CANTICLE OF CANTICLES
— A poetic book of the Bible, included in the third class known as the Kethubim, or Hagiographa; in the Hebrew Bible, it forms part of the group called the "Five Scrolls" or "Megillot" (cf. V. BIBLE).
Summary:
I. Name and Content
II. Naturalistic Interpretation
III. Typical Interpretation
IV. Allegorical Interpretation
V. Examination of Various Interpretations
VI. Literary Form
VII. Author and Date.I. Name and Content
The Hebrew title *Sîr hassîrîm* literally means "Canticle of Canticles"; it has a superlative force, i.e., "the most sublime canticle" among all others (cf. the German *Das Hohelied*), and thus the interpretation held by some ancients, according to which this title would mean "a canticle among (other) canticles" composed by Solomon, to whom the book is attributed, is incorrect.The content of the book is entirely singular and, at first glance, seems unexpected in a sacred collection such as the Bible: it speaks, in fact, literally of the mutual love between two characters who may be designated as the Bridegroom and the Bride. Moreover, the composition does not, at first sight, show a well-connected conceptual framework, but rather gives the impression of detached passages that only vaguely refer to one another. A summary of the content may be as follows:
The Bride’s amorous desires for the Bridegroom; dialogues between the two, with an appeal to the "daughters of Jerusalem" (1:2–2:7). In a soliloquy, the Bride describes a fateful visit from the Bridegroom, repeating the description of spring recited by him beneath her window and the praises addressed to her (2:8–17). The Bride, having lost the Bridegroom, searches for him at night in the city; then a solemn procession is described ascending from the desert, formed by armed men surrounding the litter of Solomon (3:1–11). The Bridegroom describes the physical beauties of the Bride (4:1–5:1). The Bride recounts that, having heard the Bridegroom knocking at her door at night, she delayed in opening to him, and when she did open
He had withdrawn; she then searched for him through the city and encountered the “daughters of Jerusalem,” to whom she gave a description of the Bridegroom (5:2–6:3). A new description and praise of the Bride, offered by the Bridegroom (6:4–12). Description of the “Shulammite” (7:1–10). The Bride invites the Bridegroom to follow her into the flower-filled countryside (7:11–8:4). The Bride returns from the desert leaning on her Bridegroom: memories of the past and resolutions for the future are expressed (8:5–7). A dialogue between the Bride and her hostile brothers; the Bride affirms that her vineyard is worth more than Solomon’s famed one; an invitation from the Bridegroom and his companions to the Bride, and her response (8:8–14).
Even from this schematic outline it is clear how difficult it is to render judgment both on the literary form of the Canticle and on its meaning; and indeed, over the centuries, both in Judaism and in Christianity, the most varied answers have been given to both questions. To begin with the question of meaning—which is the more important—there have been countless responses, ranging from those that regard the Canticle as entirely secular and erotic to those that treat it as the subject of lofty mystical speculation. These responses may be grouped into three main classes.
II. NATURALISTIC INTERPRETATION
According to this view, the Canticle does nothing more than celebrate the love of a man and a woman. It seems that already toward the end of the first century A.D., some Jews interpreted—or at least employed—the Canticle in this sense; but traces of them soon vanished. Among Christians, the first representative of this view is Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), who regarded the Canticle as a little poem written by Solomon in praise of his Egyptian wife. Indeed, it appears that, on account of its profane character, Theodore wished to exclude the Canticle from the biblical canon; but his opinion, perhaps shared by a few others, was condemned in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and for many centuries it did not reappear among Christians. Protestantism brought it back into view, for it was vaguely expressed by Castellio (Châteillon), a friend and follower of Calvin; but precisely on account of this opinion, Calvin banished Castellio from Geneva (1544). After a few other tentative endorsements, Herder (1778) fully defended the naturalistic interpretation, treating the Canticle as a collection of detached erotic songs; after him, this interpretation gained ever more ground among Protestants.A well-defined ethnological basis in support of the naturalistic interpretation was believed by K. Budde to be found in the marriage customs of the Hauran, the region northeast of Palestine. These customs had been described by Wetzstein in the article “Die syrische Dschtafel,” in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (1873), pp. 270–302, in the following summary. In that region, the wedding feast is held especially in spring and, lasting seven days, is called the “week of the king.” During this period, the bridegroom plays the role of king and the bride that of queen, and the ceremony assigns them almost regal garments, a retinue of “friends of the bridegroom” and “friends of the bride,” and especially the “throne” on which the two are seated. This “throne” is made from the boards of the threshing floor (Dreschtafel), covered with carpets and cushions, and solemnly carried to the village square the morning after the wedding. The festivities of the “week of the king” consist of feasts, songs, and dances, among which the waf is of particular importance—that is, the “description” of the physical beauty of the bride and groom, and above all the “sword dance.” This is performed in the square on the evening of the wedding, before the first nuptial night: the dancer is the bride herself, surrounded by a double chorus of men and women, and during the dance she brandishes a sword with which she keeps at bay a young man who pretends to want to abduct her.
On this ethnological basis, Budde advanced his interpretation (contemporaneous articles in The New World of Boston, March 1894, pp. 56ff., and in Preussische Jahrbücher, 1894, pp. 92ff.) applied to the Canticle (commentary, 1898). The Canticle would be a collection of nuptial songs performed during the “week of the king” in some Jewish district, probably in the vicinity of Jerusalem: Solomon and the Shulammite of the Canticle would be the two spouses of the “week of the king”; Solomon’s litter would be the “throne” of the two spouses; the companions of the Bridegroom and the daughters of Jerusalem would be the respective retinues of the two; their descriptions would be the cazf, and the dance of the bride would be preserved in the double-choir dance contained in the Canticle (7:1ff.). Today the naturalistic interpretation still predominates among rationalist or Protestant scholars and has also found representatives among Jewish scholars (cf. U. Cassuto, Il significato originario del C. dei C., in Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana, 1925, pp. 23–52).
III. TYPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
According to this view, the Canticle narrates a well-connected love story, whether real or imaginary, but the ultimate aim of this narrative is not the historical account itself, rather the higher moral sense that is symbolized in it; thus the Canticle would have two meanings, the literal or immediate one, which, however, is a “type” of a second, moral or reflective meaning.By the adherents of this interpretation, the literal meaning has been fixed in various ways: it has been related to Solomon’s loves for the Egyptian woman, or for the Shulammite, or for an obscure shepherdess, while according to others it is a fictitious plot of the loves between a shepherd and a shepherdess, or between Jewish nobles, etc. The moral meaning, too, has been fixed variously, above all in relation to the religious principles of the respective interpreters; thus, as a rule, Jewish scholars have found it in the love of the God Yahweh for the Hebrew nation, while Christians have seen it in the love of Christ for the Church or for individual souls.
The typological interpretation appears clearly defined for the first time in the twelfth century, both among the Jews with Ibn Ezra and among Christians with Honorius of Autun; the latter sees in the Canticle the description of Solomon’s marital loves, which, however, are the type of Christ’s love for the Church. Another adherent of this exegesis is not found until 1569, when the Spaniard Luis de León published his commentary following the “typical” interpretation; the novelty of this approach was such that the author had to defend himself against this charge (along with other accusations) before the Spanish Inquisition, though he emerged with only a mild reprimand. But a few years later, this interpretation found wide acceptance both among Catholics and Protestants; in the nineteenth century, however, it began to decline, and today it has almost entirely disappeared among Protestants, while among Catholics it is still occasionally followed by incidental writers who seem to depend exclusively on the “typical” commentary of Calmet.
IV. ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
According to this view, the Canticle is a continuous metaphor: the entire composition contains only one sense, for the expression of which the author made use of metaphorical expressions drawn from the language and customs of love. Thus, according to this interpretation, the Canticle does not have a dual sense—the historical sense of the plot in itself and then the moral sense toward which the plot aims (as the typological interpretation holds)—but only a single moral sense, expressed, however, through continuous metaphors, i.e., through allegory.The allegorical interpretation is the oldest of which we have knowledge regarding the Canticle. If this book entered the biblical canon, it was—as scholars of every persuasion unanimously admit—on the essential condition that it be interpreted allegorically, at least at the time of its canonization. Subsequently, in keeping with this Jewish tradition, we find the allegorical interpretation in the Targum, in the various Midrashim, and in other rabbinic writings, which—
The various interpretations—though differing in many respects—agree on the exegetical principle that the Song of Songs, under the allegory of a bridegroom and a bride, directly addresses the relationship between the God Jahweh and His beloved nation of Israel. When the Bible passed into Christianity, this traditional exegetical principle regarding the Song of Songs also passed to it, though it was usually updated and harmonized with the further progress of divine revelation. Thus, the earliest Christian expositors saw in the Bridegroom an allegory of Christ and in the Bride an allegory of the Church; this application was fully justified by the Christian Scriptures themselves, according to which Christ is "the end of the Law" (Rom. 10:4; cf. Mt. 5:17), and therefore what the book narrates about the relationship between Jahweh and Israel was applied to this ultimate end of all revelation as an intermediate stage. Other Christian expositors, developing this application further with a view chiefly to homiletic and parenetic aims, extended it to the relationship between Christ and Mary, Christ and the faithful soul, and the like, without claiming in such applications to conduct a historical-critical investigation of the book’s original meaning.
New allegorical interpretations were proposed in subsequent centuries, but they found no following. Thus, some medieval rabbis supposed an allegory of the relationship between Solomon and personified Wisdom; others, of an Avrorist tendency, saw the relationship between the active intellect and the human soul; some followers of the Kabbalah proposed allegorical interpretations of a Kabbalistic nature; a political allegory was supposed already by Luther, and after him by some others until the close of the 19th century; and in our own day, some have thought of a stellar allegory, which, according to ancient astral cults, sees in the Bridegroom the Sun, in the Bride the Moon, and in the lovers’ amours the phases of the stars, and so on. Others have thought of an allegorical liturgy in honor of the god Tammuz (Hadad, Dod) and the goddess Ištar (Astarte).
V. EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS
The naturalistic interpretation falls into the grave error of explaining the Song of Songs by confining itself solely to the text of the book and rejecting what the most ancient tradition testifies about the book itself. Yet the fundamental difficulty arises of explaining how a book that would originally have had a merely erotic meaning could have entered the canon of the Sacred Scriptures for the Israelites. It is true that the response is given that its entry into the canon occurred because at a certain time the book was interpreted mystically, in accordance with the allegory that later became traditional; but from such a response the difficulty is only slightly shifted, not resolved, for one is led to ask how an allegory so delicate for the Jews could have been based on a composition notoriously erotic, which even in Christian times lent itself to indecorous applications by certain Jews, as the Talmud attests (Tosefta Sanhedrin, XII, 10). On the contrary, if the allegorical interpretation—as far as we know—has always accompanied the Song of Songs, allowing its entry into the canon, this demonstrates that it arose with the Song of Songs itself, just as tradition maintains. And by neglecting this tradition, one was from the beginning in error regarding the interpretation of the Song of Songs, as for centuries Arabists erred—and Arab common folk still err—in interpreting in an erotic sense the poems of Ibn al-Fârid (1182–1235), which are instead essentially allegorical in accordance with the custom prevalent among Sufi mystics.As for the only positive proof, namely, the analogy with the nuptial customs of Ḥawrân, it must be observed that there is no evidence whatsoever that among the ancient Hebrews there was practiced a nuptial “week of the king” with the precise ceremonies described above, though in the Bible, in Flavius Josephus, and in the Talmud there are preserved either fleeting occasional allusions or entire treatises concerning nuptial customs; the few points of contact refer to generic customs that can be found more or less among the most diverse and distant peoples.
The “typical” interpretation, especially that which finds its “historical meaning” in the marital vicissitudes of Solomon, appeals generally to tradition. But such an appeal does not appear justified, since even if one admits that in Jewish tradition Solomon was sometimes a symbol of the Messiah, not all the individual traits of his life lent themselves to this symbolic use, and least of all did his marital vicissitudes, given that his idolatrous marriages were reproached by the Bible itself (1 Kings 11:1–4; Ecclesiasticus [Vulg.] 42:21–22). And in fact neither his marriage to the Egyptian nor, much less, his supposed loves with the Shulammite or other women had such resonance as to spontaneously rise to the “type” of the love of Jahweh for Israel. Moreover, the Song of Songs has no explicit reference that links its supposed “historical meaning” with the “moral” one, so that the entire composition could well be interpreted as an occasional epithalamium without any higher moral aim. This holds all the more if one wishes to trace the “historical” plot not to Solomon but to a simple shepherd or similar unknown figures.
The traditional allegorical interpretation is based on the external testimonies offered by rabbinic Judaism and by the biblical literature itself (of which the other later allegorical interpretations—such as the Avrorist, Kabbalistic, political, and astral—are absolutely devoid, representing fantastic attempts of individual schools). These explicit testimonies demonstrate that among Palestinian rabbis at the end of the 1st century A.D., the Song of Songs was esteemed a sacred book by immemorial tradition (Ḥâdîhajim, III, 5; cf. 'Abôth dhê-R. Nâthân, I); about the same time, the abuse began of singing passages from the Song of Songs profanely at feasts, especially weddings. Against this usage Rabbi 'Aqîbâ' inveighed with the severest threats (Tosefta Sanhedrin, XII, 10; cf. Sanhedrin, 101a).
If, then, this book, apparently erotic and containing no explicit declaration of allegory, was interpreted allegorically, this could occur because there already existed an ancient literary custom of veiling the relationship between Jahweh and His beloved nation of Israel in the imagery of a married couple. The biblical passages, especially from the prophetic literature, that demonstrate this custom are very numerous (Hos. 2; Isa. 54; 62 passim; Jer. 2:2; 3:3; 31:3; Ezek. 16:23; etc.), and in fact this custom is recognized by scholars of every tendency. It is therefore legitimate to suppose that the Song of Songs is a composition that arose in some circle of learned and pious Israelites, among whom the aforementioned traditional allegory concerning Jahweh was cultivated in a special way and with further developments, so much so that there was no felt need to add to the composition its allegorical explanation (analogously to what the Sufi mystics did later).
VI. LITERARY FORM
From a literary standpoint, the Song of Songs has been considered a true drama, a collection of detached songs, or a composition of an idyllic type.Even a first reading reveals that the composition has some dramatic movements, as was noted already in antiquity (Origen: PG 13, 61); but it was only from the 17th century onward that attempts were made to divide the composition regularly into acts and scenes, though with the most discordant results regarding the number of characters and scenes. Today such attempts are abandoned by competent scholars, both because of their disappointing outcomes and because ancient Hebrew literature shows no trace of a drama of the Greek type.
That the Song of Songs is composed of detached songs might seem demonstrable from the apparent fragmentation of
The text already appears disjointed at its first reading. Yet alongside this fragmentation, a certain logical thread can be discerned that reconnects the various parts: the same characters appear from beginning to end, certain episodes recur (cf. 3, 1 ff. with 5, 6 ff.; 3, 6 ff. with 8, 5 ff.; 4, 1 ff. with 6, 5 ff. and 5, 10 ff.; etc.), as do certain characteristic expressions, while the language and style remain uniform. Moreover, the hypothesis of detached songs is, in proportion, like the hypothesis of the drama, in which individual scholars arbitrarily detach a number of songs according to their own preferences.
The hypothesis of an idyllic composition best accords with the traditional allegorical interpretation, and this is already a serious argument in its favor. The author, having established his fundamental allegory of love, contemplates the different moments of this symbolic love by having the Bridegroom and the Bride speak and act as ordinary spouses, though often with certain points of Hebrew history and geography in mind—namely, events and places where the love of Jahweh for Israel was most clearly manifested. Thus the entire composition presents itself as a series of different scenes, yet framed by a unifying idea.
VII. AUTHOR AND DATE
Until the early 19th century, the indication of the author was found in the very “title” of the book (1, 1): C. of C. which (is) of Solomon. From that time onward, this indication began to be regarded as a mere literary device, and today this view is widely held even among Catholic scholars. The same device is found in the book of Wisdom, which bears the title Wisdom of Solomon, though it is undoubtedly a work written in Greek many centuries after Solomon; a similar literary device is also found in Ecclesiastes, partially conceived in the persona of Solomon. This title may have been added by the author of the C. himself, but more likely it was appended later; this is suggested by the fact that in the title the relative pronoun appears in the form *’dēser’*, whereas in the text of the C. the form *’se’* is consistently used.A literary examination of the book makes it clear that the language employed is not the classical Hebrew of Solomon’s time, but rather the Hebrew used after the return from the Babylonian exile—namely, a Hebrew deeply influenced by Aramaic. In the brief eight chapters of the book, more than a dozen words and numerous dialectal forms betray Aramaic influence; moreover, in 4, 13, the word *pardēs*, “park,” “garden” (“paradise”), appears, derived from the Persian *paridaeza* (cf. Greek *paradeisos*), which points to the Persian period after the Babylonian exile (the other word *pyrion*, which appears in 3, 9 and is sometimes said to derive from the Greek *phoreion* with the meaning of “litter,” is highly uncertain). The very fact that the author of the C. so confidently constructed his allegory of love without fear of being misunderstood seems to require a period in which the use of presenting the relationship between Jahweh and Israel under the symbol of two spouses was already widely established; but this dissemination was achieved above all through the spread of prophetic writings, especially those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which flourished during the Babylonian exile. Therefore, for this reason as well, the C. must be later than these prophets.
There are no sufficiently secure elements to delimit more precisely, within the post-exilic period, the time when the C. came into being. The Septuagint version, which misinterprets some words of the Hebrew text (4, 1, 3; 6, 7) and transcribes others because it does not understand them (4, 5; 5, 11, 14), may suggest that a considerable time had already passed since the publication of the Hebrew text; one might therefore conjecture that this occurred around the middle of the 4th century B.C. Followers of Budde’s theory suppose that the C. was written between the 3rd and 2nd centuries; some even place it in the 1st century A.D.