Luther, in his Commentary on Canticles, main tained the allegorical interpretation, conceiving Jehovah to be the bridegroom, the bride the Jew ish nation and the poem itself a figurative de scription of Solomon's civil government.
The opinions of those who have acknowledged no other than the literal interpretation of the Canticles has had a considerable influence in the question of the canonicity of the book. Nor is it at all surprising that those who were in the habit of attaching a spiritual meaning to it should find it difficult to believe that a book treating of hu man love should have a place in the inspired vol lime.
But by many who defend the allegorical inter pretation, it is acknowledged that, even in its literal sense, it has a just claim to he considered a canonical book. Dr. J. Mason Good, for in stance, who, although he acknowledges that we have no sufficient data to build a decisive opin ion, still believes it an allegory (observing that 'this allegoric mode of describing the sacred union subsisting between mankind at large, or an in dividual and pious soul and the great Creator, is common to almost all Eastern poetry,' in proof of which he refers to the chaste and virtuous Sadi or the more impassioned Hafiz), and maintains that 'to those who disbelieve the existence of such an allegory, they still afford a happy example of the pleasures of holy and virtuous love; they incul cate, beyond the power of didactic poetry. the tenderness which the husband should manifest for his wife, the deference, modesty and fidelity with which his affection should be returned, and, considered even in this sense alone, they are fully entitled to the honor of constituting a part of the sacred Scriptures' (Song of Songs, or Sacred Idyls, by J. Mason Good, M. D.).
'Writers of exquisite taste, like Bossuct, Lowth, Eichhorn and Dr. J. Mason Good, share the opinion of Calmet when he says: 'Even regarding it as a mere human composition, it has all the beauties of which a piece of this nature is ca pable. 1 he bride and bridegroom express their sentiments in figurative and enigmatic periods. and by comparisons and similitudes derived from rural scenery. If the comparisons are sometimes too strong, we must allow something to the genius of the Orientals and the vivacity of love.' The Style is tender, lively, animated and delicate' (Preface to Canticles).
It was chiefly the subject of the poem that in fluenced Dr. J. Pye Smith in rejecting the Canti cles from the Canon, although he also maintained with \Vhiston that Josephus did not include it in his catalogue (Scripture Testimony, i:55, 3d edit., 1837; also Congregational Magazine for 1837, 1838).
4. Author and Age. These have been also much disputed. The inscription ascribes it to Solomon, and this is confirmed by the universal voice of antiquity, although some of the Jews have attributed it to Hezekiab.
5. Translation and Interpretation by C. Taylor.
The translation and interpretation of the Book of Canticles, as found in Ca!met, by Mr.
C. Taylor, may be given as a typical presentation of the literal and dramatic nature of the work.
(1) Introduction. The first principle to be considered in analyzing this poem is the arrange ment of its parts, for it evidently appears to be not one continued or uniform ode, but a composi tion of several odes into one connected series. In addition to the termination of the poem, there are three places where the author has decidedly marked the close of a subject. These are the lively adjurations addressed by the bride to the daughters of Jerusalem. These three periods close by the same words, uttered by the same person (the bride), who, when she is the last speaker, concludes in the same manner with very slight variations. They occur at the end of the first day, the end of the second day and the end of the fifth day, but at the end of the poem this conclusion is not maintained. If, then, these pas sages be admitted as divisions of the poem origi nally intended to be marked as closes, we have only to ascertain two other divisions in order to render the parts of the poem pretty nearly commensurate to each other in length, and com plete in the subject which each includes. By at tending to the sentiments and expressions we shall find little difficulty in perceiving such a change of person and occurrence that the ending of the third day /mist be where we have placed it, because the following words, relating to a dream of the over-night, imply that they are spoken in a morning; and they are so totally dis tinct from the foregoing sentiments, as to demon strate a total change of scene and of subject. The same may be said of the close of the fourth day. There is such a determinate change of style, sub ject and person speaking, in the succeeding verses, that every feeling of propriety forbids our uniting them. These principles, then, divide the poem into six divisions, each of which we have con sidered as one day. It has been usual with com mentators to regard these six days as succeeding the day of marriage; a mistake, as we suppose, which has misled them into many mazes of error. On the contrary, they are here considered as pre ceding the day of marriage, and, we think, the poet has distinctly marked the sixth day as being itself the day of that union, which accounts for its termination with the morning eclogue, and the omission of the evening visit of the bridegroom to the bride, as then the Sabbath, to which no allusion appears in any preceding day, would he beginning, in whose solemnities the Jewish bride groom would he attentively engaged. Other inter preters have supposed these eclogues to be so ab solutely distinct as to have no connection with each other, and not to form a regular series—a supposition that considerably impairs their beauty as a whole, and the effect of each of them singly, w:.•*e it leaves undecided the reason for their association, or for their appearance and preserva tion in one book.