Introduction

In the Hebrew Bible, the book of the Song of Songs is placed in the third section of the sacred Old Testament books — among the so-called Writings (Hebrew: Ketubim), and follows immediately after three great Writings — the books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job — and before the book of Ruth. In the Greek Bible, in the Latin Vulgate, and in the Slavonic and Russian Bible, the Song of Songs occupies a place among the didactic books after two other works of Solomon — the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (before the non-canonical didactic books — the Wisdom of Solomon — and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach).

The title of the book in the Hebrew original: Shir-ha-Shirim asher li-Shlomo is reproduced also in the Greek translation: Aisma asmatōn, ho estin Solomōn. The phrase “Song of Songs” (Greek: asma asmatōn, Latin: Canticum canticorum) in this case cannot be understood either in the sense of a collection or series of Solomon’s songs (as some modern interpreters held, those who saw the book as composed of many fragments — disparate poems, such as, for example, Kleiker, Paulus, especially Depke and Magnus), nor in that distributive sense which some Jewish rabbis gave to it (Abenezra, Kimhi): “one of Solomon’s songs.”

On the contrary, by the nature of Hebrew speech, in which the combination of a noun in the singular with the same noun in the plural ordinarily expresses the superlative degree of the concept expressed by the word (compare such expressions as “slave of slaves” Gen 9:25, “Holy of Holies” Exod 26:33-34 and others, “heaven of heavens” 1 Sam 8:27, “Vanity of Vanities” Eccl 1:2 and others), “Song of Songs” can mean only a song of the highest excellence, the best of all other songs (in his German translation of the Bible, Luther happily expressed the meaning of this phrase with the word “Hohelied,” “high song”), and such a title fully corresponds both to the form and content of this sacred book: as well as in the elegance of its poetical form and external presentation, as also in its internal, ideological content, in the richness of ideas in the development of its mysterious and exalted subject, the book of the Song of Songs appears as the most excellent work of sacred God-inspired wisdom and sacred poetry. An indication of the divinely exalted, doctrinal content of the book is contained in the Syriac translation, Peshitta, where the book has the title “Wisdom of Wisdoms.”

The Jewish synagogue and the ancient Christian Church agree in recognizing the immeasurably high dignity of the book of the Song of Songs. The Targum on the Song of Songs, comparing its content with other Old Testament songs or hymns (of Moses, Deborah, Hannah, and others), recognizes its superiority over all of them and brings it close to the song of the coming Messianic age (according to Isa 30:29). The Midrash on the Song of Songs (Song 1:10-11, Russian Song 1:9-10) says: “Under the ‘thread of pearls’ one should understand the Law, the five books of Moses; under ‘string of precious stones’ — the prophets; under ‘golden pendants’ — the Writings; under ‘silver pendants (spots)’ — the Song of Songs itself.” In 3Ezr 5:24, clearly with the Song of Songs in view, the chosen people is called a “bride” and a “companion.”

In the Christian Church, this exalted view of the Jewish synagogue on the book of the Song of Songs was first clearly expressed by Origen, who at the same time expanded and deepened the Jewish interpretation, giving it a Christian meaning. As a lover of mystery, Origen with special love dwelt on the broad field of mystery that the Song of Songs presented, and wrote ten books of commentary on it, containing, according to Jerome’s account, up to twenty thousand lines and so elevated and profound in content that in them Origen, in Jerome’s words, surpassed even himself. But there have been preserved to our days only two other treatises of Origen on the Song of Songs, translated by Jerome into Latin and, according to his remark, more accessible to those who are still fed with milk as babes (Russian translation of the Works of Jerome, part 6, 2nd ed., 1906, Kiev, pp. 136–174). Origen’s exalted view of the book of the Song of Songs is expressed by him at the very beginning of the first of these treatises. “As we,” he says here, “have learned through Moses that there is not only a Holy place but a Holy of Holies, and that there is not only a sabbath but a sabbath of sabbaths; so now we learn through Solomon that there exist not only songs, but a Song of Songs. Blessed, certainly, is he who enters the holy place, but still more blessed is he who enters the Holy of Holies. Blessed is he who celebrates the sabbath, but still more blessed is he who celebrates the sabbath of sabbaths. In like manner, blessed also is he who understands and sings songs, but far more blessed is he who sings the Song of Songs. And as he who enters the holy place has need of many things to be worthy to enter the Holy of Holies, and as he who celebrates the sabbath, which was instituted by the Lord for the people, has need of many things to celebrate the sabbath of sabbaths; in like manner it is with difficulty that one is found who, having gone through all the songs contained in Scripture, would be able to rise to the Song of Songs” (p. 138). Together with the Jewish synagogue, Origen establishes an allegorical understanding of the book, saying, for instance: “If this (about kisses Song 1:1) did not have a spiritual meaning, would it not be an empty story? If it did not contain something mysterious, would it not be unworthy of God?” (pp. 141–142). However, while accepting from the synagogue, more specifically from the Targum, the general idea of allegorical understanding of the Song of Songs, Origen changes this idea to the extent that Jewish speech had to change when pronounced by a Christian, namely in place of the indefinite Targum’s Messiah he places the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of Israel — the society of Christians or the Church, otherwise the Christian soul: so, in explaining chapter 1, verse 1, Origen notes that by the kiss mentioned here one should understand not only the utterances of Moses and the prophets, as the Targum explains, but one must seek the kisses of Christ (compare also his explanation of verse 2).

The general thought of Origen’s commentary was adopted by all the known Church Fathers and teachers — Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Macarius of Egypt, Athanasius of Alexandria, Theodoret, and others. In developing this interpretation, some Church teachers expressed their own particular views. Thus, blessed Augustine, in agreement with the Jewish synagogue, saw in the content of the Song of Songs an allegorical representation of the history of ancient Hebrews (“The City of God” book XVII, 8, 13, 20, Russian translation of the Works of Augustine, part 5, 2nd ed., 1907, Kiev). Saint Ambrose of Milan, on the contrary, gave a completely independent from synagogue traditions Christian allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs: according to his opinion (in his Sermon on the perpetual virginity of Saint Mary), the Shulammite of the Song of Songs is an allegorical image of the Mother of God. This view is expressed many times by the Catholic Church in its liturgical services: using the Song of Songs in worship, it typically applies readings from it to the Feasts of the Mother of God (for example, at the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Annunciation, and the Dormition the first chapter of the Song of Songs is read). In the worship of the Orthodox Church, readings from the book of the Song of Songs are not used, but in canons and generally in services in honor of the Mother of God she is very often ascribed expressions from this book (“sealed fountain,” “enclosed garden,” “you are all fair and there is no spot in you” and others). But the common and distinctly expressed Orthodox Church interpretation of the Song of Songs is the explanation of the relations of the Beloved or Bridegroom and the Beloved or Bride of the book in the sense of the gracious mystery of the union of Christ-God and humanity-the Church, and according to Church understanding, the Song of Songs is the highest of all Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, even as it were not a prophecy but a historical portrayal of Christ incarnate, made man, and accomplishing the work of salvation of humanity. In the “Synopsis” or Survey of sacred books of Saint Athanasius the Great on the Song of Songs we read: “All in it from beginning to end is written mysteriously, with enigmatic allegory, and the meaning of the doctrines contained in it is not in the letter but deeply hidden beneath it… Therefore only the wise can read this book; but even they, when reading it, must always keep allegory in mind, so that by the ignorance of the unlearned that which is expounded in it is not made subject to ridicule. It is called the Song of Songs because it follows after other songs, and after this song no other song can be expected… All Divine Scripture prophesies of the coming to us of the Word and his manifestation in the flesh. This constitutes a special object of God’s will, and the proclamation of this was the primary work of the prophets and all Divine Scripture… All these prophecies are songs, and the Song of Songs as it were no longer prophesies or foretells, but shows Him of whom others proclaimed, as though already come and having taken on human flesh. Therefore the Song of Songs sings as it were the bridal song at the wedding of the Word with the flesh. And although other Scriptures also speak of the Savior, yet they also proclaim something else, but this book sings of the union of the Word with the flesh alone. In other Scriptures, as containing something other than teaching about the Word, there are found expressions of anger, wrath, and threatening fear, but this book, singing only of the coming of the Word, speaks only of pleasantness, joy, and gladness, for in the presence of the bridegroom all should rejoice and it is not fitting for anyone to weep, as the Lord himself said (Matt 9:15). Therefore, as after the dispensation accomplished by the Savior we no longer expect a prophet, so after that which is signified in the Song of Songs we ought not expect anything else, any newer thing signifying something. Just as the law and the prophets ceased after John the Baptist pointed to the Lamb of God, so that which is sung in the Song of Songs is the end of all that is proclaimed in all Divine Scripture… As in the law there was a holy place, and beyond the holy place — the Holy of Holies, and beyond the Holy of Holies there was already no inner place, so after songs there is still the Song of Songs, and after the Song of Songs one ought not expect an inner and newer promise: for the Word once “became flesh and accomplished the work…” (Christian Reading 1841, part 4, pp. 370–374).

Thus, the common view of the ancient and subsequent Christian Church on the Song of Songs is the recognition in it of allegory or metaphor with the highest religious meaning, just as the ancient Jewish synagogue saw in the Song of Songs precisely an allegory, a parable — a mashal. Allegorical understanding of the Song of Songs was for the ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters and remains to this day naturally and even inevitably necessary in view of the following circumstances and considerations. Already the indicated meaning of the book’s title, in which the latter is recognized as surpassing in dignity other sacred books, of itself spoke and always inspires interpreters and readers of the Song of Songs that the author of the title — a person probably different from the sacred writer of the book (as is already shown by the form of the relative pronoun used in the title — asher, whereas in the book itself only the shortened form of this pronoun is found) — attributed the highest meaning to the content of the book and by no means could see in it — in its literal sense — a simple description of worldly sexual love; otherwise, could he, like any true Israelite, place a secular work above many divine Psalms, songs of Moses, Miriam, Deborah, and the God-inspired words of the prophets, which are all called simply songs? Then, it is beyond doubt that the Song of Songs owes its acceptance into the canon of Sacred books to the higher religious meaning of its content, which is given only by its allegorical interpretation. Contrary to the false understanding of biblical rationalism of the canon as a simple collection of ancient national Hebrew literature, the compilers of the Old Testament canon set two necessary conditions for the acceptance of a book into it: religious content and sanctity, founded on Divine inspiration. These two conditions the Song of Songs, thanks to its higher meaning, satisfied fully, as is evident from the following passage in the Mishna (tractate Yadaim, chapter III, §§ 4–5), where discussion is held on the correctness of the canonization of two books — Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs: “Said Rabbi Akiba: God forbid! no one in Israel ever disputed that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all books are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.” Finally, allegorical or metaphorical, not literal understanding of the Song of Songs was and is inevitable in any complete view of its content; in the latter — in literal understanding — a whole series of contradictions is noted in the position of the main characters and their mutual relationships. The Beloved or Bridegroom of the Song of Songs is at one and the same time both a shepherd (Song 1:6; Song 6:2) and a vintner (Song 5:1) and a crowned king (Song 1:11; Song 3:11); and the Beloved or Bride appears now as a shepherdess (Song 1:7) now as a vineyard keeper (Song 1:5), now as a royal daughter and queen (Song 6:7-8); in like manner in the mutual relationships they appear now as brother and sister (Song 4:12), now as bridegroom and bride or husband and wife (Song 1:14; Song 2:7); further in the character and actions of the Beloved there are also many mutually contradictory traits: she is both imperfect (Song 1:4) and perfect (Song 4:1); being near her Beloved as her husband, she nevertheless does not know his whereabouts (Song 1:6) and seeks him at night through the dark streets of the city (Song 3:2-4), with the participation of the crowd of Jerusalem women (Song 5:8-17), and the city watchmen meet her, beat her, and strip her (Song 5:7). All these differences and contradictions, which cannot be removed in a literal understanding of the content of the Song of Songs, of themselves point to another, higher or metaphorical interpretation of it.

It is true that the general concert of allegorical interpretations — both in the Jewish synagogue and already in the ancient Christian Church — was sometimes interrupted by the discord of individual voices, who attempted to understand and explain the content of the Song of Songs in a direct, literal sense, but these were precisely isolated opinions of people who in some way had broken with the general tradition — synagogal and Christian-ecclesiastical, and both the synagogue and the church met them with complete condemnation. Without mentioning various attempts of this kind in Judaism (belonging mostly to anonymous authors), among Christian literalists we may name Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia (5th century), condemned for literal interpretation of the Song of Songs by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In literal understanding, the Shulammite of the Song of Songs was identified either with Abishag the Shunammite (1 Sam 1:1-4) or with the daughter of Pharaoh, wife of Solomon (1 Sam 3:1), or with some other bride or concubine of Solomon. In modern times, numerous advocates of literal understanding of the book among German biblical scholars, especially the renowned biblicist Ewald, developed a new theory, according to which in the Song of Songs is sung the steadfastness of pure passionate love and its triumph over all the enticements of honor and wealth; the object of the Shulammite’s love here is not Solomon but a simple shepherd, her fellow countryman, with whom she was temporarily separated, taken to the palace of Solomon, but here she, despite all the caresses and promises, remained faithful to her beloved and finally was released to him and united with him in marriage. That this hypothesis has no support in the text of the Song (namely in the places pointed to by its advocates: Song 1:3) and is generally groundless is clear.

The middle position between allegorical and literal interpretation is occupied by typological interpretation, developed in part by Hugo Grotius and Bossuet, and mainly by Hoffmann and Delitzsch, and among us by Kossovich, according to which the love depicted in the Song of Songs is an actual historical fact from the life of Solomon, but the depiction of this love has not as its goal that which is itself, but serves as a model of higher spiritual love and the relationship of man to God. According to this understanding, in Delitzsch’s opinion, the Song of Songs appears as a highly valuable sacred work in three respects: 1) in the religious-moral, as a depiction of the high idea of marriage, 2) in the ecclesiastical-historical — as a depiction of the fate of the Hebrew people and Church during the time of Solomon, and 3) finally, in the typological, insofar as in marriage it prefigures the union of Christ with the Church. Prompted by the desire to reconcile the extremes of the first two interpretations, typological understanding has its significance in the explanation of the mysterious book of the Song of Songs. But complete penetration into the content and original significance of it according to the intention of its sacred writer constitutes a difficulty hardly surmountable. The view of this by the Jewish synagogue was well expressed by the 10th century Jewish commentator Saadia: “Know, my brother, that there are various explanations of this book, and it could not be otherwise, because the Song of Songs is like a castle from which the key has been lost; some affirm that it refers to the Israelite kingdom, others — to the Law, others — to the times of captivity, still others — to the Messiah.” Therefore, as the testimony of Origen and Jerome shows, among the Hebrews it was forbidden to read this book (as well as the beginning of the book of Genesis and the beginning and end of the book of the prophet Ezekiel) before the age of thirty. That similar caution is obligatory in the Christian Church as well, we have seen from the words of Saint Athanasius the Great.

However, while preferring the allegorical method of explaining the book of the Song of Songs, as accepted by the holy Church, to any other, we must nevertheless avoid those extremes of baseless and removed from the actual content of the book allegorism, the presence of which is very evident in the works of many Orthodox German biblicists (Hahn, Hengstenberg, Schefer, and others). Allegory should be only a principle of explanation of the book, by no means displacing the content given in the book, but only regulating the overview of the latter and illuminating it with a higher light. The necessary duty of the interpreter in this consists in establishing as precisely as possible those mediating representations through which the literal content of the book is connected with the higher ideas of the allegory, which in any case must be supported by the data of the content of the book itself, and not borrow its material independently from the book, from outside it. Such significance and such application of the allegorical principle in explaining the book of the Song of Songs seems, apparently, to be outlined in the “Synopsis” of Saint Athanasius. “All this book,” he says, “is filled with conversations of the Old Testament Church with the Word, of all mankind with the Word, and of the Church from the pagans with Him, and again — of the Word with her and with mankind. Then the conversation of the pagans with Jerusalem and of Jerusalem — about the Church of the pagans and about itself. Further, an invocation of the serving Angels to those called into faith… Adapting oneself to such conversations in the Song of Songs, each one, examining the book itself, may combine according to the meaning similar events among themselves” (Christian Reading 1841, part 4, pp. 379–380).

As for the external, so to speak, literary form of the Song of Songs and its structure or composition, in this respect too it occupies a special, exclusive position among other Old Testament sacred books. It completely lacks a narrative element, the sacred writer of the book does not express from his own person a single thought, not a single explanatory remark; the entire book from the first verse to the last presents a series of emotional outpourings and generally the speeches of the persons acting in its content, whereas in the book of Job, which is close to it in this respect, the historical or narrative element not only has a place in the first two and the last chapters of the book, but also appears repeatedly in the middle of the book, at times interrupting the flow of speeches. Such a peculiarity of the Song of Songs could not fail to attract the attention of its interpreters. And even Origen appreciated, though hardly exactly, the significance of this circumstance. By the character of the book’s content, Origen calls it “a bridal song,” epithalamium, and indeed such a “bridal song, after the model of which also the pagans composed for themselves a wedding song and from which they took the content for this song. For the Song of Songs is a bridal song” (p. 140); as to literary form of exposition, Origen calls the Song a drama, fabula, drama. “Of what number of persons,” says Origen, “consists the society described in the Song of Songs, is unknown to me. But by your prayer and the revelation of the Lord, I seem to distinguish among them four kinds of persons: bridegroom and bride, with the bride a company of maidens — her companions, with the bridegroom a company of companions. One speaks as the bride, another — as the bridegroom, something — by the maidens, something by the companions of the bridegroom. For it is natural that at weddings there is with the bride a company of maidens, and with the bridegroom a crowd of companions. Seek all this not without, not outside those who are saved through the preaching of the Gospel. Under the bridegroom understand Christ, under the bride without spot or blemish — the Church — according to Eph 5:27. In the faithful maidens accompanying the bride, in the souls of the maidens, — understand those who, while being true to Christ, are not such as those of whom it was said above, and appear to have received salvation only in some measure, and under the men accompanying the bridegroom, understand the Angels and those who have attained to a perfect man” (p. 140). Recognizing the Song of Songs as a drama and indicating in it four mentioned groups of characters, Origen in his commentary divides the book into sections — as it were acts or scenes, and in the explanation always indicates to which character those or other words belong.

In his view that the Song of Songs was written in the manner of a drama, Origen was not alone in Christian antiquity: his point of view on this subject was shared not only by other teachers of the Alexandrian teaching school, but it is also cited in the Sinai manuscript of the LXX translation, where the Song of Songs has divisions into four acts, as well as inscriptions over smaller sections with indication of to whom this or that speech belongs (similar divisions and inscriptions were preserved also in the Ethiopic translation of the Song of Songs, made from the text of the LXX). However, all these ancient Church teachers did not have the idea that the Song of Songs was written for the stage or was even actually ever performed on it. Meanwhile, in modern times (in the 19th century) a whole series of Western scholars in their works on the Song of Songs developed precisely this idea of its stage purpose and of its actual performance on theatrical boards (Ewald, Fürst, Nöldeke, Bettcher, Renan, Kempf, and others). But in reality, the biblical Hebrews, like the Semites in general, had neither drama nor theater, on the contrary, always felt an organic aversion to both the one and the other. And no biblical critic, an advocate of the drama theory, has managed to prove the presence in the Song of Songs of all dramatic elements, a dramatically sustained dialogue, action, place of scene, uniform division of the play into acts and scenes, division of roles. The mentioned ancient divisions — in Origen, in the Sinai codex, and in the Ethiopic translation, without doubt, had nothing in common with the supposed stage purpose of the book, but indicated, probably, homiletic or exegetical use of the book (sections like our Church lessons).

But if in the book of the Song of Songs there is no actual dramatic action, there is in it a complete and living, organic unity of the basic idea, developing throughout its entire course: many sought to defend this unity of the book between, among others, supporters of the drama theory against supporters of the fragmentary theory, according to which the Song represents a series of disconnected fragments or pieces of a song character. The unity and wholeness of the book is indisputably proved by the following data:

1) The unity of the persons acting in the song: not only the main characters — the Bridegroom and the Bride, Solomon and the Shulammite, but also the secondary characters, the daughters of Jerusalem, appear in all parts of the book with the same characters, aspirations, and purposes and in the same setting. For example, the name of Solomon or “the king” (i.e., also Solomon) runs through the entire book (Song 1:3-4); similarly — “the daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1:4); the mother of the Shulammite is mentioned repeatedly, but not her father (Song 1:5).

2) Unity of the author’s literary devices throughout all parts of the book. The sacred writer once developed his own special expressions and scattered them throughout all parts of the book; many expressions are repeated in different sections with almost literal exactness. Such, for example, are the epithets: “fairest among women,” — “he whom my soul loves”; or — three times repeated adjuration to the Jerusalem women not to awake love (Song 2:7), or — three times repeated question: “Who is she?” (Song 3:6) and others.

3) Finally, especially — the unity and gradual development of the basic content of the book and its particular details. The feeling of love of the Bride for the Bridegroom at the beginning appears as it were in embryo, uncertain and indefinite (Song 1:1-3), and in the end becomes strong as death, a true divine flame which nothing can quench (Song 8:6-8); and the Bride herself, previously imperfect (Song 1:4), now attains fullness and perfection (Song 8:10). One can observe in the song a change of seasons: winter, spring (Song 2:11-13), summer (Song 4:11), and autumn (Song 7:8-9).

If to the said about the internal unity of the Song of Songs we add that also in its language unity is observed in word usage in its different parts, then all grounds fall away for dividing the book into any, especially of different time origin, pericopes or fragments. With that, all sense is lost in the denial of the origin of the book from Solomon, so widespread in the West. (According to the opinion, for example, of König, there can be no question of the origin of the book from Solomon in view of the fact that allegedly the language and ideological content of the book indicate the beginning of the post-exile period, Orthodox science, on the contrary, has no reason to depart in this question from the testimony of tradition, according to which the author of the book was precisely the wise King Solomon. This tradition is expressed already in the very title of the book, as well as in the testimony of the Talmud (tractate Baba batra, fol. 14, b.), that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon, but collected and published by King Hezekiah. As a work of Solomon, sacred in Jewish synagogues, the Song of Songs has been read from ancient times and to this day on the eighth day of the Jewish Passover holiday. The Jewish tradition differed only in deciding when, at what age, Solomon wrote the Song of Songs: according to the Midrash, Solomon wrote the Song in his old age, whereas the prevailing view of Jewish tradition was that the “Song of Songs” was written by Solomon in his youth, whereas the “Proverbs” — in his mature age, and Ecclesiastes — in his old age. The latter view is preferable and prevails in the Christian Church as well.

In Russian there are: 1) A translation of the book from the Hebrew text — by Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev) Christian Reading 1871, I; 2) A translation of it from the Greek LXX — by Bishop Porphyry (Uspensky) — Works (of the Neva Theological Academy 1869, June, pp. 103–118); 3) An explanation of the Song (Song 3 and Song 4:16) — in “Resurrection Reading,” chapter V (1841, 159–160) and chapter VII 1843), p. 64; 4) Professor of SPB. Theological Academy I. S. Yakimov, “On the Origin of the Song of Songs” — Christian Reading 1887, vol. I, pp. 569 et seq.; and 5) Professor of the Kiev Theological Academy A. A. Olesnitsky, “The Song of Songs and its Recent Critics” — in Works of the Kiev Theological Academy 1881–1882 and separately — Kiev 1882, p. 387. The work of Professor A. A. Olesnitsky is the most capital scholarly work on the Song of Songs, standing not only on the same level with the best works of Western scholarly bibliological literature, but far surpassing many of them. In this work the author not only very thoroughly set forth the traditional data on the canonical character and methods of explanation of the Song of Songs in the Jewish synagogue and Christian Church, and then established the relationship of the most important ancient texts of the book, especially the Hebrew — Masoretic and Greek — LXX; not only gave the fullest survey and critical analysis of the numerous views and theories of Western biblicists concerning the Song of Songs, but also presented in conclusion his own original and most talented attempt at explaining this book — “a new method of solving the Song of Songs” (pp. 336–337). Stopping on those places of the book (Song 4:1-5; Song 6:4-7; Song 7:2-6) in which is given the most detailed description of the Bride, Professor Olesnitsky finds here the following peculiarities: first, anatomical detail in the enumeration of individual parts of the figure (lips, palate, tongue, feet, thighs, navel); second, broad, exclusive use in describing the members of the bride’s body of various strokes from pictures of nature, whereby the latter decidedly overshadow purely human features (“your eyes are doves,” Song 1:14, “Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes coming up from the bath, each one bearing twins, and not one among them bereaved” Song 4:2; “your neck is like the tower of David, built for an arsenal” Song 4:4 and many others). From this, “since in the Song of Songs the purely human image of the bride contends with pictures of nature, and since in this contest for supremacy pictures of nature prevail by force and fullness of depiction, the first step toward solving the book should consist in a new illumination of it, which is given by transferring the center of gravity from the supposed foundation of the book or the human image of the bride to the overlooked by investigators actual foundation or depiction of nature” (p. 346). The possibility of comparing pictures of nature with the human figure of the bride in the mouth of the biblical poet is fully understandable. By the special poetical world-view of the ancient Hebrews, the earth, as mother and nourisher of all living, is represented as the feminine principle; hence the name of the earth eretz in the feminine gender. Individual countries or states are called its daughters or maidens, brides: maiden, daughter of Egypt Jer 46:11; maiden, daughter of Sidon Isa 23:12; maiden, daughter of Babylon Isa 47:1; but especially often biblical writers apply this image to the promised land: maiden, daughter of Israel, maiden, daughter of Judah, maiden, daughter of my people (of Jehovah) Jer 14:17; Isa 10:32; Amos 5:2 and so forth.

Thus, if the Song of Songs is devoted to the depiction of nature, then the introduction into this depiction of the human image of a Hebrew maiden will be fully intelligible, much more in the spirit of ancient Hebrew world-view than the reverse introduction of pictures of nature into the poetical depiction of human (feminine) beauty (p. 348). Grouping then all the strokes and pictures of nature joined in the Song of Songs (flora, fauna, the inorganic kingdom, products of national sustenance, changes of phenomena of day and night, seasons, etc.), as well as strokes depicting local human culture (watch and military towers, arsenals, cities with their various appurtenances), Professor Olesnitsky comes to the conclusion that the sacred writer of the Song of Songs intended to depict precisely Palestine, namely depicted in a similar way in Deuteronomy (Deut 6:10-11) and in the prophets. Correspondingly with this, the bridegroom of the Song of Songs (according to the depiction Song 5:10-16) must belong to visible nature, at least reveal himself in the phenomena of visible nature. But whereas the pictures and strokes depicting the bride completely gravitate toward the low earthly nature, the strokes collected in the image of the bridegroom, though they touch the earth, belong themselves to the higher ethereal region of light… As we gaze more at these light-flooded pictures, the human image of the bridegroom increasingly fades and finally transforms into a radiant image of the sun (p. 353). As precisely Palestinian nature, the bride of the Song of Songs strives toward her Palestinian sun (p. 358). But as the bride is not only Palestinian earth but also the Hebrew people inhabiting it, so the bridegroom is not only the beneficial for the earth physical force — the sun, but also the political force — the king, whom the prophet (Jer 15:9) poetically calls the sun; more specifically, King Solomon. But the highest force beneficial to the land of Palestine and to Israel was the Divine force, to which both the physical force of the sun and the political force of the king owed their being and action. In the sun and the azure rising above the earth King Solomon, as the beneficial genius of the country, of himself evoked in the poet’s mind the image of the glorified Messiah, destined to appear in the clouds of glory and complete all the highest supernal blessings to the people (p. 362).

Such is the explanation of Professor Olesnitsky, as he himself tells us, suggested to him by the Jew Tailard and by him merely developed. Like every human theory, it does not exclude objections against itself, but, in our conviction, it is founded on a deep understanding of Eastern, more specifically, biblical-Hebrew world-view, on deep penetration into the spirit and meaning of biblical images of sacred writers, and in any case points out the reliable path on which one should conduct the investigation and explanation of the Song of Songs.

The natural soil on which the sacred poet and sage depicted the incomparably beautiful and exalted image of the most perfect passionate love of man and society — the Church — to God is the mighty feeling of the joy of life, sexual love, and love of nature. One would hardly be wrong to say, as Gustav Karpeles does, about the subject of the Song of Songs: “There, amid the storms that swept through the people’s life, poured forth this song from a heart into which the cheerful surroundings cast their brightest rays and in which lived an wonderful capacity to see how clearly the flowers shine, how the date palm sends forth its shoots, how the vine rises upward and how the flower of the pomegranate trees opens… Neither Greece nor all the rest of the East ever produced, nor could produce such a song of love. If it rises so immeasurably above all its kindred creations, it is thanks to the wondrous harmonious union of passionate sensuality and the purest morality, which constitutes the invisible pulsing of the heart of the entire song. To depict more deeply and truly purely human love is impossible… And alongside these charms of love, charmingly affecting us in this poem are above all the idyllic scenes from life in the bosom of nature: we find here such a charming immersion in the external, surrounding nature as we will not encounter in all erotic poetry. The poet introduces us into blooming luxuriant nature” (“History of Hebrew Literature” vol. I, pp. 78–79). One must only remember that both the love of nature and the history of one’s native people, and sexual love and aesthetic feeling of beauty, and the enjoyment of the joys of life and even the aspiration toward wisdom in the sacred writer of the book “Song of Songs” as a true theocrat and servant of Jehovah were completed in religious feeling and reverence before Jehovah. Although the name of God in this book (as in the book of Esther) according to the accepted Hebrew text, as well as according to ancient translations of the book, is not found, but the religious spirit breathes throughout the entire content of the book and with complete clarity and force is expressed in those words of the Bride in Song 8:6-7, which constitute the main, basic thought of the entire book: “Set me as a seal upon your heart — as a ring upon your hand: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the arrows of it are arrows of fire; it is a very mighty flame (according to a more accurate translation by Archimandrite Macarius: it is the flame of God). Many waters cannot quench love, nor can rivers overflow it. If a man gave all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly despised.” Only the sacred flame of Divine love, which with its heavenly touch sanctifies every kind of earthly love (compare Jas 4:4-6), elevates the “bridal song” of the Song of Songs to the level of a high religious hymn, and makes the book itself an immortal creation of the inspired human spirit under the action of the Spirit of God.

From the countless attempts at dividing the content of our book, we accept, as more natural, the division of the entire picture of all the content of the book into the following sections or particular pictures. Section one: Song 1:1 – Song 2:1-7. Section two: Song 2:8 – Song 3:5) Song 3:6 – Song 5:1) Song 5:2 – Song 6:3) Song 6:4 – Song 7:6) Song 7:1 – Song 8:4) Song 8:5-14.

* * *

In both the Hebrew and Greek text the title of the book constitutes the first verse of the first chapter of it; in the Vulgate, however, as also in our Slavonic and Russian Bible, the title stands separately and does not form part of the first chapter.

According to rabbinic-Talmudic terminology, the term “render unclean the hands” with respect to sacred Books meant their canonical dignity. On the origin and meaning of this strange term one can read in Professor A. A. Olesnitsky’s “Song of Songs and its Recent Critics” Kiev 1882, p. 14.

Ed König Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apocryphen und der Pseudepigraphen Alten Testaments. Bonn 1893, p. 422 ff. Otherwise and closer to the truth judges about the time of origin of the Song of Songs another German scholar Gustav Karpeles. Comparing the “Song of Songs” with the well-known praise of the virtuous woman in the book of Proverbs chapter XXXI, G. Karpeles says “It cannot be supposed that this hymn in praise of the virtuous woman, and the “Song of Songs” could have originated at one and the same time. In the hymn, as in all the maxims of the “Book of Proverbs” concerning women and love, a fully ethical character predominates; in the “Song of Songs” — an aesthetic: in the first — a mood predominantly moral, in the second — deeply passionate. External and internal reasons force us to accept that the hymn was included in the collection of proverbs later, when more mature views on woman and her significance in social life prevailed; the composition of the “Song of Songs,” however, probably followed immediately after Solomon’s death, and was written in northern Palestine.” G. Karpeles. History of Hebrew Literature. Russian translation under the editorship of A. Y. Garkavi. Vol. I. SPB. 1896, p. 78. But what compels the researcher to consider the “Song of Songs” written only “immediately after Solomon’s death,” and not during his lifetime and not by himself? Serious grounds for this do not exist.