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.[1]
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.[2] 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."[2]]
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,[3] 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,[4] is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and
