I. 1 THE SONG OF SONGS, WHICH IS BY SOLOMON FIRST SONGThe first time the lovers were together at the royal palace (in or near) Jerusalem(Son 1:2 to Son 2:7)FIRST SCENE:Shulamith and the Daughters of Jeruzsalem(Son 1:2-8)Shulamith2 Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth, for better is thy love than wine! 3 In fragrance thine unguents are good;an unguent poured forth is thy name,therefore virgins love thee. Shulamith and the Daughters of Jerusalem (in responsive song). 4 Draw me!—after thee will we run!—The king has brought me into his chambers!We will exult and be glad in thee, will commend thy love beyond wine!— Rightly do they love thee! Shulamith 5 Black I am, but comely, ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the tent-cloths of Solomon. 6 Look not at me, because I am dusky,because the sun has scorched me; my mother’s sons were angry with me, made me keeper of the vineyards;— mine own vineyard I have not kept.(Looking around for Solomon) 7 Tell me, thou whom my soul loveth, where feedest thou? where makest thou (thy flock) to recline at noon? For why should I be as one strayingby the flocks of thy companions? Daughters of Jerusalem 8 If thou know not, fairest among women, go forth in the footprints of the flock and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents. SECOND SCENE:Solomon and Shulamith(Son 1:9 to Son 2:7)Solomon 9 To my horse in Pharaoh’s chariots I liken thee, my dear.10 Comely are thy cheeks with chains,thy neck with beads.11 Chains of gold will we make thee with points of silver. Shulamith 12 Whilst the king is at his table,my spikenard yields its fragrance. 13 A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, that lodges between my breasts. 14 A cluster of the cyprus-flower is my beloved to me, in the vineyards of Engedi. Solomon 15 Lo! thou art fair, my dear, lo! thou art fair; thine eyes are doves. Shulamith 16 Lo! thou art fair, my beloved, yea sweet; yea our couch is green.17 The beams of our houses are cedars, our wainscot is cypresses.II. 1. I am (only) a wildflower of Sharon, a lily of the valleys. Solomon2 As a lily among thorns, so is my dear among the daughters. Shulamith. 3 As an apple-tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. In his shade delighted I sit. and his fruit is sweet to my palate.4 He has brought me into the wine-house, and his banner over me is love. 5 Stay me with pressed grapes,refresh me with apples, for I am sick of love. 6 His left hand is under my head, and his right embraces me. 7 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field,that ye wake not, and that ye waken not love till it please. AND 1. For the explanation of the title, see the Introduction, § 1 and § 3. To the view of those who assign Son 1:2-4 entirely to the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and suppose the words of Shulamith to begin with Son 1:5 (Hitz., Vaih. and others, so too Del.) stands opposed—1. That the wish “to be kissed with the kisses of his mouth” could scarcely have been expressed by the ladies of the court, or even by one of them, without filling Shulamith with indignation, of which, however, she shows nothing in what follows. 2. That the way in which the lover is extolled in Son 1:2-3, agrees perfectly with the fond encomiums and enthusiastic descriptions which Shulamith subsequently, Son 1:13 ff., and Son 2:3 ff., bestows upon her loSong Son 1:3. That the interchange of the 1st sing. and the 1st plur. plainly points to a diversity of persons speaking, or to an alternation between a single speaker and a whole chorus. This latter circumstance likewise renders their assumption impossible, who (as Ew., Hengstenb., Weissb. and most of the older interpreters) suppose that the whole of Son 1:2-7 is spoken by Shulamith. Undoubtedly Shulamith and the ladies of the court here respond to each other in speech or song; yet not so that only the words “Draw me after thee ... chambers” Son 1:4 a belong to Shulamith, and all the rest to Son 1:5 to the “women of the harem” (so Renan), but simply that all that is in the singular is to be regarded as spoken by her alone, and all that is in the plural by her and the ladies together, so that in particular πψεφδ (we will run) and πβιμδεβε (we will be glad, etc.) are to be assigned to the ladies who confirm the words of Shulamith by joining in them themselves, while ΰδψιγξωαπι (draw me after thee), δαιΰπιδξμκηγψιε (the king has brought me into his chambers) and ξιωψινΰδαεκ (they rightly love thee) belong to Shulamith alone (comp. Dφpkein loc.) Then Son 1:5-7 unquestionably belong to Shulamith alone; Son 1:8 again to the ladies of the court, who reply with good-humored banter to the rustic simplicity and naivetκ with which she has expressed Son 1:7 her desire for her royal lover; Son 1:9, ff. to Solomon, who now begins a loving conversation with his beloved, reaching to the close of the act. During this familiar and cosy chat, which forms the second scene of the act, the chorus of ladies withdraws to the back-ground, but without leaving the stage entirely; for the concluding words of Shulamith Son 2:7 are manifestly directed to them again, and that not as absent, but as present on the stage. The place of the action must be supposed to be some locality in the royal palace or residence in or near Jerusalem, some one of the “king’s chambers” (ηγψιδξμκ) Son 1:4; whether precisely the “room devoted to wine parties,” the “wine-room of the royal palace” (Del.), cannot, as it seems, be certainly determined from the repeated reference to the excellence of wine (Son 1:2; Son 1:4), nor from the mention of the “house of wine” (αιϊδιιο2:4); and even the “table” of the king spoken of Son 1:12 does not afford a perfectly sure support to this opinion. Only it appears to be certain from Son 1:16-17 that we must imagine the scene to be open outwards, and to afford a prospect of fresh verdure and stately trees, such as cedars, cypresses, etc. It must therefore have been either a room in the king’s palace upon Zion immediately adjacent to parks or gardens, or what in view of Son 6:2-3 (comp. Son 4:16) is still more probable, an open summer-house (or pavilion) in the royal pleasure gardens of Wady Urtas, south of Jerusalem, near Bethlehem and Etam, in those magnificent grounds of David’s splendor-loving son, which probably bordered upon Zion itself, and thence extended southward for several leagues, and of which there still remains at least a grand aqueduct, with three basins lying successively one above another, the so-called “pools of Solomon” (comp. K. Furrer, Wanderungen durch Palδstina, Zόrich, 1865, p. 178, etc.; C. Hergt, Palδstina, p. 278, etc.;Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III. 1, p. 64, etc.). That Shulamith had formed a personal acquaintance with the royal gardens in the neighborhood of Jerusalem directly after she had been brought from her home in the north of Israel to Solomon’s court, is shown by her mention Son 1:14 of the “vineyards” or “vine-gardens of Engedi,” near the Dead Sea, five or six German miles south-east of Jerusalem, from which however the conclusion must not be drawn that these pleasure-grounds of Engedi formed the scene of the action in the opening of the piece; see on that verse. Weissbach very properly locates the second scene of the Song from Son 1:9 onward in the gardens of Solomon near Jerusalem, but puts the action of Son 1:1-8 somewhere on the way to this retreat, where Shulamith in her search for her lover chances to meet the women of Jerusalem. But in opposition to this may be urged—1. That there is nothing in the context to indicate a change in the locality between Son 1:8-17. The mention of the “king’s chambers” in Son 1:4 certainly implies the immediate vicinity of a royal palace, and probably the presence of the speaker in it. 3. It by no means follows from the metaphors borrowed from pastoral life, in which Shulamith speaks of her lover, Son 1:7 that she thought he was really to be found in a “pasture ground,” and engaged in feeding sheep. 4. With as little propriety can it be inferred from Son 1:8 that Shulamith is represented as wandering about over the country and “accompanied by some little kids, searching for her lover in or near Jerusalem.”2. First Scene. Shulamith. Son 1:2-3.—Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.—ιִ ?ωָּׁ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ι—for which Hitzig needlessly reads ιַ ?ωְׁ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ι, “let him give me to drink,” etc. (comp. Son 8:2)—is manifestly the utterance of a wish, “O that he would kiss me;” and its subject is not τִּ ?ιδεּ, “his mouth,” which is too remote and manifestly stands in a genitive relation to πְ ?ωִׁ ?ιχεֹ ?ϊ “kisses;” nor ξִ ?πְּ ?ωִׁ ?ιχεֹ ?ϊ, equivalent to “one of his kisses” (Ewald, E. Meier), for “a kiss kisses not but is kissed, and ξִ ?πְּ ?ωִׁ ?ιχεֹ ?ϊ includes an accusative” (Hitzig). The speaker’s lover is rather thought of as the kissing subject, the same, whom in the vividness of her conception she immediately afterwards in b and in Son 1:3 addresses in the second person, as though he who is so ardently longed for were already present. The partitive ξִ ?ο properly points to but one or a few kisses of her lover as the object of the beloved’s wish; comp. Genesis 28:11; Exodus 16:27; Psalms 132:11, and generally Ew., Lehr., § 217, b, 294, c. [Green’sHeb. Gram., § 242, a]; J. H. Michaelis, in loc., “uno tantum vel altero de osculis.”—”Kisses of his mouth” are, moreover, in contrast with the idolatrous custom of hand-kisses, or kissing the hand to any one (Job 31:27; comp. Del., in loc.), tokens of honest love and affection between blood relations and friends (Genesis 29:11; Genesis 33:4; Genesis 41:40; 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 20:41; comp. Psalms 2:12), and especially between lovers (Proverbs 7:13). It is not likely that the similarity of the words πωχkiss and ωχδdrink gave occasion to the comparison in b of caresses with wine (Weissb.); this comparison is of itself a very natural one; comp. Son 4:10; Son 5:1; Son 8:2.—For better is thy love than wine.—γγִֹ ?ιν different from γַ ?γַּ ?ιִ ?ν “breasts, paps” (which the LXX here express by μαστοί, and the Vulg. by ubera [so Wic., Cov., Dow.]), as well as from γεֹ ?γִ ?ιν plur. of γεֹ ?γ “beloved” (Son 5:1), denotes manifestations of love, caresses, φιλοφροσύναι (comp. Son 4:10-11; Son 7:13; Proverbs 7:18; Ezekiel 16:8; Ezekiel 23:17), i.e., dalliance, exhibition of ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ (Son 7:7; Son 8:6), fond endearments, (in bad taste Vaih., “Liebelei,” flirtation.) In the comparison of such love with wine, the tertium comparationis is, as is shown by the parallels Son 4:10 ff.; Son 5:1; Son 7:9, ff. not the intoxicating power of wine, but primarily its sweetness only; comp. Acts 2:13. The figure of intoxication indicates a higher grade of loving ecstasy than is here intended, comp. Son 5:1 b;Proverbs 5:19; Proverbs 7:18, and in general Weissb., in loc.Son 1:3. In fragrance thine unguents are good.—μְ ?ψֵ ?ιηַ, “in respect to odor, as to fragrance,” limits θεֹ ?αִ ?ιν, “good” (comp. Joshua 22:10; 1 Kings 10:23; Job 32:4), and is emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence. Commonly: “to the smell,” or “for the smell,” against which, however, lies the twofold objection: 1, that ψֵ ?ιηַ denotes not the organ of smell, nor the act of smelling, but the odor which any thing exhales (odor, halitus), comp. Son 1:12; Son 2:13; Son 4:10; Song of Solomon 7:14; Hosea 14:7, etc.; 2, it is not μָ ?ψֵ ?ιηַ, but simply μְ ?ψֵ ?ιηַ. Hitzig’s construction is quite too artificial; he connects 3 a with 2 b as its sublimitation, and translates “thy caresses are more precious than wine with the odor of thy precious ointment” (comp. the like mode of connection adopted in the Vulg., “ubera—fragantia unguentis optimis” [so Coverdale, Doway]). So also is that of Weissbach, “thy ointments are good to serve as a perfume,” where too much is evidently foisted into the simple μְ ?ψֵ ?ιηַ.—An unguent which is poured forth is thy name.—The comparison of a good name with a fragrant unguent is also found, and on the basis of this passage in Hosea 14:7-8; Ecclesiastes 7:1; Sir 49:1. The ideas of smelling and being (or being named, bearing this or that name) are, as a general fact, closely related through the intermediate notion of breathing, respiring; comp. in German “Gerόcht, ruchbar.” That the name of the lover is thus compared to a costly perfume diffusing a wide fragrance (comp. Mark 14:3; John 12:3) plainly indicates that it is only the renowned King Solomon, an actual possessor of ωֵׁ ?ν (name, i.e., fame, gloria—comp. Proverbs 22:1; 1 Kings 1:47; Job 30:3), who can be thought of as this lover, and not a simple country swain (so Weissb. properly against Herd., Umbr., etc.).—Therefore virgins love thee—i.e., not barely on account of this thy renown, but on account of all the excellencies celebrated in Son 1:2-3. Observe that ςֲ ?μָ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ is without the article. It is not the virgins universally, but simply virgins, such as Shulamith herself, or the “daughters of Jerusalem,” the ladies of Solomon’s court, by whom she sees herself surrounded, that she describes as lovers, as reverential admirers of the graceful, brilliant and lovely king. The guileless country lass, who has but recently been transferred into the circle of the countless virgins of the royal court (comp. Son 6:8) here accounts to herself for the fact that many other virgins besides her are attached to the king with admiring devotion and love; comp., 4. e.3. Shulamith and the daughters of Jerusalem.Son 1:4. Draw me after thee—as it is to be translated with the Targ., Luth. and most of the recent expositors, connecting contrary to the common accentuation ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֶ ?ικָ with ξָ ?ωְׁ ?λֵ ?πִ ?ι, which requires it as its proper complement; comp. Hosea 11:4; Jeremiah 31:3. By this drawing is meant, as appears from b, a drawing into the king’s chambers, or at least into immediate proximity to him, not a conducting out of the palace into the country, as the advocates of the swain-hypothesis suppose, who see in these words an ardent call upon her distant lover.—We will run—i.e., not, “let us take flight, and hasten hence” [so Ginsburg: “Oh, let us flee together!”], as though here again there were a cry for help to her absent lover; but: “we will hasten to him,” viz.: the gracious king; a lively exclamation uttered by Shulamith, and at the same time by the chorus of the daughters of Jerusalem catching the word from her.—The king has brought me into his chambers—a simple expression of the virgin’s rapturous joy at the high honor and delight granted her by the king. As the words stand, they contain neither an indirect petition or complaint addressed to her distant lover (to which the following clauses of the verse would agree poorly enough), nor a wish directed to the king—as though the preterite δֱ ?αִ ?ιΰַ ?πִ ?ι were to be taken in the sense of a precative or optative: “O that the king had brought me into his chambers” (so, e.g., Hug, Weissb.), nor finally a condition dependent on the following πָ ?βִ ?ιμָ ?δεβε (so Hahn, who supplies ΰִ ?ν, if, before δֱ ?αִ ?ιΰַ ?πִ ?ι. “If the king brings me into his chambers, we will,”etc. Furthermore, the “king’s chambers” are by no means simply identical with the harem, the house of the women belonging to the royal palace (Vaih., Ren., etc.); this would rather have been designated αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?πָּ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, as in Esther 2:3; Esther 2:9, ff., or simply called αιϊ, house, as in 1 Kings 7:8; 1 Kings 9:24; Psalms 68:13, etc. They are 2 Samuel 4:7; 2 Samuel 13:10, the king’s own rooms in the palace, his sleeping apartments and sitting-rooms, penetralia regis, in distinction from those of his wives and the ladies of the court, which formed a particular division of the royal palace. Comp. 1 Kings 7:8; Esther 2:12-14. Into these the king’s own innermost apartments, Shulamith, as the favored object of his special love, had been repeatedly brought,—nay, she has in them her own proper abode and residence. She had therefore a perfect right to say: “The king has brought me into his chambers.”—We will exult and be glad in thee.—With these words, which recall Psalms 31:7; Psalms 118:24; Isaiah 25:9; Joe 2:21; Joe 2:23, the ladies of the court again chime in with the language of Shulamith, in order to commend with her the happiness of belonging to the number of those who were loved by the king. αָּ ?κְ, in thee, belongs in equal measure to both verbs; comp. Isaiah 65:19.—We will celebrate thy love more than wine.—Comp. Son 1:2.—Rightly do they love thee.—The most obvious construction is to make the virgins again the subject, as in 3c, and consequently to regard Shulamith as again the speaker. But the 3d plur. might also be taken impersonally (they, i.e., people generally love thee. Comp. ιָ ?αֻ ?ζεּ, they despise, Son 8:1), and then the clause might be spoken by the entire chorus. ξֵ ?ιωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν, an adverbial accusative (as, e.g., τְּ ?μָ ?ΰִ ?ιν, wonderfully, Lamentations 1:9), means neither “without reserve” (Weissb.), nor “sincerely” (Gesen., Del.) [so Noyes; Eng. Ver. marg.: uprightly], but, as appears from the context and the parallels Psalms 48:2; Psalms 75:3, “with good reason, rightly” (Ew., Hitzig, Vaih., etc.). This word is taken as the subject by the Sept. (εὐθύτης), Vulg. (recti diligunt te), Hengstenb. (rectitudes, i.e., abst. for concrete, the upright love thee), Umbr. (O favorite of all the virtues), etc. [so Eng. Ver., Thrupp, Wordsworth, Withington, Ginsburg], interpretations as ungrammatical as they are unsuited to the connection. The attempts at emendation proposed by Velth., Schelling, Augusti, are altogether unnecessary (see Weissb., in loc.). 4. Shulamith. Son 1:5-7. Son 1:5. Black I am, but comely.—The explanation of the fact that she was black (ωְׁ ?ηεֹ ?ψָ ?δ) contained in the following verse shows that by this blackness can only be meant her being browned by the hot sun. Then too in Lamentations 4:8 the substantive ωְׁ ?ηεֹ ?ψ denotes only the livid or swarthy appearance of one who has suffered long from famine and wretchedness, and in this very passage the strong expression “black” is qualified by the diminutive “blackish” (ωְׁ ?ηַ ?ψְ ?ηֹ ?ψֶ ?ϊ) in the verse immediately following.—Moreover, the whole statement before us was occasioned according to Son 1:6, by the curious looks with which Shulamith had meanwhile been regarded by many of the daughters of Jerusalem and probably also by jeering remarks which they had made (comp. Son 1:8). “But comely” [Taylor: attractive, engaging] (πָ ?ΰεָ ?δ., lit., “agreeable”); the plain country maid hereby expresses with frank, straightforward simplicity her consciousness that nevertheless she was not altogether unworthy of the love of Solomon. There is no vain self-laudation in the words.—As the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.—The first of these comparisons is designed to illustrate and set before the mind the idea of blackness, the second that of comeliness or elegance. “Kedar is a Bedawξn tribe near Palestine in the Arabian desert, Genesis 25:13; Isaiah 21:17, which is here named in preference to all others, simply because the name χֵ ?γָ ?ψ seems originally to denote “blackness.” Tents of poor Bedawξns, which are always exposed to the heat of the sun, must certainly appear blacker and less attractive than those of Solomon; and we need not therefore with other interpreters (see especially Hitz. and Weissb. who refer to the observations of modern travellers as della Valle, Burckhardt, Harmer, Volney, etc.,) have recourse to the tents now commonly covered with black goat skins, as Shulamith only has in mind the blackness caused by the sun’s rays. But Solomon’s tents as a figure of the greatest elegance can only correspond to πָ ?ΰεָ ?δcomely. We may without difficulty assume that the splendor-loving Solomon adopted the custom of oriental monarchs of living in tents once in the year in some charming district and in the utmost elegance and splendor (comp. the remarks above, Son 1:1, respecting the pleasure grounds at Etham and Engedi.) It is, therefore, wholly unnecessary to understand by ιְ ?ψִ ?ιςεֹ ?ϊ (with Del., Hitz., etc.,) tapestry, which is neither permitted by usage nor by etymology, from ιָ ?ψַ ?ςcontinuit, prop. velum, then tent-cloth.” We shall have in the main to abide by this explanation of the passage given by Ewald, although we might assign to ιְ ?ψִ ?ιςָ ?δ a different etymology, and derive it perhaps with Gesenius from ιָ ?ψַ ?ςto tremble, flutter, or with Weissb. from ιָ ?ψַ ?ςto be bad, i. e., of coarse, inferior workmanship. The two comparisons are in any case understood in quite too artificial a manner by the latter and by several others, who assume that both the tents of Kedar and the tent-coverings of Solomon set forth the peculiar combination of dark color with attractiveness in Shulamith’s looks (for which an appeal is made to the testimony of travellers like D’Arvieux, Shaw, etc., according to whom a plain filled with the black tents of the Bedawξn presents a very pleasing and even beautiful spectacle.) In opposition to Bφttcher’s view, who though he assigns the words “Black am I, daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar” to the “vinedresser,” i.e., to Shulamith, refers the rest (“but comely” and “as the tent cloths of Solomon”) to an “elderly princess,” who looks with astonishment at the new comer, comp. Hitz. in loc., who properly rebukes the extravagance of the dissecting mania here exhibited. Son 1:6. Look not at me because I am dusky, because the sun has scorched me. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the “look” is one of approval, in admiration of her beauty (versusBφttcher, Hitz., etc.) Comp. above on Son 1:5. My mother’s sons were angry with me.Velth., Umbr., Ewald needlessly think of step-brothers or half-brothers; the passages adduced for this purpose Leviticus 18:9; Leviticus 20:11 : Deuteronomy 23:2, etc., are outweighed by many others as Genesis 27:29; Psalms 50:20; Psalms 69:9; Deuteronomy 13:7, where “mother’s sons” corresponds in the parallelism to “brothers,” and consequently is entirely synonymous with it. And this expression is the less surprising in Shulamith’s mouth since like a true Hebrew daughter she is in the habit of denominating everything after her mother; comp. “my mother’s house,” Son 3:4; Son 8:2, and so too Rth 1:8. We need not even assume that she would intimate a less favorable judgment of her brothers as more or less strange or distant in their bearing to her (Rocke, Hitz.); and there is still less to justify the assumption that her brothers are by this expression emphatically designated as Shulamith’s own brothers-german (vs.Magnus.) Yet it may with considerable probability be inferred from the expression before us, that Shulamith’s father was no longer living at the time of this transaction, and her brothers had assumed the prerogatives of a father (comp. Genesis 34:5, ff.; 2 Samuel 13:20 ff.), but that her mother meanwhile was still living, which also seems to be favored by Son 6:9, (Son 8:2; Son 3:4).—Made me keeper of the vineyards. This manifestly does not assign the reason of her brothers’ anger, nor is this intimated in the following clause (vs. Hengstenberg and E. Meier), it is rather passed over in silence as irrelevant. But this clause tells what her brothers did in consequence of their anger, and then the last clause states what further happened to her when degraded into a vineyard-keeper.—Mine own vineyard I have not kept.—The addition of ωֶׁ ?μִּ ?ι not only gives a special emphasis to the suffix in λַּ ?ψְ ?ξִ ?ι, but distinguishes the vineyard of Shulamith here named as quite distinct and of another sort from those of her brothers, which she had been obliged to keep (Son 8:12). It is a vineyard of a higher and more valuable kind, which alas! she had not carefully guarded. She herself with all that she has and is, must be intended by this vineyard of her own (comp. Del. and Weissb. in loc.), or it may be her beauty (Ew., Dφpke., Magn., Heiligst., Hitz., Vaih.),—at all events every thing that she had to surrender to Solomon and devote to him when she became his beloved and followed him. There is, in these words, no serious lament for her lost virtue (on the contrary see Son 4:12-16) or for her forsaken lover (as Bφttcher, Meier and tentatively also Vaih.); but they contain a lament half in jest or with mingled sadness and irony for her forfeited freedom, for which she constantly longs in spite of her attachment to her royal lover. In favor of this double meaning of “vineyard” may also be urged the etymology of λֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν, which agreeably to its derivation from the root λψν, signifies the “noblest,” the “most valued possession,” the “highest good,” (comp. Hosea 2:17; Isaiah 5:7; Psalms 16:6, as well as Ewald and Hitzigin loc.). Son 1:7. Tell me, thou whom my soul loveth, where feedest thou? To this dreamy exclamation of longing desire for her still absent lover, the close of the preceding verse forms a thoroughly appropriate introduction. Despoiled of her freedom and her beloved home she can only then feel happy amid the new and splendid objects which surround her, when he from love to whom she has forsaken all and to whom her whole heart belongs, is actually close beside her. δַ ?βִּ ?ιγָ ?δμִּ ?ι “inform me” not “cause me to be informed,” for δβιγ always denotes an immediate declaration or announcement. This expression would manifestly be less suited to an address to a far distant lover. The paraphrase of the idea γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ι by the fond circumlocution “whom my soul loveth” is found four times beside in the beautiful section Son 3:1-4.—Shulamith represents her royal lover as “feeding” and then as “reclining” (or more exactly as “causing to recline,” viz., his flock) simply because, as a plain country girl, she supposes that she can directly transfer to him the relations and occupations of country life, and hence assumes that the king may now be somewhere in the fields with his flocks, and have sought with them some shady resting-place as a protection from the hot noon-day sun. That Solomon was just then residing in his pleasure grounds near Jerusalem, that is to say in the country, might favor this artless conception of hers (comp. above on Son 1:5.) But the assumption of Weissbach is needless, that Solomon was then actually engaged in the over-sight of his flocks (Ecclesiastes 2:7) like Absalom and his brothers who, according to 2 Samuel 13:23, ff., were accustomed to manage the sheep-shearing themselves, and to convert it into a merry-making. Nothing further is to be sought in the expressions before us, than a ready trope from pastoral life, and consequently one of those criteria which mark this poem as at least a partially idyllic or pastoral drama (comp. Introduc. § 1, Rem. 3). That Joseph’s going to the pasturage of his brethren, Genesis 37:15-16, was what specially suggested the present figurative representation is too far-fetched, though asserted by Hengstenberg, and connected with his allegorical mode of interpretation. Parallels for this “reclining at noon” may better be adduced from the figurative language of the prophets, as Isaiah 49:10; Psalms 23:2; Ezekiel 34:13-15, or even from the ancient classics, as Theocritus, Id., Son 1:14-15; Son 6:4; 25:216: Horace, Od., III. 29:21; Virg. Georg. III. 324 ff.For why should I be as one straying?etc.λְּ ?ςθְֹ ?ιָ ?δ is very variously explained. ςָ ?θָ ?δ “to cover” is commonly regarded as its theme, and it is accordingly translated “as one veiled” [so Eng. Ver. margin] i.e., as a harlot, Genesis 38:14-15 (Rosenm., Del.) [so Thrupp, Burrowes, Noyes]; or as “one ashamed, veiled through shame” (Umbreit, Dφpke, Hengstenberg), or “as one unknown” (Ewald, Heiligst., who compare the Arab. ΫΨμobscurus fuit, occultavit) [Williams: as a stranger], or “as a mourner,” (so some of the older commentators, as R. Solomon ben Melek, [Ainsworth] after 2 Samuel 15:30). [Weiss.: Muffled up as eastern women always were when exposed to the eyes of strangers, and as a shepherdess subject to insolent and injurious treatment from the shepherds, comp. Exodus 2:16-19]. But the signification “cover” can no more be proved for ςθδ, than that of “pining away,” which Schultens (Op. Min. p. 240), Rocke and others have sought to establish for the word. The Vulgate (ne vagari incipiam), Symmach. (ὡςῥεμβομένη), Syr. and Targ., favor the meaning of wandering or straying, which is admirably suited to the context; [Clarke: as a wanderer; one who not knowing where to find her companions wanders fruitlessly in seeking them.] In proof of it we shall not need Bφttcher’s emendation λְ ?ωׂ ?θְ ?ιָ ?δ (“as a country-stroller”), but simply Hitzig’s assumption that ςֹ ?θְ ?ιָ ?δ by a transposition of the ς is for θεֹ ?ςָ ?δ (= ϊּ ?εֹ ?ςָ ?δ comp. Genesis 37:15); comp. ςψσ = ψςσ, ςθσ = Arab. ΦΪέetc., (a view as old as Kleukerin loc., who with S. Bochart actually proposes to read λְ ?θֹ ?ςְ ?ιָ ?δ). The following expression “by the flocks of thy companions” is closely connected with this idea as the more exact limitation of the “straying.” The “straying by the flocks of the king’s companions,” is nothing but a figure of speech for remaining among the throng of ladies in the royal court without the presence of the king himself; and that is just the veritably desolate and forlorn condition, from which Shulamith wishes to be released by the return of her lover. Hitzig arbitrarily explains the wandering of a wandering of her thoughts; and still more arbitrarily Weissbach seeks to give to ςθδ (with the following ςַ ?μ for ΰֶ ?μ) the sense of “laying hands upon, purloining” (“that I, by the flocks of thy companions, be not regarded as one who will lay hands upon them,” and for that reason is sneaking about them watching his opportunity.) 5. The daughters of Jerusalem.Son 1:8. If thou know not, fairest among women,etc. This address (lit. “the fair (one) among the women.” compare [Green’sHebrew Grammar, § 260, 2 (2)], Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 513, c) which is also used Son 5:9; Son 6:1 by the “daughters of Jerusalem” in speaking to Shulamith, does not prove that the counsel here given “to follow the tracks of the flocks and pasture her kids beside the shepherds’ huts” is a seriously meant exhortation to Shulamith to return to the condition of a shepherdess, or a friendly direction to her on her way to the royal flocks (Weissb.). This language is evidently an “answer adapted to the narrow range of thought implied in Shulamith’s question (which must necessarily appear foolish to the ladies of the court) and hence an unmeaning one, after which the fair shepherdess knew neither more nor less than she did before” (Del.). It is therefore jeeringly intended, and if it did not exactly wound her deeply, it was certainly adapted to increase Shulamith’s longing for her lover.—ΰִ ?νΞμֹ ?ΰϊֵ ?γְ ?ςִ ?ι means neither “if thou do not know thyself” (Sept., Luth.), nor “if thou art deficient in understanding” (Ewald, Hitzig, etc., who appeal to Isaiah 1:3; Isaiah 56:10, passages not appropriate in this connection), but conformably to the similar passage, Son 6:12, “if thou know not,” viz.: where thy lover feeds, this object being readily supplied from the context.—φְ ?ΰִ ?ιΞμָ ?κְ αְּ ?ςִ ?χְ ?αֵ ?ιδַ ?φֹּ ?ΰο “go out at the heels of the flock,” i.e., go after it, follow its tracks, comp. Judges 4:10; Judges 5:15. ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ therefore denotes here, as the Hiphil in Isaiah 40:26; 2 Samuel 5:2, going forth with the flock, not going out of the palace (Vaih., etc.).—“Thy kids,” i.e., the kids which as such an enthusiastic admirer of country life, and a shepherd’s occupation you must certainly have. That she actually had some with her (Weissb.) by no means follows from this expression. 6. Second Scene. Solomon, Son 1:9-11. The king has now returned from the engagements, which had hitherto detained him from his women, and he begins a tender conversation with Shulamith, who is favored by him above all the rest; during which the others withdraw into the background. Comp. No. 1, above. Son 1:9. To my horse in Pharaoh’s chariots, literally: “to my mare;” for ρεּ ?ρָ ?δ can scarcely stand collectively for ρεּ ?ρִ ?ιν “horses, a body of horse,” (Vulg. “equitatui;Hengstb., Weissb., etc.), and there is nothing to justify its being pointed μְ ?ρεּ ?ρֹ ?ϊַ ?ι (Magn., Hitz.). The singular μְ ?ρεּ ?ρָ ?ϊִ ?ι evidently refers to a favorite mare of the king (comp. Zechariah 10:3), to a particularly fine, and splendidly caparisoned specimen of those τέσσαρεςχιλιάδεςθήλειαιἵπποι, which according to 1 Kings 10:26, Sept., Solomon had for his chariots; and more exactly to such a steed used on state occasions in Solomon’s “Pharaoh-chariots,” i.e., in those costly Pharaonic spans of horses, which according to 1 Kings 10:28-29, he had imported from Egypt. Solomon compares his beloved to this mare of his, harnessed and magnificently decorated before stately Pharaoh-chariots (not exactly before one of them, Vatabl.), and that “on account of her youthful bloom and her unaffected demeanor, whose lovely charms are still further heightened by the simple ornaments worn upon her head and neck, Son 1:10-11” (Del.). The point of the comparison is not to be sought exclusively in the proud bearing of the horse, Job 39:19, etc. (Ewald, Vaih., etc.), any more than in the glittering ornaments of his head and neck. In opposition to Weissb., who thinks merely of the latter, and referring to Hartmann’sHebrδerin am Putztische, (Hebrew woman at her Toilet), Olearius“Persische Reisen” (Travels in Persia), etc. [see also Harmer’sOutlines, p. 205, and the illustrations of a bride’s dress, in Calmet’sDictionary] maintains that there was a marked similarity between the ornaments of pearls and chains worn by horses and by women in the East, and consequently by Shulamith in the present instance, it may be said that according to Son 1:11 Solomon now first proposes to adorn his beloved with the proper gold and silver ornaments, and therefore she did not yet wear a burdensome head and neck ornament like a richly bridled mare.—My dear; comp. Son 1:15; Son 2:2; Son 4:1, etc., where the same familiar form of address recurs. Son 1:10. Comely are thy cheeks in chains.ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψ kindred with γּ ?εֹ ?ψ, θεֹ ?ψetc., is equivalent to a circle, ring; in the plural consequently it denotes a chain composed of many rings, which goes around from the head under the chin, by which therefore the cheeks are encircled. Shulamith may not have brought this ornament together with the necklaces named in b (ηֲ ?ψεּ ?ζִ ?ιν kindred with δψω, ηψθ, little disks of metal or corals pierced and strung together) with her from the country, but may have received it as a present from Solomon since her coming to the royal court. Solomon, however, is not satisfied with this simple ornament, but promises her, Son 1:11, much richer and more splendid jewels,—scarcely with the view of alluring her and binding her to his court (as even Del. supposes) but simply to adorn yet more handsomely one who is so lovely, and to have his full pleasure in her as a magnificently attired princess.Son 1:11. Chains of gold—with points of silver. Needlessly, and quite too artificially, Weissb. will have us understand by the πְ ?χֻ ?γּ ?εֹ ?ϊδַ ?λֶּ ?ρֶ ?σ something similar to the ηֲ ?ψεּ ?ζִ ?ιν little disks of silver pierced and strung together, which might be worn along with the gold chains. But ςִ ?νwith by no means requires this explanation (comp. Son 4:13): it rather leads to the far more natural assumption that the golden chains were dotted with silver “punctis argenteis distincti” (Hitzig).7. Shulamith Son 1:12-14. Son 1:12. Whilst the king (is) at his table, my spikenard yields its fragrance. If these words were to be translated: “whilst the king was at his table, my spikenard yielded its fragrance” (Rosenmueller, Ewald, Hengstenb., Vaih., Weissb., etc.), they could only mean: “as long as Solomon was absent, and did not burden me with his attentions, I was happy in the memory of my friend;” they would accordingly bear an emphatic testimony to the correctness of the herdsman or shepherd-hypothesis; for that the “fragrance of the spikenard” is to be taken literally and explained of the costly nard-oil on Shulamith’s hair and garments, which had been as it were suppressed and far exceeded by the coming of her lover with his much more delightful fragrance (Weissb.) is a very far-fetched explanation of these simple words. They are rather to be taken as referring to the present, because the fact of there being no δָ ?ιָ ?δwas in the protasis makes against the preterite sense of πָ ?ϊַ ?οgive (comp. Hitz. in loc.) and because ξֵ ?ρַ ?α does not properly mean table, but rather company, festive assembly (comp. the adverbial use of the word in the singular, 1 Kings 6:29, and in the plural, 2 Kings 23:5; Job 37:12) and consequently points to the place where the king then was, to the women’s apartment of his palace or park in contrast with his former stay in the fields, with the soldiers, on the chase, or elsewhere. The fragrance of Shulamith’s nard is accordingly a figurative designation of the agreeable sensations or delightful feelings produced in her heart by the presence of her lover (comp. Del.: “it only emits again that fragrance, which it has absorbed from his glances”), a representation which by no means sounds too refined and courtly for this simple country girl, this child of nature, which therefore Hitzig very needlessly puts (as well as Son 1:13) into the mouth of an enamored court lady as a voluptuous piece of flattery for Solomon. For πֵ ?ψְ ?γְּ, which must here denote not a stalk of the well-known Indian plant Valeriana Jatamansi (Magn., Bφttcher), but the aromatic unguent prepared from it, and that as poured out, and consequently emitting its fragrance, comp. Winer, R. W. B. Art., “Narde.” [Smith’sDictionary of the Bible, Art. Spikenard. Kitto’sBiblical Cyclopedia, Art. Nerd]. Son 1:13. A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me. Evidently an advance upon the figure of the fragrant nard. The royal lover, who now rests upon Shulamith’s bosom, is compared by her to a parcel of the costly myrrh-gum such as the ladies of the East are in the habit of carrying in their bosom. φְ ?ψεֹ ?ψδַ ?ξּ ?ψֹ is not a bunch [so Noyes] or sprig of myrrh (Ewald, Delitzsch, etc.) for there is no more evidence of any aromatic quality in the branches and leaves of the myrrh tree than there is of its occurrence in Palestine at all. We must therefore think of a bundle or box (not exactly a flask, as Weissb. proposes, contrary to the meaning of φְ ?ψεֹ ?ψ) of semi-fluid, or fluid myrrh gum, and must besides compare the use of this gum as an unguent, which is vouched for also in Son 5:5; Son 5:13; Esther 2:12; Exodus 30:28. On the carrying of boxes of ointment by Hebrew women, comp. also Isaiah 3:20; Job 42:14, and Hartmann, die Hebrδerin am Putztische II., p. 280 f. Son 1:14. A cluster of Cyprus is my beloved to me.λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψSept.: (κύπρος here and Son 4:13) is the Cyprus flower or Alhenna, which is indigenous to India, and probably to Egypt (Pliny, H. N. xii. 24) and may have been transplanted by Solomon in his vineyards at Engedi (on which comp. No. 1 above) for the sake of the peculiarly strong odor of its yellowish-white, grape-like clusters of flowers. [See Harmer’sOutlines, pp. 218–221; Shaw’sTravels, pp. 113, ‘4: Sonnini’sVoyage, pp. 291–302]. Comp. in respect to the fondness of oriental women for this aromatic plant the testimony of a recent traveller in the “Ausland,” 1851, No. 17. “The white Henna-blossoms, which grow in clusters and are called Tamar-henna, have a very penetrating odor, which seems disagreeable to the European who is unaccustomed to it; but the Orientals have an uncommon liking for this odor, and prefer it to any other. The native women commonly wear a bouquet of Tamar-henna on their bosom.” The Hebrew name of this plant might with Simonis and others be derived from λτψ to cover, with allusion to the custom which prevails among Oriental women of staining their finger nails yellow with Henna powder, but it is more natural to refer λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ as well as κύπρος and the Lat. cuprum to the Sanskrit root cubh, “to shine, be yellow,” whence cubhra. The exact parallelism between Son 1:13-14, and in general the intimate connection of Son 1:12-14, with their figures taken without exception from the region of vegetable aromas further yields decided testimony against Hitzig’s division of the passage as though Son 1:12-13, belonged to one of the women of the Harem, and only Son 1:14 to Shulamith. 8. Solomon, Shulamith, Son 1:15-17. Son 1:15. Lo! thou art fair, my dear. The fond ardor, with which she has just spoken of her lover, has doubled the expressive beauty of her features. The perception of this leads Solomon full of rapture to praise her beauty.—Thine eyes are doves,i.e., not “thine eyes are doves’ eyes,” as though (like Psalms 45:7; 1 Kings 4:13, Ezra 10:13) the const. ςֵ ?ιπֵ ?ι were to be supplied; and the dove-like simplicity and fidelity of Shulamith’s eyes were to be brought into the account as the point of comparison (Vulg., Syr., Ibn Ezra, Vat., Gesen., Del., etc.), [Eng. Ver.]; but as is shown both by the context and the parallel passage, Son 5:12, “thine eyes resemble the lustrous and shimmering plumage of doves,” wherein more particularly the white of the eyes is compared to that of the body, and the lustrous iris to the metallic lustre of the neck or wings of the dove (comp. Psalms 68:14). Correctly therefore the Sept.: ὀφθαλμοίσουπεριστεραί, and in the later times Targ., Rashi, Hengstenberg, Hitzig, etc.) [So Hodgson, Williams, Fry, Thrupp, etc.]. Son 1:16. Lo! thou art fair, my beloved, yea sweet. The exactly analogous form of expression, with which Shulamith here answers the flattering caresses of the king, makes it appear to the last degree forced to regard these words of hers as addressed to a distant lover. The climacteric ΰַ ?σπָ ?ςִ ?ιν “yes sweet, yes charming” is only the expression of her loving transport, and finds an illustrative commentary in the description Son 2:3-5. [Will., Gins. connect this adjective with what follows: “Lovely is our verdant couch”].—Yea, our couch is green, lit.: “greens, grows green” (ψַ ?ςֲ ?πָ ?πָ ?δ) a reference to the stately, verdant, and refreshing natural surroundings, in the midst of which to their delight their loving intercourse now takes place, and perhaps more particularly to a shady grassplot under the trees of the park, upon which they were for the moment sitting or reclining; comp. § 1 above, and Weissb. in loc. In opposition to Hengstenb., who takes ςֶ ?ψֶ ?ωׂ in the sense of “marriage-bed,” and ψַ ?ςֲ ?πָ ?ο in a purely figurative sense of a gladsome and flourishing condition, may be urged that no mention can be made of a marriage-bed for Shulamith and Solomon before their nuptials, which are not described until Son 3:6, etc.; likewise the contents of the following verses, especially Son 2:1-3, which point to a continued stay of the lovers in the open air, under shady trees, and beside fragrant flowers.Son 1:17. The beams of our houses are cedars, our wainscoting cypress-trees. This can neither be the language of the “choir of women belonging to the harem” (Bφttcher), whose entrance here would be to the last degree disturbing; nor even of Solomon (Hitzig, Weissb., Ren.) to whom the beauty of the place where they are, is a matter of perfect indifference, by reason of the rapture with which he regards his beloved; but only that of Shulamith, the innocent, light-hearted child of nature, who has just begun to express her pleasure in that lovely spot in the open air, to which her lover had conducted her, and whose words would sound quite unfinished and end abruptly if nothing further were added to the commendation of their verdant couch.—”Cedars” and “cypresses,” also named together Isaiah 14:8; Zechariah 11:2, as costly species of wood for building and stately, lofty trees, are here evidently meant in the literal sense, of living trees of this description, such as were to be found, along with other rare and noble plants, in the royal gardens of a king so skilled in nature and so fond of splendor. The figurative part of her language lies rather in the “beams” and the “wainscoting” (ψָ ?ηִ ?ιθִ ?ιν from ψδθ = Ar. ΜΡΨ “to hew,” hence = laquearia of the Vulg., wainscoting on walls and ceilings—not. “pillars,” Weissb., nor “rafters,” Vatabl. and L. Cappell, [so E. V.], nor “floor,” Hengstenberg, who prefers the K’ri ψָ ?διθִ ?ιν). She, who had hitherto been without Solomon in the showy apartments of the palace, felicitates herself that she can now rest with him under the green trees of the garden, which seem to her to arch over them a far finer ceiling than those richly adorned halls. It is impossible to reconcile the mention of cedars, which only grew wild in Lebanon, not in central or northern Palestine, and consequently not in the vicinity of Shunem, with the shepherd hypothesis, whose advocates here find expressed Shulamith’s longing for the verdure and shade of her home (e.g.Ewald, Vaih.). For the AND ETHICAL comments, see Son 2:7 ff. Footnotes:[Wicliffe: The Church of the coming of Christ speaketh, saying. Matthews: The voice of the Church. Cover-Dale: O that thy mouth would give me a kiss, for thy breasts are more pleasant than wine, and that because of the good and pleasant savor.]. On the combination of the kindred words πωχ and πωιχδ. Comp. 1 Kings 1:12; 1 Kings 2:16; Isaiah 1:13; Isaiah 8:10; Jonah 1:10; Jonah 1:16, and generally Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 281 a, [Green’s Heb. Gram. § 271, 3]. [Wicliffe: The voice of the Father.] [Thrupp’s proposed emendation μψιηωξπιχθεψιν “like as the scent which cometh from incenses,” is nothing but ingenious trifling, and has not even the merit of being good Hebrew.—Tr.] [Wic. The voice of the Church.] Observe the assonance in ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?ο and ωֵׁ ?ν which is probably intentional. [Thrupp: as ointment thou art, by thy name, poured forth.] In regard to the construction of the words ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?οϊּ ?εּ ?ψַ ?χωְׁ ?ξֶ ?κָ four views are possible: 1. ωֵׁ ?ν is taken as the subject, and ϊּ ?εּ ?ψַ ?χ as 3 pers. fem. here employed because ωֵׁ ?ν is exceptionally used as a feminine after the analogy of the Ethiopic (so Ew.: “thy name is poured out as an ointment;” Vaih.: “as the fragrance of balsam thy name pours itself forth,” etc.) 2. ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?ο is regarded as the subject, which is here exceptionally treated as feminine, and to which ϊּ ?εּ ?ψַ ?χ belongs as a relative clause; “an unguent, which is shed forth, is thy name” (so the Septuag., Vulg., Luth. and the generality of interpreters). 3. ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?ο is taken as a masc., but the form ϊּ ?εּ ?ψַ ?χ is regarded as a hardened form for ιεּ ?ψַ ?χ (after the analogy of Isa 44:28; Ecclesiastes 10:15), and accordingly translated as before (Hitzig). 4. ϊּ ?εּ ?ψַ ?χ is held to be the 2 pers. sing. fut. Hophal with a double accusative: “thou art poured forth in respect to thy name as ointment,” i.e., thou, or more precisely thy name, diffusest a noble fragrance, like a box of ointment which is emptied of its contents (so J. H. Michaelis: “sicut oleum effunderis nomine tuo;” Hengstenb., Weissb.). This last construction is to be preferred as grammatically the best established, while it agrees in sense substantially with Nos. 2 and 3. [Matt. Yea, that same moveth me also to run after thee.] [Matt. The spousess to her companions.] [Cov., Cranmer, Bishops: “privy chamber;” Doway: “cellars,” altered in later editions to “store-rooms.”] Upon δִ ?ζְ ?λִּ ?ιψ prop. “to mention, bring to remembrance,” then “to mention with praise, celebrate,” comp. Psalms 20:8; Isaiah 48:1; Isaiah 63:7; also Ps. 45:18; 1 Chronicles 16:4, where it is parallel to δεֹ ?γδ thank, praise.[Cov. Well is them that love thee. Eng. Ver. The upright, Marg. uprightly. Noyes, Burrowes: sincerely.] [Wic. The Church, of her tribulations. Mat. The voice of the Church in persecution. Cov., Cran. I am black, (O ye daughusalem) like as the tents of the Cedarenes and as the hangings of Solomon; but yet I am fair and well-favored withal. Ginsburg: swarthy.] [Withington: fair; Burrowes: lovely.] [Cov. marvel; Doway: consider; Williams, Noyes: gaze; With. scorn; Ginsburg: disdain.] ωֶׁ signifies in both instances, in ωֶׁ ?ΰֲ ?πιִ and in ωֶׁ ?ωְׁ ?ζָ ?τַ ?δְ ?πι not “for,” but “for the reason that,” “because” (εἰςέκεῖυοὅτι); comp. Exodus 2:2. The second clause is therefore co-ordinated with the first, although explanatory of it (comp. Weissb. in loc.) [Cov.: so black. E. Ver. black; Doway: brown; Weiss: swarthy; Bur., Thrupp: dark.] On ωְׁ ?ηַ ?ψְ ?ηψֶ ?ϊ blackish, dusky (not “very black, deep black,” as Hitz. and formerly Ewald too would have it), comp. on Son 1:5 above [Green’s Heb. Gram., § 188]. ωָׁ ?ζַ ?σ is not “look upon” [so E. V.; Cov. shined; Will. beamed; Thrupp: fiercely scanned; Weiss: glanced] (Septuag. παρέβλεψε, comp. Job 20:9), but is here=ωָׁ ?γַ ?σ (Genesis 41:23) “scorch, blacken,” the sense already expressed by Aquila (συνέκαυαέμε) and the Vulg. (decoloravit me) [Good: discolored; Bur., Gins. browned], and retained by most of the recent interpreters (in opposition to Rosenm., Hengstenb., Weissb.). [Mat. The voice of the Synagogue.] πִ ?ηֲ ?ψεּ either Niph. of ηψψ to burn, glow, (so Ew., Meier, Hitz.), or more probably from ηψδ (so that the sing. would be πִ ?ηֲ ?ψָ ?δ or πֶ ?ηֱ ?ψָ ?δ); for the Niph. of ηψψ always elsewhere means “to be dried, parched” (Psalms 69:4; Psalms 102:4, etc.), whilst the meaning demanded here is “to be angry, wroth.” Comp. Gesenius’ Lexicon and Weissb. in loc. [Cov.: had evil will.] [Cov.: Thus was I fain to keep a vineyard, which was not mine own.] [Wic., Mat. The voice of the Church to Christ.] ΰִ ?ιִ ?λָ ?δ elsewhere how? [which Weiss. retains] is here=ΰֵ ?ιτֹ ?δ where? so too 2 Kings 6:13, K’thibh, whilst the Kri has ΰֵ ?ιλεֹ ωַׁ ?μָּ ?ξָ ?δ properly “for why” (comp. ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψμָ ?ξָּ ?δ, Daniel 1:10), a fuller expression for the simple μָ ?ξָּ ?δ why, as in Job 34:27, ΰֲֹ ?ωֶ ?ψςַ ?μΞλֵּ ?ο stands for ςַ ?μΞλֵּ ?ο, Psalms 45:3. The sense is correctly given by the Sept. and Syr., which here and in Daniel 1:10 translate “that not, lest” (μήποτε). [Cov.: and that. The critical conjecture mentioned by Williams, that this word should be pointed as a proper name ωְׁ ?μֹ ?ξηֹ O Solomon is unworthy of attention.—Tr.] [Wic. go vagrant; Cov. lest I go wrong and come unto the flocks of thy companions; E. Ver. one (Genev. she) that turneth aside; Good, Percy, Clarke: wanderer; Williams, Fry: stranger; Taylor: rover; Ginsb.: roaming; E. Ver. Marg. one that is veiled, so Noyes, Weiss., Thrupp.] [Wic., Mat. The voice of Christ to the Church.] μָ ?κְ is here added inasmuch as the action returns upon its subject (comp. Proverbs 9:12; and Proverbs 2:6; Proverbs 8:14 below), so in general Ewald, Lehrb. § 315 a [Green’s Heb. Chrest. note on Isaiah 40:9. [Wic. my riding; Genev. troop (E. V. company) of horses; Will.: the horse; Noyes: the horses; Gins.: my steed.] [Cov. There will I tarry for thee, my love, with mine host and with my chariots, which shall be no fewer than Pharaoh’s] The plur. ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ϊ [rather ψְ ?ςָ ?ιεֹ ?ϊ—Tr.] Judges 11:37 K’thibh. [E. Ver. my love, Marg. in Son 1:15 : companion; Will.: consort; Fry: partner.] [Genev. rows of stones; E. Ver. rows of jewels; Fry: jewels; With. chains; Thrupp, Ginsb.; circlet; Weiss.: reins.] [Genev. chains; E. Ver. chains of gold; Doway: jewels; Fry: strings of beads; Good, Burrowes: strings of pearls: Thrupp, With., Ginsb. necklace; Weiss.: chains, i.e., such as are attached to the pole or beam of the carriage, and which the horse wears on his neck.] [In addition to the renderings given to this word in the preceding verse, Wic. here translates it: ribands; Cov. neck-band; E. Ver. borders; With. collars.] [Cov. buttons; E. Ver. studs; With. stars.] [Wic. The voice of the Church, of Christ. Mat. The voice of the Church.] [So Cov., Eng. Ver.; Genev. repast; Doway: repose, after the Vulg. accubitu and the LXX ἀνακλίσει; Good: banquet; Fry: ‘the king in his circuit’ may either refer to his going round in some part of the procession, or to taking his stand in the midst of his retinue, or we may translate, ‘until the king had taken his seat;’ Will., Burr, circle of friends; Weiss.: with his guest.] [Ainsw.: bag; Taylor: scent-bag; Good: casket; Burrowes: amulet.] [Cov. O my beloved. E. Ver. my well-beloved, so constantly throughout the book in Genev., except once in Son 5:9, “lover.”] [So Cov., Doway, E. Ver. Marg. The text of the Eng. Ver. has camphire.] [Wic., Mat. The voice of Christ to the Church.] [Wic., Mat. The voice of the Church to Christ.] [Cov., Cran., Bish. Our bed is decked with flowers. Dow.: our little bed is flourishing.] [Cov. ceilings.] [Cov. balks; Cran., Bish. cross-joints; E. V.: rafters, Marg.: galleries; Good, Noyes boardings; Parkhurst: ceiling; Gesen.: carved ceiling; Fuerst: carved beams]. [E. Ver. fir; Ains. brutin-tree.] [Wic. The voice of Christ, of Him and of the Church; Mat. The voice of Christ.] [Wic., Mat. The voice of the Church, of Christ.] [Cov., Cran., Bish., Dow. throat; Genev. mouth; E. V. taste]. [Cov. grapes; Cran., Bish. cups; Genev., E. V. flagons]. [E. V. comfort; Marg. straw me; Doway, compass me about; Ainsworth: strew me a bed; Williams: strew citrons around me; Thrupp: strew me with citron leaves]. [Wic., Mat. The voice of Christ, of the Church; Wic., Dow. I adjure you; Cov., Cran., Genev., E. V.: I charge you.] [Thrupp has: “fells,” so as to rhyme with “gazelles,” in fancied imitation of the original]. [Cov., Dow., Genev. she; E. V. correctly: he; Ginsb., Thrupp: it]. [So Patrick, Good, Williams, Taylor, Fry, the last two of whom divide Son 1:5 in like manner, assigning the words “but comely,” and “as the curtains of Solomon” to the daughters of Jerusalem, who compliment the bride on her beauty, while she in the remaining clauses speaks depreciatingly of herself; Taylor also apportions Son 1:2-3 between the bride and her attendant ladies, to whom Fry adds an imaginary messenger from the king. Harmer carries the sub-division of parts to an equal extent, claiming that not only the variation in number, but the change of person from third to second, and vice versa, indicates a diversity of speakers. The majority of English Commentators regard the bride as the sole speaker in Son 1:2, as is done also in the headings to this chapter in the authorized version, and either find in the change of number evidence of the plurality involved in the unity of the speaker, (Poole, Thrupp), or suppose that she in thought associates her companions with herself, we, i.e., “I and the virgins fore-mentioned” (Ainsworth), or that it is the language of modesty, though she means only herself (Clarke)]. [Patrick. Scott and Taylor suppose it interrupted by the attendant ladies in Son 1:11]. [Taylor and Williams make the place to have been the bride’s parlor in Solomon’s palace, and the time the first day of the week preceding the marriage, Son 1:1-8 belonging to the morning, and Son 1:9 to Son 2:7 to the evening of the day. Burrowes follows Harmer in the conjecture that “in the opening scene of this poem the king had probably gone forth, according to Oriental customs, to meet the bride, and was awaiting her with his princely retinue in an encampment where his rich pavilion, Son 1:5, stood pre-eminent. The spouse on coming in sight of those kingly tents, gives utterance to the strong emotions of her heart].” [Patrick. As in John 20:15 “the pronoun is used without a consciousness of the absence of the antecedent. Her heart is so full that she supposes every one must know who she means by him].” [“Permission to kiss the hand of a sovereign is considered an honor; but for that sovereign to give another the kisses of his mouth, is evidence of the tenderest affection, and is the highest possible honor.”—Burrowes.] [“Thy love is more reviving and exhilarating than the effects of wine. Comp. Psalms 104:15; Proverbs 31:6.”—Burrowes]. [Weiss.: Besides or in addition to the savor, etc. A sense which the prep. rarely has, and which is neither admissible here nor in Exodus 14:28; Leviticus 11:26; Leviticus 16:16, to which he appeals. Incorrectly also the Eng. Ver.: Because of the savor, etc., which must then be connected with “therefore,” etc., in the last clause, the second clause being parenthetic. “She has ointments preparatory to her exaltation; just as Esther was purified to go in to the king, Esther 2:12.”—Withington]. [Comp. Eng. To be in good or bad odor’ for good or ill repute. This explanation of the relation of these ideas, which is developed at length by Baehr, Symbolik d. Mos. Cultus, I., p. 459 ff., appears to be too subtle and remote. It is simpler to find the connection in the fact that the odor, like the name, indicates the character or quality of that from which it proceeds, or to which it belongs. It is an efflux from the object itself, the impression which it makes ad extra.—Tr.] [There seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the authority of the accents in the present instance. “We will run” requires “after thee” as its complement to indicate the direction of the running more than “draw me,” where the direction is sufficiently implied. The violation of the accents is merely for the sake of evading the evidence afforded by the masc. pron. ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֶ ?ικּ, that “after thee we will run” is still the language of the bride to Solomon—not of her virgin companions to the bride.—Tr]. [So too Weiss.: “When the king shall have brought me;” nor is it a prophetic preterite, the bride anticipating the time when she shall be brought (Thrupp). Ginsburg insists that the changes of person in this verse “clearly show that the king here referred to is a separate person from the beloved to whom the maiden is addressing herself.” But he is compelled to acknowledge that just before in Son 1:2 the third person and the second both refer to the same subject.—Tr.] [This would seem to compel the conclusion that the marriage has already taken place, and is not still future, as our author supposes.—Tr.] [Fry, who disregards the points; they do right in loving thee. Good alters the text into: thou art every way lovely.] [Eng. Ver., curtains, Ainsworth: the goodly hangings that were in his house and about his bed.] [Look not disdainfully upon me, Hall; do not too accurately scrutinize, Taylor; Gaze with wonder at her presumption, Noyes.] [The introduction of these figures from pastoral life has occasioned much needless perplexity among interpreters. Clarke says: “How this would apply either to Solomon or to the princess of Egypt, is not easy to ascertain. Probably in the marriage festival there was something like our masks, in which persons of quality assumed rural characters and their employments.” Some have thought this to be a separate and independent composition, unconnected with the preceding in which the king was spoken of. So besides the German fragmentists, Fry, who begins a new idyl with Son 1:7 on account of “the entire change of imagery.” Others maintain that the unity of the poem is unbroken, but insist that the king and the shepherd are distinct persons; so Ginsburg and the entire class of interpreters to which he belongs, and extremes meeting here as not infrequently elsewhere, allegorical interpreters have gone so far in the same direction as to allege that these diverse representations are incompatible in application to any literal subject, and that no consistent sense can be made of them but by referring them to Christ. This, however, is to prejudice the beauty and perfection of the allegory, and to damage the spiritual interpretation of the Song itself. The author of the Song is not writing directly of Christ and His church, but only under the figure of a bridegroom and his bride. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ See Son 1:1 ff for the passage comments with footnotes. Son 2:1. Shulamith: I am (only) a wild flower of Sharon, a lily of the valleys. The connection with the preceding is not to be denied altogether (with Delitzsch, who makes a new scene begin with this verse); still we must assume a pause of some length after Son 1:17, during which Shulamith who continues to tarry in the garden at the side of her lover, reflects upon her great good fortune in being selected to be the darling of the king, and by the comparison of the splendor which now surrounds her with the meadows and valleys of her home is disposed to humility and at the same time filled with longing for that simpler condition which she must forsake. She gives an artless as well as a delicate and striking expression to these feelings by calling herself “a wild-flower,” a “lily of the valleys,” which was not congruous to the many ornamental plants and artistic beauties of the royal court.—Which flower of the plain of Sharon is intended by ηֲ ?αַ ?φֶּ ?μֶ ?ϊδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο, it is difficult to determine. Its identity with the “lily of the valley” (Sept., Vulg., and Targ. on Isaiah 35:1, the only other passage of the O. Test. in which ηֲ ?αַ ?φֶּ ?μֶ ?ϊ occurs), [Cran., lily; so Lee], is contradicted by its being mentioned in a parallel with it, a circumstance which requires us to think of some similar plant, but one which is specifically different from it. If ηαφμϊֹ were really connected with ηξυ, “to be red” (comp. δָ ?ξεּ ?υred, Isaiah 63:1), as Hitzig, Weissb., etc., assume, the simplest course would be with Aquila and R. Kimchi on Isaiah 35:1, to translate it “rose,” [so Bish., Genev., E. Ver.], and then to compare the combination of rose and lily in Sir 39:13-14 as probably drawn from this passage. But another etymology, which supposes the word to be in some manner compounded with αֶּ ?φֶ ?μonion (whether η is prefixed, which serves to form quadrilaterals, or the adj. ηָ ?ξֵ ?υ “sour,” lurks in its initial letters), points rather to some bulbous plant; perhaps the meadow-saffron, which the Old Syriac seems to have intended (comp. Mich., Ewald, Gesenius, etc.), [so Royle, Wordsworth, Noyes and Thrupp, who however translates it “daisy”], or the tulip (Velthusen, Magn., Vaih.), or the narcissus, for which last the Targ. already testifies with its πַ ?ψְ ?χεֹ ?ν. As no one of these significations can be demonstrated with absolute certainty, it may be most advisable with the Sept. and Vulg. to abide by the indefinite “flower” [so Cov., Dow.], or “wild-flower” [so Withington, Ginsburg]. Also in regard to the name Sharon ωָׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο, it cannot be said decisively, whether it denotes the well-known plain along the coast between Cesarea and Joppa (Acts 9:35), or the trans-jordanic plain named 1 Chronicles 5:16, or finally a third meadow-land of Sharon between Tabor and the lake of Gennesaret mentioned by Eusebius in the Onomast. This last might perhaps be most readily thought of on account of its vicinity to Shunem.—Further ηֲ ?αַ ?φֶּ ?μֶ ?ϊδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο is, notwithstanding the article before ωָׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο, to be translated “a wild-flower of Sharon” (comp. Genesis 9:20; Genesis 35:16; Jeremiah 13:4, etc.), and no conclusion can be drawn from this expression in favor of the allegorical explanation of Shulamith as the Church (against Hengstenberg).—In both these comparisons, that with the flower of Sharon, and that with the lily (by which must be meant not the strongly scented lilium candidum, but rather as appears from Son 1:5-6; Son 5:13 the Palestine red lily, lilium rubens of Pliny H. N. 21:5), the tertium comparat. is both the diminutive size of these plants compared with cedars, cypresses, etc., and also their beauty and elegance (Matthew 6:28; Luke 12:27), so that, although Shulamith refers to her lowliness and rural simplicity, she yet says nothing derogatory to herself, and quite in analogy with Son 1:5 manifests a certain self-regard though genuinely modest, and pure as a child. Son 2:2. As a lily among thorns, so is my dear among the daughters. That which had been to Shulamith an expression of her lowliness is seized upon by Solomon with courtly skill in order to bring out of it the more emphatic praise of her grace and beauty. More strongly almost than afterwards in Son 6:8-9 he puts all other women in the shade in comparison with his chosen one, likening them to thorns, the well-known figure of whatever is mean, troublesome and offensive (comp. Judges 9:14; 2 Kings 14:9; Isaiah 7:23 ff; Isaiah 32:13; Isaiah 55:13; Ezekiel 2:6; Ezekiel 28:24; Hosea 9:6; Hosea 10:8; Psalms 58:10; Proverbs 22:5, etc). [Noyes: “It is not implied that the lily grows among thorns, but that his love surpassed other women as much as the lily the thorn.” Moody Stuart quotes the following as illustrative from Bonar: “Close by these lilies there grew several of the thorny shrubs of the desert; but above them rose the lily spreading out its fresh green leaf as a contrast to the dingy verdure of these prickly shrubs.”] With the translation “rose” [so Cov., Cran.] (which is moreover absolutely inadmissible, since the fem. ωׁ ?εֹ ?ωַׁ ?πָּ ?δ must unquestionably have a sense like that of the masc. ωׁ ?εּ ?ωַׁ ?ο or ωׁ ?εωָׁ ?ο “lily”) the strong contrast intended would almost entirely vanish, for the thorns serve only to adorn the rose. Renan regards this verse and Son 2:7 as spoken by the shepherd (!) entering here for the first time (“entrant brusquement en scθne”)! [Ginsburg imagines that Son 1:15 is also spoken by this imaginary shepherd.—Tr.] Son 2:3. As an apple-tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. Observe the exact parallelism of this sentence with Son 2:2. Shulamith gives back the flattering commendation of her lover with a still closer adherence to his expressions than above in Son 1:16, and thus their conversation assumes the appearance of a “contest of mutually eulogistic love” (Delitzsch). The reference of Shulamith’s language to an absent lover, whom she praises in opposition to Solomon, who is indifferent or repulsive to her (Ew., Hitz., Vaih., etc.), destroys the simple beauty of the dialogue. It is inadmissible to understand by the “apple tree (ϊַּ ?τּ ?εּ ?ηַ, Sept. μῆλον) some nobler fruit tree than the common Pyrus malus, as for instance, the quince (Pyrus cydonia), or the citron (malus medica) [so Good, Williams, Taylor, Thrupp, With.], or the orange (as is done by Celsius in his Hierobot.Velthus., Rosenm., Van Kooten, etc.), on account of the mention made immediately afterwards (Son 2:3 d, and Son 2:5) of the sweet fruit of the tree, because those acquainted with the East in former as well as in more recent times commend even the common apples of Syria and Palestine as an exceedingly generous fruit, of fine flavor and a pleasing fragrance (comp. Harmer, Observations, etc.,), and because the comparatively rare occurrence of ϊַּ ?τּ ?εּ ?ηַ in the Old Test., and its combination with the fig, pomegranate, palm, etc. (Joe 1:12; comp. Sol. Son 7:9; Son 8:5) point to its belonging to the nobler fruit-bearing plants of the flora of ancient Israel. [Wordsworth: It is a generic word (like malum in Latin), and may include the citron and lemon].—In his shadow delighted I sit, lit., “I delight and sit” (ηִ ?ξַּ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ιεְ ?ιָ ?ωַׁ ?αְ ?ϊִּ ?ι) [Gins.: I delight to sit”], a construction like ϊַּ ?ψְ ?αּ ?εּ ϊְ ?γַ ?αְּ ?ψεּ ?1 Samuel 2:3, where the first verb seems to have only an adverbial force and the second expresses the principal idea, comp. also below Son 4:8; Son 5:6, and Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 285, b. [Green’sHeb. Gram. § 269]. Further it is no more necessary to take these verbs in a preterite sense here (Ewald, Hitz., etc.) than in Son 1:12, [strictly: I have been sitting and still sit.—Tr.], so that this passage supplies no valid argument in favor of the shepherd hypothesis. In the figure of the shadow the point of comparison is not the protection afforded (as e.g.Psalms 17:8; Psalms 91:1; Isaiah 25:4, etc.), but the refreshing and reviving influence of the nearness of her lover, just as the sweet fruit of the apple-tree serves to represent his agreeable caresses, so Son 4:16; Son 7:13 (comp. Weissb. in loc.). Son 2:4. He has brought me into his wine house.αְּ ?ιϊδַ ?ιַּ ?ιִ ?ο must be the same essentially as αֵּ ?ιϊξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֵּ ?δδַ ?ιַּ ?ιο, that is to say, a room or apartment for drinking wine, a banquet hall [Eng. Ver.], not a “wine shop” (! Bφttch.), or a “wine cellar” (Vulg.: “cella vinaria,” Luth., Ren., etc.), [Cov., Cran., Genev., Doway, Williams], or a “vine-arbor” (Vaih., etc.), or a “vineyard” (Ewald, Heiligst., etc). But so surely as the expressions in the context, especially the “fruit” of the apple-tree in Son 2:3 d, and the “banner” in 4 b, are to be understood figuratively, with the same certainty must the literal interpretation of “leading into the wine room” be rejected, and the sense of this expression must be found rather in an increased participation in the sweet tokens of his love, an intoxication from caresses (already essentially correct Ruperti, Dφderl., Gesenius, Dφpke, Weissb., etc.). [So Good, Noyes. Gins.: “bower of delight.”] The words need therefore neither be taken as a wish (Sept.,εἰσαγάγετέμεεἰςοἶκοντοῦ οἴνου, Velth., Amm., Hug, Umbreit, etc.), [so Good, Fry], nor as a narrative of what her country lover had previously done with her (Ewald, Vaih., Bφttcher), nor as the enthusiastic exclamation of a lady of the harem, who was now embraced by Solomon instead of the coy Shulamith (!! Hitz.), etc. There is no alternative but to regard it as a figurative description of the love which she had experienced from Solomon, having its most exact analogon in Son 1:4 b, “the king has brought me into his chambers.”—And his banner over me is love,i.e. not “he bears his love as an ensign before me who follow him” (Grotius, Hitzig, Weissb., etc.), [so Noyes, Thrupp, etc.], but “love waves as a protecting and comforting banner over my head (Psalms 20:6) when I am near him.” So correctly Dφpke, Del., [Wordsw., Burrowes]; also Ewald, Vaih., etc., only the latter here again find described the love formerly enjoyed with her shepherd in the country. The banner (γֶּ ?βֶ ?μ) is, wherever it occurs in the Old Test., a military figure (comp. besides Psalms 20:6, also Numbers 1:52; Numbers 2:2, ff.). It must accordingly be explained here too in this sense, and not with Bφttcher of the sign before a wine shop (a tavern signboard!).Son 2:5. Stay me with grapes, refresh me with apples. The caresses of the king, who is clasping and embracing her (see Son 2:6) produce an effect upon one so ardent in her love, which even if not “thoroughly agitating” (Delitzsch), or “taking away her breath and almost stifling” (Hoelem), is yet powerfully exciting and as it were intoxicating, and directly wakens in her, probably for the first time since she came to the court, the consciousness that she is sick of love (comp. Son 5:8), and therefore needs to be strengthened by eating some refreshing fruit, or something of the sort. She directs her request for it, as is shown by the plurals ρַ ?ξְּ ?λεּ ?πִ ?ι (literally, fulcite me, support me; comp. Genesis 27:37; Psalms 104:15), ψַ ?τְּ ?γεּ ?πִ ?ι, not to her lover himself (Weissb.), but to the ladies of the court near her, to whom also the lively exclamation, Son 2:7, is uttered. ΰֲ ?ωִׁ ?ιωׁ ?εֹ ?ϊ are neither aromatic unguents (Sept.,μύρα), nor flowers (Vulg.:fulcite me floribus [so Doway]; so too Symm., etc.), but agreeably to its probable derivation from ΰָ ?ωַׁ ?ωׁ “to found, to make firm” (see Knobel on Isaiah 46:8), pressed grapes, and so perhaps wine syrup, or better raisin cakes, grape cakes, which is favored both by the verb ρָ ?ξַ ?κְ and by the use of the word in Hosea 3:1 (where the Sept. translate, πέμματα), and in 2 Samuel 6:19 (Sept.:λάγανονἀπὸ τηγάνου, pancakes). Son 2:6. His left hand is under my head and his right embraces me.ϊְּ ?ηַ ?αְּ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ι must not be taken in the optative here any more than in Son 8:3, where the entire passage recurs, as though the sentence expressed a wish, “let his left hand be under my head and his right embrace me” (Ewald, Vaih., Weissb., etc., [so Ginsb.].—This is contradicted by the whole situation as well in this passage as in Son 8:3. On the score of language too it is simpler and more natural to understand it as an indicative. Son 2:7. “I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,” etc. In favor of Shulamith as the speaker in these closing words, it may be said: 1. That she is unmistakably the speaker of these words in Son 3:5 and Son 8:4, where as here they introduce a “pause in the action” of considerable length (Ewald). 2. That Shulamith already addressed the ladies of the court in Son 2:5, who must accordingly be supposed to be near at hand as spectators of her joy. 3. That what she has said of her being “sick of love” prepared the way for this adjuration, and the latter is well-nigh unintelligible without reference to the former. We may from the outset, therefore, repel the attempts to treat the verse as the language of the queen mother, who enters here (! Bφttch.), or of the celestial Solomon (Hengstenb., after many older expositors as Starke, Jo. Lange, etc.), or of the poet (Umbr., Hitzig), or, finally of the shepherd speaking to the chorus (! Renan). “I adjure you,” literally, I cause you (as much as in me is) to swear, I exact from you the sacred promise, I earnestly beg you. Compare Genesis 1:5; Numbers 5:19. By the gazelles or by the hinds of the field. These animals are not named in the adjuration, because animals generally in contrast with men have “fixed annual rutting seasons” (Hitzig; likewise also Herder and others); nor because the ladies of Jerusalem were in the habit of keeping little pet gazelles (J. D. Mich.), nor on account of the resemblance of φְ ?αָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ and ΰַ ?ιָּ ?μεֹ ?ϊδַ ?ωָּׂ ?γֶ ?δ to the divine names ιְ ?δֹ ?εָ ?δφְ ?αָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ and ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δֵ ?ιδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ξַ ?ιִ ?ν (Weissb.); but doubtless on account of their pretty and graceful appearance (comp. Proverbs 5:19), which makes these animals in particular fit symbols of tender and ideal love, and must make them especially dear to women in this point of view. Comp. particularly Dφpkein loc., likewise Ewald: “In common life people swore by things, which belonged to the subject of conversation, or were especially dear to the speaker. As therefore the warrior swears by his sword, as Mohammed by the soul of which he is just about to speak (Kor. Song of Solomon 91:7), so here Shulamith by the lovely gazelles since she is speaking of love.”—That ye wake not nor awaken love until it please.ΰִ ?νϊָּ ?ςִ ?ιψεּ, literally, “if ye wake,” etc. (Ewald, § 325, b), [Green’sHeb. Chrestomathy on Genesis 42:15]. The verb is here masc., corresponding to ΰֶ ?ϊְ ?λֶ ?ν in a, not because the daughters of Jerusalem were not real female personalities, as Hengstenberg [so too Wordsworth] insists, but because the primary gender is here used as common, as in Son 2:5 above, and Judges 4:20; Isaiah 32:11; and frequently in the imperative. [Thrupp explains it by “the general indefiniteness of the character which the daughters of Jerusalem as members of the chorus here sustain.” But see Green’sHeb. Gram. § 275, 5.—Tr.]—δָ ?ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ is certainly not “the loved one,” as though the warning here were not wantonly to wake Shulamith who had fallen asleep (Vulg. dilectam, Syr., Gesen., Ewald, Rosenm., Hengstenb., Renan and J. D. Michaelis who for the sake of this sense points δָ ?ΰֲ ?δֻ ?αָ ?δ), but as this meaning would be in the highest degree unsuitable in the parallel passages Son 3:5 and Son 8:4, and as love as an ethical idea comes significantly forward elsewhere in this poem (Son 7:7 and Son 8:6 f.), it is manifestly love itself as a passion slumbering in the heart, which it would not do over-curiously to rouse or kindle to a flame. δָ ?ςִ ?ιψδָ ?ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ cannot possibly mean “disturbing love” before it has attained full satisfaction of its desire for converse with the beloved object (Delitzsch, Weissb.), for it certainly expresses something analogous to δָ ?ςִ ?ιψχִ ?πְ ?ΰָ ?δ “stir up jealousy” Isaiah 42:13, and the Pi. ςεֹ ?ψֵ ?ψ, which is added to strengthen it, always and only has the sense of exciting or awakening e.g. strife, Proverbs 10:12, strength or power, Psalms 80:3, etc. Comp. also irritata voluptas, irritamenta amoris seu veneris in Latin poets (e.g.Ovid, de arte am. 2, 681; Metam. 9, 133; Juven. 11, 165); although here we are certainly not to think of any magic charms or philters to inflame love or lust, such as love apples, Genesis 30:14, etc., or quinces (Bφttcher). The meaning of the admonition is rather simply this: “Plunge not rash and unbidden into the passion of love, that is to say not before love awakes of itself (till heart is joined to heart, till God Himself awakens in you an affection for the right man), be not forward to excite it in your hearts by frivolous coquetry or loose amorous arts.” This caution may in some measure be regarded as the moral of the entire poem, inasmuch as it aims at the preservation of the chaste, truly moral, and consequently truly natural, character of love. It is, therefore, most suitably put into the mouth of Shulamith as the bearer or representative of such pure ethical love in contrast with the women of Solomon’s court. Comp. the like sentence Son 8:7 b. AND ETHICAL1. The allegorical interpretation current in the Church regards all the particulars in the foregoing description of the loving intercourse between the bridegroom and the bride, as allusions veiled under mystical figures to the relation of Christ to the Church and further to the soul of the individual Christian. It sees in the opening words of Shulamith Son 1:2-4 a manifestation of the longing of the Church for union with her heavenly bridegroom, whilst the partial identification or combination of Shulamith with the other virgins was especially designed to indicate that the speaker was an ideal person as well as her lover, who is now addressed, now mentioned in the third person, and who forms the object of her longing desire. It further supposes in what Shulamith says Son 1:5-6 of her “blackness” and of her “not having kept her own vineyard,” references to the sins of the church, as the causes of her temporary separation from God and her enslavement by the empire of this world; and accordingly finds, in Son 1:7, a prayer to be informed respecting the way which leads back to communion with God and Christ, in Son 1:8 a statement of this way vouchsafed to her by divine grace; Son 1:9-17 depict the emulous contest of love, which proceeds between the Church penitently returned to her heavenly bridegroom and Christ, who graciously receives her; in which the cordial promptness and address, with which the bride immediately repeats in application to her bridegroom everything said in her praise, indicate the faith of the Church working by love and making constant progress in holiness. Then in Son 2:1-7, it is alleged that “declarations of love advance to the enjoyment of love,” and this latter is represented in Son 1:6 as having already attained its acme under the emblem of an embrace, or of the nuptial couch. The epiphonema in Son 1:7 brings the entire development to its conclusion, and shows by its twofold recurrence subsequently in Son 3:5 and Son 8:4, that the same subject is treated in successive cycles, and the process by which the loving union of Christ with the Church is effected is thus repeatedly symbolized under an allegorico-dramatic veil, varied with every iteration.—So among the more recent allegorizers, e.g., Hengstenberg (pp. 2 ff., 24 ff., 36 ff.), with whom the rest, as Hahn, Hoelemann, etc., agree in everything essential, and particularly in the assertion of a cyclical mode of presentation, by which the dramatic unity of the whole is fundamentally destroyed, and several successive tableaux or portraitures of character are assumed, all relating to the same subject (or as Hahn expresses it, each “serves to supplement or further explain” its predecessors). Similarly the older allegorical interpreters, only they go into more detail in the mystical exposition of the individual figures, and see e.g. in the bundle of myrrh, Son 1:13, a reference to Christ’s bitter passion, or to His perfect sacrifice for the sins of men (comp. Starke in loc.), whereby consequently an allusion to His munus sacerdotale is added to that to the munus propheticum (Son 1:7, Christ as shepherd), and regium (Son 1:12, Christ as king); or expound the “golden bracelets” Son 1:11 of the growth of faith, the “silver points,” in the same passage, of holiness of life; or hold the “wine cellar” Son 2:4 to be an emblem of Christian churches and schools as “houses of wisdom,” or see in it whether “the altar of the Church, where the body and blood of Christ are dispensed,” or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, with their various sorts or stages of divine Revelation 12 2. In opposition to such aimless and unbridled trifling, which lays no sure historical and exegetical foundation at the outset, and hence supposes that it can bring every possible mystery into the simple language of this poem, an unprejudiced historical exposition can see nothing in the section explained above, but the first act of a more prolonged lyrico-dramatic action, which by a gradual progress brings to its denouement the relation of two lovers, king Solomon and a fair Israelitish maiden, whose previous condition was that of a shepherdess or a vine-dresser. The development in this first section is not carried beyond the exhibiting a decided ethical contrast between the character of this maiden and that of the daughters of Jerusalem, i. e., the ladies of Solomon’s court or harem, and the knitting in addition of a firm bond of loving heart-communion between her and the king, who for her sake already begins to contemn all the others, and even to find them unlovely (see Son 2:2). It is not exactly the very first of the “mutual attachment” of the two lovers (Delitzsch), but it is the first consciousness in both of the incomparable strength and ardor of their reciprocal affection (see particularly Son 2:5-6), which is exhibited in this act, together with the first evident cropping out of an inner contrariety between this closely united pair and the other persons of the court; and this is brought by the principal person in the piece to the briefest and most emphatic expression possible, by the remark at the close in Son 2:7, as a contrast of true and false love, or that which “awakes of itself,” and that which is “excited” by amorous arts.3. Only thus much can be maintained as the well assured result of a sober, yet earnest-minded exposition of this first division, which keeps aloof from the profane assumptions and artificial combinations of modern shepherd-romances and amatory poems; and it is simply on this basis, therefore, that a practical application of the contents of this chapter and a half must proceed, if it is to be conducted upon sound and worthy principles. Its aim must consist essentially in pointing out and devoutly estimating the typical analogy which undeniably holds between what is here found and the dealings of the Redeemer with His Church. As Solomon raised his beloved from a low condition to his own glory, and that from mere love, and drawn by her beauty and charms, so the Lord has exalted man, sunk in misery and degradation, from no other motive than His love, His mere personal regard for our race, upon which His divine glory and blessedness were in no manner dependent; for “Nothing brought Him from above, Nothing but redeeming love.” As further Solomon’s love to Shulamith appears in a gradual growth and a progression by successive steps, so too Christ lifts both His entire church and the individual souls that compose it, only step by step to the full and complete fellowship of His grace. To the call into His kingdom, which corresponds with the establishing of the relation of conjugal love in the royal gardens at Jerusalem represented in this act, succeed the higher stages of illumination, conversion, sanctification; but they do not follow immediately upon the heels of the former. As finally the lovely combination of child-like humility and of inward longing for her beloved, which Shulamith’s character already exhibits in this first Song, forms her chief attraction which first makes her appear truly worthy of the love of her royal bridegroom, so in the soul of every Christian whom the Lord calls into His kingdom and will make partaker of His grace, the necessity of surrendering himself voluntarily to these gracious drawings with a hearty desire for a complete union with him becomes His highest duty; for “non visi volentes trahuntur a Deo” (Matthew 23:37.)—Besides these analogies a sound and sober practical exposition of this section must also hold up the numerous points of difference between the historical type and the soteriological and Messianic antitype; and among these it must particularly point out the dissimilitude, nay the contrast between the earthly Solomon, and the divine-human Redeemer, as well as between the surroundings of both. For it is only in this way that the total of what is contained in this action can be duly developed and converted to practical profit in both a positive and a negative respect. Comp. Introduction, § 4, pp. 16 ff. Footnotes:[Patrick, Poole and Doway follow Wicliffe and Matthews in making Son 2:1 the language of the bridegroom. The great body of commentators with better reason assign it to the bride. Burrowes: “Reclining thus on a bed of grass and flowers, the beloved and the bride naturally speak of each other in language drawn from the beautiful objects under their notice.” Still more appropriately Williams: “The spouse with the most beautiful productions of the royal garden in her view, ventures to compare herself, not with them, but with the more humble natives of the fields and valleys.” The “longing,” which Zφckler here finds for her home and former humble station, belongs purely to his theory of the plot in the Song, and has no place in the text itself.—Tr.] [Hengstenberg argues that “the valleys,” which correspond in the parallelism with “Sharon,” must also have the force of a proper name, and on the ground of 1 Chronicles 12:15, he decides that the valleys on either side of the Jordan are referred to. Cov., Geneva, Doway, Fry, Thrupp, With., Gins., follow the LXX in giving to Sharon an appellative sense: meadow, field or plain. The parallelism is, of course, not sufficient to justify either conclusion. Good finds an allusion here to her birth-place: “she was not of Egyptian origin, or royal descent, but a rose of the fields of Sharon—a native of Palestine.” Of course the famous Sharon must be the one intended in such a passage as this.—Tr.] [The article is always definite in Hebrew; and the only correct translation is therefore, “the flower of Sharon,” where the article, however, is not to be taken in an eminent or exclusive sense, “the flower” par excellence (as Wordsworth: the flower of the whole earth; Doway: the flower of mankind) but has its generic sense, as is usual in comparisons. We may in conformity with our idiom substitute our indefinite for the Hebrew definite article in such cases, but this is by way of paraphrase, not exact translation. See Green’s Heb. Gram. § 245, 5, d.—Tr.] If ηαφμϊ really meant the “saffron,” Colchicum autumnale, the comparison would contain what was damaging and degrading to Shulamith; but this is not admissible on account of the parallel, “lily of the valleys.” [Wordsw. preserves the distinct verbal force of both words: “I long for his shadow and sit beneath it.” Cov.: “My delight is to sit under his shadow.” Eng. Ver.: “I sat down under his shadow with great delight.” Geneva: “Under his shadow I had delight and sat down.”] [The meaning of this clause is well expressed by Coverdale: He loveth me specially well. Doway has: He hath ordered in me chastity. Parkhurst, without reason, supposes a reference to “a light or lamp, such as was carried before the new-married couple on the evening of their wedding, comp. Matthew 25:1-2.”] [Thrupp insists on the future sense: The time shall come when that sickness of love, of which I now complain, shall be solaced and satisfied. Taylor makes Son 2:4-6 the protasis of the sentence completed in Son 2:7, “when he brings me, etc., when his left hand is, etc., I adjure you,” etc.] [Gill, Patrick, Scott and Williams make this the language of the bridegroom; the great body of English commentators refer it to the bride.—Tr.] [Withington, in accordance with his supposition that the bride is the daughter of an Arab chief, whose adjuration is consequently by the roes and hinds of her native fields, remarks: “The semi-paganism of the oath is extremely natural.” Moody Stuart: “This is no oath by the hinds of the fields, but a solemn charge with the strength of an oath.” Williams infers, from a comparison of Gen 21:30, that the “antelopes and hinds of the field” are referred to as witnesses of this solemn adjuration made in their presence.—Tr.] [Henry: “She gives them this charge by everything that is amiable in their eyes and dear to them.” Fry: “The bride bids her attendants to be cautious not to disturb or call off the attention of her husband, whose society she has so coveted, as though they were approaching the gazelles or the deer of the plain.” Taylor and Burrowes likewise find the point of the allusion in the timorousness of these animals. Gill and Scott combine both: “They are gentle and pleasant creatures, but exceedingly timorous.” Words: “The roes and hinds love their mates with tender affection and steadfast reliance and will not disturb them in their slumbers.”] [This surely cannot be accepted as a satisfactory explanation of this difficult verse. The spontaneity of love, which no effort must be made to awaken, but which must be excited of itself, so far from being accounted a worthy lesson of divine revelation, is not even a doctrine of ethics, and would require considerable qualification before it could be admitted to be sound rational advice. If inspired instruction were to be given on the subject of conjugal love, and a whole book devoted to the treatment of it, we might reasonably expect that its constancy, purity and strength would be prominently dwelt upon, that due attention would be paid to the qualities on which it should be based, the affectionate offices by which it should be maintained, and the holy principles by which it should be regulated. But instead of all this the one thing insisted upon is that love must be spontaneous and unsolicited. What is this but to convert it into heedless, inconsiderate passion, the spring of ill-judged attachments, which prove as inharmonious in their issue as they were irrational in their origin? This is, besides, a very different thing from the theme of this book, as Zφckler himself conceives and represents it, which is the commendation of a pure and chaste conjugal affection as opposed to the dissoluteness and sensuality fostered by polygamy. It would also be a most extraordinary admonition for Shulamith to the daughters of Jerusalem, among whom, according to Zφckler’s hypothesis were the wives of Solomon, married to him long before Shulamith had ever seen him. Then besides the feebleness and inappropriateness of the sense obtained, it is doubtful whether the language of the verse can be made to yield it. The expressions thus explained are exceedingly vague. There is nothing to indicate in whom they are cautioned not to awaken love, whether in themselves or others; or in what way—may they not in any way seek to win another’s affection or to excite their own, not even by exhibiting or discerning what is worthy of regard? And “till it (i.e., love) please,” is to say the least an unexampled phrase. It is a very singular form of speech for any one to adopt: “do not excite a passion until that passion is willing to be excited.” Of the English commentators, who take “love” in its subjective sense of the feeling or emotion, Ginsburg under the bias of the unfounded shepherd-hypothesis translates: “neither to excite nor to incite my affection till it wishes another love,” the words “another love” being introduced without any warrant from the text or context. Patrick paraphrases thus: “I conjure you not to discompose or give the least disturbance to that love; but let it enjoy its satisfaction to the height of its desires.” So substantially Taylor and Thrupp. Weiss.: “if ye disturb this love until it shall become complete, i.e., until the marriage be consummated.” But the verbs here employed mean to awaken or excite, not to disturb. It seems better, however, with the great body of interpreters to take “love” here as in Son 7:6 in its objective sense of one who is beloved. Wordsworth compares “the words of S. Ignatius ad Romans 7, ὁ έμὸςἔρωςέσταύρωται” The bride is locked in the fond embrace of him whom she loves. She would not have him aroused by the intrusion of others to the interrupting or abridging of her joy. Poole, with an eye to its spiritual application: “Do not disturb nor offend him by your miscarriages.” Words.: “The church conjures her children that they be not impatient but wait in faith and hope for God’s own time, when it may please Him to arise and deliver her.”—Tr.] [Geneva Bible, note on Son 1:2 : “This is spoken in the person of the Church or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loveth.” Ainsw.: “The bride is the Church espoused to Christ.” In Son 1:2 she “desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of His gospel applied unto her conscience.” “By virgins (Son 1:3) are meant all such (whether whole churches or particular persons) who with chaste and pure minds serve the Lord only.” The daughters of Jerusalem are “the friends of Christ and His Church, the elect of God, though not yet perfectly instructed in the way of the Lord.” The bride’s blackness (Son 1:5) is “the Church’s afflictions and infirmities.” Her mother’s sons, “either false brethren, false prophets and deceivers, or inordinate lusts and sins which dwelt in her, and were conceived with her.” “The vineyards opposed to her own vineyard seem to mean false churches, and in them the corruption of religion, whereunto her mother’s sons sought to draw her; setting her to observe the ordinances and traditions of men, or otherwise to undergo their cruelty and wrath.” In Son 1:7 “the Church maketh request unto Christ for instruction in the administration of His kingdom here on earth.” Burrowes regards this section as exhibiting, in successive steps, “the progress of the pious soul in the enjoyment of Christ’s love and favor.” 1. We enjoy the love of Jesus as manifested in private communion “in His chambers,” Son 1:4. 2. In the way of duty and self-denial, Son 1:7-11. 3. In sitting with the King in the circle of His friends, and enjoying, as one of them, the delights of social communion with Him, Son 1:12-14. 4. In delightful repose with Him, amid enlarged prospects of spiritual beauty, Son 1:15-17. 5. In the protection and delights set forth in Son 2:1 to Son 3:6. In enjoying at last the pleasures mentioned in Son 2:4-7, the greatest possible on earth.” Wordsw. finds expressed in Son 1:2 “the fervent yearnings of the Church for the advent of Christ.” “The mother of the Bride (i.e., of the Church of Christ) is the Jewish nation, and her mother’s children are Jews or Judaizers. It was the delinquency, ingratitude and cruelty of the “mother’s children” which made the Christian Church become the “keeper of the vineyards.” According to Thrupp, “the Church of Israel, in Son 1:2, desires the very presence of her Saviour. She had been instructed and wooed through the messages of the prophets; she desired now that her promised Messiah should pour into her mouth words from His own mouth.” The daughters of Jerusalem are “the members of the Church of Israel in their contemplative capacity; not necessarily different persons in their outer being from the virgins of Son 1:3 (the upright), but yet representing them in a different point of view, with reference solely to their intelligent and emotional survey of what is passing, and without regard to their own spiritual state.” The mother of the Bride is the nation of Israel. The mother’s sons are “the several members of the nation, viewed only in their civil dealings, in their relation to the State, not in their relation to the Church.” Their anger was the rebellion of the ten tribes. Her own vineyard was the religious culture of all Israel. Hindered in this by the political condition of the nation, she was driven to the establishment of colleges of holy disciples, the sons of the prophets at different centres, whose spheres of action are denoted by the vineyards, of which the anger of her brethren made her the keeper. Weiss refers this section to the time when Israel lay encamped at the foot of Sinai. The blackness of the bride (Son 1:5) was the sin of the golden calf, the sun that occasioned it was the bondage in Egypt. The petition (Son 1:7) concerns the leading through the wilderness, and the house (Son 1:17) is the tabernacle of Moses. Moody Stuart supposes the longing for Christ’s appearance, and His actual birth among men, to be the subject of this section; his interpretation of which is specialized even to the extent of making the “green bed” of Son 1:16 refer to the fresh grass upon which the newly-born Saviour was laid in the manger for the cattle. [The contrast in character, which Zφckler finds already indicated in this section between Shulamith and the daughters of Jerusalem, though essential to his scheme of the book, is purely imaginary. It certainly is not established by Son 2:2, the only passage that can, with the slightest plausibility, be urged in its favor; whilst Son 1:3-4 speak decisively against it. Whether the cyclic or the dramatic view of this book is to be preferred, may be left an open question at this stage of the exposition. If our author succeeds in showing a continuous progress in the action from first to last, the latter view is of course entitled to the preference. But if he fails in this, as in the translator’s judgment he does, and as all have done who have made the same attempt before him, we seem to be shut up to the former; unless indeed even the cyclic view, at least as refined by some of its later advocates, is too artificial for the artless simplicity of this beautiful poem, in which the same theme recurs under varied aspects, but the law of succession is rather that of poetical association than logical exactness. And the general character of this section creates an antecedent presumption favorable to this view. The intimacy here described is of the strictest and most loving nature, and seems to leave no room for any further advance. Instead of preparing the way for a married union, it rather implies that the marriage has already taken place. The “bed” Son 1:16 is in all probability not the nuptial couch. But Shulamith’s presence in the king’s apartments, the kisses and embraces, her open expression of her passionate fondness for the king would be unbecoming and inadmissible, especially amid the restraints of oriental society, prior to marriage.—Tr.] SECOND SONGThe first meeting of the lovers, related by Shulamith who has returned to her home.Son 2:8 to Son 3:5FIRST (AND ONLY) SCENE: (ALONE).8 Hark! my beloved; lo! here he comes, leaping over the mountains, bounding over the hills. 9 My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart.Lo! here he stands behind our wall,looking through the windows, glancing through the lattices.10 Answered my beloved and said to me: “Up, my dear, my fair one and go forth! 11 For, lo! the winter is past, the rain is over, is gone. 12 The flowers appear in the land, the time for song has arrived, and the voice of the turtle dove is heard in our land. 13 The fig-tree spices its green figs and the vines are in bloom, they yield fragrance, up! my dear, my fair one and go forth! 14 My dove, in the clefts of the rock, in the recess of the cliffs,let me see thy form, let me hear thy voice, for thy voice is sweet and thy form is comely.”— 15 Catch us foxes, little foxes, spoiling vineyards; for our vineyards are in bloom. 16 My beloved is mine, and I am his, who feeds among the lilies. 17 Against the day cools, and the shadows flee turn thee, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young hart on the cleft mountains. (She sleeps and after some time awakes again:)III. 1 On my bed in the nightsI sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him but I found him not. 2 “I will rise now and go about in the city in the markets and in the streets;I will seek him whom my soul loves.”— I sought him but I found him not. 3 Found me the watchmen, who go about in the city; “Whom my soul loves, have ye seen?”4 Scarcely had I passed from them, when I found him whom my soul loves. I grasped him and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.— 5 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, that ye wake not and that ye waken not love until it please. AND 1. It is the fixed opinion of almost all the more recent interpreters that this act contains two monologues or sonnets sung by Shulamith alone, and nothing more; and this is verified by all the particulars that it contains. The attempt of Magnus and Delitzsch to strike out as spurious the formula of citation Son 2:10ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψγִּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ιεְ ?ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψμִ ?ι and so to gain a dialogue form for the first and larger division (Son 2:8-17) is wrecked not only by the evidence of genuineness afforded by all MSS. and ancient versions in favor of these words, but also by the closing verses of the section (Son 2:15-17) which correctly interpreted represent her lover as present only to the imagination of Shulamith or to her memory, which vividly recalled him. Whether the two monologues are regarded as two distinct scenes, (as is commonly the case), or the scene is allowed to remain the same in both without change and only a pause of some length is interposed between them (Ewald, Hitz., Hahn,) is on the whole but an unessential difference. For a pause after Son 2:17 is as undeniable and as universally admitted as is the peculiar character of the second sonnet Son 3:1-5, which as the narration of a dream (with the apostrophizing of the daughters of Jerusalem therewith connected) is sharply and distinctly sundered from the preceding monologue, though this too is of a narrative character. As to what takes place between the two monologues or scenes, we may either suppose (with Ewald and others) a prolonged meditation and silence on the part of Shulamith, exhausted by the foregoing lively expression of her longing desire for her lover, or, as intimated in the above translation, that she sinks into a brief slumber, which brings before her in a dream the lover for whom she so ardently longs, and thus in the moment of her awaking recalls to her remembrance a like dream from the early days of her love, which she hereupon relates. No sufficient proof of this assumption can, it is true, be brought from the context. Yet it undoubtedly has more in its favor than, e.g., the hypothesis proposed by Umbreit, Rocke, Vaihinger, Renan and several of the older writers, that Shulamith utters the words Son 2:8-17 in a dream, and then, after awaking, she relates (to the women of the harem around her) a dream which she had previously had, Son 3:1 ff., in order to “prove her changeless love to the friend to whom her heart was given.” The language in Son 2:8-17 has, to be sure, a certain dreamlike vagueness, rather than the character of a strictly historical narration. But this is sufficiently explained by the highly excited fancy of the singer, which brings up the past before her, as though she were experiencing it anew, and which in this lyrical recital, that is any thing but dry narration, here and there springs over what intervenes between the separate particulars of the action, especially in Son 2:9 and between Son 2:14-15. 2. It is, however, far more difficult to determine the scene or the situation, and the external-surroundings of the speaker during this act, than to decide upon the form and style of the discourse. The adherents of the shepherd-hypothesis, who here conceive of Shulamith as continuing at Jerusalem in the royal harem, and expressing her longing for her distant lover, can urge, it is true, in favor of this the repetition of the address to the “daughters of Jerusalem” at the close of the section (Son 3:5), but are not able to explain why the description in Son 2:8-17 presupposes an undoubted country scene, with mountains, hills, vineyards, flowery fields, etc., or why it is a simple monologue of the beloved, and neither Solomon nor the daughters of Jerusalem utter a word. Bφttcher’s view, therefore, seems to have something in its favor, that the locality of the action was a royal country house not far from Jerusalem, where Shulamith was detained a solitary prisoner. And the one circumstance at least that according to Son 2:8 ff. the scene appears to be in the country, might be conveniently combined with the assumption that Shulamith here continues to stay in the royal pleasure-grounds south of the capital, and that Solomon has only left her again for a while for some unknown reasons. But Shulamith’s place of abode plainly appears to be one further removed from Jerusalem, and in fact to be located in the region of her home. For 1) the mention of her mother’s house, with its wall and its latticed window (Son 3:4; Son 2:9) makes it probable that she is there. 2) We are also led to the very same result by αְּ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?φֵ ?πεּ, “in our land,” Son 2:12, the mention of the “vineyards in bloom,” Son 2:13; Son 2:15, as well as the δָ ?ψֵ ?ιαֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ, Son 2:17, whether this difficult expression be rendered “separating mountains,” or “cleft mountains,” or “spice mountains” (see in loc.). 3) Shulamith brought in solemn pomp to the wedding by her royal bridegroom, as described for the first time in the following act, Son 3:6-11, presupposes that she had before been staying again in her parents’ house; for it is from thence that according to the custom of the ancient Hebrews, the bride must always be brought (comp. 1Ma 9:37; 1Ma 9:39; Matthew 25:1, etc.). 4) That Shulamith came from northern Palestine to Jerusalem for her marriage with Solomon, is also rendered highly probable by the mention of Lebanon in what her newly espoused says to her, Son 4:8; and further, the “coming up of the bride out of the wilderness,” as described in Son 3:6, in her entry into the capital, might point to a coming from the north, and not out of the wilderness of Judah, which lay south of Jerusalem (comp. in loc.). Accordingly the parental residence of the bride, or its vicinity is, with Dφpke, Heiligstedt and Delitzsch, to be regarded as the scene of this passage—that is to say, Shunem or some neighboring locality in the tribe of Issachar north of Mount Gilboa, or on the south side of “Little Hermon.” How Shulamith came thither again from the royal residence, whether peaceably dismissed to her home by agreement with her bridegroom, or conducted thither by himself in order to be subsequently brought with solemn pomp to the wedding, is not clearly explained in the piece. Only every thought must be excluded of a possible flight of the virgin from the royal harem to her home, for she exhibits her longing for her royal lover in undiminished strength, and this too not as though it had arisen from regret at her too hasty flight from him (comp. Delitzsch, p. 99 f.).—As regards the time of the action, it appears to follow from the way that, Son 2:11-13, the winter is described as past, and the fair spring-time as come, that an interval of some months had elapsed between the summer or autumn scene of the preceding act (Son 1:14; Son 1:16 f.; Son 2:3 ff.) and the present, or more briefly, that “the entire rainy season lies between Son 2:7 and Son 2:8” (Hitz.). But as that charming description of opening spring belongs to a narration, and furthermore to a poetic and ideal narration of what Solomon said to his beloved on his first meeting with her, no conclusion can be drawn from it in respect to the time of this action. And neither the “winter” in Son 2:11 nor the “nights” in Son 3:1 (according to Hitzig the “long winter nights!”) afford any support for that opinion, which would charge upon the poet too great a violation of the Aristotelian demand of the unity of time. On the contrary, there is nothing in the way of assuming with Ewald, Bφttcher, Del. and most of the later interpreters, an interval of but a few days between Acts 1, 2 (which certainly need not be narrowed down to the space of a few hours, as, e.g., Vaihinger assumes), nor of regarding the entire action of the piece generally as taking place in the course of a single spring, and occupying, at the utmost, a few weeks. Comp. on Son 7:13. 3. Ch.2, Son 2:8-9. Son 2:8. Hark! my beloved.—Literally, “the voice [or sound] of my beloved,”—χεֹ ?μγּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ι, to which abrupt expression δָ ?ιָ ?δit is or πִ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ςis heard is to be supplied as in Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 40:6 (Matthew 3:3); 2 Kings 6:32. [It is rather an exclamation, to which no verb need be supplied, see Green’sHeb. Chres. on Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 40:6]. And the following expression, “lo! there he comes,” etc., shows that it is not the words of the bridegroom (Hengstenberg, after Michaelis and many of the older writers), but his coming itself or the sound of his coming and bounding over the mountains and the hills, in short his steps, which are indicated by χεֹ ?μ, comp. Son 5:2; Genesis 3:8; 1 Kings 14:6. That Shulamith was shortly expecting her lover, may be probably inferred from this exclamation of hers which may be supposed to have been occasioned by some noise in which she thought she heard the steps of him for whom she longed. But that which further follows is not a description of his arrival, which now actually ensues (Magn., Del.), nor a mere airy fancy sketch or dreaming description of what her friend would say and do, if he were now actually to come (Umbr., Hitz., Vaih., etc.—see No. 1, above), but a vivid reminiscence of the way that he had actually come to her the first time and of the loving conversation which had then taken place between him and her by the wall of her parental home. It was the more natural for the bride to be thus vividly transported to the past, as she was hourly expecting her bridegroom back again at the very spot where he had then met with her for the first time.—Leaping—bounding (ξְ ?χַ ?τֵּ ?υ—ξְ ?γַ ?μֵּ ?β). From this description of her lover’s first coming to Shulamith, which is further illustrated by the following figures of the gazelle and the young hart, we may perhaps conclude that Solomon while hunting on Mount Gilboa, or in its vicinity, saw his beloved there for the first time, and formed a connection with her in the manner ideally described in what follows. Son 2:9. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart.Hitzig calls in question the genuineness of these words, with no other grounds of suspicion than such as are purely subjective. They are designed more particularly to illustrate and justify in their application to her lover the somewhat bold and in themselves not very intelligible terms γμβ “leaping,” and χτυ “bounding.” And this they manifestly do in so far as they call attention to the fact that he resembles those fair and noble animals not in his speed and agility merely, but generally in the charming grace and loftiness of his whole bearing. Comp. passages like 2 Samuel 2:18; 1 Chronicles 12:8; Proverbs 6:5, where speed alone is the tert. comp. in this figure, with Psalms 18:34; Habakkuk 3:19; Proverbs 5:19, where the other qualities of these animals are also taken into the account.—Lo here he is, standing behind our wall. Judged by the analogy of other passages, in which it is found, the word here used does not mean the wall about the vineyard but the wall of the house, to which the mention of the window immediately after also points. “Our wall,” because Shulamith means the house belonging to her family, in or near which she now is again [or which she so well remembers—Tr.]; comp. Son 8:8 “our sister,” and “our vineyards” Son 2:15.—Looking through the windows, glancing through the lattices—literally, “from the windows, from the lattices.” It is a matter of indifference from which window he looks into the interior; it was only worth while to affirm in the general that he looked in from the region of the windows, that is from without. “Window” (ηַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ο), and “lattice” (ηֲ ?ψַ ?λָּ ?ΰ—according to the Targ. Joshua 2:15; Joshua 2:18 equivalent to ηַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ο, of the same meaning also with ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?πָ ?αJudges 5:28; Proverbs 7:6, as well as with ΰֲ ?ψֻ ?αָּ ?δHosea 13:3; Ecclesiastes 7:3) are plainly only different names for the same thing, of which however the latter expression is the more special or precise; for the lattice properly closed the aperture of the window and consequently was that through which he must have looked, comp. 2 Kings 13:17.—ξֵ ?φִ ?ιυ literally, “blooming” (comp. Isaiah 27:6; Psalms 132:18 and especially Psalms 72:16, where ξֵ ?φִ ?ιυ occurs of men blooming out of the earth) does not express a “transient appearing” or a “quick and stolen glance,” but evidently describes the blooming and radiant appearance of her lover, who is also called “white and red,” Son 5:10. “He blooms in through the window” (comp. Michaelis: “roseum suum vultum instar floris jucundissimi per retia cancellorum ostendens”) is a pregnant expression, and reminds one of Gen 49:22, where Joseph is described as a young fruit tree of luxuriant growth, whose “daughters” run over the wall.4. Solomon’s first greeting to Shulamith, Son 2:10-14. Son 2:10. My beloved answered and said to me. In opposition to the doubts of Magnus and Delitzsch regarding the genuineness of these words, see above No. 1. In respect to ςπδ in the opening of a discourse and consequently in the sense of “beginning to speak” (not “answering” Hengstenberg), comp. Deuteronomy 21:7; Deuteronomy 26:5; 2 Chronicles 29:31; Isaiah 14:10; Job 3:2, and ἀποκρίνεσθαι, which is frequently so used in the New Testament.Arise, my dear, my fair one, and go forth,viz., out of the house—not “out of the city into the country,” as the adherents of the shepherd-hypothesis suppose, who think the shepherd utters these words to Shulamith in her captive condition (similarly also Weissbach).Son 2:11. For lo, the winter is past.ρְ ?ϊָ ?ε (for which the K’ri ρְ ?ϊָ ?ιε to fix the correct pronunciation instead of ρְ ?ϊεֹ as it might possibly be read) denotes, as also in Aram., the winter and that on the side of its cold, as the parallel expression βֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ν (comp. Ecclesiastes 12:2; Job 37:6) denotes the same on the side of its moisture, that is to say, as the rainy season (ςֵ ?ϊβְ ?ωָׁ ?ξִ ?ινtime of rain, Ezra 10:9; Ezra 10:13). The winter as the cold season of the year necessarily keeps people in the house; whence the allusion to its being past adds force to the solicitation to come out of the house. Son 2:12. The flowers appear in the land, literally, “are seen (πִ ?ψְ ?ΰεּ) in the land.” On the rapidity with which the spring with its new verdure and its blooming attire usually follows the winter in the East, comp. Hasselquist, Reisen, p. 261.—The time of singing has arrived.ςֵ ?ϊδַ ?ζָּ ?ξִ ?ιψ is not the “time for pruning vines,” as the old translators explained it, after the analogy of Lev 25:3 f.; Isaiah 5:6; for in Son 2:13; Son 2:15 the vines are represented as already in blossom, the time for pruning them was therefore long since past; but it is the “time of singing, of merry songs.” By this, however, we are not to understand the singing of birds (Ibn Ezra, Rashi, E. Meier), but conformably to Isaiah 25:5 (ζְ ?ξִ ?ιψ), Isaiah 24:16; Job 35:10; Psalms 119:54; 2 Samuel 23:1, etc. (ζְ ?ξִ ?ιψεֹ ?ϊ), the glad songs of men, such as spring usually awakens, especially in the life of shepherds and country people (comp. Judges 21:20 f.).—And the voice of the turtle is heard in our land,viz. in Palestine, the land of Solomon and and Shulamith. This αְּ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?φֵ ?πεּ does not by any means require us to regard Shulamith’s country lover as the speaker, although it favors the assumption that the scene of the narrative lay in the country rather than in the city. The “turtle-dove” (ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψ) as a bird of passage (Jeremiah 8:7) is a fit representative of spring, and it need not therefore symbolize the Holy Spirit (Targ.), nor the meek (Hengstenb.), nor Israel in general (Hahn). Son 2:13. The fig tree spices its fruit. As τַּ ?βִּ ?ιν means not the early figs but the late figs, i.e. the small fruit of the fig tree which continues to grow during the winter, and does not ripen until spring (Septuag. ὄλυνθοι, Vulgate, grossi), and as ηָ ?πַ ?θ signifies, Genesis 1:2; Genesis 1:26, “to spice, to perfume,” this verb must here too have the sense of spicing and denote that “aromatic sweetness” which figs attain about the time of their ripening (comp. Schubert, Reise III. p. 113). We must reject, therefore, both the “putting forth” of the ancient versions (Sept., Aq., Vulg., Syr.), and the signification of “reddening” or “browning,” preferred by Ewald, Hitzig, Renan, etc.; for the late figs are of a violet color even during the winter, when they are still unfit to eat (comp. Meier and Weissbachin loc.).—And the vines are in blossom, literally, “are blossom.” ρְ ?ξָ ?γַ ?ψ a substantive, which occurs again Son 2:15; Son 7:13, and whose etymology is very obscure (comp. Velth., Ewald and Hitzigin loc.), can mean nothing but “blossom, vine blossom” either here or in the other two passages; and this is confirmed by the ancient versions (Sept.κυπρίζειν, Vulg. florere, Symm.οἰνάνθη; also the Syr. on Isaiah 17:11). It plainly makes no difference in the sense whether we translate “the vines are blossom (comp. e.g.Exodus 9:31), give fragrance” (as is commonly done) or “the vines in blossom, i.e. since they are blossoming, yield their fragrance” (see e.g.Weissb. comp. Delitzsch). With regard to the fine delicious fragrance of the vine blossom comp. also Sir 24:23. Son 2:14. My dove in the clefts of the rock.—No pause is observable between Son 2:13-14 (Hitzig; comp. Weissbach). The tenderly caressing and alluring language continues without change. Solomon here entitles his beloved a “dove in the clefts of the rock,” because, as appears from Son 2:9, the bars of the latticed window still separate him from her. The allusion to her dove-like innocence and her lovely form is altogether subordinate, but must nevertheless not be left wholly out of the account as e.g.Weissbach insists; for “dove” is undoubtedly a tender pet-name, comp. Son 6:9, and even Son 1:15. The allegorical interpretation, which sees in the dove “persecuted innocence” (Hengsten.), or even the righteous hiding himself in the gaping wounds of Christ (Theodoret, Greg. the great, J. Gerh.) has clearly no exegetical justification.In the secret of the cliffs, literally “in the hiding-place of the ladder of rock, of the steep rocky precipices,” for this appears to be the meaning of the word here used. The expression evidently serves only to finish out the figure employed immediately before of the clefts of the rock concealing the dove. No conclusion can be based upon it respecting Shulamith’s place of residence, as though it actually were a rock-bound castle (Bφttcher), or were in Solomon’s lofty palace upon Zion (Ewald, Hitzig, Vaih., etc.) The present description would rather appear to indicate (comp. above No. 2) that Shulamith’s country home was surrounded by a mountainous and rocky region (Delitzsch).—Let me see thy form,ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ denotes in this poem not barely the face (this Solomon already saw through the lattice) but the entire form, comp. Son 5:15, also Genesis 12:11; Genesis 24:17; Genesis 39:6.—Let me hear thy voice. Evidently an invitation to sing, with which Shulamith complies in Son 2:15.—The following fortifying clause reminds of the similar one in Son 2:9, a.5. Shulamith’s answer.Son 2:15. That this verse is a little vintagers’ song or at least the fragment of one, and that Shulamith sings it in answer to the request of her lover in Son 2:10-14 is regarded as settled by most of the recent interpreters since Herder. Only the allegorists, as Hengstenberg, Hahn, etc. see expressed in it Shulamith’s fear of the foes of God’s vineyard (i.e. heretics according to Hengstenberg, [so Cov., Patr., Poole and the generality of English Commentators], pagan Hamites according to Hahn.); and Ewald inappropriately puts the words into the mouth of the lover, who thus makes the connection again with what he had said in Son 2:13. That we rather have here a separate ditty or fragment of a song, is shown not only by the plural form of address, but also by the accumulation of rhymes (,ωςμινλψξιν ,ξηαμιν ,χθπιν). And that this ditty is sung by the bride, not by the bridegroom, appears from its contents, which seem perfectly suitable for the keeper of a vineyard (see Son 1:6), but not for her lover, be he king or shepherd. It is, however, arbitrary and preposterous to assume with Hitzig and Renan, that Shulamith sings this sonnet at one of the windows in the harem at Jerusalem in order to inform her lover from her old home, who was in the vicinity of the place of her abode, in nearly the same way that Richard C�ur de Lion betrayed the place of his captivity to Blondel, his faithful minstrel, by singing the refrain of a song familiar to them both. The whole situation too is not in the remotest manner adapted to such a romantic and sentimental meaning and design of the sonnet. Its context rather indicates plainly enough that it still belongs to Shulamith’s narrative of her first meeting with her lover, and consequently is neither more nor less than her answer to his request to come out to him and to sing to him,—an answer, which whether actually given by her in just these words or not, at all events concealed a delicate allusion to her lover under a popular veil artlessly employed and half in jest, and intimated to him that she was not disinclined to let him take part henceforth in her care for the security of her vineyard. If she really sang these words, she did so while opening or the doors of her house to admit her lover who stood without before the wall, or while she stepped out to him singing and smiling (comp. Delitzschin loc.)—Catch us foxes, little foxes, spoiling vineyards. The foxes deserve this name, not because they attack the ripe grapes themselves (Theocr. Id. I. 46, ff; V. 112), but because by their passages and holes they undermine the walls of the vineyards and injure the roots of the vines; and they also gnaw the stems and young shoots. It was important, therefore, in the spring when the vines were blossoming, to protect the vineyards from these uninvited guests; and the more so, since the spring is the very time of the coming forth of the young foxes from their kennels. The predicate χְ ?θַ ?πִּ ?ινlittle refers to young foxes (comp. Genesis 9:24; Genesis 27:15; 1 Kings 3:7), not to the diminutive size of the animals which nevertheless do so much damage [so Harmer, Good, Williams]; in that case the smaller variety of the jackal, which is known by the name of adive, would be specially intended by ωֻׁ ?ςָ ?μְ ?ιν (Hitzig). But as the jackal is always called ΰִ ?ι or ϊַּ ?ο (Job 30:29, Micah 1:8) in every other passage in which it is mentioned in the Old Testament, whilst ωׁ ?εּ ?ςָ ?μis the constant designation of the fox proper, we are not justified here in departing from this usual meaning of the expression, comp. Oedmann, Sammlungen II. 38; Winer, Real-Wφrterbuch, Art. Fόchse, also P. Cassel on Judges 15:4. Moreover the expressions “little foxes” and “destroying vineyards” are simply related as in apposition to the principal object ωֻׁ ?ςָ ?μִ ?ιν; and both this and the words named as in apposition are without the article, because it is not the foxes universally, but just foxes, vineyard-destroying foxes that are to be taken. Hitzig seeks without necessity to base upon this absence of the article before ωֻׁ ?ςָ ?μִ ?ιν his translation “hold for us, ye foxes,” etc., which he makes equivalent to “wait, ye foxes, I’ll give it to you!”—For our vineyards are in bloom, literally “and our vineyards are in bloom;” comp. in respect to this specifying “and, and in fact,” which here has a specially motive character, Ecclesiastes 1:15; Ecclesiastes 8:2; Judges 6:25; Judges 7:22; Malachi 1:11, and in general Ewald, § 340, b. By the expression ρְ ?ξָ ?γַ ?ψ the singer takes up again what had been said, by her lover, Son 2:13, a, whether she altered her ditty in conformity with it, or that expression in the mouth of Solomon recalled to her mind this vernal song with the like-sounding refrain; this latter view is evidently the more natural. 6. Conclusion of the first monologue. Son 2:16-17. Son 2:16. My beloved is mine and I am his.—This declaration that she has become the property of her beloved and he hers, that they have mutually surrendered themselves to one another (comp. Son 6:3; Son 7:11), does not continue Shulamith’s answer to the greeting of Solomon, Son 2:10 b–14 (Delitzsch, Weissbach, etc.), but after her account of her first meeting with him, which terminates with Son 2:15, she takes up again the expression of her desire for her absent lover uttered in Son 2:8-9, by asserting in the first instance that though still absent, he was inseparably bound to her.—Who feeds among the lilies.—Manifestly a figurative expression for “who, wherever he abides, spreads radiance, joy and loveliness about him,” or “in whose footsteps roses and lilies ever bloom.” With reference to the figurative nature of this form of speech as a fixed and favorite poetical phrase, comp. its recurrence with two different applications, Son 4:5 and Son 6:3. Shulamith had already represented her royal lover as feeding his flock, Son 1:7. Son 2:17. Against the day cools and the shadows flee.—Contrary to the division of the verses, as well as to the analogy of Son 6:3, Herder, Amm., Kleuker, Dφpke [so Coverdale, Doway] connect these words with the participial clause at the close of the preceding verse. “Feeding among the lilies till the day grows cool” would yield a very tame and trivial thought, whilst, on the other hand, the following solicitation, “turn thee,” etc., can scarcely dispense with some more particular statement of the time up to which or about which it should be complied with. Upon ςַ ?γωֶׁ ?ι (literally, “enduring till,” “waiting till”)=“until,” “whilst,” by the time that, comp. the like forms of expression, Genesis 24:33; Genesis 27:45; Exodus 22:26; 1 Samuel 1:22; 1 Samuel 14:19, etc.; also Son 1:12 above, where, it is true, the connection demands a somewhat different translation. Shulamith evidently begs her lover to return to her before the coming on of the shades of evening (before the day wholly cools, and the ever lengthening shadows melt quite away in the darkness—comp. Job 14:2). By evening, at the latest, and before night, he should come over the mountains to her swift as a gazelle, as at that first time when she had seen him bounding over the summits and the hills (Son 2:8).—Turn thee and be like,etc.—ρֹ ?α neither qualifies γְּ ?ξֵ ?δ adverbially, “resemble hereabouts a gazelle,” etc. (Weissbach); nor is it an invitation to her friend already present to ramble with her upon the mountains in the neighborhood” (Delitzsch); nor equivalent to “turn back again,” as though it were intended to call back one who had shortly before been near her and who was going away (Bφttcher); but simply=“turn thyself hither, direct thy steps hither” (comp. 1 Samuel 22:18; 2 Samuel 18:30). The Vulgate quite correctly, therefore, as regards the sense, revertere; so also the Syr., Luth., etc.—The call upon him to “resemble the gazelle” is evidently connected with the description given of her lover in Son 2:8. She wishes that her lover would now soon return, as she saw him then, swiftly and gracefully, like the sudden appearing of a noble deer on the mountain height.—On cleft mountains.—This translation of the difficult ςַ ?μΞδָ ?ψֵ ?ιαֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ is especially favored by the ἐπὶ ὄρηκοιλωμάτων of the Sept. The usual signification of αֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ψ, “piece,” “severed portion” (Genesis 15:10; Jeremiah 34:18-19, etc.) lies at the basis of it; and both the name of the place, αִּ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο, Bithron, the designation of a mountain ravine east of the Jordan, 2 Samuel 2:29, and the Greek ῥαγάς, “fissure, cleft,” offer themselves at once as confirmatory analogies (comp. Gesen., Lex., also Vaih., Renan and Delitzschin loc., “riven mountains”). Commonly, “on mountains of separation,” i.e., on the mountains that separate us (comp. Luther, “auf den Scheidebergen;” Merc., Ewald, Hitzig, also the Targ., Ibn Ezra and Jarchi) [so Ginsburg]. Peculiarly Weissbach “on the spice-mountains” (or “Bathrum heights,” comp. Vulg., “super montes Bother,” and Theodoret, who, as well as the Syr., translates similarly “ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρηθυμιαμάτων”); by this he supposes to be meant Shulamith’s breasts perfumed with aromatic betel-leaves, i.e., with μαλοβάθρον, malabathrum=Syr., bathrum. But such an adducing of the δָ ?ψֵ ?ιαְ ?ωָׂ ?ξִ ?ιν, mountains of spices mentioned in Son 8:14, and that as identical in signification with the “mountain of myrrh” and “hill of frankincense” mentioned in Son 4:6, i.e., with the fragrant breasts of his beloved (?), is in the present instance manifestly destructive of the sense and repugnant to the connection, and would besides yield an absolutely lascivious sense, which the expressions in question do not have in the two passages alleged. Footnotes:[Wic. heading: The voice of the church of Christ. Mat.: The voice of the church. Cov.: Methink I hear the voice of my beloved. So Cran., Bish.] “Whilst the verb γμβ suggests his long leaps, as he springs, comp. Isaiah 35:6; Psalms 18:30; Zephaniah 1:9, the verb χτυ (an older form for χτζ and related to the χξυ to press together, as well as to χαυ to gather; in the Piel “to cause to draw together”) lets us, as it were, see the gazelles, with which the lover is compared, as in galloping they draw their feet together again, after being stretched so wide apart.” Weissb.[Ains.: a fawn of the hinds] λֹּ ?ϊֶ ?μ according to the Targ. on Joshua 2:15 equivalent to χִ ?ιψ “wall” occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament except in the Chaldee forms λְּ ?ϊַ ?μ Daniel 5:5, and (plur.) λֻּ ?ϊְ ?μַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ Ezra 5:8. [E. Ver.: “forth at.” Cov.: better “in at.” Words.: “spying in at the windows.”] [Cov.: peepeth through the grate. Ains.: flourishing through the lattices.] The two-fold μָ ?κְ to thee after χεּ ?ξִ ?ι arise and after μְ ?λִ ?ι go, throws back the action, as it were, upon its subject and thus serves to impart to the language an easy, colloquial and kindly character, comp. Son 1:8, also Son 2:11; Son 2:13; Son 2:17; Son 4:6; Son 8:14. Weissbach correctly remarks that it is chiefly verbs of motion to which this kindly μָ ?κְ or μִ ?ι or μָ ?ξεֹ is added. [Mat.: The voice of Christ.] [E. Ver.: “singing of birds,” which Harmer refers especially to the nightingale. Wic.: “cutting.” Cov.: the twisting time. Doway: “pruning,” so Thrupp and Weiss. Poole: cutting or cropping for nosegays.] [So Noyes. Cov.: bringeth forth. E. Ver.: putteth forth. Good, Ginsb.: sweeten. Williams: ripen. Fry: embalm. Weiss: perfume. Thrupp: mature.] [Wic.: flowering. Cov.: blossoms, so Fry, Noyes, Thrupp. Doway: flower. E. Ver.: tender grapes; so Good, Weiss, Ginsb. Williams: tender buds.] [Wic.: The voice of Christ to the church.] ηַ ?βְ ?εֵ ?ιδַ ?ρֶּ ?μַ ?ς appears here as well as in Obad. Son 2:3; Jeremiah 49:16, which are probably derived from the passage before us, to be not rocky heights, lofty refuges on top of the rocks, (Schult., Gesen., Hengstenb., Weissb., etc.,) but rather “fissures, clefts in the rocks” (comp. Ewald and Hitzig in loc.) For the latter figure manifestly agrees better with the present situation, (see Son 2:9) and may also have a better etymological basis (comp. Arab. Ξَ ?Μَ ?ّ ? to split.) ξַ ?γְ ?ψβֵ ?εֹ ?ϊ (from γψβ kindred to. γψκ) comp. Ezek. 38:29, the only other passage in which the word occurs. On the form ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰַ ?ιִ ?κְ as a singular, comp. Ewald, § 256 b, [Green’s Heb. Gramm. § 221, 7 a.] [Wic.: The voice of Christ to the church against heretics. Mat.: The voice against the heretics.] [Adopted from Thrupp.] [E. Ver. marg: division, but in the text: Bether, as though it were a proper name which Patrick identifies with Bethel; Ainsworth and Poole with Bithron; and Clarke with Beth-horon. Cov.: simply; “mountains” omitting Bether. Bish., Cran.: wide mountains. Parkhurst, Williams: craggy mountains. Burrowes: a region cut up or divided by mountains and valleys, rough, craggy and difficult to cross. With.: our secluded hills.] [Wicliffe’s heading: The voice of the church gathered together of Gentiles. Mat.: The voice of the church which is chosen out of the heathen.] [Wic.: little bed.] [So Ains., Wic., by nights. Mat., E. Ver., by night.] ωְׁ ?εָ ?χִ ?ιν plur. of ωׁ ?εּ ?χ, as γְּ ?εָ ?ψִ ?ιν from γּ ?εּ ?γ [Green’s Heb. Gramm. § 207, 1. f.] related to ωָׁ ?χַ ?χ to run (whence also ωׁ ?εֹ ?χ leg) denotes “places where people run,” bustling public places, hence the Sept. correctly έναγοραῖς. Comp. Ecclesiastes 12:4-5; and Proverbs 7:8.—For ψְ ?ηֹ ?αεֹ ?ϊ streets (πλατεῖαι) comp. Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 7:12. Without sufficient proof from the language Weissbach claims for this latter expression the meaning “markets, open squares,” and for the former the meaning “streets.” [Wic.: by towns and streets. Cov.: upon the market and in all the streets. Genev.: by the streets and by the open places. E. Ver. in the streets and in the broad ways. Patrick: ωְׁ ?εָ ?χִ ?ιν are the lesser thoroughfares in the city or the streets of lesser cities; as ψְ ?ηֹ ?αεֹ ?ϊ are the greater, wider streets, or rather the streets of the royal capital city.] On ξφΰ “to strike upon any one, find, meet him,” 1 Samuel 10:3; Song Son 5:7. [Wic. The church saith of Christ to the apostles. Mat.: The church speaking of Christ.] The interrogative particle δֲ is omitted before the verb ψְ ?ΰִ ?ιϊֶ ?ν, because it is at so great a remove from the beginning of the clause. Comp. Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 314 a, b.On λִּ ?ξְ ?ςַ ?θ (ξִ ?ςַ ?θ with λְ veritatis) “as much as a little.” Comp. Isaiah 1:9. On the form ωֶׁ ?δֲ ?αֵ ?ιΰϊִ ?ιε for ωֶׁ ?δֲ ?αִ ?ιΰֹ ?ϊִ ?ιε see Hitzig in loc. [Green’s Heb. Gram., § 160, 2. δεֹ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι synonym of ΰֵ ?ν as Hosea 2:5. [Wic.: The voice of Christ to the church. Mat.: The voice of Christ.] [If Shulamith is here describing her first meeting with her royal lover, there is no reason why she might not remember and relate it as fully as is here done, without the necessity of being transported for the purpose from Jerusalem to Shunem, even supposing that to have been her original home. Especially as her adjuration of the “daughters of Jerusalem,” Son 3:5, is a more evident proof of her still being in the royal capital, than any which Zφckler has been able to bring to the contrary. He seems to have made the mistake of confounding the locality of a past event narrated with the place of the narrator. It may be a necessity to the dramatic hypothesis to get her back again to Shunem, after her residence with the king in his palace, in order that she may come thence in solemn pomp to her marriage at a subsequent period. But this scarcely warrants the drawing of so large a conclusion from so slender a premise. The advocates of the idyllic hypothesis find here a distinct song, describing a visit paid by the lover to the fair object of his affections, without being at any pains to trace a connection between it and what had preceded. Taylor thinks that this belongs to the second day of the marriage feast; the bride from her window in the palace is attracted by the sound of a hunting party (Son 2:15); the bridegroom, who is one of the party, looks up and addresses her. Withington supposes some time to have elapsed since the preceding scene. “The bride had gone up to Jerusalem, and after a stay there had gone back to the country, and was to remain there until the season came of her husband’s rustication, which would naturally be in the spring.” Burrowes: “The beloved had left the spouse; these words describe his return.” Wordsworth connects this scene directly with the immediately preceding verse, the slumber of the bridegroom there described being equivalent to his absence or withdrawal: “The patience of the bride, after long waiting, is rewarded by the joyful sight of the bridegroom bounding over the hills.” Ginsburg, with his peculiar modification of the shepherd-hypothesis, describes the situation as follows: “The Shulamite, to account for the severity of her brothers, mentioned in Son 2:6, relates that her beloved shepherd came one charming morning in the spring to invite her to the fields (8–14); that her brothers, in order to prevent her from going, gave her employment in the gardens (15); that she consoled herself with the assurance that her beloved, though separated from her at that time, would come again in the evening (16, 17); that seeing he did not come, she, under difficult circumstances, ventured to seek him and found him (Son 3:1-4).”—Tr.] [There is no propriety in sundering this from what follows. The succeeding verses evidently continue or explain this opening exclamation. If it belongs to the present, so does the entire description which it introduces. If the coming of the beloved here narrated is past, her exclamation on hearing the sound of his approach is past also.—Tr.] [Harmer supposes the reference is to a kiosk or eastern arbor, and quotes the Letters of Lady Montague, who speaks of them II. p. 74 as “enclosed with gilded lattices, round which vines, jessamines and honeysuckles make a sort of green wall.”] [Wordsw.: Literally, sprouting and blooming like a flowering shrub or creeper, whose blossoms peep and glance through the trellis or lattice work of a window, and giving brightness and loveliness to the apartment.] [Wordsw.: Here is an anticipation of the phrase so often applied in the gospels to Christ, who answered even the thoughts of His hearers.] [It can scarcely be anything but a slip when Withington puts these words into the mouth of the bride: “He hears her distant voice: Rise up, my love,” etc.—Tr.] Harmer says, on the authority of Dr. Shaw: “Doves in those countries, it seems, take up their abodes in the hollow places of rocks and cliffs.” Wordsw. suggests that the comparison is “to a dove fleeing to the clefts of the rock for refuge from the storm.” Good quotes as parallel the following simile from Homer’s description of the wounded Diana, Il. xxi. 493. “As when the falcon wings her way above, To the cleft cavern speeds the affrighted dove, Straight to her shelter thus the goddess flew.”] [So Harmer, who supposes an allusion to “her apartments in a lofty palace of stone.” Good: “The common version, ‘secret places of the stairs’ is erroneous. The mistake has obviously originated from a wish in the translators to give a literal interpretation to this highly figurative phraseology. Stairs may well enough apply to the royal fair-one as a bride, but not as a dove.”] [Good, Burrowes, Noyes, Adelaide Newton, Withington, Thrupp, make this the language of the bride; Patrick, Poole, Ainsworth, Henry, Scott, Taylor, Fry, Clarke, Wordsworth the language of the bridegroom. Ginsburg puts it in the mouth of Shulamith’s brothers. Williams is led by the plural form of the pronouns both of the first and second persons to suppose that the chorus of virgins is here addressing the companions of the bridegroom. The ingenious suggestion that these words may be borrowed from a popular song, which here receive a new meaning from their connection, agrees well with this peculiarity in the form of expression and also with the intimation in the preceding verse. Wordsw.: “He commands her to look well to her vineyard. He calls it our vineyard; it is his as well as hers.” Withington, (after Taylor, who thinks this verse a summons to a chase) sees in it an allusion to the “sports and employments of the care-worn king” in his seasons of relaxation.] [Patrick: Aristophanes in his Equites, compares soldiers to foxes; spoiling whole countries as they do vineyards.] [Williams: “These verses stand perfectly distinct from the preceding.” Others endeavor to establish a direct connection with the foregoing verses. Thus Taylor paraphrases: “I am all obedience to his requests; it shall be my happiness to accomplish his desires.” And Wordsworth in its spiritual application: “The Church thankfully catches up the expression ‘our vineyard;’ and rejoices that not only have they one vineyard, but that He is hers and she is His.”] [Good, with an entire misapprehension of the figure intended: “So sweet is his breath, that surely he feedeth among the lilies.” Ginsb.: “Who tends his flock in the meadows abounding with flowers.” A figure for “the best pastures,” according to Williams, “for in such lilies appear to have grown spontaneously;” or for “sweet and lovely pastures,” according to Poole, “where there is not only herbage to feed them, but lilies to delight them.” Fry suggests as the connection between the clauses of the verse: “let him drive his flock to pasture in the flowery meads and I will accompany him.” Ainsworth, Henry, Words. and others find in the lilies a figurative reference to the bride herself as the object of his fond attachment, and one who had been compared to a lily among thorns, Son 2:2. [Good: “Till the day breathe. The expression is truly elegant and poetical. At midnight all nature lies dead and lifeless. The shadows, however, at length fly; the morning breathes and nature revivifies. The intrinsic excellence of the metaphor has seldom been understood by our commentators, who have almost all of them referred it to the day breeze of the country, or at least to that peculiar current of air which is often found existing in most climates at the dawn.” Williams: “Return, my beloved, and remain with me until the day breathe.” Noyes: “This is understood by many of the morning. But the more recent commentators refer it to sunset or the evening.” Wordsw.: “Before the first cool gales of the evening.”] 3. Solomon to Shulamith at the wedding entertainment, Son 4:1-6. Son 4:1. Lo, thou art fair, my dear, etc.—The verbal correspondence of this praise of Solomon’s beauty with Son 1:15 is designed as in Son 6:4 (and so in Son 6:10; Son 8:5 comp. with Son 3:6) to direct attention to Solomon as again the speaker of these words. And it follows with great probability that the person addressed is likewise the same as before, not some new object of the king’s love different from Shulamith, as Hitzig asserts.—Behind thy veil.—So correctly Hitzig, Vaih., Heiligst., etc., with whom Bφttch. and Gesen.-Dietr. (“through thy veil,” i.e., appearing through) substantially agree.—Thy hair like a flock of goats which repose on Mount Gilead.—As Gilead is visible from the Mount of Olives in the far distance, but not from Jerusalem, its mention, like that of Lebanon and Hermon in Son 4:8, and like so many other allusions in the poem to localities in the north of Palestine, is to be explained from the circumstance that when Solomon was speaking to his beloved, he liked to transport himself to the region of her home with its peculiar circle of impressions and ideas. Gilead is, besides, a mountain land specially rich in cattle (comp. Numbers 32:1; Micah 7:14; Jeremiah 1:19), and modern travellers have found it still strewn, as it were, with flocks and herds. Comp. Arvieux, II., 688; Paulus, Reisen, 7, 108; Rosenm., Morgenl., I., 85, etc.—The point of comparison in the figure is to be found mainly in the glossy blackness and luxuriant abundance of Shulamith’s hair, perhaps also in its silky softness and delicacy, less likely in her elegant and elaborately braided tresses, to which Magnus thinks there was subordinate reference. Old Luis de Leon correctly (in Wilkens, p. 219): “He indicated thus the abundance and the color of her hair; for the goats, which pastured there, were dark and glossy. He says therefore: as the goats scattered on the summit of Gilead give it a fine and pretty appearance, whilst before it looked like a bald and arid rock, so does thy hair adorn and ornament thy head by its rich color and abundance.” Son 4:2. Thy teeth like a flock of shorn sheep.—Sheep recently shorn, consequently smooth, and besides just washed in the pool, and hence snow-white, evidently are a peculiarly appropriate figure for dazzling white teeth, provided pastoral figures or those taken from the realm of country life were to be used at all. And this was to a certain extent necessary here; at least it was extremely natural to illustrate the contrast between the blackness of her hair and the whiteness of her teeth by adding a flock of white lambs to the flock of black goats spoken of in Son 4:1. The idea of the pool for the sheep spontaneously offered itself, since washing newly shorn sheep was a universal custom in antiquity; comp. Columella’s advice (Son 7:4) to wash sheep four days after the shearing.—All of which bear twins, and one bereaved is not among them.—An allusion to the completeness of her teeth, the two rows of which, upper and lower, not only have no breaks, but in every instance exhibit a pair of teeth exactly answering to one another, twin teeth, as it were, throughout. That sheep in the East are still mostly διδυμοτόκοι, i.e., have two lambs at a time, is testified by recent travellers, e.g., the anonymous author of the publication, “Ζgypten wie es jetzt ist,” p. 42 (comp. Magn. in loc.). L. De Leon (in the same place as before) has again finely shown the sensible and striking character of the comparison here selected: “The figure almost paints the whole thing before our eyes. The flock of sheep, which always go crowded together like the scales of fir cones, represent the compactness and smallness of her teeth: their whiteness is expressed by their coming up from the washing; their uniformity by none being sick or barren.” Son 4:3. Like a crimson thread thy lips, and thy mouth is lovely.—The lips immediately follow the teeth, not simply because they cover them (Hitzig), but also because the bright red of the one forms an elegant contrast with the dazzling whiteness of the other; comp. the combination of the two colors in Son 5:10. Then the mouth, comprehending both teeth and lips, stands here in its quality of an organ of speech, whence also it is called ξִ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ from γִּ ?αֶּ ?ψ, “to speak,” and is supplied with a predicate (πָ ?ΰεָ ?δ, lovely; comp. Son 2:14; Son 1:15), which serves to characterize not so much its pretty shape or color as the agreeable and beneficent effects proceeding from it. The Sept., Vulg., Syr., Hengstenb., etc., take ξִ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ as equivalent to speech; A. Schultens and Dφpke, to tongue; Hitzig, to palate. But like all that is described before and after, this expression must denote some part of the body, and one too that is externally visible, and which forms a substantial feature of Shulamith’s beauty.—Like a piece of pomegranate thy cheek.—ψַ ?χָּ ?δ literally “the temple” (Judges 4:21; Judges 5:26), here manifestly the upper part of the cheek, whose soft red borders upon the white of the temple. For this figure of the half of a pomegranate (τֶ ?μַ ?ηδָ ?ψξּ ?εֹ ?ο) refers to the pleasing combination of white and red; on one side of the exterior of this fruit “a bright red is mingled with yellow and white,” whilst the other side looks brown (Dφpke). It is only to a half, a segment (τֶ ?μַ ?η from τμη, “to cut fruit,” 2 Kings 4:39) of the pomegranate that the cheek is compared because its soft curve only corresponds in fact to the segment of a sphere. Not, therefore, “like a slice of a pomegranate” (Luth.) [so Durell, Hodg., Thrupp], as though the flat inner surface of a sliced pomegranate were intended (Hengstenb., Hahn., etc.). For the appearance of the reddish seeds of this fruit, lying in a yellowish pulp, would not form a suitable comparison, whether for a cheek or a temple. Son 4:4. Like the tower of David thy neck, built for an armoury. His aim was not to describe the slender grace and erectness of Shulamith’s neck in and of itself, but likewise with reference to its ornaments consisting of brilliant jewelry and ornamental chains (comp. Son 1:9-11) and consequently in respect to its superb and stately appearance (comp. Son 7:5 [4]). A pecularly suitable comparison was accordingly offered to the king in the tower, hung around with burnished pieces of armor, and probably built of white free-stone, which David may have erected somewhere in the vicinity, perhaps at one corner of his palace on Zion as a bulwark or a watch tower. The identity of this tower with the “tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus” mentioned in Son 8:5 (4) is contradicted by the fact that the latter is a figure for an entirely different thing from that now before us (versusEwald, Hitzig, etc.). Still less can the ivory tower spoken of in the very same passage be identical with this. This manifestly appears from the further defining clauses “built for an armory,” etc., to have been a fortification, a stronghold for arms, a tower for warlike purposes, and hence, perhaps, is not distinct from the “house of the mighty” (αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?βִ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψּ ?ιν) spoken of in Nehemiah 3:16, which is assigned to the neighborhood of the district of Beth-zur and the sepulchres of David, i.e., on the eastern side of Zion, on the very spot where David’s old palace must have stood (comp. Weissbachin loc.)—The difficult expression ϊַּ ?μְ ?τִּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, which the LXX render as a proper name (θαλφιώθ), the Vulg. by propagnacula, Aq., and the Versio Veneta by ἐπάλξεις, is most correctly taken with Kimchi for a compound of ϊֵּ ?μcollis (const.ϊַּ ?μ) and τִּ ?ιεֹ ?ϊenses, edges, sword-blades (Proverbs 5:4; Judges 3:16; comp. Psalms 149:6), or which amounts to the same thing, referred to ϊμδ “to hang” and τִּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊ in the same sense as before (Hengstenb., Del., Weissb., etc.). In both cases it must designate a lofty object of the nature of a fortification, hung around with swords or bristling with swords, consequently, as mention is also made of shields in what follows, an armory which, as it served for the preservation of numerous martial weapons of offence and defence, was likewise hung around with them on the outside, and thus embellished. For the shields hung on it (ςָ ?μָ ?ιε) according to the next clause of the verse, and not barely in it (as Hitzig supposes, who fancies a “mound of earth,” which “hides in its bosom such murderous weapons” as swords, shields, etc. This explanation is at any rate better suited to the connection and yields a more appropriate figure for Shulamith’s neck decorated with brilliant ornaments than the derivation of ϊַּ ?μְ ?τִּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊ from a substantive ϊַּ ?μְ ?τִּ ?ι, which, according to the Arab., would mean “host, army” (Ewald: “built for troops;” Bφttch., Rφdig., compare Heiligst.), or from an alleged adjective ϊַּ ?μְ ?τִּ ?ιexitialis, destructive, hence ϊַּ ?μְ ?τִּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊexitialia, viz. arma, murderous weapons, or from μτδ = μָ ?αַ ?ο to be white, hence “pieces of alabaster” (Hahn), and the like.—All the shields of heroes.ωְ ?μָ ?θִ ?ιν has a wider meaning than ξָ ?βֵ ?ο, which specially denotes the “shield of a light armed soldier,” the “target;” see Gesen. Thes., p. 1418. We are scarcely to think of the shields of conquered heroes, of those for instance which David (2 Samuel 8:7) had taken from the Syrians (versus Weissb.), because the mighty men here mentioned are simply referred to as the garrison of the armory here described. Comp., moreover, Ezekiel 27:11, a passage which is probably based on that before us. Son 4:5. Thy two breasts like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that are feeding among lilies. On c comp. Son 2:16. The comparison is plainly intended to express “delicate and exquisite beauty” (Hitz.); for since the gazelle itself, when full grown, is an admirable, attractive and favorite emblem of womanly grace and loveliness (Proverbs 5:19; comp. above on Son 2:7; Son 2:9), a twin pair of its young lying on a bed covered with lilies appears to be still better fitted to illustrate the fragrant delicacy and elegance of a chaste virgin bosom veiled by the folds of a dress redolent of sweet odors (comp. Son 1:13). A more detailed parcelling out of the comparison (as for instance by Hitzig, who thinks that the dress was red, or by Weissb., who supposes a particular reference in the young gazelles to the dark-colored nipples of her breasts as their especial charm, and in the lilies to the snowy whiteness of her bosom) is inadmissible, and leads to what is in violation of good taste or to what is obscene, from both which the poet has kept free here as every where else. Admirably here again Luis de Leon (p. 221, f.): “In addition to the delicacy of the young kids, in addition to their similarity as twins, in addition to their loveliness and gentleness they have in their merry gambols a frolicksomeness and gayety, which irresistibly enchains the eyes of beholders, and attracts them to come near and touch them,” etc.Son 4:6. Until the day cools and the shadows flee I will get me to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense. If Solomon were still the speaker in these words, nothing else could possibly be meant by the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense, but the breasts of the bride which would be so designated here in facetious and flowery style (Ewald, Heiligst., Weissb., Ren., etc.,) with allusion to the fragrant substances, which were between them or upon them (comp. Son 1:13). But the very circumstance, that then the foregoing figure for the bosom would here be followed by one entirely new and of a different description, whilst every other part of the body spoken of in this section is represented by but a single figure (see Son 4:1-4) makes it improbable that the words before us belong to Solomon. To which may be added that ςַ ?γωֶׁ ?ιָּ ?τεּ ?ηַ δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν, etc., must belong to Shulamith here as well as in Son 2:17; and that Bφttcher’s attempt to assign only these introductory words to the “vinedresser” as he calls her, and the latter part of the verse from ΰֵ ?μֵ ?κְ μִ ?ι onward to the king who interrupts her, seems scarcely less arbitrary than Hitzig’s view that the whole verse is spoken by the shepherd, who suddenly enters and declares his purpose to effect the speedy rescue of Shulamith! Umbr., Dφpke, Vaih., Delitzsch, etc., properly assign the words to Shulamith, who seeks thus to parry the ardent encomiums of Solomon, and hence expresses the wish to leave the wedding hall resounding with the boisterous festivities of the guests until the approach of evening. The “mountain of myrrh” and the “hill of frankincense,” which she wishes to visit for this end, were probably certain localities about the royal palace, near the hall and visible from it, which either always bore those names or only on the occasion of the present marriage, to which fumigations with various spices belonged as an absolutely indispensable ingredient, comp. Son 3:6. As presumably solitary, shady spots, belonging, it may be, to grounds laid out as gardens (perhaps “beds of balsam.” of the sort mentioned in Son 5:13, raised in the shape of pyramids or towers), these must have been to the simple-minded, guileless child of nature more desirable places to stay in than the noisy festive hall. Comp. her similar expressions of a strong desire for the fresh solitude of nature in opposition to the luxurious life of the court; Son 1:7; Son 1:16, and especially Son 7:12 (11) ff. This understanding of the “mountain of myrrh,” etc., is evidently far less forced than explaining it of Lebanon, or generally of the region of Shulamith’s home, for which she here expresses her desire (Umbreit, Vaih.), or of “Sion as the seat of the court” (Hitzig), or of Zion as a figure of the church (Hengstenb.), or of Moriah as the Temple-mountain which is here designated δַ ?ψδַ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ψ (Ibn Ezra, Jarchi). Comp. on Son 5:13 and Son 6:2. 4. Continuation: Son 4:7-11. Son 4:7. Thou art all fair, my dear, and there is not a blemish in thee. Correctly Delitzsch: “This childlike disposition expressed Son 4:6, makes her but the more lovely in the eyes of the king; he breaks out in the words, ‘thou art all fair, my dear,’ etc., undoubtedly meaning that the beauty of her soul corresponds with her outward beauty—not with reference, therefore; to the charms, of her bodily figure from her breast downward, which are more fully described subsequently Son 7:2 ff.” (Weissb.)—On the form of expression, particularly in b, comp. 2 Samuel 14:25; Ephesians 5:27. Son 4:8. With me from Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon thou shalt come. Several of the advocates of the shepherd-hypothesis assume at these words a change of person and with it likewise a change of scene, either making the shepherd himself enter and speak all that follows to Son 4:16 (so Bφttcher, Ren.), or at least to Son 4:8 (so Hitzig), or regarding all from this verse to Son 5:8 as a monologue of Shulamith, who herein relates the words previously spoken to her by her country lover (so Ewald, who accordingly imagines that the words: “Lo, here comes my lover, and says to me,” or the like, have been dropped out before this verse). But an unprejudiced interpretation renders such artifices needless. Led by the wish of his beloved, expressed in Son 4:6, to exchange her place amongst the jubilant guests for the quiet solitude of nature, Solomon recalls her descent from a simple shepherd’s family in the mountain region of Northern Palestine, and hence he exultingly and in exaggerated expressions announces to her how instead of living in sterile mountain districts, and on barren rocky heights rendered insecure by wild beasts, she should henceforth make her home with him in the royal palace, and in the midst of its rich joys and blissful beauties, herself its loveliest flower, the most charming and spicy of its gardens (see especially Son 4:12-15). The enthusiastic lover does not consider that in this he says nothing that is really agreeable to her, but actually contravenes her longing to escape into the open country from the close and sultry atmosphere of court life, any more than he concerns himself about the exaggerated character of his comparisons, e.g. of the mountains around Shunem with Lebanon, or of the “little foxes” in Shulamith’s vineyards (Son 2:15) with lions and panthers. Poetical exaggerations of this sort are besides quite accordant with his taste (comp. Son 4:4 and especially Son 7:5), and appear much less strange in him than the bold comparison of Zion or of Solomon’s palace with the heights of Lebanon and Hermon (according to Hitzig, Bφttch., Renan, etc.,) would sound in the mouth of a simple shepherd.—Besides ϊָּ ?αεֹ ?ΰִ ?ι “thou shalt come” shows that the speaker had a definite term in mind, to which Shulamith was to come from “Lebanon” as her previous residence (comp. Hitzigin loc.), and that consequently the idea of going up and down from one peak of Lebanon to another (Delitzsch) is not found in the passage.—Shalt journey from the top of Amana. The “summit” or the “top” of Amana is without doubt the mountain by the river Amana mentioned 2 Kings 5:12 K’ri, that is to say that peak of the Lebanon or more accurately the Antilibanus-range, in which this river Amana, the Chrysorrhoas of the Greeks or the Barada of, the Arabs takes its rise. This peak, like the following Shenir and Hermon, stands of course by poetic license for the entire range. For the poet cannot have intended a contrast between the Lebanon in a and these names of mountains that follow, but “he only varies the names because one meant the same to him as another” (so correctly Hitzig, versusDelitzsch, Hengstenb., etc.).—From the top of Shenir and Hermon. According to Deuteronomy 3:9 Shenir was the Amoritish name for Hermon itself, which thereby appears to be designated as the “snow mountain” (according to Jarchi on that passage and the Targum on this). Still it is shown as well by the passage before us as by Ezekiel 27:5, 1 Chronicles 5:23, that a distinction was commonly made between Shenir which lay further to the north and Hermon (now Jebel esh-Sheikh) the more southern of the principal peaks in the entire Hermon or Antilibanus range (comp. Robinson, Palest. II. p. 440 (edit. 1838), Berth, on 1 Chronicles 5:23). As now Amana, where the Chrysorrhoas has its source, must be the peak lying farthest to the east or north-east, the enumeration of the three peaks or ridges belonging to Antilibanus evidently proceeds from the north-east to the south-west, or from the region of Baalbec to that of Hasbeya and Paneas (comp. Hitzigin loc.).—From dens of lions, from mountains of panthers. These expressions as belonging to the description and only alluding in a general way to the wild and inhospitable character of the region about Shulamith’s home, are not to be pressed for the sake of obtaining any more special sense, particularly not so as with Kφster, Bφttcher, Hitzig, etc. to explain the lions of “the king of Israel and his magnates who have dragged the graceful roe Shulamith into his den!” Lions moreover must have had their haunts in the forests of Lebanon, as well as in the reeds on the banks of the Jordan (Zechariah 11:3; Jeremiah 12:5) and on Bashan (Deuteronomy 33:22). And panthers (this is the meaning of πְ ?ξֵ ?ψִ ?ιν, not leopards, which as is known, are only found in Africa) are still found in the region of Lebanon according to modern travellers, (Burckhardt, Reisen in Syrien, pp. 99, 66). Son 4:9. Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my bride. This double designation of his beloved as sister and as bride is neither meant to indicate a peculiarly intimate nor preeminently chaste and pure relation of love. The thing here intended by it is the designation of a certain relationship. As Solomon’s lawful wife Shulamith now, after the marriage has taken place, stands next to him as a sister to her brother. She is not barely one of a number of wives (Son 6:8) but a sisterly sharer of his royal rank and name. She is queen, as he is king, yes, a “prince’s daughter,” Son 7:2, as he is a prince’s son (correctly Hitzig and Weissb.).—μִ ?αַּ ?αְ ?ϊִּ ?πִ ?ι not “thou robbest me of courage” (Umbr., Magn.), non “thou hast given me courage” (Symm., Syr., Ewald, Dφpke, Bφttcher, Meier, Weissb., etc.), but “thou hast unhearted me” (Delitzsch) i.e. “robbed me of my heart, so that it is no more mine but thine,” hast “enchanted me and made me wholly thine own.”—With one of thy glances; literally “with one from thy eyes,” i.e. with a single one of the glances that proceed from them (Hengstenb., Hitzig, etc.); for the masc. αְ ?ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ of the K’thibh, which is certainly to be retained, cannot refer to one of the two eyes (ςַ ?ιִ ?ο is never masc.), but only to one thing which comes forth from the eyes, an effect proceeding from them.—With one chain of thy necklace. The representation is ideal and hyperbolical as in the preceding verse. It proceeds in rapturous exaggerations as well here where it paints in detail, as before where it dealt in pompous and grandiloquent expressions. But to be sure, in the matter of love, it always remains true: small causes often produce great effects!—ςֲ ?πָ ?χ not “ringlet, lock of the front hair hanging down on the neck” (Hitzig), but neckchain, or ornament (comp. the plur.: Proverbs 1:9; Judges 8:16). φַ ?εְּ ?ψεֹ ?πִ ?ιν, since it is plural, can neither mean “neck” (Sept., Vulg., Hitzig, etc.) nor be a diminutive of endearment, “tiny neck” (Gesenius, Ewald, Heiligst., etc.). It must rather denote something suspended about the neck, a necklace or jewelry for the neck, and ςֲ ?πָ ?χ a single piece or constituent of it. What had enchanted the king was of course not the elegance or ingenious workmanship of this ornament itself, but that Shulamith’s neck looked so charmingly in it. Comp. above on Son 1:10. Son 4:10. How fair is thy love, my sister, my bride.γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ιν here again, not “breasts” (Sept., Vulg., Luther), but “caresses, manifestations of love,” as Son 1:2. Comp. generally Son 1:2-3. Solomon here gives back to his beloved with larger measure, what she had there declared of him when absent. Son 4:11. Liquid honey thy lips distil, my bride; honey and milk are under thy tongue. As in the preceding verse, which like the present consists of three clauses, the first two members refer to one and the same subject, so these two clauses aim to depict but one attribute or one characteristic of Shulamith, viz., her lovely discourse, how sweetly she talked. For it is to this that the figures of lips and tongue point, comp. on the one hand Proverbs 5:3; Proverbs 6:24; Proverbs 7:5; Proverbs 16:24; and on the other Psalms 55:22; Psalms 66:17; Psalms 10:7; Pindar, Nem. iii. 134; Theocrit. Id. viii. 82 ff.; xx. 26 ff. The fragrant spittle of the kissing mouth can scarcely be intended (vs. Dφpke, Magn., Weissb.), in spite of Arabic and classic parallels, that might be adduced (the saliva oris osculantisHorat. Od. I. 13, 16; Catull. 99, 2, etc.). For the parallels Son 2:14, Son 5:13; Son 5:16, likewise refer to the loveliness of discourse, not to the sweetness of kisses.—And the fragrance of thy garments is like the fragrance of Lebanon. As is shown by the parallel, Hosea 14:7, the Lebanon of this passage is not to be converted into μְ ?αεֹ ?πָ ?δ “frankincense” as Dφpke imagines, on account of the “sicut odor thuris” of the Vulg. (which probably arose from misunderstanding the ὡςὀσμὴ Λιβανοῦ of the Sept.). Modern travellers testify (Schulz, Leit. d. Allerh., Th. V. p. 459; Zeller, Bibl. Wφrterbuch fόr d. Christl. Volk II. p. 42) that the cedar groves of Lebanon diffuse a strong balsamic odor. Isaac also commends the scent of his son Esau’s garments (Genesis 27:27); and so Psalms 45:9 praises the garments of a king celebrating his marriage, which were perfumed with myrrh, aloes and cassia. 5. Continuation. Son 4:12-15. Son 4:12. A garden locked is my sister, my bride; a spring locked, a fountain sealed. If instead of βַּ ?μ in b we were with about 50 Heb. Mss. of Kennicott, the Sept., Vulg., Syr., etc., to read βַּ ?ο again, the comparison with the garden, being immediately repeated, would appear to be the main and prominent thought. But it is evidently more suitable that the figure of the spring, which is not carried out any further in what immediately follows, should be twice repeated, in order that it may not be too abrupt. The change of the unusual βַּ ?μ (which means spring, fountain, as appears from Joshua 15:19; Judges 1:15; comp. English well, of which the German “Wellen” (waves) is the plural) into βַּ ?ο which had been used just before, would also be easier to explain, than a conversion of the latter into the former expression. The garden and the spring being locked up and sealed, naturally indicates that the access is open only to the owner and possessor himself. Comp. Son 4:16, where Shulamith designates her hidden charms first as her own garden, then as Solomon’s; also Proverbs 5:15-18, where the figure of a spring is likewise applied to the natural relation between a wife and her wedded lord, so that she is represented by a fountain absolutely inaccessible to all men except her husband, and the right of the latter freely to enjoy and to refresh himself with the waters of this spring is clearly presupposed. A previous coyness of Shulamith toward her lover (Hitzig, Vaih., etc.) is not at all the thing intended. Son 4:13-14. A more minute description of the garden, i.e., of the charms of Shulamith, in so far as they may be represented by the choice plants and delicious fruits of a pleasure garden, accessible only to the king; an expansion therefore of Son 4:12 a (as Son 4:12 b is more fully unfolded in Son 4:15). Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates.ωֶׁ ?μַ ?η means here as in Exodus 31:5, not a plantation (Hengstenb.), but a single plant, literally a shoot, sprout (comp. ωִׁ ?μַּ ?ηPsalms 80:12; Jeremiah 17:8; Ezekiel 17:6-7). By this figurative expression are denoted the charms, the ravishing beauties of the beloved in general, not specially her limbs (Hitzig), or the fragrance of her unguents (Weissb.). A particular explanation of the individual products of the garden is, on the whole, impossible, and it leads to what is at variance with good taste. ψִ ?ξֹּ ?πִ ?ιν pomegranates, i.e., the trees, not their fruit (Dφpke, Ewald, Weissb.); for the fruit is mentioned afterwards.—On the different opinions respecting the etymology of τַּ ?ψְ ?γֵּ ?ν, comp. the Introduction, § 3 Rem. 2.—With most excellent fruit; lit., “with fruit of excellencies” (ξְ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν as Son 7:13). The fruit of the pomegranate trees before mentioned may very well be intended; ςִ ?νwith does not necessarily, as is shown by Son 1:11, introduce something entirely new and of a different sort (vs. Weissb.)—Cyprus flowers with nards. As already remarked on Son 1:12; Son 1:14, the cyprus flower or alhenna was the only one of these plants, which was also cultivated in Palestine. The nard grass, grown only in India, is therefore simply added here for the sake of the delightfully fragrant unguent obtained from it, as in the following verse incense, calamus, cinnamon, and probably also saffron are exotic plants known to the Hebrews only from their aromatic products. The description accordingly loses itself here again in rapturous exaggerations and improbabilities in natural history, which however at the same time bear witness to an extensive knowledge of nature (comp. Introduc. § 3, Rem. 1).—Nard and crocus, calamus and cinnamon.λַּ ?ψְ ?λּ ?νֹ, Chald.λּ ?εּ ?ψְ ?λַּ ?ν, Sept.κρόκος (comp. Sanskrit, kunkuma) is the saffron flower, (Crocus sativus) indigenous in India, but introduced also into Egypt and Asia Minor, and consequently perhaps also into Palestine. A water was prepared from it for smelling bottles, with a pungent but agreeable odor, which was a great favorite in antiquity; comp. Winer, R. W. B. Art. “Safran.”—χָ ?πֶ ?δ, Sept.κάλαμος, is, according to Jeremiah 6:20; Isaiah 43:24; Ezekiel 27:19, an article of trade brought from Arabia Felix, sweet cane, calamus. The calamus (juncus odoratus, Plin. XII. 22; XXI. 18) which according to Theophrastus, Pliny and Strabo, grew in Coelesyria and by the lake of Gennesaret, was of an inferior and less valuable sort.—χִ ?πָּ ?ξεֹ ?ο a Semitic name, as it would appear (lit. “the reed,” or the “rolled together,” from χπδ=χπν), in case it is not of Indian origin, and connected with the Malay kainamanis (so Rφdiger, Additamenta ad Thesaur., p. 111) signifies cinnamon, which, according to Herodot. III. 111 came through Arabia from the remotest south, that is, probably from Ceylon.—With every variety of incense woods,i.e., with every species of wood, which yields a fragrant gum of the nature of frankincense, or when pulverized is used as “aromatic dust,” or as a powder to be sprinkled for fumigation. In opposition to the reading ςֲ ?φֵ ?ιμְ ?αָ ?πεֹ ?ο (Sept., Velth., Dφpke), see Hitzigin loc.—Myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices. For myrrh comp. on Son 1:13; and for aloes (ΰֲ ?δָ ?μεֹ ?ϊ or ΰֲ ?δָ ?μִ ?ιν, as Proverbs 7:17.; Numbers 24:6; Gr. ἀγάλλοχον, Sanskr. aguru, aghil) see Winer, R. W. B.—Under “all the chief (lit., all heads of) aromatic plants,” balsams or spices (αְ ?ωָׂ ?ξִ ?ιν a general expression, as in Exodus 30:23; Esther 2:12), in addition to the substances already named, cassia is especially to be regarded as included. For according to Exodus 30:23 ff., this particular aromatic product was mingled with myrrh, calamus and cinnamon, in the holy anointing oil, and in Psalms 45:9 (8) it appears with myrrh and aloes among the precious spices, with which the garments of the royal bridegroom were perfumed. Son 4:15. Further expansion of Son 4:12 b.—A garden spring (art thou), a well of living water. Comp. Genesis 26:19; Jeremiah 2:13. By the “garden spring” (lit. spring of gardens) Hitzig understands the fountain of Siloah in particular—an assumption which is the more gratuitous, as the allusion to ωִׁ ?μֹ ?ηַ which he finds in ωְׁ ?μָ ?ηִ ?ιν Son 4:13, exists merely in the fancy of the overacute modern critic, in spite of Neh 3:15; Isaiah 8:6; Ecclesiastes 2:6, etc.—And streams from Lebanon,i.e., water as fresh and delightfully refreshing as the gushing streams fed by the snows of Lebanon, Jeremiah 18:14. On the figure comp. besides Proverbs 5:15, the Phenician inscription of Kition (No. 2) adduced by Hitzig, in which a husband calls his deceased wife ξαηιι, i.e., ξַ ?αֻּ ?ςַ ηַ ?ιַּ ?ι, “the spring of my life.” 6. The complete union of the lovers, Son 4:16; Son 5:1.—Ibn Ezra, followed by Ewald and Delitzsch, correctly puts the whole of Son 5:16 into the mouth of Shulamith. The contrast of βַּ ?πִּ ?ιmy garden in a with μְ ?βַ ?πּ ?εֹ ?his garden in b does not make in favor of two speakers, but simply brings out the thought that her garden is his, and therefore that she, with all she has and is, belongs to him; a delicately refined suggestion which is lost by dividing the verse between the lover and his beloved, as approved in recent times (Dφpke, Magn., Bφttch., Hitz., Ren., etc.). Son 4:16. Awake, north wind, and come, O south. Shulamith in her poetically excited frame summons just these two winds to blow upon her garden, because neither the east wind with its parching effects and its frequent storms (Genesis 41:6; Isaiah 27:8), nor the rainy west wind (1 Kings 18:44 f; Luke 12:54) would be suitable in the connection; and yet two opposite winds must be named, as it is not a blowing off or blowing away that is intended, but causing the odors to flow forth and wafting them in all directions.That its spices may flow,i.e., that every thing in me, which pleases my lover, all my charms may show themselves to him in their full power and loveliness.—Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat his excellent fruits. The language here becomes plainer, and passes over into a solicitation to her lover to enjoy to the full her charms which he had been praising (for ΰָ ?λַ ?μ “to eat” in this comp. Proverbs 30:20.) Yet she expresses this wish not by a direct address to him, but by speaking of him in the third person—a token of her chaste, modest and bashful mind.—Son 5:1. I come to my garden, my sister, my bride. That Solomon is here the speaker, whilst full of rapture he sets himself to comply with his beloved’s invitation and to devote himself entirely to her loving embrace incontestably appears from the correspondence of αָּ ?ΰϊִ ?ι with ιָ ?αֹ ?ΰ in b of the preceding verse, and of ΰָ ?λַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ι here with εְ ?ιֹ ?ΰλַ ?μ there. These verbs, as well as ΰָ ?ψִ ?ιϊִ ?ι (=μָ ?χַ ?θְ ?ϊִּ ?ι “I pluck,” Exodus 16:16) and ωָׁ ?ϊִ ?ιϊִ ?ι are not to be taken as preterites: “I have come,” etc., (Del., as the Sept., Vulg., Luther, etc.,) because the acme of love’s enjoyment, to which both are tending, was by no means reached and exhausted by a single conjugal embrace, but strictly as present, as serving to state that which is in the very act of being performed. Comp. γִּ ?ξִּ ?ιϊִ ?ικָ; Son 1:9, and numerous examples in Ewald, Lehrb., § 135 c, [Green’sHeb. Gram., § 262, 2.—I pluck my myrrh.… I eat my honey.… I drink my wine. A threefold declaration in different forms of his immediate readiness to enjoy the charms of his beloved, with a partial return to the figures in Son 4:10-11; Son 4:13.—Eat friends, drink and drink to repletion, O beloved. Every other understanding of these closing verses seems inappropriate and forced but that already suggested, according to which they are an encouraging address of the bridegroom to the wedding guests, who remain behind at the table. Thus, e.g., that of Ewald, that Shulamith describes in these words the way in which her distant lover, if she were with him and were celebrating her marriage with him, would remember his friends; the strange and burlesque idea of Bφttcher referred to above, p. 72; that, too, of Eichhorn, Magnus, Hitzig: that the words are an exhortation of the poet to the two lovers to enjoy their love and intoxicate themselves therewith; and the like views of others, according to which Solomon either encourages his beloved (Umbr., Hengstenb., Hahn) or she him (Weissb.) to the enjoyment of love. These latter views are based upon an untenable translation of γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ιν by “love” as though it were the object of εְ ?ωִׁ ?λְ ?ψεּ (“intoxicate yourselves with love”) for γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ιν with the scriptio plena is plur. of γּ ?εֹ ?γ “beloved” (comp. on Son 1:2), and consequently Proverbs 7:18 (where it is γֹּ ?γִ ?ιν “caresses” with the scriptio defectiva) cannot decide for the present case. The Sept., Vulg., Luther, Dφpke, Vaih., Del., are substantially correct, the last of whom adds the just remark in explanation: “For each (of the guests) was to have his share in tasting the joy of this day.” AND ETHICAL1. That the action of the Canticles reaches its centre and acme in this act, and especially at the close of it, cannot be doubted upon an unprejudiced view of the whole. “The newly wedded bride is now in the arms of her husband and king. Their ardent mutual love is the joyous spectacle presented to a festive assembly, which is attached to the king by friendship and love. Every where the feeling suited to a wedding, enjoyment, and this enjoyment shared by loving sympathy. Arrived at the summit of love’s mystery and moving there with holy purity the song here dies away amid the revelry of the guests.” (Del., p. 115.) 2. The recognition of the central and superior significance of this section is of necessity precluded upon the allegorical interpretation, because it fails to perceive the organic progress of the action in general, and supposes the union of the two lovers to have become complete long before this, (comp. above, p. 56) so as neither to require nor admit of increase. This unio mystica, this perfect union of Christ with His church or with the individual soul it consequently finds not at the conclusion merely, but already indicated at the very beginning of the present act in the “bed of Solomon,” Son 3:7, by which it is true many allegorists understand every different sort of thing, (e.g., Ibn Ezra, the land of Israel; the Targ. and in recent times again Jo. Lange, the temple; Sanctius, prayer; Theodoret, the Holy Scriptures; Aponius, the cross of Christ; and Osiander, the free exercise of religion even!) But the majority find represented in it the communion of believers with Christ at the acme of its perfection, whether their particular explanation points to Christ Himself (Ambrose), or they find symbolized in it the heart of the Christian believer in conformity with Ephesians 3:17 (Coccei., etc.,) or the free access of believers to the throne of grace in this world and the next (Joh. Marck.), or “the church militant on earth, in which many children are born to the Lord” (Starke after many of the older writers, as Gregory the Great, Cassiodor., Beda, Calov., Heunisch, etc.), or “the intimate relation between the heavenly Solomon and the church” (Hengst.), or the “kingdom administered by Solomon, so far as its power is directed ad extra” (Hahn). In the case of the sedan or magnificent couch (ΰτψιεο Son 3:9) this divergence of interpretations is repeated with a prevailing disposition to refer it to the unio mystica. For besides the holy of holies in the temple (Targ.), or the word of God (Mercer.), or the church (Zeltn.), or the human nature of Christ (Ambros., Athanas., Greg., Beda, Anselm, Jo. Lange), it is particularly the work of redemption with the gracious results proceeding from it (Sanctius; similarly Cocceius, Groenewegen, Starke, etc.,) or as expressed by Hengstenberg: “the glory of those measures by which the heavenly Solomon brings the Gentile nations into His kingdom,” that is supposed to be intended by this figure of the sedan. It is the same with Son 3:11, where the “day of Solomon’s marriage” according to Starke signifies three things: 1. The day of salvation, when a sinner yields to converting grace, and is united to Christ by faith; 2. The day of the resurrection of the just, when Christ will make them partakers of the blessedness of the world to come. 3. The time when the Jewish people, who have long rejected Him shall crown Him in faith and publicly acknowledge Him as their bridegroom—an explanation with which most of the older and the later writers (even Hengstenb., Hahn, etc.,) substantially agree, especially in so far that nearly all of them understand by the mother of Solomon the church of the Old Testament or the people of Israel, and by the crown with which she adorns her son the entire body of converted souls, which are an ornament and an honor to the Messiah, comp. Philippians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:19, etc.This method of putting every possible interpretation upon every particular thing, and thus attaining an extravagant exuberance of multifarious significations, is also followed, of course, by the allegorists in the enthusiastic description of the beauty of the bride in Son 4:1 ff. The hair of Shulamith compared with the flock of goats is made to signify either the entire body of believers or the weak and despised members of the church, or on the contrary, those who strive after a higher measure of perfection, the prelates of the church who have a keen eye like the goats, seek their food on the summits, eat what is green and chew the cud, and have parted hoofs and horns, wherewith to fight the heretics! The teeth of the beloved are prelates who feed upon the Scriptures, or teachers who attack the heretics; the lips either the preachers of God’s word or confessions of faith of the church; the neck the Holy Scriptures or the steadfastness and assured hope of believers; the breasts compared with twin roes either the law and the gospel, or the Old and New Testament, or the Jews and Gentiles, or the eastern and western church, or baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the two sacraments of the church! The locking up of the garden Son 4:12 ff, denotes the strong protection with which God surrounds His church as with a wall of fire; the sealing is the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit on the church to enlighten and preserve it, Ephesians 4:30. The blowing of the north and south wind, Son 4:16 also signifies the Holy Spirit in the varied operations of His grace, purifying, quickening, comforting, rendering fruitful, etc.; and the “coming of the bridegroom into his garden” (Son 5:1) according to the chronological expositors denotes the dawn of some new epoch in church history, e.g., according to Cocceius the times immediately succeeding Constantine the Great; according to Heunisch the ante-reformation period from the time of the great Schism (1378); according to Corn. a Lapide the incipient old age of the church, etc., but according to the greater number the particular times when Christ enters with the heavenly blessings of His grace into the hearts of believers (Revelation 3:20; John 14:23), or the threefold advent of the Redeemer: 1. In the form of a servant to found His church. 2. His invisible coming by His Holy Spirit to every individual of His people. 3. His eschatological coming at the judgment and the consummation. Compare generally the multitude of old interpretations of this sort collected by Starke on this section; also Wilkens, Fray Luis de Leon, p. 207, 215, and Dursch, Symbolik der Christlichen Religion, Vol. II. (Tόbing., 1859),) passim.3. Against such excesses and capricious trifling there is no protection but in that historical exegesis, which on the basis of the meaning of the words impartially ascertained endeavors, it is true, to point out the relations in which this action stands to the mysteries of revelation and redemption, and so to make application of its contents to the matters of the Christian life, but conscientiously refrains from all seeking or chasing after any direct spiritual and practical interpretation of individual passages, much less of individual words. To such an exegesis there appear to be chiefly three particulars of especial consequence in that stage of the action which is represented in this act: the elevation of the bride from a low condition to royal dignity and glory; her wondrous beauty as the ground of this elevation; and her chaste and humble mind which impels her to belong only to her lover and to live for him alone. a. The simple country maiden from the tribe of Issachar is raised to be queen of all Israel, conducted in Solomon’s stately couch with a brilliant military escort, welcomed by the women of Jerusalem with pride and admiration, brought for her marriage to his splendid palace in Zion by Solomon, the most famous prince of his time. Here full of rapture he declares to her that he loves and admires her more than all beside, that she has completely won and captivated him, so that his heart belongs to her alone, and that she is henceforth to exchange her humble surroundings and her country home for his royal palace and its rich enjoyments and brilliant pleasures (see especially Son 4:8-9). In like manner Christ, who is a greater than Solomon, who is King of all kings, and Lord of all lords, has exalted His church from misery and a low estate to a participation in His divine glory; He has made the despised and forsaken “His sister and bride,” a joint-heir of His eternal glory in heaven, has received her into His kingdom, into His heavenly Father’s house and there prepared a place for her, which she shall never be willing to exchange for her former abode in a remote and foreign land, in the wilderness of a sinful, earthly life. For the infinite superiority of that exaltation which the church of the Lord has experienced above that of Shulamith, and which every penitent and believing soul in it still experiences day by day, is shown in this that the shepherd girl from northern Palestine might with good reason look wistfully back to her poverty from Solomon’s palace, that her desire to return from the sultry life of the court to the fresh cool mountain air of her home was but too well justified, whilst the soul which has been translated out of the wretchedness of a sinful worldly life into the blessed communion of God’s grace, has no occasion nor right to be dissatisfied with its new home, but on the contrary has gained unmingled joy, delight and imperishable glory instead of its former condition of unhappy bondage and darkness. b. The cause of Shulamith’s elevation to be queen of her people lay in her wonderful beauty, which throws the king into such an ecstasy that he analyzes it with the utmost detail in order that he may adduce the finest objects of nature, which his realm affords, to set forth her charms; yes, that he represents one single glance of her eyes, one chain from the ornaments of her neck as possessed of the power to chain him to her completely. So also it is the beauty and god-like dignity, originally belonging to human nature, obscured indeed by sin, but not completely and for ever destroyed, which brought the Lord down to our earth and made Him our Redeemer, the royal bridegroom and loving husband of His church. But there is this difference between the earthly Solomon and his celestial antitype, that the latter must restore the partially destroyed and hideously distorted beauty of His beloved before He can raise her to sit with Him on His throne; He must in order to effect this restoration endure the direst sufferings; He must redeem the poor captive from the prince of this world by the ransom of His own precious blood; and afterwards, too, He must with much trouble and pains seek to retain her whom He has dearly purchased in the way of righteousness and truth and preserve her from falling back again into the defilement of sin. The heavenly Solomon can never, during the course of this present world, attain to a really pure and undisturbed joy in His bride. He has quite too much to do in cleansing her ever anew with the washing of water by the word in order to present her to Himself holy and without blemish, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Ephesians 5:26-27). The heavenly bridegroom of souls can neither sing to His church as a whole, nor to its individual members such a praise of her beauty as was sung by Shulamith’s husband, culminating in the encomium, “Thou art all fair, my dear, and there is not a blemish in thee,” Son 4:7. He has, on the contrary, but too abundant occasion to speak to her in the tone adopted in the 16th chapter of the prophet Ezekiel. He must too often hold up before her not only the wretchedness of her birth and the misery of the first days of her childhood, but also the gross unfaithfulness and scandalous defilement of the flesh and spirit, of which, though His elect and His beloved, she has since made herself guilty. And He must all the more postpone her entrance upon the full enjoyment of His blessed society and His heavenly benefits until the future state, for the reason that she is previously lacking in many respects in another virtue which is most of all commended in Shulamith, her historical type. This is: c. The chaste and humble mind, which the beloved of the earthly Solomon still preserved even after her elevation to regal dignity and glory, that child-like, pure and obedient heart which she brings to her husband, and in virtue of which she will belong only to him and offer the sweet-scented flowers and delightful fruit of her garden to him for his exclusive enjoyment. On the ground of this most sterling of all the qualities of his beloved, this crown of her virtues, Solomon celebrates on the very day of his marriage, his perfect union with her; the locked garden, the bolted and sealed fountain is opened to him for his comfort and refreshment.—The Church, as the bride of the Lord, remains a mere bride so long as she has to suffer and to fight here below, because she does not remain a locked garden and a sealed fountain, to the extent that this could be affirmed of her Old Testament type; because, on the contrary, she too often admits the seductive and defiling powers of sin and of the world to the sanctuary of her virginity, and allows them to desecrate the temple of her heart. Not until the end of days will her perfect union with the heavenly bridegroom be consummated, when she has suffered and contended to the full, and the great mystery, of which Paul writes, Ephesians 5:32, has been fulfilled by the final and visible coming of her beloved. Until then it is only individual souls in the midst of her, that band of His faithful and elect, who are truly known to the Lord alone (2 Timothy 2:19; Romans 8:28 ff.), whom He raises to the blessed height of a most intimate communion with Himself, and by the outpouring of His love in their hearts makes them partakers of the full blessings of His heavenly grace. This is that invisible communion of saints, which, as the true salt of the earth and light of the world, forms the real soul of Christendom, the genuine realization of the idea of the Church; which, as the true Bride of the Lamb, day by day with longing hearts unites in the supplication of the Spirit: “Come, Lord Jesus,” Revelation 22:17; which, as the entire body of the wise virgins (Matthew 25:10) with loins girded and lamps burning (Luke 12:35) waits and watches until He comes “that is holy and that is true, that openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth” (Revelation 3:7); which shall therefore one day in glorious reality and with never-ending joy experience the fulfilment of that desire which bids them sigh and cry here below: Oh! come, do come, Thou Sun, And bring us every one To endless joy and light, Thy halls of pure delight. Footnotes:[Percy gives the preposition a privative sense, and translates “now thy veil is removed.” He supposes that the royal pair having alighted from their carriage, the ceremony of unveiling the bride here follows, which gives occasion to the bridegroom’s encomium on those features which the veil in great measure concealed. But Williams observes that the “Eastern poets celebrate the charms of the fair through their veils, and improve this circumstance into an elegant compliment.” Ainsworth and others remark upon the circumstance that seven particulars are here mentioned in the description of the bride, viz.: her “eyes, hair, teeth, lips, temples, neck and breasts,” uniting, as Moody Stuart expresses it, “perfection of number with perfection of beauty.”—Tr.] [Ginsburg adopts the translation of Lowth, Percy and Fry with advantage to the figure: “All of which are paired. That is, each upper tooth has its corresponding lower one; thus they, as it were, appear in pairs, like this flock of white sheep, each of which keeps to its mate, as they come up from the washing pool. And no one of them is deprived of its fellow, i. e., no tooth is deprived of its corresponding one, just as none of the sheep is bereaved of its companion. The teeth surely, which are here compared to the flock, cannot be said to bear twins like the sheep.”] [Castellus, followed by Patrick, Good and others: the opening flower or blossom of the pomegranate. Williams: “If the bridal veil of the Hebrew ladies was like that of the Persians, made of red silk or muslin, it would throw a glow over the whole countenance that will account more fully for this comparison.”] [Good: “The graceful neck of the fair bride is compared to this consummate structure; and the radiance of the jewels that surrounded it to the splendor of the arms and shields with which the tower of David was adorned. The simile is exquisite.”] [“Our first business is here with the controverted word μϊμτιεϊ, our translation of which “with projecting parapets,” is in partial accordance with, and derives support from that of Symmachus, εἰςέπἀλξεις (al. έπἀνωέπἀλξεων). The word ϊμτιεϊ, or rather its singular ϊμτιδ [better ϊμτιϊ] is regularly derived from the root μτδ. That root is, according to Buxtorf, actually found in the Chaldee in the Targum of Jonathan on Leviticus 6:5; although in the Targum, as printed by Walton, we read not ιμτι but ιενσ. However, whether the root be used or no, its meaning may be assumed to be identical with that of μτσ, which is found in other places in the Targum of Onkelos. The meaning is “to add on,” “to join on.” The substantive derived from it, when applied to a building, would thus naturally denote the projecting parts of the building, which seem as it were to be added on to the rest. We have an analogous term in the Chaldee μετּ ?ιο, derived from the same root as ϊμτιεϊ, and used in the Talmud of strongly marked eyebrows. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FOURTH SONGShulamith’s longing for her home again awakened.Son 5:2 to Son 8:4FIRST SCENE:Shulamith and the Daughters of Jerusalem(Son 5:2 to Son 6:3)Shulamith (relating a dream). 2 I was sleeping, but my heart was waking— Hark! my beloved is knocking: ‘Open to me, my sister, my dear, my dove, my perfect;for my head is filled with dew, my locks with drops of the night!’ 3 “I have taken off my dress, how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I soil them?”— 4 My beloved extended his hand through the window,and I was inwardly excited for him. 5 Up I rose to open to my beloved, and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with liquid myrrh, upon the handle of the bolt. 6 I opened to my beloved, and my beloved had turned away, was gone; my soul failed, when he spoke;I sought him but I did not find him, I called him but he answered me not. 7 Found me then the watchmen, who go around in the city; they struck me, wounded me, took my veil off from me, the watchmen of the walls. 8 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved— what shall ye tell him? “that I am sick of love.” Daughters of Jerusalem 9 What is thy beloved more than (any other) beloved,thou fairest among women? What is thy beloved more than (any other) beloved, that thou dost adjure us thus? Shulamith 10 My beloved is white and ruddy, distinguished above ten thousand. 11 His head is pure gold, his locks are hill upon hill,black as a raven.12 His eyes like doves by brooks of water, bathing in milk, sitting on fulness.13 His cheeks like a bed of balm, towers of spice plants;his lips lilies, dropping liquid myrrh. 14 His hands golden rods, encased in turquoises;his body a figure of ivory, veiled with sapphires. 15 His legs columns of white marble set on bases of pure gold; his aspect like Lebanon, choice as the cedars. 16 His palate is sweets,and he is altogether precious.This is my beloved, and this my friend, ye daughters of Jerusalem. Daughters of Jerusalem VI. 1 Whither has thy beloved gone, thou fairest among women? whither has thy beloved turned, that we may seek him with thee? Shulamith 2 My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of balm, to feed in the gardens and to gather lilies.3 I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine, who feeds among the lilies. SECOND SCENE:solomon to the same as before(Son 6:4 to Son 7:6)Solomon 4 Fair art thou, my dear, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as bannered hosts, 5 Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have taken me by storm.Thy hair is as a flock of goats, reposing on Gilead. 6 Thy teeth as a flock of sheep,that go up from the washing, all of which have twins, and there is not a bereaved one among them. 7 Like a piece of pomegranate thy cheek from behind thy veil.— 8 There are sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number. 9 My dove, my perfect is one,the only one of her mother, the choice one of her that bare her. Daughters saw her and called her blessed, queens and concubines and they praised her: 10 “Who is this, that looks forth like the dawn, fair as the moon, pure as the sun, terrible as bannered hosts?”Shulamith 11 To the nut garden I went down, to look at the shrubs of the valley, to see whether the vine sprouted, the pomegranates blossomed. 12 I knew it not, my desire brought me to the chariots of my people, the noble. Daughters of Jerusalem VII. 1 Come back, come back, Shulamith, Come back, come back, that we may look upon thee. Shulamith What do you see in Shulamith? Daughters of Jerusalem As the dance of Mahanaim. Solomon 2 How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, O prince’s daughter, thy rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of an artist’s hands. 3 Thy navel is a round bowl,let not mixed wine be lacking!thy body is a heap of wheat, set around with lilies. 4 Thy two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. 5 Thy neck like a tower of ivory, thy eyes like pools in Heshbon at the gate of the daughter of multitudes; thy nose like the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus. 6 Thy head upon thee like Carmel,and thy flowing locks like purple— a king fettered by curls !THIRD SCENE:Solomon and Shulamith (alone) (Son 7:7 to Son 8:4)Solomon 7 How fair art thou and how comely, O love, among delights!8 This thy stature resembles a palm tree, and thy breasts clusters.9 I resolve: I will climb the palm, will grasp its branches,and be thy breasts, please, like clusters of the vine, and the breath of thy nose like apples, 10 And thy palate like the best wine.…. Shulamith (interrupting him) —going down for my beloved smoothly,gliding over the lips of sleepers. 11 I am my beloved’s, and for me is his desire.—— 12 Come, my beloved, let us go out to the country,lodge in the villages, 13 Start early for the vineyards; we shall see whether the vine has sprouted, its blossoms opened,the pomegranates flowered. … there will I give thee my love.14 The mandrakes give forth their odor, and over our doors are all sorts of excellent fruit,new as well as old, (which), my beloved, I have laid up for thee.— VIII. 1 O that thou wert as a brother of mine, who sucked the breasts of my mother! should I find thee without I would kiss thee, yet none would despise me. 2 I would lead thee, bring thee to my mother’s house, thou wouldst instruct me; I would give thee to drink of the spiced wine, of my pomegranate juice. 3 His left hand is under my head, and his right embraces me.— 4 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem, that ye wake not, and that ye waken not love; till it please. AND 1. The place of the action in this new section is without doubt the same as in the foregoing act. The dialogue with the daughters of Jerusalem (Son 5:8-9; Son 5:16; Son 6:1-3; Son 7:1); the mention of the “city” and the “keepers of its walls” in this fresh recital of a dream (Son 5:2-7) which reminds one of its predecessor (Son 3:1-5); the “garden” of Solomon, to which he has gone down, Son 6:2; finally and above all her appeal to her lover to go out with her “to the country” (Son 7:12) and to the house of his chosen one’s mother (Son 8:2), and there in the enjoyment of simple country pleasures to become to her “as a brother who had sucked the breasts of her mother” (Son 8:1); all this points to the king’s palace at Jerusalem as the scene, and more probably to some room in this palace, than to “contiguous grounds” or “the royal gardens,” as is thought by Delitzsch. The room in the Palace on Zion, which, according to scene 2 of the foregoing act, was used for the marriage feast, may very well be the one in which the whole of the present act was performed; for there is no indication any where of a change of scene, not even between Son 7:1-2, or between Son 5:6-7 of the same chapter (vs. Del.).—The time of the action is determined by its characteristic contents to have been some days or weeks later than the wedding festivities described in act third. For the relation of love so pure and happy at the beginning has since suffered certain checks and interruptions, which reveal themselves on the part of Shulamith at least by various symptoms of uneasiness, nay, of sadness and dejection, without her betraying, however, that she has been at all wounded or actually injured by her husband. The dream, which she tells her companions at the beginning of the section that she has very recently had in the night, begins exactly like the preceding, and runs on partly in the same way. It does not, however, end as that does in a bright and joyous manner, but with pain and fright. Seeking her beloved by night, she not only fails to find him—she is beaten and robbed by the watchmen! Her gloomy misgiving in respect to the unfaithfulness of her lover, expressed in her apprehension that she might soil her feet again, which had just been washed (Son 5:3, see in loc.), proves to be only too correct, and drives her therefore with an anxious and troubled heart to have it said to her lover, who has actually forsaken her for a time, “that she is sick of love”—of loving solicitude about his heart partially averted and alienated from her (Son 5:8)! She expresses this solicitude, it is true, not by open complaint; on the contrary, in what follows she sedulously avoids dropping any thing to the disadvantage of her husband in the hearing of the ladies of the court (Son 5:10-16), she apologizes for his leaving her by the harmless assumption that he may have gone “to feed in the gardens and to gather lilies,” Son 6:2, and only inserts in her exclamation at the close an allusion indicative of painful longing in respect to the way that she wishes to be and to remain her beloved’s, viz., that he should now as formerly “feed among the lilies,” that he should be and remain a guileless, pure and simple-hearted country lover (Son 6:3)!—When, therefore, Solomon himself returns to her after a considerable absence, the manifestations of her partial dissatisfaction with him assume a somewhat altered form. She regards him gravely and sternly, and thus leads him in the picture of her beauty and loveliness, which, full of ecstacy, he again begins to sketch (Son 6:4 ff.; comp. Son 4:1 ff.) to introduce some allusions to her “terribleness” (Son 6:4; Son 6:10), as well as to the effect of the glance of her eyes (Son 6:5 a), which “overcome” or “dismay” him. The spirited statement of the prior rank accorded to her above all his wives and virgins, into which this description finally passes (Son 6:8-10), she leaves wholly unnoticed; nay, she answers it with a description of what she once did and was engaged in, when a simple country maid in happier circumstances, and with more agreeable surroundings (Son 6:11), and thereupon she gives him plainly enough to understand that the elevation bestowed upon her in consequence of her love “to the state-carriages of her people, the noble,” i.e. to the highest rank among the nobles of her people, had also led to her being painfully undeceived (Son 6:12). She even wishes to escape from the society of the voluptuous ladies of the court, which has become irksome to her, and she is induced to return and remain, not so much by their urgent entreaties and representations (Son 7:1) as simply and alone by her unconquerable love to Solomon, whom she hopes finally to free from his corrupt surroundings and to gain wholly for herself and for the purer pleasures of her life at home.—To the new and exaggerated laudation of her charms, in which her lover hereupon indulges (Son 7:2 ff.) she listens in silence; as in one place at least they offend against the rules of modesty (Son 7:3), she deigns not to answer. Not until the other ladies had left her alone with Solomon, does she venture to open her heart to him and to give free expression to her longing desire, which has been most strongly aroused, to return to her home and to have her lover changed from a voluptuous servant of sin to an innocent child of nature like herself. She does this by interrupting (Son 7:10) the fond language of her husband just where it had become most urgent and tender, and chiming in with what had been begun by him. With extraordinary address and delicacy she first, as it were, disarms and fetters him (Son 7:10-11) and then brings her desire before him with such overpowering force and urgency that refusal is impossible, and he is borne along as on the wings of the wind by her pure love, which triumphs thus over the enticements and temptations of his court (Son 7:12 ff.). He need not utter a word of express consent to her request; she has him completely in her power, and as he has just called himself “a king fettered by her locks” (Son 7:6), she but briefly refers to the fact, that his whole desire is toward her (Son 7:11 b), that “his left arm is under her head, and his right embraces her” (Son 8:3), and then leaves the scene on the arm of her beloved with that exclamation twice before uttered to the daughters of Jerusalem (Son 8:4), and which this time has the force of farewell advice.2. The sketch here given of the inner progress of the action in the course of this act departs in several important particulars from the view of the later interpreters; but it appears to us to be the only one which corresponds with the language and the design of the poet. It is principally distinguished from the view of Delitzsch, which approaches it most nearly, by its taking the “little disturbances” and troubles in the life of the newly married pair, which this scholar also affirms, to be more serious and real, and not restricting them for instance barely to the tragic contents of that story of her dream (Son 5:2-7) but letting the dissatisfaction of the chaste bride with the voluptuous conduct of the king and his court come properly forward as the actual cause of the clouded horizon of their married state. Our view too repels the assumption shared by Delitzsch with several recent commentators, but destitute of proof, that the description of Shulamith’s charms contained in Son 7:2 ff. was occasioned by a “country-dance” which she was executing before him and the ladies of the court,—a hypothesis dubious in every point of view, and upon which Shulamith’s character could scarcely be freed from moral taint (for the dance in question, the “dance of Mahanaim” can scarcely be conceived of as other than an unchaste pantomime); and from this it would be but a single step to the notion of Renan that Solomon in this passage describes the charms of a danseuse of the harem, or to the similar one of Hitzig, that the king is here “cooing round a concubine.” Finally our view differs in one point at least from that of Delitzsch in respect to the division into scenes, inasmuch as it rejects the opening of a new scene or even act after Son 6:9 (comp. in loc., as well as the Introduction, § 2, Rem. 2), and consequently takes the whole to be one act with three scenes, of which the first extends to Son 6:3; the second to Son 7:6; and the third from that to Son 8:4. Against the assumption of a point of division after Son 7:6 it has often indeed been urged (see e.g.Ew., Hitz., Weissb., and Hengstenb. too) that the passage Son 7:2-10 forms a continuous description of the beauties of the beloved, beginning with her feet and ending with her nose and palate. But with the more general exclamation Son 7:7, “How fair and how delightful art thou, O Love, among the joys!” this description evidently assumes an entirely different character from that it had before in Son 5:2-6, where the individual members are enumerated very much as had been done previously (Son 4:1-3 and Son 6:5-7) only in inverted order, and certain comparisons are instituted with them. And what Shulamith says to her lover (Son 7:10 ff.) in the closest connection with the second description (or rather interrupting it and proceeding of her own motion), is of such a nature that it can scarcely be conceived of as spoken in the presence of the “daughters of Jerusalem,” who had been present before. On which account Delitzsch’s assumption that a new scene begins with Son 7:7, does not in fact deserve so unceremonious an epithet as that of “purely gratuitous,” which Hitzig bestows upon it. The assumption of Hitz., Bφttcher, Ren. and Hengstenberg that a new scene does not begin until Son 7:12, might with equal propriety be denominated gratuitous; and so might many other modes of division which differ from ours, e.g., that followed by Ewald, Dφpke, Bφttcher, Hitz., Hengstenb., etc., and in general by most of the recent writers according to which a new scene opens with Son 7:2; that of Vaih. and others (particularly the older writers) which begins this new scene with Son 7:1; the assertion of Ewald that Son 6:10 to Son 7:1 is a dialogue between the ladies of the court and Shulamith which is repeated by Solomon, etc. The question as to the beginning and end of the scenes in this act moreover appears to be of little consequence, inasmuch as the locality of the action, as has been before shown, does not change. The only matters involved are 1) an entrance at Son 6:4 of Solomon, who had not been present before and 2) an exit or retirement of the chorus in the neighborhood of Son 7:6, or Son 7:11. And this retirement of the chorus is furthermore, as is shown by the epiphonema Son 8:4, probably not to be conceived of as a total disappearance but simply as a withdrawal to the background, as toward the end of Act first (see above, p. 62). 3. Scene first. a.Shulamith’s story of her dream,Son 5:2-8.—This like the similar passage Son 3:1-5 must be a dream, which Shulamith had had shortly before, and which she now relates as indicative of the state of her mind. In opposition to the opinion that Shulamith is relating a real outward occurrence (Dφpke, Hahn, Weissb., etc.) may be urged both the analogy of that prior passage and that such an affair is inconceivable in the history of Solomon’s love to Shulamith. It would have conflicted with decorum for that, which is narrated in vs. 2–5, to have actually taken place; and for the favorite of the king to have been beaten and robbed by the city night watch as is related Son 5:7, would form the non plus ultra of historical improbability. Besides the visionary character of the experience described is indicated not only by the introductory words, when correctly explained, “I was sleeping but my heart was waking,” but also by several characteristic particulars, as Son 5:3; Son 5:6. Son 5:2. I was sleeping but my heart was waking.—Hitzig adduces a striking parallel to the thought that in a dream the heart or spirit is awake, while the rest of the person sleeps, from Cic. de divin. I. Song 30: “jacet corpus dormientis ut mortui, viget antem et vivit animus.”Weissbagh’s objections (p. 211) to this parallel as inadmissible amount to nothing. Comp. F. Splittgerber, Schlaf und Tod, nebst den damit zusammenhδngenden Erscheinungen des Seelenlebens (Halle, 1866), p. 37 ff., espec. p. Song 43: “The soul is still in the body during sleep, though freer from it than in the state of wakefulness. It is in a condition of inner self-collection and concentration in order that it may afterwards operate with the greater force upon the course of things around it in its particular sphere of life.” And p. 71, “The soul sinks down in sleep to its innermost life-hearth, and loses itself there in that potential self-consciousness, which forms the proper essential quality of our spirits;—whilst in dreams it lifts itself to a comparatively higher region, that of the dawning consciousness, as it were, a region which stands considerably nearer the surface of the outward life and the daily consciousness, which moves upon it, and whose images therefore leave behind more impressive traces in our memory, which extend into our waking moments.” Hence Gφschel not incorrectly remarks: “If sleep is to be conceived of as depression, (καταφορά), dreaming is elevation (αναφορά).” From this statement also it further appears why the view maintained by Grot. and Dφpke, that ΰπιιωׁ ?πδεμαιςψ denotes a condition midway between sleep and wakefulness, a semi-sleep, is superfluous; an opinion by the way, which has the meaning of the words against it, for “I slept” is not the same thing as “I was half asleep.” The heart stands here in its customary O. Test. sense of the centre and organ of the entire life of the soul, not barely for the intellectual faculties of the soul, the region of thought, as Hitzig maintains. Comp. further on Proverbs 2:10 (in this commentary.)—Hark, my beloved is knocking: Open to me, my sister, my dear, my dove, my perfect. Compared with the similar passage Son 2:8 this fond quadruple address shows a considerable advance in the relation between the loving pair. The predicate “my fair one,” which there stands with “my dear” is here wholly wanting, and is supplied by the more intimate “my sister,” which since Shulamith’s marriage had become the common pet name, by which Solomon called her (see Son 4:9-10; Son 4:12, Son 5:1). He had it is true already said “my dove” to her before their nuptials (Son 2:14, comp. again Son 6:9); but “my perfect” is an entirely new appellation (comp. likewise again Son 6:9), which it is likely was first adopted after their marriage, and by which Solomon probably designed to express her innocence and purity (ϊַ ?ξָּ ?δ perfect, integra) in contrast with the character of his other wives, who were not so perfect and pure. For he can scarcely have employed this appellation unmeaningly, as “my angel” among us (vs.Dφpke and Hitz.), [nor can it mean as Thrupp alleges “mine perfectly or entirely.”]—For my head is filled with dew, my locks with drops of the night. The copiousness of the nightly fall of dew in Palestine is attested also by the well-known history of Gideon’s fleece, Judges 6:38; comp. also Psalms 110:3; 2 Samuel 17:12; Micah 5:6; Bar 2:25. That Shulamith sees her lover come to her window dripping with the dew of the night, and chilly too in consequence, might seem to imply that she thought of him as a shepherd, who as ἀγραυλῶν “abiding in the field” (Luke 2:8) had had to endure wet and cold, and hence had sought shelter in her dwelling. But to explain that representation it is sufficient to assume that the first half of her dream (Son 5:2-4) transports her back to her home, or in other words that now in her dream, as she had done before when awake (see Son 1:7; Son 2:16; Son 4:6) she transfers her lover without more ado from the sphere of royalty to that of a shepherd’s life. That in the latter half of her dream (Son 5:6-7) she thinks of him again as living in the city, and herself too as wandering about in the city looking for him, is a feature of the most delicate psychological truth, which has its analogue in the story of her previous dream, Son 3:1-4. Son 5:3. I have taken off my dress.λֻּ ?ϊָּ ?πְ ?ϊִּ ?ι lit., “my tunic, my under garment.” She here too thinks herself back again in her former humble circumstances, where she commonly wore nothing but a tunic, χιτών (comp. Exodus 22:25 f.; 2 Samuel 13:18, also Mark 6:9,) and consequently in the night was entirely unclothed with the exception of the warm covering or upper garment (ωִׂ ?ξְ ?μָ ?δ, Ex. ibid., Genesis 9:23; Deuteronomy 22:17) under which she slept.—I have washed my feet: how shall I soil them? This is again another particular referring back to her former scanty mode of life in the country. She did not then wear the shoes, which since her elevation to be a prince’s daughter (Son 7:2) she was now obliged to wear: on the contrary she ordinarily went barefoot in the house and in its immediate vicinity, except in long walks in the country when she wore sandals, (comp. Amos 2:6; Amos 8:6; Deuteronomy 29:4; Joshua 9:5). Hence the feet washed before going to bed might easily get dirty again on the floor of the house. The soiling of the feet is in the religious and ethical region a symbol of moral contamination from the petty transgressions of every-day life (John 13:10); and in the figurative language of dreams it is a well-known symbol of moral defilement reproved by the conscience and accompanied with shame, comp. (Schubert, Symbolik des Traums, 3d edit. p. 13, Splittberger, ibid. p. 128 ff.). It is therefore from going out to her lover, this symbol of more intimate and enduring intercourse with him, that she apprehends the soiling of her feet. Hence the objections which she makes to complying with his request, and the cold, almost indifferent, if not exactly “rude” (Del.) tone of her answer.Son 5:4. My beloved extended his hand through the window.ξִ ?οΞδַ ?ηεֹ ?ψ lit., from the hole,i.e., through the latticed window (for that is certainly what is intended here, as appears from Son 2:9, not a mere opening in the wall as Hitz. supposes) and from it toward me.This gesture of extending (ωׁ ?μη) the hand in does not signify his intention to climb in through the window (Hitz.), nor his desire to gain access by forcibly breaking a hole through the wall (Hengstenberg after Ezekiel 8:7-8) [so Wordsworth], but is rather the expression of an urgent request to be admitted. The customary gesture of a petitioner is, it is true that of spreading forth his hands τָּ ?ψַ ?ωׂ λַּ ?τָּ ?ιε (Exodus 9:29-31, etc.) But this could not be done in the present instance on account of the smallness of the window and the darkness of the night, and would besides have been unsuitable in relation to his beloved, for everywhere else it appears only as a usage in prayer. He must here, therefore, in craving admission adopt a gesture, which would at the same time express his longing to be united with his beloved (comp. Del. and Weissb. in loc.)—And I was inwardly excited over him; lit., “my bowels were agitated, sounded over him”—which according to Jeremiah 31:20; Isaiah 16:11; Isaiah 63:15 is equivalent to “I felt a painful sympathy for him.” This was of course because she had let him stand out in the wet and cold. According to the reading ςָ ?μַ ?ι (so the so-called Erfurt Ms., see de Rossiin loc.) the feeling expressed would be regret instead of pity: “my bowels were agitated on me” (i.e. in me, or over me, on my account—comp. Hitz. and Ew. in loc.) But this slenderly attested reading appears to have crept into the text from Ps. 42:6, 12, and for this reason to deserve no attention. Son 5:5. Up I rose to open to my beloved.ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι stands after χַ ?ξְ ?ϊִּ ?ι without special emphasis, according to the more diffuse style of speaking among the people. So Hitz. no doubt correctly, whilst Weissb., is certainly far astray in asserting that Shulamith means by this ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι to emphasize “her entire person in contrast with any particular parts.”And my hands dropped with myrrh and my fingers with liquid myrrh upon the handle of the bolt. That is to say, as my hands touched the handle of the bolt (or lock on the door of the house) in order to shove it back and open it, they dropped, etc.ςַ ?μλַּ ?τּ ?εֹ ?ϊδַ ?ξַּ ?πְ ?ςεּ ?μ, whose genuineness Meier suspects without any reason, plainly shows that the dropping of myrrh did not proceed from Shulamith’s anointing herself, as she rose and dressed, (as Magn. and Weissb. imagine) [so too Burrowes], but from the fact that her lover had taken hold of the door on the outside with profusely anointed hands, and so had communicated the fluid unguent of myrrh to the bolt inside likewise. This might have resulted from the unguent flowing in from the outer lock through the keyhole (Hitz.), or some drops of myrrh from the hand of her lover inserted through the hole above the door, might have trickled down upon the inner lock, which was directly beneath (Del). Too accurate an explanation of the affair seems inadmissible from the indefinite dreamlike character of the whole narrative. But at any rate an anointing of the outer lock of the door by the lover on purpose is not to be thought of (with Less., Dφpke, Ew., Vaih., etc.) because though classic parallels may be adduced for this “silent homage of love,” none can be brought from oriental antiquity.—ξεֹ ?ψςεֹ ?αֵ ?ψ is not “overflowing myrrh,”i.e., dealt out in copious abundance (Ew.), but myrrh exuding or flowing out of itself in contrast with that which is solidified and gum-like, σμύρναστακτή in contrast with σμ. πλαστή (Theophr. Hist. Plant. 9, 4); comp. ξψֹ γְּ ?ψεֹ ?ψExodus 30:23, as well as above on Son 1:13. Son 5:6. I opened to my beloved, comp. on 5a.—And my beloved had turned away, was gone. My soul failed when he spoke. That is, before, when he was speaking to me through the window (Son 5:2; Son 5:4), my breath for-sook me, my soul almost went out of me. It is consequently a supplementary remark, whose principal verb, however, is not necessarily to be taken as a pluperfect (vs. Dφpke).—I sought him but I did not find him; I called him but he did not answer me. With the first of these lines comp. Son 3:2 b; with both together Proverbs 1:28; Proverbs 8:17. Son 5:7. Found me then the watchmen,etc. Comp. Son 3:3, Hitz. correctly: “In her previous dream the watchmen make no reply to her question; here without being questioned they reply by deeds.”—Took my veil off from me.ψָ ?γִ ?ιγ (from ψָ ?γַ ?γ spread out, disperse, make thin) is according to Isaiah 3:23 a fine light material thrown over the person like a veil, such as was worn by noble ladies in Jerusalem; comp. Targ. on Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14 where ψγιγΰ represents the Heb. φָ ?πִ ?ισ.πָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ωְׂ ?ΰεּ ξֵ ?ςָ ?μַ ?ι certainly means not a bare “lifting” (Meier), but a forcible tearing off and taking away of this article of dress; else this expression would not form with the preceding “they struck me, wounded me,” the climax, which the poet evidently intends.—The watchmen of the walls; not the subject of the immediately preceding clause (Weissb.), but a repetition of the principal subject which stands at the beginning of the verse. In her complaint she naturally comes back to the ruffians who had done all this to her, the villainous watchmen.—“Watchmen of the walls,” whose functions relate as in this instance to the interior of the city, and who, therefore, were not appointed principally with a view to the exterior circuit walls, occur also Isaiah 62:6. Son 5:8. I adjure you,etc. For this expression, as well as the masc. form of address, comp. on Son 2:7.—What shall ye tell him? So correctly Ew., Heiligstedt, Del., Hengstenb. etc.; for although ξָ ?δ sometimes expresses an earnest negative or prohibition, and might therefore be synonymous with ΰִ ?ν in Son 2:7; Son 3:5, yet the translation “do not tell him that I am sick of love” (Weissb. and others) yields a less natural sense than the one given above, according to which Shulamith seeks to induce her lover to a speedy return by the intelligence of her being sick of love. And in fact she connects a charge of this purport to the daughters of Jerusalem immediately with the narrative of her dream, because this had already evidenced in various ways that she had an almost morbid longing for her lover (see especially Son 5:4, b; Son 5:6-7.) 4. Continuation. b. Shulamith’s description of her lover, Son 5:9-16 Son 5:9. What is thy beloved more than (any other) beloved, thou fairest among women? This question of the daughters of Jerusalem which serves in an admirable way to connect what precedes with the following description of the beauty of her lover, springs from the assumption readily suggested by Son 5:2-4, that Shulamith’s lover was some other than Solomon; an assumption admitted without scruple by the voluptuous ladies of the court, in spite of their knowledge of the fact that Shulamith had shortly before given her hand to the king as her lawful husband. It is therefore a question of real ignorance and curiosity, which they here address to Shulamith, not the mere show of a question with the view of leading her to the enthusiastic praise of the king who was well known to the ladies of the court and beloved by them likewise (Del.); and quite as little was it a scornful question (Dφpke, Meier) or reproachful (Magn.) or one involving but a gentle reproof (Hitz.)—against these last opinions the words “fairest among women” are decisive. Son 5:10. My beloved is white and ruddy, distinguished above ten thousand. This general statement precedes the more detailed description of the beauties of her lover, which then follows Son 5:11-15 in ten particulars, at the close of which (Son 5:16) stands another general eulogium.—The aim of the entire description is evidently to depict Solomon, as one who is without blemish from head to foot, as is done 2 Samuel 14:25-26 in the case of his brother Absalom. A commendation of his fair color, or his good looks in general fitly stands at the head of the description.—φַ ?η lit., “dazzling white;” stronger than μָ ?αָ ?ο; an expression which may be applied to a king’s son, but scarcely to a simple young shepherd from the country. His face might very well be called ruddy or brownish (as 1 Samuel 16:12) but scarcely dazzling white; and it is to the face that the predicate mainly refers, as a comparison with Son 5:14-15 shows.—To white as the fundamental color is added the blooming red. (ΰָ ?γεֹ ?ν) of the cheeks and other parts of the face both here in the case of Solomon and Lamentations 4:7 in the description of the fair Nazarites of Jerusalem, which reminds one of the passage before us.—“Distinguished above ten thousand,” lit. “from ten thousand, or a myriad” (ψְ ?αָ ?αָ ?δ), i.e., surpassing an immense number in beauty. Comp. Psalms 91:7, as well as the plur. ψααεϊ Psalms 3:7; Deuteronomy 33:17.—γָּ ?βεּ ?μ from γֶּ ?βֶ ?μ “standard, banner,” as in Lat. insignis from signum, denotes one that is conspicuous as a standard amidst a host of other men, signalized, distinguished above others, and ξִ ?ο is again comparative as in Son 5:9. The expression is evidently a military one like πִ ?βְ ?γָּ ?μεֹ ?ϊ Son 6:4; Son 6:10. Son 5:11. His head is pure gold. The comparison is not directed to the color of the face, as though this was to be represented as a reddish brown (Hitz.), but to the appearance of the head as a whole. From the combined radiance of his fresh and blooming countenance, and of his glossy black hair adorned with a golden crown, it presented to the beholder at a distance the appearance of a figure made of solid gold with a reddish lustre. λֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ν. according to Gesen., Hengstenb., and others, equivalent to that which is hidden, concealed = gold that is treasured up; according to Dietrich and others from λϊν “to be solid, dense,” hence massive gold; according to Hitz., Weissb., etc., equivalent to that which is reddish, of red lustre, which latter explanation is favored by Arabic parallels and by the expression πλϊν Jeremiah 2:22. The adjective τָּ ?ζ connected with it designates this gold as carefully refined and purified (comp. the Hoph. part. ξεּ ?τָּ ?ζ with the like sense 1 Kings 10:18).—His locks are hill upon hill. ϊַּ ?μְ ?ϊַּ ?μִּ ?ιν may be thus explained with Del., Weissb., etc., by deriving it from ϊָּ ?μַ ?μ to raise, heap up (whence ϊֵּ ?μִ a hill and ϊָּ ?μεּ ?μ high, Ezekiel 17:22). Commonly “palm branches,” (“flexible or curling palm branches” from ϊμμ in the sense of “wavering or swaying to and fro”); or “pendent, hanging locks” (from ϊμδsuspendit—so Hengstenb.); or “pendulous clusters of grapes” (as though ϊμϊμּ ?ιν = ζַ ?μְ ?ζַ ?μִּ ?ινIsaiah 18:5—so Hitz.). The comparison reminds us somewhat of that with the flock of goats on Mount Gilead (Son 4:2; Son 6:5); which was also designed to set forth his long curling locks piled one on another.—Black as a raven. Parallels to this simile from Arab, poets, see in Hartmann, Ideal weibl. Schφnheit, I. 45 f., comp. Magnus on Son 4:1 (p. 85) and Dφpkein loc. The latter adduces particularly two verses of Motanebbi (from J. v. Hammer, p. 11): “Black as a raven and thick as midnight gloom, Which of itself, with no hairdresser, curls.” Son 5:12. His eyes like doves by brooks of water. On the comparison of the eyes with doves comp. Son 1:15. In this case it is not doves in general, but particularly doves sitting “by brooks of water” (lit. water-channels or beds) to which the eyes are likened doubtless in order to represent the lustrous brightness and the moisture of the white of the eye by a figure like that employed Son 7:5, and to place it in fitting contrast with the iris whose varied hues resemble the plumage of the dove.—Bathing in milk, sitting on fulness. A further description of the relation of the “doves” to the “brooks of water,” i.e. of the iris (with the pupil) to the white that surrounds it. These water-brooks here appear to be filled up with milk instead of water, and the doves answering to the irides of both eyes are represented as bathing in this milk and accordingly as “sitting on” or “by fulness”—in which there is an allusion likewise to the convex form of the eye (correctly the Septuag., Vulg., Syr., and after them Hengstenb., Weissbach, etc.). ξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰϊ, lit. “fulness,” an idea undefined in itself, is here limited by the preceding ΰτּ ?ιχιξιν and therefore means “the fulness of the water-courses, that which fills them up” (Weissb.); and the ςַ ?μ which stands before it, indicates the same sense substantially of sitting by this fulness, as is expressed by the same preposition before ΰτιχιξιν (comp. Psalms 1:3). Others take ξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰϊ in the sense of “setting” as of a gem (comparing ξִ ?μֻּ ?ΰַ ?ϊΰֶ ?αֶ ?οExodus 28:17) and hence translate “enthroned in a setting” (Magn.) or “jewels finely set” (Bφttch., Del., preceded by Ibn Ezra, Jarch., Rosenm., Winer). But in opposition to this may be urged both the absence of ΰֶ ?αֶ ?ο after the indefinite ξμΰϊ, and the prep. ςַ ?μ instead of which αְּ might rather have been expected. More correctly Cocceius and Dφpke, who explain it “over the setting” i.e. “over the edge of the brook,” though still they do violence to the natural meaning of ξμΰϊ. Son 5:13. His cheeks like a bed of balm. The tert. compar. is not barely their delightful fragrance, but likewise the superb growth of beard upon his cheeks. Shulamith would scarcely have compared beardless cheeks with a bed of balm, i.e. a garden plot covered with plants. That she likens the two cheeks to but one bed may be explained from the fact that the beard, which likewise surrounds the chin and lips, unites them into one whole, which like the borders in many gardens has its two parallel sides (comp. Hitzig). The punctuation ςֲ ?ψεּ ?βϊֹ, which the ancient versions seem to have followed (e. g, Vulg. “sicut areolζ aromatum”) and which Weissb. still prefers, accordingly appears to be less suitable than the sing. ςֲ ?ψεּ ?βַ ?ϊ here retained by the Masorites; whilst the plur. ςֲ ?ψεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊ is unquestionably the true reading in Son 6:2.—Towers of spice plants. The expression ξִ ?βְ ?γְּ ?μεֹ ?ϊξֶ ?ψְ ?χָ ?ηִ ?ιν is doubtless so to be understood, as explanatory apposition to ςֲ ?ψεּ ?βַ ?ϊδַ ?αּ ?ωֶֹׁ ?ν and the bed of balm is accordingly to be conceived of as a plot embracing several “towers” or pyramidal elevations of aromatic herbs, by which the rich luxuriance of his beard and perhaps also its fine curly appearance is most fitly set forth (Ew., Delitzsch, Hengstenb., etc.). We can see no ground for the scruples, which are alleged to stand in the way of this explanation, or why we must with J. Cappellus suppose a reference to “boxes of unguents” (pyxides unguentorum) or with Hitzig, Friedr., Weissb., follow the Septuag. (φύουσαιμυρεψικά) in reading the part. ξְ ?βַ ?γְּ ?μεֹ ?ϊ. The fem. plur. ξִ ?βְ ?γְּ ?μεֹ ?ϊ from ξִ ?βְ ?γָּ ?μ is also attested by Son 8:10. The custom of raising fragrant plants on mounds of earth of a pyramidal or high tower-like shape, receives sufficient confirmation from Son 4:6 (the “mountain of myrrh” and the “hill of frankincense”). And the whole comparison appears to be entirely appropriate, if we but think of the beard on the chin and cheeks of her lover as not merely a soft down (Hitz.) but as a vigorous, finely cultivated and carefully arranged growth of hair. And in this we are justified in precise proportion as we rid ourselves of the notion of a youthful lover of the rank of a shepherd, and keep in view king Solomon in the maturity of middle life as the object of the description before us. Besides the circumstance that they were in the habit of perfuming the beard, as is still done to a considerable extent in the east (see Arvieux, R., p. 52; della Valle, II. 98; Harmer, Beobacht., II. 77, 83; Reiske on Tarafa, p. 46) may have contributed its share to the particular form of the comparison.—His lips lilies, dropping liquid myrrh.Of course it is not white but red lilies, lilies of the color, denoted Son 4:3 by the “crimson thread,” to which the lips of her lover are here likened. The “dropping of liquid myrrh” (comp. on Son 5:3) refers not to the lilies (Syr., Rosenm.) but directly to the lips. It serves to represent the lovely fragrance of the breath, which issues from her lips (comp Son 7:9); for the “loveliness of his speech” (Hengstenb., comp. Targ.) is not mentioned till Song of Solomon 5:316. Son 5:14. His hands golden rods. Others, as Coccei., Gesen., (Thesaur. p. 287), Rosenm., Dφpke, Vaih., [so Eng. Ver.], take βְּ ?μִ ?ιμֵ ?ιζָ ?δָ ?α to be gold rings, which they refer to the bent or closed hand, with allusion also to the fingernails colored with alhenna as compared with the jewels of the rings. Very arbitrarily, because 1) the curved or hollow hand must necessarily have been denoted by λַ ?σ; 2) the proper expression for ring would not have been βָּ ?μִ ?ιμ but ηεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν or θַ ?αַּ ?ςַ ?ϊ; 3) ξְ ?ξֻ ?μָּ ?ΰִ ?ιν could no more express the idea of being “set with anything,” than turquoises standing with it could yield a figure even remotely appropriate for yellow-stained finger nails. βָּ ?μִ ?ιμ is rather roller, cylinder, rod, and the expression “golden rods” is applied primarily to the individual fingers with reference to their reddish lustre and finely rounded shape (comp. Son 5:11 a) and then by synecdoche to the hands consisting of the fingers.—Encased in turquoises. Whatever precious stone may be intended by ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ιωׁ, whether the chrysolite of the ancients (see Septuag.,Exodus 28:17; Exodus 39:13) which seems to answer to our topaz; or what is now called the turquoise (a light-blue semi-precious stone); or the onyx, which Hitzig proposes (though this was called ωֹׁ ?δַ ?νGenesis 2:12, etc.), it is at all events in bad taste to understand by this encasing of the fingers in costly jewels anything but actual jewel ornaments with which his hands glittered, agreeably to the well-known custom in the ancient East of wearing many rings. (Comp. Winer, Realwφrterb., Art., “Ringe” and “Siegelring”). The nails in and of themselves differed too little in color and lustre from the fingers and hands as a whole, to admit of their being compared with precious stones; and staining them with alhenna (comp. on Son 1:14) if practised at all in the time of Solomon, was most likely a custom restricted to women and which could scarcely have been likewise in use amongst men. On ξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰ in the sense of “encasing” (lit., to fill in the encasement or enclosure) comp. Exodus 28:17; Exodus 31:5; Exodus 35:33. “Golden rods encased in turquoise” or “with turquoise” are properly such rods filled into the body of jewels here named i.e. surrounded and glittering with them (comp. Weissb. in loc.).—His body a figure of ivory, veiled with sapphires.ξֵ ?ςָ ?ιε here, where the exterior parts of the body only are enumerated, is certainly not “his bowels, his inwards” (Hengstenberg), but “his body,” comp. Son 7:3, as well as Daniel 2:32, where ξֵ ?ςִ ?ιν also stands as a synonym of αֶּ ?θֶ ?ο. It is only the pure white and the smooth appearance of the body, i.e. of the trunk generally, including the breast, thighs, etc., which can be intended by the comparison with an ςֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊωֵׁ ?ο a “figure of ivory” (ςֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ sing, of ςַ ?ωְׁ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ϊ [but see Gesen. Lex. s. v.—Tr.] forms, thoughts, Job 12:5), a comparison in which that ivory work of art restored by Solomon according to 1 Kings 10:18 may have been before the mind of the speaker. The sapphires veiling the statue are naturally a figure of the dress of sapphire-blue or better still of the dress confined by a splendid girdle studded with sapphires. On the latter assumption the apparent “unsuitableness of the comparison” vanishes, which certainly would have to be admitted (Hitz.) if the sapphire referred to the azure color of the dress. For it would evidently be too far-fetched, with Vaih. to refer the sapphire to the “blue veins appearing through the splendid white skin of the body,” and this would neither comport with the deep blue color of the sapphire or lapis lazuli, nor with the expression “veiled, covered (ξְ ?ςֻ ?μֶּ ?τֶ ?ϊ) with sapphires.”—There is accordingly an indirect proof of the royal rank and condition of Shulamith’s lover in the representations of this verse likewise, especially in its allusions to the ornaments of precious stones on the hands and about the waist of the person described. Son 5:15. His legs columns of white marble. The figure of an elegant statue is here continued with little alteration. To understand the ωׁ ?εֹ ?χַ ?ιִ ?ν simply of the lower part of the legs and to assume that Shulamith omits to mention the ιְ ?ψֵ ?λַ ?ιִ ?νi.e. the upper part of the legs from a fine sense of decorum (Hitz.) is inadmissible, because ωׁ ?εֹ ?χַ ?ιִ ?ν according to passages like Proverbs 26:7; Isaiah 47:2 appears to include the upper part of the leg, whilst ιְ ?ψֵ ?λַ ?ιִ ?ν according to Genesis 24:2; Exodus 28:42 : Daniel 2:32, etc., denotes rather the loins or that part of the body where the legs begin to separate. Further, the mention of the legs and just before of the body could only be regarded as unbecoming or improper by an overstrained prudishness, because the description which is here given avoids all libidinous details and is so strictly general as not even to imply that she had ever seen the parts of the body in question in a nude condition. It merely serves to complete the delineation of her lover, which Shulamith sketches by a gradual descent from head to foot, and moreover is to be laid to the account of the poet rather than to that of Shulamith, who is in every thing else so chaste and delicate in her feelings.—The legs are compared with “white marble” (ωֵׁ ?ωׁ) principally on account of the lustrous color of their skin, not with reference to their solidity; for an Arabic poet (Amru b Kelth., Moal. 5:18) pictures even the legs of a girl as “pillars of marble and ivory;” and the figure of the marble column is also employed in a like sense by Greek poets and mythographers (comp. Vaih. in loc.). Set on bases of fine gold,viz., on the feet which are here named as the bases or pedestals of the columns (their ιְ ?ρεֹ ?γ) without however going into any further description of them.His aspect like Lebanon.ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ not synonymous with χεֹ ?ξָ ?δ “stature” (Son 7:8), but denoting his entire appearance, his whole figure and bearing comp. Son 2:14. By this comparison with Lebanon his figure is characterized as majestically tall and impressive, comp. Jeremiah 46:18. There is probably no allusion to the “lordly look” which Lebanon bestows upon his beholders (vs.Rosenm., Magn.), and still less likelihood of a reference to the roots of the mountain penetrating deeply and extending widely in the earth as analogous to the “roots of her lover’s feet.” Job 13:27; Hosea 14:6 (vs.Hitz.).—Choice as the cedars; that is, stately and majestic as these giant trees which crown the summit of Lebanon. Son 5:16. His palate (is) sweets.ηֵ ?κְ is not the mouth for kissing (Magn., Bφttch.) but the palate as an organ of speech, as in Job 6:30; Job 31:30; Proverbs 5:3; Proverbs 8:7. Hitz. correctly: “It is speech which first betrays that the beautiful body described Son 5:10-15 has a soul;” whilst Weissb. in asserting that the palate is here regarded as an organ of breathing like the lips Son 5:13, fails to perceive this advance from the corporeal to the spiritual and creates an unhandsome repetition. On the figure comp. Proverbs 16:21; Proverbs 27:9.—And he is altogether precious.λֻּ ?μּ ?εֹ “all of him” combines in one the sum total of the ten corporeal excellencies enumerated in Son 5:11-15 together with the last named endowment of a spiritual nature, and thus completes the portrait of her lover, whereupon there follows the general reference to the preceding description: “This is my beloved, and this my friend, ye daughters of Jerusalem.” See Son 8:1 for AND ETHICAL.Footnotes:[Wicl., Mat.: The voice of the Church.] The unmistakably close connection of these words with what follows “Hark! my beloved knocking!” gives to both the participles ιְ ?ωֵׁ ?πָ ?δ and ςֵ ?ψ the sense of imperfects. Hitzig correctly says: “The connection makes the two partic. as well as γּ ?εֹ ?λֵּ ?χ express the relative past (comp. Jeremiah 38:26; Exodus 5:8); and this first part of the verse is therefore=αַּ ?ηֲ ?μεֹ ?ξִ ?ι Genesis 41:17.” Lit. “The sound of my beloved knocking,” etc. Comp. Son 2:8. γּ ?εֹ ?λֵּ ?χ is not in apposition to γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ι, but the predicate, and for this reason is without the article; comp. Genesis 3:8 [see Green’s Chrestom., p. 95, on this passage]. Hitzig correctly: “χεֹ ?μ is just the knocking, and is known to be χεֹ ?μγּ ?εֹ ?γָ ?δּ by the accompanying words.” [Mat.: Christ to the Church.] [Cov., Mat., Cran., Bish.: darling. Genev., Eng. Ver.: undefiled.] ωֶׁ ?· before ψΰωִׁ ?ι assigns the reason as ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ Ecclesiastes 6:12, or as λִּ ?ι Son 2:11. [Mat.: The voice of the spousess.] The prolonged form ΰֵ ?ιλָ ?λָ ?δ instead of ΰֵ ?ικְ or ΰֵ ?ιλָ ?δ serves to make the question more emphatic, like our “How could I. …? How can you ask me to. …?” [Mat.: The voice of the Church speaking of Christ.] [Wicl., Mat.: hole. Genev., Eng. Ver.: hole of the door.] [Genev.: Mine heart was affectioned toward him. Marg. as Eng. Ver.: my bowels were moved.] ηξχ cognate with ηαχ “to embrace” is substantially synonymous with ραα “to turn;” comp. the Hith. in the sense of “turning and forsaking,” Jeremiah 31:22, as well as the substantive ηַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?χִ ?ιν “that which is turned or rounded,” Son 7:2 below. “He had turned away” is now strengthened by adding the synonyme ςαψ to express his total disappearance. Symmachus correctly: ἀπονεν̓σαζἀπῆλθε, and still better the Vulg.: “at ille declinaverat atque transierat;” for the pluperfect sense of the verbs is demanded by the context. Comp. Genesis 42:8 : ιָ ?φָ ?ΰμֵ ?α. [Cov., Mat.: Now like as aforetime, when he spake, my heart could not refrain. Wicl., Dow.: melted. Burrowes: sunk in consequence of what he had said. Noyes, better: I was not in my senses while he spake.] Others read instead of αְּ ?γַ ?αְּ ?ψεֹ, αְּ ?γָ ?αְ ?ψεֹ and either explain this from the Arabic as equivalent to αְּ ?ςָ ?αְ ?ψεֹ “at his going away, at his departure” (Ew., etc.) or (comparing the Arab. dabra ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ι “behind him,” (Hitz.) with which Umbreit’s reference of αְּ ?γַֹ ?αְּ ?ψεֹ to a verb γִּ ?αֶּ ?ψ “to follow” (“I went out to follow him”) substantially agrees. But all these explanations, as well as that of Weissbach, according to which we should read αִּ ?γְ ?λָ ?ψεֹ “on his account, for his sake,” lack the requisite confirmation in point of language. [Mat.: The Church complaineth of her persecutors.] [Wicl.: mantle. Cov., Mat.: garment. Cran., Bish.: kerchief. Dow.: cloak.] [Mat.: The spousess speaketh to her companions.] [Wicl.: The voice of friends saith to the Church. Which is thy lemman (lover) of the loved? Mat.: The voice of the Synagogue. Who is thy love above other lovers—or what can thy love do more than other loves?] ξִ ?γּ ?εֹ ?γ beyond any one who is a beloved, i.e., more excellent than any other. γּ ?εֹ ?γ here simply states the idea in a general form, and ξִ ?ο is comparative, expressing the superiority of one thing above another, as in 10 b.[Wicl.: The voice of the Church of Christ saith to the friends. Mat.: The Church answering of Christ.] [Wicl.: as bunches of palms. Dow.: as the branches of palm trees. Genev.: curled. Eng. Ver.: bushy. Thrupp in imitation of the reduplicated form in Hebrew: flow flowingly.] [Cov., Mat.: brown as the evening.] [Cov., Mat.: remaining in a plenteous place. Cran., Bish.: set like pearls in gold. Genev.: remain by the full vessels. Dow.: sit beside the most full streams. Eng. Ver.: fitly set; Marg.: sitting in fullness, that is, fitly placed and set as a precious stone in the foil of a ring.] [Cov., Mat., Cran., Bish.: His cheeks are like a garden bed wherein the apothecaries plant all manner of sweet things.] [Cov., Mat.: His hands are full of gold rings and precious stones; his body is like the pure ivory, decked over with sapphires. Cran., Bish.: his hands are like gold rings having enclosed the pleasant stone of Tharsis. Dow.: his hands wrought round of gold, full of hyacinths. Genev.: his hands as rings of gold set with the chrysolite.] αָּ ?ηεּ ?ψ “chosen, excellent” (not “young man,” as Targ., Magn., Ew., Bφttch. have it) is evidently intended to indicate the pre-eminence of the cedars above all other trees, their surpassing height and stately form. Comp. γָּ ?βεּ ?μ Son 5:10 above, which is substantially synonymous, as well as the expressions ξִ ?αְ ?ηַ ?ψΰֲ ?ψָ ?ζִ ?ιν Jeremiah 22:7, and ξִ ?αְ ?ηεֹ ?ψαְּ ?ψωִׁ ?ιν (together with χεֹ ?ξַ ?ϊΰֲ ?ψָ ?ζִ ?ιν) 2 Kings 19:23. This word moreover belongs to ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δεּ as its predicate; for it is too remote to refer it to the suffix attached to this word, or to a new subject derived from it (Hitz.). [Cov., Mat., Dow.: his throat. Cran., Bish.: the words of his mouth. Genev., Eng. Ver.: his mouth; Marg.: palate.] On the plur. ξַ ?ξְ ?ϊַּ ?χִּ ?ιν “sweetnesses” see Ew. Lehrb. § 179, a [Green’s Heb. Gram. § 201, 1, a and c]. ξַ ?ηֲ ?ξַ ?γִּ ?ιν lit. “preciousnesses, desirable things;” comp. Joel 4:5; Hosea 9:16; 2 Chronicles 36:19. On the repeated ζֶ ?δ comp. Genesis 3:15. [Wicl.: The voice of holy souls, of the church. Mat.: The voice of the synagogue speaking to the church.] [Wicl., Mat.: The voice of the church.] In regard to ςֲ ?ψεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊαֶּ ?ωֹׁ ?ν comp. on Son 5:13 above. [Cov., Mat., Cran., Bish.: that he may refresh himself.] [Thrupp: Note in the Hebrew of this verse not only the rhyme between αβπιν and ωεωπιν, but also the resemblance in sound between μςψεβεϊ and μψςεϊ.Cov., Mat.: flowers. Cran.: roses.] [Wicl., Mat.: The voice of Christ to the church. Wicl.: Fair thou art, my love, sweet and fair as Jerusalem. Cov., Mat.: Thou art pleasant, O my love, even as loveliness itself; thou art fair as Jerusalem, glorious as an army of men with their banners.] [Good, Percy, Taylor, Thrupp: dazzling.] πִ ?βְ ?γָּ ?μεֹ ?ϊ lit., provided with a γֶּ ?βֶ ?μ banner, gathered about a standard (comp. Numbers 1:52; Numbers 2:2; Psalms 20:6); not, “distinguished, select,” as Weissb. misled by the affinity between this expression and γָּ ?βεּ ?μ Son 5:10 supposes. The fem. πִ ?βְ ?γָּ ?μεֹ ?ϊ is not to be explained by a ξַ ?ηֲ ?πεֹ ?ϊ understood (Ibn Ezra), but it “expresses the idea of a collective, as in ΰֹ ?ψְ ?ηָ ?δ and βּ ?εֹ ?μָ ?δ” (Hitz.). Weissb. preposterously: δֵ ?ρֵ ?αִּ ?ιςֵ ?ιπִַ ?ικְ ξִ ?πֶּ ?βְ ?γִּ ?ι is equivalent to “turn thine eyes away from thee to me,” and then the only suitable sense in the second clause must be “thine eyes encourage me.” [So Thrupp: ξִ ?πֶּ ?βֶ ?γ “opposite, over-against.” The full meaning is “Thou who art standing over against me, bend thou thine eyes so as directly to meet mine.”] Against this excessively artificial and over-refined interpretation of ξִ ?πֶּ ?βֶ ?γ one single parallel is decisive, Isaiah 1:16 : δָ ?ρִ ?ιψεּ — ξπֶּ ?βֶ ?γςֵ ?ιπַ ?ι “put away—from before mine eyes.” The Hiph. δψδιλ from ψδα “to rage, be violent,” most probably expresses a sense corresponding to the predicate ΰֲ ?ιֻ ?ξָּ ?δ, consequently not “to encourage, inspire courage,” as in Psalms 138:3, but “to assault, violently excite, take by storm.” [Cov., Mat.: make me too proud. Cran., Bish.: have set me on fire. Dow.: make me flee away. Eng. Ver.: overcome me; Marg.: puffed me up. Thrupp.: swell my heart with pride.] Verbally corresponding with Son 4:2, except in the more special δַ ?χְ ?φεּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ “shorn” instead of the more general expression δָ ?ψְ ?ηֵ ?μִ ?ιν “lambs” used here. [This is the meaning of the word in Arabic, but in Heb. it means “ewes, sheep.”] The numeral ΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊ one, forming a marked contrast with the sixty, eighty, etc., receives its proper limitation from the added δִ ?ιΰ: one she, i.e., she only. [It is better to regard δִ ?ιΰ as the copula like δֵ ?ξָּ ?δ in Son 6:8. Green’s Heb. Gram. § 258, 2]. That ΰֲ ?ηֹ ?ϊִ ?ι “my sister” which stands with ιεֹ ?πָ ?ϊִ ?ιϊַ ?ξָּ ?ϊִ ?ι “my dove, my perfect” in the parallel passage Son 5:2, can have influenced the selection of ΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊ “one” in this place, is very improbable (vs. Weissb.). ΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊδִ ?ιΰ cannot be taken here otherwise than it was before; the predicate is, therefore, wanting after this expression, as well as after the parallel αָּ ?ψָ ?δδִ ?ιΰ, and hence the predicate of the preceding clause, viz: “my dove, my perfect” must be supplied here again. The meaning therefore is “only one, she alone is my dove, my darling; she alone of her mother (i.e. her only daughter), she as separated or chosen of her that bare her.” So correctly Weissb. in opposition to Hitz. who takes ΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊ the second time as the predicate and δִ ?ιΰ as subject: “she is the only one of her mother.” On αָּ ?ψָ ?δ electa (Vulg.) from αψψ “to separate,” comp. Ezekiel 20:38; Jeremiah 23:28. [Thrupp: For the same reason that ϊξϊι lit., “my perfect one” may be rendered “my own one” may λψδ, lit. “pure one” be rendered “sole darling.” She is her parent’s “pure one”; and this would in fact be the best rendering, had not the word “pure” in its original sense become somewhat antiquated.] [Mat.: The voice of the Synagogue. Wicl.: Who is she, this that goeth forth as the morrow tide, rising fair as the moon, chosen as the sun? Cov., Mat.: Who is she, this that peepeth out as the morning? fair as the moon, excellent as the sun.] [Good, Moody Stuart and others: dazzling as the stars.] [Wicl.: The voice of the church, of the synagogue, Mat.: Christ to the synagogue. Cov., Mat., Cran.: I went down into the nut-garden to see what grew by the brooks, and to look if the vineyard flourished and if the pomegranates were shot forth.] [Castell., Parkhurst: pruned garden as if ΰְ ?βֶ ?εֹ ?ζ were from βָּ ?ζַ ?ζ. Thrupp without authority proposes to substitute δַ ?βּ ?εֹ ?ι.] [Mat.: The voice of the synagogue. Cov., Mat.: Then the chariots of the prince of my people made me suddenly afraid. Cran., Bish.: I knew not that my soul had made me the chariot of the people that be under tribute. Dow.: My soul troubled me for the chariots of Aminadab. Genev.: I knew nothing, my soul set me as the chariots of my noble people. Eng. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ See Son 5:1 ff for the passage comments with footnotes. 5. Conclusion. c.The question where her lover is and Shulamith’s answer. Son 6:1-3. Son 6:1. Whither has thy beloved gone, etc. As in what precedes Shulamith had made no distinct declaration respecting the person of her lover, but only given an ideal description of his beauty, the women might still remain uncertain who and where he was. Hence this additional question, which like that in Son 5:9 is a question of curiosity and expresses some such sense as this: If then thy lover is a person of such extraordinary elegance and beauty, how could he have suffered you to be away from him? how could he have permitted you to become the wife of another so that you now must pine after him and seek longingly for him? At all events that particular in Shulamith’s story of her dream, according to which her lover “had turned away, was gone,” Son 5:6, determined the form of their question. The women may have thought that they perceived in this the echo of an actual occurrence, a sudden desertion of Shulamith by her former lover. Manifestly no one of them thought of Solomon as the object of her languishing and painful desire. Son 6:2. My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of balm. This answer of Shulamith is certainly evasive, but scarcely jesting and roguish (Hitz.); it is rather sadly ironical. She does not seriously mean to represent Solomon as actually occupied with working in the garden or with rural pleasures (as Del. supposes). She merely intends to intimate that other matters seem more pressing and important to him than intercourse with her, his chosen love, and with this view she makes use of those pastoral and agricultural (horticultural) tropes, with which she is most conversant and most entirely at home (comp. Son 1:7; Son 1:14; Son 2:3; Son 2:16, etc.) It is further probable that “going down to the beds of balm” and “gathering lilies” may contain an allusion to amorous intercourse meanwhile indulged with others of his wives; and with this the primarily apologetic drift of her whole statement, which is purposely figurative and ambiguous, might very well consist. What Shulamith here says can in no event refer to a lover of the rank of a shepherd; for it would be trifling and in bad taste to attribute to him in that case besides his main business of feeding his flock, that of being engaged with beds of balm and other objects belonging to the higher branches of gardening (comp. Weissb. in loc.) and to explain the “garden” in the sense of Son 4:12-15 (that is, of Shulamith herself, as the locked garden, which her country lover had now come to Jerusalem to visit) must be regarded as the extreme of exegetical subtilty, and can neither be brought into harmony with the verb ιָ ?ψַ ?γ “has gone down” (for which we would then rather expect ςָ ?μָ ?δ “has come up”), nor with the plur. αַּ ?βַ ?πִּ ?ιν “in the gardens” (vs.Hitz., Bφttch., Ren.). Son 6:3. I am my beloved’s,etc.—The partial transposition of the words as compared with Son 2:16 is not due to chance, but is an intentional alteration; comp. Son 4:2 with Son 6:6; Son 2:17 with Son 8:14.—The connexion of the exclamation before us with Son 6:2 is given by Hitzig with substantial correctness: “The words of Son 6:2 are a rebuff to strangers concerning themselves about her lover; the averment in Son 6:3 that they belong to one another, indirectly excludes a third, and is thus inwardly connected with Son 6:2.” With which it must nevertheless be kept in view that this present assertion is not made without, at the same time, feeling a certain pain at the infidelity of one so purely and tenderly beloved.—The remark made by Del. on this verse cannot be substantiated: “With these words, impelled by love and followed by the daughters of Jerusalem (?), she continues on her way, hastening to the arms of her lover” (similarly too Weissb.). The text does not contain the slightest intimation of such a departure of Shulamith to look for him, and a consequent change of scene. Comp. above, No. 2. 6. Second Scene. a.Solomon’s reiterated praise of the beauty of Shulamith, Son 6:4-10. The simplest view of this scene is that all to Son 6:10 incl. is an encomium pronounced by the king, who has mean while entered, upon his beloved, but hitherto somewhat neglected and consequently saddened wife Shulamith, whilst Son 6:11-12 is spoken by her, and Son 7:1 by her alternately with the chorus. And the following explanation of the details will show that this is on all accounts the most satisfactory. We must reject, therefore, the views of Ewald, who puts the whole, even the colloquy, Son 6:11 to Son 7:1, into the mouth of Solomon, and consequently assumes but one speaker; of Hitzig, who makes the ladies of the court retire and the “shepherd” enter and speak, Son 6:9; of Bφttcher, who besides introduces the queen mother likewise as a speaker in the words “she is the only one of her mother, the choice of her that bare her” (Son 6:9 a); of Umbreit, who takes Son 6:10 to be the question of the poet, Son 6:11 ff. the language of Shulamith walking sadly about in the king’s nut garden; of Magnus, who breaks up the whole section into no less than five fragments, etc.Son 6:4. Fair art thou, my dear, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem.—ϊִּ ?ψְ ?φָ ?δ Tirzah (“delightful;” also the name of a woman, Numbers 26:33, in the passage before us rendered εὐδοκία by the Sept.) is certainly the subsequent residence of the kings in the northern kingdom, yet not here named as such along with Jerusalem, but as a remarkably beautiful and charming town in northern Palestine. Its mere name cannot possibly have afforded the reason of its being mentioned. It is much more likely that its location not far from Shunem (according to Hitz., in the territory of Issachar, the tribe of Baasha?) may have had some influence, since Solomon is elsewhere particularly fond of comparing his beloved with localities in the region of her home (Son 4:1; Son 4:8; Son 4:11; Son 4:15; Son 7:5-6). Comp. moreover Introduction, § 3, Rem. 1.—The site of ancient Tirzah is no longer accurately known. K. Furrer, Wanderungen, etc., p. 241, thinks that he saw it not far from Sichem (to the north of it and due west of Samaria), “on a charming green hill, part of which has a very steep descent;” but he has probably taken a locality considerably to the south for the ruins of the old royal city, probably Thulluza (three hours east of Shomron, one hour north of Mount Ebal), so explained also by Robinson. Comp. Hergt, Palδstina, p. 410; L. Voelter, Art. “Thirza,” in Zeller’s Bibl. Wφrterbuch, and Winer, in Realwφrterbuch.—Jeremiah also speaks of Jerusalem’s comeliness, Lamentations 2:15.—Hengstenb. makes the poet rise from Tirzah to Jerusalem as a still grander city; but this is contradicted by the fact that the predicate πָ ?ΰεָ ?δ “comely,” as appears from Son 1:5 compared with Son 1:8, is inferior to ιָ ?λָּ ?δ “fair.”—Terrible as bannered hosts.—ΰָ ?ινֹ from the same stem with ΰֵ ?ιξָ ?δ “terror,” is used Habakkuk 1:7 to designate the Chaldeans as a dreadful foe, and here, therefore, can only designate the person addressed as fearful, terrible, as is especially evident from the comparison with “armies” or “bannered hosts.”—But why is Shulamith here said to be “terrible as bannered hosts” (which is only further unfolded in what follows, “turn away thine eyes from me, for they assault me”)? Not because she was to be represented in a general way as triumphant over men, whose hearts she wounds and captivates by her glances, (Gesen.); much more likely, because she has exerted upon Solomon in particular, her ardent lover, a fearful power by those eyes of hers, which pierce the heart and vanquish all resistance (Ew., Dφpke, Delitzsch, and the great body of interpreters); but most likely of all because it was from those marvellously beautiful eyes a grave reproachful look had fallen upon him, because he had felt himself, as it were, called to account and chastised by the awe-inspiring innocence and purity of her look. Hitz. is substantially correct, only he makes the “chastising look” proceed from Shulamith still unmarried, who from love to her young shepherd acts coldly towards the king in his addresses. This explanation cannot be invalidated by the fact that the predicate “terrible as bannered hosts” recurs Son 6:10 below, as the language of the ladies of the court, quoted by Solomon; for in this quotation Solomon uses great freedom, as is shown by the extravagant comparisons with the sun, moon, and dawn of the morning (see in loc.). Son 6:5. Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have taken me by storm.—By this must be substantially meant, as appears from the context, an influence proceeding from Shulamith’s serious looks to the heart of her conscience-smitten husband, by which he was awed and abashed (comp. the parallels adduced by Hitz. from the Syr. and Arab. for the sense of terrifying), not the exciting of love to a passionate ardor (Dφpke), nor bewitching (Vaihinger), nor manifesting her resistless and victorious power over her lover (Delitzsch), etc.—Thy hair is like a flock of goats,etc. Comp. Son 4:1 b. On Son 6:6 comp. Son 4:2. On Son 6:7 comp. Son 4:3 b. The omission in this passage of the description of the lips and tongue contained in Son 4:3 a, is simply to be explained from the abridged character of the present delineation, which is, as it were, but an abstract of the preceding, and since it was enough simply to remind his beloved of the encomiums passed upon her on her wedding day, might fitly be restricted to bare hints or a summary recapitulation. The opinion of Hengstenberg and Weissbach, that the number four is maintained as characteristic of the form of this abridged description, as the number ten in the larger one, imputes too whimsical a design to the poet. Far too artificial also Hitzig: The omission of Son 4:3 a is to intimate “a brief pause” in the vain endeavors of the king to gain over the coy Shulamith, whereupon the voluptuous sensualist and inconstant “butterfly” suddenly breaks off after Son 6:7, bethinking himself that there are other damsels yet (Iliad ix. 395 f.), and accordingly leaving the scene with the words, “Well, I have sixty queens and eighty concubines,” etc., to make love, soon after (Son 7:2 ff.) to another(!). Son 6:8. There are sixty queens and eighty concubines,etc. That this exclamation is not “uttered aside,” and indicative of the sudden breaking of the thread of the king’s patience, who has thus far been vainly laboring with Shulamith (according to Hitzig’s view, just stated), incontrovertibly appears, from its close connection with Son 6:9, which nothing but the extreme of arbitrary criticism can sunder from it, and put into the mouth of the “shepherd.” Accordingly, even Renan has not ventured to approve Hitzig’s separation of Son 6:9 from Son 6:8, but has assigned both verses to the shepherd, who interrupts the king by singing them “from without!” But how could the praise of the “one dove,” the “one perfect,” etc., contained in Son 6:9, come from any other mouth than that which uttered the encomium upon the beauty of the king’s beloved, beginning Son 6:4! And again, how else could the way be prepared for the emphatic declaration: “My dove is one,” etc., but by this glance at the great number of the queens, concubines and virgins, who were all at the rich king’s command, but all of whom he was ready to subordinate to that one! It is plain that one verse here sustains the other, and they are all to ver.10 inclusive most intimately connected together like links in a chain, which cannot be broken. This has been seen by the majority even of the advocates of the shepherd-hypothesis, without their finding anything better here after all than a “last violent assault” upon Shulamith’s innocence (Ew.), or a “new and heightened piece of flattery” (Vaih.), or a “thought adapted to win the heart and ensnare the refined feelings of Shulamith” (Bφttch.), etc. On the relation of the numbers here given, “sixty queens” and “eighty concubines” of Solomon to the seven hundred queens and three hundred concubines, as stated (1 Kings 11:3, see Introduc., § 3, p. 12). The passage before us evidently contains a statement referable to an earlier period in Solomon’s life, which must as surely have been correct for some fixed point of time (which it is true cannot now be accurately ascertained), as the much larger numbers of the book of Kings are to be reckoned historically accurate for Solomon’s latest and most degenerate years. For there is just as little necessity really for discrediting them as “very large statements in round numbers” (Hitzig), as there is for the attempt to bring out an approximate adjustment with the lower statements of this passage, by the change of 700 to 70, and of 300 to 80 (comp. Thenius on 1 Kin. in loc.). The accounts of ancient writers, as Plutarch (Artax. c. 27), Curtius (III. 3, 24), Athenζus (Deipnos. III. 1), respecting the size of the harem of the later Persian monarchs. (e.g., Artaxerxes Mnemon had 360 παλλακίδες; Darius Codomannus was accompanied by 360 pellices on his march against Alexander, etc.) are analogies, which, rightly weighed, make rather in favor of than against the credibility of the book of Kings in this matter. And although the harems of modern oriental rulers are often stated to be considerably smaller, so that e.g., Shah Sefi of Persia, according to Olearius, had but three wives and three hundred concubines, Sultan Abdul Medjid, of Constantinople, something over three hundred and fifty wives, etc., these accounts of a very recent period prove nothing respecting the customs and relations of a hoary antiquity. The seven hundred and three hundred of the book of Kings, as well as the sixty and eighty of this passage, may indeed be round numbers. This is favored to some extent in the former case by the circumstance that the total amounts to precisely one thousand, and in the latter by the popular and proverbial use of the numbers six, sixty (comp. Cic. Verrin. I. c. 125), six hundred (Exodus 14:7; Judges 18:11; 1 Samuel 27:2, and the well-known use of the lat. sexcenti). But both these numerical statements must at all events pass for approximately exact; and neither the hypothesis that 1 Kings, loc. cit. states the entire number of all the wives, both principal and subordinate, that Solomon had in succession (so e.g.Keil in loc.), nor the opinion that the “virgins without number” may afford the means of adjusting the difference between them, seems to be admissible. Against the latter resource even Hitzig remarks: “The above difference cannot be reconciled by means of the ςμξεϊ virgins; for these plainly constitute a third class, and one outside of the harem”—that is to say, merely maids of the court, attendants upon the harem, whom the king, if he had chosen, might likewise have exalted to be concubines. On Hengstenberg’s allegorical explanation, according to which the “household of the heavenly Solomon” is here depicted, and consequently sixty and eighty = one hundred and forty, is to be taken as a mystical number, see Introduction, p. 31. Son 6:9. My dove, my perfect is one, comp. on Son 5:2. The opinion that ΰֲ ?ηֹ ?ϊִ ?ι “my sister,” which stands with ιεֹ ?πָ ?ϊִ ?ιϊַ ?ξָּ ?ϊִ ?ι “my dove, my perfect” in the parallel passage Son 5:2, can have influenced the selection of ΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊ “one” in this place, is very improbable (vs. Weissb.).—The only one of her mother, the choice one of her that bare her. It follows, from the subsequent mention of Shulamith’s little sister, Son 8:8, that the predicate “only” here (as in Proverbs 4:3) is not to be taken literally, but in the tropical sense of “incomparable.” On the combination of “mother” and “she that bare her,” Son 3:4, Son 8:5. On the clause generally, Proverbs 4:3.—Daughters saw her and called her blessed, queens and concubines and they praised her. On the sentence comp. Proverbs 31:28, probably a free imitation of this passage. The “daughters” evidently correspond to the ςֲ ?μָ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ “virgins,” Son 6:8, as also the “queens and concubines” of that verse recur here, that they may expressly subordinate themselves to Shulamith, who is preferred above them. On account of this exact correspondence between this clause and Son 6:8, it is incomprehensible how Hitz. can regard Son 6:9 as spoken by the shepherd. Whence could he know that Solomon’s queens and concubines had such an opinion of Shulamith? And how unnatural and far-fetched would such a remark about the uniqueness and all-surpassing loveliness of his beloved appear as the first exclamation of the shepherd immediately upon his coming to her! In the course of his familiar conversation with her he might appropriately say something of the sort, but not as the first word of his salutation. Son 6:10. Who is this that looks forth like the dawn? If these words, like the exclamations Son 3:6 and Son 8:5, which likewise begin with ξִ ?ιΞζֹ ?ΰϊ “who is this,” had really been the opening of a new scene (as Rosenm., Dφpke, Heiligst., Del., Vaih., Weissb., etc., maintain, either supposing Solomon, or his courtiers and attendants, or the ladies of the court to be the speakers) they would have been preceded by a concluding formula like Son 3:5 and Son 8:4. Instead of this Son 6:9 rather required to be further explained and supplemented in regard to Shulamith’s being praised and pronounced blessed by Solomon’s wives; a statement was still needed of what the ΰַ ?ωֵּׁ ?ψ ‘blessing’ and δַ ?μֵּ ?μ ‘praising’ of those women amounted to. And the thing of all others best adapted to this purpose, was a mention of that admiring praise, which according to Son 3:6 ff. the ladies of the court bestowed upon Shulamith on her entry into Zion upon her wedding day. To this panegyric, of which he must have had mediate or immediate cognizance, Solomon here refers, though only in the way of inexact suggestion not of faithful reproduction (substantially correct Ew., B. Hirzel, Bφttch., Hitz.).—δַ ?πִּ ?ωְׁ ?χָ ?τָ ?δ lit. “looking down, gazing down” from a high position: comp. ωׁ ?χσ in Judges 5:28; Psalms 14:2; Psalms 53:3; Psalms 102:20; Lamentations 3:50. Reference is thus made to the prominent or exalted place occupied by Shulamith in the world of women. She outshines all others like the early dawn, which looks from heaven over the mountains down to the earth. Yes, like the sun and moon! Dawn, moon and sun are here, therefore, personified as it were, like the sun in Son 1:6 above. Fair as the moon, pure as the sun.αָּ ?ψָ ?δ here equivalent to spotless, bright-shining, comp. Psalms 19:9; and on the silvery moon as an image of superior purity and beauty Job 25:5; Job 31:26. Arabic poets also sometimes compare female beauty with the brightness of the moon e. g. Hamasa (ed. Schultens, p. 483.) “Then Lamisa appeared like the moon of heaven when it shines;” Motanebbi (Translation by Von Hammer, p. 29, 42, etc.) and others, comp. Dφpke and Magn. in loc.) The poetic expressions μְ ?αָ ?πָ ?δ “white” and ηַ ?ξָּ ?δ “hot” for moon and sun, which are again combined in Isaiah 24:23, are particularly suited for the comparison, because they are both feminine and alike indicative of white and blazing radiance.—Terrible as bannered hosts. This concluding simile points to the identity of the person intended with the one described in Son 6:4, and at the same time testifies to the identity of the speaker and against the sundering of this verse from the preceding.7. Continuation. b.Shulamith and the ladies of the court,Son 6:11 to Son 7:1. Some recent commentators take this particularly difficult little section to be a narration by Shulamith of something which she had previously experienced, in which she also repeats the language of others to her, together with her answer (Hitz., Meier, etc.); Naegelsb. (in Reuter’s Repert. 1852, No. 10) on the contrary regards it as a reverie of Shulamith, in which she foreshadows to herself her reception by her country friends on her expected return to them; Ew. (and Hahn) a continuation of the discourse of Solomon, in which a colloquy between Shulamith and the ladies of the royal court is repeated; the majority of both the older and the later expositors, however, make of it an independent dialogue between Shulamith and the “daughters of Jerusalem,” in which the verses Son 6:11-12 together with the words “what do you see in Shulamith” in Son 7:1 are assigned to the former, and the remainder of Son 7:1, to the latter. This last understanding of it is the only one which avoids the manifold difficulties and forced explanations with which each of those previously mentioned is chargeable. Son 6:11. To the nut-garden I went down. According to the various interpretations put upon the entire section, these words are thought to contain either 1) Shulamith’s answer to what is supposed to be the wondering question of the ladies of the court in Son 6:10 (so Del. and Weissb.: she states to her noble auditors in these words not so much who she is, as why she had come down to the king’s garden); or 2) the beginning of an account of what happened to her on the occasion of her being first brought to the king’s court (Ew., Umbr., Hitz., Vaih., Bφttch., Ren. etc.—all agreeing in this that Shulamith here begins to tell the story of her former “abduction” to the king’s harem); or 3) the beginning of a dreamy description of what Shulamith would do after her return home (Naegelsb. loc. cit.) or 4) the beginning of a statement of the way in which the daughter of Zion attained the high dignity which the words of the heavenly Solomon had ascribed to her, especially in Son 6:9-10, (Hengstenb.); or 5) the beginning of a recital by Solomon, in which he prophetically depicts the process of the conversion of the gentiles to the God of Israel (Hahn) etc. We hold that of these views the second comes nearest to the true sense of the poet, but prefer to find in the words instead of a statement of what Shulamith was doing at the precise moment of her “abduction,” a description of what she was in the habit of doing before she came to the royal court. We accordingly take ιָ ?ψַ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ι neither as pluperf. (“I had gone down”), nor as a proper perfect, nor as an aorist, but as a statement of an action frequently repeated in the past, a customary action, in which sense though it elsewhere belongs rather to the future, the perfect is sometimes used in the O. T (e.g.2 Samuel 1:22,) comp. Ew. Lehrb. § 136, c.—If, therefore, Shulamith commences in this way to describe her rural occupations prior to her exaltation as queen, she thereby gives her husband plainly enough to understand that he has in no wise satisfied her by his enthusiastic laudations and admiring declarations of love, but that she now longed more than ever to get away from his voluptuous court and from the vicinity of his sixty queens and eighty concubines to the green little nut garden, the fresh valleys and the lovely vineyards in the region of her home.—βִ ?πַּ ?ϊΰֱ ?βεֹ ?ζ denotes according to all the versions as well as to ancient Talmudic tradition a “nut garden,” a meaning for which there is the less need to substitute “kitchen-herb or vegetable garden” (with Hitz.) since ΰֱ ?βεֹ ?ζ is doubtless the same word with the Pers. ghuz and JosephusBell. Jud. III. 10, 8, expressly testifies to the occurrence of nut-trees in the region of the lake of Tiberias, not far consequently from Shulamith’s home. The nut-garden here mentioned is to be sought in this her native region and not in the neighborhood of Jerusalem or within the range of the king’s gardens. It can scarcely be different from the vineyards and orchards described Son 7:13 ff. in the immediate vicinity of the house of Shulamith’s mother.—To look at the shrubs of the valley,etc. The garden itself probably lay likewise in this valley-bottom, or at all events considerably lower than Shulamith’s residence (hence ιψγ “went down”). “Shrubs” or “green” of the valley (ΰִ ?αֵּ ?ιδַ ?πָּֽ ?ημ) probably denotes whatever verdure sprouted up in the place where the water of the Wady had run off, less likely the green of proper water-plants (Job 8:12). On the combination of verdure or shrubs, vines and pomegranates comp. Son 2:12, f. the like juxtaposition of flowers, fig trees and vines. ψָ ?ΰָ ?δαְּ “to look at anything” denotes, as it invariably does, the pleased, gratified contemplation of an object (comp. Psalms 27:4; Psalms 63:3; Micah 4:11, etc.) not the busy looking for something, for which latter sense not even Genesis 34:1 can be adduced (vs. Hitz.). Son 6:12. I knew it not, my desire brought me,etc. The thing intended is scarcely her “desire to walk out in the open air” (Ew.), or her “curiosity” (Vaih.), or her “wish to see the vine sprout” (Hitzig), but much more probably her desire to belong to her royal lover, her longing to be wholly and for ever her beloved’s. When and how this desire was first awakened in her, she does not here state; she had given utterance to this in another place, see Son 2:8-17. In the passage before us she simply assumes the existence of her desire and longing for her lover, and only tells how little she knew or imagined in the midst of those rural occupations of hers (Son 6:11) that she was exalted by it “to the chariots of her people, the noble,” in other words, how little she suspected beforehand that her lover was the king, the ruler of all Israel.—To the chariots of my people, the noble.ξַ ?ψְ ?λְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ strictly denotes merely “wagons,” but here, like the combination “horses and chariots” in other passages (Deuteronomy 20:1; Isaiah 31:1; Psalms 20:8) seems to express the idea of the full display of the power and pomp of the kingdom, but without suggesting anything of a military nature, so that as in 1 Samuel 8:11; 2 Samuel 15:1 we are to think chiefly of state carriages in the festive processions of the king and his court. Being transferred or promoted to these chariots of state would accordingly be tantamount to elevation to royal dignity and glory, of which the analogy of Joseph in Egypt is an instructive instance, Genesis 41:43 ff. So far as the language is concerned, there is no special objection to this interpretation. The connection of the accusative ξַ ?ψְ ?λְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ with the verb ωׂ ?εּ ?ν without a preposition most probably expresses the idea of “removing or bringing in the direction (comp. Isaiah 40:26; Daniel 11:2; or into the vicinity of something,” (comp. Judges 11:29); this is the case not merely with verbs denoting motion, but with all possible verbal ideas (see numerous examples in Ew., § 281, d). ωׂ ?εּ ?ν is often elsewhere synonymous with δֵ ?αִ ?ιΰ “to bring or conduct to any place” (comp. Genesis 2:8) and so ωׂ ?εּ ?νξַ ?ψְ ?λְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ may very readily mean: “to bring to the chariots, to transfer, exalt into the sphere or region of the chariots”—a meaning which is at all events more obvious than the rendering “to set me on the chariots” (Syr., Del., etc.); or than the explanation of Velth., Gesen., Ew., Bφttch., Hitz., Ren., etc.: “made me happen among the chariots” (viz., of the royal retinue); or than the strange rendering of the Vulg., which probably presupposes the reading ωַׁ ?ξַּ ?ϊְ ?πִ ?ι instead of ωָׂ ?ξַ ?ϊְ ?πִ ?ι “conturbavit me propter quadrigas,” etc.; or finally than construing ξַ ?ψְ ?λְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ as a second object, either in the sense of “making me or converting me into chariots,” i.e., “a princess” (Umbr.) or “a defence” (Hengstenb.); or “making like chariots, i.e., as swift as chariots” (Rosenm., Magn., Dφpke). Since no one of these constructions appears to be better established in point of language than ours, while this latter undoubtedly yields a less forced and more attractive thought, we might with all confidence declare it to be the only one that was admissible, if it were not that the difficult limiting genitive ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιπָ ?γִ ?ια “of my people, the noble,” involves the real meaning of ξַ ?ψְ ?λְּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ and consequently of the entire passage in an obscurity that can scarcely be cleared up. The translation “chariots of my people, the noble,” or “chariots of my noble people,” is on the whole the most satisfactory (the absence of the article before the adjective is of no consequence, comp. Genesis 43:14; Psalms 143:10 [Green’s Heb. Gram., § 249, 1, b]). The resulting sense cannot then be materially different from that of πְ ?γִ ?ιαֵ ?ιςַ ?ν “nobles of the people” Psalms 113:8 or πְ ?Ψδָ ?ςָ ?νNumbers 21:18 (comp. πְ ?Ψ ·ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιν Ps. 47:10) and will accordingly refer to the noble countrymen of Shulamith, to the proceres seu optimates gentis suζ; for the explanation “warchariots of the people of the prince” (Weissb.) certainly has as much against it as the opinion that ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιπָ ?γִ ?ια is one noun, either equivalent to “prince of the realm” (Vaih.) or = the well-known proper name Amminadab (Exodus 6:23; Numbers 1:7; Rth 4:19; 1 Chronicles 2:10; 1 Chronicles 6:7, etc.). This last expedient, manifestly the most confusing of all, was already tried by the Sept., Symmach., Vulg., Luther (who has Amminadib instead of Amminadab), and after them by most of the older interpreters, especially the allegorizers, with whom it was, so to speak, a fixed dogma that Amminadab means the devil! But even if we shun such devious ways, the sense of the expression “transferred to the chariots of my noble people” remains obscure and ambiguous enough, and we can either assume that the “noble people” or “noble folk” “Edelvolk” (Ew.) was intended to denote the noble extraction of Israel, or the courtiers of Solomon, or the whole people as represented in the person of its prince (so substantially Del., comp. Vaih.). In all which, however, it still remains a question why the poet did not make Shulamith speak in so many terms of her elevation to the chariot or to the throne of her prince.—To complete as far as possible our enumeration of all that interpreters have made out of the crux before us, Weissbach’s view of this verse may here be stated in conclusion. According to it “the words of Son 6:12 in the mouth of the person, who had proposed the question Son 6:10 (viz., a courtier, who had gazed with astonishment upon Shulamith in the garden) mean: I asked the question because I did not know that this brilliant and majestic spectacle was you; I had rather supposed that I saw the prince’s army chariots before me!”—Hahn, too, thinks that the speaker of these words is not Shulamith but Solomon, who thus relates how, when filled with longing desire for a reunion with Japhetic gentilism, his soul suddenly and insensibly set him “on the chariots of his people as a prince.”See Son 8:1 for AND ETHICAL. Footnotes:[This is certainly a most extraordinary comment upon language which manifestly expresses nothing but the most entire confidence in Solomon’s unabated attachment to herself while it reaffirms her own undivided attachment to him. The inconstancy of the bridegroom, which Zφckler’s preconceived scheme obliges him to assume, is contradicted in express terms by this verse, converts Son 6:2 into an unmeaning evasion instead of the frank statement, whether literal or figurative, which it plainly is, and imputes a meaning to Son 6:1 which the words certainly do not contain, and which no one who was not pressed by the exigencies of a theory would ever imagine that he found there. If the unsuccessful search for her lover, which Shulamith reports, Son 5:6-7, was only a troubled dream, it can create no surprise that in her waking moments she knows and is able to state in the general whither her beloved had gone, even if she were not certain in what particular spot in his extensive gardens he was then to be found. The allegorical sense commonly put upon these verses will appear sufficiently from the following citations: “Jerusalem being on an hill, they went down to the gardens; so Christ comes down from heaven spiritually into the congregation.” Westminster Annotations. “The garden which had been described in Son 4:12 to Son 5:1. The ‘garden’ refers to the Christian body in its unity, the ‘gardens’ denote its manifoldness; in the New Testament we read, as Theodoret remarks, alike of the Church and of the churches. Under the dispensation of the gospel, no less than under that of the older covenant, Christ nurtures His people in the purity of holiness. But He now not only feeds His flock among lilies, but also gathers lilies; gathers with joy and acceptance from His people those fruits of holiness which through the grace of His Spirit they are continually bringing forth.” Thrupp.—Tr.] [This can scarcely be characterized in any other way than as carrying a theory through regardless of difficulties which the plain words of the text may interpose. The expression “terrible as armies with banners” cannot mean one thing here and a different thing in Son 6:10. As Good correctly remarks: “The artillery of the eyes is an idea common to poets of every nation.” Comp. Anacreon, Od. ii., xvi.; Musζus, Hero et Leander. —Tr.] At least according to the Masoretic text; though the Septuag. insert the words Son 4:3 a (Ὡζσπαρτἰονκὀκκινονχεἰλησονκαἰ, ἠ λαλιἀ σονὡραἰα) here too in their proper place (between Son 6:6-7). [But gratuitous insertions from parallel passages are too frequent in the Septuagint to warrant the suspicion of an omission from the currently received text]. [Westminster Annotations: “It seems that Solomon writ this book of Canticles before he had his full number of wives; for he had many more after.” Patrick (followed by Williams, Scott and Henry) supposes allusion not to Solomon’s own wives, but to those of other princes, for the reason that “it is not at all likely that he had so many as are there mentioned, while his mind was filled with such divine raptures as these.” Fry fancies that he finds here an argument for the idyllic hypothesis: “The passage before us contains a tacit intimation that though King Solomon’s name and King Solomon’s pen were made use of by the divine Inspirer of these Canticles to construct an allegory representative of the loves of Christ and His Church, very different loves from those of Solomon must be imagined as the archetype, even when in the exterior of the allegory, circumstances of royalty and circumstances connected with the Israelitish monarch are supposed. And it is for the same reason that though King Solomon is the undoubted author of these songs, he so frequently disrobes himself of his royal character, and speaks in the person of a shepherd, or leads us to contemplate some faithful pair in the humbler ranks of life”]. [Thrupp gives a different view from the allegorical standpoint: “As regards the sixty and the eighty, we have of course in each case a definite number for an indefinite. The choice of the particular numbers seems to have been mainly dictated by a studied avoidance of the number seventy, to which a certain sacredness and completeness would have attached. It is no harmonious covenant-relationship, in which the queens and concubines stand to Christ: all is with them imperfect and wide of the mark. A directly opposite view is erroneously taken by Hengstenberg.” Wordsworth exhibits the Archdeacon of Westminster in his comment: “The concubines are more numerous than the queens. May not this perhaps signify that the number of the members of sectarian congregations would be greater than that of the Church?” He had before remarked upon the fourscore concubines: “A state of things is here represented when schisms prevail in Christendom. The concubines represent Christian congregations which have some spiritual gifts and graces, but are not perfectly joined to Christ in the unity of the one faith and apostolic fellowship”]. Here too belong the verses from Theocritus, Id. xvii. 26 ff. “ Ἀὡζἀντέλλοισακαλὀνδιέφαινεπρὀσωπον, ΙΙότνιανὺξἅτε, λενκὸνἔαρχέιτῶνοζἀνέντος, Ὤδεκαὶ ἁ χρνσέα) Ἑλέναδιεφαίνετ̓ ένἁμῖν.” [Doway note: “Here is a beautiful metaphor describing the church from the beginning. ‘As the morning rising,’ signifying the church before the written law; ‘fair as the moon,’ showing her under the written law of Moses; ‘bright as the sun,’ under the light of the gospel; and ‘terrible as an army,’ the power of Christ’s church against its enemies.”] [The simplest and most natural explanation of these words finds in them, as it is expressed by Wordsworth: “the cheerful alacrity and fervent affection of the bride flying on the wings of love” to the bridegroom. Moody Stuart: “In a moment her soul is carried away directly, irresistibly, rapidly toward her bridegroom and her king.” Withington thus paraphrases: “I went into the garden; I walked among its shades; I surveyed its beauties; I remembered the owner, and my soul melted with rapture and love.” Patrick makes a somewhat different application: “The meaning of this verse seems to be that the spouse hearing such high commendations of herself, both from the bridegroom and from the persons mentioned, Son 6:10, with great humility saith, that she was not conscious to herself of such perfections (I did not know it, or I did not think so), but is excited thereby to make the greatest speed to endeavor to preserve this character he had given her.” Percy and Good understand it of the bride’s hesitation and irresolution after she had promised to meet her beloved in the garden. The latter states its meaning thus: “I was not aware of the timidity of my mind, which hurried me away from my engagement, when in the very act of adhering to it, with the rapidity of the chariot of Amminadib.” Thrupp on the basis of 2 Kings 2:12; 2 Kings 13:14 : “The church had unconsciously and unexpectedly become the source and channel of victorious might to all the willing people of God. ‘My soul,’ she says, ‘had made me.’ It is the unshrinking and devoted zeal with which the church prosecutes the task set before her that makes her the rallying point for all who would join in the service of her Lord.” Others attribute this language to the bridegroom. Thus Taylor and Williams: “The affections of the prince carried him to meet his love with the rapidity of a chariot.” Burrowes, as Scott and Henry, finds in Son 6:11-13 a statement of the feelings of the bridegroom during his temporary withdrawal. When he left his spouse, Son 5:6, it was “only to withdraw to his favorite place of resort in the garden;” where “almost unconsciously, ere he was aware, his soul was filled with the desire of meeting her again, a desire so strong that it would have carried him to her arms with the swiftness of the chariot of Amminadib.” It is characteristic of Gill’s exposition that in commenting on Son 6:11 he proposes the question, Why are believers like nuts? and answers it under ten heads.] See Son 5:1 ff for the passage comments with footnotes. Son 7:1. Come back, come back, Shulamith, etc. As according to our understanding of Son 7:11-12 Shulamith expresses in them her longing for the simpler circumstances of her native region and speaks of her elevation to the king’s throne as a distinction, which came to her without her knowledge, and contrary to her expectation, nothing is more natural than to conceive that she spoke this in a saddened and painfully excited mood, and to conjecture that her strong and painful feeling of home-sickness would be accompanied by a corresponding gesture. This gesture we must unquestionably suppose from the earnest and repeated call addressed to her by the ladies of the court “come back, turn back” (ωׁ ?εּ ?αִ ?ιωׁ ?εּ ?αִ ?ι comp. Judges 5:12) was that of intending to go away, to escape from the vicinity of the vicious court of the king, which had become offensive to her. She does not purpose to withdraw from the “king’s garden” (Dφpke, Delitzsch, etc.), in which besides she could scarcely have been at the time, but from the vicinity of the king altogether, who had greatly grieved her, and that of the ladies of his court, whose society she feels that she must henceforth avoid. Hence it is that the latter (for it is to them that Shulamith’s answer “what do you see in Shulamith?” is directed) call to her, entreating her to turn again and permit them still to look upon her charming person. For this is the only sense in which εְ ?πֶ ?ηֱ ?ζֶ ?δαָּ ?κְ “that we may look upon thee” (ηָ ?ζָ ?δαְּ not materially different from ψָ ?ΰָ ?δαְּ Son 6:11) can be taken, viz.: that of beholding with delight, feasting the eyes upon her to whom they had long before accorded the praise of beauty (comp. their frequent form of address, “fairest among women,” Son 1:8; Son 5:9; Son 6:1). That it is the ladies of the court, who address to her this summons to return and remain, and not Solomon (whom many of the older commentators regard as the speaker in these words, see Starke), is either to be explained by Solomon’s uniting in the call of the women (comp. Dφpke, Ewald, etc.), or better still by the assumption that he who was more affected than all others by her attempt to go away, does more than barely call her back, he seeks by loving force to detain her; and hence, speechless with passionate emotion, he first embraces and holds her, that he may afterwards fetter her by the fondest adulation (Son 7:2 ff.).—What do you see in Shulamith? This question asked by the party addressed is doubtless to be understood as modestly declining the praise indirectly bestowed upon her beauty in thus calling her. Shulamith wishes to be no longer looked at and admired by such people as Solomon’s concubines and the ladies of his court; this has become oppressive to her. The humility of her entire question certainly characterizes also her designation of herself αַּ ?ωּׁ ?εּ ?μַ ?ξִּ ?ιϊ (lit., “in the Shulamitess,” i.e. not “in this Shulamitess” but “in one who is a Shulamitess;” comp. 1 Kings 20:36 : Isaiah 7:14; Joel 4:3, etc.). Its meaning is certainly no other than “why do you look at me, a plain country girl (Hitzig)? what you see in the simple daughter of a Galilean village?” δַ ?ωּׁ ?εּ ?μַ ?ξִּ ?ιϊ is, as the article shows both here and where it was used in the vocative, certainly not the proper name of a person (so most of the ancient versions and interpreters); no more is it an adjective meaning “favored, treated with kindness” (Weissb.), but a gentile noun, synonymous with δַ ?ωּׁ ?εּ ?πַ ?ξִּ ?ιϊ1 Kings 1:3; 2 Kings 4:12; 2 Kings 4:25, of which it is only a dialectic variation; it is accordingly a designation of the person in question from ωׂ ?εּ ?μֵ ?ν or ωׁ ?εּ ?πֵ ?ν, the place of her abode. This place, the Σουλήμ of Eusebius and Jerome in his Onomast. and the modern Sτlam appears to have received its name, which originally may have been = ρֻ ?μָּ ?ν “ladder,” on account of its location on a steep mountain declivity (comp. Robinson, Pal. II. 234), just as many other mountains, e.g. that mentioned 1Ma 11:59 bear the name Κλίμαξ (comp. Hitzig in loc. and “Urgeschichte der Philister,” p. 126). According to Joshua 19:18 this Shunem was situated in the tribe of Issachar, according to 1 Samuel 28:4; 1 Samuel 29:1; 1 Samuel 29:11; 1 Samuel 31:1 not far from Mount Gilboa and the plain of Jezreel, according to 2 Kings 4:22-25 not very remote from Mount Carmel (comp. on Son 7:6 of this chapter, and above on Son 2:8; Son 3:6; Son 4:1; Son 4:8; also the Introduction, p. 6). As the dance of Mahanaim. Some interpreters after the example of the Vulg. (“quid videbis in Sulamite, nisi choros castrorum?”) connect the difficult words λִּ ?ξְ ?ηֹ ?μַ ?ϊδַ ?ξַּ ?ηֲ ?πָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ιִ ?ν with the question “why will ye look upon Shulamith, as one looks upon the dance of Mahanaim?” (Hahn, Weissb., Renan, etc.,) or “as at the dance of M.” (Hitzig). But it seems more natural and better suited to the context with the majority of both the older and more recent commentators, to regard these words as the answer to the question of Shulamith, given of course by those who had asked her to return, and who take this mode of stating why they were in fact so much concerned to see Shulamith yet longer. They see in her “something that resembles the dance of Mahanaim,” something as magnificent and transporting as the dance of the angel-host, east of the Jordan on Jacob’s return home to the promised land. See Genesis 32:1-3, to which passage there is an unmistakable allusion here as Dφpke, Delitzsch, Hengstenb., Meier, etc., correctly assume. This occurrence in the early patriarchal history as celebrated as Jacob’s wrestling at Peniel (Genesis 32:28, comp. Hosea 12:4 ff.), this miraculous experience of the patriarch Jacob, to which the town of Mahanaim between Jabbok and the Jordan, the royal residence of the anti-Davidic northern kingdom under Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 2:8 ff.) owed its name, forms here the point of comparison and is evidently intended to represent the sight of Shulamith as of angelic beauty and heavenly sublimity, just as she had before been compared with the morning dawn, the sun and moon (Son 6:10), and in agreement with the fact that in other passages dances in praise of God are attributed both to the stars and to the angels of God (comp. Job 38:7; Judges 5:20; Psalms 103:21; Psalms 148:2; 1 Kings 22:19; Luke 2:13, etc.). The “dance of Mahanaim” is accordingly the well-known dance of the angels on the site where Mahanaim subsequently stood. It is not necessary to take δַ ?ξַּ ?ηֲ ?πָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ιִ ?ν in its appellative sense “dance of the angel choirs” (Dφpke) or “the angelic hosts” (Gesen.) or “the angel-camps” (Del.) or “the double army” (Umbr., Weissb.; comp. the Targ. in loc.). We must, however, decidedly reject every interpretation of these words, which sees in them an “invitation to dance,” whether it is Solomon (so Bφttcher), or the ladies of the court (Ew., Delitzsch, etc.), or Solomon and his companions (Dφpke), who are supposed to make request of Shulamith to execute the famous dance of Mahanaim in their presence. Such a dance, whether it be regarded as a solemn festive dance, in which several took part (Ewald, Bφttcher, etc.), or as a contra-dance of two ranks, one consisting of young men, and the other of young women (Hitzig), or as a solo dance by a “danseuse of the Harem” (Ren.), or as a “country festival dance in the simple attire of a shepherdess or a vine-dresser” (Del.) is as devoid of evidence for its historical existence, as it is impossible to demonstrate from the present context that it was in this instance actually performed. And if actually exhibited on the stage, and described in the terms that follow (Son 7:2 ff.), it certainly would not have afforded that “most chaste spectacle,” that “indication of Shulamith’s humility and childlike disposition” which Delitzsch professes to see in it; comp. above No. 2, p. 94. 8. Conclusion. c.Solomon’s final laudation of the beauty of his beloved,Son 7:2-6. Delitzsch alone has put this description into the mouth of the daughters of Jerusalem instead of that of Solomon [so Taylor, Good, Williams, Fry, Patrick, Ainsworth and others on the ground chiefly that the king is spoken of in the third person, Son 7:5], against which, however, may be urged not only the sameness of the tone, which prevails in this as in the following brief section (Son 7:7-10), but also the circumstance that the caressing speeches here go further in one point at any rate, and to say the least, are more undisguised than could have been expected from the mouth of women (see Son 7:3). This description of the beauty of Shulamith also has the greatest similarity to those which Solomon had previously given (Son 4:1 ff.; Son 6:4 ff.), only it enumerates her various charms in the reverse order, by ascending from the feet to the head, and thus proceeds in conformity with the customary Hebrew phrase “from the foot to the head” (2 Samuel 14:25; Isaiah 1:6). That this inverted order of the description was not occasioned by the person described executing a dance, but simply arose from the poet’s desire for variety, is correctly recognized even by Hitzig; comp. also Ewald in loc. (vs. Delitzsch, Vaih., Renan and others). One point of contact with a preceding passage of like character in the poem is found in the ten beautiful parts of the body, which are here adduced as in Shulamith’s description of the charms of her lover (Son 5:10-16).—How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, O prince’s daughter! That the beginning is made with the steps (τְּ ?ςָ ?ξִ ?ιν comp. Psalms 58:11; 2 Kings 19:24), i.e., with the feet as stepping, as in motion, proves nothing in favor of the dancing hypothesis already rejected. For “to step” is not = “to dance,” and Shulamith must have taken some steps at the beginning of this description, inasmuch as Solomon must have led her back to his or to her former position, or have conducted her to some seat after her purpose to go away. In doing so he points out to her her graceful and charming “steps in her shoes,” or in other words how very becoming the shoes, which she wears as a “prince’s daughter,” are to her as she walks! The shoes are manifestly mentioned as something which she did not wear originally and in common (comp. Son 5:3), as a constituent, therefore, of her new and elegant court dress, which had doubtless been prepared in a most luxurious manner, both in material and style, and probably were ornamented with bows of purple, yellow or variegated ribbons, like the showy sandals of noble Hebrew women in later times (comp. Ezekiel 16:10; Jdt 10:9; Winer R.-W.-B., Art. “Schuhe”). She is at the same time designated a “prince’s daughter” or “noble daughter” in order to indicate her present high rank (not her noble descent, which according to Son 1:6; Son 2:8 ff., Son 6:11 is improbable). αַּ ?ϊ is here used in a wide sense for female in general, to mark the fem. gender, as Son 2:2; Son 6:9; Genesis 30:13; Judges 12:9, etc.; and the term πָ ?γִ ?ια “noble” may have been suggested by the ςִַ ?ξּ ?ιπַ ?γְ ?ια which she had used just before. That this form of address is substantially synonymous with “my sister bride” has already been observed on Son 4:9 above. Thy rounded thighs are like jewels. Lit., “the roundings of thy thighs,” i.e., the rounded parts which constitute thy thighs (ιְ ?ψֵ ?λַ ?ιִ ?κְ genit. of the material [Green’s Heb. Gram., § 254, 4] as Psalms 40:16; Psalms 68:31, etc.—The word ηֲ ?μָ ?ΰִ ?ιν is very variously explained “necklace” or “jewels” (Sept., Vulg., Syr., Rosenm., Magn., Vaih., Bφttcher), “clasps” (Ew.), “pearls” (Hitzig), “ornaments” (Hengstenb.), or “ornamental chains.” As is shown by the singular ηֶ ?μְ ?ιָ ?δ ,ηֲ ?μִ ?ι, which occurs Proverbs 25:12; Hosea 2:15, some elegantly made ornament must be intended, and according to the passage before us it must be composed of round, smoothly turned globules or pearls, as it is used to set forth the perfectly rounded shape of the thighs.—The work of an artist’s hands. The sing. ξַ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ, which the Sept. and Syr. correctly retain, is here employed because the numerous globules or pearls strung together, form but one whole, one necklace. The form ΰָ ?ξָ ?ο, of the same signification with ΰεּ ?ξָ ?ο Proverbs 8:30, and with the Chald. and Syr. ΰεּ ?ξָ ?ο (see Hitzig in loc., and Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 152 b) serves to denote the artificer or artist (τεχνίτηςartifex) in contrast with the ηָ ?ψָ ?ωׁ (τέκτων, faber) workman who only performs the coarser kind of work. That a skilful turner is here particularly intended appears from ηֲ ?μָ ?ΰִ ?ιν. The rotundity of the thighs is one of the noted beauties of the female figure, not merely according to Oriental, but also according to Grecian taste, as is shown by the well-known attribute of Aphrodite καλόπυος. Son 7:3. Thy navel is a round bowl.ωֹׁ ?ψֶ ?ψ according to the unanimous testimony of the old translators = ωֹׁ ?ψ Ezekiel 16:4, and = Arab. surr, i.e., “navel” (comp. on Proverbs 3:8). But, as we learn from the comparison with a round bowl or mixing vessel (on ΰβο see just below), as well as from the following wish that this vessel may not lack mingled wine, the navel itself as such cannot be intended, but rather the whole belly (abdomen) with the navel as its centre. Correctly therefore Hahn, Vaih., Weissbach, etc., “dein Schooss,” (thy lap) by which expression the reference demanded by what follows is sufficiently intimated, whilst the translation “pudenda” (Magnus, Dφpke, Hitzig) cannot be justified on linguistic grounds; for both ωְׁ ?ψִ ?ιψ Job 40:16, and the Arab, sirr (αἰδοῖον, arcanum) are only related, not identical ideas.—ΰַ ?βָּ ?ο plur. ΰַ ?βָ ?πεֹ ?ϊ (Isaiah 22:24; Exodus 24:6) does not denote a cup, but rather a bowl, a large round drinking vessel, here doubtless a bowl for mixing (κρατήρ, Sept., Vulg.) as the following ξֶ ?ζֶ ?β “mixed wine” shows. For that they prepared this drink (a mixture of wine with warm or cold water—Berachoth 7, 5; 8, Song of Solomon 2 : Pesach 7, 13; Maasser 4, 4) exclusively in smaller vessels as cups, goblets, etc., can scarcely be proved by the formula ξְ ?ζֹ ?βΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ν (vs. Hitzig).—Let not mixed wine be lacking. This wish, which is not to be converted with the older interpreters into an objective statement, as “nunquam indigens poculis”Vulg.) or “to which drink is never wanting” (Luther), contains without doubt an allusion of like nature, but not so delicate as that contained in Son 5:12 ff. (comp. Proverbs 5:15 ff.). Some modern commentators vainly seek by various methods to escape this admission, e.g., Bφttcher. by the assumption that this wish was only designed to set forth in a vivid manner the circular form of the navel; Hengstenb. by the allegorizing remark: “the capacity of the church to revive the thirsty with a noble refreshing draught is represented under the emblem of a bowl always full of mixed wine;” Del. by the assertion: “The navel in so far as it became visible through her dress as she breathed harder in dancing (?) was like a circular cup which was not lacking in spiced wine” (but ΰַ ?μ with the following voluntative or jussive future!), “i.e., as full of blooming health (Proverbs 3:8) as that of spiced wine.”—Thy body is a heap of wheat, set around with lilies.—ςֲ ?ψִ ?ξַ ?ϊηִ ?θִּ ?ιν is certainly not a “sheaf of wheat” (Ewald, who here has in mind Rth 3:7, where, however, ςֲ ?ψֵ ?ξָ ?δ rather means a heap of sheaves), but an accumulated heap of grain (comp. 2 Chronicles 31:6 ff.; Neh. 3:34), so that the point of comparison lies on the one hand in its being arched over, and on the other in its yellowish-white color, and perhaps also subordinately in the fruitfulness of such a heap of grain. “Set around with lilies” appears to allude to the custom of “garnishing with flowers such a heap of wheat on the floor, when they threshed the grain in the open field immediately after the harvest” (Dφpke),—a custom which, to be sure, has to be inferred solely from this passage. That the whole is a mere “fancy picture” (Weissb., Hitzig) is improbable. Yet the comparison was probably suggested by the lily-red—we would have to say the rose-red—color of her dress which chastely and modestly covered, as it should, the body of the young lady, just as in Son 5:14 the sapphires enveloping the “ivory figure” indicated the color of the garment. At all events the characteristic feature, and the chief significance, perhaps, of the entire figure lies not in this subsidiary matter of setting it around with lilies, but in the heap of grain. Approximate parallels are adduced by Dφpke, Magn., etc., e.g., a passage from Motanebbi (v. Hammer, p. 74), where the loins of a girl are likened to a sand-hill; Ommonrheif (Hamasa, in Reiske Taraf., p. 53), “Nates habet ut tumulos arenζ rore compactζ;”Nuweirius (loc. cit., p. 131): “Poetζ comparant nates amatζ cum collibus arenaceis.”Son 7:4. Thy two breasts are like two young roes,etc.—Comp. Son 4:5. “Feeding among the lilies” is omitted here, because the figure of lilies had just been employed with a somewhat different application; not from regard to Son 7:9, which has nothing to do with “feeding” either in figure or in fact (vs. Weissbach). Son 7:5. Thy neck is like a tower of ivory.—The tert. comp. lies on the one hand in its being slender and straight, and on the other in the pure white skin of the neck; it is therefore similar, though not exactly like that in Son 4:4. The ivory tower here mentioned is certainly different from the tower of David named there, inasmuch as it is not to be conceived of as a tower for defence or an arsenal, but without doubt a structure designed for purposes of luxury, like Ahab’s ivory house (1 Kings 22:39; comp. Amos 3:15; Psalms 45:9), or like the ivory throne, on which Solomon sat, according to 1 Kings 10:18 ff.—Thine eyes pools in Heshbon.—As Son 5:12 the eyes of the lover are compared with “doves by brooks of water, bathing in milk, sitting on fullness,” so here the eyes of his beloved are likened to light blue pools or basins of water, which charmingly mirror back the rays of the sun. Comp. Ovid, de arte amat., II., Song 722:—“oculos tremulo fulgore micantes, ut sol a liquida sζpe refulget aqua.” The pools near Heshbon, perhaps just two pools lying near together before one of the principal gates of this city, may have been especially suited for such a comparison by the clearness of their sheets of water and the loveliness of their banks. Modern travellers, as Seetzen, Burckhardt, etc., still mention at least one large reservoir of water near Hesbβn (the ancient Heshbon, the city of the Moabitish kings, Deuteronomy 2:24 ff.; Isaiah 15:4), lying in a wady south of the city, which is enthroned on a high hill, and consisting of excellent, masonry; comp. Crome, Palδstina, I., 254 ff.—At the gate of the daughter of multitudes.—This “daughter of multitudes” (αַּ ?ϊψַ ?αִּ ?ιν lit. “daughter of many,” λεωφόρος) or populous city is assuredly Heshbon itself (comp. the frequent designation of cities by the personifying expression αַּ ?ϊ “daughter,” e.g., Isaiah 1:8; Isaiah 10:32; Isaiah 23:12; Psalms 137:6), a city which in the age of David and Solomon was certainly next to Rabbath Ammon, the most populous place in the neighboring kingdoms, or rather provinces of Israel east of the Jordan. Hengstenberg’s opinion is inadmissible that αַּ ?ϊψַ ?αִּ ?ιν is only another expression for ψַ ?αָּ ?δ “Rabbah,” or ψַ ?αַּ ?ϊαְּ ?πֵ ?ιςַ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ο “Rabbath of the children of Ammon,” so that here the pools of two trans-jordanic cities would be named. And so is Hitzig’s notion that “the populous” is the name of a particular gate of the city of Heshbon (αַּ ?ϊψַ ?αִּ ?ιν therefore not genitive but appositive), viz., that at which the markets and the tribunals were commonly held; for there is no example anywhere else of the personification of the gates of a city as daughters.—Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon, which looks toward Damascus.—Literally: as “a tower of Lebanon”—but it does not follow from this absence of the definite article that one tower out of several of the same kind and situation is intended (Hitzig). For it is plainly designated as a watch-tower, or a look-out by φεֹ ?τֶ ?δεβεΨ; and though there may have been in all several structures of this description on Mount Lebanon (for according to 2 Samuel 8:6 David had set military garrisons in Damascene Syria), yet there could scarcely have been more than one that “looked toward Damascus,” i.e., which served for the military observation of this city, which since Rezon’s defection had become dangerous to Israel’s northern frontier (comp. 1 Kings 11:23-24). Naturally enough it cannot now be accurately determined where this tower of Lebanon is to be looked for, whether at Fukra, in the neighborhood of which Robinson indicates a “remarkable tower” probably designed for military purposes (Zeitschr. d. Deutsch.-Morgenl. Gesellsch. VII. 1, 77), or at Magdol, a place in the same region, with a very ancient temple looking to the north (ibid., p. 72). At all events, however, this tower of Lebanon is totally distinct from the tower of David mentioned Son 4:4, and this the more certainly as the latter served to represent a majestic and beautifully ornamented neck, and the former a straight nose, forming a handsome profile. Son 7:6. Thy head upon thee like Carmel.—On the somewhat inaccurate expression “thy head upon thee,” in which the head appears in some sort as an appendage to the entire man, comp. 2 Kings 6:31; Judges 14:18.—The main thing to be regarded in the comparison with Carmel is, that next to Lebanon it is the loftiest mountain in Northern Palestine, and for this reason perhaps it is often designated ψֹ ?ΰωׁ δַ ?λַּ ?ψְ ?ξֶ ?μ “head of Carmel” (1 Kings 18:42; Amos 9:3; comp. Jeremiah 46:18); probably also there may be a subordinate reference to its being covered with dense woods, an emblem of a luxuriant growth of hair (Micah 7:14; comp. Son 5:13 a above)—whilst its loveliness, which Hengstenberg would have to be most of all regarded, is probably left out of the account.—And thy flowing looks like purple.—γַּ ?μָּ ?δ here coma pendula—literally “the pendant, that which hangs down from thy head” (comp. Isaiah 38:12, where it denotes the thrum, i.e., the threads of the old web hanging down on the loom, to which the new are attached) from γμμpendere, Job 38:4.—In the comparison of the hair with purple (ΰַ ?ψְ ?βָּ ?ξָ ?ο particularly denoting the red purple in distinction from the dark violet-blue purple or ϊְּ ?λֵ ?μֶ ?ϊ) the color is not so much taken into consideration—for red hair, or such as at all inclines to a reddish cast, is not at all supposable in an Oriental beauty—as its dark lustre (comp. Son 5:11). As also with the Greeks πορφύρεος often has almost the same signification with μέλας, and hence, e.g., Anacreon (28:6, 7) uses πορφυραῖ χαῖται as the synonym of κόμαιμέλαιναι; Propertius, III., 17, 22, speaks of the purpurea coma of Nisus, and Suidas explains the Homeric κυανοχαίτης by “μελανόθριξ, πορφυρόθριξ” (other pertinent citations from Tibull., Virg., Cic., Plin., etc., see in Rosenm. and Dφpke in loc.). It is, moreover, also possible that some purple ornament, that Shulamith may have worn braided in her hair (comp. Iliad, 17:52), gave occasion to the comparison; whilst there is no need whatever of supposing an allusion to the later custom among the Hebrew women of dying their hair with henna and the like to give it a yellowish red appearance. Comp. Dφpke in loc. and Winer R.-W.-B., Art. “Haar.”—A king fettered by curls. The noble lustre of his beloved’s head of hair just described makes the transition easy to the powerful effect which it, or more particularly her wonderfully beautiful locks, has wrought on him, her royal lover (comp. Son 4:9). On the comparison of pretty locks with nets or snares, in which the lover is caught, Sir 9:3-4, as well as numerous parallels from Oriental poets (in Ewald, Heiligst., and Dφpke); also Proverbs 6:25, where this ensnaring effect is attributed to the eye-lashes, as Ecclesiastes 7:26, to the arms of the beloved object. The Vulg., Syr., Luth., and more recently Weissbach and Friedrich connectξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ with ΰַ ?ψְ ?βָּ ?ξָ ?ο: “as the king’s purple,” or as “purple of a king,” but in so doing involve themselves in inextricable difficulties in the explanation of the concluding words: ΰָ ?ρεּ ?ψαָּ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ψְ ?δָ ?θιν (e.g., Friedrich: “as the purple of a king that is unbound like the folds in the troughs;” Weissbach: “as a king’s purple fastened in running water”—where an allusion is supposed to the purple dye-houses on the Ph�nician side of Carmel)! 9. Third Scene, a.Solomon: Son 7:7-11. Son 7:7. How fair art thou, and how comely, O love, among delights.—It is no more necessary here than in Son 3:10, to take ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ in the sense of ΰֲ ?δֻ ?αָ ?δ, as is done by the Vulg. (“charissima”) and Syr., or to point it accordingly as Hitzig proposes. We evidently have to do with an apostrophe to love as such, like that contained in Son 4:10, only for the more concrete idea “thy love,” the more universal one of love in general is here substituted. ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ has substantially the same sense as in Son 2:7, Son 5:8, Son 8:6-7, or as in 2 Samuel 1:26, etc. In a strangely arbitrary manner Weissbach takes ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ in its proper infinitive sense as in apposition with the predicate not as a vocative: “how fair art thou, and how comely, a loving in delight”—which is made to mean “one, to love whom awakens delight.”—ϊַּ ?ςֲ ?πεּ ?βִ ?ιν (or ϊַּ ?ςֲ ?πεּ ?βεֹ ?ϊ Ecclesiastes 2:8) are not “caresses” (Hengstenb.), but the sensations of pleasure connected with them, “joys, delights” (comp. Proverbs 19:10, Micah 1:16; Micah 2:9). Solomon does not mean by it vulgar, carnal pleasure, but the sweet joys of connubial intercourse, as he now experiences them anew in embracing Shulamith.—On the necessity of assuming either an exit of the chorus, or their withdrawal to the back-ground during the enthusiastic manifestations of conjugal tenderness which begin here, comp. above, No. 2, p. 100, where all that was necessary is noted respecting the propriety of having a new scene begin with this verse. Son 7:8. This thy stature resembles a palm tree. The ζֹ ?ΰϊ “this” before χεֹ ?ξָ ?ϊֵ ?κְ “thy stature” is commonly regarded as referring back to the description of the beauty of the beloved, contained in Son 7:2-6, which however is the more inadmissible, as separate parts only of the body were there spoken of, for whose combination into one idea ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ (Son 5:15), and not χεֹ ?ξָ ?δ, would have been the proper expression. Delitzsch correctly remarks: “As he lets her go from his arms, he surveys her figure with his eyes, and finds it like the palm-tree,” etc. To get a lively impression of her towering stature (comp. χεֹ ?ξָ ?δ in Isaiah 10:33; Ezekiel 31:3; Psalms 37:24), he must have let go of her for a moment at least, and have contemplated her more from a distance. The female name Tamar, which is not an unusual one in the Old Test., is based upon the comparison, which is quite a favorite with oriental poets, of a tall and slender stature with the palm (comp. Fraehn on Ibn Fossl., p. 72; also Homer, Od. vii. 160). And thy breasts clusters,i.e. those of the palm-tree, by which must be intended the date-palm, loaded with its clusters of fruit (correctly Rosenmueller, Bφttcher, Hitzig), especially as it is not until the following verse that the transition is made to clusters of grapes, which are expressly designated as such by the addition of δַ ?βֶּ ?τֶּ ?ο “the vine.” That the date clusters are rather hard, and to that extent appear not to correspond to the swelling softness of the breasts, does not impair the suitableness of the comparison, as the only thing regarded is the form (vs. Weissb.) Moreover, the mention of breasts again in this passage (comp. Son 7:4) proves that the preceding description (Son 7:2-6) is not closely connected with that before us, and consequently that Weissbach’s opinion that twelve beauties are designedly enumerated in Son 7:2-11 (viz., the stature and the breasts, in addition to the preceding ten), lacks confirmation. Son 7:9. I resolve I will climb the palm-tree,ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι is not to be taken as a preterite “I said,” or “I resolved,” at some former time, etc., as though these words referred back to Son 5:1 (so Vulg., Luther, etc.), but as a present, since several other wishes are uttered in what follows, but no mention is made of any previous fulfilment of these wishes. Comp. also ϊְּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?χָ ?ϊεֹ Son 7:11, which plainly points to a fond desire of her lover, just manifested afresh, not to one entertained at a former period. I will grasp its boughs.ρַ ?πְ ?ρִ ?πִּ ?ιν lit. “that which is on top” (kindred with ϊμμ ,ρμμ to lift up), i.e., the branches and leaves forming the crown of the palm-tree. A more particular interpretation of the figure, e.g., so that the nose and mouth, which her lover wished to kiss, are here intended by the “branches” (Weissb.), is inadmissible, and leads to offences against good taste.—And be thy breasts, please, like clusters of the vine (comp. on Son 7:8), and the breath of thy nose like apples. Nothing more is here expressed than the design to kiss, or to revel in the beauty and the sweetness of the face and the bosom of his beloved. Son 4:16; Son 5:1, is, therefore, not to be directly compared.—“The breath of the nose” (comp. Isaiah 2:22, 2 Samuel 22:16) is here expressly mentioned, because this is what is perceived in kissing the mouth. The figure of apples is the more appropriate, because the apple ϊַּ ?τּ ?εּ ?ηַ derives its name in Hebrew from its delightful fragrance. Son 7:10. And thy palate like the best wine. The palate is not named here as the organ of speech (Hengstenb. and others), but as a substitute for the mouth or the lips in respect to the sweet breath or lovely kisses (comp. Son 5:13). ιִ ?ιִ ?οδַ ?θּ ?εֹ ?α lit. “wine of the good” (comp. αִּ ?ψְ ?λַּ ?ϊΞθεֹ ?α Proverbs 24:25), is equivalent to “delightful, excellent wine.” See on this periphrasis for the adjective, Ewald, Lehrb. § 287, b [Green’s Heb. Gram., § 254, 6, b].—Going down for my beloved smoothly. As the supposition that μְ ?γεֹ ?γִ ?ι “for my beloved” has slipped in here by mistake from the 11th verse following (Amm., Heiligst., Hitz.: also Ewald formerly), is as arbitrary as its change to μְ ?γεֹ ?γַ ?ι “my love” (Velth., Meier), or to μְ ?γεֹ ?γִ ?ιν “beloved ones, friends” (so Ewald now), there is no doubt that Shulamith here takes up the king’s words, in order as in Son 4:16 to continue his description, and to give him to understand, in the most flattering way, that she fully responds to his love, and is ready to grant him every enjoyment, of it.—Gliding over the lips of sleepers. Others: causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak (Mercerus, Hengstenb., Del., etc., connecting γּ ?εֹ ?αֵ ?α with γִּ ?αָּ ?δ speaking (in a bad sense), slander); or “causing the lips of sleepers to long for it” (Weissb.), etc. But for γαα—whence γּ ?αֹ as the name of the bear with his slow and awkward gait—the signification “to flow gently,” or “to glide,” is suitable enough, and the meaning undoubtedly is, that pleasant tasting wine easily puts one to sleep, so that he who drinks it is insensibly overtaken by slumber (correctly Ew.). There is certainly no allusion to the saliva oris of two lovers united in a kiss, (according to the expression in Lucretius, “junguntque salivas oris,”etc.) for such an image of refined sensuality is inconceivable in the mouth of the chaste Shulamith. Son 7:11. I am my beloved’s (comp. Son 6:3), and for me is his desire.—Lit.: “and on me (rests) his desire.” ϊְּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?χָ ?δ as in Genesis 3:16, the passage which lies at the basis of this, of the longing desire of the man for the society of his wife, not of gross sensual desires for sexual intercourse. The whole is a triumphant exclamation in which Shulamith joyfully affirms that her lover cannot exist without her, and it thus prepares the way for her making the request of him, which follows. With indescribable vulgarity Hitzig asserts that “the concubine here recognizes with faltering voice and bursting eyes the mutual necessity of love.” 10. Continuation and Conclusion. b. Shulamith’s victorious assault on Solomon’s heart, Son 7:12 to Son 8:4. Son 7:12. Come, my beloved, let us go out to the country.—The beloved (γּ ?εֹ ?γ) who is addressed, can be no other than the one addressed just before in Son 7:10-11, that is to say, Solomon, not the “shepherd,” to whom she certainly would not have been obliged in the first instance to have expressed her wish to escape from the contracted city walls into the country in the form of an earnest entreaty, and a fluent and impassioned persuasion, even if he were with her in Jerusalem (vs. Bφttch., Hitz., Ren.); and if he was not with her, it was utterly useless to address these words to him when far remote (vs. Ew., Vaih.). Her persuasion is plainly directed to a lover, who was really present, and besides was seriously meant, not a mere fantastical make-believe request, a desire which the petitioner was convinced beforehand could not possibly be granted (vs. Weissb.).—Let us lodge in the villages.—To the country (ωָׂ ?γֶ ?δ) are here added villages (λְּ ?τָ ?ψִ ?ιν from λּ ?τֶֹ ?ψ 1 Samuel 6:18; construct λְּ ?τַ ?ψ) as in 1 Chronicles 27:25. They are alone adapted to the idea of “lodging, passing the night” (μεּ ?ο), not “cypress-flowers” or “alhennas,” which Dφderl., Ew., Meier unsuitably mingle in here, and which could scarcely have been so common then in the holy land, that people could sleep on them or under them (comp. on Son 1:14).—On the necessity of spending at least two nights on the way from Jerusalem to Shunem, see on Son 3:8 above (p. 82). Son 7:13. Let us start early for the vineyards.—It is not vineyards lying on the route to Shunem, which they might visit on their way, that are here intended, but doubtless the vineyards at Shulamith’s home, and probably her own. For it was in these alone that she could take so lively an interest as is expressed in what follows.—We shall see whether the vine has sprouted, its blossoms opened.—The vines and pomegranates here named are the same as those in Son 6:11. Shulamith wishes to return with her lover to just those innocent rural occupations and pleasures, which are there described as belonging to her former mode of life. The season implied, as in Son 6:11 and in Son 2:11 ff., is the spring—that period in the year which most incites and allures to the enjoyment of external nature. It is inadmissible to suppose that precisely one year had elapsed between the spring depicted in those passages and that which is here implied (Hitz.). It is more probable—inasmuch as the whole action appears to run its course in two or three weeks (comp. on Son 2:8 ff. above, p. 69)—that the same spring is meant here as there, supposing the poet to have formed a clear conception of the intervals between the main particulars of the action.—There will I give thee my love.—γּ ?εֹ ?γַ ?ι means not “thy caresses bestowed on me,” but “mine bestowed on thee.” This to be sure, she has already granted him (see Son 4:16; Son 7:7 ff.), but not as yet continuously, nor without temporary disturbances and interruptions (comp. Son 6:4 f.; Son 6:11), nor as yet with the full and unreserved opening of her heart. But there (ωָׁ ?ν with strong emphasis, as Amos 7:12) there amid the loveliness and joyous freedom of fair nature she will become entirely his.—Observe how little this passage again suits the so-called shepherd hypothesis; or even Weissbach’s supposition that Shulamith is not serious in uttering the wish before us, and that ωָׁ ?νΰֶ ?ϊֵּ ?ο is therefore to be taken conditionally: “There would I give—if it were only supposable that you could go with me” (?!). Son 7:13. The mandrakes give forth their odor.—δַ ?γּ ?εּ ?γָ ?ΰִ ?ιν are not “lilies” (Luther), but the fruit of the mandrake (mandragora vernalis, or atropa mandragora), a wild plant common in Palestine, particularly in Galilee (Schubert, Reise, III., 117), of the same genus with the belladonna, with small whitish-green blossoms, which in May or June become small yellow apples, about the size of a nutmeg, of a strong and agreeable odor (μῆλαεὔοσμα, Test. Issachar, 100:1; comp. Dioscorid. IV. Song 76: εὐώδημετὰ βάρουςτινός). As now these apples have a pleasant smell, but not the blossoms nor the plant itself, Shulamith of course refers to the former, and here therefore looks forward to a more advanced season than in Son 7:13—that is to say, the time of wheat harvest (see Genesis 30:14), as in what follows in her mention of “this year’s fruit” her imagination goes still further forward.—These apples, according to Genesis 30:14-16, were regarded as an artificial provocative of sexual love (whence also the name γּ ?εּ ?γָ ?ΰִ ?ιν from γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ιν ,γּ ?εֹ ?γ) even in the earliest Oriental antiquity; so also by the Greeks and Romans, by whom they were therefore called κιρκαία, Circeta (comp. also the name Ἀφροδίτημανδραγορῆτις in Hesychius and Phavorinus), by the Arabs, who to this day call them tuffβh es-Shaitβn, “Satan’s apples,” by all Christendom in the middle ages (see Graesse, Beitrδge zur Litetur und Sage des Mittelalters, 1850), and by many still in modern times; comp., e.g., Father Myller in his Journey to the Promised Land: “This root (!), which I found in the wilderness of St. John the Baptist, and brought considerable of it away with me, has many medicinal virtues, removes barrenness, and makes efficacious love-potions.” (See Del., Genesis, p. 467.) Shulamith certainly does not name the dudaim here on account of these supposed aphrodisiac qualities, much less does she mean to intimate an intention to prepare a magic potion from them to excite her lover to a higher degree of affection. This fruit is rather to her in her innocence and simplicity merely the symbol of love, and her naming them here like the “excellent fruits of all sorts over our doors” is merely designed to add to the attractions and enjoyments of her home, which she had before mentioned, such as were new and less familiar to her lover (see Weissb. in loc.). Meier goes too far in seeking a symbolic sense for the words, when he understands “the love apples are fragrant” to mean simply “I am deeply in love,” and “the old fruit and the new” there mentioned to signify the sweet fruits of love, of which she would give him to partake, the old love which had been in existence hitherto, and the new, which would meanwhile grow up and reach a heightened intensity. See in opposition to this allegorizing, which fritters away the simple freshness of a description so true to nature for the sake of insipid trivialities, Hitz. and Weissb. in loc.—And over our doors are all sorts of excellent fruit, new as well as old.—By “our doors” Shulamith means the doors of her parental home in Shunem, where, besides her brothers and sister (Son 1:6; Son 8:8), her mother still lived (comp. Son 3:4; Son 8:2). This house had probably several doors, at all events a front and a back door, and likely also side doors, whence the plural. On shelves in the inside over these doors they may have kept choice ripe fruit, as is often done in our farmers’ houses; hence the ςַ ?μ “over” before τְ ?ϊָ ?δֵ ?ιπεּ “our doors,” which can neither mean “in front of” (Luther, v. Amm.), nor “within” (Magn.) nor “by” or “at” (Cocc., Hahn, Goltz, etc.). Proverbs 17:19 also seems to allude to a use of the beams or boards over the doors of rustic dwellings for keeping various objects (even if not exactly for the construction of regular store-rooms).—On ξְ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν lit., “excellencies, precious things” comp. Son 4:13. λָּ ?μΞ refers to the various kinds of this fine fruit, not as Weissb. affirms, to the distinction between this year’s and last year’s fruit. As regards these two expressions (ηֲ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ινβַ ?νιְ ?ωֵׁ ?πִ ?ιν), they are both to be taken in the same sense as Matthew 13:52καινὰ καὶ παλαι̇ά (comp. also Leviticus 25:22; Leviticus 26:10), and as epithets limiting λָּ ?μΞξְ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν; they must not in violation of the accents be connected with the final clause “I have, my beloved, laid up for thee” (vs. Magn., Del., Meier). This as well as the reference of the verb φָ ?τַ ?πְ ?ϊִּ ?ι to the whole sentence from ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?ϊָ ?ηֵ ?ιπεּ onward, as if the last three clauses of the verse formed one long period (Ew., Umbr., Weissb.) is inadmissible, for though she might speak of having stored old or last year’s fruit for her lover, the same could not be said of this year’s, which had still to ripen and grow. See Son 8:1 for AND ETHICAL. Footnotes:[The abruptness with which this verse is introduced and the ambiguity of some of its expressions make its meaning extremely doubtful and have led to a variety of uncertain conjectures, but do not justify the acceptance of the incredible sense here put upon it. According to the view which is entertained of the context it has been supposed to be addressed to the bride, who was rising to leave the speakers (Taylor), or had been borne away from them by her inward rapture figuratively described in the preceding verse (Moody Stuart), or who had parted from them in company with her husband (Patrick), or who was timidly shrinking from meeting him (Williams, Good, the latter of whom renders thus: “virgins.—‘Return, return, O bride of Solomon! Return, return, that we may yet respect thee.’ Royal Bride.—‘What do you expect from the bride of Solomon?’ Virgins.—‘Fortitude, like the conflict of two armies’ ”). Or it is thought to be a call upon the bride to return from her alienation to her husband (Ainsworth, Burrowes, as well as Wordsworth, who thinks that the iteration of the appeal denotes a summons “to both Jew and Gentile to return to God and to one another in Christ and His Church”), or to return in peace from victorious conflict (Thrupp, who compares Joshua 10:21; Judges 8:9; Judges 11:31; 1 Kings 22:28).—Tr.] [The article as well as the form of the noun certainly favor its derivation from the place of her birth or residence. The chief objections to it are, first that Shunem is never called Shulem in the Bible but always Shunem and its inhabitants Shunammites; and secondly, the bride is called a prince’s daughter, Son 7:2. The derivation from Solomon (to which Clarke compares Charlotte from Charles, Henrietta from Henry, etc.), is favored by most English commentators, and still divides the suffrages of the learned, though it does not satisfactorily account for the form of the name nor explain the presence of the article. Its derivation from Salem in the sense of Jerusalem, as though it were equivalent to Jerusalemite, as Gill and others suggest after Kimchi and Aben Ezra is utterly inadmissible. Others follow the example of Aquila (έιρηνεν̓ονσα) and attribute to it an appellative sense as derived from the root ωׁ ?μν; so Patrick: “perfect,” and Thrupp: “The peace-laden, lit., the bepeaced. The name is derived from the same root as Solomon and stands in partial correspondence with it.”—Tr.] [There is no reason for suspecting an indelicacy in this perfectly harmless expression. Neither the words employed, the mode of their employment, nor the connection in which they stand warrant such an imputation. Noyes correctly says the “spiced wine” is “mentioned merely to set off the beauty and richness of the cup.” Moody Stuart: “The dress of the bride is described throughout except where clothing is not worn, as on the neck and the face. The proof of this is ample and irresistible in the very first line of the picture—the feet ‘beautiful with shoes.’ The person might have been clothed, while the feet were unshod; but it was impossible that the feet should be beautified with the finest sandals, without the whole person being arranged as a bride adorned for her husband. Both the terms, therefore, in this verse are of necessity parts of dress covering the corresponding parts of the person, according to the tendency in all languages to transfer the names that designate the living body to the dress that both conceals and adorns it. There is a great agreement of critics, as well as obvious suitableness in interpreting the goblet of wine as an image of the clasp that secures the girdle, composed probably of rubies to which wine is often compared.” So substantially also Patrick, Harmer, Parkhurst, Taylor, Williams, and others. Good, on the contrary, objects to the opinion “that the royal poet, instead of delineating the personal charms, ‘the unbought graces’ of his accomplished fair, is merely describing her different habiliments with the splendid figures which were wrought on them. Against such an interpretation I cannot but strongly protest, as equally unpoetical, and unjust to the text. In the literal sense of the original, I see no indelicacy whatever, and there ought to be no indelicacy in its translation. The royal bard is merely assuming a liberty, and that in the chastest manner possible, which we are daily conceding in our age to every painter and sculptor of eminence.” Good coincides in opinion with Zφckler, that “navel” is here used in a wide sense for “the whole of the surrounding region,” and proposes the rendering “waist.” Adopting this suggestion, Burrowes presents the following picture as his conception of the figure here described: “First, the feet more beautiful in the elegant sandals; then the contour, the folds of the bridal dress falling around the hips, graceful as the curvature of a rich necklace wrought by a finished hand; next, the body like a heap of wheat encompassed with lilies; then, the waist expanding into the bosom, elegant as a goblet rounded gracefully upwards, and filled with the richest spiced wine.” Scott: “Comeliness of person, not richness of attire or ornament, is intended; otherwise the commendations would be equally appropriate to the most deformed, if splendidly attired, as to the most beautiful; nor is there any need to remove the garments in order to distinguish a very well proportioned and comely person from others in the most ordinary intercourse of life. Either men or women may disguise themselves by decoration; but becoming raiment sets off the form of those who wear it.”] [So Thrupp: “That gate of Heshbon which opened northeastward in the direction of Rabbah of Ammon,” or “the gate of approach to the pools, the portal through which the multitude of the Gentile world presses to drink to the full of the clear and unruffled waters of Christian doctrine.”] [The correct translation is “the tower of Lebanon,” the entire expression being rendered definite by the article before the last noun; See Green’s Heb. Gram. § 246, 3.—Tr.] [So too Houbigant and Thrupp; the latter of whom renders: “like royal purple enfixed among the wainscotings. The picture is that of a rich chamber, on the walls of which are carved wooden panels alternate with purple hangings. The former serve to relieve and to show off the beauty of the latter, to which latter the well-ordered and well-fastened tresses of the bride’s hair are compared.”] See Son 5:1 ff for the passage quote with footnotes. Son 8:1. O that thou wert as a brother of mine,λְּ ?ΰָ ?η cannot possibly be taken as a simple vocative (Septuag., Luth.). It rather refers to a relation like that of a brother (“as a brother of mine,” comp. Psalms 35:14) and consequently expresses the wish and that a wish seriously meant and speedily to be realized (vs. Weissb.), that Solomon would come so near to her in every respect, both inwardly and outwardly, that she could regard and treat him just as her own brother, as a member of her family, belonging to her own domestic household. The wish here expressed would have no meaning in respect to a lover of the rank of a shepherd. It most manifestly implies as its object a lover, whose whole station in life was above that of his beloved, in whose case there must be a coming down from his elevation, if an actual living communion is to subsist between him and her. For the fact of his having made his beloved a “queen” and a “prince’s daughter” is evidently without effect on the child-like and humble mind of this simple child of nature. She has not been able to prevail upon herself in addressing this proud lord of a harem, surrounded by his sixty queens and his eighty concubines, as well as by his female slaves, to call him her own with the same cordial confidence that a sister cherishes towards her brother. She has learned to call him γּ ?εֹ ?γ “beloved” but not ΰָ ?η “brother,” often as he may since their marriage have addressed her as ΰֲ ?ηεֹ ?ϊִ ?ιλַ ?μָּ ?δ “my sister, bride.” If this relation which she sustained to him be correctly estimated, Hengstenberg’s paraphrase of the exclamation before us “O that thou who art my brother, wouldst enter into a really brotherly relation to me” will appear to be by no means so absurd, as Weissb. would represent it.Were I to find thee without, I would kiss thee. “Without,” i.e. on the street or in the open country and in general wherever I must now observe a stiff courtly etiquette toward thee as king. A new protest therefore against the manners of the harem, which had become intolerable to her.—Yet none would despise me.μֹ ?ΰΞιָ ?αֻ ?ζεּ μִ ?ι they, viz. the people, would not despise and reproach me as though I were a vulgar wench who kissed strange men in the public street; comp Proverbs 7:12-13. Son 8:2. I would lead thee, bring thee to my mother’s house. What she had only dreamed before Son 3:4, she can now utter to her lover as the burning wish of her heart, certain of its speedy accomplishment. ΰֶ ?πְ ?δָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?βְ ?κָ “I would lead thee,” that is to say by the hand; whither is told by the following verb, which limits the one before it in the same way as ΰֶ ?ωָּׁ ?χְ ?κָ does ΰֶ ?ξְ ?φָ ?ΰֲ ?κָ in Son 8:1, b.—Thou wouldst instruct me. Again an indication that the lover is not a young shepherd but the wise and learned king Solomon, in comparison with whom Shulamith had long learned to feel her ignorance and at the same time her need of instruction from the rich stores of his mind. Feeling the incongruity of instruction by a lover, who was a mere shepherd, Hitz. has taken up again the conjecture of Ibn Ezra, that ωֶׁ ?· is to be supplied before ϊְּ ?μַ ?ξְּ ?γֵ ?πִ ?ι and the verb thus converted into a relative clause is to be referred as a 3d pers. fem. to the preceding ΰִ ?ξִּ ?ι: “my mother who would teach me,” viz. how to do every thing for you in the best manner. But this is quite arbitrary; for all the verbs before and after are in the 2d pers. [?]; a verb thus extraordinarily interrupting this series must necessarily have been indicated not merely by ωֶׁ ?· or ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ but by an emphatic δִ ?ιΰ “she”; and to this δִ ?ιΰ would then have to be opposed an ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιΰַ ?ωְׁ ?χֶ ?κָ ?etc. comp. (Bφttcher Neue Aehrenl. III. 172). Most of the ancient versions confirm ours, which is the common view; and that the Sept. and Syr. in place of ϊְּ ?μַ ?ξְּ ?γֵ ?πִ ?ι have mechanically repeated the last line of Son 3:4, can prove nothing against its correctness. I would give thee to drink of the spiced wine. That ΰַ ?ωְׁ ?χְ ?κָ “I would cause thee to drink” contains an intentional allusion to ΰֶ ?ωָּׁ ?‍ ?ֽ ?χְ ?κָ “I would kiss thee,” Son 8:1, which is identical in its consonants, is an idle remark of Hitzig and Weissbach, which has little in its favor. Meier has needlessly taken this clause to be a statement of what her lover was to teach the speaker, “thou wouldst teach me how to make thee drink,” etc.; so too Ewald and Heiligst., according to whom the meaning is: “from thy mouth I would learn, what is pleasant and agreeable to thee, viz., to cause thee to drink,” etc. But all is simpler and in better taste if we assume no close relation between ϊְּ ?μַ ?ξְּ ?γֵ ?πִ ?ι “thou wouldst instruct me” and this clause, and find nothing intimated here beyond the reciprocity subsisting between the spiritual gifts which the teacher confers, and the bodily refreshment which his pupil affords him in turn (comp. Luke 10:38 ff., 1 Corinthians 9:11; Galatians 6:6).—By the spiced wine, of which she means to give him to drink, Shulamith probably means grape wine mixed with fragrant and pungent essences (according to a well-known oriental custom, comp. Dφpke and Vaih., in loc). The definite article designates this wine as the well known drink of superior excellence, as the spiced wine par excellence; comp. ιִ ?ιִ ?οδַ ?θּ ?εֹ ?α Son 7:10. Of my pomegranate juice. Notwithstanding the absence of the copula something different from the preceding is here intended and not the spiced wine itself, as though this were merely made from the juice of fruit (Hitzig). For such a difference is indicated by the use of ςָ ?ρִ ?ιν “must, unfermented juice,” instead of the preceding ιַ ?ιִ ?ο “wine,” as well as by the mention above of the vine along with the pomegranate (Son 7:13, comp. Son 6:11). The suffix in ψִ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?πִ ?ι (for which the Vulg. and Syr. read ψִ ?ξεֹ ?πַ ?ι “my pomegranates”) is gen. of possession to ςָ ?ρִ ?ιν (comp. δַ ?ψχָ ?γְ ?ωִׁ ?ι) hence equivalent to “pomegranate wine prepared by me.” It makes against the view of Weissbach and others: “of the wine of my pomegranate tree,” that according to Son 6:11; Son 7:13, Shulamith had more than one such tree.—The ancients called the fermented juice of pomegranates “wine,” as appears from Plin. H. N. 14, Song 16: “Vinum fit—e punicis, quod rhoiden (ῥοιά, pomegranate) vocant”; comp. Winer R.- W.- B. Art. “Wein.” Son 8:3. His left hand (is) under my head and his right embraces me. This verse is not a mere phrase to mark the termination of a section, and unconnected with what precedes (Hitzig). It rather stands in the same sort of connection with the detailed description given Son 7:13 ff. of what the two lovers would do and enjoy together in Shulamith’s home, that Son 2:6 does with the preceding representation of their mutual enjoyment of nature and of love, Son 1:16 ff.; Son 2:3 ff. Only there Shulamith was depicting the present, whilst here she vividly portrays joys belonging to the future; though not in an optative form, as Ewald, Vaih., etc., assume without sufficient reason. Son 8:4. I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,etc.—On the significance of this exclamation here as Shulamith’s farewell to the daughters of Jerusalem (which Hitzig too has seen with substantial correctness), see on Son 2:7 above. Only it is not necessary with Vaih. to impute the brevity of its form to the excited and reproachful tone in which Shulamith, who had been affronted by the ladies of the court, here speaks. AND ETHICAL1. The churchly allegorical exegesis is necessarily precluded from gaining an insight into the progress of the action in the act before us. It finds every where figurative representations of soteriological mysteries with no inner organic connection; shifting figures, the aim of which lies in the repeated exhibition of the central point of Christian truth, the conversion, justification, sanctification and perfection of the sinner by the grace of the Redeemer, or the call and election of the whole church to the saving communion of God in Christ. Thus the narrative of the dream, Son 5:2-7, together with the following dialogue, as far as Son 6:3, that is to say, the first scene according to our division seems to it to be a dramatic representation, which is already complete, of the apostasy and restoration of the Church, or of the fall and redemption of mankind. This one section constitutes, as it were, the Canticles in brief, a poetic picture of the entire history of redemption from first to last. This representation opens, according to Hengstenb. (p. 135), with a “dark scene,” or night piece. The apostasy of unbelieving mankind from their God, and especially the rejection of the Saviour by the daughter of Zion, together with the punishment of induration and blindness which overtook her in consequence, are so distinctly set forth by the dream-like figures of Shulamith’s sleep, her lover’s vain desire to be admitted, his subsequent disappearance, and the fruitless search for him, and finally by the blows which the watchmen (the “heavenly ministers of vengeance”) administered to her during her search, that the whole forms, so to speak, a fit accompaniment to Isaiah 53 and likewise an illustration of Rom 11:7, “the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded,” or of Rom 11:25-26. And then again the representation is directed to the goal of the ultimate conversion of Israel and the consequent consummation of the entire redemptive process. For forsaken and repelled by her lover, she nevertheless continues always sick with love and longing for him (Son 5:8); in answer to the question proposed to test her, what she thinks of her lover (Son 5:9), she exhibits a heart full of love and submission to the heavenly Solomon, as the ideal of all excellence (Son 5:10-16); finally she answers the second question also, which is addressed to her to pave the way for her reunion with her heavenly bridegroom, in a concrete manner (Son 6:1-3), since in her answer to, Where has thy beloved gone? she ungrudgingly recognizes that he has his being in the Church, and in consequence of this recognition the former relation may be regarded as restored.—So Hengstenberg, whose view may be regarded as the idealizing recapitulation of all former churchly-allegorical interpretations of this section.—The following portions also depict according to him the one main object of the song again and again—the restoration of the loving relation between the Lord and His Church, which originally existed, was then disturbed and broken off, and has finally been cemented again. Son 6:4-10 does this in the form of praises of the beauty of the bride, and a comparison of her with all other women, who constitute the household of the heavenly Solomon. Son 6:11 to Son 7:1 in the form of a narrative by the daughter of Zion of the way in which she attained to the high dignity of a bride of heaven’s king, together with a blessing bestowed upon her by the daughters of Jerusalem, who express their heartfelt joy at her return from her wanderings, and at the distinguished graces which have in consequence been imparted to her; Son 7:2-11, in the form of a new panegyric pronounced by the king upon the daughter of Zion, who has returned to him from her straying, and consequently to her former beauty,—to which is further added the expression of his determination to enjoy her charms, and her cordial assent to this determination (Son 7:8-11); and finally, Son 7:12 to Son 8:4, in the form of a prayer from the daughter of Zion to her heavenly lover, to restore to her his ancient love, and, far from the tumult of this sinful world, in rural retirement and seclusion, to live with her as her brother.—The explanations of the older allegorists are still richer in repetitions and in corresponding measure poorer in true inward progress. One of their number, e.g., Starke (who closely follows Marck, Ainsworth Michael., etc.) paraphrases Son 6:2-3, so as to make the bride set forth “the delightful feelings resulting from the special presence of the bridegroom of her soul, which she has just experienced in her heart,” describing thus Christ’s control in the spice garden of His Church, i.e., in the hearts of the true children of God, wherein the whole work of salvation by the Lord in the word and sacraments, and His operations on individual souls, planting, fostering, preserving and perfecting, is briefly exhibited. Son 7:1 he then paraphrases thus: “Return, return to me and to thyself from the confusion, in which thou wert, before I revealed myself again to thee (Son 5:6; Psalms 116:7), O Shulamith, who hast obtained peace with God, righteousness and strength in communion with me; return again, banish all gloomy and timorous thoughts. I shall ever remain thy Jesus, thy Saviour and Benefactor. Fix only a confiding heart again on me, thy soul’s friend, that we, viz. I, thy Redeemer, with my Father who loves thee in me, and the Holy Spirit may look upon thee, i, e., may have our delight and joy in thee as a perfect mirror of spiritual beauty.” And in Son 8:1 the same interpreter remarks upon the words, “Should I find thee without, I would kiss thee,” etc.: If I find thee without, i.e., meet thee outside of my mother’s house, while I live in the foreign land and the pilgrimage of this world (2 Corinthians 5:6-9), I will kiss thee with the kiss of faith, love and obedience, yea, give thee all conceivable tokens of my sincere and ardent love (Psalms 2:12; Hosea 13:2; Job 31:27). And no one should put me to shame, least of all they, to whom I appear so despicable, and who scoff at me when I boast of my communion with thee and declare thy praise (Son 5:7; Genesis 38:23, etc., etc.).” In short, every possible thing is here found in every thing, and the simple meaning of the words is almost every where sacrificed to the superabundant fancy of a dogmatical and mystical interpretation. 2. The proper antithesis to such excesses can surely not lie in banishing with the profane-erotic exegesis every thing sacred from the course of the action here presented, and converting it, as is done particularly by Hitzig and Renan, into a succession of voluptuous scenes in the harem, without order or progress. This view becomes really repulsive, especially where it maintains that the poet brings Solomon’s love for other favorites than Shulamith before his readers or spectators by a detailed description of his amorous intercourse with them; that he describes with particularity by word and act how the king turns wearied away from the coy Shulamith, to “indemnify” himself with the other beauties of his harem. Hitzig’s exegesis on the passage Son 7:2-11 based on this understanding of it, even Bφttcher indignantly pronounces one that “culminates in the disgustingly vulgar,”—a judgment that might with equal reason be passed upon Renan’s treatment of the same section. But even in its more moderate form, as advanced by Herder, Umbr., Ew., Vaih., etc., the shepherd hypothesis invariably involves much that is of doubtful morality, by which the religious and ethical character of the section before us is sensibly damaged in several points. Solomon’s character especially suffers more than is just, inasmuch as there is heaped upon him besides the reproach of polygamy with its excesses, that of an assiduous attempt at seduction and a corrupting assault upon female innocence, an actually adulterous procedure therefore,—which especially in the so-called “final assault,” Son 7:2-10, comes into unseemly contrast with the alleged fidelity of the maiden to a distant lover. Shulamith’s character, too, appears on this view less fair and great than in ours; the extravagance, not to say the braggart character of the description given of her lover, Son 5:10-16, if this refers to a plain young shepherd, is particularly offensive; so is the excited pathos of the appeal which, according to this view, is directed to a far distant lover to go with her into the country, Son 7:12 ff. Some of the finest and loveliest traits in the picture of this noble woman are wholly lost, especially the symbolic significance of her dream, Son 5:2-7; the lovely gentleness with which she seeks by her evasive answer in Son 6:2-3, to excuse her absent husband; the adroitness with which she interrupts him (Son 7:10) in order wholly to disarm and captivate him; the genuine womanly naivetι with which, in her picture of the innocent joys of their life together in the country, she inserts, Son 8:2, a hint of the instruction which she hopes to receive from her lover, etc.3. The typical Messianic view avoids these faults in a manner which really satisfies both the ζsthetic and the religious feeling. It throughout gives due prominence alike to light and shade, and while it sets forth in all its rigor the conflict of the lovely, chaste and pure child of nature with the corrupt manners of the court and her royal lover who shared them, it nevertheless paves the way likewise for a truly blessed reconciliation and removal of this conflict by showing how Shulamith’s urgency to return to her country home, lays the foundation for a change of mind in her husband, and for satisfying her boldest and highest wishes. The true power of love in the humble maiden thus shines in its most glorious light, and the lover who at first resisted is drawn along by it; his resistance to the sanctity of the marriage connection is overcome by the purity of her feelings.—When put in a parallel with the relation of Christ to His Church, this episode from the story of the love of Solomon and Shulamith certainly exhibits more disparity than resemblance. But it forms also just that section of the story, in which the dissimilarity of the two relations must naturally come most strongly out, in some parts of it almost to the obliteration of every trace of similitude. And yet there remain even here significant analogies enough to establish the essentially Messianic character of the whole. Above all the glowing description of the beauty of the lover, Son 5:10-16, which is only applicable to Solomon, not to any of his subjects, points to the King of all kings as the heavenly prototype of that king, as the possessor of an eternal glory which far outshines the splendor of the earthly Solomon. Mankind seeking after God, and craving His salvation, the antitype in the history of redemption of the earthly Shulamith, by its earnest and continued longing, waiting, entreating and imploring, succeeds in moving this heavenly Solomon to give up his glory and enter into its low estate, as she moves her lord and king to the resolve to live with her in her mother’s house, and to partake with her of all the simple country enjoyments and pleasures which this house, with its surroundings, could offer him and her. In this parallel there certainly lies a prophecy of the fulfilling of that which is written, John 14:23, “If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him;” likewise of 2 Corinthians 6:16 (Leviticus 26:11; Hebrews 8:10), “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people;” as well as of Rev 21:3, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and He himself, God with them, shall be their God.” That significant phrase too, “thou wouldst instruct me,” Son 8:2, points to the higher stage of divine revelation to which mankind has been exalted under the New Testament, in the same manner as Isaiah 54:13 (John 6:45): “And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord;” or as Jeremiah 31:33 (Hebrews 8:10 ff.): “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;—and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord,” (comp. Joe 3:1 f.; Acts 2:16 f.; 1 John 2:27, etc.).—But certainly,—and herein lies the exaltation of the New Testament Solomon above the Old, and the superiority of the New Testament covenant of grace, as compared with the marriage covenant between Solomon and Shulamith—no express entreaty with flattering words and persistent supplication was needed to bring down the Lord of the New Covenant to His own. Even if here and there in His parables He assumes the air of the reluctant friend or the unmerciful judge, and thus seems to impose upon His own people the duty of importunate begging and crying (Luke 11:5-8; Luke 18:1-7), this is purposely done that the contrast between human hard-heartedness and His own infinitely merciful and prevenient love, may induce to a heartier confidence in the latter. His becoming poor in order to make us rich, His emptying and humbling Himself to the form of a servant was prevenient throughout, with no merit or worthiness on the part of man; yea, so that He “was found of them that sought Him not, and was made manifest unto them that asked not after Him” (Romans 10:20; Isaiah 65:1). Of His coming to His own it may in truth be said: “You do not need to labor, Nor struggle day and night, To bring Him down from heaven, By efforts of your might. He comes of His own motion, Is full of love and grace, Your every grief and sorrow He’ll utterly efface.” And besides it is a real and substantial glory, which He gives up and forsakes from love to the poor children of men, not a mere seeming glory, full of sin and vanity, like that of the earthly Solomon. His love to the poor damsel of earth is so utterly unselfish that He gives everything and receives nothing, whilst she can give nothing but only receive (comp. St. Francis of Assisi’s fable of the rich king Christ, and the fair damsel “Poverty”). Nay, she does not even possess as her own those “excellent fruits, new and old,” with which she was to regale her gracious and heavenly guest upon his entrance into her mother’s house. But it is her lover, and He alone, who makes the seed of His divine word bring forth in her good and worthy fruit, which endureth unto everlasting life. It is He alone who makes her rich in all the fruits of the Spirit and of righteousness (Philippians 1:11; Galatians 5:22, etc.). He alone distributes the precious wine of joy at the table of His grace, by which He solemnly seals and confirms with His earthly bride, the covenant of His love, established by His bloody sacrificial death (comp. John 2:1-11). And while Shulamith’s entreaty of her royal lord and husband “O that thou wert like my brother, who sucked the breasts of my mother” (Son 8:1) can only be made in the most restricted sense,—while she, upon a calm and sober view of the case at least, can expect no more than a transient coming down of her lover into her poverty and retirement, the heavenly bridegroom of the Church, on the contrary, comes not only once and in the fullest truth, but for ever as our brother on the earth. He “is not ashamed to call all them, whom He redeems, His brethren” (Hebrews 2:11; comp. John 20:17). He is made partaker of their earthly flesh and blood in order to raise them from being slaves of sin and death to be children of God and heirs of His eternal, heavenly blessedness (Hebrews 2:14-15; John 8:32-36).—Thus set in the light of His deeds of redeeming love, this section of the Canticles becomes a song of praise to the grace of the Lord, which worketh all in all, a hymn of glory to that inscrutable mystery of the Divine mercy, of which Paul exclaims, Romans 11:34 f.: “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” FIFTH SONGThe return home and the triumph of the chaste love of the wife over the unchaste feelings of her royal husbandSon_8:5-14FIRST SCENE:The Arrival Home(Son 8:5-7)Country people (in the fields at Shunem) 5 Who is this coming up out of the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? Solomon (entering arm in arm with Shulamith). Under this apple tree I waked thee;there thy mother travailed with thee, there travailed she that bare thee. Shulamith (familiarly pressing up close to her lover) 6 Place me as a signet-ring upon thy heart, as a signet-ring upon thine arm. For strong as death is love, hard as Sheol is jealousy Its flames are flames of fire, a blaze of Jehovah.7 Many waters cannot quench love, and rivers shall not wash it away. If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love, he would be utterly contemned. SECOND SCENE:Shulamith with her lover (in the circle of her friends.) (Son 8:8-14)Shulamith8 A sister we have, little and she has no breasts; what shall we do for our sister in the day that she shall be spoken for?Shulamith’s Brothers9 If she be a wall, we will build upon her a silver castle; but if she be a door, we will stop her up with a cedar board. Shulamith10 I was a wall and my breasts like towers. Then was I in his eyes as one that finds peace.— 11 Solomon has a vineyard in Baal-hamon. He committed the vineyard to the keepers, each was to bring for its fruit a thousand of silver. 12 My vineyard, my own, is before me; the thousand is thine, Solomon, and two hundred for the keepers of its fruit. Solomon13 Thou that dwellest in the gardens, companions are listening for thy voice; let me hear it. Shulamith (singing) 14 Flee, my beloved, and be like a gazelle, or a young hart upon mountains of spices. AND 1. Some of the more recent interpreters dismember this last act, by attaching part of it to the preceding section, and regarding the remainder as an appendix or epilogue to the whole. Thus Umbreit extends the last act of the piece to Son 8:7, which is then followed by Son 8:8-12 as a first appendix, “The shrewd old brothers and the naively jesting sister;” and Son 8:13-14 as a second appendix, “The unlucky trip to the country.” In like manner Renan, who regards the fifth act as ending with Son 8:7, and the remaining seven verses as forming an epilogue. On the contrary v. Hofmann connects Son 8:5-12 with his last main division of the whole (Son 6:1 to Son 8:12), and considers the last two verses only, Son 8:13-14, as an appendix.—Dφpke and Magnus push the process of dismemberment to the greatest length, the former of whom divides this section into three separate songs (5–7; 8–12; 13, 14). The latter makes it consist of four small pieces, a lyric poem: “The parting” (5–7), two dramatic epigrams (8–10 and 11, 12), and a fragment with several glosses (13, 14).—A correct apprehension of the unity of this section as one whole, separated from the preceding by the solemn introductory formula ξιζΰϊεβε “Who is this,” etc., is found in Ewald, Hitz., Del., Hengstenb., Vaih., Bφttcher, Weissb. Only some of these, especially the last named, go too far in their assertion of the compactness and continuity of the passage, since they fail to recognize the difference between the two scenes, which it unmistakably contains. For in Son 8:5-7 there is evidently represented a return home, and in Son 8:8 ff. a transaction after arriving home. The former of these paragraphs exhibit the principal couple of the piece as still travelling, although quite near the end of their journey. The latter depicts their acts and doings at home in the circle of Shulamith’s family, where merry jests and peaceful enjoyment reign. The two scenes of such different character are therefore related exactly as in the third act; only there the excited tumult of the capital and the noisy bustle of the royal palace on Zion resounding with luxurious festivities, formed the background of the action, whilst here an innocent rural seclusion and simplicity, a cheerful, quiet life under apple trees, in gardens, and on mountains fragrant with spices, is depicted as a bright and peaceful termination of the whole matter. 2. With respect to the time and place of the action, no well grounded doubt can exist, on the supposition that the contents and meaning of the preceding act have been correctly understood. Solomon must have yielded to the urgent entreaties of his beloved, and immediately arranged a journey to her home and started with her, so that at the utmost there can only be an interval of three or four days between this and the foregoing act. Various indications suggest Shunem, the home of Shulamith, as the goal toward which the loving pair are journeying, and consequently as the locality of this act; especially the introductory passage, Son 8:5, rightly understood and interpreted, and also the mention of Shulamith’s little sister, Son 8:8 f., her “abiding in the gardens,” Son 8:13, as well as the “mountains of spices” or “mountains of balm,” Son 8:14, which remind us of Son 2:17.—Partly on account of the introductory words, which are identical with Son 3:6, “Who is this coming up out of the wilderness?” partly on account of the masc. suffixes in ηαμϊκΰξκ ,ςεψψϊικetc. (according to the Masoretic punctuation), which appear to show that the passage refers not to Shulamith’s but to Solomon’s birth-place, Weissbach (as also Dφpke, etc., before him) explains and assumes the royal palace on Zion to be the place of this action; Son 8:5 ff. describe the arrival of the lovers there from the royal gardens (or more exactly from the “path or pasture ground of the royal flocks, which is to be sought between Zion and the king’s gardens”); the rest of the action is then performed on Zion itself. But the correctness of the Masoretic reading in that passage is more than doubtful (see just below, No. 3); and it is only by the greatest forcing that all that follows, especially Son 8:8 f., 11 ff. and Son 8:13, can be brought into harmony with this transfer of the scene to Jerusalem, as is sufficiently shown by the strange combinations of Weissbach with respect to the circumstances, under which Bathsheba had borne Solomon “under an apple tree” and the way that Shulamith had “waked” the king on this his native spot, comp. on Son 8:5 b.—The majority of recent interpreters are agreed with us in assuming Shunem to be the place of the action, only the advocates of the shepherd hypothesis, as might be expected, make not Solomon, but the shepherd and Shulamith arrive there and transact what follows;—a view, which is already sufficiently refuted by Son 8:12 where Solomon is evidently addressed as present (see in loc. as well as on Son 8:13), and which has as little foundation as Vaihinger’s assertion that Son 8:5-7 is performed at the house of Shulamith’s mother, and Son 8:8 ff. “on the eastern slope of little Mt. Hermon,” where her brothers may have had their pasture ground.—When Delitzsch, whose view of the position and import of this act is in every other respect correct and appropriate, finds represented merely “a visit of Shulamith with her husband to her home,” we must remark on the contrary that the entreaties and desires of Shulamith at the close of the preceding act certainly looked to more than a mere transient stay at her home, and that this was demanded by the whole state of the case. It was only in an actual settlement both of herself and of her husband in her home that she could find the needed guarantee of an undisturbed continuance of her relation to him of cordial and conjugal love. 3. First Scene. The arrival, vers.5–7. Son 8:5. Who is this coming up out of the wilderness? So asked Son 3:6 the “daughters of Jerusalem,” the chorus of ladies of the court, who took part in the action until towards the end of the preceding act. This chorus could only have come to Shulamith’s home in company with the royal pair; and then the question before us would, be insupposable in their mouth (vs. Renan, etc.). Ewald, Bφttcher, Hitzig, Delitzsch, etc. therefore correctly assume the speakers to be “shepherds,” or country people, or “inhabitants of the district,” whilst Umbreit and Meier arbitrarily suppose the question to be put by the poet himself; Weissb. by courtiers on Zion, Rosenm. by citizens of Jerusalem.—ξִ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ lit. “place to which cattle are driven, pasture ground” (in opposition to cultivated land, comp. Isaiah 32:15; Joe 1:19; Psalms 65:13) is here used in a different sense from Son 3:6 where it referred to the barren tracts north and east of Jerusalem. It is here a designation of the plain of Esdraλlon or Merj ibn ’Amir, lying southward from Shunem to Jezreel, which is still for the most part untilled and traversed by Bedouins (Robinson, Pal. II. 324, 362). For through this plain the travellers coming from the capital must ultimately pass.—Leaning upon her beloved. The long journey, though she may have got over part of it in her sedan, has wearied the delicate lady who therefore supports herself upon the arm of her husband. Failing to recognize this situation so clear in itself and so easily conceivable, the old translators have variously altered the sense of the passage. In this way we may explain the glosses to be found in the text of the Sept. and Vulg.,λελευκανθισμένη (=ξִ ?ϊְ ?αָּ ?ψֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ) and deliciis affluens (=ξִ ?ϊְ ?τִַּ ?πֱ ?χϊ), which are in both cases followed again by the correct translation of ξִ ?ϊְִ ?ψַ ?τֶּ ?χֶ ?ϊςַ ?μΞγּ ?εֹ ?γָ ?δּ.—Under this apple tree I waked thee. The pointing ςεֹ ?ψַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ, like that of the following verb implies that Solomon is the person addressed and that Shulamith is the speaker, but the consonants admit also of the reverse, and the old Syriac version seems actually to have read fem suffixes. Most of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters, following the Masoretic text conceive Shulamith to be the speaker, whilst Hitzig, Bφttcher (who to be sure assigns a part of the verse to Shulamith’s mother), Delitzsch, Rebenst., Sanders, etc. make her lover speak. In favor of the latter assumption it may be urged 1) that if Solomon were the person addressed, the absurd sense would result of his birth under an apple tree—a sense which is certainly not made any more tolerable by Weissbach’s supposition of a “temporary sojourn of Bathsheba in the royal gardens with a view to her confinement;” 2) that in case the young shepherd were addressed the entire absence of any mention of his mother in what precedes, would be somewhat surprising and is not relieved by the parallels adduced by Ewald Gen. 35:48, Donati, vit. virg. c. 1, etc.; 3) that Son 8:6-7 confessedly spoken by Shulamith would require to be more closely connected with Son 8:5 b than they actually are, in case Son 8:5 b was also spoken by her: 4) that the expression “travail” or “conceive” (ηַ ?αֵּ ?μ) seems fitter in the mouth of a man than of a woman, in like manner as ςεψψϊικ when correctly explained only appears appropriate in the mouth of the lover. For this expression, which we therefore read ςεֹ ?ψַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ικְ, as is shown by its likeness to ϊְּ ?ςֹ ?ψְ ?ψιּ Son 8:4, is not to be understood of a literal awakening out of sleep (Ewald, Heiligst., Hitzig, Vaih. etc.) but of waking a previously slumbering affection, the stirring up of love. “I waked thee” is here equivalent to “I excited thy love, I won thy heart” (Dφpke, Del., Hengstenb. etc.). The circumstance, to which Solomon here alludes, is manifestly identical with that described by Shulamith Son 2:8 ff. We must, therefore, imagine the apple tree to be immediately adjoining the house of Shulamith’s mother, and probably shading one of its windows; the following statement is thus too more easily explained.—There thy mother travailed with thee, there travailed she that bare thee. “There,” i.e. not precisely under the apple tree as though the birth had taken place in the open air (Dφpke), but more indefinitely, there, where that apple tree stands, in the dwelling shaded by it. Son 8:6. Place me as a signet-ring upon thy heart. This is manifestly said by Shulamith in ardently loving response to what her lover had said to her, by which she had been reminded of the commencement of her relation to him. She thereupon presses familiarly and closely to him, illustrating the meaning of her words by a corresponding action. ηεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν the seal or signet-ring (Genesis 38:18) is here as in Jeremiah 22:24, and Haggai 2:23 (which latter passage is probably an imitation of that before us) a symbol of close inseparable connection and most faithful preservation. Reference is had to the custom attested by Gen. loc. cit. of wearing signet-rings on a string upon the breast as well as to the like custom of binding them to the arm or right hand (see Jer. loc. cit., Sir 49:11); not to the use of the signet-ring for sealing, as though the sense were “press me closely to thy breast and in thy arms” (Hitzig), and quite as little to the impression taken from the seal (Herder, Dφpke), or to an elegantly engraved bracelet (Weissb.), or even to the high priest’s breastplate (Golz, Hahn, etc.) For strong as death is love, hard as Sheol is jealousy. The request that he would keep her firmly and faithfully as his inalienable possession is here based by Shulamith on a reference to the death-vanquishing power and might of her love, or rather of love (ΰַ ?δֲ ?αָ ?δ absolutely), of true love in general. “The adjectives ςַ ?ζָּ ?δ and χָ ?ωָׁ ?δ stand together also in Genesis 49:7 to designate the passionate anger and fiery zeal of Simeon and Levi as one which was too strong and invincible to be repressed. As our poet probably (?) had this passage in mind, he doubtless designed ςַ ?ζָּ ?δ to be understood here too of the all-conquering power and χָ ?ωָׁ ?δ (literally hard, resisting all impressions) of the constancy of love which baffles every attempt to suppress or to extirpate it. The comparisons also tend to the same conclusion; for death overcomes all things and the nether world (hell, sheol) cannot be subdued, comp. Job 7:9; Wis 2:1; Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 15:55.” Thus Weissbach, who is substantially correct, only he goes too far perhaps, in regarding Genesis 49:7 as the model, which the poet designedly follows in this passage. On χִ ?πְ ?ΰָ ?δ zeal, zealous love, comp. Proverbs 6:34; Proverbs 27:4, where however the expression is used in a bad sense of love that has cooled, jealousy. In this passage it intensifies the idea of love, just as “death” and “hell” stand to each other in the relation of climax, and as “strong” (i.e. invincible) indicates a lower degree of the passion of love than “hard, unyielding” (i.e. inexorable, not to be appeased, like the realm of death, which never gives up anything that it possesses). Comp. Hitzigin loc.—Its flames are flames of fire, a blaze of Jehovah. On ψְ ?ωָׁ ?τִ ?ιν “sparks, rays, flames,” comp. Job 5:7 (αְּ ?πֵֹ ?ιψֶ ?ωֶׁ ?σ “sons of the flame,” i.e. sparks of fire); Psalms 76:4 (“flashes” or “sparks of the bow,” i.e. arrows); Deuteronomy 32:24; Habakkuk 3:5, etc. Love or rather its intenser synonym χִ ?πְ ?ΰָ ?δ (comp. Zephaniah 1:18), appears here as a brightly blazing fire, which sends forth a multitude of sparks or flames into the hearts of men and thus verifies its invincible power and its inextinguishable intensity. And this quality belongs to it because it is not natural fire, but a “blaze of Jehovah,” flame kindled and sustained by God Himself. Observe that the name of God is mentioned only in this one passage of the Song, which must, however, prove to be just the radiant apex in the development of its doctrinal and ethical contents (comp. Doct. and Eth. No. 2). As parallels to this verse may be adduced: Motanebbi (edit. v. Hammer) p. Song of Solomon 3 : In the heart of the lover flames the blaze of desire Fiercer than the flames of hell, which are but ice in comparison. Also Anacreon: “νικᾳ δὲ καὶ σιδηρὸνκαὶ πῦρ.” Likewise Theocritus, Id. 2, 133. ——ἔρωςδ’ ἄρακαὶ ΛιπαρίουΠολλάκις ‘Αφαίστοιοσέλαςφλογερώτεροναἴθει. And many other expressions of Arabic, Greek and Roman poets. See Magnusin loc.Son 8:7. Many waters cannot quench love, and rivers shall not wash it away. It is here shown more particularly in what respect love is a divine flame, a fire greater than any kindled by a human hand, comp. 1 Kings 18:38. To the figure of a blazing fire was readily added that of the inability of floods of water to extinguish this fire, and therefore in explanation of this new figure we need neither refer (as Hitzig does) to Isaiah 43:16, a passage which is different in every respect, nor (with Vaihinger and others) explain the floods of water of the enticements of Solomon in particular, by which he would have turned Shulamith away from her lover. The “rivers” (πְ ?δָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ) do not form a climax to the “many waters,” as Hφlemann supposes (see e.g. on the contrary Jonah 2:3); but in the latter case the thing chiefly regarded is the great mass of the element hostile to fire and in the former its rapidity and violence.—If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love,i.e. with the view of exciting love and producing it artificially where it does not exist. Here we might really see something to favor the shepherd hypothesis, if a statement of the impossibility of purchasing true love was not appropriate in the mouth of Shulamith on our assumption likewise. But that this is the case, may be learned from the contrast between Shulamith’s genuine, invincibly strong love for Solomon and the mere semblance of love which had previously subsisted between this king and his other wives; comp. the sentence referring to this very contrast, Son 2:7; Son 3:5; Son 8:4, by which Shulamith represents to the ladies of the court how impossible it was for them by means of their amorous arts really to gain the king’s heart (see on Son 2:7, p. 63). On the expression comp. Numbers 22:18; Proverbs 6:31, which latter passage was probably drawn from this. On ΰִ ?ιωׁ “a man, any one,” comp. Exodus 16:29. That it is here an indefinite subject seems the more certain from the fact that in the apodosis also a universal statement follows with an impersonal form of the verb (ιָ ?αεּ ?ζεּ μεֹ). Vaihinger, Hφlem., etc., therefore translate without good reason “If some man,” etc.—He would be utterly contemned; lit., “contemning they would contemn him.” The impersonal plural expresses, as in the similar passage Proverbs 6:30, the universal sentiment not merely that of those in particular who were solicited by false love and with money. The repetition of the verb by means of the Infin. absol. expresses the very high degree of contempt, which such an one as is here spoken of would encounter. 4. Second Scene.—a.Shulamith’s little sister, Son 8:8-10. Weissbach is alone in attempting to point out an intimate connection between these verses and the preceding. He says: “What was uttered Son 8:7 c, d as a universal proposition (viz. that money and property have no value as compared with love) is now Son 8:8-9 conditionally illustrated in the sister who is still young and destitute of charms, whilst Shulamith represents herself, Son 8:10, as the antithesis.” As this view can only be based on a very artificial interpretation of Son 8:8-9, we shall have to abide by the looser connection maintained, e.g., by Delitzsch and Hahn. They suppose that the sense expressed by Shulamith, Son 8:6-7, of the high happiness which she possesses and enjoys in her love for the king, reminded her of her young sister who was still debarred from such loving enjoyment, and she accordingly expresses her solicitude for her future conduct and fortunes. Upon this assumption the unmistakable dramatic progress receives due acknowledgment without the sundering of all connection between the new scene which begins here and that which preceded it, as is the case, e.g., in Umbreit’s view, according to which Son 8:6-7 constitute the closing sentiment of the drama (spoken by the poet himself) and Son 8:8-14 a twofold supplement to it. So in the similar views of Renan, Dφpke, Magnus (comp. above No. 1) and no less so finally on the assumption of Dφderlein, Ewald, Heiligstedt, Meier and Rocke, that Shulamith narrates in Son 8:8-9 what had formerly been said by the brothers in relation to her little sister. In opposition to this latter opinion, according to which Son 8:8-9 are to be regarded as recitative, and Shulamith’s own words do not begin again until Son 8:10, Delitzsch correctly urges: “It would be vain to appeal to Son 3:2; Son 5:3 to prove the possibility of this view; in both those passages the introduction of the language of another without any formal indication of the fact, occurs in the course of a narrative, whilst Son 8:8 f. is only converted into a narrative by the “fratres aliquando dixerunt” (Heiligstedt) understood. There is nothing to justify such an insertion. The only seeming necessity for it might be found in Son 6:9, according to which Shulamith herself appears to be the “little sister.” It is not, however, said in Son 6:9 that “Shulamith was the only daughter of her mother, but only that her mother did not possess or know her equal,” (comp. in loc.). Hitzig, too, emphatically opposes understanding the passage as a narration, but assumes that both verses, Son 8:9, as well as Son 8:8, were spoken by Shulamith’s brothers, which is contrary to the relation of the two verses as question and answer. Nevertheless this assumption, shared also by Vaihinger, especially if one brother is supposed to speak in Son 8:8, and the other in Son 8:9, would be far more tolerable than Bφttcher’s view, which makes Shulamith’s mother put the question in Son 8:8, and one of her sons answer it in Son 8:9; or than the opinion of Hengstenberg that both Son 8:8-9 were spoken by Solomon; or than the view of Starke, and of many of the older interpreters, that Son 8:8 belongs to Shulamith, and Son 8:9 to Solomon. Son 8:8. We have a sister, little, and she has (as yet) no breasts. On χָ ?θָ ?ο “little” in the sense of young, belonging to the period of childhood, comp. Genesis 9:24; Genesis 27:15; 1 Kings 3:7; and in relation to the breasts as the criterion of virgin maturity, Ezekiel 16:7.—What shall we do. … in the day that she shall be spoken for? The day that a maiden is sued for, is when she becomes of a marriageable age. The suit was addressed in the first instance to the father of the damsel, or to her brothers, not directly to herself (Genesis 34:11; Genesis 34:13; Genesis 24:50, etc.). Son 8:9. If she be a wall, we will build upon her a silver castle; but if she be a door, we will stop her up with a cedar board.Delitzsch correctly paraphrases these words: “If she opposes a firm and successful resistance to all immoral suggestions, we will build on her, as on a solid wall, a castle of silver, i.e., we will bestow upon her the freedom and honor due to her virgin purity and steadfastness, so that she may shine forth in the land like a stately castle on a lofty wall which is seen far and wide. But if she is a door, i.e., open and accessible to the arts of seduction, we will block her up with cedar boards, i.e., watch her so that she cannot be approached by any seducer, nor any seducer approached by her.”—As soon as we suppose the brothers to give this answer respecting their younger sister, it loses the strange or even offensive appearance which its figures would certainly have in the mouth of Shulamith. Then, too, we shall not be compelled to seek for a closer connection between this sentiment and the main action of the poem (as the advocates of the shepherd hypothesis do), but can abide by the simple assumption that what is here said, as in general, all from Son 8:8 onward, is simply designed to form a cheerful and sportive termination of the whole matter. Least of all need we take refuge in the over-refined view of Weissbach that Son 8:9 is a continuation of the language of Shulamith, who supposes two questions to be put to her by certain men respecting her sister when marriageable, and immediately replies to them both—so that the sentences run thus: …. What shall we do then in respect to our sister when they ask about her: (a) “Is she a wall?” Ans. We will build a little silver wall around her (?); (b) “Is she a door?” Ans. We will construct around her (?) a cedar frame (?)— As to the particulars observe further: The wall ηεֹ ?ξָ ?δ is not designed to set forth the idea of lofty stature (χεֹ ?ξָ ?δ7:8), or the impossibility of being scaled, but simply that of the firm resistance which checks the further advance of foes (Hitzig correctly, vs. Weissbach).—The “castle of silver” θִ ?ιψַ ?ϊλֶּ ?ρֶ ?σ to be built on the wall is, of course, only to be conceived of as a small but strong castle, tower or bulwark (comp. θִ ?ιψָ ?δ in Numbers 31:10; Ezekiel 25:4, etc.), or if any prefer as a “pinnacle” or “battlement crowning the wall” (Hitzig, Heiligstedt, Magn., Meier, Hφlem.—comp. the Sept.:ἔπαλξις),—not as a “palace” (Goltz) [so Eng. Ver.] or “habitation” (Hengstenberg), or “court-yard” (Bφttcher), or “low fence” (Weissbach). The meaning of the figure is admirably illustrated by Hitzig by a reference to our proverbial form of speech, “He (or she) deserves to be set in gold.” He also not inappropriately suggests an allusion to the way that oriental ladies to this day decorate their head-dress with strings of silver coins or with horn-like ornaments of embossed silver and the like (comp. on Son 4:4 above). On the contrary the sense which Vaihinger would attribute to the expression is undemonstrable and in bad taste: “we will seek to obtain a large dowry by her.” And Weissbach’s explanation is perfectly absurd and trifling: “we will carry up a silver wall around her, who needs no such protection.”—The door presents a fitting contrast to the wall, because it is easily opened and admits everything through it; an expressive emblem of unchastity which is open to every amorous seduction. “Stopping up” or “blocking” (Hitzig: “barricading”) this door with a “cedar board” naturally means a determined warding off of those seductive influences, and rendering all dissoluteness impossible by the most sedulous care. By this is not to be understood a “fore-door or vestibule door in front of the proper door” (Hug), nor a “cedar post” (Weissb.), nor a tablet to be put on the door as an ornament (Hφlem.), but quite certainly a plank or board to be put against the door on the inside to prevent it from turning and opening. This board was to be of cedar, because this wood is a particularly strong building material and not liable to rot.Son 8:10. I was a wall and my breasts like towers. This is evidently said by Shulamith, whose thoughts were turned back to her own maiden state by her brothers’ faithful care shown for the honor and purity of her little sister. Looking back upon this time, which now lies in the past, she can joyfully affirm that all seduction recoiled from her as from a solid wall, and that no one had dared to venture an assault upon her pure and awe-inspiring charms (her breasts as inaccessible and hard to be scaled as towers upon walls, comp. Son 7:9 b).—Then was I in his eyes as one that finds peace,i.e., this careful preservation of my chastity, this keeping my charms pure and sacred procured me his, the king’s, favor and inmost love. ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν “welfare, peace,” is here as in ΰִ ?ιωׁ ωְׁ ?μεֹ ?ξִ ?ιPsalms 41:10, a synonym of ηֵ ?ο “favor” or ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ “kindness” (comp. ξָ ?φָ ?ΰηֵ ?οGenesis 6:8; Genesis 19:19; Jeremiah 31:2, as well as ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γεָ ?ηֵ ?οEsther 2:17) and is not without a delicate allusion to the name of Solomon. There is also a certain refinement in the expression that Shulamith does not exactly say ΰָ ?ζξָ ?φָ ?ΰϊִ ?ιαְ ?ςֵ ?ιπָ ?ιεωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν “then I found peace in his eyes,” but with a modest circumlocution: “then was I as one (λְּ as in λְּ ?ΰָ ?η8:1) that finds peace in his eyes,” then I appeared to him worthy of his cordial affection (comp. Delitzsch and Hφlemannin loc.). The expression contains no allusion, therefore, to the preceding comparison of herself to a wall surmounted by towers, or to a fortification. If the poet intended by ΰζδιιϊιαςιπιελξεφΰϊωμεν to express the meaning: “then he finally left me in peace, instead of assailing me further,” he did so in a most strange and unintelligible manner (vs. Hitzig), and to regard ηεֹ ?ξָ ?δ “wall” as the subject of ξεֹ ?φֵ ?ΰϊ “found” (Ewald, Weissbach) will not answer on account of this word being too remote; and such a form of speech as “a wall or fortress finds peace—it surrenders or it is spared,” receives no confirmation from the Old Testament elsewhere, or from oriental literature generally. 5. Continuation.—b.Shulamith’s intercession for her brothers, Son 8:11-12.—These difficult verses can only be explained in accordance with the context, and with the whole course and tenor of the piece, by assuming with Delitzsch that the “vineyard of Solomon in Baal-hamon,” mentioned in Son 8:11, is simply adduced by way of example; that the speaker’s “own vineyard,” as in Son 1:6 (comp. Son 4:12 ff.), is a figurative designation of herself and her charms, which she devotes to the king; and finally that the “keepers of its fruit” (Son 8:12 b) is a designation of her brothers, the faithful and zealous guardians of her innocence; and consequently the whole must be taken to be an intercession of Shulamith on behalf of her brothers. This intercession fitly connects itself with their tender care for her little sister, just now manifested; and it likewise refers back in a suitable manner to the mention before made of her brothers, Son 1:6, and thus helps to bring about a termination of the whole, in which everything shall be satisfactorily adjusted and harmonized. We therefore reject the following divergent explanations of this brief section: 1) Shulamith declares that she has herself guarded her virgin innocence better than Solomon his vineyard in Baal-hamon, whose keepers had secretly retained, besides the fruit, two hundred shekels for themselves; she therefore needs no other keepers, not even the guardianship of her brothers (Herder, Umbreit,Dφpke, Hitzig, Rocke). 2) Shulamith protests that she disdains all the wealth and the treasures of Solomon, which, like his vineyard in Baal-hamon, he is obliged to entrust to the guardianship of others; her vineyard, i.e., her innocence and virtue is under her own control, and in this possession of hers she has enough (Dathe, Rosenmueller, Ewald, Heiligstedt, etc.). 3) Shulamith triumphantly relates that Solomon offered her the rich vineyard at Baal-hamon, whither she had been carried to his pleasure-palace, with all its produce, and the entire park as her own property, if she would be his; he was even willing to release her from the payment of the two hundred shekels due to each of its keepers; but she had renounced the whole for the sake of her lover, who now, as her own chosen vineyard(!) stood before her (Vaihinger). 4) Shulamith means to say, Solomon must have his distant vineyard in Baal-hamon kept for him, and must therefore pay away considerable of its proceeds; but she, on the contrary, kept her own vineyard, that is to say Solomon (!), herself, and hence possessed his love alone without being obliged to share it with others (Hφlemann). 5) Shulamith intends by Solomon’s vineyard in Baal-hamon herself, and by her own vineyard the shepherd, her lover; she means to say, Solomon did indeed get Shulamith into his power at Shulem (=Baal-hamon), and offered her one thousand shekels by each of the ladies of the court as her keepers; but he may keep this money, for her proper keeper, the shepherd, now stands before her again (Meier). 6) Shulamith means to say that Solomon, who has let out his vineyard to keepers, receives as the owner one thousand silverlings in cash from each keeper, whilst the keepers retain for their pay five times as much in fruit = five thousand shekels. But Shulamith, who keeps her own vineyard, i.e., herself with all her personal charms, and consequently might, as both owner and keeper, retain the entire produce for herself, gives the use of the fruit, consequently the five parts, in this case = 1000 (!) to Solomon, and only retains for herself as keeper the 200, i.e., the possession; the usufruct shall be his, she will only be the keeper of her vineyard (Weissbach). 7) Solomon’s vineyard in Baal-hamon denotes the kingdom of God founded in the midst of the world, in the midst of the savage masses of heathen population. The keepers of this vineyard are the several Christian nations, each of which has to pay one thousand shekels to the heavenly Solomon as the product of his labor. Each must therefore produce as much fruit as the people of Israel, the tenants of the vineyard mentioned, Son 8:12, which forms one part of the great vineyard of the Church. Each people then receives in return a reward of grace of two hundred shekels, that is to say, a fifth part of the produce of his portion; and the people of Israel receives no more, comp. Matthew 20:1-16 (Hengstenberg). 8) Solomon’s vineyard at Baal-hamon denotes the Church of the Lord in the midst of the world. Its keepers are the prophets, apostles, pastors and teachers of Christendom, to whom two-tenths (twice as much, therefore, as under the Old Testament) shall be given as a reward of grace for their faithful raising of fruit, or for their leading many thousand souls to the heavenly Solomon (Calov, Michael., Marck., Berleb. Bib., and in general most of the old allegorists). 9) The vineyard at Baal-hamon denotes the Gentile world, generally, Shulamith’s vineyard, Son 8:12, Japhetic gentilism as one half of this Gentile world, the two hundred silverlings the spiritual peace granted by the king to Japhetic humanity in regard for their loving submission to him, etc. (Hahn). Son 8:11. Solomon has a vineyard in Baal-hamon. Baal-hamon is, without doubt, the place not far from Dothaim in the south of the tribe of Issachar, which is called Βελαμὼν or Βαλαμὼν, Jdt 8:3, a locality therefore not very remote from Shunem. It derived its name from the Syro-Egyptian god, Ammon δָ ?ξεֹ ?ο (=ΰָ ?ξεֹ ?οJeremiah 46:25), which may have been worshipped there, just as Baal-gad (Joshua 11:17; Joshua 12:7, etc.) was named from Gad, the well-known Babylonish god of fortune. Baal-hamon scarcely signifies “the populous” (Vulg., Weissb., etc.), and it is still more improbable that it is to be identified, as many of the older writers assumed, with Baalbec in C�le-Syria (where vineyards could hardly ever have flourished), or with Hammon, ηַ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ο, Joshua 19:28, or with Baalgad, Joshua 11:17, etc. But if that locality near Shunem is intended, it by no means follows that Shulamith had been carried off to just that spot by Solomon, and detained there for some time as a prisoner in a pleasure-palace of the king, as Vaih. strangely supposes. But Shulamith only names this vineyard as an instance very near her home of a royal property let out on high rent, in order afterwards to illustrate by it her relation to the king as well as to her brothers.—He committed the vineyard to the keepers—i.e., to several at once, amongst whom the piece of ground was parcelled out in greater or smaller portions. That these keepers rented the property is shown by what follows.—Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand of silver—i.e., a thousand shekels of silver. From the high rent may be inferred the productiveness of the property; for that its annual yield corresponded to the agreement is certainly presupposed, as well as that a part of the produce of his piece annually remained for each tenant—that is, on an average, about two hundred shekels (see Son 8:12). Son 8:12. My vineyard, my own, is before me—i.e., I take charge myself of my own vineyard, viz., of myself and my womanly charms, of myself as an object of men’s admiration and courtship. Since I came to maturity, I have been my own keeper, and have with entire freedom transferred to my royal husband this right of mine to dispose of myself. I have no longer any other keepers but him, who is one with me (comp. on Son 1:6, p. 56).—The thousand is thine, O Solomon, and two hundred for the keepers of its fruit—i.e., the entire proceeds are due to thee; I remain wholly thine own with all that I am and have. But they who kept my fruit, i.e., my innocence and virtue, before I was thine, should not go empty away. These trusty brotherly guardians of my maidenhood, who once watched over me as they now faithfully and sedulously watch over our little sister (Son 8:9), must be commended to thy love and favor, as in my heart they hold the next place after thee.—This explanation, it is true, does not completely remove all difficulties; but it involves fewer doubtful and forced assumptions than the other attempted explanations adduced above. 6. Conclusion.—c.The cheerful pleasantry and singing of the royal couple, Son 8:13-14.—These two concluding verses contain, according to Herder, the fragment of a conversation; according to Umbreit the serenade of a young man from the city with the answer of his lady-love in the country; according to Dφpke a “small duet” belonging to the initial period of Shulamith’s love, and here appended by the poet; according to Magnus, a glossed and mutilated fragment of a love-song; while most of the advocates of the shepherd hypothesis see in it a colloquy between the lover and Shulamith, consisting of an invitation to sing on the part of the former, and a song of a roguish and playful character, which Shulamith thereupon sings (Ewald, Hitzig, Vaihinger, etc.). This last view evidently has the most in its favor on account of the recurrence of δַ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιςֵ ?πִ ?ι “let me hear,” from Son 2:14, and the unmistakable resemblance of the song in Son 8:14 to Son 2:17 (and partly also to Son 2:15). Only there is no reason to suppose the person, who invites her to sing and whom Shulamith addresses in her song as γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ι “my beloved,” to be a young shepherd. The epithet which he bestows upon her, “thou that dwellest in the gardens,” makes it seem far more likely that he was a citizen of rank, and even resident in a palace, a man of royal race exalted greatly above her station in life. But little reason as there is to regard another than Solomon as the “beloved” who speaks in Son 8:13 and is then addressed in the sprightly little song, there is quite as little for assigning this occurrence with Hitzig to a period considerably later than the one recorded just before, or for assuming with Bφttcher that the bridegroom, in quitting the merry engagement feast in the house of Shulamith’s mother, wanted to hear one more song from his bride before he left her for the last brief interval prior to the celebration of their marriage. Delitzsch and Weissbach understand the passage correctly, only the latter preposterously imagines the locality of the action here as in the final section generally to be the royal palace in Jerusalem (comp. p. 127).—Thou that dwellest in the gardens.—Literally, “thou sitting in the gardens,” i.e., thou resident in gardens, who art opposed to living in populous cities and splendid palaces (comp. Son 1:16 f.; Son 4:6; Son 5:7; Son 7:12 ff.). Solomon here evidently means to allude with pleasant raillery to the fact that his beloved, who had so often before exhibited her longing for the gardens and meadows of her home, was now exactly in her element, and ought therefore to be in the best of moods.—Companions are listening for thy voice; let me hear it.—The ηֲ ?αֵ ?ψִ ?ιν “companions” are, according to Magnus, “neighbors,” or “the family;” according to Hufnagel, “female friends;” according to Moldenh., Ewald, Ren., etc., “bridemen” (des paranymphes, Renan); according to Vaihinger, “shepherds, fellow-pasturers;” according to Weissbach, Solomon himself, who here jestingly represents himself as a shepherd, or rather in the plural as “shepherds!” and finally, according to Herder, Hug, Delitzsch, “playmates” or “youthful associates” of Shulamith. This last view has most in its favor; only it is a matter of course that the companions of Shulamith’s youth were likewise those of her brothers; they are consequently in all likelihood shepherds and country people from Shunem and its vicinity. They were probably, therefore, the same as the speakers in Son 8:5 a of this chapter; on the contrary they are not the companions of Solomon (comp. Son 5:1), of whom Shulamith spoke Son 1:7 (vs. Ewald). Son 8:14. Flee, my beloved. The words sound like sending off, or if any prefer “scaring away” or at least “urging out into the open ground” (Delitzsch). They do not, however, by any means express seriously intended coyness, as is shown by the very form of the address γּ ?εֹ ?γִ ?ι “my beloved.” They rather invite to hasten and range with the singer over the mountains and plains as is shown by what follows. αψη is not, however, exactly equivalent to “hasten, up!” as is maintained by Vaihinger and Weissbach, who refer to Numbers 24:11, Isaiah 30:16, etc. For even in these passages, as well as in Genesis 27:43; Amos 7:12, the primary signification of this verb “to flee” is clearly apparent. Ewald arbitrarily: the meaning is that “he should cut across, leave his companions and not stay opposite to her but hasten to her side,” etc.—And be like a gazelle,etc. comp. on Son 2:17. In place of the “mountains of separation” or “cleft mountains” there mentioned we here have balsam mountains or “heights of scented herbs” (Weissbach), which to be sure are meant in a different sense from Son 4:6. Shulamith here calls by this name the mountains and hills of her home (comp. Son 2:8) because they were just then in the season of spring or early summer covered with fragrant flowers of all sorts and accordingly filled with balmy odors (comp. Son 2:12 f., Son 6:11).—On the import of this verse as the conclusion of the entire poem, comp. Delitzsch, p. Song 153: “Amid the cheerful notes of this song we lose sight of the pair rambling over the flowery heights, and the graceful spell of the Song of Songs, which bounds gazelle-like from one scene of beauty to another, vanishes with them.” AND ETHICAL1. The allegorical exegesis is in this section less able than ever to bring all into a form possessing unity and regular structure, and to reach really certain results, as the attempts above exhibited (p. 132) to give an allegorical explanation of Son 8:11-12 have evinced. Not only in this passage but in other parts of this section this mode of interpretation shows a very great multiplicity and divergence of opinions among its various advocates. The “little sister,” Son 8:8 f. is by some made to denote the first-fruits of Jews and Gentiles received into the church immediately after the ascension of Christ (Cassiodorus, Beza, Gregory, Rupert v. Deutz, etc.;) by others the entire body of the Jews and Gentiles yet to be converted (Heunisch, Reinhard, Rambach, likewise Hahn, who refers it particularly to “Hamitic Gentilism”); by others the weak in faith and young beginners in Christianity belonging to every period of the church in their totality (Marck., Berleb. Bib., Starke); and finally by others the daughter of Zion at the time of the first beginnings of her conversion to the heavenly Solomon (Hengst. and others). “The wall and the door,” Son 8:9, are indeed mostly understood of the steadfast and faithful keeping of the word of God and of its zealous proclamation to the Gentiles (according to 1 Corinthians 16:9, etc.); but some also explain them of the valiant in faith and the weak in faith, or of the learned and simple, or of faithful Christians and such as are recreant and easily accessible to the arts of seduction. And then according to these various interpretations the “silver bulwarks” are now the miracles of the first witnesses of Jesus, now the distinguished teachers of the church, now pious Christian rulers, now the testimonies of Holy Scripture by which faith is strengthened, etc. And again by the “cedar board” are sometimes understood the ten commandments or the law, sometimes Christian teachers, sometimes the examples of the saints, sometimes the salutary discipline of the cross and sufferings for Christ’s sake, etc. (comp. Starke in loc.). By the “companions” or “associates” who listen for the voice of the bride, Son 8:13, Piscator in all seriousness understands God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; whilst the followers of Cocceius for the most part referred it to the angels; some of them, however, to true Christians; and the two most recent interpreters of this class suppose that the Gentile world before the time of Christ is intended by the expression, but with this difference that one (Hahn) has in mind chiefly the Gentiles as hostile to revelation, the other (Hengstenberg) as kindly disposed to the people of God and His revelation. 2. It is apparent from the exegetical explanations given above, that this divergence in the allegorical exegesis is matched by an equal variety of opinions and uncertain guess-work on the part of the merely historical interpreters of this chapter; and in fact it is scarcely possible by even the most cautious procedure to arrive at perfectly certain results in respect to the meaning and the connection of the sentences of this section with their fragment-like brevity and obscurity. This, however, only makes it the more necessary with a view to its practical application to adhere to its leading and most perspicuous passage which formulates the fundamental thought not only of the closing act, but of the entire poem with solemn emphasis and with an elevation and pathos of language purposely rising to a climax. We mean the spirited encomium contained in Son 8:6-7 of love between man and woman as a mysterious divine creation, and a power superior to death, Shulamith’s exalted panegyric of conjugal and wedded love, the culminating point of the entire poem, and the only true key to its meaning according to the unanimous assumptions, of interpreters of all schools. Delitzsch (p. 182 f.) has given the best exposition of the thought contained in this leading passage, which has in it the gist of the whole matter: “Shulamith herself here declares how she loves Solomon and how she wishes to be loved by him. This spontaneous testimony discloses to us the intermingling of human freedom and of divine necessity in true love between man and woman. Love is a ωׁ ?μδαϊιδ, a flame kindled by God Himself. Man cannot produce it in himself, and though he employ all his wealth for the purpose, he cannot kindle it in others. She is speaking, of course, of true love, which is directed to the person and not to any mere things. Man cannot create this love by his own agency. It is an operation of God—a divine flame, which seizes upon a man like death with irresistible power, and can neither be quenched nor extinguished by any calamity or by any hostile force. There is thus evinced in true love an inevitable and invincible power of divine necessity. But this divine necessity has for its other side human freedom. It is the inmost and truest ego of a man, from which this divine flame of love blazes forth. Whilst a man becomes a lover by a resistless divine energy, the lover’s passionate desire for the possession of the beloved object is as vehement and inflexible as the resistless and all-devouring grave. The lover loves because he must, but love is at the same time his most pleasurable volition, a return of love his most ardent desire. Smitten with love to Shulamith Solomon exclaims: How beautiful and how comely art thou, O love, among delights (Son 7:7); and smitten with love to Solomon Shulamith prays: Place me as a signet upon thy heart, as a signet ring upon thine arm (Son 8:6).” In this declaration of Shulamith, which gathers up all the main elements in the idea of wedded love and experience, and accordingly formulates the fundamental thought of the entire poem there is no allusion indeed to the blessing of children as the resplendent consummation of the wedded communion of man and wife, as also no express mention is made of this matter elsewhere throughout the piece. For to see an allusion to it in what Shulamith says, Son 8:12, of the “thousand” due to her husband from the produce of his vineyard, would evidently be forced and arbitrary. But Delitzsch properly remarks in relation to this omission of an apparently essential particular: “The author of Canticles has avoided everything, which would look to an externalizing of the relation, which he describes. He makes no mention of children; for a marriage in which the parties who conclude it are not an end to each other, but merely a means for obtaining posterity, does not correspond to its idea. Children are by divine blessing the sparks which result, when the flames of two souls flash into one. The latter is the main thing in marriage.” It is also a delicate feature of great psychological as well as ζsthetic value, that Shulamith, the chaste and pure-minded maiden, though silent respecting the blessing of children, mentions instead with tender love and solicitude her little sister and her brothers, the same who had previously been angry with her and treated her harshly (Son 1:6), and consults with her brothers respecting the future of the former and in her intercession with her royal husband lays to heart the future of her brothers. This overplus of love, which with all the ardent fervor of her devotion to her husband, she still preserves for her own family (see Son 8:12); this touching sisterly love, which is essentially identical with her faithful and pious filial devotion to her mother repeatedly shown in the previous portion of the Song; this combined with her gladsome, cheery, playful disposition, which expresses itself in her concluding words, adds the finishing touch, sweetly transfiguring this noble picture which the poet would sketch of her character as the ideal of a bride and of a young wife, and by which—an unconscious organ of the Holy Spirit—he has set forth the idea and mystery of marriage itself as a sacred and divine institution. 3. From this luminous and revered female figure there proceeds a transfiguring radiance, in which the form of her royal husband, the enthusiastic admirer and spirited singer of her love and her loveliness also shines with a clear and pleasing light. But yet for the sake of, a complete and thoroughly correct typical estimate of the transaction, the sad truth must not be left out of the account, that the bond of love so purely and holily regarded by her was nevertheless at last desecrated and broken by him. For that this was the case, can scarcely be doubted from the manner in which both the historians of the Old Testament record the final fortunes of Solomon and the end of his life (1 Kings 11:1-43, 2 Chronicles 9:22-31). Of a sincere and permanent conversion of this monarch to a God-fearing and virtuous walk in the evening of his days neither the book of Kings nor Chronicles has anything to relate, the latter of which would scarcely have omitted to note a similarity in the life of Solomon to that of Manasseh in this respect. That no proof can be drawn from the book of Ecclesiastes for this view, a favorite one with many of the older theologians, the introduction to this book may teach us (§ 4). We must stand by the assumption confirmed by 1 Kings 11 and contradicted by no other testimony, that the unhappy king afterwards proceeded from that stage of polygamous degeneracy indicated in this Song, especially in Son 6:8, to still grosser extravagances in this direction, and thus at last filled up the measure of his sins, and brought upon himself and upon his house the corresponding judgment beginning with the revolt of Jeroboam. He must accordingly have deeply wounded Shulamith’s heart by a speedy return to the criminally voluptuous and idolatrous manners of his court and have repaid her love so pure and ardent with base infidelity. This deplorable condition of things casts a light not very creditable to him upon his relation to his antitype in the history of redemption, the Messiah. Love for the purest and best of the daughters of his people, whom he adorned with the crown royal and raised from an humble station to the throne of David, could not permanently purify and hallow the earthly Solomon and rescue him from the abyss of crime into which he was in danger of sinking. The heavenly Solomon, on the contrary, must laboriously lift the Church, which He is gathering to Himself from amongst mankind, step by step to the luminous elevation of His own holiness and truth; He must have great indulgence for her weakness, must pardon her many relapses into her old walk of sin, must absolutely despair of presenting His bride perfectly pure, without spot or wrinkle, so long as she remains in this present world. In the Old Testament type, therefore, we find a sad contrast between the fidelity of the wife and the unfaithfulness of her husband. Of the Messianic archetype, on the other hand, it is written with perfect truth: “Though we be unfaithful, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). In the type no really pure, complete and durable realization of the idea of marriage is reached, but the natural relation existing for a time is only too speedily perverted to its opposite by the fault of the husband. In the fulfilment of the type it is the husband, the new Adam, the Son of Man who came down from heaven and yet is essentially in heaven (John 3:13), who not merely concludes the marriage covenant with mankind, but likewise preserves, confirms, refines and conducts it step by step to its ideal consummation, which is at the same time the palingenesia and perfection of humanity. To our human consciousness this parallel, which strictly carried out leaves scarcely more than a faint glimmer of resemblance between the type and the archetype, has in it something deeply humiliating. But it may nevertheless operate to the strengthening of faith in our heart, for it points us to the one divine helper and physician, who heals all our diseases; it drives us into the arms of the one mediator and comforter, who is rich in mercy unto all them that call upon Him; it encourages us to childlike confidence in the heavenly author and finisher of our faith, whose grace worketh all in all according to His word of promise (John 5:15; Philippians 1:6; Philippians 2:12, etc.). His love no end nor measure knows, No change can turn its course, Immutably the same it flows, From one eternal source. Footnotes:[Williams: She suggests a wish that her relation to him were rather that of an infant brother than a husband; that she might be at liberty to express her affection in the strongest and most public manner, without incurring the charge of forwardness or indecorum.] [Wicl.: The voice of the synagogue, of the church. Mat.: The synagogue speaking of the church.] [Wicl.: The voice of Christ to the synagogue, of the holy cross. Under an apple tree I reared thee. Mat.: The voice of the spouse before the spousess. Cov., Mat.: I am the same that waked thee up among the apple trees. Bish.: I waked thee up among, etc. Genev.: I raised thee up under an [Eng. Ver.: the] apple tree.] δַ ?ϊַּ ?λּ ?εּ ?ηַ deictic: “this apple tree.” We read ςεֹ ?ψַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ικְ. ωָׁ ?ξָּ ?δ we take to be synonymous with ωָׁ ?ν as in Jeremiah 18:2 : 2 Kings 23:8, etc.Here too we read the fem. suf. ηִ ?αְּ ?μָ ?ϊֶ ?κְ ΰξֵּ ?κְ and at the end of the verse ιְ ?μָ ?γָ ?ϊֶ ?κְ (or with the Sept., Vulg., Syr. ιֹ ?μַ ?γְ ?ϊֵּ ?κְ) ηλμ here as well as in Psalms 7:15 is taken by Ibn Ezra and Hitzig in the sense of “conceiving” [so Genev.: conceived]; but the meaning of writhing with pain, travailing (ὠδἰνελν) is more obvious and better confirmed by ηֲ ?αָ ?μִ ?ιν ,ηֵ ?αֶ ?μ. At all events, we must reject Meier’s explanation: “there thy mother betrothed thee” (in like manner Schultens, J. D. Michaelis, Magnus) [so too Percy, Good, Williams, Burrowes and others]; for even if the sense of pledging or betrothing were certainly established for the Piel of ηαμ, it would still require μִ ?ι to me, for its more exact limitation. The Vulg. (corrupta est, violata est) with still less propriety has taken ηαμ in the sense of “corrupting” (in like manner Aquila: διεφἀρη). On the contrary, the Sept. correctly: έκεῖ ωδἰνησένσεἡ μἠτηρσον. [Wicl.: there shamed is thy mother, there defiled is she that gat thee. Dow.: “there thy mother was corrupted, there she was deflowered that bare thee;” to which is appended the note: “under the apple tree I raised thee up; that is, that Christ redeemed the Gentiles at the foot of the cross, where the synagogue of the Jews (the mother church) was corrupted by their denying Him and crucifying Him.”] [Mat.: The church speaking to Christ.] [Wicl., Cov., Mat., Cran., Bish., Dow.: hell. Genev., Eng. Ver.: the grave.] [Wicl., Dow.: lamps. Other English versions: coals.] In ωַׁ ?μְ ?δֶ ?ϊֶ ?ϊְ ?ιָ ?δּ the Masorah has connected the genitive ιָ ?δּ with the construct, as in ξַ ?ΰְ ?λֵּ ?μְ ?ιָ ?δ Jeremiah 2:31, and as in proper names compounded with ιָ ?δ or ιָ ?δεּ (the abbreviation of ιδεδ). The recension of Ben Asher retains this mode of writing the expression as a compound, while that of Ben Naphtali separates the words. The φλὀγεζαν̓τῆζ of the Septuagint is based upon this contraction into one word. Ewald and Hitzig needlessly conjecture that the original reading was ωַׁ ?μְ ?δֲ ?αֹ ?ϊֶ ?ιδָ ωַׁ ?μְ ?ηֲ ?αεֹ ?ϊιָ ?δּ “its flames are flames of God.” The analogy of the preceding sentences rather requires, as Weissbach correctly observes, the giving of two predicates to the single subject ψְ ?ωָׁ ?λֶּ ?ιδָ. It is, therefore, properly to be translated “its flames are flames of fire, they are a blaze of God.” On the etymology of ωַׁ ?μְ ?δֶ ?αֶ ?ϊ as a compound of ΰֵ ?ωׁ and μְ ?δָ ?αָ ?δ compare Weissbach in loc. [The ωׁ is servile, such as marks the Shaphel species in Chald. and Syr. See Gesen. and Fuerst’s Lexicons. Cov., Mat.: a very flame of the Lord. Genev.: a vehement flame. Eng. Ver.: a most vehement flame.] ωׁ ?θσ is neither “to deluge” (Ewald), nor “overflow” (Delitzsch, Hengstenberg), nor “choke up” with sediment (Rosenm.), but “wash away, sweep away,” as is shown by Job 14:19; comp. Isaiah 28:17 f .; Ezekiel 16:9. [Wicl.: The voice of Christ to the lineage of holy church. Mat.: Christ speaking of the church to the synagogue. Note in Geneva Bible: The Jewish church speaketh this of the church of the Gentiles. Cov., Mat.: When our love is told our young sister, whose breasts are not yet grown, what shall we do unto her?] On ξַ ?δΞπַּ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δμְ “what shall we do in respect to,” etc., comp. 1 Samuel 10:2; also Genesis 27:37. γִּ ?αֶּ ?ψαְּ is neither “to speak to any one,” nor “to speak about any one,” whether in a good or a bad sense (Doederl., Weissb.), but simply and only “to speak for any one” (αְּ prep. of the end or aim, as in 7 b), i.e., to sue for any one, to woo a maid (1 Samuel 25:39). [Mat.: The answer of Christ for the church.] [Wicl.: The voice of the church answering. Mat.: The church answereth to the synagogue. Cov., Mat.: If I be a wall and my breasts like towers, then am I as one that hath found favor in his sight.] [Wicl.: The synagogue of the church saith. Vine she was to peaceable in her that hath peoples; she took it to the keepers; a man taketh away for the fruit of it, a thousand silver plates. Dow.: The peaceable had a vineyard in that which hath people. Mat.: The synagogue speaking to the church.] λֶּ ?ψֶ ?νδָ ?ιָ ?δμִ ?ωׁ ?μֹ ?ξֹ ?δ literally “a vineyard became Solomon’s,” i.e., he has it now (comp. Psalms 119:56; Psalms 119:83; also Ezekiel 16:8), not, he had it once, as though Solomon were here spoken of as a ruler long since dead (Ewald, Hitzig, etc.). [Wicl.: Christ to the church saith. Mat.: The voice of Christ. Cov., Mat.: But my vineyard, O Solomon, giveth thee a thousand, and two hundred to the keepers of the fruit. Thou that dwellest in the garaens, O let me hear thy voice, that my companions may hearken to the same.] On the different explanations of λַּ ?ψְ ?ξִ ?ιωֶׁ ?μִּ ?ι see on Son 1:6, p. 56. [Wicl., Mat.: The voice of the church to Christ. Wicl.: Flee thou, my love; be thou likened to a capret and to an hart, calf of harts, upon the mountains of sweet spices. Cov., Mat.: O get thee away, my love, as a roe or a young hart unto the sweet smelling mountains. The end of the Ballet of Ballets of Solomon, called in Latin Canticum Canticorum.] On the general usage of αְּ ?ωָׂ ?ξִ ?ιν comp. Son 4:14; Son 5:13; Son 6:2. [The transparent absurdity of this hypothesis of Solomon going to Shunem not merely for a visit but to reside, involving the abandonment of his capital and the neglect of the affairs of government, renders any scheme of the book untenable of which it is a necessary part.—Tr.] [Zφckler has repeatedly argued before that the recurrence of the same language implies the same speaker and the same subject: see his comment on Son 4:1; Son 4:6; Son 6:9; Son 6:10 and several times elsewhere. Whatever force there is in this consideration makes against the locality and the speakers that he here assumes. The wilderness here spoken of should not without some obvious necessity be regarded as different from that in Son 3:6. And that the queen appears on foot leaning on her royal husband’s arm is surely not suggestive of the termination of a long and wearisome journey.—Tr.] [Thrupp quotes in opposition to the view above given of this verse the language of Renan: “This interpretation is pressed by serious difficulties. I do not insist on its vapid and feeble character. We may admit contrary to all probability, that the silver battlements of which the brothers speak might denote a sort of ornament as a recompense of the young girl’s virtue, it will still remain a trait whose signification is an enigma. If the brothers wish to punish their sister in case she should commit any fault, why do they menace her with panels of cedar? It is evident that this implies an idea of riches and luxury. Battlements of silver, panels of cedar answer to one another. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/