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 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 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 Durell [105] 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 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.

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 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]

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 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, 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 Bennett [123] 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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]

1855. This is also the view propounded by Friedrich [137] 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 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!

SECTION VI.—THE DIFFERENT VIEWS CLASSIFIED AND EXAMINED.

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.

THE ALLEGORICAL VIEW.

The allegorical view principally maintained is, that this poem, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affections between the sexes, expresses the mutual love subsisting between the Lord and his Church.

REASONS FOR THE ALLEGORICAL VIEW EXAMINED.

1. The existence of this book in the sacred canon has been adduced as an argument for its allegorical interpretation.

“In what part of the Hebrew Bible can we find any composition of an analogous nature? All—every Psalm, every piece of history, every part of prophecy—has a religious aspect, and (the book of Esther perhaps excepted) is filled with theocratic views of things. How came there here to be such a solitary exception, so contrary to the genius and nature of the whole Bible? It is passing strange, if real amatory Idyls are mingled with so much, all of which is of a serious and religious nature. If the author viewed his composition as being of an amatory nature, would he have sought a place for it among the sacred books? And subsequent redactors or editors—would they have ranked it here, in case they had regarded it in the same light? I can scarcely deem it credible. So different was the reverence of the Jews for their Scriptures from any mere approbation of an amatory poem as such, that I must believe that the insertion of Canticles among the canonical books, was the result of a full persuasion of its spiritual import. Had the case stood otherwise, why did they not introduce other secular books, as well as this, into the canon?” [143]

Granting that the design of the book was simply to describe love, we deny that it would have been deemed unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. Why should the pleasures of chaste love be considered less worthy of record in the sacred books, than the sorrow for bereaved friendship, in 2 Sam. i. 17, &c.? “To those,” says Dr. Mason Good, a defender of the allegorical interpretation, “who disbelieve the existence of such an allegory they (the amorets) still afford a happy example of the pleasures of holy and virtuous love; they inculcate, beyond the power of didactic poetry, the tenderness which the husband should manifest for his wife, and the deference, modesty, and fidelity with which his affection should be returned; and, considered even in this sense alone, they are fully entitled to the honour of constituting a part of the sacred Scriptures.” [144] “Why should a passion,” remarks another allegorical interpreter, “so strong, so universal, so essential to happiness—to the very existence of the human race, be denied a place in a Revelation from God to man? As a matter of fact, has it not a place in every part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation? God is the author of the human constitution as well as of the Bible; and he has in all respects adapted his revelation to the nature of the beings for whom it was designed. It would be strange indeed, if one of the most important and never absent phenomena in the moral and physical creation of men should never be noticed in a revelation to him from his Creator. If the viciousness and licentiousness of men have loaded this subject with vile and filthy associations in vile and filthy minds, this is not the fault of God or of his revelation. The vine will not be destroyed, nor the grapes annihilated, because wicked men make themselves beasts with wine.” [145]

The design of the book, in our view, however, is not to celebrate love, but to record an example of virtue, which is still more worthy of a place in the sacred canon.

2. It has been urged, that the language put by the sacred writer into the mouth of the bride, shows that the poem is to be allegorically interpreted, because in its literal sense such language would be contrary to nature and to the modesty of women.

“That this is not a song of human loves,” says Dr. Bennett, [146] “is clear from the beginning to the end. It opens with the language of a female: ‘Let him kiss me;’ it is full of her solicitous seeking after him; it abounds with praises of his person, and her dispraises of herself, of her person and her conduct; it invites other females to love him, and it speaks of him as her brother, and of her as his sister. Let any one examine the Song, and then muse over these facts, recollecting that Solomon is, in the opening of the poem itself, said to be the writer. Was ever such a human love-song composed by mortal, since man either loved or wrote verses? What writer, with the feelings, or the reason, of a man, would begin a poem on his fair one by describing her as courting him? Let it not be said, ‘We must not transfer our modern and northern ideas to the ancient Orientals, who had not our delicate notions of the female character;’ for this would only make my case stronger. It would be more abhorrent from the secluded, submissive character of Eastern brides to ask the gentlemen to come and kiss them, than it would be from the dignified confidence of British women. It is not a question of climate or age, but of nature. The bridegroom, who is supposed to love this fairest of women, himself puts into her lips this speech: ‘Let him kiss me!’ Never would human love speak thus. Though men like to court, they do not like to be courted; and while they think it cruel to be rejected when they court, they without mercy reject her that courts them; as the forward female has usually found, from the days of Sappho to this hour. Women were endowed with the form and the qualities intended to attract courtship, and they feel it; and when they do not feel it, men despise them. No man, therefore, in his senses, would think to compliment his fair one by writing of her, to her, as if she had lost her retiring modesty, her female dignity, and degraded herself by doing that for which every man would despise her. The very first word of this Song, then, stands a witness against the notion of its being a human love-song; for it would better suit Solomon’s strange woman, that with an impudent face caught and kissed the young simpleton, than Solomon’s princess-bride, or Dr. Smith’s supposed chaste monogamist. Till fishes mount to sing with larks on the shady boughs, and nightingales dive to ocean’s depths to court the whales, no man, of any age, of any clime, of any rank, can be supposed to write ordinary love-songs in such a style. We are told, by the first word, that a greater than Solomon is here, one who must be courted, and that loves more than human are the theme. This is the Bridegroom of whom the Psalmist says, ‘He is thy Lord, and worship thou him:’ ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way.’ Such a spouse may exhibit his Bride as asking for his love; every other must present himself as asking for hers, and begging the acceptance of his.”

It is allowed by scholars of taste, that, regarded as a mere human production, this poem is inimitable. “Every part of this Song,” says the learned Bishop Bossuet, [147] “abounds in poetical beauties; the objects which present themselves on every side are the choicest plants, the most beautiful flowers, the most delicious fruits, the bloom and vigour of spring, the sweet verdure of the fields, flourishing and well-watered gardens, pleasant streams, and perennial fountains. The other senses are represented as regaled with the most precious odours, natural and artificial; with the sweet singing of birds, and the soft voice of the turtle; with milk and honey, and the choicest of wine. To these enchantments are added all that is beautiful and graceful in the human form, the endearments, the caresses, the delicacy of love. If any object be introduced which seems not to harmonize with this delightful scene, such as the awful prospect of tremendous precipices, the wildness of the mountains, or the haunts of lions, its effect is only to heighten, by the contrast, the beauty of the other objects, and to add the charms of variety to those of grace and elegance.” Bishop Lowth, after having descanted upon some passages, remarks, “Nothing can be imagined more truly elegant and poetical than all these, nothing more apt or expressive than these comparisons.” [148] If the poet is so charming in his style, so exquisite and true in his picture of nature, surely it is but reasonable to give him credit for understanding his art, that he was acquainted with the manners and habits of the women of his age, and that he would be as true to nature in the description of the bride as he is in depicting nature herself. If it be true that language of such exquisite taste would outrage female decency and modesty when addressed to a human love, it will surely be more outrageous when put into the mouth of the humble, penitent, and submissive Church in addresses to the Lord of lords. Where in the Old or New Testament do we find any address from the saints to God or Christ resembling the opening of this poem? The addresses of Abraham, (Gen. xviii. 23–33,) Jacob, (Gen. xxxii. 10–13,) and of Solomon himself, (1 Kings viii. 23–53,) and the language in which Christ has taught us to appeal to God, are characterized by the greatest reverence and humility. How, then, can it be affirmed, that language which would violate female modesty and decency in the mouth of a woman to a lover whom she prizes above all things, is becoming in the mouth of the Church when addressing the Holy One of Israel?

Dr. Bennett, however, misunderstood the design of the book. The Song, in its literal meaning, does not begin with representing a woman courting a man, but describes how a humble and virtuous rustic maiden was taken away from her beloved into the court of Solomon, and tempted to transfer her affections, by the splendour and luxuries of royalty; but even there, amidst all the grandeur, and in spite of all alluring promises, the maiden was faithful to her espousals, and desired that he whom she prized above all things would come and rescue her.

3. It is urged that the same language and imagery employed in the Song, and the bridegroom and the bride here introduced, are elsewhere spiritually applied to the Lord and his people.

“This sort of imagery,” says Professor Stuart, “is frequent in the Old Testament, and in the New. Frequently are the Jews charged with ‘going a whoring after other gods,’ Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6; Numb. xv. 39; Deut. xxxi. 16; 2 Chron. xxi. 13; Ps. lxxiii. 27; Ezek. vi. 9. Here the idea is, that they were affianced to the true God, and could not seek after idols without incurring the guilt of adultery. So God calls himself the husband of the Jews, Isa. liv. 5. The nation of Israel is his bride, Isa. lxii. 4, 5. In Isa. l. 1, Jehovah asks, ‘Where is the bill of divorcement’ on his part, that Israel has departed from Him? Jeremiah speaks of the espousals of Israel, when young, in the wilderness.

“In Jer. iii. 1–11, the prophet speaks of Israel as playing the harlot, and committing adultery, in forsaking Jehovah. In Ezekiel, two long chapters (xvi., xxiii.) are occupied with carrying through the imagery drawn from such a connexion. Hosea (i.–iii.) recognises the same principle, and carries out the imagery into much detail. These are merely specimens. Ps. xlv. presents the Mediator, the King of Zion, in the attitude of a husband to the Church, and celebrates the union between the former and the latter. So in the New Testament this imagery is very familiar: see Matt. ix. 25; John iii. 29; Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2. Especially consult 2 Cor. xi. 2, and Eph. v. 22–32, where the Apostle has gone into much particularity as to the duties of the marriage relation, and then avows that he ‘speaks concerning Christ and the Church.’

“Such is the custom of the Hebrew writers and of the Apostles. If, now, this imagery is so often employed in all parts of the Bible, what forbids the idea, that there may be one short book in which it occupies an exclusive place, and is designed to symbolize the love that existed between God and his ancient people, or the Church; or rather, which ought to have existed on their part between God and his spiritually regenerated people, who have become one (in a spiritual sense) with him, and are for ever united to him? It cannot be shown, à priori, that it is even improbable.”

First. What does this argument prove? Surely not what the representation of this poem IS; it only shows what it might have been. It shows that if we had indubitable proof, as in the passages cited, that a whole book in the sacred canon is entirely devoted to symbolize, under the figure of husband and wife, the covenant-relationship subsisting between God and his people, we ought not to be surprised at it, since it would be in harmony with those alleged passages. But surely it does not follow, that, because we are distinctly told in some passages of Scripture that the terms, husband and wife, are employed to symbolize the relationship between God and his people, that they should have this signification as often as they are employed.

Second. We utterly deny that the covenant-relation which subsisted between the Lord and Israel was represented by the terms, husband and wife, before the days of Solomon. The phrase, ‏זנה אחרי אלהים אחרים‎, to go whoring after other gods, to which reference has been made, does not mean that Israel, by worshipping idols, committed spiritual adultery against the true God to whom they were affianced,—thus presupposing God to be their husband, and Israel his wife,—but describes a literal fact, the libidinous orgies and prostitutions identified with heathen worship which the Jews indulged in when worshipping idols. Numb. xxv. 1; Hos. iv. 13, &c. This is evident from Exod. xxxiv. 15, 17, where this phrase first occurs, and is applied to heathen women worshipping their own gods. And though these women stood in no such covenant-relation to the God of Israel, and therefore could not incur the guilt of spiritual adultery, yet they are described as “whoring after THEIR gods.” From these licentious rites, therefore, originated this phrase, afterwards used to describe the worship of idols. But even admitting that it does suggest a marriage relationship between God and his people, the distance between a suggestive phrase of this kind and an entire book of marital descriptions is so great, that the one cannot be reasonably supposed to have suggested the other.

Third. We deny that even the language used by the prophets after the days of Solomon, in the passages cited, is at all analogous to that of this poem. Let us examine some of the passages themselves. Isa. l. 1:—

“Where is the bill of your mother’s divorce With which I dismissed her?”

Isa. liv. 4–6:—

“Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed, And be not abashed, for thou shalt not blush; For thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, And the reproach of thy widowhood thou shalt remember no more. For he weddeth thee who made thee. Jehovah of hosts is his name, And the Holy One of Israel redeemeth thee. He is called the God of the whole earth. For Jehovah calleth thee, as a forsaken wife, when spirit-broken, And as a wife of youth when melting in repentance, saith thy Lord.”

Isa. lxii. 4, 5:—

“No more shall it be said to thee, Thou forsaken! And no more shall it be said to thy land, Thou desolate! But thou shalt be called, The object of my delight, And thy land, The married woman; For Jehovah delighteth in thee, And thy land shall be married; For the young man shall marry the virgin; Thy children shall marry thee; And with the joy of a bridegroom over his bride Shall thy God rejoice over thee.”

Jer. iii. 20:—

“As a wife faithlessly departeth from her husband, So have ye acted faithlessly towards me, O house of Israel! saith Jehovah.”

These, and several more of a similar kind, are the passages referred to, to prove that the bridegroom and bride in this Song mean the Lord and his people! How totally different is the strain of thought and expression in those passages to that in the Song!

In the former, the wedded-relation forms the comparison; in the latter, ante-nuptial love is the theme. In the former, the general idea of the figure is briefly used, without any particulars of the accompaniments; in the latter, particulars of the persons, dresses, scenery, are largely described. In the former, God is represented as the High and Holy One inhabiting eternity, and, in his infinite condescension and compassion, loving, with the tenderness of a husband, Israel, who is represented as an unlovely, ungrateful, and unfaithful wife; in the latter, the bridegroom and the bride are placed upon an equality, nay, the bridegroom declares that his heart has been ravished by the charms and faithfulness of the bride. In the former we are distinctly told that the husband means the Lord, and the wife the people of Israel, so that the most superficial reader is compelled to perceive it; in the latter we have no intimation whatever that the lovers are intended to represent God and his people, and no reader would ever gather it from the poem. This will appear all the more forcible when we remember that, supposing this poem to be a description of the covenant-relation subsisting between God and his people, it contains the completest representation of this kind. We should, therefore, naturally expect that subsequent writers, employing the same figure, would borrow something of the imagery and colouring from it. But, so far from this being the case, there is not the slightest analogy between the strain of thought and expression of this poem and that of subsequent writers.

Fourth. The 45th Psalm, which is supposed to celebrate, allegorically, the union of the Messiah and the Church, has been adduced as analogous to the Song of Songs, and therefore an evidence in behalf of the allegorical interpretation.

“If we admit,” says Hengstenberg, “the allegorical interpretation of this Psalm, we shall also be obliged to drop the literal meaning of the Song of Songs.”

Is it certain, however, that this Psalm is all allegory? The Psalm itself gives not the slightest intimation that it is to be understood in any other than its literal sense. Let us examine it:—

“My heart boils with good matter; When I think my work is for the king, My tongue becomes as a style of a quick writer. Thou art beautiful, beautiful above the sons of men: Charm is poured upon thy lips, Therefore God has blessed thee for ever. Gird thy sword on thy thigh, O hero! Thy splendour and thy glory, yea, thy glory, Ride on victoriously for truth and mildness and right. Great things shall thy right hand teach thee! Thy arrows are sharp—people fall under thee— They dart into the heart of the king’s enemies! Thy throne, O God, stands for ever and ever; A sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom; Thou lovest right, and hatest wrong; Therefore God, thy God, anointed thee With gladdening oil above thy companions! Myrrh, aloes, and cassia are all thy garments, Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments joyfully greet thee; Kings’ daughters are among thy dear ones— Upon thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear; Forget thy people and thy father’s house, That the king may desire thy beauty, For he is thy Lord, and honour thou him. O daughter of Tyre, now with presents The rich of the people salute thy face.

The king’s daughter stands in the palace in all the splendour, Her clothing is of fabricated gold, She is led to the king in wrought raiment; Behind her are the virgins, her companions, brought for thee; They are conducted with joy and rejoicing, They enter the palace of the king.

Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons; Thou wilt set them as princes over the whole land. I wilt celebrate thy name from generation to generation; Therefore shall nations praise thee for ever and ever.”

This Psalm is evidently a congratulatory nuptial-song, composed for the occasion of a king’s marriage with a princess of Tyre. The sacred writer begins by stating that such is the greatness of the subject, that it awakens thoughts too big for utterance; but recollecting that his work is for the king, at once his tongue is loosed, and glides as rapidly as the stylus of a quick writer (2). He then celebrates the king’s beauty and eloquence, recognising in it God’s blessing (3), his valour, symbolized by the conquering sword, the prosperous chariot, the terrible arm, the well-directed arrow (4–6), his divine throne, and love of justice (7), his great happiness, resulting from his love for justice (8), which consists in the splendour around him (9), in his magnificent harem, and especially in the new princess-bride at his right hand (10). Having gradually arrived at the subject which is the occasion of the poem, the sacred writer now addresses the bride, and, in accordance with Eastern custom, which represents brides as unwilling to leave their parents on the day of espousals (Comp. Deut. xxi. 13), telling her to forget her father’s house, as she will have such glory as is just described (11, 12). The bride is then presented with gifts, according to Oriental manners, from the first ladies of the kingdom (13); she appears in all the splendour in the first palace (14), and thence conducted in grand procession to the king’s palace (15, 16). The marital procession now being over, the inspired writer congratulates the king, wishing him a happy issue (17), and concludes by saying that his renown will rapidly spread (18).

What is there in this Psalm compelling us to understand it allegorically? The quotation of the sixth verse in Hebrews i. 8, 9, only proves that this verse refers in a higher sense to the Messiah, but not that the whole Psalm is descriptive of him. Who would think of allegorizing the eighth chapter of Isaiah, because verses 17 and 18 are quoted in Hebrews ii. 13? The throne of David is declared to be an everlasting throne, 2 Sam. vii. 13, 16; a throne of God, i.e. a divine throne, since the Messiah was to be the last and ever reigning king. Hence it is said, ‏וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא יְהֹוָה לְמֶלֶכְ תַּחַת דָּוִיד אָבִיו‎, “and Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of his father David.”—1 Chron. xxix. 23. Every king, therefore, of that lineage, occupying the throne, was regarded as the representative of God; as the predecessor and type of Him who was to be born of the seed of David to occupy the throne in the highest sense. So that, whether we translate ‏כִּסְּאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים‎ thy throne, O God, taking ‏אֱלֹהִים‎ as a vocative, or thy God-throne, i.e. the throne committed to thee by God, or, thou art seated upon a throne of God, or regard the phrase as an ellipsis for ‏כִּסְּאֲךָ כִּסֵּי אֱלֹהִים‎, thy throne is a throne of God, comes substantially to the same thing. It is, therefore, a groundless assertion, that the whole Psalm is an allegory, and the reference to it in proof of the allegorical interpretation of the poem before us is nugatory.

But, even admitting that the 45th Psalm is an allegory, this would by no means prove that the Song of Songs is also an allegory, for the two cases differ essentially. In the former the bridegroom is addressed in verse 8 as God, and this verse is quoted in the New Testament, whereas in the latter there is nothing of the kind.

4. The custom of oriental nations to express their religious and devotional sentiments under the disguise of amatory and drinking songs has been adduced as an argument in favour of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs.

“The durweesh,” [149] says Lane, “pointed out the following poem as one of those most common at Zikrs, and as one which was sung at the Zikr which I have begun to describe. I translated it verse for verse, and imitate the measure and system of the original, with this difference only, that the first, third, and fifth lines of each stanza rhyme with each other in the original, but not in my translation.

‘With love my heart is troubled, And mine eyelid hindereth sleep: My vitals are dissever’d, While with streaming tears I weep.

My union seems far distant, Will my love e’er meet mine eye? Alas! did not estrangement Draw my tears, I would not sigh.

‘By dreary nights I’m wasted, Absence makes my hopes expire; My tears, like pearls, are dropping, And my heart is wrapt in fire. Whose is like my condition? Scarcely know I remedy. Alas! did not estrangement Draw my tears, I would not sigh.

‘O turtle dove! acquaint me Wherefore thus dost thou lament? Art thou so stung by absence? Of thy wings deprived, and pent? He saith, ‘Our griefs are equal; Worn away with love, I lie.’ Alas! did not estrangement Draw my tears, I would not sigh.

‘O First and Everlasting! Show thy favour yet to me. Thy slave, Ahh’mad El-Bek’ree, [150] Hath no Lord excepting Thee. By Tá-Há, [151] the great prophet, Do thou not his wish deny. Alas! did not estrangement Draw my tears, I would not sigh.’

“I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the similarity of these songs to that of Solomon; and lest it should be thought that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt to translate into verse. In the same collection of poems sung at Zikrs is one which begins with these lines:—

‘O gazelle from among the gazelles of El-Yem’en! I am thy slave without cost; O thou small of age, and fresh of skin! O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk!’

“In the first of these verses we have a comparison exactly agreeing with that in the concluding verse of Solomon’s Song; for the word which, in our Bible, is translated a ‘roe,’ is used in Arabic as synonymous with ghaza’l (or a gazelle); and the mountains of El-Yem’en are ‘the mountains of spices.’ This poem ends with the following lines:—

‘The phantom of thy form visited me in my slumber. I said, “O phantom of slumber! who sent thee?” He said, “He sent me whom thou knowest; He whose love occupies thee!” The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night; I stood, to show him honour, until he sat down. I said, “O thou my petition, and all my desire, Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen?” He said to me, “I feared, but, however, love Had taken from me my soul and my breath.”’

“Compare the above with the second and five following verses of the fifth chapter of Solomon’s Song. Finding that songs of this description are extremely numerous, and almost the only poems sung at Zikrs; that they are composed for this purpose, and intended only to have a spiritual sense (though certainly not understood in such a sense by the generality of the vulgar); I cannot entertain any doubt as to the design of Solomon’s Song.”

To this we cannot do better than quote the able reply of Dr. Noyes:—“Now, as to the first of these religious love-songs of the Mahometan dervishes, whatever slight resemblance it may have to any part of the Canticles, it differs essentially from any of them in the circumstance, that the Supreme Being is expressly introduced as the object of worship. Without this essential circumstance, no one could tell whether it were originally composed for a love-song, or a religious hymn expressing a longing for a union of the soul with God, according to the Sufi philosophy and religion.

“In the second poem, quoted by Mr. Lane, it is to be regretted that he did not quote the whole of it; for I can by no means admit the circumstance, that it was sung by the dervishes in their morning devotions, to be conclusive in regard to the original design of the hymn. Mr. Lane expressly tells us, in a note, that he found the last six lines inserted, with some slight alterations, as a common love-song, in a portion of the ‘Thousand and One Nights,’ printed at Calcutta, vol. i. p. 225; Lane’s translation, ii. p. 349. Whether the whole was originally composed as a love-song or a devotional hymn, does not appear from the parts of it which Mr. Lane gives us. If in the parts omitted there is any clear reference to the Deity, it is unlike any of the Canticles. If there is no such reference, the meaning of the hymn is too doubtful to allow any inference to be drawn from it. For we might as well allow the singing of Dr. Watts’s version of the Canticles to be an argument for their original design, as to admit the singing of the mystic dervishes to be an evidence of the original design of the hymns.

“Before making some general remarks on this whole subject of attempting to show the character of the Canticles by reference to the pantheistic poetry of the Mahometan Sufis, it may be well to mention that reference has been made even to the poets of Hindostan for the same purpose; especially to the Gitagovinda, the production of a celebrated Hindoo poet, named Jayadeva. This appears to be a mystical poem, designed to celebrate the loves of Crishna and Radha, or the reciprocal attraction between the divine goodness and the human soul. Now, whatever may be the resemblance between the Gitagovinda and Canticles in some of their imagery, there is this essential difference, that, in the former, Crishna was the chief incarnate god of the Hindoos, [152] and that there are references to other gods, and to various superstitions of the Hindoo mythology; whilst in the Canticles there is no reference to any but human characters. Besides, the author of the Gitagovinda clearly intimates its religious character in the conclusion of the poem.

“We have seen, then, that there are material differences between the Canticles and the religious love-songs to which reference has been made. But supposing the resemblance to be much greater than it is, those mystical songs do not in any essential respect resemble the Canticles more than they do the odes of Anacreon, or some of the eclogues of Virgil, and the idyls of Theocritus. And it is not easy to see why the resemblance does not prove the religious character of the odes of Anacreon as much as that of the Canticles.

“But, after all, the great objection remains to any conclusion drawn from the pantheistic mystic poets, whether of Persia or India, whether Mahometans or Hindoos, namely, that their productions are founded on a religion and philosophy entirely different from the Jewish. The Canticles are productions of a different country, and separated from any of the songs of the Sufi poets by an interval of nearly two thousand years. The Jewish religion has nothing in common with the pantheistic mysticism on which those songs are founded. There is nothing in the Old Testament of a similar character. If any production similar to those mystical love-songs had existed in the religious literature of the Hebrews, undoubtedly we should have found some in the Book of Psalms, which comprises compositions from the age preceding that of David to a period long after the return of the Jews from the captivity at Babylon. But in the most fervent Psalms, the forty-second, for instance, nothing of the kind is found. Neither is anything similar to those mystic songs ascribed to the Jewish sect, as described by Josephus and Philo. Nothing of the kind is laid to the charge of the Essenes. It is needless to say, that nothing approaching to the like character is found in the New Testament. Nothing similar is discovered even in the allegorical paraphrase of the Targumist on the Canticles. All those religious love-songs are founded on the Sufi religion, or rather religious philosophy, which, whether it was borrowed from India, as Von Hammer supposes, or arose independently among the Mahometans, according to the opinion of Tholuck, has no connexion with, or resemblance to, the Jewish. It is as different from the latter as darkness from light. The argument, therefore, which is drawn from the mystical songs of the Mahometan devotees for ascribing a mystical character to the Canticles, is without foundation.” [153]

REASONS AGAINST THE ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

1. In every allegory, or parable, employed in the Scripture, or in any good human composition, something is wrought into its texture to indicate most unmistakably its allegorical design; that, under the garb of an immediate representation, is conveyed one more remote. Thus, in the 80th Psalm, 9–17, where Israel is represented under the allegory of a vine which came out of Egypt, the design is distinctly wrought into the texture of the allegory. The expression, heathen (‏גוֹיִם‎), at the very beginning of the allegory, and especially the words, “the Son whom thou hast chosen for thyself,” (‏עַל בֵּן אִמַּצְתָּה לָךְ‎) in the second clause of verse 15, which, when compared with “the Son of man, whom thou hast chosen for thyself,” (‏עַל בֵּן אָדָם אִמַּצְתָ לָךְ‎) in verse 17, are evidently explanatory of the words, “and protect what thy right hand hath planted,” (‏וְכַנָּה אֲשֶׁר נָטְעָה יְמִינֶיךָ‎) in the first clause, clearly to show the more remote concealed under the immediate representation. Thus, also, in the allegory of the vineyard, and by the prophet Isaiah (chap. v.), we are distinctly told, in verse 7, that “the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant plantation.” Compare also Judges ix. 7–20; 2 Kings xiv. 9, 10; Ezek. xvi., xxxvii. 1–14; the parables of our Saviour, Acts x. 10–17; Gal. iv. 22–31. Now, if the author of this poem had intended it to be understood allegorically, he would have given some indication to that effect; especially since the allegories occasionally used in some parts of this very book, chap. iv. 12, v. 1, vii. 7, 8, are rendered plain and obvious. As there is, however, not the slightest intimation in the whole of this lengthy poem that it is designed to be allegorical, we are unwarranted to assume it. To take one portion of the Scriptures allegorically, without even an obscure hint of it in the writing itself, is to violate the established laws of language, and to expose all other portions of the sacred volume to a similar treatment. If one chooses to allegorize one part without any sanction, another may choose to allegorize another. But we have no right to depart from the literal and obvious meaning, without some authority for it from the inspired writer. This argument is applicable to every allegorical interpretation, whether historical or hieroglyphical, whether political or metaphysical.

2. The total silence of our Lord and his apostles respecting this book is against its allegorical interpretation. If this Song, according to the first and last allegorisers, “celebrates the glories of the Messiah, and all the mercies which through him flow to the people of God,” it is more spiritual and more evangelical than any other portion of the Old Testament; surpassing even the writings of Isaiah, who is called the fifth Evangelist, and is, in fact, what Origen called it, “The Holy of Holies.” Is it possible, then, that our Saviour, and his apostles, who, in their disputations with the Jews, so frequently quoted the prophecies of Isaiah and other passages of the Old Testament, far less evangelical and Messianic, would never have referred to this book? Is it possible that the apostle Paul, who so frequently describes the relation of Christ to the Church by the union subsisting between husband and wife (2 Cor. xi. 2, Rom. vii. 4, Eph. v. 23–32), would be silent about a book which, more than any other in the Old Testament, sets forth that union? The fact, therefore, that our Saviour and his apostles never once refer to this book is against the allegorical interpretation.

3. Is Solomon the man from whom a production of such preeminent spirituality and evangelical truth could have been reasonably expected? Is there anything in his private history, his habits of thought, his moral inclinations, or in the general tone and tendency of his religious emotions, at any period of his life, as far as they can be gathered from his history and writings, that would lead us to anticipate such evangelical piety as this interpretation presupposes? The same agreement which exists between ordinary writers and their productions is perceptible in the inspired records. Inspiration, like Providence, selected the fittest instruments for its work. Thus, between the history of Moses and his writings, of David and his writings, of Paul and his writings, of John and his writings, a natural uniformity exists; and so of other sacred authors. Accordingly, we have not only to suppose Solomon to have been more spiritually-minded than any under the Jewish economy, but to have stood upon a level with the most enlightened and Christ-loving under the present dispensation, in order to write in such a strain. Where is any such qualification in Solomon, even remotely intimated in any part of Scripture? The wisdom which he asked, which he received, and for which he gained celebrity, was that displayed in his civil government, in social and moral teaching, of which the first-fruit was given in the decision upon the litigation of the two mothers. The poetry which he wrote, consisting of one thousand and five songs, upon natural history, not having been deemed worthy of a place in the sacred canon, shows that his muse did not indulge in a devotional strain. The Book of Ecclesiastes, which is attributed to him by tradition, is the experience of a thorough-going worldling and libertine, and a confession to men rather than God. The extensive harem which he had, displays his inordinate desire for revels and foreign women, which in old age inveigled him into the practice of idolatry. “His wives,” as the Scriptures teach us, “turned away his heart after other gods.” And the last we hear of him is, that “his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.” Is this, then, the man whose love-song is to be regarded as pre-eminently spiritual, and to be exalted as more evangelically rapturous than any other portion of Holy Writ? To what period of his life is this pre-eminent piety to be assigned? If to the latter, that is the period of his greatest degeneracy; if to the former, how are we to reconcile his apostasy with so high a degree of spirituality? It is difficult to conceive of such a mind as that of Solomon brought at any time into sympathy with the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song. Who can conceive that he who caused an irreparable breach in his kingdom should represent himself as the Prince of Peace, or that he who was the embodiment of the carnal propensities should describe, under the figure of chaste love, the union of Christ and his Church? It is inconceivable. As David was not qualified to build the temple, because he had been a man of war, and had shed blood, so Solomon was not qualified to write in such a spiritual strain concerning Christ and his Church as the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song, because he had been a man of lust, and had turned aside to idolatry.

4. For the same reason we cannot conceive that any other writer would represent the Messiah as symbolized by Solomon. Is it conceivable that he of whom the whole congregation of Israel complained to Rehoboam, “Thy father made our yoke grievous—now, therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, light,” would be chosen to represent the Saviour of the world, “whose yoke is easy, and his burden light?” We can understand why the painter of the Judgment Scene, among the celebrated frescoes in the cloisters of the Campo Santo at Pisa, in Italy, in which the righteous and the wicked are gathered in their respective positions, placed Solomon midway between them, as an intimation of his inability to determine to which he belonged; but we cannot understand how an inspired writer could choose Solomon, whose lusts were displayed in the revels of an Eastern harem, and who was seduced to practise idolatry, to represent Him who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” together with the pure and holy union subsisting between him and the Church.

5. In the allegorical interpretation language is attributed to Christ inconsistent with his dignity and purity. It is almost blasphemous to suppose Christ thus to address his Church:—

“The circuits of thy thighs are like ornaments, The work of a master’s hand. Thy navel is a round goblet, Let not spiced wine be wanted in it! Thy growth is like a palm tree, And thy bosom like its clusters: I long to climb this palm tree, I long to clasp its branches. May thy bosom be unto me As the cluster of the vine, And the odour of thy breath As that of apples.”—Chap. vii. verses 2, 3, 7, 8.

This is the language of seduction, but it is blasphemous when put into the mouth of Him who spake as never man spake.

6. The fact that three individuals are the principal persons represented in this Song, and not two, is subversive of the allegorical theory. That the poem speaks of three individuals, a shepherd, a shepherdess, and a king, and that the shepherd, and not the king, is the object of the maiden’s affections, will be evident to every unbiassed reader of the book, and has been recognised by some of the Rabbins of the middle ages. For the sake of avoiding repetition, we refer the reader to the commentary, where the passages pointing out the distinctions of persons are dwelt upon at large.

THE TYPICAL INTERPRETATION.

The defenders of this view maintain that this book records an historical fact; that it celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, or some other heathen princess; and that this marriage typically represents the union of Christ with the Gentiles.

REASONS AGAINST THIS NUPTIAL THEORY.

As we concur with those who seek “nothing more than a general resemblance” between the history recorded in this poem and the experience of the people of God, we have merely to state here our reasons for rejecting their view of the narrative.

No direct mention is made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance connected with it. The bride is described as a shepherdess and keeper of the vineyards (chap. i. 6; ii. 15; viii. 12, &c.); as walking in the streets in the night to seek her beloved, and as being beaten by the watchmen (iii. 1–4; v. 6, &c.); which are incompatible with the notion that she was Pharaoh’s daughter, or any other princess. Besides, the bridegroom is not a king, but a shepherd; Compare chap. i. 7, ii. 8, and v. 2–4. These, and other considerations which might have been mentioned, are entirely subversive of this nuptial theory.

SECTION VII.—AUTHOR, DATE, AND FORM OF THE BOOK.

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.”

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.

SECTION VIII.—EXEGETICAL HELPS.

ANCIENT VERSIONS.

1. The Septuagint, being the oldest version, occupies the first place; its deviations from the Hebrew have generally been noticed in the Commentary.

2. The Vulgate, which chiefly follows the Septuagint.

3. The Syriac, which is far superior to the Vulgate.

JEWISH COMMENTATORS.

4. Rashi, found in Buxtorf’s Rabbinical Bible.

5. Rashbam, recently printed for the first time.

6. Ibn Ezra; found in Rabbinical Bible.

7. Immanuel, MS. in the British Museum.

8. An Anonymous MS. Commentary in the Bodleian.

9. Philippson, an excellent modern commentator.

CHRISTIAN COMMENTATORS.

10. Wilcock, an old writer.

11. Bishop Lowth, Praelect. xxx., xxxi.

12. Bishop Percy, Commentary and Annotations.

13. Michaelis, Notes to Bishop Lowth’s Praelect.

14. Jacobi, Das Gerettete Hohelied.

15. Durell, Critical Remarks on Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.

16. Williams, The Song of Songs.

17. Good, The Song of Songs.

18. Umbreit, Lied der Liebe.

19. Ewald, Das Hohe Lied Salomonis, &c.

20. Döpke, Philologisch-critischer Comment.

21. Rosenmüller, Scholia in Vet. Test.

22. Hirzel, Das Lied der Lieder.

23. Magnus, Kritische Bearbeitung und Erklärung des Hohen Liedes.

24. Noyes, A New Translation of the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles.

25. Heligstedt’s Continuation of Maurer’s Commentary, which, by an oversight, is omitted in the Historical Sketch, deserves special mention: Leipzig, 1847.

26. Delitzsch, Das Hohe Lied untersucht und ausgelegt.

27. Hengstenberg, Das Hohe Lied Salomonis.

28. Meier, Das Hohe Lied in deutscher Uebersetzung.

29. Friedrich, Cantici Canticorum.

30. Hitzig, 16th Lief. des Kurzg. Exeg. Handb.

For a further description of the dates and places of these commentaries, see the Historical Sketch.

THE SONG OF SONGS, WHICH IS SOLOMON’S.

SECTION I.

CHAPTERS I.–II. 7.

The scene of this division is in the royal tent of Solomon. The Shulamite, separated from her beloved shepherd, longs to be reunited with him whom she prizes above all things (2, 3). She implores him to come and rescue her; for, though brought by the king into his royal tent, her love continues the same (4). She repels the scornful reflection of the court ladies when they hear her soliloquy (5, 6). She implores her lover to tell her where she may find him (7). The court ladies ironically answer this request (8). Meanwhile the king comes in, and tries to win her affections by flatteries and promises (9–11). This attempt fails, and she opposes to the king’s love her unabated attachment to her beloved shepherd (12–ii. 6). In an ecstasy she adjures the court ladies not to attempt to persuade her to love any one else (7).

THE SHULAMITE.

Oh for a kiss of the kisses of his mouth! For sweet are thy caresses above wine. Sweet is the odour of thy perfumes, Which perfume thou art, by thy name diffused abroad, Therefore do the damsels love thee. Oh draw me after thee! Oh let us flee together! The king has brought me into his apartments, But we exult and rejoice in thee, We praise thy love more than wine, The upright love thee. I am swarthy, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of Kedar, But comely as the pavilions of Solomon. Disdain me not because I am dark, For the sun hath browned me. My mother’s sons were severe with me, They made me keeper of their vineyards, Though my own vineyard I never kept.— Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, Where thou feedest thy flock, Where thou causest it to lie down at noon, Lest I should be roaming Among the flocks of thy companions.

DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM.

If thou knowest not, O fairest among women, Go in the footsteps of the flocks, And feed thy kids By the tents of the shepherds.

SOLOMON.

To my steed in the chariot of Pharaoh Do I compare thee, O my love. Beautiful is thy countenance in the circlet, Thy neck in the necklace! A golden circlet will we make thee, With studs of silver.

THE SHULAMITE.

While the king is at his table My nard shall diffuse its fragrance. A bag of myrrh resting in my bosom Is my beloved unto me. A bunch of cypress-flowers from the garden of En-gedi Is my beloved unto me.

THE SHEPHERD.

Behold, thou art beautiful, my love; Behold, thou art beautiful, Thine eyes are doves.

THE SHULAMITE.

Behold, thou art comely, my beloved, Yea thou art lovely; Yea, verdant is our couch; Our bower is of cedar arches, Our retreat of cypress roof: Chap. II. I am a mere flower of the plain, A lily of the valley.

THE SHEPHERD.

As a lily among the thorns, So is my loved one among the damsels.

THE SHULAMITE.

As an apple-tree among the wild trees, So is my beloved among the youths. I delight to sit beneath its shade, For delicious is its fruit to my taste. He led me into that bower of delight, And overshaded me with love. Oh, strengthen me with grape-cakes, Refresh me with apples, For I am sick with love! Let his left hand be under my head, And his right hand support me! I adjure you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles, or the hinds of the field, Neither to excite nor to incite my affection Till it wishes another love.

SECTION II.

##