But the idea that the conjugal state, or the loves of married persons, are here referred to, has been strongly opposed by some of the ablest modern writers, including Eichhorn (Einleitung), Rosen mfiller (Scholia in Cant. Pref. p. 26t), Jahn (Thin Icilung and Introduct. in Compendium redacta), who maintain that the chaste mutual loves of two young persons antecedent to marriage are here celebrated. The last-named writer having ob served that neither in monogamy nor in polygamy is the passion of love so ardent as is here repre sented, proceeds to maintain that no other object remains but 'the chaste and reciprocal affection of the sexes previously to marriage. Some of the language,' he adds, 'may be thought indecorous in persons in such circumstances, but this is not the case, unless it be taken in the worst sense. It admits of a meaning perfectly chaste, which in the mouths of chaste lovers, such as the parties are uniformly represented, is the only one that can be true.' He conceives that there is no necessity to suppose any actual historical foundation for the poem.
3. Character of the Poem. Here it may be necessary to state that the learned are divided on the point whether the Canticles consist of one continued and connected poem, or of a number of detached songs or amorcts. The first person who maintained the latter opinion was Father Simon, who was on this account unjustly accused of denying the canonicity of the book. This opin ion has been subsequently defended by Eiehhorn (Einleitung), Jahn, Pareau (Institutio Interpretis I% T. p. sec. iv, c. xi, sec. 3; Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii, p. 129), and many others. A very general opinion is that it is an idyl, or rather, a number of idyls, all forming a collective whole. Such is the opinion held, among others, by Sir William Jones and Dr. J. Mason Good, in his beautiful translation of the Song of Songs. Dr. Adam Clarke, however, will not allow that the book of Canticles comes under the denomination of a pastoral, an idyl, an ode or an cpithalamium. He conceives it to be a composition sui generis, par taking more of the nature of a mask than any thing else, an entertainment for the guests who attended a marriage ceremony. He admits no mystical sense. Jahn, in the work above alluded to, states his opinion that the work comprehends several amatory poems.
Ewald considers the poem to consist of a drama in four parts. The heroine of the poem, accord ing to this writer, is a country maiden, a native of Engedi, who, while rambling in the plains, fell in with the chariots of Solomon. and was carried
by him into his palace. (Ewald's Das Hohe Lied Salomo's, Gotting. 1826).
Among those who have maintained the opinion that the Song of Songs is an allegory founded on facts, were Isidore Clarius and Francis Vatablus. Lightfoot also considers the poem to refer to a daughter of Pharaoh, an Ethiopian and a Gentile. Others, as we ha% e observed, among whom are the learned Lutherans Carpzov (Introductio ad Libros Canonicos I'. T.) and Gerhard (I'oslill. Salamonis, in Cant., prcrin, cap. x), maintain that the book is a simple allegory, having no historical base whatever, but describing the love which sub sists between Christ and the church under figures borrowed from the ardor of human passion. These writers maintain that there exists no double sense whatever, but that its primary is its only sense, and that this primary sense is entirely of a spiritual character.
As, however, the Scriptures give no intimation that this book contains a mystical or allegorical sense, recourse has been had to the analogy of some of the Messianic Psalms, whose applica tion to Spiritual objects is recognized in the New Testament. Especially a great resemblance has been observed between the character of the Can tides and the 45th Psalm. Abcn Ezra, the cele brated Jewish commentator of the twelfth century, considered that the Canticles represented the his tory of the Jews from Abraham to the Messiah. Others have conceived the bride to be Wisdom, with whom Solomon was acquainted from his childhood and with whose beauty he was capti vated (Leo Hebreus, Dialog. iii, De Amore). This latter is the view followed by Rosenmiiller in his Scholia.
The modern writers of the Roman church have, in general, followed Origcn and Jerome in their allegorical interpretations. The Rev. T. Scott observes, in his Commentary, that 'no other poem of the kind could be so explained as to describe the state of the heart at different times, and to excite admiring, adoring, grateful love to God our Savior as this does.' We must not omit the opinion of the learned Keiser, who conceives it to be a historico-alle gorical song, celebrating the restoration of the Mosaic worship by Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehe miah (Das Ho'•iled, Erlangen, 1825). Prof. Hengstenberg of Berlin. in his essay upon the Song of Songs, in the Erartgelische lung for 1827, maintains that the allegorical in terpretation of the book compels us to assume the relation of Jehovah to the Jewish people as the subject of the representation.