The title, though it is possibly too flattering to have come from the hand of Solomon, must have existed in the copy used by the Sept, and consequently can lay daim to a respectable antiquity. The moxal ar- gonient pot forward by the supporters of the most re- cent literal interpretation, and based upon the improb- ability of Solomon's criminating himself (see below), IB not very conclusive. Even on the theory of those interpreters his conduct might be traced to a spirit of generous self-accusation ; and, at any rate, it need not be exalted above the standard which was likely to flooriahin the atmosphere of a court such as his. On the whole, then, it seems unnecessary to depart from the plain meaning of the Hebrew title.
Supposing the date fixed to the reign of Solomon, great ingenuity has been employed by the Babbinical and some Christian writers in determining at what pe- riod of that monarch's life the poem was written (see Poll l^nops, Pnet ad Cant.). The point at issue seems to have been whether Solomon ever repented after his &1L If he did, it was contended that the ripeness of wisdom exhibited in the Song seemed the natoral growth ui such an experience ; if he did not, it was urged that no other than a Spiritually-minded man could have composed such a poem, and that therefore it must have been written while Solomon was stUl the cherished of God. Then, again, it was a mooted point whether the composition was the product of Solomon's matured wisdom, or the fresh outburst of his wtan and passionate 3routh ; whether, in foot, the master element of the poem were the IkercU form or the aUefforical meaning. In either view of its in- tsrpretatian, however, the only historical occasion in the life of Solomon for a poem like this is his mairiage with the daughter of Pharaoh, B.C. 1008 (1 Kings iii, 1); a reference that is strongly corroborated by the probable date of Psalm xlv, wUch indeed may be re- garded as the ity of the Canticles themselves. An old commentator (Woken, Wittemb. 1729) holds that the bride was "Nicaule," the queen mt Sheba, and that she formed a connubial intimacy wiA Solomon during her stay in Palestine. See Solomon.
IL Farm. — This question is not absolutely deter- mined by the Hebrew title. The rendering of ^*^^ 0''7^W, mentioned by Simonis (Lex, Heb,\ " series of songs'* (comp. aitpAf chain), and adopted by Paul- as, Good, and other commentators, can scarcely com- pete with that of Gesenlus, " Song of Songs, L e. the most beautiful of songs" (comp. Psa. xlv, 1, *1*ftt3 riT^j "a delightM song;" comp. also Theocr. Afy?. riii, lepoa^CKkQ fuKog), The non-continuity which many critics attribute to the poem is for from being a modem discovery (comp. the Lat. ** Cantica cantico-
mra,*' and the Chaldee paraphrase, " the songs and hymns which Solomon, the prophet, the king of Israel, uttered in the spirit of prophecy before the Lord"). Ghislerins (16th century) considered it a drama in five acts. One of the first separate translations published in EngUnd is entitled " The Canticles, or Balades of Solonion, in English metre" (1549) ; and in 1596 ap- peared Solomon's Song in eight eclogues, by J. M. [Jervase Markham] ; the number of eclogues in this latter production being the same as that of the idylls into which the book was afterward divided by Jahn. Down to the 18th century, however, the Canticles were generally regarded as continuous.
Gregory Nazianzus calls it *'a bridal dramatic song" (vvfAfuebv SpofAo, re icai ^fffia). According to Patrick, it is a ** pastoral eclogue" or a ** dramatic poem;" according to Lowth, "an epithalamium, or dctpiOTVi nuptialis of a pastoral kind." BfichaeHs and BosenmOller, while differing as to its interpretation, agree in making it continuous, " carmen amatorium." A modified continuity was suggested by Bossuet, who divided the Song into seven parts, or scenes of a pasto- ral drama, corresponding with the seven days of the Jewish nuptial ceremony (Lowth, PrceUct, xxx). Bos- suet is followed by Cahnet, Percy, Williams, and Lowth ; but his division is impugned by Taylor ^Fraffm, Calmet)^ who proposes one of six days, and considers the drama to be post^uqriicUy not an^ntip- tialj as it is explained by Bossuet (See below.) The entire nuptial theory has been severely handled by J. D. Michaelis, and the literal school of interpreters in general. Michaelis attacks the first day of Bossuet, and involves in its destructkm the remaining six (Not ad Lowth Pnd. xxxi). It should be observed that Lowth makes it a drama, but only of the minor kind, i. e, dramatic as a dialogue, and therefore not more dramatic than an idyll of Theocritus or a satire of Horace. The fiict is that he was unable to discover a plot; and it seems dear that if the only dramatic ele- ment in Canticles be the dialogue, the rich pastoral character of its scenery and allusions renders the term drama less applicable than that of idyU, Bossuet, however, extravagantly claims it as a regular drama, with all the proprieties of the classic model; and if with Lowth we recognise a chorus completely sympa- thetio and assistant, it is difikult to see how we can avoid calling the poem a drama : but in all the trads- lations of the aUegoruxd school which are based upon the dramatic idea, the interference of the chorus is so infrequent or so indefiiute, the absence of anything like a dramatic progress and development suffident to enlist the sympathy of a chorus is so evident, that the strongly-marked i^Bie scenery could not far ontwei^^ the scarcely perceptible elements of dramatic inten- tion. The idyllic theory is confirmed by the use of a similar form among the Aralnans, under the name of *< Casddee" (Sir W. Jones, Poes, As. €kmment. iii).