Volume 16, Number 2 - Cantors Assembly

The exclusion of the melodic component "e" from strophe V may also
be explained by the adherence of the melodic to the poetic structure.
Tova Be’eri’s study (see note I) has drawn attention to a mannerist aspect
of the rhyming pattern of this piyyut the syllable "-nu" is repeated at the
end of verses I to 3 in all the principal strophes, except V. Thus, at the end
of verse 3, the melodic component “e” not only announces the transition
from the changing rhyme to the fixed rhyme-pattern, but it also seems to
be associated with the "-nu5 rhyming hemistichs in verses 3 of the
principal strophes (in II: ti-nehalleld he$nti; in III: hisbianqfienti; in IV
,rav6 rc’e-_i*ig’:)alerrfi). Therefore the melodic component “e” is not repeated
in strophe V where this rhyming syllable does not exist.
The melodic structure of strophe V as a whole is unusual. The
sentence E, in strophes II, III and IV used for the first verse only, is
adopted in strophe V for the second verse as well. This is indicated in the
manuscript by repetition signs in the notation, and the addition of the
opening word of the second verse (na&+j under the first word of the first
verse (yibbaneh). The repetition calls for the displacement of the ensuing
melodic sentences from the position they hold in the preceding strophes,
with the necessary adaptations and short-cuts (see Transcription II).
The third verse of strophe V follows the melodic pattern of the second
verse in II, III and IV: that is”f,” common to all the strophes, and the
adjacent component “b,” which is common to strophes II and V; the
sentence I.. in the fourth verse of strophc V, consists of the component
“c,” corresponding to the first hemistich of the third verse in II and 111,
and the component “b,” corresponding to the second hemistich of the
fourth verse in I I 111 and IV. This combination, complicated in
description. results in a quite smoothly flowing melody, where the
juxtapositions that our analysis has exposed are not felt.
This coincidence of the divergence of strophe V from the preceding
principal strophes, which we have observed as regards both the poetic
and the melodic patterns, does not seem to be fortuitious. but intentional
and significant. It seems to be a further illustration of the modelling of the
tune in close accordance with the poetic structure of the piyyut.
Strophe IV presents another kind of deviation from the melodic
pattern of the other principal strophes. Verse I and the first hemistich of
verse 2 have the same melodic components as their parallels in the
31