The aUegorical interpretaUon has been defended in America by Professors Stuart and Burrowes. The m- fcrvo/ arguments adduced by the allegorists are sub- stantially the same with those urged by Calovius agahwt the literal basis of the mystical hiterpretation. ThefdUowhig are specimens: (a.) Particulars not ap- plicable to Solomon (v, 2). ^,) Particulars not ap- pBcahle to the wife of Solomon 0, 6, 8; v, 7; vii, 1, eomp. i, €). (c.) Solomon addressed in the second per- wn (viii, 12). (rf.) Particulars inconslBtent with the «dinary conditions of decent love (v, 2). (e.) Date twenty years after Solomon*s marriage with Pharaoh*s dingliter (comp. Cant, iv, 4, and 1 Kings vi, 38). It win readily be obeenred that these arguments do not m any way affect the literal theory of JacobL
For external arguments the allegorists depend prin- c^y upon Jewish tradition and the analogy ofOrien-^
tal poetry. The value of the former, as respects a composition of the 10th century B.C., is estimated by Michaelis (Not, ad Lowth) at a very low rate. For the latter, it is usual to refer to such authors as Char- din. Sir W. Jones, D'Herbelot, etc. (see Bosenm. Am- mad,), Rosenrafiller gives a song of Hafie, with a paraphrase by a Turkish commentator, which unfolds the spfaitual meaning. For other specimens of the same kind, see Lauo's Egyptians, ii, 215 sq. On the other liand, the ol^jections taken by Dr. Noyes are very important (New Trantl,). It would seem that there is one essential difference between the Song of Solo- mon and the allegorical compositions of the poets in question. In the latter the allegory is more or less avowed, and distinct reference is made to the Supreme Being ; in the former there is nothing of the kind. But the most important consideration i^nced by the literalists is the foot that the Canticles are the produo- tion of a diflferent country, and separated ttom the songs of the Sufis and the Hindoo mystics by an in- terval of nearly 2000 years. To this it may be add- ed that the Song of Solomon springs out of a religion which has nothing in common with the pantheism of Persia and India. In short, the conditions of produo- tion in the two cases are utterly dissimilar. But the literalists are not content with destro3ring this analo- gy ; they proceed farther to maintain that allegories do not generally occur in the sacred writings without some intimation of their secondary meaning, which intimation in the case of the Canticles is not forthcom- ing. They argue, fh>m the total silence of our Lord and his apostles respecting this book, not indeed that it is uninspired, but that it was never intended to bear within its poetic envelope that mystical sense which would have rendered it a perfiect treasury of reference for Paul when unfolding the spiritual relation between Christ and his Church (see 2 Cor. xi, 2 ; Rom. vii, 4 ; Eph. Y, 2&-82). Again, it is urged that if this poem be allegorically spiritual, then its spiritualism Is of the very highest order, and utterly inconsistent with the opinion which assigns it to Solomon. The philos- ophy of Solomon, as given in Ecclesiastes, is a philos- ophy of indifference, apparently suggested by the ex- haustion of all sources of physical enjoyment. The religion of Solomon had but little practical' influence on his lifb ; if he wrote the glowing spiritualism of the Canticles when a young man, how can we account for his fearftil degeneracy ? If the poem was the produc- <tion of his old age, how can we reconcile it with the last fiact recorded of him, that " his heart was not per- fect with the Lord his God ?" For the same reason it is maintained that no other writer would have selected Solomon as a symbol of the Messiah. The excessive- ly amative character of some passages is designated as almost blasphemous when supposed to be addressed by Christ to his Church (vii, 2, 8, 7, 8) ; and the &ct that the dramatis personae are three is regarded as decided- ly subversive of the allegorical theory.
The strongest argument on the side of the allegor- ists is the matrimonial metaphor so fluently em- ployed in the Scriptures to describe the relation be- tween Jehovah and Israel (Exod. xxxiv, 15, 16 ; Num. XV, 89 ; Psa. Ixxiii, 27 ; Jer. iii, 1-11 ; Ezek. xvi, xxiii, etc.). It is fblly stated by Prof. Stuart (0. T, Canon), On the other hajid, the literalists deny so early a use of the metaphor. They contend that the phrases de- scribing spbdtual fbmication and adulter^ represent the literal fact; and that even the metaphor, as used by the prophets who lived after Solomon, implies a wedded relation, and therefore cannot b» compared with the ante-nuptial aflfection which forms the sub- ject of Canticles.— Smith, Did, ofBiMe, s. t.
On the wliole, a combination of the moderately lit- eral interpretation with the general allegorical idea seems to be the tme one, by which, under the figure of chaste conjugal love (probably that of Solomon and the Egyptian princess), set fbrth in Oriental style and
CANTICLES
96
CANTICLES
warmth [see Makriaob], the union of Jehovah and his Church is represented after the analogy of a para- ble (q. v.). All attempts, however, hitherto made to carry the explanation into detail, especially in the ap- plication of the language to the phenomena of individ- ual religious exp^ence, have been signal failures, having been, indeed, rather the ofifspring of a sensuous