THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY REFERENCE CYCLOPEDIA of BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE Canticle - Census by James Strong & John McClintock To the Students of the Words, Works and Ways of God: Welcome to the AGES Digital Library. We trust your experience with this and other volumes in the Library fulfills our motto and vision which is our commitment to you: MAKING THE WORDS OF THE WISE AVAILABLE TO ALL — INEXPENSIVELY. AGES Software Rio, WI USA Version 1.0 © 2000 2 Canticle (song), applied commonly to sacred songs chanted in the Church, such as the Benedicite. Can’ticles, Or Solomon’s Song Picture for Can’ticles or Solomon’s Song (called in ver. 1 Shir hash-Shirim’, µyræyVæhi ryvæ, Song of the Songs, a Heb; superlative; Sept. ^a~|sma ajsma>twn, Vulg. Canticum Canticorum), entitled in the A. V. “THE SONG OF SOLOMON.” No book of the O.T. has been the subject of more varied criticism, or been ‘more frequently selected for separate translation than this little poem. It is one of the five megilloth or rolls placed in most Jewish MSS. of the Scriptures immediately after the Pentateuch, but in the Hebrews printed copies it constitutes the fourth of the Ketubim or Hagiographa (q.v.). (See Davidson in Horne’s Introd. new ed. 2:790 sq.) SEE BIBLE. I. Author and Date. — By the Hebrew title it is ascribed to Solomon; and so in all the versions, and by the majority of Jewish and Christian writers, ancient and modern. In fact, if we except a few of the Talnludical writers (Baba Bathra, R. Moses Kimchi; see Gray’s Key), who assigned it to the age of Hezekiah, there is scarcely a dissentient voice down to the close of the last century. More recent criticism, however, has called in question this deep-rooted and well-accredited tradition. Among English scholars Kennicott, among German Eichhorn and Rosenmuiller, regard the poem as belonging to the age of Ezra and Nehemiah (Kennicott, Diss. 1, p. 20-22; Eichhorn, Isagcgen in V. T. pt. 3, § 647, p. 531 sq., 2d ed.; Rosenm. Schol. in V. T.) Kennicott based his opinion upon the uniform insertion of the y in all the copies, in the name of David (dywd). The name, however, occurs only once (4:4); and the insertion of the letter in this solitary instance is easily accounted for by a supposed error in transcription. At any rate, the insertion of the v would not bring the Canticles so far down as the time of Ezra, since we find the same peculiarity in <280305>Hosea 3:5, and <300605>Amos 6:5 (Gesenius, Thesaur. s.v.) The charge of Chaldaism has been vigorously pressed by Rosenmuler, and especially by Eichhorn. But Gesenius (Hebrews Gr. § 2) assigns the book to the golden age of Hebrew literature, and traces “the few solitary Chaldaisms” which occur in the writings of that age to the hands of Chaldee copyists. Gesenius has 3 moreover suggested an important distinction between Chaldaisms and dialectic variations indigenous to Northern Palestine, where he conjectures that Judges and Canticles were composed. The application of this principle is sufficient to eliminate most of the Chaldaisms alleged by Eichhorn (e.g. v, for rv,a}); while the occurrence of similar forms in Phoenician affords an indication of other intrusive forces besides the Aramaean acting upon the Biblical Hebrew. Nor is the suggestion of Gesenius that the book’ was written in Northern Palestine, and consequently tinged with a local coloring, inconsistent with the opinion which places it among the “one thousand and five” songs of Solomon (<110432>1 Kings 4:32). Comp. <110919>1 Kings 9:19 with <140806>2 Chronicles 8:6, where the buildings of Lebanon are decidedly contrasted with those of Jerusalem, and are not, therefore, to be confounded with the “house of the forest of Lebanon” (<110702>1 Kings 7:2), which was probably in Jerusalem. By a farther comparison of these passages with Robinson (Bibl. Res. 3:441), who describes remains of massive buildings as still standing on Lebanon, it will appear probable that Solomon had at least a hunting-seat somewhere on the slopes of that mountain (comp. <220409>Song of Solomon 4:9). In such a retreat, and under the influence of its scenery, and the language of the surrounding peasantry, he may have written Canticles. Artistically this would have been in keeping with the general conditions of pastoral poetry. In our own language such compositions are not unfrequently accommodated to rustic ideas, and sometimes to provincial dialects. If, moreover, it should be urged that Chaldaisms are not provincialisms, it may be replied that Solomon could scarcely be ignorant of the Aramsean literature of his own time, and that he may have consciously used it for the purpose of enrichment (Gesen. Hebrews Gr. § 2, 4). The title, though it is possibly too flattering to have come from the hand of Solomon, must have existed in the copy used by the Sept., and consequently can lay claim to a respectable antiquity. The moral argument put forward by the supporters of the most recent literal interpretation, and based upon the improbability of Solomon’s criminating himself (see below), is not very conclusive. Even on the theory of those interpreters his conduct might be traced to a spirit of generous self-accusation; and, at any rate, it need not be exalted above the standard which was likely to flourish in the atmosphere of a court such as his. On the whole, then, it seems unnecessary to depart from the plain meaning of the Hebrew title. 4 Supposing the date fixed to the reign of Solomon, great ingenuity has been employed by the Rabbinical and some Christian writers in determining at what period of that monarch’s life the poem was written (see Poll Synops. Praef. ad Song of Solomon). The point at issue seems to have been whether Solomon ever repented after his fall. If he did, it was contended that the ripeness of wisdom exhibited in the Song seemed the natural growth of such an experience; if he did not, it was urged that no other than a spiritually-minded man could have composed such a poem, and that therefore it must have been written while Solomon was still the cherished of God. Then, again, it was a mooted point whether the composition was the product of Solomon’s matured wisdom, or the fresh outburst of his warm and passionate youth; whether, in fact, the master element of the poem were the literal forti or the allegorical meaning. , In either view of its interpretation, however, the only historical occasion in the life of Solomon for a poem like this is his marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh, B.C. 1008 (<110301>1 Kings 3:1); a reference that is strongly corroborated by the probable date of Psalm xlv, which indeed may be regarded as the key of the Canticles themselves. An old commentator (Woken, Wittemb. 1729) holds that the bride was “Nicaule,” the queen of Sheba, and that she formed a connubial intimacy with Solomon during her stay in Palestine. SEE SOLOMON. II. Form. — This question is not absolutely determined by the Hebrew title. The rendering of ryvæ µyræyVæhi, mentioned by Simonis (Lex. Heb.), “series of songs” (comp. seira>, chain), and adopted by Paulus. Good, and other commentators, can scarcely compete with that of Gesenius, “Song of Songs, i.e. the most beautiful of songs” (comp. <194501>Psalm 45:1, ryvæ tdoydæyæ, “a delightful song;” comp. also Theocr. Idyl. 8, prosfile<v me>lov). The non-continuity which many critics attribute to the poem is far from being a modern discovery (comp. the Lat. “Cantica canticorum,” and the Chaldee paraphrase, “the songs and hymns which Solomon, the prophet, the king of Israel, uttered in the spirit of prophecy before the Lord”). Ghislerius (16th century) considered it a drama in five acts. One of the first separate translations published in England, is entitled “The Canticles, or Balades of Solomon, in English metre” (1549); and in 1596 appeared Solomon’s Song in eight eclogues, by J. M. [Jervase Markham]; the number of eclogues in this latter production being the same as that of the idylls into which the book was afterward divided by Jahn. Down to the 5 18th century, however, the Canticles were generally regarded as continuous. Gregory Nazianzus calls it “a bridal dramatic song” (numfiko<n dra~ma> to kai< ^a~|sma). According to Patrick, it is a “pastoral eclogue” or a “dramatic poem;” according to Lowth, “an epithalamium, or oapLars vnuptialis of a pastoral kind.” Michaelis and Rosenmüller, while differing as to its interpretation, agree in making it continuous, “carmen amatorium.” A modified continuity was suggested by Bossuet, who divided the Song into seven parts, ‘or scenes of a pastoral drama, corresponding with the seven days of the Jewish nuptial ceremony (Lowth, Proelect. 30). Bossuet is followed by Calmet, Percy, Williams, and Lowth; but his division is impugned by Taylor (Fragy. Calmet), who proposes one of six days, and considers the drama to be post-nuptial, not ante-nuptial, as it is explained by Bossuet. (See below.) The entire nuptial theory has been severely handled by J. D. Michaelis, and the literal school of interpreters in general. Michaelis attacks the first day of Bossuet, and involves in its destruction the remaining six (Not. ad Lowth Prcel. xxxi). It should be observed that Lowth makes it a drama, but only of the minor kind, 1:e. dramatic as a dialogue, and therefore not more dramatic than an idyll of Theocritus or a satire of Horace.