This union of the active with the passive intellect is represented by the sincere and ardent attachment formed between a humble shepherd and shepherdess, the literal history of which Immanuel beautifully explains before he attempts to palm upon it his philosophical theory. It is of importance to notice, that this distinguished poet also takes the hero and heroine of the plot to be a shepherd and a shepherdess, and regards Solomon as a separate person, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere love to her shepherd, affirming, that if this great king were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover. The commentary contains valuable philological remarks, and excellent explanations of some of the poetical similes. Pity it has never been published.
1288–1370. Levi ben Gershon, also called Leon de Banolas and Ralbag, a learned and influential expositor, who was born in 1288, and died about 1370[60], defends the same philosophical theory. His commentary, which is very lengthy, is published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible 1724.
It will be remembered, that allusion has been made by preceding commentators, to some who rejected the allegorical interpretation, and took this book in its literal sense. A manuscript commentary, in the possession of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Oppenheim Collection, No. 625, interprets this Song as celebrating the virtuous love contracted between a humble shepherd and shepherdess; and likewise regards Solomon as a distinct person, whom the shepherdess adduces in illustration of her deep and sincere attachment to her beloved, affirming, that if this great king were to offer her all the splendour and luxury of his court to transfer her affections, she would spurn all, and remain faithful to her humble shepherd.
This commentary has no title-page, which renders it impossible [[57]]to ascertain the name of its author or its exact age. From the French expressions, however, occurring in it, and from its style and appearance, it is evident that this commentary was written by a French Jew in at least the twelfth or thirteenth century. The handwriting is peculiarly bad, and very much effaced; but the valuable remarks it contains, both on the verbal difficulties and poetical figures of this book, would amply repay any Hebrew scholar for publishing it, and would be a boon to Biblical and Hebrew literature.
1350. So numerous and diverse were the interpretations of this Song in the middle of the fourteenth century, that R. Isaac Sehula, having been solicited by his friends to comment upon it, consulted the existing expositions, but finding himself so confused by their conflicting theories, as some explained it literally, others referred it to the union of the body with the soul, others again expounded it according to the Medrash, and others again affirmed, that it represents the union of the active with the passive intellect, he felt it necessary to reject them all, and advanced a new theory, viz., that this book represents the love of the people of Israel to their God.[61]
1360–1730. For a space of about four hundred years, the battle-field was simultaneously occupied by all the parties who strenuously defended those different views. Thus, the commentary Shear Jashub, which was printed together with that of Saadias and Caspe, and Meier Arma, who was born in Saragossa about the year 1475, and whose commentary is [[58]]published in the Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible, 1724, maintain the philosophical interpretation of this Song. Whilst Isaac Arma, the father of Meier Arma, Obadiah Sforno, a physician, divine, and commentator, who died in 1550,[62] and whose commentary is published in the Amsterdam Rabb. Bible, Moses Cordovero, born in 1522, and died 1570,[63] whose commentary has not been published, Abraham Levi, whose commentary has been printed, together with that of Ibn Shoeb, Sabionnetta in Italy, 558,[64] Elisha Galicho, who flourished in the second half of the sixteenth century,[65] and whose commentary was published 1587, Venice, and his contemporary, Moses Alshech,[66] whose commentary was published in 1591, Venice, are the combatants for the other views.
While this severe struggle was carried on between the conflicting parties for the maintenance of their respective views, another champion entered the battle-field, occupying and defending another position. It was no less a personage than the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, who affirmed that the Bride of the Song represents Wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.[67]
His son, Leon Hebræus, defended the same view.[68]
1729–1786. With Moses Mendelssohn, a new era commenced in Biblical exegesis, and in Hebrew literature generally. This distinguished philosopher translated the Song of Songs, which was first published in Berlin, 1788, with an introduction and commentary by his colleagues Löwe and Wolfssohn. Though they did not deem their age prepared for the rejection of the allegorical interpretation, these commentators distinctly stated, that [[59]]as so many of the Rabbins have written upon this book, and defended such various and conflicting views, they questioned whether any were right, and affirmed that the literal explanation is paramount, and therefore confined themselves in the commentary to the literal and philological sense, referring those who are fond of labyrinths to the writings of Rashi, Rabe, Arma, &c.
Seeing that this book describes the love of a shepherd and a shepherdess, and also speaks of a king, of humble rural life, as well as of courtly splendour, and unable to account for it, Löwe and Wolfssohn divided it into separate songs, some celebrating the love between a shepherd and shepherdess, others describing the same between the king and his princes, and others again not speaking of that passion at all.