Skip to main content

Full text of "Outlines of Hebrew accentuation : prose and poetical"

See other formats









Aa/ •-^,'. ■«.,< 




Eev. a. K. DAVIDSON, M.A. 

Abkn Ezra. 









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 










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 



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- 


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. 


March, 1861. 


Introd. p. XV., for DK read Di? 
p. 40, for inS^D read inDS^O 



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 


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 


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. 


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 


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 



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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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. 



" 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. 



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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 


different from that of the usual Sabbath day cantiHa- 

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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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, 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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, 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 

'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. 



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 


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. 


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. 


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. 



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 


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 


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. 


(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. 


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. 


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 

'' 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. 



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 : — 


p^^p Silluq .... J^^l^ Mercha. 
niniSj Atlmach .... m^D Munach. 

at:- j t 

Sgolta .... Munach. 

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 



•^"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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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- 

1^ HupfeW, Stud. u. Krit., p. 879 (1837). 

'5 Hupfeld, ibid, s. 882. Ewald, Lelubuch, § 88, p. 142, etc. 



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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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, 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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- 

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 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

•.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 

Sometimes, indeed, as in the well kno\\Ti passage. 
Hab. ii. 4, the just shall live by his faith, some doubt 


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. 



J [pi 1} cp , ^ 

— — — — etc. |! — — — — etc. — — etc. 

1. The lines marked I., II., etc., represent the Dis- 
junctives, the intermediate lines form their respective 


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 

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 


.^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. 


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 

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. 



lU I; 

l— twice.) 


1. The servant or connective (or if the name be pre^ 
ferred, Depression) to Silluq is always Mercha. Bible 

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. 


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 

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. 



etc. f - 


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. 


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. 






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. 


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 


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. 




— (thrice) 

— (four times) 


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. 


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, 


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 

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. 



. (thrice) ") 


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 


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. 




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. 


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. 



3 ! \ Ex. 8er. Mill, Ma,). Mux. 

it t I — or — I 


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. 


and generally only when the word of Rbhia is long or 

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. 




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. 




D^oyen "nn^ -ti^ sw Vna ni?y 


§ 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- 


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 


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 


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 


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 : — 


•~r Silluq with Soph Pasuq. ~7 Mercha (occasionally 





7-^ Mercha Mahpach ^ . ~T Yeracli ben Yomo.^ 

T" Atliacli T Munacli ^ (occasionally 


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 

« 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. 


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- 

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. 


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. 



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. 


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 

2 Ouseel, p. 34, 3 ibid^ p. 30. < Baer in Delitzsch, s. 506. 

s Ouseel, p. 29. « Ibid, p. '26. 



The following table embodies the principal elements 
of the metrical system : — 

I. II. III. . 


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- 


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. - 


(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. 





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. 


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 

* 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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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\ Uian ignoraucr when Ewald 
writes l.vxii. 3 with Psiq. 


Sedition of Slialslieletli as distinctive and servant. 
(B.B.. p. 2-3). 

I — uKual position as diatiuctive, 



I 1 — (ouce), Ixxxix, -1. 

— — (twice). Job, xxxii. 6; Job, xxxvii, IJ. 


— — (seven times). See above. 

— — (once), liv. J. 






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 


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 


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. 



- ( I-) 


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 


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. 


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 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 

^ 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. 




W — - 1 - .... 

(*) _: _ I 1 II z 

w -1 



1 . Olehveyored does not occur in a clause of a single 

(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. 


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. 


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. 






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. 


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. 






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. 


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. 





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. 


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. 




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. 



I — (no serr.) 

I — (repetitiis), 
I — etc, (repet,) 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 



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 

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 

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. 




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 


" 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


and the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans. A History of Ancient 


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 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«. 


''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. 






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, 

\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. 

TION. 8vo. Oloth. 9». 


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. 

and SCLAVONIC LANGUAGES, Translated by Professor Eastwick, and 
edited by Professor H. H. Wilson. Second Edition. £2 2s. Od. {Publithtd 
at £3 7s. Qd. 

AND OTHER ESSAYS, by R. G. L.vtham, M.D.. F.R.S., etc. 8vo. 
Cloih. 10s. 6d. 

Essays of the late Rev. Richaed Garnett, of the British Museum, 
Edited, with a memoir, by his Son. Svo. Cloth bda. 10s. 6d. 

Cloth bds. 10s. M. 

Preparing for Publication, 

from the best Sources, by W. Wright, Professor of Arabic iu the 
University of Dublin. (In one vol. Svo., about 800 pp.) 




UCLA-Young Research Library 

PJ4581 .D28o 

L 009 513 350 


AA 001 246 988 8