1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”443The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”454The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”465Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the[40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly calledRashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously namedJarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’(Hos. ii. 9);that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promisedto give them in the latter days(i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her(i.e.,Israel)willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49[41]According to Rashi,דודrepresents God asa husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, asa wifeforsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” arethe heathen kings and princes, under the figure ofwolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” arethe heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” arethe Egyptians; the “little sister” is theforsaken wifeof the Song, &c. &c.The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”501085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier,[43]calledRashbam, the grandson ofRashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also calledIbn-EzraandRaba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses(Deut. xxxii.)begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that[45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.”(Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, wherethe Messiahis meant; “the loved one” isthe Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” arethe pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” arethe thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, isthe two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13,the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, arethe angels.The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are ashepherdand ashepherdess, and thatthe kingis aseparateanddistinctperson from the beloved shepherd.Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “Irejoice inTHEE(the shepherd)more than ifTHE KINGhad brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet thatTHE KING,whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yetMY BELOVED(the shepherd),who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”571200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning[47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between theACTIVE INTELLECT(intellectus agens)and theRECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT(intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of theRECEPTIVEorMATERIAL INTELLECTwith theACTIVE INTELLECT.”This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically calledאַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל,the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.[56]This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as aseparateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas andRalbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interpretsthis Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon asa distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible[57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, assome explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz.,that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.611360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is[58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy,558,64Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed thatthe Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.681729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that[59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views,they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.Seeing that this book describes the love of ashepherdand a shepherdess, and also speaks ofa king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows thatthe Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment ofa shepherdesstoa shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.691832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song asan epithalamium.711848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi ofAnhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations,[60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God(Ch. viii. 6, 7),exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.The two last-mentionedRabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74[61]185–254. We come now to theChristian Expositorsof this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understandChrist, by “the bride,”the Church, by “the[62]companions” of the former,angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter,believers on the earth.The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born[63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songsas a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul.The whole book, he says,is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”[64]In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors[65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them.[66]There are some, says this prelate,who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.1.These people, he submits,ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.2.Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.3.Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.“The bridegroom”is Christ, “the bride”his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem”are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom”are either the angels or the prophets.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”443The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”454The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”465Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the[40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly calledRashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously namedJarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’(Hos. ii. 9);that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promisedto give them in the latter days(i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her(i.e.,Israel)willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49[41]According to Rashi,דודrepresents God asa husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, asa wifeforsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” arethe heathen kings and princes, under the figure ofwolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” arethe heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” arethe Egyptians; the “little sister” is theforsaken wifeof the Song, &c. &c.The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”501085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier,[43]calledRashbam, the grandson ofRashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also calledIbn-EzraandRaba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses(Deut. xxxii.)begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that[45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.”(Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, wherethe Messiahis meant; “the loved one” isthe Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” arethe pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” arethe thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, isthe two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13,the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, arethe angels.The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are ashepherdand ashepherdess, and thatthe kingis aseparateanddistinctperson from the beloved shepherd.Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “Irejoice inTHEE(the shepherd)more than ifTHE KINGhad brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet thatTHE KING,whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yetMY BELOVED(the shepherd),who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”571200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning[47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between theACTIVE INTELLECT(intellectus agens)and theRECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT(intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of theRECEPTIVEorMATERIAL INTELLECTwith theACTIVE INTELLECT.”This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically calledאַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל,the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.[56]This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as aseparateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas andRalbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interpretsthis Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon asa distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible[57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, assome explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz.,that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.611360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is[58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy,558,64Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed thatthe Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.681729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that[59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views,they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.Seeing that this book describes the love of ashepherdand a shepherdess, and also speaks ofa king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows thatthe Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment ofa shepherdesstoa shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.691832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song asan epithalamium.711848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi ofAnhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations,[60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God(Ch. viii. 6, 7),exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.The two last-mentionedRabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74[61]185–254. We come now to theChristian Expositorsof this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understandChrist, by “the bride,”the Church, by “the[62]companions” of the former,angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter,believers on the earth.The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born[63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songsas a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul.The whole book, he says,is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”[64]In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors[65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them.[66]There are some, says this prelate,who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.1.These people, he submits,ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.2.Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.3.Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.“The bridegroom”is Christ, “the bride”his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem”are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom”are either the angels or the prophets.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”443The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”454The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”465Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the[40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly calledRashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously namedJarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’(Hos. ii. 9);that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promisedto give them in the latter days(i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her(i.e.,Israel)willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49[41]According to Rashi,דודrepresents God asa husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, asa wifeforsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” arethe heathen kings and princes, under the figure ofwolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” arethe heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” arethe Egyptians; the “little sister” is theforsaken wifeof the Song, &c. &c.The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”501085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier,[43]calledRashbam, the grandson ofRashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also calledIbn-EzraandRaba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses(Deut. xxxii.)begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that[45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.”(Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, wherethe Messiahis meant; “the loved one” isthe Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” arethe pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” arethe thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, isthe two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13,the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, arethe angels.The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are ashepherdand ashepherdess, and thatthe kingis aseparateanddistinctperson from the beloved shepherd.Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “Irejoice inTHEE(the shepherd)more than ifTHE KINGhad brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet thatTHE KING,whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yetMY BELOVED(the shepherd),who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”571200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning[47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between theACTIVE INTELLECT(intellectus agens)and theRECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT(intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of theRECEPTIVEorMATERIAL INTELLECTwith theACTIVE INTELLECT.”This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically calledאַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל,the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.[56]This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as aseparateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas andRalbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interpretsthis Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon asa distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible[57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, assome explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz.,that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.611360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is[58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy,558,64Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed thatthe Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.681729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that[59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views,they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.Seeing that this book describes the love of ashepherdand a shepherdess, and also speaks ofa king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows thatthe Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment ofa shepherdesstoa shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.691832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song asan epithalamium.711848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi ofAnhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations,[60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God(Ch. viii. 6, 7),exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.The two last-mentionedRabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74[61]185–254. We come now to theChristian Expositorsof this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understandChrist, by “the bride,”the Church, by “the[62]companions” of the former,angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter,believers on the earth.The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born[63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songsas a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul.The whole book, he says,is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”[64]In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors[65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them.[66]There are some, says this prelate,who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.1.These people, he submits,ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.2.Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.3.Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.“The bridegroom”is Christ, “the bride”his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem”are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom”are either the angels or the prophets.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”443The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”454The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”465Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the[40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly calledRashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously namedJarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’(Hos. ii. 9);that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promisedto give them in the latter days(i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her(i.e.,Israel)willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49[41]According to Rashi,דודrepresents God asa husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, asa wifeforsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” arethe heathen kings and princes, under the figure ofwolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” arethe heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” arethe Egyptians; the “little sister” is theforsaken wifeof the Song, &c. &c.The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”501085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier,[43]calledRashbam, the grandson ofRashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also calledIbn-EzraandRaba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses(Deut. xxxii.)begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that[45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.”(Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, wherethe Messiahis meant; “the loved one” isthe Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” arethe pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” arethe thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, isthe two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13,the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, arethe angels.The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are ashepherdand ashepherdess, and thatthe kingis aseparateanddistinctperson from the beloved shepherd.Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “Irejoice inTHEE(the shepherd)more than ifTHE KINGhad brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet thatTHE KING,whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yetMY BELOVED(the shepherd),who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”571200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning[47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between theACTIVE INTELLECT(intellectus agens)and theRECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT(intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of theRECEPTIVEorMATERIAL INTELLECTwith theACTIVE INTELLECT.”This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically calledאַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל,the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.[56]This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as aseparateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas andRalbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interpretsthis Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon asa distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible[57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, assome explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz.,that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.611360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is[58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy,558,64Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed thatthe Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.681729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that[59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views,they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.Seeing that this book describes the love of ashepherdand a shepherdess, and also speaks ofa king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows thatthe Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment ofa shepherdesstoa shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.691832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song asan epithalamium.711848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi ofAnhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations,[60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God(Ch. viii. 6, 7),exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.The two last-mentionedRabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74[61]185–254. We come now to theChristian Expositorsof this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understandChrist, by “the bride,”the Church, by “the[62]companions” of the former,angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter,believers on the earth.The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born[63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songsas a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul.The whole book, he says,is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”[64]In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors[65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them.[66]There are some, says this prelate,who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.1.These people, he submits,ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.2.Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.3.Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.“The bridegroom”is Christ, “the bride”his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem”are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom”are either the angels or the prophets.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”443The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”454The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”465Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the[40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly calledRashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously namedJarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’(Hos. ii. 9);that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promisedto give them in the latter days(i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her(i.e.,Israel)willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49[41]According to Rashi,דודrepresents God asa husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, asa wifeforsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” arethe heathen kings and princes, under the figure ofwolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” arethe heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” arethe Egyptians; the “little sister” is theforsaken wifeof the Song, &c. &c.The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”501085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier,[43]calledRashbam, the grandson ofRashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also calledIbn-EzraandRaba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses(Deut. xxxii.)begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that[45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.”(Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, wherethe Messiahis meant; “the loved one” isthe Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” arethe pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” arethe thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, isthe two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13,the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, arethe angels.The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are ashepherdand ashepherdess, and thatthe kingis aseparateanddistinctperson from the beloved shepherd.Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “Irejoice inTHEE(the shepherd)more than ifTHE KINGhad brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet thatTHE KING,whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yetMY BELOVED(the shepherd),who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”571200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning[47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between theACTIVE INTELLECT(intellectus agens)and theRECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT(intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of theRECEPTIVEorMATERIAL INTELLECTwith theACTIVE INTELLECT.”This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically calledאַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל,the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.[56]This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as aseparateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas andRalbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interpretsthis Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon asa distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible[57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, assome explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz.,that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.611360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is[58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy,558,64Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed thatthe Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.681729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that[59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views,they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.Seeing that this book describes the love of ashepherdand a shepherdess, and also speaks ofa king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows thatthe Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment ofa shepherdesstoa shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.691832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song asan epithalamium.711848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi ofAnhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations,[60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God(Ch. viii. 6, 7),exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.The two last-mentionedRabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74[61]185–254. We come now to theChristian Expositorsof this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understandChrist, by “the bride,”the Church, by “the[62]companions” of the former,angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter,believers on the earth.The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born[63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songsas a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul.The whole book, he says,is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”[64]In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors[65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them.[66]There are some, says this prelate,who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.1.These people, he submits,ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.2.Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.3.Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.“The bridegroom”is Christ, “the bride”his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem”are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom”are either the angels or the prophets.The following is a specimen of his commentary:—1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”443The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”454The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”465Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen peopleDeserving protection,He shall have from His beloved assembly“A song of Songs.”
1The Light and Saviour of the chosen people
Deserving protection,
He shall have from His beloved assembly
“A song of Songs.”
2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,“He hath kissed me with kisses.”44
2The Graceful One, the object of all longing desires.
The Reviving Cordial of the fainting heart,
The Bountiful Source of abundant supply,
“He hath kissed me with kisses.”44
3The loved one above all nations,The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”45
3The loved one above all nations,
The keeper of the Law Thou hast given,
Her didst Thou perfume with Thy spices,
“The odour of Thy sweet ointments.”45
4The chosen of Thy house and nobles,Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,We press to the house of Thy glory,“Oh draw us after thee.”46
4The chosen of Thy house and nobles,
Lo! we are surrounded with splendour,
We press to the house of Thy glory,
“Oh draw us after thee.”46
5Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,Though now with grief I am marred,“I am swarthy, but comely.”47
5Oh Thou all majestic, yet mild,
Thou hast crown’d me with grace above many,
Though now with grief I am marred,
“I am swarthy, but comely.”47
It must, however, be borne in mind that the synagogal poetry was not authorized to express the creed of the whole nation; which is evident from the fact that many learned and pious Jews unscrupulously, and without censure, rejected some of its opinions. Some of these poems were composed by prelectors of separate congregations, and for the use of the particular synagogues in which they officiated. The adoption or rejection of any such poem entirely depended upon the influence of the prelector on his congregation, and upon the theme and merit of the composition. The poetical paraphrase of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was sure to be adopted because of the consolation which it imparts to the[40]dispersed and suffering Israelites, inasmuch as it assures them that God has not cast them off, that He is still their beloved, and they are still his loved ones, and that he will speedily be reunited to them.
1040–1105. Through R. Solomon ben Isaac, the founder of the Germano-French Rabbinical literature, this encouraging allegorical interpretation was introduced into Germany and France, where the suffering Jews obtained consolation. This distinguished commentator, commonly calledRashi, and, through the misleading of Buxtorf, erroneously namedJarchi, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, about 1105.48
“My opinion is,” says Rashi, “that Solomon foresaw, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that Israel would be carried into sundry captivities, and undergo sundry dissolutions; that they would lament in their captivity over their former glory, and recall the former love, which God manifested for them above all other nations; that they would say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now’(Hos. ii. 9);that they would acknowledge His kindness and their own rebellion, and the good things which He promisedto give them in the latter days(i.e., at the coming of Messiah.)
“This book is written by inspiration, and represents a wife forsaken by her husband, and shut up, longing after him, recalling to her mind her love in youth to her beloved, and confessing her guilt; her beloved sympathising with her affection, and remembering the kindness of her youth, the charms of her beauty, and her good works, which had tied him to her with an everlasting love.
“The design of this book is to show to Israel that God has not afflicted her(i.e.,Israel)willingly; that though He did send her away, He has not cast her off; that she is still His wife, and He her husband, and that He will again be united to her.”49[41]
According to Rashi,דודrepresents God asa husband, and the “loved one” the congregation of Israel, asa wifeforsaken for a time by him; the “companions of the beloved” arethe heathen kings and princes, under the figure ofwolves; “the daughters of Jerusalem,” arethe heathen nations; the “brothers of the loved one,” arethe Egyptians; the “little sister” is theforsaken wifeof the Song, &c. &c.
The following is a specimen of Rashi’s commentary:—
1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).
1.The Song of Songs, &c.—Our Rabbins state, that whenever Solomon is mentioned in this Song, it signifies the Holy One, the King of Peace. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of Solomon’s father is not here given, as in Prov. i. 1 and Eccl. i. 1. This most excellent Song was addressed to God by his people, the congregation of Israel. Rabbi Akiba says, that the world was not worthy of the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, it is like to a king who took a measure of wheat, and gave it to the baker, saying, Produce from it so much flour, so much bran, and so much chaff, and make me a refined and excellent cake of the flour; so all Scriptures are holy, but this Song is most holy; for the whole of this book teaches the fear of God and submission to his kingdom.
2.Let him kiss me, &c.—This Song Israel utters in her captivity and widowhood. Oh that King Solomon would give me kisses of His mouth, as in the time of yore! Some kiss the hand, and others the shoulders; but I desire that He should behave to me as in former days, viz., kiss my mouth as a bridegroom kisses his bride; for Thy caresses are better than all the banquets of wine, and all joys and pleasures. It is a Hebrew idiom to call every banquet of pleasure and joy by the name ofwine(Comp. Esth. vii. 2; Isaiah xxiv. 9; v. 12). This is the literal sense; but, according to the allegory, this refers to the giving of the Law, and God’s speaking with Israel face to face. These favours still continue to be more precious to them than any delights; and as they are assured by God that He will appear again to reveal the secrets and mysteries of the Law, Israel prays to Him for the fulfilment of His promises. This is the meaning of “Let him kiss me!”
3.Thy perfumes, &c.—A good name is called good oil. The fragrance of Thy name is so excellent that the ends of the earth have smelt it when they heard of Thy fame and of Thy great wonders in Egypt. Thy name is calledשמן,i.e., Thou art oil, and art constantly poured forth, so that Thy sweet odour might be widely diffused. This is the nature of good oil. As long as it is sealed in a bottle, it does not emit any smell; but when the bottle is opened, and the oil poured into a vessel, the smell is diffused.The maidens love thee.Jethro, hearing of the wonderful doings of God in Egypt, confessed the God of Israel (Exodus xviii.); so Rahab, when she heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Red Sea, became a proselyte (Joshua ii. 11). By themaidensare meant the Gentiles; they are so called because God is represented as a youth.[42]
4.Draw me, &c.—I gathered from Thy messengers that Thou didst wish to draw me, and I immediately replied, We will run after Thee to be Thy wife.He has brought me, &c. And up to the present time I still rejoice, and am glad that I have been united to Thee.We celebrate, &c. Even now, though a living widow, I celebrate Thy love more than a banquet of pleasure and mirth.They love thee, &c. I and my forefathers, in their days, have loved Thee with fervent and upright love, without deception. This is the literal meaning according to the context. But, according to the allegory, Israel reminds God of the kindness of their youth and the love of their espousals (Jer. ii. 2), of their following Him in the wilderness, a land of aridity and the shadow of death, whither they took no provisions, because they believed in Him and in His messenger, and did not say, How shall we follow Thee in the wilderness, a place destitute of fertility and food? but went after Him, and “He broughtthem into his apartments:” that is, surrounded them with the protecting clouds. And even now, though in distress and affliction, they rejoice and are glad in Him and delight in the Law; and hereincelebrate His love more than wine, and manifesttheir sincere attachment to Him.
5.I am swarthy, &c.—You, my companions, let me not be lightly esteemed in your eyes, although my Husband forsook me because of my swarthiness; for I am swarthy because of the tanning sun, yet I am comely because of the symmetry of my beautiful limbs. If I am swarthy, like the tents of Kedar, which are discoloured by the rain, in consequence of their being constantly spread out in the wilderness, I shall easily be washed, and be as beautiful as the curtains of Solomon. The allegorical meaning is, the congregation of Israel speaks this to the Gentiles,—I am swarthy in my own works, but I am comely in the works of my fathers; and some of my own works even are good. And though I am tainted with the sin of the calf, I have, to counterbalance this, the merit of accepting the Law. Israel calls the Gentiles “daughters of Jerusalem,” because Jerusalem is to be the metropolis of all nations, as it is predicted, “And I will give them to thee fordaughters” (Ezek. xvi. 61); and, again, “Ekron and herdaughters” (Josh. xv. 44).
Rashi also says, that he had seen “a number of other commentaries on this Song; some containing an exposition of the whole Book, and others of separate passages, but they are compatible neither with the language of Scripture, nor with the connexion of the verses.”50
1085–1155. The spread of this consoling allegorical interpretation in France and Germany was promoted by the commentary51of the distinguished R. Samuel ben Meier,[43]calledRashbam, the grandson ofRashi, who was born about 1085, and died about 1155.52
Rashbam too affirms that this book “represents captive Israel as a virgin sighing and mourning for her beloved, who left her and went afar off, as describing his everlasting love to her, declaring in a Song, ‘Such an ardent love did my beloved manifest when with me,’ and telling her friends and companions in a colloquial manner, ‘So did my beloved speak to me, and so did I answer him.’”53In the explanations of the principal persons Rashbam generally agrees with Rashi.
The following is a specimen of his commentary:—
1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.
1.The Song of Songs—That is, a song celebrated above all songs, likeאלהי אלהיﬦthe great and awful God, above all gods, andﬡדוני אדניﬦthe great Lord above all lords.Which is Solomon’s.That is, King Solomon composed it by inspiration. Foreseeing the Israelites in their captivity sighing after the Holy One who went away from them, as a bridegroom separates himself from his beloved, Solomon sings this song in the name of the congregation of Israel, who is like a bride to Him (God).אשר לשלמהdescribes Solomon as the author, compareתפלה למשה,תהלה לדוד.
2.Would that, &c.—Would that my Beloved came, and kissed me kisses ofHismouth onmymouth in his great love as in the days of old; for the expressions of His love are better, pleasanter, and sweeter than any delicious banquet.Thy caresses.The loved one sometimes addresses herself to her beloved as if he werepresent, and at other times she speaks of him to her companions, as if he wereabsent.More than wine,i.e.more than sweet beverages calledיַיִן. According to the allegorical meaning, this refers to the law delivered to Israel mouth to mouth.
3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Because of Thy good ointment of balsam, the odour of which extended to the end of the earth, and was poured out from vessel to vessel, therefore is Thy name called ointment. Comp. Eccl. vii. 1. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” By the extension of youthful love is meant the wonders which the Holy One performed for the congregation of Israel in Egypt, on account of which His name and power became known among the nations, as it is written, “The priest of Midian heard, &c.” Exod. xviii. 1: and again, what is said by Rahab the harlot, “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water, &c.” Josh. ii. 10. And again, “The people shall hear and be afraid,” Exod. xv. 14.
4.Draw me, &c.—Draw me to Thee, and I and my congregation will run after Thee, as in the days of old, when the King, my beloved, brought me into His chambers; and, while running after Thee, we will rejoice and[44]be glad in Thee, and celebrate Thy love and the expressions of Thy affection above any banquet of wine and beverages; for all the world loves Thee with upright love. This refers to the congregation of Israel, who sighs and makes supplication before the Holy One, to bring her out from her captivity, as He had formerly brought her out of Egypt, and led her into His chambers,i.e., the tabernacle, where they served Him continually.
5.I am swarthy, &c.—Oh, my companions, virgin daughters of Ishmael, do not disdain and deride me on account of my blackness, saying, Because I am black, therefore my Beloved left me; for, although I am black as regards the appearance of my face, like the tents of Kedar, yet I am comely and graceful in body and stature, like the curtains of King Solomon, which are becoming and suitable to royalty. Thus the congregation of Israel, whom the nations reproach on account of her sins and transgressions which she committed, answers: True, I have sinned; and woe to me, for I am wandering in captivity for it; yet I am comely, I am of royal blood, and have the merits of my fathers; and the Holy One, in the latter days, will restore me to my former state, and liberate me from the iron furnace of captivity. Thedaughters of Jerusalemare the heathen. Compare “I will give them to thee to be thydaughters.” Ezek. xvi. 61.The tents of Kedarare black, because the sons of Kedar sojourn in deserts and dwell in tents, and not in houses.
1093–1168. While Rashi and Rashbam, by means of this allegorical interpretation, assuaged the sufferings of their brethren in France and Germany, the celebrated Abraham Ibn-Ezra ben Meier, also calledIbn-EzraandRaba, who was born in Toledo in 1093, and died in 1168,54administered consolation through the same medium to his suffering brethren in Spain, shewing them that this Song recounts the past wonderful dealings of God with his beloved people from the very call of Abraham, and the blessings reserved for them at the coming of the Messiah, who shall gather them from among all nations, and bring them back to the land flowing with milk and honey.
Thus Ibn Ezra maintains that “This book is allegorical, and describes the history of Israel; commencing with the days of our Father, Abraham, and coming down to the days of the Messiah; just as the Song of Moses(Deut. xxxii.)begins with the dispersion of the human family, and finishes with the final ingathering of Israel, after the battle of Gog and Magog. Do not wonder that[45]the Congregation of Israel is here compared to a bride, and the Lord to a bridegroom; for this is the manner of the prophets.”(Comp. Isa. v. 1, lxii. 5, Ezek. xvi. 7, Hos. iii. 1, Psa. xlv. 10.)
The allegory, according to this distinguished Rabbi, is developed in the suppositious attachment contracted between a damsel who kept a vineyard, and a shepherd. The representation of the love of these parties “is suppositious, because such an actual manifestation, in so public a manner as here recorded, would be regarded as highly improper.”55
“The beloved” represents God; with the exception of viii. 12, wherethe Messiahis meant; “the loved one” isthe Congregation of Israel; “the companions of the beloved” arethe pious ancestors; “the daughters of Jerusalem” arethe thoughts of the loved one; “the little sister,” in viii. 8, isthe two tribes and a half; “the speaker,” in viii. 13,the shechinah; “the companions,” in the same verse, arethe angels.
The commentary consists of three different glosses: in the first, the words are explained; in the second, the suppositious history of the attachment of the shepherd and shepherdess is developed; and in the third gloss, the allegory is evolved from that history. The following is a specimen of the gloss where the allegory is propounded.
2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.
2.Let him kiss me.—He (i.e.Solomon) begins with Abraham, for he is the root of the Jewish nation. By “the kisses of his mouth” are meant the law and the commandments, as it is written, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen. xxvi. 5.) Do not wonder that the future (ישקני) is used instead of the past; this is the idiom of the sacred Scriptures, compareﬡז ישּיר,then he sang(Exod. xv. 1, and Psa. cvi. 19); just as we find the contrary, the past used for the future (Psa. lxxix. 1).—For thy love, &c.i.e.,to be loved by thee; as the Scriptures testify of God’s love to his people. Compare “the seed of Abraham whom I love” (Isa. xli. 8); for there is a difference betweenאוהב,loving, andאהוב,loved.
3.Thy perfumes, &c.—Abraham proclaimed the works of God, and instructed his generation; and wherever he went he called on the name of the Lord; this is the meaning of “thy name is poured forth like oil.”Therefore do the damsels love thee.—עלמותare such as have no husbands, and denote the heathen who had no God, and were brought by[46]Abraham into union with God; as it is written, “The souls which they had begotten in Haran” (Gen. xii. 5).
4.Draw me.—Abraham was drawn after God, and therefore left his native place (Gen. xii. 1).The king has brought me, &c.—God has brought Abraham into the land of Canaan; or it may mean, God has made him wise in his secrets, and the words,we will praise thy love, denote the altars and groves which Abraham erected and planted wherever he came.
5.I am swarthy.—This refers to the Egyptian bondage. Although I (i.e.Israel) am swarthy because of some evil deeds committed there; yet I am comely because of my adhesion to the covenant and to the belief in the unity of God.
It has generally been overlooked that Ibn Ezra distinctly states in the second gloss, in which he professes to give the literal meaning of the narrative, that the lovers are ashepherdand ashepherdess, and thatthe kingis aseparateanddistinctperson from the beloved shepherd.
Thus he explains Ch. i. 4, “Irejoice inTHEE(the shepherd)more than ifTHE KINGhad brought me into his apartments.” Again, verse 12, the shepherdess says to the shepherd, “Though my fragrance is so sweet thatTHE KING,whilst reclining, desires to smell my nard, yetMY BELOVED(the shepherd),who is a bundle of myrrh, diffuses a still sweeter fragrance.” Compare also Ch. iii. 6–11, Ch. vi. 8, Ch. viii. 11, 12. This is an important step to the right understanding of the Book.
Ibn Ezra also mentions that “The philosophers explain this book to refer to the mysterious harmony of the universe, and to the union of the divine soul with the earthly body; and that others, again, explain it literally.”56In reference to the last mentioned mode of interpretation, he exclaimed, “Far be it! far be it! to think that the Song of Songs is an amatory composition.”57
1200–1250. The frequent mention made by the preceding commentators of the different views entertained respecting this Song, will have prepared the reader for the philosophical interpretation which has been adopted and defended by a large and influential portion of the Jewish community.
Joseph Ibn Caspe, a learned author, who lived in the beginning[47]of the thirteenth century, and who wrote expositions on several portions of the Scriptures, maintains that “this book represents the union between theACTIVE INTELLECT(intellectus agens)and theRECEPTIVE MATERIAL INTELLECT(intellectus materialis),” typified by the beloved and loved one.
As Caspe’s commentary is short and exceedingly rare, we give a translation of it, and subjoin the original in the footnote:—
THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.
THE COMMENTARY OF IBN CASPE.58
Joseph Caspe saith: Having commented on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, which Solomon of blessed memory has in wisdom composed, it behoves us also to write a few words on the Song of Songs, which is likewise the composition of Solomon of blessed memory. I need not, however, explain the words, since they have been explained long before me. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to thedesignof the book in general, and now and then make some observations in particular. The general design of this book, however, is not my discovery; the luminary (Maimonides) that shone upon the earth has enlightened our eyes also upon this subject when treating upon it, especially in part iii. c. 51 (of the More Nebochim); and his hint there is sufficient for us and for such as ourselves.
I therefore submit that this book undoubtedly belongs to the second kind of parables which the teacher of blessed memory (Maimonides) mentions in the beginning of his book, in which all the words used in the comparison must not be applied to the thing compared, just as in the case there quoted, which treats on the subject of a beloved and loved one, like the book before us, with the only difference that the instance there adduced refers to the union of matter and mind, and this book represents the union between theactive intellectand thereceptive, material intellect, which latter is divided into four parts, the highest of which is theimparted intellect. With all the particulars of this book, Solomon merely designed to hint at the subject in general. It is most certain that he calls herethe highest order of the human intellect“the fairest of women,” and theactive intellect“the graceful lover;” frequently thewhole intellectual mindis meant by the latter phrase, for this is the meaning demanded in several places of this Book.
It is well known that the active intellect (intellectus agens) stirs up or brings the receptive intellect (intellectus materialis) from a possibility into activity, as it is known to the philosophers; and that the receptive intellect[48]requires to seek after this; as it is written, “If thou wilt seek it, it shall be found of thee.”
Having explained the general design, we need not dwell upon the particulars; the design is indicated in a few passages only, whilst the whole is treated in accordance with the train of a poetical composition and logical science; and this Solomon declares in the beginning of the book by saying “The Song of Songs.”
It is, moreover, known that Solomon composed three books which we possess; and as the prophets of blessed memory spoke in three different kinds of ways;the one, in a plain manner, containing nothing beyond the obvious and literal sense, which is calledall silver;the secondentirely symbolical, having no literal meaning whatever, but consisting of mere allegories or parables, which is calledall gold; andthe thirdcomprising both the figurative and the literal, which is calledapples of gold(under plates of silver); so Solomon wrote the three books—Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the first kind; the Song of Songs to the second; and Proverbs to the third. Remember these distinctions, and observe how we are in danger at every step to mistake in the Law, Hagiography, and Prophets, one for the other, and thus change life into death. And this leads us to commit one of two errors; we either put into the words a thing which is false, or, to say the least, make the author say what he did not intend; in such a case, our words can no more be called a commentary, but form a separate composition or a book for themselves. I only call that a commentary which thoroughly comes up to the design of the author of the book. The appearance, however, of each book of the Bible will indicate to a judicious, clear-headed, and intellectual man, whether it belongs to the one or the other of the above-mentioned classes. We cannot here give rules whereby to test this; it is sufficient to say that truth is her own witness.
There is another important remark to be made, viz., that allusions are made in this book to the writings of Moses, as, indeed, Solomon has made in his other books. This all the prophets have done, in order to explain expressions and synonyms which occur in the Law of Moses, especially when referring to that part of the Law which treats on the Creation and the Chariot, the chief objects of the Law. We must study deeply to understand the wonderful works of the prophets, and after them, the rabbins of blessed[49]memory, in their respective books; for when they intended to be profound, they did not mention the same terms employed in the Law, but changed them for other expressions which are somewhat synonymous with those in the former,e.g.,יין חמר, פרדם, wine, vine, vineyard, &c. From this arose the great hyperbole in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, for wisdom was not hid from them. But this is not necessary here. The above remarks will suffice for this book according to our design. Praise be to God, and blessed be his name! Amen.
Moses Ibn Tibbon, a celebrated writer of the same age, wrote an elaborate commentary in which he maintains the same view that “the Song of Songs represents the union of theRECEPTIVEorMATERIAL INTELLECTwith theACTIVE INTELLECT.”
This commentary has not been printed. A defective MS. containing the Preface, which is very copious, is to be found in the British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 5797; and a complete MS. is in the possession of the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
1272–1350. The most powerful and ingenious defender of this view is Immanuel ben Solomon. This most charming Hebrew writer, who is poetically calledאַלוּף הַדַּעַת בְּמַגְדִיאֵל,the Prince of Science in Rome, was born in Rome, in 1272, where he was the spiritual head of the Jewish community, and where he died, in the first half of the fourteenth century. As Immanuel gives an analysis of this mode of interpretation in his exposition on the first verse, and as this commentary has not been published, we give a translation of this verse, which will enable the reader to see how this mode of interpretation is applied to the whole book. The MS. used for this purpose is in the possession of the British Museum, Harl. Col., No. 5797.59
The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.
The Song of Songs.—Immanuel ben R. Solomon of blessed memory, saith, Acknowledging the goodness of the Lord, I agree with the opinion of our Rabbins, that this book is the most sublime of all the Books given by inspiration. Expositors, however, differ in its interpretation, and their opinions are divided, according to the diversity of their knowledge. There are some—but these are such as go no further than the material world, and that which their eye sees, looking forward to the good of this world[50]and its glory, to the great reward of their labours and a recompense from God, desiring to be restored to their greatness, and to the land flowing with milk and honey, and to have their stomachs filled with the flesh of the Leviathan, and the best of wines preserved in its grapes—such men interpret this sublime song as having reference to the history of the Patriarchs, their going down to Egypt, their Exodus from thence with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, the giving of the Law, the entry into the land of Canaan, the settlement of Israel in it, their captivity, restoration, the building of the second Temple, the present dispersion, and their final ingathering which is to take place. Such interpreters regard this book, which is holy of holies, as some common book, or historical record of any of the kings, which is of very little use, and the reading of which is only a loss of time. But there are other sages and divines, who have attained to know the value of true wisdom; they are separated from the material world, despise the mere temporal things, heartily desire to know the courts of the Lord, and have a footing in the Jerusalem which is above, and with heart and flesh sing to the living God; these have put off the garments of folly, and clothed themselves in the robes of wisdom, and while searching after the mysteries of this precious book through the openings of the figures of silver, glanced at golden apples of the allegory concealed in it. They, in the vessel of their understanding, traversed its sea, and brought to light from the depth, the reality of the book. Thus they have declared that the book was composed to explain the possibility of a reunion with the incorporeal mind, which formsthe perceptive faculty, and influences it with abundant goodness.
The shepherds, accordingly, represent the corporeal intellect which longs after the influence of the active intellect, and desires to be like it, as much as possible, to cleave to it, and to come up to its standing, which is the ultimate end of its purpose.
These learned divines above mentioned have expounded the design of the book in general, and explained some of its verses indirectly; but they did not explain it in regular order from beginning to end, till the celebrated[51]sage, R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, came and explained the book according to wisdom, and his exposition is, indeed, full of wisdom and excellency. As he, however, passed by several particulars, not noticing their design, our wise contemporaries, reading the writing of that learned author, and wishing to enter more fully into all its parts, insisted, with a command of love, that I should write a complete commentary on the book, keeping the same path the learned author has pointed out, bringing out all its particulars, and making discoveries not mentioned in the said book, also paying attention to its literal meaning, as far as God may enable me.
Seeing their entreaties, and regarding it a duty to yield to their wishes, I gathered strength, and made the commentary on the book, according to my feeble abilities. I kept the plan of the said author, mentioned some of his words, and altered others, sometimes adding to, and at other times diminishing from what he said, as I was led by the heavenly Father. Thus I begin. It appears necessary first to mention the design of the book in general, and its division into sections.
I submit that all truly wise men who commented upon this book philosophically, saw clearly that it is divisible into three principal sections.
The first section extends from chap. i. 2, to ii. 17.
The second section extends from chap. iii. 1, to v. 1.
And the third from chap. v. 2, to the end of the book.
These three sections, moreover, refer to three different kinds of men.
The first section—Chap. i. 2,–ii. 17,—represents man, who either ideally or actually, was in the garden of Eden before he sinned, and brought into activity his choice for good and evil; as it is written, “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. ii. 8, 9). The Lord permitted, or commanded him to eat of all the fruit of the garden; but He pointed out to him one tree of which he was not to eat, lest he should die; as it is said, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. ii. 17). And if, as man, he[52]had the choice to eat of the tree of life, he might have eaten and lived for ever, without mortification or trouble; as it is written, “Behold, I have set before thee life and good, and death and evil: choose, therefore, of the life, that thou mayest live” (Deut. xxx. 15). This represents one who endeavours to learn wisdom in its order, but is afraid lest he should be terrified when looking up to God, seeing that his fruit is not yet ripe. This is the meaning of what is said in the section, “Turn, my beloved, and be thou like a gazelle or a young hind upon the mountains of separation” (Song of Songs ii. 17); and again, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that destroy the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (ibid. 15). This teaches that the fruit was not yet ripe. There is no mention in this first section that the shepherdess did eat of the fruit. Her saying, “I desired to sit down under its shade, and its fruit is sweet to my taste” (Song of Songs ii. 3), merely declares her desire, which is evident from the wordחמדתי. The expressionפריוis here used in the sense ofwords,wisdom, andinstruction. The whole, therefore, of the first section refers to the mind of man when still young, prior to its developing the end for which its existence was designed, and when the powers of the body have still the dominion over it, for he has not pursued his studies farther than mathematics and physics. This first section is again subdivided into two parts. The first part begins chap. i. 2, and ends ii. 7, and represents one who fears God and shuns evil; but his knowledge of God is derived from tradition, and has no wisdom of his own. And the second part (chap. ii. 8 to iii. 1) represents one who has studied mathematics and physics.
The second section(chap.iii. 1, v. 1) represents one who has found the virtuous woman whose desire is to her husband, and who seeks her beloved while upon her couch, and in whom her husband may safely trust; that is, a mind which has brought out its possibility into reality, and has, as it were, stretched out its hand and taken of the tree of life, and eaten, and lives for ever. This is meant by the declaration in this section, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go, till I brought him into the house of my mother,[53]into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (Song of Songs iii. 4). The nuptials, too, are mentioned, and the day of the gladness of his heart (iii. 11), which is the true spiritual nuptial day and union. It is also stated that he had a couch, as it is said, “Behold the couch of Solomon” (iii. 7), as well as a palanquin, and was fit for royalty. He is, moreover, called hereKingSolomon, whereas, in the remainder, he is merely called Solomon, or Shulamite, in the feminine, to denote the effeminate state. The beloved also declares that he had found his loved one a closed garden, and that her branches are an orchard of pomegranates with delicious fruit: (iv. 12, 13), that is, though most of them are generally sour, here, however, they are sweet, pleasant, and ripe: he affirms that she is altogether beautiful, and there is no blemish in her (ver. 7), and calls herbridesix times, which he has not done before; for she is his true wife, dear to him above all. She therefore asks her beloved to “come to his garden, and eat of his pleasant fruit” (iv. 16), which befits him. This is the import of the words, “Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with most delicious fruit” (iv. 13): whereby, however, it must not be understood that she will give to her husband, and make him eat of the fruit, which properly belongs to the woman, who listened to the words of the serpent, and was beguiled by him.
The beloved declares that he did come to his garden, and ate and drank, and also caused his friends to eat and drink, and that they indulged together in a sumptuous feast; for “when the righteous have the rule, the city rejoiceth” (Prov. xi. 10). This is the meaning of the words, “I have come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O ye friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!” (v. 1.) He, as it were, sent forth and took of the tree of life, and did eat and lived for ever, without any trouble or hinderance; for he passed through all the three (degrees) in proper order, he went in and out in peace: that is, he passed through all the degrees, and finished their proper course, without doing any mischief or committing any error; and his carnal powers, which are the watchmen who walk in the city, and especially his intellectual powers, which are those that watch the walls, are all profitable, and point out to the mind the right way, and never mislead,[54]nor hinder, nor delay its course. She then asks of the watchmen, “Have you seen him whom my soul loveth?” (iii. 3,) for they (i.e., the watchmen, who represent the bodily and intellectual powers) are upright, and their knowledge is perfect, and, as it were, they see and guide; yet they did not answer her, for it is not in their nature to teach. But no sooner had she passed them, and was at a distance from them, than she found her beloved, and was united to him, as it is said, “Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loveth. I seized him, and would not let him go till I brought him into the house of my mother, and into the apartment of her that gave me birth” (iii. 4); whereupon they made themselves a couch and a palanquin, rejoicing, and feasting, and banqueting, as we have already explained.
This second section is also subdivided into two parts; the first is from iii. 1 to verse 6, and the second from iii. 6 to v. 2; the second part is epexegetical of the first.
The third section(v. 2, viii. 14 inclusive) represents a man who has a sinful wife that has been beguiled by the carnal appetites, and has listened to them, and eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and given also to her husband with her and he has eaten. Mark here the expressionwith her(עמח), for man cannot eat of it unlesswith her; for since God has not revealed it to man, and will not; and man, indeed, has no access to it, except through the woman; for she finds it and takes it up; and she is the one who pursues after pleasure, and is drawn after sensual lust. But she does not seek for her husband when retiring to bed, nor does she wait for him; but, undressing herself, and washing her feet, and perfuming her fingers with myrrh, which is temporal instead of eternal ointment, falls asleep, and is even too lazy to open when her beloved knocks at the door, saying, “Open to me, my sister, my spouse, &c.” Her husband, however, influences her, and she repents, as she was not in a deep sleep, her heart being awake, and she opens for her husband in spite of her great laziness; but her beloved withdrew, and went away. She then sought him, and found him not; she called him, but he answered her not. The guards of the wall and the patrol of the city found her, and smote her, and[55]wounded her, and stripped her of her cloak; that is, they misdirected her, had hindered her from getting to her beloved; for sin once tasted is hard to forsake. As it is not mentioned in the case of Adam, after being driven from the garden of Eden, that he ever touched with his hand, and took of the tree of life, and was cured, though it was open for him to do so; for it is written, “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. iii. 22); by which is meant, would that he should do so, for the Lord loves righteousness, and he is not a God desiring condemnation; as it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) Yet it is not stated in the Scriptures that after the fall he ever ate of the tree of life. This is, perhaps, a hint that it is almost impossible for one who once has eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he should afterwards eat of the tree of life. “For the difficulty of unitinga couplea second time is as great as dividing the Red Sea,” which was supernatural, although it is indeed not impossible. Thus Solomon left the thing unexplained; and though he mentioned how they longed for each other after their separation, and how they praised one another in the manner of lovers, yet they are not any more found united, or to have a nuptial couch, a palanquin, feast and joy, as a husband and wife; nay, at the conclusion we even find the beloved reproving her, saying, “Neighbours hear thy voice,” it being improper for a woman to let her voice be heard by young men, for there is dishonour in a woman’s voice. He therefore asks her to let her voice be heard by him only, and not by others. But she boldly replied, “Haste, my beloved, and be like the gazelle or the young fawn upon the mountains of aromatics;” as if the neighbours were her husbands, and her husband a paramour who must conceal himself, and run away, lest they meet him.
This section also is subdivided into two parts: the first is from v. 2 to viii. 5, and the second from viii. 5, to the end of the book; the second part being epexegetical of the first. The above is the division of the Book in accordance with the learned, who wrote expositions on it.
[56]
This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as aseparateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.
1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas andRalbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 137060, defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.
It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interpretsthis Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon asa distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.
This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible[57]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.
1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, assome explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz.,that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.61
1360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is[58]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,62and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,63whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy,558,64Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,65and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,66whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.
While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed thatthe Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.67
His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.68
1729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that[59]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views,they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.
Seeing that this book describes the love of ashepherdand a shepherdess, and also speaks ofa king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.
1798–1821. Löwisohn, born in 1798, and died in 1821, was the first who recognised and elucidated the true design of this book. This sweet singer of modern Israel shows thatthe Song of Songs celebrates the victory of true and virtuous love in humble life over the temptations of royalty; that this book records the virtuous attachment ofa shepherdesstoa shepherd; that the rustic maiden having been tempted by the wisest and most celebrated king to transfer her affections, spurned every allurement, and remained faithful to her humble lover.69
1832. It is surprising that the profound and learned Zunz,70did not follow up the remarks of Löwisohn; but regarded this Song asan epithalamium.71
1848. This view, however, has not gained ground among the Jews; and Dr. Salomon Herxheimer, chief Rabbi ofAnhalt-Bernburg, in his translation of the Old Testament with annotations,[60]follows the opinion of Löwisohn.72His opinion is that “the Song of Songs celebrates ardent and virtuous love which resists all allurements. The Shulamite, a rustic maiden warmly attached to a young shepherd, is taken against her will to the court of King Solomon. The king offers everything to win her affections, but she does not suffer herself to be dazzled either by the royal court, or by the sweet flatteries of the king himself, and remains faithful to her absent lover.”
1854. Dr. Philippson, Rabbi of Magdeburg, propounded the same view.73The design of the book is to show that true and virtuous love is invincible, and is not to be bought, but is a flame of God(Ch. viii. 6, 7),exemplified in the conduct of a humble shepherdess, who being attached to a shepherd, was tempted by King Solomon to transfer her affection, but who overcame all allurements, and remained faithful to her lover.
The two last-mentionedRabbins, by virtue of their high position and great learning, may be regarded as representing the view now generally entertained by the Jews respecting the Song of Songs.74[61]
185–254. We come now to theChristian Expositorsof this book, whom we shall introduce in the same chronological order, and of whose views a concise explanation will be given. The first of these is Origen, who has been justly celebrated for his genius and extensive acquirements. He was born in Alexandria in 185, and died in Tyros in 254. His commentaries upon Scripture are very extensive, and though containing much that is valuable, abound with fanciful allegories and inexplicable mysteries. His attachment to the Platonic philosophy drew him aside from the simplicity of inspired truth, and his instruction in Hebrew by R. Hillel,75imbued him with Hagadic interpretations of the sacred text.
His commentary upon the Song of Songs was very voluminous, of which fragments only remain, but these are of a very elaborate kind, and sufficient to reveal his whole design. He admits an historical sense as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter,76but in him we meet with a full exhibition of the allegorical allusion to the marriage union of Christ and his Church, which has been adopted by the majority of expositors to the present day. He says, “Blessed is he who enters the holy place, but more blessed is he who enters the holy of holies; blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath, but more blessed is he who keeps the Sabbath of Sabbaths; so blessed is he who sings holy songs, but more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs.”
He finds in it four distinct parties; a bridegroom and bride with their separate companions. By “the bridegroom,” we are to understandChrist, by “the bride,”the Church, by “the[62]companions” of the former,angels and saints in heaven, and by “the maidens” of the latter,believers on the earth.
The following is a specimen of Origen’s method of interpretation:—
2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.
2,3.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the suppliant voice of the bride, of which the meaning is, “How long will my bridegroom send kisses by Moses and kisses by the Prophets? I want to touch his lips. Let him come,” she says to the father of the bridegroom, “and give me kisses of his mouth.” The father hears and sends his son; she seeing him near says, “How good are thy breasts above wine, and the odour of thy perfumery above all sweet spices.” The bridegroom Christ, sent by the Father, comes anointed to the Spouse, who says to him, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” If the odour of that ointment be upon us, we shall become a sweet savour of Christ. Sin has putrid effluvia, virtue breathes forth sweet perfume. The one is an emanation of the flesh, the other of the Spirit.
Thy name, &c.This is prophetic. Only so far as the name of God comes into the world is this ointment poured forth. In the Gospel, a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment poured it upon the head of Christ. One who was a sinner poured it upon his feet, and one who was not a sinner poured it upon his head. These are not narratives merely, but mysteries. It is not wonderful that thehousewas filled with the odour of the ointment, since theworldwill be. It is written in the same place concerning Simon the leper. I think the leprous Simon to be the prince of this world, whose house at the coming of Christ was filled with sweet odour.Therefore do the virgins love thee, because, through the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. The maidens at first are not present, but, upon hearing a chorus from them in praise of the bridegroom, she says,The virgins love thee. By their coming up it is said, ‘After thee and the odour of thine ointments we will run.’
4.Draw me, &c.In a race all run, but one receiveth the prize. This prize is Christ. The bride, pure and fair, having entered into the royal apartments, returns to the maidens, and tells them what she has seen.The king hath brought me into his chambers.He praises the bride. He says, Justice hath loved thee. Then the bride says to the maidens,
5.Black I am, &c.Do not look upon me because I am blackened, for the sun hath looked upon me. How black and without whiteness, is she beautiful? Black with sin, and comely because converted. Because not yet purged from all sin she is called black, but her dark colour will not remain. She is made white as she ascends to greater things, according to ch. viii. 5. “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Tents of Kedar, say the Hebrews, are dark: skins of Solomon, such as ornamented the temple, were comely.
296–373. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, was born[63]in that city in 296, and died in 373. He was the principal defender of the Nicene faith, in opposition to Arius. His zealous advocacy of the Deity of Christ led him to seek, and to find that doctrine everywhere. He looked upon the Song of Songsas a Jubilee song of the Church, at the incarnation of the Son of God, and thus differs from Origen, who refers it to the experience of the believing soul.The whole book, he says,is an allegory, and is to be understood enigmatically from the beginning to the end. Its doctrines are secrets, and those only who are well versed in allegory ought to study it, as it is sure to be corrupted in the hands of others. It is called the Song of Songs, because it is the chief and last song, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, which other songs regard as future, this celebrates as present. It is an Epithalamium in celebration of the marriage of Him who is the loved of God and human flesh. Here are no threatenings and sorrows as in other books, but as the Bridegroom is present, all is turned into joy. The book is full of dialogues between the Son of God and the human race; sometimes between men in general and Christ, sometimes between Him and his ancient people; sometimes between Him and the Gentile Church, sometimes between the Gentiles and Jerusalem; and sometimes between ministering angels and men.
The following is a specimen of Athanasius’ Commentary:—
2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”
2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the entreaty of his ancient people to the Word, that he would descend and take flesh; and also (ch. vii. 13), “The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved,” and (ch. viii. 1), “Oh, that thou wert as my brother that sucked the breasts of my mother,” which refers to Christ being of the same nature as man, a brother, and yet in reality having a mother only. In ch. v. 1, Christ speaks of his having become incarnate, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices.” The world is his garden, because it is his creation; and his body breathes forth fragrance, because it is joined to the Divine word. The Word having put on flesh, he calls his ancient people to Him, and says (ch. ii. 10–13), “Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come, for lo, the winter is past, &c.” His first disciples would recognise in his teaching what they had long been listening for, “the voice of the turtle in their land.”
[64]
In this fanciful manner our author descants upon the whole book.
331–396. Notwithstanding the authority and influence of the foregoing fathers, the allegorical interpretation was rejected by many at a very early age. And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, born about 331, and died about 396, who wrote an extensive commentary upon this book, had strenuously to contend for the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, and severely condemned those who adhered to the literal meaning. The soul, he considers, as a spouse who enters into spiritual union with God. The most perfect and blessed way of salvation is here shown to those who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The following is a specimen of Gregory’s Commentary:—
2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.
2.Let him kiss me, &c., is the language of the soul to God, which has become worthy to speak to God face to face.Thy breasts are better than wine, that is, divine breasts are better than human wine. All human wisdom cannot equal the milk of the divine word.
3.Thy name, &c.This signifies that all the virtues are nothing to the graces received from above.
Thus he finds some spiritual meaning in every part, for the confirmation of which some other part of Scripture is adduced.
331–420. Jerome, however, (born at Stridon in Dalmatia in 331, and died in the vicinity of Bethlehem in 420,) who was exceedingly fond of the Greek philosophers, and, like Origen, was instructed in Hebrew literature by the Jews,77as might have been expected, was not affected by the objections against the allegorical interpretation, but introduced it into the Western Churches. According to him, it is a nuptial and dramatic song on the occasion of the union of Christ with his Church or the soul of man. The bride and her companions, and the bridegroom and his companions are the interlocutors[65]in the drama. He seems to have embraced almost entirely the theory and interpretation of Origen.
354–430. Augustin, who was born at Tagesta in Numidia, in 354, and died in 430, materially aided Jerome in the spread of the allegorical interpretation in the West. He regards the Song of Songs as describing “the holy loves of Christ and his Church.”
Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”
Of ch. i. 7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest thy flock, where,” &c., he says it is one testimony in behalf of the church in Africa, which lies in the meridian of the world. The church asks Christ to tell her where the one true church is, where it feeds and reclines. The bridegroom answers, In the meridian, I feed in the meridian, I recline in the meridian. The church is in other parts, but in Africa is its meridian. This is the language of believers out of Africa, who also say, “For why should I be as one roaming among the flocks of thy companions?” that is, why remain concealed and unknown? Other churches are not thy flock, but the flocks of thy companions. Upon the adjuration, “I adjure you,” &c. vii. 7, he observes, The church in these words addresses her own daughters. She is a field of God, fruitful in graces, to which by loving Christ the martyrs come, whom he wishes to lay down their lives as lovingly as he laid down his life for them. Ch. ii. 15. “Take us the foxes,” &c., that is, withstand, confute, subdue, heretics that injure the ecclesiastical vines. Bind them by Scripture testimony, as Samson bound the foxes together, and put fire to their tails, by warning them of the condemnation they have deserved. In ch. iv. 16, “Awake, O north, and come, thou south wind,” &c., he says, the north wind is from the cold icy regions of the devil and his angels, and the south wind is the spirit of grace blowing at noon from warm and shining regions, that cause the spices to flow out, as the apostle says, “We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish.”
360–429. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, who wrote a commentary on this book, also rejected the allegorical meaning, and adhered to its literal and obvious sense. Pity that his commentary is lost, and that the only account of it is from his enemies.
386–457. So general was the dissatisfaction with the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, and so different were the theories respecting it at the time of Theodoret or Theodorit, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who was born at Antioch about 386, and died 457, that he was obliged to mention and refute them.[66]
There are some, says this prelate,who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.
1.These people, he submits,ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.
2.Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.
3.Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.
“The bridegroom”is Christ, “the bride”his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem”are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom”are either the angels or the prophets.
The following is a specimen of his commentary:—
1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.
1.The Song of Songs, &c.This book is called The Song of Songs, because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms[67]are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.
2.Let him kiss me, &c.This is the language of the spouse offering a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,” &c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say, “love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.