Читать книгу Gesammelte Aufsätze zur romanischen Philologie – Studienausgabe. Herausgegeben und ergänzt um Aufsätze, Primärbibliographie und Nachwort von Matthias Bormuth und Martin Vialon онлайн

151 страница из 203

In analyzing the difference between classical and Biblical patterns of the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher we may, inspired by Norden’sNorden, E. observations, go somewhat further than he did. The classical eulogies normally enumerate the deeds and accomplishments of the gods and heroes, or their spheres of power, their qualities, and attitudes; in the Jewish forms (‘Thou art’ or ‘Thine is’ followed either by an abstract tetra or by names of parts of the universe), the expression of the essence of the divinity or of its omnipotence prevails. Even in almost identical statements (HoraceHoraz, Carmina, II, xix: tu flectis amnes, tu mare barbarum; Ps. 88, 10: tu dominaris potestati maris) the context makes the difference obvious: HoraceHoraz means a very definite and limited sphere of influence, and statements such as his are mostly based on mythical tradition;10 in the Psalm, the statement is a partial expression of God’s omnipotence. The Jewish attributes, even if they are concerned with particulars, are always aimed at the whole of the worshipped object, God. The Jewish God is not involved in earthly occurrences, he has no shape or attitude on earth; he is indeed connected with history by the promise made to Abraham,11 but he himself does not participate in earthly events, nor does he appear in an earthly landscape and in human-like form, as does Venus in Lucretius’ prooemium or the other objects of Greek or Roman worship, who all have a mythical history, an earthly appearance, and earthly residences. Their accomplishments and appearances, sometimes also their residences, are described in the eulogies, for example in VergilVergil’s praise of Hercules:12