SONG OF SONGS
595
If we are to understand the poem which we call the Son'' of Sonfis, we must visit the poet's own land. 1 his is what we propose now to do. If Budde himself had continued his journey further and looked more carefully around him, he might have discovered the story of two lovers, Hahblls and ^amda, which bears a very close resemblance to what we find in Canticles. The storj' is ;;iven by Wetzstein in the Arabic text with German translation (see ZDMG xxii. [1S68] p. 7411'.), and waa taken down by him directly from oral communi- cation. In any case, this beautiful love romance proves that under special circumstances even at the presi-nt day amongst the Eedawin the possi- bility of love entanglements is contemplated, such as are presuj)posed in ancient times in the Song of Songs, if we adoi)t the dramatical view of Ewald and others. I;Iamda is said to have loved Habbfts, who lived far away and belonged to another tribe. Her heart remains true to this love, although, after long separation in time as well as place from him whom her soul tnily loves, she is destined to become the wife of her cousin Ali, and the wedding day (or rather evening) with all its festal celebra- tions has arrived. Nay, she has not omitted even to tell her cousin, Ali's sister, how it is with her heart, and litis given her such a description of her lover's stature, his physical excellencies, and his beauty that even she must have been able to pick him out of a crowd (cf. I.e. p. 103). And, in point of fact, the lover drawn from afar by his love conies, accompanied by a true friend (Pusein), while there is yet time to prevent the closing of the marriage bond between yamda and Ali, and to win his true love for himself. And he does win her and takes her home.
No one who reads this story, which is given in its most general outlines, will be able to avoid the impression that here there is |)artially the same iiroblem before us as is presented in the Song of Songs. Gudde (p. 4) insists again with much emphasis that in neither the modem nor the ancient East has a real betrothal and an intimate intercourse between the betrothed parties been permitted or possible prior to marriage, and that there is no place for such a natural growth of affection as the dramatical view postulates. Well, of course we must be on our guard against apply- ing rules borrowed from the West and from the condition of things amongst ourselves. But the Btory communicated by Wetz.stein shows that such affections, even if tlicse are surrounded a little with the halo of romance, are still possible at the present day, and evidence may be brought from the OT it.self to show that even in ancient times it was not an impossible thing for two young people (especially leading a country life) to make each other's ac(iuaintance and fall in love, and then to gratify their inclinations by personal meetings, even if these had to be stealtliily contrived.* The present writer must confess, then, that in his opinion no real objection to the dramatical view 01 the Song of Songs can be taken on the j^round of the contents which this view discovers in the Song. Moreover, the structure which is formed ant of these contents presents so close a parallel to the story communicated by Wetzstein, that one can only feel thus conlirmed in one's opinion that Canticles is a dramatic poem, taking for granted, of course, that in the contents of the latter there is really a dramatical progress or structure discover- able. That this last assumption is well founded IB our firm conviction ; and even Budde himself, as
• In favour of such a possibility may be cited in the first place Jjr 14''- 7'-, and then IcrbI cnaitmenU like Ex 22'i>f, Dt 22air ; ei. also On 341- -. It may he held as certain that even in ancient Israel, In bpite of the strictneHs of morality, nay, perhaps even beoauM ol It, then waa uo lauk of a geauine romantic side to lore.
we have seen, is not so very far removed from this opinion, since he cannot deny that at least his assumed redactor (or ' reviser ') sought to introduce movement and action into the older material whose peculiar character is supposed to have passed un- recognized by him. This, however, is tantamount to saying that he gave it a dramatic form, even if he did so in an imperfect fashion. Of course the objection that the Semites had no dramatic poetry at all (cf. art. PoETKY, p. 9*) has no force, for it starts by assuming as an axiom the very point whose universal application is disputed on the ground of the Song of Songs. The proof that the dram.atical view of Canticles is the correct one cannot be otlered, of course, through j.'eneral considerations ; but it is otlered, and that with tolerable certainty, if we succeed in formulating a theory of the contents and structure of the Song, which is natural on all sides and capable of ex- plaining, at least in the main, all the particular phenomena exhibited by the book. The ideal goal of the whole poem appears to the