SONER, ERNST. See SOCINUS, FAUSTUS, SOCINIANS, I., § 3.

SONG OF SOLOMON

(SONG OF SONGS, CANTICLES).

The Interpretation; Dramatic Theory (§ 1).

Narrative of the Drama (§ 2).

Objections to this Theory (§ 3).

Syrian Marriage-week Theory (§ 4).

Objections to this Theory (§ 5).

Authorship and Date (§ 6).

1. The Interpretation; Dramatic Theory.

The Song of Solomon (Song of Songs, Canticles) is the book which follows Ecclesiastes in the arrangement of the English Bible. The title in Hebrew, "Song of Songs which is Solomon's," conveys the idea that it is the noblest of songs, the author of which is Solomon. It is clearly a love song, but whether to be understood of earthly or spiritual love

2

is the question. Its date is long after Solomon's time. Since the time of Herder its unity has been denied by many, and it has been regarded as a collection of love songs. But commentators agree on the principal as being King Solomon, his beloved (a peasant maiden), and the daughters [i.e., female residents] of Jerusalem. Peculiarities of speech abound from beginning to end. And there are characteristic expressions which repeat themselves with slight variations throughout (cf. ii. 7, iii. 5, viii. 4, and v. 8; iii. 6, vi. 10, and viii. 5; ii. 17, iv. 6, and viiii. 14; ii. 6, and viiii. 3; i. 2 and iv. 10; ii. 5 and v. 8). Many parts are parallels (cf. ii. 8 sqq., iii. 1 sqq., and v. 2 sqq.). In view of the many unmistakable interrelationships and indications of unity which bind the poem together (cf. i. 6 with viii. 12), it may be regarded as proved that the parts of the poem are well welded together. But since different voices are heard in the song and since the scenes change, the piece can not be taken as purely lyric; it is dramatic poetry, examples of which are found also in the Psalms (ii. and xxiv.). But it is necessary for the understanding of the whole to mark off the scenes, to determine the dramatis personae, and to apportion the text among them although the text contains no express directions for doing this. Near to King Solomon stands a celebrated beauty who in vi. 13 is called the Shulamite (from the village of Shulam, modern Sulam, formerly Shunem; cf. I Kings i. 3), a maiden from the country characterized by a noble grace and unaffected humility. According to the older view not only is this one honored by the king, but his enraptured preference is prized and his affection tenderly returned; the newer and till recently dominant conception was that she affirms her love for a third person and over against the homage of the king sets the praise of a simple shepherd of her native heath until finally the king yields the field and fidelity conquers. Into the mouth of this rival of Solomon's certain parts are put, or at least the maiden speaks them as though they were the words which he would speak were he present. It is evident how differently the poem will be construed whether the viewpoint is that of a pouring-out of confession of love by two united spirits or the contest of two rivals in which the simple shepherd gains the victory over the king.

2. Narrative of the Drama.

The last view is held by so weighty authorities that it is in the main points to be followed. According to Ewald and others the following story is gained from indications in the poem. In one of his journeys to the north of his kingdom the king had come to the neighborhood of Shulam when some in his train found in a nut-garden (vi. 11-12) an attractive maiden in a condition of delighted ecstasy. Although somewhat hardly treated by her own people and put to guard a vineyard near, she displays so rare a grace that the king desires her for his harem. With this encounter the first scene begins (i. 1 sqq.), in which she states that she has given her heart to a shepherd of her own home to whom she will be true in spite of all the allurements of the king and of his surroundings. The conflict intensifies in the course of the poem as the suit of the king becomes more eager and pressing. While he praises her, she answers with the eulogies of her beloved. In this elevated state of feeling she hopes to see him and to hear his voice (ii. 8 sqq., iii. 5, cf. viii. 4); in her dreams she seeks him in the streets of Jerusalem until she finds him. The contest reaches its climax when Solomon makes her the offer of his throne. As his queen in due right he carries her to his capital, but even this fails of its purpose, since her vision returns to her beloved. The king then makes a final attempt to win her by the influence of magical words (vi. 4 sqq.). But as her longing for home becomes still more irresistible he renounces her and dismisses her in peace to her own possessions. In the last act she arrives home with her friends where the bonds of love are sealed. The moral of the piece is in vii. 6; love is unconquerable, inextinguishable, unpurchasable. True love wins the victory.

3. Objections to this Theory.

It can not be denied that this hypothesis is very attractive and avoids many difficulties, putting as it does at the close a moral which is drawn from an incident portrayed in dramatic colors, but perhaps not altogether fictitious, in the life of the splendor-loving king. The moral verity harmoniously expressed at the close becomes not unworthy of the higher tone of the canonical books generally, even though allegory have almost nothing to do with the poem. The firmly-true betrothed may as well have her memorial in the Scriptures as the virtuous wife. Still on a closer examination this understanding of the poem is not altogether unassailable. Decidedly against it is the following circumstance: iii. 6 to v. 1 describes precisely the royal wedding-day, ending in the royal bridegroom's gratification in the assured obtaining of all his desires. If this wedding, according to the conception of the rivalry of the shepherd, must become tragic, while not once in this passage does the required impotence of love appear, through the last words of the Shulamite (iv. 16) the whole finely conceived theory of the unwillingness of the shepherd-betrothed to yield to the king falls apart. In this section, where the relations of love find their most concrete form, the sponsors for the shepherd theory find no support. Decisive appears vii. 11 sqq., where the Shulamite, in words impossible to misunderstand, promises herself, her person (her oven vineyard), fully and wholly to Solomon, but only a moderate reward to her guardians, her brothers, in which she refers to the general custom followed by Solomon.

4. Syrian Marriage-week Theory.

Other reflections against the shepherd hypothesis have only recently been appreciated: The hypothesis set forth by Herder and others of an unconnected anthology of marriage songs has been accepted, for example by Budde and others who find in Wetzstein's communications about the celebration of marriage in modern Syria the solution of the puzzle. The latter published in Bastian's Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1873, an article on the " Syrian Threshing Floor " in which the threshing-floor in the " king's week " comes in for discussion. The primitive threshing-

3

implement, consisting of two plain planks bent outward, is used in the marriage week to make the throne upon which bride and groom take their seat of honor, as they play for the week the part of king and queen, watching the games produced in their honor and listening to the songs sung in competition. Among these songs is always one which commends the beauty of bride and groom, for the composition of which they summon the best poet obtainable. An especial part is the sword-dance song which the bride sings on the evening before the wedding (while with a sword she keeps at a distance the groom), the singing of which gives the company an occasion to extol her charms; on the second day the praise of the wedded queen is sung with more of reserve. On this interpretation it follows that the poem has to do with a marriage among peasants in town or country in which the bridegroom plays the part of king. Just so the Shulamite appears only once, is so called with reference to Abigail of Shunem, the most beautiful woman in Israel, and is herself the most beautiful of women. The sword dance of the bride, and particularly the song in praise of the betrothed, is discerned in vii. 2 sqq., though it should stand at the beginning of the poem; the more moderate song to the wedded bride is seen in iv. 1-6, that to the spouse in chap. v. The entire poem is a collection of songs which have no other bond than that they sing of wedded love; moreover, they are not arranged in the order in which they are employed. Budde discovers not less than twenty-three such songs or fragments, while Siegfried discovers only ten.

5. Objections to this Theory.

But not even with this explanation has the last word been spoken. That the unity of the whole is strongly evident was remarked at the first. The form is throughout delicate and refined and leaves the productions of the threshing-floor poet far in the rear. With this delicacy is contrasted the simple rusticity of scene in many of the parts. The contrast between the court dames and the shepherdess appears in chap. i. Different is the fact that the Shulamite extols her beloved as white and ruddy (v. 10; cf. 14), which, according to Lam. iv. 7, describes his noble rank while she herself, according to i. 5-6, can not disavow the evidences of her country origin. She nowhere appears as queen, a position which is demanded on the Budde hypothesis. That the Wetzstein data of the marriage-week usages and songs are very serviceable in the explanation of the Song, Franz Delitzsch long ago perceived. He saw in vii. 2 sqq. the description of the dancer (but of the sword there is here no word); while the Hebrew marriage festival continued seven days, varied performances of a festal character found place without necessitating a very complete unity, such as the playing of the maiden lover, her search on all sides, and her finding of happy companionship. Budde's remark may also be noticed, to the effect that the Song is a text-book of the Palestinian-Israelitic wedding ceremony. But this text-book is not a collection of shepherd- and peasant-songs, though the most beautiful popular songs are found therein; it is an art-poem, perhaps composed for the celebration of some definite marriage, the composer of which represented the groom as Solomon and the bride as the Shulamite. The union of these two were, according to our hypothesis, set forth, as Delitzsch and Zockler rightly perceived. So she loves in him not the king, nor does she require sensual pleasure nor riches; she seeks only to find in him real companionship as though he were her brother and friend and of the rank of shepherd as she is herself. Such love is strong as death and unpurchasable. If the rural environment is looked on rather as poetic adornment than as trustworthy narrative, let iv. 8 have its weight and one need not have recourse to Budde's theory of a gloss.

How the Song is to be understood the last act teaches. It is the love of a bride with its longings and hopes, its search and discovery; its disillusioning and surprises, the pure love which as a divine spark suffers nothing impure and through its might overcomes all earthly obstacles, set forth here in rare completeness in the two noblest exemplars the author could find. This object is in itself not unworthy of the Bible, all the more that the opposition to a simply sensual or sham affection works out in the poem. Were there not something lofty and mysterious in the love of a bride for her husband,it could not elsewhere be used as the picture of the holiest relations. The value of the canonical Song of Songs becomes noticeable first when one remarks the singular worth of the king whom it mentions. Solomon was to the consciousness of his times like David the.anointed of the Lord, the Messiah, who stood to the people for the invisible King of kings. If now such a king, in the way the poet describes as he follows some tradition, seeking a purer and holier love than he found in the capital, determined to elevate a simple daughter of the people to the highest honor, the while she offered him wifely love in complete purity, such a marriage would be like that of the Messiah sung in Ps. xlv., an achievement in the visible kingdom of God, which would find itself repeated the oftener among posterity the more they learned from the prophets.

6. Authorship and Date.

Without difficulty the notion might spring up that Solomon was himself the author of this poem which deals with himself. Anew in favor of this has been adduced the imagery of the Song, built up out of the plant-world, the geographical relations with the whole Solomonic kingdom from Lebanon to Engedi, the connection with Ps. lxxii., attributed to Solomon, the poet of 1,005 songs (I Kings v. 12). But the person pictured in the poem with the brilliancy of Solomon is evidently a matter of poetic interest in one who is removed from the poet in time. The vocabulary of the poem is individual, the little piece having between fifty and sixty hapaxlegomena; if it is pre-exilic, it must belong to the north. Gratz has found little sympathy with his idea that the poem displays a knowledge of Greek custom and is dependent upon the Idyls of Theocritus. Oettli argues for a pre-exilic date, Konig and Strack place it about 500 B.C. Under the shepherd hypothesis the piece would have been lost; into the Judaic canon this anti-Solomonic tendency-writing could not have come nor Solomonic authorship been attributed to it. Also on the threshing-

4

floor hypothesis the lofty designation of the Song and the allegorical interpretation are hard to explain. How comes it that the scribes did not recognize this song which on the hypothesis was sung at every Palestinian wedding, and that the playing at being king was so grossly misunderstood, a custom which has lasted until modern times? On the explanation given here the Song has higher claims on regard, and the time of its composition is entirely a subordinate question. (C. VON ORELLl.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On matters of introduction consult the works named in and under BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION, especially Driver, pp. 436-453; J. G. Herder, Lieder der Liebe, die altesten and schönsten aus dem Morgenlande, Leipsic, 1778; E. Cunitz, Hist. critique de l'interpretation du cantique des cantiques, Strasburg, 1834; A. L. Newton, The Song of Solomon Compared with other Parts of Scripture, New York, 1867; E. Renan, Le Cantique des cantiques, . . . avec une étude sur Ie plan, l'âge et le caractère du poème, 4th ed., Paris, 1879; S. Salfeld, Das Hohe Lied Solomons bei den jüdischen Erklärer des Mittelalters, Berlin, 1879; G. Bickell, Carmina Veteris Testamenti, Innsbruck, 1882; J. G. Stickel, Das Hohelied in seiner Einheit und dramatischen Gliederung, Berlin, 1888; R. Martineau, in American Journal of Philology, 1892, pp. 307-328; W. Riedel, Die Auslegung des Hohen Lieds in der jüdischen Gemeinde and der griechischen Kirche, Leipsic, 1898; DB, iv. 589-597; EB, i. 681-695; JE, xi. 488-467.

Commentaries are: H. Ewald, Göttingen, 1826; J. C. Döpke, Leipsic, 1829; B. Hirzel, Zurich, 1840; E. J. Magnus, Halle, 1842; F. Böttcher, Leipsic, 1850; F. Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1851; H. A. Hahn, Breslau, 1852; G. Burrowes, Philadelphia, 1853; E. W. Hengstenberg, Berlin, 1853; J. Gill, London, 1854; F. Hitzig, Leipsic, 1855; C. D. Ginsburg, London, 1857; L. Withington, Boston, 1861; J. F. Thrupp, London, 1862; R. F. Littledale, London, 1869; A. M. Stuart, Philadelphia, 1869; H. Cowles, New York, 1870; H. Grätz, Vienna, 1871; F. C. Cook, in Bible Commentary, London, 1874; O. Zöckler, in Lange's Commentary, New York, 1875; B. Schäfer, Münster, 1876; T. Gessner, Quakenbrück, 1881; S. J. Kämpf, 3d ed., Prague, 1884; P. Schegg, Munich, 1885; W. C. Daland, Leonardsville, N. Y., 1888; J. G. Stickel, Berlin, 1888; W. E. Griffin, The Lily among Thorns, Boston, 1889; S. Oettli, Nordlingen, 1889; Le Hir, Paris, 1890; D. Castelli, Florence, 1892; M. Rainsford, London, 1892; R. A. Redford, in Pulpit Commentary, New York, 1893; J. W. Rothstein, Halle, 1893; M. S. Terry, Cincinnati, 1893; C. Bruston, 2d ed., Paris, 1894; E. Réveillaud, Paris, 1895; K. Budde, Freiburg, 1898; C. Siegfried, Göttingen, 1898; P. Baarts, Nuremberg, 1901; A. Harper, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1902; V. Zapletal, Freiburg, 1907; G. C. Martin, in Century Bible, London, 1908; P. Haupt, Leipsic, 1908; J. Hontheim, Freiburg, 1908; P. Joüon, Paris, 1909.