Tirzah is put in authoritative dig,nity on a level with Jerusalem (vi. 4), which undoubtedly shows that the Song of Songs was written after the revolt of the ten tribes, when these two cities were the rival capitals of the two kingdoms. v. It is a psychological impossibility that Solomon would have satirised himself by writing a poem to show how his artful blandishments to seduce a virtu ous woman utterly failed. When Mr. Brown, in his excellent article Canticles' in Smith's Dic tionary of the Bible, says that this does not militate against Solomon being the author of this book, and that his conduct could easily be traced to a spirit of generous self-accusation,' we can only reply that no such spirit is traceable in the book itself, and that chap. vii. 7-to indicates the very reverse of such a spirit. The author must have been a member of the kingdom of Israel ; a sub ject of the kingdom of Judah, where the Solomonic dynasty reigned, and where Solomon's memory was cherished, would never have ventured to write such a poem. This is also corroborated by the fact that the writer repeatedly mentions Lebanon (iv. 8) and places in the northern kingdom.
Though the exact date of the book cannot be ascertained, yet its powerful and fluent style, the originality of its figures, the freshness of its land scapes, its life-like descriptions of local circum stances, the imagery drawn from the royal court of Solomon, the horses of Pharaoh, the tower of David, the tower of Solomon, the pools of Hesh bon, ctc. etc., show that it must have been written in the most flourishing time of the Hebrew lan guage, and shortly after Me death of Solomon.
7. Canonkity and Position of the Book.—We have the same evidence for the canonicity of the Song of Songs as that which is commonly adduced for the canonicity of any other portion of the O. T. The very rejection of its allegorical import and inspira tion by some in the school of Sbammai (A.D. So) proves that it formed a part of the canon in the days of Christ. As this has been shown elsewhere in this Cyclopmdia [GAMALIEL IL], it is needless to repeat it here. Hence it is found in the Septuagint, in
the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo dotion, in the catalogue of the canon given in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 14 b), in the catalogue of Melito (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 26), etc. etc. Those who in modem days have questioned the canonicity of this book have done so not from ex ternal evidence, but from misapprehension of its design.
The Song of Songs is the first of the five Mega% loth 011S,an vv-1) or scrolls which are annually read in the synagogue on five stated occasions. The reason for its occupying the first position in the present arrangement of the Hebrew canon is that the Feast of Passover, on which it is read, is the first in order of these five occasions.
S. Literature.—Besides the Septuagint, the Vul gate, and especially the Syriac version, which is superior to the other ancient versions, are to be mentioned the commentaries of Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra, contained in the Rabbinic Bibles [RABBINIC BIBLES]. The best modern exegetical helps are—Mason Good, Song of Songs, translated from the original Hebrew, London ISo3 ; Ewald, Das Hohe Lied Salomo's, Gottingen 1826 ; Dopke, Phdologisch-critische Commentar zum Haien Liede Salomo's, Leipzig 1829 ; Hirzel, Das Lied der Lieder, Zurich 1840; Magnus, Kritische Bearbei tung und Erklarung des Hawn Lien'es, Halle 1842 ; IIitzig in Kzzrzgel: exegetisch Hana'buch VIM A. T. vol. xvi. Leipzig 1855 ; Weissbach, Das Hohe Lied Salomo's, Leipzig 1858 ; Renan, La Cantique a'es Cantiques, Paris 1861. The most recent com mentaries defending the allegorical view are by the Rev. A. M. Stuart, 2d ed., iS6o ; and the Rev. J. T. Thrupp, M.A. (Macmillan) 1862. A very excellent Essay on the Canticles, defending the literal view, has just been published by the Rev. W. Houghton, M.A. (Triibner) rS65. For ana lyses of most of the commentaries, as well as of the MSS. cited in this article, we must refer to our Historical and Critical Commentary on the Song of Songs (Longman) 1857.—C. D. G.