I. Name

In Hebrew Shir Hashshirim, "The Song of Songs," which Bleek renders "The most beautiful, the most valuable of Songs." In the Jewish canon it forms the first of the five Megilloth, or Rolls, which were read during their annual festivals, the Song of Songs being reserved for the Passover.

II. Authorship

The idea of authorship rests largely upon the interpretation of the book.

Those who find but two leading characters generally make Solomon the author as well as the hero. They give the following reasons: the title; the extensive knowledge of nature; the frequency with which foreign products are mentioned; the apparent prosperity of the times; the accurate knowledge of different parts of the country; and Solomon's well-known love for women.

Those who find three leading characters in the poem do not regard Solomon as the author, although many of them admit that it was written not long after Solomon's time, — Orelli says about 950 B. C. A few, more radical, date it after the exile. Such claim that the title should be rendered, "A Song concerning Solomon"; that the picture of Solomon is not such as he would be likely to paint of himself, since it presents the deformities of his character without its redeeming qualities; that the language used is that of northern Palestine, where the Aramaic forms are more frequent; and that the allusions to natural scenery, plants, customs, etc., fit that section and would come more appropriately from a writer living in that section than from one, like Solomon, living in the southern part of the land.

III. Analysis

Delitzsch present the following outline:

Act 1. The lovers meeting. 1:1 to 2:7.

Act 2. Monologues of the Shulamite. 2:8 to 3:5.

Act 3. The royal espousals. 3:6 to 5:1.

Act 4. Love lost and found again. 5:2 to 6:9.

Act 5. The lovely but modest queen. 6:10 to 8:4.

Act 6. The bridal pair in the Shulamite's home. 8:5-14.

Dr. W. E. Griffis (The Lily among Thorns, p. 129) presents a much more elaborate scheme, with much success. In Lange's Com., Intro., p. 10, several others, adapted to different theories, are given.

IV. Form

To what form of poetical composition does it belong?

1. Some, Herder, Bleek, say it is a collection of independent lyrics, setting forth love under a variety of aspects, but without any attempt at unity. From twelve to twenty different poems, besides numerous fragments and choruses, are found by these critics. They explain the present connected form by the fact that originally it was the custom to attach one piece to another without separating them by titles or other indications of change. But the fact that the same characters and many of the special terms reappear in all parts of the poem, and that the theme is not love in general but wedded love, are strongly against this idea of a series of unconnected poems.

2. Others, Kingsbury (Bible Com.) and the older writers generally, find in it a complete poem, idyllic, as the title indicates, a song of songs, or a beautiful song. This they justify by the almost perfect structure of the poem, its subject and the frequent recurrence of the refrain or chorus, thus magnifying the effect produced by the sentiment. But the title is evidently designed to refer to the quality and not to the form of the poem, and the frequent changes of persons and of the scenes of action, together with the irregular structure, are against the rules of idyllic poetry.

3. A third class, Delitzsch and most modern critics, consider the poem dramatic in essence, although quite undeveloped in form. A few, Renan, try to find a fully developed drama according to the modern construction, designed for presentation before an audience, but this is an extreme which refutes itself. The essentials of the drama are here, the conversation between the characters, the change of scene, the complicated conditions and the triumphant deliverance of the hero, but it has the lyric tone of the ancient poets. In this it is a companion piece to the Book of Job.

Those who favor the dramatic structure are divided into two groups; those who find two principal characters (Delitzsch), Solomon and the Shulamite maiden, and those who find three (Ewald), Solomon, a rustic lover and the Shulamite. Whichever of these be adopted, much must be supplied by the reader to develop the sense and this fact has led to a great variety of ingenious suggestions, the most of which are more fanciful than probable. The third character seems necessary to make the poem consistent with what we know of Solomon and his time.

V. The Design

Critics are agreed on two points. It is poetical in form and its theme is love. Beyond this there is almost every conceivable shade of opinion as to its design.

The leading methods of interpretation are these:

1. The Allegorical, which treats the characters as altogether imaginary, names assumed simply as a framework for the story. This was the favorite view of the Jewish church, in a modified form was accepted by the early church, and still has many followers. The Jews regarded it as setting forth the love of Jehovah for His church, Solomon representing God and the Shulamite woman the Jews. Origen regarded Solomon as representing Christ and the maiden the Christian church. Others put the individual Christian in the place of the church. This view, if consistently carried out, creates more difficulties than it explains, is contrary to sound exegetical principles, destroys the historical basis of the book and is now seldom advocated.

2. The Typical. This view treats the framework of the book as historical, it tells of a real episode in the life of Solomon, who was in this one respect typical of a spiritual love and represents the supreme love of God for His people (Keil), or of the soul for God (Stuart), or the love of Christ for His people (Kingsbury). This theory has many and great attractions and has a large following. The idea of wedded love being typical of the divine love for man pervades both the Old and the New Testaments. But the character of Solomon, with his promiscuous marriages, and the general tone of his treatment of maidens, are very far removed from the person he is supposed to represent. This theory fails also to account for the introduction of a second lover who at length prevails over Solomon.

3. The Literal. This finds three principal characters in the Book: Solomon, a shepherd, and a maiden. The design of the writer is to set forth the strength and purity of a true love existing between the shepherd and the maiden, by representing her as being brought to the court of Solomon, where every device is employed to persuade her to break her engagement to the 'shepherd and become the wife of Solomon. She rejects every advance of Solomon, repeatedly declares her unalterable love for the shepherd, longs for restoration to him, preferring his humble home among the vineyards on her native hills to the splendid luxury of Solomon's palace and finally finds her satisfaction in the embrace of the one to whom her love is plighted. This theory has the advantage of allowing a place for the three characters such as the story demands, preserves their individuality and makes the words of each fit their station. It furnishes a splendid picture of what the Scriptures everywhere exalt, the beauty and power of a true love between man and woman. Such an example has a lesson for every age and could be best conveyed in those days in this objective way. The keynote may be found in Ch. 8:6, 7. Nor does this interpretation at all interfere with our seeing in the story a picture of that unchanging, divine love whose constancy is the foundation of all our hope.

LITERATURE

Commentaries: Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, Keil, Kingsbury in Bible Commentary, Lange. W. E. Grififis, The Lily among Thorns; Herder, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry; Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews; Taylor, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry; Introductions of Driver, Bleek, Keil, and articles in Bible Dictionaries of Smith, Kitto and Hastings and "Canticles" in Encyclopedia Britannica. See also Paul Haupt's treatment of the book in American Journal of Semitic Languages, July, 1902, and George L. Robinson's in Biblical Worlds September, 1902, p. 191.