1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh's daughter.[1]
1803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, "proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one."[2] He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.
1813. Hug,[3] rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, "the bride" means the ten tribes, and "the bridegroom" is King Hezekiah, and the book describes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers (chap. viii. 8, 9) to this re-union.
1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem is to celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A
- ↑ The Song of Songs, a new translation, with a Commentary and Notes. London, 1801, pp. 54, 55.
- ↑ Song of Songs, &c., translated from the original Hebrew, with Notes, critical and explanatory. London, 1803, Preface pp. xii. xiii. xiv.
- ↑ Das Hohelied, in einer noch unversuchten Deutung, Freyburg, 1803.
