The Pulpit Commentary — Song of Songs — Section 10

of !ho poem bears this out, for Solomon is so captivated by the beauty of her cl1aracter that he follows her to her native region and rural home where be i~ surrounded by her relations, to whom he vouchsafes his royal favour. It mnst not be overlooked, that by this highly artistic method not only is the contrast between the royal splendour and the pastoral simplioity heightened, but ample scope is given for the introduction of spiritual analogies, which must be granted to be the main purpose of the book and the justification of its place in the canon. The theory is seen in all its improbability in the form which is given it by Renan, who represents the shepherd following his beloved one to the foot of the tower of the seraglio where she is confined, being admitted secretly by her, and then exclaiming, in the presence of the chorus, in a state of rapturous delight, "I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse," etc. ( eh. v. 1 ), carrying her home when she is at last released from the king's harem, asleep in his arms, and laying her under an apple tree when she awakea to call upon her lover to set her as a seal upon his arm, etc. The shepherd-hypothesis is also defective in another respect, and that is, that it fails to girn a clear explanation of the two dreams which Shulamith narrates, which certainly must both refer to the same object of love, and would seem to imply that there was some defect of love on her part. The spiritual interpretation is perfectly simple and plain; the bride representing the soul of man, and therefore its inferiority to that with which it would be united. ButJ if we suppose Sbulamith shut up in a harem, the representation is most forced and unnatural, for she certainly could not have either wandered by night in the city of Jerusalem, nor dreamed of such an adventure. The whole hypothesis is rendered unnecessary by the arrangement which disposes the language among three classes of speakers only-the bride, the chorus of ladies, and the king. Thus the shepherd-lover is identified with the royal bridegroom, and the basis is still left secure on which a spiritual interpre- tation of the whole can be based. Notwithstanding the very ingenious attempts made by Ginsburg and Reville to defend the theory, it must be given np, with all the erotic explanations, as untenable and lowering to the character of the poem. We can only justify this decisive statement of opinion by setting forth, in opposition to what we oppose, a more excellent way, which we now proceed to do, giving an account, at the same time, of the various shapes which have been given to the typical view, which we adopt. 3. The typi,cal view. It should be frankly admitted by those who reject both the allegorical and the erotic interpretation of the Song of Solomon,. that no theory can be sound which does not recognize what forms the principal distinctive element in each of these views. We cannot .9vl:lrlook the fact that the book is a religious book, and is placed as suoh in the canon ; therefore in some sense and to some extent it must be allegorical, that is, there must be a deeper meaning in it than that which appears on the surface, and that meaning must be in harmony with the ret1t of  'l'IIE SONG OF SOLO.MON. xi.~