This book is called ‏שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִיﬦ‎, which is literally translated by the Septuagint, ᾄσμα ᾀσμάτων, by the Vulgate, Canticum Canticorum, and by the English Version, Song of Songs; and, according to a Hebrew mode for expressing the superlative degree by repeating the same noun in the genitive, denotes the finest, the most beautiful, or the most excellent Song. Compare ‏עֶבֶד עֲבַדִים‎, servant of servants, i.e. most abject servant (Gen. ix. 25); ‏קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים‎, holy of holies, i.e. most holy (Exod. xxix. 37; Numb. iii. 32; Deut. x. 14; Eccl. i. 2; Hos. x. 15; Jer. vi. 28; Gesenius, Grammar, § 119, 2; Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 313, c). Medrash Yalkut renders it ‏שִׁיר הַמְּשׁוּבַּח וְהַמְּעוּלֶה בַּשִּׁירִים‎, a song more celebrated and sublime than all songs; as Rashi, Ibn Ezra Rashbam, Luther, and many others. The opinion of Kleuker, &c., that this interpretation of the Rabbins is more owing to their preconceived notion of the sublime contents of the book than to the real meaning of these words, is refuted by Rashbam himself, who, having explained this phrase by “most excellent song,” refers not to the contents of the book for its corroboration, but adduces similar constructions of the superlative from other passages of the Bible, viz., ‏אֶלֹהַי הַאֱלֹהִים‎, and ‏אֲדוֹנֵי הַאֲדוֹנִים‎ (Deut. x. 17). Other explanations, such as a song of songs, i.e. a song from the songs of Solomon (Kimchi), or a collection of songs (Kleuker), or a chain of songs, or string of strings, comparing ‏שִׁירֹ‎ with the Chaldee ‏שֵׁיר‎, ‏שׁוּרָה‎, Greek σειρὰ, chain (Velthusen, Paulus, Good, &c.), are contrary to the Hebrew usage of the word ‏שִׁיר‎, and the construction of ‏שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים‎. More recent commentators, [2]and even those who regard this book as a collection of separate songs (as, for instance, Döpke, Magnus, Noyes, &c.) admit that the Rabbinical interpretation of this title is the only admissible one. The ‏ל‎ prefixed to ‏שְׁלֹמֹה‎, is the so-called Lamed auctoris, used in the inscriptions of Psalms and other Hebrew poems to designate the author. Comp. Ps. iii. 1; iv. 1, &c. The addition of ‏אֲשֶׁר‎ here, which is not found in the other inscriptions, is owing to the article in ‏שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים‎, which generally, though not always, is followed by this pronoun; comp. Gen. xxix. 9; xl. 5; xlvii. 4; 1 Kings iv. 2; Gesen. § 115, 1; Ewald, 292 a. The rendering therefore of ‏אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה‎ by respecting Solomon, is contrary to usage, and is rightly rejected by modern grammarians and lexicographers.

This Song is the first of the (‏הָמֵשׁ מְגִילוֹת‎) five Megiloth, or books which are annually read in the Synagogues; viz. The Song of Songs on the Feast of the Passover; Ruth on Pentecost; Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab; Ecclesiastes on Tabernacles; and Esther on Purim. The present arrangement of these five books in the Hebrew canon is according to the order of the festivals on which they are read.

This book possesses all the external marks which entitle other writings to a place in the list of the sacred books. The evidence for its canonicity is as conclusive as that which is commonly adduced to prove the canonicity of any other portion of the Old Testament. In the Mishna Yadim (sect. iii. 5), we find the following testimony respecting it from R. Akiba, one of the most celebrated Rabbins, who lived at the end of the first century, and was president of the academy of Bani-Brac: No Israelite has ever disputed the canonicity of the Song of Songs. No day in the whole history of the world is of so much worth as the one in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Another Rabbi (Simeon b. Azzai), in the same place, says, I [3]received it from the mouth of the seventy-two elders, at the time when R. Eliezer b. Azzaria was appointed Elder, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes are canonical.1 We have here positive evidence that this book existed in the canon in the Apostolic age; and that it was comprised in the sacred books, which our Lord calls τὰς γραφὰς, the Scriptures, Matt. xxii. 29. It has, therefore, been transmitted to us both by the Jewish and Christian churches as canonical. It was translated into Greek, between the years 90 and 130, by Aquila, who was anxious to furnish his Jewish brethren with a faithful version of the sacred books; and also by Symmachus and Theodotion, before the end of the second century. It is contained in the catalogue given in the Talmud;2 and in the catalogue of Melito, Bishop of Sardis (fl. 170, A.D.), which he brought from Palestine, whither this learned and pious prelate expressly travelled to [4]obtain information respecting the number of the sacred books.3 Those who in modern days have questioned the canonicity of this book have done so, not from external evidence, but from misapprehension of its design.

We have no sympathy with those who affirm that the Old Testament Scriptures contain all the national writings which were esteemed valuable in Hebrew literature, that this Song was placed among those writings simply because it possessed much poetic beauty, and was supposed to be the composition of a person so celebrated throughout the East as Solomon, and that it is destitute of any moral or practical instructions. We believe that every book of the Old Testament is inspired; and has, on that account, obtained a place in the Hebrew Canon. This is the unanimous testimony, not of the Jewish church only, but is corroborated by Christ and his apostles. Paul, referring to the Old Testament, most distinctly affirms, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. iii. 16.4 As this Song undoubtedly formed a part of the Scriptures to which the apostle alluded, it must, therefore, be inspired, and must serve some of those purposes of inspiration.

The particular design of this book has been much disputed. It is here maintained, that, upon careful examination, it will be found to record an example of virtue in a young woman who encountered and conquered the greatest temptations, and was, eventually, rewarded; the simple narrative of which, divested of its poetic form, is as follows. There was a family living at Shulem, consisting of a widowed mother, several sons, and one daughter, who maintained themselves by farming and [5]pasturage. The brothers were particularly partial to their sister, and took her under their special care, promising that her prudence and virtue should be greatly rewarded by them. In the course of time, while tending the flock, and, according to the custom of the shepherds, resorting at noon beneath a tree for shelter against the meridian sun, she met with a graceful shepherd youth, to whom she afterwards became espoused. One morning, in the spring, this youth invited her to accompany him into the field; but the brothers, overhearing the invitation, and anxious for the reputation of their sister, in order to prevent their meeting, sent her to take care of the vineyards. The damsel, however, consoled her beloved and herself with the assurance that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between them, over which her brothers had no control. She requested him to meet her in the evening, and as he did not come, she feared that some accident had befallen him on the way, and went in search of him, and found him. The evening now was the only time in which they could enjoy each other’s company, as, during the day, the damsel was occupied in the vineyards. On one occasion, when entering a garden, she accidentally came in the presence of King Solomon, who happened to be on a summer visit to that neighbourhood. Struck with the beauty of the damsel, the King conducted her into his royal tent, and there, assisted by his court-ladies, endeavoured with alluring flatteries and promises, to gain her affections; but without effect. Released from the King’s presence, the damsel soon sought an interview with her beloved shepherd.

The King, however, took her with him to his capital in great pomp, in the hope of dazzling her with his splendour; but neither did this prevail: for while even there, she told her beloved shepherd, who had followed her into the capital, and obtained an interview with her, that she was anxious to quit the gaudy scene for her own home. The shepherd, on hearing this, praised her constancy, and such a manifestation [6]of their mutual attachment took place, that several of the court-ladies were greatly affected by it.

The King, still determined, if possible, to win her affections, watched for another favourable opportunity, and with flatteries and allurements, surpassing all that he had used before, tried to obtain his purpose. He promised to elevate her to the highest rank, and to raise her above all his concubines and queens, if she would comply with his wishes; but, faithful to her espousals, she refused all his overtures, on the plea that her affections were pledged to another. The King, convinced at last that he could not possibly prevail, was obliged to dismiss her; and the shepherdess, in company with her beloved shepherd, returned to her native place. On their way home, they visited the tree under which they had first met, and there renewed their vows of fidelity to each other. On her arrival in safety at her home, her brothers, according to their promise, rewarded her greatly for her virtuous conduct.

The plot, if such it may be called, gradually develops itself, like most poetic narratives of a similar kind. Various speakers are introduced in the poem, as the Shulamite shepherdess, the shepherd, the King, the court-ladies, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the brothers of the Shulamite, and the companions of the shepherd, all of whom are represented as speaking more or less, but without any such distinctions as we find in Job, as “After this Job opened his mouth and cursed his day—Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said—Then answered Bildad the Shuhite and said—&c.,” and without separate names, or initial letters of names to indicate the speakers, which renders it difficult to gather the history it contains; and especially as some of the statements appear at first sight to have little or no logical sequence. The Song of Songs differs materially in this respect from all the other books of Scripture; but not, as is well known, from the poems of profane writers.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulty, an attentive [7]reader of the original will find nearly as much help from the masterly structure of this Song, as can be obtained from the divisions and initial letters in modern dramas, by which the different speakers are distinguished, and the various statements are connected in a regular narrative.

The recurrence, for instance, of the same formula of adjuration three times (ii. 7; iii. 5; viii. 4), and the use of another closing sentence (v. 1), divide the Song into five sections. The heroine of the book, when speaking with her beloved or with the king, is easily distinguished by the feminine gender of the verb, or of the adjective or the noun; as, i. 5, “I am swarthy but comely,” where both adjectives, swarthy (‏שְׁחוֹרָה‎) and comely (‏נָאוָה‎), are feminine in the original, and plainly indicate the speaker. The beloved shepherd, when he speaks, or is spoken to, or is spoken of, is recognised by the pastoral language (i. 3, 4, 7; ii. 12; iii. 4, &c.); the King is distinguished by express allusions to his position (i. 9–11; vi. 4–vii. 10); the court-ladies, when speaking to the Shulamite, are recognised by the phrase, “fairest of women” (i. 8; v. 9; vi. 1), and when spoken to by “daughters of Jerusalem” (i. 5; ii. 7; iii. 5, 10; v. 8; viii. 4); the brothers of the Shulamite are introduced as speaking in ii. 15, compared with i. 6 and viii. 8, 9; the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in iii. 6–11, and the companions of the shepherd, in viii. 5, are sufficiently indicated by the context.

On a careful examination of the statements of the various speakers in these five sections, it will be found that the narrative, though not recorded in the order we have stated, may be easily deduced from it.

In the FIRST section—ch. i. 2, 7—the heroine of the Song, who, as is evident from verse 8 and vii. 1, is a Shulamite shepherdess, ardently wishes for the presence and love-tokens of her beloved, who, as she herself most distinctly tells us (ver. 7, and ii. 16; vi. 3), is a shepherd; she wishes him to take her away from the royal apartments into which the King had brought her, for she loves him above all things (verses 2, 3, 4); [8]these apartments (or royal tent), as we learn from iii. 6–11, were out of Jerusalem, and in the neighbourhood of the Shulamite’s home, where the King temporarily resided, and where he met with the damsel (vi. 11, 12). In reply to the disdainful looks of the daughters of Jerusalem, in whose presence she had expressed her desire for the shepherd, and who had contrasted their fair and delicate countenances with her own, she insists that her swarthy complexion need not render her contemptible, for it was not natural, but had arisen from the duties which her brothers had unjustly required of her (v. 6); she then resumes the address to her beloved, asking him, as if he were present, to tell her where he tends his flock (7). The daughters of Jerusalem, who, as we see from vi. 9, are the court-ladies, comprising the maidens, concubines, and queens, ironically answer this question (8). The watchful King, having heard that she wished for her beloved, immediately comes forward, and, with flatteries and promises, tries to win her affections (9, 10, 11); but without effect; for as soon as the King retires she shows her unabated attachment to her shepherd (12; ii. 6), and concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to another (7).

The SECOND section—ch. ii. 8; iii. 5—though apparently disconnected from the first, is found, upon investigation, to be a proper and natural sequence. The Shulamite, in rebutting the contempt of the court-ladies, had reflected with some severity upon her brothers for sending her to keep the vineyards; but this had been done merely to account for the darkness of her complexion; and having been interrupted in her warm address to her beloved, which she hastened to resume, she was obliged to be satisfied with this passing allusion to that event. It was natural, therefore, to expect that, at the first opportunity, she would state more circumstantially how her brothers came to be severe with her, and why they had made her a keeper of the vineyards, which she proceeds to do in this section. She tells the court-ladies that her brothers were displeased with her [9]because they had overheard the shepherd inviting her to accompany him into the fields to enjoy together the charms of nature (8–14), on account of which, in their anxiety for her reputation, they changed her employment, told her to be a “keeper of the vineyards,” in order to separate her from her beloved (15). She, moreover, relates that they consoled themselves with the assurance that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between them, over which her brothers had no control (16); that she invited him to come again in the evening, when unobserved (17); and that, seeing he did not come, she went in search of him, &c. (ch. iii. 1–4). Having thus evinced her deep attachment for the shepherd, she again concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to another (5).

This section, therefore, follows the preceding one, to set forth the cause of the brother’s severity in having made her a “keeper of the vineyards,” and thus gives a further insight into her previous history.

The THIRD section (ch. iii. 6, v. i.) relates the second unsuccessful effort of Solomon to gain the Shulamite’s affections. The King, determined to gain his purpose, takes the damsel, with great pomp, into the capital (ch. iii. 6–11), in the hope of dazzling her with his great splendour; but he is again disappointed. In the midst of the imposing magnificence, the damsel tells her beloved shepherd, who has followed her thither, and obtained an interview with her, and expressed his delight at seeing her again (ch. iv. 1–5), that she is anxious to quit the palace for her rural home (6). Her beloved, on hearing this, offers his assistance to effect an escape (7, 8), and praises her constancy and charms (9–16); whereupon they both manifest their mutual attachment in so affecting a manner that even some of the court-ladies are moved (ch. iv. 16, v. 1), with whose expression of sympathy the section concludes.

The bearing which this section has upon the whole plan is, in the first place, to develop the progress of the history itself, [10]inasmuch as it records the conveyance of the Shulamite from her rural home into the royal capital; and, in the second place, to relate her faithfulness in resisting another temptation, in which the grandeur of the procession which elicited so much admiration from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the splendour of the court, which dazzled the eyes and fed the vanity of so many of its inmates, had far less charms for her than the presence of her shepherd in a humble home.

The FOURTH section (ch. v. 2–viii. 4) records the last and greatest trial which the Shulamite had to encounter, and which she also overcame. It commences with a dream which she had recently had, and which she relates (ch. v. 2–8) to the court-ladies whose sympathy with her has been shown at the close of the preceding section. The narration of this dream gives the damsel an opportunity of describing the personal appearance of her beloved (10–16), and thus we are gradually led on to her chief trial and success. The court-ladies, having listened to this charming description, inquire whither her beloved is gone, and offer their assistance to seek him (ch. vi. 1); but she, suspecting the motive, gives them an evasive answer (2, 3). The King, ever watchful for a favourable opportunity to show his attachment to her, as soon as he hears of the inquiry after the damsel’s beloved, comes forward with most alluring flatteries and promises. He begins with praising her beauty (4–7), and then promises to raise her to the highest rank of all his numerous retinue of women (8, 9), who themselves are constrained to extol her beauty (10). But the damsel, having explained how she came to be seen by those court-ladies, spurns all those praises and promises, and goes away (11, 12); the King calls her back (ch. vii. 1), and, having again described her beauty and attractions (2–8), wishes that he might enjoy the favours of so charming a person (9, 10); but she refuses the King’s overtures, on the plea that her affections are engaged, and that it is her duty to be faithful to her beloved (11); then, addressing herself to her beloved, she asks him to go with her [11]from the palace to their rural home (12, ch. viii. 3); and concludes with again adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to another (4).

This section, as we have seen, is intimately connected with the preceding one. The damsel, having obtained the sympathies of some of the court-ladies, according to the close of the last section, relates to them, at the opening of this (ch. v. 2–8), a dream which she had recently had; which gives the damsel an opportunity of describing the appearance of her beloved, and this description gradually introduces the last and the greatest trial which she has to encounter.

The FIFTH section—ch. viii. 5–14—states the result of the damsel’s victory over all her temptations. The King, convinced that nothing could induce her to transfer her affections, dismisses her; and accompanied by her beloved shepherd, she quits the court for her humble country residence. On their way, they visit the tree under which they were first espoused (viii. 5), and there implore that the flame which had been kindled in their hearts might be lasting. A most graphic and powerful description of the nature of true love follows, in which all her trials are recounted (6, 7). The damsel then reminds her brothers of the promise they had made her, and obtains the reward of virtue.

Thus this Song records the real history of a humble but virtuous woman, who, after having been espoused to a man of like humble circumstances, had been tempted in a most alluring manner to abandon him, and to transfer her affections to one of the wisest, and richest of men, but who successfully resisted all temptations, remained faithful to her espousals, and was ultimately rewarded for her virtue. [12]

Few, it is presumed, will question the importance of a Book, in the sacred canon, which records an example of virtue in a humble individual, who had passed successfully through unparalleled temptations.

The avowed object of Holy Writ is to teach all that is good and conducive to human happiness. Lessons of wisdom and virtue are interspersed throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Apostle Paul urges the Philippians to think of whatsoever is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and of good report: of everything, in short, that is in any way profitable or praiseworthy. These lessons are not communicated to us in abstract forms, or enforced by powerful argument merely, but they are presented in the most attractive examples drawn from the lives of illustrious men and women, who, amidst the greatest trials and temptations, have pre-eminently maintained their integrity. The Patriarch Job is set forth as an example of patience, and the Prophets as patterns of suffering affliction (James v. 10, 11). An example of virtue, very similar to the one in the Song before us, is recorded in Gen. xxxix. 7, &c., where a Hebrew slave is tempted by a woman of rank, but resists the temptations; and though left to suffer for a season, is ultimately rewarded for his virtue. Such instances, therefore, are in harmony with the design of Scripture, and its method of teaching.

The individual who passes through the extraordinary temptations recorded in this Song, and remains faithful, is a woman. Who can find a virtuous woman? This was the question of the Ancients, was reiterated in the middle ages, and is still asked by many. Here is a reply to Solomon’s own enquiry. He has found one at least of spotless integrity, and her virtue is recorded in Scripture, for the defence of women against a prevalent, but unjust suspicion.

The second chapter of Genesis clearly states, that the man and the woman were created with the same intellectual and [13]moral powers. The words used by God respecting the creation of the woman are, “the being of man in his solitary state is not good. I will make him a help-mate corresponding to him;” that is, one that shall be exactly like him in affections, in sympathies, in mind, in fact his counterpart; she shall be the reflection of his own person. That this is the meaning of ‏כְּנֶנְדּוֹ‎ is evident from the Septuagint, which renders it in verse 18, κατ’ αὐτόν, and verse 20, ὅμοιος αὐτῷ; and from the Syriac and the Vulgate; as well as from the Rabbinical usage of ‏כְּנֶנֶד‎, to express things exactly like one another.5 The word of God affirms here, that the woman was created exactly with the same capacities as the man, and contains no intimation of subserviency to him, or of being in the slightest degree weaker or less virtuous than he. The fact that the Tempter assailed the woman, and not the man, so far from showing that the woman was weaker, would rather prove that she was stronger; that the cunning serpent knew this, and was persuaded, if he could only prevail over the woman, she, with her superior influence, would be sure to succeed with the man, as the sad result showed.

The curse which God pronounced upon the guilty pair, proves that the woman was created with the same intellectual and moral capacities as the man. Had the woman been weaker in these respects than the man, she would not have been accountable in an equal degree for her sin, and would not have been punished with the same severity.

No alteration has taken place in their relative position, in this respect, since the fall. The curse upon the woman in relation to the man does not refer to any intellectual or moral, but to a physical, inferiority. Hitherto the Protoplasts resided in Paradise, and subsisted upon its delightful fruit; and the employment of the man was mere recreation. Henceforth they were to be driven from that happy abode; the woman was to experience all the sorrow and pain of [14]pregnancy and parturition, and must look to her husband for support from his hard-earned labour. The man, consigned to rough labour in the field, exposed to the assault of brutes, was henceforth to have more physical strength and daring; while the woman, destined to manage the affairs at home, and to rear up a family, was to exercise the power of patient endurance. The man, with his superior strength and boldness, was henceforth to be the protector; the woman, suffering and mild, the protected. He was to be the tiller of the ground, and she, in addition to the sorrow peculiar to her condition, must depend on what he might provide for her; and hence her desire was to be unto him; that is, she should be looking up to him for protection and maintenance, and thus he would rule over her. That this is the whole meaning of the phrase ‏וְאֶל אִישֵׁדְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵדְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּדְ‎, Gen. iii. 16, is evident from the clause immediately preceding, which describes the woman’s constant suffering, and precludes the possibility of securing maintenance for herself; and also from the following verse, where the man is destined to labour hard for bread.

The notion, therefore, that the woman is intellectually or morally weaker than man, is not the teaching of the word of God. While man, through his superior out-of-door qualities, or physical strength and courage, is the supporter, protector, and ruler of the woman; she, through her superior in-door qualities, her endurance and her charms, ameliorates his government, and sways his inmost heart. Their different characteristics, arising from their different destinations, were designed to blend together so as to produce a happy harmony, and to make both one.

But how vilely and treacherously has man employed his superior strength and audacity! Instead of maintaining, protecting, and defending the woman, he has used his strength to oppress, to crush, and to degrade her. As the human race became more and more alienated from their Creator, intrinsic merit and moral character were despised, and physical [15]force became rampant; the stronger, as among animals, oppressed and preyed upon the weaker, and thus woman became the slave of man, and was absolutely sold in the capacity of daughter or wife, as cattle and other property. Thus Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, purchased Rebekah as a wife for Isaac, his master’s son, (Gen. xxiv. 53). Jacob, having nothing to give as a compensation for his wives, was obliged to serve fourteen years for them (Gen. xxix. 18–28). Shechem, wishing to obtain Dinah for a wife, and ascribing the unwillingness of Jacob to part with her to the insufficiency of the compensation he had offered, says—“Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife (Gen. xxxiv. 12).” Compare, also, Exod. xxii. 15, &c.; 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Hos. iii. 2. This custom of purchasing wives was general among the Orientals. “In Babylon,6 the following course was pursued in every village once a-year. All the maidens of a marriageable age were collected together, and brought in a body to one place; around them stood a crowd of men. Then a crier, having made these maidens stand up one by one, offered them for sale, beginning with the most beautiful; and when she had been sold for a large sum, he put up another who was next in beauty. They were sold on condition that they should be married. Such men among the Babylonians as were rich and desirous of marrying used to bid against one another, and purchase the most beautiful. But such of the lower classes as were desirous of marrying, did not regard beauty, and were willing to take the plainer damsels with a sum of money given with them. For when the crier had finished selling the most beautiful of the maidens, he made the plainest stand up, or one that was a cripple, and put her up for auction, for the person who would marry her for the least sum. This money was obtained from the sale of the most beautiful; and thus the beautiful portioned out the plain and the crippled.” Wives were purchased among the Assyrians and Arabians also;7 among [16]the ancient Greeks8 and Germans9 and are still bought among the Orientals of the present day.10

Fearful consequences, arising from such a mode of obtaining wives, were inevitable, and soon became apparent. As the procuring of wives depended upon the offer which any one was able to make, those that could afford it purchased as many as they pleased. Hence the practice of polygamy, than which nothing produces more contempt for the proper character of women, or tends more to their degradation. As these contracts were formed without the parties being previously known to each other, and without any affection subsisting between them, the woman, instead of being the help-mate or companion of man became his slave, and was kept for the gratification of his carnal appetites, or at best was regarded as a plaything for a leisure hour. Her rights were denied, her education was neglected, her intellect was degraded, her moral character was questioned. Man, seeking to possess as many wives as he could afford, gave the woman no credit for virtue. Acting upon this suspicion and false accusation, he placed her in the most inaccessible part of the house; dogs or eunuchs guarded the doors of her chambers;11 the harem was made as impenetrable as a prison; none but the nearest relatives were allowed to see her, and when permitted to pass through the streets her countenance was thickly veiled, and eunuchs watched her every step. Plutarch relates that when women travelled they were placed in a conveyance closely covered on all sides, and that it was in such a covering that Themistocles fled from Persia, his attendants being instructed to tell every inquirer that they were conveying a Grecian lady from Ionia to a nobleman at Court.12 The sacred books of heathen nations [17]teem with loud execrations against the natural unfaithfulness and immorality of women. “The lust of a woman,” says the pundits, “is never satisfied, no more than fire is satisfied with fuel, or the main ocean with receiving the rivers, or the empire of death with the dying of men and animals.” And again: “Women have six qualities: the first is an immoderate desire for jewels and fine furniture, handsome clothes and nice victuals; the second, immoderate lust; the third, violent anger; the fourth, deep resentment, no person knowing the sentiments concealed in their hearts; the fifth, another person’s good appears evil in their eyes; the sixth, they commit bad actions.”13 The wickedness of women is a subject upon which the stronger sex among the Arabs, with an affectation of superior virtue, often dwell in common conversation. That women are deficient in judgment or good sense, is held as an undisputed fact, as it rests on an assertion of the Prophet; but that they possess a superior degree of cunning, rests upon the same authority. Their general depravity is affirmed to be much greater than that of men. “I stood,” said the Prophet, “at the gate of Paradise, and lo, most of its inmates were the poor; and I stood at the gate of hell, and lo, most of its inmates were women.” In allusion to women, the caliph Omar said, “Consult them, and do the contrary of what they advise,” which Moore has thus paraphrased:—

When woman was created, “the devil,” we are told, “was delighted, and said, ‘Thou art half of my host, and thou art the depository of my secret, and thou art my arrow, with which I shoot and miss not.’ ”14 They were made so much to feel their [18]inferiority, that Iphigenia is made to say, “One man, forsooth, is better than ten thousand women.”15

Though the Jewish women were treated more leniently, and enjoyed greater privileges than their sex in other nations, yet it is evident, from a variety of circumstances in Old Testament history, that they were not wholly emancipated from a state of unnatural inferiority. Polygamy was practised amongst the Jews, and its debasing effects were obvious. The harems, the veils, and eunuchs were not uncommon to their women. Weakness of moral character was imputed to them; unfaithfulness and incontinency were dilated upon (Num. v. 12; Prov. xxxi. 10; Eccl. vii. 28). Josephus tells us16 that women, in consequence of their natural levity, were not admitted as legal witnesses in courts of justice. Maimonides teaches the same; “There are,” says this great luminary, “ten sorts of disqualifications, and every individual in whom one of them is found, is disqualified from giving evidence; and these are women, slaves, children, idiots, the deaf, the blind, the wicked, the despised, relations, and those interested in their testimony; these are the ten.”17 The Rabbins endeavour to justify this inhuman treatment of women from the law of Moses. “Women,” say they, “are disqualified by the law from giving testimony: for it is said, ‘At the mouth of two witnesses,’ where the word ‘witnesses’ is of the masculine, and not feminine gender.” It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the Jew, among his thanksgivings, should say to the Almighty every morning, “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, that thou hast not created me a woman.”

Now, if one sex of the human family has been so degraded by the other; if she whom God created to be a help-mate and counterpart has been reduced by man to the slave of his carnal lusts; if such slavish and inhuman treatment has been justified on the false plea of the natural unfaithfulness and incontinency [19]of the sex; if exclusion from society and imprisonment have been deemed necessary for the preservation of her morals, how greatly has woman been alienated from the original design of her creation! how unjustly has her character been aspersed! how inhumanly has she been treated! and how great is the importance of a book which celebrates the virtuous example of a woman, and thus strikes at the root of all her reproaches and her wrongs!

The importance of this view of the book may be further seen from the fact, that, in proportion to the degradation of women, men themselves have become degraded; for, deprived of the meliorating influences which the delicacy and tenderness of women were designed to have over them, and never more needed than in their fallen state, they have abandoned themselves to their worst passions and desires, and thus their whole civil and social condition has been proportionally undignified and unblest. Look, on the other hand, at the state of society where woman is restored to her rightful position, there we shall find refinement of manners, purity of conversation, mutual confidence and affection, domestic happiness, intellectual enjoyment, freedom of thought and action, sympathetic repose, and whatever, in fact, tends to mitigate the unavoidable evils of the present life; all referable, in a greater or less degree, to the unrestricted influence of woman upon the child and upon the man. In religion, her influence is still more potent. If first in the transgression, she is first in the restoration; and were man as ready to follow her in doing good as he has been in doing evil, the world would long ago have been in a holier and happier state than it is at present. Who constitute the principal part of our worshipping assemblies? Women. Who form the chief portion of the members of our churches? Women. Who are the chief agents in the religious education of our children? Women. Who are the main support of our various benevolent and evangelical institutions? Women. Let it not be said, then, that a Book which celebrates the ascendency [20]of a virtuous woman in humble life over all the blandishments of wealth and royalty, is unworthy of a place in Holy Writ.

The importance of this book is, moreover, enhanced by the circumstances more immediately connected with the time in which it was written.

The conduct of Bath-sheba with David was calculated to confirm man in his opinion that woman was naturally unfaithful and incontinent, and that it was requisite to exclude her from society, in order to preserve her morals. But the narrative here recorded forms a contrast to the conduct of Bath-sheba. It shows the power of virtue in a woman, even of humble life. As the wife of an officer of rank, accustomed to luxury and wealth, the temptations of Bath-sheba were not so great, and yet she surrendered to them. Whereas the Shulamite, a humble shepherdess, to whom the promise of costly apparel and of elevation from a low and toilsome occupation to the highest rank, must have been an extraordinary allurement, triumphed over them all. If one woman yielded to small incitements, this book shows that another overcame unparalleled temptations, and thus checked the clamour against woman which might have arisen from the conduct of Bath-sheba with David.

No book has furnished a wider field for the speculation and visionary projects of those who substitute their own imagination and enthusiastic feelings for the teaching of Scripture, than the Song of Solomon; the varieties and absurdities of which are a solemn warning against departing from the rules of sound philology and critical interpretation.

An enumeration of all the different interpretations of this Song would be too lengthy, and is not required. It will be sufficient to glance at the leading expositions. We begin with the Jewish. [21]

323–246, B.C.18 It has been supposed that the Septuagint, which may be regarded as the oldest Jewish exegetical tradition, contains some intimation that the translators of the Old Testament into Greek and their Jewish brethren of those days must have interpreted the Song of Solomon in an allegorical manner. The only passage adduced in corroboration of this opinion is, Ch. iv. 8, where the Septuagint renders ‏מֵראֹשׁ אֲמָנָה‎ from the top of Amana, by ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς πίστεως, from the top of faith. That this appeal is nugatory is obvious from the rendering of ‏תִּרְצָה‎ Tirzah by εὐδοκία, delight, vi. 4, and of ‏בַּתנָדִיב‎ noble daughter by θύγατερ Ναδάβ, daughter of Nadab, vii. 1; whence it is evident that the Septuagint frequently mistook proper names for appellatives and adjectives, and vice versâ. It appears inconceivable that a profound scholar like Keil, who is well acquainted with the frequent errors of the Septuagint, should quote this as a special and sufficient proof that “the Alexandrian version took this Song in an allegorical sense,”19 especially as he knew that some have drawn from it the very opposite conclusion, who have argued that if the authors of the Septuagint had understood this book in any other than its obvious sense, they would have betrayed it in the translation.20

180, B.C. Jesus Sirach, xlvii. 14–17, is next adduced as furnishing some clue to the Jewish interpretation of this book. Ecclesiasticus, according to some, is a name given to it κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, because of its being the most remarkable and useful of the ecclesiastical or apocryphal books; others say it was so called from its resemblance to Solomon’s Ecclesiastes, and others, again, with more probability, that this name was given to it by the Latins, to denote its use in the church. Its Greek name, however, Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ, wisdom of Jesus [22]son of Sirach, is more appropriate. It specifies at once the author, who mentions his own name in Ch. l. 27. The age given to the book here, is that which is thought most probable.21 This apocryphal writer says in his apostrophe to Solomon,—“How wise wast thou in thy youth, and, as a flood, filled with understanding! Thy mind covered the earth, and thou filledst it with enigmatic sayings. Thy name went forth to the distant isles, and thou wast beloved for thy peace. Countries admired thee for songs, and proverbs, and enigmas, and solutions.” The 17th verse is supposed to include the whole writings of Solomon contained in the Old Testament; and it is affirmed that παραβολαὶ αἰνιγμάτων in verse 15, cannot be understood to mean the Proverbs (παροιμία) since these are separately mentioned in verse 17, hence it follows that they refer to the allegorical interpretation of this Song.22

Even Hengstenberg, who, though a defender of the allegorical interpretation, remarks,23 “Sirach xlvii. 17, has wrongly been referred to in support of the allegorical interpretation. For the words ἐν ᾠδαῖς καὶ παροίμιαις καὶ παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐν ἑρμηνείαις ἀπεθαύμασάν σε χῶραι depend upon the historical narration in the Books of the Kings, and do not refer to the writings comprised in the Canon. This is evident from the mention of the ἑρμηνείαι, whereby the solutions of the enigmas in contradistinction to the enigmas themselves, can alone be meant. Comp. 1 Kings x. 1–3. Whereas in the Canon no such ἑρμηνείαι are to be found. Verse 15, in which Keil finds a special reference to the allegorical interpretation, likewise alludes to 1 Kings x., especially to verse 24.”

120, B.C. The Book of Wisdom has also been supposed to contain a clue to the interpretation of this Song. The author and the age of the Book are points of great contest. [23]All that can be concluded with any degree of probability is, that the author was an Alexandrian Jew, who lived after the transplanting of the Greek philosophy into Egypt, and that he seems to refer to the oppression of the later Ptolemies.24 In ch. viii. 2, Solomon is represented as speaking to Wisdom; “Her I loved and sought from my youth, I sought to bring her home for my bride, and I became a lover of her beauty.” Because Solomon is here made to speak of Wisdom as his bride, it has been maintained to be an explanation of the Song of Songs, as though the brides were necessarily the same.25 Let any impartial reader peruse the description of Wisdom in the chapter quoted, and that of the bride in the Song of Songs, and he will be convinced that there is no intentional resemblance whatever.

37–95, A.D. Josephus is also said to have understood this Song in an allegorical sense, although it is not in a single instance quoted by him. His arrangement of the Books of the Old Testament is the only ground of this argument. It is said, as he26 mentions twenty-two books which are justly accredited as Divine, (τὰ δικαίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα) and describes five as belonging to Moses, thirteen to the Prophets, and the remaining four as containing hymns to God, and rules of life for men (αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν) viz., the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, no place is left for this Song except among the Prophets; and if Josephus placed it there, it follows that he must have understood it allegorically.27 But were we to admit that Josephus placed this Song among the prophetical writings, we should deny the conclusion attempted to be drawn from it. For according to the same mode of argumentation, we might infer that Josephus understood [24]Ruth and Esther allegorically, for he also places these books among the prophetical writings. The fact is, that this historian, as he tells us himself, reckons the historical books among the prophetical ones. But we demur to the assertion that Josephus put this Song among the prophetical writings; it is far more likely that he placed it among the four books which he describes as consisting of hymns to God and precepts for the life of men.28

We come now to the Talmud, in which passages from this Song are quoted and interpreted. This elaborate work, consists of what is called the Mishna, constituting the text, and the Gemara, which is a commentary upon it, derived from two sources, viz.—Jerusalem and Babylon. The Jews, from time immemorial, had an unwritten law ‏תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּעַל פֶּה‎ δόγματα ἄγραφα, in addition to the written one, ‏תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּכְּתָב‎, ἔγγραφος, contained in the Pentateuch. Hillel of Babylon (born 75 B.C.), who, next to Ezra, was celebrated by posterity as the restorer of the law,29 first arranged and divided this oral law into six parts:—1, concerning sowing; 2, women; 3, festivals; 4, the rights of property; 5, holy things; 6, pure and impure things. This, which comprises everything that appertains to the Jewish law, was called ‏מִשְׁנָה‎ Mishna, δευτέρωσις, or the second recension of the law. In order to reconcile the Sadducees, who denied every law not founded on Holy Writ, Hillel laid down seven hermeneutic rules, whereby the Scriptures might be interpreted in such a manner that the oral law could be deduced from it.30 When fears were afterwards entertained lest the oral tradition should be lost, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh (i.e. holy), in the year 220 A.D., collected everything that had been said upon the subject, preserving the division of Hillel, and probably making some additions of his [25]own. This he did in a manner so masterly and satisfactory, that it superseded every other previous attempt, and constitutes the present Mishna.

The Mishna became the chief object of study. The rules of Hillel were increased and much acted on; expositions were given upon the reasons that led to the decisions in the Mishna; the expounders were called ‏אֲמוֹרָאִים‎ Amoraim, public lecturers, and the exposition ‏גְמָרָא‎ Gemara.

After the death of Judah, many of his learned disciples, objecting to the appointment of his second son Gamaliel, to his father’s office, emigrated to Babylon, and having erected schools there, pursued the study of the Mishna. The academy they established in Sura rivalled the one in Tiberias. The Gemara of Tiberias, collated about 358 (A.D.) by an unknown individual, is called Talmud Jerushalmi; and the Gemara of Sura, the compilation of which was begun by R. Ashe (352–427), continued by his disciple and friend, Rabina, and finished about 525, is called Talmud Babli. The latter surpasses the former in comprehensiveness, perspicuity, and depth, is about four times as large, and fills 2947 folio pages. Both united are called The Talmud ‏תַּלְמוּד‎ book of instruction; and also ‏גְמָרָא‎ Gemara. It contains the civil and ceremonial law, debates on various branches of art and science, moral sayings, anecdotes, expositions on different passages of Scripture, &c.31

100–500, A.D.—In Yadaim, (Sect. iii. 5.) we find that R. Akiba, one of the greatest Rabbins who lived in the first century, and president of the Academy of Bai-Barc, said, “The whole world was not worthy of the day in which this sublime Song was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but this sublime Song is most holy.” There can, therefore, be no doubt that the mysteries which this distinguished Rabbi found in the Song of Songs, he regarded as greater than those he discovered in any other portion of the Sacred Scriptures. [26]

Subsequent Rabbins quote and explain different passages. Thus, Ch. i. 2 is discussed in Abodah Sarah (Sect. 2, p. 35). It is asked, “How are the words, ‘Thy love is better than wine’ understood?” Answer: When Rabbi Dimi came to Babylon, he said, “This verse is thus understood: the Congregation of Israel said to God, ‘Lord of the Universe, the words of thy friends (namely, the sages) are more excellent than even the wine of the Law.’”

Here we see that the beloved is taken to be God, and the loved one the Congregation of Israel.

Ch. i. 3, is quoted and expounded, a little further on, in the same tract of the Talmud, in the following manner. “R. Nachman ben R. Chasdah once said, in his discourse, the words ‘Delicious is the odour of thy perfumes,’ denote a learned man; for such an one is like a box of perfumes; if it is covered up, no one can smell the perfumes, but when it is opened the odour becomes widely diffused. It is so with a learned man without disciples, no one knows of his learning; but if he gets a circle of disciples his name and his learning become widely diffused. And not only this, but he himself will increase learning by teaching, so that things which he formerly did not understand will now become plain to him; for it is written in the same verse ‏עלמות אהבוך‎ DAMSELS LOVE THEE; read ‏עלומות‎ HIDDEN THINGS will love thee, i.e., will become plain to thee; and not only this, but even the angel of death will love him; read then ‏על־מות‎ HE WHO IS OVER DEATH will love thee; and still more, he will inherit both worlds, this world and the world to come; read also ‏עולמות‎ WORLDS love thee.”

Ch. i. 13, 14, and v. 13, are quoted and explained in Sabbath, p. 88, b., “Rabbi Joshuah ben Levi saith, What is meant by ‏צרור המור דודי לי בין שדי ילין‎ is the congregation of Israel, who is saying before the Holy One thus: O Lord, though my beloved (i.e. God) oppresses me, and is embittered against me, yet he still lodges with me. By ‏אשכול הכופר דודי לי בכרמי עין גדי‎ is meant, He who is the owner of all things, will forgive me the [27]sin of the calf, with which I covered myself. A question is raised, How does ‏בכרמי‎ signify my covering? Then Rabbi Mar-Sutra ben Rabbi Nachman quotes ‏כסא של כובס שכורמי עליו את הכלאם‎ from another part of the Talmud (Kelim 35), where ‏כרם‎ means to cover. R. Joshuah ben Levi proceeds, What is meant by ‏לחייו כערוגת הבושם‎ is, At every commandment which proceedeth from the mouth of the Holy One on Mount Sinai, the world was filled with aromatics. A question is asked, If the world was filled at the first commandment, where was the odour diffused at the second commandment? Answer, The Holy One sent his wind from his stores, and carried them away successively, as it is written, ‏שפתותיו שושנים‎ do not read ‏שושנים‎ but ‏ששונים‎ repeating in succession. Rabbi Joshuah ben Levi concludes, At every commandment uttered by the mouth of the Holy One, the soul of Israel was drawn out of them, as it is written, ‘My soul went out when he spake.’ A question is again asked, If their soul was drawn out at the first commandment, how could they receive the second? Answer. He (i.e. God) caused the dew to come down, by which he will raise the dead, and revived them, as it is written, ‘Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary.’” Ps. lxviii. 9.32

Here, again, we see that the bridegroom is taken to be the Holy One, the Owner of all things, and the bride the congregation of Israel. The reader, looking into the text of the Talmud quoted in the note, will observe that most of this interpretation has been obtained, either by the separation of words, the transposition and change of letters, or by substituting [28]in the commentary words, similar in sound to those in the Scriptures. Thus, ‏צרור‎ a bundle, a bag, is explained by ‏מיצר‎ oppress; ‏מור‎ myrrh by ‏מימר‎ embitter; ‏אשכול‎ a cluster by ‏איש שהכל לו‎ He whose are all things; ‏כופר‎ cypress flowers by ‏כפר‎ pardon; ‏עין גדי‎ En-gedi by ‏עון עגל‎ the sin of the calf.

This mode of interpretation is not confined to the Song of Songs, but is applied to all parts of the Bible, and is an illustration of the way in which the hermeneutic rules laid down by Rabbi Hillel, and augmented by R. Ishmael, and others, were carried out.

550, A.D.—The Targum or Chaldee paraphrase is the first entire commentary upon the Song of Songs which has been handed down to us. The author is unknown. Kitto erroneously affirms, that it was “made several centuries before the time of Christ, and probably before the traditionary interpretation of the author himself (i.e. the author of this Song) would entirely be lost.”33 The inferior style in which it is written, the copious use it makes of legends of a very late date, and especially the mention it makes of the Gemara (Ch. i. 2), which was not completed till nearly the middle of the sixth century, prove most distinctly that this paraphrase was made in the sixth century. Hävernick,34 however, is equally wrong in affirming that the Mahomedans are mentioned in Ch. i. 7. That the sons of Ishmael here alluded to are not the Mahomedans, is evident from Ch. vi. 7. of the same paraphrase, where we are told that these ‏בְּנוֹי דְיִשְׁמָעֵאל‎ headed by Alexander the Great, came to wage war against Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabees.

The Targum takes the Song of Songs as an allegory, describing prophetically the history of the Jewish nation, beginning with their Exodus from Egypt, and detailing their doings and sufferings, down to the coming of the Messiah, and the building of the third Temple. [29]

Thus, according to this allegory, Ch. i. 3, describes Jehovah’s fame, which went abroad in consequence of the wonders he wrought when bringing the Israelites out of Egypt; verse 12 describes the departure of Moses to receive the two tables of stone, and how the Israelites, in the mean time, made the golden calf; verse 14 describes the pardon of that sin, and the erection of the Tabernacle; Ch. iii. 6–11, describes the passage of the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, over the Jordan, their attacking and conquering the Canaanites, and the building of Solomon’s Temple; Ch. v. 2, describes the Babylonian captivity; Ch. vi. 2, the deliverance of Israel through Cyrus; and the building of the second Temple; Ch. vi. 7, &c., describes the battles of the Maccabees; Ch. vii. 11, 12, the present dispersion of the Jews, and their future anxiety to learn the time of their restoration; Ch. viii. 5, &c., describes the resurrection of the dead, the final ingathering of Israel, the building of the third Temple, &c., &c.

“The beloved,” according to the Targum, is the Lord; “the loved one” is the Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” (Ch. i. 7) are the Edomites and the Ishmaelites; “the daughters of Jerusalem” are, in Ch. i. 5, the Gentile nations; in ii. 7, iii. 5, viii. 4, the Congregation of Israel; and in v. 8, the prophets; “the brothers of the loved one” are the false prophets; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, is the people of Israel; the speakers in the same verse are the angels; the speaker in viii. 13, is the Lord; “the companions,” in the same verse are the Sanhedrim.

The following specimen of the Targum, on the first chapter of this Song, will give the reader an idea of the way in which the paraphrase develops the allegorical construction of this book.

1. The Song of Songs, &c.—The songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, King of Israel, sang, by the spirit of prophecy, before God, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in this world, but this song is the most celebrated of them all. The first song Adam sang when his sins were forgiven him, and when the sabbath-day came, and protected him, he opened his mouth and said, “A song for the sabbath-day,” &c. (Ps. xcii.) The second song Moses and the children of Israel sang when the [30]Lord of the world divided the Red Sea for them, they all opened their mouths and sang as one man, the song, as it is written, “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel.” (Exod. xv. 1.) The third song the children of Israel sang when the well of water was given to them, as it is written, “Then sang Israel.” (Numb. xxi. 17.) The fourth song Moses the prophet sang, when his time came to depart from this world, in which he reproved the people of the house of Israel, as it is written: “Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak.” (Deut. xxxii. 1.) The fifth song Joshua the son of Nun sang, when he waged war in Gibeon, and the sun and moon stood still for him thirty-six hours, and when they left off singing their song, he himself opened his mouth and sang this song, as it is written: “Then sang Joshua before the Lord.” (Josh. x. 12.) The sixth song Barak and Deborah sang in the day when the Lord delivered Sisera and his army into the hands of the children of Israel, as it is written: “Then sang Deborah, &c.” (Judg. v. 11.) The seventh song Hannah sang when a son was given her by the Lord, as it is written: “And Hannah prayed prophetically, and said.” (1 Sam. ii. 1, and the Targum in loco.) The eighth song David the King of Israel sang for all the wonders which the Lord did for him. He opened his mouth and sang a hymn, as it is written: “And David sang in prophecy before the Lord.” (2 Sam. xxii. 1, and the Targum in loco.) The ninth song Solomon the King of Israel sang by the Holy Spirit before God, the Lord of the whole world. And the tenth song the children of the captivity shall sing when they shall be delivered from their captivity, as it is written and declared by Isaiah the prophet: “This song shall be unto you for joy, as in the night in which the feast of the passover is celebrated; and gladness of heart as when the people go to appear before the Lord three times in the year, with all kinds of music, and with the sound of the timbrel, to go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Lord, the Mighty One of Israel.” (Is. xxx. 29, and the Targum in loco.)

2. Let him kiss me, &c.—Solomon the prophet said, “Blessed be the name of the Lord who has given us the law through Moses the great scribe, written upon two tables of stone; and the six parts of the Mishna and the Talmud traditionally, and who spoke with us face to face, as a man that kissed his friend, because of his great love wherewith he loved us above the seventy nations.”35

3. Thy perfumes, &c.—At the report of thy wonders and mighty deeds which thou hast done for thy people the house of Israel, all the nations trembled who heard of thy famous strength, and thy great miracles; and in all the earth was heard thy holy name, which is more excellent than the anointing oil that was poured upon the heads of kings and priests; therefore the righteous love to walk after thy good way, because they shall inherit both this world and the world to come.

4. Draw me, &c.—When the people of the house of Israel went out of Egypt the shechinah of the Lord of the world went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night, and the righteous of that [31]generation said, Lord of the whole world, draw us after thee, and we will run in thy good way! Bring us to the foot of Mount Sinai, and give us thy law out of thy treasury in heaven, and we will rejoice and be glad in the twenty-two letters36 with which it is written, and we will remember them, and love thy divine nature, and withdraw ourselves from the idols of the nations; and all the righteous, who do that which is right before thee, shall fear thee and love thy commandments.

5. I am swarthy, &c.—When the house of Israel made the calf, their faces became black, like the sons of Cush, who dwelt in the tents of Kedar; but when they returned by repentance, and were forgiven, the shining splendour of their faces was increased to that of angels, because they made the curtains for the tabernacle, and the shechinah of the Lord dwelt among them; and Moses, their teacher, went up to heaven and made peace between them and their King.

6. Do not look down upon me, &c.—The congregation of Israel said before all the nations, Do not despise me because I am blacker than you, for I have done your deeds, and worshipped the sun and moon; for false prophets have been the cause that the fierce anger of the Lord has come upon me, and they taught me to worship your idols, and to walk in your laws; but the Lord of the world, who is my God, I did not serve, and did not walk in his precepts, and did not keep his commandments and laws.

7. Tell me, &c.—When the time came for Moses the prophet to depart from this world, he said to the Lord, It is revealed to me that this people will sin, and be carried into captivity; show me now how they shall be governed and dwell among the nations, whose decrees are oppressive as the heat and the scorching sun in the summer solstice, and wherefore is it that they shall wander among the flocks of the sons of Esau and Ishmael, who make their idols equal to thee, as though they were thy companions.

8. If thou knowest not, &c.—The Holy One, blessed be his name, said to Moses, the prophet, “I suffer myself to be entreated to abolish their captivity; the congregation of Israel, which is like a fair damsel, and which my soul loves, she shall walk in the ways of the righteous, and shall order her prayers according to the order of her governors and leaders, and instruct her children, who are like to the kids of the goats, to go to the synagogue and the schools; and by the merits of this they shall be governed in the captivity, until the time that I send King Messiah, and he shall lead them quietly to their habitations; yea, he shall bring them to the house of the sanctuary, which David and Solomon, the shepherds of Israel, shall build for them.”

9. I compare thee, &c.—When Israel went out of Egypt, Pharaoh and his hosts pursued after them with chariots and horsemen, and their way was shut up on the four sides of them; on the right hand and on the left were wildernesses full of fiery serpents, and behind them was wicked Pharaoh with his army, and before them was the Red Sea, what did the holy blessed God do? He was manifested in the power of his might upon the Red Sea, and dried the sea up, but the mud he did not dry up. The wicked and the mixed multitude, and the strangers who were among them, [32]said, The waters of the sea he was able to dry up, but the mud he was not able to dry up. In that very hour the fierce anger of the Lord came upon them, and he sought to drown them in the waters of the sea, as Pharaoh, and his army, and his chariots, and his horsemen, and his horses were drowned, had it not been for Moses the Prophet, who spread his hands in prayer before the Lord, and turned away the anger of the Lord from them. Then he and the righteous of that generation opened their mouths, and sang a song, and passed through the Red Sea on dry land, through the merits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the beloved of the Lord.

10. Beautiful are thy cheeks, &c.—When they went out into the wilderness the Lord said to Moses, “How comely is this people, that the words of the law should be given unto them, and they shall be as a bridle in their jaws, that they may not depart out of the good way, as a horse turneth not aside that has a bridle in his jaws; and how fair is their neck to bear the yoke of my commandments; and it shall be upon them as a yoke upon the neck of a bullock which plougheth in the field, and feeds both itself and its owner.”

11. Circlets of gold, &c.—Then was it said to Moses, “Go up into heaven, and I will give thee the two tables of stone, hewn out of the sapphire of the throne of my glory, shining as the best gold, disposed in rows, written with my finger, on which are engraven the ten commandments, purer than silver that is purified seven times seven, which is the number of the things explained in them in forty-nine various ways, and I shall give them by thy hands to the people of the house of Israel.”

12. While the King, &c.—Whilst Moses, their teacher, was in heaven to receive the two tables of stone, and the law and the commandments, the wicked of that generation and the mixed multitude that was among them rose up and made a golden calf, and caused their works to stink, and an evil report of them went out in the world; for before this time a fragrant odour of them was diffused in the world, but afterwards they stank like nard, the smell of which is very bad, and the plague of leprosy came down upon their flesh.

13. A bag of myrrh, &c.—At that time the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, for the people have corrupted themselves, desist from speaking to me, and I will destroy them.” Then Moses returned and asked mercy of the Lord, and the Lord remembered for them the binding of Isaac, whom his father bound, on Mount Moriah, upon the altar; and the Lord turned from his fierce anger, and caused his shechinah to dwell among them as before.

14. A bunch of cypress flowers, &c.—So then went Moses down with the two tables of stone in his hands; and, because of the sins of Israel, his hands grew heavy, and the tables fell and were broken. Then went Moses and ground the calf to powder, and scattered the dust of it upon the brook, and made the children of Israel to drink it, and slew all that deserved to die, and went up a second time into heaven, and prayed before the Lord, and made atonement for the children of Israel; then was the commandment to make a tabernacle and an ark. Immediately Moses hastened and made the tabernacle, and all its furniture, and the ark; and he put in the ark the two other tables, and appointed the sons of Aaron, the priests, to offer the offerings upon the altar, and to pour the wine upon the offerings; [33]but from whence had they wine to pour? For in the wilderness they had no proper place for sowing; neither had they fig-trees, nor vines, nor pomegranates; but they went to the vineyards of En-gedi, and took clusters of grapes from thence, and pressed wine out of them, and poured it upon the altar, the fourth part of a hin to one lamb.

15. Behold thou art beautiful, &c.—When the children of Israel performed the will of their King, he himself praised them in the family of the holy angels, and said, “How fair are thy works, my daughter, my beloved, O congregation of Israel, in the time that thou doest my will, and studiest in the words of my law; and how well ordered are thy works and thy affairs, as young doves that are fit to be offered upon the altar!”

16. Behold thou art comely, &c.—The congregation of Israel answered before the Lord of the world, and thus said, “How fair is the shechinah of thy holiness, when thou dwellest among us, and receivest prayers with acceptance; and when thou dwellest in our beloved bed, and our children are multiplied in the world, and we increase and multiply like a tree that is planted by a stream of water, whose leaf is fair, and whose fruit is plenteous!”

17. The beams of, &c.—Solomon, the prophet, said, “How beautiful is the house of the sanctuary of the Lord, which is built by my hands, of wood of Gulmish; but far more beautiful will be the house of the sanctuary which shall be built in the days of the King Messiah, the beams of which will be of the cedars of the garden of Eden, and whose rafters will be of cypress, pine, and box.”

The precedent of the Talmud in taking the beloved as the Lord, and the loved one as the Congregation of Israel, and in explaining the text in such a manner as to make it square with her doings, has quite prepared us for the Chaldee exposition, the author of which most probably was himself one of the later Talmudists. How could the paraphrast do otherwise? “Are not the words of the sages more excellent than even the wine of the Law?”37 “Is not he who transgresses the words of the scribes more guilty than he who transgresses the words of the Law?”38 Having, therefore, been once settled by the sages that this Song describes the doings and sufferings of Israel, it only remained for the expositors to apply their exegetical canons, viz.: of transposing, changing, or omitting letters; explaining words by others of a similar sound; making each letter of a word begin another word; reducing an expression to its numerical value, and explaining the text accordingly, &c. &c., in order to palm upon this book, in a consecutive [34]order, the remarkable events in connection with the history of the Jews.

Thus, the love of God to Israel, which was greater than to all the seventy other nations mentioned in Ch. i. 2, was obtained by reducing the word ‏יין‎ to its numerical value, seventy; the two worlds, in verse 3, which the pious are to inherit, were obtained by changing ‏עלמות‎ maidens, into ‏עולמות‎ worlds, according to the example of the Talmud;39 the twenty-two letters with which the Law is written, in verse 4, were obtained by reducing the word ‏בך‎ to its numerical value; the Tabernacle, in verse 5, was obtained from the word ‏ירעות‎, and the effected peace by changing the proper name ‏שלמה‎ into ‏שלום‎ peace; the worship of the sun and moon, in verse 6, was obtained from the word ‏שמש‎ sun; the ploughing bullock, in verse 10, was obtained by changing ‏תורים‎ ringlet, and ‏חרוזים‎ necklace, into ‏תור חרז‎; the two tables shining as the best gold, verse 11, were obtained by rendering ‏תורי זהב‎ golden Laws, and the seven times seven, or the forty different interpretations of the Law, by reducing the word ‏זהב‎ to its numerical value, ‏ז‎ being seven, and ‏ה‎ and ‏ב‎ seven, and then multiplying seven by seven; the binding of Isaac, in verse 13, was obtained by rendering ‏צרור המור‎ by ‏ערור המוריה‎ the binding of Moriah; the sin of the calf, and the atonement of that, in verse 14, were obtained by changing ‏עין גדי‎ En-gedi, into ‏עון עגל‎ the sin of the calf, and by substituting ‏כפר‎ pardon, for ‏כופר‎ cypress-flower, according to the example of the Talmud.40 This is the development of Hagadic exegesis, and this the paraphrase appealed to in support of the allegorical interpretation, and in the track of which future allegorists more or less follow.

892–942. From the Chaldee paraphrase to R. Saadias Gaon, a period of about 350 years, thick darkness covers the annals of Jewish literature. With him, however, a new epoch begins to dawn. Saadias was born at Pithom, in Egypt, about the year 892, and died in the year 942. He was “Gaon,” or spiritual head of [35]the Jews in Babylon, and is well known by his translation of the Bible into Arabic, the Pentateuch of which is inserted in Walton’s Polyglott.41 Among the many philosophical and exegetical works this eminent man bequeathed to posterity, is a commentary on the Song of Songs, which was originally written in Arabic, and was translated into Hebrew by some unknown individual. This work is exceedingly rare, and I have happily found a copy of the original Constantinople edition in the British Museum, of which Dukes was not aware when he wrote his “Literarische Mittheilungen.” The view that Saadias takes is that “Solomon relates in it the history of the Jews, beginning with their Exodus from Egypt, and extending it beyond the coming of the Messiah.” Thus far he agrees with the Targum, but his commentary on the text is entirely at variance with that paraphrase.

According to Saadias, Ch. i. 2–iii. 5, describes the bondage of Israel in Egypt, their liberation, the giving of the Law, the battles with Sihon, Og, and the King of Aroar, the wrath of God at the time of the spies, &c. Ch. iii. 6–iv. 7, describes the erection of the Tabernacle, the various journeys in the wilderness, the high position of Moses and Aaron, &c. Hitherto Israel has been called by the appellation my loved one, for they had not as yet entered Canaan; henceforth they are called bride (‏כלה‎), because God takes them into the promised land; just as a bridegroom calls his loved one bride, when he takes her home. Ch. iv. 8–v. 1, describes Israel’s entrance into Canaan, the building of the first Temple, the separation of [36]Judah and Israel, the Shechinah departing from Israel and abiding with Judah, and the people coming up to Jerusalem to the three great festivals. Ch. v. 2–vi. 3, describes the rebellion of Israel and Ahaz, God sending prophets to warn them to repent, the destruction of the Temple, the Babylonian captivity, Israel’s liberation, the building of the second Temple, and the covenant of God with his repenting people. Ch. vi. 4–ix. describes the twofold condition of the people that returned from Babylon, some of whom were godly, while others took strange women, forgot the holy language, and were therefore called ‏שחר‎ dawn, being neither real light nor real darkness, neither pious nor wicked. Ch. vi. 10–vii. 9, refers to the present dispersion, in which the Jews, though being many days without a king, without a priest, &c., say we still live in the fear of God, and are His. Ch. vii. 12–viii. 4, refers to the sufferings of the Messiah ben Joseph, the manifestation of the Messiah ben David, the obedience of Israel to God in those days, and to the Lord’s rejoicing over them as a bridegroom over his bride. Ch. viii. 5, to the end, describes Israel restored, the third Temple built, and all the people walking according to the will of the Lord.

The principal persons in this Song are understood in the following manner: “the beloved” is the Lord; “the loved one,” the Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved,” (Ch. i. 7,) are Moses, Aaron, and Miriam; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” the Congregation of Israel; “the little sister,” the two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” the Lord; “the inhabitant of the gardens,” is the sages; “the companions,” in the same verse, are the Israelites wishing to listen to the teaching of their sages.

The following is a specimen of R. Saadias’s commentary, the Hebrew of which is given in the note.42

1–3. The Song of Songs, &c.—Know, my brother, that you will find a great diversity of opinions as regards the interpretation of this Song of [37]Songs; and it must be confessed that there is reason for it, since the Song of Songs is like a lock, the key of which hath been lost. Some maintain that it refers to the kingdom of Israel; others say that it refers to the days of the Messiah; and others again affirm that it refers to the time of the dispersion and the Messiah, and assert that by beloved (‏דוד‎) the Messiah is meant, and by bride (‏כלה‎) is meant the law (‏תורה‎). But this is a sin, an error, and a great heresy. The truth is, that by beloved (‏דוד‎) is meant the Lord, for it is written, “I will sing to my beloved a song of love respecting his vineyard” (Isa. v. 1), which the prophet Isaiah explains (verse 7), “The vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel.” Solomon relates in this book the history of the Jews commencing with their Exodus from Egypt until after the coming of the Messiah, and compares the position of Israel to God to that of a bride to a bridegroom, because she (Israel) is dear to him, and he to her. When he first takes her from her father’s house he calls her my friend (‏רעיתי‎), when he brings her to his house he calls her my bride (‏כלה‎), when she finds favour in his eyes he calls her my sister (‏אחותי‎), and praises her from head to foot; then he is angry with her, and she returns and praises him from head to foot; then he praises her a second time. And, because it is unlawful for a bridegroom and bride to come together without a marriage-contract and witnesses, therefore Solomon begins with the words, “Let him give me kisses of his mouth;” that is, the commandments and the statutes, comprising both the written and the oral law which the Lord gave to Israel through the pious Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, so that Israel’s fame went forth into the world in consequence of their wisdom, as it is written, “And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty,” &c. (Ezek. xvi. 14), so much so that many of the nations desired to be gathered under the wings of the shechinah and become Jews; and these are the mixed multitudes, Jethro and others, and therefore it is said, “Thy perfumes are good in odour,” that is, the Lord tried them from the departure out of Egypt till their entrance into Canaan whether they would walk in his ways, as it is written, “Thou didst follow me in the wilderness,” &c. Jer. ii. 2.

4. Draw me, &c.—Having related in this verse how Israel walked in the fear of the Lord, and received the ten commandments in the 6th of [38]Sivan, and then made the calf on the 17th of Tamuz, Solomon in astonishment says in their name,

5. I am swarthy, &c.—That is, I am swarthy, but comely; I am swarthy because of making the calf, but comely because of receiving the ten commandments; and Israel says that his sin has been forgiven through the three thousand men, the wicked among Israel, who served idols, who were killed before the sun to atone for the great sin, as it is written, “For thou hadst done it in secret, but I will do it before all Israel, and before the sun” (2 Sam. xii. 11, 12); and the nations made me keeper of the service of other gods, for I served strange gods, as it is written, “And they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass” (Psal. cv. 25.)

The reader will have observed that this early commentator does already compare the Song of Songs to a lock, the key of which has been lost, and refers to several modes in which it has been interpreted.

1000–1040. The allegorical interpretation was nevertheless introduced into the Jewish liturgical services in the middle ages, when they were seeking, from traditions, dogmas, biblical events, &c., to construct sacred hymns and poems to be said or sung at their feasts and fasts.43 Being regarded as representing the departure of Israel from Egypt (‏יציאת מצרים‎), and their subsequent history in confirmation of Jehovah’s covenant with them, the Song of Songs is used in a poetical paraphrase on the first and second morning services of the Passover feast, which was designed to celebrate the Exodus from Egypt as the commencement of the conjugal relation between God and his people. For the same reason, the book itself is read in the synagogue on the Sabbath of the middle days of the Passover (‏חול המועד של פסח‎). The poetical paraphrase above alluded to is in an alphabetical form, has the author’s name in it, and each stanza closes with a quotation from the book in regular order, which renders the paraphrastic meaning artificial and obscure. Some idea of it may be gathered from the following version which we have made of R. Solomon [39]ben Judah Hababli’s paraphrase, comprising the first five verses of the Song of Songs.

It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the [40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.

1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly called Rashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously named Jarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48

“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’ (Hos. ii. 9); that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promised to give them in the latter days (i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)

“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.

“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her (i.e., Israel) willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49 [41]

According to Rashi, ‏דוד‎ represents God as a husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, as a wife forsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” are the heathen kings and princes, under the figure of wolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” are the heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” are the Egyptians; the “little sister” is the forsaken wife of the Song, &c. &c.

The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—

1. The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.

2. Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name of wine (Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”

3. Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is called ‏שמן‎, i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused. The maidens love thee. Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By the maidens are meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth. [42]

4. Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife. He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee. We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth. They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He brought them into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and herein celebrate His love more than wine, and manifest their sincere attachment to Him.

5. I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee for daughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and her daughters” (Josh. xv. 44).

Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”50

1085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51 of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier, [43]called Rashbam, the grandson of Rashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52

Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53 In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.

The following is a specimen of his commentary:—

1. The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, like ‏אלהי אלהיﬦ‎ the great and awful God, above all gods, and ‏ﬡדוני אדניﬦ‎ the great Lord above all lords. Which is Solomon’s. That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God). ‏אשר לשלמה‎ describes Solomon as the author, compare ‏תפלה למשה‎, ‏תהלה לדוד‎.

2. Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses of His mouth on my mouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet. Thy caresses. The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he were present, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he were absent. More than wine, i.e. more than sweet beverages called ‏יַיִן‎. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.

3. Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.

4. Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and [44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers, i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.

5. I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. The daughters of Jerusalem are the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thy daughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61. The tents of Kedar are black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.

1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also called Ibn-Ezra and Raba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54 administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.

Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that [45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.” (Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)

The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55

“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, where the Messiah is meant; “the loved one” is the Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” are the pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” are the thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, is the two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13, the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, are the angels.

The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.

2. Let him kiss me.—He (i.e. Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (‏ישקני‎) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compare ‏ﬡז ישּיר‎, then he sang (Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c. i.e., to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference between ‏אוהב‎, loving, and ‏אהוב‎, loved.

3. Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.” Therefore do the damsels love thee.—‏עלמות‎ are such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by [46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).

4. Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1). The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words, we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.

5. I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e. Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.

It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are a shepherd and a shepherdess, and that the king is a separate and distinct person from the beloved shepherd.

Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “I rejoice in THEE (the shepherd) more than if THE KING had brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet that THE KING, whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yet MY BELOVED (the shepherd), who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.

Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56 In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”57

1200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.

Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning [47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between the ACTIVE INTELLECT (intellectus agens) and the RECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT (intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.

As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—

THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58

Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to the design of the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.

I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between the active intellect and the receptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is the imparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls here the highest order of the human intellect “the fairest of women,” and the active intellect “the graceful lover;” frequently the whole intellectual mind is meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.

It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect [48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”

Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”

It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways; the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is called all silver; the second entirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is called all gold; and the third comprising both the figurative and the literal, which is called apples of gold (under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.

There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed [49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former, e.g., ‏יין חמר, פרדם‎, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.

Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of the RECEPTIVE or MATERIAL INTELLECT with the ACTIVE INTELLECT.”

This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically called ‏אַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל‎, the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59

The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world [50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which forms the perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.

The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.

These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated [51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.

Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.

I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.

The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.

The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.

And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.

These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.

The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he [52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the word ‏חמדתי‎. The expression ‏פריו‎ is here used in the sense of words, wisdom, and instruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.

The second section (chap. iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother, [53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called here King Solomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls her bride six times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.

The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead, [54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.

This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.

The third section (v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expression with her (‏עמח‎), for man cannot eat of it unless with her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and [55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of uniting a couple a second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.

This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.

[56]

This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as a separate person, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.

1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas and Ralbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.

It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interprets this Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon as a distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.

This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible [57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.

1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, as some explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz., that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.61

1360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is [58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62 and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63 whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy, 558,64 Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65 and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66 whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.

While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed that the Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67

His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.68

1729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that [59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views, they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.

Seeing that this book describes the love of a shepherd and a shepherdess, and also speaks of a king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.

1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows that the Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment of a shepherdess to a shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.69

1832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70 did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song as an epithalamium.71

1848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi of Anhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations, [60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72 His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”

1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73 The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God (Ch. viii. 6, 7), exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.

The two last-mentioned Rabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74 [61]

185–254. We come now to the Christian Expositors of this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75 imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.

His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76 but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”

He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understand Christ, by “the bride,” the Church, by “the [62]companions” of the former, angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter, believers on the earth.

The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—

2, 3. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.

Thy name, &c. This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment, since the world will be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour. Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says, The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’

4. Draw me, &c. In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen. The king hath brought me into his chambers. He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,

5. Black I am, &c. Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.

296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born [63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songs as a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul. The whole book, he says, is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.

The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—

2. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”

[64]

In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.

331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—

2. Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face. Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.

3. Thy name, &c. This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.

Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.

331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77 as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors [65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.

354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”

Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”

360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.

386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them. [66]

There are some, says this prelate, who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.

1. These people, he submits, ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.

2. Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.

3. Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.

“The bridegroom” is Christ, “the bride” his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem” are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom” are either the angels or the prophets.

The following is a specimen of his commentary:—

1. The Song of Songs, &c. This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms [67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.

2. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.

390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to mean the cross; its “silver legs,” the thirty pieces of silver which brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,” the purple garment in which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,” the crown of thorns put on Christ’s head, &c. &c.

650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs as describing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.

673–735. Bede, called the venerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from [68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.

1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, delivered eighty-six sermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song into three parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride into the garden, and in the second he conducts her into the cellar, and in the third he takes her home into his apartments. Upon the words Let him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78

Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliver forty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprise four chapters and a half.

1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end, the origin [69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”79

1538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride, i.e. the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”80

1542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs, “Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”81

1544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.82

1585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft [70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83 This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.

1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, that this book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84 He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Legal Church from the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14, the state of the Evangelical Church, from A.D. 34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.

A. The Legal Church.

Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Church before the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.

Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Church during the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.

Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by [71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6, Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.

B. The Evangelical Church.

Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church from A.D. 34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito, Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.

Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D. 368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure [72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, William Ockham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.

Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the [73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.

As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.

I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D. 368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps [74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.

My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.

14. His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was called the first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, William Ockham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.

His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly, that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.

How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus [75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, and in this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not (Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7), so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath (Rom. iv. 15), but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85

The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to be the Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song is a drama in five acts.

1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation [76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him, celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admitted that the ARCANA NUPTIARUM spiritually represent, first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86 It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.

1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceius regards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John. [77]

1648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his (i.e. Solomon’s) own time to the last judgment.”88

• Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.
• Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the temple to the days of the Maccabees.
• Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.
• Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension, under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure, during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.
• Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that Constantine entered it to the time of restoring [78]the Gospel and reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late divines.
• Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of the Jews.
• Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.
• Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.

1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, not Solomon and the Shulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”89

1688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90 “The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John. [79]

1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91 The following is his division:—

1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “the two Sacraments which the Church administers to her children; the Font in Baptism being represented by the former, and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by the other part of the figure.”92 [80]

1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was, Understandest thou what thou readest? he will have more reason than he had to say, How can I, except some man shall guide me? that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be made a savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book, it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”93

1723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I. Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3, and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5, and almost throughout. II. Under crosses, chap. i. 6, as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2, and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III. As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5, and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV. As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5, and also [81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7. And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared. V. As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1, and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3, and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI. It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace. VII. And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.

“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1. What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame. 2. What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful. 3. To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come. 4. That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94

Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:

“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear. [82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”

Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:

“Thirdly. There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.

“Fourthly. The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No (saith he), take them all, even THE LITTLE FOXES; for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind (as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with), so they are (saith he) foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump (often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as the Novations and Donatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church), therefore, saith he, hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”95

1723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked [83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96 and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.

1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97 In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.

1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was [84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”

As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98

Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.

1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy, D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which, [85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”99

1765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerning Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”100

1768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are not two, as generally believed, but three—viz., Solomon, the Shulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying a Gentile princess, and making her equal in honour and privilege with his former Jewish queen, and of her being frequently mentioned afterwards in history, while the other is passed over in total silence, resembles the conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101 [86]

The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought of renouncing her relation to Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain a distinct body of people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”

1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in [87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describes the chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks, Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?102

1771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, but to celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this [88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103 However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104 have already taken the lovers to be a shepherd and shepherdess, and regarded Solomon as a separate person, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.

1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105 could still overlook the two distinct persons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.

1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so [89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr von Puffendorf’s new theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106 On the clause,

“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the root ‏עָלַﬦ‎, whence ‏עֲלָמוֹת‎, virgins, is derived, signifies to be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”

The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book. [90]

1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained that this Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.

Upon the question, whether there may not be another sense concealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107

Herder admits that this book describes the love of a shepherd and shepherdess, as well as that of a king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is [91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.

1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108 He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.

1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109 was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks of two wives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.

1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”110

1789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111 seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112 defended the view that the bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.

1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with some glimpses of light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that it celebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113 [92]

1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.114

1803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115 He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.

1813. Hug,116 rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” means the ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” is King Hezekiah, and the book describes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers (chap. viii. 8, 9) to this re-union.

1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem is to celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A [93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117

Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.

1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” is a new colony near the Jordan, and the bridegroom represents Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah; and that the Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.118

1826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that “this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”119

1829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.120

1830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem, [94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” represents wisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121

Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”122

1839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123 about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124 in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”

1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became [95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songs celebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.125

1842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126 Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.

1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”127

1846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs, without any moral or religious design,128 and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.

1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129 is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and [96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”130

1849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for some Christian mysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.131

1851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view that the book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively represent the union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.132

1852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents [97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion of a personal Messiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” represents the kingdom of Israel, and “the bride” Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133 He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.

The first section, Chap. i. 2–ii. 7, describes the longing of the maiden, who represents Japhetic heathenism, for the pleasurable love of the king of Israel; her humble supplication to be received into his fellowship, and the ultimate realization of her desire in that union.

The second section, Chap. ii. 8–iii. 5, supplementing the first, describes the friendly invitation which the king of Israel gives to this maiden (the Japhetic heathen) to catch with him the foxes, which represent the kingdom of Satan upon earth, the Hametic heathen, and to unite herself with him in the land of Canaan, which is the kingdom of God, and her acceptance of this invitation.

The third section, Chap. iii. 6–v. 1, supplementing the first and second, represents this maiden, after being conquered by the power of the king’s love, and from sincere reciprocal attachment, devoting herself as an acceptable offering to the service of God, as introduced into the land of Canaan, which is the type of the kingdom of God, and describes the completion of her never-ending union with the king of Israel.

The fourth section, Chap. v. 2–vi. 9, a supplementary explanation of the first, describes the early love of the king of Israel when he visited the maiden in the dark night as she lay in a deep sleep, void of all love to him, entreating to be admitted; [98]her refusal; her repentance after having become acquainted with his glory; her long search after him; his accepting her after her repentance had been tried, &c. &c.

The fifth section, Chap. vi. 10–viii. 4, which explains the second, and supplements the fourth, describes how the king of Israel revealed himself ultimately to the maiden; the king, after being long and painfully sought by the maiden, who, despairing of success, and in a dejected state, had returned home, was again incited, by some new charms of hers, followed her, attended by his martial hosts, once more offered her his love, met with a hearty response, and then she offered herself to him with all she had, as his property.

The sixth section, Chap. viii. 5–14, which is a supplementary exposition of the third, and a completion of the fifth, describes how the maiden, after long and painfully searching, and longing for the king of Israel, yielded herself up to him in her home, whither he had followed her, and how she entreated for the favourable reception of her younger sister, that is, the Hametic heathen, and how the king promised the maiden that her sister shall eventually be received.

1853. Though this allegorist has repudiated the idea that Solomon represents the Messiah, at the same time, another allegorist, and that a no less writer than Hengstenberg, assures us that Solomon can be regarded only as the Messiah, and that the bride is not Japhetic heathenism, but the people of God. According to him, the poem celebrates the Prince of Peace and all the mercies which through him flow to the people of God, and is divisible into two parts.

The first part, Chap. i.–v. 1, describes the advent of Messiah, the heavenly Solomon, to save his people; the tribulations and sorrows which will precede his coming, and especially the bondage of the people of God to worldly power, as the merited punishment of their unfaithfulness. These sufferings are represented under the figure of swarthiness, i. 6; winter and rain, ii. 11; dark nights and a wilderness, iii. 6. Connected [99]with the coming of Messiah is the admission of the heathen into the kingdom of Christ, iii. 9–11, effected through the mediation of the Old Testament people, as indicated by the name “daughters of Jerusalem.”

The second part, Chap. v. 2–viii. 14, describes the sinning of the daughter of Zion against the heavenly Solomon, her punishment, repentance, and the re-union effected through the mediation of the daughters of Jerusalem (the heathen), whose salvation she had first assisted to accomplish; the complete restoration of the former mutual love, in consequence of which the daughter of Zion becomes again the centre of the kingdom of God; and the immutability of the new covenant of love in contrast with the mutability of the old.134

1853. Simultaneous with this commentary of Hengstenberg, an allegorical exposition appeared in America, by Professor Burrowes. He differs again from the preceding in regarding this Song as illustrating by imagery drawn from the court of Solomon, the mutual love of Christ and the Church, as exercised in the case of individual believers. He divides it into three parts.

The first part, Chap. i.–ii. 7, describes the way in which the soul, longing after the manifestation of the love of Christ, is conducted in the gratification of that desire, from one degree of pious enjoyment to another, till, by the vicissitudes of fortune, and by the diversities in its progress towards heaven, and the enjoyment of Christ’s love as manifested in private communion in “his chamber;” 7–11, in the way of duty and self-denial; 12–14, in social communion with him; 15–17, in delightful repose with him, amid enlarged prospects of spiritual beauty; chap. ii. 1–3, in the protection and delight here set forth; 4–7, it possesses the greatest possible pleasure on the earth.

The second part, Chap. ii. 8–vii. 9, describes the motives by which the Lord Jesus would allure such souls away from [100]the present world to be with him in glory; chap. ii. 8–17, as by the beauty of heaven; chap. iii. 1–11, by the splendour of the reception awaiting them there, as well as by the grandeur of the conveyance thither; chap. v. 1–vii. 9, and by his love for them, which remains constant even amidst their greatest neglect.

The third section, Chap. vii. 10–viii. 14, describes the effects which these manifestations of love produce on the heart of saints; chap. vii. 10, assurance of hope; 11, desire to be much alone in communion with Christ; 12, their engagement in labours of love; 13, consecration to him of all their gifts; chap. viii. 1, 2, a desire that everything interposing between Christ and them may be removed; 3, 4, their avoidance of everything that would cause the withdrawal of Christ’s love; 5, the pleasing consciousness of leaning on Jesus, and of being upheld by his everlasting arm; 6, their desire to be constantly near him, and sustained by his power, and willingness to make every sacrifice for him; 7, their conviction of the insufficiency of everything the world could offer to tempt them from Christ; 8–10, their interest for the salvation of the impenitent; 12, the sense of their accountability as stewards of God; 13, the privilege of continual access to the throne of grace; 14, desire for the completion of their redemption, and for the perfecting of their love to Christ, and of his to them, by the prospect of his second coming.135

From the analysis of the three latest commentaries upon this book, it will be perceived that allegorical interpreters, even to this day, differ in their views of its application and design.

1854. After quitting the bewildering maze of allegorism, it is cheering to come to the commentary of Meier, in which the view that this poem celebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty is defended.136 [101]

1855. This is also the view propounded by Friedrich137 and Hitzig,138 though the latter embraces a similar theory to Harmer, that there are two women as chief speakers in the poem.

1856. In this opinion of the superiority of virtuous love to all the temptations of royalty, the Jew and the Christian, the Englishman and the German, are beginning to unite. The reviewer in the Jewish Monthly Journal of History and Science, declares himself in favour of regarding the Shulamite as resisting all the offers of Solomon and remaining faithful to her shepherd.139 Meier, the author of a commentary mentioned above, in his History of the poetical National Literature of the Hebrews, recently published, maintains the same opinion.140 This poem, says Dr. Davidson, “warns against impure love, encourages chastity, fidelity, and virtue, by depicting the successful issue of sincere affection amid powerful temptations. The innocent and virtuous maiden, true to her shepherd lover, resists the flatteries of a monarch, and is allowed to return to her home.”141 Umbreit, in an article upon this book, just published, states that he still adheres to the view propounded in his commentary of 1828,142 noticed above, that it is a celebration of virtuous love over the allurements of royalty.

How mournful is the thought which irresistibly forces itself upon the mind, in reviewing this imperfect sketch of what has befallen this poem! This book, we have seen, is made to describe the most contradictory things. It contains the wanderings of the Jews, how they will ultimately “fill their stomachs with the flesh of the Leviathan and the best of wines preserved [102]in grapes,” and is the sanctum sanctorum of all Christian mysteries. It is denounced as a love song, and extolled as declaring the incarnation of Christ; it speaks of the meridian church in Africa, and of the betrayal of the Saviour; it contains a treatise upon the doctrine of free grace against Pelagianism, and an Aristotelian disquisition upon the functions of the active and passive mind; it is an apocalyptic vision, a duplicate of the Revelations of St. John, and records the scholastic mysticisms of the middle ages; it denounces Arianism, and describes the glories of the Virgin Mary; it “treats of man’s reconciliation unto God and peace by Jesus Christ, with joy in the Holy Ghost,” and teaches lewdness, and corrupts the morals; it records the conversation of Solomon and Wisdom, and describes the tomb of Christ in Egyptian hieroglyphics; it celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, and gives us a compendium of ecclesiastical history to the second advent of Christ; it records the restoration of a Jewish constitution by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and the mysteries of marriage; it advocates monogamy and encourages polygamy; it assists devotion and excites carnal passions. What a solemn lesson we have here never to depart from the simple meaning of the word of God!

The various opinions, enumerated in the preceding section, respecting the design of this book, may be divided into three classes, the literal, the allegorical, and the typical. The first considers the description as real, that the words should be taken as representing an historical fact; the second considers that the description has no historical truth for its basis, but contains some latent meaning; whilst the third admits the literal meaning, but regards it as typical of spiritual truth. The literal view adopted by us having been given in sections iii. and iv., we have to examine here only the claims of the allegorical and typical. [103]

The title of this poem designates Solomon as the author, but internal evidence is against it. The writer mentions David in such a manner as if he were not his father (iv. 4). The words, “Solomon had a vineyard,” (‏כֶּרֶם הָיָה לִשְלֹמֹה‎) in viii. 11, show that the author was not a contemporary of Solomon. The subject, especially of the poem, is decisive against Solomon’s authorship. It is impossible that he should describe himself as having attempted to gain the espoused affections of a country maiden, and being defeated by her virtue. The title is evidently the addition of some other person; for the author of the book never uses the pronoun ‏אֲשֶׁר‎, but invariably employs the form ‏שׁ‎; nor would he announce his own production as “the finest or most celebrated Song.” [125]

The exact date of this poem has been much disputed. The powerful and fluent style in which it is written, the originality of the figures, the freshness of the landscapes, the life-like descriptions of local circumstances, the imagery drawn from the royal court of Solomon, the horses of Pharaoh, the tower of David, the tower of Solomon, the pools of Heshbon, show that the poem must have been written in the most flourishing age of the Hebrew language, and about the time of Solomon. The Aramaisms, which used formerly to be adduced in order to transfer the book to an age after the captivity, are now rightly rejected by modern critics as inconclusive, since almost every poetical composition of the earliest age contains such Aramaisms. The word ‏פַּרְדֵס‎ (iv. 13), to which a Persian etymology has been assigned, and which has especially been used to show the late period of this poem, is of a Shemitic origin. See Comment, in loco. The form, ‏שׁ‎ for ‏אֲשֵׁר‎, is also used in Judges v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 12, viii. 26, and ‏דָוִיד‎ with god in Amos vi. 5, ix. 11, Hos. iii. 5.

The form of the book has also been a matter of great dispute. From its earliest age it has been regarded as one continued poem in a dramatic form. Since the time of Richard Simon, however, who pronounced this book, “summam confusionem, in quo vix ac ne vix quidem personas discernere queas,”154 it has been split by many into fragments, and in turn been regarded as consisting of a number of eclogues, or armorets, as an epithalamium, or nuptial song, and as a regular drama. Having traced the unity of the poem in Section III., we need not again show the unsoundness of the fragmentary theory, which originated from a misunderstanding of the design of the book. It seems to approach nearest in form to a drama. Yet we cannot think, with Ewald and others, that it is a regular drama. The genius, character, and manners of the Shemitic nations, their deficiency in plastic art, and their aversion to females appearing on a public stage, seem to militate against it. [126]