king and of his harem are all in vain before such devotion as she professes for her lover, to whom she says, when they are reunited: "Set me as a seal upon thy heart, As a seal upon thy arm; For love is strong as death; Passion is as hard as sheol; Its heat is the heat of fire, Many waters cannot quench love, Nor rivers drown it: If a man should give all the treasures of his house for love, He would be utterly despised." Her answer to the women who seek to excite her passion for Solomon is contained in the recurring refrain:"I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles, Or by the hinds of the field, That ye stir not up, Nor awaken love, Until it please." The object then of this poem is to glorify true love, the love of one man for one woman, to show that it is so holy that no treasures on earth can buy it, not even a throne can tempt it.1 Such a lesson clearly comes, as we have seen, within the province of Scripture, as defined in 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." Since Ewald, the theory dominant among the modern critics, including Delitzsch and Zoeckler, is that the liter 1 While Delitzsch accepts the typical mode of interpretation he confesses that the motive suggested here is sufficient for the adoption of the Song into the canon: "Wir sind uns keines Vorurtheils bewusst, welches uns unbefangene Würdigung der durch Umbreit und Ewald zur Herrschaft gebrachten Auffassung unmöglich machte. Sie erklärt ausreichend die Aufname des Buchs in den Kanon, denn es hat, so aufgefasst, ein sittliches Motiv und Ziel." ary form of the book is that of a drama,-not that it is generally understood that it was acted among the Hebrews, although Ewald and some others hold this view, but because the divisions of the poem yield a dramatic arrangement. There are, however, serious difficulties in carrying out such an analysis, for there are no external signs of the dramatis persona. While it is perfectly clear that there is at least some semblance of a plot, and of a dialogue between different persons, the marks of division are not suffi ciently evident, so that the interpreters belonging to the modern critical school are certain as to the identity of the persons. At the same time they are much at one as to the motive and main analysis of the poem. Professor Moulton of the University of Chicago rejects the theory that the poem is a drama. He considers that the literary form is that of an idyl, which celebrates the love and marriage of Solomon and Shulamith. He says it is characteristic of the idyl that we are not to expect in it a logical development. The thread of the narrative, which admits of a dialogue, may begin with that which modern writers would make the end of the story, the marriage of Solomon and Shulamith, and then the details of courtship and marriage may be interspersed according to the fancy of the author. The theory of the idyl removes the occasion for Stickel's introduction of a shepherd and his bride.2 But the limitation of the characters to Solomon and Shulamith does not explain the change of attitude which Shulamith expresses toward her admirer. She checks the passion of Solomon by her indignant looks, so that he is moved to exclaim: 1 In his Biblical Idyls. Stickel, Das Hohelied (Berlin, 1888), pp. 111-116. He finds a shepherd and shepherdess, whom he distinguishes from Solomon, Shulamith and the beloved in i. 7, 8; i. 15-ii. 4; iv. 7-v. I. "Turn away thine eyes from me, For they make me afraid." His suit does not prosper. On the contrary, she is all aglow when she thinks of her absent lover. No speech is too tender, too unrestrained. Had he been present he would have been ravished by the oriental fervor with which she speaks to him and of him. Some may think that such transports of affection should have no place in the Old Testament, unless directed to God himself; but God made the heart not only to love him, but also to love the creatures whom he has made. The Song from this point of view dignifies earthly affections, and shows that chaste love has a place in the divine plan; that it is not something to be ashamed of, but rather something to be prized and exalted. 3 Jewish tradition has assumed that Solomon was the author of this book. The callous master of sixty wives, eighty concubines, and of maidens without number (Cant. vi. 8) was the last person to draw such a picture of virtuous affection as we have here,-not to speak of the qualms which he must have felt in deserting such a lovely flower for the polygamous relations of his harem. And if the theory be true that we have in this poem the triumph of Shulamith over Solomon, it is most unlikely that he would perpetuate the story of his own confusion. We must ra The translators are not agreed with respect to the meaning of 2777 Ewald, Stickel, Driver, and others adopt the signification of the causative (aph.) in the Syriac, "for they terrify me." The twelfth edition of Gesenius renders it, "for they captivate me "; Stade and Siegfried in their Lexicon translate, "for they inflame me." All these meanings make Solomon confess Shulamith's power. The first rendering seems to me psychologically most probable. 2 This appears in the title, which Ewald translates, "The most beautiful Song of Solomon." Delitzsch assumes that the title was written by Solomon himself as the author of the Song. 3 It is not necessary to suppose that 1 Kings xi. 3, which is assigned by critics to the Deuteronomist, represents a different tradition as to the number of women in Solomon's harem, since it can be conceived of as representing its extent at a later period. ther assume some poet who not only understood a maiden's heart, but who was a lover of nature, whether as seen in the budding vine, or the gazelles of the field, and to whom they all alike had revealed their secrets.1 There are two theories as to the date of this poem. One which makes it nearly contemporary with the time of Solomon, in the tenth century B.C., at least when the memories of him were fresh; the other that it is a post-exilic production. The main argument for a late age is the presence of some Aramaisms, but the same phenomena might appear in an antique poem of the tenth century B.C., written in the Northern Kingdom. Tirzah, which was the capital of the Northern Kingdom until the time of Omri, is spoken of as parallel with Jerusalem, the capital of the Southern Kingdom, as a paragon of beauty. It would hardly have been used as a means of comparison in this way, after it had ceased to be the capital in the early part of the ninth century. Life, as delineated in the Song, is fresh, prosperous, and joyous. It is also in the main virtuous. It had not be come permeated through the example of a corrupt court. Hence we infer that the Song was written during the life of King Solomon, or in the generation following his death. This is in general the view held by Ewald, Robertson Smith, Stickel, and others. Let us turn now to the story on which the drama contained in the Song is founded. A beautiful girl, of the rarest attractions, had her home in Shulem, later known as Shunem, in Northern Palestine. As no mention is made of her father, but there is reference to her mother and her brothers, who tyrannize over her (i. 6), the inference is nat 1 The high literary art and range of vision manifest in this poem are unfavorable to Dr. Terry's suggestion (The Song of Songs, p. 9) that the author is a woman. While the educated woman of the present century might produce such a poem, her uneducated Hebrew sister of that distant time lacked the training for such a literary composition. ural that her father was dead. Although her early girlhood must have been a hard one, she was possessed of a happy and vivacious disposition. One day King Solomon with some of his court ladies visited Shulem. While passing a vineyard in their chariots they saw this beautiful girl dancing by herself in a nut garden. When she saw she was observed she sought to flee, but the court ladies called after her to dance again before them (vi. 11-13). The king, seeing in this brown beauty a candidate for his harem, had her carried to his pavilion. While perhaps not publicly betrothed, she had given her heart to a young man of whom she dreams, to whom she speaks, and whose voice in fancy she hears in reply, until she is permitted to return to him once more and avow her love for him before all the world. According to this theory all the dialogues with her lover are imaginary until she is restored to him: they are creations of her fancy. We shall treat the poem as a drama, although not with the understanding that it was a play that was acted. The main characters are Shulamith, a native of Shulem, whose real name is not known to us; her lover, from whom she is separated until the last scene; King Solomon; ladies of the harem. SCENE I. SHULAMITH in the King's pavilion, reviving from a swoon into which she had fallen, as the result of her sudden capture by one of SOLOMON'S charioteers, and her imprisonment in the harem, while some of the ladies offer her wine to restore her. She speaks as one in a dream to her absent lover. Shulamith. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, For thy love is better than wine, Thy ointments are good for perfume; Therefore maidens love thee. Draw me after thee; let us run away; The king has brought me into his chambers. |