Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/45

450) has objected against this, that “this is diametrically opposed to the nature of rhythm = parallelism, which cannot stand on one leg, but needs two, that the distich is therefore the rhythmical unit.” But does it therefore follow, that a strophe is to be measured according to the number of distichs? The distich is itself only the smallest strophe, viz., one consisting of two lines. And it is even forbidden to measure a greater strophe by the number of distichs, because the rhythmical unit, of which the distich is the ground-form, can just as well be tristichic, and consequently these so-called rhythmical units form neither according to time nor space parts of equal value. But this applies still less to the Masoretic verses. True, we have shown in our larger Commentary on the Psalms, ii. 522f., in agreement with Hupfeld, and in opposition to Ewald, that the accentuation proceeds upon the law of dichotomy. But the Masoretic division of the verses is not only obliged sometimes to give up the law of dichotomy, because the verse (as e.g., Psa 18:2; Psa 25:1; Psa 92:9), does not admit of being properly divided into two parts; and it subjects not only verses of three members (as e.g., Psa 1:1; Psa 2:2) in which the third member is embellishingly or synthetically related to the other two - both are phenomena which in themselves furnish proof in favour of the relative independence of the lines of the verse - but also verses of four members where the sense requires it (as Psa 1:3; Psa 18:16) and where it does not require it (as Psa 22:15; Psa 40:6), to the law of dichotomy. And these Masoretic verses of such various compass