we bold on any particular.portion of Scripture. If the sacred writings are no more than a colleotion of Jewish literature, in which there would naturally be great variety, and not necessarily in every instance a lofty spiritual aim, then we can regard the Song of Solomon as Herder did, as a collection of beautiful Eastern songs, and there is no need to seek in them either unity of purpose or special significance. But it is more difficult to reconcile such a view with the facts than to find a tenable theory of inter- pretation.. It is simply incredible that such a. book, if merely of literary or moral worth, should be introduced into the collection of Jewish Scrip- tures, to be an inexplicable exception to the whole volume. All other books have. some distinct and easily recognizable connection with the religious character and peculiar national position of the Jewish people. Not one is where it is because it is a piece of literature. Why should the Song of Solomon be an exception? Moreover, the simple fact that Jews themselves have always sought for an interpretation of the book shows that they were not satisfied with the mere literary value of it. We must either, eliminate it altogether from the Bible, or we must find some method for its profitable use. Those who have renounced all attempts to explain it have either been impatient with the difficulties, or out of humour with the expositors. No doubt a very large amount of folly has been published by thos_e who have endeavoured to support a theory by ingenious manipulation of the language. We are apt to be revolted by such extravagance, and treat the whole subject with indifference. But tliere is no more beautiful book in the Old Testament than the Song of Solomon. We cannot be right in leaving it unstudied and ~nused. We must deal with it as a part of Holy Scripture. As far as possible, therefore, we must put it in intelli- gible relation to the Word of God, as a progressive revelation of Divine truth. We must understand what is the idea of the book, and how that idea is set forth .in the form in which the poem is composed. We proceed, therefore, to give an account of the different theories which have been held as to the interpretation of the book, and so to justify that which we accept in the subsequent Expos_ition. 1 The theories of interpretation may be olassed under three heads. 1. Those which assume that the work is an allegory, that the facts contained in it are merely employed for the purpose of framework, the language being mystical and figurative. 2. Those whioh are founded upon a natv.ralistio basis, taking the literary features of the work as the first in importance, and regarding it as some form of love-poem or collection of erotic songs. 3. Between these two ex.tremes stands the typical view, whioh, without dis- carding the historical and literary basis, not to be disputed on the very face of the work, endeavours to justify its position in the Word of God by a.ne.logy with other portions of Scripture, in whioh natural and national fe.ots a.nd interests are imbued with spiritual significance. In each of these points of view there is truth, as there is variety of interpretation. We shall be best prepared to understand the results of the mos& ][ INTRODUC,'TION TO
able modern criticism by placing these different theories clearly side by side. 1. The allegorical theory. This is much the most ancient method of interpretation. It sprang, no doubt, from the rabbinical school among the Jews, in which the verbal inspiration of Scripture was tenaciously held, while, at the same time, all kinds of fanciful inte1·pretations were foisted into the divinely authorized words. If the veil of the language has to be'· preserved intact, then the only resource of the dogmatist or the speculator is to bring forth from behind the veil that which suits his purpose. It is of n:o consequence to prove that there were ~my real persons, such as Solomon and Shula.mith, whose love for one another is celebrated in this book. It might: be so or it might not be so; these things a.re an allegory. The deepest· truths are set forth in the dress of these words of human affection. Some have found in them God and his Ohurch throughout all time. Others... the historical and political relatiom of the Jewish people. Others have sought in them profound philosophical mysteries and cabalistic secrets. There jg one point, and one alone, in which e.11 these allegorical interpreters agree, and that ie, • that nothing is to be made of the book ta.ken literally, that there is no con- sistency and order in it if we attempt to regard it historically; therefore we have nothing in it but words, which may be applied in any manner which is spiritually or otherwise profitable. Such a view condemn~ itself, for it deprives us of any ground of confidence in seeking the true interpre- tation. That surely must be the mind of the Spirit which. best accords with the facts of the case. If there is not a foundation of historical truth underlying all the Scripture, then it is a mere unsubstantial cloud:whioh may· be blown a.way by the changes in the atmosphere of human opinion. It is against the analogy of Scripture. It opens the way to extravagance and folly, by removing all bounds and inviting the licence of mere individual• speculation. It repels the common sense of the ordinary reader of Seri~ ture, and simply shuts the book which it misinterprets, so that many refuse to look into it at all. "This mode of expounding each separate pa.rtioular,_ not with a view to its place in the description in which it stands, but as a: distinct reference to the spiritual object typified by it, necessarily leads both to a serious distortion of the lessons to be conveyed, and to a marring. and mangling of the symmetry and beauty of the objects depicted." Postponing any further discussion of this principle, we proceed to give a, summary of the history of the allegorical interpretation. There is no evidence that the Song of Solomon was allegorically inter • preted among the ancient Jews previous to the Christian era. Had it been a well-known, traditional view, it would certainly have appeared in some' of the writings of the Apocrypha, or in the works of Philo. But there is' no clear trace of it in either. The allusion which is found in the Fourth· Book of Esdras ( v. 24, 26), in which the terms "lily" and "dove" a.re employed of the Church, must be referred to a Christian origin; and dates· probably a.bout the end of the first century A,D. There is no decided THE BONG OF ·SOLOMON. :r.i