CANTICLE
305
CANTICLE
be plainly seen in the traditional text, is not destroyed
by this method of elucidation; indeed a number (four
to seven) of more or less independent scenes must be
recognized. In separating these scenes from one an-
other the Jewish or Syrian bridal customs may be
taken into consideration, as has been done, especially,
by Budde and Siegfried, if the result is the simplify-
ing of the explanation and not the distortion of the
scenes, or other acts of caprice. An attempt has been
made in the commentary (p. 388 sqq.) of the present
writer to give in detail the determinative rules for a
sound allegorical interpretation.
Historical. — According to Wetzstein, whom Budde and others follow, the book should be regarded as a collection of short songs such as are still used by the bedouins of Syria in the "threshing-hoard". The features of similarity are the appearance of the bridal pair for seven days as king and queen, the immoderate praise of the two, and the dance of the queen, during which she swings a sword to the accompaniment of a song by the chorus. Bruston and Rot list em have, however, expressed doubts as to this theory. In Solomon's song the bride, in reality, does not appear as a queen and does not swing a sword; the other traces of similarity are of so general a character that they probably belong to the wedding festivities of many nations. But the worst is that the essential songs avowedly do not stand in the proper order. Consequently it is presupposed that the order of suc- cession is accidental. This opens wide once more the door to caprice. Thus, as what is said does not fit this theory, it is claimed that a collector, or later redactor, who misunderstood various matters, must have made small additions with which it is impossible now to do anything. Others, as Rothstein in Hast- ings, Dictionary of the Bible, presuppose that the col- lector, or rather t he redactor, or even the author, had a dramatic end in view, as life and motion and action are, taken all together, unmistakable.
It is accepted (at least for the present form of the poem) that the book presents a pastoral poem in dramatic or, at least, melodramatic form. The poem, according to this theory, shows how a beau- tiful shepherdess keeps her betrothal vow to her lover of the same rank in life notwithstanding the allurements and acts of violence of a king. But this shepherd has to be interpolated into the text, and not much can be said for the imaginary faith kept with the distant lover, as the Sulami- tess, in the middle section of the Song of Solomon, gives herself willingly to the king, and no reason is apparent in the text why her boundless praise should not be intended for the present king and not for an absent lover. Shekel overcomes the great dif- ficulties which still remain in a very arbitrary man- ner. He allows a second pair of lovers to come sud- denly forward; these know nothing of the chief personages and are employed by the poet merely as an interlude. Stickel gives this pair three short pas- sages, namely; i. 7sq.; i. 15— ii, 1; iv, 7-v, 1. Moreover in t heee hypo! heses appears the difficulty which is ever connected with t he historical interpretation, that is. the lowering of the song which is so highly prized by the Church. The historical interpretation transforms it into ordinary love-scenes, in various moments of which, moreover, a fiery, sensuous love breaks forth. For the same expressions which, when referred alle- gorically to Christ and the Church, announce the strength of the love of God, are under ordinary condi- tions the utterances of a repellent passion.
Ar,H wo Author OF rur. Canticle.— Tradition, in harmony with the superscription, attributes the song tri Solomon. Even in modern times quite a number of exegetes have held this opinion: among Protes- tants, for example, Hengstenberg, Delitzech, Zdckler, and Keil. DeWetteaays: "The entire series of pict- ures and relationships and the freshness of the life III— 20
connect these songs with the age of Solomon." The
song evidences the love of Solomon for nature (it con-
tains twenty-one names of plants and fifteen of ani-
mals), for beauty and art, and for regal splendour;
bound up with this latter is an ideal simplicity suita-
ble to the type of character of the royal poet. There
is also evident a strain of the most tender feeling and
a love of peace which are well in keeping with the
reputation of Solomon. The somewhat unusual lan-
guage in connexion with the skilful and brilliant
style point to a well-practised writer. If some Ara-
maic or foreign expressions are to be found in the
song, in relation to Solomon, such cannot cause sur-
prise. It is remarkable that in Proverbs the fuller
form of the relative is always used, while in Canticles
the shorter form is employed, the one used earlier in
the song of Debbora (;.")■ But in the same way
Jeremias used the ordinary form in his prophecies,
while in the Lamentations he repeatedly employed
the shorter. The point is raised that Tirzah (vi. 1-
Heb.) is mentioned along with Jerusalem as the capi-
tal of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes. The com-
parison, though, is made only as to beauty, and
Tirzah had, above all, a reputation for loveliness.
Many other commentators, as Bottcher, Bwald, Ilit-
zig, and Kampf. put the composition of the book in
the time directly after Solomon. They assert that
the action of the poem takes place in the northern part
of Palestine, that the author is especially well ac-
quainted with this section of the country, and writes
in the form of the language used there. It is further
said that Tirzah could only be compared with Jeru-
salem at the time when it was the capital of the King-
dom of the Ten Tribes, that is, after the age of Solo-
mon but before the time when Samaria was the
capital of the Northern Kingdom. All these reasons,
however, have more subjective than objective value.
No more convincing, finally, are the reasons thai
cause others to place the book in post-Exilic times;
among such exegetes may be mentioned: Stade,
Kautzsch, Cornill, Gratz, Budde, and Siegfried. They
support their theory by reference to many peculiari-
ties of language and believe they even find traces of
Greek influence in the song; but for all this there is
a lack of clear proof.
Condition of the Hebrew Text. — Gratz, Bickcll, Budde, and Cheyne believe that they have been able to prove the existence of various mistakes and changes in the text. The passages referred to are: vi, 12; vii, 1; iii. 6-11; for alterations of the text see chapters vi and vii.
Ermoni. in Dirt de theol colh., gives an outline of the dis- cussions about the bonk: the Protestant commentaries are ex- haustively treated in Rosen-miller. S<h< > in 1 / IX. ami in Strapk. Binleitung in d. A. T. (6th el . 1906 : Zockler, Dae Hohetied in Lanoe, Bibl. Werk (1868 . tr. Green*: Rie- pel, Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes in da j1ld\ chen tlcmeinde and der griechiechen Kirche (Leipzig, 1898) The most impor- tant commentators are: seventh century, iPPONXUS, XII vols., complete edition (Home. 1843); eichth century, Bede in P. /. . \"<T, 1065 sqq.; twelfth century. rJorJOBirjs OI VuTUN and St. Bernard (in 86 homilies-; thirteenth century, St. Thomas AQUINAS; seventeenth century. TlTBLMANN, GhISLIERJ, San- chez, Cornet. its a Lapxde, Bossdet. Modern commentaries in
America: Griffis. The bill! among the Tt i Boston, 1VHI ;
Terry. The Song of Song < Cincinnati, ivi.; ; Merrill, Song
of Songs (Philadelphia. 100', In England: RaJNSFORD, The
Song of Solomon (London. ivi2); Bxdtord, Song of Solomon (London. 1893); Aden-ay. The Song of Solomon and Lamenta- tion (London. 1S9.V; Harper, !
bridge Bible (1302': MaROOLIOI ""'" m Temple
RlNe I linji; Falconer. The Maid o! In France- Le Hin. /. ' ■
Hbignan, Salomon, ton rime, ICANN, Commentariiu ■ Paris, L890 R I ■ I " I • a ! In Germain' Catholic commentaries: Sen ifer, Dot Hohdied (Munstei 1876): I n 1 1-. i mi . Da Hohi hied (Kempten. isvi -', ,,.,) / A • ,,„enta P Jll
d.cipzi" l'.HHi; Protestant: mentariea Deutzbcb
prig, 1875); Kampf, Das Hohel ed . Prague, 1884): Shckel, Dae Hohelxed (Berlin, lsss BUDDE, Dos Ifohetied in Kurter Ilandkommentar (Freiburg, 1898); Siegfried. Prediger and Hoheelied (Gdttingen. 189S G. GlETMANN-
