The Pulpit Commentary — Song of Songs — Section 9

not reappear. In the time of Calvin, Genova was startled by the brochure of Sebastian Castellio (1544), who represented Shulamith as a ooncubine, and Jenounced the book as unworthy of a place in Scriptm·e-to the great displeasure of Calvin himself, who is said to have compelled. Castellio to withdraw from Geneva. The next name in the biblio.~raphy is that of Hugo Grotius, who published his' Annotations 1 on the Old Testament in 1664. In his view the work is a nuptial song, with allegorical and typical meanings, which he admits are to be found in it, though he does not himself seek 1hem. R. Simon, J. Clericus, Simon Episcopius, are other instances of the same treatment of the book in the latter part of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries. The rise of rationalism was the revival of the theory. Semler and Michaelis led the way, in the middle of the last century, disparagipg the book altogether. It was only as the liter-ary spirit of German criticism began to deal more fairly with the whole of Scripture, as the remains of a great people, 'that the poetic merits of Solomon's Song began to be recognized, and an'attempt was made to understand its position in the canon. Leasing, who was the greatest critical mind of Europe at that time, saw that there was great idyllic beauty in these 'Eclogues of King Solomon,' as he called them; and compared them with those of Theocritus and Virgil; but the most distin- guished name is that of Herder, whose celebrated work on 'The Spirit of Rebrew Poetry' did much to revive the interest of the literary world in the Bible. Herder wrote a separate work on Solomon's Song, treating it a·s e. collection of songs of love, and as intended ·to describe itleal •human love, for the purpose of set.ting forth the example of purity and innocence when it was most needed in the ancient world. His criticism is in many respect's valuable and highly resthetic. He draws attention to the _exquisite poetry of the songs, and to their surpassing worth as an ideal of human sentiment. But delightful reading as Herder's work undoubtedly is, it is yet but little help to the biblical student, as there is no attempt to follow out the religious intimations of the language, or to find in it any parabolical intention. The rationalistic critics have, most of them, regarded the songs as fragmentary and isolated, and thus have deprived themselves of th~ir true position as commentators; for if there be no unity in the book, it is hard to find any basis on which to rest the explanation of its meaning as a whole. To sup- pose a sacred work written simply in praise of human feeling, or even to cherish the ideal of human relationship, is to resist the analogy of Scripture. It may be doubted if even the Proverbs of Solomon should be regarded from so wide and general a point of view as that. 'fhere is no need to trouble the reader with an account of the mariy books which have appeared in Germany, treating not only Solomon's Song, but every other book in the Bible, in the most flimsy, superficial spirit; as though no deeper meaning noed ever be sought in them than that which satisfies the logical understanding of a narrow-minded, pedantic professor. Eichhorn, Jahn, De Wette, A.ugusti, Kleuker, Di:iderlein, Velthusen, Gaab, Jqstl,  'l'HE SON"G OF SOLOMON. nii ----------------------- Dodke, Magnus, Rabenstein, Lossner,-all such critics have proceeded on tbo principle of finding a literary explanation of the form, not a spiritual expo- sition of the matter. Their highest aim is critical, and they have their reward-they shake together a heap of dry bones, and their own dead hearts hear no living voice of response. But there is a little advance upon the barren, dreary emptiness of this rationalistic criticism in what is called the dramatic theory of interpretation, which has received a considerable acces- sion of interest during the present century by the development of a new historical hypothesis_by which it is attempted to explain the dramatic unity and progress of the composition. Jacobi, in 1771, led the way, in a work in which he professed to defend the Song of Solomon from the reproaches brought against it, supposing Solomon to have fallen in love with a young married woman, who, with the husband, is brought to Jerusalem. The husband is induced to divorce his wife for Solomon's sake, and she is alarmed at the king's approach, and ories out for her husband's help. The whole is a worthless attempt to work out a baseless hypothesis, which is entirely out of harmony with the pure spirit of the whole book. Other German critics, such as Hazel, Von Ammon, Stii.udlin, and Umbreit, have followed Jacobi in endeavouring to unfold the dramatic unity of the poem, but none have gone further than the great historian Ewald, who has translated it with an introduction and critical remarks (1826); see also his work on' The Poets of the Old_ Testament' (1866). His view, as set forth in the latter work, is that it was actually prepared for representation. This opinion is sup- ported by the hypothesis that there is an actual love-history· at the basis of the poem ; a young shepherd, of the north of Palestine, being the real lover of Shulamith, from whom Solomon desires to alienate her affection; and that the main idea of the book is the successful resistance of Shularuith to the allurements of the royal lover and her faithfulness to her first love, to whom she is restored by the king in acknowledgment of her virtue and as an act of homage to faithful affection. This theory has been adopted by many critics in later times, as by Hitzig, Vaihinger, Renan, Reville, and Ginsburg; but it is not only exceedingly improbable in itself, but out of harmony with the place of the work in the canon of Scripture. Even if wa could suppose Solomon capable of writing such a history of his own delin- quencies, we could still less understand how suoh a " confession " should be incorporated in the sacred volume. There may be expressions in the mouth of the bride which seem at first sight to favour such a theory, but the position of Solomon throughout is quite inconsistent with the idea of illicit solicitation, or indeed with any other relation to Shulamith than that of chaste and legal marriage. The only forcible argument in favour of this view, which is generally called "the shepherd" theory, is the use of language in reference to the bridegroom which supposes him a shepherd; but this is explained by the fact which lies on the surface of tho poom, that the bride is one brought up in country life, and who in the purity and simplicity of her heart addresses oven S,)lomon himself as her shcphcnl. The conclusion SONG OF SOLOMON, tJ  INTRODUCTTON TO