4. The In-ierpretation of the Book.—No book has furnished a wider field for the speculations and visionary projects of /hose who substitute their own imaginations and enthusiastic feelings for the teach ings of Scripture than the Song of Songs. The varieties and absurdities of these so-called exposi tions are a solemn warning against departing from the established laws of language and the canons of historico-critical exegesis. As it would require a large folio volume to give a history of its interpre tation, we can only give here a general classifica tion of the main views about the import of the Song of Songs. Bating the great differences in the details, the interpretations may be divided into three general classes or schools—viz. The Literal School, which considers the description as real, maintaining that the words are to be taken in their obvious sense as delineating an historical fact or imaginary plot ii. The Allegorical School, which maintains that the description has no historical truth for its basis, and that the words contain some latent meaning. And iii. The 7jpical School, which unites the other two views ; it admits the literal meaning, but regards it as typical of spiritual truth.
1. The Literal School.—The literal interpretation of the Song of Songs was defended in the time of Christ by the school of Shammai, which maintained, in opposition to the school of Hillel, that Canticles and Ecclesiastes are uninspired productions. At the election, however, of R. Eleazar b. Azzariah to the presidency of the Sanhedrim (circa A.D. 90), it was ruled that the Song is inspired, and that it is of sublime allegorical import (7adajiin, iii. 5 ; Edajoth, v. 3 ; Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, cap. i.) This silenced the literalists among the Jews, till, about A.D. Iwo, when they made themselves heard again, as is evident from the scorning exclamation of Ibn Ezra (114o) : Far be it, far be it ! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition ! ' (Preface to his comment on the Song). With the pro gress of grammatico-historical exegesis in the 12th and 13th centuries, the literalists increased, and we actually find a MS. commentary of this period (Bodleian Libraiy, Oppenheint Collection, N. 625) almost anticipating the results of modern criticism. The anonymous commentator maintains that this Song celebrates the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and Mepherdess, and regards Solo mon as a distinct person, whom the shepherdess ad duces to illustrate her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved shepherd, affirming that if this monarch were to offer her all the splendour and hucury of his court to transfer her affections to him, she would spurn it all and remain faithful to her humble lover. The literal interpretation had now such a phalanx of able defenders, that Isaac Abi Sahula, being soli cited by his friends to write an exposition of this book 0284), felt it no easy task to decide between the powerful rivals (Ginsburg, Comment. p. 57). Salomon Lowisohn (1796-1821), however, was the first who elucidated the true design of this poem, showing that the Song of Songs celebrates the vic tory of true and virtuous love humble life over the blandishments of royalty. This view gained strength from its being adopted by Dr. Herxbeimer (1848), chief rabbi of Anhalt, and Dr. Philippson, chief rabbi of Magdeburg, and is now defended by almost all the literary Jews. In the church, the literalists, who appeared at a very early period, had at first to endure a harder fate than in the synagogue. As early as the days of Philastrius (dr. 387), the view entertained by some rabbins that the Song of Songs depicts a literal love-adventure of Solomon, found its way into the church, but unlike the heads of the synagogue, the bishop of Brescia (Brixia) branded these literalists as heretics (Liber de hares.) The existence of those who defended the literal in terpretation about this period is also attested by Gregory of Nyssa (circa A.D. 33I-396). It is from
Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus (circa 386-457), that we first learn the particular views of those who espoused the literal interpretation. He tells us that some assert that Solomon composed this song to celebrate his nuptials with Pharaoh's daughter. Amongst these was no less a person than Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (circa 350-429), WhO WaS that time the most distinguished commentator in the Syrian church, and was Kai' gEax0, styled in krpre.r. Others, who also maintained that it re cords a love-adventure of Solomon, substituted Abishag the Shulamite for Pharaoh's daughter. Whilst others again treated it with a little more reverence, and regarded it as a royal discourse, taking the bride to be the people of Israel, and the bridegroom the king. The thunders, however, of the councils, which were hurled against these heretics, quelled for centuries the literal interpreta tion, and it was only at the time of the Reforma tion that we find Sebastian Castellio (1515-1563), the celebrated translator of the Bible, venturing to remark on ch. vii. 1, Salamitha amica Solo monis et Sponsa,' and urging the removal of the Song of Songs from the canon. But even in the Reformed church such an opinion was not to be tolerated, and, at the instigation of Calvin, the learned Castellio was banished from Geneva. For the first time we now hear an eccentric voice raised in England for the defence of the literal meaning of the Song, declaring that 'it was written by SO14, 111071 when he wets wicked, ancl foolish, and las CiViOUS, and idolatrous' (Whiston, Si/pp/en/en/ to Me Essay towards restoring the true text of the O. T. pp. 5, to, London 1723). In Germany the literal interpretation was defended with greater re verence, learning, and taste by the erudite Michaelis, who maintained, in the notes to Bishop Lowth's Predections, that this Song describes the chaste pas sions of conjugal and domestic love, that it is recom mended as a pattern to mankind, and celebrated as a subject afgratitude to the great Author of happi ness. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book, as anticipated by the Jews of the Middle Ages, is due to Jacobi (1771), who showed that it does not describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, but celebrates fidelity. The ranks of the literalists in Germany were strengthened by the accession of Herder (1778), the pious poet, who, though mistaking its true design, denounced the allegorisers as violating common-sense and the laws of language, and maintained that this Song, celebrates true and chaste lave in various stages ; by the learned Kleuker (178o), who held a similar view to that of Herder ; by Ammon (179o) ; by the orthodox Umbreit (182o) ; and by the profound Ewald (1826), who in a masterly manner worked out the plan ex hibited by Jacobi. Dopke, too (1829), though not defending this view, rejected the allegorical interpretation. In England, after an interval of nearly a century, the literal interpretation found a povverful defender in Dr. Pye Smith (Scripture Test. to the Messthh, vol. i. book i. cap. ri) ; the same opinion was defended in America by Dr. Noyes (1846), who maintained that the Song is a collection of erotic songs ; whilst in Germany, where the exegesis of the O. T. is prosecuted more largely and successfully, the view that this poem celebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty was propounded by such critics as Heiligstedt 0848), Bottcher (1849), Meier (1854), Friederich (1S55), Hitzig (1855), and Vailtinger (1853). This is also the view of Dr. Davidson (1856) in England, of M. Renan (1861) in France, of the Rev. W. Houghton (Triibner 1865), and it may now be re garded as generally prevailing among the best Biblical critics.