THE

SONG OF SOLOMON

_______________

TITLE:

I. 1 THE SONG OF SONGS, WHICH IS BY SOLOMON

FIRST SONG

The first time the lovers were together at the royal palace (in or near) Jerusalem

(SONG 1:2–2:7)

FIRST SCENE:

SHULAMITH AND THE DAUGHTERS OF JERUZSALEM

(SONG 1:2–8)

SHULAMITH

2 1Let him kiss me with kisses2 of his mouth,

3for better is thy love than wine!

3 In fragrance thine unguents are good;4

5an unguent6 poured forth is thy name,7

therefore virgins love thee.

SHULAMITH AND THE DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM (in responsive song).

4 Draw me!—after thee will we run!—8

9The king has brought me into his chambers!10

We will exult and be glad in thee,

will commend11 thy love beyond wine!—

Rightly12 do they love thee!

SHULAMITH

5 13Black I am, but 14comely, ye daughters of Jerusalem,

as the tents of Kedar, as the tent-cloths of Solomon.

6 Look15 not at me, because16 I am dusky,17

because the sun has scorched18 me;

19my mother’s sons were angry20 with me,

made me keeper of the vineyards;—

mine own vineyard I have not kept.21

(Looking around for Solomon)

7 22Tell me, thou whom my soul loveth, where23 feedest thou?

where makest thou (thy flock) to recline at noon?

For24 why should I be as one straying25

by the flocks of thy companions?

DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM

8 26If thou know not,27 fairest among women,

go forth in the footprints of the flock

and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents.

SECOND SCENE:

SOLOMON AND SHULAMITH

(SONG 1:9–2:7)

SOLOMON

9 To my horse28 in Pharaoh’s chariots

I liken29 thee, my dear.30

10 Comely are thy cheeks with chains,31

thy neck with beads.32

11 Chains33 of gold will we make thee

with points34 of silver.

SHULAMITH

12 35Whilst the king is at his table,36

my spikenard yields its fragrance.

13 A bundle37 of myrrh is my beloved38 to me,

that lodges between my breasts.

14 A cluster of the cyprus-flower39 is my beloved to me,

in the vineyards of Engedi.

SOLOMON

15 40Lo! thou art fair, my dear,

lo! thou art fair; thine eyes are doves.

SHULAMITH

16 41Lo! thou art fair, my beloved, yea sweet;

yea our couch is green.42

17 The beams43 of our houses are cedars,

our wainscot44 is cypresses.45

II. 1. 46I am (only) a wildflower of Sharon,

a lily of the valleys.

SOLOMON

2 As a lily among thorns,

so is my dear among the daughters.

SHULAMITH.

3 47As 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.48

4 He has brought me into the wine-house,

and his banner over me is love.

5 Stay me with pressed grapes,49

refresh50 me with apples,

for I am sick of love.

6 His left hand is under my head,

and his right embraces me.

7 51I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,

by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field,52

that ye wake not, and that ye waken not

love till it53 please.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. For the explanation of the title, see the Introduction, § 1 and § 3. To the view of those who assign Song 1:2–4 entirely to the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and suppose the words of Shulamith to begin with Song 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 Song 1:2, 3, agrees perfectly with the fond encomiums and enthusiastic descriptions which Shulamith subsequently, 1:13 ff., and 2:3 ff., bestows upon her loSong 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 Song 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” Song 1:4a belong to Shulamith, and all the rest to Song 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 נרוצה (we will run) and נגילה וגו (we will be glad, etc.) are to be assigned to the ladies who confirm the words of Shulamith by joining in them themselves, while אהרידמשבני (draw me after thee), הביאני המלך חדריו (the king has brought me into his chambers) and מישרים אהבוך (they rightly love thee) belong to Shulamith alone54 (comp. DÖPKEin loc.) Then Song 1:5–7 unquestionably belong to Shulamith alone; Song 1:8 again to the ladies of the court, who reply with good-humored banter to the rustic simplicity and naivetê with which she has expressed Song 1:7 her desire for her royal lover; Song 1:9, ff. to Solomon, who now begins a loving conversation with his beloved, reaching to the close of the act.55 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 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” (חדרי המלך) Song 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 (1:2, 4), nor from the mention of the “house of wine” (בית היין2:4); and even the “table” of the king spoken of 1:12 does not afford a perfectly sure support to this opinion. Only it appears to be certain from 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 6:2, 3 (comp. 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 Palästina, Zürich, 1865, p. 178, etc.; C. HERGT, Palästina, 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 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 1:9 onward in the gardens of Solomon near Jerusalem, but puts the action of Song 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 Song 1:8 and 9 2. The mention of the “king’s chambers” in Song 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, Song 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 Song 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.”56

2. FIRST SCENE. SHULAMITH. Song 1:2, 3.—Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.—יִשָּׁקֵנִי—for which HITZIG needlessly reads יַשְׁקֵנִי, “let him give me to drink,” etc. (comp. 8:2)—is manifestly the utterance of a wish, “O that he would kiss me;” and its subject is not פִּיהוּ, “his mouth,” which is too remote and manifestly stands in a genitive relation to נְשִׁיקוֹת “kisses;” nor מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת, equivalent to “one of his kisses” (EWALD, E. MEIER), for “a kiss kisses not but is kissed, and מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת 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 Song 1:3 addresses in the second person, as though he who is so ardently longed for were already present.57 The partitive מִן properly points to but one or a few kisses of her lover as the object of the beloved’s wish; comp. Gen. 28:11; Ex. 16:27; Ps. 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”58 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 (Gen. 29:11; 33:4; 41:40; 1 Sam. 10:1; 20:41; comp. Ps. 2:12), and especially between lovers (Prov. 7:13). It is not likely that the similarity of the words נשקkiss and שקהdrink gave occasion to the comparison in b of caresses with wine (WEISSB.); this comparison is of itself a very natural one; comp. 4:10; 5:1; 8:2.—For better is thy love than wine.—דדִֹים different from דַדַּיִם “breasts, paps” (which the LXX here express by μαστοί, and the Vulg. by ubera [so WIC., Cov., Dow.]), as well as from דוֹדִים plur. of דוֹד “beloved” (5:1), denotes manifestations of love, caresses, φιλοφροσύναι (comp. 4:10, 11; 7:13; Prov. 7:18; Ezek. 16:8; 23:17), i.e., dalliance, exhibition of אַהֲבָה (7:7; 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 4:10 ff.; 5:1; 7:9, ff. not the intoxicating power of wine, but primarily its sweetness59 only; comp. Acts 2:13. The figure of intoxication indicates a higher grade of loving ecstasy than is here intended, comp. 5:1b;Prov. 5:19; 7:18, and in general WEISSB., in loc.

Song 1:3. In fragrance thine unguents are good.—לְרֵיחַ, “in respect to odor, as to fragrance,” limits טוֹבִים, “good” (comp. Josh. 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 רֵיחַ denotes not the organ of smell, nor the act of smelling, but the odor which any thing exhales (odor, halitus), comp. 1:12; 2:13; 4:10; 7:14; Hos. 14:7, etc.; 2, it is not לָרֵיחַ, but simply לְרֵיחַ. 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 לְרֵיחַ.60—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 Hos. 14:7, 8; Eccles. 7:1; Ecclus. 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 “Gerücht, ruchbar.”61 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 שֵׁם (name, i.e., fame, gloria—comp. Prov. 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 Song 1:2, 3. Observe that עֲלָמוֹת 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. 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.

Song 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 אַחֲרֶיךָ with מָשְׁכֵנִי, which requires it as its proper complement;62 comp. Hos. 11:4; Jer. 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 הֱבִיאַנִי 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 נָגִילָה וגו (so HAHN, who supplies אִם, if, before הֱבִיאַנִי. “If the king brings me into his chambers, we will,”63etc. 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 בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים, as in Esth. 2:3, 9, ff., or simply called בית, house, as in 1 Kings 7:8; 9:24; Ps. 68:13, etc. They are 2 Sam. 4:7; 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; Esth. 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.”64—We will exult and be glad in thee.—With these words, which recall Ps. 31:7; 118:24; Isa. 25:9; Joel 2:21, 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. בָּךְ, in thee, belongs in equal measure to both verbs; comp. Isa. 65:19.—We will celebrate thy love more than wine.—Comp. Song 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. יָבֻזוּ, they despise, 8:1), and then the clause might be spoken by the entire chorus. מֵישָׁרִים, an adverbial accusative (as, e.g., פְּלָאִים, wonderfully, Lam. 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 Ps. 48:2; 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 unnecessary65 (see WEISSB., in loc.).

4. SHULAMITH. Song 1:5–7.

Song 1:5. Black I am, but comely.—The explanation of the fact that she was black (שְׁחוֹרָה) contained in the following verse shows that by this blackness can only be meant her being browned by the hot sun. Then too in Lam. 4:8 the substantive שְׁחוֹר 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” (שְׁחַרְחֹרֶת) in the verse immediately following.—Moreover, the whole statement before us was occasioned according to Song 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. Song 1:8). “But comely” [TAYLOR: attractive, engaging] (נָאוָה., 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 Bedawîn tribe near Palestine in the Arabian desert, Gen. 25:13; Isa. 21:17, which is here named in preference to all others, simply because the name קֵדָר seems originally to denote “blackness.” Tents of poor Bedawîns, 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 נָאוָהcomely. 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, Song 1:1, respecting the pleasure grounds at Etham and Engedi.) It is, therefore, wholly unnecessary to understand by יְרִיעוֹת (with DEL., HITZ., etc.,) tapestry,66 which is neither permitted by usage nor by etymology, from יָרַעcontinuit, 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 יְרִיעָה a different etymology, and derive it perhaps with GESENIUS from יָרַעto tremble, flutter, or with WEISSB. from יָרַעto 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 Bedawîn presents a very pleasing and even beautiful spectacle.) In opposition to BÖTTCHER’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.

Song 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 beauty67 (versusBÖTTCHER, HITZ., etc.) Comp. above on Song 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 Lev. 18:9; 20:11: Deut. 23:2, etc., are outweighed by many others as Gen. 27:29; Ps. 50:20; 69:9; Deut. 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,” 3:4; 8:2, and so too Ruth 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. Gen. 34:5, ff.; 2 Sam. 13:20 ff.), but that her mother meanwhile was still living, which also seems to be favored by 6:9, (8:2; 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 שֶׁלִּי not only gives a special emphasis to the suffix in כַּרְמִי, 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 (so 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., DÖPKE., 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 4:12–16) or for her forsaken lover (as BÖTTCHER, 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 כֶּרֶם, which agreeably to its derivation from the root כרם, signifies the “noblest,” the “most valued possession,” the “highest good,” (comp. Hos. 2:17; Isa. 5:7; Ps. 16:6, as well as EWALD and HITZIGin loc.).

Song 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. הַגִּידָה לִּי “inform me” not “cause me to be informed,” for הגיד 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 דּוֹדִי by the fond circumlocution “whom my soul loveth” is found four times beside in the beautiful section 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 Song 1:5.) But the assumption of WEISSBACH is needless, that Solomon was then actually engaged in the over-sight of his flocks (Eccles. 2:7) like Absalom and his brothers who, according to 2 Sam. 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, Gen. 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 Isa. 49:10; Ps. 23:2; Ezek. 34:13–15, or even from the ancient classics, as THEOCRITUS, Id., 1:14, 15; 6:4; 25:216: HORACE, Od., III. 29:21; VIRG. Georg. III. 324 ff.68

For why should I be as one straying?etc.כְּעטְֹיָה is very variously explained. עָטָה “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, Gen. 38:14, 15 (ROSENM., DEL.) [so THRUPP, BURROWES, NOYES]; or as “one ashamed, veiled through shame” (UMBREIT, DÖPKE, HENGSTENBERG), or “as one unknown” (EWALD, HEILIGST., who compare the Arab. غطىobscurus fuit, occultavit) [WILLIAMS: as a stranger], or “as a mourner,” (so some of the older commentators, as R. SOLOMON BEN MELEK, [AINSWORTH] after 2 Sam. 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. Ex. 2:16–19]. But the signification “cover” can no more be proved for עטה, 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. (ὡς ῥεμβομένη), 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 BÖTTCHER’S emendation כְשׂטְיָה (“as a country-stroller”), but simply HITZIG’S assumption that עֹטְיָה by a transposition of the ע is for טוֹעָה (= תּוֹעָה comp. Gen. 37:15); comp. ערף = רעף, עטף = Arab. ضعفetc., (a view as old as KLEUKERin loc., who with S. BOCHART actually proposes to read כְטֹעְיָה). 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 עטה (with the following עַל for אֶל) 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.

Song 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 5:9; 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.—אִם־לֹא תֵדְעִי means neither “if thou do not know thyself” (SEPT., LUTH.), nor “if thou art deficient in understanding” (EWALD, HITZIG, etc., who appeal to Isa. 1:3; 56:10, passages not appropriate in this connection), but conformably to the similar passage, 6:12, “if thou know not,” viz.: where thy lover feeds, this object being readily supplied from the context.—צְאִי־לָךְ בְּעִקְבֵי הַצֹּאן “go out at the heels of the flock,” i.e., go after it, follow its tracks, comp. Judg. 4:10; 5:15. יָצָא therefore denotes here, as the Hiphil in Isa. 40:26; 2 Sam. 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, Song 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.

Song 1:9. To my horse in Pharaoh’s chariots, literally: “to my mare;” for סוּסָה can scarcely stand collectively for סוּסִים “horses, a body of horse,” (VULG. “equitatui;HENGSTB., WEISSB., etc.), and there is nothing to justify its being pointed לְסוּסֹתַי (MAGN., HITZ.). The singular לְסוּסָתִי evidently refers to a favorite mare of the king (comp. Zech. 10:3), to a particularly fine, and splendidly caparisoned specimen of those τέσσαρες χιλιάδες θήλειαι ἵπποι, which according to 1 Kin. 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 Kin. 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, Song 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’SHebräerin 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 Song 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.69—My dear; comp. 1:15; 2:2; 4:1, etc., where the same familiar form of address recurs.

Song 1:10. Comely are thy cheeks in chains.תּוֹר kindred with דּוֹר, טוֹרetc., 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 (חֲרוּזִים kindred with הרש, חרט, 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, Song 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.70

Song 1:11. Chains of gold—with points of silver. Needlessly, and quite too artificially, WEISSB. will have us understand by the נְקֻדּוֹת הַכֶּסֶף something similar to the חֲרוּזִים little disks of silver pierced and strung together, which might be worn along with the gold chains. But עִםwith by no means requires this explanation (comp. 4:13): it rather leads to the far more natural assumption that the golden chains were dotted with silver “punctis argenteis distincti” (HITZIG).71

7. SHULAMITH Song 1:12–14.

Song 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.72 They are rather to be taken as referring to the present, because the fact of there being no הָיָהwas in the protasis makes against the preterite sense of נָתַןgive73 (comp. HITZ. in loc.) and because מֵסַב does not properly mean table, but rather company, festive assembly (comp. the adverbial use of the word in the singular, 1 Kin. 6:29, and in the plural, 2 Kin. 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 Song 1:13) into the mouth of an enamored court lady as a voluptuous piece of flattery for Solomon.74 For נֵרְדְּ, which must here denote not a stalk of the well-known Indian plant Valeriana Jatamansi (MAGN., BÖTTCHER), 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].

Song 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. צְרוֹר הַמּרֹ 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 צְרוֹר) 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 5:5, 13; Esth. 2:12; Ex. 30:28. On the carrying of boxes of ointment by Hebrew women, comp. also Isa. 3:20; Job 42:14, and HARTMANN, die Hebräerin am Putztische II., p. 280 f.

Song 1:14. A cluster of Cyprus is my beloved to me.כֹּפֶרSEPT.: (κύπρος here and 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 כפר 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 כֹּפֶר as well as κύπρος and the Lat. cuprum to the Sanskrit root cubh, “to shine, be yellow,” whence cubhra. The exact parallelism between Song 1:13 and 14, and in general the intimate connection of Song 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 Song 1:12, 13, belonged to one of the women of the Harem, and only Song 1:14 to Shulamith.

8. SOLOMON, SHULAMITH, Song 1:15–17.

Song 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 Ps. 45:7; 1 Kin. 4:13, Ezra 10:13) the const. עֵינֵי 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, 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. Ps. 68:14). Correctly therefore the Sept.: ὀφθαλμοί σου περιστεραί, and in the later times TARG., RASHI, HENGSTENBERG, HITZIG, etc.) [So HODGSON, WILLIAMS, FRY, THRUPP, etc.].

Song 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 אַף נָעִים “yes sweet, yes charming” is only the expression of her loving transport, and finds an illustrative commentary in the description 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” (רַעֲנָנָה) 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 עֶרֶשׂ in the sense of “marriage-bed,” and רַעֲנָן 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 3:6, etc.; likewise the contents of the following verses, especially 2:1–3, which point to a continued stay of the lovers in the open air, under shady trees, and beside fragrant flowers.75

Song 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” (BÖTTCHER), 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 Isa. 14:8; Zech. 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” (רָחִיטִים from רהט = Ar. جرط “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 רָהיטִים). 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 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL comments, see Song of Solomon 2:7ff.

Footnotes:

[1][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.].

[2]On the combination of the kindred words נשק and נשיקה. Comp. 1 Kin. 1:12; 2:16; Isa. 1:13; 8:10; Jon. 1:10, 16, and generally EWALD, Lehrbuch, § 281 a, [GREEN’S Heb. Gram. § 271, 3].

[3][WICLIFFE: The voice of the Father.]

[4][THRUPP’S proposed emendation לריח שמני קטורים “like as the scent which cometh from incenses,” is nothing but ingenious trifling, and has not even the merit of being good Hebrew.—TR.]

[5][WIC. The voice of the Church.]

[6]Observe the assonance in שֶׁמֶן and שֵׁם which is probably intentional. [THRUPP: as ointment thou art, by thy name, poured forth.]

[7]In regard to the construction of the words שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ four views are possible: 1. שֵׁם is taken as the subject, and תּוּרַק as 3 pers. fem. here employed because שֵׁם 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. שֶׁמֶן is regarded as the subject, which is here exceptionally treated as feminine, and to which תּוּרַק 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. שֶׁמֶן is taken as a masc., but the form תּוּרַק is regarded as a hardened form for יוּרַק (after the analogy of Isa. 44:28; Eccles. 10:15), and accordingly translated as before (HITZIG). 4. תּוּרַק 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.

[8][MATT. Yea, that same moveth me also to run after thee.]

[9][MATT. The spousess to her companions.]

[10][COV., CRANMER, BISHOPS: “privy chamber;” DOWAY: “cellars,” altered in later editions to “store-rooms.”]

[11]Upon הִזְכִּיר prop. “to mention, bring to remembrance,” then “to mention with praise, celebrate,” comp. Ps. 20:8; Isa. 48:1; 63:7; also Ps. 45:18; 1 Chron. 16:4, where it is parallel to הוֹדה thank, praise.

[12][COV. Well is them that love thee. ENG. VER. The upright, Marg. uprightly. NOYES, BURROWES: sincerely.]

[13][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.]

[14][WITHINGTON: fair; BURROWES: lovely.]

[15][COV. marvel; DOWAY: consider; WILLIAMS, NOYES: gaze; WITH. scorn; GINSBURG: disdain.]

[16] שֶׁ signifies in both instances, in שֶׁאֲניִ and in שֶׁשְׁזָפַהְני not “for,” but “for the reason that,” “because” (εἰς έκεῖυο ὅτι); comp. Ex. 2:2. The second clause is therefore co-ordinated with the first, although explanatory of it (comp. WEISSB. in loc.)

[17][COV.: so black. E. VER. black; DOWAY: brown; WEISS: swarthy; BUR., THRUPP: dark.] On שְׁחַרְחרֶת blackish, dusky (not “very black, deep black,” as HITZ. and formerly EWALD too would have it), comp. on Song 1:5 above [GREEN’S Heb. Gram., § 188].

[18] שָׁזַף 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=שָׁדַף (Gen. 41:23) “scorch, blacken,” the sense already expressed by AQUILA (συνέκαυαέ με) and the Vulg. (decoloravit me) [GOOD: discolored; BUR., GINS. browned], and retained by most of the recent interpreters (in opposition to ROSENM., HENGSTENB., WEISSB.).

[19][MAT. The voice of the Synagogue.]

[20] נִחֲרוּ either Niph. of חרר to burn, glow, (so Ew., MEIER, HITZ.), or more probably from חרה (so that the sing. would be נִחֲרָה or נֶחֱרָה); for the Niph. of חרר always elsewhere means “to be dried, parched” (Ps. 69:4; 102:4, etc.), whilst the meaning demanded here is “to be angry, wroth.” Comp. GESENIUS’ Lexicon and WEISSB. in loc. [Cov.: had evil will.]

[21][Cov.: Thus was I fain to keep a vineyard, which was not mine own.]

[22][WIC., MAT. The voice of the Church to Christ.]

[23] אִיִכָה elsewhere how? [which WEISS. retains] is here=אֵיפֹה where? so too 2 Kin. 6:13, K’thibh, whilst the Kri has אֵיכוֹ

[24] שַׁלָּמָה properly “for why” (comp. אֲשֶׁר לָמָּה, Dan. 1:10), a fuller expression for the simple לָמָּה why, as in Job 34:27, אֲֹשֶר עַל־כֵּן stands for עַל־כֵּן, Ps. 45:3. The sense is correctly given by the Sept. and Syr., which here and in Dan. 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 שְׁלֹמחֹ O Solomon is unworthy of attention.—TR.]

[25][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.]

[26][WIC., MAT. The voice of Christ to the Church.]

[27] לָךְ is here added inasmuch as the action returns upon its subject (comp. Prov. 9:12; and 2:6; 8:14 below), so in general EWALD, Lehrb. § 315 a [GREEN’S Heb. Chrest. note on Isa. 40:9.]

[28][WIC. my riding; GENEV. troop (E. V. company) of horses; WILL.: the horse; NOYES: the horses; GINS.: my steed.]

[29][Cov. There will I tarry for thee, my love, with mine host and with my chariots, which shall be no fewer than Pharaoh’s]

[30]The plur. רַעְיוֹת [rather רְעָיוֹת—TR.] Judg. 11:37 K’thibh. [E. VER. my love, Marg. in Song 1:15: companion; WILL.: consort; FRY: partner.]

[31][GENEV. rows of stones; E. VER. rows of jewels; FRY: jewels; WITH. chains; THRUPP, GINSB.; circlet; WEISS.: reins.]

[32][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.]

[33][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.]

[34][Cov. buttons; E. VER. studs; WITH. stars.]

[35][WIC. The voice of the Church, of Christ. MAT. The voice of the Church.]

[36][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.]

[37][AINSW.: bag; TAYLOR: scent-bag; GOOD: casket; BURROWES: amulet.]

[38][Cov. O my beloved. E. VER. my well-beloved, so constantly throughout the book in GENEV., except once in 5:9, “lover.”]

[39][So Cov., DOWAY, E. VER. Marg. The text of the Eng. Ver. has camphire.]

[40][WIC., MAT. The voice of Christ to the Church.]

[41][WIC., MAT. The voice of the Church to Christ.]

[42][COV., CRAN., BISH. Our bed is decked with flowers. Dow.: our little bed is flourishing.]

[43][Cov. ceilings.]

[44][Cov. balks; CRAN., BISH. cross-joints; E. V.: rafters, Marg.: galleries; GOOD, NOYES boardings; PARKHURST: ceiling; GESEN.: carved ceiling; FUERST: carved beams].

[45][E. VER. fir; AINS. brutin-tree.]

[46][WIC. The voice of Christ, of Him and of the Church; MAT. The voice of Christ.]

[47][WIC., MAT. The voice of the Church, of Christ.]

[48][Cov., CRAN., BISH., Dow. throat; GENEV. mouth; E. V. taste].

[49][Cov. grapes; CRAN., BISH. cups; GENEV., E. V. flagons].

[50][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].

[51][WIC., MAT. The voice of Christ, of the Church; WIC., DOW. I adjure you; Cov., CRAN., GENEV., E. V.: I charge you.]

[52][THRUPP has: “fells,” so as to rhyme with “gazelles,” in fancied imitation of the original].

[53][COV., DOW., GENEV. she; E. V. correctly: he; GINSB., THRUPP: it].

[54][So PATRICK, GOOD, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, FRY, the last two of whom divide Song 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 Song 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 Song 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)].

[55][PATRICK. Scott and TAYLOR suppose it interrupted by the attendant ladies in Song 1:11].

[56][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, 1:1–8 belonging to the morning, and 1:9–2:7 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, Song 1:5, stood pre-eminent. The spouse on coming in sight of those kingly tents, gives utterance to the strong emotions of her heart].”

[57][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].”

[58][“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.]

[59][“Thy love is more reviving and exhilarating than the effects of wine. Comp. Ps. 104:15; Prov. 31:6.”—BURROWES].

[60][WEISS.: Besides or in addition to the savor, etc. A sense which the prep. rarely has, and which is neither admissible here nor in Ex. 14:28; Lev. 11:26; 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, Esth. 2:12.”—WITHINGTON].

[61][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.]

[62][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. אַחֲרֶיךּ, that “after thee we will run” is still the language of the bride to Solomon—not of her virgin companions to the bride.—TR].

[63][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 Song 1:2 the third person and the second both refer to the same subject.—TR.]

[64][This would seem to compel the conclusion that the marriage has already taken place, and is not still future, as our author supposes.—TR.]

[65][FRY, who disregards the points; they do right in loving thee. GOOD alters the text into: thou art every way lovely.]

[66][ENG. VER., curtains, AINSWORTH: the goodly hangings that were in his house and about his bed.]

[67][Look not disdainfully upon me, HALL; do not too accurately scrutinize, TAYLOR; Gaze with wonder at her presumption, NOYES.]

[68] [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 Song 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. His language must, therefore, in all cases have immediate application to the latter, and can set forth the former only as the character and relations in which the more immediate subjects are presented, serve as their faithful image. If this image is distorted, wanting in consistency, and its various parts mutually discordant, the effect of the whole is marred, its beauty and its truth are defaced. It is at least safe to say that this is an assumption, which should not be made without necessity.

The objection to the explanation of the bride’s language given by ZÖCKLER is, that it seems to impute to her the silly conceit that her royal husband or betrothed was actually engaged in the occupation of a shepherd, and it makes the reply by the daughters of Jerusalem utterly unmeaning. WITHINGTON presents three alternatives, the last of which is the only simple and natural one. This speech “may be a natural mistake of the rural lass on her first union with the king, or it may be the king went into her country to rusticate, or it may be an allegorical expression by which she signifies that the king is a shepherd and his kingdom is a flock.” WILLIAMS: “If he be like a good shepherd feeding his flock, administering public benefits and dispensing judgment, why should not I enjoy the common benefit? If he be indulging in retirement, why may not I, who am admitted as his wife, enjoy his company and conversation?”]

[69][CLARKE, BURROWES, and others adhere to the singular, “to my mare or steed.” GOOD drops the pronoun: “one of the steeds,” supposing the final yodh to be paragogic. So the common Eng. Ver., which takes the noun in a collective sense “company of horses,” and is followed by the majority of English commentators, who find in this a proof of its allegorical meaning. The point of comparison according to the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations is “comeliness,” according to FRY “splendid decoration.” POOLE, “An horse is a very stately and beautiful creature, and the Egyptian horses were preferred before others, and Pharaoh’s own chariot horses were doubtless the best of their kind.” THRUPP, WORDSWORTH, MOODY STUART suppose special allusion to the formidable character of Pharaoh’s horses and chariots at the Red Sea, Ex. 14:9, 23. Several classic parallels have been adduced as THEOCRITUS, Idyl, 18:30; HORACE, Odes, 3:11; SOPHOCLES, Electra, 25.—TR.]

[70][“The mention of the Egyptian steed in Song 1:9 naturally suggested the reference here made to the beautiful head-dress of the spouse.” BURROWES. “Whether she be still compared hereby to a company of horses, as in Song 1:9, or to a woman is doubtful, for both similitudes do agree to the things here spoken of. The bridles of horses are often adorned with rows (of jewels) especially in kings’ chariots. Also the next words ‘thy neck with chains’ may have like reference; for the kings of Midian when they went to war had chains about their camels’ necks, Judg. 8:26.” AINSWORTH, so too Gill. Of the ornament spoken of in the first clause AINSWORTH further says, “The same word תּוֹר is also used for a ‘turtledove,’ which some therefore take here to be jewels or ornaments that had the figures of ‘turtle-doves.’ ” It is so in fact translated both in the SEPT. and VULG., followed by WICLIFFE and DOWAY, “thy cheeks are beautiful as the turtle-doves.” So too CRANMER and BISHOPS: “thy cheeks and thy neck are beautiful as the turtle’s.” It is needless to say after the explanation given in the commentary that this rendering confounds two entirely distinct words.—TR.]

[71][BURROWES adopts the conjecture of HARMER in his Outlines, p. 206, that this is the description of a crown. So MOODY STUART: These silver studded circles of gold mean either the royal or the nuptial crown, or both in one. PATRICK, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR make this the language not of the bridegroom, but of the attendant virgins.]

[72][Much less so, however, than that which would make the nard refer to a distant shepherd lover, of whose existence there is no evidence. WEISS, who adopts the above rendering gives a peculiar turn to the thought: “The bride is supposed to have been provided with a bundle of spikenard, with which she intended to regale her bridegroom, when he entered the banqueting house or saloon, where the guests and the bride await him, and he approached to salute her according to custom. But unfortunately the bridegroom being detained a long time in another chamber by one of the guests, the bride’s precious bundle of spikenard yielded all its fragrance, and became useless. When he enters, however, Song 1:13 it is more than supplied by the delicious odors of the bridegroom’s ointments and spices, which fill all the room.” This belongs to his historical interpretation of it as an emblem of Israel’s losing his pious fervor and lapsing into gross sin, while the Lord was with Moses on Mount Sinai, and the subsequent forgiving love and condescending grace of God.—TR.]

[73][There is no need of departing from the preterite form of the Hebrew verb to obtain the sense desired. It should be rendered “Whilst the king has been (as he still is) with his company, my nard has yielded its fragrance.”—TR.]

[74][The meaning of this verse is differently given by COVERDALE: “When the king sitteth at the table, he shall smell my nardus.” Her spikenard was not for her own gratification; she had perfumed herself with it for the king’s sake alone, Esth. 2:12, and it now gladly diffuses its fragrance in his presence to afford him pleasure. This FRY takes in its literal sense, supposing allusion to the throwing of flowers and perfumes as a token of high respect and complimentary congratulation. To this NOYES adds with an unnecessary degree of hesitation its emblematic sense: “It would seem to be too harsh a figure to suppose ‘my spikenard’ to mean ‘my personal charms and graces’ though such a supposition is favored by the next verse.” AINSWORTH suggests the spiritual application: “In her and from her so adorned by her beloved, the odor of the Spirit of God in her, flowed forth and spread abroad to the delight of herself and others.” THRUPP: “The symbolism of the song of songs was outwardly acted, as is recorded in the gospels in the earthly life of the Lord Jesus, and is also permanently embodied in the worship of the Christian church. It was while He sat at table that the feet of our Saviour were on two separate occasions anointed, Luke 7:36–50; John 12:3 ff. And it is in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that the church still most solemnly presents her sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which she beseeches God of His fatherly goodness to accept.”—TR.]

[75][“The scene seems to be laid in the kiosk or summerhouse in the royal garden. The green flowery turf is our place of repose; our canopy is cedar interspersed with fir, richly carved.” BURROWES. Better still, GOOD: The lovers are not in a house, but a grove, where the spreading branches of the firs and the cedars are poetically called the beams and the roof of their chamber. Thus Milton, describing Adam’s bower, Par. Lost., 4:692, comp. HOMER Il., 24:191. HARMER supposes Song 1:16 to be the language of the bride, and Song 1:17 that of the bridegroom. She commends the rural beauty of the spot in which they then were. He, impatient to introduce her to his palace, replies in substance: “Arise, my love, and quit this place, pleasant as it is, for equally pleasant and much more commodious will you find the abode to which I am conveying you, it being built of the fragrant cedar, and of other precious wood.” POOLE, with many others, supposes the nuptial bed to be referred to “adorned with green garlands or boughs.” AINSWORTH: “Green is not meant so much of color as of flourishing growth and increase.”]