Budde attempts first of all to prove that by Solomon, or the king, the Song means not the real king Solomon, but that we have here only a tvpe, a poetical designation of any and every britlfgrooiii. In order to give a worthy title to the latter on his wedding day and in his wedding dress, the figure of Solomon is supposed to have been employed as that of the monarch whose riches and splendour had become as proverbial as his •\visdom. The case is similar with the Shulammite. ' She is, indeed, no other than Abishag the Shunammite, but only as the representative of her qualities' (p. 8). The maiden from Shunem (the modern Sholam, a pronunciation to which the Heb. Shulammith also goes back), who was brought to the aged king David, and on whose account Adonijah had to die (I K 2''"'-), was admittedly, according to the cor- rect sense of 1 K P'-, the niirest virgin to be found in the whole land, and continued to enjoy tliia reputation in the memories of the people. Hence, argues Budde (p. 9) :' ... as the bridegroom is compared with king Solomon in his glory, or even named with his name, and would not exchange bis fortune with Solomon, so for the beauty of the bride no less a woman could be named than the fairest of whom the ancients spoke, and one who was also a queen [Solomon may have, at least according to the legend, introduced her into his harem], which certainly was not an unwelcome fact. That she should be called the fairest of all is the right of every bride on her wedding day, however she may be outshone by hundreds a' other times.'
The present writer has no difficulty in admitting
* C. his Oomm. in Kurzer Bdcom. 1898, and art. PoErai. t Cf. also Siegfried's Comm. in Nowack's Udkom 18&0.
SONG OF SONGS
so:n'g of songs
593
tliat the situation moy be understood in the aboie way, that is to say, that it is not nei-essarj' to pre- suppose absolutely that the Song of Songs is based upon an actual lii;-torical occurrence ; but he fails to see liow, on this view, the dramatical theory of the iMjem in its present form is wounded unto death. If Budde is right in holding that in later times the two outsUiiuling tigures in the popular recollection were emploj'ed as above described in the poetry of marriage celebrations, this very cir- cumstance might also lead a poet to give a dramatic fashioning to the material supplied by 1 K 1. 2, and, in so doing, to utilize the further development the story had undergone in the popular memory. Now, Budde himself (p. 8) remarks that the circumstance that Solomon had his brother put to death on Abishag's account, may have given rise to the legend that he himself loved her and made her his wife, and that the execution of his brother was thus an act of jealousy. But if we admit the possibility of this, there is another possibility we slioulil not leave out of account. In 1 K 2 we hear nothinrj of Abishag having really become the wife of Solomon. Wky may not this circumstance have given rise in poetical legend to the conception that the lovely virgin refused to become Solomon's wife, nay even to the conception that her refusal teas based upon her unconquerable love for a youth in her native district ? Moreover, when the notion wa.s once seized that she had not chosen to be the wife of Solomon, it was no great stretch of poetic fancy to assume that her first introduction into the aj/artments of David by his servants was not a willin;; one on her part, and the presupposition that from tlie Jirst she succeeded in defending her honour fnds its firm basis in tlie express statement of I K 1' {' and the king knew her not ').
AVe see then that the narrative of 1 K 1. 2 supplies, especially if we take into account the influence of inventive i)opular reminiscence, <|uite sufficient material for developing the story which the dramatical theory of the Song of Songs con- siders to be unfolded in it. It reqviired at all events no very great gift of poetic construction to give a dramatical form to this material borrowed from recollections, in which all the points necessary for a simple dramatical development were con- tained and spontaneously ollered themselves to the poet's notice. But, we repeat emphatically, this does not absolutely exclude the possibility that in later times it was customary in a poetical and symbolical form of address to call a bridegroom and a bride ' Solomon ' or ' king,' and ' Shulam- niite.' * At the same time we think it only right and j)roper to emphasize the other possibility, that an unknown man, of a poetical turn and moved perhaps al.so by special circumstances, found in this very custom the motive for working up tlie material that lay to his hand. The one supposi- tion does not exclude the other. The question ihether we have really to do with a dramatical poem must be settled from the book itself, and in any case the matter is not so ea-sily settled as Biiclde and those who agree with him suppose.
BuiJde flmls ' the solution of the problem of our book ' (p. 10) In the customs reported by Wetzstein in connexion with we<lilirii,-8 ajnuiigst the Syrian Budawin, namely, in the festive proiicwlinKS ol the so-cullcd 'kiiiit's wtek.' The book con- tains. iici:nrding to him, 'sontrs' suntt at the weddini; (estivilies, during; which bridegroom and bride (or husband and wife) are honoure<l for seven days as kinp and queen, whoso throne is the thre»bingl>oard, set on the Ihrishing-noor of the place and decki-d out with can>ets and pillows. A principal elcnient in these songs are the i™«/« or lyrical descriptions of the nliysical chamis and wedding attire of the young pair. Kvpecialiy im- pressive, mccording to Wetzstein's account (cl. DcliliMch. f.'oinm.