only to Solomon. David, indeed, had many other sons, bnt none except Solomon could be designated "King in Jerusalem." It is true a.lso that the firi~t person is continually used in narrating experiences which are especially appropriate to this monarch; e.g. "I a.m come to great, estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all that were before me" ( cb. i. 16) ; "I made me great works; I bnilded me houses" (eh. ii. 4); "All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise" (eh. vii. 23). But not thus is Solomon demonstrated to be the actual author; cleverly personated author- ship would use the same expressions. And this is what we conceive to be the fact. The wrirer assumes the role of Solomon in order to emphasize and add weight to the lessons which he desired to teach. The idea that such personation is fraudulent and unworthy of a sacred writer springs from ignorance of precedents or a misunderstanding of the object of such substi- tution. Who thinks of accusing Pla,to or Cicero of an inrention to deceive because they present their sentiments in the form of dialogues between imaginary interlocutors? Who regards the author of the Book of Wisdom as an impostor beca.use he identifies himself with the wise king? So common was this system of personation, so widely spread and practised, that a name was invented for it, and Pseudepigraphal was the title given to all such works as assumed to be written by some well-known or celebrated personage, the real author concealing hie own identity. Thus we have the 'Book of Enoch,' the 'Ascension of Isaiah,' the' Assumption of Moses,' the 'Apocalypse of Baruch,' the 'Psalrer of Solomon,' and many more, none of them being the production of the person whose name they bear, which was assumed only for literary purposes. A moralist who felt that he had some- thing to impart that might serve his generation, a patriot who desired to encourage his countrymen amid defeat and oppression, a. pious thinker whose heart glowed with love for his fellow-men,-any of these, humbly shrinking from obtruding npon notice his own obscure personality, thought himself justified in publishing his reflections under the mantle of some great name which might gain for them credit and acceptance. The ruse was so well understood that it deceived nobody; but it gave point and definiteness to the writer's lucubration, and it also had the effect of making readers more ready to accept it, and to look in its contents for something worthy of the personage to whom it was attributed. There is nothing in this derogatory to a. sacred writer, and no argument against the persona- tion can be maintained on the ground of its incongruity or inappropriate- ness. And when we more carefully examine the language of the book itself, we see that it contains virtual, if not actual, acknowledgment that it is not written by Rolomon. His name is not once mentioned. Other of bis reputed writings are inscribed with his name. The Canticles begin with the words, "The song of songs, which is Solomon's ; " the Proverbs are, "The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, King of Israel." Ps. hxii. is entitled, "A Psalm of Solomon." But our author gives himself an enigmatical appellation, which by its very form might show that it was vi IN'l'HODU01.'ION 'l'O
ideal and representative, and not that of a.n existing personality. To sup• pose that Solomon uses this name (which may be interpreted" Gatherer") for himself, with the abstruse idea that he who had scattered the people by his sine now desired to gather them together by this exhibition of wisdom, is to task the imagination beyond limit, and to read into Scripture notions which have no existence in fact. There can, indeed, be no adequate rea.eon given why Solomon should have desired thus to conceal his identity ; the plea of humility and shame is a mere invention of commentators anxious to account for what is, in their view, really inexplicable. He calls himself " King in J ernsalem "-an expression occurring nowhere else, and never applied to any Hebrew monarch. We read of. "King of Israel;"" King over all Israel," how that Solomon "reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel; " but the title "King in Jerusalem'' is unique, and ,seems to• point to a time when Jerusalem was not the only royal city, after the disruption of the kingdom, that is, subsequent to the epoch of the historical Solomon. The same conclusion is reached by the occasional wording of the text itself, which speaks of Solomon as belonging to the pa.et age. '' I was king," the monarch is made to say (eh. i. 12), speaking, not as a 1·eigning monarch himself would speak, but rather as one who, from the other world, or by the mouth of another, was relating his past earthly experiences, Solomon•waa king to the day of his death, and could never have used the past tense in reference to himself. Delitzsch and Ginsburg have callecl attention to a Talmudic legend based on this expression. According to this story, Solomon, driven from his throne on account of his idolatries and other sine, roamed through the country lamenting his follies, and reduced to the ex-tremity of. want, ever crying, with miserable iteration, "I, Koheleth, was King over Israel in J ernsalem ! " The legend is noticeable only as conveying the significance of the preterite tense found in the text. Thie tense cannot, in view of the immediate context, be translated, " I have been and still am king ; " nor is he saying that he was king when he applied his mind to wisdom. He is simply introducing himself in hie assumed character, not comparing his present with his past life, but from hie standpoint, as once an earthly and powerful king, giving the weight of hie, experiences. In another passage (eh. i. 16) he talks of having gotten more wisdom than all that were before him in Jerusalem. Now, this city did not fall into the possession of the Hebrews till some yeam after the accession of David : how could Solomon refer to previous kings in these terms, when really onlY'! one had preceded him ? And that hie reference is to rulers, and not to mere inhabitants, is denoted by the nee of the preposition al, which ought to be translated "over," not "in" Jerusalem. Commentators have· endeavoured to answer this objection by asserting that Solomon hereby indicates the ancient Canaanitish kings, such as Melchizedek, .A.donizedek, Araunah; but is it likely that he would thus introduce the thought of these worthies of past generations as though he and hie father were their natural successors r Would he condescend to compare himself with EOOLESIABTEB; OR, THE PREACHER. vii