematicians 
 deny all magnitude. Some people may think any labour 
 bestowed upon the accents ill-spent. But, surely, no 
 labour is ill-spent which is spent upon the text of Scrip- 
 ture. And it must not be forgotten that accents and 
 vowels are of the same authority, both having sprung 
 entire from the head of the Masorete, and whoso con- 
 demns the one condemns the other. No doubt those 
 whose condemnation falls so ruinously upon the accents, 
 would dispense with the vowels as well. Would many 
 of them feel the loss of dispensing with the consonants 
 also ? 
 
 Perhaps an apology could most significantly be made 
 by showing what sort of men have devoted themselves 
 to this branch of inquiry.^ And, indeed, every man in 
 this or almost any other age, since the renascence of 
 Hebrew learning, who has any claim to be regarded as 
 a Hebrew scholar, has investigated the laws of the 
 accents. Not all with equal profundity or equal suc- 
 cess, but all in one way or other have given some, and 
 
 ' Quanto interessante, altrettanto poco o male coltivato ramo — as 
 Luz/.atto musically mourns. Gramm., p. 75.
 
 Vm INTRODUCTION. 
 
 many much, tliought to tlie question. Tlie man wlio 
 stands at the licad of Hebrew grammarians at this mo- 
 ment. Ewald of Goettingen, so far from thinking the 
 matter unworthy of his mind, has returned to it from 
 time to time from his youth up to the present date.^ 
 Hupfeld, who stands next to him, and, as an investigator 
 of Jewish sources, before him, has written at divers times 
 and in many ways on tlie topic. ^ Luzzatto, the great 
 Rabbin of Padua, thinks the subject not unworthy of 
 being discussed- in the nmsic of his native tongue.^ 
 Even America makes herself heard on the question.-'' 
 Jews^ and Christians alike pour in tlieir contributions. 
 
 ' His early essay on the subject in Abliandlungon znr Orient, u. Bibl. 
 Litteratur, Erstcr Theil, 1832, p. 130 fol. The same vol. contains a 
 valuable essay on the Syriac punctuation, after Syriac MSS., s. 53 folg. 
 Also Die Assyrisch-hebraischc punctation, Jahrbiirher der Bib. Wissen 
 schaft Erstes Jahrbuch, 1848, s. 160. His raaturer views in the exhaus- 
 tive treatise in his Ausfiihr. Lehrbuch der Heb. Sprache, p. 160-217, 
 Goettingen, 185.5. (On the Sp'iac metre, see Hahn, Bardcsanes Gnosticus, 
 etc, and his Syr. Chrcstomathy. Also Burgess, Metrical Hynms, etc. 
 Introduction. On the Arabic, Ewald' s Gram. Arab. Appendix. 
 
 3 Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen der alttest. Textgcschichte, Stud. u. 
 Krit., 1830 and 1837. Also Ausfiihrliche Heb. Grammatik. s. 84 ft", and 
 especially s. 115 ff. Cassel, 1841. — Comnientatio de antiquioribus apud 
 Judoeos acceutuum Scriptoribus, part i. Halis, 1846, part ii., ibid. 1847. 
 — De rei granimaticai ap. Jud. initiis. Hal., 1846. And the remarkable 
 essay, Das zwiefache Grundgesetz des Rhythmus u. Accents ; od. das 
 Verhaltniss des rhythmischcn zum logischen Princip der menschlichen 
 Sprachmelodie; Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenland. Gesellschaft. Sechster 
 Band, p. 153 (1852), 
 
 * In his Grammatica della Lingua Ebraica, fasc. i., p. 47-75, promising 
 also much more at the end of this work, which has not yet come, Padova, 
 1853-7. Also in his valuable nn^D to Baer, at the end of Torath Emeth 
 of the latter. Prolegomeni ad una Grammatica ragionata della Ling. 
 Ebr. ; and the periodical 1011 DID, vol. vii., cited in his Grammar. 
 
 5 Nordheimer's Heb. Grammar, 2 vols., New York, 1838, containing a 
 fair, though by no means complete treatise on the accents. 
 
 '' S. Baer. (il) T\'0'i^ niin, an exhaustive treatise on the poetical 
 accents. — The numerous works of Leop. Dukes. — G. J. Polak, the 
 editor of Ben Bilam. — H. Philipowski, his annotator, and editor of 
 Menachem Bon Saruq. — "Wolf Heidenheim (d. h. aus Heidenheim) "IQD 
 D''DyDn ''tODC'O, a great work on the prose accents, collected from the 
 Masorah and the old masters. All my efforts have failed to procure this
 
 INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 In the last century and century foregoing, Germans^'^ 
 Dutchmen,^ Swiss,^ Englishmen /° Scotchmen/^ even 
 
 book, which I much regret. It is rare. Steinschneider in his Biblio- 
 graphisches Handbuch calls it sehr geschatzt u. selten. It was printed at 
 Rodelheim, 1808. Heidenheim composed a similar treatise on the poetic 
 accents, which has never been printed. Dukes (Beitrage 3 Biindchen, s. 
 194), informs us that it is, still extant, and in the hands of a certain Mr. 
 Lehren in Amsterdam, "IIJ^? iriN''^*"l''1 jH^ ''ID I Heidenheim has given a 
 number of his results in his preface to his edition of the Psalter. So Baer 
 in his Psalter has furnished a very brief outline of the poetic system. — To 
 these must be added the works of Fiirst, Zunz, Delitzsch, and many more. 
 The latter has furnished some interesting details in the second vol. of his 
 Commentary ou the Psalms, and paid much attention to the accentuation 
 throughout his Commentary. 
 
 " For example. Ad. Bened. Spitzner, Institutiones ad Analyticam Sacram 
 Textus Heb. V. T. ex accentibus. Halis, 1786; a work of which Hup- 
 feld says, that both philosophically and practically, it is the first of all 
 accentual treatises. — Michaelis, in his notes to his Bible, has paid great 
 attention to the accents ; the whole lower margin of his Ed. is devoted to 
 a collation of MSS and discussions of the best readings. He has intro- 
 duced many amendments, though some of the principles on which he pro- 
 ceeded have been found to be wrong. 
 
 * Philip Ouscel, M.D. Introductio in accentuationem Heb. 2 vols. 
 4to. Lug. Bat. (the poetical, 1714; the prose, 1715). A very valuable 
 treatise, especially as exhibiting a vast number of examples. In some 
 respects wrong and superseded. 
 
 ^. The works of the Buxtorfs, elder and younger. That of the latter 
 very valuable, Tractatus de punct. vocal, ct ace. in lib. vet. test. heb. 
 origine, autiquitate, et authoritate. Basil. 1648. — (Other works, see 
 below, p. 20, note 4). 
 
 '" "Walter Cross, the Taghmical (DVD) Art, or the art of expounding 
 Scripture by the points usually called accents. London, 1698. Acute 
 and amusing. Seems to have been used by Boston. It does not appear 
 to what profession Cross belonged : he was an M.A., and confesses to 
 having sometimes preached ! 
 
 '^ Thomas Boston, of Ettrick. Thomoe Boston, ecclesise atricensis apud 
 Scotos pastoris, Tractatus Stigmologicus Hebi-aeo-Biblicus. Amstelodami, 
 1738. Boston's sorrows, from the accents and other less serious annoy- 
 ances, may be read in his pathetic )nemoirs. No doubt they had much to 
 do with that " notable breach in his health," of which he complains. He 
 seems first of all to have written his work in English and then turned it 
 into Latin, an English copy having been found among his papers. And, 
 indeed, the Latin itself shows sufficiently how it arose. Another learned 
 Scotchman who wrote on the accents and points was Ilobertson, author of 
 the Clavis Pcntateuchi, etc. Edinburgh, 1770. 
 
 The works mentioned in the above notes are, with the two or three 
 native tracts to be mentioned immediately, the chief aids used in compiling 
 the following tract. The literature of the accents has been exhausted in a 
 
 b
 
 1- INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Presbyterian Ministers thought the doctrine of the 
 accents not beneath tlieir notice, and its study not in- 
 compatil)le with the severe gravity and practical duty 
 which their Church demands of them. 
 
 More important often than the speculations of Chris- 
 tian grammarians are the hints contained in the Masorah, 
 which frequently lays down positive laws on particular 
 usages, and enumerates the occurrences of peculiar 
 combinations. These laws and observances, so far as 
 they are intelligible, must be considered as general 
 principles, and Edd. corrected in conformity with them. 
 The Masorah, however, is so confused and unintelligible 
 that not much that is rational can be drawn from its 
 depths ; and, except some devoted Jewish inquirers, few 
 have the courage to let themselves down into its un- 
 illumined abysses. 
 
 Of an importance only second to the Masorah, are the 
 deductions of early native investigators, who stood so 
 near the authoritative age as to be almost able to hear 
 its voices ; though, unfortunately, what we have from 
 remoter eras has fallen into such a state of confusion 
 through repeated and ignorant transcription, that in 
 many cases it cannot be understood, and in most others, 
 where it can be understood, it cannot be believed. The 
 greater part of what the earliest investigators have left 
 us, has found editors and expositors in the grammarians 
 of the present day, Ewald, Hupfeld, Delitzsch, Dukes, 
 etc. The first^^ native accentuists were Ben Asher, 
 
 note by Delitzsch to his Coniraentary on the Psalms, ii., s. 520 flf, to 
 which those who wish more names are referred. The majority of the 
 works there alluded to are antiquated, and, with the exception of Wasmuth, 
 superseded ; the attainments of their authors have been far exceeded by 
 the writers named above. 
 
 '2 Etheridge, indeed, in his Heb. Literature, p. 206, mentions a work.
 
 INTRODUCTION. XI 
 
 Chayyiig, and Ben Bilam ; and as these names are un- 
 familiar to our English tongue, a brief account of them 
 and theii" works in this department may be tolerated. 
 
 It is evident, at least, that such a man as Aharon Ben 
 Asher lived, and that he wrote on the points. (1). He 
 is frequently cited by Jewish WTiters, e.g. Qimchi.^^ 
 (2). A long list, amounting to 864 particulars — more 
 numerous according to Walton — is circulated, in which 
 he disagreed mth Ben Naphtali, representing on his 
 side the Western, while Naphtali represented the Eastern 
 recension of the Jewish Scriptures. ^* It is to be ob- 
 served, however, that the diflerences of these critics are 
 not confined exclusively to particulars, but embrace also 
 principles, ^^ and thus they may be regarded as bringing 
 up the long train of authorities, their successors content- 
 ing themselves with copying, but inventing or deciding 
 nothing.^^ Dukes supposes that these particulars must 
 have come from the hand of Ben Asher hiuLself^ and that 
 later scholars copied them out and cited them as well as 
 those of his opponent. (3). All are agreed that Ben Asher 
 was greatly versed in accentual and vocalic lore ; that 
 
 Horayath haq-Qri, by an unknown author, prior to the 11th century, who 
 wrote in Arabic. He says it was translated into Heb. by Meuachem beu 
 Nathaniel, and exists in MS. in the Vatican. "Whether the MS. be of 
 the original or of the translation he does not say, nor does he quote any 
 writer who cites the work, nor any writer to whom he himself is indebted 
 for his information. Ben BUarn wrote a tract of a similar name, and him- 
 self cites it in a later work on the same subject (see below). This later 
 work is extant in several libraries, among others, the Vatican, under the 
 fo7-merwd.m.^, viz., Hor. haq-Qore. 
 
 '^ Book of Roots. R. P]iy. Commentary on Judges "D"1. Dukes, 
 Qonteres, p. 4. Buxtorf, Tract, punct., p. 262 if. 
 
 '■» Bleek, Einleitung, s. 737, 807. De Wette (Parker), i. 360. Eich- 
 hom Einl., i. 376, ii. 698. Jiid. Lit. in Ersch and Gruber., s. 414. 
 
 '* For example, Naphtali adheres to the rule, disregarded entirely by 
 Ben Asher, that only one accent should be allowed on one word. Ba«' iu 
 Del. ii., notes, pp. 460, 462, 465. 
 
 ^^ Eichhorn, i. 370. Hupf. Commentatio i., note 8.
 
 All INTRODUCTION. 
 
 he spent many years in correcting a copy of the Scrip- 
 tures after authoritative MSS., which copy was con- 
 sidered highly valuable, and was kept for purposes of 
 transcription both in Jerusalem and Egypt, being often 
 copied, as, for instance, by Maimonides.^"'' (4). His 
 name is prefixed to some disjointed observations on the 
 accents, both prose and poetical, first published at the 
 end of the Rabbinical Bible, Venice, 1517 ; and in a 
 corrected form, inserted in the final Masorah by Ben 
 ( yhayim, in the revised edition of that Bible, 1526. The 
 chief parts of these remarks were published separately 
 by Hupfeld,^^ and again in a fuller and considerably 
 difterent form, from a MiS. in the hands of Luzzatto, by 
 lieop. Dukes, with preface and notes in Hebrew.^^ Both 
 tlie editor and Luzzatto are of opinion that the two re- 
 (iensions have proceeded from the autlior's own hand, just 
 as two recensions of Ben Bilam's treatise originated im- 
 mediately witli him, and one is quoted by him in the 
 other. 
 
 Neither is tliere much difficulty in fixing the period 
 at which Ben Asher flourished, nor the school which 
 was the scene of his labours. (1). The fragment pub- 
 lished in the A^enetian Bible under his name introduces 
 itself by saying — This is the book on the subtleties 
 (Grammar)-'' of the accents, composed by Rab. Aharon 
 
 '" Bleek, Einl., s. 808. Eiclihorn, i. 374. The words of Maimouides 
 in Buxtorf, Tractatus, p. 273. 
 
 "' Comnicntatio, ut sup. Appendix i. Also the poetical frag, by Polak 
 at the end of Ben Bilam ; and. by Heidcnheim, ])ref. to liis Psalter. 
 
 '» Under the title -ll^>t< pyoninon miDJOn D"lD31p. Also with 
 German title, Kontres hamnsasorcth, angeblich von Ben Ascher. Tii- 
 bingcn, 1846. See also Bcitrage zur Geseh. der iiltest. Auslegung u. s. 
 w. des Alten Test. Stuttgart, 1844. Von Ewald-Dukes, Zweites^Band. 
 (von Dukes), s. 120 anra. 
 
 -" "Cn ""pHpnO "ISD nr . The derivatives from tlie root pi are used 
 with this signification, e.ff. p-l'^lp'n grunimar, p'^p'lD yrammarian.
 
 INTRODrCTIOX. xiii 
 
 ben Asher, n**!^^ Dlp^tt, which is called Tiberias, upon 
 the sea of Genneseret. This superscription expresses, 
 at least, the general tradition regarding Ben Asher. 
 The word PT'Ty^ is very enigmatical. ^^ (2). The fact 
 that his readings were current in the West, and adhered 
 to by the Western Jews, shews that tlie sphere of his 
 influence was in the West.^^ (3) The period assigned 
 to him by R. Gedaliah is 794, that is 1034 of our era, 
 and with this date most authorities agree.^^ It may 
 thus be assumed that he was of the school of Tiberias, 
 and belonged to the early part of the 11th century. 
 
 What are the probabilities that this fragment on the 
 accents is due to him ? (1). There is the express 
 declaration of the fragment itself. (2). Its great 
 antiquity, for Dukes asserts that the earliest accentuists, 
 such as Ben Bilam ; R. Yequtiel han-Naqdan, author 
 of X^lpn 1''^; and Mosheh han-Naqdan, author of 
 np^n'D, have made great use of it.-* The antiquity 
 of the tract is further proved from its language, 
 which, in addition to being excessively obscure ^^ and 
 full of conceits, is, in the first place, exclusively 
 Hebrew, with no intermixture of Chaldee, indicating a 
 time soon after the renascence of the native Palestinian 
 speech ; and, in the second place, in the form of rhymes, 
 
 2' See the speculations of Hupf. and others regarding it, in his Com- 
 mentatio, part i., p. 4, note 8. 
 
 ^^2 See quotations regarding his influence, Buxtorf, Tract., p. 264 fi'. 
 He is generally, however, believed to have lived and taught in Babylonia. 
 Bartolocci says of him and B. Naphtali — uterque floruit in Babylonia circ. 
 1034. Biblioth. Rabbinica, i., p. 93 (No. 159). 
 
 23 Eichhorn, i., 370. Ersch and Grub. Ency., s. 414. 
 
 2* Qonteres, pref , p. 12 and note 5. Ben Bil. belongs to the second 
 half of the 11th century. See below. . 
 
 25 Even Dukes, not the worst of Hebraists says £J*13K X7l miNI 
 
 »nK riDS DN ^nyT" x'?i miojn n:nnn '•jdio io'pvj Dnm nt^N '2 
 
 See Qonteres, pref., p. 13.
 
 XIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 a fact also pointing to the early part of this century .^^ 
 For the earliest g-rammarians, such as Menahem ben 
 Saruq, wrote in this peculiar kind of rhyme, which took 
 its rise in the time of R, ^^aadiah Gaon, or a little 
 earlier ."^^ (3). The author of these fragments certainly 
 belonged to the land of Palestine, and likely to the 
 school of Tiberias. This appears from his citing Resh 
 as one of the letters of double pronunciation {i.e. aspirate 
 and soft), a peculiarity of utterance which was heard 
 only in the West.'-^^ These circumstances make it not 
 improbable that Ben Asher really wrote the fragment in 
 question. Dukes, however, decidedly denies Ben Asher 's 
 authorship, and explains the heading of the fragment 
 by supposing that some other writer composed it from 
 reminiscences of Asher's teaching, or perhaps introduced 
 some passages of Asher's actual work into it, and put it 
 forth under the authority of his name. The confusion 
 and perversion that reign in it are so gross that even 
 'Hupfeld suspects some false trading under Asher's re- 
 putation. As Dukes piously says, yiV H ; meanwhile 
 we may take its own word, and speak of the production 
 as Ben Asher's. 
 
 Aharon Ben Asher, then, as he comes before us here, 
 is a poet. And if any conclusion can be drawn from 
 
 2^ Qontcres, pref., p. 10-11, and the citations there. Jiid. Lit., s. 422 foil. 
 
 *' Dukes, ut sup. Menahem flourished about 1000-1020. Beitrage, 
 ii., s. 119. Saadiah was Gaon, that is, Patriarch of the Babylonian Jews, 
 and died 942. Gesen. Gesch., p. 96. Dukes, Beitr., ii., p. 5. Every- 
 thing that can be known of this remarkable man and voluminous author 
 has been collected by Dukes in vol. ii. of the Beitrage. Ewald, in vol. i., 
 has given the substance of much of his comment, on Psalms and Job. As 
 to the rise of the poetical measures among the Jews, see Delitzsch, Zur 
 Gesch. dcr Heb. Poesie, s. 1-2, 41 fol., 137 folg. ; Zunz, Synagogale 
 Poesie des Mittclalters, s. 59 folg. 
 
 2" Qonteres, pref., p. 5, note 4 ; and Ben Asher's words, Qonteres, p. 38. 
 See the words of Qirachi on this peculiarity of Tiberian enunciation, 
 Buxtorf, Tractatus, p. 25.
 
 INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 this effort of his muse, he has anticipated that very 
 popular modern class called metaphysical, that is, he is 
 mostly unintelligible, dealing- in enigmatical similes, 
 and allusions fetched from infinite distances. His metre 
 is not highly polished ; he would have disdained to take 
 rank among the mechanical rhymers and syllable coun- 
 ters ; he leaves his lines to expand or contract according 
 to the expansion or contraction of his ideas. His verse 
 may be described, as Hebrew verse best is described, as 
 *' without order or relation ; " the number and character 
 of his rhymes depending entirely on his humour,- which 
 was variable, A single stanza will demonstrate his 
 genius. After enumerating the accents under several 
 hard epithets, he closes with the following flourish : — 
 
 The last line is interesting, because it probably gave rise 
 to the practice long prevalent of classifying the accents 
 into orders and subordinations like those of an army or 
 empire .2^ 
 
 Ben Asher's tractate contains — I. a treatise on the 
 prose accents ; and, II., a briefer treatise on the poetical. 
 The first contains (1), a list of the distinctives, of which 
 there are twelve (the signs of the Zodiac), and of con- 
 nectives, of which there are seven (the planets). Qont., 
 
 28 In Hupf.'s recension the King is amissing. The usual distinctions 
 may be seen below, prose table, p, 63. I. the Emperors; XL the Kings; 
 III. the Princes"; the distinctives at the back of the vinculum are all 
 Officers merely.
 
 XVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 pp. 33-36.^° (2) A pretty extensive section on various 
 matters, the threefold division of Scripture, law, etc., 
 great and small letters, aspirates, gutturals, quiescents, 
 etc., pp. 36-51. (3) A section on Darga and Mercha, 
 the servants of Tbhir, 51-54. (4) A section on Tbhir 
 and its servant Mercha, both on one word (54-55). The 
 second section treats chiefly of the poetic accents. (1) A 
 list of their names, the distinctives being eight. These 
 names are very obscure.^^ They are *1-Tn (Silluq), 
 '^XT) (Shalsheleth), pj^l (Dechi), pSp (Olehveyored), 
 m\ (Pazer), ^yp, (Rbhia), t)nitO (Athnach), ^Tl-l (E. 
 Mug.). He gives the name of Great Shophar to 
 Legarmeh, which goes along with all the accents, and 
 turns to the East (Mahp. Leg,), or West (Azla Leg.), 
 and is always accompanied by Psiq. And, finally, he 
 names Muttach, that is Zinnor, which always accom- 
 panies its brother (Oleh.) except four times. And the 
 servants are the elevated (Azla), coming down (Mercha), 
 going np (Munach), inverted (Mahpach), suspended 
 (Illui), and between, that is Tarcha, because, as Baer 
 expounds, it stands always between letters, the other 
 Tippecha always coming outside of the letters.^^ (2) 
 After a section, entitled usage of Azla, properly belong- 
 ing to the prose accents, a chapter appears treating of 
 Mercha and Munach and their usage in the beginnings 
 (before Zarqa) and ends of verses (before Silluq). And 
 several passages regarding the place of accent on certain 
 
 '" The only peculiar word among the disjunctives is mJ3, which the 
 editor conjectures to be TiyiO (Shalsheleth). The twelfth is Pazer, which 
 is wanting in Hupf.'s recension, who rightly conjectured that it was de- 
 scribed under several epithets even in his copy. 
 
 3' Baer gives a Perush of these terms. Tor. Em., p. 4-5, note. 
 
 32 These names are aU Heb., il'piyD, TlV, n"?")!?. n31Q. n'?in. J^- 
 So are those of the distinctives, a proof of the Western origin of the tract.
 
 INTRODUCTION. XVll 
 
 words, simple and compound, conclude the recension of 
 Dukes, That of Hupfeld has many differences. 
 
 On account of its extreme confusion, not much re- 
 liance can be placed on the deductions of this tract. It 
 has in all probability suffered great hardship and ill- 
 usage, which has deprived it of its reason. For instance, 
 it speaks of Ebhia as a servant, and Mercha as a dis- 
 tinctive ; of Shophar (Munach, etc.) as a distinctive, 
 and Zaqephah — HSI'IJ^ HitOp — an unheard of accent, as 
 a servant. The relic, however, is venerable. 
 
 2. Jehudah Chayyug. Nearest in point of time to 
 Ben Asher appears the grammarian Jehudah Chayyug. 
 Chayyug was the first of native grammarians, and wrote 
 in Arabic. He was a native of Fez in Morocco, where 
 was a famous Jewish school. Hence he appears with 
 the title Phasi CpJ^S) of Fez. His complete name was 
 Jehuda ben Davud, or Abu-Zacharyah, and also Yachya 
 CTT*). It is not impossible that the latter name has 
 been corrupted by the Berbers into Chayyug.^^ The 
 exact period of this author's death is not known, though 
 he probably lived between 1020 and 1040.^* 
 
 Chayyug, besides a ' dictionary and a work called 
 Book of Spicery (nnp'1"D) — the former cited by Ben 
 Gannach, the latter by Aben Ezra^^ — was the author of 
 three grammatical w^orks, by which his name is best 
 known. These were composed in Arabic, but soon 
 found translators into Hebrew, in the persons of Mosheh 
 
 23 Hupf., Commentatio, i., p. 11, note 21. Dukes, Beitrage, ii., p. 155. 
 Though Chayyug be usually denominated the first of Heb. grammarians, 
 R. Saadia Gaon has the right to that title. Saadyah even wrote a treatise 
 upon the accents, which is cited by Eashi (Ps. xlv. 10) under the name 
 nnyO "1*1 11p3. Dukes, ii., s. 36. As Eashi did not know Arabic, he 
 must, if not mistaken, have had before him a Hebrew translation. The 
 work is otherwise unknown. Dukes, ut sup. 
 
 31 Beitrage, ii., s. 155. Gesen. Gesch., s. 96. 
 
 3* Dukes, ut sup., s. 160, and notes 2, 3.
 
 XVm INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ben Jeqatilia and Aben Ezra.^^ The original Arabic is 
 to be found in many public libraries, e.g. at Oxford ; 
 the translations are less common. That edited by- 
 Dukes, in his Beitriige, is the translation of Aben Ezra, 
 of which no other copy is known .^''' The first of the 
 three works above mentioned is entitled Book of Quies- 
 cent Letters, and treats of verbs having a first, second, 
 or third radical a quiescent ; the second treats of verbs, 
 double Ayin ; and the third tract, called TlpiJl'D , Book 
 of the punctuation, is devoted to the vowels and accents. 
 
 This tract on the points wants anything Like consecu- 
 tive order or connection. It consists of a number of 
 separate pieces thrown together, and introduced gene- 
 rally by the words "iHi^ "ly^ . The portion of the tract 
 devoted to the accents proper ^^ is exceedingly small, 
 and the details very meagre, and not seldom conflicting 
 with the undoubted practice of MSS. Chayyug has not 
 added much to what was delivered by Ben Asher. 
 
 Chayyug's list of the accents is very complete, and 
 the names he employs are chiefly those afterwards in 
 use. Peculiar and unexplained, because not occurring 
 elsewhere, is the term Maqqipk for Mahpach. The 
 names of the accents are followed by certain mnemonic 
 enigmas, symbolical of the accents, vowels, etc., some 
 of which are not resolvable. A good deal of particular 
 information is given regarding peculiar secutions, illus- 
 trated by passages ; but the author's rules are not such 
 
 ^ Jeqatilia, about 1148. Ges. as above. 
 
 '■^ Hupf., Comment., i., p. 12. Beitrage, p. 158 text and notes. 
 
 ^ Technically Tlp3 refers to the vowels and other diacritic points, DJ?t3 
 to the accents, but they are often used indiscriminately. n3''33 refers to 
 the accents a.s tonic pulsations, the combined musical effect of which is 
 called n?3''y3. The tract on the punctuation occupies the last and smallest 
 portion of Dukes' vol., pp. 179-204. The space given to the accents is 
 small indeed, pp. 191-199, and that with interruptions. The editor 
 printed Irom a MS. in Munich.
 
 INTRODUCTION. XIX 
 
 in general as our present MSS. conform to. He usually 
 introduces his sections with the words *1X17 vPlJ^ Hnyi , 
 and now I will proceed to show. There are several 
 sections so introduced. One consists of an attempt to 
 define when such small words as ^^ have Metheg and 
 Maqqeph, and when they are independent and have an 
 accent of their own. Another is devoted to a subject 
 not properly accentual, the labials ; another to the 
 quiescents and aspirates. Then follows one dedicated 
 to Ga'ya, that is Metheg,^^ which is succeeded by an- 
 other defining the use of two sorts of Munach before 
 Zaq. and Athnach/" etc. 
 
 All this is succeeded by an important section re- 
 capitulating the prose accents and combining with them 
 -those of poetry, but proposing a new distribution and 
 nomenclature of both classes, according to their musical 
 values. The three orders into which the author would 
 divide the accents are not very distinct, because his 
 terms are not quite intelligible. The word nyH'' is used 
 to characterise the first class. This word Ben Bilara 
 paraphrases "inSyi ^IpH U\y , words which leave the 
 matter somewhat less obscure.'^' Belonging to this class 
 are three prose accents, Pazer, Tlisha, and Geresh ; and 
 two poetical, Pazer and Zarqa. The second order is 
 symbolized by the term rnXJ^n, for which Ben Bil. 
 gives nilD.''^ To this class belong, of prose accents, 
 Zaqeph,Yethibh, andAthnach ; of poetical, five, Legarmeh, 
 Yethibh, Athnach, Tipp., and Silluq. Under the third 
 term ^'xT^ are arranged the prose accents, Zarqa, Leg., 
 
 39 Not every Metheg is properly Gaya, but only Metheg with Sheva. 
 In reaUty it is Sheva with Metheg — not Metheg itself— that is Gaya, that 
 is mugitus, Luzzatto, Grammatica, p. 37, § 81. 
 
 *" The names are '•XIK'i and ?p?[>, words referring not to position but 
 music, for both accents stand below. 
 *i Beitrage, iii,, s. 197, anmerk, *2 Beitr. ut eup.
 
 XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Kbh., Tbhir, Tiph, and Silluq, six in number ; and one 
 poetical accent, Rbhia.''"' 
 
 It is impossible to form any accurate idea of the rela- 
 tive tones of the accents from this division. What is 
 the difference between the first and third class ? Both 
 must consist in high notes. Are the fii^st, perhaps, those 
 tones that commence low and gradually rise, and the 
 last those which form a sustained high note ? Such a 
 conjecture might suit several of the accents as distributed 
 in Chayyug's order, such as Rbhia ; but how can Tip- 
 pecha and SUluq come under the name Illui in any 
 sense ? Or, again, how can Zaqeph belong to the second 
 class, whose note is low and subdued ? The prose 
 accents, at least, seem misplaced in this distribution, 
 though, perhaps, the classification of the poetical is less 
 objectionable. 
 
 More hopelessly confused still seems the list of poetic 
 servants, which are said to be Shophar, and Tlisha small 
 and great ! Mahpach and Shophar inferior and Dechuyah 
 (Dechi), Mercha, Shalsheleth, and Zinnor ! The author's 
 words are in self-contradiction. He tells us there are 
 eight poetic servants, then he enumerates nine, and adds 
 " these are ten servants to eight accents, in all eighteen."'*^ 
 All this is wound up by some remarks on the accents 
 that are found repeated. Pazer is said to be repeatable 
 eight times, 2 Chron. xv. 18.*^ Zarqa and Zaqeph three 
 times. Several may occur twice, Yethibh (Pashta), 
 Leg., Tbhir, and Tlisha. The occurrence of two Tlishas 
 is unique, 2 Sam. xiv. 32.**^ 
 
 <3 Beitrdge, s. 197. 
 
 *■» See Hupfcld's attempts to solve the mystery, Commentatio, i., aa 
 above. The passage is indicative of the incorrectness under -which tho 
 ■whole tract labours. 
 
 ** See below, p 54, where ^w is to be corrected eight. 
 
 *6 But Michaelis abolishes this solitary passage. See his note, and 
 Ew., Lehrbuch, s. 174, anmerk. 1.
 
 INTRODUCTION. XXI 
 
 The most interesting part of Chayyug's treatise is the 
 passage which offers the new distribution of the accents 
 musically into three orders. It would be important as 
 well as interesting, were there any reason to consider it 
 correct, and could it be imderstood. It shows, even as 
 as it stands, that from the first the musical significance 
 of the accents was recognised by the native WTiters as 
 well as their logical force, and that there does underlie 
 the system this twofold principle of music and logic. 
 
 3. Ben Bilam. Third in order among the native writers 
 must be reckoned R. Jehudah Ben Bilam, who belonged 
 to Toledo, and flourished about the end of the 11th and 
 beginning of the 12th century .'''^ He is the first who 
 produced a work on the accents, A^aluable even to our 
 own days. Ben B. seems to have been the author of a 
 number of works. One was a commentary on Isaiah, 
 or some part of it, in which he interprets chap. xi. not 
 of the Messiah but of Hezeqiah. This work has 
 perished.*^ Four compositions, at least, of his are still 
 extant— (1) Book of Verbs, D^'SySH "D, which Polak 
 professes to have copied from a MS. in Ley den .^^ (2) 
 D^y^yn r\^r\)^ "O, which Polaq interprets as HTO 7^ 
 DytDH. (o) D^iUnn "D (Tejnis) on ambiguous or 
 synonymous words. (4) {"{"Ipbll ""IbytO "D, liis famous 
 work on tlie accents. 
 
 This production contains two parts, one on the prose 
 and another on the poetic accents. They seem both to 
 
 " Dukes, ii,, s. 186, anm. 2, zwischen 1080-1100. Polak in 1858 says 
 ''^ QiyatJ'l niNO V2^ nr *n l^^a. Pref., p. l. Hup, Comment., ii., 
 p. 1. He is cited bv Aben Ezra (Ps. iv. 8). Bartolocci, Bib. Eabb., ii., 
 p. 188. ' 
 
 *» Polak, pref., p. 2, mentions a work Hlinn bV t^•"n''Q in Arabic, 
 adding TllSDpX "D 2p]}2 'y\'''':m''''D^> D3nn X^'D It^'K. Does he 
 mean the work or its name merely? Sec Dukes, s. 188, and the quota- 
 tions given there. 
 
 " the full title sriven bv Polak is nVDK'n nntJD 1SVr33K' "EH "D, 
 who adds p^^b^ "DH nXIKb '•"DO TipriVn T^X. Prcf., p. 1.
 
 XXll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 have been published by Mercier (Mercer), Regius Prof, 
 of Hebrew at Paris, from the press of R. Stephens ; the 
 poetic in 1556 and the prose in 1565.^ The work is 
 found in MS. in a single exemplar. Dukes believed 
 that only two copies of Mercier's print existed in Ger- 
 many and Holland, but Hupf, professes to have seen 
 two in Germany alone. -^^ These are only copies of the 
 portion containing the prose accents ; that on the metrical 
 accents was considered lost by Hup. Recently, how- 
 ever, a copy has been found in the collection of the 
 Jewish Society, Toeleth (H^yin), in Amsterdam,'^^ and 
 re-edited with a Hebrew pref. and notes by G. J. Polak 
 of that city, under the title "D "Jl ^12^^ "iyS5^ (1858). 
 Polak expresses his desire to publish the three other 
 works which he has in his possession. 
 
 In this work, Ben Bil. cites a Avork on the accents, 
 which he names J^llpn H^'^'^in , Direction for the Reader. 
 Elder writers considered this the work of some other and 
 unknown author,"'^ but later investigators have con- 
 cluded that the work is by Ben Bilam himself, and also 
 upon the accents, being nothing else than an earlier 
 work which he re-cast into the form of his present trea- 
 tise.'** A treatise of the same name with that cited by 
 B. B. is still extant in MS. in Oxford, and a fragment 
 of it from a transcript by Friinsdorf has been published 
 by Dukes.^ This MS., though bearing the title '"p'n "T\ 
 identical with that of the work which B. B. cites, is not 
 
 5" Polak, pref., p. 1. Hupf., Comment., ii., as above. 
 
 5' Dukes, as above, s. 187. IIup., Com. ii., note 2. The copies are in 
 Marburg and Dresden. 
 
 °2 As to this Society and its objects conf. Etheridge, Heb. Lit,, p. 395. 
 Dukes also promises to edit Balam's treatise. Qonteres, pref., p. 16. 
 
 ^ Bartolocci, iii., p. 38, sed nomeu auctoris ignoratur. 
 
 ** Dukes, ut sup. Hup., ut sup., p. 7 If. Indeed B. B. almost expressly 
 names. the work his own when citing it "pn "in "IDDD ^JTIST "1331- 
 
 ** Beitrage, ii., s. 197, 198, additamente.
 
 INTRODUCTION. SXIU 
 
 itself the same as that work, but identical with the work 
 published by Mercier under the name Taame-ham-Miqra. 
 The MS., moreover, has been translated from the Arabic, 
 which Arabic itself must have been a translation from 
 the Hebrew, wliich was employed by Balaam. Further, 
 this MS. contains in it the same citations of the original 
 work, which Mercier's print shows, and altogether, leav- 
 ing room for necessary deviations arising from tran- 
 scription and frequent translation, agrees w^ell with our 
 present printed work of Bilaam's. A small fragment 
 from the MS. has been published by Dukes, p. 198, 
 containing the introduction and the headings of the 
 sections of the poetic part, which, with a few verbal 
 differences, agrees completely with the text reprinted by 
 Polak. 
 
 The section of the treatise on the prose accents has 
 been embodied by Heidenheim in his Mishpte-hat- 
 Teamim, and pretty fully described by Hupfeld. The 
 chief data of the section on the poetic accents have been 
 incorporated in the following tract with all requisite 
 references. Any outline of the treatise is thus un- 
 necessary. Ben Bil., besides being a grammarian, was 
 a hymnologist. Two Selichas are extant said to have 
 been composed by him, one of which is communicated 
 (in a translation) by Zunz.'''^ 
 
 Many more native writers could be enumerated. 
 R. Jehudah Jequtiel han-Naqdan (pp^n, the punc- 
 tuator), wrote J^llpn |''y, embodied by Heidenheim 
 into his Pentateuch.''^ R. Shimshon han-Naqdan wrote 
 
 *« Commencing ^DK^n "py nDT3. Synagogale Poesie, s. 226-7. On 
 the Selicha Literature, see Zunz, s. 152, folg. HrivD penitential hymn 
 from n?D to pardon. Ps. cxxx. 4. 
 
 ^■' Roedelheim, 1818-21. This work was a Masoretic-grammatical pro- 
 duction on the Pentateuch and Megilloth. Jequtiel lived in the middle or
 
 XXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CJIpn ll^n.'"'® Mosheh han-Naqdan was the author 
 of Tlpin '^yn, a work with other titles.^^ Somewhat 
 illustrious is R. Jacob ben-Meir, called Babbenu Tarn, 
 the author of a poem on the accents, still extant in MS., 
 commencing H^ v " 7^{ ."° He died 1171. The Qimchis 
 (Moses and David, 1190), have left scattered remarks 
 on the accents in their works. A separate treatise by 
 David exists in MS. at Wilna, in the possession of Hirsch 
 Katznelbogen,^^ Others who wrote treatises are 11. Meir 
 ben Todros hal-Levi, HIIhS ^^D Trmi2 ; R. Menachem 
 di Lonzano, iTTin ^1^{ ; R. Menachem ben Shelomoh, 
 of the House of Meir (n\S^n), 1*30 nnp ; R. Kalony- 
 mus ben David, D^^ytOl I^SJ^ ; R. Solomon Nurzi, 
 "^^ T\T\yt2 ; ^^ Balmesi and many more. 
 
 end of 13th century. Ileidenlicim places Mm before D. Qiinchi. See, 
 on him, Dukes, Qont. prcf., p. 17- Steiuschneider Handbuch, s. "1. 
 Hupf., Comment., ii., p. 10, and notes. 1250-1300 Jiid. Lit. 
 
 *** Delitzsch, Jesurun, s. 16, note, concludes this name to be "ab 
 iutcrpolatore, homine ne med. quidcm docto excogitatura." Shimshon 
 belongs to middle or end of 13th century. Zunz gives 1240, and places 
 his sphere somewhere about the Rhine district. See Delitzsch, Jesurun, 
 8. 16, 241 foil., 257 foil. Hupf., Comment., ii., p. 11, and notes 32, 33, 
 and especially 36, where an outline of his treatise may be found. Dukes, 
 Qont., pref. 18. 
 
 *^ Printed in the Eabbinic Bibles and several times separately. See 
 Steinsch. Handb., s. 93. Qonteres, s. 19. A MS. exists in Munich, con- 
 taining much more than has been printed (Dukes). 
 
 «« Dukes, Qont., p. 20-21. liupf. ut sup., p. 10, note 28. Del., 
 Jesurun, s. 23. Dukes promises to edit and discuss the song, which con- 
 sists of 45 verses. Ersch and Grub. Art. Jiid. Lit., s 417. 
 
 61 ;yJS*2'?J?3^*N'p IJ'n^n. Dukes, Qont., p. 18. The work is culled 
 IDID toy, and mentioned both by Lonzano and Nurzi. 
 
 fi' On all the above, see Dukes, pref. to Qonteres Ilanimasoreth. Steins- 
 chneider Handbuch. Etheridge, Heb. Lit. On Nuizi, also see the 
 Introductions. Ersch and Gruber Encyclop. Art. Jiid. Literatur. Also 
 the English Jewish Literature by Steinschncider, Longman, 1857. 
 Bartolocci Biblioth. Ilabbiuica. Fiirst Biblioth. Judaica. Luzzatto 
 Piolegomcni, etc. etc.
 
 HEBEEW ACCENTUATIOK 
 
 § 1. ACCENT. USES. 
 
 " Accent means the following* things. (1) It means 
 the pitch of the voice, as high or low, acute or grave, the 
 tune or tone of articulated speech ; and this it means in 
 a triple application. First, it has this meaning with 
 respect to the syllables of a word, the syllabic accent. 
 Second, it has this meaning with respect to the word or 
 words of a sentence, the clause of an oratorical period. 
 One clause of a period we say is spoken in a high key, 
 another in a low. Thirdly, it has this meaning partly 
 at least in respect to the character of national or pro- 
 vincial enunciation. (2) Accent means superior stress 
 or energy of vocal utterance, given to certain syllables 
 of a word or words of a sentence, in comparison of those 
 with which they are connected, in the case of syllables, 
 the accent is specially called syllabic ; in the case of 
 sentences, it corresponds vvith what is perhaps more 
 commonly called the oratorical emphasis. {\S) Accent 
 with modern writers on music is employed to denote 
 that prominence which, by means of a more marked 
 tonic impulse, is given by a singer or player to one note 
 of a series of notes called a bar, above the other notes of 
 the bar." ^ 
 
 ' Blackie. Rliythmical Declamation of tlie Ancients, p. \ f. 
 
 1
 
 2 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 These few sentences, abridged from a writer thoroughly 
 acquainted with the subject, exhaust the common signi- 
 fications of accent. The third signification or meaning 
 in music we are not at present specially concerned with ; 
 the musical accent, if regarded at all in prose declama- 
 tion, must be considered coincident with rhetorical 
 accent. The synagogal delivery is a kind of song, but 
 this song is founded on, and but a degeneration of pro- 
 per oratorical delivery. Neither are we here concerned 
 with provincial accent, with the tone or twang of one 
 district as differing from the twang of another. Diffe- 
 rent families of Jews do cantillate the same accents by 
 different melodies, but this is not to be explained on the 
 principle of provincial pronunciation. Of the significa- 
 tions therefore noticed by Professor Blackie we shall 
 need to attend only to the first and second. Hebrew 
 accents exhibit jntch of key, stress of utterance, and 
 each of these perhaps in a threefold way ; pitch and 
 stress of the s^^llable in a word, pitch and stress of the 
 word in a clause, pitch and stress of the clause in a 
 verse. 
 
 Hebrew accents have formally another use different 
 from any of the uses served by accenf^s in non-Semitic 
 languag-es : they are signs of logical interpunction. This 
 use as a rule is coincident with their use as symbols of 
 stress and pitch, because it is the logical relations of the 
 various members of a verse wdiich rule the pauses and 
 modulations of the voice in declaiming that verse. The 
 Hebrew accents are the complement of the Hebrew 
 vowels. They bear the same relation to the verse that 
 the vowels do to the rcord. Both are a species of 
 j)honography, the vowel signs representing all the vowel 
 i^ounds and shades of sound evolved in every individual 
 word in speech ; the accents representing all the pauses 
 and connections, elevations and depressions, attenuations 
 :and intensifications of voice, occurring in reading the 
 Bible as a piece of composition in religious service. 
 
 L The accents mark the fone-svllable of each word.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 6 
 
 Tliis duty all accents perform alilce. Obviously, how- 
 ever, tills cannot be the exclusive function of the accents, 
 for a smg'le symbol would have been for this purpose 
 suiScient. 
 
 2. The accents are signs of logical interpunction like 
 our points.'^ They are in this sense only relative, not like 
 our points absolute, that is, they divide a verse into 
 members relatively to each other and the whole verse ; 
 but it is not necessary that these members or even the 
 whole verse should contain complete and independent 
 meaning, like our period. It may take several Hebrew 
 verses or Pasuqim to form a complete logical period, 
 and on the other hand a single Pasuq may contain 
 several complete logical periods. This logical use, and 
 the use as indicators of the tone-sjdlable, are important. 
 and deserving of some attention from Biblical scholars. 
 The accents will be found of great advantage as keys to 
 syntax and grammar.'^ But it is obvious that these two 
 uses do not exhaust the purposes served by the accents. 
 It not unfrequently happens that we find them placed on 
 the syllable of a word which we know not to be in ordi- 
 nary circumstances the tone-syllable,^ and they frequently 
 
 - In this use tlie accents are named CPJ^P senses, marks of sense, that 
 is, signs of logical interpunction. 
 
 3 See what Ewald says of the connection of accent and syntax in the 
 Anhang to his Grammar on that subject, p. 752 ff. 
 
 * And hence some scholars have denied entirely their use as indicators 
 of the place of tone. So Saalschiitz, Form der riebraischen Poesie, ed. 
 Hahn, p. 197 If. There is no doubt that this writer is here in error. 
 (1) The place of accent is known in ordinary circumstances, such as 
 inflections, declension, etc., not so much from actually observing the 
 position of the accentual symbol as from the vowel changes and trang- 
 fomiations which we know to be occasioned by its change of place. The 
 whole vowel system of the Masoretes is essentially connected with a 
 pronunciation (if the language as at present accented. Their accentuation 
 may be wrong, just as their vowel system may be, but their accentuation 
 and vowel system go together; and they certainly meant in ordinary cir- 
 cumstances to put their accentual signs on the syllable of the word which 
 bears the tone. (2) In the Assyrian accentual system, which is closely 
 allied to the common Masoretic, as exhibited in the Odessa MS., the 
 accents always stand on the tone-syllable, and do not present the deviations 
 in position shown by the common system. See Ewald, lahrbiicher, 1848.
 
 4 HKBllL'W ACCENTUATION. 
 
 enter into combinations which are inconsistent with logic 
 and syntax. For example, certain great distinctives 
 must have certain smaller distinctives before them, 
 though syntax and logic should demand a connective 
 instead of a distinctive, and many words, even mono- 
 syllables (Gen. v., 29) appear with two accents or some- 
 times as many as three (Job, vi., 10) a phenomenon 
 which can have no reference to logic. 
 
 3. These peculiarities are explained by the third prin- 
 ciple governing the use of the accents ; they are rhyth- 
 mical signs, that is, representations of the modulations 
 and inflections of the living voice in declamation or 
 cantillation.'^ In the service of the synagogue this is 
 the chief purpose the accentuation serves. There is a 
 kind of melod}',*' halfway between oratory and song, 
 chaunted in reading, and there is no doubt that the 
 accentual signs serve for this melody the purpose of 
 musical notes. At the same time, the same accents are 
 said to be susceptible of being cantillated in different 
 ways, the Polish Jews observing one method, the l^jjanish 
 Jews anotlier and simpler method; and, what is more 
 remarkable still, the same passage is cantillated on 
 different occasions, such as the Passover, with a melody 
 
 ^ In this sense, that is, as modi, or symbols of moilulation, the accents 
 are called n"l3*JJ. nj''3J properly Kpov,aus (Hupf.) just as in the Talmud 
 rr^pj is employed of the modulations of the voice in public reading. 
 Until the investigations of modern scholarship brought to light the logical 
 principle of the accentuation and thus set it on its true basis — a combined 
 logico-rhythmical— the Jews considered it to be exclusively musical. It 
 is in their estimation a remnant, altogether confused and misunderstood, 
 of the ancient temple music, the restoration of which shall accompany the 
 restoration of the nation under the Messiah. See Hupfeld Ausfiihr. 
 Heb. Gramm. p. 116, etc., Gesenius Geschichte der Heb. Sprache, p. 
 219 ff. 
 
 * Beadin<f is a peculiarity of Europeans. All Orientals sing and accom- 
 pany themselves with demonstrative signs and gesticulations. The Arabs 
 chant their Qor'aii; all half barbarian nations use a chant in their service, 
 just as in the (^arly church the Scriptures were chanted; and even among 
 ourselves, no later than the last century and the beginning of this, a kind 
 of song was employed in reading the Scriptures, even in Presbyterian 
 Churclies.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. O 
 
 different from that of the usual Sabbath day cantiHa- 
 tion. 
 
 Does, then, the accentuation embody a music ? Here 
 we are on the brink of a Serbonian bog, where armies 
 whole of disputants have sunk. What do we mean by 
 music ? Music and cantillation are different things, al- 
 though at times cantillation rises nearly to music, as at 
 other times music, especially ancient music, sinks al- 
 most to cantillation. The Hebrews, however, had a 
 magnificent music ; it was almost the only liberal art in 
 which they excelled. It would be almost absurd to 
 imagine that the grand melodies of the Temple never 
 rose above the hum-drum of the modern synagogue. 
 Writers, indeed, on music, have been so misled as to 
 assert that in the ancient music there were no bars, or 
 what is the same thing, time. Music is impossible 
 without time or accent ; whether bars as signs of accent 
 were invented by the ancients or not, is of small enough 
 moment. But dancing implies the recognition of mu- 
 sical accent, and the universal employment of cymbals, 
 which were used to beat time and give the sign for 
 certain movements, is demonstrative of the same thing. 
 In the grand and solemn, as well as triumphal music of 
 the ancient Temple, there was doubtless everything pre- 
 sent which is present in our own music. Whether it 
 possessed a notation or not, or if it did, under what form, 
 we cannot discover. The present accentual signs, or 
 some of them, may have served for such notes, and may 
 be a kind of reminiscence of them, although the fact that 
 different schools, such as the Tiberian and tlie Assyrian, 
 invented or employed different symbols, seems to prove 
 the reverse, and bring down the rise of the present signs 
 to a very much later period. The question is itself not 
 very important ; it is enough to know that this Temple 
 music is, according to the Jews' own confession, now 
 lost ; it may be an echo of it, confused and broken, 
 which we have in the accents, but itself it is not. Float- 
 ing fragments of it, which have been caught up by ear
 
 6 nEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 after ear, and preserved religiously through exile and 
 dispersion, may be still found in the melodies chanted 
 in the synagogues, but tliis wo cannot affirm ; what we 
 know is, that even the poetic accentuation lays no claim 
 to represent this music in anything like completeness. 
 
 Another and very diilerent tiling from the real Temple 
 music, was the solemn delivery of the f?criptures in the 
 synagogues. The institution of the synagogue dates 
 after the exile ; after, therefore, the great leaders of the 
 Temple music, the Asaphs and sons of Korah, were no 
 more, and when that music itself Avas either lost or 
 falling into confusion, and its meaning misunderstood. 
 This reading of the Scriptures was, like all Oriental 
 reading, a kind of song. Between the prose and poetic 
 books some distinction was doubtless observed, inasmuch 
 as the latter were more regular, more rhythmical, and 
 more suscejitible of real musical utterance. This solemn 
 style of delivery was preserved by tradition, handed 
 down almost as a part of the sacred t^cripture itself; the 
 tones of the ancestral voice were hallowed, the venerable 
 accents in which the Word had been read from time 
 immemorial were holy ; a reverent posterity would not 
 willingly let them die ; they recalled, and ever onward 
 and forward perpetuated the living voices of holy men 
 and ])rophets, many of whom had held communion with 
 Grod himself. And thus arose the accentual system, and 
 this is its meaning. It is not and cannot be any rem- 
 nant of the Temple music, for, with reference to prose, 
 that is ridiculous ; and all fundamental investigation 
 demonstrates the priority of the prose accents, and indi- 
 cates that these were used as the norm and standard for 
 those of poetry. It is simply the synagogal delivery, 
 the traditional living utterance of the reader, seized and 
 photographed, and handed down to us as a precious mo- 
 nument of ancient pulpit oratory. It is possible that 
 these public readers and expounders may have pre- 
 served in the poetic books some fragments of the former 
 melodies of the Temple ; their ears may have caught up
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 7 
 
 strains which their memories still retained across the 
 long captivity, and these might still, as familiar sounds, 
 ever and naturally find expression in their reading, and 
 the declamation thus pass over into perfect music. That 
 something of this kind is not unlikely, is evident from 
 the very peculiar accentuation of some of the Psalms, 
 which are very different in many respects from the other 
 poetic books, Job and Proverbs, in the fine play of the 
 smaller accents, and the frequent employment of double 
 or even triple accents on the same word ; but a complete 
 music, or a music exclusively, we have not even here. 
 
 It is marvellous, if these accents are really notes of an 
 actual melody, how they are susceptible of being cantil- 
 lated in different ways. The Polish Jews observed one 
 method, and the Spanish Jews another and simpler 
 method. The Germans accuse the Spaniards and the 
 Italians of not paying sufficient attention to the smaller 
 distinctives and servants, and of singing the greater dis- 
 tinctives only ; while the Spaniards, on the other hand, 
 accuse the German method of obscurity and confusion J 
 And we should doubtless wrong them both if we thought 
 their charges ill-founded. 
 
 Then another peculiarity is observable. On different 
 occasions, such as the Passover, the same passage of 
 Scripture, accented in the same way, is sung with a 
 melody widely different from that which accompanies it 
 on ordinary occasions. And different books, though 
 accented precisely in a similar way, are very differently 
 cantillated. The books of Moses are chanted, they tell 
 us, in a tone full and sweet ; the prophecies in accents 
 rude and pathetic ; the Psalms of David with an air 
 grave and partaking of ecstasy ; the Proverbs of Solomon 
 in an insinuating manner ; the Song with joy and mirth ; 
 Ecclesiastes in a tone serious and severe : ^ it is even 
 forbidden to the musician to change the tone, under pain 
 
 ' Jablonski, Pref. in Bib. Ileb., 24, note r. 
 ' Saalschiitz, Form der Heb. Poesie, p. 184, note.
 
 a HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 of excommunication. And yet all these diflferent books, on 
 which so many different tones are expended, are marked, 
 with the exception of the Psalms, with the same accents. 
 The observation of this fact has operated naturally in two 
 different ways : 
 
 1. It has compelled some to deny altogether the 
 musical use of the accents. Mr. Cross proclaims him- 
 self among this number : — " It is not unworthy observa- 
 tion what Bohlhis says, that the Jews {falsely, and not 
 without Satan's cunning) say the use of the accents is 
 musical, an art only known to the Jews, etc. If the 
 accents give laws to the sacred verse, then the songs of 
 praise and most bitter lamentations are sung both with 
 one tune ; an intolerable absurdity. Compare Job, iii. 3, 
 with Ps. Ixvi., and Job, iii. 8, with Ps. Ixvi. 8, the 
 points are the same — David's jubilee and triumphal 
 songs sung to the tune of cursed be the day."^ 
 
 2. Others have endeavoured to reconcile these pecu- 
 liarities with the theory that the accents in their present 
 form are proper musical composition. The disagreement, 
 it is said, between the Polish and Spanish Jews is chiefly 
 in appearance ; the latter use a plainer and simpler 
 style, the former intercalate more grace notes ; but the 
 difference consists perhaps in nothing more fundamental. 
 Still this reduces the precision of the so-called notation 
 considerably ; it can only, being capable of such diverse 
 treatment, represent the outlines of a melody. But 
 further, seeing the accent or note attaches itself to one 
 
 ' Taghmical Art, p. 14. Mr. C. has many nrgunients on this head. 
 " Add further that it is scarcely credihle they should sins the name of the 
 musical instrument, the musician in chief, with the occasion and preface ; 
 but yet all these in Scripture bear the same ])oiuts Avith the song." " No 
 lyrick licence in Iloratian or Pindaric odes will comprehend the Psalms of 
 David. No comical dimensions used in Terentius or Plautus can confine 
 any Hebrew verse except by accident " Again, " Gomarus in his Lyra 
 has this rule (reg. 5), 'The Hebrew verse are first, various; secondly, of 
 various feet ; thirdly, more or mixed ; fourthly, short or long ; fifthly, 
 analogous or anomalous; sixthly, excessive or defective; seventhly, of 
 many kinds, without order or relation.' It had been sooner said — any 
 prose makes Hebrew verse," p. 16.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 9 
 
 syllable ouly, and many syllables may intervene be- 
 tween the notes, it appears at once that each accent 
 cannot be simply a single note ; it mnst be several : in 
 short, the accents represent each a musical phraae. This 
 is a fundamental position of all who maintain the pre- 
 sence of complete music in the accents. On this hypo- 
 thesis the Jewish Zarqas}-^ or scales, are formed. Each 
 accent is itself a little song, a complete expression. 
 Whenever, therefore, this accent presents itself, the cor- 
 responding phrase should be chanted, but this will not 
 be found to be the case in modern cantillation. Still, 
 one, and the chief difficulty, lies in the way. How shall 
 we account for totally dtJJ'erent melodies being chanted 
 in ditferent countries, and on different occasions, to the 
 same accents ? So far, it will be answered, as these 
 melodies differ only in rapidity of march, there can be 
 no difficulty. The same notes may be chanted slow or 
 quick, and are capable of being resolved into any notes 
 equivalent in time, though much superior in number, to 
 the normal notes. And secondly, so far as the notes of 
 the various melodies differ in pitch or relation, it must 
 be maintained that the present accentuation gives a 
 musical fundamental)-^ It is sufficient to put readers 
 upon the track of the question, without ourselves pur- 
 suing it ; for all intended by this tract will be accom- 
 plished, if the attention of Hebrew students be directed 
 
 '^ So called from tlie first note, Zarqa. Such a scale, though very 
 incorrect, may be seen in Jablonsky, Heb. Bible, vol. i. § 24. The 
 same, corrected, Saalsehiitz, Form der Heb. Poesie, appendix. 
 
 11 Any one wishing to see more on this subject may consult Paulus, Neues 
 Repertorium fiir Bib. und Morgcnliind Litcratur, Theil I. -III., Jena, 
 1790-91 ; where a writer of the name of Anton gives a detailed scheme of 
 music from the accents. According to this writer the prose accents present 
 the melody, the poetic accents the bass, and hence at the same time the 
 ■whole harmony, since the Oriental music consisted simply of concords. 
 The position of an accent above or below the line is of much consequence ; 
 standing above, its tone is to be pitched an octave higher than if it stands 
 under. Saalschiitz gives a very fair, but unfavourable criticism, on Anton's 
 labours, Form der Ileb. Poesie, Anhang lib. die Musili d. Hebraer, 
 p. 370.
 
 10 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 to the difficulties and the problems involved in the ac- 
 centual system. This whole subject of the accentual 
 music is especially obscure. The relation of those ac- 
 cents called servants or connectives to their disjunctives, 
 and of disjunctives to each other, appears inexplicable, if 
 each has a proper musical value ; and equally inex- 
 plicable is their variety and number, if each has not a 
 proper value. The relation between the servants and 
 their masters is such, that if the servant be present there 
 will be harmony, if it be absent there will be harmony ; 
 if another in many cases accept its functions and stand 
 in its place, there will be harmony. And equally flexible 
 and conciliator}^ are the disjunctives. A fundamental 
 setting at rest of the question is, now, with our meagre 
 and contradictory information on Hebrew music and de- 
 clamation, not to be looked for. Thus much we may 
 safely say, the principle of the accentuation is twofold, 
 musical and logical ; not first musical and then subordi- 
 nately logical, nor yet first logical and subordinately 
 musical ; but primarily and fundamentally musico- 
 logical, the one undivided expression of the two factors 
 fused and melted into homogeneous unity. It is photo- 
 graphed, phonographed orator3^ And so far as different 
 families of Jews, or the same family on different occa- 
 sions, intone the same piece of accented Scripture in dif- 
 ferent ways, and pretend that both or all the different 
 ways are legitimate renderings of the same accents, they 
 speak what is incredible and even absurd, and only prove 
 their own ignorance and incapacity. ^^ 
 
 Radically the same problem under another name has 
 
 ^2 "Without knowing the values of the diifcrent accents — for of course i^ 
 the system they have vahies, althoufjh they cannot be gathered from the 
 present Jews -any attempt to cautillate must be only abortive and ludi- 
 crous. Mr. Cross well says, " But I think they have more time than wit 
 to spare that can bestow miich of it in learning or teaching that art." P. 
 15. It is almost trifling to speak of an authoritative cantillation, but the 
 Rabbins frequently appeal to the logical force of the accents as authorita- 
 tive in hermeneutics. See the well-known words of Abenezra, Buxtorf, 
 p. 256.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 11 
 
 to be discupsed under the question, does the Hebrew 
 accentuation embody a rhjthmus? Are the accents 
 rhythmical? Here, again, we liave two questions not 
 identical. We answer the first negatively, the second 
 affirmatively. The Hebrew accentuation embodies no 
 rhythmus, but for all that it is rhythmical. Its tendency 
 is towards a rhythmus. What is a rhythmus ? We call 
 any regular recurrence of sounds a rhythmus ; it is the 
 expression of a law, by which the same series of sounds 
 ever present themselves anew. A trochee is a combina- 
 tion of sounds, a long and short, or accented and un- 
 accented ; any composition where this foot regularly 
 occurs is a rhythmus. The rhythmus will not be de- 
 stroyed by the occasional admission of other sounds, pro- 
 vided these have such a relation to the trochees that the 
 latter still predominate and throw their influence and 
 character over the whole. In this sense Hebrew ac- 
 centuation forms no rhythmus. It has, doubtless, 
 trochees, and jambi, and spondees, but nothing like 
 regular combination of them.^^ In all speech such feet 
 occur, whether Hebrew or other speech. But Hebrew 
 accentuation technically is not a s^yllable accentuation 
 at all ; it is a word accentuation, and its rhy thnms there- 
 fore, if one exist, must be a word rhythmus. 
 
 This principle has been seized and experimented on 
 with the design of extracting the elements of a rhythmus 
 from it by various scholars. It is conceivable that in 
 delivery a man might accent eyeij second word strongly 
 {i.e. utter strongly the tone-syllable), leaving the inter- 
 mediate word, though with its tone-syllable of necessity 
 
 '2 It is true that Josephus, Jerome, etc., call the Hebrew measure 
 hexameter, but it would puzzle a modern scholar to lay his hand on many 
 Buch lines. An occasional hexameter may occur by accident, just as in thu 
 
 English version of Ps. 2, the first line is a pure hexameter. Why do 
 
 the I heathen | rage and the | people im | agine a | vain thing ? or as 
 James fell into a hexameter in the passage irScro SJtris, etc. It was a 
 desire to emulate the Greek and Latin poetry that revealed to the ancients 
 Greek and Latin feet in Hebrew,
 
 12 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 marked, yet with much less appreciable emphasis ; or that 
 on every second M'ord the reader elevated his voice and on 
 the intermediate word depressed it, making such a flow as 
 this ^^^^^-^ ^ etc. : it is furtlier conceivable that the 
 emphasised notes, besides standing in a certain relation 
 of strength or elevation to the intermediate and un- 
 emphasised, might stand in a graduated relation to each 
 other ; one might possess an emphasis double or triple 
 that of the other, or it might be half or one-third the 
 height or pitch of the other, furnishing such a flow 
 as the following : read from the right. 
 
 etc. ,^'' ^ ' 
 
 Once more, such a rhythmus, for both the last and the 
 former are actually rhj^thmi, may be a duplicate or a 
 triplicate, that is, may occur in pairs or in sets of three. 
 
 etc. | ^^^ /| ^ ^' ^' \ ^ '' ^' {a) 
 
 or \"' ^^' ^' \^ ^^'^ '^ ^^ I ^ ^''^^ -~^- (*) 
 
 Something like the Dichotony {a) has been the gene- 
 rally received fundamental of the rhythmus, and is still 
 insisted upon by most Hebraists who have attended to 
 the question, e.g. llupfeld. The Trichotomy {b) has 
 been taken under the patronage of Ewald, who is its 
 inventor and strenuous defender. Not, however, in its 
 naked simplicity, as given above. It is further con- 
 ceivable that even the weakly accented words or mnkings. 
 (in contradistinction to the strongly emphasised words 
 or elevations) may bear to each other a relation similar 
 to that in which the distinctives stand to each other ; 
 these also may form a succession of regularly increasing 
 or decreasing sounds, increasing from the beginning of 
 the verse in heaviness, decreasing in the same propor- 
 tion and direction in pitch. And, finally, it may be 
 that this triple principle runs through all the system, 
 the typal form of every division great or small, the 
 inner skeleton being ever a triad of pulsations. One 
 great Dreiklang developes itself in the whole extent of
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. J.'] 
 
 the verse, breaking it up into three divisions, stepping 
 like a giant in three vast strides from end to end, every 
 step increasing in the heaviness of its tread ; under its 
 legs numberless others peep about to find themselves 
 places, till the whole Pasiiq is measured out into three, 
 and each of these three again into three, and these sub- 
 divisions again multiplied by three, until the w^hole is 
 complete and harmonious. The voice, starting at the 
 commencement of a Pasuq, utters its first word high but 
 thin, it goes on decreasing in the height of its pitch, but 
 increasing in the heaviness of its emphasis, through suc- 
 cessive jolts, till it passes segolta, athnach (or mercha- 
 mahpach and athnach in poetry), and finally lowest but 
 heaviest, resposes in silluq ; but in its passage number- 
 less triads have formed themselves into individuality. 
 The accentaal principle is a crystal, Avliich, fracture it 
 how you may, and be its fragments great or small, 
 breaks ever into threes. 
 
 Any conclusion which this grammarian comes to de- 
 mands the most respectful attention. No man has 
 thought uiore profoundly on Hebrew Grammar, and, 
 with the exception of Hupfcld, he is the only man in 
 the present century who has made an independent philo- 
 sophical study of the accents ; and those who will take 
 the trouble to read his treatise on the subject, Lehrbuch, 
 p. 160 — 218, will acknowledge that he has done more 
 than any man living to discover the rationale of many 
 of the accentual combinations. 
 
 The grand objection, however, to this theory, as to all 
 others — apart from the objections of excessive complexity 
 and subtle ingenuity, which apply to it specially — is 
 that it is inconsistent with facts. The Trichotomy is 
 non-apparent. Open any verse in the Hebrew Bible, 
 and ten to one not a threefold but a twofold division 
 meets us ; analyse any of the minor divisions of the 
 verse and we perceive the same thing. It is impossible 
 to divide the accents of one verse out of a hundred into 
 sets of ihreo, (u- info .-cts of anv definite number ot
 
 14 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 pulses. Combinations of all sorts appear, twos, threes, 
 and all heaped irregularly together. The author himself" 
 acknowledges that in the even flow of the last verse-row 
 (Silluq's clause), after the first trilogy^* has expended 
 itself, and when we are looking for another, this second 
 is not forthcoming; it is only rudimentary, consisting 
 of a single pulsation, coupled with two depressions. 
 This is its common apjiearance ; but into what a long- 
 sweep it may expand itself he himself has shown, where 
 we hear no more of triple pulsation, but the accents 
 press thick and close upon one another. It may be said 
 that the triple pulsation will appear when possible. But 
 this is giving up the theory. To be sure there are im- 
 perfect lines in Virgil, but what should we say of 
 hexameters which consisted sometimes of six, sometimes 
 of four, or five, or two or three feet, and these, whenever 
 they extended beyond two, only accidentally the same 
 kind of feet? There seems indeed to be no complete 
 rhythmus exhibited by the accents. There may be a 
 tendency towards rhythmical expression,^^ there may be 
 fragments of rhythm, just as there are fragments of 
 music in the cantillation, but the tendency has never 
 reached perfect realization. It even remains a question 
 what the base was, if any, towards which there was a 
 striving. The older accentuists, who held faster to the 
 logical than the rhythmical principle, though not alto- 
 gether denying the latter, were unanimous in concluding 
 the rhythmus to be a dichotomy, or antithesis, a pro- 
 gressive evolution into pairs. These pairs were con- 
 sidered homogeneous by Spitzuer,^** who has most fully 
 unfolded this theory ; that is, pairs of periods, pairs of 
 propositions, pairs of concepts, in general pairs of similar 
 
 '* Ewald's fundamental trilogy consists of the first line of our prose 
 table, § 5. 
 
 '5 Compare Delitzsch's Introduction to his Commentary on the Psalms, 
 and his translations of the various psalms. 
 
 '" See Spitaner's liistitutiones, chap, iii., De Dichotomia, and the 
 whole concluding portion of the work. Hupf. in der Zeits. der D. M. 
 Gesellschaft, 6ter Band, s. 153 ff.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. lo 
 
 members. This is a rhythm produced b}^ the balance of 
 thought and expression, which gave rise also to balance 
 of tone and impulse. There is often a tendency to use 
 the word rhythmus in an obscure Avay. Ewald, for 
 instance/^ and many others, talk of a se7ise rhythmus, ian 
 expression to which there seems attached or attachable 
 no exact idea. The judge of a rhythmus is the ear. A 
 rhythmus consists of sounds or regular succession of 
 sounds. These sounds may be articulate or inarticulate. 
 Obviously the meaning of the sounds cannot form any 
 element in the rhytlnnus. or we might speak quite as 
 logically of a colour rhythmus. The regular recurrence 
 of ideas, as expressed in pojiular refrains, cannot with 
 any ineaning be called a rhythmus, unless expressed in 
 regular laws of sound. Neither can Hebrew poetry be 
 said to embody a rhythmus merely because it exhibits 
 parallel ideas, or regular recurrence or intensification of 
 the same idea. Unless these be expressed in sounds suc- 
 ceeding each other by a certain law, there cannot pro- 
 perly be any rhythmus. 
 
 The Hebrew accentuation cannot therefore strictly 
 embody a real rhythmus. There may be a law, but 
 the law is not strictly observed ; or like the music in 
 cantillation, there may be fragments of various kinds 
 of rhythmus, but no single principle carried out fully 
 and exclusively. Still the system is rhythmical and 
 not simply logical. Our modern interpunction is barely 
 logical according to meaning. It is interpunction of 
 written sense, not uttered or declaimed sense. Hebrew 
 punctuation is punctuation of the living utterance. And 
 as speech, especially oratory, when natural, is musical 
 or rhythmical, so the Hebrew accents, being the inter- 
 punction of oratory, will themselves be rliythmical. The 
 voice coming through the channel of the organs of 
 
 '■^ Dichtcr des Alten Bundos, i. p. o7ff. A marvellously clear sketch of 
 ancient and modern opinions on this subject may be seen in De Wette's 
 Introduction to his Commentary on the Psalms, 6te Aiiflage, s. 32 folg.
 
 16 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 utterance, resembles a tide running through a strait. 
 It may be high or low, variable or equable, strong or 
 feeble, slow or rapid. In point of fact, several or all of 
 these varieties will be contained in a single verse, or 
 section of the stream of speech. Words, like masses of 
 water rolling inland, rise and fall, swell and sink, oscillate 
 and impinge on each other, and dash with strong im- 
 pulse on every obstacle, gradually increasing in might 
 as they approach the shore, where the}^ break in greatest 
 force and die away in silence. These obstacles, where 
 the wave is seen to rise and curl, might be compared to 
 the greater pauses or elevations of the voice, marked 
 in composition with the chief distinctive accents, the 
 equable roll to the clause of words under the power of 
 this accent, where the voice remains much at one pitch, 
 and the final dash to the concluding pause, where 
 the energy of the voice is greatest though the pitch be 
 lowest. Hebrew accentuation undertakes to represent 
 by a system of symbols this almost infinite variety of 
 modulation of voice. The accentual system must there- 
 fore be almost endlessly complex. No inflection, no 
 pause, no intensification of voice, but is presented to the 
 eye. Before the application of external symbols, a 
 peculiar declamation had become traditional. Even this 
 mode of public reading was considered sacred, and lest 
 the unskilled should innovate and so profane the Scrip- 
 tures, a system of signs was invented which should stereo- 
 type the delivery for all time coming. We may take 
 for granted that even in Hebrew accentuation, compli- 
 cated and childish as it looks, there will be found nothing 
 arbitrary. It is the expression of logic and music com- 
 bined, or it might be said to be oratorical delivery so 
 much exaggerated in its inflections and pauses as to 
 stand nearly allied to music ; and tliough it is most 
 unprofitable to seek to imitate the cantillation of the 
 synagogue, a rational exegesis will have no better guide 
 than the accents considered as logical signs ; and even 
 considered as signs of modulation, a good reader of
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 17 
 
 Hebrew, who delivers according to our western mode of 
 reading', if he possess the usual amount of inflections in 
 liis voice, will almost absorb the whole system of the 
 prose accentuation, and give to each accent, if not tlie 
 exact sounds in the exact degree given them by the 
 Jewish reader, yet relatively the same sounds, and re- 
 latively in the same degree, as even the Jew gave 
 them.i^ 
 
 '8 Whoever wishes full information regarding: attempts to restore the 
 rhythm of the poetic accents, or of the poetry without the accents, that is 
 either according to or against the Masoretic verse, may consult DeA\ ette's 
 Einleitung to his Com. on the Psalms, and the books there referred to. 
 An interesting attempt to i-estore the strophicnl form of a whole book is 
 exhibited by Schlottmann, Das Buch Hiob verdeutscht, u. erlautert, 
 Berlin, 18.50, though the attempt is pronounced a failure by the author 
 of a masterly review reprinted in the British and Foreign Evang. Review 
 for July, 1857. On the subject of parallelism, may be consulted Lowth, 
 Lectures on Ileb. Poetry; Fairbairn, Hermeneutical Manual, p. 166, etc.; 
 Forbes, Scripture ParoUelism ; Ewald, Dichter d. Alt. Bundes I., s. 67 ff. 
 and s. 92 ff. ; also Koster, Strophen od. Parallelismus der heb. Poesie, 
 Stud. u. Krit., 1831, erster Theil, s. 40 folg.
 
 18 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 2. ANTIQUITY AND AUTHORITY. 
 
 The supposed authority of the accents is very de- 
 pendent on their supposed antiquity. The accents form 
 now a part of all our printed Bibles, The fact is cu- 
 rious. Why are they there, and by what authority? 
 Here on the one hand we are in danger of fallino; under 
 the influence of a derationalizing superstition, and on 
 the other, under the guidance of a supercilious flippancy, 
 the well-beloved child of ignorance. The early reformed 
 theologians looked on the accents as a divine institution, 
 the immediate handiwork of Moses or Ezra, men com- 
 missioned of God, among other things, to bequeath this 
 precious legacy to coming generations. The present 
 race of men, conceited and ungrateful, look upon what 
 Bnxtorf reverenced as an effort of uncreated Wisdom, 
 Avith contempt, as the childish finicalities of " mecha- 
 nical" Jews. It is probable that the first opinion and 
 the last are equally impertinent. We should hardly d 
 priori expect an accentual revelation ; and, lest a priori 
 disproof should not carry conviction, it is enough to say 
 that no evidence of such revelation is forthcoming. 
 There are rabbinic testimonies enough, but so there are 
 to many things that are impossible. At the same time 
 we set out from the principle that a deliberately con- 
 ceived and intricately worked out system, such as the 
 Hebrew accentuation, must have a purpose and a mean- 
 ing ; and that Jews, though at times harbouring foolish 
 conceits, are much on a level as to rationality with other 
 creatures. Hence we expect to find an inte?Uion at least 
 in the accentuation, whether fully realised or not. And 
 as all Jewish intentions looked in one direction, that of 
 preserving inviolate their divinely inspired Scriptures. 
 it is probable that if we' can really read the intention of
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 19 
 
 the accents, we shall not have lost, but gained in our 
 esteem for human reverence and religious care, as well 
 as in our accurate understanding- of the Bible. 
 
 The system of accents, then, is ncitlier to be attributed 
 to hig'hest divine wisdom nor deepest human folly. It 
 is the result of a peculiar critical development of the 
 human mind, a development not unconnected with other 
 similar tendencies which appeared simultaneously, or in 
 close succession, in Ai-abia on the south, and in Syria on 
 the north of Palestine. We would be wrong in limiting 
 this critical bent to any single family of the k^emitic 
 race, or circumscribing its activity to a very narrow 
 circle of years. The three chief families of Semites seem 
 to have manifested the tendency in common, priority to 
 some degree in point of time and influence being due to 
 the Syrians, who in their turn were stimulated by their 
 contact and rivalry with the Greeks, and by the new 
 mental energy communicated by the reception of the 
 Christian religion and its sacred literature. We would 
 be wrong in venturing to say that this peculiar criticism 
 arose in such a year and expired in such another. 
 Minds are exceedingly slow of motion. A direction 
 cannot be communicated to a national mind without the 
 concurrence of many forces, the application and success 
 of which requires many years. And as mental springs 
 are only gradually and painfully bent, they are onl}'" 
 gradually and with difficulty relaxed. A critical ten- 
 dency will not terminate so abruptly that a precise date 
 can be assigned to its expiry. If we take the close of 
 the Talmud^ on the one side and the close of the tenth 
 century on the other, embracing a period of four or five 
 hundred years, we shall have room enough for that pe- 
 culiar class of men who conceived and completed the 
 so-called Masoretic vowel and accentual system. Neither 
 
 ' The Talmudic period was of about 310 years duration — 188 to 498. 
 Keil, Einleitung, s. 596. Leop. Dukes, Sprache der Mischuah, s. 15. 
 Authoi-ities do not entirely agree. Conf. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen 
 Vortrage der Juden, historiscli entwiikelt, s. 52 tf.
 
 20 HKBKEW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 the voAvek nor the accents are the discovery of one indi- 
 vidual — they are likely the slow growth of centuries. 
 Acute critics have noticed in different books of the Bible 
 a slight difference of vocalization.'^ So, too, in the 
 Hagiographa, a somewhat different accentuation is ob- 
 servable from that current in the other books, e.g., in 
 the frequent use of the accents'Pazer and Qarnepharah,^ 
 showing nnmistakeably a difference of hands. 
 
 Regarding antiquity and authority, a rational criticism 
 cannot entertain any doidjts on these two points — -first, 
 the novelty of the present vocalic and accentual i^'ujns ; 
 second, the antiquity of the sounds and style of declama- 
 tion which they signify ; the twofold accuracy with 
 which tradition has handed down the pronunciation of 
 the Bible text, and with which the present system of 
 Masoretic points represents it. The briefest outline only 
 of argument can be offered in support of these positions.* 
 
 (a) The peculiar nature of the Semitic word-stem. 
 
 2 Ewald, Lebrbuch, p. 136. 
 
 ■' Ibid., p. 207, 99rt. See, on the gradual rise and nature of the per- 
 fectly similar Syriac punctual system, Ewald, Abband lungen zur Orient, 
 u. Bib. Literatur, Erstcr Theil, art. iii. p. 53 foil. 
 
 * Tbe first to fight the current Jewish dogma of the divinity of the 
 points, and their Mosaic, or at least Ezraitic origin, was Elias Levita, 
 himself a Jew. The modern invention of the accents and vowel signs has 
 been most ably maintained by Ludovicus Cappellus, Arcanum puncta- 
 tionis revelatum, published first by Erpenius, 16'24. The other side has 
 been supported with great learning by the younger Buxtorf, in reply to 
 Cappellus, in his Tractatus de punct. origine, antiquitate, etc., 1648 ; a 
 work containing much information on other subjects besides those in 
 immediate dispute. The reader may consult, in addition to the above 
 fundamental works (Spitzner, Vindicire originis et auctor. divine punct. 
 vocal. Lips., 17^1, said to contain full information on the stages of the 
 controversy and the circumstances of the disputants) ; Carpzov, Critiea 
 Sacra, chap. v. s. 7, in favour of the divine authority ; Ihian Walton's 
 proleg. to his Pol5'glot, iii. 38 foil, against it; also Keil, Einleitung, 
 s. 510 foil. ; Davidson's Bib. Criticism, p. 37 foil. In the present cen- 
 tury the subject has been again most thoroughly discussed by Ilupfeld, 
 Beleuchtung dunkler Stellcn der Alttest. Textgeschichte, Studien u. 
 Kritiken, 1830, p. 549, etc., and 1837, p. 830 foil., which may be 
 regarded as demonstrative of the post-Talmudic origin of the present 
 punctual symbols. Also coinciding generally with Hupfeld, Ewald, Lebr- 
 burh, p. 121 142.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. ■ 21 
 
 The idea lay in the bare consonantal stem itself; the 
 modification of idea lay in the modified stem. But as 
 the modification was either a change of vowel inside or a 
 very apparent addition outside, the triliteral stem was 
 itself still recognisable, and the fundamental idea it con- 
 veyed immediately suggested. Even the peculiar modi- 
 fication of idea was often suggested b}'" a prefixed or 
 added consonant, which was also a sort of index what 
 vowel change was at the same time introduced, and alto- 
 gether with the surrounding sense left a reader who wan 
 well versed in the tongue at no loss for the exact pro- 
 nunciation and meaning. 
 
 To this has to be added the analogy of the other 
 languages. In general the Semitic tongues are not 
 vocalized. The Qor'an,-^ it is true, was vocalized soon 
 after Mohammed's death, but other works usually pre- 
 sent the bare consonantal text. The Syrians most pro- 
 bably communicated the idea of a complete vocalization 
 to the Jews, having themselves borrowed it from the 
 Greeks. The Jewish Grammarians, however, far out- 
 stripped their Syrian guides and forerunners. 
 
 (b) The peculiar aspect of the present Masoretic text. 
 Very early the Jews employed the consonants 1 and ^ to 
 express certain vowel or diphthongal sounds, especially 
 when final ; they also employed i«{ and H , particularly 
 the latter, for the same purpose. And the Greek alpha- 
 bet shows that this tendency appeared in very early 
 times, and included even ayin among the vowel repre- 
 sentatives. At first these vowel letters or matres lectionis 
 were used very sparingly and only under necessity, and 
 eeldoni are to be seen in the earlier books except where 
 they OTe final or where there is a concourse of vowtIs ; 
 but in later Hebrew, when the Aramean began to intrude 
 upon tlie Palestinian speech, and the native language 
 was less perfectly understood, writers such as Jeremiah 
 and Ezechiel find it necessary to give the scnptio plena, 
 that is, to vocalize much more frequently ; and not 
 
 * Theodor Noldeke, Geschiclite des Qorans, s. 305 folg. Goettingen, 1860.
 
 00 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 seldom this vocalization of theirs conflicts with the 
 Masoretic system afterwards superinduced upon it, e.^. 
 
 dS*I3 for D^3, D^illH for "ifn (hob). 
 
 And to this attaches itself the whole question of the 
 Qri and Kthibh, the latter being the consonantal text 
 whicli the vocalizer worked upon, and in which, from 
 being* already partially vocalized by another system than 
 his own, he found certain things anomalous and not con- 
 formable to the laws of pronunciation current in his time, 
 and supposed by him to be generally recognizable in the 
 Old Testament text ; the former being the readings re- 
 commended by him in these particular cases as sub- 
 stitutes for the anomalous readings which he found ; the 
 readings he recommended being conformable to the rules 
 of pronunciation recognised by him as current in his 
 day, and supposed by him to prevail generally in the 
 Scriptures, lint, obviously, if the punctuator or voca- 
 lizer and the original writer of the consonants were one 
 and the same person such anomalies are totally inex- 
 plicable ; and as these anomalous words occur in the 
 latest books of the Old Testament, and there most fre- 
 quently {e.f/. Daniel), the punctuation cannot have been 
 anterior to the close of the Canon. 
 
 It iimj have been contemporary, however, with this 
 event. i3ut the fact that the vocalizer, whoever he was, 
 stuck his own vocalization upon consonants which it did 
 not fit, and did not presume to alter the consonantal 
 text, makes this supposition unlikely, and renders it 
 probable thjit the punctuator did not feel himself to 
 possess a similar authority to tliat of the original writers. 
 h\ the hands of inspired writers the produ(;tions of pre- 
 vious inspired men are treated with all freedom. None 
 are so remarkable for this free use of their predecessors 
 as two of the later writers, Jeremiah and the Chronicler. 
 Tliey permit themselves the greatest liberties with the 
 foregoing text, feeling their own divine commission to 
 warrant any adaptation of previous divine words that
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 23 
 
 their own times and circumstances may demand. The 
 vocalizers, however, allow themselves no such freedom ; 
 they were conscious of standing on a much lower plat- 
 form than the writers of the consonantal text. Hence 
 any claim that may be put in for Ezra is not to be 
 looked at. 
 
 (c) A more conclusive testimony is that of versions. 
 (1) The Septuagint. Here there are two points — the re- 
 markable agreement in many cases between the Septuagint 
 and our present vocalization, and the equally remarkable 
 disagreement in others. Advocates of a preseptuagintal 
 vocalization lay much weight on the former, their op- 
 ponents equally much on the latter. The latter, the fact 
 of deviation in such a multitude of instances — which we 
 need not cite as any one can lay his hand on many such 
 passages in the Septuagint, which are numerous in pro- 
 portion to the difficulties of the text, and it is often quite 
 evident ?v/iat punctuation has been supplied to the naked 
 consonants — seems quite conclusive against the existence 
 of vowel signs at the time of this translation. For agree- 
 ment is explicable from context and especially from tra- 
 dition ; disagreement on the supposition of a pointed 
 text is explicable only on the hypothesis of erroneous 
 punctuation on the part of MSS. employed by the 
 Seventy, or erroneous punctuation on the part of our 
 Masoretic Bibles. The former is improbable, ^first, from 
 the nature of the undertaking, because on any hypothesis 
 of object or translator, the best and correctest MSS. would 
 be at the command of the authors ; second, the deviations 
 are too wide to be explicable on the ground of ditferent 
 punctuation, they are often the result of sheer conjecture 
 put forth by an ignorance that felt itself completely at a 
 loss. The latter hypothesis, error in our Mascratic 
 Bibles, is a hypothesis destructive of our faith in our 
 present punctuation, and is otherwise not to be enter- 
 tained, because per se the Masoretic readings are widely 
 more rational and self-testifying than those of the 
 Septuagint. But to refer the blunders of the Septuagint
 
 24: HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 to a vocalization at all, destroys our laitli in all vocaliza- 
 tion. For if such a vocalization existed so early, con- 
 taining such manifold deviations from another vocaliza- 
 tion which has now become current, we give little for 
 either or both. It is satisfactor}^ however, to know that 
 in Jerome's time the uniform conviction was that the 
 Seventy had no vowels before them ; and this Father 
 explains and excuses their mistakes from that fact, — 
 verbi ambig'uitate decepti (in Isaiam, xxiv. 23). 
 
 (2) The Targums or Chaldee translations. The agree- 
 ment of Onkelos with our present punctuation is some- 
 thing remarkable. It is hardly fair, however, to assert^ 
 that hardly any deviations are to be found. There are a 
 good few passages.'^ In Jonathan's Targum on the Pro- 
 phets the instances are nnmerous, and all Buxtorft's 
 sophistry^ cannot explain them away. In the Targum 
 of Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch, or the Targum 
 Jerushalmi, examples meet iis everywhere. That Onkelos 
 is more correct than the others arises partly from his 
 own character as a scholar and faithful translator and 
 adherent of his tradition, while the others — even Jona- 
 than, to some extent — are mere paraphrasers, their ad- 
 ditions in some cases amounting to actual Midrashim 
 (e.</. on the Song) ; and partly from the plainness of the 
 law, and the intimate acquaintance, for many reasons, of 
 all Jews with its readings. This latter circumstance, it 
 is, which accounts for the superiority of the Seventy's 
 version of the Pentateuch. It is precisely, as with them, 
 in the difficult passages, such as the song of Jacob, 
 Gen. xlix,, that Onkelos hesitates and loses hold of an 
 unwavering tradition. It is a conjecture of Gesenius 
 altogether groundless and intolerable, that the agreement 
 between Onkelos and our own is to be explained by sup- 
 posing Onkelos the basis of the later punctuation.^ 
 
 * As does Buxtorff, Tractatus de punct., p. 136. 
 ' See for examples, Winer de Onkeloso, p. 29 and ff. 
 8 Tractat de pmict., p. ]38flF. 
 ' Gcsc'hichte dor Hebr. Sprache, s. 193.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATIOX. 25 
 
 (3) The Peshito Syriac. Here we need not go far to 
 meet with many proofs that this translation was made 
 from unpointed IVLSS. In Gen. xxii. 14, for example, 
 nS^I* has been read T\^y, instead of nJStnV So, 
 Gen. xlix. 24, DU^t^ from there, has been read and 
 translated D^D from Shem}^ 
 
 (d) After the acute investigations of Hupfeld already 
 alluded to, it must be conceded that Jerome, however 
 much he knew of vowels and spake of them, knew 
 nothing of our present vowel or accentual signs. He 
 employs the term acceiitus, but not in the sense of 
 accent, but of pronunciation.^^ It must be granted to 
 the same author that the Talmud is also ignorant of 
 vowel or accentual signs in our sense of the word.^^ 
 
 {e) To all tliis might be added much more. For 
 example, the historic fact of a change of the form of the 
 consonantal writing long after the close of the canon. 
 Ezra has no claim to be regarded as the author of the 
 present square character, nor has any single individual ; 
 that character is the slow result of time, and the opera- 
 tion of the double tendency to tachygraphy and calli- 
 graphy, producing on the one hand a rounder and swifter 
 character than the old Phenician, which is stiff and 
 awkward and unconnected, and on the other appending 
 points and corners, or Taggin, by way of ornament. 
 But the present vowels can accommodate themselves 
 only to the present consonants ; these cannot have been 
 generally current long before our era, and not exclu- 
 sively even then, and so the vowels must be more recent 
 Btill. Again, to the same effect is the unlawfulness of 
 using in the synagogues a pointed text. The consonants 
 alone were holy, the vowels common and unclean and 
 excrescences of mere human growth upon the exclu- 
 sively divine. 
 
 '" For much information on this and other points connected with this 
 version, see Hirzel, De Pent. vers. Syr. quam Peshito vocant, indole, 
 p. 12, etc.; Credner, De Proph'. Minor, vers. Syr. indole, p. 54f and 91c. 
 
 11 Hupfeld, Studien u. Kritiken, 1830, p. 571. '- Ibid, p. 554.
 
 26 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 A final arg'uinent may be referred to. In lS4o, Dr. 
 Pinner, the editor of the " Talmud, with German trans- 
 lation," ^^ published a prospectus and list of MiSS. be- 
 long'ing" to the Odessa Society for History and Anti- 
 quities.^^ The editor divides these MJ5k3. into three 
 classes: A. HIin^'lSD, rolls of the law; B. W^nnSD. 
 rolls of Biblical books in general, law, prophets, and 
 Hagiog-rapha ; C. L]'•i1^^:l"l IWn nSD, Talmudic and 
 rabbinical writing's. In the second class, B, and in this 
 class, No. 3 — the later prophets — stands a MS. with a 
 vocalization and accentuation widely difterent from our 
 common Masoretic system. The MS. contains the 
 writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and the twelve 
 minor prophets. The vowels and accents in this MS. 
 difler froni our own, not only in form and position, but 
 also in number. In position, all the vowels, and nearly 
 all the accents, stand above the line ; in number the ac- 
 cents are fewer, the vowels more numerous, amounting in 
 all to twenty. Pattach furtive does not appear ; and there 
 are no double accents, nor any post-positive or prepo- 
 sitive, but all stand on the tone-syllable.^^ At the same 
 time the vowel and accentual systems are fundamentally 
 the same as those of the Masoretes, agreeing* in many 
 cases to the slightest shades. This punctuation must 
 have taken its rise somewhere in the East, and has ac- 
 cordingly been named the Assyrian system.^^ Our pre- 
 
 ^^ Unfortunately, no more tlmn the first volume ever appeared, death 
 havinw arrested the progress of tlie great work. 
 
 '^ The somewhat lengthy title of Dr. Pinner's prospectus is "Prospectus 
 der der Odessacr Gesellsclnift fiir Gcsehichte u. Alterthiimer gchiJrenden 
 altestcn Ilehriiischcn und rabhinischen Manuscripte, tin Beitrag zur 
 Eiblischen Exegeso; von Dr. Pinner, Herausgebcr des Talmud mit 
 Deutscher TJebersetzung, nebst eincm lithographirten Fac-simile des Pro- 
 pheten pIpSP! Habaquq, aus einem Manuscripte vom Jahre, 916. Odessa 
 auf Kosteu der Gesellscliaft, 1845. 
 
 '5 Those wlio have not access to the work of Pinner itself, may consult 
 a good account of it, given by Ewald, Jahrbiicher, 1848, p. ICO if 
 (art. vii.). 
 
 '8 Babylon war das Saatfeld fiir die meisten Gattungen der jiidischen 
 Litterfctu •. Fiirst, Kultur u. Literatur geschichte der Juden in Asien, p. 2, 
 quoted b/ Donaldson, Jashar, p. 18, note.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 27 
 
 sent system is a native of the West, perhaps Tiberias. 
 The MS. in which the Assyrian appears bears date 916. 
 But from inspecting it, it can be seen at once that the 
 particular system with which it is accented was not the 
 only one known to the accentuators. but was beg-inning 
 to giv^e way before another, the Tiberian. Double punc- 
 tuation occurs in several cases, and the first three verses 
 of Malachi have been pointed quite according to our 
 mode of punctuation. 
 
 These facts seem to indicate, beyond the reach of con- 
 troversy, that the determination of the Jewish mind in 
 the direction of vocalization and accentuation was not a 
 determination peculiar to the western or Palestinian 
 Jews, but common to them with their eastern or Assyrian 
 countrymen. They show that the mere invention of 
 symbols was a thing of comparatively modern date, and 
 that the symbols took difi'erent forms in difterent regions. 
 They show further that while different families con- 
 structed different systems of symbols, and worked inde- 
 pendently, though contemporaneously, at giving sen- 
 suous form and outward expression to their tradition, it 
 was yet a common tradition which they laboured to 
 express. So that while we cannot hesitate to believe in 
 the comparatively modern rise of our present signs, we 
 have every reason to consider ancient and primitive the 
 pronunciation and declamation which they so successfully 
 signify.^''' 
 
 '' See the arguments for the late origin of the punctuation, excellently 
 stated (in addition to the books already mentioned) in Gesenius, Ge- 
 sthichte der Heb. Sprache, Ahschnitt iii., B., p. 182 folg. ; Jahn, 
 Einleitung, § 96, s. 340, folg. ; also Ilavernik, Einleituug, i. 1, s. 304 ff., 
 ^^ho borrows from Hupft-ld. Also briefly, Home's Introduction by David- 
 son, vol. ii., p. 18 and foil.
 
 2S HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 3. ACCENTUAL SIGNS. 
 
 As all words in a sentence must have some logical 
 relation to the words immediately beside them, and that 
 relation can only be of two kinds, that is a relation of 
 connection or a relation of disjunction, Hebrew accents, 
 as expressive of one or other of these relations, are 
 called connectives or disjunctives. The former are also 
 called servants, and the latter domini or lords. These 
 names express their logical power ; the names " Hebun- 
 gen," elevations, and " Senkungen," depressions, are in- 
 dicative of their rhythmical value as expressing parti- 
 cular modulations of the voice. The prose accents are 
 the following : — 
 
 DISTINCTIVES. CONNECTIVES. 
 
 p^^p Silluq .... J^^l^ Mercha. 
 niniSj Atlmach .... m^D Munach. 
 
 at:- j t 
 
 Sgolta .... Munach. 
 
 ■[secution. 
 Shalsheleth with Psiq No servant or con- 
 
 »iv*^ h'nT) Zaqeph qaton (small) Munach. 
 
 ^.,J^ ly'l [secution. 
 
 7115 ^pT ) Z. gadhol (great) No servant or con- 
 
 KHfiD Tippecha .... Mercha. 
 
 y;nn Ebhia .... Munach. 
 
 Tnn Tbhir .... i^rn Carga. 
 
 KjTlT Zarqa .... Munach. 
 
 5<nS^S) Pashta .... "]I?n^ Mahpach. 
 ^ ■ " I [servant. 
 
 ^'*^\ I Jthibh .... No consecution or
 
 HEBniiW ACCENTUATION. 29 
 
 DISTIN'CTIVES. CONNECTIVES. 
 
 •^"y^jPazer Munach. 
 
 <>p "" [ [ben Jomo. 
 
 nip '^'^p_) Qarne pharah . . 1DV \^ny, Jerach 
 
 nSinSN^Er^Sn Tlishagdolah . . Munach. 
 
 tyn5 Geresh .... {^pnf? Qadma. 
 
 D^b^'l5 Gershayim (double G.) Munach. 
 
 1. With regard to the relation of these disjunctives 
 and connectives, the ordinary conditions are as above. 
 Mercha serves regularly only Silluq and Tippecha, but 
 in extraordinary circumstances (sec. 12) it forms the 
 servant of Zarqa, Pashta, and Tbhir. Munach serves 
 regularly xVthnach, Sgolta, Zaqeph, Ptbliia, Zarqa, Pazer, 
 and Tlisha ; in extraordinary circumstances it serves 
 Geresh and Gereshayim, the latter of which takes no ser- 
 vant or secution in ordinary circumstances. The relation 
 
 of the word marked with Tlisha qtannah 5^^*'*7]^ is some- 
 what doubtful, though it seems to be a sort of loose connec- 
 tion. In general, when the same accent has two forms, 
 the second appearing only when the conditions necessary 
 to the first are not supplied, this second form takes no 
 servant or consecution. 
 
 2. It will be seen from the above forms that several 
 accents have the same symbol, and are only to be dis- 
 tinginshed from each other by their position. In this 
 way are distinguished Pashta disjunctive and Qadma 
 connective, Jthibh disjunctive and Mahpach connective. 
 Pashta stands uniformly on the last letter of a word, 
 and hence, if the word be penacute, Pashta has to be 
 
 ro]jeated thus V'lik ■ Qadma, on the contrary, stands on 
 llui initial or medial letters, and never appears on the last 
 except in terminations like '^, ri, etc. 
 
 Again, Jthibh, the substitute of l^ashta, always is 
 placed before the first vowel of a word, lunce appears
 
 iU) HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 only with monosyllables and penacutes ; Mahpach, on 
 the other hand, always follows the vowel whereon lies 
 the tone. Jjl\^ is Jthibh, but jy^ Mahpach. The place 
 of any accent is immediately after the vowel, if below, 
 or upon the consonant if above, which it accents.^ 
 
 3. Besides the pitch and stress of sounds indicated by 
 the accents (5^ 1), there is another thing to be observed, 
 viz. the breadth or extension of a sound, when a note is 
 for some reason expanded beyond its natural compass. 
 This takes place in two cases : Jirst, when two accents 
 related to each other would meet, requiring two words, 
 but from the accidental nature of the clause only one 
 word is at hand, then either the two accents will both 
 stand on the single word, if its syllables be such as to 
 admit of this, or one accent will disappear and compen- 
 sation be made by a corresponding extension of the 
 other which is left. This extension is denoted either 
 by doubling the sign or by adding Psiq. It takes 
 place in four cases : Mercha Kphulah (Np*lD) or double 
 
 Mercha, Gereshayim, or double Geresh (^'"15), Zaqeph 
 
 Gadhol (pip))> and Shalsheleth with Psiq. Second, 
 
 when the word with a connective, for some reason, 
 rhythmical chiefly, requires a more decided and em- 
 phatic enunciation than usual, in other words, requires 
 to be slightly separated from the word on which it leans 
 for support, a do^^^lright stroke, Psiq, is drawn between 
 the words to indicate this. This servant with Psiq is, 
 then, in the language of Ouseel, a minimus. 
 
 4. Many of the names of these accents have arisen 
 from their form. Thus Sgolta is connected in form with 
 Seghol, and both derive their name from their common 
 
 > Besides Jthibh, another accent, viz., Tlisha gdholah can appear 
 only ou an initial Utter, and hence these two are called prepositive accents. 
 Sgolta, Zarqa, and 'J'lisha Qtannah can stand only on the final letter of a 
 word, and hence are named post-piosiiircs. The scruples of these accents 
 are pui-ely attributable to rhythmical principles, and arc quite illogical.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. ol 
 
 resemblance to a bunch of grapes. Shalsheleth, again, 
 is chain, which its symbol resembles ; Zarqa is spout, 
 tube, called in the poetic *11ilV of the same signification, 
 its form suggesting a crooked pipe. Jerach benyoma 
 resembles the young moon, the " moon a day old,"^ and 
 Qarne pharah. or the union of the Tlishas, reminds one 
 of a cow's head — " cow's horns." Other names are taken 
 from the meaning and function of the accents. Thus 
 Silluq is ]3im8e ; Athnach, hreathmg ; Zaqeph, cross, 
 elevation ;^ Tippecha,/7rt/;/?, that is expander ; Pashta the 
 same. Rbhia may have received its name because it 
 marked the half of the half verse, that is quarter, which 
 it means,'* or, as others think, from its point being origi- 
 nally not round but four-cornered. Tbhir i^fracttire^ 
 equal perhaps to section; Mercha, prolonger. '|]'1X/b, 
 I'lO' Xp'lJD. Aphel participle of "^Hi^. to lengthen.^ 
 
 Qadma, foregoer, is named from its position. Tlisha 
 perhaps means shield, to which it has some distant re- 
 semblance. Geresh, extrusion, when preceded by Qadma, 
 is called Azla nStX . The servants, with the exception 
 of Mercha, Qadma, and Yerach, are said all to have 
 borne the name '~\'SW trumpet.^ Thus Munach, erect, 
 or supported or resting trumpet; Mahpach, i.e. "IBIllb 
 in HebreAV, inverted trumpet ; Darga was likewise named 
 SiSytJ^. Munach was named also ^^1"^ straight, 
 upright, etc."^ Many of the accents had various names, 
 accordino; to the different views taken of their form, their 
 
 * In the poetic accentuation this receives the name of wheel, galgal, to 
 which it also bears some lilccness. 
 
 3 Though in the Assyrian system its sign is actually a cro!<s, which is 
 most probably its orin'inal form, the double dot arising from a desire to 
 use the dot or point as far as possible either singly or in combination, and 
 so introduce something like uniformity. 
 
 4 So Ewald Lehrbuch, 210. 
 
 * The double mercha again is called pip-IH 1^0 iuo rods. 
 6 Ewald, Lehrb., s. 211. 
 
 ■^ Ewald's Lebrbuch, as above.
 
 32 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 tone, or their consecution. Thus Shalsheleth was called 
 the thunderer ; Pazer, the crasher, etc.^ 
 
 5. The most casual glimpse at the accents shows that 
 the connectives in general bend in the direction in which 
 we read, and the disjunctives in the opposite direction, as 
 naturally was to be expected. The servants too or de- 
 pressions are all placed under the line as became them, 
 with the exception of Qadma and Tlisha Qtannah, 
 These last two stand above, because the w^eaker the dis- 
 junctive, of necessity the stronger the connective propor- 
 tionately, and in the case of Geresh, which is exceedingly 
 weak, the conjunctives rise to an almost perfect equality 
 of strength with it, and therefore stand above. ^ On the 
 other hand, all the powerful disjunctives have weak con- 
 nectives, because the more powerful the stress on any 
 particular word, so much the more hurried and slight 
 will be the utterance of the word immediately preceding 
 it ; a principle which explains the peculiar form of the 
 construct state in Hebrew^ 
 
 Again it will be observed that the light-toned disjunc- 
 tiA^es are placed above, while the heavy-toned stand 
 below. ^'^ The high and heavy notes are thus indicated 
 by their position, the high commencing at the commence- 
 ment of the verse or half-verse, the low and heavy 
 starting with Tbhir and Tippecha, and ending with 
 Athnach and Silluq in their respective clauses. In 
 Hupfeld's estimation the place of the accent as prc-posi- 
 tive or post-positive is also of considerable importance ; 
 an accent of the former kind retracts the word on which 
 it stands into connection with the words nearer the 
 beginning of the verse ; an accent of the latter kind 
 throw s it forward into stronger connection with the words 
 
 " Ewald, ibid. See also tlie various names given by the older Gram- 
 marians, rccouutcd in DIOH mifl p. 3 foil. 
 
 " Hupfeld, Studien u. Kritikon, 18.37, s. 886. The weakness of Geresh 
 is such that it may altogether fall out and its place be assumed by a more 
 servant. See J 12 
 
 '" Hupfeld, ibid, s. 885. Ewald, ut sap. s. 212.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 33 
 
 following*. It is, perhaps, rather to be said that some- 
 thing in the peculiar modulation in utterance of these 
 accents requires their position to be pre-positive or the 
 reverse. And on the above theory of Hupfeld's the 
 position of Sg'olta a powerful distinctive as a post posi- 
 tive would create an extreme difficulty, a difficulty not 
 in the least removed by his assertion that Sgolta forms 
 a step towards Athnach l^^ 
 
 6. The accents not being a single conception, nor 
 having sprung up at a single jet, but being the slow 
 elaboration of successive schools of men and successive 
 centuries of time, there is some room for speculating on 
 the form of the first small beginnings and on the pro- 
 cesses through which the embryo idea attained to its 
 present complete development. First of all, the verses 
 in their present state are premasoretic, being recognised 
 even by the Mishnah,^*^ and doubtless arose during the 
 decline of the pure Hebrew, from the necessity of trans- 
 lating into the vernacular Chaldee, and the expediency 
 in so doing of reading but a small portion at a time that 
 the people might follow and understand. For some time 
 no external sign was employed to indicate the divisions, . 
 and the right observation of the pauses Avas an art to 
 be taught in the schools. No external sign appears in 
 the synagogue rolls nor is alluded to in the Talmud. ^"^ 
 Hence the first step towards punctuation must have bet n 
 made in post-talmudic times. But yet the designation 
 of the verse ending, as is now customary, by two dots, 
 must be referred to a time before the invention of our 
 present accentual signs, because at the verse end there 
 is a double accentuation Silluq and Soph Pasuq, similar 
 to the double vocalization. It is possible that somewhat 
 later, the half verses ma}'' have been also indicated by 
 Atlmach, so that these two are really not accents pro- 
 perly, but signs of intorpunction, which, like the primi- 
 
 " Stud. u. Krit ; as above p. 880. 
 
 12 Megillah, c. 4. 4, quoted by Hupfeld. 
 
 '^ Hupl'eld, as above. Giammatik, p. 107.
 
 .34 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 live vocalic system, the punctuators already found and 
 worked over or into their o■\^^l system.^* 
 
 The development of symbols would thus proceed, as 
 in all Oriental punctuation, from the single point up 
 to two, three, or a plurality of points, and when the 
 point was exhausted onward to the straight, bent, or 
 twisted line. The order would be _ J. .1 Rbhia, Zaqeph, 
 Pgolta ; Metheg, Mercha, Munach, Mahpach, Geresh, 
 Pashta, Qadma, Darga, etc. ; and then on to Tbhir, the 
 union of the line with the point. The middle of the 
 half verses was first in this way indicated by Rbhia, but 
 later, when nearer definition became necessary, the 
 more distant division was in accordance with its power 
 indicated by a double point, and the most distant in like 
 manner, and for the same reason with three points.^-'' 
 All this was necessarily the result of much time, much 
 earnest study, much patient balancing of one part of the 
 system with another, and was only successful after many 
 generations had added to it their patient and life-long 
 contributions. The barbarous mixture of Hebrew and 
 Chaldee names, of Eastern and Western forms, the con- 
 flicting punctuation of many passages, the diver- 
 sity of names for the same accent, the diversity of 
 the entire accentual systems of the East and West, all 
 show that the accentuation was at first a thing of small 
 proportion, that it gradually grew by the accumulated 
 contributions of Eastern and Western schools, that it 
 borrowed from Syria and perhaps from Arabia ; that as 
 it gained in strength, its aim and ambition rose in pro- 
 portion ; that content at first wdth indicating the chief 
 logical divisions, it was at last satisfied only when it 
 embraced every individual word, and that this complete- 
 ness was not attained much before Bagdad was taken 
 by the Turks or Hastings won by William the Con- 
 queror. 
 
 1^ HupfeW, Stud. u. Krit., p. 879 (1837). 
 
 '5 Hupfeld, ibid, s. 882. Ewald, Lelubuch, § 88, p. 142, etc.
 
 HEBEEW ACCENTUATION. 35 
 
 ^ 4. INTERPUNCTION. 
 
 A piece of composition consists of a certain number 
 of ideas connected together and succeeding eacli other. 
 This extended piece may be broken up into smaller por- 
 tions, each containing- one or more ideas. These smaller 
 portions are called verses, or, in Hebrew, Psuqim. The 
 accents are engaged about a verse. They extend no 
 further than such single division ; so soon as a verse is 
 completely accented the concatenation ends, and with a 
 new verse the series begins anew and runs its complete 
 course towards the verse end, and so on over the whole 
 chapter and whole Bible. If the verse contain more 
 than one idea or proposition, each of the clauses con- 
 taining them is terminated by a great disjunctive accent 
 placed upon the last word of the clause. A verse may 
 contain three such great clauses but no more. 
 
 1. A verse may contain one clause onlj^, Exod. xii. 47. C. j I 
 
 The greatest of all distinguents, Silluq, terminates sucli 
 a clause. Silluq is always accompanied by Soph 
 Pasuq (verse-end), two dots at the end of the word. 
 
 2. A verse may contain two chief ideas, and so two 
 great distinguents. 
 
 Here the final clause is closed as before by the greatest 
 disjunctive Silluq with Soph Pasuq ; while the other 
 clause is terminated by Athnach, the next greatest dis- 
 tinguent, standing relatively to Silluq as a colon stands 
 relatively to a period. 
 
 3. A verse may seem to contain three such principal
 
 36 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 ideas, and so three gi'eat disjunctives. Tims Gen. vi., 4, 
 " the giants were in the earth in those days," etc., where 
 the third great distinctive Sgolta is at days. It is to 
 be observed, however, that the clause under the domi- 
 nion of Sgolta is not really independent, but subordinate 
 to Athnach's clause ; Sg'olta dividing the clause of 
 Athnach into two portions in the same way as Athnach 
 itself divides the clause of Silluq — that is, the whole 
 verse into two portions.^ 
 
 Did Hebrew content itself with merely indicating the 
 great logical divisions of the verse as above, its accents 
 would cpiite resemble our points, but it undertakes a I'ar 
 more onerous task than this. It is evident that among 
 the words in the clauses respectively bounded by these 
 great distinetives, there must be a certain relation and 
 subordination of individual words and even small groups 
 of words. The inHuence of this relation and subordina- 
 tion will not extend beyond the great distinguent, but it 
 may be felt in a multitude of ways within the govern- 
 ment of tliis disjunctive ; in other terms the words that 
 lie between two such disjunctives may stand relatively 
 to each other and to the disjunctive bounding them in a 
 great variety of ways. Hebrew accentuation under- 
 takes to indicate this almost infinite complexit}^ of rela- 
 tion. Ihere will be, however, naturally some room for 
 free choice on the part of the punctuator. For exam})le, tlie 
 tirst mentioned sentence. Exodus xii. 47, will logically 
 fall apart into two groups of words, at the word Israel ; 
 all the congregation of Israel — shall do it. A disjunctive 
 
 accent will stand on Israel xSm ^'^':.b^^P^. TH'^rh.^ 
 The accent Tippecha, under Israel, is called the minor 
 disjunctive to iSilluq. It is here expressive of the logical 
 relation of the two small groups of words in the sentence 
 
 ' The power of Sgolta is a niurh contested point, some considering it 
 independent and some subordinating it to Athnach. The latter seem to 
 (■ntertaiu tiie correct upiuion agaiust Ewald, Boston, etc, See i>ection on 
 clause of Sgolta.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 37 
 
 to each other. It is also expressive of the slight 
 rhythmical halt which the voice naturally makes 
 before coming* to a tinal pause, just as musicians are 
 observed to play several notes slower before coming* to 
 a final stop. '^ Hence the rule : 
 
 If tlie clause of Silluq consist of more than one word 
 there must always be the minor disjunctive Tippecha in 
 the clause, even though the sense repudiate a distinctive 
 accent and demand a connective. In such a case the 
 rhythm overrules the Logic. 
 
 Again, in the second passage cited above, it is evident 
 that in each of the two clauses the words fall naturally 
 asunder, into two groups. And God hardened — the 
 heart of Pharaoh ; and he let not go — the children 
 of Israel. The distinction between these halves is 
 marked in both cases by Tippecha which is the 
 minor disjunctive to Athnach as well as to Silluq. 
 
 np3 nS-nx nin* p-inn and hmi^' ^3:3-n« nW* i^Si 
 
 <A : - •■ V ^T : I •• - :- .-t : • - : v v • : 
 
 Here, again, the pause at Athnach is so great, that a 
 preliminary pause of slighter duration must precede it, 
 whether the sense demand it or not. Hence the rule : 
 
 If Atlmach's clause be of more than one word, 
 Athnach must be preceded by the minor Tippecha, at 
 the demand of the natural rhythm. 
 
 The same, and even a more stringent rule, applies to the 
 clause of Sgolta. For example, in the passage Gen. vi. 4 : 
 Dnn D^D^5 p^i^l Vn D^S^S^n the distinction must evi- 
 dently be made at earth, on which word the minor disjunc- 
 tive to Sgolta, viz., Zarqa nmst stand. In the present 
 case, sense and rhythm combine, but the rhythm must be 
 satisfied even at the expense of the sense. For Sgolta 
 must, in all circumstances, be preceded by its minor 
 Zarqa, and the clause of Sgolta must be of such a sort 
 
 - In speech before a great rise there is generally a small rise, and be- 
 fore a great fall a small fall. This is the expression of a principle of order 
 which lies in nature, and cannot be further traced or accounted for.
 
 38 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 as to admit Zarqa — that is, must consist of more than 
 one word. Hence the further rule : 
 
 If a clause which would require Sgolta naturally, 
 consist only of one word, Sgolta cannot then appear, its 
 place being- supplied by iShalsheleth with Psiq. Genesis 
 xix., 16. 
 
 Now it would appear that we have placed on the 
 above sentences the periods, colons, semicolons, and 
 even commas ; but Hebrew punctuation is not satisfied 
 with this, every word must be connected or disjoined, 
 there is no neutrality in the logical relation of words in 
 a clause, and tlie accentuators have undertaken to point 
 out how every word stands related. Hence every word 
 is loaded with an accent either disjunctive or conjunctive, 
 the former separating it from the immediately following 
 word or clause, the latter uniting it to the immediately 
 following word only. . 
 
 To resume our first sentence nhk ^b''>;p5i?n^^ Tr\TP^. 
 punctuated as it was left, with final pause and prepara- 
 tory minor disjunctive ; there are still two words unsig- 
 nalized as to their connection. But, manifestly, each of 
 them is logically connected with the word immediately 
 following, skall do, logically conditioning it, and whole 
 congregation being logically conditioned by Israel. 
 Hence each of these words will be marked with the sign 
 of connection, which sign happens to be in the present 
 case one common^ to the two disiunctives Silluq and 
 
 Tippecha, viz., Mercha \Sm i^'..h^^}^\ TH^^^ The 
 
 ^ Tliis is a point connected with the accents which presents great diffi- 
 culties. It is evident from the use of different servants, that the servants 
 had not all the same significance ; they represented various tones or sets of 
 tones of the voice. It is evident at the same time from the scanty supply 
 of servants, in comparison with disjunctives, that there is less variety of 
 inflection in the word connected than in tlie word separated. This is quite 
 natural, but how precisely such a servant as Mercha should serve both, 
 or stand next both Tippecha and Silluq, disjunctives of such diverse 
 powers, or how Munach should represent a tone coming immediately be- 
 fore Athnach, one of the lowest tones, and before Pazer, the highest, is 
 somewhat mysterious.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 39 
 
 clause of Athnacli displays the same grouping- of the 
 words, and will be similarly pointed nirT* p-TH"''! 
 ny'lB ^TflX where the servant of Tippecha is as be- 
 fore Mercha, but the servant of Athnach is Munach. 
 Finally, the clause of Sgolta, from containing an 
 odd number of words, is somewhat more difficult. 
 
 Dnn D'^*!l p^{l Vn D^VsSn the giants were in the earth 
 
 in those days. The minor disjunctive being already 
 placed at earth, there cannot be any doubt that the 
 words in those days are logically connected ; hence a 
 
 servant or connective will stand on tliose DHn D''p*l 
 viz., Munach, the servant to Sgolta. 
 
 More doubtful is the logical relation of the words the 
 giants were in the earth ; but a mere glance at the order 
 of the words tells us that the term giants is emphatic, 
 because it stands before its verb, whereas in Hebrew the 
 noun follows its verb if no emphasis be indicated. In 
 English, the words read really, tlie giants, they were in 
 the earth in those days.. Hence, giants is logically or 
 rhythmically marked off by a certain pause from the 
 following words which are thus thrown closely together. 
 
 Were in the earth V'1^'2 VH where Munach is again ser- 
 vant to Zarqa. The whole, therefore, stands thus 
 Dnn D;t5*!l pXn -l^n We have still, however, to dis- 
 pose of the giants. The word is emphatic, emphasis 
 implies pause, so the word will be marked by a pausal 
 or disjunctive accent. But from what shall we disjoin 
 giants ? From were in the earth ? or from were in the 
 earth in those days ? In other words, will the disjunctive 
 which we mean to put on giants be a disjunctive standing 
 in relation to Zarqa or to Sgolta ? We have simply to 
 ascertain the proper logical bearing of the passage. 
 Something is to be said of the giants : is it in those days 
 that is said of them, or is it in the earth that is said of 
 them ? Obviously it is that they were on the earth, and
 
 40 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 what is said of the g-iants on the earth, id, that it was in 
 those days. 
 
 The giants, 
 
 The giants, were on the earth ; 
 
 The giants, were on the earth ; in those days. 
 
 That is, the chiuse giants is subordinate to tlie clause, 
 
 were on the earth ; and the combined clause the (j'lants 
 
 were on the earth, is subordinate to the clause in those 
 
 days. We punctuate giants, therefore, with a distinctive, 
 
 having relation to Zarqa V"1{<1 Vll D^Tfilin the accent 
 being Gereshayim or double Geresh, the minor distinc- 
 tive to Zarqa. In tlie same manner all other clauses are 
 punctuated. An example may be taken, introducing* 
 what is called the major disjunctive, Gen. ii., 2. " And 
 God finished on the seventh day his work which he had 
 made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his 
 work which he had made." 
 
 Plainly enfiugii tlie middle of the verse is at made ; 
 that word will therefore bear upon it the sign of the 
 half verse. Athnach. Each of these two great clauses, 
 bounded by Silluq and Athnach respectively, will be 
 independenth^ pointed, and the words will assume posi- 
 tions of relation only to the words within tlieir own 
 clause respectively. Taking up the clause proper of 
 Silluq, and he rested on the seventh day froin all his 
 7vork which he had made : here, at first sight, the 
 words fall asunder into two groups, he rested on the 
 seventh day, and, from all his work irJiich he had 
 made. Hence a great distinguent will be placed on 
 day, viz., Zaqeph, the major under *Silluq at made. 
 
 Again, in the group nearest the end it is evident that 
 the logical order will be, from all his work — which he 
 had made ; imposing a connective on which and a dis- 
 junctive on work, thus, JHC^J?^ "I^J^ inp70"730 So in - 
 the first group the order will be, and he rested — on
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 41 
 
 day tlie seventli ; day and seventh being connected, and 
 consequently rested being disjoined from them, thus : 
 
 ''j^.'^^EJ^n DV!ll nh^*l where the accent on rested is 
 Pashta, the minor to Zaqeph on seventh. The words 
 form themselves into groups thus, counting backwards 
 from ^Silluq, 
 
 Which he had made. 
 From all his work, which he had made. 
 And he rested on the seventh day ; from all his 
 work, which he had made. 
 It is especially to be observed that the influence of any 
 accent extends as far as to that accent under which it 
 immediately stands, or to Avhicli it is related in the de- 
 gree of minor, maximus, major, etc. For instance, the 
 accent on work is mmor to t:^illuq, and therefore its in- 
 fluence extends to Silluq ; the connection therefore is not 
 His Avork which ; but, 
 His work which he had made. 
 So again Zaqeph on dai/ (or seventh in Hebrew) is major 
 to i^illuq, and its influence extends as far as Silluq, in 
 otlier words, to made. So, it is not. 
 
 He rested on the seventh day from all liis work ; but, 
 He rested on the seventh day from all his work which 
 
 he had made. 
 A somewhat peculiar passage will illustrate tliis. Is. 
 i. 21, is, in our translation, " How is the faithful city be- 
 come an harlot! it rcas fidl of judgment ; righteousness 
 lodged in it ; hutnojv murderers." This rendering is not 
 strictly accurate, becausey'c/// is an adjective, and in con- 
 struction — the full of judgment. It matters nothing 
 whether we translate the next clause righteousness lodged 
 in it, or relatively, in which righteousness lodged, the 
 parallelism will be the same. 
 How has become an harlot. 
 The city that was faithful ! 
 Full of jugdment, righteousness lodging in her ; 
 But now murderers.
 
 42 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 Here the opposition is apparent at once, being* between 
 harlot and faithful, in the lirst half, and between the 
 idea of justice, expressed doubly, and murderers in the 
 other member of the verse. In the second member, 
 therefore, the greatest accent ought to stand on her. 
 The expression, full of judgment, forming along with 
 the group righteousness lodged in her, the description of 
 the former condition of the city and the proper balance 
 to the clause, but now murderers. This, however, is not 
 the usual punctuation seen in Hebrew Bibles, common 
 editions setting the chief point 2X judgment, and causing 
 the parallelism to stand thus — 
 Full of judgment ; 
 Righteousness lodging in her, but now murderers : 
 
 ruining thereby the parallelism of sense entirely. In 
 the Edition of Michaelis this is rectified, and the 
 parallelism of accent is made to harmonise with the 
 parallelism of sense which ought always to be the case. 
 
 In common editions, instead of the Rbhia on judgment, 
 an accent subordinate to the Tippecha on her, there 
 stands a Zaqeph on judgment, an accent subordinate 
 only to Silluq. 
 
 A few general principles may here be stated. 
 
 The distinguents are divided into great aud small, the 
 great standing at the end of great clauses, the small 
 standing in subordination to these at the close of smaller 
 clauses. In punctuating, it is best, first of all, to set 
 down the two greatest, Silluq at the end and Atlmach 
 in the middle of the verse, and if there seems to be a 
 third proposition under Atlmach, it is to be marked with 
 Sgolta on its last word. In punctuating single clauses, 
 the same logical process is to be observed. 
 
 Distinctives, according to their power and relation to 
 another distinctive, are called minors, majors, maximi,
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 43 
 
 etc. Accents of less distinctive power than the minors 
 are named minimi, wliich in Prose are less frequent than 
 in Poetry, and have generally no proper independent 
 sign, being usually a mere repetition or some other 
 combination of servants. It Avill seldom happen that all 
 these various grades w^ill occur in any single verse. 
 
 It is of consequence to remark that the order of occur- 
 rence of the distinctives is unchangeable, viz., minor, 
 major, maximus from end towards beginning of the verse. 
 Some powers may be omitted, but a great power never 
 stands before a less in the same clause. ^ Thus counting 
 from the place of Silluq, its distinguents should stand — 
 minor, Tippecha ; major, Zaqeph ; maximus, Athnach. 
 It is not necessary that all should appear, but the order 
 must not be confused, so as to put the major before the 
 minor, or the maximus before the major, if they both 
 actuall}^ occur. 
 
 After placing a great disting-uent and another — the 
 minor — relatively to it, if there are still several Avords 
 unexhausted, it will depend on the logical relation of the 
 Avords whether ncAV distinguents will be placed relatively 
 to the first great distinguent or relatively to the small 
 distinguent already placed in subordination to the 
 greater one. For example, Gen. i., 14, in the clause of 
 Athnach, to divide between the day and the n'ujht. 
 
 If we take the four last words, the disunion falls natu- 
 rally at day, which Avill assume the minor Tippecha, 
 and between in both cases will be marked by a servant, 
 thus , , 
 
 rh'hr\ rn^ D?n r^ 
 
 t:at-)j" v.- \i - 
 
 there still remains SniH? to designate logically. Is, 
 then, the relation thus ? 
 
 * A fow cases occur of apparent inversion. See sections on Pashta, 
 Zarqa, and Tbhir, whose minors and majors are sometimes transposed.
 
 44 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 To divide, 
 
 To divide, between the dnj ; 
 
 To divide, between tlie day ; and between the night. 
 or is it the following ? 
 
 To divide ; 
 
 To divide ; between the day and betAveenthe night. 
 It is evidently the latter, for there are only two notions, 
 division and da^ and nicjlit. The idea divide is not sub- 
 ordinate to dcvj merely, but to the wdiole expression day 
 and night, since division or separation implies at least 
 two things separated ; that is, divide will be punctuated 
 relatively to the accent on night, at the end of the whole 
 expression. 
 
 T :at - |/ • V - \ , ■■ • : - : 
 
 the accent being Zaqeph Gadhol, the greater distinguent 
 to Athnacli. 
 
 Hence will be understood the other great principle, 
 that Hebrew punctuation is relative, not absolute. ^ It 
 does not give absolute sense, but relative subordination 
 of idea. It may give sense, but it of necessity gives 
 relative subordination. And the question to be asked in 
 setting down a distinguent greater or less, is not. does 
 the clause over wliich this distinguent is to preside, give 
 absolute or unconnected meaning of itself;* but do these 
 distinctives, etc., indicate fairly the proper relative sub- 
 ordination of clauses to the verse, of clausules to the 
 clause, of words to the clausule, and so on 't 
 
 Several accents are capable of repetition, that is, two 
 or more of the same accent may appear together under 
 the government of tlie same great disjunctive. In such 
 cases the second or repctitus, that is, the accent nearest 
 the beginning of the verse is of greater distinctive and 
 pausal power than the same accent wliich stands nearer 
 the end. If it be repeated three times it increases in 
 power each time toward the commencement of the stanza. 
 
 5 Against Boston and the older accentuists, who maintained that the 
 accents gave absolute sense.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 45 
 
 And thus the repetitus is not dependent on any inter- 
 mediate accent but on the g-peat distinguent at the end 
 of the chiuse, so that its influence extends over one or 
 more accents of the same name with itself standing 
 nearer the end of the verse. Gen. viii. 3, amd the 
 waters abated at the end of a hundred and ffty days. 
 
 The accent on waters extends over the same accent on 
 end, making' the relation thus — 
 
 And the waters abated ; 
 
 At the end, of a hundred and fifty days.^ 
 The series of words under the power of an accent are 
 said to form the dltio or government of the accent. An 
 accent always stands on the last word of its ditio, that 
 is, the word nearest the end of the verse ; and the words 
 preceding it towards the beginning are all under its 
 influence, and every accent placed on them is placed 
 relatively to tlie great accent on the last word, mediately 
 or immediately. The d'ltio of an accent extends toward 
 the beginning of a verse until the occurrence of an 
 accent greater than itself (which greater accent, how- 
 ever, may be itself repetitus), where its authority ends 
 and the next set of words are under the government of 
 this new ruler, whose territory extends either to the 
 beginning of the verse or till another greater accent 
 presents itself. It thus happens that a great distinctive 
 rales a d'dio under which are several subordinate ditiones, 
 under the authority of lesser distinctives. 
 
 Considering that the Hebrew accentuation is a sensuous 
 declamation, an oratory not for the ear but the eye, to 
 appreciate it aright will have on us the same efl'ect as if 
 we heard a living voice declaiming the Bible in tones 
 perfectly natural and perfectly expressive. Those who 
 understand it Avill feel how far even the marvellous 
 melody and meaning of our English falls below it, and 
 how much m9re expressive our translation would liave 
 
 * Tlie first verse in Isaiah funiislies a good example.
 
 46 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 been had it adhered with more fidelity in its punctuation 
 to the Hebrew. Thus in Is. i. 2, our version points, 
 " Hear, heavens ; and gixe ear, earth : for the Lord 
 hath spoken, I have nourished," etc. The Hebrew runs, 
 Hear Heavens ! and give ear Earth ! for Jehovah, hath 
 spoken : I have nourished, etc. The English by putting- 
 the chief accent at earth and only a comma at spoken, 
 loses the fine idea of the original (which puts the chief 
 pause at spoken), that Heaven and Earth must hear 
 simply because Jehovah hath spoken. The speaker de- 
 mands attention independently of what he says. Hence 
 the Masoretes, with fine appreciation, put the chief pause 
 at spoken, and another pause at Jehovah, which last is 
 equivalent to our underlining or emphasis in utterance. 
 A pretty instructive example occurs Genesis, vi. 17, 
 which runs thus in our translation : " Behold I, even I, 
 do bring a flood of waters upon the earths This transla- 
 tion is in defiance, first, of the accentuation ; second, of 
 one of tlie best known rules of Hebrew syntax, viz., that 
 a noun in construction never admits the article;''' and, 
 third, of the analogy offered by chap. vii. 6, where, 
 however, our translators, determined to have their fa- 
 vourite "flood of waters" promoted, bring the words 
 fiood and waters into the genitive relation though they 
 be actually separated by a verb and a semicolon, 
 
 l5l D''X5 T\*^T\ ;X^!S\ — the flood was — waters upon the 
 earth. Hxcept once or twice the word 7^!lO stands 
 always as a definite noun with the article, and the phrase 
 
 D**^ 7^3^ " flood of waters," does not occur, but instead 
 of it SVS^n ""y^ , waters of the flood ; and the expression 
 T"!!l^r' '^y ^•'''^ ^^ °^-^y ^^ exegetical gloss for the purposes 
 of explanation, " Noah was six hundred years old when 
 
 ■^ A few exceptions proving the rule are met with, e.g l-IK'S ^^??n 
 where the second noun bein^ a proper name cannot, according to the lule, 
 take the article, and hence it is thrown upon the first, a very emphatic 
 definition of the person being expressed.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 47 
 
 the flood was — waters upon the earth." " Behold I do 
 bring- the flood, — waters upon the earth ; to destroy," etc. 
 It is to be expected, seeing our translation gives the 
 general sense so accurately, that it will be only finer 
 shades of meaning that the study of the accents will 
 supply ; yet these finer shades give generally the 
 acutest pleasure to a cultivated reader or exegete. In 
 Job xiv. 7, our translation reads, " For there is hope of a 
 tree if it be cut down that it will sprout again." The 
 Masoretic accentuation is — 
 
 For a tree hath hope : 
 
 If it be cut down, then it will sprout ag'ain . . . 
 
 But man dieth, and wasteth away, etc. 
 
 There is something more hopeless and pathetic in putting 
 the first line categorically and not hypothetically as our 
 Bible does ; and then, in addition, the Masoretes strongly 
 accent tree, which we can only do in writing by under- 
 lining. 
 
 A more palpable case might be found in the same 
 Book, chap. ix. 19. " If / speak of strength ; lo, he 
 is Strom/ : and if of judgment, who shall set me a time 
 toplead," the words " I speak" not being in the Hebrew. 
 Here the first member of the verse has evident reference 
 to God, but the second seems to refer to Job himself, 
 which is extremely unlikely from the regularity of the 
 parallelism in this Book. At any rate, the first member 
 is translated, both in contradiction to the accents and 
 in contradiction to the usage of n^H which stands 
 first in its clause with no word before it. According to 
 the accents, the words strength and strong are a genitive 
 relation — if I speak of streugth of the strong — lo ! But 
 plainly the word lo ! is an interjection supposed to come 
 from God himself, and might be more expressively 
 rendered here ! or here I am ! 
 
 Is it a question of strength, — " Here I am !" (He cries.) 
 A question of law, " Who will implead me T 
 The Deity is felt by Job to be too much for him in any
 
 48 nEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 encounter. If lie thinks to confront him with force, 
 the Alniij^-hty is ready and willing" for anght in that 
 way ; if he would take the law of Him, where is the 
 man or the court that will venture to sist Him ? 
 
 A very singular specimen of bidding defiance to ac- 
 cent is to be found in Psalm xlv., 5, running so in 
 our version. '* Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of 
 the kino:'s enemies ; mherchy the people fall under 
 thee." This rendering not only defies the accents but 
 permits itself to invert the entire order of the stanza, by 
 di'awing" the first and last clauses together, and by their 
 pressure extruding* altogether the middle clause, which is 
 brought up at the end under the ignominious leading of 
 the halter whereby. In Hebrew the greatest pause is at 
 sharp or sharpened, being the Passive Part. ; the 
 next greatest at thee, and the final stop at h'lng ; read- 
 ing thus — 
 
 Thine arrows are sharp : — ■ 
 
 Peoples fall under thee ! — 
 
 In the heart of the enemies of the king I 
 Does it need a very powerful imagination to see a Avhole 
 campaign here ? A warrior — who is the fairest of the 
 sons of men, but yet the Mighty God — is seen stalking 
 into the field with sharpened weapons, — the same, mow- 
 ing down nations, — fields of slain, each with a well- 
 aimed javelin in his heart ! The poets imagination out- 
 runs his power of expression, and makes his picture 
 hurried and irregular. He sees scene follow scene with 
 the rapidity of lightning, and utters a haist}'- half- 
 broken exclan'ip.tlon at each new step in the warrior's 
 pro^rot3s,-r-the preparation, the conflict, the victory.^ 
 
 9 Hence the intolerable nature of all those translations which supply 
 any connective words, or paraphrase in any way this most graphic 
 pass»"-e For example, De Wettc, and even Ewald, from whose taste, if 
 not fidelity, something better might have been looked for, supply the verb 
 drinqen ■ ' scharf dringen deine Pfeile, Ew : Deine scharten Pfeile— 
 drino-en 'Dc AV. Even Uupfcld's exposition is liable to the same objection ; 
 and only Dolitzsch, as usual, has delicacy enough to realize what is ex- 
 pressed by the original.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 49 
 
 And nothing is more surprising than the complete- 
 ness with which the Masoretic punctuators enter 
 into the spirit of the passage, and, indeed, did no 
 example but the present exist of their fidelity and fine 
 taste, it would be enough to induce us to put our- 
 selves almost completely under their direction. In 
 order well to express the rapidity and almost terrified 
 breathlessness with which the last two exclamations in 
 this verse are to be uttered, these Masoretes dispense 
 with one of the commonest rules of their prosody, viz., 
 that under Athnach there must be a long and pausal 
 vowel, and allow here a simple Sheva l7£l'! . 
 
 Under this general head oi feeling, two species of 
 punctuation deserve to be noticed — emphatic punctua- 
 tion and pathetic punctuation. To express emphasis, 
 slowness and firmness of utterance is necessary. Hence 
 in emphatic punctuation, accents of greater weight will 
 be employed than in ordinar}^ discourse, servants will 
 become minimi, minors rise into majors, majors will be 
 repeated or turn into maximi. The clausules will be 
 short and decided, and thus solemnity and dignity con- 
 tributed to the delivery. Thus Hosea vi. 10 ; 
 
 in the house of Israel! 
 
 I have seen — a horrible thing, 
 the greatest pause is at Israel, where there is an inten- 
 tional break to keep Israel, with all its divine environ- 
 ment and all the history which the name suggested, as 
 long as possible before the mind. Then another pretty 
 gi'eat pause at seen, but represented by a dash, as if the 
 speaker hesitated and trembled to utter the last word — a 
 horrible thing. In ordinary delivery, such a clause 
 would have stood punctuated thus 
 
 The second variation from the plain accentuation may 
 be called the mpamoned. This s^yle is the reverse of
 
 50 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 tlie last, being designed to indicate rapidity and pas- 
 sionate nttcrance. Hence accents of less power will be 
 employed than in ordinary circumstances ; minors will 
 become servants, majors become minors, which, in some 
 circumstances, may be repeated ; <lie words will be 
 hurried, and come thick in succession, with hardly any 
 pause between. There may also be frequent use of the 
 Maqqeph binding* several words into one. An example 
 of impassioned punctuation is found in Is. i. 4. 
 
 They have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the 
 Holy One of Israel to anger, they are gone away back- 
 ward. All the accents are small, the greatest being at 
 anger. 
 
 Another example may be given from the next verse. 
 
 ATT J • ■^'^ -J ■: }■: '^- 
 
 The English translation is somewhat against the accentua- 
 tion as well as the syntax, — Why should ye be stricken 
 any more ? Ye will revolt more and more ; for the 
 accentuation gives but one idea in the clause, but the 
 idea is compound, containing two conceptions, stricken 
 more and molt more ; but these are made to coalesce, 
 thus : Why should ye be stricken any more, revolting 
 more and more ? This, indeed, is the rendering of the 
 Seventy, 7rpoaTidevT€<i avofitav ; and of the Vulgate, 
 addcntcs jproevaricationcm ; and is approved by Ewald 
 and Drechsler.^ 
 
 Thus, to resume the chief facts of interpunction, the 
 end of a verse is marked by Silluq, the middle of a verse 
 by Athnach, the middle of Athnach's clause, or, at least, 
 the greatest division in it, by Sgolta. Silluq and 
 Athnach cannot appear without Tippecha to introduce 
 them, nor Sgolta without Zarqa. If the immediate 
 clause of Silluq, that is the series of words extending 
 
 3 Ewald, Propbctcn des Alt. Bundes, i. s. 245, " fcrner siindigend.' 
 Drecliskr, Der Proph. Jcsaia, s, 53, " mebrend Abfall." See their respec- 
 tive notes.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 51 
 
 from the verse end to Athnach, be divisible into two 
 chief clauses, this division is effected by the major 
 Zaqeph. !?o precisely with the clause of Athnach. If, 
 again, tliis half clause under Zaqeph is to be subdivided, 
 the division is effected by Rbhia (see table § 5), etc. In 
 this way there is seldom any ambiguity in sense as there 
 is in English, because the accents being not absolute but 
 relative, and their relations well defined and unchang'e- 
 able, it is at once seen in Avhat relation they stand, and 
 how far their influence extends. Hence no principle is 
 of such importance in Hebrew accentuation as the prin- 
 ciple that the influence of an accent extends as far as the 
 great accent under which it is immediately placed. In 
 English, for example, the passage, *' There is no peace, 
 saith my Grod, to the wicked," Is. Ivii. 21, is quite 
 ambig-uous. It may mean, there is no peace to the 
 wicked, saith my God — speaking of them ; or there is 
 no peace, saith my God to the wicked — speaking to 
 them. The former is the sense generally extracted from 
 the English, the latter is the meaning presented by the 
 accentuation. 
 
 •.D^ytf'nS jhSn* im DiS^ px 
 
 Where the accent on peace, viz., Zaqeph is one that 
 stands in immediate relation to Silluq, and thus puts 
 the clause which it bounds in co-ordination to the 
 remaining words after it, thus — 
 
 "No peace !" 
 
 Saith my God to the wicked. 
 
 It is a defiance and proclamation of eternal war between 
 Him and them, which God throws down before the 
 wicked. 
 
 Sometimes, indeed, as in the well kno\\Ti passage. 
 Hab. ii. 4, the just shall live by his faith, some doubt
 
 52 HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 may arise, because the distinctives are employed to 
 emphasise, that is to accent rhythmically, when there is 
 no proper logical or -syntactical distinction. The pre- 
 sent case 
 
 looked at superficially, reads : The just by his faith 
 shall live ; and not, the just shall live by his faith. But 
 if the accentuator meant to emphasise yi^ri^/^, as being in 
 any way the principle of life, he had no means of accom- 
 plishing his end, but by putting a disjunctive on fan h. 
 So that, curiously enough, the passage is left ambi- 
 guous, as it is in Greek, even by the accentuation, 
 though there is little doubt from the context that our 
 English rendering is correct. The ambiguity of the 
 Hebrew could be preserved by writing thus, the just by 
 his, faith shall live. ^° 
 
 10 Some prefer to put the Tippecha or disjunctive on p^'^V- See 
 Mich. Heb. Bib. note on the piissage. According- to him, four Erfurt 
 MSS.,the Ed. of Bomber*?, Venice, 1618; of Buxtorf, Basle, 1620; the 
 Antwerp Ed., 1571; the Ed. of R. Stephens, Paris, 1546; the English 
 Polyglot, and some others, place the Tippecha on this word. See the 
 common punctuation deieridcd, Hitzig: die 12 kleinen Propheten, s. 260, 
 and especially the exogctically exquisite commentary of Delitzsch on 
 Hab., s. 50, where the common meaning is shewn to be quite consistent 
 with the common punctuation.
 
 HEBREW ACCEiNTUATION. 53 
 
 § 5. TABLE OF PROSE ACCENTUATION. 
 
 J [pi 1} cp , ^ 
 
 — — — — etc. |! — — — — etc. — — etc. 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The lines marked I., II., etc., represent the Dis- 
 junctives, the intermediate lines form their respective 
 
 connectives. 
 
 2. II, contains the minors of the opposite accents 
 in I., and the last accent on 11. is the common major to 
 those in I. 
 
 3. III. contains the minors to the opposite accents 
 in II., and the last accent in III. is the common major 
 to those in II. 
 
 4. The consecution at the back of the vinculum is 
 the proper consecution of Rbhia, but is common to it 
 with all the accents in III., which is indicated by the 
 vinculum. 
 
 5. The oblique stroke drawn to the Qadma, the ser- 
 vant of Geresh, indicates that the Geresh may itself be 
 omitted, and the consecution commence with Qadma. 
 When Geresh is so omitted after any of the accents in 
 III., the servant of III. will be found invariably present, 
 and this servant will then assume the functions of 
 Geresh, standing as a very slight disjunctive. The 
 reason of the omission of Geresh is. that the two clauses
 
 54 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 .^lide into each other, and in this way extrude the dis- 
 junctive, the sense demanding* hardly any pause. 
 
 6, The consecution with or without Geresh, common 
 to the accents in III., may proceed in either of two ways. 
 If, after ^ Qadma, the servant of Geresh, there be a word 
 pretty closely related to the word marked with Qadma 
 or Geresh, it will take upon it ^riisha Qtannah ; if there 
 follow several more toward the beginning of the verse, 
 all more or less closely related, they will each take 
 Munach, or, if one be slightly disjoined, a Psiq may be 
 inserted to indicate the disjunction. If, however, a real 
 distinction be required between Tlisha Qtannah and the 
 beginning of the verse, this distinction is made by Pazer. 
 If there still stand between Pazer and the commence- 
 ment of the verse a number of words, each will take 
 Munach if they are connected ; if a slight disjunction is 
 necessary, a Psiq may be used with one of the Munachs ; 
 if considerable disjunction be required, Pazer will be 
 repeated with the same following as before. This pro- 
 cess seems to go on under the dominion of Geresh ; so 
 that we have Geresh, minor Tlisha Qtannah, major 
 Pazer, repeated if necessary. "-' 
 
 7. But supposing we wanted to carry on the conse- 
 cution under the government of III., to which Geresh 
 serves as common minor : then, as major to III. we put 
 Tlisha Gdolah, which has the same consecution as 
 T. Qtannah ; that is, a series of connected words will 
 each take Munach, if there be a slight distinction or 
 emphasis on one it will insert a Psiq ; but if there be 
 a great distinction, Pazer will be used, which follows 
 the same course, taking Munach or Munach Psiq, or, if 
 necessary, repeating itself and again going through the 
 same course, the Pazer being repeatable live times. The 
 process, therefore, is III., Geresh minor to 111., Tlisha 
 Gdolah major to III., Pazer maximus to III. 
 
 ' That is nearer the beginninij of the verse. 
 
 ^ It is somewhat difficult to define the relation of the word marked by 
 Tlisha Qtannah.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 55 
 
 8. Instead of Pazer may be used the conjimction of 
 the Tlishas, called Qanie-pharah or Great Pazer. This 
 compound accent carries with it the same consecution 
 as the simple Pazer, except that the word next it 
 must have under it Yerach ben Ycmo ; the rest 
 will assume Munach or Munach Psiq if necessary, 
 and as Qarne-pharah does not bear repetition, if repeti- 
 tion be necessary, Pazer will be the major repetitus. 
 The Masorah reckons 16 cases ^ where Great Pazer is 
 employed. See Joshua xix., 51, for a very instructive 
 consecution. 
 
 The above table presents the most general features of 
 the prose system. For fuller details and exceptional 
 cases, the following sections must be consulted. 
 
 ^ See Nordheimer's Heb. Grammar, toI. ii., p. 342, note.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 5, C. CLAUSE OF SILLUQ. 
 
 lU I; 
 
 l— twice.) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The servant or connective (or if the name be pre^ 
 ferred, Depression) to Silluq is always Mercha. Bible 
 passim. 
 
 2. If the word next Silluq be accompanied by a 
 slight panse, a Psiq will be inserted betAveen the two 
 words, Exod. xvi. 5, Mercha Psiq is then in the 
 nomenclature of Ouseel and others, called the minimus 
 of Silluq. 
 
 3. The minor to Silluq is Tippecha. Bible passim. 
 This minor necessarily occurs if the clause be of more 
 than one word. (5) 4.) 
 
 Occasionally Silluq assumes Tippecha upon its own 
 word ; Tippecha then takes the place of Metheg, Levit. 
 xxi. 4. The Masorah on this passage records that 
 five such cases occur. Numb. xv. 21 ; Isai. viii. 17 ; 
 Hosea xi. 6 ; 1 Chron. ii. 53 ; but the diversity in Edd. 
 is extraordinary.^ 
 
 4. The major to Silluq is Zaqeph, Gadhol or Qaton. 
 The former can be employed only in clauses of one 
 word, that is, admits neither servant nor consecution. 
 This major Zaqeph cannot occur unless the minor Tip- 
 pecha be already present, but may be repeated. It is 
 found once, Gen. i. 2 ; twice. Gen. iii. 17 ; three times, 
 Gen. iii. 1 ; four times, 2 Sam. xvii, 9. It is remarked 
 
 ' See these cases discussed Ouseel, p. 365 ; Spitzner, p. 123 ; Nord- 
 heimer ii., p. 335 note.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 57 
 
 by Ouseel that this repetition is rare unless Athnach 
 be present in the verse, and not exceeding twice in the 
 absence of this accent. ^ 
 
 0. The parentliesis marks the termination of Silluq's 
 clause. If the verse contain another great clanso, this 
 latter is always under the government of Athnach, that 
 is, Athnach stands on its last word and all its accents 
 are placed relatively to it, mediately or immediately. 
 Only t7vo places occur where Sgolta takes the place of 
 Athnach. Job i. 8 ; Ezra vii. 13. ^ Spitzner accounts 
 for this last passage by supposing that Sgolta occupies 
 its proper place in the clause, that Athnach should have 
 fallen on the penultimate word, which it might have 
 done had not the last word been monosyllabic, but this 
 circumstance caused Tippecha to assume the place of 
 Athnach — an explanation which shews that the thing is 
 inexplicable. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say that the above skeleton 
 outline of Silluq's clause contains only the servant of 
 Silluq, and the accents placed immediately with refer- 
 ence to Silluq. There will, in all probability, be a great 
 many more words than three or four in Silluq's clause, 
 but the other words will be only mediately under Silluq, 
 and immediately under the influence of Silluq's dis- 
 tinctives, Tippecha and Zaqeph. This remark applies 
 to all the outlines that are to follow. 
 
 - Chapter iv., p. 48. 
 
 ^ Ouseel, chap, iv., p. 83. Ewald takes no notice of the passage in 
 Ezra, and explains the passage in Job as a mistake, from Job ii. 3; where 
 the same words occur and with the same accents, Athnach, however, 
 being also present in the verse — " Ijob i. 8, muss sich aus 2, 3 eia 
 Fehler eingesclilichen haben." Gram., p. 186 7iote. The same explana- 
 tion had already been offered by Spitzner, p. 125.
 
 58 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 7. CLAUSE OF ATHNACU. 
 
 etc. f - 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1, Servant to Athnach is Munach. Bih]e passim. 
 
 2. If the word next Atlmach's word would have a 
 slight pause upon it, Psiq is inserted between it and 
 Athnach's word. Gen, xviii. 15, 21 : and often. Sup- 
 pose two words require to be joined to Athnach's word, 
 each of them will take Munach. The rhythm cannot, 
 however, tolerate long words here, no case occurs where 
 both words bearing Munach are not monosyllables.^ 
 See Exod. iii. 4 ; xii. 39 ; Numb. xxii. 36 ; 1 Sam. 
 xvii. 39; xxvii. 13. 2 Sam. xii. 19 ; 1 Ivings xxi. 16, 
 etc. In Ezek. viii. 6, a curious case occurs pHp, both 
 Munachs resting on one word, the Qri, however, is 
 Dnnp. Munach Psiq and Munach Munach are called 
 by Ouscel minimi ; whether they are to be so called or 
 whether they are servants is merely a question of 
 nomenclature. ^ 
 
 The following cases are to be noted where Munach 
 appears on the same word as Athnach. Gen. xxx. 11 ; 
 Hosea vii. 15 ; 1 Chron. v. 20. In the first passage, the 
 
 ' The case Deut. xxxi. 23 DPI? ^nVSt?'? "IK'K is more correctly written 
 with Maqqcph "IK'X leaving room for only one Munach. 
 
 - Spitzner lays down the canon : Servi duo pluresve, suo, non vicario 
 officio, juxta se positi, nullibi apparent. In which case some one of two 
 servants must appear, not as servant, but as distinctive (p. 107.) On the 
 other side, Boston, chap, xii., Apud me quidem nihil habet dubitationis 
 quin officium ministrorum conjunctivum sit perpetuum plane et in- 
 variatuniy &c.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 59 
 
 Qri recommends the pronunciation of two words. In 
 ordinary circumstances, a Metheg would be found in- 
 stead of the Munach. 
 
 3. The minor to Athnach is Tippecha, subject to 
 exactly the same conditions as in the case of Silluq ; 
 that is, if Athnach's clause consist of more than one 
 word, Tippecha must be employed, Bible pass. It is 
 noted by the Masorah that Tippecha occurs eleven times 
 on the same word with Athnach. Numbers xxviii. 26 ; 
 Jerem. ii. 31 ; Ezek. x. 13 ; in the other eight cases the 
 word is compound. Gen. viii. 18 ; 2 Kings ix. 2 ; 
 Ezek. vii. 25; xi, 18 ; Kuth i. 10 ; Dan. iv. 9 and 18 ; 
 2 Chron. xx. 8.^ The printed Edd. present extraor- 
 dinary variety. In Hahn's Ed. of Vander Ilooght only 
 the first two and last cited passages exhibit the pecu- 
 liarity, while the third passage has Metheg, and all the 
 others are printed separately. 
 
 4. The major to Athnach is Zaqeph, precisely as in 
 the case of Silluq, and subject to the same laws. It 
 may be repeated as often as four times, and when re- 
 peated is often followed by Sgolta, If repeated four 
 times, Sgolta always appears except in one passage. 
 2 Chron. viii. 13.* 
 
 The parenthesis marks the close of Athnach's clause. 
 The question whether Sgolta be an accent under Ath- 
 nach or co-ordinate with Athnach is not of great im- 
 portance, though the former view is most probably the 
 correct one. Practically the influence of Athnach ends 
 with Sgolta, which cannot be repeated, and has its own 
 peculiar consecution. Spitzner and Ouseel subordinate 
 Sgolta to Athnach, the former holding the accentual 
 principle to be a Dichotomy. Ewald, who believes the 
 accentual principle to be a Trilogy, maintains the inde- 
 pendence of Sgolta. Boston is, as usual, emphatic: 
 Sgolta est Dominus primarius, Athnacho minime infe- 
 rior, verumjoar dignitate, p. 95. 
 
 ' See Ouseel, p. 365-6; Spitzner. { 158. 
 * Spitzner. § 148. Ouseel, p. 182.
 
 60 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 8. CLAUSE OF SGOLTA 
 
 ^} 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. Sgolta cannot occur without its minor Zarqa. If 
 the nature of the passage be such that Sgolta is logically 
 required on a word which is the first word of the verse, 
 Sgolta necessarily gives place to its representative 
 Shalsheleth with Psiq.^ The sound of this accent is 
 a circumflex or triple shake, which is indicated by its 
 figure. Gen. xix. 16 ; xxiv. 12 ; xxxix. 8 ; Lev. viii. 23 ; 
 Is. xiii. 8 ; Amos i. 2. ; Ezra v. 15 — are the passages noted 
 by the Masorah. 
 
 2. The servant of Sgolta is Munach. Bible pass. 
 Should two words be connected with Sgolta, both will 
 take Munach. If a slight pause should be expressed 
 before the Sgolta, a Psiq may be added to the Munach, 
 with this condition, however, that the third word also 
 invariably has Munach.^ Instead of the Munach on 
 the third word, some Edd. occasionally write a Mercha. 
 See Gen. iii. 14, in various editions. For two Munachs 
 
 1 That Shalsheleth is the substitute of Sgolta was perceived so early 
 as by Schindler, and is fully recognised by Spitzner, § 152 ; Ewald 
 Lehrbuch, p. 188, 3 ; and Nordheimer, p. 336. The elder accentuists, 
 Buch as Ousecl, considered it the substitute of llbhia; but if the substitute 
 of Rbhia, no good reason can be given why Rbhia itself should not appear, 
 since it can stand in a clause of one word, and on the first word in a verse. 
 It is remarkable that Tregelles should be ignorant of all this. Heads, 
 p. 118. 
 
 ^ Ouseel, p. 185 and 354.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 61 
 
 without Psiq, see Gen. xxii. 9 ; Exod. xvi. 29 ; with 
 Psiq, Gen. xxyi. 28. 
 
 3. The minor of Sg'olta is Zarqa, which is neces- 
 sarily connected with vSgolta, and may appear on the 
 word next that accent or be removed to the fourth word 
 when Munach accents the second and third words. 
 This minor may be repeated three times, 2 Kings i. IG. 
 According to Ouseel, when Zarqa is repeated twice or 
 thrice, the major always follows. 
 
 4. The major to Sgolta is Rbhia, which is capable of 
 repetition. This repetition is uncommon, and extends 
 only to twice, 1 Sam. xxi. 10 ; except in the double 
 punctuation of the Decalogue, Exod. xx. Deut. v., where 
 Rbhia occurs, thrice repeated. Should there be a neces- 
 sity for a fourth repetition, which Rbhia never adujits, 
 Zaqeph is used in the fourth instance, which has been 
 indicated by placing it below the position which the 
 fourth Rbhia would occupy, Exod. xx. 2; Deut. v. 6. 
 Some prefer to call Zaqeph maximus to Sgolta in such 
 a position. 
 
 Diflerent from this is the use of Zaqeph, as the sub- 
 stitute of Rbhia. Three passages are thus punctuated, 
 1 Sam. xi. 11 ; the otherwise irregular passage, Job i. 8 ; 
 and 2 Chron. xiv. 7. Zaqeph may here be called maxi- 
 mus to Sgolta as before. It is, perhaps, chietly a 
 question of name, although, of course, there could be 
 no reason for using Zaqeph instead of Rbhia, unless a 
 greater distinction or another modulation than Rbhia's 
 were intended to be marked, but whether it be a greater 
 pause or a different modulation, or both, seeing modula- 
 tion is the concomitant of pause, it is of no great conse- 
 quence to discover. 
 
 Another peculiarity in the clause of Sgolta is the 
 substitution of Pashta for Rbhia. This usage is subject 
 to conditions which are the reverse of the conditions 
 under which Zaqeph takes Rbhia's place. Fin^t, l*ashta 
 never occurs except when I here is a repetition of the; 
 libhia ; nnd arro^rn/, P;islita lias never juiv consecution or
 
 62 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 servant.' These facts seem to afford some explanation 
 of the usage, the principle of which is, perhaps, this : 
 the laws of inflection do not permit two Rbhias to stand 
 in immediate proximity. If the logical division would 
 require such interpunction, the logic must give way and 
 one Rbhia is replaced by Pashta.'* 
 
 2 One passage, 1 Sam. xiv. 45, has a servant. See Deut. xii. 18 ; Josh, 
 xviii. 14 ; 2 Sam. iii. 8; 1 Kings xii. 10 ; xviii. 21 ; 2 Chron. x. 10. 
 
 * It is to be remarked, with regard to this explanation, that the laws 
 of poetic modulation do not sanction it, for in poetry two Rbhias appear 
 in immediate proximity.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 63 
 
 § 9. CLAUSE OF ZAQEPH. 
 
 li 
 
 — (thrice) 
 
 — (four times) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. Zaqeph has two signs, the second being the 
 simple Zaqeph and Psiq ])i'etixed, called then Zaqeph 
 Gadhol. The former is tlie most common; the latter 
 can occur only in d'lt'ione unias vocis, that is in clauses 
 of a single word, admitting neither servant nor conse- 
 cution. Zaqeph Qaton can, however, also occur in 
 clauses of a single word, and the rules for placing 
 Zaqeph Gadhol are somewhat subtle (note 5). 
 
 2. The servant of Zaqeph is Munach, Viihle passim. 
 If a pause less than that indicated by the minor occur 
 immediately before Zaqeph, the Munach may attach to 
 itself a Psiq, Ezek. iii. 27 ; though Codd. diti'er. ^ If 
 two words are connected in sense with Zaqeph's word, 
 both will assume Munach, though if there be room for 
 it, one Munach may stand on Zaqeph's own word. 
 Compare Gen. iii. 12, with Gen. xxxvi. 32. 
 
 When Pashta, the minor, must stand logically on the 
 second word, in that case also Zaqeph's word may 
 assume Munach upon itself. This Munach will then 
 stand where a Metheg might otherwise stand, Gen. 
 
 ^ It seems a variety of this when the word which is connected bears 
 upon it both a Munnch and jMcrcha, Gon. xxviii. 2 and 6. Numbers 
 XTii. 23. In such cases the Mercha, which in some editions is Metheg, 
 can only be intended to keep up the tone and prevent the last syllable 
 from being altoijother toneless.
 
 64 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 vii. 21 ; ix. 15 ; but not g:enerally on the first letter of 
 a word, on which the Metheg must be allowed to 
 remain, Gen. xl. 19, though often Metheg is retained 
 even not on the first letter, and pretty often Munach 
 falls on this letter. Gen xxv. 9, in some editions 
 
 ^nnn . Exod. v. 7 ; Ex. iv. 26. ^ 
 
 3. The minor of Zaqeph is Pashta. Bible passim. 
 Sometimes Ythibh is used for minor under the following 
 conditions — in ditione unius vocis, without servant or 
 following of any kind, on a monosyllable or dissyllable 
 penacute, having nothing, not even simple sheva, before 
 the tone. Ythibh is always placed before the voAvel 
 which it accents, Gen. xxxi. 7 ; Dent. i. 4. ^ Zaqeph 
 in ditione unius vocis, may assume Pashta, its minor, on 
 its own word, under certain restrictions. It cannot 
 stand on the first * letter of a word, but may stand on 
 the second or third, provided this syllable be shut, and 
 provided, between this sjdlable and the place of Zaqeph, 
 there be a syllable, simple or composite sheva, however, 
 sufficing in this case to form a syllable. '^ 
 
 2 See Spitzner, sec. 171-173. 
 
 3 Ythibh, it is evident, is simply Mahpach, the servant of Pashta, with 
 another name and position as well as function ; and Ewald acutely con- 
 jectures that it was tliou<::;ht cnouph in the case of the single word to ex- 
 pand the pronunciation of the Mahpach, and elevate it thus into a slight 
 distinctive. That it is a distinctive, appears from Zachar, iv 6. where 
 Dag. Icne follows it. When Ewald adds that Zaqeph's word does not 
 then willingly assume Munndi upon itself, quoting Deut. xi. 21, as au- 
 thority, his remark is liardly justified by usage. Exod. v. 7 ; 2 Sam. 
 i. 22, etc. Lchrhuch, p. 180, sec. 97 w.. 
 
 * Cut that this is not an unchangeable principle is proved by Gen. 
 xix. 27. Nordheimcr (ii. p. 337 b) is wrong in restricting the position of 
 Pashta to the second letter ; it may stand also on the first. Gen. xix. 27 ; 
 or third. Lev. xxii. 12. He is also not suflicieiitly precise when he says 
 that a vowel is requisite between the two accents, seeing a simple move- 
 able sbeva is sufficient, Gen. xxxiv. 12. It will be found that usually a 
 simple sheva precedes the Pashta, but occasionally vav, with Shureq, and 
 even a short vowel. Gen. xxi. 33 ; sometimes both Shureq and a vowel, 
 Lev. xxii. 12. Conf. Spitzuer, p. 139-140. Ewald, Lehrbuch, p. 181. 
 
 * Now may be understood the general principle on which Zaqeph 
 Gadhol takes the pbicc of Z. Qaton. Of course it must bo 'V di.fione 
 um'us vo<'ts, and hoKidra (his it will gcnorallv be on a word n( such sort,
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 65 
 
 4. The major to Zaqeph is Rbhia. Bible 2^assim. 
 This major may be repeated four times, but in such 
 cases Pashta will be substituted for one or more of the 
 Rbhias. In general, ^ when Rbhia is to be repeated 
 there must be three or more words between the Rbhias ; 
 in other terms, a Rbhia succeeded by another Rbhia 
 nearer the beginning of the verse, must have a govern- 
 ment of three or more words, \yhen the Rbhia, nearest 
 Zaqeph, presides over a ditio of fewer than three words, 
 its place is taken by Pashta, which then seems repetitus, 
 Gen. i. 7. But the principle is best seen when the 
 second or third Rbhia has too few words between it and 
 its successor, Gen. ix. 12 ; Exod. iv. 18. See Spitzner, 
 sec. 167. Ouseel, p. 241 ff. Of course if Pashta take 
 the place of Rbhia, Ythibh, the substitute of Pashta, 
 may also do so imder the ordinary conditions of its own 
 appearance. 
 
 that neither iMetheg, nor Munach, nor Pashta, can be placed upon it, in 
 addition to Zaqeph. See the rules in 2 and 3. But this is only a general 
 rule, for it actually occurs where Metheg and Munach might be found. 
 Gen. xxvi. 26 : though, perhaps, not where Pashta could appear. The 
 word will generally be short, and thus the accent whidi is composed in 
 this way of the union of two, will be extended into a kind of circumflex, 
 to indicate which the double sign is employed. Ewald, p. 181. 
 
 fi The rule is only general, for cases occur where Pashta is found in a 
 ditio of four words or even more, Exod. viii. 13; Dent. iii. 21. These 
 exceptions suggest the question, whether the principle of explanation 
 adopted be correct. So far, however, as we have been able to see, PaslUa, 
 when governing a ditio of more than three words, is not substitutus, but 
 repetitus, that is, will always be found immediately next to a Pashta and 
 not next to a Rbhia. Numb. xxii. 5 ; xxvi. 58 ; 2 Sam. ix. 7 ; 1 King.s 
 xiv. 21. Luzzatto, in his curious letter appended to Baor's Torath Enieth, 
 lays down the rule, that if Zaqeph's clause have three divisions, the one 
 next Z. will be made by Pash., the one farthest by Rb., and the middle by 
 R. if the proper interval ( § 10 note 3) occur between it and the furthest ; 
 if not, by Pash. If the clause have four divisions, the nearest two are 
 Pashtas, the furthest two Rbhias, if the required interval appear ; if not, 
 there will be one R. and three P. ; but this being unmusical, the middle 
 Pashta will become Rbhia, so that the accents will alternate, pp. 64-65.
 
 66 JIEBIlliW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 10. CLAUSE OF TIPPECHA. 
 
 . (thrice) ") 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The servant of Tippecha is Mercha. Bible 
 passim. If a slight pause has to be indicated between the 
 servant and Tippecha, the servant may assume a Psiq, 
 Gen. xviii. 15 ; Exod. xxxiv. 23. 
 
 2. The Minor of Tippecha is Tbhir. ]^^\e passim. 
 This minor may l)e repeated once. This repetition is 
 most common, perhaps, when the one Tbhir immediately 
 succeeds the other, Gen. viii. 17. It occurs also fre- 
 quently when a single word intervenes, bearing the 
 servant of Tbhir, Deut. iv. 38 ; and seldom when more 
 than one word intervenes, Deut. xxvi. 2. ^ 
 
 When the clause of Tippecha consists of only two 
 words, besides the word on which itself stands, there 
 happens a crowding together of accents upon the 
 middle word. The clause, if it consist of four words, 
 would appear thus ~ ~~T Tippecha, servant to 
 Tippecha ; minor to Tippecha, servant to minor. But 
 the two clausules run together ; the two middle accents, 
 so to speak, coalesce ; and there appears the following 
 order ~ ~ T, the double Mercha (Mercha Kphulah) 
 representing the broadened accent, which necessarily 
 results from the combination of the two. ^ 
 
 ' Ouseel, chap. 8, sec. 8. 
 
 2 The Masorah on Numbers xxxii. 42, enumerates/o?/r<ee« such cases, 
 in all of which Tippecha's clause consists of three words, excepting
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 07 
 
 3. The major of Tippecha is Ebhia. This Rbhia may 
 bear repetition if necessary, Numb, xxviii. 14. This 
 repetition is only possible, however, owing perhaps to 
 the peculiar sound of Rbhia, when several words inter- 
 vene between the accents ; in other cases a Pashta is 
 substituted for one of the Rbhias, Deut. xxviii. 14 ; 
 Numb. vii. 87 ; Gen. xxxviii. 12.^ 
 
 Ezck. xiv. 4, Avhere the major of Tippecha is found. It is difficult to say 
 whether Mercha Kphulah be a servant or a minor; it seems partly both. 
 For on the one hand and side, the aspirate following does not take Dag. 
 lene, Exod. v. 15; that is, Mercha Kphulah is a servant; and on the 
 other hand and side, the word preceding takes Darga, the servant of 
 Tbhir; that is, Mercha Kphulah appears as a minor disjunctive. Darga 
 occurs without exception. The instances ai'e — Gen. xxvii. 25 ; Ex. v. 15 ; 
 Lev. X. 1 ; Numb. xiv. 3 ; xxxii. 42. 1 Kings x. 3 ; xx. 29 ; Ezek, 
 xiv. 4 ; Zaeh. iii. 2 ; Hab. i. 3 ; Ezra. vii. 25 ; Nehem. iii. 38; 2 Chron. 
 ix. 2 ; XX. 30. See Spitzner, § 182. 
 
 3 Luzzatto, in his letter already alluded to, endeavours to fix the limits 
 of the interchange of R. and P. more rigidly than had been previously 
 attempted. After a severe cut at Caspar Ledebuhr, who made lists of 
 phenomena hut drew no conclusion from them, and an unkinder cut at 
 Wasmtith, who copied out Ledebuhr's lists, especially the mistakes, and 
 concluded that no conclusion was to be drawn from them, R. and P. being 
 used indifferently, Luz. decides that the use of R. succeeded by another R., 
 or of R. succeeded by P. is dependent on the interval between the two 
 accents (D''Dyt2n ^it^' X'lV pmD2 H^'pn). More particularly ; the 
 number of words that intervene between the two Rbhias must be at least 
 four, and these four words must contain at least eig](t vowels. If in the 
 four words there be only seven vowels R. will not be doubled but Pashta. 
 Coiif. Numb. xix. 2, with Jerem. xxxviii. 12. Further, if there are only 
 three words intervening between the words to be marked by Rb., these 
 three words must contain at least ten vowels ; or if fewer, Rb. must give 
 way and Pashta be doubled. Conf. Ezek. xx. 13, or Ezek. xxxviii. 17, 
 with Numb. xxvi. 58. Tor Em., p. 63.
 
 OS HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 ^ 11. CLAUSE OF RBHIA. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The servant of Rbhia is Munacli. Bible passim. 
 Occasionally the Munach stands on Rbhia's own word, 
 Ex. xxxii, 31. Should the third word be more closely 
 united to the second, than the second to the last, the 
 second still takes Munach and the third Darga. This 
 conjunction is called by Oaseel and others, the minimus, 
 and if it occurs at all, must occupy the second and 
 third words. Another minim is Munach with Psiq, 
 which may stand on the second or third word, and may 
 be repeated or may stand next to the first minim which 
 will stand next to Rbhia ; in all which cases of repeti- 
 tion, the minor Geresh will be found. 
 
 2. The minor to Rbhia is Geresh or Gereshayin. 
 The latter can stand only on a word with the accent on 
 the final syllable and prefers no consecution, tolerating 
 at most one word in addition to its own, and this second 
 word must have no syllable, not even Sheva, before the 
 tone. This minor may accent on the word immediately 
 next Rbhia's word.^ 
 
 3. The major of Rbhia is Tlisha Gdholah. 
 
 ' Tills minor Gorcsl , as explained in ^ •'5, often falls ouf.. See next 
 sect! on.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 69 
 
 4. Rbhia's maximus is Pazer. Instead of Pazer 
 may be found the union of the Tlishas, called Qarne- 
 pharah, or Great Pazer: should the maximus require 
 repetition, Pazer itself must be used as repetitus, Qarne- 
 pharah not tolerating to be repeated. See table and 
 explanation, No. 8.^ 
 
 2 Luzzatto in his letter to Baer (Tor. Em., pp. 54-71) endeavours to 
 find some of the principles regulating the use of the minor, major, etc. of 
 Rbhia, etc. He repeats (what he had already said in his I'rolegomeni) his 
 belief that there are only ten distinctive prose accents. Tlish. Gdh. and 
 Pazer have no independent power or place of their own, but are mere sub- 
 stitutes for Geresh. The following are some of the principles regulating 
 their use : — 
 
 (1) Two Ger. cannot come together or be used in succession unless an 
 
 accent of greater power intervene ; in other cases, the Ger. nearest 
 the beginning of the verse becomes Tlish. Gdhol. 
 
 (2) Also Tlish. Gd. cannot be repeated immediately; if, then, Ger. 
 
 should occur three times, the initial one will become Pazer, leaving 
 the middle one Tlish. Gd. as before. 
 
 (3) Tlish. Gd. cannot come immediately next Tlish. Qt. ; in this posi- 
 
 tion it becomes again Pazer (p. 61). 
 
 (4) Also if Geresh fall out but its servant Qadma remain, another Ger. 
 
 nearer the beginning will often become Tlish. Gd. 
 (.5) Geresh is often changed to Tlish. Gdhol. if the word on which it 
 
 stands be small. 
 (6) Although it is generally the Ger. nearest the beginning that becomes 
 
 changed to Tl. Gd., occasionally this remains, and the Ger. nearest 
 
 the verse-end becomes Tlish., p. 62. See his Grammatica della 
 
 Lingua Ebraica, p. 48 and p. 55, etc.
 
 70 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 12. CLAUSES OF TBllIR, ZARQA, AND PASHTA. 
 
 3 ! \ Ex. 8er. Mill, Ma,). Mux. 
 
 it t I — or — I 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The ordinary servant of Tbliir is Darg'a; of 
 Zarqa, Munacli ; and of Pashta, Mabpaeli. 
 
 2. The common extraordinary servant of all is 
 Mercha, which serves Tbhir when between the tone- 
 syllable of Tbhir's word and the tone-syllable of the ser- 
 vant's word there do not intervene two syllables ; Sheva 
 and Pattaeh furtive being* allowed, however, to consti- 
 tute a syllable. 
 
 The same Mercha is servant to Zarqa, as remarked by 
 the Masorah on Ex. vi. 6, in eleven cases, though under 
 what conditions is not easily discoverable. 
 
 Mercha likewise assumes the place of Mahpach as 
 servant to Pashta, when between the tone-syllables of 
 the two words there does not intervene a syllable, 
 though Pattaeh furtive and Sheva are allowed to pass 
 as a syllable. 
 
 Should a distinction slighter than that indicated by 
 the minor be wanted before any of these three 'distinc- 
 tives, a minimus is formed out of their respective ser^ 
 vants, ordinary or extraordinary, with or without Psiq. 
 
 3. Tiie common minor to these accents as to Rbhia 
 is Geresh or Gereshayim, the latter under the same 
 restrictions as in Rbhia's clause. This minor may 
 occupy the word next the distinctive, though not usually.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 71 
 
 and generally only when the word of Rbhia is long or 
 compound. 
 
 As explained under the general tal)le (section o) 
 the Geresh in the clauses of Rbhia, Tbhir, Zarqa and 
 Pashta may fall out, and the two clauses slide into each 
 other, in which case the servants of these four accents 
 assume the functions of Geresh, and act as distinctives. 
 Qadma still continuing its former duty of servant. 
 
 4. The ordinary major to these three accents as to 
 Rbhia is Tlisha Gdholah. In a certain number of cases 
 the minor and major are found transposed. This trans- 
 position, though taking place under Tbhir, Zarqa, and 
 Pashta, does not appear under Rbhia. See Gen. 
 xiii. 1 ; Is. ix. 5 ; Nehem. iii. 15. The transposition is 
 not of common occurrence.^ 
 
 The maximus to Tbhir, Zarqa, and Pashta is Pazer, 
 as in the case of Rbhia. Instead of the Pazer, the 
 double Tlisha Qarne-pharah may occur. In the case of 
 Zarqa, Ezek. xlviii. 21 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 7 ; in the case 
 of Pasha, Josh. xix. 51, etc. ; in the case of Tbhir, Jer. 
 xxxvii. 25.^ 
 
 " See note 2 in § 11, from Luzzatto. 
 
 2 See tb.e cases discussed by Ouseel under these accents respectively.
 
 12 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 13. CLAUSES OF GERESH, PAZER, ETC. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The governments of these accents have been dis- 
 cussed with all necessary fulness in §5 5 under the 
 general table. The servant of Geresh is Qadnia, but 
 with monosyllables or penacutes, it is Munach if in a 
 clause of two words, but if in a greater clause it is still 
 Qadma. If a third word be taken into the society of 
 these, it is accented by Tlisha Qtannah, and all fol- 
 lowing words by Munach, any of which may have Psiq 
 attached. Very rarely Munach with Psiq stands next 
 to Qadma without Tlisha Qtannah, Is. iv. 19. Occa- 
 sionally Qadma will appear on the same word with 
 Geresh, Exod. v. lU. 
 
 2. Pazer places Munach on every word between 
 itself and the beginning of the verse, to which Psiq may 
 be added if a small distinction require to be indicated, 
 but if a great distinction occur, Pazer will be repeated 
 wdth the same following as before. Instead of Pazer, 
 Qarne-pharah occurs eleven times, which must have on 
 the word next it (and it requires a government of several 
 words), Yerach ben Yomo, but all succeeding words 
 will assume Munach. 
 
 3. Tlisha Gdholah, like Pazer, imposes Munach on 
 every word in its clause, to any of which Psiq may be 
 added, if necessary.
 
 POETIC ACCENTUATION 
 
 AS EXHIBITED IN THK 
 
 PSALMS, PEOYEEBS, AND JOB, 
 
 D^oyen "nn^ -ti^ sw Vna ni?y
 
 POETIC ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 1. 
 
 The same principles are to be observed in the poetic 
 as in the prosaic accents. There is a certain order in 
 which disjunctives are found. Counting from the end or 
 place of iSilluq, the ordinary distinctive next to Silluq is 
 called its minor, because its distinctive power relatively 
 to Silluq is of course much less than the distinctive 
 power of an accent nearer the beginning of the verse. 
 Some prefer to call these distinctives Elevations (of the 
 voice). It is a question of name: the elevation is 
 greater the farther from the end. The ordinar}^ dis- 
 tinctive between this one and the beginning of the 
 stanza, if it stands in immediate logical relation to 
 Silluq (and not in immediate logical subordination to 
 this minor) will be greater in power than the first, and 
 may be called Silluq's major ; the third will be its 
 maximus. The same law will apply to any other dis- 
 tinctive taken as the base or final accent of a clause : it 
 may have a number of distinctives all successively and 
 immediately related to it, which will increase in distinc- 
 tive power the further they are removed from it towards 
 the beginning of the verse, and will be named its minor, 
 major, maximus, etc. These are names which are use- 
 ful to indicate the position and order of the distinctives 
 and express the logical principle of the accentuation ; 
 the term elevations or risings, with its opposite, sinkings 
 or fallings, expresses rather the other or rhythmical prin-
 
 76 nEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 ciple. What is called a minimus is an extraordinary 
 distinctive of less poAver than the minor, and has its rise 
 in the principle that of three words which are all con- 
 nected together, some two must stand nearer to each 
 other than any of them does to the third, e.g., 1. 2. 3, 
 will be l-(2. 3) or (I. 2)-3 of necessity. If, then, this 
 distinction be too little for the accent called the minor, 
 this less distinction will be indicated by a sign designated 
 the minimus, which is often a servant or connective 
 with Psiq, or some other combination of servants. This 
 kind of pause is in very many cases not logical at all, 
 but purely oratorical and a Begadh-kephath letter com- 
 ing after it, will not always assume Dagesh. In the 
 Psalms, the use of these slight pauses is an exceedingly 
 intricate matter, and apparently incapable of being re- 
 duced to rule from the almost endless diversity presented 
 by MSS. and Edd. In these exquisite Lyrics the rise 
 and fall and flow of feeling is much more diverse than 
 in ordinary prose composition ; and the accentual sys- 
 tem, like the vowel system, being a true phonography — 
 all these infinitely varied feelings expressed in proper 
 corresponding human tones, to the minutest shade of 
 joy or pain, and made sensible to the eye — we may ex- 
 pect a system of points having some relation in intri- 
 cacy and diversity to the inextricable complexity of the 
 feelings of the human heart and the unexampled capa- 
 city of the human voice to give them utterance. We 
 shall never, perhaps, find the key to this perplexed 
 labyrinth till we can discover something like the vocal 
 values of the separate accents. This we have little 
 means of knowing, the present Jewish reading being 
 quite unreliable ; but there cannot be room to doubt 
 that the punctuators proceeded on a plan, and on cer- 
 tain recognised values or tones expressed by particular 
 symbols, and that all this confused heaping of small 
 accents together is not without a meaning, but bears 
 within it a lano-uaffe which could we read it we should 
 find natural, and beautiful because natural. At the same
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 77 
 
 time our failure in this point does not entail an}'- very 
 serious consequences ; we are pretty well able still to 
 eliminate the logical significance of the accents, and this 
 concerns us chietly. The reasons for placing this or that 
 particular small disjunctive or connective rather than 
 another need not be very minutely investigated by those 
 whose aim is pureh^ hermeneutical, for these reasons will 
 be found to depend chietly on musical considerations, 
 aud to vary according to the subjective feeling of the 
 punctuator, the remarkable diversity in MSS. and Edd. 
 making it quite evident that complete harmony had 
 never been attained among the authors of the system ; 
 maldng it evident, indeed, that the system is not at all 
 the result of concert, but the gradual growth of perhaps 
 several centuries. And hence it requires no very pro- 
 found study to discover the futility of the rules laid down 
 by Ouseel and even Spitzner for the use of extraordinary 
 servants or consecutions. Ouseel proceeds upon .the 
 assumption that if an unusual accent makes its appear- 
 ance the reason must be exclusively in the prosody of 
 the immediate passage — its long or short words, the 
 number of its words, the place of accent on the word, 
 the word as dageshed or undageshed, and such super- 
 ticial considerations. But however much may be due 
 to these circumstances, they are by no means sufficient 
 to account for the phenomena, for the rules laid dowTi 
 by this prosodian are often violated with the unanimous 
 concurrence of editions. We must take into considera- 
 tion another more general and deeper law than the 
 relation of mere syllables, namely, the feeling which the 
 reader associated' with the passage, which he expressed 
 by his voice, and which the accentuation sought to ex- 
 press by symbols. This feeling, or, at least, the vocal 
 expression ol' it, might in most cases be traditional ; the 
 reader knew not why he read so ; he had learned it, his 
 fathers had learned it, and the accentuator perpetuated 
 it ; and because feeling is unspeakably diverse, and in- 
 capable of bcinj]: confined bv Inws, tlie accentual siuius
 
 78 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 symbolizing it will partake of its wildiiess and licence. 
 And tradition too of necessity, when but a tradition of 
 tones, was imperfect and fiuctuating, and this fluctuation 
 has been added to by the unavoidable mistakes and sub- 
 stitutions of frequent transcription. But it is this deep, 
 ever-varying fountain of feeling bursting up in a thou- 
 sand forms, and running in streams of a tliousand diffe- 
 rent colors, liardly ever the same in any two Psalms, 
 which can roll in full volume and unimpeded through 
 the channel of human utterance, but finds itself confined 
 and cramped within the bounds of ordinary accentual 
 law, and thus overflows and cuts for itself a new bed, — 
 it is this that accounts for such endless diversity of 
 punctuation in the poetic books, and makes any funda- 
 mental investigation into the poetic accents a task so 
 difficult and in many cases of so little importance. 
 Obviously, if we are to be thorough, we must proceed 
 by endeavouring first of all to ascertain the vocal value 
 of the various separate accents, and with this as a key 
 advance to the opening up of their combinations. But, 
 unfortunately, it is only from their combinations that 
 we can learn their individual values, and thus our in- 
 vestigation moves in an almost hopeless circle. We 
 must know the meaning of the separate accents to un- 
 derstand an accented poem ; and we have only before us 
 accented poems whence to discover the meaning of the 
 separate accents. In such a position it is only the most 
 general principles that we can arrive at, only the laws, 
 which are not very profound, and which a moderate skill 
 in physiology can detect : deep down there may be 
 unfelt currents running, and elusive connections esta- 
 blished, and subtle influences reaching through the en- 
 tire mechanism of the system, which we cannot discover 
 or even suspect. But nevertheless the more familiar we 
 are with outward laws, the more likely ai'e we to leap 
 from without to what is inner and deeper ; and by know- 
 ing well the surface where the nervous filaments take 
 their rise, we sliall gradually work our way deeper till
 
 HEBEEW ACCENTUATION. 79 
 
 we roach at last the inmost heart and life : and the fuller 
 our understanding- of the system becomes, the fuller will 
 be our admiration of the singular humanity as well as 
 singular ing'enuity of the men whose reverence urged 
 them to set such a hedge about their Scriptures that not 
 only no letter but no tone of a letter should be lost. 
 
 There is not much in the poetic accents differing in 
 form from those in prose. The place of Sgolta is as- 
 sumed in appearance by 7^ Mercha Mahpach, a com- 
 pound accent, and therefore implying a double or rising 
 and falling inflection. In reality, however, Mercha 
 Mahpach represents in poetry the place held by Atlmach 
 in prose. The prose and poetic verse, while agreeing in 
 this, that both fall asunder hito two chief sections, and 
 in this, that one of these sections is again sub-divided 
 into two, so that the verse in both seems to contain three 
 divisions, yet differ in this, that in prose it is the initial 
 section that is sub-divided, and in poetry the concluding 
 section. Thus — 
 
 ^ } 
 
 It } 
 
 Similar to Mercha Mahpach is the accent lL , Rbhia 
 MugTash (Gereshed R.), which stands related to Silluq 
 in poetry as Tippecha does in prose ; it is a double or 
 broadened Ebhia, logically of the same value as the 
 simple Rblda with which it is often interchanged, and 
 diftering solely in its rhythmical or inflectional signifi- 
 cance. The number of compound accents is greater in 
 poetry than in prose, which was to be anticipated from 
 the nearer ap])roach tu music made by the poetic accents 
 and the necessary crowding together of tones on the 
 same word, occasionally even on the same syllable. 
 The poetic symbols are as follows : — 
 
 DISJUNCTIVES. CONNECTIVES. 
 
 •~r Silluq with Soph Pasuq. ~7 Mercha (occasionally 
 
 Munach).
 
 80 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 DISJUNCTIVES. CONNECTIVES. 
 
 7-^ Mercha Mahpach ^ . ~T Yeracli ben Yomo.^ 
 
 T" Atliacli T Munacli ^ (occasionally 
 
 Mercha). 
 
 J- Rbhia Mercha or Mahpach. 
 
 il R. Miig-rash ^ . . . Mercha. 
 
 "T Tippecha Anterior ^ . Munach. 
 
 i^iZarqa^ Munach (and Mercha). 
 
 jL_ Pazer Yerach or Galgal. 
 
 , -i Shalsheleth with Psiq . No servant or sec. except 
 
 in three cases. 
 
 1— |Azla Leg'armeh'^ . . ~ Mahpach. 
 
 'TJ Mahpach Legarmeh . No servant or secution. 
 
 ,— Mercha Zarqatuin.^ 
 ^ Mahpach with Zarqa. 
 T Tippecha non anterior,^ 
 i_ Munach Superior. 
 j_ Shalsheleth without 
 2_ Azla (Qadma). [Psiq. 
 
 The accent Zinnorith may be distinguished from Zinnor 
 by its function and position. As to function, it is a 
 servant, or, as Michaelis names it, " conservus," appear- 
 
 ' Called generally hy the poetic accentuists I'lV) H^IJ? , goinff up and 
 coming down, either from its tone or the position of tlie symbol (Baer). 
 Mercha in like manner is named H^V because its sound is a falling tone. 
 
 2 Called ?| 73 n-hecl, sometimes JS'lN , the same. 
 
 3 Called by Ben Asher rh)V " 011^ rhv^h iSip ^3 . Tor. Emeth, p. 5. 
 All these connectives appear as already noticed (p. 31) with the title "1Q1EJ'. 
 
 * B'njp""!, i.e. R. Gereshed. 
 
 ^ Called by the native accentuists dechi '^W^_,i.&. push, Wivw&i; either 
 from its peculiar tone or because it stands away from the place of the 
 tone. On account of its position it is called n^30\ because standing at 
 the right of the word. It appears always before the first vowel of the 
 word. 
 
 « Zarqa is generally called "li3V i" poetic accentuation. Both names 
 mean spout. , 
 
 T That is per f>e PIDIJ? . 
 
 * Zarqa, wlion used as a "conservus," is commonly called Zinnorith. 
 ' Usual! v called Tarcha KHntJ.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 81 
 
 ing along with the servants Mercha and Mahpach on 
 the same word ; and, as to position, on the open syllable 
 before the tone, or sometimes on a small independent 
 word, being an open monosyllable. Zinnor again is a 
 distinctive, and stands on the last letter of its word. 
 
 The accents Tippecha anterior and non-anterior are 
 equally distinguished by function and position, Tip- 
 pecha anterior is a disjunctive and appears always on 
 the right of its word immediately before the first vowel, 
 so that it falls completely outside the word. Tippecha 
 non-anterior or Tarcha is a conjunctive, and stands on 
 the place of accent. 
 
 Munach occasionally assumes its position above the 
 word^'' (M. superior): this indicates that though a con- 
 nective or depression, its connecting power is almost 
 gone, and that it rises nearly to the elevation of a dis- 
 junctive. 
 
 Shalsheleth occurs only eight times according to the 
 Masorah without Psiq. Without Psiq it is a connective, 
 though it is to be observed that it is not an ordinary 
 servant ; it never stands immediately next to a dis- 
 junctive, but always with one or more servants inter- 
 vening. With Psiq it is a disjunctive occurring chiefly 
 in the clause of Silluq. and being in all cases except 
 Job xi. 6, immediately taken up by Athnach.^^ 
 
 It has been fully established by Baer, the author of 
 Torath Emeth, that Qadma Psiq or Azla Legarmeh, and 
 Mahpach Psiq or Mahpach Legarmeh, are the same 
 accent logically, and that the laws for regulating the 
 use of the one or the other are purely prosodial or 
 musical. The former is always employed when there 
 are more words in connection, the latter when standing 
 alone and when the accent is on the first syllable. 
 
 1" Called then '-"Ipy Illui. Ben Asher names it n^W, suspending. 
 Tor. Emeth, p. 5. 
 
 >' Ewald puts Shalsheleth among the connectives expressly, Lehrb., 
 p. 191, although he makes it play the part of a distinctive, p. 194, 2, and 
 p. 197, 3, whore he names it Slellvertreter of 11. Mugrnsh. He disre- 
 gards the Masoiptir distinction of Shal. Psiq and without P»iq.
 
 82 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 From the more regular form of verse than prose, and 
 the nicer balance of the members of the stanza, it will 
 follow that the various clauses will be in general much 
 shorter than in prose, and more equable in their length ; 
 there will be much less of subordination of one clause to 
 another than in logical narrative, and hence far fewer 
 sub-clauses, which are rare in poetry, hardly going be- 
 yond one in each of the great divisions of the verse. 
 There will, therefore, hardly ever occur a repetition oi" 
 the same distinctive accent. The only three that bear 
 repetition are Rbhia, Zinnor, and Legarmeh, and even 
 these to a small extent.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 83 
 
 § 2. INTERPUNCTION. 
 
 A verse may have one, two, or three clauses, as in 
 prose. The verse always ends with Silluq as there. If 
 there be tlu-ee sections, the middle one will be made by 
 Athnach, and the greatest by Olehveyored. If there 
 occur but two sections, the second may be made eitlier 
 by Athnach or Olehveyored, the former having- a less 
 distinctive power in poetry than the other. The position 
 and powers of the chief distinctives are seen from the 
 following scheme : — 
 
 12 3 4 5 6 7 etc. 
 
 . r < K 
 
 (a) : - (serv.) - - etc. 
 
 ^ •' ' 1 A J A ■» 
 
 1. The first line (a) represents the usual positions of 
 the metrical distinctives, the second line (b) their posi- 
 tions in extraordinary circumstances. The ordinary 
 place of Olehveyored is on the sixth, seventh, etc. 
 word from the verse-end, on any of which it may 
 appear proAaded that word be not the first in the verse, 
 in which case Legarmeh takes its place. ^ Olehveyored 
 may stand however on the fifth, though not nearer the 
 end. It rests there of necessity when Athnach is also 
 required by the sense on the fourth or third word ; in 
 other circumstances it will indicate a superior emphasis 
 to that of Athnach. 
 
 2. The ordinary position of Athnach is the fourth or 
 fifth word from the end, but it may shift a place either 
 way, having thus the choice of four places. It will 
 always be on the fifth if a great distinctive be required 
 
 * Baer in Delitzscli, s. 504.
 
 84 HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 on that word, when R. Mug. or Shalsheleth must also 
 be on the fourth. It will also be on the fifth when R. 
 Mug. is on the second and accompanied by two ser- 
 vants, or when Silluq has three servants. In extraor- 
 dinary circumstances it will ascend to the sixth ; for 
 example, when Silluq has four servants, Ps. xxxii. 5,'^ 
 (though not in Ps. iii, 3), and sometimes when R. Mug. 
 must be on the third word with two servants, or on the 
 second with three. In two cases. Job xxxii. 6, P,-^. 
 xviii. 1, Athnach reaches the sever. th and eighth words 
 respectively. Athnach may descend to the third, though 
 not lower. It will be there of necessity when the sense 
 demands R. Mug. on the second and a strong distinctive 
 on the third ; sometimes emphasis will require Athnach 
 ou the third when the second has a servant, provided the 
 servant's word be long with two full syllables or one 
 open syllable and Sheva before the tone.^ Athnach, 
 however, cannot stand on the first word of a verse, but 
 is there represented by Pazer.* 
 
 3. The ordinary place of R. Mugrash is the third 
 word, but it may ascend to the fourth when a distinctive 
 is required on the third, and in a few instances when 
 Silluq has two servants, though in that case Shalsheleth 
 Psiq regularly represents R. Mug. on the fourth word.^ 
 R. Mug. descends to the second when the sense demands 
 it, provided Silluq's word be long, that is, have two 
 syllables or one open syllable, and Sheva before the 
 tone.^ 
 
 2 Ouseel, p. 34, 3 ibid^ p. 30. < Baer in Delitzsch, s. 506. 
 
 s Ouseel, p. 29. « Ibid, p. '26.
 
 HEBRBW ACCENTUATION. 85 
 
 § 3. METRICx\L TABLE. 
 
 The following table embodies the principal elements 
 of the metrical system : — 
 
 I. II. III. . 
 
 AJSTALYSIS. 
 
 1. Silluq stands at the end by itself, and forms, as 
 the base of all, a class with which none of the other 
 accents is to be compared.^ The lines marked I. II. 
 etc. are disjunctives, the intermediate lines their respec- 
 tive connectives. 
 
 '^. II. gives the minors of the opposite accents in I., 
 and the last accent in II. is the maximus of I. 
 
 [\. III. gives the minors of the opposite accents in II., 
 and the last accent in III. is the maximus of all those 
 in II. 
 
 4. III. has a common consecution ; minor, Legarmeh; 
 major, Pazer, with its servant Galgal ; the minor of 
 Pazer is also Legarmeh. AVhenever Legarmeh has a 
 servant, of necessity Azla Legarmeh is to be used. This 
 consecution is properly that of Rbhia, but is common to 
 it with Dechi and Zinnor.'^ 
 
 ' Spitzner also places Silluq by itself as unlike all the other accents. 
 
 ^ This full consecution of Ebliia may be seen, Ps. cvi. 48. Ewald 
 makes Zinnor perform the duty which is here assigned to Rbhia as mai. 
 of R. Mugrash. But, in the first place, his view destroys the unity attained 
 by making Ebhia great distinctive to the three accents standing immedi-
 
 Sij HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 5. A few more jyeneral facts suffice to give almost an 
 exhaustive view of the metrical system. 
 
 (a) :~ r hecomes :"; :~ when the servant's word 
 is monosyllabic or penacute ; and if there be two words 
 connected together immediately before Sillnq, thus, 
 1- (2,3), the pointing is :"; : ~, an exceeding com- 
 mon combination.^ 
 
 (b) ~ T becomes T ~ when there are only two words 
 in the clause, or when an accent greater than Dechi im- 
 mediately follows, but not with Dechi itself. As in (a) 
 the relation of three words may be 1- (2.3), which as- 
 sumes the exceedingly common form ~ ~r ~r. 
 
 (c) -j^ -7- becomes -~ — when there are only two 
 words in the clause, or when there are more words if 
 the distinction must fall on the second word. 
 
 (d) — -r becomes -^^ — when the servant's word is 
 monosyllabic or penacute or has Dagesh /orte or lene 
 in the accented consonant. 
 
 (e) -^- -r- is - — — in many cases, especially when the 
 accent falls on the tirst or second letter. 
 
 (/) The accents Mercha and Mahpach may in all 
 cases assume Zinnorith as a helping servant, provided 
 there be one or more open syllables before the tone- 
 syllable, on which Zinnorith can stand,^ 
 
 ((/) The accent Mahpach is a very common variant 
 for almost any ser^^ant, and its use as second or third 
 servant is of very frequent occurrence. 
 
 (k) It often happens, so often as to constitute a rule, 
 that the minor to a weak accent may become the minim 
 to an accent of greater power; thus Legarmeh, the minor 
 of III., serves as a very small distinctive to I. and II. 
 
 ately related to Silluq ; and, in the second place, Rbhia occurs under R. 
 Mug. much more frequently than Zinnor, the latter being the well known 
 substitute of Rbhia both in poetry and prose. 
 
 ' Tippecha in this connection is not anterior, but stands on the place of 
 tone, and is thus easily distinguished from Dechi the disjunctive. 
 
 * Bacr says, Tor. Em., p. 9, that Zinnorith has in these cases no note of 
 its own ; but this view is sufficiently refuted by Luzzatto in his letter 
 appended to Baer's Tractate, p. 65-6. -
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 87 
 
 (i) Very often is to be found in Edd. of the Bible, 
 Rbhia simple, where the analogy of the table would lead 
 to expect R. Mugrash, and in some Edd., e.g. Hahn, 
 even conversely. The latter is, doubtless, a blunder ; 
 the former occurs chiefly in short sentences, such 
 as the titles of the Psalms, and is to be explained, not 
 on logical but on rhythmical principles. (See § of R. 
 Mug.) For more particular information the following 
 sections must be consulted.
 
 88 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATIOX. 
 
 § 4. CLAUSE OF SILLUQ. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The ordinary servant of Silluq, as in prose, is 
 Mercha. This Mercha may assume Tsinnorith upon 
 its own word, if there be an open sylhible before the 
 place of accent, v. 7. Tsinnorith may stand even on an 
 independent word if that word be an open monosyllable, 
 and Mercha be retracted to the first syllable of its own 
 word, xviii. 20.^ According to the Masorah, in Tor. 
 Em., p. 13, after B. B., p. 7, three passages, Ixix. 15 ; 
 civ. 6 ; Job, xii. 15, are pointed with Tippecha on the 
 servant's word. It is probable that Munach has fallen 
 out (2). If the word of the servant be monosyllabic or 
 penacute, the servant of Silluq is Munach, B. B. p. 7 ; 
 iii. 7 ; iv. 5 ; v. 2, etc. This substitution is occasioned 
 by the peculiarity of Mercha's tone, which, according 
 
 1 Tor. Em., p. 9.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 89 
 
 to Ben Asher, has a low expanded note.^ Edd. often 
 write Munach where no such reason can be assigned, 
 e.g. Hahn, Job vi. 3; vi. 7; vi. 8, etc., and not nn- 
 frequently refuse to write it when such reason demands 
 it. Hahn, Job yii. 16. 
 
 2. If two words are to be connected pretty closely 
 with the word of Silluq, but have for each other a closer 
 affinity than the second has for Silluq's word, thus. 
 1- (2. 3), then, as already detailed (§3), the double 
 accent T7 arises ; Munach being an actual though ex- 
 ceeding slight disjunctive, so slight as often not to admit 
 Daghesh on the immediately succeeding aspirate, and 
 Tippecha being a real though slight connective, not 
 usually^ admitting Dag. ; Prov. i. 13, and often. 
 
 It will not unfrequently happen that both these accents 
 stand on the same word, Ps. xlv, 15, if a Metheg might 
 otherwise have stood. ^ 
 
 3. When three words stand in connection with Silluq'a 
 word, then the two already pointed remain as in (2), 
 and the third assumes Mahpach if the accent be on the 
 first syllable of the word, xxiv. 10, xxxix. 12, Job. xiv. 
 13 ; if the accent be on the second syllable, and the first 
 
 2 Hence he calls this servant *1!}V, Tor. Em., p. 5. So Ben Bilam, p. iv. 
 
 3 The fact seems to be that the relation of the three words may be 
 1- (2. 3), or (1. 2) -3; in the former case Mun. would be followed by 
 Dag. but Tippecha not ; in the latter, Mun. would not have Dag. but 
 Tippecha would. B. B. excepts from this rule the passage cix. 16, which 
 he points with lUui as first serv. and Tipp. (Tarcha) as second. Baer, on 
 the contrary, lUui as first and Aila as second. Mich., Hahn, etc., point 
 regularly. 
 
 * According to Tor. Emeth, p. 11, this double accent can appear on one 
 word only when R. Mug. is not to follow. Should this accent follow, 
 then the word will assume the usual Mercha, and retain its Metheg. 
 Edd. e.g. Theile, write Metheg and Munach, thus introducing intolerable 
 confusion, ii. 5. The author of Tor. Em. lays down the furtlier rule that 
 if the accents come together, from the word next Silluq being penacute, 
 the form is 77. He points his own Psalter so, e.g. v. 11, but Edd. do not 
 agree with him. Mich, uses Maqqeph. The small inscriptions of eight 
 Psalms instead of Munach and Mercha take two Munachs superior, Ps. 
 xxxvi., xliv., ilvii., xlix., Ixi., Iiix., Ixxxi., Ixxxv. See the Masorah, 
 quoted Tor. Em., p. 13.
 
 90 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 an open syllable, the Malipach will assume Zinnorith on 
 the open vowel, xxviii. 8. 
 
 But if the accent fall on the second syllable and the 
 first be not open, or if it fall on any syllable nearer the 
 word-end, then Azla is employed, Ps. xlii. '2, an example 
 which shows that Azla is here a servant and not a dis- 
 junctive, with Psiq fallen out, as Ouseel (p. Oo) sup- 
 poses, for no Dag. follows in the next word. 
 
 This rule is in conformity with Ben Asher's pointing, 
 but Ben Naphtali puts Mahpach on the second syllable, 
 xliii. 1, and Edd. Job xxii, 12, Prov. xxix. 13 ; and, 
 indeed, there is not one of the above rules but Edd. fre- 
 quently contradict. Thus Theile and Mich, write Azla 
 on the first letter, liv. 5 ; so they write Azla on the 
 second syllable with an open syllable preceding, Ixxxiv. 
 9, Ixi. 5, lix. 6. Sometimes, instead of Azla on the 
 fourth word, Munach superior appears, iv. 8, though 
 under what conditions is not very obvious.'' B. Bil.'s 
 rule is simple. If the accent be on first letter, it is 
 Mahpach ; if on the second, lUui ; if on the third, etc., 
 Azla, p. 8. Passages where more than three servants 
 occur are iii. 3, of which the usual pointing is — ^^ ■^'t' 
 but Baer points with the ordinary Munach Tippechatum ; 
 xxxii. 5, xlii. 2. As to the passage cxxv. 3, see clause 
 of Legarmeh. 
 
 4. The ordinary minor to Silluq is K. Mugrash ; the 
 major, Athnach ; the maximus, Olehveyored. Several 
 peculiarities, however, have to be noticed with regard to 
 the interpunction of Silluq's clause. The following 
 scheme shows the most important : 
 
 * Baer, Delitzsch, ii., p. 487, would write Mun. sup. always when — -!^ 
 would otherwise appear, were not the open syllable formed by one of the 
 letters 0^221, on which Zinuorith cannot stand. Baer, of course, points 
 his own Psalter in conformity with this rule. Not so Michaelis. See his 
 note, Ps. iv. 8, and his punctuation of Ixxvi. 4, Ixxviii. 25, cxix. 84. See 
 Ew. Lehrb. 197.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 91 
 
 W :- - I - 
 
 (a) This line presents the most usual appearance of 
 the interpunction, the division falling at the third word, 
 and made by R. Mug. The servant of Silluq will be 
 on the second, and vary according to the rules in (1). 
 R. Mug. may be taken up immediately by the major, 
 or it may be followed by one or more servants. If the 
 division fall on the third word, and no more divisions be 
 required in the clause of Silluq (i.e. before the occur- 
 rence of the major or maxiuius), the division must be 
 made by R. Mugrash. If more divisions occur the case 
 is that .of (<?). 
 
 {b) If the division fall on the second word, various 
 cases occur. If there be another distinction in the clause 
 the case is that of (d). If there be no more distinctions 
 to be marked in the clause proper of Silluq, either R. 
 Mug. or Munach may stand on the second word, the 
 last, of course, only if Tippecha can follow on the third, 
 or the word be such that Tippecha and Munach can 
 both stand upon one word, xxxi. 17. R. Mug. can- 
 not appear on the second word unless Silluq's word be 
 long, that is, have two syllables, or one open syllable 
 and moveable Sheva before the tone, ii. 1, ii. 2, ii. 6, 
 ii. 8, V. 10. If these conditions be not satisfied, Munach 
 with Tippecha wall take the place of R. Mug., iv. 3. 
 This^double accent requiring two words, or one word as 
 described in (2), cannot itself appear generally when the 
 'major is on the third word. In that case R. Mug. must 
 be present, or, if its conditions are not satisfied, a servant
 
 92 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 must take its place. When the division on the second 
 word is made by R. Mug. or by Munach with Tippccha, 
 Athnach may follow immediately, or these acccents may 
 take their servants, v. 4, v. 8, iv. 6, vi. 4. 
 
 (c) When two distinctions require to be made in the 
 clause proper of ISilluq, two cases also occur. If the 
 distinction be on the t/drd and fourth words, then the 
 iuterpunction is as in (c), E. Mug. on the fourth, 
 Legarmeh (always Mahpach Legarmeh) on the third, 
 and Illui on the second, iii. 1, x. 14. This form is very 
 common, and the ])Ositions of the accents are invariable. 
 R. Mug. may then be immediately followed by the 
 major, taking no servant, xviii. 7, xix. 5, xx. 2 ; or 
 having a servant, xviii. 31, xcix. 4. Instead of Mahpach 
 Legarmeh, Azla Legarmeh occurs once, cxxv. 3, because 
 there Legarmeh attaches to itself a servant which Mahp. 
 Leg. cannot do. This passage is also irregular in hav- 
 ing, according to some Edd., Shalsheleth, according to 
 others Pazer, instead of 11. Mugrash. 
 
 {d) If two distinctions have to be made, and they fall 
 the one at the second word and the other at the fourth, 
 the form assumed is that of {d), where the accents and 
 the positions are again invariable, vii. 6, x. 2, xii. 8, 
 xiii. 2, xiii. 3, xx. 8, xxix. 11, xxxiii. 12, etc. Shal- 
 sheleth has always Psiq in this position ; it occurs always 
 in this position except nine times, once with Psiq in the 
 clause of R. Mugrash, Job xi. 6, and the other eight 
 times without Psiq as servant ; and is always followed 
 by Athnach, and has no servant with three exceptions. 
 In one of these exceptional cases, Ixxxix. 2, it has one 
 servant, viz., Mercha; in the others it has two servants, 
 Mercha and Tippecha, Job. xxxii. 6, Job xxxvii. 12.^ 
 Ben. Bil. gives only the passages in Job. 
 
 4. Shalsheleth forms a note which the voice cannot 
 
 « Tor. Emeth, p. 36. As to the Masorab on Shalsheleth, see the note 
 of Michaelis, lleb. Bible, Ps. xiii. 3. R. Mug. occurs, according to Laer, 
 twice for Shal. in {d), xlvi. 8, xlvi. 12 ; but Edd. give many more cases, 
 iii. 6, Ixvi. 3, Ixxy. 4, Ivi. 3, etc.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 93 
 
 immediately start, and hence is not found at the com- 
 mencement of a verse. On the first word of a verse it 
 will nsiially be represented by Pazer, xviii. 2, xxx. 1. 
 
 In the e'jgltt cases alluded to by the Masorah, t^hal- 
 sheleth occurs without Psiq, and is not a disjunctive, 
 but one of the secondary connectives. It cannot stand 
 in the place of an ordinary servant, next a great dis- 
 tinctive, but always appears wuth at least one other ser- 
 vant intervening" between it and the distinctive. In this 
 respect it agrees with Azla." This peculiarity as to 
 position arises from its singular tone, as a thrilling, 
 quivering shake of the voice, a note well represented by 
 its shape. ^ 
 
 The passages where Shalsh. occurs as servant are the 
 following : — Ps. iii. 3, in the clause of Silluq ; xxxiv. 8, 
 Ixviii. 15, cxxxvii. 9, in the clause of R. Mugrash ; 
 Ixv. 2, Ixxii. 3, Prov. i. 9, Prov. vi. 27, in the clause of 
 Athnach. In all these passages Shalsheleth attaches 
 another word to its own, and the servant it makes use 
 of is Mahpach ; in one passage, Ixv. 2, it has two ser- 
 vants, the tirst Illui, and the second Mahpach.^ 
 
 It is needless to expect editors to conform to a rule 
 which they did not know. Theile puts a Psiq, Ixviii. 15, 
 cxxxvii. 9, Ixv. 2, Ixxii. 3 ; so Hahn, Ixv. 2, Ixviii. 15, 
 etc., though it is not worth while enumerating what such 
 editors put. It is to be expected that their critical taste 
 and tact will refuse to put the Psiq where it onght to be, 
 e.g. Theile x. 2, without Psiq.^*^ 
 
 ' Ewald, Lehrbuch, s. 193-194. 
 
 * Delitzscb, ii., s. 524, hence the names T'VIJD. D''y"lfr, etc. 
 
 ' Torath Emcth, p. 36. It is illustrative of the difficulty of being con- 
 sistent and accurate in accentuation to notice that Baer in Tor. Em. and 
 in his Psalter uses Illui in this example, but in Delitzsch, p. 490, he points 
 the passage with Azla for Illui. Those passages are also discussed, Ben 
 Bilani, p. 2-3, by whom Shal. is recognised as servant. See Ilupf. Coiii- 
 muntatio, part ii., p. 4. 
 
 '" It is more likely to he from obsti n.ac\ Uian ignoraucr when Ewald 
 writes l.vxii. 3 with Psiq.
 
 94 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 Sedition of Slialslieletli as distinctive and servant. 
 (B.B.. p. 2-3). 
 
 I — uKual position as diatiuctive, 
 
 A 
 
 t 
 
 I 1 — (ouce), Ixxxix, -1. 
 
 — — (twice). Job, xxxii. 6; Job, xxxvii, IJ. 
 
 t 
 
 — — (seven times). See above. 
 
 — — (once), liv. J.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 95 
 
 § 5. CLAUSE OF RBHIA MUGRASH. 
 
 .11^} 
 
 (.":) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The ordinary servant of R. Mug. is Mercha, i. 4. 
 This, in favourable circumstances, may assume, in addi- 
 tion, Zarqa, i. 1, i. 2, etc/ 
 
 2. When two words are connected together, the first 
 assumes Mercha, and the second Tippecha, xiv. 1, xix. 
 8, xix. 9, xxiv. 5, xxiv. 6.^ 
 
 3. When three words are connected pretty closely 
 with the word of R. Mug., the two next R. will remain 
 as in (2), and the third will receive Mahpach, Ixxiii. 1 ; 
 this Mahpach may, in the favourable circumstances, 
 receive Zinnorith, cxix. 25. One passage, xviii. 1, pre- 
 sents extraordinary confusion. 
 
 is the pointing adopted by Baer in his Psalter, with three 
 Merchas, and Legarmeh. Curiously enough, in Tor. 
 Em., p. 15, he unites P|32D to the next word by Maq- 
 qeph, and thus exhibits but two Merchas. The com- 
 
 1 Tor. Em., p. 14. Ben Bilam, p. 3. 
 
 ' Tor. Em. ut sup. Ben Bilam, p. 3. The generally received rule is, 
 that if Athnach do not follow, the above is the form of accent ; but if
 
 96 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 mon Edd. are altogether unintelligible on this verse,' 
 For the passages xxxiv. 8, Ixviii. 15, exxxvii. U, where 
 Shalsheleth occurs, see § iv. 4. 
 
 4. The minor of R. Mng. is Dechi. When Dechi 
 follows K. Mug. there cannot be more than a single 
 word between them.* This minor never appears when 
 Athnach is to follow ; and if it stand next the word of 
 R. Mugrash, Dechi's word must be long, i.e. have two 
 syllables, or one open syllable and moveable Sheva be- 
 fore the tone, iv. 5, vi. l,'^ 
 
 5. The minor of R. Mug. is Rbliia simple, which does 
 not occur, however, if Athnach is to follow,'' xxxi. 23, 
 xlix. 15, Ivii, 9, etc. It is decidedly against facts when 
 Jjwald maintains that the sub-division in the clause of 
 R. Mugrash is made by Zinnor.''' 
 
 Very rarely Legarmeh may appear as a very small 
 distinctive in the clause of Rbhia, cix. !28 ; occasionally 
 also when Athnach cannot appear, being requisite on the 
 first word of a verse, Pazer will take its place. 
 
 A'ote. — It is very common to find simple Rbhia in the 
 clause of Silluq instead of R. Mugrash, Several scholars, 
 fiuch as Ouseel, Spitzner, and, according to the latter, 
 also Wasmuth, believe that wdien R. Simple occurs for 
 R. Mugrash, it is merely by omission of the Geresh, 
 which omission is due to the carelessness of printers or 
 
 Athnach follow, both the servants are Mei-chas. With this rule Edil. e.//. 
 Theile, will be found most to aj^ree, though B. B. expressly contradicts it, 
 
 P- 3- . L . 
 
 •* Ben Bilam points ?''\*n with Zarqa, but calls it a servant, the jjassage 
 
 being one where R. Mug. has four servants, p. 1. 
 
 * Tor. Em., p. 15. ^ Ouseel, p. 61. 
 
 * Ouseel, p. 62 ; although it may occur with Olchveyorcd, xviii. .51. 
 
 ■^ Lehrbuch, p. 197, 3. Ewald comes to this conclusion on the ground 
 of the three passages, xviii. 1, xxxi. 22, Ixvi. 20. But, even were Edd. 
 and Codd unanimous in giving Zinnor in these passages, they could not, in 
 opposition to a much larger number of instances, where Rbhia subdivides, 
 form any ground for a general rule, and much less can they do so when 
 there is no agreement regarding thein among Edd. Mich., ]'s. xviii. 1, 
 note, conjectures that Zinr.or here and in the other passages was really not 
 the distinctive, but Zinnorith the "conservus," and proposed a punctuation 
 which relieved the passages of some if not of all tlie diflficulty. Tlv same
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 97 
 
 transcribers. Others, such as Boston^ and Michaelis, 
 conclude that the original accentuators really wrote and 
 meant to wi*ite simple K. in such cases, and that the 
 phenomenon is not the result of error. 
 
 It is generally in verses which admit neither Athnach 
 nor Olehveyored where this substitution occurs, though 
 not always, Iv. 23, Iv. 24. It also happens that the 
 consecution of the simple R. when substituted is the 
 correct consecution of R. Mug. Some Edd., e.g. Hahn, 
 not only substitute R. simple for R. Mug., but con- 
 versely, cxxxii. 12, xxxi. 8, xvi. 7, Ixxxiii. 19. Even 
 the compound Rbhia comes instead of the simple as its 
 own major, xiv. 1, liii. 2.^* These substitutions are cer- 
 tainly in many cases due to error, but they may be ex- 
 plained by supposing that between the simple and com- 
 pound Rbhia there was no logical distinction, but one 
 merely rhythmical, and that where the effect on the 
 sense was indifferent, the ear was allowed to be the judge 
 which accent should be employed. 
 
 view has been adopted by Baer in xviii. 1, and in the others he expunges 
 the Zinnor entirely, although on what authority, of course, does not 
 appear. This want of citation of authority is the great defect in his 
 beautiful edition. 
 
 8 Tractatus Stigm., p. 113. 
 
 5 Wasmuth justly pronounces this to be mousirum. Mich, note in loc.
 
 98 HEBREW ACCENTUATION, 
 
 ^ 6. CLAUSE OF ATHNACH. 
 
 - ( I-) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The ordinary servant of Athnach is Munach, ii. 1 ; 
 but, in difione un'ms vocis, that is, when there is only 
 one word in the clause, or one word between Athnach 
 and an accent greater than the minor Tippecha, the 
 servant is Mercha, v. 9, iv. 6. Baer also points Tip- 
 pecha when the accent falls on the first letter of a word.^ 
 Also, when Psiq is to be interposed between the words of 
 Athnach and its servant, he still writes Mercha.^ 
 
 2. When two words are to be connected to Athnach's 
 word they are both pointed with Munach, ii. 4, ii. 5, 
 ii. 11, ii. 12, etc. If Psiq be requisite before the word 
 of Athnach, then, instead of two Munachs, Mercha and 
 Tippecha will be employed ; ^ also, according to Baer, 
 after B. B., in tw^o passages where is no Psiq, Job v. 27, 
 and Job xxxiii. 31.* In Edd. Mercha and Tippecha will 
 
 1 Tor. Em., p. 16-17. No Ed. agrees with him in this, though B. B. 
 lays down the rule expressly, this case being the fifth cited by him, in 
 which the servant of Ath. is Mercha, p. 4-5. The others are as above. 
 
 2 Tor. Em., p. 17. Though again common Edd. disagree, e.g. xxxv. 21, 
 where Theile and Hahn give Munach, and so Mich. 
 
 3 Tor. Em., p. 17. Ouseel, p. 50. B. B., p. 5. 
 
 * Tor. Em., ibid, though Mich, points these passages regularly, and
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. W 
 
 be found when there is uo Psiq, e.^. Theile, v. 2 ; and 
 two Munachs with Psiq. 
 
 3, If three words be connected with the word of Athnach, 
 the words next Athnach will be punctuated with the two 
 Munachs as in (2), and the third word will generally 
 take Mahpach, ii. o, vi. 6, Mahpach, however, can 
 appear only when the accent is on the first syllable of 
 the word, or on the second syllable, the fu'st being a 
 short syllable, and not having Metheg, nor commencing 
 with iSheva,^ xlv. 4, Ixxiv. 1'3. Also if the accent be 
 on the second syllable, but the first be open, the accent 
 will still be Mahpach, which wdll assume Zinnorith on 
 the open syllable,'' or on an independent monosyllabic 
 word, consisting of an open syllable, Job xviii. 19, Ps. 
 cxxxvi. 4. 
 
 If the accent fall on the second syllable, the first 
 having Metheg, or commencing with iSheva ; or if the 
 accent fall on any syllable further from the beginning 
 than the second, the accent is Illui,''' Ix. 9, Job iv. 2, 
 
 The passage, Ps. v. 5, is thus pointed by Baer, 
 
 with Psiq, and therefore Mercha Tippechatum as ser- 
 vant (2), and Mahpach as third servant, with Zinnorith 
 on the open monosyllable, according to the rule given 
 above. The confusion of Edd. on this verse is some- 
 thing monstrous. 
 
 Athnach has not more than three servants, except in 
 two^ passages, Ps. Icvi. 4, where there are four servants^ 
 
 indicates uo variaut in his notes. But B. B. expressly excepts these two 
 passages, and sanctions the above rule regarding the pointing with Psiq,, 
 p. 5. 
 
 5 Tor. Ein., p. 18. 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 19. B. B. gives the general law, that if the accent be on the 
 first letter it will be Mahpach, otherwise Illui, p. 5. 
 
 ' Ibid, p. 18. 
 
 * Ibid, p. 19, according to Masor. Mich., note on the pass:ige.
 
 100 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 and Prov. iii. 12, where there are five, three Munachs, 
 Mercha, and Mahpach. As to the passages, Ixv. 2, 
 Ixxii. 3, Prov. i. 9, vi. 27, where Shalsheleth occurs, 
 see § iv. 4. 
 
 4. The minor of Athnach is Dechi, ii. 1, v. 4, v. 8, 
 vi. 4, vi. 5, vi. 7, etc. The major is Ebhia simple, ii. 7, 
 v. 4, V. 8, vi. 2, vi. 7. Athnach may be immediately 
 taken up by Olehveyored, the maximus of SUluq ; if 
 only one word intervene between Athnach and Oleh. 
 that word mu.st take a servant and not a distinctive. 
 In three places, xlv. 8, Ixviii. 5, cix. 16, Pazer occurs 
 instead of Rbhia as major to Athnach.^ 
 
 The minor Dechi may occur on the word next Athnach, 
 but only if Athnach's word be long, that is, have two 
 syllables or one long open syllable with moveable Sheva 
 before the place of accent, xxvi. 4, xxxviii. 17, xlix. 2, 
 etc. If, therefore, the division has to be made on the 
 second word in Athnach's clause, Dechi can only make 
 the division on the above conditions ; if these are not 
 present, Munach Munach must be employed. The in- 
 terpunctiun of the clause will be : 
 
 W -.71- •••• II - 
 
 (*) 7 i - 7 
 
 W 7 1 7 7 
 
 (a) The ordinary interpunction ; (b) the intcrpunc- 
 tion when distinction falls on second word, Athnach's 
 word being long ; (c) the interpunction when the dis- 
 tinction falls on second word, when Athnach's word is 
 short. 
 
 ^ In the first two, Baer, in his Psalter, points with R. Mug. witliout 
 Athnach ; in the third, aleo without Athnach. This passage is exceed- 
 ingly chaotic.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 101 
 
 § 7. CLAUSE OF OLEHVEYORED. 
 
 W — - 1 - .... 
 
 (*) _: _ I 1 II z 
 
 w -1 
 
 (d) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1 . Olehveyored does not occur in a clause of a single 
 word. 
 
 (a) The normal condition of its clause is as in (a), 
 when it consists of three or more words, with the first 
 division on the third word. This division is then almost 
 universally made by the minor Zarqa, and the second 
 word is pointed by Galgal, the ordinary servant of Oleh., 
 i. 1, iii. 3, iv. 7, iv. 9. It is to be observed that the 
 minor Zinnor cannot occur without the servant Galgal, 
 nor Galgal without Zinnor. 
 
 If the word of Oleh. be of such length that Metheg 
 might stand on it, then Metheg may be represented by 
 the servant Galgal, when Zinnor, of course, will follow 
 on the second word, v. 11. 
 
 (b) In a very few cases Rbliia makes the distinction 
 on the third word ; Zinnor in such cases is usually pre- 
 sent on the fourth, xxxv. 10, xlii. 5, Prov. xxx. 9.
 
 102 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 When the distinction is made by Rbhia on the third 
 word, the servant of Oleh. becomes Mercha instead of 
 Galgal, XXXV. 10.^ Olehveyored has never more than 
 one servant. According to Baer, Mahpach is servant 
 when such slight distinction is meant to be expressed as 
 is indicated by Psiq, Ixxxv. 9.^ 
 
 (c) If the clause of Oleh. consists of only one word 
 besides that of Oleh. itself, or if it consist of two, three 
 or any number of words requiring the first distinction on 
 the second, that distinction is almost always made by 
 Rbhia, ii. 7, iv. 0, iii. 6, ix. 15, Iv. 18, Ix. 8, xviii. o, 
 ix. 21. In the majority of cases the Rbhia stands alone. 
 If it have a servant that servant will be Mercha, iii. 6, 
 xi. 6.^ Baer asserts that if the servant's w^ord have 
 Psiq, the servant is then Mahpach,^ xx. 7, Ixviii. 20, 
 Ixxii. 19.-' 
 
 If Rbhia have two servants, the first is Mercha and 
 the second is Mahpach, xx. 7. cxxxv. 6, cxxxviii. 7, 
 Ixxii. 19, i. 2, though on the last Edd. difter. Occa- 
 sionally both accents may appear on the same word, 
 provided before the place of accent be an open syllable 
 formed by Qametz or Ilholem, 1. 3, xxvii. 11, Ixviii. 36, 
 Job, xviii. 4.^ 
 
 Very rarely, the distinction on the second is made by 
 Zinnor. In common Edd. cxl. 4, Ixxviii. 38, Prov. i. 
 
 1 Tor. Ein., p. 23. Ousccl, p. 40. Occasionally Edd. write Galgal, 
 Theile, xlii. 6 ; aud, curiously enough, Baer also, xxiv. 4, cii. 27, in con- 
 tradiction to his own express rules. Spitzner would repudiate this Mercha 
 altogether, referring its origin to a Metheg, mistaken for Mercha. 
 
 2 Tor. Em., p. 24. Edd. often write Mahpach when there is no Psiq, 
 Theile, xxiv. 8, Ixxviii. 5, xxxi. 10, vi. 3, cxxxvii. 7. Not so Mich., who 
 writes Galgal even with Psiq, repudiating Mahpach entirely, Ixxxv. 9. 
 Not. in Ps. xxiv. 8. 
 
 3 Tor. Em., p. 24. Ouscel, p. 68. Ben Bilain, p. 3. 
 
 * Edd. of course do not agree with him ; he says, however, " If you 
 find passages with any other servant to Rbhia, you are to know that they 
 are only blunders," p. 24. 
 
 5 Baer cites also (Tor. Em., p. 24), xxxvi. 5 ; but Mahp. Psiq here is 
 rather Legarmeh, at least the passage is not one of the cases of Psiq which 
 he gives (Dclitzsch, ii.) as recognised by the Masorah. 
 
 6 Tor. Em., p. 26.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 103 
 
 22. Baer agrees in cvi. 47, and gives himself in addi- 
 tion Ixxviii. 21, etc. 
 
 {d) If the clause of Oleh., besides the distinction on 
 the second word, reqiiire another distinction on the third, 
 fourth, or fifth word, that new distinction may be made 
 either by Zinnor or Rbhia, the distinction at the second 
 continuing always to be made b}' Rbhia. Zinnor on the 
 third word is rare, and chietiy in these passages, xxii. 15, 
 xxxix. 13, Prov. xxiii, 35. Rbhia on the third, cxxxiii. 2, 
 Zinnor on the fourth word is more common, xxvii. 9, 
 xl. 6, xl. 15, etc. Rbhia on the fourth is rarer, li. 6, 
 cxliv. 13. Zinnor on the fifth, xxviii. 7. Rbhia on the 
 fifth, XX. 7. 
 
 2. The minor of Oleh. is Zinnor, iii. 3, v. 7, etc. Its 
 usual place is on the third word, occasionally descending 
 to the second (1 c), and occasionally ascending to the 
 fourth, fifth, etc. (1 d). This minor may be repeated, 
 xvii. 14. 
 
 3. The ordinary major to Oleh. is Rbhia, i. 1, i. 3, v. 
 11, etc. The older accentuists call Rbhia when im- 
 mediately next Oleh, Rbhia Qaton, and in any other cir- 
 cumstances R. Gadhol. The consecution of both, except 
 their servants, is the same.
 
 104 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 8. CLAUSE OF DECHI, OR TIP. ANTERIOR. 
 
 ■-(7) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. Tippecha anterior stands, as its name indicates, be- 
 fore the first vowel of a word ; but if two words are con- 
 nected together by Maqqeph, it stands on the first word 
 (that nearer the end of the verse), though in the same 
 position. It must not be supposed that this accent in- 
 dicates the real tone-syllable. The invariable servant of 
 Declii is Munach, i. 1, i. 5, i. 6, ii. 8, iii. 4, iv. 4, iv. 5, 
 etc. If the word of Dechi have before the tone-syllable 
 the vowel Qamets or Ilholem, and between tliis Qam. or 
 Hhol. and the tone-syllable, at least Sheva, the servant 
 may stand on the Qam. or Hhol. in such a way as to 
 seem to follow the distinctive. (See B. B., p. 4). 
 
 2. If two words be coimected together, the one next 
 Dechi still retains its Munach, and the second word takes 
 Mahpach if the accent be on the first syllable, xxxiv. 7, 
 XXV. 12, XXV. 6, Ixxiv. 11 ; or if the accent be on the 
 second syllable, if the first be shut and not com- 
 mencing with Sheva, iv. 3, xxxiii. 18 ; ^ and, finally, it 
 
 1 Tor. Em., p. 21. Mich., note on iv, 3, repudiates Mahp., and seems 
 to consider it inadmissible unless its previous syllable can bear Zinnorith.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. lOo 
 
 is still Mahp. if the accent be on the second with an open 
 syllable going before and not commencing with Sheva, 
 because then the open syllable can assume Zinnorith, 
 xiv. 1, liii. 2, vi. 11, Pro v. xix. 24. ^ In other circum- 
 stances the second servant will be Illui, Ixxviii. 45. 
 
 3. If three words be connected with the word of Dechi, 
 the first will invariably have Munach, the second Munach 
 or Illui, and the tliird Mahpach ; or if the second word 
 have an open syllable before the place of accent, it will 
 be pointed with Mahpach and Zinnorith, and then the 
 third will have Mercha,^ Job xxxiv. 37. 
 
 4. The minor of Tippecha is Legarmeh, i. 5, xxxi. 3. 
 
 5. The major is Pazer, which stands occasionally on 
 the word next Dechi, cxxii. 4, cxxxvii. 3 ; and fre- 
 quently on the third word, v. 12. 
 
 2 Tor. Em., p. 21. Ouseel, p. 83. 
 
 3 Tor. Em,, p. 22. Delitzsch, ii., p. 491. Baer adds, as a reason, be- 
 cause two Mahpachs cannot come in close succession. Theile, at least, 
 supremely contemns such narrow restrictions, v. 5, v. 10.
 
 106 
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 9. CLAUSE OF ZINNOR OR ZARQA. 
 
 :-) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1 . The servant of Ziniior, if tlie accent fall on the fii'st 
 letter of the word, is Mercha, i. 1, xxxii. 7 ; if the accent 
 fall on the second letter, the first having Sheva, it is also 
 Mercha, xxxii. 9, xlii. 10. Once more, if the accent fall 
 on any letter of the word, if that letter bears Dagesh 
 forte or lene, the accent is still Mercha.^ 
 
 But if the accent fall on the second letter, the first 
 having a vowel under it, the accent is Munach, iv. 9 ; '^ 
 also if the accent fall on the third letter, or any higher 
 letter being undagheshed, the accent is still Munach, 
 xxviii. o? 
 
 If a slight distinction less than the minor be required 
 at the servant's word, this will be indicated by Mahpach 
 Psiq, xxxvii. 7, Prov. i. 22, though Edd. differ." 
 
 1 Tor. Em., p. 25. Ben Bllani, p. 2. Ouseel, 78. Ben Bilam excepts 
 two passages, lix. 1, cxvi. 0, to which Tor. Em. adds Job vii. 21, in which 
 places Munach appears on a Dagheshed letter. 
 
 3 Tor. Em., p. 26. Ben Bil., p. 2. 
 
 3 Tor. Em. ut sup. Ben Eilam excepts one passage, xvii. 14, to which 
 Tor. Em. adds another, Prov. viii. 34, which are accented with Mercha on 
 the third letttT and without Daghcsh. 
 
 * Baer cites cxviii. 27 as an example, although the passage is not one 
 recognized by the Masorah which he produces in DeUtzsch ii., containing 
 a list of tlie Psiq passages in the Psalter.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. ]07 
 
 2. When two words are connected before Zinnor, the 
 one next Zinnor will have Munach or Mercha according 
 to the rules in (1), and the second always Mahpach, i. 1. 
 An exception is Ix. 2, where two Merchas occur.^ 
 
 3. The minor of Zinnor is Legarmeh, xxxv. 10, xl. 3, 
 xl. 4, xl. 6, xl. 15, Ixxviii. 21. 
 
 4. The major is Pazer, v. 10, xxxi. 11, xxxi. 12, 
 xxxix. 13. 
 
 5 Tor. Em., p. 27. Zinnor never has more than two servants. Ben 
 Bilam, p. 1.
 
 108 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 10. CLAUSE OF RBHIA. 
 
 (-) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The servants of Rbhia, when immediately imder 
 Olehveyored, have been exhibited under that accent. 
 
 In other circumstances, the servant of Rbhia, if an- 
 other Rbhia immediately follows, is Mercha,^ Ixxviii. 4, 
 Prov. iv. 4. 
 
 2. "When Rbhia does not follow, two cases come to be 
 distinguished. Considering that Rbhia (when not in the 
 immediate clause of Olehveyored) never takes more than 
 one servant,^ that servant must either be the first word 
 of a clause, or be preceded immediately by Leganneh or 
 Pazer, the respective minor and major of Rbhia. 
 
 (a) When Legarmeh or Pazer does not precede. 
 
 (1) If the accent falls on the second syllable, this 
 beginning with Sheva, or if it falls on any more 
 distant syllable, the accent is still Mercha,^ i. 1. 
 
 (2) If the accent falls on the first syllable or on 
 the second, this not beginning with Sheva, then 
 the accent is Mahpach, ii. 8, viii. 2, vi. 7.^ 
 
 (b) But if Pazer or Legarmeh precede, then : 
 
 (1) The accent, if it stands on a monosyllable, or 
 
 1 Ouseel, p. 69. Tor. Em., p. 28. 
 
 2 Tor. Em., p. 29, except in two cases, Iv. 24, Ixxivi. 14, whicli com- 
 mon Edd. seem to increase by omitting the Psiq of Legarmeh, e.g. Theile, 
 V. 3. 
 
 3 Tor. Em., p. 28. « Ibid, p. 27. B. B., p. 3.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 109 
 
 on the second, third, etc. letter of a polysyllable, 
 with no open syllable before the tone, is Illui,^ 
 i. 3, ii. 12, V. 3, v. 9, xl. 13, xlv. 3, xlv. 5, 
 Ix. 9, Ix. 10. 
 (2) But if the word be not monosyllabic, and have 
 the accent on the first syllable, the accent is 
 then Mahpach, xciii. 4 ; or if the accent be not 
 on the first, with an open syllable before it, the 
 open syllable may take Zinnorith and the other 
 Mahpach,*^ iv. 2. 
 
 3. The minor to Ebhia is Legarmeh. i. 3, ii. 12, iv. 2, 
 ix. 21, XXV. 7, Ix. 8, Ixiii. 2, Ixxiii. 28, Ixxxvii. 4. etc. 
 
 4. The major to Rbhia is Pazer, ii. 12, iv. 2, xiii. 3, 
 xxxii. 5, etc. 
 
 5 Tor. Em., p. 28. Beu Bilam, p. 3. « Xor. Em., p. 29.
 
 110 HERREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 § 11. CLAUSE OF PAZER. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. The servant of Pazer is G algal, v. 12. If the 
 word of Pazer be of such a length that Metheg might 
 have also stood on it, Galgal may take the place of 
 Metheg, xxxii. o.^ 
 
 According to Baer, if a slight pause requiring Psiq 
 occur, Mahpach is used along with it,^ xlv. 8, Prov. 
 XXX. 8, Ps, 1. 1, lix. 6, cxli. 4. 
 
 2. If two words be connected together before Pazer, the 
 first takes Galgal and the second Mahpach if the accent 
 be on the first syllable of the word, v. 10, but Azla if 
 not, V. 12.^ 
 
 3. When three words stand connected before Pazer, 
 the third has Mahpach, the second Qadma, and the one 
 next Pazer, Galgal, or Mahpach Psiq, xxiii. 4. Often 
 Edd. give Mahp. without Psiq, xxii. 25. Pazer has 
 never more than three servants.^ 
 
 4. The minor of Pazer is Legarmeh, vii. 6, xix. 15. 
 
 ' Mich, writes Mahpach here, and charges MSS. and Edd. with writing 
 " Jerach pro Mahp. irregular iter." See note 3 below. Theile actually 
 prints Munach. 
 
 2 Tor. Em., p. 29. 
 
 3 Ibid. The rule given by Spitzncr, Institutions, p. 231, on the autho- 
 rity of Mich, is, that if Mahpach be on the third word, Galgal is servant ; 
 but if Azla be on the third word, Mahpach is servant. The confusion in 
 Edd. here is monstrous. Mich, points according to his own rule. Ben 
 Bilam lays down a rule differing from any of the above. 
 
 * Ben Bilam, p. 1.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. Ill 
 
 § 12. CLAUSE OF LEGARMEH. 
 
 I — (no serr.) 
 
 
 I — (repetitiis), 
 I — etc, (repet,) 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 1. If Legarmeh has another word in connection with it, 
 so as to want a servant, Azla Legar. must be employed.^ 
 
 2. If Legarmeh occur in the clause of Silluq, it is 
 always Mahpach Leg., except csiv. 3, a passage other- 
 wise irregular, and a few more.^ 
 
 3. When Legarmeh requires no servant, and is not in 
 the clause of iSilluq, either Mahp. Leg. or Azla Leg. 
 may be employed, though not indifFerently. Tlie rules 
 given by Baer are somewhat subtle, and b}^ no means 
 conformed to in Edd. 
 
 (a) If the accent stand on the first syllable of a word, 
 Mah. Leg. is to be expected, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 4, xxxii. 4, 
 xxvii. S.-* 
 
 Also, if the accent is on the second syllable, if the first 
 letter of that syllable have iSheva or Dagesh, it is still 
 Mahp. Legar, xliv. 3, i. 5, xxi. 5, xxii. 28, xxxi. 15, 
 Ixxiii. 28, xiii. G, xv. 5, xxxii. 7. 
 
 1 This general law was known even to Spitzner and Ouscel. 
 
 2 The rule is generally adhered to by Edd., and declared to be without 
 exception by Baer. Mich, writes Azla Leg., Ixii. 13 ; probably, as .^zla 
 is second servant in Silluq's clause, the Psiq should be excided. 
 
 " This rule was recognised by the older accentuists, though not without 
 exception. Mich, gives Azla Leg. on first syllable, Ivi, 10, xliv. 3, etc.
 
 112 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 
 
 Once more, if the accent be on the second syllable, and 
 the first be an open syllable not beginning with Sheva, 
 the accent is Mah. Legarmeh, x. 7, xvi. 9, Ixxiii. 8, 
 Ixxiii. 10, xxvii. 4. 
 
 {b) If the accent stands on second syllable, the first 
 beginning with Sheva, then Azla Legarm. is used, xxvi. 
 1, xxvii. 1, xxi. 10,* xxviii. 7, v. 9, xli. 3. So Azla 
 Legarm. is used if the accent be on the third syllable or 
 nearer the end, xci. 4, cxi. 1, Ixvi. 4,^ Ixix. 16, xviii. 7, 
 xxxi. 21, xxxii. 9, cix. 14, xcviii. 1, xxxi. 12, Ix. 2, etc. 
 
 4. The servant of Legarmeh (always Azla Legar.) is 
 sometimes Mahpach, sometimes Illui, sometimes Mahp. 
 with Zinnorith.^ Baer, pp. 32-34 of his treatise, lays 
 down very minute rules, the substance of which is, that 
 if the accent fall on the first letter of the word it is 
 Mahpach ; or on the second letter, the first having 
 Sheva, it is still Mahpach ; or if it fall on the second 
 syllable, the first ending with Sheva quiescent or Dag. 
 {i.e. being shot), the accent is also Mahpach (pp. 32-33). 
 Also, if tlie accent fall on the second syllable, or farther ; 
 or anywhere, with an open syllable immediately before 
 the tone, whether the open syllable be part of the same 
 word, or an independent monosyllable, the accent is still 
 Mahpach, and the open syllable has Zinnorith (p. 34). 
 
 If these conditions are not conformed to, the accent is 
 Illui (p. 33). 
 
 Legarmeh has no more than one servant except in two 
 places, cxvii. 2, cxliii. 3, where the second servant is 
 Mercha.'' 
 
 0. The minor of Legarmeh is Legarmeh. Perliaps it 
 
 * But Mich, prints Mahp. Legarmeh here, so Theile. So both give 
 Mahp. Leg. on the three next cited passages. 
 
 5 Mich, however points this passage with Mahp. Leg on third syllable, 
 and so the next four cited passages ; so cix. 14. 
 
 •> B. B. leaves the thing in this indefinite state, p. 3, 4. 
 
 ^ According to the express dictum of the Masorah on the latter passage. 
 Mich. not. in loc, who adds another passage on the authority of the 
 Masorah, viz., xcvi. 4. See clause of Athnach. For the Azla in Prov. 
 xxiv. 31, Raor would read Pazer.
 
 HEBREW ACCENTUATION. 113 
 
 would be better to say, Legarmeh may be repeated. 
 The rules applying to the accent itself, apply to the 
 accent repeated, xxvii. 1, xxxii. 4, xxvi. 1. An instruc- 
 tive passage is xlii. 5, cxliv. 1. 
 
 Note. — It is better to write the verses beginning 
 
 rr) Tr)?], which have Legarmeh on the T\\, as one word 
 
 1)^*17771 with Mich, and Baer, instead of putting Azla 
 Leg. irregularly on the yah, and Mercha also irregularly 
 on the halelu, as is done by common Edd., Ps. cxlvii. 1, 
 cxlviii. 1, cxlix. 1, cl. 1, cxxxv. 1, cxiii. 1, cxii. 1 ; and 
 sanctioned by Ouseel, p. 98. 
 
 THE END.
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 p. 3, note 4, last line, lahrbiicher read Jahrbiicher. 
 
 p. 22, 1. 3, and p. 25, 1. 5 and 6, read final mem for Samech in Hebrew 
 
 words, 
 p. 29, 1. 1, Pazer with qam. in first syllable. 
 p. 29, connect the Hebrew words Geresh and Gereshayim, 1. 5 and 6, by a 
 
 vinculum, 
 p. 30, note, before Sgolta, insert the words "besides Pashta." 
 p. 39, 1. 7, for n*»*3 (qam.) read ">1 (patt.), as in 1. 11. 
 p. 42, 1. 19, for "K^P read tJ*© and dele dot over the j^e. 
 p. 49, 1. 7 from bottom, "but represented," read "best represented." 
 p. 98, 1. 5, Tippecha read Mercha. 
 
 A superfluous dot appears here and there on Hebrew words, which the 
 reader will see to be superfluous and proscribe. When a dot happens to 
 be wanting, as p. 43, 1. 8 from bottom, it will be kindly supplied.
 
 WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 WILLIAMS AI^'D NOEGATE. 
 
 THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in Hebrew, with a CriticaUy 
 Reyised Text, various Readings, and Grammatical and Critical Notes, 
 etc., by the Rev. C. H. H. Wright, M.A., Trin. Coll., Dublin. 8vo. 
 Oloth bds. 10s. &d. 
 
 " This work bears evidence of most commendable diligence and accurate scholar- 
 
 »iiip and will prove a very useful manual to the advanced scholar." — English 
 
 Churchman. 
 
 " Surpasses anything of the kind published in England, and we heartily recom- 
 mend it to students of Hebrew." — Chvrch of England Monthly Review. 
 
 " The notes are characterized by caution and judgment highly creditable to 
 
 the learning of the editor, and we think he has conferred a great benefit on Hebrew 
 students by its publication." — Literary Churchman. 
 
 THE PROPER NAMES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 Arranged Alphabetically from the Original Text, with Histoncal and 
 Geographical Illustrations, for the use of Hebrew Students and Teachers, 
 with an Appendix of the Hebrew and Aramaic Names in the New Testa- 
 ment. 8vo. Cloth. 7s. Qd. 
 
 In this "Work will be found the names of persons, countries, cities, moun- 
 tains, etc., which occur throughout the Old Testament, with their deriva- 
 tions and explanations, according to the best English and German autho- 
 rities, with numerous Geographical Illustrations from Professor Stanley's 
 " Sinai and Palestine." 
 
 " A most valuable volume, written by a lady, who shows every evidence of care 
 and intelligence." — Educational Times. 
 
 " We heartily recommend this volume to students of Hebrew, as a very useful 
 •v!ot\.— Literary Churchman. 
 
 THE BOOK OF JONAH, IN FOUR SHEMITIC 
 VERSIONS, viz., Chaldee, Syriac, ^thiopic, and Arabic. With 
 corresponding Glossaries, by W. Wright, Professor of Arabic in the 
 University of Dublin. 8vo. Cloth. Is. Qd. 
 
 COWPER'S SYRIAC GRAMMAR. The Principles of 
 Syriac Grammar, translated and abridged from that of Dr. Hoff- 
 mann, with Additions by B. Harris Cowper. Svo. Cloth. 7s, 6d. 
 
 The Editor has given, in an abridged form, everything contained in the 
 large work of Hoffman which is essential to the Syriac student, and has at 
 the same time introduced frequent original additions and corrections. The 
 arrangement is, moreover, new, having regard to greater facility of reference. 
 " The present grammar may be considered one of the most valuable contributiong 
 to Syriac studies which has appeared for many yeare." — Literary Churchman.
 
 Williams and JSforgate's Publications. 
 
 COWPER'S SYRIAC MISCELLANIES; or^ Extracts 
 relating to the First and Second General Councils, and various 
 other Quotations, Theological, Historical, and Classical. Translated into 
 English from MSS. in the British Museum and Imperial Library of Paris. 
 "With Notes by B. H. Cowper. 8vo. Cloth. 3s. 6d. 
 
 WEIGHT (PROFESSOR WM.) ARABIC GRAMMAR, 
 founded on the German work of Caspari, with many additions and 
 corrections, by William Wkight, Professor of Arabic, Trinity College, 
 Dublin. Vol. I. 8vo. Cloth. 7s. 6d. 
 
 This volume contains all that relates to the orthography and grammatical 
 inflexions of the language, and as one of its peculiar features may be 
 observed the notes touching upon the comparative grammar of the 
 Shemitic languages. The second volume, which is in the press, will 
 comprise the syntax and an introduction to prosody. 
 
 " The Arabic, again, throws much light upon the forms met with in Hebrew. 
 One striking feature of Professor Wright's Arabic Grammar is the comparison he 
 draws between that and the other cognate languages. To the Hebraist, the com- 
 parative notes, which abound in Professor Wright's Grammar, are of peculiar in- 
 terest, not only those on the verb, but also on the noun, and ou the traces of 
 declension found in the Hebrew, and more fully developed in the Arabic. To the 
 Arabic student the work supplies a great desideratum. It is the best book to place 
 in the hands of a beginner."— ^ua^jj^e^ica^ Christendom. 
 
 " The most valuable contribution to the study of the Shemitic dialects that has 
 ever appeared in England."— ^oiurdoy Rcvietv. 
 
 DONALDSON'S JASHAR. New Edition. With Im- 
 portant Additions. JASHAR. Pragmenta Archetypa Car- 
 minum Hebraicorum in Masorethico Veteris Testamenti Textu passim 
 tessellata coUegit, restituit, ordinavit, in unum corpus redegit, Latine 
 exhibuit, commentario instruxit J. G. Donaldson, S. T. D. Editio 
 SECUNDA, aucta et emendata. 1860. 8vo. Cloth. 10s. 
 
 In publishing a new edition of this work, the Author wishes to state its 
 scope and purpose, which have been gravely misrepresented by incom- 
 petent or dishonest critics. Its immediate object is to restore approximately 
 the oldest religious book of the Jews — "the Book of Jashar" i.e. of the 
 ideal, true Israel, — which, according to the best critics, was edited in the 
 reign of Solomon. The inquiries to which this restoration leads establish 
 the momentous fact, that the Mosaic religion, as it existed in the time of 
 David and Solomon, was, in its spirit and principles, coincident with Chris- 
 tianity, and that the Levitical system, with its ceremonies and sacerdotal 
 machinery, was an innovation of much later date. It is impossible to 
 overrate the religious and moral importance of a result which brings the 
 law of Moses into strict harmony with the teaching of the great prophets, 
 and justifies the rational expectation that the Jewish and Christian systems, 
 being both divine, must have agreed absolutely in the essentials of divine 
 truth on which they rested. The Author believes that, no greater service 
 could have been rendered to the cause of that Revelation which professed 
 to fulfil rather than destroy the Law of Moses, but which placed itself in 
 direct antagonism to the Levitical ordinances of the Jews.
 
 Williams and Norgate^s Publications. 
 
 DONALDSON'S (CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY reconciled 
 with the CONCLUSIONS of MODERN BIBLICAL LEARN- 
 ING ; a Theological Essay, with Critical and Controversial Supplements. 
 By John "William Donaldson, D.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. 8to. Cloth. lO*. 
 
 " This volume deserves to be read with great attention. The views stated in it 
 
 are, as to doctrine, those of the Chiirch of England most distinctly It will, 
 
 no doubt be received with resjiect, and read with candour and deliberation by those 
 meiabers of the Church who do not think the Protestant faith likely to be honoured 
 or assisted by imperfect freedom of inquiry." — Examiner. 
 
 " Dr. Donaldson has, by the publication of this volume, forced into prominence a 
 question of more immediate practical interest than any of the special critical and 
 speciilative questions he has hitherto applied his learning and his vigorous intellect 
 to sttAt:."— Spectator. 
 
 AX MULLER. ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE 
 
 and the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans. A History of Ancient 
 
 M 
 
 Sanskrit Literature as far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the 
 Brahmans. By Max Muller, M.A., Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. 
 Second Edition. Cloth. 2\s. 
 
 " A work, every page of which teems with information, that no other scholar ever 
 
 has, or ever could have, placed before the public The work must ever hold a 
 
 foremost place, not only in the history of India, but in that of the human race." — 
 Prof. H. H. Wilson in the Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1860. 
 
 " Foremost among those who have laid aU students of Sanskrit under deep obliga- 
 tions, justly ranks Professor M. Muller the singular purity, elegance, and 
 
 lucidity of his style have earned for him a well-deserved reputation. This remark 
 
 applies in a more especial degi-ee to the present work We have read 
 
 through Professor Miiller's work with that sense of satisfaction and enjoyment 
 which one feels in the perusal of a book of such profound learning and research, 
 provided it is written throughout, even in its least interesting details, in an attrac- 
 tive and fascinating style." — Colonial Church Chronicle. 
 
 THE GENESIS OF THE EARTH AND OF MAN : or, 
 The History of Creation, and the Antiquity and Races of Mankind, 
 considered on Biblical and other grounds. Edited by Reginald Stuart 
 Poole. M.R S.L., etc., of the British Museum. Second Edition, revised 
 and enlarged. Crown 8vo. Cloth. 6«. 
 
 NOTICKS OF THE IIRST KDITION. 
 
 ''A work which deserves th6 attentive consideration of Biblical students, though 
 wc are far from endorsing all its opinion.s." — Quarterly Review. 
 
 " We only say that the writer appears to be a person of ability and learning, that 
 Ms arguments are brought forward with moderation and fairness, and that he in- 
 vites strict examination of his views. — Athenwum. 
 
 " Both the learning and candour of the author entitle him to a fair hearing from 
 all who will concede that the Bible is not rightly understood when it is made to be 
 at variance with facts and science." — Critic. 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 
 
 IMFOETERS OF FOREIGN BOOKS, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 
 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
 
 HISTOET 
 
 ILLUSTRATED, in a Series of 180 Engravings on Wood, from 
 original designs by Julius Schnorr. (With English Texts). 3 vols., eata (0 
 ])lates. Cloth, bda. extra, 15s. each, or the whole in one volume bound, haif 
 morocco, 40s. Published also in 30 Shilling Numbers of 6 plates each. Any 
 Xumber may be had separately, 
 
 pODEX ALEXANDRINUS. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 
 \J GREECE. Ex Antiquissimo Codice Alexandrino a C. G. Woidb olim 
 (Icscriptum : ad fidem codieis ipsius denuo accuratius edidit B. H. Cowpbb. 
 8vo. Cloth. 12s. 
 
 KELLY (W.) LECTURES ON THE BOOK OF REVELA- 
 TION. 8vo. Oloth. 9». 
 
 AnOKAATl^IX IflANNOT. THE REVELATION OF 
 
 JOHN. Edited in Greek, with a new English Version and a Statement of 
 i.lie Chief Authorities and Various Readings, by William Kelly. 8vo. is. 6rf. 
 The Editor has been enabled to use seven cursive MSS. never before applied 
 to the torrection of the text, besides some very interesting extracts from the 
 reccutly-discovered Codex Sinaiticus, for which he is indebted to the kindness 
 of Professor Tiscbeudorf. 
 
 BOPFS COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE SANSKRIT. 
 ZEND, GREEK, LATIN, LITHUANIAN, GOTHIC, GERMAN, 
 and SCLAVONIC LANGUAGES, Translated by Professor Eastwick, and 
 edited by Professor H. H. Wilson. Second Edition. £2 2s. Od. {Publithtd 
 at £3 7s. Qd. 
 
 LATHAM (R. G.) PHILOLOGICAL, ETHNOGRAPHICAL, 
 AND OTHER ESSAYS, by R. G. L.vtham, M.D.. F.R.S., etc. 8vo. 
 Cloih. 10s. 6d. 
 
 GARNETT'S LINGUISTIC ESSAYS. The Philological 
 Essays of the late Rev. Richaed Garnett, of the British Museum, 
 Edited, with a memoir, by his Son. Svo. Cloth bda. 10s. 6d. 
 
 COLEBROOKE (H. T.) ESSAYS ON THE RELIGION 
 AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE HINDUS. A New Edition Svo. 
 Cloth bds. 10s. M. 
 
 Preparing for Publication, 
 
 AN ENGLISH-HINDUSTANI DICTIONARY, compiled 
 from the best Sources, by W. Wright, Professor of Arabic iu the 
 University of Dublin. (In one vol. Svo., about 800 pp.) 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE, 
 
 IMPORTEHS OF POSEIGy POCKS, 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT ' GARDEN, LONDON, 
 1 ~ T'TTi FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 lAilY 
 si\ERk^ CALIFORNIA
 
 UCLA-Young Research Library 
 
 PJ4581 .D28o 
 
 L 009 513 350 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 001 246 988 8