The sacred darkness that invites repose.”
Compare also Theocritus, i. 14, 15: vi. 1, 16, 38, 39. אֵיכָה prop. how, but also of place, where, 2 Kings xvi. 13. Twenty-eight MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi, read וְאֵיכָה, but this weakens the sentence. We must supply צֹאנְךָ after תִּרְעֶה, and –ם after תַּרְבִּיץ, see Ezek. xxxiv. 15. Immanuel accounts for the dual, צָהֳרַיִם, because שזה השם נופל לא על חצות היום בלבד אלא גם על חלק מהיום קרוב לחצות וחלק מהיום מעט אחר חצות, it speaks of that part of the day immediately preceding noon as well as of that part which immediately follows noon. שֶׁלָמָה, i.q. אֲשֶׁר לָמָה, Dan. i. 10, ut ne, well rendered by the Sept. μήποτε, Vulg. ne. אֲשֶׁר is used as a conjunction, the ל to express design, or purpose, and מָה for negation, Ewald, § 337, 6. כְּעֹטְיָה has caused much perplexity to interpreters. It is explained to mean like one veiled (ὡς περιβαλλομένη, Sept.), as a sign of mourning (Rashi, compare 2 Sam. xv. 30; xix. 5); of harlotry (Rosenmüller, comp. xxviii. 5); of shame (Umbreit, Hengstenberg, comp. Jer. xiv. 3; Mal. iii. 7); and of wandering or roaming (Philippson, comp. Jer. xliii. 12). But wherever covering is used to signify mourning or shame, the part of the body usually covered, in order to indicate the existence of the emotion, is invariably stated. Equally untenable is the rendering of harlot; for Tamar covered her face, not as a sign that she was a prostitute, but to disguise herself, so that she might not be recognised, and Judah took her to be a harlot because she sat by the way side, Comp. Jer. iii. 2. Ewald renders it like one unknown; but this, to say the least, is remote from the context; [[136]]Gesenius, like one fainting; but this incurs the same objection. The explanation of Philippson would have been the most plausible, if Rashbam and the anonymous MS. had not shown that עָטַה itself means to roam, to wander, by referring to Isa. xxii. 17, where, according to its parallel, טוּל, to cast down, it must signify to roll about. This meaning bests suits the context here, and is confirmed by Symach., Vulg., Syriac, Chald.
[8]. If thou knowest not. The court ladies, hearing the rustic girl say that she wished to be with her shepherd, tell her ironically to go, and be employed in the low and toilsome occupation of a shepherdess, rather than enjoy the exalted and easy life of a royal favourite. Some have put this answer into the mouth of the beloved; but it is evident from v. 9, and vi. 1, the only two places where the appellation “fairest of women” occurs, that it is the reply of the court ladies, which even Döpke, Good and Noyes, the defenders of the fragmentary theory, admit. Nothing can be more plain and incontrovertible than the statement in this verse, that the damsel is a shepherdess, and the beloved a shepherd, whom, she is told, she would find among his fellow-shepherds. It is for those who maintain the theory that this Song celebrates the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, or some other prince’s daughter, to get over this fact. לֹא יָדָע is unnecessarily and incorrectly rendered by Ewald, Meier, Hitzig, &c., unwise. The Sept., which is followed by Luther, mistaking the usage of לָדְ, translates this clause ἐὰν μὴ γνῷν σεαυτήν, as if the original were אִם לֹא תֵדְעִי אֶת נִפְשֶׁךָ. The prepo. בּ in בַּנָּשִׁים gives to הַיָּפָה the force of the superlative. Besides the several modes of expressing the superlative adduced by Gesenius, § 119, 2, this degree is sometimes also expressed by the positive and the prepo. ב prefixed to the noun designating the class to which the person or thing compared belongs: thus אַלְפִי הַדַּל בִּמְנַשֶׁה, my family is the weakest in Manasseh, Judg. xvi. 5; Prov. xxx. 30, comp. also εὐλογημένη συ ἐν γυναιξίν, thou art the most blessed of women, Luke i. 28, Ewald, § 313 c.
[9]. To my steed, &c. The court-ladies having turned from her and told her to go back to her menial employment, her severest trial begins. The king, having watched his opportunity, enters at that moment, and thus begins his flattering address. He first praises her beauty and gracefulness by comparing her to his stately and noble chariot steed. The anonymous MS. commentary rightly remarks, מוסב למעל שאמרה שחורה אנו והוא אמר לה דמיתיך לסוסתי ברכבי פרעה שהם שחורים וסוס השחור יפה הוא יותר משאר סוסים, that this simile was suggested by the reference which the damsel has made in the preceding verse to her dark complexion. The king, therefore, compares her to his noble steed, whose dark colour renders it more beautiful than the other horses. Such a comparison must have been very striking and flattering in the East, where this animal was so much celebrated for its preeminent beauty. “A young chestnut mare,” says Layard, Nineveh, [[137]]i. 91, “belonging to the sheik, was one of the most beautiful creatures I ever beheld. As she struggled to free herself from the spear to which she was tied, she showed the lightness and elegance of the gazelle. Her limbs were in perfect symmetry; her ears long, slender, and transparent; her nostrils high, dilated and deep red, her neck gracefully arched; and her mane and texture of silk.… No one can look at the horses of the early Assyrian sculptures without being convinced that they were drawn from the finest models.” Compare also the exquisite and inimitable description of this noble animal in Job xxxix. 19, &c. and Rosenmüller, Orient. iv. 941. The same comparison is used by the Greek and Roman poets. Thus Theocritus, Idyl. xviii. 30, 31:—
ἢ κάπῳ κυπάρισσος ἢ ἅρματι Θεσσαλὸς ἵππος,
ὧδε καὶ ἁ ῥοδόχρως Ἑλένα Λακεδαίμονι κόσμος.
“As towers the cypress mid the garden’s bloom,
As in the chariot proud Thessalian steed,
Thus graceful rose-complexion’d Helen moves.”
Compare also Horace, Ode iii. 11. This shows the futility both of those who affirm that the strangeness of the simile is against the literal meaning of this Song, and of those who accuse the writer of uncouthness. Besides, is this comparison more strange or uncouth than that of a man with a bony ass? (Gen. xlix. 14.) Mark also the other comparison used in the same chapter, such as of an ox, serpent, &c. סוּסָה is not equitatus, (Vulg. Rashi, Rashbam, English Version,) but as Ibn Ezra and Immanuel rightly remark, נקבת סוס, mare, the regular feminine of סוּס. The –ִי in לְסוּסָתִי is the suffix of the first person, as the ancient versions have it; and refers to a well-known and celebrated mare which Solomon possessed and highly prized, and which he always put into one of Pharaoh’s chariots. בְּרִכְבֵי פַרְעֹה, one of Pharaoh’s chariots, like בְּעָרֵי גִלְעָד, one of the cities of Gilead. Judg. xii. 7.