Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Song of Solomon 1:2 - 2:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
FIRST SONG
The 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)
Shulamith
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.
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!
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.
where makest thou (thy flock) to recline at noon?
For why should I be as one straying
by the flocks of thy companions?
go forth in the footprints of the flock
and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents.
Solomon and Shulamith
(Son_1:9 to Son_2:7)
Solomon
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.
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.
lo! thou art fair; thine eyes are doves.
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.
so is my dear among the daughters.
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.
2. First Scene. Shulamith. Son_1:2-3.—Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.— éִùָּׁ÷ֵðִé —for which Hitzig needlessly reads éַùְׁ÷ֵðִé , “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 ôִּéäåּ , “his mouth,” which is too remote and manifestly stands in a genitive relation to ðְùִׁé÷åֹú “kisses;” nor îִðְּùִׁé÷åֹú , equivalent to “one of his kisses” (Ewald, E. Meier), for “a kiss kisses not but is kissed, and îִðְּùִׁé÷åֹú 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 îִï properly points to but one or a few kisses of her lover as the object of the beloved’s wish; comp. Gen_28:11; Exo_16:27; Psa_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 (Gen_29:11; Gen_33:4; Gen_41:40; 1Sa_10:1; 1Sa_20:41; comp. Psa_2:12), and especially between lovers (Pro_7:13). It is not likely that the similarity of the words ðù÷ kiss and ù÷ä drink 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.— ããִֹéí different from ãַãַּéִí “breasts, paps” (which the LXX here express by ìáóôïß , and the Vulg. by ubera [so Wic., Cov., Dow.]), as well as from ãåֹãִéí plur. of ãåֹã “beloved” (Son_5:1), denotes manifestations of love, caresses, öéëïöñïóýíáé (comp. Son_4:10-11; Son_7:13; Pro_7:18; Eze_16:8; Eze_23:17), i.e., dalliance, exhibition of àַäֲáָä (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. Act_2:13. The figure of intoxication indicates a higher grade of loving ecstasy than is here intended, comp. Son_5:1 b;Pro_5:19; Pro_7:18, and in general Weissb., in loc.
Son_1:3. In fragrance thine unguents are good.— ìְøֵéçַ , “in respect to odor, as to fragrance,” limits èåֹáִéí , “good” (comp. Jos_22:10; 1Ki_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 øֵéçַ 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 7:14; Hos_14:7, etc.; 2, it is not ìָøֵéçַ , but simply ìְøֵéçַ . 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 ìְøֵéçַ .—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; Ecc_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 “Gerücht, ruchbar.” That the name of the lover is thus compared to a costly perfume diffusing a wide fragrance (comp. Mar_14:3; Joh_12:3) plainly indicates that it is only the renowned King Solomon, an actual possessor of ùֵׁí (name, i.e., fame, gloria—comp. Pro_22:1; 1Ki_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 òֲìָîåֹú 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 àַçֲøֶéêָ with îָùְׁëֵðִé , which requires it as its proper complement; 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 äֱáִéàַðִé 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 ðָâִéìָä åâå (so Hahn, who supplies àִí , if, before äֱáִéàַðִé . “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 áֵּéú äַðָּùִׁéí , as in Est_2:3; Est_2:9, ff., or simply called áéú , house, as in 1Ki_7:8; 1Ki_9:24; Psa_68:13, etc. They are 2Sa_4:7; 2Sa_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. 1Ki_7:8; Est_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 Psa_31:7; Psa_118:24; Isa_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. áָּêְ , in thee, belongs in equal measure to both verbs; comp. Isa_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. éָáֻæåּ , they despise, Son_8:1), and then the clause might be spoken by the entire chorus. îֵéùָׁøִéí , an adverbial accusative (as, e.g., ôְּìָàִéí , 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 Psa_48:2; Psa_75:3, “with good reason, rightly” (Ew., Hitzig, Vaih., etc.). This word is taken as the subject by the Sept. ( åὐèýôçò ), 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 ( ùְׁçåֹøָä ) 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 ùְׁçåֹø 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” ( ùְׁçַøְçֹøֶú ) 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] ( ðָàåָä ., 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 ÷ֵãָø 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 ðָàåָä comely. 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 éְøִéòåֹú (with Del., Hitz., etc.,) tapestry, which is neither permitted by usage nor by etymology, from éָøַò continuit, 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 éְøִéòָä a different etymology, and derive it perhaps with Gesenius from éָøַò to tremble, flutter, or with Weissb. from éָøַò to 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.
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 (versusBöttcher, 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 Lev_18:9; Lev_20:11 : Deu_23:2, etc., are outweighed by many others as Gen_27:29; Psa_50:20; Psa_69:9; Deu_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. Gen_34:5, ff.; 2Sa_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 ùֶׁìִּé not only gives a special emphasis to the suffix in ëַּøְîִé , 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., 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 Son_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 ëֶּøֶí , which agreeably to its derivation from the root ëøí , signifies the “noblest,” the “most valued possession,” the “highest good,” (comp. Hos_2:17; Isa_5:7; Psa_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. äַâִּéãָä ìִּé “inform me” not “cause me to be informed,” for äâéã 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 ãּåֹãִé 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 (Ecc_2:7) like Absalom and his brothers who, according to 2Sa_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; Psa_23:2; Eze_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. ëְּòèְֹéָä is very variously explained. òָèָä “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. ÛØì obscurus fuit, occultavit) [Williams: as a stranger], or “as a mourner,” (so some of the older commentators, as R. Solomon ben Melek, [Ainsworth] after 2Sa_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. Exo_2:16-19]. But the signification “cover” can no more be proved for òèä , 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. ( ὡò ῥåìâïìÝíç ), 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 ëְùׂèְéָä (“as a country-stroller”), but simply Hitzig’s assumption that òֹèְéָä by a transposition of the ò is for èåֹòָä (= úּåֹòָä comp. Gen_37:15); comp. òøó = øòó , òèó = Arab. ÖÚÝ etc., (a view as old as Kleukerin loc., who with S. Bochart actually proposes to read ëְèֹòְéָä ). 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 òèä (with the following òַì for àֶì ) 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.— àִíÎìֹà úֵãְòִé 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; Isa_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.— öְàִéÎìָêְ áְּòִ÷ְáֵé äַöֹּàï “go out at the heels of the flock,” i.e., go after it, follow its tracks, comp. Jdg_4:10; Jdg_5:15. éָöָà therefore denotes here, as the Hiphil in Isa_40:26; 2Sa_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 ñåּñָä can scarcely stand collectively for ñåּñִéí “horses, a body of horse,” (Vulg. “equitatui;Hengstb., Weissb., etc.), and there is nothing to justify its being pointed ìְñåּñֹúַé (Magn., Hitz.). The singular ìְñåּñָúִé evidently refers to a favorite mare of the king (comp. Zec_10:3), to a particularly fine, and splendidly caparisoned specimen of those ôÝóóáñåò ÷éëéÜäåò èÞëåéáé ἵððïé , which according to 1Ki_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 1Ki_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’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 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. úּåֹø kindred with ãּåֹø , èåֹø etc., 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 ( çֲøåּæִéí kindred with äøù , çøè , 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 ðְ÷ֻãּåֹú äַëֶּñֶó something similar to the çֲøåּæִéí little disks of silver pierced and strung together, which might be worn along with the gold chains. But òִí with 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 äָéָä was in the protasis makes against the preterite sense of ðָúַï give (comp. Hitz. in loc.) and because îֵñַá does not properly mean table, but rather company, festive assembly (comp. the adverbial use of the word in the singular, 1Ki_6:29, and in the plural, 2Ki_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 ðֵøְãְּ , 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].
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. öְøåֹø äַîּøֹ 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 öְøåֹø ) 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; Est_2:12; Exo_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.
Son_1:14. A cluster of Cyprus is my beloved to me. ëֹּôֶø Sept.: ( êýðñïò 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 ëôø 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 ëֹּôֶø as well as êýðñïò 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 Psa_45:7; 1Ki_4:13, Ezr_10:13) the const. òֵéðֵé 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. Psa_68:14). Correctly therefore the Sept.: ὀöèáëìïß óïõ ðåñéóôåñáß , 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 àַó ðָòִéí “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” ( øַòֲðָðָä ) 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 òֶøֶùׂ in the sense of “marriage-bed,” and øַòֲðָï 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” (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; Zec_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” ( øָçִéèִéí from