Song of Solomon - Grace Notes

a Grace Notes courseSong of SolomonFrom Commentary on the Old TestamentC. F. Keil and F. Delitzschadapted for Grace Notes training by Warren DoudGrace NotesWeb Site: http://www.gracenotes.infoE-mail: wdoud@gracenotes.info

Song of Solomon - Keil and DelitzschContentsThe Translator’s Preface ................................................................................................................................................ 4Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................. 4Introduction to the Song of Solomon ............................................................................................................................ 4Song of Solomon 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13Song of Solomon 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 27Song of Solomon 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 37Song of Solomon 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 45Song of Solomon 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 57Song of Solomon 6 ....................................................................................................................................................... 68Song of Solomon 7 ....................................................................................................................................................... 75Song of Solomon 8 ....................................................................................................................................................... 87Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................... 101

The AuthorsCarl Friedrich Keil (26 February 1807 – 5 May 1888) was a conservative German Lutheran OldTestament commentator. He was born at Lauterbach near Oelsnitz, Kingdom of Saxony, and died atRätz, Saxony.Franz Delitzsch (Leipzig, February 23, 1813 – Leipzig, March 4, 1890) was a German Lutherantheologian and Hebraist. Born in Leipzig, he held the professorship of theology at the University ofRostock from 1846 to 1850, at the University of Erlangen until 1867, and after that at the Universityof Leipzig until his death. Delitzsch wrote many commentaries on books of the Bible, Jewishantiquities, biblical psychology, a history of Jewish poetry, and Christian apologetics.Grace NotesGrace Notes is a Bible study ministry which began in 1994 using the Internet to distribute lessonsand articles to people who are interested in God's Word. Thousands of Christians, in more than 110countries around the world, have received Grace Notes lessons on the Internet, by E-mail and theWorld Wide Web. All courses and materials are distributed free of charge, and the work issupported by believers who want to see the ministry continue and grow. Grace Notes studies arealso distributed on diskette and CD-ROM in order to reach those who do not have Internet access.Verse-by-verse (expositional) courses are available in 50 books of the Bible. Some of the coursesinclude word studies (categorical doctrine) or historical articles (isagogics) that are relevant to thepassages being discussed. Other courses offered are Bible character studies, comprehensive studiesof the Christian Life and Basics of the Christian Life, an extensive series on the Person and Word ofJesus Christ, and a thorough study of the Attributes of God. You are invited to write to the addressbelow, or write by e-mail, to inquire about Grace Notes materials.Warren Doud, Director1705 Aggie Lane, Austin, Texas 78757E-Mail: wdoud@gracenotes.infoWeb Site: http://www.gracenotes.info

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 7By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyconstantly more and more seen that thesolution suggested by me is the right and onlysatisfactory one.Shulamith is not Pharaoh’s daughter. The rangeof her thoughts is not that of a king’s daughter,but of a rustic maiden; she is a stranger amongthe daughters of Jerusalem, not because shecomes from a foreign land, but because she isfrom the country; she is dark-complexioned,not from the sun of her more southern home,but from the open sunshine to which she hasbeen exposed as the keeper of a vineyard; inbody and soul she is born to be a princess, butin reality she is but the daughter of a humblefamily in a remote part of Galilee; hence thechild-like simplicity and the rural character ofher thoughts, her joy in the open fields, and herlonging after the quiet life of her village home.Solomon appears here in loving fellowship witha woman such as he had not found among athousand (Eccles. 7:28); and although in socialrank far beneath him, he raises her to anequality with himself. That which attached herto him is not her personal beauty alone, but herbeauty animated and heightened by nobility ofsoul. She is a pattern of simple devotedness,naive simplicity, unaffected modesty, moralpurity, and frank prudence,—a lily of the field,more beautifully adorned than he could claimto be in all his glory. We cannot understand theSong of Songs unless we perceive that itpresents before us not only Shulamith’sexternal attractions, but also all the virtueswhich make her the idea of all that is gentlestand noblest in woman. Her words and hersilence, her doing and suffering, her enjoymentand self-denial, her conduct as betrothed, as abride, and as a wife, her behaviour towards hermother, her younger sister, and her brothers,—all this gives the impression of a beautiful soulin a body formed as it were from the dust offlowers. Solomon raises this child to the rank ofqueen, and becomes beside this queen as achild. The simple one teaches the wise mansimplicity; the humble draws the king down toher level; the pure accustoms the impetuous toself-restraint. Following her, he willinglyexchanges the bustle and the outwardsplendour of court life for rural simplicity,wanders gladly over mountain and meadow ifhe has only her; with her he is content to live ina lowly cottage. The erotic external side of thepoem has thus an ethical background. We havehere no “song of loves” (Ezek. 33:32) havingreference to sensual gratification. Therabbinical proverb is right when it utters itsthreat against him who would treat this Song,or even a single verse of it, as a piece of secularliterature. The Song transfigures natural butholy love. Whatever in the sphere of thedivinely-ordered marriage relation makes lovethe happiest, firmest bond uniting two soulstogether, is presented to us here in livingpictures. “The Song,” says Herder, “is written asif in Paradise. Adam’s song: Thou art my secondself! Thou art mine own! echoes in it in speechand interchanging song from end to end.” Theplace of the book in the canon does not needany further justification; that its reception wasfavoured also by the supposition that itrepresented the intercourse between Jahve andthe congregation of Israel, may be conjecturedindeed, but is not established. The supposition,however, would have been false; for the book isnot an allegory, and Solomon is by no means anAllegorumenon of God. But the congregation istruly a bride (Jer. 2:2; Isa. 62:5), and Solomon atype of the Prince of peace (Isa. 9:5; Luke11:31), and marriage a mystery, viz., as apattern of the loving relation of God and HisChrist to the church (Eph. 5:32). The Song hasconsequently not only a historico-ethical, butalso a typico-mystical meaning. But one mustbe on his guard against introducing again theallegorical interpretation as Soltz (1850) hasdone, under the misleading title of the typicalinterpretation. The typical interpretationproceeds on the idea that the type and theantitype do not exactly coincide; the mystical,that the heavenly stamps itself in the earthly,but is yet at the same time immeasurablydifferent from it. Besides, the historico-ethicalinterpretation is to be regarded as the properbusiness of the interpreter. But becauseSolomon is a type (vaticinium reale) of thespiritual David in his glory, and earthly love a

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 8By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyshadow of the heavenly, and the Song a part ofsacred history and of canonical Scripture, wewill not omit here and there to indicate that thelove subsisting between Christ and His churchshadows itself forth in it.But the prevailing view which Jacob (1771)established, and which has predominated sinceUmbreit (1820) and Ewald (1826), is differentfrom ours. According to them, the Songcelebrates the victory of the chaste passion ofconjugal love. The beloved of Shulamith is ashepherd, and Solomon acts toward her a partlike that of Don Juan with Anna, or of Faust withGretchen. Therefore, of course, his authorship isexcluded, although Anton (1773), the secondoldest representative of this so-called shepherdhypothesis, supposes that Solomon at a laterperiod of his life recognised his folly, and nowhere magnanimously praises the fidelity ofShulamith, who had spurned his enticementsaway from her; and a Jewish interpreter, B.Holländer (1871), following Hezel (1780),supposes that Solomon represents himself asan enticer, only to exhibit the idea of femalevirtue as triumphing over the greatestseduction. Similarly also Godet (1867), who,resting on Ewald, sees here a very complicatedmystery presented by Solomon himself, andpointing far beyond him: Solomon, the earthlyMessiah; Shulamith, the true Israel; theshepherd, Jahve, and as Jahve who is about tocome, the heavenly Solomon; the little sisters,heathenism—it is the old allegory, able foreverything, only with changed names and adifferent division of the parts which here comesin again by the back-door of the seductionhistory.Thus this seduction-history has not put an endto the over-ingenious allegorizing. In one point,however, at least, it has aided in theunderstanding of the Song. Herder saw in theSong a collection of Solomonic songs of love,which he translated (1778), as the oldest andthe most beautiful, from the Orient. But Goethe,who in the Westöst. Divan (1819) praises theSong as the most divine of all love-songs,recognised, after the appearance of Umbreit’sComm., the unity also of the “inexplicablymysterious.”We are not conscious of any prejudice whichmakes it impossible for us to do justice to theinterpretation to which Umbreit and Ewaldgave currency. It abundantly accounts for thereception of the book into the canon, for sointerpreted it has a moral motive and aim. Andthe personality of Solomon has certainly notmerely a bright side, which is typical, but also adark side, which is pregnant with dark issuesfor his kingdom; it may perhaps be possiblethat in the Song the latter, and not the former, isbrought to view. Then, indeed, the inscriptionwould rest on an error; for that in this case alsothe Solomonic authorship could be maintained,is an idea which, in the traditional-apologeticalinterest, mounts up to a faith in the impossible.But the truth goes beyond the tradition; theinscription would then indicate a traditionalinterpretation which, as is evident from thebook itself, does not correspond with itsoriginal meaning and aim. “It is clear to everyunprejudiced mind,” says Gustav Baur, “that in2:10–15; 4:8–15, a different person speaksfrom the royal wooer; for (1) Solomon onlysays, ‘my friend’ [1:15, etc.]; while, on the otherhand, the shepherd heaps up flattering words ofwarmest love; (2) Solomon praises only thepersonal beauty of the woman; the shepherd,the sweet voice, the enchanting look, the warmlove, the incorruptible chastity of hisbeloved;—in short, the former reveals the eyeand the sensuousness of the king; the latter, theheart of a man who is animated by the divineflame of true love.” We only ask, meanwhile,whether words such as 4:13 are less sensuousthan 4:5, and whether the image of the twingazelles is not more suitable in the mouth of theshepherd than the comparison of theattractions of Shulamith with the exotic plantsof Solomon’s garden? “In three passages,” saysGodet, “lies open the slender thread whichEwald’s penetrating eye discovered under theflowers and leaves which adorn the poem: ‘Thekings has brought me into his palace’ (Song1:4); ‘I knew not how my heart has brought meto the chariots of a princely people’ (Song 6:12);

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 9By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study‘I was a wall, and have found peace before hiseyes’ (Song 8:10).” The same critic also finds inseveral passages an apparent contrarietybetween Solomon and the shepherd. “Observe,”says he, “e.g., 1:12, 13, where the shepherd—whom Shulamith calls her spikenard, andcompares to a bunch of flowers on her breast—is placed over against the king, who sits on hisdivan; or 7:9f. where, suddenly interrupting theking, she diverts the words which he speaksconcerning herself to her beloved; or 8:7,where, leaning on the arm of her beloved, sheexpresses her disregard for riches, with whichSolomon had sought to purchase her love.” Butspikenard is not the figure of the shepherd, notat all the figure of a man; and she who ispraised as a “prince’s daughter” (Song 7:2)cannot say (Song 6:12) that, enticed bycuriosity to see the royal train, she was takenprisoner, and now finds herself, against herwill, among the daughters of Jerusalem; and hewhom she addresses (Song 8:12) can be noother than he with whom she now finds herselfin her parents’ home. The course of theexposition will show that the shepherd who isdistinguished from Solomon is nothing elsethan a shadow cast by the person of Solomon.The Song is a dramatic pastoral. The ancientssaw in it a carmen bucolicum mimicum.Laurentius Peträus, in his Heb.-DanishParaphrase (1640), calls it carmen bucolicum,); George Wachter (1722),an “opera divided into scenic parts.” It acquiresthe character of a pastoral poem from this, thatShulamith is a shepherdess, that she thinks ofSolomon as a shepherd, and that Solomoncondescends to occupy the sphere of life and ofthought of the shepherdess. It is not properlyan idyll, nor yet properly a drama. Not an idyll,because the life-image which such a miniaturedrawn from life—such, e.g., as the Adon. ofTheocritus presents to us—unfolds itself withina brief time without interruption; in the Song,on the other hand, not merely are the placesand persons interchanged, but also the times.The whole, however, does not fall into littledetached pictures; but there runs through thiswreath of figures a love-relation, whichembodies itself externally and internally beforeour eyes, and attains the end of its desire, andshows itself on the summit of this end as onethat is not merely sensuous, but moral. TheSong is certainly not a theatrical piece: theseparate pieces would necessarily have beenlonger if the poet had had in view the changesof theatrical scenery. But at all events thetheatre is not a Semitic institution, but is ofIndo-Persian Greek origin. Jewish poetryattempted the drama only after it began inAlexandrinism to emulate Greece. Grätz’ (1871)polemic against the dramatists is so farjustified. But yet we see, as in the Book of Job,so in the Song, the drama in process offormation from the lyric and narrative form ofpoetry, as it has developed among the Greeksfrom the lyric, and among the Indians from theepic. In the Book of Job the colloquies are allnarrative. In the Song this is never the case; forthe one expression, “answered my beloved, andsaid to me” (Song 2:10), is not to be comparedwith, “and Job answered and said:” the formerexpression indicates a monologue. And in the“Daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1:5, etc.) wehave already something like the chorus of theGreek drama. The ancient Greek MSS bearinvoluntary testimony to this dramaticcharacter of the Song. There are several of themwhich prefix to the separate addresses thenames of the persons speaking, as ἡ ύ φὴ ὁυ φί ς. And the Aethiopic translation makesfive separate pieces, probably, as the Cod. Sinait.shows, after the example of the LXX, whichappear as divisions into Acts.The whole falls into the following six Acts:—(1.) The mutual affection of the lovers, 1:2–2:7, with the conclusion, “I adjure you, yedaughters of Jerusalem.”(2.) The mutual seeking and finding of thelovers, 2:8–3:5, with the conclusion, “Iadjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem.”(3.) The fetching of the bride, and themarriage, 3:6–5:1, beginning with, “Who isthis … ?” and ending with, “Drink and bedrunken, beloved.”(4.) Love scorned, but won again, 5:2–6:9.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 10By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study(5.) Shulamith the attractively fair buthumble princess, 6:10–8:4, beginning with,“Who is this … ?” and ending with, “I adjureyou, ye daughters of Jerusalem.”(6.) The ratification of the covenant of lovein Shulamith’s home, 8:5–14, beginningwith, “Who is this … ?”Zöckler reckons only five acts, for hecomprehends 5:2–8:4 in one; but he himselfconfesses its disproportionate length; and thereasons which determine him are invalid; forthe analogy of the Book of Job, which, besides,including the prologue and the epilogue, fallsinto seven formal parts, can prove nothing; andthe question, “Who is this?” 6:10, which heinterprets as a continuation of the encomium in6:9, is rather to be regarded, like 3:8; 8:5, as aquestion with reference to her who isapproaching, and as introducing a new act; forthe supposition that 6:9 requires to be furtherexplained by a statement of what was includedin the “blessing” and the “praising” isunwarranted, since these are ideas requiring nosupplement to explain them (Gen. 30:13; Ps.41:3; 107:32), and the poet, if he had wished toexplain the praise as to its contents, would havedone this otherwise (cf. Prov. 31:28f.) than in away so fitted to mislead. Rightly, Thrupp (1862)regards 6:10 as the chorus of the daughters ofJerusalem. He divides as follows: (1) TheAnticipation, 1:2–2:7; (2) the Awaiting, 2:8–3:5;(3) the Espousal and its Results, 3:6–5:1; (4)the Absence, 5:2–8; (5) the Presence, 5:9–8:4;(6) Love’s Triumph, 8:5–12, with theConclusion, 8:13, 14. But how can 5:9 begin anew formal part? It is certainly the reply toShulamith’s adjuration of the daughters ofJerusalem, and not at all the commencement ofa new scene, much less of a new act.The first scene of the first act I formerly (1851)extended to 1:17, but it reaches only to 1:8; forup to this point Solomon is absent, but with 1:9he begins to converse with Shulamith, and thechorus is silent—the scene has thus changed.Kingsbury in his translation (1871) rightlyplaces over 1:9 the superscription, “TheEntrance of the King.”The change of scenery is not regulated inaccordance with stage decoration, for the Songis not a theatrical piece. The first act is playedboth in the dining-room and in the wine-roomappertaining to the women of the royal palace.In the second act, Shulamith is again at home. Inthe third act, which represents the marriage,the bride makes her entrance into Jerusalemfrom the wilderness, and what we further thenhear occurs during the marriage festival. Thelocality of the fourth act is Jerusalem, withoutbeing more particularly defined. That of thefifth act is the park of Etam, and then Solomon’scountry house there. And in the sixth act we seethe newly-married pair first in the way toShulem, and then in Shulamith’s parental home.In the first half of the dramatic pictures,Shulamith rises to an equality with Solomon; inthe second half, Solomon descends to anequality with Shulamith. At the close of the first,Shulamith is at home in the king’s palace; at theclose of the second, Solomon is at home withher in her Galilean home.In our monograph on the Song (1851), webelieve we have proved that it distinctly bearsevidences of its Solomonic origin. Thefamiliarity with nature, the fulness and extentof its geographical and artistic references, themention made of so many exotic plants andforeign things, particularly of such objects ofluxury as the Egyptian horses, point to such anauthorship; in common with Ps. 72, it has themultiplicity of images taken from plants; withthe Book of Job, the dramatic form; with theProverbs, manifold allusions to Genesis. If notthe production of Solomon, it must at least havebeen written near his time, since the author ofProv. 1–9, the introduction to the older Book ofProverbs, for the origin of which there is nobetter defined period than that of Jehoshaphat(909–883 B.C.), and the author or authors of thesupplement (Prov. 22:17–24:22), reveal anacquaintance with the Song. Ewald also, andHitzig, although denying that Solomon is theauthor because it is directed against him, yetsee in it a produce of the most flourishing stateof the language and of the people; they ascribeit to a poet of the northern kingdom about 950

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 11By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyB.C. Modern Jewish criticism surpasses,however, on the field of O.T. history, theanachronisms of the Tübingen school. As Zunzhas recently (Deut. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxvii.)sought to show that the Book of Leviticus waswritten about a thousand years after Moses,that there never was a prophet Ezekiel, that thedates of this book are fictitious, etc.; so Grätzattempts to prove that the Song in itsGraecising language and Greek customs andsymbols bears evidences of the Syro-Macedonian age; that the poet was acquaintedwith the idylls of Theocritus and the Greekerotic poets, and, so far as his Israelitishstandpoint admitted, imitates them; and that heplaced an ideal picture of pure Jewish love overagainst the immorality of the Alexandrine courtand its Hellenistic partisans, particularly ofJoseph b. Tobia, the collector of taxes in thetime of Ptolemy Euergetes (247–221 B.C.),—apicture in which “the Shepherd,” now growninto a fixed idea, renders welcome service, incontrast to Solomon, in whom the poet glancesat the court of Alexandria. One is thus remindedof Kirschbaum (1833), who hears in Ezek. 33:5an echo of Cicero’s dixi et salvavi animam, andin the Song 2:17, a reference to the Bethar ofBarcochba. We do not deny the penetrationwhich this chief of Jewish historians hasexpended on the establishment of hishypothesis; but the same penetration mayprove that the Babylon.-Assyr. “syllabaries” ofthe time of Asurbanipal (667–626) belong tothe Greek era, because there occurs therein theword azamillav (knife), and this is the Greekσ ίλη; or that the author of Prov. 1–9 alludes in7:23 to Eros and his quivers, and in 9:1 betraysa knowledge of the seven artes liberales.Parallels to the Song are found whereversensuous love is sung, also in the Pastoralia ofLongus, without the least dependence of oneauthor upon another. And if such a relation isfound between Theocritus and the Song, then itmight rather be concluded that he becameacquainted with it in Alexandria from Jewishliterates, than that the author of the Song hasimitated Greek models, as Immanuel Romi, theArabians and Dante; besides, it is not at all theSong lying before us which Grätz expounds, butthe Song modified by violent corrections of allkinds, and fitted to the supposed tendency.Thus he changes (Song 1:3) שְׁ‏ מָ‏ נֶּיָך (thineunguent) into שָ‏ מִ‏ יָך ‏,בְׁ‏ and שֶּ‏ מֶּ‏ ן ‏ּתּורַ‏ ק (ointmentpoured forth) into ‏ּתַ‏ מְׁ‏ רּוק Shulamith‏—.שמך saysthis of her beautiful shepherd, and what follows(Song 1:4) the damsels say to him; he changesand then ‏,הביאנו into הביאני ‏,משכנו into משכניremarks: “Shulamith mentions it as to thepraise of her beloved, that the damsels,attracted by his beauty, love him, and say tohim, ‘Draw us, we will run after thee; thoughthe king brought us into his changers, we wouldrejoice only with thee, and prefer thee to theking.’ ” His too confident conjectural criticismpresents us with imaginary words, such as(Song 3:10) אֲ‏ הָ‏ בִ‏ ים (ebony); with unfortunatespecimens of style, such as (Song 6:10), “Thouhast made me weak, O daughter of Aminadab;”and with unheard-of renderings, such as (Song8:5), “There where thy mother has woundedthee;” for he supposes that Shulamith ischastised by her mother because of her love.This Song is certainly not written by Solomon,nor yet does it date from the Syro-Macedoniantime, but was invented in Breslau in the 19thcentury of our era!Grätz (1871) has placed yet farther down thanthe Song the Book of Ecclesiastes, in which hehas also found Graecisms; the tyrannical kingtherein censured is, as he maintains, Herod theGreat, and the last three verses (Eccl. 12:12–14)are not so much the epilogue of the book as thatof the Hagiographa which closes with it.Certainly, if this was first formed by thedecision of the conference in Jerusalem about65, and of the synod in Jabne about 90, and thereception of the Books of Ecclesiastes and theSong was carried not without controversy, thenit lies near to regard these two books as themost recent, originating not long before. But thefact is this: We learn from Jud-ajim iii. 5, iv. 6, cf.Edujoth v. 3, that in the decade before thedestruction of Jerusalem the saying was currentamong the disciples of Hillel and Shammai, that

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 12By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study“all Holy Scriptures (Kethubîm) pollute thehands;” but that the question whetherEcclesiastes is included was answered in thenegative by the school of Shammai, and in theaffirmative by the school of Hillel—of the Songnothing is here said. But we learn further, thatseveral decades later the Song also wascomprehended in this controversy along withEcclesiastes; and in an assembly of seventy-twodoctors of the law in Jabne, that decree, “allHoly Scriptures (Kethubîm) pollute the hands,”was extended to Ecclesiastes and the Song. R.Akiba (or some one else) asserted, inopposition to those who doubted the canonicityof the Song, “No day in the whole history of theworld is so much worth as that in which theSong of Songs was given; for all the Kethubîmare holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy.”From this Grätz draws the conclusion that theHagiographa was received as canonical for thefirst time about 65, and that its canon wasfinally fixed so as to include Ecclesiastes andthe Song, not till about 90; but this conclusionrests on the false supposition that “HolyScriptures” (Kethubîm) is to be understoodexclusive of the Hagiographa, which is just aserroneous as that Sephârim designates theprophets, with the exclusion of theHagiographa. Holy Kethubîm is a generaldesignation, without distinction, of all thecanonical books, e.g., Bathra i. 6, and Sepharîmin like manner, with the exception only of theTôra, Megilla i. 8, 333. 1, Shabbath 115b. And itrests on a misapprehension of the questiondiscussed: the question was not whetherEcclesiastes and the Song should be admitted,but whether they had been justly admitted, andwhether the same sacred character should beascribed to them as to the other holy writings;for in Bathra 14b -15a (without a parallel in thePalest. Talmud) the enriching of the canon bythe addition of the Books of Isaiah, Proverbs,the Song, and Ecclesiastes, is ascribed to theHezekiah-Collegium (Prov. 21:5), and thus isdated back in the period before the rise of thegreat synagogue. That Philo does not cite theSong proves nothing; he cites none of the fiveMegilloth. But Josephus (C. Ap. 1, § 8; cf. Euseb.H. E. iii. 10), since he enumerates five books ofthe Mosaic law, thirteen books of prophetichistory and prediction, and four books of ahymno-ethical character, certainly means bythese four the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,and the Song, which in the Alexandrine canonstand thus connected. His work, Cont. Apion,was not indeed written till about 100 A.D.; butJosephus there speaks of a fact which hadexisted for centuries. The Song and Ecclesiastesformed part of the sacred books among theHellenists as well as among the Palestinian Jewsof the first Christian century; but, as thoseTalmud notices show, not without opposition.The Old Testament canon, as well as that of theNew Testament, had then also its Antilegomena.These books were opposed not because of theirlate origin, but because their contentsapparently militated against the truth ofrevelation and the spiritual nature of revealedreligion. Similar doubts, though not so strongand lasting, were also uttered with reference toProverbs, Esther, and Ezekiel.The history of the exposition of this book isgiven in detail by Christian D. Ginsburg in TheSong of Songs, London 1857; and by Zöckler in“The Song,” forming part of Lange’s Bibelwerk,1868, and supplemented by an account of theEnglish interpretations and translations in theAnglo-American translation of this work byGreen. Zunz, in the preface to Rebenstein’s(Bernstein’s) Lied der Lieder, 1834, has given anhistorical account of the Jewish expositors.Steinschneider’s המזכיר (Heb. Bibliograph. 1869,p. 110ff.) presents a yet fuller account of theJewish commentaries. The Münich royal librarycontains a considerable number of these,—e.g.,by Moses b. Tibbon, Shemariah, ImmanuelRomi, Moses Calais (who embracedChristianity). Our commentary presents variousnew contributions to the history of theinterpretation of this book. No other book ofScripture has been so much abused, by anunscientific spiritualizing, and an over-scientificunspiritual treatment, as this has. Luther says,at the close of his exposition: Quodsi erro,veniam meretur primus labor, nam aliorum

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 13By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studycogitationes longe plus absurditatis habent. Toinventory the maculatur of these absurdities isa repulsive undertaking, and, in the main, auseless labour, from which we absolveourselves.Song of Solomon 1Song 1:1. The title of the book at once denotesthat it is a connected whole, and is the work ofone author.—Ch. 1:1. The Song of Songs,composed by Solomon. The genitival connection,“Song of Songs,” cannot here signify the Songconsisting of a number of songs, any more thancalling the Bible “The Book of books” leads us tothink of the 24 + 27 canonical books of which itconsists. Nor can it mean “one of Solomon’ssongs;” the title, as it here stands, would thenbe the paraphrase of יר שִ‏ ירֵ‏ י שְׁ‏ ׳ ‏,שִ‏ chosen for thepurpose of avoiding the redoubled genitives;but “one of the songs” must rather have beenexpressed by יר מִ‏ שִ‏ ירֵ‏ י ‏.שִ‏ It has already beenrightly explained in the Midrash: “the mostpraiseworthy, most excellent, most highlytreasuredamong the songs.” The connection issuperl. according to the sense (cf. ηof Sophocles), and signifies that songwhich, as such, surpasses the songs one and allof them; as “servant of servants,” Gen. 9:25,denotes a servant who is such more than allservants together. The plur. of the second wordis for this superl. sense indispensable (vid.,Dietrich’s Abhand. zur hebr. Gramm. p. 12), butthe article is not necessary: it is regularlywanting where the complex idea takes the placeof the predicate, Gen. 9:25, Ex. 29:37, or of theinner member of a genitival connection ofwords, Jer. 3:19; but it is also wanting in otherplaces, as Ezek. 16:7 and Eccles. 1:2; 12:8,where the indeterminate plur. denotes nottotality, but an unlimited number; here it wasnecessary, because a definite Song—that,namely, lying before us—must be designated asthe paragon of songs. The relative clause, “asherlishlōmō,” does not refer to the single word“Songs” (Gr. Venet. ῶ ῦ), as it would if theexpression were יר מֵ‏ הַ‏ שִ‏ ׳ ‏,שִ‏ but to the whole ideaof “the Song of Songs.” A relative clause ofsimilar formation and reference occurs at 1Kings 4:2: “These are the princes, asher lo,which belonged to him (Solomon).” They whodeny the Solomonic authorship usually explain:The Song of Songs which concerns or refers toSolomon, and point in favour of thisinterpretation to LXX B. ὅ ἐσ Σ λ., which,however, is only a latent genit., for which LXX A.ῷ Σ λ. Lamed may indeed introduce thereference of a writing, as at Jer. 23:9; but if thewriting is more closely designated as a “Song,”“Psalm,” and the like, then Lamed with thename of a person foll. is always the Lamedauctoris; in this case the idea of reference to, ase.g., at Isa. 1:1, cf. 1 Kings 5:13, is unequivocallyexpressed by ‏.על We shall find that thedramatized history which we have here, or aswe might also say, the fable of the melodramaand its dress, altogether correspond with thetraits of character, the favourite turns, thesphere of vision, and the otherwise well-knownstyle of authorship peculiar to Solomon. Wemay even suppose that the superscription waswritten by the author, and thus by Solomonhimself. For in the superscription of theProverbs he is surnamed “son of David, king ofIsrael,” and similarly in Ecclesiastes. But he whoentitles him merely “Solomon” is most probablyhimself. On the other hand, that the title is bythe author himself, is not favoured by the factthat instead of the ‏,ש everywhere else used inthe book, the fuller form asher is employed.There is the same reason for this as for the factthat Jeremiah in his prophecies always usesש asher, but in the Lamentations interchangeswith asher. This original demonstrative ש isold-Canaanitish, as the Phoenician ‏,אש arrestedhalf-way toward the form asher, shows. In theBook of Kings it appears as a North Palest.provincialism, to the prose of the pre-exilianliterature it is otherwise foreign; but the preexilianshir and kinah (cf. also Job 19:29) makeuse of it as an ornament. In the post-exilianliterature it occurs in poetry (Ps. 122:3, etc.)and in prose (1 Chron. 5:20; 27:27); inEcclesiastes it is already a component part of

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 14By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythe rabbinism in full growth. In a pre-exilianbook-title ש in place of asher is thus not to beexpected. On the other hand, in the Song itself itis no sign of a post-exilian composition, as Grätzsupposes. The history of the language andliterature refutes this.First ActThe Mutual Affection of the Lovers—Ch. 1:2–2:7First Scene of the Act, 1:2–8The first act of the melodrama, which presentsthe loving relationship in the glow of the firstlove, now opens, 1:5, 6, are evidently the wordsof Shulamith. Here one person speaks of herselfthroughout in the singular. But in vv. 2–4 oneand several together speak. Ewald alsoattributes vv. 2–4 to Shulamith, as wordsspoken by her concerning her shepherd and tohim. She says, “Draw me after thee, so will werun,” for she wishes to be brought by him out ofSolomon’s court. But how can the praise, “anointment poured forth is thy name,”—anexpression which reminds us of what is said ofSolomon, 1 Kings 5:11 [1 Kings 4:31], “and hisfame was in all nations round about,”—beapplicable to the shepherd? How couldShulamith say to the shepherd, “virgins lovethee,” and including herself with others, say tohim also, “we will exult and rejoice in thee”? onwhich Ewald remarks: it is as if something kepther back from speaking of herself alone. Howthis contradicts the psychology of love aimingat marriage! This love is jealous, and does notdraw in rivals by head and ears. No; in vv. 2–4 itis the daughters of Jerusalem, whom Shulamithaddresses in v. 5, who speak. The one who ispraised is Solomon. The ladies of the palace areat table (vid., under v. 12), and Solomon, afterwhom she who is placed amid this splendourwhich is strange to her asks longingly (v. 7), isnot now present. The two pentastichalstrophes, vv. 2–4, are a scholion, the table songof the ladies; the solo in both cases passes overinto a chorus.Song 1:2. From these words with which as asolo the first strophe begins:Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth,we at once perceive that she who here speaks isonly one of many among whom Solomon’skisses are distributed; for min is partitive, ase.g., Ex. 16:27 (cf. Jer. 48:32 and Isa. 16:9), withthe underlying phrase ק נְׁשִ‏ יקָ‏ ה ‏,נָשַ‏ osculumosculari = figere, jungere, dare. Nashak properlymeans to join to each other and to join together,particularly mouth to mouth. פִ‏ יהּו is the parallelform of יו ‏,פִ‏ and is found in prose as well as inpoetry; it is here preferred for the sake of therhythm. Böttcher prefers, with Hitzig, יַשְׁ‏ קֵ‏ נִי (“lethim give me to drink”); but “to give to drinkwith kisses” is an expression unsupported.In line 2 the expression changes into anaddress:For better is thy love than wine.Instead of “thy love,” the LXX render “thybreasts,” for they had before them the wordwritten defectively as in the traditional text,דַ‏ דַ‏ יִם Even granting that the dual ‏.דַ‏ דֶּ‏ יָך and reador דַ‏ דִ‏ ים could be used in the sense of the Greekσ ί (Rev. 1:13), of the breasts of a man (forwhich Isa. 32:12, Targ., furnishes no sufficientauthority); yet in the mouth of a woman it wereunseemly, and also is itself absurd as thelanguage of praise. But, on the other hand, thatlovely— is not the true reading (“for more דדיְִךthus he says to me—are,” etc.), R. Ismael rightlysays, in reply to R. Akiba, Aboda zara 29b, andrefers to שְׁ‏ מָ‏ נִיָך following (v. 3), which requiresthe mas. for ‏.דדיך Rightly the Gr. Venet. ἱ σ ὶἔ ες, for דודִ‏ ים is related to אַ‏ הֲ‏ , almost asἔ ς to γάπη, Minne to Liebe. It is a plur. likewhich, although a pluraletantum, is yet ‏,חַ‏ יִיםconnected with the plur. of the pred. The verbalstem דוד is an abbreviated reduplicative stemבָ‏ ה(Ewald, § 118. 1); the root דו appears to signify“to move by thrusts or pushes” (vid., under Ps.42:5); of a fluid, “to cause to boil up,” to whichthe word ‏,דּוד a kitchen-pot, is referred. It is thevery same verbal stem from which דָ‏ יִד (David),

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 15By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythe beloved, and the name of the foundress ofCarthage, ידון (= דִ‏ ידֹה ‏(דִ‏ Minna, is derived. Theadj. tov appears here and at 3a twice in itsnearest primary meaning, denoting that whichis pleasant to the taste and (thus particularly inArab.) to the smell.Song 1:3. This comparison suaves prae vino, aswell as that which in line 3 of the pentastich, v.3,To the smell thy ointments are sweet,shows that when this song is sung wine ispresented and perfumes are sprinkled; but thelove of the host is, for those who sing, moreרֵ‏ יחַ‏ excellent than all. It is maintained thatsignifies fragrance emitted, and not smell.Hence Hengst., Hahn, Hölem., and Zöck. explain:in odour thy ointments are sweet. Now thewords can certainly, after Josh. 22:10, Job 32:4,1 Kings 10:23, mean “sweet in (of) smell;” butin such cases the word with Lamed of referencenaturally stands after that to which it gives thenearer reference, not as here before it.Therefore Hengst.: ad odorem unguentoremtuorum quod attinet bonus est, but such givingprominence to the subject and attraction (cf. 1Sam. 2:4a; Job 15:20) exclude one another; theaccentuation correctly places לריח out of thegen. connection. Certainly this word, like theArab. ryḥ, elsewhere signifies odor, and theHiph. הֵ‏ רִ‏ יחַ‏ (araḥ) odorari; but why should notbe also used in the sense of odoratus, since ריחin the post-bibl. Heb. חוש הריח means the senseof smell, and also in Germ. “riechen” means toemit fragrance as well as to perceive fragrance?We explain after Gen. 2:9, where Lamedintroduces the sense of sight, as here the senseof smell. Zöckl. and others reply that in such acase the word would have been ריח ‏;לָ‏ but theart. is wanting also at Gen. 2:9 (cf. 3:6), and wasnot necessary, especially in poetry, which hasthe same relation to the art. as to asher, which,wherever practicable, is omitted.Thus in line 4:An ointment poured forth is thy name.By “thy ointments,” line 3, spices are meant, bywhich the palace was perfumed; but thefragrance of which, as line 4 says, is surpassedby the fragrance of his name. שֵ‏ ם (name) and(fragrance) form a paranomasia by which שֶּ‏ מֶּ‏ ןthe comparison is brought nearer Eccles. 7:1.Both words are elsewhere mas.; but soonerthan ‏,שם so frequently and universally mas.(although its plur. is מות ‏,שֵ‏ but cf. שמן ‏,(אָ‏ בות maybe used as fem., although a parallel example iswanting (cf. dvăsh, mōr, nōphĕth, kĕmāh, andthe like, which are constantly mas.). Ewaldtherefore translates חמן תורק as a proper name:“O sweet Salbenduft” [Fragrance of Ointment];and Böttcher sees in turăk a subst. in the senseof “sprinkling” [Spreng-Oel ]; but a name like“Rosenoel” [oil of roses] would be moreappropriately formed, and a subst. form תורק is,‏ּתּוגָ‏ ה in Heb. at least, unexampled (for neithernor ל ‏,ּתּובַ‏ in the name Tubal-Cain, is parallel).Fürst imagines “a province in Palestine whereexcellent oil was got,” called Turak; “Turkish”Rosenöl recommends itself, on the contrary, bythe fact of its actual existence. Certainly less ishazarded when we regard shĕmĕn, as heretreated exceptionally, as fem.; thus, not: utunguentum nomen tuum effunditur, which,besides, is unsuitable, since one does not emptyout or pour out a name; but: unguentum quodeffunditur (Hengst., Hahn, and others), anointment which is taken out of its depositoryand is sprinkled far and wide, is thy name. Theharsh expression שמן מּורָ‏ ק is intentionallyavoided; the old Heb. language is notφ λ έ χ ς (fond of participles); and, besides,to rub off, to wash ‏,מרק sounds badly with מורקaway. Perhaps, also, שמן יּורַ‏ ק is intentionallyavoided, because of the collision of the weaksounds n and j. The name Shēm is derived fromthe verb shāmā, to be high, prominent,remarkable: whence also the name for theheavens (vid., under Ps. 8:2). That attractivecharm (lines 2, 3), and this glory (line 4), make

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 18By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studydevoid of beauty as not to venture to love andhope to be loved: “Black am I, yet comely.”These words express humility withoutabjectness. She calls herself “black,” althoughshe is not so dark and unchangeably black as an“Ethiopian” (Jer. 13:23). The verb שָ‏ חַ‏ ר has thegeneral primary idea of growing dark, andsignifies not necessarily soot-blackness(modern Arab. shuhwar, soot), but blacknessmore or less deep, as חַ‏ ר ‏,שַ‏ the name of themorning twilight, or rather the morning grey,shows; for (Arab.) saḥar denotes the latter, asdistinguished from (Arab.) fajr, the morningtwilight (vid., under Is. 14:12; 47:11). Shespeaks of herself as a Beduin who appears toherself as (Arab.) sawda, black, and calls theinhabitants of the town (Arab.) ḥawaryyat (cutecandidas). The Vav we have translated “yet”(“yet comely”); it connects the opposite, whichexists along with the blackness. נָ‏ אוָ‏ ה is the fem.of the adj. אֲ‏ וַ‏ י = נַ‏ אֲ‏ וֶּ‏ ה = נָ‏ אוֶּ‏ ה ‏,נַ‏ which is also formedby means of the doubling of the third stemletterof נָ‏ אַ‏ י ‏,נָ‏ אַ‏ ו = נָ‏ אָ‏ ה (to bend forward, to aim;to be corresponding to the aim, conformable,becoming, beautiful), e.g., like עֲ‏ נָ‏ ן ‏,רַ‏ to be full ofsap, green. Both comparisons run parallel tonigra et bella; she compares on the one handthe tents of Kedar, and on the other the tapestryof Solomon. אֹהֶּ‏ ל signifies originally, in general,the dwelling-place, as בַ‏ יִת the place where onespends the night; these two words interchange:ohel is the house of the nomad, and bäith is thetent of him who is settled. קֵ‏ דַ‏ ר (with the Tsere,probably from (Arab.) ḳadar, to have ability, bepowerful, though of after the Heb. manner, asTheodoret explains and Symm. also translates:σ σ ς, from (Heb.) Kadar, atrum esse) isthe name of a tribe of North. Arab. Ishmaelites(Gen. 25:13) whom Pliny speaks of (Cedraei inhis Hist. Nat. 5:11), but which disappeared atthe era of the rise of Islam; the Karaite Jefethuses for it the word (Arab.) Ḳarysh, for hesubstitutes the powerful Arab tribe from whichMuhammed sprung, and rightly remarks: “Shecompares the colour of her skin to theblackness of the hair tents of theKoreishites,”—even to the present day theBeduin calls his tent his “hair-house” (bêtwabar, or, according to a more modernexpression, bêt sa’r, ית שֵ‏ עָ‏ ר ‏;(בֵ‏ for the tents arecovered with cloth made of the hair of goats,which are there mostly black-coloured or grey.On the one hand, dark-coloured as the tents ofthe Kedarenes, she may yet, on the other hand,compare herself to the beautiful appearance ofthe יְׁרִ‏ יעות of Solomon. By this word we will haveto think of a pleasure-tent or pavilion for theking; pavillon (softened from Lat. papilio) is apleasure-tent spread out like the flyingbutterfly. This Heb. word could certainly alsomean curtains for separating a chamber; but inthe tabernacle and the temple the curtainsseparating the Most Holy from the Holy Placewere not so designated, but are called פָ‏ רֹכֶּ‏ ת andand as with the tabernacle, so always ‏;מָ‏ סָ‏ ‏ְךelsewhere, יְׁרִ‏ יעות (from ע , to tremble, to movehither and thither) is the name of the cloths ortapestry which formed the sides of the tent (Isa.54:2); of the tent coverings, which were namedin parall. with the tents themselves as theclothing of their framework (Hab. 3:7; Jer. 4:20;10:20; 49:29). Such tent hangings will thus alsobe here meant; precious, as those described Ex.26 and 36, and as those which formed thetabernacle on Zion (2 Sam. 7; cf. 1 Chron. 17:1)before the erection of the temple. Those madein Egypt were particularly prized in ancienttimes.Song 1:6. Shulamith now explains, to thosewho were looking upon her with inquisitivewonder, how it is that she is swarthy:6a Look not on me because I am black,Because the sun has scorched me.If the words were ל־ּתִ‏ רְׁ‏ אּו ‏(ּתִ‏ רְׁ‏ אֶּ‏ ינָ‏ ה)‏ בִ‏ י ‏,אַ‏ then themeaning would be: look not at me, stare not at‏(כִ‏ י (elsewhere ש with ‏,אַ‏ ל־ּתִ‏ רְׁ‏ אֻ‏ נִי me. Butfollowing, means: Regard me not that I amblackish (subnigra); the second ש is to beinterpreted as co-ordin. with the first (that …that), or assigning a reason, and that objectivelyיָרַ‏

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 19By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study(for). We prefer, with Böttch., the former,because in the latter case we would have hadsignifies, שְׁ‏ חַ‏ רְׁ‏ חֹרֶּ‏ ת The quinqueliterum ‏.שהשמשin contradistinction to חור ‏,שָ‏ that which is blackhere and there, and thus not altogether black.This form, as descriptive of colour, isdiminutive; but since it also means id quodpassim est, if the accent lies on passim, asdistinguished from raro, it can be also taken as‏,יְׁפֵ‏ יפָ‏ ה increasing instead of diminishing, as in(Symm. The LXX trans. π έ λεψέ ‏.הֲ‏ פַ‏ כְׁ‏ פַ‏ ‏ְךπ έ λεψέ) ε ὁ ἥλ ς: the sun has lookedaskance on me. But why only askance? TheVenet. better: ε έ ε; but that is too little.The look is thought of as scorching; whereforeAquila: συ έ υσέ ε, it has burnt me; andTheodotion: πε έφ υξέ ε, it has scorched meover and over. שָ‏ זַ‏ ף signifies here not adspicere(Job 3:9; 41:10) so much as adurere. In thisword itself (cogn. דַ‏ ף ‏;שָ‏ Arab. sadaf, whenceasdaf, black; cf. דָ‏ עַ‏ ‏ְך and עַ‏ ‏ְך ‏,זָ‏ Job 17:1), thelooking is thought of as a scorching; for the raysof the eye, when they fix upon anything, gatherthemselves, as it were, into a focus. Besides, asthe Scriptures ascribe twinkling to the morningdawn, so it ascribes eyes to the sun (2 Sam.12:11), which is itself as the eye of the heavens.The poet delicately represents Shulamith asregarding the sun as fem. Its name in Arab. andold Germ. is fem., in Heb. and Aram. for themost part mas. My lady the sun, she, as it were,says, has produced on her this swarthiness.She now says how it has happened that she isthus sunburnt:6b My mother’s sons were angry with me,Appointed me as keeper of the vineyards—Mine own vineyard have I not kept.If “mother’s sons” is the parallel for “brothers”then the expressions are of the same ‏,(אַ‏ חַ‏ י)‏import, e.g., Gen. 27:29; but if the twoexpressions stand in apposition, as Deut. 13:7[6], then the idea of the natural brother issharpened; but when “mother’s sons” standsthus by itself alone, then, after Lev. 18:9, itmeans the relationship by one of the parentsalone, as “father’s wife” in the language of theO.T. and also 1 Cor. 5:5 is the designation of astep-mother. Nowhere is mention made ofShulamith’s father, but always, as here, only ofher mother, 3:4; 8:2; 6:9; and she is only namedwithout being introduced as speaking. One isled to suppose that Shulamith’s own father wasdead, and that her mother had been marriedagain; the sons by the second marriage werethey who ruled in the house of their mother.These brothers of Shulamith appear towardsthe end of the melodrama as rigorous guardiansof their youthful sister; one will thus have tosuppose that their zeal for the spotless honourof their sister and the family proceeded from anendeavour to accustom the fickle or dreamingchild to useful activity, but not without stepbrotherlyharshness. The form חֲ‏ רּו ‏,נִ‏ Ewald, §193c, and Olsh. p. 593, derive from רַ‏ ר ‏,חָ‏ the‏,(נִ‏ חְׁ‏ רַ‏ ר =) נִ‏ חַ‏ ר or נָ‏ חַ‏ ר Niph. of which is eitherנִ‏ חַ‏ ר Gesen. § 68, An. 5; but the plur. of thisshould, according to rule, have been נִ‏ חָ‏ רּו (cf.however, חֲ‏ לּו ‏,נַ‏ profanantur, Ezek. 7:24); andחַ‏ רָ‏ ר from נִ‏ חַ‏ ר what is more decisive, thiseverywhere else expresses a different passionחָ‏ רָ‏ ה 379). (2, 1060 § Böttch. from that of anger;נִ‏ חֲ‏ רּו is used of the burning of anger; and that‏,נֶּ‏ חֱ‏ רּו can be another form for ‏(נִ‏ חְׁ‏ רָ‏ ה = נֶּ‏ חֱ‏ רָ‏ ה (fromis shown, e.g., by the interchange of אֶּ‏ חֱ‏ רּו andAmos ,6:6 resisted ‏,נֶּ‏ חְׁ‏ לּו like ‏,נֶּ‏ חְׁ‏ רּו the form ‏;אִ‏ חֲ‏ רּוthe bringing together of the ח and the halfguttural ‏.ר Nĕhĕrā (here as Isa. 41:11; 45:24)means, according to the original, mid. signif. ofthe Niph., to burn inwardly, φλέγεσθ =ὀ γίζεσθ . Shulamith’s address consistsintentionally of clauses with perfects placedtogether: she speaks with childlike artlessness,and not “like a book;” in the language of a book,‏.שָ‏ מֻ‏ נִי would have been used instead of וַ‏ יְׁשִ‏ מּונִיBut that she uses נֹטֵ‏ רָ‏ ה (from ‏,נטר R. טר = η ε ;cf. Targ. Gen. 37:11 with Luke 2:51), and not

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 20By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyas they were wont to say in Judea, after ‏,נֹצֵ‏ רָ‏ הProv. 27:18, and after the designation of thetower for the protection of the flocks by thename of “the tower of the nōtsrīm” [thewatchmen], 2 Kings 17:9, shows that the maidis a Galilean, whose manner of speech isAramaizing, and if we may so say, platt-Heb. (=Low Heb.), like the Lower Saxon plattdeutsch.‏,נוטֵ‏ רָ‏ ה ‏,נֹטְׁ‏ רָ‏ ה particip. Of the three forms of thesubst. we here read the middle one, used ‏,נוטֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ת(Ewald, § 188b), but retaining the long ē(ground-form, nâṭir).The plur. אֶּ‏ ת־הךְׁ‏ ׳ does not necessarily imply thatshe had several vineyards to keep, it is thecateg. plur. with the art. designating the genus;custodiens vineas is a keeper of a vineyard. Butwhat kind of vineyard, or better, vine-garden, isthat which she calls רְׁ‏ מִ‏ י שֶּ‏ לִ‏ י ‏,כַ‏ i.e., meam ipsiusvineam? The personal possession is doublyexpressed; shĕlli is related to cărmī as a nearerdefining apposition: my vineyard, that whichbelongs to me (vid., Fr. Philippi’s Status constr.pp. 112–116). Without doubt the figure refersto herself given in charge to be cared for byherself: vine-gardens she had kept, but her ownvine-garden, i.e., her own person, she had notkept. Does she indicate thereby that, inconnection with Solomon, she has lost herself,with all that she is and has? Thus in 1851 Ithought; but she certainly seeks to explain whyshe is so sunburnt. She intends in this figurativeway to say, that as the keeper of a vineyard sheneither could keep nor sought to keep her ownperson. In this connection căarmī, which by nomeans = the colourless memet ipsam, is to betaken as the figure of the person in its externalappearance, and that of its fresh-bloomingattractive appearance which directly accordswith רֶּ‏ ם ‏,כֶּ‏ since from the stem-word כָ‏ רַ‏ ם (Arab.),karuma, the idea of that which is noble anddistinguished is connected with this‏,כֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ם designation of the planting of vines (for[Arab.] karm, cf. karmat, of a single vine-stock,denotes not so much the soil in which the vinesare planted, as rather the vines themselves):her kĕrĕm is her (Arab.) karamat, i.e., herstately attractive appearance. If we mustinterpret this mystically then, supposing thatShulamith is the congregation of Israel movedat some future time with love to Christ, then bythe step-brothers we think of the teachers, whoafter the death of the fathers threw around thecongregation the fetters of their humanordinances, and converted fidelity to the lawinto a system of hireling service, in which all itsbeauty disappeared. Among the allegorists,Hengstenberg here presents the extreme of aninterpretation opposed to what is true and fine.Song 1:7. These words (vv. 5–6) are addressedto the ladies of the palace, who look upon herwith wonder. That which now follows isaddressed to her beloved:7 O tell me, thou whom my soul loveth: wherefeedest thou?Where causest thou it (thy flock) to liedown at noon?Among the flocks of thy companions!The country damsel has no idea of theoccupation of a king. Her simplicity goes notbeyond the calling of a shepherd as of thefairest and the highest. She thinks of theshepherd of the people as the shepherd ofsheep. Moreover, Scripture also describesgoverning as a tending of sheep; and theMessiah, of whom Solomon is a type, is speciallyrepresented as the future Good Shepherd. Ifnow we had to conceive of Solomon as presentfrom the beginning of the scene, then here in v.7 would Shulamith say that she would gladly bealone with him, far away from so many who arelooking on her with open eyes; and, indeed, insome country place where alone she feels athome. The entreaty “O tell me” appearscertainly to require (cf. Gen. 37:19) thepresence of one to whom she addresses herself.But, on the other hand, the entreaty only asksthat he should let her know where he is; shelongs to know where his occupation detainshim, that she may go out and seek him. Herrequest is thus directed toward the absent one,as is proved by v. 8. The vocat., “O thou whommy soul loveth,” is connected with ‏ּתָ‏ ה ‏,אַ‏ which

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 21By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studylies hid in הַ‏ גִ‏ ידָ‏ ה (“inform thou”). It is acircumlocution for “beloved” (cf. Neh. 13:26), or“the dearly beloved of my soul” (cf. Jer. 12:7).The entreating request, indica quaeso mihi ubipascis, reminds one of Gen. 37:16, where,however, ubi is expressed by יפֹה ‏,אֵ‏ while hereby יכָ‏ ה ‏,אֵ‏ which in this sense is ἁπ. λεγ. For ubi =2 ‏,(אֵ‏ יכו)‏ אֵ‏ יכֹה is otherwise denoted only by ‏,אֵ‏ יפֹהKings 6:13, and usually יֵה ‏,אַ‏ North Palest., byHosea הִ‏ י ‏.אֱ‏ This אֵ‏ יכָ‏ ה elsewhere meansאֵ‏ יְך quomodo, and is the key-word of the Kîna, asis of the Mashal (the satire); the Song uses for it,in common with the Book of Esther, יכָ‏ כָ‏ ה ‏.אֵ‏ Inthemselves כֹה and ה ‏,כָ‏ which with אֵ‏ י preceding,are stamped as interrog. in a sense analogous tohic, ecce, ε ς, and the like; the local, temporal,polite sense rests only on a conventional ususloq., Böttch. § 530. She wishes to know wherehe feeds, viz., his flock, where he causes it (viz.,רָ‏ בַ‏ ץ his flock) to lie down at mid-day. The verb(R. ‏,רב with the root signif. of condensation) isthe proper word for the lying down of a fourfootedanimal: complicatis pedibus procumbere(cubare); Hiph. of the shepherd, who causes theflock to lie down; the Arab. rab’a is the name forthe encampment of shepherds. The time forencamping is the mid-day, which as the time ofthe double-light, i.e., the most intense light in its‏,שַ‏ לָ‏ מָ‏ ה ‏.צָ‏ הֳ‏ רַ‏ יִם ascending and descending, is calledoccurring only here, signifies nam cur, but is‏,אֲ‏ שֶּ‏ ר לָ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ ה according to the sense = ut ne, likeDan. 1:10 (cf. Ezra 7:23); מָ‏ ה ‏,לָ‏ without Dag. forteeuphone., is, with the single exception of Job7:20, always milra, while with the Dag. it ismilel, and as a rule, only when the followingword begins with א״הע carries forward the toneto the ult. Shulamith wishes to know the placewhere her beloved feeds and rests his flock,that she might not wander about among theflocks of his companions seeking and asking forhim. But what does כְׁ‏ עֹטְׁ‏ יָה mean? It is at allevents the part. act. fem. of עָ‏ טַ‏ י which is heretreated after the manner of the strong verb, thekindred form to the equally possible עֹטָ‏ ה (from’âṭaja) and יָ‏ ה ‏.עֹטִ‏ As for the meaning, instarerrabundae (Syr., Symm., Jerome, Venet.,Luther) recommends itself; but עטה must then,unless we wish directly to adopt the readingטעה (Böttch.), have been transposed from כְׁ‏ טֹעֲ‏ יָהin ‏,עטה which must have been assumed if ‏,(תעה)‏the usual sense of velare (cf. טַ‏ ף ‏,(עָ‏ did not affordan appropriate signification. Indeed, velans, viz.,sese, cannot denote one whom consciousnessveils, one who is weak or fainting (Gesen. Lex.),for the part. act. expresses action, not passivity.But it can denote one who covers herself (theLXX, perhaps, in this sense ὡς πε λλ έ η),because she mourns (Rashi); or after Gen.38:14 (cf. Martial, 9:32) one who mufflesherself up, because by such affected apparentmodesty she wishes to make herself known as aHierodoule or harlot. The former of thesesignifications is not appropriate; for to appearas mourning does not offend the sense ofhonour in a virtuous maiden, but to create theappearance of an immodest woman is to herintolerable; and if she bears in herself theimage of an only beloved, she shrinks in horrorfrom such a base appearance, not only as adebasing of herself, but also as a desecration ofthis sanctuary in her heart. Shulamith callsentreatingly upon him whom her soul loveth totell her how she might be able directly to reachhim, without feeling herself wounded in theconsciousness of her maidenhood and of theexclusiveness of her love. It is therebysupposed that the companions of her onlybeloved among the shepherds might not treatthat which to her is holy with a holy reserve,—athought to which Hattendorff has given delicateexpression in his exposition of the Song, 1867.If Solomon were present, it would be difficult tounderstand this entreating call. But he is notpresent, as is manifest from this, that she is notanswered by him, but by the daughters ofJerusalem.8 If thou knowest not, thou fairest of women,Go after the footprints of the flock,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 22By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyAnd feed thy kids beside the shepherds’tents.Song 1:8. יָפָ‏ ה ‏,הַ‏ standing in the address or call,is in the voc.; the art. was indispensable,because “the beautiful one among women” =the one distinguished for beauty among them,and thus is, according to the meaning,superlative; cf. Judg. 6:15, Amos 2:16, with Judg.יָפָ‏ ה 5:24; Luke 1:28; Ewald, § 313c. The verbrefers to the fundamental idea: integrum,completum esse, for beauty consists in wellproportionedfulness and harmony of themembers. That the ladies of the court areexcited to speak thus may arise from this, thatone often judges altogether otherwise of a man,whom one has found not beautiful, as soon ashe begins to speak, and his countenancebecomes intellectually animated. And did not,in Shulamith’s countenance, the strangeexternal swarthiness borrow a brightness fromthe inner light which irradiated her features, asshe gave so deep and pure an expression to herlonging? But the instruction which her childlike,almost childish, naïvete deserved, the daughtersלא her. of Jerusalem do not feel disposed to givesupplied, signifies, often without the obj. ידעלָ‏ ‏ְך non sapere, e.g., Ps. 82:5; Job 8:9. Thesubjoined guards against this inclusive sense, inwhich the phrase here would be offensive. Thisdat. ethicus (vid., 2:10, 11, 13, 17; 4:6; 8:14),used twice here in v. 8 and generally in theSong, reflects that which is said on the will ofthe subject, and thereby gives to it an agreeablecordial turn, here one bearing the colour of agentle reproof: if thou knowest not to thee,—i.e., if thou, in thy simplicity and retirement,knowest it not, viz., that he whom thou thinkestthou must seek for at a distance is near to thee,and that Solomon has to tend not sheep butpeople,—now, then, so go forth, viz., from theroyal city, and remain, although chosen to royalhonours, as a shepherdess beside thine ownsheep and kids. One misapprehends the answerif he supposes that they in reality point out theway to Shulamith by which she might reach herobject; on the contrary, they answer herironically, and, entering into her confusion ofmind, tell her that if she cannot apprehend theposition of Solomon, she may just remain whatshe is. עָ‏ קֵ‏ ב (Arab. ’aḳib), from קַ‏ ב ‏,עָ‏ to be convex,arched, is the heel; to go in the heels (thereading fluctuates between the form, with andwithout Dag. dirimens in ‏(ק of one = to presshard after him, to follow him immediately. Thatthey assign to her not goats or kids of goats, butkids, רִ‏ יֹת ‏,גְׁ‏ is an involuntary fine delicatethought with which the appearance of theelegant, beautiful shepherdess inspires them.But that they name kids, not sheep, may arisefrom this, that the kid is a near-lying eroticemblem; cf. Gen. 38:17, where it has beenfittingly remarked that the young he-goat wasthe proper courtesan-offering in the worship ofAphrodite (Movers’ Phönizier, I 680). It is as ifthey said: If thou canst not distinguish betweena king and shepherds, then indulge thy lovethoughtsbeside the shepherds’ tents,—remaina country maiden if thou understandest nothow to value the fortune which has placed theein Jerusalem in the royal palace.Second Scene of the First Act, 1:9–2:7Song 1:9–11. Solomon, while he was absentduring the first scene, is now present. It isgenerally acknowledged that the words whichfollow were spoken by him:9 To a horse in the chariot of PharaohDo I compare thee, my love.10 Beautiful are thy cheeks in the chains,Thy neck in the necklaces.11 Golden chains will we make for thee,With points of silver.Till now, Shulamith was alone with the ladies ofthe palace in the banqueting-chamber. Solomonnow comes from the banquet-hall of the men (v.12); and to 2:7, to which this scene extends, wehave to think of the women of the palace as stillpresent, although not hearing what Solomonsays to Shulamith. He addresses her, “my love:”she is not yet his bride. רַ‏ עְׁ‏ יָה (female friend),from עָ‏ ה)‏ רָ‏ עַ‏ י ‏,(רָ‏ to guard, care for, tend,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 23By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyethically: to delight in something particularly,to take pleasure in intercourse with one, isרֵ‏ עֶּ‏ ה the mas. is ‏;נַעֲ‏ רָ‏ ה formed in the same way as(= ra’j), abbreviated עַ‏ ‏,רֵ‏ whence the fem. ră’yāh(Judg. 11:37; Chethîb), as well as rē’āh, also withreference to the ground-form. At once, in thefirst words used by Solomon, one recognises aPhilip, i.e., a man fond of horses,—an importantfeature in the character of the sage (vid., Sur. 38of the Koran),—and that, one fond of Egyptianhorses: Solomon carried on an extensiveimportation of horses from Egypt and othercountries (2 Chron. 9:28); he possessed 1400war-chariots and 12,000 horsemen (1 Kings10:26); the number of stalls of horses for hischariots was still greater (1 Kings 5:6) [4:26].Horace (Ode iii. 11) compares a young sprightlymaiden to a nimble and timid equa trima;Anacreon (60) addresses such an one: “thouThracian filly;” and Theocritus says (Idyl xviii.30, 31):“As towers the cypress mid the garden’sbloom,As in the chariot proud Thessalian steed,Thus graceful rose-complexioned Helenmoves.”But how it could occur to the author of the Songto begin the praise of the beauty of ashepherdess by saying that she is like a horse inPharaoh’s chariot, is explained only by thesupposition that the poet is Solomon, who, as akeen hippologue, had an open eye for thebeauty of the horse. Egyptian horses were thenesteemed as afterwards the Arabian were.Moreover, the horse was not native to Egypt,but was probably first imported thither by theHyksos: the Egyptian name of the horse, andparticularly of the mare, ses-t, ses-mut, and ofthe chariot, markabuta, are Semitic. סּוסָ‏ ה is herenot equitatus (Jerome), as Hengst. maintains:“Susah does not denote a horse, but is usedcollectively;” while he adds, “Shulamith iscompared to the whole Egyptian cavalry, and istherefore an ideal person.” The formerstatement is untrue, and the latter is absurd.Sūs means equus, and susā may, indeed,collectively denote the stud (cf. Josh. 19:5 with1 Chron. 4:31), but obviously it first denotes theequa. But is it to be rendered, with the LXX andthe Venet., “to my horse”? Certainly not; for thechariots of Pharaoh are just the chariots ofEgypt, not of the king of Israel. The Chirek inwhich this word terminates is the Ch. compag.,which also frequently occurs where, as hereand Gen. 49:11, the second member of theword-chain is furnished with a prep. (vid.,under Ps. 113). This i is an old genitival ending,which, as such, has disappeared from thelanguage; it is almost always accented as thesuff. Thus also here, where the Metheg shows‏,רִ‏ כְׁ‏ בֵ‏ י plur. that the accent rests on the ult. Theoccurring only here, is the amplificative poetic,and denotes state equipage. דִ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ ה is the trans. ofwhich combines the meanings aequum and ‏,דָ‏ מָ‏ הaequalem esse. Although not allegorizing, yet,that we may not overlook the judiciousness ofthe comparison, we must remark thatShulamith is certainly a “daughter of Israel;” adaughter of the people who increased in Egypt,and, set free from the bondage of Pharaoh,became the bride of Jahve, and were brought bythe law as a covenant into a marriage relationto Him.The transition to v. 10 is mediated by the effectof the comparison; for the head-frame of thehorse’s bridle, and the poitral, were thencertainly, must as now, adorned with silkentassels, fringes, and other ornaments of silver(vid., Lane’s Modern Egypt, I 149). Jerome,absurdly, after the LXX: pulchrae sunt genae‏,ּתֹר turtle, tuae sicut turturis. The name of theredupl. turtur, is a pure onomatopoeia, whichhas nothing to do with ‏,ּתּור whence ‏,דּור to goround about, or to move in a circle; and turtledove’scheeks—what absurdity! Birds have nocheeks; and on the sides of its neck the turtledovehas black and white variegated feathers,which also furnishes no comparison for thecolour of the cheeks. ‏ּתורִ‏ ים are the roundornaments which hang down in front on bothsides of the head-band, or are also inwoven in

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 24By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study‏,ּתּור forehead; the braids of hair in thecircumire, signifies also to form a circle or arow; in Aram. it thus denotes, e.g., the hem of aנָ‏ אוּו garment and the border round the eye. In‏.אֹכַ‏ ל ‏,לֵ‏ אמֹר (vid., at 5a) the Aleph is silent, as inare strings of pearls as a necklace; for the חֲ‏ רּוזִ‏ יםnecklace (Arab. kharaz) consists of one ormore, for the most part, of three rows of pearls.The verb חָ‏ רַ‏ ז signifies, to bore through and tostring together; e.g., in the Talm., fish which onestrings on a rod or line, in order to bring themto the market. In Heb. and Aram. the secondarysense of stringing predominates, so that tostring pearls is expressed by ‏,חרז and to borethrough pearls, by ‏;קדח in Arab., the primarymeaning of piercing through, e.g., michraz, ashoemaker’s awl.After v. 11, one has to represent to himselfShulamith’s adorning as very simple andmodest; for Solomon seeks to make her gladwith the thought of a continued residence at theroyal court by the promise of costly and elegantornaments. Gold and silver were so closelyconnected in ancient modes of representation,that in the old Aegypt. silver was called nub het,or white gold. Gold derived its name of זָ‏ הָ‏ ב fromits splendour, after the witty Arab. word zahab,to go away, as an unstable possession; silver iscalled סֶּ‏ ף ‏,כֶּ‏ from סַ‏ ף ‏,כָ‏ scindere, abscindere, apiece of metal as broken off from the motherstone,like the Arab. dhuḳrat, as set free fromthe lump by means of the pickaxe (cf. at Ps.19:11; 84:3). The name of silver has here, notwithout the influence of the rhythm (v. 8:9), thearticle designating the species; the Songfrequently uses this, and is generally in usingthe art. not so sparing as poetry commonly is.makes prominent the points of silver as עִ‏ ם‏,נַעֲ‏ שֶּ‏ ה something particular, but not separate. InSolomon includes himself among the otherinhabitants, especially the women of the palace;for the plur. majest. in the words of God ofHimself (frequently in the Koran), or persons ofrank of themselves (general in the vulgarArab.), is unknown in the O.T. They would makefor her golden globules or knobs with (i.e.,provided with …; cf. Ps. 89:14) points of silversprinkled over them,—which was a powerfulenticement for a plain country damsel.Song 1:12. Now for the first time Shulamithaddresses Solomon, who is before her. It mightbe expected that the first word will eitherexpress the joy that she now sees him face toface, or the longing which she had hithertocherished to see him again. The verse followingaccords with this expectation:12 While the king is at his table,My nard has yielded its fragrance.means: with fut. foll., usually ‏,עַ‏ ד אֲ‏ שֶּ‏ ר or עַ‏ ד שusque eo, until this and that shall happen, 2:7,17; with the perf. foll., until somethinghappened, 3:4. The idea connected with “until”may, however, be so interpreted that therecomes into view not the end of the period assuch, but the whole length of the period. Sohere in the subst. clause following, which initself is already an expression of continuance,donec = dum (erat); so also עד alone, withoutasher, with the part. foll. (Job 1:18), and theinfin. (Judg. 3:26; Ex. 33:22; Jonah 4:2; cf. 2Kings 9:22); seldomer with the fin. foll., oncewith the perf. foll. (1 Sam. 14:19), once (for Job8:21 is easily explained otherwise) with the fut.foll. (Ps. 141:10, according to which Gen. 49:10also is explained by Baur and others, butwithout עד כי in this sense of limited duration:“so long as,” being anywhere proved). מְׁ‏ סִ‏ בו isthe inflected סֵ‏ ב ‏,מֵ‏ which, like the post-bibl.סָ‏ בַ‏ ב signifies the circuit of the table; for ‏,מְׁ‏ סִ‏ בָ‏ הsignifies also, after 1 Sam. 16:11 (the LXXrightly, after the sense ὐ ὴ λ θῶ ε ), toseat themselves around the table, from which itis to be remarked that not till the Greek-Romanperiod was the Persian custom of reclining attable introduced, but in earlier times they sat (1Sam. 20:5; 1 Kings 13:20; cf. Ps. 128:3).Reclining and eating are to be viewed asseparate from each other, Amos 6:4; סֵ‏ ב ‏,הֵ‏ “threeand three they recline at table,” is in matter as

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 25By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyin language mishnic (Berachoth 42b; cf.Sanhedrin 2:4, of the king: if he reclines at table,the Tôra must be opposite him). Thus: While(usque eo, so long as), says Shulamith, the kingwas at his table, my nard gave forth itsfragrance.is an Indian word: naladâ, i.e., yielding נִ‏ רְׁ‏ דְׁ‏fragrance, Pers. nard (nârd), Old Arab. nardîn(nârdîn), is the aromatic oil of an Indian plantvaleriana, called Nardostachys ‘Gatâmânsi (hairtressnard). Interpreters are wont to representShulamith as having a stalk of nard in her hand.Hitzig thinks of the nard with which she who isspeaking has besprinkled herself, and he can dothis because he regards the speaker as one ofthe court ladies. But that Shulamith hasbesprinkled herself with nard, is as little to bethought of as that she has in her hand a sprig ofnard (spica nardi), or, as the ancients said, anear of nard; she comes from a region where nonard grows, and nard-oil is for a countrymaiden unattainable. Horace promises Virgil acadus (= 9 gallons) of the best wine for a smallonyx-box full of nard; and Judas estimated at300 denarii (about £8, 10s.) the genuine nard(how frequently nard was adulterated we learnfrom Pliny) which Mary of Bethany pouredfrom an alabaster box on the head of Jesus, sothat the whole house was filled with the odourof the ointment (Mark 14:5; John 12:2). There,in Bethany, the love which is willing to sacrificeall expressed itself in the nard; here, the nard isa figure of the happiness of love, and itsfragrance a figure of the longing of love. It isonly in the language of flowers that Shulamithmakes precious perfume a figure of the lovewhich she bears in the recess of her heart, andwhich, so long as Solomon was absent, breatheditself out and, as it were, cast forth its fragrance(cf. 2:13; 7:14) in words of longing. She haslonged for the king, and has sought to draw himtowards her, as she gives him to understand. Heis continually in her mind.13 A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me,Which lieth between by breasts.14 A bunch of cypress-flowers is my beloved tome,From the vine-gardens of Engedi.Song 1:13, 14. Most interpreters, ignoring thelessons of botany, explain 13a of a little bunchof myrrh; but whence could Shulamith obtainthis? Myrrh, רַ‏ ר)‏ מֹר ‏,מָ‏ to move oneself in ahorizontal direction hither and thither, orgradually to advance; of a fluid, to flow over theplain), belongs, like the frankincense, to theamyrids, which are also exotics in Palestine;and that which is aromatic in theBalsamodendron myrrha are the leaves andflowers, but the resin (Gummi myrrhae, ormerely myrrha) cannot be tied in a bunch. Thusthe myrrh here can be understood in no otherway than as at 5:5; in general רור ‏,צְׁ‏ according toHitzig’s correct remark, properly denotes notwhat one binds up together, but what one tiesup—thus sacculus, a little bag. It is notsupposed that she carried such a little bag withher (cf. Isa. 3:20), or a box of frankincense(Luth. musk-apple); but she compares herbeloved to a myrrh-repository, which day andnight departs not from her bosom, andpenetrates her inwardly with its heartstrengtheningaroma. So constantly does shethink of him, and so delightful is it for her todare to think of him as her beloved.כֹפֶּ‏ ר thought. The 14th verse presents the sameis the cypress-cluster or the cypress-flowers,ύπ ς (according to Fürst, from = כפר ‏,עפר tobe whitish, from the colour of the yellow-whiteflowers), which botanists call Lawsonia, and inthe East Alḥennā; its leaves yield the orangecolour with which the Moslem women staintheir hands and feet. אֶּ‏ שְׁ‏ כֹל (from כַ‏ ל ‏,שָ‏ tointerweave) denotes that which is woven,tresses, or a cluster or garland of their flowers.Here also we have not to suppose thatShulamith carried a bunch of flowers; in herimagination she places herself in the vinegardenswhich Solomon had planted on the hillterracesof Engedi lying on the west of the DeadSea (Eccles. 2:4), and chooses a cluster offlowers of the cypress growing in that tropicalclimate, and says that her beloved is to herinternally what such a cluster of cypress-

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 26By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyflowers would be to her externally. To be ableto call him her beloved is her ornament; and tothink of him refreshes her like the mostfragrant flowers.Song 1:15. In this ardour of loving devotion,she must appear to the king so much the morebeautiful.15 Lo, thou art fair, my love.Lo, thou art fair; thine eyes are doves.This is a so-called comparatio decurtata, as wesay: feet like the gazelle, i.e., to which theswiftness of the gazelle’s feet belongs (Hab.3:19); but instead of “like doves,” for thecomparison mounts up to equalization, theexpression is directly, “doves.” If the pupil ofthe eye were compared with the feathers of thedove (Hitz.), or the sprightliness of the eye withthe lively motion hither and thither of the dove(Heiligst.), then the eulogium would stand outof connection with what Shulamith has justsaid. But it stands in reference to it if her eyesare called doves; and so the likeness to doves’eyes is attributed to them, because purity andgentleness, longing and simplicity, expressthemselves therein. The dove is, like the myrtle,rose, and apple, an attribute of the goddess oflove, and a figure of that which is trulywomanly; wherefore יְׁמִ‏ ימָ‏ ה (the Arab. name of adove), Columbina, and the like names ofwomen, columba and columbari, are words offondness and caressing. Shulamith gives back toSolomon his eulogium, and rejoices in theprospect of spending her life in fellowship withhim.16 Behold, thou art comely, my beloved; yeacharming;Yea, our couch is luxuriously green.17 The beams of our house are cedars,Our wainscot of cypresses.Song 1:16, 17. If v. 16 were not the echo of herheart to Solomon, but if she therewith meantsome other one, then the poet should at leastnot have used נְָׁך ‏,הִ‏ but נֵ‏ ה ‏.הִ‏ Hitzig remarks, thatup to “my beloved” the words appear as thoseנָעִ‏ ים of mutual politeness—that therefore(charming) is added at once to distinguish herbeloved from the king, who is to herinsufferable. But if a man and a woman aretogether, and he says הִ‏ נְָך and she says נְָׁך ‏,הִ‏ thatis as certainly an interchange of address as thatone and one are two and not three. He praisesher beauty; but in her eyes it is rather he who isbeautiful, yea charming: she rejoicesbeforehand in that which is assigned to her.Where else would her conjugal happiness findits home but among her own rural scenes? Thecity with its noisy display does not please her;and she knows, indeed, that her beloved is aking, but she thinks of him as a shepherd.Therefore she praises the fresh green of theirfuture homestead; cedar tops will form the roofof the house in which they dwell, and cypressesits wainscot. The bed, and particularly thebridal-bower (D. M. Z. xxii. 153),—but notmerely the bed in which one sleeps, but also thecushion for rest, the divan (Amos 6:4),—has thename רֶּ‏ ש ‏,עֶּ‏ from רַ‏ ש ‏,עָ‏ to cover over; cf. the“network of goats’ hair” (1 Sam. 19:13) and theπε of Holofernes (Judith 10:21; 13:9),(whence our kanapee = canopy), a bed coveredover for protection against the ώ πες, thegnats. עֲ‏ נַ‏ ן ‏,רַ‏ whence here the fem. adj. accentedon the ult., is not a word of colour, but signifiesto be extensible, and to extend far and wide, aslentus in lenti salices; we have no word such asthis which combines in itself the ideas ofsoftness and juicy freshness, of bending andelasticity, of looseness, and thus of overhangingramification (as in the case of the weepingwillow). The beams are called ‏,קֹרות from רָ‏ ה ‏,קָ‏ tomeet, to lay crosswise, to hold together (cf.congingere and contignare). רָ‏ חִ‏ יטֵ‏ נּו (afteranother reading, ח׳ ‏,רַ‏ from חִ‏ יט ‏,רָ‏ with Kametzimmutable, or a virtual Dag.) is North Palest. =(Ex. troughs ‏,רְׁ‏ הָ‏ טִ‏ ים (Kerî), for in place of רהִ‏ ׳2:16), the Samarit. has רחטים (cf. sahar andsahhar, circumire, zahar and zahhar, whencethe Syr. name of scarlet); here the word, if it isnot defect. plur. (Heiligst.), is used as collect.sing. of the hollows or panels of a wainscotedceiling, like φά , whence the LXX φ ώ

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 27By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study(Symm. φ ώσε ς), and like lacunae, whencelacunaria, for which Jerome has here laquearia,which equally denotes the wainscot ceiling.‏,מרזבים Abulwalîd glosses the word rightly bygutters (from הַ‏ ט ‏,רָ‏ to run); only this and ἱά of the Gr. Venet. is not anarchitectural expression, like ‏,רהיטים which isstill found in the Talm. (vid., Buxtorf’s Lex.). To‏,חָ‏ רַ‏ ט from ‏,חריטנו suppose a transposition fromto turn, to carve (Ew., Heiligst., Hitz.), isבְׁ‏ רותִ‏ ים in ת accordingly not necessary. As thebelongs to the North Palest. (Galilean) form ofspeech, so also ח for ה in this word: an exchangeof the gutturals was characteristic of theGalilean idiom (vid., Talm. citations by Frankel,Einl. in d. jerus. Talm. 1870, 7b). Well knowingthat a mere hut was not suitable for the king,Shulamith’s fancy converts one of themagnificent nature-temples of the North Palest.forest-solitudes into a house where, oncetogether, they will live each for the other.Because it is a large house, although not largeby art, she styles it by the poet. plur. bāattenu.The mystical interpretation here finds in Isa.60:13 a favourable support.Song of Solomon 2Song 2:1. What Shulamith now further saysconfirms what had just been said. City andpalace with their splendour please her not;forest and field she delights in; she is a tenderflower that has grown up in the quietness ofrural life.1 I am a meadow-flower of Sharon,A lily of the valleys.We do not render: “the wild-flower,” “the lily,”… for she seeks to represent herself not as theone, but only as one of this class; thedefiniteness by means of the article sometimesbelongs exclusively to the second number of thegenit. word-chain. מלאך ה׳ may equally (vid., at1:11, Hitz. on Ps. 113:9, and my Comm. on Gen.9:20) mean “an angel” or “the angel of Jahve;”and בת׳ יש׳ “a virgin,” or “the virgin of Israel”(the personification of the people). Forhhăvatstsĕlĕth (perhaps from hhivtsēl, a denom.quadril. from bĕtsĕl, to form bulbs or bulbousknolls) the Syr. Pesh. (Isa. 35:1) useschamsaljotho, the meadow-saffron, colchicumautumnale; it is the flesh-coloured flower withleafless stem, which, when the grass is mown,decks in thousands the fields of warmerregions. They call it filius ante patrem, becausethe blossoms appear before the leaves and theseed-capsules, which develope themselves atthe close of winter under the ground. Shulamithcompares herself to such a simple and commonflower, and that to one in Sharon, i.e., in theregion known by that name. Sharon is peraphaer. derived from רון ‏.יְׁשָ‏ The most celebratedplain of this name is that situated on theMediterranean coast between Joppa andCaesarea; but there is also a trans-JordanicSharon, 1 Chron. 5:16; and according toEusebius and Jerome, there is also anotherdistrict of this name between Tabor and theLake of Tiberias, which is the one hereintended, because Shulamith is a Galilean: shecalls herself a flower from the neighbourhoodof Nazareth. Aquila translates: “A rosebud ofSharon;” but שושַ‏ נָ‏ ה (designedly here the fem.form of the name, which is also the name of awoman) does not mean the Rose which wasbrought at a later period from Armenia andPersia, as it appears, and cultivated in the East(India) and West (Palestine, Egypt, Europe). Itis nowhere mentioned in the canonicalScriptures, but is first found in Sir. 24:14;39:13; 50:8; Wisd. 2:8; and Esth. 1:6, LXX. Sinceall the rosaceae are five-leaved, and all theliliaceae are six-leaved, one might suppose,with Aben Ezra, that the name sosan (susan) isconnected with the numeral ש ‏,שֵ‏ and points tothe number of leaves, especially since one iswont to represent to himself the Eastern liliesas red. But they are not only red, or ratherviolet, but also white: the Moorish-Spanishazucena denotes the white lily. The root-word‏,שֵ‏ ש will thus, however, be the same as that ofbyssus, and יִש ‏,שַ‏ white marble. The comparison

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 28By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyreminds us of Hos. 14:6 [5], “I shall be as thedew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily.”are deep valleys lying between הָ‏ עֲ‏ מָ‏ קִ‏ יםmountains. She thinks humbly of herself; forbefore the greatness of the king she appearsdiminutive, and before the comeliness of theking her own beauty disappears—but he takesup her comparison of herself, and gives it anotable turn.2 As a lily among thorns,So is my love among the daughters.Song 2:2. By הַ‏ חוחִ‏ ים are not meant the thorns ofthe plant itself, for the lily has no thorns, andthe thorns of the rose are, moreover, calledkotsim, and not hhohhim; besides, ben (among)contradicts that idea, since the thorns are onthe plant itself, and it is not among them—thusthe hhohhim are not the thorns of the flower-חוחַ‏ around. stem, but the thorn-plants that aredesignates the thorn-bush, e.g., in theallegorical answer of King Josiah to Amaziah, 2Kings 14:9. Simplicity, innocence, gentleness,are the characteristics in which Shulamithsurpasses all נות ‏,בָ‏ i.e., all women (vid., 6:9), asthe lily of the valley surpasses the thorn-bushesaround it. “Although thorns surround her, yetcan he see her; he sees her quiet life, he findsher beautiful.” But continuing this reciprocalrivalry in the praise of mutual love, she says:3a As an apple-tree among the trees of thewood,So is my beloved among the sons.Song 2:3. The apple-tree, the name of which,and denominates it ‏,נָ‏ פַ‏ ח is formed from ‏,ּתַ‏ פּוחַ‏from its fragrant flower and fruit, is as the kingיַעַ‏ ר view. among fruit trees, in Shulamith’s(from ר ‏,יָעַ‏ to be rough, rugged, uneven) is thewilderness and the forest, where are also foundtrees bearing fruit, which, however, is for themost part sour and unpalatable. But the appletreeunites delicious fruit along with a gratefulshade; and just such a noble tree is the object ofher love.3b Under his shadow it delighted me to sitdown;And his fruit is sweet to my taste.In concupivi et consedi the principal verbcompletes itself by the co-ordinating of a verbinstead of an adv. or inf. as Isa. 42:21; Esth. 8:7;Ewald, § 285. However, concupivi et consedi isyet more than concupivi considere, for therebyshe not only says that she found delight insitting down, but at the same time also in sitting‏,חִ‏ ‏ֹּמַ‏ ד down in the shadow of this tree. The Pieloccurring only here, expresses the intensity ofthe wish and longing. The shadow is a figure ofprotection afforded, and the fruit a figure ofחֵ‏ ‏ְך enjoyment obtained. The taste is denoted byto chew, or also imbuere; and ‏,חָ‏ נְַך from ‏,חִ‏ נְְׁך =that which is sweet is called תוק ‏,מָ‏ from thesmacking connected with an agreeable relish.The usus loq. has neglected this image, true tonature, of physical circumstances in words,especially where, as here, they are transferredto the experience of the soul-life. The tastebecomes then a figure of the soul’s power ofperception ( ἰσθη ); a man’s fruit are hiswords and works, in which his inward natureexpresses itself; and this fruit is sweet to thoseon whom that in which the peculiar nature ofthe man reveals itself makes a happy, pleasingimpression. But not only does the person of theking afford to Shulamith so great delight, heentertains her also with what can and must giveher enjoyment.4 He has brought me into the wine-house,And his banner over me is love.Song 2:4. After we have seen the ladies of thepalace at the feast, in which wine is presented,and after Solomon, till now absent, has enteredבֵ‏ ית the banqueting-chamber (Arab. méglis), byvineyard, we are not to understand the הַ‏ יַיִןwhich would be called bēth hăggephānim orbēth hā’ănāvim, as in Acts 1:12, Pesh. the Mountof Olives, bēth zaite. He has introduced her tothe place where he royally entertains hisfriends. Well knowing that she, the poor andsunburnt maiden, does not properly belong to

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 29By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studysuch a place, and would rather escape awayfrom it, he relieves her from her fear andbashfulness, for he covers her with his fearinspiring,awful, and thus surely protecting,banner; and this banner, which he waves overher, and under which she is well concealed, is“love.” דֶּ‏ גֶּ‏ ל (from גַ‏ ל ‏,דָ‏ to cover) is the name of thecovering of the shaft or standard, i.e., pannus,the piece of cloth fastened to a shaft. Like apennon, the love of the king hovers over her;and so powerful, so surpassing, is the delight ofthis love which pervades and transports her,that she cries out:5 Support me with grape-cakes,Refresh me with apples:For I am sick with love.Song 2:5. She makes use of the intensive formas one in a high degree in need of thereanimating of her almost sinking life: סִ‏ ‏ֹּמֵ‏ ‏ְך isthe intens. of מַ‏ ‏ְך ‏,סָ‏ to prop up, support, or, ashere, to under-prop, uphold; and פֵ‏ ד ‏,רִ‏ theintens. of רָ‏ פַ‏ ד (R. ‏,(רף to raise up from beneath(vid., at Prov. 7:16), to furnish firm ground andsupport. The apple is the Greek attribute ofAphrodite, and is the symbol of love; but here itis only a means of refreshing; and if thoughts oflove are connected with the apple-tree (Song2:3; 8:5), that is explained from Shulamith’srural home. Böttcher understands quinces;Epstein, citrons; but these must needs havebeen more closely denoted, as at Prov. 25:11,אֲ‏ שִ‏ ישות expression. by some addition to the(from שַ‏ ש ‏,אָ‏ to establish, make firm) are (cf. Isa.16:7; Hos. 3:1) grapes pressed together likecakes; different from ‏ֹּמּוקִ‏ ים ‏,צִ‏ dried grapes (cf.fig-cakes (Arab. dabbûle, a mass pressed ‏,(דְׁ‏ בֵ‏ לָ‏ הtogether), and πλ ῦς, placenta, from thepressed-out form. A cake is among the gifts (2Sam. 6:19) which David distributed to thepeople on the occasion of the bringing up of theark; date-cakes, e.g., at the monastery at Sinai,are to the present day gifts for the refreshmentof travellers. If Shulamith’s cry was to beunderstood literally, one might, with Noack,doubt the correctness of the text; for “lovesickness,even in the age of passion andsentimentality, was not to be cured with rosesand apples.” But (1) sentimentality, i.e.,susceptibility, does not belong merely to theRomantic, but also to Antiquity, especially inthe Orient, as e.g., is shown by the symptoms ofsympathy with which the prophets wereaffected when uttering their threatenings ofjudgment; let one read such outbreaks ofsorrow as Isa. 21:3, which, if one is disposed toscorn, may be derided as hysterical fits.Moreover, the Indian, Persian, and Arabic erotic(vid., e.g., the Romance Siret ‘Antar) is assentimental as the German has at any timebeen. (2) The subject of the passage here is notthe curing of love-sickness, but bodilyrefreshment: the cry of Shulamith, that she maybe made capable of bearing the deep agitationof her physical life, which is the consequence,not of her love-sickness, but of her lovehappiness.(3) The cry is not addressed(although this is grammatically possible, sinceto the ‏(סַ‏ ‏ֹּמֵ‏ כְׁ‏ נָ‏ ה אֹתִ‏ י = rule, is, according to סַ‏ ‏ֹּמְׁ‏ כּונִיdaughters of Jerusalem, who would in that casehave been named, but to some other person;and this points to its being taken not in a literalsense. (4) It presupposes that one came to thehelp of Shulamith, sick and reduced toweakness, with grapes and apple-scent torevive her fainting spirit. The call of Shulamiththus means: hasten to me with that which willrevive and refresh me, for I am sick with love.This love-sickness has also been experienced inthe spiritual sphere. St. Ephrem was once soovercome by such a joy that he cried out: “Lord,withdraw Thine hand a little, for my heart is tooweak to receive so great joy.” And J. R. Hedinger(†1704) was on his deathbed overpoweredwith such a stream of heavenly delight that hecried: “Oh, how good is the Lord! Oh, how sweetis Thy love, my Jesus! Oh, what a sweetness! Iam not worthy of it, my Lord! Let me alone; letme alone!” As the spiritual joy of love, so mayalso the spiritual longing of love consume thebody (cf. Job 19:27; Ps. 63:2; 84:3); there havebeen men who have actually sunk under alonging desire after the Lord and eternity. It is

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 30By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythe state of love-ecstasy in which Shulamithcalls for refreshment, because she is afraid ofsinking. The contrast between her, the poor andunworthy, and the king, who appears to her asan ideal of beauty and majesty, who raises herup to himself, was such as to threaten her life.Unlooked for, extraordinary fortune, hasalready killed many. Fear, producing lamenessand even death, is a phenomenon common inthe Orient. If Pharaoh’s daughter, if the Queenof Sheba, finds herself in the presence ofSolomon, the feeling of social equality preventsall alarm. But Shulamith is dazzled by thesplendour, and disconcerted; and it happens toher in type as it happened to the seer of Patmos,who, in presence of the ascended Lord, fell atHis feet as one dead, Rev. 1:17. If beauty iscombined with dignity, it has always, for gentleand not perverted natures, something thatawakens veneration and tremor; but if thepower of love be superadded, then it has, as aconsequence, that combination of awe andinward delight, the psychological appearance ofwhich Sappho, in the four strophes which beginwith “Φ ί ε ί ῆ ς ἴσ ς θε σ ἔ εὡ ,” has described in a manner so true tonature. We may thus, without carrying backmodern sentimentality into antiquity, supposethat Shulamith sank down in a paroxysmcaused by the rivalry between the words of loveand of praise, and thus thanking him,—forSolomon supports and bears her up,—sheexclaims:6 His left hand is under my head,And his right hand doth embrace me.Song 2:6. With his left hand he supports herhead that had fallen backwards, and with hisright he embraces her [herzet ], as Lutherrightly renders it (as he also renders the nameHabakkuk by “der Herzer” = the embracer); forembrace; signifies properly to enfold, to חִ‏ בֵ‏ קbut then generally, to embrace lovingly, tofondle, of that gentle stroking with the handelsewhere denoted by לָ‏ ה ‏,חִ‏ mulcere. Thesituation here is like that at Gen. 29:13; 48:10;where, connected with the dat., it is meant ofloving arms stretched out to embrace. If thissympathetic, gentle embracing exercises asoothing influence on her, overcome by thepower of her emotions; so love mutuallykindled now celebrates the first hour ofdelighted enjoyment, and the happy Shulamithcalls to those who are witnesses of her joy:7 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,By the gazelles or the hinds of the field,That ye arouse not and disturb not loveTill she pleases.Song 2:7. It is permitted to the Israelites toswear, בַ‏ ע ‏,נִשְׁ‏ only by God (Gen. 21:23); but toadjure, שְׁ‏ בִ‏ יעַ‏ ‏,הִ‏ by that which is not God, is alsoadmissible, although this example before us is(= צְׁ‏ בִ‏ י Scripture. perhaps the only direct one in, Acts טָ‏ בִ‏ יתָ‏ א (Aram. צִ‏ בְׁ‏ יָה fem. ‏,(טַ‏ בְׁ‏ י dialect. ‏,צַ‏ בְׁ‏ י9:36), plur. tsebaim or tsebajim, fem. tsabaōth(according with the pl. of בָ‏ א ‏,(צָ‏ softened fromtsebajōth, is the name for the gazelle, from theelegance of its form and movements. אַ‏ יְׁלות is theconnecting form of יָלות ‏,אַ‏ whose consonantalYod in the Assyr. and Syr. is softened to thediphthong ailuv, ailā; the gen. “of the field,” asnot distinguishing but describing, belongs toboth of the animals, therefore also the first iswithout the article. או (after the etymoncorresponding to the Lat. vel) proceeds, leavingout of view the repetition of this so-calledSlumber-Song (Song 3:5; cf. 8:4, as also 2:9),from the endeavour to give to the adjurationthe greatest impression; the expression isvaried, for the representations flit from imageto image, and the one, wherever possible, issurpassed by the other (vid., at Prov. 30:31).Under this verse Hengst. remarks: “The bridewould not adjure by the hinds, much morewould she adjure by the stage.” He supposesthat Solomon is here the speaker; but a moreworthless proof for this could not be thought of.On the contrary, the adjuration by the gazelles,etc., shows that the speaker here is one whosehome is the field and wood; thus also not thepoet (Hitz.) nor the queen-mother (Böttch.),neither of whom is ever introduced as speaking.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 31By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyThe adjuration is that love should not bedisturbed, and therefore it is by the animalsthat are most lovely and free, which roamthrough the fields. Zöckler, with whom in thisone point Grätz agrees, finds here, after theexample of Böttch. and Hitz., the earnestwarning against wantonly exciting love inthemselves (cf. Lat. irritamenta veneris, irritatavoluptas) till God Himself awakens it, and heartfinds itself in sympathy with heart. But thecircumstances in which Shulamith is placed illaccord with such a general moralizing. Theadjuration is repeated, 3:5; 8:4, and whereverShulamith finds herself near her beloved, as sheis here in his arms. What lies nearer, then, thanthat she should guard against a disturbance ofthis love-ecstasy, which is like a slumberpenetrated by delightful dreams? Instead ofshould be more exactly ‏,ּתְׁ‏ עורֲ‏ רּו and ‏,ּתָ‏ עִ‏ ירּו ‏,אֶּ‏ תְׁ‏ כֶּ‏ םthe words עֵ‏ רְׁ‏ נָ‏ ה ‏,אֶּ‏ תְׁ‏ כֶּ‏ ן ‏,ּתָ‏ and עורֵ‏ רְׁ‏ נָ‏ ה ‏;ּתְׁ‏ but thegram. distinction of the genera is in Heb. notperfectly developed. We meet also with thevery same synallage generis, without thisadjuration formula, at 5:8; 7:1; 4:2; 6:8, etc.; it isalso elsewhere frequent; but in the Song itperhaps belongs to the foil of the vulgar givento the highly poetic. Thus also in the vulgarArab. the fem. forms jaḳtulna, taḳtulna,corresponding to קְׁ‏ טֹלְׁ‏ נָ‏ ה ‏,ּתִ‏ are fallen out of use.With ‏,העיר expergefacere, there is connected the‏,עורר idea of an interruption of sleep; withexcitare, the idea, which goes further, ofarousing out of sleep, placing in the full activityof awakened life. The one adjuration is, thatlove should not be awakened out of its sweetdream; the other, that it should not bedisturbed from its being absorbed in itself. ThePasek between תעירו and the word followinghas, as at Lev. 10:6, the design of keeping thetwo Vavs distinct, that in reading they might notrun together; it is the Pasek which, as Ben Ashersays, serves “to secure to a letter itsindependence against the similar one standingnext it.” הָ‏ אַ‏ הֲ‏ בָ‏ ה is not abstr. pro concreto, butlove itself in its giving and receiving. Thuscloses the second scene of the first act:Shulamith lies like one helpless in the arms ofSolomon; but in him to expire is her life; to havelost herself in him, and in him to find herselfagain, is her happiness.The Mutual Seeking and Finding of the Lovers—Ch. 2:8–3:5First Scene of the Second Act, 2:8–17With 2:8 the second act begins. The so-calledslumber-song (Song 3:5) closes it, as it did thefirst act; and also the refrain-like summons tohasten to the mountains leaves no doubtregarding the close of the first scene. Thelocality is no longer the royal city. Shulamith,with her love-sickness, is once more at home inthe house which she inhabits along with herown friends, of whom she has already (Song1:6) named her brothers. This house standsalone among the rocks, and deep in themountain range; around are the vineyardswhich the family have planted, and the hillpastureson which they feed their flocks. Shelongingly looks out here for her distant lover.8 Hark, my beloved! lo, there he comes!Springs over the mountains,Bounds over the hills.9 My beloved is like a gazelle,Or a young one of the harts.Lo, there he stands behind our wall!He looks through the windows,Glances through the lattices.קול in the expression ‏,קול Song 2:8. The wordis to be understood of the call of the ‏,דודִ‏ יapproaching lover (Böttch.), or only of thesound of his footsteps (Hitz.); it is aninterjectional clause (sound of my beloved!), inwhich kōl becomes an interjection almost thesame as our “horch” [“hear!”]. Vid., under Gen.sharpens it, as the demonst. ce הִ‏ נֵ‏ ה after זֶּ‏ ה 4:10.in ecce = en ce. בָ‏ א is though of as partic., as isevident from the accenting of the fem. אָ‏ ה ‏,בָ‏ e.g.,Jer. 10:22. דִ‏ לֵ‏ ג is the usual word for springing;the parallel פֵ‏ ץ)‏ קָ‏ פַ‏ ץ ‏,(קִ‏ Aram. פַ‏ ז ‏,קְׁ‏ פַ‏ ץ ‏,קְׁ‏ signifies

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 33By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studynot relate it as a dream, and thus it is not one.Solomon again once more passes, perhaps on ahunting expedition into the northernmountains after the winter with its rains, whichmade them inaccessible, is over; and after longwaiting, Shulamith at length again sees him, andhe invites her to enjoy with him the springseason. עָ‏ נָ‏ ה signifies, like π ί εσθ , notalways to answer to the words of another, butalso to speak on the occasion of a person‏,ענה appearing before one; it is different fromthe same in sound, which signifies to sing,properly to sing through the nose, and has theroot-meaning of replying (of the same root asclouds, as that which meets us when we ‏,עָ‏ נָ‏ ןlook up toward the heavens); but taking speechin hand in consequence of an impressionקּומִ‏ י received is equivalent to an answer. Withhe calls upon her to raise herself from herstupor, and with כִ‏ י־לָ‏ ‏ְך ‏,ּולְׁ‏ French va-t-en, tofollow him.11 For, lo! the winter is past,The rain is over, is gone.12 The flowers appear in the land;The time of song has come,And the voice of the turtle makes itselfheard in our land.13 The fig-tree spices her green figs,And the vines stand in bloom, they diffusefragrance;—Rise up, my love, my fair one, and go forth!‏,סְׁ‏ תָ‏ ו Song 2:11–13. The winter is calledperhaps from a verb סָ‏ תָ‏ ה (of the same root asGen. ‏,סּות without any example, since ‏,סָ‏ תַ‏ ם ‏,סָ‏ תַ‏ ר‏,(סּות 49:11, is certainly not derived from a verbto conceal, to veil, as the time of being overcastwith clouds, for in the East winter is the rainyseason; (Arab.) shataā is also used in the senseof rain itself (vid., D. M. Zeitsch. xx. 618); and inthe present day in Jerusalem, in the language ofthe people, no other name is used for rain butshataā (not metar). The word תָ‏ יו ‏,סְׁ‏ which theKerî substitutes, only means that one must notread תו ‏,סְׁ‏ but תָ‏ ו ‏,סְׁ‏ with long a; in the same wayto be bowed down, and ‏,עָ‏ נָ‏ ה humble, from ‏,עָ‏ נָיוto be fat, are formed and ‏,שָ‏ לָ‏ ה a quail, from ‏,שְׁ‏ לָ‏ יוwritten. Rain is here, however, especiallymentioned: it is called gĕshĕm, from gāshăm, tobe thick, massy (cf. revīvīm, of density). With‏,חָ‏ לַ‏ ף to pass by, there is interchanged ‏,עָ‏ בַ‏ רwhich, like (Arab.) khalaf, means properly topress on, and then generally to move to anotherplace, and thus to remove from the placehitherto occupied. In לַ‏ ‏ְך לו ‏,הָ‏ with the dat.ethicus, which throws back the action on thesubject, the winter rain is thought of as aperson who has passed by. צָ‏ ן ‏,נִ‏ with the nounendingân, is the same as ן ‏,נִיסָ‏ and signifies theflower, as the latter the flower-month, floréal;in the use of the word, נִ‏ צָ‏ ן is related to נֵץ andprobably as little flower is to flower. In ‏,נִ‏ צָ‏ הhăzzāmīr the idea of the song of birds (Arab.gharad) appears, and this is not to be given up.The LXX, Aquila, Symm., Targ., Jerome, and theVenet. translate tempus putationis: the time ofthe pruning of vines, which indeed correspondsto the usus loq. (cf. מַ‏ ר ‏,זָ‏ to prune the vine, andnames, a pruning-knife), and to similar ‏,מַ‏ זְׁ‏ מֵ‏ רָ‏ הsuch as אָ‏ סִ‏ יף [ingathering of fruit], but suppliesno reason for her being invited out into theopen fields, and is on this account improbable,because the poet further on speaks for the firsttime of vines. ‏ֹּמֵ‏ ר)‏ זָ‏ מַ‏ ר ‏(זִ‏ is an onomatopoeia,which for the most part denotes song andmusic; why should זָ‏ מִ‏ יר thus not be able todenote singing, like מְׁ‏ רָ‏ ה but‏—,זִ‏ not, at least notin this passage, the singing of men (Hengst.), forthey are not silent in winter; but the singing ofbirds, which is truly a sign of the spring, and asa characteristic feature, is added to this lovelypicture of spring? Thus there is also suitablyadded the mention of the turtle-dove, which is abird of passage (vid., Jer. 8:7), and therefore amessenger of spring. נִשְׁ‏ מַ‏ ע is 3rd pret.: it makesitself heard.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 34By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyThe description of spring is finished by areference to the fig-tree and the vine, thestanding attributes of a prosperous andpeaceful homestead, 1 Kings 5:5; 2 Kings 18:31.and thus named, not from their ‏,פָ‏ נַ‏ ג (from פַ‏ גhardness, but their delicacy) are the little fruitsof the fig-tree which now, when the harvestrainsare over, and the spring commences withthe equinox of Nisan, already begin to assume ared colour; the verb חָ‏ נַט does not mean “togrow into a bulb,” as Böttch. imagines; it hasonly the two meanings, condire (condiri, postbibl.syn. of שֵ‏ ל ‏(בָ‏ and rubescere. From its colour,wheat has the name נְׁטָ‏ ה = חִ‏ טָ‏ ה ‏;חִ‏ and here alsothe idea of colour has the preference, forbecoming fragrant does not occur in spring,—inthe history of the cursing of the fig-tree at thetime of the Passover, Mark (Mark 11:13) says,“for the time of figs was not yet.” In fig-trees, bythis time the green of the fruit-formation‏,סְׁ‏ מָ‏ דַ‏ ר changes its colour, and the vines areblossom, i.e., are in a state of bloom (LXXυπ ίζ υσ ; cf. 7:13, υπ σ ς)—it is a clausesuch as Ex. 9:31, and to which “they diffusefragrance” (v. 13) is parallel. This word סמדר isusually regarded as a compound word,consisting of ם ‏,סַ‏ scent, and דָ‏ ר ‏,הָ‏ brightness =blossom (vid., Gesen. Thes.); it is undeniablethat there are such compound formations, e.g.,(Arab.) from ‏,חַ‏ לָ‏ מִ‏ יש ‏;שָ‏ אַ‏ ן and שָ‏ לָ‏ ה from ‏,שַ‏ לְׁ‏ אֲ‏ נָ‏ ןḥams, to be hard, and hals, to be dark-brown.But the traditional reading סְׁ‏ מָ‏ דַ‏ ר (not מָ‏ דָ‏ ר ‏(סְׁ‏ isunfavourable to this view; the middle āaccordingly, as in לָ‏ צַ‏ ל ‏,צְׁ‏ presents itself as an ante-tone vowel (Ewald, § 154a), and the stemwordappears as a quadril. which may be theexpansion of דֵ‏ ר ‏,סִ‏ to range, put in order in thesense of placing asunder, unfolding. Symm.renders the word by ἰ ά θη, and the Talm.idiom shows that not only the green five-leavedblossoms of the vine were so named, but alsothe fruit-buds and the first shoots of the grapes.Here, as the words “they diffuse fragrance” (asat 7:14 of the mandrakes) show, the vineblossomis meant which fills the vineyard withan incomparably delicate fragrance. At the closeof the invitation to enjoy the spring, the call“Rise up,” etc., with which it began, is repeated.The Chethîb ‏,לכי if not an error in writing, justlyset aside by the Kerî, is to be read לֵ‏ כִ‏ י (cf. Syr.bechi, in thee, lvotechi, to thee, but with occulti)—a North Palestinism for ‏ְך ‏,לָ‏ like 2 Kings 4:2,where the Kerî has substituted the usual form(vid., under Ps. 103 introd.) for this verydialectic form, which is there undoubtedlyoriginal.Song 2:14. Solomon further relates how hedrew her to himself out of her retirement:My dove in the clefts of the rock,In the hiding-place of the cliff;Let me see thy countenance,Let me hear thy voice!For thy voice is sweet and thy countenancecomely.“Dove” (for which Castellio, columbula, likevulticulum, voculam) is a name of endearmentwhich Shulamith shares with the church of God,Ps. 74:19; cf. 56:1; Hos. 7:11. The wood-pigeonbuilds its nest in the clefts of the rocks andother steep rocky places, Jer. 48:28. ThatShulamith is thus here named, shows that, farremoved from intercourse with the world, her‏,חֶּ‏ גֶּ‏ ו from ‏,חַ‏ גְׁ‏ וֵ‏ י mountains. home was among theor also גּו ‏,חָ‏ requires a verb חָ‏ גָ‏ ה = (Arab.) khajja,findere. לַ‏ ע ‏,סֶּ‏ as a Himyar. lexicographer definesit, is a cleft into the mountains after the natureof a defile; with ‏,צּור only the ideas ofinaccessibility and remoteness are connected;with ‏,סלע those of a secure hiding-place, and,מַ‏ דְׁ‏ רֵ‏ גָ‏ ה residence. indeed, a convenient, pleasantis the stairs; here the rocky stairs, as the twochalk-cliffs on the Rügen, which sinkperpendicularly to the sea, are called“Stubbenkammer,” a corruption of the SlavonicStupnhkamen, i.e., the Stair-Rock. “Let me see,”said he, as he called upon her with enticingwords, “thy countenance;” and adds this as areason, “for thy countenance is lovely.” The

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 35By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyword רְׁ‏ אֵ‏ יְך ‏,מַ‏ thus pointed, is sing.; the Jod Otiansis the third root letter of אַ‏ י ‏,רָ‏ retained only forthe sake of the eye. It is incorrect to concludefrom ashrēch, in Eccles. 10:17, that the ech maybe also the plur. suff., which it can as little be asêhu in Prov. 29:18; in both cases the sing. ĕshĕrhas substituted itself for ashrē. But, inversely,măraīch cannot be sing.; for the sing. is simplymarēch. Also mărāv, Job 41:1, is not sing.: thesing. is marēhu, Job 4:16; Song 5:15. On theother hand, the determination of such forms asis difficult: these forms may be ‏,מַ‏ רְׁ‏ אֵ‏ יהֶּ‏ ם ‏,מַ‏ רְׁ‏ אֵ‏ ינּוsing. as well as plur. In the passage before us,But ‏.פָ‏ נִים is just such a non-numer. plur. as מַ‏ רְׁ‏ אִ‏ יםwhile panīm is an extensive plur., as Böttchercalls it: the countenance, in its extension andthe totality of its parts,—marīm, like marōth,vision, a stately term, Ex. 40:2 (vid., Deitrich’sAbhand. p. 19), is an amplificative plur.: thecountenance, on the side of its fulness of beautyand its overpowering impression.Song 2:15, 16. There now follows acantiuncula. Shulamith comes forward, and,singing, salutes her beloved. Their love shallcelebrate a new spring. Thus she wisheseverything removed, or rendered harmless,that would disturb the peace of this love:15 Catch us the foxes, the little foxes,The spoilers of the vineyards;For our vineyards are in bloom!16 My beloved is mine, and I am his;Who feeds [his flock] among the lilies.If the king is now, on this visit of the beloved,engaged in hunting, the call: “Catch us,” etc., if itis directed at all to any definite persons, isaddressed to those who follow him. But this is avine-dresser’s ditty, in accord with Shulamith’sexperience as the keeper of a vineyard, which,in a figure, aims at her love-relation. Thevineyards, beautiful with fragrant blossom,point to her covenant of love; and the foxes, thelittle foxes, which might destroy these unitedvineyards, point to all the great and littleenemies and adverse circumstances whichthreaten to gnaw and destroy love in theblossom, ere it has reached the ripeness of fullenjoyment. שֻ‏ עָ‏ לִ‏ ים comprehends both foxes andjackals, which “destroy or injure the vineyards;because, by their holes and passages whichthey form in the ground, loosening the soil, sothat the growth and prosperity of the vineשָ‏ עַ‏ ל suffers injury” (Hitzig). This word is from(R. ‏,(של to go down, or into the depth. The littlefoxes are perhaps the jackals, which are calledtănnīm, from their extended form, and in heightare seldom more than fifteen inches. The word“jackal” has nothing to do with ל ‏,שּועָ‏ but is thePersian-Turkish shaghal, which comes from theSanscr. cṛgâla, the howler (R. krag, like kap-âla,the skull; R. kap, to be arched). Moreover, themention of the foxes naturally follows 14a, forthey are at home among rocky ravines. Hitzigsupposes Shulamith to address the foxes: hold‏,אֲ‏ חַ‏ ד Aram. ‏,אָ‏ חַ‏ ז for us = wait, ye rascals! Butdoes not signify to wait, but to seize or lay holdof (synon. כַ‏ ד ‏,לָ‏ Judg. 15:4), as the lion its prey,Isa. 5:29. And the plur. of address is explainedfrom its being made to the king’s retinue, or toall who could and would give help. Fox-huntingis still, and has been from old times, a sport ofrich landowners; and that the smallerlandowners also sought to free themselvesfrom them by means of snares or otherwise, is amatter of course,—they are proverbially asdestroyers, Neh. 3:35 [4:3], and therefore aמְׁ‏ חַ‏ בְׁ‏ ׳ 13:4. Ezek. figure of the false prophets,The ‏.מְׁ‏ חַ‏ בְׁ‏ לֵ‏ י הַ‏ כְׁ‏ רָ‏ םִ‏ ׳ are here instead of כְׁ‏ רָ‏ םִ‏ ׳articles are generally omitted, because poetry isnot fond of the article, where, as here (cf. on theother hand, 1:6), the thoughts and languagepermit it; and the fivefold îm is an intentionalmere verborum sonus. The clause ‏ּוכְׁ‏ רָ‏ ׳ סְׁ‏ מָ‏ דַ‏ ר is anexplanatory one, as appears from the Vav andthe subj. preceding, as well as from the want ofa finitum. סְׁ‏ מָ‏ דַ‏ ר maintains here also, in pausa,the sharpening of the final syllable, as ץְׁ‏ ׳ ‏,חַ‏ Deut.28:42.The 16th verse is connected with the 15th.Shulamith, in the pentast. song, celebrates her

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 40By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study(vid., under Isa. 40:3; Hos. 1:16; Ps. 68:5). Thepomp is like that of a procession before whichthe censer of frankincense is swung. Columns ofsmoke from the burning incense mark the line‏(ּתִ‏ יםֲ‏ ׳)‏ ‏ּתִ‏ ימְׁ‏ רות after. of the procession before andhere and at Job 3 (vid., Norzi) is formed, as itappears, from ר ‏,יָמַ‏ to strive upwards, a kindredform to מַ‏ ר ‏;אָ‏ cf. Isa. 61:6 with 17:6, Ps. 94:4; theverb מַ‏ ר ‏,ּתָ‏ whence the date-palm receives thename מָ‏ ר ‏,ּתָ‏ is a secondary formation, like ‏ּתָ‏ אַ‏ ב to(cf. on the ‏ּתִ‏ ימָ‏ רָ‏ ה Certainly this form ‏.אָ‏ בָ‏ הcontrary, דָ‏ ה ‏(ּתולָ‏ is not elsewhere to besupported; Schlottm. sees in it ‏ֹּמְׁ‏ רות ‏,תִ‏ frombut such an expansion of the word for ‏;ּתְׁ‏ מָ‏ רָ‏ הDag. dirimens is scarcely to be supposed. Thisnaming of the pillars of smoke is poet., as Jonah3:3; cf. “a pillar of smoke,” Judg. 20:40. She whoapproaches comes from the wilderness,brought up to Jerusalem, placed on anelevation, “like pillars of smoke,” i.e., not herselflikened thereto, as Schlottm. supposes it mustbe interpreted (with the tertium comp. of theslender, precious, and lovely), but encompassedand perfumed by such. For her whom theprocession brings this lavishing of spices ismeant; it is she who is incensed or perfumedwith myrrh and frankincense. Schlottm.maintains that מְׁ‏ קֻ‏ טֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ת cannot mean anythingelse than “perfumed,” and therefore he reads(as Aq. πὸ θυ ά ς, and Jerome). But מִ‏ קְׁ‏ טֹרֶּ‏ תthe word mekuttĕrĕth does not certainly standalone, but with the genit. foll.; and thus as “rentin their clothes,” 2 Sam. 13:31, signifies notsuch as are themselves rent, but those whoseclothes are rent (Ewald, § 288b, compare alsode Sacy, II § 321), so מקט׳ וגו׳ can also meanthose for whom (for whose honour) thisincense is expended, and who are thusfumigated with it. ‏,מֹר myrrh, (Arab.) murr (vid.,above under 1:13), stands also in Ex. 30:23 andPs. 45:9 at the head of the perfumes; it camefrom Arabia, as did also frankincense levōnā,Arab. lubân (later referred to benzoin); both ofthe names are Semitic, and the circumstancethat the Tôra required myrrh as a componentpart of the holy oil, Ex. 30:23, and frankincenseas a component part of the holy incense, Ex.30:34, points to Arabia as the source whencethey were obtained. To these two principalspices there is added מִ‏ כֹל (cf. Gen. 6:20; 9:2) asan et cetera. רוכֵ‏ ל denotes the travelling spicemerchants (traders in aromatics), and tradersgenerally. בָ‏ קָ‏ ה ‏,אֲ‏ which is related to אָ‏ בָ‏ ק aspowder to dust (cf. abacus, a reckoning-table,so named from the sand by means of whicharithmetical numbers were reckoned), is thename designating single drugs (i.e., dry wares;cf. the Arab. elixir = ξη ).Song 3:7, 8. The description of the palanquinnow following, one easily attributes to anothervoice from the midst of the inhabitants ofJerusalem.7 Lo! Solomon’s palanquin,Threescore heroes are around it,Of the heroes of Israel,8 All of them armed with the sword, expert inwar.Each with his sword on his thigh,Against fear in the nights.Since ‏,אַ‏ פִ‏ רְׁ‏ יון 9a, is not by itself a word clearlyintelligible, so as to lead us fully to determinewhat is here meant by מִ‏ טָ‏ ה as distinguishedfrom it, we must let the connection determine.We have before us a figure of that which iscalled in the post-bibl. Heb. ה (thebringing-home of the bride). The bridegroomeither betook himself to her parents’ house andfetched his bride thence, which appears to bethe idea lying at the foundation of Ps. 45, if, aswe believe, the ivory-palaces are those of theking of Israel’s house; or she was brought tohim in festal procession, and he went forth tomeet her, 1 Macc. 9:39—the prevailing custom,on which the parable of the ten virgins (Matt.25) is founded. Here the bride comes from agreat distance; and the difference in rankbetween the Galilean maid and the king bringsthis result, that he does not himself go and fetchher, but that she is brought to him. She comes,הַ‏ כְׁ‏ נָסַ‏ ת כַ‏ לָ‏

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 41By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studynot as in old times Rebecca did, riding on acamel, but is carried in a mittā, which issurrounded by an escort for protection and as amark of honour. Her way certainly led throughthe wilderness, where it was necessary, by asafe convoy, to provide against the possibility(min in mippahad, cf. Isa. 4:6; 25:4) of beingattacked by robbers; whereas it would be moredifficult to understand why the marriage-bed inthe palace of the king of peace (1 Chron. 22:9)should be surrounded by such an armed bandfor protection. That Solomon took care to havehis chosen one brought to him with royalhonours, is seen in the lavish expenditure ofspices, the smoke and fragrance of whichsignalized from afar the approach of theprocession,—the mittā, which is now described,can be no other than that in which, sitting orreclining, or half sitting, half reclining, she isplaced, who is brought to him in such a cloud ofincense. Thus mittā (from nāthā, to stretchoneself out), which elsewhere is also used of abier, 2 Sam. 3:21 (like the Talm. רֶּ‏ ש = עֲ‏ רַ‏ ס ‏,(עֶּ‏ willhere signify a portable bed, a sitting cushionhung round with curtains after the manner ofthe Indian palanquin, and such as is found onthe Turkish caiques or the Venetian gondolas.The appositional nearer definition לִ‏ שְׁ‏ ׳ ‏,שֶּ‏ “whichbelonged to Solomon” (vid., under 6b), showsthat it was a royal palanquin, not one belongingto one of the nobles of the people. The bearersare unnamed persons, regarding whom nothingis said; the sixty heroes form only the guard forsafety and for honour (sauvegarde), or theescorte or convoie. The sixty are the tenth part(the élite) of the royal body-guard, 1 Sam. 27:2;30:9, etc. (Schlottm.). If it be asked, Why just60? we may perhaps not unsuitably reply: Thenumber 60 is here, as at 6:8, the number ofIsrael multiplied by 5, the fraction of 10; so thatthus 60 distinguished warriors form the half tothe escort of a king of Israel. אֲ‏ חֻ‏ זֵ‏ י חֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ב properlymeans, held fast by the sword so that it goes notlet them free, which, according to the sense =holding fast [= practised in the use of thesword]; the Syr. translation of the Apoc.renders π ά by ‘he who is held by all,”i.e., holding it (cf. Ewald, § 149b).Song 3:9, 10. Another voice now describes thesplendour of the bed of state which Solomonprepared in honour of Shulamith:9 A bed of state hath King Solomon made forhimselfOf the wood of Lebanon.10 Its pillars hath he made of silver,Its support of gold, its cushion of purple;Its interior is adorned from loveBy the daughters of Jerusalem.The sound of the word, the connection and thedescription, led the Greek translators (the LXX,Venet., and perhaps also others) to render(Vulg. by φ ε , litter palanquin ‏,אַ‏ פִ‏ רְׁ‏ יוןferculum). The appiryon here described has asilver pedestal and a purple cushion—as weread in Athenaeus v. 13 (II p. 317, ed.Schweigh.) that the philosopher and tyrantAthenion showed himself “on a silver-leggedφ ε , with purple coverlet;” and the sameauthor, v. 5 (II p. 253), also says, that on theoccasion of a festal procession by AntiochusEpiphanes, behind 200 women who sprinkledointments from golden urns came 80 women,sitting in pomp on golden-legged, and 500 onsilver-legged, φ ε —this is the proper namefor the costly women’s-litter (Suidas: φ εγυ ε ), which, according to the number ofbearers (Mart. VI 77: six Cappadocians and, ix.2, eight Syrians), was called ἑξάφ(hexaphorum, Mart. II 81) or ὀ ώφ(octophorum, Cicero’s Verr. v. 10). The Mishna,Sota ix. 14, uses appiryon in the sense ofphoreion: “in the last war (that of Hadrian) itwas decreed that a bride should not passthrough the town in an appiryon [on account ofthe danger], but our Rabbis sanctioned it later[for modesty’s sake];” as here, “to be carried inan appiryon,” so in Greek, π έ( σ είχε ) ἐ φ είῳ. In the Midrash also,Bamidbar rabba c. 12, and elsewhere, appiryonof this passage before us is taken in all sorts ofallegorical significations in most of which theidentity of the word with φ ε is supposed,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 42By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studywhich is also there written פּורְׁ‏ יון (after Aruch),cf. Isa. 49:22, Targ., and is once interchangedwith ‏,פאפליון papilio (parillon), pleasure-tent.But a Greek word in the Song is in itself soimprobable, that Ewald describes thisderivation of the word as a frivolous jest; somuch the more improbable, as φ ε as thename of a litter (lectica) occurs first in suchauthors (of the ) as Plutarch, Polybuis,Herodian, and the like, and therefore, withgreater right, it may be supposed that it isoriginally a Semitic word, which the Greeklanguage adopted at the time when the Orientaland Graeco-Roman customs began to beamalgamated. Hence, if mittā, 7a, means aportable bed,—as is evident from this, that itappears as the means of transport with anescort,—then appiryon cannot also mean alitter; the description, moreover, does notaccord with a litter. We do not read of rings andcarrying-poles, but, on the contrary, of pillars(as those of a tent-bed) instead, and, as mightbe expected, of feet. Schlottm., however, takesmittā and appiryon as different names for aportable bed; but the words, “an appiryon hasKing Solomon made,” etc., certainly indicatethat he who thus speaks has not the appiryonbefore him, and also that this was somethingdifferent from the mittā. While Schlottm. isinclined to take appiryon, in the sense of a litter,as a word borrowed from the Greek (but in thetime of the first king?), Gesen. in his Thes. seeksto derive it, thus understood, from רָ‏ ה ‏,פָ‏ citoferri, currere; but this signification of the verb isimaginary.We expect here, in accordance with theprogress of the scene, the name of the bridalcouch; and on the supposition that appiryon,Sota 12a, as in the Mishna, means the litter(Aruch) of the bride, Arab. maziffat, and nottorus nuptialis (Buxt.), then there is a possibilitythat appiryon is a more dignified word for ’ĕrĕs,1:17, yet sufficient thereby to show that פּורְׁ‏ יָא isthe usual Talm. name of the marriage-bed (e.g.,Mezia 23b, where it stand, per meton., forשפרין concubitus), which is wittily explained by(Kethuboth 10b, and elsewhere). The ורבין עליהTarg. has for it the form פּורְׁ‏ יָן (vid., Levy). It thusdesignates a bed with a canopy (a tent-bed),Deut. 32:50, Jerus; so that the ideas of the bed ofstate and the palanquin (cf. ‏,כילה canopy, andbridal-bed, Succa 11a) touch one ‏,כילת חתניםanother. In general, פוריא ‏,(פורין)‏ as is also thecase with appiryon, must have been originally acommon designation of certain householdfurniture with a common characteristic; for theSyr. aprautha, plur. parjevatha (Wiseman’sHorae, p. 255), or also parha (Castell.), signifiesa cradle. It is then to be inquired, whether thisword is referable to a root-word which gives acommon characteristic with manifold‏,פר R. from the ‏,פָ‏ רָ‏ ה Heb. applications. But thesignifies to split, to tear asunder, to break forth,to bring fruit, to be fruitful, and nothing further.Pārā has nowhere the signification to run, asפְׁ‏ רָ‏ א Palest.-Aram. already remarked; only in theis found in this meaning (vid., Buxt.). The Arab.farr does not signify to run, but to flee; properly(like our “ausreissen” = be tear out, to breakout), to break open by flight the rank in whichone stands (as otherwise turned by horsedealers:to open wide the horse’s mouth). But,moreover, we do not thus reach the commoncharacteristic which we are in search of; for ifwe may say of the litter that it runs, yet wecannot say that of a bed or a cradle, etc. TheArab. farfâr, species vehiculi muliebris, also doesnot help us; for the verb farfar, to vacillate, toshake, is its appropriate root-word. With betterresults shall we compare the Arab. fary, which,in Kal and Hiph., signifies to break open, to cutout (couper, tailler une étoffe), and also,figuratively, to bring forth something strange,something not yet existing (yafry alfaryya,according to the Arab. Lex. = yaty bal’ajab fy‘amalh, he accomplishes something wonderful);the primary meaning in Conj. viii. is evidently:yftarra kidban, to cut out lies, to meditate andto express that which is calumnious (a similarmetaphor to khar’a, findere, viii. fingere, to cutout something in the imagination; French,inventer, imaginer). With this fary, however, we

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 44By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyexample of this, yet we point to Ps. 45 inillustration of the custom of presenting gifts toa newly-married pair. He himself understandsHeiligst., personally, as do also Ewald, אהבהBöttcher; “the voice of the people,” says Ewald,“knows that the finest ornament with which theinvisible interior of the couch is adorned, is alove from among the daughters of Jerusalem,—i.e., some one of the court ladies who wasraised, from the king’s peculiar love to her, tothe rank of a queen-consort. The speaker thusingeniously names this newest favourite ‘alove,’ and at the same time designates her asthe only thing with which this elegant structure,all adorned on the outside is adorned within.”Relatively better Böttcher: with a love (beloved‏,אהבה one), prae filiis Hierus. But even thoughlike amor and amores, might be used of thebeloved one herself, yet רצוף does notharmonize with this, seeing we cannot speak ofbeing paved or tapestried with persons.Schlottm. in vain refers for the personalsignification of אהבה to 2:7, where it means loveand nothing else, and seeks to bring it intoaccord with ‏;רצוף for he remarks, “as the stonein mosaic work fills the place destined for it, sothe bride the interior of the litter, which isintended for just one person filling it.” But isthis not more comical, without intending to beso, than Juvenal’s (i. 1. 32 s.):Causidici nova cum veniat lectica MathonisPlena ipso …But Schlottm. agrees with us in this, that themarriage which is here being prepared for wasthe consummation of the happiness of Solomonand Shulamith, not of another woman, and notthe consummation of Solomon’s assault on thefidelity of Shulamith, who hates him to whomshe now must belong, loving only one, theshepherd for whom she is said to sigh (Song1:4a), that he would come and take her away.“This triumphal procession,” says Rocke, “wasfor her a mourning procession, the royal litter abier; her heart died within her with longing forher beloved shepherd.” Touching, if it were onlytrue! Nowhere do we see her up to this pointresisting; much rather she is happy in her love.The shepherd-hypothesis cannot comprehendthis marriage procession without introducingincongruous and imaginary things; it is a poemof the time of Gellert. Solomon the seducer, andShulamith the heroine of virtue, are figures asfrom Gellert’s Swedish Countess; they aremoral commonplaces personified, but not realhuman beings. In the litter sits Shulamith, andthe appiryon waits for her. Solomon rejoicesthat now the reciprocal love-bond is to find itsconclusion; and what Shulamith, who isbrought from a lowly to so lofty a station,experiences, we shall hear her describe in thesequel.Song 3:11. At the close of the scene, the callnow goes forth to the daughters of Zion, i.e., thewomen of Jerusalem collectively, to behold theking, who now shows himself to the object ofhis love and to the jubilant crowd, as the festalprocession approaches.11 Come out, yet daughters of Zion, and seeKing Solomon with the crownWith which his mother crowned himOn the day of his espousal,And on the day of the gladness of his heart.The women of the court, as distinguished fromthe Galilean maiden, are called “daughters ofJerusalem;” here, generally, the women of Zionor Jerusalem (Lam. 5:11) are called “daughtersof Zion.” Instead of צֶּ‏ אנָ‏ ה (since the verb LamedAleph is treated after the manner of verbsLamed He, cf. Jer. 50:20; Ezek. 23:49), אֶּ‏ ינָ‏ ה ‏,צְׁ‏ andthat defect. אֶּ‏ נָ‏ ה ‏,צְׁ‏ is used for the sake ofassonance with אֶּ‏ ינָ‏ ה ‏;ּורְׁ‏ elsewhere also, as wehave shown at Isa. 222:13, an unusual form isused for the sake of the sound. It is seen fromthe Sota (ix. 14) that the old custom for thebridegroom to wear a “crown” was abolished inconsequence of the awful war with Vespasian.Rightly Epstein, against Grätz, shows from Job31:36, Isa. 28:1, Ps. 103:4, that men alsocrowned themselves. בַ‏ עֲ‏ טָ‏ רָ‏ ה (with the crown) is,according to the best authorities, without theart., and does not require it, since it is

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 45By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyחֲ‏ תֻ‏ נָ‏ ה following. determined by the relat. clauseis the marriage (the word also used in the postbibl.Heb., and interchanging with פָ‏ ה ‏,חֻ‏ properlyυ φώ , Matt. 9:15), from the verb תַ‏ ן ‏,חָ‏ which,proceeding from the root-idea of cutting into‏,חָ‏ תַ‏ ‏ְך whence ‏,חת R. (Arab. khatn, to circumcise;denotes the pressing into, or going ‏,(חָ‏ תַ‏ ר ‏,חָ‏ תַ‏ םinto, another family; חָ‏ טַ‏ ן is he who enters intosuch a relation of affinity, and חֹתֵ‏ ן the father ofher who is taken away, who also on his part isrelated to the husband. Here also the seductionfable is shattered. The marriage with Shulamithtakes place with the joyful consent of thequeen-mother. In order to set aside this fatalcircumstance, the “crown” is referred back tothe time when Solomon was married toPharaoh’s daughter. Cogitandus est Salomo, saysHeiligst., qui cum Sulamitha pompa sollemniHierosolyma redit, eadem corona nuptialiornatus, qua quum filiam regis Aegyptiorumuxorem duxeret ornatus erat. But was he then sopoor or niggardly as to require to bring forththis old crown? and so basely regardless of hislegitimate wife, of equal rank with himself, as towound her by placing this crown on his head inhonour of a rival? No; at the time when thisyouthful love-history occurred, Pharaoh’sdaughter was not yet married. The mention ofhis mother points us to the commencement ofhis reign. His head is not adorned with a crownwhich had already been worn, but with a freshgarland which his mother wreathed around thehead of her youthful son. The men have alreadywelcomed the procession from afar; but theking in his wedding attire has specialattractions for the women—they are herecalled upon to observe the moment when thehappy pair welcome one another.Song of Solomon 4Second Scene of the Third Act, 4:1–5:1This scene contains a conversation betweenSolomon and his beloved, whom he at first callsfriend, and then, drawing always nearer to her,bride. The place of the conversation is, as 5:1shows, the marriage hall. That the guests thereassembled hear what Solomon says toShulamith, one need not suppose; but the poethas overheard it from the loving pair. Fairerthan ever does Shulamith appear to the king. Hepraises her beauty, beginning with her eyes.1a Lo, thou art fair, my friend! yes, thou artfair!Thine eyes are doves behind thy veil.Song 4:1. The Gr. Venet. translates, afterKimchi, “looking out from behind, thy hairflowing down from thy head like a mane.” Thusalso Schultens, capillus plexus; and Hengst., whocompares πλέγ , 1 Tim. 2:9, and ἐ πλ ὴχῶ , 1 Pet. 3:3, passages which do not accord‏,צָ‏ מַ‏ ם with the case of Shulamith; but neitherArab. ṣmm, nor ṭmm signifies to plait; the latteris used of the hair when it is too abundant, andready for the shears. To understand the hair asdenoted here, is, moreover, inadmissible,inasmuch as מבעד cannot be used of the eyes inrelation to the braids of hair hanging beforethem. Symm. rightly translates צמה by άλυ[veil] (in the Song the LXX erroneously rendersby σ π σε ς [behind thy silence]), Isa. 47:2.The verb מַ‏ ם ‏,צָ‏ (Arab.) ṣmam, a stopper, and(Arab.) alṣamma, a plaid in which one veilshimself, when he wraps it around him. The veilis so called, as that which closely hides the face.In the Aram. מַ‏ ם ‏,צְׁ‏ Palp. , means directly toveil, as e.g., Bereshith rabba c. 45, extr., of amatron whom the king lets pass before him it issaid, פניה ‏.צימצמה Shulamith is thus veiled. Asthe Roman bride wore the velum flammeum, soalso the Jewish bride was deeply veiled; cf. Gen.24:65, where Rebecca veiled herself (Lat. nubit)before her betrothed. עַ‏ ד ‏,בַ‏ constr. עַ‏ ד ‏,בְׁ‏ asegolate noun, which denotes separation, is aprep. in the sense of pone, as in Arab. in that ofpost. Ewald, sec. 217m, supposes, contrary tothe Arab., the fundamental idea of covering(cogn. ‏;(בגד but that which surrounds is thoughtof as separating, and at the same time ascovering, the thing which it encompasses. Frombehind her veil, which covered her face (vid.,צַ‏ מְׁ‏ צֵ‏ ם

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 46By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyBachmann, under Judg. 3:23), her eyes gleamout, which, without needing to besupplemented by ינֵי ‏,עֵ‏ are compared, as to theircolour, motion, and lustre, to a pair of doves.From the eyes the praise passes to the hair.1b Thy hair is like a flock of goatsWhich repose downwards on Mount Gilead.The hair of the bride’s head was uncovered. Weknow from later times that she wore in it awreath of myrtles and roses, or also a “goldencity” של זהב)‏ ‏,(עיר i.e., an ornament whichemblematically represented Jerusalem. To seethat this comparison is not incongruous, wemust know that sheep in Syria and Palestine arefor the most part white; but goats, for the mostpart, black, or at least dark coloured, as e.g., thebrown gedi Mamri. The verb גָ‏ לַ‏ ש is the Arab. jls,which signifies, to rest upon; and isdistinguished from the synon. q’d in this, thatthe former is used of him who has previouslylain down; the latter, of one who first standsand then sits down. The nejd bears also thename jals, as the high land raising itself, and likea dome sitting above the rest of the land. Onehas to think of the goats as having lain down,and thus with the upper parts of their bodies as‏,מַ‏ ר מִ‏ דְׁ‏ לִ‏ י is used almost as in מֵ‏ הַ‏ ר in מִ‏ ן up. raisedIsa. 40:15. A flock of goats encamped on amountain (rising up, to one looking from adistance, as in a steep slope, and almostperpendicularly), and as if hanging downlengthwise on its sides, presents a lovely viewadorning the landscape. Solomon likens to thisthe appearance of the locks of his beloved,which hang down over her shoulders. She wastill now a shepherdess, therefore a second ruralimage follows:2 Thy teeth are like a flock of shorn sheepWhich comes up from the washingAll bearing twins,And a bereaved one is not among them.Song 4:2. The verb קָ‏ צַ‏ ב is, as the Arab. shows,‏.גָ‏ זַז in the sense of tondere oves, the synon. ofWith shorn (not to be shorn) sheep, the teeth inregard to their smoothness, and with washedsheep in regard to their whiteness, arecompared—as a rule the sheep of Palestine arewhite; in respect of their full number, in whichin pairs they correspond to one another, theone above to the one below, like twin births inwhich there is no break. The parallel passage,6:6, omits the point of comparison of thesmoothness. That some days after the shearingthe sheep were bathed, is evident fromColumella 7:4. Regarding the incorrectexchange of mas. with fem. forms, vid., under2:7. The part. Hiph. מַ‏ תְׁ‏ אִ‏ ימות (cf. υ ς,Theocr. i. 25) refers to the mothers, none ofwhich has lost a twin of the pair she had borne.In “which come up from the washing,” there isperhaps thought of, at the same time with thewhiteness, the saliva dentium. The moisture ofthe saliva, which heightens the glance of theteeth, is frequently mentioned in the love-songsof Mutenebbi, Hariri, and Deschami. And thatthe saliva of a clean and sound man is notoffensive, is seen from this, that the Lord healeda blind man by means of His spittle.Song 4:3. The mouth is next praised:3a Like a thread of crimson thy lips,And thy mouth is lovely,שָ‏ נִי ‏,אַ‏ רְׁ‏ גָ‏ מָ‏ ן red-purple, As distinguished from(properly, shining, glistening; for this form hasan active signification, like י ‏,נָקִ‏ as well as apassive, like נִי עַ‏ ת שָ‏ נִי ‏,‏fully‏—(עָ‏ signifies‏—ּתולַ‏ thekermes or worm-colour; the karmese, the redjuice of the cochineal. דְׁ‏ בָ‏ רֵ‏ יְך)‏ מִ‏ דְׁ‏ בָ‏ רַ‏ ‏ְך ‏(מִ‏ istranslated by the LXX “thy speech;” Jerome,eloquium; and the Venet. “thy dialogue;” butthat would be expressed, though by a ἁπ. λεγ.,by מִ‏ דְׁ‏ בָ‏ ר ‏.דִ‏ בּורֵ‏ ‏ְך is here the name of the mouth,the naming of which one expects; the preform.is the mem instrumenti: the mouth, as theinstrument of speech, as the organ by which thesoul expresses itself in word and in manner ofspeech. The poet needed for פִ‏ יְך a fuller, moreselect word; just as in Syria the nose is notcalled anf, but minchâr (from nachara, to blow,to breathe hard).Praise of her temples.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 47By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study3b Like a piece of pomegranate thy templesBehind thy veil.is the thin piece of the skull on both sides of רַ‏ קָ‏ הthe eyes; Lat., mostly in the plur., tempora;German, schläfe, from schlaff, loose, slack, i.e.,weak = ק ‏.רַ‏ The figure points to that soft mixingof colours which makes the colouring of the socalledcarnation one of the most difficultaccomplishments in the art of painting. The halfof a cut pomegranate (Jer. fragmen mali punici)is not meant after its outer side, as Zöcklersupposes, for he gives to the noun răkkā,contrary to Judg. 4:21; 5:26, the meaning ofcheek, a meaning which it has not, but after itsinner side, which presents a red mixed andtempered with the ruby colour,—a figure somuch the more appropriate, since the groundcolourof Shulamith’s countenance is a subduedwhite. Up to this point the figures are borrowedfrom the circle of vision of a shepherdess. Nowthe king derives them from the sphere of hisown experience as the ruler of a kingdom. Shewho has eyes like doves is in form like a bornqueen.4 Like the tower of David thy neck,Built in terraces;Thereon a thousand shields hang,All the armour of heroes.Song 4:4. The tower of David, is, as it appears,“the tower of the flock,” Mic. 4:4, from whichDavid surveyed the flock of his people. In Neh.3:25f. it is called the “tower which lieth outfrom the king’s high house,” i.e., not the palace,but a government house built on Zion, whichserved as a court of justice. But what is themeaning of the ἁπ. λεγ. לְׁ‏ פִ‏ יות ‏?ּתַ‏ Grätz translates:for a prospect; but the Greek ηλ π ς, of whichhe regards תל׳ as the Heb. abstr., is a word sorare that its introduction into the Semiticlanguage is on that account improbable. Hengst.translates: built for hanging swords; and he‏,ּתָ‏ לָ‏ ה (from ‏ּתַ‏ ל sees in the word a compound ofwith which forms such as יָד = jadj, שַ‏ ד = shadj,but this ‏;פִ‏ יות 2 Sam. 6:7, are compared) and ‏,שַ‏ לlatter word signifies, not swords, but edges ofthe (double-edged) sword; wherefore Kimchi(interpreting תַ‏ ל as the constr. of ל ‏,תֵ‏ as ל ‏,אַ‏ insharp- explains: an erection of ‏(צֵ‏ ל is of ‏,בְׁ‏ צַ‏ לְׁ‏ אֵ‏ לcornered stones; and, moreover, the Heb.language knows no such nmm. comp.appellativa: the names of the frog, פַ‏ רְׁ‏ דֵ‏ ע ‏,צְׁ‏ andthe bat, לֵ‏ ף (cf. the Beth in [Arab.] sa’lab, fox,with the added Pe), are not such; and alsotsalmāveth, the shadow of death, is at a laterperiod, for the first time, restamped as suchfrom the original tsalmuth (cf. Arab. zalumat =tenebrae). Gesen. obtains the same meanings;for he explains לתל׳ by exitialibus (sc.,, armis),עֲ‏ טַ‏from an adj. לְׁ‏ פִ‏ י ‏,ּתַ‏ from ‏ּתָ‏ לַ‏ ף = Arab. talifa, toperish, the inf. of which, talaf, is at the presentday a word synon. with halak (to perish);(Arab.) matlaf (place of going down) is, likea poetic name of the wilderness. The ‏,ישימוןexplanation is acceptable but hazardous, sinceneither the Heb. nor the Aram. shows a trace ofתלף׳ this verb; and it is thus to be given up, ifcan be referred to a verbal stem to be found inthe Heb. and Aram. This is done in Ewald’sexplanation, to which also Böttcher and Rödig.give the preference: built for close (crowded)troops (so, viz., that many hundreds orthousands find room therein); the (Arab.) verbaff, to wrap together (opp. nashar, to unfold), isused of the packing together of multitudes oftroops (liff, plur. lufuf), and also of warlikehand-to-hand conflicts; תלף׳ would be traced toa verb לָ‏ פָ‏ ה synon. therewith, after the formwere meant of troops, then תלף׳ But if ‏.ּתַ‏ אֲ‏ נִיָהthey would be denoted as the garrison foundtherein, and it would not be merely said thatthe tower was built for such; for the point ofcomparison would then be, the imposing lookof the neck, overpowering by the force of theimpression proceeding from within. But now, inthe Aram., and relatively in the Talm. Heb., not‏,(אַ‏ לְׁ‏ פִ‏ י (Af. לְׁ‏ פִ‏ י occur, but also לּוף and לָ‏ פַ‏ ף onlyand that in the sense of enclosure, i.e., of joiningtogether, the one working into the other,—e.g.,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 48By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyבֵ‏ ית ( tabernacle in the Targ.: of the curtain of theor חֹבֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ת = together place of the joining ‏,לופִ‏ יof the Heb. text); and in the Talm.: of the מַ‏ חְׁ‏ בֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ תroofs of two houses (Bathra 6a, ‏ּתָ‏ א ‏,לּופְׁ‏ thejoining). Accordingly ‏,לתלף׳ if we interpret theLamed not of the definition, but of the norm,may signify, “in ranks together.” The Lamed hasalready been thus rendered by Döderl.: “inturns” (cf. פַ‏ ת ‏,לָ‏ to turn, to wind); and by Meier,Mr.: “in gradation;” and Aq. and Jerome alsosuppose that תלף׳ refers to component parts ofthe building itself, for they understandpinnacles or parapets (ἐπάλξε ς, propugnacula);as also the Venet.: εἰς ἐπάλξε ς χ λί ς. But thename for pinnacles is נָ‏ ה ‏,פִ‏ and their points,is the more תלף׳ contrary, while, on the ‏;שְׁ‏ מָ‏ שותappropriate name for terraces which,connected together, rise the one above theother. Thus to build towers like terraces, and toplace the one, as it were, above the other, was aBabylonian custom. The comparison lies in this,that Shulamith’s neck was surrounded withornaments so that it did not appear as auniform whole, but as composed of terraces.That the neck is represented as hung roundwith ornaments, the remaining portion of thedescription shows.signifies a shield, as that which protects, like ‏ֹּמָ‏ גֵ‏ ןclupeus (clypeus), perhaps connected withλύπ ε and לֶּ‏ ט ‏,שֶּ‏ from שָ‏ לַ‏ ט = (Arab.) shalita,as a hard impenetrable armour. The latter ishere the more common word, whichcomprehends, with גֵ‏ ן ‏,מָ‏ the round shield; alsothe oval shield, which covers the whole ‏,צִ‏ נָ‏ הbody; and other forms of shields. לֶּ‏ ף הַ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ גֵ‏ ן ‏,אֶּ‏ “thethousand shields,” has the indicative, if not(vid., under 1:11) the generic article. Theappositional כֹל שִ‏ לְׁ‏ טֵ‏ י הַ‏ גִ‏ ׳ is not intended tomean: all shields of (von) heroes, which itwould if the article were prefixed to col andomitted before gibborim, or if ‏,כֻ‏ לָ‏ ם 3:8, wereused; but it means: all the shields of heroes, asthe accentuation also indicates. The article isalso here significant. Solomon made, accordingto 1 Kings 10:16f., 200 golden targets and 300golden shields, which he put in the house of theforest of Lebanon. These golden shieldsPharaoh Shishak took away with him, andRehoboam replaced them by “shields of brass,”which the guards bore when they accompaniedthe king on his going into the temple (1 Kings14:26–28; cf. 2 Chron. 12:9–11); these “shieldsof David,” i.e., shields belonging to the king’shouse, were given to the captains of the guardon the occasion of the raising of Joash to thethrone, 2 Kings 11:10; cf. 2 Chron. 23:9. Ofthese brazen shields, as well as of those of gold,it is expressly said how and where they werekept, nowhere that they were hung up outsideon a tower, the tower of David. Such a display ofthe golden shields is also very improbable. Wewill perhaps have to suppose that 4b describesthe tower of David, not as it actually was, but asone has to represent it to himself, that it mightbe a figure of Shulamith’s neck. This iscompared to the terraced tower of David, if onethinks of it as hung round by a thousand shieldswhich the heroes bore, those heroes, namely,who formed the king’s body-guard. Thus it isnot strange that to the 200 + 300 golden shieldsare here added yet 500 more; the body-guard,reckoned in companies of 100 each, 2 Kings11:4, is estimated as consisting of 1000 men.The description, moreover, corresponds with‏ּתָ‏ לּוי not ‏,ּתָ‏ לּוי עָ‏ לָ‏ יו ancient custom. The words arethe outer wall of the tower is thought of as ‏;בוdecorated with shields hung upon it. Thatshields were thus hung round on tower-walls,Ezekiel shows in his prophecy regarding Tyre,27:11; cf. 1 Macc. 4:57, and supra forisCapitolinae aedis, Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxv. 3; andalthough we express the presumption thatSolomon’s imagination represented David’stower as more gorgeous than it actually was,yet we must confess that we are not sufficientlyacquainted with Solomon’s buildings to be ableto pass judgment on this. These manifoldinexplicable references of the Song to theunfolded splendour of Solomon’s reign, are

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 49By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyfavourable to the Solomonic authorship of thebook. This grandiose picture of thedistinguished beauty of the neck, and theheightening of this beauty by the ornament ofchains, is now followed by a beautiful figure,which again goes back to the use of thelanguage of shepherds, and terminates thedescription:5 Thy two breasts are like two fawns,Twins of a gazelle,Which feed among lilies.Song 4:5. The dual, originating in the innerdiffer. of the plur., which denotes in Heb. nottwo things of any sort, but two paired by nature‏,שָ‏ דַ‏ יִם form; or by art, exists only in the principalas soon as inflected, is unrecognisable,therefore here, where the pair as such ispraised, the word שְׁ‏ נֵי is used. The breasts arecompared to a twin pair of young gazelles inrespect of their equality and youthful freshness,and the bosom on which they raise themselvesis compared to a meadow covered with lilies,on which the twin-pair of young gazelles feed.With this tender lovely image the praise of theattractions of the chosen one is interrupted. Ifone counts the lips and the mouth as a part ofthe body, which they surely are, there are seventhings here praised, as Hengst. rightly counts(the eyes, the hair, teeth, mouth, temples, neck,breasts); and Hahn speaks with right of thesevenfold beauty of the bride.Song 4:6. Shulamith replies to these words ofpraise:6 Until the day cools and the shadows flee,I will go forth to the mountain of myrrhAnd to the hill of frankincense.All those interpreters who suppose these to bea continuation of Solomon’s words, losethemselves in absurdities. Most of themunderstand the mountain of myrrh and the hillof frankincense of Shulamith’s attractions,praised in v. 5, or of her beauty as a whole; butthe figures would be grotesque (cf. on the otherhand ,(5:13 and אֵ‏ לֵ‏ ‏ְך לִ‏ י אֶּ‏ ל prosaic, wherefore itcomes that the idea of betaking oneself awayconnects itself with הלך לו (Gen. 12:1; Ex.18:27), or that it yet preponderates therein(Gen. 22:2; Jer. 5:5), and that, for אלך לי in thepassage before us in reference to 2:10, 11, thesupposition holds that it will correspond withthe French jè m’en irai. With right Louis de Leonsees in the mountain of myrrh and the hill offrankincense names of shady and fragrantplaces; but he supposes that Solomon says hewishes to go thither to enjoy a siesta, and thathe invites Shulamith thither. But we readnothing of this invitation; and that abridegroom should sleep a part of his marriagedayis yet more unnatural than that, e.g., Wilh.Budäus, the French philologist, spent a part ofthe same at work in his study. That notSolomon but Shulamith speaks here is manifestin the beginning, “until the day,” etc., which at2:17 are also Shulamith’s words. Anton (1773)rightly remarks, “Shulamith says this to setherself free.” But why does she seek to makeherself free? It is answered, that she longs to beforth from Solomon’s too ardent eulogies; shesays that, as soon as it is dark, she will escape tothe blooming aromatic fields of her nativehome, where she hopes to meet with herbeloved shepherd. Thus, e.g., Ginsburg (1868).But do myrrh and frankincense grow in NorthPalestine? Ginsburg rests on Florus’ EpitomeRerum Rom. iii. 6, where Pompey the Great issaid to have passed over Lebanon and byDamascus “per nemora illa odorata, per thuris etbalsami sylvas.” But by these thuris et balsamisylvae could be meant only the gardens ofDamascus; for neither myrrh nor frankincenseis indigenous to North Palestine, or generally toany part of Palestine. Friedrich (1866)therefore places Shulamith’s home at Engedi,and supposes that she here once more looksfrom the window and dotes on the mountain ofmyrrh and the hill of frankincense, “where, atthe approach of twilight, she was wont to lookout for her betrothed shepherd.” But Shulamith,as her name already denotes, is not from thesouth, but is a Galilean, and her betrothedshepherd is from Utopia! That myrrh andfrankincense were planted in the gardens of

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 50By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyEngedi is possible, although (Song 1:14)mention is made only of the Al-henna there. Buthere places in the neighbourhood of the royalpalace must be meant; for the myrrh tree, thegum of which, prized as an aroma, is the Arab.Balsamodendron Myrrha, and the frankincensetree, the resin of which is used for incense, is,like the myrrh tree, an Arab. amyrid. TheBoswellia serrata, indigenous to the East Indies,furnishes the best frankincense; the Israelitesbought it from Sheba (Isa. 60:6; Jer. 6:20). Themyrrh tree as well as the frankincense treewere thus exotics in Palestine, as they are inour own country; but Solomon, who hadintercourse with Arabia and India by his ownmercantile fleet, procured them for his owngarden (Eccles. 2:5). The modest Shulamithshuns the loving words of praise; for sherequests that she may be permitted to betakeherself to the lonely places planted with myrrhand frankincense near the king’s palace, whereshe thinks to tarry in a frame of mind befittingthis day till the approaching darkness calls herback to the king. It is the importance of the daywhich suggests to her this לי ‏,אלך a day in whichshe enters into the covenant of her God withSolomon (Prov. 2:17). Without wishing toallegorize, we may yet not omit to observe, thatthe mountain of myrrh and the hill offrankincense put us in mind of the temple,where incense, composed of myrrh,frankincense, and other spices, ascended upbefore God every morning and evening (Ex.30:34ff.). הַ‏ ר הַ‏ ‏ֹּמור is perhaps a not unintentionalaccord to הַ‏ ר הַ‏ ‏ֹּמורִ‏ יָה (2 Chron. 3:1), themountain where God appeared; at all events,“mountain of myrrh” and “hill of frankincense”are appropriate names for places of devoutmeditation, where one holds fellowship withGod.Song 4:7. This childlike modest dispositionmakes her yet more lovely in the eyes of theking. He breaks out in these words:7 Thou art altogether fair, my love,And no blemish in thee.Certainly he means, no blemish either of soul orbody. In vv. 1–5 he has praised her externalbeauty; but in v. 6 her soul has disclosed itself:the fame of her spotless beauty is thereextended to her would no less than to herexternal appearance. And as to her longing afterfreedom from the tumult and bustle of courtlife, he thus promises to her:8 With me from Lebanon, my bride,With me from Lebanon shalt thou come;Shalt look from the top of Amana,From the top of Shenir and Hermon,From dens of lions,From mountains of leopards.Song 4:8. Zöckl. interprets אִ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ י in the sense ofin the sense of journeying to this ‏ּתָ‏ שּורִ‏ י and ‏,אֵ‏ לַ‏ יdefinite place: “he announces to her inoverflowing fulness of expression that from thistime forth, instead of the lonely mountainousregions, and the dangerous caves and dens, sheshall inhabit with him the royal palace.” Thusalso Kingsbury. But the interpretation, howeverplausible, cannot be supported. For (1) such anidea ought to be expressed either by אֵ‏ לַ‏ י תב׳ or(2) ‏;אּתי ‏ּתָ‏ ב׳ instead of ‏,תב׳ וְׁ‏ אִ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ י תֵ‏ שֵ‏ בִ‏ י byShulamith is not from Lebanon, nor from theAnti-Libanus, which looks toward Damascus;(3) this would be no answer to Shulamith’slonging for lonely quietness. We therefore holdby our explanation given in 1851. He seeks herto go with him up the steep heights of Lebanon,and to descend with him from thence; for whileascending the mountain one has no view beforehim, but when descending he has the wholepanorama of the surrounding region lying at hisfeet. Thus תש׳ is not to be understood as at Isa.57:9, where it has the meaning of migrabas, but,as at Num. 23:9, it means spectabis. With מֵ‏ ר׳ theidea of prospect lies nearer than that ofdescending; besides, the meaning spectare issecondary, for שּור signifies first “to go, proceed,journey,” and then “going to view, to go in orderto view.” Sêr in Arab. means “the scene,” and sêretmek in Turkish, “to contemplate” (cf. Arab.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 51By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studytamashy, to walk, then, to contemplate).Lebanon is the name of the Alpine range whichlies in the N.-W. of the Holy Land, and stretchesabove 20 (German) miles from the Leontes(Nahr el-Kasmîe) northwards to the Eleutheros(Nahr el-Kebîr). The other three names herefound refer to the Anti-Libanus separated fromthe Lebanon by the Coelo-Syrian valley, andstretching from the Banis northwards to theplain of Hamâth.Amana denotes that range of the Anti-Libanusfrom which the springs of the river Amanaissue, one of the two rivers which the Syriancaptain (2 Kings 5:12) named as better than allthe waters of Israel. These are the Amana andPharpar, i.e., the Baradâ and A’wadsh; to theunion of the Baradâ (called by the GreeksChrysorrhoas, i.e., “golden stream”) with theFeidshe, the environs of Damascus owe theirghuwdat, their paradisaical beauty.Hermon (from רַ‏ ם ‏,חָ‏ to cut of; cf. Arab. kharomand makhrim, the steep projection of amountain) is the most southern peak of theAnti-Libanus chain, the lofty mountains (about10,000 feet above the level of the sea) whichform the north-eastern border of Palestine, andfrom which the springs of the Jordan take theirrise.Another section of the Anti-Libanus range iscalled Senir, not Shenir. The name, in all thethree places where it occurs (Deut. 3:9; 1Chron. 5:23), is, in accordance with tradition, tobe written with Sin. The Onkelos Targum writesטורא דמסרי paraphrases, the Jerusalem ‏;סריוןputrid, (the mountain whose fruits become פירויviz., on account of their superabundance); theשהוא שובא הניר otherwise: Midrash explains(the mountain which resists being broken up bythe plough),—everywhere the writing of theword with the letter Sin is supposed. Accordingto Deut. 3:9, this was the Amorite name ofHermon. The expression then denotes that theAmorites called Hermon—i.e., the Anti-Libanusrange, for they gave the name of a part to thewhole range—by the name Senîr; Abulfeda usesArab. snîr as the name of the part to the north ofDamascus, with which the statement ofSchwarz (Das h. Land, p. 33) agrees, that theHermon (Anti-Libanus) to the north-west ofDamascus is called Senîr.panthers, to the present day inhabit the ‏,נְׁ‏ מַ‏ רִ‏ יםclefts and defiles of the Lebanon, and of theAnti-Libanus running parallel to it; whereaslions have now altogether disappeared from thecountries of the Mediterranean. In Solomon’stime they were to be met with in the lurkingplacesof the Jordan valley, and yet morefrequently in the remote districts of thenorthern Alpine chains. From the heights ofthese Alps Solomon says Shulamith shall alonewith him look down from where the lions andpanthers dwell. Near these beasts of prey, andyet inaccessible by them, shall she enjoy theprospect of the extensive pleasant land whichwas subject to the sceptre of him who held hersafe on these cliffs, and accompanied her overthese giddy heights. If “mountain of myrrh,” soalso “the top of Amana” is not withoutsubordinate reference. Amana, proceeding fromthe primary idea of firmness and verification,signifies fidelity and the faithful covenant as itis established between God and thecongregation, for He betrothes it to Himself(“in faithfulness”), Hos. 2:22 [20]; the באמונהcongregation of which the apostle (Eph. 5:27)says the same as is here said by Solomon ofShulamith. Here for the first time he calls herloq., for that, according to the usus ‏;כַ‏ לָ‏ תִ‏ י not ‏,כַ‏ לָ‏ הwould mean “my daughter-in-law.” Accordingly,it appears that the idea of “daughter-in-law” isthe primary, and that of “bride” the secondaryone. לָ‏ ה ‏,כַ‏ which is = לּולָ‏ ה ‏,כְׁ‏ as לָ‏ ה ‏,חַ‏ a cake, is =‏,כְׁ‏ לּולות (cf. that which is pierced through ‏,חֲ‏ לּולָ‏ הbeing espoused; Jer. 2:2), appears to mean (cf.what was said regarding חָ‏ תָ‏ ן under 3:11b) herwho is comprehended with the family intowhich, leaving her parents’ house, she enters;not her who is embraced = crowned with agarland (cf. Arab. qkll, to be garlanded; tēklîl,garlanding; iklil, Syr. klilo, a wreath), or her whois brought to completion (cf. the verb, Ezek.27:4, 11), i.e., has reached the goal of her

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 52By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studywomanly calling. Besides, לָ‏ ה ‏,כַ‏ like “Braut” inthe older German (e.g., Gudrun), means notonly her who is betrothed, but also her who hasbeen lately married.Song 4:9. All that the king calls his, she now cancall hers; for she has won his heart, and with hisheart himself and all that is his.9 Thou hast taken my heart, my sister-bride;Thou hast taken my heart with one of thyglances,With a little chain of thy necklace.The Piel לִ‏ בֵ‏ ב may mean to make courageous,and it actually has this meaning in the Aram.,wherefore the Syr. retains the word; Symm.renders it by ἐθά συ άς ε. But is it becoming ina man who is no coward, especially in a king, tosay that the love he cherishes gives him heart,i.e., courage? It might be becoming, perhaps, ina warrior who is inspired by the thought of hisbeloved, whose respect and admiration heseeks to gain, to dare the uttermost. ButSolomon is no Antar, no wandering knight.Besides, the first effect of love is different: itinfluences those whom it governs, not asencouraging, in the first instance, but asdisarming them; love responded to encourages,but love in its beginning, which is the subjecthere, overpowers. We would thus morenaturally render: “thou hast unhearted me;” but“to unheart,” according to the Semitic andgenerally the ancient conception of the heart(Psychol. p. 254), does not so much mean tocaptivate the heart, as rather to deprive ofunderstanding or of judgment (cf. Hos. 4:11).Such denomin. Pi. of names of corporealmembers signify not merely taking away, butalso wounding, and generally any violentaffection of it, as רֵ‏ ם ‏,זִ‏ נֵ‏ ב ‏,גֵ‏ Ewald, § 120c;accordingly the LXX, Venet., and Jerome:ἐ ί σάς ε, vulnerasti cor meum. Themeaning is the same for “thou hast woundedmy heart” = “thou hast subdued my heart” (cf.Ps. 45:6b). With one of her glances, with a littlechain of her necklace, she has overcome him aswith a powerful charm: veni, visa sum, vici. TheKerî changes באחד into אַ‏ חַ‏ ת ‏;בְׁ‏ certainly עַ‏ יִן ismostly fem. (e.g., Judg. 16:28), but not only theעַ‏ יִן or רָ‏ עָ‏ ה non-bibl. usus loq., which e.g., prefersof a malignant bewitching look, but also the ‏,רָ‏ עbibl. (vid., Zech. 3:9; 4:10) treats the word as ofdouble gender. עֲ‏ נָק and צַ‏ ‏ּוְׁ‏ רֹנִים are related to eachother as a part is to the whole. With the subst.ending ôn, the designation of an ornamentdesigned for the neck is formed from ‏ּוָ‏ אר ‏,צַ‏ theneck; cf. הֲ‏ רון ‏,שַ‏ the “round tires like the moon”of the women’s toilet, Isa. 3:18ff. עֲ‏ נָק (connectedwith עֹנֶּק ‏,עּונַק cervix) is a separate chain (Aram.‏,אַ‏ חַ‏ ד עֲ‏ נָק of this necklace. In the words ‏(עּונְׁקְׁ‏ תָ‏ אoccurring also out of ‏,אֶּ‏ חָ‏ ד is used instead of חַ‏ ד אַ‏genit. connection (Gen. 48:22; 2 Sam. 17:22),and the arrangement (vid., under Ps. 89:51)follows the analogy of the pure numerals asit appears to be transferred from the ‏;שָ‏ ‏ֹלש נָשִ‏ יםvulgar language to that used in books, where,besides the passage before us, it occurs only inDan. 8:13. That a glance of the eye may piercethe heart, experience shows; but how can alittle chain of a necklace do this? That also isintelligible. As beauty becomes unlike itselfwhen the attire shows want of taste, so bymeans of tasteful clothing, which does not needto be splendid, but may even be of the simplestkind, it becomes mighty. Hence the charmingattractive power of the impression one makescommunicates itself to all that he wears, as, e.g.,the woman with the issue of blood touchedwith joyful hope the hem of Jesus’ garment; forhe who loves feels the soul of that which isloved in all that stands connected therewith, allthat is, as it were, consecrated and charmed bythe beloved object, and operates so much themore powerfully if it adorns it, because as anornament of that which is beautiful, it appearsso much the more beautiful. In the precedingverse, Solomon has for the first time addressedShulamith by the title “bride.” Here withheightened cordiality he calls her “sister-bride.”In this change in the address the progress of thestory is mirrored. Why he does not say כַ‏ לָ‏ תִ‏ י (mybride), has already been explained, under 8a,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 53By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyfrom the derivation of the word. Solomon’smother might call Shulamith callathi, but hegives to the relation of affinity into whichShulamith has entered a reference to himselfindividually, for he says ăhhothi callā (mysister-bride): she who as callā of his mother isto her a kind of daughter, is as callā in relationto himself, as it were, his sister.Song 4:10, 11. He proceeds still further topraise her attractions.10 How fair is thy love, my sister-bride!How much better thy love than wine!And the fragrance of thy unguents than allspices!11 Thy lips drop honey, my bride;Honey and milk are under thy tongue;And the fragrance of thy garments is likethe fragrance of Lebanon.דודִ‏ ים pluralet. Regarding the connection of thewith the plur. of the pred., vid., at 1:2b. Thepred. יָפּו praises her love in its manifestations‏,טֹבּו sight; according to its impression on theaccording to its experience on nearerintercourse. As in v. 9 the same power ofimpression is attributed to the eyes and to thenecklace, so here is intermingled praise of thebeauty of her person with praise of thefragrance, the odour of the clothing of the bride;for her soul speaks out not only by her lips, shebreathes forth odours also for him in her spices,which he deems more fragrant than all otherodours, because he inhales, as it were, her soulalong with them. ת ‏,נֹפֶּ‏ from פַ‏ ת ‏,נָ‏ ebullire (vid.,under Prov. 5:3, also Schultens), is virgin honey,(acetum, Pliny, xi. 15), i.e., that which ofitself flows from the combs ים)‏ ‏.(צּופִ‏ Honey dropsfrom the lips which he kisses; milk and honeyare under the tongue which whispers to himwords of pure and inward joy; cf. the contrary,Ps. 140:4. The last line is an echo of Gen. 27:27.complecti) complicare, ‏,שָ‏ מַ‏ ל (from שִ‏ מְׁ‏ לָ‏ ה is שַ‏ לְׁ‏ מָ‏ הtransposed (cf. עַ‏ לְׁ‏ וָ‏ ה from כַ‏ שְׁ‏ בָ‏ ה ‏,עַ‏ וְׁ‏ לָ‏ ה fromAs Jacob’s raiment had for his old father ‏.(כַ‏ בְׁ‏ שָ‏ הthe fragrance of a field which God had blessed,so for Solomon the garments of the faultlessand pure one, fresh from the woods andmountains of the north, gave forth a heartstrengtheningsavour like the fragrance ofLebanon (Hos. 4:7), viz., of its fragrant herbsand trees, chiefly of the balsamic odour of theapples of the cedar.Song 4:12. The praise is sensuous, but it has amoral consecration.12 A garden locked is my sister-bride;A spring locked, a fountain sealed.658) § Böttch. (according to rule masc. גַ‏ נןגַ‏ ל enclosure; denotes the garden from its(elsewhere לָ‏ ה ‏,(גֻ‏ the fountain (synon. בּועַ‏ ‏,(מַ‏ the‏,מַ‏ עְׁ‏ יָן waves bubbling forth (cf. Amos 5:24); andthe place, as it were an eye of the earth, fromwhich a fountain gushes forth. Lutherdistinguishes rightly between gan and gal; onthe contrary, all the old translators (even theVenet.) render as if the word in both cases weregan. The Pasek between gan and nā’ul, andbetween gal and nā’ul, is designed to separatethe two Nuns, as e.g., at 2 Chron. 2:9, Neh. 2:2,the two Mems; it is the orthophonic Pasek,already described under 2:7, which secures theindependence of two similar or organicallyrelated sounds. Whether the sealed fountain(fons signatus) alludes to a definite fountainwhich Solomon had built for the upper city andthe temple place, we do not now inquire. To alocked garden and spring no one has access butthe rightful owner, and a sealed fountain is shutagainst all impurity. Thus she is closed againstthe world, and inaccessible to all that woulddisturb her pure heart, or desecrate her pureperson. All the more beautiful and the greater isthe fulness of the flowers and fruits whichbloom and ripen in the garden of this life,closed against the world and its lust.13 What sprouts forth for thee is a park ofpomegranates,With most excellent fruits;Cypress flowers with nards;14 Nard and crocus; calamus and cinnamon,With all kinds of incense trees;

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 54By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyMyrrh and aloes,With all the chief aromatics.Song 4:13, 14. The common subject to all downto v. 15 inclusive is שְׁ‏ לָ‏ חַ‏ יְִך (“what sprouts forthee” = “thy plants”), as a figurative designation,borrowed from plants, of all the “phenomenaand life utterances” (Böttch.) of her personality.“If I only knew here,” says Rocke, “how todisclose the meaning, certainly all these flowersand fruits, in the figurative language of theOrient, in the flower-language of love, had theirbeautiful interpretation.” In the old Germanpoetry, also, the phrase bluomen brechen [tobreak flowers] was equivalent to: to enjoy love;the flowers and fruits named are figures of allthat the amata offers to the amator. Most of theplants here named are exotics; פַ‏ רְׁ‏ דֵ‏ ס (heapingaround, circumvallation, enclosing) is a gardenor park, especially with foreign ornamental andfragrant plants—an old Persian word, theexplanation of which, after Spiegel, first given inour exposition of the Song, 1851 (from pairi =πε ί, and dêz, R. diz, a heap), has now becomecommon property (Justi’s Handb. derZendsprache, .p .(180 פְׁ‏ רִ‏ י מְׁ‏ גָ‏ דִ‏ ים (from גֶּד ‏,מֶּ‏ whichcorresponds to The Arab. mejd, praise, honour,excellence; vid., Volck under Deut. 33:13) arefructus laudum, or lautitiarum, excellentprecious fruits, which in the more modernlanguage are simply called מְׁ‏ גָ‏ דִ‏ ים (Shabbath127b, מגדים ‏,מיני all kinds of fine fruits); cf. Syr.magdo, dried fruit. Regarding ר ‏,כֹפֶּ‏ vid., under1:14; regarding ‏,מֹר under 1:13; also regardingנֵ‏ רְׁ‏ דְׁ‏ under .1:12 The long vowel of ‏,נֵ‏ רְׁ‏ דְׁ‏corresponds to the Pers. form nârd, but near towhich is also nard, Indian nalada (fragrancegiving);the ē is thus only the long accent, and‏,נרדים can therefore disappear in the plur. ForGrätz reads דִ‏ ים , roses, because the poet wouldnot have named nard twice. The conjecture isbeautiful, but for us, who believe the poem tobe Solomonic, is inconsistent with the history ofroses (vid., under 2:1), and also unnecessary.יְׁרָ‏The description moves forward by stepsrhythmically.is the crocus stativus, the genuine Indian כַ‏ רְׁ‏ כֹםsafran, the dried flower-eyes of which yield thesafran used as a colour, as an aromatic, and alsoas medicine; safran is an Arab. word, and meansyellow root and yellow colouring matter. Thename רְׁ‏ כֹם ‏,כַ‏ Pers. karkam, Arab. karkum, isradically Indian, Sanscr. kun kuma. נֶּ‏ ה ‏,קָ‏ a reed(from נָ‏ ה ‏,קָ‏ R. ‏,קן to rise up, viewed intrans.), viz.,sweet reed, acorus calamus, which with us nowgrows wild in marshes, but is indigenous to theOrient.is the laurus cinnamomum, a tree קִ‏ נָ‏ מונןindigenous to the east coast of Africa andCeylon, and found later also on the Antilles. It isof the family of the laurineae, the inner bark ofwhich, peeled off and rolled together, is thecinnamon-bark (cannella, French cannelle);Aram. מָ‏ א ‏,קּונְׁ‏ as also the Greek ά andί , Lat. (e.g., in the 12th book of Pliny)cinnamomum and cinnamum, are interchanged,from נַ‏ ם ‏,קָ‏ probably a secondary formation fromto which ‏,(בָ‏ א from ‏,בָ‏ מָ‏ ה whence ‏,בָ‏ ם (like קָ‏ נָ‏ הalso Syr. qnûmā’, ὑπ σ σ ς, and the Talm.-Targ.go back, so that thus ‏,(קְׁ‏ יָם (cf. an oath ‏,קִ‏ נּום קונָ‏ םthe name which was brought to the west by thePhoenicians denoted not the tree, but the reedlikeform of the rolled dried bark. As “nards”refer to varieties of the nard, perhaps to theIndian and the Jamanic spoken of by Strabo andothers, so “all kinds of incense trees” refersdefinitely to Indo-Arab. varieties of the incensetree and its fragrant resin; it has its name frothe white and transparent seeds of this its resin(cf. Arab. lubân, incense and benzoin, the resinof the storax tree, בְׁ‏ נֶּ‏ ה ‏;(לִ‏ the Greek λί σλ ς (Lat. thus, frankincense, from θύ ), isa word derived from the Pheonicians.(which already in a remarkable אֲ‏ הָ‏ לִ‏ ים or אֲ‏ הָ‏ לותway was used by Balaam, Num. 24:6, elsewhereonly since the time of Solomon) is the Semitizedold Indian name of the aloe, agaru or aguru;that which is aromatic is the wood of the aloe-

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 55By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studytree (aloëxylon agallochum), particularly itsdried root (agallochum or lignum aloës,ξυλ λ η, according to which the Targ. here:Aruch) after the phrase in ‏,אכסיל אלואיןmouldered in the earth, which chiefly camefrom farther India. ם ‏,עִ‏ as everywhere, connectsthings contained together or in any way united(Song 5:1; cf. 1:11, as Ps. 87:4; cf. 1 Sam. 16:12).The concluding phrase ם כָ‏ ל־רַ‏ ׳ וגו׳ ‏,עִ‏ cumpraestantissimis quibusque aromatibus, is apoet. et cetera. ‏ֹאש ‏,ר with the gen. of the objectwhose value is estimated, denotes what is ofmeilleure qualité; or, as the Talm. says, what isλφ , i.e., number one. Ezekiel, 27:22, in a ‏,אלפאsimilar sense, says, “with chief ‏ֹאש)‏ ‏(ר of allspices.”Song 4:15. The panegyric returns now oncemore to the figure of a fountain.15 A garden-fountain, a well of living water,And torrents from Lebanon.The tertium compar. in v. 12 was the collectingand sealing up; here, it is the inner life and its‏,גַ‏ נִים)‏ outward activity. A fountain in gardenscateg. pl.) is put to service for the benefit of thebeds of plants round about, and it has in thesegardens, as it were, its proper sphere ofinfluence. A well of living water is one in whichthat which is distributes springs up fromwithin, so that it is indeed given to it, but notwithout at the same time being its own trueproperty. נָ‏ זַ‏ ל is related, according to the Semiticusus loq., to זַ‏ ל ‏,אָ‏ as “niedergehen” (to go down)to “weggehen” (to go away) (vid., Prov. 5:15);similarly related are (Arab.) sar, to go, and sal(in which the letter ra is exchanged for lam, toexpress the softness of the liquid), to flow,whence syl (sêl), impetuous stream, rushingwater, kindred in meaning to לִ‏ ים ‏.נֹזְׁ‏ Streamswhich come from Lebanon have a rapiddescent, and (so far as they do not arise in thesnow region) the water is not only fresh, butclear as crystal. All these figures understoodsensuously would be insipid; but understoodethically, they are exceedingly appropriate, andare easily interpreted, so that the conjecture isnatural, that on the supposition of the spiritualinterpretation of the Song, Jesus has this sayingin His mind when He says that streams of livingwater shall flow “out of the belly” of thebeliever, John 7:38.Song 4:16. The king’s praise is for Shulamithproof of his love, which seeks a response. But asshe is, she thinks herself yet unworthy of him;her modesty says to her that she needspreparation for him, preparation by thatblowing which is the breath of God in thenatural and in the spiritual world.16 Awake, thou North (wind), and come, thouSouth!Blow through my garden, cause its spices toflow—Let my beloved come into his garden,And eat the fruits which are precious tohim.The names of the north and south, denoting notonly the regions of the heavens, but also thewinds blowing from these regions, are of thefem. gender, Isa. 43:6. The east wind, דִ‏ ים ‏,קָ‏ ispurposely not mentioned; the idea of thatwhich is destructive and adverse is connectedwith it (vid., under Job 27:21). The north windbrings cold till ice is formed, Sir. 43:20; and ifthe south wind blow, it is hot, Luke 12:55. Ifcold and heat, coolness and sultriness,interchange at the proper time, then growth ispromoted. And if the wind blow through agarden at one time from this direction and atanother from that,—not so violently as when itshakes the trees of the forest, but softly and yetas powerfully as a garden can bear it,—then allthe fragrance of the garden rises in waves, andit becomes like a sea of incense. The garden= פָ‏ ח)‏ itself then blows, i.e., emits odours; forthe Arab. fakh, fah, cf. fawh, pl. afwâh, sweetodours, fragrant plants) as in הַ‏ יום ‏,רּוחַ‏ Gen. 3:8,the idea underlies the expression, that when itis evening the day itself blows, i.e., becomescool, the causative פִ‏ יחִ‏ י ‏,הָ‏ connected with theobject-accus. of the garden, means to make the

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 56By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studygarden breezy and fragrant. נָ‏ זַ‏ ל is here used ofthe odours which, set free as it were from theplants, flow out, being carried forth by thewaves of air. Shulamith wishes that in her allthat is worthy of love should be fully realized.What had to be done for Esther (Esth. 2:12)before she could be brought in to the king,Shulamith calls on the winds to accomplish forher, which are, as it were, the breath of the lifeof all nature, and as such, of the life-spirit,which is the sustaining background of allcreated things. If she is thus prepared for himwho loves her, and whom she loves, he shallcome into his garden and enjoy the preciousfruit belonging to him. With words of suchgentle tenderness, childlike purity, she givesherself to her beloved.Song 5:1. She gives herself to him, and he hasaccepted her, and now celebrates the delight ofpossession and enjoyment.1 I am come into my garden, my sister-bride;Have plucked my myrrh with my balsam;Have eaten my honeycomb with my honey;Have drunk my wine with my milk—Eat, drink, and be drunken, ye friends!If the exclamation of Solomon, 1a, isimmediately connected with the words ofShulamith, 4:16, then we must suppose that,influenced by these words, in which the ardourof love and humility express themselves, hethus in triumph exclaims, after he hasembraced her in his arms as his owninalienable possession. But the exclamationdenotes more than this. It supposes a union oflove, such as is the conclusion of marriagefollowing the betrothal, the God-ordained aimof sexual love within the limits fixed bymorality. The poetic expression בָ‏ אתִ‏ י לְׁ‏ גַ‏ נִי pointsto the אֶּ‏ ל ‏,בוא used of the entrance of a man intothe woman’s chamber, to which the expression(Arab.) dakhal bihā (he went in with her), usedof the introduction into the bride’s chamber, iscompared. The road by which Solomon reachedthis full and entire possession was not short,and especially for his longing it was alengthened one. He now triumphs in the finalenjoyment which his ardent desire had found. Apleasant enjoyment which is reached in the wayand within the limits of the divine order, andwhich therefore leaves no bitter fruits of selfreproach,is pleasant even in the retrospect. Hiswords, beginning with “I am come into mygarden,” breathe this pleasure in the retrospect.Ginsburg and others render incorrectly, “I amcoming,” which would require the words tohave been נֵ‏ ה)‏ אֲ‏ נִי בָ‏ א ‏.(הִ‏ The series of perfectsbeginning with באתי cannot be meant otherwisethan retrospectively. The “garden” is Shulamithherself, 4:12, in the fulness of her personal andspiritual attractions, 4:16; cf. ‏,כַ‏ רְׁ‏ מִ‏ י 1:6. He maycall her “my sister-bride;” the garden is then hisby virtue of divine and human right, he hasobtained possession of this garden, he hasbroken its costly rare flowers.(in the Mishna dialect the word used of אָ‏ רָ‏ הplucking figs) signifies to pluck; the Aethiop.trans. ararku karbê, I have plucked myrrh; for‏.ארה the Aethiop. has arara instead of simplywith its ‏,בֶּ‏ שֶּ‏ ם deflected. While בָ‏ שָ‏ ם is here בְׁ‏ שָ‏ מִ‏ יplur. bsâmim, denotes fragrance in general, andonly balsam specially, bāsām = (Arab.) bashâmis the proper name of the balsam-tree (theMecca balsam), amyris opobalsamum, which,according to Forskal, is indigenous in thecentral mountain region of Jemen (S. Arabia); itis also called (Arab.) balsaman; the word foundits way in this enlarged form into the West, and‏,אַ‏ פופַ‏ לְׁ‏ סְׁ‏ מון ‏,בַ‏ לְׁ‏ סְׁ‏ מון then returned in the forms(Syr. afrusomo), into the East. Balsam אַ‏ פַ‏ רְׁ‏ סְׁ‏ מָ‏ אand other spices were brought in abundance toKing Solomon as a present by the Queen ofSheba, 1 Kings 10:10; the celebrated balsamplantations of Jericho (vid., Winer’s Real-W.),which continued to be productive till theRoman period, might owe their origin to thefriendly relations which Solomon sustained tothe south Arab. princess. Instead of the Indianaloe, 4:14, the Jamanic balsam is hereconnected with myrrh as a figure of Shulamith’sexcellences. The plucking, eating, and drinking

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 57By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyare only interchangeable figurativedescriptions of the enjoyment of love.“Honey and milk,” says Solomon, 4:11, “is underthy tongue.” יַעַ‏ ר is like ‏,יַעֲ‏ רָ‏ ה 1 Sam. 14:27, thecomb (favus) or cells containing the honey,—adesignation which has perhaps been borrowedfrom porous lava. With honey and milk “underthe tongue” wine is connected, to which, andthat of the noblest kind, 7:10, Shulamith’spalate is compared. Wine and milk together areἰ γ λ , which Chloe presents to Daphnis(Longus, i. 23). Solomon and his Song herehover on the pinnacle of full enjoyment; but ifone understands his figurative language as itinterprets itself, it here also expresses thatdelight of satisfaction which the author of Ps.19:6a transfers to the countenance of the risingsun, in words of a chaste purity which sexuallove never abandons, in so far as it is connectedwith esteem for a beloved wife, and with thepreservation of mutual personal dignity. Forthis very reason the words of Solomon, 1a,cannot be thought of as spoken to the guests.Between 4:16 and 5:1a the bridal nightintervenes. The words used in 1a are Solomon’smorning salutation to her who has now whollybecome his own. The call addressed to theguests at the feast is given forth on the secondday of the marriage, which, according to ancientcustom, Gen. 29:28, Judg. 14:12, was wont to becelebrated for seven days, Tob. 11:18. Thedramatical character of the Song leads to thisresult, that the pauses are passed over, thescenes are quickly changed, and the timesappear to be continuous.The plur. דודִ‏ ים Hengst. thinks always designates“love” (Liebe); thus, after Prov. 7:28, also here:Eat, friends, drink and intoxicate yourselves inlove. But the summons, inebriamini amoribus,has a meaning if regarded as directed by theguests to the married pair, but not as directed‏,רוה דֹדִ‏ ים to the guests. And while we may sayyet not דו׳ ‏,שכר for shakar has always only theaccus. of a spirituous liquor after it. Thereforenone of the old translators (except only theVenet.: εθύσθη ε ἔ σ ) understood dodim,notwithstanding that elsewhere in the Song itmeans love, in another than a personal sense;are here the plur. of the elsewhere דח׳ and רֵ‏ עִ‏ יםparallels רֵ‏ ע and ‏,דוד e.g., 5:16b, according towhich also (cf. on the contrary, 4:16b) they areaccentuated. Those who are assembled are, assympathizing friends, to participate in thepleasures of the feast. The Song of Songs hashere reached its climax. A Paul would nothesitate, after Eph. 5:31f., to extend the mysticalinterpretation even to this. Of the antitype ofthe marriage pair it is said: “For the marriage ofthe Lamb is come, and His wife hath madeherself ready” (Rev. 19:7); and of the antitypeof the marriage guests: “Blessed are they whichare called unto the marriage supper of theLamb” (Rev. 19:9).Song of Solomon 5Love Disdained But Won Again—Ch. 5:2–6:9First Scene of the Fourth Act, 5:2–6:3In this fourth Act we are not now carried backto the time when Solomon’s relation toShulamith was first being formed. We are notplaced here amid the scenes of their first love,but of those of their married life, and of theiroriginal ardour of affection maintaining itselfnot without trial. This is evident from thecircumstance that in the first two Acts thebeloved is addressed by the title רעיתי (myfriend, beloved), and that the third Act rises tothe title כלה (bride) and אחתי כלה (my sisterbride);in the fourth Act, on the other hand,along with the title ra’yaihi, we hear no longercalla, nor ahhothi calla, but simply ahhothi, —atitle of address which contributes to heightenthe relation, to idealize it, and give it a mysticalbackground. We have here presented to uspictures from the life of the lovers after theirmarriage has been solemnized. Shulamith,having reached the goal of her longing, has adream like that which she had (Song 3:1–4)before she reached that goal. But the dreams,however they resemble each other, are yet alsodifferent, as their issues show; in the former,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 58By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyshe seeks him, and having found him holds himfast; here, she seeks him and finds him not. Thatthat which is related belongs to the dream-lifein Song 3, was seen from the fact that it wasinconceivable as happening in real life; herethat which is related is expressly declared inthe introductory words as having occurred in adream.2 I sleep, but my heart keeps waking—Hearken! my beloved is knocking:Open to me, my sister, my love,My dove, my perfect one;For my head is filled with dew,My locks (are) full of the drops of the night.Song 5:2. The partic. subst. clauses, 2a, indicatethe circumstances under which that which isrelated in 2b occurred. In the principal sentencein hist. prose וַ‏ יִדְׁ‏ פֹק would be used; here, in thedramatic vivacity of the description, is found inits stead the interject. vocem = ausculta with thegen. foll., and a word designating state orcondition added, thought of as accus. accordingto the Semitic syntax (like Gen. 4:10; Jer. 10:22;cf. 1 Kings 14:6). To sleep while the heartwakes signifies to dream, for sleep and distinctconsciousness cannot be coexistent; themovements of thought either remain inobscurity or are projected as dreams. עֵ‏ ר = ’awiris formed from ‏,עּור to be awake (in its rootcogn. to the Aryan gar, of like import in= מֵ‏ ת γ ηγ ε ἐγεί ε ), in the same way asmawith from ‏.מּות The ש has here the conj. senseof “dieweil” (because), like asher in Eccles. 6:12;8:15. The ר dag., which occurs several timeselsewhere (vid., under Prov. 3:8; 14:10), is oneof the inconsistencies of the system ofpunctuation, which in other instances does notdouble the ‏;ר perhaps a relic of the Babylonianidiom, which was herein more accordant withthe lingual nature of the ר than the Tiberian,which treated it as a semi-guttural. וֻ‏ צָ‏ ה ‏,קְׁ‏ a lockof hair, from יַץ = קָ‏ ץ ‏,קָ‏ abscîdit, follows in theformation of the idea, the analogy of צִ‏ יר ‏,קָ‏ in thesense of branch, from צַ‏ ר ‏,קָ‏ desecuit; one sonames a part which is removed without injuryto the whole, and which presents itselfconveniently for removal; cf. the oath sworn byEgyptian women, laḥajât muḳṣûsi, “by the life ofmy separated,” i.e., “of my locks” (Lane, Egypt,etc., I 38). The word still survives in the Talmuddialect. Of a beautiful young man who proposedto become a Nazarite, Nedarim 9a says thesame as the Jer. Horajoth iii. 4 of a man who wasa prostitute in Rome: his locks were arranged inseparate masses, like heap upon heap; in‏,קַ‏ ‏ּוָ‏ ץ 27:11, Gen. Bereshith rabba c. lxv., undercurly-haired, is placed over against רֵ‏ חַ‏ ‏,קֵ‏ baldheaded,and the Syr. also has ḳauṣoto as thedesignation of locks of hair,—a word used by‏,קְׁ‏ וֻ‏ צות Heb. the Peshito as the rendering of theas the Syro-Hexap. Job 16:12, the Greek η.(Arab. ṭll, to moisten, viz., the טָ‏ לַ‏ ל from ‏,טַ‏ לground; to squirt, viz., blood), is in Arabicdrizzling rain, in Heb. dew; the drops of thenight סִ‏ יסֵ‏ י)‏ ‏,רְׁ‏ from סַ‏ ס ‏,רָ‏ to sprinkle, to drizzle)are just drops of dew, for the precipitation ofthe damp air assumes this form in nights whichare not so cold as to become frosty. Shulamiththus dreams that her beloved seeks admissionto her. He comes a long way and at night. In themost tender words he entreats for that whichhe expects without delay. He addresses her,“my sister,” as one of equal rank with himself,and familiar as a sister with a brother; “mylove” עְׁ‏ ׳)‏ ‏,(רֲ‏ as one freely chosen by him tointimate fellowship; “my dove,” as beloved andprized by him on account of her purity,simplicity, and loveliness. The meaning of thefourth designation used by him, ‏ֹּמָ‏ תִ‏ י ‏,ּתַ‏ is shownby the Arab. tam to be “wholly devoted,”whence teim, “one devoted” = a servant, andmutajjam, desperately in love with one. Inaddressing her ‏,תמתי he thus designates thislove as wholly undivided, devoting itselfwithout evasion and without reserve. But onthis occasion this love did not approve itself, atleast not at once.3 I have put off my dress,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 59By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyHow shall I put it on again?I have washed my feet,How shall I defile them again?Song 5:3. She now lies unclothed in bed. כֻ‏ ‏ּתֹנֶּ‏ ת isthe χ ώ worn next to the body, from ‏,כתן linen(diff. from the Arab. ḳuṭun, cotton, whenceFrench coton, calico = cotton-stuff). She hadalready washed her feet, from which it issupposed that she had throughout the daywalked barefooted,—how יכָ‏ כָ‏ ה)‏ ‏,אֵ‏ how? both‏,אְׁ‏ יכָ‏ ה cf. times with the tone on the penult.;where? 1:7) should she again put on her dress,which she had already put off and laid asiderelating to ‏,אֲ‏ טַ‏ נְׁ‏ פֵ‏ ם)‏ why should she soil ‏?(פָ‏ שַ‏ ט)‏the fem. גְׁ‏ לַ‏ י ‏,רַ‏ for ן ‏(אטנפֵ‏ again her feet, that hadbeen washed clean? Shulamith is here broughtback to the customs as well as to the home ofher earlier rural life; but although she shouldthus have been enabled to reach a deeper andmore lively consciousness of the grace of theking, who stoops to an equality with her, yetshe does not meet his love with an equalrequital. She is unwilling for his sake to putherself to trouble, or to do that which isdisagreeable to her. It cannot be thought thatsuch an interview actually took place; and yetwhat she here dreamed had not only inwardreality, but also full reality. For in a dream, thatwhich is natural to us or that which belongs toour very constitution becomes manifest, andmuch that is kept down during our wakinghours by the power of the will, by a sense ofpropriety, and by the activities of life, comes tolight during sleep; for fancy then stirs up theground of our nature and brings it forth indreams, and thus exposes us to ourselves insuch a way as oftentimes, when we waken, tomake us ashamed and alarmed. Thus it waswith Shulamith. In the dream it was inwardlymanifest that she had lost her first love. Sherelates it with sorrow; for scarcely had sherejected him with these unworthy deceitfulpretences when she comes to herself again.4 My beloved stretched his hand through theopening,And my heart was moved for him.Song 5:4. ‏,חּור from the verb ‏,חּור in the sense of1:10, ‏,חָ‏ רַ‏ ז whence also ‏,חר (R. to break throughand רַ‏ ם ‏,חָ‏ Arab. kharam, part. broken through,e.g., of a lattice-window), signifies foramen, ahole, also caverna (whence the name of theTroglodytes, י ‏,חֹרִ‏ and the Haurân, וְׁ‏ רָ‏ ן ‏,(חַ‏ here theloophole in the door above (like khawkht, thelittle door for the admission of individuals inthe street or house-door). It does not properlymean a window, but a part of the door piercedthrough at the upper part of the lock of the door(the door-bolt). מִ‏ ן־הַ‏ חור is understood from thestandpoint of one who is within; “by theopening from without to within,” thus “throughthe opening;” stretching his hand through thedoor-opening as if to open the door, if possible,by the pressing back of the lock from within, heshows how greatly he longed after Shulamith.And she was again very deeply moved whenshe perceived this longing, which she had socoldly responded to: the interior of her body,with the organs which, after the bibl. idea, arethe seat of the tenderest emotions, or rather, inwhich they reflect themselves, both such as areagreeable and such as are sorrowful, groanedwithin her,—an expression of deep sympathyso common, that “the sounding of the bowels,”Isa. 63:15, an expression used, and thatanthropopathically of God Himself, is a directdesignation of sympathy or inner participation.עָ‏ לָ‏ י and עָ‏ לָ‏ יו The phrase here wavers between(thus, e.g., Nissel, 1662). Both forms areadmissible. It is true we say elsewhere onlynaphshi ‘āl i, ruhi ‘āl i, libbi ‘āl i, for the Egodistinguishes itself from its substance (cf.System d. bibl. Psychologie, p. 151f.); meäi ‘aläi,instead of bi קִ‏ רְׁ‏ בִ‏ י)‏ ‏,(בְׁ‏ would, however, be alsoexplained from this, that the bowels are meant,not anatomically, but as psychical organs. Butthe old translators (LXX, Targ., Syr., Jerome,Venet.) rendered ‏,עליו which rests on later MSauthority (vid., Norzi, and de Rossi), and is alsomore appropriate: her bowels are stirred, viz.,over him, i.e., on account of him (Alkabez:

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 60By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyAs she will now open to him, she is ‏.(בעבורוinwardly more ashamed, as he has come so fullof love and longing to make her glad.5 I arose to open to my beloved,And my hands dropped with myrrh,And my fingers with liquid myrrh,On the handle of the bolt.Song 5:5. The personal pron. אֲ‏ נִי stands withoutemphasis before the verb which alreadycontains it; the common language of the peopledelights in such particularity. The Book ofHosea, the Ephraimite prophet’s work, ismarked by such a style. עֹבֵ‏ ר ‏,מור with which theparallel clause goes beyond the simple mōr, ismyrrh flowing over, dropping out of itself, i.e.,that which breaks through the bark of thebalsamodendron myrrha, or which flows out ifan incision is made in it; myrrha stacte, of whichPliny (xii. 35) says: cui nulla praefertur,otherwise דְׁ‏ רור ‏,מֹר from רַ‏ ר ‏,דָ‏ to gush out, topour itself forth in rich jets. He has comeperfumed as if for a festival, and the costlyointment which he brought with him has‏,מַ‏ נְׁעּול)‏ dropped on the handles of the boltskeeping locked, after the form לְׁ‏ בּוש ‏,מַ‏ drawingon), viz., the inner bolt, which he wished towithdraw. A classical parallel is found inLucretius, iv. 1171:“At lacrimans exclusus amator limina saepeFloribus et sertis operit postesque superbosUnguit amaracĭno” …Böttch. here puts to Hitzig the question, “Didthe shepherd, the peasant of Engedi, bring withhim oil of myrrh?” Rejecting this reasonableexplanation, he supposes that the Shulamitess,still in Solomon’s care, on rising up quicklydipped her hand in the oil of myrrh, that shemight refresh her beloved. She thus had it nearher before her bed, as a sick person herdecoction. The right answer was, that thevisitant by night is not that imaginarypersonage, but it is Solomon. She had dreamedthat he stood before her door and knocked. Butfinding no response, he again in a momentwithdrew, when it was proved that Shulamithdid not requite his love and come forth to meetit in its fulness as she ought.6 I opened to my beloved;And my beloved had withdrawn, was gone:My soul departed when he spake—I sought him, and found him not;I called him, and he answered me not.Song 5:6. As the disciples at Emmaus, when theLord had vanished from the midst of them, saidto one another: Did not our heart burn withinus when He spake with us? so Shulamith saysthat when he spake, i.e., sought admission toher, she was filled with alarm, and almostterrified to death. Love-ecstasy (ἐ σ ῆ , ascontrast to γε έσθ ἐ ἑ υ ῷ) is not hereunderstood, for in such a state she would haveflown to meet him; but a sinking of the soul,such as is described by Terence (And. I 5. 16):“Oratio haec me miseram exanimavit metu.”The voice of her beloved struck her heart; butin the consciousness that she had estrangedherself from him, she could not openly meethim and offer empty excuses. But now sherecognises it with sorrow that she had notreplied to the deep impression of his lovingwords; and seeing him disappear withoutfinding him, she calls after him whom she hadslighted, but he answers her not. The words:“My soul departed when he spake,” are thereason why she now sought him and calledupon him, and they are not a supplementaryremark (Zöckl.); nor is there need for thecorrection of the text דָ‏ בְׁ‏ רו ‏,בְׁ‏ which should mean:(my soul departed) when he turned his back(Ewald), or, behind him (Hitz., Böttch.), fromvertere, (Arab.) dabara, tergum = דָ‏ בַ‏ רpraeterire,—the Heb. has the word בִ‏ יר , thehinder part, and as it appears, בֵ‏ ר ‏,דִ‏ to act frombehind (treacherously) and destroy, 2 Chron.‏,דָ‏ בַ‏ ר 22:10; cf. under Gen. 34:13, but not the Kalחָ‏ מַ‏ ק in that Arab. signification. The meaning ofhas been hit upon by Aquila (ἔ λ ε ),Symmachus ( π εύσ ς), and Jerome(declinaverat); it signifies to turn aside, to takea different direction, as the Hithpa. Jer. 31:22: toדְׁ‏

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 61By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyturn oneself away; cf. ‏ֹּמּוקִ‏ ים ‏,חַ‏ turnings,bendings, .7:2 חָ‏ בַ‏ ק and אָ‏ בַ‏ ק (cf. Gen. ,(32:25Aethiop. ḥaḳafa, Amhar. aḳafa (reminding us ofare usually compared; all of ‏,(הִ‏ קִ‏ יף Hiph. ‏,נָקַ‏ ץחָ‏ מַ‏ ק these, however, signify to “encompass;” butdoes not denote a moving in a circle aftersomething, but a half circular motion awayfrom something; so that in the Arab. theprevailing reference to fools, aḥamḳ, does notappear to proceed from the idea of closeness,but of the oblique direction, pushed sideways.Turning himself away, he proceeded farther. Invain she sought him; she called withoutreceiving any answer. עָ‏ נָ‏ נִי is the correct pausalform of נַ‏ נִי ‏,עָ‏ vid., under Ps. 118:5. Butsomething worse than even this seeking andcalling in vain happened to her.7 The watchmen who go about in the cityfound me,They beat me, wounded me;My upper garment took away from me,The watchmen of the walls.Song 5:7. She sought her beloved, not “in themidbar” (open field), nor “in the kepharim”(villages), but ‏,בעיר “in the city,”—acircumstance which is fatal to the shepherdhypothesishere, as in the other dream. There inthe city she is found by the watchmen whopatrol the city, and have their proper posts onthe walls to watch those who approach the cityand depart from it (cf. Isa. 62:6). These rough,regardless men,—her story returns at the closelike a palindrome to those previously named,—who judge only according to that which isexternal, and have neither an eye nor a heart‏,הִ‏ כָ‏ ה)‏ for the sorrow of a loving soul, struckfrom כַ‏ ה ‏,נָ‏ to pierce, hit, strike) and woundedto divide, to inflict wounds in the ‏,פץ R. ‏,פָ‏ צַ‏ ע)‏flesh) the royal spouse as a common woman,and so treated her, that, in order to escapebeing made a prisoner, she was constrained toleave her upper robe in their hands (Gen.39:12). This upper robe, not the veil which at4:1, 3 we found was called tsammā, is calledridâ, Aben Ezra compares with it the Arab. ‏.רְׁ‏ דִ‏ ידa plaid-like over-garment, which was thrownover the shoulders and veiled the upper partsof the body. But the words have not the samederivation. The ridâ has its name from itsreaching downward,—probably from thecircumstance that, originally, it hung down tothe feet, so that one could tread on it; but the(Heb.) rdid (in Syr. the dalmatica of thedeacons), from דַ‏ ד ‏,רָ‏ Hiph., 1 Kings 6:32, Targ.,Talm., Syr., דַ‏ ד ‏,רְׁ‏ to make broad and thin, asexpansum, i.e., a thin and light upper robe, viz.,over the cuttonĕth, 3a. The LXX suitablytranslates it here and at Gen. 24:65 (hatstsäiph,from tsa’aph, to lay together, to fold, to makedouble or many-fold) by θέ σ , a summeroverdress. A modern painter, who representsShulamith as stripped naked by the watchmen,follows his own sensual taste, without beingable to distinguish between tunica and pallium;for neither Luther, who renders by schleier(veil), nor Jerome, who has pallium (cf. thesaying of Plautus: tunica propior pallio est),gives any countenance to such a freak ofimagination. The city watchmen tore from offher the upper garment, without knowing andwithout caring to know what might be themotive and the aim of this her nocturnal walk.Song 5:8. All this Shulamith dreamed; but thepainful feeling of repentance, of separation andmisapprehension, which the dream left behind,entered as deeply into her soul as if it had beenan actual external experience. Therefore shebesought the daughters of Jerusalem:8 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,If ye find my beloved,—What shall ye then say to him?“That I am sick of love.”That אִ‏ ם is here not to be interpreted as thenegative particle of adjuration (Böttch.), as at2:7; 3:5, at once appears from the absurdityarising from such an interpretation. The or.directa, following “I adjure you,” can also begin(Num. 5:19f.) with the usual ם ‏,אִ‏ which isfollowed by its conclusion. Instead of “that ye

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 62By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studysay to him I am sick of love,” she asks thequestion: What shall ye say to him: and addsthe answer: quod aegra sum amore, or, asJerome rightly renders, in conformity with theroot-idea of ‏:חלה quia amore langueo; while, onthe other hand, the LXX: ὅ ε έ η (saucia)γάπης ἐγώ εἰ , as if the word were לְׁ‏ לַ‏ ת ‏,חַ‏ fromanswer, The question proposed, with its ‏.חָ‏ לָ‏ לinculcates in a naive manner that which is to besaid, as one examines beforehand a child whohas to order something. She turns to thedaughters of Jerusalem, because she canpresuppose in them, in contrast with thosecruel watchmen, a sympathy with her lovesorrow,on the ground of their having hadsimilar experiences. They were also witnessesof the origin of this covenant of love, and gracedthe marriage festival by their sympathetic love.Song 5:9. When, therefore, they put to her thequestion:9 What is thy beloved before another(beloved),Thou fairest of women?What is thy beloved before another(beloved),That thou dost adjure us thus?the question thus asked cannot proceed fromignorance; it can only have the object of givingthem the opportunity of hearing fromShulamith’s own mouth and heart herlaudatory description of him, whom they alsoloved, although they were not deemed worthyto stand so near to him as she did who was thusquestioned. Böttch. and Ewald, secs. 325a,326a, interpret the מִ‏ ן in מִ‏ דור partitively: quidamati (as in Cicero: quod hominis) amatus tuus;מה־מדוד but then the words would have beenif such a phrase were admissible; for ‏,דודךcertainly of itself alone means quid מה־דודamati, what kind of a beloved. Thus the מִ‏ ן is thecomparative (prae amato), and דוד the sing.,‏,מִ‏ דודִ‏ ים kind; representing the idea of species orhere easily misunderstood, is purposelyavoided. The use of the form השבעתָ‏ נו foris one of the many instances of the השבעּתִ‏ ינוdisregard of the generic distinction occurring inthis Song, which purposely, after the manner ofthe vulgar language, ignores pedanticregularity.Song 5:10. Hereupon Shulamith describes tothem who ask what her beloved is. He is thefairest of men. Everything that is glorious in thekingdom of nature, and, so far as her lookextends, everything in the sphere of art, sheappropriates, so as to present a picture of hisexternal appearance. Whatever is precious,lovely, and grand, is all combined in the livingbeauty of his person. She first praises themingling of colours in the countenance of herbeloved.10 My beloved is dazzling white and ruddy,Distinguised above ten thousand.The verbal root צח has the primary idea ofpurity, i.e., freedom from disturbance andmuddiness, which, in the stems springing fromit, and in their manifold uses, is transferred toundisturbed health (Arab. ṣaḥḥ, cf. baria, ofsmoothness of the skin), a temperate stomachand clear head, but particularly to the clearnessand sunny brightness of the heavens, todazzling whiteness חַ‏ ח)‏ ‏,צָ‏ Lam. ;4:7 cf. חַ‏ ר ‏,(צָ‏ andthen to parched dryness, resulting from theintense and continued rays of the sun; צַ‏ ח ishere adj. from חַ‏ ח ‏,צָ‏ Lam. 4:7, bearing almost thesame relation to לָ‏ בָ‏ ן as λ π ς to λευ ς, cogn.with lucere. דום ‏,אָ‏ R. ‏,דם to condense, is properlydark-red, called by the Turks kuju kirmesi (fromkuju, thick, close, dark), by the French rougefoncé, of the same root as ם ‏,דַ‏ the name forblood, or a thick and dark fluid. White, andindeed a dazzling white, is the colour of hisflesh, and redness, deep redness, the colour ofhis blood tinging his flesh. Whiteness among allthe race-colours is the one which best accordswith the dignity of man; pure delicatewhiteness is among the Caucasian races a markof high rank, of superior training, of hereditary

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 63By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studynobility; wherefore, Lam. 4:7, the appearance ofthe nobles of Jerusalem is likened in whitenessto snow and milk, in redness to corals; andHomer, Il. iv. 141, says of Menelaus that heappeared stained with gore, “as when somewoman tinges ivory with purple colour.” In thismingling of white and red, this fulness of lifeand beauty, he is גּול ‏,דָ‏ distinguished abovemyriads. The old translators render dagul by“chosen” (Aquila, Symm., Syr., Jerome, Luther),the LXX by ἐ λελ χ σ έ ς, e cohorte selectus;but it means “bannered” (degel, 2:4), as theVenet.: σεση έ ς, i.e., thus distinguished,as that which is furnished with a degel, abanner, a pennon. Grätz takes dagul as theGreek ση ε ς (noted). With בָ‏ בָ‏ ה ‏,רְׁ‏ as adesignation of an inconceivable number, Rashirightly compares Ezek. 16:7. Since the “tenthousand” are here though of, not in the samemanner as ‏,דגולים the particle min is not thecompar. magis quam, but, as at Gen. 3:14, Judg.5:24, Isa. 52:14, prae, making conspicuous (cf.Virgil, Aen. v. 435, prae omnibus unum). Afterthis praise of the bright blooming countenance,which in general distinguished the personalappearance of her beloved, so far as it wasdirectly visible, there now follows a detaileddescription, beginning with his head.11 His head is precious fine gold,His locks hill upon hill,Black as the raven.‏,כֶּ‏ תֶּ‏ ם פָ‏ ז Song .5:11 The word-connectionoccurring only here, serves as a designation ofthe very finest pure gold; for כֶּ‏ תֶּ‏ ם (hiding, thenthat which is hidden), from ‏,כתם R. כת (vid.,concerning the words appertaining to this root,under Ps. 87:6), is the name of fine gold, whichפָ‏ ז was guarded as a jewel (cf. Prov. 25:12), and(with long ā), is pure gold freed from inferiormetals, from זַז ‏,פָ‏ to set free, and generallyviolently to free (cf. zahav muphaz, 1 Kings10:18, with zahav tahor, 2 Chron. 9:17). TheTarg. to the Hagiog. translate פז by אובְׁ‏ רִ‏ יזָ‏ א (e.g.,Ps. 119:127), or אובְׁ‏ רִ‏ יזִ‏ ין (e.g., Ps. 19:11),ὄ υζ , i.e., gold which has stood the fire-proof(obrussa) of the cupel or the crucible.Grammatically regarded, the word-connectionkethem paz is not genit., like kethem ophir, butappositional, like narrah bthulah, Deut. 22:28,zvahim shlamim, Ex. 24:5, etc. The point ofcomparison is the imposing nobility of the fineform and noble carriage of his head. In thedescription of the locks of his hair the LXXrender תלתלים by ἐλά , Jerome by sicut elataepalmarum, like the young twigs, the youngshoots of the palm. Ewald regards it as a harderparall. form of לְׁ‏ זִ‏ לִ‏ ים ‏,זַ‏ Isa. 18:15, vine-branches;and Hitzig compares the Thousand and OneNights, iii. 180, where the loose hair of a maidenis likened to twisted clusters of grapes. Thepossibility of this meaning is indisputable,although (Arab.) taltalat, a drinking-vesselmade of the inner bark of palm-branches, isnamed, not from taltalah, as the name of thepalm-branch, but from taltala, to shake down,viz., in the throat. The palm-branch, or the vinebranch,would be named from לְׁ‏ ‏ּתֵ‏ ל ‏,ּתַ‏ pendulumesse, to hang loosely and with a waveringmotion, the freq. of לָ‏ ה ‏,ּתָ‏ pendere. The Syr. alsothink on ‏,תלה for it translates “spread out,” i.e., awaving downward; and the Venet., whichtranslates by π. The point ofcomparison would be the freshness andflexibility of the abundant long hair of the head,in contrast to motionless close-lyingsmoothness. One may think of Jupiter, who,when he shakes his head, moves heaven andearth. But, as against this, we have the fact: (1)That the language has other names for palmbranchesand vine-branches; the former arecalled in the Song 7:9, sansinnim. (2) Thatimmediately referred to the hair, but ‏,תלתליםnot in the sense of “hanging locks” (Böttch.), isstill in use in the post-bibl. Heb. (vid., under‏,דְׁ‏ גּורִ‏ ין דִ‏ גּורִ‏ ין ;(5:2b the Targ. also, in translating‏,ּתִ‏ לִ‏ ין ‏ּתִ‏ לִ‏ ין = תלתלים cumuli cumuli, thinksMenachoth 29b. A hill is called ל ‏,ּתֵ‏ (Arab.) tall,from לַ‏ ל ‏,ּתָ‏ prosternere, to throw along, as of

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 64By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study‏,ּתַ‏ לְׁ‏ ‏ּתַ‏ ל earth thrown out, sand, or rubbish; andafter the form לְׁ‏ גַ‏ ל ‏,גַ‏ in use probably only in theplur., is a hilly country which rises like steps, orpresents an undulating appearance. Seen fro hisneck upwards, his hair forms in undulatinglines, hill upon hill. In colour, these locks of hairare black as a raven, which bears the Semiticname עורֵ‏ ב from its blackness רַ‏ ב)‏ ‏,(עָ‏ but in Indiais called kârava from its croaking. The ravenblacknessof the hair contrasts with thewhiteness and redness of the countenance,which shines forth as from a dark ground, froma black border. The eyes are next described.12 His eyes like doves by the water-brooks,Bathing in milk, stones beautifully setSong 5:12. The eyes in their glancing moistness(cf. ὑγ ης ῶ ὀ ά , in Plutarch, of alanguishing look), and in the movement of theirpupils, are like doves which sip at the water-‏,אָ‏ פִ‏ יק them. brooks, and move to and fro besidefrom פַ‏ ק ‏,אָ‏ continere, is a watercourse, and thenalso the water itself flowing in it (vid., under Ps.18:16), as (Arab.) wadin, a valley, and then theriver flowing in the valley, bahr, the sea-basin(properly the cleft), and then also the sea itself.The pred. “bathing” refers to the eyes (cf. 4:9),not to the doves, if this figure is continued. Thepupils of the eyes, thus compared with doves,seem as if bathing in milk, in that they swim, asit were, in the white in the eye. But it is aquestion whether the figure of the doves iscontinued also in בות עַ‏ ל־מִ‏ לֵ‏ את ‏.יֹשְׁ‏ It would be thecase of milleth meant “fulness of water,” as it isunderstood, after the example of the LXX, alsoby Aquila (ἐ χύσε ς). Jerome (fluentaplenissima), and the Arab. (piscinas aquarefertas); among the moderns, by Döpke,Gesen., Hengst., and others. But this pred.would then bring nothing new to 12a; andalthough in the Syr. derivatives from mlā’signify flood and high waters, yet the formmilleth does not seem, especially without יִם ‏,מַ‏ tobe capable of bearing this signification. Luther’stranslation also, although in substance correct:und stehen in der fülle (and stand in fulness)(milleth, like שלמותא of the Syr., πλη ώσε ς ofthe Gr. Venet., still defended by Hitz.), yet doesnot bring out the full force of milleth, which,after the analogy of צְׁ‏ פָ‏ ה ‏,כִ‏ סֵ‏ א ‏,רִ‏ appears to have aconcrete signification which is seen from acomparison of Ex. 25:7; 27:17, 20; 39:13. Theresignify not the border with מִ‏ לֻ‏ אִ‏ ים and מִ‏ לֻ‏ אָ‏ הprecious stones, but, as rightly maintained byKeil, against Knobel, their filling in, i.e., theirbordering, setting. Accordingly, milleth will be asynon. technical expression: the description,passing from the figure of the dove, says furtherof the eyes, that they are firm on (in) theirsetting; עַ‏ ל is suitable, for the precious stone islaid within the casket in which it is contained.מלֻ‏ את Hitzig has, on the contrary, objected thatand מלֻ‏ אים denote filling up, and thus thatmilleth cannot be a filling up, and still less theמּולְׁ‏ יְׁתָ‏ א Talm. place thereof. But as in thesignifies not only fulness, but also stuffed fowlsor pies, and as πλ in its manifold aspectsis used not only of that with which anything isfilled, but also of that which is filled (e.g., of aship that is manned, and Eph. 1:23 of thechurch in which Christ, as in His body, isimmanent),—thus also milleth, like the German“Fassung,” may be used of a ring-casket (fundaor pala) in which the precious stone is put. Thatthe eyes are like a precious stone in its casket,does not merely signify that they fill thesockets,—for the bulbus of the eye in every onefills the orbita,—but that they are not sunk likethe eyes of one who is sick, which fall back ontheir supporting edges in the orbita, and thatthey appear full and large as they press forwardfrom wide and open eyelids. The cheeks arenext described.13a His cheeks like a bed of sweet herbs,Towers of spicy plants.Song 5:13. A flower-bed is called רּוגָ‏ ה ‏,עֲ‏ fromto be oblique, inclined. His cheeks are like ‏,עָ‏ רַ‏ גsuch a soft raised bed, and the impression theirappearance makes is like the fragrance whichflows from such a bed planted with sweet-

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 65By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyscented flowers. Migdaloth are the tower-likeor pyramidal mounds, and merkahhim are theplants used in spicery. The point of comparisonhere is thus the soft elevation; perhaps withreference to the mingling of colours, but theword chosen (merkahhim) rather refers to thelovely, attractive, heart-refreshing character ofthe impression. The Venet., keeping close to theexisting text: ἱ σ γ ες υ ῦ ὡς π σ ῦώ σ πύ γ σ ῶ (thus [notσ ῶ ] according to Gebhardt’s justconjecture). But is the punctuation herecorrect? The sing. כערוגַ‏ ת is explained from this,that the bed is presented as sloping from itsheight downward on two parallel sides; but theheight would then be the nose dividing the face,and the plur. would thus be more suitable; andthe LXX, Symm., and other ancient translatorshave, in fact, read ‏.כערוגֹת But still less is thephrase migdloth merkahhim to becomprehended; for a tower, howeverdiminutive it may be, it not a proper figure for asoft elevation, nor even a graduated flowerywalk, or a terraced flowery hill,—a toweralways presents, however round one mayconceive it, too much the idea of a naturalchubbiness, or of a diseased tumour. Thereforethe expression used by the LXX, φύ υσυ εψ ά, i.e., גַ‏ דְׁ‏ לות מרק׳ ‏,מְׁ‏ commends itself.Thus also Jerome: sicut areolae aromatumconsitae a pigmentariis, and the Targ. (whichrefers לְׁ‏ חָ‏ יַיִם allegorically to the לּוחֵ‏ י of the law,and merkahhim to the refinements of theHalacha): “like the rows of a garden of aromaticplants which produce (gignentes) deep,penetrating sciences, even as a (magnificent)כערוגֹת garden, aromatic plants.” Since we readHitzig, we do not refer migadloth, as ‏,מגַ‏ דְׁ‏ לותwho retains ת ‏,כערוגַ‏ to the cheeks, althoughtheir name, like that of the other members (e.g.,the ear, hand, foot), may be fem. (Böttch. § 649),but to the beds of spices; but in this carryingforward of the figure we find, as he does, areference to the beard and down on the cheeks.Num. is used of suffering the hair to grow, גִ‏ דֵ‏ ל6:5, as well as of cultivating plants; and it is asimilar figure when Pindar, Nem. v. 11,compares the milk-hair of a young man to thefine woolly down of the expanding vine-leaves(vid., Passow). In merkahhim there scarcely liesanything further than that this flos juventae onthe blooming cheeks gives the impression ofthe young shoots of aromatic plants; at allevents, the merkahhim, even although we referthis feature in the figure to the fragrance of theunguents on the beard, are not the perfumesthemselves, to which mgadloth is notappropriate, but fragrant plants, so that in thefirst instance the growth of the beard is in viewwith the impression of its natural beauty.13b His lips lilies,Dropping with liquid myrrh.Lilies, viz., red lilies (vid., under 2:1), unless thepoint of comparison is merely lovelinessassociated with dignity. She thinks of the lips asspeaking. All that comes forth from them, thebreath in itself, and the breath formed intowords, is עֹבֵ‏ ר ‏,מור most precious myrrh, viz.,such as of itself wells forth from the bark of thebalsamodendron. ר ‏,עֹבֵ‏ the running over of theeyes (cf. myrrha in lacrimis, the most highlyesteemed sort, as distinguished from myrrha ingranis), with which Dillmann combines theAethiop. name for myrrh, karbê (vid., under5:5).14a His hands golden cylinders,Filled in with stones of Tarshish.Song 5:14. The figure, according to Gesen., Heb.Wörterbuch, and literally also Heilgst., isderived from the closed hand, and the stainednails are compared to precious stones. bothstatements are incorrect; for (1) although it istrue that then Israelitish women, as at thepresent day Egyptian and Arabian women,stained their eyes with stibium (vid., under Isa.54:11), yet it is nowhere shown that they, andparticularly men, stained the nails of their feetand their toes with the orange-yellow of theAlhenna (Lane’s Egypt, I 33–35); and (2) theword used is not פָ‏ יו ‏,כַ‏ but יו ‏;יָדָ‏ it is thus theoutstretched hands that are meant; and only

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 66By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythese, not the closed fist, could be compared to“lilies,” for גָ‏ לִ‏ יל signifies not a ring (Cocc., Döpke,Böttch., etc.), but that which is rolled up, aroller, cylinder (Esth. 1:6), from לַ‏ ל ‏,גָ‏ whichproperly means not υ λ ῦ (Venet., afterGebhardt: ε υ λ έ ), but υλί ε . Thehands thus are meant in respect of the fingers,which on account of their noble and fine form,their full, round, fleshy mould, are compared tobars of gold formed like rollers, garnishedEx. (28:17 with stones of ‏,מִ‏ לֵ‏ א like ‏,מְׁ‏ מֻ‏ לָ‏ אִ‏ ים)‏Tarshish, to which the nails are likened. Thetransparent horn-plates of the nails, with thelunula, the white segment of a circle at theirroots, are certainly, when they are beautiful, anornament to the hand, and, without our needingto think of their being stained, are worthilycompared to the gold-yellow topaz. Tarshish isשֹהַ‏ ם not the onyx, which derives its Heb. namefrom its likeness to the finger-nail, but theχ υσ λ θ ς, by which the word in this passagebefore us is translated by the Quinta and theSexta, and elsewhere also by the LXX andAquila. But the chrysolite is the precious stonewhich is now called the topaz. It receives thename Tarshish from Spain, the place where itwas found. Pliny, xxxviii. 42, describes it asaureo fulgore tralucens. Bredow erroneouslyinterprets Tarshish of amber. There is a kind ofchrysolite, indeed, which is called chryselectron,because in colorem electri declinans. Thecomparison of the nails to such a precious stone(Luther, influenced by the consonance, andapparently warranted by the plena hyacinthis ofthe Vulg., has substituted golden rings, volTürkissen, whose blue-green colour is notsuitable here), in spite of Hengst., who finds itinsipid, is as true to nature as it is tender andpleasing. The description now proceeds fromthe uncovered to the covered parts of his body,the whiteness of which is compared to ivoryand marble.14b His body an ivory work of art,Covered with sapphires.The plur. מֵ‏ עִ‏ ים or עַ‏ יִם ‏,מֵ‏ from מֵ‏ עֶּ‏ ה or מִ‏ עי (vid.,under Ps. 40:9), signifies properly the tenderparts, and that the inward parts of the body, butis here, like the Chald. עִ‏ ין ‏,מְׁ‏ Dan. 2:32, and the7:3, which also properly signifies the inner ‏,בֶּ‏ טֶּ‏ ןpart of the body, λί , transferred to the bodyin its outward appearance. To the question howShulamith should in such a manner praise thatwhich is for the most part covered withclothing, it is not only to be answered that it isthe poet who speaks by her mouth, but also thatit is not the bride or the beloved, but the wife,עֶּ‏ שֶּ‏ ת speaking. whom he represents as thus(from the peculiar Hebraeo-Chald. and Targ.creare, which, after Jer. 5:28, like ḳhalak, ‏,עָ‏ שַ‏ תappears to proceed from the fundamental ideaof smoothing) designates an artistic figure. Sucha figure was Solomon’s throne, made of ן ‏,שֵ‏ theteeth of elephants, ivory, 1 Kings 10:18. HereSolomon’s own person, without reference to adefinite admired work of art, is praised as beinglike an artistic figure made of ivory,—like it inregard to its glancing smoothness and its finesymmetrical form. When, now, this word of art‏,מְׁ‏ עֻ‏ לֶּ‏ פֶּ‏ ת)‏ is described as covered with sapphiresreferred to שֶּ‏ ת ‏,עֶּ‏ as apparently gramm., or asideal, fem.), a sapphire-coloured robe is notmeant (Hitzig, Ginsburg); for ‏,עלף which onlymeans to disguise, would not at all be used ofsuch a robe (Gen. 38:14; cf. 24:65), nor wouldthe one uniform colour of the robe bedesignated by sapphires in the plur. The choiceof the verb עלף (elsewhere used of veiling)indicates a covering shading the pure white,and in connection with פִ‏ ירִ‏ ים ‏,סַ‏ thought of asaccus., a moderating of the bright glance by asoft blue. For ספיר (a genuine Semit. word, likethe Chald. פִ‏ יר ‏;שַ‏ cf. regardingPs. 16:6) is the sky-blue sapphire (Ex. 24:10),including the Lasurstein (lapis lazuli), sprinkledwith golden, or rather with gold-like glisteningpoints of pyrites, from which, with the lomitted, sky-blue is called azur (azure) (vid.,under Job 28:6). The word of art formed ofivory is quite covered over with sapphires fixedin it. That which is here compared is nothingunder ‏,שָ‏ פֵ‏ ר = סָ‏ פֵ‏ ר

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 67By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyelse than the branching blue veins under thewhite skin.15a His legs white marble columns,Set on bases of fine gold.Song 5:15. If the beauty of the living must berepresented, not by colours, but in figurativelanguage, this cannot otherwise be done thanby the selection of minerals, plants, and thingsin general for the comparison, and thecomparison must more or less come short,because dead soulless matter does not reach toa just and full representation of the living. Thushere, also, the description of the lowerextremity, which reaches from the thighs andthe legs down to the feet, of which last, in thewords of an anatomist, it may be said that “theyform the pedestal for the bony pillars of thelegs.” The comparison is thus in accordancewith fact; the שוקַ‏ יִם (from שוק = [Arab.] saḳ, todrive: the movers forward), in the structure ofthe human frame, take in reality the place of“pillars,” and the feet the place of “pedestals,” asin the tabernacle the wooden pillars rested onsmall supports in which they were fastened, Ex.26:18f. But in point of fidelity to nature, thesymbol is inferior to a rigid Egyptian figure. Notonly is it without life; it is not even capable ofexpressing the curvilinear shape which belongsto the living. On the other hand, it loses itself insymbol; for although it is in conformity withnature that the legs are compared to pillars ofwhite (according to Aquila and Theod., Parian)‏,שַ‏ יִש = שֵ‏ ש—,‏marble 1 Chron. 29:2 (material forthe building of the temple), Talm. רְׁ‏ מְׁ‏ רָ‏ א ‏,מַ‏ of thesame verbal root as ן ‏,שּושַ‏ the name of the whitelily,—the comparison of the feet to bases of finegold is yet purely symbolical. Gold is a figure ofthat which is sublime and noble, and with whitemarble represents greatness combined withpurity. He who is here praised is not ashepherd, but a king. The comparisons are thusso grand because the beauty of the beloved is initself heightened by his kingly dignity.15b His aspect like Lebanon,Distinguised as the cedars.By בָ‏ חּור the Chald. thinks of “a young man”(from גַ‏ ר = בָ‏ חַ‏ ר ‏,בָ‏ to be matured, as at Ps. 89:20);but in that case we should have expected theword כָ‏ אֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ז instead of אֲ‏ רָ‏ זִים ‏.כָ‏ Luther, with allother translators, rightly renders “chosen as thecedars.” His look, i.e., his appearance as a whole,is awe-inspiring, majestic, like Lebanon, theking of mountains; he (the praised one) ischosen, i.e., presents a rare aspect, rising highabove the common man, like the cedars, thosekings among trees, which as special witnessesof creative omnipotence are called “cedars ofGod,” Ps. 80:11 [10]. חּור ‏,בָ‏ electus, everywhereelse an attribute of persons, does not here referto the look, but to him whose the look is; andwhat it means in union with the cedars is seenfrom Jer. 22:7; cf. Isa. 37:24. Here also it is seen(what besides is manifest), that the fairest ofthe children of men is a king. In conclusion, thedescription returns from elevation of rank toloveliness.16a His palate is sweets [sweetnesses],And he is altogether precious [lovelinesses].Song 5:16. The palate, ‏ְך ‏,חֵ‏ is frequently namedas the organ of speech, Job 6:30; 31:30, Prov.5:3; 8:7; and it is also here used in this sense.The meaning, “the mouth for kissing,” whichBöttch. gives to the word, is fanciful; חֵ‏ ‏ְך (= ḥnk,Arab. ḥanak) is the inner palate and the regionof the throat, with the uvula underneath thechin. Partly with reference to his words, his lipshave been already praised, 13b; but there thefragrance of his breath came into consideration,his breath both in itself and as serving for theformation of articulate words. But the namingof the palate can point to nothing else than hiswords. With this the description comes to aconclusion; for, from the speech, the mostdistinct and immediate expression of thepersonality, advance is made finally to theמַ‏ מְׁ‏ ‏ּתַ‏ קִ‏ ים pluraliatant. praise of the person. Theand מַ‏ חֲ‏ מַ‏ דִ‏ ים designate what they mention inrichest fulness. His palate, i.e., that which hespeaks and the manner in which he speaks it, istrue sweetness (cf. Prov. 16:21; Ps. 55:15), and

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 68By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyhis whole being true loveliness. With justifiablepride Shulamith next says:16b This is my beloved and this myfriend,Ye daughters of Jerusalem!The emphatically repeated “this” is here pred.(Luth. “such an one is” … ); on the other hand, itis subj. at Ex. 3:15 (Luth.: “that is” … ).Song of Solomon 6Song 6:1. The daughters of Jerusalem now offerto seek along with Shulamith for her beloved,who had turned away and was gone.1 Whither has thy beloved gone,Thou fairest of women?Whither has thy beloved turned,That we may seek him with thee?The longing remains with her even after shehas wakened, as the after effect of her dream. Inthe morning she goes forth and meets with thedaughters of Jerusalem. They cause Shulamithto describe her friend, and they ask whither hehas gone. They wish to know the direction inwhich he disappeared from her, the way whichhe had probably taken ‏,פנה)‏ R. ‏,פן to drive, tourge forward, to turn from one to another), thatwith her they might go to seek him (Vav of theconsequence or the object, as at Ps. 83:17). Theanswer she gives proceeds on a conclusionwhich she draws from the inclination of herbeloved.2 My beloved has gone down into the garden,To the beds of sweet herbs,To feed in the gardensAnd gather lilies.Song 6:2. He is certainly, she means to say,there to be found where he delights most totarry. He will have gone down—viz. from thepalace (Song 6:11; cf. 1 Kings 20:43 and Esth.7:7)—into his garden, to the fragrant beds,there to feed in his garden and gather lilies (cf.Old Germ. “to collect rôsen”); he is fond ofgardens and flowers. Shulamith expresses thisin her shepherd-dialect, as when Jesus says ofHis Father (John 15:1), “He is the husbandman.”Flowerbeds are the feeding place (vid.,regarding לִ‏ רְׁ‏ עות under 2:16) of her beloved.Solomon certainly took great delight in gardensand parks, Eccles. 2:5. But this historical fact ishere idealized; the natural flora which Solomondelighted in with intelligent interest presentsitself as a figure of a higher Loveliness whichwas therein as it were typically manifest (cf.Rev. 7:17, where the “Lamb,” “feeding,” and“fountains of water,” are applied as anagogics,i.e., heavenward-pointing types). Otherwise it isnot to be comprehended why it is lilies that arenamed. Even if it were supposed to be impliedthat lilies were Solomon’s favourite flowers, wemust assume that his taste was determined bysomething more than by form and colour. Thewords of Shulamith give us to understand thatthe inclination and the favourite resort of herfriend corresponded to his nature, which isaltogether thoughtfulness and depth of feeling(cf. under Ps. 92:5, the reference to Dante: thebeautiful women who gather flowersrepresenting the paradisaical life); lilies, theemblems of unapproachable grandeur, purityinspiring reverence, high elevation above thatwhich is common, bloom there wherever thelily-like one wanders, whom the lily of thevalley calls her own. With the words:3 I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine,Who feeds among the lilies,Song 6:3. Shulamith farther proceeds, followedby the daughters of Jerusalem, to seek herfriend lost through her own fault. She alwayssays, not ישִ‏ י ‏,אִ‏ but דודִ‏ י and עִ‏ י ‏;רֵ‏ for love,although a passion common to mind and body,is in this Song of Songs viewed as much aspossible apart from its basis in the animalnature. Also, that the description hoversbetween that of the clothed and the unclothed,gives to it an ideality favourable to the mysticalinterpretation. Nakedness is רְׁ‏ וָ‏ ה ‏.עֶּ‏ But at thecross nakedness appears transported from thesphere of sense to that of the supersensuous.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 69By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studySecond Scene of the Fourth Act, 6:4–9Song 6:4. With v. 4 Solomon’s address isresumed, and a new scene opens. Shulamithhad found him again, and she who is beautifulin herself appears now so much the morebeautiful, when the joy of seeing him againirradiates her whole being.4 Beautiful art thou, my friend, as Tirzah,Comely as Jerusalem,Terrible as a battle-array.In the praise of her beauty we hear the voice ofthe king. The cities which are the highestornament of his kingdom serve him as themeasure of her beauty, which is designatedaccording to the root conceptions by ה ‏,יָפָ‏ afterthe equality of completeness; by אוָ‏ ה ‏,נָ‏ after thequality of that which is well-becoming, pleasing.It is concluded, from the prominence given toTirzah, that the Song was not composed tillafter the division of the kingdom, and that itsauthor was an inhabitant of the northernkingdom; for Tirzah was the first royal city ofthis kingdom till the time of Omri, the founderof Samaria. But since, at all events, it is Solomonwho here speaks, so great an historicaljudgment ought surely to be ascribed to a laterpoet who has imagined himself in the exactposition of Solomon, that he would notrepresent the king of the undivided Israel asspeaking like a king of the separate kingdom ofIsrael. The prominence given to Tirzah hasanother reason. Tirzah was discovered byRobinson on his second journey, 1852, in whichVan de Velde accompanied him, on a height inthe mountain range to the north of Nablûs,under the name Tullûzah. Brocardus andBreydenback had already pointed out a villagecalled Thersa to the east of Samaria. This formof the name corresponds to the Heb. better thanthat Arab. Tullûzah; but the place is suitable,and if Tullûzah lies high and beautiful in aregion of olive trees, then it still justifies itsancient name, which means pleasantness orsweetness. But it cannot be sweetness onaccount of which Tirzah is named beforeJerusalem, for in the eye of the IsraelitesJerusalem was “the perfection of beauty” (Ps.50:2; Lam. 2:15). That there is gradation fromTirzah to Jerusalem (Hengst.) cannot be said;for נָ‏ אוָ‏ ה (decora) and יפה (pulchra) would bereversed if a climax were intended. The reasonof it is rather this, that Shulamith is from thehigher region, and is not a daughter ofJerusalem, and that therefore a beautiful citysituated in the north toward Sunem must serveas a comparison of her beauty. That Shulamithis both beautiful and terrible אֲ‏ יֹֻּמָ‏ ה)‏ from יֹם ‏(אָ‏ isnot contradiction: she is terrible in theirresistible power of the impression of herpersonality, terrible as nîdgaloth, i.e., as troopsgoing forth with their banners unfurled (cf. theKal of this v. denom., Ps. 20:6). We do not needto supply חֲ‏ נות ‏,מַ‏ which is sometimes fem., Ps.25:3, Gen. 32:9, although the attribute wouldhere be appropriate, Num. 2:3, cf. 10:5; still lesswhich occurs in the sense of military ‏,צְׁ‏ בָ‏ אותservice, Isa. 40:2, and a war-expedition, Dan.8:12, but not in the sense of war-host, as fem.Much rather nidgaloth, thus neut., is meant ofbannered hosts, as אֹרְׁ‏ חות (not רְׁ‏ ׳ ‏,(אָ‏ Isa. 21:13, ofthose that are marching. War-hosts with theirbanners, their standards, go forth confident ofvictory. Such is Shulamith’s whole appearance,although she is unconscious of it—a veni, vidi,vici. Solomon is completely vanquished by her.But seeking to maintain himself in freedomover against her, he cries out to her:5a Turn away thine eyes from me,For overpoweringly they assail me.Song 6:5a. Döpke translates, ferocire mefaciunt; Hengst.: they make me proud; butalthough רְׁ‏ הִ‏ יב ‏,הִ‏ after Ps. 138:3, may be thusused, yet that would be an effect produced bythe eyes, which certainly would suggest thevery opposite of the request to turn them away.The verb רָ‏ הַ‏ ב means to be impetuous, and topress impetuously against any one; the Hiph. isthe intens. of this trans. signification of the Kal:to press overpoweringly against one, to infuseterror, terrorem incutere. The LXX translates itby π ε ῦ , which is also used of the effect

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 70By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyof terror (“to make to start up”), and the Syr. byafred, to put to flight, because arheb signifies toput in fear, as also arhab = khawwaf,terrefacere; but here the meaning of the verbcorresponds more with the sense of Arab. r’ ’b,to be placed in the state of ro’b, i.e., ofparalyzing terror. If she directed her large,clear, penetrating eyes to him, he must sink hisown: their glance is unbearable by him. Thispeculiar form the praise of her eyes hereassume; but then the description proceeds as at4:1b, 2:3b. The words used there in praise ofher hair, her teeth, and her cheeks, are hererepeated.5b Thy hair is like a flock of goatsWhich repose downwards on Giliad.6 Thy teeth like a flock of lambsWhich come up from the washing,All of them bearing twins,And a bereaved one is not among them.7 Like a piece of pomegranate thy templesBehind thy veil.Song 6:5–7. The repetition is literal, but yet notמֵ‏ הַ‏ ר expression,—there, without change in thehere, tonsarum, ‏,הַ‏ קְׁ‏ ץ׳ there, ‏;מִ‏ ן־הַ‏ גִ‏ ל׳ here, ‏,גל׳agnarum (Symm., Venet. ῶ ά ); for ‏,הָ‏ רְׁ‏ חַ‏ ׳Arab. in its proper signification, is like the ‏,רָ‏ חֵ‏ לrachil, richl, richleh, the female lamb, andparticularly the ewe. Hitzig imagines thatSolomon here repeats to Shulamith what he hadsaid to another donna chosen for marriage, andthat the flattery becomes insipid by repetitionto Shulamith, as well as also to the reader. Butthe romance which he finds in the Song is notthis itself, but his own palimpsest, in the style ofLucian’s transformed ass. The repetition has amorally better reason, and not one so subtle.Shulamith appears to Solomon yet morebeautiful than on the day when she wasbrought to him as his bride. His love is still thesame, unchanged; and this both she and thereader or hearer must conclude from thesewords of praise, repeated now as they werethen. There is no one among the ladies of thecourt whom he prefers to her,—these mustthemselves acknowledge her superiority.8 There are sixty queens,And eighty concubines,And virgins without number.9 One is my dove, my perfect one,—The only one of her mother,The choice one of her that bare her.The daughters saw her and called herblessed,—Queens and concubines, and they extolledher.Song 6:8, 9. Even here, where, if anywhere,notice of the difference of gender was to beexpected, הֵ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ ה stands instead of the moreaccurate הֵ‏ נָ‏ ה (e.g., Gen. 6:2). The number off thewomen of Solomon’s court, 1 Kings 11:3, is fargreater (700 wives and 300 concubines); andthose who deny the Solomonic authorship ofthe Song regard the poet, in this particular, asmore historical than the historian. On our part,holding as we do the Solomonic authorship ofthe book, we conclude from these low numbersthat the Song celebrates a love-relation ofSolomon’s at the commencement of his reign:his luxury had not then reached the enormousheight to which he, the same Solomon, looksback, and which he designates, Eccles. 2:8, asvanitas vanitatum. At any rate, the number ofi.e., legitimate wives of equal rank ‏,מְׁ‏ לָ‏ כות 60with himself, is yet high enough; for, accordingto 2 Chron. 11:21, Rehoboam had 18 wives and60 concubines. The 60 occurred before, at 3:7.If it be a round number, as sometimes, althoughrarely, sexaginta is thus used (Hitzig), it may bereduced only to 51, but not further, especiallyפִ‏ ילֶּ‏ גֶּ‏ ש it. here, where 80 stands along withGr. πάλλ ξ π λλ (Lat. pellex), which ‏,(פִ‏ לֶּ‏ גֶּ‏ ש)‏in the form לְׁ‏ קְׁ‏ תָ‏ א)‏ פִ‏ לַ‏ קְׁ‏ ‏ּתָ‏ א ‏(פַ‏ came back from theGreek to the Aramaic, is a word as yetunexplained. According to the formation, it maybe compared to רְׁ‏ מֵ‏ ש ‏,חֶּ‏ from רַ‏ ם ‏,חָ‏ to cut off;whence also the harem bears the (Arab.) nameḥaram, or the separated synaeconitis, to which

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 71By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyaccess is denied. And ending in is ‏(ש)‏ is knownto the Assyr., but only as an adverbial ending,which, as ’istinis = בַ‏ דו ‏,לְׁ‏ alone, solus, shows isconnected with the pron. su. These two nounsappear as thus requiring to be referred to‏,פלגש perhaps ‏;ש quadrilitera, with the annexed‏,פָ‏ לַ‏ ג in the sense of to break into splinters, fromto divide (whence a brook, as dividing itself inits channels, has the name of לֶּ‏ ג ‏,(פֶּ‏ points to thepolygamous relation as a breaking up of themarriage of one; so that a concubine has thename pillĕgĕsh, as a representant of polygamyin contrast to monogamy.In the first line of אחת v. 9 is subj. (one, who ismy dove, my perfect one); in the second line, onthe contrary, it is pred. (one, unica, is she of hermother). That Shulamith was her mother’s only‏,אחת this; child does not, however, follow from‏,יָחִ‏ יד unica, is equivalent to unice dilecta, asProv. 4:3, is equivalent to unice dilectus (cf.Keil’s Zech. 14:7). The parall. בָ‏ רָ‏ ה has its nearestsignification electa (LXX, Syr., Jerome), not pura(Venet.); the fundamental idea of cutting andseparating divides itself into the ideas ofchoosing and purifying. The Aorists, 9b, are theonly ones in this book; they denote thatShulamith’s look had, on the part of the women,this immediate result, that they willinglyassigned to her the good fortune of beingpreferred to them all,—that to her the prizewas due. The words, as also at Prov. 31:28, arean echo of Gen. 30:13, —the books of theChokma delight in references to Genesis, thebook of pre-Israelitish origin. Here, in vv. 8, 9,the distinction between our typical and theallegorical interpretation is correctly seen. Thelatter is bound to explain what the 60 and the80 mean, and how the wives, concubines, and“virgins” of the harem are to be distinguishedfrom each other; but what till now has beenattempted in this matter has, by reason of itsvery absurdity or folly, become an easy subjectof wanton mockery. But the typicalinterpretation regards the 60 and the 80, andthe unreckoned number, as what their namesdenote,—viz. favourites, concubines, andserving-maids. But to see an allegory ofheavenly things in such a herd of women—akind of thing which the Book of Genesis datesfrom the degradation of marriage in the line ofCain—is a profanation of that which is holy. Thefact is, that by a violation of the law of God(Deut. 17:17), Solomon brings a cloud over thetypical representation, which is not at all to bethought of in connection with the Antitype.Solomon, as Jul Sturm rightly remarks, is not tobe considered by himself, but only in hisrelation to Shulamith. In Christ, on the contrary,is no imperfection; sin remains in thecongregation. In the Song, the bride is purerthan the bridegroom; but in the fulfilling of theSong this relation is reversed: the bridegroomis purer than the bride.Fifth ActShulamith, the Attractively Fair But HumblePrincess—Ch. 6:10–8:4First Scene of the Fifth Act, 6:10–7:6The fourth Act, notwithstanding the littledisturbances, gives a clear view of theunchanging love of the newly-married pair.This fifth shows how Shulamith, althoughraised to a royal throne, yet remains, in herchildlike disposition and fondness for nature, alily of the valley. The first scene places us in themidst of the royal gardens. Shulamith comes toview from its recesses, and goes to thedaughters of Jerusalem, who, overpowered bythe beauty of her heavenly appearance, cry out:10 Who is this that looketh forth like themorning-red,Beautiful as the moon, pure as the sun,Terrible as a battle-host?Song 6:10. The question, “Who is this?” is thesame as at 3:6. There, it refers to her who wasbrought to the king; here, it refers to her whomoves in that which is his as her own. There,the “this” is followed by עֹלָ‏ ה appositionally;here, by הַ‏ נִשְׁ‏ ׳ [looking forth] determ., and thusmore closely connected with it; but then

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 72By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyindeterm., and thus apposit. predicates follow.The verb שָ‏ קַ‏ ף signifies to bend forward, tooverhang; whence the Hiph. הִ‏ שְׁ‏ קִ‏ יף and Niph.to look out, since in doing so one bends ‏,נִשְׁ‏ קַ‏ ףforward (vid., under Ps. 14:2). The LXX heretranslates it by ἐ ύπ υσ , the Venet. byπ ύπ υσ , both of which signify to looktoward something with the head inclinedforward. The point of comparison is, the risingup from the background: Shulamith breaksthrough the shades of the garden-grove like themorning-red, the morning dawn; or, also: shecomes nearer and nearer, as the morning-redrises behind the mountains, and then fillsalways the more widely the whole horizon. TheVenet. translates ὡς ἑ σφ ς; but the morningstar is not חַ‏ ר ‏,שַ‏ but ן־שַ‏ חַ‏ ר ‏,בֶּ‏ Isa. ;14:12 shahhar,properly, the morning-dawn, means, in Heb.,not only this, like the Arab. shaḥar, but rather,like the Arab. fajr, the morning-red,—i.e., thered tinge of the morning mist. From themorning-red the description proceeds to themoon, yet visible in the morning sky, before thesun has risen. It is usually called חַ‏ ‏,יָרֵ‏ as beingyellow; but here it is called בָ‏ נָ‏ ה ‏,לְׁ‏ as being white;as also the sun, which here is spoken of ashaving risen (Judg. 5:31), is designated not bythe word מֶּ‏ ש ‏,שֶּ‏ as the unwearied (Ps. 19:6b, 6a),but, on account of the intensity of its warminglight (Ps. 19:7b), is called ‏ֹּמָ‏ ה ‏.חַ‏ These, in thelanguage of poetry, are favourite names of themoon and the sun, because already theprimitive meaning of the two other names haddisappeared from common use; but with these,definite attributive ideas are immediatelyconnected. Shulamith appears like the morningred,which breaks through the darkness;beautiful, like the silver moon, which in soft stillmajesty shines in the heavens (Job 31:26); pure(vid., regarding בָ‏ רּור ‏,בַ‏ ר in this signification:smooth, bright, pure under Isa. 49:2) as the sun,whose light (cf. טָ‏ הור with the Aram. יהֲ‏ רָ‏ א ‏,טִ‏ middaybrightness) is the purest of the pure,imposing as war-hosts with their standards(vid., 6:4b). The answer of her who wasdrawing near, to this exclamation, soundshomely and childlike:11 To the nut garden I went downTo look at the shrubs of the valley,To see whether the vine sprouted,The pomegranates budded.12 I knew it not that my soul lifted me upTo the royal chariots of my people, a noble(one).Song 6:11, 12. In her loneliness she is happy;she finds her delight in quietly moving about inthe vegetable world; the vine and thepomegranate, brought from her home, are herfavourites. Her soul—viz. love for Solomon,which fills her soul—raised her to the royalchariots of her people, the royal chariots of anoble (one), where she sits besides the king,who drives the chariot; she knew this, but shealso knew it not for what she had becomewithout any cause of her own, that she iswithout self-elation and without disavowal ofher origin. These are Shulamith’s thoughts andfeelings, which we think we derive from thesetwo verses without reading between the linesand without refining. It went down, she says,viz., from the royal palace, cf. 6:2. Then, further,she speaks of a valley; and the whole soundsrural, so that we are led to think of Etam as thescene. This Etam, romantically (vid., Judg. 15:8f.) situated, was, as Josephus (Antt. viii. 7. 3)credibly informs us, Solomon’s Belvedere. “Inthe royal stables,” he says, “so great was theregard for beauty and swiftness, that nowhereelse could horses of greater beauty or greaterfleetness be found. All had to acknowledge thatthe appearance of the king’s horses waswonderfully pleasing, and that their swiftnesswas incomparable. Their riders also served asan ornament to them. They were young men inthe flower of their age, and were distinguishedby their lofty stature and their flowing hair, andby their clothing, which was of Tyrian purple.They every day sprinkled their hair with dust ofgold, so that their whole head sparkled whenthe sun shone upon it. In such array, armed andbearing bows, they formed a body-guardaround the king, who was wont, clothed in a

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 73By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studywhite garment, to go out of the city in themorning, and even to drive his chariot. Thesemorning excursions were usually to a certainplace which was about sixty stadia fromJerusalem, and which was called Etam; gardensand brooks made it as pleasant as it was‏(עֵ‏ ין עיטם fruitful.” This Etam, from whence (thea watercourse, the ruins of which are stillvisible, supplied the temple with water, hasbeen identified by Robinson with a villagecalled Artas (by Lumley called Urtas), about amile and a half to the south of Bethlehem. At theupper end of the winding valley, at aconsiderable height above the bottom, are threeold Solomonic pools,—large, oblong basins ofconsiderable compass placed one behind theother in terraces. Almost at an equal heightwith the highest pool, at a distance of severalhundred steps there is a strong fountain, whichis carefully built over, and to which there is adescent by means of stairs inside the building.By it principally were the pools, which are justlarge reservoirs, fed, and the water wasconducted by a subterranean conduit into theupper pool. Riding along the way close to theaqueduct, which still exists, one sees even at thepresent day the valley below clothed in richvegetation; and it is easy to understand thathere there may have been rich gardens andpleasure-grounds (Moritz Lüttke’s Mittheilung).A more suitable place for this first scene of thefifth Act cannot be thought of; and whatJosephus relates serves remarkably to illustratenot only the description of v. 11, but also that ofv. 12.is the walnut, i.e., the Italian nut tree אֱ‏ גוז(Juglans regia L.), originally brought fromPersia; the Persian name is jeuz, Aethiop. gûz,Arab. Syr. gauz (gôz), in Heb. with א prosth., likethe Armen. engus. גִ‏ נַ‏ ת אֱ‏ גוז is a garden, thepeculiar ornament of which is the fragrant andshady walnut tree; גנת אֱ‏ גוזִ‏ ים would not be a nutgarden, but a garden of nuts, for the plur.signifies, Mishn. nuces (viz., juglandes = Jovisglandes, Pliny, xvii. 136, ed. Jan.), as אֵ‏ נִים ‏,ּתְׁ‏ figs,in contradistinction to אֵ‏ נָ‏ ה ‏,ּתְׁ‏ a fig tree, only theMidrash uses אֱ‏ גוזָ‏ ה here, elsewhere notoccurring, of a tree. The object of her goingdown was one, viz., to observe the state of thevegetation; but it was manifold, as expressed inthe manifold statements which follow דְׁ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ י ‏.יָרַ‏ Thefirst object was the nut garden. Then herintention was to observe the young shoots inthe valley, which one has to think of astraversed by a river or brook; for חַ‏ ל ‏,נַ‏ likeWady, signifies both a valley and a valley-brook.The nut garden might lie in the valley, for thewalnut tree is fond of a moderately cool, dampsoil (Joseph. Bell. iii. 10. 8). But the אִ‏ בֵ‏ י are theyoung shoots with which the banks of a brookand the damp valley are usually adorned in thespring-time. ב ‏,אֵ‏ shoot, in the Heb. of buddingand growth, in Aram. of the fruit-formation,‏,נב the weaker power of ‏,אב R. comes fromwhich signifies to expand and spread fromwithin outward, and particularly to sprout upand to well forth. ראה בְׁ‏ signifies here, as at Gen.34:1, attentively to observe something, lookingto be fixed upon it, to sink down into it. Afurther object was to observe whether the vinehad broken out, or had budded (this is themeaning of רַ‏ ח ‏,פָ‏ breaking out, to send forth, R.to break),—whether the pomegranate trees ‏,פרhad gained flowers or flower-buds נֵ‏ צּו ‏,הֵ‏ not asGesen. in his Thes. and Heb. Lex. states, the Hiph.of ‏,נּוץ which would be נִיצּו ‏,הֵ‏ but from נָ‏ צַ‏ ץ insteadof נֵ‏ צּו ‏,הֵ‏ with the same omission of Dagesh, afterthe forms רֵ‏ עּו ‏,הֵ‏ פֵ‏ רּו ‏,הֵ‏ cf. Prov. ,7:13 .R נץ ‏,נס toglance, bloom (whence Nisan as the name of theflower-month, as Ab the name of the fruitmonth).Why the pomegranate tree (Punicagranatum L.), which derives this its Latin namefrom its fruit being full of grains, bears theSemitic name of ‏ֹּמון ‏,רִ‏ (Arab.) rummân, is yetunexplained; the Arabians are so littleacquainted with it, that they are uncertainwhether ramm or raman (which, however, isnot proved to exist) is to be regarded as the

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 74By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyroot-word. The question goes along with thatregarding the origin and signification ofRimmon, the name of the Syrian god, whichappears to denote “sublimity;” and it is possiblethat the pomegranate tree has its name fromthis god as being consecrated to him.In v. 12, Shulamith adds that, amid this herquiet delight in contemplating vegetable life,she had almost forgotten the position to whichshe had been elevated. ל ‏ֹא יָדַ‏ עְׁ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ י may, accordingto the connection in which it is sued, mean, “Iknow not,” Gen. 4:9; 21:26, as well as “I knewnot,” Gen. 28:16, Prov. 23:35; here the latter(LXX, Aquila, Jerome, Venet., Luther), for theexpression runs parallel to ‏,ירדתי and is relatedto it as verifying or circumstantiating it. Theconnection יד׳ נףשי ‏,לא whether we take theword נףשי as permut. of the subject (Luther: Mysoul knew it not) or as the accus. of the object: Iknew not myself (after Job 9:21), isobjectionable, because it robs the followingof its subject, and makes the course of שָ‏ מַ‏ תְׁ‏ נִיthought inappropriate. The accusative, withoutdoubt, hits on what is right, since it gives theRebia, corresponding to our colon, to ׳ ‏;יָדַ‏ forthat which follows withshe acknowledges not to have known orconsidered. For the meaning cannot be that hersoul had placed or brought her in anunconscious way, i.e., involuntarily orunexpectedly, etc., for “I knew not,” as such adeclaration never forms the principal sentence,but, according to the nature of the case, alwaysa subordinate sentence, and that either as aconditional clause with Vav, Job 9:5, or as arelative clause, Isa. 47:11; cf. Ps. 49:21. Thus “Iknew not” will be followed by what she wasunconscious of; it follows in oratio directa‏,ידע instead of obliqua, as also elsewhere afteris just what נַ‏ פְׁ‏ שִ‏ י שָ‏ םַ‏ ׳elsewhere introducing the object of ‏,כִ‏ יknowledge, is omitted, Ps. 9:21; Amos 5:12. Butif it remains unknown to her, if it has escapedher consciousness that her soul placed her, etc.,then naphsi is here her own self, and that on theside of desire (Job 23:13; Deut. 12:15); thus, incontrast to external constraint, her own mostinward impulse, the leading of her heart.Following this, she has been placed on theheight on which she now finds herself, withoutbeing always mindful of it. It would certainlynow be most natural to regard רְׁ‏ כְׁ‏ בות ‏,מַ‏ after theusual constr. of the verb שּום with the doubleaccus., e.g., Gen. 28:22, Isa. 50:2, Ps. 39:9, aspred. accus. (Venet. ἔθε ε ὀχ ), as e.g.,Hengst.: I knew not, thus my soul brought me(i.e., brought me at unawares) to the chariots ofmy people, who are noble. But what does thismean? He adds the remark: “Shulamith standsin the place of the war-chariots of her people astheir powerful protector, or by the heroic spiritresiding in her.” But apart from thesyntactically false rendering of ידעתי ‏,לא and theunwarrantable allegorizing, this interpretationwrecks itself on this, that “chariots” inthemselves are not for protection, and thuswithout something further, especially in thisרכב and not by ‏,מרכבות designation by the word(2 Kings 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 2:12; 13:14), are notwar-chariots. מר׳ will thus be the accus of theobject of motion. It is thus understood, e.g., byEwald (sec. 281d): My soul brought me to thechariots, etc. The shepherd-hypothesis findshere the seduction of Shulamith. Holländertranslates: “I perceived it not; suddenly, it canscarcely be said unconsciously, I was placed inthe state-chariots of Amminidab.” But theMasora expressly remarks that עמי נדיב are notto be read as if forming one, but as two words,thus: Hitzig proportionally better, ‏.תרין מליןwithout any apprehension of such acoincidence, she saw herself carried to thechariots of her noble people, i.e., as Gesen. in hisThes.: inter currus comitatus principis. Any otherexplanation, says Hitzig, is not possible, sincethe accus. מרך׳ in itself signifies only in thedirection wither, or in the neighbourhoodwhence. And certainly it is generally used of theaim or object toward which one directs himselfor strives, e.g., Isa. 37:23. Kodĕsh, “toward thesanctuary,” Ps. 134:2; cf. hashshā’rā, “toward

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 75By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythe gate,” Isa. 22:7. But the accus. mārom canalso mean “on high,” Isa. 22:16, the accus.hashshāmaīm “in the heavens,” 1 Kings 8:32;and as shalahh hāārĕts of being sent into theland, Num. 13:27, thus may also sīm mĕrkāvāhbe used for sim bmĕrkāvāh, 1 Sam. 8:11,according to which the Syr. (bmercabto) andthe Quinta (εἰς ἅ ) translate; on thecontrary, Symm. and Jerome destroy themeaning by adopting the reading שַ‏ ‏ֹּמַ‏ תְׁ‏ נִי (mysoul placed me in confusion). The plur.markvoth is thus meant amplifi., like richvē, 1:9,and battēnu, 1:17.As regards the subject, 2 Sam. 15:1 is to becompared; it is the king’s chariot that is meant,yoked, according to 1:9, with Egypt. horses. It isa question whether nadiv is related adject. toammi: my people, a noble (people),—aconnection which gives prominence to theattribute appositionally, Gen. 37:2; Ps. 143:10;Ezek. 34:12, —or permutat., so that the firstgen. is exchanged for one defining more closely:to the royal chariot of my people, a prince. Thelatter has the preference, not merely because(leaving out of view the proper nameAmminidab) wherever עם and נדיב are usedtogether they are meant of those who standprominent above the people, Num. 21:18, Ps.בַ‏ ת־נָדִ‏ יב and נדיב 113:8, but because this 47:10;evidently stand in interchangeable relation. Yet,even though we take נדיב and עמי together, thethought remains the same. Shulamith is not onewho is abducted, but, as we read at 3:6 ff., onewho is honourably brought home; and she hereexpressly says that no kind of external force buther own loving soul raised her to the royalchariots of her people and their king. That shegives to the fact of her elevation just thisexpression, arises from the circumstance thatshe places her joy in the loneliness of nature, incontrast to her driving along in a splendidchariot. Designating the chariot that of hernoble people, or that of her people, and, indeed,of a prince, she sees in both cases in Solomonthe concentration and climax of the people’sglory.Song of Solomon 7Song 7:1. Encouraged by Shulamith’sunassuming answer, the daughters of Jerusalemnow give utterance to an entreaty which theirastonishment at her beauty suggests to them.1 Come back, come back, O Shulamith!Come back, come back, that we may lookupon thee!She is now (Song 6:10 ff.) on the way from thegarden to the palace. The fourfold “come back”entreats her earnestly, yea, with tears, to returnthither with them once more, and for thispurpose, that they might find delight in lookingup her; for חָ‏ זָ‏ ה בְׁ‏ signifies to sink oneself into athing, looking at it, to delight (feast) one’s eyesin looking on a thing. Here for the first timeהַ‏ שּו׳ Shulamith is addressed by name. Butcannot be a pure proper name, for the art. isvocat., as e.g., בַ‏ ת ירו׳ ‏,הַ‏ “O daughter ofJerusalem!” Pure proper names like שלמה are sodeterm. in themselves that they exclude thearticle; only such as are at the same time alsonouns, like יַרְׁ‏ דֵ‏ ן and בָ‏ נון ‏,לְׁ‏ are susceptible of thearticle, particularly also of the vocat., Ps. 114:5;but cf. Zech. 11:1 with Isa. 10:34. Thus הַ‏ שּו׳ willbe not so much a proper name as a name ofdescent, as generally nouns in î (with a few‏,יְׁמָ‏ נִי ‏,הֲ‏ רָ‏ רִ‏ י number, exceptions, viz., of ordinaletc.) are all gentilicia. The LXX render השו׳ by ἡΣ υ ς, and this is indeed but another formfor , i.e., she who is from Sunem. Thusalso was designated the exceedingly beautifulAbishag, 1 Kings 1:3, Elisha’s excellent andpious hostess, 2 Kings 4:8 ff. Sunem was in thetribe of Issachar (Josh. 19:18), near to LittleHermon, from which it was separated by avalley, to the south-east of Carmel. This lowerGalilean Sunem, which lies south from Nain,south-east from Nazareth, south-west fromTabor, is also called Shulem. Eusebius in hisOnomasticon says regarding it: Σ υ (l.Σ υλ ) λ υΊσσάχ . ὶ ῦ ἐσ ὶ ώ ηΣ υλὴ . .λ., i.e., as Jerome translates it: Sunemin tribue Issachar. et usque hodie vicusהַ‏ שּו נַ‏ ‏ֹּמִ‏ ית

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 76By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyostenditur nomine Sulem in quinto miliariomontis Thabor contra australum plagam. Thisplace if found at the present day under thename of Suwlam (Sôlam), at the west end ofJebel ed-Duḥi (Little Hermon), not far from thegreat plain (Jisre’el, now Zer’în), which forms aconvenient way of communication betweenJordan and the sea-coast, but is yet so hidden inthe mountain range that the Talmud is silentconcerning this Sulem, as it is concerningNazareth. Here was the home of theShulamitess of the Song. The ancients interpretthe name by εἰ η εύ υσ , or by ἐσ υλευ έ η(vid., Lagarde’s Onomastica), the former afterAquila and the Quinta, the latter after Symm.השלֵ‏ מה interpretation: The Targum has the(vid., Rashi). But the form of the באמונתה עם ה׳name (the Syr. writes ילּומִ‏ יתָ‏ א ‏(שִ‏ is opposed tothese allegorical interpretations. Rather it is tobe assumed that the poet purposely used, notto assimilate her name to that ‏,השול׳ but ‏,ה שוב׳of Solomon; and that it has the parallel meaningof one devoted to Solomon, and thus, as it were,of a passively-applied שְׁ‏ לומִ‏ ית = Σ λ η, is themore probable, as the daughters of Jerusalemwould scarcely venture thus to address her whowas raised to the rank of a princess unless thisname accorded with that of Solomon.Not conscious of the greatness of her beauty,Shulamith asks,—1b What do you see in Shulamith?She is not aware that anything particular is tobe seen in her; but the daughters of Jerusalemare of a different opinion, and answer thischildlike, modest, but so much the moretouching question,—1b As the dance of Mahanaim!They would thus see in her something like thedance of anaha m. If this be here the name ofthe Levitical town (now aḥneh) in the tribe ofGad, north of Jabbok, where Ishbosheth residedfor two years, and where David was hospitablyentertained on his flight from Absalom (Luthr.:“the dance to ahana m”), then we mustsuppose in this trans-Jordanic town such apopular festival as was kept in Shiloh, Judg.21:19, and we may compare Abel-Meholah [=meadow of dancing], the name of Elisha’s birthplace(cf. also Herod. i. 16: “To dance the danceof the Arcadian town of Tegea”). But the Songdelights in retrospective references to Genesis(cf. 4:11b, 7:11). At 32:3, however, by ahana mis meant the double encampment of angels whoprotected Jacob’s two companies (Song 32:8).The town of ahana m derives its name fromthis vision of Jacob’s. The word, as the name ofa town, is always without the article; and here,where it has the article, it is to be understoodappellatively. The old translators, in renderingby “the dances of the camps” (Syr., Jerome,choros castrorum, Venet. θί σ σ πέ ),by which it remains uncertain whether a wardanceor a parade is meant, overlook the dual,and by exchanging מחנַיִם with חֲ‏ נות ‏,מַ‏ they obtaina figure which in this connection is incongruousand obscure. But, in truth, the figure is anangelic one. The daughters of Jerusalem wish tosee Shulamith dance, and they designate that asan angelic sight. ahana m became in the postbibl.dialect a name directly for angels. Thedance of angels is only a step beyond theresponsive song of the seraphim, Isa. 6.Engelkoere [angel-choir] and “heavenly host”are associated in the old German poetry. Thefollowing description is undeniably that (letone only read how Hitzig in vain seeks to resistthis interpretation) of one dancing. In this,according to biblical representation and ancientcustom, there is nothing repulsive. The womenof the ransomed people, with Miriam at theirhead, danced, as did also the women whocelebrated David’s victory over Goliath (Ex.15:20; 1 Sam. 18:6). David himself danced (2Sam. 6) before the ark of the covenant. Joy anddancing are, according to Old Testamentconception, inseparable (Eccles. 3:4); and joynot only as the happy feeling of youthful life,but also spiritual holy joy (Ps. 87:7). The dancewhich the ladies of the court here desire to see,falls under the point of view of a play of rivalindividual artistes reciprocally acting for thesake of amusement. The play also is capable ofmoral nobility, if it is enacted within the limits

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 77By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyof propriety, at the right time, in the rightmanner, and if the natural joyfulness,penetrated by intelligence, is consecrated by aspiritual aim. Thus Shulamith, when she dances,does not then become a Gaditanian (Martial,xiv. 203) or an Alma (the name given inAnterior Asia to those women who go aboutmaking it their business to dance mimic andpartly lascivious dances); nor does she becomea Bajadere (Isa. 23:15 f.), as also Miriam, Ex.15:20, Jephthah’s daughter, Judg. 11:34, the“daughters of Shiloh,” Judg. 21:21, and thewoman of Jerusalem, 1 Sam. 18:6, did notdishonour themselves by dancing; the dancingof virgins is even a feature of the times after therestoration, Jer. 31:13. But that Shulamithactually danced in compliance with the earnestentreaty of the daughters of Jerusalem, is seenfrom the following description of herattractions, which begins with her feet and thevibration of her thighs.After throwing aside her upper garments, sothat she had only the light clothing of ashepherdess or vinedresser, Shulamith dancedto and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem,and displayed all her attractions before them.Her feet, previously (Song 5:3) naked, or as yetonly shod with sandals, she sets forth with thedeportment of a prince’s daughter.2a How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, Oprince’s daughter!Song 7:2a. The noun יב ‏,נָדִ‏ which signifies noblein disposition, and then noble by birth and rank(cf. the reverse relation of the meanings ingenerosus), is in the latter sense synon. andparallel to מֶּ‏ לֶּ‏ ‏ְך and ‏;שרַ‏ Shulamith is here calleda prince’s daughter because she was raised tothe rank of which Hannah, 1 Sam. 2:8, cf. Ps.113:8, speaks, and to which she herself, 6:12points. Her beauty, from the first associatedwith unaffected dignity, now appears in native‏,פָ‏ עַ‏ ם (from פַ‏ עַ‏ ם majesty. princely grace andpulsare, as in nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus)signifies step and foot,—in the latter sense the‏;רֶּ‏ גֶּ‏ ל poet. Heb. and the vulgar Phoen. word forhere the meanings pes and passus (Fr. pas,dance-step) flow into each other. The praise ofthe spectators now turns from the feet of thedancer to her thighs:2b The vibration of thy thighs like ornamentalchains,The work of an artist’s hands.Song 7:2b. The double-sided thighs, viewedfrom the spine and the lower part of the back,are called תְׁ‏ נַיִם ‏;מָ‏ from the upper part of the legsupwards, and the breast downwards (thelumbar region), thus seen on the front andsidewise, חֲ‏ לָ‏ צַ‏ יִם or כַ‏ יִם ‏.יְׁרֵ‏ Here the manifoldtwistings and windings of the upper part of thebody by means of the thigh-joint are meant;such movements of a circular kind are called= חֲ‏ לִ‏ י is the plur. of חֲ‏ לָ‏ אִ‏ ים .5:6 ‏,חָ‏ מַ‏ ק from ‏,חַ‏ ‏ֹּמּוקִ‏ ים(Arab.) ḥaly, as צְׁ‏ בָ‏ אִ‏ ים (gazelles) of צְׁ‏ בִ‏ י = zaby.The sing. חֲ‏ לִ‏ י (or חֶּ‏ לְׁ‏ יָה = [Arab.] hulyah) signifiesa female ornament, consisting of gold, silver, orprecious stones, and that (according to theconnection, Prov. 25:2; Hos. 2:15) for the neckor the breast as a whole; the plur. ‏,חל׳ occurringonly here, is therefore chosen because thebendings of the loins, full of life and beauty, arecompared to the free swingings to and fro ofsuch an ornament, and thus to a connectedornament of chains; for חם׳ are not the beautycurvesof the thighs at rest,—the connectionhere requires movement. In accordance withthe united idea of ‏,חל׳ the appos. is not עֲ‏ שֵ‏ י ‏,מַ‏ but(according to the Palestin.) מַ‏ עֲ‏ שֵ‏ ה (LXX, Targ.,Syr., Venet.). The artist is called אָ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ ן (ommân)(the forms אָ‏ מָ‏ ן and אֳ‏ מָ‏ ן are also found), Syr.avmon, Jewish-Aram. ן ‏;אּוֹּמָ‏ he has, as the masterof stability, a name like ין ‏,יָמִ‏ the right hand: thehand, and especially the right hand, is theartifex among the members. The eulogists passfrom the loins to the middle part of the body. Indancing, especially in the Oriental style ofdancing, which is the mimic representation ofanimated feeling, the breast and the body areraised, and the forms of the body appearthrough the clothing.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 78By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study3 Thy navel is a well-rounded basin—Let not mixed wine be wanting to itThy body is a heap of wheat,Set round with lilies.Song 7:3. In interpreting these words, Hitzigproceeds as if a “voluptuary” were here‏,שִ‏ רְׁ‏ רֵ‏ ‏ְך into שָ‏ רְׁ‏ רֵ‏ ‏ְך speaking. He therefore changes“thy pudenda.” But (1) it is no voluptuary whospeaks here, and particularly not a man, butwomen who speak; certainly, above all, it is thepoet, who would not, however, be soinconsiderate as to put into the mouths ofwomen immodest words which he could use ifhe wished to represent the king as speaking.Moreover (2) שֵ‏ ר = (Arab.) surr, secret (thatwhich is secret; in Arab. especially referred tothe pudenda, both of man and woman), is aword that is foreign to the Heb. language, whichhas for “Geheimnis” [secret] the correspondingword סוד (vid., under Ps. 2:2; 25:14), after theroot-signification of its verbal stem (viz., to befirm, pressed together); and (3) the reference—preferred by Döpke, Magnus, Hahn, and others,שִ‏ ר׳ also without any change of punctuation—ofto the interfeminium mulieris, is here excludedby the circumstance that the attractions of awoman dancing, as they unfold themselves, are(= שֹר surr, here described. Like the Arab.shurr), from רַ‏ ר ‏,שָ‏ to bind fast, denotes properlythe umbilical cord, Ezek. 16:4, and then theumbilical scar. Thus, Prov. 3:8, where mostrecent critics prefer, for שָ‏ רֶּ‏ ‏ָך ‏,לְׁ‏ to read, butwithout any proper reason, שְׁ‏ אֵ‏ רֶּ‏ ‏ָך = לְׁ‏ שֵ‏ רֶּ‏ ‏ָך ‏,לִ‏ “tothy flesh,” the navel comes there into view asthe centre of the body,—which it always is withnew-born infants, and is almost so with grownuppersons in respect of the length of thebody,—and as, indeed, the centre. whence thepleasurable feeling of health diffuses its rays ofheat. This middle and prominent point of theabdomen shows itself in one lightly clad anddancing when she breathes deeply, eventhrough the clothing; and because the navelcommonly forms a little funnel-like hollow(Böttch.: in the form almost of a whirlinghollow in the water, as one may see in nudeantique statues), therefore the daughters ofJerusalem compare Shulamith’s navel to a“basin of roundness,” i.e., which has this generalproperty, and thus belongs to the class of thingsthat are round. אַ‏ גָ‏ ן does not mean a Becher (acup), but a Bechen (basin), pelvis; properly awashing basin, ijjanah (from אָ‏ גַ‏ ן = ajan, to full,to wash = בֵ‏ ס ‏;(כִ‏ then a sprinkling basin, Ex.24:6; and generally a basin, Is. 22:24; here, amixing basin, in which wine was mingled with aproportion of water to render it palatable( , from ε ύ , temperare),—according to the Talm. with two-thirds of water.In this sense this passage is interpretedallegorically, Sanhedrin 14b, 37a, and elsewhere(vid., Aruch under מֶּ‏ זֶּג ‏.(מזג is not spiced wine,which is otherwise designated (Song 8:2), but,as Hitzig rightly explains, mixed wine, i.e.,mixed with water or snow (vid., under Isa.is not borrowed from the Greek מָ‏ זַ‏ ג 5:22).ίσγε (Grätz), but is a word native to all thethree chief Semitic dialects,—the weaker formof סַ‏ ‏ְך ‏,מָ‏ which may have the meaning of “to pourin;” but not merely “to pour in,” but, at thatsame time, “to mix” (vid., under Isa. 5:22; Prov.represents the circular form ‏,אַ‏ גַ‏ ן with ‏,סַ‏ הַ‏ ר .(9:2(from חַ‏ ר = סָ‏ הַ‏ ר ‏,(סָ‏ corresponding to the navelring; Kimchi thinks that the moon must beunderstood (cf. הֲ‏ רון ‏,שַ‏ lunula): a moon-likeround basin; according to which the Venet., alsoin Gr., choosing an excellent name for the moon,translates: ά σ ῆς ἑ ά ης. But “moonbasin”would be an insufficient expression forit; Ewald supposes that it is the name of aflower, without, however, establishing thisopinion. The “basin of roundness” is the centreof the body a little depressed; and that whichthe clause, “may not mixed wine be lacking,”expresses, as their wish for her, is soundness ofhealth, for which no more appropriate anddelicate figure can be given than hot winetempered with fresh water.The comparison in 3b is the same as that of R.Johanan’s of beauty, Mezîa 84a: “He who would

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 79By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studygain an idea of beauty should take a silver cup,fill it with pomegranate flowers, and encircle itsrim with a garland of roses.” To the present day,winnowed and sifted corn is piled up in greatheaps of symmetrical half-spherical form,which are then frequently stuck over withthings that move in the wind, for the purpose ofprotecting them against birds. “The appearanceof such heaps of wheat,” says Wetstein (Isa. p.710), “which one may see in long parallel rowson the thrashing-floors of a village, is verypleasing to a peasant; and the comparison ofthe Song, 7:3, every Arabian will regard asbeautiful.” Such a corn-heap is to the presentday called ṣubbah, while ’aramah is a heap ofthrashed corn that has not yet been winnowed;here, with רֵ‏ מָ‏ ה ‏,עֲ‏ is to be connected the idea of aṣubbah, i.e., of a heap of wheat not onlythrashed and winnowed, but also sifted(riddled). ‏,סּוג enclosed, fenced about (whencethe post-bibl. יָג ‏,סְׁ‏ a fence), is a part. pass. suchas ‏,פּוץ scattered (vid., under Ps. 92:12). Thecomparison refers to the beautiful appearanceof the roundness, but, at the same time, also theflesh-colour shining through the dress; forfancy sees more than the eyes, and concludesregarding that which is veiled from that whichis visible. A wheat-colour was, according to theMoslem Sunna, the tint of the first created man.Wheat-yellow and lily-white is a subduedwhite, and denotes at once purity and health;by πυ ς [wheat] one thinks of πῦ —heaped upwheat developes a remarkable heat, a fact forwhich Biesenthal refers to Plutarch’s Quaest. Inaccordance with the progress of thedescription, the breasts are now spoken of:4 Thy two breasts are like two fawns,Twins of a gazelle.Song 7:4. 4:5 is repeated, but with the omissionof the attribute, “feeding among lilies,” sincelilies have already been applied to another‏ּתָ‏ אֳ‏ מֵ‏ י there, we have here ‏ּתְׁ‏ אומֵ‏ י figure. Instead of(taŏme), the former after the ground-formti’âm, the latter after the ground-form to’m (cf.‏.(גָ‏ אְׁ‏ ל = גְׁ‏ אֹל Neh. ,8:29 from ‏,גָ‏ אֳ‏ לֵ‏ י5 a Thy neck like an ivory tower.Song 7:5. The article in חֵ‏ שַ‏ ן may be thatdesignating species (vid., under 1:11); but, as at7:5 and 4:4, it appears to be also here a definitetower which the comparison has in view: onecovered externally with ivory tablets, a towerwell known to all in and around Jerusalem, andvisible far and wide, especially when the sunshone on it; had it been otherwise, as in thecase of the comparison following, the localitywould have been more definitely mentioned. Soslender, so dazzlingly white, is imposing, and socaptivating to the eye did Shulamith’s neckappear. These and the following figures wouldbe open to the objection of being without anyoccasion, and monstrous, if they referred to anordinary beauty; but they refer to Solomon’sspouse, they apply to a queen, and therefore arederived from that which is most splendid in thekingdom over which, along with him, she rules;and in this they have the justification of theirgrandeur.5 b Thine eyes pools in Heshbon,At the gate of the populous (city).Hesbhon, formerly belonging to the Amorites,but at this time to the kingdom of Solomon, layabout 5 1/2 hours to the east of the northernpoint of the Dead Sea, on an extensive,undulating, fruitful, high table-land, with a farreachingprospect. Below the town, nowexisting only in heaps of ruins, a brook, whichhere takes it rise, flows westward, and streamstoward the Ghôr as the Nahr Hesbán. It joins theJordan not far above its entrance into the DeadSea. The situation of the town was richlywatered. There still exists a huge reservoir ofexcellent masonry in the valley, about half amile from the foot of the hill on which the townstood. The comparison here supposes two suchpools, but which are not necessarily together,though both are before the gate, i.e., near by,outside the town. Since , except at Isa.שַ‏ עַ‏ ר‏,רַ‏ בָ‏ תִ‏ י עָ‏ ם in the sense of ‏,בַ‏ ת־רַ‏ בִ‏ ים fem., ,14:31 isLam. 1:1 (cf. for the non-determin. of the adj.,Ezek. 21:25), is to be referred to the town, notto the gate (Hitz.); Blau’s conjectural reading,

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 80By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studybath-’akrabbim, does not recommend itself,because the craggy heights of the “ascent ofAkrabbim” (Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3), whichobliquely cross the Ghôr to the south of theDead Sea, and from remote times formed thesouthern boundary of the kingdom of theAmorites (Judg. 1:36), were too far off, and tooseldom visited, to give its name to a gate ofHeshbon. But generally the crowds of men atthe gate and the topography of the gate arehere nothing to the purpose; the splendour ofthe town, however, is for the figure of thefamed cisterns like a golden border. בְׁ‏ רֵ‏ כָ‏ ה (fromto spread out, vid., Genesis, p. 98; Fleischer ‏,בָ‏ רַ‏ ‏ְךin Levy, I 420b) denotes a skilfully built roundor square pool. The comparison of the eyes to apool means, as Wetstein remarks, “either thusglistening like a water-mirror, or thus lovely inappearance, for the Arabian knows no greaterpleasure than to look upon clear, gentlyrippling water.” Both are perhaps to be takentogether; the mirroring glance of the moist eyes(cf. Ovid, De Arte Am. ii. 722:“Adspicies obulos tremulo fulgore micantes,Ut sol a liquida saepe refulget aqua”),and the spell of the charm holding fast the gazeof the beholder.5b Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon,Which looks towards Damascus.This comparison also places us in the midst ofthe architectural and artistic splendours of theSolomonic reign. A definite town is here meant;the art. determines it, and the part. followingappositionally without the art., with theexpression “towards Damascus” defining itהַ‏ לְׁ‏ בָ‏ נון it. more nearly (vid., under 3:6), describesdesignates here “the whole Alpine range ofmountains in the north of the land of Israel”(Furrer); for a tower which looks in the1 ‏,אֶּ‏ ת־פְׁ‏ נֵי accus., as ‏,פְׁ‏ נֵי)‏ direction of DamascusSam. 22:4) is to be thought of as standing onone of the eastern spurs of Hermon, or on thetop of Amana (Song 4:8), whence the Amana(Barada) takes its rise, whether as a watchtower(2 Sam. 8:6), or only as a look-out fromwhich might be enjoyed the paradisaicalprospect. The nose gives to the face especiallyits physiognomical expression, and conditionsits beauty. Its comparison to a tower on a loftyheight is occasioned by the fact that Shulamith’snose, without being blunt or flat, formed astraight line from the brow downward, withoutbending to the right or left (Hitzig), a mark ofsymmetrical beauty combined with aweinspiringdignity. After the praise of the nose itwas natural to think of Carmel; Carmel is apromontory, and as such is called anf el-jebel(“nose of the mountain-range”).6a Thy head upon thee as Carmel.Song 7:6. We say that the head is “on the man”(2 Kings 6:31; Judith 14:18), for we think of aman ideally as the central unity of the membersforming the external appearance of his body.Shulamith’s head ruled her form, surpassing allin beauty and majesty, as Carmel with its nobleand pleasing appearance ruled the land and seaat its feet. From the summit of Carmel, clothedwith trees) Amos 9:3; 1 Kings 18:42), atransition is made to the hair on the head,which the Moslem poets are fond of comparingto long leaves, as vine leaves and palmbranches; as, on the other hand, the thick leafywood is called (vid., under Isa. 7:20) comatasilva (cf. Oudendorp’s Apuleii Metam. p. 744).Grätz, proceeding on the supposition of theexistence of Persian words in the Song, regardsas the name of a colour; but (1) crimson is כרמל‏,כרמִ‏ יל but ‏,כרמֶּ‏ ל designated in the Heb.-Pers. notinstead of תולעת שני (vid., under Isa. 1:18; Prov.31:21); (2) if the hair of the head (if ראשך mightbe directly understood of this) may indeed becompared to the glistening of purple, not,however, to the listening of carmese or scarlet,then red and not black hair must be meant. Butit is not the locks of hair, but the hair in locksthat is meant. From this the eulogium finallypasses to the hair of the head itself.6a The flowing hair of thy head like purple—A king fettered by locks.Hitzig supposes that כרמל reminded the poet ofאַ‏ רְׁ‏ גָ‏ מָ‏ ן (carmese), and that thus he hit upon כַ‏ רְׁ‏ מִ‏ יל

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 81By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study(purple); but one would rather think thatCarmel itself would immediately lead him topurple, for near this promontory is theprincipal place where purple shell-fish arefound (Seetzen’s Reisen, IV 277 f.). דַ‏ לָ‏ ה (fromArab. to dangle, to hang loose, Job 28:4, ‏,דָ‏ לַ‏ לtadladal) is res pendula, and particularly comapendula. Hengst. remarks that the “purple” hascaused much trouble to those who understandby דלה the hair of the head. He himself, withGussetius, understand by it the temples, tempuscapitis; but the word רַ‏ קָ‏ ה is used (Song 4:3) for“temples,” and “purple-like” hair hanging downcould occasion trouble only to those who knownot how to distinguish purple from carmese.Red purple, אַ‏ רְׁ‏ גָ‏ מָ‏ ן (Assyr. argamannu, Aram.,Arab., Pers., with departure from the primarymeaning of the word, רְׁ‏ גְׁ‏ וָ‏ ן ‏,(אַ‏ which derives thisname from קַ‏ ם = רָ‏ גַ‏ ם ‏,רָ‏ material of variegatedcolour, is dark-red, and almost glistening black,as Pliny says (Hist. Nat. ix. 135): Laus ei (theTyrian purple) summa in colore sanguinisconcreti, nigricans adspectu idemque suspectu(seen from the side) refulgens, unde et Homeropurpureus dicitur sanguis. The purple hair ofNisus does not play a part in myth alone, butbeautiful shining dark black hair is elsewherealso called purple, e.g., πυ φύ ε ς πλ ς inLucian, π φυ χ in Anacreon. With thewords “like purple,” the description closes; andto this the last characteristic distinguishingShulamith there is added the exclamation: “Aking fettered by locks!” For הָ‏ טִ‏ ים ‏,רְׁ‏ from הַ‏ ט ‏,רָ‏ torun, flow, is also a name of flowing locks, notthe ear-locks (Hitz.), i.e., long ringlets flowingdown in front; the same word (Song 1:17)signifies in its North Palest. form רָ‏ חִ‏ יט (Chethîb),a water-trough, canalis. The locks of onebeloved are frequently called in erotic poetry“the fetters” by which the lover is held fast, for“love wove her net in alluring ringlets”(Deshâmi in Joseph and Zuleika). Goethe in hisWestöst. Divan presents as a bold yet moderateexample: “There are more than fifty hooks ineach lock of thy hair;” and, on the other hand,one offensively extravagant, when it is said of aSultan: “In the bonds of thy locks lies fastenedthe neck of the enemy.” אָ‏ סּור signifies also inArab. frequently one enslaved by love: asîruhais equivalent to her lover. The mention of theking now leads from the imagery of a dance tothe scene which follows, where we again hearthe king’s voice. The scene and situation arenow manifestly changed. We are transferredfrom the garden to the palace, where the two,without the presence of any spectators, carryon the following dialogue.Second Scene of the Fifth Act, 7:7–8:4It is the fundamental thought forming themotive and aim of the Song which nowexpresses itself in the words of Solomon.7 How beautiful art thou, and how charming,O love, among delights!Song 7:7. It is a truth of all-embracingapplication which is here expressed. There isnothing more admirable than love, i.e., theuniting or mingling together of two lives, theone of which gives itself to the other, and sofinds the complement of itself; nor than thisself-devotion, which is at the same time selfenrichment.All this is true of earthly love, ofwhich Walther v. d. Vogelweide says: “minne istsweier herzen wünne” [love is the joy of twohearts], and it is true also of heavenly love; theformer surpasses all earthly delights (also suchas are purely sensuous, Eccles. 2:8), and thelatter is, as the apostle expresses himself in hisspiritual “Song of Songs,” 1 Cor. 13:13, inrelation to faith and hope, “greater than these,”greater than both of them, for it is their sacred,eternal aim. In יָפִ‏ ית it is indicated that the idea,and in נָעַ‏ מְׁ‏ ‏ּתְׁ‏ that the eudaemonistic feature ofthe human soul attains its satisfaction in love.The LXX, obliterating this so true and beautifula promotion of love above all other joys,translate ἐ ς υφ ς σ υ (in the enjoymentwhich thou impartest). The Syr., Jerome, andothers also rob the Song of this its point of lightand of elevation, by reading ה [O beloved!]אֲ‏ הֻ‏ בָ‏instead of הֲ‏ בָ‏ ה ‏.אַ‏ The words then declare (yet

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 82By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studycontrary to the spirit of the Hebrew language,which knows neither אֲ‏ הּובָ‏ ה nor אֲ‏ הּובָ‏ תִ‏ י asvocat.) what we already read at 4:10; while,according to the traditional form of the text,they are the prelude of the love-song, to love assuch, which is continued in 8:6f.Song 7:8–10a . When Solomon now looks onthe wife of his youth, she stands before him likea palm tree with its splendid leaf-branches,which the Arabians call ucht insân (the sistersof men); and like a vine which climbs up on thewall of the house, and therefore is an emblem ofthe housewife, Ps. 128:3.8 Thy stature is like the palm tree;And thy breasts clusters.9 I thought: I will climb the palm,Grasp its branches;And thy breasts shall be to meAs clusters of the vine,And the breath of thy nose like apples,10a And thy palate like the best wine.Shulamith stands before him. As he surveys herfrom head to foot, he finds her stature like thestature of a slender, tall date-palm, and herbreasts like the clusters of sweet fruit, intowhich, in due season its blossoms are ripened.That קומָ‏ תַ‏ ‏ְך (thy stature) is not thought of asheight apart from the person, but as along withthe person (cf. Ezek. 13:18), scarcely needs tobe remarked. The palm derives its name, tāmār,from its slender stem rising upwards (vid.,under Isa. 17:9; 61:6). This name is speciallygiven to the Phoenix dactylifera, which isindigenous from Egypt to India, and which isprincipally cultivated (vid., under Gen. 14:7),the female flowers of which, set in panicles,develope into large clusters of juicy sweet fruit.These dark-brown or golden-yellow clusters,which crown the summit of the stem andimpart a wonderful beauty to the appearance ofthe palm, especially when seen in the eveningtwilight, are here called אַ‏ שְׁ‏ כֹלות (connectingform at Deut. 32:32), as by the Arabians ’ithkal,דָ‏ מְׁ‏ תָ‏ ה perf. plur. ’ithakyl (botri dactylorum). The‏,דם R. ‏,דָ‏ מָ‏ ה signifies aequata est = aequa est; formeans, to make or to become plain, smooth,even. The perf. מַ‏ רְׁ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ י ‏,אָ‏ on the other hand, will bemeant retrospectively. As an expression of thatwhich he just now purposed to do, it would beuseless; and thus to notify with emphasisanything beforehand is unnatural and contraryto good taste and custom. But looking back, hecan say that in view of this august attractivebeauty the one thought filled him, to securepossession of her and of the enjoyment whichshe promised; as one climbs עָ‏ לָ‏ ה)‏ with ‏,בְׁ‏ as Ps.24:3) a palm tree and seizes חַ‏ ז)‏ ‏,אָ‏ fut. ז ‏,אֹחֵ‏ andas at Job 23:11) its branches ‏,בְׁ‏ with אֶּ‏ אֱ‏ חֹזso called, as it appears, after the ‏,סַ‏ נִסִ‏ נִים)‏feather-like pointed leaves proceeding from themid-rib on both sides), in order to break off thefulness of the sweet fruit under its leaves. Asthe cypress (sarwat), so also the palm is withthe Moslem poets the figure of a loved one, andwith the mystics, of God; and accordingly theidea of possession is here particularly intended.denotes what he then thought and וְׁ‏ יִהְׁ‏ יּו־נָ‏ אaimed at. Instead of ‏,בְׁ‏ תָ‏ מָ‏ ר 9a, the punctuationis undoubtedly to be preferred. The figure בַ‏ ‏ּתָ‏ מָ‏ רof the palm tree terminates with the words,“will grasp its branches.” It was adequate inrelation to stature, but less so in relation to thebreasts; for dates are of a long oval form, andhave a stony kernel. Therefore the figuredeparts from the date clusters to that of grapeclusters, which are more appropriate, as theyswell and become round and elastic the morethey ripen. The breath of the nose, which iscalled ף ‏,אַ‏ from breathing hard, is that of the airbreathed, going in and out through it; for, as arule, a man breathes through his nostrils withclosed mouth. Apples present themselves themore naturally for comparison, that the applehas the name ‏ּתַ‏ פּוחַ‏ (from פַ‏ ח ‏,נָ‏ after the formexhales. from the fragrance which it ‏,(ּתַ‏ מְׁ‏ כּוףis wine of the good kind, i.e., the best, as יֵין הַ‏ טובProv. 6:24, a woman of a bad kind, i.e., a ‏,אֵ‏ שֶּ‏ ת רָ‏ עbad woman; the neut. thought of as adject. is

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 83By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyboth times the gen. of the attribute, as at Prov.24:25 it is the gen. of the substratum. Thepunctuation כַ‏ יַיִן הַ‏ טוב (Hitz.) is also possible; itgives, however, the common instead of thedelicate poetical expression. By the comparisonone may think of the expressions, jungeresalivas oris (Lucret.) and oscula per longasjungere pressa moras (Ovid). But if we haverightly understood 4:11; 5:16, the palate ismentioned much rather with reference to thewords of love which she whispers in his earswhen embracing her. Only thus is the furthercontinuance of the comparison to be explained,and that it is Shulamith herself who continuesit.Song 7:10a . The dramatic structure of theSong becomes here more strongly manifestthan elsewhere before. Shulamith interruptsthe king, and continues his words as if echoingthem, but again breaks off.10a Which goes down for my belovedsmoothly,Which makes the lips of sleepers move.The LXX had here לדודי in the text. It mightnotwithstanding be a spurious reading. Hitzigsuggests that it is erroneously repeated, as iffrom v. 11. Ewald also (Hohesl. p. 137) did thatbefore,—Heiligstedt, as usual, following him.But, as Ewald afterwards objected, the linewould then be “too short, and notcorresponding to that which follows.” But howshall לדודי now connect itself with Solomon’swords? Ginsburg explains: “Her voice is notmerely compared to wine, because it is sweet toeverybody, but to such wine as would be sweetto a friend, and on that account is morevaluable and pleasant.” But that furnishes athought digressing εἰς λλ γέ ς; and besides,Ewald rightly remarks that Shulamith alwaysuses the word דודי of her beloved, and that theking never uses it in a similar sense. Hecontends, however, against the idea thatShulamith here interrupts Solomon; for hereplies to me (Jahrb. IV 75): “Such interruptionswe certainly very frequently find in our illformedand dislocated plays; in the Song,however, not a solitary example of this is found,and one ought to hesitate in imagining such athing.” He prefers the reading לְׁ‏ דודִ‏ ים [belovedones], although possibly ‏,לדודי with î,abbreviated after the popular style of speechfrom îm, may be the same word. But is thisldodim not a useless addition? Is excellent winegood to the taste of friends merely; and does itlinger longer in the palate of those not belovedthan of those loving? And is the circumstancethat Shulamith interrupts the king, and carriedforward his words, not that which frequentlyalso occurs in the Greek drama, as e.g., Eurip.Phoenissae, v. 608? The text as it stands beforeus requires an interchange of the speakers, andnothing prevents the supposition of such aninterchange. In this idea Hengstenberg for onceagrees with us. The Lamed in ldodi is meant inthe same sense as when the bride drinks to thebridegroom, using the expression ldodi. TheLamed in לְׁ‏ מֵ‏ ישָ‏ רִ‏ ים is that of the defining norm, asthe Beth in ‏,במי׳ Prov. 23:31, is that of theaccompanying circumstance: that which tastesbadly sticks in the palate, but that which tastespleasantly glides down directly and smoothly.But what dies the phrase דובֵ‏ ב שִ‏ ףְׁ‏ ׳ וגו׳ mean? TheLXX translate by ἱ ύ ε ς χείλεσί υ ὶὀ ῦσ , “accommodating itself (Sym.π σ θέ ε ς) to my lips and teeth.” SimilarlyJerome (omitting at least the false υ),labiisque et dentibus illius ad ruminandum, inwhich בָ‏ ה ‏,דִ‏ rumor, for ‏,דובב seems to have ledhim to ruminare. Equally contrary to the textwith Luther’s translation: “which to my friendgoes smoothly goes, and speaks of the previousyear;” a rendering which supposes יְׁשָ‏ נִים (as alsothe Venet.) instead of יְׁשֵ‏ נִים (good wine which,as it were, tells of former years), and, besides,disregards ‏.שפתי The translation: “which comesat unawares upon the lips of the sleepers,”accords with the language (Heiligst., Hitz.). Butthat gives no meaning, as if one understood byas Gesen. and Ewald do, una in eodem toro ‏,יְׁשֵ‏ נִיםcubantes; but in this case the word ought to

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 84By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyhave been בִ‏ ים ‏.שֹכְׁ‏ Since, besides, such a thing isknown as sleeping through drink or speaking insleep, but not of drinking in sleep, our earliertranslation approves itself: which causes thelips of sleepers to speak. This interpretation isalso supported by a proverb in the Talm.Jebamoth 97a, Jer. oēd Katan, iii. 7, etc., which,with reference to the passage under review,says that if any one in this world adduces theרוחשות)‏ saying of a righteous man in his nameor דובבות בקבר ‏,(מרחשות ‏.שפתותיו But it is anerror inherited from Buxtorf, that דובבות meansthere loquuntur, and, accordingly, that דובב ofthis passage before us means loqui faciens. Itrather means (vid., Aruch), bullire, stillare,manare (cogn. ‏,זב ‏,טף Syn. ‏,(רחש since, as thatproverb signifies, the deceased experiences anafter-taste of his saying, and this experienceexpresses itself in the smack of the lips; andthus: ‏,מְׁ‏ דובֵ‏ ב = Po. whether it be part. Kal or ‏,דובֵ‏ בbrought into the condition of the overflowing,the after-experience of drink that has beenpartaken of, and which returns again, as itwere, ruminando. The meaning “to speak” is, inspite of Parchon and Kimchi (whom the Venet.,with its φθεγγ ε ς, follows), foreign to theverb; for דִ‏ בָ‏ ה also means, not discourse, butsneaking, and particularly sneaking calumny,and, generally, fama repens. The calumniator is‏.רָ‏ כִ‏ יל Heb. called in Arab. dabûb, as inWe now leave it undecided whether in ‏,דובב ofthis passage before us, that special ideaconnected with it in the Gemara is contained;but the roots דב and זב are certainly cogn., theyhave the fundamental idea of a soft, noiselessmovement generally, and modify this accordingas they are referred to that which is solid orfluid. Consequently בַ‏ ב ‏,דָ‏ as it means in lenteincedere (whence the bear has the name ‏,(דֹב isalso capable of being interpreted leniter semovere, and trans. leniter movere, according towhich the Syr. here translates, quod commovetlabia mea et dentes meos (this absurd bringingin of the teeth is from the LXX and Aq.), and theTarg. allegorizes, and whatever also in generalis the meaning of the Gemara as far as itexchanges דובבות for רוחשות (vid., Levy underBesides, the translations qui commovet ‏.(רְׁ‏ חֵ‏ שand qui loqui facit fall together according to thesense. For when it is said of generous wine, thatit makes the lips of sleepers move, a movementis meant expressing itself in the sleeperspeaking. But generous wine is a figure of thelove-responses of the beloved, sipped in, as itwere, with pleasing satisfaction, which hoverstill around the sleepers in delightful dreams,and fill them with hallucinations.Song 7:11. It is impossible that לדודי in v. 10has any other reference than it has in v. 11,where it is without doubt Shulamith whospeaks.11 I am my beloved’sAnd to me goeth forth his desire.After the words “I am my beloved’s,” we missthe “and my beloved is mine” of 6:3, cf. 2:16,which perhaps had dropped out. The secondline here refers back to Gen. 3:16, for here, asthere, שּוקָ‏ ה ‏,ּתְׁ‏ from ‏,שּוק to impel, move, is theimpulse of love as a natural power. When a wifeis the object of such passion, it is possible that,on the one side, she feels herself very fortunatetherein; and, on the other side, if the love, in itshigh commendations, becomes excessive,oppressed, and when she perceive that in herlove-relation she is the observed of many eyes,troubled. It is these mingled feelings whichmove Shulamith when she continues the praiseso richly lavished on her in words which denotewhat she might be to the king, but immediatelybreaks off in order that, as the following versenow shows, she might use this superabundanceof his love for the purpose of setting forth herrequest, and thus of leading into another path;her simple, child-like disposition longs for thequietness and plainness of rural life, away fromthe bustle and display of city and court life.12 Up, my lover, we will go into the country,Lodge in the villages.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 85By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studySong 7:12. Hitzig here begins a new scene, towhich he gives the superscription: “Shulamithmaking haste to return home with her lover.”The advocate of the shepherd-hypothesisthinks that the faithful Shulamith, after hearingSolomon’s panegyric, shakes her head and says:“I am my beloved’s.” To him she calls, “Come,my beloved;” for, as Ewald seeks to make thisconceivable: the golden confidence of her neartriumph lifts her in spirit forthwith above allthat is present and all that is actual; only to himmay she speak; and as if she were half here andhalf already there, in the midst of her ruralhome along with him, she says, “Let us go outinto the fields,” etc. In fact, there is nothingmore incredible than this Shulamitess, whosedialogue with Solomon consists of Solomon’saddresses, and of answers which are directed,not to Solomon, but in a monologue to hershepherd; and nothing more cowardly andmore shadowy than this lover, who goes aboutin the moonlight seeking his belovedshepherdess whom he has lost, glancing hereand there through the lattices of the windowsand again disappearing. How much morejustifiable is the drama of the Song by theFrench Jesuit C. F. Menestrier (born in Sion1631, died 1705), who, in his two little workson the opera and the ballet, speaks of Solomonas the creator of the opera, and regards theSong as a shepherd-play, in which his loverelationto the daughter of the king of Egypt isset forth under the allegorical figures of thelove of a shepherd and a shepherdess! ForShulamith is thought of as a רֹעָ‏ ה [shepherdess],רֹעֶּ‏ ה 1:8, and she thinks of Solomon as a[shepherd]. She remains so in her inclinationeven after her elevation to the rank of a queen.The solitude and glory of external nature aredearer to her than the bustle and splendour ofthe city and the court. Hence her pressing out ofthe city to the country. הַ‏ שָ‏ דֶּ‏ ה is local, withoutexternal designation, like rus (to the country).(here and at 1 Chron. 27:25) is plur. of the כְׁ‏ פָ‏ רִ‏ יםunused form כָ‏ פָ‏ ר (constr. פַ‏ ר ‏,כְׁ‏ Josh. (18:24 orArab. kafar (cf. the Syr. dimin. kafrûno, a ‏,כְׁ‏ פַ‏ רlittle town), instead of which it is once pointed1 Sam. 6:18, of that name of a district of ‏,כֹפֶּ‏ רlevel country with which a multitude of laterPalest. names of places, such as פַ‏ ר נַ‏ חּום ‏,כְׁ‏ areconnected. Ewald, indeed, understands kphārimas at 4:13: we will lodge among the fragrant Alhennabushes. But yet בַ‏ כְׁ‏ ף׳ cannot be equivalentto חַ‏ ת הכפרים ‏;ּתַ‏ and since לִ‏ ין (probably changedfrom יל ‏(לִ‏ and ‏,השכים 13a, stand together, wemust suppose that they wished to find a bed inthe henna bushes; which, if it were conceivable,would be too gipsy-like, even for a pair of loversof the rank of shepherds (vid., Job 30:7). No.Shulamith’s words express a wish for a journeyinto the country: they will there be in freedom,and at night find shelter ‏,בכף׳)‏ as 1 Chron. 27:25and Neh. 6:2, where also the plur. is similarlyused), now in this and now in that countryplace. Spoken to the supposed shepherd, thatwould be comical, for a shepherd does notwander from village to village; and that,returning to their home, they wished to turnaside into villages and spend the night there,cannot at all be the meaning. But spoken of ashepherdess, or rather a vine-dresser, who hasbeen raised to the rank of queen, it accordswith her relation to Solomon,—they aremarried,—as well as with the inexpressibleimpulse of her heart after her earlier homelycountry-life. The former vine-dresser, the childof the Galilean hills, the lily of the valley, speaksin the verses following.13 In the morning we will start for thevineyards,See whether the vine is in bloom,Whether the vine-blossoms have opened,The pomegranates budded—There will I give thee my love.14 The mandrakes breathe a pleasant odour,And over our doors are all kinds of excellentfruits,New, also old,Which, my beloved, I have kept for thee.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 86By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studySong 7:13, 14. As the rising up early followsthe tarrying over night, the description of thatwhich is longed for moves forward. As הִ‏ שְׁ‏ כִ‏ ים isdenom. of כֶּ‏ ם ‏,שְׁ‏ and properly signifies only toshoulder, i.e., to rise, make oneself ready, whenearly going forth needs to be designated it hasgenerally בַ‏ בֹקֶּ‏ ר (cf. Josh. 6:15) along with it; yetthis word may also be wanting, 1 Sam. 9:26;an abbreviation ‏,נשך׳ וְׁ‏ נֵלֵ‏ ‏ְך לבר׳ = נַשְׁ‏ ךִ‏ ׳ לַ‏ כְׁ‏ רָ‏ ׳ .17:16of the expression which is also found in hist.prose, Gen. 19:27; cf. 2 Kings 19:9. They wishedin the morning, when the life of nature can bestbe observed, and its growth and progress andstriving upwards best contemplated, to seewhether the vine had opened, i.e., unfolded(thus, 6:11), whether the vine-blossom (vid., at2:13) had expanded (LXX ἤ θησε ὁ υπ σ ς),whether the pomegranate had its flowers orflower-buds נֵ‏ צּו)‏ ‏,הֵ‏ as at 6:11); פִ‏ ‏ּתֵ‏ חַ‏ is here, as atIsa. 48:8; 60:11, used as internally transitive: toaccomplish or to undergo the opening, as also(Arab.) fattaḥ is used of the blooming offlowers, for (Arab.) tafttaḥ (to unfold). The‏,כְׁ‏ רָ‏ מֵ‏ ינּו vineyards, inasmuch as she does not sayare not alone those of her family, but generallythose of her home, but of her home; for theseare the object of her desire, which in thispleasant journey with her beloved she at oncein imagination reaches, flying, as it were, overthe intermediate space. There, in undisturbedquietness, and in a lovely region consecratinglove, will she give herself to him in the entirefulness of her love. By דֹדַ‏ י she means theevidences of her love (vid., under 4:10; 1:2),which she will there grant to him as thankfulresponses to his own. Thus she speaks in thespring-time, in the month Ijjar, correspondingto our Wonnemond (pleasure-month, May), andseeks to give emphasis to her promise by this,that she directs him to the fragrant“mandragoras,” and to the precious fruits of allkinds which she has kept for him on the shelf inher native home.love’s flower, is the ‏,(לּולַ‏ י (after the form דּודַ‏ יmandragora officinalis, L., with whitish greenflowers and yellow apples of the size ofnutmegs, belonging to the Solanaceae; its fruitsand roots are used as an aphrodisiac, thereforethis plant was called by the Arabs abd al-sal’m,the servant of love, postillon d’amour; the son ofLeah found such mandrakes (LXX Gen. 30:14,ῆλ γ ῶ ) at the time of the vintage,which falls in the month of Ijjar; they have astrong but pleasant odour. In Jerusalemmandrakes are rare; but so much the moreabundantly are they found growing wild inGalilee, whither Shulamith is transported inspirit. Regarding the מְׁ‏ גָ‏ דִ‏ ים (from גֶּד ‏,מֶּ‏ occurringin the sing. exclusively in the blessing of Moses,Deut. 33), which in the Old Testament ispeculiar to the Song, vid., 4:13, 16. From “overour doors,” down to “I have kept for thee,” is,according to the LXX, Syr., Jerome, and others,one sentence, which in itself is notinadmissible; for the object can precede itsverb, 3:3b, and can stand as the subjectbetween the place mentioned and the verb, Isa.32:13a, also as the object, 2 Chron. 31:6, which,as in the passage before us, may beinterpunctuated with Athnach for the sake ofemphasis; in the bibl. Chald. this invertedsequence of the words is natural, e.g., Dan.2:17b. But such a long-winded sentence is atleast not in the style of the Song, and one doesnot rightly see why just “over our doors” hasthe first place in it. I therefore formerlytranslated it as did Luther, dividing it into parts:“and over our doors are all kinds of preciousfruits; I have,” etc. But with this departure fromthe traditional division of the verse nothing isgained; for the “keeping” (laying up) refersnaturally to the fruits of the preceding year, andin the first instance can by no means refer tofruits of this year, especially as Shulamith,according to the structure of the poem, has notvisited her parental home since her homebringingin marriage, and now for the first time,in the early summer, between the barleyharvest and the wheat harvest, is carried awaythither in her longing. Therefore theexpression, “my beloved, I have kept for thee,”is to be taken by itself, but not as anindependent sentence (Böttch.), but is to be

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 87By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyrendered, with Ewald, as a relative clause; andthis, with Hitz., is to be referred to יְׁשָ‏ נִים (old).Col refers to the many sorts of precious fruitswhich, after the time of their ingathering, aredivided into “new and old” (Matt. 13:52). Theplur. “our doors,” which as amplif. poet. wouldnot be appropriate here, supposes severalentrances into her parents’ home; and since “Ihave kept” refers to a particular preserving ofchoice fruits, al does not (Hitzig) refer to afloor, such as the floor above the familydwelling or above the barn, but to the shelfabove the inner doors, a board placed overthem, on which certain things are wont to belaid past for some particular object. She speaksto the king like a child; for although highlyelevated, she yet remains, without self-elation,a child.Song of Solomon 8Song 8:1. If Solomon now complies with herrequest, yields to her invitation, then she willagain see her parental home, where, in the daysof her first love, she laid up for him that whichwas most precious, that she might thereby givehim joy. Since she thus places herself with herwhole soul back again in her home and amid itsassociations, the wish expressed in these wordsthat follow rises up within her in the childlikepurity of her love:1 O that thou wert like a brother to me,Who sucked my mother’s breasts!If I found thee without, I would kiss thee;They also could not despise me.2 I would lead thee, bring thee into mymother’s house;Thou wouldest instruct me—I would give thee to drink spiced wine,The must of my pomegranates.Solomon is not her brother, who, with her, hungupon the same mother’s breast; but she wishes,carried away in her dream into the reality ofthat she wished for, that she had him as herbrother, or rather, since she says, not ח ‏,אָ‏ but35:14, Ps. which here has not, as at ‏,ךְׁ‏ (with כְׁ‏ אָ‏ חthe meaning of tanquam, but of instar, as at Job24:14), that she had in him what a brother is toa sister. In that case, if she found him without,she would kiss him (hypoth. fut. in the protasis,and fut. without Vav in the apodosis, as at Job20:24; Hos. 8:12; Ps. 139:18)—she could do thiswithout putting any restraint on herself for thesake of propriety (cf. the kiss of the wantonharlot, Prov. 7:13), and also ם)‏ ‏(גַ‏ withoutneeding to fear that they who saw it wouldtreat it scornfully ( לְׁ‏ ‏,בּוז as in the reminiscence,Prov. 6:30). The close union which lies in thesisterly relationship thus appeared to her to behigher than the near connection established bythe marriage relationship, and her childlikefeeling deceived her not: the sisterlyrelationship is certainly purer, firmer, moreenduring than that of marriage, so far as thisdoes not deepen itself into an equality with thesisterly, and attain to friendship, yea,brotherhood (Prov. 17:17), within. ThatShulamith thus feels herself happy in thethought that Solomon was to her as a brother,shows, in a characteristic manner, that “the lustof the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride oflife,” were foreign to her. If he were her brother,she would take him by the hand, and bring himinto her mother’s house, and he would then,under the eye of their common mother, becomeher teacher, and she would become his scholar.The LXX adds, after the words “into mymother’s house,” the phrase, ὶ εἰς ε ῆςσυλλ ύσης ε, cf. 3:4. In the same manneralso the Syr., which has not read the wordsάξε ς ε following, which are found in someCodd. of the LXX. Regarding the wordtlammdēne (thou wouldest instruct me) asincongruous, Hitzig asks: What should he thenteach her? He refers it to her mother: “whowould teach me,” namely, from her own earlierexperience, how I might do everything rightlyfor him. “Were the meaning,” he adds, “heshould do it, then also it is she who ought to berepresented as led home by him into his house,the bride by the bridegroom.” But, correctly,Jerome, the Venet., and Luther: “Thou wouldest(shouldest) instruct me;” also the Targ.: “I

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 88By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studywould conduct thee, O King Messiah, and bringThee into the house of my sanctuary; and Thouwouldest teach me אַ‏ לֵ‏ ף יָתִ‏ י)‏ ‏(ּותְׁ‏ to fear God andto walk in His ways.” Not her mother, butSolomon, is in possession of the wisdom whichshe covets; and if he were her brother, as shewishes, then she would constrain him to devotehimself to her as her teacher. The view,favoured by Leo Hebraeus (Dialog. de amore, c.III), John Pordage (Metaphysik, III 617 ff.), andRosenmüller, and which commends itself, afterthe analogy of the Gîtagovinda, Boethius, andDante, and appears also to show itself in theSyr. title of the book, “Wisdom of the Wise,” thatShulamith is wisdom personified (cf. also 8:2with Prov. 9:2, and 8:3; 2:6 with Prov. 4:8),shatters itself against this ‏;תלמדני the fact israther the reverse: Solomon is wisdom inperson, and Shulamith is the wisdom-lovingsoul,—for Shulamith wishes to participate inSolomon’s wisdom. What a deep view the “Thouwouldest teach me” affords into Shulamith’sheart! She knew how much she yet came shortof being to him all that a wife should be. But inJerusalem the bustle of court life and theburden of his regal duties did not permit him todevote himself to her; but in her mother’shouse, if he were once there, he would instructher, and she would requite him with her spicedwine and with the juice of the pomegranates.יֵין genitiv. vinum conditura, is appos. = ‏,יַיִן הָ‏ רֶּ‏ קַ‏ ח( conditurae vinum ‏,הרקחί ης inמַ‏ יִם ,6:5 Ps. ‏,יַיִן ‏ּתַ‏ רְׁ‏ ׳ Dioscorides and Pliny), likeStat. 1 Kings 22:27, etc., vid., Philippi’s לַ‏ חַ‏ ץConst. .p .86 אַ‏ שְׁ‏ קְׁ‏ ‏ָך carries forward אֶּ‏ שָ‏ קֲ‏ ‏ָך in abeautiful play upon words. עָ‏ סִ‏ יס designates thejuice as pressed out: the Chald. עַ‏ סִ‏ י correspondsto the Heb. רַ‏ ‏ְך ‏,דָ‏ used of treading the grapes. It isunnecessary to render רִ‏ ‏ֹּמֹנִי as apoc. plur., like, Ps. 45:9 (Ewald, § 177a); rimmoni is the מִ‏ נִ‏ יname she gives to the pomegranate treesbelonging to her,—for it is true that this word,rimmon, can be used in a collective sense (Deut.8:8); but the connection with the possessivesuff. excludes this; or by ’asis rimmoni shemeans the pomegranate must (cf. ἰ ης =vinum e punicis, in Dioscorides and Pliny)belonging to her. Pomegranates are not to bethought of as an erotic symbol; they are namedas something beautiful and precious. “O Ali,”says a proverb of Sunna, “eat eagerly onlypomegranates (Pers. anâr), for their grains arefrom Paradise.”Song 8:3, 4. Resigning herself now dreamily tothe idea that Solomon is her brother, whom shemay freely and openly kiss, and her teacherbesides, with whom she may sit in confidentialintercourse under her mother’s eye, she feelsherself as if closely embraced by him, and callsfrom a distance to the daughters of Jerusalemnot to disturb this her happy enjoyment:3 His left hand is under my head,And his right doth embrace me:4 I adjure you, ye daughters of Jerusalem,That ye awake not and disturb not loveTill she please!Instead of חַ‏ ת לְׁ‏ ‏,ּתַ‏ “underneath,” there is here, asusual, ‏ּתַ‏ חַ‏ ת (cf. 5b). Instead of אם … ואם in the… ומה adjuration, there is here the equivalentwhich in the Arab. má ‏,מה the interrogative ‏;מהbecomes negat., appears here, as at Job 31:1, onthe way toward this change of meaning. The percapreas vel per cervas agri is wanting, perhapsbecause the natural side of love is here broken,and the ἔ ς strives up into γάπη. Thedaughters of Jerusalem must not break in uponthis holy love-festival, but leave it to its owncourse.The Ratification of the Covenant of Love inShulamith’s Native Home—Ch. 8:5–14First Scene of the Sixth Act, 8:5–7Shulamith’s longing wish attains its satisfaction.Arm in arm with Solomon, she comes forth andwalks with him on her native ground. Sunem(Sulem), at the west end of Little Hermon(’Gebel ed-Duhî), lay something more than 1 1/2hour to the north of Jezreel (Zera’în), which also

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 89By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studylay at the foot of a mountain, viz., on a N.-W.spur of Gilboa. Between the two lay the valleyof Jezreel in the “great plain,” which was called,2 Chron. 35:22, Zech. 12:11, “the valley ofegiddo” [Esdraelon], now erj ibn ‘Amir—anextensive level plain, which, seen from thesouth Galilean hills in the springtime, appears“like a green sea encompassed by gently slopingbanks.” From this we will have to suppose thatthe loving pair from the town of Jezreel, thehighest point of which afforded a wide, pleasantprospect, wandered on foot through the “valleyof Jezreel,” a beautiful, well-watered, fruitfulvalley, which is here called ‏,מדבר as beinguncultivated pasture land. They bend their waytoward the little village lying in the valley, fromwhich the dark sloping sides of Little Hermonrise up suddenly. Here in this valley are thecountrymen (populares) of those wanderers, asyet unrecognised from a distance, into whosemouth the poet puts these words:5a Who is this coming up out of thewilderness,Leaning on her beloved?Song 8:5. The third Act, 3:6, began with asimilar question to that with which the sixthhere commences. The former closed thedescription of the growth of the love-relation,the latter closes that of the consummated loverelation.Instead of “out of the wilderness,” theLXX has “clothed in white” (λελευ θ σ έ η);the translator has gathered מִ‏ תְׁ‏ חַ‏ ‏ּוֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ת from theillegible consonants of his MS before him. Onthe contrary, he translates מתרפקת correctly byἐπ σ η ζ έ η (Symm. ἐπε ε έ η, Venet.ε η υ ἐπί, wearily supporting herself on …), while Jerome renders it unsuitably by deliciis‏.מִ‏ תְׁ‏ פַ‏ נֶּקֶּ‏ ת affluens, interchanging the word withBut תְׁ‏ רַ‏ פֵ‏ ק ‏,הִ‏ common to the Heb. with the Arab.and Aethiop., signifies to support oneself, fromrafaḳa, sublevare (French, soulager), Arab. ‏,רָ‏ פַ‏ קrafuḳa, to be helpful, serviceable, compliant, 8irtafaḳa, to support oneself on the elbow, or(with the elbow) on a pillow (cf. rafîk, fellowtraveller,rufḳa, a company of fellow-travellers,from the primary idea of mutually supportingor being helpful to each other); Aethiop. rafaḳa,to encamp for the purpose of taking food,λί εσθ (cf. John 13:23). That Shulamithleant on her beloved, arose not merely from herweariness, with the view of supplementing herown weakness from his fulness of strength, butalso from the ardour of the love which gives tothe happy and proud Solomon, raised above allfears, the feeling of his having her in absolutepossession. The road brings the loving couplenear to the apple tree over against Shulamith’sparental home, which had been the witness ofthe beginning of their love.5b Under the apple tree I waked thy love:There thy mother travailed with thee;There travailed she that bare thee.The words, “under the apple tree I waked thee,”might be regarded as those of ‏,עורַ‏ רְׁ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ יָךShulamith to Solomon: here, under this appletree, where Solomon met with her, she won hisfirst love; for the words cannot mean that shewakened him from sleep under the apple tree,since עורֵ‏ ר has nowhere the meaning of הֵ‏ קִ‏ יץ andhere given to it by Hitzig, but only that of הֵ‏ עִ‏ יר“to stir, to stir up, to arouse;” and only whensleep or a sleepy condition is the subject, does itmean “to shake out of sleep, to rouse up” (vid.,under 2:7). But it is impossible that “there” canbe used by Shulamith even in the sense of theshepherd hypothesis; for the pair of lovers donot wander to the parental home of the lover,but of his beloved. We must then herealtogether change the punctuation of the text,and throughout restore the fem. suffix forms asthose originally used: בְׁ‏ לָ‏ תֶּ‏ ‏ְך אִ‏ ‏ֹּמֵ‏ ‏ְך ‏,עורַ‏ רְׁ‏ ‏ּתִ‏ יְך ‏,חִ‏ andIsa. 47:10), in which we follow the ‏,שו׳ (cf. יְׁלָ‏ דָ‏ תֶּ‏ ‏ְךexample of the Syr. The allegorizinginterpreters also meet only with trouble inregarding the words as those of Shulamith toSolomon. If התפוח were an emblem of theMount of Olives, which, being wonderfullydivided, gives back Israel’s dead (Targ.), or anemblem of Sinai (Rashi), in both cases thewords are more appropriately regarded as

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 90By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyspoken to Shulamith than by her. Aben-Ezracorrectly reads them as the words of Shulamithto Solomon, for he thinks on prayers, which arelike golden apples in silver bowls; Hahn, for heunderstands by the apple tree, Canaan, wherewith sorrow his people brought him forth astheir king; Hengstenberg, rising up to a remotelyingcomparison, says, “the mother of theheavenly Solomon is at the same time themother of Shulamith.” Hoelemann thinks onSur. 19:32 f., according to which ‘Isa, Miriam’sson, was born under a palm tree; but he is notable to answer the question, What now is themeaning here of the apple tree as Solomon’sbirthplace? If it were indeed to be interpretedallegorically, then by the apple tree we wouldrather understand the “tree of knowledge” ofParadise, of which Aquila, followed by Jerome,with his ἐ ε εφθά η, appears to think,—aview which recently Godet approves of; thereShulamith, i.e., poor humanity, awakened thecompassionate love of the heavenly Solomon,who then gave her, as a pledge of this love, theProtevangelium, and in the neighbourhood ofthis apple tree, i.e., on the ground and soil ofhumanity fallen, but yet destined to be saved,Shulamith’s mother, i.e., the pre-Christian O.T.church, brought forth the Saviour from itself,who in love raised Shulamith from the depthsto regal honour. But the Song of Songs does notanywhere set before us the task of extractingfrom it by an allegorizing process such farfetchedthoughts. If the masc. suff. is changedinto the fem., we have a conversation perfectlycorresponding to the situation. Solomonreminds Shulamith by that memorable appletree of the time when he kindled within her thefire of first love; עורֵ‏ ר elsewhere signifies energy(Ps. 80:3), or passion (Prov. 10:12), put into astate of violent commotion; connected with theaccus. of the person, it signifies, Zech. 9:13,excited in a warlike manner; here, placed in astate of pleasant excitement of love that has notyet attained its object. Of how many referencesto contrasted affections the reflex. התע׳ iscapable, is seen from Job 17:8; 31:29; why not‏?עורֵ‏ ר thus alsoWith שָ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ ה Solomon’s words are continued, butnot in such a way as that what follows also tookplace under the apple tree. For Shulamith is notthe child of Beduins, who in that case mighteven have been born under an apple tree.Among the Beduins, a maiden accidentally bornat the watering-place (menhîl), on the way(rahîl), in the dew (ṭall) or snow (thelg), iscalled from that circumstance Munêhil, Ruhêla,Talla, or Thelga. The birthplace of her love isהַ‏ תפוח not also the birthplace of her life. Aspoints to the apple tree to which their way ledthem, so שמה points to the end of their way, theparental home lying near by (Hitzig). The LXXtranslates well: ἐ ε ὠ ί ησέ σε ἡ η σ υ, forwhile the Arab. ḥaḅida means concipere, and itsPi., ḥabbada, is the usual word for gravidamfacere, חִ‏ בֵ‏ ל in the passage before us certainlyappears to be a denom. Pi. in the sense of “tobring forth with sorrow” בְׁ‏ לֵ‏ י הַ‏ יֹלֵ‏ דָ‏ ה)‏ ‏.(חַ‏ The LXXfurther translates: ἐ ε ὠ ί ησέ σε ἡ ε ῦσά σὲ,in which the σε is inserted, and is thus, as alsoby the Syr., Jerome, and Venet., translated, withthe obliteration of the finite דָ‏ תֶּ‏ ‏ְך ‏,יְׁלָ‏ as if thereading were דְׁ‏ ‏ּתֵ‏ ‏ְך ‏.יֹלַ‏ But not merely is the nameof the mother intentionally changed, it is alsocarried forward from the labour, eniti, to thecompleted act of birth.Song 8:6, 7. After Solomon has thus called toremembrance the commencement of their loverelation,which receives again a specialconsecration by the reference to Shulamith’sparental home, and to her mother, Shulamithanswers with a request to preserve for her thislove.6 Place me as a signet-ring on thy heart,As a signet-ring on thine arm!For strong as death is love;Inexorable as hell is jealousy:Its flames are flames of fire,A flame of Jah.7 Mighty waters are unable to quench suchlove,And rivers cannot overflow it.

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 91By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyIf a man would giveAll the wealth of his house for love,—He would only be contemned.The signet-ring, which is called תַ‏ ם)‏ חותָ‏ ם ‏,חָ‏ toimpress), was carried either by a string on thebreast, Gen. 38:18, or also, as that which iscalled טַ‏ בַ‏ עַ‏ ת denotes (from בַ‏ ע ‏,טָ‏ to sink into), onthe hand, Jer. 22:24, cf. Gen. 41:42, Esth. 3:12,but not on the arm, like a bracelet, 2 Sam. 1:10;and since it is certainly permissible to say“hand” for “finger,” but not “arm” for “hand,” sowe may not refer “on thine arm” to the figure ifthe signet-ring, as if Shulamith had said, as thepoet might also introduce her as saying: Makeme like a signet-ring חותם)‏ ‏(כְׁ‏ on thy breast;make me like a signet-ring “on thy hand,” or “onthy right hand.” The words, “set me on thyheart,” and “ (set me) on thine arm,” must thusalso, without regard to “as a signet-ring,”express independent thoughts, although שִ‏ ימֵ‏ נִי ischosen (vid., Hag. 2:23) instead of חֵ‏ נִי ‏,קָ‏ in viewof the comparison. Thus, with right, Hitzig findsthe thought therein expressed: “Press me closeto thy breast, enclose me in thine arms.” But itis the first request, and not the second, which is‏,(שימני)‏ על־זְׁ‏ רועֹתֶּ‏ יָך and not ‏,על־זרועֶּ‏ ‏ָך in the formwhich refers to embracing, since the subject isnot the relation of person and thing, but ofperson and person. The signet-ring comes intoview as a jewel, which one does not separatefrom himself; and the first request is to thiseffect, that he would bear her thus inalienably(the art. is that of the specific idea) on his heart(Ex. 28:29); the meaning of the second, that hewould take her thus inseparably as a signetringon his arm (cf. Hos. 11:3: “I have taughtEphraim also to go, taking them by their arms”),so that she might lie always on his heart, andhave him always at her side (cf. Ps. 110:5): shewishes to be united and bound to himindissolubly in the affection of love and in thecommunity of life’s experience.‏,כִ‏ י The reason for the double request followingabstracted from the individual case, rises to theuniversality of the fact realized by experience,which specializes itself herein, and celebratesthe praise of love; for, assigning a reason forher “set me,” she does not say, “my love,” nor“thy love,” but הֲ‏ בָ‏ ה ‏,אַ‏ “love” (as also in theaddress at 7:7). She means love undivided,unfeigned, entire, and not transient, butenduring; thus true and genuine love, such as isreal, what the word denotes, which exhauststhe conception corresponding to the idea oflove.which is here parallel to “love,” is the ‏,קִ‏ נְׁ‏ אָ‏ הjealousy of love asserting its possession andright of property; the reaction of love againstany diminution of its possession, against anyreserve in its response, the “self-vindication ofangry love.” Love is a passion, i.e., a humanaffection, powerful and lasting, as it comes tolight in “jealousy.” Zelus, as defined by Dav.Chyträus, est affectus mixtus ex amore et ira,cum videlicet amans aliquid irascitur illi, a quolaeditur res amata, wherefore here theadjectives עַ‏ זָ‏ ה (strong) and קָ‏ שָ‏ ה (hard,inexorable, firm, severe) are respectivelyassigned to “love” and “jealousy,” as at Gen.49:7 to “anger” and “wrath.” It is much moreremarkable that the energy of love, which, so tosay, is the life of life, is compared to the energyof death and Hades; with at least equal right(might be used, for love scorns שְׁ‏ אולboth, outlasts both, triumphs over both (Rom.8:38f.; 1 Cor. 15:54f.). But the text does notspeak of surpassing, but of equality; not of loveand jealousy that they surpass death and Hades,but that they are equal to it. The point ofcomparison in both cases is to be obtained fromthe predicates. ז ‏,עַ‏ powerful, designates theperson who, being assailed, cannot beovercome (Num. 13:28), and, assailing, cannotbe withstood (Judg. 14:18). Death is obviouslythought of as the assailer (Jer. 9:20), againstwhich nothing can hold its ground, from whichnothing can escape, to whose sceptre all mustfinally yield (vid., Ps. 49). Love is like it in this,that it also seizes upon men with irresistibleforce (Böttcher: “He whom Death assails mustdie, whom Love assails must love”); and whenמִ‏and מִ‏ ‏ֹּמָ‏ וֶּ‏ ת

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 92By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyshe has once assailed him, she rests not till shehas him wholly under her power; she kills him,as it were, in regard to everything else that isnot the object of his love. שֶּ‏ ה ‏,קָ‏ hard (opposed to2 Sam. 3:39), σ λη ς, designates one on ‏,רַ‏ ‏ְךwhom no impression is made, who will notyield (Ps. 48:4; 19:4), or one whom stern fatehas made inwardly stubborn and obtuse (1Sam. 1:15). Here the point of comparison isinflexibility; for Sheol, thought of with ‏,שאל toask (vid., under Isa. 5:14), is the God-ordainedmessenger of wrath, who inexorably gathers inall that are on the earth, and holds them fastwhen once they are swallowed up by him. Sothe jealousy of love wholly takes possession ofthe beloved object not only in arrest, but also insafe keeping; she holds her possession firmly,that it cannot be taken from her (Wisd. 2:1),and burns relentlessly and inexorably againstany one who does injury to her possession(Prov. 6:34 f.). But when Shulamith wishes, inthe words, “set me,” etc., to be bound to theheart and to the arm of Solomon, has she in theclause assigning a reason the love in view withwhich she loves, or that with which she isloved? Certainly not the one to the exclusion ofthe other; but as certainly, first of all, the lovewith which she wishes to fill, and believes thatshe does fill, her beloved. If this is so, then with“for strong as death is love,” she gives herselfup to this love on the condition that it confessesitself willing to live only for her, and to be as ifdead for all others; and with “inexorable as hellis jealousy,” in such a manner that she takesshelter in the jealousy of this love against theoccurrence of any fit of infidelity, since sheconsents therein to be wholly and completelyabsorbed by it.To ‏,קנאה which proceeds from the primary ideaof a red glow, there is connected the furtherdescription of this love to the sheltering andprotecting power of which she gives herself up:“its flames, , are flames of fire;” itsרְׁ‏ שָ‏ פֶּ‏ י ‏ָהרשפ sparkling is the sparkling of fire. The verbsignifies, in Syr. and Arab., to creep along, tomake short steps; in Heb. and Chald., to sparkle,to flame, which in Samar. is referred toimpetuosity. Symmachus translates, after theSamar. (which Hitzig approves of): ἱ ὁ ὶὐ ῦ ὁ ὶ πύ ; the Venet., after Kimchi,θ ες, for he ex changes רֵ‏ שֶּ‏ ף with theprobably non.-cogn. צְׁ‏ פָ‏ ה ‏;רִ‏ others render it allwith words which denote the bright glancingsof fire. רִ‏ שְׁ‏ פֵ‏ י (so here, according to the Masora;on the contrary, at Ps. 76:4, שְׁ‏ פֵ‏ י ‏(רִ‏ areeffulgurations; the pred. says that these are notonly of a bright shining, but of a fiery nature,which, as they proceed from fire, so alsoproduce fire, for they set on fire and kindle.Love, in its flashings up, is like fiery flashes oflightning; in short, it is לְׁ‏ הֶּ‏ בֶּ‏ תְׁ‏ יָה ‏,שַ‏ which is thusto be written as one word with ה raphatum,according to the Masora; but in this form of theword יה is also the name of God, and more thana meaningless superlative strengthening of theidea. As לֶּ‏ הָ‏ בָ‏ ה is formed from the Kal לָ‏ הַ‏ ב toflame (R. ‏,לב to lick, like הַ‏ ט ‏,לָ‏ R. ‏,לט to twist), sois לְׁ‏ הֶּ‏ בֶּ‏ ת ‏,שַ‏ from the Shafel לְׁ‏ הֵ‏ ב ‏,שִ‏ to cause toflame; this active stem is frequently found,especially in the Aram., and has in the Assyr.almost wholly supplanted the Afel (vid.,שלהבת 275). xxvi. Schrader in Deut. Morg. Zeit.is thus related primarily to ‏,להבה as inflammatioto (Ger.) Flamme; יה thus presents itself themore naturally to be interpreted as gen.subjecti. Love of a right kind is a flame notkindled and inflamed by man (Job 20:26), butby God—the divinely-influenced freeinclination of two souls to each other, and at thesame time, as is now further said, 7a, 7b, asituation supporting all adversities andassaults, and a pure personal relationconditioned by nothing material. It is a fireflamewhich mighty waters בִ‏ ים)‏ ‏,רַ‏ great andmany, as at Hab. 3:15; cf. זִ‏ ים ‏,עַ‏ wild, Isa. 43:16)cannot extinguish, and streams cannot overflowit (cf. Ps. 69:3; 124:4) or sweep it away (cf. Job14:19; Isa. 28:17). Hitzig adopts the lattersignification, but the figure of the fire makes the

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 93By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyformer more natural; no heaping up of adversecircumstances can extinguish true love, asmany waters extinguish elemental fire; noearthly power can suppress it by the strength ofits assault, as streams drench all they sweepover in their flow—the flame of Jah isinextinguishable.Nor can this love be bought; any attempt to buyit would be scorned and counted madness. Theexpressions is like Prov. 6:30 f., cf. Num. 22:18;1 Cor. 13:3. Regarding הון (from ‏,הּון (Arab.) han,levem esse), convenience, and that by which lifeis made comfortable, vid., at Prov. 1:13.According to the shepherd-hypothesis, hereoccurs the expression of the peculiar point ofthe story of the intercourse between Solomonand Shulamith; she scorns the offers ofSolomon; her love is not to be bought, and italready belongs to another. But of offers weread nothing beyond 1:11, where, as in thefollowing v. 12, it is manifest that Shulamith isin reality excited in love. Hitzig also remarksunder 1:12: “When the speaker says thefragrance of her nard is connected with thepresence of the king, she means that only thendoes she smell the fragrance of nard, i.e., onlyhis presence awakens in her heart pleasantsensations or sweet feelings.” Shulamithmanifestly thus speaks, also emphasizing 6:12,the spontaneousness of her relation toSolomon; but Hitzig adds: “These words, 1:12,are certainly spoken by a court lady.” But theSong knows only a chorus of the “Daughters ofJerusalem”—that court lady is only a phantom,by means of which Hitzig’s ingenuity seeks toprop up the shepherd-hypothesis, the weaknessof which his penetration has discerned. As weunderstand the Song, v. 7 refers to the love withwhich Shulamith loves, as decidedly as 6b to thelove with which she is loved. Nothing in all theworld is able to separate her from loving theking; it is love to his person, not love calledforth by a desire for riches which he disposesof, not even by the splendour of the positionwhich awaited her, but free, responsive lovewith which she answered free love making itsapproach to her. The poet here representsShulamith herself as expressing the idea of loveembodied in her. That apple tree, where heawaked first love in her, is a witness of therenewal of their mutual covenant of love; and itis significant that only here, just directly here,where the idea of the whole is expressed morefully, and in a richer manner than at 7:7, is Goddenoted by His name, and that by His name asrevealed in the history of redemption. Hitzig,Ewald, Olshausen, Böttcher, expand thisconcluding word, for the sake of rhythmicsymmetry, to שַ‏ לְׁ‏ הֲ‏ בֹתֶּ‏ יהָ‏ שַ‏ לְׁ‏ הֲ‏ בֹת יָּה [its flames areflames of Jah]; but a similar conclusion is foundat Ps. 24:6; 48:7, and elsewhere.“I would almost close the book,” says Herder inhis Lied der Lieder (Song of Songs), 1778, “withthis divine seal. It is even as good as closed, forwhat follows appears only as an appendedecho.” Daniel Sanders (1845) closes it with v. 7,places v. 12 after 1:6, and cuts off vv. 8–11, 13,14, as not original. Anthologists, like Döpke andMagnus, who treat the Song as the Fragmentistsdo the Pentateuch, find here their confusedmedley sanctioned. Umbreit also, 1820,although as for the rest recognising the Song asa compact whole, explains 8:8–12, 13, 14 as afragment, not belonging to the work itself.Hoelemann, however, in his Krone desHohenliedes [Crown of the Song], 1856 (thus henames the “concluding Act,” 8:5–14), believesthat there is here represented, not only in vv. 6,7, but further also in vv. 8–12, the essence oftrue love—what it is, and how it is won; andthen in 8:13 f. he hears the Song come to an endin pure idyllic tones. We see in v. 8 ff. thecontinuation of the love story practicallyidealized and set forth in dramatic figures.There is no inner necessity for this continuance.It shapes itself after that which has happened;and although in all history divine reason andmoral ideas realize themselves, yet the materialby means of which this is done consists ofaccidental circumstances and free actionspassing thereby into reciprocal action. But v. 8ff. is the actual continuance of the story on tothe completed conclusion, not a mere appendix,which might be wanting without anything being

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 94By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythereby missed. For after the poet has setbefore us the loving pair as they wander arm inarm through the green pasture-land betweenJezreel and Sunem till they reach the environsof the parental home, which reminds them ofthe commencement of their love relations, hecannot represent them as there turning back,but must present to us still a glimpse of whattranspired on the occasion of their visit there.After that first Act of the concluding scene,there is yet wanting a second, to which the firstpoints.Second Scene of the Fifth Act, 8:8–14Song 8:8. The locality of this scene isShulamith’s parental home. It is she herself whospeaks in these words:8 We have a sister, a little one,And she has no breasts:What shall we do with our sisterIn the day when she will be sued for?Between vv. 8 and 7 is a blank. The figure of thewanderers is followed by the figure of thevisitors. But who speaks here? The interchangeof the scene permits that Shulamith concludethe one scene and begin the other, as in the firstAct; or also that at the same time with thechange of scene there is an interchange ofpersons, as e.g., in the third Act. But ifShulamith speaks, all her words are not by anymeans included in what is said from v. 8 to v.10. Since, without doubt, she also speaks in v.11 f., this whole second figure consists ofShulamith’s words, as does also the second ofthe second Act, 3:1–5. But there Shulamith’saddress presents itself as the narrative of anexperience, and the narrative dramaticallyframed in itself is thoroughly penetrated by theI of the speaker; but here, as e.g., Ewald,Heiligst., and Böttch. explain, she would beginwith a dialogue with her brothers referable toherself, one that had formerly taken place—that little sister, Ewald remarks under v. 10,stands here now grown up she took notice ofthat severe word formerly spoken by herbrothers, and can now joyfully before allexclaim, taking up the same flowery language,that she is a wall, etc. But that a monologueshould begin with a dialogue without anyintroduction, is an impossibility; in this case thepoet ought to have left the expression, “of oldmy mother’s sons said,” to be supplemented bythe reader or hearer. It is true, at 3:2; 5:3, wehave a former address introduced without anyformal indication of the fact; but it is theaddress of the narrator herself. With v. 8 therewill thus begin a colloquy arising out of presentcircumstances. That in this conversation v. 8appertains to the brothers, is evident. Thisharsh entweder oder (aut … aut) is notappropriate as coming from Shulamith’s mouth;it is her brothers alone, as Hoelemann rightlyremarks, who utter these words, as might havebeen expected from them in view of 1:6. Butdoes v. 8 belong also to them? There may betwo of them, says Hitzig, and the one may in v. 9reply to the question of the other in v. 8;Shulamith, who has heard their conversation,suddenly interposes with v. 10. But thetransition from the first to the second scene ismore easily explained if Shulamith proposesthe question of v. 8 for consideration. This isnot set aside by Hitzig’s questions: “Has she todetermine in regard to her sister? and has shenow for the first time come to do nothing inhaste?” For (1) the dramatic figures of the Songfollow each other chronologically, but notwithout blanks; and the poet does not at allrequire us to regard v. 8 as Shulamith’s firstwords after her entrance into her parentalhome; (2) but it is altogether seeming forShulamith, who has now become independent,and who has been raised so high, to throw outthis question of loving care for her sister.Besides, from the fact that with v. 8 therecommences the representation of a presentoccurrence, it is proved that the sister herespoken of is not Shulamith herself. If it wereShulamith herself, the words of vv. 8, 9 wouldlook back to what had previously taken place,which, as we have shown, is impossible. Or does6:9 require that we should think of Shulamithas having no sister? Certainly not, for sounderstood, these words would be purposeless.The “only one,” then, does not mean the only

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 95By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyone numerically, but, as at Prov. 4:3, it isemphatic (Hitzig); she is called by Solomon the“only one” of her mother in this sense, that shehad not one her equal.Thus it is Shulamith who here speaks, and sheis not the “sister” referred to. The words, “wehave a sister …,” spoken in the family circle,whether regarded as uttered by Shulamith ornot, have something strange in them, for onemember of a family does not need thus to speakto another. We expect: With regard to oursister, who is as yet little and not of full age, thequestion arises, What will be done when shehas grown to maturity to guard her innocence?Thus the expression would have stood, but thepoet separates it into little symmetricalsentences; for poetry present facts in a differentstyle from prose. Hoelem. has on this remarkedthat the words are not to be translated: we haveאָ‏ חות a little sister, which the order of the wordsSam. would presuppose, Gen. 40:20; cf. 2 קְׁ‏ ׳ וגו׳4:4; 12:2 f.; Isa. 26:1; 33:21. “Little” is notimmediately connected with “sister,” butfollows it as an apposition; and thisappositional description lays the ground for thequestion: We may be now without concern; butwhen she is grown up and will be courted, whatthen? “Little” refers to age, as at 2 Kings 5:2; cf.Gen. 44:20. The description of the child in thewords, “she has no breasts,” has neither in itselfnor particularly for Oriental feeling anythingindecent in it (cf. mammae sororiarunt, Ezek.16:7). The ל following מַ‏ ה־נַעֲ‏ שֶּ‏ ה is here not thuspurely the dat. commodi, as e.g., Isa. 64:3 (to actfor some one), but indiff. dat. (what shall we dofor her?); but מה is, according to the connection,as at Gen. 27:37, 1 Sam. 10:2, Isa. 5:4,equivalent to: What conducing to heradvantage? Instead of יום ‏,בַ‏ the form בְׁ‏ יום laysyntactically nearer (cf. Ex. 6:28); the art. inis, as at Eccles. 12:3, understood demonst.: thatday when she will be spoken for, i.e., will attractthe attention of a suitor. בְׁ‏ after דִ‏ בֶּ‏ ר may havemanifold significations (vid., under Ps. 87:3);thus the general signification of “concerning,” 1בַ‏ יוםSam. 19:3, is modified in the sense of courting awife, 1 Sam. 25:39. The brothers now takespeech in hand, and answer Shulamith’squestion as to what will have to be done for thefuture safety of their little sister when the timecomes that she shall be sought for:9 If she be a wall,We will build upon her a pinnacle of silver;And if she be a door,We will block her up with a board of cedarwood.Song 8:9. The brothers are the nearestguardians and counsellors of the sister, and,particularly in the matter of marriage, have theprecedence even of the father and mother, Gen.24:50, 55; 34:6–8 … They suppose two caseswhich stand in contrast to each other, andannounce their purpose with reference to eachcase. Hoelem. here affects a synonymousinstead of the antithetic parallelism; for hemaintains that אם … ‏(ואם)‏ אם nowhere denotesa contrast, but, like sive … sive, essentialindifference. But examples such as Deut. 18:3(sive bovem, sive ovem) are not applicable here;for this correl. … אם ‏,אם denoting essentialequality, never begins the antecedents of twoprincipal sentences, but always stands in thecomponent parts of one principal sentence.Wherever ואם … אם commences two parallelconditional clauses, the parallelism is always,according to the contents of these clauses,either synonymous, Gen. 31:50, Amos 9:2–4,Eccles. 11:3 (where the first ואם signifies ac si,and the second sive), or antithetic, Num. 16:29f.; Job 36:11 f.; Isa. 1:19 f. The contrast betweenSyr. Arab. ḥaman, Modern ‏,חָ‏ מָ‏ ה (from חומָ‏ ה‏,דָ‏ לַ‏ ל (from דֶּ‏ לֶּ‏ ת chamo, to preserve, protect) andto hang loose, of doors, Prov. 26:14, whichmove hither and thither on their hinges) isobvious. A wall stands firm and withstandsevery assault if it serves its purpose (which ishere presupposed, where it is used as a figureof firmness of character). A door, on thecontrary, is moveable; and though it be for thepresent closed דלת)‏ is intentionally used, and

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 96By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studynot תַ‏ ח ‏,פֶּ‏ vid., Gen. 19:6), yet it is so formed thatit can be opened again. A maiden inaccessible toseduction is like a wall, and one accessible to itis like a door. In the apodosis, 9a, the LXXcorrectly renders טירת by ἐπάλξε ς; Jerome, bypropugnacula. But it is not necessary to readsignifies to ‏,דור cogn. ‏,טור The verb ‏.טִ‏ ירֹתsurround, whence tirah (= Arab. duâr), a roundencampment, Gen. 25:16, and, generally, ahabitation, Ps. 69:25; and then also, to rangetogether, whence ‏,טּור a rank, row (cf. Arab. thurand daur, which, in the manifoldness of theirmeanings, are parallel with the French tour), oralso tirah, which, Ezek. 46:23 (vid., Keil),denotes the row or layer of masonry,—in thepassage before us, a row of battlements (Ew.),or a crown of the wall (Hitz.), i.e., battlementsas a wreath on the summit of a wall. Is she awall,—i.e., does she firmly and successfullywithstand all immoral approaches?—then theywill adorn this wall with silver pinnacles (cf.Isa. 54:12), i.e., will bestow upon her the highhonour which is due to her maidenly purity andfirmness; silver is the symbol of holiness, asgold is the symbol of nobility. In the apodosis9b, צּור עַ‏ ל is not otherwise meant than whenused in a military sense of enclosing by meansof besieging, but, like Isa. 29:3, with the obj.-accus., of that which is pressed against thatwhich is to be excluded; צור here means,forcibly to press against, as ‏,סגר Gen. 2:21, tounite by closing up.is a board or plank (cf. Ezek. 27:5, of the לּוחַ‏ אֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ זdouble planks of a ship’s side) of cedar wood(cf. Zeph. 2:14, רְׁ‏ זָה ‏,אַ‏ cedar wainscot). Cedarwood comes here into view not on account ofthe beautiful polish which it takes on, butmerely because of its hardness and durability.Is she a door, i.e., accessible to seduction? Theywill enclose this door around with a cedarplank, i.e., watch her in such a manner that noseducer or lover will be able to approach her.By this morally stern but faithful answer,Shulamith is carried back to the period of herown maidenhood, when her brothers, withgood intention, dealt severely with her. Lookingback to this time, she could joyfully confess:10 I was a wall,And my breasts like towers;Then I became in his eyesLike one who findeth peace.Song 8:10. In the language of prose, thestatement would be: Your conduct is good andwise, as my own example shows; of me also yethus faithfully took care; and that I met thisyour solicitude with strenuous selfpreservation,has become, to my joy and yours,the happiness of my life. That in this connectionnot אני ‏,חומה but אני חומה has to be used, is clear:she compares herself with her sister, and thepraise she takes to herself she takes to thehonour of her brothers. The comparison of herbreasts to towers is suggested by thecomparison of her person to a wall; Kleukerrightly remarks that here the comparison is notof thing with thing, but of relation with relation:the breasts were those of her person, as thetowers were of the wall, which, by virtue of thepower of defence which they conceal withinthemselves, never permit the enemy, whoseattention they attract, to approach them. Thetwo substantival clauses, murus et ubera meainstar turrium, have not naturally aretrospective signification, as they would in ahistorical connection (vid., under Gen. 2:10);but they become retrospective by the following“then I became,” like Deut. 26:5, by thehistorical tense following, where, however, it isto be remarked that the expression, having initself no relation to time, which is incapable ofbeing expressed in German, mentions the pastnot in a way that excludes the present, but asincluding it. She was a wall, and her breasts likethe towers, i.e., all seductions rebounded fromher, and ventured not near her awe-inspiringattractions; then ז)‏ ‏,אָ‏ temporal, but at the sametime consequent; thereupon, and for thisreason, as at Ps. 40:8, Jer. 22:15, etc.) shebecame in his (Solomon’s) eyes as one whofindeth peace. According to the shepherdhypothesis,she says here: he deemed it good to

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 97By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyforbear any further attempts, and to let meremain in peace (Ewald, Hitz., and others). Buthow is that possible? מצא שָ‏ לום בעיני is aמצא חֵ‏ ן variation of the frequently occurringwhich is used especially of a woman ‏,בעיניgaining the affections of a man, Esth. 2:17, Deut.24:1, Jer. 31:2 f.; and the expression here used,“thus I was in his eyes as one who findethpeace” is only the more circumstantialexpression for, “then I found מָ‏ צָ‏ אתִ‏ י)‏ ‏(אז in hiseyes peace,” which doubtless means more than:I brought it to this, that he left me further‏,חן in this case, as syn. of שלום unmolested;means inward agreement, confidence,friendship, as at Ps. 41:10; there it means, as inthe salutation of peace and in a hundred othercases, a positive good. And why should she usebut that she might form a ‏,חן instead of שלוםplay upon the name which she immediately,11a, thereafter utters, ‏,שלמה which signifies, 1Chron. 22:9, “The man of peace.” ThatShulamith had found shalom (peace) withShlomoh (Solomon), cannot be intended tomean that uninjured she escaped from him, butthat she had entered into a relation to himwhich seemed to her a state of blessed peace.The delicate description, “in his eyes,” isdesigned to indicate that she appeared to himin the time of her youthful discipline as onefinding peace. The ך is ך veritatis, i.e., thecomparison of the fact with its idea, Isa. 29:2, orof the individual with the general and common,Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 26:10; Zech. 14:3. Here themeaning is, that Shulamith appeared to himcorresponding to the idea of one finding peace,and thus as worthy to find peace with him. One“finding peace” is one who gains the heart of aman, so that he enters into a relation of esteemand affection for her. This generalization of theidea also opposes the notion of a history ofseduction. מוצְׁ‏ אֵ‏ ת is from the ground-formmatsiat, the parallel form to ‏,מוצֵ‏ את 2 Sam.18:22. Solomon has won her, not by persuasionor violence; but because she could be no otherman’s, he entered with her into the marriagecovenant of peace (cf. Prov. 2:17 with Isa.54:10).Song 8:11, 12. It now lies near, at least ratherso than remote, that Shulamith, thinking of herbrothers, presents her request before her royalhusband:11 Solomon had a vineyard in Baal-hamon;He committed the vineyard to the keepers,That each should bring for its fruitA thousand in silver.12 I myself disposed of my own vineyard:The thousand is thine, Solomon,And two hundred for the keepers of itsfruit!The words כֶּ‏ רֶּ‏ ם הָ‏ יָה לִ‏ שְׁ‏ ׳ are to be translated after5:1, Isa. …, לִ‏ ידִ‏ ידִ‏ י 1 Kings 21:1, and ‏,כרם וגו׳“Solomon had a vineyard” (cf. 1 Sam. 9:2; 2Sam. 6:23; 12:2; 2 Kings 1:17; 1 Chron. 23:17;26:10), not “Solomon has a vineyard,” whichwould have required the words לִ‏ שְׁ‏ ׳ ‏,כרם withthe omission of ‏.היה I formerly explained, asalso Böttcher: a vineyard became his, thus atpresent is his possession; and thus explaining,one could suppose that it fell to him, on histaking possession of his government, as acomponent part of his domain; but although initself היה לו can mean, “this or that has becomeone’s own” (e.g., Lev. 21:3), as well as “itbecame his own,” yet here the historical senseis necessarily connected by היה with the נתן foll.:Solomon has had …, he has given; and sinceSolomon, after possession the vineyard, wouldprobably also preserve it, Hitzig draws fromthis the conclusion, that the poet therebybetrays the fact that he lived after the time ofSolomon. But these are certainly words whichhe puts into Shulamith’s mouth, and he cannotat least have forgotten that the heroine of hisdrama is a contemporary of Solomon; andsupposing that he had forgotten this for amoment, he must have at least once read overwhat he had written, and could not have beenso blind as to have allowed this היה which hadescaped him to stand. We must thus assume

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 98By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studythat he did not in reality retain the vineyard,which, as Hitzig supposes, if he possessed it, healso “probably” retained, whether he gave itaway or exchanged it, or sold it, we know not;but the poet might suppose that Shulamithknew it, since it refers to a piece of land lyingnot far from her home. For עַ‏ ל הָ‏ מון ‏,בַ‏ LXXΒεελ ώ , is certainly the same as thatmentioned in Judith 8:3, according to whichJudith’s husband died from sunstroke inBethulia, and was buried beside his fathers“between Dothaim and Balamōn” (probably, asthe sound of the word denotes, Belmen, or,more accurately, Belmaïn, as it is also called inJudith 4:4, with which Kleuker in Schenkel’sBibl. Lex., de Bruyn in his Karte, and others,interchange it; and ‏ֹּמון ‏,חַ‏ Josh. 19:28, lying in thetribe of Asher). This Balamōn lay not far fromDothan, and thus not far from Esdräelon; forDothan lay (cf. Judith 3:10) south of the plain ofJezreel, where it has been discovered, under thename of Tell Dotan, in the midst of a smallerplain which lies embosomed in the hills of thesouth. The ancients, since Aquila, Symm., Targ.,Syr., and Jerome, make the name of the placeBaal-hamon subservient to their allegorizinginterpretation, but only by the aid of soapbubble-likefancies; e.g., Hengst. makes Baalhamondesignate the world; nothrim [keepers],the nations; the 1000 pieces in silver, the dutiescomprehended in the ten commandments.Hamon is there understood of a large, noisycrowd. The place may, indeed, have its namefrom the multitude of its inhabitants, or from anannual market held there, or otherwise fromrevelry and riot; for, according to Hitzig, thereis no ground for co-ordinating it with namessuch as Baal-Gad and Baal-Zephon, in whichBaal is the general, and what follows the specialname of God. Amon, the Sun-God, speciallyworshipped in Egyptian Thebes, has the bibl.name מון ‏,אָ‏ with which, after the sound of theword, accords the name of a place lying,according to Jer. Demaï ii. 1, in the region ofTyrus, but no ‏.המון The reference to the Egypt.Amon Ra, which would direct rather to Baalbec,the Coele-Syrian Heliupolis, is improbable;because the poet would certainly not haveintroduced into his poem the name of the placewhere the vineyard lay, if this name did not callforth an idea corresponding to the connection.The Shulamitess, now become Solomon’s, inorder to support the request she makes to theking, relates an incident of no historical value initself of the near-lying Sunem (Sulem), situatednot far from Baal-hamon to the north, on thefarther side of the plain of Jezreel. She belongsto a family whose inheritance consisted invineyards, and she herself had acted in thecapacity of the keeper of a vineyard, 1:6, —somuch the less therefore is it to be wondered atthat she takes an interest in the vineyard ofBaal-hamon, which Solomon had let out tokeepers on the condition that they should payto him for its fruit-harvest the sum of 1000shekels of silver (shekel is, according to Ges. §120. 4, Anm. 2, to be supplied).היה since we have interpreted ‏,יָבִ‏ אretrospectively, might also indeed be renderedimperfect. as equivalent to afferebat, or,according to Ewald, § 136c, afferre solebat; butsince נָ‏ תַ‏ ן = ἐξέ , Matt. 21:33, denotes a giftlaying the recipients under an obligation, יָבִ‏ א isused in the sense of מַ‏ ען ‏(אֲ‏ שֶּ‏ ר)‏ יָבִ‏ א ‏;לְׁ‏ however,is not to be supplied (Symm. ἐ έγ ῃ), but למעןin itself signifies afferre debebat (he ought יָבִ‏ אto bring), like ׳ ‏,יַעַ‏ Dan. 1:5, they should stand(wait upon), Ewald, § 136g. Certainly נטרים doesnot mean tenants, but watchers,—the post-bibl.language has כַ‏ ר ‏,חָ‏ to lease, בֵ‏ ל ‏,קִ‏ to take on lease,rent, e.g., Mezîa ix. 2, —but the subject ‏,חִ‏ כּורhere is a locatio conductio; for the vine-plants ofthat region are entrusted to the “keepers” for arent, which they have to pay, not in fruits but inmoney, as the equivalent of a share of theproduce (the ב in בְׁ‏ פִ‏ רְׁ‏ ׳ is the ב pretii). Isa. 7:23 isusually compared; but there the money value ofa particularly valuable portion of a vineyard,consisting of 1000 vines, is given at “1000silverlings” (1 shekel); while, on the other hand,the 1000 shekels here are the rent for a portion

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 99By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyof a vineyard, the extent of which is notmentioned. But that passage in Isaiah containssomething explanatory of the one before us,inasmuch as we see from it that a vineyard wasdivided into portions of a definite number ofvines in each. Such a division into mkomoth isalso here supposed. For if each “keeper” towhom the vineyard was entrusted had to count1000 shekels for its produce, then the vineyardwas at the same time committed to severalkeepers, and thus was divided into smallsections (Hitzig). It is self-evident that the gainof the produce that remained over after payingthe rent fell to the “keepers;” but since theproduce varied, and also the price of wine, thisgain was not the same every year, and only ingeneral are we to suppose from 12b, that ityielded on an average about 20 per cent. Forthe vineyard which Shulamith means in 12b isaltogether different from that of Baal-hamon. Itis of herself she says, 1:6, that as the keeper of avineyard, exposed to the heat of the day, shewas not in a position to take care of her ownvineyard. This her own vineyard is not herbeloved (Hoelem.), which not only does notharmonize with 1:6 (for she there looks back tothe time prior to her elevation), but her ownperson, as comprehending everything pleasantand lovely which constitutes her personality(Song 4:12–5:1), as kerem is the sum-total ofthe vines which together form a vineyard.כַ‏ רְׁ‏ מִ‏ י שֶּ‏ לִ‏ י says: Of this figurative vineyard sheHitzig, This must mean, according to ‏.לְׁ‏ פָ‏ נָיHoelem., and others, that it was under herprotection; but although the idea of affectionatecare may, in certain circumstances, beconnected with ‏,לפני Gen. 17:18, Prov. 4:3, yetthe phrase: this or that is פָ‏ נַי ‏,לְׁ‏ wherever it hasnot merely a local or temporal, but an ethicalsignification, can mean nothing else than: itstands under my direction, Gen. 13:9; 20:15;47:6; 2 Chron. 14:6; Gen. 24:51; 1 Sam. 16:16.Rightly Heiligst., after Ewald: in potestate meaest. Shulamith also has a vineyard, which she isas free to dispose of as Solomon of his at Baalhamon.It is the totality of her personal andmental endowments. This vineyard has beengiven over with free and joyful cordiality intoSolomon’s possession. This vineyard also haskeepers (one here sees with what intention the‏—(נטרים poet has chosen in 11a just that wordto whom Shulamith herself and to whomSolomon also owes it that as a chaste andvirtuous maiden she became his possession.These are her brothers, the true keepers andprotectors of her innocence. Must these beunrewarded? The full thousands, she says,turning to the king, which like the annualproduce of the vineyard of Baal-hamon willthus also be the fruit of my own personalworth, shall belong to none else, O Solomon,than to thee, and two hundred to the keepers ofits fruit! If the keepers in Baal-hamon do notunrewarded watch the vineyard, so the kingowes thanks to those who so faithfully guardedhis Shulamith. The poetry would be reduced toprose if there were found in Shulamith’s wordsa hint that the king should reward her brotherswith a gratification of 200 shekels. She makesthe case of the vineyard in Baal-hamon aparable of her relation to Solomon on the onehand, and of her relation to her brothers on theother. From אתַ‏ יִם ‏,מָ‏ one may conclude that therewere two brothers, thus that the rendering ofthanks is thought of as מַ‏ עֲ‏ שֵ‏ ר (a tenth part); butso that the 200 are meant not as a tax on thethousand, but as a reward for the faithfulrendering up of the thousand.Song 8:13. The king who seems to this point tohave silently looked on in inmost sympathy,now, on being addressed by Shulamith, takesspeech in hand; he does not expressly refer toher request, but one perceives from his wordsthat he heard it with pleasure. He expresses toher the wish that she would gratify thecompanions of her youth who were assembledaround her, as well as himself, with a song, suchas in former times she was wont to sing in thesemountains and valleys.13 O thou (who art) at home in the gardens,Companions are listening for thy voice;Let me hear!

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 100By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyWe observe that in the rural paradise withwhich she is surrounded, she finds herself inher element. It is a primary feature of hercharacter which herein comes to view: herlonging after quietness and peace, her love forcollectedness of mind and for contemplation;her delight in thoughts of the Creator suggestedby the vegetable world, and particularly by themanifold soft beauty of flowers; she is againonce more in the gardens of her home, but theaddress, “O thou at home in the gardens!”denotes that wherever she is, these gardens areher home as a fundamental feature of hernature. The חֲ‏ בֵ‏ רִ‏ ים are not Solomon’scompanions, for she has come hither withSolomon alone, leaning on his arm. Also it isindicated in the expression: “are listening forthy voice,” that they are such as have not for along time heard the dear voice which was wontto cheer their hearts. The חבר׳ are thecompanions of the former shepherdess andkeeper of a vineyard, 1:6 f., the playmates of heryouth, the friends of her home. With a fine tactthe poet does not represent Solomon as sayingthe former would be contrary ‏:חֲ‏ בֵ‏ רֵ‏ ינּו nor חֲ‏ בֵ‏ רַ‏ יְִךto the closeness of his relation to Shulamith, thelatter contrary to the dignity of the king. Bythere is neither expressed a one-sided חבריםreference, nor is a double-sided excluded. That“for thy voice” refers not to her voice asspeaking, but as the old good friends wish, assinging, is evident from הַ‏ שְׁ‏ מִ‏ יעִ‏ נִי in connectionwith 2:14, where also קולְך is to be supplied, andthe voice of song is meant. She complies withthe request, and thus begins:14 Flee, my beloved,And be thou like a gazelle,Or a young one of the harts,Upon spicy mountains.Song 8:14. Hitzig supposes that with thesewords of refusal she bids him away from her,without, however, as “my beloved” shows,meaning them in a bad sense. They would thus,as Renan says, be bantering coquetry. If it isSolomon who makes the request, and thus alsohe who is addressed here, not the imaginaryshepherd violently introduced into this closingscene in spite of the words “ (the thousand) isthine, Solomon” (v. 12), then Shulamith’signoring of his request is scornful, for it wouldbe as unseemly if she sang of her own accord toplease her friends, as it would be wilful if shekept silent when requested by her royalhusband. So far the Spanish author, Soto Major,is right (1599): jussa et rogata id non debuit necpotuit recusare. Thus with “flee” she begins asong which she sings, as at 2:15 she commencesone, in response to a similar request, with“catch us.” Hoelem. finds in her presenthappiness, which fills her more than ever, thethought here expressed that her beloved, if heagain went from her for a moment, would yetvery speedily return to his longing, waitingbride. But apart from the circumstance thatShulamith is no longer a bride, but is married,and that the wedding festival is long past, thereis not a syllable of that thought in the text; theברח if ‏,בְׁ‏ רַ‏ ח אֵ‏ לַ‏ י words must at least have beensignified generally to hasten hither, and not to2:17, ‏,סֹב hasten forth. Thus, at least as little aswithout לַ‏ י ‏,אֵ‏ signifies “turn thyself hither,” canthis בְׁ‏ רַ‏ ח mean “flee hither.” The words of thesong thus invite Solomon to disport himself, i.e.,give way to frolicsome and aimless mirth onthese spicy mountains. As sov lcha is enlargedto sov dmeh-lcha, 2:17, for the sake of the addedfigures (vid., under 2:9), so here brahh-lcha(Gen. 27:43) is enlarged to brahh udmeh(udămeh) lcha. That “mountains of spices”occurs here instead of “cleft mountains,” 2:17b,has its reason, as has already been thereremarked, and as Hitzig, Hoelem., and othershave discovered, in the aim of the poet toconclude the pleasant song of love that hasreached perfection and refinement with anabsolutely pleasant word.But with what intention does he call onShulamith to sing to her beloved this רַ‏ ח ‏,בְׁ‏ whichobviously has here not the meaning of escapingaway (according to the fundamental meaning,transversum currere), but only, as where it is

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 101By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyused of fleeting time, Job 9:25; 14:2, the senseof hastening? One might suppose that shewhom he has addressed as at home in gardensreplied to his request with the invitation tohasten forth among the mountains,—anexercise which gives pleasure to a man. But (1)Solomon, according to 2:16; 6:2 f., is also fondof gardens and flowers; and (2) if he tookpleasure in ascending mountains, it doubled hisjoy, according to 4:8, to share this joy withShulamith; and (3) we ask, would this closingscene, and along with it the entire series ofdramatic pictures, find a satisfactoryconclusion, if either Solomon remained andgave no response to Shulamith’s call, or if he, asdirected, disappeared alone, and left Shulamithby herself among the men who surroundedher? Neither of these two things can have beenintended by the poet, who shows himselfelsewhere a master in the art of composition. In2:17 the matter lies otherwise. There the loverelationis as yet in progress, and theabandonment of love to uninterruptedfellowship places a limit to itself. Now,however, Shulamith is married, and thesummons is unlimited. It reconciles itselfneither with the strength of her love nor withthe tenderness of the relation, that she shouldwith so cheerful a spirit give occasion to herhusband to leave her alone for an indefinitetime. We will thus have to suppose that, whenShulamith sings the song, “Flee, my beloved,”she goes forth leaning on Solomon’s arm outinto the country, or that she presumes that hewill not make this flight into the mountains ofher native home without her. With this songbreaking forth in the joy of love and of life, thepoet represents the loving couple asdisappearing over the flowery hills, and at thesame time the sweet charm of the Song ofSongs, leaping gazelle-like from one fragrantscene to another, vanishes away.AppendixRemarks on the Song by Dr. J. G. WetzsteinThe following aphoristic elucidations of theSong are partly collected from epistolarycommunications, but for the most part aretaken from my friend’s “Treatise on the Syrianthrashing-table” (in Bastian’s Zeitsch. fürEthnographie, 1873), but not without theseextracts having been submitted to him, andhere and there enlarged by him.The thrashing-table (lôḥ ed-derâs) is anagricultural implement in common use fromancient times in the countries round theMediterranean Sea. It consists of two boards ofnut-tree wood or of oak, bound together by twocross timbers. These boards are bent upwardsin front, after the manner of a sledge, so as to beable to glide without interruption over theheaps of straw; underneath they are set withstones (of porous basalt) in oblique rows, thusforming a rubbing and cutting apparatus, whichserves to thrash out the grain and to chop thestraw; for the thrashing-table drawn by one ortwo animals yoked to it, and driven by theirkeeper, moves round on the straw-heapsspread on the barn floor. The thrashing-tablemay have sometimes been used in ancienttimes for the purpose of destroying prisoners ofwar by a horrible death (2 Sam. 12:31); at thepresent day it serves as the seat of honour forthe bride and bridegroom, and also as a bierwhereon the master of the house is laid whendead. The former of these its two functions isthat which has given an opportunity toWetzstein to sketch in that Treatise, under thetitle of “The Table in the King’s-week,” a pictureof the marriage festival among the Syrianpeasantry. This sketch contains not a few thingsthat serve to throw light on the Song, which wehere place in order, intermixed with otherremarks by Wetzstein with reference to theSong and to our commentary on it.1:6. In August 1861, when on a visit to the hotsprings El-ḥamma, between Ḍomeir andRoḥeiba to the north of Damascus, I was theguest of the Sheik ’Id, who was encamped withhis tribe, a branch of the Solêb, at thesulphurous stream there (nahar el-mukebret).Since the language of this people (whoinhabited the Syrian desert previous to theMoslem period, were longest confessors ofChristianity among the nomads, and therefore

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 102By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studykept themselves free from intermingling withthe tribes that at a later period had migratedfrom the peninsula) possesses its ownremarkable peculiarities, I embraced theopportunity of having dictated and explained tome, for three whole days, Solebian poems. Theintroduction to one of these is as follows: “Thepoet is Solêbî Tuwês, nephew of (the alreadymentioned) Râshid. The latter had had a disputewith a certain Bishr; that Tuwês came to know,and now sent the following kasidah (poem) toBishr, which begins with praise in regard to hisuncle, and finally advises Bishr to let that manrest, lest he (Tuwês) should become hisadversary and that of his party.” The last verseis in these words:“That say I to you, I shall become the adversaryof the disturber of the peace,Bend my right knee before him, and, as asecond Zir, show myself on the field of battle(the menâch).”Zir is a hero celebrated in the Dîwân of BenîHilâl; and to bend the right knee is to enter intoa conflict for life or death: the figure is derivedfrom the sword-dance.So much regarding the poem of Ṣolêbî. Fromthis can nothing be gained for the explanationof נִ‏ חֲ‏ רּו־בִ‏ י of the Song? This is for the most partinterpreted as the Niph. of חָ‏ רָ‏ ה or חָ‏ רַ‏ ר (to beinflamed, to be angry with one); but why not asthe Pih. of חַ‏ ר ‏?נָ‏ It is certainly most natural tointerpret this נחר in the sense of nakhar, tobreathe, snort; but the LXX, Symm., Theod., inrendering by χέσ ε χέσ ), appearto have connected with nihharu the meaning ofthat (Arab.) tanaḥar, which comes from taḥrn,the front of the neck. The outstretched neck ofthe camel, the breast, the head, the face, thebrow, the nose, are, it is well known in theArab., mere symbols for that which standsforward according to place, time, and rank. Ofthis naḥrn, not only the Old Arab. (vid., Ḳâmûsunder the word) but also the Modern Arab. hasdenom. verbal forms. In Damascus they say,alsyl naḥara min alystan, “the torrent tore awaya part of the garden opposing it;” and accordingto the Deutsch. morg. Zeitschr. xxii. 142, naḥḥarflana is “to strive forward after one.” Hencetanaḥarua, to step opposite to (in a hostilemanner), like takabalua, then to contend inwords, to dispute; and naḥir is, according to avulgar mode of expression, one who placeshimself coram another, sits down to talk,discourses with him. These denominativa donot in themselves and without further additionexpress in the modern idioms the idea of “totake an opponent by the neck,” or “to fight handto hand with him.”1:7. For עֹטְׁ‏ יָה the Arab. עֹצְׁ‏ יָה presents itself forcomparison; with inhabitants of the town, aswell as of the desert (Ḥaḍar and Bedu),alghadwat, “the (maiden) languishing withlove,” a very favourite designation for a maidenfatally in love; the mas. alghady (plur. alghudat)is used in the same sense of a young man.According to its proper signification, it denotesa maiden with a languishing eye, the deeplysunk glimmerings of whose eyelids veil the eye.In Damascus such eyes are called ’iwan dubbal,“pressed down eyes;” and in the Haurân, ’iwanmygharribat, “broken eyes;” and they are notoften wanting in love songs there. Accordingly,she who speaks seeks to avoid theneighbourhood of the shepherds, from fear ofthe hatkalsitr, i.e., for fear lest those whomocked would thus see the secret of her love, inaccordance with the verse:“By its symptoms love discovers itself to theworld,As musk which one carries discovers itself byits aroma.”1:17. The cypress never bears the nameṣnawbar, which always denotes only the pine,one of the pine tribe. The cypress is only calledserwa, collect. seru. Since it is now veryprobable that ברות ‏(ברוש)‏ is the old Heb. nameof the cypress, and since there can at no timehave been cypresses on the downs of Beirût, theconnection of Arab. bîrût with ברות is to begiven up. Instead of the difficult Heb. wordrahhithēnu, there is perhaps to be readvhhēthēnu (from hhäith = hhäits), “and our

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 103By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studywalls.” The word-form Arab. ḥ’ayṭ may havecome from the idiom of the Ḥigâz, or from someother impure source, into the written language;the living language knows only ḥayṭ יִט)‏ ‏,(חַ‏ plur.ḥîṭân (Syr. Egypt.) and ḥijûṭ (Berbery). Thewritten language itself has only the plur. ḥîṭân,and uses חַ‏ יִט as an actual sing. For the transition‏.נטר cf. of the letter tsade into teth in the Song,2:11 “For lo, the winter is past, the rain isover—is gone.”These are the words of the enticing love of thebridegroom to his beloved, whom he seeks toraise to the rank of queen. “The fairest period inthe life of a Syrian peasant,” thus Wetzstein’sdescription begins, “are the first seven daysafter his marriage, in which, along with hisyoung wife, he plays the part of king (melik)and she of queen (melika), and both are treatedand served as such in their own district and bythe neighbouring communities.” The greaterpart of village weddings take place for the mostpart in the month of March, the most beautifulmonth of the Syrian year, called from itsloveliness (sahhr) âdâr = “prachtmonat”(magnificent month), to which the proverbrefers: “If any one would see Paradise in itsflowery splendour (fî ezhârihâ), let himcontemplate the earth in its month of splendour(fî âdârihâ). Since the winter rains are past, andthe sun now refreshes and revives, and doesnot, as in the following months, oppress by itsheat, weddings are celebrated in the open airon the village thrashing-floor, which at thistime, with few exceptions, is a flowery meadow.March is also suitable as the season forfestivals, because at such a time there is littlefield labour, and, moreover, everything thenabounds that is needed for a festival. During thewinter the flocks have brought forth theiryoung,—there are now lambs and kids, butter,milk, and cheese, and cattle for the slaughter,which have become fat on the spring pasture;the neighbouring desert yields for it brown,yellow, and white earth-nuts in suchabundance, that a few children in one day maygather several camel-loads.” The descriptionpasses over the marriage day itself, with itspomp, the sword-dance of the bride, and thegreat marriage feast, and begins where thenewly married, on the morning after themarriage night,—which the young husband,even to this day, like the young Tobiah, spendssometimes in prayer,—appear as king andqueen, and in their wedding attire receive therepresentative of the bride’s-men, now theirminister (mezêr), who presents them with amorning meal. The the bride’s-men come, fetchthe thrashing-table (“corn-drag”) from thestraw storehouse (metben), and erect ascaffolding on the thrashing-floor, with thetable above it, which is spread with avariegated carpet, and with two ostrich-feathercushions studded with gold, which is the seat ofhonour (merteba) for the king and queenduring the seven days. This beautiful customhas a good reason for it, and also fulfils a nobleend. For the more oppressive, troublesome, andunhappy the condition of the Syro-Palestinianpeasant, so much the more reasonable does itappear that he should be honoured for a fewdays at least, and be celebrated and madehappy. Ad considering the facility andwantonness of divorces in the Orient, therecollection of the marriage week, begun sojoyfully, serves as a counterpoise to hinder aseparation.The custom of crowning the ‏.עֲ‏ טָ‏ רָ‏ ה 3:11.bridegroom no longer exists in Syria. Thebride’s crown, called in Damascus tâg-el’arûs, iscalled in the Haurân ’orga רְׁ‏ גָ‏ ה)‏ ‏.(עֻ‏ This consistsof a silver circlet, which is covered with a net ofstrings of corals of about three fingers’ breadth.Gold coins are fastened in rows to this net, thelargest being on the lowest row, those in theother rows upward becoming always smaller.At the wedding feast the hair of the bride isuntied, and falls freely down over her neck andbreast; and that it might not lose its wavy form,it is only oiled with some fragrant substances.The crowning thus begins: the headband is firstbound on her head,—which on this day is notthe Sembar (vid., Deut. morg. Zeit. xxii. 94), butthe Kesmâja, a long, narrow, silken band,interwoven with dark-red and gold, and

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 104By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyadorned at both ends with fringes, betweenwhich the Ṣumûch, silver, half-spherical littlebells, hang down. The ends of the Kesmâja fallon both sides of the head, the one on the breastand the other on the back, so that the sound ofthe Sumûch is distinctly perceptible only duringthe sword-dance of the bride. Over the Kesmâjathe crown is now placed in such a way that itrests more on the front of the head, and thefront gold pieces of the under row come to lieon the naked brow. In the Saḥḳa, partlyreferred to under 7:2, the poet addresses thegoldsmith:“And beat (for the bride) little bells, whichconstantly swing and ring like the tymbals(nakkârât);And (beat) the crown, one of four rows, and letGihâdîs be on the brow.”Etymologically considered, I believe that theword ’orga must be regarded as parallel with’argûn רְׁ‏ גּון)‏ ‏,(עַ‏ which in the Haurân is the footbuckle;so that, from the root ’arag, “to be bent,”it is the designation of a bow or circlet, whichthe word taj also certainly means. However, onone occasion in Korêa (to the east of Boṣrâ),while we were looking at a bride’s crown, onesaid to me: “They call it ’orga, because the coralstrings do not hang directly down, but, runningoblique (mu’arwajat), form a net of anelongated square.”nif, Who recognises in the Moorish ‏.אֲ‏ הָ‏ לות 4:14.“the nose,” the Heb. ף ‏?אַ‏ And yet the two wordsare the same. The word נְׁ‏ ף ‏,אַ‏ enf, “the nose,” isused by the wandering Arabs, who are fond ofthe dimin. נֵיף ‏,אֳ‏ nêf, which is changed into ‏;נֵיף forin the beginning of a word, particularly before אa grave and accented syllable, readily fallsaway. From nêf (neif), finally, comes nif,because the idiom of the Moorish Arabiansrejects the diphthong ei.Thus, also, it fared with the word הָ‏ לות ‏,אֲ‏ “thelittle tent,” ‘the little house,” as the threecorneredcapsules of the cardamum arecalled,—an aromatic plant which is to thepresent day so ardently loved by the Hadar andthe Bedu, on account of its heat, and especiallyits sweet aroma, that one would have been ledto wonder if it were wanting in this passage ofthe Song. From אֹהֶּ‏ ל there is formed the dimin.and this is shortened into hêl, which is at ‏,אֳ‏ הֵ‏ ילthe present day the name of the cardamum,while the unabbreviated hel is retained as thecaritative of the original meaning,—we say, jâhêli, “my dear tent- (i.e., tribal) companions.”This linguistic process is observable in all theSemitic languages; it has given rise to a mass ofnew roots. That it began at an early period, isshown by the Phoenician language; for the bibl.names Hiram and Huram are abbreviated fromAhi-ram and Ahu-ram; and the Punic stonessupply many analogues, e.g., the proper namesHimilcath (= Ahhi-Milcath, restrictus reginaecoeli) with Hethmilcath (= Ahith-Milcath) andthe like. On one of the stones which I myselfדון brought from Carthage is found the wordinstead of דון ‏,אֲ‏ “sir, master.” In a similar way,the watering-lace which receives so manydiverse names by travellers, the Wêba (Weiba),in the Araba valley, will be an abbreviation ofthe name of ‏,אובות and this the dimin. of ‏,אֳ‏ וֵ‏ יבָ‏ הan encampment of the Israelites in thewilderness (Num. 21:10). It had the name ’ēnovoth, “the fountain of the water-bottles,”perhaps from the multitude of water-bottlesfilled here by water-drawers, waiting one afteranother. This encampment has been soughtelsewhere—certainly incorrectly. Of theharbour-town Elath (on the Red Sea), it hasbeen said, in the geography of Ibn el-Bennâ(MSS of the Royal Lib. in Berlin, Sect. Spr. Nr. 5),published in Jerusalem about the year 1000:“Weila, at the north end of the (eastern) arm ofthe Red Sea; prosperous and distinguished; richin palms and fishes; the harbour of Palestine,and the granary of Higâz; is called Aila by thecommon people; but Aila is laid waste,—it liesquite in the neighbourhood.” Thus it will becorrect to say, that the name Weila isabbreviated from וֵ‏ ילָ‏ ה ‏,אֳ‏ “Little-Aila,” anddesignated a settlement which gradually grewup in the neighbourhood of the old Aila, and to

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 105By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studywhich, when the former was at last destroyed,the name was transferred, so that “Little-Aila”became Aila; therefore it is that the later Arab.geographers know nothing of Weila. I havealready elsewhere mentioned, that at the rootof the name of the well-known Port Suês lies theArab. sâs (= שִ‏ יש ‏,(אֲ‏ which, among all the Syriantribes, has lost the initial letter Elif, and takesthe form of Sâs. Hence the name Suês (Suwês),the diminutive. The place has its name fromthis, that it was built on the foundations of anolder harbour.Silv. de Sacy already (vid., Gesen. Thes. p. 33b)conjectured that אהלות means cardamums. But,as it appears, he based his proof less on theidentity of the two words hêl and ahalôt, thanon the circumstance that he found the wordḳâḳula—the Jemanic, and perhaps originallyIndian name of cardamums—in the hâhula ofthe Egyptians of the present day. But theEgyptian does not pronounce the ḳ like h; hedoes not utter it at all, or at most like a Hamza,so that ḳâḳula is sounded by him not hâhula,but ’â’ula. And who could presuppose theantiquity of this word, or that of its presentpronunciation, in a land which has so radicallychanged both its language and its inhabitants asEgypt? And why should the Palestinians havereceived their Indian spices, together with theirnames, from Egypt? Why not much rather fromAila, to which they were brought from Jemen,either by ships or by the well-organizedcaravans (vid., Strabo, xvi. 4) which traded inthe maritime country Tihâma? Or from Têma,the chief place in the desert (Job 6:19; Isa.21:14), whither they were brought from ’Aḳir,the harbour of Gerrha, which, according toStrabo (as above), was the great Arab. spicemarket? But if Palestine obtained its spicesfrom thence, it would also, with them, receivethe foreign name for them unchanged,—ḳaḳula,—since all the Arab tribes express the ḳאהלות sound very distinctly. In short, the wordhas nothing to do with ḳâḳula; it is shown to bea pure Semitic word by the plur. formationsahaloth and ahalim (Prov. 7:17). Thepunctuation does not contradict this. Theinhabitants of Palestine received the word, withthe thing itself, through the medium of theArabs, among whom the Heb. אֹהֶּ‏ ל is at thepresent time, as in ancient times, pronouncedthus the Arab vocalization is simply ‏;אַ‏ הַ‏ לretained to distinguish it from אֹהֶּ‏ ל in its propersignification, without the name of the spicebecoming thereby a meaningless foreign word.That the living language had a sing. for “acardamum capsule” is self-evident. Interestingis the manner and way in which the modernArabs help themselves with reference to thissing. Since hêl does not discover the mutilatedand the Arab. âhlun, besides, has modified ‏,אהלits meaning (it signifies tent- and housecompanions),the nom. unit. hêla, “a cardamumcapsule,” is no longer formed from hêl; theword geras, “the little bell,” is thereforeadopted, thereby forming a comparison of thefirmly closed seed capsules, in which the looseseeds, on being shaken, give forth an audiblerustling, with the little bells which are hunground the bell-wether and the leading camel.Thus they say: take three or four little bells(egrâs), and not: telât, arba’ hêlât (which atmost, as a mercantile expression, would denote,“parcels or kinds” of cardamum); they speakalso of geras-el-hêl (“hêl little bells”) and geraseṭ-ṭib(“spice little bells”). This “little bell”illustrates the ancient ‏.אהל Supposing thatḳâḳula might have been the true name of thecardamum, then these would have been calledHeb. “ḳaḳula -capsules,” by the ‏,אהלות קקלהtraders in spicery, who, as a matter of course,knew the foreign name; while, on the contrary,the people, ignoring the foreign name, woulduse the words הֲ‏ לות ‏(אַ‏ הֲ‏ לֵ‏ י)‏ בֹשֶּ‏ ם ‏,אַ‏ “spicecapsules,”or only ahaloth. Imported spices thepeople named from their appearance, withouttroubling themselves about their native names.An Arabian called the nutmeg gôz-eṭ-ṭib, “spice-אֲ‏ גוז Heb. nut,” which would correspond to amismâr-eṭ- So he called the clove-blossom ‏.בֹשֶּ‏ םṭib, “spice-cloves,” as we do, or merely mismâr,“clove.” The spice-merchant knows only the

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 106By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyforeign word gurumful, “clove.” It is veryprobable that hêl, divested of its appellativesignification by the word geras, in process oftime disappeared from the living language.That pounded cardamum is one of the usualingredients in Arab. coffee, we see from a poem,only a single very defective copy of which couldbe obtained by Wallin (vid., Deutsch. morg. Zeit.vi. 373). The verse alluded to, with a fewgrammatical and metrical changes which wererequired, is as follows:“With a pot (of coffee) in which must becardamum and nutmeg,And twenty cloves, the right proportion forconnoisseurs.”The nut is not, as Wallin supposes, the cocoanut(gôz-el-Hind), but the nutmeg; and ’ûd =“the small piece of wood,” is the clove, as Wallinalso, rightly; elsewhere ’ûd and ’ûda is the littlestalk of the raisin.5:1. “Eat, friends, drink and be drunken,‏,מֵ‏ רֵ‏ עִ‏ ים here is compared רֵ‏ עִ‏ ים beloved.” WithJudg. 14:11, where thirty companions arebrought to Samson when he celebrated forseven days his marriage in Timnath, the socalledbride’s-men, who are called in post-bibl.Heb. בֵ‏ נִים ‏,שושְׁ‏ and at the present day in Syria,shebâb el-’arîs, i.e., the bridegroom’s youngmen; their chief is called the Shebîn. “Thedesignation ‘bride’s-men’ (Nymphagogen) isnot wholly suitable. Certainly they have also todo service to the bride; and if she is a stranger,they form the essential part of the armed escorton horseback which heads the marriageprocession (el-fârida), and with mock fighting,which is enacted before the bride and thebride’s-maids (el-ferrâdât), leads it into thebridegroom’s village; but the chief duties of theshebâb on the marriage day and during the‘king’s week’ belong properly to thebridegroom. This escort must be an ancientinstitution of the country. Perhaps it had itsorigin in a time of general insecurity in the land,when the ‘young men’ formed a watch-guard,during the festival, against attacks.” The names“to be ‏,ריע Wetzstein derives from a מֵ‏ רֵ‏ עַ‏ and רֵ‏ עַ‏closely connected,” which is nearly related toJob 6:27, as the ‏,רֵ‏ יעַ‏ for he takes ‏;רעהetymologically closer description of the former,and רְׁ‏ יֵעַ‏ (= מֵ‏ רֵ‏ עַ‏ ‏(מִ‏ he places parallel to the Arab.word mirjâ’, which signifies “the inseparablecompanion,” and among all the Syrian nomadtribes is the designation of the bell-wether,because it follows closely the steps of theshepherd, carries his bread-pouch, and receivesa portion at every meal-time.7:1 What would ye see in Shulamith?—“As the dance of Mahanaim.”“The sports during the days of the marriagefestival are from time to time diversified withdances. The various kinds of dances arecomprehended under the general names ofsaḥḳa and debḳa. The saḥḳa, pronounced by theBeduin saḥée (= saḥtsche), is a graceful solitarydance, danced by a single person, or in itself notinvolving several persons. The debka, “hangingdance,” because the dancers link themselvestogether by their little fingers; if they werelinked together by their hands, this would givethe opportunity of pressing hands, whichrequired to be avoided, because Arab ladieswould not permit this from men who werestrangers to them. For the most part, the debḳaappears as a circular dance. If it is danced byboth sexes, it is called debḳb muwadda’a = ‘thevariegated debḳa.’ The saḥḳa must be of Beduinorigin, and is accordingly always danced with akasidah (poem or song) in the nomad idiom; thedebḳa is the peculiar national dance of theSyrian peasantry (Ḥaḍarî), and the songs withwhich it is danced are exclusively in thelanguage of the Ḥaḍarî. They have theprevailing metre of the so-called Andalusianode (—υ——|—υ——|—υ—), and it is peculiarto the debḳa, that its strophes hang togetherlike the links of a chain, or like the fingers of thedancers, while each following strophe beginswith the words with which the preceding onecloses [similar to the step-like rhythm of thepsalms of degrees; vid., Psalmen, ii. 257]. Forthe saḥḳa and the debḳa they have a solo singer.Whenever he has sung a verse, the chorus ofdancers and spectators takes up the kehrvers

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 107By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes study(meredd), which in the debḳa always consists ofthe two last lines of the first strophe of thepoem. Instrumental music is not preferred indancing; only a little timbrel (deff.), used by thesolo singer, who is not himself (or herself)dancing, gently accompanies the song to givethe proper beat” (cf. Ex. 15:20f., and Ps. 68:26).To the saḥḳa, which is danced after at kasidaḥ(for the most part with the metre——υ—|——υ—|——υ—|——υ—) without the kehrvers in2/4 time, belongs the sword-dance, which thebride dances on her marriage day. Wetzsteinthus describes it in Deutsch. morg. Zeit. xxii.106, having twice witnessed it: “The figure ofthe dancer (el-ḥâshî, ‘she who fills the ring,’ orabû ḥwêsh, ‘she who is in the ring’), the wavingdark hair of her locks cast loose, her seriousnoble bearing, her downcast eyes, her gracefulmovements, the quick and secure step of hersmall naked feet, the lightning-like flashing ofthe blade, the skilful movements of her lefthand, in which the dancer holds a handkerchief,the exact keeping of time, although the song ofthe munshid (the leader) becomes graduallyquicker and the dance more animated—this is ascene which has imprinted itself indelibly onmy memory. It is completed by the ring(ḥwêsh), the one half of which is composed ofmen and the other of women. They standupright, gently move their shoulders, andaccompany the beat of the time with a swayingto and fro of the upper part of their bodies, anda gentle beating of their hands stretchedupwards before their breasts. The whole sceneis brightened by a fire that has been kindled.The constant repetition of the words jâ ḥalâlî jâmâlî, O my own, O my possession! [vid. Psalmen,ii. 384, Anm.], and the sword with which thehusband protects his family and his property inthe hand of the maiden, give to the saḥḳa,celebrated in the days of domestic happiness,the stamp of an expression of thanks and joyover the possession of that which makes lifepleasant—the family and property; for with theḤaḍarî and the Bedawî the word ḥalâl includeswife and child.”“When the saḥḳa is danced by a man, it isalways a sword-dance. Only the form of thisdance (it is called saḥḳat el-Gawâfina), as it isperformed in Gôf, is after the manner of thecontre -dance, danced by two rows of menstanding opposite each other. The dancers donot move their hands, but only their shoulders;the women form the ring, and sing the refrainof the song led by the munshid, who may herebe also one of the dancers.”7:2 “How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, Oprince’s daughter!”After the maidenhood of the newly marrieddamsel has been established (cf. Deut. 22:13–21) before the tribunal (dîvân) of the weddingfestival, there begins a great dance; the songsung to it refers only to the young couple, andthe inevitable waṣf, i.e., a description of thepersonal perfections and beauty of the two,forms its principal contents. Such a waṣf wassung also yesterday during the sword-dance ofthe bride; that of to-day (the first of the sevenwedding-festival days) is wholly in praise of thequeen; and because she is now a wife,commends more those attractions which arevisible than those which are veiled. In the Song,only 7:2–6 is compared to this waṣf. As for therest, it is the lovers themselves whoreciprocally sing. Yet this may also have beendone under the influence of the custom of thewaṣf. The repetition, 4:1–5 and 6:4–7, arewholly after the manner of the wasf; in theSyrian wedding songs also, where encomiumsare after one pattern.We quote here by way of example such anencomium. It forms the conclusion of a sahka,which had its origin under the followingcircumstances: When, some forty years ago, thesheik of Nawâ gave away his daughter inmarriage, she declared on her wedding day thatshe would dance the usual sword-dance onlyalong with a kasidah, composed specially forher by a noted Hauran poet. Otherwise nothingwas to be done, for the Hauranian chiefadmired the pride of his daughter, because itwas believed it would guard her from errors,and afford security for her family honour. Themost distinguished poet of the district at thattime was Ḳasîm el-Chinn, who had just shortly

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 108By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studybefore returned from a journey to Mesopotamiato the phylarch of the Gerbâ tribe, who hadbestowed on him royal gifts. He lived in thedistrict of Gâsim, famed from of old for itspoets, a mile (German) to the north of Nawâ. Amessenger on horseback was sent for him. Thepoet had no time to lose; he stuck some writingmaterials and paper into his girdle, mounted hisass, and composed his poem whilst on the way,the messenger going before him to announcehis arrival. When Ḳâsim came, the fire wasalready kindled on the ground, the weddingguests were waiting, and the dancer in bridalattire, and with the sword in her hand, stoodready. Kâsim kissed her hand and took the placeof leader of the song, since from want of timeno one could repeat the poem; moreover, Ḳâsimhad a fine voice. When the dance was over, thebride took her kesmâja from off her head,folded twenty Gâzi (about thirty thalers) in it,and threw it to the poet,—a large presentconsidering the circumstances, for the kesmâjaof a rich bride is costly. On the other hand, sherequired the poem to be delivered up to her.The plan of the poem shows great skill. Nawâ,lying in the midst of the extremely fruitfulBatanian plain, is interested in agriculture to anextent unequalled in any other part of Syria andPalestine; its sheik is proud of the fact thatformerly Job’s 500 yoke ploughed there, andNawâ claims to be Job’s town. Since thepeasant, according to the well-known proverb,de bobus arator, has thought and concern fornothing more than for agriculture; so the poetmight with certainty reckon on anunderstanding and an approbation of his poemif he makes it move within the sphere ofcountry life. He does this. He begins with this,that a shekâra, i.e., a benefice, is sown for thedancer, which is wont to be sown only to thehonour of one of great merit about the place.That the benefice might be worthy of therecipient, four sauwâmen (a sauwâma consistsof six yoke) are required, and the poet hasopportunity to present to his audience pleasingpictures of the great shekâra, of harvests,thrashings, measuring, loading, selling. Of theproduce of the wheat the portion of the danceris now bought, first the clothes, then theornaments; both are described. The waṣf formsthe conclusion, which is here given below. Inthe autumn of 1860, I received the poem from ayoung man of Nawâ at the same time along withother poems of Ḳâsim’s, all of which he knew byheart. The rest are much more artistic andcomplete in form than the saḥḳa. Who can sayhow many of the (particularly metrically) weakpoints of the latter are to be attributed to thepoet, and to the rapidity with which it wascomposed; and how many are to be laid to theaccount of those by whom it was preserved?“Here hast thou thy ornament, O beautiful one!put it on, let nothing be forgotten!Put it on, and live when the coward and the liarare long dead.She said: Now shalt thou celebrate me in song,describe me in verse from head to foot!I say: O fair one, thine attractions I am neverable to relate,And only the few will I describe which my eyespermit me to see:Her head is like the crystal goblet, her hair likethe black night,Her black hair like the seven nights, the like arenot in the whole year;In waves it moves hither and thither, like therope of her who draws water,And her side locks breathe all manner offragrance, which kills me.The new moon beams on her brow, and dimlyilluminated are the balances,And her eyebrows like the arch of the Nûndrawn by an artist’s hand.The witchery of her eyes makes me groan as ifthey were the eyes of a Kufic lady;Her nose is like the date of Irâk, the edge of theIndian sword;Her face like the full moon, and heart-breakingare her cheeks.Her mouth is a little crystal ring, and her teethrows of pearls,And her tongue scatters pearls; and, ah me, howbeautiful her lips!

SONG OF SOLOMON Page 109By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzscha Grace Notes studyHer spittle pure virgin honey, and healing forthe bite of a viper.Comparable to elegant writing, the Seijal wavesdownwards on her chin,Thus black seeds of the fragrant Kezḥa showthemselves on white bread.The Mâni draws the neck down to itself withthe spell written in Syrian letters;Her neck is like the neck of the roe whichdrinks out of the fountain of Ḳanawât.Her breast like polished marble tablets, as shipsbring them to Ṣêdâ (Sidon),Thereon like apples of the pomegranate twoglittering piles of jewels.Her arms are drawn swords, peeledcucumbers—oh that I had such!And incomparably beautiful her hands in therose-red of the Hinnâ -leaf;Her smooth, fine fingers are like the writingreed not yet cut;The glance of her nails like the Dura-seedswhich have lain overnight in milk;Her body is a mass of cotton wool which amaster’s hand has shaken into down,And her legs marble pillars in the sacred houseof the Omajads.There hast thou, fair one, thy attractions,receive this, nothing would be forgotten,And live and flourish when the coward and theliar are long ago dead!”7:3 “Thy body a heap of wheat, set round withlilies.”In the fifth Excursus regarding the winnowingshovel and the winnowing fork in my Comment.on Isaiah, Wetzstein’s illustration of this figurewas before me. The dissertation regarding thethrashing-table contains many instructivesupplements thereto. When the grain isthrashed, from that which is thrashed (derîs),which consists of corn, chopped straw, andchaff, there is formed a new heap ofwinnowings, which is called ’arama. “Accordingto its derivation (from ’aram, to be uncovered),’arama means heaps of rubbish destitute ofvegetation; ’arama, ‘oreima, ‘irâm, are, in theHaurân and Golân, proper names of severalPuys (conical hills formed by an eruption)covered with yellow or red volcanic rubbish. Inthe terminology of the thrashing-floor, theword always and without exception denotes thederîs -heaps not yet winnowed; in the Heb., onthe contrary, corn-heaps already winnowed.Such a heap serves (Ruth 3:7) Boaz as a pillowfor his head when he lay down and watched hisproperty. Luther there incorrectly renders by‘behind a andel,” i.e., a heap of (fifteen)sheaves; on the contrary, correctly at thepassage before us (Song 7:3), ‘like a heap ofwheat,’ viz., a heap of winnowed wheat. Thewheat colour (el-lôn el-ḥinṭi) is in Syriaregarded as the most beautiful colour of thehuman body.”