There is however one circumstance in which this poem bears a very near affinity to the Greek drama: the chorus of virgins seems in every respect congenial to the tragic chorus of the Greeks. They are constantly present, and prepared to fulfil all the duties of advice and consolation: they converse frequently with the principal characters; they are questioned by them, and they return answers to their inquiries; they take part in the whole buisness of the poem, and I do not find that upon any occasion they quit the scene. Some of the learned have conjectured, that Theocritus, who was contemporary with the seventy Greek translators of the Scriptures, and lived with them in the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, was not unacquainted with the beauties of this poem, and that he has almost literally introduced some passages from it into his elegant Idylliums.16 It might also be suspected, that the Greek tragedians were indebted for their chorus to this poem of Solomon, were not the probabilities on the other side much greater, that the Greeks were made acquainted with it at too late a period; and were it not evident, that the chorus of the Greeks had a very different origin; were it not evident indeed that the chorus was not added to the fable, but the fable to the chorus. (B) 16 Compare CANT. i. 4. vi. 10, with THEOC. xviii. 30.26; CANT. iv. 11, with THEOC. XX. 26; CANT. viii. 6, 7, with THEOC. xxiii. 23-26. LECTURE XXXI. ON THE SUBJECT AND STYLE OF SOLOMON'S SONG. The question debated, whether the Song of Solomon is to be taken in a literal or allegorical sense: the allegorical sense defended upon the grounds of the parabolic style.-The nature and ground-work of this allegory explained.—The fastidiousness of those critics reproved, who pretend to take offence at the freedom of some of those images which are found in the Sacred Writings; the nature of those images explained.-The allegorical interpretation confirmed by analogical arguments: not equally demonstrable from the internal structure of the work itself. This allegory of the third or mystical species; the subject literally relating to the nuptials of Solomon.-Two cautions to be observed by commentators.-The style of the poem pastoral: the characters are represented as pastoral: how agreeable this to the manners of the Hebrews.-The elegance of the topics, descriptions, comparisons of this poem: illustrated by examples. HAVING, in my last Lecture, briefly explained what appeared to me most probable, among the great variety of opinions which have prevailed, concerning the conduct and economy of the Song of Solomon, a question next presents itself for our investigation, not less involved in doubt and obscurity, I mean the real nature and subject of the poem. Some are of opinion, that it is to be taken altogether in a literal sense, and others esteem it wholly allegorical. There is no less disagreement also among those who consider it as allegorical; some conceive it to be no more than a simple allegory, while others place it in that class which I have denominated mystical, that, namely, which is founded upon the basis of history. I would gladly, from the first, have considered this question as foreign to my undertaking, and would have avoided it as involved in the deepest obscurity, had I not, in the former part of these Lectures, been under the necessity of remarking the connexion between the different kinds of allegory and the principles of the sacred poetry; had I not also found it necessary to advert to all the peculiarities of the parabolic style, the most obvious property of which is to express by certain images, chiefly adopted from natural objects, the analogy and application of which is regularly preserved, those ideas and doctrines which are more remote from common apprehension. This I cannot help considering as a matter of the utmost importance, in enabling us to understand properly the poetry of the Hebrews; and upon this point much of the present argument will be found to depend. I shall on this, as well as upon the last occasion, proceed with that cautious reserve which I think prudent and necessary on so obscure a subject; and since certainty is not to be obtained, I shall content myself with proposing to your consideration what appears least improbable. In the first place then I confess, that by several reasons, by the general authority and consent of both the Jewish and Christian churches; and still more, by the nature and analogy of the parabolic style, I feel irresistibly inclined to that side of the question which considers this poem as an entire allegory. Those, indeed, who have considered it in a different light, and who have objected against the inconsistency and meanness of the imagery, seem to be but little acquainted with the genius of the parabolic diction: for the removal, therefore, of these difficulties, which I find have been the cause of offence to many persons, I shall beg leave to trespass upon your attention, while I explain somewhat more accurately the nature of this allegory, and its analogy with other productions of the Hebrew poets. The narrowness and imbecility of the human mind being such as scarcely to comprehend or attain a clear idea of any part of the Divine Nature by its utmost exertions, God has condescended, in a manner, to contract the infinity of his glory, and to exhibit it to our understandings under such imagery as our feeble optics are capable of contemplating. Thus the Almighty may be said to descend, as it were, in the Holy Scriptures, from the height of his majesty, to appear on earth in a human shape, with human senses and affections, in all respects resembling a mortal-" with human voice and human form." This kind of allegory is called anthropopathy, and occupies a considerable portion of theology, properly so called, that is, as delivered in the Holy Scriptures. The principal part of this imagery is derived from the passions; nor indeed is there any one affection or emotion of the human soul which is not, with all its circumstances, ascribed in direct terms, without any qualification whatever, to the supreme God; not excepting those in which human frailty and imperfection is most evidently displayed, anger and grief, hatred and revenge. That love also, and that of the tenderest kind, should bear a part in this drama, is highly natural and perfectly consistent. Thus, not only the fondness of paternal affection is attributed to God, but also the force, the ardour, and the solicitude of conjugal attachment, with all the concomitant emotions, the anxiety, the tenderness, the jealousy incidental to this passion. After all, this figure is not in the least productive of obscurity; the nature of it is better understood than that of most others: and although it be exhibited in a variety of lights, it constantly preserves its native perspicuity. A peculiar people, of the posterity of Abraham, was selected by God from among the nations, and he ratified his choice by a solemn covenant. This covenant was founded upon reciprocal conditions; on the one part love, protection, and support; on the other, faith, obedience, and worship pure and devout. This is that conjugal union between God and his church; that solemn compact so frequently celebrated by almost all the sacred writers under this image. It is indeed a remarkable instance of that species of metaphor which Aristotle calls analogical; that is, when in a proposition consisting of four ideas, the first bears the same relation to the second as the third does to the fourth, and the corresponding words may occasionally change their places without any injury to the sense. Thus in this form of expression God is supposed to bear exactly the same relation to the church as a husband to a wife; God is represented as the spouse of the church, and the church as the betrothed of God. Thus also, when the same figure is maintained with a different mode of expression, and connected with different circumstances, the relation is still the same: thus the piety of the people, their impiety, their idolatry, and rejection, stand in the same relation with respect to the sacred covenant; as chastity, modesty, immodesty, adultery, divorce, with respect to the marriage contract. And this notion is so very familiar and well understood in Scripture, that the word adultery (or whoredom) is commonly used to denote idolatrous worship, and so appropriated does it appear to this metaphorical purpose, that it very seldom occurs in its proper and literal sense. Let us only observe how freely the sacred poets employ this image, how they dwell upon it, in how many different forms they introduce it, and how little they seem to fear exhibiting it with all its circumstances. Concerning the reconciliation of the church to Almighty God, and its restoration to the divine favour, amongst many images of a similar nature, the elegant Isaiah introduces the following: 1 POET. xxii. and RHET. iii. 3. E "Nam Maritus tibi erit Creator tuus; "Et redemptor tuus sanctus Israëlis ; And in another passage in the form of a comparison: "Nam ut Iuvenis uxorem ducit virginem, "Ita te uxorem ducet conditor tuus: "Et ut sponsus in sponsa gaudet, "Ita in te gaudebit Deus tuus."3(A) The same image a little diversified, and with greater freedom of expression, as better adapted to the display of indignation, is introduced by Jeremiah, when he declaims against the defection of the Jews from the worship of the true God.4 Upon the same principle the former part of the prophecy of Hosea ought also to be explained; and whether that part of the prophecy be taken in the literal and historical sense, or whether it be esteemed altogether allegorical, still the nature and principles of this figure, which seems consecrated in some measure to this subject, will evidently appear. None of the prophets, however, have applied the image with so much boldness and freedom as Ezekiel, an author of a most fervid imagination, who is little studious of elegance, or cautious of offending; insomuch, that I am under some apprehension of his incurring no inconsiderable share of censure from those over-delicate critics who have been emitted from the Gallic schools. (B) His great freedom in the use of this image is particularly displayed in two parables, in which he describes the ingratitude of the Jews and Israelites to their great Protector, and their defection from the true worship, under imagery assumed from the character of an adulterous wife, and the meretricious loves of two unchaste women.5 If these parables (which are put into the mouth of God himself, with a direct allegorical application, and in which it must be confessed, that delicacy does not appear to be particularly studied) be well considered, I am persuaded, that the Song of Solomon (which is in every part chaste and elegant) will not appear unworthy of the divine sense in which it is usually taken, either in matter or style, or in any degree inferior either in gravity or purity to the other remains of the sacred poets. To these instances I may add the forty-fifth Psalm, which is a sacred epithalamium, of the allegorical application of which, to the 2 ISA. liv. 5. 3 See JOHN iii. 29. 4 JER. iii. 1, etc. |