the chorus not to excite in her the passion of love artificially (for Solomon). The repetition of the adjuration in 3, 5. 8, 4 is also extremely forcible upon Ew.'s view of the poem. 3, 4. Even in a dream it is more probable that the heroine would have thought of bringing a shepherd of her own rank into her "mother's house" than a king. So 5, 2 end suggests the picture of one who has the actual occupations of a shepherd (Gen. 31, 40). 4, 6. Is it probable that a bride, on her wedding day (Del.), would propose thus to withdraw herself from the company of her husband? 6, 4o 5. Solomon's dread1 of the heroine's eyes is surely incredible if she were his bride; but it is intelligible if she is resisting his advances. 7, 8. 12d. 8, I all imply that the marriage is not yet consummated, and are thus inconsistent with Del.'s view. 6, 12 is too difficult and uncertain to have much weight on either side; but Ew. "I knew not that Ew.'s explanation is at least preferable to Del.'s. my soul (i.e. my desire [as often in Heb., e.g. Dt. 24, 15. Eccl. 6, 9], viz. to roam about) had set me by the chariots of my noble people" (i.e. had led me unawares, as I wandered in the nut-orchard, to the neighbourhood of the king's retinue). Del.: "I knew not that my soul (i.e. my desire, viz. for Solomon) had set me on the chariots of my people, (even) of a noble (prince)," i.e. in the enjoyment of rambling through the royal park, she hardly remembered (?) that she had won the right to a seat beside the king on his chariots of state. 3D in the sense brought to . . . is not an easy construction; but the sense set on to, as Hitzig remarks, would seem to be precluded by the absence of the preposition (1 Sa. 8, 11 ' D to set among, which Del. refers to, is quite different). The reader will find some other passages noted by Oettli. Further, if the speeches ascribed to Solomon (1, 9–11. 15. 2, 2. 4, 1-7. 6, 4-10. 7, 1-9)2 and to the lover (2, 10-14. 4, 8-15. 5, 1. 8, 138) be compared, a difference may be observed, which, though it might not be sufficient to establish the distinction, nevertheless agrees with it when made probable upon other grounds Solomon's speeches, though a progress is traceable in them, and 7, 7-9 represents a climax, are, on the whole, cold in tone, and contain little more than admiration of the heroine's beauty: those ascribed to the lover are much warmer and 4, 8-15. 5, I especially is an outburst of genuine passion (notice the warm response in 4, 16).1 1 cannot mean "overcome" in the sense of fascinate: the sense make proud (Ps. 138, 3) being unsuited to the context, it must be the Syr. Oil, Arab. (Ex. 15, 6 Saad.), to confuse, perturb (cf. RV. marg.). According to Oettli 1, 9-11. 2, 2. 4, 1-7. 6, 4-10. 7, 7–9a. 3 According to Oettli 1, 8. 15. 2, 10-14. 4, 8-15. 5, 1. 8, 5c, d, e. 13. • Solomon calls her only "my friend" [Jud. 11, 37 Kt.] 1, 9. 15. 2, 2. 4, From an artistic point of view, it is to be observed that the characters are clearly distinguished from one another, and are consistent throughout. The permanent element in the poem are the "Daughters of Jerusalem" (1, 5. 2, 7. 3, 5. 5, 8. 16. 8, 4)—— i.e. no doubt the ladies of the Court, who play a part somewhat like that of the chorus in a Greek play: they watch the progress of the action; and their presence, or a question asked by them, is the occasion of declarations of feeling on the part of the chief actors (cf. 1, 6. 8. 2, 7. 5, 8. 9. 6, 1. 8, 4). The principal character is, of course, the Shulamite maiden, a paragon of modesty and beauty, who. awakens the reader's interest in the first chapter, and engrosses it till the end: surrounded by uncongenial companions, amid the seductive attractions of the Court, her thoughts are ever with her absent lover; her fidelity to him enables her to parry time after time the king's advances; in the end her devotion triumphs, and she appears happy in the companionship of him whom her heart loves. Her lover is regularly termed by her 717, "my love" (1, 13. 14. 16. 2, 3 &c.).1 The speeches attributed to the king are somewhat stiff and formal; those of the lover, on the contrary, breathe a warm and devoted affection. The brothers are represented as having treated their sister with some brusqueness (1, 6), and viewed her future behaviour with a suspiciousness which the event proves to be wholly unfounded (8, 9). The poem can hardly be said to exhibit a "plot" in the modern sense of the term; the action is terminated, not by a favourable combination of circumstances, but by the heroine's own inflexible fidelity and virtue. Ewald considered that each act embraced the events of one day, the close of which, he observed, appeared in each case to correspond with a stage in the heroine's series of trials (2, 7. 3, 5. 5, 8. 8, 4). The poetry of the Song is exquisite. The movement is graceful and light; the imagery is beautiful, and singularly picturesque; the author revels among the delights of the country; one scene after another is brought before us-doves hiding in the clefts of the rocks (2, 14) or resting beside the water-brooks 1. 7. 6, 4 (also in the mouth of the lover 2, 10. 13. 5, 2): the lover alone calls her "my sister, bride" (4, 9. 10. 12. 5, 1), or “bride" 4, 8. 11. The term used by the chorus is the fairest among women," 1, 8. 5, 9. 6, 1. 1 Or "he whom my soul loveth," 1, 7. 3, 1. 3. 4. (5, 12), gazelles leaping over the mountains (2, 9) or feeding among the lilies (4, 5), goats reclining on the sloping hills of Gilead (4, 1. 6, 5): trees with their varied foliage, flowers with bright hues or richly-scented perfume are ever supplying the poet with a fresh picture or comparison: we seem to walk, with the shepherd-lover himself, among vineyards and fig-trees in the balmy air of spring (2, 11-13), or to see the fragrant, choicely furnished garden which the charms of his betrothed call up before his imagination (4, 13-15). The number of animals and plants, as well as works of human art and labour-many not mentioned elsewhere--which are named in the Song, is remarkable. The poet also alludes to many localities in a manner which usually shows him to have been personally familiar with them-Kedar, En-gedi, the Sharon, Bether (if this be a proper name), Lebanon (several times), the hills of Gilead, David's Tower in Jerusalem with its hanging shields (4, 4), Amana, Senir, Hermon, Tirzah (6, 4), Mahanaim, Heshbon (the pools by the gate Bath - rabbim), the "Tower of Lebanon looking out towards Damascus" (7, 4), Carmel, Baal-hamon: those with which he seems to be most familiar, and to which he turns most frequently, being localities in North Palestine, especially in or near Lebanon. Authorship and Date of the Poem.-It is improbable, even upon the traditional view, that the author is Solomon; if the modern view be correct, his authorship is evidently out of the question. The diction of the poem exhibits several peculiarities, especially in the uniform use of the relative (except in the title 1, 1) for, and in the recurrence of many words found never1 or 2 in pure Heb. is used only of retaining Ki. 6, 13 Kt. (see p. 178) = 1; 11, 6. 8, 11. 12 for 8( wrath); where? 1, 7 as 1, 7 analogous to the Aram. 1, 17; p 2, 8; D'an 2, 9; bna 2, 9; IND 2, 11; TDD 2, 13. 15. o, Ezr. 7, 23; 3 for 7, 13; No 2, 13; “♬ ib. Kt. as 2 Ki. 4, 2 Kt. (); -Sw 3, 7 (1, 6. 8, 12) אחוז after the suff., as in the Mishnah, and like ; * 3, 8 construed as a deponent (Gen. 25, 26. Jud. 5, 8 Targ. ;)); D'D'D¬ 5, 2 (Ps. 65, 11 Targ. Pesh.); ħ 5, 3; = to perturb 6, 5 (2013)); 1PN 7, 2 (= Hel. TT n, Ex. 28, 11 Pesh., likewise of gems); 21 (elsewhere 70, 70; cf. the verb 752) and 10 7, 3; D'IDID 7, 9 (cf. (10000). 1 rarely besides in Biblical Hebrew, but common in Aramaic, which show either that it must be a late work (post-exilic), or, if early, that it belongs to North Israel, where there is reason to suppose that the language spoken differed dialectically from that of Judah. The general purity and brightness of the style favour the latter alternative, which agrees well with the acquaintance shown by the author with localities of North Palestine, and is adopted by most modern critics. The foreign words in the poem, chiefly names of choice plants or articles of commerce, are such as might have reached Israel through Solomon's connexions with the East. The title was probably prefixed, at a 1 my 1, 7 (Pesh. Symm. Vulg. RV. m.) as Ezek. 13, 10†, and in Aram. (Gen. 21, 14 Onq.) ; 5, 2. 11 † ni? (12 Ez. 44, 20); M 6, 11 if the punctuation is to be trusted, as Est. 1, 5. 7, 7. 8† (Aram. N; Heb. 2 8, 6 nan as Job 15, 30. Ez. 21, 3† (nan): perhaps also 4, 13. the fourth of a" רבע של רבע נצג,.characters pointing to the 8th cent. B. C fourth of a ?," with by as in Cant. 3, 7: see the Athenæum, p. 164, or the .12 ,I נרד ,(these three also occurring elsewhere) קנמון ארגמן אהלות 3 4, 13. 14, N 3, 19, D 4, 14 are probably Indian; D77D 4, 13 is the Zend pairidaêza, properly an enclosure; MIN 6, 11 is Persian; w also is time when the true origin of the poem had been forgotten, on account of Solomon being a prominent figure in it. The precise date of the poem is, however, difficult to fix. From the manner in which Tirzah and Jerusalem are mentioned together in 6, 4, it has been thought by many (Ew. Hitz. Oettli) that it was written during the time that Tirzah was the capital of the N. kingdom (1 Ki. 14, 17—16, 23 f.), i.e. in the 10th cent. B.C.; but Tirzah is named afterwards, 2 Ki. 15, 14. 16, so that this argument is not quite decisive. Recollections of Solomon, and the pomp of his Court, appear, however, to be relatively fresh. The poem, it is quite possible, may be constructed upon a basis of fact, the dramatic form and the descriptive imagery being supplied by the imagination of the poet. The interpretation of the Song has passed through many and strange phases, which are illustrated at some length in Dr. Ginsburg's learned Introduction. By the Jews it was largely interpreted as an allegory; it is so expounded, for instance, in the Targum, where it is made to embrace the entire history of Israel, from the Exodus to the future Messiah. The same method was adopted by the early Christian Fathers, especially by Origen, Solomon and the Shulamite representing Christ and the Church respectively. But there is nothing in the poem to suggest that it is an allegory; and the attempt to apply it to details results in great artificiality and extravagance. Bp. Lowth, though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the doubtless foreign; M (also in the Mishnah, &c.) is foreign in appearance, and has no plausible Semitic etymology (those mentioned, or suggested, by Delitzsch being most precarious): if it be not the Sk. paryañka, a couchbed, whence Hind. palki, a "palanquin" (so W. R. Smith [see p. ix] ap. Yule, Glossary of Anglo-Indian Words, s.v.), it must be the Greek popsiov; which would imply that the poem was a work of the Greek age. This date is advocated by Grätz, though upon grounds which are partly (pp. 28-39, 79, 87 f.) very far-fetched, and partly plausible rather than convincing. Nevertheless it must be owned that N resembles popsio more than it resembles paryanka, and that it is surprising to find in Hebrew, at a time long before either the Medes or the Persians had become an influential power, a word like D, which could not even have travelled with the thing. (The sugges tions in the Speaker's Comm. p. 701, on these two words are quite out of the question.) The origin of =xúpos (also in Syriac) 1, 14. 4, 13 calls for further investigation; but it will, at least, not be the verb 7. |