Song of Solomon - Grace Notes

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