Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Canticles, Or Solomons Song
Subjects in this Topic:
(called in ver. 1 Shir hash-Shirim', ùַׁéø äִùַּׁéøַéí , Song of the Songs, a Heb; superlative; Sept. ῏ᾷóìá ἀóìÜôùí , 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 é in all the copies, in the name of David ( ãåéã ). 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 Hos_3:5, and Amo_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 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. ùֶׁ for àֲùֶׁø ); 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 (1Ki_4:32). Comp. 1Ki_9:19 with 2Ch_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” (1Ki_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. Son_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. 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 (1Ki_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 äִùַּׁéøַéí ùַׁéø , mentioned by Simonis (Lex. Heb.), “series of songs” (comp. óåéñÜ , 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. Psa_45:1, ùַׁéø éַãַéãֹú , “a delightful song;” comp. also Theocr. Idyl. 8, ðñïóöéëὲò ìÝëïò ). 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 18th century, however, the Canticles were generally regarded as continuous.
Gregory Nazianzus calls it “a bridal dramatic song” ( íõìöéêὸí äñᾶìÜ ôï êáὶ ῏ᾷóìá ). 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. The fact is that he was unable to discover a plot; and it seems clear that if the only dramatic element in Canticles be the dialogue, the rich pastoral character of its scenery and allusions renders the term drama less applicable than that of idyll. Bossuet, however, extravagantly claims it as a regular drama, with all the proprieties of the classic model; and if with Lowth we recognize a chorus completely sympathetic and assistant, it is difficult to see how we can avoid calling the poem a drama: but in all the translations of the allegorical school which are based upon the dramatic idea, the interference of the chorus is so infrequent or so indefinite, the absence of anything like a dramatic progress and development sufficient to enlist the sympathy of a chorus is so evident, that the strongly-marked idyllic scenery could not far outweigh the scarcely perceptible elements of dramatic intention. The idyllic theory is confirmed by the use of a similar form among the Arabians, under the name of “Cassides” (Sir WV. Jones, Pces. As. Comment. 3).
By the reactionary allegorists, of whom Rosenmüller may be considered the representative, the Song of Solomon has either been made absolutely continuous, or has been divided with reference to its spiritual meaning rather than its external form (e.g. Hengstenberg and Prof. Burrowes). The supposition that the Canticles supplied a model to Theocritus seems based on merely verbal coincidences, such as could scarcely fail to occur between two writers of pastoral poetry (comp. Son_1:9; Son_6:10, with, Theocr. 18:30, 36; Son_4:11, with Theocr. 20:26, 27; Son_8:6-7, with Theocr. 23:23-26; see other passages in Pol. Syn.; Lowth, Prael.; Gray's Key). In the essential matters ofform and of ethical teaching the resemblance does not exist.
III. Meaning. — The schools of interpretation may be divided into three: the mystical, or typical; the allegorical, and the literal.
1. The mystical interpretation is properly an offshoot of the allegorical, and probably owes its origin to the necessity which was felt of supplying a literal basis for the speculations of the allegorists. This basis is either the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh's daughter, or his marriage with an Israelitish woman, the Shulamite. The former (taken together with Harmer's variation) was the favorite opinion of the mystical interpreters to the end of the 18th century: the latter has obtained since its introduction by Good (1803). The mystical interpretation makes its first appearance in Origen, who wrote a voluminous commentary upon the Canticles. Its literal basis, minus the mystical application, is condemned by Theodoret (A.D. 420). It reappears in Abulpharagius (1226-1286), and was received by Grotius. As involving a literal basis, it was vehemently objected to by Sanctius, Durham, and Calovius, but approved of and systematized by Bossuet, indorsed by Lowth, and used for the purpose of translation by Percy and Williams. The arguments of Calovius prevented its taking root in Germany; and the substitution by Good of an Israelitish for an Egyptian bride has not saved the general theory from the neglect which was inevitable after the reactionary movement of the 19th-century allegorists.
2. Allegorical. — Notwithstanding the attempts which have been made to discover this principle of interpretation in the Sept. (Son_4:8); Jesus Sirach (Sir_47:14-17); Wisd. (Wis_8:2), and Josephus (c. Apion, i, § 8), it is impossible to trace it, with any certainty, farther back than the Talmud (see Ginsburg, Introd.). According to the Talmud, the beloved is taken to be God; the loved one, or bride, is the congregation of Israel. This general relation is expanded into more particular detail by the Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrase, which ‘treats the Song of Songs as an allegorical history of the Jewish people from the exodus to the coming of the Messiah and the building of the third temple. In order to make out the parallel, recourse was had to the most extraordinary devices: e.g. the reduction of words to their numerical value, and the free interchanging of words similar to each other in sound. Elaborate as it was, the interpretation of the Targum was still farther developed by the mediaeval Jews, but generally constructed upon the same allegorical hypothesis. It was introduced into their liturgical services; and during the persecutions' of the Middle Ages its consoling appeal to the past and future glories of Israel maintained it as the popular exposition of a national poem. It would be strange if so universal an influence as that of the scholastic philosophy had not obtained an expression in the interpretation of the Canticles. Such an expression we find in the theory of Ibn Caspe (1200-1250), which considers the book as representing the union between the active intellect (intellectus agens), and the receptive or material intellect (intellectus materialis). A new school of Jewish interpretation was originated by Mendelssohn (1729-1786), which, without actually denying the existence of an allegorical meaning, determined to keep it in abeyance, and meanwhile to devote itself to the literal interpretation. At present the most learned rabbis, following Lowesohn, have abandoned the allegorical interpretation altogether (Hexheimer, 1848; Philippson, 1854).
In the Christian Church, the Talmudical interpretation, imported by Origen, was all but universally received. It was impugned by Theodore of Mopsuestia (360-429), but continued to hold its ground as the orthodox theory till the revival of letters, when it was called in question by Erasmus and Grotius, and was gradually superseded by the typical theory of Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, etc. This, however, was not effected without a severe struggle, in which Sanctius, Durham, and Calovius were the champions of the allegorical against the typical theory. The latter seems to have been mainly identified with Grotius (Pol. Syn.), and was stigmatized by Calovius as the heresy of Theodore Mopsuestia, condemned at the second council of Constantinople, and revived by the Anabaptists. In the 18th century the allegorical theory was reasserted, and reconstructed by Puffendorf (1776) and the reactionary allegorists, the majority of whom, however, with Rosenmüller, return to the system of the Chaldee Paraphrase.
Some of the more remarkable variations of the allegorical school are:
(a.) The extension of the Chaldec allegory to the Christian Church, originally projected by Aponius (7th century), and more fully wrought out by De Lyra (1270-1340), Brightman (1600), and Cocceius (1603- 1699). According to De Lyra, chaps. ii-vii describe the history of the Israelites from the exodus to the birth of Christ; chap. 7 ad fin. the history of the Christian Church to Constantine. Brightman divides the Canticles into a history of the Legal and a history of the Evangelical Church: his detail is highly elaborate; e.g. in Son_5:8, he discovers an allusion to Peter Waldo (1160), and in Son_5:13 to Robert Trench (1290).
(b.) Luther's theory limits the allegorical meaning to the contemporaneous history of the Jewish people under Solomon.
(c.) According to Ghislerius and Corn. a Lapide, the bride is the Virgin Mary.
(d.) Puffendorf refers the spiritual sense to the circumstance of our Savior's death and burial.
3. The literal interpretation seems to have been connected with the general movement of Theodore Mopsuestia (260-429) and his followers, in opposition to the extravagances of the early Christian allegorists. Its scheme was nuptial, with Pharaoh's daughter as the bride. That it was by many regarded as the only admissible interpretation appears from Theodoret, who mentions this opinion only to condemn it. Borne down and overwhelmed by the prolific genius of mediaeval allegory, we have a glimpse of it in Abulpharagius (see above), and in the MS. commentary (Bodl. Oppenh. Coll. No. 625), cited by Mr. Ginsburg, and by him referred conjecturally to a French Jew of the 12th or 13th century. This commentary anticipates more recent criticism by interpreting the Song as celebrating the hunmble love of a shepherd and shepherdess. The extreme literal view was propounded by Castellio (1544), who rejected it from the Canon. Following out this idea, Whiston (1723) recognized the book as a composition of Solomon, but denounced it as foolish, lascivious, and idolatrous. Nearly the same view is entertained by Dr. Clarke in his Commentary. Meanwhile the nuptial theory was adopted by Grotius as the literal basis of a secondary and spiritual interpretation, and, after its dramatical development by Bossuet, long continued to be the standard scheme of the mystical school. Bossuet's idea of this poem was that it is a regular drama, or pastoral eclogue, consisting of seven acts, each act filling a day, concluding with the Sabbath, inasmuch as the bridegroom on this day does not, as usual, go forth to his rural employments, but proceeds from the marriage chamber into public with his bride. The following are Bossuet's divisions of the plots:
First day....................... Son_1:1 to Son_2:6.
Second day....................Son_2:7-17.
Third day...................... Son_3:1 to Son_5:1.
Fourth day....................Son_5:2 to Son_6:9.
Fifth day......................Son_6:10 to Son_7:11.
Sixth day.....................Son_7:12 to Son_8:3.
Sabbath.......................Son_8:4-14.
In 1803 this scheme was reconstructed by Good, with a Jewish instead of an Egyptian bride; and his version is still the most elegant. For the most ingenious and completely elaborated form in which this theory has been developed, see the new translation in scenic form by Taylor in his edition of Calmet's Diet.; also more lately by Horner in the Methodist Quart. Review, July, 1862. SEE THEATRICAL REPRESENTATIONS.
The purely literal theory, opposed on the one hand to the allegorical interpretation, and on the other to Castellio and Whiston, owes its origin to Germany. Michaelis (1770) regarded the Song as an exponent of we do'es love, innocent and happy. But, while justifying its admission into the Canon, he is betrayed into a levity of remark altogether inconsistent with the supposition that the book is inspired (Not. ad Lowth, Prcel.). From this time the scholarship of Germany was mainly enlisted on the side of the literalists. The literal basis became thoroughly dissociated from the ‘mystical superstructure, and all that remained to be done was to elucidate the true scheme of the former. The most generally received interpretation of the modern literalists is that which was originally proposed by Jacobi (1771), adopted by Herder, Ammon, Umbreit, Ewald, etc., and more recently by Prof. Meier of Tiibingen (1854), and in England by Mr. Ginsburg, in his learned translation (1857). According to the detailed application of this view as given by Mr. Ginsburg, the Song is intended to display the victory of humble and constant love over the temptations of weatlth and royalty. The tempter is Solomon; the object of his seductive endeavors is a Shulamite shepherdess, who, surrounded by the glories of the court and the fascinations of unwonted splendor, pines for the shepherd-lover from whom she has been involuntarily separated. In this scheme the drama is divided into five sections, indicated by the thrice- repeated formula of adjuration (Son_2:7; Son_3:5; Son_8:4), and the use of another closing sentence (Son_5:1).
Section 1 (Son_1:1 to Son_2:7): scene, a country-seat of Solomon. The shepherdess is committed to the charge of the court ladies (“daughters of Jerusalem”), who have been instructed to prepare the way for the royal approach. Solomon makes an unsuccessful attempt to win her affections.
Sec 2 (Son_2:8 to Son_3:5): the shepherdess explains to the court ladies the cruelty of her brothers, which had led to the separation between herself and her beloved.
Sec. 3 (Son_3:6 to Son_5:1): entry of the royal train into Jerusalem. The shepherd follows his betrothed into the city, and proposes to rescue her. Some of her court companions are favorably impressed by her constancy.
Sec. 4 (Son_5:2 to Son_8:4): the shepherdess tells her dream, and still farther engages the sympathies of her companions. The king's flatteries and promises are unavailing.
Sec. 5 (Son_8:5-14): the conflict is over; virtue and truth have won the victory, and the shepherdess and her beloved return to their happy home, visiting on the way the tree beneath whose shade they first plighted their troth (Son_8:5). Her brothers repeat the promises which they had once made conditionally upon her virtuous and irreproachable conduct.Even in Germany, however, a strong band of reactionary allegorists have maintained their ground, including such names as Hug, Kaiser, Rosenmüller, Hahn, and Hengstenberg. On the whole, their tendency is to return to the Chaldee paraphrase, a tendency which is specially marked in Rosenmuiller. In England the battle of the literalists has been fought by Dr. Pye Smith (Congreg. Mag. for 1837, 38); in America by Prof. Noyes, who adopts the extreme erotic theory, and is unwilling to recognize in Canticles any moral or religious design. It should be observed that such a sentiment as this of Dr. Noyes is utterly alien to the views of Jacobi and his followers, who conceive the recommendation of virtuous love and constancy to be a portion of the very highest moral teaching, and in no way unworthy of an inspired writer. The allegorical interpretation has been defended in America by Professors Stuart and Burrowes. The internal arguments adduced by the allegqrists are substantially the same with those urged by Calovius against the literal basis of the mystical interpretation. The following are specimens:
(a.) Particulars not applicable to Solomon (Son_5:2).
(b.) Particulars not applicable to the wife of Solomon (Son_1:6; Son_1:8; Son_5:7; Son_7:1, comp. Son_1:6).
(c.) Solomon addressed in the second person (Son_8:12).
(d.) Particulars inconsistent with the ordinary conditions of decent love (Son_5:2).
(e.) Date twenty years after Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (comp. Son_4:4, and 1Ki_6:38).
It will readily be observed that these arguments do not in any way affect the literal theory of Jacobi.
For external arguments the allegorists depend principally upon Jewish tradition and the analogy of Oriental poetry. The value of the former, as respects a composition of the 10th century B.C., is estimated by Michaelis (Not. ad Lowth) at a very low rate. For the latter, it is usual to refer to such authors as Chardin, Sir W. Jones, D'Herbelot, etc. (see Rosenm. Animad.). Roseninther gives a song of Hafiz, with a paraphrase by a Turkish commentator, which unfolds the spiritual meaning. For other specimens of the same kind, see Lane's Egyptians, 2:215 sq. On the other hand, the objections taken by Dr. Noyes are very important (New Transl.). It would seem that there is one essential difference between the Song of Solomon and the allegorical compositions of the poets in question. In the latter the allegory is more or less avowed, and distinct reference is made to the Supreme Being; in the former there is nothing of the kind. But the most important consideration adduced by the literalists is the fact that the Canticles are the production of a different country, and separated from the songs of the Sufis and the Hindoo mystics by an interval of nearly 2000 years. To this it may be added that the Song of Solomon springs out of a religion which has nothing in common with the pantheism of, Persia and India. In short, the conditions of production in the two cases are utterly dissimilar. But the literalists are not content with destroying this analogy; they proceed farther to maintain that allegories do not generally occur in the sacred writings without some intimation of their secondary meaning, which intimation in the case of the Canticles' is not forthcoming.
They argue, from the total silence of our Lord and his apostles respecting this book, not indeed that it is uninspired, but that it was never intended to bear: within its poetic envelope that mystical sense which would have rendered it a perfect treasury of reference for Paul when unfolding the spiritual relation between Christ and his Church (see 2Co_11:2; Rom_7:4; Eph_5:23-32). Again, it is urged that if this poem be allegorically spiritual, then its spiritualism is of the very highest order, and utterly inconsistent with the opinion which assigns it to Solomon. The philosophy of Solomon, as given in Ecclesiastes, is a philosophy of indifference, apparently suggested by the exhaustion of all sources of physical enjoyment. The religion of Solomon had but little practical influence on his life; if he wrote the glowing spiritualism of the Canticles when a young man, how can we account for his fearful degeneracy? If the poem was the production of his old age, how can we reconcile it with the last fact recorded of him, that “‘his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God ?” For the same reason it is maintained that no other writer would have selected Solomon as a symbol of the Messiah. The excessively amative character of some passages is designated as almost blasphemous when supposed to I e addressed by Christ to his Church (Son_7:2-3; Son_7:7-8); and the fact that the dramatis personae are three is regarded as decidedly subversive of the allegorical theory.
The strongest argument on the side of the allegorists is the matrimonial metaphor so frequently enployed in the Scriptures to describe the relation between Jehovah and Israel (Exo_34:15-16; Num_15:39; Psa_73:27; Jer_3:1-11; Ezekiel 16, 23, etc.). It is fully stated by Prof. Stuart (O.T. Canon). On the other hand, the literalists deny so early a use of the metaphor. They contend that the phrases describing spiritual fornication and adultery represent the literal fact; and that even the metaphor, as used by the prophets who lived after Solomon, implies a wedded relation, and therefore cannot be compared with the ante-nuptial affection which forms the subject of Canticles. — Smith, Dict. of Bible, s.v.
On the whole, a combination of the moderately literal interpretation with the general allegorical idea seems to be the true one, by which, under the figure of chaste conjugal love (probably that of Solomon and the Egyptian princess), set forth in Oriental style and warmth, SEE MARRIAGE, the union of Jehovah and is Church is represented after the analogy of a parable (q.v.). All attempts, however, hitherto made to carry the explanation into detail, especially in the application of the language to the phenomena of individual religious experience, have been signal failures, having been, indeed, rather the offspring of a sensuous fanaticism or over- wrought enthusiasm, than of sound devotion or sober interpretation. SEE ALLEGORY. Taking, therefore, the ground figure of connubial as typical of divine union to be intended to be represented in this general expression only by this unique specimen of sacred phantasmagoria, we may venture to arrange it dramatically somewhat as follows:
4. Canonicity. — It has already been observed that the book was rejected from the Canon by Castellio and Whiston, but in no case has its rejection been defended on external grounds. It is found in the Sept., and in the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian. It is contained in the catalogue given in the Talmud, and in the catalogue of Melito; and, in short, we have the same evidence for its canonicity as that which is commonly adduced for the canonicity of any book of the O.T.
5. Commentaries. — The following are the exegetical works expressly on the whole of this book, a few of the most important being indicated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Homilice, etc. (in Opp. 3:12, 23, 94); Theophilus, Fragmenta (in Grabe's Spicilegiurn, 2:223); Eusebius, E- positio [Gr. and Lat.] (in Meursii Opera, 8:125); Polychronius and Psellus, Expos tiones (ed. Meursius, Lugd. 1617, 4to); Athanasius, Homilia (in Opp. 3:37); also Fragmenta (ib. I, 2:1005); *Gregory Nyssen., Explanatio (in Opp. 1:468; also Bibl. Patr. Gall. 6:645); Ambrose, Commentarius (in Opp. 1:1546); Epiphanius, Commentarius (ed. Foggini, Romans 1750, 4to); Philo Carpathius, Interpretatio (Lat. in Bibl. Max. Patr. v. 661; Gr. and Lat. in Bibl. Patr. Gall. 9:713: also Enarratio, ed. Gr. and Lat. Giacomell, Romans 1772, 4to); Theodoret, Explan-rtti (Romans 1563, fol.; Ven. 1574, 4to; also in Opp. II, 1; tr. in “Voice of the Church”); Cassiodorus, Expositio (in Opp. 2:479); Gregory the Great, Expositio (in Opp. III, 2:397); Justus Orgelitanus, Explicatio (in Bibl. Mifa. Patr. 9:731); Isidore, Expositio (in Opp. p. 503); Apponius, Expositio (in Bibl. Jlax. Patr. 14:98); Lucas, Summstriola (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 14:128); Udalricus, Scholia (ib.); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. 4:714; also Works by Giles, 9:186); Alcuin, Compendium (in Opp. I, 2:391); Angelomanus, Enzorrationes (in Bibl. Max. Patr. xv); Bruno Astensis, Cantica (in Opp. i); Anselm, Enarrationss (in Opp. ed. Picard); Rupertus Tuitiensis, Conmmentaria (in Opp. 1:986); Bernard, Sermones (in Opp. I, 2:2649; also ib. II, 1:555); Irimpertus, Commentarius (Pez, Thesaur. II, 1:369); Aquinas, Commentarius (in Opp. i); Honorius Augustodunensis, Commentarius (in Opp.; also Bibl. Patr. M£ax. 20:963); Jarchi's annotations [Heb.] (in Buxtorf's Rabbinical Bible, q.v.); Rashi's ôֵּøåּù ׁ (in the Rabbinical Bibles; also with Lat. tr. by Genebrard, Par 1570 and 1585, 8vo; with notes by Breithaupt, Gotha, 1714, 4to; in JewishGerman by Bresch, Cremona, 1560, fol., and since); R. S. ben-Meir.(Rashbam), ôֵּøåּùׁ (first published Lpz. 1855, 8vo); *Aben-Ezra, ôֵּøåּù ׁ (in Frankfurter's Rabbinical Bible; in Lat. by Genebrard, Paris, 1570 and 1858, 8vo); Alscheich, ùַׁéùִׁðִּú äָòֲîָ÷ַéí (Ven. 1591 and 1606, 4to, and since); Nachmani (or rather Asariel, A.D. cir. 1200), ôֵּøåּù ׁ [Cabalistic] (Altona, 1764, 4to; including comments by Ibn-Tamar, Johannisb. 1857, 8vo); Arama, ôֵּøåּùׁ (in the Amst. Rabb, Bible, which likewise contains the three following); De Bafioles, ôֵּøåּùׁ (R. de Trento, 1560, 4to); Jos. ben-Jachja, ôֵּøִåּù ׁ (Bologna, 1538, fol.); Isaiah Jaabezj ÷ֹãֶùׁ äַìּåּìַéí (Belvidere, n. d. fol.); Holkot, Notce (Ven. 1509, fol.); Nic. de Argentina, Expositiones (Pez, Bibl. Ascet. xi, xii); Thomas Vercellensis, Conmmentarius (Pez, Thesaur. 2:503); Perez, Expositio (in Exp. Psalm.); Radulphus Fontanellensis, Commentaria (Hommey, Suppl. p. 276); Gerson, Tractatus (in Opp. 4:27); *Luther, Enarratio (Vitemb. 1538, 1539, 8vo; also in Opp. Latin ed. Vit. 4:49; ed. Jen. 4:226; Germ. ed. Lips. 7:1 ed. Hal. 5:2385); Zwingle, Compansatio (in Opp. in); Marloratus, Expositio (in lib. Psalm. etc.); Beza, Sermons (tr. by Harmar, Oxf. 1587, 4to); Hall, Paraphrase (in Works, 1:245, etc.); Theresa, Erplications (in Cuvres, p. 829); Jansen, Annotat'ones (in Psalmi, etc.); Maldonatus, in Song of Solomon (in Commentarii, p. 165); Mercer, Commentarii (in Jobus, etc.); Wilcocks, Exposition (in Works); i Lapide, in Song of Solomon (in Commentarii); Homes, Comment. (in Works); Castell, A nnotationes (in WTalton's Polyglott, vi); Tegelath, Erpositio (Ven. 1510, fol.); Halgrin, Erpositio (Par. 1521, fol.); Guidacer, Commentarius (Par. 1531, 8vo); Arboreus, Commentarius (Paris, 1537 and 1553, fol.); Titelmann, Commentarii (Antw. 1547, 8vo, and later); Alkabez, àִéֶּìֶú àֲäָáַéí (Ven. 1552, 4to); Nannius, Scholia (Lon. 1554, 4to); Ab. ben-Isaak (Tamak), ôֵּøåּù ׁ (with others, Sabionetta, 1558, 12mo; Prague, 1611, 4to); Strigel, Scholia (Lips. 1565, 8vo); Almosnino, éַãֵé îùֶׁä (Salonica, 1572; Ven. 1597, 4to); Mercer, Commentarius (Genesis 1573; L. B. 1651, fol.); IbnJaisch, îָ÷åֹø áָּøåּêְ (Constant. 1576, fol.); Genebrard, Observationes (Par. 1579, 4to; also his Paraphrasis, ib. 1585, 8vo); Arepol, ùִׂø ùָׁìåֹí (Safet, 1579, 4to; also in àֲâֻãִּú ùְׁîåּàֵì , Ven. 1593); Saadias, ôֵּøåּùׁ (from the Arab. with others on the same book, Constpl. n. d. 4to; first separately, Prague, 1608, 4to, etc.); Brocardus, Interpretatio (L. B. 1580, 8vo); Garzia, Expositio (Complut. 1581, fol., and later); De la Huerga, Commnentarius (Complut. 1582, fol.); Damianus, Commentarius (Venice, 1585, 4to); Almoncirius, Commentarius (Complut. 1588, 4to); Blackney, Commentarius (Ven. 1591, 4to); Rosseti, Commentarius (Ven. 1594, 4to); Janson, Commentarius (Lond. 1596, 1604; Ingolstadt, 1605, 8vo); Gyffard, Sermons (Lond. 1598, 8vo); Brucioli's commentary (in Italian, Ven. 1598, 8vo); Sotomajor, Interpretatio (Olyssip. 1599, Paris, 1605, fol.; also Notae, ib. 1611, 4to); Jesu Maria. Interpretatio (Romans 1601, 8vo, and later); De Pineda, Praelectio (Hisp. 1602, 4to); Clapham, Erposition (Lond. 1603, 8vo); Del Rio, Commentarius (Ingolst. 1604, fol.; Par. 1607, Lugd. 1611, 4to); Loanz, øַðִּú ãּåֹãַéí ְ [Cabalistic] (Basel, 1606, 1612, 4to); Tuccius, Adnotationes t(lngd. 1606, 4to); James, Expositio (Oxf. 1607, 4to); Eleazar ben-Jehuda (Garmisa), éִéַּï äָøֶ÷ִç [Cabalistic] (Cracow, 1608, 4to); Veronius, Philotheia (Frib. 1609, 4to); Ghisler, Intetpretatio (Romans 1609, fol., and later); Mat, äåֹàַéì îùֶׁä (Prague, 1612, fol.); Schairtlein's commentary [Jewish-Germ.] (Prague, 1612, 4to); Sanctius, Commentarius (Lugd. 1616, 4to); Nigidius, Expositio (Romans 1616, Ven. 1617, 4to); Ferrarius, Commentaia (Lugd. 1616, Mediol. 1656, 4to); Lefaado, ðְ÷ֻãּåֹú äִëֶּñֶ [Spanish] (Venice, 1619, 4to); Argall, Commentarius (Lond. 1621, 4to); Gebhard or Wesener, Explicatio (1624, 4to); Cantacuzeuus, Expositio (Romans 1624, fol.); Cathius, Paraphrasis (Antw. 1625, 8vo); Ainsworth, Annotations (Lond. 1627, fol.; also in German, F. ad 0. 1692, Berl. 1735, 8vo); Malder, Comnmentarius (Antw. 1628, 8vo); Peregrine, Applicatio (Antw. 1631, 8vo); Douce, Commentary (Lond. 1631, 8vo); Calos, Traduccion (Hamb. 1631, 4to); *Gerhard, Erklrung (Jen. 1631, Lub. 1644, Lpz. 1652, 1666, 4to); Sherlog, Commentarius (Lugd. 1633-40, 3 vols. fol.); Durfeld, Interpretatio (Rint. 1633, 8vo; 1643, 4to); Folioth, Expositio (London, 1638, 4to); Heilpron, öַéּåֹï àִäֲáִú (Lubl. 1639, fol.); Sibbs, Sermons (London, 1639, 1641, 4to; also in Vorks, 3:1); Petraeus, Paraphrasis (Hafn. 1640, 4to); Aresius, Velitationes (Mediol. 1640, 4to); Sibel, Commentarius (Davent. 1641, 4to); Pintus, Commentarius (Lugd. 1642, fol.); De Salazar, Expositiones (Lugd. 1642, fol.); Colton, Exposition (London, 1642, 8vo); Brightman, Comzmentary (Lond. [also in Lat. Basil.] 1644, 4to); Besson, Lucubrationes (Lugd. 1646, fol.); De Ponte, Expositio (Paris, 1646, 2 vols. fol,); Trap, Commentary (Lond. 1650, 4to); Robotham, Exposition (Lond. 1652, 4to); Fromnond, CommEntilria (Lovan. 1652, 1657, 4to); De Raias, Commentarius (Genesis 1656, fol. vol. 1); De la Place, Exposition (Saum. 1656, 8vo; in Lat. Franek. 1699, 1705, 2 vols.); Guild, Explication (Lond. 1658, 8vo); Roeper, Predigen (Jen. 1662, 4to); Hammond, Paraphrase (London, 1662, 8vo); Udeman's exposition (in Dutch, Amst. 1665; in Germ. Lunenb. 1667, 8vo); *Tyrham, Cl..vis (Edinb. 1668; London, 1669; in Dutch, Utr. 1681; in G(erm. Lpz. 1695, 4to); Durham, Exposition (London, 1668, 4to; Edinb. 1724, 4to; Aberdeen, 1840, 12mo, ctc.); Gronewegen's commentary (in Dutch, Delv. 1670; in Germ. Freft. 1711, 4to); Collinges, Sermons (London, 1676-83, 2 vols. 4to); De Sales, Explication (in Cuvres, xiv); *De Veil, Explicatio (Lond. 1679, 8vo); Dilheir, Adnotationes (Vratisl. 1680, 8vo); Sennert, Not;e (Vitemb. 1681, 1689, 4to); Franco-Serrano, úִּøְâּåּí (Amst. 1683, 8vo); Guion's commentary (in French, Leyd. 1688, 8vo; in Germ. Frcf. 1706,'12mo); Schitten, Commentarius (Lips. 1688, 4to); Auratus, Exposition (Lugd. 1689, 1693, 8vo); Bourdaloue, Exposition (Paris, 1689, 12mo); Heunisch, Commentarius (Lips. 1689, 4to); Lydius, Verklaar. (Amst. 1690 and 1719, 8vo); Anonymous, Explication (Paris, 1690, 8vo); Bossuet, Notes (Paris, 1693, 8vo; also in OEuvres, 21:301); Gschwend, Notco (Jen. 1699, 8vo); Marck, Commentarius (Amst. 1703, 4to); Hamon, Explication (Par. 1708, 4 vols. 12mo); Anonymous, Spiritual Songs (10th ed. London, 1708, 8vo); Adam, Erklarung (Lpz. 1708, 4to); Seebach, Erklarung (Leipzig, 1710, 8vo); Anonymous, Explicatio (Paris, 1717, 12mo); Hellenbroek, Verklaar. (Amst. 1718, 1720, 2 vols. 4to); Michaelis, Adnotationes (Hal. 1720, 4to); Anon. (after Neumann), Erkldrung (Breslau, 1720, 8vo); Wacter, Anmerkungen (Memm. 1722, 4to); Mill, Canon. auctoritas, etc. (Ultraj. 1725, 4to); Kerr, Paraphrasis (Edinb. 1727, 12mo; also in Pret. Scot. i); Stennet, Versidn (in Works, iv); Gill, Exposition (Lond. 1728, fol.); Petersen, Erklaruang (Bud. 1728, 8vo); Woken, Commentatio (Vitemb. 1729, 4to); Terne, Kern. d. Hoh. (Lpz. 1732, 8vo); Reinhard, Co(mmentarius (Lemg. 1743, 8vo); Moses ben-Hillel, òֲøéּâִú äִáּùֶׁí (Zolk. 1745, 8vo); Erskine, Paraphrase (in Works, 10:309, 550); Bland, Version (London, 1750, 8vo); Anonymous, Erklirung (Berl. 1751, 4to); Schober, Umschreibung (Augsb. 1752, 8vo); Anon. Erklaung (Lpz. 1756, 1777, 1788, 8vo); Anonymous, Paraphrasen (Halle, 1756, 8vo); Hanssen, Betrachtungen (Hamb. 1756, 4to); Semler, Vorstellungen (Hal. 1757, 8vo); Wilhelmi, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1764, 8vo); Bp. Percy, Commentary (Lond. 1764, 8vo); Harmer,, Outlines (Lond. 1768, 8vo); *Jacobi, Erklirung (Celle, 1771, 8vo); Anton, Erklrung (Lpz. 1773, 8vo; also Notre,Viteb. and Lips. 1793, 1800, 8vo); Van Kooten, Observationes (Tr. ad Rh. 1774, 4to); Neunhofer, Anmerkungen (Brem. and Lpz. 1775, 8vo); Mrs. Bowdler, Commentary (Edinb. 1775, 8vo); Green, Notes (in Poets of 0. T.); Luiderwald, Erklirung (Wolfenbuttel, 1776, 8vo); Von Pufendorf, Erklarung (Brem. 1776, 4to); Hezel, Erklarung (Lpz. and Bresl. 1777, 8vo); Zinck, Commentarius (Augsb. 1778, 4to); Lessing, Interpretatio (Lips. 1779, 8vo); Herder, Interpretatio (Lips. 1779, 8vo; also in W/erke. in, Stuttg. 1852), Hufnagel, Ueber's H. L. (in Eichhorn's epertoriunm, pt. 7-11, Lips. 1780-2; also Erlauterung, Erlang. 1784, 8”vo); Kleuker, Sammlung (Hamm. 1780, 8vo); Francis, Notes (Lond. 1781, 4to); Romaine, Discourses (in Works, v, i); Jones, Inquiy (in Works, in, 351); Skinner, Essay (in Works, ii); Schlez, Anmerkungew (Augsb. 1782, 8vo); Rupert, Observationes (in Pymlolc I, i, ii, Gott. 1782, 1792); Doderlein, UTebersetzung (Nurnburg, 1784, 1792, 8vo); Hodgson, Translation (Lond. 1785, 4to); Paulus, Ueber's H. L. (in Eichhorn's Repert. 17:1785); Velthusen, Catena (Heimst. 1786, 8vo; also Schwesternhandel, Braunschw. 1786, 8vo; also A methyst, ib. eod. 8vo); Anonymous, Versione (Flor. 1786, 8vo); Lederer, Siegsspiel (Burgh. 1787, 8vo); Leone, Osservazioni (Turin, 1787, 8vo); *Mendelssohn, úִּøְâּåּí , etc. (with other commentators, Berl. 1788; Prague, 1803, 8vo; with Germ. text, Braunschw. 1789, 8vo); Anonymous, Erkldrung (Hamb. 1788, fvo); Lindemann, Erklarung (in Keil, Analekten, III, 1:1-30); Anonymous, Anmerkungen (Basel, 1789, 8vo); Ammon, Liebesgedicht (Lpz. 1790, 8vo); Galicho, ôֵּøåּù ׁ (Legh. 1790, 4to); Libowitzer, àִéֶּìֶú àֲäָáַí (Korez, 1791, 8vo); Beyer, Anmerkungen (Marb. 1792, 8vo); Staudlin, Idyllen, etc..(in Paulus, Memoralilien, ii, Jena, 1792); Gaab, Erklrung (Tfibingen, 1795, 8vo); Birs, ùַׁéøָä ìְãַéã (Grodno, 1797, 4to).; Schyth, Commentarius (Havn. 1797, 8vo); Brieglob, Erlauterung (Amst. 1798, 8vo); Joseph ben-Abraham ôִּúְùֶׁâֶï äִùַּׁéø (Grod. no, 1798, 8vo); Asulai, ðִçִì àֶùְׁëּåֹì (in úּåֹøָä àåֹø , Legh. 1800, fol.); Williams, Commentary (Lond. 1801, 1828, 8vo); *Good, Notes(Lond.1803, 8vo); Anonymous, Liebeslieder (in Journ. far Kath. Theol. I, ii, Erf. and Lpz. 1803); Polozk, ãֶּøֶêְ äִîֶּìֶêְ (Grodno, 1804, 4to); Frost, Carm. eroticum (Hafn. 1805, 8vo); Justi, TTochgesallge (in Blumen, 1:237, Marburg, 1809); Lewisohn, îְìַéöִú éְùֻׁøéּï (Vien. 1811, 4to); Wilna, îַëְúִּá àֵַìéָּäåּ (Prague, 1811, 4to [liturgical]; also ôֵּøåּùַׁåí [partly cabalistic], Warsaw, 1842, 4to); Fry, Notes (Londomi. 1811, 1825, 8vo); Hug, Deutung, etc. (Frey. and Consz. 1813, 4to; also Erlauterung, Freyb. 1815, 4to); JacobLissa, àַîְãֵé éùֶׁø (Dyrenfurt, 1815-19, 4to); Davidson, Remarks (Lond. 1817, 8vo); Kistmaker, Illustratio (Monast. 1818, 8vo); *Umbreit, Erklarung (Gott. 1820, Heidelb. 1828, 8vo); Taylor, Minstrel (Glasgow, 1820, 12mo); Clarke, Targum (in Commentary, in); Hawker, Commentary (London, 8vo); Lowth, Prcelect. 30, 31 (with the notes of Michaelis and the animadversions of Rosenmiuller, Oxon. 1821); Kaiser, Collectiv-Gesang (Erlang. 1825, 8vo); *Ewald, Anmerkungen (Gott. 1826, 8vo); Bartholnia, Erluterungen (Niirnb. 1827, 8vo); Dipke, Commentar (Lipz. 1829, 8vo); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (Lips. 1830, 8vo); Cunitz, Hist. de l'Interpretation, etc. (Strassb. 1834, 4to); Rebenstein, Erlauterung (Berl. 1834, 8vo); Blau, Vensuch (Culm, 1838, 8vo); Krummacher, Sermons (Lond. 1839, 8vo; from the German, 3d ed. Elberf. 1830, 8vo); Barham,'S. of S. (in Bible, ii); *Uhlemann, De interp., ratione, etc. (Berlin, 1839, 4to); Schick (Wasziliszoh), îִçֲæֵä äִùַּׁéø (Warsaw, 1840, 8vo); Hirzel, Erkldrung (Zur. and Fauenrf. 1840, 12mo); Magnus, Bearbeitung (Halle, 1842, 8vo); Isaak-Aaron, áֵּéú àִäֲøéֹï (Wilna, 1843, 8vo); Ulrich, Commentaei (Berlin, 1845, 8vo); Edelmann, áַּàåּø (Danz. 1845, 8vo); Avrillon, Affections, etc. (Lond. 1845,12mo); Stowe, in Am. Bib. Repos. Apr. 1847 (reprinted in Jour. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1852); Brown, Discourses (pt. i, Lond. 1848, 18mo); Bottcher, Erklarung (Lpz. 1849, 8vo); *Delitzsch, Auslegung (Lpz. 1851, 8vo); Goltz, Auslegung (Berl. 1851, 8vo); Mundt, Ueber's H. L. (in Literaturgesch. 1:153, 1849); Anonymous, Reflections (Lond. 1851, 12mo); *Hengstenberg, :Auslegung (Berlin; 1853, 8vo); Burrowes, Commentary (Phila. 1853,12mo); Clay, Lectures (Lond. 1853, 12mo); Meier, Er kldrung (Tfibingen, 1854, :8vo); Forbes, Commentary (Lond. 1854, 32mo)); Hitzig, Erkliarung (in Exeg. Handb. xvi, Lpz. 1855, 8vo); Blaubach, Erlduterung (Berl. 1855, 8vo); Newton, Comparison, etc. (3d ed. 1855, 8vo); Holemann, Krone, etc. (Lpz. 1856, 8vo); *Ginsburg, Commentary (Lond. 1857, 8vo); Walker, Meditations (London, 1857, 18mo); *Weiss, Exposition (Edinb. 1858, 12mo); Schuler, Erlauterung (Wurzb. 1858, 8vo); Anonymous, Uebersetzung ‘(Ulm, 1858, 8vo); Weissbach, Erklarung (Lpz. 1858, 8vo); Vaihinger, Erkldrung (in Dicht. Schrifen :d. A. B. 4:Stuttg. 1858, 8vo); Anonymous, Explanation (Lond. 1858, 8vo); Anonymous, Translation (Lond. 1858, 8vo); Malbim, ùַׁéøֵé äִðֶּôֶùׁ (Bucharest, 1860, 8vo); Anonymous, Commentary (Lond. 1860, 12mo); RBnan, Traduction (Par. 1860, 8vo); Stuart Exposition (Lond. 1860, 8vo; also Key, Lond. 1861, 12mo); Withington, Explanation ( lostoni 6, 161, 2mo); Thrupp, Translation (Loud. 1862. 8vo); Meudelstarm, E'rlduterung (Berl. 1862, 4to); Horowitz, A nmerkungens (Vienna, 1863, 12mo); Houghton, Essay (Lond. 1865, 8vo); Diedrich, Erldiiterung (Neu-Rupping, 1865, 8vo); *Strong, Sacred Idyls (N. Y. 1890, 8vo). SEE SOLOMON (Books of).