There are also various differences between these two Pesiktot in regard to the Torah readings for holidays and for the Sabbaths of mourning and of comforting. The works are entirely different in content, with the exception of the above-mentioned Nos. 15-18, the part of No. 14, and some few minor parallels. PdRK contains no halakhic exordiums or proems by R. Tanhuma. But in the Pesikta Rabbati there are 28 homilies with such exordiums having the formula "Yelammedenu Rabbenu," followed by proems with the statement "kach patach R. Tanhuma"; while two homilies (Nos. 38 and 45, the first of which is probably defective) have the Yelammedenu but lack proems with "kach patach".
|
|
The diction and style are very fine in many passages. In the beginning of the first homily, which shows the characteristics of the "genuine" portions of the Pesikta Rabbati (in the proems of R. Tanhuma following the halakic exordium), the year 845 is indicated as the date of composition of the work; there are no grounds for regarding the date as a gloss. In the appendix to the Friedmann edition, four homilies are printed from a manuscript, Nos. 1 and 2 of which have yelammedenus and proems.
|
|
Genesis Rabbah 29 The close of this proem, which serves as a connecting link with Lamentations 1:1, is found also in the Pesiḳta as the first proem to pericope 15 (p. 119a) to Isaiah 1:21, the Hafṭarah for the Sabbath before the Ninth of Ab.Compare Müller, Einleitung in die Responsen, p. 38 The same is the case with the second and fourth proems in the Pesiḳta, which are identical with the fourth and third (according to the correct enumeration) of the proems to Eichah Rabbah; the fifth in the Pesiḳta (120b-121b), which corresponds to the second in this Midrash, has a defective ending.
|
|
This midrash is divided into eight chapters or sections ("parashiyyot"). It covers the whole text of the Biblical book, interpreting it verse by verse, with a mixture of literal and allegorical interpretations. The eight chapters terminate, respectively, with Ruth 1:2, 1:17, 1:21, 2:9, 3:7, 3:13, 4:15, and 4:19. As in Eichah Rabbah, the commentary proper on the Book of Ruth is preceded by a long introduction (petichta), which consists of several proems having no connection with one another. The commentary itself (except in chapters 1 and 7, where it follows directly upon the Biblical text) is generally introduced by one or more proems.
|
|
Buber, p. 47a for which there was used a proem on the Pesiḳta section Isaiah 51:12, intended originally for the fourth Sabbath after the Ninth of Av, and a section which had for its text this verse of Lamentations (pericope 19, p. 138a); and also in regard to the comment to Lamentations 3:39,ed. Buber, p. 68a which consists of a proem of the Pesiḳta pericope 18 (p. 130b). But the author also added four proems from Eichah Rabbah itself (29, 18, 19, 31, according to the correct enumeration), retaining the introductory formula ר ... פתח, as a commentary to Lamentations 3:1,14,15; 4:12.ed. Buber, pp. 61b, 64a, b, 74b The opinion set forth in the introduction to Buber's critical edition that the arrangement of the proems at the beginning of the work was made by a later editor, who included the marked comments of the Midrash as proems, and who, after prefixing the introductory formula to a comment on the Midrash Ḳohelet 12:1 et seq.
|
|
Undoubtedly the core of the Pesikta is very old, and must be classed together with Genesis Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah. But the proems in the Pesikta, developed from short introductions to the exposition of the Scripture text into more independent homiletic structures, as well as the mastery of form apparent in the final formulas of the proems, indicate that the Pesikta belongs to a higher stage of midrashic development. The text of the current Pesikta was probably not finally fixed until its first printing, presumably in S. Buber's edition. Zunz gives a date of composition of 700 CE, but other factors argue for a date of composition in 5th or early 6th century.
|
|
Some of the homilies have more than one proem by R. Tanhuma. The piskot taken from PdRK have of course no Yelammedenu or Tanḥuma proems; the first part of piskah No. 14, which does not belong to PdRK, has at the beginning two halakhic introductions and one proem of R. Tanhuma.
|
|
The work begins with 36 consecutive proems forming a separate collection, certainly made by the author of the Midrash. They constitute more than one-fourth of the work47b-52b in the Venice edition, 1545 These proems and, perhaps, most of the annotations, which are arranged in the sequence of the verses,52c-66b originated in the discourses of which, in olden times, the Book of Lamentations had been the subject. The aggadic explanation of this book—which is a dirge on the destruction of the first and second Temples in Jerusalem and the national destruction that came along with it—was treated by scholars as especially appropriate to the Ninth of Av, to the day of the destruction of the Temple, and to the evening before Tisha BeAv.Compare Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 15c; Lamentations Rabbah 4:20; Yerushalmi Ta'an.
|
|
According to , the midrash may be considered to be composed of two different parts which were combined in the 12th or 13th century. # An older part characterized by non-anonymous proems, originating in Palestine around 500 CE, which draws material from Talmud Yerushalmi, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah. This part is then itself cited in such works as Ecclesiastes Rabbah and Midrash Psalms. # A younger part drawing from Yosippon, which may be dated to the 11th century.
|
|
Raphael Sealey, Demosthenes in His Time, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 239f. The Letter of Philip (speech 12) to which speech 11 seems to respond may also be by Anaximenes, or it may be an authentic letter by Philip, perhaps written with the aid of his advisers. The more ambitious theory of Wilhelm Nitsche, which assigned to Anaximenes a larger part of the Demosthenic corpus (speeches 10-13 and 25, letters 1–4, proems), can be rejected.
|
|
Homilies Nos. 20-24, which together form a midrash to the Ten Commandments, lack these introductions and proems. Only three of the homilies for the Sabbaths of mourning and comforting (Nos. 29, 31, 33) have such passages; but they are prefixed to those homilies, beginning with No. 38 (except No. 46, which is of foreign origin), which have the superscription "Midrash Harninu"—a name used to designate the homilies for Rosh Hashana and Sukkot which the old authors found in the Pesikta Rabbati.
|
|
"This Savage Parade: Recent Translations of Rimbaud." The Cambridge Quarterly 36 (2007): 71–82. All of these translators have worked to introduce Illuminations to a new generation, each having their own angle in their presentation of the work. Variations in cross-language (French to English) translation, differences in the ordering of texts, discrepancies in the inclusion/exclusion of certain "proems", and incorporation of forwards/introductions written by the specific translators all account for the ability of these works to offer new meaning to Illuminations.
|
|
Each homily has a set structure: it begins with a halakhic exordium, has one or more proems, followed by the commentary (covering only the first verse, or a few verses from the beginning of the section read), and ends with an easily recognizable peroration containing a promise of the Messianic future or some other consolatory thought, followed by a verse of the Bible. The comments referring only to the first verses of the lesson characterize Devarim Rabbah as a Midrash of homilies, in which even the proems are independent homilies rather than introductions to the comment on the Scriptural section. The exordiums show that Devarim Rabbah is very similar to the Tanḥuma Midrashim. In the halakhic exordium (an essential of the aggadic discourse which is found neither in Pesikta Rabbati and Vayikra Rabbah nor in Bereshit Rabbah), an apparently irrelevant legal question is put, and answered with a passage from the Mishnah (about twenty times) or Tosefta, etc. Such answers are generally introduced in Devarim Rabbah by the formula כך שנו חכמים, though the formula commonly used in the Tanhuma (כך שנו רבותינו) occurs twice (in 1:10,15).
|
|
The sources from which Yerushalmi drew must have been accessible to the author of Eichah Rabbah, which was certainly edited some time after the completion of the former, and which probably borrowed from it. In the same way older collections must have served as the common source for Eichah Rabbah, Bereshit Rabbah, and especially for the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana. The aggadic comment on Hosea 6:7 appears earlier as a proem to a discourse on Lamentations, and is included among the proems in this Midrashed. S. Buber, p. 3a as a comment on Genesis 3:9.
|
|
The intrigue surrounding the poet's scandalous character incites a desire in readers to better understand what inspired Rimbaud, what made him tick. Mason's methodology of focusing so extensively on Rimbaud's life leads readers to conclude his translation functions as a tool of conveying what emotions and feelings Rimbaud was experiencing at the time of his writing. In the Nick Osmond translation (1993), a thorough reading of the Introduction again provides background information and proves useful in examining his purpose for translating. Focusing extensively on the lengthy and uncertain publication process surrounding the original "proems," Osmond attempts to organize the works into distinct groups, establishing some definitive order.
|
|
Shir haShirim Zutta is very different in nature from Shir haShirim Rabbah. Zutta is a homiletic commentary on the whole text, and does not contain any proems; some verses are treated at length, while others are dismissed very briefly, sometimes only one word being discussed. Although the two collections contain a few parallels, Rabbah does not contain those numerous aggadot which especially distinguish Zutta. The messianic aggadot on verses 5:2 and 5:6 may be derived from Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer; the name of R. Eleazar (or Eliezer) quoted in the part on Shir haShirim 5:2, as well as the messianic prediction attributed there to Simeon ben Shetach, support this supposition.
|
|
Except in the Vilna and Warsaw editions with their modern and arbitrary divisions, this Midrash consists of six "parashiyyot" (chapters, sections; singular = "parashah") introduced by one or more proems. These chapters begin respectively at Esther 1:1, 1:4, 1:9, 1:13, 2:1, 2:5. In the Venice edition of 1545, each chapter has at the end the words "selika parashata..." This division was probably based on the sections of the Esther scroll, as indicated by the closed paragraphs (סתומות); such paragraphs existing in the present text to 1:9, 1:13, 1:16, 2:1, 2:5, etc. The beginning of 1:4, as well as the lack of a beginning to 1:16, may be due to differences in the division of the text.
|
|
Jones, G. & Rowlands J, 1980. Profiles: an Account of Welsh and English Language Writers in Wales Today, Llandyssul: Gomer. Although the work in his first book is rich with form and form experiment, his second; Cerddi Rhydd (Free Verses, published 1961) dispenses with all formal devices and is made up of prose proems in the manner of Rimbaud. Not only was Bowen responsible for bringing into Welsh poetry influences from mainland Europe which effectively revolutionised the medium - in this he is in many ways to Welsh literature what T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound were to English - he is also of considerable interest in British poetry because his work with prose poems anticipates that of Geoffrey Hill (in Mercian Hymns) by a clear decade.Hill, G. 1985, Collected Poems.
|
|
In some cases, long pieces, in others brief sentences only, have been adduced in connection with the Scriptural passages, seemingly in accordance with the material at the redactor's disposal. Inasmuch, however, as the homilies in Leviticus Rabbah deal largely with topics beyond the subject matter of the Biblical text itself, the explanations of the individual verses are often replaced by series of homiletic quotations that refer to the theme considered in the homily.Compare chapters 8, 12-15, 18, 19, 23, 31-34, 36, 37 In this, Leviticus Rabbah differs from the Pesikta, for in the Pesikta the individual explanations are seldom lacking. And while the Pesikta rarely quotes lengthy homiletic excerpts after the proems, Leviticus Rabbah quotes such materials after the conclusion of a proem, in the course of each chapter, and even toward the end of a chapter.
|
|